From Enoch to Tobit: Collected Studies in Ancient Jewish Literature (Forschungen Zum Alten Testament) 9783161542886, 9783161554353, 3161542886

Citation preview

Forschungen zum Alten Testament Edited by Konrad Schmid (Zürich) · Mark S. Smith (Princeton) Hermann Spieckermann (Göttingen)

114

Devorah Dimant

From Enoch to Tobit Collected Studies in Ancient Jewish Literature

Mohr Siebeck

Devorah Dimant, born 1939; completed Ph.D. Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Specialized in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple Jewish Literature.

e-ISBN 978-3-16-155435-3 ISBN 978-3-16-154288-6 ISSN 0940-4155 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament) Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2017 by Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, Germany.  www.mohr.de 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, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was typeset by Martin Fischer in Tübingen using Times typeface, printed by Gulde Druck in Tübingen on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Spinner in Ottersweier. Printed in Germany.

Preface The present volume brings together twenty articles, most of which were written and published over the past fifteen years together with some penned three decades ago. All have been updated and the older ones have also been partially rewritten. Five articles have been translated from their original Hebrew versions and brought up to date. The studies were originally written to address various aspects of the Second Temple literature that were emerging from the ongoing research at the time. However, assembling them now in a single volume spotlights particular features that remained in the shadows when discussed individually. What emerges from their collected form is the fact that, despite their variety, all except for the Wisdom of Solomon are related in one way or another to the Qumran Scrolls. This feature emphasizes in a fresh way the wide range of the Qumran library and its character as a depository of traditions that illuminate the Second Temple literary scene as a complex whole. Additionally, the works treated here are grouped according to their original language of composition, namely, Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. The arrangement of the articles according to their composition language expresses the realization that has emerged from recent research – elaborated upon in the introductory essay – that this factor is a decisive one for outlining the configuration of the early non-biblical literary creations. Therefore, besides bringing disparate publications together in a single accessible collection, the ensemble acquires an enhanced level of significance and cohesion that the individual items do not possess. It has been estimated that due to their diverse subjects the various articles are incorporated more successfully in their integral form and footnotes, at the expense of some repeated information. The volume could not have been brought to light without the generous help accorded to me. My hearty thanks go to Janice Karnis, who performed the expert copy-editing of the English version, and to Efraim Or Averbuch for his help with computer technicalities. I am much indebted to Henning Ziebritzki of Mohr Siebeck for his cordial support and gracious help. Thanks are also due to the editors of the Forschungen zum Alten Testament series, Konrad Schmid, Mark S. Smith, and Hermann Spieckermann, for accepting the volume into their series. The volume follows the guidelines of the SBL Handbook of Style, 1999. Haifa, December 2016

Devorah Dimant

Table of Contents Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XI Abbreviations of Frequently Cited Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIV DJD Volumes Referred to in the Articles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XV Introductory Essay: The Jewish Literary Scene during the Second Temple Period: Framework and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Apocalyptic Notions and Literature Election and Laws of History in the Apocalyptic Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Apocalyptic and the Qumran Library . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Works Originally Composed in Aramaic 1 Enoch The Biography of Enoch and the Books of Enoch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Enoch 6–11: A Fragment of a Parabiblical Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ideology and History in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90) . . . . . . . Jerusalem and the Temple in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90) in Light of the Qumran Community Worldview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Book of Parables (1 Enoch 37–71) and the Qumran Community Worldview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Israel’s Subjugation to the Gentiles as an Expression of Demonic Power in Qumran Documents and Related Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

59 73 91 119 139 157

VIII

Table of Contents

Book of Tobit Tobit and the Qumran Aramaic Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Book of Tobit and the Qumran Halakhah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tobit in Galilee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Family of Tobit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Wife of Job and the Wife of Tobit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

173 193 213 223 229

Works Originally Composed in Hebrew Judah and Tamar in Jubilees 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hebrew Pseudepigrapha at Qumran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch in Light of the Qumran Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . From the Book of Jeremiah to the Qumranic Apocryphon of Jeremiah C .

241 255 269 295

Works Originally Composed in Greek Pseudonymity in the Wisdom of Solomon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313 4Q127: An Unknown Jewish Apocryphal Work? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325

Index of Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333 Index of Modern Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358 Index of Names and Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365

Acknowledgments I am grateful to the publishers and editors who allowed the reprint of the articles, some of which have been revised, appearing in the list below: – “Hebrew Pseudepigrapha at Qumran: Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Apocryphon of Jere­ miah C,” in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the Scriptures (ed. E. J. C. Tigchelaar; BETL 270; Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 89–103. – “Apocalyptic and the Qumran Library,” in The Faces of Torah. Studies in the Texts and Contexts of Ancient Judaism in Honor of Steven Fraade (eds. C. Hayes, T. Novick, and M. Bar-Asher Siegal; JAJSup 22; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017), 95–118. – “Tobit and the Qumran Aramaic Texts,” in Is There a Text in this Cave? Studies in the Textuality of the Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of George J. Brooke (eds. M. E. Cioata, A. Feldman, and C. Hempel; STDJ 119; Leiden: Brill, 2017), 385–406. – “The Family of Tobit,” in With Wisdom as a Robe: Qumran and Other Jewish Studies in Honour of Ida Fröhlich (eds. K. D. Dobos and M. Köszeghy; Sheffield: Phoenix, 2009), 157–62. – “Tobit in Galilee,” in Homeland and Exile: Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Bustenay Oded (eds. G. Galil, M. Geller, and A. Millard; VTSup 130; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 347–59. – “Pseudonymity in the Wisdom of Solomon,” in La Septuaginta en la Investigatión Contemporánea (V Congreso de la IOSCS) (ed. N. Fernández Marcos; Madrid: Instituto “Arias Montano” C. S. I. C., 1985), 243–55. – “The Biography of Enoch and the Books of Enoch,” VT 33 (1983): 14–29. – “1 Enoch 6–11: A Fragment of a Parabiblical Work,” JJS 53 (2002): 223–37. – “Judah and Tamar in Jubilees 41,” in A Teacher for All Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. VanderKam (eds. E. F. Mason et al. JSJSup 153/II; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 2:783–97. – “4 Ezra and 2 Baruch in Light of Qumran Literature,” in Fourth Ezra and Second Baruch: Reconstruction after the Fall (eds. M. Henze and G. Boccaccini, with the collaboration of J. M. Zurawski; JSJSup 164; Leiden: Brill, 2013), 31–61. – “From the Book of Jeremiah to the Qumranic Apocryphon of Jeremiah,” DSD 20 (2013): 452–71. – “4Q127: An Unknown Jewish Apocryphal Work?,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom (eds. D. P. Wright, D. N. Freedman, and A. Hurvitz; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 805–13. – “Pseudonymity in the Wisdom of Solomon,” in La Septuaginta en la Investigatión Contemporánea (V Congreso de la IOSCS) (ed. N. Fernández Marcos; Madrid: Instituto “Arias Montano” C. S. I. C., 1985), 243–55.

X

Acknowledgments

– “Israel’s Subjugation to the Gentiles as an Expression of Demonic Power in Qumran Documents and Related Literature,” RevQ 22 (2006): 373–88.

The following articles are translations of the final Hebrew versions published in Devorah Dimant, Connected Vessels: The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Literature of the Second Temple Period (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2010) and have been updated and re-edited: – “Election and Laws of History in the Apocalyptic Literature.” – “Ideology and History in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90).” – “Jerusalem and the Temple in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90) in Light of the Qumran Community Worldview.” – “The Book of Parables (1 Enoch 37–71) and the Qumran Community Worldview.” – “The Wife of Job and the Wife of Tobit.”

Abbreviations AB AbrN AGJU AGSU ALD ALGHJ AnBib ANRW APOT ATD BDAG BEATAJ BETL Bib BJS BO BSOAS BZ CahRB CBET CBQ CBQMS CEJL CHANE CRAI CRINT CSCO CurBR DBSup DCH DCLS DJD DSD

Anchor Bible Abr Nahrain Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums Arbeiten zur Geschichte des Spätjudentums und Christentums Aramaic Levi Document Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentums Analecta Biblica Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (ed. R. H. Charles; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), 2 vols. Das Alte Testament Deutsch Walter Bauer, revised by F. W. Danker, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (3rd ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000) Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken Judentums Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium Biblica Brown Judaic Studies Bibliotheca Orientalis Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies Biblische Zeitschrift Cahiers de la Revue biblique Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology Catholic Biblical Quarterly Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature Culture and History of the Ancient Near East Comptes rendus de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium (ed. I. B. Chabot et al., Paris, 1903) Currents in Biblical Research Dictionnaire de la Bible: Supplément Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (ed. D. J. A. Clines; Sheffield: Phoenix, 2010) Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Dead Sea Discoveries

XII DSSR DSSSE EDSS EncJud FAT FRLANT FSBP GELS GELSM HALOT

HDR Heb. HSM HThKAT HTS ICC IEJ JAJSup JJS JNSL JQR JSHRZ JSJ JSJSup JSPSup JSS JTS LSTS LXX Meghillot MSU MT NBS NETS NIDB

Abbreviations

The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader (eds. D. W. Parry and E. Tov; 6 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 2004–2005) The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (eds. F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar; 2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1998) Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (eds. L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam; 2 vols.; New York: Oxford University Press, 2000) Encyclopedia Judaica Forschungen zum Alten Testament Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Fontes et Subsidia ad Bibliam Pertinentes A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (eds. J. Lust, E. Eynikel, and K. Hauspie; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2003) Takamitzu Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint ­(Louvain: Peeters, 2009) Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann J. Stamm, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (trans. and ed. under the supervision of M. E. J. Richardson; Leiden: Brill, 1994–1999), 4 vols. Harvard Dissertations in Religion Hebrew Harvard Semitic Monographs Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament Harvard Theological Studies International Critical Commentary Israel Exploration Journal Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplements Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Jewish Quarterly Review Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods: Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Theological Studies Library of Second Temple Studies Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Bible) Meghillot – Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Heb.) Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens Masoretic Text Numen Book Series A New English Translation of the Septuagint (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007) The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (ed. K. D. Sakenfeld; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2006–2009), 5 vols.

Abbreviations

NRTh OBO ORA OTP OTS PAAJR RB RevQ RHPR RivBib RSR SAPERE SBA SBLDS SBLEJL SBLSP SC SD Sem Shnaton SJLA SNTSMS ST STDJ StPB SUNT Text Tob TSAJ TUAT TUGAL TZ VT WMANT WUNT ZA ZAW

XIII

La nouvelle revue théologique Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Orientalische Religionen in der Antike Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (ed. J. Charlesworth; 2 vols.; Garden City: Doubleday, 1983) Old Testament Studies Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research Revue biblique Revue de Qumran Revue d’histoire et de Philosphie Religieuses Rivista Biblica Recherches de Science Religieuse Scripta Antiquitatis Posterioris ad Ethicam REligionemque pertinentia Stuttgarter biblische Aufsatzbände Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and Its Literature Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers Sources Chrétiennes Studies and Documents Semitica Shnaton – An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies (Heb.) Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Studia Theologica Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Studia Post Biblica Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments Textus Tobit (Book of) Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur Theologische Zeitschrift Vetus Testamentum Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

Abbreviations of Frequently Cited Works Dimant, “Fallen Angels” Dimant, Devorah, “The Fallen Angels in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphic Books Related to Them” (Ph.D. diss.; Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1974) (Heb.) Dimant, Connected Vessels Dimant, Devorah, Connected Vessels: The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Literature of the Second Temple Period (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2010) (Heb.) Dimant, Collected Studies Dimant, Devorah, History, Ideology and Bible Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Collected Studies (FAT 90; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014) Fitzmyer, Tobit Fitzmyer, Joseph A., Tobit (CEJL; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2003) Milik, Books of Enoch Milik, T. Józef, The Books of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976) Moore, Tobit Moore, Carey A., Tobit (AB 40A; New York: Doubleday, 1996) Simpson, “Tobit” Simpson, Derek C., “The Book of Tobit,” APOT, 1:174–241 Stone, Ancient Judaism Stone, E. Michael, Ancient Judaism: New Visions and Views (Grand Rapids: ­Eerdmans, 2011) Zimmermann, Tobit Zimmermann, Frank, The Book of Tobit (Jewish Apocryphal Literature; New York: Harper & Brothers, 1958)

DJD Volumes Referred to in the Articles DJD I Dominique Barthélemy and Józef T. Milik, Qumran Cave I (DJD I; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955) DJD III Maurice Baillet, Józef T. Milik, and Roland de Vaux, Les ‘Petites Grottes’ de Qumrân (DJD III; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962) DJD V John M. Allegro, Qumran Cave 4 (4Q158–4Q186) (DJD V; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968) DJD VII Maurice Baillet, Qumrân Grotte 4.III (4Q482–4Q520) (DJD VII; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982) DJD VIII Emanuel Tov, The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Naḥal Ḥever (8HevXIIgr) (DJD VIII; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990) DJD IX Patrick W. Skehan, Eugene Ulrich, and Judith E. Sanderson, Qumran Cave 4.IV: Palaeo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts (DJD IX; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992) DJD X Elisha Qimron and John Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4.V: Miqṣat Ma‘aśe Ha-Torah (DJD X; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994) DJD XIII Harold Attridge et al., Qumran Cave 4.VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part I (DJD XIII; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994) DJD XV Eugene Ulrich et al., Qumran Cave 4.X: The Prophets (DJD XV; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997) DJD XVI Eugene Ulrich et al., Qumran Cave 4.XI: Psalms to Chronicles (DJD XVI; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000) DJD XVIII Joseph M. Baumgarten, Qumran Cave 4.XIII: The Damascus Document (4Q266–273) (DJD XVIII; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996)

XVI

DJD Volumes Referred to in the Articles

DJD XIX Magen Broshi et al., Qumran Cave 4.XIV: Parabiblical Texts, Part 2 (DJD XIX; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995) DJD XX Torleif Elgvin et al., Qumran Cave 4.XV: Sapiential Texts, Part 1 (DJD XX; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997) DJD XXII George Brooke et al., Qumran Cave 4.XVII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3 (DJD XXII; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996) DJD XXIII Florentino García Martínez, Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar and Adam S. van der Woude, Qumran Cave 11.II: 11Q2–18, 11Q20–30 (DJD XXIII; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998) DJD XXX Devorah Dimant, Qumran Cave 4.XXI: Parabiblical Texts, Part 4: Pseudo-Prophetic Texts (DJD XXX; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001) DJD XXXI Émile Puech, Qumrân Grotte 4.XXII: Textes Araméens, première partie 4Q529–549 (DJD XXXI; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001) DJD XXXII Peter W. Flint and Eugene Ulrich, Qumran Cave 1.II: The Isaiah Scrolls (DJD XXXII; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2010), 2 vols. DJD XXXIV John Strugnell, Daniel J. Harrington and Torleif Elgvin, Qumran Cave 4. XXIV: Sapiential Texts, Part 2 (DJD XXXIV; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999) DJD XXXV Joseph M. Baumgarten et al., Qumran Cave 4.XXV: Halakhic Texts (DJD XXXV; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999) DJD XXXVI Steven Pfann, Cryptic Texts; Philip Alexander et al., Miscellanea, Part 1: Qumran Cave 4.XXVI (DJD XXXVI; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000) DJD XXXVII Émile Puech, Qumrân Grotte 4.XXVII: Textes Araméens, deuxième partie (DJD ­XXXVII; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2009) DJD XXXIX Emanuel Tov, The Texts from the Judaean Desert: Indices and Introduction to the DJD Series (DJD XXXIX; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002)

Introductory Essay: The Jewish Literary Scene during the Second Temple Period: Framework and Terminology Until the discovery of the Qumran Scrolls in the middle of the twentieth century, ancient Jewish literature from the last centuries of the Second Temple period was known mainly from writings of two types: one group consisted of works composed in Greek, namely, the writings of Philo, Josephus, and various Hellenistic authors, all written in the Diaspora in Gentile Greco-Roman settings.1 The other group is comprised of works related to the Hebrew Scriptures, most of them originally composed in Hebrew or Aramaic, many of which were authored in the land of Israel before the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 B. C. E.2 but were preserved in ancient translations that have been transmitted by Christian tradents. Only a few of this second group were originally composed in Greek in the Diaspora.3 Texts belonging to the latter group traditionally have been divided into two categories: Apocrypha, books included in the Roman Catholic Bible canon (deuterocanonical in the Roman Catholic terminology); and Pseudepigrapha (apocrypha in the Roman Catholic nomenclature), preserved by various churches. The Pseudepigrapha group consists mainly of writings attributed to ancient biblical figures or that treat biblical topics, but the label reflects the view that such attributions are misleading, for the concerned books were neither composed by the authentic biblical authors nor endowed with biblical, spiritual, or authoritative status.4 1 Both Philo and Josephus were transmitted by Christian scribes, as were citations from various Jewish Hellenistic authors quoted by Eusebius in his fourth-century Praeparatio evangelica. See the editions and translations of Carl R. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors (Chico: Scholars Press, 1983–1986), 4 vols. 2 The discussion below does not include non-literary evidence provided by documentary papyri and inscriptions, as they belong to different types of written records. 3 As were, for instance, the Wisdom of Solomon, 2 Maccabees, and some of the additions to Esther and Daniel, which all are included in the Apocrypha. From the Pseudepigrapha, the Sibylline Oracles, also originally composed in Greek, as well as 2 Enoch may be mentioned. For the Wisdom of Solomon, see the article “Pseudonymity in the Wisdom of Solomon” in this volume. 4 Cf. the surveys of Daniel J. Harrington, “The Old Testament Apocrypha in the Early Church and Today,” in The Canon Debate (eds. L. M. McDonald and J. A. Sanders; Pea-

2

Introductory Essay

During the early decades of the twentieth century, discussions about the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha were conducted on the basis of the anthologies published at the turn of that century by Emil Kautzsch and Robert Henry Charles,5 who were themselves influenced by the earlier collection of pseudepigrapha compiled by Johann Albert Fabricius (1668–1736).6 The discovery of the Qumran Scrolls in the middle of the last century rekindled the interest in Jewish ancient literature in general, and in compositions resembling the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in particular. Numerous texts of the latter two types that remained at the fringes of scholarly interest have been brought to the foreground through new editions, generating a growing corpus of such Biblerelated texts, as evidenced by the collections published in the last decades.7 But such additions to the pseudepigraphic corpus have not altered the basic fact that all these texts are extant mostly in translations that reached modern scholarship through a lengthy process of transmission and copying, their provenance often remaining unknown. In contrast, the discovery of the Qumran Scrolls brought to light a mass of new works that resembled the previously known Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha but that were preserved in primary sources that yielded them in their original languages of mainly Hebrew and Aramaic; they were untouched by a long history of transmission, their dates and provenance being well established. For all the 900 decipherable Qumran manuscripts date from the three centuries preceding 70 C. E., the great majority of them stemming from the third to the first centuries B. C. E. Unearthed in the land of Israel, the Qumran compositions must have originated there, at least their copies did, as probably did works composed in body: Hendrickson, 2002), 196–210, and of William Adler, “The Pseudepigrapha in the Early Church,” in ibid., 211–28. 5 Cf. Emil Kautzsch, Die Pseudepigraphen des Altes Testaments (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1900), vol. 2; Robert H. Charles, APOT, vol. 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913). The two publications bring together commentaries by the most notable scholars of the time. Note also the collection edited and commented on by Paul Riessler, Altjüdisches Schrifttum ausserhalb der Bibel (Augsburg: Benno Filser, 1928). 6 See Johann Albert Fabricius’s Codex Pseudepigraphus Veteris Testamenti (Hamburg and Leipzig, 1713) and Codicis Pseudepigraphi Veteris Testamenti, Volumen Alterum (Hamburg, 1723). On the traditional use of the terms Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, see the survey by Loren T. Stuckenbruck, “Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism (eds. J. J. Collins and D. C. Harlow; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 143–62. 7 Two collections in English contain only pseudepigraphic texts, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; Garden City: Doubleday, 1983), 2 vols., and The Apocryphal Old Testament (ed. H. F. D. Sparks; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984). Both follow the pattern of the classical publications of Kautzsch and Charles, who devoted the first volumes of their editions to the Apocrypha and the second ones to the Pseudepigrapha. The German series Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1973–) follows this practice and includes works from both groups. A more recent collection containing many less familiar texts is the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures (eds. R. Bauckham, J. R. Davila, and A. Panayotov; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), vol. 1. A second volume is in preparation.

Introductory Essay

3

Hebrew, and some, if not all, of those penned in Aramaic. So, from the perspective of date and origin, the Qumran documents radically changed the landscape of ancient Jewish literature. Moreover, not only are these new documents preserved in their original state, but they are also great in number and manifold in content, literary genres, and styles. The novel additions to the Jewish literature consist of three distinct groups:8 a. A Hebrew corpus authored by the members of the Qumran community, displaying a particular set of ideas, genres, and styles;9 b. Compositions attributed to biblical figures that rework biblical themes resembling the previously known Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha; c. Writings reworking various biblical passages, now labeled Rewritten Bible and parabiblical texts.10 The latter two groups are the focus of the present essay. The considerable amount of new data added to the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha have reshaped their study and in many respects modified our understanding of this body of works. First of all, the Scrolls yielded originals of writings previously known only in translation. Thus, for instance, Tobit, traditionally assigned to the Apocrypha, is represented at Qumran by five Aramaic copies and one in Hebrew. Books considered among the Pseudepigrapha, such as 1 Enoch and Jubilees, previously known in the complete Ethiopic translations, are now partly available in their original versions: Aramaic for 1 Enoch and Hebrew for Jubilees.11 Secondly, Qumran provides a series of previously unknown writings, among them a group of Aramaic works attributed to biblical authors, such as the Aramaic Levi Document, the Visions of Amram, the Testament of Qahat, and Pseudo  8 See Devorah Dimant, “The Qumran Manuscripts: Contents and Significance,” Collected Studies, 27–56.   9 Throughout the present article and the entire collection, I treat the group that authored the Qumran sectarian Scrolls and owned the library found there as a single entity, for I am not convinced by the arguments in favor of several groups with different backgrounds, as is now often argued. In my judgment, the essential cohesion of the sectarian literature is confirmed by the similarity of its central themes, genres, and style, and by countless inner connections and internal references among the sectarian works. The minor variations they display do not necessarily reflect different groups, but may be due to changes made during the long existence of the group and to personal authors/redactors of its literary legacy. They are considerably less significant than the unifying facets of the sectarian corpus. See my arguments in Devorah Dimant, “Introductory Essay: The Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls – Past and Present,” Collected Studies, 1–24 (17–21). This is not to say that Qumran was the sole settlement of the sectaries. 10 For the purpose of the present discussion, the two groups are considered together. For a survey of various attempts to define their respective genres, see Daniel K. Falk, The Parabiblical Texts: Strategies for Extending the Scriptures in the Dead Sea Scrolls (London: T & T Clark, 2007), 6–14. 11 See the list of apocryphal and pseudepigraphic writings discovered at Qumran by Devorah Dimant, “Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha at Qumran,” Collected Studies, 153–69; Stuckenbruck, “Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” 157–58. See also Peter W. Flint, “‘Apocrypha,’ Other Previously Known Writings, and ‘Pseudepigrapha’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment (eds. P. W. Flint and J. C. VanderKam; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 2:24–66.

4

Introductory Essay

Daniel.12 Another group of similar texts is composed in Hebrew, for example, Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C.13 Thirdly, the rewritten Bible texts, previously known from a few examples such as Jubilees, are now evidenced by many more fragmentary pieces that turned up among the Scrolls. Texts of this type closely follow specific biblical portions, reworking them through various techniques, among which are expansion, omissions, abbreviations, and the insertion of new materials. Most of these texts are written in Hebrew but some were composed in Aramaic.14 As such, they have many points of contact with the apocryphal and pseudepigraphic literature. As a complete corpus, these texts display a rich fabric of motifs, notions, and exegetical traditions that link them to each other and to segments of contemporary Jewish literature outside Qumran.15 Together, these groups portray a post-classical and eclectic literature, which evolved through the development and interpretation of biblical traditions, unsuspected before the discovery of the Scrolls. The massive accumulation of novel writings, their wide range of forms, subjects, and diverse contents, unfolds a new literary scene, evoking new issues and new questions. Firstly, the question of the character and boundaries of the various types of compositions produced during the Second Temple period becomes important. It is particularly crucial for the groups hitherto labeled Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, whose boundaries are somewhat blurred by the new additions supplied by the Scrolls and by other venues of transmission.16 Clearly, the terminological pair “apocrypha/pseudepigrapha” does not describe adequately the complex 12 See the survey of Devorah Dimant, “The Qumran Aramaic Texts and the Qumran Community,” Collected Studies, 185–94. 13 See the presentation by Devorah Dimant in DJD XXX. 14 Such as the Genesis Apocryphon. See the survey of George J. Brooke, “Rewritten Bible,” EDSS, 2:777–81. Elsewhere, Brooke notes that “… the use of Hebrew for reworked scriptural compositions indicates … how the teaching of the Torah and the language of the cult were adapted and presented to each generation anew.” Cf. idem, “Between Authority and Canon: The Significance of Reworking the Bible for Understanding the Canonical Process,” in Reworking the Bible: Apocryphal and Related Texts at Qumran (eds. E. G. Chazon, D. Dimant, and R. A. Clements; STDJ 58; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 85–104 (93). 15 Examples of traditions shared by Qumranic texts and various literary works outside Qumran are surveyed by Menahem Kister, “A Common Heritage: Biblical Interpretation at Qumran and its Implications,” in Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (eds. M. E. Stone and E. Chazon; STDJ 28; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 101–11; idem, “Hellenistic Jewish Writers and Palestinian Traditions: Early and Late,” in Tradition, Transmission, and Transformation from Second Temple Literature through Judaism and Christianity in Late Antiquity (eds. M. Kister et al.; STDJ 113; Leiden: Brill, 2015), 150–78. 16 Note the difficulties involved in defining and selecting the appropriate texts to be included in the recent volume Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures, as imparted in the introductory remarks of the editors. Cf. Richard Bauckham and James R. Davila, “Introduction,” ibid., xvii–xxxviii (xvii–xx). See my comments in a review of the volume in BO 72 (2015): 147–50.

Introductory Essay

5

literary reality emerging from the new evidence.17 Thus, for instance, Tobit from the Apocrypha and 1 Enoch from the Pseudepigrapha share features that define them as belonging to the same Aramaic group.18 Other texts in the two categories share traditions and views, for example, the Qumranic Apocryphon of Jeremiah C and the book of Baruch from the Apocrypha have similar notions regarding history.19 The biblical Daniel, the pseudepigraphic 4 Ezra, and the pseudepigraphic 2 Baruch have similar ideas about hidden apocalyptic messages revealed only to the wise, ideas embraced also by many Qumran sectarian texts. So the numerous links displayed between texts belonging to the two categories suggest that the division into the Apocrypha/Pseudepigrapha is artificial and can neither describe nor characterize the fabric of connections between the two corpuses. In fact, the study of the new additions to the ancient Jewish literature suggests interconnections of an entirely different character, namely, alignment of compositions through similar language and provenance. Therefore, the use of the term “cluster” is proposed as a means of reclassifying ancient Jewish literary documents, indicating a configuration of a specific group of works linked by setting, original language, and thematic associations.20 In this way, for instance, certain Hebrew apocalyptic works such as Pseudo-Ezekiel, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch may constitute one such cluster,21 while the Aramaic patriarchal works, such as the Genesis Apocryphon, Aramaic Levi Document, and the Visions of Amram may form another cluster of this type.22 Such configurations open new vistas on the character of individual texts as well as on groups that have been classified until now under the label Apocrypha or Pseudepigrapha. The documentation provided by the Qumran Scrolls sheds fresh light on another aspect of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, namely, the nature of their relationship to the Hebrew Bible canon. The two groups presented a puzzle: The Apocrypha is Jewish, treats mostly biblical characters or themes, and is incorporated in the Christian canon but not in the Hebrew one, while the Pseudepigrapha was preserved by Christian religious transmission but not by the Jewish 17  Cf. Michael E. Stone, “Categorization and Classification of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” in Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 3–13 (previously published in AbrN 24 [1986]: 167–77); Dimant, “Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” 155–56; Stuckenbruck, “Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” 143–48, 152–53; Eibert Tigchelaar, “Forms of Pseudepigraphy in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Pseudepigraphie und Verfasserfiktion in frühchristlichen Briefen (eds. J. Frey et al.; WUNT 246; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 85–101 (86–87). See also the article “Apocalyptic and the Qumran Library” in this volume. 18 See the article “Tobit in the Qumran Aramaic Texts” in this volume. 19 See the article “4 Ezra and 2 Baruch in Light of Qumran Literature” in this volume. 20 As proposed in the article “Apocalyptic and the Qumran Libraryˮ in this volume. 21 As suggested by the analysis proposed in the article “4 Ezra and 2 Baruch in Light of Qumran Literature” in this volume. 22 See the article “Tobit and the Qumran Aramaic Texts” in this volume.

6

Introductory Essay

tradition. Before the discovery of the Scrolls, and under the influence of a long patristic tradition,23 the critical evaluation of the two categories was conducted from the perspective of the closed Hebrew Bible canon. The Apocrypha was excluded from the Jewish canon but adopted by the Christian one, while the Pseudepigrapha was labeled “Old Testament Pseudepigrapha,” namely, books outside the Hebrew Bible with false pretention to biblical status. But the Qumran evidence has rendered both labels anachronistic. For it shows that the finalizing of the Hebrew biblical canon took place in a protracted process that lasted through the closing centuries of the Second Temple era. The evidence gained from the Qumran library indicates that during this long period the Pentateuch24 and the Former and Later Prophets were already fixed in form and enjoyed an authoritative status, since they were cited,25 reworked,26 and commented upon.27 However, at that stage, possessing this kind of authority did not require a fixed text.28 The presence of many variants in the Qumran biblical manuscripts of the Pentateuch and the Prophets, and even of several editions of certain books, depicts a reality in which authoritativeness did not entail a single textual tradition,29 as it did at the end of the canonization process around 70 23 See Adler,

“The Pseudepigrapha in the Early Church.” what follows, I use the term “Pentateuch” in order to emphasize its textual and literary aspects, since this is the subject of the present essay. I am avoiding the term “Torah,” signifying the authoritative and legally binding position of the Pentateuch, for this is not the focus of the discussion here. On the latter aspect, see Reinhard G. Kratz, “Temple and Torah: Reflections on the Legal Status of the Pentateuch between Elephantine and Qumran,” in The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance (eds. G. N. Knoppers and B. M. Levinson; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 77–103. 25 The two categories are cited by the sectarian texts as authoritative. See 1QS I, 1–2; VIII, 15–16; and 4QMMT (4Q397 14–21 10, 15). 26 In a systematic and consistent way, only texts of these two biblical categories are reworked. For texts that rework the Pentateuch, see, for instance, 1Q22 and 4Q368. For adaptations of the Prophets, see the Apocryphon of Joshua and Pseudo-Ezekiel. No systematic reworking is attested at Qumran of books from the third section of the Jewish canon, the Writings, which include Wisdom works and others. For Psalms, see below. 27 See, e. g., the interpretation of Genesis in 4Q252 5–6 commenting on Gen 49:3, 10. The Prophets are interpreted by the sectarian pesharim. See, e. g., Pesher of Habakkuk (1QpHab), the pesher on Ezek 44:15 in Damascus Document III, 21–IV, 1–6, and the pesher on Isa 40:3 in the Community Rule (1QS VIII, 12–16). See the list of explicitly quoted biblical books in non-biblical scrolls, compiled by James C. VanderKam, “Authoritative Literature in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” DSD 5 (1998): 382–402 (391–95). 28 In the formulation of Sidnie White Crawford: “… each biblical book reached a recognizable shape at the end of its redactional process … The text within that shape was not fixed, but the shape itself was stable.” Cf. eadem, “Understanding the Textual History of the Hebrew Bible: A New Proposal,” in The Hebrew Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (eds. N. Dávid et al.; FRLANT 239; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012), 60–69 (66). 29 Cf. Eugene Ulrich, “Pluriformity in the Biblical Text, Text Grouping, and Questions of Canon,” in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18–21 March, 1991 (STDJ 11/1; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 1:23–41; Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (3rd ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 188–89. 24 In

Introductory Essay

7

C. E.30 Thus, a Pentateuch or Prophetic text could have circulated at Qumran in copies of different textual traditions without losing its authoritative standing. As is noted judiciously by John Collins, multiple editions of certain biblical books, such as Exodus, Jeremiah, and Psalms, attest to the fact that “authority resided in a book rather than in a particular textual form of a book.”31 However, the situation in biblical books from the third section of the Hebrew canon, the Writings, appears to have been different at Qumran, since, with the exception of Psalms attributed to David,32 Wisdom compositions and other works included in the Writings did not seem to have had the type of authority enjoyed by the Pentateuch and the Prophets.33 For instance, there are no Qumran texts that rework Proverbs, Job, or Ecclesiastes in the way rewritten Bible or parabiblical specimens do for the Pentateuch and Prophets, though these three books, as with other works of this category, were known at Qumran and undoubtedly were utilized by sectarian writings.34 The fact that no Qumranic pseudepigraphon is ascribed, for example, to Solomon, the emblematic wise king, is telling.35 Such an ascription was created only later, in Greek and in Alexandria, in the Wisdom of Solomon. In fact, pseudepigraphic attributions of early Hebrew or Aramaic works, including those found among the Scrolls, are confined to figures from the Pentateuch and the Prophets. Attributions to protagonists from the Writings, 30 A piece of evidence for the closure of the Hebrew canon around this date is produced by the recent decipherment of a Leviticus fragment found in the ruins of the En-Gedi synagogue. It produces a proto-Masoretic Leviticus text, and is dated by Ada Yardeni to the second half of the first century C. E. Together with other types of data, it demonstrates that from 70 C. E. onwards the proto-Masoretic textual form dominated. Cf. Michael Segal et al., “An Early Leviticus Scroll from En-Gedi: Preliminary Publication. With an Appendix by Ada Yardeni,” Text 26 (2016): 1–20 (2, 14, 16, 20). 31 Cf. John J. Collins, “Changing Scripture,” in Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period (eds. H. von Weissenberg, J. Pakkala, and M. Marttila; BZAW 419; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011), 23–45 (29). 32 4QMMT (4Q397 22, 1–2 10) lists the psalms of David as the third, and probably authoritative, category after the Torah and the Prophets. At Qumran, the Davidic psalms were considered prophetical (cf. 11QPsa XXVII, 11), a view also reflected by the fact that Davidic psalms were subjected to pesher interpretation (cf., e. g., 1Q16, interpreting Psalm 68), indicating their authoritative status. The authoritative status may also be reflected by the apocryphal psalms recorded by 11QPsa, which may be seen as a form of adaptation of the canonical psalms. Moreover, the psalmodic genre continued to flourish in various forms as attested, for instance, by the Qumranic 4Q380–4Q381. 33 Cf. the comments of Brooke, “Rewritten Bible,” 779–80. 34 Copies of these three biblical books were found among the Scrolls (cf. DJD XVI, 171–86, 221–27) as were copies of the remaining books of the Writings, with the exception of Esther; the citations of Prov 15:8 by the Damascus Document XI, 20–21, of Dan 9:25 by Pesher Melchizedek (11Q13 ii 18), and Dan 12:10 by Florilegium (4Q174 1 ii 3–4a) are well known. However, except for Psalms, the paucity of citations from the books of the Writings is telling. 35 As noted by Moshe J. Bernstein, “Pseudepigraphy in the Qumran Scrolls: Categories and Functions,” in Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (eds. E. G. Chazon and M. Stone; STDJ 31; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 1–26 (24).

8

Introductory Essay

such as Ezra in 4 Ezra, appear only later, around 100 C. E. This fact may provide another indication of the open state of the third section of the Hebrew Bible that was prevalent during the final centuries of the Second Temple period. This fluid situation means that the early pseudepigraphic writings borrowed their figures mostly from an open biblical collection. In such circumstances, it is debatable whether the respective authors who imitated biblical themes and figures were consciously composing under false pretenses.36 They may have wished to explicate and develop the meaning and message of the biblical texts as they understood them, and rewriting them was the way to do it, a technique already used in biblical books themselves.37 Actually, the writings collected under the nomenclature Apocrypha/Pseudepigrapha belong to genres that evolved precisely in the interim period when the Scriptures were known in authoritative but open collections of fluid texts.38 Given these circumstances, the degree and character of the authority bestowed on various biblical books remains an unknown factor. While some measure of authority may be assumed from the manner in which they were cited and interpreted, as suggested above, little is known about the precise meaning of such an authority and its implications at the time.39 However, the textual fluidity of the biblical writings is well documented by the Qumran biblical manuscripts. This phenomenon opens a window onto not only the shaping of the biblical text and form, but also onto the editorial process and techniques employed in order to achieve the desired textual result. Two types of scribal traditions are evident among the biblical texts from Qumran; one is conservative, as reflected by many of the proto-MT texts, and the other is a free and more harmonistic one as at36 As noted by Najman: “… we are not entitled to assume that Second Temple writers and readers had the conceptions of authenticity … that developed much later ….” See Hindy Najman, “Interpretation as Primordial Writing: Jubilees and its Authority Conferring Strategies,” JSJ 30 (1999): 379–410 (405). 37 Cf. Morton Smith, “Pseudepigraphy in the Israelite Literary Tradition,” in Pseudepigrapha I (ed. K. von Fritz; Vandoeuvres-Genève: Fondation Hardt, 1972), 189–215. For additional aspects see Stone, Ancient Judaism, 117–121. 38 For the same reasons, the term “rewritten Bible” is equally anachronistic, as observed by VanderKam, who labels the group “rewritten Scriptures.” Cf. James C. VanderKam, “Questions of Canon Viewed through the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Canon Debate (eds. L. M. McDonald and J. A. Sanders; Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002), 91–109 (96). 39 As was pointed out by Hanne von Weissenberg, Juha Pakkala, and Marko Marttila, “Introducting Changes in Scripture,” in Changes in Scripture, 3–20 (5–6). An illuminating example of the difficulties involved in applying the notion of authority is provided by the discussion of Michael A. Knibb, “Reflections on the Status of the Early Enochic Writings,” in Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism (ed. M. Popović; JSJSup 141; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 143–54 (154). In criticizing the claims that the Enochic corpus is devoid of references to the Torah, and showing that the reverse is the case, Knibb concluded with the following statement: “… the early Enochic writings … were authoritative for what they say about the divine ordering of the world and about the present and future mankind, but not in respect of the Law.” One wonders what type of “split” authority Knibb had in mind. See the article “Hebrew Pseudepigrapha at Qumran,” n. 2 in this volume.

Introductory Essay

9

tested, for instance, by the proto-Samaritan texts of the Pentateuch.40 What has become clear is that the redactors and scribes who perfected the versions of the biblical books, especially those of the freer scribal tradition, did so by employing a series of editorial methods such as harmonization, conflation of similar verses, expansions, repeated phraseology, and proleptic allusions. During the two or three centuries of activity at Qumran, the textual fluidity and openness of the authoritative biblical Scriptures existed side by side with Hebrew rewritten Bible and parabiblical works, as well as with various Aramaic works correlated to biblical themes. This proximity, together with the similarity of the editorial methods employed by the non-biblical groups and the freer scribal school of biblical texts, appears to blur somewhat the boundaries between these two distinct types. Therefore, some scholars were led to claim that rewritten Bible texts, especially those represented by numerous Qumran copies, enjoyed scriptural status at Qumran. Followed by others, James VanderKam estimates that this was the case for 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and the Temple Scroll.41 In his opinion, two main criteria indicate an authoritative status at Qumran: citations by other compositions and multiple copies. According to him, 1 Enoch and Jubilees meet these requirements. As for Jubilees, Vanderkam reiterates the oft-stated claim that Damascus Document XVI, 2–4 cites the title of Jubilees, as does 4Q228 1 i 9. However, I have shown elsewhere that both claims rest on flimsy arguments.42 Vanderkam also finds evidence for citing 1 Enoch. Following Józef Milik and Magen Broshi, he sees in 4Q247 a commentary on the Enochic Apocalypse of Weeks (= 1 En. 93:1–10; 91:11–17).43 However, although 4Q247 deals with historical year-weeks, it preserves only eleven complete words, and they differ in detail from the Enochic Apocalypse of Weeks. The apparent affinity of 4Q247 and the Apocalypse is created by restorations inspired by the Apocalypse, creating the misleading impression of similarity. At most, it may be said that the Apocalypse and 4Q247 share a widely diffused notion of calculating history in 40 Cf. the succinct summary of the issue by Crawford, “Understanding the Textual History,” esp. 65–67. 41 Cf. James C. VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 190–95. The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible (eds. M. Abegg, P. Flint, and E. Ulrich; San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999) dropped the Temple Scroll but included 1 Enoch and Jubilees as well as the apocryphal Ben Sira, Tobit, and the Letter of Jeremiah, probably because the two first listed (as well as a purported fragment of the third item) survived in manuscripts from Qumran. However, there is no basis for such inclusions. 42 Cf. Devorah Dimant, “Two ‘Scientific’ Fictions: The So-Called Book of Noah and the Alleged Quotation from Jubilees in the Damascus Document XVI, 3–4,” Collected Studies, 353–68 (363–67). Equally problematic is VanderKam’s claim that Damascus Document X, 8–10 may be based on Jub. 23:11, which both explain the curtailing of human life and the presence of senility in old age as punishment for sin (idem, “Authoritative Literature,” 399; idem, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today, 187). The two may be better explained as independently reflecting the same tradition. 43 See VanderKam, “Authoritative Literature,” 398, citing Milik, Books of Enoch, 256, and DJD XXXVI, 187–91.

10

Introductory Essay

terms of year-weeks and jubilees. So there is no basis for the claim that 4Q247 is a commentary on the Apocalypse of Weeks.44 Thus, the claim that non-biblical texts are cited or commented upon in several of the Qumran manuscripts is gratuitous.45 VanderKam also claims support for the authority of 1 Enoch and Jubilees at Qumran based on the eleven copies of the former and eighteen copies of the latter found among the Scrolls. However, the number of Qumran copies can, at best, attest to their frequent use but not to their authority.46 Otherwise we would have to attribute the same type of authority to sectarian compositions, such as the Community Rule and the Damascus Document, the former represented by fourteen copies and the latter by ten.47 In conclusion, there is no sound evidence for the assertion that 1 Enoch and Jubilees enjoyed scriptural authority at Qumran. As matter of fact, this kind of argumentation raises the question as to what type of authority is intended here. It is clear that Hebrew rewritten Bible texts were not endowed with scriptural authority at Qumran.48 Although such texts have recourse to techniques known from the transmission of biblical texts, they possess additional characteristics of their own not shared by the biblical manuscripts. Thus, it has been pointed out that biblical texts draw their alterations and additions only from elements already existing in other biblical passages, whereas rewritten Bible and parabiblical texts insert non-biblical materials into their compositional texture.49 Among the alterations introduced by the rewritten 44 Michael Knibb supports VanderKam’s arguments and views the use of the early Book of Watchers (= 1 Enoch 1–36) by the later Enochic works, such as the Epistle of Enoch (= 1 Enoch 91–105), as another indication of the authority of the Enochic compositions. Cf. Knibb, “Reflections on the Status,” 146. However, the re-adaptation of Enochic materials should be seen as part of an ongoing development of a certain literary tradition rather than as a marker of its authority. 45 A curious case of a citation is presented by the version of the Damascus Document preserved by two Cave 4 copies: ‫( אלכה לי אל קצה [ה]שמים ולו אריח בריח ניחוחכם‬4Q266 11 3–4; 4Q270 7 i 18). It is prefaced by the term ‫כתוב‬, “written,” which commonly introduces a scriptural quotation. In fact, the sentence is composed of various biblical expressions. The second half is a citation of Lev 26:31 ‫ ;)ולא אריח בריח) ניחוחכם‬the first locution (‫ )אלכה לי‬is drawn from Jer 5:5, while the following expression (‫ )קצה השמים‬is perhaps taken from Deut 4:32 (used also by Isa 13:5 and Ps 19:7). So this is a case of a composite biblical quotation, rather than a citation from an unknown apocryphal work. Cf. Joseph M. Baumgarten, “A ‘Scriptural’ Citation in 4Q Fragments of the Damascus Document,” JJS 43 (1992): 95–98. 46 Sidnie White Crawford notes that the number of copies is “the weakest criterion (for scriptural status), since the manuscripts preserved in the Qumran collection are at least partly a matter of historical accident.” Cf. eadem, Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 9. 47 If the number of copies is retained as a criterion for scriptural authority, the Temple Scroll does not fit the criterion, for it is represented at Qumran by two or three copies (4Q522, 11Q19, 11Q20) and perhaps two others (4Q365a and 11Q21). 48 For what follows, see the detailed survey by Devorah Dimant, “Introduction: Reworking of Scripture at Qumran,” in Ariel Feldman and Liora Goldman, Scripture and Interpretation (ed. D. Dimant; BZAW 449; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014), 1–11. 49 Cf. Emanuel Tov, “Between Bible Compositions and Biblical Manuscripts, With Special

Introductory Essay

11

Bible texts that were not found in the transmission of the biblical texts is the insertion of new narrative frameworks into the biblical models, and the significant changes in details in them, such as the altering of the third person narrative.50 So, on the grounds of literary and circumstantial evidence, the rewritten Bible and parabiblical texts are distinct from proper biblical manuscripts and therefore the two groups should be treated separately. Moreover, unlike some claims, there is no evidence for the assumption that Jubilees, the Temple Scroll, or any other rewritten Bible text was intended to replace the authoritative Torah or any other biblical texts they rework. Rather, they assume the authoritative standing of their models. As put by George Brooke: “Rewritten Bible texts thus reflect a consistent attitude of respect to the authoritative base text. They do not replace the biblical text, but offer alternative or supplementary versions of it.”51 The rewritten Bible texts have been associated with another aspect of the pseudepigraphic compositions, namely, the attribution to fictitious authors, mostly to ancient biblical worthies.52 The state of textual pluriformity and the open character of the scriptural collection prevailing before 70 B. C. E. shed fresh light on this literary technique that was widespread in antiquity.53 However, in the Jewish-Christian context, it has acquired a particular significance since attribution to biblical personalities touches the authority of the biblical writings themselves. As noted, the label Pseudepigrapha views attributions to biblical authors that are not believed to be authentic as falsification, a position still held by some modern critics.54 However, conditions prevailing in the last centuries of the Second Temple era render this approach obsolete. For, in the absence Attention to the Samaritan Pentateuch,” DSD 5 (1998): 334–54 (352, 354); Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 3. 50 See Michael Segal, “Between Bible and Rewritten Bible,” in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran (ed. M. Henze; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 10–18 (20–23). Similarly Collins, “Changing Scripture,” 31. On these issues, see Dimant, “Introduction: Reworking of Scripture at Qumran,” 4–5. 51 See Brooke, “Rewritten Bible,” 780. Compare Collins, “Changing Scripture,” 32. Similarly, James VanderKam in relation to Jubilees: “He (i. e. the author of Jubilees) neither ignored the Pentateuch nor tried to replace it. Rather, he works with it and with other traditional literature to convey the truth about them as he understood it.” Cf. James C. VanderKam, “Moses Trumping Moses: Making the Book of Jubilees,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Transmission of Traditions and Production of Texts (eds. S. Metso, H. Najman, and E. Schuller; STDJ 92; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 25–44 (28). 52 Cf. James R. Davila, “Pseudepigraphy,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism (eds. J. J. Collins and D. C. Harlow; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 1114–17 (1115–16); Eibert Tigchelaar, “Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the Scriptures,” in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the Scriptures (ed. E. Tigchelaar; Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 1–18 (16). 53 A survey of various ancient and modern literary forgeries is offered by Bruce M. Metzger, “Literary Forgeries and Canonical Pseudepigrapha,” JBL 91 (1972): 3–24, with references to previous discussions on pseudepigraphy. 54 See the survey and penetrating critique of this notion, especially in relation to the Jewish literature of Second Temple times, by Hindy Najman, Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism (JSJSup 77; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 3–5.

12

Introductory Essay

of the fixity of the scriptural text, it is questionable as to whether a conscious fraudulence may be postulated for pseudepigraphic works. This is particularly the case for older pseudepigraphic works, such as the Aramaic Levi Document, probably composed during the third century B. C. E., long before the final closure of the Hebrew canon. Pseudepigraphic attributions fall into two categories: the first is created by attaching to an originally anonymous composition the name of a fictional author as a title.55 For example, this is the case of the Davidic biblical Psalms.56 The second type of pseudepigraphic attribution is conceived by the author from the outset and thus shapes the structure and content of the respective work.57 This type is used regularly in the visionary apocalyptic writings, such as Daniel 7–12 and 4 Ezra, but also in other types of writings. It is the focus of the following comments. The pseudepigraphic device adopted by the original authors is usually explained as being motivated by the wish to gain authority. But while this is partly true, other considerations should not be excluded. Firstly, as pointed out above, the precise notion of authority maintained during the Second Temple period is an unknown factor, neither is it clear by what means it was conferred or whether it consisted of different types and degrees of authority, especially given the open character of the scriptural collection and its textual fluidity. Secondly, the case may have been the reverse, namely, the textual fluidity permitted and even encouraged pseudepigraphic attributions as means for interpreting Scriptures. Thirdly, fictional attribution is first and foremost a literary device and its functionality and meaning should be analyzed and understood in literary terms in the respective compositions. So the first task of the critic is to analyze the pseudepigraphic literary strategies and objectives in specific compositions and the reasons for adopting one type of pseudepigraphy or another in a given book.58 Accordingly, it has been observed that specific discourses are attached to particular biblical figures because they serve the content and message of given pseudepigraphic compositions.59 So the attributions of legal works to Moses and sapiential works to Solomon are obvious cases, especially because they are rooted in the biblical literature itself.60 Centered on legal issues as it 55 This category is defined by Moshe Bernstein as a type of pseudepigraphy known as “Decorative.” Cf. idem, “Pseudepigraphy in the Qumran Scrolls,” 25. The distinction is also made by Tigchelaar, “Forms of Pseudepigraphy,” 99 n. 55. 56 David is described as the author of the Psalms already in the Qumranic collection of Psalms (11QPsa XXVII, 2–11). 57 Labeled “Authoritative” pseudepigraphic attribution in the classification of Bernstein, “Pseudepigraphy in the Qumran Scrolls,” 25. 58 Thus, for instance, Hindy Najman proposes four different literary strategies employed in Jubilees for enhancing authority, pseudepigraphy being only one of them. Cf. Najman, “Interpretation as Primordial Writing,” 379–410. 59 Cf., e. g., Tigchelaar, “Forms of Pseudepigraphy,” 97. 60 Cf. Bernstein, “Pseudepigraphy in the Qumran Scrolls,” 5–6. Lawrence Schiffman argues that “a Moses pseudepigraphon does not claim Moses as the real author … but rather as a vessel

Introductory Essay

13

is, the placing of the Jubilees framework narrative on Mount Sinai with Moses as a central figure is an obvious choice.61 However, the attribution to Moses of a detailed historical review calculated in year-weeks and jubilees is less so. Although Moses is endowed with prophetic gifts according to the biblical tradition (cf. Deut 34:10 and the forecast attributed to Moses in Deuteronomy 33), it provides only flimsy basis for the richly detailed vision in Jubilees. The same question may be raised for the Assumption of Moses, which attributes a vision of history to Moses. Why is Moses the selected protagonist for forecasts and not one of the biblical prophets? In fact, hardly any biblical prophet was adopted for this purpose, and the Qumranic Apocryphon of Jeremiah C, which places Jeremiah in this position, is the exception that confirms the rule.62 Initially, the adoption of a pseudepigraphic mantle for visionary apocalyptic forecasts had to do with the need to create a distance between the real author and the ancient seer who was purported to have received the vision of history, thus confirming that events lying in the pseudepigraphic seer’s distant future were realized later and were known to contemporaries of the real author. However, creating such a distance does not account for the preference for a particular figure from the past for the task. Another illustration of the issues at stake is provided by 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch. The figures of Ezra and Baruch were apparently selected because of their place in Israelite history following the destruction of the First Temple, a setting appropriate for dealing with the acute historical interrogation that followed the destruction of the Second Temple. Ezra seems to have been singled out because of his portrait in the biblical book of Ezra as promulgator of the Torah. But less clear is the case of 2 Baruch, for it shares with 4 Ezra a similar date and concerns. So why select Baruch and not Ezra himself? Furthermore, the biblical tradition does not invest the two with prophetic ability. Obviously, despite their similarities the two books differ in the materials and messages they chose to transmit, thus leading them to select either Ezra or Baruch. The real motive for selecting one pseudepigraphic figure rather than another for a specific literary make-up may be discovered only by analyzing in detail how the selected figure serves the particular aims of a given pseudepigraphic composition.63 through which God revealed Himself to Israel.” Cf. idem, “The Temple Scroll and the Halakhic Pseudepigrapha of the Second Temple Period,” in Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 31; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 121–31 (125). However, from the literary perspective, Moses is the actual author even if from the theological point of view he is an intermediary of the divine voice. 61 Cf. Najman, “Interpretation as Primordial Writing,” 403–06; eadem, Seconding Sinai, 13; James C. VanderKam, “Moses Trumping Moses.” 62 For the case of Pseudo-Ezekiel, cf. below. 63 I have analyzed the use of pseudepigraphy in this manner in the article “Pseudonymity in the Wisdom of Solomon” in this volume.

14

Introductory Essay

Recent surveys of pseudepigraphic attributions have also included the rewritten Bible texts.64 It has even been suggested that the two types of texts are different configurations of a single tradition of reworking the Hebrew Scriptures.65 However, the rewritten Bible texts do not have the features that make pseudepigraphic compositions what they are, in particular the narrative framework that introduces the purported author and situates him in particular circumstances.66 Pseudepigraphic works may indeed contain passages that rewrite biblical sections related to their subject, as is well illustrated by Jubilees. But rewritten Bible works do not contain features typical of pseudepigraphic compositions. Another aspect of compositions penned by fictitious authors that sets them apart from rewritten Bible texts is their eclectic character. As such, they interweave various sub-forms as narratives, prayers, and discourses, all subordinated to the main pseudepigraphic framework. This feature is not attested in many of the rewritten Bible texts that survived at Qumran, perhaps due to their fragmentary state. In fact, most of the reworked Bible texts from Qumran are broken, lacking the introductory sections. Thus, depending on the degree of preservation, their overall literary form often remains unknown. This is why Jubilees, which preserves its overall framework and narrative introduction, may be described as a pseudepigraphic composition. Its numerous passages that rewrite portions from Genesis are subordinate to this framework. In contrast, the Temple Scroll, which lacks the opening section, cannot be labeled properly as a pseudepigraphic work.67 For the same reasons, there is no justification for labeling various fragments that reworked Pentateuch passages as Mosaic pseudepigrapha.68 The authors of the texts that rework the Scriptures, overwhelmingly in Hebrew, do indeed identify 64 As do, for instance, both Bernstein, “Pseudepigraphy in the Qumran Scrolls” and Tigchelaar, “Forms of Pseudepigraphy.” 65 Thus Falk, The Parabiblical Texts, 21–25, followed by Tigchelaar, “Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the Scriptures,” in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the Scriptures (ed. E. Tigchelaar; Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 1–18 (10–13); idem, “Forms of Pseudepigraphy,” 99–100. 66 Note Bernstein’s comment (in “Pseudepigraphy in the Qumran Scrolls,” 10): “A rewritten Bible text makes no claim to strong pseudepigraphy if the text does not speak in the first person, whether in the name of, or as a narrative about, an ancient figure.” 67 Cf. Yigael Yadin, The Temple Scroll (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1977), 1:61 (Heb.). The view that the Temple Scroll is “a divine Pseudepigraphon,” in Schiffman’s formulation, is based chiefly on the formulation of 11QTa XLIV, 5 and LI, 5–7, where the speaker, undoubtedly God, addresses Moses. However, this passage may be part of a secondary development within a wider literary context, now lost. So Schiffman and others may be stepping beyond the evidence by labeling the Temple Scroll a divine pseudepigraphon. Cf. idem, “The Temple Scroll and the Halakhic Pseudepigrapha,” 125, 131. 68 As did John Strugnell, “Moses-Pseudepigrapha at Qumran: 4Q375, 4Q376, and Similar Works,” in Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. L. H. Schiffman; JSPSup 8; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 221–56, and others, e. g., Schiffman, “The Temple Scroll and the Halakhic Pseudepigrapha,” 128–30. See the corrective of Goldman, Scripture and Interpretation, 263–358.

Introductory Essay

15

themselves with the biblical authors in that they incorporate their own words into the fabric of their models. But in the absence of the narrative framework, they form a distinct genre.69 Consequently, pseudepigrapha and rewritten Bible works should be viewed as separate entities. The picture emerging from Qumran suggests that certain texts such as the Temple Scroll and Pseudo-Ezekiel may represent an early phase of the literary form that later became full-fledged pseudepigrapha; however, in their present state, as known from the surviving Qumran copies, they are in an “embryonic” pseudepigraphic state, as one may put it. Pseudo-Ezekiel is particularly telling in this respect for although it displays a careful adaptation of its biblical model, it remains intimately connected with the original, lacking a new unifying narrative framework.70 The foregoing survey touched briefly on the major issues at the center of the enquiry into ancient Jewish literature. Recent discoveries have put in question traditional concepts such as biblical canon and interpretation, religious authority, and pseudonymic writing. All of them need a thorough reassessment in light of the wealth of new data that has emerged from the Qumran caves. Interestingly, many of these novel materials have direct bearing on the books traditionally included in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. This fact is reflected by the selection of articles brought together in the present volume, all dealing with various compositions from these two categories. But their manifold links to the Qumran documents, brought to light in the discussions and notes on the various articles, reveal that in spite of their variety, a particular type of consonance embraces many of the texts addressed here. Thus, a new type of interrelationship between the traditional and new compositions emerges from their examination. It calls for a fresh approach to the corpus known traditionally as the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. The grouping of the articles in this volume according to their original language suggests such a possible trajectory, a task to be worked out by future research.

69 Cf. my comments in Devorah Dimant, “Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha at Qumran,” DSD 1 (1994): 151–59 (157). 70 See the article “Hebrew Pseudepigrapha at Qumran” in this volume. The title PseudoEzekiel was given to this work in the early stages of the editorial work, but today, given the advances made in the discussion on pseudonymity, one may well ask whether it is an appropriate title.

Apocalyptic Notions and Literature

Election and Laws of History in the Apocalyptic Literature The label “apocalyptic” has been given to visionary compositions revealed to ancient sages that describe the course of history and its conclusion. Most of the specimens of this literature were composed by Jews in Hebrew and Aramaic in the land of Israel from the third century B. C. E. onwards, but have been preserved mostly in translations transmitted by Christian tradents.1 However, this situation has altered with the discovery of the Qumran Scrolls, among which copies of several of them have been recovered in the original languages: 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and the Aramaic Levi Document,2 in addition to similar compositions hitherto unknown.3 Since visions of history constitute the main topic of these writings, they are referred to as “historical apocalypses.”4 To this group belong the book of Daniel (2, 7–12), 1 Enoch, Jubilees 1 and 23, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch.5 1 Enoch constitutes * This is a translated, revised and updated version of an article first published in Hebrew in 1990. 1 For instance, 1 Enoch, Jubilees 1, 23, the Testament of Moses, 4 Ezra, and 2 (Syriac) Baruch. They were assembled and edited in English in several collections: Robert Charles, APOT, vol. 2, in 1912, James Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha in 1983, and H. F. D. Sparks, The Apocryphal Old Testament in 1984. Preceding these publications was the German one by Emil Kautzsch, Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments in 1900. Another work, 2 Enoch, was until recently known only in an old Slavic version but recently a fifth-century fragment of Coptic rendering has turned up. See Andrei Orlov and Joost L. Hagen, “No Longer ‘Slavonic’ Only: 2 Enoch Attested in Coptic from Nubia,” Hen 31 (2009): 233–34. It was composed originally in Greek. Apocalypses written in Greek and created in a Hellenistic milieu, will not concern us here due to their different content and setting. 2 This document was probably one of the sources used by the Greek Testament of Levi, included in the Greek collection Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. 3 For instance, the Hebrew Qumran work Apocryphon of Jeremiah  C, published in DJD XXX, 129–260. See the articles “Hebrew Pseudepigrapha at Qumran” in this volume. 4 See John J. Collins, “The Jewish Apocalypses,” Semeia 14 (1979): 21–59 (30–36); James C. VanderKam, “Studies in the Chronology of the Book of Jubilees,” in From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 522–44 (525–27); George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), 439–40. Additional smaller units belong with the apocalypses, such as Levi’s vision in Testament of Levi 16. Several Qumranic texts, such as the Pesher on the Periods (4Q180) and the cave 11 Pesher Melchizedek, show affinity to historical apocalypses. See the article “Apocalyptic and the Qumran Library” in this volume. 5 Although 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch were authored around 100 C. E., in genre and interest they

20

Election and Laws of History in the Apocalyptic Literature

a unique case, since it is in fact a compendium of five independent writings attributed to Enoch: the Book of Watchers (= 1 En. 1–36); the Book of Parables (= 1 En. 37–71); the Astronomical Book (= 1 En. 72–82); the Book of Dreams (= 1 En. 83–90); and the Epistle of Enoch (= 1 En. 91–105); and an appendix on the birth of Noah (= 1 En. 106–1076). Only the Book of Parables is not represented among the Scrolls, probably because it was the final composition, written in the first half of the first century C. E.7, and perhaps stemmed from a different circle. However, historical apocalypses are contained only in some of the Enoch works, namely in the Book of Dreams, especially in its second part the Animal Apocalypse (= 1 En. 85–908), and in the Apocalypse of Weeks, embedded in the Epistle of Enoch (= 1 En. 93:1–10; 91:12–179). The Book of Watchers contains other revelatory components, the throne vision (1 En. 14–15) and the cosmic travels (1 En. 17–36), but in form and content they differ from the historical apocalypses and belong to other genres.10 So the Animal Apocalypse, the Apocalypse of Weeks, Daniel 7–12, and Jubilees 1 and 23 are the earliest apocalypses of the historical type known to us. A similar work, Pseudo-Daniel from Qumran, is somewhat later, perhaps from the first century B. C. E.11 The closest links to Qumran are evinced by the two Enochic apocalypses, Daniel, Pseudo-Daniel, and Jubilees, all represented by copies in the Qumran library.12 belong with the earlier apocalyptic literature, a fact also supported by the numerous links they display with earlier Qumranic works. See the article “4 Ezra and 2 Baruch in Light of Qumran Literature” in this volume.   6 In the Ethiopic version, which preserved the complete compendium, a further chapter, 108, not attested elsewhere, is attached to this appendix.   7 See the article “The Book of Parables (1 Enoch 37–71) and the Qumran Community Worldview” in this volume.   8 See the article “Ideology and History in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90)” in this volume.   9 In form and content, the Apocalypse of Weeks constitutes a separate, self-contained unit, espousing a view of history not expressed by other sections of the Epistle of Enoch. Therefore, it merits separate treatment, even if one assumes that it was composed by the author of the entire Epistle of Enoch, as does, for instance, Michael A. Knibb (idem, “The Apocalypse of Weeks and the Epistle of Enoch,” in Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a Forgotten Connection [ed. G. Boccaccini; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005], 213–19 [216–17]), or was one of its sources, as argued by Christoph Berner (idem, Jahre, Jahrwochen und Jubiläen: Heptadische Geschichtskonzeptionen im Antiken Judentum [BZAW 363; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2006], 121). See also the analysis by Klaus Koch, “History as a Battlefield of Two Antagonistic Powers in the Apocalypse of Weeks and in the Rule of the Community,” in Enoch and Qumran Origins, 185–99 (194–95). 10 As shown in the article “Apocalyptic and the Qumran Library” in this volume. 11 The date suggested for this composition is somewhere between the second and the middle of the first century B. C. E. Cf. John J. Collins and Peter Flint, DJD XXII, 137–38. But since it is evidently dependent on the biblical Daniel, a date from the end of the second century to the beginning of the first century B. C. E. may be retained. 12 The Apocalypse of Weeks is preserved in the third Qumran Aramaic copy of 1 Enoch (4Q212 1 iii–iv), dated to the middle of the first century B. C. E.; see Milik, Books of Enoch, 246. The Animal Apocalypse is copied in four Aramaic Enochic manuscripts: 4Q204, 4Q205,

Election and Laws of History in the Apocalyptic Literature

21

The particular attitude toward history displayed in this apocalyptic literature holds the key to the understanding of its worldview. For it offers an entirely novel perspective of the subject not found in the biblical antecedents except for Daniel, which in itself is part of this apocalyptic literature. Biblical prophecy places a strong emphasis on forecasts of future events, revealed to the prophets as God’s emissaries. The apocalypses are equally concerned with forecasts of future events but they are set in an entirely different framework. In the apocalyptic visions, forecasts are part of a perception of the course of history, either in its entirety or its final part, that were divulged to ancient righteous sages such as Enoch and Moses.13 It is notable that no early apocalyptic predictions were attributed to the biblical prophets, with the exception of the Qumran compositions Apocryphon of Jeremiah C and Pseudo-Ezekiel. Beside the different personalities selected to convey the visions, the apocalypses differ fundamentally from biblical prophecy in the notion of history that they convey. For, according to these disclosures, history is a single process consisting of several separate units.14 This aspect of the historical process is represented well by the symbolism in Daniel 2. In this chapter, Nebuchadnezzar had a symbolic dream in which he saw a huge human-formed statue with limbs made of various metals. The statue represents the historical course while the limbs depict the various kingdoms ruling in successive epochs. The image of a single body, where the temporal succession is represented by a spatial one from top to bottom, suggests the organic integration of the sequential time periods. Although the sequence consists of individual segments that represent periods of time, their structure as limbs of a single body transforms them into a unified entity. The notion of time as a single organism is uniquely illustrated by the Apocalypse of Weeks.15 Dated to different points during the first half of the second 4Q206, and 4Q207, spanning from an early Hasmonean date (150–125 B. C. E. for 4Q207; cf. Milik, ibid., 244) to the last third of the first century B. C. E. (see Milik, ibid., 178, 217, 225, 244). Passages from Daniel 7–12 are produced in all five Qumran copies of this book (4Q112– 4Q116). 4Q243, 4Q244, and 4Q245 are copies of Pseudo-Daniel. 13 In this respect, the position of Daniel is interesting. In the book carrying his name, Daniel is never called “a prophet,” but in the Qumranic pesharim, Florilegium (4Q174 1–3 ii 3) and the Melchizedek Pesher (11Q13 ii 18), composed not long after the final redaction of Daniel, he is already given this title and his words are interpreted as prophetic. See Dimant, “Time, Torah and Prophecy at Qumran,” Collected Studies, 301–14. 14 The question of whether such a notion of history was formulated by Jewish writings under the impact of similar Zoroastrian ideas, as suggested by many scholars, is beyond the scope of the present article. See the summary of Mary Boyce and Frantz Grenet, A History of Zoroastrianism (Leiden: Brill, 1991), 3:364–403. 15 For details, see the latest commentaries of Ferdinand Dexinger, Henochs Zehnwochen­ apokalypse und offene Probleme der Apokalyptikforschung (Leiden: Brill, 1977): 97–189; Klaus Koch, “Sabbatstruktur der Geschichte: Die sogenannte Zehn-Wochen-Apokalypse (1 Hen 93 1–10; 91 11–17) und das Ringen um die alttestamentlichen Chronologien im späten Israelitentum,” ZAW 95 (1983): 403–30; James C. VanderKam, “Studies in the Apocalypse of Weeks,” in From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Litera-

22

Election and Laws of History in the Apocalyptic Literature

century B. C. E.,16 the Apocalypse presents a consistent view of the entire course of history. Here, the sequence comprises ten epochs designated “weeks,” each of 490 years in length, consisting of heptadic units of year-weeks. Besides being defined in precise chronological terms, each “week” possesses a distinct character and the accumulated string of weeks forms a succinct outline of the historical process. Enoch was born in the first week while justice prevailed, whereas the second week is marked by the antediluvian wickedness, the flood, and the survival of Noah. The third week sees the election of Abraham as a righteous plant while in the fourth week the Torah is given on Mount Sinai. The fifth week concludes with the building of the First Temple, whereas the sixth week is again characterized by sin and blindness, culminating in the destruction of the First Temple and the dispersion of the elect root, Israel. The seventh week is still under the sign of evil and wickedness but a righteous group appears towards its end and is granted a seven-fold wisdom, signaling the approaching redemptive events. In the last two weeks, these eschatological developments take place: the punishment of the wicked, the reward of the righteous, and the great judgment. Finally, a new firmament is to be constitued and an endless number of weeks elapse in uprightness. The seventh week obviously concludes history proper, since the allusions to known events, in the style of vaticimium ex eventu, do not go beyond it. Nevertheless, the eighth and tenth weeks still form part of the measured time and therefore must be integral to the historical process, in contrast to the eternity reigning afterwards, lying beyond the measured time.17 Through this depiction, the nature of the passage of time as a single continuum, consisting of temporal units joined to one another as links in a chain, is displayed clearly. Each one of these temporal sections has a particular character, a specific span of time, and a well-defined place within the historical chain. The use of the heptadic chronology bestows specific numerical value and cohesion on the entire string. The use by the Apocalypse of Weeks of recurring patterns in all the weeks confers schematic uniformity on the temporal progression. Perceiving the historical sequence as a string of periods that resemble one another, ture (JSJSup 62; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 366–79 (first published in 1984); Nickelsburg 1 Enoch 1, 438–50; Berner, Jahre, Jahrwochen, 127–49; Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91–108, 53–60, cf. p. 40 n. 41. See also Stone, Ancient Judaism, 83–89. 16 Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 441 places it sometime before the Maccabean revolt. Stucken­ bruck, ibid., 62 dates it to the Hellenistic reforms of Antiochus IV, between 174–170 B. C. E. Similarly Berner, Jahre, Jahrwochen, 125. Knibb, “The Apocalypse of Weeks,” 218–19 proposes an earlier time in that century. 17 So VanderKam is right in stressing the particular value of the seventh week in the entire scheme (cf. idem, “Studies in the Apocalypse of Weeks,” 375–76). However, the measurability of the last two weeks indicates that they are still part of the numerical system of the Apocalypse of Weeks and therefore have a significant role to play in the process. In fact, placed at the end of the measurable temporal sequence, the events taking place during that era are of a special character, as indeed noted by VanderKam himself (ibid, 378).

Election and Laws of History in the Apocalyptic Literature

23

of which the number and length are fixed, establishes a finite chronological duration for the entire historical process. However, while the repetitive and schematic character of the periods of the Apocalypse of Weeks are evident, these time modules are neither identical nor copies of one another, for each “week” possesses an individual character in that it is the scene of particular events, and is located in a different position in the string. Especially notable is the alternation between positive figures and periods, such as these of Noah, Abraham, and the First Temple, and negative ones, such as these of the flood and the sixth week.18 Thus, the differences between the weeks create a single straight line of development that differs from the cyclic repetitive aspect of the sequence. The temporal sequence as presented by the Apocalypse of Weeks is therefore a double-dimensioned entity: one aspect is manifested in the repetitive format, the other in a line of progressive development. The two aspects grant the sequence a particular consistency that renders it an organic unity beyond a mere amalgam of components. In other words, the temporal process of human history follows a certain course that is materialized by the double movement of repetition of schematic periods and a progression of different human generations. If the repetitive and schematic aspect of the string of weeks is the projection of the permanent divine law controlling the temporal flow, the linear development alternating from week to week essentially reflects the dynamics of human fortunes. The interrelationship between the two aspects builds the complex character of the temporal historical succession. While the Apocalypse of Weeks is the only work that explicitly outlines the entire historical sequence in heptadic terms, other contemporary apocalypses may have assumed the same chronology but detail only some sections of it explicitly. This is certainly the case with Jubilees, which presents the heptadic chronology from creation to the scene on Mount Sinai. However, that Jubilees assumes this chronology for the entire history is suggested by the prologue of the work19 and the fact that Jub. 1:8–15 and 23:11–27 contain forecasts for the author’s own Second Temple times.20 In Dan 9:25–27 and the Animal Apoca18 Structural analogies between week 1 and week 10, both mentioning a seventh entity, and the judgment in weeks 2 and 10 are recognized by VanderKam, “Studies in the Apocalypse of Weeks,” 374–75. Koch, “History as Battlefield,” 191, detects in the Apocalypse of Weeks “an antagonistic field of powers,” namely a dualistic presentation that he associates with Iranian influence. While the presence of such an influence may be disputed, the alternation between periods of righteousness and sin is not unique to the Apocalypse of Weeks. It is presented in a similar way in 2 Baruch 56–69. Also the deterioration of the metals in the statute of Daniel 2 implies a parallel idea, though drawing on other sources. 19 It reads as follows: “This is the account of the division of the days of the law and of the testimony of the events of the years, according to their year-weeks and their jubilees, through all the years of the world ….” Although the book ends with the scene on Mount Sinai, the promise in the prologue is of a comprehensive chronology. 20 Opinions vary as to whether the entirety of Jubilees or only chs. 1 and 23 may be labeled an “apocalypse.” For viewing the entire book as an apocalypse, see, for instance, James

24

Election and Laws of History in the Apocalyptic Literature

lypse (1 En. 89:59–90:16), the heptadic computation is applied explicitly only to the final section of history. The connection to the seventy-year prophecy of Jer 25:11–12 is spelled out by Daniel but the Animal Apocalypse may have been influenced by it as well.21 Still, since the Animal Apocalypse traces history from its beginning to its final conclusion, it may assume a heptadic chronology for the entire historical course.22 However, the Animal Apocalypse employs additional means to convey the various segments of the historical process. As labeled, it represents the vision of history divulged to Enoch in which animals symbolize humans while men stand for angels. According to this vision, history consists of three epochs: the primordial epoch, from the creation of man to Noah and the flood; the second epoch encompasses human history from Noah and Abraham until the messianic era; and the third epoch embraces the messianic and redemptive age. The distinction between the three epochs is expressed by the different types of humanity in each era. Humans who live in the first and third epochs are symbolized by bulls, whereas in the second epoch they are represented as sheep and wild animals. In this manner, the Animal Apocalypse expresses symmetry and analogy between the beginning and the conclusion of the historical process, implying the idea that the final redemptive era symbolizes a return to an ideal primeval time.23 However, the future is not an exact duplicate of the past since in the earliest phase of history the seeds of evil were already sown whereas at its conclusion a new and purified humanity will emerge. Thus, also this temporal process consists of repetitive structural elements as well as of linear dynamic development. However, in both the Apocalypse of Weeks and the Animal Apocalypse even the linear progression is preordained by divine plan, since it is revealed to the ancient seers many years before the events took place. Hence, the apocalyptic visions of this kind are often understood as expressing the notion of predestination. M. Scott, “The Chronologies of the Apocalypse of Weeks and the Book of Jubilees,” in Enoch and the Mosaic Torah (eds. G. Boccaccini and G. Ibba; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 67–81 (68–69). 21 The two are close contemporaries and therefore the Animal Apocalypse does not necessarily depend on Daniel 9. Rather, both reflect the interpretation of the Jeremiah prophecy current at the time. 22 Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 441 states that the Apocalypse of Weeks is “either an epitome of the Animal Vision or a source for it,” but this claim is fortuitous. Taking into account the similarity between the two, Stuckenbruck (idem, 1 Enoch 91–108, 53) nevertheless estimates that the Apocalypse of Weeks is the earlier document. 23 Analogous is the idea found in the Apocalypse of Weeks that the flood in the second week is the punishment meted out to the wicked paralleling the final judgment and punishment in the eighth week. Cf. Lutz Doering, “Urzeit-Endzeit Correlation in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Pseudepigrapha,” in Eschatologie-Eschatology: Eschatology in the Old Testament, Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (eds. H.-J. Eckstein, C. Landmesser, and H. Lichtenberger; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 19–58 (29–30).

Election and Laws of History in the Apocalyptic Literature

25

Viewed as preordained by divine blueprint, the historical progress is also perceived as opaque and enigmatic, sealed from human understanding. Indeed, in the literature of the Qumran community, which espouses the same notion of history, the essential nature of the temporal sequence is defined by the term “the mysteries of God” (‫)רזי אל‬.24 The Qumran Pesher of Habakkuk gives vivid expression to the view that history is divine, enigmatic, and predetermined according to God’s wisdom. It states that “all the Periods of God will come to their proper measure as He did inscribe for them in His wisdom” (1QpHab VII, 13–14 ). From the concept of the historical sequence as a mysterious process, whose evolvement and meaning are incomprehensible, derives the particular literary form of the apocalypses, namely, the accounts of enigmatic, often symbolic visions revealed to wise seers of old and interpreted by divinely sent messages or messengers. Succinctly defined, then, the notion of history underlying these early historical apocalypses maintains that the temporal flow consists of a single string of successive units, either periods of precise numerical value or human generations. Each period is defined in duration, in its place in the chronological chain, and in respect to the events to take place during its duration. Since the succession of the periods adds up to a progressive line, only the unfolding of the entire sequence unveils the true meaning of the whole process, thus revealing the sense of the divine blueprint for the entire history of mankind. To some extent, the mysterious character of the historical developments and the interpretations requiring their decoding account for the use of pseudepigraphic garb by all the apocalypses. For, depicting past events that were well known to these Second Temple authors as forecasts revealed to primordial figures accords them with the prestige of predictions fulfilled and thus lends them credibility. But the assignment of visions of the historical periods to ancient sages in order to invest them with truth and authority involves a critical question: Does viewing the schematic blueprint for history at its initial point mean that the detailed events are already determined, as they have often been understood? If so, a significant innovation is implied here in relation to the classical biblical viewpoint. Although for the later Isaiah God is “He who has called forth the generations since the beginning” (Isa 41:4), the main body of the biblical literature never went as far as advocating a predetermined scheme for history. The book of Daniel is the only exception to this rule, but being a contemporary of the early historical apocalypses and itself one of them, especially in chs. 7–12, the book reflects the later apocalyptic view. A predetermined course of history is awkward for authors such as those who penned the apocalypses and adhered to the view that the world was created and is 24 See,

for instance, 1QS III, 23; 1QpHab VII, 8; 1QM III, 9.

26

Election and Laws of History in the Apocalyptic Literature

administered by a just God, who metes out punishment for sin or bestows reward for righteousness. Moreover, the apocalypses clearly advocate the biblical belief that humans possess moral responsibility, since mankind is punished or rewarded for its actions. Such a view entails a belief in the possibility of free choice of action for individuals or the collective. How, then, can predestination be reconciled with such moral responsibility?25 The question arising from this contrast is particularly acute when observing that the temporal course as depicted by the apocalypses displays an alternation of good and evil. The process reaches its climax close to the end, when evil proliferates and meets its final demise, and the persecuted righteous ones earn their reward. For the authors of the apocalypses, such a development represents the true inner law and meaning of history, in the individual as well as the national spheres. In the context of the schools and opinions current within Jewry of the Second Temple period, the stance of the apocalypses is only one of the attitudes adopted concerning the responsibility of man in a world ruled by a God who dispenses justice. However at Qumran the apocalyptic solution seems to have been popular, since it is expressed both by the sectarian literature and by the apocalypses collected and read by the sectaries. Yet the inherent contradiction between a predetermined history and freedom of individual action and moral responsibility cannot be eluded. While the Qumran sectarian literature does not explicitly address this problem, the later author of 4 Ezra devotes much of his book to elucidating it. Written some thirty years after the destruction of the Second Temple, its chief protagonist, Ezra, attributes human sinfulness to a tendency that was passed down to him, caused by the primeval sin of Adam (4 Ezra 3:22). However, the explicit questions such as why was it thus determined and what is the meaning of human moral responsibility in such conditions, Ezra does not dare to ask. They are only insinuated in the response of the angel, who promises to divulge the answer if Ezra can explain the three parables he presents to him (4 Ezra 4:4). However, Ezra is incapable of doing this and therefore no answer is given to the question of why man was created with a wicked heart that leads him to sin. Everything is part of the divine mysteries and God’s administering of history. Yet it may be asked whether the apocalypses actually express a strict predetermination. Some details imply a complex response to this question. Firstly, the apocalypses are often set in a framework of admonitory addresses that promote justice and righteousness. Evidently, human moral responsibility and choice is assumed as a matter of fact in such contexts. Secondly, the question arises as to whether revealing the entire history to ancient seers actually signifies that all the historical events in all their details were already preordained at that early 25 A question often posed in relation to the predestination espoused by the Qumran sectarian literature.

Election and Laws of History in the Apocalyptic Literature

27

stage and the sequence of periods is but an effectuation of this grand plan. Some details of the apocalypses do not agree with such an understanding. Thus, for instance, the Animal Apocalypse stresses the priority of Adam’s genealogy with the lineage of Seth, Enoch, and Noah, which continues with the patriarchs (1 En. 89:9–14). The symbolic system by which these figures are represented suggests that their priority emanates from their righteous character and deeds. This being the case, a certain freedom given to men to choose their own path, which in turn determines God’s attitude toward them, is implied. Another detail in the Animal Apocalypse sheds additional light on this problem. It relates how God has given seventy evil shepherds permission to punish Israel by killing a certain number of Israelites, but in reality the shepherds kill many more than the permitted number (1 En. 89:59–62). Thus, these shepherds overstepped the permitted number of killings, an act that implies independent decision-making. They are indeed punished accordingly (1 En. 90:22).26 The liberty to act in a determined way is also expressed by the punishment divinely meted out to Israel following its sinful behavior, which, at least partly, was not pre-determined. The distinction between the law of history and its realization, the vision and the reality, conveys the dynamic and changeable aspect of the historical periods, an aspect that allows some measure of human freedom of action. Thus, the seer is able to insist on attributing to man full responsibility for his actions. In the Qumran sectarian literature, the possibility of choice is implied by the fact that God loves or hates the various historical figures based on their behavior, as stated by the sectarian Community Rule (1QS III, 26–IV, 1). So, flowing in a preordained mold, time nevertheless embodies an element of freedom not contained in these schemata. However, if a measure of freedom is accorded to mankind, the problem of righteous judgment comes to the foreground. The chronological aspect of the temporal sequence signifies that it is of a measured and finite duration. But its mysterious nature signifies that only the unfolding of the full course of the process until its final stage manifests the true sense of the entire progression, especially in relation to divine justice and expressed in reward for the righteous and punishment for the sinners. Thus, the real sense of history is imparted only at its end, an idea advocated by all the apocalypses. This is why the great judgment and punishment and reward appear at the end of the sequence. This stance permits these authors to answer the pointed question of why righteous or wicked actions are not rewarded or punished immediately. In the apocalypses, this query reverberates also on the national level: why was Israel punished immediately and harshly, whereas the wicked nations prosper?

26 See the article “Israel’s Subjugation to the Gentiles as an Expression of Demonic Power in Qumran Documents and Related Literature,” in this volume.

28

Election and Laws of History in the Apocalyptic Literature

The answer supplied for these questions is given to Ezra in 4 Ezra: the full measure of the reward as well as the punishment is reserved for the final stage of history, when the entire process will be acted out. However, this answer does not satisfy Ezra and he asks:“Yet behold, O Lord, you promise those who are alive at the end, but what will those do who were before us, or we, or those who come after us?” (4 Ezra 5:1427). This is a clear formulation of the fundamental difficulty embedded in a belief in a reward beyond history or at its conclusion, for this answer brings no solace to people living in the middle of the process. Indeed, the authors of the early apocalypses assumed that they were living at that final moment in the historical progression, so their hope for the approaching reward for the righteous and punishment for the wicked was a comforting reality. But the solution to the problem of recompense being deferred to the final redemptive era lies not only in the proximity of the authors to that moment. In 4 Ezra, the angel provides another quite enigmatic reply: “and he (the angel) replied to me and said: ‘The creation cannot make more haste than the creator, neither can the world hold at one time those who have been created in it’” (4 Ezra 5:4428). As far as judgment is concerned, says the angel, there is no former or later in the historical period and what appears to be a postponement of reward or punishment is not really so since the judgment is a single organic entity, “like a crown” to which the terms “earlier” or “later” are not applicable (4 Ezra 5:42). Thus, it becomes clear that the idea of the full measure of reward and punishment only at the end of days stems from the perspective of history as a single organism with various limbs. Hence, there is no injustice in the fact that the sinner or the righteous is recompensed only at the conclusion of the historical sequence, for the periodical modules are interlocked to form a single entity.29 The concept of time as an organic unity provides solutions to two fundamental problems emanating from the worldview of the apocalypses composed during the Second Temple period: the problem of predestination and that of reward and punishment at the end of days. Perhaps on both accounts there is no need to understand the apocalypses as adhering to a strict concept of predestination but rather allowing some measure of freedom to the historical period itself. In the framework of this flexibility, the according of reward and punishment may be conceived as the concluding act that seals the historical events with a final stamp that determines the full and actual weight of the actions and events that took place during the entire sequence. Therefore, such a final seal can and should 27 The translation, with a slight alteration, is that of Michael E. Stone, Fourth Ezra (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 141. 28 For the translation, see Stone, ibid. 29 A similar perspective of time as a unified process is advanced by the Qumranic work Pseudo-Ezekiel, in which the prophet expresses the wish that time would be accelerated in order that Israel may gain more speedily the inheritance awaiting it (4Q385 4 2–3). Similarly, 2 Bar. 20:1–2. Perhaps 4 Ezra 5:44 is a rejoinder of this idea, stating as it does that the “creation is unable to speed up more than her creator.” See Dimant, Collected Studies, 249–68.

