Abraham's Family: A Network of Meaning in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament) 9783161563027, 9783161566868, 3161563026

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) · J. Ross Wagner (Durham, NC)

415

Abraham’s Family A Network of Meaning in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam

Edited by Lukas Bormann

Mohr Siebeck

Lukas Bormann, born 1962; held chairs at Friedrich-Alexander University of ErlangenNuremberg, the University of Bayreuth, Technical University of Braunschweig and was researcher and lecturer at the universities of Hildesheim and Frankfurt; since 2014 professor for New Testament at the Philipps-University Marburg. orcid.org/ 0000-0002-0823-4421

ISBN 978-3-16-156302-7 / eISBN 978-3-16-156686-8 DOI 10.1628/978-3-16-156686-8 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 at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2018 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 typeset by satz&sonders in Dülmen, printed on non-aging paper by GuldeDruck in Tübingen, and bound by Großbuchbinderei Spinner in Ottersweier. Printed in Germany.

Preface This volume presents a scholarly journey through the centuries on what many religious and ethnic groups have understood as “Abraham’s Family.” To make this happen many institutions and individuals contributed time, money, thoughts, and also trust. The research presented in this volume was part of a project at Åbo Akademi University in Finland and Marburg University in Germany funded by the Academy of Finland (Suomen Akatemia) and the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) in 2015 and 2016. The project concluded with a conference at the Theology Faculty in Marburg in September 2016. At this conference several outstanding scholars as well as postdoc researchers and PhD students from Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Spain, Switzerland, and the United States presented and discussed their ideas on Abraham’s Family in their particular field of research. I am pleased to acknowledge publicly the contribution to this conference of the Fritz Thyssen Foundation, the Evangelische Kirche in Hessen and Nassau, the Evangelische Kirche of Kurhessen Waldeck, and the Ursula Kuhlmann Fund at Marburg University. I am most grateful to the publisher Mohr Siebeck, Dr. Henning Ziebritzki, the editor Prof. Jörg Frey and the editorial board of Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament for accepting the proceedings of the Marburg Conference on Abraham’s Family for publication in this esteemed series. The authors of the essays collected in the volume and I myself also thank Dr. J. Andrew Doole who proofread all contributions and made many valuable suggestions to clarify meaning and improve style. Hannah Kreß prepared the indexes for the volume. It was a great pleasure to cooperate with all the institutions and individuals mentioned in this preface. Marburg, Easter 2018

Lukas Bormann

Table of Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

PART I ABRAHAM’S FAMILY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT Konrad Schmid (University of Zurich) Remembering and Reconstructing Abraham. Abraham’s Family and the Literary History of the Pentateuch . . . .

9

Antti Laato (Åbo Akademi University) The Abraham Story in Genesis and the Reigns of David and Solomon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

33

Magnar Kartveit (VID Specialized University, Stavanger) Abraham and Joseph in Samaritan Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

59

Lotta Valve (Åbo Akademi University) The “Wooing of Rebekah” and the Methodological Rift between Tradition History and Reception History . . . . . . . . . . . . .

81

PART II ABRAHAM’S FAMILY IN ANCIENT JEWISH LITERATURE Jacques T. A. G. M. van Ruiten (University of Groningen) Abraham’s Family in the Book of Jubilees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

99

Aliyah El Mansy (University of Marburg) “He is perfect, he is a true man!” (Jub. 27:17). Constructions of Masculinities in Abraham’s Family . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Jesper Høgenhaven (University of Copenhagen) Abraham and his Family in Qumran Biblical Exegesis . . . . . . . . . . 145

VIII

Table of Contents

Michael Becker (1958–2018) (University of Munich) Abraham and the Sacrifice of Isaac in Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis. Conceptual Patterns in Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 Christian Noack (Schulzentrum Marienhöhe, Darmstadt) Abraham’s Family in Philo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 PART III ABRAHAM’S FAMILY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT Lukas Bormann (University of Marburg) Abraham as “Forefather” and his Family in Paul

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207

Angela Standhartinger (University of Marburg) Member of Abraham’s Family? Hagar’s Gender, Status, Ethnos, and Religion in Early Jewish and Christian Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 Christfried Böttrich (University of Greifswald) Abraham and his Children in Luke-Acts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 Guido Baltes (University of Marburg) The Prodigal Son and his Angry Brother. Jacob and Esau in a Parable of Jesus? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 J. Cornelis de Vos (University of Münster) Abraham’s Family in the Epistle to the Hebrews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299 Eva-Maria Kreitschmann (University of Marburg) Abraham’s Family Network in the New Testament Writings

. . . . . 317

PART IV ABRAHAM’S FAMILY IN EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE Martin Meiser (University of Saarland and University of Erlangen-Nuremberg) Abraham and His Family in Ancient Greek and Latin Patristic Exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345

Table of Contents

IX

Anni Maria Laato (Åbo Akademi University) Divided by a Common Ground. The Prophecy of Jacob and Esau (Gen 25:19–26) in Patristic Texts up to Augustine with respect to Modern Inter-Faith Dialogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361 Michaela Durst (University of Vienna) Abraham and Hellenismos in Julian the Apostate’s Contra Galilaeos. Challenging Christian Knowledge about the Divine . . . . . . . . . . . 377 PART V ABRAHAM’S FAMILY IN MEDIEVAL JEWISH EXEGESIS AND IN ENCOUNTER WITH ISLAM Reuven Firestone (Hebrew Union College, Los Angeles) Hagar and Ishmael in Literature and Tradition as a foreshadow of their Islamic Personas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397 Mariano Gomez Aranda (ILC-CSIC, Madrid) The Conflict between Jacob and Esau in Medieval Jewish Exegesis. Reinterpreting Narratives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421 Bärbel Beinhauer-Köhler (University of Marburg) Maq¯am Ibr¯ah¯ım and the Sacred Landscape of Mecca According to Ibn Jubayr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447 Catalin-Stefan Popa (University of Marburg) Syrians and the Appeal to Abraham in the Early Islamic Times . . . 465 Index

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 477

List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497

Introduction Abraham, whom the apostle Paul calls the “father of us all” (Rom 4:16), was already a central figure in Judaism and came to be important in Christianity and Islam, so that it is now very common to call this three religions ‘the Abrahamic religions.’ Some aspects of Abraham are common to all three religions: Abraham as the first monotheist or the first opponent of idolatry is one example. Some characteristics are emphasized by one of the three religions: in Judaism Abraham is ‘the father of Israel’ and also the ‘first proselyte’; in Islam Ibrahim is pictured as ‘the leader of the first community of true Islam’; in Christianity Abraham is understood as both ‘the father of faith’ and the paradigm (gr. typos) of every Christian believer. However, Abraham is not remembered alone, but with his family. Since more than two decades intense scholarly work has been devoted to investigating and discussing Abraham as a center-piece of religious memory and identity-building, but very seldom it is recognized that it is not only Abraham itself as a single and dominating figure but his family which is reflected upon to discuss both connections and boundaries between different but related religious and ethnic groups. In this process of remembering and redefining Abraham his family history and tradition have also been used, modified, enlarged or shortened in order to explain, encourage, legitimize or challenge ethnic or religious groups from the middle of the sixth century b. c. e. or earlier and even still today. The Abraham tradition is an issue of narrative and counter-narrative, memory and counter-memory. Besides the well-known ideas about Abraham as an outstanding figure his family is also used to define both borders of identity and connections to other groups. Moreover Abraham’s family is brought in as a network of meaning to express opposition, antithesis or common ground within and between different religious movements. The most famous example is the idea of the two sons of Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael, presenting two different branches of the Abraham heritage with the aim of explaining the antagonisms and the connections between different ethnic and religious groups. Additionally, some interdisciplinary aspects should be taken into consideration. Political science, cognitive science and linguistics emphasize that the term family is not only a term to denote kinship, but is also used

2

Introduction

as a metaphor and concept of meaning to evoke previous knowledge about family and to transfer it to different areas such as ethnicity, distribution of power, ethics, and gender relations. Family as a network of meaning works as a conceptual frame to confirm or to define anew the center and the margins of social entities, to relate and to disconnect different parts of a network, or to involve a special family understood as prototypical (in our case Abraham’s family) into a new conceptual frame, which means a different historical and religious context. For the purpose of this volume the term ‘Abraham’s family’ covers the traditions of the ancestors and descendants of Abraham named in Gen 11–36 from his forefathers Nahor and Terah (Gen 11:22) to the families of his grandchildren Jacob and Esau and their descendants (Gen 25:23–26; 36:1–43). The contributions to this volume discuss the presentation, enlarging, shortening, re-narrating and reception of Abraham’s family in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The topics cover Hebrew Bible /Old Testament, Second Temple writings, New Testament, Rabbinic literature, Greek, Latin and Syriac church fathers, and also Jewish medieval interpretation and a twelfth-century Arabic travel report of a pilgrimage to Mecca. Part I Abraham’s Family in the Old Testament collects contributions which deal with the Abraham tradition of the Hebrew Bible and its historical and literary foundations. Konrad Schmid analyzes Abraham’s family from the perspective of the literary history of the Pentateuch. He demonstrates that it is possible to define at least three main stages of the development of the Abraham tradition in the Pentateuch. He starts with the youngest literary strata, the post-priestly Abraham tradition which is dominated by God’s commandment to Abraham to sacrifice his son (late Persian period), goes on to the priestly Abraham, who is seen as the common origin of many nations described as a family system (early Persian period) and ends with the presumable earliest pre-priestly Abraham tradition in which the national identity of Israel is negotiated (722 to 587 b. c. e.). Antti Laato asks about traces of political ideologies and diplomatic needs preserved in the Abraham tradition which has its roots in the times of the united monarchy under David and Solomon, when this monarchy was supported by Egypt. Magnar Kartveit presents the evidence in the Hebrew Bible, the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint in connection to various ancient Jewish sources and later Samaritan traditions to demonstrate how the Samaritans related both Abraham and Joseph to Mount Gerizim, the main sanctuary of this ethno-religious group. Lotta Valve reflects on marriage as a central issue of Abraham’s family tradition.

Introduction

3

In the story of the wooing of Rebekah (Gen 24) several layers of interpretation can be detected. Some issues of this very detailed and elaborate story were passed over in silence by the reception history, while others were re-narrated and even further developed along halakhic principles in rabbinical sources. Part II Abraham’s Family in Ancient Jewish Literature starts with an investigation into Abraham’s Family in the Book of Jubilees by Jacques T. A. G. M. van Ruiten. He demonstrates that the Jubilees account is closely determined by the Abraham tradition of the book of Genesis, but stresses certain aspects of the family relations distinct from Genesis as, for example, proper lineage and the separation from the nations. However, even Jubilees was interested in the continuation of some family bonds, particularly in elaborating Abraham’s affection to Ishmael. Aliyah El Mansy reflects on the impact of masculinity studies on the research of the reception history of Abraham’s family. She finds in the re-narrating of Jacob and Esau by Jubilees two concurrent types of masculinity. Jacob is presented as the representative of a hegemonic masculinity whereas Esau represents a marginalized masculinity which is seen as endangering the model of Jewishness preferred by the book of Jubilees. Jesper Høgenhaven investigates Abraham and his family in Qumran Biblical Exegesis. In these texts Abraham is related especially to the priests, Levites and Zadokites. Abraham is seen as a founder of sacrificial practices and plays a legitimizing role for the priestly leaders of the Qumran community. Michael Becker works out some conceptual patterns which are used in ancient Jewish and Christian exegesis of the Aqedah (Gen 22). He argues that the idea of an “effective death” of Jesus may be related to some patterns of the retelling of the Aqedah in the Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum. Christian Noack starts his consideration of Abraham’s Family in Philo with the distinction of three types of Biblical commentaries produced by Philo of Alexandria with different aims and audiences. On this basis Noack demonstrates Philo’s implication that his audience has in mind the full network of Abraham’s family, had learned the etymological meaning of their names and will follow his allegorical interpretation which aims to win the souls of the hearers or readers for the true philosophy which is identical with the Jewish faith. In Part III Abraham’s Family in the New Testament the three main groups of New Testament writings which engage in the reception of Abraham’s family are discussed: the letters of Paul, Luke-Acts, and the letter to the Hebrews. Lukas Bormann reflects on the unique designation of Abraham in Rom 4:1 as “forefather” on the background of the use of

4

Introduction

this term in literary, papyrological and epigraphical sources. Paul designates Abraham with this term to lay the ground for his controversial redefining of Abraham’s family as a model for the people of God, but surprisingly none of the deutero-Pauline literature followed these ideas and did not even mention Abraham. Angela Standhartinger applies some insights of intersectionality theory and historical family studies on Hagar, a marginalized figure in Abraham’s family, who is presented in ancient Jewish text as a ‘distant relative’ to this family. Christfried Böttrich emphasizes that the figure of Abraham has many facets of meaning in Luke-Acts and ties together the past and the future. In distinction to Paul, Luke is not interested in Abraham as an example of faith but in his role as an image of hope and an eschatological figure who inhabits the role of a ‘symposiarch in the eschaton.’ Guido Baltes concentrates on a parable in the gospel of Luke which is called by many exegetes the center of this gospel: the Prodigal Son. He demonstrates that it is possible to read the presentation of the two brothers in this parable against the background of the siblings Jacob and Esau. J. Cornelis de Vos turns to the interpretation of Abraham’s family in the Letter to the Hebrews. He addresses the way in which the author of Hebrews uses the figures of Abraham and his family for his ideas about a family for all but also narrows the membership to an eschatological perspective for pedagogical reasons. Eva-Maria Kreitschmann investigates conceptual patterns of Abraham’s family-network used in the New Testament. The so-called patriarchal triad and the reference to Abraham as father is re-interpreted in a way which allows connecting the history of Israel to those outside this ethno-religious entity. Other parts of the family network are used especially by Paul to clarify but also sometimes to intensify conflicts between different groups. In Part IV Abraham’s Family in Early Christian Literature the reader of this volume will find a detailed ‘tour d’horizon’ through the reception of Abraham’s family in ancient Greek and Latin patristic exegesis provided by Martin Meiser. Abraham’s family is seen by these authors as ‘familia sacra.’ However, this view causes many moral concerns which lead to exegetical questions and psychological reflections of the circumstances of the behavior of the members of this family. Anni Maria Laato points to the fact that tradition shared by religious groups leads more often to division than to common ground. The interpretation of the prophecy of Rebecca’s sons in Gen 25:19–26 by the church fathers is an example of such division between Christians and Jews through the centuries building a long tradition of different interpretations. Michaela Durst turns to a topic to which scholars in recent years have paid more and more attention: the

Introduction

5

anti-Christian polemics of the emperor Julian the Apostate. His universal concept of nations includes the notion that Abraham and his specific ‘ethnos’ is not different from other ethnic groups and as such more related to the Hellenistic concept of national diversity than to Christianity which claims to be the true Israel. Part V Abraham’s Family in Jewish Exegesis and in Encounter with Islam presents some intriguing insights on the importance of Abraham’s family in Islam and the influence of the Islamic tradition building on both Christianity and Judaism. Reuven Firestone focusses on Hagar and Ishmael as key personages in Islamic tradition. Although the Qur’an knows nothing of Hagar and little of Ishmael, both personas appear in detail in some early extra-Qur’anic literature and become crucial figures in the foundation story of Islam. Mariano Gomez Aranda demonstrates the variety and even debate within medieval Jewish exegesis about the conflict of Jacob and Esau. The main issues were the conflict between righteousness and wickedness, between rabbinic education and idolatry, and between the people of Israel and other nations. Bärbel Beinhauer-Köhler demonstrates that Abraham and his family were both prototypes of monotheistic faith and the inventors of religious practices. She analyzes the travel account of Ibn Jubayr (1145–1217) on his pilgrimage to Mecca, the place of Ibrahim, where he arrived in 1183. In performing the rites at this holy place Muslims became part of the narrative of Ibrahim, Ishmael, and Hagar. CatalinStefan Popa focusses on the role of Abraham in the Christian theological discourse in the early Islamic period presented in the Syriac tradition. In response to the everyday reality of Islamic rule Syriac Christians connected Abraham closer to the Christian doctrine of the trinity and to Christology. The rich variety of the contributions leads to further questions and provokes further scholarship in many areas. Altogether they demonstrate that from the very beginning of the Abraham tradition right up to its contemporary reception the single figure of Abraham was not sufficient for the purposes of the interpreters. When Abraham was remembered and previous interpretations of Abraham were challenged it was in most cases unavoidable to engage with Abraham’s family as a network of meaning to define the center and the margins of ethno-religious groups.

Part I Abraham’s Family in the Old Testament

Remembering and Reconstructing Abraham Abraham’s Family and the Literary History of the Pentateuch Konrad Schmid 1. Who is Abraham? In the Hebrew Bible, especially in the book of Genesis where three quarters of all instances of “Abraham” can be found, Abraham and his family are not just a genealogical topic. In the framework of the concept of “Abrahamic religions” (which was so successful that it even led to the establishment of a corresponding chair at the University of Oxford in 2008), 1 Abraham is often perceived as the first monotheist, believing in the creator God. But in the Hebrew Bible this is only a marginal notion, basically relying on one single verse, Gen 15:6, which is very difficult to understand and to translate (who is “he,” “he,” and “him”? what is the meaning of the weqatal hiphil form of ‫)?אמן‬: 2 “And he believed YHWH; and he reckoned it to him as righteousness.” From a biblical perspective, the notion of Abraham as the first “believer” must be relativized. First, according to Gen 4:26, Yahwism is as old as Enosh: “To Seth also a son was born, and he named him Enosh. At that time people began to invoke (‫ )לקרא‬the name of YHWH.” Secondly, even though Gen 15 is supported by Gen 22 which portrays Abraham as an unconditional believer, the focus of Gen 15 is not on 1 Nuanced or even critical evaluations of the concept are provided by Ulrike Bechmann, “Die vielen Väter Abrahams: Chancen und Grenzen einer dialogorientierten Abrahamrezeption,” in Impuls oder Hindernis? Mit dem Alten Testament in multireligiöser Gesellschaft (ed. Joachim Kügler; Münster: Lit, 2004), 125–150; Idem, “Abraham und Ibrahim: Die Grenzen des Abraham-Paradigmas im interreligiösen Dialog,” MTZ 57 (2007): 110–126; Jon D. Levenson, “The Conversion of Abraham to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam,” in The Idea of Biblical Interpretation (eds. Hindy Najman and Judith H. Newman; JSJSup 83; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 3–40; ; Idem, Inheriting Abraham: The Legacy of the Patriarch in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012). 2 Cf. Manfred Oeming, “Der Glaube Abrahams. Zur Rezeptionsgeschichte von Gen 15,6 in der Zeit des zweiten Tempels,” ZAW 110 (1998): 16–33.

10

Konrad Schmid

monotheism. Rather, Abraham is the recipient of promises as well as a partner in God’s covenant, according to Gen 15. Nevertheless, the idea of Abraham’s conversion to biblical monotheism, i. e. Yahwism, is not absent from the Hebrew Bible, but it occurs in only one single instance, in Josh 24:2: “And Joshua said to all the people: ‘Thus says YHWH, the God of Israel: Long ago your ancestors – Terah and his sons Abraham and Nahor – lived beyond the Euphrates and served other gods.’”

Thus Josh 24 presupposes that Abraham and his family were idolators back in Mesopotamia, and only by YHWH’s calling of Abraham (Josh 24:3) did he become a Yahwist. The beginning of the Abraham story in Gen 11 is silent about such a conversion of Abraham from idolatry to Yahwism. We only learn from Gen 11:31 that Terah, Abraham’s father, and Abraham originally lived in Ur Kasdim in Southern Babylonia, but then left for Haran in Northern Syria: “Terah took his son Abram and his grandson Lot son of Haran, and his daughterin-law Sarai, his son Abram’s wife, and they went out together from Ur Kasdim to go into the land of Canaan; but when they came to Haran, they settled there.”

According to Gen 11:32, Abram’s father Terah died in Haran. And this is the point in Abram’s history where he receives a comprehensive promise (Gen 12:1–3), notably still in Haran: “And YHWH said to Abram, ‘Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’”

Since it is YHWH who speaks to him in Gen 12:1–3 without introducing himself as such, there is no indication that Abram is viewed as having a different religion besides adhering to YHWH. The conceptual differences between Gen 11 and Josh 24 are results of their different literary historical and theological positions. Neither Gen 11:31 nor Josh 24:2 is an early text: Gen 11:31 is assigned to the so-called Priestly document (“P”) which probably belongs to the early Persian period, and Josh 24 is a post-Priestly text, as vv. 6–7 demonstrate quite clearly its dependence on the Priestly version of the crossing of the sea (Exod 14). 3 3

Cf. Konrad Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story: Israel’s Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2010), 197–213.

Remembering and Reconstructing Abraham

11

Apparently, the authors of Josh 24 wanted to polemicize P’s pluralist notion of the compatibility of the world’s different religions in terms of an inclusive monotheism, and to highlight their opinion that the default religion outside of Israel is neither Yahwism nor any kind of anonymous version of it. According to Josh 24, even Abraham had to convert to Yahwism when he came to Israel. The Priestly Primeval History in Gen 1–11, on the other hand, holds that every human being has a notion of “Elohim” and even enjoys the benefits of “Elohim’s” covenant with mankind in Gen 9. From a biblical perspective, Abraham was thus an important figure predominantly because he was the recipient of YHWH’s call, promises and blessings (as opposed to being important for monotheism), as Isa 51:2 maintains: “Look to Abraham your father and to Sarah who bore you; for he was but one when I called him, but I blessed him and made him many.”

In this vein, Abraham became the subject of a variety of interpretations. 4 His family is a family born out of promises and of endangered promises. In this paper, I would like to address the notion of Abraham and his family in a diachronic perspective and present the development of the Abraham tradition in the Pentateuch from the later to the earlier phases. But beforehand, an important remark is in order which pertains to the overall organization of the Pentateuch and is of fundamental significance for understanding the Abraham traditions within it. It is one of the most noteworthy features of the Pentateuch that it not only presents the life of Moses and God’s giving of the law to him, but that the Moses story has a broad introduction: that is, the book of Genesis. The book of Genesis contextualizes and universalizes the Moses story and Israel’s Torah within world history. Most remarkably, one of Moses’ most important forefathers, Abraham, is not only presented as an ancestor, but as a figure with a theological legacy of his own that is, firstly, 4 Cf. Reinhard G. Kratz, “‘Abraham, mein Freund’: Das Verhältnis von inner- und außerbiblischer Schriftauslegung,” in Die Erzväter in der biblischen Tradition (eds. A. C. Hagedorn and H. Pfeiffer; FS M. Köckert; BZAW 400; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009), 115–136; Idem, “‘Öffne seinen Mund und seine Ohren’: Wie Abraham Hebräisch lernte,” in Idem, “Abraham, unser Vater:” Die gemeinsamen Wurzeln von Judentum, Christentum und Islam (ed. T. Nagel; Göttingen: Wallstein, 2003), 53–66; Christfried Böttrich et al., Abraham in Judentum, Christentum und Islam (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009). For the significances of the wives of the so-called “patriarchs” see Irmtraud Fischer, “Das Geschlecht als exegetisches Kriterium. Zu einer genderfairen Interpretation der ErzelternErzählungen,” in Studies in the Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction and History (ed. A. Wénin; BETL 155; Leuven: Peeters, 2001), 135–152.

12

Konrad Schmid

not based on the law, 5 and, secondly, is not limited to the ethnological scope of Israel, but also includes other nations, such as the Arabs and the Edomites, since they are part of Abraham’s offspring as well – the Arabs through Ishmael, Hagar’s son, and the Edomites through Isaac, Sarah’s son. 6 For the first point, it was especially a short study of Walther Zimmerli from 1963 which established the theological specifics of God’s covenant with Abraham over against the covenant on Mount Sinai: 7 The covenant with Abraham is one-sided, as can be seen particularly from Gen 17:7 where the second half of the so-called “covenant formula” is deliberately missing (“and you shall be my people” or the like): “I will establish my covenant between me and you, and your offspring after you throughout their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.”

This is very loaded language, and there can be no doubt that Zimmerli is right in maintaining that Gen 17 alludes the Sinai covenant, replacing it and moving God’s main covenant from the time of Moses to the patriarchal period. The covenant with Abraham secures the identity of God’s people without the Sinaitic law. Therefore, it is one-sided, and cannot be broken. There is only an obligation on the side of God, not on the side of his human partners. But – and this pertains to the second point mentioned above – who exactly is God’s partner in covenant according to Gen 17? Apparently, as the text says (vv. 4, 7), it is Abraham and his offspring which includes Ishmael and Isaac and their descendants, thus forming an entity that is clearly broader than Israel alone. Abraham is presented as a kind of “ecumenical” ancestor in Gen 17, to take up the wording of Albert de Pury. 8 The fact that Gen 17:4 mentions “nations” (“you will be the father 5 Jacques T. A. G. M. van Ruiten, Abraham in the Book of Jubilees: The Rewriting of Genesis 11:26–25:10 in the Book of Jubilees 11:14–23:8 (JSJSup 161; Leiden: Brill, 2012). 6 John T. Noble, A Place for Hagar’s Son: Ishmael as a Case Study in the Priestly Tradition (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016). 7 Walther Zimmerli, “Sinaibund und Abrahambund: Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der Priesterschrift,” TZ 16 (1960): 268–280; Idem, Gottes Offenbarung: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Alten Testament (TB 19; München: Kaiser, 1963), 205–217. 8 Albert de Pury, “Abraham: The Priestly Writer’s ‘Ecumenical’ Ancestor,” in Rethinking the Foundations: Historiography in the Ancient World and in the Bible (eds. Steven L. McKenzie et al.; BZAW 294; Berlin /New York: de Gruyter, 2000), 163–181; cf. Konrad Schmid, “Judean Identity and Ecumenicity: The Political Theology of the Priestly Document,” in Judah and Judeans in the Achaemenid Period: Negotiating Identity in an International Context (eds. Oded Lipschits et al.; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 3–26.

Remembering and Reconstructing Abraham

13

of a variety of nations” ‫ )והיית לאב המון גוים‬shows that the Abraham story is not just developing a family plot, but that the family scenery eventually serves another, political purpose, 9 as Julius Wellhausen had already highlighted for the overall context of Gen 12–36: “The material is not mythic here [in the patriarchal narrative], rather national.” 10 In addition, Wellhausen noted that the stories about the patriarchs and their wives were not historically or politically relevant for the time of the narrative, but rather for the time of its narrators: “However, we cannot gain any historical knowledge about the Patriarchs here [in Gen 12–50], but only about the time in which the stories about them came to be among the Israelite people. This later period is projected into the dim and distant past and is mirrored there like a mirage.” 11

Despite the backlash regarding the antiquity of the patriarchal narratives or even their historicity in the wake of Gunkel and Albright, 12 Wellhausen’s political interpretation of the patriarchal narrative has been successful in the long run and been taken up by Erhard Blum, Mark Brett, Jakob Wöhrle 13 and others. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and their wives The term “Abrahamische” or “Abrahamitische Ökumene” was coined by Karl-Josef Kuschel, see Idem, Streit um Abraham: Was Juden, Christen und Muslime trennt – und was sie eint (München: Kaiser, 1994) (see 13 n. 4 for the difference between “abrahamisch” and “abrahamitisch”); Idem, “Abrahamische Ökumene? Zum Problem einer Theologie des Anderen bei Juden, Christen und Muslimen,” ZMR 85 (2001): 258–278; Idem, Juden – Christen – Muslime. Herkunft und Zukunft (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 2007); Hans Küng, “Abrahamische Ökumene zwischen Juden, Christen und Muslimen: Theologische Grundlegung – praktische Konsequenzen,” in Stifterverband für die die Deutsche Wissenschaft: Jahresversammlung 1991 des Landeskuratoriums Baden-Württemberg (ed. Stifterverband für die Deutsche Wissenschaft; Essen: Stiftungszentrum, 1991), 16–32; Idem, “Abrahamische Ökumene zwischen Juden, Christen und Muslimen,” Iranzamin 11 (1998): 29–40. 9 Cf. Konrad Schmid, “Anfänge politikförmiger Religion. Die Theologisierung politischimperialer Begriffe in der Religionsgeschichte des antiken Israel als Grundlage autoritärer und toleranter Strukturmomente monotheistischer Religionen,” in Religion – Wirtschaft – Politik: Forschungszugänge zu einem aktuellen transdisziplinären Feld (eds. Antonius Liedhegener et al.; Zürich: TVZ/Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2011), 161–177. 10 Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (3rd ed.; Berlin: Reimer, 1886), 336 (translation mine). 11 Ibid. (translation mine). 12 See W. F. Albright, The Biblical Period from Abraham to Ezra (New York: Harper and Row, 1963), 5: “[A]s a whole, the picture in Genesis is historical, and there is no reason to doubt the general accuracy of the biographical details.” See also Hermann Gunkel, Genesis (HKAT I /1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 6th ed., 1964, 3rd ed., 1919), XL (translation mine): “The tales were, when recorded, already very ancient and had a long prehistory. This is only natural: The origin of the tale always escapes the scholar’s perspective and dates back to pre-historical times.” 13 See Erhard Blum, Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte (WMANT 57; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener, 1984); Mark G. Brett, Genesis: Procreation and the Politics of Identity

14

Konrad Schmid

are family figures only on the literary level of the book of Genesis, but they represent – and this was Blum’s ground-breaking insight – political entities from the very beginning of their literary career. 14 In this perspective, it is quite obvious that the figure of Abraham serves as an alternative founding figure of Israel in place of Moses. As suggested by Abraham’s sparse attestation outside of the Pentateuch, the Abraham cycle is neither the oldest nor the most prominent part of Genesis that fulfills this function. That role is filled by the Jacob cycle. 15 But how did this picture of two origins of Israel come about in the Pentateuch: one in the book of Genesis, defining Israel basically as the offspring of the three patriarchs and their wives, and one in the book of Exodus, seeing Israel basically as God’s chosen people, led out of Egypt by him and gifted with the Sinaitic law? As is well known, scholarship on the Pentateuch is a battlefield 16 and even those involved in it for many years seem to lose oversight at times. In such a situation, it is necessary to start from the very basics of what is commonly acknowledged in research. For a historical approach to the Pentateuch, there are basically three uncontested tokens of scholarship that go so far undisputed. Firstly, the Pentateuch is a literary body that stems from the 1st millennium b. c. e. Secondly, the Penateuch grew over time. Thirdly, we can identify with a sufficient amount of certainty one specific literary strand in the Pentateuch, the so-called Priestly document (“P”) that can be dated to the early Persian period. For the discussion of the Abraham texts in the book of Genesis, 17 I (London: Routledge, 2000); Jakob Wöhrle, Fremdlinge im eigenen Land: Zur Entstehung und Intention der priesterlichen Passagen der Vätergeschichte (FRLANT 246; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012). 14 If one assumes oral pre-stages of the Patriarchal narratives – which is quite likely –, then the picture looks different: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob may once have been founding figures of the clans they represented. But it is impossible to bring these figures into any close contact with what is recounted about them in the literary narratives of Gen 12–36. They are unhistorical, see Thomas L. Thompson, The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham (BZAW 133; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1974); John Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven /London: Yale University Press), 1975. 15 Israel Finkelstein and Thomas Römer, “Comments on the Historical Background of the Jacob Narrative in Genesis,” ZAW 126 (2014): 317–338. 16 See the recent overviews by Thomas Römer, “Zwischen Urkunden, Fragmenten und Ergänzungen: Zum Stand der Pentateuchforschung,” ZAW 125 (2013): 2–24; Konrad Schmid, “Der Pentateuch und seine Theologiegeschichte,” ZTK 111 (2014): 239–271. 17 See Jean-Louis Ska, “Essai sur la nature et la signification du cycle d’Abraham (Gn 11,27–25,11),” in Studies in the Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction and History (ed. André Wénin; BETL 155; Leuven: Peeters, 2001), 153–177; Thomas Römer, “Recherches

Remembering and Reconstructing Abraham

15

will structure my paper in three sections: 1. The Post-Priestly Abraham, 2. The Priestly Abraham, 3. The Pre-Priestly Abraham, thus progressing from later to earlier literary stages in the formation of the Abraham story. From this premise it is immediately evident that I will not discuss the historicity of the figure of Abraham. 18 The first historical character in the Bible is probably Moses. Whether Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob are historical is nearly impossible to decide. They are covered by their later interpretations as founding figures of Israel and Judah, and it may well be that there once was, for example, a historical Abraham, Isaac or Jacob, but they did not visit Pharaoh in Egypt, they were not brought to be sacrificed on Moriah, and they did not wrestle with angels. They were heroi eponymoi or the fathers of Israel and Judah and, if they existed, it is best to imagine them as sheikhs in the Levant who were viewed as significant by their tribes.

2. The Post-Priestly Abraham: Abraham must sacrifice his son Isaac. According to a meaningful methodological principle prominently introduced by Rudolf Smend in his 1978 “Entstehung des Alten Testaments,” 19 it is advisable to start with the youngest layers of a literary entity if one strives to reconstruct its literary history. Within the Abraham story, the most prominent late element is the Aqedah story in Gen 22. 20 In traditional exegesis, Gen 22 had often been identified as part of the “E” source, although on very shaky grounds, especially since the tetragrammaton is used in it prominently, with several instances. After the breakdown of the traditional “Documentary Hypothesis,” such an assignment to “E” was no longer necessary or possible. It was especially a 1988 piece by Timo actuelles sur le cycle d’Abraham,” in Studies in the Book of Genesis, 179–211; Israel Finkelstein and Thomas Römer, “Comments on the Historical Background of the Abraham Narrative. Between ‘Realia’ and ‘Exegetica,’” HeBAI 3 (2014): 3–23. 18 See n. 14 above and Manfred Görg, “Abraham – historische Perspektiven,” BN 41 (1988): 11–14; P. Kyle McCarter, “The Historical Abraham,” Interp. 42 (1988): 341–352. 19 Rudolf Smend, Die Entstehung des Alten Testaments (ThW 1; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1978), 9–13. 20 Other post-Priestly elements in the Abraham story include e. g. Gen 14; Gen 15; Gen 20; Gen 26:3–5; cf. e. g. Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story, 158–171; Matthias Köckert, “Gen 20–22 als nach-priesterliche Erweiterung der Vätergeschichte,” in The PostPriestly Pentateuch: New Perspectives on its Redactional Development and Theological Profiles (eds. Federico Giuntoli and Konrad Schmid; FAT 101; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 157–176.

16

Konrad Schmid

Veijola which secured the setting of the story in the Persian period, and elsewhere I have argued similarly. 21 Gen 22 is sometimes addressed as “the sacrifice of Isaac” (genetivus objectivus) 22 which is not a helpful title, because the story is not really about Isaac, but rather about Abraham. Isaac is a mere object in the story, whereas Abraham is the person who is up front. Therefore, the story should more aptly be titled “the sacrifice of Abraham” (genetivus subjectivus), as it deals with the character of Abraham who is confronted with the impossible task of sacrificing his son. As has often been noted, Gen 22 shares a lot of similarities with the preceding chapter, Genesis 21. 23 Before Abraham has to sacrifice Isaac, 21 Konrad Schmid, “Die Rückgabe der Verheißungsgabe. Der ‘heilsgeschichtliche’ Sinn von Genesis 22 im Horizont innerbiblischer Exegese,” in Gott und Mensch im Dialog, Festschrift Otto Kaiser (ed. Markus Witte; BZAW 345/I; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), 271–300. 22 Cf. David Lerch, Isaaks Opferung christlich gedeutet: Eine auslegungsgeschichtliche Studie (BHTh 12; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1968); R. M. Jensen, “The Offering of Isaac in Jewish and Christian Tradition. Image and Text,” BI 2 (1994): 85–110; Frédéric Manns, ed., The Sacrifice of Isaac in the Three Monotheistic Religions: Proceedings of a Symposium on the Interpretation of the Scriptures Held in Jerusalem, March 16–17, 1995, (SBFA 41; Jerusalem: Franciscan Print Press, 1995); Lukas Kundert, Die Opferung /Bindung Isaaks, Bd. 1: Gen 22,1–19 im Alten Testament, im Frühjudentum und im Neuen Testament (WMANT 78; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1998); Idem, Die Opferung /Bindung Isaaks, Bd. 2: Gen 22,1–19 in frühen rabbinischen Texten (WMANT 79; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1998); The Sacrifice of Isaac. The Aqedah (Genesis 22) and its Interpretations (eds. Ed Noort and Eibert Tigchelaar; Themes in Biblical Narrative: Jewish and Christian Traditions 4; Leiden: Brill, 2002). 23 See e. g. Milton Schwantes, “‘Lege deine Hände nicht an das Kind’: Überlegungen zu Gen 21 und 22” in Was ist der Mensch ...? Beiträge zur Anthropologie des Alten Testaments, FS Hans Walter Wolff (eds. Frank Crüsemann et al.; München: Kaiser, 1992), 164–178; Blum, Vätergeschichte, 314 f (“Gen 21,8 ff ist offenbar nicht zuletzt auf Gen 22 hin erzählt. Die Vertreibung Ismaels wird zu einem Vorspiel, man möchte fast sagen, zu einer ‘Generalprobe’ für Gen 22”); Otto Kaiser, “Die Bindung Isaaks: Untersuchungen zur Eigenart und Bedeutung von Genesis 22,” in Idem, Zwischen Athen und Jerusalem: Studien zur griechischen und biblischen Theologie, ihrer Eigenart und ihrem Verhältnis (BZAW 320; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003), 199–220, 209 f; Yair Zakovitch, “Juxtaposition in the Abraham Cycle,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, an Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom (eds. David P. Wright et al.; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 509–524, 519 f; Gordon C. Wenham, “The Akedah: A Paradigm of Sacrifice,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells, 93–102, 99 f; Irmtraud Fischer, “Möglichkeiten und Grenzen historisch-kritischer Exegese: Die ‘Opferung’ der beiden Söhne Abrahams. Gen 21 und 22 im Kontext,” in Streit am Tisch des Wortes? Zur Deutung und Bedeutung des Alten Testaments und seiner Verwendung in der Liturgie (ed. A. Franz; PiLi 8; St. Ottilien: EOS, 1997), 17–36; Heinz-Dieter Neef, Die Prüfung Abrahams: Eine exegetisch-theologische Studie zu Gen 22,1–19 (AzTh 90; Calw: Calwer Verlag, 1998); Alfred Marx, “Sens et fonction de Gen. XXII 14,” VT 51 (2001): 197–205; Jörg Jeremias, “Die ‘Opferung’ Isaaks (Gen 22)”, in Studien zur Theologie des Alten Testaments (eds. Friedhelm Hartenstein and Jutta Krispenz; FAT 99; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 188–196, 192–194.

Remembering and Reconstructing Abraham

17

he already had “sacrificed” his first son Ishmael (Gen 21) who is the forefather of the Arabs, and whom he had with Hagar. 24 It is not only this thematic closeness that binds Gen 21 and 22 together, but the two chapters share some common wording and a similar structure. 25 Just to identify the most basic elements: both Ishmael and Isaac’s lives are threatened and both are rescued by the intervention of an angel. Ishmael is then said to have settled in the wilderness (‫ ;במדבר‬Gen 21:20) in Paran (Gen 21:21), whereas Isaac grew up in Beer-Sheva (Gen 22:19) and then moved to Gerar (Gen 26:1). It goes without saying that these relations between Gen 21 and 22 are of utmost importance for the topic of Abraham’s family: Abraham’s family is depicted in Gen 21 as being deprived first of Ishmael, and then nearly wiped out by the sacrifice of Isaac in Gen 22. Apparently, Gen 22 is about the survival of Abraham’s promised offspring through the survival of Isaac. This very basic interpretive perspective must be highlighted against the famous interpretation inaugurated by Hermann Gunkel in his 1901 commentary on Genesis: 26 Gunkel assumed a pre-Israelite etiology being behind the story that favored animal sacrifices over against human sacrifices. The origins of Gen 22 lie, according to Gunkel, in a former oral tale which explained why God does not want human sacrifice but animal sacrifice. A look at the religious historical background of Gen 22 – assumed by Gunkel – thus enabled the reader to turn the cruel story about God wanting Abraham to kill his son into a critical dismissal of human sacrifices. This interpretation which Gunkel himself nota bene explicitly only held to be true for the prehistory of Gen 22, not for the biblical text itself, 27 is still very widespread in theological and ecclesiastical contexts, now however being applied to the story itself. According to this approach, Gen 22 is actually a humane story and not an inhumane one. But as attractive as this interpretation seems to be, it is impossible in exegetical terms. Firstly, the story contains no critique whatsoever of Abraham’s plan to sacrifice his son. To the contrary, Abraham is praised for being ready 24 Cf. Ernst Axel Knauf, Ismael (ADPV 7; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2nd ed. 1989); Ulrich Hübner, “Early Arabs in Pre-Hellenistic Palestine in the Context of the Old Testament,” in Nach Petra und ins Königreich der Nabatäer (eds. Idem et al.; FS M. Lindner; BBB 118; Bodenheim: Athenäum, 1998), 34–48. 25 See e. g. Fischer, “Möglichkeiten,” 29; Kaiser, “Bindung,” 209 f, cf. 21:3 /22:2; 21:14a / 22:3a; 21:17a /22:11a; 21:17b /22:11b; 21:19 /22:13; 21:21a /22:19b. 26 Gunkel, Genesis, 233–240. 27 Gunkel, Genesis, 237: According to Gunkel, the author “wants to portray a religious ideal through Abraham.”

18

Konrad Schmid

to do so. Secondly, it is quite clear that the story in Gen 22 itself, from the outset, has no doubts that sacrifices are animal sacrifices, since Isaac asked his father on the journey in v. 7, ‘The fire and the wood are here, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?’, so even within the narrative it is clear that sacrifices require animals. And thirdly, archaeology has made quite clear that there were no human sacrifices in Israel, 28 and something that was never present cannot be abandoned. Against Gunkel, Gen 22 must be interpreted as a piece in context. The necessity for a contextual understanding of Gen 22 is made abundantly clear by the first verse of the story which states: ‫ויהי אחר הדברים האלה‬ “and it happened after these things.” Obviously, this is not the beginning of an independent narrative. In historical-critical terms, it is not possible to eliminate these opening words in 22:1 from the story by assigning them to a later textual layer, because then Gen 22 would begin with a w – x – qatal sentence in 22:1aß ‫“ והאלהים נסה את־אברהם‬and God tested Abraham.” Syntactically, this is not a possible beginning of a story. 29 A closer look into the specific formulations of the narrative itself can further corroborate this view. Gen 22 draws heavily on formulations from the preceding chapters of the Abraham story in Genesis. The command to go to the Land of Moriah in 22:2 is formulated exactly as the initial migration command to Abraham in Gen 12:1. One also can point to the command to Abraham to lift his eyes in 22:3 and 22:13, which seem to be reminiscent of the same wording in Gen 13:14. And as already mentioned, there are quite a few literary and thematic connections from Gen 22 back to Gen 21. Accordingly, it is made clear not only by the opening verse in Gen 22:1 but also by the whole story itself that it connects closely to the preceding Abraham story, by alluding especially to Gen 12 and 21. So there is sufficient exegetical evidence for a contextual interpretation of Gen 22. This text deals with the problem of a fundamentally endangered promise. Can Israel survive as a people? The answer of Gen 22 is: Yes, although reality may have almostly completely ruined God’s promise to Abraham. If it is correct that Gen 22 presupposes and reflects the Abraham story in Genesis 12–21, and if it is correct that Gen 22 is reminiscent of the promise texts in Gen 12:1–3 and 13:14–17, then this corroborates Veijola’s pro28 See Karen Engelken, “Menschenopfer im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament,” in Horst Seebass, Genesis II /1 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1997), 205–207. 29 Ina Willi-Plein, “Die Versuchung steht am Schluß,” TZ 48 (1992): 100–108, 102; see also Timo Veijola, “Das Opfer des Abraham – Paradigma des Glaubens aus dem nachexilischen Zeitalter,” ZTK 85 (1988): 129–164, 139.

Remembering and Reconstructing Abraham

19

posal of dating the text to the Persian period, 30 since these presupposed texts, particularly Gen 12:1–3 and 13:14–17, are dated no earlier than the Babylonian exile. 31 In this period, the decline of Judah’s population was a major issue, as Charles Carter’s study has made clear. His estimation is that “the population of the province [sc. Yehud] in the Persian period was about onethird of that in the previous period.” 32 So at that time, the Genesis tradition’s promises of an increased population were indeed in a critical state and demanded theological reflection, which Genesis 22 provides: God’s promise to Abraham that he would become a great people endures even its greatest challenges. The present challenge of God’s people in the time of the authors and first readers of Gen 22 is foreshadowed by Abraham’s experience in the mythic past. 33

3. The Priestly Abraham: An Ecumenical Ancestor If we move on to “P” (the “Priestly Code” or the “Priestly Document”), the most prominent text about Abraham is Gen 17 which is crucial in terms of Abraham’s family as well. Gen 17 deals with God’s covenant with Abraham and his descendants, that is Ishmael (whose birth had been recounted in Gen 16) and his sons and Isaac (who will be born in Gen 21) and his sons. Of course, there is considerable debate over the possible date of “P.” In my opinion, the basic arguments regarding the date of “P” put forward by Julius Wellhausen are still valid today: “P” presupposes the cult centraliza30 See Veijola, “Das Opfer des Abraham.” See the similar proposals regarding dating by Georg Steins, Die “Bindung Isaaks” im Kanon (Gen 22): Grundlagen und Programm einer kanonisch-intertextuellen Lektüre (Herders Biblische Studien 20; Freiburg: Herder, 1999); Kaiser, “Bindung”; Schmid, “Rückgabe.” For an overall assessment of the post-Priestly material in the Pentateuch see Federico Giutoli and Konrad Schmid (eds.), The PostPriestly Pentateuch: New Perspectives on its Redactional Development and Theological Profiles (FAT 101; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015). 31 See e. g. Matthias Köckert, Vätergott und Väterverheißungen: Eine Auseinandersetzung mit Albrecht Alt und seinen Erben (FRLANT 142; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988). 32 Charles E. Carter, The Emergence of Yehud in the Persian Period: A Social and Demographic Study (JSOTSup 294; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 247. 33 One might ask why the Persian period authors of Genesis 22 associated Abraham with this story, and not, for instance, Jacob. Apparently, Abraham was the recipient of God’s promise par excellence (cf. Genesis 18), so he seemed to be the most apt candidate for the story.

20

Konrad Schmid

tion of Deuteronomy, which can be dated to the Josianic period; and the classical prophets do not presuppose the legislation of “P.” 34 “P” therefore cannot be dated to the monarchic period. Rather, it seems to respond to basic conceptions from the Persian worldview and political theology, chief among them being the peaceful, well-ordered organization of the world according to different nations, all of which dwell in their lands with their own language and culture. This is, for instance, reflected in “P’s” share in the Table of Nations in Gen 10: 35 Gen 10:2, 5: “The sons of Japheth [...] in their lands, with their own language, by their families, by their nations.” Gen 10:20: “These are the sons of Ham, by their families, by their languages, in their lands, and by their nations.” Gen 10:31: “These are the sons of Shem, by their families, by their languages, in their lands, and by their nations.”

It has long been recognized that one of the closest parallels to the basic idea of Gen 10 is found in Persian imperial ideology, as attested, e. g., in the Behistun inscription, which was disseminated widely throughout the Persian Empire. According to its political ideology, the Persian Empire was structured according to the different nations. The imperial inscriptions declare that every nation belongs to their specific region and has their specific cultural identities. This structure is the result of the will of the creator deity, as Klaus Koch has pointed out in his “Reichsidee und Reichsorganisation im Perserreich,” where he identifies this structure as “Nationalitätenstaat als Schöpfungsgegebenheit.” 36 Despite the unambiguous wording of Gen 17, it has been disputed who is included in this group of Abraham’s descendants that benefit from the promises made by God. Whereas traditional scholarship in the 20th century maintained that God’s covenant with Abraham only pertains to the line of his descendants through Isaac, some recent contributions to Gen 17 have argued otherwise and see Ishmael included in this covenant.

34

Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 385–445. See Christophe Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus (FAT II /25; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 383. 36 Peter Frei and Klaus Koch, Reichsidee und Reichsorganisation im Perserreich (OBO 55; Fribourg: Editions Universitaires, 1996), 201. 35

Remembering and Reconstructing Abraham

21

Particularly Thomas Naumann, 37 Albert de Pury, 38 Ernst Axel Knauf, 39 Mark G. Brett, 40 and others have highlighted “P’s” “ecumenical” characteristization of Abraham in different ways. 41 Thomas Naumann, who dealt with this theme in his yet unpublished Habilitationsschrift, maintains: “The manner in which Ishmael is mentioned in Gen 17 does not support the traditional conclusion that Ishmael has been completely left out of the covenant with God [...]. In vv.19–21 Ishmael and Isaac have been theologically ordered next to rather than opposed to one another. However, neither a perspective of equality nor one of exclusion and rejection of one [brother] in favor of the other wins out. Greater weight is placed on Isaac [...]. In vv. 19–21 both brothers are bound by a theological importance that can only be understood in terms of an inclusive model containing the two unequal brothers, favoring the younger without either casting off the older or removing him from the care of God.” 42

De Pury even more decidedly states: “The whole structure of this chapter [Gen 17] would be incomprehensible if the covenant and its benefits were limited only to Isaac. Why would there be such an elaborate ‘first act’ in the account of the covenant – with a threefold insistence on the ‘multi-nation’-posterity of Abraham (Gen 17:4–6) – if that posterity was then to be excluded from the covenant?” 43

37

Thomas Naumann, Ismael: Studien zu einem biblischen Konzept der Selbstwahrnehmung Israels im Kreis der Völker aus der Nachkommenschaft Abrahams (unpublished Habilitationsschrift; University of Bern 1996); Idem, “Ismael – Abrahams verlorener Sohn,” in Bekenntnis zu dem einen Gott? Christen und Muslime zwischen Mission und Dialog (ed. Rudolf Weth; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2000), 70–89. 38 De Pury, “Abraham”; cf. Idem, “L’émergence de la conscience ‘interreligieuse’ dans l’Ancien Testament,” Theological Review: Near East School of Theology 22 (2001): 7–34. 39 Ernst Axel Knauf, Ismael: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Palästinas und Nordarabiens im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (ADPV; Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 1985); Idem, “Die Priesterschrift und die Geschichten der Deutoronomisten,” in The Future of the Deuteronomistic History (ed. Thomas Römer; BETL 147; Leuven, 2000), 101–18; Idem, “Grenzen der Toleranz in der Priesterschaft,” BiKi 58 (2003): 224–27. 40 Mark G. Brett, “Reading the Bible in the Context of Methodological Pluralism: The Undermining of Ethnic Exclusivism in Genesis,” in Rethinking Contexts, Rereading Texts. Contributions from the Social Sciences to Biblical Interpretation (ed. M. Daniel Carroll R.; JSOTSup 299; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 48–74, esp. 72–3. 41 For the following see also Konrad Schmid, “Judean Identity and Ecumenicity. The Political Theology of the Priestly Document,” in Judah and Judeans in the Achaemenid Period: Negotiating Identity in an International Context (eds. Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, and Manfred Oeming; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 3–26. 42 Naumann, Ismael, 151–52. 43 De Pury, “Abraham,” 170.

22

Konrad Schmid

Despite Naumann’s and de Pury’s forceful and, to my mind, 44 convincing argumentation, the question of who belongs to the Abrahamic covenant is still contentious. The mainstream of German-speaking scholarship still opts for the idea that Ishmael is left out of the covenant. 45 The scholarly dissonance in this regard is best explained because Gen 17 seems to include a certain amount of ambiguity. In this situation, it might be helpful to re-read Gen 17 closely, paying special attention to its various and different covenantal statements. First, it is clear that the covenant of 17:2, 4 is only concluded with the individual Abraham and can pertain to him alone because only he will become “a father of many nations”: 46 “I will make a covenant between me and you, and I will make you exceedingly numerous [...]. Look, this is my covenant with you, that you will become a father of many nations.”

Neither Ishmael nor Isaac is included in this “covenant” of Gen 17:2, 4, which instead applies to Abraham alone. The situation is different in the subsequent appearances of the “covenant” in Gen 17:7–8, since this covenant makes explicit mention of “you and your offspring”: “I am establishing my covenant between me and you and your offspring from generation to generation as an eternal covenant, to be God for you and your offspring. And I am giving you and your offspring the land in which you sojourn as an alien, the whole land of Canaan, for an eternal holding, and I will be their God.”

The covenant negotiated here (whether it is a second covenant or a further specification of the covenant from Gen 17:2, 4, is debatable, 47 but the first option is less probable since during the narration of Gen 17 “the content of ‫ ברית‬becomes progressively more” 48 precise) applies both to Abraham 44

See Schmid, “Judean Identity and Ecumenicity.” Cf. Matthias Köckert, “Gottes ‘Bund’ mit Abraham und die ‘Erwählung’ Israels in Genesis 17,” in Covenant and Election in Exilic and Post-exilic Judaism: Studies of the Sofja Kovalevskaja Research Group on Early Jewish Monotheism (vol. 5; ed. N. MacDonald; FAT II /79; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 1–28. 46 The statement in v. 6b, that kings will come from Abraham, is difficult to interpret. It is usually understood as having already been historicized by the time of the author of “P”; however, for a different view see, i. e., Blum, Vätergeschichte, 458; Walter Gross, “Israels Hoffnung auf die Erneuerung des Staates (1987),” in Idem, Studien zur Priesterschrift und zu alttestamentlichen Gottesbildern (SBAB 30; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1999), 65–96, esp. 66–75. 47 Cf. the discussion in Blum, Vätergeschichte, 422 n. 13. In any case, the mention ‫הקים‬ ‫ ברית‬in v. 7 does not stand in the way of the interpretation of Gen 17:1–8 as one covenant, cf. W. Randall Garr, “The Grammar and Interpretation of Exodus 6:3,” JBL 111 (1992): 385–408, esp. 403: “The idiom ‫ הקים ברית‬means not only ‘make (establish) a promise (covenant)’ but also ‘keep (fulfill) a promise (covenant).’” 48 Blum, Vätergeschichte, 421. 45

Remembering and Reconstructing Abraham

23

and even to Ishmael as his first, and, at this point, only descendant. According to “P,” there is no question that Ishmael qualifies as a legitimate son of Abraham (Gen 16:1a,3). 49 However, the formulation in Gen 17:7–8 is without a doubt just as clear that the future descendants of Abraham – namely Isaac, who first sees the light of day four chapters later – are also included in this covenant. The substance of this second (aspect of the) covenant is now, in addition to numerous offspring (vv. 2, 4), the nearness of God to Abraham and his descendants. 50 Furthermore, this covenant also includes the promise of land holdings (‫ )אחוזה‬in v. 8, 51 which is enclosed by the repeated affirmation “I will be their God” in vv. 7, 9. Is the traditional view justified that according to “P” the land of Canaan can only belong to Israel, and therefore the covenant of Gen 17:7–8 – although it goes against the explicit formulation – can only pertain to Isaac’s lineage? Such an argument overlooks the fact that “P” speaks specifically of the whole land of Canaan (‫ )כל־ארץ כנען‬only in 17:8, as de Pury has pointed out: 52 “With this term he [“P”] envisages a region encompassing not only today’s geographical Palestine but nearly the whole of the Levant.” 53 The circumcision commandment of the next section, vv. 9–14, seems confusing to some exegetes, because the circumcision in vv. 23–27 is also carried out on Ishmael and the slaves of the house. They also carry the sign of the covenant. Are they therefore also a partner in the covenant? Blum offers the following explanation:

49

Cf. Claus Westermann, Genesis 12–36 (BK I /2; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1981), 285–286; Irmtraud Fischer, Die Erzeltern Israels: Feministisch-theologische Studien zu Gen 12–36 (BZAW 222; Berlin /New York: de Gruyter, 2004), 97–101. 50 This promise cites only the first half of the so-called “covenant formula” – the second half, in which Abraham’s descendants will be the people of God is programmatically left out of the Priestly document – thereby stressing the theological character of the “covenant” as an essentially one-sided commitment. 51 Cf. Michaela Bauks, “Die Begriffe ‫ מורשה‬und ‫ אחוזה‬in Pg. Überlegungen zur Landkonzeption der Priestergrundschrift,” ZAW 116 (2004): 171–88. 52 This term is otherwise attested only in Josh 24:3, which looks back to Gen 17:8. The lxx might possibly preserve an older tradition in its reading of Josh 24:3 (ἐν πάσῃ τῇ γῇ). “P” never gives exact boundaries for the “land of Canaan,” but it differs from the region of the upper Euphrates (Gen 12:5) as well as from “Paddan-Aram,” which likely refers northern Syria (Gen 25:20, 31:18). Egypt (Gen 46:6–7), the Jordan valley, and the land east of the Jordan (Gen 13:12) are certainly excluded. Regarding locations in “Canaan,” “P” only mentions Mamre and Qiryat Arba /Hebron (Gen 25:9, 35:27; cf. Gen 23:1,17,19). 53 De Pury, “Abraham,” 171.

24

Konrad Schmid

“Ishmael must be circumcised because he belongs to Abraham’s house (v. 12–13); Ishmael’s circumcision has meaning only as a sign of the covenant with Abraham.” 54

But it is a shaky enterprise to answer the question of whether Ishmael belongs to the Abrahamic covenant solely on the basis of vv. 23–27. The section in vv. 15–22, where the relationship between Ishmael and Isaac is addressed, is much more decisive for this question. In response to the promise received by Sarah in vv. 15–17, Abraham petitions in v. 18b: “If only Ishmael might live before you!” This statement is often understood to mean: “If only Ishmael may be allowed to remain alive!” 55 However, the phrase ‫ חיה לפני יהוה‬implies more than simply physical survival. It instead has cultic connotations, which the following selection of Priestly citations for ‫ לפני יהוה‬demonstrates: 56 Exod 27:21: “In the tent of meeting, outside the curtain that is before the covenant, Aaron and his sons shall keep it burning from evening till morning before YHWH (‫ )לפני יהוה‬as a perpetual ordinance among the Israelites throughout their generations.” Exod 28:35: “And Aaron shall wear it when he ministers, and its sound shall be heard when he enters the holy place before YHWH (‫ )לפני יהוה‬and when he leaves so that he will not die.” Exod 29:42: “It shall be a regular burnt offering throughout their generations at the entrance of the tent of meeting before YHWH (‫)לפני יהוה‬, where I will meet with you in order to speak with you.” Exod 40:22–25: “Then he put the table in the tent of meeting, on the north side of the tabernacle, outside the curtain, and he set a row of bread before YHWH (‫לפני‬ ‫)יהוה‬, just as YHWH had commanded Moses. And he put the lampstand in the tent of meeting, across from the table, on the south side of the tabernacle, and he set up the lamps before YHWH (‫)לפני יהוה‬, just as YHWH had commanded him.”

The expression ‫“ לפני יהוה‬before YHWH” implies cultic presence before YHWH in the context of the sanctuary (or, rarely, in direct conversation with YHWH, as in the case of Moses in Exod 6:12,30). In my view, de Pury is correct when he writes: 54 Blum, Vätergeschichte, 422. A similar position was reached earlier by Benno Jacob, Das erste Buch der Tora (Berlin: Schocken, 1934), 430–31. 55 For example, Ephraim Avigdor Speiser, Genesis (AB 1; Garden City: Doubleday, 1964), 125: “thrive. Literally ‘live,’ with the force of ‘stay well, prosper.’”; Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 323: “Die Wunschbitte Abrahams für Ismael ist Ausdruck frommer Bescheidung mit dem einen Sohn der Nebenfrau, der ihm geschenkt ist.” 56 For ‫ לפני יהוה‬in “P” Ex 6:12, 30; 27:21; 28:12, 30, 35, 38; 29:42; 30:16; 40:23, 25, within Gen 17 see also v. 1.

Remembering and Reconstructing Abraham

25

“Whether the Priestly writer’s Abraham is aware of it or not, what he asks is that Ishmael become YHWH’s priest; and it is that request that is denied to Ishmael and offered instead to the yet to be born Isaac. In this whole exchange (vv. 18–21), the question therefore is not whether Ishmael will be allowed to live in the land of Canaan – the right of Ishmael to live in Canaan has been settled once and for all in v. 8 – but the question is only whether there is a need for a further son, i. e. for a further category among Abraham’s multi-nation descendants. And the answer to that question is yes. Sarah’s son Isaac will beget those descendants of Abraham who are destined to become YHWH’s priestly nation.” 57

If the specific emphases of v. 18 are recognized, then some new light is shed on the subsequent passage in vv. 19–21: “Then God said: ‫“( אבל‬no?”/“rather?”), your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you shall name him Isaac, and I will establish my covenant (‫ )הקים ברית‬with him as an eternal covenant for his descendants after him.”

However, three translational difficulties remain. Firstly, how should one translate the particle ‫ אבל‬in v. 19? The ancient versions and modern translations disagree. The Vulgate and KJV leave ‫ אבל‬untranslated, while the RSV and nrsv translate with “No.” Until 1912 the Luther Bible decided on “ja,” but since 1984 on “nein.” The Zürcher Bible changed its variant “vielmehr” from 1931 in the new translation of 2007 to “nein.” The Septuagint offers ναί ἰδού. 58 The uncertainty results from the unclear relationship between Abraham’s question in v. 18 and God’s answer in v. 19 on one hand, and on the other hand from the philologically broad field of meaning for the term ‫אבל‬, which only appears eleven times in the Hebrew Bible. Its usage includes expressions of regret and complaint (2 Sam 14:5; 2 Kgs 4:14; Gen 42:21), an expression of regret along with a negative answer (1 Kgs 1:43), and the well-attested pure adversative usage (Ezra 10:13; 2 Chr 1:4, 19:3, 33:17; Dan 10:7,21). 59 When the cultic background of the expression ‫ חיה לפני יהוה‬in v. 18 is recognized and the literary historical setting of “P” taken into consideration, then a translation as “no” is more convincing than a positive (“yes”) or neutral (“rather”) rendering. A second question is whether ‫ הקים ברית‬must necessarily mean “establish a covenant,” or if it may also mean the reaffirmation of an already existing covenant. Especially relevant here is Exod 6:4, itself a Priestly text, 57

De Pury, “Abraham,” 172. Cf. also Idem, “Absolute Beginning,” 109. Differently Köckert, “Gottes ‘Bund’ mit Abraham und die ‘Erwählung’ Israels in Genesis 17,” 21 f. 58 Cf. Naumann, Ismael, 138 n. 34. 59 Cf. Norbert Kilwing, “‫‘ אבל‬ja, gewiss’ – ‘nein, vielmehr’?,” BN 11 (1980): 23–28.

26

Konrad Schmid

which shows that the latter is clearly possible as well. 60 The final difficulty with regards to translation is ‫ ואת־בריתי אקים את־יצחק‬in v. 21, which conspicuously brings the object ‫ ואת־בריתי‬forward. Is it better to follow the usual adversative rendering “but my covenant, ...” or instead translate with “and my covenant ...”? From a syntactical standpoint there is a strong inclusive connection with v. 19. As a result, the above translation has opted for the neutral translation “and my covenant.” As mentioned before, traditional exegesis of this section held that the Abrahamic covenant is only realized through the lineage of Isaac: The “covenant” terminology only appears in connection with Isaac in vv. 19, 21. Ishmael, on the other hand, only receives a blessing of fruitfulness (v. 20: “As for Ishmael, I have heard you; I will bless him and make him fruitful and exceedingly numerous; he shall be the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation.”) Admittedly, the double use of the term “covenant,” which is only applied to Isaac in vv. 19, 21, is conspicuous. However, this traditionally dominant interpretation encounters numerous problems. The gravest being that it cannot explain why “P” proceeds in Gen 17:7–8 to include explicitly all the descendants of Abraham in the covenant, only then to narrow the covenant back down to the lineage of Isaac. 61 Therefore, it is much more likely that the function of vv. 19–21 does not lie in the exclusion of Ishmael, rather in the inclusion of Isaac in the Abrahamic covenant. The need for an explicit inclusion of Isaac in vv. 19, 21 is obvious from its position in the narrative, namely that at the time of Gen 17, Isaac had not yet been born. This makes the double appearance of “covenant”-terminology in vv. 19, 21 with reference to Isaac more than plausible: Extending the covenant to a person who did not yet exist is a bold enterprise, and therefore needs special terminological emphasis. Nevertheless, the conclusion remains that Ishmael is not the same type of partner in the covenant of God as Isaac is. They are equal with regard to fertility and land holdings (in the sense of an ‫אחוזה‬, Israel will then signify its land in Exod 6:8 as ‫ )מורשה‬62 within the greater region of the “whole land of Canaan.” But they are not equal with regard to the possibility of 60

See above n. 47. See above n. 44. 62 For the assignment of Ex 6:8 to “P” see the discussion in Jan Christian Gertz, Tradition und Redaktion in der Exoduserzählung (FRLANT 189; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 245–48. The terminology ‫ מורשה‬could have been specifically influenced by Ezekiel. Cf. Bernard Gosse, “Exode 6,8 comme réponse à Ézéchiel 33,24,” RHPR 74 (1994): 241–47. 61

Remembering and Reconstructing Abraham

27

cultic proximity (“living before God,” Gen 17:18b). This proximity – as the narrative of “P” goes on to show – only belongs to Israel by means of the foundation of the sanctuary and is explicitly denied to Ishmael. 63 In Gen 17 the Priestly document apparently attempts to balance the theological prerogative of Israel with the political reality of Persian period Judah – Judah lives in a modest province within “ecumenical” proximity to its neighbors. Perhaps the specific outline of Gen 17, the creation of an “Abrahamic ecumenicity,” as Albert de Pury has put it, has to do with the fact that Abraham’s tomb in Hebron, which was in all likelihood venerated by Judeans, Arabs, and Edomites, was probably not part of Achaemenid Judah, but of Idumea as Ernst Axel Knauf and Detlef Jericke have convincingly argued. 64 This means that “P” had to include Judeans, Arabs and Edomites in a privileged position and therefore developed the notion of an “Abrahamic” covenant of the peoples living in the “whole land of Canaan.” In conclusion, God’s covenant with Abraham in Gen 17 is a covenant with all his descendants including Ishmael and the yet unborn Isaac, although Isaac has a somewhat privileged position in this covenant over against Ishmael. Isaac may live “before YHWH,” a cultic nearness explicitly denied to Ishmael. Nevertheless, it is most remarkable that there is a specific “Abrahamic circle” in “P’s” political and religious worldview which is narrower than the “world circle,” but wider than the “Israel circle.” “P” seems to argue for an “Abrahamic ecumenicity” among Judeans, Israelites, Edomites, and Arabs within the Persian Empire. All these peoples share the promise of progeny and land, meaning that the exclusive Judean privilege is not political but cultic – only they may “live before YHWH.” This concept is probably historically informed and influenced by the Persians’ view on center and periphery within their empire (see Herodotus, Histories 1.134): “After their own nation they hold their nearest neighbors most in honor, then the nearest but one – and so on, their 63 Cf. Knauf, “Grenzen,” 224–227, 224: “Die Priesterschrift (P) in der Tora vertritt die persische Staatsideologie mit einer Deutlichkeit wie sonst nur noch die altpersischen Königsinschriften. Jedes Volk hat seinen Platz in der Welt (Gen 10), darin erfüllen sich Schöpfungsordnung und Schöpfungssegen. Nur Israel gehört als JHWH’s priesterliches Volk in seinem Land, das im Grunde als heiliger Bezirk (Temenos) die Wohnung des Schöpfergottes auf Erden umgibt, nicht der Schöpfungs-, sondern der Heilsordnung an.” 64 Knauf, “Grenzen,” 226; Detlef Jericke, Abraham in Mamre:. Historische und exegetische Studien zur Religion von Hebron und zu Genesis 11,27–19,38 (SCHANE 17; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2003), 18–19, 32–33, 81–96; Albert de Pury, “Le tombeau des Abrahamides d’Hébron et sa fonction au début de l’époque perse,” Transeu 30 (2005): 183–184.

28

Konrad Schmid

respect decreasing as the distance grows, and the most remote being the most despised. Themselves, they consider in every way superior to everyone else in the world, and allow other nations a share of good qualities decreasing according to distance, the furthest off being in their view the worst.” 65

4. The Pre-Priestly Abraham: Negotiating the National Identity of Israel There is finally a layer of pre-Priestly Abraham traditions in the book of Genesis (Gen 13; 18; 19; 21) 66 which seems to constitute a clear-cut narrative structured in two parallel strands, describing the political relation between the offspring of Abraham (Isaac) and the offspring of Lot (Moab and Ammon). Isaac is the son of a promise, Moab and Ammon are the sons resulting from an incestuous relationship of Lot’s daughters with their father (Gen 19:37 f). Since Moab and Ammon emerged as states in the 9th and 8th century b. c. e. 67 and ceased to be so in the 6th century, a dating of this strand of the Abraham tradition to the pre-exilic period seems to be warranted. But what does “Isaac” represent in this story? Within the overall narrative context of Genesis 12–36, the various geographical locations of the narrative suggest different points of origins of the tales of the three patriarchs and their wives. Jacob originally belonged to the central highlands (Bethel, Shechem, etc.), while Abraham (Hebron, Mamre, etc.) and Isaac (Beersheba, Gerar) seem to belong to southern Judah. The situation for Isaac is, however, unclear. There are two passages from the book of Amos indicating that in the monarchical period “house of Isaac” could be regarded as an eponym for the northern kingdom, as the parallelisms suggest:

65 Pierre Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2002), 181. 66 Cf. Römer and Finkelstein, “Comments.” 67 Cf. Stefan Timm, Moab zwischen den Mächten (ÄAT 17; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1989); Ulrich Hübner, Die Ammoniter (ADPV 16; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1992); Nadav Na’aman, “King Mesha and the Foundation of the Moabite Monarchy,” IEJ 47 (1997): 83–92; Brian Routledge, Moab in the Iron Age: Hegemony, Polity, Archaeology (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004); cf. Udo Worschech, Die Beziehungen Moabs zu Israel und Ägypten in der Eisenzeit. Siedlungsarchäologische und siedlungshistorische Untersuchungen im Kernland Moabs (Ard el-Kerak) (ÄAT 18; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1990).

Remembering and Reconstructing Abraham

29

“[...] the high places of Isaac shall be made desolate, and the sanctuaries of Israel shall be laid waste, and I will rise against the house of Jeroboam with the sword.” (Amos 7:9) “Now therefore hear the word of YHWH. You say, ‘Do not prophesy against Israel, and do not preach against the house of Isaac.’” (Amos 7:16)

The Abraham-Lot cycle seems to have originally established a foundational myth for the northern kingdom. 68 Against the historical realities, this narrative cycle interprets the north as the offspring of the south. In historical terms, the northern kingdom of Israel was originally more important and powerful than the south, and only after the fall of Samaria in 722 b. c. e., did Judah inherit the legacy of northern Israel. 69 The literary kernel of the Abraham-Lot cycle can be found in Gen 18. This story, which derives from the hieros logos of the sanctuary in Mamre, reveals a classic motif from the saga genre, namely a visit from gods who are hospitably received and reward the host with a gift, in this case the promise of a son. Gen 18 is the only pre-Priestly text in the book of Genesis in which the promise forms an integral part of the narrative in which it is included. 70 The topic of the “promises” in Genesis 12–50 is thus anchored in the Abraham tradition and has been adapted from there also in the Isaac and particularly the Jacob texts (cf. e. g. Gen 12:1–3 and Gen 28:13–15). The reason for Isaac’s name (“he laughed”) in Gen 18:10b–15 (Sarah “laughs”) is inserted as a secondary climax in contrast to the original high point of the story, the promise of the son: 68 See Israel Finkelstein, The Forgotten Kingdom: The Archaeology and History of Northern Israel (Atlanta: SBL, 2014). 69 Cf. Reinhard G. Kratz, “The Two Houses of Israel,” in Let Us Go up to Zion (eds. I. Provan and M. J. Boda; VT.S 153; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 167–179; Idem, “Israel in the Book of Isaiah,” JSOT 31 (2006): 103–28; Idem, “Israel im Jesajabuch,” in Die unwiderstehliche Wahrheit: Studien zur alttestamentlichen Prophetie (eds. R. Lux and E.-J. Waschke; ABG 23; Leipzig: EVA, 2006), 85–103; Idem, “Israel als Staat und als Volk,” ZTK 97 (2000): 1–17; Nadav Na’aman, “Saul, Benjamin and the Emergence of ‘Biblical Israel,’” ZAW 121 (2009): 211–24; Daniel E. Fleming, The Legacy of Israel in Judah’s Bible: History, Politics, and the Reinscribing of Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012); Wolfgang Schütte, “Wie wurde Juda israelitisiert?” ZAW 124 (2012): 52–72. Differently Kristin Weingart, Stämmevolk – Staatsvolk – Gottesvolk? Studien zur Verwendung des Israel-Namens im Alten Testament (FAT II /68; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014); see the review of Ina Willi-Plein, TLZ 141 (2016): 1076–1079. 70 The other two texts are Gen 15 (post-P, see Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story, 158–171) and Gen 17 (“P”). The redactional nature of the promises in Gen 12–50 has been highlighted by Rolf Rendtorff, Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch (BZAW 147; Berlin, 1977) and Blum, Vätergeschichte, but refuted, in my mind unsuccessfully, by Joel Baden, The Promise to the Patriarchs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013).

30

Konrad Schmid

“And Sarah was listening at the tent entrance behind him. Now Abraham and Sarah were old, advanced in age; it had ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women. So Sarah laughed to herself, saying, ‘After I have grown old, and my husband is old, shall I have pleasure?’ YHWH said to Abraham, ‘Why did Sarah laugh, and say, ‘Shall I indeed bear a child, now that I am old?’ Is anything too wonderful for YHWH? At the set time I will return to you, in due season, and Sarah shall have a son.’ But Sarah denied, saying, ‘I did not laugh’; for she was afraid. He said, ‘Oh yes, you did laugh.’” (Gen 18:10b–15)

If 18:10b–15 is a secondary expansion, then we we can discover an Abraham narrative in Gen 18 that originally lacked any reference to Isaac. The Isaac and Abraham traditions were thus probably two sources alongside one another. The combination of Abraham and Isaac narratives as witnessed by 18:10–15 was probably completed during the monarchic period, as the political outlook of the cycle suggests, relating Israel to Moab and Ammon. 71

5. Conclusions Abraham’s family in the book of Genesis is one that takes a long time to grow and that, once established, is immediately endangered. The motif that Abraham and Sarah must wait for their son is already extant in the allegedly earliest story dealing with a divine promise (Gen 18): Abraham is hosting three men representing God, and he is awarded by the promise of a son. The Abraham-Lot cycle then puts Isaac, Moab and Ammon in a relation, where “Isaac” – according to Amos 7 – might even still be an eponym for the northern kingdom Israel, not the southern kingdom Judah. This narrative cycle draws a sharp line between Israel as the result of a divine promise, and Moab and Ammon as the results of a shameful, incestuous 71 Conspicuously, a monarchical figure is absent from the Abraham-Lot cycle. If these texts are to be dated within monarchical-era Judah then this finding might be connected to the handing on of this tradition in circles associated not with the royal court but with the Judahite landed gentry, who were an independent power factor in Judah. But as a literary entity it could also presume the first deportation under Jehoiachin in 597 b. c. e. and document the hegemonial claims of the Judahite elite who remained in the land and came to the fore after the Judahite royal court was transferred to Babylon. Ezek 33:24 suggests that the elite who had remained in the land referred to Abraham as their patron: “Mortal, the inhabitants of these waste places in the land of Israel keep saying, ‘Abraham was only one man, yet he got possession of the land; but we are many; the land is surely given us to possess.’”

Remembering and Reconstructing Abraham

31

relationship of Lot’s daughters with their father. Despite the absence of a monarchic figure in the Abraham-Lot cycle, the political outlook of the narrative reckoning with political entities such as Moab and Ammon suggests a pre-exilic setting of its composition. The absence of a king in the Abraham-Lot cycle fits well with a dating of the composition between 722 and 587 b. c. e., given that “Isaac” probably stands for the northern kingdom (cf. Amos 7:9, 16). Abraham’s career as the father of different nations that belong together and shall live peacefully in the Levant begins with his Priestly re-interpretation in Gen 17 (“P”). “P” reflects the political situation of the authors in the early Persian Period, a situation which they evaluate very positively. Abraham becomes the key figure of a common origin of different nations that are described as a family system, with stronger and looser ties to each other. Israel is one nation among and beside others, but it has the prerogative of the cult and thus may live “before YHWH.” In the later Persian period, particularly reflecting the poor economic status of Judah and Jerusalem and its very modest population, the topic of the endangered promise found its expression in the story of Abraham’s sacrifice in Gen 22. It deals with the theological problem whether a promise can also be revoked. In the case of Gen 22, it is even the very fundamental promise of Abraham’s son with Sarah: If Isaac were to be killed and sacrificed, then the promise of many offspring would be null and void. The image of Abraham and Sarah’s endangered family thus serves as a trajectory in order to cope with a counter-experience in the time of the authors of Gen 22, a time that seems hopeless but is eventually overcome by God’s intervention to save Abraham and Sarah’s offspring.

The Abraham Story in Genesis and the Reigns of David and Solomon Antti Laato 1. Introduction This article is related to my recent research interests in the early monarchic period of Israel. I follow the main trend of research on the Hebrew Bible, according to which these scriptures are writings composed during the exilic and early postexilic period. I argue, however, that the right picture of the transmission process of these writings is possible when they are evaluated from the perspective of empirical models. The empirical model is based on “texts whose evolution can be documented by copies from several stages in the course of their development.” 1 With the aid of empirical models it becomes possible to demonstrate what kinds of editing processes de facto have taken place in transmission. 2 The perspective of the empirical models is not yet a methodology, only heuristic way to imagine what could have taken place in the transmission process. Briefly, the empirical models suggest that writers composed texts in three different ways: 1) Writers used older literary sources which they presumably updated linguistically and undertook some editorial work so that they were readable and contextually relevant in the exilic and postexilic period. This means that it is not always possible to construct 1

For this definition, see Jeffrey H. Tigay, ed., Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1988), xi. 2 Concerning the term “empirical models,” see Tigay, Empirical Models. See further two outer-biblical examples of the literary evolution of texts in Jeffrey H. Tigay, The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1982); Hans J. Tertel, Text and Transmission: An Empirical Model for the Literary Development of Old Testament Narratives (BZAW 221; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994); Raymond F. Person and Robert Rezetko, eds., Empirical Models Challenging Biblical Criticism (Ancient Israel and Its Literature; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016). See my earlier treatment of this approach in Antti Laato, History and Ideology in the Old Testament Prophetic Literature: A Semiotic Approach to the Reconstruction of the Proclamation of Historical Prophets (Coniectanea Biblica OTS 41; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1996), 62–147.

34

Antti Laato

older literary layers verbatim. 3 2) Writers made paraphrases of the older sources. This means that texts formulated later may be based on older traditions. 3) Writers formulated their own comments and theological remarks which were not attested in earlier sources available to them. Using an empirical perspective implies distinguishing between three different concepts. 4 a) The formation of an independent patriarchal story first in the oral tradition and then in literary story may be lost to scholars forever. This could be compared to the wording of the integrated Akkadian Gilgamesh Epic which was based on independent Sumerian stories about Gilgamesh. In many cases scholars are able to conclude that older sources have been used 5, but are methodologically handicapped in constructing them. b) The old documentary hypothesis presupposes that some stories have already been integrated in their pre-Genesis form. 6 Self-evidently this is still a relevant option today, which means that there were older integrated stories about patriarchs before they were edited in Genesis. c) Finally, the only text version which de facto exists is the Book of Genesis, where the independent literary stories or integrated stories have been edited. It is possible that the oral tradition 7 plays a role in the edition process. From these starting-points it is clear that during the formation of the Abraham Story its content, themes and theological viewpoints have been ‘cooked’ in different ways before they found their way in the present literary context of Genesis.

3 This was noted already by William F. Albright in his From the Stone Age to Christianity: Monotheism and the Historical Process (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1957), 79–80. 4 For this compare Jeffrey H. Tigay, “The Evolution of the Pentateuchal Narratives in the Light of the Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic,” in Tigay, Empirical Models, 21–52. 5 See more closely Tigay, Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic, 23–38. It is worth noting what Tigay writes on p. 37: “The empirical evidence of the Sumerian tales lends support to the concept that The Gilgamesh Epic is based on several independent sources, a concept which Jastrow developed on the basis of his theoretical approach.” Here Tigay refers to Marcus Jastrow (1861–1922) who in 1898 (long before the outcome of the Sumerian tales) published an analysis on the entire Gilgamesh Epic based on the late version. See Marcus Jastrow, The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (Boston: Ginn, 1898). 6 Tigay (Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic, 214–240) argues that the flood story was not part of the Akkadian Epic in the Old Babylonian period. It was integrated only in the Late Babylonian version. 7 For this see Yaakov Elman, “Authoritative Oral Tradition in Neo-Assyrian Scribal Circles,” JANESCU 7 (1975): 19–32. For the relevance of oral tradition in the formation of the Hebrew Bible see Hellmer Ringgren, “Oral and Written Transmission in the Old Testament,” StTh 3 (1949): 34–59; Edvard Nielsen, Oral Tradition: A Modern Problem in Old Testament Introduction (Chicago, Ill.: Alec R. Allenson, 1958); Robert D. Miller, Oral Tradition in Ancient Israel (Eugene: Casade Books, 2011).

The Abraham Story in Genesis and the Reigns of David and Solomon

35

In my recently published study “The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology” I discuss how the united monarchy of David and Solomon should be understood. 8 The Deuteronomistic History describes David as the one who established the Great Empire of Israel by subjugating the peoples around Israel (2 Sam 8). However, this presentation is a Deuteronomistic fabrication from sources which were known at the time of the exile. 9 There is other textual material in the Books of Samuel which does not correspond to this Deuteronomistic representation. After having compared David’s wars with the extrabiblical evidence, Na’aman concludes that “very little of this data may tentatively be assigned to the time of the historical David.” 10 I evaluate the situation in a different way mainly on two points. First, I regard it as plausible that the History of David’s Rise (HDR) and Succession Narrative (SN) were written at the time of the united monarchy (and then modified in the Deuteronomistic History). 11 I have elsewhere compared these stories with the Apology of Hattušiliš and concluded that their basic elements did not play any significant role in the exilic time. On the other hand, they were important in the reigns of David and Solomon. 12 Second, I emphasize internal tensions in the Books of Samuel which reveal the tendentious Deuteronomistic interpretations in 2 Sam 8. I shall present examples of this later in this article. Here I 8 Antti Laato, The Origin of Israelite Zion Theology (LHBOTS 661; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark 2018). 9 For the historical problems in 2 Sam 8 see e. g. Othmar Keel, Die Geschichte Jerusalems und die Entstehung des Monotheismus Teil 1 & 2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007), 178–181. 10 Cf. Nadav Na’aman, “In Search of Reality behind the Account of David’s Wars with Israel’s Neighbours,” IEJ 52 (2002): 200–224. The quotation is from p. 216. 11 See the influential study of Leonhard Rost, Die Überlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids (Stuttgart: Kolhammer, 1926). See further the recent discussion in Walter Dietrich, “Das Ende der Thronfolgegeschichte,” in Die sogenannte Thronfolgegeschichte Davids: Neue Einsichten und Fragen (ed. Albert de Pury and Thomas Römer; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 38–69; John van Seters, The Biblical Saga of King David (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2009); Idem, “A Revival of the Succession Narrative and the Case against it,” JSOT 39 (2014): 3–14; Joseph Blenkinsopp, “Another Contribution to the Succession Narrative Debate (2 Sam 11–20; 1 Kgs 1–2),” JSOT 38 (2013): 35–58. 12 The English translation of Hattušiliš’ apology is available in The Context of Scripture, Volume 1: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World (ed. William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, Jr.; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 199–204. For the parallels between Hattušiliš’ apology and David’s history see further P. Kyle McCarter, “The Apology of David,” JBL 99 (1984): 489–504; Antti Laato, A Star Is Rising: The Historical Development of the Old Testament Royal Ideology and the Rise of the Jewish Messianic Expectations (International Studies in Formative Christianity and Judaism; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 68–76; Baruch Halpern, David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2001); Andrew Knapp, Royal Apologetic in the Ancient Near East (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015).

36

Antti Laato

only summarize my view of the historical nature of the united monarchy during the time of David and Solomon. 13 With their clever diplomacy toward the Philistines, Moab, the Ammonites, Geshur and the Arameans, David and Solomon managed to create a prosperous kingdom, and this kingdom was established in cooperation with Egypt as indicated by Solomon’s marriage to the daughter of the Pharaoh (1 Kgs 3:1; 9:16). 14 This means that during the reigns of David and Solomon it was important to establish traditions which justify such a new political scenario in Canaan. Instead of being in conflict with their neighbors, the Israelites have the possibility to see them as belonging to one great family whose paragon was Abraham. I shall argue that Abraham’s story, among others, contains traces of such an old political ideology. Needless to say the Abraham story in the present form of Genesis is part of the exilic historical presentation of the pre-history of Israel. There is reason to believe that many references to earlier sources in the Book of Kings (1 Kgs 11:41; 14:19, 29 etc.) actually refer to royal archives. 15 I have argued elsewhere that the synchronic chronology in the Books of Kings forms a skeleton which is based on reliable numbers and must have originated from royal archives. 16 This means that the writers 13 See also Antti Laato, “‘When he comes to Shiloh’ (Gen 49,8–12) – An Approach to the Books of Samuel,” in The Books of Samuel: Stories – History – Reception History (ed. Walter Dietrich, Cynthia Edenburgh, and Philippe Hugo; BETL 284; Leuven: Peeters, 2016), 511–519. 14 Concerning the discussion of Solomon’s marriages, see Manfred Görg, Die Beziehungen zwischen dem alten Israel und Ägypten: Von den Anfängen bis zum Exil (EdF 290; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1997), 75–86; Keel, Die Geschichte Jerusalems Teil 1, 241–244. The question whether or not the Egyptian Pharaoh Siamun invaded Gezer is discussed among scholars. For this, see Alberto R. Green, “Solomon and Siamun: A Synchronism between Early Dynastic Israel and the Twenty-First Dynasty of Egypt,” JBL 97 (1978): 353–67; more critical treatments can be found in Paul S. Ash, David, Solomon and Egypt: A Reassessment (JSOTSS 297, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press 1999), 112–119; Bernd U. Schipper, Israel und Ägypten in der Konigszeit: Die kulturellen Kontakte von Salomo bis zum Fall Jerusalems (OBO 170; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1999), 19–35. 15 Concerning the discussion of the royal “annals” in Jerusalem see recently Nadav Na’aman, “The Temple Library of Jerusalem and the Composition of the Book of Kings,” in Congress Volume Leiden 2004 (ed. André Lemaire; VTSup 109; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 129–152. It is important to note that in Jerusalem, one and the same dynasty ruled from the times of David and Solomon until the exile. There was certainly an interest in preserving older stories and documents which recorded the events of the dynasty. This explains why the Deuteronomist(s) had written records which made it possible for him /them to speak about events related to actual historical people and events, such as, for example, Shishak, Mesha, neo-Assyrian kings etc. 16 Antti Laato, Guide to Biblical Chronology (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2015).

The Abraham Story in Genesis and the Reigns of David and Solomon

37

of Enneateuch had direct or indirect (earlier literary sources based on royal archives) information which may go back to the beginning of the monarchic period. 17 Assuming that the Deuteronomistic program began already in the late monarchic period, in the reign of Josiah when it was easy to use royal archives, there is no need to speculate as to the ways in which the royal archives could have been preserved in the crisis of exile. Methodologically I proceed as follows: My starting-point is to discuss in which way the figures in the Abraham story can be related to nations. I then connect the different elements in the stories to other available material (including Ancient Near Eastern texts and archaeology), and in particular to the texts in the Hebrew Bible, in order to determine some lines of development in traditions. Finally I relate the topics and themes in Abraham’s story to the historical timeline.

2. Abraham and Lot: Moabites and Ammonites The story of Abraham and Lot is often regarded as one of the earliest tradition complexes within Genesis. 18 In Genesis Lot is related to the peoples of Moab and Ammon, as becomes clear from the birth story of the forefathers of the Moabites and Ammonites in Gen 19:30–38. 19 This familiar relationship between Lot and the Moabites /Ammonites is also confirmed in Deut 2:9,19 (cf., also Ps 83:6–9 where Moab and Ammon are listed among nations who support the children of Lot). While in Deut 2:9,19 this family connection is presented in an appropriate way, Gen 19:30–38, on the other hand, must be regarded as strongly polemical towards Moab and Ammon: the intoxicated Lot had sexual relations with his two daughters and from this incestuous relationship Moab and Ammon were born. It 17 So, e. g., Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, Solomonic State Officials: A Study of the Civil Government Officials of the Israelite Monarchy (ConBOT 5; Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1971). 18 See, e. g., Erhard Blum, Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte (WMANT 57; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1984) 273–289, 461–462; Idem, “Abraham,” Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart: Handwörterbuch für Theologie und Religionswissenschaft (ed. Hans Dieter Betz et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 1:70–74, esp. 71–72; Irmtraud Fischer, Die Erzeltern Israels: Feministisch-theologische Studien zu Genesis 12–36 (BZAW 222; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994), 339–343; Thomas Römer, “Recherches actuelles sur le cycle d’Abraham,” in Studies in the Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction and History (ed. A.Wénin; BETL 155; Leuven: Peeters, 2001), 179–211; Manfred Köckert, “Die Geschichte der Abrahamüberlieferung,” in Congress Volume Leiden 2004, 103–128; Idem, “Wie wurden Abraham- und Jakobüberlieferung zu einer ‘Vätergeschichte’ verbunden?” HeBAI 3 (2014): 43–66. 19 See the contribution of Konrad Schmid in this volume, p. 9–31.

38

Antti Laato

is not easy to reconcile such an end to the positive attitude towards Lot preserved in Genesis 12–14 and 18–19. Abraham traveled together with Lot to the land of Canaan from Harran (Gen 12:4–5) and then again to Egypt where they lived during the famine (Gen 13:1). Abraham took care that his shepherds did not quarrel with Lot’s because they belonged to the same family. The story continues by describing how the ways of Abraham and Lot became separated (Gen 13). Further, Abraham rescued his nephew when the latter was captured by enemies attacking Sodom (Gen 14). When Abraham was informed that God planned to destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah he prayed to God to save righteous ones living inside the cities (Gen 18); the story implies that Abraham knew that his nephew was living in Sodom and even though God did not save the cities from destruction he nevertheless rescued Lot from there, apparently because of Abraham’s request (Gen 19). It seems reasonable to assume that the tradition of Abraham and Lot originally emphasized the good relationship between Israel /Judah and Moab /Ammon, but that the story was completed later with a critical explanation on how the Moabites and Ammonites originated because of the incest between Lot and his daughters. It is this negative addition to the Abraham-Lot-cycle that parallels the Deuteronomic law prohibiting the Moabites and Ammonites from being members in the community (Deut 23:3–6). 20 In later reception history, Lot has been described as both righteous and wicked, indicating that through Gen 19:30–38 Lot has become an ambiguous figure. 21 Genesis 13 may have been interpreted as referring to the border disputes between Moab and Israel (attested both in Num 21 and in Jephthah’s speech in Judg 11:14–27) by emphasizing that Lot was given the opportunity to choose first. He chose a “paradise” around Sodom but received a “hell” after God destroyed the cities there. In order to understand this bipartite attitude toward Moab and Ammon in the present story of Genesis about Lot as well as in Deutero20 However, the Deuteronomic law does not contain any reference or allusion to the events in Gen 19:30–38. References are made to the wilderness tradition, mainly in Numbers 21–25. Note Gershon Hepner, “The Separation between Abram and Lot Reflects the Deuteronomic Law Prohibiting Ammonites and Moabites,” ZAW 117 (2005): 36–52. 21 Concerning these interpretations see James Kugel, Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as It Was at the Start of the Common Era (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1998), 328–350. In the earliest Jewish interpretation of Lot the negative picture dominates even though Lot’s relation to Abraham gives him positive credence. For this see Jacques T. A. G. M. van Ruiten, Abraham in the Book of Jubilees: The Rewriting of Genesis 11:26–25:10 in the Book of Jubilees 11:14–23:8 (SupJSJ 161; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 176–185.

The Abraham Story in Genesis and the Reigns of David and Solomon

39

nomy (i. e. the positive Deut 2:9,19 contra negative Deut 23:3–6), a good starting-point is to deal with corresponding positive and negative attitudes preserved in the Books of Samuel and Kings. 22 2 Sam 8 and later 2 Sam 10–12 indicate that David simply subjugated his enemies Moab and Ammon under the feet of Israel. However, there are also other references to Moab and Ammon in the Books of Samuel and Kings indicating that seen historically David’s and Solomon’s relation to Moabites and Ammonites was different. To begin with David requested that his family would have the opportunity to stay with the king of Moab when he escaped from Saul (1 Sam 22:3–4). 23 This request corroborates well with the tradition preserved in the Book of Ruth that David’s ancestor married a Moabite woman. A plausible interpretive model is that David managed to create some sort of political or diplomatic agreement with the Moabites, and this helped him in his rise to power. Later, a conflict between David and Moab or rather some Moabites may have flared up and this led to severe penalty actions from David’s side (2 Sam 8:2). 24 According to 1 Kgs 11:7,33, Solomon had married a Moabite woman, apparently for political reasons. This indicates that David and Solomon had made a political agreement with Moab. Assuming that 2 Sam 8:2 refers to a political problem in Moab which aimed to call the political agreement between David and Moab into question, the Deuteronomist has understood it as an overall military action by Israel against Moab. In a similar way the Deuteronomist, who knew a tradition about Solomon’s political marriages, interpreted them as an act of disloyalty against Yahweh (see also Deut 17:14–20). For the Deuteronomist, therefore, Moab was Israel’s enemy but David had a more positive attitude to Moab.

22 Scholars have discussed from which period onwards one can speak about the territorial polity in Moab. That “Moab” existed as political entity before the time of David and Solomon has been proposed in Israel Finkelstein and Oded Lipschits, “The Genesis of Moab: A Proposal,” Levant 43 (2011): 139–152. 23 For ways in which it is possible to speak about the unified state or monarchy in Moab at the time of David, see Bruce Routledge, Moab in the Iron Age: Hegemony, Polity, Archaeology (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004). Cf. Nadav Na’aman, “King Mesha and the Foundation of the Moabite Monarchy,” IEJ 47 (1997): 83–92. 24 Na’aman argues that 2 Sam 8:2 is a reference to the reign of Mesha, when he killed many thousands of Israelites in Transjordan. Nadav Na’aman, “In Search of Reality behind the Account of David’s Wars with Israel’s Neighbours,” IEJ 52 (2002): 200–224. If Na’aman is right, then 1 Sam 22:3–4 may indicate that David had good contacts with the Moabites – and the Book of Ruth commemorates this historical fact by proposing that a Moabite woman was David’s foremother.

40

Antti Laato

The situation of Ammon is not straightforward either, as accounted in 2 Sam 8:12 and in 2 Sam 10–12. The story about the wars against the Ammonites begins with an interesting reference to the late king Nahash being favorably inclined towards David, and therefore the latter wanted to show his benevolence to the new king Hanun (2 Sam 10:2). This led to a political conflict, the beginning of which was propagated in the Israelite version in such a way that the men of David were dishonored by the Ammonites (2 Sam 10:2b–4). On the other hand, the mother of Rehoboam was an Ammonite woman, Naamah (1 Kgs 14:21). This indicates that Solomon, and apparently already David (after the crisis of the Ammonite war), maintained good contacts with the Ammonites. It was David who arranged the marriage of Solomon to an Ammonite princess. 25 Therefore, the Ammonite war in 2 Sam 10–12 must be evaluated from the viewpoint that it may reflect only a military operation against some Ammonite groups which had attempted to destroy the diplomatic status quo policy of David. According to 2 Sam 17:27, Shobi son of Nahash (apparently a brother of Hanun) continued his father’s friendly policy toward David. This being the case, there is reason to believe that the present form of 2 Sam 10–12 was developed as a long process and finally presented in the Deuteronomistic History as David subjugating the Ammonite rebellion. The historical circumstances may have been quite different. Perhaps there was an internal Ammonite crisis between Hanun and Shobi concerning the succession after Nahash. Hanun attempted to get support from Aramean troops (2 Sam 10:6) while Shobi wanted to continue the status quo policy with David. Seen historically, 2 Sam 10–12 was not directed against all Ammonites, but rather only against Hanun’s party which attempted to eliminate the pro-David Shobi party. To this evidence of stories preserved in the Books of Samuel one may even add the list of David’s warriors, which include “Zelek the Ammonite” (2 Sam 23:37; 1 Chr 11:39) and “Ithmah the Moabite” (1 Chr 11:46). Why did these two men belong to David’s close military group if the Moabites and Ammonites were his enemies as the Deuteronomist attempts to present it? This survey in the history of David and Solomon indicates that the original positive attitude between David /Solomon and Moab /Ammon was later interpreted in the Deuteronomistic History as hostility between Israel and its enemy kingdoms. According to the Deuteronomistic presen25

Cf. Abraham Malamat, “Naamah, the Ammonite Princess, King Solomon’s Wife,” RB 106 (1999): 35–40.

The Abraham Story in Genesis and the Reigns of David and Solomon

41

tation David did not co-operate with these peoples but rather subjugated them militarily. According Deut 2 the Israelites, while wandering in Transjordan, were not to go to war against Moab and Ammon because both are descendants of Lot. Such a positive attitude toward Moab and Ammon in the present form of Deuteronomy may be an indication that David and Solomon’s friendly attitude was known to the writer, and the story of Lot was understood as expounding this friendship between the descendants of Abraham and those of Lot. However, in Deut 23:3–6 (which is later than Deut 2:9,19) there is a law which has been formulated according to the traditions in Numbers 21–25 and this law rejects the descendants of Moab and Ammon stipulating that they may not enter the assembly of Israel, not even in the tenth generation. Num 21 together with the speech of Jephthah (Judg 11:14–27) contain arguments that the Arnon River was a traditional border between Moab and the Israelite settlement. This borderline of the River Arnon in Gilead is also presupposed in the story of David’s census (2 Sam 24:5–6) where reference is made to Aroer which situated on the north bank of the River Arnon. The same border is also presupposed in Solomon’s districts (1 Kgs 4:7–19). 26 Against this background it is significant that the Mesha Stele provides an important historical background of how this traditional borderline was violated by the Moabites. The king of Moab, Mesha, crossed this border and destroyed the Israelite settlement, the tribe of Gad living to the north of the River Arnon. The Mesha Stele implies that an Israelite settlement had existed in Moab for a long period. It states that the men of Gad had dwelt in cAt.arot from old (l. 10) and that a Yahwistic sanctuary existed in the vicinity of Mount Nebo (l. 14). 27 Mount Nebo (or Pisgah) belonged to the territory of Reuben (Num 32:38; Josh 13:15–23). The fact that Reuben was regarded as the first-born of Jacob indicates that he played a significant role in earlier Israelite traditions, and the Trans26 For this see Magnus Ottosson, Gilead: Tradition and History (ConBOT 3; Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1969), 215–223; Mettinger, Solomonic State Officials, 111–127. 27 There is discussion among scholars as to how old the Israelite settlement in Moab was. See John A. Dearman, ed., Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab (Archaeology and Biblical Studies 2; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989); Philip D. Stern, “Of Kings and Moabites: History and Theology in 2 Kings 3 and the Mesha Inscription,” HUCA 64 (1993): 1–14; Joe M. Sprinkle, “2 Kings 3: History or Historical Fiction?” BBR 9 (1999): 247–270; B. Routledge, Moab in the Iron Age: Hegemony, Polity, Archaeology (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press 2004) 133–153; Eeveline J. van der Steen and Klaas A. D. Smelik, “King Mesha and the Tribe of Dibon,” JSOT 32 (2007): 139–162. In spite of different opinions the inscription itself indicates that Israelites lived in Moab from the days of old.

42

Antti Laato

jordan must have been at the center of some early Israelite traditions. 28 It seems clear that Mesha changed the traditional borders between Israel and Moab. In later texts of the Hebrew Bible the areas north of the River Arnon are listed as the areas of Moab (see Isa 15–16; Jer 48). The story of Lot indirectly indicates that Abraham and Lot agreed on how the land should be divided between them (Gen 13). Lot chose the land east of the Land of Canaan toward Zoar (Gen 13:10), indicating that the area he inhabited was situated in the direction of Edom and thus also south of the River Arnon. 29 This agreement between Abraham and Lot may be interpreted as the political status quo during the time of David and Solomon when the River Arnon was regarded as a traditional border between Moab and the Israelite settlement in Transjordan. 30 Abraham’s willingness to rescue Lot from the clutches of the enemy allies (Gen 14) 31 may have been preserved in the royal archives to indicate how David was able to help the Ammonites and Moabites in the time of crises. Hanun attempted to free himself from David’s status quo policy by contacting Arameans (2 Sam 10:6): “They hired twenty thousand Aramean foot soldiers from Beth Rehob and Zobah, as well as the king of Maakah with a thousand men, and also twelve thousand men from Tob.” David wanted to continue the status quo policy and subsequent history shows that he

28 Concerning this see Frank M. Cross, “Reuben, the Firstborn of Jacob: Sacral Traditions and Early Israelite History,” in From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel (ed. Idem; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), 53–70. 29 Zoar in Gen 13:10 probably refers to the city of Edom because Bela is identified with Zoar in Gen 14:8 and according to Gen 36:32 Edom had a king whose name was Bela. For this see Michael C. Astour, “Zoar,” ABD 6:107. 30 The conflict concerning the border river Arnon is also attested in old poetic texts documented in s¯eper milh.a˘ m¯ot Yhwh (“the Book of the Wars of Yahweh”) in Num 21. I have devoted a special study to “the Book of the Wars of Yahweh” where I argued more closely about its origin from the Jerusalemite royal archive. 31 Scholars have connected Gen 14 to the so-called “Chedorlaomer Texts” originating from relatively late Babylonian period but apparently copied from earlier originals (which can be dated to 7th or 6th century b. c. e.). For this see Michael C. Astour, “Political and Cosmic Symbolism in Genesis 14 and in Its Babylonian Sources,” in Biblical Motifs: Origins and Transformations (ed. Alexander Altmann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1966), 65–112; Idem, “Chedorlaomer”, ABD 1:893–895. For critical treatment of this theory, see John A. Emerton, “Some False Clues in the Study of Genesis XIV,” VT 21 (1971): 24–47. The difficulties in dating Genesis 14 and its presumably old traditions are well illustrated in the articles of Emerton where he changed his opinions. See John A. Emerton, “Some False Clues in the Study of Genesis XIV,” VT 21 (1971): 24–47; Idem, “The Riddle of Genesis XIV,” VT 21 (1971): 403–439; Idem, “The Site of Salem, the City of Melchizedek (Genesis XIV 18),” in Studies in the Pentateuch (ed. Idem; SupVT 41; Leiden: Brill, 1990), 45–71; Idem, “Some Problems in Genesis XIV,” in Studies in the Pentateuch, 73–102.

The Abraham Story in Genesis and the Reigns of David and Solomon

43

managed to do so. Shobi was enthroned in Ammon and the marriage between Solomon and the Ammonite princess was arranged. The decisive turning-point in history which overturned the positive relationship between Israel and Moab (and Ammon) must have been at the time of Mesha. The Moabite Stele indicates reliable historical evidence for the confrontation between Israel (Omri’s dynasty) and Moab. 32 The text is a witness that the Moabites crossed over the river Arnon, the traditional border between Israel and Moab. It is difficult to date the outcome of the positive attitudes towards Lot (the father of the Moabites) after that historical period. Therefore, I tentatively conclude this section by stating that the outcome of the positive attitude toward Lot is best related to the period before Mesha and that this would correspond nicely to the positive attitude of the Davidic kingdom towards Moab and Ammon as accounted in some historically reliable references in the Books of Samuel and Kings.

3. Abraham, Hagar and Qeturah: Ishmaelites and Midianites The t¯ol˘edôt of Ishmael in Gen 25:13–16 indicates how the Ishmaelites were understood in the ancient Hebrew worldview. Eph’al and Knauf ’s studies have increased our knowledge in locating the names in these genealogical lists by relating them to names in Assyrian and early Arabic sources. 33 In the light of their studies it is possible to argue that the list of the descendants of Ishmael corresponds well to the political and sociological reality of the Ishmaelite tribes in the Arabian Peninsula and the southern Negev during the 8th and 7th centuries b.c.e. What we do not know is how these tribes existed before this time. After all there is only one reference to the Arab Gindibu who took part in the battle of Qarqar in 853 b.c.e. 34 These tribes became visible in historical documents only after the intensified Assyrian western policy. Gen 25:18 defines the living quarters of Ishmael as “his descendants settled in the area from Havilah to Shur, near the eastern border of Egypt, 32 It should be noted that Mesha accused Omri of having subjugated the Moabites. There is no historical evidence that Moab was under Israel’s control after the collapse of the united monarchy. 33 Israel Eph’al, The Ancient Arabs: Nomads on the Border of the Fertile Crescent 9th –5th Centuries BC (Jerusalem: Magness Press, 1982); Ernst A. Knauf, Ismael: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Palästinas und Nordarabiens im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1989). 34 For this see Eph’al, The Ancient Arabs, 75–77.

44

Antti Laato

as you go toward Ashur.” 35 This geographical area is seen as practically similar to that in 1 Sam 15:7 according to which Saul “attacked the Amalekites all the way from Havilah to Shur, near the eastern border of Egypt.” It is impossible to think that Saul would have operated in the Arabian Peninsula. On the other hand, the southern Negev where the Amalekites lived would well suit the historical scenario of 1 Sam 15:7. This being the case Gen 25:18 and 1 Sam 15:7 indicate that the area Ishmael inhabited corresponds to the southern Negev and in this way the geography of the story of Ishmael is preserved in Genesis 16:1–15; 17:20–27; 21:18–20; 25:17–18. In this story Ishmael and Hagar lived in the southern parts of the Negev. On the other hand, the genealogical list of Gen 25:13–16 broadens the living areas of the descendants of Ishmael from that preserved in the story. 36 Which came first, the genealogical list or the story? In order to answer this question it is necessary to discuss the Midianites who were descendants of Abraham and Qeturah, because in the Hebrew Bible there are many texts where the Ishmaelites are associated with the Midianites. The genealogical list of the children of Abraham and Qeturah in Gen 25:1–6 also contains names which can be related with certainty to the Arabian Peninsula (Sheba, Dedan, Midian and ’Ephah). 37 Among these, the Midianites are the most important group because they are related to the family history of Moses. Scholars have argued that Midian played an important role at the end of the second millennium b. c. e. as the traders of South Arabian products. 38 Interestingly the name of Qeturah (q˘e.tûrâ) is etymologically related to the Hebrew words q˘e.tôrâ (Deut 33:10) and q˘e.tôret meaning incense. The genealogical list of Abraham and Qeturah is related to the Arabian Peninsula. There is reason to believe that both genealogical lists (Gen 25:1–6; 25:13–16) are preserved in the Hebrew Bible because an important trade route existed between South Arabia and Egypt through the Negev; another important route was between South Arabia and Syria via the King’s Highway. Biblical texts refer to several routes in the areas of the Negev indicating that this area was important

35

Ashur does not refer to Assyria but to a tribe that lived in the Negev and associated with the Kenites or Lot (Num 24:22, 24; Ps 83:9). Eph’al (Ancient Arabs, 234–235) has argued that the expression may also be an early error in the text. 36 So already Eduard Meyer, Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme: Alttestatmentliche Untersuchungen (Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1906), 322–328; Eph’al, Ancient Arabs, 233–240. 37 For this see Eph’al, Ancient Arabs, 231–233; Knauf, Midian, 77–91. 38 See especially Knauf, Midian.

The Abraham Story in Genesis and the Reigns of David and Solomon

45

for trade: 39 the “Way of Shur” mentioned in Gen 16:7; 20:1 led from BeerSheva through the area of Halussa, Nissana, and from there to the Sinai interior, on the way towards Egypt. Num 13–14 refers to the “Way of the Spies” which ran from Kadesh-Barnea to Arad. In addition, one may also mention the “Way of Mount Seir” (Deut 1:1–2), the “Way of the Mount of the Amorites” (Deut 1:19), and the “Way of the Red Sea” (Ex 13:18; Num 21:4; 14:25; Deut 1:40; 2:1). In many biblical texts traders who belong to the descendants of Ishmael or Qeturah are interrelated, particularly when the trade-routes from the Arabian Peninsula or those to Egypt are referred to. In Gen 37:28,36; 39:1, the Ishmaelites together with the Midianites use the trade route from Gilead through the Negev to Egypt. In Isa 60:6–7 the descendants from both genealogical lists are presented. The descendants of Qeturah would have been related to the trade from the Arabian Peninsula, while those of Ishmael were related to cattle and flocks. 40 Ezek 27:20–22 gives us a similar scenario. There too we find names from both the descendants of Qeturah and Ishmael and, in addition, the verses refer to Arabia (ca˘ rab) and Raamah (racmâ). Ramaah also appears in Gen 10:7 where it is presented as the name of the father of Sheba and Dedan, both of whom are listed as descendants of Qeturah. Therefore, Raamah can be listed among Qeturah’s children. Arabia is more difficult to localize in this text because in later sources these peoples were associated with the area of the Negev (see e. g. Neh 2:19; 4:1; 6:1). Even here the text relates the descendants of Qedar (an Ishmaelite) with their trade of flocks and cattle, while the descendants of Qeturah are related to the trade of the typical items from the Arabian Peninsula also accounted for in neo-Assyrian inscriptions. The development of the biblical tradition indicates the following scenario: the Midianites were an ancient tribe responsible for the trade from the Arabian Peninsula through the southern Negev to Egypt. They probably came into contact with the Ishmaelites who lived in the southern Negev. In the subsequent history the Midianites disappear and the Ishmaelites take over trade from the Arabian Peninsula. The name of 39

For this see Rudolph Cohen, “The Fortresses King Solomon Built to Protect His Southern Border,” BAR 11:3 (1985): 56–67, 69–70, esp. n. 19. 40 Eph’al (Ancient Arabs, 106 n. 360) lists the following items: gold, precious stones, spices and camels which are listed in Tiglath-Pileser III’s, Sargon’s, Sennacherib’s and Esarhaddon’s inscriptions. It should be noted that donkeys are also included in Esarhaddon’s list. For this, see Verdun E. Leichty, The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria (680–669 BC) (The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 4; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 19.

46

Antti Laato

the mother of Ishmael, Hagar, may explain this process of assimilation between Arabia and the Negev. 41 The name of Hagar is well attested in languages of ancient Arabia, and the name may also be related to the Hagrites, a pastoral tribe, mentioned in some texts in the Hebrew Bible related to the early period of the monarchy. Hagar is presented as an Egyptian woman in Genesis (Gen 16:1; 21:9,21; 25:12), which may be an indication that she became the symbol for trade contacts between the Arabian Peninsula and Egypt. Archaeologically the Negev provides interesting finds from the transition period between Iron Ages I and II. About fifty fortified enclosures have been found in the Negev highland north-west from the line Machtesh Ramon and Nahal Zin and south from the line Beer-sheba and Arad. 42 This southern line of fortresses through Nahal Zin and Machtesh Ramon is described in Josh 15:1–4 as the southern border of Judah, indicating that these areas were regarded as belonging to the territory of Judah. 43 What is more difficult is the dating of these fortresses. Scholars have different opinions on it and the problem is well illustrated by Finkelstein: “At present it is extremely difficult, if at all possible, to differentiate between the pottery of the late 11th and that of the early 10th centuries b. c. e. even at excavated sites.” 44 R. Cohen and A. Mazar argue that many of these fortresses belong to the period of the united monarchy. In their opinion the infrastructure of these fortresses was destroyed in Pharaoh Shishak’s campaign in the Negev in ca. 925 b. c. e. – as suggested by B. Mazar. 45 On the other hand, Finkelstein speaks about the Tel Masos’ chiefdom and relates these fortresses to the Amalekites; they were thus subsequently destroyed by the rise of the Israelite monarchy in order to guarantee the Arabian trade route. 46 In both interpretations common sense thinking leads to the conclusion that there must be something highly important 41

For this see Knauf, Ismael, 52–54, esp. p. 52 n. 253. See this evidence in Amihai Mazar, Archaeology of the land of the Bible 10.000–563 b. c. e. (New York: Doubleday, 1990), 390–397; Israel Finkelstein, Living on the Fringe: The Archaeology and History of the Negev, Sinai and Neighbouring Regions in the Bronze and Iron Ages (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 103–126. 43 For this correspondence see Cohen, “Fortresses King Solomon Built.” 44 Finkelstein, Living on the Fringe, 109. 45 See the above mentioned studies by Amihai Mazar and Cohen. See further Robert Cohen, “Solomon’s Negev Defense Line Contained Three Fewer Fortresses,” BAR 12:4 (1986): 40–45; Benjamin Mazar, “The Campaign of Pharaoh Shishak to Palestine,” in Idem, The Early Biblical Period: Historical Studies (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1986), 139–150; Kenneth A. Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100–650 BC) (Warminster: Areis & Phillips, 1973), 293–300, 432–447. 46 Finkelstein, Living on the Fringe, 124–126. 42

The Abraham Story in Genesis and the Reigns of David and Solomon

47

leading to these archaeological constructions being made in the Negev, and this must have been the control of the trade routes between Arabia and Egypt. In the first interpretation David and Solomon rebuilt this defense system in order to secure important trade routes, and in the latter interpretation the rise of Israel’s monarchy was responsible for the destruction of these fortifications while “the United Monarchy established fortified administrative centres at Beersheba, Arad, and possibly also Tel Malhata” 47 in order to secure the trade routes in the Negev. From this survey it is optional to propose that the family relations of Abraham to Qeturah and Hagar were originally related to the important trade routes in the southern Negev which existed between the Arabian Peninsula and Egypt and which benefitted the economy of the united monarchy. There is reason to suggest that the family trees were developed over a long period, but the basic constellation describes the political and economic interests of the united monarchy. This being the case there is reason to examine the story of Ishmael and Hagar from this particular perspective. The story of Ishmael and Hagar in Genesis 16–17 and 21 has been the object of several interpretations where scholars have seen Hagar as a figure of the oppressed woman. 48 Even though the story contains some tensions between Sara /Isaac and Hagar /Ishmael it seems clear that the aim of the ancient writer(s) was to present peaceful encounters between the descendants of Abraham and the Ishmaelites. 49 This becomes clear not only from Gen 25:9, according to which both Isaac and Ishmael buried Abraham, but also from the fact that Isaac lived in the areas of Lahai Roi (Gen 24:62; 25:11) where Hagar found water (Gen 16:14). This being the case the story of Hagar and Ishmael emphasizes that Lahai Roi was a holy place for both Isaac and Ishmael. Lahai Roi is related to “beside the road to Shur” in Gen 16:7 and to the Negev according to Gen 24:62. 47

Finkelstein, Living on the Fringe, 126. Finkelstein later changed his views on the existence of the united monarchy. This change is partly related to his “low chronology” hypothesis. See Israel Finkelstein, “The Archaeology of the United Monarchy: An Alternative View,” Levant 28 (1996): 177–187. 48 For these interpretations, see, in particular, Bernhard P. Robinson, “Characterization in the Hagar and Ishmael Narratives,” SJOT 27 (2013): 198–215. Robinson presents good arguments in favor of the story being interpreted with the matrix of ancient Near Eastern topics on progeny and family relations. Seen from this ancient Near Eastern perspective there is no particular oppressive aspect in the story. 49 For this, see especially David J. Zucker, “Ishmael and Isaac: Parallel, not Conflictual Lives,” SJOT 26 (2012): 1–11; Idem, “Conflicting Conclusions: The Hatred of Isaac and Ishmael,” Judaism 39 (1990): 37–46.

48

Antti Laato

This may indicate that the story of Ishmael and his brother Isaac originally spoke about the people living in the Negev and their contacts with Arabian merchants. Such a geographical scenario may suit the time of the united monarchy both tradition-historically and archaeologically as I have already proposed. The Deuteronomistic description of the reign of Solomon was composed at the time of the crisis when the Temple was destroyed by the Babylonian army. In such a context it was important to emphasize that once Yahweh had taken care of his people he established a peaceful kingdom for them – and this is the Deuteronomistic fabrication now visible in 1 Kgs 1–11. 50 Nevertheless, it seems to me that these chapters contain details which were rooted in older sources, even though they are presented with Deuteronomistic style and formulations. For example, Solomon received assistance from Tyre when he built the temple and his palace (1 Kgs 6–7). He established international trade with the aid of Tyrian ships (1 Kgs 10:22) and this may also concern the trade from Ezion Geber. 51 What is particularly relevant in this connection is the visit of the queen of Sheba recounted in 1 Kgs 10:1–13. Kitchen has dealt with historical details concerning political and economic contacts between Solomon and Sheba, and shown that details of 1 Kgs 10:1–13 indicate that the story contains pre-Deuteronomistic elements. 52 The visit of the queen of Sheba may have been related to a diplomatic delegation which wanted to secure good trade contacts through the Negev areas which were under Israelite control. That it was customary for the Arabian kingdoms to use women as wielding political and economic powers in international contexts is well documented in the neo-Assyrian sources from 8th and 7th centuries b. c. e. 53 Some officials from David and Solomon’s reigns are related to the genealogies of Qeturah and Hagar. In 1 Chr 27:30–31 three names of 50

Concerning the description of Solomon’s “empire” in 1 Kgs 1–11 see Pekka Särkiö, Die Weisheit und Macht Salomos in der israelitischen Historiographie: Eine traditions- und redaktionskritische Untersuchung über 1 Kön 3–5 und 9–11 (Helsinki: Finnische Exegetische Gesellschaft /Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994); Nadav Na’aman, “Sources and Composition in the History of Solomon,” in The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium (ed. Lowell K. Handy; SHCANE 9; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 57–80. 51 1 Kgs 9:26–28; 10:11–12 refer to Solomon’s ships in Ezion Geber which sailed to Ophir. There is no archaeological evidence that the Phoenicians would have assisted Solomon in Ezion Geber. For this see Schipper, Israel und Ägypten, 64–70; Keel, Die Geschichte Jerusalems Teil 1, 246. 52 Kenneth A. Kitchen, “Sheba and Arabia,” in Handy, Age of Solomon, 126–153. 53 See e. g. ANET 283–286.

The Abraham Story in Genesis and the Reigns of David and Solomon

49

those who took care of David’s livestock are listed. Obil the Ishmaelite was in charge of the camels, Jehdeiah the Meronothite was in charge of the donkeys and Jaziz the Hagrite was in charge of the flocks. This may be compared with 1 Chr 5:10, according to which Saul made war against the Hagrites. It seems that David managed to establish good contacts with the Hagrites. 1 Chr 11:38 refers to “Mibhar son of Hagri” who was one of David’s thirty soldiers. The parallel passage in 2 Sam 23:36 may be corrupted and the original reading here should be “Igal son of Nathan, the commander of the army of the Hagrites” as suggested by McCarter. 54

4. Abraham and the Philistines The presence of the Philistines in the patriarch stories is a famous case of anachronism. In order to understand the role of the Philistines in the story of Abraham it is important to consider the apologetic stories of HDR and SN. When David attempted to establish the monarchy in Israel, his residence in Philistia and his close friendship (or vassalship) with the Philistine king, Akis, were, of course, not understood as meritorious. The Philistines had been Israel’s enemies for many years, and David was residing in Philistia when the decisive battle against Israel was fought (1 Sam 31). In this battle Saul and his son Jonathan were killed. It is not difficult to imagine that David’s political connections with Philistia led to speculations as to whether he indeed had gone into battle against Saul and the Israelite army at Gilboah. David stood in need of an apology. The present form of the Deuteronomistic account – which is based on older traditions – puts forward the following apologetic answers for David’s residence in Philistia. First it is emphasized that David was forced to move to Philistia in order to avoid Saul’s persecutions. This apparently corresponded to historical reality. Secondly, 1 Sam 26:19 even emphasizes that Saul forced David to serve foreign (Philistine) gods because Saul did not allow David to live in Israel and serve Yahweh. The belief that every land had its own god appears to have enjoyed assent in ancient Near East (see Deut 32:8–9; 2 Kgs 5:17; cf. also the Mesha Stele where Moab is presented as the land of Chemosh). It was possible to serve Yahweh only in the land of Israel (and Judah). Thirdly, it is emphasized that David never attacked 54

For this text-critical evaluation see P. Kyle McCarter, II Samuel (AB 9, Garden City: Doubleday & Company, 1984), 493–494.

50

Antti Laato

Judah but, in fact, destroyed the enemies of Israel (1 Sam 27:8–12). The three phrases concerning David’s history recounted in 1 Sam 27:10 are apparently speculations that circulated among the Philistines and subsequently among the Judeans and Israelites. According to these phrases, David attacked the Judeans and /or Israelites and their friends. However, the passage emphasizes that these speculations are nothing more than David’s clever attempt to deceive the Philistines. Fourthly, it is emphasized that the relationship between David and Akis was not a very close one. The tradition preserved in 1 Sam 21:10–15 recounts that David played the role of a madman in order to avoid closer contact with Akis. 1 Sam 28:1–2 notes that David was ready to go to battle together with the Philistine army against Saul and the Israelite army. However, it is noted that other Philistine kings did not have confidence in David’s loyalty, and so David could not take part in the battle against Saul. These details show that the authors of early versions of the Davidapology did not present a black-and-white picture of historical circumstances – something which the Deuteronomistic writer wanted to present in his history when he painted David as the one who defeated the Philistines. Different details have been preserved in the historical account of 1–2 Sam indicating that the historical circumstances were more complicated in the time of David. It seems that David had not maintained an uncompromised anti-Philistine policy. David’s army comprised contingents of Philistine soldiers from the Kerethites and Pelethites, as well as six hundred Gittites under the leadership of Ittai (2 Sam 16). 55 This implies that David did not conquer all of Philistia, but rather used a divide et impera policy as exemplified by his friendly relations with Gath, where he found refuge from Saul (1 Sam 27). Considering these historical perspectives on Philistia, Abraham’s residence in Gerar 56 and his covenant with the Philistines were topics which parallel the content of HDR and SN according to which even David lived in Philistia and maintained friendly relations with many Philistines, especially in Gath. This being the case Abraham provided an example of 55 According to Na’aman (“Ittai the Gittite,” BN 94 (1998): 22–25), Ittai is a literary figure. I cannot see any argument for such a proposal. On the contrary, it is reasonable to assume that David, who stayed in Gath (1 Sam 27), also received supporters from there. 56 It is worth noting that there is no archaeological evidence that Gerar (if identified with Tel Haror or Tell Abu Hureireh) would have been a Philistine city. For this, see Eliezer D. Oren, “Haror, Tel,” in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Volume 2 (ed. Ephraim Stern, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1993), 580–584. No conclusions from this detail can be made as far as the date of the story is concerned.

The Abraham Story in Genesis and the Reigns of David and Solomon

51

how it was possible to negotiate with the Philistines in order to establish peace in the land of Canaan. The decisive plot in the story is that Abraham made a treaty with Abimelech (Gen 21:22–23) and this treaty gave an etymological explanation of the name of the city of Beersheba (Gen 21:31). The treaty was made in order to clarify the position of the well which was situated in Beersheba. According to the treaty this well will belong to the descendants of Abraham. It is certainly not without significance that in Gen 26:12 the same Philistine king Abimelech gives orders that not one of his people is allowed to oppress Isaac, the son of Abraham. In a similar way David was allowed to stay in Gath under the protection of Akis. What may be important in this connection is the topic of deception which is repeated in both Genesis 21 (concerning Abraham and Abimelech) and Genesis 26 (concerning Isaac and Abimelech). In both cases the patriarch states that his wife is actually his sister and this deception causes problems for Abimelech. This motif appears for first time in the story of Abraham’s stay in Egypt (Gen 12:10–20) and it may have been borrowed from that context. In any case the idea that the patriarch’s visit to the Philistine city of Gerar includes a deception is a good parallel to David’s plan to deceive the Philistines in Gath (1 Sam 27).

5. Abraham and the Cities of Hebron and Jerusalem It cannot be overlooked that Abraham’s story refers to central cities which played a significant role in the reign of David: Hebron and Jerusalem. Hebron is situated close to the birth place of David in Bethlehem, and David also reigned there as the king of Judah for seven years (2 Sam 2:4; 5:1–5). 2 Sam 15:7–9 is another text which connects Hebron to David’s family, apparently to his early kingship in that city. Finally, David’s marriage to Abigail (1 Sam 25), who belonged to tribe of Caleb, – the tribe which controlled Hebron, – is an important link between David and the city. 57 The Abraham story indicates that Abraham lived in Hebron (Gen 13:18; see also Gen 35:27). What makes Hebron important for the Abraham tradition is the fact that the family grave of the patriarchs is situated there (Gen 23:1–20). Genesis 23 is an interesting story because it provides a similar case as in Genesis 14, where an old place name has been substi57 See this Hebron connection for example in Ronald E. Clements, Abraham and David: Genesis XV and Its Meaning for Israelite Tradition (Studies in Biblical Theology, Second Series No. 5; London: SCM Press, 1967), 47–60.

52

Antti Laato

tuted by the well-known variant. It is noted that Sarah died in Kirjatharba and the name is explained “it is Hebron” (hî’ h.ebrôn). 58 It is significant that the burial place of Abraham’s family was located in the same city as that in which David began his kingship. Scholars have discussed in which ways archaeology may confirm the date of Hebron as an important cult place. 59 It is, however, difficult to locate the cult place of Mamre in Hebron without referring to the way in which later burial monuments in Ramet el-Khalil and perhaps earlier in Khirbert Nimra 60 correspond to the original intention of the story in Gen 23. 61 More important is that the Abraham story clearly refers to Hebron as an important place where Abraham lived and where his burial place was situated. It is reasonable to assume that Gen 23 has been reworked theologically because the burial place of Abraham may have played an important role in the early postexilic period. That the plot of the story may be old is not in conflict with the fact that Late Bronze Age Akkadian property transfer texts from Ugarit provide good parallels to Genesis 23. 62 The geographical localization of the Abraham tradition to Hebron gives reason to ask whether David knew some version of the story and used it for his own political aims. Another important city for David, reflected twice in Abraham’s story, is Jerusalem. David’s decision to choose a new capital city, Jerusalem, is reflected in the Melchizedek tradition (Gen 14:18–24). Melchizedek is presented as the king of Shalem, which has been often taken as referring to Jerusalem – something that receives support from 58

Actually the reading hî’ is in the consonantal text as hw’. For this discussion see especially Konrad Schmid, The Old Testament: A Literary History (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012), 85–86; Israel Finkelstein and Thomas Römer, “Comments on the Historical Background of the Abraham Narrative,” HeBAI 3 (2014): 3–23, esp. 9–17; and criticism in Nadav Na’aman, “The Pre-Priestly Abraham Story as a Unified Exilic Work,” SJOT 29 (2015): 157–181, esp. 174–175. 60 For these places and their connection to Hebron in the Abraham story see Detlef Jericke, Abraham in Mamre: Historische und exegetische Studien zur Region von Hebron und zu Genesis 11,27–19,30 (CHANT 17; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 35–52, 234–235. 61 For example, Finkelstein and Römer (“Abrahamic Narrative,” 9) write that the exact location of the holy Oak of Mamre “is impossible to verify.” But they note (p. 9 n. 25) that Absalom, the son of David, according to 2 Sam 15:7, visited a holy place in Hebron and asked: “Is this the same shrine related to the figure of Abraham?” 62 For this, see especially Stephen C. Russell, “Abraham’s Purchase of Ephron’s Land in Anthropological Perspective,” BibInt 21 (2013): 153–170. Note for example, the use of the verb n¯atan in Gen 23:4,9,13 with the meaning of “sell” corresponding to the Akkadian nadânu; the Hebrew expression b˘ekesep m¯al¯e’ (“at full price”, Gen 23:9) corresponding the Akkadian ana/ina šimti gamirti; and the expression co¯ b¯er lass¯oh.e¯r (“according to current commercial rate”) in Gen 23:16 corresponding to the Akkadian mah¯ırat illaku. 59

The Abraham Story in Genesis and the Reigns of David and Solomon

53

Ps 76:3 and Ps 110:4. However, in older versions of the Abraham story, such a link to Jerusalem should not be taken as self-evident. 63 The phrase ‫ ויבא יעקב שלם עיר שכם‬in Gen 33:18 can be interpreted as “Jacob came to Shalem, the city of Shechem” (so lxx). Such an interpretation was actually made in Jub 30:1 indicating that Shalem was localized in the vicinity of Shechem. 64 The problem is that there is not much left from this Shechemrelated version of the Abraham story. Genesis follows the Hebron-version of the Abraham story, which gives the strong arguments that the patriarch of Israel already respected the city of Jerusalem and received blessings from its king Melchizedek. This being the case, the Melchizedek tradition in Gen 14 is connected with the new religious-political reality in the reigns of David and Solomon when Jerusalem was made the capital and religious city of Israel (2 Sam 6) and when the Temple was built there (1 Kgs 6–8). In the Temple of Jerusalem the king was also allowed to perform cultic functions (Ps 110:4). 65 Abraham, the great forefather of the tribal Israel, showed respect for Melchizedek, by giving tribute to the king of Jerusalem. In a similar way the Israelites at the time of David and Solomon were expected to show respect for the Israelite king who reigned in Jerusalem. Another place name in Genesis which may be related to Jerusalem is Mount Moriah. This sacer locus in Gen 22 is identified with the Temple Mount (2 Chr 3:1). 66 Even here one may ask whether the reference to Mount Moriah was originally related to “the Oak of Moreh” close to Shechem. 67 It is impossible to deal with Gen 22 here. It can be only noted 63

See the contribution of Magnar Kartveit in this volume, p. 59–80. See my treatment of this problem in Antti Laato, “A Cult Site of Mount Ebal: A Biblical Tradition Rewritten and Reinterpreted,” in Erkki Koskenniemi and Cornelis de Vos, eds., Holy Places and Cult (SRB 5; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2014), 51–84. 65 In my study Origin of Israelite Zion Theology I have argued that in Ps 110 old royal ideology related to the imagery of Yahweh as the Storm God has been preserved while the parallel Ps 2 contains much later thematic topics. 66 Reference to Moriah in the extrabiblical text of Khirbet Beit Lei has been suggested. However, see the interpretation of this text now in Johannes Renz, Die althebräischen Inschriften Teil 1: Text und Kommentar (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1995), 247–248. 67 This proposal was made in August von Gall, Altisraelitische Kultstätten (BZAW 3; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1898) 112–115 and taken up in Sven Tengström, Die Hexateucherzählung: Eine literaturgeschichtliche Studie (ConBOT 7; Lund: Gleerup, 1976) 127. The Samaritan tradition relates the events in Gen 22 to Shechem. See further Emerton’s discussion in “The Site of Salem, the City of Melchizedek (Genesis XIV 18),” in Studies in the Pentateuch (ed. John A. Emerton; SupVT 41; Leiden: Brill 1990) 45–71. Emerton considers Shechem in particular but concludes that Jerusalem is the most probable alternative. While Jerusalem is the right alternative in Gen 14:18–22 the question remains open as to whether the whole 64

54

Antti Laato

that the text contains important theological details, and the tradition is certainly reworked in its transmission history. 68 It is best to leave the question open as to what kind of religious-historical background looms behind Gen 22. Together with Gen 14:18–22 this chapter of Genesis provides legitimation for the place where the Temple of Jerusalem was built. Summing up, the two central cities in Abraham tradition, Hebron and Shalem, are closely related to David’s history, as he reigned for seven years in Hebron and then in Jerusalem.

6. Abraham and Promises In the Abraham Story there are three central promises which are given to Abraham. God promised 1) that Abraham would receive many descendants; 2) that his descendants would be given the Land of Canaan; and 3) that peoples would be blessed in the seed of Abraham. Earlier scholars were keen to see a connection between these three promises and the kingdom of David. 69 However, in recent studies this old hypothesis has lost popularity apparently because scholars have detected ways in which these promises have been edited in the Pentateuch. I have no objections against the views that these promises are literary texts formulated at a later date. However, I would like to propose that the writer of Genesis based his formulations on old political ideas which were preserved in the Abraham story ideologically related to the united monarchy. Yahweh promised that the descendants of Abraham would be a multitude (Gen 12:2; 15:5; 17:6–7). Gen 12:2 emphasizes that God would make the descendants of Abraham a great people. In the presentation of the Pentateuch this motif is referred to in Exod 1:7. While this intertextual connection is certainly valid in the Pentateuch, it should be story was a modification of some older Shechem-oriented tradition. This would imply that in both cases where a reference to Jerusalem can be found in the Abraham tradition they could be later relocalizations from Shechem. 68 Concerning the theology of Gen 22 note especially Timo Veijola, “Das Opfer des Abraham: Paradigma des Glaubens aus dem nachexilischen Zeitalter,” ZTK 85 (1988): 129–164; reprinted in Offenbarung und Anfechtung: Hermeneutisch-theologische Studien zum Alten Testament (ed. W. Dietrich; BTS 89; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2007), 88–133; Konrad Schmid, “Die Rückgabe der Verheißungsgabe: Der ‘heilsgeschichtliche’ Sinn von Genesis 22 im Horizont innerbiblischer Exegese,” in Gott und Mensch im Dialog: Festschrift für Otto Kaiser zum 80. Geburtstag (ed. Markus Witte; BZAW 345/1; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), 271–300. 69 See for example Clements, Abraham and David.

The Abraham Story in Genesis and the Reigns of David and Solomon

55

emphasized that the motif of the great people is closely related to the second promise, according to which the descendants of Abraham would take control of the whole land of Canaan (Gen 12:7; 13:14–17; 15:7–21; 17:8). In Gen 15:18–21 this land has been defined in the following way: 70 “On that day Yahweh made a covenant with Abram and said, ‘To your descendants I give this land, from the Wadi of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates – the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites.’” Without discussing here whether Gen 15:19–21 should be regarded as a later addition to Gen 15:18, more important are the intertextual links of Gen 15:18–21 to the other parts of the Enneateuch. Gen 15:18 is a close parallel to the description of the “empire” of David and Solomon as accounted for in 2 Sam 8; 10:15–19; 1 Kgs 5:1; 8:65 (cf., also Ps 72:8–11; 89:26; Zech 9:9–10) and the list of foreign nations in Gen 15:19–21 parallels similar lists in the Enneateuch, when reference is made to how the Israelites would take over the land of Canaan from its earlier inhabitants (Ex 3:8,17; 13:5; 23:23,28; 33:2; 34:11; Deut 7:1; 20:7; Josh 3:10). In the 70 According to some scholars Gen 15 is a post-Priestly text based on Gen 17. See e. g. John Ha, Genesis 15: A Theological Compendium of Pentateuchal History (BZAW 181; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989); Thomas Römer, “Gen 15 und Gen 17: Beobachtungen und Anfragen zu einem Dogma der ‘neueren’ und ‘neusten’ Pentateuchkritik,” DBAT 26 (1989/90): 32–47; Konrad Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story: Israel’s Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns 2010): 158–171. However, other scholars argue that Gen 15 contains older textual material. See e. g. Ed Noort, “‘Land’ in the Deuteronomistic Tradition. Genesis 15: The Historical and Theological Necessity of a Diachronic Approach,” in Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis (ed. Johannes C. de Moor; OTS 34; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 129–144; Jan C. Gertz, “Abraham, Mose und der Exodus: Beobachtungen zur Redaktionsgeschichte von Genesis 15,” in Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion (ed. Jan C. Gertz, Konrad Schmid, and Markus Witte; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002), 63–81; Erhard Blum, “Die literarische Verbindung von Erzvätern und Exodus: Ein Gespräch mit neueren Endredaktionshypothesen,” in Abschied vom Jahwisten, 119–156, esp. 142–145; Benjamin Ziemer, Abram – Abraham: Kompositionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Genesis 14, 15 und 17 (BZAW 350; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005); Ludwig Schmidt, “Genesis XV,” VT 56 (2006): 251–267. Among this older material is the animal ritual which may well reflect ancient Near Eastern customs to ratify a covenant. For different ways of understanding the ancient Near Eastern background of animal ritual in Gen 15, see Gerhard F. Hasel, “The Meaning of the Animal Rite in Genesis 15,” JSOT 19 (1981): 61–78. There is also chronological tension between the 400 years in Gen 15:13 and “the fourth generation” in Gen 15:16, and both of these are in conflict with the priestly chronology which allows 430 years for the Israelites’ stay in Egypt according to Exod 12:40 (cf. the Priestly genealogy in Exod 6:13–30, which allows for four generations between Jacob and Moses, i. e. six generations between Abraham and Moses if we follow the Genesis story). For these chronological tensions, note Siegfried Kreuzer, “430 Jahre, 400 Jahre oder 4 Generationen – Zu den Zeitangaben über den Ägyptenaufenthalt der ‘Israeliten,’” ZAW 98 (1986): 199–210.

56

Antti Laato

Book of Joshua (Josh 16:10; 17:12–17) but more particularly in Judg 1, there are references to areas in the land of Canaan which were not subjugated to Israel. The situation became different during the reigns of David and Solomon. David conquered Jerusalem from the Jebusites (2 Sam 5) and Solomon took Gezer (not conquered by Ephraim according to Josh 16:10) which the Egyptian Pharaoh conquered for him (1 Kgs 9:16). This being the case the Enneateuch contains many intertextual references between Gen 15:18–21 and the “empire” of David and Solomon. According to its historical scenario the first period when the promise of Abraham was fulfilled corresponds to the time of David and Solomon. There is a historical problem here. David and Solomon never ruled the area “from the Wadi of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates” (Gen 15:18). This geographical area is not identical with the traditional borders of the land of Canaan and, therefore, the only good parallel to it can be found in other texts of the Hebrew Bible which mention the reign of David and Solomon. 71 The expression is probably an old royal propagandistic way of speaking about the influence of the united monarchy in this area, which became possible because of David and Solomon’s clever diplomacy. This connection to the united monarchy is visible at the textual level of the Enneateuch (which must be later) and my proposal is that it was formulated by the writer who knew the function of Abrahamic promises in pro-David and pro-Solomon royal ideology. The Abraham tradition explained the same message as Deut 32:8–9 in its own way. Yahweh is cElyôn, who gave each nation its land, but Israel’s portion was Yahweh himself and the land belonging to Yahweh i. e. the land of Canaan. It was only David and Solomon who managed to increase Israel’s influence in the Land of Canaan. The third promise which Yahweh gives to Abraham concerns other nations (Gen 12:3; 18:18; 21:12; 22:18). It seems reasonable to assume that these promises were so central that they have been reworked to correspond to universal hopes presented in the prophetic books, especially in Isa 40–66. However, these promises have been formulated in such a way that Abraham’s descendants would not subjugate the peoples, but rather that other peoples would have the possibility of receiving the blessing given to Abraham and his descendants. In my opinion even this promise could have been based on the political ideology of the united 71 It is worth noting that several Deuteronomistic texts (Deut 1:7; 11:24; Josh 1:3–4; see also Exod 23:31) speak about the area which runs to the Euphrates. But all these texts lack reference to the Wadi of Egypt.

The Abraham Story in Genesis and the Reigns of David and Solomon

57

monarchy when David and Solomon guaranteed an economically prosperous and politically secure situation in Canaan, especially in the reign of Solomon. 72

7. Conclusions and Outlook to Exodus Tradition I have argued in this article that different stories of the Abraham cycle preserved in Genesis contain traces of political and religious ideology from the time of the united monarchy when David and Solomon created a status quo policy in Canaan which was supported by Egypt. The aim of the Abraham tradition was to argue that the Israelites should not struggle against other peoples around them, but rather co-operate with them. Abraham, the ancestor of the Israelites (still organized tribally), was the paragon for this co-operation. He was presented as a forefather or family-related figure for all important peoples and nations around Israel (including the Edomites through Esau and the Arameans through Laban) and gave an example for David and Solomon’s policy. Subsequent history showed that peaceful encounters between different peoples could not have been maintained and therefore new critical elements were developed in the stories. In its present form, the Abraham story of Genesis is quite a complicated compilation which contains a lot of reworked material from different historical periods. I have argued that it is still possible to trace old material from the Abraham story of Genesis which was originally preserved in the royal archives of Jerusalem. There is no need to speculate as to how these archives were preserved through the turbulent years of the exile because it is reasonable to assume that the interests in the early history of Israel arose already in Josiah’s time. It is reasonable to assume that the textual material from the early monarchic period was preserved in Jerusalem’s royal archives because one and the same dynasty was in power there. It is significant that the Abraham story contains a positive picture of Egypt where Abraham and Lot stayed during the famine in Canaan. The exodus tradition was another early tradition related to the early history of Israel. It contains a more particularistic ideology, according to which Yahweh was to give the land of Canaan to Israel and Israel was not to attempt to co-operate with other nations. The explicit anti-Egyptian sentiments 72

According to the Enneateuch the reign of David was quite a turbulent period with many internal conflicts in Israel as well as in the nations around Israel.

58

Antti Laato

in the exodus tradition are another significant element which differ from the Abraham tradition. These two traditions emphasized such different religious scenarios to Israel’s attitude toward other peoples that they were transmitted separately and integrated only at a relative late period. The subsequent history after the collapse of the united monarchy, i. e. the invasion of Shishak, quite quickly demonstrated that there were some fundamental problems in David and Solomon’s policy when they co-operated with Egypt. This may have been one reason why Abraham’s stories were buried in the royal archives of Jerusalem and only found again much later when interests in the early history of Israel arose in Jerusalem during the reign of Josiah. From this time onwards the fate of Judah was destined again to be linked with the policy of Egypt, and it should be asked in which ways the pro-Egyptian Abraham tradition was confronted with an antiEgyptian exodus tradition. The Passover festival during the time of Josiah connects him to the adherents of the exodus tradition – something which corroborates well with his anti-Egyptian policy (2 Kgs 23:29–30). Josiah’s followers were eager to establish a pro-Egyptian policy – something which led (again) to a political catastrophe. The exodus tradition (with its Mosaic elements) that Israel should rely on Yahweh – and only Yahweh – became the constitutive element in postexilic Judah. Nonetheless, it still took time before it was possible to integrate the Abraham story with the exodus tradition to form a great historical narrative of the origin of Israel. 73

73 Concerning the problems of Abraham and the exodus narrative and their integration in the Pentateuch, see especially Konrad Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story. Concerning a possible early attempt to integrate Jacob story and Exodus tradition see Erhard Blum, “Hosea 12 und die Pentateuchüberlieferungen,” in Anselm C. Hagedorn and Henrik Pfeiffer, eds., Die Erzväter in der biblischen Tradition: Festschrift für Matthias Köckert (BZAW 400; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009), 291–321.

Abraham and Joseph in Samaritan Tradition Magnar Kartveit 1. The Samaritan Perspective According to the Samaritan chronicles, the Samaritans constitute the original Israel, and the split in Israel occurred at the time of the Judges when the priest Eli seceded from the community on Gerizim and set up a rivalling cult at Shiloh. The oldest Samaritan chronicles are from 1346 (the Tolidah), 1355 (The Kitab al-Tarikh by Abu’l Fath), and 1362 (the Arabic Book of Joshua). The idea of this split may be older than these texts. Abraham and Joseph belong to a period earlier than the split, and are therefore common heritage, so one would not expect to find much emphasis on these figures in Samaritan literature. The main figure throughout the ages is Moses, and other figures had to compare to him and compete with him for their status inside Samaritanism. Surprisingly, on this background, Abraham and Joseph play an important role in the earliest Samaritan texts.

2. Abraham 2.1 Abraham in Memar Marqah /Tebat Marqe When Abram arrives in the Promised Land, according to Gen 12:7, he sets up an altar in Shechem, and, according to the next verse, he pitches his tent and builds an altar at the mountain to the east of Bethel, with Bethel in the west and Ai in the east. Modern Samaritans interpret Bethel as Mount Gerizim. 1 Thus, Abraham’s sojourn in the land is interpreted as a connection to Shechem and Mount Gerizim from the beginning, and 1 Benyamim Tsedaka and Sharon Sullivan, The Israelite Samaritan Version of the Torah: First English Translation Compared with the Masoretic Version (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2013), 27–28. See the critical review of this book by Moshe Florentin in JTS 66 (2015): 739–747.