Election and Laws of History in the Apocalyptic Literature

29

come only at the end of the process and, being a single entity, there is no difficulty in providing recompense to people situated in various stages of the process. Another problematic aspect of viewing the temporal sequence as an organic unity is presented by the history of Israel. Its entirety is integrated into the various apocalypses according to the biblical scheme: election, covenant, sin, punishment, and final redemption. However, in the system of periods developed in the various apocalypses, the biblical history is part of that relating to the whole of humanity and so is incorporated in the string of repeated schematic models, expressing the inner laws of time. In the Apocalypse of Weeks, it creates a significant parallelism: the sins of Israel and Judea in the sixth week are paralleled to the antediluvian sins in the second week, just as the personality and life of the righteous Noah in the first week is paralleled to the righteous group in the sixth and eighth weeks. Here, the string of elect figures is materialized through Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Israel, David, Elijah, and finally the righteous group. Thus, also the election of the people of Israel is but an expression of a primary pattern actualized at a specific juncture in history. This concept is also embodied in the Animal Apocalypse. Election is realized from Adam but he is only the first in the series of elected figures, each one in a specific generation. Election and righteousness are transmitted through the genealogy of Seth to Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and from him to the entire people of Israel. But once Israel declines into sin, election is transferred to the righteous group at the threshold of the redemptive era. Both the Animal Apocalypse and the Apocalypse of Weeks view election as embracing the entirety of mankind at the end of days, thus returning it to its original state in the primordial era. The act of broadening the election, narrowing it during the historical period, and extending it again at the final stage of the sequence reshapes the initial meaning of the term “election.” Once the election is predetermined according to the fundamental principles of history, it cannot indicate merely a selection of one from among the many due to his excellence on given occasions. Here, election becomes a virtue embedded in the nature and expressed in the behavior of a given individual or group, in short, it develops into excellence not acquired but inherent from birth. In the presentation of the Apocalypse of Weeks, the category of the selected or elected ones is permanent and in each generation a certain individual embodies it. Enoch, Noah, and the patriarchs were the first models, followed by Moses, Israel, David, and Elijah. In this context, the setting of the receiving of the Torah on Mount Sinai acquires a particular meaning. For, on that occasion, the people of Israel accepted the role of being and accomplishing the tasks of the elected group. Thus, the history of Israel is the story of the elect group’s betrayal of its own role. Consequently, when the full measure of Israel’s sinfulness is reached, the election must pass on to a different individual or collective. In several apocalypses, such a replacement is indeed depicted by

30

Election and Laws of History in the Apocalyptic Literature

the appearance of the righteous group, in an announcement of the redemptive process, who thus inherit the role of the entire people of Israel.30 Thus, while the apocalypses view history as being controlled by one God and applied to the whole of humanity, they nevertheless grant the knowledge of its secrets only to the restricted righteous group, who replaces Israel as a whole. According to this logic, the freedom given to man is in fact the freedom to know the law of the historical process and to recognize his own place in its unfolding. For only by possession of such knowledge is man able to know and accept what is incumbent upon him according to divine law, and only within such a framework is he aware of the limitations of freedom and its options. However, this nexus is problematic since the redemptive knowledge is reserved for the righteous, who are themselves the elect. This notion is also embedded in the belief of the apocalyptic writers that they themselves are part of the selected righteous group and that they are living at the threshold of the redemptive era, and apparently addressing their writings to the members of their own group. For only the piousness and wisdom of the elect permit them to receive the mysteries of history. This view is identical to the self-image of the Qumran community that saw itself as the righteous group living at the dawn of redemption, who possesses a right understanding of the prophets’ secrets regarding history.31 The Qumranites did not compose apocalypses, but were avid readers and perhaps copyists of them.

30 Cf. Dan 2:44; 11:35; 12:2–3; the Animal Apocalypse (= 1 En. 90:9–14); the Apocalypse of Weeks (= 1 En. 93:9); Jub. 23:26. It should be noted that the notion of the righteous remnant is prominent especially in apocalypses composed during the Second Temple period (and discussed here), which are close to the ideology of the Qumran community. 31 On these Qumran ideas see the article “Time, Torah and Prophecy at Qumran”, in Collected Studies, 301–14.

Apocalyptic and the Qumran Library Much has been said of apocalyptic at Qumran but still more remains controversial and uncertain. Heir to notions regarding apocalyptic that go back to the eighteenth century, critical inquiry of the subject has yet to digest the new information provided by scores of hitherto unknown Qumran texts that are pertinent to the subject. The novelty and importance of the new evidence from Qumran is readily admitted but it has never been fully evaluated, as I hope to show below. The present discussion attempts to fill this gap at least partially by treating the subject from the perspective of the Qumran library as a multilayered entity. In order to improve our understanding of the apocalypses preserved at Qumran, the article suggests replacing the linear model that is usually adopted for explaining them with one of historical-thematic clusters. It further proposes that most of the Jewish “historical” apocalypses are related to the circles from which the Qumran community emerged and to which it remained connected.

A. History of Research The relationship between what is labeled “Jewish apocalyptic” and the Qumran library has preoccupied the research into the Scrolls from its inception. Frank Cross, writing one of the first and most influential surveys of the Qumran findings, concluded that the authors of the Scrolls formed “an apocalyptic community” and were “priestly apocalypticists.”1 Cross based his statements on the eschatological and dualistic notions found mainly in the Damascus Document (CD), the Community Rule (1QS), and the War Scroll (1QM).2 However, his characterization suffers from the same terminological fuzziness typical of early as well as recent treatments of the subject.3 In part, this is due to the debate on 1 Cf. Frank M. Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies (rev. ed.; Garden City, NY: Anchor, 1961), 78. In the third edition of the book, published some thirty years later, Cross still held the view that the community was “profoundly rooted in older Judaism, specifically in the priestly laws of purity coupled with a thoroughgoing apocalypticism.” See Frank M. Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran (3rd ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 68. 2 Cross, Ancient Library of Qumran, 1961, 76–78. 3 Cf. the critique of John J. Collins, “Was the Dead Sea Sect an Apocalyptic Movement?,” in Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. L. H. Schiffman; JSOT/ASOR Monographs 2; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 25–51.

32

Apocalyptic and the Qumran Library

the meaning of the terms “apocalyptic” and “apocalypticism” and how they are related to individual apocalypses. The various opinions on the matter span two extremes. On the one end stand scholars such as Jean Carmignac and Hartmut Stegemann who restrict the adjective “apocalyptic” to literary apocalypses alone.4 On the other end of the spectrum stand scholars such as Florentino García Martínez and John Collins, who judge that Qumran sectarian texts share ideas with the apocalypses and therefore one should distinguish between the literary genre of individual apocalypses and the core of ideas they share with texts that are not apocalypses.5 This view, held by many scholars, indeed accounts for the undeniable affinity between central notions characteristic of the apocalypses and specific ideas expressed by the Qumran texts. However, while generally plausible, this view rests on vague generalities and all-inclusive definitions that obscure the particularities. When details of specific apocalypses are examined closely, a more nuanced picture of apocalyptic at Qumran comes into focus. Current discussions of the apocalyptic at Qumran suffer from two main flaws: The first is the neglect of the multivalent character of the Qumran library. The various surveys treat the Qumran library en bloc, disregarding its distinct components: sectarian works, Aramaic compositions, and Hebrew parabiblical nonsectarian writings.6 Each one of these groups relates to the apocalyptic in a different way and therefore must be examined separately. The second flaw lies in the tendency to analyze apocalypses on the basis of an overly large base corpus, which blurs the specifics of the particular historical-thematic context of the early Jewish apocalypses. These flaws are illustrated in a definition of the apocalypse genre proposed by John Collins and a group of collaborators.7 It reads as follows: “‘apocalypse’ is a genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework, in which a revelation is 4 Cf. Jean Carmignac, “Qu’est-ce que l’Apocalyptique? Son emploi à Qumrân,” RevQ 19 (1979): 3–33 (7–15); Hartmut Stegemann, “Die Bedeutung der Qumranfunde für die Erforschung der Apokalyptik,” in Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East (ed. D. Hellholm; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983), 495–530. In the article, Stegemann wholly subscribed to Carmignac’s position and presentation (idem, ibid., 512–13). 5 Florentino García Martínez, “Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Qumranica Minora I: Qumran Origins and Apocalypticism (ed. E. J. C. Tigchelaar; STDJ 63; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 195–226; Collins, “Was the Dead Sea Sect an Apocalyptic Movement?,” 44–45. 6 For the tripartite division of the Qumran texts, see the classification of Dimant, “The Qumran Manuscripts: Contents and Significance,” in Collected Studies, 27–56. The terminology and ideas unique to the sectarian texts were surveyed by eadem, “The Vocabulary of the Qumran Sectarian Texts,” in Collected Studies, 57–100. For the Qumran Aramaic corpus specifically, see eadem, “The Qumran Aramaic Texts and the Qumran Community,” in Collected Studies, 185–94. 7 John J. Collins, “Introduction: Towards the Morphology of a Genre,” Semeia 14 (1979): 1–19. The definition and its adjacent typological paradigm are used by Collins in other surveys. See idem, The Apocalyptic Imagination (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 4–5 (unless otherwise noted, this edition is quoted throughout); idem, Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls (London: Routledge, 1997), 3.

Apocalyptic and the Qumran Library

33

mediated by an otherworldly being to a human recipient, disclosing a transcendent reality which is both temporal, insofar as it envisages eschatological salvation, and spatial, insofar as it involves another, supernatural world.”8 Extracting features from a wide range of individual Jewish, Christian, Greco-Roman, and Persian apocalypses, the definition is based on a list of elements of form and content, tagged “a paradigm” of the genre.9 However, examining early Jewish apocalypses through the lens of such a definition generates inaccuracies and misconceptions. Firstly, not all the apocalypses are revelations “mediated by an otherworldly being.” For instance, the vision related in the Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 85–90) is revealed to Enoch in a dream. Secondly, most of the early apocalypses concern only visionary revelations and not cosmic tours, and therefore providing a single definition for the two themes distorts the picture of the genre, at least when related to the early specimens. Thirdly, the enormous range of base texts covered by the definition is a disadvantage for the purpose of understanding specific sections of the corpus. Particularly detrimental is the stress placed on formal literary features without their historical, cultural, and geographical contexts.10 Eibert Tigchelaar observes that Collins’s definition neither takes into account the evolutionary aspect of the genre, nor its complexity.11 Tigchelaar also proposes replacing the traditional linear development of proto-apocalyptic towards apocalyptic with a view of the genre as a historical group with family resemblances.12 A similar idea is proposed below. One of the problems in current reviews of the apocalyptic is their reliance on traditional approaches to apocalypses and the apocalyptic, which mingle together various genres from different origins. This is particularly salient regarding the list of apocalypses considered to be pertinent to the subject. The usual one used by most of the discussions goes back to the collection of pseudepigrapha compiled by the scholar and bibliographer Johann Albert Fabricius (1668–1736),13   8 Collins,

“Introduction: Towards the Morphology,” 9. more nebulous is the corrected definition accepted by Collins: “an apocalypse is intended to interpret present earthly circumstances in the light of the supernatural world and of the future, and to influence both the understanding and the behavior of the audience by means of divine authority.” (Cf. idem, “Genre, Ideology and Social Movements in Jewish Apocalypsticism,” Seers, Sibyls and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism [JSJSup 54; Leiden: Brill, 1997], 19). The definition is taken from Adela Yarbro Collins, “Introduction: Early Christian Apocalypticism,” Semeia 36 (1986): 1–11 (7). 10 See the critiques of Florentino García Martínez, “Encore l’Apocalyptique,” JSJ 17 (1986): 224–32 (228); Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, “More on Apocalyptic and Apocalypses,” JSJ 18 (1987): 137–44 (142). 11 Tigchelaar, “More on Apocalyptic and Apocalypses,” 139. 12 Tigchelaar, “More on Apocalyptic and Apocalypses,” 141. 13 Cf. Johann Albert Fabricius’s Codex Pseudepigraphus Veteris Testamenti (Hamburg and Leipzig, 1713) and Codicis Pseudepigraphi Veteris Testamenti, Volumen Alterum (Hamburg, 1723). On Fabricius’ work and its historical context, see the analysis by Annette Yoshiko Reed, “The Modern Invention of the ‘Old Testament Pseudepigrapha’,” JTS 60 (2009): 403–36.   9 Even

34

Apocalyptic and the Qumran Library

and to the anthologies published at the turn of the twentieth century by Emil Kautzsch and Robert Henry Charles.14 Under the heading “Apocalypses,” these collections assembled the following list: 1 Enoch, Jubilees, 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra, 2 Enoch, the Sibylline Oracles, 3 Baruch, the Assumption of Moses, and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. The recent and much larger collection assembled by James Charlesworth includes a similar roster.15 In surveying Jewish apocalypses, Collins has only slightly deviated from this catalogue. Yet, putting early Jewish apocalypses on a historical footing reveals the artificial character of this inventory, for its various components differ in aim, provenance, and historical setting. This shortcoming comes to the foreground on examination of the list in light of the Qumran evidence. Since the focus of the present investigation is early apocalypses and their relationship to Qumran, the following types, included in the corpus as defined by Collins, stem from different contexts and therefore remain outside the discussion: First, despite their numerous links to Jewish apocalyptic, Christian apocalypses belong to a very different historical sphere.16 This is especially true in relation to apocalyptic in the Qumran documents, the bulk of which precedes the birth of Christianity by at least a century. Hence, for instance, the practice of singling out and comparing the books of Daniel and Revelation as typical representatives of the apocalypse genre just because they are “biblical” distorts the representation of the genre. Second, Greco-Roman and Persian apocalypses stem from a historical and cultural milieu very different from that of the early Jewish apocalypses. Therefore, despite several similarities between the two groups, they cannot be treated on the same level of analysis. On this basis, they are not included in the present survey. Third, the following Jewish apocalypses were originally written in Greek and reflect the Hellenistic sphere: 2 Enoch, 3 Baruch, the Apocalypse of Zephaniah,17 and the Sibylline 14 Cf. Emil Kautzsch, Die Pseudepigraphen des Altes Testaments (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1900), bd. 2; Robert H. Charles, APOT, vol. 2. The two publications bring together commentaries by the most notable scholars of the time. Note also the collection edited and commented on by Paul Riessler, Altjüdisches Schrifttum ausserhalb der Bibel (Augsburg: Benno Filser, 1928). On modern research of the Pseudepigrapha, see James H. Charlesworth, “A History of Pseudepigrapha Research: The Re-emerging Importance of the Pseudepigrapha,” ANRW II.19.1, 54–88. See also the short outline by Richard Baukham and James R. Davila, “Introduction,” Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures, vol. 1 (eds. R. Bauckham, J. R. Davila, and A. Panayotov; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), xx–xxvi. 15 Cf. James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983). Similar lists underlie Hedley F. D. Sparks, ed., The Apocryphal Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984), David Russell, The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic (London: SCM, 1964), 37–38, and Christopher Rowland, The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity (New York: Crossroad, 1982), 11–15. 16 Klaus Koch, The Rediscovery of Apocalyptic (trans. M. Kohl; London: SCM, 1972), 9–12. 17 On the Greek origins and Hellenistic background of 2 Enoch, see Christfried Böttrich, “The ‘Book of the Secrets of Enoch’ (2 En): Between Jewish Origin and Christian Transmis-

Apocalyptic and the Qumran Library

35

Oracles. They also should remain outside the present consideration for they differ from apocalypses composed in the land of Israel in date, matter, form, and geographical-historical setting. The various traditions they share with earlier Aramaic or Hebrew apocalypses should not obscure this fact. All of them were composed not earlier than the first century C. E., namely after the floruit of Qumran literature. Typically, they lack the interest in the history of Israel that was so central to the early Jewish apocalypses. Equally distinctive are their ascents through the seven heavens, a theme absent from early Jewish apocalypses.18 The Apocalypse of Zephaniah, which describes the prophet’s tours of various mythical places learning about the souls of the dead, was originally written in Egypt in Greek. In both themes and provenance, this text lies outside the framework of the early apocalypses related to Qumran.19 Although the Apocalypse of Abraham is probably of a Semitic origin, its theme of an ascent through the heavens and its first century C. E. date assign it to the Jewish Greek apocalypses, and therefore it is not considered here.20 Collins notes that it is the only Jewish apocalypse that combines a review of history and what Collins terms an “otherworldly journey.”21 In my opinion, this is a clear marker of its relatively late date since earlier apocalypses maintain a separation of the two themes. In light of the discussion below, I think that there is much to be said in favor of Martha Himmelfarb’s suggestion that apocalypses of heavenly tours and historical apocalypses are two different genres.22 Given the exclusions noted above, and the constraints of the historical framework relevant to Qumran, the texts pertinent to the group under discussion and surveyed below were written either in Hebrew or Aramaic, and were composed in the land of Israel between the third and first centuries B. C. E. Consequently, sion,” in New Perspectives on 2 Enoch: No Longer Slavonic Only (eds. Andrei A. Orlov and Gabriele Boccaccini; Studia Judaeoslavica 4; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 37–67 (58–59); Grant Macaskill, “2 Enoch: Manuscripts, Recensions and Original Language,” in ibid., 83–101 (101). The same is assumed for 3 Baruch by Alexander Kulik, 3 Baruch: Greek-Slavonic Apocalypse of Baruch (CEJL; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010), 11, 14. 18 See the survey of Adela Yarbro Collins, “The Seven Heavens in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses,” in Death, Ecstasy and Other Worldly Journeys (eds. J. J. Collins and M. Fishbane; Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995), 59–93. 19 On the date, provenance, and original language of this apocalypse, see Orval S. Wintermute, “Apocalypse of Zephaniah,” in Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 1:500. Martha Himmelfarb associates this apocalypse with the ascent visions in the Testament of Levi and the Apocalypse of Abraham. Cf. eadem, Tours of Hell: An Apocalyptic Form in Jewish and Christian Literature (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983), 61, 65–66. But see, below, the comments on throne visions. 20 The possible Semitic origin of the Apocalypse of Abraham is discussed by Alexander Kulik, Retroverting Slavonic Pseudepigrapha: Towards the Original of the Apocalypse of Abraham (Atlanta: SBL, 2004), 61–76. For the end of the first century C. E. date of this apocalypse, see Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 6. 21 Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 6. 22 Himmelfarb, Tours of Hell, 60.

36

Apocalyptic and the Qumran Library

two further compositions contained in Kautzsch’s and Charles’s volumes, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and the Assumption of Moses, do not belong here. The former is a collection of testaments attributed to the twelve sons of Jacob. They are clearly Christian, and originally written in Greek, but Qumran material has shown that they are probably based on earlier Jewish sources. Only the Testament of Levi is pertinent to our study, including as it does a heavenly vision (chs. 2–5). But its contents will be discussed only in as far as it sheds light on its source, namely the Aramaic Levi Document, fragments of which were discovered among the Qumran Scrolls. Accepting the definition of the apocalypse genre as a revelation of hidden things, we may exclude the Assumption of Moses, since it is written as a farewell discourse addressed to Joshua, built on the final chapters of Deuteronomy, particularly ch. 31 (As. Mos. 1:5; 10:11; 11:1).23 Whether or not it was originally composed in a Semitic language is debated.24 Most scholars date it to the beginning of the first century C. E.25 Thus, both date and subject matter exclude it from the present examination. As will be shown below, most of the Qumran visionary revelations concern history, whereas throne visions and cosmic travels, also attested at Qumran, form distinct clusters not necessarily related to those with a historical theme. Therefore the term “cluster of themes,” referring to those with a different background and origin, may not be covered by the same definition. So for the purpose of the present analysis, the portion of Collins’s definition to retain is the following: “apocalypse is a revelatory genre, divulging to a human seer hidden temporal realities by means of dream visions or an otherworldly agent.” The divulging of spatial realities is reserved for different literary forms.

B. Apocalypse and Related Genres among the Qumran Aramaic and Nonsectarian Hebrew Texts I. Historical Apocalypses One of the significant facts to emerge from the Qumran Scrolls is the centrality of 1 Enoch to the understanding of apocalyptic and its place at Qumran. Known in its entirety only in an Ethiopic translation, it was recognized already by previous scholarship as consisting of five distinct literary units.26 They are the following: the Book of Watchers (1 En. 1–36), Book of Parables (1 En. Johannes Tromp, The Assumption of Moses (SVTP 10; Leiden: Brill, 1993), 119–21. Assumption of Moses, 78–85. 25 Cf. Tromp, Assumption of Moses, 116; Norbert J. Hofmann, Die Assumptio Mosis: Studien zur Rezeption massgültiger Überlieferung (JSJSup 67; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 329. 26 See, e. g., Robert H. Charles, The Book of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon, 1912), xlvi–lii. 23 Cf.

24 Tromp,

Apocalyptic and the Qumran Library

37

37–71), the Astronomical Book (1 En. 72–82), the Dream Visions (1 En. 83–90), and the Epistle of Enoch (1 En. 91–105). Two smaller independent sections are incorporated into the anthology: 1 En. 106–107, with a report on Noah’s birth,27 and the so-called Apocalypse of Weeks, embedded in the Epistle of Enoch (1 En. 93:1–10; 91:12–17).28 However, the eight Qumran copies of the Aramaic original revealed that the five Enochic writings not only differ in literary character, but also had distinct literary careers.29 The Book of Parables is altogether absent from the Scrolls, and its later date and character correspond to this fact.30 The Astronomical Book of the Ethiopic translation is apparently a reworked abbreviated version of an older Aramaic composition copied in separate Qumran manuscripts (4Q208, 4Q209, 4Q210, 4Q211).31 The Book of Watchers seemed to have been the most popular among the owners of the Qumran library since it survived in five fragmentary copies (4Q201, 4Q202, 4Q204, 4Q205, 4Q206), spanning from the second century to the end of the first century B. C. E. The oldest one, 4Q201, is dated by Milik to the first half of the second century B. C. E.32 Constituting a compendium of disparate sources, centered around Enoch and his activities with the Watchers, some of the sources underlying the Book of Watchers must, then, go back to an earlier date, the third century B. C. E. at the latest.33 27 Narrative accounts of the same episode appear in other Qumran texts, the Genesis Apocryphon, II–V and 1Q19 2. 28 Chapter 108, presented as a letter of Enoch, is found only in the Ethiopic translation of 1 Enoch and is not attested in the Qumran copies. The writings assembled in the Ethiopic version of 1 Enoch are organized around the sequence of his mythical biography. Cf. the analysis in “The Biography of Enoch and the Books of Enoch,” in this volume. 29 They are first introduced as such by Milik, Books of Enoch, although not all his reconstructed histories are accepted today. 30 This work is dated to the first century C. E. Some scholars are in favor of a date in the first part of this century. See, for instance, Jonas C. Greenfield and Michael E. Stone, “The Pentateuch of Enoch and the Date of the Similitudes,” HTR 70 (1977): 55–60; Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 178. Others attribute it to the end of the century. See, e. g., Michael A. Knibb, “The Date of the Parables of Enoch: A Critical Review,” in Essays on the Book of Enoch and Other Early Jewish Texts and Traditions (SVTP 22; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 143–60 (159). See the article “The Book of Parables (1 Enoch 37–71) and the Qumran Community Worldview” in this volume. 31 On the relationship between the Ethiopic Astronomical Book to the Qumran Aramaic work, see Milik, Books of Enoch, 19 and the recent conclusion of Henryk Drawnel: “Although the two texts contain the same composition, each represents a different stage of text transmission, with some drastic abbreviations of the Qumran text in the Ethiopic translation.” See idem, The Aramaic Astronomical Book (4Q208–4Q211) from Qumran (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 30. 32 Milik, Books of Enoch, 140. 33 Milik, Books of Enoch, 23–24; James C. VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition (CBQMS 16; Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1984), 112–13; Florentino García Martínez, Qumran and Apocalyptic: Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran (STDJ 9; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 71.

38

Apocalyptic and the Qumran Library

Commonplace in the critical enquiry is the affirmation that the Book of Watchers is an apocalypse,34 but, as will be shown below, this is a misnomer. Its major revelatory components, the throne vision (1 En. 14–15) and the cosmic travels (1 En. 17–36), are very different from what is encountered in the historical apocalypses.35 Revelations that divulge the sequence of history are contained in two other sections of 1 Enoch, the Apocalypse of Weeks (1 En. 93:1–10; 91:12–17) and the Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 85–90). These two, together with Daniel 7–12 and Jubilees 1 and 23, are the earliest apocalypses of the historical type known to us. Pseudo-Daniel from Qumran is somewhat later, perhaps from the first century B. C. E.36 The closest links to Qumran are evinced by the two Enochic apocalypses, Daniel, Pseudo-Daniel, and Jubilees, as they are represented in the Qumran library.37 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch are also included in this group due to their thematic content. Although they were composed around 100 C. E., namely after Qumran ceased to exist, they contain visions of the historical sequence and have points of contact with Qumran sectarian views of history and so may be considered connected to the Qumran phenomenon.38 The salient feature of all these apocalypses is that they relate revelations about the historical sequence, accorded to ancient biblical figures (Enoch, Moses, Daniel, Baruch, and Ezra). Yet these historical apocalypses share additional features that suggest that they drew on common traditions: a. History as a Sequence of Periods: All the above-listed apocalypses present history as a sequence consisting of calculable temporal units – periods – of determined length that are defined in their character and delimited in their place within the temporal sequence.39 Some visions, such as the Apocalypse of Weeks, 34 Cf., e. g., Florentino García Martínez, “Les traditions apocalyptiques à Qumrân,” in Apocalypses et voyages dans l’au-dela (eds. C. Kappler et al.; Paris: Cerf, 1987), 201–35 (210); Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 51. 35 John Collins is cognizant of the fundamental difference between historical apocalyptic and the “more cosmic orientation of the heavenly ascents,” but he still includes them in the apocalypse genre. Cf. idem, “Genre, Ideology, and Social Movements,” 16. 36 The date suggested for this composition is somewhere between the second century and the middle of the first century B. C. E. Cf. John J. Collins and Peter Flint, “Pseudo-Daniel,” in DJD XXII, 137–38. But since it is evidently dependent on the biblical Daniel, a date from the end of the second century to the beginning of the first century B. C. E. may be retained. 37 The Apocalypse of Weeks is preserved in the third Qumran copy of 1 Enoch (4Q212 1 iii– iv), dated to the middle of the first century B. C. E. (see Milik, Books of Enoch, 246). The Animal Apocalypse is preserved in four Enochic manuscripts: 4Q204, 4Q205, 4Q206, and 4Q207, spanning from an early Hasmonean date (150–125 B. C. E. for 4Q207; cf. Milik, ibid., 244) to the last third of the first century B. C. E. (see Milik, ibid., 178, 217, 225, 244). Passages from Daniel 7–12 are produced in all five Qumran copies of this book (4Q112–4Q116). Manuscripts 4Q243, 4Q244, and 4Q245 are copies of Pseudo-Daniel. 38 Cf. the article “4 Ezra and 2 Baruch in Light of Qumran Literature” in this volume. 39 See the analysis of this notion of history in the article “Election and Laws of History in the Apocalyptic Literature” in this volume. See also Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 63–64; García Martínez, “Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 206–07.

Apocalyptic and the Qumran Library

39

the Animal Apocalypse, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch, follow the entire historical course. Others, such as Daniel 7 and Jubilees 1 and 23, describe only parts of it, usually the concluding section. In most of these writings, the precise computation of the periods is obtained by a heptadic chronology, namely, a calculation in terms of seven years and jubilees. In the Apocalypse of Weeks, such a chronology is applied to the entire history, while in the Animal Apocalypse and Daniel 9 it is applied only to the final section. Traces of this chronology are also observed in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch.40 But the temporal sequence always continues into later times that are better known to the contemporary authors, as though foreseen by the ancient seer, in the manner of vaticinium ex eventu. In this way, the depiction of the course of history is used as a vehicle for treating problems that preoccupied Second Temple authors such as sin and righteousness, punishment and reward, the fortunes of the people of Israel, and divine providence and justice. In order to obtain an all-encompassing historical perspective, these apocalypses attribute their visions to ancient seers, but notably not to the prophets. The only exception to this rule is seen in the Qumran Apocryphon of Jeremiah  C (cf. below). This peculiar notion of history is known to us only from the abovementioned group of Jewish historical apocalypses, thus setting them apart from the biblical prophetic tradition. b. Connection to Qumran: As noted above, all the historical apocalypses under discussion are linked to the Qumran documents in one way or another, a fact that is significant for understanding the nature of the Qumran evidence and that is not sufficiently emphasized by current research. Although not authored by the members of the Qumran community, the presence at Qumran of the early apocalypses indicates their importance to this community. c. Language: Notably, all the historical apocalypses related to Qumran are written in either Aramaic or Hebrew. The older ones were originally composed in Aramaic, namely the Apocalypse of Weeks, the Animal Apocalypse, and PseudoDaniel. Daniel 7–12, Jubilees 1 and 23, and Apocryphon of Jeremiah C were written in Hebrew, as probably were the later 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch. This linguistic fact is another aspect of early apocalyptic that deserves further study. d. Medium of Revelation: The divine character of the information transmitted by the visions of history is imparted through the medium of revelation. It is revealed either by visionary dreams of divine inspiration, as in the Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 85:1) and Daniel 7–8, or through direct communication with angels, as in the Apocalypse of Weeks (1 En. 93:2), Daniel 9–12, Jubilees 1 and 23, 4 Ezra (2:2), and 2 Baruch (55:3). In the Apocalypse of Weeks, the heavenly tablets are also mentioned as one of the sources of this supernatural knowledge. 40 See

the article “4 Ezra and 2 Baruch in Light of Qumran Literature” in this volume.

40

Apocalyptic and the Qumran Library

e. Date: The apocalypses in this group span between the third and first centuries B. C. E. The Apocalypse of Weeks is one of the earliest compositions of this kind, dated to the beginning of the second century B. C. E. or the end of the preceding century.41 Daniel 7–12 and the Animal Apocalypse were composed around the middle of the second century B. C. E., related as they are to the events surrounding the abolition of the temple cult by Antiochus IV Epiphanes (167–164 B. C. E.).42 Jubilees 1 and 23 are somewhat earlier.43 Although 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch stem from the end of the first century C. E., in their approach to history they are contingent on the earlier apocalypses and the Qumran sectarian documents. A number of fragmentary Aramaic pieces also contain historical reviews and so may also belong to the present category or to that of court tales. Among them are the following Aramaic texts: the Four Kingdoms (4Q552, 4Q553, 4Q552a44), the Apocryphon of Daniel (4Q24645), and Pseudo-Daniel (4Q243, 4Q244, 4Q24546). The Aramaic so-called Elect of God text (4Q534, 4Q535, 4Q536) perhaps also falls within this category.47 However, these texts are so fragmentary that their precise genre and context cannot be construed. They share two significant features; they all concern historical forecasts and all are composed in Aramaic. Thus, they point to a wide spectrum of Aramaic compositions that may have provided sources and settings for the better-preserved historical apocalypses surveyed above. That the same schematized temporal sequence is espoused by all the historical apocalypses suggests a single underlying concept of history, perhaps of Iranian origin.48 This concept enabled the apocalyptic authors to view the entirety of history as a meaningful continuum with its own laws and development. The focus

Loren T. Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91–108 (CEJL; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2007), 9. dating Daniel 7–12, see John J. Collins, Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 61–65. For the date of the Animal Apocalypse, see George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 361. 43 The dating of Jubilees 23 is dependent on one’s understanding of its historical background. If Michael Segal is correct in arguing that it refers to inner Jewish polemic and not to external events, it may precede the Maccabean crisis. See the analysis and the survey of opinions by idem, The Book of Jubilees (JSJSup 117; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 319–22. 44 The only passages preserved are of an Aramaic historical vision related in the first person singular, but no name or circumstances of the revelation appear in the extant fragments. 45 4Q246 i 1–3 suggest that someone is interpreting a dream to a king; the name of Daniel does not appear in the surviving fragments so the title Apocryphon of Daniel is unfortunate. 46 This work is clearly based on biblical Daniel and offers a detailed historical vision. 47 Appearing in historical forecasts, the wondrous figure mentioned in this text is usually identified as Noah but, given its eschatological aspects, I have suggested a reversion to the above older title (see Dimant, Collected Studies, 360–61). If my suggestion is accepted, the figure referred to in the text may be an eschatological one rather than a person from the remote past. 48 See the considerations of VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition, 154–55; Stone, Ancient Judaism, 75–77. 41 Cf.

42 For

Apocalyptic and the Qumran Library

41

placed on the final redemptive stages is but one aspect of the comprehensive temporal perspective. Thus, these historical apocalypses are best described as a particular thematic cluster, at home in the land of Israel during the last centuries B. C. E. and the first century C. E.49 Once the distinctiveness of this cluster is recognized, other contemporary Qumran works may be identified as belonging to it, such as the fragmentary ones listed above. While the Apocalypse of Weeks and the Animal Apocalypse are clear examples of historical apocalypses, other Enochic writings do not quite fit this generic definition. This is true of two types of texts: the report of Enoch’s cosmic travels in the company of the angels in the last part of the Book of Watchers (1 En. 17–36) and the Astronomical Book,50 and Enoch’s throne vision, recorded in the Book of Watchers (1 En. 14).51 A close examination of the two types reveals their distinct settings and origins.

II. Enoch’s Cosmic Travels As noted above, the Book of Watchers is a composite work, consisting of an introduction (1 En. 1–5), the story of the sinful Watchers (1 En. 6–11), the judgment of the Watchers transmitted to Enoch in a throne vision (1 En. 12–16), and Enoch’s cosmic travels (1 En. 17–36).52 Unlike revelations of history imparted via dreams or visions accompanied by angelic explanations, the cosmic journeys outlined in the Book of Watchers and the Astronomical Book are experienced while awake within the physical world.53 During such travels, information is imparted by an angelic companion concerning concrete geographical sites rather than imaginary symbolic scenes. Though mysterious and remote, lying beyond the reach of ordinary humans, these locations are nevertheless situated within 49 In discussing apocalyptic, Hindy Najman uses the term “cluster” from a different perspective: “Generic features often occurred in clusters. … Creative writers could reassemble features into new clusters in order to meet their need.” Cf. eadem, “The Inheritance of Prophecy in Apocalypse,” in The Oxford Handbook of Apocalyptic Literature (ed. J. J. Collins; Oxford: University Press, 2014), 36–51 (44). 50 On the inner structure and genesis of this writing, see VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition, 105–09. 51 Collins, for instance, sees the throne vision and cosmic tours in the Book of Watchers as a single “heavenly” tour (idem, Apocalyptic Imagination, 54–55). 52 On the various units in the Book of Watchers, see Charles, Book of Enoch, 1–2; Dimant, “Fallen Angels,” 231–80; Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, Prophets of Old and the Day of the End: Zechariah, the Book of Watchers and Apocalyptic (OTS 35; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 152–64. See also the article “1 Enoch 6–11: A Fragment of a Parabiblical Work” in this volume. 53 In the Book of Watchers, Enoch states that he was taken to various places (e. g., 1 En. 17:1; 22:1). In the Astronomical Book, Enoch reports on what he saw, as is indicated by the repeated phrases “he showed me” (e. g., 1 En. 74:2; 75:4; 78:10) and “I saw” (e. g., 1 En. 73:1; 74:1; 75:6).

42

Apocalyptic and the Qumran Library

the earthly realm. Milik notes that the geographic information provided in 1 En. 77:4–8 “points to real, not mythological geography.”54 This is another indication of the real, concrete character of the journeys. So Enoch’s cosmic travels are not visionary in the true sense of the term and thus should not be labeled as apocalypses.55 Nor are they “otherworldly,” as often claimed,56 since they do not cross the boundaries of the physical world. This fact is clearly indicated by the orientation of Enoch’s travels. They take place in a horizontal direction. Of a different type is the viewing of the throne, for Enoch has to ascend in a vertical sense in order to attain the heavenly realm.57 Thus, the two different spheres are plainly indicated by their contrasting orientations.58 Therefore, cosmic tours must be considered a distinct type of description from the throne visions, with both differing from revelations regarding history. Not only is this type of journey unique, but it is attributed to Enoch alone, a fact not emphasized in current research. No other seer in early Jewish apocalypses has these experiences. Enoch’s particular connection to cosmic travels is undoubtedly related to the enigmatic biblical reference to him: “and he walked with Elohim” (Gen 5:22). Early Jewish literature understood it as a reference to Enoch’s cosmic journeys in the company of angels; the Book of Watchers and the Astronomical Book are based on such an understanding. This unusual feature of Enoch’s career, along with others (see Gen 5:21–23), seems to be rooted in the peculiar Mesopotamian background of his personality,59 and perhaps also in Hellenistic antecedents.60 So this background further enhances the special further suggests that they may be of Persian origin. Cf. idem, Books of Enoch, 18. rightly concluded by VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition, 89, 108–09. 56 Collins, “Introduction: Towards the Morphology,” 14–15. However, see the comment of Martha Himmelfarb, who, in her survey of various types of “heavenly tours,” notes that the Book of Watchers differs from all works involving such journeys in that they take place on earth. See eadem, Tours of Hell, 51. 57 As noted by VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition, 136. In this context, VanderKam mentions the throne Enoch sees while traveling to the ends of the earth. The angel explains to him that it is where God will sit at the eschatological final judgment (1 En. 18:8; 25:3). Yet this throne is clearly placed on earth, whereas the one viewed by Enoch during his ascent is clearly in the heavenly realm. See the discussion on the throne visions below. 58 In the Enochic and related literature, the garden of Eden is also located in an earthly sphere, “at the confines of the earth” (1 En. 106:5), where Enoch sojourns after completing his life among men. See also the Genesis Apocryphon II, 23, and probably the Book of Giants (4Q530 7 ii 5–6); compare Jub. 4:23. Enoch visits this place in one of his cosmic travels (cf. 1 En. 32:3 [4Q206 1 xxvi 21]; 1 En. 77:3). Helge Kvanvig attempted to locate this mythic site in a geographical region in Mesopotamia. See idem, Roots of the Apocalyptic: The Mesopotamian Background of the Enoch Figure and of the Son of Man (WMANT 61; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1988), 246–53. 59 VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition, 23–51; Kvanvig, Roots of the Apocalyptic, 214–342. 60 Pierre Grelot, “La géographie mythique d’Hénoch et ses sources orientales,” RB 65 (1958): 33–69; Milik, Books of Enoch, 15–18, 29–30; VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth of 54 Milik 55 As

Apocalyptic and the Qumran Library

43

character of Enoch and the motifs related to his career.61 Therefore, we may designate cosmic tours conducted within earthly boundaries as another cluster of motifs that are specifically connected to Enoch. In a certain sense, the Book of Parables (1 En. 37–71) also belongs to this cluster, for it, too, depicts Enoch’s visits to hidden places. However, here the distinction between cosmic tours and throne visions (in ch. 46?) is blurred. Also it is not clear whether Enoch saw everything only in vision, as the introductory note (37:1) may suggest. But these combined features are the signature of a later period, as indeed is shown by its first century C. E. date and its absence from Qumran.62 It has been suggested that Ezekiel’s vision of the eschatological temple (Ezek 40–48) served as a model for the cosmic tours motif.63 However, the biblical prophecy specifies that Ezekiel experienced a visionary tour of the temple, not a concrete one (Ezek 40:2). This much also may be gathered from the nature of the vision, namely, the viewing of a nonexistent structure and city. The Aramaic New Jerusalem, found in eight copies among the Scrolls (1Q32, 2Q24, 4Q232, 4Q554, 4Q554a, 4Q555, 5Q15, 11Q18), which seems to offer a description of the eschatological temple and Jerusalem revealed to a seer (Ezekiel?), is built on Ezekiel’s vision. This tour also appears to take place in vision form for the same reasons as does the prophet’s own tour. The biblical prophetic vision and that of New Jerusalem share with Enoch the cosmic tours. In both works, the seer is accompanied by a guide; in Ezekiel he is clearly angelic (Ezek 40:3 et passim), and this also seems to be the case in the New Jerusalem.64 In the latter, we even find parts of a historical vision (4Q554 13 and 14). However, since it is conducted in a visionary manner, and has an eschatological character, this type of tour is to be associated with historical apocalypses rather than with the earthly scenes revealed in the cosmic travels of Enoch.

an Apocalyptic Tradition, 137–38; Kvanvig, Roots of the Apocalyptic, 66–68, 246–53; Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 26–29, 33–34. 61 Interestingly, the Testament of Abraham attributes similar tours to this patriarch, but it is obviously dependent on the Enoch traditions in the Book of Watchers and 3 Enoch. Cf. Himmelfarb, Tours of Hell, 61–62. 62 See Jonas C. Greenfield and Michael E. Stone, “The Pentateuch of Enoch and the Date of the Similitudes,” HTR 70 (1977): 51–65 (55–60); Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 178. Others attribute it to the end of the century. See, e. g., Michael A. Knibb, “The Date of the Parables of Enoch: A Critical Review,” in Essays on the Book of Enoch and Other Early Jewish Texts and Traditions (SVTP 22; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 143–60 (159). 63 Cf. Michael E. Stone, “Apocalyptic Literature,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (ed. M. E. Stone; CRINT II/2; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984), 383–441 (385). 64 As is indicated in 11Q18 18 5; 19 5–6, where exchanges between the seer and his guide are recorded.

44

Apocalyptic and the Qumran Library

III. The Throne Vision of Enoch Surveys of early apocalypses often consider the throne vision of Enoch, related in the Book of Watchers (1 En. 14–16), to be a characteristic feature of apocalypses. Collins, for instance, takes it to constitute part of the “otherworldly journeys.”65 However, Enoch’s throne vision differs from the cosmic journeys in important respects. First of all, it occurs in a dream (1 En. 14:1–2) and not in a state of wakefulness as do the cosmic travels. The dream describes an ascent beyond the realm of the earthly world, for Enoch is taken up and crosses the vaulted heaven (1 En. 14:8). He then passes “a building made of hailstones” and arrives at a second house “greater than the first one,” all of fire, where the throne is found (1 En. 14:15–18). This is clearly a description of the heavenly temple, situated beyond the skies. No trace of the later system of seven firmaments is found here. Thus, Enoch’s throne vision is situated beyond the earthly realm and is experienced in sleep. The difference between wakefulness and dreaming in sleep reflects the different levels of reality, the earthly and the heavenly. Secondly, that Enoch’s throne vision differs from his cosmic travels is also demonstrated by its distinct literary provenance. Unlike the cosmic travels that were experienced exclusively by the ancient patriarch, Enoch’s throne vision has two ancient counterparts: the throne vision in Dan 7:9–10 and a throne vision recorded in the Book of Giants (4Q530 2 ii). The three are not only similar in theme but also share specific literary details. The throne visions of Daniel 7 and 1 Enoch 14 share three unique features:66 the river of fire flowing from beneath the throne, the enthroned figure’s clothing described as being “white like snow,” and the thousands standing before him.67 Both the Enochic vision and that of Daniel take place in a dream (Dan 7:1–2), and in both 1 Enoch and Daniel it constitutes a scene of judgment (Dan 7:9–10). However, the two visions also betray significant differences, among them the plural thrones mentioned by Daniel,

65 Collins, “Introduction: Towards the Morphology,” 15. He also claims that the Apocalypse of Weeks “presupposes” Enoch’s ascent (idem, Apocalyptic Imagination, 63). He probably deduced it from the reference in the Apocalypse to the heavenly tablets as a source of Enoch’s knowledge of the historical sequence (1 En. 93:2). However, of the several mentions of the heavenly tablets in the Enochic writings (1 En. 81:1–2; 93:2; 103:2; 106:19), only the Astronomic Book (1 En. 81:1–2) is explicit about their whereabouts, namely, the heavenly vault. The throne vision of 1 Enoch 14 does not allude to them at all. On the Babylonian origin of these tablets, see Shalom M. Paul, “Heavenly Tablets and the Book of Life,” in Divrei Shalom: Collected Studies of Shalom M. Paul on the Bible and the Ancient Near East, 1967–2005 (CHANE 23; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 59–70. 66 See the detailed comparisons made by Kvanvig, Roots of the Apocalyptic, 558–71; Jonathan R. Trotter, “The Tradition of the Throne Vision in the Second Temple Period: Daniel 7:9– 10, 1 Enoch 14:18–23, and the Book of Giants (4Q530),” RevQ 25 (2012): 451–66 (452–58). 67 Trotter, “Tradition of the Throne Vision,” 455.

Apocalyptic and the Qumran Library

45

compared with the single one in 1 Enoch.68 Also, the Daniel vision is prefaced by a symbolic scene of earthly kingdoms, depicted as four animals, an element absent from the sequence in 1 Enoch 14. Another significant divergence between the two visions is the placement of the throne. While in 1 Enoch it is clearly located in heaven, it seems to be placed on earth in Daniel 7. These differences suggest that, rather than being dependent on each other, the two compositions drew independently on a similar tradition,69 perhaps of Babylonian orign. The existence of an independent tradition regarding throne visions is further supported by a third instance of a throne vision found in the Book of Giants (4Q530 2 ii). This Aramaic composition, of which ten copies have survived among the Scrolls,70 relates the exploits of the giants, the offspring of the sinful union between the angelic Watchers and mortal women (cf. Gen 6:1–4). Probably composed in the early second century B. C. E.,71 it is based on traditions recorded in the Book of Watchers concerning the crimes of the Watchers and their gigantic progeny.72 The work relates the portent dreams of the giants Ohayah and Hahyah, sons of Šemiḥazah, the leader of the Watchers (cf. 1 En. 6:7). The dreams foretell the annihilation awaiting the giants in the flood, another detail based on the Book of Watchers (1 En. 10:2, 15). In his dream, the giant Ohayah witnesses a throne scene similar to that depicted in Daniel 7 (4Q530 2 ii 16–20). Also here the occasion consists of a judgment scene related to the punishment of the Watchers and their huge offspring. Two features are shared by Daniel 7, 1 Enoch 14, and the Book of Giants: namely, the throne on which a figure is seated and his multitudinous attendants. However, the river of fire flowing beneath the throne, found in 1 Enoch 14 and Daniel 7, is missing in the giant’s vision.73 Interestingly, one of the features shared by Daniel 7 and the Book of Giants is the placement of the throne. Daniel 7:10 speaks of thrones (plural) set up )‫ )רמיו‬at an unspecified location that appears to be on earth, as are the preceding animal symbols. In Ohayah’s dream in the Book of Giants, a (single) throne is lowered (‫ )יחיטו‬and God himself descends to earth to dispense justice (4Q530 2 ii 16–17). In Daniel, the throne features as 68 Cf. Trotter, “Tradition of the Throne Vision,” 456–57; he discusses other differences but does not mention the different locations of the thrones. Cf. also 1 En. 90:20. 69 The various opinions are surveyed by Ryan E. Stokes, “The Throne Visions of Daniel 7, 1 Enoch 14, and the Qumran Book of Giants (4Q530),” DSD 15 (2008): 342–45; Trotter, “Tradition of the Throne Vision,” 452–53. 70 1Q23, 1Q24, 2Q26, 4Q203, 4Q206 2–3, 4Q530–4Q533, 6Q8. 71 Thus Émile Puech, DJD XXXI, 14; idem, “Les songes des fils de Šemihazah dans le Livre des Géants de Qumrân,” CRAI 144 (2000): 7–25 (11). 72 Cf. Puech, DJD XXXI, 13. On the Book of Giants, see Loren T. Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants from Qumran (TSAJ 63; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), and the survey of recent literature by Matthew Goff, “Introduction,” in Ancient Tales of Giants from Qumran and Turfan (WUNT 360; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 1–9. 73 Cf. the detailed comparison proposed by Trotter, “Tradition of the Throne Vision,” 462–66.

46

Apocalyptic and the Qumran Library

part of the eschatological scene of the great judgment. This detail fits with a site observed by Enoch during his travels to the end of the earth, where he sees the throne that will feature in the final judgment (1 En. 18:8; 25:3).74 The judgment described in Ohayah’s dream probably concerns the coming flood but it is also suggestive of the final judgment scene, since it includes the opening of books before the Great Holy (4Q530 2 ii 18).75 Thus, the scene of judgment in both Daniel 7 and the Book of Giants appears to require an earthly location. This is why no ascent is mentioned in these two accounts. Enoch’s experience is different; he ascends to see the throne in the heavenly temple, an episode also alluded to in the Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 87:3). Another distinct feature of the Enochic vision is the fact that the message given to the ancient seer concerns only the judgment of the Watchers’ giant progeny, and lacks the eschatological element. However, in contemporary sources, the flood is perceived as analogous to the final judgment and perhaps something of this analogy is also implied here.76 The similarities as well as divergences suggest a common tradition shared by all three throne visions but adapted differently by each one.77 Still, beyond their origins and mutual relations, the three throne visions share significant elements: they all recount judgment scenes, there are striking linguistic agreements in descriptions of the throne,78 and all three are composed in Aramaic. These factors imply a distinct tradition of Aramaic provenance related to the throne vision. Yet a fourth throne vision supports this conclusion. It was, perhaps, included in the Aramaic Levi Document. Fragments of this work were found among the

74 Thus, the throne Enoch envisions in heaven differs from the one he saw while travelling with the angels. 75 This is also a feature of the final judgment in the Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 90:20). 76 Thus, for instance, the Apocalypse of Weeks (1 En. 93:4). Compare also the eschatological conclusion of the pronouncement of the Watchers and the giants’ punishment in the section of the Book of Watchers preceding the throne vision (1 En. 10:14–11:2). Martha Himmelfarb believes that in mediating for the Watchers, Enoch performs priestly functions. If so, this aspect is also specific to the Enochic ascent. See eadem, “Temple and Priests in the Book of the Watchers, the Animal Apocalypse, and the Apocalypse of Weeks,” in Between Temple and Torah (TSAJ 151; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 79–92 (81–82). 77 This is also the conclusion of Trotter, “Tradition of the Throne Vision,” 466. 78 Milik thought that the Book of Giants is based on Daniel 7. See Józef T. Milik, “Turfan et Qumran: Livre des Géants juif et manichéen,” in Tradition und Glaube: das frühe Christentum in seiner Umwelt: Festgabe Karl Georg Kuhn zum 65. Geburtstag (eds. G. Jeremias, H.-W. Kuhn, and H. Stegemann; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971), 117–27 (122); idem, Books of Enoch, 305. However, Puech has argued convincingly that the reverse must be the case. At the same time, he also considers the possibility that the same tradition was drawn upon independently by the two accounts. See Puech, “Les songes,” 21 n. 48. For a comparison of Dan 7:9–10 and 1 En. 14:13–18, see Stokes, “Throne Visions,” 341–42. Cf. also the comments of Collins, Daniel, 300–301.

Apocalyptic and the Qumran Library

47

Scrolls and in the Cairo Genizah.79 Unfortunately, the sections relevant to the throne vision are very fragmentary. The surviving material, reconstructed with supplements from a Genizah manuscript, relates how Levi went to a place named Abel Mayyin, fell asleep, and had a vision of an angel opening the gates of heaven (4Q213a 2 14–18). The Genizah evidence speaks of the information Levi received during this vision regarding the fate of his future progeny.80 The original version perhaps also told of his priestly investiture. The vision of the throne itself has not been preserved in the Qumran and Genizah manuscripts, but a section that corresponds to the reference in 4Q213a is found in the Greek Testament of Levi 5:1–2.81 This passage gives a very short account of the angel opening the gates of heaven, and of Levi viewing the heavenly temple, the Most High, and the throne. On this occasion, he is also invested with priesthood. Since the concise description fits well with the character of the lines surviving in the Qumran fragment, the Greek manuscript seems to have preserved a version very close to the original Aramaic Levi Document. Significantly, this short version makes no allusion to more than one heaven,82 and thematically it is unconnected to the long report of Levi’s ascent to the seven heavens in the preceding chs. 2–4 of the Greek Testament of Levi. The system of seven heavens appears, in fact, only in compositions from the first century C. E. onwards,83 and so is a marker of a relatively late provenance. This long depiction appears therefore to be an elaboration by a late editor.84 In the Aramaic Levi Document, the patriarch sees only a single heaven. For our purpose, it is significant that Levi’s vision was experienced in sleep, and it is recorded in an Aramaic source. It thus confirms and supplements the existence of an old Aramaic tradition of throne visions, appropriated by various 79 See the survey of Jonas C. Greenfield, Michael E. Stone, and Esther Eshel, The Aramaic Levi Document (SVTP 19; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 1–6. 80 See the passage reconstructed by Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel, Aramaic Levi Document, 66–68. 81 Cf. the comments of Harm W. Hollander and Marinus de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (SVTP 8; Leiden: Brill, 1985), 143–45. 82 As noted by Hollander and De Jonge, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, 144 in a comment on 5:1. De Jonge notes that “the Aramaic text does not necessarily presuppose more than one heaven.” See Marinus de Jonge, “Notes on the Testament of Levi II–VII,” in Studies on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (SVTP 3; Leiden: Brill, 1975), 247–60 (253). Cf. also Martha Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 31–32, and n. 7 on pp. 126–27. 83 As rightly emphasized by Robert A. Kugler, From Patriarch to Priest: The Levi-Priestly Tradition from Aramaic Levi to Testament of Levi (SBLEJL 9; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), 47. So the elaborate vision of chs. 2:5–5:1 “may not be attributed also to Aramaic Levi,” concludes Kugler (ibid.). Adela Yarbro Collins’s assignment of the origins of the Jewish belief in more than one heaven to the second century B. C. E. (cf. eadem, “Seven Heavens,” 63) is, in fact, not supported by the Aramaic Levi Document or any other early Jewish text. 84 Some forty years ago, De Jonge proposed that chs. 2:7–5:1a of the Greek Testament of Levi may be an interpolation. Cf. idem, “Notes on the Testament of Levi II–VII,” 254.

48

Apocalyptic and the Qumran Library

visionary Aramaic writings of the third and second centuries B. C. E.85 Originally, they did not appear together with cosmic travels or, for that matter, with early historical apocalypses, although they were known and used by them.86 Since they speak of scenes that take place beyond the earthly realm, throne visions may indeed be defined as “otherworldly.” Their supernatural character is experienced during sleep. Specially gifted and elected humans may view the throne but only in dreams. Thus, throne visions differ significantly from cosmic journeys, which take place in the earthly realm in a state of wakefulness. We may conclude by suggesting that we are dealing here with two distinct thematic clusters, one which relates Enoch’s cosmic travels and one which recounts the throne visions. Together with the historical apocalypses, three thematic clusters have been identified thus far: historical reviews, cosmic journeys, and throne visions. Each one appears in a specific and distinct literary context.

IV. Related Court Tales In connection with the early historical apocalypses, a word must be said of a group of Aramaic texts that appears to have had a significant impact on them, namely the court tales. As has been noted above, historical apocalypses give prominence to dreams as a means of transmitting divine knowledge regarding the course of events. This cluster of themes betrays an affinity in subject matter and context to Aramaic court tales. Belonging to a genre common in antiquity, such tales tell of wise (Jewish) courtiers in the courts of great kings who interpret their rulers’ enigmatic dreams of future events. The stories of Joseph (Gen 39–41) and Daniel (Dan 2, 4–5, 7) provide the most famous examples of such stories, but other Jewish adaptations of this model are also extant.87 Qumran yielded a number of additional samples of this type of tales such as the Prayer of Nabonidus (4Q242), the Four Kingdoms (4Q552, 4Q553, 4Q552a), and PseudoDaniel (4Q243, 4Q244, 4Q245). As it happens, all three are related to the traditions of the book of Daniel. The Prayer of Nabonidus describes a situation very similar to Nebuchadnezzar’s madness in Daniel 4, the Four Kingdoms text offers a four-empire scheme similar to that of Daniel 2, and Pseudo-Daniel explicitly interprets the historical visions of Daniel.

85 VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition, 131 and Kvanvig, Roots of the Apocalyptic, 245–46 suggest a Babylonian background to this tradition. 86 As noted above, the heavenly ascent is mentioned in the Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 87:3–4) and the cosmic travels are probably alluded to in the Apocalypse of Weeks (1 En. 93:2). 87 Cf. the survey of Lawrence M. Will, The Jew in the Court of the Foreign King (HDR 26; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990) and recently Tawny L. Holm, Of Courtiers and Kings: The Biblical Daniel Narratives and Ancient Story-Collections (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2013).

Apocalyptic and the Qumran Library

49

Demonstrating the centrality and importance of the Daniel traditions, these fragmentary works also attest to a rich literature of court tales thriving in the land of Israel during the last centuries of the Second Temple era. That all the texts listed here are written in Aramaic assigns them as well to this repository of apocalyptic and related traditions, which seems to have originated in a Jewish Aramaic milieu. The contribution of such court tales to the apocalyptic and apocalypses is already evidenced by the unique combination of apocalypses and court tales in Daniel. The role played by such tales in the formation of other apocalypses and apocalyptic in general is yet to be thoroughly investigated.88

V. Concluding Remarks on the Early Apocalypses The most salient feature of apocalypses linked to Qumran is their preoccupation with the meaning and progress of history. Themes that are usually considered “apocalyptic,” such as eschatology and interest in the final events of the historical course, are in fact aspects of this fundamental notion of history, whether stated explicitly or just implied. This is true only of texts that are defined as historical apocalypses. Of different character are the earthly cosmic journeys recorded by the Enochic literature. They are exclusive to this corpus and to this figure and are quite different from the ascents through several heavens described by later apocalypses of Hellenistic background. In addition, the throne vision should be considered a different literary form with distinct topics and provenance. Finally, it should be stressed that although the various forms considered above – historical apocalypses, cosmic travels, and throne visions – were read and perhaps copied by the owners of the Qumran library, they do not employ the particular terminology that is characteristic of the Qumran sectarian literature. Neither do they evoke any of the organizational patterns specific to the Qumran community. Consequently, they cannot be classified as sectarian texts and were not composed by the members of the Qumran community. The fact that a good number of these visionary texts are written in Aramaic also excludes them from the sectarian corpus, which is penned exclusively in Hebrew. In reality, they fall neatly into the two other categories that constitute the Qumran library, namely, the Aramaic and Hebrew nonsectarian texts. Thus, the members of the Qumran community may be said to have been the guardians of the various apocalypses, but not their authors.89 In fact, the Aramaic dominance suggests an altogether 88 On the relationship of the apocalypses to divination and dream interpretation, see at present VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition, 52–75. 89 There is no basis for Florentino García Martínez’s claim that fragmentary Aramaic apocalypses such as the Apocryphon of Daniel (4Q246) and Pseudo-Daniel (4Q243, 4Q244, 4Q245) were composed by the members of the Qumran community. Cf. idem, “Les traditions apocalyptiques,” 206–07.

50

Apocalyptic and the Qumran Library

different provenance for the apocalyptic texts, which were nurtured and appropriated by the authors of the Hebrew sectarian writings.

C. Apocalyptic Themes in the Qumran Documents I. Apocalyptic Notions in the Sectarian Texts While no true apocalypses and related forms appear in the Hebrew sectarian literature, it abounds with notions cultivated by the apocalypses, most prominently the idea of history consisting of a string of periods. The notion is not presented in vision form but is referred to by specific nomenclature, thus suggesting the same underlying idea of historical time. The central term that conveys this notion is the plural of the word ‫“( קץ‬period”), viz. ‫“( קצים‬periods”). The singular means “end, completion” but the contemporary Dan 9:26; 12:6 already uses the singular in the sense of “period, time span.”90 The plural found in the Scrolls clearly indicates that the meaning of “end” is not intended but rather temporal units. The concise character of the term and its frequent use in a variety of sectarian contexts suggest a known concept.91 Yet only one text, the Pesher of the Periods, explains in detail the nature of the historical periods: “Pesher concerning the periods made by God, [each] period in order to complete [all that is] and all that will be. Before he created them he set up [their] activi[ties to the exact meaning of their periods] one period after another” (4Q180 1 1–4).92 The term “periods” marks cosmic time (1QM X, 15), as well as the chronology of human history (1QS X, 1, 5; 1QHa XX, 11). In the sectarian view, the sequence of periods is predetermined by the divine blueprint for the created world, an idea intimated by the expressions ‫“( קיצי אל‬periods of God”; 1QpHab VII, 13), and ‫( קצי נצח‬1QHa IX, 26), ‫( קצי עולם‬1QHa V, 26), and ‫( קצי עד‬1QM X, 15), all meaning “eternal periods.” Other terms reflect the struggle between good and evil. Beside the expression ‫“( קצי שלום‬periods of peace”; 1QHa XXI, 16) stands the contrastive ‫קצי‬ ‫“( חרון‬periods of wrath”; 4Q266 11 19; 4Q270 7 ii 13; 1QHa XXII, 9; 4Q166 i 12 [Pesher of Hosea]). It implies God’s anger and a period of punishment for Israel. The phrases ‫( קץ הרשע‬CD VI, 10, 14; XV, 7; 4Q269 8 ii 5; 4Q271 2 12) and ‫קץ‬ ‫( הרשעה‬CD XII, 23; 1QpHab V, 7–8), both meaning “the period of wickedness,” indicate the rule of wickedness prevalent in the community’s own times.

90 DCH,

7:276–78. 1QS I, 14; III, 15; IV, 13, 16; 1QSb IV, 26; V, 18; CD II, 9–10; XVI, 2; 1QHa V, 22; IX, 18; the Melchizedek Pesher (11Q13 ii 20). See Dimant, “The Vocabulary of the Qumran Sectarian Texts,” in Collected Studies, 57–100 (84–85). 92 Cf. Dimant, “The ‘Pesher on the Periods’ (4Q180) and 4Q181,” in Collected Studies, 385–404. See also Pesher of Habakkuk VII, 13–14. 91 Cf.

Apocalyptic and the Qumran Library

51

Obviously, the use made by the sectarian literature of the term ‫“( קצים‬periods”) involves a whole string of ideas central to the thinking of the community: predestination, the prominence of evil during the closing stages of history, and the final judgment. When examined as a complex of interrelated themes, it becomes clear that they are aspects of the notion of history. What is more remarkable is the fact that in their essentials all these themes are present in the individual historical apocalypses stored in the Qumran library. However, in adopting the major ideas of the apocalypses, the Qumranites developed and considerably expanded them. These borrowed ideas may then be appropriately called “apocalyptic” since they stem from traditions that created the older individual apocalypses. According to the sectarian understanding, the configuration of the temporal sequence in periods constitutes a principle of the premeditated divine plan; it is mysterious and may be unveiled only through divine revelation. This perception of history is shared by the apocalypses and the sectarian literature, but they differ regarding the intermediary of such a disclosure. The apocalypses attribute it to ancient seers whereas the sectarians viewed their contemporary leader, the Teacher of Righteousness, as the one who earned such a distinction. Apocalypses and sectarian texts also vary in the manner in which this revelation was imparted. While the apocalypses speak of visions and dream visions, or communication with angels, for the sectarian texts it was channeled through decoding the mysteries embedded in the biblical prophecies, the key to which was accorded to the Teacher of Righteousness.93 This significant disparity tells much about the character and orientation of the individual apocalypses as distinct from those of the Qumran community. Thus, major sectarian themes such as a dualistic outlook, predestination, and the end of days may be seen as aspects of a single cluster of traditions related to history that were developed by the sectarian literature but already found in nuce in the historical apocalypses. Hence, they may be defined as “apocalyptic” elements in the sectarian literature. Other notions viewed as typical apocalyptic, such as the belief in angels, resurrection, and messianism, are disseminated in writings that are not apocalypses and consequently cannot be considered

93 Cf. the Pesher of Habakkuk II, 7–10; VII, 4–5. See Dimant, “Time, Torah and Prophecy at Qumran,” in Collected Studies, 301–14. A few sectarian authors (e. g., 4Q228 1 i) describe a sequence of temporal units using another plural term, ‫“( עתים‬occasions”; “times”), from the singular ‫( עת‬cf. HALOT, 900). It appears to convey a meaning similar to that of periods. Cf. Dimant, “What is the ‘Book of the Divisions of the Times’?,” in Collected Studies, 374–79. Annette Steudel treats the apocalyptic at Qumran from the narrower perspective of the eschatological notions expressed by the pesharim. Therefore, her conclusion that the Qumranites’ interest in eschatology took place chiefly after 100 B. C. E. is to be qualified. Cf. eadem, “The Development of Essenic Eschatology,” in Apocalyptic Time (ed. A. I. Baumgarten; NBS 86; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 79–86.

52

Apocalyptic and the Qumran Library

constitutive of the apocalypses or of apocalypticism.94 Nevertheless, it should be remembered that the apocalypses are composite and eclectic, having used a range of traditions and sources. However, the notion of periodized history is fundamental to all the early historical apocalypses. Together with its visionary character, this notion may be considered a constituent of this literary form and the central concept that integrates and organizes all others. It is this idea that is shared by both the historical apocalypses and the Qumran sectarian texts. Before leaving this topic, a word must be said about dualism as an apocalyptic characteristic. The dualistic worldview of the sectarian texts is explicit and pronounced.95 However, in apocalypses such as the Apocalypse of Weeks and the Animal Apocalypse, these views are less prominent. Both emphasize growing human sinfulness. Even though at a certain point the Animal Apocalypse introduces demonic evil angels to play a part in some of the events, no all-embracing battle between good and evil is detected here.96 As for the Book of Watchers, it usually speaks of the Watchers and their giant offspring as primordial sinners (1 En. 6–11; 19:197) as do other Enochic writings (1 En. 86:6; 106:13–15). The tradition developed in chs. 12–16 regarding the spirits of the dead giants becoming demons that pester humans on earth (1 En. 15:9–16:198) is the exception. For most of the Enochic literature, the story of the Watchers is one of sin and punishment rather than an explanation of the origins of evil as so often claimed.99 It is therefore worthwhile to reflect on the real origin and background of the far-reaching dualism espoused by the Qumran sectarian texts. The early apocalypses furnish only a pale reflection of it and so cannot be the source of the sectarian dualism; neither can the two be compared in this respect.

94 Cf. Carmignac, “Qu’est-ce que l’Apocalyptique?,” 13–15. For this reason, the connection made by Florentino García Martínez between angels in apocalypses such as 1 Enoch and various references to the angelic world in the sectarian texts, such as Rule of the Sabbath Songs, is problematic. See idem, “Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 213–19. 95 Cf. Devorah Dimant, “The Demonic Realm in Qumran Sectarian Literature,” in Gut und Böse in Mensch und Welt (eds. H.-G. Nesselrath and F. Wilk; ORA 10; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 103–17. 96 See the analysis in the article “Israel’s Subjugation to the Gentiles as an Expression of Demonic Power in Qumran Documents and Related Literature” in this volume. 97 Notably, 1 En. 19:1 refers to the spirits of the sinful angels, not the giants, who will plague men. See the comments of Matthew Black, The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch (SVTP 7; Leiden: Brill, 1985), 161. 98 This version is also referred in unit 6–11 (cf. 10:15), although the remaining sections of this narrative are silent about it. 99 Thus, the overarching generalization of Paolo Sacchi that the Book of Watchers is the early source of the apocalyptic views on the origin of evil is problematic; cf. idem, Jewish Apocalyptic and Its History (trans. W. J. Short; JSPSup 20; Sheffield: Academic Press, 1990), 54–55 et passim.

Apocalyptic and the Qumran Library

53

II. Apocalyptic in Other Sections of the Qumran Library The foregoing survey has shown clearly that apocalypses and apocalyptic concepts are concentrated in Aramaic and sectarian texts. The Hebrew parabiblical texts, the third component of the Qumran library, rework various biblical passages and so are less prone to apocalyptic speculations. Still, there are important exceptions to this general rule: Jubilees, originally written in Hebrew, contains chs. 1 and 23, which may be defined as apocalypses; various Hebrew pieces that are too fragmentary for any meaningful consideration seem to produce passages from forecasts, visions, and historical reviews.100 While their details and general framework are obscure, they show the vigor and productivity of this kind of literary form even in Hebrew. Of particular interest are two Hebrew writings related to biblical prophets, Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C, which have survived in relatively substantial fragments.101 As noted above, the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C may be defined as a historical apocalypse.102 It contains a historical survey revealed to Jeremiah (4Q385a 18 i 2), includes a periodized sequence of history according to the heptadic principle (e. g., 4Q387 2 ii 3–4; 4Q390 1 7), and expresses eschatological hopes (4Q387 3 9). It is then the first example of a historical apocalypse attributed to a biblical prophet. Interestingly, the case of Pseudo-Ezekiel is significantly different. Advancing notions that feature in other apocalypses (e. g., resurrection and time curtailing), Pseudo-Ezekiel nevertheless lacks historical sequence in periods, at least in the extant fragments,103 but it offers a most intriguing instance of the rewriting of passages from a biblical prophet.104 It has yet to be studied as an instance of the evolution from prophecy to its later apocalyptic interpretation.

D. General Conclusions The above survey detected three thematic clusters: proper historical apocalypses, cosmic journeys, and throne visions. The different sources and settings of these clusters are perhaps indicated also by their distinct configuration within the 100 Cf.

1Q25, 2Q23, 6Q12, 4Q247, 4Q410, and 4Q521. by Dimant, DJD XXX. 102 Cf. Matthias Henze, “4QApocryphon of Jeremiah C and 4QPseudo-Ezekiel: Two ‘Historical’ Apocalypses,” in Prophecy after the Prophets? The Contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Understanding of Biblical and Extra-Biblical Prophecy (eds. K. de Troyer and A. Lange; Leuven: Peeters, 2009), 25–41 (34–39). 103 Among the extant fragments of Pseudo-Ezekiel, there is one forecast (4Q386 1 ii–iii). Perhaps the original work contained more passages of this type. 104 This composition reworks prophetic passages according to themes and not to their biblical sequence. Cf. the article “Hebrew Pseudepigrapha at Qumran” in this volume. 101 Published

54

Apocalyptic and the Qumran Library

Qumran library. The earliest apocalypses belong to the Aramaic corpus, as do the related cosmic journeys and throne visions. Some apocalypses probably of somewhat later date, such as Jubilees 1 and 23, the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C, and some other fragmentary pieces, are categorized as Hebrew nonsectarian texts, as is Daniel 8–12. These three clusters do not pertain to the sectarian literature, unlike various themes shared with the apocalypses. Especially significant is the prominent place assigned by the sectarian texts to the notion of the periodized history. So, as proposed at the outset of this article, the historical apocalypses are perhaps related to the circles from which the Qumran community emerged and with which it remained connected. What may be learned from the above outline of apocalyptic at Qumran? Once again it underscores the complexity of the issues discussed here and of the multifaceted nature of the Qumran library. Once again it exposes the vast terrain revealed by the Scrolls that still remains to be explored.

Works Originally Composed in Aramaic

1 Enoch

The Biography of Enoch and the Books of Enoch The Book of Enoch (1 Enoch) has been known to modern scholarship since the eighteenth century, when an Ethiopic manuscript of it was brought to Europe. As a collection of 108 chapters, it was studied from the eighteenth century until the beginning of the twentieth century. But the discovery in the middle of the twentieth century of Aramaic copies of this writing among the Qumran Scrolls gave a tremendous impetus to the study of the work and has transformed our understanding of it. Numerous discussions of various sections of it have been published in recent decades,1 especially of particular sections of the collection. It was established in the early studies that the Ethiopic version consists of five separate works.2 However, the origin and character of the entire Enochic anthology as we know it from this version remains a mystery. The question acquired new relevance in light of the complex Qumran evidence, for each Enochic work appeared to have a distinctive literary career. Therefore, Józef Milik, the first editor of the Qumran 1 Enoch copies, assigned separate names to each of the five works, which remain current in contemporary critical enquiry.3 They are the following: 1. The Book of the Watchers (1 En. 1–36); 2. The Book of Parables (1 En. 37–71); 3. The Astronomical Book (1 En. 72–82); 4. The Book of Dreams (1 En. 83–90); 5. The Epistle of Enoch (1 En. 91–105); and an appendix on the birth of Noah (1 En. 106–107). Older discussions on 1 Enoch were usually content to point out the obvious, namely, that what links these works is the common pseudepigraphic authorship of Enoch. One of the few attempts to understand the significance of the Enochic works as a corpus was made more than ninety years ago by G. H. Dix.4 * The present article is a re-edited and updated version of the original, which was published in 1983. The considerable difference between the two reflects the immense expansion and development of Qumran studies that has taken place in the three decades that have elapsed since the first publication. 1 Cf., for instance, Matthew Black, “A Bibliography on 1 Enoch in the Eighties,” JSP 5 (1989): 3–16; Florentino García Martínez and Eibert Tigchelaar, “1 Enoch and the Figure of Enoch: A Bibliography of Studies 1970–1988,” RevQ 14 (1989): 149–74, and the respective sections in the bibliographic publication International Review of Biblical Studies. 2 See August Dillmann, Das Buch Henoch (Leipzig: Vogel, 1853), and Robert H. Charles, The Book of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon, 1912). 3 Cf. Milik, Books of Enoch. 4 Cf. G. H. Dix, “The Enochic Pentateuch,” JTS 27 (1925): 29–42.

60

The Biography of Enoch and the Books of Enoch

Dix associated the five Enochic works with the same number of books of the Pentateuch, and alleged other content similarities between them and the biblical collections. So he proposed that 1 Enoch was assembled as a Pentateuch, but his arguments failed to convince scholarly opinion and had little influence on subsequent studies. But confronted with the intricate relationship between the various Enochic works that emerged from the Qumran documents, Józef Milik addressed the issue afresh. Taking up this idea, Milik thought that it accounted for the picture emerging from the Qumran data. He claimed that the Ethiopic collection is indeed modelled on the Pentateuch, and maintained that a Pentateuchlike Enochic corpus actually existed and was in circulation at Qumran as early as 100 B. C. E. It was, he argued, probably compiled by “an erudite scribe of the Qumran scriptorium.”5 Milik follows the alleged traces of such a corpus from Qumran, through the Greek translations, to its final form in the Ethiopic version. Most of Milik’s arguments do not concern the actual nature of the corpus as such, but rather the history of its successive stages. These arguments have already been criticized by others6 and, being irrelevant to the literary and material aspects of the compendium treated below, they will not be discussed here.

I. 1 Enoch and Qumran One of the most interesting facts to emerge from the Qumran data is indeed the confirmation of the distinctive character of each of the five Enochic writings, each having a separate literary history at Qumran. Most importantly, the Book of Parables was not found among the Qumran Scrolls.7 Thus, only four Enoch works were found at Qumran: The Book of the Watchers, the Astronomical Book, the Book of Dreams, and the Epistle of Enoch with the appendix on Noah.8 Each of the four works appears to have been set down in a different manner, as we Milik, Books of Enoch, 184 et passim. the comments by Dimant, “Fallen Angels,” 17–21; Jonas C. Greenfield and Michael E. Stone, “The Enochic Pentateuch and the Date of the Similitudes,” HTR 70 (1977): 51–65; Michael A. Knibb, “The Date of the Parables of Enoch: A Critical Review,” NTS 25 (1979): 345–59. 7 Milik based himself on this omission to argue that the Book of Parables is a late mid-thirdcentury work of Christian origin. Cf. idem, Books of Enoch, 78, 94–96. Both the date and origin are unacceptable on internal grounds. Cf. the criticism levelled by Greenfield–Stone, “Enochic Pentateuch,” and Knibb, “Date of the Parables of Enoch.” It is now agreed that the Parables of Enoch is Jewish and was composed sometime during the first half of the first century C. E. See the article “The Book of Parables (1 En. 37–71) and the Qumran Community Worldview” in this volume. 8 Omitting ch. 108. Cf. Milik, Books of Enoch, 183. This chapter is also absent from the Panopolis papyrus, which contains a Greek translation of chs. 97–104, 106–107. Cf. Campbell Bonner and Herbert C. Youtie, The Last Chapters of Enoch in Greek (SD 8; London: Christophers, 1937). For possible 1 Enoch Greek fragments from cave 7 see RevQ 18 (1997): 313–23. 5 See 6 Cf.

The Biography of Enoch and the Books of Enoch

61

may gather from the surviving fragments: the Astronomical Book is available in an expanded version in separate manuscripts (4Q209–4Q211). The Book of the Watchers was copied in separate manuscripts (4Q201, 4Q202) but also together with the Book of Dreams (4Q205, 4Q206). Besides being copied with the Book of the Watchers, the Book of Dreams was also penned in a separate manuscript (4Q207). The Epistle of Enoch is also copied in a separate manuscript (4Q212) but once in a manuscript with the Book of the Watchers and the Book of Dreams (4Q204).9 Thus, manuscript 4Q204 is the only one that assembles three Enochic works: the Book of the Watchers, the Book of Dreams, and the Epistle of Enoch. It also contains parts of the appendix on Noah. Milik chose to rely mainly on this 4Q204 copy, a manuscript that presents the exception rather than the rule. He argued that copying these three works in a single scroll bears witness to the practice of assembling the Enochic works. According to him, the Astronomical Book was too long to be included in such a scroll and therefore it was copied on separate manuscripts. There remains the problem of the Book of Parables, not found at Qumran. So, to complete his fivework Pentateuch-like Enochic corpus, Milik argued that the Qumran Book of Giants was the fifth component of the Qumran compendium, replacing the Book of Parables. Milik’s major argument in favor of this hypothesis is the claim that the first copy of the Book of Giants, 4Q203, originally formed part of 4Q204.10 Thus, according to Milik, 4Q204 contained a tetralogy of Enochic writings that together with the Astronomic Book constituted the Enochic Pentateuch at Qumran. This Pentateuch, Milik argues, was copied at Qumran in two separate parts. The first one consisted of four works: Book of the Watchers, the Book of Dreams, and the Epistle of Enoch with the appendix. They were all copied on a single manuscript and, in Milik’s opinion, scrolls 4Q204 and 4Q20611 represent this type of manuscript. According to him, the second part of the Enochic collection consisted of the Astronomical Book, copied separately owing to the unusual length of the work.12 Thus, although the actual manuscripts attest that 1 Enoch was copied in distinctive ways, Milik presents them as a unified entity. Yet, the material data of the manuscripts must be distinguished from the literary theories adduced to explain them. As for the data themselves, the manuscripts attest at best a tendency for some of the Enochic works to be grouped together, a tendency manifested in 4Q204, 4Q205, and 4Q206. But a still larger number of manuscripts contained only one work: 4Q201, 4Q202, 4Q207, 4Q212, and   9 The updated information here and throughout the article is culled from Emanuel Tov, DJD XXXIX, 290–92; idem, Revised Lists of the Texts from the Judaean Desert (Leiden: Brill, 2010). 10 Cf. Milik, Books of Enoch, 178, 310. 11 Milik, Books of Enoch, 227, 236–37. Milik identifies frgs. 2 and 3 of this manuscript as probably belonging to the Book of Giants, but this was unwarranted as shown later by Loren Stuckenbruck. See n. 17 below. 12 Milik, Books of Enoch, 58, 183, 273.

62

The Biography of Enoch and the Books of Enoch

the four manuscripts of the Astronomical Book (4Q208–4Q211). Even the case of 4Q204 should not be overstated for, due to its unique nature, we are not able to judge whether it reflects a general practice or is simply an isolated case. Even if Milik’s judgment of the manuscripts is accepted, one still has to settle the question regarding whether the grouping of the manuscripts necessarily served a literary purpose; it may have been prompted merely by practical considerations. This is not to say that the presence of a specific literary principle is to be ruled out; however, it should not be assumed based merely on the form of the manuscripts, particularly as the Enochic fragments are so fragmentary and poorly preserved. In fact, it is not even possible to tell whether in the more complete manuscripts, i. e., 4Q204–4Q206, the works were originally in a sequence identical to that of the Ethiopic collection, as Milik assumes as a matter of course. The only fragment that contains sections in sequence is 4Q204 5 i, in which the appendix on Noah immediately follows the end of the Epistle of Enoch.13 Thus, the bad state of preservation prevents us from making a judgment on whether the copying of multiple works on the same manuscript has a literary significance. It is even more difficult to decide how many works were actually included in the alleged Qumran collection. The only conclusion that we can come to safely is that one of the manuscripts contained three works, and some had two. Even less certain is Milik’s assertion that 4Q204 contained a fourth work. His contention that the Astronomical Book also belonged to the collection is not substantiated by the evidence, since it is available only in separate copies. Milik’s explanation that this separation is due to the great length of the Astronomical Book is refuted by other data showing that long scrolls were in circulation at Qumran, such as the Temple Scroll, which is some nine meters in length.14 Even if Milik had been able to prove his point about the existence of an Enochic collection at Qumran, he still would have to convince the reader that such a collection was modelled on the Pentateuch. Milik adduces two arguments in support of this claim: firstly, that the Enochic collection at Qumran contained five books; secondly, that the Epistle of Enoch with the appendix on Noah is, like Deuteronomy, presented as a testament.15 As regards the first argument, Milik has not proved that a collection consisting of five books actually existed at Qumran. Moreover, the mere inclusion of five works in a collection is not sufficient to prove its Pentateuch-like character. As for the second argument, it is true that the Epistle of Enoch exhibits certain similarities to Deuteronomy, but these are lim104–107. Cf. Milik, Books of Enoch, 207. Yigael Yadin, The Temple Scroll (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1977) 1:9

13 Chapters 14 Cf.

(Heb.). 15 Milik, Books of Enoch, 54–55, 183–84. Milik thought that both the author of the Epistle of Enoch and the compiler of the collection sought to imitate Deuteronomy. A similar view was advanced by Dix, “The Enochic Pentateuch,” 31. For criticism of Milik’s view, see Greenfield–Stone, “The Enochic Pentateuch,” 65; eidem, “The Books of Enoch and the Traditions of Enoch,” Numen 26 (1979): 89–103.

The Biography of Enoch and the Books of Enoch

63

ited to the basic pattern common to most pseudepigraphic testaments, based on the biblical testaments of Jacob (Genesis 49) and Moses (Deuteronomy 29–33). The most crucial element in Milik’s thesis is his assumption that the fifth component of the Qumranic Pentateuch was occupied by the Book of Giants, which replaced the missing Book of Parables of the Ethiopic compendium. Milik, along with others, based this hypothesis on the claim that the 4Q203 copy of the Book of Giants, and the 4Q204 copy of the Book of Enoch were penned by the same scribe and belong to the same manuscript, and therefore are associated with 1 Enoch.16 However, this was disproved by Loren Stuckenbruck, who showed that despite some similarities there are significant differences between the two manuscripts.17 In fact, though the Book of Giants obviously draws upon the Enochic legends, and perhaps even the Book of Watchers itself, it does not seem to have been written as a pseudepigraphic work ascribed to Enoch. All the fragments published to date are written as a third-person narrative. The difficulty in providing a solution to the problems raised by the Qumran findings is due to the fact that the most basic question concerning 1 Enoch is still unanswered: Is it a mere amalgamation of similar works or was it assembled and arranged according to a definite plan? This question must be confined to the only real Enochic collection that we possess, namely, the Ethiopic one. And it can be answered only by way of a literary analysis, for it concerns a literary aim. The present article attempts to show that the Ethiopic Enoch does indeed constitute a unified corpus that is constructed carefully around a definite theme, namely, the biography of Enoch. To demonstrate this, a close scrutiny of Enoch’s life history as related by other contemporary writings is undertaken below.

II. The Biography of Enoch: Jubilees The two main sources for Enoch’s biography are Jub. 4:16–25 and 1 Enoch. All other representations are based on these two accounts. Because of its particular significance, the Jubilees passage is quoted in full. Jub. 4:16–25:18 16 And in the eleventh jubilee Jared took a wife, in the fourth week of this jubilee, and her name was Berakhah, the daughter of Rasuel, a daughter of his father’s brother. And Books of Enoch, 178–79, 310. Loren Stuckenbruck, DJD XXXVI, 9–10. 18 The following is the translation of Robert H. Charles revised by Chaim Rabin, “Jubilees,” in The Apocryphal Old Testament (ed. H. F. D. Sparks; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984), 22–24. See also the translations of Klaus Berger, Das Buch der Jubiläen (JSHRZ II/3; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlaghaus Mohn, 1981), 344–47; André Caquot, “Jubilés,” in Ecrits Intertestamentaires (Paris: Gallimard, 1987), 614–16; James C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (CSCO 511; Leuven: Peeters, 1989), 25–28. The passage was discussed by James C. VanderKam, “Enoch Traditions in Jubilees and other Second-Century Sources,” SBLSP 1 (1978): 229–51. 16 Milik, 17 Cf.

64

The Biography of Enoch and the Books of Enoch

she bore him a son in the fifth week, in the fourth year of the jubilee, and he called him Enoch. 17 And he was the first19 among men born on earth to learn to write and (to acquire) knowledge and wisdom, and he wrote down in a book the signs of heaven according to the order of their months, so that men might know the seasons of the 18 years according to the order of their several months. And he was the first to write a testimony; and he warned the sons of men about what would happen in future generations on the earth, And he recounted the weeks of the jubilees, and made known the days of the years, and set in order the months, and recounted the sabbaths of the years, just as we made (them) known to him. 19 And what was and what will be he saw in a vision in his sleep, just as it will happen to the sons of men in every generation till the day of judgment. He saw and knew all of it; and he wrote his testimony and he placed it as testimony on earth for all the sons of men for every generation. 20 And in the twelfth jubilee, in the seventh week of it, he took a wife, and her name was Edni, the daughter of Danel, his father’s brother’s daughter; and in the sixth year in that week she bore him a son, and he called his name Methuselah. 21 And he was with the angels of God these six jubilees of years and they showed him everything on earth and in the heavens, and the power of the sun; and he wrote down everything. 22 And he bore witness to the Watchers, who had sinned with the daughters of men; for they had begun to form unions with the daughters of men and so defile themselves; and Enoch bore witness against them all. 23 And he was taken away from the sons of men, and we conducted him into the Garden of Eden to majesty and honor, and there he records the condemnation and the judgment of the world, and all the wickedness of the sons of men. 24 And on account of it (God) brought the waters of the flood upon all the Land of Eden. For he was established there as a sign to bear witness against all the sons of men, and keep a record of all the deeds of every generation till the day of judgment. 25 And he burnt the incense of the sanctuary, which is acceptable before the Lord, on the Mount.”