60

Magnar Kartveit

after the journey to Egypt he renews this connection (Gen 13:3). The name “Bethel” is one of the 13 names the Samaritans employ for Mount Gerizim, and this usage is attested from Memar Marqah /Tebat Marqe on. 2 Memar Marqah /Tebat Marqe is a collection of theological treatises in six books, the Aramaic parts dating from the late fourth century c. e. and later, and the Hebrew parts probably much later. As texts written in these two languages occur intermittently, it seems that the original work was supplemented over the ages, which means that one has to untangle older material from the later parts. Marqah /Marqe (Marcus) lived in the second half of the fourth century and also contributed to the oldest parts of the Samaritan liturgy. Memar Marqah /Tebat Marqe is the oldest Samaritan text after the Samaritan Pentateuch and an important witness to early Samaritan theology. Book I is entitled “Book of Wonders” and is a haggadic midrash on Exod 3–15. Book II builds upon Exod 15. Book III comments on Deut 27:9–26, and Book IV deals with Deut 32. Book V expounds the death of Moses in Deut 34:5, and Book VI is a wisdom text using the twenty-two letters of the alphabet. The major figure in the whole work is Moses, but other figures occur frequently, including Abraham and Joseph. One example is from Book II. He said to Abraham, “To the land that I show you” ([Macdonald’s comment here and in the following:] Gen 12:1). What did he show him except the Good Mount? And He spoke words to him again in the time of his trial when He asked for Isaac and revealed His Holiness. He said, “To the good and blessed land of the vision” (Gen 22:2). Abraham knew it and hastened to it knowingly. Hear now a question regarding what was said to Abraham. What is the meaning in the saying of the True One to him when he asked for Isaac “to be sacrificed as an offering on one of the mountains which I will tell you” (Gen 22:2)? He made it known from the beginning of His speech. Turn your mind to the question and listen now. The answer does not need any second [source] of knowledge on its behalf. When he came supported by righteousness and truth, he asked about the place, which God had chosen. He looked at the site from a distance. He turned toward it and prayed, and when he had finished praying, “he raised his eyes” (Gen 22:4). He did not raise his eyes except to worship because it was the time to stand for Morning Prayer. And in what direction would he pray except toward Mount Gerizim? When he prayed devoutly, he saw it clearly. Do not say, in regard to “which I said to you,” (Gen 22:2) that it is something which is coming, but to what is long since past because the word “which” [‫שׁר‬ ֶ ‫]א‬ ֲ made it known and revealed the meaning of this statement. Now I set for you real evidence that the word “which” is used so that you may know it refers to that which is long since past. When God proclaimed the Ten 2

John Macdonald, Memar Marqah: The Teaching of Marqah (Vol. I: The Text, Vol. II: The Translation; BZAW 84; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1963).

Abraham and Joseph in Samaritan Tradition

61

Words, He did not say there, “who brought you out” (Exod 20:2). If he referred to what is to come, Israel would not have gone out of Egypt and would not have stopped in order to listen. It is good that you know that Adam worshiped in its presence and that Enosh proclaimed in the name of God on it and Enoch knew it and hastened to it and Noah built an altar there and stood by it and gave praise to the Lord of the world. So it is said about him, as it was about Abraham, “And Noah built an altar” (Gen 8:20) “And there Abraham built an altar” (Gen 12:9), just as surely as Noah had done. So Abraham truly exalted our God, who set secrets in the hearts of good men that they might illuminate them and they might reveal them. The hearts of good men are tied with their Lord. Righteousness sees them through and truth increases their goodness. Isaac saw it, Jacob knew it, and Joseph possessed it. In full completeness it was inherited from their fathers [and passed on] to their sons. Good is the one who possesses and good is the one who inherits. A fugitive or deviant son was not [found] among them. Rather they were all good from beginning to end. 3

Though several people are mentioned here, the main item in this text is Mount Gerizim. The point of the text is to underline that Mount Gerizim was chosen before the time of the patriarchs, indeed, it was the place for worship from creation. 4 Abraham is attached to the mountain from his entry into the promised land, and the ’Aqedat Yitzhaq takes place on the mountain. According to Gen 22:2 the ’Aqedat is to take place on one of the mountains in the “land of Moriah” (‫)אֶרץ ַהמּ ִֹריָּה‬, ֶ and the identification of this place with Mount Gerizim is presupposed in Memar Marqah / Tebat Marqe. The Hebrew Bible (hb), on the other hand, identifies it with Jerusalem, 2 Chr 3:1 (‫ירוּשׁ ִַלם ְבּ ַהר‬ ָ ‫ת־בּית־יְהוָה ִבּ‬ ֵ ‫ִבנוֹת ֶא‬ ְ ‫שׁלֹמֹה ל‬ ְ ‫ָחל‬ ֶ ‫ַויּ‬ ‫מּוֹריָּה‬ ִ ‫ה‬, ַ “Solomon began to build the house of the LORD in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah”). We note in the hb the change in parlance from ‫ֶאֶרץ‬ ‫ ַהמּ ִֹריָּה‬in Gen 22:2 to ‫מּוֹריָּה‬ ִ ‫ ַהר ַה‬in 2 Chr 3:1. Memar Marqah /Tebat Marqe comes closer to the Hebrew of Gen 22:2 by using only the term “mountain”, but on the other hand it proposes that the meaning of ‫שׁר‬ ֶ ‫ֲא‬ 3

Macdonald’s translation as presented in Robert T. Anderson and Terry Giles, Tradition Kept: The Literature of the Samaritans (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2005), 290–91. As the comments here are in Aramaic one may assume that this section belongs with the earlier parts of Memar Marqah /Tebat Marqe. For the sake of this article, Abraham Tal adjusted Macdonald’s translation at some points, for which he is thanked. 4 Against this background it is difficult to understand that John Macdonald’s The Theology of the Samaritans (NTL; London, 1964) does not present Mount Gerizim on the same level as the other theologoumena; similarly Moritz Heidenheim, Bibliotheca Samaritana: Texte aus Samaria und Studien zum Samartiasmus (3 vols., Leipzig: Otto Schulze, 1884–1896, repr. Amsterdam: Philo, 1971); but James A. Montgomery, The Samaritans: The Earliest Jewish Sect: Their History, Theology and Literature (Philadelphia: Winston, 1907) provides as part of the theology of the Samaritans an overview of the theology of the mountain, 234–239.

62

Magnar Kartveit

is a temporal particle rather than a relative particle. The proof for this would be Exod 20:2, and both the proposition and the proof are strained. But this is part of the argument for attaching Abraham to Mount Gerizim. The site for the ’Aqedat Yitzhaq evidently was a matter of contention at the time of the second temple. One may assume that the identification with Jerusalem in 2 Chr 3:1 provoked the Samaritans to heighten their veneration for Mount Gerizim by proposing that the mountain was elected from eternity and by attaching all Pentateuchal persons and as many events as possible to it. In this process, Abraham is important. After the fall of the Jerusalem temple, the Samaritans were at liberty to develop their Mount-Gerizim-theology more than before. 5 From an earlier period than Memar Marqah /Tebat Marqe comes a text of possible Samaritan provenance, and this text also connects Abraham with Mount Gerizim. It is the so-called Pseudo-Eupolemus.

2.2 Abraham in Pseudo-Eupolemus Pseudo-Eupolemus is an artificial name for two text fragments, whose author is believed by some scholars to have been a Samaritan. 6 The two fragments are among seven that come from the first half of the 2nd century b. c. e., and were conserved by Alexander Polyhistor (ca. 110–40 b. c. e.), and from here they found their way into Clement of Alexandria’s Stromata and Eusebius of Caesarea’s Praeparatio Evangelica 9. 7 Before the study presented by Jakob Freudenthal, scholars were inclined to see all the fragments as coming from the same author, Eupolemus. Freudenthal argued for dividing the fragments into two groups, the first five into one group attributed to Eupolemus, and the last two into a second group attributed to an anonymous author, Pseudo-Eupolemus. 8 This latter text is our concern here. 5 As part of the Abraham material Kitab al-Tarikh, 1355 ce, identifies Ishmael with the Muslims. 6 For a presentation and discussion of the different opinions, see Magnar Kartveit, The Origin of the Samaritans (VTSup 128; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 243–256. 7 Carl R. Holladay gives 292–3 b. c. e. as terminus a quo and mid-first century b. c. e. as the terminus ante quem. Text in Carl R. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors (Text and Translations Pseudepigrapha Series 10; vol. I Historians, Text and Translation; Chico, Calif.: Scholars’ Press, 1983), 159–60; cf. Louis H. Feldman and Meyer Reinhold, Jewish Life and Thought among Greeks and Romans: Primary Readings (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1996), 228. 8 Jakob Freudenthal, “Hellenistische Studien. Heft I: Alexander Polyhistor und die von ihm erhaltenen Reste jüdischer und samaritanischer Geschichtswerke,” Jahresbericht des jüdischen-theologischen Seminars “Fraenkel’scher Stiftung” (Breslau: Grass, 1874), 82–103.

Abraham and Joseph in Samaritan Tradition

63

The concentration on Abraham in the two fragments is the most prominent feature of the text. Fragment 1 of Pseudo-Eupolemus portrays Abraham as a descendant of the giants who were saved from the flood. In accordance with this status he excelled in wisdom, piety, and nobility above all men, and he – or Enoch – discovered astrology and Chaldean science. This he taught the Phoenicians and the Egyptians. He came to the assistance of the Phoenicians in the war with the Armenians, and defeated a numerous enemy with a few men. He was received by Melchizedek at Argarizin (Mount Gerizim) after this event. In Egypt, Sarah was miraculously kept from being violated by the king. Abraham’s encounter with the king of the Egyptians turned out to benefit him. The other heroes in the story are compared to Greek figures: Belus is Kronos, Enoch is Atlas. The second fragment deals with Abraham in Babylon, Phoenicia and Egypt in a few sentences – perhaps as a summary of the first fragment – and throws no clearer light on the question of the provenance of the fragments. Freudenthal supposed both fragments of Pseudo-Eupolemus to be Samaritan because their contents correspond to the “character” of the Samaritans as a mix of different peoples and religions, but with a propensity for Babylon, and because of the description of Gerizim as “mountain of the Most High.” 9 Freudenthal has been followed by other scholars. James Davila thinks the expression “mountain of the Most High” “would be unimaginable in the mouth of a Jew in the second century b. c. e. [...] The working hypothesis that it was written by a Samaritan is robust and is our best starting point.” 10 Hans G. Kippenberg and Nikolaus Walter reason in the same way. 11 Carl Holladay builds upon the argument that the war against the Armenians is understandable because the Shobach legend in the Samaritan Chronicle II mentions Joshua’s war against King Shobach and his allies, who include “Greater and Lesser Armina.” 12 Gregory Sterling also tends to identify the author as a Samaritan, because of the mention of Mount Gerizim and the preference given to the area

9

Freudenthal, “Hellenistische Studien,” 87,96–7. James R. Davila, The Provenance of the Pseudepigrapha: Jewish, Christian or Other? (JSJSup 105; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 55. 11 Hans G. Kippenberg, Garizim und Synagoge: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur samaritanischen Religion der aramäischen Periode (RVV 30; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1971), 80–82; Nikolaus Walter, “Pseudo-Eupolemos,” JHRSZ 1:137–143 (1973); against this: Robert Doran, “Pseudo-Eupolemus,” OTP 2:873–882 (1985). 12 Holladay, Historians, 182, n. 16. 10

64

Magnar Kartveit

controlled by the Seleucids. 13 But Martin Hengel comments on PseudoEupolemus: “the fragments which we have, apart from one statement about the sanctuary on Gerizim, could just as well come from a Jew with a Hellenistic education.” 14 The question is therefore if Pseudo-Eupolemus is a Samaritan text or not. The pertinent part of Fragment 1 includes the sentences: Praeparatio Evangelica 9.17.2–9: ξενισθῆναί τε αὐτὸν ὑπὸ πόλεως ἱερὸν ᾿Αργαριζίν, ὅ εἶναι µεθερµηνευόµενον ὄρος ὑψίστου παρὰ δὲ τοῦ Μελχισεδὲκ ἱερέως ὄντος τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ βασιλεύοντος λαβεῖν δῶρα. (“He [Abraham] was also received as a guest at the city Holy Argarizin, which translates as ‘The Mountain of the Most High.’ He also received gifts from Melchizedek who was a priest of God and a king as well.”). 15

This text comes close to Gen 14:18–20. Three syntactical and logical difficulties can be observed in this text. It is conspicuous that ἱερὸν ᾿Αργαριζίν occurs after a genitive, πόλεως, governed by the preposistion ὑπό. If ἱερὸν ᾿Αργαριζίν were in apposition to πόλεως, one would expect a genitive also in this expression, and if there is another reason for a neuter nominative or accusative, we miss an element that would justify this form. Holladay therefore in a footnote tentatively introduces the preposition εἰς before ἱερὸν ᾿Αργαριζίν. This results in the translation “by the city at the temple Argarizin,” and in the commentary it is added that perhaps the meaning is: “was admitted as a guest into a temple of the city called Argarizin.” This latter translation would presuppose that “Argarizin” and “city” should be connected, bypassing the word ἱερόν, which is difficult. It would also run counter to the explanation of “Argarizin” as “The Mountain of the Most High.” Here, the author reveals that he knows the meaning of the element Αρ as ‫הר‬, “mountain.” One would therefore be more inclined to think that “Argarizin” in Pseudo-Eupolemus is the name of a mountain, and ἱερόν is either an adjective, “holy,” or a noun, “temple.” In the Samaritan sources the expression denotes the mountain, and this is confirmed by Pliny and some of the Christian sources which add a word for “mountain” to the expression Agarizin. 2 Macc 6:2, with its τὸν ἐν Γαριζιν [νεὼ], or, 13 Gregory E. Sterling, “Pseudo-Eupolemus,” in Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture (ed. Louis H. Feldman, James L. Kugel, and Lawrence H. Schiffman; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2013), 706. 14 Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period (London: SCM Press, 1974), 91. 15 The text of Pseudo-Eupolemus with translation in Holladay, Historians, 157–187; translation also in Feldman and Reinhold, Jewish Life and Thought, 228; Walter, “PseudoEupolemos,” 1:137–143; Doran, “Pseudo-Eupolemus,” 873–882; Sterling, “Pseudo-Eupolemus,” 705–713.

Abraham and Joseph in Samaritan Tradition

65

as reconstructed, τὸν ἐν Αργαριζιν [νεὼ], takes “Argarizin” to refer to the mountain. Josephus is the only author to equate Shechem and Argarizin, as if they were both cities (War 1.63). Holladay’s former translation, “he [Abraham] was also received as a guest at the city Holy Argarizin”, is therefore more likely than “by the city at the temple Argarizin.” The problem with this translation, however, is that it also presupposes a preposition before ἱερὸν ᾿Αργαριζίν, and this we do not have. Another peculiarity with the sentence is that in the hb and the lxx Melchizedek is priest of ‫אל ֶעלְיוֹן‬/τοῦ ֵ θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου, but in PseudoEupolemus he is priest of “God” only. The epithet ὑψίστου is applied to the mountain instead. A third problem is that the explanation “The Mountain of the Most High” deals with one element only in “Argarizin”: “mountain” (Αρ is a transliteration of ‫)הר‬. If the author of this sentence knew Hebrew, it is strange that he came up with a translation which is difficult to connect to the whole Hebrew name. Or did he think that “Most High” corresponded to “Gerizim”? Another solution therefore has to be sought: ἱερὸν ᾿Αργαριζίν, ὅ εἶναι µεθερµηνευόµενον ὄρος, “Holy Argarizin, which translates as ‘Mountain,’” could be an addition to the text. If it is removed, the text originally would have been: ξενισθῆναί τε αὐτὸν ὑπὸ πόλεως ὑψίστου παρὰ δὲ τοῦ Μελχισεδὲκ ἱερέως ὄντος τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ βασιλεύοντος λαβεῖν δῶρα. (“He [Abraham] was also received as a guest by the city of the Most High. He also received gifts from Melchizedek who was a priest of God and reigned as a king as well.”)

It is also possible that ὑψίστου originally belonged with “God,” as in Gen 14:18, and later was relocated to the present position. With this supposition, the three problems mentioned would be resolved. The heavy syntax of the present sentence would then be easier, and the flow of the text better. Melchizedek would be introduced as a priest in the city of the Most High, or as a priest of the Most High. In the supposed addition, the translation of the name would pertain to the element Αρ, and no further etymological speculations need be assumed. The name of the mountain could then be interpreted on the basis of Gen 14:18–20 as “The mountain of the Most High” (cf. the lxx rendering of the pertinent Hebrew expression for God in Gen 14 as τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου). If this epithet originally belonged with “God,” it was moved from “God” to “the mountain” when the addition was included with the rest of the text. As a result, Abraham in the original version sojourns in Phoenicia in general and is received by the king and priest Melchizedek, who also supplies him

66

Magnar Kartveit

with gifts. The supposed addition may have been a gloss explaining that this city was the holy “Argarizin,” a name in need of translation. This gloss eventually was included with the running text; a process which is well known from the hb. This exalted picture of Abraham fits with the way the meeting with Melchizedek is described in the hb. In Gen 14:18 mt Melchizedek provides Abraham with bread and wine, but in v. 20 Abraham gives tithes to Melchizedek. In Pseudo-Eupolemos Fragment 1 Abraham only receives gifts from Melchizedek, and therefore has a higher status here than in the mt. Rather than considering Pseudo-Eupolemus a Samaritan, we are induced to see in him a hellenizing Jew, perhaps in the vein described in 1 Macc 1:11–15 and 2 Macc 4:10–17. If the author of the supposed original Pseudo-Eupolemus can be considered a Jew, it remains to discuss the provenance of the assumed gloss, ἱερὸν ᾿Αργαριζίν, ὅ εἶναι µεθερµηνευόµενον ὄρος, “Holy Argarizin, which translates as ‘Mountain.’” Surprising is the location provided in the supposed addition. Does the occurrence of the form “Argarizin” reveal Samaritan provenance? Before discussing that question, a look at the supposed original of PseudoEupolemus is helpful. This text refers to the area of Shechem, as the rearrangement of the sequence in Genesis shows. Fragment 1 builds upon Gen 6–9; 10; 11; 12; 14, but the sequence of the Bible is altered in this story. After Abraham on God’s command has arrived in “Phoenicia” – compare Gen 12:5f – he teaches the Phoenicians astrology (no biblical equivalent), and assists the people in the war against the “Armenians” – a story reflecting Gen 14 even if the name of the enemy is different. After this, the text continues with the reception of Abraham by the city, possibly once more building upon Gen 12:6, where Abraham enters Shechem. Then it continues with Gen 14 in the sentence on Melchizedek. The report of the subsequent famine and descent to Egypt again returns to Gen 12. Pseudo-Eupolemus thus moves from Gen 12 to 14, back to 12, and then to 14, only to end in 12. Gen 12 and 14 are amalgamated. In this way, Abraham arrives from Mesopotamia in “Phoenicia,” which equals “Canaan.” The original text does not specify the location of the meeting with Melchizedek, but the association with Shechem is natural on the basis of Gen 12:6. Let us now turn to the possible addition, with the name Argarizin. This location is not totally unexpected on the basis of the original text’s focus on Shechem. But it is surprising. So where was Melchizedek priest? Where was Salem?

Abraham and Joseph in Samaritan Tradition

67

Gen 14:18 speaks of “Melchizedek of Salem”, an enigmatic expression. Gen 14:18 does not specify the location: “And King Melchizedek of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High.” The meeting between Abram, the king of Sodom and Melchizedek takes place in “Valley of Shaveh (that is, the King’s Valley),” nrsv. In the later readings of this figure and of Salem, three interpretations can be found. First, in the hb and Jewish sources, Salem is identified as Jerusalem. Psalm 76:2 identifies Salem with Zion: “His (God’s) abode has been established in Salem, his dwelling place in Zion,” and the same can be found in Josephus, Ant. 1:180. 1QapGenar XXII 12–17, from around the turn of the eras (while the original text may be older), makes the same equation: And the king of Sodom heard that Abram brought back all the captives and all the spoils, and he went up towards him and came to Salem that is Jerusalem. And Abram was pitched in the valley of Shaveh which is the king’s dale, the Plain of Beth haKerem. And Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought forth food and drink to Abram and all the men that were with him. And he was a priest of the Most High God and he blest Abram and he said, “Blessed be Abram of the Most High God, Lord of heaven and earth, and blessed be the Most High God which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand.” And he gave him a tithe of all the goods of the king of Elam and his companions. 16

The identification of Salem with Jerusalem is also found in Targum Onkelos (“Melchizedek, king of Jerusalem”) and Targum Jonathan. 17 There is thus a consistent identification of Salem with Jerusalem in the Jewish sources, probably presupposed also in Ps 110:4. Secondly, the letter to the Hebrews shows considerable interest in Melchizedek of Salem (Heb 7:1–2), but there is no attempt to localize Salem in the entire passage Heb 5:1–7:28. This letter considers Melchizedek to be a heavenly figure, whom Jesus equalled. The lack of localization is understandable from the point of view that the earthly Jerusalem is in this letter only an image of the heavenly Jerusalem (Heb 11:10.16). Other sources also portray Melchizedek as a cosmic redeemer (11QMelch, 4Q544, and 2 Enoch). 18

16

Nahman Avigad and Yigael Yadin, A Genesis Apocryphon: A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judaea: Description and Contents of the Scroll. Facsimiles, Transcription and Translation of Columns II, XIX–XXII (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1956), 47. 17 Ibid., 37. 18 Joseph L. Angel, “Melchizedek,” in Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture (ed. Louis H. Feldman, James L. Kugel, and Lawrence H. Schiffman; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2013), 1483.

68

Magnar Kartveit

Thirdly, on this background, the lxx has a surprising localization of Salem, found in the translation of Gen 33:18a. The Hebrew text here reads: ‫שׁ ֶכם‬ ְ ‫שׁלֵם ִעיר‬ ָ ‫ַעקֹב‬ ֲ ‫ַוָיּבֹא י‬. This is usually taken to mean “Jacob came safely to the city of Shechem,” nrsv. In the lxx, however, it is translated as καὶ ἦλθεν Ιακωβ εἰς Σαληµ πόλιν Σικιµων, “Jacob came to Salem, the city of the Shechemites.” The understanding of ‫ שׁלם‬as a city name rests upon Gen 14:18: ‫שׁלֵם‬ ָ ‫י־צֶדק ֶמ ֶלְך‬ ֶ ‫ְכּ‬ ִ ‫וּמל‬, ַ “And Melchizedek, the king of Salem,” lxx: καὶ Μελχισεδεκ βασιλεὺς Σαληµ. By understanding ‫ שׁלם‬in both texts as a name for a city, the lxx translators arrived at their version of Gen 33:18. There was in the Hebrew text of Gen 33:18 the expression ‫שׁ ֶכם‬ ְ ‫עיר‬. ִ If ‫ שׁלם‬was read as a name, this expression appeared to be in apposition to Salem, which resulted in the translation Σαληµ πόλιν Σικιµων, “Salem, the city of the Shechemites.” Shechem received the second name “Salem” (cf. the identification of “Salem” with “Sychem” and “Sikima” in Eusebius’s Onomasticon and in Jerome’s Latin edition of it, and the localization at Shechem in the Madaba map). lxx and some Christian sources identify Salem with Shechem. One may also think of a place called Salem in the Jordan valley (cf. the information that John the Baptist baptized ἐν Αἰνὼν ἐγγὺς τοῦ Σαλείµ, “in Ainon at Salim,” John 3:23). Of the two localizations of Salem and the celestial understanding of Melchizedek, the supposed addition to Pseudo-Eupolemus comes closest to the localization of Salem in or around Shechem: Melchizedek belonged with Mount Gerizim. The focus on Shechem in the supposed original text opened the way for this. The choice of location for the AbrahamMelchizedek encounter had no better option than Mount Gerizim, which could add to the glorification of Abraham his reception at a renowned temple mount. The association of Shechem with Gerizim is traditional in the literature: Deut 11:29 f combines Gerizim and Ebal with “the oak of Moreh,” Elon More, which in Gen 12:6 is located in Shechem. The author of the assumed insertion knew the contracted name for the mountain, transliterated it, and then translated one part of it. The occurrence of ἱερὸν ᾿Αργαριζίν has occasioned theories that the author of Pseudo-Eupolemus was a Samaritan. This expression is only found in the undisputed Samaritan texts from Delos, but “Argarizin” and similar forms were also used by Christian and other sources, and even the antiSamaritan author Josephus uses this expression. This word alone is therefore inconclusive when it comes to the provenance of a text. 19 The origin 19

Kartveit, Origin, 228–257.

Abraham and Joseph in Samaritan Tradition

69

of the contracted form is Samaritan, but its use is not limited to Samaritan authors. There is no compelling reason to consider an author a Samaritan on account of this name alone. The original text of Pseudo-Eupolemus was most likely created by a hellenizing Jew, extolling Abraham by telling a story based on the lxx, with elements of Greek and Babylonian myths. The assumption that this text is Jewish is partly due to the fact that an origin in Jerusalem or another Jewish milieu is conceivable, since we know of centers capable of creating such texts, whereas we are not informed about possible Samaritan centers where this might have taken place. This text perhaps received an addition created by a Samaritan, who included the Samaritan name for Mount Gerizim as the place where Abraham met with Melchizedek and added a translation of the first part of the name. In this way the whole text was “Samaritanized.” If the two fragments were written by a hellenizing Jew, the superscription of Alexander to fragment 1 would be partly correct. Eusebius introduces the fragment thus: “Eupolemos on Abraham, from the book ‘On the Jews’ by Alexander Polyhistor.” The original work and the added sentence with Argarizin went into the Jewish collection of Alexander Polyhistor, who was too far from Palestine to sense a possible tension in the text, and later to Eusebius of Caesarea, whose interest lay in what could be considered preparations for the gospel. It was not unusual for Samaritans to adopt and adapt Jewish scripture and material (cf. Samaritan Pentateuch (sp) and the later chronicles). In any case, the text was included in a Christian setting by Eusebius. If it is correct that an originally Jewish text received a Samaritan addition with Argarizin, then the whole text became acceptable as Samaritan. This would mean that Pseudo-Eupolemus’s description of Abraham and his achievements were important in Samaritan ideology, as seen in other texts. But there was one condition for including Pseudo-Eupolemus in the Samaritan ‘library’: so that Mount Gerizim was part of the picture. The author of the supposed addition was ready to extol Abraham, if Mount Gerizim could be extolled at the same time. It was an additional benefit that even Melchizedek became a Samaritan hero. As priest of the Most High, he added value to the Samaritan place of worship.

70

Magnar Kartveit

3. Joseph The Samaritan liturgy mentions Joseph 225 times with positive connotations. In comparison, Judah is mentioned only once, and as a source of impurity. Such attitudes can be found on both sides of the discussion between Jerusalem and Gerizim. According to John 4:4–6 the Samaritans had a plot of ground and a well that linked them to their land: ἔρχεται οὖν εἰς πόλιν τῆς Σαµαρείας λεγοµένην Συχὰρ πλησίον τοῦ χωρίου ὃ ἔδωκεν ᾿Ιακὼβ [τῷ] ᾿Ιωσὴφ τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ· ἦν δὲ ἐκεῖ πηγὴ τοῦ ᾿Ιακώβ. (“But [Jesus] had to go through Samaria. So he came to a Samaritan city called Sychar, near the plot of ground that Jacob had given to his son Joseph. Jacob’s well was there.”)

There is no hb correspondence to the idea of Jacob’s well. The gospel of John mentions “a plot of ground” for Joseph, and the Samaritans later venerated Joseph’s Tomb. This is located some 500 m north of Jacob’s well (grid references 178 180). In the 3rd –4th centuries there was a Samaritan structure here, in the 5th century a church, and later a Muslim site. 20 The idea of Joseph’s plot of ground builds upon Gen 33:19; 50:26; Jos 24:32, but in particular upon Jacob’s blessing of Joseph in Gen 48:22: ‫שׁ ִתּי‬ ְ ‫וּב ַק‬ ְ ‫ָק ְח ִתּי ִמיַּד ָה ֱאמ ִֹרי ְבּ ַח ְר ִבּי‬ ַ ‫שׁר ל‬ ֶ ‫ל־א ֶחיָך ֲא‬ ַ ‫שׁ ֶכם ַא ַחד ַע‬ ְ ‫נת ִתּי ְלָך‬ ַ ָ ‫ַאנִי‬ ֲ ‫ו‬, nrsv: “I now give to you one portion more than to your brothers, the portion that I took from the hand of the Amorites with my sword and with my bow.” The lxx renders the first part in the following way, ἐγὼ δὲ δίδωµί σοι Σικιµα ἐξαίρετον ὑπὲρ τοὺς ἀδελφούς σου, where ἐξαίρετον corresponds to ‫ ַא ַחד‬of mt, “Now I am giving you Sikima, as something special beyond your brothers” (NETS); “And I give to thee Sicima, a select portion above thy brethren” (Brenton). There is a possibility that lxx read the root ‫בחר‬, “to elect”, here, and not a numeral. sp reads the feminine, ‫אחת‬, resulting in this modern translation: “And I give you one Shechem more than your brothers, which I took from the hand of the Ehmarree with my sword and my bow.” In the marginal comment this is interpreted as “a topographical name that describes the location of Shechem between the shoulders of the two mountains. It signifies both the city and the shoulder, i. e., an advantage over his brother’s portions.” 21 The Samaritans used the Hebrew text as a means to emphasize their status over the other parts of Israel. 20 Bruce Hall, Art. “Joseph’s Tomb,” in A Companion to Samaritan Studies (ed. Alan D. Crown, Reinhard Pummer and Abraham Tal; Tübingen: Siebeck, 1993), 139. 21 Tsedaka and Sullivan, Israelite Samaritan Version, 118.

Abraham and Joseph in Samaritan Tradition

71

In this respect, the blessing of Joseph in Gen 49:22–26 offered possibilities. V. 26 reads: ‫ִבעֹת עוֹלָם‬ ְ ‫ד־תּ ֲאוַת גּ‬ ַ ‫הוֹרי ַע‬ ַ ‫ל־בּ ְרכֹת‬ ִ ‫ָברוּ ַע‬ ְ ‫ִבּ ְרכֹת ָא ִביָך גּ‬ ‫ְק ְדקֹד ְנזִיר ֶא ָחיו‬ ָ ‫יוֹסף וּל‬ ֵ ‫תּ ְהיֶין ְלרֹאשׁ‬, ִ translated by the nrsv as: “The blessings of your father are stronger than the blessings of the eternal mountains, the bounties of the everlasting hills; may they be on the head of Joseph, on the brow of him who was set apart from his brothers.”

Probably more adequate is NJPS: “The blessings of your father Surpass the blessings of my ancestors, To the utmost bounds of the eternal hills. May they rest on the head of Joseph, On the brow of the elect of his brothers.”

The sp, in a modern translation, reads “The blessings of your father and mother have surpassed the blessings of my mountain, up to the utmost bound of the everlasting hill.” The text here sees Mount Gerizim in two expressions. 22 Where mt has ‫הוֹרי‬, ַ “my parents”, the sp reads ‫הרי‬, pronounced ari, “my mountain,” which is Mount Gerizim, and “the everlasting hill” for a long time has been used as one of the epithets of Mount Gerizim. Again, text focusing on an ancestor was used to include the status of Mount Gerizim. Josephus is an early witness to the practice of the Samaritans in considering themselves the descendants of Joseph: Ant. 9.288–291: They continue to practice these same customs even to this day, those who are called Chouthaioi in the Hebrew language, and Samareitai in the Greek; those who alternately call themselves their relatives whenever they see things going well for the Jews, as if they were descendants of Joseph and had family ties with them in virtue of that origin; when, however, they see that things are going badly for them [i. e. for the Jews], they say that they are not at all close to them and that they have no claim to their loyalty or race; instead, they make themselves out to be migrants of another nation. 23

Josephus comes from the same century as the New Testament, and both these sources testify to the Samaritan connection to Joseph. This connection is also clear in Memar Marqah /Tebat Marqe, and has a background in the earlier situation. Josephus states that the Samaritans were inconsistent 22 23

Ibid., 120. Author’s translation.

72

Magnar Kartveit

on the question of their attachment to Joseph. Important witnesses for this discussion are some Qumran documents from the first century b. c. e., 4QNarrative and Poetic Compositiona–c.

3.2 4QNarrative and Poetic Compositiona–c The texts known under this title (primarily 4Q371 and 4Q372) contains a direct attack on contemporary “fools” dwelling in the land of Joseph. 24 They are said to have built a ‫ במה‬on a high mountain, they are accused of attacking the temple in Jerusalem, and, consequently, the text prays that God may exterminate them from their land. These allegations only fit one known group: the Samaritans of the second to first centuries b. c. e., with their temple on Mount Gerizim. 4Q371 is made up of ten fragments and is dated to 100–75 b. c. e. 4Q372 consists of 26 fragments and is dated from the late Hasmonean to the early Herodian period. The most important part of the text for this discussion is found in 4Q372, lines 10–15. Underlined text is also found in 4Q371 1: 10. And in all this, Joseph was cast into lands he did not k[now] 11. among a foreign nation (‫ )גוי נאכר‬and dispersed in all the world. All their mountains were empty of them [w and fools were dwelling in their land (‫ונבלים‬ ‫])ישבים בערשם‬ 12. and making for themselves a high place upon a high mountain to provoke Israel to jealousy (‫ ;)להקניא את ישראל‬and they spoke with wor[ds of] 13. the sons of Jacob and they acted terribly with the words of their mouth to revile against the tent of Zion; and they spoke [words of falsehood, and all] 14. words of deceit they spoke to provoke Levi and Judah and Benjamin with their words. And in all this Joseph [was given] 15. into the hands of foreigners (‫)בני נאכר‬, who were devouring his strength and breaking all his bones until the time of the end for him. And he cried out [...]. 25

While Joseph is in “all the world” and among a “foreign people,” his mountains are “empty” of him (line 11). The background for this idea may be the same as in Josephus. 2 Kgs 17:23 seems to say that all Israel 24 Eileen Schuller, “4Q372 1: A Text about Joseph,” RdQ 14 (1990): 350. See also M. Kartveit, “Who are the ‘Fools’ in 4QNarrative and Poetic Compositiona–c?” in Northern Lights on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Nordic Qumran Network 2003–2006 (ed. Anders Klostergaard Petersen et al.; Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 80; Leiden: Brill 2009), 119–133. For a different opinion on the text, see Reinhard Pummer, The Samaritans: A Profile (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2016), 52–53. 25 Eileen Schuller and Moshe Bernstein, “371–373. 4QNarrative and Poetic Compositiona–c,” in DJD 28 (2001), 167.

Abraham and Joseph in Samaritan Tradition

73

was deported, and Josephus spells this out clearly: “He [Salmanasser] utterly exterminated the leadership of the Israelites, and transported the entire population to Media and Persia, and along with them carried off Osees [Hoshea] alive” (Ant. 9.278). Josephus and 4Q372 show the same tendency on this topic, but there is reason to assume that it is an exaggeration. 26 The former northern kingdom was not empty. In 4Q372 Joseph’s area is empty of its former inhabitants, the real Joseph, and occupied by “fools.” These occupants are described as “enemies,” ‫עם אויב‬, in line 20. These “fools” or “enemies” have made a ‫במה‬ for themselves on a high mountain (line 12). This act is done in order to provoke Israel to jealousy – “the sons of Jacob” in line 13 are most likely a parallel to “Israel” in the previous line. These “fools” also act terribly by speaking against the temple in Jerusalem, “the tent of Zion” (line 13), which appears to exist in some form after the destruction described in line 8. The criticism of Jerusalem is described as falsehood and lies, and is said to provoke the three tribes Levi, Judah, and Benjamin to anger in line 14. The purported exile of Joseph has the effect that his enemies devour his strength and break his bones (line 14), which is, again, biblical language, known from Hosea, Lamentations and Isaiah. This will last until the time of his redemption, ‫עד עת קץ לו‬, (line 15). The meaning of ‫ עת קץ‬is “time of redemption” as in Dan 8:17; 11:35.40; 12:4.9, and not “end time” or “time of judgement,” as in earlier literature. It is for this redemption from the ‫ בני נאכר‬that Joseph prays in the following lines. Following the opening prayer for deliverance is an extended description of God’s justice, his strength, non-violence, and mercy. This is followed by a repetition of the claim that the enemy people took the land of Joseph and his brothers and are now dwelling upon it (lines 19–20). This enemy speaks against Jacob’s sons, God’s beloved, and enrages someone (line 21). Lines 19b– 22 read: 19. [They took] my land from me and from all my brothers who 20. are joined with me. A hostile people is dwelling upon it and k.[ ].p and they [the people] opened their mouth against 21. all the sons of your friend Jacob with vexations to l[ ] 22. the time (when) you will destroy them from the entire world, and they will give [ ]. 27

26 Gary Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans: The Origins and History of Their Early Relations (Oxford: University Press, 2013), 18–44. 27 Schuller and Bernstein, DJD 28, 168.

74

Magnar Kartveit

Line 22 looks forward to the time when God will destroy the enemy from all the earth. This corresponds to the “time of redemption” of line 15, and thus represents the explanation of the kind of redemption for which the person praying asks. The rest of the prayer, or psalm, contains promises to do justice and praise God, to sacrifice and to teach the sinners God’s laws. A new doxology rounds off the prayer and may be a declaration of personal insight, presumably into God’s ways. The concluding promises contain elements known from the psalms of lament in hb. The mt of Gen 48:21–22 connects Joseph to Shechem. In the distribution of land to the tribes in the book of Joshua, the two Joseph-tribes are allotted land on the East and West of the Jordan (Joshua 16–17). But in Gen 48:21–22 Joseph alone is connected to Shechem, which Jacob took with his sword and bow. This is an allusion to Genesis 34 through the word “sword,” which occurs in connection with the killing of the Shechemites in Gen 34. This core part of the northern kingdom therefore belongs to Joseph, a tribe completely expelled from its territory according to 4Q372. Concerning the provenance of this text Eileen Schuller notes “nothing in the theology or vocabulary of the manuscript as a whole links it specifically to the Qumran community and writings such as 1QS, 1QM or the Pesharim.” 28 The text portrays the exiled tribes in the north as “Joseph,” and the “fools” and enemy people can refer to the Samaritans. Florentino García Martínez proposes that the author superimposed Joseph’s experience in Egypt onto the northern tribes’ dispersion experience. 29 In agreement with Schuller and Moshe Bernstein, Michael Knibb argues that “Joseph” here does not correspond to traditions based upon the Joseph of Genesis, suggesting instead that the text has created “the representation of the tribes by their eponymous ancestor.” 30 James Kugel claims, however, that “this broad consensus regarding the original aim of 4Q372 frg. 1 [referring to Schuller and Bernstein, DJD 28], though not without merit, ignores the receptive context in which we find the fragment.” Instead, he perceives the character of Joseph “as an ideal figure 28

Schuller, “Text about Joseph,” 350. Florentino García Martínez, “Nuevos Textos no bíblicos procedentes de Qumrán (I),” EstBib 49 (1991): 116–123. The text reflects the debate between Samaritan and nonSamaritan Jews over the identity of the true descendants of Joseph. 30 Michael Knibb, “A Note on 4Q372 and 4Q390,” in The Scriptures and the Scrolls: Studies in Honour of A. S. van der Woude on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (ed. Antonius Hilhorst, Casper J. Labuschagne and Florentino García Martínez; VTSup 49; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 164–177. According to him, the text reflects the debate between Samaritan and non-Samaritan Jews over the identity of the true descendants of Joseph. 29

Abraham and Joseph in Samaritan Tradition

75

at Qumran.” Supporting his thesis with a wide range of references to the Scrolls and other texts, he claims that Joseph is primarily seen as a true mediator of God’s truth and will, loyal to and beloved by the ancestors. 31 Nevertheless, this interpretation fails to account for the exile of Joseph and his suffering under foreign rulers, as well as for his prayer for his restoration and the destruction of the enemies who are occupying his land. These elements in the text point towards a concrete understanding of Joseph. The views of Schuller, Bernstein, and Kugel need not however be mutually exclusive. A concrete understanding of Joseph can be supplemented by that of an idealized figure. As the time of the text is somewhat removed from the actual exiling of the northern tribes, a tendency to idealize them is not inconceivable. Based on Samaritan literature and writings from Josephus, Schuller and Bernstein argue that there was a discussion about who represented “Joseph” at the time of the writing of 4Q371–373. Since “Joseph” is a term of self-identification in Samaritan literature, a usage that is corroborated by two passages from Josephus (Ant. 9.291 and 11.341), the question was: Who is the real Joseph, the northern tribes now exiled or the present population of the north? This use of the Samaritan literature as comparative material is dubious because of the late date (Byzantine or medieval) of these texts, but the two passages from Josephus are early enough to produce comparable material. 4Q372 considers the northern and southern tribes as brothers. This is important given the background in Ps 78:67f: “He rejected the tent of Joseph, he did not choose the tribe of Ephraim (‫ֹהל‬ ֶ ‫ִמ ַאס ְבּא‬ ְ ‫ַויּ‬ ‫שׁ ֶבט ֶא ְפַריִם לֹא ָב ָחר‬ ֵ ‫וּב‬ ְ ‫;)יוֹסף‬ ֵ but he chose the tribe of Judah, Mount Zion, which he loves.”

In this case, there is an explicit rejection of Joseph. This rejection is not reflected in some other texts, which instead express solidarity with the northern tribes. The book of Ezekiel envisages a time of unification between Judah and Joseph: Ezek 37:19.22, nrsv: “Thus says the Lord GOD: I am about to take the stick of Joseph (which is in the hand of Ephraim) and the tribes of Israel associated with it; and I will put the stick of Judah upon it, and make them one stick, in order that they may be one in my hand. [...] I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains 31 James Kugel, “Joseph at Qumran: The Importance of 4Q372 Frg. 1 in Extending a Tradition,” in Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, and the Septuagint presented to Eugene Ulrich (ed. Emanuel Tov, James C. VanderKam and Peter W. Flint; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 261–278. Quotations from 272, 276–7.

76

Magnar Kartveit

of Israel; and one king shall be king over them all. Never again shall they be two nations, and never again shall they be divided into two kingdoms.”

In a similar vein, deutero-Zechariah says, Zech 10:6–7: “I will strengthen the house of Judah, and I will save the house of Joseph. I will bring them back because I have compassion on them, and they shall be as though I had not rejected them; for I am the LORD their God and I will answer them. Then the people of Ephraim shall become like warriors, and their hearts shall be glad as with wine.”

Against this background, the focus on the contemporary dwellers in the land of Joseph in 4Q372 (lines 11–14) deserves special attention. The psalm or prayer envisages a destruction of the enemies dwelling in the land of Joseph (line 22), but the extant text includes no hint of a return of Joseph to the land, which would have been the logical consequence. It may have existed in a text now lost. In contrast, texts two hundred years after 4Q372 do not even mention the existence of such dwellers in the land of Joseph. Even 2 Esdras, from the time of Josephus (who has a lot to say about these people), does not address the issue. Perhaps 2 Esdras expects a return to Zion, which would not affect the territory in the north. What is the picture painted of the people dwelling in the land of Joseph? The sympathy of 4Q372 is clear from the preserved fragments: the author looks favorably upon Jerusalem and its temple, and upon Joseph, and envisages that his predicament will come to an end. On the other hand, the texts express negative sentiments towards the “fools,” i. e., the enemy people who are dwelling on his territory in the north. The description of them is therefore strongly polemical. In spite of the polemical portrayal we are able to discern some of the underlying assumptions. The construction of the ‫ במה‬is made “in order to provoke Israel,” according to line 12. In line 14 we read of “words of deceit they spoke to provoke Levi and Judah and Benjamin with their words.” The reference to “Israel” is significant. It may be parallel to the expression “Levi, Judah, and Benjamin,” or to all the descendants of God’s beloved, Jacob, in line 21. In both cases it is a term denoting the opponents of the Samaritans. The Samaritans from the early second century b. c. e. and onward called themselves “Israel,” as the Delos inscriptions from the first half of the second century b. c. e. show. 32 The statement in 4Q371 that “they made 32

Philippe Bruneau, “‘Les israélites de Délos’ et la juiverie délienne,” BCH 106 (1982): 465–504; Magnar Kartveit, “Samaritan Self-Consciousness in the First Half of the Second

Abraham and Joseph in Samaritan Tradition

77

for themselves a ‫ במה‬on a high mountain in order to provoke Israel” must then have sounded insulting in the ears of the Samaritans. Like the inhabitants of Jerusalem or all the descendants of Jacob, these inhabitants of the north considered themselves Israelites. The construction of the temple on Mount Gerizim was not intended to be a provocation to “Israel” but its pride. They termed the temple on the mountain, or even the mountain itself “holy,” and “holy and sanctified” according to the Delos inscriptions (cf. the expression in Pseudo-Eupolemus). Hence, there was a discussion not only concerning who were the true “Joseph”-ites, but also concerning who were the real “Israel.” 4Q372 accuses the Samaritans of criticizing Jerusalem and its temple. The people residing in the north mock Jerusalem: they revile the tent of Zion (line 13), producing lies and every kind of deceit in order to provoke Levi, Judah and Benjamin (lines 13–14). The background for this may be actual abuse against Jerusalem and the tribes around the city, but more likely the text expresses conventional, polemical language, as all the expressions are adopted from the Hebrew Bible. The saying from the north is deemed a “terrible act.” Most of all, it is characterized as “blasphemy” (line 13; cf. Sir 3:16; 48:18). The blasphemy is uttered in order to enrage “Levi, Judah, and Benjamin” (line 14). Nothing is preserved of such possible Samaritan polemics. The strength of the allegation that the “fools” provoke Israel becomes evident in light of its background in Deut 32:21. There Israel provokes God with non-gods and idols; here the “fools” provoke Israel with their “high place” on the high mountain. To the degree that the “fools” call themselves “Israel,” this claim is rejected by reserving this name for their opponents in the south. The construction of the ‫ במה‬in the north functions like the non-gods and idols of Deut 32:21. The negative attitude toward the Samaritans in the text is strong enough for us to assume that the prayer in line 22 calls upon God to exterminate the Samaritans from all the earth. In connection with Sir 50:25–26 I have discussed the question: How did the author of Sir 50:25 f come to associate the “fools” of Deut 32:21 with the inhabitants of Shechem? 33 The conclusion in that discussion, that the author combined Deut 32:21 with Gen 34, may hold also for 4Q372’s association of the “fools” with the land of Joseph. This view is Century b. c. e. in Light of the Inscriptions from Mount Gerizim and Delos,” JSJ 45 (2014): 449–470. 33 Kartveit, Origin, 140–148.

78

Magnar Kartveit

supported by a third text with roots in the second century b. c. e. that employs the expression “fools,” namely Testament of Levi 7. The expression “fools” with reference to the Samaritans is found in three different texts from this period (Sir 50:25–26, Testament of Levi 7, and 4Q372), and it amounts to a standard expression in the polemics leveled by Jerusalem against them. This is strong language against the Samaritans, some of whom may have come from Jerusalem, according to Josephus. To sum up, 4Q372 can best be described as a polemical text about the Samaritans who are dwelling in Joseph’s land in the second century b. c. e. They are considered descendants of the Shechemites and are associated with the sacrilege described in Gen 34. Their criticism of the temple in Jerusalem amounts to blasphemy, in analogy with acts described in Deut 32:21. The controversy in the text is mainly over the temple site. The ‫במה‬ on Mount Gerizim is – so it seems – considered a foolish act, a sin. To speak against the temple in Jerusalem is blasphemy.

3.3 “Joseph ‫”מלכה‬ In the quotation from Memar Marqah /Tebat Marqe above, the expression “Joseph possessed it” is used, referring to Joseph’s relation to Mount Gerizim. Kippenberg understands the expression as a set phrase in this way, “Joseph ‫מלכה‬,” “Joseph the owner,” with overtones of kingship. 34 Joseph is the owner of the plot of ground in the valley, but more importantly the owner of Mount Gerizim. Kippenberg assumes that “Joseph” refers to the ancestor as well as to the Samaritans, in some cases to the laity over against the priests, “Aaron.” The following list in Memar Marqah /Tebat Marqe may serve as an example of Joseph’s relation to Mount Gerizim: Adam founded it. Noah built it. Abraham renewed it. Isaac consecrated it. Jacob fortified it. Joseph took possession of it. 35

Kippenberg may be reading too much out of this expression, in particular when he ventures to find differences in references: sometimes to the an34

Kippenberg, Garizim und Synagoge, 256, n. 10. Author’s translation of: Adam gründete es./Noah erbaute es./Abraham erneuerte es./Isaak weihte es ein./Jakob befestigte es./Joseph nahm es in Besitz. Ibid., 259: from Memar Marqah /Tebat Marqe, IV, 105,7–8. 35

Abraham and Joseph in Samaritan Tradition

79

cestor, sometimes to all Samaritans, and sometimes to the laity, and when he sees different traditions used in Memar Marqah /Tebat Marqe. On the other hand, an emphasis on Joseph is found in many places in this work. Seen with the background of 4Q371 and 4Q372, the Joseph material in Josephus, the NT and Memar Marqah /Tebat Marqe display an interesting profile. First of all, it is understandable that the Samaritans claimed Joseph for themselves against the allegation that all of Joseph had been exiled. By exploiting the hb material they were able to emphasize continuity and identity with the relevant tribe and its allotment. Secondly, they again could state the importance of Mount Gerizim against Jerusalem. The topic of these two mountains was also treated in the Qumran texts. Thirdly, the word ‫ מלכה‬gave them an opportunity to allude to political and religious independence in times when they had been persecuted by the Jerusalem authorities and by the Romans.

4. Conclusion Abraham and Joseph are important heroes to the Samaritans, in particular because of their relation to Mount Gerizim. As 4Q371 and 4Q372 show, the question of the place of worship was a contentious topic from the time of the temple and city of Argarizim and later. The question by the Samaritan woman in John 4:20 about the correct place testifies to this discussion. The figures of Abraham and Joseph were common to Samaritans and Jews, and it was all the more important for Samaritans to attach them to their place of worship. Behind their praise of Mount Gerizim and the attempts to extol it and make it ever more significant one may perceive a permanent and perhaps increasing pressure from Jerusalem against the temple on Mount Gerizim. The hb speaks with different voices on the question of the former northern tribes. Ps 78:67 f rejects Joseph and Ephraim altogether, but Ezek 37:19.22 and Zech 10:6–7 predict a restoration of Joseph and a reunification with Judah. 4Q371 and 4Q372 (“The Prayer of Joseph”), hopes for a future even better than the past, but only after elimination of the inhabitants of the former territory of Joseph. None of these prophecies or prayers was fulfilled in the time we have discussed here. Rather, the situation between Samaritans and Jews was acerbated. 36 With the concentration on Mount Gerizim, and the attempts at connecting patriarchs 36

Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans, 220–228.

80

Magnar Kartveit

like Abraham and Joseph to the place, the ground was not laid for future cooperation and compromise, but for a widening gap between the groups. Only during the last century has this gap begun to be bridged. This happens at a time when both groups have grown accustomed to living without their temples, even though Abraham and Joseph still call forward sentiments in one direction or another.

The “Wooing of Rebekah” and the Methodological Rift between Tradition History and Reception History Lotta Valve 1. Introduction The story in Gen 24 is often known by the title “Wooing of Rebekah.” As this name suggests, the negotiations to acquire a wife for Isaac from Abraham’s own family line are in focus in the lengthy chapter. The subject of the story thus makes it an integral part of the plot of the extended Abraham cycle in Genesis. Abraham himself is the initiator of his servant’s journey to Haran (24:1–19), and while in Haran, the servant acts as his master’s proxy, constantly referring to Abraham in his speech (vv. 12, 27, 34–49, 56). Isaac, who ought to be an implied protagonist in the story, is largely absent from it, except in the coda where he is finally met in person (vv. 62–67). As family history, the story has additional weight in that it serves to strengthen the bonds within the larger Abrahamic family by describing an instance of endogamous marriage. Gen 24 has received the attention of scholars from many angles during several decades. Questions which have been posed have pertained to source- and redaction-critical and tradition-historical issues as well as matters of narratology. In addition, the interesting interpretations and retellings of the story in post-biblical material have received some consideration. In this article, I shall undertake a short exploration into these different explanations of the origins and meaning of Gen 24, as well as some aspects of the postbiblical afterlife of the story. How does the narrative contribute to our overall understanding of Abraham’s family history, and are there alternative ways to interpret the story, ways which ancient interpreters have already sensed? By means of this case study, I also want to raise the larger methodological question of whether and when it might be possible to know when a certain ancient interpretation of a story really is reception history, or whether we should be more open towards the possibility that retellings can contain tradition-historical material which has not been included in the biblical text.

82

Lotta Valve

2. Form and Redaction-Historical Considerations Pertaining to Genesis 24 Form History: As regards form history, there have been elaborate attempts to find a plausible Sitz im Leben for the lengthy chapter. Thus Wolfgang Roth came to the conclusion that the prominence of Abraham’s servant as a major character in the story is indicative of the use of a similar example story “in the training and supervision of court officials in the monarchic period,” and this story was, then, “used, historicized and re-interpreted by the Yahwist.” 1 Kenneth Aitken, on the other hand, saw the text rather as an example story intended for a bride who is about to leave home and be married off to a somewhat unknown man, which might have been the case at least with many arranged marriages. 2 Aitken does not, however, discuss and present any plausible date for the origins of this kind of an example story. Source and Redaction Criticism: The length of the chapter, the detailed description of the events, and the many repetitions in Gen 24 have also been a pertinent source for literary critics’ troubles with the text. As summarized by Claus Westermann in 1981, the first generation of scholars, represented by August Dillman and Julius Wellhausen among others, saw Gen 24 as a unity which they attributed to the Yahwist. The following generation of scholars (R. Smend, H. Gunkel and O. Eissfeldt among others) tended to divide the story into two different layers, by the Yahwist and the Elohist respectively. They saw the repetitions in the text as indicative of these origins. Finally, a third generation (e. g. M. Noth, G. von Rad, J. van Seters) saw the text again as a unity attributable to J. 3 Westermann himself, however, compares Gen 24 with the two other “betrothal by the well” type scenes in Gen 29 and Exod 2 and is of the opinion that Gen 24 is unquestionably (“ohne Frage”) younger than the two other accounts, which he still attributes to J. 4 In slightly later times, discussion has moved 1 Wolfgang M. V. Roth, “The Wooing of Rebekah: A Tradition-Critical Study of Genesis 24,” CBQ 34 (1972), 177–187, quotations from p. 187. Roth’s approach can possibly be compared with that of Andrew Schein, “The Test of Rebecca,” Tradition 31 (1997), 28–33, who is of the opinion that the servant probably made extensive enquiries before the selection of Rebekah and only set the scene so that the election would appear providential and thus convince Rebekah’s family of the existence of a divine plan. 2 Kenneth T. Aitken, “The Wooing of Rebekah: A Study in the Development of the Tradition,” JSOT 30 (1984), 3–23, esp. 19–20. 3 Claus Westermann, Genesis, Teil 2 (12–36) (BKAT, Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag 1981), 469. 4 Westermann, Genesis, 470.

The “Wooing of Rebekah”

83

on to concern especially linguistic details which could shed light on the question of dating. Thus Alexander Rofé has strongly argued for a Persian period origin for Gen 24 by paying attention to the apparent Aramaisms in the language. 5 Gary Rendsburg has questioned this dating by using the same linguistic evidence and arguing for a stylistic use of Aramaisms by a very early author. According to Rendsburg’s view, an early monarchicperiod author has utilized Aramaisms “as a literary device adding local color to the story set in Aram.” 6 Rendsburg’s thesis has not met wide acceptance. As I view the matter, it is plausible that Gen 24 has to do with the final redaction of Genesis, and Rofé’s suggestion of a postexilic date for the final composition of the chapter thus seems reasonable. The question which then naturally arises is the relationship of the chapter to priestly-related theology. It is true that the chapter does not display any of the marked characteristics of the commonly-agreed P material in Genesis, and it is also possible that there never was any coherent Priestly story about the patriarchs. 7 But we also know that Rebekah is specifically mentioned in the genealogy of Nahor in Gen 22:20–24. It is commonly agreed that most of the genealogies in Genesis are P material, even if the genealogy in Gen 22:20–24 has traditionally been attributed to the Yahwist due to the very presence of Rebekah. 8 But if Gen 22:20–24 indeed were P material, could it then be so that the P-like ideology in Genesis is being further expanded by the inclusion of Gen 24 by a postexilic redactor? It is attractive to think that the marked stress on endogamy, which is so evident in Gen 24 (and also in other stories of the patriarch cycle, cf., e. g., the polemics towards Esau’s Canaanite wives in Gen 26:34–35), could be connected to post-exilic concerns regarding purity of family line, visible

5 Alexander Rofé, “An Enquiry into the Betrothal of Rebekah,” in Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift für Rolf Rendtorff zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. E. Blum, C. Macholz, and E. W. Stegemann; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990), 27–39. 6 Gary A. Rendsburg, “Some False Leads in the Identification of Late Biblical Hebrew Texts: The Cases of Genesis 24 and 1 Samuel 2:27–36,” JBL 121 (2002): 23–46. The quotation is from p. 35. 7 For an exhaustive discussion about the Documentary Hypothesis with regard to the patriarchal cycle, see especially Joel S. Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis (New Haven /London: Yale University Press, 2012), esp. 23–24; and, regarding the P material, 169–192. 8 Thus, e. g. Baden, Composition of the Pentateuch, 70–71; cf. the discussion in Kenneth A. Mathews, Genesis vol. 1B 11:27–50:26 (The New American Commentary; Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman, 2005), 306–310.

84

Lotta Valve

in Ezra-Nehemiah and Malachi. 9 Aitken may thus be right in that the story of the “Wooing of Rebekah” in its present form and setting is indeed an example story concerning marriage. It could be directed towards the bride, as Aitken suggests, but equally well towards all Jews, and perhaps especially to Jews of the Diaspora. We do not know if there ever was a custom of family-arranged marriages between inhabitants of Judah and Diaspora Jews during early Second Temple times, but Gen 24 would serve perfectly as an example story in such a setting.

3. Genesis 24 from the Viewpoint of Narrative Criticism Contrary to the enterprise described above, many scholars inclined towards narrative criticism have highlighted the function of the variations in the repetitions in Gen 24 and claimed that these are essential for a more exhaustive treatment of the story as we now have it. In their view, there is no redundancy in the narrative. On the contrary, by means of the repetitions, different people come to the fore and their differing perspectives towards the events are highlighted. 10 I agree that in the specific case of Gen 24, these observations are completely valid, and examining the story from the viewpoint of narrative criticism may thus prove more fruitful for the internal understanding of the story than any source-critical study can do. Of course, source-critical questions must be asked especially in order to find out how this story 9 Similarly also Tikva Frymer-Kensky, Reading the Women of the Bible: A New Interpretation of Their Stories (New York: Schocken Books, 2002), 356: “Since the form of the story as we have it has late expressions, it seems certain that the story is at least revised in the later period. I agree with Rofé that the story as we have it is part of the polemic of the EzraNehemiah period [...].” Cf. the opinion of Benedikt J. Conczorowski, “All the Same as Ezra? Conceptual Differences Between the Texts of Intermarriage in Genesis, Deuteronomy 7 and Ezra,” in Mixed Marriages: Intermarriage and Group Identity in the Second Temple Period (ed. Christian Frevel; New York /London: T & T Clark International, 2011), 89–108, here 90: “Genesis 26:34–35 and 27:46–28:9 are generally ascribed to the Priestly source and should be the starting point of our investigation, since Gen 24 certainly represents a later position.” 10 For this, see especially Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington: Indiana University Press 1985), 129–152; Lieve M. Teugels, “‘A Strong Woman, Who Can Find?’ A Study of the Characterization in Genesis 24, with Some Perspectives on the General Presentation of Isaac and Rebekah in the Genesis Narratives,” JSOT 63 (1994) 89–104; Eadem, “The Anonymous Matchmaker: An Enquiry into the Characterization of the Servant of Abraham in Genesis 24,” JSOT 65 (1995): 13–23; Eadem, Bible and Midrash: The Story of ‘The Wooing of Rebekah’ (Gen. 24) (Leuven: Peeters, 2004).

The “Wooing of Rebekah”

85

found its way to Genesis in the first place (cf. #2 above). However, the story as it now stands in Genesis is a rather coherent literary unity, a “novelette,” with the Book of Ruth as its nearest biblical counterpart. This character of the story justifies, in my opinion, its treatment as primarily a piece of literature. In this regard, Menakhem Perry’s view of stories and counter-stories in the Bible is noteworthy, and his highlighting Rebekah helps to open fresh viewpoints which have all too often been neglected in the scholarly treatment of Gen 24. 11 Discussion of Menakhem Perry’s View of Genesis 24: To Perry, viewing the story from Rebekah’s perspective turns it “into a tale about ‘when a slave reigns’ and about bridegroom-swapping.” 12 This is indeed a radical transformation of the perspective from which Gen 24 is usually viewed, namely as a story about a perhaps cunning but still honorable and trustworthy servant and a noble Rebekah who conforms humbly to the circumstances where she is put and places no obstacles in the way of the divine plan. 13 In Perry’s reading, the story turns into a tale of a servant who perhaps takes too many liberties, and a young woman who is attracted to him and only later finds out that she has been betrayed by this man, as well as by her own family. 14 Perry pays attention to the portrayal of Rebekah as a self-confident girl who displays no hesitation in her actions towards the stranger. 15 This is indeed a noteworthy feature in a setting within a patriarchal framework where relations between men and women were supposedly very strictly regulated. By his meticulous reading and interpretation of every word and nuance, Perry succeeds in showing that especially in the “betrothal type scene” at the well, the servant acts quite as a man in search of a wife for himself, and Rebekah, for her part, clearly shows such eagerness and enthusiasm that would be fit for a young woman who finds the wealthy stranger attractive and wants to impress him. Perry pays attention to small nuances that betray the eroticism in this scene. For example, the 11 Menakhem Perry, “Counter-Stories in the Bible: Rebekah and her Bridegroom, Abraham’s Servant,” Prooftexts 27 (2007): 275–323. 12 Perry, “Counter-Stories,” 279. 13 Teugels emphasizes this character of the servant, but sees it primarily as a positive trait which ultimately serves the divine purpose, which is manifested especially in how the servant manipulates Laban (and Bethuel) by his speech, thus forcing them to give Rebekah away. See especially Teugels, “Anonymous Matchmaker.” Most commentaries advocate the humble portrayal of Rebekah, which somewhat resembles that of Ruth in the Book of Ruth, and serves clearly as one typological prefiguration for Jesus’ mother Mary. 14 Perry, “Counter-Stories,” esp. 306–307. 15 Perry, “Counter-Stories,” 297–298.

86

Lotta Valve

“watering” of the servant really means that the man asks Rebekah to pour the water down directly from her jug into his mouth, which indicates rather close physical proximity between the two. 16 Also the details that the man “hurried” towards the beautiful Rebekah (v. 17), and that he was “silently gazing” at her when she watered the camels (v. 21) can, despite the normal “pure and pious” interpretation of the scene, quite easily be seen as indicative of a masculine-possessive attitude towards Rebekah on the servant’s part, and this might well be how Rebekah interpreted the situation. Perry argues that Rebekah’s offer to water the camels should also be seen as an effort from her part to make the situation last longer, and to please and impress the stranger whom she had begun to fancy. And, indeed, when she finishes her task, the stranger quite concretely and physically puts heavy and expensive jewelry on her. He even does this before asking anything about her descent, and thus it is entirely natural that Rebekah assumes that she has succeeded in her task and that this wealthy stranger likes her on her own account and has serious intentions towards her. 17 Rebekah brings the news to her brother Laban, who hurries out to welcome the man. As Perry puts it, “There can be no doubt that right up to the moment the servant opens his mouth, neither Rebekah nor any other member of her family can possibly know that he is not an actual suitor.” 18 Now, for this interpretation to be psychologically convincing, we perhaps need to assume that Abraham’s servant was not a very old man, by our modern standards – a detail which Perry does not discuss. The ancient interpreters univocally identified the servant with “Eliezer of Damascus” mentioned in Gen 15:2. We cannot know how old this Eliezer was at the time of the scene of Gen 15:2, but assuming that he was twenty by then, he would, with regard to the time frame of Genesis, with an estimated age gap of thirteen years between Ishmael and Isaac, probably have been over seventy when the events in Gen 24 took place – since we also know from Gen 25:20 that Isaac was forty years old when he married 16 Perry, “Counter-Stories,” 295–296. For this detail, I viewed a number of paintings of the scene, ranging from antiquity to modern times, and noticed that this was indeed also how most painters had transmitted the scene. However, in these paintings Rebekah is quite often standing on a stair or stone and /or the servant is kneeling, which increases the physical gap between them. See, for example, the illustration of Rebekah at the well in the Vienna Genesis, 6th century, Vienna, ON, Cod. theol. gr. 31, f. 7; Robert Gavin (1827–1883), Rebekah at the well, 1879, Walker Art Gallery, Liverpool; Harold Copping (1863–1932), Rebekah at the well, early 1900s, illustration. 17 Perry, “Counter-Stories,” 297–299. 18 Perry, “Counter-Stories,” 300.

The “Wooing of Rebekah”

87

Rebekah. Indeed, in some paintings depicting Gen 24, we can see a very old servant of Abraham, which indicates that these painters adhered to the tradition that the servant was Eliezer (or at least to the statement in Gen 24:2 that the servant was “the oldest in Abraham’s house,” which was taken quite literally so that he must have been old by more modern standards too); also, more often than not, these paintings bear the name “Eliezer and Rebekah” (though, obviously, the name of the painting might sometimes be a secondary label). 19 However, even if the patriarchs, according to the chronology of Genesis, lived extremely long lives, this might not have been the case with regard to their servants in the chronological framework; and in any case the interpretation that the servant is Eliezer is, of course, a later receptionhistorical layer, even if an ancient one. It could perhaps be more plausible to assume that a servant who was “oldest in the household and in charge of all Abraham’s possessions” (Gen 24:2) was about the same age as Isaac, i. e. forty or possibly near fifty, in any case at an age in which it still was possible to make the long and exhaustive journey. And, indeed, turning to the paintings again, this seems to be the age that most painters have ascribed to Abraham’s servant – even if some have portrayed him even as considerably younger, thirty or so, which at times seems to add to the eroticism of the well-scene so much that only the presence of camels (and absence of sheep) betrays that it is not Jacob and Rachel of Gen 29 in the picture. This may be rather intended on the part of the artists, and one may only wonder whether they have thought along the same lines as Perry and apparently some ancient interpreters. 20 An intrinsic part of Perry’s interpretation of the episode is also the claim that Rebekah was not present when the negotiations about her fate were made (vv. 32–52). In the patriarchal framework, this is perhaps a plausible option. Regarding the statement in verse 53, that the servant gave valuable gifts to Rebekah and her mother and brother (but not to her father), ancient interpreters had serious trouble with the absence of Bethuel and came to the conclusion that he must have died in the short 19 See, e. g., Paolo Veronese (1528–1588), Eliezer and Rebekah, second half of 1600th century, Versailles Palace; Giovanni Battista Pittoni (1687–1767), Eliezer and Rebekah, ca 1725, Musée des Beaux-Arts de Bordeaux; Giuseppe Zola, (1672–1743), Eliezer and Rebekah at the well, first half of 1800th century, Museo della Città di Bologna. 20 See, e. g., Johann Karl Loth (1632–1698), Eliezer and Rebekah at the well, 1670s, the Hermitage, St. Petersburg; cf. also Rembrandt van Rijn (1606–1669), Eliezer and Rebekah at the well, 1640s, USA National Gallery of Art, Washington, D. C.; Griffith Foxley (1912–1964), Rebekah at the well, ca 1950s, illustration. Regarding ancient interpreters of Gen 24, see the discussion below.

88

Lotta Valve

interlude. 21 Perry, for his part, pays attention to the variation between “father’s house” and “mother’s house” in the text and concludes that the house had two wings, and the negotiations were made in Bethuel’s house where the strangers also ate and slept, whereas the servant came out and gave presents to Rebekah and her mother in or perhaps rather outside the “mother’s house,” which Laban, as son and brother, also had permission to enter. 22 This is indeed an ingenious proposal and a nice explanation to the absence of Bethuel from v. 53, but I think that apart from the problem of the absence of Bethuel (which is difficult to explain by other than redaction-critical means 23), the verse can also be taken so that the gifts were intended for Rebekah and her mother and brother, perhaps according to established custom, and were not necessarily given over personally to all of them precisely at that time, in the middle of the night. In favor of this possibility is also that it was necessary on the following morning to summon Rebekah separately to be heard (v. 57), so that she apparently was in any case not present to hear the foregone conversation between her mother and brother and Abraham’s servant. If the aforementioned scenario is presupposed, then it is no wonder that Rebekah answers her brother’s question, “Will you go with this man?” shortly and promptly with “I will go” – as if it were indeed a marriage ceremony. In this same spirit she may also have understood the blessing concerning fertility that her family utters to her at her departure (v. 60). A very noteworthy detail which Perry pays close attention to is that the variations between the appellations for Abraham’s servant in Gen 24 indicate shifts of perspective throughout the long chapter. For Rebekah, he is always “the man” (in verse 18 even “my lord”) and never a servant, throughout verses 21–33 and again in verse 58, even if the man’s real identity has become clear in the meantime for the rest of the household, and the narrator has accordingly shifted the appellation back to “servant.” When the chapter is read in awareness of this tendency, the double perspective becomes almost painfully clear in verse 61. 24 Perry stresses that his interpretation of the story is in no way alien to its internal logic, but rather stands firmly within its limits. This is indeed an important aspect and an undeniable strength in his argument. By bringing 21

Yalkut Shimʿoni on Genesis §109. Perry, “Counter-Stories,” 304–305. 23 In redaction-critical considerations, it is often assumed that the word “Bethuel” in v. 50 is a later gloss. For this view, see e. g. E. A. Speiser, Genesis (Anchor Bible, New York: Doubleday, 1964), 184. 24 Perry, “Counter-Stories,” 305–306. 22

The “Wooing of Rebekah”

89

Rebekah’s perspective to the fore Perry succeeds in transforming the story in the eyes of the reader so that it is never the same again. Then the reader may begin to think that Rebekah’s life-long problems with her husband, narrated in Gen 25:19–27:46, have a background in this disappointment and deceit, a pattern of behavior which she and her younger son then continue on their own terms (Gen 27–31). In this way, it becomes evident that the patriarchal stories also have a darker side; a “counter-story,” as Perry would put it.

4. Genesis 24 in the Eyes of Ancient Interpreters I shall now continue my survey by highlighting some details in the most important retellings of the “Wooing of Rebekah” in post-biblical literature, which in this case mostly means rabbinic literature. It is namely a quite astonishing detail that what happened in Gen 24 is swept over in just a few words in works of the “rewritten Bible” genre, for example in Jubilees (19:10) and in the Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (8:4), so that it is merely related that Isaac married Rebekah, and her genealogy is given. The L. A. B. does not display much interest in the patriarchs in general: chapter 8 with its fourteen verses is, in essence, mostly a genealogy from Abram to Joseph, with a brief account of God’s promise to Abram and an explanation of how the Israelites came to Egypt. But concerning Jubilees, its omitting of all details in the story recounted in Gen 24 is striking, given how much text is devoted to Abraham and then to Jacob and his descendants. In these latter chapters, due attention is given also to Isaac and Rebekah as parents to Esau and Jacob, and the author’s view of Rebekah is here very positive. 25 The reader may get the impression that either the author of Jubilees is not very interested in the episode narrated in Gen 24, or alternatively, he has chosen to omit it for some other reason. One could cautiously suspect that he perhaps does not want to actualize such discussion that later pops up in rabbinic literature, but there might of course be other reasons as well. 26 As is well known, ancient interpreters were very attentive towards details in the biblical stories, but these details they interpreted from their 25 For this, see, e. g. Betsy Halpern-Amaru, The Empowerment of Women in the Book of Jubilees (Leiden: Brill, 1999), esp. 37–64. 26 On this see the contribution by Jacques T. A. G. M. van Ruiten in this volume, p. 99–128.

90

Lotta Valve

own specific viewpoints. This becomes visible in a quite exemplary way in the rabbinic interpretations of Gen 24. From the statement in Gen 24:16 that Rebekah was “a virgin” and that “no man had known her,” the rabbis, sharing the presupposition that nothing in the Torah was written in vain, initiated a long and detailed halachic discussion of whether it was possible for a girl to be technically a virgin and still “known by a man” in another way, i. e. to have sexual experiences nevertheless, or, alternatively, to have lost her hymen but still be without any actual sexual experiences (i. e. to be a mukat ez, literally “a female injured by a piece of wood”), and whether and in which cases this should affect her marriage-contract sum (ketubah). 27 The rabbis thus use Gen 24:16 as a proof text to illustrate the case. And therefore, according to them, the very words were written about Rebekah to emphasize that she, in any case, was a virgin in every possible respect. 28 However, this general thematic receives an initially quite surprising turn in later midrashic interpretations, where the statement can be found that Rebekah, when she fell off the camel (Gen 24:64), herself became a mukat ez. This interpretation is later than the rabbinic era and can be found only in medieval sources 29, and therefore the development may be viewed solely as an extension of the halachic discussion. It may be that somehow the topic of the mukat ez had become so closely intertwined with Rebekah, due to the use of Gen 24:16 as a proof text in the halachic discussion, that the step to a combination of Rebekah as person and the term mukat ez was not very great. 30 This is an entirely possible and even 27 Rabbi Meir has the more lenient opinion, according to which, in a case of mukat ez, the girl’s ketubah should be 200 zuz, i. e. the sum assigned for a virgin, whereas the majority opinion of the Sages is that her ketubah is only 100 zuz, i. e. the same sum as for a divorced woman or a widow. 28 See Genesis Rabbah 60:5 and p. Ketubot 1:3. Cf. the detailed analysis and discussion of these texts in Teugels, Wooing of Rebekah, 193–207. See also M. J. H. M. Poorthuis, “Rebekah as a Virgin on Her Way to Marriage: A Study in Midrash,” JSJ 29 (1998): 438–462, esp. 439–444. As regards the original meaning of the term ‫ בתולה‬in Gen 24:16, it is probable that it denotes a young woman who has not given birth, so the emphasis was not on virginity in a technical sense, and therefore, further precision (‫ )ואיש לא ידעה‬was needed in the text. See G. J. Wenham, “Betulah, ‘A Girl of Marriageable Age’,” VT 22 (1972): 326–348. 29 See, e. g., Yalkut Shimʿoni on Genesis §109; for a complete list of texts, see Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, V (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1925), 263, note 301. 30 Cf. Teugels, Bible and Midrash, 210–211. This phenomenon could be compared with the development of the theme “Jacob the Scholar” which James Kugel has used as an example of a chain of exegesis and reception history, where the later outcome of a tradition finally bears only vague traces of the basic exegetical problem out of which it began to develop. See James Kugel, Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as It Was at the Start of the Common

The “Wooing of Rebekah”

91

plausible option, but there may be additional reasons as well. Perry writes about the servant and Rebekah’s journey back home, which in the Genesis text constitutes a gap between Gen 24:61 and 24:62: In a short cut, the story shifts to the Land of Canaan, without supplying any information about the long journey. This place of indeterminacy is filled in by a series of midrashic flights of fancy, according to which the journey makes a leap forward to prevent the servant from coupling with the young girl at night, but nevertheless Isaac, who “did not find hymen in her,” suspects the servant and blames Rebekah. Eventually Rebekah is cleared, but it would seem that these midrashic stories anticipated my article. 31

Now the question is whether these exegetes of old read the story in Gen 24 as closely as did Perry. I am not entirely sure that they were interested in actualizing Rebekah’s perspective in the same way as Perry has later done, but without doubt they were close readers on their own terms and noticed the instances where the servant’s words and actual behavior were in contradiction (especially when the servant gives a rather modified account of the previous events to Laban and Bethuel in verses 34–49) and therefore had reason to suspect that perhaps he was not an entirely trustworthy person. 32 In addition, of course the mere thought about the long journey may have caused this kind of reasoning in the minds of interpreters concerned with matters of sexuality, even if there were, according to the text, other people present on the journey beside Rebekah and the servant (v. 59). 33 But whatever the reason for the emergence of these traditions, it gives the impression that a thought which either had occurred, or possibly was in danger of occurring, to readers of Gen 24, is refuted in this way: “It is true that Rebekah was no longer technically a virgin, but there is good reason for this.” This way of explaining the situation and possibly refuting some undesired tradition is, in fact, not very different from how Matthew in his Gospel explains to the reader the circumstances surrounding the birth of Jesus (1:18–25), or reacts to the apparent rumor that the disciples had stolen Jesus’ body from the grave (28:11–15). Therefore, I think that the Era (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1998), 354, 365–366; Idem, How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now (New York: Free Press, 2007), 137–138. 31 Perry, “Counter-Stories,” 306. 32 Pirke Rabbi Eliezer 16 contains a story according to which Abraham suspected Eliezer, and Isaac had to examine Rebekah, which then proved that she indeed was a virgin. The mukat ez motif is still absent from this story. Cf. Poorthuis, “Rebekah as a Virgin,” 456, who emphasizes the negative view of slaves which the Rabbis had. 33 Poorthuis, “Rebekah as a Virgin” (esp. pp. 459–462), emphasizes this “pansexual” attitude that the Rabbis had, specifically with regard to this story, but also otherwise.

92

Lotta Valve

consideration which Avigdor Shinan and Yair Zakovitch have given to the story in Gen 24 deserves some attention.

5. Tradition-Historical Considerations Pertaining to Genesis 24 Avigdor Shinan and Yair Zakovitch suggest in a chapter entitled “The Story of Rebekah and the Servant on the Road from Haran” in their book From Gods to God that the later midrashic expansions of the story of Gen 24 are perhaps not merely reception-historical, but rather traditionhistorical elements that have survived beside the biblical narrative. 34 Initially, they suggest that there are principally three options for the origins of the tradition of Rebekah as a mukat ez: 1) Rebekah’s non-virginity is a non-Jewish tradition, created in order to mock the Jews and their sacred traditions. This option Shinan and Zakovitch deem as improbable and dismiss with a few words. They find it hard to believe that the tradition would be so often repeated in Jewish literature. 35 However, this kind of procedure of acknowledging the existence of an established tradition and simultaneously refuting it may lie in the background for example in the Gospel texts that I referred to above, and therefore I think that this option is not entirely impossible, given that the attestation of this Jewish tradition comes from as late as medieval documents, when the hegemony of Christianity and the relative suppression of Jews was a reality in many places in Europe. 2) Rebekah’s non-virginity is a Jewish, midrashic tradition. For this possibility, Shinan and Zakovitch elaborate on the possible connections (of the gezera shava type) of Gen 24 to other biblical texts where sexual aspects are clearly present, e. g. that the servant’s request of water reminds the reader of Sisera’s request to Jael (Judg 4:19; 5:25), that a nose ring and bracelets are often symbols of adultery (Ezek 16:11–17; 23:42–43; Hos 2:15), or that Rebekah covers herself with a veil (Gen 24:64), as Tamar later did (Gen 38:14). As the authors point out, this latter similarity was noticed even in rabbinic times, as it is stated in Genesis Rabbah 60:15 that, “Two were they that covered themselves with veils and gave birth

34 Avigdor Shinan and Yair Zakovitch, From Gods to God: How the Bible Debunked, Suppressed, or Changed Ancient Myths and Legends (Lincoln /Philadelphia: University of Nebraska Press /Jewish Publication Society, 2012), 230–236; trans. of Lo kakh katuv baTanakh, 2004. 35 Shinan and Zakovitch, From Gods to God, 233.

The “Wooing of Rebekah”

93

to twins.” 36 Shinan and Zakovitch do not discuss the possible midrashic development of the originally halachic mukat ez tradition from the angle that it could have been extended to Rebekah’s person, and this can be seen as a weakness in their argumentation. However, their observations regarding the biblical parallels are interesting, and as my personal conviction is that the gezera shava is one of the earliest exegetical techniques and has generated traditions which have a very long afterlife, it is entirely possible that such reasoning has been operative in this case too. 37 Therefore, a redaction-critical hypothesis might even be raised, according to which the redactors of the latest stratum in Genesis saw some inherent dangers in this story which was at that time found in an earlier form and could be compared to the Judges, Hosea and Tamar traditions mentioned above as an exercise of “inner-biblical exegesis.” Rebekah’s initial barrenness was, according to this hypothesis, thus emphasized in the final redaction, in order to refute all possible suspicion concerning Isaac’s paternity. This is, of course, pure speculation, but is reminiscent of a redaction critical question concerning the death of Bathsheba and David’s firstborn son and the birth of Solomon (2 Sam 12:15b–25): it would be more natural for the flow of the story if Solomon were the child who was born of the first union between the couple, but it is emphasized in the narrative that Solomon was their second child. Is this because of a Deuteronomistic doctrine that adultery must be punished, or because it would be unfit for a king to be born of an adulterous union, or because it must be emphasized that Solomon was not, at any rate, Uriah’s son but David’s? 3) Rebekah’s non-virginity is an ancient folk tradition which was rejected from the Pentateuch. It is, then, a tale about a cunning servant who deceives his master in a most scandalous way. This option is the most compelling one according to Shinan and Zakovitch, but they do not really elaborate on their hypothesis other than by stating that “[p]eople have always enjoyed tales of cunning and deceit, especially those in which someone from society’s lower ranks outwits his or her superiors.” 38 They thus postulate that this unsavory tale was tamed by incorporating it into a seemingly innocent frame, but without complete success in the enterprise.

36

Shinan and Zakovitch, From Gods to God, 233–235. See Lotta Valve, Early Modes of Exegesis: Ideal Figures in Malachi as a Test Case (Åbo: Åbo Akademi University Press, 2014), esp. 28–38. 38 Shinan and Zakovitch, From Gods to God, 235–236, quotation from p. 236. 37

94

Lotta Valve

Teugels refutes this theory (which Shinan and Zakovitch have earlier presented in a more extensive Hebrew article), deeming it very speculative. 39 There are however also other, quite different possibilities to posit influence from earlier traditions in Gen 24. Jack Sasson has drawn attention to certain similarities between the story of Gen 24 and documents concerning marriage conventions among high ranks of society in the ancient Near East. 40 In the letters concerning the marriage negotiations between King Zimri-Lim of Mari (ca. 1775–1761) and the daughter of Yarim-Lim of Yamhad, many details resemble those named in Gen 24. Also these negotiations were conducted through a proxy, or actually two trusted persons who reported about their progress to the king in letters. There is reference to ample gifts to the bride and her immediate family, as well as to the detail that the “mother” (former wet-nurse) of the bride was to accompany her to the new homeland (cf. Gen 24:59; 35:8). The contents of the letters also testify to the diplomatic skills of the main delegate Asqudum, as he is able to tackle unexpected difficulties in a clever way. This detail is also consistent with the common way to interpret Gen 24 where the quick wit of Abraham’s servant is highlighted. With this Near Eastern background in mind, it could be possible to conclude that the “pure and pious” interpretation of Gen 24, which a superficial and /or traditional reader of the chapter probably always applies to it, might be the one intended by the original author(s) after all.

6. Conclusion This brief survey has demonstrated that there are and have been several alternative ways to view the story recounted in Gen 24. These alternatives involve tradition-historical and redaction-critical as well as receptionhistorical considerations. I find Shinan’s and Zakovitch’s writing helpful because they very clearly demonstrate the different possibilities for how a postbiblical tradition may have emerged. They make their own preferences clear in this regard, but I think the question still remains which one to choose, or whether it is possible that the truth about the emergence of the postbiblical Gen 24 traditions lies, in a complicated manner, somewhere between the different options. There might possibly 39

Teugels, Wooing of Rebekah, 207–208 n. 22. Jack M. Sasson, “The Servant’s Tale: How Rebekah Found a Spouse,” JNES 65 (2006): 241–265. 40

The “Wooing of Rebekah”

95

be a slight kernel of truth in Shinan’s and Zakovitch’s claim that a morally doubtful folk tradition lies in the background and has been rejected in the version of Gen 24 which we now have; but simultaneously, the similarities between the diplomatic strategy in Gen 24 and the Mari letters highlighted by Sasson are also compelling. In my opinion, the problem of the final redaction of Genesis is central and cannot be left aside from any considerations pertaining to the Genesis stories. The question which would need an answer is thus whether the story in Gen 24 has some older kernel (whatever that may be) which could still be recovered; or whether the story is a mere “priestly fabrication” out of a genealogical frame. The alternative that the primary lesson of the tale, in its present form and setting, is to promote arranged marriages between inhabitants of Judah and Diaspora Jews is very compelling. 41 It is however possible that the tale nevertheless includes a “counter-story,” as Perry has demonstrated; but whether this counter-story is a modification belonging to an earlier version of the tale (cf. Shinan’s and Zakovitch’s option #3) is difficult to evaluate. In this regard, I side with Teugels that at least the tradition according to which Rebekah herself became a mukat ez when she fell off the camel is probably only a later development out of the halakha which was earlier developed from Gen 24:16. This does not preclude, however, that readers might have sensed some morally dubious features in Gen 24 even before the relatively late emergence of this tradition. Therefore the silence of the earlier writings of the “rewritten Bible” genre concerning the tale of Gen 24 may indeed be a loud silence. In sum, the tale in Gen 24 is an important and integral part of Abraham’s family history in Genesis, but it is passed over in comparative silence in reception history, apart from some relatively late sources. This scarcity may be due to the relative weakness of Isaac as a character in Genesis; a significant topic which, in turn, would require separate treatment which has not been possible in this article. Isaac is important mainly as a link between Abraham and Jacob who, with his twelve sons, becomes a predominant figure in the patriarchal history. In this development, his mother Rebekah plays a central role already in the Genesis account of the 41

Cf. Conczorowski, “All the Same as Ezra?” 106: “Gen 26:34–35 and 27:46–28:9 emphasize a diffuse moral evaluation of Canaanites, while Gen 24 is silent about it and simply takes it for guaranteed. The focus here is on the topic of marrying inside or outside the land, as well as people related or unrelated to a community defined by a common meta-narrative. Perhaps here we find the adaptation of an older custom of only marrying kinsfolk, which now appears to be used in the construction of an identity based on a narrative of common descent.”

96

Lotta Valve

story, and even more so in post-biblical literature like Jubilees. However, in these retellings there was no need to emphasize any aspects relating to Rebekah’s past, not even that Abraham’s servant functioned as a matchmaker between Isaac and Rebekah.

Part II Abraham’s Family in Ancient Jewish Literature

Abraham’s Family in the Book of Jubilees Jacques T. A. G. M. van Ruiten

The narrative concerning the figure of Abraham and his relationships with various members of his household in the book of Jubilees is, to a large extent, determined by the book of Genesis. Although the complete story of Abraham in the book of Genesis can be considered quite a late development, the author of Jubilees takes the scriptural story, as we have it now, as a point of departure. 1 Yet it is clear that Jubilees is no simple retelling of Genesis. There are interesting differences to be found in the description of Abraham and his family between the two books. There can be several reasons for interpreting or changing – or whatever one decides to call it – an ancient text. 2 There can be certain clues in the original (such as gaps, duplications, and contradictions), which are explained by way of the exegetical techniques of the interpreter. But there can also be traditional elements (haggadic or halakhic, from biblical or non-biblical sources), which can influence a transformation of a given biblical text. Finally, one can also discover interpretations, or transformations, which reflect certain tendencies on the part of the author or of the group to which he belongs. However, this culturally biased interpretation is often traditionally inspired as well. I would first like to engage in an overall comparison of the Abraham story in Genesis and Jubilees, before going on to focus more narrowly on Abraham and his relationships with his family.

1

For the different layers in the Abraham story as found in the book of Genesis, see the contribution by Konrad Schmid in this volume, p. 9–31. 2 See, for example, J. L. Kugel, The Bible As It Was (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1997); S. White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times (Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008); J. Zsengellér, ed., Rewritten Bible after Fifty Years: Texts, Terms or Techniques. A Last Dialogue with Geza Vermes (JSJSup 166; Leiden: Brill, 2014).

100

Jacques T. A. G. M. van Ruiten

1. Overall Comparison of the Abraham Story in Genesis and Jubilees The story of Abraham in Jubilees (11:14–23:8) can be divided into ten sections: 3 the early Abraham (Jub. 11:14–12:31; cf. Gen 11:26–12:3); Abraham’s travels (Jub. 13:1–29; cf. Gen 12:4–14:24); the land and covenant (Jub. 14:1–24; cf. Gen 15:1–16:16); Abraham, Israel, and the nations (Jub. 15:1–34; cf. Gen 17:1–27); the events surrounding Isaac’s birth (Jub. 16:1–17:14; cf. Gen 18:1–21:34); Isaac’s binding (Jub. 17:15–18:19; cf. Gen 22:1–19); the events after Sarah’s death until Abraham’s blessing of Jacob (Jub. 19:1–31; cf. Gen 22:20–25:4); Abraham’s testament to all his children and grandchildren (Jub. 20:1–13; cf. Gen 25:5–6); Abraham’s testament to Isaac (Jub. 21:1–26); and Abraham’s last day (Jub. 22:1–23:8; cf. Gen 25:7–10). Jubilees incorporates most of the pericopes of Gen 11:26–25:10. Moreover, it also includes, by way of permutation, Gen 25:12–28 (cf. Jub. 19:13–14). As far as the pericopes are concerned, there is no parallel in Jubilees for Gen 16:4c–14 (the tension between Sarah and Hagar, and Hagar’s subsequent flight); Gen 20:2–18 (Sarah’s abduction to Abimelech’s house); Gen 21:22–34 (Abraham’s covenant with Abimelech in Beersheba); Gen 22:20–24 (the genealogy of Nahor) and Gen 24:1–67 (the marriage of Isaac and Rebekah). As far as the last two passages are concerned, there is only a very short reference to them in Jub. 19:10. 4 There are also substantial omissions, or passages that are just summarized, within the passages in Jubilees that run parallel with Genesis: Gen 13:5–12a (the struggle between Abraham’s herdsmen and those of Lot, and the subsequent separation from Lot), which is very briefly summarized in Jub. 13:17a; Gen 14:1–8 (the first four wars of the kings); Gen 14:15–20a (corresponding to a lacuna in the text of Jubilees); Gen 18:16–33 (Abraham’s intercession); Gen 19:1–23 (Lot’s rescue); Gen 20:2–18 (Sarah’s abduction to Abimelech’s house); Gen 21:22–34 (Abraham’s covenant with Abimelech); and Gen 25:3–4 (Abraham and Keturah’s grandchildren). Other short narrative elements that are omitted include Sarah’s barrenness (Gen 11:30), Terah’s death (Gen 11:32), and the mention of Sarah’s age and laughter in relation to Isaac’s birth (Gen 21:5–7). 3 For the following, see Jacques T. A. G. M. van Ruiten, Abraham in the Book of Jubilees: The Rewriting of Genesis 11:26–25:10 in the Book of Jubilees 11:14–23:8 (JSJSup 161; Leiden: Brill, 2012), especially 331–344. 4 See the contribution by Lotta Valve in this volume, p. 81–95.

Abraham’s Family in the Book of Jubilees

101

The author of Jubilees not only omitted certain passages, he also added a number of extensive insertions into the Genesis narrative. The stories about Abraham’s life are enclosed within a chronological framework, which we do not find, as such, in the book of Genesis. In line with the rest of the book, a system of jubilees, weeks, and years is used, whereas in some cases events are dated (on a certain day) in a certain month. With regard to the other additions, one can distinguish between halakhic and narrative additions. Many narrative additions can be found in the story of the early Abraham (Jub. 11:14–12:31). Abraham at an early age renounces his service to the many gods and their idols, and testifies to his belief in the one true God (cf. Jub. 11:16–17, 18–24; 12:1–8, 16–21). Abraham also learns how to write (Jub. 12:25–27). There are also extensive additions found in the stories surrounding Abraham’s death (Jub. 20:1–23:8), as well other narrative additions in between, for example, in Jub. 16:15–19 (when the angels return to Abraham and Sarah) and in Jub. 19:15–31 (Abraham’s blessing of Jacob). Some halakhic-oriented additions with regard to festivals (Jub. 15:1–2; 18:18–19) and circumcision (Jub. 15:25–34) have also been included. With regard to the additions, one can discern an interesting phenomenon. In the midst of a textual addition in Jubilees that has, for the most part, no verbal correspondences with Genesis, there are some verses that are very close to the text of Genesis. They seem to function, as it were, as textual anchors connecting Jubilees and Genesis. In these places, Jubilees zooms in on certain episodes, recounting them in much greater detail, whereas Genesis zooms out. One can speak of a centrifugal reading of the text. We can see this tendency most clearly at the beginning (Jub. 11:14–12:31) and at the end (Jub. 20–23) of the Abraham cycle. The first part of Abraham’s life (“The Early Abraham”) shows an enormous enlargement in terms of details that are not present in the story of Genesis. Nonetheless, there are passages in which Genesis and Jubilees almost verbally agree with each other. One can point to Jub. 12:22–24, where Gen 12:1–3 is adopted nearly verbatim. See also Jub. 12:9–15, in which Gen 11:28, 31 occurs with variations and permutations at the end of the passage (Jub. 12:14–15). And one might also possibly cite Jub. 11:14–15, which is a variation of Gen 11:26–27b. This variation, however, conforms to the rewriting of the birth stories found elsewhere in the book. In the description of the last part of Abraham’s life (Jub. 20–23), this zooming-in feature is clearly present. Abraham’s testaments to all his children (Jub. 20:1–13), to Isaac (Jub. 21:1–26), and the events on his last

102

Jacques T. A. G. M. van Ruiten

day (Jub. 22:1–23:8) are a huge enlargement when compared to Genesis. Nevertheless, Gen 25:5–10 is carried over quite literally. In the first place, Gen 25:5–6 is adopted in Jub. 20:11. Both of the additions of Jub. 20:1–10 and Jub. 21:1–26 are related to this verbal correspondence. Furthermore, the addition in Jub. 20:12–13 is connected with Gen 25:6, although it is heavily influenced by Gen 25:18. In the second place, Gen 25:7–10 occurs quite literally in Jub. 23:1, 7–8. The description of the events of Abraham’s last day, the celebration of the Festival of Weeks (Jub. 22:1–9), Abraham’s last speech and deeds (Jub. 22:10–23:1), the events between his death and burial (Jub. 23:2–6), and possibly also the eschatological passage (Jub. 23:9–31) are related to these anchoring verses. In addition to this phenomenon of a free rendering in combination with some (relatively small) textual anchors, one can also observe the phenomenon that larger passages that run parallel in Genesis and Jubilees are connected using clearly demarcated introductions, postscripts, or insertions. This occurs in Jub. 14:1–20. Gen 15 is borrowed quite literally in Jub. 14:1–18, whereas the insertion in Jub. 14:11 and the addition in Jub. 14:19–20 make clear that an offering is being made in the context of a renewing of the covenant. With regard to Jub. 15, one can observe that Gen 17 has been carried over quite literally in Jub. 15:3–24. However, this text is preceded by a short introduction, which speaks about an offering and about the festival of first fruits as preparation for the renewing of the covenant (Jub. 15:1–2), while it is followed by a large halakhic text concerning circumcision (Jub. 15:25–34). The same can be observed with regard to the binding of Isaac (Jub. 17:15–18:19). Whereas Gen 22:1–19 is carried over quite literally in Jub. 18:1–8,12b – 16c,16e–17), it is preceded by an introduction about the role of Prince Mastema in relation to Isaac’s offer. This introduction influences the insertions later in the text (Jub. 18:9, 12a, 16d). The text is completed with a short halakha concerning Passover (Jub. 18:18–19). We might put Jub. 17:1–14 in the same category. Whereas Gen 21:8–21 is adopted quite literally in Jub. 17:1, 4–13, there is short addition at the beginning (Jub. 17:2–3) and at the end (Jub. 17:14). The additions in Jub. 16:15–19 (return of the angels) and Jub. 16:20–31 (halakha concerning Sukkot) can be considered as a centrifugal reading of the text, because they zoom in on a detail (or lacuna) in the story of Isaac’s birth, namely, the time between the conception and the actual birth. This story is not interrupted but related afterwards. In a certain way this is comparable to what we have mentioned above: a small amount of text is

Abraham’s Family in the Book of Jubilees

103

carried over quite literally (Gen 21:1–4 in Jub. 16:12–14) and functions as a textual anchor for the additions. The halakhic addition with regard to Sukkot (Jub. 16:20–31) is connected to the addition of Jub. 16:15–19. The events in both texts are dated in the seventh month, and the central theme in both texts is joy. Finally, several shorter insertions can be found in the text. They are connected to the offering on the altar (Jub. 13:4b,8b–9; cf. Jub. 14:11,19), the beauty of the land (Jub. 13:2,6–7), Abraham’s joy (Jub. 14:21; cf. Jub. 17:2–3; see also the larger addition Jub. 16:15–31), and Abraham’s sadness (Jub. 13:18). From the above-mentioned remarks, it is clear that most passages from Abraham’s story in Genesis have a parallel in the book of Jubilees. Some narratives and narrative elements are nearly verbatim. We cited the long narrative sections with regard to the first renewing of the covenant (Gen 15:1–21; Jub. 14:1–18); the second renewing of the covenant (Gen 17:1–27; Jub. 15:3–24); Isaac’s weaning and the dismissal of Ishmael and his mother (Gen 21:8–21; Jub. 17:1, 4–13); and the binding of Isaac (Gen 22:1–19; Jub. 18:1–17). With regard to the smaller narratives, one can cite God’s call to Abraham to leave his land (Gen 12:1–3; Jub. 12:22b–23); the separation of Abraham and Lot (Gen 13:12b–18; Jub. 13:17b–21); the meeting of the king of Sodom and Abraham (Gen 14:21–24; Jub. 13:28–29); the conception and birth of Ishmael (Gen 16:1–4b, 15–16; Jub. 14:21–24b); the conception and birth of Isaac (Gen 21:1–4; Jub. 16:12–14); the marriage of Abraham and Keturah (Gen 25:1–2; Jub. 19:11–12); and Abraham’s gift to Isaac and his other sons (Gen 25:5–6; Jub. 20:11). Sometimes there are passages in Jubilees that run parallel to Genesis as far as the story line is concerned. The wording, however, is quite different. There are many additions and extensive omissions. I refer here to Abraham’s birth (Gen 11:26–27b; Jub. 11:14–15); Abraham’s marriage until his arrival in Haran (Gen 11:27c–31; Jub. 12:9–15); Abraham’s travels (Gen 12:4–8; Jub. 13:1–9); Abraham and Sarah’s stay in Egypt (Gen 12:9–13:4; Jub. 13:10–16); the war of the kings (Gen 14:8–15; Jub. 13:22–25); the second announcement of Isaac’s birth (Gen 18:1–15; Jub. 16:1–4); the judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19:24–29; Jub. 16:5–6); Lot and his daughters (Gen 19:30–38; cf. Jub. 16:7–9); the death and burial of Sarah (Gen 23:1–20; Jub. 19:1–9); the death and burial of Abraham (Gen 25:7–10; Jub. 23:1–8); and the births of Jacob and Esau (Gen 25:21–28; Jub. 19:13–14). With regard to a few “parallel” passages, one really cannot say that they

104

Jacques T. A. G. M. van Ruiten

run parallel, since entire episodes are often summarized in one phrase. From Sarah’s abduction to Abimelech’s house (Gen 20:1–18), Jubilees reproduces only a notice about Abraham’s travelling there (Jub. 16:10); from Abraham’s covenant with Abimelech, Jubilees adopts only the setting at the well of the oath (Jub. 16:11); from the marriage of Isaac and Rebekah (Gen 24:1–67; cf. 22:20–24), Jubilees includes just a short note about this (Jub. 19:10, which is mostly borrowed from Gen 25:19–20); the skirmish between the herdsmen of Abraham’s and of Lot’s cattle is summarized in just one phrase (Jub. 13:17a). These are clear examples of a centripetal reading of the text; the author is zooming out. In addition, there is an important case of permutation involved. The text concerning the descendants of Ishmael (Gen 25:12–18, as far as relevant for the author of Jubilees) and the beginning of the story of Jacob and Esau (Gen 25:19–28) are all inserted before the story of Abraham’s death. The mention of the birth of Ishmael’s son (cf. Gen 25:13) is positioned immediately after his dismissal and his marriage (Jub. 17:14). The marriage of Isaac and Rebekah (Gen 25:19–20) is mentioned in Jub. 19:10 and comes in the place of the long story of the search for Isaac’s wife (Gen 24:1–67; cf. also the genealogy of Gen 22:20–24). The story of Jacob’s and Esau’s births (Gen 25:21–27) occurs after the birth of the children of Abraham and Keturah (Jub. 19:13–14). Finally, Rebekah’s preference for Jacob (Gen 25:28) forms the basis for the passage about Abraham’s blessing of Jacob (Jub. 19:15–31; esp. 19:15, 31).

2. Abraham and His Family I will now focus specifically on the image of Abraham and his relationships with members of his family as described in the book of Jubilees and insofar as it departs from the book of Genesis. An important question here is the interpretative character of the process of rewriting, both in relation to the understanding of Genesis and in relation to the new meaning of Abraham’s family in the text. I will focus specifically on Abraham’s relationships with his parents, brothers, nephew, wives, children, and grandchildren.

Abraham’s Family in the Book of Jubilees

105

2.1 Abraham’s Relationship with His Parents 2.1.1 Proper Descent The report of Abraham’s birth (Gen 11:26–27) is reworked into a combined marriage and birth report (Jub. 11:14–15). 5 The dating of the birth of the first son fits into the absolute dating system of Jubilees (“During the thirty-ninth jubilee, in the second week, in the first year, Terah married a woman whose name was Edna, the daughter of Abraham, the daughter of his father’s sister. In the seventh year of this week she gave birth to a son for him.”). 6 It is striking that Abraham’s mother Edna is mentioned with reference both to her father (“Abraham”) and her mother, his father’s sister, that is, the sister of Terah’s father Nahor. According to the text, Abraham is named after his grandfather, because he died before Abraham was conceived. The reason behind this could be that the author wants to stress that the influence of Abraham’s grandfather, who is not from the genealogical line of Shem, is confined to the giving of his name. 7 The author might also be influenced by the fact that, in the biblical text, Nahor, Abraham’s brother, is named after the other grandfather, namely, Terah’s father. However, the most important element in the rewriting is the fact that Abraham’s mother Edna originates from the genealogical line of Shem. 8 She is the sister of Terah’s father Nahor, the son of Serug, who himself married a woman outside the genealogical line of Shem (“Iyaseka, the daughter of Nestag of the Chaldeans”). 9 Terah originates on his father’s side, and Edna even more importantly on her mother’s side, from the genealogical line of Shem, which means that they have the right genealogical credentials.

5

Cf. Van Ruiten, Abraham in the Book of Jubilees, 23–24. Abraham is born in the seventh year of the second week of the thirty-ninth jubilee, which is 1876 anno mundi. 7 Cf. B. Halpern-Amaru, The Empowerment of Women in the Book of Jubilees (JSJSup 60; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 26–27. 8 G. L. Davenport, The Eschatology of the Book of Jubilees (StPB 20; Leiden: Brill, 1971), 82, note 1, states that the names of the wives and fathers-in-law have no relevance for the concerns that occupied the attention of the author of Jubilees: “They hardly seem relevant for his interest in the purity of Israel.” See, however, J. Rook, “The Names of the Wives from Adam to Abraham in the Book of Jubilees,” JSP 7 (1990): 105–117; Halpern-Amaru, Empowerment of Women, 9–31, et passim. 9 Rook states incorrectly that Edna is “the grand-daughter of the second, but unnamed, son of Seroh and Melka.” Cf. Rook, “Names of the Wives,” 117. 6

106

Jacques T. A. G. M. van Ruiten

2.1.2 Abraham’s Relationship with His Father We do not hear anything about Abraham’s relationship with his mother, but, directly after the report of Abraham’s birth, the author does tell us about his relationship with his father (Jub. 11:16–17). His father taught him writing. It is not said in which language his father taught Abraham to write, nor what the content of this writing was. In Jub. 12:25–27 it is said that Hebrew, forgotten after the collapse of Babel, was revived in the days of Abraham “through the revelation of an angel.” This revelation allowed Abraham to read the writings of his forefathers such as Enoch and Noah (cf. Jub. 21:10). The first thing Abraham does after he learns Hebrew is to copy his forefathers’ books and study them for six months. This means that Abraham, according to Jubilees, came to have access to esoteric knowledge inherited from the age before Babel, which was often revealed by the angels (e. g., Jub. 3:15; 4:15, 18, 21; 10:10–12; cf. also 8:3–4). 10 This would mean that Abraham’s father did not teach him Hebrew and that he had no access to the knowledge of his forefathers before the revelation of the angel. This would also mean that the books he received from his father (Jub. 12:27: “his fathers’ books”) had just mechanically been handed down, after the collapse, from father to son. It was not part of his father’s instruction, which was related to idolatry. At the age of fourteen Abraham leaves his father in order not to worship idols with him. He realizes the deviations of others and prays to be saved from them. Statues, impurity, and wickedness are illustrative of the errors of the people. This statement of Abraham’s break with his father seems to be in contradiction to Jub. 12:1–8 where we find a dialogue between Abraham and his father. In this passage, Abraham tries to convince his father Terah to renounce idolatry. In Jub. 12:6–7 it is implied that Terah is a priest of the idols. Moreover, Terah seems to agree with Abraham that it is better not to worship idols, but that he is forced to do so because otherwise they would kill him and Abraham: “And he said to him: ‘I, too, know (this), my son. What shall I do with the people who have ordered me to serve in their presence? If I tell them what is right, they will kill me, because they themselves are attached to them so that they worship and praise them. Be quiet, my son, so that they do not kill you.’” (Jub. 12:6–7)

10

Cf. S. Weitzman, “Why did the Qumran Community Write in Hebrew?” JAOS 119 (1999): 35–45.

Abraham’s Family in the Book of Jubilees

107

Moreover, Jub. 12:15 presupposes that Abraham and his father are still living together. After the burning of the house of idols by Abraham and the subsequent death of his brother Haran (Jub. 12:12–14), Terah departs from Ur of the Chaldees together with Abraham, and they subsequently live together for fourteen years in Haran. Although Abraham is in a certain way partly responsible for his brother’s death, he is not blamed for it. In Jub. 12:28–31, it is described how Abraham advises his father to depart for Canaan. His father blesses him and looks forward to a future reunion in that land. Moreover, he asks that Abraham take special care of Lot, the son of Haran; Haran had died in the fire. The figure of Terah then disappears from the narrative at this point. Neither the future reunion nor his funeral is mentioned in the book of Jubilees. 11 In conclusion, it can be said that Abraham’s relationship with his father is, for the most part, quite positive. Despite the fact that it is first described that Abraham broke with his father because of his idolatry, impurity, and wickedness, it is later admitted that Abraham and his father remained together until Abraham’s departure for Canaan. His father taught him the art of writing, and concerning service to idols he admitted that Abraham was in fact right, but that he could not do otherwise, lest he and Abraham be killed by the people. After the burning of the house of idols, he is the one who (together with his family) left Ur of the Chaldees, and he blesses Abraham as he leaves for Canaan.

2.2 Abraham and His Brothers Abraham’s relationships with his brothers is described less positively. It is striking that the reports of the births of Nahor and Haran (Gen 11:26: “When Terah had lived seventy years, he became the father of Abraham, Nahor and Haran”) are omitted in Jubilees, despite the fact that both brothers play a part in the continuation of the text. They appear for the first time in the narrative after the conversation in which Abraham tries to convince his father Terah to renounce idolatry. They are still without names, and they are characterized as idolatrous: “When he [=Abraham] told these things to his two brothers, and they became angry with him, he remained silent” (cf. Jub. 12:8). Their names are first mentioned in their marriage reports.

11

In Gen 11:28, his death is hinted at: “And Haran died before his father Terah.”

108

Jacques T. A. G. M. van Ruiten

In Jubilees, there is a rearrangement of the genealogical details of Gen 11:26–29. 12 This results in a sequence of three marriages, first that of Abraham and Sarah, then four years later that of Haran with an unidentified woman, and finally that of Nahor, for whom neither the name of the woman nor date is given. Only the second marriage (that of Haran) is followed by a report about the eldest son (Lot). The marriage report about Nahor (Jub. 12:11), which is quite extensive in Gen 11:29 where the name of the wife and her origin are mentioned, is very cursorily presented in Jubilees: “His brother Nahor also got married.” It is not clear why the author does not mention the name of Nahor’s wife. Possibly he had a need to push her origin as a daughter of Haran into the background. Much later in the story, in 19:10, Milcah is mentioned as the grandmother of Rebekah, the wife of Isaac. In this verse, the story of Gen 24:1–67 (cf. also Gen 22:20–24; 25:20) is condensed into a genealogical remark, one verse in length, about Isaac’s wife, a remark that is at the same time a genealogy of Nahor. Three times Rebekah is called the daughter of Bethuel. And of this Bethuel it is said that he is the son of Abraham’s brother Nahor and of Milcah, “who was the wife of Abraham’s brother Nahor” (Jub. 19:10). The text does not supply the fact that she is a daughter of Haran, whereas, when mentioning the origin of the wives of the patriarchs, the father is always mentioned. In Genesis, the report of the death of Haran is quite neutral (cf. Gen 11:28: “And Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his birth, in Ur of the Chaldees”). In Jubilees, however, his death is connected with the fact that he tried to save the idols which Abraham tried to burn (cf. Jub. 12:12–14). Genesis does not mention idolatry or the burning of the idols. 13 However, there are some clues in the biblical text which might have caused these deviations in Jubilees. Haran, who is mentioned as the third son of Terah, first becomes the father of a son (Gen. 11:27c). However, there is no marriage report for him, as is the case for both his brothers (Gen 11:29a). Immediately after the birth of Lot, Haran dies (Gen 11:28). With regard to Haran’s death, Genesis mentions some striking details: (a) “and Haran died before Terah (‫ ;”)על פני תרח‬and (b) “in the land of his birth.” One can easily deduce from the death of Haran, 12

Cf. Van Ruiten, Abraham and the Book of Jubilees, 36–38. The burning of idols does not occur anywhere else in Jubilees, with the exception of Jub. 31:1–2, which is a rewriting of Gen 35:1–4. In Genesis, Jacob hides the foreign gods beneath an oak tree, which is in the land of Shechem. Jubilees adds not only that Rachel had stolen them from her father Laban but also that Jacob, before hiding them, first burned the foreign gods. 13

Abraham’s Family in the Book of Jubilees

109

on the one hand, and the departure of Terah, on the other, that something irregular must have happened. The mention of a fire could be motivated by the mention of the name of the city of Ur. The root ‫“( אור‬become light”), and in particular the noun ‫“( אוֹר‬brightness; light”), can be related to fire. 14 Moreover, one can point to a tradition found in Josh 24:2–3, 14–15, which states that Terah and his fathers “lived of old beyond the Euphrates,” and there “they served other gods” (Josh 24:2). Therefore, God has led Abraham from that place (Josh 24:3). 15 The extensive description of the events surrounding the death of Haran does serve one clear function. It characterizes Haran as the prototype of the unfaithful one, in opposition to the faithful and righteous Abraham. Although both descend from Terah and in that sense are in the line of Shem, the line of the Chosen People will only continue through Abraham. This is why it is significant that Sarah should not be defiled by the faithless Haran and that she should descend straight from Terah.

2.3 Sarah: Abraham’s Sister and Wife 2.3.1 Proper Descent Sarah is mentioned for the first time in the marriage report of Abraham and Sarah: “During the fortieth jubilee, in the second week, in its seventh year, Abraham took a wife. And her name was Sarah, the daughter of his father, and she became his wife” (Jub. 12:9). What is interesting, though, is that the information about their marriage is enlarged upon considerably. In Genesis, the report is quite brief (Gen 11:29: “The name of Abraham’s wife was Sarah.”) In Jubilees, a date is provided (“during the fortieth jubilee, in the second week, in its seventh year”) and their marriage is described more extensively (“Abraham took a wife, and her name was Sarah ... and she became his wife”), and her ancestry is mentioned (“the daughter of his father”). In other words, Sarah was also Abraham’s sister. This addition could have been prompted by the fact that Abraham called Sarah “his sister” elsewhere in Genesis, namely, when he visited Pharaoh (Gen 12:10–20) and the king of Gerar (Gen 20:1–18). 16 However, more 14 For the tradition that Abraham was saved from the fire (cf. Jub. 12:12), see Kugel, Bible, 143–44. 15 For this tradition see, e. g., Kugel, Bible, 133–38. 16 It is interesting to note, however, that the author of Jubilees does not refer to Sarah as Abraham’s sister when they encounter the Pharaoh (Jub. 13:13–15); the visit to the king of Gerar, furthermore, is omitted altogether.

110

Jacques T. A. G. M. van Ruiten

probably, the author of Jubilees would have wanted to stress Sarah’s excellent provenance. She came from the right family. In the mind of the author she could not have been the daughter of Haran. This might well have been the conclusion on the basis of the biblical text: “Abraham and Nahor took wives; the name of Abraham’s wife was Sarah, and the name of Nahor’s wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran the father of Milcah and Iscah” (Gen 11:29). Sarah’s father is not mentioned, whereas Milcah’s is. It could then be inferred that Sarah was also a daughter of Haran. In early Jewish literature, there are several examples of the identification of Sarah and Iscah. 17 This was not the case for the author of Jubilees, however. Further changes in the text support the opinion that Sarah could not have been Haran’s daughter. This is a reference to the fact that in the book of Genesis most items concerning Haran are located before the marriages of Abraham and Nahor: his birth, his fathering of Lot, and his death (Gen 11:26–28). In Jubilees, though, the information concerning the marriage of Abraham with Sarah is placed before the marriage of Haran (cf. Jub. 12:9–10). 18 Sarah’s infertility is not stressed by the author of Jubilees. He fails to mention that Sarah was barren (Gen 11:30). 19 For the author of Jubilees, it is her origin that carries weight, that of going straight back to the creation of the first man and woman. 2.3.2 The Concern for Posterity Despite the fact that Sarah’s infertility is not stressed in the book of Jubilees, the concern for posterity does indeed play a role in the book. The postponement of the birth of their first son is part of the story line in Genesis. Jubilees cannot continue with the birth of a son and an elaboration of the events during the life of this child, as is the case with the other marriage reports. Instead, a second marriage report is mentioned, that of Abraham’s brother Haran (Jub. 12:10), whose birth is nowhere 17 See L. A. B. 23.4; Ant. 1.151; Tg. Ps.-J. Gen 11:29; b. Meg. 14a; b. Sanh. 69b; Gen. Rab. 38.14. Cf. D. U. Rottzoll, Rabbinischer Kommentar zum Buch Genesis: Darstellung der Rezeption des Buches Genesis in Mischna und Talmud unter Angabe Targumischer und Midrashischer Paralleltexte (SJ 14; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1994), 201–202; Halpern-Amaru, Empowerment of Women, 35, note 4. 18 Halpern-Amaru, Empowerment of Women, 35. 19 In its rewrite, Jubilees does not establish her barrenness as a central issue but rather her descent, her origin. This aspect of the rewriting of Jubilees is stressed emphatically by Halpern-Amaru, Empowerment, 34–35. She underlines that Sarah is the “dominant bride,” that she is the only woman named, and the only one with “genealogical credentials.”

Abraham’s Family in the Book of Jubilees

111

actually stated in Jubilees, while Haran’s marriage is never mentioned in Genesis. In Jubilees, however, it is described in a manner comparable to that of the marriage of Abraham and Sarah. As in Genesis, a son is born from this marriage. With the repositioning of Lot’s birth closely after the marriage of Abraham and Sarah, the author seems to suggest that Lot is going to play the role of the (yet) unborn son of Abraham and Sarah. 20 When Abraham informs his father Terah that he will leave Haran to go to the land of Canaan, Terah asks Abraham to take Lot “the son of your brother Haran, with you as your son” (Jub. 12:30). It gradually becomes clear, however, that Lot cannot take the place of the son of Abraham and Sarah. Abraham’s paternal feelings, however, are stressed in Jub. 13:18, where, after the separation from Lot, it is said: “He was brokenhearted that his brother’s son had separated from him for he had no children.” The promise of progeny in Gen 15:1–6 is carried over quite literally in Jub. 14:1–6. 21 Abraham complains to God that he has no children up to that point and that the son of Maseq is going to be his heir. God assures him that he will have numerous offspring, and that he and his offspring will inherit Canaan. In this way, God establishes a covenant with Abraham. Moreover, Yhwh’s promise to Abraham’s posterity in relation to the making of a covenant (Gen 15:18) is carried over by Jubilees (Jub. 14:18). In Jubilees, Abraham’s response to these promises is different from that in Genesis. It is made explicitly clear that Abraham was happy with the promise of many offspring and that he shared his feelings with Sarah (Jub. 14:21: “Abraham was very happy, and told all these things to his wife Sarah. He believed that he would have seed.”) We may suppose that, in line with the narrative, he thought that he would ultimately succeed in having children with his wife Sarah. One should keep in mind that in the book of Jubilees, up until the scene with Hagar, the author has not provided any clue yet that Sarah might be unable to bear children. 22 In Genesis, the first thing said about Sarah is that she is infertile (Gen 11:30: “Now Sarah was barren; she had no child.”) This fact is stated twice, and so the pivotal role of her barrenness in the story and the hopelessness of

20 In Jub. 12:30 Terah says to Abraham: “Take Lot, the son of your brother Haran, with you as your son.” In Jub. 13:18, after the separation from Lot, it is said of Abraham: “He was brokenhearted that his brother’s son had separated from him, for he had no children.” 21 For a discussion of the small differences, see Van Ruiten, Abraham in the Book of Jubilees, 122–125. 22 Halpern-Amaru, Empowerment of Women, 50, 100.

112

Jacques T. A. G. M. van Ruiten

the couple’s situation is emphasized. 23 In his rewrite (Jub. 12:9), the author of Jubilees fails to mention that Sarah is barren. When Sarah continued to have no children (Jub. 14:21), she advised Abraham to try to conceive children with her slave-girl Hagar (Jub. 14:22). It appears then that it was Sarah’s wish to uphold Yhwh’s promise made to Abraham (Jub. 14:1–6), which has made Abraham so happy. It is significant that Gen 16:2b (“Behold now, Yhwh has prevented me from bearing children”) is omitted in Jubilees. This indicates that, according to Jubilees, Sarah is probably not really convinced that she will always remain barren. With regard to Sarah’s relation to Hagar, the author of Jubilees alters the picture of Sarah as found in Gen 16. In Genesis, it is as if Sarah is also acting for selfish reasons. 24 The text not only reads: “Behold now, Yhwh has prevented me from bearing children” (Gen 16:2b), but also: “Perhaps I will be built up from her.” (Gen 16:2d) Whatever the exact meaning of this phrase is, it focuses attention on Sarah or on what is in her interest. 25 She seems to make no connection between the offspring that was promised to Abraham and her own action in these verses. These elements are altered in Jubilees, which not only does not take over the phrase “Yhwh has prevented me” but also changes the phrase “Perhaps I will be built up from her” into “Perhaps I will build up seed for you from her.” With these small alterations, Jubilees shows how Sarah is acting in the interest of Abraham, which is in the end the interest of God. She does not act on her own behalf. It is interesting to see that Abraham asserts explicitly what his wife proposes: “And Abraham listened to the voice of Sarah, his wife, and said to her: Do (as you suggest).” (Jub. 14:23) Jubilees stresses that the marriage of Abraham and Sarah is an ideal marriage. The partners work together harmoniously to fulfill the promise of God. 26 In Genesis, there is an interlude (Gen 16:4c–14) between the conception and the birth of Ishmael. In this interlude passage, the author deals with the tension between Hagar and Sarah (Gen 16:4c–6), and Hagar’s flight into the desert (Gen 16:7–14). This is completely omitted in Jubilees. The author probably felt that this would contradict the fact of Sarah’s 23 See, e. g. W. H. Gispen, Genesis 2: Genesis 11:27–25:11 (COut; Kampen: Kok, 1979), 20; C. Westermann, Genesis 12–36 (BKAT 1.2; 4th ed.; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999), 159. 24 See, for example, P. R. Drey, “The Role of Hagar in Genesis 16,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 40 (2002): 179–195 (esp. 189). 25 See, for example, G. J. Wenham, Genesis 16–50 (WBC 2; Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1994), 6–7. 26 See Halpern-Amaru, Empowerment of Women, 50–51, 60, 70.

Abraham’s Family in the Book of Jubilees

113

decision to give Hagar to Abraham and Abraham’s positive response. By omitting these verses, the author again stresses his positive view of Sarah. The hostile reproach of Sarah is left out (Gen 16:5: “And Sarah said to Abraham: ‘May the wrong done to me be on you! I gave my maid-servant to your embrace, and when she saw that she had conceived, she looked on me with contempt. May Yhwh judge between you and me!’”). Everything that overshadows the positive image of Sarah, and the harmonious cooperation of wife and husband united in an exemplary marriage, is left out of Jubilees. 27 In addition, the fact that Abraham places Hagar under the authority of Sarah, who humiliates her (Gen 16:6: “But Abraham said to Sarah: ‘Behold, your maid-servant is in your power; do to her as you please.’ Then Sarah dealt harshly with her, and she fled from her.”) is also left out, since Sarah’s abuse of her slave-girl would not fit in with a positive picture of Sarah either. In the biblical text, the humiliation receives divine approval (Gen 16:9: “The angel of Yhwh said to her: ‘Return to your mistress, and submit to her.’”). However, this passage is not carried over into Jubilees either. To summarize, it can be said that Jubilees alters the first of the Hagar stories mainly through omissions, since nowhere does it report the tension between Hagar and Sarah. Therefore, there is no reason to relate anything about Hagar’s flight into the wilderness and her subsequent return. This, consequently, changes the picture of Sarah in Jubilees a great deal. Sarah is depicted more positively. The second passage, in which Sarah demands Ishmael’s expulsion (Gen 21:9–13), is very much paralleled in Jubilees (Jub. 17:4–7). Sarah issues her demand for Ishmael’s expulsion, Abraham reacts with sadness, and God tells Abraham he must agree with Sarah. The contrast between the emotional reactions of Abraham and Sarah seems to be more defined in Jubilees than in Genesis. On the one hand the author of Jubilees stresses Abraham’s feelings of extreme happiness, while on the other Sarah’s jealousy is made explicit and is directed towards Ishmael (Jub. 17:4: “Abraham rejoiced with great joy. She became jealous of Ishmael.”). The decisive psychological reason for her demand is her jealousy at seeing Ishmael playing and dancing. The goal of the expulsion is the same as in Genesis: Ishmael should not inherit along with Isaac (Jub. 17:4 f). Her demand for Ishmael to be banished evokes a reaction of sadness in Abraham (Jub. 17:5). The text of Genesis does not state anything about Abraham’s happiness, nor is anything said about Sarah’s emotions. The text merely notes that Abraham gave a great banquet on the day Isaac was weaned. 27

Cf. Halpern-Amaru, Empowerment of Women, 51.

114

Jacques T. A. G. M. van Ruiten

Subsequently, Sarah saw Ishmael playing, and this motivated her request. Jubilees is more explicit about this. 28 At the moment that Abraham sees both Ishmael and Isaac, he remembers that God has given him seed to inherit the land (Jub. 17:3c). Jubilees 17:3 seems to suggest that Abraham would prefer both of his sons to inherit the land, but Sarah reminds him indirectly of the fact of the exclusivity of the covenant with Isaac, in other words, God’s promise, which reserves the land for Isaac and not for Ishmael (Gen 21:10; Jub. 17:4d–f). Sarah’s jealousy seems to be motivated by Abraham’s happiness, which jeopardizes the divine promise that Isaac will be Abraham and Sarah’s true heir. In Jub. 17:1–3 Abraham suggests that not only her son Isaac but both his sons will inherit. Sarah seems to correct Abraham, who is no doubt overwhelmed by his fatherly feelings for both children. Subsequently, God affirms Sarah’s action. He says: “Everything that Sarah says to you, listen to her speech,” and as if to further convince him, the text continues, “and do it.” Sarah is presented as the real partner of God. 29 The death and burial of Sarah are described in Jub. 19:1–9. Only very few elements of Gen 23 are carried over literally. A striking characteristic of Jubilees’ rewriting is that the complete dialogue, in which Abraham is negotiating with the Hittites to buy a piece of land as a burial ground (Gen 23:3–15), is summarized in a short passage in Jub. 19:5–6. 30 In Jubilees nothing is mentioned about Ephron. The negotiations with the Hittites deal with the price, and that narrative states that the Hittites were willing to give the land to him for nothing. Abraham preferred to pay the amount in full, however. Contrary to the very short rendering of the passage as found in Genesis, there are substantial additions, in which the event is not only placed in the chronological system of Jubilees (Jub. 19:1–2) but Sarah’s burial is also interpreted as a test for Abraham (Jub. 19:3–5, 8–9).

2.4 Abraham’s Relationships with His Other Wives There is not much interaction described between Abraham and Hagar, except that they have intercourse on the advice of Sarah, and that Ha28 On the problem of Ishmael’s activities as the motive for Sarah’s actions, see J. Schwartz, “Ishmael at Play: On Exegesis and Jewish Society,” HUCA 66 (1995): 203–221; and J. S. Kaminsky, “Humor and the Theology of Hope: Isaac as a Humorous Figure,” Interpretation 54 (2000): 363–375 (esp. 366). 29 Cf. Halpern-Amaru, Empowerment of Women, 76. 30 Josephus (Ant. 1.237) also presents a short summary of Sarah’s death and burial.

Abraham’s Family in the Book of Jubilees

115

gar gives birth to a son, Ishmael (Gen 16:1–4,15–16; Jub. 14:21–24). Jubilees omits the interlude between the conception and birth of Ishmael (Gen 16:4c–14), in which the author deals with the tension between Hagar and Sarah, and Hagar’s flight into the desert. This omission also changes the representation of Hagar. Genesis portrays the arrogance of Hagar after she became pregnant (cf. Gen 16:4: “And when she saw that she had conceived, she looked with contempt on her mistress.”). This is incriminating for Hagar, and that is possibly the reason why it is left out of Jubilees. 31 Moreover, the long narrative passage that takes place in the desert, in which there is a dialogue between Hagar and the angel of Yhwh, is omitted (Gen 16:7–14). If the arrogance of Hagar is left out, if Sarah does not reproach Abraham, and if Hagar is not humiliated by Sarah, then it is no longer necessary for Hagar to depart. The family of Abraham lives in harmony, not only Abraham and Sarah, but his whole household. The second passage, in which Sarah demands Ishmael’s expulsion (Gen 21:9–13), is very much paralleled in Jubilees (Jub. 17:4–7). Sarah makes her demand for Ishmael’s expulsion, Abraham reacts with sadness, and God tells Abraham he must agree with Sarah. Abraham’s sadness, which involves both his son Ishmael and the latter’s mother Hagar, is more pronounced in Jubilees due to the direct juxtaposition of Abraham’s happiness and sadness. Abraham is obedient to his wife Sarah and therefore to God. Nevertheless it hurts him. In the passage that follows the banishment of Hagar and Ishmael, and that introduces the sacrifice of Isaac (Jub. 17:15–18), this banishment is explicitly called one of God’s tests of Abraham: “And he had tested him through Ishmael and his servant girl Hagar, when he sent them away.” In Gen 25:1–4, Abraham’s marriage to Keturah is narrated after the account of Sarah’s death (Gen 23:1–20; Jub. 19:1–9) and the marriage of Isaac and Rebekah (Gen 24:1–64; Jub. 19:10). The author of Genesis speaks of “another wife,” 32 while the author of Jubilees speaks of “a third wife.” The biblical text does not report Hagar’s death, and thus one could wonder why Abraham did not take Hagar back after Sarah’s death. In later literature many authors made an effort to make the notion that Keturah

31 Cf. P. Söllner, “Ismael und Isaak – muss der eine den anderen denn immer nur verfolgen? Zum Verhältnis der beiden Abrahamssöhne im Jubiläenbuch,” in Religionsgeschichte des Neuen Testaments: Festschrift für Klaus Berger zum 60. Geburtstag (ed. A. von Dobbeler et al.; Tübingen: Francke, 2000), 357–378 (esp. 361). 32 Gen 25:1a literally reads ‫ויסף אברהם ויקח אשה‬.

116

Jacques T. A. G. M. van Ruiten

and Hagar were the same person acceptable. 33 The author of Jubilees, however, makes clear from the beginning that Keturah is someone else and is not Hagar, by stating that the latter had already died before Sarah. 34 In Jubilees, the origin of Keturah is specified. She is “one of the children of his household servants” (Jub. 19:11b). The author thus seems to emphasize that Keturah was born within Abraham’s household and that she was not of Canaanite origin. In his blessing of Jacob, Abraham admonishes him not to take a wife from any of the seed of the daughters of Canaan (Jub. 22:20–21). Intermarriage with Canaanite women is forbidden in the book of Jubilees. 35

2.5 The Relationship of Abraham and Lot The biblical author has an ambivalent attitude with respect to the figure of Lot. He is considered both positively, since he is closely related to Abraham, and negatively, since he settled in Sodom, which is the city of all sin. In Jubilees, an ambivalent attitude is also apparent, but it mainly tends to offer a negative interpretation of the figure of Lot. Whereas Genesis mentions only briefly that “Haran was the father of Lot” (Gen 11:27), Jubilees has an extensive marriage report: “His brother Haran married a woman in the third year of the third week, and she gave birth to a son for him in the seventh year of this week. He named him Lot.” (Jub. 12:10) This extensive genealogy points to a positive appreciation of Lot. However, disapproval is shown by the fact that neither the name of his mother nor her ancestry is mentioned, and it is striking that not even her name is reported. The extensive coverage of the events surrounding the death of Haran characterizes him as the prototype of an unfaithful person, as opposed to the faithful and righteous Abraham. Although both descend 33 See, e. g., Gen. Rab. 61.4; Tanh. 1.123; Tanh.. Hayye 8; Tg. Ps-.J. Gen 25:1; Tg. Yer. Gen 25:1; Pirqe R. El. 30. Cf. R. H. Charles, The Book of Jubilees or the Little Genesis: Translated from the Editor’s Ethiopic Text (London: Black, 1902), 126; J. C. Endres, Biblical Interpretation in the Book of Jubilees (CBQMS 18; Washington: Catholic Bible Association, 1987), 21–22, note 13; Halpern-Amaru, Empowerment of Women, 105, note 4. 34 Most Ethiopic manuscripts read “when (’əmma) Hagar died prior to Sarah,” but the Latin text has “because” (eo quod). According to VanderKam ὅτι was misread as ὅτε by an Ethiopic translator or was miscopied by a Greek scribe. See J. C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees, II (CSCO 511; Scriptores Aethiopici 88; Leuven: Peeters, 1989), 112. 35 Cf. Endres, Biblical Interpretation, 21; Halpern-Amaru, Empowerment of Women, 105. For the issue of intermarriage in the book of Jubilees, see C. Werman, “Jubilees 30: Building a Paradigm for the Ban on Intermarriage,” HTR 90 (1997): 1–20, and the critical remarks of C. Hayes, “Intermarriage and Impurity in Ancient Jewish Sources,” HTR 92 (1999): 3–36 (esp. 15–25).

Abraham’s Family in the Book of Jubilees

117

from Terah and are thus in the line of Shem, the line of the Chosen People only continues through Abraham. The affection Abraham shows towards his nephew is also recounted. When Abraham leaves his brother to go to Canaan, his father Terah blesses him, telling Abraham that if he sees good land, he should come back and get him. However, he also adds: “Take Lot, the son of your brother, Haran, with you as your son.” (Jub. 12:30) Despite the dubious birth of Lot (his mother is unnamed, and her ancestry is unknown) and the problems of his father (idolatry), the author of Jubilees seems to confirm that there is a certain affinity between Abraham and Lot, who seems to function for Abraham as a substitute son. However, Lot leads a dubious life. He is held responsible for the separation from Abraham, and after this it is stated that he moves to Sodom. The passage about the struggle between the herdsmen of Abraham and those of Lot (Gen 13) is not mentioned in Jubilees. The text simply states: “Lot separated from him,” and then continues, “Lot settled in Sodom.” (Jub. 13:17) Complete responsibility for the separation of Lot and Abraham is thus put squarely on Lot’s shoulders. Since he is the one who leaves, Abraham and his herdsmen are not to blame. Jubilees adds an emotional reaction on the part of Abraham: “He was broken-hearted that his brother’s son had separated from him for he had no children.” (Jub. 13:18) The text suggests that Abraham loved his nephew very much, but he was unable to keep him on the right path. 36 The same ambivalence recurs in Jub. 16. While he is rescued from Sodom, because the Lord remembered Abraham, his descendants are uprooted. In Jub. 16, the author is obviously not interested in the deliverance of Lot’s wife and daughters. He does not refer to the curious death of Lot’s wife during the escape, 37 nor is the flight into a cave mentioned. In this respect, it is also important to note that Lot offering his daughters to the 36 The mention of Lot in Jub. 14:23–24, where he is being taken captive, provides a motive for Abraham to take action, and is very close to the biblical text. In contrast to Jubilees, the Genesis Apocryphon is very positive with regard to Lot. One can see this, e. g., in 1QapGen 20.10–11, where Lot and Abraham wept because Sarah had been abducted (“I, Abraham, wept bitterly in the night – I and Lot, my brother’s son, with me – when Sarah was taken from me by force”). Later in the text (1QapGen 20.22–24) Lot functions as an intermediary between Abraham and Pharaoh. When the latter asks Abraham to cure him, Lot makes this conditional on Sarah’s release. When Lot leaves Abraham in the next part of the narrative, Abraham gives him many other possessions (1QapGen 21.6 “...and I also added a great deal to what he had”). Moreover, the Genesis Apocryphon does not mention that Sodom, the place where Lot settled, had a sinful reputation. 37 In contrast to Wisdom 10:7–8, for example, where the death of Lot’s wife receives a great deal of attention.

118

Jacques T. A. G. M. van Ruiten

men of Sodom in a final attempt to save his guests (cf. Gen 19:8) does not occur in Jubilees. Finally, the rearrangement of the material is striking. In Gen 19, Lot’s escape is narrated in a dramatic way. After the flight, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is related. In Jubilees, it is the other way around. The text speaks first about the destruction and then about the deliverance of Lot. In the rewriting (Jub. 16:8), all the attention is focused on the incestuous relationship between Lot and his daughters. However, the perspective has been changed. In the biblical story, the daughters seduce their father. Moreover, the daughters offer an excuse: “Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of all the earth. Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him that we may preserve offspring through our father.” (Gen 19:31–32) In Jubilees, the daughters play no active role nor is any excuse given for the incestuous relationship. The initiative for it is attributed to Lot, who was described as completely passive in the biblical story: “Because the man lay with his daughter” (Jub. 16:8b). However, the daughters seem to have had no objections to the acts of their father, since the text also reads: “He and his daughters committed a sin” (Jub. 16:8a). 38 Jubilees pays a great deal of attention to the consequences of his deed (Jub. 16:9). It is striking that the sin of Lot and his daughters is not itself engraved on the heavenly tablets but rather the judgment against the sin is imposed on their descendants. Compare this to the preceding section, where the impure acts of Sodom become an example to those who intend to commit the same sort of impure actions in the future (cf. Jub. 16:6). It is because of Abraham’s merit, and not because of any merit on the part of Lot, that Lot is spared the judgment (cf. Jub. 16:7), 39 which illustrates the ambivalent attitude that the author of Jubilees has vis-à-vis Lot. The fate of the descendants of Lot and his daughters is written on the heavenly tablets, where it is stated that Lot will have no descendants in the land on the Day of Judgment. His progeny are thus predestined to destruction, like Sodom, regardless of their own actions. 40 In this way, Jub. 38 It is somewhat curious that Jub. 16:8b reads “daughter” in the singular. The Latin texts read it in the plural; however, this seems to be a harmonization on the basis of the biblical text. 39 See A. Marmorstein, The Doctrine of Merits in Old Rabbinic Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1927; reprint New York: KTAV 1968). 40 According to García Martínez, we are dealing here with the registering of actions that have a predestinational character. Not only past acts but also future castigation and future rewards are engraved and fixed forever; thus García Martínez speaks of the heavenly tablets

Abraham’s Family in the Book of Jubilees

119

16:7–9 seems somewhat to contradict Jub. 16:1–4. In the latter, Abraham and Sarah are promised a son whose name, Isaac – which is missing in the biblical text at this point – will be written on the heavenly tablets, where it is stated that Isaac will be the progenitor of Abraham’s offspring. In Jub. 16:7–9, however, the story concerns Lot and his daughter (the singular fits in very well in this connection), who also produce progeny. However, it is written in the heavenly tablets that this will be progeny destined for destruction. The names of these descendants, although mentioned in the biblical text, are not engraved on the heavenly tablets.

2.6 Abraham and His Children 2.6.1 Abraham and Isaac Abraham’s relationship with Isaac, as described in Jubilees, does not deviate much from its description in Genesis. Abraham is promised numerous progeny (Gen 12:1–3; 13:16; 15:1–6; 17:2–6; cf. Jub. 12:22–24; 13:20; 14:1–6; 15:4–8). Moreover, he is told that he and his descendants will possess the land (Gen 13:14–15,17; 15:7,18–21; 17:8; Jub. 13:19–20a,21; 14:7,18; 15:10 cf. also Jub. 17.3). In Gen 17:19–21 (Jub. 15:19–21), despite the fact that God will bless Ishmael and that Ishmael will become a large nation, God will nevertheless establish his covenant with Isaac. This is confirmed in Gen 21:12–13 (Jub. 17:6–7), where it is said that Abraham’s promised lineage will be continued exclusively through Isaac (“...because through Isaac shall be named for you a seed.”), 41 despite the fact that Ishmael is to become a large nation because he is of Abraham’s seed. 42 Jub. 16:1–4 deals with the announcement of the birth of a child to Abraham and Sarah, and corresponds to Gen 18:1–15. The text has been stripped of all its frills. The only thing that the author of Jubilees seems to be interested in is the announcement of the birth of a son to Abraham and Sarah, and Sarah’s reaction to this. Several elements of the story are omitted altogether: the meeting between Abraham and Yhwh, the scene as the “The Book of Destiny.” This is an important aspect of the heavenly tablets. See also Jub. 5:13–14; 24:33; 23:32; 31:32b; 32:21–22, and 1 Enoch. See F. García Martínez, “Heavenly Tablets in the Book of Jubilees,” in Studies in the Book of Jubilees (ed. M. Albani, J. Frey, and A. Lange; TSAJ 65; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 243–260 (at 247–248). 41 Cf. P. R. Williamson, Abraham, Israel and the Nations: The Patriarchal Promise and Its Covenantal Development in Genesis (JSOTSup 315; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 165; Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 83; Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 416–417. 42 Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 83; cf. Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 417.

120

Jacques T. A. G. M. van Ruiten

of hospitality in which Abraham prepares food and drink for the angels, and the advanced age of Abraham and Sarah. At the end of the passage there is an obvious addition. The first part of it refers to Isaac’s name (Jub. 16:3: “We told her the name of her son as it is ordained and written on the heavenly tablets – Isaac.”). The curious thing is that in Jubilees the name of the son is mentioned on the heavenly tablets. The name had already been announced to Abraham earlier in the text: “Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac” (Gen 17:19; Jub. 15:19). 43 The second part of the addition (Jub. 16:4: “...and [that] when we returned to her at a specific time she would have become pregnant with a son.”) is a variation of Gen 18: 10, 14 and, at the same time, makes a connection with the flashback to the angel’s visit (Jub. 16:15–19), which is a clear addition to the biblical text. In this addition, the special position of Isaac is stressed again. The angels told Abraham “that he would not die until he became the father of six sons and (that) he would see (them) before he died; but (that) through Isaac he would have a name and a seed” (Jub. 16:16). The text continues by saying that all the seed of his sons would become nations and be numbered with the nations, but that “one of Isaac’s sons would become a holy seed and would not be numbered among the nations, for he would become the share of the Most High. All his seed had fallen into that (share) which God owns so that they would become a people whom the Lord possesses out of all the nations; and that they would become a kingdom, a priesthood, and a holy people” (Jub. 16:17–18). With respect to Isaac’s birth (Gen 21:1–7; Jub. 16:12–14), his weaning (Gen 21:8; Jub. 17:1), and his binding (Gen 22; Jub. 18), Jubilees coincides with Genesis as far as the relationship between Abraham and Isaac is concerned. Isaac’s marriage is reported very briefly in Jubilees (Jub. 19:10). Most exegetes consider Jub. 19:10 a summarized rendering of Gen 24:1–67, often pointing to Gen 24:15 as well. Gen 25:19–20 is also involved. In Gen 25:20b (cf. Gen 24:67), Isaac is the active party in 43 According to Kugel, however, this reference to the heavenly tablets is the work of an interpolator who was disturbed by the notion of Isaac being so named because of an act reproved by the angels. He therefore added that Isaac was named in the heavenly tablets long before the announcement to Sarah. See, J. L. Kugel, “On the Interpolations in the Book of Jubilees,” RevQ 24 (2009): 215–272. I am not convinced by this recourse to an interpolation at this place in the text. In this part of the biblical story, there is no explicit connection made between Sarah’s laughter and Isaac’s name. Moreover, the author of Jubilees omits Sarah’s laughter in the biblical text after Isaac’s birth (cf. Gen 21:6). Possibly, the “heavenly tablets” mean nothing more than the Torah, and the reference to these tablets is merely a reference to the biblical text. Cf. García Martínez, “Heavenly Tablets,” 243–260 (esp. 245). The message is now transmitted to Sarah by the angels.

Abraham’s Family in the Book of Jubilees

121

the marriage (“he took to wife Rebekah”), whereas in Jubilees Abraham is the active party (“he took a wife for his son Isaac”). This difference between Jub. 16:10 and Gen 25:20 possibly reflects the extensive story of the search for an appropriate bride for Isaac (Gen 24:1–67), which is completely omitted in Jubilees. The story of the search for and discovery of Rebekah might have been problematic for the author of Jubilees, since Genesis presents it as a coincidence and the result of delegated authority. The author of Jubilees substitutes the meeting at the well and the subsequent negotiations, followed by a brief statement that Abraham has full responsibility for the future. He is the one who selected Rebekah for his son. 44 Moreover, in the continuation of the story in Jubilees (cf. Jub. 19:15–23:8) a special relationship develops between Abraham and Rebekah. It is therefore fitting that he is the one who should choose her. Jubilees elaborates on the contrast made in the biblical text between Isaac’s love for Esau and Rebekah’s love for Jacob (Gen 25:28). It is through Abraham’s observance of Esau’s behavior that he realizes that through Jacob he will have a name and descendants, and not through Esau (Jub. 19:16). Thereupon Abraham summons Rebekah to increase her favor to Jacob even more (Jub. 19:20). It is Abraham who summons Jacob in the presence of Rebekah and subsequently blesses him (Jub. 19:27–29). Abraham acts this way despite the fact that he knows that Isaac loves Esau instead. With regard to the last part of Abraham’s life, to his testaments to his children, and to the description of his last day (Jub. 20–23), the text shows an enormous expansion in terms of details that are not present in the story of Genesis. Nonetheless, there are passages in which the story is told almost verbatim in both texts. The text of Gen 25:5–10 is clearly recognizable in Jubilees. The distribution of Abraham’s property (Gen 25:5–6) is adopted in Jub. 20:11, and his death (Gen 25:7–10) is carried over in Jub. 23:1,7–8. The rest of Jub. 20–23 is built around these anchoring verses. In Genesis and also in Jubilees, Isaac is the preferred son, despite the fact that the other children also receive gifts (Gen 25:5–6; Jub. 20:11). Abraham’s second testament (Jub. 21) is directed to his son Isaac alone, and it is delivered some years later than his first testament. It is dedicated in large part to instructions with regard to offering on the altar. In Jubilees, the patriarchs of the chosen line are priests, and they pass

44

Cf. Halpern-Amaru, Empowerment of Women, 38. The search for Rebekah also seems to be somewhat problematic in the rabbinic literature. Cf. Gen. Rab. 60.3; b. H . ul. 85b.

122

Jacques T. A. G. M. van Ruiten

along the priestly traditions. 45 It is striking that attention is paid to these cultic matters in Abraham’s testament to Isaac and not in the other two testaments. This is possibly related to the fact that, in Genesis, Abraham and Isaac are mentioned in relation to the building of an altar. 46 With regard to Abraham’s last day, something more is said about the relationship between Abraham and Isaac. In Jub. 22:1–9, there is a description of how Isaac, together with Ishmael, went to Abraham to celebrate the Festival of Weeks. It is further noted in this description that Isaac’s possessions were numerous and that there was a sacrifice for the offering. At the same time, we see Rebekah preparing an offering for Jacob, who then gives it to Abraham. It is striking (but in line with earlier modifications) that it is Abraham who blesses Jacob, and it is Jacob who is with his grandfather when he dies. After Abraham has died, Jacob is the one who informs his father Isaac, who then mourns for his father. Isaac and Ishmael together bury Abraham. In conclusion, one can say that the relationship between Abraham and Isaac as described in Jubilees is not much different from that in Genesis. Isaac is the promised son, the one who will inherit and with whom God will make his covenant. He stresses the priestly role of Isaac. With regard to the continuation of the chosen line via Jacob, Abraham takes over the role of Rebekah in her preference for Jacob over Isaac’s preference for Esau, which means also that Jacob did not receive his blessing by deceiving Isaac, but that he was already elected and blessed by Isaac’s father Abraham. 2.6.2 Abraham and Ishmael After God’s promise of offspring to Abraham (Gen 15:1–6; Jub. 14:1–6), Abraham was very happy, and the author pretty much suggests that Abraham thought he would have children with Sarah (Jub. 14:21). When it became clear that Sarah would not have children, she gave her slavegirl Hagar to Abraham (Gen 16:1–4; Jub. 14:21–24). In Genesis, there is an interlude (Gen 16:4–14) between the conception and the birth of Ishmael. In this interlude passage, the author deals with the tension between Hagar and Sarah (Gen 16:4c–6), and Hagar’s flight into the desert 45 J. C. VanderKam, Book of Jubilees (Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 56, 107. 46 In Genesis, both Abraham (Gen 12:7, 8; 13:4) and Isaac (Gen 26:25) built an altar. In Jubilees, it is said that they offered a sacrifice on this altar (Jub. 13:4, 9, 16; 24:23). Cf. D. Lambert, “Last Testaments in the Book of Jubilees,” DSD 11 (2004): 82–107 (esp. 96).