In the above description, Enoch’s career falls into three distinct sections: a. Enoch’s activities before his marriage and the birth of Methuselah. According to the chronology in Jubilees, this covers a period of sixty-five years from 522 to 587; b. Enoch’s sojourn with the angels for a period of six jubilees; c. The final taking of the patriarch from among men into paradise and his activities there. This tripartite division is clearly based on the biblical account in Gen 5:21–24: “And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah. And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and he begat sons and daughters: And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty 19 A tiny Hebrew fragment from Qumran corresponding to vv. 16–17 was identified by Milik, “A propos de 11QJub,” Bib 54 (1973): 77–78. Cf. also James C. VanderKam, Textual and Historical Studies in the Book of Jubilees (HSM 14; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977), 25–27. For a fragment of the Syriac version, cf. Eugene Tisserant, “Fragments Syriaques du Livre des Jubilés,” RB 30 (1921): 77.

The Biography of Enoch and the Books of Enoch

65

and five years. And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.” The biblical text also clearly divides Enoch’s life into periods: the first one lasted sixty-five years20 and coincides with the first part of Enoch’s career in Jubilees. It terminates, as in Jubilees, with Enoch’s marriage and begetting of children. The second period covers Enoch’s remaining years, the three hundred years during which Enoch is said to have walked with God. This number is taken from the temporal sequence of the biblical narrative but once it is incorporated into the chronology of Jubilees it acquires a numerical value in terms of jubilees. Accordingly, the number of 300 years is equated with six jubilees, each jubilee consisting of fifty years (6 x 50 = 300). This period corresponds to the second part of the Jubilees chronology.21 Thus, Jubilees follows the biblical account in giving 365 as the total number of Enoch’s years, a number confirmed by all the textual witnesses of the Pentateuch.22 The Jubilees account follows that in the Hebrew Bible also in other respects. Thus, the episode concerning the voyage with the angels is quite obviously an interpretation of the enigmatic Hebrew expression ‫“( ויתהלך חנוך את האלהים‬and Enoch walked with God”). Apparently, the verb was taken literally to mean “go with” (cf. Job 2:2), while the Hebrew plural form for “God” was understood to refer to angels.23 In the same way, the disappearance of Enoch is based on an interpretation of the word ‫“( ואיננו‬and he was not”). All our most ancient sources explain this as an allusion to Enoch’s being taken to a celestial or terrestrial paradise24 (cf. below). In this respect, Jubilees merely echoes an ancient exegesis of the biblical text, and probably this is also true of the entire episode. An additional detail specifies that the angels themselves took Enoch to paradise (cf. Jub. 4:23). 20 This reflects the chronology of the MT and the Samaritan Pentateuch. The LXX has a different tradition: 165 years. 21 This detail provides an interesting illustration of the compilation method used in Jubilees. As a rule, this writing calculates one jubilee as consisting of forty-nine years, but in the present episode it departs from this practice, probably because it leans on its source and has to maintain the combination 65 + 300. Michael Segal, in agreement, quotes the above statement from the original article (idem, The Book of Jubilees [JSJSup 117; Leiden: Brill, 2007], 17) for it accords with his general theory that Jubilees compiled and edited several sources. One of the most compelling aspects of his theory concerns the overall chronological framework of Jubilees that is obviously imposed on several individual cases that employ different calculations, the life of Enoch being one of them. 22 Thus the MT, LXX, and the Samaritan Pentateuch. 23 The use of ‫ אלוהים‬in the sense of “angels” has its background in the Hebrew Bible itself. Cf., e.g., Gen 32:3; Judg 13:22; Ps 97:7. 24 Cf. 1 En. 14:8–23; 70:1–2; 71:1; 81:6; 106:7; Sir 44:16. Compare also the LXX, the Old Latin, and the Aramaic Targumim of Genesis ad loc. Cf. Armin Schmitt, “Die Angaben über Henoch Gen 5, 21–24 in der LXX,” in Wort, Lied und Gottesspruch: Festschrift für Joseph Ziegler (ed. J. Schreiner; Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1972), 161–69; Dieter Luhrmann, “Henoch und die Metanoia,” ZNW 66 (1975): 103–16. For the Mesopotamian origins of the ascension, cf. Rykle Borger, “Die Beschwörungsserie Bit Meseri und die Himmelfahrt Henochs,” JNES 33 (1974): 183–96.

66

The Biography of Enoch and the Books of Enoch

This last detail and the events surrounding Enoch’s departure for paradise are elaborated particularly in two additional sources that supplement the Jubilees account. One is a tiny Hebrew fragment from Qumran, 4Q227, and the other is a passage from the Astronomical Book. The Qumran fragment is of particular interest as it is very similar but not identical to Jubilees. 4Q227 2

‫   ח]נ֯ ו̇ך אחר אשר למדנוהו‬ [ 1 ‫[  ]ש̇שה יובלי שנים‬°] [ 2 ‫הא]רץ אל תוך בני האדם ויעד על כולם‬ ֯ [ 3 ‫ ] וגם על העירים ויכתוב את כול‬ [ 4 ֯ ‫ ]ש ֯מי̇ם ואת דרכי צבאם‬ ֯ [ 5 ‫ואת[ החוד]ש̇ים‬ ]     ‫הצ[דיקים‬ ֯ ‫א]ש̇ר לוא ישג̇ו‬ [ 6

1 … E]noch after we taught him 2    ] six jubilees of years 3 the ea]rth among the sons of mankind. And he testified against all of them. 4    ] and also against the Watchers. And he wrote all the 5   ]sky and the paths of their host and the [mon]ths 6    s]o that the ri[ghteous] should not err25

This fragment seems to be situated at the end of the patriarch’s travels with the angels. It agrees with Jubilees on the duration of the period in question, six jubilees. In addition, the teachings of Enoch coincide with some of the activities mentioned in Jubilees. They concern astronomic and calendrical knowledge, as well as a testimony to the Watchers. In addition, the angels are introduced in the first person as relating the events. This feature is also shared by Jubilees, where the angels of presence occasionally address Moses.26 However, lines 1–3 suggest that Enoch’s teachings recounted in the fragment occur at the end of his stay with the angels, and not before or during this time as they are in Jubilees. This difference may be elucidated by a passage from the Astronomical Book 71:5–6, which tells how, having ended his journey through the universe with the angels, Enoch is brought back home by them. He is instructed to remain another year among men in order to teach and testify to his sons before his final transfer to paradise. The situation closely resembles that depicted in 4Q227. We assume, then, that the same circumstances are alluded to in both works. Thus, the teachings mentioned in 4Q227 may form part of Enoch’s final testimony and transmission of the knowledge he had acquired throughout his terrestrial life, while Jubilees 25 The text edition and translation are those of James C. VanderKam and Józef T. Milik in DJD XIII, 173–74. See also the comments of James C. VanderKam, Enoch: A Man for All Generations (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1995), 127–29. 26 Cf., e. g., Jub. 3:15; 4:23; 5:23; 10:10–13, 23. The similarity of this fragment to Jubilees in content and style is striking. In the original publication, I suggested that it may be identified as belonging to Jubilees, but in a slightly different text. In the above DJD publication, it is labeled “Pseudo-Jubilees.”

The Biography of Enoch and the Books of Enoch

67

gives a general review of Enoch’s acts in the order in which they occurred. Therefore, the Jubilees account and 4Q227 are not necessarily contradictory and may still reflect the same tradition. What emerges clearly from the above analysis is that Jubilees closely follows the Genesis story, with certain amplifications, both in its general framework and in specific details. The only real additions are those referring to Enoch’s writing down and transmitting of his studies. Of this, there is no mention in Genesis. The conclusion we derive from the foregoing analysis is that Jubilees must be drawing first and foremost on an exegetical tradition of the biblical narrative. Consequently, similarities between Jubilees and the scattered biographical details in the Enochic writings should be seen as independent witnesses of a single exegetical tradition, and not as an indication of the literary dependence of Jubilees on 1 Enoch, as supposed by several scholars.27 This is especially true of those episodes that clearly have been added to the biblical text, such as Enoch’s sojourn with the angels and his disappearance. In order to prove literary dependence, one must produce evidence of similarities in style and phraseology, as well as ideas. This cannot be said to be the case with Jubilees in relationship to 1 Enoch. Consequently, it may be assumed that all the materials relating to Enoch’s life history, including the amplifications and the additions, go back to an ancient tradition attested independently by Jubilees and 1 Enoch. This assumption accords with the character of the early Jewish pseudepigraphic literature, which employs current legends in the construction of the pseudepigraphic framework. Only by assuming the existence of a rich and elaborate body of Enochic legends can we explain the numerous pseudepigrapha ascribed to Enoch as early as the third century B. C. E. Significantly, the principal features of the Enoch figure in the Enochic body of writings are his wisdom, teachings, and writing down and transmitting of knowledge. This may be explained by the prominence of these same features in the Enochic legends current at that time and perhaps, too, in the older Mesopotamian sources relating to the seventh antediluvian sage.

III. The Biography of Enoch and 1 Enoch a. Book of the Watchers: this is a composite piece. It consists of five independent units.28 Chapters 1–5 relate Enoch’s vision on the day of judgment and his admonition to the wicked; chs. 6–11 tell the story of the fallen angels, their sin 27 Cf., e. g., Robert H. Charles, The Book of Jubilees or the Little Genesis (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1902), lxviii–lxix, 36–37, and more recently Milik, Books of Enoch, 12, 24– 25; Pierre Grelot, “Hénoch et ses écritures,” RB 82 (1975): 481–500 (483–88), and VanderKam, “Enoch Traditions”; idem, Enoch: A Man for All Generations, 110–21. 28 See the analysis of Georg Beer, “Das Buch Henoch,” in Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments (ed. E. Kautzsch; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1921 [1900]), 2:217–310 (221–22); Charles, The Book of Enoch, xlvii–xlviii, 1–3.

68

The Biography of Enoch and the Books of Enoch

with the women and their punishment; chs. 12–16 tell of Enoch’s intercession on behalf of the fallen angels, namely, the Watchers; chs. 17–36 contain two distinct sections, 17–19 and 20–36, which probably depend on each other. Both describe Enoch’s travels through the universe accompanied by various angels who show him their respective domains.29 Scholars have suggested various explanations for this mosaic of sources, ascribing this collection to the work of editors. Some thought that chs. 1–5 were intended as an introduction to the entire Enochic collection,30 but these suggestions have thus far failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the complex structure of the Book of the Watchers. My own suggestion is to examine it in the light of Enoch’s life as we know it from Jubilees.31 This approach sheds an unexpected light on the Book of the Watchers and the arrangement of its content; the three sections, chs. 1–5, 12–16, and 17–36, deal with the various activities of Enoch during his lifetime, which appear to be arranged in the sequence indicated by Jubilees: first comes the vision of the day of judgment, which in Jubilees falls within the first period; next appear his intercession on behalf of the Watchers and his travels with the angels, both of which fall within the second period of Jubilees. In fact, at the beginning of the Watchers episode it is stated explicitly that the events that follow occurred after Enoch had disappeared from among men, because of his sojourn with the angels (1 En. 12:1). Significantly, all the sections dealing with Enoch employ a similar literary device: they are presented as accounts related in the first person by the patriarch himself, which is, of course, the style that typifies the pseudepigraphic writings. However, it is not employed in chs. 6–11, which are markedly different in style and intention: they do not mention Enoch at all and are written in a typical third-person narrative style. This difference should, I believe, be explained by the different origin of the section in question. Unlike the other sections, it is not pseudepigraphic and resembles in its style and methods such works as the Genesis Apocryphon, Jubilees, and the Biblical Antiquities. I suggest, therefore, that these chapters were taken from an ancient midrash of Gen 6:1–4.32 They preface the punishment of the Watchers related in chs. 12–16 in order to provide the pertinent background.

29 See the survey of VanderKam, Enoch: A Man for All Generations, 25–59. On the place of Enoch’s travels with the angels within the Enochic traditions, see the article “Apocalyptic and the Qumran Library” in this volume. 30 Cf., e. g., Beer, “Henoch,” 221; Charles, The Book of Enoch, 2. Yet the Qumran manuscripts 4Q201 and 4Q202 reveal that these chapters were part of the Book of the Watchers at a very early stage. See Lars Hartman, Asking for Meaning (Lund: Gleerup, 1979), 138–45. 31 The present suggestion differs from that put forward by Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 24–25. 32 This view is also taken by Philip S. Alexander, “The Targumim and Early Exegesis of the ‘Sons of God’ in Genesis 6,” JJS 23 (1972): 10–71 (60). I have suggested that these chapters were taken from a parabiblical work, a view that is not essentially different from the one above. See the article “1 Enoch 6–11: A Fragment of a Parabiblical Work” in this volume.

The Biography of Enoch and the Books of Enoch

69

To conclude, the Book of the Watchers may be said to cover events from the first and second periods of Enoch’s life, and was therefore placed properly at the head of the Enochic corpus. b. Astronomical Book: This work consists of Enoch’s account of what he saw in the company of the angels while travelling in various secret places on the earth. The most elaborate description is that of the luminaries and the stars, shown to him by the angel Uriel, though other parts of the universe are also mentioned. The work is written as a personal account that Enoch (72:1) addresses to his son Methuselah (76:14; 79:1). In addition to information on what Enoch has learnt, the work contains, at the end, a biographical section. Chapters 81–82 depict the end of Enoch’s journeys, his blessing, his return home, the instruction of his children, his testimony, and his admonition.33 In the context of the biographical theme of 1 Enoch, the Astronomical Book takes up the story from Enoch’s travels to his final acts before his final disappearance. Thus, the proper place for the Astronomical Book in the Ethiopic collection would have been after the Book of the Watchers, which it continues. c. Book of Dreams: This work relates two night visions revealed to Enoch: one about the coming flood, the other about the history of the world. In the pseudepigraphic framework of the work, Enoch is said to have had the first vision at the time he was learning to write; he experienced the second before he took a wife. This information is in line with the account in Jubilees, according to which Enoch saw the visions about the future history of the world in the first period of his life. At the same time, this book, like the Astronomical Book, is addressed to Methuselah (83:1; 85:1–2). In a certain way, both works can be said to be of a testamentary character in that they contain wisdom and lessons learned from past experience that are transmitted from father to son. In Enoch’s case, the actual transmission took place at the end of his terrestrial years. Therefore, even though the Book of Dreams deals with events that took place in the first period of Enoch’s life, namely, preceding the acts related in the Astronomical Book, it may still be considered as belonging to the final period of the imparting of wisdom. This would explain why the Book of Dreams is placed after the Astronomical Book. The Astronomical Book gives the actual circumstances of the final departure, while both the Astronomical Book and the Book of Dreams record some of the teachings transmitted on this occasion. The Epistle of Enoch brings the sequence to a conclusion by giving the actual testamenta of Enoch. d. Epistle of Enoch: This work employs a typical testament form, at least in the opening section. Enoch summons his children, reveals the future to them, and delivers his final exhortation. This is the pattern of the classical testaments of the 33 These chapters are considered by many scholars to be an addition to the original body of the Astronomical Book. Cf., for instance, George W. E. Nickelsburg and James C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 546–57. However, this does not affect the present argument since it deals with the final form of the Ethiopic collection.

70

The Biography of Enoch and the Books of Enoch

Bible, namely, Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 29–33,34 which is also to be found in other pseudepigraphic testaments. For our purpose, it suffices to recognize the Epistle of Enoch as the final testament of Enoch.35 As such, it properly winds up the Enochic collection. e. Appendix on Noah: This section depicts the miraculous birth of Noah, the perplexity of his father Lamech, and the journey of the grandfather Methuselah to the ends of the earth to ask his father, Enoch, for advice. Enoch does so by explaining the future role of Noah in the coming flood. This section appears to refer to an incident that occurred well after Enoch’s terrestrial life was over. There are several indications of this: first of all, according to the MT and LXX chronology, Noah was born after the disappearance of Enoch.36 Secondly, Enoch was staying at the time in the company of the angels (106:7). Thirdly, the event takes place at the far end of the earth and this accords with the idea expressed in the Book of the Watchers that locates paradise at the far ends of the earth.37 In the light of this interpretation, the appendix on Noah appears as an appropriate conclusion to the testament of Enoch, and indeed to the complete corpus,38 which reviews Enoch’s life and achievements. The appendix records events occurring during the final and eternal stage of Enoch’s existence, in paradise, as he writes down human history. It was his knowledge of future events that enabled him to advise Methuselah. This section corresponds to the concluding part of Enoch’s career,

e. g., 1 En. 91:1–2 to Gen 49:1–2 and 1 En. 91:3–9 to Deut. 31:12–21; 32:1. Panopolis papyrus ends ch. 107 with the formula “the Epistle of Enoch.” The epistle form may be suggested also by 92:1. But other indications point to a testament form, and this is especially apparent in chs. 91–93, which open the work (for the separate state of these chapters, see Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 414). Therefore, it seems to me that the testament form better describes the structure of the Epistle of Enoch. For the structure of this work, cf. George W. E. Nickelsburg, “The Apocalyptic Message of 1 Enoch 92–105,” CBQ 39 (1977): 309–28; idem, 1 Enoch 1, 420–22; Loren T. Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91–108 (CEJL; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2007), 153–605. 36 According to MT, he was born sixty-nine years after Enoch was taken to paradise. The LXX gives the figure as fifty-five years. In contrast to these two witnesses, the Samaritan Pentateuch and Jubilees place Noah’s birth 180 years before the taking of Enoch. 37 1 En. 32:3, partly preserved in 4Q206 1 xxvi 21, reads ]‫פרדס קושט[א‬, apparently for paradise. The Greek equivalent is παράδεισος τῆς δικαιοσύνης. The idea that Enoch was already living in paradise when Noah was born must lie behind a similar episode on the birth of Noah found in the Genesis Apocryphon (1QGenApoc I–V), in which the place where Enoch sojourned is named ‫( פרוין‬II, 23). Cf. Pierre Grelot, “Pawaim des Chroniques à l’Apocryphe de la Genèse,” VT 11 (1961): 30–38; idem, “Retour au Parwaim,” VT 14 (1964): 155–63. See also Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave l (1Q20) (3rd ed.; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1971), 136–37. Daniel A. Machiela, The Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon (STDJ 79; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 37. Interestingly, the Genesis Apocryphon locates this enigmatic place “at the end of the earth.” The same geographical location for Enoch’s abode is given in the parallel story in 1 En. 106:8. 38 This is why it is difficult to judge whether the appendix was originally only part of the Epistle of Enoch or part of the corpus as a whole. 34 Compare, 35 The

The Biography of Enoch and the Books of Enoch

71

summarized by Jub. 4:23–26. Jubilees states explicitly that Enoch sojourned in paradise, but that this wondrous place is situated in a mythical site on the earth.39 If the above analysis is correct, the basic Enochic collection, comprising the Book of the Watchers, the Astronomical Book, the Book of Dreams, and the Epistle of Enoch with the appendix, was assembled in such a way as to give a synopsis of Enoch’s deeds and teachings in the sequence in which they occurred: firstly, the vision of the day of judgment and the exhortation to the wicked, then the period spent with the angels (which includes Enoch’s intercession on behalf of the Watchers and his journey through the universe), his return to earth to make his preparations for the final departure, the transmission of his knowledge to Methuselah, and his final testimony and exhortation to his children. The corpus concludes with an incident in which Enoch, while already in paradise, is once more involved in terrestrial affairs on the occasion of Noah’s birth. f. Book of Parables: This book was omitted intentionally from the above discussion since it contains certain features that do not conform to the overall biographical pattern that we have found to be present in the other books. The Book of Parables is made up of three parables that Enoch addresses to the inhabitants of the earth. The parables focus on two main topics: the day of judgment with its reward for the righteous and punishment for the wicked, and a description of the places revealed to Enoch in his travels with the angels. Although the Book of Parables gives its own version of these topics and has many features not found in the other books, the topics themselves are familiar and are to be found also in the other Enochic works. What is unique to the Book of Parables is its tendency to combine topics that are treated separately in other Enochic works. This is particularly evident in comparison with the Book of the Watchers, which precedes the Book of Parables in the Ethiopic collection. The Book of the Watchers, too, is preoccupied with the final judgment and Enoch’s journeys, but these topics are treated separately and it is evident that each derives from a different literary source. In the Astronomical Book, also, the travels with the angels are not combined, as they are in the Book of Parables, with matters relating to the future. Similarly, the Book of Dreams confines itself to questions concerning the future. The tendency of the Book of Parables to fuse distinct motifs is apparent also in its biographical framework. Unlike other Enochic works, it does not restrict itself to a limited period or single topics, but aims at giving a complete review of Enoch’s life from his vision of the future to his final ascension.40 Moreover, the clear distinction made in the other books between the various periods in Enoch’s life is blurred in the Book of Parables. These features suggest, therefore, the lateness of this composition in relation to the remaining Enochic works. This Jub. 4:23–28. ascension shows signs of a later stage of development, as compared with the heavenly ascent of Enoch recorded in the Book of the Watchers 14. 39 Cf.

40 This

72

The Biography of Enoch and the Books of Enoch

conclusion is reinforced also by the fact that the Book of Parables was not among the sections found at Qumran and was probably composed a century or two after the last Enoch book. Therefore, it may be argued that the Book of Parables is a later addition to the original Aramaic corpus made either by Ethiopic circles or by the traditions they adopted, and that the original Enochic corpus comprised only the writings found at Qumran.

IV. Conclusion The foregoing analysis has attempted to show that the works ascribed to Enoch in Ethiopic constitute a literary corpus with a definite theme and structure. This emerges from the arrangement of the various sections in accordance with the biographical information imparted by the pseudepigraphic framework. Each composition appears to have a distinct biographical reference that confirms its position in the corpus. Together, the works review the main events in Enoch’s life, following the biblical chronology as elaborated by haggadic amplifications. Consequently, the Ethiopic corpus may have been conceived as a comprehensive testimony to Enoch’s accomplishments in action as well as in learning. The biographical sequence seems clearly to be present in the four earlier works found at Qumran, namely the Book of the Watchers, the Astronomical Book, the Book of Dreams, the Epistle of Enoch and the appendix. It is therefore suggested that the corpus originally comprised these works alone. As for the Book of Parables, both literary and historical considerations, as well as its absence from the Qumran collection, seem to indicate that it was not part of the original corpus but a later addition to it. Finally, if the above reconstruction is correct, it may be concluded that the Enochic corpus was not composed on the pattern of the Pentateuch but had a different literary purpose.

1 Enoch 6–11: A Fragment of a Parabiblical Work One of the major results of the discovery of the Qumran scrolls has been an ongoing re-evaluation of the Jewish literature of the Second Temple period, especially of compositions preserved in translation by Christian transmission. 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and the Testament of Levi are the most salient examples. Not only were copies of the originals or, as in the case of the Testament of Levi, the Semitic source of these works found among the Qumran documents, but also a new literary and religious context. 1 Enoch has received particular attention due to the wealth of ancient traditions it garners. A particularly intense discussion on the manifold aspects of 1 Enoch continued in the decades following its rediscovery by European scholarship and in its subsequent translations into European languages during the nineteenth century. The critical insights gained in that century were summarized and popularized by Robert H. Charles in the influential collection he edited, The Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (Oxford, 1912). This, in turn, formed the scholarly framework into which the data culled from the Qumran documents were fitted half a century later, when the Scrolls were unearthed in the mid-1950s. The Qumran Scrolls confirmed previous results reached by scholarly consensus, namely that 1 Enoch constitutes a collection of Jewish works woven around biblical Enoch, composed mostly in the land of Israel during the final centuries preceding the Common Era. At the same time, the Scrolls provided a new context for the Jewish apocryphal and pseudepigraphic literature in general, and for 1 Enoch in particular. Nevertheless, the gaining of insights into 1 Enoch from the study of Qumran documents is far from being exhausted. The Qumran texts introduce novel elements into the picture and open new vistas on various apocryphal and pseudepigraphic texts. With the ever-broadening perspectives of the Qumran library, new elements for understanding the apocryphal works found there are constantly being accumulated. The present study explores some of the implications relevant to 1 Enoch offered by the Qumran Scrolls.

74

1 Enoch 6–11: A Fragment of a Parabiblical Work

A. The Book of the Watchers and 1 Enoch 6–11 One of the notable implications of the Qumran evidence has been the realization that 1 Enoch is a compilation of independent compositions attributed to the biblical patriarch Enoch.1 Although the distinctive literary characters of the various Enochic works have already been recognized in the preceding critical enquiry, the Qumran data show that they actually had distinct historical careers. The first among them is labeled the Book of the Watchers (1 En. 1–362), in itself composite as has long been recognized.3 The Book of Watchers is usually divided into several sections, each displaying distinctive features: chapters 1–5; 6–11, 12–16, 17–19; 20; 21–36. Except for chs. 6–11, all the sections deal with various episodes in the life of Enoch: chs. 1–5 are his address to the wicked; chs. 12–16 tell of his dealings with the sinful Watchers; chs. 17–19 report Enoch’s travels with the archangels in various cosmic regions; and ch. 20 lists the seven archangels and their respective realms of responsibility. The final section, chs. 21–36, offers another account of Enoch’s cosmic travels with the archangels. But opinions have been divided over the manner in which these various components are related to one another. Clearly, within this collection, chs. 6–11 stand apart in form and context. But while the distinct character of 1 Enoch 6–11 is generally admitted, its place within the Book of Watchers is interpreted in differing ways. Most scholars associate it with the following chapters. Elaborating on an old suggestion by François Martin,4 Józef Milik has treated chs. 6–19 as a single entity.5 Others consider only chs. 6–16 as belonging together.6 However, since the distinctive literary character of 1 Enoch 6–11 is generally recognized, the insertion of these chapters into the Book of Watchers was seen as the work of a later editor. Accordingly, chs. 6–11 were viewed as originating in an independent source. Summarizing previous discussions, Charles gave this view the Milik, Books of Enoch. 1–5 are usually seen as an introductory section, either of the entire Enochic collection or of the Book of the Watchers. 3 Cf., e. g., August Dillmann, Das Buch Henoch (Leipzig: Vogel, 1853) i; Georg Beer, “Das Buch Henoch,” in Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments (ed. E. Kautsch; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1900), 2:238–56; Robert H. Charles, The Book of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon, 1912), xlvii–xlviii. 4 Cf. François Martin, Le Livre d’Hénoch (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1906), lxxxviii. 5 Cf. Milik, Books of Enoch, 24–25. Carol Newsom subscribes to the same view, but analyzes each distinctive unit separately. Cf. her discussion “The Development of 1 Enoch 6–19: Cosmology and Judgment,” CBQ 42 (1980): 310–29. 6 Cf., e. g., Dimant, “Fallen Angels,” 72; Matthew Black, The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch (SVTP 7; Leiden: Brill, 1985), 10; Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, Prophets of Old and the Day of the End (OTS 35; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 165–82. David Suter views 1 Enoch 12–16 as a commentary on 1 Enoch 6–11. See idem, “Fallen Angel, Fallen Priest: The Problem of Family Purity in 1 Enoch 6–16,” HUCA 50 (1979): 115–35 (119). However, from a literary perspective, it is 1 Enoch 6–11 rather than 1 Enoch 12–16 that is exceptional in the Book of Watchers. Therefore, to view the latter as a commentary on the former is inappropriate. 1 Cf.

2 Chapters

1 Enoch 6–11: A Fragment of a Parabiblical Work

75

form that exerted the most enduring impact on subsequent critical discussion. He identified this source as a lost Book of Noah. Moreover, he assigned other passages from 1 Enoch to this supposedly lost work.7 However, the attribution of various Enochic passages to this lost book has obscured the specificity of 1 Enoch 6.8 More than twenty-five years ago, I advanced another hypothesis to account for the distinctive traits of chs. 6–11. I suggested that 1 Enoch 6–11 was extracted from an independent literary source and inserted into the Enochic Book of Watchers (= 1 En. 1–36) as a preface to the episode related in the following chs. 12–16.9 I further proposed that the source underlying chs. 6–11 was a kind of legendary narrative of the type known at the time from the Qumran Genesis Apocryphon.10 With the coming to light of a considerable body of Qumran texts that rewrite the Bible, this suggestion is not only vindicated, but also acquires a valid context within contemporary Jewish literature. We can now ascertain that 1 Enoch 6–11 falls well within the corpus of Qumran parabiblical texts. The analysis offered below uncovers the interpretative methods applied in 1 Enoch 6–11, and their affinity to those practiced in the parabiblical texts. Incidentally, the clear interpretative character of 1 Enoch 6–11 in relation to its biblical model in Gen 6:1–14 effectively disposes of the suggestion that these Enochic chapters are earlier than the biblical text, and that Gen 6:1–14 summarizes 1 Enoch rather than the reverse.11

B. Analysis of 1 Enoch 6–11 The uniqueness of 1 Enoch 6–11 within 1 Enoch in general and in the Book of Watchers in particular is defined by its specific content and stylistic peculiarities: (a) The entire section is told in a third-person narrative, in contrast to the firstperson discourses used in all other parts of the Enochic collection; (b) In 1 Enoch 6–11, Noah is introduced as the chief human protagonist, whereas all other parts of 1 Enoch are formulated as speeches given by Enoch; (c) The treatment of biblical materials in 1 Enoch 6–11 differs considerably from that in other Enochic works. While the general method observable in all other Enochic writings is a free reworking of various biblical allusions and traditions, 1 Enoch 6–11 focuses Charles, Book of Enoch, xlvii. the discussion in Dimant, “Two ‘Scientific’ Fictions: The so-called Book of Noah and the Alleged Quotation from Jubilees in the Damascus Document XVI, 3–4,” in Collected Studies, 353–68 (354–62).   9 Dimant, “Fallen Angels,” 23–72. A similar analysis was published independently by George Nickelsburg, “Apocalyptic and Myth in 1 Enoch 6–11,” JBL 96 (1977): 383–405. The concern of the present discussion being 1 Enoch 6–11 as a self-contained literary unit, the underlying various traditions about the Watchers are not discussed here. 10 Dimant, “Fallen Angels,” 30, 33. 11 A suggestion made by Milik, Books of Enoch, 31.   7 Cf.

  8 See

76

1 Enoch 6–11: A Fragment of a Parabiblical Work

on a specific biblical text, Gen 6:1–14, and follows its sequence. 1 Enoch 6–11 does so by explicit citations from Gen 6:1–2 interlaced with non-biblical as well as Bible-based expansions of Gen 6:1–14. In contrast, none of the Enochic works contains explicit quotations or the same type of interpretation and reworking of a specific biblical passage. Even 1 Enoch 1–5, which constitutes a mosaic of biblical allusions, does not single out one specific biblical episode.12 Most notable is the fact that the typical method of reworking the Bible in chs. 6–11 is entirely absent from the following unit, chs. 12–16. In relating the dealings of Enoch with the Watchers, chs. 12–16 introduce a non-biblical episode that differs from chs. 6–11 both in orientation and emphasis.13 Thus, 1 Enoch 6–11 stands apart within 1 Enoch as well as within the Book of Watchers. Being dissimilar from any other section of the Enochic collection, 1 Enoch 6–11 betrays its independent nature and origin. The insertion of 1 Enoch 6–11 into the Book of Watchers is therefore the work of a later editor rather than the original writer, as was recognized by early scholarship. A detailed comparison of 1 Enoch 6–11 with its biblical models highlights its technique of interpretation, and its affinity with parabiblical texts, as shown by the following analysis.14 1 Enoch 6–11

Gen LXX

Gen MT

6:1: And it came to pass, when the sons of men had increased that in those days there were born to them fair and beautiful daughters.

6:1 And it came to pass when men began to be numerous upon the earth and daughters were born to them.

6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply upon the earth and daughters were born to them.

6:2a: And the Watchers Sons of heaven saw them and desired them.

6:2a And the Sons of God having seen the daughters of men that they were fair,

6:2a And the Sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair;

I. (biblical quotation)

12 The reworking of biblical material in these chapters was analyzed in detail by Lars Hartman, Asking for a Meaning (Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1979), 22–95. 13 See the observations of Newsom, “The Development of 1 Enoch 6–19” on the differences between 1 Enoch 6–11 and 1 Enoch 12–16. 14 The translations are of the Greek text of the first chapters of 1 Enoch, found in the Panopolis papyrus, freshly edited together with other fragments by Matthew Black, Apocalypsis Henochi Graece (PVTG; Leiden: Brill, 1970). The excerpts quoted by the Byzantine chronographer Syncellus, which seem to represent a slightly reworked text (cf. Black’s observations, ibid., 8), are adduced only insofar as they offer significant variants. For the Septuagint, the edition of John W. Wevers, Genesis (Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum I; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974) served as the basis for the translation. The King James Version is mostly used for the Masoretic Text. Sizable non-biblical expansions are summarized in brackets.

1 Enoch 6–11: A Fragment of a Parabiblical Work

1 Enoch 6–11

Gen LXX

77

Gen MT

II. (non-biblical expansion, based partly on biblical formulation) 6:2b–8: (The decision to take women and the formal oath taken by the Watchers on the incitement of their leader Šemiḥaza. The total number of the rebels was two hundred.15 The list of names of those who took part in it.) 6:2: (Quotation from the Watchers’ words: ‘Come, let us choose for ourselves wives from the Sons of Men. Let us beget for ourselves children’.)

(6:4)

III. (biblical quotation) 7:1a–b: And they took for themselves wives; each of them chose for himself a wife

6:2b took to themselves wives of all whom they chose

6:2b and they took to themselves wives of all whom they chose

IV. (expansion, mostly non-biblical) 7:1c And they began to come to them and were defiled by them.

6:4

6:4

6:4 And the giants were upon the earth in those days, and afterwards when the Sons of God came to the daughters of men and begot themselves.

6:4 The giants were in the earth in those days and also afterwards, when the Sons of God came to the daughters of men and they bore them

7:2: (They taught the women forbidden sciences.) 15 The verse stating the number of the Watchers was omitted by parablepsis from the version of Papyrus Panopolis, but is attested in the Greek version of Syncellus, a fragment of the Syriac version, and in the Ethiopic translation.

78

1 Enoch 6–11: A Fragment of a Parabiblical Work

1 Enoch 6–11

Gen LXX

Gen MT

V. (expansion based on biblical text) 7:2a–b: (The women became pregnant and bore large giants and their height was three thousand cubits. Syncellus: And the giants begot Nephilim and Nephilim begot Elioud.) 7:3–6: (Rapacious behavior and atrocities of the giants towards humanity. The earth suffers. See also 1 En. 9:9.)

those were the giants of old, the men of renown

those were the mighty men of old, men of renown

(6:12–13)

(6:12–13)

VI. (non-biblical expansion based partly on biblical verses) 8:1–4 (Unlawful teachings divulged to men by ‘Asa’el and his angelic associates. A doublet of the tradition in 1 Enoch 6–7)

(6:5, 12–13)

(6:5, 12–13)

VII. (expansion based on biblical text) 9:1 (the four archangels (1 En. 9:9 echoes Gen 6:6, 11, 12) look down and see the blood shed on earth and the iniquity thereon.)

(1 En. 9:9 echoes Gen 6:6, 11, 12)

VIII. (non-biblical expansion) 9:2–11 (The supplication of the four archangels on behalf of men. 9:6–9 recapitulates some details of chs. 6–7.) IX. (expansions based on biblical text) 10:1–3 (The archangel Istrael is sent to Noah to announce to him the

6:13–14

6:13–14

1 Enoch 6–11: A Fragment of a Parabiblical Work

1 Enoch 6–11

Gen LXX

79

Gen MT

coming flood and to teach him how to survive.) X. (non-biblical expansion) 10:4–11:2 (The punishment of the Watchers, their leaders, and the giants, with concluding eschatological forecast.)

C. Structure and Technique of 1 Enoch 6–11 The above table sets out the structural principle employed by the author of 1 Enoch 6–11. The biblical quotations introduce the major themes and circumstances (Gen 6:1–2, 4–7, 11–14). These quotations are at times compressed and slightly altered or expanded. The non-biblical material is inserted between the quotations, sometimes at considerable length. Some expansions rework certain biblical passages more freely. 1 Enoch 6:1: By quoting Gen 6:1, the Enochic passage reproduces the biblical introduction to the story about the Sons of God, thereby committing itself to the framework and substance of Gen 6:1–4. At the same time, 1 Enoch 6:1 effects small changes in the biblical quotation. On the one hand, it slightly compresses the biblical narrative by omitting two secondary details, the verb “began” and the description “upon the earth.” This was probably done on the assumption that the reader was familiar with the biblical story. On the other hand, two more significant details are supplemented. 1 Enoch 6:1 adds the phrase “in those days,” imparting temporal precision to the episode of the Sons of God about to be related. Indeed, the Greek version preserved by Syncellus specifies that the angels swore the rebellious oath in the days of Yared (Gen 5:15–19).16 Another alteration effected in this verse is more significant. The women’s beauty, mentioned only later in the Genesis story (Gen 6:2), is introduced in the Enochic passage immediately upon the relating of their birth. The author of 1 Enoch 6–11 stresses the beauty of the women as an inborn quality. The motif is further en16 This is a pun in Hebrew on the descent (the Hebrew ‫ )ירד‬of the Watchers on Mount Hermon to take the oath. The same pun is used in Jub. 4:15 to link the name of Yared (‫ )ירד‬with the descent of angels, also designated there as Watchers, to teach humanity how to dispense justice. Cf. also the references to later sources cited by Black, Book of Enoch, 117.

80

1 Enoch 6–11: A Fragment of a Parabiblical Work

hanced by the addition of a second non-biblical adjective “beautiful” to describe the women’s comeliness. Both changes accentuate the beauty and desirability of the women, suggesting their seductive nature. 1 Enoch 6:2a: The most notable change in this phrase is the replacement of the biblical collocation “Sons of God” by the terms “Watchers, Sons of Heaven.” The appellation “Sons of God” (‫ בני אלהים‬,‫ )בני אלים‬for heavenly beings is rooted in biblical parlance (cf. Ps 29:1; 89:7; Job 38:717). In compliance with this linguistic usage, ancient exegetes understood Gen 6:1–4 as applying to angels, an understanding reflected in 1 Enoch 6:2a, all the Enochic literature, and in other contemporary writings.18 Noteworthy, however, is the insertion in 1 Enoch 6:1 of an additional nomenclature, “Sons of heaven,” equivalent to the Hebrew ‫בני‬ ‫שמים‬. This is a non-biblical epithet for angels in general that is prevalent in the Qumran sectarian documents.19 No less interesting is the term “Watcher/s” (ἐγρήγορος/οι), a translation of the Hebrew/Aramaic noun ‫עיר‬. As a term for angel/s in general, it is well known from the Aramaic chapters of the book of Daniel (4:10, 14, 20). This positive sense also appears in several passages in 1 Enoch and elsewhere.20 However, in most of the Enochic compositions and related literature, this term has acquired a negative sense and most often stands for the adulterous angels. The same usage is found in Hebrew as well as in Aramaic documents.21 Another significant expansion is the statement “and they [i. e., the Watchers] desired them [i. e., the women].” This addition, together with the transfer of the phrase “they were fair” to the beginning of the story, produces a subtle change in the biblical account of the Sons of God. For while the biblical narrative states that the Sons of God saw the beauty of the women and took them as wives, in 1 Enoch 6 the emphasis is placed on the fact that the women were born beautiful and the Watchers were seduced by seeing and desiring them. The focus on the Watchers’ desire suggests their impious attitude, as the story is about to show. True to this tendency, the reworked version of Syncellus omits altogether the 17 Note that the MT version of Deut 32:8, ‫בני ישראל‬, has instead [‫ בני אלוהים‬in a Qumran copy of this verse (4Q37 xii 14). The same variant is reflected in the LXX ad. loc. ἀγγέλων θεοῦ. 18 Cf. Jub. 4:22; 7:21; CD II, 18; 4Q180 1 6; 1QGenApoc II, 16. Only later, perhaps as a polemic against the legendary version of the wicked angels, was the equation of the Sons of God with the potentates or judges introduced. Cf. Tg. Onq. to Gen 6:2, 4; Symmachus to Gen 6:2; Gen. Rab. 26, 5. 19 See, e. g., 1QS IV, 22; 1QHa III, 22; 4Q181 1 2. The term occurs also in 1 En. 13:8; 14:3. See also the equivalent Aramaic locution ‫ בני שמין‬in 1QGenApoc V, 3–4. 20 Cf. 1 En. 12:2, 3; Jub. 4:1; 1QGenApoc VI, 13; VII, 2. The same usage may also be reflected by the nomenclature “those who do not sleep” for angels, which recurs in the Enochic Book of Parables (1 En. 39:12, 13; 40:2; 61:12; 71:7). 21 For the Hebrew, see CD II, 18 (‫)עירי השמים‬. The same collocation underlies 1 En. 12:4. For the Aramaic, see 1QGenApoc II, 16 and the Book of Giants (4Q203 7 i 6). This designation for the immoral angels is frequent in various Enochic works (cf., e. g., 1 En. 1:5; 12:4; 91:15) and in related literature (cf. Jub. 4:22; 7:21; 8:3; 10:5; Test. Reub. 5:6–7; Test. Naph. 3:5).

1 Enoch 6–11: A Fragment of a Parabiblical Work

81

phrase stating that the Watchers saw the women, and retains only the statement that they desired them. 1 Enoch 6:2b–8: This section makes explicit the nature of the activity meditated by the Watchers, namely sexual intercourse with the women and the procreation of children. The criminal character of these actions is made clear by their outcome: defilement of the angels by the women, the revealing of forbidden teachings to the women, and the birth of unnatural and depraved offspring.22 In view of the prospective pernicious results, the author had to establish the degree of culpability of the intended crime. He achieves it by specifying that the intention to commit the misdeed was shared commonly by two hundred Watchers, and by the fact that the Watchers committed themselves to carrying out their plan by a most radical means, a solemn oath that they swore together. The speech addressed to the Watchers by their leader Šemiḥaza explicates the criminal character of the planned action. Via this non-biblical detail, the author establishes that the Watchers were forewarned and therefore were fully aware of the gravity of the offense. However, having already sworn an oath, the Watchers showed that their misdeed was intentional and therefore involved full criminal responsibility.23 Note too that the premeditated transgression was not confined to the sexual intercourse. The desire to beget offspring was equally iniquitous, as its disastrous outcome shows. The stress on the wish to procreate is effected through an interesting double translation of Gen 6:4. The MT text of Gen 6:4 states that the Sons of God came to the women and the women bore them giants. This sense is obtained by vocalizing the word ‫( וילדו‬Gen 6:4) in the qal (‫)ויָ ְלדו‬, applying the verb to the women. The same reading is followed by the Jewish targumim, and underlies 1 Enoch 7:2a. However, 1 Enoch 6:2 inserts the wording of this verse into the speech of the Watchers regarding the intended offence: “and let us beget for ourselves children” (καὶ γεννήσωμεν ἑαυτοῖς τέκνα). This statement assumed the vocalizing of the verb ‫ וילדו‬as hof‘al (‫)וי ִֹלדו‬, applying it to the Sons of God. 22 In 1 En. 15:3–7, the sin of the Watchers in begetting children is explained in terms of the unlawful miscegenation of holy, heavenly beings with impure earthly women. Such a mixture represents a breach of the fundamental laws of the created world. The same understanding may underlie the allusion to the Watchers’ sin in 1 En. 106:14. In contrast, 1 En. 7:1 speaks only of the defilement of the Watchers through intercourse with the women. This distinctive formulation constitutes one of the differences between 1 En. 6–11 and 1 En. 12–16. Cf. Newsom, “Development.” 23 This narrative detail embodies the legal procedure of reproof attested by late biblical books and adopted by Qumranic and rabbinic jurisprudence. It is geared to differentiate between intentional and unintentional offence, and is based on the assumption that if a person is forewarned before committing an offence he is then doing it intentionally. For biblical cases, see Sara Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and its Place in Biblical Thought (2nd ed.; BEATAJ 9; Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang, 1977), 183–91. For Qumran application of this rule, see Lawrence H. Schiffman, Sectarian Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls (BJS 33; Chico: Scholars Press, 1983), 97–98. For rabbinic formulation, cf. t. Sanh. 11:1; Sifre, Judges § 173.

82

1 Enoch 6–11: A Fragment of a Parabiblical Work

Such a reading of Gen 6:4 may also be attested by the Septuagint καὶ ἐγεννῶσαν ἑαυτοῖς (“they begot for themselves”) and the Samaritan Pentateuch (‫)ויולידו‬. This biblical variant reading places stronger emphasis on the angels’ deeds, and thus is better suited to the general orientation of 1 Enoch 6–11. From the structural point of view, the non-biblical expansion of 1 Enoch 6:2b–8 is framed by two biblical citations. The first comes at the beginning, in 6:1–2a (= Gen 6:1–2a), and introduces the setting and protagonists of the episode. The second citation, in 7:1a (= Gen 6:2b), depicts the specific activity of the Watchers. This sequence sheds light on the different functions of the biblical and non-biblical materials. The biblical material establishes the essential context, framework, and the major narrative features, whereas the non-biblical expansion draws out the characters, and explicates the motives for their actions. These literary developments are often achieved by the insertion of speeches and dialogues between the acting personalities. 1 Enoch 7:1a: This verse combines the details given in Gen 6:2 and 4. Significantly, Gen 6:3 is wholly omitted from 1 Enoch 6–11, apparently because it does not fit into the variant of the legend developed here, according to which the giants and not humanity were responsible for the antediluvian corruption on earth.24 Accordingly, only the part related to the Watchers is cited, namely the taking of wives (Gen 6:4). The manner in which this came about is described by the enigmatic Hebrew phrase ‫מכל אשר בחרו‬. This was interpreted in various ways. The Septuagint translates “‘whomever they chose.” 1 Enoch 7:1 offers a slightly different reading of the phrase, again putting the emphasis on the nature of the angelic misdeeds. It renders in Hebrew “(each) chose for himself,” perhaps implying that the Watchers also took married and betrothed women and therefore were involved in adultery.25 That the Watchers were guilty of adultery is also implied by the final part of the narrative, where the giant offspring are called mamzerim (“bastards” 10:9).26 1 Enoch 7:1b: The next stage of the story takes up Gen 6:4b, relating the union between the Watchers and the women. However, 1 Enoch 7:1b immediately adds that through this coition the Watchers were defiled, a statement not recorded in the biblical version. The impurity alluded to may be defilement 24 Yet the divine instruction addressed to the archangel Gabriel in 10:9–10 to annihilate the giants may include an allusion to this verse. For the possibility that “flesh” (‫ )בשר‬in Gen 6:3 was interpreted as referring to the giants, see Jub. 5:7–9 and my discussion in “Fallen Angels,” 96. 25 Such an understanding of the transgression of the Sons of God is also proposed by the Sages. Cf. Gen. Rab. 26, 2. 26 Cf. Deut 23:3; m. Yebam. 4:13. Note the use in Qumran incantations (4Q444 1–4 + 5 8; 4Q510 1, 5; 4Q511 35 6–7) of the same term (‫ )ממזרים‬for demons, probably viewing the demons as the spirits of the dead giants, as they are presented in 1 En. 15:9–12. Jub. 10:1 introduces the demons as existing in the days of Noah, without explaining how they came into being, but is probably alluding to the same myth.

1 Enoch 6–11: A Fragment of a Parabiblical Work

83

through sexual intercourse involving different kinds of creatures and/or defilement through contact with menstruating women (cf. Lev 15:19–24).27 1 Enoch 7:1: While the defilement of the Watchers through sexual intercourse with the women is based on biblical laws, the attribution to the Watchers of teaching forbidden sciences to the women, related in this verse, is a non-biblical motif. According to this statement, the women were taught spells, charms, and the cutting of roots. Apparently, popular medicine is meant here, and it is considered a divine art divulged unlawfully to humans. The harmful nature of these teachings is not stated explicitly in the story, but it is implied by the context and tenor of the narrative. It clearly emerges from comparison with Jubilees 10:10–14, which records how Noah received formulas for medicines from the Angels of Presence. Clearly, two types of medicine are described here: the magical, “black” one, taught by the Watchers, and the salutary proper one, of divine origin, revealed to Noah. 1 Enoch 7:2–6: This section describes the birth of the huge offspring from the unlawful union between the Watchers and the women. Building on the biblical account of Gen 6:11–13, these verses expand and accentuate the cruel and voracious behavior of the giants. This depiction is without counterpart in the biblical story. 1 Enoch 8:1–4: Interwoven into the story about the Watchers and their leader Šemiḥaza is another tradition regarding the angel ‘Asa’el, who taught humans other arts such as cosmetics and the fabrication of arms. These teachings bring about moral corruption and wars. In this tradition, corruption on earth is the result of the humans’ misdeeds rather than the giants’ voracity. Yet, clearly, both the Šemiḥaza and ‘Asa’el traditions strove to link the account of the Sons of God to the narrative of the flood, two episodes adjoining but not explicitly connected in the biblical sequence.28 1 Enoch 9:1–11: This section consists of a sizable non-biblical expansion. In a manner typical of late parabiblical texts, new protagonists are introduced in the form of the four archangels. They look down upon the earth, see the corruption of the giants and the suffering of men, and they bring the complaints of men before God. The archangels thus perform the role of intercessors on behalf of men, conveying their complaints to heaven.29 The addition embodies a number of 27 These offences are also suggested by the use in Papyrus Gizeh of the verb μιαίνεσθαι in the same sense. Cf. 1 En. 10:11: μιανθῆναι ἐν αὐταῖς ἐν ἀκαθαρσία αὐτῶν (“to be defiled by them in their uncleanness”). 1 En. 15:4 specifies that impurity of menstruation blood was involved. 28 See the detailed analysis of the two traditions in Dimant, “Fallen Angels,” 25–72. 29 Similar roles of the archangels with regard to humans are recorded elsewhere. In Test. Levi 3:5–6, they atone for the errors of the righteous. In several instances, it is the role of the archangel Michael to mediate between God and men and to intercede for men before God. Cf. Test. Dan. 6:2; 3 Bar. 11:4; 14:2. For the theme of human complaints reaching heaven, compare Abel’s complaint in 1 En. 22:6–7.

84

1 Enoch 6–11: A Fragment of a Parabiblical Work

conceptions that are typical of late‑ and post-biblical thinking. Firstly, the role of the archangels reflects the tendency to introduce angelic intermediaries where in the Bible direct divine intervention is recorded or is to be expected.30 Secondly, the angelic intervention is expressed in two speeches. First, they speak among themselves about what takes place on earth (9:1–3). Then they offer a prayer to God, interceding on behalf of suffering humanity. The prayer also summarizes the main points of the previous narrative scenes (9:4–11). Recapitulation, dialogues, and prayers are literary procedures typical of parabiblical texts.31 1 Enoch 10:1–3: These verses are based on Gen 6:13–14, where God informs Noah of the coming flood and commands him to build the ark.32 Instead of the direct divine address to Noah in Gen 6:13–14, 1 Enoch 10:1–3 introduces a divine address to the archangel Istrael who is charged with the task of announcing to Noah the coming disaster and of instructing him how to save himself. Here, again, the author replaces the biblical direct divine command to Noah with an angelic intervention. Interestingly, the instruction to build the ark, and the building of it, are not mentioned. Yet the reference to the rescue of Noah in 10:1–3 suggests that the author is addressing readers who are familiar with the biblical story. Such a reference forms an additional indication of the post-biblical character of the source from which 1 Enoch 6–11 was derived.33 1 Enoch 10:4–10:16a: This passage is another typical non-biblical amplification. Here, God commands the four archangels to punish the Watchers and cleanse the earth of the outcome of their misdeeds. Although the flood is mentioned in connection with Noah (10:2), the Watchers and their leaders are punished not by the flood but by other means. They are to be imprisoned in the depths of the earth while their pugnacious giant sons are to be killed. The

30 Compare 1 En. 10:1–3: Noah receives the announcement of the coming flood from the archangel Istrael instead of from God, or Jub. 2:1 where the Angel of Presence rather than God dictates additional Torah to Moses on Mount Sinai. This tendency is already observable in late biblical books. Compare, e. g., 1 Chr 21:1 with its source in 2 Sam 24:1. 31 This process is exemplified by the various additions supplied by the Septuagint to several biblical books, e. g., the insertion of the prayer of the three friends in the furnace in Daniel 3, the prayers of Mordecai and Esther added in the Greek version of the Septuagint to Esther 4. The Septuagint has also preserved a prayer of King Manasseh that is only mentioned in 2 Chr 33:12–13. 32 Interestingly, Noah is introduced only by the name of his father “son of Lamech.” The text may be emphasizing in this way that Noah was the true son of Lamech in order to dismiss any suspicion that he may have been an offspring of the Watchers (cf. 1 En. 106:12; 1QGenApocr II, 1–6). 33 Another example of a similar procedure is provided by the Qumran Pseudo-Ezekiel, which rewrites prophecies of the biblical Ezekiel. In reworking the vision of the dry bones (Ezek 37:1–14), the author of this Qumranic work does not repeat the biblical description of the vision. Assuming that his readers are familiar with it, he takes up only the interpretation of the vision. Cf. 4Q385 2 5–10 and 4Q386 1 i, 4–5 in Dimant, DJD XXX, 23, 60.

1 Enoch 6–11: A Fragment of a Parabiblical Work

85

omission of the flood in this connection may reflect an old legend originally not connected with the flood at all.34 1 Enoch 10:16b–11:2: The final section of 1 Enoch 6–11 provides the most telling expansion of the biblical episode, since it links the cleansing of the earth of the impurity brought about by the Watchers’ misdeeds with the final redemptive era. A clue to the lapse in time between the primordial generations and the final restoration may be found in 10:12, which specifies that the Watchers were to be imprisoned in the depths of the earth for seventy generations until the final judgment. No other chronological indications are found in the description of the future final times. The description moves directly from the erasing of the effects of the Watchers’ and giants’ activities to the future purification at the end of days. Underlying the link between the flood as a purifying punishment and the final judgment with the following redemption is the analogy between those two cataclysmic events, an idea entertained by other contemporary sources.35 However, 1 Enoch 6–11 may be one of the most ancient pieces of evidence of this notion. Characteristically, the entire forecast, for the near as well as the distant future, is communicated in a series of divine addresses to the four archangels. This is a literary device typical of apocalyptic visions, for such visions are put in the mouths of ancient seers and therefore their authors had to devise a way of introducing forecasts of future events. 1 Enoch 6–11 had to resort to a similar device since its main sequence is situated before the flood. The original source of 1 Enoch 6–11 may have included another narrative passage telling of the fulfillment of the forecasts of the imminent flood.

D. The Source Underlying 1 Enoch 6–11 The method of reworking the Bible that emerges from the foregoing analysis may be summarized as follows: (a) The narrative framework, circumstances, and subject matter are established through quotations from a specific biblical passage. Only the main components of the biblical passage are quoted. By implication, it is assumed that the reader is well versed in the biblical original. (b) Small expansions, omissions, and compressions of the biblical story create additional or new emphasis on various details of the biblical quotations. (c) The large sections of non-biblical material inserted between the quotations provide new details, introduce new protagonists, and add various speeches, addresses, and prayers. It is mainly through these expansions that the author 34 Cf.

Dimant, “Fallen Angels,” 53–54. the Apocalypse of Weeks (1 En. 93:4); Jub. 5:4–12; Matt 24:37–39; Luke 17:25– 26; 1 Pet 3:20. 35 Compare

86

1 Enoch 6–11: A Fragment of a Parabiblical Work

invests the original story with new meaning. In the present case, the actions of the Watchers and their punishment are presented by non-biblical developments. The biblical pegs on which these expansions hung come from Gen 6:1–2, 4–14. The method of reworking biblical passages summarized above is well known from other contemporary works, both from Qumran and elsewhere. Pertinent illustrations of this method are found readily in writings such as Jubilees and the Biblical Antiquities, or the Aramaic Genesis Apocryphon. The source embedded in 1 Enoch 6–11 thus falls well within the category of texts that rework narrative passages from the Hebrew Bible, in contradistinction to other Enochic writings, most of which are apocalyptic visions or parenetic addresses. Additional clues to the nature and identity of the source underlying 1 Enoch 6–11 are forthcoming from the peculiar stylistic and linguistic features of the section. It was noted long ago that these chapters exhibit several paranomastic puns that are meaningful only in Hebrew.36 For instance, the Watchers descend to take their oath (Hebrew: ‫ )להחרים‬on Mount Hermon (Hebrew: ‫)חרמון‬, an obvious play on the Hebrew root ‫“( חרם‬to take an oath, vow”). Another Hebrew pun, associated with the same act, states that the Watchers descended (Hebrew: ‫ )ירדו‬from heaven in the days of Yered (Hebrew: ‫ ;ירד‬cf. Gen 5:15–20). The play on the Hebrew root ‫“( ירד‬to descend”) in connection with the angels was known also to Jub. 4:15, a composition originally written in Hebrew. Two other puns, also known from other sources, underlie the description of the archangels Raphael and Gabriel. Raphael is commanded to cure the land of the evils of the Watchers (10:7), playing on the root ‫“( רפא‬to cure”), included in the angel’s name. Gabriel is responsible for punishing the giants by provoking war among them, an obvious pun on the Hebrew root ‫“( גבר‬to prevail, overcome”) included in this angel’s name. Also to be noted is the fact that a number of the angelic names mentioned in this context are clearly Hebrew names related to heavenly bodies or phenomena (‫ברקאל‬, ‫כוכביאל‬, ‫)רקיאל‬. No less telling is the transliteration of the Hebrew ‫“( ממזרים‬bastards”) as an appellation for the giants (10:9; μαζηρέους). Other linguistic usages likewise betray a Hebrew source. As noted above, the term “sons of heaven” (1 En. 6:1) is a nomenclature for angels common in the writings of the Qumran community (Hebrew: ‫ בני שמים‬37). The expression ὀφειλέτης ἁμαρτίας, translated as “guilty of sin” (6:3), may conceal the Hebrew collocation ‫בעבירה‬/‫חייב בחטא‬. Particularly noteworthy in this respect is the prayer addressed by the archangels to God (9:4–11). It is 36 Cf. Joseph Halévy, “Recherches sur la langue de la redaction primitive du Livre d’Henoch,” JA VI.9 (1867): 352–95 (356–61). 37 Significantly, this collocation appears also in 1 Enoch 12–16 (13:8; 14:3). Another indication of a possible Hebrew origin of these chapters is the pun on the name of the River Dan (Hebrew: ‫)דן‬, where the Watchers heard their sentence (Hebrew: ‫ )דין‬in 13:7. Also significant is the name Ebelsata, where the Watchers mourned upon hearing their sentence (13:9), which is clearly associated with the Hebrew root ‫“( אבל‬mourn”).

1 Enoch 6–11: A Fragment of a Parabiblical Work

87

replete with formulas known from biblical and traditional Hebrew prayers. The string of divine epithets, “the Lord of the Lords,” “God of the Gods,” and “King of Kings” (9:4), clearly stems from various Hebrew liturgical formulas: ‫אדון האדונים‬,‌38 ‫האלוהים‬,39 ‫מלך המלכים‬.40 Other instances also speak of a Hebrew background. Thus, the reading of Gen 6:4 ‫ וי ֹלדו‬as opposed to the Masoretic ‫ויָ לדו‬ is possible only in Hebrew, as noted above. Although puns on names in Hebrew may be used in non-Hebrew texts, the foregoing examples possess an accumulating weight. They may point to a Hebrew source, at least in the form of a tradition if not of an actual text. However, in previous discussions, the distinctive Hebrew elements in 1 Enoch 6–11 were obscured because they were connected to the discussion of the original language of 1 Enoch as a whole. Since the discovery of the Qumran Aramaic copies of 1 Enoch, the Hebrew elements in the entire collection of Enochic works have been viewed as secondary.41 However, once the literary distinctiveness of 1 Enoch 6–11 is linked with its linguistic peculiarities, the two sets of data converge to suggest that the underlying source was a Hebrew parabiblical text. This conclusion is reinforced by the presence at Qumran of a Hebrew work very close to 1 Enoch 6–11. The work is preserved in a manuscript from cave 1, numbered 1Q19.42 Initially, twenty-one fragments were assigned to it, but frgs. 13 and 15 display a slightly different script and therefore may belong to another manuscript. The largest fragments, numbered 1 and 3, show the same hand and seem to have come from the same scroll. This is also true of frg. 2.43 As noted by the first editor, Józef Milik, these fragments are strikingly similar to certain passages from 1 Enoch, two of which fit into sections of 1 Enoch 6–11. Fragment 1 corresponds to 7:4–10 and 9:9–10, while frg. 2 parallels 9:2–3. In line with the theory assigning 1 Enoch 6–11 to a lost Book of Noah, Milik thought that these fragments indeed came from this supposedly lost work, and labeled the fragments accordingly. Nevertheless, the existence of a lost Book of Noah remains

38 Cf. Deut 10:17; Ps 136:2. Note the Qumranic ‫( אל אלים‬e. g., 4Q403 1 ii 26; 4Q405 i 3) and the Aramaic parallel in Dan 2:47. 39 Cf. Deut 10:17; Ps 136:3. 40 Cf. Sir 51:12. See Dan 2:37. See the article “The Book of Parables (1 Enoch 37–71) and the Qumran Community Worldview” in this volume. 41 Cf., e. g., Michael A. Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978), 69. However, Black allows also the possibility of “a Hebrew as well as Aramaic Book of Enoch.” (idem, The Book of Enoch, 117). 42 Cf. Józef T. Milik, “1Q19. ‘Livre de Noe’,” DJD I, 84–86, 152. 43 The fragment was first published by Milik, ibid., only in transcription. The photograph of the second fragment was later published by John C. Trever, “Completion of the Publication of Some Fragments from Qumran Cave 1,” RevQ 5 (1965): 344. See Dimant, “Fallen Angels,” 132–40; Ariel Feldman, “1Q19–1Q19bis (Book of Noah),” in Ariel Feldman and Liora Goldman, Scripture and Interpretation: Qumran Texts that Rework the Bible (ed. and introduced D. Dimant; BZAW 449; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014), 14–42.

88

1 Enoch 6–11: A Fragment of a Parabiblical Work

hypothetical.44 Consequently, there is no reason for identifying 1Q19 with this putative work. We may simply assume that 1Q19 preserves remains of a work akin to the source reworked by 1 Enoch 6–11. Significantly, 1Q19 is written in Hebrew, a fact that adds weight to the hypothesis that the source of 1 Enoch 6–11 was also written in this language. Additional argument in favor of a Hebrew source is the parabiblical character of the passage and its close relationship to the biblical text. Most of the parabiblical specimens known to us from Qumran and elsewhere were composed in Hebrew. There remains, however, the problem of frg. 2 of 1Q19. This fragment relates the miraculous birth of Noah. Parallel descriptions of this episode are not found in 1 Enoch 6–11 but in 1 Enoch 106–107 and 1QGenApoc V, 12–13. Yet if we suppose that 1 Enoch 6–11 represents a truncated extract from a Hebrew original, such an original may have been more comprehensive and perhaps included also the episode on Noah’s birth, in a manner similar to 1QGenApoc. If the above reconstruction is correct, it means that the author of the Aramaic Book of Watchers extracted chs. 6–11 from a Hebrew narrative source. Further study is needed in order to explain how and why this could have been done. As a matter of fact, we know very little about the relationship between Hebrew and Aramaic literatures during Second Temple times. The evidence from Qumran shows that both literatures flourished side by side and undoubtedly drew from each other.45 In the case of 1 Enoch 6–11, the issue of the original language is further complicated by the existence of numerous Qumran texts in both Hebrew and Aramaic that mention or discuss in detail the episodes of the Watchers and of the flood. In Hebrew, fragments of Jubilees and the texts 4Q227, 4Q252, 4Q370, and 4Q422 are extant. In Aramaic, the Genesis Apocryphon, fragments of 1 Enoch, the Book of Giants, and the Birth of Noah (4Q534–536) are known. 44 Richard Steiner has argued that the reference to “the Book of the Words of Noah” from 1QGenesis Apocryphon adds weight to the possible existence of a Book of Noah. Cf. idem, “The Heading of the Book of the Words of Noah in a Fragment of the Genesis Apocryphon,” DSD 2 (1995): 66–71 (69). However, the mention of a book in a fictional work cannot be taken as proof of the existence of a real one, at least not a book in the form scholars have suggested (see, for instance, Florentino García Martínez, Qumran and Apocalyptic [STDJ 9; Leiden: Brill, 1992], 24–45 [43–44]). The main sequence of the Genesis Apocryphon, a third-person narrative that quotes a first-person speech by Noah from his book, may represent a literary device rather than a summary of a real composition. In fact, speeches by other figures such as Lamech and Enoch are quoted in 1QGenApoc, as is clear from the remains of cols. I–VI. See Esther Eshel, “The Genesis Apocryphon and Other Related Texts from Qumran: The Birth of Noah,” in Aramaica Qumranica (eds. K. Berthelot and D. Stökl Ben Ezra; STDJ 94; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 277–94 (277–80). 45 Note the example of the Hebrew Apocryphon of Jeremiah C, which shares unique features with the Animal Apocalypse (=1 En. 85–90) that is extant only in Aramaic. See the comments in Dimant, DJD XXX, 108–10. Likewise, the Book of Tobit is extant at Qumran in five Aramaic copies and one Hebrew copy. Cf. the article “Tobit and the Qumran Aramaic Texts” in this volume.

1 Enoch 6–11: A Fragment of a Parabiblical Work

89

While the precise nature of the Book of Watchers needs further study, we may already assign 1 Enoch 6–11 to the growing body of texts that rework the Bible to various degrees. The prominence and variety of this type of works, and their wide diffusion during Second Temple times, are just beginning to be understood with their emergence from the recesses of the Qumran library. In the future, we may be able to detect more sources of this type embedded in various ancient Jewish compositions.

Ideology and History in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90)* A renewal of interest in the apocryphal and apocalyptic Jewish literature in the last decades has been one of the most notable features of scholarship related to ancient Judaism. It has been due in part to the discovery among the Dead Sea Scrolls of a wealth of hitherto unknown apocryphal and apocalyptic works. Of particular impact has been the discovery of Aramaic copies of 1 Enoch among these documents, and the gradual charting of 1 Enoch’s links to other Qumran writings such as the Aramaic Levi Document, the Genesis Apocryphon, and Jubilees. One of the major results of this discovery is the realization that 1 Enoch is a compendium of five independent works about Enoch.1 The fourth Enochic section, the so-called Book of Dreams (1 Enoch 83–90) is of special interest since it contains dream-visions about history that were revealed to Enoch before his marriage (1 En. 83:2). The first dream (1 Enoch 83–84) foretells the imminent flood, while the second, longer vision unfolds the entire course of history (1 Enoch 85–90). It is the latter that is the object of the present essay.2 The second vision of Enoch was well known and probably read at Qumran since four Aramaic copies from this library have survived.3 It has been labeled the Animal Apocalypse (henceforth AA) in modern critical discussions since it

* The original article was published in Hebrew in 1982 and republished in 2010 in the same language with some bibliographic updates. For the present volume, it has been translated, reedited, and updated. 1 Cf. Milik, Books of Enoch. On the different sections of 1 Enoch, see the introduction in the article “The Book of Parables (1 Enoch 37–71) and the Qumran Community Worldview” in this volume. 2 For recent commentaries on the Animal Apocalypse, see Matthew Black, The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch (SVTP 7; Leiden: Brill, 1985), 257–80; Patrick A. Tiller, A Commentary on the Animal Apocalypse of 1 Enoch (SBLEJL 4; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993); George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 354–408; Daniel Assefa, L’Apocalypse des Animaux (1 Hen 85–90): une propagande militaire? (JSJSup 120; Leiden: Brill, 2007); Daniel C. Olson, A New reading of the Animal Apocalypse of 1 Enoch: “All Nations Shall be Blessed” (SVTP 24; Leiden: Brill, 2013). The classical commentary of Robert H. Charles, The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1912), 185–217 is still of value. See also the article “Jerusalem and the Temple in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90) in Light of the Qumran Community Worldview” in this volume. 3 4Q204 4; 4Q205 2 i–iii; 4Q206 4 i–iii; 4Q207 1. Cf. Milik, Books of Enoch.

92

Ideology and History in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90)

presents the development of history in a symbolic manner in which mankind is represented by animals and divine beings by humans.4 Its date, like that of the book of Daniel, may be determined fairly accurately from the point at which the symbolic occurrences cease to reflect real historical events. It is generally agreed that the work was authored at the initial stage of the Maccabean crisis, a date based among other things on the understanding that 90:13–18 refers to the first victories of Judah Maccabeus.5 This dating is convincing not only for literary reasons but also because it is supported by the Qumran data. For, one of the Qumran copies of the AA, 4Q207, is dated to 150–125 B. C. E. and therefore its composition must have been earlier, especially since it was available at Qumran in several copies.6 It is possible, then, that these copies were penned one or two generations after the composition of the book itself. The AA displays definite affinity with the Qumran community literature but this corpus has not been exploited fully for the interpretation of the AA. For instance, no complete inventory has been established of the links between the AA and the Qumranic Hebrew work Apocryphon of Jeremiah C,7 or its connections with Aramaic writings from Qumran, such as the Book of Giants. Moreover, as the entire Qumran library is accessible to scholars today, an updated assessment is required of many aspects of the AA, especially its view of history. The present study aims at partially fulfilling this task. The AA evinces the view, shared by many ancient apocalyptic visions, that history is a finite sequence, the character of which was predetermined by divine scheme.8 According to this view, the temporal sequence consists of time modules labeled by the Scrolls as “periods” (‫ (קצים‬or “periods of God” (‫)קצי אל‬. The length of these periods, the events taking place in them, and their place in the succession of units are all fixed. Since the sequence length is predetermined, it can be calculated by those who know the secret of its computation, which is

commentators refer to the AA as an allegory. Cf. n. 11 below. Charles, Book of Enoch, liii, 208; Milik, Books of Enoch, 44; Black, Book of Enoch, 20; Tiller, A Commentary, 78–79. In the opinion of Menahem Kister, the events referred to in the said passage may be eschatological and not historical and therefore cannot be used for dating. See idem, “Concerning the History of the Essenes: Studies in the Animal Apocalypse, Jubilees and the Damascus Document,” Tarbiz 56 (1986): 1–18 (Heb.). However, the dating to the middle of the second century B. C. E. rests on additional considerations. See the following note. 6 Such a date, or a similar one, is likely also in light of the affinity AA shows to Daniel 9, the Apocalypse of Weeks (= 1 En. 93:1–10; 91:11–17), Jubilees, the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C, and some of the Qumran sectarian texts, all of which were authored around the middle of the second century B. C. E. or slightly earlier. 7 For preliminary remarks, see Dimant, DJD XXX, 109–10. The commentaries of Tiller, A Commentary and Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1 were written before the appearance of the above DJD volume and so they were unable to make use of the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C for the interpretation of the AA. 8 See the article “Apocalyptic and the Qumran Library” in this volume. 4 Some 5 Cf.

Ideology and History in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90)

93

based mostly on a septenary chronology of year-weeks and jubilees.9 Some of the apocalyptic writings, such as the Apocalypse of Weeks, relate this chronology to the entire historical course; others, such as Jubilees, produce computation for the first part of history, while yet others advance a specific calculus only for the last section of human history, as does Daniel 9. The AA chose a medial course: it reviews history from its beginning but supplies specific chronology only to its final phase. The vision is written in the first-person singular as the personal story of Enoch, in which he relates to Metushelah what was revealed to him in a night dream before he was married (85:1–3).10 Its content attests to its divine origin, for it surveys history from beginning to end. As with other similar visions in apocalyptic writings, such as Daniel and 4 Ezra, Enoch’s dream-vision bears an enigmatic aspect, since it is presented in symbols.11 However, here it is presented without interpretation unlike other symbolic visions in Daniel and 4 Ezra. This is perhaps due to the character of the symbols; they are simple and self-evident, mostly taken from the biblical imagery. Yet, though simple, they are not simplistic. In fact, they transmit a complex ideological fabric that demands careful analysis.

I. The Historical Sequence The author of the AA employs three symbolic systems to represent the tripartite course of history; the first contains bestial symbols, the second consists of symbols of blindness and sight, the third one is expressed in colors. In addition, the author uses two levels of action, the human one, represented by animals, and the supernatural one, represented by human figures. Since the bestial images are central to the description and form a coherent sequence, they should be viewed as providing the axis for the vision. These bestial symbols depict historical development through the nature of the animals partaking in the respective activi-

  9 For this view of history, see the article “Election and Laws of History in the Apocalyptic Literature” in this volume. 10 The vision is therefore presented as a testament. See the article “The Biography of Enoch and the Books of Enoch” in this volume. Stuckenbruck suggests that Enoch’s unmarried status may connote a state of purity in preparation for the vision. Cf. Loren T. Stuckenbruck, “‘Reading the Present’ in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90),” in Reading the Present in the Qumran Library: The Perception of the Contemporary by Means of Scriptural Interpretations (eds. K. de Troyer and A. Lange; SBLSS 30; Brill: Leiden, 2005), 91–102 (93). 11 Several scholars view the AA as an allegory. See Tiller, Commentary, 22; Olson, New Reading, 2–3. Assefa, L’Apocalypse des Animaux, 161–89 proposes a more nuanced discussion of this issue and finally chooses to call the Apocalypse “an allegorical fable” (ibid., p. 189). I would prefer the adjective “symbolic” since many of the details in the AA are built on biblical symbols.

94

Ideology and History in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90)

ties. The different types of animals involved divide history into three periods: the antediluvian generations, postdiluvian history, and the eschatological era.12 a. Antediluvian era (from Adam until after the flood – 88:3–89:9). In this era, the size of the living creatures is larger than normal, probably symbolizing the unusual longevity of beings at that time.13 Humans are represented by bulls, while the giants, being the offspring of the angels who coupled with women, are depicted by three large wild animals: elephants, camels, and wild asses.14 The contrast between domesticated animals, representing mankind, and wild animals, standing for the giants with their aberrancy and savagery, is significant. The mention of three kinds of animals that symbolize the giants mirrors the tradition that three types of offspring were born as a result of the angels’ misdeed. It was also known to Jubilees (7:22) and to the Greek version of 1 En. 7:1–215 but is not mentioned in the Book of Watchers (= 1 En. 1–36), which was undoubtedly known to the AA.16 Additionally, the author of the AA applies color symbols to signal piety and righteousness as opposed to evil and sin. The former is indicated by the choice of white and other colors for the elected lineage, that of Adam, Seth, Enoch, Noah, and Shem. All the bulls of this lineage are white. Apparently, the use of white expresses the divine element that is transmitted in this 12 Tiller, Commentary, 18–20 and Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 355–54 have different divisions. The prehistoric era terminates in the flood (88:3–89:8), the historic period includes most of the visionary details (89:9–90:27), and the eschatological era is shorter (90:28–38). Assefa, L’Apocalypse des Animaux, 98 estimates that in both commentaries the eschatological era is too short. Although he is essentially right, he bases himself mainly on the bestial symbolism whereas the vision employs other symbols through which a more complex picture is evoked. Olson, New Reading, 145–231 has only two periods, with the first extending from creation to the divided kingdoms (85:2–89:58) and the second from the rule of the seventy shepherds to the eschatological era (89:59–90:42). 13 The longevity of archaic historical beings is alluded to by the Book of Watchers (= 1 En. 25:6). For the idea that due to its sins mankind lost this longevity, see Gen 6:4 (compare Gen 47:9). The notion is elaborated by Jub. 23:9; CD X, 8–10. Compare Gen. Rab. 26, 7; 41, 8; Tg. Ps.-J. Gen 14:13; Deut 3:11. 14 A wild ass also symbolized Ishmael (89:11; see n. 70 below), so perhaps reflected here is the tradition that giants were the autochthonous inhabitants of Canaan, recorded both by the Hebrew Bible (e. g., Gen 14:5; Num 13:22; Deut 2:20–21; Josh 11:22) and later legends told about giants that survived the flood, such as Og king of Bashan (cf. LXX Gen 10:8; Tg. Ps.J. Gen 14:13; b. Nid. 41a). The AA prescribes the complete annihilation of the giants (89:6), a tradition preserved also by 4Q370 i 6. See Ariel Feldman, “4Q370 (Admonition on the Flood),” in Ariel Feldman and Liora Goldman, Scripture and Interpretation: Qumran Texts that Rework the Bible (ed. D. Dimant; BZAW 449; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014), 43–72 (44, 53). 15 Sections from this version are cited by the Byzantine chronographer George Syncellus who was active between the last part of the seventh and the beginning of the eighth centuries. For a more recent edition of these passages, see Matthew Black, Apocalypsis Henochi Graece (PVTG 3; Leiden: Brill, 1970), 21–22. The passage was translated by William Adler and Paul Tuffin, The Chronography of George Synkellos: A Byzantine Chronicle of Universal History from the Creation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 16. 16 Cf. Milik, Books of Enoch, 46; Tiller, Commentary, 82–90; Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 359–60. See n. 21 below.

Ideology and History in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90)

95

family17 for, at times, the vision depicts the angelic divine emissaries as “men in white” (87:2; 90:21, 31). The color black depicts sinful individuals. Black bulls represent Cain and his offspring, who sinned when the angels descended to earth (85:8; 86:2). Ham son of Noah is also depicted as being black, indicating his sin towards his father (Gen 9:21).18 A special role is assigned to the use of the color red, which appears only in ancient history. It is used first to symbolize Abel and the story of his murder by Cain (85:3–4). His mother Eve laments him and Adam consoles her (85:6–7). Red is also the color of Japhet, son of Noah (89:9). Perhaps it suggests the aggressive and cruel nature of the Gentiles who issued from Japhet (the Kittiim?), who appear in later history.19 Following Abel’s murder, humanity is bifurcated into two lines, one consisting of black and the other of white individuals. Both groups are the offspring of Eve. First she gives birth to a white bull, Seth, and later has many black descendants (85:7), while in his turn the white bull breeds a white lineage. This detail provides evidence of the tradition that primordial humanity was composed of two family lines, one of the sons of Cain, the Cainites, and the other of Seth’s sons, the Sethites.20 The description of this period also covers the sins of the angels with the women (86:1–7), the crimes of the giants against mankind (86:7), and the battles among the giants (87:4). In these details, the AA is clearly dependent on the Book of Watchers (= 1 Enoch 1–36) since they fit well with 1 En. 7:3–4.21 Protagonists that are not human are active during this era, for they are not represented by animals or humans but by astral symbols. These stars symbolize the sinful angels who went to the daughters of men (86:203; 88:3; see 90:21), inspired by the biblical nomenclature “the host of heaven” (‫צבא‬ ‫ )השמים‬used for both angelic beings (e. g., 1 Kgs 22:19; 2 Chr 18:18) and astral entities (e. g., Deut 4:19; 2 Kgs 23:5). Human figures are reserved only for holy 17 Note Gen 5:3, stating that Seth was born “in the image” of Adam, together with Gen 1:20, which states that Adam was created “in the image” of God. 18 The presentation of Ham as black probably also relates to his being the father of Cush (Gen 10:6). The tradition of Ham’s black color also has been preserved in the midrash. See Gen. Rab. 36, 7; Pirqe R. El. 24; Midr. Ha-Gadol on Gen 9:27. 19 Cf. Gen 10:2–3; Jub. 9:6–10. 20 In later adaptations of this motif, the women who mated with the angels were Cainites, but in the depiction of the episode in the AA no distinction is made between the two genealogies. For a survey of the later adaptations, see Albertus F. J. Klijn, “From Creation to Noah in the Second Dream-Vision of the Ethiopic Enoch,” in Miscellanea Neotestamentica 1 (eds. T. Baarda et al.; Leiden: Brill, 1978), 147–60; Annette Yoshiko Reed, Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity: The Reception of Enochic Literature (Cambridge: University Press, 2005), 221–26. 21 The version of the story in the AA is a combination of two different stories: one deals with Shemihaza and the sinful angels, the other with the corruption wrought by Azael. The two are combined already in the Book of Watchers (= 1 En. 6–8) but their distinct character is still recognizable, whereas in the AA they are merged completely into a single story. However, the appearances of a single “star” and the following many stars suggest a knowledge of the separate traditions. See Dimant, “Fallen Angels,” 54–67, 81–86.

96

Ideology and History in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90)

angels, emissaries of God. Thus, the distinction between the iniquitous and the divine angels is indicated subtly by the difference between astral entities and human beings. This distinction is seen clearly with the depiction of seven white human-like figures who take Enoch up “to a high place” (87:2–3), apparently a symbol of the heavenly temple. They are to be identified with the seven angels mentioned in the Book of Watchers (= 1 En. 20) and the Astronomical Book (= 1 En. 81:5). These figures are defined in two groups: “four” and “another three” (ibid.). The four are probably the archangels Michael, Uriel, Raphael, and Gabriel, mentioned in the Book of Watchers (= 1 En. 9:122). According to this description, Enoch sees in his dream how he is taken by the archangels to the heavenly temple from where he watches the unfolding of human history as it is revealed by the AA. That Enoch indeed observes the progress of events as they are developing is indicated by Enoch’s repeated statement “I saw” (e. g. 88:1; 89:39, 51).23 Among the events observed by Enoch is the flood. Of particular interest is the depiction of the construction of the ark. In order to accomplish the work, a white bull symbolizing Noah receives secret instructions from one of the archangels, is transformed into a man, and performs the task (89:1).24 Alluded to here is Noah’s special status as the righteous man of his generation (Gen 6:9) who was worthy to receive instructions to build the ark, to implement them, and to survive the flood. In this venture, Noah parallels Moses who was transformed from a sheep to a man in order to build the tabernacle (89:36). So both acquired divine aspects that permitted them to accomplish their respective tasks. b. Human history from the patriarchs to the future Jerusalem (89:10– 90:36). This period differs from the preceding one in that it is populated by cattle, symbolizing Israel, and by wild beasts and wild fowl, representing the Gentiles. One of the distinct differences between the creatures of the primordial times and those of subsequent history is their size. Later animals, both cattle and wild beasts, are smaller. As suggested above, the difference may represent the longevity that characterized the antediluvian generations compared with the much shorter lifespan typical of more recent individuals. However, the transition from bulls to smaller cattle as symbols of mankind is gradual. Noah and his sons are still bulls, as are Abraham and Isaac (89:7, 10–11). But the offspring of Noah’s sons are various wild beasts of a normal size (89:10). The picture reflects the biblical depiction of the Gentiles who branched off from Noah’s sons (Genesis 10). Presented as bulls, Abraham and Isaac are born into a world populated by these beasts. Their size alludes perhaps to their long life and assigns them to the Book of Watchers (= 1 En. 20) and the Astronomical Book (= 1 En. 71:8, 13). visions and what he heard from the angels about history are mentioned in several Enochic works, such as the Book of Watchers (= 1 En. 14:8–16:4), the Apocalypse of Weeks (= 1 En. 93:2), and the story of the birth of Noah (= 1 En. 106:19). See also Jub. 4:19. 24 In the Book of Parables (1 En. 37–71), a passage about Noah states that the angels built the ark (= 1 En. 67:2). 22 Cf.

23 Enoch’s

Ideology and History in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90)

97

primordial humanity, probably also due to their piety and moral stature, but they act under conditions of ordinary humanity. The transition from bulls to sheep that takes place in the elect line occurs only in the life of Jacob, who is a sheep (89:12). Perhaps it is an allusion to Jacob’s words to Pharaoh about the brevity of his life compared with that of his ancestors (Gen 47:9). The stature of Abraham and Isaac is designated also by their colors. Both are white, the color of the Sethians. Especially salient is the case of Isaac, for he is a white bull and carries on the family line of Seth, whereas his brother Ishmael is an ordinary animal, a wild ass (89:11). A similar situation occurs in the following generation, where Jacob is a white sheep while his brother Esau is a black boar. Although Jacob’s white color defines him as a descendant of Seth’s line, his smaller size places him in the realm of ordinary humanity. The color symbolism, which plays an important role in primordial history and the lives of the patriarchs, reappears only in the depiction of the final eschatological era (90:32, 37). The historical developments that occupy this section concern mainly the flock, namely Israel. They involve two other actors related to the flock: the master of the flock, a symbol of the God of Israel, and the seventy shepherds, who control the flock during seventy periods, the final phase of the historical process. In addition, the AA employs other symbols to represent fidelity and sin. They apply only to the domesticated animals, namely to Israel, and therefore are taken from the realm of cattle imagery: the flock is dwelling in the pen or in the house of its master, representing its loyalty to the master (89:50). Their departure from the master’s house and their straying in different ways depicts the idolatrous cults of Israel (89:51, 54). With these symbols, the AA pictures the relationship between God and Israel, their periods of loyalty and betrayal through idolatry. Another pair of symbols is added to this system: blindness as opposed to clear sight. When the flock strays and leaves the house of its master its eyes are blinded (89:25, 41, 74, 84). When it is loyal to its master, its eyes are open (89:25, 41; 90:9). Blindness while wandering in the desert and during the First Temple era symbolizes the worship of the golden calf and other idols (89:35, 41, 54), while blindness during the Second Temple period probably represents misunderstanding of the Torah precepts (89:74; 90:7). Although blindness and clear sight are typically human and therefore maladapted to the animal symbolism, they are nevertheless used throughout the AA, being anchored in the biblical prophetic imagery.25 25 Cf., e. g., Isa 6:10; 29:18; 35:5; 42:18–20; Zeph 1:17. On the symbol of blindness, see Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 380–81. James VanderKam argued that the symbol of blindness and open eyes is built on the etymology of the name “Israel” as “one who sees.” He based his argument on Philo’s interpretation but there is no need to look that far, for the image has clear biblical roots. Cf. James C. VanderKam, “Open and Closed Eyes in the Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 85–90),” in The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel (eds. H. Najman and J. H. Newman; JSJSup 83; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 279–92, and my review of this volume in JSJ 37 (2006): 473–75.