Abraham’s Family in the Book of Jubilees

123

(Gen 16:7–14). This passage is completely omitted in Jubilees. Not only does this change the picture of Sarah in a positive way but it also changes that of Hagar. It stresses the harmony in which Abraham’s family is living, not just Abraham and Sarah, but his whole household. After Ishmael’s birth (Gen 16:15–16; Jub. 14:24), it is made clear to Abraham, that this son is not the promised one. God will establish his covenant with Isaac (Gen 17:19,21; Jub. 15:19,21). Regarding Ishmael, God will bless him, and increase him as well (Gen 17:20; Jub. 15:20). Although circumcision is described as a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham (Gen 17:11; Jub. 15:11), Ishmael is circumcised as well (Gen 17:23–26; Jub. 15:23–24). In the halakhic addition to the circumcision (Jub. 15:25–34), the distance between God and Ishmael is expressed explicitly: “For the Lord did not draw near to himself either Ishmael, his sons, his brothers, or Esau. He did not choose them (simply) because they were among Abraham’s children, for he knew them, but he chose Israel to be his people.” (Jub. 15:30) The difference between Ishmael and Isaac results in a difference between Israel and the other nations. There are many nations and all belong to God. But spirits rule over these nations, while God himself rules over Israel (Jub. 15:31–32). In the flashback to the angel’s visit after Isaac’s birth (Jub. 16:15–19) it is again stressed that the seed of all his sons would become nations, but one of Isaac’s sons would become a holy seed and would not be numbered among the nations (Jub. 16:17). Even if Ishmael was not the elected son of Abraham, he continues to play a role in Abraham’s family. Jubilees stresses this fact somewhat more explicitly than Genesis. In the banquet on the occasion of Isaac’s weaning, it is said that “Ishmael, the son of Hagar the Egyptian, was in his place in front of his father Abraham” (Jub. 17:2). Because of this, Abraham rejoiced, since “he had not died without sons” (plural!). Only because of this joy on the part of Abraham, and the possible confusion about the inheritance of the land (Jub. 17:3), did Sarah become jealous, whereupon Hagar and her son were banished (Jub. 17:4–17; cf. Gen 21:10–21). Despite Ishmael’s banishment, interaction continues between him and Abraham. In the first of Abraham’s farewell speeches, “he gave gifts to Ishmael, his sons and to Keturah’s sons” (Gen 25:6; Jub. 20:11), but he had to send them away, away from Isaac. They settled in the region situated between Paran and the entrance to Babylon; there they mixed, and they were called Arabs and Ishmaelites (Jub. 20:12–13). Just before his death, it is mentioned that Ishmael came to see his father, and that Isaac and Ishmael celebrated the Festival of Weeks together with Abraham (Jub. 22:1–9). After Abraham died, and word of this circulated in the household of Abraham, Ishmael

124

Jacques T. A. G. M. van Ruiten

set out and came to see and mourn his father (Jub. 23:6). As in the biblical text, both Isaac and Ishmael buried their father Gen 25:9; Jub. 23:7). In Jubilees, it is also said that his whole household mourned for Abraham for forty days. 2.6.3 Abraham and the Sons of Keturah There is not much said about the sons of Keturah in Jubilees. Jub. 19:11–12 carries over the names of the sons (Gen 25:1–4), adding the number of “six sons” and that they were born over a period of fourteen years. Jubilees leaves out any mention of the grandchildren of Keturah. In some of the additions, however, they are mentioned. In the flashback to the episode with the angel regarding Isaac’s birth, it was said that Abraham “would not die until he became the father of six sons, and that he would see them before he died” (Jub. 16:16). Despite the fact that, including Ishmael and Isaac, Abraham begot eight children, the reference to the six sons cannot be anything else than a reference to the sons of Keturah. In Gen 25:6 it is said that “Abraham gave gifts to the sons of his concubines.” In Jub. 20:11, the sons are specified as “Ishmael, his sons, and Keturah’s sons.” In the beginning of Abraham’s testament to all his children, they are mentioned as “the six children of Keturah, and their sons” (Jub. 20:1). At the end of Abraham’s testament, it is said that they mixed with Ishmael and his sons: “Ishmael, his sons, Keturah’s sons, and their sons went together, and settled from Paran as far as the entrance of Babylon in all the land towards the east opposite the desert. They mixed with one another and were called Arabs and Ishmaelites” (Jub. 20:12). Despite the fact that they were sent away from Isaac, Abraham’s ethical testament was also addressed to them.

2.7 Abraham and His Daughters-in-Law Jubilees carries over the reference to Ishmael’s mother taking a wife from Egypt for Ishmael (Gen 21:17; Jub. 17:13). In addition, Jubilees mentions the birth of a son to Ishmael (Jub. 17:14). Abraham seems not to have interfered in this marriage. Although Keturah’s children would have children (Jub. 20:1,12), nothing is said about their wives. The attention paid to Rebekah, Isaac’s wife, is quite a different story. In Jub. 19:10, Rebekah is mentioned for the first time. This text is mainly a rewriting of Gen 25:20. In the biblical text, the marriage of Isaac and Rebekah is mentioned after the report of Abraham’s death. However,

Abraham’s Family in the Book of Jubilees

125

when mentioned in Gen 24:67, it takes place before Abraham’s death: the dates in the biblical text make it clear that Abraham was still alive at the time of the marriage of Isaac and Rebekah. In Gen 25:20 (cf. Gen 24:67), Isaac is the active party (“He took to wife Rebekah”), whereas in Jubilees Abraham is the active party (“He took a wife for his son Isaac.”). This difference between Jub. 16:10 and Gen 25:20 possibly has to do with the extensive story of the search for an appropriate bride for Isaac (Gen 24:1–67), which is completely omitted in Jubilees. The story of the search for and discovery of Rebekah might have been problematic for the author of Jubilees, since Genesis presents it as a coincidence and the result of delegated authority. For the meeting at the well and the subsequent negotiations, the author of Jubilees substitutes a brief statement that Abraham bears full responsibility for future events. He is the one who has selected Rebekah for his son. 47 What attracts even more attention is the difference in the credentials reported concerning Isaac’s bride. First, both Genesis and Jubilees mention Rebekah as “the daughter of Bethuel.” In Genesis, Bethuel is mentioned as “the Aramean of Paddanaram,” and, in Jub. 19:10, as “the son of Abraham’s brother Nahor.” It is not completely clear why the author of Jubilees made this substitution. It is quite possible that this reference to Bethuel in Jubilees is more satisfactory as far as the genealogical line is concerned; this can also be found in Genesis, but there it occurs for the first time in the genealogy of Nahor (Gen 22:20–24), which is, as such, omitted in Jubilees. This genealogy is presented immediately after the binding of Isaac and before Sarah’s death. It presents a preview of the story of Isaac and Rebekah prior to Sarah’s death and before their marriage. The report identifies the last of the eight sons of Milcah and Nahor as Bethuel, “the father of Rebekah,” and Nahor is identified as “Abraham’s brother” (Gen 22:23). Second, the report of the marriage in both texts identifies Rebekah as “the sister of Laban” (Gen 25:20b; Jub. 19:10b). In Genesis, Laban is called “the Aramean,” like their father Bethuel. It is not clear why the text emphasizes the ethnic identity of Bethuel and Laban. 48 Gen 24 also mentions that “Rebekah had a brother whose name was Laban” (Gen 24:29). Jub. 19:10 identifies Rebekah as “the sister of Laban,” but here adds that 47 Cf. Halpern-Amaru, Empowerment of Women, 38. The search for Rebekah also seems to be somewhat problematic in the rabbinic literature. Cf. Gen. Rab. 60.3; b. H . ul 85b. 48 This aspect of Israel’s origin is echoed later (Deut 26:5). Cf. Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 174.

126

Jacques T. A. G. M. van Ruiten

“Bethuel was their father.” Although no new information is given in Jubilees, it is remarkable that it is formulated in this way. 49 Third, Jub. 19:10b offers yet another identification of Rebekah. She is “the daughter of Bethuel, the son of Milcah who was the wife of Abraham’s brother Nahor.” This statement seems to be a repetition of the first; however, on closer inspection, there is a difference between the two. In the first, Bethuel, the father of Rebekah, is identified by his paternal lineage: He is “the son of Abraham’s brother Nahor.” Moreover, this reveals the relationship between Rebekah and Abraham, who is the father of Isaac. In the third statement, Bethuel is identified by his maternal lineage. He is also “the son of Milcah.” In Gen 24, Bethuel is identified as the son of Milcah several times (Gen 24:15: “Rebekah, who was born to Bethuel the son of Milcah, the wife of Nahor, Abraham’s brother”; Gen 24:24: “I am the daughter of Bethuel the son of Milcah, whom she bore to Nahor”; Gen 24:47: “the daughter of Bethuel, Nahor’s son, whom Milcah bore to him”). Both Rebekah’s paternal grandfather and grandmother are from within the chosen line of Shem. The maternal line of Rebekah is not identified in either Genesis or Jubilees. In the continuation of the story in Jubilees (cf. Jub. 19:15–23:8), a special relationship develops between Abraham and Rebekah. In Genesis, Rebekah is the one who loves Jacob (Gen 19:15). In Jubilees, the preference for Jacob is limited to Abraham alone. When he realizes that through Jacob he will have a name and descendants (Jub. 19:16), he calls on Rebekah to love Jacob even more than she already does (Jub. 19:17–25). In the presence of Rebekah, Abraham blesses Jacob (Jub. 19:26–29). In the description of the celebration of the Festival of Weeks (Jub. 22:1–9), preceding Abraham’s last day, Rebekah makes fresh bread out of new wheat, which she gives to Jacob to bring to Abraham (Jub. 22:4). After Abraham dies, Jacob runs to his mother Rebekah to tell her. She, in turn, tells Isaac (Jub. 23:4).

2.8 Abraham and His Grandchildren Apart from the fact that Ishmael’s children and the children of Keturah’s sons were present at the first testament speech of Abraham (Jub. 20:1,11–13), nothing is said about a special relationship with these grandchildren. All Abraham’s attention is focused on Jacob. After he ob49

According to Halpern-Amaru, Empowerment of Women, 39, it is stated in this way as a response to Jacob’s misidentification of Laban as the son of Nahor (Gen 29:5).

Abraham’s Family in the Book of Jubilees

127

serves Esau’s behavior, however, he realizes that through Jacob he will have a name and descendants (Jub. 19:16). He thereupon asks Rebekah to look after Jacob even more, because “he will prove to be a blessing for us on the earth” (Jub. 19:20). He summons Jacob, in the presence of his mother Rebekah, kisses him and blesses him (Jub. 19:26), and then transmits the blessings of his fathers to Jacob, and appoints him the firstborn son of God (Jub. 19:23–25,27–29). The now blessed Jacob plays an important part in the end of Abraham’s life. He is the one who brings some of the first fruits to Abraham, who is called “his father,” for the celebration of the Festival of Weeks (Jub. 22:4). Furthermore, Isaac sends his peace offering to Abraham through Jacob as intermediary (Jub. 22:5). Abraham’s last speech (Jub. 22:10–24) is delivered to Jacob; Abraham calls him “my son” throughout. After the speech Abraham blesses Jacob, and Jacob sleeps in the bosom of his grandfather, who blesses him again (Jub. 22:25–30). With the sleeping Jacob on his breast, Abraham breathes his last and dies (Jub. 23:1).

3. Some Conclusions Jubilees’ rendering of Abraham’s relationships with the members of his family is for a large part determined by the book of Genesis. The alterations found are partly due to the general tendency found in the rewriting. In the first part of this paper, we reflected on some of the techniques used in this rewriting, namely the zooming in on certain episodes and the zooming out from others. The differences are mostly due to lacunae in the biblical text. There is no completely new meaning given to Abraham in his relationships to members of his family in this oldest rewriting of Genesis. Nevertheless, certain aspects are stressed in Jubilees as distinct from Genesis. An important element is proper lineage. The children of Israel are, in the end, heirs of Abraham’s children. Abraham and Sarah are both born within the chosen line of Shem, which goes back to Adam and Eve. God’s election of Israel and his covenant with them are built into Creation. Abraham’s conversion from astrology and idolatry into the service of the one God is also stressed in Jubilees. This is based on traditions that are not found in Genesis (cf. Josh 24:2–3, 14–15), and which are made possible by lacunae in the biblical text. Jubilees elaborates much more on the descriptions of Abraham’s father and his brothers. With this, the Jubilees author fills in gaps in the biblical text, and creates a much more idealized picture of

128

Jacques T. A. G. M. van Ruiten

Abraham by way of contrast. With regard to the figure of Lot the biblical author shows an ambivalent attitude. Lot is considered both positively, since he is closely related to Abraham, and negatively, since he settled in Sodom, the city of all sin. In Jubilees an ambivalent attitude is also apparent, but what is mainly presented is a negative interpretation of the figure of Lot. Finally, the role of Abraham in the blessing and election of Jacob is enlarged to a very great extent. It is no longer a story of Jacob who deceives his father on the advice of his mother, but it is instead a Abraham’s decision. For Jubilees, there is a sharp contrast between Israel and the other nations. This separation goes back not only to Abraham but also to the creation of the world. In several passages, reference is made to the special position of Israel. In Jub. 15, it is stated that there are many nations and many people and all belong to God, but God chose Israel to be his own people. Angels and spirits rule over the other nations, but God stands guard over Israel. Throughout Abraham’s life until his last day with Jacob there is a strong anti-gentile bias, especially in the call for separation (Jub. 22:16–19) and in the admonition against intermarriage (Jub. 22:20–22). It is often said that the family story in Genesis reflects the relationship of Israel with surrounding peoples. However, in Jubilees this cannot be found as clearly pronounced as in Genesis. For example, whereas in Genesis the story of Lot and his daughters makes reference to the Moabites and the Ammonites, in Jubilees this story is rewritten as a story of sin committed by Lot and his daughters. The judgment contains an extermination of Lot’s descendants. With regard to the descendants of the sons of Keturah and the descendants of Ishmael, Genesis refers to nations (Gen 25:3, 12–18). In Jubilees their descendants are called Arabs and Ishmaelites (Jub. 20:13). Despite the election of Isaac, and with him Israel, the Jubilees text shows Abraham’s affection for Ishmael and a continuation of family bonds.

“He is perfect, he is a true man!” (Jub. 27:17) Constructions of Masculinities in Abraham’s Family Aliyah El Mansy 1. Introduction My paper deals with the construction of masculinities in the Book of Jubilees. I present in detail its concept based on the representation of Jacob and Esau. My point of departure was Jub. 27:17, where it is said that Jacob “is perfect” and a “true man.” Isaac says these words to his wife Rebeca to console her that Jacob will be fine, even though he will leave his parents to go to his uncle Laban. Jacob is described as a true, faithful, reliable or trustworthy man (bə’əsi mə’əman). 1 I will show that masculinity is firstly linked to the relationship to God and family in the Book of Jubilees and secondly defined as the appropriate way to act towards family members and God. To demonstrate my thesis, I will focus on the analysis of chapters 19 and 35, where these notions of masculinities are concentrated. I will cast side glances on other chapters when this is useful. Chapter 19 introduces the characters of the twin brothers. Chapter 35 contains an unparalleled representation of the gender roles ascribed to Jacob and Esau. It has no equivalent in Genesis, so it is part of Jubilees’ own agenda. It features Rebecca’s last words and her death. For analysis I chose the verses concentrating on the description of the two brothers. Some preliminary comments: First of all, it is important to notice that the fact that Jacob is regarded as a “true man” does not mean that Esau is not a man. Jacob is attributed with a hegemonic masculinity, which embodies cultural authority over other, marginalized, gender construc1 bə’əsi is the antonym of bə’əsit (woman, wife) in Ge’ez and therefore clearly masculine. It can stand for man or husband, or describe something masculine. In general, it can have the meaning of person. I deliberately choose the translation “man.” On one hand, the context makes clear that Jacob, a masculine person, is designated. On the other hand, I want to highlight that the Book of Jubilees uses a gendered term.

130

Aliyah El Mansy

tions. I use “hegemonic” and “marginalized” as analyzing categories to reveal and to question how literature constructs a normative “hierarchy of masculinity at the expenses of, or over against, all other forms of being a ‘man’ or ‘manly.’” 2 Therefore I will first explain my understanding of masculinity and illustrate my methods. The analysis of the relevant sections of Jub. 19 and 35 follows. At the end of the paper the representations of manliness by means of different analyzed rationales and their connection to ethics and monotheism are highlighted.

1.1 Masculinity in Written Sources The Book of Jubilees contains stories, testaments, and dialogs. By means of different genres it constructs masculinity by talking about institutions, relationships, roles, behavior, emotions, and bodies. 3 It tells stories about Jacob’s and Esau’s marriages, their families, and how they participate in the cult. Their relations to their grandfather, father, mother, and to each other, are portrayed. Besides, we will see later how their roles, behavior, emotions, and bodies are brought into play. What does the term masculinity mean? Based on results from Gender Studies /Criticism, this paper regards masculinity as an expression of gender construction, belonging to the greater concept of identity construction. Raewyn Connell shows in her influencial work that masculinity can be described as a fluid concept that ranges from hegemonic, via subordinated and complicit, to marginalized masculinity, and therefore consists of a variety of masculinities which men can embody. 4 These concepts are fueled by social norms and ideologies rooted in a specific culture. 5 Whereas identity /gender is constructed in everyday life unconsciously as well as consciously by a variety of intertwining categories such as clothes, body, gestures, language, social relations and so on, very often we cannot understand the code used in ancient sources instinctively. This is not only a result of the time gap between the 21st century c. e.

2 Ovidiu Creang˘a, “Introduction,” in Biblical Masculinities Foregrounded (ed. Ovidiu Creang˘a and Peter-Ben Smit; Sheffield: Phoenix Press, 2014), 5. 3 Cf. for those categories Creang˘a, “Introduction,” 4 f. 4 Raewyn Connell, Der gemachte Mann. Konstruktion und Krise von Männlichkeiten (Wiesbaden: Springer VS, 42015). 5 Cf. Creang˘a, “Introduction,” 5.

“He is perfect, he is a true man!” (Jub. 27:17)

131

and the 2nd century b. c. e., 6 but also due to the complex production of written texts, especially a rewritten narrative such as Jubilees. The author or group of authors adheres to a concept of masculinity, the source being rewritten has notions of gender construction, the imagined addressees have ideas about manliness and the rewritten text is supposed to convey ideas about gendered identity. 7 What does this mean exactly with regard to the Book of Jubilees? The book was composed between 175–125 b. c. e. 8 This period is characterized by the Seleucid dynasty coming to power in Palestine. With this change of foreign power the so-called “Hellenizing processes” posed a serious threat to the Jewish way of life in the eyes of many groups. One of the reactions was the uprising of the Maccabees. Their armed resistance led to the establishment of the Hasmonean dynasty. These years are therefore full of political change, social struggle, and pluralization inside Jewish groups. Jubilees stresses the importance of the Torah and the observance of the commandments. At the same time they draw sharp lines between being “Israelite” and belonging to other nations. Taking also into account other issues addressed, this group seems to try to enforce unity – expressed in Torah-centrism, nation-centrism, and God-centrism. We will see in the end how gender concepts, e. g. masculinity, are embedded in this greater framework of ideologies, which are being represented through the text. The Book of Jubilees rewrites Genesis 1 to Exodus 14. 9 It is also confronted with the gender concepts of the Vorlage. Therefore, literary gender concepts are an elaborate fabric of different threads. It is necessary to apply reading strategies to identify certain individual threads. Gender theory calls this interrelatedness “intersectionality,” which means that different categories are at work in constructing (gender) identity. 10 At 6 Martti Nissinen, “Biblical Masculinities: Musings on Theory and Agenda,” in Biblical Masculinities Foregrounded (ed. Ovidiu Creang˘a and Peter-Ben Smit; Sheffield: Phoenix Press, 2014), 273 pins down this challenge of the ancient sources to a “cross-temporal” and “cross-cultural platform” on which text and reader meet. 7 Caroline Vander Stichele and Todd Penner, Contextualizing Gender in Early Christian Discourse. Thinking beyond Thecla (London /New York: T&T Clark, 2009), 192, regard the text itself as a performative act, because the text is an embodiment of the author as well as the intended reader. 8 Cf. for the issue of dating the Book of Jubilees, see Michael Segal, The Book of Jubilees. Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology and Theology (JSJ.S 117; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 37–40. 9 The retelling of the crossing of the Reed Sea is the last section of the narrative (Jub. 48:17). The Book of Jubilees actually ends with commandments regarding Passover (Jub. 49) and Sabbath (Jub. 50). 10 For the genesis of intersectionality, its main features, and application in exegesis of antique texts, see the profound and concise overview in Ute E. Eisen, Christine Ger-

132

Aliyah El Mansy

the same time, these categories such as class, race, gender, and sexuality are reproduced and constructed in literary accounts just as they are in performative acts. So how can we identify constructions of masculinities in the Book of Jubilees? Or in the words of Thomas Späth: How can we analyze the variety of meanings inscribed in the text? 11

1.2 Methods In this essay I am going to use a variety of methods. The most important one is historical exegesis. The second most important one is a gender deconstructive approach. Caroline Vander Stichele and Todd Penner suggest a gender-critical approach which “focuses on gender as it is constructed in ancient texts, employing a variety of different methods” 12 and concentrates on its “literary dimensions.” 13 They regard texts as “socially and culturally constructed products and performances.” 14 Applicable to the Book of Jubilees is their concept of comparative literary strategies, which attracts attention to contrasted characters. 15 Jacob and Esau are an example par excellence for this strategy. I will combine their approach with four steps developed by Gabriele Winker and Nina Degele, which are based on Pierre Bourdieu’s ideas, to analyze intersectional gender constructs. 16 Their overall aim is to identify values, norms and stereotypes which construct gender identity. 17 Their main assumption is that identities are constructed via difference. Therefore, the first step of analysis is to name those categories of difference and describe the construction of identities (a). 18 In order to further elaborate on this, it is necessary to uncover the ber and Angela Standhartinger, eds., Doing Gender – Doing Religion. Fallstudien zur Intersektionalität im frühen Judentum, Christentum und Islam (WUNT 302; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 2–17. 11 Cf. Thomas Späth, Männlichkeit und Weiblichkeit bei Tacitus. Zur Konstruktion der Geschlechter in der Kaiserzeit (Frankfurt a. M.: Campus Verlag, 1994), 19. 12 Vander Stichele and Penner, Contextualizing Gender, 183. 13 Vander Stichele and Penner, Contextualizing Gender, 188. 14 Vander Stichele and Penner, Contextualizing Gender, 184. 15 Ibidem. 16 Cf. Gabriele Winker and Nina Degele, Intersektionalität. Zur Analyse sozialer Ungleichheiten (Bielefeld: Transcript, 2009), 63–90. Their categories also resemble Joan Scott’s definition of gender: gender is based on and constructed in cultural symbols, normative orders, social institutions, and personal identity (cf. Joan Wallach Scott, “Gender: A useful Category of Historical Analysis,” in Feminism and History [ed. Joan Wallach Scott; Oxford et al.: Oxford University Press, 2000], 167–169). 17 Cf. Winker and Degele, Intersektionalität, 54. 18 Cf. Winker and Degele, Intersektionalität, 81.

“He is perfect, he is a true man!” (Jub. 27:17)

133

symbolic representations lying behind those constructions. To reveal the symbolic representations at work, the second step is to identify values, meanings, and norms the text is referring to (b). 19 Then a closer look can be taken at the structures the text is related to. 20 I will modify this step to match my central question and the genre of the Book of Jubilees. As a result, the third step will include carving out the underlying religious rationales (c). Finally, the paper evaluates to what extent the different aspects analyzed intertwine to create masculinity with regard to identity, representation, and structure. 21

2. The Masculinities of Jacob and Esau Jacob plays one of the most prominent roles in the Book of Jubilees. Most of the story from his birth in chapter 19 up to his death in chapter 44 features him or his family. That is a reflection of his importance from Gen 25:26 to 49:33. In contrast to Genesis there are some passages which explicitly deal with his character. Jubilees is interested in elaborating on Jacob in more detail and so creating a less ambivalent picture of him than in Genesis. In these passages Jacob is often compared to Esau, his twin brother. Therefore these two characters are ideal for finding out more about the constructions of masculinities in the Book of Jubilees.

2.1 Jub. 19:13–15: Jacob and Esau’s Childhood From the beginning Jacob and Esau are contrasted to each other: 19:13 In the sixth week, during its second year [2046], Rebecca gave birth to two sons for Isaac: Jacob and Esau. Jacob was perfect and upright, while Esau was a harsh, rustic, and hairy man. Jacob used to live in tents. 19:14 When the boys grew up, Jacob learned (the art of) writing, but Esau did not learn (it) because he was a rustic man and a hunter. He learned (the art of) warfare and everything he did was harsh. 19:15 Abraham loved Jacob but Isaac (loved) Esau. 22

(a) The description of the two brothers is rather bold: Jacob is a perfect, upright, and educated man, beloved by Abraham and Rebecca. Esau, 19

Cf. Winker and Degele, Intersektionalität, 84. Winker and Degele, Intersektionalität, 85, who ask about social structures because of the nature of their materials. 21 Cf. Winker and Degele, Intersektionalität, 88 f. 22 All translations of the Book of Jubilees are taken from James C. Vanderkam, ed. and trans., The Book of Jubilees (Leuven: Peeters, 1989). 20

134

Aliyah El Mansy

in contrast, is said to be harsh, rustic, and prone to warfare. Only his father Isaac feels affection for him and even those feelings are transferred to Jacob later on. The words “perfect” and “upright” (fas.s.ama and r¯atə’) are also used in Jub. 27:17 to describe Jacob. Jacques van Ruiten determines that these adjectives are used to interpret the Hebrew ‫אשׁ‬ ‫(תם‬Gen 25:27). 23 The terms used to describe Esau evoke negative associations and paint the picture of a savage and brutal person. It is noteworthy in particular, that there is a description of his body: Esau is hairy. In contrast to the Genesis Vorlage the hairiness is not an aetiology for his name (Gen 25:25), but simply stated. Jacob is said to live in tents, while it is omitted that Jacob is a man “of the fields” (Gen 25:27). In Genesis “tents” and “fields” are opposed. The Jubilees version breaks the composition of the structure. Regarding the description of Esau, many repetitions are made. Compared to his description, Jacob’s is rather succinct without any further explanations. (b) This short introduction of the two brothers concentrates on the description of the character and body, education and lifestyle. From the beginning, the construction of the brothers’ characters reveals that Jacob works as a general role model. He displays good character traits while Esau is said to be dəruk (hard, harsh, ferocious, cruel, stubborn, savage). In other words: a person not to be trusted. Way more than in Genesis, their personalities are contrasted to each other and judged. Jubilees, for example puts the information about Esau’s hairiness in a pejorative context by listing it with negative terms. Hairiness has ambiguous notions in antiquity. According to the Aristotelian theory of temperature men are more hairy because of their higher body temperature. 24 Therefore hairiness can be a sign of masculinity. 25 At the same time the depilation of hair or little hair can be regarded as being cultivated and hairiness is connected to wilderness, “barbarism” and being uncultivated. 26 The second strand obviously is the norm the Book of Jubilees is picking up. The statement about Jacob living in tents is given rather unrelatedly. Considering its 23 Cf. Jacques T. A. G. M. van Ruiten, Abraham in the Book of Jubilees. The Rewriting of Genesis 11:26–25:10 in the Book of Jubilees 11:14–23:8 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 242. 24 Cf. the reference in Maud W. Gleason, Making Men. Sophists and Self-Representation in Ancient Rome, (Princeton /New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1995), 69 and note 70 (Aristotle, Gen. An., 727a; 765b; 783b; Problems 10.24). Also Galen in the second century b. c. e., cf. Dale B. Martin, The Corinthian Body, (New Haven et al.: Yale University Press, 1995), 29. 25 This notion lives on and can also be found in first century c. e. philosophers like Epictetus or Musonius. Cf. Gleason, Making Men, 69. 26 Gleason, Making Men, 74–76.

“He is perfect, he is a true man!” (Jub. 27:17)

135

embedding, the purpose seems to be to stress Jacob’s disconnectedness to any wilderness and emphasize his connection to a cultivated lifestyle. Another important aspect is the education of Jacob and Esau. Jacob is said to be literate and Esau is said to know about hunting and warfare. Writing is very important to the Book of Jubilees. According to its own fiction an angel dictates to Moses the Book of Jubilees and he writes down everything (Jub. 1:5.7). Abraham is taught writing and turns away from the worship of idols (Jub. 11:16). Moses learns writing at the Pharaoh’s house (Jub. 47:9). So Abraham, Jacob, and Moses are the three men about who it is stated that they learned writing. All of them play a special role for Israel and entertain a close relationship to God. (c) Jubilees introduces the two brothers in a well-known pattern, which Ronald S. Hendel calls “the Hero and the Other.” 27 Biblical versions of this pattern (like others) do not always fulfill common expectations. Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon for example are not flawless characters and shining heroes. 28 In contrast, the Book of Jubilees works hard to paint a black-and-white picture of the brothers. One of its general characteristics is to omit ambiguities in characters or stories in order to highlight their goodness or innocence, badness or guilt. 29 Writing is a major concern for the Book of Jubilees because it is necessary to record the divine commandments for eternity. These laws are binding and as soon as they are ordained they have to be kept. Therefore literacy also means to be especially close to God and the commandments. Jacob is given a prominent position between Abraham (Jub. 11:17) and Moses (Jub. 47:9) through his ability to write. It symbolizes the worship of God, the keeping of the commandments, and the ability to read the Torah or books like Jubilees. It also promotes literacy as more important than being able to go to war. Regarding the possible experiences of the uprising of the Maccabees, the subsequent turmoil, the violent occupation and suppression by foreign powers, the Book of Jubilees stresses (torah-) education as a reaction and a perspective for the future.

27 Ronald Hendel, The Epic of the Patriarch. The Jacob Cycle and the Narrative Traditions of Canaan and Israel (HSM 42; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholar Press, 1987), 111–131, verifies this pattern also in Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Phoenician stories about brothers. 28 There are some points where Jubilees’ own agenda and the Genesis Vorlage seem to clash: The overtly positive depiction of Jacob fits ill with the deceitful stories of the stealing of Esau’s first-born blessings (Jub. 24:3–7; 26:1–35). 29 Cf. the story of Dinah (Jub. 30) or the sexual relation of Ruben to his father’s wife (Jub. 33) in the Book of Jubilees.

136

Aliyah El Mansy

Throughout the Book of Jubilees, these notions of Esau and Jacob are either mentioned explicitly or sometimes highlighted by describing the brothers’ behavior in stories. Chapter 35 features conversations between Rebecca and Jacob, Isaac, and Esau. She is presented as the most influential family member in Jacob’s life. The chapter can be divided into 6 different parts: 1) 35:1–35:8: Rebecca’s instructions to Jacob; 2) 35:9–35:12: Rebecca’s request to Isaac; 3) 35:13–35:17: Isaac’s answer to Rebecca; 4) 35:18–35:24: Rebecca’s instructions to Esau; 5) 35:25–35:26: Rebecca’s instructions to Jacob in front of Esau; 6) 35:27: meal, death and burial. We will take a look at the first three parts and their constructions of manliness because they contain the most important aspects.

2.2 Jub. 35:1–6: Rebecca’s Instructions to Jacob 35:1 During the first year of the first week in the forty-fifth Jubilee [2157], Rebecca summoned her son Jacob and ordered him regarding his father and brother that he was to honor them throughout Jacob’s entire lifetime. 35:2 Jacob said: ‘I will do everything just as you ordered me; it will be a righteous act for me before the Lord that I should honor them. 35:3 You, mother, know everything I have done and all my thoughts from the day I was born until today – that all times I think of what is good for all. 35:4 How shall I not do what you have ordered me – that I should honor my father and my brother? 35:5 Tell me, mother, what impropriety you have noticed in me and I will certainly turn away from it and will experience mercy.’ 35:6 She said to him: ‘My son, throughout my entire lifetime I have noticed no improper act in you but only proper one(s). [...].’

(a) The chapter starts with Rebecca instructing Jacob. The first sentence stresses their relationship: Jacob is Rebecca’s son. She asks him to honor his father and brother. Jacob tells his mother that he will do as ordered. He explains that this is righteous before God. Jacob is furthermore described as considerate and selfless, he “thinks all the time of what is good for all.” Additionally, he shows self-awareness and insight: if something is inappropriate, he will turn away from it. Jacob is cautious about his behavior and even takes into account that he might unwittingly do something inappropriate. Rebecca replies that he always behaves appropriately. This short passage shows one of Jacob’s main character traits in the Book of Jubilees: he always does the right thing. Jacob describes his acts as righteous and picks up Isaac’s words in Jub. 31:21 about him stating that

“He is perfect, he is a true man!” (Jub. 27:17)

137

√ he is a “righteous son” ( s.ədq). 30 Here there is no room for the ambiguity of Jacob’s character that is part of the account in Genesis (Gen 25:22 f,26; 32:8; 34:30). 31 His character is flawless. √ (b) “Honoring” ( kabra) is one of the key concepts. It conveys the idea that a person knows what is right or wrong with regard to social relations. He or she knows what is appropriate and how other people should be treated. We will see later how this concept is manifested in actual behavior. One related element is obedience. Children should fulfill the wishes of their parents. Jubilees shares this value with Hellenistic philosophy and ethics. To fulfill one’s duties towards parents promises a happy life. 32 Jacob always listens to his mother Rebecca in the Book of Jubilees. This is regarded as righteousness before God. The word used for a “righteous act” (s.ədq) also means justice and holiness. Here is an example of categories closely connected and intertwined with one another. To honor one’s parents is also to be just and holy. Thus, the social and religious spheres are interdependent. Jacob is said to be a caring person. Caring means not to think only about oneself but about the good of the whole family. It also refers to his virtues because it is said he always acts appropriately and is willing to repent if necessary. (c) This passage builds on the realities of societies which value the family. The family is the guarantee for survival. The requirement to honor one’s parents is important in the Book of Jubilees because it ensures the safeguarding and survival of the family. 33 Noah commands future generations to honor their parents (Jub. 7:20). However not only parents are to be honored. Honoring is to be the general conduct of treating family members. 34 Harry Jungbauer stresses that Jubilees closely connects the demand to honor parents to honoring God. 35 The commandment to honor one’s parents is widespread in Hellenistic literature. Likewise, the 30

Vanderkam translates it as “true son,” but to highlight the use of the same word I translate it as “righteous.” 31 Cf. also Hendel (Epic, 128 f) who stresses that Jacob is in Genesis a “man of culture and a trickster.” 32 Cf. Reinhold Bohlen, Die Ehrung der Eltern bei Ben Sira. Studien zur Motivation und Interpretation eines familienethischen Grundwertes in frühhellenistischer Zeit (Trier: Paulinus Verlag, 1991), 147–153. 33 Cf. Harry Jungbauer, “Ehre Vater und Mutter”. Der Weg des Elterngebots in der biblischen Tradition (WUNT 2/146; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 178. 34 Jungbauer, “Ehre Vater und Mutter”, 180, not only mentions Esau and Jacob but also Leah regarding her husband (Jub. 36,23). 35 Cf. Jungbauer, “Ehre Vater und Mutter,” 179.

138

Aliyah El Mansy

notion of respectful behavior towards one’s parents expresses fear of the gods. 36 Thus another source for well-being is the cult, which refers to maintaining a relationship to God. This is realized by showing appropriate behavior towards the family. A special feature is the concept of repentance which plays a major role in the cult of the God of Israel.

2.3 Jub. 35:9–12: Rebecca’s Request to Isaac 35:9 She went to Isaac and said to him: ‘I am making one request of you: make Esau swear that he will not harm Jacob and not pursue him in hatred. For you know the way Esau thinks – that he has been malicious since his youth and that he is devoid of virtue because he wishes to kill him after your death. 35:10 You know everything that he has done from the day his brother Jacob went to Haran until today – that he has wholeheartedly abandoned us. He has treated us badly; he has gathered your flocks and has taken all your possessions away from you by force. 35:11 When we would ask him in a pleading way for what belonged to us, he would act like someone who was being charitable to us. 35:12 He is behaving bitterly toward you due to the fact that you blessed your prefect and true son Jacob since he has virtue only, no evil. From the time he came from Haran until today he has not deprived us of anything but he always brings us everything in its season. He is wholeheartedly happy when we accept (anything) from him, and he blesses us. He has not separated from us from the day he came from Haran until today. He has continually been living with us at home (all the while) honoring us.’

(a) After Rebecca speaks to Jacob she turns to her husband. The order of addressing people is carefully crafted and gives insight into the family relations: Rebecca first speaks to her beloved son Jacob. Their affectionate relationship is clearly shown from the beginning. Rebecca favors Jacob (Jub. 19:16) and, even more importantly because it is not in accordance with the account found in Genesis, Abraham also loves Jacob more than Esau (Jub. 19:15). 37 So even before talking to her husband she talks to Jacob. Esau is at the bottom of the hierarchy of affection. In the following verses Esau and Jacob are contrasted to one another. Rebecca’s main concern is that Esau might harm Jacob. Esau is said to feel hatred towards his brother and is thought to be (still) planning to kill him, even though Jub. 29:13 already recounted that Esau approached Jacob and that the brothers made up. Obviously Esau cannot be trusted to have had a real change of heart. In contrast, we saw that Jacob is thought to be able to turn 36

Cf. Bohlen, Die Ehrung der Eltern, 185 f. Van Ruiten (Abraham in the Book of Jubilees, 227) points out the special place the relationship between Abraham and Jacob is given. 37

“He is perfect, he is a true man!” (Jub. 27:17)

139

away from evil. In his mother’s eyes, Esau is a lost case. This observation is also mirrored in the fact that Esau never alludes to the God of Israel whereas Jacob has a very close relationship to the God of his ancestors (e. g. Jacob’s dream in Jub. 27:21–24). The silent absence of Esau’s relation to God is very telling. Rebecca paints a very negative picture of Esau: malicious since youth, devoid of virtue, patronizing towards his parents. She blames him of having abandoned his parents, of having taken Isaac’s flocks and possessions and of only giving back reluctantly what belonged to his father. In other words: Esau was stealing from his own parents. Jubilees already states in 29:18 that Esau abandoned his father and did not take care of his parents. In contrast to Jacob, who honors them, Esau treats his parents badly. It is stated explicitly that he is embittered about his lost blessing. I have already talked about the omitted ambiguity in the representation of Jacob. The same is true for Esau. In Genesis 33:4,9 it is Esau who embraces and kisses his brother and welcomes Jacob’s family. He is forgiving and peaceable. In Jubilees we look in vain for such a change of heart. The nuances of his personality are absent. Jacob is attributed with the opposite character traits. He is perfect and a true son. The same words as in Jub. 19:13 and 27:17 are used again (fas.s.ama and r¯atə’). Once more it is stressed that Jacob is the son, whereas Esau is completely neglected. Jacob shows no evil, only virtue. In Jub. 25:7 this virtue is described more closely. Jacob says about himself to his mother that he kept himself from sinning, from becoming corrupted, especially regarding lewdness and sexual impurity. We will come back to this aspect in the next passage. The other topic mentioned again is caring for parents. Jacob devoted all his time to them, which was correct and proper, and was happy when his parents accepted it. He never abandoned his parents. Jubilees stresses that he continually lived with them and honored them. Again the importance of an intact relationship, especially regarding obedience to parents’ wishes, is mentioned. (b) Esau dishonors his parents. This amounts to a break in the parentchild relationship. It is Esau’s duty to take care of his parents but he abandons them and treats them with disdain. Many negative character traits are attributed to Esau. They lead to the disruption of family ties and destroyed relationships. So Esau harms and endangers other people with his behavior. The expression “wholeheartedly” is noteworthy. It is the translation of the Ge’ez expression bakulu lebu, which literally means “with the whole heart.” This expression is a reminder of Deut 6:4. Us-

140

Aliyah El Mansy

ing these words Jubilees stresses the complete determination of Esau to abandoning his parents. His entire being is involved in his broken and corrupted relationship. In contrast, Jacob dedicates his whole person to an intact and sound relationship to his parents. Affection and love are important values which can deepen and guarantee loyalty and have a positive impact on life. Jacob benefits immensely from Rebecca’s affection as she does from his loyalty and sense of duty. It is important to note that Rebecca tries to forge a similar link between the brothers in this chapter. She asks Esau to swear to love Jacob (Jub. 35:20) and both brothers take an oath to love each other (Jub. 35:22,26). The aim is to guarantee peace and prevent the family from falling to pieces due to “fraternal discord.” 38 Isaac expresses a similar wish later on (Jub. 36:4) and threatens that breaking the oath will lead to the destruction and uprooting of the person and his descendants (Jub. 36:9–11). (c) Again the parent-child relationship plays a major role. This time it is not only about caring but also about parental affection. These two categories illustrate a social structure of obligation. Jacob is obliged to his mother because she not only give birth to him and raised him but also made sure he enjoyed advantages. Therefore as a matter of fact it is “naturally” the right thing to obey her and to try to make her comfortable and happy. Another rationale is “true sonship.” Sonship conveys notions of belonging, membership, trust, and closeness. It is also an important metaphor for the relationship between God and Israel in the Hebrew Bible. The Book of Jubilees expresses a concept of “convertible inter-generational conduct” shared with the Hellenistic world. 39 In short, it means that you get back from your own children what you gave your parents. Esau is disobedient to his parents and so are his sons to him (Jub. 37:5).

2.4 Jub. 35:13–17: Isaac’s Answer to Rebecca 35:13 Isaac said to her: ‘I, too, know and see the actions of Jacob who is with us – that he wholeheartedly honors us. At first I did love Esau more than Jacob, after he was born; but now I love Jacob more than Esau because he has done so many bad things and lacks (the ability to do) what is right. For the entire way he acts is (characterized by) injustice and violence and there is no justice about him. 35:14 Now my mind is disturbed about his actions. Neither he nor his descendants are to be saved because they will be destroyed from the earth and be uprooted from beneath the sky. For he has abandoned the God of Abraham and has gone after his 38 39

Van Ruiten, Abraham in the Book of Jubilees, 269. Cf. Bohlen, Die Ehrung der Eltern, 184.

“He is perfect, he is a true man!” (Jub. 27:17)

141

wives, after impurity, and after their errors – he and his sons. 35:15 You are saying to me that I should make him swear not to kill his brother Jacob. Even if he does swear, it will not happen. He will not do what is virtuous but rather what is evil. 35:16 If he wishes to kill his brother Jacob, he will be handed over to Jacob and will not escape from his control but will fall into his control. 35:17 Now you are not to be afraid for Jacob because Jacob’s guardian is greater and more powerful, glorious, and praiseworthy than Esau’s guardian.’

(a) Isaac confirms Rebecca’s description of their sons. New aspects are that he says that he loved Esau more in the beginning (cf. Jub. 19:15) but that his affections changed over the years. Besides, he strengthens the negative picture of Esau. He is said to have done many bad things, to lack in general the ability to do what is right. Injustice, violence and evil-doing are characteristic for him. Isaac also talks about Esau’s relationship to God. Esau has abandoned the God of Abraham. In connection to this Esau’s foreign wives are mentioned: “he has gone after his wives, after impurity, and after their errors” (Jub. 35:14). This is a typical paraphrase in the context of intermarriages to express that the Israelite husband worships the foreign gods of his foreign wives. In accordance to Jubilees’ punishment regarding intermarriages Esau’s descendants will be destroyed (Jub. 30:22). I have already mentioned above that it is emphasized that Jacob managed to remain sexually pure. Sexuality is an important aspect of integrity in the Book of Jubilees. Jacob stresses that he has never touched a woman, had sexual intercourse with or been engaged to one, even though he is 63 years old (Jub. 25:4). He promises to marry a woman from his family and not one of the daughters of Canaan (Jub. 25:5). He obeys the orders Abraham gave him regarding intermarriage (Jub. 22:20). Intermarriage is seen in the Book of Jubilees as a source of defilement and corruption (Jub. 30:14 f). 40 Therefore, Esau’s marriage to Canaanite women is regarded even more critically. Rebecca says in Jub. 25:1 that they do impure things and everything they do consists of sexual impurity and lewdness. Also, Gen 26:34 f and 27:46 explain that Esau’s Hittite wives are a pain in the hearts of Rebecca and Isaac. Yet no reason is given. Jubilees fills this gap by hinting at sexually inappropriate behavior. It is striking that the book omits Gen 28:9 and thereby Esau’s attempt to please his parents by marrying Mahalath, Ishmael’s daughter. Instead, he is said to have tried for 22 years to convince Jacob also to marry a Canaanite (Jub. 25:8). Thus 40

Cf. Aliyah El Mansy, Exogame Ehen. Die traditionsgeschichtlichen Kontexte von 1 Kor 2,12–16, (BWANT 206; Kohlhammer: Stuttgart, 2016), 183 f.

142

Aliyah El Mansy

he tries to motivate Jacob to disobey Abraham and his parents, therefore attempting to corrupt his twin brother. In contrast, Isaac reassures Rebecca that she does not need to worry because Jacob’s guardian is greater, more powerful, glorious and more praiseworthy than Esau’s. So, the mightiness of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is confirmed. (b) Isaac refers to heretofore unmentioned negative character traits in Esau. These are injustice and violence. Again these are both aspects which can destroy a family or community. It alludes to Jub. 19:14 where Esau is said to be prone to warfare. Jacob also fights, but he is doing so in order to protect the family (Jub. 34:7–9). Esau is the aggressor who breaks his vows made to his father and mother (Jub. 37:18–24). In this passage one of the most important ideologies promoted in the Book of Jubilees is found: the rejection and disapproval of intermarriage. Intermarriage is regarded as defiling and leading to impurity. It is also a sign of Esau’s disobedience because Abraham forbade intermarriages and his parents are unhappy about them. Most significant of all is the abandonment of the God of Abraham and tuning to other gods. In contrast, Isaac stresses that Jacob’s God is more powerful. (c) The passages display several important rationales. And they are closely connected with and influence each other. First of all there is the rationale regarding sexuality. Sexuality is closely linked to marriage. Outside of marriage sexual intercourse is forbidden, mainly to ensure that legitimate children are produced. However, it is also intertwined with notions of purity. Not having sexual relations outside of marriages ensures purity. Very often these rules are only applied to women, but the Book of Jubilees also expects sexual purity from men. Marriage is not a guarantee for purity because at the same time there are also marriages which defile, because they mean sexual intercourse with foreigners. Usually groups who see their identity endangered tend to forbid intermarriage and to favor endogamy. 41 The second important rationale referred to is the worship of the God of Israel and therefore monotheism. The foreign gods Esau follows are regarded as less powerful than the God of Israel. The verses show a glimpse of the rivalry between different cults and the discussion as to which god is the mightiest. Jubilees stresses over and over again how bad and wrong idolatry is. Abraham tells his son Isaac that he hates idols (Jub. 21:3). He also warns Jacob in his testament of following worshippers of other gods (Jub. 22:16–19). He draws detailed pictures 41

Cf. El Mansy, Exogame Ehen, 271–273.

“He is perfect, he is a true man!” (Jub. 27:17)

143

of their “errors” and “distorted” worship (also Jub. 21:5 f). In contrast to this, the God of Abraham is said to be “more holy, faithful, and just than anyone” (Jub. 21:4).

3. Conclusion I presented and analyzed the different descriptions of Jacob’s and Esau’s identities. Nine levels of structure or rationales emerged: education, body, lifestyle, family, parent-child relations, sexuality, marriage, cult, and morality. The underlying system of classification is mostly binary and consists of clear opposites. Hendel suggests that the main polarity in the depiction of the two brothers in Genesis is between culture and nature. 42 Jubilees takes up this polarity and develops it further. It is possible to build on Hendel’s thesis regarding the intention of such presentations. Jubilees refers to this distinction but emphasizes moral aspects. At the same time, it strongly promotes monotheism. Thus the interdependency of social and religious spheres is emphasized. This is mirrored in the expression bə’əsi mə’əman, “true man.” mə’əman has the meaning of faithful, true, trustworthy, reliable, and also believer. 43 Jacob embodies the “true man.” This means predominantly that he is an ideal son, worshipper, and has a flawless character. He represents hegemonic masculinity which ensures the continuation of the family. Esau represents a marginalized masculinity which endangers this interdependent system of generations. Jubilees tries to implement ideal construction of masculinity by the strong use of normative orders. It is also bold in the violent punishments and in generous rewards. Interestingly, the parent-child relation is first and foremost a mother-child relation as can be seen in Rebecca’s prominent role. The question arises as to why the Book of Jubilees promotes this special type of masculinity? Is there a concrete reference point in social reality? Or to pin it down: is there a special need for this kind of masculinity during the years 175–125 b. c. e. for the Jewish community? The Jews of this time went through an armed rebellion and experienced a high death toll until the establishment of the Hasmonean regime. The first and second Books of Maccabees provides us with its own interpretation of these 42

Cf. Hendel, Epic, 128. Cf. Wolf Leslau, Concise Dictionary of Ge’ez (Classical Ethiopic) (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2010). 43

144

Aliyah El Mansy

events. As well as a confrontation with the foreign Seleucid rulers, it was an inner-Jewish struggle about power and ideology. In contrast to the first and seconds Books of Maccabees, which report war, battles, and armed resistance as well as merciless punishments, the Book of Jubilees promotes violent confrontation only as the last option when everything else has failed and it can be seen as legitimate self-defense (Jub. 37:24). 44 Similar to the Books of Maccabees it is very radical and strict regarding adherence to the Torah. The punishments are to be carried out by God as well as by men. Thus it represents a group keen for separation. The Book of Maccabees needs brave fighters and its role models are Phinehas, Joshua, and Elijah (1 Macc 2:54). The Book of Jubilees promotes mutual peace and love (Jub. 37:4), and the re-learning of Torah commandments. Maybe the Book of Jubilees was trying to show a way to re-build a Torah-compliant society. A society in need of consolidation, guidance, and role models of masculinities who care about family, repair broken family ties, and keep the divine commandments. Further investigations comparing the construction of masculinity to other literature and social history would be fruitful. All in all, it becomes clear how elaborately Jubilees combines different rationales and conveys its ideas of masculinity through norms and values. Jacob is a just son of man and a just son of God. Or in other words: “true masculinity” is presented as “true sonship.”

44

Interestingly, said war between Esau and Jacob is not reported in Genesis.

Abraham and his Family in Qumran Biblical Exegesis Jesper Høgenhaven

The library found in the caves near Qumran reflects, in a number of different ways, various aspects of Jewish beliefs and practices in Palestine during the last centuries of the Second Temple period. The extent of variation and diversity within the Qumran texts has become increasingly apparent to scholars in recent years. The question as to exactly which parts of the Qumran material are to be associated with a particular Qumranic movement and ideology, and which parts are simply Jewish in a broader sense, remains lively debated. At any rate, however, a significant portion of the texts are in some way or other clearly occupied with traditions, narratives, and figures also attested in the Hebrew Bible. It is not surprising, therefore, that the traditions concerned with the patriarchs of Israel also find their reflections in the scrolls from Qumran. This article is devoted to the roles played by Abraham and his family in Qumran texts, and special attention will be paid to four selected Qumran documents: the Cairo Damascus Document (CD, strictly speaking not a Qumran document), Commentary on Genesis A (4Q252), the Reworked Pentateuch texts (4Q158, 4Q364–367), and Pseudo-Jubilees (4Q225).

1. Qumran Biblical Exegesis Biblical exegesis in the Qumran texts is a notion that calls for some clarification. Speaking of ‘biblical’ texts or manuscripts, and ‘biblical exegesis’ in the context of the Qumran library is, by common consensus, anachronistic in the sense that there was no ‘Bible’ in the stricter sense of the word at the time when the Qumran manuscripts were written. 1 I use ‘biblical’ here 1

The following section summarizes the treatment of this topic in Jesper Høgenhaven, “Fortschreibung und Kanonisierung in der Bibliothek von Qumran. Bemerkungen mit

146

Jesper Høgenhaven

as a practical abbreviation simply designating the considerable portion of the Qumran text material which eventually became part of various biblical canons. A reasonable estimate is that between a quarter and a fifth of the roughly 930 identifiable manuscripts found at Qumran are ‘biblical’ in this sense. 2 Biblical exegesis in Qumran texts takes on a variety of different forms and expressions. The most conspicuous way of interpreting older authoritative compositions, apart from explicit citing, which occurs in many different Qumran writings, is the reproduction of biblical quotations interspersed with interpretative sections found in the so-called commentaries (pesharim). This type of commentary was apparently dedicated only to a limited number of biblical writings at Qumran. Books on which commentaries have survived are Genesis, Isaiah, books from the Minor Prophets (Hosea, Nahum, Micah, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Malachi), and Psalms. The practice of quoting from and commenting on source texts word-by-word or sentence-by-sentence characteristic of the pesharim would seem, in principle, to differ markedly from the rewriting and rearrangement of besonderem Hinblick auf Genesis-Kommentar A (4Q252),” in Rewriting and Reception in and of the Bible (ed. J. Høgenhaven, H. Omerzu and J. T. Nielsen; WUNT 396; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), 11–32. Cf. Idem, “Canon Formation, Canonicity, and the Qumran Library,” in Biblical Interpretation Beyond Historicity (ed. I. Hjelm and T. L. Thompson; Changing Perspectives 7; Abingdon: Routledge, 2016), 155–158; Idem, “Psalms as Prophecy: Qumran Evidence for the Reading of Psalms as Prophetic Text and the Formation of the Canon,” in Functions of Psalms and Prayers in the Late Second Temple Period (ed. M. Pajunen and J. Penner; BZAW 486; Berlin: Töpelmann, 2017), 231–251. My Copenhagen colleague Søren Holst has very usefully distinguished between two meanings of the term ‘biblical’ when used with regard to Qumran texts: ‘biblical’ may describe a quality assigned to texts or literary works by the Qumranites themselves, in which sense the term ‘biblical’ would mean something like ‘sacred,’ ‘authoritative’ or ‘divinely inspired’. Alternatively – and more commonly – ‘biblical’ is used to designate texts or literary compositions that are identical or reasonably close to texts that form part of the later Jewish or Christian biblical collections. See Søren Holst, “Hvornår er en tekst bibelsk? Bearbejdede Mosebøger blandt Dødehavsrullerne,” in Bibelske genskrivninger (ed. J. Høgenhaven and M. Müller; Forum for bibelsk eksegese 17; Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanums Forlag, 2012), 112–114. 2 In view of the fragmentary state of most Qumran scrolls, it is not possible to state the exact number of individual manuscripts found in the caves, or to give an exact assessment of which manuscripts contain ‘biblical’ or ‘scriptural’ texts. Emanuel Tov (Revised Lists of the Texts from the Judaean Desert [Leiden: Brill, 2010], 113) estimates 24.09–24.30 % biblical texts (224–226 manuscripts out of a total of some 930 texts from Qumran, not counting tefilin and mezuzot). Earlier Tov (The Texts from the Judaean Desert. Indices and an Introduction to the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Series [DJD 39; Oxford: Clarendon, 2002], 167) reached the figure of 22 % biblical texts at Qumran (200 manuscripts out of total of some 900). Eugene Ulrich (The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible [Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans /Brill, 1999], 18) arrives at 25 % (200 out of roughly 800 manuscripts).

Abraham and his Family in Qumran Biblical Exegesis

147

older, authoritative writings which we also find amply documented in the Qumran library. Reworking or rewriting may take place in the form of expanded versions of existing works, which are restructured or given harmonizing or explanatory supplements (as in the Reworked Pentateuch texts). In other cases, however, entire new literary compositions are created (as in Jubilees, the Genesis Apocryphon, the Apocryphon of Jeremiah, Pseudo-Ezekiel, and the Temple Scroll). While the pesharim seem to assign great importance to the exact wording of the older, authoritative source texts, rewriting and reworking involves liberal and extensive changes in the sources and their contents. 3 Here, the authoritative text is manifestly not regarded as unchangeable, and the significance seems to reside not in the particular formulation, choice of words, and linguistic constructions employed in the source text but in a more general sense of the contents or message, which, in the opinion of the reworker, needs to be reformulated, expanded or adapted to find an adequate expression. Rewriting and commenting, in other words, appear to be distinct strategies for interpreting older texts. They would seem to be further distinguished by the fact that while the commentaries are usually associated with the Qumran community or movement as reflecting Qumran theology, 4 ‘Rewritten Bible’ compositions are often analyzed as texts originating outside the movement. They also seem to be concerned with different parts of the literary tradition: Commentaries were apparently reserved for Isaiah, Minor Prophets, and Psalms. Reworking and rewriting on the other hand was applied, above all, to the Pentateuch, but also to Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Yet both interpretative strategies are documented in texts which are for all 3 When Geza Vermes introduced the term ‘Rewritten Bible’ in 1961, he had in mind, among other ancient Jewish writings, the Genesis Apocryphon found at Qumran, cf. Geza Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies (Studia Post-Biblica 4; Leiden: Brill, 1961). On the concept of ‘Rewritten Bible’, cf. Esther Chazon, Divorah Dimant, and Ronald A. Clements, eds., Reworking the Bible: Apocryphal and Related Texts at Qumran: Proceedings of a Joint Symposium by the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature and the Hebrew University Institute for Advanced Studies Research Group on Qumran, 15–17 January 2002 (STDJ 58; Leiden: Brill 2005); Molly Zahn, Rethinking Rewritten Scripture: Composition and Exegesis in the 4QReworked Pentateuch Manuscripts (STDJ 95; Leiden: Brill, 2011). 4 See Maurya P. Horgan, “Pesharim,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Vol 6B: Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck /Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 1–2. Cf. Shani L. Berrin, “Pesharim,” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Vol. 1 (ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 644–647; Idem, “Qumran Pesharim,” in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran (ed. Matthias Henze; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2005), 110–133; Timothy Lim, Pesharim (Companion to the Scrolls 3; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002).

148

Jesper Høgenhaven

intents and purposes contemporary. In fact, both strategies can be shown to coexist within the same literary composition, as exemplified by the socalled Genesis commentaries (4Q252–254a), which have been described as compositions standing at a point of transition between ‘Rewritten Bible’ and biblical commentary, including formal elements from both types of composition. 5 This speaks against assuming a sharp dichotomy between commenting and reworking. Both approaches seem to have been parts of the repertoire of biblical exegesis at Qumran, and there are no indications that they were perceived by the ancients as mutually exclusive. In the following, we understand ‘Qumran biblical exegesis’ as a broad umbrella term covering several ways of relating to older, ‘biblical’ texts and traditions.

2. Abraham at Qumran: An Overview The patriarch Abraham is mentioned approximately 80 times in the Qumran texts. 6 The distribution of the long and short forms of the name is slightly surprising: in biblical manuscripts we encounter exclusively the long form ‫( אברהם‬27 times). In the non-biblical manuscripts we have the long form some 50 times and the short form ‫ אברם‬24 times. Abraham is mentioned in 25 different non-biblical Hebrew and Aramaic texts from Qumran and in three passages in CD not preserved in the Qumran manuscripts. Many of these occurrences, obviously, are found in fragmentary contexts that do not allow for any particular conclusion as regards the understanding or interpretation of the Abraham figure. We often encounter the well-known triad “Abraham, Isaac, Jacob.” In one instance in the Apocryphon of Joshua (4Q379 17 4) the formula seems to have been extended to include Moses: ‫אברהם יצחק ויעקב ומשה‬. The text, however, is fragmentary, and it cannot be ascertained whether the triad “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” could have concluded one sentence, in which case the following “and Moses” would have initiated a new sentence. 7 The 5 See Moshe J. Bernstein, “4Q252: From Rewritten Bible to Biblical Commentary,” JJS 45 (1994): 1–17; Idem, “4Q252: Method and Context, Genre and Sources,” JQR 85 (1994–1995): 61–79; George J. Brooke, “4Q252 as Early Jewish Commentary,” RevQ 17 (1996): 385–401; Idem, “The Thematic Content of 4Q252,” JQR 85 (1994–1995): 33–57; Idem, “Thematic Commentaries on Prophetic Scriptures,” in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran (ed. Matthias Henze: Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2005) 153–154. 6 Cf. Heinz-Joseph Fabry, ‫אברהם‬, ‫אברם‬, in Theologisches Wörterbuch zu den QumranTexten I (ed. H.-J. Fabry and U. Dahmen; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2011), 26–36. 7 This is indicated by the punctuation in the English translation given in Carol Newsom, “G. Apocryphon of Joshua,” in Qumran Cave 4: XVII. Parabiblical Texts. Part 3 (ed. G.

Abraham and his Family in Qumran Biblical Exegesis

149

Communal Confession text (4Q393 3,7) refers, in a context dealing with covenant and divine election, to “Abraham and Israel.” The text appeals to God as he who chose “our fathers” long ago (‫אתה הוא יהוה ברתה באבותינו‬ ‫)למקדם‬, and implores God to ֹ“give to us that which you established for Abraham and for Israel” (‫)לתת לנו הקימות לאברהם לישראל‬. 8 And in Apocryphon of Jeremiah C (4Q388a 7 ii 1–2), we find the statement that Egypt and Israel have broken “the covenant I made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” (‫)הברית אשר כ]רתי ע[ם אברהם יצחק] ועם יעקוב‬. The name of the third patriarch has to be restored here. 9 It would be difficult to deduce more from these passages than the very general notion that Abraham, as the forefather of Israel, was regarded as the recipient of divine promises that remain in some sense valid for his living descendants. In the following we shall examine more closely some passages in Qumran texts that seem to reflect a distinct and identifiable interpretation and employment of the Abraham figure.

3. Abraham and his Family in the Damascus Document Generally speaking, Abraham is mentioned only scarcely in the legal texts from Qumran. His name occurs only four times, three times in the Cairo Damascus Document and once in a related text from Cave Four. The reference to Abraham in CD 3,2 is part of the long exhortatory section at the beginning of the document. Columns 2–3 of CD present the reader with an overview of the history of God’s chosen people. The ethical perspective is clearly revealed through the exhortation to pay attention to the instructing voice, and to the works of God, with the ethical implication of choosing what God wants, and rejecting what he hates. This alternative between the right and the wrong ways is further elaborated by means of the contrasting images of walking perfectly (‫)להתהלך תמים‬ against straying (‫)לתור‬. The evil ways to be avoided are summed up in

Brooke et al.; DJD 22; Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 274 (“... Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And Moses ...”). The copula of ‫ ויעקב‬could indicate that this understanding of the text is the more plausible. 8 The word ‫ הקימות‬seems to be “part of an asyndetic independent relative clause.” See Daniel Falk, “C. Works of God and Communal Confession,” in Qumran Cave 4: XX. Poetical and Liturgical Texts. Part 2 (ed. E. Chazon et al.; DJD 29; Oxford: Clarendon, 1999), 57. 9 Cf. Divorah Dimant, “B. Apocryphon of Jeremiah,” in Qumran Cave 4: XXI. Parabiblical Texts, Part 4: Pseudo-Prophetic Texts (ed. Idem; DJD 30; Oxford: Clarendon, 2001), 208.

150

Jesper Høgenhaven

the expression “wantonness of heart” (‫)שרירות לב‬, which is introduced in 2,17, and followed by an enumeration of conspicuous examples: CD MS A 2 ‫ועתה בנים שמעו לי ואגלה עיניכם לראות ולהבין במעשי‬ ‫אל ולבחור את אשר רצה ולמאוס כאשר שנא להתהלך תמים‬ ‫בכל דרכיו ולא לתור במחשבות יצר אשמה ועני זנות כי רבים‬ ‫תעו בם וגבורי חיל נכשלו בם מלפנים ועד הנה בלכתם בשרירות‬ ‫לבם נפלו עידי השמים בה נאחזו אשר לא שמרו מצות אל‬

14 15 16 17 18

CD MS A 2 14 And now, O sons, hearken to me, and I will uncover your eyes so you may see and understand the works of 15 God and choose that which he wants and despise that which he hates: to walk perfectly 16 in all his ways and not to stray in the thoughts of a guilty inclination and licentious eyes. For many 17 have failed due to them; mighty warriors have stumbled due to them, from the earliest times and until today. (Thus, for example) walking after the wantonness of 18 their heart(s), the Watchers of heaven fell. They were held by it (the wantonness of heart), for they did not keep God’s ordinances. 10

The nature and effects of “wantonness of heart” (‫ )שרירות לב‬is illustrated by the reference to the “watchers of heaven” (‫)עידי השמים‬. Then follows references to “their (the watchers’) sons” (‫ )בניהם‬and “the sons of Noah” (‫)בני נח‬. The row of negative examples forms the background for the introduction of Abraham, who is singled out as a positive counter-example, someone who did not walk in the wantonness of heart: CD MS A 3 ‫אברהם לא הלך בה ויע]ל או[הב בשמרו מצות אל ולא בחר‬ ‫ברצון רוחו וימסור לישחק וליעקב וישמרו ויכתבו אוהבים‬ ... ‫לאל ובעלי ברית לעולם‬

2 3 4

CD MS A 3 2 Abraham did not walk in it and he was acce[pted as a fr]iend, for he kept God’s ordinances and did not choose 3 (that which) his (own) spirit desired. And he transmitted (his way) to Isaac and Jacob; and they observed (them) and were registered as friends 4 of God and parties to (his) covenant forever ...

10 The text and translation of this and the following quotations from CD are dependent on Joseph M. Baumgarten and Daniel R. Schwartz, “Damascus Document (CD),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Vol 2: Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck /Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 4–57.

Abraham and his Family in Qumran Biblical Exegesis

151

The text praises Abraham for his conduct, and elaborates both a negative and a positive aspect of what Abraham does: negatively expressed, he abstains from the practices summarized in the term ‫שרירות לב‬, and, positively expressed, his obedience to the commandments (‫ )מצות‬of God are emphasized. The aspect of rejecting what is wrong is taken up again in the phrase that he did not choose what his spirit desired. The verb ‫בחר‬ reuses the expression from the introductory exhortation. Abraham is in other words very explicitly represented as an example of the conduct that is required from the addressees of the exhortation. The text’s description of the divine acceptance of Abraham may reflect the famous passage in Gen 15:6, even if the terminology in CD 3,2 is different: the text uses the verb ‫( עלה‬against ‫ חשב‬Gen 15:6) and the term ‫“( אוהב‬friend”) rather than ‫“( צדקה‬righteousness”) found in Gen 15:6. The ethics of the CD passage is interesting in itself: the desire of man’s spirit is viewed as standing in contrast to the commandments of God. If this is the assumed order of things, in the case of Abraham, the Aqedah narrative, and Abraham’s presumed desire not to sacrifice his son (despite God commanding him to do so) may be hinted at. 11 The reward Abraham receives from God is his being accepted as a “friend” (‫אוהב‬, active participle, “friend” or “lover”) of God. The same title is here ascribed to Isaac and to Jacob, to whom Abraham is said to have transmitted his status and /or his conduct. 12 The further context in CD is remarkable. Upon the description of Abraham and his descendants Isaac and Jacob as lovers of God follows an enumeration of the generations of Israelites who failed to live up to the conditions of God’s covenant. In fact, the words immediately following the description of Isaac and Jacob may be read as a superscript for the entire subsequent passage: ‫“( בני יעקוב תעו בם ויענשו לפני משגותם‬The sons of Jacob strayed through them (God’s ordinances?) and were punished according to their error,” CD MS A 3, 4–5). The continued failure of the Israelites to abide by God’s commandments is contrasted by God’s act in establishing his covenant “with Israel” forever. The contents of the covenant are explained as a divine revelation of hidden things in which 11

Cf. Anke Mühling, “Blickt auf Abraham, euren Vater!” Abraham als Identifikationsfigur des Judentums in der Zeit des Zweiten Tempels (FLANT 236; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 231–232. 12 The designation of Abraham as God’s friend (‫ )אוהב‬is an echo of Isa 41:8; 2 Chr 20:7. The term ‫ אוהב‬seems also to have played a particular role in Qumranic theology. Thus, the active participle is often used in the plural of those who love God and observe his commandments, cf. 1QHa VIII 22; 4Q176 16 4.

152

Jesper Høgenhaven

“all Israel” is said to have strayed. What is, however, especially noteworthy is that the realization of God’s everlasting covenant is presented in the words of Ezekiel, as “the priests and the Levites and the sons of Zadok who kept the watch of my sanctuary when the children of Israel strayed from me”: CD MS A 3 ‫ ואל ברזי פלאו כפר בעד עונם וישא לפשעם‬... ‫ויבן להם בית נאמן בישראל אשר לא עמד כמהו למלפנים ועד‬ ‫הנה המחזיקים בו לחיי נזח וכל כבוד אדם להם הוא כאשר‬ ‫הקים אל להם ביד יחזקאל הנביא לאמר הכהנים והלוים ובני‬

18 19 20 21

‫צדוק אשר שמרו את משמרת מקדשי בתעות בני ישראל‬ ‫מעליהמ יגישו לי חלב ודם הכהנים הם שבי ישראל‬ ‫היוצאים מארץ יהודה והנלוים עמהם ובני צדוק הם בחירי‬ ... ‫ישראל קריאי השם העמדים באחרית הימים‬

1 2 3 4

CD MS A 4

1 CD MS A 3 18 But God in his wonderful mysteries atoned for their iniquity and forgave their sin 19 and built them a sure house in Israel, such as never stood from their earliest times until 20 now. Those who hold fast to it are to have eternal life, and all human glory is theirs. As 21 God swore to them, through the hand of Ezekiel the prophet, saying, ‘The priests and the Levites and the sons of CD MS A 4 1 Zadok, who kept the watch of my sanctuary, when the children of Israel strayed 2 from me, they shall present to me fat and blood.’ The priests are the penitents of Israel 3 who depart(ed) from the land of Judah, (the Levites are those who) accompany them, and the sons of Zadok are the chosen ones of 4 Israel, those called by name, who stand in the end of days ...

The “priests, Levites, and the sons of Zadok” thus clearly form a counterpart to the straying Israelite generations following the period of the patriarchs. They are, on the other hand, explicitly associated with the covenant God has chosen to establish or uphold forever. Furthermore, they become the positive continuation of the patriarchs’ line of conduct. There is a verbal correspondence between priests, Levites, and sons of Zadok, and Abraham and his descendants, who are said to have “kept” (‫ )וישמרו‬God’s commandments, or to have “kept” (‫ )שמרו‬the watch (‫ )משמרת‬of his sanctuary. The text, in other words, establishes an unbroken chain between Abraham via Isaac and Jacob, and the priests, Levites, and Zadokites who

Abraham and his Family in Qumran Biblical Exegesis

153

embody God’s covenant. The passage goes on to identify the latter groups in the well-known ‘exegetical’ language of the Qumran texts: the priests are the “penitents of Israel” or “those of Israel who return” (‫)שבי ישראל‬ who depart(ed) from the land of Judah, with the Levites accompanying them (clearly a wordplay on the meaning of the root ‫ לוה‬is intended here), and the Sons of Zadok are the chosen ones of Israel, those called by name, who stand “in the end of days” (‫)באחרית הימים‬. There seems to be little doubt that the Qumran community is envisaged here, and the sons of Zadok would appear to designate the priestly leadership of the group. The community is represented here as the true descendants of Abraham. They are parties to the same everlasting covenant as the patriarchs, they are, like Abraham, keepers of divine ordinances, and they are granted divine protection and blessing: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are accepted as “friends” or, from a more active perspective, “lovers” (‫ )אוהבים‬of God. This term is not used in this passage of the Qumran community, but the community leadership is described as “those called by name” (‫קריאי‬ ‫)השם‬, another strong expression of divine acceptance. The term probably has its background in Isa 43:1 (‫קראתי בשמך‬, “I have called you by name”) The reference to Abraham in CD 16,6 is also quite remarkable in its own right. The context is a set of regulations for entering the Qumran community by taking upon oneself the obligation (by oath) to return to the torah of Moses. CD MS A 16 ‫ וביום אשר יקום האיש על נפשו לשוב‬... ‫אל תורת משה יסור מלאך המשטמה מאחריו אם יקים את דבריו‬ ... ‫על כן נימול אברהם ביום דעתו‬

4 5 6

CD MS A 16 4 And on the day when a man takes upon himself (an oath) to return 5 to the Torah of Moses, the angel Mastemah shall turn aside from after him, if he fulfills his words. 6 Therefore, Abraham was circumcised on the day of his knowing ...

The statement that a man is pursued by the evil angel Mastemah, and that the only means to terminate this persecution is by taking the oath and fulfilling it, is followed by an explanatory reference to the Abraham story: Abraham was circumcised “on the day of his knowing” (‫)ביום דעתו‬. The point seems to be that Abraham performed the rite of circumcision on the same day that knowledge was given to him by God, presumably knowledge of the need for circumcision, which, in Gen 17, is directly linked to God’s covenant with Abraham. For Abraham, in other words,

154

Jesper Høgenhaven

action followed immediately upon obtaining insight (‫)דעת‬. The unbreakable connection between knowing and acting is exemplary. Knowledge of God’s will is not enough to fend off the evil persecution of Mastemah, if God’s will is not performed in action. Fulfilling God’s words is required of anyone who enters the community, and Abraham is an example to be followed because he was diligent and swift in carrying out the act of circumcision. 13

4. Abraham in Commentary on Genesis A (4Q252) The so-called commentaries on Genesis (4Q252–254a) seem to represent a highly interesting middle position within the Qumran library between rewriting and commenting. 14 Like other Qumran commentaries known to us they clearly deal with excerpts from their source text. The best preserved manuscript, Commentary on Genesis A (4Q252), combines extensive passages from Genesis, which are interspersed with expansions that are not commentary or interpretative text in the sense of the pesharim, but rather explanatory notes containing, e. g., calendrical information “missing” in the Genesis text itself. This looks much more like the reworking or rewriting type of interpretation than the passage-by-passage interpretation we are accustomed to associate with the commentary genre. Likewise, the biblical source is at several places supplemented by additional narrative passages, providing more detail than is found in the original source. On the other hand, the scroll also at certain points inserts interpretations of the pesher type, once using the term ‫( פשרו אשר‬4Q252 5 iv 5), identifying particular elements from the text with specific meanings, which are generally associated with eschatology and the life of the community much in the manner familiar to us from Qumran commentaries. 15

13

Cf. Mühling, “Blickt auf Abraham, euren Vater!”, 232–233. Genesis Commentary A (4Q252) was edited by George J. Brooke, “4QCommentary on Genesis A,” in Qumran Cave 4. XVII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3 (ed. G. J. Brooke et al.; DJD 22; Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 185–207. Cf. Joseph L. Trafton, “Commentary on Genesis A (4Q252 = 4QCommGen A = 4QPBless),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Vol 6B: Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck /Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 203–219. Quotations are dependent on the DJD edition. 15 Brooke argues that while the “implicit exegesis” in 4Q252 represents “more widely accepted and acceptable interpretations of tradition,” the explicit (pesher type) exegesis is influenced by “the community’s eschatological perspective” and represents a “sectarian” 14

Abraham and his Family in Qumran Biblical Exegesis

155

4QCommentary on Genesis A (4Q252) consists of six fragments, preserving text from six columns. 16 The manuscript was termed “Patriarchal Blessings” in earlier scholarship, and a fragment of the text was published in 1956 by John M. Allegro under this title. 17 However, “Commentary on Genesis” was the term chosen by George J. Brooke, who edited the text in Discoveries in the Judaean Desert in 1996. 18 The following passages from Genesis are quoted: Gen 6; 7–8; 9; 11; 15; 17; 18; 22; 28; 36; 49. Cols I–III reproduce parts of the flood story and the Abraham narrative. Col. IV depicts the fate of Amalek, with Gen 36:12 as its point of departure, and with reference to Deut 25:19; 1 Sam 14:48 and 15:1–9. Col. IV also contains Jacob’s blessing of Reuben (Gen 49:3–9). Col. V quotes and interprets Jacob’s blessing of Judah (Gen 49:10), and col. VI, of which only small fragments are preserved, apparently quotes the blessing of Gad. The genre of this text has been a much debated issue. Identifiable quotations from Genesis follow the order of the canonical book. Opinions differ as to the presence of an inner coherence or a unifying theme. Moshe Bernstein regards 4Q252 as an example of exegetical interest properly speaking, focusing on biblical passages that are difficult to understand, but with no specific common theme. 19 George J. Brooke, on the other hand, argues that the selection of quotations and interpretative passages reflects a specific interest in divine blessings and curses that have not yet been fulfilled. Brooke sees in the final form of the text an expression of the theology of the Qumran community. 20 Shani Tzoref has suggested that 4Q252 should be regarded as a “compilation” affiliated, as far as genre is concerned, with texts like Testimonia (4Q175), Tanhumim (4Q176), and Eschatological Midrash (4Q174, 4Q177), and, as far as contents are concerned, with Pesher on the Peri-

stance, cf. George J. Brooke, “4Q252 as Early Jewish Commentary,” RevQ 17 (1996): 399–400. 16 The script, an early Herodian formal hand, can be dated to the second half of the first century b. c. e. Cf. Brooke, “4QCommentary on Genesis A,” 190. 17 John M. Allegro, “Further Messianic References in the Qumran Literature,” JBL 75 (1975): 174–187. 18 Brooke, “4QCommentary on Genesis A,” 185–207. 19 Moshe J. Bernstein, “4Q252: From Rewritten Bible to Biblical Commentary”, JJS 45 (1994): 1–17; “Method and Context, Genre and Sources,” JQR 85 (1994/1995): 61–79. 20 Brooke (“The Thematic Content of 4Q252,” JQR 85 [1994/1995]: 55–57) emphasizes the similarity in perspective between 4Q252 and the Damascus Document.

156

Jesper Høgenhaven

ods (4Q180) and the Damascus Document. 21 Recently, Émile Puech has presented an interpretation of 4Q252 as a coherent composition with the theme “God’s blessing for the sons of Jacob and their election.” 22 Puech thus prefers the earlier designation “Patriarchal Blessings” to the later and now more common “Commentary on Genesis.” The theme is developed in a great narrative, which takes its departure from God’s intervention in the age of Noah, and extends as far as the eschatological fulfilment of the divine promise. The determining motifs are the election of the righteous and the rejection of the wicked, and the author exhibits a particular interest in the pure line of descent. The outlook of 4Q252, according to Puech, reflects the situation and world view of the Qumran community, which regarded itself as the truly righteous as opposed to the corrupt priesthood of Jerusalem. 23 There is no need to assume that the text was compiled from various sources, and there is in fact no essential difference between the two parts of the manuscript, one reflecting biblical rewriting and the other biblical commentary. 24 4Q252 joins the Abraham story rather elegantly to the flood story: as a conclusion to the part that concerns the flood, we have a paraphrase of Gen 9:1 and Gen 9:27, referring to God’s blessing of Noah’s sons, and to his dwelling “in the tents of Shem.” To this reference, then, the mention of the land given to Abraham is added as an explanatory note: 4Q252, frags. 1 and 3, col. II ‫ כי ברך אל את בני נוח ובאהלי שם ישכן‬... ... ‫ארץ נתן לאברהם אהבו‬

7 8

4Q252, frags. 1 and 3, col. II 7 because God blessed the sons of Noah and in the tents of Shem he will dwell, 8 a land he gave to Abraham his friend.

Then the following passage relates Terah’s departure from Ur, and Abram’s (as he is now called, in accordance with the Genesis narrative) departure from Haran. The text also has what looks like a paraphrase of God’s covenant-making, as it is described in Gen 15:9–10.17: the animals heifer, 21

Shani Tzoref, “4Q252: Listenwissenschaft and Covenantal Patriarchal Blessings,” in ‘Go Out and Study the Land’ (Judges 18:2). Archaeological, Historical and Textual Studies in Honor of Hanan Eshel (ed. A. M. Maier et al.; JSJSup 148; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 335–357. 22 Émile Puech, “4Q252: ‘Commentaire de la Genèse’ ou ‘Bénédictions patriarcales’?” RevQ 26 (2013/2014): 227–251. Cf. also Høgenhaven, “Fortschreibung und Kanonisierung.” 23 The text, according to Puech (“4Q252,” 249), seems to know 4QMMT, and should be regarded as an Essene composition from around 100 b.c.e. 24 Puech, “4Q252,” 247–249.

Abraham and his Family in Qumran Biblical Exegesis

157

ram, and goat are mentioned, and there is a reference to the fire passing in between the pieces. The text, however, is very fragmentary, as is the next passage (col. III, lines 1–6), which deals with the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. The extant remains of the text do not mention Abraham. More is to be gained from the following passage, which clearly refers to the binding of Isaac. The narrative is reproduced in 4Q252 in a condensed and abbreviated version, beginning with Abraham stretching out his hand (Gen 22:10), and being halted by the intervention of an angel from the heavens (Gen 22:11–12). There are two lines missing, then the text refers to the blessing of El Shaddai, and to the “blessing of your father Abraham”: 4Q252, frags. 1, 3–5, col. III ‫ אל שדי יב[רך‬12 ‫ ]א[ת ברכת אביכה ]אברהם‬13 4Q252, frags. 1, 3–5, col. III 12 El Shaddai will bless ... 13 the blessing of your father [Abraham ...

The wording echoes Gen 28:3–4, and the “you-addressee” and recipient of the divine blessing seems here as in Gen 28:3–4 to be Isaac. His relation to Abraham is made quite explicit as the latter is referred to as “your father” (‫)אביכה‬. The combination of the Aqedah narrative and the motif of blessing directed towards Isaac is remarkable here because a similar phenomenon may be registered in 4QPseudo-Jubilees (4Q225), as we shall see below. Here, the blessing that ends the narrative is not (as in Gen 22) directed at Abraham but at Isaac who is blessed in his capacity of being ancestor to Levi (4Q225 2 ii 10–11).

5. Abraham in the Reworked Pentateuch Texts The so-called Reworked Pentateuch texts comprise five manuscripts from Cave Four at Qumran: 4Q158 and 4Q364–367. 4Q158 was published by John M. Allegro in 1968 under the title “Biblical Paraphrase: Genesis, Exodus.” 25 4Q364–367 were published by Emanuel Tov and Sidnie White Crawford in 1993 as “4QReworked Pentateuch,” 26 and Tov had argued in an article from 1992 that 4Q158 should be regarded as belonging to the 25 John M. Allegro, Qumran Cave 4. I (4Q158–4Q186) (DJD 5; Oxford: Clarendon, 1968), 1–6. 26 Emanuel Tov and Sidnie White (Crawford), Qumran Cave 4. VIII: Parabiblical Texts. Part 1 (DJD 13; Oxford: Clarendon, 1993), 187–351.

158

Jesper Høgenhaven

same manuscript category. 27 They exhibit extensive passages which are identical with the text of the Pentateuch, apparently in a pre-Samaritan form of the text, containing some of the harmonizing expansions characteristic of the Samaritan text. In addition to these textual expansions, the manuscripts have a number of further additions to the text. The relationship between these manuscripts and the Pentateuch text has been a matter of scholarly dispute. Tov and White Crawford regard 4Q158 and 4Q364–367 as witnesses to the same literary composition. Michael Segal, on the other hand, argued that 4Q158 is different from 4Q364–367. He views 4Q158 as a “Rewritten Bible” composition, with more interpretative additions than 4Q364–367, which should be regarded as biblical manuscripts. 28 In fact, this group of texts could be seen as a borderline case between biblical transmission and biblical rewriting. 4Q158, at any rate, seems to be the most expansionist or “exegetical” composition. 29 4Q158 consists of 15 fragments of various sizes, datable to the early 1st century b. c. e. Most of the preserved text is from Exodus, and apparently those passages which can be shown to derive from Genesis and Deuteronomy were worked into a framework that builds on the story line from Exodus. Some of the additions from Deuteronomy seem to be part of an expansionist or harmonizing textual tradition similar to the Samaritan Pentateuch. 30 Abraham is mentioned in 4Q158, fragment 4, in a context that seems to be a paraphrase of Exod 24:4–6, where Moses celebrates the conclusion of God’s covenant with Israel.

27

Emanuel Tov, “The Textual status of 4Q364–367 (4QPP),” in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18–21 March, 1991. Vol. 1 (ed. J. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner; STDJ 95; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 53–57. 28 Michael Segal, “Biblical Exegesis in 4Q158. Techniques and Genre,” Textus 19 (1998): 45–62; Idem, “4QReworked Pentateuch or 4QPentateuch?” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years After Their Discovery. Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997 (ed. L. H. Schiffman et al.; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society /The Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, 2000), 391–399. 29 Moshe Bernstein characterizes 4Q158 as “more exegetical” than 4Q364–367. See M. Bernstein, “Pentateuchal Interpretation at Qumran,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years. A Comprehensive Assessment. I (ed. P. W. Flint and J. C. VanderKam; Leiden: Brill 1998), 134, note 7. 30 A new text edition of 4Q158 by Molly Zahn is under preparation. See M. Zahn, “Building Textual Bridges: Towards an Understanding of 4Q158 (4QReworked Pentateuch A),” in The Mermaid and the Partridge: Essays from the Copenhagen Conference on Revising Texts from Cave Four (ed. G. J. Brooke and J. Høgenhaven; STDJ 96; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 12–32.

Abraham and his Family in Qumran Biblical Exegesis

159

4Q158, frag. 4 ‫ויעל את העול]ה[ על המזב]ח ויזבח זבחים שלמים ליהוה פרים בני בקר ויקח מושה‬ ‫ חצי הדם וישם‬4 ‫ באגונות וחצ]י ה[דם זרק על ה]מזבח ויקח ספר הברית‬5 ‫]יצחק ואל יעקוב והקמותי את בריתי‬///‫ אשר היראתי אל אברהם ואל‬6 ] ◦ ‫ אתם להי]ות[ להמה ול]זרע[ם לאלוהים‬7 4Q158, frag. 4 4 And he offered the burnt offer[ing] on the alt[ar, and he sacrificed peace offerings of oxen, the sons of cattle, to the Lord. And Moses took half of the blood and put it] 5 in basins, and hal[f of the] blood he threw against the [altar. And he took the book of the covenant ...] 6 which I showed to Abraham and to [Isaac and to Jacob ... and I raised up my covenant] 7 with them to b[e] God for them and for their [offspring]

The preceding lines state that Moses builds an altar at the foot of the mountain, and erects twelve stones (cf. Exod 24:4). After bringing the sacrifices he divides the blood into two portions, casting one portion on the altar. We may reasonably assume that the text also relates that Moses reads the “book of the covenant” to the people, and at some point in the no longer extant text the sprinkling of the remaining portion of blood on the people as an element in the covenant-making (cf. Exod 24:8) would definitely have followed. In l. 4, Moses is the sole subject of the sacrificial act, while the Masoretic text has the young men of Israel as the subject. At this point, 4Q158 may be seen as reflecting a general tendency to enhance the importance and position of Moses. Possibly, the author also wished to avoid having lay people performing sacrificial rites. Lines 6–7 clearly do not reflect the Masoretic narrative of Exod 24. The reference to Abraham in fact looks like an echo of Exod 6:3 (‫וארא אל אברהם אל יצחק ואל יעקב‬ ‫באל שדי‬, “I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as El Shaddai”). In the biblical text, however, God states that he appeared (‫וארא‬, niphal of ‫ )ראה‬to the patriarchs. 4Q158 also has God speaking in the first person, but the verb is in the hiphil (‫)היראתי‬, implying that God showed or revealed something to Abraham, and in all probability also to Isaac and Jacob. 31 What God revealed is not clear from the surviving text. In the following reference to God being “God for them and for their 31 4Q158 probably made mention here of all three patriarchs. After “Abraham” and the preposition ‫ ל‬before the lacuna we find the remains of a word which was erased. The original word here seems to be “Jacob.” The scribe, then, appears to have jumped by mistake to Jacob, and then to have erased the name in order to write “Isaac.”

160

Jesper Høgenhaven

offspring” may be related to Exod 6:3, but we may also detect here a hint at God’s covenant with Abraham, as described in Gen 17:7–8 (cf. especially Gen 17:7: ‫והקמתי את בריתי ביני ובינך ובין זרעך אחריך לדרתם לברית עולם‬ ‫)להיות לך לאלהים ולזרעך אחריך‬. The link between the Exodus context (Exod 24) and Gen 17:7–8 could have been the notion of divine covenant. The author of 4Q158 may have intended to remind his readers that the covenant God concludes with the Israelites at Sinai is a realization of what was already inherent in his covenant with Abraham. 32 That which God revealed to Abraham could have been the covenant itself or possibly the possession of the land. In fact, the Promised Land is the only thing God is explicitly said to have “shown” to Abraham in Genesis. 33 In 4Q158 God’s revelatory act seems to be closely associated with his covenant with Israel. The reference to the “book of the covenant,” which Moses reads to the people (Exod 24:8) could have prompted the author of 4Q158 to remind his readers that the covenant which God makes at Sinai is a realization of what was already implicit in his earlier covenant with Abraham. Another possibility, though, is that the focus of the passage is on the sacrificial act, and that, accordingly, the object revealed to Abraham could have something to do with sacrificial rules or practices, which were later communicated to Moses. 34 At any rate, it is tempting to bring this reference into contact with the passage in CD 16,6 mentioned above, which speaks of Abraham’s “day of knowing”, since this text also seems to construe Abraham in the role of a recipient of divine revelation.

6. Abraham in Pseudo-Jubilees (4Q225) Pseudo-Jubilees is the title given by the modern editors to three Qumran manuscripts (4Q225, 4Q226, and 4Q227) which “employ language that is familiar from and to some extent characteristic of Jubilees” without actually being copies of Jubilees. 35 It is not immediately obvious, however, how 32

Zahn, Rethinking Rewritten Scripture, 51–52. Holst, “Hvornår er en tekst bibelsk?” 34 This is suggested by Søren Holst, “Abraham at Qumran,” in Historie og konstruktion. Festskrift til Niels Peter Lemche i anledning af 60 års fødselsdagen den 6. september 2005 (ed. M. Müller and T. L. Thompson; Forum for Bibelsk Eksegese 14; Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanums Forlag, 2005), 184. 35 J. VanderKam and J. T. Milik, “4Q225. Pseudo-Jubileesa,” in Qumran Cave 4. VIII. Parabiblical Texts. Part 1 (ed. H. Attridge et al.; DJD 13; Oxford: Clarendon 1994), 142. Quotations are dependent on the DJD edition. 33

Abraham and his Family in Qumran Biblical Exegesis

161

close the relationship between 4Q225 and Jubilees is, and whether Jubilees is perhaps one among several sources used by the author of 4Q225. 36 4Q225 comprises three fragments which narrate the divine promise to Abraham, followed by the story of the Aqedah. In the two columns of the text, of which substantial parts remain on fragment 2, the first column relates Abraham’s complaint about having no heir, and God’s promise that his offspring will be numerous like the stars, the sand on the seashore, or the dust of the earth. Then follows the birth and naming of Isaac, and immediately after this event the Prince Mastemah is said to have brought an accusation against Abraham “regarding Isaac” before God: 4Q225, frag. 2, col. 1 [‫ויא]מין‬ ‫]אברהם ב[אלו]הי[ם ותחשב לו צדקה ויולד בן אח]רי [כן‬ ‫]לאברה[ם ויקרא את שמו יסחק ויבוא שר המ]ש[טמה‬ ‫]אל אל[והים וישטים את אברהם בישחק ויאמר ]א[לוהים‬ [‫]אל אבר[הם קח את בנכה את ישחק את יחיד]כה אשר‬ ‫]אתה אהב[תה והעלהו לי לעולה אל אחד ההרים] הגבוה[ים‬ [‫]אשר אומר[ לכה ויק]ום וי[ל]ך[ מן הבארות על ה]ר מוריה‬

7 8 9 10 11 12 13

4Q225, frag. 2, col. 1 7 ... and [Abraham] be[lieved] 8 [in] G[o]d, and righteousness was accounted to him. A son was born af[ter] this 9 [to Abraha]m, and he named him Isaac. Then the Prince of the Ma[s]temah came 10 [to G]od, and he accused Abraham regarding Isaac. And [G]od said 11 [to Abra]ham: ‘Take your son, Isaac, [your] onl[y one whom] 12 [you lov]e and offer him to me as a whole burnt-offering on one of the [high] mountains 13 [which I will designate] for you. And he got [up and w]en[t] from the wells up to M[ount Moriah]

The text of 4Q225 departs from the Genesis account on several important points: all the narrative material between the covenant conclusion in Gen 15 and the birth of Isaac is omitted here. Most conspicuously, the birth of Ismael is not narrated in 4Q225. In other words, Isaac appears in this version, if it is regarded as a narrative in its own right, to be Abraham’s only son at this point. 37 It is possible, of course, and indeed probable that the author and his readers would have known the patriarchal story from Genesis or from a tradition very similar to Genesis, and that the omission simply serves to highlight certain aspects of the story 36

Cf. Émile Puech, “4Q225 revisité – un midrash essénien?” RevQ 26 (2013): 169–209. Cf. Mühling, “Blickt auf Abraham, euren Vater!”, 240–241; A. Halpern-Amaru, “A Note on Isaac as First-Born in Jubilees and Only Son in 4Q225,” DSD 13 (2006): 127–133. 37

162

Jesper Høgenhaven

deemed important by the author. Here, at any rate, the text introduces the motif on an accusing angel into the narrative. This motif makes the Aqedah narrative similar to the story of Job by ascribing the idea of testing Abraham not to God but to a negative cosmic figure. The motif of the accusing Matsemah is also found in Jubilees, where Abraham is accused of loving Isaac, and being “more pleased with him than everything.” 38 In 4Q225 the precise implication of the accusation made by Mastemah against Abraham “regarding Isaac” (‫ )בישחק‬is not elaborated upon, but read in the light of both Jubilees and later Rabbinic traditions it seems plausible to assume that Abraham was accused of loving his son to an extent that would diminish his loyalty to God. In this context it is possible that Mastemah here accuses Abraham of loving Isaac “to the point of neglecting his sacrificial duties.” 39 In the continuation of the narrative two groups of angels make their appearance: 4Q225, frag. 2, col. 2 ‫ מלאכי קדש עומדים בוכים על] המזבח‬5 ‫ את בניו מן הארץ ומלאכי המ]שטמה‬6 [‫ שמחים ואומרים עכשו יאבד ו]בכול זה ינסה שר המשטמה אם‬7 [‫ ימצא כחש ואם לא ימצא נאמן א]ברהם לאלוהים ויקרא‬8 [ ‫ אברהם אברהם ויאמר הנני ויאמר ע]תה ידעתי כי‬9 [‫ לא יהיה אהב ויברך אל יהוה את יש]חק כל ימי חיו ויוליד את‬10 [‫ויהיו כול‬ ‫ יעקוב ויעקוב הוליד את לוי דו]ר שלישי‬11 ‫ ימי אברהם וישחק ויעקוב ולו]י‬12 4Q225, frag. 2, col. 2 5 The angels of holiness were standing weeping above [the altar ... 6 his sons from the earth. The angels of Ma[stemah ... 7 being happy and saying, ‘Now he will perish.’ And [in all this the Prince of the Mastemah was testing whether] 8 he would be found false, and whether A[braham] should not be found faithful [to God. He called, 9 ‘Abraham, Abraham!’ he said, ‘Here I am.’ He said ‘N[ow I know that ... 10 he will not be loving’. God the Lord blessed Is[aac all the days of his life. He became the father of] 11 Jacob, and Jacob became the father of Levi, [a third generation ... all 12 the days of Abraham Isaac, Jacob, and Lev[i ...

At the beginning of col. 2 Isaac is introduced as speaking to Abraham. His words are not preserved, but it is reasonable to assume that he somehow 38 Cf. Moshe J. Bernstein, “Angels at the Aqedah. A Study in the Development of a Midrashic Motif,” DSD 7 (2000): 266–268. 39 Holst, “Abraham at Qumran,” 186.

Abraham and his Family in Qumran Biblical Exegesis

163

consents to the sacrificial act, or offers himself up voluntarily. 40 The heavenly scene depicted in lines 5–8 offers a parallel to the drama unfolding on earth. 41 The angels weeping at the Aqedah is a motif known from later Jewish sources. The evil angels here seem to represent an expansion of the Mastemah figure known from Jubilees. The focus of the test is the faithfulness of Abraham, whether or not he will be found ‫נאמן‬, which connects the test directly to the narrative of Abraham’s faith in God, which was related in col. 1, l. 7 above. It is noteworthy that the divine blessing is here given not to Abraham himself but to Isaac, and that Isaac’s role as the forefather of Levi through Jacob is explicitly mentioned. The reference to Levi strengthens the notion that the focus of the passage is at least partly on Abraham as prefiguring the priestly line. This perspective is in accordance with Abraham’s role in Jubilees: in Jub 21,12 Abraham gives instructions to Isaac concerning sacrificial practice. Likewise, TestLev 9:7–12 has Isaac instructing Levi in accordance with the instruction he has received from Abraham, and the same motif is found in the Aramaic Levi texts (4Q214b frag 2–6). 42 Søren Holst has argued that this passage in 4Q225 can be very meaningfully read in the light of a more general tendency in a number of Second Temple texts to associate Abraham with the sacrificial cult and priesthood. We saw how Abraham, according to the Damascus Document, was the forefather of the true priests, Levites and Zadokites, who were then identified with the Qumran community and their priestly leadership. Likewise, in Jub 14:11 the covenant-making ritual described in Gen 15 is transformed into a proper sacrifice, which is explicitly described as being carried out in accordance with the rules communicated to Moses at a later stage of the biblical narrative (cf. Exod 24): in Jubilees Abraham pours out the blood of the animals upon the altar. 43 Similarly, according to Jub 17:15; 18:1–3 Abraham arrives at the mountain where he has been commanded to sacrifice Isaac on the 14th (15th?) of Nisan, corresponding to the time later set for the Passover. In fact, Abraham is said to have instituted an anticipation of the Passover festival to be observed by the

40

Cf. Bernstein, “Angels at the Aqedah,” 278; Puech, “4Q225 revisité,” 181. Bernstein, “Angels at the Aqedah,” 278: “The heavenly spectators have taken sides as if at a contest, with the holy angels hoping that Abraham will triumph and the evil ones that he will fail.” 42 Cf. Holst, “Abraham at Qumran,” 187–188. 43 Holst, “Abraham at Qumran,” 182. 41

164

Jesper Høgenhaven

Israelites (Jub 18:18–19). 44 And in the Genesis Apocryphon Abraham is explicitly said to have performed sacrifices (1QapGen 20,2; 21,20). 45 The tendency to make Abraham the true founder of the sacrificial cult long before the time of Moses could, as Holst suggests, be seen as an analogy to the way Paul attempts to stake his claim as to what is truly Jewish as far back in time as possible and preferably all the way back to Abraham himself. According to Holst, it may be a matter of making the sacrificial cult Abrahamic rather than a need to make Abraham more ‘priestly.’ 46

7. Concluding Remarks In the Qumran texts, Abraham is cast in several roles. In general terms, he is cited as the recipient of God’s covenant, election and blessing, which is transmitted through Abraham to his descendants. He is often referred to as a part of the traditional triad of patriarchs “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” Abraham is praised and recognized for his faithfulness towards God and for his obedience to God’s will and commandments. Interestingly, Abraham is identified as the ancestor, not only of Israel as a whole, but especially of the priests, Levites and Zadokites, who seem in the context of the Damascus Document, to represent the Qumran community and its priestly leaders. The priests and the community they represent are presented as the true descendants of Abraham, directly linked to their ancestor through his immediate offspring, Isaac and Jacob. Abraham’s role as receiver of God’s covenant is emphasized, as is his ability to receive divine revelations of knowledge. In 4QCommentary on Genesis A (4Q252) Abraham is primarily the receiver and transmitter of divine blessing. The divine blessing which results from the Aqedah narrative and Abraham’s obedience to God in this particular context is said to be given not to Abraham but to Isaac. The Reworked Pentateuch texts (4Q158) represent Abraham as the recipient of a divine revelation, prefiguring the revelation given to Moses and Israel at Mount Sinai, and possibly including knowledge about sacrificial practices in particular. Pseudo-Jubilees (4Q225) has an expanded version of the Aqedah story, with two competing teams of angels striving over Abraham. The divine blessing resulting from Abra44

Holst, ibid., 183. Holst, ibid., 181–182. 46 Holst, ibid., 188. 45

Abraham and his Family in Qumran Biblical Exegesis

165

ham’s faithfulness is again given to Isaac, and Isaac’s role as forefather of Levi is cited explicitly. This aspect could be meaningfully associated with a tendency in certain ancient Jewish texts (Jubilees, Genesis Apocryphon) to give to Abraham the role of founder of sacrificial practices. In the Qumran texts, Abraham appears a highly important authoritative figure of the past. In some contexts, Abraham and his family fulfill a typological role with regard to later generations of law-observers who trace their ancestry back to Abraham. This legitimizing function of the Abraham figure could be seen, to a certain extent at least, as parallel to more or less contemporary uses of Abraham both in Philo and the New Testament.

Abraham and the Sacrifice of Isaac in Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis Conceptual Patterns in Development Michael Becker (1958–2018)

To sacrifice one’s own children designates the end of all family-relations – physically, psychically, in social and religious concerns. The story about the sacrifice of Isaac in Gen 22:1–19 is therefore a fascinating tradition at the end of the biblical Abraham-cycle. But at the same time, it is a very difficult and obscure one. It not only led to feedback from Early Jewish authors, but is still discussed even now. Early rabbinic tradition has given this text a special name: the Aqedah or Aqedat Jizhaq (the binding [of Isaac]). 1 This designation sometimes seems to function as an abbreviation that apparently makes further discussion on its meaning unnecessary. But that is neither the case with regard to the meaning of the Aqedah nor in view of the mentioned human sacrifice as various reactions by philosophers and theologians can prove. 2 The question of human sacrifice in the context of Jewish (and Christian) tradition provokes reactions, because today for many people the belief in a gracious God contradicts the idea of human sacrifices. But the text was and still is used for soteriological issues particularly in the context of the 1

See e. g. MekhY 7 (Ex 12:13). A representative survey and summary concerning ancient and modern discussion of the tradition of the sacrifice of Isaac was published by Ed Noort and Eibert Tigchelaar, eds., The Sacrifice of Isaac: The Aqedah (Genesis 22) and its Interpretations (Themes in Biblical Narrative: Jewish and Christian Traditions 4; Leiden: Brill, 2002). See also C. Th. R. Hayward, “The Present State of Research into the Targumic Account of the Sacrifice of Isaac,” JJS 32 (1981): 127–150; B. D. Chilton, “Recent Discussion of the Aqedah,” in Targumic Approaches to the Gospel (ed. Idem, Lanham: UP of America, 1986), 39–49. Not only philosophers and theologians discussed the text. It also was subject and inspiration for many artists – especially painters, sculptors and stonemasons – starting e. g. with the mosaic on the floor at the synagogue of Beth Alpha (6th century c. e.) up to modern times with the famous lithography by Adi Holzer (1997). 2

168

Michael Becker (1958–2018)

axiom of the Aqedah in the Jewish tradition. 3 For Christian theologians the opinion that Jesus and Christian soteriology in particular should have a kind of precursor in Isaac and his sacrifice gave cause for a complex theological debate. 4 But it seems to demand too much if this discussion is related only to and proved by the term Aqedah. Therefore, a critical analysis of the Early Jewish texts and the relevant core traditions concerning the soteriological matter is not yet finished. Nonetheless, it is no wonder why this text is one of the most prominent and famous traditions in Jewish exegesis and the starting point of such a long-lasting discussion. In an article published already forty years ago Philipp Davies and Bruce Chilton challenged the hitherto existing consensus about the traditionhistory of that Early-Jewish theologoumenon with their thesis that the Aqedah “was invented by the Rabbis” 5 – and is therefore a rather late phenomenon. In particular, they wanted to falsify two propositions: a) that the Aqedah is mentioned in pre-Christian Jewish sources, and b) that it is reflected already in the New Testament. 6 This proposal not only has consequences for New Testament exegesis, it is also important for the Early Jewish understanding of the tradition and the related phenomena. Although they earned some applause, not all scholars agree with their fundamental arguments. 7 It seems out of the question that a more subtly differentiated discussion of the Early Jewish sources in view of the concept of the Aqedah is necessary. The debate today can not and does not continue in the same way as before their objection, even if it seems that

3 On the question of soteriological issues in view of Early Jewish – especially rabbinic – texts, see F. Avemarie, “Lebenshingabe und heilschaffender Tod in der rabbinischen Literatur,” in Deutungen des Todes Jesu im Neuen Testament (ed. J. Frey and J. Schröter; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2nd ed. 2012), 169–211 (on the Aqedah see 198–203). 4 For a recent example of the reception of the Isaac-tradition by the Gospel of Matthew, see the monograph by L. A. Huizenga, The New Isaac: Tradition and Intertextuality in the Gospel of Matthew (SuppNT 131; Leiden: Brill, 2009). 5 P. R. Davies and B. D. Chilton, “The Aqedah: A Revised Tradition History,” CBQ 40 (1978): 514–546, esp. 516. 6 Ibid., 514. 7 See for example G. Vermes, “New Light on the Sacrifice of Isaac from 4Q225,” JJS 47 (1996): 140–146: 144 f; with further references in n. 38. On the other hand J. A. Fitzmyer, “The Sacrifice of Isaac in Qumran Literature,” Biblia 83 (2002): 211–229, started a refutation of Vermes’s argumentation six years later. Although he does not want to justify the arguments of Davies and Chilton, he argues very plausibly against Vermes’s attempt to use the Pseudo-Jubilees text as “the pre-Christian skeleton of the Targumic-midrashic representation of the sacrifice of Isaac” (221) and therefore as an argument for an occurrence of the Aqedah in pre-Christian times.

Abraham and the Sacrifice of Isaac in Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis

169

some essays and books 8 still take a look at the problems by a diminished theoretical conception of an almost linear tradition-history. Davies and Chilton are correct at least in their critique of a too narrow and one-sided reconstruction of Christian soteriology by an Isaac-type of sacrificial theology. But further investigation in the Jewish traditions is necessary to examine their case. Studies in the Early Jewish traditions about Isaac’s sacrifice can demonstrate that it is correct that we can observe a developmental perspective. This is proved by a certain progress in the concepts of the texts and traditions with the Aqedah as its final aim. But the traditions do not prove a linear progress, rather a very complex one. And furthermore, most studies look at the texts with a Jewish or a Christian concern. In any case, the different perspectives produce quite different conclusions and we simply have to realise that there are always positions in-between. Although a solution seems unattainable, it will be best to speak of the “sacrifice of Isaac”, when we are talking about the development of the traditions and motives of Gen 22, and to speak of the “Aqedah”, when we think of an ingenious and distinguished concept in Jewish theology related to the sacrifice of Isaac and its soteriological implications. 9 The interest of this paper is not in a comprehensive interpretation of all traditions and aspects of the related texts and also not in an updating of the tradition-history. Most fascinating are the switches in the reformulation and reinterpretation of the tradition and the changes in the exegetical and theological concepts – especially in the image of Isaac and its change throughout the process of transmission and interpretation. This process is structured by some three or four stages in the Jewish tradition – and additionally it is connected with the appropriation in Early Christian tradition. The first phase in the development is based on the biblical text, its origin and some early interpretations by the Greek translation of Gen 22. 10 A second step includes two overall interpretations of the tradition by the 8 Cf. esp. the comprehensive study of L. Kundert, Die Opferung /Bindung Issaks, 2 vols. (WMANT 78/79; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1998); see also R. L. Daly, “The Soteriological Significance of the Sacrifice of Isaac,” CBQ 39 (1977): 45–75. Most recent articles focus on smaller segments of the tradition and therefore relate to specific questions of the relevant traditions. 9 Cf. Fitzmyer, “Sacrifice,” 212, 222. 10 See also Jdt 8:26 f, where Isaac is mentioned together with Jacob as another person tested (ἐπείρασεν) by God alongside Abraham: “For he (God) has not tried us with fire (ἐπύρωσεν), as he did them, to search their hearts, nor has he taken revenge upon us; but the Lord scourges those who draw near to him, in order to admonish them.” Even if Judith’s argument

170

Michael Becker (1958–2018)

book of Jubilees 11 and a Qumran-text characterized as Pseudo-Jubilees by the editors (4Q225 and 226 f). 12 These texts are structured similarly to the tradition of Gen 22 but already include some special reading and interpretation. They clearly belong to a Palestinian-Jewish horizon in the second century b. c. e. A third step is taken by further Jewish texts under an openly Hellenistic influence. With them we encounter individual authors like Philo 13 and Josephus 14 but also texts like Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (L. A. B.) 15 and 4 Maccabees 16 that are typical for a pre-rabbinic stance. 17 Even if the date of origin is still discussed for some of these texts, they belong to the period in which the New Testament originates. Clearly later some rabbinic texts 18 and the Palestinian Targumim 19 represent the final transition and concluding stage in the development of the interpretation of Gen 22 on the way to the Aqedah. These texts are crucial in view of the understanding of the central idea and the illustration of the manifold aspects of rabbinic theology and exegesis. But in view of the New Testament and the interpretation of the death of Jesus another concept seems more important, characterized with the catchword “effective death.” This concept has been developed in the late eighties of the last century with much preliminary work by three groups of scholars: by New Testament exegetes discussing the possibility and deopens various possibilities of interpreting Isaac’s testing, it is questionable to speculate about an “active role in the Akedah” (Huizenga, New Isaac, 93 f), because it is not mentioned there. 11 Jub. 18:1–19; cf. 17:1–2,15–18. 12 See esp. 4Q225 2 i 10–ii 12; cf. 2 i 5–10.13 f; 2Q226 7. 13 Abr. 168–207; Somn. I 194 f. 14 Ant. 1, 222–236. 15 L. A. B. 18:4 f; 32:1–4; 40:2,3b. 16 4 Macc 13:12; 16:18–20; 18:11. 17 Cf. also the discussion about a fragment of Philo the Epic Poet preserved in Eusebius (Praep. Ev. 9.20.1; 9.24.1; 9.37.1–3) that John J. Collins wants to combine with Isaac’s binding by its magical interpretation suggested by Philo’s wording; see J. J. Collins, “Spells Pleasing to God. The Binding of Isaac in Philo the Epic Poet,” in Jewish Cult and Hellenistic Culture. Essays on the Jewish Encounter with Hellenism and Roman Rule (ed. Idem; SuppJSJ 100; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 99–111. 18 Probably the oldest text referring to the special name “Aqedah” for the sacrifice of Isaac is MekhY 7 (Ex 12:13). This is interesting in so far as the sacrifice of Isaac is introduced as a comment on Ex 12:13 – the story about the passing over of JHWH to smite the first-born in Egypt and the rescue of the people of Israel who have marked their houses with the blood of the Pessah-lamb as an apotropaic sign at their doors. This blood is identified with the blood of Isaac’s sacrifice – and therefore Isaac and his sacrifice function as a kind of prefiguration of the Pessah sacrifice with all consequences. Cf. also b. San. 89b; j. Ber. 5:2 (9b); j. Taan. 2:1 (65a); 2:4 (65d); b. Zeb. 62a; b. Ber. 62b; b. Taan. 16a; b. RH. 16a. 19 Tg. Neof. Ex 22; cf. Tg. Onq./Tg. Ps.-J./Frag. Tg. Gen 22; and the so-called Poem of the four nights (Ex 12:42).

Abraham and the Sacrifice of Isaac in Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis

171

velopment of Christian soteriology in view of Jesus’s death; by Jewish and Christian scholars looking for the origin of the Jewish tradition of martyrdom; and by classical philologists relating especially to Greek drama and connecting the aforementioned discussion with the traditions of Classical and Hellenistic Greek texts. 20 The different contributions were pioneering studies joining together Jewish with Hellenistic and early Greek traditions and thus overcoming the dichotomy of Judaism and Hellenism. 21 These traditions are especially relevant for the Pauline understanding and interpretation of the death of Jesus in view of his pagan environment. And therefore, they offer a distinct alternative to the concept of the Aqedah in view of the interpretation of the death of Jesus and of the sacrifice of Isaac.

1. Gen 22 as the Starting-Point of the Tradition of the Sacrifice of Isaac The two most perplexing aspects of the text of Gen 22 for us today are the issue of human sacrifice and God’s testing of one of the most prominent figures of the biblical tradition representing the paradigm of the believer: Abraham. That God wants to test him by demanding the sacrifice of his long-waited son and heir seems to be an absurd idea – especially in relation to the promises God has given to Abraham before. This would be the ruin not only of the family-relations but also of the image of God that is introduced and carefully arranged by the stories earlier in the book of Genesis. Therefore the demand for a human sacrifice – and the fundamental question whether the YHWH-religion is associated with such sacrifices – is discussed in many commentaries on Genesis as an outdated problem that now in Gen 22 is substituted by an animal sacrifice. 22 But there is 20

Very instructive are the explanations by H. S. Versnel, “Quid Athenis et Hierosolymis? Bemerkungen über die Herkunft von Aspekten des ‘Effective Death’” in Die Entstehung der jüdischen Martyrologie (ed. J. W. van Henten, Leiden: Brill, 1989), 162–196. See also the update and development of the discussion in J. Frey and J. Schröter, eds., Deutungen des Todes Jesu im Neuen Testament (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2nd ed. 2012); see especially the contributions by J. W. van Henten and H. S. Versnel. 21 Apart from the aforementioned collection of Frey and Schröter, see now the comprehensive study of C. Eschner, Gestorben und hingegeben “für” die Sünder. Die griechische Konzeption des Unheil abwendenden Sterbens und deren paulinische Aufnahme für die Deutung des Todes Jesu Christi, 2 vols. (WMANT 122; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2010). 22 Cf. E. Blum, Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte (WMANT 57; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1984), 326–328.

172

Michael Becker (1958–2018)

some evidence in the prophetic tradition of the Hebrew Bible that the problem is not so easy to solve. Especially in the message of the prophet Ezekiel Ed Noort has stressed some traces that allow us to reflect on the possibility of human sacrifices in the context of the YHWH-religion. 23 In the shape of a critique against former religious practices of the Israelites, Ezekiel criticises bad laws given by YHWH (Ezek 20:25 f) and especially the sacrifice of sons and daughters (Ezek 16:19–21). This possibility is usually denied by other biblical prophets and the deuteronomistic theology 24 because the practice is identified with idolatry. But the texts in Ezekiel allow a scenario that comes close to the ideas of Gen 22 including a discussion about child-sacrifice. It is interesting that interpretations of Gen 22 in Early Judaism do not deal with that problem until Philo. He alone opens this discussion by including a pagan perspective into his interpretation. 25 But a look at the religious environment should already make us cautious with regard to apologetic confessions and a denial of the problem by a petitio principii. Also important for the interpretation of Gen 22 is a look at its composition within its context. Only verses 15–18 seem to be a secondary commentary that confirms the former promises linking and enlarging them in view of the further patriarchal history. Therefore the text (v. 2) is linked with the beginning of the Abraham cycle in 12:1 – and thus functions as an important chain in a ring-composition around the whole story of Abraham – and with Gen 21, where the fate of Abraham’s other son, Ishmael, is mentioned. In Gen 21 Abraham himself casts out his son into wilderness – into a very dangerous environment. The ruinous and mortal conditions in this tradition could also be managed only by the similar intervention of the angel of God (Gen 21:17). Thus the family tradition of Abraham ends with two stories presenting a deadly threat for his offspring. 26 Their survival could only be guaranteed by divine intervention. Interesting but difficult to interpret are the different names of God used in the story 27 as well as the starting point of Abraham’s journey in 23 Ed Noort, “Genesis 22: Human Sacrifice and Theology in the Hebrew Bible,” in Sacrifice of Isaac, 1–20, 7 f. For further references see also Blum, Komposition, 327, who is more cautious in view of the historical reliability of these references. 24 Cf. Deut 12:29–31; Jer 7:31; 19:5; 32:35 (Lev 18:21; 20:2–5; 2 Kgs 23:10); see also 2 Kgs 16:3; 21:6. 25 See esp. Philo, Abr. 180 f. and the discussion below. 26 In view of the compositional structures see Blum, Komposition, 311–331. 27 Cf. Blum, Komposition, 323.

Abraham and the Sacrifice of Isaac in Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis

173

Philistia (Gen 21:34). This connection to a foreign place does not seem to be meaningless. 28 Isaac never demands any active role in the story apart from questioning for the burnt-offering in v. 7. The story’s subject is Abraham’s obedience – and the act of sacrificing Isaac never is combined with soteriological importance for others. It presents a “dark side” of God who seems to forget for some time all his promises by testing Abraham. But that is the inner-textual perspective of Abraham; the reader is always informed that it is a “test” for Abraham (v. 1). Even if the problem as to why God should test Abraham is not solved, it always is clear that it will come to a good end. The Septuagint refers with very small changes to a text similar to the Masoretic text. Relevant aspects include the mention of the “high land” instead of the mountain “Moriah” in v. 2 – that later on builds the bridge to the Temple tradition associated with the sacrifice and therefore could perhaps already be a reworking – and the different interpretation of the attribution of Abraham’s son as ‫( יחיד‬only) with ἀγαπητός (beloved) in verses 2, 12 and 16. 29 This change is later on referred to by several texts in different ways and it seems important especially for the linking of the tradition of Isaac with the Jesus-tradition in the New Testament. There Jesus is also mentioned as beloved son 30 (of God!), even if there are also other traditions with similar relevance for the interpretation of the New Testament traditions. 31

2. Jubilees 17 and 18 and Pseudo-Jubilees (4Q225 2 i–ii) Both texts – Jubilees 17 f and Pseudo-Jubilees – present a kind of rewriting, supplementing, summarizing and interpreting commentary of the story of the sacrifice of Isaac. They narrate the episode often in close correspondence to the text of Gen 22 and often quite freely. But they both denote a radical change in the understanding of God and his testing of Abraham because they include a dualistic conception or worldview supplementing God with an opponent. Even if there are certain differences in view of this model between the texts, both refer to the concept of a heavenly court, where God and the angels reside. Both also mention the 28

Cf. Noort, “Genesis 22,” 4 f. See also Judg 11:34; Jer 6:26. Cf. Fitzmyer, “Sacrifice,” 213. 30 See Mark 1:11 par; 9:7 par; cf. Mark 12:18 par. 31 Cf. e. g. Ps 2:7; 2 Sam 7:14. 29

174

Michael Becker (1958–2018)

figure of the Prince (of) Mastema. This designation stands in Jubilees and Pseudo-Jubilees for a name and therefore means more than a “principle” of animosity. 32 The function of the Prince (of) Mastema in both texts is that of an accuser or tempter – to a certain extent like the figure of Satan in the frame-story of the book of Job, 33 but also with a major difference, because it is not Mastema who troubles Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, as Satan is allowed to do in the book of Job. 34 A closer look at each tradition can point at further characteristics of both texts. In Jubilees 17 – the chapter preceding the story of the sacrifice – we find some verses that point to a deeper reasoning of God’s testing and the sacrifice. 35 It is said that there are “voices in heaven regarding Abraham” (Jub. 17:15). Although these voices praise Abraham for his faithfulness, in connection with the request of Mastema that God should bid Abraham to sacrifice his son as a test they receive an ambivalent touch. Jubilees suggests a certain dissonance in heaven in view of the assessment of Abraham. But mainly it is no longer God’s idea to test Abraham because God only carries out Mastema’s proposal. Although this does not seem to be very desirable and beneficial for God, it is further mentioned (Jub. 17:17 f) that God already knew that Abraham was faithful because he was faithful in several tests before. Tests seem to be a regular instrument for God and they give Abraham the opportunity to demonstrate his faithfulness again. But – even then – we can ask why Abraham should be tested again. This question is answered by the testing itself and in two parts – first, to demonstrate Abraham’s faithfulness before Mastema his accuser (Jub. 18:9), and second, to reveal this in front of the whole world 32 Cf. L. Stuckenbruck, The Myth of Rebellious Angels: Studies in Second Temple Judaism and New Testament Texts (WUNT 335; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 96–98. 33 For a detailed comparison of Abraham’s and Job’s testing in Gen 22 f. and Job 1 f. and 42 cf. Jacques T. A. G. M. van Ruiten, “Abraham, Job and the Book of Jubilees: The Intertextual Relationship of Genesis 22:1–19, Job 1:1–2:13 and Jubilees 17:15–18:19,” in Sacrifice of Isaac, 58–85: 61–71. Van Ruiten mostly stresses the differences between the traditions. 34 Although the concept of Mastema in the book of Jubilees is developed in close similarity with the story of the watchers (cf. Jub. 10:8–11), his relationship to the angels is not quite clear in the story about Isaac’s sacrifice. Not so in Pseudo-Jubilees where these angels are called the “angels of Mastema” and they rejoice when Abraham is tested and say: “Now he shall perish” (4Q225 2 ii 6 f.). Mastema acts here unambiguously as a leader of the demonic powers. 35 For the tradition addressing Isaac and Abraham in Jubilees see esp. van Ruiten, “Abraham,” 71–83; cf. also J. C. Vanderkam, “The Aqedah, Jubilees, and Pseudojubilees,” in The Quest for Context and Meaning: Studies in Biblical Intertextuality in Honor of James A. Sanders (ed. C. A. Evans and Sh. Talmon; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 241–261: 255–261.

Abraham and the Sacrifice of Isaac in Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis

175

(Jub. 18:16). Mastema therefore is put to shame (Jub. 18:12) and Abraham celebrates at the end a great festival that functions in Jubilees – because of the particular description – as a kind of prefiguration for the Pessah. This is announced already by the identification of the mountain of the sacrifice with Mount Zion (Jub. 18:13) and therefore connects the story of Isaac’s sacrifice with the soteriologically important tradition of the Exodus and Pessah. 36 This seems essential for the narrator of Jubilees. Not so obvious is what Jubilees wants to point out with this link. Is it mentioned only to root all the Jewish festivals in the traditions about the patriarchs, or does this linking of the traditions already intend a theological – especially soteriological – significance of its own? Both perspectives seem to matter here, and the text in the perspective of the later Aqedah could be read in another way than in the perspective of its development. But it is apparent that neither Abraham’s sacrificing nor Isaac’s binding is meant to be a meritorious act for the author of Jubilees. 37 Remarkable is a further difference between both texts in view of the designation of Isaac: in Jubilees Isaac is mentioned as the “beloved son whom you love” that corresponds with the designation of the Septuagint, and in contrast, Pseudo-Jubilees follows the Hebrew designation as “only son.” 38 The story in Pseudo-Jubilees (4Q225–227) 39 is much shorter and straightforwardly narrated. It starts with the promises and the birth of Isaac and continues directly with the charge of Mastema and the narration of the sacrifice. But in this text Isaac for the first time seems to play a more active role, when he modifies his answer to Abraham (4Q225 2 ii 4). The problem is that the text is fragmentary and only a part of the letter ‫ ך‬is left. The editors supplemented the line with a text known from 36

Cf. van Ruiten, “Abraham,” 75 f.; see also Huizenga, New Isaac, 84 f, 91. For the discussion of soteriological aspects see Huizenga, New Isaac, 88, 92 f. 38 See B. Halpern-Amaru, “A Note on Isaac as First-born in Jubilees and Only Son in 4Q225,” DSD 13 (2006): 127–133. 39 See the edition of 4Q225 in Qumran Cave 4 VIII. Parabiblical Texts, Part 1 (ed. H. Attridge et al.; DJD XIII; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), 141–155 and pl. X (for some correcting remarks on 4Q225 frg. 1, see R. A. Kugler and J. C. Vanderkam, “A Note on 4Q225 [4QPseudo-Jubilees],” RdQ 77 [2001]: 109–115; on 4Q226, see ibid., 157–169 and pl. XI; on 4Q227, see, ibid., 171–175 and pl. XII). The text is an independent work in three copies within the Qumran-library. Further contributions to Pseudo-Jubilees are published for example by Vermes, “New Light”; Fitzmyer, “Sacrifice”; F. García Martínez, “The Sacrifice of Isaac in 4Q225,” in Qumranica Minora II. Thematic Studies on the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. E. J. C. Tigchelaar; StTDJ 64; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 131–143; J. Kugel, “Exegetical Notes on 4Q225 ‘Pseudo-Jubilees,’” in A Walk through Jubilees. Studies in the Book of Jubilees and the World of its Creation (ed. Idem; SuppJSJ 156; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 365–390. 37

176

Michael Becker (1958–2018)

later Palestinian Targumim and read: ‫ כ]פות אותי יפה‬T[ie me well ...]. 40 This reading seems possible but in no way secure. Accurate is that the significance of Isaac increases in this text. 41 Not only is his answer in line 4 important but also the genealogical notes in lines 10b–12. They correspond to the beginning but imply a certain change because now Isaac is the subject of further history. This does not include a soteriological implication – and again: only if we interpret the answer by the whole concept of the Aqedah one can imagine such an interpretation. The change and the development are not unimportant because they signify a certain shift in the interpretation of the story. But it is still not the end and the concept of the Aqedah is not present. Furthermore the description of Mastema seems important. The dualism in 4Q225 is much stronger than in Jubilees, because the text speaks not only of God and Mastema – both also have their entourage in form of different troops of angels (4Q225 2 ii 5–8). 42 God’s angels stand weeping around the altar while Mastema’s angels rejoice because now either Isaac will perish or Abraham will be proved untrustworthy. This dilemma seems to be the core of the plan behind Mastema’s strategy. 43 If it turns out to be successful Mastema would have ruined God’s plan with Abraham and made his promises of an uncountable progeny ineffective. 44 But this idle game does not work because God knows that Abraham is trustworthy. He interferes in the incident and now Mastema is bound. These aspects and the further reference to Belial (4Q225 2 ii 14) remind one to some extent of Enochic traditions including the binding of the watchers and their offspring.

3. Hellenistic Early Jewish Texts The texts discussed here are very different not only in their style but also in their relationship to the original tradition. Philo and Josephus for 40 See DJD XIII, 149,151 f; García Martínez, “Sacrifice of Isaac,” 139 f; Kugel, “Exegetical notes,” 378–383. 41 On the discussion about the reconstruction see Fitzmyer, “Sacrifice,” 218 f; Huizenga, New Isaac, 89. García Martínez, “Sacrifice of Isaac,” 139, and the Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition do not fill the lacuna, although García Martínez agrees with the reconstruction in DJD XIII as “a quite reasonable one” (139). 42 See García Martínez, “Sacrifice of Isaac,” 140–142; Kugel, “Exegetical Notes,” 367–370. 43 Cf. Huizenga, New Isaac, 87. 44 Cf. García Martínez, “Sacrifice of Isaac,” 138.

Abraham and the Sacrifice of Isaac in Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis

177

example offer the entire tradition embedded in its biblical context while 4 Maccabees and Pseudo-Philo only present short notes about Isaac’s sacrifice and similar traditions interpreting the event. a) To start with Philo, the earliest of these traditions: 45 apart from several short references to Isaac scattered all over Philo’s oeuvre 46 only one large account about his sacrifice is transmitted in Philo’s tractate about Abraham. But we know at least about the existence of another independent tractate about Isaac by Philo and the passage should also have been mentioned in his commentary on Genesis. Both texts or passages are lost. 47 In his treatment of Isaac’s sacrifice in De Abrahamo (Abr. 168–207) Philo neither mentions explicitly a “binding” of Isaac – instead he speaks of Abraham’s seizing (ἐξαρπάζω) and placing Isaac on the altar (Abr. 176) – nor does he portrait an adult person. For Philo Isaac is still a child when he is offered as a sacrifice (Abr. 170). This corresponds to his interest referring to the difference of this sacrifice with other sacrifices of children in Philo’s pagan environment. He is very interested in a comparison of Abraham’s way of managing the peculiar problem and the way it is done by “some of the most celebrated men of the Greeks, not merely private individuals but kings also, caring but little for the children whom they have begotten, [and who] have, by means of their destruction secured safety to might and numerous forces and armies, arrayed together in an allied body, and have voluntarily slain them as if they had been enemies” (Abr. 180). Therefore, he concentrates in an apology against “those who are fond of reviling and disparaging everything, and who are by their invariable habits accustomed to prefer blaming to praising the action which Abraham was enjoined to perform ...” (Abr. 178). For Philo, this seems to be the motive to interpret the biblical story and a certain reply and anti-critique against the well-known Anti-Judaism of that time.

45 On Philo’s account see Daly, “Soteriological Significance,” 55 f; Davies and Chilton, “The Aqedah,” 519–521; Huizenga, New Isaac, 97–104. 46 Isaac is characterized by Philo as born with a good nature and self-taught, which means that he is taught by God. And God is said several times to be truly his father (cf. Mut. 131; Det. 124); cf. Huizenga, New Isaac, 101. For another reference to Isaac’s sacrifice see Somn. I 194 f. 47 It seems quite futile to speculate about a Christian censorship that has eliminated relevant but – in view of the Christian tradition – suspect passages about the sacrifice and an atoning value of Isaac. We need to interpret the existing passages that do not support such a suspicion. Arguments from silence always seem quite interesting but are not always very helpful. Cf. Huizenga, New Isaac, 97 f.

178

Michael Becker (1958–2018)

He seems to be familiar with the tradition of Greek drama in antiquity 48 but he cannot rate the (self-)sacrifices mentioned there as heroic deeds, apparently because of a recent discussion and polemic against sacrifices of children. Essential is that the sacrificial action of Abraham – although it was interrupted by God’s intervention and although Abraham was forbidden to complete the sacrifice – is “recorded and engraved as a complete and perfect sacrifice” and Philo adds “not only in the sacred scriptures, but also in the middle of those who read them” (Abr. 177). Only in the case that Isaac’s sacrifice is believed as a real sacrifice it is necessary to start a dispute with the critics. And this discussion in its main part is realized by the portrait of Abraham as a man of countenance against his child. This implies that Abraham does not inform his son about the sacrifice based on the belief that all things are possible to God “even all such things as are impossible and unintelligible to men” (Abr. 175). So, Abraham is Philo’s real hero and his obedience and his acting like a priest are the reasons for him to narrate the story. 49 b) Josephus paints in his Antiquities (Ant. 1.222–236) quite a different picture – not only with regard to the main-outline of the story but also in some detail. 50 He stresses the reference to mount Moriah (Ant. 1.224) and that David (?!) subsequently built the Temple there (Ant. 1.226). Isaac is already an adult and twenty-five years old (Ant. 1.227). The discourse between father and son before the sacrifice appears very realistically: Isaac is said to die and to be sent to God. He is worthy to be sacrificed and God will place him near to himself. His consent to this process makes Isaac more than a pure victim; for some part, his conduct adopts the characteristics of a martyr, 51 but this is never indicated explicitly. When Isaac is sent to God he will be a kind of intercessor for Abraham in his old age (Ant. 1.230 f). After this discourse, Isaac is said to be pleased and proceeds willingly to the altar to be sacrificed (Ant. 1.232) because it is God’s decision for him. But nothing is said about Isaac’s binding or about Abraham’s placing him upon the altar. God intervenes – and the whole event is said to be a trial of the temper of “his” mind, whether he is obedient to God’s command. Even if it is by no means clear who is the 48 For the tradition in Greek drama see esp. Eschner, Gestorben, vol. 2; for Philo’s argumentation see ibid, 353. 49 Cf. Davies and Chilton, “The Aqedah,” 520. 50 See Daly, “Soteriological Significance,” 57–59; Davies and Chilton, “The Aqedah,” 521 f; Huizenga, New Isaac, 123–126. 51 Cf. Davies and Chilton, “The Aqedah,” 521 f.

Abraham and the Sacrifice of Isaac in Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis

179

subject of this test – Abraham or Isaac (Ant. 1.233) – the conclusion of the narrative is the reliability of God’s promises – especially that Abraham’s family should increase (Ant. 1.235). Although the scenario is shaped by a realistic understanding of the sacrifice, Josephus also presents another way out by his interpretation of the sacrifice as a sending-to-God reflecting a hope in a kind of resurrection. But the main point in Josephus’s account still seems to be Abraham’s obedience that is now supplemented by the similar obedience of Isaac who is eager to suffer. Both fulfil what is expected of them and they earn the affirmation of the promises given to the patriarchs, no more but no less. A special soteriological aspect of Isaac’s sacrifice is not implied in this description, 52 although it seems easy to interpret the text with the tradition of the Aqedah in this way. c) Two further texts refer to Isaac’s sacrifice by short notes and interpretations. 4 Maccabees mentions the sacrifice of Isaac at three places (4 Macc 13:11 f; 16:18–20 and 18:11) but never quotes the whole story. All texts stress the willingness of Isaac for piety’s sake to sacrifice and to suffer sacrifice without shrinking back. The first two references remember the deeds of the fathers – especially of the father Isaac who “gave himself to be sacrificed for piety’s sake” and of the father Abraham who “ventured boldly to sacrifice his son Isaac, the father of our nation; and Isaac, seeing his father’s hand, with knife in it, fall down against him, did not flinch.” The third reference remembers Isaac with the short comment that he was “offered as a burnt offering.” The message of all these references seems to be quite similar and is related closely to the ideology of martyrdom in 4 Maccabees. 53 Isaac and Abraham therefore become paradigms for martyrs. Although a soteriological function of martyrdom is not explicitly mentioned for Isaac’s sacrifice, it is referred to implicitly in the context as a part of the greater concept and ideology of martyrdom in 4 Maccabees. 54 d) Pseudo-Philo offers in his Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum in particular one extended description telling nearly the whole story in L. A. B. 32:1–4 and two short notes only mentioning the sacrifice of Isaac and using the references for the interpretation of other biblical accounts: first as a paradigm for the testing of humans by God in the context of the story of Balaam (L. A. B. 18:4 f) and then as a paradigm for the understanding of 52

Cf. Daly, “Soteriological Significance,” 59. For a discussion of martyrdom in 4 Macc see J. W. van Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs as Saviours of the Jewish People: A Study of 2 and 4 Maccabees (SuppJSJ 57; Leiden: Brill, 1997). 54 Cf. Huizenga, New Isaac, 115–122, esp. 122; Daly, “Soteriological Significance,” 56 f; Davies and Chilton, “The Aqedah,” 528 f. 53

180

Michael Becker (1958–2018)

a self-sacrifice in the context of the story of Jephthah’s daughter (L. A. B. 40:2,3b). 55 In a short midrashic interpretation (L. A. B. 18:4 f) in the context of the story of Balaam the sacrifice of Isaac is used to illustrate and stress the choosing of Israel. Balaam reflects on God’s plan with Israel and the inability of Balak to understand this plan. Although he talks with God, he is not certain whether he should go with the envoys of Balak and begs God for enlightenment. God only repeats his promise – especially the increase Abraham’s offspring – and his revelation to Abraham (Gen 22:17). This promise seems to be called into question by Balaam’s curse, but God himself has done so already before by demanding that Abraham sacrifice his son. But Abraham has passed this test because he did not disobey the demand. 56 The people are said to be chosen because of his blood (“pro sanguine eius elegi istos” L. A. B. 18:5), 57 and this seems also to be the answer to Balaam’s question and should silence the jealous angels mentioned in the context. Abraham and his behaviour still seem crucial, although a certain transformation of Isaac is suggested. In the extended description of Isaac’s sacrifice Pseudo-Philo picks up again the comments about the jealous angels (L. A. B. 32:1.4) but leaves God alone responsible for the command to sacrifice Isaac. Abraham acts straightforwardly and obeys the command. Remarkable is the dialog of Abraham and Isaac about the burnt offering, connecting the sacrifice of Isaac with the usually offered sacrifices and their atoning character. 58 This opens the possibility of clarifying some aspects of Isaac’s sacrifice. Even if some references in L. A. B. are ambiguous in view of the reality of the sacrifice, the comment in 32:4 states the interruption of the sacri55 For the text and a commentary see H. Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum with Latin Text and English Translation, 2 vols. (AGJU 31, 1.2; Leiden: Brill, 1996) esp. vol. 1, 580–585; vol. 2, 858–871, 961–965. See also B. N. Fisk, “Offering Isaac Again and Again: Pseudo-Philo’s Use of the Aqedah as Intertext,” CBQ 62 (2000): 481–507. 56 The subject of this statement – Abraham or Isaac – is again not totally clear, because the narration turns now to Isaac. 57 The mention of “blood” is very unusual and has led to many speculations about several questions: whether the sacrifice was really performed, whether this seeks to link the sacrifice of Isaac with that of the Temple and a possible atoning character of the sacrifice. It is far from clear how to answer these questions sufficiently because the text does not provide a foundation that is broad enough. For some possible answers see e. g. Daly, “Soteriological Significance,” 62 f; Davies and Chilton, “The Aqedah,” 528; Huizenga, New Isaac, 106 f. 58 Many aspects – especially Isaac’s statement: “erit autem mea beatitudo super omnes homines”: that can mean, that his blessedness is superior to all men, or that his blessing comes upon all men – need much more discussion than is possible here.

Abraham and the Sacrifice of Isaac in Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis

181

fice by God. One further and often neglected aspect needs attention. In L. A. B. 32:3 it is said that God “has made the soul of a man worthy to be a sacrifice.” This general statement only makes sense if this sacrifice were something ordinary – and not exceptional as Isaac’s sacrifice and especially its interpretation as Aqedah. It seems to reflect a sacrificial act where one gives up his life for others – not of course that he is a martyr, but doing this in obedience to God’s demand and – with a more pagan context – to give his life voluntarily for friends or for public need. 59 The last note on Isaac’s sacrifice is inserted into the famous story 60 of Jephthah and his daughter named Seila in L. A. B. (40:2,3b). After Jephthah has declared the situation and the oath to his daughter that she will be sacrificed she wants to make her farewell. She is sad, not because of the sacrifice but because of the circumstances. This sacrifice does not seem to be voluntary but forced upon her by the oath of her father. This is a problem for Seila because the sacrifice does not correspond to the sacrifice of Isaac and to Abraham’s attitude. Although the names are not mentioned here, Isaac’s sacrifice seems to be the perfect model. The most important criterion is that Isaac does not disobey the demand of his father but agrees to the sacrifice gladly. Both sacrifices – Isaac’s and Seila’s – seem similar but not entirely the same. One main difference is the oath of Jephthah; and another difference is presented by Seila’s own conviction as she replies to her father: “And who is there who would be sad in death, seeing the people freed?” This is her application of that kind of sacrifice. And it seems to be a statement we can also find in the traditions of Greek tragedy and close to the ideology of the Jewish martyrs. The Aqedah is neither mentioned here nor does it have any importance in this story because there is an alternative concept that has entered the discussion, the concept of the “effective death.” 61 Seila is prepared to give her life for her people, and even if there are still some questions about the legitimacy 59

This seems similar to the traditions in Greek drama; see Eschner, Gestorben, vol. 2. That the tradition of Isaac’s sacrifice has survived also in later Greek traditions is proved by several publications of Margaret Alexiou; see esp. The Ritual Lament in Greek Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974), 76 f, 169 f, 189, 198; eadem, “Literature and Popular Tradition,” in Literature and Society in Renaissance Crete (ed. D. Holton, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 239–274: 263–274. 60 Cf. Judg 11:32–40. 61 This seems to be the case although the lexical patterns are not referred to by PseudoPhilo. But the question for anyone who would “be sad in death” implies that she is willing to be sacrificed because this happens because of her people that would be freed. There is no question about Jephthah’s actions and the significance of his oath. All attention focuses on Seila and her willingness to be sacrificed.

182

Michael Becker (1958–2018)

of her sacrifice it is out of the question that Isaac’s sacrifice is appropriate to take as the model for such a sacrifice. All in all, these short remarks are integral pieces of the greater outline of the L. A. B.. Although some scholars think of these texts as the most elaborated trajectories on the way to the Aqedah they offer an alternative concept for interpreting Isaac’s sacrifice and comparable deeds of other Early Jewish people.

4. Final Remarks in View of the New Testament Tradition The question of influence of the Aqedah on the Christian tradition is still an open one if we follow the aforementioned aspects and elements in Early Judaism. Although it is unlikely that the Aqedah was present already in its plain sense, some aspects of the later targumic and rabbinic tradition seem certainly to exist in Early Judaism and a special significance of Isaac’s sacrifice is present even in the New Testament. Heb 11:17–19 and the letter of James 2:21–24 – although late texts – refer directly to the sacrifice of Isaac. Both are worthy of further discussion – but not here. One further – and earlier – text seems even more remarkable. 62 At the end of Rom 8 Paul speaks of God’s deliverance of his son using the very language of Gen 22 when he claims: Rom 8:32: He who did not spare his own Son (ἰδίου υἱοῦ οὐκ ἐφείσατο) but gave him up for us all (ὑπὲρ ἡµῶν πάντων παρέδωκεν αὐτόν), will he not also give us all things with him?

Especially the οὐκ ἐφείσατο seems to be a reflection of Gen 22:12,16 (LXX). But Paul combines this reference with another tradition using the idioms ὑπὲρ ἡµῶν and παρέδωκεν. These patterns are prominent for Paul and his theology. They express the deliverance of the Son of God. But this tradition also has a wide-spread background in Paul’s pagan environment and is discussed recently under the already mentioned label “effective death.” 63 It expresses an apotropaic effect of the death of prominent persons – especially in the Greek tradition of Euripides and his tragedies – and it is used by Paul and other New Testament authors on 62 Cf. the discussion in Daly, “Soteriological Significance,” 65–74; Davies and Chilton, “The Aqedah,” 529–533. 63 Cf. the most comprehensive study by Eschner, Gestorben, esp. vol. 1, 474, 483–485, 496 f; in view of a discussion of a relationship between Rom 8 and the binding of Isaac see 484 f.

Abraham and the Sacrifice of Isaac in Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis

183

several occasions. Two aspects are noteworthy. On the one hand, some of these traditions seem quite similar to those Philo had already discussed in his account of Isaac’s sacrifice. And on the other hand, a combination of traditions of the sacrifice of Isaac and of the “effective death” should be taken under further investigation. Traditions like those of the L. A. B. seem to a certain degree open to include an analogous influence – and perhaps the rabbis should be too.

Abraham’s Family in Philo Christian Noack 1. Introduction Philo, born around 20 b. c. e., was deeply affected by the Augustean age and its culture. He was a part of the Jewish high society in Alexandria and presumably held Roman citizenship. Philo communicated in the social system of Hellenistic Judaism, obediently observing the Jewish way of life with its rituals and distinguishing himself as a competent interpreter of the Mosaic laws. Simultaneously, he participated in the social system of the Roman and Hellenistic upper class. This was a culture that valued, among other things, an education in general sciences (ἐγκύκλιος παιδεία) which debated about the correct way of life offered by different philosophical schools and studied the classical authors’ ambitious rhetoric as well as the Sophists’ style of argumentation. 1 Philo brought these two worlds of communication together, both of which he felt he belonged to. 2 He virtually merged the rhetorical and philosophical encyclopedia of the Hellenistic world of education with Jewish Scriptural exegesis and the authority of Scripture (and so subjected both to a profound transformation). 3 He thus stands in the tradition of Jewish wisdom, which from the start is characterized by its intercultural communication (which is true 1 See Erkki Koskenniemi, “Philo and Classical Education,” in Reading Philo: A Handbook to Philo of Alexandria (ed. Torrey Seland; Grand Rapids, Mi.: Eerdmans, 2014), 102–128; G. E. Sterling, “‘The Jewish Philosophy’: Reading Moses via Hellenistic Philosophy According to Philo,” in Reading Philo, 129–154. 2 See M. Zugmann, “Philo Judaeo-Hellenisticus: Judentum und Hellenismus in der Sicht des alexandrinischen Gelehrten,” SNTSU 35 (2010): 189–229. 3 See Y. Amir, Die hellenistische Gestalt des Judentums bei Philon von Alexandrien (FJCD 5; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1983); E. Birnbaum, The Place of Judaism in Philo’s Thought: Israel, Jews, and Proselytes (Studia Philonica Monographs 2; Atlanta, Ga.: SBL Press, 1996); D. T. Runia, “Philo, Alexandrian and Jew,” in Idem, Exegesis and Philosophy: Studies on Philo of Alexandria (Aldershot: Variorum, 1990), 1–18; Idem, “Philo and Middle Platonism Revisited,” SPhA 5 (1993): 112–140; G. E. Sterling, “Platonizing Moses: Philo and Middle Platonism,” SPhA 5 (1993): 96–111; D. Winston, “Judaism and Hellenism: Hidden Tensions in Philo’s Thought,” SPhA 2 (1990): 12–17.