98

Ideology and History in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90)

c. Developments leading to the eschatological era (90:6–16). Just as the transition from primordial history into the period following the flood is gradual, so is the transition from history to the redemptive stages and the eschatological age. The initial stage that will lead to final salvation is marked by the birth of a particular group of white lambs, who open their eyes after a long spell of the flock’s blindness (90:7). These lambs have a special role in leading the flock in the right way (90:8–10), a preparatory stage for the concluding eschatological phases. d. The eschatological era (90:17–38). This period consists of two phases. In the first one, the lambs who grew up to be adult sheep lead the flock to a victory over the attacking fowl and to the judgment of the wicked (90:17–27). This stage is concluded with the building of a new temple and the gathering of all the white pure sheep into it (90:32). The following stage differs from the first one in that the bulls, familiar from primordial history, reappear. The final point of the redemptive era is marked by the appearance of a white bull and all the sheep become white bulls with it (90:38). Thus, the vision shows that humanity during the eschatological era is similar to the antediluvian population and is fundamentally different from that of the regular historical periods. However, while primordial history is characterized by two types of creatures, white bulls and black bulls, the eschatological era is inhabited only by white bulls, namely by the pious righteous. Thus, the idea of the final return to the beginnings, which is well known from other sources, is not entirely identical here. It is presented as the return only to the righteous aspect of primeval humanity. History as recorded by the AA provides clear demarcation of the various periods but at the same time brings forward their interconnectedness. This feature is articulated by the symbolic details and the organizing principles of the entire sequence. The symbol of bulls is the novel aspect of the AA26 but it is but a broadening of the symbol of the flock, culled from a rich biblical tradition.27 Especially prominent is the influence of Jeremiah 23, Ezekiel 34, and Zechariah 11 on the flock and shepherd imagery, since these prophets developed the flock metaphor in detail.28 Also the metaphor of the Gentiles as wild beasts that devour 26 Perhaps some influence of Deut 33:17, where a horned wild ox is the symbol of Joseph, may be assumed. 27 The metaphor that compares a people and its rulers to a flock and its shepherds is a common image in the literature of the ancient Near East. Cf. Jacob Klein, “Chapter 23,” in Jeremiah (ed. M. Haran; The World of the Bible 11; Tel Aviv: Revivim, 1983), 125–27 (Heb.); Rimon Kasher, Ezekiel (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 2004), 2:675–76 (Heb.). For its use in Ps 77:21; 78:52; and 100:4, see Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 391. 28 See Kasher, Ezekiel, 663–76; Adam Simon van der Woude, “Die Hirtenallegorie von Sacharja XI,” JNSL 12 (1984): 139–49; André Caquot, “Brèves remarques sur l’allegorie des pasteurs en Zacharie 11,” in Mélanges bibliques et Orientaux en l’honneur de M. Mathias Delcor (eds. A. Caquot et al.; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1985), 45–55.

Ideology and History in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90)

99

the sheep is anchored in the biblical figures.29 However, the biblical portrayals rarely combine the images of the flock with those of the wild beasts. It is the AA that incorporates them into a single coherent picture, thus providing, in fact, its own interpretation of the biblical prophecies. In the depiction of relations between the flock and its master, the author outlines the character of the sheep as domesticated animals that exist under the shelter of their master: they earn food and protection in exchange for obedience to the master’s rule. The wild beasts embody the opposite nature: they have no permanent protection or food but are also free of any obligation. By way of these metaphors, the AA presents Israel and the Gentiles as having two opposed natures. Israel exists under obligation to the divine and all its actions are measured according to its fidelity to or betrayal of that duty. In contrast, the beasts, namely the Gentiles, are not bound by any religious duty. The symbolism of the flock of sheep in contrast to the attacking wild beasts represents the distinction between domesticated and wild animals. The domestication expresses the relationship of Israel with God. Being outside such a relationship, the wild animals, namely the Gentiles, lack any cultural or religious framework; by their very nature they are the brutal and ferocious enemies of Israel. Therefore, divine providence is applicable only to Israel and does not relate to the Gentiles. This clear opposition is to be resolved in a particular way during the eschatological process: all the wicked Gentiles and the sinners of Israel will be annihilated whereas the remaining Gentiles will come to worship Israel and its God and to live under his rule (90:32, 36–38; cf. Isa 2:1–2; Mic 4:1–2). Such a conclusion of the historical process sheds light on the opposition between domesticated and wild animals, an opposition expressing the fundamental law of human history: humanity was created to live in the service of God. This is why the antediluvian generations are symbolized by domesticated cattle, including their sinful individuals. All of them are obligated to fidelity to God. Therefore, the sins of the generation of the flood are similar to Israel’s sin in worshipping the golden calf (Exod 32:4), namely that of leaving the sheep pen (86:2; 89:34– 35). The similarity suggests a similar obligation to serve God. The punishment of the sinners is also similar: annihilation by waters during the flood, and annihilation in a burning pit at the final judgment. Thus, the law governing the historical course is revealed particularly in the transition from one era to another. Primordial history comes to an end with the flood (89:1–9), while history proper is concluded with the final judgment (90:24–27). The two transitional phases are parallel not only in the location in the sequence but also in the developments characterizing each one. The transition from bulls to normal sheep takes place during the generations of the flood. 29 Cf. Isa 57:9; Jer 12:9; Ezek 34:8, 25, 28. Compare also the picture of Gentiles eating Israel in Isa 9:11; Jer 10:25; Ezek 39:17.

100

Ideology and History in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90)

Noah and his three sons are still bulls whereas their progeny are wild beasts, namely the Gentiles (89:9–10). As such, in the days of Noah the Gentiles are no longer under direct divine providence neither are they directly subordinate to God.30 This is also suggested by the nature of the symbol “master of the flock,” which implies that only the flock is under the master’s guidance. Indeed, the master of the flock is first mentioned only in the days of Jacob (89:14), i. e., upon the birth of Israel as a people. The Gentiles, offspring of Noah, are wild beasts born to bulls (89:10), whereas Jacob/Israel is a sheep born from the bulls (89:12). Regarding Israel, the change is marked by a transition from a large domesticated animal to a smaller one. Thus, Israel inherits the direct relationship that existed between God and mankind that was typical of Seth’s descendants before the flood. Indeed, the depiction of the biblical patriarchs by the AA indicates that Israel prolongs the righteous line, that of the white bulls, from Adam to Noah. The idea that the patriarchs are the progeny of Seth and Noah is, of course, embedded in the Genesis account (Genesis 5, 11; 1 Chr 1:1–28). Similar depictions are offered by other contemporary writings.31 But in the AA it becomes systematic and, with the help of various colors, the author expresses the view that the patriarchs’ righteous lineage continues that from Adam to Noah while Ishmael and Esau take up the corrupt genealogy of Cain. That Jacob concludes the patriarchal line is indicated by his white color,32 the color that marked the righteous line in primordial times but reappears only at the dawn of the redemptive era as the mark of the elected group (89:10). Thus, as the first sheep, Jacob is the first representative of Israel as a nation, heir of the elected lineage and himself the father of the chosen people. He parallels the white elected group at the threshold of the eschatological era that grows into the entire nation of Israel and finally into the entirety of humanity (90:32, 36). So the appearance of this small select group signals the return of the elective element that typified the patriarchs and the righteous line in antediluvian times. Humanity of the eschatological era will become again like the humans who preceded the flood and the angels’ sins. This is a symmetry specific to the AA. The picture emerging from this depiction views the historical sequence as progressing along dual axes, one circular and the other straight. The circular course is outlined by parallelism between the beginning of history and its conclusion, with the elect elements appearing in both. But the symmetry between 30 Genesis 10 lists seventy Gentile nations that branched off from the sons of Noah. However, in the reworked passage of the AA (89:10), only fourteen types of animals are listed. It seems therefore that the author did not connect the number seventy with the nations even though he had a biblical source for this notion. This fact is disregarded by scholars who claim that the seventy shepherds mentioned later represent the seventy angels appointed over the nations. Cf., for instance, Milik, Books of Enoch, 254–55. See n. 61 below. 31 See, for instance, the Apocalypse of Weeks (= 1 En. 93:5). The list of generations in the Damascus Document begins with the flood (CD II, 17). 32 For Jacob as the last of the patriarchs, see Jub. 22:12–14.

Ideology and History in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90)

101

the two also reveals their differences: A sinful element appears at an early point in primordial history, symbolized by the red and black colors pertaining to Cain and his offspring. From this mixture grows the evil and sin of the sinful angels and the women (86:2–6), a corruption that continues into historical times by both the Gentiles (89:11) and Israel (89:56–68). So the historical line may be understood as a period of a gradual purification process aimed at re-establishing the righteous element as the sole factor in the eschatological reality. In this process, the evil elements in history, the Gentiles, and finally also the wicked of Israel, are completely annihilated (90:11, 26–27). This echoes the scene of the world’s final purification in the eschatological era as depicted by Qumran sectarian literature.33 Perhaps the idea of a return to an Adamic sinless state is also evoked here.34 The historical process as portrayed here may be described as a rhythm of separation and reunion.35 The initial separation appears in Adam’s sons: with his black color, Cain signals the coming of sin and wickedness in the murder of Abel (85:3), whereas the white bulls from Seth onwards symbolize loyalty to God. The dichotomy between the righteous and the wicked continues into the historical times in the form of the separation of Israel as the flock from the Gentiles as wild beasts and birds of prey. The separation culminates when Israel itself disavows its own nature and vocation; it is blinded and erring, vulnerable to incessant attacks from the wild beasts (89:54–48). As punishment, God as master of the flock withdraws his providence from Israel and delivers the nation into the hands of evil shepherds (89:59–90:16). This climax of sin and punishment also signals the change in the direction of the process towards unification within Israel and later within humanity in general. From this point onwards, the events are directed toward re-establishing the previous harmony. Firstly appears the righteous group within Israel (90:9), subsequently all the Israelites become righteous (90:35–36), and finally they are joined by the Gentiles (90:32). By this final act of unification, mankind as a whole becomes like the first Adam under the leadership of the Messiah (90:37–38). The placing of the Messiah in symmetry to Adam perhaps echoes the well-known idea that the Messiah is a type of second Adam.36 The fact that this progress takes place in the middle period of human history acquires here a particular meaning: it is through this era that 33 Cf.

1QS IV, 19–23. Compare 1QHa XI, 27–37. for instance, 1 En. 10:19; 2 Bar. 29:51; Rom 5:12–21. 35 Compare the portrayal of the temporal course as an alternation of righteous and wicked periods in the Apocalypse of Weeks (= 1 En. 93:3–10). A similar picture is introduced by an alternation of bright and dark waters that symbolize the righteous and wicked periods in the vision of history shown to Baruch (2 Bar. 53:1–11). For the Apocalypse of Weeks, see Matthias Henze, “The Apocalypse of Weeks and the Architecture of the End of Time,” in Henoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a Forgotten Connection (ed. G. Boccaccini; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 207–09. 36 Cf., e. g., Life of Adam and Eve (Greek version), 28:4; 41:3. 34 See,

102

Ideology and History in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90)

the process that leads humanity to a purified and just future takes place. Thus, according to the AA, the history of Israel embodies the mystery of the entire historical process, and explicates the task appointed to this people.

II. The History of the People of Israel (98:10–90:13) It was noted above that this era is governed by the opposition between the domesticated animals, which, it should be noted, are pure animals, and wild beasts, which are impure creatures. But other characteristics not found in the antediluvian era also appear in these times. The symbol of the master of the flock is presented here for the first time in connection with the descent of the sons of Jacob to Egypt (89:14), for the master of the flock may appear only when the flock comes into being, namely with the birth of Israel as a people, a reality that is created only by Jacob’s sons. Therefore, according to the author of the AA, such a presentation implies that the God who dominated history is the God of Israel. In fact, there is no other God; he is the only God in existence. But such a setting creates curious omissions: the creation of man is described without referring to the creator (85:3), and the punishment of the flood generation is related without mentioning the one who inflicts the punishment; the only reference is to his angelic emissaries (89:1–2). Nevertheless, it is clear that the writer is cognizant of God’s presence in this era, since people of that period are symbolized by domesticated animals that live in pens (86:2). The use of the symbol of the master of the flock implies another puzzling choice. Since the master of the flock is not the one who tends them, it is expected that a shepherd would represent the God of Israel, as appears in the biblical prophecies.37 But the shepherds in the AA symbolize another group. Thus, by avoiding the biblical metaphoric pair of shepherd and flock, and opting for a symbolic triad, flock, its shepherds, and its master, the author sketches a more complex relationship, although it too is rooted in biblical imagery (Jer 23:1–4; Ezekiel 34; Zech 10:3; 11:4–1738). With this symbolic triad, the AA outlines the fortunes of Israel from the exodus to the dawn of redemption. This long era is subdivided into three ages. a. From the descent of Jacob’s sons to Egypt to the establishment of the First Temple (89:14–50) – The beginning of this period is designated by the descent to Egypt (89:14), the servitude in Egypt, and the exodus under the leadership of 37 Cf.,

e. g., Isa 40:11; Jer 31:10; Ezek 34:12; Mic 7:14. Compare Ps 80:2. all of these sources, the God of Israel is depicted as the master of the flock who appoints shepherds over his flock or discharges them for mishandling it. A consistent distinction, even opposition, appears in these passages between the master of the flock and its shepherds. Zechariah describes God as intentionally appointing “a foolish shepherd” (Zech 11:15) over “the flock doomed to slaughter” (Zech 11:4, 7). Apparently, the AA drew from here the idea that God appoints evil shepherds over his people in order that they would kill some of the flock. 38 In

Ideology and History in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90)

103

God himself. The culmination of this period comes with the giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai (89:21–31).39 This era is typified by full harmony between Israel and his God. It is expressed symbolically by the flock following its master with open eyes. On his side, the master himself tends the flock, protects it from the wolves, symbolizing the Egyptians,40 and feeds it in the desert (89:28). This is a symbolic depiction of the biblical episodes of the exodus and the wandering in the desert. A similar situation appears in two other episodes. With the completion of the Solomonic temple, the flock and its master live in the master’s house, and the flock’s eyes are open (89:50). This is an idealized picture of the reigns of David and Solomon, when, according to the AA, a harmonious relationship prevailed between God and Israel, namely Israel followed the divine directives. Such a harmony between God and Israel appears once more in the eschatological era, just before the coming of the Messiah (90:32–36). At that point, God will dwell in the midst of his people in Jerusalem, in a close relationship similar to that he had with his people in the days of the exodus. The symbolism used here depicts the master of the flock sitting in his house surrounded by the flock (90:29, 32, 38). Thus, the AA expresses the notion that the final redemption will be similar to the first one, that of the exodus,41 and the biblical idea that in the eschatological era God will dwell in the midst of his people.42 In this way, three high points are charted on the historical axis of Israel, at its beginning, its middle, and at its end. The exodus and the giving of the Torah designate the first climax, the Solomonic temple constitutes the second one, and the eschatological culmination of history marks the third one. Between these three junctures extend two straight lines in opposite directions: from the exodus to the temple of Solomon the course develops upwards to a climax of conviviality, whereas from this temple to the final redemption the course deteriorates into growing sin and corruption. However, beside this linear progress there is also a circular process: the loyalty of Israel and its reward, the sins of Israel and their punishment. This pattern is first encountered during the wandering in the 39 According to the Ethiopic versions, the flock’s master takes the sons of Jacob to Egypt (89:14), but Jacob does so in one of the Qumran Aramaic copies of the AA (4Q206 4 ii 14). Cf. Milik, Books of Enoch, 359; Michael A. Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978), 2:202. According to the Apocalypse of Weeks, the Sinai giving of the Torah is a special climax that takes place in the fourth week of the temporal time (= 1 En. 93:6), which is the midpoint of the seven weeks of history. The three last weeks in the scheme of the Apocalypse belong to the eschatological era. 40 Cf. 89:13–27, tracing the biblical account of the Israelites in Egypt and the exodus. I follow here the translation of the Ethiopic plural ’az’əbt with the term “wolves” (cf. August Dillmann, Lexicon Linguae Aethiopicae [Leipzig: Weigel, 1865], 1055), as did, for instance, Charles, Book of Enoch; Black, Book of Enoch; Michael A. Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978), vol. 2. 41 Cf., e. g., Isa 11:15; 51:10; Hos 11:11; 12:10. 42 Cf., e. g., Ezek 43:9; Zech 2:14–15; 8:3. Compare Jub. 1:17; 11QTa XXIX, 7–8.

104

Ideology and History in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90)

desert. After the period of faithfulness to the proper cult (89:28–31) come the worship of the golden calf and its punishment by the killing of the sinful Israelites (89:32–35). Later, the same pattern is repeated. After the incident of the golden calf, Moses leads the people in the correct way and builds the tabernacle (89:35–36). The remaining time spent in the desert until the conquest of Canaan is a positive period (89:37–38) and the sin returns only in the days of the judges. Just as with Moses in the desert, it is the task of Samuel to restore Israel to the correct practice (89:49).43 The days of Samuel, Saul, and David constitute an age of magnificence leading to the apogee, the building of the First Temple. The rhythm of loyalty and reward, sin and punishment is observed also here: the reward of the conquest of Canaan comes after the desert wandering; the attacks of the Philistines in the days of Saul follow the idolatry practiced in the days of the judges; the victories and the subsequent peace are the reward for Israel’s faithfulness in that period (89:42–50). A particular significance is assigned to the figures under whose leadership Israel is led in the correct way, all being God’s emissaries: Moses, Samuel, Saul, and David. Saul is the exception. First selected by God, he later erred and his death at the hand of the Philistines is probably a punishment for it (89:42–47). In the eyes of the author, Moses, Samuel, and David are the ideal Israelite rulers who govern according to God’s will and intention.44 In their days, the relationship between Israel and its God is properly re-established and under their leadership this association attains its climax. Saul’s pursuit of David (89:47) and David’s campaigns against the neighboring peoples (89:50) are represented in this context. The building of Jerusalem, symbolized by a house, and that of the First Temple, symbolized by a tower, are described in an indefinite way without specifying who undertakes such enterprises (89:50). Notably, Solomon is not mentioned as a separate figure. Perhaps the author considered the reigns of David and his son Solomon as a single historical entity, similar to the view expressed in the Qumranic Apocryphon of Jeremiah C.45 The comparison between the leadership of Moses and that of Samuel and David sheds light on the author’s approach to leaders of the past and on his view of the future. In the personalities of Moses and Samuel, he combines charisma with political leadership but these functions are separate in the times of David and the ram, who appears at the conclusion of the historical era. Whether this ram sym43 The resemblance of Samuel to Moses is already embedded in biblical sources. Cf. Jer 15:1; Ps 99:6; 1 Chr 9:22; 2 Chr 35:18. 44 Thus, for instance, the anointing of Saul to be king is presented as the act of the master of the flock (89:42) while David is anointed as king by a sheep (Samuel) sent by the master (89:45). 45 Cf. 4Q385a 1 ii. Perhaps the AA also adopts the view of 1 Chronicles 22 that David prepared all the materials and teams of workers for the building of the temple. Cf. Sara Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought (2nd rev. ed.; Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang, 1997), 226.

Ideology and History in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90)

105

bolizes Judah Maccabeus or an idealized figure that signals the beginning of the redemptive process, the AA views it as a warrior with special leadership qualities (90:13–14; compare 90:37–38). So the figure renews kingship of the type resembling that of David’s descendants, since the symbol of the ram represents only them, while other leaders are sheep.46 A select group of “lambs” are introduced close to the conclusion of history; they play a role similar to that of Moses and Samuel in attempting to bring Israel back to the correct way (90:6, 10).47 Of particular interest is the reference to the generation of the returnees from the Babylonian exile, marking events described by Ezra and Nehemiah. Three sheep are mentioned who return to Jerusalem and rebuild the city and the Second Temple (89:72–73). It is difficult to determine which figures are involved, whether they are Zerubabel, Ezra, and Nehemiah (according to Ezra 3:2; 5:2, 7; and Nehemiah 1–2) or Joshua, Zerubabel, and Ezra (according to Zechariah 3 and Ezra 3:2). Whoever is meant here, it is clear that the author’s opinion of their activities is not favorable, for their times are marked by the total blindness of Israel (89:72–74).48 One aspect of this blindness is the fact that the sacrifices brought into this second temple are impure (89:73–74; compare Mal 1:7,11). Here, the negative attitude of the author towards the Second Temple is stated explicitly.49 Particularly significant in this system is the symbol of the house, which appears throughout the entire vision. It stands for the tabernacle after the idolatrous worship of the golden calf, and the Israelites take it with them to Canaan (89:40). In the days of David’s rule, the house symbolizes Jerusalem. The temple built in Jerusalem is represented by a tower built for the master of the flock and in which he dwells (89:50). The relationship between the flock, the house, the tower, and the master of the flock has a central role in the following process, for it is used to outline the growing sin in Israel as well as the future redemption.50 b. From the days following the establishment of the First Temple to the appearance of the seventy shepherds (89:51–58) – The period is marked by sin and 46 In the Greek version of 1 Enoch, in which the sole surviving passage is from chapter 89 (cf. Black, Book of Enoch, 37–38), the ram at first symbolizes Saul (89:42–44). 47 Perhaps the figure is inspired by the image in Zech 11:11: “the poor of the flock who are faithful to me.” 48 Also according to the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C, the period following the return to Zion is one of erring and blindness (4Q390 1 7–9). The positive depiction of the first generation of returnees (4Q390 1 5–7) is exceptional, but it relates to a short period, and is followed by a long sequence of sinful generations. 49 A reserved attitude to the Second Temple is imparted by some Qumran sectarian works (cf. CD V, 6–11; VI, 11–19). Such an attitude is also conveyed by the Temple Scroll in that it describes in detail a temple that is considerably different from the contemporary one. See also Josephus’s remark that the Essenes did not bring sacrifices to the temple (Ant. xviii, 19). 50 See the article “Jerusalem and the Temple in the Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 85–90) in Light of the Qumran Community Worldview” in this volume.

106

Ideology and History in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90)

error, depicted by the flock leaving the house and straying in many directions. It thus has a particular place in the alternation between faithfulness and sin, namely, it leads to the punishment of the following age, embodied by the seventy shepherds. The corruption begins soon after the establishment of the First Temple when the relationship between the flock and its master, namely Israel and God, is marked by growing estrangement. While the preceding phase winds up with the building of the temple and the establishing of the proper system of sacrifices (89:50), the subsequent phase concludes with the reverse phenomenon: God abandons his temple and his people. These developments are presented through the usual symbols of the vision, namely, the master of the flock leaves the tower and withdraws from taking care of his flock.51 The various stages of this process are listed in a specific order, through which the author expresses his assessment of the history of Israel in these generations (89:54–58): 1. The flock abandons the house and goes in many directions (89:51); 2. The master of the flock sends sheep to convince the flock to return to the house but the flock kills them. One of these sheep is rescued by the master and is brought up to the master (89:51–52). This episode clearly depicts the prophetic activity of Elijah and his ascent (1 Kings 17–21; 2 Kings 1–252); 3. The master of the flock sends many more sheep to warn the flock (89:53), an image of the prophetic calls for repentance; 4. The flock abandons the house of its master and his tower. It strays and its eyes are blinded (89:54); 5. The master of the flock leaves his house and tower, withdraws his protection from the flock, kills some of the sheep and delivers them to wild beasts, including lions and leopards that devour the sheep (89:54–56); 6. In his dream, Enoch watches the misfortunes of the flock and asks for mercy but the master of the sheep observes them without reaction and permits the devouring of the sheep to continue (89:57–58). Remarkably, the master even rejoices when observing his flock being swallowed by these beasts (89:56–58). Such a detail implies the author’s full and total justification of these measures and his negative view of this period. Only such grave developments justify and explain the following rule of the shepherds. A study of this scheme reveals that the author is careful to situate the sin before the punishment. Thus, the flock abandons its master’s house, is blinded and strays in many directions before it is delivered up to the assaults of the beasts. Also significant is the sending of sheep to warn the flock, representing the prophetic warning and call for repentance. But these sheep are killed by the flock 51 In the apostolic work, Letter of Barnabas (Barn. 16:5), an anonymous source is cited saying that God will deliver his flock, their pen, and their tower to destruction. See Milik, Books of Enoch, 45. Tiller, Commentary, 321–22 remarks that the affinity of Letter of Barnabas to the specific symbols of the AA suggests a literary connection between the two, but he notes that the formulation of the apostolic work is not an exact citation of the AA. 52 Elijah’s ascension amid an evil generation is mentioned also by the Apocalypse of Weeks (= 1 En. 93:7).

Ideology and History in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90)

107

(89:51), alluding to the motif of the killing of the prophets.53 Typically, the vision does not make a distinction between the kingdoms of Israel and Judah but sees them as a single entity. The author is careful to show through the order of the episodes that Israel continues to transgress after the killing of the prophets. A second group of sheep (prophets) are sent to warn the flock but to no avail for sin continues (89:53–54). So the order of events demonstrates that Israel is punished only after it did not heed the prophetic warnings.54 This specific sequence expresses the principle of reproof as requisite prior to punishment.55 This judicial rule aims at making the distinction between intentional and unintentional offense. The principle is formulated in Exod 21:29, and its application to the history of Israel is already present in the late biblical books (Neh 9:26–30; 2 Chr 24:19; 34: 9–1756). The gravity of Israel’s offences is embodied not only in the intentionality of their sinful actions, but also in the killing of those who warned the people and made them aware of the crimes committed. The sin and the disregard of reproof express Israel’s full liability and the equity of the punishment. c. The rule of the seventy shepherds (89:59–90:12) – The last chapter in Israel’s history takes place within a chronological framework not applied to the preceding periods.57 The scheme presented here consists of seventy ages, each one being governed by a single shepherd. It is a period of severe punishment of Israel signaling the wide breach between Israel and God. The rupture is brought into focus by comparison with the preceding phase. For while Israel’s offences at the time of the two kingdoms are grave and manifold, God, or the master of the flock, still administers the affairs of his flock, namely his people, and punishes it himself. At some point during this period, the master of the flock leaves his 53 The killing of the prophets is mentioned by Neh 9:26; 2 Chr 24:20–22. The motif is also used in the writings of the New Testament; cf. Matt 24:30–31, 37; Luke 13:34; Acts 7:52. 54 The same motif occurs in Jub. 1:12. 55 The principle of reproof was central in the legal practice and ideology of the Qumran community. See CD IX, 2–8. Cf. Lawrence H. Schiffman, Sectarian Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Chico: Scholars Press, 1983), 81–109. For the formulation of this principle in the rabbinic sources, see Sipre Judg., 173; b. Yoma 81a. See Aharon Shemesh, “Rebuke, Warning and the Obligation to Testify in Judaean Desert Writings and Rabbinic Halakha,” Tarbiz 66 (1996–1997), 149–68 (161–63) (Heb.). 56 Cf. Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles, 183–84. 57 Perhaps the precise computation of times presented here and in Daniel 9 for only the final epoch of history assumes a comprehensive chronology covering history from the beginning to the end, of the type we see in the Apocalypse of Weeks, partly in Jubilees, and in the Melchizedek Pesher (11Q13). Traces of such a chronology may also be observed in the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C. Cf. James C. VanderKam, Calendars in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Measuring Time (London: Routledge, 1998), 17–104; Devorah Dimant, “The Seventy Weeks Chronology (Dan 9:24–27) in light of New Qumran Texts,” in The Book of Daniel in Light of New Findings (ed. A. S. van der Woude; BETL 106; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1993), 198–211; eadem, DJD XXX, 113–15; Stone, Ancient Judaism, 63–69. See n. 65 below.

108

Ideology and History in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90)

house, meaning that the divine presence departs from the First Temple even before it is destroyed (89:56). But there is still some relationship between God and Israel. However, even this more distant relation is severed during the age of the shepherds, for the master relinquishes altogether the direct management of his flock, namely God withdraws his protection from Israel. In fact, he transfers the rule to the shepherds and instructs them to kill a certain number of sheep (89:60). Thus, the age of the shepherds is devoid of divine presence and guidance. While such a rule is the punishment meted out to Israel and thus part of the divine plan, the evil shepherds, who were given to utter cruelty and depravity (89:61, 65), overstep the divine instructions and kill more of the flock than had been sanctioned, for which they are to be punished at the final judgment (90:25). God foresees that the shepherds are going to abuse their task but he does not prevent them from acting in this way (89:61). His intervention is expressed only by his awareness of the process and his instruction to the angel to write down all the deeds of the shepherds (89:61–64).58 So the shepherds are accorded the opposite treatment to that applied to Israel. Not only are they not forewarned, but it is forbidden to do so.59 These details suggest that the shepherds are not subject to the principle of moral responsibility; they are of a different nature and play a different role in the events. This consummated evil and Israel’s afflictions and growing blindness indicate the true character of the period of the seventy shepherds. It constitutes the evil rule preceding the redemptive age, the “period of wickedness” (‫ )קץ הרשעה‬in the nomenclature of the Qumran community literature.60 Although the archdemon of the sectarian literature, Belial, is not mentioned here, the characteristics of his rule are epitomized in the age of the shepherds. The shepherds’ character and identity were a matter of contention in the critical discussion before and have remained so since the discovery of the Scrolls. Since the shepherds are presented in human form, most commentators recognize them as angels as are other human figures in the vision (87:2–4; 89:61, 70–71, 76; 90:20, 31). In addition, due to the number of seventy ages, the shepherds were often identified with the group of seventy angels in charge of the seventy 58 The vision describes the writing figure as a man, so it stands for an angel. He reappears in the final judgment scene where he is required to present his records so that a just judgment may be meted out (90:14, 17). In 90:22, it is stated that this angel is “one of the seven white (men),” namely the archangels, mentioned in 87:2–3. In critical discussion, he is identified mostly with the archangel Michael. See, e. g., Charles, Book of Enoch, 301; Black, Book of Enoch, 271; Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 391. However, Tiller, Commentary, 326–27 notes that the depiction of Michael in Dan 10:13, 21 differs from the one offered here. Additionally, other descriptions of Michael in 1 Enoch also do not accord with that of Daniel. So the writing angel may be identified with another one of the seven archangels. 59 The theological problems involved here for the concept of divine justice have been analyzed in the article “Israel’s Subjugation to the Gentiles as an Expression of Demonic Power in Qumran Documents and Related Literature,” in this volume. 60 Cf. CD IV, 12–13; XII, 23; XV, 7; 1QpHab V, 7; VII, 7–11; 4Q171 (4QpPs) 1–2 ii 5–11.

Ideology and History in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90)

109

nations, a tradition well known and widely disseminated in contemporary Jewish sources.61 But the details of that tradition do not reconcile with the picture drawn by the AA, for the angels of the nations are not demonic in nature. The identity of the enigmatic shepherds has been provided by the Qumranic apocalypse Apocryphon of Jeremiah C, published in 2001.62 In this vision of past and future history divulged to the prophet Jeremiah, the last period is under the rule of the “angels of mastemoth” (‫)מלאכי משטמות‬, who act precisely as do the shepherds of the AA. According to the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C, the future era in Israel’s history is marked by grave transgression and, as punishment, God delivers them into the hands of the evil and cruel angels.63 In the Apocryphon, the angels of mastemoth are openly demonic, both in actions and in name, for they are connected to the archdemon Mastema, who heads the army of demons in Jubilees.64 The concept of evil rule for seventy periods has a close counterpart in Daniel 9, where a period of seventy year-weeks of pernicious rule is also presented.65 The AA and Daniel 9 share the view that a period of evil control accompanied by afflictions precedes the final eschatological developments, and that this period is calculated in heptadic elements. In Daniel 9, the calculation is introduced as an interpretation of Jeremiah’s prophecy, according to which seventy years will elapse from the ascendance of Nebuchadnezzar until the fall of Babylon and the redemption of Israel (Jer 25:11–12; 29:10). Apparently, the era of the shepherds interprets the same prophecy. The calculation of Jeremiah’s seventy years in terms of year-weeks rests on a long biblical tradition. According to the conclusion of 2 Chronicles (36:20–23) 61 Cf., e. g., Black, Book of Enoch, 270–71; Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 391; Olson New Reading, 191 n. 5. The tradition that angels are responsible for the nations in contrast to Israel, which is under direct divine supervision, is already recorded by the Septuagint to Deut 32:8 and a Qumran Hebrew fragment (4Q37 XII 14). This tradition is also adduced by Jub. 15:31, where it is stated that God appointed spirits over the Gentiles in order to mislead them. Some scholars connected the shepherds as the angels of the nations to the Jubilees statement (cf. Milik, Books of Enoch, 254–55; Nickelsburg, ibid.). 62 The same punishment meted out to the first sinful angels, represented by stars, in analogy to the shepherds. See Dimant, DJD XXX, 91–260. The identification of the shepherds as evil beings was recognized by Tiller, Commentary, 53–54. The identical punishment meted out to the sinful angels, the “stars” (86:3–4), and the shepherds (90:24–25) also supports the identification of the shepherds as evil angels. 63 Cf. 4Q390 1 11; 2 i 6–7. Milik, Books of Enoch, 254–55 recognized the sayings about these evil angels but did not identify them with the shepherds of the AA. Cf. Tiller, Commentary, 52–53, following Milik. 64 Cf. Jub. 10:9–11 et passim. Mastema is mentioned also in CD XVI, 5 and 4Q225 2 ii 13–14. Note also 1QM XIII, 11. See Dimant, “Between Qumran Sectarian and Qumran Nonsectarian Texts: The Case of Belial and Mastema,” Collected Studies, 135–51. 65 Cf. Dimant, “Seventy Weeks Chronology”; eadem, “The Four Empires of the Book of Daniel in Light of Writings from Qumran,” Connected Vessels, 331–38; eadem, “Exegesis and Time in the Pesharim from Qumran,” Collected Studies, 315–34 (329–32).

110

Ideology and History in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90)

and the opening of Ezra (1:1), the Jeremiah prophecy was fulfilled with the edict of Cyrus that permitted the deportees to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple. These statements reflect the calculation of seventy years from Nebuchadnezzar’s first year (around 605 B. C. E.; cf. Jer 25:1) to the edict of Cyrus (538 B. C. E.).66 According to another calculation adopted in the prophecies of Zechariah (Zech 1:12; 7:5), the seventy years are counted from the destruction of the First Temple (587 B. C. E.) to the inauguration of the Second Temple under the reign of Darius (516 B. C. E.). Daniel 9 is based on the latter computation since its point of departure is the destruction of Jerusalem (Dan 9:25). In contrast, the AA places the beginning of the period of the seventy shepherds before the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the First Temple (89:59, 65), indicating that it follows the former computation.67 The period of the shepherds’ rule is entirely unfavorable for Israel, marked by the reign of the last kings of Judah, the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the First Temple, the return of the deportees and the impure Second Temple, and the attacks of the wild beasts and the birds of prey in the ensuing ages. The process is going from bad to worse, and the straying and blindness of the flock reaches a climax towards the end of the period (90:7). These details impart the negative judgment of the Second Temple era held by the author, which is similar to the view expressed in Jubilees regarding that period (Jub. 1:9, 14; 23:18–25). The change for the better in these bleak years comes with the appearance of a new group. The uniqueness of this group consists in that its members are lambs who are born to white sheep (90:6). The reappearance of the white color that marked the righteous line in prehistoric times announces the beginning of the preparative stages for the eschatological era. It occurs at the beginning of the fourth sub-period of the seventy ages, namely the final twelve parts. It is signaled by the fact that the lambs open their eyes, symbolizing the return of true under66 Interestingly, Neh 9:32 dates the afflictions that came upon Israel to the time of the Assyrian kings onwards, alluding to the conquest of the northern Israelite kingdom. It thus considers this event to be the beginning of the punishment of Israel. Cf. the comment of Alexander Rofé, “Properties of Biblical Historiography and Historical Thought,” VT 67 (2016): 1–23 (11). 67 The AA divides the seventy-year era into four sub-periods. The first twelve periods take place under the Babylonian rule, the following twenty-three years under Persian dominion, while the subsequent twenty-three years occur during the Ptolemaic rule over the land of Israel. The final twelve periods, including events contiguous with the author’s own times, apparently refer to the Seleucid rule. Cf. Dimant, “Qumran Sectarian Literature,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (ed. M. E. Stone; CRINT II/1; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984), 483–550 (544–45). Unfortunately, two recent articles that treat the chronology of the Animal Apocalypse and advance similar suggestions are unaware of my earlier comments. See Daniel C. Olson, “Historical Chronology after the Exile according to 1 Enoch 89–90,” JSP 15 (2005): 63–74; Antti Laato, “The Chronology in the Animal Apocalypse of 1 Enoch 85–90,” JSP 26 (2016): 3–19. For general assessment see Tiller, Commentary, 54–56; Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 391–93. Milik, Books of Enoch, 254, followed by others, connected the seventy ages of the AA with the seventy-generation sentence of imprisonment in the depths of the earth meted out to the Watchers (1 En. 10:12) and with the mention of seventy years in 4Q181 2 3.

Ideology and History in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90)

111

standing. Interestingly, the lambs act in a way analogous to the earlier prophets. They call the other sheep in order to bring them back to the right way, but being blind and deaf the sheep do not see or hear them (90:7).68 The addition of deafness to the picture, noted only here, emphasizes the complete misunderstanding of the people of Israel (cf. Isa 6:10–11). At this point, a real transformation occurs. The lambs turn into rams and one of them becomes their leader and struggles against the birds of prey that attack them. No doubt the author sees himself living at this point in time, at the threshold of the eschatological age and as a member of the elect group. Indeed, the events alluded to in the symbolic depiction from the Second Temple era depart from the biblical account and indicate real historical events in closer proximity to the author’s days. It is therefore interesting to follow the details of the symbolic representations of the wild beasts, namely the Gentiles, for they constitute a parallel line to that of the elected domesticated animals. As noted, wild beasts of great size represent at first the giants, the offspring of the angels with the women, but they were all annihilated either by their violent internal struggle (86:4; 88:2) or by the flood (86:6). Ordinary wild beasts appear only after the flood and stand for the nations that branched off from the sons of Noah (89:10). Some of these animals appear later as the enemies of Israel.69 Just as the symbols of the flock and sheep are drawn from biblical imagery so are those of the wild beasts. The picture of actual beasts attacking Israel as punishment derives from the biblical prophetic imagery (cf. Jer 5:6; Ezek 34:8) that probably inspired the author. However, the author of the AA assembled the scattered biblical references into a coherent symbolic system. The first personality to appear as a wild beast is Ishmael, symbolized by a wild ass (89:13), apparently on the basis of the angel’s blessing to Ishmael: “he shall be a wild ass of a man” (Gen 16:1270). Esau and his offspring are symbolized by wild boars (89:12), representing Edom (e. g., Gen 25:30; 36:1), probably on the basis of a midrash to Ps 80:14: “wild boar from the wood gnaws at it.”71 The boars are very pugnacious and attack Israel in the days of Samuel and Saul (89:42–43; cf. Judges 10–12; 1 Sam 14:46; 2 Sam 10:14)72 and join the Babylo68 For the idea of a righteous group amid a period of wickedness, compare Dan 11:33; 1 En. 93:9–10; Jub. 1:15–16; CD I, 9–12. 69 Lists of these beasts and their respective symbols have been compiled by Tiller, Commentary, 35–36; Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 358; and Olson, A New Reading, 121–43. 70 ‫והוא יהיה פרא אדם‬. The understanding of ‫ פרא‬as a wild ass is based on verses such as Jer 2:24; Job 6:5; 11:12, and is reflected by the Palestinian targumim (Tg. Neof. and Tg. Ps.-J. to Gen 16:12). The same tradition stands behind other ancient versions of Jer 14:6 (LXX, Tg. Neb., Syriac, Vulgate). See also n. 14 above. 71 ‫יכרסמנה חזיר מיער‬. Here the wild boar is an image of the enemies of Israel, often interpreted as Esau/Edom. Cf. Rashi ad.loc. The boar as a symbol of Esau appears elsewhere; see Jub. 37:24; Gen. Rab. 26, 34; 85, 1; Lev. Rab. 13,5. 72 Perhaps in this period the boars represent the Midianites, who, according to Gen 25:2, 4, were the sons of Keturah, Abraham’s concubine.

112

Ideology and History in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90)

nians in their attack on Jerusalem (89:66; cf. Obad 10–14; Ps 137:7). The wild boars reappear as opponents of the returnees from Babylon (89:72) and perhaps they symbolize Sanballat the Horonite and Geshem the Arab, the enemies of Nehemiah (e. g., Neh 2:10, 19). A special place in the symbolic system is assigned to the wolves, which stand for the Egyptians.73 They figure chiefly in the depiction of Israel’s slavery in Egypt and during the exodus (89:13–27), but they also take part in later attacks on Israel together with the lions and the leopards (89:55). This detail probably alludes to Egypt’s participation in various battles during the final years of the Judean kingdom (e. g., 2 Kgs 23:29). In the days of Samuel and Saul, dogs also appear, symbolizing the Philistines, as is evident from the battles that Saul and David conduct against them (89:42–47).74 The dogs reappear in the period corresponding to the Second Temple era (90:4), perhaps representing the Greek cities of the Hellenistic period, for geographically they succeeded the Philistine settlements along the coast.75 The foxes that join the dogs and the wild boars during the First Temple period (89:42–43), and at the end of this period (89:55), may represent the Ammonites76 (cf. Judges 10–12; 2 Kgs 24:2; 1 Chr 1:19; 2 Chr 27:5). The attacks of the wild beasts on the flock escalate when the sheep leave the house and the tower (89:54–55). At that moment, the master of the flock removes his protection from the sheep and delivers them up to lions and the leopards, wild beasts that are particularly powerful and savage. They devour the flock and destroy the house and the tower (89:65–66), thus indicating that they stand for Assyria and Babylon.77 They are joined by the hyenas, which symbolize one of Israel’s neighboring people, perhaps the Moabites (2 Kings 3; 24:2). A salient modification in the type of wild beasts that assault the flock occurs in the middle of the seventy ages, namely, after thirty-five ages have elapsed (90:2). At this point, birds of prey are introduced for the first time. They join the quadruped predators that dominated the first part of history, clearly marking the 73 Perhaps this symbol rests on the image of Israel as a lamb among the wolves, depicting Israel among the nations (but note Jer 5:6), evoked by rabbinic sources (cf., e. g., Esther Rab. 10, 11; Tanḥ. Toledoth, 5). 74 The dogs were chosen to symbolize the Philistines apparently on the basis of 1 Sam 17:43, where Goliath the Philistine says to David: “Am I a dog that you come to me with sticks?” 75 The practice of applying biblical terminology to later circumstances and figures is typical of Second Temple writings. Compare Neh 4:1, which mentions the Ashdodites among the opponents of the returnees, or 1 Macc 3:24, 41; 4:22, which names the region of the Greek cities along the coastline as “the land of the Philistines.” Cf. Uriel Rappaport, The First Book of Maccabees (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2004), 144 (Heb.). 76 Perhaps the symbol draws on Neh 3:35: “Tobiah the Ammonite, alongside him, said: ‘That stone wall they are building – if a fox climbed it he would breach it!’” 77 The leopard as a symbol for Assyria is used by Hos 13:7: “I will be for them as a lion, a leopard on the way of Assyria.” The lion as a symbol for Babylon is inspired by the same metaphor used by Jeremiah for this nation (4:7): “A lion has gone up from its thicket, a destroyer of nations has set out.”

Ideology and History in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90)

113

involvement of a new Gentile nation. The events alluded to in these ages suggest that the birds represent the Greeks; this symbol is also rooted in biblical imagery. Deuteronomy (28:49) foretells the coming of a savage enemy in the following words: “The Lord will bring a nation against you from afar, from the end of the earth, which will swoop down like an eagle.” In a similar vein, Habakkuk warns of the coming of the Chaldeans (1:8): “Their horses are swifter than leopards, fleeter than wolves of the steppe … their horsemen come from afar, flying like eagles swift to devour.” The Qumranic Pesher of Habakkuk (1QpHab III, 9–14) understood the verse as a reference to the Kittim, i. e., the Romans. However, other Qumran writings interpret the biblical Kittim (Gen 10:4) as referring to the Greeks.78 The birds of prey are the main assailants of the flock during the second half of the seventy ages. This onslaught continues even when the chosen group of lambs emerges. The assaults reach a climax when the preeminent leader appears, presented as a ram (allusion to Judah Maccabeus?), but the beasts’ attempt to break its horns is foiled, for the master of the flock comes to its aid (90:14–15). This aid announces the actual eschatological process.

III. Developments Leading to the Eschatological Era (90:14–38) The victories of the ram with the help of the master of the flock signal the turn of events towards the final consummation of history. For, the developments that follow the defeat of Israel’s enemies are of an idealistic nature. The transition from factual historical events to those expected probably takes place at the point of the ram’s call for help and the aid supplied by the master of the sheep (90:12; referring to Judah Maccabeus’ early victories?). It evokes the cry for help uttered by the Israelites under their servitude in Egypt (Exod 2:23–24). As in the first redemption (89:16; cf. Exod 3:9), this second cry for help receives an immediate response. The analogy suggests the well-known idea that the final deliverance will resemble the first one. From this point onwards, the progress of events occur in a sequence similar to that in other apocalyptic works. Led by the ram, the elected group, transformed into the people at large, fight the final battle against their opponents. Following the victory, the scene of the final judgment takes place in which the sinful angels, the shepherds, and the wicked Israelites are judged (90:11–17).79 Subsequently 78 Cf. 1QM I, 2, 4, “Kittiim of Assyria” and the “Kittiim of Egypt.” They are mentioned separately, referring to the Seleucids and the Ptolemies. In Dan 11:30, the expression ‫ציים כתים‬ (Num 24:24 ‫ )וצים מיד כתים‬is interpreted as referring to the Seleucids. 79 Stuckenbruck, “Reading the Present,” 100, notes that the punishment meted out to the shepherds is analogous to that imposed on the “stars,” representing the sinful angels who mated with the women (90:24), suggesting the analogy between the initial flood judgment and the final judgment. The analogy also suggests that both groups are angels, thus adding another argument in favor of identifying the seventy shepherds as evil angels.

114

Ideology and History in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90)

all the sheep, i. e., the surviving Israelites, assemble in Jerusalem, all white and clear-sighted. The master of the flock, namely God, dwells in their midst and all the wild beasts and birds of prey become domesticated white bulls; under the authority of a big white bull, the Messiah (cf. Isa 2:2; Hos 11:9; Mic 4:1), together they worship the master of the flock. The eschatological times are marked by reunification. Israel and the rest of humanity went through parallel developments of unity, splitting apart, and finally reunification. For humanity started as a single group but during the historical process it split into many nations that wared against Israel. At the conclusion of the historical course, the evil section of the Gentiles is destroyed whereas the good section is converted into domesticated animals that accept the authority of the master of the flock. In a parallel process, Israel started as a single righteous family and nation but deteriorated into sin and blindness. Consequently, it was abandoned by its master and punished by evil shepherds. Rehabilitation came only with the appearance in history of a righteous group that brings about the purification and reunification of Israel with the Gentiles adhering to the cult of God (cf. Isa 2:2–4; Mic 4:1–2).

IV. Levels of Action in the Animal Apocalypse One of the peculiar aspects of the AA is the portrayal of activities on two levels, that of humans on earth, presented by animals, and that of the heavenly abode, presented by humans. Animal life on earth is outlined in a continuous narrative, whereas the reality of the heavenly realm is hinted at sparsely and only in specific contexts. The dominant figure on this level is the master of the flock who belongs to this superior realm, although he intervenes in earthly circumstances. It is the angelic beings who perform divinely appointed tasks (e. g., 87:2–4). The four archangels are appointed to punish the Watchers and the giants. In addition, one of the archangels is assigned to teach Noah how to build the ark (89). Another archangel writes down the evil activities of the shepherds (89:61–66). This is a symbolic expression of divine providence in watching all circumstances (see Ps 14:2; 53:3; 102:2) and writing them down.80 In the judgment scene, the writing archangel is commanded to bring the seventy shepherds before God and his notes serve as attestation of their sins on the basis of which they are convicted and sentenced (90:23).81 80 Books in which deeds of men are inscribed are mentioned in Mal 3:16 and Ps 69:29. See the saying attributed to Rabbi Akiva, which compares this type of providence to storekeeping (m. Abot 3:16): “The store is open, the storekeeper extends credit, the account book lies open, the hand writes.” 81 The books that are opened in the judgment scene are also mentioned in Dan 7:10.

Ideology and History in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90)

115

V. The Animal Apocalypse, the Qumran Writings, and Other Contemporary Works The various affinities to the Qumran Scrolls and contemporary apocalyptic literature evidenced by the AA have been noted sporadically above. However, in order to obtain a systematic and precise tableau of such links, they are surveyed in the following list. a. “The righteous plant” – The AA assigns an important role to a righteous group that appears at the dawn of the eschatological epoch. It has a leading role in bringing about the conditions appropriate for this age.82 A similar idea is embedded in the term “a plant of righteousness,” which occurs in several Enochic writings.83 The members of the Qumran community adopted this image and applied it to their group and its circumstances.84 b. “The poor of the flock” – the image taken from Zech 11:11 (‫)עניי הצאן‬. This prophetic term was interpreted by the Qumran community as referring to its own members.85 The image of the lambs in the AA is clearly connected to this peshertype interpretation of Zechariah. The praise of the young who, amid a generation of wickedness, understood the correct way also appears in Jubilees (23:16, 26). c. Blindness contrasted with open eyes – The AA portrays Israel’s sinful state as blindness, indicating a lack of understanding of the correct manner in which to perform Yahweh’s cult; open eyes stand for the reverse state. The image of walking on the straight path or straying from it is attached to this pair. Both metaphors are borrowed from the biblical imagery.86 Having open eyes, namely correct understanding, is also one of the characteristics of humanity in the eschatological era and of the group who signals its approach. The use of these symbols suggests that the correct understanding is possessed only by the elect group. This portrait closely parallels the self-image of the Qumran community, who viewed itself as guardian of the true understanding of the Torah and its precepts (CD III, 12–13). The Qumran community literature refers to its opponents by the term “those who left the way” (‫ ;סרי דרך‬CD I, 13, 15; XIX, 17), an image also used by the AA. In general, the Qumran community’s literature promotes a separatist attitude that is engaged in polemics with other contemporary groups within Judaism.87 The AA depiction imparts a similar stance. 82 Perhaps 83 See

the idea is based on Isa 60:21. 1 En. 10:16; 65:12; 67:1–2; 84:6; 93:5, 10; 106:18. Cf. Dimant, “Fallen Angels,”

110–11. 84 Cf. CD I, 7; 1QHa XV, 5–16. 85 Cf. CD XIX, 9–10; 4Q163 21 7. 86 On walking on the straight path, see, e. g., Judg 2:22; 1 Kgs 8:36; Jer 6:16; 32:39. On straying from the right way, see, e. g., Deut 9:12; Judg 2:17; Isa 65:2. 87 A criticism of other groups is voiced in 4QMMT (4Q397 14–21 7); CD III, 13–14; 4Q390 1 8; Jub. 1:14. Cf. also Kister, “Concerning the History of the Essenes,” 2.

116

Ideology and History in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90)

d. The inner debate – The AA alludes to a debate within Israel during the last period of the shepherds’ rule. The group of lambs, designated the righteous ones, “calls the sheep,” trying to bring them back to the correct way, but the sheep remain blind and erring (90:6–7). A similar scene, also placed in the future, is foretold by Jubilees in which a group of young people attempt to bring the older men to the right way and they themselves start to practice the Torah precepts properly (Jub. 23:26). That a dispute over matters of faith and Torah interpretation evolved during the final centuries of the Second Temple era is expressed by the dissenting position of the Qumran community literature, and is stated explicitly in the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C (4Q387 3 7–8).88 e. The Second Temple – According to the AA, the Second Temple period is marked by misunderstanding, sin, and error, with the Second Temple itself being impure.89 A negative assessment of these times is expressed also in Jubilees (1:10–14; 23:22–26) and Apocryphon of Jeremiah C (4Q387 2 ii–iii, 3; 4Q390 2 i). This approach goes hand in hand with the criticism leveled by the Qumran community against the Second Temple and the hope it nurtured to install the correct cult in the future temple.90 f. The rule of evil preceding the eschatological era – According to the AA, the apex of evil is attained just before the turning point that leads towards the redemptive age. This picture conveys a close parallel to the Qumran community’s belief that they are living in an age dominated by the archdemon Belial and his armies, and that these evil times precede and announce the approaching eschatological age.91 A similar view of the final paroxysm of evil in the final age of normal history is held by a number of apocalyptic writings composed during the second century B. C. E.92 A further notion attached to this thematic cluster sees the limited timespan of the final period of evil control. This view is expressed by a septenary chronology that measures the “period of wickedness.” This is the case of the rule of the seventy shepherds calculated by the AA, and of the computations in the Book of Watchers (= 1 En. 10:12), Dan 9:24–27, the Apocalypse 88 Cf. CD III, 13–14; 1QS V, 10–13; 1QpHab VIII, 8–13; 4Q174 4; 4Q471a. The rift is also evoked in 4QMMT, whose authors address the opposing group in an attempt to win them over to their own position. Cf. Kister, ibid. 89 Stuckenbruck, “Reading the Present,” 95, 99, notes that if the events described in 90:6–19 refer to the first victories of Judas Maccabeus, the absence of reference to the purification of the Second Temple undertaken by Judas (1 Macc 4:41–59) is notable. From this absence, he concludes that the group behind the AA did not support all the actions of Judas. However, the omission may be explained adequately by the general disapproval of the Second Temple expressed by the AA (89:50). 90 See the sources quoted in n. 49 above. 91 Cf. CD IV, 13–15; XVI, 7, 10; 1QS I, 18, 24; 1QpHab V, 8; 4Q174 1–2 i 8. 92 Cf. Daniel 9; Apocalypse of Weeks (= 1 En. 93:9–10); Jub. 23:22–26. Cf. also 4Q246 ii 2–3, which has a sequence of events similar to that in Daniel 9. On this text, see the comments of David Flusser, “The Hubris of the Antichrist in a Fragment from Qumran,” in Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1988), 31–37.

Ideology and History in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90)

117

of Weeks (= 1 En. 93:10), and Apocryphon of Jeremiah C (e. g., 4Q387 2 ii 3–4; 4Q390 1 7). Although the surviving Qumran Scrolls do not contain a detailed septenary chronology, it appears that the Qumran community possessed one as is evident from the detailed computations in the Mishmarot texts, and the reference to seventy year-weeks in 4Q181 2 3, both being sectarian works. g. The eschatological age – The ideal age pictured by the AA has numerous parallels in the Qumran Scrolls and contemporary apocalyptic literature. Thus, the analogy between the flood and the final judgment outlined by the AA (98–99; 90:18–23) appears also in the Apocalypse of Weeks (= 1 En. 93:12–14).93 The first stage of the eschatological process in which the demise of the beasts and the birds of prey is brought about (90:18–19) is paralleled by both the Scrolls and the apocalyptic writings. In the Apocalypse of Weeks (= 1 En. 91:11–12), it is portrayed as a sword given to the righteous to wreak vengeance upon the Gentiles. The Qumranic War Scroll portrays the battles between the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness, including the Gentiles (1QM I, 10–14; III, 4–6). The final judgment meted out to the sinners occupies an important place in these developments. According to the AA, four wicked groups are involved: the Watchers, the shepherds, the Gentiles, and the villains of Israel. According to the AA, all four are thrown into a burning valley. The notion of eternal punishment in a pit of fire is also mentioned by other Enochic writings,94 and by the Qumran community literature.95 Following the punishment of the wicked comes the final purification of the world, to be dominated by an eternal just rule and the thriving of the righteous group. The vision of this idealized future is shared by the AA and other Enochic writings (1 En. 10:16–11:2; 91:14–17), as well as in the literature of the Qumran community (e. g., 1QS IV, 18–23). Also the AA’s idea of foretelling that the future temple will replace the historical one and will be the proper dwelling for God with his people (90:28–29) is matched by the pictures in the Temple Scroll (11QTa XXIX, 9), Florilegium (4Q174 1–2 i 2–5), and Jubilees (1:17).

VI. Conclusion The foregoing analogies show that the AA was well integrated into the views regarding history and its final conclusion that were cultivated by the Qumran community and contemporary apocalyptic works. But the AA is unique in providing 93 See the summary of Loren T. Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91–108 (CEJL; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2007), 57–60. The comparison between the flood and the end of days is also mentioned in Matt 24:37–39; Luke 17:26. 94 In the Book of Watchers (1 En. 10:13; 18:14–15) and the Book of Parables (1 En. 67:5–7). 95 Cf. 1QS IV, 13. Compare 1QpHab X, 3–5, which mentions the “house of judgment” where the wicked priest will be judged with “sulphurous fire” among the Gentiles.

118

Ideology and History in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90)

a full description of the historical sequence from beginning to end. Yet, with its particular affinities to specific views of the sectarian texts, one wonders whether a closer link to the Qumran community may be assumed. However, while it should be noted that the affinities of the AA to the sectarian texts belong to the ideological domain, they lack references to their typical markers dealing with organizational patterns. Thus, the AA cannot be considered sectarian; it belongs to a larger group displaying theological affinities to the sectarian notions. Writings such as Jubilees, the Temple Scroll, and the Apocryphon of Joshua belong in this group, none being strictly sectarian.96 Notably, all these compositions are written in Hebrew, whereas the AA is composed in Aramaic.97 This is one of the many puzzles imbedded in the complex relationship between Hebrew and Aramaic literature at Qumran that still awaits thorough study and elucidation.

96 See Dimant, “The Qumran Manuscripts: Contents and Significance,” Collected Studies, 27–56 (33). 97 Jonathan Ben-Dov has suggested that the Aramaic texts from Qumran were composed in this language in order to lend them the authority of ancient wisdom. Cf. idem, “Hebrew and Aramaic Writing in the Pseudepigrapha and the Qumran Scrolls: The Ancient Near Eastern Background and the Quest for a Written Authority,” Tarbiz 78 (2008): 27–60 (Heb.). However, this explanation applies only to literature dealing with primordial sages, such as Enoch, Noah, and the Watchers. It does not account for the use of Aramaic to tell stories about Abraham and his offspring, or to depict the eschatological Jerusalem and the temple (in the New Jerusalem Qumran writing). A different explanation suggests that Aramaic was chosen for tales that take place before the giving of the Torah to Israel, or during the Babylonian exile, the New Jerusalem being one of them, since it is based on the prophecies of Ezekiel pronounced in Babylon. Cf. Dimant, “The Qumran Aramaic Texts and the Qumran Community,” in Collected Studies, 185–94.

Jerusalem and the Temple in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90) in Light of the Qumran Community Worldview* I. Introduction The fourth work preserved in the Aramaic Enochic compendium (1 En. 83–90), the Book of Dreams,1 consists of two dream-visions revealed to Enoch before his marriage: a short one about the coming flood (1 En. 83–84) and a longer one tracing the course of the whole of history (1 En. 85–90). The two dreams constitute two separate and independent narrative units. However, they seem to have been composed by the same author according to a single plan, as the first dream refers to two visions experienced by Enoch (1 En. 93:2). The name Animal Apocalypse (AA hereafter) was given to the second, longer dream-vision because it relates history in symbolic fashion in which mankind is represented by animals. This long vision is the subject of the present analysis. Representing Israel as sheep, God as the master of the flock, and the Gentiles as wild animals and fowl, the historical sequence follows the biblical account in great part from creation to the destruction of the First Temple and the building of the second one, tracing the sequence from Genesis to Ezra and Nehemiah. However, in its final section, the vision continues beyond the biblical data and refers to subsequent events up to those close to and contemporary with the author’s times. So, when decoding various details outlined by the AA, students of the composition concluded that it was composed during the Maccabean uprising, probably following the first victories of Judah Maccabeus, namely around 165–164 B. C. E.2 A composition date from as early as the second half of the * The article was first published in Hebrew in 1983, and was republished in the same language in 2010 with some bibliographic updates. For the present edition, it has been translated, re-edited, and partly rewritten with bibliographic update. 1 On 1 Enoch as a collection of Enochic works, see the introduction to the article “The Book of Parables (1 Enoch 37–71) and the Qumran Community Worldview” in this volume. 2 This dating is based mainly on Israel’s victory in battles with the Gentiles (1 En. 90:12–13). Cf., e. g., Robert H. Charles, The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1912), 180–81; Milik, Books of Enoch, 43–44; Patrick A. Tiller, A Commentary on the Animal Apocalypse of 1 Enoch (EJL 4; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), 62–63; George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 400–401; Daniel C. Olson, A New Read-

120

Jerusalem and the Temple in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90)

second century B. C. E. is confirmed by the Aramaic copies of the work that were found among the Qumran documents. Four such copies were identified, 4Q204–4Q207, the earliest being 4Q207, which is dated to the third quarter of the second century B. C. E.3 This vision is therefore an important witness to the ideas nurtured by apocalyptic circles at the time, joining the contemporary book of Daniel, the Qumranic Apocryphon of Jeremiah C, and perhaps the Apocalypse of Weeks (= 1 En. 93:1–10; 91:11–17). The AA draws a rich and detailed tableau of history that merits a separate study.4 The present article sets out to analyze one central aspect of this complex document, namely, the description of Jerusalem and the temple. In the early stages of the research on Enoch, this topic drew much attention since it concerns the idea that God himself will build the eschatological temple (1 En. 90:29). It was therefore often cited in discussions on the heavenly temple and the heavenly Jerusalem.5 But most of these discussions appeared before the full publication of the Qumran Scrolls and of the Aramaic copies of 1 Enoch discovered there. When they finally came out, they shed fresh light on the visionary depiction of the temple and Jerusalem in the AA. The implications of the Qumran data for understanding the AA have yet to be fully exploited. A fresh detailed examination of Enoch’s vision is therefore called for, in particular the major theme of the temple and Jerusalem. As noted, the first part of the vision traces the biblical history of Israel and the early years of the Second Temple period (85:3–89:73). The details and symbols in this section are easily recognizable since they resort to biblical images and events. The second part is less so since it relates to post-biblical events, the deing of the Animal Apocalypse of 1 Enoch: “All Nations Shall be Blessed” (SVTP 24; Leiden: Brill, 2013), 85–86. Menahem Kister argued that the details taken as alluding to the Maccabean Revolt may, however, be explained as belonging to the eschatological era rather than to real historical events. Cf. idem, “Concerning the History of the Essenes – A Study of the Animal Apocalypse, the Book of Jubilees and the Damascus Document,” Tarbiz 56 (1986): 1–18 (Heb.). Although he may be right on this point, the above dating rests on additional considerations. In any case, such a dating does not preclude attributing the appearance of the elect group – perhaps, as Kister believes, identical to the Scrolls community  – to a time earlier than the Maccabean Revolt. For a proposal to date this appearance to 200 B. C. E., namely to the period when the rule over the land of Israel was transferred from the Ptolemies to the Seleucids, see my discussion “Qumran Sectarian Literature,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (ed. M. E. Stone; CRINT II/2; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984), 483–550 (544–46). 3 Thus Milik, Books of Enoch, 5. 4 This is done in the article “Ideology and History in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90)” in this volume. In detail, see Tiller, Commentary, 223–392; Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 368–408; Olson, A New Reading, 145–231. 5 Cf., e. g., Victor Aptowitzer, “The Heavenly Temple in the Agada,” Tarbiz 2 (1930): 137–53 (Heb.); Ephraim E. Urbach, “Heavenly and Earthly Jerusalem,” in Jerusalem through the Ages (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1968), 156–71 (Heb.); Isaac L. Seeligmann, “Jerusalem in the Thought of Hellenistic Judaism,” in Studies in Biblical Literature (eds. A. Hurvitz et al.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1992), 396–410 (408–10) (Heb.).

Jerusalem and the Temple in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90)

121

tails of which are not always properly understood (89:74–90:17). The statements about Jerusalem and the temple pertain to three specific periods: the days of the First Temple, the time of the returnees from Babylon and the Second Temple, and the eschatological age.

II. Historical Jerusalem and the Historical Temples (89:50–56, 66–67, 73–74) The clearest representations of the temple and Jerusalem as two distinct entities appear in the historical section of the vision, namely in the times of Solomon onwards. In fact, at that point, the house stands for the city of Jerusalem (89:50), its first appearance in this sense. Here, Jerusalem is enlarged and expanded. It is separated explicitly from the tower built above it, marking the First Temple (89:50). The meaning of these symbols is made clear by their distinct circumstances and function in the historical sequence.6 The house was standing before the days of Solomon, but in his days it was enlarged. This is a precise representation of the biblical information. Jebusite Jerusalem was conquered by David (Josh 15:63; Judg 1:21; 2 Sam 5:7), but it was Solomon who undertook substantial construction works in the city (1 Kgs 3:1). The tower is also situated in the days of Solomon, outlined as rising above the house (89:50). This again reflects the biblical account of the building of the First Temple (1 Kgs 6–8; 2 Chr 2:1–7:11). The house is the place of dwelling for the flock while the tower is the abode of its master. Before the tower is set “a full table” that represents the altar and the sacrifices (89:50).7 The representation of the two historical temples as a tower rising above the house (89:50, 54, 73) is probably anchored in the real topographical site of the temple, which was a high point in Jerusalem at the time, the biblical “mount of Zion.” In fact, a tower was actually standing on the Temple Mount, as indicated in the late biblical books8 and also in contemporary witnesses.9 This tower probably stood at the north side of the Temple Mount, where the Antonia Fortress was later built by Herod.10 already observed by August Dillmann, Das Buch Henoch (Leipzig: Vogel, 1953), 263. table as a symbol of the altar and the sacrifices appears in Ezek 44:16; Mal 1:12. See also the War Scroll (1QM I, 6).  8 Cf. Neh 2:8; 7:3; 1 Chr 29:1, 29. These sources name the temple as ‫בירה‬, βάρις or πύργος, in LXX Nehemiah. In the Ethiopic Bible, the term πύργος is translated using the word māh̬əfad (“tower”). Cf. August Dillmann, Lexicon Linguae Aethiopicae (Leipzig: Weigel, 1865), 628; Wolf Leslau, Concise Dictionary of Ge‘ez (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1989), 37. The same word is used by the AA for the tower. Quoting an anonymous source, the apostolic Letter of Barnabas states that God will deliver for annihilation his flock, their pen, and their tower (Barn. 16:5).   9 1 Macc 1:33; 2 Macc 4:12, 28; 5:5; Josephus, Ant. xii, 133, 138. Cf. also the rabbinic sources m. Tamid 1:1; Mid. 1:9; y. Pesaḥ. 7, 5; and b. Yoma 2a. 10 Cf. Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175   6 As

  7 The

122

Jerusalem and the Temple in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90)

According to the AA, both the house and the tower were destroyed and burnt by the lions and leopards, together with the wild boars (89:66). This detail depicts the destruction of the First Temple and Jerusalem by the Babylonians and the Edomites (2 Kgs 25:9–10; Jer 39:2–3, 8; Ps 137:7). The AA states that the destruction was made possible because God had previously withdrawn his protection from Israel as punishment for its sins of idolatry (89:54–66). The symbols of the tower and the house are preserved also in the subsequent period. The tower, standing also for the Second Temple, is newly erected by the returnees from Babylon while the house is rebuilt from its ruins (89:72–73). The vision thus makes a distinction between Nehemiah’s building projects in Jerusalem (Nehemiah 3; 4:10–17; 7:1–3) and the construction of a new temple (Ezra 3:10–13). That the symbol of the tower embodies a temple is indicated by other elements in the vision. The AA reports that Enoch was taken to a high place and was shown “a lofty tower” (87:3). From there, Enoch observed the course of history until its conclusion, the sequence related by the AA. Since the symbol of the tower is used elsewhere for the temple, it appears that the heavenly abode or temple is intended here, as is indicated by its height and the company of angels. The detail reflects the tradition that Enoch ascended in a night vision to the heavenly abode and learned about future generations, a theme recorded in the Enochic works and other contemporary writings.11 These details show clearly that the author is consistent in using the tower as a symbol for a temple. It is also evident that the house stands for the city of Jerusalem in the section related to the days of the First and the Second Temples. However, it is interesting to note that Jerusalem does not embody merely the actual city but it also stands for Israel’s center of existence, much in the sense that the name Zion acquired for Jerusalem in late-biblical passages (e. g., Isa 49:14; 51:11; Ps 129:5).12 Indeed, while the house and the tower seem to follow the topographic reality of Jerusalem, they also carry an ideological-religious meaning. For, the temple represented as a lofty building, a tower, reflects the old notion that the worship of

B. C.–A. D. 135) (eds. G. Vermes and F. Millar; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1973), 1:154, n. 39; Yoram Tsafrir, “The Site of the Seleucid Akra in Jerusalem,” Cathedra 14 (1980): 17–40 (Heb.). 11 Cf. the Book of Watchers (1 En. 14–16), Book of Parables (1 En. 39:3), Astronomical Book (1 En. 81:1–2), Epistle of Enoch (1 En. 93:2), and the story of Noah’s birth (1 En. 106:19), in addition to Jubilees (Jub. 4:19) and Ben Sira (44:19). 12 This is why François Martin was mistaken in rejecting the separation of the house and the tower, claiming that it contradicts 89:54. Cf. idem, Le Livre d’Hénoch (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1906), 214. The verse in question does state that at the pertinent point the flock left both the house and the tower. But this does not imply the identity of the house and the tower but rather that Israel abandoned two distinct entities, the temple cult on the one hand, and the national identity, embodied in Jerusalem-Zion, on the other hand.

Jerusalem and the Temple in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90)

123

God is to be conducted in a high place and, in biblical imagery, Jerusalem itself is viewed as such a location.13 The author of the AA employs height not only for a general characterization of the temple but also to minimize the stature of the Second Temple. For he emphasizes the height of the First Temple and that it rises above the house, namely, above Jerusalem (89:50). But of the Second Temple, he merely says that “it was called the lofty tower” (98:73). The formulation may imply the smaller size and reduced grandeur of the Second Temple14 but, together with the censure that its sacrifices are impure (89:73), the comment regarding its height amounts to a disapproval of this edifice. The differences between the First and Second Temples also emerge from other details. The First Temple was built for the master of the flock, the master stood within it, and a full table was offered to him (89:36). So this temple was built for the God of Israel, and it harbored the divine presence while the sacrifices offered there were acceptable to the divinity. Moreover, that temple was established during a period of harmony between God and his people. During these times, Israel was guided by divinely chosen leaders. Israel’s faithfulness is rewarded by peace and tranquility (89:42–49). So the Solomonic temple represented the culmination of concord between God and his people. In contrast, the Second Temple is almost the opposite of the first one. It was not built for the master of the flock, and neither does the master dwell in it (89:73). Although it is called the lofty tower, it is not as lofty as the First Temple. No “full table” is brought to the master in it, but only impure food. Moreover, this tower, namely the temple, is built during a period of complete estrangement between the master and his flock during the rule of the seventy evil shepherds.15 The process of divine withdrawal from the First Temple was initiated after the death of Solomon, when the First Temple was still standing. The Israelites became addicted to idolatry (89:51), while the growing alienation from their God gradually deteriorated during the times of the separate kingdoms of Judah and Israel. It reaches a climax when the master of the flock relinquishes his control over the sheep and delivers them into the hands of seventy evil shepherds (89:59). The pictorial image outlines the withdrawal of divine providence and protection from Israel and its relinquishment to the authority of seventy evil shepherds, an event that apparently takes place in the days of King Jehoiakim. By this action, God also withdraws from Jerusalem and the temple. So it is during the rule of the vicious shepherds that the destruction of the First Temple takes 13 Cf., e. g., Isa 2:1; Ezek 20:40; Mic 4:1; Ps 88:3. See also Let. Aris., 83. The notion was disseminated in the ancient Near East. Cf. Seeligmann, “Jerusalem,” 401–04. 14 Cf. Ezra 3:12 and Rashi ad. loc. 15 The shepherds represent demonic beings assigned to rule Israel for the final seventy periods of history, an understanding made clear by the similar notion advanced in the Qumranic Apocryphon of Jeremiah C. See the article “Ideology and History in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90)” in this volume. For the date and the calculation of the seventy periods, see ibid., nn. 57, 65.

124

Jerusalem and the Temple in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90)

place, as is the exile, the returnees from Babylon, and the construction of the Second Temple. Thus, the Second Temple embodies the split between Israel and its God and the period of Israel’s blindness and sin, punished by the injustice and cruelty of the shepherds and the attacks of the Gentiles (89:74–75). The foregoing retracing of the AA shows that, when represented by the tower, the history of the temples falls into three periods: a. the Solomonic period, at first brilliant and ideal; b. the First Temple during the time of the two kingdoms, marred by idolatry and finally destroyed; c. the Second Temple, which is lower and defiled.16 Notably, the tower appears only in combination with the house, and only in the times of David and Solomon, the two kingdoms, and in the years of the Second Temple. Thus, the close link between the house and the tower emulates the historical and geographic fact that the temple always stood in Jerusalem and that Jerusalem preceded the temple (89:72–73). But the pair also expresses religious notions since the tower constitutes the abode of the master of the flock, namely God, while the house is the dwelling of the flock, namely Israel. While the symbolism of the tower is closer to the idea of the divine presence dwelling in the temple, the symbolism of the house is less realistic since the physical Jerusalem could not accommodate the entire physical gathering of the Israelites. Evidently the dwelling of the flock within the house embodies the correct worship of God. The early First Temple days are marked by the flock residing in the house, the house thus serving as the flock’s pen. Clearly, the identity of Israel as a people who reveres its God is portrayed in this way. Significantly, this is paralleled by the tabernacle camp during the desert wandering on the one hand, and by the eschatological Jerusalem on the other hand (cf. below). The symbolic depiction of these situations imparts different historical circumstances, as viewed by the author. When the flock dwells in the house its master dwells in the tower. When the flock leaves the house and the tower, the master also abandons them (89:54–56). Thus, when Israel is faithful to God, the divine presence dwells in the temple. When Israel worships idols, the divine presence withdraws from the temple. There is, then, a close association between the dwelling of the flock in the house and the dwelling of its master in the tower. Thus, the presence of the flock in the house has a clear cultic aspect, suggesting that the house does not stand only for the geographic Jerusalem but also, and perhaps primarily, for Jerusalem as the center of Israel’s worship and identity. The notion 16 Similar criticism of the Second Temple is expressed by contemporary writings: Jub. 1:10; Ass. Mos. 2:8–9; T. Levi 9:9; 14:7–8. Compare also 1 En. 93:8–9; Pss. Sol. 1:8; 2:2–3; 8:11–12. A criticism of the Second Temple also emerges from the configuration of the temple presented by the Temple Scroll, which is very different from that of the contemporary Second Temple. Cf. Yigael Yadin, The Temple Scroll (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1977), 1:215–63 (Heb.). Criticism of the contemporary temple also appears in the Qumran Community literature (cf. CD IV, 1; V, 6; XX, 23; 1QpHab XII, 8–9).

Jerusalem and the Temple in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90)

125

underlying the peculiar use of this symbol may be understood better by way of an in-depth analysis of the house symbol and its function in the AA. As noted, one of the specific aspects of this symbol consists in its link to the tower, which is assigned only to the historical periods in the land of Israel. The tower does not appear during the years of Israel’s wandering in the Sinai Desert, and neither does it figure in the eschatological age. However, the house appears in all three periods. This configuration is somewhat puzzling, for one would expect that the tower, representing the temple as it does, would also symbolize the tabernacle in the early days of Israel. In particular, its absence from the eschatological stage is surprising. Since the house at that period possesses facets of a temple, such as columns and decorations (90:28–29), scholars argued that it indeed refers to the eschatological temple and consequently concluded that the author muddled his symbols and used them inconsistently.17 However, explaining the eschatological house as standing for the temple is particularly difficult since the house is mentioned initially as a specific geographic location. For, to the south of it lies an abyss of fire into which will be cast the sinners of Israel (90:25–26). The site is to be identified with the Valley of Ben Hinnom, southwest of Jerusalem, which according to an old tradition is the place of judgment and the location of hell.18 Therefore, the AA probably refers to hell as an abyss of fire that is situated “to the right” of Jerusalem (90:26).19 It clearly indicates that in this passage the house represents the earthly, geographical Jerusalem and not the temple. This again shows that the author is consistent in using the symbol of the house to depict the city throughout the vision.20 Moreover, a close analysis 17 See David Flusser, “Jerusalem in the Second Temple Literature,” in Judaism of the Second Temple Period: The Jewish Sages and Their Literature (trans. A. Yadin; Grand Rapids/Jerusalem: Eerdmans/Magnes, 2009), 44–75 (45 n. 2). The same understanding is implied by Yadin, The Temple Scroll, 1:141, for he saw in the eschatological house a temple and not a city. In a more recent paper, Hanan Birenboim adopted the same interpretation. According to him, the eschatological house in the AA represents the entirety of Jerusalem that became a temple. He associates this notion with the Temple Scroll, which, according to him, views the temple city as an expansion of the temple to include the entire city. Birenboim is also of the opinion that future house decorations in the AA prove that the house symbolizes the temple. See idem, “The Halachic Status of Jerusalem According to 4QMMT, 1 Enoch and the Tannaitic Literature,” Meghillot 7 (2009): 3–17 (11–12) (Heb.). But the size of the future house and its height, which are described by the AA (90:29), are not part of the normal symbol as it appears in the historical period. As for the decorations of the house, they may be interpreted differently. Below it is suggested that they refer to the brilliance of the future Jerusalem. 18 According to the biblical account, this was the place where children were sacrificed to the idol Molech (cf. 2 Kgs 23:10; Jer 32:35), associated early on with the tradition that identifies it with the site of hell. Cf., for instance, b.‛Erub. 19a. See the sources cited by Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1968), 5:14–15. 19 An abyss of fire as the place of punishment for the wicked is referred to, for instance, in the Book of Watchers (1 En. 10:13; 21:3) and in the Qumran community literature (CD II, 5–6; 1QS IV, 13; 1QpHab X, 5). 20 This is also the conclusion of Georg Beer, “Das Buch Henoch,” in Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments (ed. E. Kautzsch; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1900),

126

Jerusalem and the Temple in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90)

of the general symbolic system of the vision evidences the author’s consistent use of other images he adopts. Given the consistency of the vision, a question arises regarding the meaning of the house symbol during the desert wandering and the final redemptive era. How is this picture to be incorporated into what we know from other contemporary sources about Jerusalem and the temple of the redemptive age? Scholars who tackled these questions usually answered them by stating that the eschatological house has features of both Jerusalem and the temple.21 However, this general statement does not provide a precise explanation of the various references to the tower and the house and their mutual relationship. The solution to these problems may be found in the depiction of the house in all references.

III. The Tabernacle and Jerusalem (89:36, 40, 50) A feature crucial to the understanding of the AA vision is the appearance of the house as a symbol of the tabernacle and camp built for the master of the flock by Moses during the period of wandering in the desert (89:36).22 The house signifies the tabernacle also when it is brought by the Israelites to the land of Canaan (89:40). Being constructed by Moses and transported to Canaan indicates that the tabernacle rather than the camp of Israel is represented by the house. Such an understanding is also confirmed by the statement that this house is built by Moses for the master of the flock, namely God (89:36). But if the tabernacle is symbolized in its physical aspect, how can it hold the gathering of all the flock (ibid.)? Therefore, some have suggested that during the wandering in the desert the house stands for both the tabernacle and the camp of Israel.23 However, the presence of all the flock in this house suggests a cultic congregation rather than 2:217–310 (297); Robert H. Charles, The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1912), 214; Paul Volz, Die Eschatologie der jüdischen Gemeinde im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1934), 373. 21 Cf. Dillmann, Das Buch Henoch, 284; Martin, Le Livre d’Hénoch, 232; Volz, Die Eschatologie der jüdischen Gemeinde, 373; Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 404. But see the detailed analysis of distinct facets of the house symbolism by Tiller, Commentary, 36–47, where he adopts most of the ideas advanced in the original version of the present article. 22 This verse has survived in one of the Qumran Aramaic copies of the Enochic Book of Dreams (4Q204 4 10). There, Moses appears as a ram that turns into a man in order to build the tabernacle (89:36, 38). He is thus analogous to Noah who becomes a man in order to build the ark (89:1). This detail should be understood as the bestowing of divine wisdom upon Noah and Moses to enable them to undertake their respective building tasks, since in both cases the instructions for the assignments are given either by angels (Noah) or by God (Moses). Cf. Dillmann, Das Buch Henoch, 257 and Martin, Le Livre d’Hénoch, 203. Although Noah and Moses become men, this does not indicate a transformation into angelic beings (as Tiller, Commentary, 296 claims for Moses), since such a notion contradicts the general views of the AA. Furthermore, it is unknown in other contemporary sources. 23 Cf. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 382.

Jerusalem and the Temple in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90)

127

a physical gathering of all the tribes.24 It is also interesting that the house is transported to the land of Israel (89:40) and is mentioned again only during the times of Solomon (89:48–50). This reflects, among other things, the biblical tradition (1 Kgs 8:1–11; 2 Chr 5:1–14) according to which the Ark of the Covenant and the Tent of Meeting were brought to the Solomonic temple, thus creating a continuity between the two.25 But such a transition underscores once again the difficulties embedded in the house being used to symbolize both the tabernacle and Jerusalem. The solution offered below views the house as a symbol for both the tabernacle and Jerusalem as based on the halakhic term “the temple city,” which combines the sacred area of the tabernacle with the surrounding domain, both applied to Jerusalem as the temple city. When the AA presents Jerusalem for the first time it does not select a new symbol but employs the one served for the tabernacle. This is why it specifies “that house” (89:50), indicating that it is the same house built by Moses in the desert and brought by the Israelites to the land of Israel. So the vision implies a cultic entity, for the tabernacle and Jerusalem share not only the symbol of the house, but also the fact that all the Israelites gather there while they are faithful to their God (89:37, 50; compare 90:33).26 In the desert wandering, the master of the flock himself dwells in the tabernacle, thus stressing the sacred character of this abode. However, in the historical Jerusalem, God dwells in the tower. Therefore, the house depicts the tabernacle and the city and not, as is expected, the tabernacle and the temple. The meaning of the dual entities combined in the single symbol of the house may be explained in light of the halakhic term “the temple city” (‫)עיר המקדש‬, which refers to the sacred part of the city that surrounds the temple and to which apply specific rulings regarding purity and defilement. The Torah defines the sacred space of the tabernacle in relation to Israel’s camp, and lays down the di24 Tiller, Commentary, 42–44 rejects the notion that the dwelling in the house has a cultic meaning since, in his understanding, the cult is depicted only by the “full table” in the Jerusalem temple, namely by the sacrifices brought there (90:50). Therefore he concludes that the house stands for the camp of Israel. However, the AA states that the tabernacle is built by Moses “for the master of the flock” (89:36), and the divine dwelling there is invested with cultic sense. See also the note by Daniel Assefa, L’Apocalypse des Animaux (1 Hen 85–90): Une Propagande Militaire? (JSJSup 120; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 293 n. 7. 25 Evidently, the AA combines the Tent of Meeting with the tabernacle. On the tabernacle, see the summary of Waldemar Janzen, “Tabernacle,” NIB, 5:447–58 (454–55). On the problems involved in the Chronicler’s account of this theme, see Sara Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and its Place in Biblical Thought (2nd. rev. ed.; Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang, 1997), 226–29. 26 Tiller, Commentary, 42–43 rejects the notion that the dwelling in the house has a cultic meaning since, in his understanding, the cult is depicted only by the “full table” in the Jerusalem temple, namely by the sacrifices brought there (90:50). But, in this matter, Tiller relies on his own interpretation of the house in the desert as a representation of the camp and not the tabernacle. Yet, once it is understood that the house stands for the tabernacle, the cultic character of the symbol also becomes evident. Cf. n. 24 above and n. 42 below.

128

Jerusalem and the Temple in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90)

rectives for protecting its sanctity by avoiding its defilement (Lev 1–10; 21–22; Num 1–5). However, no similar instructions are given in the biblical books to the later Solomonic and second temples. Later halakhah, shaped during the Second Temple period, drew the analogy between the tabernacle and the later temple and between the camp of Israel and the city of Jerusalem. Consequently, it applied the directives related to the tabernacle and the camp to the Second Temple and its city.27 The application of the Torah rules for protecting the sanctity of the tabernacle and the camp to the later temple and the temple city was shared by all the halakhic schools during the Second Temple period, but they were divided over their degree of stringency and precise implementation. Long before the discovery of the Qumran Scrolls, Gedaliahu Alon demonstrated that in matters of purity and impurity two approaches were prevalent in Second Temple Judaism: the minimalist approach restricted the pertinent rulings to the temple cult, its precincts, and the priesthood, whereas the maximalist approach extended them to all Israel. This analysis essentially has been confirmed by the Qumran documents. It is now clear that the minimalist system was adopted by the Sages, and probably their Pharisaic antecedents. The maximalist approach was adopted by the Qumran Community, and reflected by the Temple Scroll, Miqṣat Ma‘aśe ha-Torah (4QMMT), and the Damascus Document.28 The rabbinic halakhah reduced the pertinence of the rulings affecting purity and impurity by comparing the temple to the tabernacle with the priests and Levites, while Jerusalem was compared with the camp of the Israelite tribes. In contrast, for the Temple Scroll, the Damascus Document, and Miqṣat Ma‘aśe ha-Torah, Jerusalem as a whole was “a temple city” with special sanctity and therefore more rigorous rules were applied to it.29 27 The issue is summarized by Shmuel Safrai, Pilgrimage at the Time of the Second Temple (Tel Aviv: Am Hassefer Publishers, 1965), 151–55 (Heb.). 28 Traces of this approach are scattered in rabbinic sources. Cf. Sifre, Naso, 1; b. Zebaḥ. 116b. See Gedaliahu Alon, Studies in Jewish History (Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 1967), 1:174–76 (Heb.); Ya‛akov Sussmann, “The History of the Halakha and the Dead Sea Scrolls – Preliminary Observations on Miqṣat Ma‛aśe Ha-Torah (4QMMT),” Tarbiz 59 (1989): 11–76 (26–27, 35–37) (Heb.). 29 Yadin understood the term “the temple city” (‫ (עיר המקדש‬in the Temple Scroll as applying to Jerusalem, a view that gained general approval. Cf. idem, The Temple Scroll, 1:215–18, 305. However, there were some dissenting voices. David Henshke estimates that this scroll identified Jerusalem only with the tabernacle and its courts. His interpretation is based on the understanding that the term “the temple city” is, in fact, an extension of the temple to the city itself, an approach reflected, in his opinion, in the Temple Scroll and 4QMMT. Cf. idem, “The Sanctity of Jerusalem: the Sages and Sectarian Halakhah,” Tarbiz 67 (1998): 5–28 (21–22) (Heb.). Lawrence Schiffman also maintains that the term “temple city” covers the temple and its courts, but that this area was close to the city itself. Cf. idem, “Jerusalem in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Centrality of Jerusalem: Historical Perspectives (eds. M. Poorthius and C. Safrai; Kampen: 1996), 73–88 (79–82). Also Birenboim, “The Halachic Status of Jerusalem,” 8 advances a similar interpretation. However, Menahem Kister has demonstrated that the Temple Scroll (cols. XLVI, 5–7; XLVII, 3–17) makes a clear distinction between the city and the temple.

Jerusalem and the Temple in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90)

129

The Temple Scroll configures the term “the temple city” in three ways: a. Interdictions applied by the Torah of Israel camp are applied to the temple city (LXVI, 16–18 compared with Lev 13:46; XLV, 17 based on Num 5:2–4; XLVI, 13–16 interpreting Deut 23:13–15);30 b. Interdictions specified by the Torah relating to the access of maimed priests to the sancta are applied to Israelites in the temple city (e. g., XLV, 12–14 on the basis of Lev 21:17–23);31 c. The application of the temple sanctity to the entire temple city (XLV, 13–14; XLVII, 3–5, 10–14, 17–18;32 XLV, 11–12). The same view is espoused by the Damascus Document (XII, 1–2) and the Temple Scroll (XLV, 11–12), which forbid sexual intercourse in the temple city. In Miqṣat Ma‛aśe ha-Torah, this view is expressed by defining Jerusalem as “the sacred camp” ‫ ;)מחנה הקודש‬4Q396 1–2 ii 11).33 Thus, in matters related to the temple and sanctuary, it may be concluded that the legal teaching of the Qumran community shared with the rabbinic halakhah the comparison of the temple city to the camp of Israel during the desert wanderings. However, the Qumranites conceived the divine presence as dwelling in the entire temple city, as may be gathered from the comparison to the Israel camp and from various biblical prophecies.34 Hence, the Qumran community concluded that the sanctity of the temple embraces the entire city and therefore those who enter Jerusalem are bound by the rulings enforced in the temple itself. But another interesting and significant conclusion should be drawn here. If Jerusalem is likened to the Israel camp and is holy, the reverse is just as valid, namely, that the camp of Israel in the desert was in itself like a temple or a tabernacle. The idea is that the camp of Israel possessed a measure of sanctity, including as it did the tabernacle with the divine presence. This idea is already embedded in the biblical account and was the basis for some of the prohibitions imposed on the camp’s dwellers.35 However, only in the legal teaching of the Qumranites was this notion shaped into a systematic legal strategy.36 Cf. idem, “Studies in 4QMiqṣat Ma‛aśe Ha-Torah and Related Texts: Law, Theology, Language and Calendar,” Tarbiz 68 (1999): 317–71 (Heb.). 30 Yadin, The Temple Scroll, 221–28. 31 Ibid, 224–25. 32 In these passages, the references to the temple city are cast in the biblical phraseology related to the tabernacle (Exod 29:45) and the camp of Israel (Num 5:3). 33 See also 4QMMT (4Q394) 3–7 ii 16–17. Cf. Sussmann, “The History of the Halakha,” 34; Kister, “Studies in 4QMiqṣat Ma‛aśe Ha-Torah,” 337–39. 34 Cf. Isa 35:8; 52:1 and the comments by Menahem Haran, Between Ri’shonot (Former Prophecies) and Ḥadashot (New Prophecies): A Literary-Historical Study on the Group of Prophecies Isaiah XL–XLVIII (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1963), 96–101 (Heb.). See also Joel 4:17; Obad 17; Pss. Sol. 17:30; Jub. 1:28. 35 Cf. Menahem Haran, “The Priestly Image of the Tabernacle,” HUCA 36 (1965): 191–226. 36 In my judgment, Kister is correct in concluding that the Temple Scroll, 4QMMT, and Jubilees reflect a single approach that views Jerusalem as the temple city to which are applied the rulings pertinent to the camp of Israel in the desert. Cf. idem, “Studies in 4QMiqṣat Ma‛aśe ha-Torah,” 338, n. 87. The distinction made by Henshke between the Temple Scroll (and the Damascus Document) and that of 4QMMT concerning one detail (pertaining to the slaughter

130

Jerusalem and the Temple in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90)

The far-reaching influence of this notion on the Qumran community may be observed in the organizational configuration of the community as an analogy to the camp of Israel. Apparently, it evoked the sacral reality of the camp, transposed in this way to the communal existence in the present and in the future.37 The attempt to live out this analogy would account for the patterning of the military arrangements in the eschatological war to be conducted by the Qumranites on the desert camp.38 It would also explain certain features of the communal practices, such as partaking in a common meal in a state of purity.39 The modeling of the sectarian life on the desert camp has usually been explained as the projection of an eschatological configuration into the presence of the community, whereas the sacral character of the community was associated with its criticism of the contemporary Second Temple and its attempt to create a pure sacral entity with which to replace it.40 In light of what is known today on the community’s legal positions and practices, the two aspects of the reliving of the desert camp may be viewed as creating a sacred realm that substitutes the sacred area of the Second Temple.41 Yet, interestingly, the community did not conceive of itself as a spiritual temple that should replace the contemporary one, as argued by some. For its interest in the concrete details of the temple, as evidenced by the Temple Scroll, and its expectation of a real eschatological temple (cf. 11QTa XXIX, 9–10; 4Q174 1 i 2–5) demonstrate that it never abandoned the hope for an appropriate physical temple. Also, the writings of the Qumran group show that its communal life was a temporary replacement during the contemporary period of evil domination until Jerusalem could regain its proper status as the abode of a purified temple and cult. In light of the foregoing analysis, it is suggested that the life of the community constitutes the reconstruction of both the temple city and the desert camp, for both relate to the same sacral realm. The sectarian inclusive version of the halakhic notion identifying the tabernacle and the camp of Israel with the temple and the temple city sheds light on the symbolism of the house and why the AA employs it for both the tabernacle and Jerusalem. Evidently, both the sacred realm of the tabernacle camp and of secular animals) does not alter the fundamental similarity between the two in regards to the temple city. Cf. David Henshke, “The Sanctity of Jerusalem”; idem, “The Sanctity of Jerusalem in 4QMiqṣat Ma‛aśe Ha-Torah: A Reconsideration,” Tarbiz 69 (1999): 145–50 (Heb.). 37 See the discussion of Yadin, The Temple Scroll, 1:221–29, 238–41. 38 Cf., e. g., 1QS II, 19–22; 1QSa I, 15, 24; CD XII, 22–23; XIII, 1–2, 20; 1QM VII, 14. See Yadin, The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1955), 36–37, 53–56 (Heb.); idem, The Temple Scroll, 1:221–29, 238–41. 39 Cf. 1QS VI, 3–6 and Josephus, J. W. ii, 129–133. 40 Cf. Yadin, The Scroll of the War, 182–83; idem, The Temple Scroll, 1:142–44; Bertil Gärtner, The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament (SNTSMS 1; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), 4–15. 41 On the organizational patterns of the Qumran community that create a sacral realm, see Dimant, “4QFlorilegium and the Idea of the Community as Temple,” in Collected Studies, 269–99.

Jerusalem and the Temple in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90)

131

Jerusalem are meant by the symbol of the house.42 This peculiar combination is reintroduced in the eschatological era, where Jerusalem, represented by the house, acquires temple-like features. So the notion of a sacral area, where the entire nation assembles to worship God, best accounts for the symbol of the house. Understood in this way, the gathering of the flock within the house rather than in the tower is a precise representation of the cultic worship in the presence of the divine. Furthermore, if the AA does indeed adopt the sectarian halakhic view of the temple and temple city, the symbolic depiction suggests that only during its first stage did the Solomonic temple accommodate a proper cult, a state that later declined. The Second Temple is thus excluded completely from the correct mode of worship. Additional support for the foregoing interpretation is provided by the picture of the eschatological Jerusalem, for it, too, reflects the idea of the temple city as a large sacral area that includes the temple. Indeed, the future Jerusalem has a special character in the AA. On the one hand, it shares certain features with the tabernacle and the Solomonic period, for in all three the flock and its master dwell in the house and the flock’s eyes are open. So these are periods of harmony between Israel and its God. On the other hand, the eschatological era is also marked by peculiar aspects not found in other periods. It therefore merits a separate discussion.

IV. The Future Jerusalem (90:26–29, 33–36) The rebuilding of the eschatological Jerusalem follows two critical events in the vision: the victory of the flock over the wild animals and fowl, namely, the demise of the Gentiles,43 and the final judgment and punishment of the wicked (90:18–27). The judgment scene is of particular interest given its affinities to similar scenes in contemporary Aramaic works.44 Here, the judgment takes place on earth in the land of Israel.45 It follows a legal procedure, in which the 42 Birenboim (idem, “The Halachic Status of Jerusalem,” 11 n. 42) criticized the original version of the present article, arguing that it did not explain the difference between the tabernacle and the camp surrounding it. The formulation offered above clarifies this point by suggesting that the area of both the tabernacle and the camp is symbolized by the house. 43 Compare the elaborate descriptions of this final war in the War Scroll (1QM). 44 They are depicted by the book of Daniel (7:9–10), the Book of Watchers (1 En. 14:15–18), and the Book of Giants (4Q530 2 ii). Dan 7:9 and the AA (1 En. 90:20) share the detail that the throne (“thrones” in Daniel) is set down for the judgment. But while the scene in Daniel seems to take place in heaven, as it does in 1 Enoch 14, the AA places the throne of judgment in the land of Israel. For a comparison of these throne scenes, with references to previous literature, see the article “Apocalyptic and the Qumran Library” in this volume. 45 The place where the judgment throne of God will be erected is labeled “a desirable land,” mentioned also in 89:40. In both verses, the Ethiopic employs the adjective ḥawāz, meaning “pleasing, delightful” (cf. Dillmann, Lexicon, 118; Leslau, Concise Dictionary, 24). It refers to

132

Jerusalem and the Temple in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90)

angel who kept notes of the misdeeds of the shepherds (89:68–71) brings forth his records (90:20). So the record serves as evidence for the indictment, a procedure resembling that described in Dan 7:10, where books are opened before the “Ancient of Days” who is sitting in judgment. In the AA, the wicked brought to be judged in this fashion include the stars, the seventy shepherds, and the blind sheep. They represent the angels who sinned with the women, the seventy malevolent angels, and the wicked of Israel. All are thrown into a fiery abyss. This scene clearly presents the purification of the world from evil and wickedness, a preparatory stage for the ultimate righteousness, a process depicted also by the sectarian Community Rule (1QS IV, 18–22). So when this is done, the stage is prepared for the reconstruction of the eschatological house. The vision Enoch sees describes the process of rebuilding the house in the following words: “And I stood up to see, until that old house was rolled up46 – and they removed all the pillars, and all the beams and ornaments of the house were folded up with it – and they removed it and put it in a place to the south of the land. And I saw until the master of the flock brought a new house, larger and higher than the first one, and he erected it on the site of the first one that had been rolled up. And all the pillars were new, and its ornaments were new and larger than (those of) the first one, the old one that had been removed” (90:28–29).47

Here, the establishment of the new house is carried out by God himself unlike the dismantling of the old one. This distinction is expressed by the use of different verbs for each activity: the dismantling of the old house is referred to by verbs in the plural, whereas the reconstruction of the new one is described by verbs in the singular. Perhaps the former is performed by angels. Alternatively, the plural may stand for indefinite agent expression. It is notable that the old house is not demolished but is rolled up and transported to a distant place, to a type of genizah.48 The details that drew much attention are the columns and decorations of the house. They are part of the old, dismantled house (90:28), but new and larger columns and decorations are installed in the new house. The house itself is larger and taller than the one it replaces (90:29). The noteworthy feature of the new house is that it is being built by the master of the flock, namely by God, and he dwells in it (90:29). It has been argued that the reference to the columns the land of Israel, probably reflecting the biblical nomenclature ‫“( ארץ חמדה‬a pleasant land”; cf. Jer 3:19; Zech 7:14; Ps 106:24). 46 The Ethiopic has a third-person form of the verb ṭoma, “fold up, roll up” (Dillman, Lexicon, 1238; Leslau, Concise Dictionary, 219). The same verb renders Isa 34:4 (‫ונגלו כספר השמים‬, “and the skies roll up like a scroll”). Cf. Assefa, L’Apocalypse des Animaux, 40. 47 The translation is that of George W. E. Nickelsburg and James C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004), 135, with slight adaptations of my own. 48 This point was stressed by Flusser, “Jerusalem in the Second Temple Literature,” 47.

Jerusalem and the Temple in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90)

133

of the house and its decorations suggest that the temple is being illustrated here and not Jerusalem.49 Also the motif of miraculous divine building refers to the temple (cf. below) and not to the city. However, such an interpretation does not accord with the usually consistent use of symbols observed in the AA. Neither are columns and decorations necessarily part of a temple but may portray the magnificence of the future city. Here, the AA may echo the visions of Isaiah (54:2–3, 11–12) and Ezekiel (48:30–35) of the grand future of Jerusalem, a tradition also elaborated by Second Temple writings.50 So the splendor of the future Jerusalem is well rooted in biblical and contemporary literature. The use of the same symbol and details for the future Jerusalem and for the entity it supplants suggests that also the first instance stands for the city and not the temple. The distinction between the historical Jerusalem and the eschatological one is seen in several details. The main difference between the two is expressed in the presence of the tower in the historical house, namely the existence of the temple, while the future house lacks the tower; so, the future city will be without a temple. The absence of the tower forms a correlation between the future house and the house of the desert period, namely the future Jerusalem and the tabernacle camp of Israel. The analogy is observed in other details: for just as the people of Israel gather in the sacred area of the tabernacle camp as stressed in 89:36, so will the people of Israel gather in the future Jerusalem (90:34). The gathering of Israel is, in fact, absent from the depiction of the tower, but is always associated with the house. Also this detail suggests that the presence of the flock in the house conveys a cultic meaning. The analogy between the tabernacle camp and the future Jerusalem is explained appropriately by assuming that the sacral realm of the desert unit equals that of the eschatological city. It appears, then, as an application of the halakhic term “temple city” to the prospective Jerusalem. Thus, the eventual city will itself become a large temple, recreating the sacred tabernacle camp. One notable absence from this future city is the sacrificial cult, for in the future Jerusalem there is no “table” with food, representing the sacrifices offered in the two historical temples (89:50, 73).51 It is replaced by the presence of the master of the 49 Cf.

the discussions cited in n. 17 above. Tob 13:11–17; 14:5; Pss. Sol. 17:30–31; Jub. 1:28–29, and the Aramaic Qumran work the New Jerusalem (for this writing, see Lorenzo DiTommaso, The Dead Sea New Jerusalem Text [TSAJ 110; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005], 112–17). The New Jerusalem describes in detail the enormous breadth and splendor of the future Jerusalem and the temple. Also notable is the Psalms Scroll from Cave 11, which refers to the spaciousness of the eschatological Jerusalem (11QPsa XXII, 14). See the comment of Menahem Kister, “Jerusalem and the Temple in the Writings from Qumran,” in The Qumran Scrolls and Their World (ed. M. Kister; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2009), 2:477–96 (478–80) (Heb.). 51 Tiller, Commentary, 47, claims that the house of the final period does not represent the temple, since it lacks the sacrificial cult. However, the sacral aspect of the house city is clearly indicated by the presence of the master of the flock within the house in the midst of the sheep. 50 Cf.

134

Jerusalem and the Temple in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90)

flock within the house and among the sheep (90:32), symbolizing the divine presence within Israel. This again reflects partly the circumstances of the tabernacle (89:36), but also the grand vision of the future harmony between God and Israel following the fulfillment of the prophesied ideal circumstances (Ezek 43:10; Zech 2:14–15; 8:3).52 Perhaps the analogy between the tabernacle camp and the future Jerusalem lies behind the dismantling of the old house before the building of the new one (90:28). Though not stated explicitly, the old house should include also the tower, namely the historical temple. Since the latter was impure (89:73), it had to be disposed of in the final purified future. So the building of the new house symbolizes the thorough renewal of the temple city in the final redemptive era. Yet, beside the analogy between the reality of the tabernacle camp and the ideal Jerusalem, they also differ in important respects. During the desert years, the entire flock, namely the people of Israel, “dwelled” in the tabernacle camp, whereas the flock dwelling in the future Jerusalem consists of the elect group from which the future people of Israel will be reconstituted. The particular merits of the sheep populating the final age are marked by their pure white wool (90:32) and their opened eyes (90:35). In the AA, their white color portrays their divine election. The archangels, symbolized by human figures, also appear in white (97:2; 90:31), as do the elect lineage of Adam, his offspring, and the patriarchs (95:3, 8–9; 89:1, 9, 11–12). The mention of the white color in the preparatory stage leading to the eschatological conclusion (90:6) and its prominent presence in this era itself signify the return of the elective element first to Israel and later to the entirety of humanity (90:32, 37–38). So the Israel of the future era will be righteous and of true understanding, as were Enoch, Noah, and the patriarchs in primordial times. The full return to the archaic humanity is achieved in the transformation of the sheep into white bulls (90:38), the type of animals appearing only in the first human generations, Abraham and Isaac being the last of them (89:11). Therefore, the eschatological period is characterized not only by a transformation of the city, but also by a metamorphosis of Israel and the accompanying Gentiles.53 The description draws on various biblical prophecies that delineate the purification of the future Jerusalem and its conversion into a center of worship for all mankind.54 But the AA turns these disparate threads into a unified and coherent string of events, where each development has a precise place in the sequence.

contrast, Jub. 1:17, 29 speak of the erection of the future temple in the midst of Israel. in contrast to the AA, Gentiles are barred from the eschatological temple pictured by the Qumranic Florilegium (4Q174 1–2 i 2–6). For an analysis of this passage, see Dimant, “4QFlorilegium and the Idea of the Community as Temple,” in Collected Studies, 269–88 (272–73). 54 Cf. Isa 2:2–3; 52:1; Ezek 44:9; Mic 4:1; Zech 8:22. 52 In

53 Interestingly,

Jerusalem and the Temple in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90)

135

The choice of the house as the symbol of the future Jerusalem is, then, an intentional representation. It indicates that in the eschatological era there will be no need for a separate temple for the city itself will be like the camp of Israel with God dwelling in its midst and all the elect Israelites will gather there in peace with the Gentiles to worship together the God of Israel.55 The absence of sacrifices in this temple-like city may suggest a worship of a novel form. Perhaps the concept of Jerusalem as a temple city lies also behind the Qumranic Pesher of Isaiah (4Q164). The pesher interprets Isaiah’s forecast of the city’s future magnificence (Isa 54:11–14) as a reference to the structure of the Qumran community. The community’s belief that they were living at the dawn of the redemption is well known. So the pesharist sees his community as an actualization of the sacral realm of the future magnificent Jerusalem of Isaiah. In light of the Qumran community’s view that in its life and organization it enacts the sacral reality of a temple, as clearly expressed by Florilegium (4Q174 1–2 6–7),56 perhaps this pesher also adheres to this idea and portrays the reality of the community that enacts the realm of the future temple city.57 Jerusalem as a sacral domain that includes the temple and houses the Christian community of the righteous is outlined also in Revelation 21–22;58 it perhaps indicates the links of this New Testament work to notions developed by the Qumran community and related circles.59 How did the depiction of Jerusalem in the Enochic vision feature in contemporary views about the temple and Jerusalem at the end of days? It must be stressed that no trace is observed in the AA of the notions about the future temple or the future Jerusalem being prepared in heaven until the days of redemption 55 Peace is one of the characteristics of the eschatological era (cf. Isa 9:6; 11:6–9; 54:13; Jer 30:10–11; Ezek 34:28). In the AA, it is symbolized by the final return to God of the sword that had been given to Israel to fight against the Gentiles, and its sealing before him (90:19, 34). 56 Florilegium cites there Exod 15:17–18 as the verse promising the establishment of the eschatological temple in this divine manner. Also the Sages based their idea of the eschatological heavenly temple on this verse. Cf. Mek., Beshalah, Masechta de Shira, 10. See Dimant, “4QFlorilegium”; Kister, “Jerusalem and the Temple,” 293–94. 57 Also to be compared here is the picture of the future community in the Rule of the Congregation (1Q28a). On the typology of Jerusalem, see David Flusser, “Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes in Pesher Nahum,” in Judaism of the Second Temple Period, Volume 1: Qumran and Apocalypticism (trans. A. Yadin; Grand Rapids/Jerusalem: Eerdmans/Magnes, 2007), 214–57 (237–38). Flusser, ibid, 237 speaks of “a conflation of the edifice and city symbolism prevalent in the Qumran writings.” He also discusses Christian reworking of the idea of the heavenly Jerusalem, such as Gal 4:21–31 and Heb 12:18–24. See also Hans Bietenhard, Die himmlische Welt im Urchristentum und Spätjudentum (WUNT 2; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1951), 192–204. 58 See, for instance, Rev 21:21; 22:14. On the similarity between Revelation and the Qumranic Pesher of Psalms (4Q164), see David Flusser, “The Pesher of Isaiah and the Notion of Twelve Apostles in Early Christianity,” in Jewish Sources in Early Christianity (Tel Aviv: Sifriat Poalim, 1979), 283–304 (Heb.). 59 Perhaps the usage made by the Christians of the notion of the celestial Jerusalem was behind the Tannaitic attempt to attenuate the splendor of the future Jerusalem (cf. b. Ta‘an. 5a).

136

Jerusalem and the Temple in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90)

when they will descend to earth.60 Such ideas are known at the earliest from sources dated to around 70 C. E. The AA speaks only of the miraculous building of Jerusalem by God himself and this is the earliest attestation to such a notion. Although both the AA and the Qumran Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice are familiar with the idea of a heavenly temple, it is not associated with the eschatological temple. The only idea expressed in early sources is that the eschatological temple will be built by divine initiative, as recorded by two Qumranic works, the Temple Scroll (11QTa XXIX, 9–10) and Florilegium (4Q174 1–2 i 2–4), and perhaps indicated by Jubilees (1:29). The fact that the eschatological temple appears without connection to the fate of Jerusalem suggests that the two ideas originated independently. Only the AA speaks of a single entity at the end of days, represented by the house. So it appears that the future miraculous building was conceived initially as being the temple and later became Jerusalem. Perhaps this transition was effected in circles close to the Qumran community that considered Jerusalem to be a temple city in the sense of the Temple Scroll, namely an expanded sacred realm. Once this transformation was effected, motifs relating originally to the temple were applied also to the city. The AA exemplifies this kind of development.

V. Conclusion In the foregoing analysis, the term “temple city,” according to the understanding of the Qumran community, was brought in to explain peculiarities in the symbolism of the AA. Advocated by the Temple Scroll, Miqṣat Ma‛aśe Ha-Torah, and the Damascus Document, the concept of the temple city’s sacral realm is analogous to that of the tabernacle camp of Israel in the desert depicted by the AA. This analogy accounts for the use by the AA of the same symbol, the house, for both the camp and Jerusalem. The concept of a future temple built by divine action is an old one and is attested by other Second Temple works, but the idea that the future Jerusalem will also be built in this fashion is first recorded in the AA and is to be explained by the view of Jerusalem as a temple city. Since the AA displays numerous links to the ideology of the Qumran community, its ideas about Jerusalem also may have been influenced by the community’s thinking on the subject. Indeed, the reality of the sacral realm of the temple 60 The concept of the celestial Jerusalem that miraculously descends on earth should not be confused with the idea of the speedy building of the future Jerusalem. The latter may be alluded to in the version of the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa) for Isa 49:17 ‫מהרו בוניך מהורסיך‬, “your constructors come swifter than those who ruin you” (similarly the LXX) rather than in the MT version ‫מהרסיך‬ ָ ‫מהרו ָבניך‬, “your children come swiftly, those who ruin you …” (See the textual note in DJD XXXII, pt. 2, 172). On the possible connection of the reading in the scroll and midrashic exegesis of the eschatological Jerusalem, see David Flusser, “The Text of Isa. xlix, 17 in the DSS,” Text 2 (1962): 140–42 (142).

Jerusalem and the Temple in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90)

137

and the temple city apparently lies at the basis of Isaiah 54 in the Pesher of Isaiah and in the Qumran community’s self-image as constituting a sacral realm. Another conclusion emerging from the above discussion is that the speculations about the future Jerusalem being prepared in heaven for the final eschaton belong to a later stage, following the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 C. E.

The Book of Parables (1 Enoch 37–71) and the Qumran Community Worldview Introduction The Book of Enoch, or 1 Enoch, was introduced to European academia during the eighteenth century, when travelers brought Ethiopic manuscripts from Ethiopia, among them the text of Enoch as preserved in the Ethiopic Scriptures. The scholarly research of the nineteenth century arrived at the conclusion that the work is Jewish, composed during the Second Temple era, and that its original language was Semitic, either Hebrew or Aramaic. These conclusions were summarized in the influential commentary published by Robert H. Charles in 1912.1 The results of the critical analysis of the book were confirmed strikingly some fifty years later with the discovery of Aramaic copies of most sections of 1 Enoch among the Qumran scrolls, proving that they were indeed authored in a Semitic language, in this case in Aramaic, during the Second Temple period. Yet, the early critical examinations of the book had already noted that the Ethiopic work is, in fact, a compendium of five distinct works that draw upon traditions relating to Enoch. Several of them are interdependent but the distinctive details and structures of each one indicate their independent character. This conclusion was also corroborated by the Qumran evidence, for the various Aramaic copies of Enoch indicate different transmission and differing copying practices for the various sections of the Enochic work.2 Following Józef Milik, the first to identify and edit the 1 Enoch copies, the distinct works are named as follows: the Book of Watchers (= 1 En. 1–36), the Book of Parables (= 1 En. 37–71), the Astronomical Book (= 1 En. 72–82), the Book of Dreams (= 1 En. 83–90), and the Epistle of Enoch (= 1 En. 91–105). Two annexes are attached to the Epistle (or to the entire Ethiopic collection), the story of the birth of Noah (= 1 En. 106–107) and Enoch’s words on the eschaton (= 1 En. 108). Fragmentary copies of four Enochic writings were identified among the Qumran scrolls: the Book of Watchers, an expanded version of the Astronomical Book, the Book of Dreams, and the Epistle of Enoch. The distinctive literary background of each writing as reflected by the Qumran texts also confirms 1 See 2 Cf.

Robert H. Charles, The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1912). Milik, Books of Enoch.

140 The Book of Parables (1 Enoch 37–71) and the Qumran Community Worldview the compendium-like character of the Ethiopic 1 Enoch.3 Notably, nothing of the second Enochic work, the Book of Parables (henceforth BP), was found at Qumran.

The Book of Parables Long before the discovery of the Qumran documents, scholarship on 1 Enoch recognized that in many respects the BP differs from other parts of the 1 Enoch collection.4 Particularly prominent in this work is the depiction of the messianic figure, the elect “Son of Man,” in a way not recorded in other Enochic writings or in any of the early Jewish literature. At the same time, it has been observed that this figure is close to the Gospels’ descriptions of Jesus. Thus, the BP drew the attention of scholarship on early Christianity,5 but its connections with the Hekhalot literature also have been pointed out.6 The work is also unusual in that no fragments or quotations in Greek have been preserved in Christian literature from the first centuries,7 unlike those from other parts of Enoch. These uncommon circumstances have been further highlighted by its absence at Qumran, which induced Milik to assume that the BP was authored by a Christian in the third century C. E.8 However, since there is nothing Christian about the BP, neither is the figure of the Messiah Son of Man in the BP connected with Jesus or his death, this hypothesis has failed to convince scholars.9 Today, it is generally agreed that the BP is of Jewish authorship.10   3 For details on the Qumran 1 Enoch copies, see the article “The Biography of Enoch and the Books of Enoch” in this volume. On the Astronomical Book, see the recent discussions of Jonathan Ben-Dov, Head of All Years: Astronomy and Calendars at Qumran in their Ancient Context (STDJ 78; Leiden: Brill, 2008) and Henryk Drawnel, The Aramaic Astronomical Book (4Q208–4Q211) from Qumran (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).   4 See the summary of Charles, The Book of Enoch, xlviii–xlix.   5 For a survey of opinions on this issue, see David W. Suter, “Weighed in the Balance: The Similitudes of Enoch in Recent Discussion,” RSR 7 (1981): 217–21 (218–19); idem, “Enoch in Sheol: Updating the Dating of the Book of Parables,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables (ed. G. Boccaccini; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 415–43.   6 See David W. Suter, Tradition and Composition in the Parables of Enoch (SBLDS 47; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979), 14–23; idem, “Weighed in the Balance,” 218–19; idem, “Enoch in Sheol,” 426–27.   7 But see Daniel C. Olson, “An Overlooked Patristic Allusion to the Parables of Enoch,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, 492–96.   8 Milik, The Books of Enoch, 91–92.   9 As noted by John J. Collins (idem, The Apocalyptic Imagination [2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998], 178), it is difficult to see how a Christian author would avoid doing so. 10 For the arguments that reject Christian authorship, see the summary of Suter, “Weighed in the Balance,” 217–18. On the possible dependence of the Gospels on the BP and not the reverse, see Johannes Theisohn, Die auserwählten Richter: Untersuchungen zum traditionsgeschichtlichen Ort der Menschensohngestalt der Bilderreden des Äthiopischen Henoch (SUNT 12; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975), 161–201.

The Book of Parables (1 Enoch 37–71) and the Qumran Community Worldview

141

The Semitic original of the BP is evident in the Ethiopic version in its style and locutions. Some scholars believe that it was originally composed in Hebrew11 but most of them agree that the Ethiopic was translated from a Greek version that rendered a Semitic original. The assumption of an intermediate Greek stage is based on the presence of Greek translations for other Enochic works. Also, some cruxes in the Ethiopic may be explained by a translation via Greek.12 Only a few estimate that the Ethiopic was translated directly from the Semitic original, probably from Aramaic.13 Today, most students of the work hold that it was translated from a Semitic version into Greek and then rendered to Ethiopic.14 The Jewish character of the BP suggests that it was composed before the Christian notion of Jesus as Son of Man took shape since it is improbable that a Jewish author would have written depictions so close to this concept after it was identified as Christian.15 The fact that no mention is made of the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 C. E. – a traumatic event to a Jewish author at the time – indicates that the work was authored prior to this event.16 Therefore, many assign the composition of the writing to the first half of the first century C. E. Such a date is suggested by two references:17 the first, in 1 Enoch 56:5–7, seems to allude to the Parthian invasion of the land of Israel in 40 B. C. E., the second, in 1 Enoch 67:5–13, appears to refer to Herod the Great’s journey to seek healing in the medicinal hot springs of Kallirrohe, an event reported by

11 Cf., for instance, Charles, The Book of Enoch, lvii–lviii; François Martin, Le livre d’Hénoch (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1906), lvii; Matthew Black, The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch (SVTP 7; Leiden: Brill, 1985), 24–27. 12 Thus, for instance, assumed André Caquot and Pierre Geoltrain, “Notes sur le texte éthiopien des ‘Paraboles’ d’Hénoch,” Sem 13 (1963): 39–54; Milik, Books of Enoch, 92 and Black, The Book of Enoch, 24–27. 13 For the BP, this was the opinion of Nathaniel Schmidt, “The Original Language of the Parables of Enoch,” in Old Testament and Semitic Studies in Memory of William Rainey Harper (eds. R. F. Harper, F. Brown, and G. F. Moore; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1908), 329–49. Edward Ullendorff estimated that, with a few exceptions, this was the case for the entire book of Enoch. See idem, “An Aramaic ‘Vorlage’ of the Ethiopic Text of Enoch,” in Atti del Convegno Internationale di Studi Ethiopici (Rome: Academia Nazionale dei Lincei, 1960), 259–68. 14 See the survey of older and recent opinions by George W. E. Nickelsburg and James C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 30–32. On p. 32, the view that the original was composed in Aramaic is seen as preferable. 15 For other arguments, see n. 9 above. 16 For the various dates proposed for the book, spanning through the first century C. E., see Siegbert Uhlig, Das äthiopische Henochbuch (JSHRZ 6; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlaghaus, 1984), 574; Suter, “Enoch in Sheol,” 415–43; Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, 58–60. 17 See, e. g., Jonas C. Greenfield and Michael E. Stone, “The Enochic Pentateuch and the Date of the Similitudes,” HTR 70 (1977): 51–65 (60); Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 178; Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, 59–60.

142 The Book of Parables (1 Enoch 37–71) and the Qumran Community Worldview Josephus (J. W. xvii, 171–173).18 The BP was, then, plausibly composed around the beginning of the era19 or somewhat later. Whatever the case may be, the origin and background of the work remain unknown, as is the way in which it became part of the Ethiopic compendium. The relationship between this composition and contemporary Jewish literature is evident in a fair number of issues. For it betrays knowledge of traditions associated with the book of Daniel and the earlier Enochic works. This connection is apparent in the work’s treatment of issues such as the final judgment, the punishment of the wicked and reward of the righteous, the visions of the heavenly world, the angels, and Enoch’s role in transmitting knowledge of these hidden realms. The BP reworks explicitly the visions of Daniel, especially that of the judgment scene in Daniel 7,20 and draws clearly on the traditions gathered in the Book of Watchers.21 Even so, the BP has its own unique features, such as the Messiah as the elect Son of Man and the myth about the Leviathan and Behemoth being eaten by the righteous at the eschatological banquet (1 En. 60:7–9, 24), a theme also recorded in 4 Ezra 6:49–52 and 2 Bar. 29:4.22 In addition, the names of the sinful angels, listed in 1 Enoch 69:2–14, differ from those in the list given in the Book of Watchers (1 En. 6:7). Another peculiar feature of the work are the narrative passages concerning Noah that have been incorporated into the third parable (1 En. 54:7–55:2; 60; 65–69), indicating the variety of sources drawn upon by the author. The probability that the BP was composed in Aramaic or Hebrew, and its contiguity with the Jewish apocalyptic tradition and the Enochic literature suggest that it was composed in the land of Israel. If the writing was indeed created at the end of the first century B. C. E. or the beginning of the first century C. E., it appeared in close proximity in time and place to the final stage of the Qumran community. However, more than forty years ago, Jonas Greenfield ruled out a possible link between the Book of Parables and the Qumran community by arguing that the first parable of Enoch (1 En. 41:5–7) accords equal value to the

18 Already August Dillmann proposed connecting this verse with Herod. See idem, Das Buch Henoch (Leipzig: Vogel, 1853), 206. 19 Thus also Pierluigi Piovanelli, “‘A Testimony for the Kings and the Mighty Who Possess the Earth’: The Thirst for Justice and Peace in the Parables of Enoch,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, 363–79 (375–76). 20 Cf. Theisohn, Die auserwählten Richter, 22–25, 44–47. 21 Cf., e. g., George W. E. Nickelsburg, “Discerning the Structure(s) of the Enochic Book of Parables,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, 23–47 (45–46); Michael A. Knibb, “The Structure and Composition of the Parables of Enoch,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, 48–64. While the relationship between the Book of Watchers and the Book of Parables is clear, describing the latter as “a sort of midrashic rewriting” of the former, as asserted by Pierluigi Piovanelli (idem, “‘A Testimony for the Kings and the Mighty’,” 363), is overstating the case. 22 See the citations and discussion by Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, 239–42.

The Book of Parables (1 Enoch 37–71) and the Qumran Community Worldview

143

sun and the moon, an attitude incongruous with the sectarian solar calendar.23 Therefore, the affinity between certain formulations in the BP to the writings of the Qumran community has been explained as the influence of a sectarian group that differed from the Qumran Community.24 However, the view that there is no relationship between the BP and the Qumran community due to the 364-day calendar came into being before the publication of the Qumran calendrical texts. Once they were out, it became clear that the Qumranites also placed importance on the moon and that they followed a 364-day lunisolar calendar.25 So, from an ideological point of view, there is no reason to discard connections between the BP and the literature of the Qumran community, or even its members. Perhaps the absence of the BP at Qumran may be explained in another way, namely by the character and date of the Qumranite activity. It is a well-known fact that most of the scrolls kept in the Qumran library were not autographs but copies of the original works that were either taken to the settlement or copied there. These copies were penned mainly during the second and first centuries B. C. E.,26 and some of them were probably authored during this period. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Qumran library contained a work authored at the beginning of the first century C. E., for the evidence suggests that the main literary productivity of the group took place in the preceding centuries. If the BP was created at the beginning of the era, or slightly later, it came into being when the Qumran authors were no longer producing new works; it thus remained outside the range of the sectarian community proper. However, being a contemporary of Qumran’s final phase, the BP is likely to have come into contact with the Qumran library and sectarian literature and ideas, as did other contemporaneous works such as 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch.27 Indeed, many points of contact with the Qumran sectarian ideas detected in the BP suggest that its author was familiar with the sectarian worldview and literature. These links, yet to be fully explored, have become particularly clear with the recent publication of the sectarian Wisdom literature from Qumran. The presence of these similarities does not require the assumption that the author himself belonged to the sectarian circles. Although 23 Cf. Jonas C. Greenfield, “Prolegomenon,” in Hugo Odeberg, 3 Enoch or the Hebrew Book of Enoch (New York: Ktav, 1973), xviii. See also Greenfield and Stone, “The Enochic Pentateuch,” 56; Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 177. 24 Cf. Greenfield and Stone, ibid. The solution of Collins, ibid. is similar. See also Suter, Tradition and Composition, 32; James C. VanderKam, Enoch: A Man for All Generations (Columbia: University of South Carolina, 1995), 133. 25 Cf. Jonathan Ben-Dov and Wayne Horowitz, “The Babylonian Lunar Three in Qumran Calendars,” ZA 95 (2005): 104–21; Jonathan Ben-Dov, “The Initial Stages of Lunar Theory at Qumran,” JJS 54 (2003): 125–38. 26 Cf. Emanuel Tov, DJD XXXIX, 235. 27 For indication of such connections in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, see the article “4 Ezra and 2 Baruch in Light of Qumran Literature” in this volume.

144 The Book of Parables (1 Enoch 37–71) and the Qumran Community Worldview the BP refers to a group of “elect, righteous, holy,” it lacks the confined, exclusive, and self-sufficient attitude typical of the Qumran community and other sectarian groupings, but addresses Israel at large.28 Yet this does not preclude the influence on the BP author of significant religious notions entertained by the Qumranic sectarian literature. Some of the terms used by the BP that resemble those used at Qumran were noticed by Jonas Greenfield himself. He noted that the locution “God of the Spirits” (‫ ;אל הרוחות‬cf. Num 16:22; 27:16), the epithet for God appearing in the BP, is similar to the expression “lord of every spirit” )‫ )אדון לכול רוח‬found in Hodayot XVIII, 10.29 Furthermore, even if the combination ‫ אל הרוחות‬does not occur in the Qumran sectarian texts, the frequent use in the sectarian literature of the term ‫“( רוחות‬spirits”) for angels and sometimes for humans may account for the predilection for this designation in the BP. The second term adduced by Greenfield is the appellative ‫“( בחיר‬elect”) for the Messiah Son of Man, and ‫“( בחירים‬elect”) in the plural for the righteous. The appellation ‫ בחירים‬for the members of the Scrolls community appears in their literature with possessive suffixes such as ‫“( בחירו‬his elect” [singular or plural]) in the Pesher of Habakkuk V, 4 and 4Q374 2 ii 5, or as nomen regens (governing noun) in construct pairs such as “the elect of Israel” (‫ בחירי ישראל‬in CD IV, 3), “the elect of (divine) will” (‫ בחירי רצון‬in the Community Rule VIII, 6), or “the elect of righteousness” (‫ בחירי צדק‬in Hodayot X, 15).30 There is also evidence of correspondence of the BP with the Qumran Aramaic texts,31 and it suggests that the figure of the Messiah Son of Man was not the BP’s own creation but rather was rooted in the Jewish literature of the Second Temple period.32 However, this issue remains outside the concerns of the present discussion since it has been addressed by others.33 The preoccupation with the messianic figure in the BP has overshadowed other peculiar aspects of this writing. Once it is realized that no ideological 28 As

argued by Piovanelli, “‘A Testimony for the Kings and the Mighty’,” 363–79. Greenfield, “Prolegomenon,” xvii–xviii; Greenfield and Stone, “The Enochic Pentateuch,” 57. The authors refer also to Jub. 10:3, which employs the biblical locution but, as they point out, this choice itself suggests a connection to the Qumran community’s literature. 30 Cf. Greenfield, “Prolegomenon,” xvii–xviii; Greenfield and Stone, “The Enochic Pentateuch,” 57. 31 Cf. Michael A. Knibb, “Messianism in the Pseudepigrapha in the Light of the Scrolls,” DSD 2 (1995): 165–84 (170–80). 32 Among the relevant Qumran texts surveyed by Knibb, “Messianism in the Pseudepigrapha” are the Hebrew Berakhot (4Q286–4Q290), the Melchizedek Pesher (11Q13), and the Aramaic 4Q246 and 4Q534. The Messianic Apocalypse (4Q521) may be added to the Hebrew texts. 33 See, for instance, James C. VanderKam, “Righteous One, Messiah, Chosen One, and Son of Man in 1 Enoch 37–71,” in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity (eds. J. H. Charlesworth et al.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 162–91; Knibb, “Messianism in the Pseudepigrapha.” 29 Cf.

The Book of Parables (1 Enoch 37–71) and the Qumran Community Worldview

145

constraints prevented the BP from drawing on the literature of the Qumran community, the field is open for exploring possible contacts with the Scrolls, now enhanced by a substantial number of new texts.34 Since the BP was probably authored in Aramaic or Hebrew, the Ethiopic version still reflects locutions translatable into these two languages. So a systematic examination of the BP terms and phraseology in comparison with those of the Qumran Scrolls is feasible and should yield significant insights into the character and background of this enigmatic writing. As an illustration of this line of investigation, two passages from the BP are compared below with the Qumran Hebrew sectarian writings.

Character of the Book of Parables The BP consists of three Enochic discourses named “parables”: 1 Enoch 37–44, 45–57, and 58–71. Chapters 70–71 are distinctive in character, as they relate to Enoch’s ascension to the heavenly temple and the visions he saw there. Hence, some view these chapters as an addition to the main work whereas others consider them an inherent part of the entire writing.35 The first section of BP includes Enoch’s introduction (37) and the first parable (38–44). Enoch proclaims his function as the transmitter to mankind of the wisdom revealed to him (37:2) and announces its divine source (37:10). The remaining sections of the first parable depict the places Enoch saw and the secrets of the end of days divulged to him during the course of these travels. Except for an introductory passage (38–39:1) on the future fate of the righteous and the wicked and a reference to the crime of the sinful angels with the women and their punishment, Enoch sees wondrous things at the end of the heavens, where he is taken by a storm (39:3). Among other things, he observes the angels’ dwelling place and the resting place of the righteous. He contemplates the Messiah Elect One and his dwelling place “under the wings of the Lord of the Spirits” (39:7).36 Then he is shown the armies of angels who stand before the 34 On the affinity between BP (= 1 En. 58:1–6) and Hodayot XXI, 14–16, see Menahem Kister, “4Q392 1 and the Concept of Light in Qumran ‘Dualism’,” Meghillot 3 (2005): 126–42 (135–36) (Heb.). On its affinity to the Qumran literature in other respects, see Ida Fröhlich,“The Parables of Enoch and Qumran Literature,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, 343–51 (346–49). 35 James VanderKam, for instance, notes the tight structure of these two chapters and their linkage to the main body of the BP (idem, “Righteous One, Messiah,” 177–82). On the structure of the BP, see George W. E. Nickelsburg, “Discerning the Structure(s) of the Enochic Book of Parables,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, 23–47; Knibb, “Structure and Composition”; Loren T. Stuckenbruck, “The Parables of Enoch according to George Nickelsburg and Michael Knibb: A Summary of Discussion and Some Remaining Questions,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, 65–71. 36 The quotations from the BP in the present article are taken from Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, with occasional alterations. See also the translation of Michael

146 The Book of Parables (1 Enoch 37–71) and the Qumran Community Worldview Lord of Spirits. Enoch travels in various cosmic domains in the company of an angel sometimes called “the Angel of Peace,” who answers his questions and explains details that amaze the watching Enoch (40:2, 8–10; 43:3–4). Enoch also observes the four archangels and receives an explanation of their functions (40). The first parable concludes with a description of the sinners driven out of heaven, the source of various meteorological phenomena, and the course of the luminaries and the stars (41–44). Not all of these details are the innovations of the BP. Its author drew much from the Book of Watchers, the Astronomical Book, and the Book of Dreams, which he seemed to be familiar with, but at times introduced his own elements not found in other Enochic writings. So some critics identify different sources and authors in the book37 while others view it as the work of a single author who brought together various traditions or sources.38 Whichever the case may be, it is worthwhile examining passages that are particularly close to the Scrolls.

Comparing the Book of Parables with the Qumran Scrolls The benediction of Enoch (39:10–13): An illuminating example of the character and concerns of the BP is offered by the short benediction Enoch pronounces after having contemplated the resting place of the righteous and the elect. The feature that drew most scholarly attention in this benediction was the doxology it contains but other aspects and links to the preceding Enochic literature were left unmentioned. Enoch’s benedictions, praises, and prayers are also recorded in other Enochic writings. Enoch’s blessing and praise of God conclude the Book of Watchers (1 En. 36:4). In the Book of Dreams, they appear at the end of his first (1 En. 84:2–6) and second (1 En. 90:40) dreams and in the BP they conclude the book (1 En. 71:11). Enoch utters a similar benediction and eulogy near the end of the Astronomical Book (1 En. 81:3). Nevertheless, the benediction under consideration (1 En. 39:10–13) is unique in several respects. It employs biblical phraseology and probably drew on benediction formulary used during the last centuries of the Second Temple era.39 In addition, it echoes praises from the Enochic works listed above, with which the author seems to have been familiar. However, the uniqueness of the BP benedicA. Knibb, “1 Enoch,” in The Apocryphal Old Testament (ed. H. F. D. Sparks; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984), 184–319. 37 See, e. g., Erik Sjöberg, Der Menschensohn im äthiopischen Henochbuch (ARSHLL 41: Lund: Gleerup, 1946), 13–35; Uhlig, Das äthiopische Henochbuch, 573. 38 See, for instance, Suter, Tradition and Composition, 219; VanderKam, “Righteous one, Messiah,” 177–82. 39 On early benediction formulations in the final centuries of the Second Temple period, see Joseph Heinemann, Prayer in the Period of the Tanna’im and the Amora’im: Its Nature and Its Patterns (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1966), 22–26 (Heb.).

The Book of Parables (1 Enoch 37–71) and the Qumran Community Worldview

147

tion lies in that it incorporates terms related to the doctrine of predestination. Some of its wording is closely related to the phraseology used by the literature of the Qumran community. The benediction runs as follows: Blessed is he, and may he be blessed40 from the beginning and forever.41 In his presence there is no limit; He knew before the world was created what would be forever and for all the generations that will be.42 Those who sleep not bless you and they stand in the presence of your glory and they bless and praise and extol,43 saying “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of the Spirits, he fills the earth with spirits.” And there my eyes saw those who do not sleep stand before him and bless and say: “blessed are you and blessed be the name of the Lord for ever and ever.”44 (1 En. 39:10–13).45

The prayer opens with the formula ‫… ומבורך‬ ‫“( ברוך‬Blessed is he, and may he be blessed”), consisting of two common distinctive biblical terms employed for blessing. The term ‫“( ברוך‬blessed”)46 is also prevalent in the Qumran documents and in the later liturgical benedictions.47 In contrast, the term ‫“( מבורך‬be blessed”) appears only in the late biblical books.48 In addition, the pair ‫ברוך‬ ‫ ומבורך‬appears in the blessing of the righteous in another description of the BP: “Blessed (is he) and blessed be the name of the Lord of Spirits forever and ever” (1 En. 61:1149).

40 The Ethiopic has here a passive-reflexive form yətbārakə (cf. Wolf Leslau, Concise Dictionary of Ge‛ez [Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1989] 98). It seems to reflect the Hebrew passive participle ‫מבורך‬. If so, the phrase “blessed is he, and may he be blessed” reflects the common Hebraic benediction formula ‫… ומבורך‬ ‫ברוך‬. 41 The Ethiopic has la‛ālam in the sense of “forever” (cf. Leslau, Concise Dictionary, 169), suggesting the Hebrew ‫לעולם‬. This expression parallels the following ‫ ;לדור ודור‬the two form a hendiadys. These terms, also appearing together in another blessing of the BP (1 En. 63:3), are taken from biblical blessing formulae (cf. Ps 61:7; 145:13; Lam 5:19). The blessing formulae in Sir 51:30 and in the Qumran Psalms Scroll (11QPsa XXVI, 9) are similar. 42 The phrase “and for all the generations that will be” seems to reflect the Hebrew ‫ולדור ודור‬. 43 The Ethiopic term here yāle‛lu translates well to the Hebrew ‫( מרוממים‬cf. August Dillmann, Lexicon Linguae Aethiopicae [Leipzig: Weigel, 1865], 54–55), similarly in 1 En. 61:11– 12. In the Hebrew Bible, it appears only in the Aramaic Dan 4:34 but is current in the liturgical context of the Hebrew sectarian scrolls (e. g., 1QM XIV, 4, 13; 1QHa XIX, 18; 4Q400 2 8). 44 Compare the final formula to 1 Chr 29:10. For the formula “blessed be the name of the Lord” compare Jub. 25:12. 45 The translation of this passage is taken from Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2 with occasional alterations. 46 E. g., Gen 9:26; 1 Sam 25:32; Ezek 3:12. 47 For the Qumran Scrolls, see the usage in 4Q503. For the benediction formulae in the rabbinic liturgy, see Heinemann, Prayer, 57, 61. 48 Cf. Ps 113:2; Jonah 1:21; 1 Chr 17:27. See Sir 21:30 (ms B). 49 Also here the true character of the blessing comes out only in Hebrew translation: ‫ברוך‬ ‫ומבורך שם אדון הרוחות לעולם ועד‬, echoing 1 Chr 29:10. See also the eulogy that opens the prayer of the rulers and the kings (1 En. 63:2–3) and the convening formula of Rabbi Ishma‘’el in m. Ber. 7:3: ‫ברכו את ה׳ המברך‬.

148 The Book of Parables (1 Enoch 37–71) and the Qumran Community Worldview The comparison between Enoch’s prayer above and the prayer of the four archangels in the Book of Watchers (1 En. 9:4–11), especially the opening address to God, is particularly interesting: You are the Lord of Lords and the God of gods and the king50 forever.51 Your glorious throne (is) for all eternal generations, and your holy and great and blessed name (is) for all eternity. For you have made everything, and you have power over everything, and everything is open and uncovered before you (1 En. 9:4–552).

The prayer goes on to mention the misdeeds of the sinful Watchers and the ensuing suffering of mankind (1 En. 9:6–10). It concludes by stating the antecedence of the all-inclusive divine knowledge: And you knew everything before it came into being, and you see these things and permit them, and you do not tell us what should be done with them about these (things) (1 En. 9:11).53

Here, already, the divine omniscience is stated, the knowledge that encompasses the whole of creation even before it came into being. But lacking is the particular stress placed by the BP on the notion that this all-embracing knowledge includes all that will ever come into being, namely, the omniscience that envelops all the created temporal sequence. Another prayer that was, perhaps, known to the BP author appears in the Enochic Book of Dreams. Here, Enoch pronounces blessings and prayers having dreamed about the coming flood (84:2–6). For the present purpose, the final formula, which concludes the introductory praise, is significant: For you have made and you rule all things and nothing is too difficult for you.54 Wisdom does not escape you and it does not turn away from your throne, nor from your

50 In this citation of this verse, the Byzantine chronographer George Syncellus gives a fuller, probably better, text: “the king of kings and God forever.” William Adler and Paul Tuffin translate at the end “God of the ages” but the Greek renders a Hebrew idiom meaning “eternally” (see the following note). Cf. eidem, The Chronography of George Synkellos (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 18. 51 The term (τῶν) αἰώνων of the partly preserved Greek translation reflects Aramaic/Hebrew ‫עולמים‬/‫ עלמיא‬in the temporal sense “eternally, forever.” It is used in these two verses to qualify three divine entities: God the eternal king, the eternal glorious throne, and the eternal divine name. Compare Jer 10:12; 51:15; 1 Chr 29:11; 11QPsa XXVI, 13–14. 52 These verses, as well as 9:11, are translated from the Greek version of fourth-century Papyrus Panopolis (the modern Egyptian Akhmim), dug from a Christian grave, re-edited by Matthew Black, Apocalypsis Henochi Graece (PVTG; Leiden: Brill, 1971), 23–24. 53 Translated from the Greek of Papyrus Panopolis. Cf. Black, ibid., 8. 54 Following Jer 32:17. Note especially the Jeremianic expression ‫“( ולא יפלא ממך דבר‬and no matter is impossible for you”). The same verse is echoed in a prayer of the Book of Giants (4Q203 9 4) ‫“( וכול צבו לא תקפכה‬and nothing is too hard for you”), as noted by Black, The Book of Enoch, 256. For the prayer in the Book of Giants, see the comments of Loren T. Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants from Qumran (TSAJ 63; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 95–96.

The Book of Parables (1 Enoch 37–71) and the Qumran Community Worldview

149

presence. You know and see and hear all things and there is nothing that is hidden from you for you see all things.55

Here, too, some of the motifs and formulations are based on various biblical expressions, but they are brought together and supplemented by other elements. One of the prominent components in the angelic prayer of the Book of Watchers and Enoch’s prayer in the Book of Dreams is the employment of the designation “all/ everything” to designate the totality of all existing things. This sense appears only in late biblical books.56 Frequent in the linguistic usage of texts authored during the Second Temple era is the determinate form ‫“( הכל‬everything”), occurring in the blessings in 1 Enoch 9:7, 11 and 84:3, akin to the locution ‫אדון‬ ‫“( הכל‬master of everything”) in Psalm 151.57 This psalm presents a description of God that corresponds closely to the angelic plea in the Book of Watchers and to Enoch’s invocation in the Book of Dreams: “Everything has God seen, everything has he heard and listened to.”58 A similar formula appears in one of the Qumran Damascus Document copies, it too being part of a blessing, here pronounced by “the priest appointed over the Many”: “And he replies and says: Blessed are you, he is everything and in your hands is everything and you make everything” (4Q266 11 8–959). One finds a similar blessing also in Hodayot VIII, 26: “Blessed are you, O Lord, great in counsel and mighty in deed, because all things are your works.”60 However, the particular emphasis placed by the BP version on the temporal aspect, which is not found elsewhere, is salient precisely because the prayers of the BP share elements with other prayers in the Enochic writings. The opening of Enoch’s blessing cited above, drawn from 1 Chr 29:10, asserts God’s eternity, followed by the statement that “in his presence there is no limit” (39:13). The context suggests that it pertains to the temporal rather than the spatial dimension and expresses the Divine’s existence beyond temporal constraints. The 55 The translation is that of Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 345–46. He thinks that the last clause “for you see all things,” attested by all manuscripts, is a gloss and therefore does not include it in the main text. However, others consider it to be part of the original text. See, for instance, André Caquot, “1 Hénoch,” in La Bible: Écrits Intertestamentaires (Paris: Gallimard, 1987), 575. 56 Cf. Avi Hurvitz, The Transition Period of Biblical Hebrew: A Study in Post-Exilic Hebrew and its Implications for the Dating of Psalms (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1972), 91 (Heb.). 57 Preserved in 11QPsa XXVIII, 7. Compare the formula “the lord of everything” (‫)אדון הכול‬ in a Qumran liturgical fragment (4Q409 1 i 8), as well as the blessings in Tob 10:13 “the king of everything” (GII), and in Bar 3:32 “(the one who) knows everything.” See Avi Hurvitz, “Adon Hakkol,” Tarbiz 34 (1965): 224–27 (Heb.). 58 11QPsa XXVIII, 4: ‫הכול ראה אלוה הכול הוא שמע והוא האזין‬. 59 ‫וענה [וא]מר ברוכ את אונ הו הכול ובידיך הכול ועושה הכול‬. The words ‫ אונ הו‬were understood by Joseph Baumgarten as a substitution for the divine name and accordingly he translated “Almighty God.” Cf. idem, DJD XVIII, 77. However, Menahem Kister thinks that the correct reading is ‫“( הו הכול‬he is everything”). Cf. idem, “On a New Fragment of the Damascus Document,” JQR 84 (1993–1994): 249–51. Kister’s translation is preferred above. 60 ‫ברוך אתה אדוני גדול העצה ורב העלילליה אשר מעשיך הכול‬.

150 The Book of Parables (1 Enoch 37–71) and the Qumran Community Worldview same formulation occurs in the Hodayot: “and you exist for everlasting ages” (1QHa V, 29–3061). This statement is related to the notion that time is limited and is part of the created world, fashioned in a precise format of year-weeks and jubilees, a system well known from the Enochic writings and the Scrolls and other apocalyptic works.62 The view that the end of the present finite temporal sequence marks the beginning of an endless and limitless era is stated explicitly in the Apocalypse of Weeks (1 En. 91:17), embedded in the Epistle of Enoch. Enoch’s prayer in the BP links God’s eternal being with his omniscience: “He knew before the world was created what would be forever and for all the generations that will be” (39:11). The divine omniscience also has an eternal dimension, since it includes creation before it came into being, encompasses what happens when it came into being, and embraces whatever takes place in it along the complete temporal sequence. The formulation of the BP is similar to the wording of the sectarian literature from Qumran, in particular to that of the Community Rule. The opening phrase of its cosmological outline reads as follows: “From the God of knowledge comes all that is and shall be” (1QS III, 15). It is very similar to Enoch’s blessing quoted above (1 En. 39:11). Although Enoch’s prayer does not express explicitly the idea of the predetermined divine plan for the created world, the concept is embedded in the view of God’s primordial and all-encompassing knowledge. In fact, it is but one aspect of the overall idea of predetermination, well known from the Qumran community literature.63 The prayer of extolment is concluded with a Qedushah prayer pronounced by the angels “who do not sleep,” one of the titles reserved by the BP for angels who stand before the divine glory.64 Here, the Qedushah contains only the triple call “holy, holy, holy” uttered by the seraphim as in Isa 6:3.65 It lacks the response taken from Ezek 3:12 that forms part of the Qedushah in later Jewish communal liturgy that is incorporated in the Yotzer benediction and the Amida prayer. Enoch hears a similar response from the angels: “Blessed are you, and blessed

61 ‫ואתה תהיה לעולמי עד‬. Note Rev 4:8, where the doxology, pronounced by the living creatures around the throne of glory, concludes with the affirmation of God’s eternity beyond the created time. 62 Cf. the articles “Election and Laws of History in the Apocalyptic Literature” and “4 Ezra and 2 Baruch in Light of Qumran Literature” in this volume. 63 Cf., for instance, CD II, 7; 1QHa V, 27; VII, 26–27; IX, 15–18; 4Q180 1 1–2. Ida Fröhlich compares what Enoch saw about the future actions of the Son of Man (1 En. 46:1–6) to the notion of predestination in the literature of the Qumran community. Cf. eadem, “The Parables of Enoch and Qumran Literature,” 343–51. 64 Cf. 1 En. 39:12; 40:2; 61:12; 71:7. The sobriquet ‫“( עירים‬those who do not sleep”) is also applied to the angels who sinned with the women (e. g., 1 En. 10:7; 15:9; 2 En. 7:1–8; CD II, 17–18). However, in the Aramaic portions of Daniel, the term designates holy angels (4:10, 14, 20). 65 The BP formula is a simple version of the Qedushah prayer, as noted by Odeberg, 3 Enoch, 124.

The Book of Parables (1 Enoch 37–71) and the Qumran Community Worldview

151

is the name of the Lord forever and ever” (1 En. 39:13).66 However, unlike in the regular communal prayers, Enoch’s prayer is not connected to the shining of the luminaries in the morning as it is in the Yotzer benediction, neither does he make it a daily practice as is the case in the Amida prayer. He pronounces his prayers in the heavenly realm, citing from the angelic prayers he hears or sees while observing the abode of the Elect One and that of the righteous.67 Therefore, the BP prayer does not provide evidence of the use of the Qedushah in the regular Jewish liturgy at the time of the composition of the writing, namely during the first half of the first century C. E. However, some Qumranic texts that were copied during the second century B. C. E. (4Q503 and 4Q408) attest to the practice that people joined the angels in a daily eulogy of God with the appearance of the luminaries.68 So, even if Enoch pronounces his prayer in the heavenly spheres, it attests to the contemporary view that the angels utter the Qedushah in the heavenly abode and that humans integrate this utterance into their own prayer in concert with the angels. Enoch’s prayer concludes with a unique affirmation. Since the Qedushah is addressed to the “Lord of Spirits,” the regular divine epithet in the BP, there follows an explanation of sorts of this title: “… he fills the earth with spirits” (39:12). In fact, this is an elaboration and explication of the second half of the Isaiah doxology (6:3): “the whole earth is full of his glory.” Here, the divine glory that fills the earth is construed as the spirits with which God fills the earth.69 This detail can be understood in the light of the Qumranic sectarian literature, which often employs the noun “spirit” to designate both angels and humans. Therefore, the Enochic prayer refers perhaps to the created world of 66 Some scholars have emphasized that the Enochic version presents an older or different form of the response in Ezek 3:12. Thus Odeberg, 3 Enoch, 184; David Flusser, “Sanktus und Gloria,” in Abraham unser Vater: Juden und Christen im Gespräch über die Bibel; Festschrift für Otto Michel (eds. O. Benz, M. Hengel, and P. Schmidt; AGSU 5; Leiden: Brill, 1963), 129– 52 (138–39); Ithamar Gruenwald, “The Song of the Angels, the Qedushah and the Composition of the Hekhalot Literature,” in Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period (eds. A. Oppenheimer, U. Rappaport, and M. Stern; Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi, 1980), 459–81 (463) (Heb.). Gruenwald focuses on the type of Qedushah used in Enoch’s prayer in the BP. 67 Suter, Tradition and Composition, 19 observes that the Qedushah is the climax of Enoch’s ascension to heaven. In Rev 4:8, the Qedushah is uttered by the creatures beside the throne of glory. 68 On the Qedushah and its sources, see Esther G. Chazon,“The Qedushah Liturgy and its History in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in From Qumran to Cairo: Studies in the History of Prayer (ed. J. Tabory; Jerusalem: Orhot, 1999), 7–17. Moshe Weinfeld identified traces of the Qedushah in the introduction of the Hymn to the Creator (11QPsa XXVI, 9) and the Hodayot (1QHa XI, 23–24), and he also noted the BP prayer discussed here. See idem, Early Jewish Liturgy: From Psalms to the Prayers in Qumran and Rabbinic Literature (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2004), 29–30 (Heb.) 69 Thus already Black, The Book of Enoch, 198; Flusser, “Sanktus und Gloria,” 138–39. Flusser associated the notion expressed here with the Gnostic concept of the pleroma.

152 The Book of Parables (1 Enoch 37–71) and the Qumran Community Worldview spirits, shared by angels and mankind, a partnership mentioned repeatedly in the sectarian texts. It may be argued that the affinity of Enoch’s prayer to certain sectarian formulations is but a reflection of common benedictory traditions current during the Second Temple period and does not attest to the dependence of the BP on the Scrolls. However, while an actual literary dependence cannot be shown, the affinity and similarity are definitely there.

The Future Destiny of the Righteous A different kind of parallelism between the BP and the ideas of the Qumran sectarian texts is to be observed in the opening of the third parable, which describes the future of the righteous and the elect: Blessed are you, righteous and elect, for glorious is your lot. The righteous will be in the light of the sun, and the elect in the light of everlasting life. The days of their life will have no end, and the days of the holy will be innumerable. They will seek the light and gain70 justice with the Lord of Spirits. Peace for the righteous in the name of the Lord of eternity!71 And after that it will be said to the holy ones in heaven to seek the secrets of justice, the lot of faith,72 for it has become bright as the sun upon the earth, and darkness has passed away. There will be light that does not cease73 and their days will not be numbered, for darkness will first disappear and light will be established before the Lord of Spirits, and the light of truth74 will endure forever before the Lord of Spirits (1 En. 58:2–675).

The passage characterizes the destiny of the righteous and the elect in three aspects: eternal life, existence in eternal light, and righteousness before God. An eternal existence as the reward for the righteous is clearly a central constituent of the BP outlook (cf. also 40:9) but from the above formulation it is not clear 70 The Ethiopic has here yerakabu from the verb rakaba. For the meaning “gain, acquire” of this verb, see Dillmann, Lexicon, 302–03; Leslau, Concise Dictionary, 61; idem, Comparative Dictionary of Ge‛ez (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1991), 469. Compare the expression ‫צדק עולמים‬ ‫“( תשיגי‬you will gain eternal justice”; an allusion to Dan 9:24) in 11QPsa XXII, 11. 71 Following the translation of Caquot, “1 Hénoch,” 528. 72 The pair justice and faith also appears in 1 En. 39:6; 61:4. See also 61:11. 73 Compare the expression ‫“( אור עולם‬eternal light”) in Isa 60:19–20; 4Q418 69 ii 14 and the similar ‫ אור עולמים‬in 1QS IV, 8; 1QM XVII, 6. 74 The Ethiopic has wabərhāna rət‛a, rət‛a meaning “truth, uprightness” (cf. Leslau, Concise Dictionary, 60). So the entire expression may be translated as either “and the light of truth” (thus Uhlig, Das äthiopische Henochbuch, 603; Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, 217) or “and the light of uprightness” (thus Charles, The Book of Enoch, 112; Michael A. Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978], 2:141; Black, The Book of Enoch, 55). The former possibility is preferred above since it offers a locution similar to Qumran sectarian formulations (cf. below). 75 The translation, with a few alterations, is that of Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, 217.

The Book of Parables (1 Enoch 37–71) and the Qumran Community Worldview

153

whether this eternal existence will be corporeal or the body that is awakened in the resurrection of the dead, mentioned in 1 Enoch 63:15.76 Eternal life, or at least a very long life, is also the reward awaiting the righteous in the Qumran sectarian literature, but they too are vague about the nature of this existence.77 In Jubilees 23:17, the righteous will live for a thousand years and this prolongation of life is presented as the opposite process to the shortening of mankind’s years due to their sinfulness in the primeval history. The notion of eternal life as reward for the righteous was quite popular in contemporary sources. It appears in Dan 12:2 and in other works outside Qumran.78 But the version of this notion adopted in the Qumranic sectarian writings is colored by heavy dualistic shades. For, in the Community Rule (1QS IV, 8–9), the righteous who are to earn such a prolonged existence are the Sons of Light, namely, the members of the Qumran community themselves. In the sectarian understanding, light is no longer a metaphor but possesses a material nature and as such becomes a concrete expression of goodness.79 So life in eternal light means existence in endless virtue and rectitude. The BP depictions of the future bliss awaiting the righteous are closely related to the dualistic aspects of the Qumran community writings. Beside the abovecited text, other passages in the BP mention eternal life in everlasting light as the future reward (1 En. 38:4; 45:4; 50:1), as do other contemporary works (Dan 12:2–3; Pss. Sol. 3:1280). However, the passage from BP 58:1–6 cited above is distinctive in that it presents darkness as contrasted with light, being two opposed entities. In addition, the endless light that will shine upon the righteous will follow the disappearance of the darkness (58:10), the two creating a specific temporal sequence in which one follows the other. The BP does not employ the term “period” to define the dark or illuminated eras, as do the Qumran sectarian works (using the term ‫)קץ‬, but the sequence of early and later eras is clear. The similarity between the Enoch blessing in the BP and several passages from the Qumranic sectarian literature is seen clearly in the following table:

76 In Pss. Sol. 3:12 (see also 13:11) the motifs are linked. The “God-fearers” will rise from the dead and will live an eternal life “in God’s light.” But this depiction lacks the dualistic coloring prominent in the BP. 77 Cf. 1QS IV, 8; CD III, 19–20; VII, 6//XIX, 1; 4Q171 1–10 iii 1. 78 Cf. the Book of Watchers (1 En. 10:10); Wis 5:15; T. Ash. 6:6. 79 On the Qumran community’s notion of light as a concrete entity, see my discussion in “Dualism at Qumran: New Perspectives,” in Caves of Enlightenment: Proceedings of the American Schools of Oriental Research: Dead Sea Scrolls Jubilee Symposium (1947–1977) (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; North Richland Hills: Bibal Press, 1998), 55–73; Menahem Kister, “Physical and Metaphysical Measurements Ordained by God in the Literature of the Second Temple Period,” in Reworking the Bible, Apocrypha and Related Texts at Qumran (eds. E. G. Chazon, D. Dimant, and R. A. Clements; STDJ 58; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 153–76. 80 See also Pss. Sol. 5:5, 15.

154 The Book of Parables (1 Enoch 37–71) and the Qumran Community Worldview BP 58:5–6 And after that it will be said to the holy ones in heaven to seek the secrets of justice, the lot of faith

Mysteries 1Q27 1 i 4–782

4Q462 1 1081

And this shall be the sign to you that it is taking place the begotten of unrighteousness are shut up and wickedness is removed from before righteousness,

for it has become bright as the sun upon as darkness is removed the dry land,83 and darkness from before light, has passed away. just as smoke vanishes and i[s no] more, so shall wickedness cease forever There will be light that does not cease and their days will not be numbered for darkness will first disappear and light will be established righteousness will be before the Lord of Spirits manifest like the sun in the full measure of the world. and the light of truth will endure forever before the Lord of Spirits.

completed is the per]iod of the darkness and the period of the light is coming

and they will rule forever.

The comparison of these texts attests to their shared view of periods of wickedness and righteousness, materialized in darkness and light in a specific sequence. An interesting affinity is also observed between the BP and Mysteries in their use of the analogy of sunlight shining upon the dry land and eliminating darkness. By using the locution “dry land,” the BP takes up a term from the Genesis creation account and describes the light superseding darkness as a new act of creation parallel to the primordial one. In 4Q462 1, the dark era is replaced by a bright one but here it is alluding to the replacement of servitude in Egypt with the on my edition in Dimant, Connected Vessels, 178. The translation is mine. on the re-edition and translation of Lawrence H. Schiffman, DJD XX, 35–36. 83 The Ethiopic employs here the word yabs, meaning “a dry land” (cf. Leslau, Concise Dictionary, 89), used by the Ethiopic version of Gen 1:9–10 to render the Hebrew ‫( יבשה‬cf. Dillmann, Lexicon, 1071). 81 Based 82 Based

The Book of Parables (1 Enoch 37–71) and the Qumran Community Worldview

155

liberation of the Exodus (Exod 10:22–23). However, the alternation of darkness and light in the Exodus is so similar to the final illumination that replaces darkness that an underlying analogy is suggested that compares the redemption of the Exodus to that of the final age, a well-known theme in ancient Jewish sources. Finally, the concluding expression of Enoch’s blessing in BP 58, announcing the future eternal shining of the light of truth before God, is notable. Linking truth to the light is reminiscent of the strong emphasis in the sectarian literature on truth as an aspect of their beliefs and existence. “Truth” (‫ )אמת‬is one of the descriptive terms this literature provides to typify the Sons of Light, members of the Qumran community.84

Conclusion The foregoing study has shown that in a close perusal of the Book of Parables contiguity is detected between certain Enochic formulations and the content and terminology of the Qumran community literary output. The prayer of Enoch (1 En. 39:10–13) is distinctive in the stress it places on the divine omniscience that is observed during the entire predetermined historical sequence, and thus expresses a predeterminative stance. As for the account of the reward for the righteous (1 En. 58:2–6), it is conveyed in opposing pairs of light and darkness and so is openly dualistic. Both of these notions are quintessentially sectarian in ideology, as is the idea of a temporal sequence that will conclude in an infinite temporality, which underlies the passages in question. Although no Qumran sectarian terminology is observed in the Book of Parables, it is close to this community in several respects. However, although the BP often refers to an elect and righteous group, no affinity is detected to the Qumran community’s organizational patterns. In consequence, the Book of Parables should be viewed as having been created by circles close but not identical to the Qumran group, or by those who have drawn upon its legacy.85 The affinity to Qumran displayed in this unique writing should be investigated in greater detail for it may shed light on the transition from the Qumran community to other similar circles. It could also contribute to the understanding of the settings and origins of later Jewish apocalyptic works such as 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, as well as those of early Christian writings. 84 Cf., e. g., 1QS IV, 5; 1QM VII, 8. See my survey “The Vocabulary of the Qumran Sectarian Texts,” in Collected Studies, 57–100 (83). 85 In an updated survey of the Qumran library, I have suggested that some of the writings found at Qumran, such as Jubilees and the Temple Scroll, should be assigned to a similar group that does not belong with the sectarian literature but displays affinity to it in some respects. See Dimant, “The Qumran Manuscripts: Contents and Significance,” in Collected Studies, 27–56 (51). The BP may present a later specimen that issued from similar circles.

Israel’s Subjugation to the Gentiles as an Expression of Demonic Power in Qumran Documents and Related Literature One of the most discussed features of Qumran’s sectarian thinking is the prominent place it assigns to the presence and activity of evil in the created world. Attention has been paid particularly to the way in which this belief envisions the dual opposing realms of reality in terms of light versus darkness, righteousness versus wickedness, and to the role of supernatural and human beings in each sphere.1 Paired with the belief in predetermination, this dualism has been considered the hallmark of the peculiar ideology embraced by the Qumran community as expressed in the literature it produced. It was also recognized that several previously known pseudepigraphic works, such as 1 Enoch and Jubilees, display an affinity to these theological ideas. Indeed, the presence among the Scrolls of copies of these two writings suggests mutual links. Additional aspects of the Qumranic dualism have been investigated more recently, such as the physical aspect of the light/darkness duality,2 and a more nuanced analysis of the sectarian dualism in various Qumran texts, and their relationship to dualistic patterns in other non-sectarian and non-Qumranic writings.3 This widening of perspective and the recently published hitherto-unknown Qumran texts call for a fresh, more exhaustive, analysis of Qumran dualism. 1 Introduced

most explicitly by 1QS III, 18–IV, 26; 1QM XIII, 9–18. my discussion in “Dualism at Qumran: New Perspectives,” in Caves of Enlightenment (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; North Richland Hills: Bibal Press, 1997), 55–73; Menahem Kister, “4Q392 1 and the Conception of Light in Qumran ‘Dualism’,” Meghillot 3 (2005): 125–42 (Heb.). 3 Cf. Devorah Dimant, “Between Qumran Sectarian and Qumran Nonsectarian Texts: The Case of Belial and Mastema,” in Collected Studies, 135–51; eadem, “The Demonic Realm in Qumran Sectarian Literature,” in Gut und Böse in Mensch und Welt (eds. H.-G. Nesselrath and F. Wilk; ORA 10; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck: 2013), 103–17; the collection Dualism in Qumran (ed. G. G. Xeravits; LSTS 76; New York: T & T Clark, 2010); Jörg Frey, “Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought in the Qumran Library,” in Legal Texts and Legal Issues (eds. M. Bernstein, F. Garcίa Martίnez, and J. Kampen; STDJ 23; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 275–335; Richard Bauckham, “Qumran and the Fourth Gospel: Is there a Connection?” in The Scrolls and the Scriptures: Qumran Fifty Years After (eds. S. E. Porter and C. A. Evans; JSPSup 26; Sheffield: Academic Press, 1997), 267–79; Miryam Brand, Evil Within and Without: The Source of Sin and Its Nature as Portrayed in Second Temple Literature (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 229–31. 2 Cf.

158

Israel’s Subjugation to the Gentiles as an Expression of Demonic Power

Such an inquiry would also need to tackle some aspects of this concept not fully investigated until now. For instance, the application of dualistic patterns to the history of Israel is a theme that has earned little scholarly attention. Perhaps this neglect has been due to the fact that the first Qumran sectarian texts to be published, and the best researched, treat the dualistic structure of reality in general terms and do not survey the Israelite history from such a perspective.4 Such is the case of the well-known Treatise of Two Spirits in 1QS III, 13–IV, 26, which is the most systematic and far-reaching presentation of the dualistic belief at Qumran. Strikingly, the concise dualistic formulation of 1QM XIII, 9–18 is likewise general, even though 1QM and its sources deal with a crucial dualistic event, namely the final eschatological battle between the forces of light and darkness. However, there are two texts that survey the history of Israel in detail and present its culmination in dualistic terms. They are the Aramaic Animal Apocalypse (= 1 En. 85–90; henceforth AA) and the Hebrew Qumranic composition Apocryphon of Jeremiah C (henceforth AJ), which only recently came to the attention of scholars.5 Both works are remarkably alike in their view of Israel’s history as well as in other respects. The two are not strictly sectarian for they lack the terminological coloring distinctive of the sectarian literature. Yet they develop themes and ideas close to what we find in the specific products of the Qumran community.6 The presence at Qumran of copies of the two works points to such an affinity, and to the Qumranites’ predilection for these compositions.7 Thus, they fill in details missing from the literary products of the Qumran community. As in all Second Temple literature of a similar type, early Israelite history in both the AA and AJ follow the biblical outline.8 A fundamental constituent of these surveys is the tenet, embedded already in the biblical worldview, that the 4 The so-called Pesher on the Periods (4Q180) may be an exception to this rule for it presents history from its beginning with several episodes from Genesis. However, only a few damaged fragments have survived, providing insufficient evidence to give an idea of its size and purpose. Cf. my analysis in “The Pesher on the Periods (4Q180) and 4Q181,” in Collected Studies, 385–404. For a different edition and reconstruction of 4Q180 and 4Q181 and their mutual relationship, see the recent article by Chanan Ariel, Alexey Yuditsky, and Elisha Qimron, “The Pesher on the Periods A-B (4Q180–4Q181): Editing, Language, and Interpretation,” Meghillot 11–12 (2014–2015): 3–39 (Heb.). 5 Cf. Devorah Dimant, DJD XXX, 91–260. 6 Given these data, I have proposed to assign writings that share with the sectarian literature certain ideas but not its particular terminology and communal elements to an intermediate category. Cf. Dimant, DJD XXX, 112; eadem, “Between Sectarian and Non-Sectarian: The Case of the Apocryphon of Joshua,” in Collected Studies, 51. 7 For details on the AA copies, see the article “Ideology and History in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90)” in this volume. 8 For the complete table of history in the AA, see the article above. See also Patrick A. Tiller, A Commentary on the Animal Apocalypse of I Enoch (SBLEJL 4; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993); George W. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 367–408. The view of history in the AJ is reconstructed and commented on by Dimant, DJD XXX.

Israel’s Subjugation to the Gentiles as an Expression of Demonic Power

159

subjugation of Israel by Gentiles and exile to foreign lands are punishments for Israel’s unfaithfulness to the covenant with God.9 In the reverse case, victories over Gentile foes, political independence, and prosperity in the homeland are the reward for Israel’s faithfulness to this covenant.10 This notion became standard in surveys of history composed during the Second Temple era. Illustrations of this principle may be found in the communal confessions of sins recited by Nehemiah (Neh 9) and Daniel (Dan 9:4–14), in the prayers of Tobit (Tob 3:4; 13:5–6), and in Ben Sira’s praise of the fathers (Sir 48:14–15), to mention only a few. The experience of the Second Temple reality of successive periods of foreign rule over the land of Israel was often interpreted as punishment for Israel’s past sins, as, for instance, in Daniel 9 and the AA (1 En. 89:55–90:5).11 Various writings from the Second Temple era fully accept this view of events and emphasize the hope for better circumstances. Tobit and Ben Sira looked forward to a swift redemption.12 The author of Daniel 9 believed that it would come at the end of a precise period of time, namely seventy year-weeks. Yet, in some circles, the sentiment that the hardships suffered by Israel exceeded the measure of just punishment for her sins was pervasive. Such a sentiment was difficult to reconcile with the fundamental biblical dictum of divinely decreed just punishment. The AA and AJ proposed a unique solution to this difficulty: they attributed the extra evils inflicted on Israel by neighboring Gentiles and foreign rulers not to justly deserved punishment but to the independent initiative of evil supernatural forces. The yoke of foreigners became in itself an agent of evil. It is significant that both the AA and AJ were composed during the second century B. C. E., so the idea of Gentile rule as the agent of evil may have developed due to the impact of the religious persecutions during the rule of Antiochus IV. The AA provides the best starting point for the present inquiry since its survey of history reached us intact as part of the entire work preserved in the complete Ethiopic translation of 1 Enoch. A few fragments of the Aramaic original were found among the scrolls from Qumran.13 The AA (= 1 Enoch 85–90) is named after the symbolic night vision it describes, in which Enoch is shown history from its inception to the final eschatological era. In this vision, animals represent men, and men stand for angels. The section corresponding to the earlier part of   9 Cf., for instance, Judg 2:11–15; 2 Kgs 21:2–16; Neh 9; 2 Chr 36:11–20. Note the formulations of Lev 26:14–39; Deut 28:15–68. 10 Cf., e. g., Lev 26:3–11; Deut 28:1–14; 2 Sam 7:11; 1 Kgs 4:20; 5:5; 2 Chr 15:15. 11 See my discussion in “The Four Empires of Daniel Chapter 2 in the Light of Texts from Qumran,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 12 (1996): 1:33–41 (Heb.). 12 For a discussion of these issues in Ben Sira, cf. Benjamin G. Wright, “‘Put the Nations in Fear of You’: Ben Sira and the Problem of Foreign Rule,” SBLSP 38 (1999): 77–93. 13 For the Ethiopic, see Michael A. Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978), vol. 1. For fragments of the four Aramaic copies that preserve passages from the AA, see the survey in the article cited in n. 7 above. Compare also Milik, Books of Enoch, 340–62.