186

Christian Noack

of the early wisdom of experience up to the writings which emerged in the time of Philo, such as the Wisdom of Solomon, Joseph and Aseneth, and 4 Maccabees). I agree with G. E. Sterling, who marks Philo as the first theologian for whom philosophy was a “servant” to theology. 4

2. Three Commentaries with Their Own Profile Philo was a prolific writer who wrote philosophical dialogues, political essays, and, particularly, books clarifying the meaning of Scripture. He thought of himself as a philosophically educated interpreter of Scripture. There are three types of commentaries that can be distinguished. They belong to different genres; the structure, content, and style of argumentation are, in my opinion, adjusted to different target audiences. Each type has its own profile, even in the description of Abraham’s family. A differentiating exegesis of Philo’s texts should not overlook this. 5 I understand the Quaestiones et Solutiones to be a document that bridged the gap between different Jewish exegetical traditions in Alexandria and favored the allegorical method and the allegory of the soul in particular. Here we find many interpretations that Philo develops with more craftsmanship in the Allegorical Commentary. The description of the allegorically-interpreted members of the family of Abraham seems to be catechetical for listeners who are on the long path to wisdom (progressing souls), like an introduction to the art of allegorical interpretation 6 4 G. E. Sterling, “The first Theologian: The Originality of Philo of Alexandria,” in Renewing Tradition: Studies in Texts and Contexts in Honor of James W. Thompson (ed. D. Hein and T. H. Olbricht; Princeton Theological Monograph Series 65; Eugene, Ore.: Pickwick, 2007), 145–162. 5 This is still the problem of many Philonic studies, and this difference is not taken seriously enough. The differences are taken seriously, for example, by Birnbaum, Place of Judaism; Christian Noack, Gottesbewußtsein: Studien zur Soteriologie und Mystik bei Philo von Alexandria (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 18–26, 216–243; Martina Böhm, Rezeption und Funktion der Vätererzählungen bei Philo von Alexandria: Zum Zusammenhang von Kontext, Hermeneutik und Exegese im frühen Judentum (BZNW 128; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005); Maren R. Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 133–185; Sarah J. K. Pearce, The Land of the Body: Studies in Philo’s Representation of Egypt, (WUNT 208; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 23–25; 179–180. 6 See as an example QG 3.19: “What is the meaning of the word, ‘And she had an Egyptian maidservant, whose name was Hagar’? – ‘Hagar’ is interpreted as ‘sojourning.’ and she is a servant, waiting on a more perfect nature. And she is very naturally an Egyptian by race. For she is the study of school disciplines, and being a lover of wide learning, is in a certain sense waiting on virtue, since school studies are serviceable to him who needs help in receiving it,

Abraham’s Family in Philo

187

which leads to a virtuous life and in the end to a mystical union with God. 7 I share the opinion that this commentary is an earlier work of Philo; we observe an exegete who is open to new ways of interpreting Scripture and who is fascinated by the possibility of describing the wise soul and the mystical experience with the help of Scripture. 8 I understand the clearly structured Expositio Legis to be a document of a rational theology, which was directed toward both the Jewish and the non-Jewish public. The family of Abraham is prominent in this corpus (De Abrahamo, De Joseph, De virtutibus, De proemiis and poenis; the books narrating the story of Isaac and Jacob are missing). However, Philo takes into consideration possible non-Jewish readers by omitting some polemical interpretations that are deployed in the Allegorical Commentary. Some characters, such as Ishmael, are barely mentioned. The literal level of interpretation is considered much stronger than in the Allegorical Commentary. It can be said here that the persons indeed received typological significance yet fully retained their dimensions as historical personalities and models. 9 Philo wants to invite his readers to discover that Moses and his inspired writings are the pinacle of philosophy. Subsequent philosophical enterprises (Plato, Stoics) are to be measured by this pinnacle of truth. The artfully but intricately woven Allegorical Commentary seems to be an exegesis with an ethical and mystical aim. Philo speaks firmly and definitely about the ethical and theological problems he faces in Scripture. He presupposes philosophical knowledge, which is instrumentalized to lead the soul in a psychagogical way to inner spiritual truth. Philo is a great ambassador of the Hellenistic care for the inner status of humanity (inwardness, dt. “Innerlichkeit”), of his ψυχή or νοῦς. The allegory of the inasmuch as virtue has the soul as its place, while the school studies need bodily organs; and Egypt is symbolically the body (wherefore Scripture) rightly describes the form of the school studies as Egyptian. Moreover, it also named her ‘sojourning’ for the reason that sophistry is a sojourner in comparison with native virtue which alone is at home and which is mistress of intermediate education and provides for us through the school studies.” All translations are from Philo in Ten Volumes, trans. F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker (1929–1953). 7 A full analysis of the family of Abraham in the Quaestiones et Solutiones is provided by Martina Böhm, Rezeption und Funktion der Vätererzählungen, 349–400. 8 A description of mystical ascent and union can be found throughout the Quaestiones. See QG 4.1., 4.4., 4.8., 4.18., 4.21., 4.25., 4.29., 4.46., 4.47.; QE 1.4., 2.3., 2.27–32., 2.39., 2.40., 2.51. 9 A comprehensive analysis of the family of Abraham in the Expositio Legis is provided by Martina Böhm, Rezeption und Funktion der Vätererzählungen, 123–238. See the work also in an abbreviated form: Idem, “Philo und die Frage nach der jüdischen Identität in Alexandria,” in Religionsgemeinschaft und Identität: Prozesse jüdischer und christlicher Identitätsbildung im Rahmen der Antike (ed. M. Öhler; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2013), 69–111; 95–111.

188

Christian Noack

soul, a metaphorical transformation of the biblical narratives (including the family of Abraham) into stages or conditions of the soul, is most developed here, more than in the Quaestiones. The main network, concept, or matrix in the Allegorical Commentary is formed by Platonic and Stoic doctrines (δόξαι, δόγµατα) of becoming a wise man with a wise mind, which enables one to have a close relationship with God and eternity. The whole world of Hellenistic education or miseducation – from the perspective of the (middle-) Platonic and sometimes Stoic philosophy 10 sharpened by Jewish monotheism and Philo’s concept of God – emerges in these writings. The reader (and the hearer) of Philo’s allegorical exegesis is invited to reflect on his or her mind’s /soul’s way of seeing the world and nature. The mind should go on a journey away from selfishness, passion, and perception of senses and come into touch with wisdom and virtue, the realm of God. In my paper I will focus on the description of Abraham’s family in the Allegorical Commentary.

3. Some Important Patterns of Meaning Philo uses in the Allegorical Commentary When Philo interprets Scripture and the stories of Abraham’s family, he already has in mind patterns of thought (structures of meaning) which he finds in the biblical text. In creative ways he connects the text, which comes first, with these patterns. Because in the Allegorical Commentary he follows the written text word for word, very often adding “secondary texts” of Scripture to enhance a special pattern of thought, they are nowhere to be found “in order.” Nevertheless, Philo has an order in mind, which he uses artistically. I believe that he assumes his readers /hearers will be able to connect with this order, which they know from their Hellenistic education. It consists of several smaller networks of meaning or “exegetical building blocks.” 11 For example: 10 See now M. R. Niehoff, “Philo’s Role as a Platonist in Alexandria,” in Études Platoniciennes VII: Philon d’Alexandrie (ed. J.-F. Pradeau; Paris: Belle Lettres, 2010), 37–64; M. Bonazzi, “Towards Transcendence: Philo and the Renewal of Platonism in the Early Imperial Age,” in Philo of Alexandria and Post-Aristotelian Philosphy: Studies on Philo of Alexandria 5 (ed. F. Alesse; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 13–52. 11 See Ellen Birnbaum, “Exegetical Building Blocks in Philo’s Interpretation of the Patriarchs,” in From Judaism to Christianity: Tradition and Transition: A Festschrift for Thomas H. Tobin S. J. on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday (ed. P. Walters; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 68–92.

Abraham’s Family in Philo

189

a) There are three ways to virtue: instruction, nature, and practice: “Yet that the human race should not totally lack a title to give to the supreme goodness He allows them to use by licence of language, as though it were His proper name, the title of Lord God of the three natural orders, teaching, perfection, practice, which are symbolized in the recordings as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” (Mut. 12) 12 b) Also Philo sees three alternative ways to observe nature – the sphere of God, the sensual heaven, or the world of language: “Now to see the best, that is the truly existing, is the lot of the best of races, Israel, for Israel means seeing God. The race or kind that strives for the second best, that is the heaven, and therein the well-ordered host of the stars, the choir that moves to the fullest and truest music. Third are the sceptics, who do not concern themselves with the best things in nature, whether perceived by the senses or the mind, but spend themselves on petty quibbles and trifling disputes.” (Congr. 51 f) In De Gigantibus 60–62 Philo distinguishes between earth-born, heaven-born, and God-born men in the same way. The earth-born “are those who take the pleasures of the body for their quarry.” “The heaven-born are the votaries of the arts and of knowledge, the lovers of learning. For the heavenly element in us is the mind, as the heavenly beings are each of them a mind. And it is the mind which pursues the learning of the schools and the other arts one and all.” “But the men of God are priests and prophets who have refused to accept membership in the commonwealth of the world [...] but have risen wholly above the sphere of sense-perception and have been translated into the world of the intelligible and dwell there registered as freemen of the commonwealth of Ideas, which are imperishable and incorporeal.” c) Very often Philo introduces two types of men opposing each other: the good and the bad. The good soul is striving for virtue and God, while the bad soul follows the irrational impulses of passion. d) The preliminary studies (ἐγκύκλιος παιδεία) precede and prepare philosophy. However, it is very interesting that Philo supplements the Hellenistic mind-maps with a special dualism. Without recognizing it, the utmost concern of the Allegorical Commentary is invalidated. The allegory of the soul interpretation of Gen 4:2 (Sacr. 2, “And he [God] added that she [Eve]

12 See Ursula Bittrich, “Die drei Formen des Weisheitserwerbs bei Philo von Alexandrien und ihre Wurzeln in der aristotelischen Ethik,” in Jüdisch-hellenistische Literatur in ihrem kulturellen Kontext (ed. M. Hirschberger; Frankfurt a. M.: Lang, 2013), 77–87.

190

Christian Noack

gave birth to his brother, Abel”) transforms Eve, Cain, 13 and Abel into inner cognition modes of mind. 14 In this case, “Eve” is the soul that gives birth to “Abel,” the God-loving view (φιλόθεον δόγµα), after having given birth to “Cain,” the self-loving view (φίλαυτον δόγµα): 15 “It is a fact that there are two opposite and contending views of life, one which ascribes all things to the mind as our master, whether we are using our reason or our senses, in motion or at rest, the other which follows God, whose handiwork it believes itself to be. The first of these views is figured by Cain who is called Possession, because he thinks he possesses all things, the other by Abel, whose name means ‘one who refers (all things) to God.’ Now both these views or conceptions lie in the womb of the single soul. But when they are brought to the birth they must needs be separated, for enemies cannot live together for ever.” (Sacr. 2–3) Philo uses the etymologically embossed translation of the name Cain with the term “possession” to interpret Cain as an attitude of the mind (τρόπον ἐν ἡµῖν), 16 ascribing all the skills of thinking as a center of human activity itself. This attitude is classified as self-love. This thinking is the belief (Post. 35) “that the human mind is the measure of all things” (µέτρον εἶναι πάντων χρηµάτων τὸν ἀνθρωπινον νοῦν). Philo cites one of Protagoras’s slogans, but it is striking how he changes it to emphasize reason / thought (νοῦς). This recognition makes himself the creator of things and means: “For if man is the measure of all things, all things are a present and gift of the mind (χάρις ἐστὶ καί δωρεὰ τοῦ νοῦ τὰ πάντα, Post. 36).” Again and again Philo comes to speak about this self-reflection that holds everything in its possession: “For how can the man be other than a slave who says, ‘Mine is the master, even mind,’ that is its own master and absolute lord [...] ‘for in my power it is to exercise mind.’” (Leg. 3.198) In the Allegorical Commentary Philo stresses a way of interpreting reality as something which depends totally on God’s activity. Here we find a

13 See S. Badilita, “Cain, figure du mal chez Philon d’Alexandrie,” ThH 118 (2011): 239–252. 14 From now on I will put names in quotation marks in all cases where Philo has no historical persons in mind. 15 See D. T. Runia, “Dogma and doxa in the Allegorical Writings of Philo of Alexandria,” in Études Platoniciennes VII: Philon d’Alexandrie (ed. J.-F. Pradeau; Paris: Belle Lettres, 2010), 115–132. 16 See Cher. 65: “It is this feeling in us (τρόπον ἐν ἡµῖν), which Moses expresses under the name of Cain, by interpretation Possession, a feeling foolish to the core or rather impious.”

Abraham’s Family in Philo

191

dualism in the mind itself, a dualism between the self-loving and the Godloving mind. 17

4. The Family of Abraham as a Network of Meaning in the Allegorical Commentary It is astonishing that Philo mentions almost all members of the extended family in the Allegorical Commentary. The network of relationships between the relatives of Abraham becomes on the allegorical level a network of meaning with reference to the soul or human mind. In the majority of cases Philo has no interest in the literal meaning of the biblical text; rather, he interprets persons or locations – often with the help of the etymological meaning of their names – as symbols for positions or position-changes of the soul on its way toward or away from wisdom and true philosophy. He very often states this explicitly, such as in Congr. 43f: “Nahor too, the brother of Abraham, has two wives, legitimate and concubine, and the name of the legitimate wife was Milcah, and the name of the concubine Reumah. Now let no sane man suppose that we have here in the pages of the wise legislator an historical pedigree. What we have is a revelation through symbols of facts which may be profitable to the soul. And if we translate the names into our own tongue, we shall recognize that what is here promised is actually the case.” Philo uses names to describe processes of education, of longing for belonging to God, or of being involved in perception through sense and sensual arousing (passions). The family of Abraham represents most of the positions, stages, and changes a soul can take up that is on the journey to true knowledge. Only “Moses,” the prophetic and purest mind, surpasses them, “the mind of purest quality, the truly ‘goodly’ who, with a wisdom given by divine inspiration, received the art of legislation and prophecy alike” (Congr. 132). However, this large family of at least five generations also demonstrates the obstacles and pitfalls of education.

17 See D. M. Hay, “The Psychology of Faith in Hellenistic Judaism,” ANRW II 20.2 (1987): 881–925, especially 899: “One important way in which Philo goes beyond the psychological teaching of other hellenized Jewish writers consists in his conceiving the inner struggle not merely as one between rational mind and irrational desires, passions, and senses, but as a struggle between conflicting thoughts or patterns of thought.”

192

Christian Noack

4.1 “Terah” “Terah,” the father of “Abraham,” died in “Haran” (the world of senses). His name means “scent-exploring” (Somn. 1.47), so he was only a spy or explorer of virtue and he has only an impression of virtue (Somn. 1.48 f). He left the land of “Chaldea” (the science of astronomy) und came to “Haran,” the science of analyzing the senses (“Try to find out what sight is, what hearing is, what taste, smell, touch are: in a word what senseperception is.” Somn. 1.55). But “Terah” goes further. This mindset is encouraged to think about its own soul and mind: “This character Hebrews call ‘Terah,’ Greeks ‘Socrates’ [...]. Socrates, however, was a human being, while Terah was self-knowledge itself, a way of thinking set before us as a tree of great luxuriance.” (Somn. 1.58 f).

4.2 “Nahor,” “Milcah,” and “Reumah” “Terah” has three sons: Nahor, Haran, and Abraham. Nahor (“rest of light”) shares a portion of wisdom, the “great sunlight of the soul” (Congr. 47), with Abraham. But he represents the mind that “honours the created before the creator, and the world before God, or rather he holds that the world is not the work of God but is itself God absolute in His power” (Congr. 49). Nahor is the mind that has not accompanied “Abraham” in his journey from the created to the uncreated, and from the world to the world’s Framer (Congr. 48). This thinking is accompanied by astronomy (“Milcah”) or worse by sceptics (“Reumah”), who like “petty quibbles and trifling disputes” (Congr. 52). They are word-mongers and word-hunters: “They act as though happiness depended on the endless fruitless hypercriticism of words as such.” (Congr. 53)

4.3 “Lot,” His Wife, His Daughters, “Moab,” and “Ammon” Haran is never mentioned by Philo, and neither is the fact that he is the father of “Lot.” Lot means “inclination” or “leaning” (Migr. 148). He inclines to sense-perception what prevents him from following “Abraham” (Migr. 13). “Abraham” had to protect himself by separation from “Lot” (Migr. 12–15; 148–150): “For it is impossible for one who is possessed by love for all that is incorporeal and incorruptible to dwell together with one who leans towards the objects of sense-perception doomed to die.” (Migr. 13) Sometimes the state of mind called “Lot” is able to turn away from what is bad (Somn. 1.85 f). Married to sense-perception (“custom”

Abraham’s Family in Philo

193

Ebr. 164), he is inclined to the “deafness of glory, the blindness of wealth, the stupidity of bodily robustness, and the empty-mindedness of external beauty” (Somn. 1.248). His daughters (“deliberation” and “assent”) are symbols for processes in the mind, which reveal that knowledge is not possible under the influence of sense-perception and longing for passions (Ebr. 164–166). Their sons “Moab” and “Ammon” suppose that “senseperception and mind, a male and a female, act as father and mother for the procreation of all things, and take this process to be in very truth the cause of creation” (Post. 177). This bad part of Abraham’s family shows that an atheistic, constructivist thinking is a hazard for a mind that goes astray in the education process. I have the impression that Philo writes his commentary also to warn against such a state of mind and the corresponding lifestyle.

4.4 “Abram” “Abram”/“Abraham” is an important example representing the mind that abandons sense-perception in its search for truth, virtue, and immortality. The education of “Abraham,” however, begins in the land of the “Chaldeans” (mere opinion). At that time his name was “Abram” (uplifted father), “a name which signifies that mind which surveys on every side the whole compass of the upper world of heaven” (Gig. 62). Leaving this kind of thinking, which makes Fate and Necessity divine (Migr. 179), “Abram” came with his father to “Haran,” where he analyzed the nature of senseperception (Migr. 189). Then God called him out of Haran, a “call not to death but to immortality” (Migr. 189). 18

4.5 “Sarai,” “Hagar,” “Ishmael,” and “Keturah” “Abram,” the learning soul, should become a godly person (ἄνθρωπος θεοῦ, Gig. 63). He is married to “Sarai,” the individual virtue. He is still unable to enter the world of immortal ideas. Therefore he also cannot father a child with Sarai. Philo lets “Abram” speak in first person: “So Sarah, the virtue which rules my soul, was a mother, but not a mother for me. For young as I was I could not yet receive her offspring, wisdom, justice, piety, because of the multitude of bastard children whom vain imaginations had borne to me.” (Congr. 6) That is why the virtue recommends that he first engage himself in the propaideumata (grammar, geometry, 18

See also Mut. 69–70.

194

Christian Noack

astronomy, rhetoric, dialectic, music) and learn them thoroughly. Consequently Abraham turns to dealing with the encyclical paideia (“Hagar”), 19 which is connected with the senses and the body (“Egypt”): Congr. 20: “The primary characteristic marks of the lower education are represented by two symbols giving its race and its name. In race it is Egypt, but its name is Hagar, which is by interpretation, ‘sojourning.’ The votary of the school studies, the friend of wide learning, must necessarily be associated with the earthly and Egyptian body: since he needs eyes to see and read, ears to listen and hear, and the other senses to unveil the several objects of sense”.

This stage of education results in the procreation of “Ishmael,” a kind of thinking that tends to be a sophistic mindset und thus errs far from the truth. It presumes to be in control of itself and also of reality and being able to shape it at its own discretion (see “Cain” above). But “Ishmael” is not without hope, because “Abraham” prays that he and his soul may live (Mut. 201). The soul that strives toward virtue by learning adopts the general knowledge but does not firmly depend on it. It poses a noticeable risk, of which Philo is, from his biography, thoroughly aware (Congr. 74–77): “For each art has its charms, its powers of attraction, and some beguiled by these stay with them and forget their pledges to philosophy.” (Congr. 78) “Keturah” is mentioned once in connection with “Hagar”: “For the real wealth, the perfect virtues, are the possessions of the perfect and true-born only [“Isaac”]. But the secondary things of the daily duties are fitting to the imperfect, who have risen only to the primary learning of the schools. These have Hagar and Keturah for their source, Hagar meaning ‘sojourning’ and Keturah ‘incense-burning.’ For he who contents himself with the secular learning only does but sojourn and is not domiciled with wisdom. He sheds indeed over the soul, as it were, a sweet fragrance from the exquisite niceties of his studies, but yet it is food, not fragrance, that he needs for his health.” (Sacr. 44) So “Keturah” and Hagar represent the seductive quality of the propaideumata.

19 See A. P. Bos, “Hagar and the ‘Enkyklios Paideia’ in Philo of Alexandria,” in Abraham, the Nations, and the Hagarites: Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Perspectives on Kinship with Abraham (ed. M. Goodman et al.; Themes in Biblical Narrative 13; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 163–175.

Abraham’s Family in Philo

195

4.6 “Abram” becomes “Abraham” after leaving the stage of the encyclical paideia: Gen 12:1 and Gen 15:4 How does the learning mind, “Abraham,” reach out to true reality? Philo describes this on the one hand as an active part of the soul and on the other hand as being made possible by God. God touches and raises up the soul by speaking to it: “Depart out of thy land, and out of thy kindred, and out of thy father’s house.” (Gen 12:1) God begins the carrying out of His will to cleanse man’s soul by giving it a starting point for full salvation (σωτερίαν παντελῆ) in its removal out of three localities, namely body, sense-perception, and speech” (Migr. 2). Philo explains this further: “The words ‘Depart out of these’ are not equivalent to ‘Sever thyself from them absolutely,’ since to issue such a command as that would be to prescribe death. No, the words import ‘Make thyself a stranger to them in judgement und purpose; let none of them cling to thee; rise superior to them all; they are thy subjects, never treat them as sovereign lords; thou art a king, school thyself once and for all to rule, not to be ruled.’” (Migr. 7). The aim is therefore to escape the lusts and desires, to keep the senses under control, and to despise the sophist art of speech. The rejection of sophistic rhetoric indeed is a classic topos of Platonism. The frequency with which Philo discusses it in his writings could be understood as indicating that the higher education in Alexandria preferred the rhetoric of the sophist teachers, friendly to politics and close to political power, to the more critical education of philosophy. 20 The self-alienation from the physical instruments of gaining power is to be understood as an exercise in humility. This will become even clearer in Mut. 54–59. In Mut. 54–59, Philo uses Gen 17:4–5 to interpret the reason for the change of name from Abram to Abraham: “The next words are ‘Abraham fell on his face.’” Philo interprets this as a self-humiliation of the soul. Hearing the divine promises “Abraham” receives self-knowledge and discovers the “nothingness of our mortal race.” He explains:

20 See Bruce W. Winter, Philo and Paul among the Sophists: Alexandrian and Corinthian Responses to a Julio-Claudian Movement (Grand Rapids, Mi.: Eerdmans 2002); Beatrice Wyss, “Philon und die Sophisten: Philons Sophistendiskurs vor dem Hintergrund des alexandrinischen Bildungsumfelds,” in Jüdisch-hellenistische Literatur in ihrem kulturellen Kontext (ed. M. Hirschberger; Frankfurt a. M.: Lang, 2013), 89–105; G. H. van Kooten, “Balaam as the Sophist Par Excellence in Philo of Alexandria: Philo’s Projection of an Urgent Contemporary Debate onto Moses’ Pentateuchal Narratives,” in The Prestige of the Pagan Prophet Balaam in Judaism, Early Christianity and Islam (ed. G. H. von Kooten and J. van Ruinten; Themes in Biblical Narrative 11; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 131–161.

196

Christian Noack

Mut. 56–57: “By face is meant his senses and his mind and his speech, and the gesture is little less than a loud insistent utterance. Fallen is sense, it cries, unable of itself to perceive, were it not by a dispensation of God’s saving providence set on its feet to the perception of material substances; fallen is speech, because it were unable to express in language anything that is, did not He Who framed and adjusted to harmony the instrument of the voice beat out the music of its notes, opening the mouth and giving strength to the nerves of the tongue: fallen too is the royal mind, robbed of its powers of apprehension, did not the Framer of all that lives raise it up and establish it, and planting in it far piercing eyes, lead it to the sight of the immaterial word. The frame of mind which shrank from Him and fell spontaneously won God’s high approval by thus acknowledging of the Existent that it is He alone Who stands and that all below Him are subject to change and mutation of every kind. He addresses him with an insistence which is also a call to partnership.”

The benefaction this frame of mind receives is a close relationship with God himself, much closer than the benefaction of becoming acquainted with God through material things: Mut. 59: “For to some God is wont to extend His benefactions by other means, earth, water, air, sun, moon, heaven, and other agencies not material, but to others by Himself alone, making Himself the portion of those who receive Him. On these He presently bestows as their due a different name. ‘Thy name shall not be called Abram, we read, but Abraham.’”

Philo explains that the change of names symbolizes the betterment of character. As he emphasizes in Mut. 70f: “So then the first set of signs delineated the lover of learning, the meteorologist, while those just sketched reveal the wisdom-lover or rather the wise. Cease then to suppose that the Deity’s gift was a change of name, instead of a betterment of character symbolized thereby. Him who was erstwhile busied in the study of the nature of heaven – the astrologer as some call him – He summoned to a partnership in virtue and both made him and named him wise, giving to the spiritual outlook thus recast the title of Abraham, as the Hebrews would call it, and in our language, Elect Father of Sound.”

Philo closes his interpretation of Gen 15:5 in Her. 85 with a very important insight also emphasized in Mut. 54–59 – that the wise man is aware of the nothingness of humankind and that he receives all he has from God alone. This knowledge is God-given: “Most rightly, then, it is said, ‘He led him outside,’ outside of the prison-houses of the body, of the lairs where the senses lurk, of the sophistries of deceitful word and thought; above all He led him out of himself, out of the belief that he thought and apprehended through an intelligence which acknowledged no other authority and owed no allegiance to any other than itself.” (Her. 85) The

Abraham’s Family in Philo

197

soul that is separated by God of its own volition gives up the selfish idea of being the ruler of his own life. It is a way of thinking that is governed by the realization that everything is accomplished through God. One does not own one’s self but exists for and only through God: “He that flees from his own mind flees for refuge to the Mind of all things. For he that abandons his own mind acknowledges all that makes the human mind its standard to be naught, and he refers all things to God.” (Leg. 3.29) All things are alone God’s possession: “And so his Teacher praising the desire for learning which he shews, begins his instruction with a rudimentary lesson, in which the first and most vital words are ‘take for me’ (Gen 15:9). It is a short phrase, but with a wide meaning, for it suggests not a few thoughts. First it says to us ‘you have no good thing of your own, but whatever you think you have, Another has provided.’ Hence we infer all things are the possession of Him who gives, not of creation the beggar, whoever holds out her hands to take.” (Her. 102 f) Philo describes here a receptive kind of thinking which recognizes all things and so also the soul itself as the sole creation of God. Philo calls this habit “faith” as trust in God alone, mistrusting social relationships and status symbols: “[...] to trust in God alone and join no other with Him is no easy matter, by reason of our kinship with our yokefellow, mortality, which works upon us to keep our trust placed in riches and repute and office and friends and health and strength and many other things. To purge away each of these, to distrust created being, which in itself is wholly unworthy of trust, to trust in God, and in Him alone, even as He alone is truly worthy of trust – this is a task for a great and celestial understanding which has ceased to be ensnared by aught of the things that surround us. And it is well said ‘his faith was counted to him for justice’ (Gen 15:6), for nothing is so just or righteous as to put in God alone a trust which is pure and unalloyed.” (Her. 92–94)

4.7 “Sarah,” “Abraham,” and “Isaac” Trusting in God alone is joy. “Abraham,” connected with the generic virtue “Sarah,” procreates with her “Isaac” (“laughter,” “joy”). This state of mind is a gift from God, as Philo explains in Mut. 131 interpreting Gen 17:16: “First, then, the giver of anything in the proper sense of the word must necessarily give something which belongs to himself, and if this is so Isaac must not be the man Isaac but the Isaac whose name is that of the best of the good emotions, joy, the Isaac who is the laughter of the heart, a son of God, who gives him as a means to soothe and cheer truly

198

Christian Noack

peaceful souls.” Philo once again is emphasizing that he is interpreting an event occurring in the soul, here a special emotional state of mind, joy. “Isaac” is the contemplative mind (Gen 24:63): “Isaac also, the soul’s gladness, when he meditates and is alone with God, goes forth, quitting himself and his own mind.” (Leg. 3.43) Two texts – Migr. 28–33 and Fug. 166–172 – in an impressive way describe “Isaac” as the self-taught soul. Both texts underscore the easiness of this “most pure thought” (νόηµα καθαρώτατον Fug. 167). Philo transforms the self-learning “αὐτοδίδακτος” wise man into a state of mind: “Under this head is ranged every wise man who learns directly from no teacher but himself; for he does not by searchings and practisings and toilings gain improvement, but as soon as he comes into existence he finds wisdom placed ready to his hand, shed from heaven above, and of this he drinks undiluted draughts, and sits feasting, and ceases not to be drunken with the sober drunkenness which right reason brings. This is he whom Holy Writ calls ‘Isaac,’ whom the soul did not conceive at one time and give birth to at another, for it says ‘she conceived and gave birth’ (Gen 21:2) as though timelessly. For he that was thus born was not a man, but a most pure thought, beautiful not by practice but by nature.” (Fug. 166 f) This state of mind is independent on foreign teachings and has God himself as a source of true knowledge. The self-taught is – quite differently as suggested by the literal sense – the thinking coming directly from God in a mystical ecstasy: “And for this reason she that gave birth to it is said ‘to have forsaken the ways of women’ (Gen 18:11), those human ways of custom and mere reasoning. For the nature of the self-taught is new and higher than our reasoning, and in very deep Divine, arising by no human will or purpose but by a God-inspired ecstasy.” (Fug. 168) This soul experiences “peace that never ends” according to Fug. 173 and “rest in God” (ἡ ἐν θεῷ ἀνάπαυσις) according to Fug. 174. There is freedom from hardship instead of spiritual and moral struggles. This is where God’s abundance of grace and His goodness is experienced. Therefore Jacob, the practicing soul, is called by God back to his father’s land (Gen 31:3): “Nay, thou must change thine abode and betake thee to thy father’s land, the land of the Word that is holy and in some sense father of those who submit to training: and that land is Wisdom, abode most choice of virtue-loving souls. In this country there awaiteth thee the nature which is its own pupil, its own teacher, that needs not to be fed on milk as children are fed, that has been stayed by a Divine oracle from going down into Egypt (Gen 24:2) and from meeting with the ensnaring pleasures of the flesh. That nature is entitled Isaac.” (Migr. 28 f) Philo here

Abraham’s Family in Philo

199

points to a very important distinction, the distinction between activity and passivity. The state of resting passivity is the aim of the striving soul: Migr. 29–31: “When thou hast entered upon his inheritance, thou canst not but lay aside thy toil; for the perpetual abundance of good things ever ready to the hand gives freedom from toil. And the fountain from which the good things are poured forth is the companionship of the bountiful God [...]. Then are all forms of studying, toiling, practicing at rest; and without interference of art by contrivance of Nature there come forth all things in one outburst charged with benefit for all.”

“Isaac” represents here a mindset in a mystical closeness to God, participating in the eternity of the world of ideas: “But those who have dispensed with the instruction of men and have become apt pupils of God receive the free unlaboured knowledge and are translated into the genus of the imperishable and fully perfect.” (Sacr. 7) This is also a state of non-individuality, as the meaning of the name “Sarah” shows: “Her name Sarai is changed to Sarah by the addition of one letter, rho. These are the names, now for the facts indicated by them. Sarai means my sovereignty, Sarah sovereign. The former is a symbol of specific virtue, the latter of generic, and in the same measure as the genus is greater than the species is the second name greater than the former. The species is small and perishable, the genus is large and imperishable. And the gifts which God wills to bestow are great and immortal in exchange for small and perishable, and to give such is a work well suited for Him. Wisdom in the good man is a sovereignty vested in himself alone, and its possessor will not err if he says ‘the wisdom in me is my sovereignty.’ But in the wisdom which is its archetype, the generic wisdom, we cease to have the sovereignty of the particular individual, but sovereignty its very self. And therefore that specific wisdom will perish with its possessor, while the other which like a seal gave it its shape, being free from all mortal element, will continue forever imperishable.” (Mut. 77–80) Eternal, imperishable life in this sense is a state of mind without individual existence in the godly realm; it is a transformation into a generic state of existence in God. There is no individual life in this eschatology of Philo.

4.8 “Rebecca,” “Jacob” and “Esau,” “Leah,” “Rachel,” “Bilhah,” and “Zilpah” “Isaac,” the contemplative soul, is connected to “Rebecca,” the persistent, consistent virtue that never subsides. “Rebecca” is a kind of soul that receives all things from God, instead of claiming with sophistic rhetoric to possess something:

200

Christian Noack

Congr. 130: “For the one kind of soul thinks that it receives in the womb [Rebecca, Gen 25:21 ἔλαβεν ἐν γαστρί], and the other that it has in the womb [Hagar, Gen 16:4 ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχει], and that is a mighty difference. The latter, supposing that they ‘have,’ with boastful speech [= “Ismael”] ascribe the choice and the birth [of wisdom] to themselves. The former claim but to receive, and confess that they have of themselves nothing which is their own. They accept the seeds of impregnation that are showered on them from outside, and revere the Giver, and thus honouring God they repel the love of self, repel, that is, the greatest of evils by the perfect good.” 21

It could be expected that the children they bring forth also are perfect. This, however, does not follow from the literal meaning, and so Philo does not continue the education history which he started with Abraham’s father. On the other hand, this is an indication that Philo’s exegesis adapts flexibly to the literal sense, that it is characterized by the etymological meaning of the names and relies on already solid thought patterns. He therefore has a good explanation as to why “Jacob” and “Esau” are different: “The souls then whose pregnancy is accompanied with wisdom, though they labour, do bring their children to the birth, for they distinguish and separate what is in confusion in them, just as Rebecca, receiving in her womb the knowledge of the two nations of the mind, virtue and vice, distinguished the nature of the two and found therein a happy delivery.” (Congr. 129) The birth of “Jacob” and “Esau” is interpreted as a process from confusion to order in the soul, gaining a clear distinction between virtue and vice. “Jacob’s” way to wisdom is through asceticism. “Esau,” however, applies himself to all the passions (Congr. 61). The practitioner (the ascetic mind) needs, like “Abraham,” assistants on the way toward the vision of God: the gentle virtue (“Leah”), a critical view of wealth and lust (“Rachel”), food and drink (“Bilhah”), and the linguistic expression (“Zilpah”) (Congr. 24–33).

21 The distinction between “to have” and “to receive” has a parallel in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians: “What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?” (1 Cor 4:7) Both Philo and Paul criticize a boasting habit of egoistic self-love.

Abraham’s Family in Philo

201

4.9 “Bethuel,” “Rebecca,” and “Laban” Before his transformation to “Israel,” the mind that sees God, Jacob, is sent by the gentle virtue “Rebecca” to “Laban” who lives in Haran, the world of sense-perception (Fug. 23–38): “Begin then, by getting some exercise and practice in the business of life both private and public; and when by means of the sister virtues, household-management and statesmanship, you have become masters in each domain, enter now, as more then qualified to do so, on your migration to a different and more excellent way of life. For the practical comes before the contemplative life; it is a sort of prelude to a more advanced contest; and it is well to have fought it our first.” “Laban” symbolizes the mind (see “Cain”) which fancies that the “arts and branches of knowledge in the soul” – his daughters – are “his” daughters, as with his sons (particular reasoned thoughts) and his cattle (the senses) (Cher. 67–70). This mind Philo admonishes: “But, if you reform and obtain a portion of the wisdom that you need, you will say that all are God’s possessions and not yours, your reflections, your knowledge of every kind, your arts, your conclusions, your reasoning on particular questions, your sense-perceptions, in fact, the activities of your soul, whether carried on through the senses or without them.” (Cher. 71) Both Rebecca and Laban are children of “Bethuel,” who in turn is a son of Nahor (of which Philo makes nothing). “Bethuel” (“Daughter of God”) means wisdom, a house in the land of Mesopotamia, “the torrent of life’s river” (Fug. 49). Jacob is consoled: “For thou shalt find the house of wisdom a calm and fair haven, which will welcome thee kindly as thou comest to thy moorings in it.” (Fug. 50)

4.10 “Jacob” changes into “Israel” After “Jacob” has proven himself in the world of senses, God called him back to the land of his father “Isaac.” “Nay, thou must change thine abode and betake thee to thy father’s land, the land of the Word that is holy and in some sense father of those who submit to training: and that land is Wisdom, abode most choice of virtue-loving souls. In this country there awaiteth thee the nature which is its own pupil, its own teacher [...] that nature is entitled Isaac.” (Migr. 28–29) Here “Jacob” is transformed into “Israel”: “[...] and the Trainer of self was eager to exchange ears for eyes, and to see what before he heard, and, going beyond the inheritance which has hearing as its source, he obtains that of which sight is the ruling

202

Christian Noack

principle [...]. Hereby comes to pass even the seeing of the Divine light, identical with knowledge, which opens wide the soul’s eye, and leads it to apprehensions distinct and brilliant beyond those gained by the ears.” (Migr. 38–39) 22

4.11 “Judah” and “Issaschar,” “Joseph,” “Benjamin,” and “Rachel’s” Death Additionally, Philo provides the many sons of Jacob with an allegorical interpretation. The sons of virtuous Leah are particularly gifted in virtues. For example (Mut. 135–136; Leg. 1.80–82), “Judah” is the confessor, who is in ecstasy through thanksgiving and devotion to God: “Judah, the disposition prone to make confession of praise (ὁ ἐξοµολογητικὸς τρόπος), is exempt from body and matter [...]. For whenever the mind goes out from itself and offers itself up to God, as Isaac or ‘laughter’ does, then does it make confession of acknowledgement towards the Existent One. But so long as the mind supposes itself to be the author of anything, it is far away from making room for God and from confessing or making acknowledgement to Him. For we must take note that the very confession of praise itself is the work not of the soul but of God who gives it thankfulness.” (Leg. 1.82) The sons of the beautiful “Rachel,” however, tend to sensuality. “Joseph” the statesman is successful at controlling the lusts, but he is also arrogant. He remains in the realm of body, the passions and the Sophists, meaning in “Egypt.” However, he retains fragments of a virtue loving tendency (Migr. 16–22): “He feared God (Gen 42:18) even though he was not yet ready to love Him” (Migr. 21). Philo has nothing positive to say about “Benjamin,” a state of mind which depends on public status and glory. Once more Philo can warn his readers about being deceived by egocentric and sense-oriented yearning, provoked by a society that honors successful behavior (glory) in the eyes of others: Mut. 92–96: “Benjamin by interpretation is Son of days, and the day is illumined by the sunlight visible to our senses, to which we liken vainglory. Such glory has a certain brilliance to the outward sense, in the laudations bestowed by the vulgar multitude, in the decrees which are enacted, in the dedications of statues and images, in purple robes and golden crowns, in chariots and four-horse cars and crowded processions [...]. This name which exactly expresses the fact is given him by his father 22

See S. D. Mackie, “Seeing God in Philo of Alexandria: Means, Methods, and Mysticism,” JSJS 43 (2012): 147–179.

Abraham’s Family in Philo

203

the head of the house, the reason. But the soul gives him the one that agrees with the experience by which she herself has learned. She calls him a son of sorrow. Why? Because those who are swept along by the current of empty opinion are thought to be happy, but are in reality most unhappy, for many are the counterblasts, envy, jealousies, continuous quarrelling, rancorous enmities unreconciled till death, feuds handed down successively to children’s children, an inheritance which cannot be possessed. And so God’s interpreter could not but represent the mother of vainglory as dying in the very pangs of childbirth. Rachel died, we read, in hard labour, for the conception and birth of vainglory, the creature of sense, is in reality the death of the soul.”

I am interpreting this as a sarcastic criticism of the honor-and-shame culture that dominated monarchic societies in Philo’s time.

5. Conclusion: The Intended Readers /Hearers With Philo’s allegorical interpretation being the key to the text of Torah in hand, it is easy to memorize the symbolic meaning of Scripture based on illustrative persons and places. With the etymological meanings of the names and the persons in mind, it is not difficult to understand the network of meaning, which has main features that are clear. Philo presupposes that his recipients are able to follow his allegorical explanations and that they have the names and their meanings in memory. 23 At the same time he is sure that they understand his philosophical allusions. He tries to win and to strengthen the souls of his recipients to follow the philosophical “royal road” towards true reality and to hold distance to illusionary thinking and acting. Philo wants to win the souls of his readers /hearers by turning them to true reality and withholding from them illusionary worldviews. Who are his intended real hearers /readers? I think Philo has in mind men (and also some women) of the Jewish upper class. He tries to solve their problems that arise from a lifestyle in which rich Jewish people managed to live inclusively in two cultures of society. Greek is “their” language. They are entirely socialized in the literary world of Hellenistic paideia. Philo wants them to learn that all of this is already present in the holy writings of Moses and in all the persons and places that are mentioned on the literary level. The family of Abraham, with its many 23 This presumption of Philo is underlined by Maren Niehoff in “Writing a Commentary on a Philonic Allegorical Treatise,” 3–6 (SBL paper 2015): http://torreys.org/sblpapers2015/ DePlant.pdf.

204

Christian Noack

members, constitutes a part of a greater network of symbols which helps to provide orientation and to indicate the true path to joy, inner peace, and God-given freedom. Perhaps Philo also writes for himself and his family. Philo is reflecting and “apologizing” for his own way of intercultural learning (his fusion of Plato and Moses), and maybe that of his brother Alexander Lysimachus as well, who was a high official (Alabarch) in the fiscal administration in Egypt. Philo educated his nephew Tiberius Julius Alexander, who, after Philo’s death, became a high official in the Roman Army and who may have left behind his Jewish background. 24 It seems that Philo is trying to convince Alexander and similar Jewish men that the way into high offices in Alexandrian and Roman politics (including fame, influence, and pleasure), supported by a sophistic training which means departing from true philosophy and from the Jewish faith that is identical to true philosophy, is dangerous and leads to the death of the soul.

24 See G. Schimanowski, “Die jüdische Integration in die Oberschicht Alexandriens und die angebliche Apostasie des Tiberius Julius Alexander,” in Jewish Identity in the GrecoRoman World (Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 71; ed. J. Frey et. al.; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 111–135.

Part III Abraham’s Family in the New Testament

Abraham as “Forefather” and his Family in Paul Lukas Bormann 1. Introduction In developing his creative theology Paul often quotes scripture, refers to biblical figures and re-narrates biblical episodes to reinforce his theological position. He uses Adam, Abraham and Moses, and it is telling how often Paul refers to each of these figures: Adam, the first man, is mentioned five times in the undisputed Pauline letters and Eve once; Moses the lawgiver nine times; while Abraham, the father of faith, is referenced nineteen times, and even his wife Sarah is brought up twice. 1 It is quite clear that Abraham plays an important role in Paul’s thinking, but the exact sense in which Paul makes use of Abraham is presently quite heavily disputed. 2 While some scholars interpret Abraham as a role model for the theological concept of justification by faith, others, 1

See Kurt Aland, ed., Vollständige Konkordanz zum griechischen Neuen Testament (2 vols.; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1978 and 1983); 19 x ᾿Αβραάµ, Rom 4:1,2,3,9,12,13,16; 9:7; 11:1; Gal 3:6,7,8,9,14,16,18,29; 4:22; 2 Cor 11:22; 2x Σάρρα, Rom 4:19, 9:9; cf. Gal 4:23,26,30f: “the free (woman)”; Gal 4:26: “our mother”. 2 Dale C. Allison, “Abraham II. New Testament,” EBR 1 (2009): 156–62, esp. 159–60; Harold W. Attridge, “Abraham II. Neues Testament,” RGG 1 (1998): 74; Klaus Berger, “Abraham II. Im Frühjudentum und im Neuen Testament,” TRE 1 (1977): 372–82; Otto Betz, “᾿Αβραάµ,” EWNT 2 (1992): 3–7; Lukas Bormann, “Paul and the Patriarchs of the Hebrew Bible,” Rewritten Biblical Figures (ed. Erkki Koskenniemi and Pekka Lindqvist; Studies in Rewritten Bible 3; Åbo: Eisenbrauns, 2010), 181–96; Nancy Calvert-Koyzis, Paul, Monotheism and the People of God: The Significance of Abraham Traditions for Early Judaism and Christianity (JSNTSup 273; New York: T&T Clark, 2004); G. Walter Hansen, Abraham in Galatians: Epistolary and Rhetorical Contexts (JSNTSup 29; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989); Joachim Jeremias, “᾿Αβραάµ,” ThWNT 1 (1933): 7–9; Maria Neubrand, Abraham – Vater von Juden und Nichtjuden: Eine exegetische Studie zu Röm 4 (Forschung zur Bibel 85; Würzburg: Echter, 1997); Pheme Perkins, Abraham’s Divided Children: Galatians and the Politics of Faith (Harrisburg: Trinity Press, 2001); Friedrich E. Wieser, Die Abrahamvorstellungen im Neuen Testament (EHS 23/317; Bern: Lang, 1987); Benjamin Schliesser, Abraham’s Faith in Romans 4: Paul’s Concept of Faith in Light of the History of Reception of Genesis 15:6 (WUNT 224; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007); Jeffrey S. Siker, Disinheriting the Jews: Abraham in Early Christian Controversy (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster /John Knox Press, 1991).

208

Lukas Bormann

by contrast, emphasize the function of Paul’s Abrahamic rhetoric for his community-building strategy which aims to incorporate non-Jews into the people of God. 3 Two major representatives of these different views of Abraham in Paul’s letter to the Romans, Nicholas T. Wright and Jan Lambrecht, recently debated the function of Abraham in Rom 4. Wright emphasizes the community-building aim of Paul’s thoughts on the basis of his interpretation of Rom 4: “Abraham is ‘justified by faith’, not because he has believed in an abstract system of justification or soteriology, but because he has believed in the God who has made promises about his enormous multi-ethnic family.” 4

Lambrecht opposes this view and stresses that the justification of the sinner by faith is the key idea of Paul’s thinking, as represented in Rom 4. He draws the conclusion: “In Rom. 4.5 Paul deals with the justification through faith of the still uncircumcised and, according to vv. 6–8, sinful Abraham who in this way has become the father of all believers.” 5

As in this debate between Wright and Lambrecht, Abraham and Abraham’s family are core issues which return again and again in the dispute between the so-called new perspective on Paul – which sees Paul foremost as a missionary with conceptual theological ideas about integrating all people, Jews and non-Jews, into his community – and an interpretation which emphasizes Paul as a religious thinker with deep thoughts regarding the salvation of humankind and who considers Abraham as the first sinner justified by God’s grace. 6 These two different perspectives on Paul throw light on two different issues. With regard to Rom 4:1, one can concentrate the problem into an opposition of either “fatherhood” or “faith.” Was the main aim of Paul to integrate non-Jews into Abraham’s family – that is, God’s people – and therefore he further developed the ancient Jewish concept of “Abraham’s fatherhood”? Or was his main aim to demonstrate the overwhelming importance of Abraham’s faith to all of 3 See Heikki Räisänen, The Rise of Christian Beliefs: The Thought World of Early Christians (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010), 177–81; Michael Bachmann, ed., Lutherische und neue Paulusperspektive: Beiträge zu einem Schlüsselproblem der gegenwärtigen exegetischen Diskussion (WUNT 182; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005). 4 Nicholas T. Wright, “Paul and the Patriarch: The Role of Abraham in Romans 4,” JSNT 35 (2012): 207–41, 218. 5 Jan Lambrecht, “Romans 4: A Critique of N. T. Wright,” JSNT 36 (2013): 189–94, 194. 6 For the recent discussion see James D. G. Dunn, “A New Perspective on the New Perspective on Paul,” Early Christianity 4 (2013): 157–82.

Abraham as “Forefather” and his Family in Paul

209

humanity, Jews and non-Jews, and as a result of this insight he concluded that all believers should be integrated into the single family of Abraham? Besides this enduring controversy regarding the understanding of Rom 4, it is obvious that Paul’s letters had an enormous influence on the interpretation of Abraham as an inclusive tradition. In an epilogue to an important volume on Abraham, Martin Goodman quotes some passages from Gal 3:7–9, in particular the words “those who believe are the descendants of Abraham ... and blessed with Abraham who believed.” Goodman states that “Abraham as archetype of the faith of the Gentiles should have originated with Paul” and he further notes: “The search for the Jewish background to the teachings of Paul the Jew is entirely warranted, but just occasionally it emerges from this search that Paul’s message was original. It is not unreasonable to suggest that it was precisely this originality that led to the enduring influence of his work.” 7

The originality of both ideas, the inclusion of non-Jews through the paradigm of Abraham and the emphasis on Abraham as a sinner who was justified by grace through faith, is much more obvious than is suggested by the intense research devoted to the trajectories of Paul’s thinking and its origin in relation to his Hellenistic and Jewish heritage and influences. From a different point of view, Ronald Hendel has also stated that Paul’s interpretation was influential in the reception history of Abraham. Hendel also highlights the controversial aspects of Paul’s views on Abraham, labelling it a sort of “countermemory”: “The most influential countermemory of Abraham from the Second Temple period is that articulated by the Apostle Paul, for whom the followers of Christ are the true heirs of Abraham, ‘the children of the promise, like Isaac,’ and the non-Christian Jews are relegated to the status of Ishmael, ‘the children of slavery,’ a collateral lineage condemned to be cursed under the weight of the law (Galatians 3:6–18, 4:21–5:1).” 8

Challenged by these controversial interpretations, the following considerations will reflect on Paul’s use of Abraham’s family in both directions, the significant link of Paul’s thought to his Jewish and non-Jewish contemporaries, and the indications of originality and countermemory in his thoughts. 7 Martin Goodman, “Epilogue,” in Abraham, the Nations, and the Hagarites: Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Perspectives on Kinship with Abraham (ed. Idem, George H. van Kooten, and Jacques T. A. G. M. van Ruiten; Themes in Biblical Narrative 13; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 509–12, 512. 8 Ronald Hendel, Remembering Abraham: Culture, Memory, and History in the Hebrew Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 42.

210

Lukas Bormann

2. Abraham as propat¯or, “forefather” The letter to the Romans is commonly seen as the main source for the theology of Paul or even, as Eduard Lohse states, as “the sum of the Gospel.” 9 James Dunn calls it “the most sustained and reflective statement of Paul’s own theology by Paul himself.” 10 In this letter the apostle gives an almost comprehensive summary of his gospel and its impact, at least up to this point in his life and missionary work. The composition is more than merely a letter written to a congregation. The letter to the Romans is the result of a long ongoing process of reflection, conflict, and compromise. It is important to keep this in mind when searching for the interpretation of Abraham’s family in the letters of Paul.

2.1 Romans 4:1 The first words of the Abraham passage in Romans are programmatic and telling: “What then are we to say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? (Τί οὖν ἐροῦµεν εὑρηκέναι ᾿Αβραὰµ τὸν προπάτορα ἡµῶν κατὰ σάρκα·)” 11

Paul uses an inclusive we, in which the author associates himself with the recipients of the letter. 12 This “we” is related by Paul through a possessive adjective “our” to the “forefather” who is defined as “Abraham.” Because of the phrase “forefather according to the flesh,” some scholars interpret the “we” in this passage as referring only to Jewish members of the Jesus-movement, because only this group of people were allowed

9 Eduard Lohse, Der Brief an die Römer (KEK 4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003), 45–46. 10 James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Eerdmans: Cambridge, 2006), 25. 11 The proper meaning of the syntactical structure of Rom 4:1 is debated. Besides many disputed issues and even some text-critical challenges two problems should be addressed: 1. Is “according to the flesh” linked a) as an attribute to “forefather” or b) in an adverbial sense to “was gained”; 2. Is the interrogative pronoun “what” a) linked twice, namely to “what then are we to say” and “what did Abraham gain,” or b) only once to “what then are we to say”? With the translation above I have decided to follow interpretations 1a and 2a. For the recent discussion, see Michael Wolter, Der Brief an die Römer (EKK VI /1; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2014), 279; Schliesser, Abraham’s Faith in Romans 4, 321–27; Wright, “Paul and the Patriarch,” 225–31; Lambrecht, “Romans 4,” 191–93; Lohse, Brief an die Römer, 146–47; Ulrich Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer (EKK VI /1; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 31997), 260–61. 12 Samuel Byrskog, “Co-Senders, Co-Authors and Paul’s Use of the First Person Plural,” ZNW 87 (1996): 230–50, 249.

Abraham as “Forefather” and his Family in Paul

211

to be connected in such a way (“according to the flesh”) to Abraham. 13 However, Rom 4:1 is an interrogative clause and therefore much more open in its meaning than a declarative sentence such as Rom 9:3. In Rom 9:3 the phrase “my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh” is clearly referring to Jews through the attributes “brother” and “kinsmen,” as well as through the nearby context of Rom 9:1–5. Such contextual arguments are lacking in Rom 4:1. On the contrary, one cannot find any evidence or hint that Paul changes his attitude in using the 1. Pers. Pl. between Rom 3:28–31, the we-section immediately before Rom 4:1, and the verse itself. 14 So the “we” in Rom 4:1 includes all the addressees, Jewish and non-Jewish members of the Roman congregation alike. The Greek term for “forefather” is propat¯or (προπάτωρ). This rare word is used only here in the Pauline letters. As a result of the word’s singularity some manuscripts replaced the word “which occurs nowhere else in the New Testament” with “father.” 15 Paul starts his reflections on Abraham with a family term which relates him and his readers to their common ancestor Abraham. At the beginning of this passage Paul indicates a family, namely Abraham’s family, built up out of the “forefather” and the “we” – which here means all who agree with Paul’s views. The term propat¯or is worthy of closer examination, considering its prominent place at the beginning of Paul’s most thorough and comprehensive reflections on Abraham and Abraham’s family. The term “forefather” for Abraham is part of an introductory question which functions as a sort of headline of the ensuing passage of Rom 4:1–25. The term has to be understood as a reference to a sampling of meanings, which Paul will reduce or specify in the following thoughts: in which sense is Abraham “forefather” to both Paul and his reader? The answer to this question will be found in no less than six further occurrences of “father” in Rom 4:11–18. The term “forefather” receives its preliminary definition through the attribute “according to the flesh.” The most comparable use of this phrase is found in Rom 1:3 where the “son” (of God) is related to “David according to the flesh,” but is declared to be “son of God” “according to 13

See Siker, Disinheriting the Jews, 56–57. See the rule proposed by Byrskog, “Co-Senders, Co-Authors,” 233: “It is sometimes, however, impossible to be entirely certain to what extent ‘we’ includes the addressees or only Paul and his co-workers. In such cases the ruling principle is that ‘we’ does normally include all the addressees.” 15 Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 22000), 450. 14

212

Lukas Bormann

the spirit.” The use of “flesh” and “spirit” in Rom 1:3–4 is neither an opposition nor an escalation. Both attributes are complementary to what has to be said about the “son,” namely that he is both of Davidic descent and empowered by God. 16 Even when Paul forms a rhetorical phrase with both words, it is not necessary to understand “flesh” as in exclusive opposition to “spirit” but it can instead be read in a complementary sense. In Rom 4:1 we do not even find an opposition to flesh. The meaning of flesh in Paul is quite open: it includes both drastic polemical use, particularly in the anthropological opposition of flesh and spirit, as well as a more neutral meaning, in the sense of “human condition.” 17 Therefore the phrase “according to the flesh” in Rom 4:1 has to be understood in a neutral sense. In juxtaposition with “forefather” it then means something such as ‘in the ordinary sense of kinship.’ Additionally, the specification “according to the flesh” should not be interpreted as a biologically deterministic term for physical kinship, a reading which in itself is quite a modern concept. In antiquity kinship is not reduced to a physical lineage, but may be based also on adoption or on a determined decision to belong to a group of people. This decision can be expressed by adhering to the common convictions of such a group of people, taking up arms with this group, or following its behavior and laws. 18

16

Wolter, Brief an die Römer, 87–88. See Dunn, Theology of Paul, 62–70. Dunn criticizes more contemporary translations of sarx and decides to use “flesh” to point to its characteristic feature as a “technical and linking term in Paul’s letter” (70). 18 It is well known that Cicero emphasized that belonging to the Roman people was not only determined by birth, but also by adoption and the willingness to sacrifice and even die for the community (Cicero, Leges 2,5). See Werner Dahlheim, Gewalt und Herrschaft: Das Provinziale Herrschaftssystem der römischen Republik (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1977), 307–8. Recent research on ethnicity and ethnic identity in the ancient world demonstrates that the idea of belonging to a group of people was based more on behavior than lineage. For Rome, see Claudia I. Arno, How Romans Became “Roman”: Creating Identity in an Expanding World (PhD-Diss, University of Michigan, 2012), 12: “Ultimately, Cicero’s formulation of Roman ethnicity, Roman identity, and Roman behavior came to depend more on what an individual believed and did than on blood-lines – hardly surprising for a man who was himself an example of a “true Roman” by dint of conscious choice rather than of lineage.” On the concept of ethnicity in the ancient world see Lukas Bormann, “Griechen und Juden – Skythen und Barbaren: Ethnizität, kulturelle Dominanz und Marginalität im Neuen Testament,” Alternative Voices: A Plurality Approach for Religious Studies. Essays in Honor of Ulrich Berner (ed. Afe Adogame, Magnus Echtler and Oliver Freiberger; Critical Studies in Religion /Religionswissenschaft 4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 116–33, esp. 118–24; Jonathan M. Hall, Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997); Steve Mason, “Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient History,” JSJ 38 (2007): 457–512. 17

Abraham as “Forefather” and his Family in Paul

213

In Rom 4:1 the audience is confronted with the question of which characteristics of Abraham qualify him to be their “forefather” in the common sense of kinship. It should be noted that we are unable to say to what degree Paul’s audience was aware of the biblical story and the common understanding of Abraham at all. Pieter van der Horst states that “good knowledge of the biblical evidence ... remained restricted to only a handful of pagan intellectuals.” 19 Goodman also comes to the conclusion that “little was known about Abraham in the wider Gentile world in the centuries before Paul preached.” 20 It is similarly not easy to say to what degree Abraham was known to Paul’s audience and we should distinguish different levels of knowledge. 21 The attribute of Abraham as “forefather” signals to the reader that he will learn more about this in the following paragraph of the letter. However, most commentaries do not discuss this question and equate “forefather” with “father.” 22 The term propat¯or is not very common in our literature and has quite a broad meaning. Which meaning did the ancient reader conceptualize when the word was linked to Abraham as forefather? As a vital part of the introductory question to the whole chapter, the term propat¯or therefore deserves closer examination. This will ultimately lead to a deeper understanding of Paul’s concept of Abraham’s family.

2.2 Propat¯or in Ancient Greek Literature According to the Liddell and Scott lexicon a propat¯or is “the first founder of a family” and “ancestor of a tribe,” but also an “inventor of arts and sciences.” 23 From Franz Passow we learn that the term propat¯or in the singular can also be the kinship term “grandfather.” In the plural it is nearly exclusively used for “ancestors.” 24 This distinction between plural and singular, the first carrying a meaning of “ancestors” and the latter used for “forefather,” “first-father” and “grandfather” in the technical sense, can be illustrated by ancient Greek literature. 19 Pieter van der Horst, “Did the Gentiles Know Who Abraham Was?,” Abraham, the Nations, 61–75, 75. 20 Goodman, “Epilogue,” 511. 21 See Christopher D. Stanley, Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul (New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 178–80. 22 Lohse, Brief an die Römer, 145–47; Wilckens, Brief an die Römer, 260–61; Wolter, Brief an die Römer, 279–80. 23 H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 1494. 24 Franz Passow, Handwörterbuch der griechischen Sprache I (Darmstadt: WBG, 1970), 1148.

214

Lukas Bormann

The singular is found in Pindar’s Nemean 4.89. A certain Euphanes is praised as a model poet and as an “aged grandfather” (γεραιὸς προπάτωρ) who invented a certain technique of poetry. Herodotus refers in Histories 2.161 to Psammetichus, the great-grandfather of Apries, king of Egypt, as propat¯or and in 9.122 mentions a Persian aristocrat Artayctes who is related to his “grandfather” (προπάτωρ) Artembares. In Herodotus the meaning of propat¯or is most often ‘founder of an aristocratic lineage.’ The plural of propat¯or is also present in Herodotus, who describes the tomb of the “ancestors” (προπάτορες) of Apries in 2.169. The same meaning is found in Plato’s Laws 4.717e where the philosopher demands to have the same modest funeral as the propatores had. 25 However, quite often propat¯or is not the grandfather in an aristocratic kinship lineage but a more meaningful figure. It is common for a deity or a mythological figure to hold the attribute propat¯or as an epithet. In Sophocles’s Ajax 387 Zeus is named propat¯or: “O Zeus, forefather of the ancestors (ὦ Ζεῦ, προγόνων προπάτωρ).” An inscription which we will discuss in more detail below preserves a stoic-inspired treatise which also proclaims “Zeus (is) one forefather of all men.” 26 Dio Chrysostomos considers in his Discourse 39.8 how to make a “most efficacious appeal” for the welfare of the city. He decides to pray to the most important gods, calling them by their names and ending the list of gods with the phrase “and to all other gods.” However, he starts his list with the mythological founders of the city: “Accordingly I pray to Dionysos the forefather of this city and to Heracles who founded this city (εὔχοµαι δὴ τῷ τε ∆ιονύσῳ τῷ προπάτορι τῆσδε τῆς πόλεως καὶ ῾Ηρακλεῖ τῷ κτίσαντι τήνδε τὴν πόλιν).” The same title Dionysos propat¯or is found in a second-century inscription from Erythrea, also presented below. 27 The Corpus Hermeticum not only often calls the monotheistic “god” “father” but also sometimes propat¯or: 28 Corp. herm., fr. 23:10: “And God, the forefather, honored her with the name Nature. (καὶ ταυτὴν Φύσεως ὀνοµάτι ἐτίµησεν θεὸς ὁ προπάτωρ).” Corp. herm., fr. 2a:13: “that which was created by the forefather is able to keep the matter with truth (ὑπὸ δὲ τοῦ προπάτορος γενόµενα τὴν ὕλην δύναται ἀληθῆ ἐσχηκέναι).”

These ancient Greek literary sources demonstrate a conventional use of propat¯or as ‘ancestor.’ The word was often employed for aristocratic de25

See also Iamblichos, De Mysteriis 8. See below n. 43. 27 See below n. 46. 28 Corp. herm ap. Stob., 1.49.44 (=fr. 23.10); 3.11.31 (=fr 2a.13). 26

Abraham as “Forefather” and his Family in Paul

215

scent and was even used as an epithet for deities. Mythological founders of a city and model artists were also named propat¯or. To sum up, the word propat¯or was understood as a title with prestigious implications.

2.3 Propat¯or in Ancient Jewish Literature The Hebrew Bible uses ab (‫ )אב‬for “father” in a broad sense: father, grandfather, ancestor, and also forefather. In the Septuagint the Greek term propat¯or occurs only in 3 Macc, as an epithet for God himself: 3 Macc 2:21 (NRSV): “Thereupon God, who oversees all things, the first Father (προπάτωρ) of all, holy among the holy ones, having heard the lawful supplication, scourged him who had exalted himself in insolence and audacity.” 29

In the prologue to the book of Sirach, the translator refers to the author as “my grandfather Jesus” (ὁ πάππος µου ᾿Ιησοῦς). 30 Here the more conventional Greek term for grandfather, pappos, is used. In the Old Testament Apocrypha only the Testament of Abraham, in its revised format from the Byzantine period, refers to “forefathers.” 31 In his speech to Abraham who refuses to die, God proclaims: Test. Abr. 8:9 (trans. Allison): “Do you not know that all from Adam and Eve have died? Not even kings are immortal. Not one of the forefathers (οὐδεις ἐκ τῶν προπατόρων) has escaped the treasury of death.”

It is quite clear that the Greek word propat¯or as well as the Greek term for grandfather, pappos, can be found at the margins of the biblical tradition. The roots of the concept of ancestry referred to by the term propat¯or have to be found instead in the Hellenistic-Greek way of thinking. Josephus is fully aware that the conventional Greek term for “grandfather” is pappos. 32 In Ant. 8.155 he concludes his retelling of the events of Solomon’s reign with a scholarly remark on the name “Pharaoh” and here he calls Abraham pappos. The term Pharaoh, Josephus states, was used “many years before our forefather (πάππος) Abraham”. In Ant. 7.103 he 29 Cf. the translation of propat¯or by H. Anderson in James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 2 (2 vols.; New York: Doubleday 1983 and 1985), 519: “the supremely holy father.” 30 Sir. prol. 7. 31 Dale C. Allison, Testament of Abraham (Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2003), 40 and 186. 32 Josephus includes pappos approximately 25 times, see: Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, ed., Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus 3 (Leiden: Brill, 1979), 278–79: πάππος in Josephus, J. W. 1.433, 437, 525, 556–57, 561; Ant. 1.252, 280, 289, 296, 315; 2.113; 6.89; 7.113–14, 180, 270; 8.11, 155 (Abraham), 219, 393; 15.52, 222 (vl.); 19.274, 359.

216

Lukas Bormann

quotes Nicolaus of Damascus who tells of the kingly lineage of the rulers of Damascus and Syria and uses propat¯or in the sense of grandfather. In Ant. 17.75, where Herod remembers his ancestors so as to avoid their wrath, or in Ant. 19.123, where Josephus notes that the Roman nobleman Norbanus Balbus had many generals among his ancestors, he uses the term propat¯or. When it comes to aristocrats such as the Herodian family, this term seems to be the first choice. In Ant. 4.26 Moses delivers a speech to the rebel Korah about his brother Aaron’s role as priest. Moses, in the words of Josephus, points to the fact that neither wealth nor ancestry led to God’s decision to grant the priestly office to Aaron, but asserts it was “God’s free choice” (θεοῦ προαίρεσις). To make the point that Moses and Aaron are not different in their noble ancestry, Moses states that he and his brother Aaron had the same propat¯or. We find the nearest parallel to Rom 4:1 in J. W. 5.380, as part of the infamous speeches which Josephus held at the walls of Jerusalem during the Roman siege. In this speech Josephus names “Abraham our propat¯or” (᾿Αβραάµ προπάτωρ δὲ ἡµέτερος) and presents him in a paradigmatic function. By re-narrating Gen 12:10–20, which recounts the story of Abraham and Sarah in Egypt, he demonstrates that Abraham renounced violence and instead elected to lift his hands to God and pray when the Pharaoh took his wife Sarah from him. This deed of the forefather of the Jewish people is presented to the defenders of Jerusalem in the year 69 c. e. as an example of how to behave when faced with a superior power. Abraham the forefather was for Josephus an example of non-violence. In this case propat¯or is used to link a group of people, the Jewish defenders of Jerusalem, to their ancestor – not only linking by descent but first and foremost pointing to a common political and ethical model. To conclude, Josephus uses neither pappos nor propat¯or in a univocal sense. Pappos denotes mostly physical kinship relations, while propat¯or has a more broad sense in connection with ancestry in various respects. Josephus relates the term propat¯or more often to his elitist and aristocratic thinking. 33 The word propat¯or is for him a link to one of the main characteristics of a member of the elite, which, according to Goodman, includes “noble ancestry” alongside military glory and wealth. 34 However, most important is that Josephus had the idea that the figure of “Abraham 33 Josephus, Life, 1–2: “I am not only from priestly origin, but from the first ... the most eminent of its constituent classes ... . I am also from royal origin on my mother’s side.” 34 Martin Goodman, Rome and Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient Civilizations (London: Allen Lane, 2007), 330–52.

Abraham as “Forefather” and his Family in Paul

217

our propat¯or” could be presented as a model of behavior for Abraham’s descendants. In the writings of Philo, propat¯or is used in quite a different way, as a result of the more philosophical aims of the author. The nearest parallel to Rom 4:1, Josephus J. W. 5.380, and Ant. 8.155, is found in Quaestiones in Genesim 4.153. The passage concerns Gen 25:8, the report on Abraham’s death. The biblical phrase, and “he (Abraham) was gathered to his people” raises for Philo the question of what the term “people” (λαός) in Gen 25:8 means. Abraham is at the time of his death separated from his own pagan and idolatrous ancestors in Mesopotamia and, aside from his sons Isaac and Ishmael, no “people” actually existed. Philo gives both a literal and an allegorical explanation. In the literal meaning the scripture knows quite well that the “people” do not yet exist. However, the godlike virtues of Abraham allow the scripture to take for granted that these people will definitely come into being, because Abraham was seen as “origin and forefather of the race” (ἀρχὴ καὶ προπάτωρ τοῦ γένους). This is the literal meaning: the scripture calls Abraham propat¯or even when no “people” exist, because Abraham’s virtues guarantee the fulfillment of God’s promise. The allegorical meaning of Gen 25:8 is equally thought-provoking. Although not yet in existence and therefore invisible, the “people” are named in this passage of scripture as a way of demonstrating that the members of this group of people have truly come from God, who is himself invisible. Roughly the same explanation is thereby given to Abraham as propat¯or. According to Philo, he is named propat¯or to demonstrate that he is not the offspring of human beings but rather gains his heritage “from his divine Father and being without share in a mother or female line.” Both the Jewish people and their propat¯or Abraham are neither earthly nor irrational, but heavenly and rational as the soul itself. The importance of the term propat¯or is underlined by Philo with the somewhat dubious remark that the scripture itself calls him propat¯or several times – which is obviously not the case in our versions of the Septuagint: Philo QG 4.153 (Transl. Marcus): “And (Scripture) in another passage calls him ‘forefather’ (προπάτορα) but not ‘first-born’ inheriting all from his divine Father.”

The deep meaning which Philo assigns to propat¯or besides that of a physical lineage is also demonstrated in De opificio mundi, where the term is employed to express the quality of the relation between the first heavenly man and the second earthly one. In this tractate, Philo orients himself on Plato’s Timaeus which contains the Pythagorean concept of the creation of the world in a platonic form. It is one of Philo’s aims to show

218

Lukas Bormann

that the biblical report of creation matches well with the version given by Middle Platonism. Philo’s attempt was followed by the church fathers, who considered Plato’s Timaeus “a trump card for the view that Scripture and Greek philosophy were not in irreconcilable conflict.” 35 Philo wanted to convince his readers that Moses, the author of the Pentateuch, wrote reasonably and philosophically. 36 In Opif. 143 Philo explains the work of the “law of nature” (τῆς φυσέως νόµος) which is “reason” (λόγος). God had created the first and heavenly “man” (ἄνθρωπος) through “his own Reason” (τῷ ἑαυτοῦ λόγῷ) (139). This heavenly man lived with further heavenly beings near to God himself. The heavenly man was the prototype of the earthly “man” (=Adam). By creating the earthly man the beauty of the “first-made” heavenly man entered into the earthly realm (145). In this sense, the heavenly man is the typos of the earthly man and therefore is called by Philo his propat¯or, translated by Colson as “first father”: Philo, Opif. 145 (Transl. Colson): “It could not but be that his descendants, partaking as they did in the original form in which he was formed, should preserve marks, though faint ones, of their kinship with their first father (σῴζειν τοὺς τύπους τῆς πρὸς τὸν προπάτορα συγγενείας).”

It is quite important to understand that Philo uses the terminology of kinship, in particular the term propat¯or, to demonstrate the relationship between the world of ideas, in which the superior “first man” exists, and the material world, with its earthly man built up out of the four elements. 37 Philo does not discuss further how exactly this kinship between the heavenly and earthly men functions, but it is clear that it is not a physical lineage in the modern sense. It is, rather, an “idealistic” one, following the platonic concept of methexis, which states that ideas are entities totally and absolutely different from material objects, yet also in some way related to them. The term propat¯or is used to express a non-physical relation in terms of kinship, which means that the material object, the earthly man, demonstrates some characteristics of the ideal form, the heavenly man. In Life of Moses, Philo discusses Moses’s blessings to the twelve tribes of Israel and his death, as recorded in Deut 33–34. 38 According to Philo, Moses was a prophet and his blessings concerned the future. He believes 35 David T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the “Timaeus” of Plato (Philosophia antiqua 44; Leiden: Brill, 1986), 524. 36 Philo, Opif. 8 and 12. 37 Philo, Opif. 146. 38 Philo, Mos. 2.288–92.

Abraham as “Forefather” and his Family in Paul

219

that some of the prophecies of Moses were already fulfilled by the time of his own lifetime, whereas others were not. The fulfilment of some early prophecies demonstrates to Philo that it is wise to trust in the fulfilling of the remaining ones. 39 Moving on to Deut 34, Philo re-narrates the death of Moses in his middle-Platonic terms, by describing his death as the divide of the soul from the body. In passing away Moses overcomes his dual nature in order to move on to a unity of mind (νοῦς) “pure as the sunlight.” He is going “from earth to heaven.” In contrast to Abraham, Moses was not laid to rest “in the tomb of his forefathers” (ἐν τάφῳ τῶν προπατόρων) but is buried in an “exceptional monument, which no man has ever seen.” So comes to an end the life of “Moses, king, lawgiver, high priest, prophet.” Philo uses the term propat¯or sometimes in the quite conventional meaning of “ancestors.” However, he distinguishes between this conventional meaning of propat¯or, which is for him material and earthly, and a more philosophical one, which allows him to express the platonic idea of methexis and to connect it with the heavenly man and the sphere of the undivided mind.

2.4 Propat¯or in Inscriptions and Papyri Since the works of Adolf Deißmann it has become accepted that Greek inscriptions and contemporary non-literary papyri are often very helpful for the understanding of the language of Paul’s letters. 40 These sources aid in the comprehension of the more colloquial language of everyday life used by Paul, his co-workers and also his congregations. The papyri demonstrate quite clearly that the term pappos for grandfather is much more common than propat¯or, which may be used for grandfather but also carries the meaning “ancestors” in the plural. The overview given by Preisigke’s dictionary of Egyptian papyri and the supplement volumes presents more than 50 occurrences of pappos, but only a single reading for propat¯or – and a fragmented and uncertain one at

39

This passage is one of the few cases in which one can find such a thing as eschatology in Philo, see Peder Borgen, Philo of Alexandria: An Exegete for his Time (NovTSup 86; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 43; Lukas Bormann, Recht, Gerechtigkeit und Religion im Lukasevangelium (SUNT 24; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001), 86–87. 40 See Julien M. Ogereau, Paul’s Koinonia with the Philippians: A Socio-Historical Investigation of a Pauline Economic Partnership (WUNT 2/377; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 53–67.

220

Lukas Bormann

that. 41 This underscores the observation that the term propat¯or is not an everyday term, as pappos is. Only the Greek Magical Papyri, which lie on the border between literary and non-literary papyri, provide some evidence for propat¯or. These papyri present an overwhelming wealth of names for deities and propat¯or is used mostly in line with many other divine epithets: PGM 4.1988: “Have mercy on me, forefather, self-created father of the world (ἵλαθί µοι προπάτωρ, κόσµου πάτερ αὐτογένεθλε).” PGM 12.238: “Come to me as co-workers ..., because I will call ... the forefather of the gods, guardian and lord (ἔλθατέ µοι συνεργοί ... ὅτι µέλλω ἐπικαλεῖσθαι ... τὸν προπάτορα θεῶν, παντῶν ἐπόπτην καὶ κύριον).”

The epigraphic evidence provides a slightly different result to the papyri included in Preisigke’s dictionary. Whereas pappos is found in approximately 388 inscriptions provided by PHI, propat¯or is in comparison quite rare but is nonetheless used in at least 38 inscriptions between the 3rd century b. c. e. and the 3rd century c. e. 42 These inscriptions, as well as some others found beyond the PHI collection, demonstrate that propat¯or has a meaning which goes beyond family lineage. First, we find the combination of a divine figure with propat¯or several times. An inscription from Pisidia (150–200 c. e.) praises Zeus, in stoic terms influenced by Epictetus (50–138 c. e.), with the words: “for Zeus (is) one forefather of all men and one root of all humankind.” 43 Several inscriptions from Lindos on Rhodes (ca. 200 b. c. e.) name Helios, the mythological founder and main deity of the island, propat¯or. 44 However, a certain Kleonymos is also named “forefather (and priest) through the blessed lot of Helios.” 45 The evidence for Dionysos as propat¯or in a second-century inscription from Erythrea was already mentioned above, as it presents the same title as found in Dio Chrysostomos. The short and fragmentary inscription is a dedication to Dionysos: “For Dionysos, forefather.” 46 The titles Dionsysos propat¯or (180–192 c. e.) and Asclepios 41 Friedrich Preisigke, Wörterbuch der griechischen Papyruskunde 1 (Berlin: Selbstverlag, 1925–1931), 231 and 381. 42 PHI Searchable Greek Inscriptions (epigraphy.packhum.org), last update: November 1st, 2017. 43 SEG 47.1757 l. 10: εἷς γὰρ Ζεὺς πάντων προπάτωρ, µία δ᾽ ἀνδράσι ῥίζα. 44 Christian Blinkenberg, Lindos: Fouilles et recherches 1902–1914 II Inscriptions (2 vols.; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1941), 465h l. 6, 482 l. 3: προπάτορος ῾Αλίου. See Louis Robert, “Inscriptions d’Aphrodisias,” L’Antiquité Classique 35 (1966): 377–432, esp. 417 n. 1: “προπάτωρ un dieu, le plus souvent pour l’ancêtre d’une cité”. 45 Idem, 698 ll. 13–4: καὶ προπάτωρ πάλωι αἰσίωι ᾿Η . ελίοιο. 46 BCH 4.157: [∆ιό]νυσω προπάτο[ρι].

Abraham as “Forefather” and his Family in Paul

221

propat¯or (102–117 c. e.) are used in inscriptions from Ephesus. 47 In Thyathira (2nd to 3rd century c. e.) the deity Thyrimnos or Helios Pythios Thyrimnos Apollos is named as propat¯or. 48 Secondly, some inscriptions name mythological founding figures as propat¯or: an inscription from Thera describes Peleus alongside the propat¯or Pheres. 49 In Halicarnassos, a late Hellenistic funerary inscription (1st century b. c. e.) lauds the “founder of the family” of the Antheadai and calls the one, who buried a woman of the family in the tomb, a propat¯or. 50 In Sinope it is “Perseus the forefather” who is referenced (2nd to 3rd century c. e.). 51 In Phrygia an inscription honors the mythological founding figure Chromion, also mentioned in Homer, as propat¯or: “The people of the Mysian Abbaiteans honor their forefather Chromion.” 52 Thirdly, in imperial times historical personalities are also praised as propat¯or. A certain Rufus did so on a funerary inscription from Pontus. This Rufus built a tomb for his descendants and praised himself as propat¯or by including at the beginning of his family’s funerary inscription the words: “Rufus, who was forefather of his own family.” 53 An undated epitaph from Rome combines pappos with propat¯or in giving honor to a “grandfather and forefather of lineage.” 54 Both propat¯or and pappos are at times used as personal names, as one can see in several inscriptions from Stratonikeia which mention a “Zeus Chrysaoreios Propat¯or” who served as a priest for twenty years. 55 Again, both the non-literary papyri and the inscriptions illustrate the conventional meaning of propat¯or as ancestor. The epigraphic material more obviously presents the prestigious implications of the term propat¯or.

47 SEG 4.522 ll. 5–7: οἱ τοῦ προπάτορος θεοῦ ∆ιονύσου Κορησείτου σακηφόροι µύσται. SEG 4.521 ll. 1–2: τῷ προπάτορι ᾿Ασκληπιῷ. 48 TAM V /2.935 ll. 22–23: τοῦ προπάτορος θεοῦ Τυρίµνου, 976 ll. 4–5: τοῦ προπάτορος θεοῦ ῾Ηλίου Πυθίου Τυριµναίου ᾿Απόλλωνος, cf. TAM V /2.926 ll. 3–4, 946 ll. 4–6, 956 ll. 5–8, 984 ll. 10–11, 997 ll. 3–6, 1000 ll. 4–6, 1025 ll. 1–3. 49 IG XII /3 868 l. 10: ὡς Πηλεὺς ὡς προπάτωρ [τ]ε Φέρης. 50 SEG 30.1261 ll. 17–19: καὶ κτιστῶν γένος εἷλκον ἀπ᾽ ᾿Αν[θεαδῶν περιφήµων], πατρὸς ἐπεὶ προπάτωρ Πι[νδάρου ἐσθλοτάτου] τὴν ᾿Ανδροσθένεος ∆ιοµήδη[ς γῆµεν ᾿Αρίστην]. 51 SEG 30.1455 l. 5: καὶ προπ[άτωρ] Περσεύς. 52 Homer, Iliad 17.218. 534; OGI 446 l. 1: ῾Ο δῆµος ὁ Μυσῶν ᾿Αββαειτῶν ἐ[τίµης]εν τὸν προπάτορα Χρόµιον. 53 John G. C. Anderson, Franz Cumont and Henri Grégoire, Studia Pontica 3: Recueil des inscriptions grecques et latines du Pont et de l’Arménie (Brussels: Lambertin, 1910), 103 l. 2: ῾Ροῦφος, ἐὼν προπάτωρ τῆς ἰδίης γενεῆς. 54 IG XIV 1437 l. 8: πάππος µὲν γενεῆς προπάτωρ. 55 BCH 11.32 l. 9: τοῦ προπάτορος ∆ιὸς Χρυσαορείου. Cf. BCH 62.269.

222

Lukas Bormann

It is used as an epithet for deities and mythological figures, as well as to denote aristocratic lineage.

2.5 The Significance of Propat¯or in Romans 4 Paul’s use of propat¯or in Rom 4:1 is significant and can be considered telling for his idea of Abraham’s family. The term signals that the relationship between “forefather” and the people belonging to him is constructed not only on criteria of physical lineage, but includes also many other ways of belonging. The Greek term propat¯or can name a “grandfather” in a physical sense, but the analysis of the evidence of inscriptions and papyri has demonstrated that the Greek term pappos is most often used for this position in a family network. Propat¯or denotes a somewhat different set of relationships. The propat¯or is most often a nearly mythological figure or even a deity. Furthermore, it is sometimes used to denote a mythological figure invented by a group of people, a Greek city or an ethnic group, in order to provide them with a more impressive lineage. All Jewish authors discussed above are dependent on the Greek language for their use of this terminology. The term propat¯or has no biblical equivalent. Josephus primarily makes use of its colloquial meaning of ancestors because he is interested in the noble ancestry of his figures. Additionally, Josephus may even help us to a better understanding of the Pauline phrase “according to the flesh.” When it comes to Maccabean ancestry, Josephus demonstrates the concept of a relatively loose genealogical line between the invented forefather Hasmon and his descendants. Josephus may therefore even support an interpretation of the Pauline phrase “according to the flesh” in Rom 4:1 as “in common understanding.” In Ant. 12.265 Josephus introduces Mattathias the father of the five Maccabees as grandson of Symeon and great-grandson of Hasmon: “Mattathias, the son of Joannes, the son of Symeon, the son of Assmonaios (ὄνοµα Ματταθίας, υἱὸς ᾿Ιωάννου τοῦ Συµεῶνος τοῦ ᾿Ασαµωναίου).” Also in 1 Macc 2:1 we find the same genealogical information, that Mattathias is the grandson of Symeon: “Mattathias, the son of Joannes, the son of Symeon (Ματταθιας υἱὸς Ιωαννου τοῦ Συµεων).” In J. W. 1.36, however, Mattathias is introduced as “Matthias, the son of Hasmon (Ματθίας γοῦν υἱὸς ᾿Ασαµωναἰου).” The concept of taking the (invented) forefather of a family as the father of all members of the family is expressed by calling a fourth-generation male descendant like Mattathias a son of the forefather. The claim of descent from a propat¯or can also be demonstrated by

Abraham as “Forefather” and his Family in Paul

223

phrases which include the names of the forefathers, such as “the (sons) of Hasmon” (οἱ [ἀπ᾽] [ἐξ] ᾿Ασαµωναίου [παῖδες]) or the “Hasmonean line” (ἡ ᾿Ασαµωναίου γενεά or τὸ ᾿Ασαµωναίου γένος). 56 Josephus himself claims to be of Hasmonean descent. 57 However, the statement of descent from Hasmon carries for Josephus a rhetorical function, rather than asserting a biological fact. Philo is aware of the conventional meaning of the term but is not interested in kinship lineage. Moses was not laid to rest by his ancestors, according to Deut 34:6, and Philo therefore narrates the death of Moses through his philosophical views as a soul ascending to heaven. In the cases of Adam and Abraham, Philo goes a step further in transcending the meaning of propat¯or. He leaves behind the meaning of a physical kinship, which in Philo’s eyes is inferior to a philosophical meaning. You can call someone propat¯or even though their children do not yet exist, being granted the title instead for their godlike virtues, as is the case in QG 4.153. In Philo we saw that propat¯or can also be part of a totally different idea of relationship, as seen in the platonic methexis of a physical entity (the earthly man) on non-physical ideas (heavenly man). Even the platonic idea of methexis, which means the connection between timely empirical entities and eternal non-empirical ideas, can be expressed with the word propat¯or. While Josephus holds on to the idea of physical kinship but is eager to expand or even manipulate it for rhetorical and political purposes, Philo and Paul relativize the impact of physical lineage. 58 Philo may hold the position that physical lineage is important and even irreplaceable, but he demands additionally some deeper interpretation of this concept through philosophy. 59 Paul is more radical in suspending the importance of kinship and even of circumcision, and instead demands “faith” as irreplaceable criterion for belonging to Abraham’s family and to be a descent from Abraham, the forefather in the common understanding (“according to the flesh”).

56

Josephus, Life 2; Ant. 14.490–91; 15.403; 16.187. Josephus, Life 2; Ant. 16.187. 58 Klaus Haacker, “Die Geschichtstheologie von Röm 9–11 im Lichte philonischer Schriftauslegung,” NTS 43 (1997): 209–22, 211–16. 59 Mireille Hadas-Lebel, Philo of Alexandria. A Thinker in the Jewish Diaspora (Studies in Philo of Alexandria 7; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 95; Torrey Seland, Establishment Violence in Philo and Luke: A Study in Nonconformity to the Torah and Jewish Vigilante Reactions (BibInt 15; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 74. 57

224

Lukas Bormann

In Rom 4:11–18 the term “father” is used six times to describe Abraham. The simple “father” is now an explanation similar in a way to how “forefather” in Rom 4:1 has to be understood. Abraham is seen by Paul in Rom 4:11 as “the father of all who believe” and in v. 12 “the faith of our father Abraham” is praised. Now the audience of Paul’s letters understands that the criteria which determine belonging to the “forefather” Abraham are neither physical lineage nor behavior according to Jewish customs, rather belief in the promises and the grace of God. In Rom 4:12 Abraham is additionally called “father of circumcision,” which means father of the Jewish people. However, this fatherhood is further explained by naming “faith” as a limiting condition: Rom 4:12 (NRSV): “likewise the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was uncircumcised.”

For Paul it is most important that Abraham is the “father of all of us” (4:16: πατὴρ πάντων ἡµῶν). As an argument for this inclusive understanding of the fatherhood of Abraham he twice quotes the words “father of many nations” (πατὴρ πολλῶν ἐθνῶν) from Gen 17:5 in Rom 4:17–18. Paul knows quite well that his theological idea of the inclusion of non-Jews into the offspring of Abraham is, as Goodman puts it, “original.” It also stands in tension with what readers of the Holy Scripture of Israel may expect and is therefore considered, as Hendel calls it, “countermemory.” 60 Paul, therefore, underlines this exceptional claim to God’s might demonstrated through creation by concluding that the integration of non-Jews into Abraham’s family is the deed of God the creator “who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the thing that does not exist” (4:17), which means nothing less than creatio ex nihilo. Propat¯or in the sense demonstrated above is a term useful for building a family network based on criteria other than mere physical kinship. This open meaning of propat¯or also influences the six occurrences of pat¯er in Rom 4:11–18. For Paul, Abraham is the mythological inventor of faith and can be seen as the “father of all of us” as well as the “father of many nations” (4:16–17; cf. Gen 17:5), but Abraham also remains the “father of the circumcision” (Rom 4:12) and the father of the family of the “adherents of the law” (v. 16). For this argumentative purpose, the family terminology is helpful for the naming of relationships which are both very close and which also go 60

See above n. 7 and 8.

Abraham as “Forefather” and his Family in Paul

225

beyond kinship. Abraham as “forefather” and the people related to this “forefather” as his “seed” are more flexible terms than the kinship-orientated terminology which Paul uses for himself in his autobiographical remarks in Phil 3:3b–6. In first-century Judaism, the concept of ancestry, and of genealogy, was quite clear and fixed. The most important element was to belong to one of the twelve tribes, which had the sons of Jacob as ancestors. Jacob was also named “Israel” (Gen 32:28) and therefore Jacob /Israel and his twelve sons /tribes dominated the discourse of Jewish ancestry. Abraham as a father and patriarch was a more problematic figure but also a much more interesting one, especially for inventions such as Paul’s idea regarding the integration of non-Jews or Philo’s interpretation that Abraham is the first who believed in God and therefore should be seen as the father of the proselytes. 61 The lineage down from Jacob /Israel was fixed through affiliation to a tribe, as one can see in Paul himself who references his belonging to the tribe of Benjamin, when his Jewish ancestry is challenged (Rom 11:1; Phil 3:5). Paul can also refer to his descent from Abraham through the term “seed of Abraham” (Rom 11:1; 2 Cor 11:22). In the letter to the Philippians he states his “confidence in flesh,” his Jewishness in common understanding: Phil 3:5:“circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee.”

According to Paul’s self-presentation in Phil 3:5, Abraham would not be seen as all too impressive a figure. Not a single of these characteristics of Paul’s would after all apply to Abraham: Abraham was not circumcised on the eighth day, he was 99 years old when he was eventually circumcised. He was neither from the people of “Israel” nor a member of one of the tribes, since Jacob /Israel was his grandson. He was not a son of Hebrews, but a son of non-Jewish idolaters. He could not have followed the law, since the law was given to God’s people on Mount Sinai a few hundred

61 Philo, Virt. 216–19; Abr. 268; Her. 94–95. For the place of proselytes in Philo’s thinking, see Ellen Birnbaum, The Place of Judaism in Philo’s Thought: Israel, Jews, and Proselytes (BJS 290; Atlanta, 1996), 229: “Because he believes that one need not be a Jew to embark upon the path to God, Philo is potentially universalist in his thought, as we have seen. In his life, however, his participation in and concern for the political and social community of the Jews are unmistakably particular.”

226

Lukas Bormann

years after his death. All these issues named above were broadly discussed in ancient Judaism. 62 However, it is not a situation of either /or, with regard to tribal affiliation and the heritage of Abraham. Nonetheless, the claim of descent from one of the twelve tribes is much more restricted than the claim to Abraham. The term “Abraham’s seed” is applied by Paul to all members of the Pauline congregations in Gal 3:29, but he never does relate the attributes of the twelve tribes to them. Therefore it is quite clear that Abraham the forefather is a patriarch in a different way than Jacob. The Abrahamic tradition is more open to a rephrasing of the terms of ancestry than Jacob and the tradition for tribal ancestry is. This is then exactly what Paul does. He reinterprets Abraham as propat¯or, which means as the inventor and mythological figure behind the pat¯er Jacob /Israel, who in turn is so important for claims of kinship. By using the Greek term propat¯or in Romans 4:1 Paul lays out in a nutshell what his interest in Abraham is: to re-write, re-narrate and re-work the criteria of belonging to Abraham’s family, that is, the people of God.

3. Abraham’s Family in Paul The basic idea of Paul’s understanding of Abraham’s family is that Abraham as propat¯or is the founder of a network of people who are connected to each other through what he called “faith.” Based on this assumption, Paul uses his idea of Abraham’s family, together with the mental concept of family, to address more controversial issues. Paul’s family of Abraham is, like every family, not without conflicts. To deal with conflicts Paul uses some more parts of Abraham’s traditional family network. When debating in contentious situations, Paul quite often invents binary oppositions, such as “flesh” against “spirit.” In the case of Abraham’s family tradition, the conflicts concern the criteria for belonging to the people of God. When this debate occurs Paul uses somewhat contentious family relations 62 Philo was convinced that Abraham and the other patriarchs had incorporated the law into their lives (Abr. 5). Abraham’s knowledge of Torah was also a matter of dispute in rabbinical circles. According to bYoma 28b Rabh said: “Abraham carried out the entirety of the Torah ... one the written, the other the oral, part of the Torah.” See also: Günter Stemberger, “Art. Abraham. III. Judaism. B. Rabbinic Judaism,” in EBR 1 (2009): 168–72; Anke Mühling, “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), 362–63.

Abraham as “Forefather” and his Family in Paul

227

for his rhetorical purposes and modifies these into binary oppositions: Hagar against Sarah, Isaac against Ishmael, and also Jacob against Esau. None of these family oppositions is used in Rom 4 where Paul is more interested in presenting a well-structured family, with Abraham the father of faith as propat¯or at its foundational center.

3.1 Names of Abraham’s Family As mentioned above, Abraham is by far the most commonly used biblical name in Paul’s letters. 63 Besides a reference in 2 Cor 11:22 (“seed of Abraham”; σπέρµα ᾿Αβραάµ), the occurrences of ‘Abraham’ are concentrated in four chapters of Paul’s letters: Rom 4 and 9 and Gal 3–4. This is also the case with the members of Abraham’s family: Isaac, 64 Sarah, 65 Hagar, 66 Jacob, 67 Esau 68 and Rebecca. 69 Ishmael is not referred to by name in Paul’s letters, but Paul twice uses the phrase “the one by the slave woman.” 70 The wives of Jacob – Leah and Rachel – and their handmaids Bilhah and Zilpah are missing. It is also worth noting that Jacob is only mentioned within quotations from the Old Testament. The only son of Jacob named is Benjamin, to whom Paul refers by expressing his own family background and identifying himself as part of “the tribe of Benjamin.” 71 This is also the only name from the family of Abraham used outside the four chapters mentioned, Rom 4 and 9 and Gal 3–4. Taking into consideration that besides Benjamin no other sons of Jacob are named in Paul, we are given the impression that Paul avoids this part of Abraham’s family. His own insistence on his descent from “the tribe of Benjamin” is quite telling, since in both cases he renounces the impact of this descent. In Phil 3:7–8 he calls it a “loss” and “rubbish.” In Rom 11:1 he mentions his own descent from “the tribe of Benjamin” to demonstrate that he himself represents the “remnant” (v. 5), the part of God’s people which “shall be saved” (v. 26). That belonging to one of the twelve tribes 63

See above n. 1. 3x ᾿Ισαάκ, Rom 9:7,10; Gal 4:28; cf. Gal 4:22 f, 30–31: “son.” 65 See above n. 1. 66 2x ῾Αγάρ, Gal 4:24 f; cf. 4:23–24, 30–31: “slave woman.” 67 2x; ᾿Ιακώβ, Rom 9:13 = Mal 1:1–2, Rom 11:26 = Isa 59:20–21; cf. Rom 9:12 = Gen 25:23: “the younger,” ὁ ἐλάσσων. Rom 11:26 quotes Isa 59:20–21 where “Jacob” has the meaning “people of Israel.” 68 1x ᾿Ησαύ, Rom 9:13 = Mal 1:1–2; cf. Rom 9:12 = Gen 25:23: “the older,” ὁ µείζων. 69 1x ῾Ρεβέκκα, Rom 9:10. 70 0x ᾿Ισµαήλ, Gal 4:22–23, 30–31: “by the slave woman,” ἐκ τῆς παιδίσκης. 71 2x Βενιαµίν, Rom 11:1; Phil 3,5: “of the tribe of Benjamin,” ἐκ φυλῆς Βενιαµίν. 64

228

Lukas Bormann

of Israel expresses a kinship lineage is for Paul no longer in and of itself of decisive relevance. Both Jacob /Israel and the twelve tribes were ignored or even suppressed by Paul because of their implications for kinship. Paul is much more interested in the inclusive figure of Abraham than in the more exclusive tradition of Jacob /Israel and his sons. Abraham the propat¯or stands above all those other members of his family as the inclusive and paradigmatic figure, used by Paul to express the network of God’s people in terms of a newly constructed and creatively invented presentation of Abraham’s family as a network of faith.

3.2 Biblical References to Abraham’s Family Before analyzing the biblical references to Abraham’s family in Rom 4 and 9 and Gal 3–4, some remarks about the nature of biblical quotations in Paul’s letters are necessary. In the debate about the use of scripture in the New Testament one finds two main camps. Some scholars see a limited impact of scriptural references on the specific wording quoted or alluded to by Paul. From this point of view, Paul’s use of scripture is atomistic and arbitrary. Paul subjugates scripture as part of his rhetorical and theological aims. 72 Other scholars, however, are convinced that a quotation or allusion to a biblical text brings the whole biblical section to mind for both author and reader. The whole section therefore becomes a more or less integral part of the textual message. 73 Although I would not agree that Paul uses scripture arbitrarily, I cannot follow interpretations which in their analysis of Paul gives equal weight to the whole context of a quotation, sometimes even allowing this to dominate the meaning of Paul’s writings. The most striking examples of this are the two obviously contradictory interpretations of the same words from Gen 15:5 “seed of Abraham.” On the one hand, Paul states in Gal 3:16 that “seed” means 72 This was the view of Rudolf Bultmann, “Weissagung und Erfüllung,” in Glaube und Verstehen 2 (ed. Idem; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1952), 162–86. In recent research this position is further developed by Dietrich-Alex Koch, Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus (BHT 69; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986). 73 One of the foremost proponents of this scholarly tradition was C. H. Dodd, According to the Scripture (London: Fontana, 1952), 126: “particular verses or sentences were quoted from them rather as pointers to the whole context than as constituting testimonies in and for themselves ... . But in the fundamental passages it is the total context that is in view, and is the basis of the argument.” This view was taken up in a modernized way by Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 24.

Abraham as “Forefather” and his Family in Paul

229

a single person, Christ (“that is one person, who is Christ alone”), on the other, in Rom 4:18 “seed” is interpreted as many people (“many nations”).When Paul alludes to or quotes Scripture his interest is in most cases focused on the exploitation of the wording of the quotation for his theological purposes and in this sense it is both atomistic and arbitrary. The biblical references used by Paul in Rom 4 are quite limited in scope. Romans 4 is interested in Gen 15:5–6 and 17:5–6, 17 with reference to Gen 18:18 and an extensive quote of Ps 31:1–2. 74 In Rom 9:6–13 the scriptural references point to the family narrative in Gen 21 (Sarah and Hagar) and Gen 25 (Jacob and Esau). 75 However, the main interpretative scriptural quotation is from Mal 1:1–2. In Gal 3 one can find a broader use of scripture which includes passages with a halachic meaning, such as Deut 27:26 and Lev 18:5. 76 Galatians 4:21–31 mostly has the episode of the expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael in Gen 21 in mind. 77 However, the extensive quote of Isa 54:1 in Gal 4:27 is of great importance for Paul’s interpretation, as he argues that the marginalized ones (“the children of the desolate woman”) will overcome the established ones (“the children of the one who is married”). Although the decisive arguments for Paul’s interpretation are based on quotes from the prophets, it is not the scriptural references as such which determine Paul’s line of argumentation. It is, rather, his religious or theological conviction about faith which leads him to state that Hagar, Ishmael and Esau, the more negative line of Abraham’s family, are the ancestors of Paul’s opponents, and that the Sarah, Isaac and Jacob line, the more positive line of Abraham’s family, are the ancestors of the Pauline congregations. 78

3.3 Paul’s Rhetorical and Theological Aim When Paul preaches his gospel and teaches to his communities he is able to fulfil these main aims of his mission without debating Abraham and his family. Likewise, when it comes to the unity of the Pauline congregations, 74 Rom 4:3/Gen 15:6; Rom 4:7–8/Ps 31:1–2; Rom 4:9,11/Gen 15:6; Rom 4:10/Gen 17:10–11; Rom 4:13/Gen 18:18; Rom 4:17/Gen 17:5–6; Rom 4:18/Gen 15:5; Rom 4:19/Gen 17:17; Rom 4:23/Gen 15:6. 75 Rom 9:7/Gen 21:12; Rom 9:9/Gen 18:10,14; Rom 9:12/Gen 25:23; Rom 9:13/Mal. 1:2–3. 76 Gal 3:6/Gen 15:6; Gal 3:8/Gen 12:3; 18:18; Gal 3:10/Deut 27:26; Gal 3:11/Hab 2:4; Gal 3:11/Lev 18:5; Gal 3:13/Deut 27:26; 21:23; Gal 3:16/Gen 13:15; 17:8; 24:7. 77 Gal 4:22/Gen 16:5; 21:2,9; Gal 4:23/Gen 17:16; Gal 4:27/Isa 54:1; Gal 4:29/Gen 21:9; Gal 4:30/Gen 21:10. 78 Koch, Schrift als Zeuge, 314–15.

230

Lukas Bormann

Paul is not forced to discuss Abraham’s family. Faced with the challenge of divisions into factions (1 Cor 1:10; 11:18; 12:25: σχίσµα), Paul presents and modifies the ancient parable of the body and its members (Rom 12:4–2; 1 Cor 12:12–27), not to mention his many exhortations to unity (e. g. Phil 2:2). 79 Neither Paul’s gospel nor the unity of his congregations is at stake when he is debating Abraham and his family, rather a concern for the more distinct issue of belonging to the people of God. Since Paul emphasizes that “faith” and specifically “faith in Christ” is the key for admission to the people of God, he is at times forced to address questions which arise regarding Israel, the covenant, the promises of God to his people, and the Torah. In these debates regarding belonging to Abraham’s family, in other words to the people of God, we can distinguish between the more reflective and the more polemical. In Rom 4 and Gal 3 one finds a more reflective, somewhat scholarly or scriptural view on the impact of faith, grace, promise, and spirit for the building of Abraham’s family. The debate concerning Abraham and his family reaches its peak in Rom 4:16–17 with the inclusive result: “He is the father of us all ... . He is our father.” In Gal 3 the same idea is expressed from the perspective of the children, v. 29: “you are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise.” Both reflections are concentrated on the attempt to include “all who believe” into Abraham’s family. The reflective or scriptural debates conclude with the thesis presented as approved: Abraham is the father of all members of the Pauline congregations and they all are Abraham’s seed. The more contentious debates in Rom 9:6–12 and Gal 4:21–31 are structured by Paul in harsh and binary oppositions which result in an exclusionary rhetoric. It is worth noting that in Gal 3–4 the kinship terms are chosen from the perspective of the descendants, while the terminology of fatherhood, particularly the title “father” is lacking. In the letter to the Romans, Paul argues from the position of Abraham as a father, but in Galatians from the position of the children, particularly in Gal 4 where “son” and “child” are used repeatedly. 80 In Rom 9:10 Paul concludes not only with the inclusive claim that “Isaac (is) our father” but also adds an excluding rhetorical statement. He quotes Gen 25:23 and Mal 1:2–3 to express that there is a slave-master relation between the two groups: the one loved by God, the other one hated. 79 80

Livius, Ab urbe condita 2.32,8–12. Gal 4:21–31: υἱός (4x); τέκνα (4x).

Abraham as “Forefather” and his Family in Paul

231

Rom 9:12–13 (NRSV): “‘The older will serve the younger’ (Gen 25:23). Just as it is written: ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated’ (Mal 1:2–3).”

It is somewhat debated whether Gal 5:1 should be drawn to Gal 4:21–30, which would give the passage a more conciliatory ending. 81 However, the end of the debate about Abraham’s family clearly comes in vv. 30–31, which again makes use of an exclusionary rhetoric by presenting the scriptural claim “Get rid of them,” implying that in the end the two groups of freemen and slaves will face each other: Gal 4:30–31 (NRSV): “But what does Scripture say? ‘Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son.’ (Gen. 21:10) Therefore, brothers and sisters, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.”

From Paul’s rhetoric, it appears that these two groups stand against each other in an un-conciliatory way. It is – Paul implies here polemically – an either /or situation. 82 However, it should also be noted that he does not plainly state that the “children of the slave woman” refer to a specific ethnic, religious or congregational group who should be thrown out. 83 As in some other cases of his polemics, Paul here, in the words of Räsiänen, “stops short of drawing the conclusion that seems to follow from his argument.” 84

4. Conclusion Paul’s view of Abraham’s family was on the one hand well-informed, in terms of knowledge of the biblical narrative and its previous interpretations in ancient Judaism, and at the same time also turned many important implications of this narrative upside down. The Greek term propat¯or (Rom 4:1) is the key to understanding Paul’s rhetorical aims and theological convictions. The literary and non-literary evidence in ancient 81 Angela Standhartinger, “‘Zur Freiheit ... befreit’? Hagar im Galaterbrief,” EvT 62 (2002): 288–303. 82 Michael Wolter, Paulus: Ein Grundriss seiner Theologie (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2011), 417–24; Marlies Gielen, “‘Ihre Kinder seid ihr’: Die Erzmutter Sara in der neutestamentlichen Rezeption,” Sara lacht ... Eine Erzmutter und ihre Geschichte: Zur Interpretation und Rezeption der Sara-Erzählung (ed. Rainer Kampling; Paderborn: Schöningh, 2004), 131–56. 83 See Hansen, Abraham in Galatians, 150: v. 30a is “a command to Gentile, Galatian Christians to expel the Jewish-Christian troublemakers.” 84 Räisänen, Rise of Christian Beliefs, 181.

232

Lukas Bormann

Greek sources provided above demonstrates that the term was often used for mythological founders and deities, and includes more prestigious implications than simply “father” (pat¯er) or “grandfather” (pappos). Paul uses the concept of propat¯or to make the claim that Abraham is more important than Jacob /Israel, the father of the twelve sons, who became the eponymous founders of the twelve tribes of Israel. When Paul refers to Abraham as propat¯or, he goes beyond the tribal kinship model, which he knows well as demonstrated by his own references to his lineage as part “of the tribe of Benjamin” (Rom 11:1; Phil 3:5). The idea of Abraham as propat¯or and the portrayal of the members of Paul’s congregations as “children of Abraham” and “Abraham’s seed” (Gal 3:7,29) are crucial for Paul’s aim, which is to construct and invent a family of Abraham on his own terms. Paul’s family bonds are not entirely new, as faith and promise also played an important role in previous interpretations of Abraham. However, to abandon the conviction of common ancestry from the tribes of Israel and to trust in faith alone is ‘original.’ To sum up Paul’s notion of Abraham’s family three topics have to be addressed. 1. “Abraham’s family”: Paul concentrates on Abraham as forefather of faith, as the dominating member, head, and foundational center of the network of his family. Abraham has an inclusive meaning which integrates all those “who believe.” In this attempt at redefinition Paul disregards the tribal definition of Israel through Jacob /Israel and his twelve sons. In controversies Paul makes use of the relationships of two family members (Hagar – Sarah, Isaac – Ishmael, Jacob – Esau) by presenting them as binary oppositions with an exclusionary function. Although it is worth noting that Paul himself never explicitly draws such excluding conclusions, nearly all commentators, both in church history and also most modern scholars, interpret Paul’s words in this exclusionary way and read it as “countermemory” to the common view of Abraham in ancient Judaism. 85 2. Paul’s attitude to the biblical pretext (Gen 12–13): Paul is wellinformed and even well-trained in Scripture, quoting it by heart and juggling many interpretations of Abraham’s family. His own interpretation is dominated by his effort to find an eschatological and communityrelated meaning in Scripture, as one can see in Rom 4:23–24: “The words [Gen 15:6] were written not for his [Abraham’s] sake alone, but for ours also.” (cf. 1 Cor 9:10) This eschatological and community-oriented read-

85

See above n. 2.

Abraham as “Forefather” and his Family in Paul

233

ing of Scripture should be considered at least on an exegetical level not as traditional and careful, but rather as original, or at least arbitrary. 3. The interpretative character of Paul’s reception of Abraham’s family: Paul reconstructed Abraham’s family with the aim of integrating it into his eschatological and community-building concept. Paul’s conviction is that Scripture was written down for “us today”: that means for the Israel of Paul’s times and for the Pauline congregations. Therefore he picks up as much material from the Abrahamic tradition as fits into his idea that nonJews are also part of God’s people through “faith.” Although the religious tradition of his times emphasizes Abraham as father of faith, this concept of faith was never seen in contradiction to circumcision or other commandments of the Torah. Paul, however, went a step further and reduced the impact of the Torah on the relation to God and the constitution of God’s people by insisting on the importance of faith. What are the results of our analysis of Paul’s views of Abraham’s family? Goodman and Hendel characterize Paul’s interpretation of Abraham as “original” and even as “countermemory.” 86 Both insist on the considerable influence of Paul’s interpretation. This may be true for the centurieslong history of Bible interpretation in the Christian churches. However, looking for results and influences on a historical and exegetical level, one should first look at the pseudepigraphic works written in the name of Paul, namely the Deutero-Pauline letters and the Pastoral Epistles. It is highly likely that most authors of these writings at least knew the letter to the Romans. 87 However, it is striking that in these writings neither the name Abraham nor the terms “Abraham’s children” or “Abraham’s seed” are mentioned at all. There is no evidence in the Pauline tradition that Paul’s claim stating all members of his congregations, Jews and non-Jews alike, are “Abraham’s children” found immediate followers. The reception of Paul in the New Testament was much more cautious than Paul himself in claiming that Abraham is their propat¯or in the common understanding of the word, and that they are all Abraham’s children. Looking to the wider history of interpretation in the second and third centuries, it also seems that the more exclusionary features of the Pauline family of Abraham – that is, the controversial binary oppositions used by Paul – dominated reception history much more than Paul’s inclusive idea of Abraham as “the father of all of us” (Rom 4:16). 86

See above n. 7 and n. 8. See Michael Theobald, Israel-Vergessenheit in den Pastoralbriefen (Stuttgart: kbw, 2016), 61–115. 87

Member of Abraham’s Family? Hagar’s Gender, Status, Ethnos, and Religion in Early Jewish and Christian Texts Angela Standhartinger

Hagar, the Egyptian slave of Sarah, mother of a patriarch’s son and blessed by divine epiphanies, can be described both as multiply oppressed and multiply privileged. This article undertakes an intersectional analysis of the Hebrew and Greek biblical archetype of her story and its retellings in the Book of Jubilees and a fragment of the non-Jewish author Apollonius Molon, the writings of Josephus and Philo of Alexandria, and Paul’s letter to the Galatians 4:21–31. By analyzing constructions of Hagar’s gender, status, ethnos, and religion in these Jewish retellings of the biblical story, Paul’s allegory appears in a new light. In Latin, the term familia denotes an extended household including slaves, freed persons, clients, and affiliated kinfolk. 1 The Greeks call this unit οἶκος. For Aristotle, a master and slaves, a husband and his legitimate wife, a father and his children all form an οἶκος. 2 Neither in Greek nor in Latin does a term exist for what we understand as a nuclear family, consisting of free parents and their biological children. Whether relationships within this unit were experienced as especially close and in what cultures and strata of society such units were widespread are questions currently discussed in classical scholarship. 3 Monogamy between free citizens of the same status was, at least in the poleis of Athens and Rome, a prerequisite for legitimate marriage bonds and heredity. 4 However, the husband’s 1 Olympia Bobou, “Family, Greek and Roman,” in The Encyclopedia of Ancient History 5:2625–9: 2626. 2 Aristotle, Pol. 1253b 1–14. Cf. Bobou, “Family,” 2625. 3 Cf. Jérome Wilgaux, “Consubstantiality, Incest, and Kinship in Ancient Greece,” in A Companion to Families in the Greek and Roman Worlds (ed. Beryl Rawson; Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011), 217–30, and Sabine R. Huebner, “Household Composition in the Ancient Mediterranean – What Do We Really Know?” in ibid., 73–91. 4 Bobou, “Family.”

236

Angela Standhartinger

extramarital sexual relationships with courtesans and slaves are not always criticized by moral philosophers of the first century c. e. 5 Because of the high mortality rate, divorces, changes in status, and gender-specific sexual morality, ‘patchwork families’ seem to have been a widespread reality, as tax lists preserved on Egyptian papyri demonstrate. 6 “Throughout antiquity, there was little that could be called distinctively ‘Jewish’ about families of Jews.” 7 Endogamy was held in high esteem. 8 Deut 21:15–17 sets out inheritance laws for families with children from different wives. From this, one can assume that at least in late preexilic Israel, polygyny was accepted. Josephus defends polygyny in the royal family of Herod as a “hereditary custom among us” (Ant. 17.14). 9 In contrast, the Damascus Document views polygamy as one of “Belial’s three nets.” 10 Already in the second century c. e., the Christian Justin Martyr blames Jewish teachers for ignoring the symbolic meaning of the biblical polygamous patriarchs as typological references to the synagogue and Christ. 11 Beyond these polemics, one can detect a need of explanation and clarification. In modern terms, Abraham’s family could be called a ‘patchwork family.’ It consists of at least one son of a slave, named Masek in the Septuagint, Eliezer of Damascus (Gen 15:2–3), 12 Abraham’s oldest son Ishmael from the Egyptian slave Hagar (Gen 16), his second son Isaac from his first legitimate wife Sarah (Gen 20:1–7), as well as six more sons from his subsequent legitimate wife Keturah (Gen 25:1–2). In the following, I will place Hagar at center stage. Using categories from intersectional theory, namely gender, status, ethnos, and religion, I will examine Hagar’s characterization in the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint, the Book of Jubilees and a fragment of the non-Jewish author Apollonius Molon, the writings of Josephus and Philo of Alexandria, and Paul’s letter to the Galatians.

5

Cf. Plutarch, Conj. praec. 140b, but Musonius Rufus, fragm. 12. Cf. Ann-Cathrin Harders, “Roman Patchwork Families: Surrogate Parenting, Socialization, and the Shaping of Tradition,” in Children, Memory, and Family Identity in Roman Culture (ed. Véronique Dasen and Thomas Späth; Oxford: Oxford University Press 2010), 49–72. 7 Michael L. Satlow, “Family, Jewish,” The Encyclopedia of Ancient History 5:2629–30: 2629. 8 See Aliyah El Mansy, Exogame Ehen. Die traditionsgeschichtlichen Kontexte von 1 Kor 7,12–16 (BWANT 206; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2016). 9 Josephus, Ant. 17.14. 10 CD IV 15–22. 11 Justin, Dial. 134.1–3; 141.4. 12 Gen 15:2–3. Cf. Jub. 14:2 and Philo, Sacr. 43. 6

Member of Abraham’s Family?

237

The professor of law Kimberlé Crenshaw coined the metaphor “intersectionality” in 1989. In a study of a lawsuit brought by seven black female workers against General Motors, Crenshaw concluded that the women lost their case because the court weighed discrimination based on race against discrimination based on sex, effectively making both forms invisible. 13 On the contrary, Crenshaw argued, axes of discrimination do not act independently but rather intersect with each other and thereby become more intense. In social science, intersectional analysis studies the interactions and interconnections between manifold forms of discrimination, oppression and domination, including on the basis of sex /gender, race /ethnicity, class /status, body, religion, etc. As an approach to literary texts from antiquity, intersectional analysis considers how identity factors such as gender, status, ethnos, and religion interact to shape one or more characters. 14 As an Egyptian, a slave, the mother of a patriarch’s son and a biblical figure who is blessed by the epiphany of God’s messenger and who gives God a name, Hagar can be described both as multiply oppressed and multiply privileged. In the following, I will ask how Hagar’s gender, status, ethnos, and religion are represented in the aforementioned texts: What features and character traits are highlighted or downplayed, respectively? First, I must determine Hagar’s role in the source texts of the Hebrew and Greek Bible.

1. Hagar in the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible In the Hebrew Bible, Hagar is introduced as Sarai’s Egyptian female slave or maidservant (‫)שׁ ְפ ָחה ִמ ְצ ִרית‬. ִ How Hagar became Sarai’s property is not explained in the Bible. However, in Gen 12:16, Pharaoh gives Abram a bride-price for Sarai, alongside sheep, oxen, donkeys, and camels, male and female slaves (‫וּשׁ ָפחֹת‬ ְ ‫)ע ָב ִדים‬. ֲ Later, when Abram leaves Egypt again with Sarai, he keeps everything in his possession. The Genesis Apocryphon from Qumran is the first retelling of this story that connects these two

13 Kimberlé Crenshaw, “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine,” The University of Chicago Legal Forum 139 (1989): 139–67. 14 See also Ute E. Eisen, Christine Gerber, and Angela Standhartinger, eds., Doing Gender – Doing Religion: Fallstudien zur Intersektionalität im frühen Judentum, Christentum und Islam (WUNT 302; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013).

238

Angela Standhartinger

pieces of information. Here, Pharaoh presents Hagar to Sarai as part of her dowry. 15 In the Hebrew Bible, the first Hagar narrative follows immediately after God’s promise to Abram that he will receive his own genuine heir (Gen 15:4). Sarai proposes that he go to her maidservant, so that “she will obtain sons by her” (Gen 16:2). Abram listens to Sarai and “she, Abram’s wife,” takes (‫“ )לקח‬Hagar, the Egyptian, her slave,” and gives (‫ )נתן‬her “to her husband Abram as a wife.” The verbs as well as the term “wife” (‫שּׁה‬ ָ ‫)א‬ ִ suggest a legal act of marriage. 16 Thus Hagar now finds herself in a paradoxical legal situation: she is Abram’s wife, yet in relation to Sarai, she remains a maidservant (‫)שׁ ְפ ָחה‬ ִ to her mistress (‫ירה‬ ָ ‫ְב‬ ִ ‫)ג‬. 17 When she becomes pregnant, Hagar feels elevated in status, and her mistress becomes “of no account in her eyes.” Therefore, her mistress humiliates (‫ )ענה‬her, and Hagar flees into the desert towards her homeland Egypt. 18 God’s angel (‫ְאְך יהוה‬ ַ ‫)מל‬ ַ finds her at a safe place, a spring, and delivers to her an ambiguous message (Gen 16:8–12): he tells her to return to her mistress and to humble herself (‫ )ענה‬before her. At the same time, however, the angel promises to multiply her offspring 19 and instructs her to name her son Ishmael because “God has given heed to her affliction” (Gen 16:11). Thereupon, Hagar invokes God by the name El-Roi, for she said: “You are a god who sees me, because truly I have seen him who sees me” (Gen 16:13). 20 Since the 1980s, feminist interpreters have underlined that Hagar is the first character in the Bible to whom God’s messenger appears and the first to give God a name. 21 Furthermore, the oppressed slave seeking refuge in the wilderness prefigures Israel’s exodus in a role reversal. 22 The Egyptian maidservant worships Abraham’s God and gives God a new name. However, while God’s messenger specifically instructs

15

1QapGen XX.31–32. Cf. Irmtraud Fischer, Die Erzeltern Israels. Feministisch-theologische Studien zu Genesis 12–36 (BZAW 222; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994), 276; Nina Heinsohn, Zwischen Verheißung und Verborgenheit. Studien zur Theologie und Anthropologie der Hagar-Erzählungen in Genesis 16 und 21 (Biblisch-theologische Studien 109; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2010), 35. 17 Gen 16:4. In Gen 16:8–9, God’s angel again refers to Hagar as Sarai’s maidservant. 18 Heinsohn, Verheißung, 48. 19 Gen 16:10. The same promise is given to Abraham in Gen 22:17. 20 For the extensive discussion on the meaning of the difficult Hebrew text, see Heinsohn, Verheißung, 20–24. 21 See, e. g.: Phyllis Trible, Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 9–35; Fischer, Erzeltern, 286–87. 22 Trible, Texts, 28. 16

Member of Abraham’s Family?

239

Hagar to name her son Ishmael, in the end it is Abram who does so (Gen 16:15–16). The second Hagar narrative that begins in Gen 21:8 is the first interpretation of its predecessor. 23 Gen 21:8–21 shares the basic storyline of Gen 16. Again, Sarah causes Hagar to go into the wilderness, and once again God leads her through the desert. And yet again, Hagar is introduced as “the Egyptian” (Gen 21:8). But until Gen 21:13, she is mainly referred to as Abraham’s maidservant (‫)א ָמה‬. ָ While Gen 16 and 25:12 call Hagar the ‫שׁ ְפ ָחה‬ ִ of Sarah, she is an ‫ ָא ָמה‬of Abraham in Gen 21. The term ‫ ָא ָמה‬describes female slaves with a sexual relationship to their masters, while the term ‫שׁ ְפ ָחה‬ ִ designates a slave as a worker. 24 This time, Hagar and her son are expelled by Sarah from Abraham’s house, even though Abraham is displeased about the expulsion of his son (‫ ְבּנוֹ‬Gen 21:11). But, also mentioning the maidservant, God grants Sarah’s request and repeats his blessing to make a nation (‫ )גּוֹי‬of Ishmael. 25 With bread and water and the little child (‫ – )ֶילֶד‬who according to the biblical chronology would already be fourteen years old – on her shoulder, Hagar is sent away. In contrast to Gen 16, the Hagar of Gen 21 no longer knows her way through the desert and gets lost. When the child is on the verge of dying of thirst, Hagar starts crying and weeping. God, however, does not listen to her but to the child. Speaking from heaven, his messenger encourages Hagar and shows her a well of water. By focusing on the son, the text anticipates the subsequent narrative of the Akedah, or binding of Isaac. 26 At the same time, it is striking that God cares more about the son than about his mother. Hagar’s own relationship with God is no longer in view. Yet, after her expulsion from Abraham’s house, she is no longer a slave. The angel of God calls her by her name, Hagar. 27 And she takes on the patriarchal role of finding a wife for her son from among her Egyptian compatriots. With her new family, she settles outside the promised land in the desert of Paran. 28 However, later she reappears in Abraham’s genealogy (Gen 25:12–16). Together, her son Ishmael and his brother Isaac bury their father 23

Heinsohn, Verheißung, 59–65. See Fischer, Erzeltern, 91–97. 25 Gen 21:12. For this blessing, see also Gen 17:20. 26 See Eberhard Blum, Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte (WMANT 57; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener, 1984), 314. Strikingly, Ishmael is not named in Gen 21 but is called “his son” or “Hagar’s son.” 27 Gen 21:14,17. 28 For the localization of the desert of Paran, see Heinsohn, Verheißung, 107. 24

240

Angela Standhartinger

(Gen 25:9). It remains open to interpretation whether Hagar is counted among Abraham’s concubines (‫ְשׁים‬ ִ ‫פּי ַלג‬/παλλακαί) ִ in Gen 25:6.

2. Hagar in the Septuagint Like the Hebrew text, the Septuagint introduces Hagar in Gen 16:1 LXX as Sarah’s Egyptian maidservant (παιδίσκη). The term παιδίσκη refers especially to a young female slave who closely serves her mistress and master. 29 While δουλή describes a female slave in terms of her legal status and bondage, παιδίσκη describes a slave in terms of her concrete service. 30 While in the Hebrew text it is Sara’s plan to have Hagar bear her children, in the Greek version she says (Gen 16:2 LXX): “that you may beget children by her.” Thus, it is Abraham and his son who are explicitly in view. Again Hagar is given by Sara to Abram as a wife (γυνή, Gen 16:3 LXX). After recognizing her pregnancy, Hagar transgresses the Hellenistic moral code and dishonors (ἀτιµάζειν) her mistress. 31 The Lord’s angel (ἄγγελος κυρίου) commands Hagar to humble herself (ταπεινώθητι) before her mistress, in accordance with the expectations of slaves in the Greek world. 32 In so doing, the angel reestablishes the morally correct social order within Abraham’s household. The Septuagint interprets the angel’s prophecy about the unborn child, that “he will be a wild donkey of a man (‫)פֶּרא ָאָדם‬,” ֶ as “he will become a boorish or rude person” (ἄγροικος ἄνθρωπος), thereby making him into a slavish character at odds with civilization and education. 33 However, Hagar in the Septuagint meets God directly. She calls God not only “You-are-the-God-who-looks-upon-me” but explains: “For truly I saw him face to face when he appeared to me (ὀφθέντα µοι).” In the Septuagint, Hagar is explicitly honored with a direct vision of God. Gen 21:8–13 LXX furthermore refers to Hagar as a παιδίσκη, albeit not as Abraham’s maidservant but simply as “this maidservant” (παιδίσκη ταύτη, Gen 21:12–13 LXX). In Gen 21:9 LXX, Ishmael’s joking or playing (‫)צחק‬, which prompts Sarra to expel Hagar and her son from Abraham’s 29

Ursula Kästner, “Bezeichnungen für Sklaven,” in Untersuchungen ausgewählter altgriechischer sozialer Typenbegriffe (ed. Lieselotte Welskopf-Heinrich; Berlin: AkademieVerlag, 1981), 282–318 at 306–7. 30 Kästner, “Bezeichnungen,” 395–8. 31 Gen 16:4–5. 32 Cf. Euripides, Andr. 163–8. 33 Cf. Plato, Leg. 880a; Aristophanes, Nub. 628; Philo, Fug. 209.

Member of Abraham’s Family?

241

house, is translated literally as παίζειν. However, by adding that Sarra saw Ishmael “playing with her son Isaac,” the Greek text makes the motive for the expulsion more explicit (Gen 21:9 LXX). Again, the boy, who by now must be at least a fourteen-year-old, is referred to as a little child (τὸ παιδίον) and is placed on Hagar’s shoulders. After being expelled from the house, Hagar loses her way in the desert, ending up at “the well of the oath” (κατὰ τὸ φρέαρ τοῦ ὅρκου, Gen 21:14 LXX). There she places the parched child under a silver fir (ἐλάτη). Now it is the child who cries and is heard by God (Gen 21:17 LXX). Thereby the Septuagint solves the paradox in the Hebrew version, in which Hagar weeps, yet it is the voice of Ishmael that God hears. As in the Hebrew text, however, here preceded by a reference to the well of the oath, God opens Hagar’s eyes, and she notices the life-saving water. Also as in the Hebrew text, Hagar subsequently finds an Egyptian wife for her son (Gen 21:21 LXX). The Septuagint reinforces Hagar’s status. When she transgresses her role as a slave, God’s messenger instructs her to behave in a manner appropriate to her status. As an uncultured man, her son has a slavish character. In Gen 21, her relationship to Abraham is obscured. God’s attention is focused on her unnamed son. However, the fact that she sees God directly is most clearly expressed in Gen 16:13 LXX.

3. Hagar in the Book of Jubilees In the Book of Jubilees (a second-century retelling of the narrative from Genesis 1 to Exodus 19), the patriarchal marital couples prefigure domestic harmony. Scholarship also agrees that matriarchs like Sarah illustrate the ultimate model of a perfect wife. The extent to which Hagar is part of this idealization is disputed. 34 Jubilees connects Gen 15 with Gen 16 by recounting the events under the same date. God’s promise of an heir to Abram, the covenant, and the promise of land coincide with the birth of Ishmael. 35 Abram informs his wife Sarai of that which God has promised him. Therefore, Sarai’s suggestion, “Go to my Egyptian slave girl Hagar; 34

Cf. Betsy Halpern-Amaru, The Empowerment of Women in the Book of Jubilees (JSNTSup 58; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 103–9, who sees Hagar excluded from the ideal matriarchs. David Rothstein (“Text and Context: Domestic Harmony and the Depiction of Hagar in Jubilees,” JSP 17 [2008]: 243–64) argues for her inclusion. 35 Jacques T. A. G. M. van Ruiten, Abraham in the Book of Jubilees: The Rewriting of Genesis 11:26–25:10 in the Book of Jubilees 11:14–23:8 (JSJSup161; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 119 and 136.

242

Angela Standhartinger

perhaps I will build up descendants for you from her,” 36 is consistent with God’s promises. What Sarai said comes to pass, and Jubilees jumps directly from Gen 16:4a to Gen 16:15, the birth of Ishmael and the namegiving by Abram. Hagar’s rebellion, her flight, and her vision of the divine are given no mention. Without any conflict between maidservant and mistress, the harmony in Abram’s house is not disturbed at all. Hagar is hereby reduced to a mere instrument for begetting a son for Abram. 37 A much more elaborate retelling of Gen 21:8–21 follows in Jub. 17:1–4. 38 While celebrating Isaac’s weaning, Abraham thanks God for his two sons and takes special enjoyment in Ishmael’s dancing and playing (Jub. 17:4). Sarah becomes jealous and demands the banishment of the slave girl and her son. Jub. 17:5 emphasizes Abraham’s sadness over his son’s expulsion, but God comforts him by telling him that Isaac is the one through whom he, Abraham, “will have a reputation and descendants” (Jub. 17:6). Jub. 17:8 corrects the logical problem of Gen 21:13 and places bread and water on the shoulders of Hagar and her ambulatory child. Lost in the desert, Hagar behaves like a good mother when she places the parched child under an olive tree. Finally, Jubilees solves the logical problem of Gen 21:17 in a manner directly opposite to that in the Septuagint. The angel of God – apparently standing directly before her – says: What are you crying about, Hagar? Get up, take the child, and hold him in your arms, because the Lord has heard you and has seen the child. (Jub. 17:11)

God hears and sees Hagar crying, and he answers her. With open eyes, she detects the life-saving spring on her own. And she sets out toward Paran. Finally, Jubilees adds a passage: His (Ishmael’s) mother took a wife for him from the Egyptian girls. She gave birth to a son for him, and he named him Nabaioth, for she said: “The Lord was close to me when I called to him.” (Jub. 17:14)

Nabaioth is also the firstborn to Ishmael, according to the Genesis. 39 However, this is the only reference to Ishmael’s unnamed wife. The identity of the female speaker of the last line remains uncertain. Syntactically

36

Jub. 14:22. Translations from Jub. are taken from James C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (CSChO 511; Leuven: Peeters, 1989). 37 Van Ruiten, Abraham, 134. 38 For a more detailed comparison, see van Ruiten, Abraham, 195–206. Jubilees adds an original episode in which the divine guests return to Mamre after the birth of Isaac and promise to Abraham that he will have many more children (Jub. 16:16). 39 Gen 25:13; cf. Gen 28:9.

Member of Abraham’s Family?

243

it ought to be Ishmael’s Egyptian wife. However, in terms of content, it would dovetail with Hagar’s experience of being heard by God, who sent his messenger. 40 Jubilees mentions Hagar two more times. The expulsion of her and her son are counted among the ten tests of Abraham’s faith (Jub. 17:17). 41 Jub. 19:11 notes that Hagar predeceases Sarah. Perhaps here Jubilees counters a tradition that identifies Hagar with Keturah, who is also introduced as “one of the children of his [Abraham’s] household servants” (Jub. 19:11). 42 In Jubilees, Hagar remains Abraham’s wife after her expulsion. In his farewell speech, Abraham also addresses Hagar’s son Ishmael and her twelve grandsons together with the sons of Keturah. He admonishes them not to mix with the people from Canaan, to keep themselves free of all sexual impurity and uncleanness, to keep God’s commandments, to abstain from idols, and to worship the most high God alone (Jub. 20:1–10). Ishmael and the sons of Keturah settle between Paran and Babylon and are called Arabs and Ishmaelites (Jub. 20:13). In line with the Septuagint, Jubilees presents Hagar as Sarai’s slave girl. Contrary to its anti-exogamic stance, Jubilees does not problematize Hagar’s Egyptian ethnos, affording it only one mention (Jub. 14:21). Conflicts between the slave girl and her mistress are downplayed. Instead, Jubilees stresses Abraham’s emotional ties to his son Ishmael (Jub. 17:2–3,5,17). More explicit than in the biblical Vorlage, God accompanies Hagar after her expulsion into the desert. If she is the intended speaker of the confession in Jub. 17:14, she confirms explicitly that God was with her. Despite being banished, Hagar’s son remains within Abraham’s family.

4. Hagar in the Writing of Apollonius Molon In his Praeperatio evangelica 9.19.1–3, Eusebius quotes from a writing of Apollonius, son of Molon. 43 This famous first-century b. c. e. teacher of rhetoric from Rhodes is one of the two main opponents in Josephus’s 40

Rothstein, “Text,” 248–52. Jubilees lists only eight tests. The final test is the Akedah (Jub. 18). See further Rothstein, “Text,” 246–47. For a list of ten tests, see Pirqe R. El. 26–30 etc. 42 Cf. Gen. Rab. 60:16; 61:4; Jerome, Qu. hebr. Gen. 25:1; Pirqe R. El. 30; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 16:1 and Gen 25:1. 43 FGH 728 F1. Cf. Sylvie Honigman, “Apollonios Molon,” The Encyclopedia of Ancient History 2:552–4. 41

244

Angela Standhartinger

Contra Apionem. 44 However, Josephus does not cite directly from his writings. Apollonius’s book, which Eusebius calls “Intrigue against the Jews” (συσκευὴ τὴν κατὰ ᾿Ιουδαίων), is the source of the following quotation: After three generations Abraam was born, whose name signifies the friend of the father. This man was wise and eagerly went to the desert. He took two wives, one a local one and a relative of his, and the other an Egyptian handmaid. The Egyptian woman bore him twelve sons, who emigrated to Arabia and divided the country between themselves; they were the first to be kings over the inhabitants of that country. Consequently, till our times there are twelve kings among the Arabs who are namesakes of the sons of Abraam. Of his lawful wife one son was born to him, whose name translated into Greek signifies Gelos [laughter]. Abraam died of old age, while to Gelos and a native woman there were born eleven sons, and a twelfth one Joseph. His grandson was Moses. 45

On the surface, this account sounds well informed and hardly polemic. 46 A second look observes some exaggerations and exceptional emphasis. Nowhere else is Abraham called “friend of the father.” There might also be some ironic undertone when he literally “investigates” (µεταδιώκειν) the desert, while in the Jewish tradition Abraham is a well-known scientist and the inventor of astronomy. That Abraham was married to two wives, of whom one was a “handmaid” (θεράπαινα), is also not laudable. Apollonius is concerned much more with Hagar than with Abraham’s “legal wife” (γαµετή). Hagar’s status is underlined by mentioning the manumission (ἀπαλλάσσειν) of her sons (biblical grandsons), who paradoxically became kings (βασιλεύειν) in Arabia. As we have seen already, Apollonius is not the first to draw this line from Ishmael to Arabia, yet he seems to extend this concept. In line with biblical and post-biblical tradition, Isaac is called “Laughter.” 47 Apollonius also lists the twelve sons of Isaac before going on to Moses, who seems to have been the main focus of his interest. That Abraham’s marriage with Hagar receives so much attention in this ironic-polemical retelling from an outsider is remarkable. Her status and Egyptian ethnos, that is, being non-Jewish, are emphasized, as is the rule

44

Josephus (C. Ap. 2.16) seems to be referring here to a work on the origins of the Jewish people. C. Ap. 2.145,148,236,255,258,295 list several polemics against cult, temple, and general alleged Jewish misanthropy. 45 Translation: Menachem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, vol. 1 (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1976), 148–51 (Nr. 48), 150. 46 Stern, Greek, 148. 47 Philo, Mut. 261; Abr. 201; Praem. 31.

Member of Abraham’s Family?

245

of those ex-slaves in Arabia. 48 The Arabian tradition is also emphasized by Josephus.

5. Hagar in Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities With his Jewish Antiquities, completed in 93 c. e., Josephus wrote a historiographical work expounding on Jewish history from creation until the year 66 c. e. 49 The first eleven books contain extensive paraphrases of the biblical story. Josephus models the patriarchs and matriarchs according to Greco-Roman ideals of virtue and highlights the excellent character of the Jewish people and its constitution. Gen 12–25 is retold in Ant. 1.154–256. Here, Abraham represents the ideal philosopher, military leader, and politician. 50 Sarra is his supremely beautiful and virtuous wife, yet at no point does Josephus allow her to speak. 51 Abraham’s family also includes his nephew Lot, whom Abraham, lacking a legitimate son, had already adopted before emigrating from Chaldea. 52 Nevertheless, Abraham beseeches God “to grant him offspring of a male child,” and “at God’s command” (τοῦ θεοῦ κελεύσαντος) Sarra has him lie (ἐπικλίνειν) with Hagar (Agare). 53 Hagar is “an Egyptian by race” (γένος οὖσα Αἰγυπτία) and one of many handmaids (µία τῶν θεραπαινίδων) of Sarra. Later, Josephus also refers to her as a “slave” (δούλη, Ant. 1.215) and a “concubine” (παλλακή Ant. 1.214). She is a concubine in her capacity as mother to Ishmael, Abraham’s biological son, on whom he keeps an eye. In the highly abbreviated retelling of Gen 17 (Ant. 1.191–93), Josephus not only includes the promise to Ishmael (Gen 17:20) but extends it: “God indicated 48

In addition to Jub. 20:13, see Artap. Fragm. 2 (Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.23.1) in the context of Gen 37–50. Cf. Eric S. Gruen, Rethinking the Other in Antiquity (Princeton: Princeton University Press 2011), 299–302. 49 Louis Feldman, “Introduction,” in Flavius Josephus. Translation and Commentary Volume 2: Judean Antiquities 1–4 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), XVII. 50 Cf. Ant. 1.154 and Feldman, “Abraham,” in Josephus’ Interpretation of the Bible (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 223–89. 51 James L. Bailey, “Josephus’ Portrayal of the Matriarchs,” Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity (ed. Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata; Leiden: Brill, 1987), 154–79, 157–61; Betsy Halpern Amaru, “Portraits of Biblical Women in Josephus’ Antiquities,” JJS 39 (1988): 144–48. 52 Ant. 1.154. This idea is without parallel in ancient Jewish literature. However, the adoption of an appropriate heir was a common practice in the Greco-Roman world. See, for example, Claudius’s adoption of Nero (B. J. 2.249 and Ant. 20.150). On the other hand, Gen 15:2 is glossed over by Josephus. 53 Ant. 1.187. At God’s command (τοῦ θεοῦ κελεύσαντος), Abraham had already come to Canaan (Ant. 1.154) and presented his offerings in Ant. 1.184 (cf. Gen 15).

246

Angela Standhartinger

that he would be long-lived and a father of great nations” (Ant. 193). 54 It is to Ishmael, the founder (ὁ κτίστης) of the Arabic race, that circumcision at the age of thirteen can be traced back. His expulsion from Abraham’s house in Gen 21:10–13 is explained as a founding of a colony (εἰς ἀποικίαν ἐκπέµπειν, Ant. 1.216). The same motif reappears with Abraham’s sons and grandsons by his second wife Keturah, whom he sends on expeditions to found colonies (ἀποικιῶν στόλους µηχανᾶται, Ant. 1.239). Josephus refers here to a “well-established trope of the Greek legends of colonyfoundation and tyranny-establishment to project a great new leader deriving from the humblest of origins, and often, particularly, as an illegitimate child. Battus, the founder of Cyrene, was portrayed in legend as the illegitimate child of a woman cast out and reduced to concubinage.” 55 Ishmael’s descendants, who become twelve princes (‫יאם‬ ִ ‫ְשׂ‬ ִ ‫ )נ‬in the Hebrew version of Gen 17:20, are listed in Ant. 1.220–21. They take possession of the land in Nabatea between the Euphrates and the Erythrean Sea and spread the virtue and renown of Abraham. 56 Keturah’s sons are characterized as “strong for labors and clever in understanding” 57 and take into their possession “Trogloditis, and the part of Arabia Felix that extends to the Erythrean Sea.” 58 In their deeds and virtuous character, Abraham’s sons from his concubines follow the footsteps of their father. 59 The care that both Abraham and God extend to Hagar’s son stands in contrast to Josephus’s characterization of Hagar as a slave. She is explicitly not Abraham’s wife. Instead, through this figure, Josephus demonstrates the divine education of a handmaid. Josephus retells Gen 16:4 as follows: And becoming pregnant, the maidservant (θεραπαινίς) dared to show insolence to Sarra (ἐξυβρίζειν εἰς τὴν Σάρραν) assuming queenly airs, 60 as though the rule would pass over to her son about to be born from her. (Ant. 1.188)

With this juxtaposition of fullness and hybris, Josephus emphasizes Hagar’s insolence by characterizing her behavior as trespassing beyond her 54

Ant. 1.193. Translations are taken from Feldman, Flavius Josephus. Daniel Ogden, “The Royal Families of Argead Macedon and the Hellenistic World,” in A Companion to Families in the Greek and Roman Worlds (ed. Beryl Rawson; Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011), 92–107, 105. The reference goes back to Herodotus, Hist. 4.154–55. 56 Ant. 1.221: οἳ τὸ τῶν ᾿Αράβων ἔθνος ... διά τε τὴν ἀρετὴν αὐτῶν καὶ τὸ ῾Αβράµου ἀξίωµα. 57 Ant. 1.238; cf. Ant. 1.154. 58 See also Ant. 2.213. 59 From Abraham, Lot likewise learned hospitality (περὶ τοὺς ξένους φιλάνθρωπος) and how to be most kind (χρηστότητος, Ant. 1.200). 60 The participle βασιλίζουσα might allude to Sarah’s name, which in B. J. 5.379 is given as βασιλίς, ἡ µήτηρ τοῦ γένους ἡµῶν (the queen, the mother of our race). 55

Member of Abraham’s Family?

247

own sphere. 61 Abraham hands Hagar over to Sarra for punishment. Yet Hagar acts appropriately: admittedly she flees because she is unable to endure her hardships, but she also beseeches God to take pity on her. Therefore, the divine angel (ἄγγελος θεῖος) meets her in the desert and teaches Hagar a moral lesson (Ant. 1.189–90). She will fare better if she behaves in a “proper” (appropriate) way (σωφρονεῖν). Her current troubles are caused by her thoughtless (ἀγνώµων) and stubborn (αὐθάδης) behavior. She will perish if she further disobeys God, but her return will be rewarded with the fulfillment of her wish that her son should rule the land. The handmaid makes the obvious choice and obtains forgiveness (συγγνώµης ἔτυχε) from her generous masters (δεσπόται). Ishmael’s name is translated for the reader as θεόκλυτος (“heard by God”), 62 “because God had heard her supplication (ἱκεσία).” 63 Josephus’s retelling of Hagar’s expulsion in Gen 21 presents the patriarchal couple and the divine messenger in a positive light. Sarra at first used to feel affection toward Ishmaelos, who has been from her servant Agare, showing no less affection than if it were her own son, for he was being nurtured for the succession to the rule. (Ant. 1.215)

Only when Isaac is born does Sarra request the expulsion of the firstborn and his mother, out of concern for the dynastic claims of her own, secondborn son. Therefore, she persuades Abraham to send Ishmael and his mother to a colony (Ant. 1.215). Initially, Abraham considers this “as the most cruel of all things to send away a little child (παῖς νήπιος) and a woman (ἄπορος) destitute of the necessities of life” (Ant. 1.216). Hagar appears more as a slave than a mother when, their reserves of bread and water exhausted, she leaves the dying child and continues on alone “in order that he might not give up his soul with her present (ὡς µὴ παρούσης τὴν ψυχὴν ἀφῇ).” Yet there is a striking parallel between this scene and Euripides Herc. fur. 323–4, in which Amphitryon begs that he and his wife be slain first so “that we may not see the hideous sight, as they gasp out their lives (ψυχορραγοῦντα), calling on their mother and their

61

Birgit van der Lans, “Hagar, Ishmael, and Abraham’s Household in Josephus’ Antiquitates Judaicae,” in Abraham, the Nations, and the Hagarites: Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Perspectives on Kinship with Abraham (ed. Martin Goodman, George H. van Kooten, and Jacques T. A. G. M. van Ruiten; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 185–99, 186–87. 62 Θεόκλυτος appears elsewhere only in an active sense in Aischylus, Sept. 143: “calling on the god.” 63 Ant. 1.190.

248

Angela Standhartinger

father’s father.” 64 However, any impression of Hagar as a dramatic heroine is immediately withdrawn by Josephus, when the divine messenger shows her the spring and bids her to “look after the nurture of the child, for great blessing awaited her through the preservation of Ishmael.” 65 Through a meeting with some shepherds, she is able to escape her misfortunes. 66 Ishmael is given an Egyptian wife, although in Josephus’s account this is not his mother’s doing. 67 Josephus paints Hagar above all as a slave. In his retelling of Gen 16, he calls her θεραπαινίς and, in renarrating Gen 21, δούλη. Despite her presumptuous behavior and her flight, this maidservant is given a second chance when she beseeches God. Abraham’s God sends her a divine messenger, who leads her morally and literally back onto the right path, that is, that of subordination to her masters. Later, the divine messenger reminds her of her motherly duties and points to the opportunity to achieve some sovereignty, albeit only through her son and if she behaves in a motherly manner. In contrast to his mother, the son bears character traits of his father and becomes the founder of a colony in Arabia.

6. Hagar in the Writings of Philo of Alexandria In De Abrahamo, a free retelling of selected parts of the biblical story, Hagar is mentioned only briefly, in the concluding eulogy of Abraham’s wife. In the encomium on the deceased matriarch, Philo elaborates on Sarah’s speech from Gen 16:2, at the moment when she leads her handmaid to Abraham to become his wife (νυµφοστολεῖν, Abr. 250). Sarah convinces her husband by arguing that any offspring of another woman will be his genuine (γνήσιος) children, but also hers by adoption (θέσις). Subsequently, she says: But to avoid any suspicion of jealousy (ζηλοτυπία) on my part, take if you will my handmaiden (θεράπαινα), outwardly a slave, inwardly of free and noble race (τὸ 64 Feldman, Flavius Josephus, 82; Samuel Sandmel, Philo’s Place in Judaism: A Study of Conceptions of Abraham in Jewish Literature (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1956), 71 n. 317. 65 Ant. 219. The rearing of the master’s children together with the children of the household slaves seems to have been an ideal. According to Plutarch, the wife of Cato the Elder nursed not only her own son but “often gave suck also to the infants of her slaves, so that they might come to cherish a brotherly affection for her son” (Plutarch, Cat. Maj. 20.3). 66 The shepherds (ποιµέντες) are peculiar to Josephus’s account. See Sandmel, Philo’s Place, 71 n. 371. 67 Ant. 1.220.

Member of Abraham’s Family?