160

Israel’s Subjugation to the Gentiles as an Expression of Demonic Power

history follows the biblical narrative from the origins to the generation of the returnees from Babylon (1 En. 85:3–89:73). But the vision goes on to unfold later events corresponding to the Second Temple period, until the final eschatological conclusion (1 En. 89:56–90:38).14 The last reference to a recognizable historical event probably alludes to the early stages of the Maccabean revolt in 164–161 B. C. E. (1 En. 89:13), and therefore it is now generally agreed that the work was written around those years.15 The central symbolism chosen by the AA for this presentation is a flock of sheep, standing for Israel, and wild animals, representing Gentile nations, both symbols probably inspired by the imagery of Ezekiel 34 and Zechariah 11. In line with this symbolism, the kings of Israel appear as rams (1 En. 89:42–50) while God is pictured as the owner of the flock. The domesticated and orderly life of the sheep in their owner’s fold portrays the obedience of Israel to the Torah commandments, whereas the ferocious character of the wild animals that attack the sheep stands for the lawlessness of the Gentiles and their cruelty toward Israel. Since animal symbolism, rooted in biblical imagery, represents the human sphere, the vision has chosen to portray supernatural figures as humans, as in several biblical stories (e. g., Gen 18:2, 16; Judg 13:9–10). This is the case of the owner of the sheep, namely God, who is depicted throughout as the dominating lord and sovereign of the entire scene, although he is never described explicitly as human in form.16 Other supernatural beings, notably angels, appear as men. This is clear, for instance, from the role of the seven archangels, three of whom take Enoch up to the heavenly temple from where he watches the unfolding of human history (1 En. 87:12–13). In its early part, the progression of the Israelite history reworks the biblical narrative starting with the exodus from Egypt and continuing through the wandering in the desert under the leadership of Moses. Except for the episode of the golden calf (alluded to in 1 En. 89:32–35), this period is perceived as one of harmony between the owner and his flock, namely God and his people. This intimacy reaches its highest point in the building of the tabernacle (1 En. 89:36), followed by the erection in the land of Israel of the abode for the owner of the flock, the Solomonic temple (1 En. 89:50). Very much in the manner of the biblical historiography, the author of the AA sees the generations following the reign of Solomon as going through a gradual decline in faithfulness to God. 14 Cf. the surveys listed in n. 8. The issues were discussed from another perspective by Menahem Kister, “Concerning the History of the Essenes: Studies in the Animal Apocalypse, Jubilees and the Damascus Covenant,” Tarbiz 56 (1986): 1–18 (Heb.). 15 Cf., e. g., Robert H. Charles, The Book of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1912), liii; Milik, Books of Enoch, 44; Matthew Black, The Book of Enoch or I Enoch (SVTP 7; Leiden: Brill, 1985), 276; Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 367–401. 16 This is stated most explicitly in the exchange between the lord of the sheep and the angelic scribe who writes down the misdeeds of the evil angels (1 En. 89:61–64, 76).

Israel’s Subjugation to the Gentiles as an Expression of Demonic Power

161

Such deterioration is introduced immediately after the completion of the First Temple (1 En. 89:51), and takes place in several stages: a. The sheep begin to err and leave their house and fold. Their master17 sends several sheep to warn them but the other sheep kill them. This is an early postbiblical record of the motif of the killing of prophets.18 One sheep is saved and rebukes the flock, but it too is menaced and is later saved by the master of the sheep, who brings it up to him, a clear reference to Elijah’s career and ascension (1 Kings 17–21; 2 Kings 1–2).19 Other sheep are sent to the flock for the same purpose but to no avail, a reference to the prophets’ futile attempt to bring Israel back to faithfulness (1 En. 89:51–53; note Jub. 1:12. Cf. 2 Kgs 17:13; 2 Chr 36:15–16). This passage covers Israel’s history in the final decades of the two kingdoms, again taking up biblical views on this period (e. g., 2 Kgs 17:7–23; 21:1–15). Interestingly, the reference to Elijah shows that the kingdom of Israel and the kingdom of Judah are treated as one and the same entity, as evident in the downfall of each respectively. The AA, then, represents the concept of a single nation, whose past embraces both kingdoms.20 b. Despite the warning of these few sheep, the flock leaves the house of the master and his tower (i. e., Jerusalem and the Solomonic temple21) and their eyes are blinded (1 En. 89:54). Compared with the previous stage, the increase in Israel’s unfaithfulness is distinguished by two elements: now the flock not only errs, but actually leaves its fold. Moreover, all the sheep are blinded. These details depict two essential characteristics of the situation prevailing, in the author’s view, in the last generations of the First Temple era. One is the entire abandonment of the true worship of God through increased idolatry. The other is the complete loss of correct understanding. This second element is symbolized by blindness, a central image in the AA. Both erring and leaving the fold, coupled with blindness, are metaphors rooted in biblical imagery.22 In the AA, seeing versus blindness indicates complying with the Torah commandments versus disregarding 17 Significantly, the master is called here “the master of justice” (1 En. 89:51). The sobriquet emphasizes the righteous character of the master’s, namely God’s, activity, expressed in the giving of the warning before inflicting punishment. 18 Since this information is followed by an allusion to Elijah, it must refer to the episode of the killing of prophets by Jezebel (1 Kgs 18:4, 13; 2 Kgs 9:7). Compare, however, the killing of prophets mentioned in Jer 2:30; 26:20–23; Neh 9:26; 2 Chr 24:20–21. Note Jub. 1:12 and the prominence of the motif in Matt 23:30, 35; Luke 11:48–50; 1 Thess 2:15. 19 The ascension of Elijah in a period of wickedness is also alluded to in the Enochic Apocalypse of Weeks (1 En. 93:7). 20 As does the Apocalypse of Weeks (1 En. 93:8), and apparently also Jub. 1:5–15; CD I, 2–7; III, 8–12. 21 On this double symbolism, see the article “Jerusalem and the Temple in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 95–90) in the light of the Qumran Community Worldview” in this volume. 22 Compare, e. g., the simile of straying from the proper way in Deut 9:12, 16; 31:29; Judg 2:17. The symbol of seeing versus blindness is particularly prominent in the prophecies of Isaiah. See, e. g., Isa 6:10; 35:5; 42:18–19; 52:10. Compare also Jer 5:21; Ezek 12:2.

162

Israel’s Subjugation to the Gentiles as an Expression of Demonic Power

them. This is expressed most clearly in the description of the flock as seeing immediately following the exodus and during the first theophany on Mount Sinai, while blindness comes with the worship of the golden calf (1 En. 89:28, 33).23 In a similar way, the blindness of the sheep symbolizes idolatry practiced by the generations in the later part of the First Temple period (1 En. 89:54). In describing the deterioration in post-Solomonic times, the author constructs history in such a way as to show that before each increase in her offenses, Israel was warned by the prophets. By their disregard of these warnings and their growing iniquity, the Israelites evinced their awareness of the nature and seriousness of their crimes, yet they continued to commit them. This fact establishes that legally they were fully accountable for their misdeeds. Thus, the author indicates that the principle of a preceding warning was operative in that sequence of events. This legal principle stipulates that the delivery of a warning against committing an offense that is nevertheless committed defines the intentionality of the performed crime.24 The particular sins of the Israelites at that time were doubly egregious, for not only did they not heed the warnings, but they killed those who voiced them. Presented this way, the sequence justifies the master’s uncompromising attitude toward the sheep and the severe punishments he inflicted on them: first he delivers the flock to be killed, then to ferocious wild beasts such as lions and leopards (apparently symbolizing Babylon and Assyria25), and 23 Undoubtedly based on the Deuteronomistic version of the covenant curses in Deut 28:28– 29. Significantly, this verse is reproduced by the AJ (4Q387 2 ii 4–5) to describe Israel’s loss of understanding. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 380–81 argues that the erring came about because of the blindness. However, in 1 En. 89:51, erring comes before blindness, and blindness is introduced only in 1 En. 89:54. This suggests that erring and being blinded are two different states. Nickelsburg further argues that opened eyes point to divine revelation (idem, ibid.). However, such an interpretation does not accord with all the occurrences in the AA of the vision metaphor (note, for instance, 1 En. 90:7). It is more appropriate to view seeing as symbolizing a state of understanding, versus the loss of understanding depicted by blindness. James C. VanderKam has suggested that the “opened eyes/seeing imagery” in AA is based on the etymology of the name Israel as “one who sees God,” with evidence adduced mainly from the writings of Philo. Cf. his discussion in “Open and Closed Eyes in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90),” in The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel (eds. H. Najman and J. H. Newman; JSJSup 83; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 279–92. However, the biblical roots of the imagery and the fact that it is used in the biblical sense by both sectarian and non-sectarian Qumran texts composed well before Philo’s works (e. g., CD I, 9; XVI, 2; 1QS IV, 11; 4Q166 i 8–9; 4Q387 2 ii 4) point to an altogether different meaning and origin. 24 This is a fundamental juridical principle of biblical law (e. g., Exod 21:29), of rabbinic halakhah (e. g., Sifre, Judges 173; b. Yoma 81a), and of Qumran jurisprudence. Cf. Lawrence H. Schiffman, Sectarian Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls (BJS 33; Chico: Scholars Press, 1983), 94–98. With regard to the history of Israel, it is already used in 2 Kgs 17:13–14; Neh 9:26–30; 2 Chr 24:19; 36:9–17. See also Jub. 1:12. 25 For lions as Babylon, see Jer 4:7. For leopards symbolizing Assyria, see Hos 13:7. Since most of the symbols used by the AA for periods covered by biblical historiography are based on biblical imagery, the Hosea verse, and the fact that the attacks of the leopards are coupled with those of the lions, suggest that the Assyrian campaigns are alluded to (thus also Tiller,

Israel’s Subjugation to the Gentiles as an Expression of Demonic Power

163

finally he leaves the house and the tower altogether (1 En. 89:54–56). Israel’s growing sinfulness is met by a gradual withdrawal of divine protection, until she is completely stripped of it. It is precisely at this point that the most innovative feature of the AA is introduced. According to it, the master of the flock delivered his sheep to seventy evil shepherds, symbolizing the divine decision to hand control of Israel to these seventy figures (1 En. 89:59–60; 89:65–90:16). The shepherds are given permission to annihilate a certain number of Israelites by letting Israel’s enemies attack her. The metaphor of passing on the pasturing of the flock of Israel to bad shepherds, who permit wild animals to attack and kill the sheep, is already employed in Ezekiel 34. Yet, in a peculiar twist given to this idea by the AA, the shepherds overstep the terms of their appointment and kill many more Israelites than the number originally permitted by the divine command (1 En. 89:59–71; 90:17). This excess exposes the evil character of the shepherds. Introducing the control of the evil shepherds offers a solution to the thorny theological problem of reconciling just divine punishment with the sense of unwarranted suffering: the excessive agony is attributed to the shepherds’ own initiative rather than to God. Yet to take such a solution to its logical conclusion would invest the evil shepherds with unlimited power and remove altogether the presence of divine providence from this period. Obviously, the author of AA could not accept a scene left completely to the capriciousness and cruelty of these evil agents. In his picture, God retains control over history in that it is he who lays down the temporal limit of their rule, only seventy “periods,” it is he who orders the keeping of records of all the shepherds’ excesses, and it is he who will judge the shepherds severely at the final judgment (1 En. 89:61–64, 68–71; 90:17, 22–26). Significantly, this way of resolving the problem of evil is strikingly similar to that proposed in 1QS III, 13–IV, 26. Another point in the historical presentation of the AA also merits notice: the evil shepherds are introduced before the conquest of Jerusalem in 586 B. C. E. (1 En. 89:59), and their rule continues thereafter until the threshold of the eschatological era (1 En. 89:59–90:25). According to the AA, the last generations of the First Temple period, the subsequent fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the Solomonic temple, and the later existence of Israel under the yoke of Gentile monarchs in both the land of Israel and in exile, were made possible through the evil reign of the shepherds. Significantly, the mission of Ezra and Nehemiah and the building of the Second Temple take place during this evil period, a fact that reflects the negative attitude of the author to these events.26 A commentary, 320, without the biblical reference), rather than the Arameans, as suggested by Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 385. 26 The criticism leveled against the Second Temple, to which impure sacrifices are brought (1 En. 89: 73), is particularly sharp. Interestingly, the AJ views the generation of the returnees in a positive light, but remarks that sinfulness began soon afterwards (4Q390 1 5–7).

164

Israel’s Subjugation to the Gentiles as an Expression of Demonic Power

While listing in detail the evil actions of the shepherds, the AA is not explicit about their identity, perhaps due to the symbolic character of the vision. In itself, the metaphor of shepherds for leaders or rulers of the people of Israel draws on biblical imagery (e. g., 1 Sam 7:7//1 Chr 17:6). Even God is introduced as the shepherd of Israel (e. g., Isa 40:11; Ezek 34:24), just as he is the lord of the flock in the AA. Also the metaphor of bad shepherds, who misuse their task of tending the flock of Israelites, is present in the biblical prophetic discourses of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Zechariah (Jer 23:1–2; Ezek 34:1–8; Zech 11:1–8). Yet, while these prophecies undoubtedly influenced the Apocalypse, none of them goes so far as to suggest that the shepherds in question were evil angels, as does the AA. Before the discovery of the Qumran scrolls, when 1 Enoch was known only in the Ethiopic translation, the identity of the shepherds remained a puzzle. The AA practice of representing angels as humans suggested to commentators that the shepherds were angels, but what kind of angels was difficult to say. Placing the emphasis on the number seventy, scholars in the past often identified the shepherds with the seventy angelic guardians of the nations.27 The notion that guardian angels rule the nations is taken from the biblical thought28 and was widespread in post-biblical times.29 But nowhere are these angels pictured as evil. Moreover, in the AA, the contrast between Israel and the Gentiles is expressed in terms of domesticated sheep versus wild beasts, not in terms of their respective rulers. And in the AA, the number seventy has a temporal meaning, for each shepherd rules Israel for one of the seventy “periods,” a notion completely foreign to the picture of seventy guardian angels. So while the shepherds should indeed be identified as angels, they cannot be the guardian angels. A better understanding of the nature of the evil shepherds is now afforded by a Qumran writing, the AJ. It survived in six fragmentary copies (4Q385a, 4Q387, 4Q388a, 4Q389, 4Q390, 4Q387a) and almost all its remaining fragments offer a review of history from early biblical times to the conclusion of the historical process. But most of the extant passages deal with the final decades of the First Temple period and Second Temple times. This review appears to be part of a divine revelation granted to the prophet Jeremiah after the destruction of the First Temple (cf. 4Q385a 18 i). It surveys history much in the manner of other contemporary Jewish apocalypses, in particular those written around the middle of the second century B. C. E., such as Daniel, Jubilees chs. 1 and 23, and above all the AA. This affinity, together with other points of contact, suggests that the 27 The most outspoken representative of this approach in recent years is Milik, Books of Enoch, 254. Daniel Olson has recently taken up this interpretation. Cf. idem, A New Reading of the Animal Apocalypse of 1 Enoch (SVTP 24; Leiden: Brill, 2013), 191–92. 28 Cf. the Septuagint version of Deut 32:8, as well as the Hebrew textual variant of this verse preserved in 4Q37 (4QDeutj) XII, 3–4. 29 Cf., e. g., Dan 10:13, 20–21; 12:1; Sir 17:17; Jub. 15:31; b. Nid. 32a.

Israel’s Subjugation to the Gentiles as an Expression of Demonic Power

165

AJ was authored at the same time, and perhaps belonged to the same circles that produced the above-mentioned writings.30 Although the AJ does not employ symbolism and associates the revelation of history with the prophet Jeremiah rather than with the antediluvian sage Enoch, the main lines of its historical survey are strikingly similar to the outline traced by the AA. In sharp contrast to other contemporary works such as Tobit and Ben Sira the AA and the AJ portray Israel’s iniquity as an uninterrupted process of increasing sinfulness, starting before the destruction of the First Temple. As in the AA, the AJ paints a picture of the steadily increasing estrangement between Israel and God, which in turn provokes more severe punishments (compare 1 En. 89:51–58 with the passage preserved in 4Q385a 3, 4Q387 1, and 4Q388a 3). The AA places the beginning of the deterioration soon after the reigns of David and Solomon (1 En. 89:51). Although this starting point is not fixed in the AJ, the laudatory terms in which the reigns of these two kings are described in one of the fragments (4Q385a 1), contrasted with the depiction of Israel’s subsequent sins, suggest that the AJ holds the same view. Both the AA and the AJ locate the decisive downward turn before the final demise of Judea in 586 B. C. E. (compare 4Q385a 3 and parallels31 with 1 En. 89:54). Significantly, it is precisely at that point that the AA places the transfer of the authority over Israel to the seventy shepherds. This is the clearest expression of the estrangement between the lord of the sheep and his flock, that is, between God and Israel (1 En. 89:59). A very similar description appears in the AJ. It introduces demonic beings to whom God relinquishes control over Israel as a further means of punishing Israel’s iniquity. Not being a symbolic presentation, the AJ refers to these beings with a straightforward title: the Angels of Mastemot (‫ ;מלאכי המשטמות‬4Q387 iii 4; 4Q390 1 11). Although the plural ‫ משטמות‬appears only in this work, it is clearly related to the Angel of Mastema (‫מלאך המשטמה‬ or ‫ )שר המשטמה‬mentioned in Jubilees and in the Damascus Document as a sobriquet for the archdemon.32 Thus, the Angels of Mastemot seem to belong to the demonic hosts controlled by the archdemon Mastema.33 The role played by 30 Cf.

Dimant, DJD XXX, 115–16. 4Q387 1, 4Q388a 3, and 4Q389 6 and 7. 32 Cf., e. g., Jub. 10:8; 11:5; 17:16; CD XVI, 5; note 1QM XIII, 11, and a Masada fragment Mas 1276–1786 i 5. Interestingly, the figure of Belial, introduced in other Qumran sectarian texts as the head of the evil hosts (e. g., 1QS II, 5; 1QM I, 1, 5; 11Q13 II, 12), appears in several texts side by side with the angel Mastema (cf., e. g., CD IV, 13, 15; 4Q225 2 ii 14. Note also 1QM XIII, 11). A similar phenomenon is to be observed in the AJ, which in addition to the Angels of Mastemot also mentions Belial (4Q390 2 i 4). This seems to indicate that Belial and Mastema are titles of two distinct figures, rather then two titles for one and the same personage, as is usually assumed. Cf. the comments in Dimant, DJD XXX, 240–41; eadem, “Between Qumran Sectarian and Qumran Nonsectarian Texts: The Case of Belial and Mastema,” in Collected Studies, 135–51. 33 Note Jub. 49:2, which refers to the “forces of Mastema.” Perhaps the Angels of Mastemot 31 See

166

Israel’s Subjugation to the Gentiles as an Expression of Demonic Power

these beings in the AJ suggests a close counterpart of the function fulfilled by the seventy shepherds in the AA. Both groups are entrusted with control over Israel when God withdraws his protection from his people as a result of their persistent iniquity (compare 1 En. 89:59–69 with 4Q390 1 11).34 The period of their rule is one of extreme hardship for Israel. Additionally, just like the AA, the AJ sets the period of the Angels of Mastemot within the framework of a chronology of jubilees (cf. 4Q387 2 ii 3–4). The similarity of the AA to the AJ in the general outline of history, and above all in the respective character and role of the shepherds and the Angels of Mastemot, confirms the view that in the AA the shepherds represent supernatural beings. The comparison further suggests that the shepherds belong to the demonic hosts. This conclusion also sheds light on the meaning of the seventy periods, which are clearly year-week periods as part of an apocalyptic chronology well known from other contemporary apocalypses and also present in the AJ. These seventy year-weeks are the period of punishment imposed on Israel by divine decree (compare 1 En. 89:59–90:27 with 4Q387 2 ii 3–4; 4Q390 1 7–8). The same concept is expressed in the book of Dan 9:24–27, and in the Damascus Document I, 5, which speaks of “a period of wrath” (‫)קץ חרון‬. The 390 years fixed by the Damascus Document in this context is probably related to the same chronology. A typical aspect of the period of demonic control over the Israelites is the complete ignorance of the cause and purpose of the evils that befell them. Both the AA and the AJ emphasize this feature (compare 1 En. 89:64 with 4Q389 8 ii 6–7). While the AA uses the metaphor of the sheep’s blindness, the AJ employs the wording of the covenantal curse (Deut 28:28; see 4Q385a 2 2; 4Q387 2 ii 4–5), including the term “blindness” (‫(עורון‬, to describe the bewilderment and lack of understanding typical of the life of the Israelites in the early Second Temple era. Once the demonic character of the seventy shepherds in the AA is made clear, the affinity of this representation to the worldview of the Qumran community becomes evident. As part of their polemics, the writers of the Qumran community also stress the sinfulness and lack of understanding of their Jewish adversaries.35 Blindness to the truth and ignorance were viewed as tantamount to sin, resulting in the evil hold over the world. In contrast, proper practice of the Torah precepts, are synonymous with the Angels of Destruction (‫ )מלאכי חבל‬mentioned in the Qumran sectarian works (e. g., 1QS IV, 12; 1QM XII, 12; CD II, 6). 34 4Q390 is the only manuscript that does not overlap with the other copies of the AJ. Nevertheless, 4Q390 is judged to be a copy of the AJ because of unique linguistic and stylistic characteristics it shares with other copies of this work. Among them is the peculiar term Angels of Mastemot, which occurs in no other writings at Qumran or elsewhere. Cf. Dimant, DJD XXX, 91–93; eadem, “Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C in Perspective,” in Collected Studies, 423–40. 35 Cf., e. g., CD VIII, 12; XVI, 2; 4QpHosa ii 6; 4Q471a 4.

Israel’s Subjugation to the Gentiles as an Expression of Demonic Power

167

and true knowledge, such as the Qumranites believed they possessed, were deemed to provide the key to liberation from sin and the evil yoke. A special role in this context is assigned to the subjugation of Israel to Gentile rule. The dictum in the Community Rule that the world is under the yoke of iniquity (1QS IV, 19–20) and the sobriquet “the period of wickedness” (‫)קץ הרשעה‬ used in the Damascus Document (XII, 23; cf. also VI, 10, 14; XV, 7; 4Q301 3 8) and the Pesher of Habakkuk (V, 7–8) to depict their contemporary era are well known.36 In several instances, the writings of the community explicitly connect the manifestations of evil with foreign monarchs. Such is the case of the Damascus Document (VIII, 9–12), which refers to “the kings of the nations” and to “the chief of the kings of Yavan,” probably a Seleucid king.37 For the Pesher of Habakkuk it was the Kittim, namely the Romans, who embodied the wicked rule in the world (1QpHab II, 11–IV, 13; VI, 1–8). The War Rule expresses this view most stringently. It lays down the rules for the global eschatological war against the forces of evil, consisting mostly of foreign nations. Here, the nations themselves are viewed as the agents of evil and wickedness, and are labeled “nations of wickedness” (‫‌גויי רשעה‬38). Their annihilation is therefore a prerequisite for the final purification of the world from all evil (1QM I, 5). In some texts, the keen expectation of the final disappearance of “the period of wickedness,” to be followed by “the period of justice,” is explicit (cf. 4Q215a 1 ii 439). The picture drawn by the AA and the AJ resembles these sectarian ideas and dualistic thinking very closely. The dualistic tinge is seen clearly in a comparison of the AA and the AJ with Daniel 9. The three are alike in their chronology and view of history. Also, Daniel 9 and other chapters of this biblical book judge foreign rule negatively, and place it within a chronology of seventy year-weeks (Dan 9:24–27).40 But the book of Daniel never associates such wicked foreign kings with evil supernatural powers. A dualistic tone of this type is shared only by the writings of the Qumran community and the two works under consideration. The AJ displays a few distinctive and remarkable aspects. It combines dualistic facets in a unique way with a special interest in political sovereignty and national identity. The presence of such a combination is especially clear in a sequence of one-and-a-half columns that can be pieced together from four overlapping fragments (4Q385a 4 6–9, 4Q387 2 ii–iii, 4Q388a 7 ii, and 4Q389 36 Cf.

also 4Q511 10 7; 35 1. a reference to Antiochus III (223–187 B. C. E.). 38 Cf. 1QM XIV, 7; XV, 2. 39 Note the similar formulations in 1Q27 1 i 04–07; 4Q416 1 10–15. See my comments on the three texts in my article “Egypt and Jerusalem in Light of the Dualistic Doctrine at Qumran (4Q462),” Meghillot 1 (2003): 45–51 (Heb.). 40 In depicting the wicked king in these chapters, the book of Daniel comes close to the concept of the evil figure. Cf. David Flusser, “The Hubris of the Antichrist in a Fragment from Qumran,” in Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1988), 207–13. 37 Perhaps

168

Israel’s Subjugation to the Gentiles as an Expression of Demonic Power

8 i). The passage in question forms part of the prophetic vision revealed to Jeremiah, covering events from the conquest of Jerusalem probably to the events of the second century B. C. E. Three distinct periods emerge from the restored sequence: a. The sinfulness of Israel brings about the withdrawal of divine guidance, which plunges Israel into confusion (4Q387 2 ii 1–5); b. During the second phase, the monarchy of Israel is lost, and foreigners rule Israel. The figure who looms large during this phase is a “blasphemer” king (‫ ;מלך גדפן‬4Q385a 4 6; 4Q387 2 ii 8), who perhaps represents the Babylonian Nebuchadnezzar II, who sacked Jerusalem and demolished the temple in 586 B. C. E. During this period, Israel is in exile; c. The third period is marked by the ignorance of the Israelites of their own sins; furthermore, their sins are even greater than those committed by their forefathers while the First Temple was standing. This period is dominated by a second figure carrying the epithet “blasphemer” (‫ ;מלך גדפן‬4Q388a 7 ii 3; 4Q389 8 ii 9), perhaps to be identified with Antiochus IV (175–164 B. C. E.; compare Dan 7:8, 20, 25). This is a time when the divine presence withdraws from the land, Israel no longer exists as a nation, and the land is neglected and desolate under the rule of the Angels of Mastemot (4Q389 8 ii 5–11 + 4Q387 2 iii). These three periods are not merely sequential, but mark the gradually increasing decline of Israel, matched by the steady intensification of her punishment. The absence of sovereignty, the loss of nationhood, and the desolation of the land mark the culmination of this process. All these evils are caused by the wicked rule of the Angels of Mastemot. Notable in this context is the link made between the loss of the sovereign kingdom and nationhood and the withdrawal of divine protection, replaced by control by demonic powers. Thus, the AJ asserts that not only national government but also national identity is dependent upon the existence or absence of a harmonious relationship with the divine. The Qumran community was also preoccupied with the issue of rule and government. Traces of such preoccupation appear in a number of Qumran writings belonging to the community or those closely related to it. The sapiential text Mysteries describes the wicked form of government exercised by the nations (1Q27 1 i 9–11).41 Frequent in the community’s writings is the reference to the contemporary forms of government as “the rule of wickedness” (‫;ממשלת רשעה‬ 1QM XVII, 5; 4Q510 1 7–8; 4Q511 10 3), or “the rule of Belial” (1QS II, 19; ‫)ממשלת בליעל‬, a term also used by the AJ (4Q390 2 i 4). These examples, as well as others, employ the term ‫ ממשל‬or ‫ממשלה‬, signifying the exercise of government.42 The term ‫ ממשל‬is used in a more general way to designate “governing,” 41 First published by Józef T. Milik, DJD I, 102–07, and re-edited with the copies from cave 4 (4Q299 1; 4Q300 3) by Lawrence H. Schiffman, DJD XX, 35–36. 42 Both words mean “kingship,” “ruling,” and sometimes also “kingdom.” Cf. 4Q418 206 4 ‫מל]וכה ומלכה ממשל‬, and the comments of the editors ad loc. in DJD XXXIV, 426.

Israel’s Subjugation to the Gentiles as an Expression of Demonic Power

169

“control,” both for humans and for natural phenomena.43 But for the present purpose the allusion found in the sectarian Commentary on Genesis is significant. The passage offers a pesher interpretation on the blessing of Jacob (Gen 49). In expounding the blessing to Judah (Gen 49:10), the commentary reads as follows: “The scepter shall [n]ot depart from the tribe of Judah.” (Gen 49:10a). When Israel will rule [there will not] be cut off one who occupies the throne for David (Jer 33:17). For “the staff” (Gen 49:10a) is the covenant of the kingship; [the thousa]nds of Israel are “the standards” (Gen 49:10a). (4Q252 6 1–3)44

The text perhaps interprets the blessing to Judah in Gen 49:10a as a reference to a future era when “Israel will rule” (‫(בהיות לישראל ממשל‬. In association with Jer 33:17, this era defines the days when a descendant of the Davidic dynasty will rule Israel, in accordance with the Davidic covenant. This may be understood either as a reference to the future Davidic messiah or to the historical rule of the house of David. Be that as it may, the emphasis placed here on self-rule, whether in the past or in the eschatological future, attests to the importance assigned by the Qumranites to this topic. The foregoing survey has attempted to bring into focus several aspects unique to the sectarian ideology and shared by a group of writings related to it. In this milieu, the view that the sinfulness of Israel began well before the disappearance of the First Temple is standard. Corollary to it is the belief that Israel did not learn the lesson of the Babylonian conquest and exile, but continued to plunge ever more deeply into sin. This continued iniquity is understood as being due to the demonic grip on the world and on Israel. The loss of sovereignty, and subsequently even the loss of nationality, is seen as a symptom of this evil influence. The various manifestations of political power and military might, especially of foreign nations and at times even of Jewish rulers associated with them, are seen as expressions of the demonic at work. Obviously, such views could have been nurtured only in a milieu adhering to dualism, and therefore must have been typical of the circles that produced the Qumran sectarian texts and the literature related to them. In conclusion, the numerous links between the AA and AJ on the one hand, and their affinity with Jubilees and the Damascus Document on the other hand, suggest a common background that merits further investigation.45

43 For

humans, see 1QS IX, 24; 1QM I, 5. For darkness, see 4Q503 34 4. published and translated by George Brooke in DJD XXII, 205. 45 On the affinity of these four works, see the comments in Dimant, DJD XXX, 107–12. Note, for instance, the similarity of the historical sequence in the AA, the AJ, Jub. 1:8–12, and CD I, 3–4. The links between the AA, the Damascus Document, and Jubilees were discussed by Kister, “The History of the Essenes.” Kister’s article was published before the AJ was available in print. 44 Text

Book of Tobit

Tobit and the Qumran Aramaic Texts Among the descriptions of the book of Tobit we may find phrases such as “a delightful mixture of real piety and Oriental superstition,”1 and “a delightful story of affliction of a pious Israelite.”2 Another commentator affirmed recently that Tobit “takes its point of departure from the fairytale in its Babylonian or Persian shape.”3 Such examples are but a few of many others that reflect the somewhat undervalued status of the book of Tobit in scholarly opinion, which is often relegated to that of a “Jewish novel” together with Esther and Judith.4 The change of perspective came around the middle of the last century, with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the copies of Tobit found therein. In this context, a growing appreciation of the complexity and skillful literary configuration of Tobit has taken place. An increasing number of publications devoted to Tobit reflect this growing interest, which is exemplified in the three surveys of Tobit research published during the last thirty-five years. Carey Moore produced his review in 1989, covering essentially the main areas of research of the twentieth century.5 Richard Spencer’s survey followed a decade later and focused on publications that appeared during the previous ten years.6 However, the two surveys came out before the full publication in 1995 of the Qumran Tobit copies could be integrated and so to a large extent they relate to research that predated that stage.7 Thus, the impact of the Qumran evidence could be determined only in publications noted in the third review of Tobit research that appeared in 2014, 1 Simpson,

“Tobit,” 174. Neil H. Richardson, “The Book of Tobit,” in The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible (ed. C. A. Laymon; Nashville: Abingdon, 1971), 526. 3 Benedikt Otzen, Tobit and Judith (Guides to the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 2. 4 See most recently Lawrence M. Will, The Jewish Novel in the Ancient World (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1995). Under the term “novel,” Will treats a variety of Hebrew (Esther and perhaps Judith), Aramaic (Tobit, Daniel, and perhaps Susanna), and Greek (Greek Esther, Joseph and Aseneth) works. While some broad literary traits are indeed shared by such a group, treating the individual compositions from such a general perspective plays down the significant differences among them in language, date, and background. See the judicious comments on the subject by Moore, Tobit, 18–20. 5 Carey A. Moore, “Scholarly Issues in the Book of Tobit before Qumran and After: An Assessment,” JSP 5 (1989): 65–81. 6 Cf. Richard A. Spencer, “The Book of Tobit in Recent Research,” CurBS 7 (1999): 147–80. 7 Cf. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “196–200. 4QpapTobita ar, 4QTobitb–d ar, and 4QTobite,” in DJD XIX, 2–76 (plates I–X). 2 Thus

174

Tobit and the Qumran Aramaic Texts

compiled by Andrew Perrin.8 His thirty-five-page overview, packed with information and titles, covers major aspects of Tobit research between 2000 and 2014. Notably, these years correspond to the final publication stage of the Dead Sea Scrolls that saw the coming out of the unknown Hebrew and Aramaic texts. However, the paucity of articles registered by Perrin that have attempted to make use of this Qumran trove for a better understanding of Tobit is telling. Research has yet to discover the potential relevance of this unknown Hebrew literature to Tobit. Even more striking is how little attention has been paid to the Qumran Aramaic literature as a major key for interpreting Tobit. This neglect may be due partly to the belated full publication of this corpus, which took place only in the previous decade.9 However, there is more to it than merely this delay, for major Aramaic works such as the Qumran Aramaic Genesis Apocryphon and 1 Enoch have been known for more than three decades. One of the reasons for this dearth of attention seems to be the notion maintained by many scholars that Tobit was composed in what is labeled “the Eastern Diaspora.”10 Perhaps this is one of the reasons why earlier examinations of Tobit focused on a specific set of topics, considered mostly within the framework of the book itself. Prominent among them have been the influence of the Hebrew Bible on the book, the story of Ahiqar, a figure mentioned explicitly in Tobit,11 and the theology of the composition. One of the favorite subjects of research during the better part of the twentieth century was the notion that Tobit is based on one or more folktales.12   8 Cf. Andrew B. Perrin, “An Almanac of Tobit Studies: 2000–2014,” CurBR 13 (2014): 107–42.   9 This concerns chiefly the volumes edited by Émile Puech, DJD XXXI in 2001 and DJD XXXVII in 2009. 10 This is a notion that has dominated the research until most recently and is held by some scholars even today. Cf., e. g., Moore, Tobit, 43; Otzen, Tobit and Judith, 58; Beate Ego, Buch Tobit (JSHRZ II/6; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlaghaus, 1999), 898–99; Isaiah M. Gafni, The Jews of Babylonia in the Talmudic Era (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, 1990) 57–61 (Heb.). Gafni speaks of the “Iranian atmosphere” that permeates the book (ibid. 58). Indeed, Asmodeus has been associated with the chief evil being of the Persian religion. However, the author of Tobit did not have to live in Mesopotamia in order to be influenced by Persian culture. He could have been influenced by it in the land of Israel, which was ruled by Persia for at least two centuries. 11 See, e. g., Zimmermann, Tobit, 13–15; Otzen, Tobit and Judith, 24–26. 12 Mainly the tales known as “The Grateful Dead” and “The Bride of the Monster.” Cf. the survey of Moore, Tobit, 11–12. One of the most outspoken proponents of the thesis that Tobit is based on a folktale has been Will Soll. See, e. g., idem, “Tobit and Folklore Studies, With Emphasis on Propp’s Morphology,” SBLSP 27 (1988): 39–53; idem, “Misfortune and Exile in Tobit: The Juncture of a Fairy Tale Source and Deuteronomic Theology,” CBQ 51 (1989): 209–31. However, in the latter article, Soll admits that “there are too many components of the work (i. e. Tobit) that do not fit fairy tale genre” (“Misfortune and Exile,” 219), among them the specific historical setting, place, and time. See also Irene Nowell, “The Book of Tobit: Narrative Technique and Theology” (Ph.D. diss., The Catholic University of America, 1983), 54–60; eadem, “The Book of Tobit,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1999), 979. But this type of comparison has also earned criticism. See, for instance, T. Francis Glasson,

Tobit and the Qumran Aramaic Texts

175

However, the discovery of the Qumran copies of Tobit changed dramatically the perspective of this work; among other things, it prompted a diminishing interest in the validity of folktales as a means of explaining this book.13 A major and immediately recognized contribution of the Qumran copies to the study of Tobit lies in their original textual form. For the Qumran library yielded six copies of the book, five in Aramaic (4Q196–4Q199, XQTob) and one in Hebrew (4Q200).14 Textually, these copies are close to the recension that is preserved by the Greek long text, attested by the fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus, a few Greek cursive manuscripts (designated GII), and the Old Latin version. However, in places, the Qumran copies preserve readings that accord with the Greek shorter version transmitted by most of the Greek manuscripts, including the Codices Alexandrinus and Vaticanus (designated GI),15 which usually are considered secondary.16 As the majority of the Qumran copies are in Aramaic, most scholars agree today that the original composition was written in this language. The multiple links displayed in Tobit to the Qumran Aramaic texts offer additional support for this conclusion.17 The Qumran copies also contain sections of the “The Main Sources of Tobit,” ZAW 71 (1959): 275–77. And note the comment of Fitzmyer, Tobit, 41: “there is practically no evidence that the tales predate the Tobit story”, and so there is no justification for postulating the existence of ancient folktales as serving as the basis for Tobit. 13  This is indicated by the decline of articles devoted to this issue, a fact recorded by Perrin, “Almanac,” 74. 14 See Fitzmyer in DJD XIX, 2–76. Following Józef Milik, Fitzmyer was aware of only four Aramaic manuscripts, but in 2006 two scholars published a photograph and decipherment of a small papyrus fragment from Qumran containing Tob 14:3–4 that was unknown to Fitzmyer, which is now part of the Schøyen Collection. The authors considered it a fragment of the already known Qumran papyrus copy of Tobit, 4Q196, published by Fitzmyer. Cf. Michaela Hallermayer and Torleif Elgvin, “Schøyen Ms. 5234: Ein neues Tobit-Fragment vom Toten Meer,” RevQ 22 (2006): 451–61. However, upon inspection of the photograph of the fragment forwarded to me by Prof. Elgvin, for which I am much indebted, it became clear that the fragment comes from a different papyrus manuscript. Prof. Elgvin now agrees with this conclusion (private communication). The same judgment is noted by Perrin, “Almanac,” 109 and by Loren Stuckenbruck and Stuart Weeks, “Tobit,” in The T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint (ed. J. K. Aitken; London: Bloomsbury, 2015), 237–60 (238). Stuart Weeks notes that another fragment from the same sixth manuscript may be found in private hands. See idem, “Restoring the Greek Tobit,” JSJ 44 (2013): 1–15 (3 n. 6). Thus, the Qumran library held six copies of Tobit, five in Aramaic and one in Hebrew. Michael’s Wise suggestion that the very small Hebrew fragment, 4Q478, comes from another Hebrew copy of Tobit is groundless. Cf. idem, “A Note on 4Q196 (PapTob ara) and Tobit I 22,” VT 43 (1993): 566–70 (569 n. 6). The fragment contains five complete words, the only significant one being ‫“( מועדיה‬her festivals”), which is hardly sufficient for assigning the fragment to Tobit, let alone to Tob 2:1–6, where Pentecost is mentioned and Amos 8:10 concerning festivals is cited. 15 See the survey of Stuckenbruck and Weeks, “Tobit.” The authors estimate that the two Greek recensions of Tobit, GI and GII, are revisions of the original Greek translation, to which GII is the closest. See ibid., 238–39. 16 See the most recent survey of Tobit’s textual traditions by Stuckenbruck and Weeks, “Tobit.” 17 Also noted by Daniel A. Machiela and Andrew B. Perrin, “Tobit and the Genesis Apocryphon: Toward a Family Portrait,” JBL 133 (2014): 111–32 (113).

176

Tobit and the Qumran Aramaic Texts

final chs. 13–14, demonstrating that they formed an integral part of at least the early version from Qumran. However, this does not exclude the possibility that these chapters originally stemmed from a separate source.18 However, while the Aramaic language of Tobit and its textual tradition have received close attention, surprisingly little has been said about the literarythematic relevance of the Qumran Aramaic corpus to Tobit. It is particularly puzzling since this corpus is the closest to Tobit in time as well as in place, and thus provides a primary means for elucidating the nature and meaning of the book.19 In fact, the impact of Qumran data in general on the understanding of Tobit as a literary and ideological composition has gained merely sporadic comments from the students of this work, and by and large Tobit has continued to be treated in isolation. This situation emerges clearly from Perrin’s survey. Although accurately stated by Perrin that “Tobit’s literary profile is best accounted for within the world of mid-second temple period Aramaic writings,”20 his own survey has very little to offer in this line of research. Only quite recently and very sporadically has the examination of Tobit as part of the Qumran Aramaic literature begun to infiltrate the scholarly scene. George Nickelsburg compared Tobit to 1 Enoch,21 Liora Goldman noticed the analogies between it and the Visions of Amram,22 Esther Eshel reviewed its links to the Aramaic Levi Document (= ALD) and the Genesis Apocryphon,23 and Daniel Machiela together with Andrew Perrin noted a selection of similarities between Tobit and the Genesis Apocryphon.24 Although the last-mentioned authors limited their comparison to two works, they nevertheless spoke of them as belonging to a wider family. Indeed, this insight is of major importance, as the recognition 18 These issues are presented by Joseph Fitzmyer as the contributions of the Qumran copies to the understanding of Tobit. Cf. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “The Significance of the Qumran Tobit Texts for the Study of Tobit,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 131–56. 19 Fitzmyer did so chiefly in regards to the Aramaic language. See Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “The Aramaic and Hebrew Fragments of Tobit from Qumran Cave 4,” CBQ 57 (1995): 655–75 (665–66). 20  Perrin, “Almanac,” 112. 21 Cf. George W. E. Nickelsburg, “Tobit and Enoch: Distant Cousins with a Recognizable Resemblance,” SBLSP 27 (1988): 54–68; idem, “Tobit’s Mixed Ancestry: A Historical and Hermeneutical Odyssey,” RevQ 17 (1996): 339–68. 22 Cf. Liora Goldman, “The Burial of the Fathers in the Visions of Amram from Qumran,” in Rewriting and Interpreting the Hebrew Bible (eds. D. Dimant and R. G. Kratz; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013), 231–49 (241–45). 23 Cf. Esther Eshel, “The Aramaic Levi Document, the Genesis Apocryphon, and Jubilees: A Study of Shared Traditions, ” in Enoch and the Mosaic Torah (eds. G. Boccaccini and G. Ibba; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 82–98 (94–95); eadem, “The Proper Marriage according to the Genesis Apocryphon and Related Texts,” Meghillot 8–9 (2010): 29–51 (Heb.) (abbreviated below: “Related Texts”); eadem, “The Proper Marriage according to the Genesis Apocryphon,” in In Memoriam John Strugnell: Four Studies (eds. M. Sigrist and K. Stephens; CahRB 84; Pendé: Gabalda, 2015), 67–83 (72–76, 82–83) (abbreviated below: “The Proper Marriage”). 24 Cf. Machiela and Perrin, “Tobit and the Genesis Apocryphon.”

Tobit and the Qumran Aramaic Texts

177

that Tobit belongs with the Aramaic literature created in the land of Israel during the Second Temple period, imposed decisively by the evidence. The time has come, then, to extract the book of Tobit from its splendid isolation, and view it in its proper context, namely, as part of the Aramaic literary scene that developed in the last centuries of the Second Temple era in the land of Israel. By mapping the manifold connections among the texts of this Aramaic corpus, their shared traditions and outlook slowly emerge. This major task is yet to be undertaken. Andrew Perrin has most recently taken a step in this direction by publishing a survey of Tobit’s contacts with Qumran Aramaic texts.25 His perspective and purpose coincide with the orientation of the present article, which also aims at tracing some of the threads connecting Tobit to the Qumran Aramaic compositions. However, unlike Perrin’s article, the present discussion is restricted to thematic issues underlying these works and leaves out literary techniques and styles. For these subjects should be treated separately in the breadth and detail that they merit.26 Once the true backdrop and context of Tobit are recognized, a rich tapestry of themes and ideas connecting it with a particular group of Aramaic texts is unfolded. A full survey of these links is beyond the modest scope of the present essay. Only four topics out of a much longer list in Tobit27 are compared with their parallels in various Aramaic texts: endogamy, demonology, burials, and sectarian halakhah. Other themes will be addressed elsewhere. One of the literary facts to emerge from the Qumran evidence is the existence in the Aramaic corpus of distinct thematic cycles.28 Among them are the two that shaped Tobit: a) the biographies of the biblical patriarchs; b) court tales about great kings and their courtiers. Each cycle is represented at Qumran by a number of specimens, but Tobit shares features with both of them. The constraints of the present discussion will allow for covering only some of the features related to the patriarchal setting. 25 Cf. Andrew B. Perrin, “Tobit’s Context and Contacts in the Qumran Aramaic Anthology,” JSP 25 (2015): 23–51. 26 This is another area for which a comprehensive and systematic study is needed. For the time being, see James E. Miller, “The Redaction of Tobit and the Genesis Apocryphon,” JSP 8 (1991): 53–56; Loren T. Stuckenbruck, “Pseudepigraphy and First Person Discourse in the Dead Sea Documents: From the Aramaic Texts to Writings of the Yaḥad,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Contemporary Culture: Proceedings of the International Conference Held at the Israel Museum (July 6–8, 2008) (STDJ 93; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 295–326; Andrew B. Perrin, “Capturing the Voices of Pseudepigraphic Personae: On the Form and Function of Incipits in the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls,” DSD 20 (2011): 113–25; idem, “Tobit’s Context and Contacts,” 27–32; Machiela and Perrin, “Tobit and the Genesis Apocryphon,” 115–18. 27 For instance, Eshel, “Shared Traditions,” 91–97 discusses the tradition of the “two ways” shared by Tobit and other Aramaic works. Perrin, “Tobit’s Context,” 32–35 addresses the ancestral instructions also common to Tobit and other Aramaic texts. 28 Cf. Devorah Dimant, “Themes and Genres in the Aramaic Texts from Qumran,” in Collected Studies, 195–218.

178

Tobit and the Qumran Aramaic Texts

Endogamy Marriage within the family is, perhaps, the most discussed topic in Tobit.29 Indeed, it is undoubtedly one of the main ideological threads that tie together the majority of the episodes in this composition. The chief protagonists are Tobi’s son, Tobiah, and Sarah.30 Being the only children of their parents and close relatives, but unknown as such, they are the ideal candidates to form an endogamous union. They are then brought together by divine plan. The plight of Sarah lies in the fact that she is aware of the duty to marry someone from her own family but she knows of no suitable relative (Tob 3:15). In her prayer, Sarah states three aspects of these dire circumstances: firstly, she lives in exile and so is far removed from her land and kinsmen; secondly, she is the only child of her father; and thirdly, her father has no relatives. The absence of any known relative is the most serious impediment to an eventual marriage, the prayer making it clear that marriage to a relative is the only appropriate union. In fact, the death of Sarah’s seven suitors suggests the impropriety of a match outside the family. This observation throws light on Tobiah’s statement. Having heard his disguised angelic companion Raphael urging him to marry Sarah, Tobiah admits that he fears the demon will kill him “for he (i. e., the demon) loves her” (6:15 GI). However, less attention has been paid to the fact that the demon’s love is expressed only by Tobiah himself and is not recounted elsewhere in the story (Tob 2:8; 3:15; 4:17), thus highlighting the subjective character of the statement.31 The real import of 29 See, most recently, Thomas Hieke, “Endogamy in the Book of Tobit, Genesis, and EzraNehemiah,” in The Book of Tobit: Text, Tradition, Theology (eds. G. G. Xeravits and J. Zsengellér; JSJSup 98; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 103–20 (105–20); Geoffrey D. Miller, Marriage in the Book of Tobit (DCLS 10; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011), 72–80; Perrin, “Tobit’s Context,” 35–42. 30 The chief protagonist of the book of Tobit is addressed throughout by the name Tobi (‫)טובי‬ as preserved in the Aramaic copies. His son is referred to as Tobiah (‫ )טוביה‬in the Aramaic and Hebrew copies of Tobit. 31 The dubious status of this item is perhaps reflected also by the fact that it only appears in some versions and is lacking, for instance, in the Sinaiticus version. It is, however, produced by other witnesses of the long recension, the Greek cursive ms 319 and the Old Latin (Codex Regius). Cf. Robert Hanhart, Tobit (Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum VIII, 5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), 116; Vincent T. M. Skemp, The Vulgate of Tobit Compared with Other Ancient Witnesses (SBLDS 180; Atlanta: SBL, 2000), 224; Stuart Weeks, Simon Gathercole, and Loren Stuckenbruck, The Book of Tobit: Texts from the Principal Ancient and Medieval Traditions (FSBP 3; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2004), 194. Contra to the affirmation of Fitzmyer, which is reproduced by all subsequent commentators, this statement is not attested by the Qumran manuscripts. The context has survived in two manuscripts, 4Q196 4 i 4 and 4Q197 14 ii. In the case of 4Q197 14 ii 10, the word corresponding to “loves her” in Tob 6:15 is restored by Fitzmyer following the Greek [‫ )]רחמה‬in DJD XIX, 48 but [‫ ]רחם לה‬in Fitzmyer, Tobit, 215). The supplement creates a phrase that is not quite identical to the GI reading and may be restored differently. As for the reading of the verb ‫“( רחם‬loves”) in 4Q196 14 i 4, it is extremely doubtful. In the oldest yet clearest photograph, PAM 41.647, only sections of two (or three?) undecipherable upper horizontal strokes have survived. Indeed, Michaela Hallermayer, who re-edited the fragments, rightly avoids any restoration in 4Q197 14 ii 10 and notes that the

Tobit and the Qumran Aramaic Texts

179

the situation is indicated by Raphael’s explanation when he reveals to Tobiah that he is the only relative of Sarah and therefore is destined to marry her (Tob 6:18). This answer also emphasizes the unnatural and undesirable character of the demon’s association with Sarah.32 Endogamy is prescribed for Tobi’s entire family. Tobi himself married a woman from his own family (Tob 1:10). He advises his son Tobiah to do the same (Tob 4:12–13), advice repeated later by Raphael (Tob 6:16). Instructing his son in this matter, Tobi cites the example of the biblical patriarchs who practiced endogamy, and justifies it by their being prophets, a heritage also transmitted to Tobi and Tobiah themselves, being “sons of prophets.” Warning against marriage outside the family, Tobi notably labels exogamy as “fornication” (πορνεία in Tob 4:1233). The theme reappears in Tobiah’s prayer in his bridal chamber. He states that he is taking his “sister,” namely Sarah, “not for fornication” (οὐχι διὰ πορνείαν, Tob 8:7 GII; similarly GI), thus affirming that he is obeying his father’s directive and Raphael’s advice and indicating the propriety of the marriage.34 The subject of a suitable marriage is brought up again by the angel Raphael, alias Azariah, upon introducing to Tobiah the subject of Sarah en route to Ecbatana. He points out that Sarah is the closest kin to him (Tob 5:12) and therefore he is the only lawful heir to her father’s property (Tob 6:12–14 [GI], 18–19; 6:13 [GII]). Raphael even asserts that Re‛uel, Sarah’s father, knows that giving his daughter to a stranger incurs death, since it is against the precepts of the Torah (Tob 6:13).35 This has been understood in relation to Num 36:5–12, which prescribes the preservation of inheritance within the tribe by obligating daughters without brothers to marry within the tribe.36 However, other features in Tobit’s story, such as Tobi’s stress on the “prophetic” origin of his family, indicate that the inheritance is not the only issue at stake; the purity of the lineage is equally remains of the letters in 4Q196 14 i 4 cannot be read. See eadem, Text und Überlieferung des Buches Tobit (DCLS 3; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2008), 63, 107. 32 Owens sees here a contrast between Tobiah’s love for Sarah (Tob 6:19) and the demon’s lust for her. See J. Edward Owens, “Asmodeus: A Less than Minor Character in the Book of Tobit,” in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature; Yearbook 2007: Angels (eds. F. V. Reiterer, T. Nicklas, and K. Schöpflin; Berlin: De Gruyter 2007), 277–90 (280). However, such an interpretation disregards the subjective character of the Asmodeus love notion and makes it a feature of the entire narrative. 33 Thus the short Greek text, and similarly in the witnesses of the long version, the Greek cursive ms 319 and Old Latin. The verse is part of the passage missing from Codex Sinaiticus. Tobit’s specific context and the parallels in Aramaic Levi Document and the Testament of Kahat (discussed below) suggest that “fornication” here is referring specifically to exogamous marriages and not to more general illicit sexual activity, as argued, for instance, by Miller, Marriage, 72. 34 Moore, Tobit, 243 and Ego, Tobit, 974 associate this passage with Josephus’ statement (J. W. ii, 160–61) that a certain branch of the Essenes practiced marriage only for the purpose of procreation. It appears that this notion of marriage also underlies the prayer of Tobiah. 35 Tob 5:10–13 are partly preserved by 4Q197 4 i 13–19–ii 1–6. 36 See, for instance, Fitzmyer, Tobit, 213–14.

180

Tobit and the Qumran Aramaic Texts

important.37 In light of this idea, it is worthwhile noting that by killing Sarah’s bridegrooms the demon Asmodeus rescued Sarah from improper marriages. Until this point in the story, the precise relationship between Tobiah and Sarah is not spelled out, neither is it stated what degree of kinship is required or preferable for a proper match. However, the author inserted two proleptic hints about the identity of a suitable candidate for such a union. One is found in Sarah’s prayer in her distress, the other in the exchange between Tobiah and Raphael. In the prayer, Sarah notes that her plight is due to being her parents’ only child, but also to the fact that her father has no other kinsman who has a son. Both the short and the long Greek versions describe such a kinsman with the word ἀδελφóς, which carries both the specific sense “brother” and the more general “relative, kinsman.”38 Most translators prefer the latter meaning.39 However, if the first sense is adopted for the formulation of GI, a surprisingly precise statement emerges (Tob 3:15): “(and he has no son) … nor a close brother, or a son to him (for whom I should keep myself to be a wife”).40 Significantly, this version is very close to the Aramaic preserved in one of the Qumran Tobit copies “… n[or] does he [have] a brother41 or a relative, a son for whom [I shall b]e a wife” (4Q196 6 11–12).42 The mention of a son to the brother or a relative points clearly to the desirable match, a son of the father’s brother, namely, Sarah’s cousin. Such a consanguineous marriage may also be hinted at in Raphael’s description of Sarah to Tobiah (cf. above). Tobiah’s precise kinship to Sarah is stated explicitly only at the moment of his meeting with the parents of Sarah, Re‛uel and Edna. Seeing Tobiah, Re‛uel exclaims: “How like my cousin is he!” (Tob 7:2 [GI]43). The precise Aramaic expression in this verse is preserved in another Aramaic copy of Tobit: “How this youth resembles Tobi the son of my uncle!” (4Q197 4 iii 4–5).44 So, according to this textual tradition, Tobi is Re‛uel’s cousin, and thus Tobiah and Sarah are second cousins. In the tradition of GII, Tobiah and Sarah are first cousins, if ἀδελφóς is taken to mean “brother” rather than “kinsman.” Thus, it appears that according to the view of the book of Tobit the desirable marriage within the family is with one’s cousin, prefer37 As stressed by Adiel Schremer, Male and Female He Created Them: Jewish Marriage in the Late Second Temple, Mishnah and Talmud Periods (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, 2003), 165 (Heb.). 38 Cf. GELSM, 9. 39 Cf., for instance, Moore, Tobit, 143; Fitzmyer, Tobit, 148; Alexander di Lella in NETS, 462–63. 40 The Greek (GI) reads as follows: καὶ οὐχ ὑπάρχει αὐτῷ παιδίον … οὐδὲ ἀδελφὸς ἐγγὺς οὐδὲ ὑπάρχων αὐτῷ υἱός, (ἵνα συντηρήσω ἐμαυτὴν αὐτῷ γυναῖκα). 41 The translation is that of Fitzmyer (DJD XIX, 14), except for the term ‫אח‬, translated here as “brother” instead of “kinsman” as proposed by Fitzmyer. 42 ‫ואח לה וקריב ל[א איתי] ל[ה די אנטר נ]פשי לבר ד[י אהו]ה לה אנתה‬. 43 GI employs the word ἀνεψιός (“cousin”) whereas GII has ἀδελφóς (“brother, kinsman”). But Old Latin has also “cousin” (consubrino). 44 ‫כמא דמה עלימא דן לטובי בר דדי‬.

Tobit and the Qumran Aramaic Texts

181

ably a paternal one. This view follows the patriarchal model: Isaac married the granddaughter of his uncle, Abraham’s brother Nahor (Gen 22:23; 24:15), and therefore Isaac and Rebecca were paternal second cousins. Jacob was instructed by Isaac to marry the daughters of his uncle Laban (Gen 28:1–2), and did so by taking Leah and Rachel as wives (Gen 29:18–28). Both were his maternal cousins. So the book of Tobit follows the biblical patriarchal model and advocates an endogamous marriage between cousins as the proper match.45 The purpose of such a marriage is to preserve the purity and propriety of the family line, as well as to keep the property within the family. While endogamy is a major theme in Tobit, the composition is not the only one to advocate this principle. Several Aramaic texts from Qumran do the same.46 The requirement of endogamous alliance is stressed by the Aramaic Levi Document, the Genesis Apocryphon, and the Visions of Amram, and is also implied in 1 Enoch, all four being Aramaic compositions represented by copies among the Qumran Scrolls. The Genesis Apocryphon is particularly expansive in this regard.47 It emphasizes that in the days following the iniquitous union of the angels with women, Noah and his sons practiced appropriate union by marrying the children of their father’s brother, namely, their paternal cousins (1QGenApoc I, 10). In the passage relating these events, Noah states that this was done “in accordance with the law of the world” (‫)כדת חוק עלמא‬.48 Interestingly, in the version of the story of Noah’s wondrous birth preserved in 1 Enoch, Enoch tells his son Methuselah that by engaging in unlawful unions with mortal women the sinful angels transgressed “the covenant of Heaven” (1 En. 106:1349), suggesting a view that 45 On the preference of marriage between cousins in the Genesis Apocryphon, see Adiel Schremer, Male and Female, 164. In another publication, Schremer suggests that texts belonging to what he terms “Enoch’s cycle,” such as Jubilees, recommend marriage to a cousin because they were opposed to marriage to a niece, as was the Qumran community (cf. CD V, 7–8; 11QTa LXVI, 15–17). See idem, “Kingship Terminology and Endogamous Marriage in the Mishnaic and Talmudic Periods,” Zion 60 (1995): 5–35 (14) (Heb.). The same may be said of the entire group of Qumran Aramaic texts dealing with the patriarchs. 46  For what follows, see also Perrin, “Tobit’s Context,” 36–42. 47 For this section, see the detailed comments of Machiela and Perrin, “Tobit and the Genesis Apocryphon.” 48 See Loren T. Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91–108 (CEJL; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2007), 666; Eshel, “Related Texts,” 33–34. The contrast between the sinful unions of the angels and Noah’s family’s proper marriages is noted by Stuckenbruck, ibid. and Daniel K. Falk, The Parabiblical Texts: Strategies for Extending the Scriptures in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 8; London: T & T Clark, 2007), 69, 104. Betsy Halpern-Amaru has shown that the exogamic marriages of the Watchers (“of all they chose”; Gen 6:2) stand in contrast to the endogamy practiced by the genealogy of Noah, a motif emphasized by Jubilees but suggested already in the biblical account. See eadem, The Empowerment of Women in the Book of Jubilees (JSJSup 60; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 23–25, 148–49. See also Eshel, “The Proper Marriage,” 71–77. 49 This is the reading of the Greek version of this verse that survived in papyrus Chester Beatty. See Campbell Bonner, The Last Chapters of Enoch in Greek (London: Christophers,

182

Tobit and the Qumran Aramaic Texts

there was an eternal law forbidding improper marriage. The passage from the Genesis Apocryphon cited above expresses another aspect of the same idea, namely, the existence of an eternal law for proper marriage, a law that guided Noah’s behavior.50 The awareness of such a directive accounts for Lamech’s alarm upon watching his son Noah’s wondrous birth, suspecting that the newborn was the offspring of an illicit union of his wife with an angelic Watcher. As told in 1 Enoch 106–107, and in greater detail in Genesis Apocryphon III–V, the suspicion was later dispelled by the explanations Enoch gave to Noah’s grandfather, Methuselah. The reason behind such a concern for appropriate marriages was the desire to maintain the purity and piety of the patriarchal line and its ancestral origins. This principle is made clear by the fuller description of the antediluvian generations in Jubilees,51 probably drawing upon the Genesis Apocryphon as one of its sources.52 Jubilees strives to show that when exogamy was practiced, as it was in the case of the Watchers with the women or that of Ham and Japhet, Noah’s sons, corruption and depravity proliferated, whereas endogamous marriage perpetuated piety and holiness.53 The association of endogamy with piety and purity is also spelt out by the Aramaic Levi Document. This document is one of the sources of the Greek Testament of Levi, and is now available in seven fragmentary copies from Qumran, a Cairo Genizah manuscript, and a Greek translation of passages inserted in a manuscript from Mount Athos.54 For the present theme, the first advice given by Isaac to Levi, following his nomination for priesthood, is relevant. Isaac formulates his advice as follows: “First of all, be[wa]re my son of all fornication and 1937), 83. According to the Ethiopic version, the angels transgressed “the word of my Lord.” See the comments of Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91–108, 664–65. 50 For the connection between the passages from 1 Enoch 106 and Genesis Apocryphon I, 10, see Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91–108, 666. Eshel has proposed that the term in the Genesis Apocryphon was based on Isa 24:5 (eadem, “Related Texts,” 33). The same biblical verse is perhaps echoed in the 1 Enoch passage. 51 See Jacob Milgrom, “The Concept of Impurity in Jubilees and the Temple Scroll,” RevQ 16 (1993): 277–84 (281). Milgrom discusses Jubilees but the concept of the purity of the ancestral line is shared by the entire group of Aramaic works that deal with the patriarchal biographies. 52 See, e. g., Eshel, “Shared Traditions,” 91; Daniel A. Machiela, The Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon (STDJ 79; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 17. For the concern in Jubilees for the reconstruction of the purity of line of the antediluvian generations, see Halpern-Amaru, Empowerment of Women, 18–21. Note also James C. VanderKam, “The Granddaughters and Grandsons of Noah,” RevQ 16 (1994): 457–61. 53 As shown by Halpern-Amaru, ibid. 54 The Qumran copies are the following: 1Q21, 4Q213, 4Q213a, 4Q213b, 4Q214, 4Q214a, and 4Q214b. Six columns of a Cairo Genizah manuscript stored at the University of Cambridge (T. S. 16, fol. 94) have survived. Another leaf of the same manuscript, preserving four columns, is stored in the Oxford Bodleian Library. Extracts from a Greek translation of the Levi Document have been included in a copy of the Twelve Patriarchs (ms Koutloumous 39, stored in a monastery on Mount Athos). For details, see Jonas C. Greenfield, Michael E. Stone, and Esther Eshel, The Aramaic Levi Document (SVTP 19; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 1–6.

Tobit and the Qumran Aramaic Texts

183

impurity and of all harlotr[y]. And marry a woman from my family and do not defile your seed with harlots, since you are holy seed, and your seed is holy, like the holy place, since you are called the holy priest for all the seed of Abraham.”55 Here, exogamic marriage is equated with harlotry that defiles the entire family. The avoidance of improper marriage of this type springs from the necessity of maintaining the familial priestly purity, explains Isaac to the newly ordained Levi. The regulation, states Isaac, applies to all of Abraham’s descendants. This last phrase has been understood as referring to all Israel, and therefore the directive has been interpreted as a prohibition against marrying Gentiles.56 However, Isaac’s explicit emphasis on selecting a wife “from my family,” justifying it because of Levi’s priestly status, favors a more restrictive interpretation, namely, that of marriage within the family in order to preserve its purity.57 In this sense, it agrees entirely with Tobit. Another Aramaic work, the Testament of Kahat, a fragment of which was found among the Scrolls, voices what appears to be the same warning, producing in a fragmentary piece the words “… them from fornication.”58 In a different passage addressing various directives to his sons, Kahat instructs them as follows: “… and be holy and pure barring all intermixture.”59 Since the warning is listed with others addressed to members of the priestly line, this one may be directed against exogamous matches.60 55 The passage is preserved in the Bodleian Genizah leaf: ‫לקדמין היזדהר לך ברי מן כל פחז‬ ‫וטמאה ומן כל זנו[ת] ואנת אנתתא מן משפחתי סב לך ולא תחל זרעך עם זניאן ארי זרע קדיש אנת וקדיש‬ ‫זרעך היך קודשא ארו כהין קדיש אנת מתקרי לכל זרע אברהם‬. The text is given according to the edition of Émile Puech, “Le Testament de Lévi en Araméen de la Geniza du Caire,” RevQ 20 (2002): 509–56 (527). The translation, with a slight alteration, is that of Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel, Aramaic Levi, 75. 56 See, for instance, Edward M. Cook, “Remarks on the Testament of Kohath from Qumran Cave 4,” JJS 44 (1993): 205–19 (210); Joseph M. Baumgarten, “The ‘Halakha’ in Miqṣat Ma‘aśe Ha-Torah (MMT),” JAOS 116 (1996): 512–16 (515); Menachem Kister, “Studies in 4QMiqṣat Ma‘aśe Ha-Torah and Related Texts: Law, Theology, Language and Calendar,” Tarbiz 68 (1999): 317–70 (344) (Heb.). Cook and Kister compare the term “fornication” (‫ (זניתא‬in the Aramaic texts with the same term )‫)זונות‬, a warning against which appears in 4QMMT B 75. In their opinion, both refer to the marriage of Israelites to Gentiles. However, the parallel of Jub. 30:8 that bans marriage to Gentiles, adduced by Kister, ibid. in support of his interpretation, is the exception rather than the rule for the meaning of the Aramaic texts. For the Aramaic texts in question address the warning to members of the priestly line, so a warning against exogamous matches seems to be intended; that is certainly the case in Tobit. 57 The same understanding is expressed by Schremer, Male and Female, 164–65. 58 ‫ ;להון מן זנותא‬4Q542 3 ii 12. According to Jub. 25:7 Abraham warns Jacob of fornaication, implying exogamic marriage. 59 ‫ ;והוא קד[י]שין ודכין מן כול [ער]ברוב‬4Q542 1 i 8–9. See the edition and comments of Cook, “Testament of Kohath,” 205–06, 210–11. 60 The term ‫“( [ער]בוב‬intermixture”) parallels the terms ‫“( כלאים‬diverse kinds”) and ‫שעטנז‬ (“mixed threads”) in 4QMMT B 75–77 for improper marriages. Since this passage also speaks of priests, it seems that 4QMMT is also referring to undesirable matches within Israel, rather than with Gentiles, as indeed suggested by Qimron and Strugnell. They note rightly that the term ‫ זנות‬refers in the Dead Sea Scrolls “to all kinds of illegal marital acts, including forbidden

184

Tobit and the Qumran Aramaic Texts

The similarity between Isaac’s counsel to Levi and Tobi’s advice to his son (Tob 4:12; cf. above) is striking; for Tobi, too, marriage outside the family equals “fornication,” a notion also hinted at in Sarah’s prayer in which she states that she had not “defiled” herself with a man or “besmirched” herself or her father’s name (Tob 3:14–15). For Tobi, endogamous marriage is required due to his ancestral lineage, being descendants of the patriarchs who were “prophets.” Although not a priest, Tobi applies to himself and to his descendants the priestly regulations that are prescribed by the ALD for Levi and his lineage.61 Moreover, for both, the proper endogamic match is between cousins, preferably on the side of the father. This emerges from the fact that Levi marries his first cousin, Melka, the daughter of his uncle, Bethuel (ALD 11:162). The same notion of appropriate matrimony is espoused by another Aramaic work discovered at Qumran, the Visions of Amram. As with Aramaic Levi Document, it concerns a member of the priestly lineage, this time Amram, Levi’s grandson and the father of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. Unknown from any other source, this Aramaic work survived in six fragmentary copies (4Q543–4Q548) and perhaps also in a seventh one (4Q549).63 The composition imparts the final words of Amram to his sons. The surviving passages contain an account of Amram’s trip from Egypt to Canaan to bury his ancestors in Hebron, and relate the dreams he had there. The concern of the work with proper marriage is indicated by two details. The beginning of the work has been partly preserved by 4Q543 1, 4Q545 1, and 4Q546 1. It establishes the narrative framework of the story by presenting it as a copy of the book Amram gave to his sons. According to it, Amram married his daughter Miriam to his youngest brother Uziel (4Q543 1 5–8; 4Q545 1 i 5–8; cf. Lev 6:20). Thus, Miriam marries her paternal uncle, very much in line with the endogamic matrimony practiced by other biblical patriarchs and espoused in Tobit as well as in other Aramaic works surveyed above. Amram’s concern about maintaining the proper marital relationship is also expressed by his abstaining from taking a second wife while in Canaan and separated from his wife, Yochebed, who went back to Egypt (4Q543 4 3–4; 4Q544 1 7–9; 4Q547 1–2 10–13). This separation lasted for forty years since Amram could not return home to Egypt due to the ongoing war between that country and Canaan (4Q547 1–2 4–5). Yochebed, it should be remembered, was Amram’s aunt (cf. Exod 6:20), the daughter of his grandfather Levi (Num 26:59). This pedigree suggests marriages that fall under the ban analogous to that on ‘diverse kinds’.” See Elisha Qimron and John Strugnell, DJD X, 171 n. 177, and their general comments on the passage on pp. 171–72. 61 As noted by Eshel, “Related Texts,” 33. 62 According to the Greek Mt. Athos manuscript. Cf. Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel, Aramaic Levi Document, 94 and the table of Levi’s genealogy on pp. 181–82. 63 Edited by Émile Puech, DJD XXXI, 283–405. In the opinion of Goldman 4Q548 does not belong to this work. Cf. Liora Goldman, “Dualism in the Visions of Amram,” RevQ 24 (2010): 421–32 (425).

Tobit and the Qumran Aramaic Texts

185

that Amram undertook this long sexual abstinence in order to maintain his purity and that of his line. Significantly, the Visions of Amram has another point of contact with Tobit, namely the proper burial, of which more will be said below.64

Demonology In Tobit, endogamy and family purity are closely connected to demonic activity. This is embodied in the actions of the “evil demon Asmodeus,” who kills Sarah’s seven bridegrooms (Tob 3:8). Since Tobiah was the only surviving relative of Sarah, the seven were obviously not from her family and thus a marriage with one of them would have constituted an exogamous match. So, by killing these candidates, Asmodeus prevented Sarah from contracting an improper marriage. Moreover, Asmodeus struck the grooms before the marriages were consummated (Tob 3:8), thus preserving Sarah’s virginity intact and enabling her subsequently to marry Tobiah. Hence, Asmodeus has an important role to play in the plot. Yet, emanating malevolence, Asmodeus has to be removed. This is done by burning the heart and liver of the fish Tobiah caught on the way to Ecbatana, following the instructions of the angel Raphael (Tob 6:6–7, 16–17; 8:2–4).65 The smell so frightened Asmodeus that he fled to Egypt and Raphael finished the job by binding the demon. On the overt level of the story, Asmodeus is the embodiment of evil in the tale, the instigator of Sarah’s suffering. Thus, structurally, he is pitted against the angel Raphael who is sent to rescue her. The demon and the angel are not equally powerful opponents of the type found in the supernatural camps of evil and light recorded in the Qumran sectarian literature. For Raphael is equipped not only with superior angelic power but also with the knowledge of medicines for the elimination of the nefarious influence of demons. Still, a world open to the activities of both demons and angels possesses clear dualistic components. Dualistic aspects are also observed in other Aramaic texts. Of particular interest are the points of contact observed between Tobit and the Enochic Book of Watchers (= 1 Enoch 1–36).66 The similarity concerns first of all the activity of Raphael. In Tobit, the angel’s role is to heal the illness of Tobi and to rid Sarah of the persecuting demon. Ascribing healing capacity to Raphael is an evident play on his name (‫)רפאל‬, meaning “El has healed.”67 The healing tradition 64 On both issues, see the comments of Goldman, “Burial of the Fathers,” 242–44. Goldman surveys additional themes shared by Tobit and the Visions of Amram, among them the activity of demonic beings, discussed below. 65 For the magical background of this procedure, see Bernd Kollmann, “Göttliche Offenbarung magisch-pharmakologischer Heilkunst im Buch Tobit,” ZAW 106 (1994): 289–99. 66 Cf. the comments of Nickelsburg, “Tobit and Enoch,” 55–59. 67 Cf. HALOT, 3:1275. Note the description of the healing activities of Azariah/Raphael in Tob 12:3.

186

Tobit and the Qumran Aramaic Texts

attached to this angel is also present in the Book of Watchers (1 En. 10:4–8), where Raphael is to heal the earth from the havoc wrought by the Watchers and their giant offspring. However, there are additional points of contact between this Enochic episode and Tobit’s depiction. Just as Raphael binds Asmodeus in Tobit, he is commanded to bind the leader of the Watchers, Azael, and his sinful angelic followers, in 1 Enoch (1 En. 10:4–5). Although the two accounts involve different punished beings, sinful angels in 1 Enoch and a demon in Tobit, the affinity of their respective punishments is striking. Moreover, the nature of the demons is specified elsewhere in the Book of Watchers (in 1 Enoch 16), where their creation is depicted as spirits coming out of the dead giants, the offspring of the sinful angels and the women. The book of Jubilees provides an additional aspect to this cluster of motives by stating that one-tenth of the demons remained on earth under the authority of the archdemon Mastema, enabling them to corrupt and harass mankind (Jub. 10:8–9). Interestingly, the other nine-tenths are to be kept in “a place of judgment,” evoking the binding of Asmodeus in Tobit. So both details could have been known to Tobit. In 1 Enoch 10, the punishment of binding and throwing into a place of darkness to await final judgment is meted out to the sinful angels, whereas in Tobit and Jubilees it is inflicted upon the demons. Another point of contact between Jubilees and Tobit concerns the use of medicines against demonic influence. Tobit does not explain how Raphael knew the remedy needed to fend off Asmodeus, but the story implies that the source of his knowledge was angelic. Jubilees 10 is explicit in attributing such a science to the Angels of Presence. Accordingly, these angels taught Noah which medicines were needed to heal the plagues brought about by the demons and Noah wrote them down in a book that he handed to his son Shem (Jub. 10:12–14). These similarities suggest that the author of Tobit was familiar with the Enochic traditions, as he was with those underlying Jubilees. The uniqueness of Tobit’s Asmodeus is that despite his overtly pernicious character in the story, his actions protect Sarah from unlawful marriages. The enlisting of a demonic spirit to safeguard familial purity is evoked also in the Genesis Apocryphon.68 Here, in response to Abraham’s prayer, an “evil spirit”69 is divinely sent to protect his wife Sarah from molestation. Abraham requests that his wife not be defiled by Pharaoh, having been taken from him by force to be the Egyptian king’s wife (1QGenApoc XX, 12–18). The evil spirit is sent to inflict various plagues and afflictions on Pharaoh and the members of his household, thus preventing Pharaoh from touching Sarah. None of the Egyptian physicians or magicians could heal the diseases. Upon learning that the presence of Sarah was the cause of these evils, Pharaoh was prepared to relinquish her. He returned Sarah to Abraham and, swearing that he did not have sexual intercourse 68 See the observations of Machiela and Perrin, “Tobit and the Genesis Apocryphon,” 129–30. 69 ‫באישא‬

‫רוחא‬.

Tobit and the Qumran Aramaic Texts

187

with her, he was cured by Abraham who prayed while placing his hands on the king’s head (1Q20 XX, 20–29).70 Summarizing the foregoing points, the Genesis Apocryphon parallels Tobit in three issues: the respective demonic beings protect the protagonist from being molested; the exorcism of the demonic beings is conducted by apotropaic rituals; finally, the expulsion of the evil is accompanied by a prayer.71 The particular affinity between these two works lies in the fact that both enlist demons to protect the heroines from sexual abuse.

Dualism The foregoing episodes attest to a widespread belief in the presence of pernicious demonic influences that cause diseases and other afflictions.72 They are obviously connected with notions of dualism to various degrees, an element shared by a number of Aramaic works dealing with the patriarchs.73 The combat between good and evil is brought to the fore by a particular depiction in the Visions of Amram. Relating the exploits of Amram in undertaking 70  Cf Luke 4:40. See David Flusser, “Healing through the Laying-On of Hands in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1988), 231–22; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1 (1Q20) (3rd ed.; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2004), 102, 213; Machiela, The Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon, 76–77; Ida Fröhlich, “Medicine and Magic in Genesis Apocryphon: Ideas on Human Conception and its Hindrances,” RevQ 25 (2011): 177–98 (193–95). 71 Ida Fröhlich notes that in both Tobit and the Genesis Apocryphon the prayer replaces magical formulae current in magical exorcism. Cf. eadem, “Medicine and Magic in Genesis Apocryphon,” 195. 72 For general surveys, see Esther Eshel, “Demonology in Palestine during the Second Temple Period” (Ph.D. diss.; Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1999) (Heb.); Armin Lange, “Considerations Concerning the ‘Spirit of Impurity’ in Zech 13:2,” in Die Dämonen/Demons (eds. A. Lange, H. Lichtenberger, and K. F. D. Römheld; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 354–68; Archie T. Wright, The Origin of Evil Spirits (WUNT II/198; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 148–51; Miryam T. Brand, Evil Within and Without: The Source of Sin and Its Nature as Portrayed in Second Temple Literature (JAJSup 9; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 149–217. 73 Thus, we find the request “and] let not any satan have power over me” formulated by Levi in his prayer recorded in the Aramaic Levi Document (4Q213a 1 17). The use of the locution ‫כל‬ ‫“( שטן‬any satan”) indicates that “satan” is not a personal name but a class of demons. A precise Hebrew parallel is found in the Qumran Hebrew apocryphal psalm Plea for Deliverance, ‫אל‬ ‫“( תשלט בי שטן‬let no satan have power over me”; 11QPsa XIX, 15), which suggests that also the Hebrew speaks of a type of demon but not of the being Satan. Demonic activity is a favorite theme in the Hebrew sectarian writings from Qumran, but there it is presented in the context of a broad dualist outlook. See the psalms to be chanted to ward off demons (4Q510–4Q511) and the references to agents of the archdemon Belial who pursue the Sons of Light in sectarian texts (1QS III, 21–25; 1QM XII, 10–14). In the Hebrew apocryphal work, Apocryphon of Jeremiah C, a group of demonic beings, “the angels of the Mastemoth,” is mentioned (‫מלאכי‬ ‫ ;המשטמות‬4Q387 2 iii 4; 4Q390 1 11; 2 i 7).

188

Tobit and the Qumran Aramaic Texts

the burial of his ancestors in Canaan, the work also narrates Amram’s dream in which he sees two beings disputing over him: one, of “fearsome and terrible”74 appearance, dark and grinning and attired in colored clothes, is in charge of the Sons of Darkness, whereas his counterpart rules over the Sons of Light (4Q543 5–9; 10–14; 4Q544 1 10–15; 2–3; 4Q547 1–2 10–13). The two dispute over control of Amram but he is given the freedom to choose between them as his leader. While this picture is not identical to the dualistic scene outlined by the Qumran sectarian texts, it is nevertheless a clear variant of a dualistic view of the world.75 Notwithstanding its peculiarity, the dualistic vision of Amram adds to other dualistic notions espoused by many of the Aramaic texts under consideration.

Burial Another major theme in Tobit that has parallels in another Aramaic text is the religious obligation to bury the dead. Tobit presents two aspects of this duty: firstly, Tobi buries corpses of Jews left unburied in public domain (Tob 1:17–19; 2:3–8; 12:12); secondly, he directs his son Tobiah to bury his parents after their death (Tob 4:3–4; 14:9). Tobiah does so and also buries his wife’s parents (Tob 14:10, 12, 18). The duty to bury one’s own parents certainly reflects a Jewish practice current in both biblical and post-biblical times. Tobit’s particular stress on this is also in line with its appropriation of the patriarchal model in the Genesis stories. Abraham and Sarah are buried together in the Machpela cave (Gen 23:19; 25:9–10), Abraham being interred by his two sons. Isaac’s sons, Jacob and Esau, perform the burial of their father (Gen 35:29) while Jacob is buried by his sons in the Machpela cave (Gen 50:13). On leaving Egypt, Moses took Joseph’s bones with him in order to bury them in Canaan (Exod 13:19) in fulfillment of Joseph’s request (Gen 50:25). The central story of the Visions of Amram is built on this last episode, relating as it does Amram’s journey to Canaan to bury his ancestors. Jubilees also knows this episode (Jub. 47:1–11).76 74 Following the reading of Edward Cook ‫( ;חזוה דחיל[ ואימ]תן‬4Q547 1–2 12). See idem, Dictionary of Qumran Aramaic (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015), 52. 75 See the discussions of Goldman, “Dualism in the Visions of Amram”; Andrew B. Perrin, “Another Look at Dualism in 4QVisions of Amram,” Hen 36 (2014): 106–17. 76 Cf. Betsy Halpern-Amaru, “Burying the Fathers: Exegetical Strategies and Source Traditions in Jubilees 46,” in Reworking the Bible: Apocryphal and Related Texts at Qumran (eds. E. G. Chazon, D. Dimant, and R. A. Clements; STDJ 58; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 135–52. HalpernAmaru concludes that the author of Jubilees knew the tradition of the trip to Canaan to bury the ancestors and adapted it to his own purpose (ibid., 148–49). Similarly James C. VanderKam, “Jubilees 46:6–47:1 and 4QVisions of Amram,” DSD 17 (2010): 141–58. In the opinion of Émile Puech, Jubilees actually knew the Visions of Amram and drew upon it. See idem, DJD XXXI, 285. Similarly Cana Werman, “The Book of Jubilees and Its Aramaic Sources,” Meghillot 8–9 (2010): 135–74 (154–58, 172) (Heb.).

Tobit and the Qumran Aramaic Texts

189

Yet Tobit’s stories about the burial of exposed Jewish corpses stem from a different source. They mirror the Jewish obligation, the so-called met mitzvah, to inter corpses for which burial has not been undertaken, based on biblical sources (cf. Deut 21:3; note 1 Sam 31:12–13).77 Still, they are part of a wider Jewish ethos of respect for the dead,78 shared by Tobit and the Visions of Amram.

Legal Attitude The last theme to be treated here, perhaps the most remarkable but the least remarked upon in a comparative context, is the legal approach that typifies the Qumran community but is shared also by Tobit and other Aramaic texts. The most salient instance in Tobit is the list of cultic offerings and tithes Tobi used to take to the Jerusalem temple while he was still in his Galilean hometown (Tob 1:6–8).79 Some of them are identical to particular halakhic regulations prescribed in the sectarian texts. They are the following: 1. The obligation to bring to the Jerusalem temple the donations allocated to the priests and the Levites. Although it aligns with the old custom recorded in Neh 10:36–38; 12:44, it contrasts with the later practice of giving such donations in various localities outside Jerusalem. 2. The tithe of the cattle as a priestly donation (cf. Lev 27:32–33; 2 Chr 31:5–6) listed by Tobi, is prescribed by Miqṣat Ma‛aśe Ha-Torah (4QMMT B 63–64),80 the Temple Scroll (11QTa LX, 2–3),81 one copy of the Damascus Document (4Q270 2 ii 7–8),82 as well as by Jubilees (13:25–27; 32:8). It is also 77 The obligation is mentioned by Josephus, C. Ap. ii, 211. Cf. also Mek. de Rashbi, Jethro 28, 20. The prevalent view associates Tobi’s burial of corpses with the folktale “The Grateful Dead” (cf. n. 12 above). However, the details of this tale hardly fit with Tobit’s plot whereas the scene depicted by the book is a typical situation for applying the met mitzvah directive. 78 See most recently János Bolyki, “Burial as an Ethical Task in the Book of Tobit, in the Bible and in the Greek Tragedies,” in The Book of Tobit: Text, Tradition, Theology (JSJSup 98; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 89–101. 79  For the following, see the article “The Book of Tobit and the Qumran Halakhah” in this volume. 80 See the comments of Yaakov Sussmann, “The History of Halakha and the Dead Sea Scrolls – Preliminary Observations on Miqṣat Ma‛aśe Ha-Torah (4QMMT),” Tarbiz 59 (1989): 11–76 (34–35) (Heb.); Qimron, “The Halakha,” in idem and Strugnell, DJD X, 123–77 (165– 66). 81 In the text edition of Elisha Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2010), 1:199 (Heb.). For a discussion, see Lawrence H. Schiffman, “Miqṣat Ma‘aśeh Ha-Torah and the Temple Scroll,” RevQ 14 (1990): 435–57 (452–54); Aharon Shemesh, “The Laws of the Firstborn and the Cattle Tithe in Qumran Literature and Rabbinic Halakhah,” Meghillot 3 (2005): 143–61 (155–59) (Heb.). 82 Cf. Schiffman, “Miqṣat Ma‘aśeh ha-Torah,” 452–54; idem, “The Place of 4QMMT in the Corpus of Qumran Manuscripts,” in Reading 4QMMT: New Perspectives on Qumran Law and History (eds. J. Kampen and M. J. Bernstein; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), 81–98 (88, 95); Menachem Kister, “Some Aspects of Qumran Halakhah,” in The Madrid Qumran Congress

190

Tobit and the Qumran Aramaic Texts

enjoined by Philo, Spec. I, 131–144. However, the rabbinic halakhah prescribed that it should be eaten by the owners in Jerusalem. 3. The agricultural tithe for the Levites, specified by Tobi (laid down also in the Temple Scroll LX, 6), is to be given to them in the temple,83 but the Sages ruled that the Levites may accept this tithe anywhere. Historical sources record that in fact it was taken by the priests. 4. Tobi’s custom of separating the second tithe (cf. Deut 14:22–27) in every one of the six years in the sabbatical cycle, a practice also prescribed in Jubilees (32:11) on the basis of Deut 14:22, is noteworthy. The Greek formulation of GII does not make it clear whether another tithe to be given, that to the poor (according to Deut 14:28–29; 26:12–13), replaced the second tithe or was additional to it. If it was additional to it, Tobi’s procedure is analogous to instructions in the Temple Scroll (11QTa XLIII, 4–10). In this passage, based on Deut 14:22–26, this scroll views the second tithe as part of the celebration of the first fruits festivals, implying a yearly obligation to bring it to the temple.84 Also Tobi brought this tithe every year. So in Tobi’s practice the tithe for the poor was additional, given by him in the third year of the sabbatical cycle. This practice stands in contrast to the rabbinic halakhah, which mandated that in the third and sixth years of the cycle the second tithe is replaced by the tithe for the poor. While these affinities between Tobit and other contemporary works may be explained, as they were, as reflecting an older halakhah, when they are viewed together and in the context of the Qumran Aramaic corpus they add to the list of other links Tobit displays with the beliefs of the Qumran community. A similar link to sectarian halakhah may be observed in the Genesis Apocryphon XII, 13–15. This passage relates that Noah used the fruits of the vineyard he planted (cf. Gen 9:20) in the fourth year of its planting. The same story is introduced also in Jub. 7:1–7. If we assume that Noah officiated as a priest, the story reflects the sectarian rule that prescribed that the fourth-year fruits be given to the priests (cf. Lev 19:23–25) as stated by the Temple Scroll (11QTa LX, 3–4), 4QMMT B 62–64, and Jub. 7:35–37. Therefore, the fruits do not belong to the owner, as they would have done in the rabbinic halakhah.85 (eds. J. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner; STDJ 11/2; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 2:571–88 (579 n. 31); Shemesh, “The Laws of the Firstborn,” 155–56. 83 Cf. the discussions of Baumgarten, “The First and Second Tithes,” 6–10 (cf. n. 30 below); Lawrence H. Schiffman, “Priestly and Levitical Gifts in the Temple Scroll,” in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues (STDJ 30; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 480–96 (484, 487–89). Yaakov Elman reconstructs a reference to the tithe of the Levites also in 4QMMT B 3–5. Cf. idem, “4QMMT B 3–5 and its Ritual Context,” DSD 6 (1999): 148–56 (152). 84 Cf. Yigael Yadin, The Temple Scroll (Israel Exploration Society, 1977), 1:10–11; Schiffman, ibid. 85 Cf. the discussions of Joseph M. Baumgarten, “The Laws of ‘Orlah and First Fruits in the Light of Jubilees, the Qumran Writings, and Targum Ps. Jonathan,” JJS 38 (1987): 195–202 (197–99); Menahem Kister, “Some Aspects of Qumran Halakhah,” 581–86; Michael Segal,

Tobit and the Qumran Aramaic Texts

191

Finally, it must be noted that the 364-day calendar, one of the specific features of the Qumran community practice (see 4QMMT [4Q394 3–7]; 11QPsa XXVII, 4–6; Jub. 6:32), is also espoused by the Enochic Astronomical Book (= 1 En. 74:12) and Aramaic Levi Document. The Enochic material has been widely discussed86 but not so the passage from ALD. There, the births of Levi’s sons are given according to this calendar.87 While no specific allusion to this calendar is made by Tobit, the references to it elsewhere add to the links Tobit shares with other Aramaic texts to the Qumran community halakhic and religious practices. Having gone over a sample from the wide array of thematic similarities that link the Qumran Aramaic texts, we may now offer a tentative conclusion. The foregoing survey shows that a network of themes and issues associates Tobit with the following Aramaic works: 1 Enoch, Aramaic Levi Document, Testament of Kahat, Visions of Amram, and the Genesis Apocryphon. This fact renders Tobit a member of this group not only in terms of the Aramaic language but also in subject matter and orientation. Now, beside Tobit, all the other works deal with biblical patriarchs or ancient sages. Therefore, by virtue of their links to Tobit, these Aramaic patriarchal works shed an interesting light on Tobit’s general literary framework, modeled as it is on precisely the same source, namely, biblical patriarchal stories. Given this fact, the question arises as to why a non-biblical protagonist was adopted, and one from the northern tribes. Perhaps the answer lies in the other facet of Tobit that is not discussed here, namely, its affinity to court tales, which require a diaspora setting. A question no less significant relates to the precise nature of Tobit’s relationship to the Qumran library, especially since it does not use any of the vocabulary and terminology specific to the sectarian texts. In fact, this is a question that is pertinent to the entire Aramaic corpus found among the Scrolls. As for Tobit, besides its presence at Qumran, the links it displays to the sectarian halakhah and Jubilees are notable. These facts suggest that Tobi’s practices while living in Galilee were not just a reflection of the general ancient halakhah but may point to a specific relationship with circles close to the Qumran community. The same may be true of at least some and perhaps all of the Qumran Aramaic corpus.

The Book of Jubilees (JSJSup 117; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 17–19. Kister and Segal discuss the slight differences between the Jubilees narrative account of Noah’s actions (Jub. 7:1–7) and the Jubilees passage that lays down the halakhah of the fourth-year fruits (Jub. 7:35–37), but they do not discuss the issue under consideration here. 86 See Jonathan Ben-Dov, Head of All Years: Astronomy and Calendars at Qumran in their Ancient Context (STDJ 78; Leiden: Brill, 2008). 87 The text is preserved in the Cambridge Genizah manuscript (col. c). For the text, see Émile Puech, “Le testament de Lévi en Araméen de la Geniza du Caire,” RevQ 20 (2002): 509–56 (535); Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel, Aramaic Levi Document, 94–96. On the use of the calendar in this passage, see Eshel, ibid., 189.

The Book of Tobit and the Qumran Halakhah The book of Tobit is one of the ancient Jewish works incorporated into the Christian Scriptures. As such, it has enjoyed a long interpretative tradition and a steady flow of commentaries, old as well as new. Modern commentators have sometimes tended to marginalize it as “a delightful mixture of real piety and Oriental superstition,”1 or “a delightful story of affliction of a pious Israelite,”2 or just “a fairy-tale about a young man.”3 However, recent close reading of the composition has resulted in the realization that “taken as a whole the work is a sophisticated and carefully crafted narrative.”4 No less sophisticated is the biblical interpretation embedded in the book of Tobit, as has been recognized time and again.5 Another complex dimension of the book is its intricate textual transmission. The work has come down to us in several translations of differing textual character. It has survived in three Greek recensions: a long one, preserved by Codex Sinaiticus, designated GII; a short one, attested by most of the Greek manuscripts, most importantly by the uncials Alexandrinus and Vaticanus, designated GI; and a third Greek recension partly survived in two Greek cursive manuscripts, 106 and 107 (from 6:9 to 12:22), and the Syro-Hexapla version (from 7:11 to 12:22).6 The short text seems to present an effort to abbreviate and smooth away awkward Greek and multiple Semitisms scattered throughout the long text.7 It thus 1 Cf.

Simpson, “Tobit,” 174. N. H. Richardson, “The Book of Tobit,” in The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible (ed. C. A. Laymon; Nashville: Abingdon, 1971), 526, quoted with approval by Moore, Tobit, 3. 3  Benedikt Otzen, Tobit and Judith (Guides to the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha; London: Sheffield Academic Press-Continuum, 2002), 2. 4 Thus George W. E. Nickelsburg, “Tobit,” in The HarperCollins Bible Commentary (ed. J. L. Mays; San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2000), 719. 5 Cf., e. g., Moore, Tobit, 20–21; Beate Ego, Buch Tobit (JSHRZ II/6; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1999), 887–89, and the recent collection of articles (with further references): Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit (eds. J. Corley and V. Skemp; CBQMS 38; Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2005), 3–86. 6 Cf. Robert Hanhart, Tobit (Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum VIII.5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985), 32, 34; Christian J. Wagner, Polyglotte Tobit-Synopse: Griechisch-Lateinisch-Syrisch-Hebräisch-Aramäisch (MSU 28; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003), XXII–XXIII. Wagner publishes the text of ms 106 in a separate column. 7 This is well illustrated in the detailed analysis of 1:7 offered by Robert Hanhart, Text und Textgeschichte des Buches Tobit (MSU 17; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), 23–27. Cf. also Zimmermann, Tobit, 32–41. 2 Cf.

194

The Book of Tobit and the Qumran Halakhah

appears that the short version is not an independent translation of the Semitic original but a revision of the long version,8 although at times it has original readings. The third recension stands between the long and the short texts.9 The particular character of the long recension convinced many scholars of its priority over other textual forms.10 The discovery at Qumran of fragments from one Hebrew and five Aramaic copies of Tobit corroborates this conclusion, since the Qumran manuscripts display textual similarity to the long recension.11 In addition, the Qumran fragments have shown conclusively that the book was originally composed in a Semitic language, most probably in Aramaic.12 The emergence of the Greek long version as the textual witness closest to the Semitic original of the book of Tobit has also focused scholarly attention on the translation of the version of the Old Latin for the book, since it is a witness of the long recension.13 Therefore, the Old Latin should be used as a corrective and supplement where the Sinaiticus text is lacking or corrupted.14 While the Qumran fragments established the priority of the long text, they also opened a new window on the book of Tobit.15 For the presence of this work in the Qumran library intimates its links to the Qumran community, in particular its   8 Cf. Hanhart, Tobit, ibid.; Wagner, Polyglotte, ibid; Loren Stuckenbruck and Stuart Weeks, “Tobit,” in The T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint (ed. J. K. Aitken; London: Bloomsbury, 2015), 237–60 (238–39). These authors estimate that the two Greek recensions of Tobit, GI and GII, are revisions of the original Greek translation, to which GII is the closest.   9 Cf. Wagner, Polyglott, XIV. For a more nuanced assessment, see Stuart Weeks, “Some Neglected Texts of Tobit: The Third Greek Version,” in Studies in the Book of Tobit (ed. M. Bredin; LSTS 55; London: T & T Clark, 2006), 12–42. After a detailed examination, Weeks concludes that the third recension “is a potentially important witness to the branch of the Long Greek, … which often seems to preserve readings more original than those to be found in Sinaiticus.” (ibid., 24). 10 See already Derek C. Simpson, “The Chief Recensions of the Book of Tobit,” JTS 14 (1913): 516–30; Zimmermann, Tobit, xi, 39–41. For recent assessments, see Hanhart, Text und Textgeschichte, 15, 36; Wagner, Polyglotte, XII–XVI. 11 Cf. Fitzmyer, DJD XIX, 2; idem, Tobit, 10. On a fragment from a fifth Aramaic copy of Tobit, see n. 2 in the article “The Wife of Job and the Wife of Tobit” in the present volume. 12 Based on the study of the Tobit Qumran fragments, this was the opinion of Józef T. Milik, Ten Years of Discovery in the Judaean Desert (London: SCM Press, 1959), 31. It is followed by Fitzmyer, Tobit, 25. While this may be essentially correct, this conclusion requires qualification. For the book abounds with biblical quotations and expressions, and the precise relationship between this type of literary Aramaic and types of literary Hebrew current at the time has yet to be determined. 13 Cf. Alan E. Brooke, Norman McLean, and Henry St. John Thackeray, The Old Testament in Greek, III/1: Esther, Judith, Tobit (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1940), ix. 14 This is especially true of the two lacunae in Codex Sinaiticus in 4:7–19b and 13:6i–10b. Cf. Fitzmyer, Tobit, 4–5; Wagner, Polyglotte, XXIII–XXIV; Jean-Marie Auwers, “La traditional latine du livre de Tobie: état de la question,” in The Book of Tobit: Text, Tradition, Theology (eds. G. G. Xeravits and J. Zsengellér; JSJSup 98; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 1–21. 15 For the Qumran fragments, see the editions of Fitzmyer, DJD XIX, 1–76; Klaus Beyer, Die aramäischen Texte von Toten Meer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 2:72–186; Michaela Hallermayer, Text und Überlieferung des Buches Tobit (DCLS 3; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2008).

The Book of Tobit and the Qumran Halakhah

195

close connection to the Aramaic works found among the Qumran documents.16 The book of Tobit merits, therefore, a systematic examination in light of the Qumran library. However, this task has yet to be undertaken.17 The present study examines one aspect of this complex, namely the relationship of Tob 1:6–8 to the specific halakhah known from the Qumran documents and rabbinic teaching. To be sure, since the days of Abraham Geiger, commentators have recognized that the list of Tobit’s offerings in 1:6–8 differs in several respects from that compiled by the Sages.18 However, the data gleaned as a result of the discovery of the Qumran documents has shed new light on the entire issue.19 Yet, despite being aware of the new information from Qumran, the recent commentaries on the book of Tobit do not take note of the remarkable similarity between several of Tobi’s religious practices and those embraced by the Qumran texts.20 A detailed study of Tob 1:6–8 will therefore uncover its links to the Qumran texts and shed new light on the book of Tobit as a whole, its origin and its background. An examination of these verses will also provide an opportunity to assess the textual value of the GII recension for this particular passage and compare it with that of GI. The chief protagonist of the book is Tobi, as he is named in the Qumran Aramaic texts, his suffering and tribulations being the subject of the work. Modelled on the biblical Job, Tobi typifies the suffering righteous man. As with 16 On the links between Tobit and various Aramaic texts from Qumran, see the surveys of Andrew B. Perrin, “Tobit’s Context and Contacts in the Qumran Aramaic Anthology,” JSP 25 (2015): 23–51, and the article “Tobit and the Qumran Aramaic Texts” in this volume. 17 The new vistas opened up by the discovery of the Qumran copies are suggested by Fitzmyer, Tobit, v–vi. But in his own commentary the stress is placed upon the textual tradition of Tobit, seen in the fresh light of the Qumran texts. Less attention is paid to the literary and exegetical aspects of the book in relation to the Qumran literature. In spite of its title, the recent article by Ida Fröhlich is essentially a general survey of Tobit. Cf. eadem, “Tobit against the Background of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Book of Tobit: Text, Tradition, Theology (eds. G. G. Xeravits and J. Zsengellér; JSJSup 98; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 55–70. A novel approach to Tobit is proposed by the articles cited in n. 16 above. 18  Cf. Abraham Geiger, Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der inneren Entwicklung des Judentums (2nd ed.; Frankfurt a. M.: Verlag Madda, 1928), 176–77. 19 Cf. Johann Gamberoni, “Das ‘Gesetz des Mose’ im Buche Tobias,” in Studien zum Pentateuch: Walter Kornfeld zum 60 Geburtstage (ed. G. Braulik; Vienna: Herder, 1977), 234–37 (on Tob 1:6–8); Hanhart, Text, 23–27. Typically, Gamberoni discusses 1:6–8 only in relationship to its biblical sources, with no references to post-biblical ones. 20 This is true, for instance, of the commentaries by Moore, Tobit, 104–05 and that by Ego, Tobit, 919–20. Even Irene Nowell, who devoted a special excursus to the tithes mentioned in the book, does not refer to any of the Qumran parallels. Cf. eadem, “The Book of Tobit,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible – NIB (ed. L. E. Keck; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1999), 3:993–94. Neither does Fitzmyer, Tobit, 106–11 mention the Qumranic parallels; he confines his remarks to the biblical sources of these practices and to the note that they were performed “in postexilic times” (ibid., 109). Equally silent on the subject discussed below is the article by Mark A. Christian, “Reading Tobit Backwards and Forwards: In Search of ‘Lost Halakhah’,” Hen 28 (2006): 63–95.

196

The Book of Tobit and the Qumran Halakhah

Job, Tobi’s piety is represented by his actions but, unlike Job, Tobi is not just an afflicted righteous person but an afflicted righteous Jew. And not just any Jew, but a member of one of the Israelite tribes exiled to Assyria as punishment for their sinful idolatry (cf. 2 Kings 17; 18:1–12). Most of the story in the book takes place during Tobi’s exile in Nineveh. There, Tobi’s religious zeal is typified by his avoidance of the Gentiles’ food, his celebration of biblical festivals, his giving of alms, and ensuring proper burials for deceased compatriots (Tob 1:11, 16–18; 2:1–9). This list reflects a type of piety practiced at the time by Jews who were living among the Gentiles outside the land of Israel, as attested by other contemporary Jewish writings.21 However, Tobi’s piety while still living in the land of Israel is of an altogether different nature. As a young man in his Galilean homeland, Tobi was an assiduous practitioner of the biblical laws that mandated that Jews living in the land of Israel make pilgrimage to the Jerusalem temple and bring there the ordained tithes and offerings. Significantly, none of the rulings that Tobi abided by in exile is mentioned among those he observed in the land of Israel. For the religious regulations practiced by Tobi while living in Assyria were of a general pietistic character with no connection to land, produce, or temple. In contrast, the religious obligations assumed by him in his fathers’ land pertain to the crop cultivated and livestock raised on the land and taken to the temple of Jerusalem. This difference imparts the sharp distinction between Jewish religiosity embraced in exile and that prescribed for the land of Israel. The distinction, conveyed here by narrative details, is reflected in the later principle formulated by the Sages: “Every precept that is dependent on the land is practiced only in the land (of Israel) whereas (the precept) that is not dependent on the land is practiced in the land (of Israel) or outside it.”22 According to this rule, the religious duties fulfilled by Tobi in Assyria fell under the rubric “a precept that does not depend on the land” and thus were related to the person and not to his place of residence. They could, therefore, be performed anywhere, even outside the land of Israel. But the religious duties Tobi performed in Galilee belonged to the category of “precepts depending on the land,” namely the land of Israel, and therefore were incumbent upon him only while living there. Tobi’s exemplary piety is further illuminated by other Qumranic and rabbinic notions. A copy of the Damascus Document, 4Q270 2 ii 5–9, provides a 21 Cf., e. g., Dan 1:8, 14–15, according to which Daniel avoided eating food from the king’s table. In her apocryphal prayer, Queen Esther asserts that she has not eaten from the table of Haman (LXX Esther 4:17x). Similarly, while she stayed at the camp of the Assyrian general Holofernes, Judith ate only from the food she brought with her (Jdt 10:5; 12:2–4, 9, 19). These are, of course, practices characteristic of the Second Temple period, when Tobit was composed. 22 ‫כל מצוה שהיא תלויה בארץ אינה נוהגת אלא בארץ ושאינה תלויה בארץ נוהגת בין בארץ ובין בחוצה‬ ‫( לארץ‬m. Qidd. 1:9). For a discussion of these terms and the extension of the term “land” see Aharon Shemesh, “The Term ‛Mitzvah ha-teluyah ba-aretz’ Reexamined,” Sidra 16 (2000): 151–77 (160–61, 175–76) (Heb.).

The Book of Tobit and the Qumran Halakhah

197

list of religious laws that, if transgressed, disqualify the transgressor from being a member of the community.23 The list contains the priestly gifts, thereby censuring the failure to allocate these donations. Measured against this list, Tobi emerges as a faithful practitioner of the prescribed injunctions. Similarly the Sages maintained that the ḥaber, the strict observant, is distinguished from the non-observant ‛Am-ha-Aretz chiefly in the scrupulous adherence to ritual purity and the separating of tithes.24 Tobi did just that by observing ritual purity in exile (1:11; 2:5, 9) and by separating the tithes in the land of Israel (1:6–8). Tobit’s narrative stresses that in bringing tithes and offerings to the Jerusalem temple Tobi fulfilled the obligations “prescribed for all Israel in an everlasting decree” (1:6) and “in keeping with the ordinance decreed concerning them in the Law of Moses” (1:8). Yet, although Tobi cites only the “Law of Moses” as proof for these ordinances, the manner in which he performed them suggests not a merely a reference to the literal Torah formulation but a certain underlying exegesis of the pertaining Torah ordinances. Let us examine in detail the account in the relevant verses:25 Tob 1:6–8 GI GII 6 And only I alone used to go to 6 Jerusalem for the festivals, as prescribed for all Israel in an everlasting decree. Taking along the first crop26 and the firstling and the tithe of the cattle and the first shearing of the sheep I used to hurry off to Jerusalem. 7 And I used to give them to the priests, 7 the sons of Aaron at the altar;

And I alone used to go often to Jerusalem for the festivals, as prescribed for all Israel in an everlasting decree, taking along the first crop and the tithe of the produce and the first shearing. And I used to give them to the priests, the sons of Aaron at the altar.

23 The nature of this passage preserved in two fragmentary columns (4Q270 2 i–ii) is indicated by several surviving offences such as the inquiring of ghosts (4Q270 2 i 10) and the betraying of the people to the Gentiles (4Q270 2 ii 13). Thus, also other matters contained therein refer to various offences. Cf. Joseph M. Baumgarten in DJD XVIII, 143. 24 Cf. b. Ber. 47b; t. ‘Abod. Zar. 3; 10. See Aharon Oppenheimer, The ‘Am Ha-aretz (ALGHJ 8; Leiden: Brill, 1977), 12, 67–70. 25 The following is a translation of the Sinaiticus text, according to the edition of Hanhart, Tobit. It is partly based on the translations of Zimmermann, Tobit, Moore, Tobit, and Fitzmyer, Tobit. 26 In both recensions, the Greek employs the term ἀπάρχη. It is the regular Septuagint translation for ‫ ראשית‬in the context of the first crop gifts (e. g., Exod 23:19; Lev 23:10; Num 18:12) or for ‫( תרומה‬e. g., Num 5:9; 15:21).

198 8

The Book of Tobit and the Qumran Halakhah

and a tithe of the wine, the grain, and oil and pomegranates 27 and rest of the fruits28 (I used to give) to the sons of Levi ministering29 in Jerusalem. And the second tithe I used to tithe30 in money for six years and used to go and spend it in Jerusalem each year. And 8 I used to give it to the orphans, widows and resident aliens who joined the Sons of Israel, and I used to bring and give (these things) to them

A tithe of all the produce I used to give to the sons of Levi ministering in Jerusalem. And the second tithe I used to sell and go and spend it in Jerusalem each year. And

27 Figs are added by the corrector of Codex Sinaiticus whereas the fruits are missing altogether from the short recension. Some of the Old Latin versions have only “figs,” but others have also “pomegranates.” The late Hebrew version in the 1516 Constantinopol edition also has both of them: ‫ותאנים ורמונים‬. This Hebrew text is printed in the collection compiled in The Book of Tobit: Texts from the Principal Ancient and Medieval Traditions (eds. S. Weeks, S. Gathercole, and L. Stuckenbruck; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004), 70. The mention of these fruits may not be fortuitous, for a Qumran fragment, probably a copy of the Temple Scroll, refers precisely to these two species as part of the bikkurim brought to the temple (4Q365a 2 i 2–3). Another text mentions pomegranates, and probably also figs (restored), as part of the fourth-year fruits (4Q251 8 8). Perhaps these fruits are specified in Tobit under the influence of two verses: Num 13:23 states that the same fruits were brought by the spies from Canaan. Deut 8:8 lists these species among the produce typical of the land of Israel. See also Num 13:23, according to which the spies sent by Moses to Canaan brought back from the land three types of fruit: grapes, pomegranates, and figs. 28 The long recension has here an unusual word for fruit, ἀκροδρύα, designating fruits of rare trees. Also Philo uses this word for bikkurim (Spec. II, 216, 221). Cf. Marguerite Harl, La Langue de Japhet (Paris: Cerf, 1994), 149–50, esp. n. 7; Philon d’Alexandrie, De Specialibus Legibus – Lib. I–II (ed. S. Daniel; Les Œuvres de Philon d’Alexandrie 24; Paris: Cerf, 1975), 90, 367–68 n. 10. The use of the same word with the same meaning in the long recension of Tobit points to it being already an established translation term for the first fruits. 29 τοῖς θεραπεύουσιν in both the short and long texts. The formulation takes up that of the Septuagint to Num 18:21, which selects this word to translate the Hebrew ‫ עבודה‬in describing the Levites’ service. This detail emphasizes the presence of the Levites in the temple, and may thus justify the allotment to the Levites of the Levitical tithe and the fourth-year fruits. 30 GII has ἀπεδεκάτιζον (→ ἀποδεκατίζω, “to tithe”), a neutral word. However, GI has ἀπεπρατιζόμην (“to sell”). If the short text reflects here the more original reading, it suggests that Tobi sold rather than redeemed the second tithe, and thus he complied with the rabbinic ruling, which permitted such selling, rather than the one in the Temple Scroll (11QTa XLIII, 12–13), which forbids the selling of the second tithe. Cf. the discussion of Joseph M. Baumgarten, “The First and Second Tithes in the Temple Scroll,” in Biblical and Related Studies Presented to Samuel Iwry (eds. A. Kort and S. Morschauser; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1985), 5–15 (13–14).

The Book of Tobit and the Qumran Halakhah

in the third year and we used to consume it in keeping with the ordinance, decreed concerning them in the Law of Moses, and according to the instructions, enjoined by Deborah, the mother of Ananel our ancestor, for my father died and left me an orphan.

199

the third (tithe)

I gave to those who were entitled (to it),31 as enjoined by Deborah, the mother of my father, for I was left an orphan by my father.

Tobi opens his autobiographical story with the assertion that he was the sole practitioner of the commandments incumbent upon all Israel for all generations (Tob 1:6). This is an allusion to the sins of the northern tribes (1 Kgs 12:32; 2 Kgs 17:16), who disobeyed the Torah directives although they were equally bound by them. The isolation of Tobi in his pietistic devotion appears, then, to be contrasted with his sinful tribe. It should not, therefore, be taken as contradicting the account in 5:14, which mentions other members of Tobi’s family who would go to the Jerusalem temple.32 In a way, this detail underlines the idea of kinship cohesion even in cultic matters, and thus harmonizes with the importance of family in the book of Tobit.33 In addition to stressing his pietistic isolation, Tobi also insists on the fact that he “hurried” to Jerusalem to discharge his religious duties.34 By being prompt in acquitting himself of his obligations, Tobi not only showed his zeal but also complied with the Torah prescription laid down in Deut 23:22 (cf. also Exod 22:28). This verse was interpreted by the Sages as a prohibition against delaying bringing priestly dues and tithes to the temple. They taught that the proper occasions to do so were the three yearly pilgrimages to the Jerusalem temple, Passover, Shavuot, and Sukkot, and one was not to delay them beyond these 31 Hanhart, Text, 24 points to the secondary character of the short recension formula “to those who were entitled (to it)” (οἷς καθήκει), which summarizes the detailed list of recipients in GII. 32 Fitzmyer, Tobit, 107 views it as a narrative contradiction. 33 This idea is also expressed by the insistence of Tobi on inquiring into the family background of Azaria, the disguised angel Raphael, and by Tobi’s joy in learning that Azaria is his kin (5:12–16). 34 Cf. 1:6 “I hurried off to Jerusalem” (ἀπέτρεχον εἰς Ἰεροσόλυμα). For ἀποτρέχω, “hurry away,” cf. BDAG, 124.

200

The Book of Tobit and the Qumran Halakhah

yearly festivals.35 The Qumran texts express the same concern, and have developed elaborate festivals to comply with the same rule.36 Tobi also appears to have adhered to it not only by hurrying to Jerusalem during the festivals but also by doing it every year (1:7). Tobi also stresses that he went to Jerusalem carrying with him the donations for the temple.37 Perhaps this particular emphasis is a polemical reference to the practice prevailing in later Second Temple times of distributing some of the priestly and Levitical gifts in other parts of the country. Further elaborations are imparted by the carefully structured list of donations offered by Tobi. It points to an organizing principle and a precise conceptual framework. The gifts are grouped in three types of donations formulated in three distinct sections of identical structure. Each section enumerates the pertinent gifts and concludes with their beneficiaries. The three groups list allocations apportioned to the priests (1:6b–7a), to the Levites (1:7b), and to the owners and the poor (1:7c–8a): a. The allocations apportioned to the priests The Greek long text employs four different terms for the donations given to the priests: “with the first crop and the first fruits and the tithe of the cattle and the first shearing of the sheep I used to hurry off to Jerusalem and give them to the priests sons of Aaron at the altar” (1:6b–7a). The choice of a different term for each gift indicates their distinctive character. The first two donations come from crops while the two last come from animals. The four gifts in the long text are the following: the first crop, the first fruits, the tithe of cattle, and the first shearing of the sheep. The short text has only three donations, obviously an abridged version. 1. The first donation is defined by the term οί ἀπαρχαί, given by both the long and the short texts. The noun ἀπαρχή is the Septuagint’s translation equivalent for the Hebrew ‫ ראשית‬or ‫( תרומה‬terumah = “offering,” “heave offering”).38 This 35  Cf. t. ‛Arak. 3:17–18; Sifre Deut § 63, 6; Tg. Ps.-J. to Exod 22:28 and Deut 23:22 and Rashi’s comment to Deut 23:22. 36 Perhaps the reference to Exod 22:28 in the Qumranic text 4Q251 9 2 ‫“ ;)אל יאחר איש‬let no man delay”) in the context of wave offerings is an allusion to the same rule. See Aharon Shemesh, “The Laws of First Fruits in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Meghillot 1 (2003): 147–64 (157–58) (Heb.). Shemesh cites the suggestion of Elisha Qimron that 4Q423 5 5–6 also refers to the same injunction (ibid., n. 30). The Qumranites’ stringent adherence to their lunar-solar calendar may have involved the same principle. Note the use of the verb ‫“( אחר‬delay”) in a formulation concerning the calendar in the Community Rule (1QS I, 14; 4Q266 2 i 2; 4Q268 1 4). See also the comments of Joseph M. Baumgarten, “4Q Halakaha 5, the Law of Ḥadash, and the Pentecontad Calendar,” in Studies in Qumran Law (SJLA 24; Leiden: Brill, 1977), 131–42 (141–42). 37 Cf. 1:6b ἔχων in both GI and GII. 38 Cf. the references in n. 26 above. Of special significance is the employment of the term ἀπαρχή to translate the priestly dues mentioned in Num 18:12 and Deut 18:4, the two verses forming the scriptural basis for this major priestly donation. Also the translator(s) of the Pen-

The Book of Tobit and the Qumran Halakhah

201

is also the meaning in the Tobit text, clearly influenced by the Septuagint terminology. As this gift stands at the head of the list, it refers to the first and most important one due to the priests, the terumah of wheat, wine, and oil. The terumah is given to the priests from the first produce, as laid down by Num 18:11–13 and Deut 18:4. This terumah is listed in 2 Chr 31:5 among the gifts brought by the people to the Jerusalem temple during the reorganization of the edifice undertaken by King Hezekiah. It is also mentioned as part of the obligations assumed by the Judean leaders under Nehemiah’s governorship (Neh 10:38). 2. The second item on Tobi’s list, found only in the long text, is usually translated by the expression “the first fruits.” However, this translation appears too similar to the first item on the list, which is rendered “the first crop.” The redactor of the short text seems to have had some difficulty in making the distinction between the similar Greek terms for the two donations, and may not have understood their precise import. For he replaced the specific term for ‫ראשית‬, ἀπαρχή, by a more general word, γένημα.39 In the Septuagint, this word is used for produce in general (for Hebrew words such as ‫פרי‬, ‫יבול‬, ‫)תבואה‬.40 To avoid what seemed redundant in the Greek, the short text further combined the second and third gifts of the long version into a single formulation: “the tithe of the produce,” τὰς δεκάτας τῶν γενημάτων. The redactor of the short text thus substituted the precise terms of the long text with a general and vague description.41 Yet the long text follows the Septuagint’s accurate terms for two distinct priestly allocations. While the first, called οί ἀπαρχαί, refers to the terumah, the second gift, rendered τά πρωτογενήματα, refers to the Hebrew bikkurim (‫ּבּכּורים‬, ִ “first fruits”). This is the Septuagint translation equivalent for this Hebrew term, especially in the Pentateuch.42 The gift of first fruits is to be brought to the temple as enjoined by Exod 23:19; 34:26; and Deut 26:1–11. 3. The third donation taken by Tobi to the temple, not mentioned by the short text, is defined by the long one as “the tithe of the cattle.” This is the tithe laid tateuch view them as referring to the same offering. The Qumranic texts (11QTa LX, 2–6; 4QMMT B 62–63; 4Q270 2 ii 5–7; 4Q521 10 7–9) also see the terms ‫ ראשית‬and ‫ תרומה‬as alluding to the same priestly donation. See also Philo, Virt. 95. Cf. the remarks of Chanoch Albeck, “Das Buch der Jubiläen und die Halacha,” Bericht der Hochschule für die Wissenschaft des Judentums in Berlin 47 (1930): 3–60 (56 n. 204). 39 As observed by Hanhart, Text, 23. 40 Note particularly LXX 2 Chr 31:5, where the general formulation ‫ תבואת השדה‬is rendered by γένημα ἀγροῦ, whereas the preceding more precise term ‫ ראשית‬is translated by the word ἀπαρχήν. 41 Joseph M. Baumgarten, “On the Non-literal Use of Ma‛aśer/dekate,” JBL 103 (1984): 245–61 (247, n. 12); idem, “Tithes,” 8, explains “the ambiguity” of 1:6–7 by arguing that the word δεκάτη, “tithe,” was a general term for the priestly dues. While this may be true in general, it is not consonant with the specific case in Tobit since Baumgarten refers only to the short recension, which is obviously vague and general. For additional reasons for viewing the short text of 1:7 as secondary, see Hanhart, Text, 23–27 (esp. 26, n. 1). 42 For τά πρωτογενήματα rendering ‫בכורים‬, cf., e. g., LXX Num 18:3 and LXX Neh 10:36.

202

The Book of Tobit and the Qumran Halakhah

down in Lev 27:32–33 (cf. 2 Chr 31:6). The verse decrees that the tenth part of the cattle and the sheep, namely of domesticated edible animals, is to be given “to the Lord.” The fact that Tobi considered it an offering to the priests implies that the author of the book understood the biblical formulation in Lev 27:32, “to the Lord,” as a reference to the priests, an understanding shared by the Qumran texts. 4. The fourth gift in the list consists of the first shearing of the sheep, as mandated by Deut 18:4. It should be noted that Tobi does not include in his list of priestly dues all the gifts prescribed to them by the Torah. Altogether absent are the portions of various sacrifices and other donations given to the priests, listed by both Qumranic and rabbinic sources.43 This omission may reflect the author’s wish to emphasize the theme of homeland versus exile. The two situations are expressed by the different types of religious obligations assumed in each case. In the homeland, they are connected with the produce of the land and the temple; in exile, they are dissociated from them. The presence or absence of the temple also put into relief the northern tribes’ unfaithfulness to the Jerusalem temple (1:4–5) contrasted with Tobi’s fidelity to it. b. The Levitical donations 5. The second group specified by Tobi mentions gifts he gave to the Levites: “and tithe of the wheat, wine and oil and pomegranates and the rest of the fruits (I would give) to the sons of Levi ministering in Jerusalem” (1:7b). First stands the “tithe of wheat, wine and oil,” enjoined by Num 18:21–24. Num 18:21 does not specify of what this tithe should consist. The author of Tobit seems to have drawn upon Neh 13:5 to supply the relevant crop types, as did the Temple Scroll LX, 6 (cf. below). The long text adds fruits to the crops, a component not mentioned explicitly in the biblical formulation of Num 18:21. But the addition may have been inspired by Lev 27:30, which in connection with the priestly gifts, mentions the tithe, consisting of both crops and fruits (see also Neh 10:36). The addition of fruits may reflect the understanding that the tithe should be set aside from all types of edible produce, including fruits. c. Tithe for the owners and for the poor The third category of gifts that Tobi prides himself on taking to Jerusalem consists of two different donations, the second tithe and the tithe for the poor: “and the second tithe I used to tithe in money for six years and go and spend it in Jerusalem each year and I gave these things to the orphans, widows, and proselytes who joined the Sons of Israel, and I used to bring and give (these things)

43 Cf. the list in the Temple Scroll (11QTa LX, 1–5). The Sages counted twenty-four priestly gifts. Cf. m. Ḥal. 4:9; Sifre, Num § 119.

The Book of Tobit and the Qumran Halakhah

203

to them in the third year and we used to consume these things in keeping with the ordinance …” (1:7c–8a). 6. The donation Tobit calls “the second tithe” is based on Deut 14:22–27; 26:12–13. The second tithe also comes from the agricultural produce and Tobi follows the prescription of Deut 14:22–27 in spending the value of it in Jerusalem. Tobi further states that he brought this tithe every year. 7. Finally Tobi describes how he would use the money from this tithe to feed the orphans, the widows, and the strangers. Commentators have had difficulty in distinguishing this offering from the preceding second tithe, which Tobi spent in Jerusalem, for they took the demonstrative pronoun αὐτά, applied to the share of the poor, as referring to the preceding second tithe.44 However, despite the awkward Greek, the statement clearly refers to a different tithe than the previous one.45 For the second tithe would be sold and consumed in Jerusalem by Tobi himself every year, whereas the one he would give to the poor would be consumed with them. This tithe differs, therefore, from the second tithe.46 The gift described in this manner is similar to the one the Sages called “the poor man tithe,” based on the same verses, Deut 14:28–29, 26:12. Indeed, the long recension alludes specifically to Deut 26:12 by taking up its formulation in two details that are not included in the short text. Firstly, Tobi gave the tithe to the “orphans, widows and proselytes,” adopting the Septuagint translation of Deut 26:12. Secondly, as specified in the same verse, Tobi gave this tithe “in the third year” (ἐν τῷ τρίτῳ ἔτει47), apparently taken from Deut 26:12: “When you have completed to tithe all the tithe of your yield, in the third year, the year of the tithe, and have given it to the Levites, the alien resident, the orphan and the widow ….” Thus, the GII formulation may be understood as giving this tithe once, in the third year of the Sabbatical cycle.48 As for the place to deliver this tithe, the Deuteronomic directive speaks of the recipients eating it in their dwelling places. However, since Tobi brings to Jerusalem the money of the second tithe in each of the six Sabbatical years (Tob 1:7, a detail missing in GI), the money for the poor may also have been spent there. But the Greek formulation in GII does not make it clear whether the tithe for the poor in the third year replaced the second tithe or was additional to it.49 If Tobi replaced the second tithe with the tithe for the 44 In

1:8 (GII): καὶ ἐδίδουν αὐτά (“and I used to give these things …”). observed by Hanhart, Text, 24. 46 Contra Albeck, “Jubiläen,” 32. 47 Supported by the Old Latin. 48 As noted by Hanhart, Text, 24. But Chanoch Albeck took “every third year” in Tobit to mean in the Sabbatical cycle, namely, in the third and the sixth years of it, just as stipulated by the Sages. Cf. Albeck, “Jubiläen,” 32. See also Aharon Shemesh, “Terumoth and Tithes,” in Cana Werman and Aharon Shemesh, Revealing the Hidden: Exegesis and Halakhah in the Qumran Scrolls (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2011), 189–238 (196) (Heb.). 49 Both Josephus, Ant., iv, 240 and Tg. Ps.-J. to Deut 26:12–13 view the tithe of the poor as an additional one. Closer to the Sages’ position is the Septuagint to Deut 26:12, which states 45 As

204

The Book of Tobit and the Qumran Halakhah

poor, he practiced it in a similar way to the Sages, who required that this tithe replace the second tithe in the third and the sixth years of the Sabbatical cycle.50 The Tobit short text states merely “the third tithe,” numbering this tithe as the one that follows the first tithe of the Levites and the second tithe eaten by Tobi. Thus, the short recension may have been based on a tradition that listed three tithes, a tradition known also to Josephus.51 The second tithe is discussed in both the Temple Scroll (11QTa XLIII, 4–10) and Jubilees (32:10–14). In a passage based on Deut 14:22–26, the Temple Scroll views the second tithe in conjunction with the celebration of the first fruits festivals, implying a yearly obligation to bring it to the temple,52 as did Tobi. When reviewing the catalogue of gifts Tobi so eagerly took to the temple, one must admit that his claim to scrupulous observance of the Torah commandments was not a vain boast. His list contains seven different types of gifts and offerings: the first crop, the first fruits, the tithe of the cattle, the first shearing of the sheep, the Levitical tithe, the second tithe, and a tithe for the poor. All were taken by him to Jerusalem, five of which were given to priests and Levites ministering in the temple, thus highlighting the centrality and importance of both Jerusalem and the temple. The particular emphasis placed by Tobi on the temple, the priests and Levites officiating there merits further study in the context of the Qumranite attitude to the contemporary cult and priesthood, but this cannot be undertaken in the present context. However, it may be observed already that in many details Tobi agrees with the practices adopted by the Qumran documents and at variance with the rabbinic rulings. Let us compare Tobi’s list with both the Qumran data and the rabbinic rulings:

that this tithe replaces the second tithe in the third year of the Sabbatical cycle. Cf. Albeck, “Jubiläen,” 32 and 52 n. 217. 50 Sifre, Deut § 109; Sifre Zutta, Num 18:21; t. Ter. 2:6. 51 Thus Hanhart, Text, 26–27. Hanhart notes that the long recension of GII alludes to the connection between the tithe for the poor, including orphans, and the fact that Tobit himself was an orphan. This again suggests that GII is the older version and closer to the original. The present analysis discards the claim that the GII text is muddled here and therefore that the Old Latin version, which is closer to GI, should be preferred, as argued by Auwers, “La traduction,” 15–16. 52 Cf. Yigael Yadin, The Temple Scroll (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1977), 1:10–11 (Heb.). Jub. 32:10–14 lays down the same obligation. Cf. Shemesh, “Terumoth and tithes,” 191–92. Shemesh, ibid., 197–98 thinks that the Temple Scroll and Jubilees mandate that the second tithe be brought “in each year” but not “yearly.” So, in his opinion, it is impossible to establish whether the sectarian halakhah prescribed giving the tithe for the poor in the third year instead of the second tithe, as did the Sages, or whether it was additional to the second tithe, as stated by Josephus. Shemesh notes that the tithe for the poor is referred to explicitly only in 4Q159, and not mentioned in the Temple Scroll and Jubilees.

The Book of Tobit and the Qumran Halakhah

205

a. Priestly donations 1. The first crop for the priests, the first donation mentioned by Tobi, is ‫תרומה‬ ‫גדולה‬, “the great terumah” in the rabbinic nomenclature,53 which is included in their list of the priestly gifts.54 Just like Tobit, the Sages separated the terumah gift from that of the bikkurim (“first fruits”). But while Tobi brought it to the priests in the temple, the Sages permitted it to be delivered to the priests anywhere in the land of Israel.55 The Qumran texts also enumerate the terumah among the priestly donations (4Q251 10 9; 4Q524 6–10 6–7 [= 4QTemple]; Jub. 13:24–25), but like Tobit, and at variance with the rabbinic halakhah, the Qumran sources rule that this gift should be brought to the temple. In this, Tobit accords not only with the Qumran halakhah, but also with what appears to be the older practice of bringing the priestly and Levitical dues to the temple to be distributed there.56 2. The second priestly gift, the “first fruits,” is enjoined by Exod 34:26, and Deut 26:1–11. Both the Qumran texts and the Sages include it among the donations to be brought to the temple, but the details vary considerably. The rabbinic halakhah ruled that the first fruits, bikkurim, should be brought only from the seven kinds of produce in which the land of Israel excels, specified in Deut 8:8,57 from the beginning of the summer to the end of autumn.58 Various contemporary sources relate that bikkurim were often brought to the temple during either Shavuot or Sukkot, two of the three annual pilgrimages to Jerusalem.59 In contradistinction, the Qumran texts laid down that the bikkurim be brought from all types of crops and fruits (4Q251 9 1–6; 4Q365a 2 i 2–4 [= 4QT]).60 Like the Sages, the Qumran texts prescribe that the bikkurim be brought to the temple but they establish a series of separate communal festivals for the various species of first fruits, an innovation unknown from the Torah or other contemporary sources. As detailed in the Temple Scroll (11QTa XVIII–XX), the series spanned over the spring and summer months from Passover onwards, spaced fifty days Sifre, Num § 110. Ḥal. 4:9; Sifre, Num § 119. 55 Cf. t. Ḥal. 2:9; Sifre, Num § 119. See Oppenheimer, ‘Am Ha-aretz, 30–32; Shemesh, “First Fruits,” 149. 56 This custom is attested by Mal 3:10; Neh 13:5, 12–13; 2 Chr 31:5–12; LXX 1 Sam 1:21; Jdt 11:13; Philo, Spec. I, 132–152; Josephus, Ant. v, 346. Cf. Chanoch Albeck, “Introduction to Tractate Ma‘śeroth,” in Order Zera‘im, The Six Orders of the Mishnah (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1969), 217–19 (Heb.); Oppenheimer, ‘Am Ha-aretz, 36–38, 71 adduces also 1 Macc 3:49–50. 57 Cf. m. Bik. 1:3; they are wheat, barley, grapes, figs, pomegranates, olives, and dates. 58 The precise period spanned from the feast of Shavuot, celebrated in the month of Sivan (usually falls in May-June) to the feast of Ḥanukka, celebrated at the end of the month of Kislev (usually falls in December). Cf. m. Bik. 1:6; Sifre, Num, § 148). Similarly Philo, Spec. II, 220. 59 Cf. the remarks of Chanoch Albeck, “Introduction to Tractate Bikkurim,” in Order Zera‘im, The Six Orders of the Mishnah (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1969), 308–09 (Heb.). 60 Based perhaps on Lev 27:30, which includes “fruits of the tree” in the priestly donations. Note also Num 18:13, which mandates that the bikkurim will be given to the priests from all the crops in the land. See Shemesh, “First Fruits,” 151–52, 162. 53 Cf. 54 m.

206

The Book of Tobit and the Qumran Halakhah

from each other. It began with the feast of first fruits of barley, celebrated on the 26th of the first month.61 The feast of first fruits of wheat, synonymous with the feast of Shavuot, took place on the 15th of the third month. The feast of first fruits of wine occurred on the 3rd of the fifth month, while the feast of first fruits of oil was observed on the 23rd of the sixth month.62 In contrast to the Temple Scroll, the pilgrimages Tobi describes are personal and not arranged with a similar spacing, nor are they organized according to a special calendar. 3. The third priestly gift listed by Tobit, based on Lev 27:32, is the tithe of the cattle and sheep, namely of domesticated edible animals. That this tithe should be given to the priests is enjoined by the Temple Scroll (11QTa LX, 2–3), 4QMMT (B 63–64), the Damascus Document (4Q270 2 ii 7–8), and Jub. 13:26–27; 32:8. This is also the tradition of Philo, Spec. I, 131–144. The rabbinic halakhah ruled differently, namely, that this tithe was to be eaten by the owner in Jerusalem (m. Zebaḥ. 5:8; Sifre, Num § 6).63 4. The fourth priestly offering mentioned by Tobit, the first shearing of the sheep, based on Deut 18:4, is included in the listings of the Damascus Document, 4Q270 2 ii 8–9. It also figures in the rabbinic roster of priestly donations (m. Ḥal. 4:9). Yet while the Sages laid down that the shearing may be given to the priests in the land of Israel at large (t. Ḥal. 2:9; Sifre, Num § 119), Tobi brought it to the temple. This also seems to be the practice implied by the Damascus Document (4Q270 2 ii 8–9). b. Levitical donations Tobi brought to Jerusalem two other tithes: 5. The first Levitical donation he gave to the Levites, as is ruled by Lev 27:30–31, Num 18:21, and Deut 12:17. This gift is mentioned in the Temple Scroll (11QTa LX, 6–7).64 Tobi states that he brought fruits to Jerusalem and gave them to the Levites. But while Tobi brought it to the temple, apparently to be distributed there as is done in Neh 10:38 and 2 Chr 31:4–6 (compare Jub. 32:8–9), the Sages ruled that the Levites may accept this tithe anywhere (cf. t. Soṭah 13:10; Sifre, Num § 122). Accounts preserved in the rabbinic literature relate 61 After the first Sabbath that follows Passover. This is the sectaries’ interpretation of the ambiguous reference in the Torah (Lev 23:15–16) “from the morrow of the Sabbath” (‫ממחרת‬ ‫)השבת‬, which was interpreted in various ways during Second Temple times. Cf. Albeck, “Jubiläen,” 16–17. 62 Cf. the discussion of Yadin, The Temple Scroll, 1:114–18. 63 Cf. Lawrence H. Schiffman, “Miqṣat Ma‘aśeh Ha-Torah and the Temple Scroll,” RevQ 14 (1990): 435–57 (453–54); Aharon Shemesh, “The Laws of the Firstborn and the Cattle Tithes in the Qumran Literature and Rabbinic Halakhah,” Meghillot 3 (2005): 143–61 (155–61) (Heb.). See also the notes of Qimron, DJD X, 165–66. 64 Cf. Baumgarten, “Tithes,” 5–6. See also Lawrence H. Schiffman, “Priestly and Levitical Gifts in the Temple Scroll,” in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls (eds. D. W. Parry and E. Ulrich; STDJ 30; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 480–96 (487–88).

The Book of Tobit and the Qumran Halakhah

207

that this was indeed the practice in the last centuries of the Second Temple era, and that in fact it was the priests who received this tithe.65 Tobi’s insistence on allotting them their due tithe may be viewed as reflecting his wish to appear as a scrupulous observer of the Torah laws.66 However, it may also be connected to the tendency, reflected in Qumran texts, to support and strengthen the Levites, as does the Temple Scroll.67 6. Of particular interest is Tobi’s handling of a second tithe, which he would sell and then spend the money in Jerusalem. It is worthwhile noting that Tobi uses the term “second tithe,” attested by both the long and the short Greek texts. The same term for the same tithe appears in Jub. 32:11,68 and is also used by the Sages. It must therefore be an old and traditional appellation for this tithe. Interestingly, Tobi acts in accordance with the rule also laid down by the Sages, namely that this tithe is assigned to the owner and its value should be spent in Jerusalem (Sifre, Num § 6). But, in respect to locality, his practice resembles that in the Qumran texts, which mandate that it should be brought to the Temple (11QTa XLIII, 2–17; cf. Jub. 32:10–11). The two Qumranic sources treat the second tithe in a manner similar to bikkurim in that one is not allowed to delay paying it for more than a year.69 Assigned to the owners, it should nevertheless be eaten in the temple. According to the Temple Scroll, those who live far from the temple are allowed to sell the tithes and purchase the same kinds of produce and eat them at the temple (according to Deut 14:22–27). But they are permitted to do so only on the festival days, and only during the respective year of gathering.70 7. The last gift mentioned by Tobi is the tithe for the poor. Like the Sages, Tobi makes a distinction between the second tithe, to be enjoyed by the owners, and the tithe given to poor people and strangers. In the rabbinic nomenclature it was called “the poor man tithe.” However, for the Sages, the poor man tithe was to be dispensed only in the third and sixth years of the Sabbatical cycle, while the second tithe was to be given in all the other years of the cycle. In contradistinction, Tobi took the second tithe to Jerusalem every year. Consequently, it is clear that he would donate the value of the tithe to the poor on the third year of the Sabbatical cycle in addition to giving the second tithe, rather than the practice 65 Cf. Oppenheimer, ’Am Ha-aretz, 38–42; David Henshke, “On the History of Exegesis of the Pericopes Concering Tithes: From the Temple Scroll to the Sages,” Tarbiz 72 (2003): 85–111 (86–88) (Heb.); Shemesh, “Terumoth and Tithes,” 191. 66 As indeed it has been interpreted. Cf., for example, Oppenheimer, ‘Am Ha-aretz, 39. Jub. 13:25–27 prescribes that this tithe should be given to the priests. 67 Cf. Yadin, The Temple Scroll, 1:158, 162; Jacob Milgrom, “The Shoulder for the Levites,” in ibid. 1:169–76; idem, “Studies in the Temple Scroll,” JBL 97 (1978): 501–23 (503). Cf. also Baumgarten, “Tithes,” 7–8. 68 Cf. Albeck, “Jubiläen,” 30; Cana Werman, The Book of Jubilees (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben Zvi press, 2015),428–30 (Heb.). 69 As pointed out by Schiffman, “Gifts,” 489. 70 Shemesh, “Terumoth and Tithes,” 193–94 suggests that this ruling involves the view that since the tithe is holy it cannot be offered on impure secular working days.

208

The Book of Tobit and the Qumran Halakhah

prescribed by the Sages of giving it in place of the second tithe. A similar version of this ruling is recorded by Josephus, Ant., iv, 240. Like Tobit, Josephus states that this tithe should be added to the second tithe and given only once, in the third year of the Sabbatical cycle.71 Finally, it is interesting to note that Tobi places a special emphasis on the fact that he brought the priestly and Levitical dues during festal times.72 Since Tobi asserts that he went to Jerusalem only on these days, his description implies that spending the money of the second tithe, as well as sharing it with the poor in the third year, were all performed in Jerusalem during these festivals. If so, Tobi may comply with a ruling specified in the Temple Scroll (11QTa XLIII, 16–17) that forbids the consumption of the tithes during “the working days” and mandates it only during the festivals. When reviewing the entire range of details discussed in the foregoing analysis, a consistent picture emerges. The author’s stress on the biblical sources for Tobi’s practices in the land of Israel is notable. This is brought out not only through the explicit mentioning of Scriptures in 1:6 and 1:8, but also through the reworking of the biblical legal formulations into the rulings carried out by Tobi. Thus, the terms “first crop” (‫תרומה‬/‫ ;ראשית‬Num 18:11–13; Deut 18:4), “first fruits” (‫ ;בכורים‬Exod 23:19; 34:26), and “tithe of the cattle” (‫ ;מעשר בקר וצאן‬Lev 27:30) are all taken from the biblical sources, as are the terms “the first shearing of the sheep” (‫ ;ראשית גז צאנך‬Deut 18:4), the “tithe of the wheat, wine and oil” (‫ ;מעשר דגן תירוש ויצהר‬Num 18:21; Deut 14:22), and the poor man tithe to “the orphans, widows and proselytes” (‫ ;לגר ליתום ולאלמנה‬Deut 26:1273) “in the third year” (‫ ;בשנה השלישת‬Deut 26:12). However, the Pentateuch laws pertaining to tithes and offerings are scattered and at times contradictory. Much exegetical effort was invested in post-biblical times in reconciling and interpreting them.74 The structured roster of Tobi’s donations reflects such a later interpretation, both in character and order of presentation, as is obvious from the following points:75 1. Tobi brings all his gifts to Jerusalem. He thus betrays the later understanding that the Deuteronomistic requirement to bring all the dues “to the place 71 Hanhart, Text, 26, n. 2 emphasizes that this coincidence cannot be taken as proof of the dependence of Josephus on Tobit, since Josephus does not show any knowledge of this book. Both must reflect the same tradition concerning the tithe for the poor. 72 Thus also Josephus, Ant., iv, 240. See the comments of Albeck, “Bikkurim,” 307. 73 The Hebrew Masoretic text has the proselyte coming before the orphan and the widow, following the Levites, but this first item is omitted by Tobit. 74 See the discussion in Henshke, “On the History of Exegesis.” 75 The foregoing discussion and the following list counter John Collins’s contention that “the ‘Book of Moses’ in Tobit does not point to a specific biblical law, but rather to ancestral traditions which derive authority from Moses ….” Also unconvincing is his attempt to assign passages with specific Jewish religious ideas to secondary sources. Cf. idem, “The Judaism of the Book of Tobit,” in Xeravits and Zsengellér, The Book of Tobit, 23–40 (32).

The Book of Tobit and the Qumran Halakhah

209

He (i. e., God) will choose as a dwelling for his name” (e. g., Deut 12:17–18; 14:22–23) is, in fact, Jerusalem.76 2. Tobi lists his donations in a descending order of importance, from the priests, to the Levites, and finally to the owners and the poor, perhaps following an already fixed tradition. The identical formulaic structure of the gifts may also point to such a tradition. 3. By specifying a second tithe, and in the short recension a third tithe, without mentioning a first tithe, the author reflects a usage of known terms,77 perhaps even the nomenclature later employed by the Sages. 4. In enumerating the priestly dues, Tobi bases himself on Torah decrees that speak of giving the gifts “to the Lord”/“to the house of your Lord” (e. g., Exod 23:19; 34:26; Lev 27:30). He thus reflects the later exegesis, which tallies with that of the Qumran texts. For, the halakhic Qumran texts always understood this phrase to refer to priests, unlike the rabbinic halakhah.78 5. In assigning the tithe of cattle of Lev 27:32–33 to the priests, Tobi betrays the exegesis that associated it with Num 18:8–20, where the priests are mentioned explicitly (cf. also Neh 10:37; 2 Chr 31:6). The same exegesis is reflected in 11QTa LX, 2–4 and Jub. 13:25–26.79 Another case involving biblical exegesis is offered by Tobi in allocating separate tithes to the Levites and to the poor. He thus associates Lev 27:30 with Num 18:25 and assigns this tithe to the Levites, while he gives the tithe of Deut 14:22–27 to the owners, just as mentioned in 11QTa XLIII, 2–17 and by the Sages.80 The exegesis of the biblical decrees related to the festivals incorporated in Tobi’s account is further illustrated by a comparison with the interpretation of the Qumran texts and the rabbinic sources. The striking similarity to the Qumranic position is seen clearly in the following table below, which summarizes the foregoing discussion.

76 As

noted by Gamberoni, “Das ‘Gesetz des Mose’,” 234. observed by Gamberoni, ibid., 236. A similar observation was made by Baumgarten, “Tithes,” 5–6 concerning the use of the term “the second tithe” by Jub. 32:11, and the mention of two separate tithes by the Temple Scroll (11QTa XL, 2–17; LX, 6–7). 78 Cf. Ya‛akov Sussman, “The History of Halakhah and the Dead Sea Scrolls – Preliminary Observations on Miqṣat Ma‘aśe Ha-Torah (4QMMT),” Tarbiz 59 (1990): 11–76 (35) (Heb.); idem, “Appendix 1: The History of the Halakha and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in DJD X, 179–206 (190); Schiffman, “Miqṣat Ma‘aśeh Ha-Torah and the Temple Scroll,” 452–53. 79 Cf. Schiffman, ibid. 80 Cf. Baumgarten, “Tithes,” 6–8. 77 As

210

The Book of Tobit and the Qumran Halakhah

Tobit Priestly Gifts Terumah (first crop) Given to the priests in the temple

Qumran

Rabbinic Halakhah

Given to the priests in the temple

Given to the priests everywhere in the land of Israel

Bikkurim (first fruits)

Given to the priests in the temple from first fruits

Given to the priests in the temple from crop and fruits

Given to the priests in the temple only from the seven species

Tithe of animals

Given to the priests in the temple

Given to the priests in the temple

Belongs to the owners to be consumed in Jerusalem

First shearing of the Given to the priests sheep in the temple

Given to the priests in the temple

Given to the priests everywhere in the land of Israel

Levitical Gifts Levitical tithe

Given to the Levites Given to the Levites Given to the Levites in the temple in the temple everywhere in the land of Israel

Other Gifts Second tithe

Belongs to the owner to be consumed in Jerusalem every year

Tithe for the poor

Belongs to the owner to be consumed with the poor in Jerusalem in the 3rd year of the Sabbatical cycle

Belongs to the owner to be consumed in the temple every year

Belongs to the owner to be consumed in Jerusalem in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th years of the Sabbatical cycle Belongs to the owner to be consumed with the poor in Jerusalem in the 3rd and 6th years of the Sabbatical cycle

What this table shows is that, with the exception of some details (the tithe for the poor), the overwhelming number of Tobi’s practices tally with Qumran rather than rabbinic halakhah. A final observation should be added here about the concluding remark of Tobi. It is significant that Tobi attributes the knowledge of these detailed commandments to the teachings of his grandmother, Deborah. Commentators have noted that the choice of this name is not accidental. For the biblical Deborah was not only a prophetess, but was probably a member of Tobi’s tribe, the tribe of Naphtali (cf. Judg 4:4–5). Whether or not Tobi’s

The Book of Tobit and the Qumran Halakhah

211

grandmother was a descendant of the biblical prophetess is a question left open by the book of Tobit. However, by giving the name of the biblical prophetess to Tobi’s grandmother and teacher, the author may be alluding to the idea that the specific Torah commandments and the manner of their practice are taught by the prophetic tradition, an idea found also in the Qumranic texts.81 The similarity between the halakhah practiced by Tobi and that of the book of Jubilees was noted long ago. Pioneer scholars such as Abraham Geiger,82 Chanoch Albeck,83 and Gedalyahu Alon84 concluded that the book of Tobit and similar evidence from contemporary sources reflected an older halakhah that was later changed and developed by the Tannaim. However, from the evidence of the Qumran Scrolls, we know today that two contemporary halakhic approaches existed side by side as early as the second century B. C. E., and probably even earlier. As observed by Joseph Baumgarten and Ya‛akov Sussman, we are not dealing with two successive stages of halakhah but with two different co-existing approaches.85 How may the book of Tobit be fitted into this picture? It seems to me that the foregoing analysis should lead to a fresh view of this work. Tobit may not be the work of a diaspora Jew but of a Jewish author living in the land of Israel, who was well versed in the halakhic practices current there. This is also suggested by the many thematic contacts Tobit displays with other Aramaic texts from Qumran. Thus, the work was not composed by someone living in Mesopotamia and addressed only to Jews living there or elsewhere outside the land of their forefathers, but composed within the framework of the Aramaic literature about the biblical patriarchs that was cultivated by the Qumranites and housed in their library.86 It appeared that this Aramaic literature was created in circles close to the Qumran community, thus accounting for the presence of copies of the book of Tobit in the Qumran library.

81 Cf. 1QS I, 3; VIII, 16. Compare 4Q390 2 i 5. On Deborah and her role in Tobit, see the article “Tobit in Galilee” in this volume. 82 Cf. n. 18. 83 Cf. Albeck, “Jubiläen,” 30. 84 Cf. Gedalyahu Alon, “On Philo’s Halakha,” in Jews, Judaism and the Classical World (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1977), 91–97. 85 Cf. Joseph M. Baumgarten, “The Laws of ‛Orlah and First Fruits in the Light of Jubilees, the Qumran Writings, and Targum Ps. Jonathan,” JJS 38 (1987): 196–202 (202); Sussman, “The History of Halakha,” 61–69; idem, “Appendix 1: The History of the Halakha,” 186. Aharon Shemesh draws a more complex picture. He thinks that the two schools interacted with each other and so may be described as co-existing and mutually developing. See idem, Halakhah in the Making (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2009), 5–7. 86 See the article “Tobit and the Qumran Aramaic Texts” in this volume.

Tobit in Galilee The book of Tobit is unique in numerous ways, many of which have been discussed repeatedly in scholarly publications. Originally written in Aramaic and probably composed between 300–200 B. C. E.,1 this book is a typical post-biblical composition. Its complex textual transmission,2 its peculiar use of biblical allusions and themes, and preoccupation with the plight of the Israelite exiles in Mesopotamia have all been examined in great detail.3 However, little attention has been paid to the question of why the author chose to present his hero as a member of one of the sinful northern tribes. Given that most of the contemporary Jewish writings, at least those that have come down to us, chose a Judaite context, one is puzzled by the particular choice of the book of Tobit. For instance, the seer of the book of Daniel is a Jerusalemite. His revelations and activities in the courts of Babylonian and Persian kings are related to the fate of Jerusalem and Judea in a world governed by successive heathen empires. Also Zerubbabel of 1 Esdras 3–4 is a Judaite, a scion of the Davidic royal lineage (Hag 1:4; Ezra 3:2, 8; 1 Chr 3:18–19), who is active in obtaining permission from the Persian king Darius for the Judaite exiles to return to Jerusalem. Ezra and Nehemiah themselves are of Judaite stock and work for e. g., Moore, Tobit, 40–42; Fitzmyer, Tobit, 52. to us in several translations of diverse textual character. It has survived in three Greek recensions: a long one, preserved by Codex Sinaiticus, a short one, attested by most of the Greek manuscripts, among them the uncials Alexandrinus and Vaticanus, and the third, partly surviving in two Greek cursive manuscripts 106 and 107 (from 6:9 to 12:22) and the Syro-Hexapla version (from 7:11 to 12:22). Cf. Robert Hanhart, Tobit (Septuaginta, Vetus Testamentum Graecum VIII, 5; Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985), 32–34. The short text seems like an effort to abbreviate and smooth away awkward Greek and multiple Semitisms scattered throughout the long text. Cf. Robert Hanhart, Text und Textgeschichte des Buches Tobit (MSU 17; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), 23–27. The third recension stands between the long and the short texts. But see the nuanced assessment of Stuart Weeks, “Some Neglected Texts of Tobit: The Third Greek Version,” in Studies in the Book of Tobit (ed. M. Bredin; LSTS 55; London: T & T Clark, 2006), 12–42. The long recension, reflected also by the Old Latin (Vetus Latina), serves as the main basis for the present article, since it is the textual witness closest to the Aramaic fragments of Tobit found at Qumran. Cf. Fitzmyer, ibid., 10. 3 As shown in recent commentaries on Tobit. Cf., e. g., Moore, Tobit; Beate Ego, Buch Tobit (JSHRZ II/6; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1999); Helen Schüngel-Straumann, Tobit (HThKAT; Freiburg: Herder, 2000); Fitzmyer, ibid. See also two collections of articles: The Book of Tobit: Text, Tradition, Theology (eds. G. G. Xeravits and J. Zsengeller; JSJSup 98; Leiden: Brill, 2005), and the other by Mark Bredin, ibid. 1 Cf.,

2 The work has come down

214

Tobit in Galilee

the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the surrounding settlements.4 Even the widow Judith from a town in Samaria, the heroine of the book that carries her name, is emblematic of confronting the menace to Jerusalem and the temple that is threatened by the advancing Assyrian/Babylonian army (Jdt 4). Her name itself points to a Judaite context. Baruch, Jeremiah’s faithful scribe of the Letter of Baruch, is exiled to Babylon. However, his activity is addressed to the exiled Judaite king Yehoyakhin and his entourage (Bar 1:3).5 Baruch also assists in sending money for sacrifices in the Jerusalem temple, which was still standing at the time of the pseudepigraphic narrative framework (Bar 1:7–9). The choice of an Israelite background for Tobit is therefore not self-evident. It is, in fact, unique in the ancient Jewish literature known to the modern reader. Choosing this background as the focus of the present analysis may shed further light on the motives for selecting it, the aim it sought to achieve, and the literary strategies employed for expressing them.6 The initial choice of the geographical region for Tobit’s hometown is most telling. The narrative locates it in Galilee, thereby placing Tobit in the sinful environment of the idolatrous northern tribes. But why opt for the Galilee rather than, say, Samaria, which is closer to the idolatrous cultic center built by Jeroboam at Bethel (1 Kgs 12:29; 2 Chr 11:15)? The answer lies in the location of Tobit’s hometown. It is named Tisbe, a place not known from any other source,7 but it is said to be situated near Kedesh (Tob 1:2),8 known in the Bible as Kedesh-Naphtali. Kedesh-Naphtali was a famous biblical city in the Galilean 4 Ezra’s pedigree goes back to the high priesthood in Judea (Ezra 7:1–4). The origin of Nehemiah is not specified but his concern and activities center on Jerusalem and Judea, and suggest a Judaite origin. The entire project of return from Babylon to Jerusalem is presented as an enterprise of two tribes, Judah and Benjamin, accompanied by Levites (Ezra 1:5). 5 Cf. 2 Kgs 24:12–16; 25:27–30. 6 Richard Bauckham is one of the few who has given serious consideration to the choice of the northern background for the plot of Tobit. In his opinion, it points to the book’s hope for “the return of the exiles of the northern tribes to the land of Israel and their reconciliation to Jerusalem and the national and cultic centre.” Cf. Richard Bauckham, “Tobit as a Parable for the Exiles of Northern Israel,” in Studies in the Book of Tobit, 140–64 (141). In what follows, I propose a different interpretation of the choice in question. 7 The attempt by Józef T. Milik (“La Patrie de Tobie,” RB 73 [1966]: 522–30) to identify this unknown city with the modern village of Tubas near modern Nablus is unconvincing. Milik has further suggested that the book of Tobit is of Samaritan origin. In fact, the absence of any Samaritan locality in Tobit’s narrative indicates that no Samaritan sympathies or anti-Samaritan polemics are involved. Jonas Greenfield observed that while the northern background of Tobit has a literary purpose, “there is no need to assume that Tobit is a ‘northern’ literary work.” Cf. Jonas C. Greenfield, “Ahiqar in the Book of Tobit,” in ‘Al Kanfei Yonah; Collected Studies of Jonas C. Greenfield on Semitic Philology (eds. S.M Paul, M. E. Stone, and A. Pinnick; Leiden/ Jerusalem: Brill/Magnes Press, 2001), 1:200 n. 7. 8 Κυδιώς in both the long and the short recensions. The city is well attested in postbiblical sources. For a list of the various Greek transliterations of the name, see Donald T. Ariel and Joseph Naveh, “Selected Inscribed Sealings from Kedesh in the Upper Galilee,” BASOR 329 (2003): 61–80 (72–73). See n. 18 below.

Tobit in Galilee

215

area of Naphtali.9 Kedesh appears to have been selected because it is listed among the sites conquered in 733–732 B. C. E. by the Assyrian king TiglathPileser III (745–727 B. C. E.). The biblical account of this event (2 Kgs 15:29) notes that this town’s inhabitants, together with all the dwellers of the “land of Naphtali,” were deported to Assyria. So the land of Naphtali and Kedesh as one of its major towns are emblematic of the Assyrian conquest of the Galilean region and the deportation of its inhabitants to Assyria. These features provide the protagonist of Tobit with a sinful environment, and from here he is subsequently deported to Nineveh together with his countrymen. While the land of Naphtali and Kedesh-Naphtali are chosen to represent a district conquered by the Assyrians, this also illustrates the author’s tendency to rely on biblical data without recourse to more precise historical information. Tob 1:2 gives the name of the Assyrian conqueror of the Galilee as Enemesar (Ἐνεμέσσαρος), a corruption of the name of the Assyrian king Shalmaneser, which is preserved correctly in the Syriac and Old Latin versions. The name is taken from the report in 2 Kgs 17:5–6 regarding Shalmaneser’s conquest of Samaria, and the deportation to Assyria of its Israelite inhabitants. However, this biblical account telescopes two separate events: Samaria was conquered by Shalmaneser V (727–722 B. C. E.) following a two-year siege, but this king died soon afterwards. It was Shalmaneser’s successor, Sargon II (722–705 B. C. E.), who recaptured the city in 720 B. C. E. and deported its inhabitants.10 Moreover, the account in 2 Kgs 17:5–6, 24 does not specify the Israelite hometowns of the deportees. On this point, the author of Tobit draws his information from 2 Kgs 15:29. As for the conquest of the Galilee and Gilead, their annexation to Assyria, and the deportation to Assyria of the Israelites, these acts were in fact the work of Tiglath-Pileser III (745–727 B. C. E.), twelve years before the fall of Samaria, as indeed is stated in 2 Kgs 15:29 and recorded in the Assyrian inscriptions of this king.11 In this connection, 2 Kings reports on the deportation from Kedesh and “all the land of Naphtali.”12 The book of Tobit appears to combine the biblical  9  The Galilean location may also be associated with the other idolatrous cult center established by Jeroboam at Dan (1 Kgs 12:29). 10 Cf. Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor, II Kings (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1988), 179. 11 Hayim Tadmor, The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III King of Assyria (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1994), 279–81; Gershon Galil, The Chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judah (SHR 9; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 69–70. 12 Cf. Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, 177–78. In Tadmor’s opinion, Tiglat-Pileser’s conquests left a substantial number of Israelite inhabitants in the Galilee and the policy of resettling conquered areas with Babylonian populations was pursued in Samaria only later by Sargon II. See Hayim Tadmor, “The Conquest of Galilee by Tiglath Pileser III, King of Assyria,” in All the Land of Naphtali (ed. M. Z. Hirschberg; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1967), 62–67 (Heb.). However, Nadav Na’aman (“Population Changes in Palestine Following Assyrian Deportation,” Tel Aviv 20 [1993]: 104–24 [105–06]) points out that an archeological survey of Lower Galilee showed a sharp decline in population during the seventh and sixth centuries

216

Tobit in Galilee

narratives on Tiglath-Pileser and Shalmaneser. The Chronicler similarly merges them in 1 Chr 5:26. The latter does so for its own theological purpose,13 but the combination may still attest to a tradition that telescopes the conquest of the Galilee and Transjordan and that of Samaria into a single event. As noted, Kedesh was selected by Tobit’s author as representative of the region conquered by the Assyrians. In addition to its location in the conquered Galilee, Kedesh of the biblical narrative had other merits; it was a Levite city and the only town of refuge in northern Israel (Josh 20:7–9; 21:32). Perhaps this special status served to buttress the piety of the resident Tobit. The emphasis placed on the land of Naphtali in the biblical account of the Assyrian conquest supplied the author of Tobit with an obvious candidate for his protagonist’s origin, namely the tribe of Naphtali. Once Naphtali and its region were selected, other biblical themes were brought into the picture. The choice of the name Deborah for the grandmother14 and tutor of Tobit, who instructed him in the laws of the Torah (Tob 1:8), points to the influence of the biblical story about the war of the northern tribes against Yabin king of Hazor and his general Sisera (Judges 4–5). For Kedesh-Naphtali was the hometown of Barak, who commanded the army and enjoyed the support of the prophetess Deborah, known for her leadership and piety. Barak used his hometown to assemble and organize his army (Judg 4:6, 10). In this war, the tribes of Naphtali and Zebulun excelled (Judg 4:6, 10; 5:18) and earned warm praise in the Song of Deborah (Judg 5:18). This episode renders notable the tribe of Naphtali in the early biblical history of the northern tribes and therefore had additional appeal for the author of Tobit.15 The association of the Galilean Kedesh-Naphtali, devastated by the Assyrians, with the hometown of Barak makes it clear that for the author of Tobit the two biblical locations with the same name were one and the same place, as was once thought by modern commentators.16 However, the Kedesh-Naphtali of Barak is to be located in the vicinity of Mount Tabor and the Kishon river, namely in Lower Galilee, where the battle with the Canaanites took place. The KedeshB. C. E. Na’aman concludes that the Assyrians did not resettle the Galilee but left it “in a state of partial abandonment and devastation” (ibid., 106). 13 The Chronicler mentions the conquest of the Galilee only in passing (1 Chr 5:6), for he is only interested in showing the fate of the Transjordan tribes. Cf. Sara Japhet, I & II Chronicles (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993), 141–42. 14 Thus the long recension (GII). The short one (GI) has “mother.” For the Naphtalite towns, see Jan Svensson, Towns and Toponyms in the Old Testament: With Special Emphasis on Joshua 14–21 (Stockholm: Almqvist, 1994), 78–82. 15 The members of the tribe of Naphtali also fought in the battles conducted by Gideon (Judg 6:35; 7:23). In discussing the Naphtalite origin of Tobit, Bauckham, “Tobit as a Parable,” 151– 12 does not take into account the complete biblical background referred to above. However, he brings in Isa 9:1–2. The Isaiah verse seems to refer to the conquests of Tiglath-Pileser in the north of Israel, but whether or not it alludes to the eschatological return of Naphtali, as suggested by Bauckham, ibid., 152, is disputable. So its relevance to the story of Tobit is dubious. 16 Cf., e. g., George F. Moore, Judges (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1895), 117.

Tobit in Galilee

217

Naphtali of Upper Galilee is too far removed from the geographical location of Barak’s battle with Sisera. It is now recognized that the two cities are distinct and should be identified with two different sites.17 Again, this detail illustrates the book of Tobit’s exclusive dependence on biblical information, without a more accurate grasp of the topographical reality behind the biblical stories regarding Barak and Deborah. Yet it is interesting to note that, living as he did in the third or second century B. C. E., the book’s author may have known the Galilean Kedesh of his own time. For Kedesh continued to flourish during the Second Temple period and is mentioned in several contemporary sources. It is listed among the localities visited by the Ptolemaic official Zenon in the middle of the third century B. C. E.18 According to 1 Macc 11:63–74, in 145 B. C. E., the Hasmonaean Jonathan fought the army of the Seleucid king Demetrius II (145–140 B. C. E.) near Kedesh (cf. Josephus, Ant. xiii, 154, 162).19 At the end of the first century C. E., Josephus describes Kedesh as a Tyrian village (J. W. ii, 459). Recent archeological excavations at Tel Kedesh suggest that it was partly settled by a Phoenician population and that under the Persian and Seleucid rules it housed an administrative center.20 If so, it may have represented for Tobit’s author the tragic fate of the idolatrous tribes’ homeland. The Galilean picture depicted by the book of Tobit is thus, both geographically and historically, a tapestry of biblical allusions. Obviously, the author did not or could not adapt it to the actual reality.21 The artificial character of the northern Israelite context is reflected by other facets of the narrative. The reader learns that Tobit’s religious practice and attitude are defined in terms of the Judaite faith: loyalty to the Jerusalem temple 17 Cf. Yohanan Aharoni and Miriam Tadmor, “Kedesh (in Upper Galilee),” in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (ed. E. Stern; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1993), 3:855–56; Ephraim Stern, “Kedesh, Tel (in Jezreel Valley),” in ibid., 860. 18 The city is mentioned in two papyrus letters. One (P. Cairo Zenon 59004) lists Kedesh (Κύδισος) among localities visited by Zenon in the land of Israel. Cf. Victor A. Tcherikover and Alexander Fuks, Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, Vol. I (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957), 121–22. The other (P. L. Bat. 20) is a letter sent to Zenon and received in Kedesh. Cf. Greek and Demotic Texts from the Zenon Archive (ed. P. W. Pestman; Leiden: Brill, 1980), 138–40. 19 Josephus describes Kedesh as lying “between the land of Tyre and Galilee,” Ant. xiii, 154. 20 Cf. Andrea M. Berlin and Sharon C. Herbert, “Tel-Kedesh, 1997–1999,” IEJ 50 (2000): 118–23; Andrea M. Berlin, “Life and Death on the Israel-Lebanon Border,” BAR 31 (2005): 35–43. More than 2,000 seals were found in one area of the site, attesting to the existence of an archive in Kedesh that served the regional administration. On one seal, the name of Kedesh is inscribed in Greek (Κυδίσσυ). Cf. Ariel and Naveh, “Selected Inscribed Sealings from Kedesh,” 72–73. 21 This parallels the author’s imprecise historical and geographical data related to Mesopotamian localities, as recognized long ago. For instance, the description of Tobias’ journey in the company of the angel Raphael from Nineveh to Ecbatana and Raga in Media (Tobit 6–9) does not make sense topographically. Cf. Frank Zimmermann, The Book of Tobit (New York: Harper, 1958), 16; Moore, Tobit, 10; Ego, Buch Tobit, 898–99; Fitzmyer, Tobit, 32–33.

218

Tobit in Galilee

and furnishing it with the cultic gifts of produce, in compliance with the Torah directives (Tob 1:6–9).22 Most of the Israelite personalities connected with Tobit and living in Mesopotamia follow the generally accepted Jewish religious ethos of the Second Temple period, an ethos espoused by other works that promote Judaite protagonists. For instance, Tobit scrupulously observes the dietary laws in his Gentile surroundings in Nineveh (Tob 1:11), just like Daniel in Babylon (Dan 1:8, 16) and Judith in Holofernes’ camp (Jdt 10:5; 12:1, 9, 19).23 So, despite the Israelite origin of Tobit’s various characters, they follow the general Jewish practices and beliefs prevalent in Second Temple times. Since all Tobit’s associates are members of his own family,24 their piety portrays the Judaic faith of his household. The conclusion called for by the foregoing analysis is that the Israelite background was selected as being representative of sin and its punishment by the exile. It permitted Tobit’s author to contrast with it the “Judaite” ethos embraced by Tobit, that is, the Jewish religious practice of his time, presented as the correct one that should be followed by all Jews living outside the land of Israel, whether Judaites or Israelites. The fictitious plot and characters, the heavy reliance on biblical motifs and information, and the imprecise details pertaining to the actual history and topography of Mesopotamia have led scholars to conclude that Tobit’s story is legendary. This is certainly true for the plot and personalities. Nevertheless, the general atmosphere and conditions of the Assyrian Diaspora as depicted by the book of Tobit have been strikingly confirmed and exemplified by documents and archives from the Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, and Persian kingdoms discovered and published during the last century. Even some narrative details of the book can now be illustrated by contemporary economic and political documents.25 These yield reliable historical data about the living conditions and occupations of Israelites and Judeans who were exiled to Mesopotamia and lived under the successive rules of Assyria, Babylonia, and Persia.  Cf. “The Book of Tobit and the Qumran Halakhah,” in this volume. same concern is observed in the apocryphal prayer of Esther (LXX Esther 4:17x) where she states that she has not eaten of the royal food. See the comment of Moore, Tobit, 41. 24 Cf. the article “The Family of Tobit” in this volume. 25 Cf. Ran Zadok, On West Semites in Babylonia during the Chaldean and Achameanian Periods (Jerusalem: Wanaarta 1977), 44; idem, The Jews in Babylonia during the Chaldean and Archaemenian Periods according to Babylonian Sources (Haifa: University of Haifa, 1979), 34; idem, “Some Jews in Babylonian Documents,” JQR 74 (1984): 294–97; idem, “Foreigners and Foreign Linguistic Material in Mesopotamia and Egypt,” in Immigration and Emigration within the Ancient Near East: Festschrift E. Lipinski (eds. K. van Lerberghe and A. Schoors; Leuven: Peeters, 1995), 431–47 (433); idem, The Earliest Diaspora: Israelites and Judeans in Pre-Hellenistic Mesopotamia (Tel Aviv: Diaspora Research Institute, 2002), 9–13, 18–26; Bustenay Oded, “The Settlements of the Israelite and Judean Exiles in Mesopotamia in the 8th–6th Centuries B. C. E.,” in Studies in Historical Geography and Biblical Historiography Presented to Zecharia Kallai (eds. G. Galil and M. Weinfeld; VTSup 81; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 90–103. 22

23 The

Tobit in Galilee

219

Accordingly, much more is known today about the Assyrian kings’ deportation policy that was continued on a more limited scale by the Neo-Babylonian kings.26 The deportees were taken from their homeland and resettled together with their families,27 a detail that is in agreement with the tale of Tobit, who was deported with his wife and son and other close relatives (Tob 1:9–10, 20). The deportation of Israelites from the north of the land of Israel to Assyria is also attested by the royal inscriptions and chronicles of the Assyrian kings,28 and the presence of Israelites in Assyria is suggested by the Israelite names mentioned in various Assyrian documents.29 The statement that Tobit was exiled to Nineveh is borne out by the evidence that many foreigners lived in Nineveh, among them Israelites and Judeans.30 Tobit’s maintaining of ties with his deported relatives in far-off cities exemplifies the general practice of the Assyrian kings31 of scattering deportees from the same location across several settlements in Assyria or in other countries it conquered.32 Tobit lived in Nineveh; his cousin Raguel’s family was settled in Ecbatana; another cousin of his, Gabael, with whom Tobit conducted business, was based in Raga (Tob 1:14 [short recension]; 4:1; 9:2). The presence of Israelites in Assyria can be detected by the Yahwistic and biblical names of various persons mentioned in Assyrian documents. Some of 26  Cf. Bustenay Oded, Mass Deportations and Deportees in the Neo-Assyrian Empire ­(Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1979). 27 Cf. Hayim Tadmor, “Assyria and the West: The Ninth Century and Its Aftermath,” in Unity and Diversity: Essays in the History, Literature, and Religion of the Ancient Near East (eds. H. Goedicke and J. J. M. Roberts; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975), 36–48 (40–42). Tadmor notes that the survivors of the Chaldean and Judean deportations must have formed the core of the builders and inhabitants of Nineveh, rebuilt by Sennacherib as his capital (ibid., 41). On the Assyrian policy of large-scale deportations and population exchanges in the conquered lands, see Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, 177–78. Israel Eph‛al remarked that, in contrast to the Assyrians, the Neo-Babylonian rulers permitted deportees to maintain their national identity and internal organization. Cf. Israel Eph‛al, “The Western Minorities in Babylonia in the 6th–5th centuries B. C.: Maintenance and Cohesion,” Or 47 (1978): 74–90, esp. p. 83. See also Oded, ibid., 22–26. 28 Cf. the survey of Na’aman, “Population Changes,” 104–06, 111. 29  Cf. Zadok, “Foreigners and Foreign Linguistic Material in Mesopotamia and Egypt,” 433 and the references cited in n. 35 below. 30 Cf. Tadmor, “Assyria and the West,” 40–42. Note the references to the settling of captives in Nineveh in the Annals of Sennacherib. Cf. David D. Luckenbill, The Annals of Sennacherib (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1924), 60, 73; Oded, “The Settlements of the Israelite and Judean Exiles in Mesopotamia,” 93–95, 97–99. 31 Cf. Oded, Mass Deportations, 24–25; idem, “Observations on the Israelite/Judaean Exiles in Mesopotamia during the Eighth-Sixth Centuries B. C. E.,” in Immigration and Emigration within the Ancient Near East: Festschrift E. Lipinski (eds. K. Van Lerberghe and A. Schoors; OLA 65; Leuven, Peeters, 1995), 205–12 (208–09). 32 Cf. Oded, Mass Deportations, 30–32; Oded, “Observations on the Israelite/Judaean Exiles.” On the settlement of deportees in various locations in Assyria, see also Paul Garelli, “Les déplacements de personnes dans l’empire assyrien,” in Immigration and Emigration within the Ancient Near East, 79–82; Gershon Galil, “Israelite Exiles in Media: A New Look at ND 2443+,” VT 59 (2009): 71–79.