249

µὲν σῶµα δούλην, ἐλευθέραν δὲ καὶ εὐγενῆ τὴν διάνοιαν), proved and tested by me for many years from the day when she was first brought to my house, an Egyptian by birth, but a Hebrew by her rule of life (γένος µὲν Αἰγυπτίαν, τὴν δὲ προαίρεσιν ῾Εβραίαν). (Abr. 251)

The terms θεράπαινα and θεραπαινίς describe female slaves who serve in a close relationship to their mistress or a goddess. The emphasis lies on “caring for,” “acting in accordance with,” and “personal attendance to” one’s owner. 68 Through their longstanding contact, Sarah’s virtue and excellence has rubbed off on Hagar, who, while still a slave in body, is free and noble in mind. Despite her Egyptian ethnicity, she has become Hebrew in character (προαίρεσις). In De virtibus, Philo also refers to the transformative power of association with Hebrew nobility in relation to Zilpah and Bilhah. 69 Whether and to what extent Philo changes his representations of the patriarchs and matriarchs in his allegorical commentaries to Genesis is a matter of scholarly discussion. 70 In any event, he applies different methods to the biblical text. In De Congressu eruditiones gratia he comments on verses and lemmata of Gen 16:1–6. The story of Abraham, Hagar, and Sarah stands allegorically for the process of the education of the mind (Abraham), which must first affiliate itself with the maidservant – understood as encyclical paideia or general education (Hagar) – before it can move on to virtue, philosophy, and wisdom (Sarah). 71 As was already demonstrated a century ago, Philo at this point emulates a widespread tradition of allegorical interpretation of Homer’s epic. Here “Penelope’s handmaidens represent the encyclical disciplines while the mistress herself represents Philosophy.” 72 Yet, in Philo’s allegory, “for the first time maiden and mistress do not stand in irreconcilable enmity to each other,

68

Kästner, “Bezeichnungen,” 301. Philo, Virt. 223. 70 Sandmel, Philo’s Place, 189; Martina Böhm, Rezeption und Funktion der Vätererzählungen bei Philo von Alexandria. Zum Zusammenhang von Kontext, Hermeneutik und Exegese im frühen Judentum (BZNW 128; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005), 4. 71 Congr. 14. See also Cher. 3; Post. 130; Somn. 1.240, etc. For Philo, general or encyclical education can be symbolized by other biblical figures alongside Hagar. See the list of Karl Olav Sandnes, The Challenge of Homer: School, Pagan Poets and Early Christianity (London: Clark, 2009), 72. 72 Justin M. Rogers, “The Philonic and the Pauline: Hagar and Sarah in the Exegesis of Didymus the Blind,” Studia Philonica Annual 26 (2014), 57–77, 64. Cf. Ariston of Chios, SVF 1.350; Pseudo-Plutarch, Lib. ed. 7d–e; Seneca, Ep. 88.7; Diogenes Laertius 2.79–80. 69

250

Angela Standhartinger

but rather the maiden serves the mistress.” 73 In De congress, not only Hagar’s status but also her ethnos are of importance. The primary characteristic marks of the lower education (µέση παιδεία) are represented by two symbols giving its race (γένος) and its name (ὄνοµα). In race it is Egypt, but its name is Hagar, which is by interpretation ‘sojourning’ (παροίκησις). The votary of the school studies, the friend of wide learning, must necessarily be associated with the earthly and Egyptian body (γεώδες καὶ ᾿Αιγύπτιον σῶµα); since he needs eyes to see and read, ears to listen and hear, and the other senses to unveil the several objects of sense. For the thing judged cannot be apprehended without one to judge it, and it is sense which judges the sensible, and therefore without sense it is always impossible to obtain accurate knowledge of any of the phenomena in the sensible world which form the staple of philosophy. Sense being the bodily part of the soul is riveted to the vessel of the soul as a whole, and this soul-vessel is symbolically called Egypt. (Congr. 20) 74

For Philo, the name of Hagar derives from the Hebrew ‫( גר‬παροίκησις, “sojourning”). 75 “The sojourner (πάροικος), insofar as he is staying in the city, is on a par with the citizens (ἀστοί), insofar as it is not his home, on a par with foreigners (ἀλλοδαποί).” 76 As a concubine (παλλακή), Hagar is not a wife (γυνή, Congr. 23). For Philo, Egypt symbolizes the body. While Philo repeatedly disparages the body, in this context he speaks of it as a necessary passion of youth. 77 It is a necessary and unavoidable step that Abraham should affiliate himself first with general education (Hagar) on his path to virtue and wisdom (Sarah). In his allegorical interpretation of Gen 16:1–6, Philo reads the biblical text closely. He accurately observes that Sarah is explicitly referred to as Abraham’s wife at the moment when she leads Hagar to him (Gen 16:3; Congr. 73–79). Philo further observes that Sarah could be the subject of the phrase ἰδοῦσα ὅτι ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχει (Gen 16:4; Congr. 139), implying that she notices that Hagar is pregnant even before the handmaid realizes this herself. He furthermore discusses Sarah’s jealousy and her mistreatment of her handmaid. In De Abrahamo, he hides these problematic features of the story through elision and rhetorical skill. 78 Yet, there are also some 73 Yehoshua Amir, “The Transference of Greek Allegories to Biblical Motifs in Philo,” in Nourished with Peace: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism in Memory of Samuel Sandmel (ed. Frederick Greenspahn, Earle Hilgert, and Burton L. Mack; Chico: Scholars Press, 1984), 15–25, at 18. 74 Translation: F. F. Colson. Cf. QG 3.19. 75 Böhm, Rezeption, 77. See also Leg. 3.244; Sacr. 43; QG 3.19. 76 Congr. 22. 77 See Congr. 85. 78 Congr. 151–79; QG 3.34 and Gen 16:5–6.

Member of Abraham’s Family?

251

points of overlap in expression and means of representation between the two categories of Philo’s writings. With respect to Hagar, the tractates De Congressu and De Abrahamo do not contradict one another. 79 The main difference lies instead in two distinct intended lines of identification. De Abrahamo provides a most virtuous model of a mistress and offers a reward for an ideal non-Jewish handmaid; De Congressu promotes general education as a necessary first training on the path to virtue, philosophy and wisdom. De fuga et inventione continues the allegorical reading of Gen 16. The main body of this treatise centers on verses 6b and 7, Hagar’s flight from Sarah (Fug. 2–118) and her discovery by an angel of the Lord (Fug. 119–76) at a spring (Fug. 177–201). A noticeable short allegorical interpretation of Gen 16:7b–14 is added in the last few paragraphs (Fug. 202–13). In the main body of De fuga, Hagar symbolizes the mind at the level of general education on its path to philosophy and true wisdom (Sarah). Hagar now embodies Abraham himself. The angel of the Lord, meeting Hagar /Abraham in the desert, is identified as θεῖος λόγος (divine logos). 80 The logos urges the mind to return to its proper mistress, philosophy. At this level of general or encyclical education, the mind will give birth to the child Ishmael, meaning “hearing of God” (ἀκοὴ θεοῦ). 81 Hearing, however, is only the second best sense perception in Philo’s view. Ishmael further symbolizes the Sophists, the best that an encyclical education can produce. As a slave, Hagar is not visited by God but by an angel – who at the end of this treatise is now identified no longer as “God’s logos” but only as “God’s household servant,” who is a “deemed god by those whose existence is still one of toil and bondage.” 82 As a student of general education and encyclical paideia, the Egyptian slave symbolizes a necessary yet intermediate state on the mind’s path to God’s own perfect wisdom and philosophy. In De mutatione nominum, there follows the allegorical reading of Gen 17. Here Ishmael, “hearing of God” (ἀκοὴ θεοῦ), is identified with “divine truths” (θεῖα δόγµατα). 83 “When [Abraham] prays that Ishmael may live (Gen 17:18), he is not concerned with the life of the body, but prays that what he hears from God (τὸ θεῖον ἄκουσµα) may abide forever 79 Cf. νυµφοστολεῖν appears only in Abr. 250 and Congr. 70. Compare also Abr. 250 and Congr. 180. 80 Fug. 5; QG 3.30. 81 Fug. 208; QG 3.32. 82 Fug. 212. Cf. Somn. 1.240. 83 Mut. 202.

252

Angela Standhartinger

with the soul and stir him into living flame” (Mut. 209). Both sons remain important. 84 Philo does not dismiss the educated (διδακτός) Ishmael at all. As is proven by Abraham’s path through Hagar to Sarah, Ishmael symbolizes the more general case. Isaac symbolizes the self-educated (αὐτοµαθής) ethnos, rarely to be found on earth. 85 In contrast to Ishmael, Isaac is “laughter of soul and joy and gladness,” “always naked and without body,” and “begotten by God.” 86 The two sons represent two species of humankind. Those who, still on their path to wisdom and perfection, need encyclical paideia as a first step, thereby following Abraham on his path from Hagar to Sarah. The perfect and spiritual ones take after Isaac. Like Josephus, Philo prefers to refer to Hagar in reference to her status a θεράπαινα or θερaπαινίς, thereby avoiding the sexual connotations of the Septuagint’s term παιδίσκη. 87 He also calls Hagar a concubine (παλλακή). 88 Furthermore, Philo focuses on Hagar’s ethnos. In De Abrahamo, she becomes a Hebrew by virtue of being trained in the house of Sarah. In Philo’s allegorical commentaries on Genesis, Hagar’s Egyptian ethnos symbolizes the basic condition of humanity. At first, Hagar, who stands for general education, is loved by Abraham. Later he has to divorce her in order to join with true wisdom, Sarah. Moreover, Hagar symbolizes Abraham’s aspiration for philosophy. Yet, he who becomes lost in the desert of encyclical paideia must return to his mistress’s house, that is, philosophy and wisdom. Ishmael, the “hearing of God” – Hagar’s son (or better, the offspring of Hagar and Abraham) – can symbolize divine doctrine but at the same time also the sense of hearing: merely the second best sense perception after seeing. The perfect character is the ‘self-taught’ Isaac. However, this child was not begotten by Abraham but rather by God. Hagar and Abraham symbolize what is possible through human effort, whereas Sarah and Isaac stand for the spiritual and divine dimension.

84

Mut. 236; QG 3.59. Mut. 256. 86 Leg. 3.87; Leg. 2.59; Leg. 3.219. 87 Post. 130; Congr. 12, 23–24 etc.; θεράπαινα Abr. 251 and Fug. 205. 88 Sacr. 43; Congr. 23–24. 85

Member of Abraham’s Family?

253

7. Hagar in Paul’s Letter to the Galatians From the time of Tertullian and John Chrysostom until the present day, Paul’s allegorical interpretation of Hagar and her son’s expulsion from the house of Abraham has often been read as the construction of a Christian identity in the footsteps of Isaac, as contrasted with the otherness of Jews as heirs of Ishmael. 89 However, in view of the previous Jewish interpretations of her story, it is hardly convincing that anyone in antiquity would have identified Jews and Judaism with the child of the Egyptian maidservant. 90 In Gal 4:21, Paul continues his interpretation of Abraham’s story in Gal 3:6–9,15–18. Now he directly addresses the male members of the congregations in Galatia, who seek circumcision: “Tell me, you who desire to be subject to the law, will you not listen to the law?” 91 (Gal 4:21). With ὑπὸ νόµον (subject to the law), Paul refers back to a time before Christ’s incarnation (Gal 3:23; 4:5), characterized as a time when humanity was in a state of minority and enslavement, from which Christ redeemed (ἐξαγοράζειν) those who lived as subjects to the law. At the same time, he requests that the congregation return to the study of Scripture. For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. One, the child of the slave, was born according to the flesh; the other, the child of the free woman, was born through the promise. (Gal 4:22–23)

This is not an actual citation from the biblical text but an allusion to the story based on Gen 17:16–21 and 21:9–12. Paul expects that his readers and listeners have excellent knowledge of the complete narrative. He identifies the two women and their respective sons as representing the two

89 Cf. Tertullian, Marc. 5.4.8; John Chrysostom, Hom. Gal. 4:4; Michael Wolter, “Das Israelproblem nach Gal 4,21–31 und Röm 9–11,” ZTK 107 (2010): 1–30, at 15–16. 90 Cf. Michael Bachmann, “Die andere Frau. Synchrone und diachrone Beobachtungen zu Gal 4,21–5,1,” Jud 54 (1998): 144–64. Therefore, many recent interpreters argue that Hagar does not represent Judaism in general but rather Paul’s opponents urging the Galatian males to get circumcised. See Susan G. Eastman, “‘Cast out the Slave Woman and her Son’: The Dynamics of Exclusion and Inclusion in Galatians 4.30,” JSNT 28 (2006): 309–36, 311–12; Dieter Sänger, “Sara, die Freie – unsere Mutter. Namenallegorese als Interpretament christlicher Identitätsbildung in Gal 4,21–31,” Neues Testament und hellenistisch-jüdische Alltagskultur. Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen. III. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti 21.–24. Mai 2009 (ed. Roland Deines and Jens Herzer; WUNT 274; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 213–39, 222–3. However, both sons are circumcised, so neither is a good example for renouncing circumcision. 91 See also Angela Standhartinger, “‘Zur Freiheit ... befreit’? Hagar im Galaterbrief,” EvT 62 (2002): 288–303.

254

Angela Standhartinger

opposite types: slavery and freedom, body and spirit. With this, he weaves the story from Genesis into the baptismal formula and its application in Gal 3:27–29: “For those who are baptized in Christ, there is no longer slave and free ... (but they) are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise.” 92 Not all of the aforementioned readings of Genesis would identify the opposition κατὰ σάρκα – δι᾽ ἐπαγγελίας (according to flesh – through promise) with a juxtaposition of Ishmael and Isaac. For Jubilees and Josephus, Ishmael is also Abraham’s son, begotten right after God’s promise in Gen 15, and according to Josephus also on God’s own initiative. 93 For Paul, as for Philo, the two sons symbolize above all the dichotomy between human procreation and divine generation. Paul will return to this idea in Rom 9:6–9. Although in the beginning of Gal 4:22–23 the two women function only as vessels for two distinct sons, Paul continues his allegory with typological interpretations of the mothers: Now this is an allegory. These (women) are two covenants. One (covenant) from Mount Sinai, bearing children into slavery, which is Hagar. Because Sinai is a mountain in Arabia. She stands in a line with the present Jerusalem, for it /she serves as a slave with her children. (Gal 4:24–25)

Already the Septuagint knows of more than one covenant. 94 What has inspired Christian interpreters to read this as a replacement of an older covenant with a new one is the identification of one covenant with Sinai, slavery, and Hagar. Yet, even early manuscripts and their scribes were confused by the rationale for this correspondence. Jubilees, Josephus, and Apollonius Molon associate Hagar and /or her sons and grandsons with Arabia. 95 But nowhere else are Sinai, Arabia, and Hagar brought together in a row, category, or column (συστοιχεῖν); nor are Hagar, Sinai, or Arabia identified anywhere else with the present Jerusalem. 96 Paul lines up the following column:

92

Gal 3:29; cf. Gal 3:14. Jub. 14; Josephus, Ant. 1.183–87. 94 Cf. 2 Macc 8:15; Sir 44:12; 44:18 (Noah); 45:17; Wis 18:22. Cf. also Rom 9:4; Eph 2:12. 95 Jub. 20:13; Josephus, Ant. 1.221; 2.213. 96 The term συστοιχεῖν means “stand in the same line,” “correspond to,” “belong to the same paradigm or category.” Cf. also Gal 4:3,9; 5:25 and 6:16. Nowhere is συστοιχεῖν a technical term for allegorical interpretation. See Gerhard Sellin, “Hagar und Sara. Religionsgeschichtliche Hintergründe der Schriftallegorese Gal 4,21–31,” Das Urchristentum in seiner literarischen Geschichte. Festschrift für Jürgen Becker zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. Ulrich Mell and Ulrich B. Müller; BZNW 100; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999), 59–84, 69–70 n. 68. 93

Member of Abraham’s Family?

255

Covenant of Mount Sinai Hagar in Arabia present Jerusalem (Slavery)

The column is connected by the term slavery (δουλεία/δουλεύειν) and places Hagar’s status at center stage. The (allegedly) contrasting column centers on freedom. But the other woman corresponds to the Jerusalem above; she is free, and she is our mother. For it is written: “Rejoice, oh barren one who does not bear; break forth, and shout, you who are not in labor. because more are the children of the desolate woman than of her who has a husband.” (Gal 4:26–27; with Isa 54:1)

The second column does not correspond well or at least is remarkably uneven compared to the first one. First, µία µέν in verse 24 has no corresponding µία δέ. No other or no new covenant is mentioned. Second, the present Jerusalem is a historical entity, while the Jerusalem above is a spatial one. 97 The two Jerusalems do not constitute a direct contrast. Third, the second wife is not named: Sarah is not mentioned at all. And finally, even though Paul introduces the quotation from the Zion tradition in Isa 54:1 LXX as a rationale for his thesis that our mother is the (spatial) Jerusalem above, the quotation does not fit into an assumed second column consisting of freedom, Jerusalem above, and Sarah. Sarah might be referred to in the first two lines as a barren one and one who was not in labor until Gen 21:1, but the third and fourth lines of the quotation from Isa 54:1 LXX refer not to Sarah but to Hagar. She is the one without a husband and is desolate and lonely (ἔρηµος) as she wanders around in the desert (ἡ ἔρηµος, Gen 21:14). 98 When Isaiah promises many children to one without a husband and the barren one together, the dichotomy between the women is blurred. There is no second column in opposition to first. Instead, Sarah and Hagar are both connected to the Jerusalem above. After the quotation from Isaiah, Paul turns his attention again to the women’s sons. “We siblings are, according to Isaac, children of the promise” (Gal 4:28). This statement repeats what has already been said in Gal 4:22–23 (and Gal 3:29) but applies it directly to the readers and 97

Cf. Bachmann, “Die andere Frau,” 158; Sellin, “Hagar,” 70–71. Pace Wolter, “Israelproblem,” 14; and Sänger, “Sara,” 235. Neither interpreter can explain how the ‘woman without a husband and the lonely one’ could refer to Sarah. 98

256

Angela Standhartinger

listeners. On the surface, any connection to the allegory of the mother(s) remains obscure. But Paul expresses an objection to this thesis: But (ἀλλά) just as at the time the child who was born according to the flesh persecuted the child who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now. But (ἀλλά) what does Scripture say: “Cast out the maidservant and her son; for the son of this maidservant shall not inherit together with the son of the free woman.” Therefore (διό), siblings, we are children not of the maidservant but of the free woman. (Gal 4:29–31)

By introducing these sentences with the conjunctions ἀλλά ... ἀλλά ... διό, Paul transforms the narrative of Gen 21:9–10 into argumentation. The first objection to the thesis that we are all children of the free woman through Isaac expands on the question of why Sarah, when she saw Ishmael playing (‫צחק‬/παίζειν) with Isaac, demands that the maidservant and her son be banished. Jubilees explains this biblical verse by presenting Sarah as jealous when she is confronted with Abraham’s joy over his playing and dancing son Ishmael. Josephus ignores this verse of the narrative completely and explains Hagar’s expulsion in terms of Sarah’s dynastic considerations. 99 Philo is the first witness to a negative evaluation of Ishmael’s playing in Gen 21:9 (παίζειν): “We find Ishmael banished with his mother, because he, the bastard, claimed to play on equal terms with the true born.” 100 As with the present Jerusalem, who “serves as a slave with her children” (Gal 4:24), here as well Paul understands the biblical text as an allusion to his day. One is reminded of the hermeneutics of the pesherim from the Dead Sea Scrolls. Twice in Galatians, Paul mentions that he and potentially also his opponents indeed face persecution (Gal 6:12; 5:11), most likely from Roman officials or their like, but not from Jews, because the persecution is triggered by the proclamation of Christ’s crucifixion. The objection to the thesis that we are children of the promise is that the children of the promise were persecuted then as they are now. However, Scripture offers a counter-argument. What follows is the only verbal quotation from the Genesis text in the entire passage. But here, the words no longer emerge from Sarah’s mouth but are spoken by “the Scripture” itself. In the biblical text, the problem is solved. The maidservant and her son are cast out. Now, Paul’s does not conclude (διό) from Scripture’s words that the community must cast out those who are born according to the flesh. 99

Jub. 17:4; Josephus, Ant. 1.215. Philo, Sobr. 8. Three exegeses of ‫( צחק‬Gen 21:9) in this line are collected for the first time in t. Sot.ah 6.6 and Gen. Rab. 45.1. 100

Member of Abraham’s Family?

257

Nor does he demand that anybody else be banished. Instead, his logic presupposes what Scripture says happened. 101 Because in those days the maidservant and slavery were banished from the house of the freeborn, we have all since then been freeborn children in Abraham’s house. 102 Does Hagar also obtain freedom? Paul says nothing about her manumission. Instead, he continues with the thesis: “For freedom Christ has set us free” (Gal 5:1). After her expulsion and disinheritance, Hagar disappears from Paul’s view. Yet, in the Bible, Hagar is freed after her expulsion with her son in Gen 21:13. God’s angel no longer calls her maidservant but rather by her name, Hagar (Gen 21:13, 17). Like Abraham, she is given the promise that her son will give rise to a great people (Gen 21:18), and, assuming the role of a patriarch, she finds a wife for her son. The blurring of the two women in Gal 4:27 invites further contemplation. No heir of the spiritual child begotten by God can any longer be enslaved. In comparison with other Jewish readings of Hagar’s biblical stories, Paul’s allegorical account shows similar and original features. Like most other readings, Paul primarily focuses on Hagar’s status as a slave. Yet he is the only one who follows the Septuagint in naming her παιδίσκη. Moreover, his interpretation emphasizes her enslavement (δουλέια). On the one hand, Hagar’s servitude is underlined; on the other hand, the experience of any enslaved members of Paul’s congregations becomes visible. Admittedly, the women do not become characters in their own right but are reduced to stereotypes. Paul is less interested than Jubilees or Philo in Hagar’s visionary experience and her encounter with God’s messenger in the wilderness. For Paul, as for Philo, it is ultimately only the spiritually begotten child that leads us to the path to God’s will and transcendence.

8. Conclusion I hope to have shown that the categories of gender, status, and religion highlight both common features and differences between early Jewish and Pauline readings of the biblical story of Hagar. In relation to gender, Hagar is allowed to assume the patriarch’s role in finding a wife for her son in

101

For a similar technique of allegorical reading, see Gal 3:10,13,16. See also Jacob Wöhrle, “Isaak und Ishmael. Zum Verhältnis der beiden Abrahamsöhne nach Genesis 17 und Galater 4,21–31,” EvT 71 (2011): 115–32, 130. 102

258

Angela Standhartinger

Gen 21:21 and Jub. 17:14. Josephus and Philo show no interest in this aspect of the narrative. The Septuagint is the first to emphasize Hagar’s status and accordingly appropriate behavior. Many terms are used to refer to Hagar’s status. Apollonius Molon, Josephus, and Philo prefer θεράπινα/θεραπανίς, thereby emphasizing the proximity between the slave and her mistress. Paul, on the other hand, is the only later author discussed here who adheres to the term παιδίσκη from the Septuagint and who highlights slavery explicitly. An appropriate treatment and the education of slaves characterize for both Josephus and Philo not only Abraham’s family, but also the religion of the Hebrews in general. Jubilees glosses over almost every conflict between mistress and maidservant and releases the slave into the care of the divine. Philo’s and Paul’s respective allegorical readings aim at spiritual freedom by abolishing slavery from the path to God. The fact that Abraham has a child with a maidservant seems to cause no moral problem. However, apart from the non-Jewish interpretation of Apollonius Molon, any impression of bigamy is avoided. Only in a few instances, noticeably in Philo’s allegorical commentaries on Genesis, is Hagar referred to as a concubine. Abraham’s two sexual partners seem to have been proactive at least enough to inspire efforts at allegory. Yet only Paul blurs the lines between the two women. For both Philo and Paul, Isaac is not Abraham’s natural son but rather was begotten by God’s spirit. In the end, only this child is the child of promise. Strikingly, Ishmael’s slave status is nowhere framed as a problem. By contrast, both Greek and Roman law state that a child born of a slave woman remains a slave, even after she has been set free. 103 The manumission of Hagar and her son represents a financial loss for Abraham and Sarah. Only Apollonius Molon explicitly describes Ishmael’s banishment as a manumission. Hagar’s ethnos as an Egyptian is mentioned at least once in every reading discussed here, yet only Philo places some emphasis on this fact. While Egypt symbolizes the body in Philo’s allegorical commentaries on Genesis, in De Abrahamo it is Sarah’s company and training that trans-

103 See P. R. C. Weaver, “The Status of Children in Mixed Marriages,” in The Family in Ancient Rome: New Perspectives (London: Croom Helm, 1986), 145–69; Reinhard Willvonseder, Corpus der römischen Rechtsquellen zur antiken Sklaverei (CRRS). Teil IV, Stellung des Sklaven im Privatrecht. 1. Eheähnliche Verbindungen und verwandtschaftliche Beziehungen (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2010), 8–10.

Member of Abraham’s Family?

259

form Hagar into “a Hebrew by her rule of life.” Later Midrashim and Targumim will accuse Hagar and her son of idolatry. 104 Hagar’s experience of God is not a primary focus. Only the Septuagint grants Hagar a direct encounter with God’s messenger (Gen 16:13 LXX). Already in Jubilees it is unclear whether it is she or her daughter-in-law who makes the explicit confession: “The Lord was close to me when I called to him” (Jub. 17:14). Josephus’s angel admonishes Hagar to behave properly as a slave (Ant. 1.189–90; 1.219). Philo has two angels, one who reveals divine doctrine to Abraham and one who is an appropriate medium for a slave, who, by virtue of her status, is not able to see God. There is no angel in Paul’s short allegory. However, Sarah’s words from Gen 21:10 turn into the divine voice of Scripture, declaring the end of slavery. Is Hagar a member of Abraham’s family in these early Jewish readings? In line with the biblical Vorlage, all interpretations at once affirm and deny this question. While enslaved, she is integrated into Abraham and Sarah’s household in a manner according to her status; her membership ends with her expulsion and manumission. However, beyond the biblical text, especially in Apollonius Molon, Jubilees, and Josephus her son and grandsons are granted a permanent place in Abraham’s house. As a mother and grandmother, Hagar remains a distant relative.

104

t. Sot.ah 6.6; Exod. Rab. 1:1; Gen. Rab. 53.11; Tg. Neof. Gen 21:8; Tg. Ps.-J. 21:9, 15–16; Jerome, Qu. hebr. Gen. ad loc.; Pirqe R. El. 30 etc.

Abraham and his Children in Luke-Acts Christfried Böttrich Among all the narrative figures in Luke-Acts, the figure of Abraham 1 occupies a special place: familiar and strange, traditional and inventive, marginal and many-faceted. Scholars have always been aware of the patriarch’s peculiar character in the third gospel. 2 Statistically, Luke-Acts mention Abraham more than the other gospels and even more than Paul, 3 but interspersed throughout the total of 52 chapters and compared with other narrative figures, the references are rather sparse. The most interesting picture of Abraham is found in the Lukan extra material. 4 Acts contains nothing exceptional and picks up only traditional language referring to Abraham. 5 This evidence is a little surprising. Considering Luke’s sensitivity to historical relations, one would expect much more attention on the patriarch. But, unlike Matthew, Luke does not emphasise Abraham’s role for the gentiles, 6 and in contrast to Paul, he does not insist 1

For Abraham in general cf. J. Roloff, “Abraham im Neuen Testament. Beobachtungen zu einem Aspekt Biblischer Theologie,” in Exegetische Verantwortung in der Kirche. Aufsätze (ed. Idem; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990) 231–254; J. Pichler, “Abraham,” in Alttestamentliche Gestalten im Neuen Testament (ed. M. Öhler; Darmstadt: WBG, 22006) 54–74; K.-J. Kuschel, Streit um Abraham. Was Juden, Christen und Muslime trennt – und was sie eint (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 2001); C. Böttrich, B. Ego and F. Eissler, Abraham in Judentum, Christentum und Islam (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009); H. Frankemölle, Vater im Glauben? Abraham /Ibrahim in Tora, Neuem Testament und im Koran (Freiburg /Basel /Wien: Herder, 2016); M. Köckert, Abraham. Ahnvater – Vorbild – Kultstifter (BG 31; Leipzig: EVA, 2017). 2 Cf. Pichler, “Abraham,” 62–67 (3.2. Die synoptische Tradition – Lukas); Frankemölle, Vater im Glauben?, 216–233 (IV. 5.4. Abraham im lukanischen Werk – Lk und Apg). 3 Abraham is mentioned in the NT 73x: Matt 7x; Mark 1x; Luke 15x + Acts 7x = 22x; John 11x; Rom 9x/2 Cor 1x /Gal 9x = 19; Heb 10x; Jas 2x; 1 Pet 1x. 4 That means especially Luke 16:19–31 (rich man and Lazarus) where Abraham plays an extensive and active role which is totally unique in the NT as a whole; furthermore 1:55 (in the Magnificat); 1:73 (in the Benedictus); 13:16 (term ‘daughter of Abraham’); 19:9 (term ‘son of Abraham’). 5 Acts 3:25 (Peter in the temple court); 7:2–8.16.17.32 (Stephen’s speech); 13:26 (Paul in Antioch). 6 Matt 1:1 opens his account with “book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham”; after this double big-step back, the genealogy ascends again. Such

262

Christfried Böttrich

on Abraham’s example of faith. 7 The 22 mentions of the name Abraham are well spread out in Luke and Acts, but they do not occupy key positions in the narrative. Nevertheless, it seems instructive to explore Luke’s portrait of Abraham in its different contexts. There are at least five typoi of the figure which all have a clear theological function. In summary, one can say: Abraham is presented in Luke-Acts as an “éminence grise” from Israel’s history for the eschatological congregation of believers.

1. Crown Witness of God’s Promise The Abraham narrative in Gen 12–25 offers a series of promises. The first and the last sound the most fare-reaching, and enclose the others like a frame (Gen 12:3/22:18): “I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed /And by your offspring shall all the nations of the earth gain blessing for themselves, because you have obeyed my voice.” 8 Within this frame there are further promises of land (Gen 12:7), of descendants and land (Gen 13:14–17), and – confirming the former – again of descendants, land and blessing (Gen 15). From the beginning, Abraham’s role is that of an outstanding promise-bearer in a twofold perspective, first, for his descendants who will become a great people, and second, via his descendants for all the nations on earth. The history of Israel as told in the Old Testament gives witness to how the promise of the first perspective is fulfilled. But how the blessing comes to the Gentiles is one of Luke’s favourite themes.

procedure is clearly due to the universal perspective which is finally confirmed in Matt 28:19 (“all nations”). 7 This is Paul’s main interest in Gal 3–4 and Rom 4, where he favours Gen 15:6 instead of Gen 22 (as mainly in the Jewish tradition). 8 K. N. Grüneberg, Abraham, Blessing and the Nations. A Philological and Exegetical Study of Genesis 12:3 in its Narrative Context (BZAW 332; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003); A. Th. Khoury, “Abraham – ein Segen für die Völker nach der jüdischen, christlichen und islamischen Tradition,” BiKi 59 (2004): 9–17.

Abraham and his Children in Luke-Acts

263

The gospel of Luke begins in the context of a temple liturgy. 9 Israel, represented by the priest Zechariah and the people waiting outside the sanctuary, is the first addressee of the things that are coming to be in the story which follows. The announced child has much more to do with Israel’s hope than with his parents’ individual prayers. 10 It is to prepare the people to be ready for their God and his eschatological coming (Luke 1:14–17). The same tone resounds a little later, when Mary recites her grandiose hymn (Luke 1:46–55), 11 far exceeding the individual situation of a young and chaste Galilean mother. Praising God in the rhetoric of reversal, 12 the hymn culminates in remembering Abraham: “... according to the promise he made to our ancestors, to Abraham and to his descendants forever”. Obviously the name Abraham, figurehead of the “ancestors / fathers”, serves here as a code word for Israel’s hope, hope against the mighty, the oppressors, the proud or the rich, and in favour of the powerless, the oppressed, the humble and the poor. What God has spoken to Abraham and his posterity is, in the context of the Magnificat, not so much the promise of descendants and land but of an existence in peace and justice. The God who spoke to Abraham is called by Mary “God my Saviour” (Luke 1:47). The core of this promise seems to be not a totally new future for a wandering Aramean but the salvation of Israel. Mary’s hymn reflects the recent fate of God’s people. And, again, a child is the sign of an important turning point approaching. Such a reference to Abraham obviously goes beyond the text of Genesis. It makes Abraham a crown witness not for Israel’s foundation but for its restoration. Luke’s conception of Jesus gathering the lost sheep of the house of Israel 13 is rooted here in the promise God gave to Abraham in ancient times. This means the narration of Jesus Christ, or “the events that have been fulfilled

9

Luke consistently emphasises the temple as the place of God’s salvific revelation; cf. H. Ganser-Kerperin, Das Zeugnis des Tempels. Studien zur Bedeutung des Tempelmotivs im lukanischen Doppelwerk (NTA 36; Münster: Aschendorff, 2000). 10 The angel’s words “your prayer has been heard” seem to point primarily to the parents’ desire to have children, but it is no more than a plug for the following. 11 Cf. U. Mittmann-Richert, Magnifikat und Benedictus. Die ältesten Zeugnisse der judenchristlichen Tradition von der Geburt des Messias (WUNT 2/90; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996). 12 J. O. York, The Last Shall Be First. The Rhetoric of Reversal in Luke (JSNTSup 46; Sheffield: Academic Press, 1991). 13 G. Lohfink, Die Sammlung Israels. Eine Untersuchung zur lukanischen Ekklesiologie (StANT 39; München: Kösel, 1975).

264

Christfried Böttrich

among us” (Luke 1:1), is nothing other than a further chapter in the history of Israel. 14 A similar idea shapes the other prominent hymn among the birth narratives, the Benedictus sung by Zechariah (Luke 1:68–79). Its leitmotif is the praise of “the Lord, the God of Israel, for he has visited and redeemed his people” (Luke 1:68). Redemption is no longer only the object of hope but already of real experience. Again Abraham appears as a crown witness. Summarizing his praise, Zechariah recalls “the oath that he swore to our ancestor Abraham, to grant us that we, being rescued from the hands of our enemies, might serve him without fear” (Luke 1:73–74). The promise of descendants and land has been fulfilled, but the simple “blessing” for Israel – living in peace without enemies – has still remained open. The turning point in history, praised in this hymn, affects Israel first of all. Abraham is the father of God’s people. There is as yet no concern for the Gentiles. Also, during the narrative which follows, Abraham is seen first of all as an advocate for Israel’s privilege to live under God’s special favour. This privilege is a lasting one, not affected by misery and disease or even by separation from God. Healing the bent woman (Luke 13:10–17), Jesus calls her “a daughter of Abraham” (Luke 13:16) whose release from Satan’s grip does not deserve any delay, not even the Sabbath should hinder her immediate healing. In the story of Zacchaeus’ repentance (Luke 19:1–10), Jesus argues against his opponents in the same way. “Today salvation has come to this house, because he too is a son of Abraham” (Luke 19:9). Abraham’s children are never forgotten. They are wanted, gathered and brought home (Luke 15). The privilege of living under the promises given to their forefather is not in question. When John the Baptist attacks this privilege (Luke 3:8), he confronts the self-confident and arrogant, not the downcast and lost. Israel remains the first addressee of Abraham’s promise also at the beginning of Acts. Peter, speaking to the crowd in the temple (Acts 3:12–26), finally tries to win over his audience with the words: “You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God gave to your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your posterity shall all the families of the earth be blessed.’” 14 Cf. M. Wolter, “Das lukanische Doppelwerk als Epochengeschichte,” in Die Apostelgeschichte und die hellenistische Geschichtsschreibung. FS E. Plümacher (ed. C. Breytenbach and J. Schröter; Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 57; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 253–284; Idem, Das Lukasevangelium (HNT 5; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 26–30, esp. 28 (graphic representation).

Abraham and his Children in Luke-Acts

265

It still appears as a privilege to be children of the covenant, and Abraham is the key figure of this covenant because of the promise he received. Luke revitalises the promise of being a blessing for the nations (Gen 12:3/22:18) here in a programmatic way, again in the context of the temple and of the people of God. Before this blessing reaches the Gentiles, Luke deals with Israel’s redemption. Salvation for the Gentiles is the second step. This idea takes on a polemic tone in Stephen’s speech (Acts 7:1–57). Starting with the promise which caused Abraham to leave his home, all the history of Israel is now told in the light of resistance: “... you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you.” (Acts 7:51). The controversy is about the question: does Jesus Christ belong to this promised history or not? It is a controversy with consequences. The second perspective of Abraham’s promise – to be a blessing for the nations – is introduced for the first time in Jesus’ genealogy (Luke 3:23–38). Beginning with Joseph and going back into history, the sequence of generations finds its final origin in Adam, and he “was of God”. So Jesus, ultimately son of God, is seen in the horizon of mankind as a whole. Abraham (Luke 3:34) denotes only one single step on the way. But, from the beginning, it is clear that Israel is the immediate context of Luke’s great work, while humankind is its wider one and its final destination. When John the Baptist tackles his Jewish audience which proudly insists on being Abraham’s children (Luke 3:7–9), he widens the horizon: others also could receive this privilege, God is able “to raise up children to Abraham” even from “these stones” (Luke 3:8). Nothing is said here explicitly about the Gentiles. But they are the only ones who are not yet related to Abraham. Who are those who “will come from east and west, and from north and south, and sit at table in the kingdom of God” together with “Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets” (Luke 13:28–29)? Are they Jews from the diaspora, or the Gentiles confessing the one and only God? Abraham as the main symposiarch is able to preside over both. In Acts 3:25 Peter quotes God’s blessing for the Gentiles via Abraham (Gen 12:3/22:18). For now this quotation remains unfulfilled and unsubstantiated. But from Acts 10 onwards Luke tells in detail how the Gentiles become acquainted with Abraham and God’s mercy for all humankind.

266

Christfried Böttrich

2. Father of the Faithful In the Pauline letters, mainly in Gal 3–4 and Rom 4, Abraham functions most of all as a door opener for the Gentiles to join the congregation of those who believe in the one and only God. Faith like Abraham’s (Gen 15:6) – that means trust despite all evidence – is interpreted now as faith in Jesus Christ. This is the way to justify humankind before God. 15 From Paul onwards, Abraham starts his career as a paradigm of faith up to his leading position in Heb 11:8–11 among those who belong “by faith” to the “cloud of witnesses”. John the Baptist’s call to repentance, preserved in the sayings-source Q (Luke 3:7–9/Matt 3:7–10), reflects a similar idea. But it is not as compelling as in Paul’s argument. Due to the chronology of the narrative (just before Jesus’ public ministry), “faith in Christ” is not the issue but the legitimacy of being Abraham’s child. What is the reason to call oneself a child of Abraham? Is it the genealogical connection acquired simply by birth? Or is it something else, acquired by one’s deeds? John the Baptist decides clearly in favour of the latter. In the coming judgment, which is as close as never before, nothing will help except “fruits that befit repentance”. That means (as the subsequent sermon in Luke 3:10–14 explains) deeds of socially fair and just behaviour. No privilege will help to survive the day of doom but only responsibility for what one has done. The drastic metaphor of stones (obviously lying around) as material to produce children for Abraham claims that, even without a direct genealogical origin in Abraham, it would be possible to bear the fruits required. Abraham could also acquire new or other children. So the Baptist already opens a door for another group of Abraham’s children without yet defining them precisely. But only the listening or reading audience is able to perceive this. On the narrative level, there is an exclusively Jewish crowd with John on the banks of the Jordan river. His intention is not to win converts from outside Israel as in Paul’s

15 Cf. C. Dietzfelbinger, Paulus und das Alte Testament. Die Hermeneutik des Paulus, untersucht an seiner Deutung der Gestalt Abrahams (TEH.NF 95; München: Kaiser 1961); K. Berger, “Abraham in den paulinischen Hauptbriefen,” MThZ 17 (1966): 47–89; E. Käsemann, “Der Glaube Abrahams in Röm 4,” in Paulinische Perspektiven (ed. Idem; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1969) 140–177; S. Fowl, “Who Can Read Abraham’s Story? Allegory and Interpretive Power in Galatians,” JSNT 55 (1994): 77–95; M. Cranford, “Abraham in Romans 4. The Father of all Who Believe,” NTS 41 (1995): 71–88; S. Kreuzer,“‘Der den Gottlosen rechtfertigt’ (Röm 4,5). Die frühjüdische Einordnung von Gen 15 als Hintergrund für das Abrahambild und die Rechtfertigungslehre des Paulus,” ThBeitr 33 (2002): 208–219.

Abraham and his Children in Luke-Acts

267

argumentation. The Baptist, as a striking prophetic figure, 16 wants to make those he baptises better children of Abraham, provoking them only with the stone metaphor. For him, true childhood comprises birth and behaviour. Later on in the narrative, this is also the reason for Jesus to win over Zacchaeus, a “son of Abraham” by birth, as a real child of Abraham by repentance. But again, for the listening or reading audience it may mean more. In Luke 3:18, John’s sermon evokes a surprising comment by the narrator: “So, with many other exhortations, he proclaimed the good news (εὐηγγελίζετο) to the people.” Shortly before Jesus himself appears with the “euangelion”, the Baptist is already preaching it. He appears like a follower rushing ahead. 17 So his metaphor of Abraham’s children being raised from stones has some surplus meaning. These children already have something to do with the gospel which is not exhausted in deeds or behavior. The metaphor obviously points to Abraham as the “father of many peoples,” as a blessing for the Gentiles. But there is no need in the following narration to draw this card. In Acts, Luke also uses other models to describe the integration of non-Jews into the new people of God. His Baptist’s sermon seems to be something like a little side shot of Abraham as a door-opener for the Gentiles. Paul’s argumentation, developed in clear alternatives, suggests the idea of only one format for being Abraham’s child: to believe in Christ. Later interpreters excluded Jews who did not accept Christ as the Messiah from this privilege. Perhaps such a possible misunderstanding motivates Luke to formulate with caution. Unlike Paul, he is convinced that there are also “righteous persons who need no repentance.” 18 The status of Abraham’s children seems to be irreversible for him. Even Zacchaeus remained Abraham’s child. So Abraham according to Luke is much more a father for both Jews and non-Jews than according to Paul. The privilege can be widened or opened but not simply dissolved or shifted.

16 Concerning the prophetic typos of the baptist cf. M. Tilly, Johannes der Täufer und die Biographie der Propheten. Die synoptische Täuferüberlieferung und das jüdische Prophetenbild zur Zeit des Täufers (BWANT 137; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1994). 17 Concerning the picture of the baptist in Luke cf. P. Böhlemann, Jesus und der Täufer. Schlüssel zur Theologie und Ethik des Lukas (SNTS.MS 99; Cambridge: University Press, 1997); C. Böttrich, “Art. Johannes der Täufer,” www.wibilex.de (October 2013). 18 Explicitly in Luke 5:31–32; 15:7; 15:29 offers an example; further righteous ones are presented as narrative figures – as in Luke 1:6; 2:25; 23:50; cf. also OrMan 8.

268

Christfried Böttrich

3. Image of Hope One of the most virulent and controversial theological questions in first century Judaism was the question of resurrection. 19 Is there any hope of a new life beyond the borderline of death? The answer depends on the sources. In the history of Israel’s belief, hope for a general resurrection is a relatively young phenomenon. The Pharisees, relying on the prophetic and apocalyptic scriptures, defend this hope. The Sadducees, using only the Torah as their authority, consequently deny it. 20 So it is no surprise to find in the synoptic tradition just the Sadducees examining Jesus’ position concerning the question of resurrection. This challenge is told in form of a little apophthegm among a group of similar disputations which take place in Jerusalem. 21 It is part of the triple tradition (Mark 12:18–27/Matt 22:23–33/Luke 20:27–40), but Luke offers the most elaborate version which proves his special interest in this problem. The Sadducees, approaching Jesus, create a strange example of levirate marriage (Deut 25:5–6) to reduce the idea of resurrection to absurdity. Seven brothers in succession marry the same women and die without children: whose wife will the woman be in the resurrection? Jesus has an easy job in revealing the fallacy of this example. Resurrection does not mean repetition of former life simply prolonged into infinity. The resurrected are part of a totally different, new reality. Beyond and without death sexuality also no longer has a function. Therefore the resurrected are called “like angels and children of God” (Luke 20:36). That would already be a sufficient answer. God’s and humankind’s reality are not the same. But then Jesus offers a second answer surprisingly bringing Abraham into the picture. How can we know that the dead are not only resting in dust, separated from God? It is because of the very words of God who introduced himself to Moses by the burning bush as “the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob” (Exod 3:6). Jesus concludes: “Now he is God not of the dead, but of the living; for to him all of them are alive.” Would it not otherwise be a macabre idea to define God via ancient patriarchs from time immemorial, long ago mouldered in a pit? 19 An instructive overview is offered by G. Kittel, Befreit aus dem Rachen des Todes. Tod und Todesüberwindung im Alten und Neuen Testament (BTSP 17; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999). 20 This is the background of the scenario in Acts 23:6–10. 21 Cf. the so called “Jerusalemer Streitgespräche” in Mark 11:27–12:37/Matt 21:23–22:46/Luke 20:1–20:44.

Abraham and his Children in Luke-Acts

269

The meaning can only be: these patriarchs led by Abraham are witnesses of the resurrection. They are not lost and gone forever, but living in God’s presence as an image of the hope of resurrection. This interpretation is no accident. The formula of the Lord, “the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob” has a long tradition. 22 It is already part of a widespread theological language. Among many other epithets and titles God is denoted here as one who has committed himself to a specific people. The arch-patriarchs are a reminder of the origin and the hope of Israel. As promise-bearers, they are not only a cipher for the past but also for the future. Peter (Acts 3:13) und Stephen (Acts 7:32) also use this formula to speak about God who has raised Jesus from the dead. Doing so in a Jewish context, they presuppose its plausibility. God, the father of Jesus Christ, is the same as the Lord, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Life after death was already a topic for the righteous before Jesus. Abraham, the senior patriarch, is imagined in this little apophthegm in God’s immediate vicinity, not hidden far away in a plain grave or in Hades or in some intermediate realm. The resurrected will meet him and the other fathers again. For such an idea there are also further proofs in Luke.

4. Advocate of the Righteous One of the most impressive stories in Luke, and without any doubt Luke’s most prominent presentation of Abraham, is found in Luke 16:19–31. Jesus is telling a story: “There once was a rich man ...” The material of the story is widespread and well known in its time, 23 but Jesus shapes it in a new way. Again it follows the rhetoric of reversal. The rich man lives in luxury all his life ignoring the poor man at his front door. After death their fortunes are reversed. While the rich man is tortured in Hades in flames, angels lift the poor man up into the presence 22 God introduces himself this way (Exod 3:6.15.16; 4:5); Elijah the prophet addresses him using this formula (1 Kgs 18:36), found also in a proclamation by Hezekiah (2 Chr 30:6). Cf. further Peter (Acts 3:13) and Stephen (Acts 7:32); M. Rist, “The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: A Liturgical and Magical Formula,” JBL 57 (1938): 289–303. 23 Fundamentally H. Gressmann, Vom reichen Mann und armen Lazarus. Eine literargeschichtliche Studie (Berlin: Verlag der Königl. Akad. der Wissensch. 1918); further material in R. F. Hock, “Lazarus and Micyllus. Greco-Roman Backgrounds to Luke 16:19–31,” JBL 106 (1987): 447–463.

270

Christfried Böttrich

of Abraham. Both places are conceived as mutually visible but separated by a great chasm. All attempts of the former rich man to correct this reversal or to moderate his fate fail. The reason is simple: “Remember that during your lifetime you received your good things.” Once there was an open door between him and the poor man; now there is an unbridgeable gulf. His insight comes too late. Life is the time to listen to Moses and the prophets. And more is not necessary. What a story! Abraham plays a major role in this tale adapted by Jesus. The place to which the angels carry the poor man is called “Abraham’s bosom.” It is located opposite Hades. So Abraham seems to be in something like paradise or some other location in God’s world. 24 There is no talk of God. Only the angels responsible for the transport of Lazarus are mentioned. But what exactly is “Abraham’s bosom”? 25 The noun κόλπος can have at least two meanings: 1. lap or fold, 2. breast or chest. Which kind of picture is conveyed by Luke 16:22? Of course, not that of an old man cuddling his grandchild on his knee! The picture is rather that of a banquet where Abraham functions as symposiarch and Lazarus takes the most honoured place by Abraham’s chest! The whole story derives its profile from this contrast between two different dining situations: the earthly banquet of the rich man and the eschatological banquet of Abraham. Lazarus was excluded from the first and is now a distinguished participant of the second. But the former rich man perceiving Abraham’s banquet beyond the chasm now suffers the pain Lazarus had to suffer outside the door perceiving the banquet inside the house. 26 The story creates a picture of Abraham as the central character in God’s world. Abraham appears as an advocate of the humiliated and insulted in order to vindicate them. Abraham is the addressee of the former rich man’s complaint and plea and finally refuses all the proposals of the man now tormented in his final resting place. There is no idea of a judgment or another figure like the Son of Man as judge of the world. It is Abraham 24 O. Lehtipuu, The Afterlife Imagery in Luke’s Story of the Rich Man and Lazarus (NovTSup 123; Leiden: Brill, 2007). 25 Cf. E. Schwyzer, “Der Götter Knie – Abrahams Schoß. Sprach- und kulturgeschichtlicher Ausblick,” in Antidoron. Festschrift J. Wackernagel (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1923), 283–293; M. Mieses, “Im Schoße Abrahams,” OLZ 34 (1931): 1018–1021; B. Heller, “Im Schoße Abrahams,” OLZ 36 (1933): 146–149; A. Somov and V. Voinov, “‘Abraham’s Bosom’ (Luke 16:22–23) as a Key Metaphor in the Overall Composition of the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus,” CBQ 79 (2017): 615–633. 26 Cf. F. Schnider and W. Stenger, “Die offene Tür und die unüberschreitbare Kluft. Strukturanalytische Überlegungen zum Gleichnis vom reichen Mann und armen Lazarus (Lk 16,19–31),” NTS 25 (1978–79): 273–283.

Abraham and his Children in Luke-Acts

271

the patriarch, the promise-bearer and image of the hope for resurrection who acts for the righteous. The iconographic tradition has presented the patriarch as a figure collecting all the souls of the righteous in a big cloth on his lap. 27 And the “bosom of Abraham” became a popular saying for any safe place among people well-versed in the Bible. Luke 16 approves the role of Abraham regarding resurrection and afterlife and makes him the host at the eschatological meal. Abraham the patriarch is an important authority also in Christian eschatology.

5. Symposiarch in the Eschaton The scene of an eschatological meal has a long tradition, rooted in the idea of “the nation’s pilgrimage to Zion” (Isa 2:1–5/Mic 4:1–4; Isa 60:1–22). 28 Part of this idea is a meal prepared by the Lord Zebaoth himself for all the peoples (Isa 25:6). 29 The details remain open, but later legend has unfolded and coloured the picture all the more, mainly in the Rabbinic haggadah. 30 It is not the need for real food and drink in the eschaton but the expression of joy and community for which the metaphor of the eschatological meal stands. This is also the sense in the New Testament. One remarkable feature in Luke is the role of Abraham during this meal. He, as the head of the three arch-patriarchs, appears to be the host. In Luke 13:28 Abraham with Isaac and Jacob are the core of the table fellowship. Luke 16:19–31 is focused on Abraham alone. That means Abraham, the symposiarch, functions as a symbol for eschatological humankind united by faith in the one and only God. But the picture has also a downside. In both cases, the meal is something like a closed circle creating an inside and an outside. Luke 13:28 deals with those who are excluded from the kingdom of God in a place where there is “weeping and gnashing of teeth,” only viewing the eschatological banquet with the patriarchs from afar. The former rich man in Luke 16 stands outside, separated by a chasm, and has no further chance to enter the meal. Such a split obviously has a threatening undertone 27

Cf. E. Lucchesi Palli, “Art. Abraham,” LCI 1:20–35. D. Zeller, “Das Logion Mt 8,11f /Lk 13,28 f und das Motiv der ‘Völkerwallfahrt’,” BZ 15 (1971): 222–237; 16 (1972) 285–293. 29 H. Wildberger, “Das Freudenmahl auf dem Zion. Erwägungen zu Jes. 25,6–8,” ThZ 33 (1977): 373–383. 30 This is the material for the wonderful and amusing novel by Itzik Manger, Das Buch vom Paradies (Frankfurt a. M.: Jüdischer Verl., 1994 [1939]). 28

272

Christfried Böttrich

inherent in the picture itself. In ancient times, every banquet was organised according to strict rules and limits. 31 So again the question of being Abraham’s child or not, belonging or not belonging, is addressed. The access of the one necessarily implies the exclusion of the others. The crowd coming together from the four corners of the world to dine with Abraham and the patriarchs is not the complete and unified humankind. This table fellowship is united in a common belief and in a life according to Moses and the prophets. All are invited, but nobody is forced. Luke does not sketch a picture of final apocatastasis (“Allversöhnung”) here but of final hope for all who trust in God. The door is open during life; it will be closed after death. So the eschatological meal acquires a serious, appellative character.

6. Conclusion Luke picks up only a few selected items of the ample Abraham tradition of his time. The whole story (Gen 12–25) is slightly touched on only in Acts 7:1–8. Nothing is told about Abraham’s individual cognition of the one and only God. 32 God’s promises to Abraham are crucial for Luke, but they are not part of a ranking (towards the Torah for example) in his conception. Questions of priesthood and cult as reflected in Abraham’s encounter with Melchizedek 33 do not play any role. The formula of Abraham as a “friend of God” (Jas 2:23) 34 is not used. But most astonishing of all: Luke does not reflect on Abraham as an example of faith as Paul does. 35 He does not take part in the debate about Abraham’s key profile, 31 Cf. M. Klinghardt, Gemeinschaftsmahl und Mahlgemeinschaft. Soziologie und Liturgie frühchristlicher Mahlfeiern (TANZ 13; Tübingen: Francke, 1996); D. E. Smith, From Symposium to Eucharist. The Banquet in the Early Christian World (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003). 32 W. L. Knox, “Abraham and the Quest for God,” HThR 28 (1935): 55–61; A. Y. Reed, “Abraham as Chaldean scientist and father of the Jews: Josephus, Ant. 1.154–168, and the Greco-Roman discourse about astronomy /astrology,” JSJ 35 (2004): 119–158. 33 Cf. C. Böttrich and M. von Nordheim-Diehl, “Art. Melchisedek,” www.wibilex.de (January 2012). 34 E. Peterson, “Der Gottesfreund. Beiträge zur Geschichte eines religiösen Terminus,” ZKG 42 (1923): 161–202; K. Treu, “Art. Gottesfreund,” RAC 11:1043–1060. 35 Cf. T. D. Alexander, “Abraham Re-Assessed Theologically. The Abraham Narrative and the New Testament Understanding of Justification by Faith,” in He swore an oath. Biblical Themes from Genesis 12–50 (ed. R. S. Hess et al.; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 21994), 7–28; M. Oeming, “Der Glaube Abrahams. Zur Rezeptionsgeschichte von Gen 15,6 in der Zeit des zweiten Tempels,” ZAW 110 (1998): 16–33.

Abraham and his Children in Luke-Acts

273

expressed by his trust despite all evidence (Gen 15) or by his obedience while being tested (Gen 22). So Luke also avoids the struggle for Abraham fought later by the Fathers. Justin, for example, usurps the patriarch against his Jewish dialogue partner as a proof that only the Christian community or the church is the true Israel. 36 Luke has no interest in such a controversy. His Abraham is neither a hero of faith nor is he the main witness for his universalistic perspective. Nevertheless, Luke also offers a “rewritten” Abraham. The typoi “crown witness of God’s promise” or “father of the faithful” revitalise the main line of Gen 12–25. Israel’s self-understanding is based fundamentally on God’s promise and Abraham’s trust. But what is really innovative is the typos of Abraham as an “image of hope”. Luke is not the first who relates the patriarch not only to the past but also to the future. In early Jewish texts like the Testament of Abraham 37 or the Apocalypse of Abraham, 38 the patriarch is honoured to visit the heavenly world and to see his future place in God’s realm. The role he plays there as God’s most beloved among all humankind prepares Luke’s portrait of Abraham as one who “is alive to him (God)” (Luke 20:38). It makes him also the favoured psychagogos or “advocate of the righteous” and recommends him for the position of a “symposiarch in the eschaton.” This means the early Jewish Abraham tradition 39 is much more inspiring for Luke than the Bible text itself, not with regard to specific textual links but most of all concerning the idea of Abraham already as a part of God’s world. In Luke-Acts it is mainly this “heavenly Abraham” who shapes the forefather’s portrait anew. As Israel’s “éminence grise”, Abraham acquires importance for the Lukan addressees in a double perspective: he represents a long history under God’s guidance, and he stands for the hope of all true believers. Luke’s sensitivity for historical relations causes him to choose Abraham as a symbol of continuity leading from the a bygone era up to the escha36 J. S. Siker, Disinheriting the Jews Abraham in Early Christian Controversy (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991); T. J. Horner, “The Problem with Abraham. Justin Martyr’s Use of Abraham in the Dialogue with Trypho a Jew,” ChM 110 (1996): 230–253; A. Rudolph, “‘Abraham’ in Justins Dialog mit dem Juden Tryphon,” OS 50 (2001): 10–33. 37 E. Janssen, “Testament Abrahams,” JSHRZ III /2 (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlag, 1975), 193–256; D. C. Allison, Testament of Abraham (CEJL; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003). 38 B. Philonenko-Sayar and M. Philonenko, “Apokalypse Abrahams,” JSHRZ V /5 (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlag, 1982), 413–460; R. Rubinkiewicz, L’Apocalypse d’Abraham en vieux slave. Introduction, texte critique, traduction et commentaire (Lublin: Soc. des Lettres et des Sciences de l’Univ. Catholique de Lublin, 1987). 39 Cf. G. Mayer, “Aspekte des Abrahambildes in der hellenistisch-jüdischen Literatur,” EvT 32 (1972): 118–127; Th. Hieke, “Art. Abraham,” www.wibilex.de (January 2004), 4.1. Abraham in der jüdischen Literatur der hellenistisch-römischen Zeit.

274

Christfried Böttrich

tological future. All the different typoi or facets of the figure of Abraham find their centre in this great correlation of things which have been told to the fathers, “that have been fulfilled among us” and which will come about at the end of time. Abraham in Luke-Acts ties together past and future, Israel and the “church,” continuity and change. Perhaps precisely this picture in Luke is the most original “repainted” picture of Abraham in the New Testament as a whole.

The Prodigal Son and his Angry Brother Jacob and Esau in a Parable of Jesus? Guido Baltes

Tales of two brothers are a common motif in ancient as well as modern literature. They convey a powerful symbolism, interweaving notions of kinship and family with those of conflict, jealousy and separation. Within the family of Abraham, we find the story of Isaac and Ishmael, followed by that of Jacob and Esau, which both stand at the beginning of a long reception history in biblical, Jewish, Christian and Islamic literature. Both the indissoluble bond between Israel and its neighbours on the one hand, and a long history of conflict and separation on the other, are part of that history. In the New Testament, the story of Isaac and Ishmael is picked up, together with that of their mothers Sarah and Hagar, to illustrate the choice between (heavenly) freedom and (earthly) slavery. 1 The story of Jacob and Esau is picked up as well, both as an illustration of divine election 2 and of divine blessing, 3 though here without any mention of the female protagonists in that story. 4 However, the two brothers remain little more than stereotyped characters in both these texts. 1

Gal 4:20–5:1. Rom 9:13, with a reference to Mal 1:2–3. Other than in his Isaac /Ishmael and Sarah / Hagar allegory, here Paul is drawing not on the Genesis narrative itself, but on a prophetic text dealing with the symbolic use of Jacob and Esau as eponymous ancestors of Israel and Edom (see below). 3 Heb 11:20; 12:16–17. 4 Both Isaac and Rebecca play vital parts in the Genesis account of the two brothers, Rebecca even as the more proactive. It was on Rebecca’s initiative that Jacob received the blessing of his father. However, Rebecca remains unmentioned throughout most of the later reception history, including the New Testament. It is God himself who chooses to bless Jacob because of his preference for him (Mal 1:1–3; Rom 9:13), or because of the misconduct of Esau (Heb 12:16), which is not mentioned in Gen 27. The wives and daughters of the two brothers, some of whom also feature prominently in the original narrative, do not appear in these New Testament passages. The notions of primogeniture and inheritance have become dominant, which makes – from a legal perspective – the male figures the only relevant characters. 2

276

Guido Baltes

A third New Testament text, possibly also drawing on the narrative of Jacob and Esau, has largely gone unnoticed: it is the famous parable of the Prodigal Son, told in Luke 15:11–32. 5 It is true that the parable does not mention either of the two names explicitly, but rather alludes indirectly to the narrative. In addition, the reading of the story has been dominated by allegorical and exegetical approaches that have made it hard for later readers to recognize these allusions. However, I want to suggest a new reading of the text, based on the assumption that it is in fact a creative retelling of the old Jacob and Esau story, applied to a new context. If that reading is correct, then we have here a use of the motif of the two brothers that is much more elaborated, and at the same time much more nuanced, than the other two. For a long period in history, the parable of the Prodigal Son has been used as a proof text for Christian superiority over Judaism. The younger brother, who returns home from a foreign country to be received and pardoned by his father, was understood as an image of the gentile nations who received God’s grace by accepting the gospel of Jesus. The older brother however, who had served at his father’s house all his life, but ends up as an “outsider” in the course of the story, was understood to be an image of the Jewish people, who tried to earn their favour of God by “works-righteousness,” but eventually rejected the gospel and thereby forfeited their status within the family of God. In modern scholarship, this salvation-historical line of interpretation has been largely abandoned and replaced by an understanding that focuses on the contrast between the repentance of the individual sinner and the criticism of the nonrepentant scribes and Pharisees. 6 But even this new line of interpretation 5 For the purpose of this study, the question of the authenticity of the parable can be left aside. Most commentators assume the parable to originate with Jesus. Some accept only the first part as authentic, cf. Hans Klein, Das Lukasevangelium (KEK 1.3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006), 528. Only a few view the whole parable as a Lukan creation, cf. Luise Schottroff, “Das Gleichnis vom verlorenen Sohn,” ZThK 68 (1971): 27–52, and Heikki Räisänen, “The Prodigal Gentile and his Jewish Christian Brother (Lk 15,11–32),” in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck (BETL 100; ed. Gilbert Van Belle et al.; Leuven: Peeters, 1992), 1617–1636. The alternative reading that I suggest here is plausible both on the level of the ministry and message of the historical Jesus as well as on the level of Luke’s narrative. 6 Cf. Klyne R. Snodgrass, Stories with Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 117–143; Ruben Zimmermann, Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2007), 618–633; Arland J. Hultgren, The Parables of Jesus: A Commentary (Paperback Edition; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 70–91; Bernard Brandon Scott, Hear then the Parable. A Commentary on the Parables of Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 99–125; J. Duncan M. Derrett, “The Parable of the

The Prodigal Son and his Angry Brother

277

still contains potential for an anti-Jewish reading of the parable, this time not on a salvation-historical level, but on the level of religious stereotypes: the image of the works-righteous, uncompassionate or exclusive Pharisees and scribes then often becomes a symbol of Second Temple Judaism in general. 7 Only a few authors have suggested viewing the parable as an intertextual allusion to the most relevant “tale of two brothers” in Jewish tradition, the story of Jacob and Esau. However, if placed in that context, the traditional reading of the parable might not only be challenged, but probably even reversed: the younger son, not the older, would then represent Jacob as an image of Israel returning to God after a period of exile. The older brother, in turn, would be an image of Esau, i. e. the neighbouring gentile nations, still standing outside but now being invited in to join the family. This re-evaluation of the “older brother” stereotype would also be in line with a recent trend in studies of the role of Esau in Jewish and Christian literature: 8 there has been a considerable paradigm shift that seeks to “rehabilitate” the figure of Esau from a prototype of evil towards Prodigal Son,” in Law in the New Testament (ed. J. Duncan M. Derrett; London: Darton, Longman & Todd 1970), 100–125; François Bovon, Das Evangelium nach Lukas. 3. Teilband: Lk 15,1–19,27 (EKK III.3; Zürich /Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger /Neukirchener 2001), 17; Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke (NICNT 3; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1997), 586; Klein, Lukasevangelium, 534; Michael Wolter, Das Lukasevangelium (HNT 5; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 529 and 541–542. 7 Cf. e. g. Greg Forbes, The God of Old: The Role of the Lukan Parables in the Purpose of Luke’s Gospel (JSNT.S 198; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 149: The Pharisees “have misunderstood the nature and character of their God. Strict observance of the law is not the only way to love and acceptance. [...] Similarly, the Pharisees and scribes had forgotten their relationship to their fellow Israelites, refusing to accept them as brothers.” Scott, Hear then, 124, refuses the traditional gentile /Jew interpretation, however he still sees in the parable an expression of Jesus’s radical rejection of “Israel’s self-understanding of itself as the favoured, younger son.” (125) 8 Cf. from a Jewish perspective, Jeffrey M. Cohen, “The Jacob-Esau Reunion,” JBQ 21 (1993): 159–163; Shubert Spero, “Jacob and Esau: the Relationship Reconsidered,” JBQ 32 (2004): 245–250; Pesach Schindler, “Esau and Jacob Revisited: Demon versus Tzadik?” JBQ 35 (2007): 153–160; Ernest Neufeld, “In Defense of Esau,” JBQ 20 (1991): 43–49 and Moshe Reiss, “Esau, Son of Isaac and Grandson of Abraham: The Model of a Faithful Son,” The Asbury Journal 69 (2014): 148–164. From a Christian perspective, cf. Gerhard Langer, Esau: Bruder und Feind (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009); Idem, “‘Brother Esau?’: Esau in Rabbinic Midrash.” in Encounters of the Children of Abraham from Ancient to Modern Times (ed. Antti Laato and Pekka Lindqvist; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 75–94; Annelise Butterweck, “Die Begegnung zwischen Esau und Jakob (Gen. 33,1–18) im Spiegel rabbinischer Ausdeutungen,” Biblische Notizen 116 (2003): 15–27, esp. 27; Friedrich Avemarie, “Esaus Hände, Jakobs Stimme: Edom als Sinnbild Roms in der frühen rabbinischen Literatur,” in Die Heiden: Juden, Christen und das Problem des Fremden (ed. R. Feldmeier and Ulrich Heckel; WUNT 70; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 177–207, esp. 200–206.

278

Guido Baltes

a multi-facetted character on the borderline between Jews and non-Jews, bearing the potential to become a bridge-builder within the much-divided family of Abraham and beyond. 9

1. The Parable of the Prodigal Son: Interpretative Options Patristic exegesis of the parable has taken one of either of two allegorical routes: 10 the salvation-historical reading sees in the younger son a representative of the gentile church and in the older son an image of the unrepentant nation of Israel. The ecclesiastical reading sees the younger son as an image of the repentant individual returning to the church, while the older son is seen as a representative of the unforgiving or arrogant Christian who refuses to accept repentant sinners (lapsi) back into the church. Some ancient authors follow both lines of interpretation. The salvation-historical approach is found only among western authors: Irenaeus, 11 Jerome, 12 Ambrose, 13 Augustine 14 and Peter Chrysologus. 15 Tertullian mentions it as the most common interpretation, though he himself rejects it. 16 In the east, only Cyril of Alexandria shows familiarity with this reading, but he also rejects it. 17 The Jew /Gentile reading is frequently used by the fathers to express anti-Jewish resentment: the older brother’s description as being “in the field” is understood to represent the Jewish preoccupation with “earthly affairs” and works-righteousness (Jerome and Augustine). His demand for a kid (instead of Christ, the sacrificed “lamb of God”), represents the Jews’ choice to wait for the AntiChrist instead of following Christ (Ambrose). His claim to always have kept the command of God (singular!) refers to Monotheism only, but not to all commands of God (Augustine). With some authors, the resentments 9 Cf. Steven Kepnes, “Hagar and Esau: from others to sisters and brother,” 31–46 in Crisis, Call, and Leadership in the Abrahamic Traditions (ed. Peter Ochs and William Stacy Johnson; New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), 32 and 45. 10 Cf. Bovon, Lukas III, 54–60; Yves Tissot, “Patristic Allegories of the Lukan Parable of the Two Sons, Luke 15:11–32,” in Exegesis: Problems of Method and Exercises in Reading (Genesis 22 and Luke 15) (ed. Francois Bovon and Gregoire Rouiller; Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series 21; Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1978). 11 Irenaeus. Haer. 4.36.7. 12 Jerome, Epist. 21 (to Damasus). 13 Ambrose, Hom. Luc. 7.213–243. 14 Augustine, Quaest. ev. 2.33. 15 Petrus Chrysologus, Serm. 5. 16 Tertullian, Pud. 8–9. 17 Cyrill, Comm. in Luc., Hom. 107.

The Prodigal Son and his Angry Brother

279

are even deeper: Tertullian and Cyril reject the common Jew-Gentile allegory precisely because the few positive remarks about the older son in the parable (vv. 29b and 31) could in their view never apply to the Jewish people. However, there is also a more positive view: Peter Chrysologus correctly observes that the roles of the two brothers should actually be reversed, since historically speaking the gentile nations existed before the Jewish people. But he then interprets the “age” of the brothers in terms of their moral wisdom, since God’s higher moral standards had been revealed to the Jewish people first through the Mosaic law. The second line of patristic interpretation sees both brothers as representing Christian believers, the one a repentant sinner, and the other as self-righteous and arrogant. This line is chosen by Cyril of Alexandria as the only valid alternative to the Jew /Gentile allegory. Jerome and Ambrose mention both options as valid, 18 while eastern authors like Philoxenes of Mabbug 19 and Ephraem 20 mention only the second option. Tertullian rejects the second as well as the first and offers his own particular application (see below). Augustine, apart from the above mentioned allegorical interpretation, frequently applies the image of the Prodigal Son to his own individual biography, 21 therefore accepting also the second paradigm, though without explicitly naming it as an interpretational option. In modern times, both of these allegorical patristic readings have been abandoned. Critical scholarship today places the focus on the literary setting of the parable in Luke: the younger son then represents the tax collectors and sinners coming to Jesus (Luke 15:1) while the older brother stands for the Pharisees and scribes (Luke 15:2). However, generalizing comments are still to be found, since the Pharisees and scribes are often understood to be a pars pro toto for “those who exclude themselves from the family of God” by grumbling at the practices of Jesus vis-à-vis the sinners, “responsible and obedient, it would seem, but failing in their solidarity with the redemptive purposes of God.” 22 Some protagonists of Jewish-Christian dialogue, in turn, while accepting the old identification of the elder brother as an image of the Jewish people, still challenge su18 Ambrose first presents the ecclesiastical interpretation (7.213–7.238), then the Jew / Gentile allegory (7.239–243). 19 On The Indwelling of the Spirit 1. 20 Ephraem, Hymns of Paradise 14.7. 21 E.g. Conf 1:18. 22 Green, Luke, 586.

280

Guido Baltes

persessionist readings by emphasizing the positive notions of the father’s speech in Luke 15:31 (“You have always been with me and all that is mine is also yours.”) and the open ending of the parable which precisely does not exclude the older son from the feast. 23 But still such readings, though they may help to reduce the anti-Jewish impetus of the patristic reading, presuppose the identification of the “elder brother” with the Jewish people, or at least their Lukan representatives, the scribes and Pharisees. Few authors have gone as far as to fundamentally challenge the ancient Jew /Gentile paradigm as such and suggested instead to equate the younger son with Israel: indeed, already as early as the 3rd century, Tertullian had suggested such a reading as much more appropriate (multo aptius) than the reverse, and he even based it on an assumed connection of the parable with the Jacob and Esau narrative. However, he did not expand on the idea further. 24 In modern exegesis, there have only been a few casual remarks similarly linking the parable to the Jacob and Esau narrative, albeit without any further exegetical expansion. 25 To my knowledge, N. T. Wright was the first to suggest explicitly that the parable as a whole could be read as a retelling of the story of Israel, not the gentiles: in his view, the parable reflects the biblical “grand narrative” of Israel, returning from an exile that is understood to be still ongoing in the 1st century c. e. Wright sees the main subtext of the parable in the “narrative grammar which underlies the exilic prophets, and the books of Ezra and Nehemiah,” 26 with the exodus

23 E.g. Amy Jill Levine, Short Stories by Jesus: The Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial Rabbi (New York: Harper Collins, 2014), 64–70; similarly Petr Pokorný, Theologie der lukanischen Schriften (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998), 57–58; Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 538 and 541, dismisses the option of an open ending. 24 Tertullian’s major argument in Pud. 8–9 is to refute any reading of the parable that would equate the younger son with a Christian in order to condone repentance for mortal sins within the church. He therefore first attacks the common equation of the younger /older brother with Christians /Jews. That reading, as mentioned above, is not acceptable for him because of the positive statements in vv. 29b and 31. He then argues that a reverse reading was much more plausible in view of the Jacob /Esau story. However, in the end he rejects this alternative as well since “a Christian should have rejoiced, not complained about the restitution of the Jew, because all our hope is strongly connected with the expectation of Israel’s remnant”. Tertullian suggests therefore a purely historical reading of the parable, reflecting the opposition of the Pharisees towards Jesus’s acceptance of (gentile) sinners. 25 Isaac Abrahams, Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1917), 11; Derrett, Parable, 68. Scott, Hear then, 112. 26 Nicholas T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God. (vol. 2 of Christian Origins and the Question of God; Minneapolis: Fortress Press 1996), 126.

The Prodigal Son and his Angry Brother

281

narrative as the “ultimate backdrop,” 27 and only mentions in passing a possible connection to the Jacob and Esau cycle. 28 Kenneth Bailey, in a number of articles and a small inspirational booklet, has taken the idea further and suggested that the parable as a whole should be interpreted as a deliberate “reshaping of the saga of Jacob.” 29 While Wright and Bailey both view the younger son as a representative of Jacob /Israel, neither of them draws the obvious conclusion to equate the older brother with Esau, i. e. the non-Jewish neighbours of Israel or the gentile nations: for Wright, the elder brother instead represents the Samaritans, i. e. Israelites who had remained in the land while the southern tribes went into exile, and who now opposed the idea of a return and restoration of Israel as a nation. By extension, Jews who do not believe in Jesus, the agent of this restoration, are also “virtually Samaritans” in contrast to “true Israel,” and therefore “outside the true family.” 30 For Bailey, the older brother indeed refers to Esau in the subtext, however in the Lukan application Esau is not an image for gentile neighbours, but for Jews who do not believe in Jesus and therefore become “Edom, the enemy of Israel [...] who in the end permanently separates from his younger brother.” 31 Benjamin Williams, who by and large accepts the reading of Wright and Bailey, suggests that Luke uses the biblical story in order to intensify the negative image of the older brother. While even “one so low as disreputable Esau” was able to show compassion for his returning brother, the older brother in the parable remains unable to show love or joy. It is the father, instead, who reflects the biblical figure of Esau and even surpasses it. Also for Williams, Esau remains an image of “the Pharisees, so fond of ‘setting boundaries around the household and the common table.’” 32 All three authors, Wright, Bailey and Williams, while rejecting the patristic “gentile /Jew” contrast, replace it with a “believing /nonbeliev-

27

Ibid. Cf. Wright, Victory, 127: “There are, perhaps, other echoes, of quarrels between brothers which left the younger vindicated and the elder angry and disinherited,” with a footnote referring to Gen 4:27 and 32 f and mentioning Luke 15:20 as an echo of Gen 33:4. 29 Kenneth Bailey, Jacob and the Prodigal: How Jesus Retold Israel’s Story (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 2003), 15. 30 Wright, Victory, 127. 31 Bailey, Jacob, 192. 32 Benjamin J. Williams, “Brotherhood Motifs in the Parable of the Prodigal Son,” RestQ 56 (2014): 99–109, esp. 107. 28

282

Guido Baltes

ing Jew” contrast, which in the end turns the non-believing Jews into Samaritans, Edomites or at least characters even worse than “disreputable Esau.” 33 However, in light of the broader reception history of the JacobEsau narrative in biblical and Jewish literature, this is not the only viable interpretative option. In fact, it is not even the most obvious. In this article, I would like to take the idea of identifying the younger brother with Jacob one step further. In general, the suggestion of reading the parable against the backdrop of the Jacob and Esau story has found some acceptance among Jewish 34 as well as Christian 35 authors, while some of the details have been met with reservations. 36 Snodgrass explicitly accepts the first half of Wright’s interpretation, i. e. equating the younger son with Israel, but then states that “his attempt to say the elder brother represents the Samaritans [...] is not the least convincing and shows that his explanation of the parable cannot be followed.” 37 Levine agrees that Jewish hearers would naturally identify with the younger son in the parable, understanding him as an image of Jacob. 38 However, she does not suggest an interpretative option for the elder son. In this article, I want to build upon the observations of Wright, Bailey and Levine and assume that, if the younger son represents Jacob /Israel, then the most obvious option would be that the elder son represents Esau, i. e. non-Jews. None of the authors mentioned above have, as far as I can see, taken that path, which would in consequence result in a total reversal of the ancient gentile /Jew imagery into its opposite, i. e. a Jew /gentile imagery: the younger brother would then, as in all other biblical and early Jewish echoes of the Jacob /Esau story, represent Israel, while the older brother would represent the gentile nations, being invited (back) into the household and the family of God.

33 Williams, Brotherhood Motifs, 109. Derrett, Parable, 123, coming very close to the reading I propose here, eventually understands the parable as equating the non-believing Jews with “Ishmaelites, Midianites, Edomites and the like” (125), rather than assuming that the parable has indeed the non-Jewish nations in view. 34 Amy Jill Levine, The Jewish Annotated New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 133; Abrahams, Studies, 11. 35 Derrett, Parable, 68; Williams, Brotherhood Motifs, 107. 36 Snodgrass, Stories, 129 and 134; Williams, Brotherhood Motifs, 100; Bovon, Lukas III, 17. 37 Snodgrass, Stories, 134. 38 Levine, Jewish Annotated New Testament, 133.

The Prodigal Son and his Angry Brother

283

To strengthen the argument beyond mere textual interconnections, I will refer to two more general observations that have remained unmentioned by both Wright and Bailey. 39 Both these observations are drawn from later rabbinic sources, however from motives that can with reasonable probability be traced back to pre-rabbinic traditions. The first is the frequent use of the father /son imagery as a God /Israel metaphor in rabbinic parable teaching. The second is the use of the Jacob /Esau imagery as an Israel /gentile metaphor in rabbinic midrash.

2. The Use of the Father /Son Imagery in the Repertoire of Tannaitic Parables It is an accepted consensus of modern parable scholarship that there is a close relation between the parables of the New Testament and the parables of rabbinic literature. While the differences in style and content should not be downplayed, and no claims of direct literary dependence – in either direction – can be made, it is an undeniable fact that the corpus of New Testament parables stands much closer to the (later) corpus of tannaitic and amoraic parables than to the sparse parable material found in contemporary Jewish or Graeco-Roman sources. 40 The most widely accepted explanation for this phenomenon is the assumption that both corpora, the New Testament and tannaitic literature, draw upon a common, earlier tradition of parabolic teaching without being directly related to each other. Therefore the parables of Jesus can and should be read primarily along the lines of rabbinic parables, despite the obvious chronological gap. In a recent collection of 417 tannaitic parables, which claims to be exhaustive, 41 a total of 61 deal with a father and his son, 42 48 of these

39 Bailey, Jacob, 192, mentions the metaphoric use of Esau as a cipher for Rome in passing, however he does not apply it to the older son. 40 Cf. Snodgrass, Stories, 53–59; David Flusser, Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus. 1. Teil: Das Wesen der Gleichnisse (JudChr 4; Bern: Peter Lang, 1981), 18–19; Peter Dschulnigg, Rabbinische Gleichnisse und das Neue Testament: die Gleichnisse der PesK im Vergleich mit den Gleichnissen Jesu und dem Neuen Testament (JudChr 12; Paris: Lang, 1988), 16–18; R. Steven Notley and Zeev Safrai, Parables of the Sages: Jewish Wisdom from Jesus to Rav Ashi (Jerusalem: Carta, 2011), 63–70. 41 Notley and Safrai, Parables, viii and 2. 42 Notley and Safrai No. 34, 36, 41, 42, 61, 64, 83, 116, 122, 149, 198, 218, 267 and the 48 king-parables listed in n. 44.

284

Guido Baltes

with a king and his son. 43 In the majority of these cases (49 out of 61), the father represents God, while the son represents Israel. In the twelve remaining cases, the son represents biblical individuals like Moses, Joshua, or Obadiah. Only in one case does the son serve as a direct image for a contemporary hearer of the parable (as is assumed for the Lukan parable by most modern exegetes). In this case, the son of the king is taken captive to a faraway country, and upon his return receives his inheritance. In the application of the parable (nimshal), the son is at first equated with a disciple of a sage who has departed from the words of Torah and later seeks to return. Afterwards however, even here, the son is also equated with Jacob /Israel. 44 In another parable the son travels to several foreign countries and is being followed by his father. In the nimshal, the foreign countries are explicitly identified with Israel’s sojourn in Egypt and in the wilderness, so the son here must also be Israel, though this is not explicitly mentioned in the nimshal. 45 A common motif within the parables is a father 46 or a king 47 who is angry with his son and punishes him, or even hands him over to wicked guardians, representing foreign nations. 48 In 10 out of these 11 cases, the son represents Israel. The one exception tells the story of a son who is expelled from his father’s house and suffers hunger and thirst. The father, even if he does not invite the son back into his house, makes sure that his son is provided with food and drink and even pays for it. His explanation resembles the words of the father in Luke 15:31: “For everything I have is also his.” 49 In the nimshal, the parable is applied to a general obligation to care for the poor. However, in light of the remaining corpus of king /son parables, it is probable that even this

43 Notley and Safrai No. 51, 54, 59, 72, 79, 81, 88, 105, 118, 119, 121, 127, 128, 133, 135, 140, 146, 147, 148, 163, 165, 169, 179, 188–191, 210, 224, 232, 238, 246, 249, 257–259, 278, 316, 318, 324, 327, 332, 334, 341, 347, 355, 356, 370. 44 Sifre Deut § 345 on Deut 33:4 (ed. Finkelstein 402), Notley and Safrai No. 210. 45 Mek. shira beshallah 3 (ed. Horovitz 127–128) and Mek. Sh. 15:2 (ed. EpsteinMelamed 76–77), Notley /Safrai No. 51 and 79. 46 Mek. bahodesh yitro 5 (ed. Horovitz 221), Notley and Safrai No. 64. 47 Mek. Sh. 16:4 (ed. Epstein-Melamed 106), Notley and Safrai No. 88; Sifre Num § 86 (ed. Horovitz 85), Notley and Safrai No. 118; Sifre Zut. 11:2 (ed Horovitz 268), Notley and Safrai No. 146; Sifre Zut. 11:9 (ed Horovitz 269), Notley and Safrai No. 148; Sifre Deut § 43:17 (ed. Finkelstein 98–99), Notley and Safrai No. 179; Midr. Tannaim 11:16 (ed. Hoffmann 38), Notley and Safrai No. 238; S. Eli. Zut. 4 (ed. Ish-Shalom 180), Notley and Safrai No. 355; S. Eli. Zut. 5 (ed. Ish-Shalom 181), Notley and Safrai No. 356. 48 S. Eli. Rab. 18 (ed. Ish-Shalom 113), Notley and Safrai No. 327; S. Eli. Rab. 28 (ed. Ish-Shalom 150), Notley and Safrai No. 341. 49 S. Eli. Zut. 5 (ed. Ish-Shalom 181), Notley and Safrai No. 356.

285

The Prodigal Son and his Angry Brother

parable originally was a metaphor for God’s provision for Israel in times of exile. Total

Son = Israel

Father /Son

61

49

12

1

King /Son

48

36

12

1

1

1

–

–

10

9

–

1

Angry Father / Son Angry king / Son

Son = Son = Other Biblical Contemporary Figures Hearer

Thus the images of father /son and king /son are part of a standing repertoire within the tannaitic corpus of parables, reflecting in almost every case the relationship between Israel and God, in many cases including the notions of alienation, exile and divine mercy. 50 The twelve exceptions to this rule focus on biblical figures that stand out as examples or representatives of the people of Israel. But even these relate to the history of Israel rather than to the individual person and his /her relation to God. Only in one case is the father /son metaphor an image of an individual sinner returning to God, or to be more precise, to the Torah. 51 In light of these observations, Wright’s suggestion that hearers of the parable of the Prodigal Son would recognize in this story the story of Israel and its return from exile, rather than an individual sinner’s return to God, does not seem too far-fetched. In fact, this interpretation would be almost inevitable for most hearers in a Jewish context, or familiar with Jewish tradition, regardless of the narrative details unfolding in the course of the story. In contrast, what is unusual about the parable is the second son. Snodgrass has criticised the intertextual relations claimed by Wright and Bailey on the grounds that, “Stories contrasting two sons were a common means of instruction and frequent in the OT, Jewish parables, and Greco-Roman

50 Dschulnigg, Gleichnisse, 542, testifies the same for the parables of the Pesiqta de Rab Kahana: 30 out of around 120 deal with a father and a son. In almost every case the son symbolizes Israel. However, Dschulnigg nevertheless suggests that the four father-son parables in the New Testament, in contrast, do not have Israel in view but individual hearers, or, in the case of Mark 12:1–11 par., the person of Jesus. 51 The ‫ תלמיד חכם‬in Sifre Deut § 345 on Deut 33:4 (ed. Finkelstein 402), Notley and Safrai No. 210, cf. above n. 44.

286

Guido Baltes

stories and declamations.” 52 Stories of this kind were, in his view, “far too common” to allow for any specific intertextual dependence. 53 The understanding of the story therefore could only be enhanced by a general “knowledge of conventional stories of a father and two sons,” but not by any “specific text or group of texts” from biblical or early Jewish tradition. 54 However, in view of the tannaitic material, this verdict must be questioned: Total

Son = Israel

Son = Other Biblical Figures

Son = Contemporary Hearer

Father / Two Sons

2

–

1 (Judah / Benjamin)

1 (diligent / negligent disciple)

Father / Many Sons or Servants

27

23

4 (Patriarchs)

–

One Son or Servant / Other Sons or Servants

10

1 (Israel / Gentiles)

4 (Benjamin / other tribes) 1 (Ezekiel / rest of Israel) 4 (Jacob /Esau and other patriarchs)

–

While the motif of a father and one son or of a father and many sons / servants 55 is indeed frequent in tannaitic parables, the setting of a father with two sons is very rare. Essentially there are only two instances from that early period, each of them with a doublet: the first narrates a competition between the tribes of Benjamin and Judah, where in the end both

52

Snodgrass, Stories, 129. Snodgrass, Stories, 130. 54 Snodgrass, Stories, 130. 55 There are 27 instances within the tannaitic corpus. Again, most of them signify the people of Israel: Notley and Safrai No. 151, 176, 178, 200, 207, 212, 214, 215, 269, 275, 280, 282, 283, 289, 291, 292, 295, 302, 304, 311, 312, 314, 315, 328, 339, 343, 362. In some cases, one of the sons /servants is privileged over against the others. This signifies in four cases the tribe of Benjamin over against the other tribes (214, 215, 282, 283), in one case the prophet Ezekiel over against the rest of exiled Israel (304), in four cases Jacob over against the other patriarchs and his brother Esau (200, 207, 269, 275) and in one case Israel over against the nations (176, 302). 53

The Prodigal Son and his Angry Brother

287

are honoured for their obedience. 56 The second explains the difference between a diligent and a negligent “disciple of a sage” (‫)תלמיד חכם‬. 57 But also within later rabbinic writings the picture does not change: only one of the many examples adduced by Snodgrass from later rabbinic sources follows the “instructive” pattern of the virtuous /vile son known from Graeco-Roman sources, or as it were, from Matt 21:28–32. 58 In addition, the Lukan parable lacks the typical structure of the “instructive” pattern, with a father giving a certain task to his two sons which both of them perform in a different way. Therefore, Snodgrass’s argument is not convincing. The point is that the story was indeed not at all conventional in the context of Jewish parable tradition, and therefore the hearer would have looked for clues to further identify the two brothers: in view of the parable material presented here, such an identification could either be sought in specific biblical figures, in certain Israelite tribes, or in the contrast between Israel and the other nations.

3. Echoes of Biblical Narrative and Intertextual Connections Which biblical figures or narratives can be found that could serve as a subtext to inform the parable? Commentators have pointed out numerous parallels between the parable and possible biblical subtexts: Gen 33:1–17, Gen 41:42, Deut 21:18–21, Ps 23, Ps 103, Jer 31:10–20. 59 Others have rejected any specific intertextual link precisely because of the multiplicity of parallels. 60 It is true that the search for parallels in details can easily lead to an over-allegorization of the parable. And in fact, Bailey’s fifty-one “points of comparison and contrast” between the Lukan parable and the

56 Mek. vayehi beschallah 5 (Horovitz 104–105), Notley and Safrai No. 44; Mek. Sh. 14:22 (Epstein-Melamed 62), Notley and Safrai No. 74. 57 Sifre Deut § 48 (Finkelstein 108–109), Notley and Safrai No. 184. 58 Gen. Rab. 30:10 compares Abraham (“He went before God”) and Noah (“He went with God”); Exod. Rab. 17:3 compares the beloved son (Israel) with the less beloved (Egypt), but no behaviour on the part of the sons is involved; Lam. Rab. (Prologue) 2 par Pesiq. Rab Kah. 15:4 compares two sons equally punished by their father (Israel /Judah); only Lev. Rab. 37:2 follows the instructive pattern and compares a charitable and a stingy son. Qoh. Rab. 3:15 is the only Jewish parable that corresponds closely with Luke 15: it deals with a father who had two sons. The older one treats him with respect, the younger one urinates on him. However, the father still shows more love towards the younger child. A nimshal is not given, and also from the context no clue can be found who these two sons represent. 59 Cf. the literature collected by Snodgrass, Stories, 627, n. 180–186. 60 Snodgrass, Stories, 129; Bovon, Lukas III, 17.

288

Guido Baltes

Jacob story are in many cases “superficial or exaggerated” 61 and cannot serve as an indicator of deliberate intertextual connections. But abusus non tollit usus, therefore we should not necessarily deny any existence of such connections from the start. For the sake of clarity, we should differentiate between singular narrative features, which might have parallels in a variety of biblical texts, and the overall narrative framework of the story, which needs not only a text, but a whole narrative to which it corresponds. To avoid over-allegorization I suggest that a quest for possible biblical subtexts should not start with the details but with the overall narrative framework of the parable. Thus, the exposition of the story in the first sentence must serve as a starting point: “A man had two sons.” (Luke 15:11) Since, as we have seen, the motif of a father with two sons is not too common in Jewish parable tradition, the most obvious biblical texts to look for are prominent pairs of brothers in the biblical narrative. This would include Cain and Abel, Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau and perhaps – less obviously – Ephraim and Manasseh. The next sentence of the parable then reduces the options drastically: the father divides the inheritance among the two sons, and the younger son leaves for a faraway country. At this point, only Jacob and Esau remain as a plausible biblical background for the rest of the story. Snodgrass’s claim that all the suggested subtexts listed above are equally plausible as a narrative background to the parable, but that “none of them [...] shows enough similarity for seeing it as a source of Jesus’ parable and wording” must be specified more precisely: while it is true that the exact wording of the parable does not depend on any specific subtext within the Jacob and Esau saga, and also the parable neither seeks to rewrite nor retell the story of Jacob and Esau, nevertheless the scenario drawn up at the outset of the parable would inevitably evoke a reminiscence of the Jacob and Esau saga in a hearer’s mind and, connected to it, the symbolism that it carried for Jewish tradition in the Second Temple Period (see below). And this connection was most probably not unintended by the narrator. Once that generalized – and, as I see it, obvious – reference to the Jacob /Esau tradition is conceded, we can look for additional details that would be in line with this observation: in terms of content, there are the motifs of tending someone else’s flock while in a foreign country, the final return home, the reconciliation scene (details below) and the anger of the older brother.

61

Ibid.

289

The Prodigal Son and his Angry Brother

Jacob and Esau

Prodigal Son

Father and two sons

Father and two sons

Younger son receives inheritance

Younger son receives inheritance

Younger son departs to a far-off country

Younger son departs to a far-off country

Younger son tends the sheep & goats

Younger son tends the swine

Reconciliation upon return (brother)

Reconciliation upon return (father)

Younger Son holds a meal with the father in the house while his brother is in the field (beginning)

Younger Son holds a meal with the father in the house while his brother is in the field (end)

Older son is angry (beginning)

Older son is angry (end)

On the other hand, the number of details that run contrary to the Jacob / Esau story is admittedly higher than the number of parallels: the wasting of money, the famine, the gentile owner of the herd, the swine, the father (instead of the brother) offering the reconciliation, the ring, the robe, the feast, the resentment of the brother (as a result of the return, rather than a cause of the flight). All these details make it clear that the parable is not just “rewritten bible.” It is the Jacob /Esau motif, not the Jacob /Esau narrative, that lies behind Jesus’s parable. However, there are not only parallels in the overall scenario and the content. Some of the details in wording additionally support the link with the Jacob and Esau narrative: the most obvious is the reconciliation scene between father and son: καὶ δραµὼν ἐπέπεσεν ἐπὶ τὸν τράχηλον αὐτοῦ καὶ κατεφίλησεν αὐτόν.

(Luke 15:20)

καὶ προσέδραµεν Ησαυ εἰς συνάντησιν αὐτῷ καὶ περιλαβὼν αὐτὸν

‫שׂו‬ ָ ‫ָרץ ֵע‬ ָ‫ַויּ‬ ‫ִקָראתוֹ‬ ְ‫ל‬ ‫ְח ְבּ ֵקהוּ‬ ַ ‫ַוי‬ ‫ָארו‬ ָ ‫ל־צוּ‬ ַ ‫ִפּל ַע‬ ֹ ‫ַויּ‬ ‫ִשּׁ ֵקהוּ‬ ָ ‫ַויּ‬

ἐφίλησεν καὶ προσέπεσεν ἐπὶ τὸν τράχηλον αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἔκλαυσαν ἀµφότεροι. ‫ִבכּוּ‬ ְ ‫ַויּ‬ (Gen 33:4 LXX) (Gen 33:4 mt)

Here as well, there are important differences in content (it is the father, not the brother, who runs, kisses and embraces the returning son) and in wording (mainly the different use of composita). Hofius 62 has argued that 62

Otfried Hofius, “Alttestamentliche Motive im Gleichnis vom verlorenen Sohn,” NTS 24 (1978): 240–248, esp. 246–248.

290

Guido Baltes

the differences in wording could best be explained by Luke’s dependence upon the Hebrew text of Gen 33:4, which would not only account for the varying composita, but also for the differing order of events which is “running, kissing, embracing” in the MT and Luke and “running, embracing, kissing” in the LXX. Williams, on the other hand, has suggested that the differences are introduced intentionally by Luke who thereby “intensified the importance of the kiss.” 63 Yet another detail ties the encounter between father and son with that of Esau and Jacob: while Esau addresses his returning brother as “my brother” (‫)א ִחי‬, ָ Jacob refrains from using family terminology by using the terms “my master” (‫)א ֹדנִי‬ ֲ for his brother and “servant” (‫)ע ֶבד‬ ֶ for himself. 64 This relates closely to the self-description of the younger son towards his father in Luke 15:19,21 (“not son but servant”). In addition to these observations, the identification of the older brother as being “in the field” (ἐν ἀγρῷ) and as coming back “to the house” (τῇ οἰκίᾳ) might be another intentional link to the biblical figure of Esau, who is introduced in Gen 25:27 as “a man of the field” (ἄνθρωπος [...] ἄγροικος), in contrast to his brother, who is “a quiet man, dwelling in tents” (ἄνθρωπος ἄπλαστος οἰκῶν οἰκίαν). In the course of the story, Esau is characterised three more times as coming “from the field” (ἐκ τοῦ πεδίου) or being sent “to the field” (εἰς τὸ πεδίον). 65 “Being in the field” therefore is not just any accidental feature of the Jacob /Esau narrative, it is the characteristic identity of Esau as the older brother. On top of this, the whole scenario of Gen 25 and 27, with Esau being out in the field, while Jacob is inside, sharing a meal with his father, is reminiscent of the scenario at the end of the Lukan parable. It should therefore be safe to assume an intentional intertextual connection here, without falling into the trap of over-allegorization. The differences in wording might again be owed to a direct dependence on the Hebrew text, as suggested by Hofius. Two minor observations might be added with more caution: Bailey has pointed out the fact that, while a kid (ἔριφος) is a very common animal of sacrifice in the biblical tradition, the only two places where it is mentioned as an ordinary meal are Luke 15:29 (the kid never offered by the father

63

Williams, Brotherhood Motifs, 109. Alfred Agyenta, “When Reconciliation Means More than the ‘Remembering’ of Former Enemies: The Problem of the Conclusion to the Jacob-Esau Story from a Narrative Perspective (Gen 33,1–17),” ETL 83 (2007): 123–134, esp. 124–125. 65 Gen 25:29; 27:3,5. 64

The Prodigal Son and his Angry Brother

291

to his elder son) and Gen 27:9 (the kid offered by Jacob to his father). 66 Besides this, ἔριφος is a hapax legomenon within Luke-Acts. Concerning the details of Luke 15:22 (ring, stola, shoes), Hofius has suggested that these might be borrowed from the restitution of Joseph before Pharaoh in Gen 41:42 (ring, stola, necklace). 67 However, the verse might also be seen as an intentional echo of Jacob being dressed with the stola of his elder brother by his mother before sharing a meal with his father (Gen 27:15), a scene that takes place inside the house /tent (ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ) while the brother is outside in the fields. Here we are already on the border of speculation. These last two observations are surely not strong enough to establish an intertextual link between the parable and the Jacob /Esau narrative. However, once that link is established on the other, more obvious, grounds shown above, these observations can serve as supportive evidence. To sum up: The overall scenario of the parable (a father with two sons, one travelling to a faraway country and returning in the end) suggests a link to the Jacob and Esau tradition. Some minor features of the narrative (preference for the younger brother, tending the flock, an angry brother, a final reconciliation scene) further strengthen this link. Some details in wording (running, kissing, embracing, in the house /in the field, a kid for a meal, the stola) seem to intentionally evoke that link on the textual level. The story of Jacob and Esau therefore indeed seems to form the interpretative background of the parable. However, at the same time, the differences between the two stories are so apparent that the parable cannot simply be understood as a retelling of the Jacob /Esau narrative. Some of the elements obviously introduce an intentional variation of the original story. There is no trickery of the younger son against his brother. The son becomes poorer, not richer, during his sojourn in a foreign country. It is the father, not the brother, who welcomes the son back home. The figure of the mother, the main character of the Jacob /Esau narrative, is totally absent from the parable. The end of the parable remains in open tension, 68 while in the original story reconciliation between the brothers takes place. All this leads to the conclusion that Luke is not simply retelling the story of Jacob and Esau. Instead, he is employing the figurative meaning that the tale of the two brothers had already taken on 66

Bailey, Jacob, 185. Hofius, Motive, 243. 68 Klein, Lukasevangelium, 534; Bovon, Lukas III, 45; Green, Luke, 586; Jan Lambrecht, “A Note on Luke 15,11–32,” in Luke and his Readers: Festschrift A. Denaux, (ed. Reimund Bieringer, Gilbert van Belle and Jozef Verheyden; Leuven: Peeters, 2005), 10–18, 306; pace Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 538 and 541. 67

292

Guido Baltes

in biblical and early Jewish tradition in order to tell another story: the story of Israel (as Wright has suggested) and her gentile neighbours (as I am about to suggest).

4. The Symbolism of Jacob and Esau in Rabbinic and Biblical Literature It is well known that the story of Jacob and Esau has fulfilled a “function of demarcation” 69 for national, ethnic and religious identities from biblical times onwards, and well into rabbinic and even modern times. “The typological meaning of Jacob’s and Esau’s story intersects the relationship between Christianity and Judaism from its inception down to our own day.” 70

The tale of the two conflicting brothers has helped, on the one hand, to preserve a memory of common heritage and family identity. On the other hand, the story of betrayal and conflict has served as an image of separation, exclusion and mistrust of the Other. Finally, the element of reconciliation, embedded in the story, has kept alive a hope for a final reunion of the separated members of the family in the near or distant future. Starting from the second century c. e. onward, there is an ever-growing tendency in rabbinic literature to view the two brothers as an archetype for the relation of Israel and Rome /Edom, or, in later periods, Judaism and Christianity: 71 a typos that includes notions of fierce hostility, as in 69

Langer, Brother Esau, 75, and more comprehensively Langer, Bruder und Feind. Israel Yuval, Two Nations in Your Womb: Perceptions of Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages (Berkeley: Berkeley University Press, 2006), 3; Langer, Bruder und Feind, has compiled an extensive overview of the motif in ancient, medieval and modern literature. Cf. also the seminal article by Joseph Soloveitchik, “Confrontation,” Trad. 6 (1964): 5–29, which has been paradigmatic for orthodox criticism of Jewish-Christian dialogue, and which makes extensive use of the typology of Jacob and Esau; on the other hand, Jonathan Sacks as a leading voice of Jewish-Christian dialogue, frequently refers to the Jacob /Esau story to promote such dialogue, cf. Jonathan Sacks, Not in God’s Name: Confronting Religious Violence (London: Hodder & Stoughton 2015); Kepnes, Hagar, 45, sees Judaism, Christianity and Islam equally represented in both Jacob and Esau. For the use of the Jacob and Esau tradition in patristic polemic against Jews, cf. the contribution of Anni Maria Laato in this volume, p. 361–376. 71 Cf. Avemarie, Esaus Hände; Langer, Brother Esau; Butterweck, Begegnung; Harry Freedman, “Jacob and Esau: Their Struggle in the Second Century,” JBQ 23 (1995): 107–115, Mireille Hadas-Lebel, “Jacob et Esau ou Israel et Rome dans le Talmud et le Midrash,” Revue de l’histoire des religions 201 (1984): 369–392; Pierluigi Lanfranchi, “Jacob and Esau: Who Are They? The Use of Romans 9:10–13 in Anti-Jewish Literature 70

The Prodigal Son and his Angry Brother

293

the aftermath of the Bar Kokhba revolt, 72 as well as notions of mutual respect, as in the conversations of Rabbi Jehuda Ha-Nasi and the emperor Antoninus, 73 and even the outlook of an eschatological reunion of the two brothers: While it is clear that under current circumstances Israel is subdued by Rome, there is also a dim hope that the hostile Other will one day either be finally vanquished and be no more, or that he will ultimately be reconciled with his younger brother. 74 Thus, in a midrash on Ex 19:1, the rabbis ask: “Why was the Torah given in the third month?” The answer is: “In order not to give the nations of the earth a chance to claim falsely: Had He given the Torah to us [as well as to Israel], we would have kept it. The Holy One replied: When I offered it to you, you refused it. But you are still free to accept it, for take note in what month I gave the Torah – in the third month, under the zodiacal sign of twins – by way of indicating thereby that if anyone of you descended from the wicked Esau [after all, he was Jacob’s twin] – wishes to become a proselyte, wishes to repent and to come study Torah, let him come and study, and I will accept him.” 75

In another midrash, Esau’s marriage with Mahalat in Gen 28:9 is linked with the Hebrew root ‫( מחל‬to forgive) and explained as a sign that Esau in the end repented and made teshuvah. 76 In a talmudic dictum ascribed to R. Jose ha-Galili, an eschatological scene is described in which the nations of the world offer their gifts to the Messiah. After Egypt and Ethiopia have presented their gifts and are accepted by the Messiah, Rome comes next: “Then shall the wicked Roman state argue with herself: If those who are not their brethren are thus [accepted], how much the more we, their brethren.” 77

Some have argued that the rabbinic interpretation of Jacob /Esau as Israel / Rome developed mainly as a reaction to early Christian claims to be “true Jacob” while Judaism was viewed as the “new Esau.” 78 Others have warned against too narrowly defined explanations of origin and suggested that all kinds of “Others” might lie behind the rabbinic metaphor of Jacob and

of the First Centuries,” in Ancient Perspectives on Paul (NTOA 102; ed. Tobias Nicklas; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2013), 297–316; Yuval, Two Nations, 1–30. 72 y. Ta’an 4:8 (68d). 73 b. ’Abod. Zar. 10b. 74 cf. Avemarie, Esaus Hände, 200–203; Langer, Brother Esau, 89–92. 75 Midr. Tanh. B yitro 13 (38b) ed. Braude 324; par. Pesiq. Rab K. 12:20. 76 Gen. Rab. 67:13 on Gen 28:9. 77 b. Pesah. 118b. 78 Yuval, Two Nations; Lanfranchi, Jacob. Cf. the contribution of Anni Maria Laato in this volume, p. 361–376.

294

Guido Baltes

Esau, even some that predate the Israel /Rome or Judaism /Christianity conflict. 79 Bernhard Langer, in a number of recent contributions, suggests that interpretation of the Jacob /Esau motif should move beyond the contrast of insider and outsider, Jew and Other, and recognize that the archetype of Esau remains a “borderline” character: he is enemy and brother, outsider and insider, the opposite Other and the Alter Ego within Judaism itself. He is, as Langer puts it, the Mr. Hyde of Judaism, while Jacob is Dr. Jekyll: 80 Esau is contrasted with Jacob, not because of a differing ethnic identity, but because of his moral decisions and behaviour which ultimately lead to his separation from his brother and to his identification with Edom, Rome or Christianity. However, the possibility remains for him to return and be reunited with his brother. All this, to be sure, is true for rabbinic literature. Earlier Jewish sources are far less clear in their metaphoric use of the Jacob /Esau narrative: Avemarie sees the earliest example of an identification of Esau with Rome in 4 Ezra 6:7–10, and the earliest rabbinic dictum in the words of a second generation Tanna in Lev. Rab. 34:9. 81 Bakhos suggests that the stimuli for the development of the rabbinic typology might be contemporaneous as well as earlier. 82 And Langer sees echoes of the later rabbinic motifs already developing in the Book of Jubilees. 83 Is it therefore legitimate to assume a symbolic understanding of Jacob and Esau, similar to that of the later Rabbis, already in the Gospel of Luke? I believe so, and I base my assumption on two observations: the existence of a proto-rabbinic repertoire of parables and the figurative use of the Jacob /Esau traditions already in biblical literature. It has already been mentioned that the close similarities between the genre of New Testament story parables and their rabbinic counterparts strongly suggests that there is an early, proto-rabbinic repertoire that both draw from. This common repertoire would therefore have provided a reasonable “Sitz im Leben” for an employment of the Jacob /Esau motif already in Luke’s time. The early existence of such a motif in pre-tannaitic parabolic teaching becomes even more probable in light of the fact that 79

Carol Bakhos, “Figuring (out) Esau: the rabbis and their others.” JJS 58 (2007): 250–262, esp. 261. 80 Langer, Brother Esau, 85. 81 Ed. Margulies 792 f. 82 Bakhos, Figuring (out) Esau, 261. 83 Gerhard Langer, “Esau im Buch der Jubiläen,” in Esau: Bruder und Feind, (ed. Idem; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009), 55–61, esp. 61.

The Prodigal Son and his Angry Brother

295

the Jacob /Esau narrative had unfolded its symbolic meaning for Israel / gentile relationships already within the biblical canon itself. Here, it is not the conflict of Israel and Rome, but that of Israel and Edom that is closely intertwined with the saga of their eponymous ancestors. But the saga serves the same purpose here as in the later rabbinic use of the story, even to the point that Rome and Edom finally become identical. In his extensive survey of the Jacob /Esau motif in the Hebrew bible, Bradford Anderson has shown how three different groups of texts (Genesis, Deuteronomy and the prophetic literature) are closely interconnected with each other, while dealing with the motifs in very different ways. They share the same motifs and central themes: the theme of brotherhood (or kinship), underlining the close relation between Jacob and his brother Esau as well as Israel and its neighbour Edom. And the theme of inheritance (or election), depicting Jacob and Israel as “chosen,” while Esau and Edom remain “unchosen,” albeit with “their own story which includes blessing by YHWH, nationhood, and a special relationship with their land.” 84 Scholars disagree about the chronological order and the nature of the intertextual dependence between these three corpora, and this question might remain open here. 85 What is more important is the fact that the three different corpora within the canon provide different outlooks on the possible future of the brotherly conflict. (a) The Genesis narrative paints a picture of Esau as “the unchosen brother who nevertheless receives his own blessing” 86 and that of a possible future reconciliation. (b) Deut 2:5 and 23:8–9 provide a legal basis for kinship (‫ )אח‬and peaceful neighbourliness, inheritance (‫ )ירשה‬of the land, and eventually access to the congregation (‫ )קהל‬of Israel, even for the present time. 87 (c) In the prophetic traditions, however, the picture of Esau /Edom is more pessimistic: “Edom’s inappropriate response to YHWH and Israel leads to their inheritance being taken from them.” 88 In sum, the same complex figurative use of the Jacob /Esau narrative that is found in rabbinic literature can be traced back to canonical biblical

84 Bradford A. Anderson, Brotherhood and Inheritance: A Canonical Reading of the Esau and Edom Traditions (London: T & T Clark, 2011), 233. 85 Cf. the contribution of Antti Laato in this volume, p. 33–58, who assumes that the Genesis narrative reflects a period of peaceful diplomatic relations between the Davidic kingdom and its neighbours while prophetic texts draw on these traditions to respond to a later deterioration. 86 Anderson, Brotherhood, 233. 87 Ibid. 88 Anderson, Brotherhood, 235.

296

Guido Baltes

traditions. Also here, the two brothers are both brother and enemy. 89 Elect and non-elect are juxtaposed, and the future holds two possible options: reconciliation and reunion, when – and if – the ‘unchosen’ respects and accepts the chosenness of his ‘other.’ Doom and judgement, if not. If indeed this trajectory of the “brotherhood and election” theme runs from biblical times straight through into the Roman era, there is a realistic probability that the Lukan parable of brotherhood and inheritance is part of that larger trajectory as well.

5. Interpretative Options and Open Questions If such a reading of the parable were accepted as possible, the resulting interpretative options and questions would need to be investigated further. Obviously, the assumption that the parable tells a two-part story in which the repentance and reconciliation of Israel with God was to be an overture for the subsequent invitation of the gentile nations would be very plausible within the overall framework of Luke-Acts. 90 In the context of his travel narrative, Luke had already expanded the horizon beyond Israel to include the Samaritans, 91 and here the next step would be taken by placing a reference to the (future) inclusion of gentiles, or as it were an outlook towards the second volume of the “double narrative.” 92 Some difficulties of interpretation, however, also need to be addressed. If the older brother is indeed to be identified with the gentile outsider, how could this be reconciled with his claim to “never have broken the 89

Langer, Brother Esau, 92. Luke 1:68–79; 24:47; Acts 1:8; cf. Green, Luke, 21–22; Pokorný, Theologie, 38–52, 90, and 103–108; Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 27–29. Taesong Roh, in his extensive study of the concept of family and “family of God” in Luke, has suggested that Luke 15:11–32, deliberately placed at the centre of the Gospel, should be seen as its hermeneutical key in a similar way as Acts 15 forms the hermeneutical key for Acts: both reflect the central theme of Jew /Gentile conflict and the inclusion of the gentiles (though Roh follows the traditional patristic identification of the younger brother with the gentiles). For Luke, on the one hand, every human being is in essence a son or daughter of God, yet he or she will only be called so by Luke when he or she repents and returns to the heavenly father by receiving the gospel (Taeseong Roh, Die familia dei in den synoptischen Evangelien: Eine redaktionsund sozialgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu einem urchristlichen Bildfeld (NTOA 37; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag 2001), 237 and 254–255). 91 Luke 9:52–56; Luke 10:30–37 (here, as well, by means of a parable) 92 While in this article my main focus is on the Lukan understanding of the parable, such a reading would also be congruent within the historical context of the teaching of Jesus where most modern interpreters see the origins of the parable. It therefore complies well with Theissen’s criterion of historical plausibility. 90

The Prodigal Son and his Angry Brother

297

commandment” of the father (Luke 15:29)? It could be understood in terms of the “virtuous pagan” concept that some authors see employed elsewhere in the Lukan writings. 93 However, Christoph Stenschke has shown convincingly that Luke generally paints a very negative picture of gentiles before their conversion, while he deliberately presents notable exceptions to the rule, the gentile God-fearers. 94 Some authors even assume that these might be the prime addressees of Luke’s gospel. 95 A second option would therefore be to identify the older brother not with the gentiles in general, but with God-fearing gentiles. Otfried Hofius has pointed to the formulaic character of Luke 15:29 which echoes the word of the annual ritual of second tithe (ma’aser sheni) prescribed in Deut 26:13 and most probably in practice until the end of the Second Temple era. 96 This ritual was performed not only by Israelites, but also by the ‫גר‬, the “sojourner” of biblical times and the “proselyte” of rabbinic literature. Therefore, the identification of the older son as an image of the God-fearing gentile (or even reader), could be reconciled with Luke 15:29. However, another conflict would arise, this time with Luke 15:28a (“He became angry and refused to go in.”). While the grudge of the older son against his brother could well be explained as a reflection of general antiJewish preconceptions in the Graeco-Roman world, 97 it would precisely not reflect the attitude of a God-fearer or proselyte. Difficulties therefore remain. If the older brother represents Esau as an image of gentiles in general, then this would fit with 15:28a (general anti-Jewish resentment) and 15:28b (exclusion from temple cult and /or election), while conflicting with 15:29 (obedience to the commands). If he represents Esau as an image of the gentile God-fearer on the fringes of the early church, then this would fit well with 15:29 and possibly also with 15:28b (exclusion from temple cult and /or inner-church table fellowship). But at least 15:28a would remain inexplicable. 93 Martin Dibelius, “Paul on the Areopagus,” in Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (ed. Heinrich Greeven and Mary Ling; New York: Scribner’s, 1956), 26–77, esp. 63; Philipp Vielhauer, “On the ‘Paulinism’ of Acts,” in Studies in Luke-Acts (ed. Leander E. Keck; London: SPCK, 1968), 33–50, esp. 36. Similarly Jens W. Taeger, Der Mensch und sein Heil: Studien zum Bild des Menschen und zur Sicht der Bekehrung bei Lukas (SNT 14; Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1982), 227. 94 Christoph W. Stenschke, Luke’s Portrait of Gentiles Prior to Their Coming to Faith (WUNT 2/108; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 378–382. 95 John Nolland, Luke 1–9:20 (WBC 35A; Dallas: Word Publishing, 1999), xxxii; Forbes, God of Old, 327. 96 Hofius, Motive, 244, assumes here, as in many other passages throughout the parable, a direct dependence on the Hebrew text. 97 Cf. Tacitus, Ann. 5.4; Diodorus 34/35,1,1–5 et al.

298

Guido Baltes

On the other hand, the traditional identification with the Pharisees or “judaizing” Christian readers of the gospel bears no fewer difficulties. It would indeed fit well with 15:28a (grudge of the Pharisees against sinners, or grudge of “judaizing” Christians against the inclusion of gentiles in the church). Even 15:29 could well be explained as a hyperbole. 98 However, the brother’s complaint about neglect by his father does not relate to the charge of the Pharisees in Luke 15:1–3 or to the Jewish-Gentile conflicts of the early church. The alternative reading of the parable I am suggesting here therefore brings with it no more interpretative difficulties than the traditional reading. Probably all these difficulties are owed to the fact that, “Parables are not photographs of reality.” 99 Neither does every sinner “squander his property in dissolute living” (Luke 15:13), nor does every righteous person, Jew or Gentile, “never disobey Gods commands” (Luke 15:29). Both are hyperbolic literary images that seek to underline the stark contrast between the two brothers. Reading the parable in light of the biblical Jacob and Esau narrative seems thus to be not only possible but even recommendable. It would be in line with the ministry and message of the historical Jesus, focussing on the Jewish people first while opening a horizon towards the gentile world. It would be in line with the repertoire of rabbinic parable tradition and the early Jewish reception history of the Jacob and Esau narrative. And it would be in line with the narrative and theological aims of Luke-Acts. Looking beyond the horizon of ancient literature and into the context of interreligious encounter today, such a reading could also help to overcome a traditional misreading of the parable that for a long time has burdened the relationship between Jews and Christians and is, to a large extent, still prevalent today. The story of the two grandsons of Abraham, alluded to by Jesus in his parable of the Prodigal Son, would no longer have to be a story of enmity and separation, but could serve as an open door for a future of reconciliation and reunion within the family.

98 Patristic interpretations have understood this verse to deliberately expose the “selfrigtheous” Jews as liars. Modern interpreters however have argued that the verse is meant to explicitly exhonerate the Pharisees as righteous people who do not need repentance: cf. Craig A. Evans, “Reconstructing Jesus’ Teaching: Prospects and Proposals,” in Jesus in Context (ed. Bruce D. Chilton; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 162–263; others assume an emphasis on the perpetual bond and unbroken relationship of the Jewish people with their God (Levine, Short Stories, 64). 99 Snodgrass, Stories, 135.

Abraham’s Family in the Epistle to the Hebrews J. Cornelis de Vos 1. Introduction Who belongs to the family of Abraham in the Epistle to the Hebrews? The question is simple; the answer is not. The author of Hebrews utilises biblical history and biblical persons to produce his or her own sophisticated theology. 1 Biblical facts, among them persons, can be types or antitypes of other facts; 2 or they can be used for homilies and /or midra-

1 Many candidates for the authorship of Hebrews were and are mentioned, both male and female: Paul, Luke, Barnabas, Apollos, Aquila, Prisca, Jesus’s mother Mary, etc. See the relevant introductions and the overview with Bryan R. Dyer, “The Epistle to the Hebrews in Recent Research: Studies on the Author’s Identity, His Use of the Old Testament, and Theology,” JGRChJ 9 (2013): 104–31, here 105–12. In my opinion, the author is deliberately anonymous just to strengthen the voice of God directly speaking in the so-called Old Testament and in Hebrews. 2 See on typology still the classical work of Leonhard Goppelt, Typos: Die typologische Deutung des Alten Testaments im Neuen (BFCT 2/43; Gütersloh: Gütersloher, 1939 [1966]) (pages 193–215 deal with Hebrews). Goppelt’s definition of typology is: “Gegenstand typologischer Deutung können nur geschichtliche Fakta, d. h. Personen, Handlungen, Ereignisse und Einrichtungen sein, Worte und Darstellungen nur insofern, als sie von solchen handeln. Eine typologische Deutung dieser Objekte liegt vor, wenn sie als von Gott gesetzte, vorbildliche Darstellungen, d. h. ‘Typen’ kommender, und zwar vollkommener und größerer Fakta aufgefaßt werden” (ibid., 18–19). Karl-Heinrich Ostmeyer, however, denies that the antitypes must be greater und more perfect than the types. He even denies that there must be an antitype (“Typologie und Typos: Analyse eines schwierigen Verhältnisses,” NTS 46 [2000]: 112–31 at 129): “Τύπος bezeichnet gerade nicht einen Unterschied zwischen den in Beziehung gesetzten Größen, sondern steht für die Identität der Vergleichsaspekte. Was jeweils τύπος und was Abbild ist, ist eine Frage des Aspektes und der Intention: ein Mensch kann für einen Bildhauer τύπος einer zu verfertigenden Statue sein. Eine Statue kann aber auch als τύπος eines Menschen gelten, wenn es ihre Funktion ist, diesen Menschen sichtbar werden zu lassen. Ein überbietender oder überbotener τύπος ist eine contradictio in adjecto.” I do not find Ostmeyer convincing with respect to Hebrews. In Hebrews, facts from the Jewish Bible are used to exalt them. The antitype is better than the type and in many cases literally higher. The highest zeal according to the author of Hebrews is to be

300

J. Cornelis de Vos

shim. 3 Therefore, we cannot simply describe the occurrences of Abraham and /or his family in Hebrews and determine at face value who they are. The Abraham depicted is not necessarily Abraham, and his family is not necessarily his family. We must deal with Abraham and his family in the argumentative function within the letter to determine who belongs to Abraham’s family. How far does membership of Abraham’s family extend? From those who are kin to Abraham according to Gen 12–50, only Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Esau, and Joseph are mentioned; all of them in chapter 11. Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph function as examples of faith; Esau as the opposite. 4 The first tentative conclusion is that merely the so-called Israelite and mainly the male line of Abraham receives attention in Hebrews. Women such as Hagar, Rebecca, and Leah do not occur. 5 Beyond the protagonists of Gen 12–50, Levi and Judah enter the scene. However, explicit mention is made only of Levi’s lineage from Abraham – which conversely seems to be inferior to not having any lineage as I will point out later. Abraham himself occurs in three or four contexts. These contexts – chapters 2, 6 and 7, and 11 6 – will structure this contribution as his family also appears there. I will deal with the function of Abraham in each of these texts and then with his family and its function; a family that might even be extended to all humankind. The Epistle to the Hebrews contains

near God in the heavenly city. This does not mean that the Jewish Bible is depreciated or superseded. On the contrary, many facts of the Jewish Bible are already good, and according to the author of Hebrews, the Jewish Bible has already spoken of and also been spoken by the Son of God; see J. Cornelis de Vos, “Past, Present, and Prophecy in Hebrews 1,” in “Take Another Scroll and Write”: Studies in the Interpretive Afterlife of Prophets and Prophecy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (ed. Pekka Lindqvist and Sven Grebenstein; Studies in the Reception History of the Bible 6; Åbo: Åbo Akademi, 2016), 76–85. 3 It is a matter of debate how the genre of Hebrews’s use of the Jewish Bible must be labelled: e. g., midrash, sermon or homily, expository sermon, or homiletic midrash. See, for example, William L. Lane, Hebrews 1–8 (WBC 47A; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Nelson, 1991), cx–cxxxiv at cxxiv: homiletic midrash. 4 See for Esau besides Heb 11:20 Heb 12:16–17, where Esau is portrayed in a very negative way. 5 This does not mean that the author of Hebrews excludes women. The high esteem of Rahab while deliberately ignoring Joshua proves the opposite (Heb 11:31); cf. J. Cornelis de Vos, “Josua und Jesus im Neuen Testament,” in The Book of Joshua (ed. Ed Noort; BETL 250; Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 523–40, here 529–30. 6 Heb 2:16; 6:13; 7:1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9; 11:8, 17.

Abraham’s Family in the Epistle to the Hebrews

301

no rewritten Bible proper. 7 The approach is more argumentative than a rewriting of biblical narrative. 8

2. Abraham and His Family in Hebrews 2.1 The Descendants of Abraham The first occurrence of Abraham in Hebrews is in 2:16: οὐ γὰρ δήπου ἀγγέλων ἐπιλαµβάνεται ἀλλὰ σπέρµατος ᾿Αβραὰµ ἐπιλαµβάνεται. This

7 The concept of rewritten Bible was originally used as a designation of a certain form of ancient Jewish writings (Geza Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies [StPB 4; Leiden: Brill, 1961 (1973, 1983)]). Later, it became a designation of an approach, also adopted by the network “Rewritten Bible.” For a workable definition of rewritten Bible, see Anders K. Petersen (“The Riverrun of Rewriting Scripture: From Textual Cannibalism to Scriptural Completion,” JSJ 43 [2012]: 475–96 at 475): “Rewritten Scripture should be conceived of as an excessive form of intertextuality that signifies the relationship existing between scriptural predecessor and rewritten piece with respect to the question of authority.” See further among the vast amount of publications dealing with the definition of rewritten Bible: Antti Laato and Jacques T. A. G. M. van Ruiten, eds., Rewritten Bible Reconsidered: Proceedings of the Conference in Karkku, Finland, August 24–26 2006 (Studies in Rewritten Bible 1; Åbo: Åbo Akademi, 2008); Daniel A. Machiela, “Once More, with Feeling: Rewritten Scripture in Ancient Judaism. A Review of Recent Developments,” JJS 61 (2010), 308–20; Hanne von Weissenberg, Juha Pakkala, and Marko Marttila, eds., Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period (BZAW 419; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011); Molly M. Zahn, Rethinking Rewritten Scripture: Composition and Exegesis in the 4QReworked Pentateuch Manuscripts (STDJ 95; Leiden: Brill, 2011); József Zsengellér, ed., Rewritten Bible after Fifty Years: Texts, Terms, or Techniques? A Last Dialogue with Geza Vermes (JSJSup 166; Leiden: Brill, 2014). – For the subject “Abraham’s family,” the volume of Erkki Koskenniemi and Pekka Lindqvist, eds., Rewritten Biblical Figures (Studies in Rewritten Bible 3; Åbo: Åbo Akademi, 2010) is of importance. 8 Heb 3:7–4:11 is the most extensive text in Hebrews that deals mainly with one pretext, Ps 94 lxx. See on this text Samuel Bénétreau, “Le repos du pèlerin (Hébreux 3,7–4,11),” ETR 78 (2003): 203–23; Randall C. Gleason, “The Old Testament Background of Rest in Hebrews 3:7–4:11,” BSac 157 (2000): 90–107; Wolfgang Kraus, “Hebrews 3:7–4:11 as a Midrash on Psalm 94 lxx,” in Florilegium Lovaniense: Studies in Septuagint and Textual Criticism in Honour of Florentino García Martínez (ed. Hans Ausloos, Benedict Lemmelijn, and Marc Vervenne; ETL 224; Leuven: Peeters, 2008), 275–90; Peter J. Tomson, “Christ, Belial, and Women: 2 Cor 6:14–7:1 Compared with Ancient Judaism and with the Pauline Corpus,” in Second Corinthians in the Perspective of Late Second Temple Judaism (ed. Reimund Bieringer et al.; CRINT 14; Leiden: Brill, 2014), 79–131; J. Cornelis de Vos, “Hebrews 3:7–4:11 and the Function of Mental Time-Space Landscapes,” in Constructions of Space iii: Biblical Spatiality and the Sacred (ed. Jorunn Økland, J. Cornelis de Vos, and Karen Wenell; Library of Hebrew Bible. Old Testament Studies 540; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016), 169–83.

302

J. Cornelis de Vos

verse is a crux. 9 It is highly debated what the verb ἐπιλαµβάνω means. Why is it in the present tense whereas the adjacent verbs are not? Does the verb have a positive or a negative meaning? Who is its subject? We must solve this riddle before we can speak about the function of the descendants of Abraham as opposed to the angels in this verse. We begin with the question of the subject. Most commentaries and translations opt for Jesus. Jesus was last mentioned in 2:9 (and here mentioned for the first time in the Epistle to the Hebrews). Verse 9 is the climax of 2:5–9 dealing with Ps 8:5–7 lxx and its Christological-soteriological bearing. Verses 10–13 then describe Jesus’s earthly life. Although the subject “Jesus” in 2:9 is far away from 2:16, and although the subject of verse 10 is a further crux, 10 it is fully clear that the subject of 2:11–13, 14–15, and 17–18 is Jesus. But is he also the subject of verse 16? The answer depends on the meaning of ἐπιλαµβάνω. The basic meaning of ἐπιλαµβάνω with the genitive is “to take hold of,” “to grasp,” or even “to seize.” 11 This neutral or negative sense, however, does not fit the description of Jesus’s saving incarnation. Would Jesus take 9 Michael E. Gudorf (“Through a Classical Lens: Hebrews 2:16,” JBL 119 [2000]: 105–08 at 105) writes: “Few verses have presented more difficulty to translator and commentator alike than Heb 2:16.” 10 Heb 2:10 is widely recognised as a crux. Who is the subject of the verse, Jesus or God, both mentioned in the previous verse (it cannot be the grammatical subject of 2:9 as that is an inclusive “we”)? If it is Jesus, who, then, is the ἀρχηγὸς τὴς σωτηρίας? The other occasion of ἀρχηγός in Hebrews, 12:2, points explicitly to Jesus. Would then Jesus as subject render himself perfect as ἀρχηγὸς τὴς σωτηρίας? This would favour reading God as the subject (see explicitly, for example, niv, njb, nrsv). Αὐτῷ in ἔπρεπεν γὰρ αὐτῷ (v. 10) then connects to θεοῦ in χάριτι θεοῦ (v. 9), which makes sense (see Hans-Friedrich Weiss, Der Brief an die Hebräer [KEK 13, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991], 204). However, the content of verse 10 seems to point to Jesus. See the relevant commentaries for more arguments. I wonder why, among others, Lane (Hebrews i, here 55) and Gareth L. Cockerill (The Epistle to the Hebrews [NICNT; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2012], here 136 with note 53) simply presuppose with little by way of supporting argument that the subject of 2:10 is God. The only argument Lane presents is that “God” was last mentioned in 2:9. Probably, the phrase “for whom and through whom all things [exist]” in 2:10 leads the commentators uncritically to the assumption that it can only be referring to God as creator. However, chapter 1 presents the Son as a means of creation (1:2: δι᾽οὗ καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας) and as a creator himself (1:10: καί σὺ κατ᾽ἀρχάς, κύριε, τὴν γῆν ἐθεµελίωσας, καὶ ἔργα τῶν χειρῶν σού εἰσιν οἱ οὐρανοί). I think that the author of Hebrews was deliberately vague in 2:10. His or her hearers could think, after having heard chapter 1, of both Jesus and God. This was intended in order to provoke a (very) high Christology. 11 In the Septuagint and the New Testament, only the middle voice of ἐπιλαµβάνω occurs. However, there is probably no significant difference in meaning between the active and the middle voice of the verb as there is a tendency in Koine to use the medium voice for that which would be expressed by the active voice in classical Greek; see Karl G. E. Dolfe, “Hebrews 2,16 under the Magnifying Glass,” ZNW 84 (1993): 289–94 at 291.

Abraham’s Family in the Epistle to the Hebrews

303

hold of, grasp, or seize the descendants of Abraham? “Take hold” could be interpreted positively as “laying hands on.” This is the case in the only other occurrence of ἐπιλαµβάνεσθαι in Heb 8:9. There, however, “arm / hand” (χεῖρ), explicitly occurs whereas it is lacking in 2:16. 12 There are only two occurrences of the verb, which cannot be considered sufficient to determine whether its meaning in Hebrews is positive or neutral / negative or neutral /negative and positive. In the whole Greek Bible, the verb ἐπιλαµβάνεσθαι without χεῖρ has a neutral or negative connotation. 13 Nevertheless, some translations and commentaries render “prefer” or “to help,” 14 but this is not consistent with the translation spectrum of ἐπιλαµβάνω 15 and might have been influenced by the verb ἀντιλαµβάνεσθαι in Isa 41:8–9 lxx, regarded by some scholars as the pretext of Heb 2:16. 16 ᾿Αντιλαµβάνεσθαι has a similar spectrum of meanings as ἐπιλαµβάνεσθαι but can mean additionally “help, take part with, assist.” 17 The question is then, why the author did not use ἀντιλαµβάνεσθαι instead of ἐπιλαµβάνεσθαι when “to help” was meant. Be it as it is, I do not see any 12

See also Mark 8:23 for a combination of ἐπιλαµβάνεσθαι and χεῖρ. Walter Bauer (Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur [ed. Kurt Aland; 6th ed.; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1988], at 598) translates ἐπιλαµβάνοµαι with “1. eigtl. sich halten an, ergreifen, auch gewalttätig anpacken [...] 2. übertr. – a. fassen [...] – b. erfassen.” It only renders “sich annehmen” as a third meaning, with only two matches from the Greek Bible: Sir 4:11 and Heb 2:16. See also Gerhard Delling, “λαµβάνω κτλ.,” ThWAT 4:5–16 at 9: “Hb 2, 16 jemand (helfend) fest an sich ziehen und dadurch in die Schicksalsgemeinschaft aufnehmen” with recourse to 2:17. 14 “To prefer”: George W. Buchanan, To the Hebrews: Translation, Comment and Conclusions (2d ed.; AB 36; New York: Doubleday, 1972), 13, 35–36; “to help”: nrsv, nab, niv, cf. also Erich Grässer, An die Hebräer: 1. Teilband: Hebr 1–6 (EKKNT 17/1; Zürich: Benziger, 1990), 150 note 289; “to give help”: asv; “to give aid”: nkjv; “to take to himself ”: njb; “to take hold to help”: Lane, Hebrews i, 51 with 52 note f; “sich annehmen”: Weiss, Hebräer, 203, 221. Not many translate “to take hold of”: Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, Mich.: Fortress, 1989 [1999]), 94; Cockerill, Hebrews, 124 – although Cockerill interprets ἐπιλαµβάνεσθαι in a positive sense by a connection with the exodus motive [cf. Heb 8:9] and by assuming χεῖρ as object of the verb (ibid., 148–49). 15 See for the meaning of the verb LSJ, s.v. ἐπιλαµβάνω. 16 Isa 41:8–9 reads: “But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, the offspring of Abraam (σπέρµα Αβρααµ), whom I have loved, You whom I took hold of (οὗ ἀντελαβόµην) from the ends of the earth, and I called you from its mountain peaks, and I said to you, You are my servant; I have chosen you and not forsaken you”; trans. Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, eds., A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under That Title (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007) (abbreviated: nets). See Attridge, Hebrews, 94 note 175, for some proponents of this assumption. William L. Lane (Hebrews i, 64) even states that the author substituted ἀντιλαµβάνεσθαι in Isa 48:9 by ἐπιλαµβάνεσθαι because of Jer 38:31–32 lxx that he or she quotes in Heb 8:9. 17 LSJ, s.v. ἀντιλαµβάνω. 13

304

J. Cornelis de Vos

necessity to consider Isa 48:8–9 to be pretext of Heb 2:16. Therefore, I adhere to the basic translation “to take hold of” or “seize.” 18 If we leave the assumption that Jesus is the subject of the verse, then this translation does not pose a problem. Michael E. Gudorf convincingly argues that the “fear of death” (φόβος θανάτου) of the previous verse is the subject of both occurrences of ἐπιλαµβάνεται. 19 Heb 2:15 says that he (Jesus) frees “those, who by fear of death through all [their] life were held in slavery.” The subsequent γὰρ δήπου introduces a fully self-evident statement: 20 for the fear of death does not take hold of angels – since angels do not die – but it is indeed relevant for the descendants of Abraham. 21 This also explains why the author uses a present tense. Even if this statement is a parenthetic truism, 22 it is necessary for the argument. Although Jesus is higher than and superior to the angels, he must become human and temporarily lower to overcome death by his own death. The angels play a prominent role in chapters 1 and 2. Here, in 2:16, we have the last occurrence of the angels before they reappear in chapter 12. 23 From now on, the attention is on “the seed of Abraham.” As opposed to angels, and thereby mortal beings, the seed of Abraham seems to designate human beings as such, not limited to Jews or believing Jews and Christians. The following arguments may substantiate my hypothesis: (1) Heb 2:9 states that by the grace of God Jesus tasting death (γεύσηται) inures to the benefit of all (ὑπὲρ πάντος). 24 “All” in this general use most probably means “all human beings.” 18

Thus, Dolfe, “Hebrews 2,16,” and Gudorf, “Classical Lens.” Gudorf, “Hebrews 2,16,” esp. 106. Cockerill’s critique (Hebrews, 146 note 94) of Gudorf is unconvincing. He postulates a parallel structure of Heb 2:14–18 (ibid., 146: 14a//16, 14b//17a, 14c//17c) and states that Gudorf ’s interpretation cuts through this structure. Cockerill, however, does not include verse 18 in this parallel structure, and it is to be questioned whether the structure is fully parallel. 20 “In classical Greek, the particle δή (combined here with που), typically follows closely on the heels of the word or clause with which it is interacting” (Gudorf, “Hebrews 2,16,” 105). 21 Cf. the Peshit.ta that renders “death” instead of “fear of death” as the logical subject of the verse; see Albert Bonus, “Heb. ii. 16 in the Peshit.ta Syriac Version,” ExpTim 33 (1921–1922), 234–36. If either interpretation of 2:16 is correct, the proposal of Otto Michel (Der Brief an die Hebräer [12th ed.; KEK 13; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966], 162) becomes obsolete. He argues that ἐπιλαµβάνεται points already to the high priest in 2:17–18. 22 The designation “truism” stems from Harold W. Attridge (Hebrews, 94). 23 Randall C. Gleason, “Angels and Eschatology of Heb 1–2,” NTS 49 (2003), 90–107. 24 It is a matter of debate whether χάριτι θεοῦ, “by the grace of God,” or χώρις θεοῦ, “without God,” should be read in 2:9. However, the reading χάριτι θεοῦ has the most witnesses whereas χώρις θεοῦ might be a result of theological considerations: is it theologically acceptable that Jesus had to die by the grace of God? See the excursus χάρις/χωρίς with Weiss, Hebräer, 200–2; Michel, Hebräer, 139–40; Grässer, Hebräer i, 124–26; Lane, Hebrews i, 19

Abraham’s Family in the Epistle to the Hebrews

305

(2) Such interpretation fits the statement of the whole text 2:5–9, in which Ps 8:5–7 is used to declare that Jesus became human for a while and should die just like all humans. That death is inherent to humans – including Jesus – connects the two parts 2:5–9 and 10–18 by 2:9 and 14–15. 25 (3) The meaning of ὑπὲρ πάντος as “for all human beings,” is reinforced by the general statements referring to the whole cosmos ([τὰ] πάντα: vv. 8 [3 ×], 10 [2 ×]; cf. already 1:2–3) or at least to the inhabited world (v. 5: ἡ οἰκουµένη) including human beings (explicitly: v. 11) supports the meaning “all humans.” 26 (4) Jesus became human and therewith one with all (v. 11: πάντες), who all stem from one (v. 11: ἐξ ἑνός). 27 This “one” is indefinite. The word ἑνός can be grammatically neutral or male. If it is neutral, it could refer to the state of being human. If it is male, the most obvious interpretation is that it refers to God. The following statement in v. 11b in which Jesus calls all brothers and sisters, is best understandable if we suppose that the underlying thought is that all together, with Jesus, are children of God, thus humans. 28 (5) The phrase αἵµατος καὶ σαρκός, “blood and flesh,” in 2:14 is a clear designation of human beings in general. 29 (6) The reference to fear of and enslavement by death applies to all humans. Why does the author use “seed of Abraham” which means the people of Israel for Jewish ears? The designation λαός, “people,” in the singular (2:17) also points in this direction. In the Septuagint, λαός is in most cases 43 n. g. See on the whole verse James Swetnam, “The Crux at Hebrews 2,9 in Its Context,” Bib 91 (2010): 103–11. 25 Heb 2:5–18 is usually seen as a text unity with the subunits 5–9, 10–18. Heb 2:1–4 is a transitory paraenetic text between 1:1–15 and 2:5–18; see Albert Vanhoye, La structure littéraire de l’Épitre aux Hébreux (2d ed.; Paris: Desclée De Brouwer, 1976, 77–85). 26 Cf. Heb 2:15, 17. 27 See on Heb 2:11 James Swetnam, “᾿Εξ ἑνός in Hebrews 2,11,” Bib 88 (2007): 517–25. 28 Nevertheless, Jesus remains more important than other humans in that he is the pioneer of their salvation (ἀρχηγὸν τὴν σωτηρίας; v. 10) and the one who sanctifies others (v. 11). See on ἀρχηγός Gerhard Delling, “ἀρχηγός,” ThWNT 1:485–86; T. L. Dyck, “Jesus Our Pioneer: ΄ΑΡΧΗΓΟΣ in Heb. 2:5–18; 12:1–3, and Its Relation in the Epistle to Such Designations As PROTOTOKOS AITIOS, PRODROMOS, ARXIEREYS, EGGYOS, MESITHS, POIMHN and to the Recurring Theme of Pilgrimage in Faith along the Path of Suffering Which Leads to Glory” (Northwest Baptist Theological Seminary, 1980); George Johnston, “Christ as Archegos,” NTS 27 (1981): 381–85; Eric F. Mason, “You Are a Priest Forever”: Second Temple Jewish Messianism and the Priestly Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews (STDJ 74; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 10–12, 20–21; de Vos, “Josua,” 528–29. 29 Animals also have flesh and blood but are not the focus here.

306

J. Cornelis de Vos

a self-designation for the Israelite people in contrast to the ἔθνοι, the nonIsraelite peoples. Nevertheless, it is very unlikely that the author restricts “people” and “seed of Abraham” to the Israelite people. In general, the author of Hebrews is not interested in a contrast between Israel and nonIsrael, and “never distinguishes between an old and new people of God.” 30 “Seed of Abraham” could refer to all believers or those who have heard the gospel. 31 However, the author was sophisticated enough to have written this had it been meant. “Seed of Abraham” in 2:16 is not conditioned, it is only characterised as people who fear and are enslaved by death (2:15), have sins and temptations (2:17–18), and should be helped (2:18). This likewise applies to Israel as the family of Abraham as to all humans. In my opinion, the figure of Abraham is used to extend the offspring to all humankind. This is remarkable as Abraham is an important identity symbol for the people of Israel in early Jewish literature. 32 The author could, of course, have used the generic designation ἀνθρώποι, but this would (1) have destroyed the rhythm of the parallelismus membrorum in 2:16 33 and (2) it had already been used for Jesus in 2:6. In short, the author of Hebrews redefines the seed of Abraham as all human beings. This means that Jesus died for all. However, it does not mean that all humans will reach “the future world” (2:5) and thus salvation, as the word “many” instead of “all” in 2:10 indicates and as the rest of Hebrews will elucidate.

30 Cockerill, Hebrews, 148 note 115: see also the valuable remarks on pages 20–21 and 43–44 on this subject. 31 Weiss, Hebräer, 221: Christian community; Michel, Hebräer, 163: the believers; James Swetnam, Jesus and Isaac: A Study of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Light of the Aqedah (AnBib 94; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981), 136: “spiritual children of Abraham.” Attridge (Hebrews, 94) interprets the “seed of Abraham” too easily with “heirs of the promise [to Abraham]” in Heb 6:17 and writes that “the promise is principally embodied in the new Covenant (8:6) that has nothing to do with fleshly externals (9:10).” Thus, the seed of Abraham would restrict the reference to Christian believers only to those who are on their way to the heavenly city and are leaving the fleshly life behind them. Although this is possible on the text pragmatic level within the interaction of author and addressees, on the content level, Heb 2:16 presents salvation as a possibility for all (see below on 6:17). The occurrence of “blood and flesh” in 2:14 makes Attridge’s assumption very unlikely. 32 See, among others, Martin Goodman, George H. van Kooten and Jacques T. A. G. M. van Ruiten, eds., Abraham, the Nations, and the Hagarites: Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Perspectives on Kinship with Abraham (Themes in Biblical Narrative 13; Leiden, Boston, Mass.: Brill, 2010), 77–199. 33 οὐ γὰρ | δήπου ἀγγέλων | ἐπιλαµβάνεται ἀλλὰ | σπέρµατος ᾿Αβραὰµ | ἐπιλαµβάνεται

Abraham’s Family in the Epistle to the Hebrews

307

2.2 The Heirs of Abraham Heb 6:13–7:10 contains a long piece in which Abraham and some members of the family of Abraham occur. The text consists of two pieces, 6:13–20 and 7:1–10 that most scholars assign to two different units within the macro-context of Hebrews. They join Heb 6:13–20 with the paraenetic text 5:11–6:12 in which the author addresses the indulgence of the hearers and warns against possible threats. Heb 7:1–10 is argumentative in character regarding the superiority of Melchizedek and introduces the theme of high priesthood. However, both texts share the occurrences of Abraham and Melchizedek. Heb 6:13–20 details that God swore in his own name as he made the promise to Abraham since God could not swear by anyone greater than himself (6:13). The author alludes to Gen 22:16 that says “By myself I have sworn (κατ᾽ ἐµαυτοῦ ὤµοσα), says the Lord: Inasmuch as you have carried out this matter and for my sake have not spared your beloved son” (trans. nets). By using the verb ὄµνυµι the author might also allude to Ps 109:4 lxx (= 110:4 mt), in which the Lord swears to Melchizedek and he or she might thus anticipate the mention of Melchizedek in 6:20 and 7:1–10. In verse 14, then, the author quotes the first part of Gen 22:17 almost verbatim: “I will indeed bless you with blessings” (trans. nets). 34 However, the reference to the descendants of Abraham in the remaining part of Gen 22:17 is left out in Heb 6:14. Heb 6:14 only renders “and multiply you” instead of “and I will make your offspring as numerously numerous as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is by the seashore” etc. (trans. nets). The focus in Heb 6:13–15 is entirely on Abraham, not on his family. Because Abraham persevered, he obtained the promise (6:15; cf. 6:12). Nothing is explicitly said about the binding of Isaac (Gen 22); that is reserved for chapter 11. 35 The author takes up the divine swearing (ὄµνυµι) and shifts to human oaths: “Human beings, of course, swear by someone greater than themselves” (6:16; trans. nrsv). If human swearing is already effective; how much more then is the divine swearing (6:16–17)? This all means that the heirs of the promise can be fully confident – with strong encouragement and hope (6:18) – of this promise, as God himself made this promise steadfast and unchangeable by his own oath (ὅρκος, 6:17). 34 Εἰ µήν is the text favoured by NA28. The other readings – ἦ µήν, εἰ µή, ὄντως δή – are less probable. See also Attridge, Hebrews, 178 note 1. 35 Only the verb µακροθυµεῖν connected with the promise might allude to the perseverance of Abraham in Gen 22 in that he remained faithful to God although God demanded the sacrifice of his son Isaac; cf. Attridge, Hebrews, 179–80.

308

J. Cornelis de Vos

The content of the promise is being near God, beyond the curtain in the inner shrine (6:19). From other texts in Hebrews we know that this means a being in the heavenly realm (4:1–11; 9:15; 11:13; 12:22; 13:14) which Jesus has already entered (6:20). 36 The descendants of Abraham are “heirs of the promise” (κλρηρονόµοι τῆς ἐπαγγελίας, 6:17). They partake in the promise given by God to Abraham. The author of Hebrews does not describe how one can become an heir of the promise and what “heirs of the promise” refers to; he or she simply mentions them. The reason why the author is not quite explicit could be a lack of interest, a result of the fact that it is fully evident for the author and the addressees who “heirs of Abraham” means, or the author left it deliberately blank. We shall leave the question for now and try to solve the problem with a look at the immediate context. Does “heirs of the promise” apply again – as does “seed of Abraham” – to all human beings indiscriminately? Verse 16 begins with the word ἄνθρωποι, “human beings,” for the general statement that human beings swear by someone greater than themselves. The verb ὄµνυµι, “swearing,” is, therefore, in the present tense whereas the next verse about God’s swearing is in the aorist tense. The question is whether “human beings” is restricted to the comparison between human and divine swearing or that it is the underlying meaning of “heirs of the promise.” In verse 18b, the focus shifts again to “we.” “We” have a “strong encouragement,” we who flee in order to grasp the hope that lies before us (v. 18); this hope (ἐλπίς, v. 18) is like an “anchor of the soul, safe and steadfast [...].” These lines pertain to being in the inner shrine (v. 19), which Jesus as forerunner (πρόδροµος) has already entered “for us” (v. 20). 37 Thus it seems to point to Christian believers as the reference of “heirs of the promise.” Yet, I surmise that the author left “heirs of the promise” deliberately unspecified. 38 The promise might be an offer to all human beings. It must only be grasped. In other words, the promise which is so firm and steadfast – that is what Heb 6:13–20 wants to make clear – should be accepted and the hope grasped. Then everyone can flee the earthly world (οἱ καταφυγόντες, v. 18) and strive for the heavenly city. Those who are already on this path, the “we,” those who know the gospel (4:2, 6), are encouraged to stay on this path. “Heirs of the promise” might therefore refer to two 36 Εἰσέρχοµαι implies in Hebrews with two exceptions a “pénétration décisive dans un domaine véritablement nouveau” (Bénétreau, “repos,” 213). 37 On πρόδροµος see note 28. 38 See Attridge, Hebrews, 181: “As he has frequently done earlier, the author dramatically delays explication of an ambiguous term.”

Abraham’s Family in the Epistle to the Hebrews

309

stages: (1) the offer of salvation to all human beings; and (2) the people who have heard the gospel and should persevere in maintaining hope and striving for the heavenly realm. 39 On the surface level, the text is about Abraham and his descendants; but the author of Hebrews extends facts from the Jewish Bible to the present and the future and applies them more or less directly to the addressees. They receive two out of three promises by God to Abraham, being numerous and being near God. The promised land, however, has been replaced with the heavenly “land.” 40 The last verse, verse 20, is a transitionary verse. It quotes Ps 109:4 lxx (= 110:4 mt) and thus introduces Melchizedek, “the high priest for eternity.” Compared to Ps 109:4 lxx there are two relevant differences: Melchizedek is referred to as priest in Psalm 109 lxx whereas he is high priest in Hebrews. This alteration is necessary for the author of Hebrews because of the Yom Kippur imagery (ch. 9). The second difference is that the author placed εἰς τὸν αίῶνα at the very end of the quotation. That means that the stress lies on the eternity of Melchizedek’s being a high priest. 41 Melchizedek appears as a type for Jesus who had entered the inner shrine (vv. 19b–20a) “according to the order of Melchizedek” (20b). 42 This last half verse prepares for the section about Melchizedek in chapter 7, where eternity is also an important topic.

2.3 Abraham and Melchizedek Compared Heb 7:1–10 compares Abraham with Melchizedek. The author had used Ps 109:4 lxx in 6:20, now he or she turns to Gen 14 again, the only text in the Jewish Bible besides Ps 110:4 where “Melchizedek” occurs (Gen 14:18). Chapter 7 begins with a deictic “For this Melchizedek” followed by a long eulogy to Melchizedek borrowed from Gen 14:17–20 (Heb 7:1–2), as well as explanations of the attribute “king of Salem” and the name Melchizedek itself (7:2). This all belongs to one sentence that is concluded by “[This Melchizedek ...] remains priest forever” (7:3). The present tense “remains” (µένει) and “forever” (διηνεκές) in verse 1 em-

39

Maybe there is also a third stage, that of the people that have fallen from the path. This is, however, not very likely as Hebrews rejects a second chance (Heb 6:4–8; 12:25). 40 Knut Backhaus, “Das Land der Verheißung: Die Heimat der Glaubenden im Hebräerbrief,” NTS 47 (2001), 171–88; de Vos, Heiliges Land, 185–96. 41 The third difference is that the author replaced the second person verb εἶ with the participle γενόµενος due to the new context. 42 Mason, A Priest Forever.

310

J. Cornelis de Vos

phasise the everlasting priestly office (ἱερατεία, v. 5) of “this Melchizedek” right at the beginning of chapter 7. 43 One of the aims of 7:1–10 is to highlight the superiority of Melchizedek over Abraham. Therefore, the author makes small alterations to his pretext Gen 14:17–20. He or she starts the eulogy to Melchizedek not with Gen 14:17 but with verse 18 and so with the designations “King of Salem, priest of the highest God.” The author does not mention Abraham before this label, Abraham whom Melchizedek “meets as he returns from the slaughter of the kings” (Heb 7:1; see Gen 14:17). It is Melchizedek who blesses Abraham, and it is Abraham who apportions tithes to Melchizedek. For the author of Hebrews, it is absolutely clear that Melchizedek is superior to Abraham. 44 He or she uses a deictic οὗτος again: “See how great this one is (πηλίκος οὗτος)” (v. 4); even greater than Abraham, “the patriarch.” This “the patriarch,” also designating a very high prominence at the end of the comparison dramatically heightens the purport of the comparison. Verse 3 plays a significant role in the argument of 7:1–10. Melchizedek is “without father, without mother, and without genealogy”; besides, “he has no beginning of days and no end of [the days of] life.” The second range of attributes matches the description of Melchizedek as being a priest forever. Beyond that, the pre- and post-existence of Melchizedek is marked (see also v. 8), as something that is reserved for divine beings such as the Son in Heb 1. And indeed, the author draws a comparison between Melchizedek and the Son of God: “having been made like (ἀφωµοιωµένος) the Son of God” (7:3); a comparison that had been prepared by the designation of Jesus as forerunner “after the order of Melchizedek” (6:20). With the first range of attributes of Melchizedek, the author of Hebrews comments on the fact that Melchizedek appears “out of the nothing” in Gen 14. It is only this king of Salem and priest of the highest God who seems to have no family at all. This is a further argument for the superiority of Melchizedek to Abraham and now also to members of the family of Abraham, the Levites (7:5–10). The Levites receive tithes from their fellow 43 For the translation “priestly office” for ἱερατεία as the more concrete designation see Cockerill, Hebrews, 308–9, who distinguishes it from the institutional ἱερωσύνη for which he reserves the translation “priesthood.” 44 That is the reason why the author does not relate that Melchizedek brought out bread and wine (Gen 14:18). Pseudo-Eupolemos, on the contrary, only writes about this in his record of the meeting between Melchizedek and Abraham: “He [Abraham] received gifts from Melchizedek, its ruler and priest of God” (frgm. 1 § 6, see R. Doran, “Pseudo-Eupolemus,” OTP 2:873–82 at 880).

Abraham’s Family in the Epistle to the Hebrews

311

Israelites (Num 18:21–32). The Levites stem from Abraham (7:5, 10), 45 but Abraham was the one who gave tithes to Melchizedek. This means “so to say (ὡς ἔπος), that through Abraham Levi, the one who received tithes, has paid tithes” (7:9). Melchizedek, the one who is higher than Abraham and Levi, has no genealogy. This paves the way for the comparison with Jesus as high priest in the heavenly shrine. The Yom Kippur imagery in Hebrews demands a priest like Aaron. Only descendants from Aaron could be high priests, Jesus was not. By means of the comparison with Melchizedek, the (so-to-speak) higher high priest, there was no need for Jesus to have priestly ancestors. 46 What does this mean for the matter of Abraham and his family? The author holds Abraham in high esteem, but Melchizedek is greater than this patriarch. 47 Levi is only mentioned in connection with Abraham. Levi as a descendant of Abraham seems to be inferior to Abraham who, in turn, is inferior to Melchizedek. It would appear then that the question of who belongs to Abraham’s family does not suit the focus of the text. The text does not deal with Abraham in the first instance but with Melchizedek. The focus is on his not having family. Only Levi occurs as a member of Abraham’s family in 7:1–10. However, this being related to Abraham is considered of less value compared to Melchizedek’s being without family. Thus, Heb 7:1–10 does not invite us to speculate about possible members of Abraham’s family.

2.4 The Faith of Abraham and His Family We find the last occurrences of Abraham and his family in Hebrews in the well-known chapter 11 about the examples of faith. Events in the life of Abraham and those of his descendants are qualified as being motivated by or according to faith (πίστει, κατὰ πίστιν). 48 Much can and has been said about Heb 11. 49 I will skip all the introductory items and focus on 45 See also 4QAramaic Levib (4Q213a) frgm. 1 ii 6 (although the text is very fragmentary): “my father Abram.” 46 There are limits to the comparison between Jesus and Melchizedek. Jesus is introduced and continually labelled Son or Son of God in Hebrews. This does not match the “without father” or “without mother” of Melchizedek. 47 See also the great importance of Melchizedek in 11QMelchizedek (11Q13). 48 Κατὰ πίστιν occurs only in verse 13, “according to faith all of these died” because dying “by faith” would be awkward. 49 See, for example, Christian Rose, Die Wolke der Zeugen: Eine exegetisch-traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Hebräer 10,32–12,3 (WUNT 2/60; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994) and recently, Cockerill, Hebrews, 514–600.

312

J. Cornelis de Vos

the verses about Abraham and those members of his family who appear in Gen 12–50, that is, Heb 11:8–22. Verses 8–10 deal with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; 11–12 with Sarah; 13–16 with all of them; 17–19 again with Abraham; and 20–22 with Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. This part exemplifies not only faith but also who the heirs of Abraham are (see above 2.2) and how they become heirs. In the first part, in verses 8–10, the word “heirs” appears again. Isaac and Jacob are “fellow heirs” (συγκληρονόµοι) with Abraham. The content of the inheritance is the promise that God made to Abraham (v. 9). As we already know, the content of the promise according to Hebrews is living in the heavenly city. In verse 10, this becomes more or less clear: “for he (Abraham) looked forward to the city that has foundations, whose architect and builder is God” (11:10, trans. nrsv). That is why it is an act of faith that Abraham lived as a sojourner (παροικεῖν) in the land of the promise as in a strange land (ἀλλοτρίαν) (v. 9). And that is why it is an act of faith that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob live in tents instead of building steady houses. They are all three on their way to the heavenly city. The promised land (v. 9) is not the promised home. God does not prompt Abraham to go to the promised land but to a place (εἰς τόπον) that Abraham will receive as inheritance (v. 8). 50 Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob share the faith of Abraham in that they strive for the heavenly city. By faith, Sarah – the only woman mentioned in verses 8–22 – becomes the mother of a multitude of descendants (v. 12) because she considered the one who had given the promise (i. e., God) faithful (v. 11). The promise consisted of offspring for Abraham and Sarah, and this although Sarah was barren and beyond the age of child bearing. 51 Thus, Sarah also shared in the faith and the promise of Abraham. Verses 13–15 form a central part that deals with the problem that although Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, and Jacob (οὗτοι πάντες, v. 13) are heirs of the promise, they did not receive the promises. This refers to parts of the promise by God to Abraham: receiving a “land,” and being with God. Nevertheless, they keep confessing that they are strangers and sojourners on earth (v. 13) and that they are looking for their home (πατρίδα, 52 v. 14). This home, the city prepared by God (ἡτοίµασεν γὰρ αὐτοῖς πόλιν) 50

Καλούµενος is a passivum divinum referring to God as the logical subject. I shall skip the discussion about the meaning of Σάρρα στεῖρα δύναµιν εἰς καταβολὴν σπέρµατος ἔλαβεν and the question whether εἰς καταβολὴν σπέρµατος refers to the male or to the female part. See the relevant commentaries for this question. 52 Πατρίς does not mean “homeland” here as they are not looking for a land but for a place (τόπος, v. 8), a “city”; see Cockerill, Hebrews, 551–52: who translates: “a place where they 51

Abraham’s Family in the Epistle to the Hebrews

313

is better – sc. than an earthly home – and is in heaven (κρείττονος ... ἐπουρανίου, v. 16). God is not ashamed to call himself their God. Although not yet fulfilled, the missing two parts of the promise to Abraham, a “land” and being with God remain the prospective future. After this part, the author of Hebrews turns again to Abraham. By faith he offered his son Isaac. According to the author, Abraham did this because “he reckoned that God was able to raise from the dead” (v. 19). The logic behind Abraham’s faithfulness is that God having promised offspring through Isaac (Gen 21:12 quoted in Heb 11:18) must also be able to raise Isaac from the dead after Isaac has been offered. If God can raise Isaac from the dead, he can also raise other human beings from the dead. This conclusion is important because all the examples of faith had died – except for Henoch (v. 5) – before the entrance to the heavenly city had been opened by the entry of Jesus into the inner shrine of the heavenly temple and by his atonement of the sins of human beings. These people are awaiting a better resurrection (κρείττονος ἀναστάσεως, v. 35; cf. 39). Isaac is portrayed as a type (ἐν παραβολῇ ἐκοµίσατο) in verse 19. Παραβολή must here be understood as type, and the most probable reference for this type are those living by faith. This implies that all who live by faith in general can presume resurrection. 53 The next and last section of the “Abraham-part,” verses 20–22, describes the reliance on the future and the fulfilment of the promises which is furthered by the descendants of Abraham. Isaac blesses Jacob and Esau concerning things to come (v. 20; see Gen 27:27–29); Jacob blesses the sons of Joseph (v. 21; see Gen 48); 54 and Joseph is so confident of his future resurrection that he prompts his sons to take his bones when they leave Egypt on their exodus (v. 22; Gen 50:24–26). There is a direct line of blessings. After Abraham is blessed by God (not mentioned here), Isaac blesses Jacob and Esau, and Jacob blesses the sons of Joseph. 55 Jacob is described as one who “worships (leaning) on the top of his staff” (v. 21). This is a quotation of Gen 47:31 lxx. The Septuagint has erroneously understood the Hebrew ‫מ ָטּה‬, ִ “bed,” the bed on which Jacob lay as he was dying, as ‫מ ֶטּה‬, ַ “staff” and translated ῥάβδος. This enables the author of are citizens.” See on the transformation of the land promise in Hebrews Backhaus, “Land,” and de Vos, Heiliges Land, 185–93. 53 I agree with Cockerill, Hebrews, 557–8, for this interpretation; Isaac is not a type of Christ; pace Swetnam, Jesus and Isaac. 54 Esau is portrayed as a negative example in Heb 12:16–17. 55 Jacob might stand for Israel and this might be the reason why Jacob does not bless his sons (representing the tribes of Israel) but the sons of Joseph.

314

J. Cornelis de Vos

Hebrews to interpret “staff” as a walking-staff and as a symbol of wandering, sc. to the heavenly city. This also allows the author to transition from the Abraham-section to the subsequent Moses-section. Are those who belong to the family of Abraham only those who are as faithful and confident as the examples in Heb 11, or all human beings? Or can we again, as in Heb 2 and 6, postulate a two-stage model: (1) an offer for humankind; (2) acceptance by the steadfast believers? The question cannot be answered definitively, but as the examples in chapter 11 are rather concrete, I tend to favour the second possibility. Chapter 12 is also quite concrete in its paraenesis and its description of the heavenly city. This makes it likely that in the application to his or her own time the author considers only those persons who are as faithful and as confident as those exemplified in Heb 11 to be members of the extended family of Abraham.

3. Conclusions Who belongs to the family of Abraham according to the Epistle to the Hebrews? And what are the functions of Abraham and those of his family members in Hebrews? To begin with the first question: We should distinguish between the text at the surface level and the text’s pragmatic function of the occurrences of Abraham and his family. “Abraham” appears in chapters 2, 6, 7, and 11. In chapter 2, his family is labelled “seed of Abraham” (2:16) without further specification. In chapter 6, the designation “heirs of the promise” appears, and is indirectly connected with the promise to Abraham. In chapter 7, only Levi is mentioned as a member of the family of Abraham. Finally, in chapter 11, many members of Abraham’s family enter the scene: Abraham himself, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Esau, and Joseph. Thereby, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob appear as “fellow heirs” with Abraham (11:9). The author of Hebrews speaks to his or her addressees and utilises the figures of Abraham and his family as types for the present and the future. The hearers can or rather must apply this all to their own faith and confidence. Are they also members of the family of Abraham? Or could it be that the family extends even to all humankind? In my view, there are multiple answers in Hebrews. Everything in Heb 2:5–18 prompts us to understand “seed of Abraham” (2:16) as all humankind. However, “heirs of Abraham” in 6:17 seems to point to two modes of descent, (1) an offer for all humankind and (2) an acceptance of the faith and confidence into

Abraham’s Family in the Epistle to the Hebrews

315

the promise just like Abraham. The family of Abraham according to Heb 11 seems to consist of only the second mode of descent. Heb 7:1–10 is of a different kind and can be neglected here. If my interpretation is correct, the author utilises Abraham and his family in a sophisticated paedagogical way. He or she initially opens the entrance into the family of Abraham to all; afterwards the author narrows the membership over the course of the letter in order to urge the addressees to remain steadfast on their way to the heavenly city. 56 Only thus they can continue to belong to Abraham’s family.

56 This pedagogical programme has nothing to do with supersession, as has nothing else in the Epistle to the Hebrews. As already quoted, the author “never distinguishes between an old and new people of God” (Cockerill, Hebrews, 148 note 115). That the antitypes in Hebrews are better and higher does not mean that the types are bad or obsolete.

Abraham’s Family Network in the New Testament Writings Eva-Maria Kreitschmann 1. Introduction In Judaism, Christianity and Islam Abraham is appreciated as an important figure even today 1: He is the first monotheist, a role model for all believers in the one true God, or an example for an appropriate ethical or moral lifestyle. But the focus on Abraham as a single figure pushes into the background the fact that the story of the father of faith in Gen 12–25 is the story of a family with wives and secondary wives, slaves, sons, and daughters, all playing different roles in this family network. Also in the New Testament writings the figures of Sarah and Hagar, Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Keturah, do not occur very often. When parts of Gen 12–25 are taken up in the New Testament, Abraham is dominant as a single figure. But nevertheless he is remembered as part of a family: Abraham is πατήρ, προπάτωρ or πατριάρχης. Individuals or groups are related to him as υἱὸς Αβραάµ, σπέρµα Αβραάµ or τέκνα Αβραάµ. And even though the other figures of the Genesis story do not appear very often, the New Testament authors make use of them in important contexts, thus profiling Abraham, the centre of the family network. 2 It follows, therefore, that also in the New Testament writings the ideas of family and kinship are closely 1

See Jacques B. Doukhan, ed., The Three Sons of Abraham: Interfaith Encounters between Judaism, Christianity and Islam (LMRel 36; London: I. B. Tauris, 2014); Martin Goodman, George H. van Kooten and Jacques T. A. G. M. van Ruiten, eds., Abraham, the Nations, and the Hagarites: Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Perspectives on Kinship with Abraham (Themes in Biblical Narrative 13; Leiden: Brill, 2010); Jon Douglas Levenson, Inheriting Abraham: The Legacy of the Patriarch in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (Library of Jewish Ideas; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012); Antti Laato and Pekka Lindqvist, eds., Encounters of the Children of Abraham from Ancient to Modern Times (Studies on the Children of Abraham 1; Leiden: Brill, 2010). 2 See Anke Mühling, Blickt auf Abraham, euren Vater: Abraham als Identifikationsfigur des Judentums in der Zeit des Exils und des Zweiten Tempels (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 18 n. 21.

318

Eva-Maria Kreitschmann

related to Abraham. Against this background it might be worthwhile to ask which family set-ups of the Abraham story the New Testament authors are especially interested in, how they are adopting them compared with the Old Testament source material and early Jewish traditions, and how they are transforming them for their own purposes. In dealing with the terms of family and kinship, research results of the last few decades have to be taken into account which tell us that these concepts are determined to a great extent historically and culturally. 3 The families of Genesis cannot simply be understood with our modern concepts of family. The way in which the families are represented in the texts is shaped by the ideas about family and kinship that were predominant at their time of origin. 4 The New Testament authors adopt these representations of family and infer ideas about kinship which were prevalent in the first century c. e., i. e. in the Greco-Roman world. Against this complex background I have chosen three topics which seem to be useful categories to find out more about the concept of Abraham’s family in the New Testament writings. Firstly, the patrilineal genealogy of Israel Abraham, Isaac and Jacob plays an important role. It occurs in the Old Testament in the context of the manifestation of God to Moses in Exod 3:6 at a prominent place. Here, the line of the three fathers of Israel is linked with important theological statements. Secondly, the terms σπέρµα ᾿Αβραάµ or τέκνα ᾿Αβραάµ are important in the New Testament. The expressions do not simply refer to biological descent nor do they simply designate the belonging to a religious group. They are best understood as notions designating ethnic belonging and as such comprising more meaning than biological descent or religious belonging. Thirdly, the Old Testament genealogies, which appear to be an important part of the Old Testament’s representation of family, are used as a background of understanding for the New Testament texts. They provide structure for the kinship connections in the Old Testament and load these with meaning. Via the genealogies the wives and sons of 3 See the summarizing remarks about the extensive research on “family” on pages 14–15 of Halvor Moxnes, “What is family? Problems in Constructing Early Christian Families,” in Constructing Early Christian Families: Family as Social Reality and Metaphor (ed. H. Moxnes; London: Routledge, 1997), 13–41; and pages 12–20 of Miriam Peskowitz, “‘Family /ies’ in Antiquity: Evidence from Tannaitic Literature and Roman Galilean Architecture,” in The Jewish Family in Antiquity (ed. S. J. D. Cohen; BJSt 89; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1993), 9–36. 4 Naomi A. Steinberg, “The World of Family in Genesis,” in The Book of Genesis: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation (ed. C. A. Evans, J. N. Lohr and D. L. Petersen; VT.S 6; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 279–300, see especially 280–81.

Abraham’s Family Network in the New Testament Writings

319

Abraham are integrated into a widely branched family network which is adopted by the New Testament authors in a productive way.

2. Abraham’s Family Network in the New Testament 2.1 Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – the Patriarchal Triad In most of the texts outside of Gen 12–25 that mention Abraham he appears in the triad Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. 5 The patriarchal triad presupposes the Genesis tradition and serves as a link between the story of the patriarchs and the exodus. 6 This can be seen clearly in the story of the burning bush (Exod 3:1–21) – a text that together with its context in Exod 2:11–4:23 has to be interpreted as the starting-point of Israel’s liberation from Egypt: God manifests himself to Moses in a theophany as “the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the god of Jacob” (Exod 3:6). The God who guides Israel’s exodus is the same God who manifested himself to Abraham and his family (see also 1 Kgs 18:36; 2 Chr 30:6). In other OT texts the formula is also used to remember the covenant and the promises (Lev 26:42: “I will remember my covenant with Jacob and also my covenant with Isaac and also my covenant with Abraham, I will remember the land, I will remember”; see also Exod 2:24; 6:8; 32:13,23; 33:2; Num 32:11; Deut 1:8; 6:10; 9:5; 29:12; 30:20; 34:4). The patriarchal triad therefore refers to the experience that God is present in Israel’s history. This memory can be activated in different, even critical situations 7 to link the present to the faith in Yahweh as the God of the fathers and to read the present in the light of remembered history. The focus on the male line of Abraham’s progeny in the patriarchal triad, namely on the line of promise Isaac – Jacob, hides the female pro5 Thomas Römer, “Abraham Traditions in the Hebrew Bible outside the Book of Genesis,” in Evans, Lohr and Peterson, The Book of Genesis,159–80; see especially 161 and 177–78; Römer gives an overview of all texts mentioning Abraham outside Gen 12–25: Abraham appears alone in Ezek 33:24; Ps 47:10; 2 Chr 20:7; Neh 9:7–8; Ps 105:42; Abraham and Sarah are mentioned in Isa 51:2, Abraham and Jacob occur in Isa 29:22; 41:8; 63:16; Mic 7:20; Ps 105:6. 6 See Mühling, Blickt auf Abraham, 79; Konrad Schmid, Erzväter und Exodus: Untersuchungen zur doppelten Begründung der Ursprünge Israels innerhalb der Geschichtsbücher des Alten Testaments (WMANT 81; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999), see especially 358–359. 7 See Otto Schwankl, Die Sadduzäerfrage (Mark 12,18–27 parr): eine exegetisch-theologische Studie zur Auferstehungserwartung (BBB 66; Frankfurt a. M.: Athenäum, 1987), 393–394.

320

Eva-Maria Kreitschmann

tagonists of Abraham’s family as well as the other sons of Abraham. Thus the hubs of the genealogy where conflicts arise (Hagar – Sarah, Esau – Jacob) and where the progeny of Abraham branches out into different segments thus resulting in different groups of descendants are skipped. 8 The linear genealogical succession of Abraham – Isaac – Jacob hides the conflicts of the Genesis story and highlights the people of Israel consisting of twelve tribes. Gen 12–35 shows how this community of tribes comes into being and how the promise to Abraham, “So [numerous as the stars] will your offspring be,” is fulfilled. Consequently the triadic formula does not refer only to the isolated story of the three patriarchs but it constitutes und represents the people of Israel as an ethnic entity. 9 2.1.1 The Patriarchal Triad in Luke and Acts In the New Testament writings Luke is the author who makes the widest use of the triadic formula or similar formulations while simultaneously showing no interest in the wives or other sons (and daughters) of Abraham. In six of the twelve texts where Abraham occurs in Luke and Acts he appears alone, in the other six texts we find the patriarchal triad or related formulations. 10 Luke uses Abraham in the second part of his two-volume work in three speeches (Acts 3:11–26; 7:2–53; 13:13–52). These speeches fulfil an important function in the composition of Acts as can be seen from Hellenistic historiography. There we also find the method of using madeup speeches in a narrative context: very often speeches of important figures are used in key or crisis situations to put current events in the wider context of earlier events and thus interpret the present through the memory of the past. 11 Consequently, the speech of Stephen before the High Council (7:2–52) is placed in the critical moment after he has 8

Robert Oberforcher, “Die jüdische Wurzel des Messias Jesus aus Nazaret: Die Genealogien Jesu im biblischen Horizont,” in Alttestamentliche Gestalten im Neuen Testament: Beiträge zur biblischen Theologie (ed. M. Öhler; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1999), 5–26, see especially 15; Thomas Hieke, Die Genealogien der Genesis (HBS 39; Freiburg i. B.: Herder, 2003), 278. 9 Philip F. Esler, “Paul’s Contestation of Israel’s (ethnic) Memory of Abraham in Galatians 3,” BTB 36.1 (2006): 23–34, see especially 26. 10 This includes expressions that do not provide the patriarchal triad but refer clearly to Abraham and the following generations. See, e. g., Acts 13:17: “The God of this people of Israel chose our fathers ...” 11 See Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical commentary (vol. 2: 3:1–14:28; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2013), 1330.

Abraham’s Family Network in the New Testament Writings

321

been accused of violating the law and the temple (6:14) and before his execution. This speech contains the most extensive review of Israelite history in Acts and refers – much more than the other two speeches – back to Abraham. Via Stephen’s speech Luke links the present situation (the conflict between Stephen and the High Council) with Israel’s past. The story of Israel’s past is recounted by the use of the patrilineal genealogy, from Abraham via Isaac and Jacob to his twelve sons. This is the line that bears God’s promise according to the Genesis narrative and that culminates in the people of Israel as the union of the twelve tribes. Here, Luke shapes the story that is compressed in the patriarchal triad in his own way: he recounts the story of the patriarchs of Israel as a story of opposition against God. With the generation of the twelve sons of Jacob the persecution of God’s chosen ones begins: Joseph is the first in a long line (v. 9 et seq.) and it culminates in the killing of Jesus as the last (v. 52). On the other hand, Abraham who stands at the starting point of Israel’s history, is remembered in a salvific way: he bears the promise of the land and of progeny (7:3.5). God foretells him the future liberation of the Israelite people from Egypt (7:6–7). The close connection between the patriarchal narrative and the exodus is made explicit in 7:30–34 because there we find the story of the burning bush and the formulaic self-introduction of Yahweh to Moses: “I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob.” Abraham’s dedication to the one God 12 by following God’s call to leave his homeland Mesopotamia is also remembered here. Against this background it is striking that Luke does not seem to perceive the giving or promise of the land (see Gen 17:8) without tensions. He emphasizes that God gave Abraham no inheritance in it (καὶ οὐκ ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ κληρονοµίαν ἐν αὐτῇ). This contrasts with the tradition that Abraham took possession of the land as we can read in Josephus, Ant. 1.157: “With the will and with the aid of God he took possession of /received /settled in the land [ἔσχε γῆν] of Canaan. After having settled down [ἱδρυθείς] there he built an altar and made a sacrifice to God.” Luke stresses that Abraham receives only the promise instead of the land. But this promise appears to be threatened because Abraham does not have any children: “And he [God] promised to give it [the land] to him for a possession and to his seed with him, [even though] he had no child.” (v. 5) But Abrahams childlessness contradicts the dominating patrilineal genealogical continuum that is moving onward 12

For this important motif in the Abraham tradition in early Judaism, see Keener, Acts, 2:1352.

322

Eva-Maria Kreitschmann

in Luke’s text without any disruption (see v. 8: “And so he begat Isaac and circumcised him on the eighth day, and Isaac [begat] Jacob and Jacob [begat] the twelve Patriarchs.”). The remark that Abraham had no child reminds the audience of the conflict-story about Sarah, Hagar, Ishmael and Isaac. This story deals with the endangerment of Abraham’s offspring as well as with its safeguarding and with the emergence of rival groups. According to Luke, Isaac is not conceived until God’s covenant with Abraham is made, which means he is conceived by divine intervention (v. 8). 13 Acts 7:2–52 is exemplary for the Lukan adoption of the Abraham narrative: just as the remembrance of the fathers in the Old Testament, Luke’s arrangement of the story in Stephen’s speech also has the aim of linking the past and the future. In a critical situation the story of the patriarchs is used as a point of reference to interpret the present situation and to locate it in history. But at the same time Luke activates critical moments in the Abraham narrative and makes them productive for his purposes: he uses them as counter-memory. 14 This can be seen from the motif of the persecution of the prophets starting from the births of Jacob’s twelve sons, but also from the ideal prehistory of the Israelite people where Luke formulates critical points regarding the giving of land and offspring to Abraham. In Acts 7 Luke adopts the memory of Abraham and the fathers in a positive way by simultaneously changing some important elements of the story into a critical counter-memory, thus directing the patriarch’s story towards the coming of Jesus Christ as the righteous one (v. 52) who was already announced by Moses (v. 37). The Israelite history thereby becomes the history of those outside Israel who have turned to the message of Christ. 15 By creating a common story they are integrated into Abraham’s family while according to Luke parts of ethnic Israel oppose God’s plans thus excluding themselves from God’s story with his people. The motif of Israel’s past and Christ’s manifestation in the present as related in one story also comes across right at the start of Luke’s gospel in 13 In Acts 7:15–17 it is emphasized that the promised offspring is repeatedly in danger. It is God’s initiative that each time guarantees the survival of Abraham’s family: first there is the death of the twelve patriarchs (7:15), yet nevertheless Israel continues to grow as “the time grew near” (7:17), later the Israelite new-borns are murdered in Egypt (7:19) but then, Moses is born who will lead Israel out of Egypt. 14 See the summarising remarks on the history of the concept and its application to New Testament research in Esler, “Paul’s Contestation,” 29–30. 15 Oda Wischmeyer, “Abraham unser Vater: Aspekte der Abrahamsgestalt im Neuen Testament,” in Biblical Figures in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (ed. H. Lichtenberger and U. Mittmann-Richert; DCLY; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009), 567–87, see especially 581.

Abraham’s Family Network in the New Testament Writings

323

the programmatic texts the Magnificat (Luke 1:46–55) and the Benedictus (Luke 1:67–79) 16. In the Magnificat Luke reinterprets God’s covenant with the fathers as him taking care of the humble and hungry in a kind of eschatological reversal of the social conditions. 17 The salvation promised to the fathers is the salvation for the poor. In Luke’s gospel they are important members of Abraham’s family (see also Luke 16:19–31). In the Benedictus of Zechariah (Luke 1:67–79) Abraham’s family comprises more explicitly than in the Magnificat the national or rather ethnic Israel. Text signals like the God of Israel (v. 68), his people (v. 68: ὁ λαός αὐτοῦ), in the house of his servant David (v. 69) or traces of piety related to the temple in v. 74–75 18 (“to serve him ... in holiness and righteousness before him all our days”) make this clear. The covenant with Abraham here appears as an oath (v. 73: ὅρκον), a term which in the Old Testament is often associated with the giving of the land (Gen 26:3; Exod 6:8; 32:13; 33:1; Num 32:11; Deut 1:8; 6:10; 9:5; 30:20; 34:4; Jer 11:5). 19 In Zechariah’s speech we also find the OT connection between oath and giving of the land (v. 73: ὅρκον ὃν ὤµοσεν πρὸς ᾿Αβραὰµ τὸν πατέρα ἡµῶν, τοῦ δοῦναι ἡµῖν). Here, the possession of the land is omitted and replaced by the allusion to the temple (v. 74–75: “to serve him ... in holiness and righteousness before him all our days”), a connection that is also given in Acts 7:5, 7. In the synopsis of both texts we can perhaps recognize a tradition in Luke that evaluates the giving of the land in a critical way. Against the background of the destruction of the temple in 70 c. e., such a critical tradition would be plausible in simultaneously articulating the hope of serving God without the temple (see Luke 7:48: “the Most High does not live in houses made by human hands ...”). 2.1.2 The Patriarchs in Texts shared by Matthew and Luke (Q, Mark) Besides using Abraham in his concept of God’s saving actions throughout history, Luke also adopts the texts of Q and Mark that show Abraham as an eschatological figure. In these texts the future judgement and the 16 See Francois Bovon, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (vol. 1: Luke 1:1–9:50; EKKNT 3; Zürich: Benziger, 1989), 82, 92: Bovon speaks of the “hermeneutical function” of the Magnificat. This can also be applied to the Benedictus; the event of Jesus’ birth is interpreted theologically by commentaries of the figures. 17 See Bovon, Das Evangelium nach Lukas, 1:90. 18 See Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke (New York: Chapman, 1978), 359. 19 See Mühling, Blickt auf Abraham, 81–82.

324

Eva-Maria Kreitschmann

challenge of belonging to the family of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are most important. Q 13:29, 28 for example criticizes a certainty of salvation which is based on the patriarchs: And many will come from East and West and they will lay down on the table with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of God. But you will be cast out into the outermost darkness. 20

Many exegetes interpret the text as a statement that talks about the loss of Israel’s privileged position in the eschaton 21 but this explanation is questionable: the verb ἥξουσιν (v. 29) (see also Isa 27:13; Jer 3:18; Mic 7:12) and the gathering from all directions (see also Ps 107:2–3; Isa 43:5–6; Isa 49:12) occur in the Old Testament in contexts that emphasize the eschatological convocation of Israel alone, but not of the ἔθνη. 22 The concept of the nations’ gathering at Mount Zion is nowhere combined with the gathering from all directions. 23 And also the eschatological feast in Isa 25:6–8 which God will prepare for all nations does not replace Israel but takes place together with God acting in favour of Israel: “He will remove his people’s disgrace from all the earth.” (Isa 25:8) 24 Consequently it is more plausible that Q 13:29, 28 concerns the judgement being executed on a part of Israel combined with the hope for an eschatological restitution of Israel. 25 God’s people will be gathered anew out of those who have initially received the promises, i. e. the ethnic descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. 26 Here also the patriarchal triad stands for the continuity of God’s promises that remain valid even if parts of Israel are excluded by God’s judgement.

20

For the Greek text, see the reconstruction of Q in Paul Hoffmann and Christoph Heil, eds., Die Spruchquelle Q: Studienausgabe Griechisch und Deutsch (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2002), 91. 21 See Udo Schnelle, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (UTB 2917; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 32016), 383; see Bovon, Das Evangelium nach Lukas, 1:437, he interprets those who gather from all directions as the gentiles in contrast to the Jewish ethnos. 22 See Michael Wolter, Das Lukasevangelium (HNT 5; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 492, 494. 23 See the important result of Zeller’s research: Dieter Zeller, “Das Logion Mt 8,11f / Lk 13,28 f und das Motiv der Völkerwallfahrt zum Zion,” BZ 15/16 (1971/1972): 222–237/84–93. 24 Martin Karrer, “Christliche Gemeinde und Israel: Beobachtungen zur Logienquelle,” in Gottes Recht als Lebensraum: Festschrift für Hans Jochen Boecker (ed P. Mommer et al.; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993), 145–63, 158. 25 See Karrer, “Christliche Gemeinde und Israel,” 158. 26 That gentiles will also take part in the eschatological gathering is shown by the pericope of the Roman centurion in Capernaum (Q 7:1–9).

Abraham’s Family Network in the New Testament Writings

325

Luke doesn’t change this meaning of the logion if we take into account his ecclesiology as a whole. In his two volume work he wants to show how salvation comes to those outside ethnic Israel. But the underlying pattern is not the rejection of Israel in favour of the gentiles but the idea of the gathering of the eschatological community consisting of members of ethnic Israel and the gentiles. 27 Possibly Luke intensifies this reading of the logion by his redactional introduction for Q 13:29, 28. So in the Lukan version an unnamed character asks Jesus: “Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?” (v. 23: εἰ ὀλίγοι οἱ σῳζόµενοι;). The term οἱ σῳζόµενοι appears often in early Jewish writings as a term for the eschatological gathering of Israel (Isa 37:32; Isa 45:20; Tob 14:7; Philo, Praem. 165). 28 The adoption of the logion in Matthew seems to point more clearly than in Q and in Luke to a separation between Israel and the Christ-followers from among the gentiles as the new people of God replacing ethnic Israel. Matthew integrates the logion into the passage about the Roman centurion in Capernaum (Matt 8:5–13), a story about the turning of a non-Israelite towards Jesus. Most interesting is Matthew’s changing of Jesus’s remark at the end of the passage. In Luke 7:9 we find the formulation οὐδὲ ἐν τῷ ᾿Ισραὴλ τοσαύτην πίστιν εὗρον (see also Q 7:9). The sentence, “I tell you, I have not found such great faith even in Israel,” points to the elevated position of Israel. Matthew changes it in παρ᾽ οὐδενὶ τοσαύτην πίστιν ἐν τῷ ᾿Ισραὴλ εὗρον – “I have found no-one with such faith in Israel” (Matt 8:10), thus expressing a more critical distance towards ethnic Israel than does Luke. However, the meaning of the logion in Matthew’s gospel becomes ambiguous again when looking at the addressees of the announced judgement Matthew includes here: the term sons of the kingdom (Matt 8:12) occurs nowhere else as a designation for ethnic Israel. 29 Matthew, the only early Christian text where we find the term, also uses it as a positive designation for Jesus’s disciples in Matt 13:28 as those who accepted Jesus’s message as good seed. Consequently, it is not very plausible that the author intends the rejection of the whole of ethnic Israel but that he rather thinks of a separation within Israel 30 depending 27 Jürgen Roloff, Die Kirche im Neuen Testament: Grundrisse zum Neuen Testament (GNT 10; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 192–206. 28 See Wolter, Das Lukasevangelium, 490. 29 See Karrer, “Christliche Gemeinde und Israel,” 159. 30 Matthias Konradt, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (NTD 1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), 138; Peter Fiedler, Das Matthäusevangelium (ThKNT 1; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2006), 205. Other commentaries interpret the text as a clear statement about the replacement of Israel by the gentiles; see Ulrich Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus

326

Eva-Maria Kreitschmann

on whether the gospel of Jesus is accepted. Nevertheless Matthew at this point emphasizes more than Q and Luke that the gentiles join the people of God because he integrates Q 13:29, 28 into the story of the Roman centurion and changes the words even in Israel to no-one in Israel. In Mark 12:18–27 the patriarchal triad again occurs in an eschatological context. Jesus uses it in a debate with the Sadducees about resurrection. About the dead that they rise: have you not read in the Book of Moses how God spoke to him at the burning bush and said to him: “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”? (v. 26)

The idea that the Patriarchs will be present in the eschaton can be found in a lot of other early Jewish texts, especially in apocalyptic texts from the first century or later (4 Macc 5:37; 7:19; 13:17; 16:25; 18:23; T. Benj. 10:5–6; T. Isaac 2:1–6; 8:1; 12:1–13:1; T. Jud. 25:1; L. A. B. 4:11; 33:5; Apoc. Ab.; Philo, Sacr. 5:4–6; ApcSoph 14:3). 31 Important figures of Israelite history are thought to be present in the heavenly world. 32 But the combination of Yahweh’s self-introduction in Exod 3:6 with the subject of resurrection does not have any parallel in the early Jewish context. In comparison with the early Jewish traditions about the patriarchs in the eschaton, the theocentric focus of Mark 12:18–27 is striking: not the patriarchs but rather God who manifested himself to Israel via Moses in the burning bush is at the centre of interest. 33 From here it can be assumed that the linking of the patriarchal triad to the resurrection is due to an inner logical consequence of the Old Testament patriarchal triad: the reliance on God’s faithfulness to his people which was promised to the fathers can be easily combined with the idea that this relationship of trust will not be interrupted by death but that resurrection is possible. 34 Thereby it has to be stated that Mark 12:26 does not deal with the fathers as isolated figures and their exclusive resurrection. Rather Abraham and Isaac in their genealogical succession with Jacob – the father of the twelve tribes – as the last link represent the whole people of Israel 35 to whom God (vol. 1: Matt 1–7; EKKNT 1:1; Zürich: Benziger, 52002), 15; Ulrich Luck, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (ZBK 1; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1993), 108; Wolfgang Wiefel, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (THKNT 3; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1988), 163–164. 31 See the references to source texts in Rudolf Pesch, Das Markusevangelium (HthKNT 2; Freiburg: Herder, 31984), 234. Adela Yarbro Collins and Harold W. Attridge, Mark: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 564. 32 See Wischmeyer, “Abraham unser Vater,” 573–579, see especially 575. 33 See Schwankl, Die Sadduzäerfrage, 400. 34 See Schwankl, Die Sadduzäerfrage, 393. 35 The subject of non-Jews as members of Abraham’s family does not occur in this text. It is an inner-Jewish debate between Jesus and another Jewish group.

Abraham’s Family Network in the New Testament Writings

327

remains faithful. Consequently, the resurrection of the three patriarchs is here used as an argument for the resurrection of all (v. 26: “About the dead rising ...”). In Mark 12:18–27 Abraham’s family comprises the dead and the living of ethnic Israel. Matthew follows Mark’s version of the tradition without considerable changes (Matt 22:23–33). In Luke’s adoption (Luke 20:27–38) the group of those who will be in the afterlife like the patriarchs 36 seems to be limited by certain criteria. Luke designates those who are considered worthy (v. 35: καταξιωθέντες) to take part in the resurrection as sons of God and sons of the resurrection (v. 36) and contrasts them with the sons of this age (V. 34) who will consequently not be resurrected. 37 It is plausible that Luke is also drawing on the concept of the resurrection of the righteous as he expresses it in Luke 14:14. 38

2.2 Abraham and his Children A second group of New Testament texts mentioning Abraham activates the family relation between Abraham as father and a group or several groups of people designated as σπέρµα, τέκνον, θυγάτηρ or υἱός of Abraham. In the New Testament we find texts where the terms are used to simply denote the Jewish ethnos without debate and other texts where the titles appear in a more conflictual context. In some texts of Paul we can see how the term σπέρµα ᾿Αβραάµ refers to the origin of an ethnic Jew. In 2 Cor 11:22 Paul states his Jewish descent in comparison with other ethnic Jews: “Are they Hebrews (῾Εβραῖοί)? So am I. Are they Israelites (᾿Ισραηλῖταί)? So am I. Are they seed of Abraham (σπέρµα ᾿Αβραάµ)? So am I.” In Rom 11:1 he describes himself in a similar way as “ ... an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham (ἐκ σπέρµατος ᾿Αβραάµ), of the tribe of Benjamin.” In analysing these texts it is important to bear in mind that the designation seed of Abraham does not only mean mere biological descent. Philip F. Esler has drawn attention to this point by applying results of ethnological research to biblical exegesis. 39 Jewish identity 36 The text in Mark, Matt and Luke does not speak of a “resurrection” of the fathers. The afterlife of the fathers however implies it; see the reference to this tension in the text in Schwankl, Die Sadduzäerfrage, 405 n. 230. 37 The linguistic parallel of Luke 20:38 and 4 Macc 7:19 is interesting here: “He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for all live for him” (πάντες γὰρ αὐτῷ ζῶσιν) (Luke 20:38); 4 Macc 7:19: “... that they – as our patriarchs Abraham, Isaak and Jacob do not die for him (ὅτι θεῷ οὐκ ἀποθνῄσκουσιν) but live for him (ἀλλὰ ζῶσιν τῷ θεῷ).” 38 See Wolter, Das Lukasevangelium, 658. 39 See Esler, “Paul’s Contestation,” 26–27.

328

Eva-Maria Kreitschmann

in the first century is not only determined religiously or biologically, the latter being a modern concept that is unknown in antiquity. Being Jewish in the first century implies a wide range of different aspects: it means to share a common name, to share the memory about a common descent, to know a common history, to share culture (customs, language, religion), to refer to a homeland and to have a sense of communal solidarity. 40 Esler has worked out that all these aspects are linked to Abraham. Consequently Abraham plays an important role for the identity of the Jews as an ethnic group in the first century. 41 Furthermore, this group belonging contains emotional and evaluative dimensions: to be part of the γένος ᾿Αβραὰµ (see Acts 13:26) was considered with pride by first-century Jews. The elevated status of the Jewish group by virtue of Abrahamic lineage was emphasized. 42 In Paul’s letter to the Romans this ancient concept of group identity and kinship becomes visible: in Rom 9–11 Paul deals with the question of how God’s promises to Israel are related to the fact that parts of Israel are not interested in the message of Christ or even reject it. 43 In the introduction to his discourse in Rom 9–11 he formulates his own Jewish identity and that of his kinsmen (9:3: τῶν συγγενῶν 44 ... κατὰ σάρκα) (Rom 9:4–5): together they are denoted by a common name: ᾿Ισραηλῖται (v. 4). They have a common descent and shared history: οἱ πατέρες (v. 5), αἱ διαθῆκαι (v. 4), and αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι (v. 4). They share a common religious culture: λατρεία (the correct way of worshipping God 45) and νοµοθεσία (the giving of the law). Using Esler’s catalogue the law can be seen as the element that establishes the sense of common solidarity in the Jewish ethnos because it also regulates social cohabitation. Only the reference to the land is absent in the list of Rom 9:4–5. But the emotional and evaluative dimensions of being Jewish are mentioned by Paul: he and his kinsmen have glory (δόξα) and adoption to sonship (υἱοθεσία) as a special status that other ethnic groups do not have. At the end of the list Paul uses the term σπέρµα ᾿Αβραὰµ (9:7) as a summarizing term for those who are part of the Jewish ethnos.

40

See Esler, “Paul’s Contestation,” 26. See Esler, “Paul’s Contestation,” 26–27. 42 See Esler, “Paul’s Contestation,” 27. 43 Klaus Haacker, Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer (THKNT 6; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 42012), 218. 44 See W. Michaelis, “συγγνενής/συγγένεια,” ThWNT 8:737,741. 45 See H. Strathmann, “λατρεύω/λατρεία,” ThWNT IV:63–65: The noun λατρεία refers more to the concrete concept of temple sacrifice while the verb λατρεύω means praying and a pious way of life in general. 41

Abraham’s Family Network in the New Testament Writings

329

However, Paul at this point inserts a critical distinction between σπέρµα und τέκνα: “Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children” (οὐδ᾽ ὅτι εἰσὶν σπέρµα ᾿Αβραὰµ πάντες τέκνα). The semantic field of child implies the notions of son and daughter that introduce more specific aspects concerning the status of the designated person than the more general term σπέρµα: in the Hellenistic Roman world the status of being a son is related to the right to inherit, a right illegitimate children or slaves do not have. 46 To be Abraham’s child or son and not only seed implies also that the so designated persons descend from the correct lineage and have the right to inherit that was promised to Abraham. The terms point to the status, the “distinctive and glorious identity” 47 that the Jewish ethnos claims. This concept appears also in Acts 13:26: in his speech in the synagogue in Pisidian Antioch Paul addresses his listeners whom he wants to win for his message as, “Men and brothers, sons of the stock of Abraham” (ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί, υἱοὶ γένους ᾿Αβραὰµ). Here, the meaning of the term son as a distinctive and contrasting honorary title becomes apparent: besides the sons of the stock of Abraham Paul also addresses those who fear God (13:16: οἱ φοβούµενοι τὸν θεόν; see also 13:26) who are outside of the γένος ᾿Αβραὰµ thus without son-status. What Paul does in Rom 9:6–7 is to change the meaning of the notion child of Abraham and find new criteria for what it means to belong to this group, thus breaking the ethnic boundaries of the concept. In order to achieve this aim he focuses on the aspect of promises out of the wide range of elements that define the Jewish ethnos and Jewish identity: “They who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.” (v. 8) One has to be cautious in interpreting this statement as a rejection of ethnic Jews as the children of the flesh in favour of the Christ-followers as children of God or children of the promise. 48 An analysis of the context suggests another direction for the text: Paul seems to want to show the basic mechanism as to how God’s people is constituted and how God is still at work in the present. As the origin of Israel in the story of Abraham and his family shows (Rom 9:9–13) it has always been God’s promise and its 46

See J. Gaudemet, “Familie I (Familienrecht).”, RAC 7:315–16; in the Hellenistic-Roman law the difference between the legal and non-legal descendants who have no right to inherit is emphasized; see also Moxnes, “What is Family?” 33–35. 47 Esler, “Paul’s Contestation,” 27. 48 Juncker interprets the beginning of Rom 9 in this way, see Günther H. Juncker, “‘Children of Promise’: Spiritual Paternity and Patriarch Typology in Galatians and Romans,” BBR 17.1 (2007): 131–60, see especially 150.

330

Eva-Maria Kreitschmann

realisation and not a genealogical succession that constituted Israel. It can be said that Paul here narrows the ethnic concept Israel which comprises both – physical descent and many other cultural aspects which can be summarized in the memory of Abraham’s family – to an understanding that opens the community for ethnic non-Jews who can now have the full identity of Abraham’s children without accepting the boundary marker of circumcision, food laws and the keeping of the Sabbath. 49 The distinction between σπέρµα und τέκνα ᾿Αβραὰµ occurs also in John 8 and Q 3:7–9. Both texts concentrate on one criterion of the ethnic concept of Israel that then serves as a starting point from which the family of Abraham is defined anew. But depending on the different contexts in which the traditions were formed they give different answers to the question as to who belongs to Abraham. 50 In Q 3:7–9 John the Baptist addresses Israel in its ethnic identity as γένος ᾿Αβραὰµ but he criticises a reference to Abraham that misses fruits worthy of repentance (Q 3:8: καρποὺς ἀξίους τῆς µετανοίας). Without these fruits the distinctive and glorious identity of the people of Abraham is worthless: “And do not think to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham (τέκνα τῷ ᾿Αβραάµ).” Luke interprets the fruits worthy of repentance by adding a sermon of John the Baptist to different social groups. There the baptist admonishes his listeners to show solidarity with the poor and weak and not to act greedily or violently (see 3:10–14). 51 Here it becomes apparent how Luke puts special emphasis on the element of communal solidarity thus defining it as the determining factor for belonging to Abraham’s family. 52 Other aspects of ethnic belonging are suppressed. In the later text John 8:31–59 Jesus’s opponents, labelled as ᾿Ιουδαῖοι, 53 are addressed as σπέρµα ᾿Αβραάµ (v. 37), but they cannot be children 49 See James D. G. Dunn, “The New Perspective on Paul,” BJRL 65.2 (1983): 95–122, see especially 115. 50 In 1 Pet 3:6 the special topic of the daughters of Sarah occurs. The criterion for the Christian women addressed to be daughters of Sarah is to subordinate to their non-Christian husbands. Thus they can convince their husbands of the Christian way (1 Pet 3:1). 51 See Luke 3:11–14: sharing of clothes and food, warning of tax collectors not to cheat, warning of soldiers not to act violently. 52 In Matt the baptist’s warning is addressed to the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Matt seems to use Abraham more than Luke to contrast different groups: Israel – the nations, Pharisees / Sadducees – children of Abraham. This is also visible in the passage of the Roman centurion (Matt 8:5–13) and in Jesus’s genealogy (Matt 1:1–17). In the latter passage however different groups are not separated but ethnic Jews and non-Jews are associated. 53 ᾿Ιουδαῖοι is the term for the Jewish ethnos in contrast to other ethnic groups. ᾿Ισραηλῖταί is the self-designation. See Esler, “Paul’s Contestation,” 26.

Abraham’s Family Network in the New Testament Writings

331

because they try to murder Jesus who was sent by God (v. 40, 42). This text combines Abraham with christological statements in a way that cannot be found in other New Testament texts dealing with Abraham: the author decentralizes 54 Abraham in God’s history with his people. The community that is defined by the author in John 8 consists of Jesus, his father who sent him, and those who acknowledge this claim. Abraham seems only to be used as an illustration. There is no aspect of the Jewish memory of Abraham (promises, the fathers, the law) that is inserted as a positive or conciliating element, as for example is done by Luke in his gospel. The value of the Jewish ethnos as remaining part of God’s history with humankind no longer exists here. Here it also becomes apparent how the term τέκνα τοῦ ᾿Αβραάµ can be detached from any ethnic understanding that in the New Testament writings seems to be closer associated with the term σπέρµα ᾿Αβραάµ. These results also help us to understand more precisely how Paul uses Abraham in his longer treatises about the founding father of Israel in Rom 4 and Gal 3:1–29. What Paul does in Rom 3:21–32 and Rom 4 can be understood as the formation of a multi-ethnic community as the people of God 55 by reformulating what is important for the Jewish ethnic identity: the memory of Abraham. To achieve this, Paul focusses on Abraham as father 56 but omits the genealogical line of Isaac – Jacob /Israel that also implies physical descent, and then he formulates the fatherhood of Abraham on the basis of Gen 15:6: “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” (Rom 4:3) Paul thereby levers out the memory of Abraham as father of the Jewish ethnos among the other nations because the criterion of faith includes all: those who are of the circumcision (τοῖς ... ἐκ περιτοµῆς) and those who follow the faith of Abraham without being circumcised (v. 12). Here, Paul does not use the term τέκνα τοῦ ᾿Αβραάµ that so far has turned out to have rather group-separating implications but he repeatedly designates the community of the Roman believers as σπέρµα ᾿Αβραάµ (v. 13,16,18). Paul intensifies the collective implications of this term because by σπέρµα ᾿Αβραάµ he does not only mean the ge54 For the “decentralisation” of Abraham in John, see also Michael Theobald, Das Evangelium nach Johannes: Kapitel 1–12 (RNT; Regensburg: Pustet, 2009), 619. 55 See Juncker, “Children of Promise,” 152. Juncker speaks of the formation of a multiethnic community in the context of the analysis of Rom 9:7–9, but it can also be applied to Rom 3:21–32 and to Rom 4. 56 In Rom 4 Abraham is remembered as πατήρ and προπάτωρ. Paul designates him in these words seven times, even in the introductory sentence of the chapter: “What then shall we say that Abraham our forefather (προπάτορα) has gained according to the flesh?”

332

Eva-Maria Kreitschmann

nealogical line Isaac – Jacob but he recognizes its multi-ethnic dimension by reading Gen 17:5: Therefore it is of faith that it might be by grace; so that the promise might be sure to all the seed; not only to that of the law but also to that of the faith of Abraham who is the father of us all. As it is written “I have made you a father of many nations,” before God whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into being things that were not. (Rom 4:16–17)

In Galatians Paul is faced with a different situation: with his letter he tries to fight against the influence of Judaizing groups (Jewish Christ-followers or Judaizing Gentile Christians 57) who demand from the gentiles in Galatia – who want to become or have already become Christians – that they become fully part of the Jewish ethnos. This means that they have to undergo circumcision and follow some other rules of the Torah. 58 It is striking the extent to which Paul here uses the metaphor of childhood and sonship to emphasize the separation of the Christ-followers from those who declare the boundary-marker of the Jewish ethnos as authoritative for all. The sonship metaphor occurs often in chapters 3 and 4 of Galatians. 59 Additionally, Paul also speaks of σπέρµα ᾿Αβραὰµ (Gal 3:16, 29), but he makes an effort to detach the term from the traditionally fixed meaning as the designation of Israel as ethnos. Therefore he understands σπέρµα as a word not pointing to a collective but to a single person, namely Jesus Christ (Gal 3:16). The Christians of Galatia are σπέρµα ᾿Αβραὰµ but in the sense that they are of Christ: εἰ δὲ ὑµεῖς Χριστοῦ, ἄρα τοῦ ᾿Αβραὰµ σπέρµα ἐστέ (Gal 3:29). The Abraham of Rom 4, the father of all who includes the circumcised as well as the uncircumcised, is missing here. An argument against this interpretation is that Paul in Gal 3:8 refers back to the blessing of the nations in Gen 12:3: “All nations will be blessed through you.” This is a similar universalistic statement as that of Gen 17:5 which Paul uses in Rom 4:17 (“I have made you a father of many nations.”). But whereas in Rom 4 the father of many nations-quote from Genesis is used to integrate 57 See Letty M. Russell, “Twists and Turns in Paul’s Allegory,” in Hagar, Sarah, and their Children: Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Perspectives (ed. P. Trible and L. M. Russell; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), 71–97, see especially 71. 58 See Steve Mason, “Das antike Judentum als Hintergrund des frühen Christentums,” ZNT 19.37 (2016): 11–22, 20, and Esler, “Paul’s Contestation,” 29, show that in the ethnically structured society of the ancient Mediterranean it was problematic to leave one’s ethnos and to join a transethnic group like the Christian congregations. 59 See Gal 3:7: “... those who are of faith, they are sons of Abraham” (ὅτι οἱ ἐκ πίστεως, οὗτοι υἱοί εἰσιν ᾿Αβραάµ); 4:1–7: the metaphor of the different status of son and slave; 4:21–31: the allegory of Hagar, Sarah and their sons.

Abraham’s Family Network in the New Testament Writings

333

different groups, Gal 3:8 only deals with the ἔθνη as those formerly having been outside of Israel, but now that they are Christ-followers they must keep their status in the community of God’s people. 60 Therefore Paul emphasizes with such commitment who are the real υἱοί who in the ancient familia have the status of heirs unlike slaves. To sum up, υἱὸς ᾿Αβραάµ is a qualifying term that implies heritage, a close relation to the father but also separation from those who are not τέκνον, θυγάτηρ or υἱός. Furthermore, it is rather inserted in conflictual contexts where the relationship with Abraham is under debate rather than simply used to designate the ethnos. This can also shed a light on the interpretation of the Lucan passages in Luke 13:10–17 and 19:1–10, where two individuals – the crippled woman in the synagogue and Zacchaeus the tax collector – are addressed as daughter and son of Abraham, which is singular in the New Testament. There are two options for interpreting the terms in these stories: the first option is to see them as simple determination of the ethnic belonging of the crippled woman and Zacchaeus. 61 The other option is that Luke uses them as qualifying titles and that by applying them in not only one but two stories and relating them complementarily to a woman and a man he wants to make an important point in the discussion as to who belongs to Abraham’s family. In Luke’s gospel the relation to Abraham is defined in new ways when the author links Abraham to the poor and powerless on the one hand (see Luke 1:46–56: Magnificat; Luke 16:19–31: poor Lazarus) and on the other hand combines the call for repentance and correct conduct of lifestyle with Abraham (see Luke 3:7–9). Consequently, the crippled woman and Zacchaeus are children of Abraham because the promises that were given to Abraham are fulfilled now with the care of Jesus for the poor and marginalized. 62 Additionally, the baptist’s call for repentance seems to be the background of Zacchaeus’s story and his 60

See Oda Wischmeyer, “Wie kommt Abraham in den Galaterbrief? Überlegungen zu Gal 3,6–29” in Umstrittener Galaterbrief: Studien zur Situierung und Theologie des PaulusSchreibens (ed. M. Bachmann and B. Kollmann; BthSt 106; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2010), 119–163, see especially 157. 61 See Hans Klein, Das Lukasevangelium (KEK 1:3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 10 2006), 603 and Wiefel, Das Evangelium nach Lukas, 327: “Die Sendung Jesu wird mit der Zugehörigkeit des Zachäus zu Abrahams Geschlecht begründet (vgl. 13:16). Die Sendung Jesu gilt also hier dem Volk Israel (vgl. Matth. 15,24).” 62 See also Turid K. Seim, “Abraham, Ancestor or Archetype? A Comparison of Abraham Language in 4Maccabees and Luke-Acts,” in Antiquity and Humanity: Essays on Ancient Religion and Philosophy: Presented to Hans Dieter Betz on his 70th Birthday (ed. H. D. Betz et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 27–42, see especially 38–39.

334

Eva-Maria Kreitschmann

openly-presented change of lifestyle and illustrates that true kinship with Abraham can be seen in the fruits of repentance (see Luke 3:8). 63

2.3 Abraham, his Wives and their Sons In the third chapter I will examine the texts where the New Testament authors adopt the branch points of Israel’s genealogy, i. e. the wives of the patriarchs and their sons. Thereby, the genealogies of the Genesis provide a background to understand the New Testament adoption of family relations because the genealogies form a network of relations where fathers, mothers, sons and daughters have different functions. 64 How this network is adopted by the New Testament authors has to be further examined. The Old Testament genealogies can be classified into linear and segmental genealogies. While the linear genealogy presents the succession of generations via the male line, the segmental genealogy provides branches on the horizontal level via the female line. Via the linear genealogy a person is related to specific forefathers thus gaining identity, legitimation and authority 65 in his or her social environment. The segmental genealogy explains additionally the origin of different ethnic groups and clarifies the inter-group relations. Coexisting groups are allocated, superordinated or subordinated by tracing them back to different mothers in the genealogy. 66 The female figures stand at the hubs of the genealogy 67 where the patrilineal succession is split into several groups or tribes. 68 The different wives of Abraham show this: Sarah is the mother of Jacob, the main line, but Hagar’s son Ishmael (Gen 16:10–12; 25:12–18) and Keturah’s sons (Gen 25:1–5) are the fathers of other tribes that exist outside of Israel. Moreover, within Israel the twelve tribes are all sons of their father Jacob but the inner diversity of this community is traced back to four different mothers: Leah and Rachel, Bilhah and Zilpah (Gen 29:31–30:32).

63 See Jeffrey S. Siker, Disinheriting the Jews: Abraham in Early Christian Controversy (Ann Arbor, Mich.: UMI, 1989), 221–22; Siker sees Luke 3:7–9 as the background for an understanding of Luke 13:10–17 and interprets the woman’s visits to the synagogue as an indication of her pious way of life that makes her a daughter of Abraham (see 216–218). 64 See Robert R. Wilson, Genealogy and History in the Old Testament: A Study of the Form and Function of the Old Testament Genealogies in their Near Eastern Context (Ann Arbor, Mich.: UMI, 1981); Hieke, Die Genealogien der Genesis. 65 See Oberforcher, “Die jüdische Wurzel,” 6. 66 See Oberforcher, “Die jüdische Wurzel,” 6. 67 See Oberforcher, “Die jüdische Wurzel,” 15. 68 See Hieke, Die Genealogien der Genesis, 278.

Abraham’s Family Network in the New Testament Writings

335

These results can be directly applied to the New Testament genealogies. Luke and Matthew present a genealogy of Jesus in the first chapters of their gospels. In the ancient Mediterranean which was structured by kinship relations, 69 to present the genealogy of a person means to clarify their identity by explaining their tribal origin. In Matthew (Matt 1:1–17), Jesus’s genealogical line starts with Abraham. But the succession of male ancestors is interrupted by the insertion of four female figures before and after David. They are not the matriarchs Sarah, Rebecca, Leah and Rachel, who constitute Israel together with their husbands. These four women are not ethnic Israelites 70: Rahab and Ruth are proselytes according to Josh 2; 6:25 and according to the book of Ruth. Tamar was probably seen as a convert in early Judaism as we can read in Philo (Virt. 220–222). And finally “the wife of Uriah” (Matt 1:6), Bathsheba, was possibly considered as non-Israelite because of her Hittite husband. 71 However, at the points where the women occur the genealogical line does not branch into different segments but the main line is produced by a father “out of” (ἐκ τῆς; see v. 3,5,6) the respective woman. The other children of the four women are not mentioned: Tamar’s son Zerah does not occur, nor do the other sons of Bathsheba. 72 Consequently, the function of the women here is not to differentiate the genealogical line but to legitimize and integrate, because they bring into Israel’s line of promise which runs from Abraham via David to the Christ an element that opens ethnic Israel to the nations. This is expressed in patriarchal language (see the “begetting out of” the women (ἐγέννησεν ... ἐκ τῆς ... in the above mentioned verses) that pushes the active role of the four women into the background. Nevertheless, the genealogy of Jesus structured in this way produces important meaning for the whole gospel and the question of who belongs to God’s people.

69

See Philip Esler, “Keeping it in the Family: Culture, Kinship and Identity in 1 Thessalonians and Galatians,” in Families and Family Relations as Represented in Early Judaisms and Early Christianities: Texts and Fictions – Papers read at a NOSTER Colloquium in Amsterdam, June 9–11 (ed. J. W. van Henten and A. Brenner; STAR 2; Leiden: Deo, 2000), 146–184, see especially 150. 70 See Konradt, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, 30–31; Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, 94. See the critique of this interpretation in John Nolland, “The Four (Five) Women and other Annotations in Matthew’s Genealogy,” NTS 43.4 (1997): 527–39, 539; Wolfgang Wiefel, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (THKNT 1; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1998), 27; Fiedler, Das Matthäusevangelium, 41. 71 See Fiedler, Das Matthäusevangelium, 41. 72 See Oberforcher, “Die jüdische Wurzel,” 15.

336

Eva-Maria Kreitschmann

The genealogy of Jesus presented by Luke (Luke 3:23–38) has only the male line and ascends (from Jesus back in history to Adam and God) in contrast to Matthew’s genealogy which descends (from Abraham to Jesus). Luke’s genealogy is particular in not ending with Abraham but including the history of all humankind by going back to Adam and finally to God (v. 38). Thus, right at the beginning of his gospel Luke emphasizes that the world’s history is the background for his story of Jesus. This synchronism of the world’s history and the story of Jesus can also be seen in other parts of the gospel, for example in Luke 2:1 and 3:1 where Luke situates the events of the Jesus story in Roman history. For Luke (as well as for Matthew) Jesus’s saving presence is not limited to boundaries of families, tribes or ethnic groups. Abraham and the members of his family here are embedded in God’s universal plan for all humankind. 73 In contrast to Matthew and Luke who focus on the male members of Israel’s genealogy, Paul concentrates on the more conflictual relations inside Abraham’s family, 74 where the succession of generations does not function without problems. In Genesis, these conflictual constellations appear in the context of the women’s stories: Hagar and Sarah with their sons Ishmael and Isaac as well as Rebecca with Isaac and her unequal sons Esau and Jacob. In Gal 4:21–31 Paul uses the different descendants of Sarah and Hagar to define his addressees’ identity as a group of Christ followers determined by faith and possession of the Spirit (3:2) and to reject another group that wants to achieve the integration of the Galatian Christ-followers into the Jewish ethnos. Therefore, Paul draws on Sarah as the ancestor of the Jewish ethnos and focuses on the birth of her son Isaac as the promised son (δι᾽ ἐπαγγελίας (v. 23)). But at the same time he uses Sarah to undermine a decisive element of Jewish ethnic identity: he highlights her social status as the free woman (ἐλευθέρα (v. 22)) and interprets this allegorically as the status of being free of the law. The covenant with Moses on Mount Sinai was concluded only with Jacob, the descendants of Isaac, 75 giving them a privileged position among the nations. In Paul’s adoption the covenant on Mount Sinai is linked to the Hagar – Ishmael 73 See Anto Popovic, “Jesus and Abraham in the context of Luke’s Genealogy (Luke 3:23–38),” Anton 82 (2007): 31–54, 44; the interpretation that Luke 3:38 points to Jesus’s divine sonship is not convincing (see for this position Gerhard Schneider, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (vol. 1: Luke 1–10; ÖTBK 1; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlag, 1977), 94. 74 See also the contribution of Lukas Bormann in this volume, p. 207–233. 75 See Norbert Baumert, Der Weg des Trauens: Übersetzung und Auslegung des Briefes an die Galater und des Briefes an die Philipper (Paulus neu gelesen 3; Würzburg: Echter, 2009), 113.

Abraham’s Family Network in the New Testament Writings

337

line and interpreted as leading to slavery. What Paul does here is an “eschatological role reversal” 76: Sarah, mother of ethnic Israel, becomes the mother of a group that is no longer defined by ethnic boundaries but by faith and possession of the spirit. On the contrary, Hagar the slave becomes the mother of those who adhere to the differentiation of Israel from the nations by its identity markers: circumcision, food laws and the keeping of the Sabbath. 77 In Rom 9:9–13 Paul also draws on the stories of Israel’s matriarchs and here the context is as in Gal 4 the conflictual relation of two different groups: ethnic Israel and Christ-followers from different ἔθνη. Unlike in Galatians he shows a wider picture of Abraham’s family including the male linear genealogy from Abraham via Isaac to Jacob. But again he uses the female figures – here Sarah and Rebecca – to shape Israel’s male genealogy more precisely and to profile his theological message. Paul wants to make clear that every time the genealogy arrived at a branch point, the right heir was designated by God’s promise and not by the right of the firstborn to inherit. Consequently, it can be said that Paul here uses the wives, sons and fathers of Abraham’s family to fundamentally formulate the identity of God’s people as a people constituted by God’s free choice, rather than using the different protagonists to clearly mark the group that is outside the family as he does in Galatians. The author of Hebrews is also interested in the wider family network of Abraham. In Heb 11:8–22 he mentions Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Jacob. But whereas Paul uses Abraham’s family in the conflict about the question as to who is part of God’s people, the author of Hebrews draws on the Genesis narrative about Abraham in the context of paraenesis. 78 Here the critical points of the genealogy are not activated. Esau for example is mentioned as in Rom 9:13 but in Hebrews the conflict with his brother is completely skipped; both brothers receive Isaac’s blessing (Heb 11:20). Commentators often emphasize that this so-called cloud of witnesses

76 See also Juncker, “Children of Promise,” 159; Juncker speaks of a “surprising eschatological ‘role reversal’ and ‘redefinition of Israel.’” 77 See the interpretation of the Pauline term “works of the law” in Calvert-Koyzis who refers back to James Dunn: Nancy Calvert-Koyzis, Paul, Monotheism and the People of God: The Significance of Abraham Traditions for early Judaism and Christianity (JSNTSup 273; London: T & T Clark International, 2004), 90–92. 78 See Ingo Broer, Einleitung in das Neue Testament (Würzburg: Echter, 32010), 571; Broer suggests the following structure of the context of Heb 11: 10:19–39: Encouragement to hold on to the confession of hope – paraenesis; 12:1–17: Encouragement to perseverance, peace and sanctification – paraenesis.

338

Eva-Maria Kreitschmann

serves as a collection of faith-building exempla. 79 But in comparison with similar collections from the early Jewish context (1 Macc 2:51–60; 4 Macc 16:20–21) the composition of Heb 11:8–22 shows some particularities that opens another level of meaning. Here Abraham is presented as wandering, not as having a fixed place to live, someone who is characterized by his status as an alien. He is the πάροικος par excellence. 80 However, Abraham is no lonely wanderer, rather he is accompanied by Isaac and Jacob who live together with Abraham in tents, a striking change to the Genesis Vorlage (v. 8b: ἐν σκηναῖς κατοικήσας µετὰ ᾿Ισαὰκ καὶ ᾿Ιακὼβ τῶν συγκληρονόµων τῆς ἐπαγγελίας τῆς αὐτῆς). In Gen 37:1 it is recounted that Jacob lived in the land after his father Abraham had been a stranger there (κατῴκει δὲ Ιακωβ ἐν τῇ γῇ, οὗ παρῴκησεν ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ, ἐν γῇ Χανααν (LXX)). The reference to Sarah in Heb 11:11 shows that the focus of this section of the text is on the horizontal net of Abraham’s family. This net is expanded even more when Abraham and Sarah finally have a number of descendants that is uncountable (v. 12). Abraham, his wife, his son and grandson here are used to constitute the common identity of a group that is alien (v. 13: ξένος, παρεπίδηµος) and looking for a country (v. 14: πατρίδα ἐπιζητοῦσιν). Dunning makes this clear in his interpretation of the text: “The implications are communal, constructing an identity for a multigenerational group of people (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob), not simply the Abraham figure.” 81 The number of believers seems to be without boundaries: not only are Abraham’s descendants innumberable but the author encounters the limit of time by listing all the members of Abraham’s family of faith: “For the time would fail me to tell about ...” (11:32; KJV). Heb 7 is particular in its adoption of the Abrahamic family relations (Gen 12–25). The text is the first part of a larger section (Heb 7:1–10:18) where the role of Jesus as High Priest is outlined. 82 Chapter 7 is about 79 See for example Hans-Friedrich Weiss, Der Brief an die Hebräer (KEK 13; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 151991), 553–554; Weiß points – as do other exegetes – to various examples of similar early Jewish collections of paradigms; see also Erich Grässer, An die Hebräer (vol. 3: Heb 10:19–13:25; EKKNT 17/3; Zürich: Benziger, 1997), 86–87. 80 See P. J. Arowele, “The Pilgrim People of God: An African’s Reflection on the Motif of Sojourn in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” AJT 4 (1990): 438–55, 441; see also Benjamin Dunning, “The Intersection of Alien Status and Cultic Discourse in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods, New Insights (ed. G. Gelardini; BiInS 75; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 178–98, 180. 81 Dunning, “The Intersection of Alien Status,” 183. 82 See among many: Erich Grässer, An die Hebräer (vol. 1: Heb 7:1–10:18; EKKNT 17/2; Zürich: Benziger, 1993), 7; August Strobel, Der Brief an die Hebräer (NTD 9/2; Zürich: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 131991), 75; Weiss, Der Brief an die Hebräer, 371.

Abraham’s Family Network in the New Testament Writings

339

the relation between the Levitical priesthood and Christ as the eternal High Priest. Jesus’s identity is again (see the genealogies of Jesus in Luke and Matt) clarified by reference to Abraham. But in Heb 7 this does not happen via the genealogical line of the fathers but by recourse to Melchizedek. He is a figure that – according to the information the author of Hebrews gives – is completely outside of genealogical connections (v. 3: ἀπάτωρ ἀµήτωρ ἀγενεαλόγητος) 83 and indicates Christ. 84 On the other side there is the genealogical line Abraham – Levi – the Levites which constitutes the lineage of priests, a hereditary system based on family relations in accordance with the Torah. However, there is no polemical or aggressive opposition of the figures Melchizedek /Christ on the one side and Abraham /Levites on the other. In v. 4–10 a well-ordered system of relations is established by genealogical references and the rituals of blessing and the giving of tithes. This system is structured hierarchically with Melchizedek as the predominant figure but with Abraham and indirectly the Levites as Abraham’s genealogical sons receiving the blessing and enjoying the promises (v. 6). However, the model of genealogical kinship is surpassed to show Jesus as the one who is not bound in time, who has no beginning and end (v. 3). With Jesus being eternal – in contrast to the Levite priesthood – he can save completely (v. 25: εἰς τὸ παντελὲς) those who seek to come to God through him (v. 25). This is comfort and hope for the Christ-congregation and a “firm and secure anchor” (6:18–19). Here it can be seen how the christological statements and consequently the Abraham story are embedded in the paraenetic aim of the letter.

3. Conclusion Following Moses, Abraham is the most frequently mentioned Old Testament figure in the New Testament (73 times). A closer look however shows that he is remembered there as part of a family. The New Testament authors also adopt these family members together with Abraham, thus profiling the father of Israel and the theological ideas related to him. They do so by highlighting parts of the family network presented in Gen 12–25 and suppressing other parts that do not serve their message. Traditional 83 The author of Hebrews concludes this from ψ 109,4 where the idea of Melchizedek as an eternal priest is written down; this eternal priesthood is the guiding theme in Heb 7: Psalm 110:4 is three times directly cited or adopted as paraphrase (v. 3b, v. 17, v. 21b). 84 See Grässer, An die Hebräer, 1:17.

340

Eva-Maria Kreitschmann

exegesis has often ignored this fact concentrating on Abraham alone and his meaning for the early Christian faith. A significant part of the texts mentioning Abraham focus on Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the so-called patriarchal triad (Q 13:29,28/Luke 13:28–29 parr.; Mark 12:18–27 parr; Acts 3:11–26; Acts 7:2–8) or refer more generally to Abraham and the fathers (Luke 1:46–55; Luke 1:68–79; Acts 13; Acts 17). It appears that Luke is especially interested in this part of Abraham’s family in both volumes of his work. The term Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is a fixed pattern already in the Old Testament scriptures where most of the references to Abraham outside the actual story in Gen 12–25 occur in this form. There the formula has a linking function to interpret events in the light of God’s acting on Abraham and his descendants Isaac and Jacob as the promised offspring. Especially with texts at the beginning of his gospel (Luke 1:46–55 (Magnificat); 1:68–79 (Benedictus)) and programmatic speeches in Acts (especially Acts 7:2–8), Luke uses the reference to the (three) fathers to link Israel’s past to the present of Christ’s manifestation and to present it as the continuing story of God’s acting in history. In doing so, Israelite history becomes also the history of those outside Israel who have now turned to the message of Christ. Paul, however, stands in contrast to this way of adopting the Abraham narrative. In his larger texts about Abraham and his family he never activates the conventional pattern of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that represents Israel as an ethnic entity. He is interested in Abraham especially as father and discusses who the true children of Abraham are. Thereby he omits the genealogical line of ethnic Israel. The results of research on Judaism of the first century as an ethnically and not merely religiously determined entity are helpful in reconstructing the discussions that might lie behind Paul’s letters. Abraham was an important figure who in firstcentury Judaism served to explain the identity of Israel as an ethnos with common ancestors, a claim to a land, a shared history etc. Paul in Gal 3:1–4:7 and Rom 4 – but also other New Testament texts (Luke 13:23–28; 19, 1–10; John 8:31–59) – take part in an argument about the question as to who can be part of Abraham’s family. He thereby discusses not only the more general designation for the Jewish ethnos σπέρµα ᾿Αβραάµ but he also uses the frame of sonship (τέκνον, θυγάτηρ or υἱός ᾿Αβραάµ) which in Greco-Roman concepts of family and kinship implies heritage and privileged status in contrast to other members of the household (e. g. slaves). Paul achieves his aim of reformulating Abraham as a universal father beyond ethnic boundaries by omitting references to Isaac and Jacob in Gal 3:1–4:7 and Rom 4.

Abraham’s Family Network in the New Testament Writings

341

The female figures of the Abraham story occur rarely in the New Testament, but if they do they are introduced at important points to profile the theological message of the author. A hermeneutic key for their role in the family network can be found in the Old Testament genealogies, where women occur as matriarchs of the different branches of a family. They are the points where the offspring of one father is differentiated. In Gal 4:21–31 and Rom 9:6–13 Paul draws on Abraham, his wives, different sons and grandsons while trying to clarify the relation of different groups: the Christ-followers who accept his way of preaching Christ and others who oppose it. He focuses on the branching-points within Abraham’s family (Hagar and Sarah, Esau and Jacob) where conflicts occur, occasionally intensifying them (see especially Gal 4:29–30; Rom 9:13) to reformulate the ethnic understanding of Israel and to open it for non-Jews. Hebrews 11 is not interested in these conflictual relations when presenting Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Jacob as first members of the wandering and homeless people of God who have a multitude of descendants despite Sarah’s barrenness. Thus, the congregation gains an in-group identity because it can understand itself as part of the wandering people of God that is alien in this world and is constituted by faith. Hebrews 7 surpasses the system of genealogical kinship because of an important soteriological point: Jesus the High Priest is not limited in time by family boundaries but he is eternal and can always intercede for the people thus being a great hope and anchor for the soul (7:18–19). Here it is the paraenetic focus of the letter that shapes the adoption of Gen 12–25. This summarizing survey of the New Testament Abraham traditions has sought to show that Abraham is not only important as single figure. He is remembered as part of a branched family network with wives and sons. The early Christian authors adopt this family story in various ways thus expressing early Christian identity between God’s history with his people and Christ’s manifestation.

Part IV Abraham’s Family in Early Christian Literature

Abraham and His Family in Ancient Greek and Latin Patristic Exegesis Martin Meiser

Faithfulness to the Bible and defending biblical texts against moral antiChristian critiques constitute a twofold agenda for ancient Christian exegesis concerning the story of Abraham and his family. The Bible was both an explanation of human origins and a collection of examples of godly and ungodly lives. My paper analyzes familial networks and focuses on familial relations within Abraham’s kinship during Abraham’s lifetime, not on problems like the notion of God and his appearance, or circumcision or covenant. Theresia Heither /Christina Reemts 1 and Mark Sheridan 2 have collected patristic exegesis on Gen 12–25. John Thompson also presented examples of exegesis on some texts in the first chapter of his Reading the Bible with the Dead, including also material beyond the patristic age. 3

1. Biblical Preconditions of Later Exegesis First of all, we should have the biblical preconditions of all later exegesis in mind. Jews and Christians are in accord in seeking to evaluate Abraham, Sarah and Isaac principally in a positive way. Their evaluation of Hagar and Ishmael is divergent in both groups; Philo’s negative evaluation of Lot has no parallel in Christianity as far as I can see. 1 Theresia Heither and Christiana Reemts, Schriftauslegung: Die Patriarchenerzählungen bei den Kirchenvätern (NSK.AT 33/2; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1999), 63–121; Theresia Heither and Christiana Reemts, Abraham. Biblische Gestalten bei den Kirchenvätern (Münster: Aschendorff, 2005). 2 Mark Sheridan, Genesis 12–50, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Old Testament II (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2002). 3 John L. Thompson, Reading the Bible with the Dead. What You Can Learn from the History of Exegesis that You Can’t Learn from Exegesis Alone (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2007), 13–32.

346

Martin Meiser

According to 2 Chron 20:7, Abraham’s progeny is beloved by God forever; Isa 41:8 names Abraham as the recipient of God’s love, and in Jas 2:23, Abraham is called “friend of God.” John 8:56 attests that he is also a prophet. 4 Sarah is one of the “holy women” (1 Pet 3:5–6). Concerning Hagar, the tradition is divided: her social status leads Paul to an exegesis further denigrating her, but the appearance of an angel hindered an undifferentiated negative concept. 5 Concerning the figure of Lot, his dissociation from the wickedness of Sodom in the angel’s demand to flee (Gen 19:15) and the auctorial sentence ἐν τῷ φείσασθαι κύριον αὐτοῦ in Gen 19:16 are important for the reception history; further, the fact that his plea to God in Gen 19:18 LXX is formulated not as contradictory but in a positive way. 6 In early Jewish tradition, the notion of Lot is divided. Philo of Alexandria retells Gen 19 in his work On Abraham without mentioning Lot at all. 7 In Migr. Abr. 13, an allegorical explanation of Gen 13:9 “Separate thyself from me”, Lot represents the part of the soul which inclines to mere sense-perception, which is no way of life for one who is possessed by love for all that is incorporeal and incorruptible; Abraham represents this concept of life. 8 On the other hand, already in Sap 10:6 he is named δίκαιος. Some New Testament and Early Christian texts underline this positive evaluation: The author of Second Peter calls Lot a righteous one (δίκαιος) in 2 Petr 2:7 and adds that Lot was pained by the wicked people of Sodom, which is not witnessed in any haggadic tradition known to us. 9 Luke puts on record that the turmoil came over Sodom when Lot had left the city (Luke 17:29); the author of First Clement gives a reason why Lot is saved: ∆ιὰ φιλοξενίαν καὶ εὐσέβειαν Λὼτ ἐσώθη ἐκ Σοδόµων. 10 The hospitality of Lot is seen in 4

At his offering Isaac (Gen 22), he foresaw Christ’s self-offering for the salvation of the world (Theophylact of Achrida, In Koh. PG 123:37bc; Euthymiuis Zigabenus, In Koh., PG 123:804c). 5 See the contribution of Angela Standhartinger in this volume, p. 235–259. 6 Peter Prestel and Stefan Schorch, Genesis /Das erste Buch Mose, in Septuaginta Deutsch. Erläuterungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten Testament (ed. Martin Karrer and Wolfgang Kraus, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011), 145–257: 190. 7 Philo of Alexandria, De Abramo 133–41. See also the contribution of Christian Noack in this volume, p. 185–204. 8 Philo of Alexandria, Somn. I 248 gives an allegorical interpretation of Gen 19:26 (“Lot’s wife .. looked back ...”): This “looking back” symbolizes an unclear view of what is worth seeing and hearing, namely virtues, instead of pursuing deafness of glory, blindness of wealth, and empty-mindedness of external beauty. 9 Anton Vögtle, Der Judasbrief. Der Zweite Petrusbrief (EKK 22; Solothurn: Benziger / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1994), 192. 10 Cf. also Caesarius of Arles, Serm. 83.3, CC.SL 103, 341; Isidor of Sevilla, Quaest. test. 15.4, PL 83:245c.

Abraham and His Family in Ancient Greek and Latin Patristic Exegesis

347

Gen 19:1–3. The term εὐσέβεια is added by the author of First Clement; it is never used in the Genesis Septuagint with regard to Lot; but εὐσέβεια is a virtue for every pious human being. 11 In later times, ancient Christian authors depreciate Lot in comparison with Abraham. In his weakness, Lot chose the enjoyable land. 12 The difference of the visiting angels according to Gen 18; 19 – it was three angels who visited Abraham but only two who visited Lot – raises divergent interpretations. Caesarius of Arles refers to Lot’s lesser hospitality, 13 Maximus Confessor to his lesser measure of knowledge: Lot only recognizes τὰ ὁρώµενα whereas Abraham, in his perfection, ὑπερβὰς τὰ φαινόµενα, obtained knowledge of the Holy Trinity. 14 Ancient Christian authors repeat however the evaluation δίκαιος 15 or qualify Lot even as sanctus. 16 In 1930, Salomo Rappaport referred to a common rabbinic and Christian apocryphal tradition revealing the motive for such a positive evaluation, which is not really based in the Bible. One of Lot’s grandsons, Moab, is an ancestor of Ruth, she is an ancestor of David, and he is an ancestor of the Messiah. It would be impious to evaluate their coming-into-being as a result of a sinful act. 17 With regard to these biblical presuppositions, critique is not impossible but reluctant.

2. Abraham and His Family 2.1 Abraham and Tharan Gen 12:1–3 does not offer any reason why Abraham should leave the land. Some authors emphasize Abraham’s love for God as superior to his love for mortal human beings 18 or, due to Heb 11:8, his obedience or his piety. 19 Gen 12:1 is interpreted allegorically, but, at least in early periods

11 Horacio E. Lona, Der Erste Clemensbrief (KAV 2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998), 201. 12 Ambrose, Abraham 1:3/13, CSEL 32/1:511. 13 Caesarius of Arles, Serm. 83.2, CC.SL 103:340–41. 14 Maximus Confessor, Qu. Dub. 39, CC.SG 10:32. 15 John Chrysostom, Hom. Gen. 44.4, PG 54:410; Augustine, Qu. Hept. 1:44, CSEL 28/2:25. 16 Ambrose, Abraham 1:6/52, CSEL 32/1:537. 17 Samuel Rappaport, “Der gerechte Lot. Bemerkung zu II Ptr 2,7.8,” ZNW 29 (1930): 299–304 (301–4). 18 Philo, Abr. 66. 19 1 Clem. 10:2; Ambrose, Abraham 1:2/3, CSEL 32/1:503.

348

Martin Meiser

of Christianity, 20 without negative nuances concerning Abraham’s father’s house. Other authors are not content to find no biblical rationale for Abraham’s exodus and seek to fill in this gap. They refer to the negative character of his συγγενεία, perhaps influenced by Josh 24:2 referring to Tharan’s idolatry (cf. Jub. 12:12–16). In Gen 11:26–32 there is no reference to God. Therefore, sometimes it is just Tharan’s idolatry that justifies Abraham’s leaving. In this way, Abraham realized what Jesus demanded (Mark 10:28) 21, against the common ancient concept of the obedient son.

2.2 Abraham, Sarah, and the Pharaoh I do not ask in this study whether biblical texts or ancient authors assume that the Pharaoh had intercourse with Sarah or not. The conduct of Pharaoh is sometimes condemned, 22 sometimes defended: he considered Sarah a righteous person and the sister of a righteous man. 23 According to Ambrose, Pharaoh’s rebuke against Abraham in Gen 12:18 indicates that even barbarians are able to perceive the natural law. 24 More important for my study is the evaluation of Abraham’s conduct in ancient times. According to Tertullian, the behavior of Abraham /Isaac by saying “she is my sister” was a lie; the male partner gained his life by contumelia. 25 This verdict of lie is a point of debate in later Christian literature. According to Didymus of Alexandria, Abraham did not lie: marriage between brothers and sisters was not uncommon in Egypt and in Abraham’s homeland. 26 John Chrysostom refers to Abraham’s cautious prudence though Abraham’s argument is weak, and he admonishes read-

20

Heither and Reemts, Abraham, 8–9. In later times, negative allegorization becomes dominant, influenced by monasticism. The home land symbolizes earthly things (Didymus of Alexandria, Gen. 210, SC 244:140), or the body with its lusts (Ambrose, Abraham 1:2/4, CSEL 32/1:504; Maximus Confessor, Ambigua ad Iohannem 4:21, GCS 18:70) or the flesh with its bad inclinations (Caesarius of Arles, Serm. 81.1, CC.SL 103:333–34). The term “kinship” symbolizes vices and sins, the phrasing “house of your father” symbolizes the devil (Caesarius of Arles, Serm. 81.2–3, CC.SL 103:334). 21 Didymus of Alexandria, Gen. 209, SC 244:136–38. 22 Philo, Abr. 94, condemns the ἀκρασία; Didymus of Alexandria, Gen. 226, SC 244:180, condemns the φιληδονία of Egypt. 23 Theodor of Mopsuestia, Frgm. Gen., PG 66:644a. 24 Ambrose, Abraham 1:2.8, CSEL 32/1:508. 25 Tertullian, Cult. Fem. 2.2.6, CC.SL 1:355. The manuscript tradition is divided: In the last sentence Quam (scil. violentiam, cf. Gen 12:12) etiam pater fidei Abraham in uxoris suae specie pertimuit et sororem ementitus salutem contumelia redemit, some manuscripts offer the names Isaac before sororem and Rebeccam after ementitus. 26 Didymus of Alexandria, Gen. 226, SC 244:180–82.

Abraham and His Family in Ancient Greek and Latin Patristic Exegesis

349

ers to follow this example of ὁµόνοια. 27 Augustine admits the possible evaluation as a deficit of faith but justifies Abraham’s behavior as a protective measure. 28 In his City of God, Augustine denies that Abraham had lied: it is possible to call one’s kin brothers and sisters. 29 According to Ambrose, Gen 12:10–20 is a call to chastity. 30 Gen 20:3 warns the married to look for another wife. But why is the Pharaoh (Gen 12) punished while Abimelech is not? Ambrose refers to Gen 20:6: Abimelech acted in the integrity of his heart. 31

2.3 Abraham and Hagar: Extraordinary Intercourse Quite in opposition to presuppositions such as Jas 2:23 etc., the stories of the patriarchs are an issue of moral anti-Christian critique based on a conservative morality, which could also be Christian morality, or at least an issue for a Manichean abandoning of the Old Testament. 32 Christians had to defend their Bible but they also had to avoid any misuse of the biblical stories: some justified their debauched way of life arguing with reference to Abraham’s conduct. 33 Strategies of exegesis concentrate on the pre-Mosaic period and on the intention of the dramatis personae. In his Montanist period, Tertullian justifies his policy against the remarriage of Christians by referring to the story of the patriarchs as seemingly suggesting the opposite. A Christian who wishes to be a son of Abraham should know: Abraham is “father in faith” (Gal 3:6, 7) only in the period before his circumcision when he lived in monogamy. After his circumcision, he lived in polygamy; if someone wants to be a son of the later Abraham he also would have to be circumcised! 34 But why should Christians be Abraham’s children only in the period before his circumcision? Tertullian’s argument is based on an exegetical observation: In Gen 12–25 LXX, πιστεύειν is used only in Gen 15:6, before the tale of Abraham’s circumcision. 35 Isaac was married only once; therefore

27

John Chrysostom, Hom. Gen. 32.4, PG 53:298–300. Augustine, Qu. Gen. 26, CC.SL 33:11. 29 Augustine, Civ., 16:19, CSEL 40/2:160. 30 Ambrose, Abraham 1:2.7, CSEL 32/1:507. 31 Ambrose, Abraham 1:7.59–60, CSEL 32/1:540–542. 32 Timo Nisula, Augustine and the Functions of Concupiscence (VigChr.S 116; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 224. 33 Theodoret of Cyrus, Qu. Gen. 67, PG 80:176a. 34 Tertullian, Monog. 6.3, 4, CC.SL 2:1236. 35 The terms πίστις and πιστός are missing altogether. 28

350

Martin Meiser

we, Isaac’s offspring according to the apostle (Rom 9:7), cannot justify polygamy for Christians, neither for laymen nor for clergy. 36 In later times, authors sometimes reveal more sensitivity towards the questionable character of the biblical stories. How can Abraham serve as example to be imitated when he had a son with Hagar? According to Ambrose, we should learn that even Abraham did not possess a superior nature but was simply a human being. 37 Arguing with the pre-Mosaic period sometimes achieves both justifying polygamy in the past and forbidding it in the present. Before the Law of Moses was given and before the Gospel appeared, this adultery was not forbidden. 38 More severely, Ps.-Athanasius refers to Jesus Christ’s skepticism even to monogamy (Luke 14:26) and to the exact wording in Gen 2:24: it is said καὶ ἔσονται οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα µίαν, and not οἱ τρεῖς. 39 The polygamy of the patriarchs, this author concludes, is the result of the devil’s tyranny. 40 Such harsh criticism, however, remained occasional. The regular interpretation refers to the intention of Abraham and Sarah. 41 In a relatively modest way, Theodoret emphasizes the necessity to evaluate every action according to its intention. Abram’s motivation was not reprehensible concupiscence but desire for children. He was superior to concupiscence. His behavior during the conflict between Sarah and Hagar confirms this characterization. Sarah complained of Hagar’s arrogance, and Abraham sustained it and surrendered Hagar to Sarah’s revenge. 42 Other authors also emphasize his intention of progeny denying any libidinous motive. 43 Augustine distinguishes between irrational desires and rational will (voluntas) in this case. 44 Gen 16:2 LXX (ὑπακούω instead of ἀκούω rendering ‫ )שמע‬facilitates the attenuation of the story’s offense; Abraham was

36

Tertullian, Monog. 11.4, CC.SL 2:1244. Ambrose, Abraham 1:4/22, CSEL 32/1:517: Non abnuo quod Abraham de ancilla susceperit filium ut cognoscas quoniam non superioris cuiusdam naturae ac substantiae fuit Abraham, sed unus e numero et fragilitate universorum hominum. 38 Ambrose, Abraham 1:4/23, CSEL 32/1:518; Theodoret of Cyrus, Qu. Gen. 67, PG 80:176b. 39 Ps.-Athanasius, Qu. ad Antiochum Ducem 98, PG 28:657cd. 40 Ps.-Athanasius, Qu. ad Antiochum Ducem 98, PG 28:657d–660a. 41 We have to remember the general high estimation of Sarah in the ancient church. Because Sarah is a holy woman, Epiphanius, Ancoratus 39.5, GCS 25:49, neglects her laughing but emphasizes her shamefacedness, based on Gen 18:9 fine (ἐν τῇ σκηνῇ): She did not present herself to the men visiting Abraham. 42 Theodoret of Cyrus, Qu. Gen. 67, PG 80:176a–c. 43 Ambrose, Abraham 1:4/24, CSEL 32/1:518–9; Augustine, Civ. 16:29, CSEL 40/2 :170. 44 Nisula, Function of Concupiscence, 226. 37

Abraham and His Family in Ancient Greek and Latin Patristic Exegesis

351

obedient to his wife, 45 and Sarah did not deliver Hagar to the covetousness of Abraham: ubi eius potestas erat, iubens potius oboedienti quam cedens concupiscenti. 46 There was a consensus between both. 47 1 Cor 6:16 is decisive for Ambrose’s statement, formulating the common Christian consciousness: we should not imitate their actions. 48 Didymus of Alexandria offers a more engaged interpretation: the intercourse with Hagar was a corporeal one in order to produce children, the intercourse with Sarah was a unity of the soul fitting to divine love (ἕνωσις ψυχῆς ἁρµοζοµένης ἔρωτι θείῳ). 49 It is, however, John Chrysostom who declares Abraham’s and Sarah’s behavior as praiseworthy because of their φιλοσοφία and ἀρετή. Due to her εὐγνωµοσύνη, Sarah did not pressure her husband as Rachel did; 50 due to her φιλοσοφία, she suggested this way of having offspring to Abraham. 51 Sarah and Abraham were abstinent from all affect (πάθος). By σωφροσύνη, Abraham suffered Sarah’s childlessness; due to his φιλοσοφία, he was obedient to Sarah’s suggestion. 52 We should not misunderstand this positive portrait of Abraham and Sarah as a reflex of Chrysostom’s uncritical dealing with political authorities in his own times. John Chrysostom was able to criticize the luxury of the Emperor’s court. In one of his sermons characterizing the luxury of the empress, he begins: “Herodias is again enraged, again she dances, again she seeks to have the head of John in a basin” 53 – and he died in exile!

2.4 Sarah and Hagar: Differences of Behavior Differences of State: Philo of Alexandria allegorizes Gen 16: Hagar is the symbol for the necessary acquiring of the propaedeutic wisdom; Sarah symbolizes the perfect wisdom itself. 54 Origen firstly interprets Abraham’s polygamy as the acquiring of different virtues; secondly, influenced 45 Didymus of Alexandria, Gen. 234, SC 244:202; Augustine, Civ. 16:29, CSEL 40/2:170, referring also on 1 Cor 7:4; The Venerable Bede, Gen. 4, CC.SL 118 A:200. 46 Augustine, Dulc. Qu., 7.4, CC.SL 44 A:290. Cf. Idem, c. Faust 22:31, CSEL 25/1:625, commenting the behavior of Sarah: non cedens viro concupiscenti, sed iubens oboedienti. 47 John Chrysostom, Hom. Gen. 38.1, PG 53:350 (underlining the ὁµόνοια between the two); Hrabanus Maurus, Gen. 2:18, PL 107:543c. 48 Ambrose, Abraham 1:4/25, CSEL 32/1:519. 49 Didymus of Alexandria, in Procopius of Gaza, Gen., GCS NF 22:352, PG 87/1:352a. 50 John Chrysostom refers to Gen 30:1 (∆ός µοι τέκνα ...). 51 John Chrysostom, Hom. Gen. 38.1, PG 53:351. 52 John Chrysostom, Hom. Gen. 38.2, PG 53:352. 53 Sozomenos, H.e. 8.20. 54 Philo, Congr. 9.

352

Martin Meiser

by Gal 4:21–31, he interprets Hagar as a symbol for only literal exegesis and unbelieving Judaism. 55 Ambrose changes Philo’s exegesis: Hagar symbolizes only the wisdom of this world, the binding to the law and the binding of all heresy. 56 According to Maximus Confessor, Hagar symbolizes perception (αἴσθησις), Sarah the mind (νοῦς). 57 This line of interpretation however, fed by Philo and Paul, was by no means the only one. With regard to Hagar’s virtues, Didymus can justify her vision of God, commented by Matt 5:8. 58 According to The Venerable Bede, Hagar’s vision of God underlines her deep understanding of the sublimity of the divine nature. 59 Differences of Behavior: Sarah’s and Hagar’s behaviors underlie divergent evaluation. According to some authors, the Bible condemns both, the behavior of Sarah (Sara moderationem non tenuit) and Hagar’s arrogance. 60 Augustine, however, justifies the action of the so-called Catholic Church against the Donatists by reference to Sarah’s behavior against Hagar. 61

2.5 Lot and his Daughters The Figure of Lot is an issue especially with regard to Gen 19. Gen 13:5–13 did not really attract any exegetical interest. 62 Gen 19:8: Quite in opposition to our sensitivity, some ancient authors do not take any offense in Lot’s delivering his daughters for rape. John Chrysostom suggests imitating the example of Lot’s hospitality and condemns Christians who do not have any mercy for their Christian brethren. 63 Ambrose at first admits this felonious impurity, but he continues: it is a minor thing to have intercourse according to the nature than to fail against the nature. 64 “Ambrose’s logic could scarcely be more offensive to modern readers: Lot did well, risking a lesser evil to avoid a greater, for 55

Origen, Hom. Gen. 7,6, GCS 29:76. Ambrose, Abraham 2.72–75, CSEL 32/1:626–28. 57 Maximus Confessor, Qu. Dub. 80, CC.SG 10:61. 58 Didymus of Alexandria, Gen. 48, SC 244:232; similarly Procopius of Gaza, Gen., GCS NF 22:261, PG 87/1:353b. 59 The Venerable Bede, Gen. 4, CC.SL 118 A. 60 Ambrose, Abraham 1:4/26, CSEL 32/1:520. 61 Cf. Thompson, Reading the Bible, 20 and 234 (references). 62 I did not find anything in Cyril of Alexandria’s Glaph. Gen. 3 (to be expected in PG 69:80d) or Theodoret’s Qu. Gen. (to be expected in PG 80:169d/172a) or Augustine, Qu. Gen. 26, CC.SL 33:11. 63 John Chrysostom, Hom. Gen. 42.4, PG 54:400–1. 64 Ambrose, De Abrahamo 1:6/52, CSEL 32/1:537. 56

Abraham and His Family in Ancient Greek and Latin Patristic Exegesis

353

it would be less unnatural for women to be defiled by the men of Sodom than for Lot’s male guests to suffer the same.” 65 According to Augustine, it is appropriate to ask whether Lot intended to avoid a greater evil by a minor one or if he was confused. In the first case, it is dangerous, in the second, it is by no means worthy of imitation. 66 Augustine’s argumentation in Contra mendacium 67 reveals the denigration of women: Since it is a lesser evil for women to suffer lewdness than for men, it even pertained to the righteousness of that just man, that to his daughters he chose this rather to be done, than to his guests; not only willing this in his mind, but also offering it in word, and, if they should assent, ready to fulfill it in deed.

Lot’s mind was so disturbed that he was willing to do that which is forbidden by God’s law. By fearing other men’s sins, he was so perturbed that he did not attend to his own sin. So he willingly subjected his daughters to the lusts of impious men! 68 Thompson comments: “Augustine has abandoned all arguments from prudence. Lot’s horrible deed, at best, signals a mental breakdown. At worst, it is merely ‘his own sin,’ and totally unexcused.” 69 Gen 19:30–38: The anti-Christian Celsus evaluated the tale of Lot and his daughters as τῶν Θυεστείων κακῶν ... ἀνοµώτερα. 70 Without any regard to this critique, Tertullian in his Montanist period uses this story for polemics against the so-called Catholic Church and their concession of remarriage. The Manichaean Faustus commented on Lot’s behavior: qui honestius arsisset in Sodoma ictu fulminis quam in monte flagravit inconcessae libidnis flamma. 71 The context of his argument is his general critique of the Old Testament. Christian authors had to defend the story, arguing by biblical style, by the presuppositions and intention of the daughters, and by the biblical parallel of Adam and Eve. Whereas the daughters are excused, Lot sometimes is condemned. According to Tertullian, no Christian should justify a second marriage in order not to be without heirs by referring to Lot: The Christian has brothers, and he has the Church as mother. 72 Irenaeus anticipates nearly all of possible arguments. In the advent of 65

Thompson, Reading the Bible, 81 Augustine, Qu. Hept.1:42, CSEL 28/2:24. 67 Augustine, Contra mendacium 9.20, CSEL 41:493 (ET. FaCh). 68 Augustine, Contra mendacium 9.21, CSEL 41:494–95. 69 Thompson, Reading the Bible, 81. Petrus Comestor, Historica Scholastica, Gen. 52, PL 198:1100b, 70 Origen, Cels. 4:45, GCS 2:317. 71 Faustus, in Augustine, c. Faust. 22:5, CSEL 25/1:594. 72 Tertullian, monog. 16.4, CC.SL 2:1251. 66

354

Martin Meiser

our Lord Jesus Christ, he says, the sins of the patriarchs are remitted. He emphasizes the absence of any reproach in the Bible. Further, Lot is excused since he did not act in fleshly concupiscence or mind: he did not realize what happened (οὐκ ᾔδει; Gen 19:33, 35 LXX); the daughters acted under the naïve presupposition that all human beings in the world would have perished like the inhabitants of Sodom. 73 Origen’s counterargument enriches the second argument made by Irenaeus. Stoic authors also discuss a man’s intercourse with his daughters sometimes as an example of ἀδιάφορον; accordingly, the Bible neither praises nor condemns what happened. 74 Ambrose repeats the second and the fourth arguments made by Irenaeus. According to the bishop of Milan, the daughters of Lot are excused: they thought they were alone. Eve also had intercourse with Adam though born from his side. 75 Augustine responds to Faustus’s critiques on both levels, ethically and hermeneutically. To make Lot drunk was worse than the incest itself. 76 Augustine considers also the hermeneutic problem: we defend the Holy Scripture, not human sin. 77 God who is able to turn wicked human deeds into good does not condemn his Scripture because of human sin. God permitted what happened but he did not do it, and he admonishes to avoid it, and does not suggest it for imitation. 78 John Chrysostom is well-known for his sermons moralizing against urban luxury and debauchery. In light of this, his comment on Gen 19:30–38 is astonishing with regard to his verve of defending Lot and his daughters. He reinforces Irenaeus’s second argument by a quotation from Paul: the Bible does not condemn their deeds, and “It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn” (Rom 8:33–34). 79 The daughters are not to be accused because they suggested the turmoil of the whole human world and in-

73

Irenaeus, haer. 4.31.1–2, SC 100:786–94. Irenaeus turns the fate of Lot’s wife (Gen 19:26) to a positive: she represents the church as firmament of faith (Irenaeus, haer. 4:31.3, SC 100:794). 74 Origen, Cels. 4:45, GCS 2:318. Cf. Zeno, Cleanthes, Empiricus Sextus, Adv. Mathematicos 11:192–93. Cf. John Granger Cook, The Interpretation of the Old Testament in GrecoRoman Paganism (STAC 23; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 107. 75 Ambrose, Abraham 1:6/56, CSEL 32/1:539. Cf. also Jerome, according to Petrus Comestor, Historia Scholastica, Genesis 54, PL 198:1102b. 76 Augustine, C. Faust. 22:44, CSEL 25/1:636. 77 Augustine, C. Faust. 22:45, CSEL 25/1:636. 78 Augustine, C. Faust. 22:45, CSEL 25/1:637. 79 John Chrysostom, Hom. Gen. 44.5, PG 54:411.

Abraham and His Family in Ancient Greek and Latin Patristic Exegesis

355

tended to save it by their offspring; 80 Lot’s drunkenness is seen in parallel to Adam’s ἔκστασις (Gen 2:21). Of course, the preacher must avoid any misuse of his exegesis. Therefore, he adds the counter-example of Joseph’s chastity (Gen 39) and the admonition to fight against the powers of Satan according to Eph 6:12–17. 81 Theodoret of Cyrus has pity for Lot. Why is Lot not accused? Due to his ignorance. By drinking wine, he intended to mitigate the harm caused by the loss of his wife. 82 Theodoret, however, introduces another question: why did God not prevent this incest? He foresaw the idolatry of the Moabites and Amorites etc. and intended to forestall Israel’s partaking in this impiety. Therefore he presented them as outrageous to Israel; cf. Deut 23:3. 83 Procopius of Gaza or an un-known author defends the daughters with their intention: they did it not due to ἀκολασία but due to παιδογονία. Eve also became Adam’s wife though she was born from him. Then Procopius takes up the question put by Theodoret but gives a divergent answer: God did not prevent it so as to avoid their marrying foreign men (ἀλλόφυλοι): they should not partake to the idolatry of these nations. 84 Ps.-Bede distinguishes the daughters and their father in his evaluation: the daughters are excused by their fear concerning the fate of the human world in general, but their father is not excused. 85 According to Walafrid Strabo and Petrus Comestor, Lot’s infidelity is the reason – he mistrusted the possible salvation by an angel in Segor. Petrus Comestor adds a reference to Lot’s drunkenness. 86

2.6 Abraham, Sarah and Ishmael Sarah is one of the “holy women” (1 Pet 3:15–16), therefore the guilt for Ishmael’s expulsion must lie in Ishmael’s behavior, in his παίζειν (Gen 21:9). Origen asks: why should we evaluate this παίζειν in a negative way? He concludes from Sarah’s displeasure. 87 Similarly to Jewish exege80 John Chrysostom, Hom. Gen. 44.4, PG 54:411; similarly Theodoret of Cyrus, Qu. Gen. 70, PG 80:180ab. 81 John Chrysostom, Hom. Gen. 44.5, PG 54:412. 82 Theodoret of Cyrus, Qu. Gen. 70, PG 80:180a. 83 Theodoret of Cyrus, Qu. Gen. 71, PG 80:180b–c. 84 Procopius of Gaza, Gen., GCS NF 22:284 (PG 87/1:377a). 85 Ps.-Bede, Qu. Gen, PL 93:314c. 86 Glossa ordinaria, PL 113:132d, referring on Walafrid Strabo as author; Petrus Comestor, Historica Scholastica, Gen. 54, PL 198:1102b. 87 Origen, Hom. Gen. 7.6, GCS 29:76.

356

Martin Meiser

sis, 88 he too allegorizes Gen 21:9: the “persecution” is the persecution of the spiritual powers within us by the fleshly ones. 89 Later authors follow Gal 4:29 and Origen in evaluating Ishmael’s παίζειν as persecution. 90 They condemn his παρρησία as impudence 91 or arrogance. 92 Others refer to his idolatry and claim of being the first-born 93. But why is Abraham so mournful 94 with regard to this prophecy of Sarah’s? Augustine offers two possibilities for explaining. Either, she prophesied, and he did not realize it (it was later that God revealed Ishmael’s fate to him) but was mournful because of paternal love. Or neither of them realized that she had spoken in a prophetic way, as Sarah was disturbed in her female mind by Hagar’s arrogance. 95 Theodoret distinguishes between the two: Abraham did not obey Sarah but was obedient and faithful to the word of God, which proclaimed progeny also for Ishmael. This word was fulfilled: Ishmael’s offspring spread from Egypt to Babylonia. 96

2.7 Abraham and Isaac: Paternal Sentiments vs. Love of God In the interpretation of this story, the issue of God’s cruelty is by no means the dominant one. It is implied in the Fathers’ consideration of Abraham’s paternal sentiments, but they dealt also with other questions that in our view are only secondary: did Abraham lie when he announced his return together with his son (Gen 22:5), and was he allowed to kill his son? Philo of Alexandria has to emphasize the uniqueness of Gen 22 with regard to the wealth of Greco-Roman traditions of parents offering their children for the common good. 97 Already Sap. 10:5, however, describes the conflict within Abraham, concluding that God’s wisdom strengthened him with regard to his paternal emotions. 88

Cf. GenR 53:21.9 (Wünsche 254 f). Origen, Hom. Gen. 7.3, GCS 29:74. 90 Jerome, Gal., CC.SL 77 A:144; Gregory of Elvira, Tract. 3.14, CC.SL 69:22. Procopius of Gaza, Gen., GCS NF 22, 290 (PG 87/1:384c) criticizes this exegesis but he also characterizes Ishmael as bad without annotations. 91 John Chrysostom, Hom. Gen. 46.1, PG 54:423. 92 Augustine, Tract. ev. Io. 12,4, CC.SL 36:122. 93 Jerome, Quaest. hebr. Gen., CC.SL 72:24; Hrabanus Maurus, In Gen. 3:1, PL 107:562cd. 94 Cyril of Alexandria, Glaph. Gen. 3.5, PG 69:124b emphasizes at least Abraham’s paternal love of Ishmael. 95 Augustine, Qu. Gen. 1:51, CSEL 28/2:26–7; quoted by Hrabanus Maurus, Gen. 3:1, PL 107:562d–63a. 96 Theodoret of Cyrus, Qu. Gen. 72, PG 80:180c–181b. 97 Philo, de Abramo 178–83. 89

Abraham and His Family in Ancient Greek and Latin Patristic Exegesis

357

This line of interpretation is repeated in Christian literature. According to Origen, the severity of God’s temptation is visible in Gen 22:2: the wording τὸν υἱόν σου τὸν ἀγαπητόν, ὃν ἠγάπησας appeals to Abraham’s natural paternal emotions. 98 Abraham’s behavior testifies to obedience, 99 eagerness for suffering, 100 piety, 101 and steadiness of reasoning. 102 Abraham preferred love for God to love for his son, according to Matt 10:37. 103 Abraham’s love for God was superior to all natural bonds and to his hope in the divine promise, as well as for Isaac’s welfare, for his age or his burial. 104 According to Zeno of Verona, Abraham was glad to underline his devotion. Where there is faith, there is no anguish. 105 Other authors envisage theological problems in the text. Was it allowed for Abraham to kill his son? According to Augustine, Abraham would be a cruel murderer if he had killed his son by his own free decision, 106 but he did it in obedience and piety. 107 John Cassian reports a story of a monk (he does not mention the name of this monk because he still is alive), who intended to sacrifice his spiritual son, who cohabited in his cell, in a desire to be equated with Abraham. John Cassian urges caution: it could be the devil who is suggesting it. 108 Was it not a lie when Abraham commanded his servants to remain until he and his son would return (Gen 22:5)? Of course, Abraham does not lie, and he is not able to make a wrong statement. How should we counterbalance God’s command to offer Isaac with Abraham’s statement according to which Isaac remains alive? According to Heb 11:19, Abraham trusted in God that he would immediately bring Isaac back to life. This line of interpretation reoccurs among some ancient Christian authors. 109 According to Ambrose, Abraham foresaw by the Holy Spirit that this sac-

98 Origen, Hom. Gen. 8.2, SC 7bis:216; cf. also Cyril of Alexandria, Glaph. Gen. 3.2, PG 69:140b; Procopius of Gaza, Gen., GCS NF 22:294; Scotus Anonymus, Iac., CC.SL 108 B:14. 99 Heb. 11:8; 1 Clem. 10:7. 100 Tertullian, Pat. 6.2, CC.SL 1:306. 101 Theodoret of Cyrus, Qu. Gen. 73, PG 80:181c. 102 John Chrysostom., Hom. Gen. 47.1, PG 54:429. 103 Ambrosiaster, Qu. 117,8, CSEL 50:354–5. 104 Theodoret of Cyrus, Hist. Rel. 31 = Oratio de divina et sancta caritate, PG 82:1516bc. For the last point cf. also Gregory of Nyssa, Deit., PG 46;569d. 105 Zeno of Verona, Serm. 1:43.4, 7, CC.SL 22:114–16. 106 Augustine, Serm. 8.14, CC.SL 41:91; id. Civ. 1:26, CSEL 40/1:46. 107 Augustine, Civ. 1:21, CSEL 40/1:39. 108 Cassian, Conl. 2:7, CSEL 13:46. 109 Origen, Hom. Gen. 8.5, SC 7bis:222; Augustine, Civ. 16:32, CSEL 40/2:182; Caesarius of Arles, Serm. 84.4, CC.SL 103:346.

358

Martin Meiser

rifice would not really be fulfilled. 110 Augustine emphasized Abraham’s trust in God: if he despite his age had a child by the help of God, this God is also able to heal Isaac from death. 111 Why is Isaac spared while the daughter of Jephthah has to die (Judg 11)? 112 The answers are not satisfying for us. Ambrosiaster refers to Jephthah’s sinfulness 113, Ambrose to the two months of sorrow whereas Abraham immediately was obedient. 114 In my view, the question is far more important than the answers – even ancient theologians had to deal with the problems of human fate, which is not always in accordance with our concepts of divine justice.

2.8 Abraham and Keturah Why did Abraham marry Keturah? John Chrysostom neglects this fact in his Homilies on Genesis. 115 Augustine underlines that Keturah and Hagar are concubines but not wives, whereas Sarah is never called a concubine. Then the bishop of Hippo extends Paul’s typological construction, observing the ordering of Gen 25 after Gen 21: Keturah symbolizes the heretics, 116 which are per definitionem younger than the church. 117 The story of Abraham and Keturah, however, also has a positive implication. It proves the right of remarriage after the death of the husband. 118 In this way, Augustine implicitly refutes Tertullian’s view. Jerome offers an explanation made by “Hebrews” which in his view is uncertain: they identify Keturah with Hagar. In this way, they can avoid the impression of a remarriage of Abraham. 119

110

Ambrose, Abraham 1:8/71, CSEL 32/1:549; John Chrysostom, Hom. Gen. 47.2, PL 54:430. Augustine, Hom. V.T. 2.1, CC.SL 41:10. 112 Cf. in general Natalio Fernández Marcos, ‘Jephthah’s Daughter in the Old Greek (Judges 11:29–40),’ in Die Septuaginta. Texte, Theologien, Einflüsse (WUNT 252; ed. Wolfgang Kraus and Martin Karrer; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 478–488: 478 f. (Lit!), 484–486; Michaela Bauks, Jephtas Tochter. Traditions-, religions- und rezeptionsgeschichtliche Studien zu Richter 11,29–40 (FAT 71; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010). 113 Ambrosiaster, Qu. 43, CSEL 50:69–71. 114 Ambrosius, Virg. 2,5–9, PL 16:281 f. 115 We would expect an exegesis at the beginning of Hom. Gen. 49, PG 54:443. 116 Augustine, Expos. Gal. 40.1–9, CSEL 84:108–10; id., Bapt. 1.15/23, CSEL 51:167. 117 Augustine, Expos. Gal. 40.21–24, CSEL 84:111. 118 Augustine, Civ. 16:32, CSEL 40/2:186. 119 Jerome, Qu. Gen. Nom., CC.SL 72:30. 111

Abraham and His Family in Ancient Greek and Latin Patristic Exegesis

359

3. Conclusion Abraham’s family is by no means a familia sacra but a group in which differences of status and behavior result in conflicts and questionable activities. The tales of Abraham and his kinship within the cycle Gen 12–25 are both tales about offspring and examples for adequate and inadequate conduct, and they include both exegetical questions and moral problems. Exegetical questions concerned gaps within biblical texts. In searching for a rationale for the exodus of Abraham, Jewish and Christian authors offer analogical answers. Lot’s denigration has its basis on an exegetical observation concerning Gen 18 and 19. Abraham did not murder Isaac when offering him, and he did not lie when announcing the return of Isaac. Moral problems were obstacles for anti-Christian critiques and required both defending the Bible and clarifying Christian morality. Abraham’s and Lot’s sexual misbehavior was liable to undermine common Christian claims of a higher morality in comparison to Greco-Roman morality. On the other hand, biblical preconditions prevented a thoroughgoing critique of these dramatis personae. In explaining and excusing their behavior, a more psychological exegesis emphasizing circumstances and /or understandable intention was decisive, sometimes with reference to the different status of the problem before and after the revelation of the Torah or the revelation of Jesus Christ. In any case, such behavior was a negative example for ancient theologians who intended to develop Christian morality.

Divided by a Common Ground The Prophecy of Jacob and Esau (Gen 25:19–26) in Patristic Texts up to Augustine with respect to Modern Inter-Faith Dialogue Anni Maria Laato 1. Introduction There is a saying, the British and the Americans are two nations divided by a common language. By this, of course, is meant that the very thing that is usually thought to unite two groups – language – is in fact a dividing factor. This division can happen in two ways: 1) after the period in common, the development of the language has led to very different outcomes, and the assumption that the same words or concepts have identical meanings in separate groups can lead to misunderstandings, 2) a common ground can lead to arguments about who has the right to the heritage. This idea can also be applied to the use of narratives about Abraham’s family history, in this case to the story of Jacob and Esau. It has become common to emphasize that rabbinic Judaism and Christianity are both heirs of second temple Judaism; Alan Segal goes as far as to speak about a twin birth. 1 He likens Rabbinical Judaism and Christianity to the twin sons of Isaac and Rebecca: they were born of the same parents and were nurtured together, but fought in the womb and throughout their youth, and the conflict between them formed them and determined their character. In other words, Christianity and Judaism were born from the same background and have influenced one another even after their birth through encounters of different kinds. The common ground in Scripture is a natural starting-point for discussions, but at the same time it constitutes a difficult hermeneutical 1

Alan Segal, Rebecca’s Children: Judaism and Christianity in the Roman World (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986), 1–2.

362

Anni Maria Laato

problem: how to deal with long traditions of different interpretations? The story of Jacob and Esau is a good example of a narrative that has been used and interpreted in both traditions and in many ways. In modern interfaith dialogue, the metaphor of brothers or siblings is often used positively to express the common roots and parallel growth of both the Jewish and Christian faiths. The latest example of this is a statement written by a group of Orthodox rabbis in Israel, on December 3rd, 2015, To Do the Will of Our Father in Heaven: Toward a Partnership between Jews and Christians. 2 In the text it is first said that “in the past, relations between Christians and Jews were often seen through the adversarial relationship of Esau and Jacob.” Rabbi Naftali Zwi Berliner (end of 19th century) is then quoted: “In the future when the children of Esau are moved by pure spirit to recognize the people of Israel and their virtues, then we will also be moved to recognize that Esau is our brother” (italics mine). 3 In light of the reception history of the Jacob and Esau story in both of these traditions, to call the Christians “the children of Esau” makes this otherwise friendly text rather diffuse. In contrast to modern times, in the patristic period the image of brothers was most often used polemically in order to show different outcomes despite common roots. Biblical texts dealing with fighting brothers, above all Esau and Jacob (Gen 25; Mal 1:2–3; Rom 9:10–13) or Cain and Abel (Gen 4), were interpreted by both Christians and Jews in order to stress differences between the two related faiths, and to demonstrate one’s own group as the better brother. The interpretation of a third pair of brothers, Isaac and Ishmael (Gen 16 and 25) differs from the aforementioned, but likewise also deals with a conflict between brothers. In Scripture, the stories of these brothers are rich in details and open to many interpretations. There are many common features: brothers who have same mother and /or father grow up together but eventually become very different from one another. The stories, however, have different endings: the Cain-and-Abel story leads to murder, the Isaac-and-Ishmael story ends in separation, but the Jacob-and-Esau story leads to recon2 “To Do the Will of Our Father in Heaven: Toward a Partnership between Jews and Christians. Orthodox Rabbinic Statement on Christianity.” December 3rd, 2015. Online: http://cjcuc.com/site/2015/12/03/orthodox-rabbinic-statement-on-christianity. 3 A similar wish is found in a statement from the International Council for Christians and Jews, ICCJ, “Celebrating and deepening the New Christian-Jewish Relationship”, 1. 9. 2015: “Like the encounter between Jacob and Esau after years of animosity, so should we see the religious value in our brothers and sisters. Then we can all say, ‘To see your face is like seeing the face of God’” (Gen 33:10).

Divided by a Common Ground

363

ciliation, even if eventually they go their separate ways. In Jewish and Christian interpretative traditions from approximately the same time, the same texts are interpreted very differently. Gerhard Langer has studied the Jewish interpretations of Jacob and Esau. 4 In short, his conclusion is that in Rabbinic traditions, Jacob symbolizes the Jews, while Esau /Edom is interpreted either as Rome, or Christianity, or “the other” of some kind; in some inner-Jewish interpretation he is even seen as an alter ego of Jacob when Esau represents both a brother and an enemy; he is one who does not live according to the Torah. In the Middle Ages, one of the standard names used by the Jews for Christians was the “Edomites.” One detail to be noted: the fact that even Rome can be “Edom” shows that Jacob-Esau relations do not automatically refer to a common ground in history, but only to minority / majority relations or to name an oppressor. 5 It has been discussed whether Paul’s interpretation of Gen 25:19–26 in Rom 9:10–13 is in accordance with earlier Jewish interpretations. Did Paul accept the traditional identification of Jacob with Israel, or was he the first to identify the Christians with Jacob and the Jews with Esau? I shall not deal with this question here, but it is to be remembered that Paul’s point in this passage is to stress God’s freedom of choice. In this context, Paul the Jew states that God has not abandoned his people (Rom 11:1–2). The task of my article is to take a closer look at how the patristic theologians retold and reused narratives about Rebecca’s sons, especially the prophecy in Gen 25:19–26 about their different fates. Because Augustine’s use of these texts has been so influential and shows a clear change in tradition, I shall limit myself to following the path that leads to him. I shall ask when, and in what form, the typological identification of the Christians with Jacob and the Jews with Esau emerged, and how the historical background where Jacob is identified with Israel was dealt with. I shall also investigate in what other ways the story was used. My suggestion is that the interpretation and use of the texts dealing with Rebecca’s sons is dependent on how the separation between Christians and Jews developed, and thus it is not uniform and fixed.

4 G. Langer, “Brother Esau. Esau in Rabbinic Midrash,” in Encounters of the Children of Abraham from Ancient to Modern Times (ed. Antti Laato and Pekka Lindqvist; SCA 1; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 75–94. See also H. Freedman “Jacob and Esau. Their Struggle in the Second Century,” JBQ 23 (1995): 107–115. 5 Langer, “Brother Esau,” 80.

364

Anni Maria Laato

2. The Second Century The earliest Christian text outside the New Testament dealing with the prophecy to Rebecca is the Epistle of Barnabas (13.1–3). On the basis of Gen 25:21–23 the author asks which people are the rightful heirs of the one and only covenant – as he thinks – and to whom does it belong? He does not identify Esau and Jacob with “Jews” and “Christians,” but uses the words “us” and “them,” and thus it is not self-evident that his terms can be inter-changed with Jews and Christians. The letter is written to addressees who either (at least some of them) were Jewish Christians, or were attracted to the Jewish faith. Geoffrey Dunn has therefore suggested that the “us” in the letter consists of “true believers” of both Jewish and Gentile origins, the legitimate heirs of one covenant, and the “they” would be those Jews who do not believe in Jesus. 6 At the time of writing this letter, ca 135 ce, the separation between Christians and Jews was not yet as clear-cut as in later times. Justin (d. 165) lived in a different context: most Christians in his surroundings were pagans by birth, and Jewish Christians formed a minority, but a minority for whom he still shows respect (Dial. 46). He knew and used the Epistle of Barnabas, but unlike its author, he does not quote Gen 25. He mentions Rebecca by name only once, and only in passing (Dial. 46.3). 7 Justin recognizes that the Jews are children of Jacob, but “only in flesh” (Dial. 125.3), and that some Jews (“some of your people”) are true children of Abraham, and “found, too, in the lot of Christ” (Dial. 120.1), but for him, the majority of the Jews – even though they are children of Abraham – are “barren and fruitless” (120.1). 8 In Dial. 134.6, writing about Jacob’s children, he says that Esau hated Jacob “just like you (=the Jews) and all people hate us and our Lord.” These kinds of passages imply real contacts and actual confrontation between Christians and Jews in Justin’s lifetime. 6 Geoffrey Dunn, “Tertullian and Rebekah: A Re-Reading of an ‘Anti-Jewish’ Argument in Early Christian Literature,” VC 52 (1998): 119–145, especially 126–133. 7 Marcel Simon, Verus Israel: A Study in the Relations between Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire (135–425) (London: The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 1996), 151; but Oskar Skarsaune (The Proof from Prophecy. A Study in Justin Martyr’s ProofText Tradition: Text-Type, Provenance, Theological Profile [NTSup 56; Leiden: Brill, 1987], 110–113) shows that Justin never copied an Old Testament quotation from Barnabas. 8 Cf. 1 Clem. 29: “For thus it is written, When the Most High divided the nations, when He scattered the sons of Adam, He fixed the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God. His people Jacob became the portion of the Lord, and Israel the lot of His inheritance (Deut 32:8–9)”.

Divided by a Common Ground

365

Although Justin acknowledges that there are some Jews among the Christians, the view that the true children of Jacob /Israel are the nations is more important for him (e. g. Dial. 24.3; 26.1; 130.3). The promise of blessing to the nations was given to both Isaac and Jacob (Gen 26:4; Gen 28:14) but not to Esau (Dial. 120.1). Through the Virgin Mary Christ is a descendant of those who received this promise, and through Christ the nations too are heirs. Unlike the author of Epistle of Barnabas, Justin stresses that there is a new covenant. He writes: For the true spiritual Israel, and descendants of Judah, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham (who in uncircumcision was approved of and blessed by God on account of his faith, and called the father of many nations), are we who have been led to God through this crucified Christ, as shall be demonstrated while we proceed (Dial.11.4). 9

A central idea for Justin is to see Jacob as a typus of Christ (Dial. 36.3–5; 114.2; 125.1–5; 131.1; 134.1.5; 140.1). 10 Writing about this he uses other passages from the Old Testament (e. g. Ps 24:6; Isa 42:1–4), but not the Rebecca-prophecy. Irenaeus (d. ca. 202) uses the Rebecca-prophecy in another context: against the Gnostics. In Haer. 4.21.1–3, he discusses Abraham’s faith, and says that the faith of the Christians is prefigured in the lives of the patriarchs. After a short note on Abraham, whom he calls “the patriarch of our faith,” he turns to Isaac and Rebecca. Like Paul (to whom he refers) – and unlike most Christian authors in the early Church – Irenaeus uses the Rebecca-prophecy mainly to stress God’s freedom to call whom he chooses. The election is based not on works, but rather on him who calls. Against the Gnostics, Irenaeus emphasizes that there is only one God, who is the father of both Jews and Christians. This God knows hidden things, he knows all things before they can come to pass, and for this reason says (Irenaeus quotes Rom 9:13): “Jacob I have loved, but Esau have I hated.” Rebecca’s sons are – for Irenaeus – images of two peoples, Jewish and Christian. He picks up on many details in the story that predict their fate. At the birth, Jacob holds his brother’s heel: he binds, but is not bound, that is, he conquers, and is not conquered (Rev 6:2); like Jacob, the younger people receive the rights of the first-born when the Jews 9 Translation: Marcus Dods and George Reith. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1. (ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, Buffalo, N. Y.: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885). 10 Heinz Schreckenberg, Die Christlichen Adversus Iudaeos-Texte und ihr literarisches und historisches Umfeld (1–11. Jh.) (Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1999), 189.

366

Anni Maria Laato

reject Christ, saying “We have no king but Caesar” (John 19:15); like Jacob, the Christians suffer persecution at the hands of their brother, and like Esau, the Jews lose the blessing of the first-born, and subsequently persecute the Church (Haer. 4.21.3). The background for the last claim is that that Irenaeus according to his own testimony (Adv. Haer. 3.3.4) was a disciple of Polycarp, in whose martyrdom the Jews were accused of having participated (Mart. Pol. 12–13.17–18). To sum up, both the Epistle of Barnabas and Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho were written in a context where Jewish Christians were still a visible part of the Church. Both texts can be read in such a way that Esau does not simply denote “Jews” but rather “Jews who do not believe in Jesus.” A little later on, Irenaeus uses this story against the Gnostics, when he discusses God’s free election, and against the Jews, whom he presents as persecutors of the Christians, which may denote contemporaneous conflicts or stories heard by people who had experienced such things.

3. The Third Century The demonstration of the differences between the two peoples, Jewish and Christian, is characteristic for the whole treatise De duobus montibus Sina et Sion (anonymous author, ca 200 ce). 11 The dichotomy is presented by means of several images beginning with the theme that has given the name to the treatise: the mountains Sinai and Zion. In the argumentation of the author, the story of Rebecca and her children is one of the central proofs, together with the episode of the giving of the Law (Mont. 3.3.20–31; 6.2.28–37). The author stresses, unusually strongly, the original unity (unitas) of the two peoples. Rebecca is an image of ecclesia, and her husband Isaac is a figure of Christ. One of her sons, Jacob, remains in her womb in order to be born in eternity, and so bears the same name as his mother, ecclesia. Esau, on the other hand, is separated from the unity when he is born prematurely. Thus Esau is the image of the Jewish people born first. In this way the author deals with the question of the respective age of Christian and Jewish people: even if the Jewish people are, in one sense, older, in fact 11 Clara Burini, Pseudo Cipriano: I due monti Sinai e Sion a cura di Clara Burini (Fiesole: Nardini Editore, 1994); Anni Maria Laato, Jews and Christians in De duobus montibus Sina et Sion: An Approach to Early Latin Adversus Iudaeos Literature (Åbo: Åbo Akademi University Press, 1998).

Divided by a Common Ground

367

they were born too early. By using the image of Jacob who appeared later, the author wants to demonstrate that the younger brother is the proper continuation of the original unity. The idea of the pre-existence of the Church is present even earlier in Christian theology; Hermas (Vis 2.4.1) and 2 Clement (14.1–4; 2.1) already know the idea. Unusual too is the interpretation of the appearance of the twins. Esau’s hairy skin is interpreted as a symbol of the “impiety of the wrong-doings” of the older people. Jacob, on the contrary, is smooth and younger, which means that the “newer people has by obedience turned in mildness through faithfulness in faith from the hardness of the world to Christ.” Like several other authors, Pseudo-Cyprian quotes the sentence “I loved Jacob, but hated Esau,” but he changes the subject: according to him it is uttered not by God, but by Isaac as a figure of Christ. 12 It is Christ on the cross who divides the peoples. De montibus gives an impression of being an archaic text with many Jewish or Jewish Christian traits. The dichotomy Jacob /Esau – Christians /Jews is central for the author, and is dealt with thoroughly. The context of the writing of this text is, in my view, a situation where the Jewish faith was a real alternative for those seeking a community, and therefore the author chose to stress both the closeness of Christians and Jews, and emphasize the differences between them. For this purpose, the image of brothers was ideal. Tertullian (d. ca. 225) writes about Rebecca as the mother of Esau and Jacob in Adversus Judaeos 1; De pudicitia 8.8 and De anima 26.6; of which texts the two last mentioned are later than Adversus Judaeos and are actually used to prove something else: De anima to show that children have a soul, and De pudicitia to interpret the parable of the prodigal son. The centrality of the Rebecca-prophecy in Tertullian’s argumentation in Adversus Judaeos is shown by the fact that he starts his whole treatise with it: We have God Himself as an adequate engager and faithful promiser, in that He promised to Abraham that ‘in his seed should be blest all nations of the earth;’ and that out of the womb of Rebecca ‘two peoples and two nations were about to proceed,’ – of course those of the Jews, that is, of Israel; and of the Gentiles, that is ours. (Adv. Jud. 1). 13

12 13

Mont. 6.2. It is impossible to say whether he quotes Mal 1:2 or Rom 9:13. Translation: S. Thelwall, ANCL 18 (1870).

368

Anni Maria Laato

He reasons that according to the prophecy, the prior and greater people – the Jews – must serve the lesser and later people, the Christians. The Jews came first and received God’s grace through the Law, but they turned away from it, whereas the younger people did the reverse: they turned from idolatry to God (1.6–7). Thus the younger people replaced the elder: “For thus has the ‘less’ – that is, posterior – people overcome the ‘greater people,’ while it attains the grace of divine favour, from which Israel has been divorced” (1.8). In chapter 3 Tertullian returns to Jacob and Esau, and stresses that the prophecy about all nations gathering to the house of God of Jacob (Isa 2:2–3) does not speak about Esau, but about “our people whose mount is Christ” – the mount being, of course, Mount Zion. Tertullian does not use the Rebecca-prophecy to discuss God’s freedom in election; he never quotes Rom 9:10–13. Hippolytus’s (d. ca. 235) interpretation of the Rebecca-prophecy is preserved in Letter 36.16 of Jerome. According to this text, Isaac is an image of God the Father, whereas Rebecca is an image of the Holy Spirit. Esau is an image of the earlier people, and the devil, and he meditates on murder and deceit in his heart. The fact that he is the elder brother expresses that the Jews received the Law, and his coat and clothing denote the faith and the Scriptures of the Hebrews in which the Gentiles are now clothed. Jacob, on the other hand, is an image of the Church and Christ. Rebecca as the Holy Spirit prefers him and helps him. Cyprian (d. 258) in Test. 1.19 quotes Gen 25:23 together with Hos 2:1 under the title, “That two peoples were foretold, the elder and the younger; that is, the old people of the Jews, and the new one which should consist of us.” He offers no further comment on these quotations. In the third century the Jacob-and-Esau story is thus most often read typologically as prefiguring the fates of the two peoples, Jews and Christians. In the context of changes in majority-minority relations and conflict or competition between Jews and Christians, the story of a struggle between brothers was a useful tool to deal with current situation.

4. Augustine In the context of Augustine (d. 430), the Jews are already a minority, and the relation between Christians and Jews is no longer as ardent a problem as it was before. This gave Augustine more space to use this narrative in different ways, and he in fact broadens significantly the field

Divided by a Common Ground

369

of interpretation of the Rebecca-prophecy. 14 He shares many of the older interpretative traditions, but also comes with new ideas. His interpretations of Rebecca and her sons can be divided into five themes (each dealt with separately below): Jacob and Esau as images of Christians and Jews, Jews as witnesses, God’s election, astrology, and Esau as an image of the heretics and “carnal” Christians.

4.1 Jacob and Esau as Images of Christians and Jews In De civitate Dei 16.35–37, Augustine studies how the City of God is realized among Abraham’s descendants. The traditional interpretation of Jacob and Esau is presented as common knowledge as he writes, The saying ‘the elder shall serve the younger’ is understood by our writers, almost without exception, to mean that the elder people, the Jews, shall serve the younger people, the Christians (Civ. 16.35). 15

In the context, Augustine says that he is aware of the identification of Esau with the Idumeans and Jacob with the Israelites, but thinks that the usual Christian interpretation is more credible, because this prophecy has to mean something more (Civ. 16.35). Augustine developed this traditional typology in his own way. It is the starting-point for other interpretations in his homily on Gen 27:1–40, Sermo IV Tractatus Sancti Augustini de Esau et Iacob, 16 where his key of interpretation is the distinction carnal (Esau)/spiritual (Jacob). In chapters 11–13, Augustine explains the story typologically. Because of his old age, Isaac symbolizes the old covenant. He wishes to bless the older son, he loves his older son, and his justice is equal for both his sons. This means that the Jews receive promises, the Law and the Land, but carnal as they are, they turn away from God. The younger son, the Christians, however, understands that the promises mean spiritual things, and so receives the blessing. An example of what this means is found in the understanding of the Promised Land: for the carnal people it means an earthly land, but 14

Jews lived in Augustine’s surroundings, and he refers both to “real Jews” and “literary Jews” in his texts. See Paula Fredriksen, Augustine and the Jews. A Christian Defence of Jews and Judaism (New Haven /London: Yale University Press, 2008), 308–310. 15 Translation: Marcus Dods. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 1:2 (ed. Philip Schaff, Buffalo, N. Y.: Christian Literature Publishing Co. 1887). 16 This sermon was most probably held on 23rd January, sometime between the years 410–419. Hubertus Drobner, Augustinus von Hippo, Predigten zum Buch Genesis (Sermones 1–5) (Patrologia. Beiträge zum Studium der Kirchenväter VII; Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang, 2000).

370

Anni Maria Laato

the spiritual people understand it in the sense of Ps 141:6: the land of the living (ch. 13). As for Pseudo-Cyprian, whom Augustine knew and used, the mother Rebecca is (also for Augustine) an image of the ecclesia. To this ecclesia belong not only those in the Church after the birth and death of Christ, but also all the holy and spiritual ones of all times, such as Abraham and the prophets. The younger son signifies the spiritual ones even before Christ, and the elder son signifies the carnal ones. Augustine adds that even the spiritual ones have been carnal first. The Rebecca-prophecy is realized when the ecclesia of the spiritual people becomes greater than the carnal people of Esau. Augustine’s view on the division between Christians and Jews is, however, more nuanced. In chapters 16–18 Augustine explains that Jacob is called Israel, and is a figure of Christ. Christ came for the Jews and the Gentiles, but the Jews abandoned him. Some of them, however, started to believe in him, that is, to belong to Jacob, and so the Lord’s flock was found in Judea. Christ himself said that he had another herd, that of the Gentiles; and so the Gentile sheep are joined with the Jewish sheep. Augustine then gives more examples of Jews who believed in Christ: the apostles, the fifty men who saw the resurrected Jesus, Nathanael, and so on. Hence, Christ has two herds, but they are one in Jacob. For Augustine, therefore, Jacob in fact designates all Christians of both Jewish and Gentile origin, and Esau symbolizes those Jews who do not believe in Christ.

4.2 Jews as Witnesses of the Scripture Different and new is Augustine’s idea of the Jews as witnesses. 17 The continuing existence and vitality of the Jewish people after the birth of Christianity was a problem for many Christian authors in the patristic period. 18 Augustine uses the images of two sets of brothers – Jacob and Esau and Cain and Abel – to deal with this problem. He thinks that the Jews as a people still have a task in the world despite the fact that they have been rejected (reprobati) by God, and are enemies (adversarii) of the Christians. In his explanation on Psalm 40, he writes in one passage about two pairs of brothers, Jacob and Esau & Cain and Abel:

17 For Augustine’s idea of Jews as witnesses, see M. Signer, “Jews and Judaism” in Augustine through the Ages (ed. A. D. Fitzgerald, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 472. 18 Fredriksen, Augustine and the Jews, 260.

Divided by a Common Ground

371

‘The elder shall serve the younger’ (Gen 25:13) is now fulfilled: now, brethren, the Jews serve us, they are as our satchellers (capsarii), we are studying, they carry our books. Hear wherein the Jews serve us, and not without reason. Cain was the elder brother who killed his younger brother, and received a sign in order not to be killed, that is, to remain a people (Gen 4:15). With them are the Law and the Prophets, and in this Law and in these Prophets, Christ is preached. When we have to do with Pagans, and show this coming to pass in the Church of Christ, which before was predicted of the Name of Christ, of the Head and Body of Christ, lest they think that we have forged these predictions, and from things which have happened, as though they were future, had made them up, we bring forth the books of the Jews. The Jews, to be sure, are our enemies, from an enemy’s books convince we the adversary [...] If any enemy would shout and say: “You for yourselves have forged prophecies! let the books of the Jews be brought forth, because ‘the elder shall serve the younger’.” (Enarrat. Ps. 40.14) 19

The verse quoted, Gen 25:13, the elder shall serve the younger, causes Augustine to ask how the Jews serve the Christians in his lifetime. He compares the Jewish people to a capsarius, a slave who carried a boy’s satchel to and from the school, but who nevertheless did not himself study or understand the books he carried. Like these slaves, the task of the Jews is to keep and transfer the text of the Scripture so that Christians can study it, they being the ones who understand the true meaning of the text. The Jews are for Augustine witnesses for the age and original form of the Old Testament, against possible accusations of outsiders, pagans, who might claim that predictions about Christ and the church are forgeries. 20 Augustine’s attitudes towards the text the Jews had preserved and transmitted, were, however, mixed. He admitted the occasionally poor quality of the Latin translations (Doctr. chr. 2.11), but was – together with many others in North Africa – used to the old Latin translations based on the Septuagint. In his letters to Jerome (Ep. 28.2.2 and 71.4.6) he claims that the Septuagint enjoys authority in the church, and questions Jerome’s project of translating the Hebrew text, because he thought this endangered the trust of the people toward the Scripture, when it was noticed that the texts were not identical. Custom and familiar use were not, however, the only grounds for Augustine’s (and others) preference for the Septuagint, or at least, of his being unsure of the relation between it and the Hebrew text. The Hebrew origin of the Old Testament was well known, but on the other hand, there were questions concerning 19 Translation: J. E. Tweed. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 1:8, Ps 41.3 (ed. Philip Schaff, Buffalo, N. Y.: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1888). 20 See also Faust. 12.23; 13.10; Civ. 18.46.

372

Anni Maria Laato

both the text and its interpretations. 21 Of course it was known that the Septuagint, too, was made and transmitted by Jews, so the question of which was the most reliable text was not crucial for the witness-argument. As seen in the passage quoted above, Augustine uses not only Jacob and Esau in this connection, but also Cain and Abel. Even the fate of Cain, who despite his deeds against his brother was not killed but spared, shows that the Jews continue to exist in this world. In Contra Faustum 12.12–13, Augustine explains that the Jews bear the sign of Cain (the sign of the Law) which protects them; they must live on, and the one who kills them must be punished sevenfold. The Jewish people shall not perish through bodily death, but rather continue to exist subordinate to the Christians. Paula Fredriksen points out that all this must be understood theologically, because, in the Roman society of Augustine’s times, the Jews were not under threat. 22 The goal of the witness-argument interpretation is to deal with the ongoing existence of Jewish faith despite the coming of Messiah, and to present arguments for the authenticity of the Christian Old Testament.

4.3 God’s Election and the Children of Abraham In Ad Simplicianum, Augustine’s first literary work as a bishop (396), the fate of Esau and Jacob, as it is told in Rom 9, is a central topic for his study on original sin, mass of perdition, God’s gracious mercy, and election to salvation. During his writing of this text, Augustine’s view on the freedom of will is changed. Earlier he had understood election to be based on God’s praescientia, but in the second part of the work, where the interpretation of Rebecca’s sons is found, Augustine formulated his views on predestination anew. According to his new view, God’s choice of Jacob over Esau was based neither on anything they had done, nor on his foreknowledge of their future deeds, but only on God’s own, autonomous decision (1.2.8). 23

21

Fredriksen, Augustine and the Jews, 290–295. Fredriksen, Augustine and the Jews, 272. 23 J. Wetzel, “Simplicianum, Ad,” in Augustine through the Ages. An Encyclopedia (ed. Allan Fitzgerald and John C. Cavadini, Cambridge: Eerdmans 1999), 798–799. 22

Divided by a Common Ground

373

The same interpretation is also found in De spiritu et littera (24.40), where Augustine quotes Rom 9:7–13 about God’s promise to Abraham, and emphasizes that Abraham’s children are children of promise, just as in the case of Esau and Jacob. These brothers are examples illustrating that people are chosen by God’s grace and not by their own works. In Civ. 16.35 mentioned above, Augustine discusses Abraham’s descendants, and says that the only memorable thing about Isaac after his childhood is that he prayed to God and was given children. He quotes Gen 25:23, and tells us that this passage teaches about God’s grace in a great way: before Jacob and Esau were born, they were alike with regards to original sin, and nor had either committed actual sins.

4.4 Astrology In antiquity there was a great interest in astrology. 24 In particular, it was believed that the constellation of the stars at the moment of birth either predicted or determined the fate of a person. 25 Augustine had himself been very interested in astrology, and left it only prior to his conversion to the Christian faith. 26 The final reason for his leaving the belief in astrology was a story, told by his friend Firminus, about two boys who were born exactly at the same moment, but who had very different lives (Conf. 7.6). Augustine uses the different fates of Esau and Jacob despite their being twins as an argument against the belief of the power of the stars.

4.5 Different Kinds of Christian There are other ways Augustine uses the very same story; moral and ecclesiological interpretations. In civ. 16.37, he treats Jacob and Esau as symbols for different kinds of attitudes among Christians towards sin or truth, and in sermo 4 he uses the story to exhort his audience to be spiritual like Jacob and not carnal like Esau (ch. 12). 27 Those who are spiritual, according to him, are those Christians who hope for the kingdom to come; while the carnal are those Christians who have their faith, hope, 24 K. von Stuckrad, “Jewish and Christian Astrology in Late Antiquity – A New Approach,” Numen 47 (2000): 1–40. 25 Aug. Civ. 5.1; Conf. 7.6. 26 Conf. 4.3; 5.3; 7.6. 27 Ambrose has a similar interpretation in ep. 68: he encourages his audience to forgive and to bless like Jacob in Gen 33, and not to be provoked like Esau.

374

Anni Maria Laato

and charity in this temporal world (ch. 3). Later in the same homily, he uses the idea of two ecclesiae in Rebecca’s womb to distinguish between these two kinds of Christian: “Hairy” are those who, after baptism, remain in their sins, and “smooth” are those who are afraid to sin (ch. 14). 28 In chapters 31–32 Augustine states that among Rebecca’s children, that is, in the Church, there are good and bad people. They participate in the sacramental life of the Church and they hear God’s word, but with different outcomes. From this idea, Augustine moves on to an ecclesiological application: both heretics and schismatics are carnal in the image of Esau (chapters 33–35). The Donatists have become carnal because they lack charity; they have cut themselves off from the unity of the church. Against the Donatists’ wish for a visible separation, Augustine says that the division must not be made before the last judgment. In a similar manner, in sermo 3, Augustine says that in the image of Hagar’s children the heretics are born of Abraham because they are baptized, but unless they return to the Catholic Church they are not heirs and will not come to eternal life. Even if they are born of Abraham, as sons of a slave-woman they remain outside because of their pride (superbia). A similar kind of broadening of interpretation toward different groups inside or close to one’s own tradition is present even within Judaism. 29

5. Conclusions The prophecy of Rebecca’s sons (Gen 25:19–26) was used by several early Christian authors, but the ways in which it was used varied. Each of the authors discussed above used it for his own purposes, and in rewriting the Rebecca-prophecy chose to stress different things, as Geoffrey Dunn writes, “Although the early Christian writers ...shared much in common in their interpretations of the Rebekah prophecy, they each handled their material, reworked it and added to it in ways that were unique to each of them.” 30 It is difficult to say whether all these authors had read Genesis, Malachi, and Romans, or whether they only used some testimonia-collection, but the fact that all of them (except for Cyprian) added biblical details not told by the others, shows that they were not merely copying 28

Augustine discusses Jacob’s betrayal (dolus) in De mendacio 5 and in sermo. 4.22–24. Langer, “Brother Esau,” 85–87. 30 Dunn, “Tertullian and Rebekah,” 144. 29

Divided by a Common Ground

375

each other. There are common phenomena, for example that the texts are used selectively in a similar manner: the reconciliation between Jacob and Esau is almost totally missing in patristic sources. This can be explained as the story is being read through Paul (Rom 9:10–13) who does not mention it, but most probably it is explained by the historical context: the authors had no intention of seeking reconciliation between Christians and Jews. Questions that were dealt with using the story of the two brothers were many. Who are the true children of Abraham? Can God have two peoples? Is the election based on the deeds or faith of the peoples, or only on God’s call? Why do the Jewish people still flourish and attract others? The most usual way of using this story during the whole period in question was to use it to argue for the rightful heirship of Abraham and the promises given to him. Because the prophecy to Rebecca became so popular among the early Christians, her husband Isaac is not a very central person in texts dealing with Jacob and Esau. When Isaac is dealt with, he is seen either a typos of Christ, or Father, or the old covenant. The relation between Christians and Jews was, however, not always in focus. Irenaeus and especially Augustine use Rom 9 to study and teach God’s freedom to call whom he elects, and Augustine broadens his use of it to employ the story of the two brothers to several kinds of two groups. The development is reminiscent of that found in Judaism: eventually Esau / Edom can signify any kind of “other” who has a wrong attitude towards the Torah and is therefore to be avoided. In both Jewish and Christian interpretations, in order for the image of brothers to be effective, some kind of closeness is needed: Augustine writes that “good” and “bad” Christians participate in the Eucharist together, and Catholics and Donatists were actually very close to each other, both theologically and in their praxis. Calling Jews and Christians “brothers” in these texts expresses the common origin of these two peoples. Irenaeus, in particular, writing against the Gnostics, stressed the idea of the same Father. Other early writers, first and foremost Pseudo-Cyprian, even used the idea of original unity and one and the same mother to highlight the oldness of the Christian people, and the different fates of the two brothers despite their common background. The animosity, even hatred, felt by the elder brother, the Jews, against the younger, is present especially in Irenaeus and Hippolytus. The reconciliation between Jacob and Esau, told in Gen 33, is missing from these interpretations. In modern interfaith dialogue, common holy texts constitute a challenging hermeneutical problem: how to deal with long traditions of different interpretations? In order to really understand each other better and

376

Anni Maria Laato

to overcome older disagreements, one should not ignore the receptionhistory of any Biblical text as if it did not exist, because it unavoidably affects modern interpretations. Interpretations of the Rebecca-prophecy are a good example of this.

Abraham and Hellenismos in Julian the Apostate’s Contra Galilaeos Challenging Christian Knowledge about the Divine Michaela Durst 1. Abraham’s Family and Pagan Readers of Genesis The description of nations and religions within the framework of a “family” suggests implications going deeper than pragmatic coexistence. For example, Jewish authors in Antiquity tried to connect Israel with other nations through the twelve sons of Ishmael and the sons of Keturah, drawing on genealogical lines and familial terminology to fend off the impression of Jewish isolationism. 1 Naturally, Christian authors during the first centuries focused instead on the relationship between Abraham, Judaism and Christianity. Since they identified themselves with the “nations” becoming part of this family story and thus forming a new ethnos, the category of ethnos was blurred. 2 During the 4th century, for example, Augustine interpreted the promise of Gen 17:1–8 as relating to Christians, giving them Abrahamic ancestry, 3 and Eusebius claimed that the promise

1 See Günter Mayer, “Aspekte des Abrahambildes in der hellenistisch-jüdischen Literatur,” in Idem and Michael Tilly, Lebensform und Lebensnorm im Antiken Judentum: Untersuchungen zur jüdischen Religionssoziologie und Theologie in hellenistisch-römischer Zeit (ed. Daniel Schumann; DCL.ST 30; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015), 57–67, esp. 60–62. He mentions four central motifs in Hellenistic-Jewish portraits of Abraham: universal fatherhood, Abraham as transmitter of culture, Abraham as philosopher, and Abraham as ideal ruler. 2 For Christians and the use of ethnic categories see Denise K. Buell, Why this New Race: Ethnic Reasoning in Early Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005). Aristides is the first known author who named Christianity a new ethnos. See Michael Lattke, “Die Wahrheit der Christen in der Apologie des Aristides: Vorstudie zu einem Kommentar,” in Ein neues Geschlecht? Entwicklung des frühchristlichen Selbstbewusstseins (ed. Markus Lang; StUNT 105; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014), 215–235. 3 See, e. g., Augustine, Civ. XVI 16; 21; 26.

378

Michaela Durst

of Abraham was fulfilled in his time. 4 In terms of typology, Christians were identified with Sarah, and Hagar functioned as a wildcard for groups opposing Christianity. 5 A pagan, familiar with how Jews and Christians referred to Abraham, is therefore confronted with Genesis 12 and following as either the story of Israel identified with Judaism (and at times related to other nations) or as the story of Christianity constituting a group not fitting ethnic categories and instead universalizing the Abraham story for all of humankind. How would he read this biblical narrative? What parts and persons of the family network could he be interested in? And how would he connect Abraham and his family with the self-image of pagans? Two authors 6 who particularly deal critically and polemically with Christianity merit special consideration: Celsus, author of Alethes Logos 7 at the end of the 2nd century, and Emperor Julian the Apostate, 8 consid4

Eusebius, Hist. eccl. I 4,12–15; see Martin Tetz, “Christenvolk und Abrahamsverheißung: Zum ‘kirchengeschichtlichen’ Programm des Eusebius von Caesarea,” in Jenseitsvorstellungen in Antike und Christentum: Gedenkschrift für Alfred Stuiber (ed. Theodor Klauser; JAC.Erg. 9; Münster: Aschendorff, 1982), 30–46. The second century apologist, Justin Martyr, also expresses the idea of true religion as a universal one. In Justin’s perspective one main aspect of the Abrahamic figure is his renunciation of law, tradition, and meaningless rituals. See Annette Rudolph, “Abraham in Justins Dialog mit dem Juden Tryphon,” OS 20 (2001), 10–33. 5 Hagar can be identified with Judaism, but also with paideia or heretics; see Johan Leemans, “After Philo and Paul: Hagar in the Writings of the Church Fathers,” in Abraham, the Nations, and the Hagarites: Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Perspectives on Kinship with Abraham (eds. Martin Goodman, George Hendrik van Kooten and Jacques T. A. G. M. van Ruiten; Themes in Biblical Narrative 13; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 435–447. For a short overview about Abraham in the New Testament, see Oda Wischmeyer, “Abraham unser Vater: Aspekte der Abrahamsgestalt im Neuen Testament,” in Biblical Figures in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (ed. Hermann Lichtenberger and Ulrike MittmannRichert; DCL.Y 2008; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009), 567–585. For the patristic reception of Abraham, see Theresia Heither and Christiana Reemts, eds., Biblische Gestalten bei den Kirchenvätern: Abraham (Münster: Aschendorff, 2005). 6 For my purpose, I do not refer to Porphyry, Contra Christianos, because the transmission history of his work is too fragmentary. According to Robert M. Berchman, Porphyry: Against the Christians (Ancient Mediterranean and Medieval Texts and Contexts 1; Leiden: Brill, 2005), no fragments survive which deal with Abraham and his family. 7 Horacio Lona, ed., Die “wahre Lehre” des Kelsos (KfA Erg.-Bd. 1; Freiburg i.B.: Herder, 2005). 8 For Julian in general see, e. g.: Jean Bouffartigue, L’empereur Julien et la culture de son temps (EAA 133; Paris: Inst. des Études Augustiniennes, 1992); Rowland Smith, Julian’s Gods: Religion and Philosophy in the Thought and Action of Julian the Apostate (London: Routledge, 1995); Jacques Flamant, Charles Piétri, and Gunther Gottlieb, “Julian Apostata (361–363) und der Versuch einer altgläubigen Restauration,” in Das Entstehen der einen Christenheit (vol. 2 of Die Geschichte des Christentums: Religion, Politik, Kultur; ed. Charles Piétri and Luce Piétri; Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 1996), 396–413; Stefan

Abraham and Hellenismos in Julian the Apostate’s Contra Galilaeos

379

ered the enfant terrible of Christianity upon his conversion from Christianity to Hellenism, who in the 4th century wrote the anti-Christian polemic Contra Galilaeos. 9 Both relate directly or indirectly to Judaism and Abraham. 10 This text will concentrate on Julian and tangentially refer to Celsus.

2. Julian the Apostate, Contra Galilaeos 11 2.1 Christianity in Relation to Judaism and Hellenismos 12 In the Historia Augusta we are told that in the lararium of Severus Alexander, among other statues (e. g. of former emperors), the statue of Abraham had its place. 13 Siker, in his article about Abraham, curiously attributes Rebenich, “Julian Apostata,” Metzler-Lexikon antiker Autoren (ed. Oliver Schütze; Stuttgart: Metzler, 1997), 376–378; Marion Giebel, Kaiser Julian Apostata: Die Wiederkehr der alten Götter (Düsseldorf: Artemis&Winkler, 2002); Klaus Bringmann, Kaiser Julian: Der letzte heidnische Herrscher (Darmstadt: Wiss. Buchges., 2004); Klaus Rosen, Julian: Kaiser, Gott und Christenhasser (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 2006); Christian Schäfer, ed., Kaiser Julian “Apostata” und die philosophische Reaktion gegen das Christentum (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008); Maria C. De Vita, Giuliano imperatore filosofo neoplatonico (CTMF 121; Milan: V&P, 2011); Theresa Nesselrath, Kaiser Julian und die Repaganisierung des Reiches: Konzept und Vorbilder (JAC 9; Münster: Aschendorff, 2013); Sara Stöcklin-Kaldewey, Kaiser Julians Gottesverehrung im Kontext der Spätantike (STAC 86; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014). 9 Both works have been reconstructed thanks to the transmission of Christian rebuttals. The editors must deal with problems of polemical distortion and corruption of the texts. For Contra Galilaeos see: Christoph Riedweg, “5. Julian – Contra Galileos,” in Kyrill von Alexandrien: Werke 1: “Gegen Julian” Teil 1: Buch 1–5 (ed. Idem; GCS.NF 20; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016), LXXXV–CVIII. For Celsus, Alethes Logos, see: Lona, Die “wahre Lehre” des Kelsos, 16–19. 10 For Abraham in the pagan context: Jeffrey S. Siker, “Abraham in Greco-Roman Paganism,” JSJ 18.2 (1987/88), 188–208; Willy Staerk, “Abraham,” RAC 1 (1950), 18–28, esp. 19. 11 Greek edition: Emanuela Masaracchia, Giuliano imperatore: Contra Galilaeos: Introduzione, testo critico e traduzione (Testi e commenti 9; Rom: Ed. dell’Ateneo, 1990); English translation: Wilmer C. Wright, trans., The Works of the Emperor Julian 3 (LCL; London: Heinemann, 1923; repr., 1953). German translation: Karl J. Neumann, Kaiser Julians Bücher gegen die Christen: Nach ihrer Wiederherstellung übersetzt von K. J. Neumann (Leipzig: Teubner, 1880). For information about Contra Galilaeos see, e. g., Anthony Meredith, “Poryphy and Julian Against the Christians,” ANRW II 23/2 (1980), 1119–1149; Pierre Évieux, “De Julian à Cyrille: Du Contre les Galiléenes au Contre Julian,” in Les apologistes chrétiens et la culture grecque (ed. Bernhard Pouderon and Joseph Doré; Paris: Beauchesne, 1998), 355–368. 12 Julian is the first who engages with a clear definition of Hellenism (“Hellenismos”) in contrast to Christian identity. See Jan Stenger, Hellenische Identität in der Spätantike: Pagane Autoren und ihr Unbehagen an der eigenen Zeit (UALG 97; Berlin: de Gruyter 2009) who is concerned with the profile of Hellenistic identity in late antiquity. 13 Historia Augusta, 18 Alex.Sev. (BSGRT, 273,29,2,1–4 Hohl).

380

Michaela Durst

this information to Julian instead of Severus Alexander. 14 Understandably, in both cases the historical trustworthiness is highly disputed. But as a tradition this story indicates that in a given period admiration of Abraham as a wise leader in a pagan context had become plausible. 15 Moreover, this tradition reminds us that we should be cautious not to confuse the high estimation of Abraham in pagan tradition 16 with the pagan attitude towards Judaism and Christianity, which interpret themselves through the story of Abraham. Contra Galilaeos, an anti-Christian polemic written in the winter of 363/364, 17 is an insightful example for such discussions about the relationship between Hellenismos, Christianity, and Judaism and the use of biblical texts as arguments. Julian wrote this short piece not as an outsider, but with seemingly profound knowledge of the Bible. 18 Initially educated as a Christian, Julian later converted to Hellenism and is remembered as an ambivalent figure, described as a hater of Christians and at the same time as a forerunner of tolerance. 19 The latter interpretation is based, for instance, on his letter to the citizens of Bostra. There he formulates the seemingly tolerant claim that not pressure but reason should convince mankind: 20 Christians, who miss the highest good of all, the truth of faith (ἡ θεοσέβεια), and are entangled in delusion (θυσσέβεια, οἱ πεπλανηµένοι), deserve compassion. 21 The setting in Contra Galilaeos alters this impression of tolerance in many respects; Julian introduces

14

Siker, “Abraham,” 197. Although we do not know who created this tradition. 16 Quite different, of course, from Moses, see John G. Gager, Moses in Greco-Roman Paganism (Monograph Series SBL 72; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1972). 17 See Riedweg, “5. Julian,” LXXXVIII. 18 See Cyril, Contra Julianum, a massive twenty-volume Christian rebuttal of Contra Galilaeos nearly 100 years after Julian wrote it; according to Cyril, Julian’s work was extremely dangerous because of his seemingly profound knowledge of the Bible (see Riedweg, “5. Julian,” LXXXVII). For information about Contra Julianum, see Wolfram Kinzig, “6. Kyrill – Contra Iulianum,” in Kyrill von Alexandrien, CIX–CLXXXVI. 19 See, e. g., Arthur H. Armstrong, “The Way and the Ways: Religious Tolerance and Intolerance in the Fourth Century A. D.,” VC 38 (1984), 1–17, who contrasts Theodosius as intolerant and Julian as a tolerant emperor. For the “politics of memory” concerning Julian: Stenger, Hellenische Identität, 247–316. 20 Julian, ep. 58: Λόγῳ δὲ πείθεσθαι χρὴ καὶ διδάσκεσθαι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, οὐ πληγαῖς οὐδὲ ὕβρεσιν οὐδὲ αἰκισµῲ τοῦ σώµατος (ed. Berthold K. Weis, Julian: Briefe: Griechisch-deutsch [Tusculum; München: Heimeran Verlag, 1973], 186). The immensely favourable reception during the Enlightement is not surprising, see e. g. Wolfram Kinzig, “Polemics Reheated? The Reception of Ancient Anti-Christian Writings in the Enlightenment,” ZAC 13 (2009), 316–350. 21 See Julian, ep. 58 (186 Weis). 15

Abraham and Hellenismos in Julian the Apostate’s Contra Galilaeos

381

his work as a court speech (ὥσπερ ἐν δικαστηρίῳ), 22 outlining for all his arguments against Christianity (πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις) 23 on the basis of reason (φαίνεται τὰς αἰτίας ἐκθέσθαι). But he had already passed judgment on Christianity as “villainy” (κακουργία), 24 presenting himself not merely as one accuser in a court trial, but as the chief judge himself. A harsh polemic is characteristic of apologetic texts intended to defend one’s own version of truth, and Julian is no exception. Besides the theoretical reflections in Contra Galilaeos, Julian’s actions against Christians are criticized even by pagans. 25 And, moreover, his attitude toward Judaism is ambivalent. 26 Therefore, the description of Julian as “tolerant” in religious discourse or as a forerunner of plurality should be received with caution. It would be better to distinguish tolerance from neutrality and to discuss in what way Julian abstains from violence, but nevertheless uses force. 27 Since Julian reigned only from 361–363, making a conclusive judgment is difficult. Nevertheless, for my purpose it is important that in Contra Galilaeos Julian clearly gives a theoretical reflection about the relationship between Judaism, Hellenismos and Christianity, with the obvious aim of negating Christianity’s claim to play its own role in such relationships. Thus, my leading question is the following: How does Julian bring Abraham into contact with Hellenismos to make a statement about Abraham’s family and thus about both Christianity and Judaism?

22

Julian, Contra Galiaeos fr. 2 (87,5 Masaracchia). Julian, Contra Galilaeos fr. 1 (87,2 M.) 24 See Julian, Contra Galilaeos fr. 1 (87,3 M.). See also Julian’s statement about Christ: “[...] and during his lifetime he accomplished nothing worth hearing of [...]” (fr. 41 [136,8–9 M.]; trans. Wright, 377). 25 See, e. g., the controversies about Julian’s edict of 362, which excluded those from teaching who did not identify themselves with the pagan worship of the gods (summary of the edict: Nesselrath, Kaiser Julian und die Repaganisierung, 47–50; Stenger, Hellenische Identität, 101–110). Research has suggested that Julian shifted from a tolerant to an intolerant position; for my purpose, it is sufficient to point to the inconsistent image of Julian. See Mar Marcos, “‘He Forced with Gentleness’: Emperor Julian’s Attitude to Religious Coercion,” AnTard 17 (2009), 191–204, esp. 203. 26 Julian’s position is interesting because “Julian’s attitude to the Jews is curiously ambivalent. It is a combination of detestation for most of their beliefs and practices with a respect for their antiquity and their devotion to the beliefs they had inherited. Bad though the Jews were, they were infinitely preferable to the Christians, who linked their inadequate conception of God to a total disregard for the tradition they had inherited”. Cf. Meredith, “Porphyry and Julian,” 1142. 27 Marcos, “He Forced with Gentleness,” 193–197. 23

382

Michaela Durst

2.2 Contra Galilaeos – Preliminary Remarks Contra Galilaeos, probably originally a work in three volumes, deals in the first book with the question of human ἔννοια θεοῦ, compares statements about the divine by Greek and Hebrew authors, and criticizes the Christian break with both Jewish and pagan tradition. 28 Most of the fragments that survive are from this book. 29 Here Julian especially refers to Genesis, particularly Genesis 1 (a comparison of the Mosaic creation account and the Platonic Timaeus), Genesis 11 (explanation of the origins of the nations from both the pagan and Christian perspectives), and part of the story of Abraham (the sacrifice of Isaac [Gen 22], the scene about God’s promise and the covenant of circumcision [Gen 15 and Gen 17], along with references to spiritual circumcision in the writings of Paul). In addition, Julian also cites the blessing formula: “God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” and mentions passages dealing with Moses as law-giver and the story of Cain and Abel. 30 There is strong evidence that Julian treats Acts and other New Testament texts in the second book, and Jesus, the Gospels, and Paul in the third book. From the second and third book, unfortunately, little to nothing is extant. Thus, all possible comments on Pauline interpretations of Abraham’s family are lost. No interpretations of other figures of Abraham’s family have come down to us, except possibly in other fragments. The structure of Contra Galilaeos makes clear the frame for Julian’s analysis of Genesis: What does the biblical text have to say about knowledge of God, the origins of various customs and nations, and the importance of a nation /religion for culture throughout history? All these aspects are found in Julian’s description of Abraham. It’s obvious that the biblical texts – along the lines of pagan texts – would likely present such knowledge mainly in the mode of etiological 28 See, e. g., Julian, Contra Galilaeos fr. 47 (141,11–13 M.), the description of Christians as vampires who share in the worst parts of both Jewish and Hellenistic tradition. Meredith (“Porphyry and Julian,” 1140) sums up the three directions of impact: “an attack on the very notion of revelation; b) an attack on the Jewish notion of God and on Jewish history in general; c) an attack on the Galileans for abandoning the traditions, bad though they were, of the Jews.” 29 Neumann is very optimistic about the reconstruction of this line of thought. Masaracchia is more cautious and therefore follows the order of fragments given by Cyril. For the different order of the fragments, see Masaracchia, Julian, 289–290 (a comparison between the order of Neumann and Masaracchia); also Riedweg, “5. Julian,” XCI–XCII. 30 Julian, Contra Galilaeos, fr. 49 (143 M.): Jews as foreigners; fr. 83–84 (177–179 M.): Cain and Abel and sacrifice; fr. 85 (179–180 M.): circumcision; fr. 86–88 (181–184 M.): blessing formula, Abraham favored as a seer and as one who offers sacrifices.

Abraham and Hellenismos in Julian the Apostate’s Contra Galilaeos

383

or mythical texts. 31 Acknowledging this, another preliminary consideration is necessary: Do Jewish and Christian texts provide a deeper-level meaning, or, as texts per se, are they unworthy of discussion for pagans like Julian? This question is not trivial because it recognizes that both Julian and Celsus do not take into consideration many biblical texts, since they regarded them to be contradictory and implausible. 32 This may be due to the quality of the texts themselves or to the competence of the interpreters. 33 Julian presents himself in Contra Galilaeos as an interpreter more competent than Christian bishops and proceeds to choose which biblical texts he deems worthy of discussion. 34 In contrast to Julian’s judgment about New Testament texts, his attitude towards Jewish Old Testament texts is not entirely negative. 35 For Genesis, we can be optimistic that he goes beyond a list of contradictions and tries to capture an actual meaning.

2.3 Analysis of Key Passages of Julian’s Portrait of Abraham The aforementioned passages about Abraham show Julian’s tendencies in his focus on Abraham, Judaism, and Christianity. I will analyze the key passages under the headings “Circumcision” and “Theurgy.” As relevant, 31 Christians and Jews would never have named their texts “mythical.” Julian, in contrast, draws a parallel to Homeric myths with this categorization. See Stenger, Hellenische Identität, 362–363; Christian Schäfer, “Julian ‘Apostata’ und die philosophische Reaktion gegen das Christentum: Die ‘Pseudomorphosen’ des platonischen Denkens im ‘magischen Zeitalter,’” in Kaiser Julian “Apostata,” 41–64, esp. 59–62. 32 This is, indeed, a common polemic strategy, which is also used by Christian authors. However, the question of the “quality” of text, e. g., in the context of debates about allegory, should not be underestimated. For Celsus, the following aspects of the Abraham story are utter nonsense and do not contain allegorical merit (Origen, Cels. IV 43; 24–25): Sarah’s barrenness and Rebecca’s hostility, and the recurring motif of unexpectedly begotten children, which he describes as a fable. Origen (IV 44–45), in contrast, refers to the allegorical interpretation of wives and handmaids, used already by Paul. 33 See Stenger, Hellenische Identität, 366–367; Smith, Julian’s Gods, 206. 34 See Julian, Contra Galilaeos fr. 84 (178–179 M.). 35 See, e. g., the comparison of the Mosaic creation narrative with the Platonic Timaios in the first part of Contra Galilaeos (book 1). Julian – differently from Celsus – takes the biblical text as a noteworthy Jewish, not Christian, description, which he characterizes as a myth with a hidden meaning. See Julian, Contra Galileos fr.17 (105–106 M.); for discussion of this fragment see Christoph Riedweg, “Mythos mit geheimem Sinn oder reine Blasphemie? Julian über die mosaische Erzählung vom Sündenfall (Contra Galilaeos fr. 17, 10–12 Masaracchia),” in Κορυφαίῳ ἀνδρί: Mélanges offerts à André Hurst, Genève 2005 (ed. Antje Kolde, Alessandra Lukinovich and André-Louis Rey; Recherches et rencontres: Publications de la Faculté des lettres Genève 22; Genf: Droz, 2005), 367–375. Thus, in Julian’s eyes the biblical tale is not fictional but mythical. Nevertheless even the Jewish text is inferior to the Hellenistic one. On the topic of myth, see also footnote 31.

384

Michaela Durst

I will also refer to Celsus, in order to give Julian’s interpretation a more precise profile. 2.3.1 Circumcision In Gen 17:10–14, God’s covenant with Abraham is confirmed by the sign of the covenant: circumcision. Circumcision plays an important role both in Judaism and Christianity as a means of entrance into Abraham’s family. In anti-Christian literature, in contrast, we should note that the focus is not primarily on the covenant connected with circumcision, but on circumcision as a custom. Already in the context of Josephus’ confrontation with pagan opponents, circumcision is not only an aspect of the story of Abraham and God’s people, but must be seen in the context of discussions about the legitimacy of Judaism as a religion. For instance, Josephus criticizes the account of Herodotus, who does not mention Judaism explicitly in his report about circumcision, but refers to the Syrians of Palestine. 36 AntiChristian writers like Celsus take up this view as an argument which questions the origins of Judaism and which challenges Christian identity too. 37 This twofold thrust is possible because of Christianity legitimating itself based upon and in connection with the already recognized religion of Judaism. Although Abraham is mentioned here only implicitly, 38 Origen’s reply in Contra Celsum argues especially with the name of Abraham. Abraham’s name is indeed used in Egyptian demon exorcism but does not imply exact knowledge about the patriarch. 39 Origen argues that the detailed information about Abraham and circumcision is traced solely to Genesis, and thus the Mosaic report about Jewish circumcision is more credible than other sources. 40 Therefore, the discussion of circumcision in Celsus and Origen primarily deals with the origins of Judaism and thus is interested in the importance of the Jewish nation. 41

36

Josephus, C. Ap. I 168–171. Origen, Cels. I 22. 38 According to Siker (“Abraham,” 200) Julian is the only pagan author who explicitly connects Abraham with circumcision. 39 Christians also used the names for exorcism (Staerk, “Abraham,” 25); see also: Pieter W. Van der Horst, “Did the Gentiles Know Who Abraham Was?,” in Abraham, the Nations, and the Hagarites, 61–75. 40 See Origen, Cels. I 22. 41 See Origen, Cels. V 48. 37

Abraham and Hellenismos in Julian the Apostate’s Contra Galilaeos

385

Julian knows the tradition that circumcision stems from Egypt. 42 In his text, indeed, the debate about Judaism in antiquity and the origins of circumcision are completely omitted. Instead, Jews, in his eyes, are simply characterized in a positive manner by their having borrowed circumcision from Egypt. Julian evaluates circumcision as a statement about the nation and about the religion of Judaism as well. But in regard to Christianity, he asks concisely, “Why, pray, do you [Christians] not practice circumcision?” 43 Julian is aware of the Pauline interpretation of circumcision as a circumcision of the heart and references the corresponding passage from Rom 2:29. His aim is to clarify that the Pauline exegesis is completely contrary to Gen 17:10–11. Julian is not only irritated by the contradiction of biblical texts but also bothered that Christians value words more than signs. 44 Christians, who are concerned with the circumcision of the heart, appear to be morally and ethically deficient because of their appropriation of the mere word “circumcision,” in contradiction of Christ’s command to keep the whole law (Matt 5:17,19). 45 Here, in the context of signs, the figure of Abraham comes to the fore. 2.3.2 Theurgy The importance of signs is shown by another highly disputed part of the Abrahamic story: the descent of Abraham from Chaldea and his stay in Egypt 46. These narratives have always provided an opportunity to discuss Abraham in the light of “alien” wisdom. 47 Thus, Abraham’s knowledge 42 Julian, Contra Galilaeos fr. 86 (181,10–11 M.): [...] τὴν µὲν περιτοµὴν ἔµαθον Αἰγυπτίοις ἐπιξενωθέντες [...]. 43 Julian, Contra Galilaeos fr. 85 (179,5–6 M.; trans. Wright, 421): [...] διὰ τί γὰρ οὐχὶ περιτέµνεσθε [...]. John G. Cook (Interpretation of the Old Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism [STAC 23; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004], 280) rightly notices: “He did not, at least for the sake of his argument, share the disdain toward the practice felt by many Greeks and Romans”. 44 Julian, Contra Galilaeos fr. 85 (179,6–180,10 M.). 45 Cyril admits in his reply that some Christians do not reject circumcision, even as late as the 5th century. See Cook, Interpretation of the Old Testament, 281. 46 For the importance of Egypt, see Peter Pilhofer, Presbyteron kreitton: Der Altersbeweis der jüdischen und christlichen Apologeten und seine Vorgeschichte (WUNT 39; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990), 71–73; for the motif of educational journeys as a hellenistic topos of philosophic biographies, see Mayer, “Aspekte des Abrahambildes,” 64; Bouffartigue, L’Empereur Julien et la culture de son temps, 666. 47 For pagan and Jewish sources about Abraham, see Eusebius, Praep. ev. IX 16–19. See also Staerk, “Abraham,” 19; Annette Yoshiko Reed, “Abraham as Chaldean Scientist and Father of the Jews: Josephus, Ant. 1.153–168, and the Greco-Roman Discourse about Astronomy /Astrology,” JSJ 35.2 (2004), 119–158; Louis H. Feldman, “Abraham the Greek

386

Michaela Durst

in philosophy and culture could be given a positive slant as “barbarian knowledge.” Criticisms of such knowledge, however, could reflect poorly on Judaism. In contrast to the strategy used to describe Abraham in this way, other Jewish (and Christian) authors interpreted the migratio of Abraham as a break with his pagan origins, which were later seen as polytheistic. 48 Celsus emphasizes Jewish origins and describes them with the descent of “magicians and fraudsters,” connecting Judaism with magic. 49 Origen evaluates this formulation as an active strategy to confuse the origins of the Jews, in order to disparage the influence of the patriarchs. According to Origen, Celsus, however, seems to ignore the question of how he despises men whose names work wonders even when spoken by foreigners. Julian’s interpretation, unlike the different strategies in Jewish tradition and unlike the entirely negative approach of Celsus, also refers to the Chaldean descent and the blessing formula but evaluates both rather positively. He writes about the origin of the patriarchs in Chaldea, a holy and pious genos, whose God he also adores. What unifies Judaism and Hellenismos is correct worship, which significantly differs from Christian worship: [...] And yet, I call the gods to witness, I am one of those who avoid keeping their festivals with the Jews; but nevertheless I revere always the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; who being themselves Chaldeans, of a sacred race, skilled in theurgy, had learned the practice of circumcision while they sojourned as strangers with the Egyptians. And they revered a God who was ever gracious to me and to those who worshipped him as Abraham did, for he is a very great and powerful God, but he has nothing to do with you. [...]. 50 Philosopher in Josephus,” Transactions and Proceedings of the Armenian Philological Association 99 (1968), 143–156; Anke Mühling, “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); for the importance of astrology and the critique in Judaic and Christian tradition in general, see Kocku von Stuckrad, Das Ringen um die Astrologie: Jüdische und christliche Beiträge zum antiken Zeitverständnis (RVV 49; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000). 48 Siker (“Abraham,” 207–208) notes, “The two ways of negotiating this problem were either to make Abraham’s Chaldean heritage and astrological knowledge a boon, showing the dependence of other nations on his wisdom (so Pseudo-Eupolemus, Artapanus, and Josephus), or to sever the ties between Abraham and astrology, in favour of stressing the radical monotheism for which the Jews were famous (so Jubilees, Philo, and the rabbis).” 49 Origen, Cels. IV 33. 50 Julian, Contra Galilaeos fr. 86 (181,7–13 M.; trans. Wright, 423): [...] καίτοι, µὰ τοῦς θεούς, εἷς εἰµι τῶν ἐκτρεποµένων συνεορτάζειν ᾿Ιουδαίοις, ἀεὶ προσκυνῶν τὸν θεὸν ᾿Αβραὰµ καὶ ᾿Ισαὰκ καὶ ᾿Ιακώβ, οἳ ὄντες οὗτοι Χαλδαῖοι, γένους ἱερεοῦ καὶ θεουργικοῦ, τὴν µὴν περιτοµὴν ἔµαθον Αἰγυπτίοις ἐπιξενωθέντες, ἐσεβάσθησαν δὲ θεόν, ὃς ἐµοὶ καὶ τοῖς αὐτόν, ὥσπερ ᾿Α-

Abraham and Hellenismos in Julian the Apostate’s Contra Galilaeos

387

[...] For Abraham used to sacrifice even as we Hellenes do, always and continually. [...] 51

Stenger rightly stresses that it is not just a question of Judaism, but also of claiming that pagan sacrifices are the proper way of worshipping akin to Judaism. 52 Cook’s conclusion is quite similar: “For him, Judaism with its sacrificial worship is actually closer to Hellenism than to Christianity.” 53 Julian reads Genesis with the focus on correct conduct, as another passage shows. There he expresses his displeasure with the Christian refusal to sacrifice, contrary to Mosaic and prophetic statements. The argument given by Christian critics of a sacrificial system – namely, that fire no longer comes down from heaven 54 – does not seem to be convincing. Moses, and before him Abraham, were commanded to supply fire for the sacrifice. Here, according to Cyril, Julian surprisingly mentions the story about Isaac as evidence. 55 He confirms his interpretation by his own exegesis of the story of Cain and Abel, which he offers in opposition to an exegesis by a Christian bishop. 56 To formulate more theoretically, “This suggests an open, general conception of theurgy as the highest degree of performance of whatever cultic activity, in the tradition of Iamblichus. This openness is confirmed by the

βραὰµ ἔσεβε, σεβοµένοις εὐµενὴς ἦν, µέγας τε ὢν πάνυ καὶ δυνατός, ὑµῖν δὲ οὐδὲν προσήκων.; for the importance of customs, see also Julian’s letter to Theodorus (ep. 47 [120–124 Weis]). 51 Julian, Contra Galilaeos fr. 87 (182,1–2 M.; trans. Wright, 423): ἔθυε µὲν γὰρ ᾿Αβραάµ, ὥσπερ καὶ ἡµεῖς, ἀεὶ συνεχῶς [...]. 52 Stenger, Hellenische Identität, 363. On the importance of sacrifice for Julian, see Smith, Julian’s Gods, 204. 53 Cook (Interpretation of the Old Testament, 249) comments: “His well-known desire to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem fit into his program as a restorer of ancient religion.” Concerning his plan to restore the Jewish temple, see Johannes Hahn, “Kaiser Julian und ein dritter Tempel: Idee, Wirklichkeit, Wirkung eines gescheiterten Projekts,” in Der Jerusalemer Tempel und seine Zerstörungen (ed. Idem; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 237–262. 54 Julian, Contra Gailaeos fr. 83 (177 M.). 55 Julian, Contra Galilaeos fr. 83 (177,9 M.). Siker (“Abraham,” 200) does not seem to know this reference since he wonders why Julian does not mention the story about Isaac. Nevertheless, he notes Alexander Polyhistor and Alexander of Lycopolis, who mention the sacrifice of Isaac: “But these are little more than passing references, and neither author is represented as making any qualitative statements about this sacrifice.” This is also true for Julian. 56 Julian, Contra Galilaeos fr. 84 (178–179 M.). The bishop is not named; perhaps Julian has in mind Eusebius’s interpretation in Hist. eccl. I 10,6–7 (see Bouffartigue, L’empereur Julien et la culture de son temps, 388). On the interpretation, see Cook (Interpretation of the Old Testament, 268; 278–279), who refers to Cyril, who criticizes Julian’s esteem for animal sacrifice with arguments from Julian’s teachers Pythagoras and Porphyry, who in turn interpret the biblical scene in the sense of a covenant.

388

Michaela Durst

fact that Julian included the Hebrew tradition in his concept of theurgy.” 57 Correct cultic practice gains its relevance because the gods themselves are seen as the “authors” of the cults. 58 Abraham, in Julian’s portrait, becomes a predecessor of the form of Neo-Platonism that is deeply rooted in theurgy. This strong emphasis on the Chaldean descent comes as no surprise, since Julian himself is a strong supporter of theurgy. From the story of Abraham, Julian deduces several other features of Abraham and his genos that fit into his high valuation of signs. 59 Directly following the passage about sacrifice, Julian draws on another parallel: [...] And he used the method of divination from shooting stars. Probably this also is an Hellenic custom. But for higher things he augured from the flight of birds. And he possessed also a steward of his house [Eleazar] who set signs for himself. And if one of you doubts this, the very words which were uttered by Moses concerning it will show him clearly [...]. 60

Julian demonstrates this peculiar characterization of Abraham as skilled in divination with an unconventional interpretation of Genesis 15, where the promise of progeny is attested through a glimpse of the starry sky. For Julian, this is a “visible pledge” of God’s words, a “voice from heaven” by God, showing him not the stars but the shooting stars. 61 The thankoffering in Gen 15:7–11 is seen as confirmation of Julian’s interpretation: You see how the announcement of the angel or god who had appeared was strengthened by means of the augury from birds, and how the prophecy was completed, not at haphazard as happens with you, but with the accompaniment of sacrifices? Moreover he says that by the flocking together of the birds he showed that his

57

Ilinca Tanaseanu-Döbler, “Theurgy in the Later Fourth and Early Fifth Century,” in Theurgy in Late Antiquity: The Invention of a Ritual Tradition (ed. Idem; BERG 1; Göttingen: Vandenheock & Ruprecht, 2013), 136–148, esp. 140–141. See also Jay Bregman, “Judaism as Theurgy in the Religious Thought of the Emperor Julian,” The Ancient World 26,2 (1995), 135–149. 58 Tanaseanu-Döbler, Theurgy, 146. 59 Cook (Interpretation of the Old Testament, 279) stresses this guidance for Julian’s remarks: “Given Julian’s taste for signs, it is clear why he would have read Genesis the way that he did. Rhetorical theory (and logic) also considered signs useful. Julian was aware of the usage when he notes that the paradoxical elements in the stories of Romulus were believed because of the signs that followed.” 60 Julian, Contra Galilaeos fr. 87 (182,2–6 Μ.; trans. Wright, 423–425): [...] ἐχρῆτο δὲ µαντικῇ τῇ τῶν διᾳττόντων ἄστρων· ῾Ελληνικὸν ἴσως καὶ τοῦτο. οἰωνίζετο δὲ µειζόνως, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν ἐπίτροπον τῆς οἰκίας εἶχε συµβολικόν. εἰ δὲ ἀπιστεῖ τις ὑµῶν, αὐτὰ δείξει σαφῶς τὰ ὑπὲρ τούτων εἰρηµένα Μωσῇ· [...]. It follows the quotation of Gen 15:1–6. 61 For the whole context, see Julian, Contra Galilaeos fr. 87 (182,15–183,1 M.; trans. Wright, 425).

Abraham and Hellenismos in Julian the Apostate’s Contra Galilaeos

389

message was true. And Abraham accepted the pledge, and moreover declared that a pledge that lacked truth seemed to be mere folly and imbecility. 62

At this point, Julian offers a brief theoretical reflection on his critical attitude towards words alone: But it is not possible to behold the truth from speech alone, but some clear sign must follow on what has been said, a sign that by its appearance shall guarantee the prophecy that has been made concerning the future [...]. 63

With this connection between knowledge of God /truth and signs, Julian joins Neo-Platonic thinkers like Iamblichus who do not consider knowledge through reason as sufficient (and who play a rather ambiguous role in the history of late antique Neoplatonic philosophy). 64 Rather, recognition, interpretation, and use of signs are a genuine part of the theurgic art of augury /prophecy (µαντεία). 65 Both the pagan and the Jewish tradition link Abraham to astrology. Julian, who probably knows this tradition from either pagan or Christian contexts, 66 gives this tradition a sharp theurgic character. Other pagan traditions, in contrast, know Abraham more generally “as an ancient wise man from somewhere in the East, probably Chaldea or Syria, who was an astrological authority.” 67 The Jewish tradition in the first centuries, as 62 Julian, Contra Galilaeos fr. 88 (183,14–184,20 M.; trans. Wright, 427): τὴν τοῦ φανέντος ἀγγέλου πρόρρησιν, ἤτοι θεοῦ, διὰ τῆς οἰωνιστικῆς ὁρᾶτε κρατυνοµένην, οὐχ ὥσπερ ὑµεῖς ἐκ παρέρου, µετὰ θυσιῶν δὲ τῆς µαντείας ἐπιτελουµένης. ‹τὰ διχοτοµήµατα γὰρ τοῖς τῆς µαντείας τρόποις ἐν τάξει γεγόνασι θυσιῶν.› φησὶ δὲ ὅτι τῇ τῶν οἰωνῶν ἐπιπτήσει βεβαίαν ἔδειξε τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν. ἀποδέχεται δὲ τὴν πίστιν τοῦ ᾿Αβραάµ, προσεπάγων ὅτι ἄνευ ἀληθείας πίστις ἠλιθιότης ἔοικέ τις εἶναι καὶ ἐµβροντησία. 63 Julian, Contra Galilaeos fr. 88 (184,21–23 M.; trans. Wright, 427): τὴν τὲ ἀλήθειαν οὐκ ἔνεστιν ‹ἰδεῖν› ἐκ ψιλοῦ ῥήµατος, ἀλλὰ χρή τι καὶ παρακολουθήσαι τοῖς λόγοις ἐναργὲς σηµεῖον, ὃ πιστώσεται γενόµενον τῆν εἰς τὸ µέλλον πεποιηµένην προαγόρευσιν. 64 Sara Stöcklin-Kaldewey (Kaiser Julians Gottesverehrung, 112–120) compares the pagan and Christian view under the heading “revelation.” She describes Iamblichus’ position as follows (118): “Letztere [Gotteserkenntnis] besteht in der Vereinigung mit dem Göttlichen, die nicht durch ‘Einsicht [*τό νοεῖν]’ erreicht wird – sonst wäre sie ja ‘verstandesmäßig erfassbar [*νοερός]’ und ginge von uns selbst aus – sondern durch ‘Zeichen [συνθέµατα]’, die den Kontakt zu den Göttern vermitteln (ebd. [De myst., M. D.] 2,11).” 65 Stöcklin-Kaldewey, Kaiser Julians Gottesverehrung, 118. Furthermore, since the oracles in antiquity have fallen silent, Julian claims that only Zeus “granted us through the sacred art”/δέδωκεν ἡµῖν διὰ τῶν ἱερῶν τεχνῶν ἐπίσκηψιν (Julian, Contra Galilaeos fr. 45 [139,10 M.]; trans. Wright, 373) to communicate with the gods; for the importance of oracles in late antiquity, see in general Polymnia Athanassiadi, “Philosophers and Oracles: Shifts of Authority in Late Paganism,” Byzantium 62 (1992), 45–62. 66 Cook, Interpretation of the Old Testament, 278: “Julian may have been aware of the Hellenistic-Jewish tradition that Abraham was an astrologer or had been trained in its arts”. 67 Siker, “Abraham,” 208.

390

Michaela Durst

Josephus exemplifies, tries to move him away from the context of magic and to strengthen his profile as a scientist. 68 Julian, precisely because as a theurgist he strives for the union of the soul with the gods – not by thinking or contemplation, but through magic formulas and actions (e. g. sacrifices) 69 – attaches considerable importance to correct practice. 70 Cult and sacrifice seem to be “the very cement of a civilized world.” 71 However, according to Julian, it is this feature that Abraham embodies. Christians, in contrast, are profoundly wrong: 72 For you do not imitate Abraham by erecting altars to him, or building altars of sacrifice and worshipping him as Abraham did, with sacrificial offerings. 73

Again, these fragments are astonishing examples of how Julian selects and interprets the stories: his criterion is what they can tell about practice and sacrifice, knowledge through signs. 2.3.3 Conclusions As I have shown, Julian’s main point is that Christianity does not share Abrahamic origins and thus is not legitimized through Judaism. Judaism is identified with “Israel” and described as having a nationally limited god, 74 whereas the Christian claim to be the true “Israel,” referring to OT prophecies, is negated. 75 Julian focuses not on genealogies but rather on the cultic differences in Christian worship. 76 Accordingly, he interprets the history of Judaism in the biblical texts – differently from the Christian view – as narrating cultic worship according to ancestral customs. 77 Julian 68

Yoshiko Reed, “Abraham,” 156. Nesselrath, Kaiser Julian und die Repaganisierung, 60. 70 The importance of rituals is described by Nesselrath (Kaiser Julian und die Repaganisierung, 60) as follows: “Nach Lehre der Theurgen ist das Ritual notwendig, da die in den menschlichen Körper und die materielle Welt hinabgestiegene Seele die Hilfe materieller Objekte benötigt, um wieder aufsteigen zu können”; see also Stöcklin-Kaldeway (Kaiser Julians Gottesverehrung, 268–269), who stresses the importance of fire during a sacrifice. 71 Smith, Julian’s Gods, 206. 72 It should be noted that Christian authors neglect drawing a parallel between the sacrifice in Gen 15:9.11 and Hellenistic rituals (Staerk, “Abraham,” 22). 73 Julian, Contra Galilaeos fr. 86 (181,13–15 M.; trans. Wright, 423): οὐδὲ γὰρ τὸν ᾿Αβραὰµ µιµεὶσθε βωµούς τε ἐγείροντες αὐτῷ καὶ οἰκοδοµοῦντες θυσιαστήρια καὶ θεραπεύοντες ὥσπερ ἐκεῖνος ταῖς ἱερουργίαις. 74 Julian, Contra Galilaeos fr. 19–20. 75 Julian, Contra Galilaeos fr. 62,6–10. 76 Julian, Contra Galilaeos fr. 1. Christianity is not a religion at all because Christians focus on the non-rationality of the soul (Stenger, Hellenische Identität, 361). 77 For the importance of tradition in cult, see Stöcklin-Kaldewey, Kaiser Julians Gottesverehrung, 340–346. E.g., Julian writes to the Alexandrians that he is ashamed about 69

Abraham and Hellenismos in Julian the Apostate’s Contra Galilaeos

391

thus describes what he considers to be genuinely Jewish and thereby throws light on the whole Jewish nation. 78 Therefore the presumed exclusive-universal claim of Christianity is, in Julian’s eyes, nothing else than degenerate, signifying apostasy from the Hellenistic and Jewish traditions, as well as from Jesus himself, whose interest seemed to be limited to Galilee. He faults Christians for universalizing a particular position. 79 Thus, on the one hand, Julian draws on the Christian neglect of ancestral traditions. But, as his argumentation is two-sided, he focuses, on the other hand, on parallels between Hellenismos and Judaism. Julian’s strategy to accept Judaism focuses less on a common set of cultural or ethical values in Hellenismos and Judaism 80 and more on Judaism’s ethnic identity, as well as Julian’s concept of knowledge about the divine. Knowledge of God, according to Julian, has its starting point in the material sphere, as opposed to the Christian logocentric approach negating access to God through ritual and signs. Christians claim a direct relationship between God and his people without a sacrificial system, and they demand to participate in Hellenistic culture without engaging in cultic practices. 81 Therefore, it is not so much the particular content of knowledge which Julian postulated for Hellenismos and Judaism, but a certain correlation between nation, worship and communication with the divine. Nevertheless, in searching for similarities between Hellenismos and Judaism, Julian ignores the contemporary perspective on sacrifice and cultic practices in Judaism and downplays monotheism. The differences between monotheism and polytheism are considered marginal, since pagan concepts contain monotheistic tendencies and since Abraham, according to Julian, does not deny the existence of other gods. In consequence, Abraham is perceived as the ancestor of Judaism, and Genesis 12 and following is read as a cultic and mantic story, whereas Christian interpretations of the biblical narrative are seen as contradicting their claim to be Galileans (Julian, ep. 61 [190–194 Weis]). See Marie-Odile Boulnois, “La diversité des nations et l’élection d’Israël: Y a-t-il une influence du Contre Celse d’Origène sur le Contre les Galiléens du Julien?” in Origeniana Decima: Origen as Writer: Papers of the 10th International Origen Congress, University School of Philosophy and Education “Ignatianum”, Kraków, Poland, 31 August – 4 September 2009 (ed. Sylwia Kaczmarek and Henryk Pietras; BETL 244; Leuven: Peeters, 2011), 803–830, esp. 806–808. 78 According to this opinion, the anti-polytheistic Christian doctrine is refuted through nature (Stenger, Hellenische Identität, 368–369). 79 Julian, Contra Galilaeos fr. 48. 80 For Julian, of course, the cultural value of Jewish history is of little importance compared with Hellenistic cultural achievements (Stenger, Hellenische Identität, 363–364). 81 See Julian, Contra Galilaeos fr. 55.

392

Michaela Durst

the meaning of these texts. These premises arise not least from Julian’s metaphysical concept, which leads him to evaluate and interpret Jewish texts in this way. To understand the goal of Julian’s polemic against Christianity, we have to go a step further and return to the broader reasoning in Contra Galilaeos, as mentioned at the beginning of the text.

3. Abraham’s genos in Julian’s Universalistic Concept Julian’s portrait of Abraham in Contra Galilaeos is one piece of a jigsaw puzzle, which aims to integrate Judaism into his concept of national diversity. Accordingly, we are only able to see the broader context if we take into consideration how the Christian concept of Abrahamic ancestry contradicts Julian’s model of the plurality of nations. By explaining the diversity and plurality of nations within a metaphysical system, Julian goes beyond the idea of Emperor Galerius, for example, that all religions should worship for the salus publica. Julian adheres to the idea of different national gods as emanations of the One, with the gods as founders of the different nations. 82 The different characters of these national gods are reflected in the customs and cults of the various nations. 83 The cults, customs and cultural history of each nation, as related to the divine pronoia, are the means of expressing worship. 84 It is important to note that the categories of nation, religion, culture and cult are thereby intermingled. A quite similar model had been assumed by Celsus, even though only partially expressed. Celsus sheds new light on the election of Judaism, as David Rokeah writes:

82 Even though Origen, like some other early theologians, also refers to intermediate beings located between God and humankind, he does not identify them as gods. See Alfons Fürst, “Wahrer Gott – wahre Gerechtigkeit: Poltische Implikationen des Monotheismus in der Spätantike,” in Von Origenes und Hieronymus zu Augustinus: Studien zur antiken Theologiegeschichte (ed. Idem; AKG 115; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 453–486, esp. 462; see Boulnois, Diversité, 811. 83 Julian, Contra Galilaeos fr. 21–22. 84 Boulnois puts it in a nutshell: “Faut-il attribuer cette diversité au hasard ou à la providence et, dans ce dernier cas, peut-on l’expliquer par la répartition des régions du monde entre différentes puissances tutélaires?” (Diversité, 803; also: 823). Worship without pronoia seems to be nonsense in Julian’s eyes (Riedweg, “5. Julian,” XCIX; Bregman, “Theurgy,” 143), and the Christian idea of election raises the question of why God has “neglected large sections of the human race” (Meredith, “Porphyry and Julian,” 1145). In Cyril’s Christian point of view, in contrast, intrinsic differences between nations would undermine free will and the grace of creation (Kinzig, “6. Kyrill,” CXXX).

Abraham and Hellenismos in Julian the Apostate’s Contra Galilaeos

393

It is true, he says, that they are a special people possessed of a distinctive ritual and special laws; but, in observing them, the Jews behave just as do all other peoples who observe the laws and injunctions prescribed for them by the god who rules them. In this manner, Celsus placed Judaism within the framework of the polytheistic religions [...]. 85

Accordingly, Julian’s universal concept 86 explains the diversity of various peoples and their cultures through a system which, on the one hand, binds all nations to one overarching principle and, on the other hand, assumes that differences between nations are part of the natural order and therefore rather static. Such a model seems to start with the status quo of different nations and generally supports national and religious pluralism. 87 Abraham and his genos are not the culturally admired nation 88 – that honor belongs undoubtedly to Hellenism and its gods – but

85 David Rokeah, “The Concept of the ‘Election of Israel’ in the Pagan-Christian Polemic of the Roman Empire,” Immanuel 11 (1980), 56–63, esp. 58, see also: 61–62: Julian’s system “blurs the contradiction between polytheism and monotheism, and turns the latter into an organic part of the former.” See Bregman, “Theurgy,” 141. This perspective is quite common in antiquity in Christian and pagan texts (Boulnois, Diversité, 814; Smith, Julian’s Gods, 196). 86 Hahn speaks of the “Etablierung des Hellenismus als einer universalen monotheistischen Religion” (Hahn, “Tempel,” 150). For Julian’s system of gods, see Jan Opsomer, “Weshalb nach Julian die mosaisch-christliche Schöpfungslehre der platonischen Demiurgie unterlegen ist,” in Kaiser Julian “Apostata,” 127–156. On the complex relationship between the universal claim of Christianity and the term race /ethnicity in Christianity: Denise K. Buell, “Race and Universalism in Early Christianity,” JECS 10,4 (2002), 429–468. E.g., “Origen defines ethno-racial membership as determined by one’s behaviour towards God,” (Buell, “Race,” 451) insofar as it is pious to break tradition; the model of Julian, in contrast, combines behaviour towards God and correct cult practice and tradition. 87 Stenger discusses different models of pluralism in Themistios, Libanios, and Julian (Hellenische Identität, 371–390); see also Armstrong, “Tolerance,” 10–11. Christians, on the contrary, discuss national difference, for example in the context of Gen 11, as an undesired obstacle, resulting from the free will of humankind. See Boulnois on Cyril: “La diversité des nations n’est donc pas due à une volonté du créateur, qu’elle ait consisté à confier l’administration de certaines régions à des divinités imparfaites, ou à créer des natures humaines différentes, mais cette diversité s’explique uniquement par l’usage de la liberté. Pour Cyrille, c’est l’unicité qui est première, unicité de la nature humaine et unicité du Dieu créateur et provident.” (Diversité, 828–829). Philo had much earlier discussed the interpretation of Gen 11. He does not refer to the origins of nations but answers the question of his opponents as to why God has destroyed the beneficial community of a common language (Conf. I 13 [232 Wendland]), see Boulnois, Diversité, 815. In Contra Galilaeos fr. 23–24, Julian criticizes the report about Babel as referring only to language but not to national character and customs. 88 Julian, Contra Galilaeos fr. 53–54.

394

Michaela Durst

stem from a theurgical genos that has partially preserved its competence in divine knowledge. 89 With this universal concept, we catch a glimpse of how the Abrahamic story fits within Julian’s considerations. The Abrahamic family story is narrated in the framework of a specific nation and is focused on Abraham’s intimacy with God through cultic practices. It is used by Julian in a broader controversy about the importance of a nation’s traditions, customs and culture for its relationship to the divine. The overall “nasty ditch” between Julian’s and Christians’ universal approaches is prima facie a clash of ethnos-definitions. This closely relates to the question of in what way culture – in the sense of a shared culturally, religiously and philosophically connoted paideia – matters, and above all, in what way paideia is essential for communication with the divine. 90 Thus from Julian’s point of view the story in Genesis 12 and following demonstrates that Abraham’s ethnos has more in common with pagan Hellenismos than with Christianity, although the latter is rooted in Judaism and claims to be Abraham’s authentic descendant.

89 See Bregman, “Theurgy,” 148, who summarizes Julian’s position: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as well as Solomon, were theurgists. Later the Jews followed the lower ideas of Moses and the prophets. Finally, the worst degree of degeneration is Christianity. “Thus the patriarchs themselves were theurgists, and whatever later confusions were introduced into Jewish tradition, its roots are in the true primary revelation.” (146) 90 Stenger, Hellenische Identität, rightly stresses that Julian forces the impression of a radical opposition in the field of cultures; Stenger therefore characterizes the debates in late antiquity as struggle of cultures (“Kampf der Kulturen,” 365).

Part V Abraham’s Family in Medieval Jewish Exegesis and in Encounter with Islam

Hagar and Ishmael in Literature and Tradition as a foreshadow of their Islamic Personas Reuven Firestone Hagar and Ishmael are key personages in Islamic tradition whose personas fulfill an important legitimizing role that validates Islam as an authentic expression of monotheism. They serve also to sanction some of its key rituals and beliefs: 1. Ishmael is the son of Abraham who serves as the progenitor of the Northern Arabs, namely, the “arabized Arabs” (al-‘arab al-muta‘arriba or al-musta‘riba) who migrated into the peninsula and took on the language and culture of the “original Arabs” (al-‘arab al-‘¯ariba) that had lived there from time immemorial. 1 2. It was the Northern Arabs deriving from Abraham via Ishmael from which originated the Quraysh tribe, the tribe of Prophet Muhammad. 2 3. Ishmael’s status as the son of a prophet and prophet in his own right served to authenticate a genealogical line of biblical prophecy leading to Muhammad as God’s final prophet; Muhammad’s lack of a male heir ensured that this sacred biblical-qur’anic prophetic genealogy ceased after Muhammad’s death. 3 4. Hagar and Ishmael were brought intentionally by Abraham to Mecca, situated in the desert of Paran (Gen 21:21) in order to establish them at God’s sacred place. 4 1

G. Rentz, “Djaz¯ırat al-‘Arab,” Encyclopaedia of Islam 1 (Leiden: Brill, 2d ed., 1979), 543–546. 2 Ibn Ish.h.a¯ q, Al-S¯ıra al-Nabawiyya li’ibn Hish¯am (Mustafa¯ al-Saqa¯ , Ibra¯ h¯ım alAbya¯ r¯ı, ‘Abdul-H . af¯ız. Shalab¯ı, eds. 2 vols., Beirut: D¯ar al-Thiq¯afa al-‘Arabiyya, 1:1–3 (second numbering cycle); English rendering by Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1955), 3–4. 3 David Powers, Muhammad is not the Prophet of Any of Your Men (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011). 4 Al-Azraq¯ı, Akhb¯ar Makka 3 Vols. (ed. Wüstenfeld, Die Chroniken der Stadt Mekka; Leipzig, 1859), 1:21–23; al-Buka¯ r¯ı, Al-J¯ami‘ al-S.ah.¯ıh. 9 Vols. (Lahore: Kazi bilingual Ed.) 4: 372–375, 279–80; al-T.abar¯ı, Ta’r¯ıkh al-Rusul wal-Mul¯uk (ed. M. J. De Goeje; Leiden: Brill, 1964), 279–83 and trans. William Brinner, The History of Al-T.abar¯ı Volume II: Prophets

398

Reuven Firestone

5. Ishmael’s mother Hagar tried to protect him from near death from dehydration in the desert until he was saved through divine intervention by an angel of God. 5 6. Her running in Paran between the mountains of al-s.af¯a and almarwa in search of water for her beloved son is commemorated annually within the “running ritual” (al-sa‘¯ı) of the H.ajj, the annual pilgrimage to Mecca and its environs and one of the five great Pillars of Islam. 6 7. Ishmael assisted his father Abraham in raising up the foundations of the Ka‘ba, the sacred central shrine in Mecca that serves as the direction to which all Muslims direct their prayers. 7 8. Ishmael was the righteous son of Abraham whom his father set upon an altar at Mecca for sacrifice in response to God’s command. 8 9. The most important festival of the Islamic calendar is the ‘¯ıd al-kab¯ır (the Great Festival) or the ‘¯ıd al-ad.h.a¯ (the Festival of Sacrifice) which concludes the H.ajj and commemorates Abraham and Ishmael’s trial and God’s intervention. 9 10. The graves of Hagar and Ishmael are found opposite the northwestern wall of the Meccan Ka‘ba in a sacred area called al-h.ijr within a semicircular wall called al-h.at.¯ım. This is also the place where Muhammad slept on the night of his miraculous Night-Journey (isr¯a) to Jerusalem. 10 Most of these important Islamic traditions about Hagar and Ishmael are reminiscent of biblical narratives. Yet despite their central role in Islamic tradition and ritual, only one of them is actually referred to in the Qur’an. That single example is a verse in the second chapter of the Qur’an (s¯urat al-baqara Q2:127), which portrays Abraham raising up the and Patriarchs (Albany: State University of New York Press), 73–77; al-T.abar¯ı, J¯ami‘ al¯ al-Qur’¯an 30 Vols. In 15 (Beirut: D¯ar al-Fikr, 1405/1984), 13:229–31; Bay¯an ‘An Ta’w¯ıl Ay Isma¯ ‘¯ıl Ibn Kath¯ır, Tafs¯ır al-Qur’¯an al-Kar¯ım 4 Vols. (Cairo: ‘Isa a-B¯ab¯ı al-H.alabi, n.d.) 1:176–77, Ibn Kath¯ır Qis.as. al-Anbiy¯a’ (Beirut: al-Maktaba al-Isl¯amiyya, 223–24, 227–28; Reuven Firestone, “Abraham’s Association with the Meccan Sanctuary and the Pilgrimage in the Pre-Islamic and Early Islamic Periods,” Le Museon Revue d’Etudes Orientales 104 (1991): 365–393. 5 See previous notes. 6 R. Firestone, Journeys in Holy Lands: The Evolution of the Abraham-Ishmael Legends in Islamic Exegesis (Albany, N. Y.: State Univ. of New York Press, 1990), 63–79; Idem, “S.af¯a and Marwa,” Encyclopedia of the Qur’an (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 4:518–519. 7 Q.2:127 and virtually all commentaries; Firestone, Journeys in Holy Lands, 80–93. 8 Most commentaries on Q.37:99–13; Firestone, “Abraham’s Son as the Intended Sacrifice (al-dhabih [Qur’an 37:99–113]): Issues in Qur’anic Exegesis,” JSS 34 (1989): 95–131. 9 Carol Bakhos, The Family of Abraham (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2014), 206, 209. 10 Bukha¯ r¯ı, S.ah.¯ıh., 5:142, 143; The New Encyclopedia of Islam (New York: Rowman Littlefield, 2002), 245–246.

Hagar and Ishmael in Literature and Tradition as a foreshadow

399

foundations of the Meccan Ka‘ba, called there al-bayt (the House), with Ishmael, a reference that finds a parallel with Abraham’s custom depicted in Genesis according to which he built sacred altars where he received communication from God (Gen 12:7–8: 13:4,18; 21:33; 22:9). It is true, certainly, that many of the other traditions listed above have come to be associated with qur’anic verses, but this association was made by the qus.s.a¯ s (story tellers) and mufassir¯un (Qur’an interpreters), who often had to offer creative and speculative explanations in their attempts to link Islamic Hagar and Ishmael traditions to the Qur’an, Islam’s most sacred authority. It is quite clear that the Qur’an knows of Ishmael, who is mentioned twelve times (Isaac is mentioned seventeen times), but it knows little about him. Mostly, his name appears in lists of ancient prophets. 11 Hagar is neither mentioned nor even alluded to in the Qur’an. While Sarah’s name does not appear either, at least one narrative clearly refers to her, designated as Abraham’s wife, and assigns her a speaking part in the story of God’s annunciation of the future birth of Isaac and Jacob (Q.11:69–72 // Gen 18:1–15). I have found not a single qur’anic allusion to Hagar, though as mentioned previously, later commentators have tried to associate her with certain qur’anic verses through leaps of exegetical creativity. How did Hagar and Ishmael become key foundational characters in Islamic tradition despite their virtual absence from the Qur’an? In what follows, I attempt to offer an account for Islamic portrayals of Hagar and Ishmael through an examination of HB and post-HB literatures predating the emergence of the Qur’an in the seventh century. As such, the resources I examine span from the Hebrew Bible through early Patristic and Rabbinic literature.

1. The Hebrew Bible The biblical story of conflict between Sarah and Hagar and the latter’s eventual expulsion along with her son Ishmael are well-known. The tale has remained challenging for historical, linguistic and literary reasons as well as for the clear ethical problems that it presents, and biblical scholars have long differed over its origin, development and function. Regarding 11 R. Firestone, “The Other Ishmael in Islamic Scripture and Tradition,” in The Politics of the Ancestors. Exegetical and Historical Perspectives on Genesis 12–36 (FAT; ed. Jakob Wöhrle and Mark Brett; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, forthcoming, 2018).

400

Reuven Firestone

the story’s composition, biblical scholarship has tended to divide the tale into four parts: a) Genesis 16 is the first telling of the conflict in the biblical chronology and has traditionally been regarded as J. b) Genesis 21 is probably a retelling of Gen 16 and has been associated with E or more recently, as “post-P.” 12 c) Genesis 17 is sometimes considered to include an editorial P layer that attempts to reconcile Gen 16 and 21. d) Genesis 25, also P, offers genealogies with a list of descendants associating the children of Hagar and Ishmael, along with Abraham’s other wife Qeturah, with Arabian peoples living in the desert regions of northern Arabia / Syria. 13 Historians have long noted Assyrian references to Arab peoples named sumu’il. It should be noted here that the terms “Arab” and “Arabian” refer to the Arabian Peninsula, which as a peninsula has no obvious and natural geographical border at its north, where it juts into the “Fertile Crescent.” The arid regions thus extend far north of the peninsula labeled as “Arabia” on most modern maps. They extend into today’s Iraq and Syria, while bordering the eastern Mediterranean littoral along today’s Lebanon and Israel /Palestine. Nomadic peoples have transferred between the arid areas and the more fertile agricultural regions for millennia, and at least from the period of empire during the last millennium b. c. e. if not before, polities have attempted to control the movement of Arab peoples in the north, the northern reaches of which are sometimes referred to as the Syrian Desert though geologically they make up part of the larger Arabian Desert. This kind of movement most likely explains the Assyrian references to Sumu’il. Many Western scholars have tried to equate Sumu’il with Ishmael (yišma‘’¯el = “God hears”) based on Semitic linguistic features. Success in the equation would demonstrate that the Hagar-Ishmael genealogies in Gen 25 may represent ancient references to historical tribal peoples mentioned in 8th – 7th century Neo-Assyrian texts. It has been argued that Sumu’il may be a transcription from Ancient Arabian šåmåʿil (“God heard”). Dialectical variations in Arabic and contemporary Hebrew and Aramaic suggest that the peoples referred to by the Neo-Assyrian king Sennacherib (d. 681 b. c. e.) on one of the city gates of Niniveh as sumu’il may represent Bedouin tribal-pastoral communities deriving from the ge12 Ernst Axel Knauf, “Ishmael in the Hebrew Bible /Old Testament,” in Encyclopedia of the Bible and its Reception (EBR) 13:353. 13 The traditional scholarly perspective has been revised in various ways over the years. The most recent synopsis of the story’s composition, though extremely brief, is offered by Knauf, “Ishmael”.

Hagar and Ishmael in Literature and Tradition as a foreshadow

401

nealogies in Gen 25:12–18. Every name listed in 25:12–18 except Qedmah (which may mean simply “eastern” or “eastward” and refer to a tribe or tribes to the east) is found in extra-biblical sources referring to various clans or tribal communities attested as living in various parts of Arabia. Some may refer to physical locations (Dumah = Arabic D¯umat al-Jandal in northern Arabia). Many are mentioned in Assyrian texts dating from the eighth-seventh century b. c. e.: Nevayot, Qedar, Adb’el, Dumah, Massa’ and Tema’. Other names may reflect Arabian realia, such as Mivs¯am (associated with incense) and H.ad¯ad (h.add¯ad meaning something like iron-smith in Arabic). These may also refer to kinship groups or tribes. Some of Ishmael’s progeny are associated with the progeny of Abraham’s wife Keturah (Gen 25:1–4), also associated linguistically, social-economically (her name carries the sense of incense or the smoke of a sacrifice), and geographically with the Arabian /Syrian desert. 14 It is also possible that the relationship is reversed. That is, it is possible that post-exilic Judean writers /editors created the genealogies in order to connect their founding ancestor Abraham with the various Bedouin clans and tribes already existing east of Judea. Such an ordering would establish a certain relationship as well as origin to the real political, economic and military power of neighboring peoples they encountered. The names of neighboring peoples may have been edited into genealogies in order to promote certain attitudes or policies of relationship between communities, or perhaps simply to place them in the biblical oecumene. In any event, Knauf notes how “Ishmaelite” became a synonym for “Arab” and “North Arabian” (i. e. Midianite, in Gen 37:25, 27–28; 39:1; Jud 8:24; Ps 83:6). 15 Just as the literary persons of Hagar and Ishmael are related, so are the peoples that are associated with them. Every Ishmaelite is 14 Knauf, who has done the greatest research on Ishmael in extra-biblical sources, notes the changing political and onomastic spread of the names associated with Hagar and Ishmael. Knauf conducted much of his path-breaking research in the 1980s, where it can be found in Ismael: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Palästinas und Nordarabiens im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz 2nd. ed., 1989) and a series of supplements to Biblische Notizen (20, 21, 22, 25 and 30) in the 1980s. Much is condensed in his articles on Ishmael and Ishmaelites in ADB3: 512–520 and summarized in EBR 13:352–355. See also Israel Eph’al, The Ancient Arabs: Nomads on the Borders of the Fertile Crescent 9th – 5th Centuries BC (Leiden: Brill, 1982); Fred Winnett, “The Arabian Genealogies in the Book of Genesis,” in Translating and Understanding the Old Testament: Essays in Honor of Herbert Gordon May (ed. H. T. Frank and W. L. Reed; Nashville: Abingdon, 1970), 171–196; D. S. Margoliouth, The Relations between Arabs and Israelites prior to the Rise of Islam, The Schweich Lectures 1921 (London: Humphrey Milford, 1924), 28–56; James Montgomery, Arabia and the Bible (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1934), 1–75. 15 Knauf, in EBR 13:352–355.

402

Reuven Firestone

also a Hagarite (descendant of Hagar), as in 1 Chr 5:19. The HB uses “Ishmaelite” and “Hagarite” eight times each, and “Arab” ten times, not infrequently referring to the same or related people or communities. 16 In ancient extra-biblical sources, Hagar can refer to a geographical location or to a person. Hgr is attested in Palmyrene and Safaitic Arabic sources, and hgrw 17 in Nabatean. It can mean “town” or “city” in Sabaean and Ethiopic. A country or people is called Hagar in an Egyptian hieroglyphic inscription from Susa under Darius I, and in the 3rd century b. c. e., a king of Hagar issued his own coins that may have been used in trade with the Minaeans and Nabateans. The Achamaenid Persians applied the name “Hagar” to virtually all of northern Arabia and its inhabitants, 18 and a place called H.agra is mentioned as late as the 3rd century c. e. in the Aramaic Targum to the Pentateuch known as Onkelos. 19 Hagar is also attested as a personal name. Because of its broad use, it remains impossible to accurately associate with a specific people or political association. The Hebrew Bible clearly associates the characters of Hagar and Ishmael with Arabian peoples and pastoral communities, and it juxtaposes the neighboring Arab pastoralists through language and metaphor with the social-economy of agrarian life represented by Israel. The juxtaposition of agrarian with pastoralist is a familiar motif in Genesis. 20 Whatever other roles Hagar and Ishmael have in the biblical presentation, they certainly represent to the biblical writers an “other” that has deep historic and economic ties and associations with Israel. One question that is typically raised in this regard is the quality of relationship between Israel and the pastoral Arab “other” that the stories seem to convey. Critical scholars agree that the story of Hagar and Ishmael has been edited numerous times, though there is no general agreement as to the intended meta-message embedded in the tension, conflict and separation between Sarah and Hagar and their offspring. It may simply reflect

16 See 1 Chr 27:30–31 where Ovil the Ishmaelite is in charge of David’s camels but Yaziz the Hagarite is in charge of his flocks of goats and sheep. 17 With the w (“u” sound) presumably representing an original case ending. 18 Knauf, Ismael, 52 note 253; ADB 3:18–19. 19 Gen 16:7: “And an angel of God found her at a spring of water in the wilderness, the spring on the way to H.agra (‘al ‘eyna be’orh.a deh.agra).” H.agra replaces Sh¯ur in this Aramaic translation, and is spelled with a h. rather than the usual h in the name, Hagar. 20 Cain and Abel, Jacob and Esau, etc.; see Robert Alter, Genesis: Translation and Commentary (New York: W. W. Norton, 1996), 16; Ithamar Gruenwald, Rituals and Ritual Theory in Ancient Israel (Leiden: Brill, 2003) 40–93.

Hagar and Ishmael in Literature and Tradition as a foreshadow

403

an aim to privilege Israel above neighboring and /or competing groups. 21 Alternatively, it has been argued that the last editors in the Persian period wished to convey a subtler message, namely, that certain desert tribes neighboring Israel, though not part of the same divine covenant, were nevertheless blessed and reflect a level of divine preference over other peoples such as the Babylonians. These would include the Moabites, Ammonites and Edomites during the Persian period, all of whom lived at the borders of Israel and practiced circumcision (Jer 9:25–26), as did those desert peoples who are depicted as deriving from Ishmael (Gen 17:26; 21:20–21). 22 The nuances of distinction certainly changed over time, as different political and social realities influenced the level of perceived need for endogamy within environments that threatened the distinctive nature and identity of biblical Israelites. For the purposes of this analysis, Hagar and Ishmael represent one population, whether they are named Hagarites, Ishmaelites or Arabs. The association between the two characters and Arab peoples has endured in post-HB literatures even into the modern period, and the potency of representation has not diminished. Using a simple typology, I will engage in an exercise of assessing their portrayals in the literature as “positive,” “neutral” or “negative” according to the cultural norms assumed by the literatures in which they appear (I recognize that it can be difficult to determine cultural norms). This simple exercise can reveal much about Hagar and Ishmael’s symbolic value and also something about the intertextual relationship between the cultures across and within which they can be found. The portrayal of Hagar and Ishmael in the HB is generally neutral or inclines toward the positive. Their depiction in the HB layer is negative only inasmuch as it refers to peoples that are not Israel; therefore by definition they cannot have the same status as Israel. But they are not by definition an enemy, idolaters, particularly violent or depraved, etc. We shall observe that post-HB literatures may carry such negative representations, but not the HB. In fact, the level of critique leveled against Hagar and Ishmael is certainly no greater than that leveled against Sarah and Abraham. Sarah’s selfish intention in offering her handmaid Hagar to her husband seems obvious in 16:2, for example, as is her subsequent jealousy and cruelty to her personal servant. Abraham’s complicity in this episode and his repeated attempt to pawn off his wife as his sister to 21 22

James Okoye, “Sarah and Hagar: Genesis 16 and 21,” in JSOT 32.2 (2007): 163–175. Mark Brett, Genesis: Procreation and the Politics of Identity (Routledge, 2000), 49–85.

404

Reuven Firestone

powerful rulers for which he is greatly rewarded (Gen 12:10–20, 20:1–18), are examples of the deep and abiding self-criticism that is inherent in HB writings. The angelic prophecy that Ishmael will become a “wild ass of a man” (vehu yihyeh pere’ adam) appears as a statement of his status as a nomad living beyond the constrictions of settled civilization, as when Jeremiah refers to Israel in 2:24 as “a wild ass accustomed to the desert.” A pere’ is a wild donkey or onager, to which Israel is likened in Hos 8:9. To be “a wild ass going it alone” (pere’ boded – Hosea 8:9) is not a positive position from the biblical perspective, for it places one beyond the bounds of civilization. But being pere’ is a natural state and not a statement of inherent evil. Job uses the term four times to denote the untamed nature of life in the wilderness or desert (6:5, 11:12(?), 24:5, 39:5–10). As Bakhos has recently remarked, “Whether or not the description of Ishmael as a ‘wild ass of a man’ is deemed negative seems more to depend upon one’s own bias than on the context.” 23 Some post-biblical rabbinic interpretations also relate to Gen 16:12 as simply a portrayal of stereotyped nomadic lifestyle. Two of the most influential rabbinic personalities, the 1st century Rabbi Yoh.anan and the 11th century Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaqi (Rashi) argued that pere’ adam simply meant that Ishmael was raised in the wilderness. 24 On the other hand, the contemporary of Yoh.anan, Rabbi Shim‘on ben Lakish, and also Rashi (on the following phrase yado bakol), take a more negative position, since they associate the nomadic lifestyle with violence and aggression. 25 Judged against the behavior of Jacob’s sons who slaughtered an entire people (Gen 34), one should be cautious in drawing simplistic conclusions from the HB depiction of Ishmael. Dozeman, for example, has argued that the Priestly rendering of the story of Hagar and Ishmael “[...] provides the model of how Israel must live in the wilderness [...] Not only have Priestly writers changed the focus from Hagar to Ishmael by inserting the annunciation (Gen 16:11–12); they also play down the role of family conflict in the plot of the story. Their additions consistently emphasize the interrelationship between Ish23

Carol Bakhos, Ishmael on the Border (Albany, N. Y.: State University of New York Press, 2006), 16. 24 Rabbi Yoh.anan: vehu yihyeh gadel bamidbar (Bereshit Rabbah 45:9); Rashi: oh¯ev midbar¯ot las.u¯ d h.ayy¯ot on Gen 12:16 s.v. pere’ adam. 25 Shimon ben Lakish: “whereas all [robbers] plunder wealth, [Ishmael] plunders lives” (Bereshit Rabbah 45:9); Rashi on yado bakol: “[This refers to Ishmaelite] Bandits.” (Gen 12:16 s.v. yado bakol).

Hagar and Ishmael in Literature and Tradition as a foreshadow

405

mael and Israel by pulling Ishmael back into the family of Abraham. Abraham names Ishmael (16:15–16), intercedes for him (17:18), and circumcises him (17:25–26); and, in the end, Ishmael buries Abraham (25:7–11) [...] Ishmael models the proselyte who undergoes circumcision [...] Ishmael models what life in the wilderness must be like for Israel.” 26 Phyllis Trible is even more affirming: “Ishmael, heard by God, is beloved son, expelled son, and dying child. He becomes a mighty huntsman, prince and chieftain, successful father, and faithful son to the father who abandoned him.” 27 Hagar “[...] is the first person in the Bible to flee oppression; the first runaway slave; the first person whom a messenger of God visits; the first woman to receive an annunciation; the only woman to receive a divine promise of descendants; the only person to name God; the first woman in the ancestor stories to bear a child; the first surrogate mother; the first slave to be freed; the first divorced wife; the first single parent; and the first person to weep. Given all these distinctions, Hagar haunts the biblical narrative and its afterlife in ways that the other characters do not.” 28 At least five other persons in the HB are identified by the name Ishmael, which suggests that the character was not considered negative. Ishmael son of Netanyah was a man of royal blood and member of a faction that opposed the appointment of Gedaliah son of Ahikam as governor of Judah after the fall of Jerusalem. He, along with ten others, assassinated Gedaliah (2 Kgs 25:25; Jer 40:7–41, 41:3). Ishmael son of Atzel was a Benjaminite and descendant of Saul (1 Chr 8:38, 9:44). An Ishmael was the father of Zebadiah and “chief of the House of Judah in all cases concerning the king (Yehoshafat)” (nagid lebeyt-Yehudah lekhol devar hamelekh ) (2 Chr 19:11). Ishmael son of Yehohanan was an “officer of hundreds” (sar hame’¯ot) who was active supporting Yo’ash in the revolt against Atalya in 2 Chr 23:1. And Ishmael son of Pashh.ur was among the priests required to divorce their foreign wives in Ezra 10:22. No other person in the HB is identified with the name Hagar, though this fact may have little significance since relatively few women are named in the HB. We conclude our discussion of Hagar and Ishmael in the HB by underscoring their role as representations of Arab peoples and as a vehicle to 26 Thomas Dozeman, “The Wilderness and Salvation History in the Hagar Story,” JBL 117/1 (1998): 42. 27 Phyllis Trible, “Ominous Beginnings for a Promise of Blessing,” in Hagar, Sarah, and Their Children (ed. Phyllis Trible and Letty M. Russel; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press), 2006, 59. 28 Ibid., 61.

406

Reuven Firestone

characterize the relationship between Israel and its Arab neighbors. Many other issues are at stake in the story as well, including the familiar ethical and family matters (which we can only touch upon in this treatment). Together, they provide a level of significance that, along with the aforementioned political objectives, have propelled the Hagar and Ishmael characters to appear both within and outside the frame of the biblical story in extra-biblical literatures for millennia, both in oral and written form. We cannot track its oral journey except as oral renderings were recorded, but we can follow the written renderings, and through them we can theorize about the orality of the story as it traveled from Palestine southward, eventually to enter the central Arabian milieu out of which emerged the religious civilization of Islam.

2. Second Temple and Hellenistic Jewish Literature Second Temple Jewish literature appears in an age of Hellenist and Roman cultural dominance and as such, tends to have an apologetic edge. This may account for the very few references to Hagar and Ishmael in much of the literature, 29 and the generally negative portrayal where they do appear. In most of the literature they appear not at all or only in passing. In the Genesis Apocryphon Hagar is included in the list of goods given to Sarah by the Egyptian king when she was released. 30 The Testament of Joseph depicts the Ishmaelites as traders and slavers who demand a high price for Joseph. 31 1 Enoch refers obliquely to Ishmael’s descendants as “wild asses” birthed by a white bull (Abraham) deriving from an earlier white bull (Shem) who is associated with a red bull (Japheth) and black bull (Ham) begotten by the white bull, Noah. 32 In 1 Baruch, the descendants of Hagar, who are the merchants of Merran and Teman, seek understanding but fail to learn the way to wisdom. 33 The Lives of 29 As noted, Sarah and Abraham’s behavior toward Hagar and Ishmael might not reflect well on the people who valorize the hb. 30 Ed. Matthew Morgenstern and Michael Segal, Column 20, 31–32, in Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture, vol. 1 (ed. Louis Feldman, James Kugel, and Lawrence Schiffman; Lincoln : University of Nebraska Press, 2013), 255. 31 Ed. James Kugel, 11:1–16:6, in Outside the Bible, vol. 2 (ed. Louis Feldman, James Kugel, and Lawrence Schiffman, Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2013), pp 1825–1828. 32 Ed. Miryam Brand, 89:9–16, in Outside the Bible, vol. 2, 1417–1418. The coding is offered by Brand. 33 Ed. Steven Fraade, 3:23, in Outside the Bible, vol. 2, 1556.

Hagar and Ishmael in Literature and Tradition as a foreshadow

407

the Prophets mentions that the prophet Habakkuk fled to the “Land of Ishmael” via Egypt. 34 Jubilees, on the other hand, has a good deal to say about Hagar and Ishmael in its version of the Genesis story. 35 It enhances the virtue of Sarah at the expense of Hagar and plays down the tension between the two women. The entire episode of Gen 16:4–14 is missing (cf. Jubilees 14:21–15:5), so Hagar’s encounter with God in the wilderness and her receiving the divine annunciation of Ishmael’s birth do not appear. Moreover, in the section that parallels Gen 17, God’s blessing of Ishmael is not recorded (cf. Gen 17:20), nor is Ishmael mentioned as having been circumcised along with Abraham (cf. Gen 17:23, 26). In Jubilees 17:4–14 (parallel to Gen 21:9–21), it is an angel rather than God who hears Hagar’s weeping (Jub. 17:11) rather than the cry of Ishmael (Gen 21:17). God’s prophecy of making a great nation of Ishmael is missing as well, as is the notation that “God was with the boy and he grew up” (Gen 21:18–20). In Jubilees, Ishmael becomes a hunter, while the reference to the wilderness and to Paran is missing. These differences diminish Ishmael and Hagar, turning what is basically a neutral biblical perspective into a largely negative one. On the other hand, Jubilees extends Gen 21:21 in that not only does his mother take a wife for him from Egypt, but they produce a son whom he called Nevayot (cf. Gen 25:13). James Kugel suggests that this association with Nevayot deepens his association with Arab peoples, an extension as we have seen of Ishmael’s identification with Arabian peoples established in Genesis. 36 As with Jubilees, Josephus improves Sarah’s image in a number of ways. She brings her handmaid to Abraham “at God’s command” (Ant. 1.10.4) rather than for her own self-interest (cf. Gen 16:12). 37 The handmaid 34 Torrey identifies this with Arabia without further comment. Charles Cutler Torrey (trans.), The Lives of the Prophets (Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, 1946). Cited 13th August 2016. Online: http://www.summascriptura.com/html/lives_of_ the_prophets_torrey.html#55. 35 Comp. the contribution by Jacques T. A. G. M.van Ruiten in this volume, p. 99–128. 36 Outside the Bible, vol. 1, 355 note on 17:14 (no number given). Michael Francis (“Defining the Excluded Middle: The Case of Ishmael in Jubilees,” in JSP 21.3 [2012]: 259–283) sees Jubilees as relating to Ishmael more positively than I do. He notes that Ishmael appears two times in Jubilees that have no parallel with the hb (Jubilees 20:1–13; 22:1–4), and sees them as positive depictions of Ishmael. Those two additions are certainly not negative, but I see them more as positive depictions of Abraham, who is portrayed as not neglecting his paternal responsibility toward his children. They do not valorize Ishmael per se, but rather note simply that he was there in the picture. 37 William Whiston (trans.), Josephus: Complete Works (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel, 1981), 34.

408

Reuven Firestone

“ventured to affront Sarah.” When Sarah acted severely toward her handmaid with Abraham’s approval, Hagar fled and “entreated God to have compassion on her.” A divine angel then instructed her to return to Sarah, for she was the cause of her own troubles due to her own thanklessness and arrogance. “But if she would return back (sic), she should become the mother of a son who should reign over that country.” Throughout the narrative, Hagar’s name is never mentioned in Josephus’s parallel to Gen 16. In the following paragraph in Ant. (5) thirteen years after Ishmael’s birth, God assures Abraham that his son will live a long life and become the father of great nations. Abraham then thanks God and circumcises himself and his family. Ishmael is named specifically: “and then he, and all his family, and his son Ishmael were circumcised immediately, the son being that day thirteen years of age, and he ninety-nine.” Josephus later observes, “as for the Arabians, they circumcise after the thirteenth year, because Ishmael, the founder of their nation, who was born to Abraham of the concubine, was circumcised at that age” (Ant. 1.12.2). Hagar’s name is given once in Josephus’s parallel to Gen 21 (Ant. 1.12.3). Sarah loved Ishmael as her own son, but after Isaac was born she realized that Ishmael could harm his little brother after their father Abraham’s death. “She therefore persuaded Abraham to send him and his mother to some distant country.” Abraham initially objected, but “God was pleased with what Sarah had determined; so he delivered Ishmael to his mother, as not yet able to go by himself; and commanded her to take a bottle of water, and a loaf of bread, and so to depart, and to take Necessity for her guide.” After the water is used up and she lays Ishmael “under a fig-tree” (as in Jubilees), “a divine angel came to her and told her of a fountain hard by ...” She is able to survive with the assistance of some shepherds who come to her and Ishmael’s care (Ant. 1.12.4). 38 Philo identifies Sarah and Hagar with attributes according to his philosophical approach to human perfection. To Philo, the meaning of Hagar’s name is “sojourning,” so she epitomizes the journey that the soul must take to achieve perfection. 39 “[... S]he is a servant, waiting on a more 38 The motif of receiving assistance from local Bedouin becomes extremely important in later Islamic narrations of the sequence. In the Islamic stories, those helpful Arabs are members of the ancient Arabian tribe of Jurhum, who inhabited Mecca many years before the Quraysh tribe that produced Muhammad. Note a possible parallel in Jubilees 20:12–13: “And Ishmael and his sons, and the sons of Keturah and their sons, went together and dwelt from Paran to the entering in of Babylon in all the land which is towards the East facing the desert. And these mingled with each other, and their name was called Arabs, and Ishmaelites.” 39 Philo, QG 3.19. on Gen 26:1.

Hagar and Ishmael in Literature and Tradition as a foreshadow

409

perfect nature. And she is very naturally an Egyptian by race. For she is the study of school disciplines, and being a lover of wide learning, is in a certain sense a servant waiting on virtue, since school studies are serviceable to him who needs help in receiving it, inasmuch as virtue has the soul in its place, while the school studies need bodily organs; and Egypt is symbolically the body (wherefore Scripture) rightly describes the form of the school studies as Egyptian. Moreover, it also named her ‘sojourning’ for the reason that sophistry is a sojourner in comparison with native virtue which alone is at home and which is mistress of immediate education and provides for us through the school studies.” Sarah here represents “native virtue which alone is at home and which is mistress of immediate education” – the lower level of attainment represented by Hagar. When Hagar is taken briefly as Abraham’s “wife” (Gen 16:3), she represents “the training in intermediate studies [which] has the force of a concubine but the form and rank of a wife. For the several school studies resemble and imitate true virtue.” As Molly Zahn explains, “Sarah represents virtue while Hagar is identified with virtue’s handmaid, secular education ... Philo explains that the soul cannot possess virtue unless it has first spent time with the handmaid, education, in grammar, logic, and other ‘preliminary’ fields. In other words, Abraham had to experience Hagar before he was able to produce offspring with Sarah. Once the soul has achieved virtue it has no more need for secular education.” 40 Philo takes a similar position regarding Ishmael. In response to the annunciation of Ishmael’s birth in Gen 16:11, he writes, “The literal meaning admits no questioning, but (the verse) is to be allegorized as follows: wide learning, which is practiced and used through the administration of virtue as through a mistress, is not barren but receives the seeds of wisdom. And when it conceives, it bears. However, it bears not a perfect work but an imperfect one, like a child that is in need of care and nourishment. And is this not right? For it is clear that the offspring of a perfect soul are perfect ... But those of inferior (souls) which are still under service and in bondage are more imperfect. Therefore he was truly named Ishmael, and this is to be interpreted as hearing God. Now hearing is second in rank to seeing ...” 41 Later, in reference to Gen 28:8–9 when Esau takes Ishmael’s daughter Mahalat as a wife, Philo writes, “And her father is Ishmael, who 40 Molly Zahn, “Hagar in Second Temple and Hellenistic Judaism,” in EBR 10:1116–1117. See also Adele Reinhartz and Miriam-Sima Walfish, “Conflict and Coexistence in Jewish Interpretation,” in Hagar, Sarah, and Their Children, 101–125. 41 Philo, QG 3.32.

410

Reuven Firestone

is ‘hearing’ because of his not participating in vision. For the mind of the pleasure-loving man is blind and unable to see those things which are worth seeing, (namely) the world and that which is in the world – the nature of existing things, the sight of which is wonderful to behold and desirable.” 42 Philo juxtaposes Ishmael with Isaac. “Now the first of our nation who was circumcised by law and was named after the virtue of joy was called Isaac in Chaldaean, which in Armenian is laughter. (His was) a nature which rejoiced in all things and was not displeased at all with anything in the world, but was pleased with what happened as happening in a good and useful way.” 43 It is clear that Philo uses the Sarah /Hagar and Isaac /Ishmael relationship as an allegorical binary to build up the status of the former to the detriment of the latter. The nature of Philo’s writing is intellectual rather than narrative, and it would seem to me that as such his writings would be less likely to influence the diachronic development of the Hagar-Ishmael story and would thus have little impact on the evolution of the literary tradition. Nevertheless, as with the other Second Temple sources that treat the figures of Hagar and Ishmael in more than passing, Philo depicts them negatively on our scale. He both represents and possibly increases their negative representation in the history of interpretation.

3. The New Testament Hagar is clearly disparaged in the New Testament. In a remarkable exegetical move, Paul uses the symbolism of Sarah and Hagar /Isaac and Ishmael in Gal 4 to reverse the covenantal association established in Gen 16–17. “The slave-woman’s son was born in the course of nature, the free woman’s through God’s promise. This is an allegory. The two women stand for two covenants. The one bearing children into slavery is the covenant that comes from Mt. Sinai: that is Hagar. Sinai is a mountain 42 Philo, QG 4.245. Like Ishmael, Abraham was a sophist for a period, but unlike Ishmael, he passed through sophistry in his journey to perfection. Cf. Samuel Sandmel, Philo’s Place in Judaism: A Study of Conceptions of Abraham in Jewish Literature (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1956), 184, 195 note 402. 43 Philo, QG 3.38. See also 4.88: “For Isaac is the mind, the self-teacher and the self-taught, the distinct among the indifferent, rejoicing always and daily in his Father and God and in all His works. And he does not become dissatisfied with anything that happens in the world, but knows that all things happen in accordance with nature through divine providence and are for the wellbeing and eternity of all things.” Isaac is a “wise man” (4.138), and like Abraham (and Sarah) he represents virtue (4.144).

Hagar and Ishmael in Literature and Tradition as a foreshadow

411

in Arabia and it represents the Jerusalem of today, for she and her children are in slavery. But the heavenly Jerusalem is the free woman; she is our mother!” (Gal 4:23–26). It has been suggested, based on the reference to Sinai as a mountain in Arabia, that this is an oblique reference to the location of an Arabian town or region called Hagar, 44 but it is most consistent to link the association with Sinai as an association with the law, part of a Pauline binary between the law and freedom (see the remainder of the Galatians citation below). Whereas Sarah represents the covenant of God’s promise, Hagar represents the Sinaitic covenant of slavery. The inheritors of God’s promise are now those who accept Christ, while those who do not (Jews or Jews and heathens) are children born into slavery who must, like Hagar’s son, be cast out. “Now you, my friends, like Isaac, are children of God’s promise, but just as in those days the natural-born son persecuted the spiritual son, so it is today. Yet what does scripture say? ‘Cast out that slave-woman and her son, for the son of that slave shall not share the inheritance with the son of the free woman.’ You see, then, my friends, we are no slave’s children; our mother is the free woman. It is for freedom that Christ set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and refuse to submit again to the yoke of slavery.” (Gal 4:28–5:1) 45 This interpretation of the Sarah / Hagar – Isaac /Ishmael story became foundational in normative Christian interpretation, thereby securing a highly negative evaluation not only in the New Testament, but in most subsequent Christian interpretations.

4. Patristic and Orthodox Christianity Patristic literature largely follows Paul’s harshly negative allegorical exegesis on Sarah /Hagar – Isaac /Ishmael, though Thomas Naumann notes that a minor tradent briefly followed Philo’s less severe though still negative treatment of Hagar and Ishmael. 46 Once Hagar was portrayed so unsympathetically in the authoritative NT writings, the negative portrayal became established in normative Church writings. Hagar came to typify the synagogue and the old covenant, while Sarah would represent 44 “Grotius says, Sinai is called Hagar, or Agar, synecdochically, because in that mountain there was a city which bare (sic) Hagar’s name. It is by Pliny called Agra, and by Dio, Agara, and its inhabitants were named Hagarenes, Psalm 83:6” Benson Commentary, Galatians 4:25–27. Online: http://biblehub.com/commentaries/galatians/4-25.htm. 45 See a similar reversal in Rom 9:6–13. 46 Thomas Naumann, “Ishmael in Christianity,” in EBR 13:365–369.

412

Reuven Firestone

the new covenant and the Church. The binary of Sarah /Hagar was applied by Augustine, for example, to the difference between the Catholic and Donatist communions, and by Clement of Alexandria to the difference between scripture and Greek philosophy. Jerome identifies slaves to sin as Hagar’s progeny, who must eventually leave the household (the Church) like their mother. 47 Augustine acknowledges his indebtedness to Paul in his exegesis about Hagar and Ishmael: “[...] Hagar and Ishmael, as the Apostle teaches, symbolized the carnal people under the old covenant [...]” 48 Augustine extends Paul’s simile of the two covenants, one of slavery and the other of freedom, to the two scriptures and two Jerusalems, one heavenly and one earthly: “Sarah, who was free and symbolized the free city, which in turn the shadow, Hagar, served to prefigure in another way, said: ‘Cast out the slave and her son; for the son of the slave shall not inherit with my son Isaac,’ or, as the Apostle puts it, ‘with the son of the free woman.’ We find then in the earthly city two aspects: in one it manifests its own presence and in the other it serves by its presence to point to the heavenly city. Moreover, citizens of the earthly city are brought forth by a natural being that is corrupted by sin, whereas the citizens of the heavenly city are brought forth by a grace that frees nature from sin. Hence the former are called ‘vessels of wrath,’ the latter ‘vessels of mercy.’ This distinction was symbolized also in the two sons of Abraham; for one, Ishmael, the son of the slave called Hagar, was born according to the flesh, the other, Isaac, the son of the free woman Sarah, was born according to the promise.” 49 Because the Christian understanding of salvation became grounded on the image and persons of Isaac and Sarah, their antitheses in Hagar and Ishmael came to represent groups whose theological claims were opposed and polemically rejected. “So in the Christian tradition the older son of Abraham, who in Genesis is indeed unchosen, but nonetheless included in the promise and blessing of God, becomes the aggressive enemy whom God condemns and from whom one needs protection. Sarah’s demand for expulsion, which Paul cited, is formalized as an axiom of the legal foundation of the church and of Christian self-defense against an enemy whose claim to salvation is contested.” 50

47 Dennis W. Jowers, “Hagar in Christianity: Patristics and Orthodox Churches,” in EBR 10: 1121. 48 Augustine, Civ. 16.34 (trans. George E. McCracken). 49 Augustine, Civ. 15.2. 50 Naumann, EBR 13: 366.

Hagar and Ishmael in Literature and Tradition as a foreshadow

413

5. Rabbinic Judaism Rabbinic literature by its very nature is composite. The two Talmuds and various midrash collections are anthologies that contain a range of opinions on virtually all matters treated within them. It is the nature of rabbinic discourse for various parties to take different positions in the examination of diverse topics. This peculiar nature of rabbinic literature is sometimes referred to in Hebrew as tarbut hamachloket – “the culture of debate” (or, of differing opinions). Its purpose is rarely to render a final judgment or consensus on issues, but rather to serve as a means to explore them. It may not be surprising to learn, therefore, that the assessment of Hagar and Ishmael in pre-Islamic rabbinic literature ranges from neutral to negative, though the portrayals become increasingly negative as time progressed. 51 The literature of rabbinic Judaism emerged in a world in which the Jerusalem Temple had been destroyed, Jews had lost their hegemony over the Land of Israel (eres. yisra’¯el in traditional Jewish parlance), and their community had been decimated by the catastrophic wars with Rome and dispersed throughout most of the known world. It was a world in which Christianity first became a threat and then subsequently dominated the prestige and standing of Jewish monotheism and the Jewish community that was associated with it. Jews in the rabbinic period thus inclined to look inward and self-define over and against various “others,” largely as a reaction to their increasingly degraded position among the Gentiles. In such an environment, they tended to emphasize the HB materials that stressed the election of Israel. One of many ways they did that was to emphasize the election of Isaac over Ishmael. The most well-known negative material comes from a Rabbinic interpretation of Gen 21:9: Now Sarah saw the son that Hagar the Egyptian had borne to Abraham, playing. 52 The rabbis could not imagine Sarah banishing Hagar and Ishmael without valid reason, so they interrogated the Hebrew word for “playing” (mˇes.ah.e¯q), 53 which occurs in a variety of

51

The negativity became consistent after the beginning of Islam, when Ishmael’s association with the “Arabized Arabs” from which Muhammad derived shifts his persona toward a Muslim identity, though even then the portrayals are not all negative. See Carol Bakhos, “Ishmael in Rabbinic Judaism,” in EBR 13:359–364. 52 mˇes.ah.e¯q, usually translated as “mocking” or “playing.” 53 From the root s..h..q. with a variant of s.h..q. (equivalent not only in the verbal form but also in the name yis.h.a¯ q /yish.a¯ q; see Jer 33:26 for the name variant).

414

Reuven Firestone

contexts with a significant range of meaning in the HB. 54 The classical rendering of their assessment derives from Genesis Rabba 53:11: Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said: Rabbi Aqiba would interpret this [verse] to [Ishmael’s] discredit, but I interpret it as praise. Rabbi Aqiba interpreted [as follows], Sarah saw [the son that Hagar had borne to Abraham mˇes.ah.e¯q]. Mˇes.ah.e¯q is sexual immorality, as it is said [in Scripture], The Hebrew slave whom you brought into our house came to me to dally [lˇes.ah.e¯q] with me (Gen 39:17). 55 This teaches that Sarah saw Ishmael climbing over garden [walls] to hunt down married women to rape them. 56 Rabbi Ishmael taught that the word “play” (s.eh.o¯ q) means idolatry, as it is said, the people sat down to eat and drink, and then rose up to dance (lˇes.ah.e¯q) [before the golden calf] (Exod 32:6). This teaches that our matriarch Sarah saw Ishmael build altars, hunt locusts and offer them up as a sacrifice. Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Yosi the Galileean said: The word s.eh.o¯ q refers to bloodshed, as it says, Let the young men come forward and sport (y¯ısah.aˇ q¯u) [through single combat] before us (2 Sam 2:14). Rabbi Azaria said in the name of Rabbi Levy, who said: Ishmael said to Isaac, “Let’s go and see [how the crops are growing in] our section of the field.” Ishmael would take a bow and arrows and shoot them in the direction of Isaac but pretend as if he were playing (kˇe’¯ıl¯u mˇesah.e¯q). Thus it is written, like a madman, firebrands, arrows and death. Such is the man who cheats his fellow and says, ‘I was only joking’ (halo’ mˇesah.e¯q an¯ı) (Prov 26:18–19). But I 57 interpret this as praise. 58 The word s.ˇeh.o¯ q refers to inheritance. For when our father Isaac was born everyone rejoiced. Ishmael said to them, “You are fools. I am the first-born and I will take the double-portion [due to the first born].” [This interpretation derives] from the reply of our matriarch Sarah to Abraham, for the son of that slave shall not share in the inheritance with my son, Isaac (Gen 21:10). You see, with my son, for he will not inherit with my son even if he is not Isaac, or with Isaac even if he were not my son. How much the more so, with my son, Isaac. 59 54 LXX has “playing with her son Isaac,” which makes the possible danger to Isaac more apparent though still ambiguous. Speiser (Genesis [Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1964], 155 note 9) wrote, “There is nothing in the text to suggest that he was abusing him, a motive deduced by many troubled readers in their effort to account for Sarah’s anger.”. Jubilees has: And Sarah saw Ishmael playing and dancing, and Abraham rejoicing with great joy, and she became jealous of Ishmael and said to Abraham, “Cast out this bondwoman and her son, for the son of this bondwoman will not be heir with my son, Isaac.” (The Book of Jubilees or The Little Genesis, Translated from the Ethiopic Text by R. H. Charles [London: Macmillan, 1917], 105). 55 Also translated as “to make sport of me” (NASB), “to insult me” (RSV, NRSV), “to mock me” (KJV). 56 Ume‘aneh otan. 57 That is, Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. 58 A parallel version of this tradition in the Tosefta, Sotah 6:6 adds, “But I say heaven forbid that it could be possible in the house of such a righteous man as one to whom it was said (Gen 18:19), for I have singled him out that he may instruct his children... that there be in his house idolatry, sexual immorality or bloodshed.” 59 The Hebrew here is literally, “with my son, with Isaac.” The emphatic phrasing is taken by Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai as Sarah’s strong response to the likelihood that Ishmael should

Hagar and Ishmael in Literature and Tradition as a foreshadow

415

While most of the interpretations provided in this paragraph are decidedly negative, a minority opinion offered by the named narrator gives an essentially neutral interpretation that seems justifiable by the contextual meaning of the verse rather than the fanciful, even if linguistically astute, midrashic approach. The rabbis are searching for a justification for the expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael, which they find ethically problematic and thus attempt to rationalize. The following is a Rabbinic interpretation of Gen 21:17: “God heard the cry of the boy, and an angel of God called to Hagar from heaven and said to her, ‘What troubles you, Hagar? Fear not, for God has heeded the cry of the boy where he is.’” Where he is. Rabbi Simon said: The ministering angels jumped up to accuse him. They said before Him, “Sovereign of [all] Worlds, you are raising up a well for a person who in the future will kill your children with thirst?” 60 [God] said to them, “What is he now, righteous or evil?” They said to him, “righteous.” He said to them, “I judge humans as they are at the moment.” Come, lift up the boy ... Then God opened her eyes (Gen 21:18–19). Rabbi Binyamin said: All should be presumed to be blind until the Holy One blessed be He enlightens their eyes, from here [i. e., based on the verse], Then God opened her eyes ... and she filled the skin with water. This proves that [Hagar] was lacking in faith. 61

Rabbi Simon argues that Ishmael is innocent when he was sent out to the desert, a clearly neutral position. But his comment is followed immediately by that of Rabbi Binyamin, whose comment about God enlightening the eyes was placed afterward in order to reduce the neutrality of Rabbi Simon’s comment. Filling up the waterskin with water brought forth by God in a miracle is an act that demonstrates lack of faith, according to Rabbi Binyamin. He argues that had she been truly faithful, Hagar would have simply relied on the continuation of God’s merciful beneficence. 62 Not surprisingly, given Ishmael’s repute in the HB and early rabbinic literature, a number of rabbis named Ishmael are attested. The most famous is Rabbi Ishmael son of Elisha, usually referred to simply as “Rabbi Ishmael,” who was a famous scholar and younger contemporary inherit from Abraham, for Deut 21:15–17 requires that the oldest son of all a man’s wives inherits twice the amount of the other sons, even if he is not loved by the father. 60 This is assumed to be a reference to Isa 21:13–15 where two sons of Ishmael, Dedan in Gen 25:3 (though he is actually listed as a son of Qeturah) and Teyma in Gen 25:15 are depicted as refusing Israel’s appeal for water after fleeing destruction from war. 61 Gen Rabbah 53:14 62 This motif appears also in Islamic stories about Hagar in the same section of the narrative in its Meccan setting (Firestone, Journeys, 64, 205 note 20). I would now argue that damming up the well in the Islamic renderings was also viewed as a sign of her lack of faith.

416

Reuven Firestone

of R. Aqiba (1st –2nd centuries). He is credited with developing a set of thirteen hermeneutical rules by which Jewish law could be derived, and a school of legal tradition formed around him. A collection of midrash called mekhilta derabbi yishma‘el on the book of Exodus was credited to him, though like all midrashim it is a collective work. Another Ishmael, son of Elisha the High Priest, may in fact be the same person as the aforementioned Ishmael son of Elisha. The latter was known as a beautiful young man who was martyred, according to tradition, along with the head of the rabbinic academy Shimon ben Gamliel and eight other rabbis by order of Emperor Hadrian. Other Ishmaels in the rabbinic period include Ishmael bar Yose (son of the famous Yose ben H.alafta), Ishmael son of Rabbi Yoh.anan ben Baroka, Ishmael father of Rabbi Yudan, and Ishmael father of Rabbi Yanai. All lived in the “Land of Israel” (eres. yisra’¯el) as opposed to “Bavel” (Iraq), and nearly all lived in the first two centuries c. e. 63 Ishmael died out after the early rabbinic period as a given name in Jewish sources. Hagar did not become a popular name among Jews as far as I can tell, though as mentioned previously, the names of Jewish women were not often given in traditional Jewish sources. It is used in modern Israel, however, among non-Orthodox Jews, and H¯ajar, its Arabic equivalent, is a given-name in the Muslim world along with the name of her son, Ism¯a‘¯ıl.

7. The Transition to Islam I have argued above that the standing of Hagar and Ishmael is neutral in the Hebrew Bible. Their repute declined in all post-HB Jewish and Christian literatures, and particularly among Christians who dominated the political and intellectual world toward the end of late antiquity and during the rise of Islam. As the antithesis of Isaac whose line would produce Christ and Christian salvation, Ishmael was stigmatized as the evil brother, while his mother symbolized the slavery of unbelief. It may seem extraordinarily curious, then, that Hagar and Ishmael became crucial figures in the foundation story of Islam, which from the start found itself in competition with Christianity and Judaism. For foundational figures in a newly emerging religion to be known as impious, violent and sinful according to established religions would seem to be 63

Mordechai Margaliot, ed., Encyclopedia of Talmudic Sages and Ge’onim, 2 vols. (Tel Aviv: Yavnah, 1998) in Hebrew.

Hagar and Ishmael in Literature and Tradition as a foreshadow

417

self-defeating, not the least because new religions need to gain adherents from members of established religions in order to become successful. 64 Equally curious is the fact that the Qur’an, the most authoritative source for Islamic practice and tradition, knows nothing of Hagar and little of Ishmael. With little positive about Hagar and Ishmael in prior literature, how can we account for their importance in Islam? It would seem that some intertextual link is missing. I have argued elsewhere that Islamic narratives about figures known in the HB are constructed from indigenous Arabian literary culture that was made up of a pool of source material, some deriving from the HB and its attendant interpretive traditions via the oral telling and retelling of stories. 65 Like all stories, those deriving from the Bible changed and developed as they were told and retold in various contexts. Nearly a century ago, Milman Parry and Albert Lord showed how epic tales are told differently in every context. 66 Various factors influence the telling of a story, ranging from the physical context of the story-telling act to the particular make-up of the audience, the occasion of the event, etc. Story-telling is informative as well as entertaining. It conveys messages and imparts ideas and values. Story-tellers are aware of some of their purpose, but they are influenced by a myriad of factors to which they are not sensitive. And one never knows how an audience understands a story that is told. While the story-teller may intend a particular message, an audience (or part of an audience) may hear a different message and retell it accordingly as it is passed onward. What eventually became the HB were messages conveyed in oral form for centuries. Each time a story is told orally it is told differently. The tales were eventually recorded in writing over a period of time, but they continued to be revised over additional centuries until they were fixed through the establishment of a canon. The entire process spans a period 64

Rodney Stark, “Why Religious Movements Succeed or Fail: A Revised General Model,” in Journal of Contemporary Religion 11 (1996): 133–146. On the polemical aspect of the Hagar-Ishmael story, see R. Firestone, “Patriarchy, Primogeniture and Polemic in the Exegetical Traditions of Judaism and Islam,” in Jewish Biblical Interpretation and Cultural Exchange: Comparative Exegesis in Context (ed. David Stern and Natalie Dohrmann; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008), 108–123. 65 Firestone, Journeys in Holy Lands. The interpretive traditions may derive from any religious community that is familiar with the HB: Jews, Christians, and many so-called “pagans” who were familiar with “biblical” stories even while not members of monotheist communities. 66 Parry began his work in the 1920s. See especially, Albert Bates Lord, The Singer of Tales (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1960).

418

Reuven Firestone

of at least a full millennium, and even after canonization, most people learned biblical stories via oral communication because few could read until well into the modern period. A particular occasion (or version) of a tale told can “drop off” at any time and become a separate tradent, in the same way that a community of speakers of a language can “drop off” from the larger linguistic community and form a dialect. Stories can also be dialectical. As they are told and retold in environments that are separated from the “standard” tale (or bundle of tellings), they pick up and may retain aspects that would be more likely to fall out if the tale were reintegrated into the mainstream community. These “dialects” may result in tradents that, if separated long enough from the standard, become independent. Some may eventually become unrecognizable to the community remaining within the orbit of the standard tale that is told and retold within the margins of the usual telling. Israelites certainly told their tales to their neighbors when they interacted with them through trade, travel and war; they also heard the tales of their neighbors. That is how stories become dispersed and journey across tribal, cultural and linguistic boundaries, all of which are porous and penetrable. The Hagar-Ishmael story was one of many pericopae from the HB that traveled. Whether the relationship between the genealogies of Gen 25 recorded actual kinship ties with real peoples or were constructed in order to establish connections and define affiliations, Hagarites and Ishmaelites (and Qedarites, Dedanites, etc.) certainly heard stories from Israelites in which they themselves had a role. These and other Arabs also had their own stories, to which aspects of Israelite tales could be attached or vice versa. It would not be surprising if the tales of Hagar and her son Ishmael resonated among those of their “desert progeny” (according to the HB genealogies) whose descendants founded the religious tradition of Islam and its great and flourishing civilization. In the retellings of the Ur-legends as they traveled to central Arabia and eventually became canonized in post-qur’anic Islamic tradition, it is Hagar and her son who take on the traits of the winning nation. Regarding the issue of representational evaluation – whether a tale or pericope is negative, neutral or positive – one would expect that storytellers would tend to convey positive representations about their own communities. As Arab peoples absorbed, revised, and created their own renderings of the Hagar-Ishmael stories, they would have engaged in the natural processes that produce literary development. In the course of time, the negative material about Hagar and Ishmael dropped out, was

Hagar and Ishmael in Literature and Tradition as a foreshadow

419

removed or was reversed. So as the Hagar-Ishmael stories traveled among Arabs away from an Israelite setting and deep into an Arab setting such as in the region out of which Islam emerged, by the time they reached Mecca they would have adapted to changes in their environments and eventually produced a new story. It might be recognizable to those within the community of the Israelite standard version(s), but it becomes, in essence, a new tale. Muslim sources refer to “Israelite tales” (isr¯a’¯ıliyy¯at). 67 These are stories relating to biblical characters that found their way into Islamic literary sources, first in oral form, and presumed to have been brought into Islam by Jews. Many were eventually rejected, but many others were absorbed into Islamic literature and are found in Qur’an commentaries, universal histories and collections called “stories of the prophets” (qis.as. al-anbiy¯a’) that function to a certain extent like the Jewish literature called Midrash. Many of these stories are reminiscent of or even parallel to biblical and midrashic material, but they include a great deal of information that is different from biblical and midrashic sources. They attest to the process by which legendary information is transmitted across boundaries and expanses, and they demonstrate how “biblical” information transformed as it merged with Arabian realia to produce a unique Arabian tradition. I have yet to comment on the curious fact that the foundational figures of Hagar and Ishmael are hardly known in the Qur’an, yet they appear in some detail in early extra-qur’anic literature. The problem might be explained by the existence of different dialectical trajectories. That is, the Qur’an may derive from a particular, geographically limited Arab literary tradition that was unfamiliar with these particular stories. Later, after the Arabian Peninsula was unified, other literary traditions were absorbed, but the Qur’an was canonized quite quickly and was thus unable to adapt to the new information. It was then the job of the story-tellers (qus.s.a¯ s.) and, later, Qur’an commentators (mufassir¯un) to relate the stories to the more authoritative even if limited renderings of the Qur’an. 67 Gordon Newby, “The Develoment of Qur’an Commentary in Early Islam in its Relationship to Judaeo-Christian Traditions of Scriptural Commentary,” JAAR Thematic Issue S (December 1980): 685–697; Khalil ‘Athamina, “Al-Qasas: Its Emergence, religious Origin and its Socio-political Impact on Early Muslim Society,” Studia Islamica 76 (1992): 53–74; Jane Dammen McAuliffe, “Assessing the Isr¯a’¯ıliyy¯at: An exegetical conundrum,” in Storytelling in the framework of a non-fictional Arabic literature (ed. Stefan Leder; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1998): 345–369; Roberto Tottoli, “Origin and Use of the Term Isr¯a’¯ıliyy¯at in Muslim Literature,” Arabica 46.2 (1999): 193–210.

420

Reuven Firestone

Rather than representing unbelief or evil, Hagar and Ishmael came to represent stalwart resoluteness, piety and submission. No longer “other,” they represented the origin of a new community (along with Abraham). Phyllis Trible notes how the Genesis Sarah /Hagar tale casts Hagar as the reverse of Israel’s future glory. “Hagar foreshadows Israel’s pilgrimage of faith through contrast. As a maid in bondage, she flees from suffering. Yet she experiences exodus without liberation, revelation without salvation, wilderness without covenant, wanderings without land, promise without fulfillment, and unmerited exile without return.” 68 Islamic tradition turns the role described by Trible on its head. Hagar succeeds in experiencing liberation for her exodus in the sacred place of Mecca, salvation for her revelation in the fact that her son Ishmael reaches adulthood and becomes the progenitor of the Arab people who would produce the pious founders of Islam (al-s.alaf al-s.a¯ lih.). She provides the womb for the birth of a new covenant in the wilderness and experiences an end to wanderings in the sacred precinct (al-h.aram) of Mecca. Her promise finds fulfillment not in exile but as a hijra, 69 an “emigration” from a place of despair to one of success that will foreshadow the Hijra of Prophet Muhammad.

68 Phyllis Trible, Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives (Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress, 1985), 28. 69 Ironically, the root of this important Islamic concept is identical to the name H¯ajar. Most scholars do not believe that Hagar /Hajar is related to the Semitic root h.g /j.r from which come “stranger,” “immigrant” and “emigration.”

The Conflict between Jacob and Esau in Medieval Jewish Exegesis Reinterpreting Narratives Mariano Gomez Aranda 1. Introduction The biblical episodes relating the conflicts between Jacob and Esau (Gen 25:19–34; 26:34–27:40; 32:4–24; 33; 36) have been interpreted in different ways in the history of Jewish and Christian exegesis. As is well known, Jacob and Esau have been taken as archetypal symbols of the conflict between Israel and the Biblical Edom. When Edom was identified with the Roman Empire, the figures of Jacob and Esau were taken as representatives of the conflict between Judaism and Rome. 1 In the Middle Ages, the names of Edom, Esau and Seʿir were used in Jewish writings as symbols and allusions to medieval Christendom. As G. D. Cohen has pointed out, to the Jew of the Middle Ages, Rome was still alive and Christendom was considered the continuation of the power of the Roman empire; therefore, it was not difficult for the Jewish homilists and poets to extend the name of Edom to Christendom. Esau and his descendants were thus identified with the Christians. 2 In Christian circles, however, this interpretation was totally denied. The Christian exegetes from ancient times identified Esau /Edom with

The research for this chapter has been financed by the Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad of the Spanish government (Research Project FFI2016-75230-P). 1 On this topic, see Elie Assis, Identity in Conflict: The Struggle between Esau and Jacob, Edom and Israel (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2016), 175–187; see also Bradford A. Anderson, Brotherhood and Inheritance: A Canonical Reading of the Esau and Edom Traditions (London: T&T Clark, 2011). 2 Gerson D. Cohen, “Esau as Symbol in Early Medieval Thought,” Jewish Medieval and Renaissance Studies (ed. A. Altmann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press), 19–48, see 28.

422

Mariano Gomez Aranda

Judaism and Jacob with Christianity; the Jews were thus considered the incarnation of Esau. However, not all the ancient and medieval Jewish exegetes interpreted Edom or Esau as refering to Rome; there were exegetes who interpreted the Bible as refering to the Romans by the name of Kittim, whom the Bible classifies as the offspring of Japhet (Gen 10:4), whereas Edom is clearly Semitic. The identification of Esau and Jacob with the nations and /or religions descending from them is not the only approach in the history of Jewish exegesis. It is the purpose of this paper to analyze how the episodes that relate the conflicts between Jacob and Esau have been interpreted in the history of Jewish exegesis from rabbinic to medieval times, and to show how the rabbinic interpretations of these episodes were received by later exegetes. As we shall see, in some cases, the rabbinic interpretations were accepted in a process of reinterpretation, but in other cases, they were completely rejected.

2. Rabbinic Literature 2.1 Righteousness vs. Wickedness In rabbinic literature, Jacob and Esau are taken as incarnations of righteousness and wickedness: everything that Jacob did is good and everything that Esau did is evil. Such characteristics were already marked from the time they were in their mother’s womb. Genesis Rabbah explains that, in the expression there were twins (‫ )תומים‬in her womb (Gen 25:24), the word ‫ תומים‬is written defective, instead of ‫תאומים‬, because one was righteous and the other one was wicked. In contrast, in the case of Perez and Zerah, born from Judah and Tamar, they were called ‫( תאומים‬Gen 38:27) for they were both righteous (Gen.Rab. 63:8). Special emphasis is given in rabbinic literature to Esau’s wickedness. 3 That Esau emerged red (Gen 25:24) is interpreted in Genesis Rabbah as an evil characteristic: he was “a shedder of blood” (Gen.Rab. 63:8). That he was a skillful hunter and a man of the field (Gen 25:27) is also interpreted in a negative way: Esau ensnared people, and he was a trapper and a 3 On the role of Esau in rabbinic texts, see Gerhard Langer, “‘Brother Esau?’ Esau in Rabbinic Midrash,” in Encounters of the Children of Abraham from Ancient to Modern Times (ed. Antti Laato and Pekka Lindqvist; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 75–94.

The Conflict between Jacob and Esau in Medieval Jewish Exegesis

423

deceiver both at home and in the field (Gen.Rab. 63:10). Esau’s natural skills for hunting were also considered proof of his wickeness in Midrash Tanhuma: as is common in hunting, Esau made traps to hunt, and he then became a deceiver. 4 Targum Jonathan translates Gen 25:24 as “Esau was a man of idleness to catch birds and beasts, a man going forth into the field to kill lives.” In order to expand the biblical narratives on Esau, rabbinic literature attributes several transgressions to him. Genesis Rabbah explains that Esau came in from the field (Gen 25:29) from violating a betrothed maiden, as is written, “if the man meets the engaged woman in the open country, and the man seizes her and lies with her” (Deut 32:25). He was faint (Gen 25:29) because he committed murder, as is written, “for my soul is faint before the murderers” (Jer 4:31). Genesis Rabbah also connects the meaning of ‫‘ שדה‬field’ with ‫‘ שדד‬to rob’ to identify Esau with a thief or a robber (Gen.Rab. 63:12). Midrash Tanhuma also attributes three transgressions to Esau: he robbed, he violated a betrothed maiden, and he committed murder. 5 Targum Jonathan, however, attributes five transgressions to Esau and translates Gen 25:29 as follows: And Esau came from the wilderness, exhausted; for in that day he had committed five transgressions: he had worshipped with strange worship, he had shed innocent blood, he had gone in unto a betrothed damsel, he had denied the life of the world to come, and had despised the birthright.

Similar transgressions attributed to Esau are found in the Talmud: That wicked [Esau] committed five sins on that day. He dishonoured a betrothed maiden, he committed a murder, he denied God, he denied the resurrection of the dead, and he spurned the birthright. (Baba Bathra 16b)

Another negative characteristic of Esau is found in the episode when he asked his brother to give him some of the red stuff he had. The Hebrew word ‫( הלעיטני‬Gen 25:30) is interpreted as let me swallow, instead of let me eat as is normally translated. Esau’s words to his brother Jacob “let me swallow that red stuff” (Gen 25:30) are interpreted in Genesis Rabbah as follows: That wicked man opened his mouth wide like a camel’s and declared: “I open my mouth, and you pour a lot into it,” as when we learned: “One may not fatten up a 4 Víctor M. Armenteros, ed., Midrás Tanhuma Buber a Génesis: Traducción, notas y análisis estructural-hermenéutico (Granada: Universidad de Granada 2006), 329 (henceforth, Midrash Tanhuma). 5 Midrash Tanhuma, 330.

424

Mariano Gomez Aranda

camel on the Sabbath but one may put food (‫ )מלעיטין‬into its mouth” (Shabb. 155b). (Gen.Rab. 63:12)

Genesis Rabbah cites the Talmud to prove that the word ‫ הלעיטני‬in the Talmud is used for feeding animals. Esau is here presented with a gross attitude, demanding to be fed like a beast. A similar interpretation is found in Midrash Tanhuma. 6 According to the midrashim, Esau’s natural wickedness is the reason that he despised his birthright and that Jacob wanted it so eagerly (Gen 25:31–34). Genesis Rabbah explains it as follows: Why did Jacob display such eagerness for the birthright? Because we learned: “Before the Tabernacle was erected the high places were permitted, and the sacrificial service was performed by firstborn; after it was erected the high places were forbidden and the sacrificial service was performed by priests.” (Zeb 14:4) [Jacob] said: ‘Shall this wicked man stand and offer the sacrifices!’ Therefore he strove so ardently to obtain the birthright. (Gen.Rab. 63:13)

According to this midrashic interpretation, Jacob considered Esau unworthy to offer the sacrificial service because of his wickedness. Such privilege was granted to first-born males before the Tabernacle was erected, as stated in the Mishnah. Midrash Tanhuma explains that Esau despised his birthright, because he did not want to offer sacrifices to the Lord, because he hated blood. 7 According to the Targum Jonathan, the reason that he despised the birthright is that he denied the afterlife and found no use in having the birthright privilege after his death. Even Isaac’s blindness (Gen 27:1) was interpreted in the midrashim as a consequence of Esau’s wickedness: Isaac’s eyes were dim “from seeing the evil of that wicked man [Esau]” (Gen.Rab. 65:10). Midrash Tanhuma attributes the cause of Isaac’s blindness to the fact that he accepted a bribe from Esau, and to prove that such a punishment is stated in the Torah, the midrash cites “a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise” (Deut 16:19). Targum Jonathan, however, does not connect Isaac’s blindness with Esau’s wickedness; instead, the reason was that “when his father was binding him, he had seen the Throne of Glory, and from that time his eyes had begun to darken.” In order to stress Jacob’s righteousness, several interpretations are found in rabbinic literature trying to excuse Jacob’s lying to his father when he appeared before him and was asked, Who are you, my son? 6 7

Midrash Tanhuma, 331. Midrash Tanhuma, 332.

The Conflict between Jacob and Esau in Medieval Jewish Exegesis

425

(Gen 27:18) Jacob’s response, “I am Esau your first-born” (Gen 27:19) is rewritten in Genesis Rabbah as “I am to receive the Ten Commandments, but Esau is your first-born” (Gen.Rab. 65:18). The reason behind this interpretation is that Jacob uses the form ‫ אנוכי‬as the first-person pronoun, and the Ten Commandments begins with the form ‫אנוכי‬. According to Midrash Tanhuma, Jacob did not lie, for what he really answered was, “I am Jacob, and Esau is your first-born.” 8 The contrast between Jacob’s good character and Esau’s wicked character is also stressed in Midrash Tanhuma’s interpretation of their corresponding blessings. The presence of the word God in Isaac’s blessing to Jacob contained in the words May God give you of the dew of heaven (Gen 27:28) is interpreted in Midrash Tanhuma as an allegory of God’s justice that is granted to Jacob: Jacob, however, would receive it only if he is worthy of it. This blessing was not granted to Esau. Midrash Tanhuma interprets Esau’s blessing to receive the fat places of the earth (Gen 27:39) as a consequence of his lack of faith, whereas Jacob received God’s justice as he was faithful and righteous. 9

2.2 Idolatry vs. Rabbinic Education Several interpretations in rabbinic literature connect Esau with idolatrous practices, whereas Jacob, in contrast, is presented as the model of a Torah student in a rabbinic academy. Such capacities are considered as natural tendencies of their character already present at the time when they were in their mother’s womb. The expression the children ran in her [Rebekah’s] womb (Gen 25:22) is interpreted in Genesis Rabbah as follows: When Rebekah stood near synagogues or schools, Jacob struggled to come out. [...] While when she passed idolatrous temples, Esau eagerly struggled to come out. (Gen.Rab. 63:6)

A similar contrast between Jacob and Esau is expressed in Genesis Rabbah in the following terms: They were like a myrtle (Jacob) and a wild rose-bush (Esau) growing side by side; when they attained to maturity, one yielded its fragrance (Jacob) and the other its thorns (Esau). So for thirteen years both went to school and came home from school. After this age, one went to the house of study (Jacob) and the other to idolatrous shrines (Esau). (Gen.Rab. 63:10) 8 9

Midrash Tanhuma, 340. Midrash Tanhuma, 345–346.

426

Mariano Gomez Aranda

A similar interpretation is found in Midrash Tanhuma. 10 In contrast to Esau’s negative occupation as a hunter, the expression that Jacob was a quiet man, living in tents (Gen 25:27) is explained in Gen.Rab. 63:10 as a reference to Jacob living in the academies of Shem and Eber, a name for the rabbinic academies. Targum Jonathan translates this expression as “Jacob was peaceful in his words, a minister of the instruction-house of Eber, seeking instruction before the Lord.” From Isaac’s blessing to Jacob contained in the words May God give you of the dew of heaven (Gen 27:28), Genesis Rabbah concludes that Jacob deserved this blessing, because he occupied himself with the study of the Torah, which is compared to water (Gen.Rab. 66:1). In the episode of Jacob’s preparation for his encounter with his brother Esau (Gen 32), Jacob expressed his fears that his brother would come to quarrel against him. Genesis Rabbah explains that Jacob asked the Lord, “If this wicked man comes and destroys all at once, what will happen to the Torah?” (Gen.Rab. 75:13). Esau’s enmity towards Jacob is therefore interpreted as a danger to the study of the Torah, which was Jacob’s occupation. According to Targum Jonathan, Esau marrying two Hittite women (Gen 26:34–35) is interpreted as a proof of his idolatrous practices, because he and his wives “bowed in strange worship, and set themselves to rebel in their evil conduct against Isaac and against Rebekah.”

2.3 Israel vs. Rome or Other Nations In rabbinic literature, the rivalries between Jacob and Esau are also taken as referring to prophetic events in the future history of Israel in its conflict with other nations. Several texts identify Jacob with Israel and Esau with the Roman Empire. In Genesis Rabbah the word ‫‘ גיים‬nations’ in the expression two nations (‫ )גיים‬are in your womb (Gen 25:23) is interpreted as ‫‘( גאים‬proud’ or ‘exalted’) and taken as a reference to both the leaders and the nations represented by Jacob and Esau, namely, Israel and Rome. There are two proud nations in your womb, each taking pride in his world, and each in his kingdom. There are two rulers of nations in your womb, Hadrian of the gentiles and Solomon of Israel. (Gen.Rab. 63:7)

10

Midrash Tanhuma, 328–329.

The Conflict between Jacob and Esau in Medieval Jewish Exegesis

427

In the Talmud, the leaders of the two nations are identified with the Roman emperor Antoninus and Rabbi Judah the Prince. 11 The supremacy of one nation over the other contained in the expression one people shall be stronger than the other (Gen 25:23) is applied in the Talmud to the domination of the people of Israel by the Roman empire. Caesarea [meaning Rome] and Jerusalem [are rivals]. If one says to you that both are destroyed, do not believe him; if he says that both are flourishing, do not believe him; if he says that Caesarea is waste and Jerusalem is flourishing, or that Jerusalem is waste and Caesarea is flourishing, you may believe him, as it says, “I shall be filled, she is laid waste” (Ezek 26:2); if this one is filled, that one is laid waste, and if that one is filled, this one is laid waste. (Megilah 6a)

That Esau’s body was like a hairy mantle (Gen 25:24) is taken in Genesis Rabbah as a reference to the Romans, Esau’s descendants, every one of whom is “eligible for a mantle [toga]” (Gen.Rab. 63:8), the typical garment used by the Romans. Isaac’s promise to Esau that he would have the fat places of the earth as his dwelling place (Gen 27:39) is also taken in Genesis Rabbah as a reference to Italy, a clear identification of Esau with the Roman empire (Gen.Rab. 67:6). The fact that Esau hated Jacob, after he supplanted him to obtain his blessing, is also taken in Genesis Rabbah as an allusion to the hatred of the Roman empire for the people of Israel: He [Esau] was filled with hatred, hostility, and vindictiveness toward him [Jacob], so that to this very day one speaks of the senatores [enemies] of Rome. (Gen.Rab. 67:8)

Some details of the episode in which Jacob prepared his meeting with Esau (Gen 32) are explained in Genesis Rabbah as allusions to the conflict between Judaism and Rome. The verse if Esau comes to the one camp and destroys it, then the camp that is left will escape (Gen 32:8) is applied to the survival of the people of Israel in the exile, after Judea was destroyed by the Romans: If Esau comes to the one camp and destroys it, this alludes to our brethren in the south; then the camp that is left will escape alludes to our brethren in exile. (Gen.Rab. 76:3)

Jacob’s instructions to his servants to put a space between drove and drove (Gen 32:17) is explained in Genesis Rabbah as follows: Jacob prayed to God: “Sovereign of the Universe! If troubles are to befall my children, let them not come one on top of the other, but let them have a breathing-space between their troubles.” In that moment he looked up and saw Esau, whereat he lifted up his eyes heavenward, wept and entreated God’s compassion; He heard his 11

Berakhot 57b; Avodah Zara 11a.

428

Mariano Gomez Aranda

prayers and assured him that He would save them [his descendants] from all their troubles for his sake. (Gen.Rab. 75:13)

According to this midrash, the biblical text is interpreted allegorically as a supplication to God to place a certain time distance between the several troubles that befall the people of Israel. Although not explicit, from the time when Genesis Rabbah was written (5th century ce), it is possible to conclude that this interpretation is an allusion to the troubles of Israel under the domination of the Romans. Isaac’s blessing to Jacob (Gen 27:27–29) is interpreted in Genesis Rabbah as referring to several specific benefits that would later be received by the people of Israel: the dew of heaven alludes to the manna, Zion, or Scripture, the fatness of the earth alludes to the well which, according to a legend, miraculously accompanied the Israelites in the wilderness, the sacrifices, or the Mishnah, plenty of grain and wine alludes to the young men and women, the first-fruits and libations, or the Talmud and the Haggadah. Let peoples serve you alludes to seventy peoples, the nations bow down to you alludes to the children of Ishmael and Keturah, and be Lord over your brothers alludes to Esau and his chiefs (Gen.Rab. 66:3–4). Midrash Tanhuma also identifies Jacob’s blessing with future benefits to be received by Israel: the dew of heaven alludes to the Torah, the manna, or Jerusalem, the fatness of the earth alludes to the prophets, the well which accompanied the Israelites in the dessert, or the flour of the offerings, plenty of grain and wine alludes to the Talmud and the midrashim, olive oil or the high priests. 12 In Gen 27:29 this midrash identifies the peoples which are to be subjected to Israel in the future: Let peoples serve you are Noah’s descendants, the nations bow down to you are the children of Keturah, be Lord over your brothers are the children of Ishmael, and may your mother’s sons bow down to you are Esau’s descendants. 13 In these cases, Esau is not identified with Rome, but with other nations. Another reference to the future of Esau’s descendants is found in Genesis Rabbah in the account of Esau moving to a land because of his brother Jacob (Gen 36:6–8). According to the midrash, Esau moved to another land for two reasons: “on account of the bond,” and “out of shame” (Gen.Rab. 82:13). As we shall see, these two reasons are later reinterpreted and explained by Rashi.

12 13

Midrash Tanhuma, 349–350. Midrash Tanhuma, 350.

The Conflict between Jacob and Esau in Medieval Jewish Exegesis

429

3. Rashi According to Ivan G. Marcus, the biblical commentaries of R. Solomon ben Isaac (1040–1105), better known as Rashi, are more a selective edition of rabbinical material than exegetical treatises. They can be labeled as “rewritten midrash.” 14 In the case of the biblical accounts of the conflict between Jacob and Esau, Rashi reinterprets the rabbinic material contained mainly in Genesis Rabbah and Midrash Tanhuma. 15 As in the case of the midrashim, according to Rashi, Jacob and Esau represent good and evil from the time of their conception. Following Gen.Rab. 63:8, Rashi explains that the word ‫ תומים‬is written defective in the expression there were twins (‫ )תומים‬in her womb (Gen 25:24), as a proof that Jacob was righteous and Esau was wicked. That they were to be divided after they were born (Gen 25:23) is explained as that they would take each other a different course, “this one to his wickedness, and this one to his innocence.” Rashi also interprets the word ‫אדמוני‬ (red) as representing a negative characteristic of Esau: a sign that he is always shedding blood. As in the midrashim, Rashi considers Esau a skilfull hunter (Gen 25:28), who knew how to trap and deceive his father with his mouth, and a man of the field (Gen 25:28), without a regular occupation, an idler who hunts beasts and birds with his bow. By contrast, Jacob “was not an expert in all these matters,” for he was an innocent man (Gen 25:28), “a person who is not astute at deceiving.” By reinterpreting the midrashim which excuse Jacob’s lying to his father, Rashi rewrites the sentence “I am Esau your first-born” (Gen 27:19) as “I am he who brings food for you, and Esau is your first-born.” The midrashim explain that Esau despised his birthright because he refused to perform the sacrificial service due to his wickedness. Rashi also sees Esau’s wickedness as the reason that he despised his birthright; however, he reinterprets the midrashic explanation, and deduces from Esau’s words Behold, I am going to die (Gen 25:32), that the reason that Esau despised his birthright was that he had fears to observe the laws of the sacrificial service properly for the following reasons: 14 Ivan G. Marcus, “Rashi’s Choice: The Humash Commentary as Rewritten Midrash,” Studies in Medieval Jewish Intellectual and Social History: Festschrift in Honor of Robert Chazan (ed. D. Engel, L. H. Schiffman, and E. Wolfson; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 29–45. 15 For Rashi’s commentaries on the accounts of Jacob and Esau, see Menachem Cohen, ed., Mikra’ot Gedolot Haketer: Genesis, part II (Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 1999), 2–6, 14–22, 58–74, 86–92. For an English translation, see A. J. Rosenberg, ed., Genesis. Translation of Text, Rashi, and Other Commentaries (New York: Judaica Press, 1994) 305–312, 324–339, 404–417, 420–427, 444–453.

430

Mariano Gomez Aranda

Esau said [to Jacob], “What is the nature of this service?” Jacob replied, “There are many prohibitions and punishments and death penalties involved with it.” [...] [Then Esau] said, “Behold, I am going to die because of it (the birthright); if so, why should I want it?”

Rashi also rewrites the midrashic explanation on why Jacob wanted the birthright by explaining that Jacob thought that a man as wicked as Esau did not deserve to offer sacrifices to God. Another example of Esau’s wickedness is found by Rashi in the episode in which Jacob sent his messengers to his brother. When they returned to Jacob, they informed him, “We went to your brother Esau, and now he is coming to meet you, and four hundred men are with him” (Gen 32:7). Rashi explains that the messengers informed Jacob that Esau was acting towards him as a wicked man, that is, the messengers saw Esau’s actions as hostile. Rashi follows the midrashim in considering Esau as a symbol of an idolater and Jacob as a symbol of a Torah student. In his comments on the expression the children struggled (‫ )ויתרוצצו‬in her womb (Gen 25:22), Rashi begins by affirming that the word ‫“ ויתרוצצו‬needs a midrashic interpretation, for [Scripture] does not explain what this struggling was all about.” He builds on Genesis Rabbah to maintain that the word ‫ויתרוצצו‬ is an expression of ‘running,’ ‘moving quickly.’ He then rewrites Gen.Rab. 63:6 according to which Jacob is an exemplary Torah student and Esau an idolater: Whenever [Rebekah] passed by the entrances of the Torah academies of Shem and Eber, Jacob would run and struggle to come out; whenever she passed the entrance of a temple of idolatry, Esau would run and struggle to come out.

Rashi adds another midrashic interpretation, according to which Jacob and Esau struggled against each other and quarreled over the inheritance in this world and in the world-to-come. Rashi agrees with the Targum that Esau and his wives made life bitter for Isaac and Rebekah (Gen 26:34) for they worshipped idols. Rashi goes on to explain that the reason that Isaac’s eyes were too dim when he was old (Gen 27:1) is that the smoke of the incense offered to the idols damaged Isaac’s eyes, a clear reinterpretation of the rabbinic explanations on this verse. In the episode of Jacob preparing to meet his brother Esau (Gen 32), Rashi cites a midrashic interpretation found in Midrash Tanhuma, according to which the verse “If Esau comes to one camp and strikes it down, the remaining camp will escape” (Gen 32:9) is connected with God’s promise to Jacob “I am with you and will keep you wherever you go” (Gen 28:15). By connecting these two verses, the midrash means to

The Conflict between Jacob and Esau in Medieval Jewish Exegesis

431

claim that Jacob knew that Esau was not going to destroy his descendants completely, and that part of them would be saved, because God promised Jacob that he would be with him. 16 Rashi reinterprets the midrashic interpretation as follows: The remaining camp will escape against his [Esau’s] will, for I will wage war with him. He [Jacob] prepared himself for three things: for a gift, for war, and for prayer. For a gift, as it is written, “So the gift passed on before” (Gen 32:22). For prayer, as it is written, “God of my father Abraham” (Gen 32:10). For war, as it is written, “the remaining camp will escape” (Gen 32:9).

According to Rashi, Jacob knew that his second camp would escape, despite Esau’s will, because this camp would make war against Esau. In the case of the identification of Jacob with the people of Israel and Esau with Rome, Rashi follows the Talmud and not the midrashim to identify the leaders of the nations represented by Esau and Jacob with the emperor Antoninus and Rabbi Judah the Prince. As in the Talmud, Rashi applies the expression I shall be filled, she is laid waste (Ezek 26:2) to this situation. The verse of Ezekiel contains the words of Tyre – identified with Esau / Edom – concerning Jerusalem – identified with Jacob /Israel – meaning to say that Tyre became powerful only through the ruins of Jerusalem. As noted above, in Megilah 6a this verse is applied to the rivalries between Rome and Jerusalem. Rashi rewrites Genesis Rabbah’s explanation that the fat places of the earth promised in Isaac’s blessing to Esau (Gen 27:39) are “the part of Italy belonging to Greece,” a clarification of the midrashic interpretation. In some cases, Rashi does not specify to what future historical period in the history of Israel the biblical text refers. The fact that Jacob was holding onto his brother’s heel (Gen 25:26) is interpreted by Rashi as “a sign that this one (Esau) will hardly have time to complete his period of domination before the other would rise and take his power from him.” In other words, Israel’s redemption will follow immediately upon the defeat of Esau’s descendants, without specifying who they are and when the redemption will take place. The account of Esau moving to a land, because of his brother Jacob (Gen 36:6–8) poses two questions: to which land did Esau move and what was the reason behind Esau’s decision to move? To the first question, Rashi responds with a simple explanation: “he went to dwell wherever he would find room,” but regarding the expression because of his brother 16

Midrash Tanhuma, 429.

432

Mariano Gomez Aranda

Jacob, he reinterprets the midrashic explanations of Gen.Rab. 82:13 by expanding upon them and providing reasons for them: The Midrash Aggadah explains because of his brother Jacob as follows: because of the note of obligation of the decree “that your seed will be strangers” (Gen 15:13), which was imposed upon the descendants of Isaac. He (Esau) said, “I will get out of here. I have neither a share in the gift – for the land has been given to him – nor in the payment on the debt.” He left also on account of the shame that he felt because he had sold his birthright.

According to Rashi, the midrash intends to say that the decision of Esau to live far away from his brother Jacob was his desire to distance himself from the fate that would befall the people of Israel in the future, as stated in Gen 15:13. The midrashic interpretation that Esau moved to another land because he was ashamed is reinterpreted by Rashi as a reference to the shame he felt after he sold his birthright.

4. Rashbam Rabbi Samuel ben Meir, Rashbam (1080–1160), is one of the most important ‘Literal Meaning’ exegetes in medieval Northern France. 17 His explanations of the accounts of the conflict between Jacob and Esau contrast to those of Rashi in the almost complete absence of midrashic influence, a typical characteristic of Rashbam’s exegesis. According to Rashbam, the words of God to Rebekah contained in Gen 25:23 have two meanings: one for Rebekah herself and one for future generations. The words two nations are in your womb (Gen 25:23) have a specific meaning for Rebekah: Do not be afraid; the discomfort of your pregnancy is because you are carrying twins. For the discomfort of a biparous pregnancy is greater than that of a uniparous pregnancy. 18

According to Rashbam, the biblical expression is a metaphor of Rebekah’s problems during her pregnancy. No reference to any actual nation or to the future of Jacob’s and Esau’s descendants is implied in this sentence. As Lockshin points out, “Rashbam attempts to explain in what way the 17 This is how Jonathan Jacobs describes Rashbam in his article on Rashbam’s exegetical principles; Jonathan Jacobs, “Rashbam’s Major Principles of Interpretation as Deduced from a Manuscript Fragment Discovered in 1984,” REJ 170 (2011): 443–463. 18 Rashbam = Samuel ben Meir’s Commentary on Genesis. An Annotated Translation (ed. M. I. Lockshin; Lewiston; N. Y.: Edwin Mellen, 1989), 132–133.

The Conflict between Jacob and Esau in Medieval Jewish Exegesis

433

words of the oracle are meant to make Rebekah feel better, or at least are meant to react to her complaints of verse 22.” 19 Rashbam also finds in this verse information valid for future generations. He explains that the word ‫ לאומים‬in the expression two separate peoples (‫ )לאומים‬born of you shall be divided means ‘kingdoms’ and says: “Since the prophet began telling her things, he finished elaborating all the future events for her.” 20 Rashbam here admits that the biblical text contains prophetic predictions for the future; however, he hesitates over specifying to what future this sentence refers. The last sentence, the older shall serve the younger, is, according to Rashbam, the reason that Rebekah loved Jacob, as it is written Rebekah loved Jacob (Gen 25:28). In his comments on this last verse, Rashbam explains that Rebekah loved Jacob because she recognized his innocence and knew that the older shall serve the younger (Gen 25:23). No reference to the future of the people of Israel and the other nations is implied here. 21 Rashbam’s comments on the natural predispositions of Esau and Jacob (Gen 25:27) are in clear contrast with those of Rashi. Rashbam prefers to interpret Esau’s characterization as a skillful hunter in its most simple way: Esau knew how to hunt game to bring it home, referring to the action performed by him as described in Genesis 27. Jacob was a man living in tents means that he was a shepherd of his father’s flock. Therefore, according to Rashbam, two ways of living – a hunter and a shepherd – are here represented in contrast by Esau and Jacob. No negative or positive connotations are found in their occupations. The reason that Esau despised his birthright (Gen 25:31) is, according to Rashbam, that he was constantly in danger of losing his life on the hunt, and thought that his chances of inheriting from his father were very slim. In consequence, the birthright was of no use to him. Rashbam’s explanation rewrites the biblical sentence Behold, I am going to die (Gen 25:31) by adding the words that Esau may have had in mind in deciding to despise his birthright: Behold, I am going to die. “Every day I go to hunt animals in the forest where one finds bears and lions and other vicious animals and I am in danger of dying. What use is there for me to await a first-born’s share after our father’s death?” 22

19

Rashbam, Commentary on Genesis, 133. Ibid., 133. 21 Ibid., 134 and 136. 22 Ibid., 137. 20

434

Mariano Gomez Aranda

Rashbam finds no logic that Esau sold such an important right for something of almost no value as a lentil stew (Gen 25:30–34). He rewrites the biblical text by explaining that Esau sold his birthright not for a lentil stew but for an unspecified sum of money. The food was only offered to confirm the transaction. He adds that this transaction follows the pattern found in other biblical episodes, such as the meal that Laban and Jacob shared to confirm their pact in Gen 31:46. 23 Probably against Rashi and the midrashic interpretations intended to explain that Isaac became blind as a consequence of Esau’s idolatrous practices (Gen 27:1), Rashbam simply provides the most obvious explanation: it was because of his old age. 24 Also against Rashi’s midrashic interpretations trying to explain why Jacob knew that his second camp would escape from Esau’s attack (Gen 32:9), Rashbam interprets this verse in a simple way: “Since the camps were far apart, the one who saw the other being attacked would be able to escape.” 25 According to Rashbam, Isaac’s blessings to Jacob (Gen 27:27–29) and Esau (Gen 27:39–40) refer exclusively to themselves and not to their descendants or to future generations. The expression by your sword you shall live (Gen 27:40), contained in Esau’s blessing, is explained by Rashbam as “by your previous occupation, one who hunts game with weapon.” Isaac does not refer here to the future prosperity of Esau’s descendants by the use of weapons, but to the prosperity of Esau’s actual occupation as a hunter. In contrast with Rashi’s picture of Esau behaving as a wicked man towards Jacob in the episode of the messengers whom Jacob sent to him (Gen 32:7), Rashbam interprets it as the messengers seeing Esau’s gestures not as hostile but as conciliatory. “We sent to your brother Esau and you have gained his favor, as you said (vs. 6), and now he, due to his happiness at your coming and due to his love for you, is coming to greet you, and four hundred men are with him to honor you.” This is the true meaning according to the plain sense of Scripture. 26

Rashbam also explains that the reason that Jacob was afraid following the messengers’ response is the following,

23

Ibid., 137. Ibid., 147 and 150. 25 Ibid., 200. 26 Ibid., 199. 24

The Conflict between Jacob and Esau in Medieval Jewish Exegesis

435

Even though Esau had demonstrated to the messengers that he had honorable intentions towards Jacob, Jacob did not believe that Esau’s thoughts were good, but rather evil. 27

As is remarked by Lockshin, according to Rashbam, the picture of evil Esau found in Rashi’s commentaries and in the midrashim is exaggerated. 28

5. Abraham ibn Ezra Abraham ibn Ezra (1089–1164) agrees with Rashi in explaining the radical contrast between the characters of Esau and Jacob in Gen 25:27. According to Ibn Ezra, that Esau was a skillful hunter means that he was constantly practicing deception, for most animals are trapped through trickery. Jacob was his antithesis, for he was a man of integrity. Regarding the expression living in tents, Ibn Ezra points the possibility, already mentioned by Rashbam, that Jacob was a shepherd. In order to prove his hypothesis, Ibn Ezra argues that the expression living in tents appears in Gen 4:20 referring to Jabal, one of the descendants of Cain, of whom the Bible affirms that he lived in tents and had cattle. 29 As in the case of Rashbam, Ibn Ezra explains that the reason that Esau despised his birthright is that, since he was constantly in danger of losing his life on the hunt, he ran the risk of dying before his father. He was daily exposed to danger when he went out hunting, as an animal might kill him. Thus there was a possibility that he would predecease his father. 30

Ibn Ezra, however, provides another reason why Esau despised his birthright not found in any other commentator who precedes him. He affirms that it was because “his father had no wealth,” and deduces that Isaac was a poor man from some details in the narratives of Jacob and Esau. Proof that Isaac was poor is the fact that he loved Esau because of his need. 31 Had there been ample food in Isaac’s house and Esau the honorable one in his father’s 27

Ibid., 199–200. Ibid., 200 note. 29 Abraham ibn Ezra, Commentary on the Pentateuch: Genesis (trans. H. Norman Strickman and A. M. Silver; New York: Menorah, 1988), 251. 30 Ibn Ezra, Genesis, 251. 31 This is Ibn Ezra’s interpretation of the verse Isaac loved Esau, because of his game (Gen. 25:28). 28

436

Mariano Gomez Aranda

sight, he would not have sold his birthright for a dish of food. Furthermore, why did Isaac have to tell Esau, Bring me game (Gen 27:7), if he had savory meat at home for his daily meals? Why did Jacob not have beautiful garments? 32 Why did Rebekah not give Jacob gold and silver for his journey when he said If God will be with me ... and give me bread to eat and clothing to wear (Gen 28:20)? 33 Also, why did Rebekah, who loved him so much, not send him money in view of the fact that he was so impoverished that he had to tend Laban’s flock? 34

In his comments on Jacob’s words to his father when he presented himself before him saying “I am Esau your first-born” (Gen 27:19), Ibn Ezra introduces a long excursus against those commentators – such as Rashi and the midrashim – who tried to excuse Jacob’s lying to his father by arguing that a prophet never lies. Ibn Ezra rejects such an argument, and dismisses it as “nonsense.” He then adds the following explanation: Prophets are divided into two groups. One group consists of God’s messengers concerning commandments; the other, those who foretell the future. If the latter have to say something which is not quite so, there is no harm done. However, a prophet whose task is to reveal commandments never lies. 35

Taking the concept of a ‘prophet’ as a person with whom God communicates, Ibn Ezra explains that prophets can be divided into two groups: those who transmit God’s commandments, and those who speak of the future but transmit no commandment. Ibn Ezra concludes that those in the first group, who are responsible of transmitting God’s message, cannot lie; but those in the second group can lie. The latter is the case with King David, Elisha, Daniel or Abraham, and also the case with Jacob. With respect to Isaac’s blessings to Jacob and Esau (Gen 27:27–29 and Gen 27:39–40), Ibn Ezra affirms that they “present a number of great difficulties.” He wonders, if the blessings were prophecies, how it is possible that Isaac did not know whom he was blessing? He cites different responses to this question, and then gives his own opinion: It appears to me that the prophet’s blessing was akin to a prayer, and God accepted his prayer, for Isaac’s prayer was mainly concerned with the offspring of Jacob and Esau. 36

32

Ibn Ezra assumes that Jacob did not have beautiful garments because Rebekah took Esau’s beautiful garments and put them on Jacob (Gen 27:15). 33 According to Ibn Ezra, this verse proves that Jacob was very poor and had nothing to eat or to wear when he fled to Haran. 34 Ibn Ezra, Genesis, 253–254. 35 Ibid., 262. 36 Ibid., 270.

The Conflict between Jacob and Esau in Medieval Jewish Exegesis

437

Ibn Ezra maintains that Isaac’s blessings do not take effect immediately for they are prayers, not prophecies. In this sense, God accepted what Isaac requested of him, but the promises implied in the blessings could be fulfilled at an indeterminate time, which is impossible to know. One of the most problematic statements in Isaac’s blessing to Esau is the promise that you shall serve your brother (Gen 27:40), which is connected with God’s words and the older shall serve the younger (Gen 25:23). This means that Esau’s descendants would be subservient to Jacob’s. As is well known, in the Middle Ages Christians identified Esau “the older” with Jews and Jacob “the younger” with Christians. This promise was then interpreted as the eternal servitude of Jews to Christians, destined to freedom and victory. This allegorical interpretation of the victory of Christianity over Judaism provided the theory for the legal limitations imposed on Jews, and justified the theological doctrine known as servitudo Judaeorum. Thus, the prohibition of Jews’ holding any public office was rationalized on the grounds that Christians could never be subject to Jews, for the older (Jews) shall serve the younger (Christians). 37 Abraham ibn Ezra rejects this interpretation and, by citing biblical verses and some historical data, tries to prove that Esau /Edom is none other than the biblical nation which was subjugated by Judah. Those who have as yet not awakened from their foolish sleep think that we are in the exile of Edom. 38 However, this is not so. Edom was subject to Judah, as it is written, Edom revolted against the rule of Judah (2 Kgs 8:22). 39 Similarly, Joab eliminated every male in Edom (1 Kgs 11:16). It is because of their subjugation to Judah that they rejoiced on the day of Judah’s calamity and told the Babylonians, “Tear it down! Tear it down! Down to its foundations!” (Ps 137:7) 40 [...] Also Hyrcanus the elder made the Edomites guard Jerusalem and had them circumcised. Also, in the days of Agrippa, when Jerusalem was taken, troops of Edomites came to Judah’s aid. 41

After proving that Edom does not refer to Rome and /or the Christians, Ibn Ezra tries to justify that Rome is identified in the Bible with the Kittim.

37

On this idea, see Cohen, “Esau as Symbol,” 34–38. Edom is identified with the Romans and the Christians. 39 This happened in the days of Joram, King of Judah. 40 When Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians, the Edomites asked them to destroy the city, for they had been subjected to its power. 41 Ibn Ezra, Genesis, 270–271. During the Roman-Jewish War, the [e.g] Idumeans (Edomites) came to help the Jews against the Romans. 38

438

Mariano Gomez Aranda

The Romans who exiled us are from the seed of Kittim. The Targum similarly says, ships shall come from Kittim (Num 24:24). 42 The Kittim are the very kingdom of Greece as I have explained in my commentary on the book of Daniel.

In his commentary on Daniel, Ibn Ezra identifies the fourth beast not with Rome, as is usually interpreted, but with the Muslim empire. As a Jew living in Muslim Spain, Ibn Ezra identifies the four empires with Babylon, Persia, Greece and the Muslim empire. According to him, the collapse of the Muslim empire would inaugurate the messianic era. In his short commentary on Daniel, Ibn Ezra maintains that the third empire is the western empire including Greece and the Kittim, identified with Rome. In order to prove that the Kittim are identified with Greece (Javan in Hebrew), Ibn Ezra cites the descendants of Javan: Elisha, Tarshish, Kittim and Rodanim (Gen 10:4). The third empire is then identified with Greece, and Rome forms part of it. 43 In his comments on Gen 27:40, however, Ibn Ezra offers a hypothesis to explain why Edom is identified with the Romans and the Christians. In his opinion, such an assumption is based on historical evidence. In a fragment removed by censorship from several editions of Ibn Ezra’s commentary, he maintains the following theory: At first, there were only a few people who believed in the man that was considered a god. The Romans accepted the belief in this man in the days of Constantine, who introduced this new religion to the Romans upon the advice of an Edomite, and placed on his flag an image of this man. At that time, there was no one in the world apart from a small group of Edomites who followed the new religion. Similarly, the contemporary inhabitants of Egypt, Sheba, and the land of Elam are called Ishmaelites, even though a tiny minority of the people living there are true descendants of the Ishmaelites. 44

According to Ibn Ezra, Edom is identified with the Christians because at the beginning of Christianity the first Christians were all Edomites, and it was an Edomite priest who convinced Constantine to accept Christianity as the religion of the Roman empire. Similarly, Ishmael is identified with Islam, and muslims are called Ishmaelites, even though only a minority of muslims are true descendants of Ishmael. Ibn Ezra’s comments on the verse he [Jacob] said: “If Esau comes to one camp and strikes it down, the remaining camp will escape” (Gen 32:9) must 42

Several targumim translate Kittim as Rome. Abraham ibn Ezra, The Short Commentary on Daniel (ed. A. Mondschein; Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University, 1977), 12–13, and notes on 101–102. 44 Ibn Ezra, Genesis, 271–272. 43

The Conflict between Jacob and Esau in Medieval Jewish Exegesis

439

be understood in contrast to Rashi’s interpretation of this same verse. According to Ibn Ezra, Jacob thought: Perhaps the camp that is left shall flee, or perhaps my brother’s anger shall be assuaged after smiting one of the camps, or perhaps God will send them relief and deliverance. 45

Ibn Ezra points out here three possible interpretations of why Jacob thought that part of his people would be saved. They might be saved: 1) because they would flee, 2) because Esau would decide not to attack the second camp, or 3) because God would deliver them. Ibn Ezra then cites Rashi’s interpretation of this verse: Rabbi Solomon’s comment, to the effect that the remaining camp will escape means that the camp will be saved despite Esau’s intention, is midrashic. Although God promised Jacob, “and your seed shall be as the dust of the earth” (Gen 28:14), Jacob did not know whether it referred to the children he had now, or to the children he would have in the future. A prophet does not know hidden things unless God reveals them to him. 46

Ibn Ezra is here reinterpreting Rashi’s comment as if Rashi intended to say that Jacob was absolutely certain that the deliverance of the remaining camp would occur. As mentioned above, Rashi could have deduced such an assumption from Midrash Tanhuma, according to which Jacob knew that Esau was not going to destroy his descendants completely, and that part of them would be saved, because God promised his help to Jacob, as stated in Gen 28:15. Ibn Ezra reinterprets the midrash by citing Gen 28:14, in which a similar promise is made to Jacob: that his descendants shall be as numerous as the dust of the earth. Ibn Ezra arrives at the conclusion that God’s promise to Jacob contained in Gen 28:14 that the children of Jacob would be numerous and not be destroyed may or may not be applied to this event. In other words, even though God promised that Jacob’s children would be numerous, Jacob was unaware whether this promise could be applied to the situation he was experiencing at that moment or to a future date. The reason is that God had not explicitly revealed to him the time when his children would be numerous. Ibn Ezra uses these arguments to prove that Rashi’s interpretation of Jacob’s certainty is incorrect.

45 46

Ibid., 312–313. Ibid., 313.

440

Mariano Gomez Aranda

Ibn Ezra continues using these arguments to demonstrate why Jacob was afraid at that moment, as affirmed in Jacob was greatly afraid and distressed (Gen 32:7). The above also answers those who ask, why was Jacob afraid considering that God promised that he would protect him when He said I will be with you (Gen 31:3)? The latter is also the promise referred to by Jacob when he said, O Lord who said to me ... I will do you good (Gen 32:9). Jacob was afraid that he alone would escape. 47

Ibn Ezra refers to those who did not understand why Jacob was afraid if God had promised him that he would protect him in the future, as I will be with you (Gen 31:3). Presumably, such a promise should have encouraged Jacob at that moment, because he recalled it and prayed to God, O God of my father Abraham, of my father Isaac, the Lord, who said to me, “Return to your land and to your birthplace, and I will do good to you” (Gen 32:10). However, God never said that he would do good to Jacob, but only that he would be with Jacob. In this case, Jacob himself reinterprets God’s words and arrives at the conclusion that God’s promise probably means that he alone would escape. For that reason, he was afraid.

6. Nahmanides The commentaries of Moses ben Nahman, Nahmanides (1194–1270), on the conflict of Jacob and Esau are representative of two of his most relevant exegetical principles. The first is the existence in the Torah of two simultaneously valid levels of understanding: the literal and the symbolic. 48 The second is what is called “Nahmanides’ typological exegesis,” which means that the events that occurred to the patriarchs are figures of events that announce future events in the history of Israel. 49 A third exegetical principle can be added: the reinterpretation of earlier sources. Nahmanides gives two explanations as to why God informed Rebekah two nations are in your womb (Gen 25:23). As Rashbam had already explained, according to Nahmanides’ literal interpretation, such information was valid exclusively for Rebekah. 47

Ibid., 313. Elliot R. Wolfson, “By Way of Truth: Aspects of Nahmanides’ Kabbalistic Hermeneutic,” AJS Review 14 (1989): 103–178. 49 Amos Funkenstein, “Nahmanides’ Symbolical Reading of History,” Studies in Jewish Mysticism (ed. J. Dan and F. Talmage; Cambridge, Mass.: Association of Jewish Studies, 1982), 129–150. 48

The Conflict between Jacob and Esau in Medieval Jewish Exegesis

441

The intent of this is that he informed her that she should not fear, for the reason for the struggle in her womb is that she is pregnant with twins, this being the customary way among women who are pregnant with twins. 50

Nahmanides then gives another interpretation of the verse according to which the information is symbolic: It is possible that he is also saying that since they are destined to be two peoples, hating and warring with each other, at the very beginning of their creation they initiated a quarrel, thus intimating at the situation which will ultimately exist between them. But He assured her that now they will rest, and she will find rest and quiet for herself.

Nahmanides considers that these twins, who were destined to become two hostile nations who would make war with one another, quarreled from the time they were in the womb, prefiguring their future conflicted relationship. According to Nahmanides, both interpretations – the literal and the symbolic – are simultaneously expressed by God to Rebekah. Nahmanides thinks that, since Rebekah perceived that such would be the future of her sons’ descendants, she needed to be comforted, and for that reason God assured her that she could rest because the foretold conflict would not occur in her time. Nahmanides systematizes the allusions to the future found in the narratives of Jacob and Esau at the beginning of his comments on Gen 32: There is in this section a hint for future generations, for everything that happened to our father [Jacob] with his brother Esau will constantly occur to us with Esau’s children, and it is proper for us to adhere to the way of the righteous by preparing ourselves in the three things for which he prepared himself: for prayer, for giving a present, and for rescue by methods of warfare, to flee and to be saved. Our Rabbis have already derived this hint from this section, as I shall mention. 51

Based on Midrash Tanhuma and on Rashi’s interpretation of the episode of Jacob preparing to meet his brother Esau, Nahmanides explains that this episode contains a lesson for the future of Jews in his own times: Jews should be prepared, as Jacob was, for their conflict with Christians (Esau). Nahmanides gives two interpretations, according to both the literal and the symbolic meanings, on the episode of Jacob’s sending messengers to his brother Esau in Edom (Gen 32:3). According to its literal meaning, Nahmanides explains the reason why Jacob sent messengers to his 50 Moses ben Nahman, Nahmanides, Comentary on the Torah: Genesis (trans. Ch. B. Chavel; New York: Shilo, 1971), 316. 51 Nahmanides, Genesis, 394.

442

Mariano Gomez Aranda

brother: Jacob had to pass through Esau’s land in Edom and feared that Esau had heard of it, so for this reason he preferred to send messengers to Esau to inform him that he was going to pass through his land. In addition to this, Nahmanides gives a symbolic interpretation of this episode, according to which Jacob’s sending messengers to Esau prefigures the unfortunately amicable beginnings of Israel’s relations with Rome: In my opinion this too hints at the fact that we instigated our falling into the hand of Edom [Rome], for the Hasmonean kings during the period of the Second Temple entered into a convenant with the Romans, and some of them even went to Rome to seek an alliance. This was the cause of their falling into the hands of the Romans. 52

As Chavel notes, Nahmanides probably refers to the episode related in 1 Macc 8 that Judas Maccabeus sent a delegation to Rome to establish a political alliance with the Romans. The messengers sent by Jacob to his brother Esau prefigure the delegation sent by Judas Maccabeus to Rome. Nahmanides concludes that such an alliance led to the falling of the Jewish people into the hands of the Roman Empire. However, Nahmanides’ interpretation may also be based on the Talmud, where we read: For twenty-six years did the Romans keep faith with Israel, thereafter they subdued them. What scriptural support did they have for their former attitude and what for the latter? To the former may be applied the words Let us take journey and let us go (Gen 33:12). And to the latter may be applied the words: Let my lord now pass before his servant (Gen 33:14). 53

The Talmud applies the words of Esau to his brother Jacob Let us take journey and let us go (Gen 33:12) to the situation of good terms between Israel and the Romans, and the words of Jacob to Esau Let my lord now pass before his servant (Gen 33:14) to the later situation of Israel as subservient to Rome. If Nahmanides bases his interpretation on the Talmud, he is here reinterpreting the Talmudic explanation by specifying to what period of the history of Israel the encounter of Jacob and Esau in Genesis 32–33 refers: that of the Hasmoneans kings and their alliance with the Romans. The episode of Jacob’s preparation for his encounter with Esau by the splitting of his camps, so that one camp survives after Esau strikes down the other (Gen 32:9) is interpreted by Nahmanides, first, according to its literal meaning: In line with the simple meaning of Scripture, Jacob stated this as a possibility. He said that perhaps one camp shall escape, for during the time he [Esau] smites one, 52 53

Ibid., 395. Avodah Zarah 8b.

The Conflict between Jacob and Esau in Medieval Jewish Exegesis

443

the other will flee, or perhaps his anger will subside or deliverance will come to them from God. And so the Rabbis said in Genesis Rabbah, “The Torah teaches you proper conduct: a man should not leave all his money in one corner” (Gen.Rab. 76:3). 54

Nahmanides’ first interpretation is in fact a reinterpretation of Ibn Ezra’s. Nahmanides stresses that Jacob considered the salvation of the second camp only a possibility, not a certainty. The three possible fates for the second camp in Jacob’s mind proposed by Nahmanides are exactly those found in Ibn Ezra’s comments on this verse. Nahmanides then connects Ibn Ezra’s interpretation with the exegesis on this same verse found in the midrash as a way to reinterpret both Ibn Ezra and the midrash. Nahmanides’ comment on Gen 32:9 is an example of the combination of reinterpretations of earlier sources. In addition to this, Nahmanides provides a second interpretation of the biblical text which is in fact a reinterpretation of Rashi’s: And Rashi wrote: “‘Then the camp which is left shall escape (Gen 32:9) in spite of him for I will fight against him.’ He prepared himself for three things: for prayer, for giving Esau a gift, and for war.” And I have seen in the Midrash: “What did Jacob do? He armed his people underneath, and clothed them in white from outside, and he prepared himself for three things.” 55

Nahmanides here reinterprets Rashi’s explanation by combining it with Midrash Tanhuma’s explanation of this same verse. Once again, a combination of earlier sources is behind Nahmanides’ reinterpretation of this verse. Nahmanides also affirms that the interpretation that Esau prepared himself to fight against his brother, as explained by Rashi and the Midrash, is the most correct interpretation. Nahmanides then adds a symbolic interpretation of the verse as referring to the future history of Israel. In this case, Jacob’s strategy of survival by dividing the camps prefigures Israel’s fate in the diaspora: The intent of this is that Jacob knew that all his seed would not fall into Esau’s hands. Therefore, in any case, one camp would be saved. This also implies that the children of Esau will not formulate a decree against us designed to obliterate our name entirely, but they will do evil to some of us in some of their countries. One of their kings will formulate a decree in his country against our wealth or our persons while simultaneously another king will show compassion in his place and save the refugees. 56

54

Nahmanides, Genesis, 397–398. Ibid., 398. 56 Ibid., 398. 55

444

Mariano Gomez Aranda

Nahmanides is here applying the symbolic meaning of Gen 32:9 to the situation of the Jews in his own times. As is pointed out by Chavel, while waves of persecution, expulsions and massacres were a steady feature of Jewish life in most European countries, refuge was always found in some country. At the time of Nahmanides, Spain was a place of relative relief for Jews from France and Germany. Nahmanides, however, finds it necessary to legitimize his symbolic exegesis by quoting Genesis Rabbah, which already applied this verse to the future of Israel: And so the Rabbis said in Genesis Rabbah (76:3) “If Esau come to the one camp, and smite it – these are our brethren in the south. Then the camp which is left shall escape – these are our brethren in the Diaspora.” Our Rabbis thus saw that this chapter alludes also to the future generations. 57

A similar strategy is found in Nahmanides’ explanation of Gen 32:17 when Jacob delivered his gift to his brother Esau and ordered his servants, “Pass on ahead of me, and put a space between drove and drove.” As seen above, this verse was interpreted in Genesis Rabbah as referring to the future of Israel. Nahmanides first interprets this verse according to its literal meaning: Jacob wanted to satisfy the covetous eye of Esau and to amaze him with the size of the gift. In addition to this, he reinterprets Genesis Rabbah’s explanation of this verse, and applies it to the situation of the Jews in Christian kingdoms in his own times: In Genesis Rabbah the Rabbis express the opinion that there is an allusion to the future in this matter: “Jacob said before the Holy One, blessed be He, ‘O Master of the universe! If troubles will come upon my children, do not bring them one after another, but allow them intervals from their troubles.’” On the basis of this verse, the Rabbis thus hinted that the tributes and taxes which the children of Esau will collect from Jacob’s seed will have intervals and cessations between one another. 58

In this case, the space between drove and drove of Jacob’s gift to Esau symbolizes the time between the specific periods when Jews had to pay taxes and tributes to Christian authorities in the Middle Ages.

57 58

Ibid., 398. Nahmanides, Genesis, 401.

The Conflict between Jacob and Esau in Medieval Jewish Exegesis

445

7. Conclusions In the history of Jewish exegesis, the episodes relating the conflicts between Jacob and Esau have been interpreted in different ways. In rabbinic literature, Jacob and Esau are taken as representations of the conflict between righteosuness and wickedness, between rabinnic education and idolatry, and between the people of Israel and Rome or other nations. Rashi’s comments on these conflicts are reinterpretations of the rabbinic material contained in the midrashim, and specially of Genesis Rabbah and Midrash Tanhuma. As in the case of the midrashim, Rashi feels that these conflicts prefigure the future rivalries between Israel and the Roman empire. Rashbam’s explanations of the account of the rivalries between Jacob and Esau must be understood in contrast to those of Rashi. As opposed to Rashi, Rashbam explains the rivalries exclusively within the limits of the biblical narratives, as a conflict between these two biblical figures. He only makes a slight reference to the possibility that God’s words to Rebekah in Gen 25:23 contain references to unspecified future events. The almost total absence of references to the future of Israel and other nations in Rashbam’s exegesis of the episodes of Jacob and Esau may have been motivated by a reaction against the typological explanations of Christians, who identified Esau and Jacob with Judaism and Christianity. Abraham ibn Ezra’s comments on the narratives of Jacob and Esau are intended to show how problematic is trying to find references to the future in these. He is very critical of applying Isaac’s blessings to Jacob and Esau to the conflict of Judaism with Rome or Christianity. According to him, such blessings refer to the conflict of the biblical Edom with Judah in ancient times. He, however, provides some historical information to try to prove why Edom has been identified with Christianity. Ibn Ezra is reluctant to demonstrate to what future period in the history of Israel the prophecies contained in these narratives refer. This is particularly relevant in the case of Jacob preparing to meet his brother Esau when, according to Rashi and other commentators, Jacob was certain that his descendants would survive because God had already promised him this would happen. In contrast, Ibn Ezra concludes that it is impossible to know “hidden things” in prophecies if God does not reveal them. According to Nahmanides, the episodes of the conflict between Jacob and Esau have two meanings. The first is the literal meaning, according to which the conflict is to be understood within the limits of the biblical context, as a conflict between the two brothers. The second meaning is

446

Mariano Gomez Aranda

typological or symbolic and refers to the future history of Israel, and particularly to the conflict of Jews and Christians in Nahmanides’ times. In his comments, Nahmanides frequently reinterprets earlier sources, especially the explanations of Abraham ibn Ezra, Rashi, and the midrashim. In some cases, Nahmanides’ reinterpretations combine several of these sources and blend them together.

Maq¯am Ibr¯ah¯ım and the Sacred Landscape of Mecca According to Ibn Jubayr Bärbel Beinhauer-Köhler

Ibr¯ah¯ım, Ism¯ac¯ıl and H¯ajar are the central Islamic figures mentioned in the genre of rih.la, accounts of travelling, when dealing with Mecca. Therefore the Rih.lat Ibn Jubayr from the 12th century is analyzed to gain information about performing the h.ajj and cumra, their ritual elements, stations and the pilgrim’s attitudes towards the places, as well as to local narrations about the sites. It becomes obvious that Ibr¯ah¯ım being the founder of monotheism in Arabia was not only a Qur’anic topic of theology to shift a former Jewish and Christian ancestry towards Arabia. At the same time the narrative was located in the very special sites the pilgrims visit: the house of God was no longer situated in Jerusalem but in Mecca and Ibr¯ah¯ım’s footprint still tells about him constructing this place. Thus the pilgrims by their visit experience the history of monotheism and Islam dating back to ancient times. This article sheds light on the connection of the ritual with the textual foundations of Islam as well as with vivid, local narrations. The ritual’s function to shape an Islamic identity by “doing religion” becomes obvious. And as only the three characters mentioned from Genesis are relocated at Mecca, others like S¯ara and Ish.a¯ q do not play any role at least during the h.ajj. As a result of this perceptions during the h.ajj parallel those of the theological debate in formative Islam, where not all but several authors claim Ism¯ac¯ıl to have been the nameless son in Sura 37:99–113 who was prepared for sacrifice. In general Ibn Jubayr’s account presents a lot of data about the further development of the Islamic creed, that from its very beginning not only developed the former monotheistic religions but construed the new belief as one overarching the others. During the h.ajj as one of the five “pillars of Islam” the medieval traveler shows no interest in any other narrative of

448

Bärbel Beinhauer-Köhler

Ibr¯ah¯ım’s further family members, as the pilgrims experience their own history centering around Mecca.

1. Introduction In early Islam, the image of Abraham was, apart from the Arabisation of his name, reshaped in many ways. Reconstructing such shifts in detail means retracing discourses in the formation of Islamic identity. Departing from the Jewish ancestor of Israel and an important figure in Christian genealogy, the Qur’an modelled Ibr¯ah¯ım as the prototype of monotheistic faith – and thus included the previous religious traditions in Islam. We can read this in Sura 2:136 1: “Say: We believe in Allah and in what has been sent down to us, and what has been sent down to Ibr¯ah¯ım and Ism¯ac¯ıl and Ish.a¯ q and Yacq¯ub and the tribes and what was given to M¯us¯a and c¯Is¯a and the prophets from their Lord. We make no difference between any of them, and to Him we are submissive (wa-nah.nu lahu muslim¯ın).”

The final phrase “we are submissive” means to believe in Islam and to comply with God’s will. This genealogy of true believers, from Abraham to Jesus, includes Jews and Christians as part of this religious heritage and as part of an ancient, common faith. Moreover, any genealogical disputes about Ibr¯ah¯ım were, as in Sura 3:65–68, explicitly declared to be a matter between Jews and Christians but not Muslims: “O People of the Book, why are you disputing about Ibr¯ah¯ım, as the Tora and the Gospel had only been sent after his lifetime? [...] Ibr¯ah¯ım was not a Jew and not a Christian, but he was a Muslim H.an¯ıf and did not belong to the Polytheists (almušrik¯ın).” 2

1 My translation is based on Bell’s classic English translation, but avoids using the English Biblical version of names in order to reconstruct the Arabic culture of early Islam. Bell’s translation goes as follows: “Say ye: ‘We have believed in Allah and what has been sent down to us, and what has been sent down to Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac and Jacob and the Patriarchs and what has been given to Moses and Jesus and what has been given to the prophets from their Lord, making no distinction between any of them, and to Him we are submissive.’” Richard Bell, The Qur’¯an. Translated with a critical re-arrangement of the Surahs (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, repr. 1960 [1936]), 18, which is in this “critical rearrangement” counted as Sura 2:130. 2 Compare again with Bell (The Qur’an, 51) Sura 3:58–60: “O People of the Book, why do ye dispute about Abraham, seeing that the Torah and the Evangel were not sent down till after his time? [...] Abraham was not a Jew, nor was he a Christian, but he was a H.an¯ıf, a Moslem, and he was not one of the Polytheists.”

Maq¯am Ibr¯ah¯ım and the Sacred Landscape of Mecca

449

The idea of this common creed had a social background during Muh.ammad’s times: certain individuals on the Arabian Peninsula were called (sg.) h.an¯ıf, a term used to identify believers who did not belong to the established religions, but had been monotheists. The prophet himself was said to have been part of this tradition when contemplating in the mountains near Mecca. It is not the focus of this article but it is nevertheless an interesting fact that despite this construction of Ibr¯ah¯ım in the Qur’an as connecting the three religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, after several decades Near Eastern groups still or again claimed their own identities and ancestors: while the Qur’an did not mention Ibr¯ah¯ım’s son by name in Sura 37:99–113 and thus allowed for tribal, social and religious integration, 3 later commentaries wanted to identify the son Ibr¯ah¯ım was willing to sacrifice as Ism¯ac¯ıl. Ibr¯ah¯ım’s offspring became an issue of its own: the Jewish faith was traced back to Ish.a¯ q, Islam to Ism¯ac¯ıl. Of course, the well known historiographers like Ibn Ish.a¯ q (died around 768), Ibn Hiš¯am (died around 830), Ibn Sacd (died 845) and at.-T.abar¯ı (died 923) wrote about Ibr¯ah¯ım and probably mirrored the debates of their time: 4 An early example is the S¯ıra, the biography of the Prophet, that started as a collection of traditions by Ibn Ish.a¯ q and was finished by Ibn Hiš¯am. At the beginning Muh.ammad is introduced with a genealogy that named a chain of ancestors with “[...] ibn Ism¯ac¯ıl ibn Ibr¯ah¯ım [ ... ]”. 5 This suggests the existence of a Muslim identity connected with Ism¯ac¯ıl at least in the second half of the 8th century. Another example is Ibn Sacd, who collected traditions and combined them into a biographical “set” called T.abaq¯at, “layers of generations”. He mentions Ibr¯ah¯ım in a separate chapter after N¯uh. (Noah) and before Ism¯ac¯ıl, who are interestingly both described in more detail than Ibr¯ah¯ım. Nevertheless, Ibn Sacd proves to have a general interest in Ibr¯ah¯ım, starting with his genealogy, his childhood in the area of Harran, his language as being Syrian (siry¯an¯ı), his life as a nomad travelling as far as Egypt, and his marriage to S¯ara. Since Ibr¯ah¯ım had to wait a long time to become 3 The repeated naming of Ibr¯ah¯ım and his two sons Ish.a¯ q and Ism¯ac¯ıl (Sura 6:84, 14:39, 19:49, 21:72, 37:113) can also be seen as an attempt to include the Jews of Medina within Islam, which was the historic challenge of Muh.ammad’s time. 4 Reuven Firestone, “Abraham’s Son as the Intended Sacrifice. Issues in Qur’anic Exegesis,” in JSS 34 (1989): 95–131; Idem, Journeys in Holy Lands. The Evolution of the AbrahamIshmael Legends in Islamic Exegesis (New York: State University of New York Press, 1990); Rudi Paret, Art. “Ibr¯ah¯ım” in Encyclopaedia of Islam vol. 3 (Leiden: Brill, 1971), 980–981. 5 Ibn Hiša¯ m, S¯ırat an-nabaw¯ıya vol. 1 (ed. Mus.t.afa¯ as-Saqa¯ , Ibra¯ h¯ım al-Abya¯ r¯ı, and c c (2) Abd al-H . afid¯ Šabl¯ı; Cairo: Mat.ba at Mus.t.af¯a l-B¯ab¯ı l-H.alab¯ı, 1955 ), 2.

450

Bärbel Beinhauer-Köhler

a father, we are informed about Ibr¯ah¯ım’s sons only at the very end of the text. This part is comparably neutral towards the two sons. Ism¯ac¯ıl is said to have been the older son, but he was only the child of the Coptic concubine H¯ajar, while S¯ara, as Ibr¯ah¯ım’s formal wife, later gave birth to Ish.a¯ q. 6 The region of Mecca is not mentioned often, the compilation of traditions seems to have been meant as a supplement to the already well-known Qur’anic facts. Ibn Sacd probably also preferred the figure of Ism¯ac¯ıl, to whom he dedicated the subsequent chapter. Even if important historiographers showed a preference for Ism¯ac¯ıl, a lively theological debate about the identification of the son mentioned in Qur’an 37:99–113 was fought out in the first centuries of the religion’s development. The historian at.-T.abar¯ı referred to this in his magnum opus of world history at-Ta’r¯ıh al-rusul wa-l-mul¯uk, “History of the Prophets and Kings,” and reported˘ in detail the arguments for the one or the other as being the son Ibr¯ah¯ım was willing to offer. 7 Despite these early discussions, once fixed these genealogical disputes might over the centuries have been more important for non-Muslims living as minorities in the Middle East than for Muslims themselves. Later Islamic identity discourses did not concentrate on Ibr¯ah¯ım but on the tribes of Mecca or the offspring of Muh.ammad and his daughter F¯at.ima 8 and cousin cAl¯ı. Sunnis and Shi’ites knew and know these family trees that legitimate their religious and political claims in detail. Ibr¯ah¯ım remained a very important and highly venerated figure in Islam. Over the centuries a great many emotional references to his person can be found, indicating the popular perception of him and his close relatives. 9 Among others these perceptions are documented in the genre of rih.l¯at, travel accounts. Those accounts on the pilgrimage to Mecca refer on the one hand to Qur’anic constructions of Ibr¯ah¯ım and on the other hand show their development in the field of religious practice. Generally, the relocation of Jewish traditions and their protagonist to Mecca was one of the most important changes of early Islam. This caused theological debates like the ones just described. But when we look at the Ibn Sacd, T.abaq¯at vol. 1 (Beirut: D¯ar S.a¯ dir, 1960), 46–48. Abu Djafar Mohammed at-Tabari, Annales vol. 1 (ed. M. J. De Goeje; Leiden: Brill, 1964), 252–319; on the controversy about the son Ibr¯ah¯ım was willing to offer see 290–301. 8 Bärbel Beinhauer-Köhler, F¯a.tima bint Muh.ammad. Metamorphosen einer frühislamischen Frauengestalt (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2002). 9 Important is his characterization as hal¯ıl All¯ah, “friend of God,” later an ideal in Sufism. ˘ Annemarie Schimmel, Die Zeichen Gottes: Die religiöse Welt des Islam (München: Beck, 1995), 309; in English: Deciphering the Signs of God (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1994). An overview in Paret, Art. “Ibr¯ah¯ım,” 980–981. 6

7

Maq¯am Ibr¯ah¯ım and the Sacred Landscape of Mecca

451

ritual of h.ajj there seems to be less controversy. This liminal period seems to have been an effective tool for implementing new ideas: Ibr¯ah¯ım’s life was interpreted as the source of the sacred history of Islam as monotheism starting in Arabia. The story of Ibr¯ah¯ım in many aspects anticipated the narrative of Muh.ammad’s hijra from Mecca to Medina. Ibr¯ah¯ım was a Prophet (nab¯ı) like Muh.ammad and was described in many Qur’anic verses as the one who left the polytheistic homeland of his father to start a new life and community elsewhere (Sura 6:74–84, 19:41–50, 21:51–71, 37:83–96). In Islam the location where Ibr¯ah¯ım began his new life was no longer Israel but the region of Mecca, with the kacba being God’s oldest house 10 founded by him and his son Ism¯ac¯ıl (Sura 2:125–127, 3:95–97, 14:37). This was where he was even willing to sacrifice his son, only to be prevented from doing so by a miracle. Pilgrims to Mecca commemorate the details of this narrative at certain stations of their ritual. This sort of “mass-experience” of Ibr¯ah¯ım, his son Ism¯ac¯ıl and concubine H¯ajar probably had and have a more immediate effect than arguing about different lineages of his offspring to shape one’s religious identity; obviously these effects cannot be separated out in detail, but they do point to various Muslim milieux. In a parallel to this hypothesis, Angelika Neuwirth argues in Der Koran als Text der Spätantike that Ibr¯ah¯ım’s offspring did not play a specific role in the early Islamic community, but that he was important as a prototype for a certain form of religiosity, that is, as being absolutely obedient to the one God. 11 Neuwirth ends her description of early Islamic discourses on Ibr¯ah¯ım with a hint towards contemporary popular attention perceiving Ibr¯ah¯ım mainly as the one who wants to sacrifice his son. This narrative was already part of the Qur’an, but interest in him apparently increased so much that today it even becomes manifest in the form of paintings. 12 This outlines my perspective on the genre of rih.la: travel accounts provide clues to what happened in the centuries after the “invention of the

10 Instead of the Jewish Tempel in Jerusalem. See also Angelika Neuwirth, Der Koran als Text der Spätantike: Ein europäischer Zugang (Berlin: Verlag der Weltreligionen im Inselverlag, 2010), 634–646 commenting on Joseph Witztum, “The Foundation of the House (Q 2:127),” in BSOAS 71,1 (2009): 25–40. 11 The chapter on Ibr¯ah¯ım: Neuwirth, Der Koran als Text der Spätantike, 633–652, here 637. Ibr¯ah¯ım is one of the few figures who gave their name to a Sura: Sura 14. 12 Neuwirth, Der Koran als Text der Spätantike, 649. See also a contemporary Egyptian example: Ann Parker and Avon Neal, Die Kunst des Hadsch: Wandbilder erzählen von der Pilgerreise nach Mekka (München: Frederking und Thaler, 1995), 100–108; in English: Hajj Paintings (Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press), 2009.

452

Bärbel Beinhauer-Köhler

tradition” of Ibr¯ah¯ım living in Arabia as the first monotheist and before today’s highly emotional attitudes towards him when it comes to the c¯ıd al-ad.h.a¯ , the feast of sacrifice.

2. The Source With this purpose in mind I am going to analyse one very influential travel account written in the genre called rih.la in which we find autobiographical insights combined with literary topics. But most interestingly, we gain important insights into popular culture and Islamic practices. This early, quite famous and intensively studied 13 example is the Rih.lat Ibn Jubayr, “The Journey of Ibn Jubayr” (1145–1217), a Sunni from Valencia in Spain, who undertook pilgrimage to Mecca and wrote about his experiences. His text gives a detailed account of what he saw and did on his way to Mecca, where he arrived in 1183. This can be read as an example of Muslim rituals during the h.ajj. Even if we have to take into account that a complex ritual like the Islamic pilgrimage varies and changes over the centuries, we can assume that Ibn Jubayr’s account is characteristic of the fact that the pilgrims normally learn the ritual elements in situ from their local guides. Apart from this genre, the h.ajj is an element in theological reflections and even of legal texts. The famous compiler of the ah.a¯ d¯ıt, al-Buha¯ r¯ı ¯ ˘ (died 870), collected hundreds of accepted traditions about Muh . ammad practicing the pilgrimage. This collection also includes narratives about Ibr¯ah¯ım as the inventor of several ritual elements at Mecca and the surrounding area, like Min¯a, where it was claimed the sacrifice took place. 14 13 Ibn Jubayr, Rih.la (Beirut: D¯ar S.a¯ dir, 1980); the common Arabic edition used here is: Abu¯ l-H . usain Muh.ammad ibn Ah.mad Ibn Jubayr, Rih.lat Ibn Jubayr (ed. William Wright and M. J. De Goeje, The Travels of Ibn Jubayr, repr. Bradford 1949 [1907]); the cited translation is Ronald J. C. Broadhurst, The Travels of Ibn Jubayr (Noida /India: Goodword Books, repr. 2016 [London 1952]); for German readers: Regina Günther, Ibn Dschubair: Tagebuch eines Mekkapilgers (Stuttgart: Thienemann, Edition Erdmann, 1985); Ian Richard Netton, “Basic Structures and Signs of Alienation in the Rih.la of Ibn Jubayr,” in Golden Roads: Migration, Pilgrimage and Travel in Mediaeval and Modern Islam (ed. Ian Richard Netton; Richmond: Curzon Press, 1993), 57–74; Charles Pellat, Art. “Ibn Djubayr,” in Encyclopaedia of Islam, vol. 3 (Leiden: Brill, 1986), 755. 14 In any Arabic edition of the S.ah.¯ıh. al-Buha¯ r¯ı see the chapters: kit¯ab al-h.ajj and kit¯ab ˘ e. g.: al-Buha¯ r¯ı, Sah¯ıh al-Buha¯ r¯ı vol. 1 (ed. al-cumra (“book of h.ajj” and “book of cumra”), . . . ˘a, 2003), 335–393; ˘ in German Muh.ammad Fu’a¯ d cAbd al-Ba¯ q¯ı; Cairo: Maktabat as-S.af¯ translation: Dieter Ferchl, ed., S.ah.¯ıh. al-Buha¯ r¯ı. Nachrichten von Taten und Aussprüchen des Propheten Muhammad (Stuttgart: Philipp ˘Reclam Junior, 1991), 201–229.

Maq¯am Ibr¯ah¯ım and the Sacred Landscape of Mecca

453

Taking all this into account, the rih.la presents different layers of information: first the characteristic ritual elements of the pilgrimage as part of sharia-based orthopraxy, and second, the variations dependent on the individual travel itinerary. Third, we gain a glimpse of personal experiences and emotions, and finally, how this was arranged in this adab genre, that is, refined literature intended for educated readers.

3. The Journey 3.1 Arrival After seven months of travel, Ibn Jubayr reached Mecca in the month of Jum¯ad¯ı l-¯ul¯a. As he did not arrive in the month of h.ajj, his pilgrimage had to be categorized as cumra, a minor pilgrimage that does not count as h.ajj proper. Arriving in Mecca he performed the usual rites, circled the kacba and prayed at the maq¯am Ibr¯ah¯ım, a site where he is remembered: “And so, at the time and on the day we have mentioned, we came to God’s venerable Haram, the place of sojourn of Abraham the Friend (of God), and found the Kacbah, the Sacred House, the unveiled bride conducted (like a bride to her groom) to the supreme felicity of heaven, encompassed by the deputations [pilgrims]of the AllMerciful. We performed the tawaf of the new arrival, and then prayed at the revered Maqam.” 15

First we are informed about Ibn Jubayr’s basic perception of the kacba as Ibr¯ah¯ım’s home (mabwa’a l-khal¯ıl). In his account, Ibn Jubayr changes his style from prose to poetry in the italicized sections of Broadhurst’s classic translation: three lines conclude with a rhyme ( ... al-bait al-h.ar¯am ... jannat ar-rid.w¯an .... bi-wuf¯ud ar-rah.man). We can assume that Ibn Jubayr was, like his fellow pilgrims, highly emotional about finally arriving at these holy places. 16 That said, it is difficult to determine his emotion based on this stylistic figure since is very common to mix prose and poetry in Arabic literature (adab), and we can observe a systematic use of

15 Broadhurst, The Travels of Ibn Jubayr, 75; arab. Ibn Jubayr, Rih.la, 80; Günther, Tagebuch eines Mekkapilgers, 57. 16 Many pages later in his depiction of other monuments in the city, Ibn Jubayr gives a similar account about the blessed city as a whole, again mentioning Ibr¯ah¯ım as the founder of the settlement and including hints to the Qur’an. Broadhurst, The Travels of Ibn Jubayr, 116; arab. Ibn Jubayr, Rih.la, 119; Günther, Tagebuch eines Mekkapilgers, 82.

454

Bärbel Beinhauer-Köhler

poetry in Ibn Jubayr’s travel account. This indicates the visitor’s emotions, but presents them in a cultural tradition of citing well-known verses to describe one’s individual feelings.

3.2 The maq¯am inside the Cube Shortly after there follows a passage about at least two memorials to Ibr¯ah¯ım that are difficult to separate, among other things because of their historical links. It seems that the site called maq¯am had a different form in Ibn Jubayr’s time, one part being inside the kacba (“cube”), where he saw a stone with Ibr¯ah¯ım’s footprint in a protected niche. Broadhurst marked them in his translation by – compared to the citation above – a lowercase m in the term maq¯am, describing the one outside the cube using a capital M: “This venerable maqam that is inside the passage is the maqam of Abraham – God’s blessings on our Prophet and on him – and is a stone covered with silver [...] We gazed upon it and were blessed by touching and kissing it. The water of Zamzam was poured for us into the imprints of the two blessed feet [of Abraham who stood on this stone when he built the Kacbah], and we drank it – may God profit us by it. The traces of both feet are visible, as are the traces of the honoured and blessed big toes. Glory to God who softened the stone beneath the tread, so that it left its trace as no trace of foot is left in the soft sand. Glory to God, who made it a manifest sign. The contemplation of this maqam and the venerable House is an awful sight which distracts the senses in amazement, and ravishes the heart and mind. You will see only reverent gazes, flowering tears, eyes dissolved in weeping, and tongues in humble entreaty to Great and Glorious God.” 17

At the beginning of the cited passage, our author mentions Ibr¯ah¯ım and Muh.ammad in one phrase. This comes close to the Qur’anic construction of Ibr¯ah¯ım as Muh.ammad’s predecessor in the true faith. Then we are informed about a popular cult of physical contact with Ibr¯ah¯ım’s footprint – touching, kissing and drinking from it – where the baraka (“blessing”) of the site is mediated by holy water from the well of zamzam close by. This goes back to the historical presence of Ibr¯ah¯ım, who miraculously left the mark that was later filled with water. Touching places with supposed baraka was and continues to be widespread. But the combination with the most sacred water of zamzam, which is said to originate from

17

Broadhurst, The Travels of Ibn Jubayr, 80; arab. Ibn Jubayr, Rih.la, 85; Günther, Tagebuch eines Mekkapilgers, 60.

Maq¯am Ibr¯ah¯ım and the Sacred Landscape of Mecca

455

paradise and which the pilgrims since ancient times have used for healing purposes, makes the site even more important. In addition, it was and is even today not possible for just anyone to gain entrance to the inner cube; it is only possible on special days and for special visitors. Again, the author gives way to emotions through verses of poetry, like those highlighted above. They seem to be the culmination of the inner movement in the space around the kacba. As in the more general description previously, the kacba and outer maq¯am Ibr¯ah¯ım are closely related and hard to separate. Only touching the black stone in the corner of the outer kacba evoke such deep feelings, at least in this author’s description. 18

3.3 The maq¯am beside the Cube The other 19 and official maq¯am Ibr¯ah¯ım outside the kacba was opposite its eastern door. This last site is the station for everyone to pray, as an obligatory part of a proper h.ajj. This takes place after the Ôaw¯af, the circling of the House of God. In the common interpretation, the Qur’anic verse 2:125 “And take from Abraham’s station a place of prayer” is said to have been spoken by Muh.ammad here, when completing the h.ajj. Muh.ammad is said to have prayed two rakca¯ t (“prostrations”) while reciting first Sura 109 and then Sura 112. 20 They reflect the religious development of Ibr¯ah¯ım according to Islam: Sura 109 describes the wrong form of belief in ancient Arabia while Sura 112 – being the nucleus of the theology of tauh.¯ıd – the true, monotheistic belief.

18 Broadhurst, The Travels of Ibn Jubayr, 80: “The Stone, when kissed, has a softness and moistness which so enchants the mouth that he who puts his lips to it would wish them never to be removed. This is one of the special favours of Divine Providence, and it is enough that the Prophet – may God bless and preserve him – declare to be a covenant of God on earth. May God profit us by the kissing and touching of it. In the sound piece of the stone, to the right of him who presents himself to kiss it, is a small white spot that shines and appears like a mole on the blessed surface. Concerning this white mole, there is a tradition that he who looks upon it clears his vision, and when kissing it one should direct ons’s lips as closely as one can to the place of the mole.” 19 Just below the first, our author mentions a second place that is difficult to reconstruct, either inside or outside the kacba. In popular belief it is called a garden (raud.a) of paradise, i. e. the prayers there are very effective. Interestingly, close to Muh.ammads grave in Medina there is a place called raud.a with the same well-known ascription; arab. Ibn Jubayr, Rih.la, 85; see as well Broadhurst, The Travels of Ibn Jubayr, 374 n. 49. 20 According to Sam Deeb, Muhammad Hajj Guide (Kuwait: KHT Press, 2013), 47. Here we find the English translation of Sura 2:125 above.

456

Bärbel Beinhauer-Köhler

Ibn Jubayr does not write about his own prayers and feelings, but presents an aesthetic description of the place, a little house with an elaborate dome either of wood or metal depending to the month and the frequency of visitors: 21 “The place of the venerated Maqam, behind which prayers are said, faces the space between the blessed door and the cIraq corner, well towards the side of the door. Over it is a wooden dome, a man’s stature or more high, angulated and sharp-edged [i. e. pyramidal] of excellent modelling, and having four spans from one angle to another [...]. During the months of the pilgrimage, when many men have assembled and those from cIraq and Khurasan have arrived, the wooden dome is removed and the steel dome put in its place that it might better support the press of men.”

This depiction seems to indicate a variant of the ordinary observation. Maybe because he had the opportunity to enter the cube and see the hidden footprint of Ibr¯ah¯ım before – if we take his description as a chronology of his passing of the holy places – our author was less moved when visiting the outer maq¯am than one would expect when compared with some of his more emotional descriptions. But just to compare: Ibn Bat.t.u¯ t.a (1304–1368/9), a later author of a very famous rih.la, gives a much less detailed account from the year 1326, combining the ritual elements of circling of the cube, praying at the maq¯am and touching of the kacba-curtain as one event: “[...] like a bride who is displayed upon the bridal-chair of majesty, and walks with proud steps in the mantles of beauty [...]. We made around it the seven-fold circuit of arrival and kissed the holy Stone; we performed a prayer of two bowings at the Maqam Ibrahim [a shrine which houses the footprints of Abraham] and clung to the curtains of the Kacba [ ... ].” 22

We can hardly grasp Ibn Bat.t.u¯ t.a’s attitude towards the place. Like the description above, the metaphor of the mantled kacba hidden like a bride might express his feelings. The maq¯am in this case is again not highlighted but a mere part of the ritual around the cube. But we also see: in comparison to Ibn Bat.t.u¯ t.a, Ibn Jubayr’s account is quite detailed. Ibn Bat.t.u¯ t.a, who journeyed much longer even to Asian countries, concentrated less on Mecca in his account.

21 Broadhurst, The Travels of Ibn Jubayr, 81; arab. Ibn Jubair, Rih.la, 85; Günther, Tagebuch eines Mekkapilgers, 60. 22 H. A. R. Gibb, The Travels of Ibn Battuta vol. 1 (London: Hakluyt Society, Syndics of the Cambridge University Press, 1956), 188.

Maq¯am Ibr¯ah¯ım and the Sacred Landscape of Mecca

457

3.4 The h.ijr Ism¯ac¯ıl Directly north of the kacba, pilgrims even today visit the grave of Ism¯ac¯ıl and H¯ajar, his mother. These are situated inside the so called h.ijr Ism¯ac¯ıl, a semi-circular wall that keeps the pilgrims circling the cube from stepping on the graves. Ibn Jubayr writes: “Underneath the waterspout, and in the court of the Hijr near to the wall of the blessed House, is the tomb of Ismacil [Ishmael] – may God bless and preserve him. Its mark is a slab of green marble, almost oblong and in the form of a mihrab. Beside it is a round green slab of marble, and both [they are verde antico] are remarkable to look upon. There are spots on them both which turns them from their colour to something of yellow so that they are like a mosaic of colours, and I compare them to the spots that are left in the crucible after the gold has been melted in it. Beside this tomb, and on the side towards the cIraq corner, is the tomb of his mother Hajar [Hagar] – may God hold her in His favour – its mark being a green stone a span and a half wide. Men are blessed by praying in these two places in the Hijr, and men are right to do so, for they are part of the Ancient House and shelter the two holy and venerated bodies. May God cast His light upon them and advantage with their blessings all who pray over them.” 23

Ibn Jubayr presents this station in quite a descriptive manner, dealing with the location and materials. Again he lets his readers imagine the popular cult, people praying and begging for God’s blessings. And he explains why: this is the historic site of the old house of Ibr¯ah¯ım and the burial place of Ism¯ac¯ıl and H¯ajar. 24 We can assume that this means a multiplication of baraka (“blessings”) in one place that makes it more than reasonable in any popular cult to pray. This element is not obligatory in h.ajj and cumra. But when circling the kacba, the pilgrims certainly see this site behind the semi-circular wall. This is one important moment when Ibr¯ah¯ım’s family relations are made apparent during the pilgrimage. And it is clearly his son Ism¯ac¯ıl and Ism¯ac¯ıl’s mother H¯ajar who are memorialised. The second lineage with Ish.a¯ q and his mother S¯ara has no site and therefore does not play any specific role at Mecca.

3.5 The Friday Prayer Ibn Jubayr mentions the official maq¯am Ibr¯ah¯ım outside the kacba when describing his impressions of the Friday prayers in the huge yard of the 23 24

Broadhurst, The Travels of Ibn Jubayr, 83 f. See also arab. Ibn Jubayr, Rih.la, 88; Günther, Tagebuch eines Mekkapilgers, 61 f.

458

Bärbel Beinhauer-Köhler

h.ar¯am. Here the chosen arrangement of visible objects is of special interest: the preacher’s minbar is erected close to the maq¯am. This means that everybody in the courtyard attending the prayer tries to look to the pulpit and simultaneously towards the maq¯am. Those who are able to see the minbar and the maq¯am might again remember the story of Ibr¯ah¯ım: 25 “Beside the noble Maqam is the preacher’s pulpit [minbar] which also is on four wheels in the mode we have explained. When, on Fridays, the time of prayer approaches, it is brought to the side of the Kacbah that faces the Maqam [...]. The khatib [preacher] comes through the Gate of the Prophet – may God bless and preserve him – which is opposite the Maqam and in the colonnade which runs from east to north.”

The place between the kacba and the maq¯am was and still is of exceptional importance and is probably for this reason used for public performances. The imam who prays before the group of Shaficites, a common orthodox school of law, for example, is later in the account said to remain close to the maq¯am. 26 The liturgy of the Friday prayer is celebrated at the same site where normally the rounding of the kacba and the prayers at the maq¯am take place. The spatial arrangement of buildings in the courtyard is used like a stage, where a certain set of meaningful elements can be re-used in different ways. We know of several other occasions where this centre of meaning close to the kacba and the maq¯am was used for demonstrating the symbols of the ruling dynasties, such as the šamsa (“sun”) of the Fatimids, an umbrella-like metal wheel hung with jewelry radiating in the sun. Later the šamsa was brought to the Cairo court where it spread its baraka from the central place in the masjid al-h.ar¯am. 27

3.6 Religious Gazes Ibn Jubayr describes as well something like a “touristic” manner among the pilgrims. They sit on a bench gazing at the same time at the black stone, the kacba door with the maq¯am on the right and the well of zamzam behind it: 28 25

Arab. Ibn Jubayr, Rih.la, 95; Broadhurst, The Travels of Ibn Jubayr, 91; Günther, Tagebuch eines Mekkapilgers, 66. 26 Arab. Ibn Jubayr, Rih.la, 102; Broadhurst, The Travels of Ibn Jubayr, 97; Günther, Tagebuch eines Mekkapilgers, 71. 27 Heinz Halm, “Al-Šamsa. Hängekronen als Herrschaftszeichen der Abbasiden und Fatimiden,” in Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras (ed. Urbain Vermeulen and Daniel de Sment; Leuven: Peters, 1995), 125–138, here 128. 28 yajlisu n-n¯asu f¯ıh¯a muctabar¯ına bi-šarafi da¯ lika l-maud.ici, arab. Ibn Jubayr, Rih.la, 101; ¯ Broadhurst, The Travels of Ibn Jubair, 97; Günther, Tagebuch eines Mekkapilgers, 70.

Maq¯am Ibr¯ah¯ım and the Sacred Landscape of Mecca

459

“The side of the dome facing the Black Stone has a marble bench running round it. On this men sit pondering the nobility of that place, for it is the most noble of the world, and described as partaking of the nobility of places in the world to come. For the Black Stone is before you, the venerated door and the House face you, the Maqam is to your right, the Safa Gate to your left, and the well of Zamzam is behind your back.”

It is helpful to have David Morgan’s approach of visible religion in mind when considering the described scene as part of a special type of religious behaviour as well. Seeing can be part of ritual performances or aesthetic forms of perception. Believers are sometimes directly “touched” and moved by the important “objects” they see. These signs and symbols evoke very special feelings. Ibn Jubayr refers to the “nobility of that place [...] the most noble of the world [...] partaking of the nobility of places in the world to come.” The view is described as one nearly outside of space and time, already anticipating the afterworld.

3.7 The Walk (sacy) In contrast to the legends normally ascribed to the courtyard of the har¯am, Ibn Jubayr gives a relatively reduced account of the walk (sacy) between as.-S.af¯a’ and al-Marwa, two hills where H¯ajar is said to have searched desperately for water for her son and miraculously found the well of zamzam. This could have been another place to remember Ibr¯ah¯ım’s family, but our traveler instead presents detailed information about the route between the hills, the decorations and views and – maybe important for him – the opportunities to buy fruit along the way. 29 Only at the end of this ritual does the author reflect upon the valley and its hills, connecting the landscape to Sura 14:35–41 about Ibr¯ah¯ım’s settling in an infertile valley. 30 “This is the valley to which the Prophet – may God bless and preserve him – refers in the Koran [XIV, 37] when God – may He be blessed and exalted – declares Abraham as saying, ‘Our Lord! Surely, I have settled part of my posterity in an uncultivated valley.’ Glory to God who preserves to Himself signs palpable.”

We find a combination of historical and practical information for travellers. Ibn Jubayr did not write much about his own encounter with the 29 Arab. Ibn Jubayr, Rih.la, 106 f; Broadhurst, The Travels of Ibn Jubayr, 102, Günther, Tagebuch eines Mekkapilgers, 73 f. 30 Arab. Ibn Jubayr, Rih.la, 109; Broadhurst, The Travels of Ibn Jubayr, 105; Günther, Tagebuch eines Mekkapilgers, 75.

460

Bärbel Beinhauer-Köhler

place, but switches over to official knowledge about the sacred history laid down in the Qur’an. Overall, this is an interesting and obviously locally inspired commentary on the Qur’an: to identify the valley mentioned not with the region of Mecca in general but with the route H¯ajar chose between the two hills.

3.8 Min¯a and the Sacrifice In Min¯a, where the huge sacrifice of animals takes place during the h.ajj, Ibn Jubayr listened again to local legends, narratives about Ibr¯ah¯ım’s willingness to sacrifice his son and his salvation by Allah proposing an animal-sacrifice instead: “After the first Cairn, and deviating a little from the road is found the place of sacrifice of the Sacrificed One [Ishmael] – may God bless and preserve him – where ‘he was ransomed by the sacrifice of a great victim’ [Koran XXXVII, 107]. On the blessed spot has been built a mosque which stands near the foot of Mount Thabir. At the place of sacrifice, and fixed in a wall built there, is a stone bearing the impressions of small feet said to be the footprints of the Sacrificed One – may God bless and preserve him – left there as he writhed. By the power of Great and Glorious God the stone, in pit and sympathy, softened to receive them, and men touch and kiss it that they might be blessed thereby.” 31

His account mainly follows the orthodox norm, even if Sura 37:102 f speaks about both father and son preparing for the sacrifice. An indication of the local popular cult is a hole in the stone, comparable to the footprints of Ibr¯ah¯ım mentioned previously in the context of the maq¯am. Both holes had been used in a very similar way, being touched and prayed to in hope of God’s blessing.

4. Conclusion Even if this sketch forgoes any deeper intertextual examination, we can summarise that Ibr¯ah¯ım is mentioned in this account of the pilgrimage a great number of times, and there are even more references to him than cited here. He is remembered in basic moments: during the first steps to the h.aram, in close interdependency with experiencing the kacba and the well of zamzam. Visitors find quite a number of locations ascribed to 31

Broadhurst, The Travels of Ibn Jubayr, 162; see as well arab. Ibn Jubayr, Rih.la, 159; Günther, Tagebuch eines Mekkapilgers, 114.

Maq¯am Ibr¯ah¯ım and the Sacred Landscape of Mecca

461

him: inside and outside the kacba, in connection with the graves of his son and his concubine H¯ajar, in Min¯a where the animal sacrifices take place. Moreover, he is mentioned in reference to the Qur’an, when the author explains the walk between as.-S.af¯a’ and al-Marwa, even if the background is not his walk but H¯ajar’s. In general, Ibn Jubayr’s experience and description of the site seems quite typical compared to travel accounts to Medina and, for example, possible graves and sites to remember F¯at.ima, Muh.ammad’s daughter. 32 The holy and honourable figures of Islam, prophets and their family members, are located at many sites around Mecca and Medina, where the visitors pray rakca¯ t or touch material traces of venerated persons. The orthodox narratives from the Qur’an and Sunna developed in a vivid local variety and are presented to the visitors as “true” stories of “real” places, and thus illustrate the ideas of Islam and the Islamic community. The blessed places can be seen and touched. At least this was the case for centuries. Since the rise of Wahhabism in the 18th century, many places of baraka in the region were destroyed and popular cults came under the control of the orthodox, who saw these forms as širk, forbidden veneration of other entities besides God. For instance, in the grave-mosque of the Prophet in Medina a clear reduction of stations of prayer as well as of touching took place. Johann Ludwig Burckhardt describes this in detail in the early 19th century as a result of the Wahhabi movement. This also reshaped the masjid al-h.ar¯am in Mecca. 33 Today the footprints of Ibr¯ah¯ım can be seen in the form of a replica inside the little shrine beneath the kacba. But there is no more information on pilgrims drinking water from the footprints. A contemporary Muhammad Hajj Guide 34 that can be purchased in shopping malls in the Gulf region informs pilgrims and interested readers in detail about the orthoprax h.ajj – close to the Qur’an and Sunna and without all the miraculous legends we read in Ibn Jubayr’s account. Nevertheless the major elements of references to Ibr¯ah¯ım have remained stable from Qur’anic times to the medieval travel literature until today: he is construed as the founder of central sacred space in Islam and the surrounding landscape. He connects visitors with the house of God by bridging time. His person was in contact with this most holy place and 32 Beinhauer-Köhler, F¯a.tima bint Muh.ammad, 265–294 with references to historic travel accounts and those of 19th century European Orientalists visiting Mecca and Medina. 33 Johann Ludwig Burckhardt, Reisen in Arabien (Stuttgart: Brockhaus, repr. 1963 [1830]). 34 Deeb, Muhammad Hajj Guide.

462

Bärbel Beinhauer-Köhler

with other blessed materials like the water of zamzam. His body and deeds left prints in stone that can still be seen. And so, via bodily contact, the pilgrims have the opportunity to bridge space and time and participate in Ibr¯ah¯ım’s intimacy with All¯ah, even if touching might in some cases have been replaced by seeing. Ibr¯ah¯ım and a small group of family members are remembered at Mecca during the pilgrimage, that is, his son Ism¯ac¯ıl and his concubine H¯ajar. Maybe it is the fact of locating this branch of the family in Mecca that left Ish.a¯ q and S¯ara, who have no sites dedicated to them around Mecca, to become more shadow-figures in Islam. Possibly it is this presence of certain figures in the masjid al-h.ar¯am that affected the theological discourse for the most part to identify Ism¯ac¯ıl as the one who should have been sacrificed. With this context in mind, the consequence of identifying Ish.a¯ q and S¯ara as the origin of a Jewish genealogical branch in a form of alterisation or “othering” would also be possible. In our source and in the context of the h.ajj this is not done explicitly but does have the appearance of a collectively neglected narrative. Moreover, Ibr¯ah¯ım is explicitly linked to Muh.ammad several times, Muh.ammad being implicitly present all the time, the pilgrims believing that they are following his ritual example in detail. When the pilgrims slaughter animals at Min¯a during their h.ajj they are moved by this part of the story of Ibr¯ah¯ım, much more than was Ibn Jubayr, who arrived at the wrong time. 35 But the well-known annual experience of the feast of animal sacrifice, c¯ıd al-ad.h.a¯ , at Min¯a and around the world, 36 is the background of Angelika Neuwirth’s hypothesis of today’s Muslims focussing on Ibr¯ah¯ım as the one who was willing to sacrifice his son. In conclusion, the complex rites around the h.ajj and cumra are the “media” by means of which many Muslims, from the beginning of Islam and for centuries since, encounter Ibr¯ah¯ım and his family. If they perform the pilgrimage to Mecca, they experience a combination of narratives – written in the Qur’an and Sunna and orally narrated at Mecca – in places they see and touch. Ibn Jubayr is an example of the vivid Muslim culture 35 Some weeks later he performed the h.ajj as well, but does not present details about the sacrifices. In his account on the h.ajj he rarely mentions Ibr¯ah¯ım, but gives interesting insights into the quite chaotic and overcrowded circumstances. Arab. Ibn Jubayr, Rih.la, 167–188; Broadhurst, The Travels of Ibn Jubayr, 173 f; Günther, Tagebuch eines Mekkapilgers, 124–134. 36 See also Bärbel Beinhauer-Köhler, “‘So waren sie in der Lage am Festtage selbst zu schlachten.’ Modi des Opfers im Islam,” in Opfer – Geschenke – Almosen: Die Gabe in Religion und Gesellschaft (ed. Alexandra Grund; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2015), 108–123.

Maq¯am Ibr¯ah¯ım and the Sacred Landscape of Mecca

463

of remembering Ibr¯ah¯ım. This ancestor is an elementary part of their identity, in a more ritual context without deeper cognitive reflections on the different lineages of his offspring but long in favour of his blessed son Ism¯ac¯ıl and his mother H¯ajar. In this sense we can conclude that the primary idea of the early Muslims of relocating the story of Abraham to Arabia worked perfectly. The pilgrims to Mecca personally become part of the narration when they visit the places ascribed to him.

Syrians and the Appeal to Abraham in the Early Islamic Times Catalin-Stefan Popa This paper is focused on Abraham’s figure in the Christian discourse of the early Islamic period. Firstly, I will discuss a short register of Abrahamic names that Christians used to address the first Muslims. After this, starting from the premise that Abraham provides a biblical-typological support for the Christology of the Syriac Christians challenged by early Islam, I will present two Syriac texts in order to emphasize the following questions: Do any changes appear in the Christian profile of Abraham? Does the appeal to Abraham, in this new context, represent an issue related to the doctrine of Christ?

1. The Names Christians attributed to the early Muslims As Patricia Crone and Michael Cook highlighted, “the idea of a religion of Abraham is of course prominent in the Qurʿan.” 1 Abraham is regarded in the Qurʿan as one of the most prominent figures of a series of prophets that begins with Adam and ends with Muh.ammad. 2 But it is already well known that Abraham (arab. Ibr¯ah¯ım) represents much more than just a prophetic figure in Islam. His name is related to the notion of com1

Patricia Crone and Michael Allan Cook, Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 12. 2 See Tilman Nagel, “Der erste Muslim. Abraham in Mekka,” in “Abraham, unser Vater”: Die gemeinsamen Wurzeln von Judentum, Christentum und Islam (ed. Reinhard Gregor Kratz and Tilman Nagel; Göttingen: Wallstein-Verlag, 2003), 112–132, esp. 133. For a complete profile of Abraham in Islam see also: Robert G. Hoyland, Seeing Islam as Others Saw It: A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam (SJLA 13; Princeton, N. J.: Darwin Press, 1997), 470; Edmund Beck, “Die Gestalt des Abraham am Wendepunkt der Entwicklung Muh.ammeds. Analyse von Sure 2,118 (124)–135 (141),” Le Museon 65 (1952): 73–94; Andreas Grünschloss, Der eigene und der fremde Glaube: Studien zur interreligiösen Fremdwahrnehmung in Islam, Hinduismus, Buddihsmus und Christentum (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 100 f.

466

Catalin-Stefan Popa

mandments, which are very relevant for Muslim practices. This makes sense of why Islam identifies itself with the background of an Abrahamic religion. On the other hand, constructing an earlier Abrahamic account as a starting point for their religion, the Muslims – based on Surah 3:65 – try to place Islam chronologically in a time before Judaism and Christianity: “People of the Book! Why do you dispute with us about Abraham even though the Torah and the Gospel were not revealed until after the time of Abraham?” Abraham appears in 25 of the 114 Surahs of the Qurʿan, in around 208 verses. His name is mentioned explicitly 69 times. For this reason, Abraham is the second most frequently mentioned prophet in the Qurʿan (Moses is mentioned 136 times in around 500 verses). 3 Theodor Nöldeke noted in his Geschichte des Qurʿans two indicators that could explain why Muh.ammad felt closely related to Abraham: firstly, because of Abraham’s positive profile in the thinking of Christians and Jews (as the perfect pattern of righteousness, obedience and faith, as the father of all pious and as friend of God), and secondly, because Abraham was seen as the founder of the sanctuary of Mecca. 4 This view about the worship of the Arabs at a place called the “Dome (q¯ubt¯a) of Abraham” or “q¯ab¯a” is mentioned also in an anonymous East Syrian chronicle written in 670, which characterizes this place as “a holy place for Arabs.” 5 3 See Martin Bauschke, Der Freund Gottes: Abraham im Koran (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2014), 1. 4 Theodor Nöldeke, Geschichte des Qurʿans. Teil I: Über den Ursprung des Qurʿans (Leipzig: Dieterich’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1909), 147: “Dass sich Muhammed später gerade Abraham am meisten verwandt fühlte, darf nicht Wunder nehmen, galt doch dieser Patriarch den Christen wie den Juden als vollendetstes Muster der Gerechtigkeit und des Glaubensgehorsams, als der ‘Vater’ alle Frommen und der ‘Freund Gottes’. Die Bevorzugung Abrahams durch Muhammed hängt weiter aufs engste zusammen mit der Ansicht von Sur. 2, 119.121, dass jener der Gründer des mekkanischen Heiligtums sei.” 5 Gerrit J. Reinink, “The Beginnings of Syriac Apologetic Literature in Response to Islam,” OrChr 77 (1993): 165–187, esp. 166. The chronicle presents Abraham as the founder of the sanctuary as follows: “Darüber, was die Kuppel [q¯ab¯a] Abrahams eigentlich sei, haben wir nur folgendes gefunden: weil der selige Abraham reich an Vieh war und sich auch von dem Neide der Kanaaniter fern halten wollte, beschloss er, sich in entlegenen und ausgedehnten Wüstengegenden aufzuhalten, und da er in Zelten wohnte, so erbaute er sich zur Verehrung Gottes und zur Darbringung der Opfer jenen Ort, und von diesem früheren Bau hat auch der heutige seine Benennung empfangen, da die Erinnerung an die Stelle durch Überlieferung von Geschlecht zu Geschlecht bewahrt worden ist. Und für die Araber ist es nichts neues, dort anzubeten, sondern diese Sitte herrscht schon längst seit alten Tagen, indem sie dem Stammvater ihres Volkes die gebührende Ehre darbringen.” Ignacio Guidi, ed., Chronica minora, I, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, Syr. 1 and 2 (Leuven: Peeters, 1955 reprint), 35–36 (syr.); Theodor Nöldeke, “Die von Guidi herausgegebene syrische Chronik übersetzt und commentiert,” Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophisch-historische Klasse 128.9

Syrians and the Appeal to Abraham in the Early Islamic Times

467

The attempt of the Muslims to identify themselves as descendants of Abraham and of his family is also revealed in the names the Christians adopted to address them in the early Islamic period. Christians made use of various names which described the new religion of Islam in association with the Old Testament Patriarch Abraham and his family. It is well known that “in order to distinguish these monotheistic Arabs from pagan and Christian Arabs, they were called ‘sons of Ishmael’ or ‘sons of Hagar’, the name ‘Muslims’ not being attested in Syriac sources before Abbasid times.” 6 Such names connected Muslims with Abraham’s house. “Hagarenes (mhaggr¯ay¯e)” is initially found in the mid-seventh century sources. 7 The term gains attention in the following century. According to Michael Penn, “if one examines eighth-century texts, however, ‘Hagarenes’ becomes much more common.” 8 The concept “mhagr¯e / mhaggr¯ay¯e” indicates, according to Sidney Griffith, a relationship with the name of Hagar, the concubine of Abraham. 9 In our texts the concepts “Hagarenes” or “mhagr¯e /mhaggr¯ay¯e” are widely used to designate Mus-

(1893): 1–48, esp. 46; see also Françoise Briquel Chatonnet, “Some reflexions about the figure of Abraham in the syriac literature at the beginning of Islam,” The Harp 22 (2007): 157–175, esp. 166, 172. Theodor Nöldeke, “Die von Guidi herausgegebene syrische Chronik,” 46, n. 4, goes a step further: “Der Verfasser nimmt die muslimische Legende ohne Bedenken an. Darin hat er allerdings Recht, dass die Ka’ba nicht etwa erst durch Muhammed zum Heiligthum geworden ist.” 6 Gerrit J. Reinink, “The Lamb on the Tree: Syriac Exegesis and anti-Islamic Apologetics,” in The Sacrifice of Isaac: The Aqedah (Genesis 22) and Its Interpretations (Themes in Biblical Narrative: Jewish and Christian Traditions 4; ed. Ed Noort and Eibert Tigchelaar; Leiden: Brill, 2002), 109–124, esp. 123–124. See also Hoyland, Seeing Islam, 156 and 414 n. 88; Reinink,“The Lamb on the Tree,” 123–124 n. 78. 7 Michael Philip Penn, “John and the Emir: A New Introduction, Edition and Translation,” Le Museéon 121 (1–2): 65–91, esp. 72. 8 Penn, “John and the Emir,” 72–73. See also Reinink, “The Beginnings,” 172 n. 42, 175, 177; Karl-Heinz Ohlig, “Hinweise auf eine neue Religion in der christlichen Literatur ‘unter islamischer Herrschaft’?” in Der frühe Islam: Eine historisch-kritische Rekonstruktion anhand zeitgenössischer Quellen (ed. Karl-Heinz Ohlig; Berlin: Hans Schiler Verlag, 2007), 223–327, esp. 232–235. 9 Sidney H. Griffith, Syriac Writers on Muslims and the Religious Challenge of Islam (M¯or¯an Eth¯o Series No. 7, Kottayam: St. Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute, Baker Hill, 1995) 9. See for example the use of the term in Jacob of Edessa (in the late seventh century). In this regard Michael Philip Penn, Envisioning Islam. Syriac Christians and the Early Muslim World (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015), 1, claims: “The word ‘Hagarenes’ was the most common term Jacob used to speak of people whom we would call Muslims.”

468

Catalin-Stefan Popa

lims. The notion “Sons of Ishmael” (“bnay Hagar”) 10 also occurs only in the second text (the B¯etʿ H . a¯ l¯e Disputation). Only one name does not lead directly to Abraham and his family, and this is the concept “t.ayy¯aye” or “h.a¯ npe.” 11 This brings us to the basic discussion about the term “h.an¯ıf.” The origin of the concept “h.an¯ıf” has long been a very controversial issue among Syriac and Arabic scholars. 12 Milka Levy-Rubin discussed the literature and summarized the two most important semnifications of the concept: on the one hand “h.an¯ıf” could come from the Arabic verb “h.anafa, to incline, or decline from,” with the intention to characterize the “h.an¯ıf” as “one who ‘inclined’ from a false religion towards the true religion.” 13 On the other hand, most scholars are of the opinion that “h.an¯ıf” is “a loanword from the Syriac h.anpo, meaning ‘pagan,’ ‘heathen,’ which was sometimes used to imply a specifically Hellenistic type of paganism.” 14 Numerous sources of the seventh-century denominate the Muslims with these terms. In comparison with the Abrahamic appellatives mentioned above, the terms “t.ayy¯aye” or “h.a¯ npe” show on the contrary an important evolution of Muslims from their pagan customs and traditions to peculiar religious norms. In this sense, Patricia Crone and Michael Cook offer an interesting point of view: “This is surely the context which gave Islam the curious term h.an¯ıf, so closely associated with Abraham and his faith: by borrowing a word which meant ‘pagan’ 10 For “bnay Hagar” see Sebastian P. Brock, “Syriac Views of Emergent Islam,” in Studies on the First Century of Islamic Society (Papers on Islamic History 5; ed. Gautier H. A. Juynboll; Carbondale /Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press, 1982), 9–21, esp. 15; Michael Philip Penn, “A Temporarily Resurrected Dog and Other Wonders: Thomas of Marg¯a and Early Christian /Muslim Encounters,” Medieval Encounters 16, 2–4 (2010): 209–242, esp. 218 n. 29; cf. Ohlig, “Hinweise auf eine neue Religion,” 232–235, 317–318; Harald Suermann, “Das arabische Reich in der Weltgeschichte des Jôh.annàn bar Penkàj¯e,” in Nubia et Oriens Christianus. Festschrift für C. Detlef G. Müller zum 60. Geburtstag (Bibliotheca Nubica 1; ed. Piotr O. Scholz and Reinhard Stempel; Köln: Jürgen Dinter, 1987) 59–71, esp. 61. 11 See Catalin-Stefan Popa, G¯ıwarg¯ıs I. (660–680): Ostsyrische Christologie in frühislamischer Zeit (Göttinger Orientforschungen, I. Reihe: Syriaca, Band 50; ed. Martin Tamcke; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2016) 48–49 n. 188. 12 For more on the topic see: Milka Levy-Rubin, “Praise or Defamation? – On the Polemic Usage of the Term H.an¯ıf among Christians and Muslims in the Middle Ages,” JSAI 28 (2003): 202–225; D. S. Margoliouth, “On the Origin and Import of the names Muslim and H.an¯ıf,” JRAS 35 (1903): 467–493; Charles J. Lyall, “The words ‘H.an¯ıf’ and ‘Muslim’”, JRAS 35 (1903): 771–784. 13 Levy-Rubin, “Praise or Defamation?” 203. Sidney H. Griffith, “The Apologetic Treatise of Nonnus of Nisibis”, ARAM 3.1–2 (1991 [1993]): 115–138, esp. 127, similarly refers to a relationship of the Syrian word h.anp¯o (pl. h.anp¯e) with the Arab concept h.an¯ıf (pl. h.unaf¯a). 14 Levy-Rubin, “Praise or Defamation?” 203; Margoliouth, “On the Origin and Import,” 478–479; Lyall, “The words ‘H.an¯ıf’ and ‘Muslim’”, 774–775, 781.

Syrians and the Appeal to Abraham in the Early Islamic Times

469

in the vocabulary of the Fertile Crescent, and using it to designate an adherent of an unsophisticated Abrahamic monotheism, the Hagarenes contrived to make a religious virtue of the stigma of their pagan past. At the same time we can discern in this trend the beginnings of the farreaching reorientation whereby the origins of Islam came to be seen in an elaborate and organic relationship to a real or imagined pagan heritage.” 15 It is certainly understandable why the Muslims were depicted as pagans: on one hand because of their Arabic background and on the other because of their antipathy to Christianity. Both concepts (“t.ayy¯aye” and “h.a¯ npe”) evidently indicate a defined boundary between Christianity and Islam, which was created by the very early encounters.

2. Abraham in the Disputation between Patriarch John Sedra and the Emir Before starting the analysis of the Syriac materials, it makes sense to emphasize the idea that both texts have a christological framework. Most scholars consider it quite possible that the dialogues are fictions, but as Penn mentions – focusing on the second text – “the perspective they presented were not.” 16 It is feasible that such dialogues were created within Christian circles in response to everyday reality. One of the most important critical opinions is given by Penn, who produced the new edition and an English translation of our first text presented here. The dialogue discussed purports to be a letter recounting a debate that allegedly took place between John Sedra, Patriarch of Antioch and a local Governor, an emir of the Mhaggr¯ay¯e. 17 Unfortunately there are only a few

15 Crone and Cook, Hagarism, 13–14. For a comprehensive view of the notions used by Christians in order to characterize the new challenging of their neighbors, the Muslims, see also: Penn, Envisioning Islam, 60–68; Popa, G¯ıwarg¯ıs I., 49; Penn, “John and the Emir,” 72; Griffith, Syriac Writers on Muslims, 8; Theresia Hainthaler, Christliche Araber vor dem Islam: Verbreitung und konfessionelle Zugehörigkeit: eine Hinführung (Eastern Christian Studies 7; Leuven: Peeters, 2007) 22; Spencer J. Trimingham, Christianity among the Arabs in Pre-Islamic Times: Arab Background (Beirut: Librairie du Liban, 1990), 312. 16 Penn, Envisioning Islam, 37. 17 The text goes back to MS BL Add. 17193 from 874 c. e. For a description of the manuscript see Barbara Roggema, “The Debate between Patriarch John and an Emir of the Mhaggr¯ay¯e: a reconsideration of the earliest Christian-Muslim debate,” in Christians and Muslims in dialogue in the Islamic Orient of the Middle Ages / Christlich-muslimische Gespräche im Mittelalter (Beiruter Texte und Studien 117; ed. Martin Tamcke; Beirut: Orient-Institut /Würzburg: Ergon Verlag in Kommission, 2007) 21–40, esp. 21, n. 2.

470

Catalin-Stefan Popa

short papers that deal with the theological content of the debate. 18 The Disputation is dated to late 7th century or the beginning of the 8th century, and located in the region of H.oms. (Emesa), in Syria. 19 Before describing the content, it is important to mention Penn’s opinion regarding a possible historiographical framework of this Syriac Disputation: “(1) it is almost certain that John and the Emir is not an entirely accurate representation of an encounter between a Christian and a Muslim ruler, rather it is a carefully crafted piece of apologetics; (2) it is quite probable that the text was not originally composed in the 640s but rather was written in the late seventh or in the eighth century 20; and (3) it is quite possible that a meeting between John Sedra and ʿUmayr ibn Saʿd never actually took place but is rather a later literary construct.” 21 The uncertain historical background which Penn emphasizes here does not diminish its importance for elucidating the first interactions of Syriac Christians with 18

Roggema, “The Debate,” 21–40; Harald Suermann, “Orientalische Christen und der Islam. Christliche Texte aus der Zeit von 632–750,” Zeitschrift für Missionswissenschaft und Religionswissenschaft 67 (1983): 120–136, esp. 122–128. 19 Reinink, “The Beginnings,” 171. 20 Roggema (“The Debate,” 39) also discusses an early origin of the text. She concludes: “In this respect the Debate is distinct from the many literary Muslim-Christian debates that have come down to us from the eighth century onwards, which do bring up all these burning issues and teach its readers how to respond to critical questions. If larger part of the Debate were composed in the 640s, or at some later point in the seventh century, then that fact could explain the difference between our text and the famous Christian-Muslim debates that do treat all these topics. Be this as it may, the question on inheritance makes it highly unlikely that the text as a whole was written in the aftermath of the Islamic conquest of Syria.” For an early eighth century dating, see Reinink, “The Beginnings,” 165–187; 171–185; Sydney H. Griffith, “The Prophet Muhammad, his Scripture and his Message according to the Christian Apologies in Arabic and Syriac from the first Abbasid Century,” in Arabic Christianity in the Monasteries of Ninth-Century Palestine (Collected Studies Series, CS 380; ed. Idem; Aldershot: Variorum, 1992) 99–146, esp. 99; Hoyland, Seeing Islam, 464. Other discussions in Peter Bruns, “Le colloque du Patriarche Jean avec l’Emir des Agaréens sur la foi (fin VIIe siècle?),” in Ethique et religion au défi de l’histoire (ed. Marie-Thérèse Urvoy ; Versailles: Editions de Paris, 2011), 119–129; Crone and Cook, Hagarism, 14; Reinink, “The Lamb on the Tree,” 170–182; Samir Khalil, “Qui est l’interlocuteur musulman du patriarche syrien Jean III (631–648)?” in IV Symposium Syriacum 1984 (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 229; ed. Han J. Drijvers et al.; Rome: Pontifical Institute of Oriental Studies, 1987), 387–400; Sydney H. Griffith, “Answering the Call of the Minaret: The Topics and Strategies of Christian Apologetics in the World of Islam,” in Die Suryoye und ihre Umwelt: 4. deutsches Syrologen-Symposium in Trier 2004. Festgabe Wolfgang Hage zum 70. Geburtstag (Studien zur orientalischen Kirchengeschichte 36; ed. Martin Tamcke and Andreas Heinz; Münster: Lit, 2005) 11–42: esp. 18 n. 24; Suermann, “Orientalische Christen,” 127; N. A. Newman, The Early Christian-Muslim Dialogue. A Collection of Documents from the First Three Islamic Centuries (632–900 A. D.): Translations with Commentary (University of Michigan: Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, 1993). 21 Penn, “John and the Emir,” 80

Syrians and the Appeal to Abraham in the Early Islamic Times

471

Muslims. Penn argues as follows: “As with most other disputation texts, John and the Emir does not reflect an attempt of objective historiography as much as an act of apologetics, polemics, and meaning-making. This conclusion does not lessen the importance of John and the Emir for the study of early Christian /Muslim interactions, but it does highlight the need for particular reading strategies to effectively analyze this document, strategies that focus more on questions of ideology and representation than on historical reconstruction.” 22 The text deals with different questions: variety of faiths, practical issues concerning the Law and questions about the prophets and their christological statements. The debate handles five questions that can be situated in the field of dialogue and interreligious discourse. The Emir asks firstly whether the Gospel is one and the same for all Christians. After that the Emir adds: “Why if the gospel is only one, is the faith diverse?” 23 In a context of such discursive challenges the “standard Muslim critique of Christianity” arises, 24 namely the issue about the divinity of Christ (whether Christ is God). The Emir brings a fourth theological thesis into discussion concerning the “form and the opinion of Abraham’s and Moses’s faith.” In his answer, the Patriarch refers to a line of Prophets (“Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron”) and argues that these “and the rest of the prophets and all the just and the righteous ones” “had and held this belief and this faith of the Christians.” 25 It is not coincidental that the Emir places Abraham at the top of the list. 26 The question about the Prophets belongs to a christological framework, and this is obvious from the statements of both discourse participants. The answer of the Patriarch reveals his intention not to give a general explanation to the general question of the Emir. He nominates as prophets of the christological testimony first of all Abraham and Isaac, because both are also relevant in Islam. After this he extends the testimony to other prophets who are also important in a larger interreligious context: Jacob, Moses, Aaron (and their relevance in Judaism).

22

Ibid., 80–81. Ibid., 86. 24 Roggema, “The Debate,” 26. 25 Penn, “John and the Emir,” 87; compare Penn, Envisioning Islam: Syriac Christians and the Early Muslim World, 70–71. 26 Suermann, “Orientalische Christen,” 127: “Nach islamischer Auffassung hat Abraham den Glauben an einen Gott verkündet, ebenso Moses. Dabei ist die Offenbarung im Wesentlichen die gleiche. Die spätere Offenbarung bestätigt jeweils die Vorausgehende. Auch das Evangelium bestätigt nur die Tora.” 23

472

Catalin-Stefan Popa

From the perspective of intertextuality, the question about Abraham’s and Moses’s faith is placed between two christological interrogations. The latter deals with the real proof of the divine nature of Christ. To this question of the Emir “and why then did they not write openly and make (it) known concerning Christ?” the Patriarch offers a decisive statement certifying that the Prophets “truly knew that God is one and (that there is) one divinity (Christ),” 27 “but the Jews are too immature to appreciate the proofs of Christ’s divinity in the Old Testament.” 28 It seems that the appeal of John Sedra to Abraham and to the prophets makes them advocates of christological statements. The Patriarch intends to demonstrate, in a subtle way, that Christology is not missing in the thinking of the prophets: Abraham and the prophets were the starting point of a christological idea. The discourse of Patriarch John offers no other clues concerning expanding or omitting Abraham’s biblical framework. The Patriarch promotes the prophets as a valid Christian argument highlighting their knowledge of the revelation of the Holy Trinity and of the Incarnation. Abraham and the prophets presented the mystery of the divinity in a veiled manner, so that the Trinity would not be seen in a false way, as multiple Gods. By using this short hermeneutic of the prophets, Patriarch John defends in his answer the Christian doctrine and implicitly the Christian Abraham.

3. Abraham in the Disputation from B¯etʿ H . a¯ l¯e Another Syriac Disputation, which deals with the topic of Abraham in a more complex way 29 than the first text, goes back to the early 8th century 30

27

Penn, “John and the Emir,” 87. Roggema, “The Debate,” 29. See also Harald Suermann, “The Old Testament and the Jews in the dialogue between the Jacobite Patriarch John I and Umayr ibn Sad al-Ansari,” in Eastern Crossroads: Essays on Medieval Christian Legacy (Gorgias Eastern Christianity Studies 1; ed. Juan Pedro Monferrer-Sala; Piscataway, N. J.: Gorgias Press, 2007), 131–141. 29 See Françoise Briquel-Chatonnet, “Some reflexions about the figure of Abraham in the Syriac literature at the beginning of Islam,” 170; see also Penn, Envisioning Islam, 72: “In the B¯etʿ H . a¯ l¯e Disputation, the .tayy¯ay¯a’s questions were both broader in range and greater in depth than those found in John and the Emir. In John and the Emir, the emir simply presented quick cue lines for Christian refutation. But in the B¯etʿ H . a¯ l¯e Disputation, the interlocutor often continued with probing follow-up questions.” 28

Syrians and the Appeal to Abraham in the Early Islamic Times

473

(more precisely to 720) 31. This Disputation is “structurally similar to John and the Emir” and contained a “question-and-answer format.” 32 The purpose of the dialogue is “instructive” according to Sidney Griffith: “He says that the Muslim notable was in the monastery for ten days because of sickness. He was a man interested in religion, the author says, ‘learned in our scriptures as well as in their Qurʿ¯an.’” 33 As he has already done in the case of the dialogue between John Sedra and the Emir, Michael Philip Penn also discusses this second text in terms of its historicity: “As this neat, trite, triumphal ending suggests, similar to John and the Emir, the B¯etʿ H . a¯ l¯e Disputation was not an accurate transcription of an actual exchange between a .tayy¯ay¯a and a Christian. Nevertheless, it yields important clues about how Syriac Christians in the first half of the eight century were categorizing their conquerors.” 34 One of the debated topics was the biblical narrative of Genesis 22: the story of Isaac’s sacrifice. 35 Sidney Griffith characterizes the Disputation as “Christian apologetics pure and simple.” 36 The Muslim (denoted with the concept t.ayy¯aya) addressed questions and the monk (¯ıh¯ıday¯a) offered answers; the text looks like a “conversion narrative,” as the Emir switches from attack to approval of the Christian’s faith. 37 The Muslim tried to provide a legitimate picture of Islam, claiming: “We are careful with the commandments of Muh.ammad, and with the sacrifices of Abraham. [...] We do not ascribe a son to God, who is visible and passible like us. And there are other things: we do not worship the cross, nor the bones of martyrs, nor images like you [do].” 38

30 The text appears in Diyarbekir Syriac MS 95, from the early 18th century. See the description in Addai Scher, “Notice sur les manuscrits syriaques et arabes conservés à l’archevêche chaldéen de Diarbekir”, Journal Asiatique, ser. 10, vol. 10 (1907): 395–398; Sidney H. Griffith, “Disputing with Islam in Syriac: The Case of the Monk of Bêt Hãlê and a Muslim Emir,” Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 3.1 (2000): 29–54, esp. 41–42; Idem, “The Monk in the Emir’s Majlis: Reflections on a Popular Genre of Christian Literary Apologetics in Arabic in the Early Islamic Period,” in The Majlis: Interreligious Encounters in Medieval Islam (Studies in Arabic Language and Literature 4; ed. Hava Lazarus-Yafeh et al.; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1999), 13–65. 31 Karl Pinggéra, “Konfessionelle Rivalitäten in der Auseinandersetzung mit dem Islam. Beispiele aus der ostsyrischen Literatur,” Der Islam 88 (2012): 51–72, esp. 52. 32 Penn, Envisioning Islam, 128. 33 Griffith, “Disputing with Islam,” 43. 34 Penn, Envisioning Islam, 72. 35 See Reinink, “The Lamb on the Tree,” 109; Griffith, “Disputing with Islam,” 110. 36 Griffith, “Disputing with Islam,” 43. 37 Cf. Penn, Envisioning Islam, 72. 38 Text in Griffith, “Disputing with Islam,” 44; Penn, Envisioning Islam, 72.

474

Catalin-Stefan Popa

Related to our main topic, the issue of Isaac’s sacrifice 39 demands closer attention. By making use of this biblical story, the monk evokes Abraham’s (and Isaac’s) affiliation to the sacrifice of Christ. Everything that happened in Isaac’s story represents a type of Christ’s sacrifice, asserts the monk. 40 The exegesis on Abraham and Isaac given here by the monastic figure has his roots in the East Syriac Tradition. 41 Irrespective of the Islamic context in which he lives, the monk does not hesitate to use the traditional exegesis in an ingenious way in order to highlight that Abraham and his Son Isaac are related to Christ. For this reason, the monk provides a christological answer, giving – as Sidney Griffith mentions – “a recitation of the scheme of salvation history in which he explains that Abraham’s life and exploits are the type for Christ’s life and accomplishments; in particular the story of the sacrifice of Isaac is the type for the passion, death, and resurrection of Christ.” 42 On this solid exegetical groundwork, the monk demonstrates that the particularity of the Christian Abraham is to be contemplated in his quintessential relationship to the passion of Christ. The Qurʿanic tradition is also familiar with the biblical motif of Genesis 22, but it contains some variations. 43 In this biblical example provided by the monk, it was thought simplest to give evidence of Abraham in Christian theology. The two “boys” taken by Abraham on his journey (Gen 22:3–5) are typologically interpreted by the monk as the two robbers crucified with Christ. Gerrit Reinink offers supporting arguments that this is a valid interpretation from the late Syriac commentaries. 44 Reinink comes to the following conclusion: “But – and this makes this witness so interesting – the disputation offers an amalgam of an older Syriac motif and the Greek-Antiochene Christological exegesis.” 45 39

See Reinink, “The Lamb on the Tree,” 114–117; Crone and Cook, Hagarism, 12–13. Reinink, “The Lamb on the Tree,” 114; see also Griffith, “Disputing with Islam,” 44. 41 Reinink, “The Lamb on the Tree,” 109; see also Griffith, “Disputing with Islam,” 115. For Genesis 22, see also Sebastian P. Brock, “An Anonymous Syriac Homily on Abraham (Gen. 22),” OLP 12 (1981): 225–260; Idem, “Genesis 22 in Syriac Tradition,” in Mélanges Dominique Barthélemy: Études Bibliques offertes a l’occasion de son 60e anniversaire (OBO 38; ed. Pierre Casetti, Othman Keel, and Adrian Schenker; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 1–30; Richard McCarron, “An Epiphany of Mystical Symbols: Jacob of Sarug’s M¯emr¯a 109 on Abraham and his Types,” Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 1:1 (1998): 57–78, esp. 76–77. A list of the Syriac exegetical compilations on Genesis 22 is offered by Reinink, “The Lamb on the Tree,” 109; Griffith, “Disputing with Islam,” 116. 42 Griffith, “Disputing with Islam,” 44. 43 See Surah 37:102/100–110; see also Bauschke, Der Freund Gottes, 73–75. 44 Reinink, “The Lamb on the Tree,” 109; Griffith, “Disputing with Islam,” 118. 45 Reinink, “The Lamb on the Tree,” 121. 40

Syrians and the Appeal to Abraham in the Early Islamic Times

475

The Disputation deals further on with christological questions about the veneration of martyrs, the cross, the Christian practice of baptism, the question about Muhammad, and finally the query whether Hagar’s sons are going to enter the kingdom. 46 As seen in the discourse of the monk, Abraham and his family as christological instruments of God’s economy are in this period of encounters more deeply rooted in Christian self-consciousness. The appeal to Abraham is an argument in the Syriac tradition for defending the Christian typology Abraham-Christ, as the monk affirms: “As the shadow is for the body, and the word to the act, so also is the manner of life of our father Abraham to the new things that Christ did for the redemption of our lives.” 47

4. Conclusion It seems that Abraham was part of the vocabulary shared by Christians and Muslims in early Islamic times. In the dialogue of John the Patriarch of Antioch with an Emir, Abraham appears in a succession of names with his son Isaac. In the second text Abraham is discussed in a much larger framework. It is evident that the dialogue from B¯etʿ H.a¯ l¯e has a very particular christological profile, which seems much more developed than in the earlier text. The monk of B¯etʿ H.a¯ l¯e is interested in putting the profile of Abraham in direct connection to Christ in order to offer the Christians an assured basis for theological discussion in a multi-religious society challenged more and more by Islam. In summary, each text has its own peculiarity. Whether these disputations took place or not, they reveal a foundation for the theological discourse of the time. The appeal to Abraham was permanently present among the Syrians, firstly against the opposing group of Jews and now for the encounter with Islam.

46 47

Griffith, “Disputing with Islam,” 49. Text in Reinink, “The Lamb on the Tree,” 124.

Index (prepared by Hannah Kreß)

Index of Sources 1. Hebrew Bible /Old Testament Genesis 2:21 2:24 4 4:2 4:26 9 10 10:4 10:7 11 11:26–12:3 11:26–29 11:26–27 11:28 11:29 11:31 11:32 12–25 12–15 12 12:1–3 12:1 12:2 12:4–14 12:7 12:10–20 13 13:4 13:5–13 13:14–17 13:18 14 14:8 14:17–20 14:18–24 14:18–22 14:18–20

355 350 362 189 9 11 20 422, 438 45 10 100 108 105 108 110 10 10 338 f., 340 f., 345, 349, 359 317, 319 18, 66, 349 10, 101, 119, 347 18, 195, 347 54 24, 100 262 51, 109 42, 117 18 352 19, 262 51 42, 53, 309 f. 65 309 f. 52 54 64 f.

14:18 15 15:1–16 15:1–6 15:2–3 15:4 15:5–6 15:5 15:6 15:7–11 15:9 15:16 15:18 15:19–21 16 16:1–6 16:1–4.15–16 16:1–4 16:1 16:2 16:4–14 16:4 16:6 16:7–14 16:7 16:8–12 16:11–12 16:11 16:12 16:13 16:15–16 17 17:1–27 17:1–8 17:2.4 17:4–6 17:4

66 f. 9, 102, 161, 163, 241, 254, 262, 273, 382 16, 100 111 236 195 229 196, 228 9, 197, 232, 266 388 197 151 55 f. 55 19, 112, 236, 239, 241, 251, 351, 362, 400, 408 249 f. 115 122 240 238, 248 407 246 113 112, 115 45 238 404 238 404 238 123, 239 12, 19 f., 22, 26 f., 31, 102, 153, 245, 251, 382, 407 100 377 22 21 12

478 17:5 17:7–8 17:7 17:10–14 17:10–11 17:16–21 17:16 17:18b 17:20 17:23–26 18:1–21 18:1–15 18:10b – 15 18, 29, 30 19 19:8 19:15 19:30–38 19:31–32 19:37–38 20:1–7 21:17–19 21:1–7 21:1–3 21:1 21:8–21 21:8–13 21:9–13 21:9–10 21:9 21:10 21:13 21:14 21:20 21:21 21:22–23 21:31 22 22:1–19 22:1–9 22:2 22:5 22:10 22:11–12 22:12.16 22:16 22:17 22:20–25 22:20–24

Index 224, 332 23, 26, 160 12 384 385 253 197 27 246 123 34, 100 119 29 359 118, 346, 352, 359 118, 352 346 37 f., 353 f. 118 28 236 172, 229, 239, 241, 247 f., 358, 408 120 18 255 239, 242 240 113 256 241, 256, 355 114, 259 257 255 17 258, 397, 407 51 51 9, 15–19, 31, 53 f., 120, 157, 169–173, 182, 273, 307, 356, 382 100, 167 102 61 356 f. 157 157 182 307 180, 307 4, 100 83

23 24 24:1–67 24:2 24:16 25 25:1–6 25:1–4 25:1–2 25:3.12–18 25:5–10 25:5–6 25:6 25:7–10 25:8 25:9 25:12–18 25:12–16 25:13–16 25:13 25:18 25:19–34 25:19–26 25:19–20 25:20 25:21–23 25:22 25:23 25:24 25:25 25:27 25:28 25:30 27 27:1–40 27:27–29 27:29 27:40 28:3–4 28:14 28:15 32 32:9 33 33:1–17 33:12 33:18 34 37:28.36 39

52, 114 81–86, 88–95, 125 120 87 90, 95 229, 290, 358, 362, 400, 418 44 115, 401 236 128 102 100, 121 102, 123 f. 100, 102 217 47 104 239 43 f. 371 43 f. 421 361, 363, 374 104 124 f. 364 425 368, 373, 426 f., 429, 432 f., 437, 440, 445 422 f., 427, 429 134 134 104, 121 423 290 369 428, 434, 436 428 438 157 439 439 441 442–444 375 287 442 53, 68 74, 77 f., 404 45 355

479

Index 39:21 41:42 42:21 48:21–22 49:10

45 287 25 74 155

Exodus 1:7 2 2:11–4 2:24 3–15 3:1–21 3:6 3:8.17 6:3 6:4 6:8 6:12.30 13:5 13:18 14 15 19:1 20:2 23:23.28 24 24:4–6 24:4 24:8 27:21 28:35 29:42 32:13.23 32:13 33:1 33:2 34:11 40:22–25

54 82 23, 319 319 60 319 268, 318 f., 326 55 159 f. 25 26, 319, 323 24 55 45 10 60 293 62 55 159 f., 163 158 159 159 f. 24 24 24 319 323 323 55, 319 55 24

Leviticus 18:5 26:42

229 319

Numbers 13–14 14:25 18:21–32 21 21:4 32:11 32:38

45 45 311 38, 41 45 319, 323 41

Deuteronomy 1:1–2 1:8 1:19 1:40 2 2:1 2:5 2:9.19 6:10 6:4 7:1 9:5 11:29–30 16:19 17:14–20 20:7 21:15–17 21:18–21 23:3–6 23:3 23:8–9 25:5–6 25:19 26:13 27:9–26 27:26 29:12 30:20 32 32:8–9 32:21 32:25 33–34 33:10 34 34:4 34:5 34:6

45 319, 323 45 45 41 45 295 37, 39, 41 319, 323 139 55 319, 323 68 424 39 55 236 287 38, 41 355 295 268 155 297 60 229 319 319, 323 60 49, 56 77 f. 423 218 44 219 319, 323 60 223

Joshua 2 3:10 6:25 13:15–23 15:1–4 16:10 17:12–17 24 24:2–3.14–15 24:2 24:3

335 55 335 41 46 56 56 10 f. 109, 127 10, 109, 348 10, 109

480

Index

Judges 1 4:19 5:25 11 11:14–27

56 92 92 358 38, 41

1 Samuel 14:48 15:1–9 15:7 21:10–15 22:3–4 25 26:19 27 27:8–12 28:1–2 31

155 155 44 50 39 51 49 50 f. 50 50 49

2 Samuel 2:4 5 5:1–5 6 8 8:2 8:12 10–12 10:2 10:6 10:15–19 12:15–25 14:5 15:7–9 16 17:2 23:3 23:36 24:5–6

51 56 51 53 35, 39, 55 39 40 39 f. 40 40, 42 55 93 25 51 50 40 40 49 41

1 Kings 1–11 1:43 3:1 4:7–19 5:1 6–8 6–7 8:65 9:16 10:1–13 10:22 11:7.33

48 25 36 41 55 53 48 55 36, 56 48 48 39

11:16 11:41 14:19.29 14:21 18:36

437 36 36 40 319

2 Kings 4:14 5:17 8:22 17:23 23:29–30 25:25

25 49 437 72 58 405

1 Chronicles 5:10 5:19 8:38 9:44 11:38 11:39 11:46 27:30–31

49 402 405 405 49 40 40 48

2 Chronicles 1:4 3:1 19:3 19:11 23:1 30:6 33:17

25 53, 61 f. 25 405 405 319 25

Ezra 10:13 10:22

25 405

Nehemiah 2:19 4:1 6:1

45 45 45

Psalms 8:5–7 23 24:6 31:1–2 72:8–11 76:3 78:67–68 83:6–9 83:6 89:26 103 107:2–3 109:4

302, 305 287 365 229 55 53 75, 79 37 401 55 287 324 307, 309

481

Index 110:4 141:16

53, 67 370

Proverbs 26:18–19

414

Isaiah 2:1–5 2:2–3 15–16 25:6–8 25:6 25:8 27:13 37:32 40–66 41:8–9 41:8 42:1–4 43:1 43:5–6 45:20 48:8–9 49:12 51:2 54:1 60:1–22 60:6–7

271 368 42 324 271 324 324 325 56 303 346 365 153 324 325 304 324 11 229, 255 271 45

Jeremiah 3:18 4:31 9:25–26 11:5 31:10–20 40:7–41 41:3 48

324 423 403 323 287 405 405 42

Ezekiel 16:11–17 16:19–21 20:25–26 23:42–4 26:2 27:20–22 37:19.22

92 172 172 92 427, 431 45 75, 79

Daniel 8:17 10:7.21 11:35.40 12:4.9

73 25 73 73

Hosea 2:1

368

2:15 8:9

92 404

Amos 7 7:9.16 7:9 7:16

30 31 29 29

Micah 4:1–4 7:12

271 324

Zechariah 9:9–10 10:6–7

55 76, 79

Malachi 1:1–2 1:2–3

229 230 f., 362

2. Apocrypha 2 Esdras *

76

Judith 8:26–27

169

Jubilees 1:5.7 7:20 11:14–15 11:14–12 11:16–17.18–24 11:16–17 11:16 12:1–8.16–21 12:1–8 12:6–7 12:9 12:12–16 12:12–14 12:25–27 12:27 12:28–31 13:1–29 13:17 14:1–24 14:1–20 14:1–6 14:11 14:21–24 14:21 15

135 137 105 31, 100 f. 101 106 135 101 106 106 109 348 108 101 106 107 100 100 100 102 111 f., 122 163 115 243 102, 128

482 15:1–34 15:19.21 15:20 16 16:1–17 16:1–4 16:7–9 16:15–19 17:1–4 17:4–17 17:4–7 17:11 17:14 17:15–18:19 17:15–18 17:15 18:1–3 18:16 18:18–19 19 19:1–31 19:1–9 19:10 19:11 19:13–15 19:13–14 19:13 19:15–23:8 19:16 19:26–29 20–23 20:1–23:8 20:1–13 20:1.11–13 20:11 20:13 21:1–26 21:12 22:1–23:8 22:1–9 22:10–23:1 22:10–24 22:16–19 22:20–22 22:20 22:25–30 23:9–31 25:7 27:17 27:21–24 30:1 31:12

Index 100 123 123 117 14, 100 119 118 102, 120, 123 242 123 113, 115 407 243, 258 f. 100, 102 115 163, 174 163 175 164 130 100 114 f. 100, 120, 125 243 133 100 139 121, 126 138 126 101, 121 101 100 f. 126 102 128 100 f. 163 100 122 102 127 128 128 141 127 102 139 129, 134, 139 139 53 136

35 35:1–6 35:9–12 35:13–17 35:14 36:9–11 37:4 37:24 47:9

130 136 138 140 141 140 144 144 135

1 Maccabees 1:11–15 2:1 2:51–60 2:54 8

66 222 338 144 442

2 Maccabees 4:10–17 6:2

66 64

3 Maccabees 2:21

215

4 Maccabees 5:37 7:19 13:11–12 13:17 16:18–20 16:20–21 16:25 18:11 18:23

326 326 179 326 179 338 326 179 326

Sirach /Ecclesiasticus 3:16 77 48:18 77 50:25–26 77 f. Tobit 14:7

325

Wisdom of Solomon 10:7–8 117 18:22 254

3. Old Testament Pseudepigrahia Apocalypse of Abraham 8:9 215 Artapanus 2

245

1 Enoch *

406

483

Index

5. New Testament

2 Enoch *

67

Eupolemus 1 1:137–143

66 63

4 Ezra 6:7–10

294

4. Qumran Writings Damascus Document (CD) * 145, 148 f., 151, 156, 163 f., 236 3,2 149, 151 16,6 153, 160 Genesis Apocryphon 1QapGenar (= 1Q20) XX 2 164 XXI 20 164 XXII 12–17 67 Milhama /War Scroll (=1QM) * 74 Serek Hayahad /Rule of the Community (=1QS) * 74 4Q158 145, 157–160, 164 4Q174 155 4Q175 155 4Q176 155 4Q177 155 4Q180 156 4Q213a 311 4Q214b 163 4Q225 145, 160–164, 170, 173, 175 f. 4Q226 170 4Q252 145, 154–157, 164 4Q252 5 iv 5 154 4Q252–254a 148 4Q364–367 145, 157 f. 4Q371 72, 76, 79 4Q372 72–79 4Q372 10–15 72 4Q372 11–14 76 4Q379 17 4 148 4Q388a 7 ii 1–2 149 4Q393 3,7 149 4Q544 67 Melchizedek 11QMelch (= 11Q13) * 67

Matthew 1:1–17 1:6 3:7–10 5:8 5:17.19 8:5–13 8:10 8:12 10:37 13:28 21:28–32 22:23–33

335 335 266 352 385 325 325 325 357 325 287 268, 327

Mark 10:28 12:18–27 12:26

348 268, 326 f., 340 326

Luke 1:1 1:14–17 1:46–56 1:46–55 1:47 1:67–79 1:68–79 1:68 1:73–74 2:1 3:1 3:7–9 3:8 3:10–14 3:18 3:23–38 3:34 7:9 7:48 13:10–17 13:16 13:23–38 13:28–29 13:28 14:14 14:26 15:1–3 15:1 15:2 15:11–32 15:11 15:13

264 263 333 323, 340 263 323 264, 340 264 264 336 336 265 f., 333 264 f., 334 266 267 265, 336 265 325 323 264, 333 264 340 265, 340 271 327 350 298 279 279 276 288 298

484

Index

15:19.21 15:22 15:29 15:31 16 16:19–31 16:22 17:29 19:1–10 19:9 20:27–40 20:27–38 20:36 20:38

290 291 290, 297 f. 280, 284 271 271, 323 f. 270 346 264, 323, 333, 340 264 268 327 268 273

John 3:23 4:4–6 4:20 8 8:31–59 8:56 19:15

68 70 79 330 f. 330, 340 346 366

Acts 3:11–26 3:12–26 3:13 3:25 7 7:1–57 7:1–8 7:2–53 7:2–52 7:2–8 7:5.7 7:32 7:51 10 13 13:13–52 13:26 17

320, 340 264 269 265 322 265 272 320 322 340 323 269 265 265 340 320 328, 329 340

Romans 1:3–4 1:3 2:29 3:21–32 3:28–31 4 4:1–25

212 211 385 331 211 208 f., 227–230, 266, 331 f., 340 211

4:1 4:3 4:11–18 4:11 4:12 4:16–17 4:16 4:17–18 4:17 4:18 4:23–24 8 8:32 8:33–34 9–11 9 9:1–5 9:3 9:4–5 9:6–13 9:6–12 9:6–9 9:6–7 9:7–13 9:7 9:9–13 9:10–13 9:10 9:12–13 9:13 11:1–2 11:1 12:4–5

208, 211–213, 216 f., 222, 224, 231 331 211, 224 224 224 230, 332 233 224 332 229 232 182 182 354 328 227 f., 372, 375 211 211 328 229, 341 230 254 329 373 350 329, 337 362 f., 368, 375 230 231 337, 341, 365 363 225, 227, 232, 327 230

1 Corinthians 1:10 6:16 9:10 11:18 12:12–27 12:25

230 351 232 230 230 230

2 Corinthians 11:22

225, 227, 327

Galatians 3–4 3 3:1–4:7 3:1–29 3:6–9.15–18 3:6.7 3:7–9

227 f., 230, 266 229 f. 340 331 253 349 209

485

Index 3:7.29 3:8 3:16.29 3:16 3:23 3:27–29 3:29 4 4:5 4:21–31 4:21–30 4:21 4:22–23 4:23–26 4:24–25 4:24 4:26–27 4:27 4:28–5:1 4:28 4:29–30 4:29 4:30–31 5:1 5:11 6:12

232 332 f. 332 228, 332 253 254 226, 255, 332 230, 337, 410 253 230, 336, 341, 352 231 253 254 f. 411 254 256 255 229, 257 411 255 341 356 231 231, 257 256 256

8:9 11 11:8–22 11:8–11 11:8 11:10.16 11:11 11:17–19 11:18 11:19 11:20

303 311, 314 f. 312, 337 f. 266 347 67 338 182 313 357 337

James 2:23

272, 346, 349

1 Peter 3:5–6 3:15–16

346 355

Revelation 6:2

365

Ephesians 6:12–17

355

Philippians 2:2 3:5 3:7–8

Babylonian Abodah Zarah (b. Abod. Zar.) 10b 293

230 225, 232 227

Hebrews 1 2 2:5–18 2:9 2:15 2:16 5:1–7:28 5:11–6:12 6 6:13–7:10 6:13–20 6:13–15 6:14 7 7:1–10 7:1–2 7:1 7:18

310 314 314 304 304 303 f. 67 307 314 307 307 f. 307 307 338 f. 307, 309, 311, 315 67, 309 310 338

6. Mishnah, Talmud and related literature Tosefta Sotah (t. Sotah) 6:6 259, 414

Babylonian Berakot (b. Ber.) 62b 170 Babylonian Megillah (b. Meg.) 6a 427, 431 14a 110 Babylonian Sanhedrin (b. Sanh.) 69b 110 Babylonian Yoma (= Kippurim) (b. Yoma) 28b 226 Jerusalem Berakot (y. Ber.) 5:2 170 Jerusalem Ketubbot (y. Ketub.) 1:3 90

486

6.2 Targumic Texts Fragmentary Targum (Frg. Tg.) Gen 22 170 Targum Neofiti (Tg. Neof.) Gen 21:8 259 Ex 22 170 Targum Onqelos (Tg. Onq.) Gen 22 170 Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (Tg. Ps. – J.) Gen 11:29 110 Gen 16:1 243 Gen 21:9.15–16 259 Gen 22 170 Gen 25:1 116, 243 Targum Yerušalmi (Tg. Yer.) Gen 25:1 116

6.3 Other rabbinic works Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer (Pirqe R. El.) 26–30 243 30 116, 243, 259 Genesis Rabbah (Gen. Rab.) 63:6 425, 430 63:7 426 63:8 422, 427, 429 63:10 423, 425 f. 63:12 423 f. 63:13 424 65:10 424 65:18 425 66:1 426 66:3–4 428 67:6 427 67:8 427 75:13 426, 428 76:3 427, 443 82:13 428, 432 Exodus Rabbah (Exod. Rab.) 1:1 259 17:3 287 Leviticus Rabbah (Lev. Rab.) 34:9 294 Qohelet Rabbah (Qoh. Rab.) 3:15 287 Lamentations Rabbah (Lam. Rab.) 2 287

Index Seder Eliyahu Rabbah (S. Eli. Rab.) 18 284 28 284 Seder Eliyahu Zuta (S. Eli. Zut.) 4 284 5 284 Tanhuma (Tanh.) *

423–426, 428–430, 439, 441, 443, 445

7. Greek and Latin works Ambrose De Abraham (Abr.) 1.2/26 1.2/3 1.2/4 1.2/7 1.2/8 1.3/13 1.4/22 1.4/23 1.4/24 1.4/25 1.6/52 1.6/56 1.7/59–60 1.8/71 2.72–75

352 347 348 349 348 347 350 350 350 351 347, 352 354 349 358 352

Ambrosiaster Quaestiones Veteris et Novi Testamenti (Qu.) 43 358 117 8, 357

Augustine Contra mendacium (C. mend.) 9.20 353 9.21 353 De civitate Dei (Civ.) 1.21 357 5.1 373 15.2 412 16.16 377 16.19 349

487

Index 16.21 16.26 16.29 16.32 16.34

377 377 350 f. 357 f. 412

81.2–3 83.2 83.3 84.4

348 347 346 357

Confessionum libri XIII (Conf.) 4.3 373 5.3 373 7.6 373

Conlationes (Conl.) 2:7 357

De octo Dulcitii quaestionibus (Dulc.) 7.4 351

Cyrill of Alexandria

Expositio in epistulam ad Galatas (Exp. Gal.) 40.1–9 358 40.21–24 358 Contra Faustum Manichaeum (Faust.) 22.5 353 22.31 351 22.44 354 22.45 354 Homilia in Vetum Testamentum 2.1 358 Quaestionum evangelicarum libri II (Quaest. ev.). 2.33 278 Quaestiones in Genesim (Quaest. Gen.) 1:51 356 26 349, 352 Quaestiones in Heptateuchum (Quaest. Hept.) 1:42 353 1:44 347 Sermones (Serm.) 8.14

357

In Evangelium Johannis tractatus (Tract. Ev. Jo.) 12,4 356

The Venerable Bede In Genesim (In Gen.) 4 351 f.

Caesarius of Arles Sermones (Serm.) 81.1

348

Cassian

Commentarius in Lucem (Comm. Luc.) 107 279 Glaphyra in Genesim (Glaph. Gen.) 3.2 357 3.5 356

Didymus In Genesim (In Gen.) 48 352 209 348 210 348 226 348 234 351

Eusebius Historia ecclesiastica (Hist. Eccl.) I 4,12–15 378 I 10,6–7 387 Onomasticon (Onom.) * 68 Praeparatio Evangelica (Praep. ev.) 9 62 9.16–19 385 9.19.1–3 243 9.20.1 170 9.23.1 245

Irenaeus Adversus haereses (Haer.) 4.31.1–2 354 4.31.3 354 4.36.7 278

488

Index

Isidore of Seville Quaestiones in Vetus Testamentum (Quaest. V. T.) 15.4 346

Jerome Epistulae (Epist.) 21 28.2.2 36.16 71.4.6

278 371 368 371

Quaestiones hebraicarum liber in Genesim (Qu. hebr. Gen.) 25:1 243, 259 72:24 356

John Chrysostom Homiliae in epistulam ad Galatas commentarius (Hom. Gal.) 4.4 253 Homiliae in Genesim (Hom. Gen.) 32.4 349 38.1 351 38.2 351 42.4 352 44.4 347, 355 44.5 354 46.1 356 47.1 357 47.2 358

Josephus Flavius Antiquitates judaicae (Ant.) 1.10.4 407 1.12.2 408 1.12.4 408 1.151 110 1.154–256 245 1.154–168 272 1.157 321 1.183–187 254 1.189–190 259 1.215 256 1.219 259 1.221 254 1.222–236 178 1.224 178

1.226 1.227 1.230–231 1.237 2.213 4.26 5 7.103 8.155 9.278 9.288–291 9.291 11.341 12.265 14.490–491 15.403 16.187 17.14 17.75

178 178 178 114 254 216 408 215 215, 217 73 71 75 75 222 223 223 223 236 216

Bellum judaicum (B. J.) 1.63 65 Contra Apionem (C. Ap.) 1.168–171 384 2.16 244 Vita (Vita) 1–2 2

216 223

Julian the Apostate Contra Galilaeos (Contra Galilaeos) fr. 1 390 fr. 1:87,2 381 fr. 1:87,3 381 fr. 2:87,5 381 fr. 17:105–106 383 fr. 19–20 390 fr. 21–22 392 fr. 23–24 393 fr. 45:139,10 389 fr. 47:141,11–13 382 fr. 48 391 fr. 49:143 382 fr. 53–54 393 fr. 55 391 fr. 62,6–10 390 fr. 83:117,9 387 fr. 83:177 387 fr. 84:178–179 383, 387

489

Index fr. 85:179,5–6 385 fr. 85:179,6–180,10 385 fr. 86:181,7–13 386 fr. 86:181,10–11 385 fr. 86:181,13–15 390 fr. 86:182,1–2 387 fr. 87:182,2–6 388 fr. 87:182,15–183,1 388 fr. 88:183,14–184,19 389 fr. 88:184,20–23 389

Maximus Confessor Ambigua ad Iohannem (Ambigua ad Iohannem) 4:21 348 Quaestiones et dubia (Quae. dub.) 39 347 80 352

Origen Contra Celsum (Cels.) 1,22 384 4,24–25 383 4,33 386 4,43 383 4,44–45 383 4,45 353 f. Homiliae in Genesim (Hom. Gen.) 7,3 356 7,6 352, 355 8,2 357 8,5 357

Petrus Chrysologus Sermones (Serm.) 5

278

Philo Alexandrinus De Abrahamo (Abr.) 66 347 94 348 168–207 170, 177 170 177

175 176 177 178 180–181 180 250 251

178 177 178 177 172 177 248, 251 252

De cherubim (Cher.) 3 249 65 190 67–70 201 71 201 De congressu eruditionis gratia (Congr.) 6 193 20 194, 250 23 250 24–33 200 43–44 191 47 192 48 192 49 192 51–52 189 53 192 61 200 73–79 250 129 200 130 200 132 191 139 250 De fuga et inventione (Fug.) 2–118 251 23–38 201 49 201 119–176 251 166–172 198 166–167 198 167 198 168 198 173 198 174 198 177–201 251 201–213 251 De gigantibus (Gig.) 62 193 63 193 Quis rerum divinarum heres sit (Her.) 85 196 92–94 197 102–103 197

490

Index

Legum allegoriae I,II,III (Leg.) 1.80–82 202 1.82 202 2.59 252 3.29 197 3.43 198 3.87 252 3.198 190 3.219 252 3.244 250 De migratione Abrahami (Migr.) 2 195 7 195 12–15 192 13 192 16–22 202 21 202 28–29 198, 201 28–33 198 29–31 199 38–39 202 148 192 148–150 192 179 193 189 193 De mutatione nominum (Mut.) 12 189 54–59 195 f. 56–57 196 59 196 70–71 196 77–80 199 92–96 202 131 197 135–136 202 201 194 209 252 De opificio mundi (Opif.) 143 218 145 218 De posteritate Caini (Post.) 35 190 36 190 177 193 Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin III,IV (QG) 3.19 186, 250 4.153 217, 223 De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini (Sacr.) 2–3 190

2 5:4–6 7 44

189 326 199 194

De somniis I (Somn.) 1.47 192 1.48–49 192 1.55 192 1.58–59 192 1.85–86 192 1.248 193 De virtutibus (Virt.) 220–222 335

Ps.-Athanasius Quaestiones ad Antiochum Ducem (Quaest. ad Antiochum Ducem) 98 350

Tertullian Adversus Judaeos (Adv. Jud.) 1 367 De cultu feminarum (Cult. fem.) 2.2.6 348 Adversus Marcionem (Marc.) 5.4.8 253 De monogamia (Mon.) 6.3, 4 349 11.4 350 16.4 353 De patientia (Pat.) 6.2 357 De pudicitia (Pud.) 8–9 278

Theodoret of Cyrus Quaestiones in Genesim (Qu. Gen.) 67 349 f. 70 355 71 355 72 356 73 357

491

Index

Zeno of Verona Sermones (Serm.) 1:43.4,7

357

8. Qur’an 2:125–127 2:125 2:136 2:217 3:58–60 3:65–68 3:65

451 455 448 398 448 448 466

3:95–97 4:74–84 11:69–72 14 14:35–41 14:37 19:41–50 21:51–71 37:83–96 37:99–113 37:102–103 37:102 109 112

451 451 399 451 459 451 451 451 451 398, 447, 449 f. 460 474 455 455

Index of Subjects Abraham Ibn Ezra 435, 437 f., 445 f. Abraham-Lot cycle 29–31, 37 f., 42 Alexandria 185 f., 195, 204 ancestor(s) 11 f., 74 f., 164, 213–217, 219, 221–223, 225, 229, 335 f., 449, 463 antitypes (s. typos) 299, 315 Aqedah, binding /sacrifice of Isaac 3, 15, 61, 157, 167 f., 170, 175 f., 179, 181 f., 239 blasphemy 77 f. blessing 11, 128, 155–157, 163 f., 218, 262, 265, 267, 339, 425–428, 431, 434, 436 f., 445 body 134, 143, 195 f., 202, 250–252, 254 boundary-marker 330, 332 bride 82, 94, 121, 125 brother 87 f., 105, 107 f., 110 f., 117, 127, 135, 143, 275–282, 287–298, 362 f., 365–368, 370, 372 f., 375 child(ren) 119, 121–124, 127, 198, 200, 230–233, 235 f., 255–257, 264–268, 327, 329 f., 372–374 Christianity 361, 363, 379–381, 390–392, 438, 445 circumcision, circumcised 23, 123, 153 f., 223 f., 331 f., 384 f. conceptual pattern 3 f., 167 concubine 191, 240, 245, 250, 450 concupiscence 350, 354 countermemory (s. memory) 209, 224, 232 f., 322 covenant 12, 20, 22–27, 102, 103 f., 151–153, 158–160, 164, 364 f., 384, 410–412, 420 creation 61, 127 f., 217 f., 224 cult, cultic 52 f., 163 f., 387 f., 390–392, 394, 454, 457, 460 f. daughter 37 f., 108–110, 117–119, 192 f., 264, 329, 333, 352–355

daughter-in-law 10, 124, 259 descent, descendant 12, 19 f., 23, 41, 44 f., 47, 54–56, 76–78, 105, 109, 118 f., 164, 215 f., 222 f., 225–227, 242, 262–264, 301, 303 f., 314 f., 327 f., 330 f., 340 f., 386, 400, 402, 406, 438 f., 467 ecclesiology 325 education, paideia 135, 191, 193–195, 249–252, 425, 445, election 127 f., 164, 372, 375 empirical model 33 eschatological, eschatology 4, 154, 156, 232 f., 271 f., 323–326 ethnic, ethnicity, ethnos 222, 235–237, 243 f., 249 f., 252, 258, 318, 320, 322–325, 327–337, 340 f., 377 f. faith 163, 197, 207–209, 223 f., 226–230, 232 f., 266, 272 f., 311–314, 340 f., 362, 364 f., 367 f., 471–473 family bonds 128, 232 father 31, 105–107, 120, 122–124, 127 f., 192 f., 224 f., 230, 232, 266 f., 283–287, 290 f., 339–341, 356 forefather 163, 165, 207, 210–217, 220–224, 226, 232 friend of God 272, 346, 466 gender 129–132, 235–237, 257 genealogy 116, 225, 265, 334–337, 448 f. Gentile, anti-Gentile, Gentile /Jew 128, 262, 264–267, 278–283, 296–298, 325 f., 370 Gerizim, Mount 59–65, 68–72, 77–79 grace 198, 208 f., 224, 368, 373 grandchild(ren) 126 grandson 222, 259, 338 Hasmonean 131, 223, 442 Hebron 27, 51–54

493

Index heir(s) 253, 307 f., 312, 314, 361, 364 f., 397 Hellenism, Hellenizing, Hellenized 131, 171, 377, 379–381, 387, 391, 393 f. heritage 217, 333, 340, 448 holy women, familia sacra 4, 346, 355, 359 house, father’s 88, 195, 276, 284 household 115 f., 123 f., 235, 259, 340, 412 husband 138, 141, 235, 255, 335

Muhammad 397 f., 420, 475 mukat ez 90, 92, 95 Nahmanides 440–446 narrative 28–30, 287–291, 361–363, 398 f., 421, 423, 445, 451 f., 461 f. nephew 38, 117 network, family 222, 224, 317, 319, 337, 339, 341 orthodox

identity 28, 130–133, 292, 294, 328–331, 334–341, 447–451, 463 idolatry 106–108, 348, 355 f., 425, 445 impurity /purity 106 f., 141 f. intercourse 141 f., 349, 351 f., 354 inter-faith dialogue 361 f., 375 Islam 397–399, 416–420, 447–451, 455, 461 f., 465–469, 475 Jephthah 180 f., 358 Jerusalem 51–54, 67, 77–79, 254–256 Judaism 171, 292–294, 340, 361, 379–381, 384–387, 390 f. justification 207 f., 415 kinship 212–214, 216, 218, 223–226, 228, 317 f., 340 f. Levite(s) 152 f., 163 f., 310 f., 339 literary history 9, 15 liturgy 60, 70, 263, 458 Maccabees 131, 135, 143 f., 179 marriage 39 f., 43, 81 f., 84, 94 f., 103–105, 107–113, 115, 124 f., 142 f., 244, 348 f., 353, 358 masculinity 129–131, 133 f., 143 f. Mastema 153 f., 161–163, 174–176 matriarch(s), matriarchal 241, 245, 248 f., 335, 337, 341 Mecca 397–399, 419 f., 447–453, 461–463 Medina 451, 461 Mediterranean 335, 400 Melchizedek 52 f., 63, 65–69, 307, 309–311 memory (s. countermemory) 292, 319 f., 322, 328, 330 f. monogamy 235, 349 f. morality, moral 143, 236, 247, 294, 349, 359

458, 460 f.

pagan 377 f., 380–383, 467–469 parable 275–291, 296, 298 parents 105, 137, 139–142 patriarch, patriarchal 239, 241, 245, 247, 257, 268 f., 271–273, 319–324, 326 f., 334 f. patristic 278–281, 345, 361–363, 411 people of God 208, 226, 230, 325 f., 341 Persian period 14, 16, 19, 31 Philistines 49–51 philosophical schools 185 pilgrimage (Hajj) 398, 450, 452 f., 457, 460, 462 polemic, polemical 76–78, 378–381 polygamy 236, 349–351 priest(s), priestly 10 f., 14 f., 19, 28, 65–67, 83, 152 f., 164, 309–311 promise 30 f., 54–56, 111 f., 114, 171–173, 175 f., 179 f., 241 f., 262–265, 272 f., 307–309, 312–315, 328 f. prophecy 361, 363–365, 367–370, 374–376 Qumran 145–149, 153–157, 160, 163–165 Qur’an 397–399, 419, 461 f. rabbis, rabbinic 89 f., 92, 167 f., 182 f., 292–295, 413, 415 f., 422 f., 425–427, 429 f., 445 Rashbam 432–435, 445 Rashi 404, 429–432, 445 f. reception history 81, 95, 275, 282, 298 reconciliation 288 f., 291 f., 295 f., 298, 375 Reigns of David and Solomon 33, 35 f., 53, 56 reinterpretation, reinterpreting 421 f., 429 f., 439 f., 442 f., 445 f. resurrection 268 f., 271, 313, 326 f.

494

Index

reworking, reworked 147 f., 157, 164 rewriting, rewritten 127 f., 131, 146 f., 301 ritual 447, 451–453, 456, 459, 462 f. Rome 292–295, 426–428, 431, 437 f., 442, 445 royal archives 36 f., 42, 57 f. sacred, sacrality 397–399, 447, 461 sacrifice 171 f., 177–179, 181, 290, 387 f., 390 f., 398, 447, 451 f., 460, 462, 474 sacrifice /binding of Isaac, Aqedah 16, 167, 169, 171, 173, 179–183, 474 Samaritan 59 f., 62–64, 66, 68–72, 74–79 Second Temple period 145, 209, 288 seed (of Abraham), σπέρµα ΄Αβραάµ 225, 227 f., 304–306, 314, 327, 329 Seleucid 64, 131, 144 servant 81, 85–88, 91–95, 237–240, 242 f., 253, 256–258 Shechem 53, 59, 65 f., 68, 70, 74, 77 siblings 255, 362 sister 105, 109, 348 f. slave 235–238, 240, 251, 254, 258, 411 f. slave woman 112 f., 122, 227, 231, 237, 239–243, 245 f., 248 f., 251, 258 f., 410–412

son, sonship 15, 30 f., 95, 105–107, 110 f., 114 f., 119–124, 140 f., 143 f., 232, 275–291, 297 f., 320–322, 329, 332, 334–336, 340 f., 356 f., 369 f., 397 f. soul 186–195, 197–204, 408 f. status, social 235–238, 240 f., 257–259, 336, 359 Syrian 384, 400 f., 465 f., 475 Tannaitic 283, 285 f. Temple, Jerusalem 76–79, 413 tolerance 380 f. tradition history 81 twins 367, 373, 422, 429, 441 typos, typology (s. antitypes) 218, 262, 273 f., 292, 294, 299 virgin, virginity

90, 92 f.

wife, wives 109–116, 124–126, 141, 192, 334 wisdom 185 f., 188, 191, 198–201, 249–252 Zadok, Zadokite(s) 152 f., 163 f. Zion Theology 35

Index of modern authors Aitken, Kenneth T. 82, 84 Allegro, John M. 155, 157 Bailey, Kenneth 281, 283, 285, 287, 290 Bernstein, Moshe 74, 148, 155, 158, 162 Blum, Erhard 13, 23, 29, 37, 55, 58, 171, 239 Bourdieu, Pierre 132 Brett, Mark 13, 21, 403 Brooke, George J. 148, 155 Burckhardt, Johann Ludwig 461 Chilton, Bruce D. 168 f., 177–179, 182 Cook, Michael 465, 468–470, 474 Crenshaw, Kimberlé 237 Crone, Patricia 465, 468–470, 474 Davies, Philip R. 168 f., 177–179, 182 Davila, James 63 Degele, Nina 132 Deißmann, Adolf 219 Dillmann, August 82 Dozeman, Thomas 404 f. Dunn, James 208, 210, 212, 330 Eissfeldt, Otto 82 Eph’al, Israel 43 f., 401 Finkelstein, Israel

14, 29, 39, 46 f., 52

García Martínez, Florentino 74, 118, 176 Goodman, Martin 209, 213, 216, 224, 233, 306, 317 Griffith, Sidney 467 f., 470, 473 f. Gudorf, Michael E. 302, 304 Gunkel, Hermann 13, 17 f., 82 Heither, Theresia 345, 378 Hendel, Ronald S. 135, 137, 143, 209, 224, 233 Hofius, Otfried 289–291, 297

Holladay, Carl 62–65 Holst, Søren 145, 160, 163 f. Horst van der, Pieter 213, 384 Jungbauer, Harry

137

Kippenberg, Hans G. 63, 78 Kitchen, Kenneth A. 46, 48 Knauf, Ernst Axel 21, 27, 43 f., 46, 401 Knibb, Michael 74 Lambrecht, Jan 208, 210, 291 Levine, Amy Jill 280, 282, 298 Levy-Rubin, Milka 468 Lockshin, Martin I. 432, 435 Lohse, Eduard 210 Marcus, Ivan G. 429 Mazar, Benjamin 46 Naumann, Thomas 21 f., 411 Neuwirth, Angelika 451, 462 Nöldeke, Theodor 466 Noth, Martin 82 Penn, Michael 467–473 Perry, Menakhem 85–88, 90 f., 95 de Pury, Albert 12, 21–24, 27 von Rad, Gerhard 82 Räsiänen, Heikki 231 Reemts, Christina 345, 378 Reinink, Gerrit 466 f., 470, 474 Rendsburg, Gary 83 Rofé, Alexander 83 f. Rokeah, David 392 Roth, Wolfgang 82 Ruiten van, Jacques 38 f., 111, 134, 138, 174, 242

496 Sasson, Jack 93 f. Schuller, Eileen 74 f. Segal, Michael 131, 158 Seters van, John 14, 82 Sheridan, Mark 345 Shinan, Avigdor 91–94 Smend, Rudolf, 15 82 Snodgrass, Klyne R. 282, 285, 287 f. Stenschke, Christoph 297 Sterling, Gregory 63, 186 Tigay, Jeffrey H. 33 f. Tov, Emanuel 146, 157 f. Trible, Phyllis 238, 405, 420 Tzoref, Shani 155

Index Vermes, Geza

147, 168

Walter, Nikolaus 63 Wellhausen, Julius 13, 19, 82 Westermann, Claus 82 White Crawford, Sidnie 157 f. Williams, Benjamin 281, 290 Winker, Gabriele 132 Wöhrle, Jakob 13, 257 Wright, Nicholas T. 208, 280–283, 285, 292 Zahn, Molly 147, 409 Zakovitch, Yair 91–94 Zimmerli, Walther 12

List of Contributors Guido Baltes is a postdoctoral researcher in New Testament at the University of Marburg (Germany). Michael Becker was Assistant Professor of New Testament at the University of Munich (Germany). Bärbel Beinhauer-Köhler is Professor of History of Religions /Religious Studies at the University of Marburg (Germany). Christfried Böttrich is Professor of New Testament at the University of Greifswald (Germany). Lukas Bormann is Professor of New Testament at the University of Marburg (Germany). Michaela Durst is University Assistant at the Department of Christian History, Art and Archaeology at the University of Vienna (Austria). Aliyah El Mansy is University Assistant of New Testament at the University of Marburg (Germany). Reuven Firestone is the Regenstein Professor in Medieval Judaism and Islam at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion in Los Angeles (USA). Mariano Gomez Aranda is a Tenured Scientist at the Instituto de Lenguas y Culturas del Mediterráneo y Oriente Próximo of the CSIC (Spain). Jesper Høgenhaven is Professor of Old Testament at the University of Copenhagen (Denmark). Magnar Kartveit is Professor emeritus of Old Testament at School of Mission and Theology /VID Specialized University, Stavanger (Norway). Eva-Maria Kreitschmann is a doctoral student in New Testament at the University of Marburg (Germany). Anni Maria Laato is Adjunct Professor in Systematic Theology at the Åbo Akademi University (Finland). Antti Laato is Professor of Old Testament Exegetics and Judaic Studies at the Åbo Akademi University (Finland).

498

List of Contributors

Martin Meiser is assistant Professor of New Testament at the University of Saarland and Adjunct Professor of New Testament at the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg (Germany). Christian Noack is Director of the Schulzentrum Marienhöhe, Darmstadt, and Lecturer in New Testament /Practical Theology at the Theologische Hochschule Friedensau (Germany). Catalin-Stefan Popa is a Fellow of Hill Museum and Manuscript Library, Saint John’s University Collegeville, Minnesota, and postdoctoral researcher at the University of Marburg (Germany). Konrad Schmid is Professor of Hebrew Bible and Ancient Judaism at the University of Zurich (Switzerland). Angela Standhartinger is Professor of New Testament at the University of Marburg (Germany). Lotta Valve is postdoctoral researcher in Exegetics at the Åbo Akademi University (Finland). Jacques T. A. G. M. van Ruiten is Professor in the Reception History of the Bible at the University of Groningen (Netherlands). J. Cornelis de Vos is Adjunct Professor of New Testament and Ancient Judaism and Acting Professor of New Testament at the University of Münster (Germany).