220

Tobit in Galilee

them were apparently officials or merchants,33 as was Tobit. Even the story that Tobit achieved prominence in the royal Assyrian administration of Shalmaneser (1:12) is fictional only in respect to the specific personage of Tobit, not that of the historical circumstances; documents attesting to the employment in the royal administration of officials from various countries are well known today.34 Some of these officials were Israelites.35 Commerce was another occupation taken up by inhabitants of various origins in exile in Assyria.36 This information provides an authentic backdrop to other details in Tobit’s story. His statement that he left money with his cousin Gabael in Rages (Tob 1:14 [short recension]) is related to his commercial activity, or to his role as an official of Shalmaneser (Tob 1:13–16). Also noteworthy are descriptions of Tobit’s trips in Mesopotamia on business and for other purposes, and later his move from Nineveh to Ecbatana. Although we have no precise examples of such travels, the case of a Jewish person, probably an Israelite, who journeys from Nineveh to Babylon, as attested by documents from Babylon, is interesting.37 Another detail that receives indirect confirmation in Assyrian documents is connected with the story of the slander and the animosity of Tobit’s neighbors in Nineveh (Tob 1:19; 2:8). It has been pointed out that as foreigners brought forcibly to Assyria, who continued to preserve their own social and linguistic communities, the Israelites and the Judaites aroused animosity and jealousy in the indigenous people.38 The foregoing analysis has shown that in constructing the background of Tobit in Galilee, as in other respects, the book relies heavily on the reports of the biblical literature. The details of the plot, the depiction of the characters, and their religious practices are all based on biblical narrative motifs and concepts. Therefore, the early phase in Galilee lacks any precise geographical and historical data, as do the specific details of the plot, related to the life and fortunes of Tobit’s family in the Mesopotamian Diaspora. Therefore, it is clear that the biblical materials served to express the author’s religious ideas. Yet Tobit’s general conditions and circumstances outside the land of Israel accord with the reality of Jews, Israelites as well as Judaites, exiled in Mesopotamia, as gleaned Zadok, The Jews in Babylonia, 34–35, 153. Oded, Mass Deportations, 104–07. 35 Cf. Oded, ibid., 79; Abraham Malamat, “Exile, Assyrian,” EncJud (1971), 6:1034–36; William F. Albright, “An Ostracon from Calah and the North-Israelite Diaspora,” BASOR 149 (1958): 33–36 (36); Galil, “Israelite Exiles in Media,” 75–79. 36 Cf. Oded, ibid., 102–04. On an Israelite or Judean who came to Nippur from Assyria, see Oded, ibid., 103–04; Zadok, The Jews in Babylonia, 13–14; Alfred B. Moldenke, Cuneiform Texts in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (Paris: Geuthner, 1977), 84–85. 37 Cf. Zadok, ibid., 34–35. Galil (“Israelite Exiles in Media”) shows that Israelite exiles were settled by the Assyrians in Media, a detail that sheds fresh light on some information in the book of Tobit. 38 Cf. Oded, Mass Deportations, 46–47. 33 Cf. 34 Cf.

Tobit in Galilee

221

from authentic Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian documents from the sixth to the second centuries B. C. E. However, the authentic ring to the description of Tobit’s life in Mesopotamia does not necessarily point to this area as the place of origin of the composition, for precise information on the conditions of the Mesopotamian Diaspora may well have reached the land of Israel in subsequent generations. The book of Tobit is, then, a fictional story set in an authentic historical context. The Israelite Diaspora was selected as emblematic of a Jewish population in exile as a vehicle for laying out the correct Judaic religious ethos to be adopted by such exiled Jews. It could have been written by a Jewish author living in the land of Israel as a guide for Jews living in the Diaspora.

The Family of Tobit One of the major themes of the book of Tobit is the advocacy of endogamy, a principle illustrated by the marriage of Tobiah to his relative Sarah. The centrality of this value for the author is conveyed by the explicit directive Tobi addresses to his son, Tobiah, instructing him to marry within the family, citing the example of the biblical patriarchs (4:12–13).1 It is likewise imparted by various narrative details, for instance, how Providence itself guides events to bring about endogamous marriage (3:17; 6:10–19).2 This topic has therefore rightly been emphasized and analyzed by commentators in various discussions.3 Yet the special value of familial relationships has broader ramifications in the book of Tobit.4 Among other things, it is indicated by the fact that all the characters with whom Tobi and Tobiah interact are their own kindred. Even the Aramaean Ahiqar becomes Tobi’s nephew (1:22). This detail has puzzled students of the book, especially since fifth-century B. C. E. Aramaic copies of the writings relating Ahiqar’s story were found in the remains of the Jewish military colony at Elephantine more than a century ago.5 However, this and other details are to be explained within the overall familial make-up of Tobi, an aspect that has not received the attention it merits. The following analysis seeks partly to fill this lacuna.6 1 Tobit’s chief protagonist will be referred to as Tobi, and his son as Tobiah, transcribing their names ‫ טובי‬and ‫ טוביה‬as they appear in the Qumran Tobit copies. For general information on Tobit, see the article “Tobit and the Qumran Aramaic Texts” in this volume. 2  Cf. the remarks of Beate Ego, Buch Tobit (JSHRZ II/2; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1999), 829–93; Fitzmyer, Tobit, 31–32, 48. 3 Cf. the summary of recent opinions on the issue by Benedikt Otzen, Tobit and Judith (London/New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 37–41. Cf. also Pekka Pitkänen, “Family Life and Ethnicity in Early Israel and in Tobit,” in Studies in the Book of Tobit (ed. M. Bredin; LSTS; London: T & T Clark, 2006), 104–17. 4 Some of them are analyzed by Michael Weigl, “Die rettende Macht der Barmherzigkeit: Achikar im Buch Tobit,” BZ 50 (2006): 212–43. 5 For the story of Ahiqar, see the concise survey of Ingo Kottsieper, “Die Geschichte und Sprüche des weisen Achiqar,” TUAT III/2 (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1991), 320–24; Fitzmyer, Tobit, 37–38. 6 The Greek edition used throughout is that of Robert Hanhart, Tobit: Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum VIII, 5 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983). For the Old Latin (Vetus Latina) and other extant ancient translations of Tobit, see Christian J. Wagner, Polyglotte Tobit-Synopse (MSU 28; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003).

224

The Family of Tobit

From the outset, the importance of Tobi’s own family is emphasized by the placement of his detailed lineage at the beginning of the book.7 All the names in this genealogy are theophoric, with the ending ‑el, most of them taken from the biblical onomasticon. Through this pedigree itself, the narrator builds the righteous figure of Tobi and creates a biblical atmosphere of piety and rectitude.8 But the subsequent episodes show that this is not the only purpose of the genealogy. It is no less significant that all of Tobi’s dealings are conducted strictly within the family. So, with its biblical names, Tobi’s lineage serves to highlight the advantage, indeed the need, to remain within the pious filial circle. Orphaned of his father, Tobi was taught by his grandmother Deborah while still living in the land of Israel (1:1).9 There, he married Hannah, a woman from his “ancestral family” (1:9).10 Living in the land of his forefathers, it was only natural for Tobi to confine his contacts to the familial and tribal spheres. But when his family and tribe were dispersed in the Mesopotamian exile, maintaining such contacts became a problem. This is intimated by Tobi’s ignorance, living in Assyrian Nineveh, of the existence of his close relatives in Median Ecbatana. These circumstances notwithstanding, Tobi continues to cultivate his contacts with members of his family even in exile, and to restrict his dealings to his kinsfolk. The only outsiders in the story are the Neo-Assyrian kings Shalmaneser V (727–722 B. C. E.), Sennacherib (705–681 B. C. E.), and Esarhaddon (680–669 B. C. E.). Tobi serves as an eminent courtier under the first two, while Ahiqar serves the third king (1:12–16). Still, these kings play only a limited role in the narrative. The real protagonists are Tobi and his kin, and socializing with his relatives becomes one of Tobi’s chief merits. A close examination of these family ties reveals further aspects of Tobi’s narrative not always recognized. A personage outside Tobi’s immediate household is Gabael, with whom Tobi deposited money while still prospering in the royal administration (1:14). In this

 7  It is modelled on similar biblical genealogies. Compare, for instance, the genealogies of Elkanah, Samuel’s father (1 Sam 1:1), Kish, Saul’s father (1 Sam 9:1), and Mordechai, Esther’s uncle (Esth 2:5).   8 See Zimmermann, Tobit, 44; Fitzmyer, Tobit, 92.   9 As in the long text, represented by Codex Sinaiticus. The short version, represented by Codex Vaticanus and most of the Greek manuscripts, refers to Deborah as the mother of Tobi’s grandfather. The choice of the name Deborah for Tobi’s grandmother and teacher is influenced by the figure of the biblical prophetess, Deborah, known for her leadership and piety in the battle of the northern tribes against Yabin, king of Hazor, and his general, Sisera (Judges 4–5). In these biblical circumstances, Kedesh-Naphtali was an important locality, and the tribe of Naphtali played a central and valiant role. The book of Tobit builds on this episode. It turns Kedesh-Naphtali into Tobi’s hometown, and the tribe of Naphtali into Tobi’s ancestral clan. See the article “Tobit in Galilee” in this volume. 10 The description of her origin is translated literally “from the seed of our family” (1:9), a typical Biblical Hebrew locution.

The Family of Tobit

225

first reference, Gabael is introduced as the “brother of Gabri,”11 but the narrative makes it clear that he belongs to Tobi’s family: the same name was given to one of Tobi’s ancestors (1:1), probably indicating a patronym current in that family.12 An explicit reference to Gabael’s kinship occurs in the words of the angel Raphael, disguised as the human Azariah, addressed to his companion, Tobiah. In this speech, Gabael is described as “our brother” (5:6). In this context, the word “brother” (ἀδελφός) may also apply to compatriots or co-religionists,13 as, for instance, in 1:1614 and 5:9,15 but the manner and general context of Raphael/ Azariah’s words in 5:6 suggest a reference to a blood brother, for Raphael/ Azariah presents himself as a real relative of Tobi (5:11), a relationship Tobi accepts (5:14). Raphael/Azariah then is referring to Gabael as one related to both Tobiah and himself. Gabael’s filial link to Tobi is also evident from his journeying from Rages to Ecbatana to attend Tobiah’s nuptial festivities (9:6). On meeting Tobiah, Gabael states his relation to Tobi explicitly: Tobiah looks like “my cousin Tobi” (9:616), thereby echoing a similar observation made earlier by Raguel (7:2). So the person with whom Tobi deposits money, and perhaps does business, is his own cousin. As for Raguel, the father of Tobi’s future daughter-in-law, he is in fact another cousin of Tobi’s. Yet, just as with Gabael, his precise relationship to Tobi is revealed only in stages. At first, Raphael/Azariah tells Tobiah that they are going to spend the night in the house of Raguel, “your relative”17 (6:11). The precise nature of this relationship is disclosed only later, in Raguel’s own words. When he meets Tobiah for the first time, he mentions to his wife Tobiah’s likeness to “my cousin Tobi” (7:218). Raguel and Tobi are, then, first cousins, and their children, the future couple, are second cousins. A question not answered by the narrator is how the existence of close relatives in Ecbatana has remained unknown to Tobi in Nineveh. Raguel in Ecbatana has been equally ignorant of Tobi’s living in the Assyrian city. Perhaps the story attributes this situation to the wide dispersion of the Israelite families in their Mesopotamian exile. Another difficulty also remains unresolved: why Raguel, Tobi’s cousin, is unaware of the existence of Tobi’s son, as is clear from the account in 7:5. According to 1:9, Tobiah was born when the family was still in 11 According

to 4:20, he is the son of Gabri. also the comments of Fitzmyer, Tobit, 115–16. 13 On the meanings of this word in Tobit, see Ego, Tobit, 917. See also the comments of Pierre Grelot, “Les noms de parenté dans le livre de Tobie,” RevQ 17 (1996–1997): 327–37. 14 As indeed it is rendered by the Old Latin (omnibus de natione mea) and the Vulgate (per omnem cognationem suam). 15 This detail is found only in the long recension of Codex Sinaiticus and the Old Latin. 16 Also this detail is found only in the long recension of Codex Sinaiticus and the Old Latin. 17 συγγενής σού ἐστιν. 18 Thus in one Aramaic copy of Tobit from Qumran (‫ בר דדי‬4Q197 4 iii 5) and in the short Greek recension. Cf. Fitzmyer, Tobit, 226. 12 Cf.

226

The Family of Tobit

Galilee, and a relative as close as a cousin would certainly have been informed of the birth.19 The introduction of Tobi’s associates as his brothers or cousins is part of the book’s overt plot. However, not required by the plot and therefore more telling are the portraits of two other personalities as Tobi’s kinsfolk, namely the angel Raphael in human guise, and Ahiqar, the counsellor of Esarhaddon. More details are supplied to delineate the profile of the angel Raphael. In this case, too, the author employs gradual disclosure of the precise ties between Raphael/Azariah and Tobi, as he has done with Gabael and Raguel. Meeting for the first time, Raphael/Azariah presents himself to Tobiah just as “one of the sons of Israel your brothers” (5:520). Next, he mentions Gabael, “our brother,” in whose house he stayed whenever he visited Rages (5:6). Tobiah understands this as a reference to Gabael being an Israelite (5:9). But Raphael/Azariah seems to allude also to the pedigree he is about to attribute to himself as a relative of Tobi. The nature of the relationship is specified only when Tobiah brings Raphael/Azariah to his father. In response to Tobi’s questions, Raphael/Azariah answers that he is “Azariah son of Hananiah the Great, your kinsman” (5:13). The degree of kinship of this Hananiah to Tobi is not defined, but the piety of his family is duly emphasized. The importance of this relationship is further indicated by Tobi’s concern to know the origin and background of the person who is to accompany his son on a long journey (5:9, 11) and his relief to discover that this person is his own relative, from a good and pious family (5:14). The information about Hananiah is of particular significance. It presents him as one of the few pious Israelites who remained devoted to the Jerusalem temple when still settled in Galilee. In this respect, he is as devout as Tobi himself (1:6–8). It is of interest that none of Tobi’s other relatives introduced in the story earns such respectable ancestry. Perhaps, in this case, it is meant to foster the special status of the angel concealed in the guise of Hananiah’s son. Significantly, before the events related in the book, Tobi was unaware of the whereabouts of either Raguel or the disguised son of Hananiah. The motif of Tobi’s ignorance of his relatives recurs throughout the book and plays a role in the development of the story line. The most enigmatic character in Tobi’s account is Ahiqar, the famous wise counsellor of Esarhaddon. In ch. 1 of the book of Tobit, he is described as yet another nephew of Tobi, a son of his brother Anael (1:21–2221). The name of 19 Another difficulty is presented by the long version of 7:6–7, according to which Raguel already knew of Tobi’s blindness, a detail that belies his ignorance of Tobi’s existence in Nineveh. The short recension amends the inconsistency by stating that Raphael/Azariah reported to Raguel on Tobi’s illness. Cf. the comments of Fitzmyer, Tobit, 227–28. 20 A qualification absent from the short recension. 21 As in the long recension. This piece of information is preserved in one of the Aramaic copies of Tobit from Qumran (4Q196 2 5–6) ‫אחיקר בר ענאל אחי‬.

The Family of Tobit

227

Ahiqar’s father is similar to Ananel, one of Tobi’s ancestors (1:1). It may therefore have been another patronym current in Tobi’s family. An additional mark of the kinship ties between Tobi and Ahiqar, along with his nephew Nadan, is the joy they expressed upon Tobi’s cure and Tobiah’s marriage (11:19), just as Gabael evinced similar ties by attending Tobiah’s wedding feast (9:6). In fact, both Ahiqar and his nephew Nadan are presented in this context as nephews of Tobi (11:19). However, Ahiqar differs from the invented relatives surrounding Tobi. For, he was not an anonymous imaginary figure, but a well-known Gentile Aramaic sage whose tribulations and suffering as a courtier in the court of the Assyrian kings Sennacherib and Esarhaddon were told in detail in an Aramaic writing of wide circulation in antiquity. So, while Tobi’s other cousins and nephews were created only to fit one or another detail in his biography, the independent legend of Ahiqar had to be adapted to Tobi’s account in order to play a meaningful role in the plot. Indeed, as has been pointed out, the influence of the Ahiqar story on Tobi goes far beyond borrowing the hero’s name. In addition to the specific reference to the story of Ahiqar (11:18; 14:10), some major themes also are obviously based on it. Thus, Tobi’s background and misfortunes are similar to those suffered by Ahiqar. So are the setting at the Assyrian court in Nineveh, the slander that caused his disgrace, and his final re-establishment.22 Furthermore, Ahiqar’s position in the book of Tobit is unique not only as a figure known outside the book, but also as a righteous person who acted according to the principles that guide Tobi himself. For, by pleading for his uncle, Tobi, and by supporting him for two years, Ahiqar (1:22; 2:10) performs acts of charity like Tobi (1:3, 16–17). In fact, the charity he showed to his uncle is presented as the reason and justification for his rescue from the slander of his nephew, Nadan (14:10).23 That the author of Tobit is concerned with adapting the story of Ahiqar for his own purpose is shown further by the fact that Ahiqar’s wisdom, his chief characteristic in the original Aramaic work, does not play a role in the book of Tobit.24 So, while the adaptation of features from the original Ahiqar legend does not require the conversion of Ahiqar into a member of Tobi’s family, it was done to meet the particular concerns of the author of the book of Tobit. For, by surrounding Tobi with his pious kinsmen and by turning Ahiqar into one of them, the author presents the moral ethos binding Jewish families and communities in the diaspora. 22 On the influence of the Ahiqar story on the book of Tobit, see Jonas C. Greenfield, “Ahiqar in the Book of Tobit,” in ‘Al Kanfei Yonah; Collected Studies of Jonas C. Greenfield on Semitic Philology (eds. S.M Paul, M. E. Stone, and A. Pinnick; Leiden/Jerusalem: Brill/Magnes Press, 2001), 1:195–202; Lothar Ruppert, “Zur Funktion der Achikar-Notizen im Buch Tobias,” in Studien zur Literaturgeschichte des Alten Testaments (SBAB 18; Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1994), 259–65; Fitzmyer, Tobit, 37–38; Weigl, “Die rettende Macht,” 223–31. 23 Cf. Weigl, “Die rettende Macht,” 232–34. 24 As pointed out by Weigl, “Die rettende Macht,” 240, n. 66. However, in Tobit ch. 4, Tobi himself is the wise sage giving advice in the form of wisdom sayings to his departing son.

228

The Family of Tobit

The foregoing survey displays once again the importance of family and clan in the book of Tobit, for the purpose of marriage, but also in social contacts and dealings. It is so central that even the angelic messenger is disguised as Tobi’s kin. Significantly, the only figure who remains outside the circle of relatives surrounding Tobi is Asmodeus, the demon who kills Sarah’s suitors and whom Tobiah succeeds in removing (3:8; 6:14–18; 8:2–3). This alien status defines the utter otherness of the demon, and his perverse and evil nature. In advocating endogamy, the author of Tobit is certainly influenced by the patriarchal stories of Genesis. Isaac marries Rebecca, granddaughter of his uncle, Nahor (Gen 24:47–48); Jacob marries his cousins, Leah and Rachel (Gen 29:10–12). Undoubtedly this was also a practice current among the Jews during Second Temple times, both in the land of Israel and abroad. But the notion that all social connections of diaspora Jews should remain within the family and clan, and that only in this way can piety be maintained, seems to be particular to the author of the book of Tobit.

The Wife of Job and the Wife of Tobit The discovery of the Qumran Scrolls has opened a window on the ancient Jewish literature composed in Hebrew and Aramaic during the later centuries of the Second Temple era. This trove of old manuscripts attests to the richness and variety of the Jewish literature, and the wealth of interpretative traditions it employed. By yielding vestiges of hitherto unknown ancient Jewish works, Qumran evidence also sheds fresh light on the Jewish works known for many years, but transmitted only in Christian translations, namely those preserved in the Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha, such as 1 Enoch and Jubilees. Qumran has shown that they were an integral part of the literary scene in the land of Israel at the time. The study of these familiar works may now be conducted as portions of the vast interpretative fabric woven around the biblical corpus. The book of Tobit is a particularly interesting example of this workmanship since it abounds with biblical allusions and models used in telling a story about a nonbiblical character. One of the most pronounced models of Tobit is that of the biblical Job, his life story, his suffering, and his restoration.1 The present essay analyzes a single strand of the Job-related themes developed in Tobit, namely, the connection between Tobi’s wife, Hannah, and Job’s wife. Tobit has a long exegetical tradition behind it, composed by older as well as modern authors. Yet not all of its mysteries have been solved and contemporary critical discussion still wrestles with questions such as when and where the book was composed and what was its original language. Before the discovery of the Qumran Scrolls, most commentators located its composition in Mesopotamia or in Egypt, although some favored the land of Israel for this activity. But today, in the presence of six Tobit copies among the Scrolls, its origin and place of composition should be re-assessed.2 The existence of a Hebrew copy, the type of piety advocated by the book, and the imprecise geographical 1 For general surveys on Tobit, see Moore, Tobit, 6–54; Fitzmyer, Tobit, 3–57 and the article “Tobit and the Qumran Aramaic Texts” in this volume. 2 Five copies are published by Fitzmyer, 4Q196, 4Q197, 4Q198, and 4Q199 in Aramaic, and 4Q200 in Hebrew. See Joseph A Fitzmyer in DJD XIX, 2–76. For fragments of a fifth Aramaic papyrus copy, see Michaela Hallermayer and Torleif Elgvin, “Schøyen Ms. 5234: Ein neues Tobit-Fragment vom Toten Meer,” RevQ 22 (2006), 451–61; Stuart Weeks, “Restoring the Greek Tobit,” JSJ 44 (2013): 1–15 (3 n. 6); Loren Stuckenbruck and Stuart Weeks, “Tobit,” in The T & T Clark Companion to the Septuagint (ed. J. K. Aitken; London: Bloomsbury, 2015), 237–60 (238). Michael’s Wise suggestion that the very small Hebrew fragment, 4Q478, comes

230

The Wife of Job and the Wife of Tobit

and historical details concerning Assyria and Nineveh suggest that the book was authored in the land of Israel.3 Before the Qumran discoveries, it was agreed that Tobit was originally composed in a Semitic language, either Hebrew or Aramaic, but at that stage it was known in Greek translations, several daughter translations, one medieval Aramaic version, and various medieval Hebrew texts. The Greek version is transmitted in two main recensions, a long one (GII), preserved in the fourthcentury Codex Sinaiticus and the Old Latin (Vetus Latina),4 and the short one (GI), transmitted by Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Vaticanus, and most of the Greek cursive manuscripts.5 A third recension is attested by another group of Greek manuscripts, usually described as a “middle” one, between the long and the short, but it has its own character.6 The Qumran texts have confirmed that the original works were composed in a Semitic language, probably in Aramaic, as suggested by the number of Qumran Aramaic copies. The Qumran copies attest to a version closer to the long Greek recension (GII) and therefore it serves as the basis of the present discussion, with occasional references to the short one (GI) where it offers significant variants. It is now agreed the book of Tobit was written by a Jewish author in the third or early second century B. C. E. Its presence at Qumran and the many themes it shares with the Aramaic corpus found among the Scrolls shows that it forms part of this literature, composed in the land of Israel.7 The story recounts the life and misfortunes of Tobi from the tribe of Naphtali, who was exiled from his Galilean hometown to Nineveh and rose to prominence as a courtier in the court of the Assyrian king.8 The various narrative scenes take place in the provinces of Mesopotamia, from Nineveh the capital of Assyria to Rages in Iran (e. g., 1:10; 4:1, 20; 7:1; 9:2). The core of the story surrounds the misfortunes that befell Tobi and his unmarried relative, Sarah, who lives in Ecbatana in Media (cf. Ezra 6:2), and relates how the two were delivered by divine providence. The rescue is brought about by Tobiah, Tobi’s son, guided from another Hebrew copy of Tobit is groundless. Cf. idem, “A Note on 4Q196 (PapTob Ara) and Tobit I 22,” VT 43 (11993): 566–70 (569 n. 6). 3 For additional arguments in favor of this suggestion, see the article “The Book of Tobit and the Qumran Halakhah” in this volume. 4 On the Old Latin, see Jean-Marie Auwers, “La tradition vieille latine du Livre de Tobi: un état de la question,” in The Book of Tobit: Text, Tradition, Theology (ed. G. G. Xeravits and J. Zsengellér; JSJSup 98; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 1–21. 5 Cf. Robert Hanhart, Tobit (Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum VIII.5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985), 31–32; Fitzmyer, Tobit, 7–8. 6 See Stuart Weeks, “Some Neglected Texts of Tobit: The Third Greek Version,” in Studies in the Book of Tobit: A Multidisciplinary Approach (ed. M. Bredin; Literary and Second Temple Studies 55; London: T & T Clark, 2006), 12–42; Stuckenbruck and Weeks, “Tobit,” 238. 7 See the article “Tobit and the Qumran Aramaic Texts” in this volume. 8 For the historical references in Tob 1:10, 13–15, see the article “Tobit in Galilee” in this volume and Zimmermann, Tobit, 15, 50; Moore, Tobit, 118; Fitzmyer, Tobit, 116.

The Wife of Job and the Wife of Tobit

231

by the angel Raphael who takes the form of a man. In his human disguise, the angel guides Tobiah from his home in Nineveh to Ecbatana and orchestrates the youth’s marriage to Sarah. Thus, the book of Tobit spins the tale of a pious Israelite who is afflicted by poverty and ailment and is saved, via providential aid, through the marriage of his son to his relative Sarah. The book presents this outline through a mosaic of allusions to the biblical patriarchal stories and to the story of Job. In this framework, the protagonists are presented in a fairly consistent way: Tobi, the pious Israelite who was an important courtier who had fallen out of royal favor due to defamatory information that revealed that he secretly buried the corpses of Jewish people (Tob 1:13, 18–20). This cost him his office, position, and possessions. His perseverance in performing such burials also resulted in him becoming blind caused by bird droppings (Tob 2:1–10). Thus, his righteous deeds brought upon him poverty and disease. Also Sarah, the daughter of Re‛uel, suffers without cause in Ecbatana due to the harassment of the demon Asmodeus, who has killed her seven bridegrooms (Tob 3:8). Tobiah, son of Tobi, undertakes a journey to Raga apparently to collect a debt due to his father, but this leads him to Sarah, his designated bride. On the way, his guide, the disguised angel Raphael, shows him how to chase Asmodeus and cure his father of blindness (Tob 6:6–7; 11:1–13). Poverty and illness while acting piously correlate Tobi’s fortunes to these of Job, as noted by all commentators.9 However, unlike Job, Tobi’s suffering does not cause him to question divine justice, but instead extracts from him a confession of his own and Israel’s sins (Tob 3:2–9). So Tobi is not a righteous man in a distant land, as is Job, but a specific character, a righteous Jew in the Assyrian exile. Nevertheless, the model of a suffering righteous man plays a central role in the story of Tobit as it does in the book of Job.10 And a remarkable number of thematic threads in Tobit link to traditions pertaining to Job. One of them concerns the terse exchange between Tobi and his wife, Hannah (Tob 2:11–19), which may be grasped fully only against the backdrop of various traditions related to Job. The portrayal of Hannah in the book of Tobit is unusual in that she is pictured in dual aspect. In the first chapter, she is presented as a relative of Tobi (Tob 1:9) e. g., Moore, Tobit, 133; Fitzmyer, Tobit, 138–39. for instance, Gary A. Anderson, “Tobit as Righteous Sufferer,” in A Teacher for All Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. VanderKam (eds. E. F. Mason et al.: JSJSup 153/II; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 2:493–507 (497–98). Like others, Anderson notes the similarity of Tobi’s suffering to that of Job but also their major difference. Tobi does not revolt against his lot but accepts it as punishment for his people’s sins, in which he partakes. In my judgment, this discrepancy suggests that Tobi’s character is built on the topos of the righteous man who is tested by suffering with the intention of purifying him from the impurity of sin, an idea found in the sectarian literature from Qumran. Cf. Devorah Dimant, “‘The Crucible of Tests’: A Central Concept in the Thinking of the Qumran Community,” in Connected Vessels, 161–74.   9 Cf.,

10 See,

232

The Wife of Job and the Wife of Tobit

and her marriage to him reflects the major idea of the work, endogamy. When Tobi lost his prominent office, he stated that he was left only with his wife and son (1:20), indicating how important they were to him. Among the directives Tobi gave to his son Tobiah before he undertook the journey to Raga was that of honoring his mother (Tob 4:3–4). Although the formulation echoes the fifth of the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:12), in this context it lends a positive aspect to Tobit’s wife. The picture of Hannah the mother, her anxiety for her son Tobiah embarking on a long journey, and their joyful reunion upon his return (11:9) – a meeting built on the reunion of Jacob with Joseph (Gen 46:29) – is depicted in a favorable light. In an overt contrast to this portrayal stands the bitter exchange Tobi has with his wife after being blinded. The relevant passage describes it as follows: And at that time my wife Hannah took employment for wages in women’s work. She delivered (it) to her employers and they gave her her wages. And on the seventh of Dystrus, she cut the web and sent it to the employers. And they gave her all her wages and gave her a kid for the house. And when the kid came to me, it began to bleat. And I called her and I said ‘Where is the kid from? Can it be that it is stolen? Return it to its owners for we do not have the right to eat anything stolen.’ And she said to me, ‘It was given to me as a gift in addition to my wages.’ I did not believe her and told her to give it to her employers. And I became flushed (with anger) at her because of this. Then replying, she said to me, ‘And where are your alms? Where are your righteous deeds? Look, the things about you are well known!’ Being deeply saddened at heart, I groaned and wept … (Tob 2:11–3:1a GII).11

Hannah’s character portrayed in this exchange differs considerably from the picture of the faithful wife and anxious mother drawn in other scenes in Tobit. Indeed, modern commentators had difficulty in making sense of it. Some remarked that in this episode Tobi treats his wife with undeserved harshness while she works to provide for them, having been reduced to poverty.12 But others have noticed the affinity of Tobi’s wife’s discourse to the provocative rejoinder of Job’s wife.13 After the loss of Job’s property, his sons, and his health, his wife tells her husband: “Are you still holding to your innocence? Blaspheme God and die” (MT Job 2:9). In the MT text, Job responds in words no less terse: “You talk as any shameless woman might talk! Should we accept only good from God and not accept evil?” (MT Job 2:10). Thus, Job’s reply vindicates his uprightness and 11 The translation is that of Robert J. Littman, Tobit: The Book of Tobit in Codex Sinaiticus (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 7 with slight alterations. 12 Cf., e. g., Moore, Tobit, 133; Helen Schüngel-Straumann, Tobit (Freiburg: Herder, 2000), 72–73; Beverly A. Bow and George W. E. Nickelsburg, “Patriarchy with a Twist: Men and Women in Tobit,” in “Women Like This”: New Perspectives on Jewish Women in the GrecoRoman World (ed. A. J. Levine; SBLEJL 1; Atlanta: SBL, 1991), 127–43 (136). 13 Cf. Moore, Tobit, 135, 141. The similarity already caught the eyes of Jerome or his source for, in his Vulgate Latin translation of Tobit, Jerome supplies a passage on the subject (translated below).

The Wife of Job and the Wife of Tobit

233

faith. But the Greek Septuagint translation inserts here a passage not found in the Hebrew. It appears that the book of Tobit drew on this form of Job’s story.14 The Septuagint addition reads as follows: Then after a long time had passed, his wife said to him: “How long will you persist and say, ‘Look I will hang on a little longer, while I wait for the hope of my deliverance?’ For look, your legacy has vanished from the earth – sons and daughters, my womb’s birth pangs and labors, for whom I wearied myself with hardships in vain. And you sit in the refuse of worms as you spend the night in the open air. As for me, I am one that wanders about and a hired servant from place to place and house to house, waiting for the setting of the sun, so I can rest from the distresses and grief that now beset me. Now say some word to the Lord and die!” (LXX Job 2:9).15

In the MT version, Job’s wife simply addresses her husband with a short phrase about his dire circumstance while in the Septuagint she prefaces the address with complaints about her own condition. Following the death of the children, she laments the disappearance of those she gave birth to in pain; due to Job’s disease she fears for his approaching death; and due to the loss of property she complains of having to work as a servant in other houses and pass her days in toil and sorrow. These grievances are not specified in the narrative framework of MT Job, but they may be inferred from Job’s own words in one of his discourses: 14 The Septuagint translation of Job abounds with Hellenistic components and various expansions not found in the Hebrew version. See, e. g., Gillis Gerleman, Studies in the Septuagint, I: Book of Job (Lund: Gleerup, 1946), 7–8, 49–50; Marguerite Harl, Gilles Dorival, and Olivier Munnich, La Bible Grecque des Septante (Paris: Cerf, 1988), 105; Markus Witte, “The Greek Book of Job,” in Das Buch Hiob und seine Interpretation (eds. T. Krüger et al.; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2007), 33–54 (38–41); Johann Cook, “The Septuagint of Job,” in Johann Cook and Arie van der Kooij, Law, Prophets, and Wisdom: On the Provenance of Translators and their Books in the Septuagint Version (Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 175–226 (225). 15 Translated (with slight alterations) by Claude E. Cox, “Job,” in A New English Translation of the Septuagint (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 667–96 (671). It has been proposed that the extended exchange between Job and his wife in the LXX is a later addition, borrowed, perhaps, from haggadic elaborations on Job’s career. Cf. Witte, “The Greek Book of Job,” 43. In any case, the affinity between LXX Job and Tobit may suggest an early date for this tradition. Yet the similarity could also have occurred at the level of the Greek translations of Tobit. Unfortunately, the Tobit passage in question has not survived in the Qumran copies. Nevertheless, the first word of Tob 2:10, which introduces the pericope, did survive in 4Q196 4, and perhaps confirms the early origin of the haggadic tradition underlying both LXX Job and Tob 2. Markus Witte thinks that the similarity between LXX Job 2:9–10 and Tob 2:13–14 is due to a secondary updating, reflecting the situation of women in Hellenistic Judaism. Cf. idem, “Hiob und seine Frau in jüdischen Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit,” in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature – Yearbook 2008: Biblical Figures in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (eds. H. Lichtenberger and U. Mittmann-Richter; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2009), 355–94 (368). In contrast, and on the basis of linguistic examination of the translation technique, Johann Cook estimates that the additions were inserted by the translator. See idem, “The Septuagint of Job,” 192. However this may be, Tobit was probably composed in the land of Israel during the third century B. C. E. whereas the Septuagint to Job is Hellenistic (cf. n. 14 above) and was probably authored later in Alexandria. So the affinity between the two appears to go back to a common tradition at home in the land of Israel.

234

The Wife of Job and the Wife of Tobit

“May my wife grind for another, may others kneel over her” (MT Job 31:1016). Job’s phrase is read as a self-accusation beginning in the previous verse. Job swears that if he ever desired his neighbor’s wife, his wife should be cursed by working for others as a common slave who is exposed to sexual abuse. However, some interpretations took the Hebrew yiqtol forms used by the MT not as being conditional but as the depiction of an actual situation. In the Septuagint, the formulation of Job’s wife’s complaint suggests that the work in the service of strangers is indeed an actual state. In the Greek, the entire verse is translated as referring to sexual promiscuity, for the MT ‫( תטחן‬literally “will grind/grinds”17) is rendered “will be pleasing.”18 The printed Targum of Job and the Vulgate take the verb explicitly as “having sexual intercourse,”19 as does the rabbinic interpretation.20 The fragment of the Job Targum from Qumran preserves only the words [‫תטחן ל‬.21 Since the tear in the manuscript is not large enough to accommodate the translation of the entire verse, the editors suggest that, due to the sexual connotation of the Hebrew, the Qumran Targum dropped the second part of the verse.22 So even though the Septuagint to Job 2:9 does not say that working as a servant involved sexual promiscuity, it is expressly formulated in the Septuagint rendering of Job 31:10. A similar picture of Job’s wife is also drawn by the Greek Testament of Job, taking its cue from the Septuagint of Job. Probably composed in Alexandria during the first century B. C. E. or the beginning of the first century C. E., the writing adapts the tale of Job according to the taste of its time and place.23 This composition relates how Job’s first wife, Sitidos, was hired to work for others (21:1; 22:1; 39:1; 40:5–6). The passage from the Septuagint cited above is almost literally 16 ‫אחרין‬

‫תטחן לאחר אשתי ועליה יכרעון‬. root ‫ טחן‬is used both literally “to grind, crush” and metaphorically for sexual intercourse. Cf. HALOT 2:374. This is also noted by Witte, “Hiob und seine Frau,” 359 n. 14. 18 The Greek ἀρέσαι. 19 The Vulgate has scortum sit alterius uxor mea (“let my wife be the harlot of another”). The Targum translates ‫“( תשמש עם חורן אתתי‬my wife will have sexual intercourse with others”). See the critical edition of David M. Stec, The Text of the Targum of Job: An Introduction and Critical Edition (AGAJU 20: Leiden: Brill, 1994), 209*. Raphael Weiss concluded that this Job Targum is a compendium of various Targumim of Job and therefore cannot be dated with precision. Cf. idem, The Aramaic Targum of Job (Tel Aviv: University Press, 1979), 73 (Heb.). Céline Mangan supports this conclusion but recognizes an ancient core in the Targum. Cf. eadem, The Targum of Job (ArBib 15; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991), 69–70. 20 Cf. Num. Rab. 9, 24; b. Soṭah 10a. See Rashi ad Job 31:10. 21 11QtgJob XVIII, 3. Cf. DJD XXIII, 121. 22 Cf. ibid., 121. Doubt about this proposal has been expressed by David Shepherd, Targum and Translation: A Reconsideration of the Qumran Aramaic Version of Job (Assen: Van Gorcum, 2004), 43–44. 23 Cf. Russell P. Spittler, “Testament of Job,” in OTP 1:829–68 (833–34). For the Greek text, see Sebastian P. Brock, Testamentum Iobi (PVTG 2; Leiden: Brill, 1967), 3–59; Robert A. Kraft, The Testament of Job (Texts and Translations 5; Missoula: SBL, 1974). The book is preserved also in Slavonic and Coptic versions. See the survey of Maria Haralambakis, The Testament of Job (London: Bloomsbury, 2014), 29–70. 17 The

The Wife of Job and the Wife of Tobit

235

taken up by T. Job, ch. 24:1–6.24 However, T. Job supplies additional details. On Satan’s instigation, Sitidos goes to the market and sells her hair in order to obtain bread for her husband. For a woman to expose her hair in public, and cut it off before a staring crowd, is a clear sign of sexual promiscuity (24:9).25 Thus, the sources cited above attest to a tradition that depicts the poverty and humiliation of Job’s wife in working for others, and the sexual abuse she suffered in these circumstances. The situation of Tobi’s wife as drawn by Tobit is remarkably similar to that of Job’s wife.26 Like Job’s wife, Tobi’s spouse is also occupied with work done for others in order to sustain her husband and herself. She too complains about it to her husband. It is this complaint that induces in Tobi such grief and despair that he wishes to be dead (Tob 3:1, 6).27 But while the analogy between Job and Tobi is apparent, the course of events is not clear in Tobit as it is in Job. For, on a cursory reading, Tobi’s accusation of theft by his wife is unjustified; his reaction of sorrow and despair to her words appears exaggerated and even out of place. In fact, the text is not clear about why he calls his wife’s words “false insults” (Tob 3:628). Only a close reading of the scene reveals hints to the real motif of Tobi’s grief. They are perceived only by decoding the skillful biblical allusions scattered in the story. 24 The dependence of T. Job on the Septuagint of Job has been demonstrated convincingly by Berndt Schaller, “Das Testament Hiobs und die Septuaginta Überseztung des Buches Hiob,” Bib 61 (1980): 83–91. On T. Job’s method in reworking the Job narrative, see Christopher T. Begg, “Comparing Characters: The Book of Job and the Testament of Job,” in The Book of Job (ed. W. A. M. Beuken; BETL 114; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1994), 435–45; Haralambakis, The Testament of Job, 76–140. 25 As noted by Susan R. Garrett, “The ‘Weaker Sex’ in the Testament of Job,” JBL 112 (1993): 55–70 (62–63). Van der Horst stresses the disgrace implied by the shorn hair. See Peter W. van der Horst, “Images of Women in the Testament of Job,” in Studies on the Testament of Job (eds. M. A. Knibb and P. W. van der Horst; SNTSMS 68; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 93–116 (97 n. 15). For an analysis of the narrative technique of this episode, see Haralambakis, The Testament of Job, 123–24. 26 A particular affinity may be observed between Tobi’s wife (Tob 2:13–23) and Job’s wife in the version of the Testament of Job. In T. Job 21:1, it is stated that Job’s wife was hired as a servant, just as was Tobi’s wife. In T. Job 37:1, Baldad asks Job: “In whom do you still hope?,” a formulation resembling the words of Tobi’s wife to her husband (ibid.). Cf. Marc Philonenko, Le Testament de Job (Sem 18; Paris: Maisonneuve, 1968), 37, 47; Berndt Schaller, Das Testament Hiobs (JSHRZ III/3; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1979), 356. 27 The similarity between Tobit and Job was stressed by Jerome and he inserted into his Vulgate translation of Tobit an addition to this effect (Tob 2:10). In the insertion, he puts the wife’s retort into the mouth of Tobi’s kinsfolk: “so too those relatives and kinsfolk of his [Tobit’s] derided his kind of life, saying ‘Where now is that hope of yours, for which you gave alms and buried people?’” The translation is that of Fitzmyer, Tobit, 138–39. 28 ὀνειδισμοὺς ψευδεῖς (acc.plur.) in GII and GI. The Greek ὀνειδισμός is given the renderings “insulting utterance” (GELSM, 498) or “disgrace, insult” (GELS, 439). It was translated variously by commentators, e. g., “false reproaches” (Simpson, “Tobit,” 208); “unwarranted insults” (Zimmermann, Tobit, 61); “undeserved insults” (Moore, Tobit, 137); “untrue reproaches” (Fitzmyer, Tobit, 144).

236

The Wife of Job and the Wife of Tobit

It should be noted that while Tobi’s wife works for others just as Job’s wife does, she is not employed in their houses as is her parallel counterpart, but does the work at home, where she weaves cloth (Tob 2:12). However, she goes to her employers to deliver her handiwork and receives there her payment (Tob 2:12– 13). This is, then, a motif, albeit slightly mitigated, taken from the Job story. The first hint of something irregular in Hannah’s circumstances is suggested by the fact that she receives a gift, a kid, in addition to her payment. The GII version stresses that she received her full fees, thus suggesting that the kid is not related to the payment for her weaving job.29 In fact, both versions provide Hannah’s statement that the kid was an addition to her wages but no reason is given for this gift. On the face of it, Tobi’s accusation that the kid was stolen appears entirely unfounded.30 However, behind this accusation lies a graver suspicion, which is suggested by the nature of the gift, a kid. The improper character of this bonus is implied by the type of animal given as a gift. For, in a book replete with allusions to the Hebrew Bible as is the book of Tobit, the choice of a kid cannot be fortuitous. It is immediately evocative of the kid Judah wished to give as payment to the prostitute he took his daughter-in-law Tamar to be (Gen 38:17, 20). The term ‫ גדי עזים‬used by the Masoretic Text in the Genesis story is translated by the word ἔριφος in the Septuagint, the word selected also by Tobit in both recensions (2:12–13).31 Tobi openly accuses Hannah of theft, but his suspicion of her sexual licentiousness is implied. Only such a suspicion accounts for Tobi’s rage, shame, and disbelief in his wife’s reply, reactions that are inexplicable based on the explicit events.32 In light of Tobi’s suspicion, Hannah’s derisive words are tainted by bitter irony: “Where are your righteous actions? And where are your gracious acts? What happened to you is known” (Tob 2:11–14). Hannah’s words not only mock Tobi’s piousness and rebuke his distrust of her, but they also imply censure of his integrity and honesty, while he himself suspects her of unfaithful29 The word “all” is missing in the short version. The word ὀνειδισμός serves as a lexical and thematic link between Tobi’s prayer and the following one of Sarah (Tob 3:7); for Sarah too hears insults from a maidservant. 30  Renate Egger-Wenzel thinks that Tobi is accusing his wife of transgressing the eighth commandment, which forbids theft. Cf. eadem, “The Emotional Relationship of the Married Couple Hannah and Tobit,” in Family and Kinship in the Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2012/2013; ed. A. Passaro; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013), 41–74 (54). 31 The use in Codex Sinaiticus of the expression ἔριφον ἐξ αἰγῶν (“a kid of goats”), an exact translation of the Hebrew ‫גדי עזים‬, is remarkable. The same rendering of this expression appears in Gen 38:20 and the translator of Codex Sinaiticus may have been influenced by it. Note the same Hebrew locution and the same Greek translation in Judg 15:1, which relates how Samson wished to visit his wife with a gift of a kid. This incident may also be echoed here. The suggestion of Daniel Bertrand that the kid was intended for the paschal feast is unconvincing. It does not explain Tobi’s anger and despair at the discovery of the animal. Cf. idem, “Le chevreau d’Hannah: la signification de l’anecdotique dans le livre de Tobit,” RHPR 68 (1988): 269–74. 32 See also the comments of Zimmermann, Tobit, 59; Renzo Petraglio, “Tobit e Hannah; un cammino difficile nella crisi di una coppia,” RivBib 52 (2004): 358–402 (390).

The Wife of Job and the Wife of Tobit

237

ness. This context clarifies why Tobi labeled his wife’s words “false insults” (Tob 3:6),33 and why he reacted in grief and despair and wished to die (Tob 3:1, 6). Thus, the image of Tobi’s wife modeled here on that of Job’s wife but illfitted to her overall representation in Tobit’s tale nevertheless has a particular role in Tobi’s sufferings. For her words bring him to the brink of death. These circumstances, together with the corresponding suffering of Sarah, are the lowest point of the plot, which permit the ascension towards the apex of rescue and divine help. *** The small scene analyzed above provides an illuminating example of the manner in which ancient Jewish literature reworked biblical traditions. It highlights the methods used to reshape and modify biblical motifs and the use of various haggadic traditions made by Tobi in order to accomplish his task. Thus, the episode discussed here illustrates the way in which biblical episodes were developed and adorned by various haggadic elaborations, in a kind of reflection within a reflection of a prism. Such examples of biblical interpretation have been preserved at the fringes of ancient Jewish exegesis. These traditions developed through their own particular channels, not necessarily in the way intended by the authors who introduced them into their compositions. Hence, these works should not be dated based on certain traditions used therein, for traditions go in one direction while compositions that rework them go another way.

33 Part of this phrase has been preserved in the Hebrew copy of Tobit: ‫מאש]ר ֹ לחיות כי‬ ‫( חרפות [שקר‬4Q200 1 i 3–4), translated by Fitzmyer (DJD XIX, 64) “then] to live, for [false] reproaches.”

Works Originally Composed in Hebrew

Judah and Tamar in Jubilees 41 In recent years, the book of Jubilees has gained renewed attention chiefly due to the impact of the Qumran Scrolls.1 The presence of fifteen Hebrew copies of Jubilees among the Scrolls not only uncovered portions of the original Hebrew text but also indicated the importance of this work in the eyes of the Qumran library’s owners. The particular ideological make-up of Jubilees acquired new significance in light of its close affinity to the Qumran sectarian configuration. Known in its entirety only in the Ethiopic version as part of the Scriptures of the Ethiopic church, the discovery of the Qumran fragments has confirmed the older scholarly view that Jubilees is a Jewish composition, composed in Hebrew in the land of Israel during the second century B. C. E.2 The question of how and why Jubilees came into the hands of the Ethiopic church is still unanswered, but the discoveries at Qumran gave new impetus to the study of Jubilees as part of the rich literary heritage composed in Hebrew during the Second Temple era. The study of the close links in Jubilees to the worldview of the Qumran sectarian literature became central to this new impulse. Jubilees is structured as an address by the angel of presence to Moses on Mount Sinai, in which the angel relates the history of humankind from the creation to the exodus. This is achieved by following the biblical sequence with various abbreviations, omissions, and expansions, a method by now well 1 Some impression of the growing literature on Jubilees may be gained from the recent bibliography compiled by Isaac W. Oliver and Veronika Bachmann, “The Book of Jubilees: An Annotated Bibliography from the First German Translation of 1850 to the Enoch Seminar of 2007,” Hen 31 (2009): 123–64. The publication of an edition of the full Ge‛ez version and its translation by James C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (2 vols.; CSCO 510–511; Scriptores Aethiopici 87–88; Louvain: Peeters, 1989) has been significant. All citations and renderings from Jubilees in the present article are taken from these two volumes, unless otherwise stated. For a general survey of the writing and its date and provenance, see Michael Segal, The Book of Jubilees: Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology and Theology (JSJSup 117; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 1–41. 2 The Qumran fragments are the following: 1Q17, 1Q18, 2Q19, 2Q20, 3Q5, 4Q216–4Q224, 11Q12. As for the date, see James C. VanderKam, Textual and Historical Studies in the Book of Jubilees (HSM 14; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977), 1–6, 207–38. VanderKam opts for a Maccabean date, between 161 and 152 B. C. E., because he believes that Jubilees contains allusions to the campaigns of Judah Maccabeus. This overly precise date has not gained general consent; as Michael Knibb remarked in a review of VanderKam’s volume (in JSS 25 [1980]: 274), “there is something to be said for the view that Jubilees was composed earlier in the second century B. C.”

242

Judah and Tamar in Jubilees 41

known from other contemporary Jewish compositions, both Qumranic and nonQumranic. As it reworks the biblical sources, Jubilees stresses two main aspects: it establishes a historical chronology of year-weeks and jubilees, and it states that the ancient ancestors of humanity and the patriarchs of Israel knew and practiced the basic Torah commandments prior to Sinai.3 In this way, analogies are set between, for example, Adam and Eve’s entry into paradise and the laws pertaining to the impurity of women after childbirth (3:8–14); Noah’s covenant and the Shavuot festival (6:1–14); the rape of Dinah and the prohibition of Israelite women marrying Gentiles (30:1–15). Accordingly, the scholarly investigation of Jubilees has centered on two related issues: the halakhic approach evinced by the book and the specific methods it adopts for reworking its biblical sources.4 Scholarship usually understands Jubilees to be the work of a single author.5 Only sporadically have scholars noted the inconsistencies and even contradictions in the narrative and concluded that they are evidence of multiple underlying traditions or sources.6 In one of the most detailed investigations of Jubilees, Michael Segal has proposed a systematic examination of the structure and literary texture of Jubilees.7 He is the first to address comprehensively and in detail how and why the author of Jubilees used secondary sources. Segal begins with the observation that numerous sections of Jubilees display discrepancies or contradictions between the narrative episodes and their 3 For a detailed description of the major topics in Jubilees, see James C. VanderKam, “The Origins and Purpose of the Book of Jubilees,” in Studies in the Book of Jubilees (eds. M. Albani, J. Frey, and A. Lange; TSAJ 65; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 3–24; Segal, Book of Jubilees, 5–11. 4 On the halakhic approach, see the classical analysis of Chanoch Albeck, “Das Buch der Jubilaen und die Halacha,” Bericht der Hochschule für die Wissenschaft des Judentums 27 (1930): 3–60. See also the updated assessment of Albeck’s article by Michael Segal, “‘My Monograph on the Book of Jubilees’: A Jubilee-and-a-Half after the Publication of Prof. Chanoch Albeck’s Study,” Jewish Studies 45 (2008): 49–65 (Heb.). On the connection of the halakhah of Jubilees to the Qumranic halakhah, see, e. g., Lawrence H. Schiffman, “The Book of Jubilees and the Temple Scroll,” in Enoch and the Mosaic Torah: The Evidence of Jubilees (eds. G. Boccaccini and G. Ibba; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 99–115; and Aharon Shemesh, “4Q265 and the Authoritative Status of Jubilees at Qumran,” in Enoch and the Mosaic Torah, 247–60. On the reworking of biblical sources, see, e. g., John C. Endres, Biblical Interpretation in the Book of Jubilees (CBQMS 18; Washington: Catholic Biblical Association, 1987); and James C. VanderKam, “Biblical Interpretation in 1 Enoch and Jubilees,” in The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation (eds. J. H. Charlesworth and C. A. Evans; JSPSup 14; Sheffield: Academic Press, 1993), 96–125. 5 Cf. the surveys of research by VanderKam, “The Origins and Purpose,” 4–16; Segal, Book of Jubilees, 11–21. 6 See the list of traditions incorporated into Jubilees, as proposed by Gene L. Davenport, The Eschatology of the Book of Jubilees (StPB; Leiden: Brill, 1971), 10–11. Davenport suggests a three-stage redaction of the book. 7 Segal, Book of Jubilees.

Judah and Tamar in Jubilees 41

243

chronological framework and halakhic interpretations.8 He concludes that the accumulation of such instances betrays the work of an editor who was reworking disparate sources.9 Yet he goes still further to assert that the author/redactor of Jubilees reworked written sources at his disposal.10 This redactor, posits Segal, is responsible for the major unique features of Jubilees, namely the overall unified chronological framework, the particular halakhic approach, and the dualistic ideology. The major contribution of Segal’s innovative conclusions is that they are based on a systematic analysis of a wide selection of passages from Jubilees. The most convincing part of Segal’s analysis pertains to chronology, for the discrepancies he detects are unequivocal. For instance, according to Jub. 3:17, Adam’s entry into paradise occurs on the 17th of the second month of the eighth year of the world. However, the calculation obtained from the attached legal section dates the same event to the 14th of that month (Jub. 3:8–14).11 In another example, Jubilees states that six jubilees equal three hundred years of the life of Enoch, taking a jubilee to consist of fifty years, not forty-nine years (the span maintained elsewhere throughout the book).12 A third example is connected to the births of Jacob’s sons. Jubilees 28 follows the sequence of Genesis 31, but this order yields dates that do not fit into the overall chronology of Jubilees.13 However, the issues regarding the relationship between narratives and halakhic passages are more complex and not always so clear-cut because the alleged discrepancies between these two types of material are open to different interpretations. It is here that some of Segal’s expositions are cogent. For instance, it has long been recognized that in describing the life of Enoch, Jubilees makes use of the traditions of the Book of Watchers (= 1 En. 1–36).14 But not all the cases adduced by Segal are as convincing, as some of them hinge on his general thesis rather than on the specific details. I wish to illustrate this point by analyzing one episode, the story of Judah and Tamar (Genesis 38) as reworked by Jubilees 41. The results are markedly different from those of Segal. In this way, I hope to contribute to the ongoing discussion on the nature and character of Jubilees. The biblical story of Judah and Tamar in Genesis 38 relates how Er and Onan, the two husbands of Tamar (the wife Judah chose for the sons he fathered by his Canaanite consort [Gen 38:2; 1 Chr 2:3]), died childless. Since Tamar was not the list of such discrepancies in Segal, Book of Jubilees, 21–29. Book of Jubilees, 29–35, 317–19. 10 Segal, Book of Jubilees, 14 n. 36. 11 Segal, Book of Jubilees, 54–55. 12 I have pointed out this discrepancy in my essay “The Biography of Enoch and the Books of Enoch,” n. 17 in this volume. See further Segal, Book of Jubilees, 16–17, 84–85. 13 Segal, Book of Jubilees, 85–93. 14 Cf. Segal’s discussion in Book of Jubilees, 103–43. Segal rightly emphasizes (p. 143) that the episode of the Watchers in Jubilees (and, I may add, also in 1 Enoch) does not aim to explain the existence of evil, as is often asserted, but to treat the problem of sin and punishment. I stressed this point long ago (see Dimant, “Fallen Angels,” 60–62).   8 See

  9 Segal,

244

Judah and Tamar in Jubilees 41

given to the third son, Shelah, as Judah had promised and as he should have done according to the Levirate law (Deut 25:5–6), Tamar dressed up as a prostitute, met Judah, and became pregnant by him. When her pregnancy became known, Judah ordered her to be burned for fornication. But Tamar sent him the signet, cord, and staff he had left with her as a pledge. Judah then knew that he was the father of her unborn child and that he had wronged his daughter-in-law. Judah was never intimate with her again. The Jubilees version of the Judah and Tamar story alters some of the biblical details and supplies additional information. Segal finds in it a typical example of the discord recurrent in Jubilees between narrative depictions and their corresponding halakhic passages. In the present case, Segal assigns vv. 1–21, 27–28 of Jubilees 41 to the narrative section, which recounts the events related to the story. The corresponding halakhic section (vv. 23–26 according to Segal’s interpretation) prescribes death by burning for any man who engages in incestuous intercourse with his mother-in-law or his daughter-in-law. According to Segal, the additions to the narrative section in Jubilees are intended to mitigate Judah’s guilt in several ways:15 (1) Judah erred in marrying the Canaanite Bat-Shua. It was she who brought death upon Er and Onan; Er hated Tamar because he wanted to take a Canaanite wife from his mother’s family (41:2). Onan’s death must have occurred for similar reasons, as can be discerned from its proximity to Er’s disappearance.16 Segal surmises that Judah intended to fulfill his promise to Tamar and give her to Shelah, but Bat-Shua prevented it (41:6). So, according to Segal, the narrative attributes to Judah only the fault of marrying a Canaanite; (2) Some details alleviate, pace Segal, the apparent contradiction between Judah’s actions and the prohibition in Leviticus against engaging in sexual intercourse with one’s daughter-in-law (Lev 18:15; 20:12). According to Jubilees, Tamar was a virgin when she was intimate with Judah, as Judah learns from the angels that appear in his dream (41:27). In Segal’s interpretation, this additional detail implies that Tamar’s marriages to Er and Onan were not consummated and therefore the Levitical interdiction of illicit intercourse with a daughter-in-law, which includes the penalty of being cut off (karet), does not apply to Judah. Only the Levirate law is applicable, for Tamar remains the widow of the two brothers; (3) Another addition supplied by Jubilees (41:28) states that, in condemning Tamar to be burned, Judah was following the commandments of Abraham to his sons to burn any Israelite guilty of harlotry 15 Segal, Book of Jubilees, 60. James Kugel accepts the results of Segal’s analysis, including the dissection of the Judah and Tamar episode into two sources. In Kugel’s opinion, an interpolator imposed his own different views on an already existing book of Jubilees, thereby creating the contradictions pointed out by Segal; see James L. Kugel, “On the Interpolations in the Book of Jubilees,” RevQ 24 (2009): 215–72 (217, 245). The following analysis suggests that it is not easy in all cases to detect two distinct sources and therefore the hypothesis of an editor or interpolator is not always applicable. 16 See n. 23 below concerning T. Jud. 10:2, 5.

Judah and Tamar in Jubilees 41

245

(20:4). Segal identifies here a further element that mitigates Judah’s guilt since by judging Tamar he fulfilled his ancestor’s command based on Lev 21:9. Segal thinks the expression ‫“( צדקה ממני‬she is more just than I”), pronounced by Judah after he learned that he fathered Tamar’s child (Gen 38; Jub. 41:19), legally annuls her alleged sin of fornication. So, in Segal’s reasoning, the narrative abrogates Judah’s incestuous connection by noting Tamar’s virginity and by the remark that Judah was following his ancestor Abraham’s instructions in meting out this punishment to Tamar. Segal concludes, “In sum, Jubilees 41:1–21, 27–28 presents a story in which Judah erred in the choice of a Canaanite wife, but from that point on, he neither made any mistake nor did he sin.”17 In contrast, Segal argues that in the halakhic section attached to Jub. 41:23–26 “one finds a completely different evaluation of Judah’s actions.”18 The disagreements identified by Segal are the following: (1) While the narrative mitigates Judah’s guilt in various ways, the halakhic section asserts that the offense is still in force, for it was pardoned only due to Judah’s penitence; (2) The narrative connects the punishment intended by Judah for Tamar with the interdiction against an Israelite marrying a Gentile, specified in Jub. 20:4 (41:28), whereas the legal section sees in Judah’s deed a transgression against the interdiction of sexual intercourse with one’s daughter-in-law;19 (3) The two sections of Jubilees interpret Judah’s recognition of Tamar differently (Gen 38:26). In the narrative, Judah recognizes that Tamar was in the right because of the Levirate law (Jub. 41:18), whereas in the legal paragraph Judah recognizes his own sinful act. From these alleged differences, Segal draws the conclusion that two traditions are combined in Jubilees 41, and that the combination should be understood “as part of the process of literary development of Jubilees.”20 However, a careful analysis of the various details shows that they may be interpreted differently. Let us take another look at the Jubilees version of the story. The true nature of Judah’s actions is better understood against the background of his sons’ behavior. The Genesis account gives no reason for Er’s death and merely states, “But Er, Judah’s eldest son, was evil in the eyes of God and he took his life” (38:7). Jubilees reproduces the phrase with a slight alteration: “And this Er, Judah’s eldest son, was wicked, and the Lord took his life” (41:3).21 Book of Jubilees, 65. ibid. 19 Segal, Book of Jubilees, 67, points out that the legal section mentions punishment by fire for intercourse with one’s daughter-in-law (Jub. 41:28), although this form of punishment is not specified by the corresponding Torah law (Lev 20:12). In Segal’s explanation, Jubilees does so by drawing an analogy between this offense and the case of a man having intercourse with his wife and her mother, namely his mother-in-law, which is punishable by burning (Lev 20:14). 20 Segal, Book of Jubilees, 72. The alleged discrepancies are discussed on pp. 63–71. 21 The translation is that of Robert H. Charles, revised by Chaim Rabin, “Jubilees,” in The Apocryphal Old Testament (ed. H. E. D. Sparks; Oxford: Clarendon, 1984), 119. By selecting the word “wicked” (adopted by VanderKam, Jubilees: Translation, 267) the Charles–Rabin 17 Segal, 18 Segal,

246

Judah and Tamar in Jubilees 41

Er’s wickedness is described explicitly by Jubilees. He wished to take a wife from his Canaanite mother’s family, but his father made him marry the Aramean Tamar. So Er hated Tamar and did not lie with her (41:2). In acting this way, Er not only disobeyed his father, he also defied the ancestral directive to exercise brotherly love, a command Jubilees attributes to Abraham (20:2) and Jacob (36:4, 8).22 These non-biblical details supplied by Jubilees condemn Er’s sinful behavior and present his death as a punishment meted out for it.23 Judah’s second son Onan also sinned: “He entered the house of his brother’s wife and poured out his semen on the ground” (Jub. 41:5). He was, then, doubly guilty. He too disobeyed his father’s directive and did not fulfill his Levirate duty with Tamar. Therefore he was punished by a premature, childless, death.24 By explaining the disappearance of Judah’s sons in this way, Jubilees also vindicates Tamar, for Er’s and Onan’s refusal to consummate their marriages permitted her to retain her virginity, as stated in the second part of the story (41:27). The fact that Er and Onan died because of their own sins clears Judah of any connection to their disappearance. Yet a third element of Judah’s behavior is depicted favorably in Jubilees. Judah promises that he will give his third son, Shelah, to Tamar, but since he is still a boy when Onan dies, Tamar is instructed to wait in her father’s house until he grows up. But when Shelah is old enough, he is not permitted to marry Tamar. However, Jubilees attributes this to the influence of Bat-Shua, Judah’s wife (Jub. 41:7), rendering Judah not guilty of breaking his promise.25 Since Judah has acted in good faith, in contrast to the improper behavior of his wife and two sons, the intercourse he had unknowingly with Tamar may be viewed as an acceptable fulfillment of the Levirate law, with Judah replacing his third son, Shelah.26 Four additional details support this line of interpretation: translation emphasizes Er’s guilt. The Ethiopic has here the adjective ’akkuy, which may be translated as both “wicked” and “evil.” See Wolf Leslau, Concise Dictionary of Ge‘ez (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1989), 144. 22  The formulation “and he hated her” is reminiscent of Deut 22:13. 23 T. Jud. 10:2, 5 states that Er was “bad” (πονηρόν) and that Onan acted “in wickedness” (ἐν πονηρία), and both obeyed their mother Bat-Shua’s instructions. Cf. Esther M. Menn, Judah and Tamar (Genesis 38) in Ancient Jewish Exegesis (JSJSup 51; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 149. 24 Also Gen. Rab. 85,4 states that the two brothers were guilty of the same ill-treatment of Tamar. 25 Betsy Halpern-Amaru detects additional negative features of Judah in the biblical story: he marries a Canaanite, he visits a prostitute and leaves with her his own symbols, and he has dealings with an Adullamite. In her opinion, all these faults are softened by Jubilees: Judah arranges an Aramean wife for his son, he leaves his personal items with the prostitute but not the symbols of his royal line, and the Adullamite friend in Genesis becomes an Adullamite employee in Jubilees. See Betsy Halpern-Amaru, The Empowerment of Women in the Book of Jubilees (JSJSup 60; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 116. 26 Menn (Judah and Tamar, 19) considers this to be the meaning of the original account in Genesis 38.

Judah and Tamar in Jubilees 41

247

(1) Judah was a widower at the time he met Tamar (41:7–8);27 (2) he did not give Tamar to his son, Shelah, after Tamar became pregnant by him and he learned of her true identity;28 (3) Judah never lay with Tamar again. These details show that, unbeknown to Judah, when he met Tamar she was, in fact, acting as his legitimate wife according to the Levirate law; (4) Additionally, Judah’s offspring by Tamar is to endure and not be annihilated by the karet punishment. This way of presenting the events suggests that Tamar’s virginity is introduced not to mitigate Judah’s crime, as Segal maintains, but rather to legitimate Tamar’s sons as Judah’s offspring, worthy of continuing his line.29 The angels’ concluding words state precisely this: “We told Judah that his two sons had not lain with her [Tamar]. For this reason his descendents were established for another generation and would not be uprooted.”30 It is noteworthy that Tamar’s merit and her children’s legitimacy are revealed to Judah by the angels of presence in a dream, and not by a third-person narrative detail. This implies divine endorsement and intervention in the event.31 The foregoing interpretation is further supported by the ethnic attribution of the female characters. Tamar’s merit is shown not only by her just expectation of a Levirate marriage, but also by her ethnic origin.32 Judah’s wife, Bat-Shua, is 27 Given its investment in chronological calculations, Jubilees also supplies dates for these events. Judah’s wife died in the year 2168, and Judah met Tamar a year later. Onan had married Tamar three years earlier (41:1). This suggests that Shelah must have been a child of ten or eleven years of age. Since he “grew up” before his mother died (41:7), he must have been thirteen or fourteen years old at that time, old enough to get married. 28 Verse 4:21 reads: “For this reason she was not given to Selom.” Gary A. Anderson, “The Status of the Torah before Sinai,” DSD 1 (1994): 1–29 (27–28), sees difficulty in the formulation “for this reason,” because it may be taken to imply that giving Shelah to Tamar was the right thing to do. However, according to the interpretation proposed above, the causal nexus is linked to the fact that Judah’s intercourse with Tamar consummated the intended union, and therefore Shelah could not be Tamar’s husband. 29 According to Halpern-Amaru (Empowerment, 116), Jubilees wishes to emphasize that the purity of Judah’s family remains intact. In her opinion, Tamar too was cognizant of her virginity and was careful to maintain it (114–15). 30 Segal (Book of Jubilees, 62) has difficulty fitting this verse into his analysis of ch. 41 as the reworking of two different traditions. However, the alternative interpretation that I suggest above avoids this difficulty. 31 Similarly Anderson, “The Status of the Torah,” 28. Some of the strategies in Jubilees for mitigating Judah’s crime are echoed in later Targumim and rabbinic midrashim. See the collection of sources compiled by Avigdor Shinan and Yair Zakovitch, The Story of Judah and Tamar (Research Projects of the Institute of Jewish Studies Monograph Series 15; Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, 1992) (Heb.). Many motifs are shared by Jubilees and the Testament of Judah. See the lists compiled by Shinan and Zakovitch, The Story of Judah and Tamar, 234–35; and Menn, Judah and Tamar, 164. 32 Halpern-Amaru (Empowerment, 115) notes that in Jub. 41:10 Tamar asks for payment for her services only after the intercourse, whereas in the biblical story she did so before the act (Gen 38:16). Halpern-Amaru interprets this change to mean that initially Tamar did not act as a prostitute.

248

Judah and Tamar in Jubilees 41

Canaanite,33 whereas Tamar is Aramean (Jub. 41:1–2).34 Such ethnicities make the women representative of the two peoples. The animosity in Jubilees towards the Canaanites is expressed throughout the composition. Starting with the curse of Canaan by his grandfather Noah (7:13), it continues with Canaan’s unlawful settlement in the land of Israel (10:29–34) and reaches its climax in the forecast of the annihilation awaiting the Canaanites (20:4; 22:20). For all these reasons, a strong prohibition against marrying Canaanites is enjoined in Abraham’s blessing to Jacob (22:21–22). Indeed, Jacob’s mother, Rebecca, follows precisely this directive by sending her son to find a bride from her Aramean family (25:1–3; 27:8–12). In contrast to the Canaanites, the Arameans are presented by Jubilees as kinsfolk of the patriarchs. Aram is one of Shem’s sons, just like the forefathers of Abraham (7:18). Abraham himself was born into an Aramean family (11:15; 12:22). His descendents keep their ties with their Aramean kin, as does Rebecca when she marries Isaac and when she sends her son Jacob to her brother Laban. Also Levi, who will father the priestly line, marries a wife from the family of Terah, Abraham’s father (34:20). In the Judah and Tamar episode, ethnic identities play a particular role. Interestingly, Judah himself is not harmed by taking a Canaanite wife, as one would expect from the conclusion of the Jubilees version of the rape of Dinah, which prohibits marriage between Israelites and Gentiles in no uncertain terms (30:14–15).35 But the disappearance of the childless sons from his Canaanite wife may be viewed as punishment for infringing this interdiction. This, in fact, accords with the punishment mandated by Jubilees (30:14–15): “Israel will not become clean from this impurity while it has one of the foreign women or if anyone has given one of his daughters to any foreign man. For it is blow upon blow and curse upon curse. Every punishment, blow, and curse will come.”36 Some scholars suggest that by specifying that Tamar was Aramean (a nonbiblical detail), Jubilees aims to show that Judah wished to amend his error of taking the Canaanite Bat-Shua.37 But the narrative builds much more on the negative role of Judah’s consort. Besides being a Canaanite, Bat-Shua turns Er 33 Judah’s marriage to her is mentioned in 34:20, so the story in ch. 41 takes this situation as a given and omits Gen 38:1–2, which tells how the marriage was arranged. 34 T. Jud. 10:1 states that Tamar is a descendent of Aram. In the rabbinic midrash, Tamar is made an actual relative of Judah since she comes from the family of Shem (cf. Gen. Rab. 85). Cf. Menn, Judah and Tamar, 146–47; also Yaira Amit, “Hidden Polemics in the Story of Judah and Tamar (Genesis 38:1–30),” Shnaton: An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies 20 (2010): 9–24 (17) (Heb.). In Amit’s opinion, Tamar was probably a Canaanite in the original biblical story. 35 The rabbis disposed of the problem by interpreting “Canaanite” (Gen 38:2) as meaning “from the family of a merchant” (see b. Pesaḥ 3a and some of the Aramaic Targumim [variants of Tg. Onq.; Tg. Ps.-J.]), as pointed out by Anderson, “The Status of the Torah,” 27. 36 Thus also Anderson, “The Status of the Torah,” 25–26. 37 Cf. Shinan and Zakovitch, The Story of Judah, 18; Halpern-Amaru, Empowerment, 113– 14.

Judah and Tamar in Jubilees 41

249

against Tamar, apparently fostering his wish to marry someone from her own family.38 Bat-Shua is also said to prevent her third son, Shelah, from marrying Tamar (41:7). Although Bat-Shua’s sons Er and Onan died because of their own sins, their death represents the annihilation of the Canaanite offspring fathered by the patriarch. Only after Bat-Shua’s death (41:7) did it become possible for Judah to father offspring with the Aramean Tamar (41:8) and it is they who were to carry on his name and line.39 Seen from this perspective, Tamar’s virginity and the Levirate law are two features that make her intercourse with Judah legitimate and even beneficial. The various expansions of the narrative are intended to portray Tamar in a positive light rather than to mitigate Judah’s deed. Accordingly, the narrative section aims to acquit Tamar of all guilt by asserting that she was both chaste and within her rights, and bore to Judah legitimate offspring.40 The second part of the episode (41:23–26) is indeed different from the narrative of the first part, not because it stems from a different source, as Segal argues, but because it deals with a different problem, namely Judah’s crime. For if the virginity of Tamar is not meant to allay Judah’s offense, the sin remains in effect. This much is indeed learned from Judah’s penitence (41:21) and the pardon (41:25). The object of the legal section is to explain why and how Judah’s offense was atoned, and the punishment by fire should be understood in this light. Such a punishment is imposed twice, once in the section dealing with Tamar (41:17) and again in the section dealing with incest (41:26). The two need not be seen as alternative explanations of the same event, as asserted by Segal.41 They may be viewed as explanations of two distinct situations. Burning by fire for fornication, an expansion of the Torah law for the fornicating daughter of a priest (Lev 21:9), is applied to the case of Tamar. The punishment by fire for sexual intercourse with one’s own mother-in-law, expanded to apply to one’s daughter-in-law, is applicable to Judah. The entire episode may therefore be read as an integral, consistent story. That this is the case is shown by other details of the story not taken into account in Segal’s analysis. Especially important in this context is the depiction of Judah’s sin. It contains more than meets the eye. Judah’s acquittal of the crime of incest is dependent upon his ignorance of Tamar’s true identity at the time of their association. Segal compares Judah’s ignorance to Bilhah’s ignorance in the story of her intercourse with Reuben (33:1–9). He rightly emphasizes the different types of ignorance involved. Bilhah and Reuben were ignorant of the law of incest that prohibited sexual intercourse with one’s father’s wife (33:16), to T. Jud. 10:5, Onan likewise obeyed his mother’s wish. “The Status of the Torah,” 28–29. Anderson associates Tamar’s worthiness also with her role as mother of the future royal Davidic genealogy. 40 Segal, Book of Jubilees, 69–70. 41 Segal, Book of Jubilees, 67. 38 According

39 Similarly Anderson,

250

Judah and Tamar in Jubilees 41

which was promulgated only much later, with the giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai.42 But Judah’s case is different; having discovered the woman’s identity, Judah immediately recognizes the sinful nature of his deed (41:23). However, pointing out the different types of ignorance in the two stories does not clarify the dual role played by Judah’s ignorance. With respect to Tamar, it led him to impose on her the penalty for fornication (burning), a judgment that Jubilees attributes to the authority of Abraham (Jub. 20:4). But this ignorance renders the punishment erroneous. Once the error is discovered and Tamar’s just cause is recognized, her alleged guilt is removed. So Judah’s ignorance of Tamar’s identity also helps to clear Tamar of sin. This is expressed by Judah’s words, “Tamar has been more just than I.” Jubilees emphasizes this recognition by adding Judah’s instruction not to burn Tamar (41:19). So the burning intended for Tamar is related to the false accusation against her, and is neither connected to nor contrasted with the penalty of burning for intercourse with one’s motherin-law or daughter-in-law that is mentioned in the legal section in Jub. 41:26.43 With respect to his own ignorance of Tamar’s identity, Judah’s offense is not nullified but rendered unintentional, which is less serious than an intentional offense.44 This inadvertent transgression is further eased by the fact that the moment Judah’s ignorance is cast off he becomes aware of his crime: “Judah knew that what he had done was evil because he had lain with his daughter-in-law” (41:23). How he knew about a law that only came into effect with the giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai is not explained, but this knowledge prompts his penitence and allows a pardon for his offense (41:23–24). Judah’s penitence portrays him as law-abiding, a characteristic also stressed by the angels in another respect. In his dream, the angels praise Judah for following Abraham’s directive in imposing punishment on Tamar. Judah is then pictured as law-abiding on two accounts: when he judged Tamar and when he repented of his own sin. This picture of Judah throws additional light on the message that Judah receives from angels in a dream. He is pardoned because he realized the true nature of his deed and repented (41:25), but he is also promised that his offspring by Tamar will not be destroyed (41:27). The survival of the descendents indicates that the punishment of karet, prescribed by the Torah for the offense of incest, is not to take effect. It thereby expresses Judah’s absolution of the crime of incest, and affirms that Tamar’s offspring will become Judah’s posterity. 42 On

this point, see Anderson, “The Status of the Torah,” 21. to Segal, Book of Jubilees, 71. 44 T. Jud. 13:6; 14:4 explain Judah’s marriage differently; Judah was drunk when he agreed to take the Canaanite as his wife. For the distinction between intentional and unintentional offenses, see Deut 4:22; 19:4–5; Josh 20:23. See also Anderson, “The Status of the Torah,” who devotes a lengthy discussion to the problem of advertent and inadvertent offenses committed before the promulgation of the Torah laws at Sinai; however, this discussion does not address the point being made in the Judah story. 43 Contrary

Judah and Tamar in Jubilees 41

251

The foregoing analysis proposes that the Jubilees narrative of Judah and Tamar is a single, linear story, with no discrepancies between the narrative and legal sections. In fact, the two parts are complementary sections of a single whole. This conclusion is supported by several literary considerations not taken into account by Segal. The subunits 41:24 and 41:27–28, which Segal assigns to two separate sources, are in fact related in both form and content. With respect to form, both belong to a single angelic discourse. Verse 24 introduces the angels who appear to Judah in a dream and tell him that his sin is forgiven because of his repentance and remorse.45 The law against incest cited in the subsequent verses (41:25–26) forms part of the same angelic discourse. This angelic speech continues in the concluding vv. 27–28, which Segal assigns to the alleged narrative section. So the formal unity of 41:23–28 is indicated by the overall sequence and discourse. The thematic development likewise points to a single continuity. At the beginning of their speech, the angels announce the atonement of Judah’s sin (41:25). In the second part, they communicate that Judah’s offspring will survive (41:27), another indication of the atonement. Finally, they add yet another mitigating element of Judah’s actions, namely that initially he acted in accordance with the law prescribed by Abraham (41:28). Thus vv. 24–28 form a single literary unit that is put in the mouth of the angels of presence, a typical literary technique in Jubilees.46 In addition, Segal’s assertion that the legal formulation differs generically from the narrative should be qualified.47 The seemingly different literary forms of narrative and legal material are included in a single overall narrative. The mixture of different genres in one narrative framework is a device often employed by Jubilees, and is used widely in many contemporary apocryphal and apocalyptic compositions. More light on the literary technique used in the story of Judah and Tamar is shed by a comparison with the treatment in Jubilees of the story of Bilhah and Reuben (Jubilees 33). According to Gen 35:22, Reuben, Jacob’s firstborn son, took advantage of his father’s absence and lay with his father’s concubine Bilhah. Apart from this story, this event is referred to negatively only in Gen 49:4, when Jacob gives his final blessings to his sons. In Jubilees, the entire episode is expanded by many additions. Here again, Segal detects a difference between the narrative section, which he identifies as 33:1–9a, and the legal section appended to it (33:9a–20).48 The story acquits Bilhah of committing incest with her husband’s son (cf. Lev 18:8; 20:11; Deut 23:1; 27:20) because she was asleep when Reuben performed the deed, thus making her unaware of it. When she awoke and realized what had happened, she ran away distraught. Later she told Jacob same motif is alluded to in T. Jud. 19:2. e. g., 6:5–15, 19–22. 47 Segal, Book of Jubilees, 71–72. 48 Segal, Book of Jubilees, 73–82. 45 The 46 Cf.,

252

Judah and Tamar in Jubilees 41

what had happened (33:3–6). However, Segal says, “Bilhah’s non-participation is meaningless for the legal passage” because it applies different legal categories to the deed.49 Reuben and Bilhah were ignorant of the Torah interdiction of incest for in their day it had not yet been revealed (33:15–16). Again, when one examines the two sections more closely, they do not necessarily differ or contradict each other. In fact, they may be combined into one coherent story. According to the Leviticus law, the man lying with his father’s wife renders them both guilty. The Jubilees narrative mitigates Bilhah’s guilt by stating her passivity, ignorance, and deep sorrow once she learned the truth.50 Segal attributes both elements to the narrative part of this episode. The same motifs appear in the story of Tamar and Judah.51 Judah’s ignorance of the true nature of the act, and his genuine regret, are both specified. Segal’s analysis of the Judah and Tamar story assigns the motif of Judah’s ignorance to the narrative story, whereas his sorrow and repentance are assigned to the legal section. But in the Reuben and Bilhah episode, her ignorance and sorrow are both part of the same narrative section according to Segal. Yet if, as Segal claims, a distinct and consistent source underlies all the legal passages, how is it that in one context it combines the two motifs but in another it does not? An alternative explanation provides a more fitting clarification of the data. The reworking of the Reuben and Bilhah episode in Jubilees is a single story wherein Bilhah is cleared of guilt in the narrative strand because of her unawareness of the deed, and both she and Reuben are cleared of the sin in the legal strand due to their ignorance of the law. This dual, rather than contradictory, legal perspective casts an interesting light on the Judah and Tamar story. The Judah case also displays a dual legal angle. As with Bilhah, Judah was ignorant of the offense, but he acted according to Abraham’s law when he believed Tamar was adulterous (41:28). Also like Book of Jubilees, 82. relates how Reuben’s passion for Bilhah was inflamed by seeing her bathing in a secret place (33:2), a motif taken from the story of Bathsheba and David (2 Sam 11:2; cf. also Susanna). Jubilees, however, stresses Bilhah’s modesty by specifying that she bathed in a concealed place, a motif also taken up by T. Reu. 3:11; see the comments of James L. Kugel, “Reuben’s Sin with Bilhah in the Testament of Reuben,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom (eds. D. P. Wright, D. N. Freedman, and A. Hurvitz; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 525–54 (533–34). 51 The similar motifs in the two stories are the following: Judah’s ignorance of Tamar’s identity (41:11) is analogous to Bilhah’s unawareness of the rape (33:3–4); Judah’s regret upon discovering the nature of his deed (41:23) is similar to Bilhah’s reaction when she learns what Reuben has done (33:7); Judah never again lay with Tamar after the initial intercourse (41:20), just as Jacob did not with Bilhah (33:9). A more general similarity involves the offense of Judah and Bilhah; despite their ignorance, their sin remains in effect. Judah has to repent in order to be pardoned (41:24), whereas Bilhah must avoid any future contact with her husband because of the impurity she incurred by the forbidden intercourse (33:9). Cf. Anderson, “The Status of the Torah,” 22. 49 Segal,

50 Jubilees

Judah and Tamar in Jubilees 41

253

Bilhah, he deeply regrets his action, and like Jacob, Judah avoids lying with the woman involved in the misdeed (33:9; 41:19).52 In conclusion, the foregoing analysis attempted to show that a close reading of the reworking of the Judah and Tamar episode in Jubilees demonstrates that it is a single consistent story that reflects the particular agenda of its author. Segal’s attempt to split the episode into two distinct sources is therefore not convincing. Not all of Segal’s conclusions should be discarded. Many of his observations are valid. However, the complexity of Jubilees and its subtle and sophisticated reworking of the biblical narratives warn us against schematic solutions to the intricacies of this composition. Undoubtedly, the author of Jubilees drew on diverse traditions but, in molding his own version of the biblical episodes, he often created new consistent stories and wove them into his own complex fabric.

52 A detailed comparison of the reworking of the two episodes in Jubilees is beyond the scope of the present article, as are their ties to Testament of Judah and Testament of Reuben. See Segal’s comments in Book of Jubilees, 73–82; and James L. Kugel, “Judah and the Trial of Tamar,” in The Ladder of Jacob (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006), 177–82.

Hebrew Pseudepigrapha at Qumran The last two decades have seen the emergence of a major group of Qumran compositions that are currently labeled parabiblical or rewritten Bible texts. These documents have produced a variety of Hebrew Bible passages that have been reworked in various ways. They are characterized by the adoption of the stance of biblical authors and draw freely on the biblical original, abbreviating and omitting certain details while, at the same time, supplementing the rewritten texts with nonbiblical interpolations. Given this free handling of the biblical text together with its fluid state, as revealed by the biblical manuscripts found at Qumran, there is a growing tendency to see many rewritten Bible texts as being very close to the biblical text and even having the same scriptural authority.1 This has been claimed, for instance, for Jubilees and the Temple Scroll.2 However, scholars who advance this view disregard the significant differences displayed in the attitude towards the Hebrew Bible between proper copies of biblical books and parabiblical works, which adapt Scriptures. Qumran scriptural copies display sporadic variant readings depending on the character of a given manuscript. But they never condense, abbreviate, or add long passages that are remarkably different from their biblical model, as do rewritten Bible texts. The secondary 1 See the survey of Devorah Dimant, “Introduction: Reworking of Scriptures at Qumran,” in Ariel Feldman and Liora Goldman, Scripture and Interpretation: Qumran Texts that Rework the Bible (ed. D. Dimant; BZAW 449; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014), 1–11, as well as the “Introductory Essay” in this volume. 2 For the claim that Jubilees, the Temple Scroll, and 1 Enoch were authoritative at Qumran, see, e. g., James C. VanderKam, “Authoritative Literature in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” DSD 5 (1998): 382–402 (396–402); idem, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 190–95. The claim that Jubilees enjoyed this status in the eyes of the Qumranites often rests on the contention that the Damascus Document cites Jubilees (in CD XVI, 3–4). However, I have argued against the identification of this reference as such in Devorah Dimant, “Two ‘Scientific’ Fictions: The So-Called Book of Noah and the Alleged Quotation of Jubilees in the Damascus Document XVI, 3–4,” in Collected Studies, 353–68. Michael Knibb argues that the Enochic writings “were authoritative for what they say about the divine ordering of the world and about the present and future of mankind.” Cf. idem, “Reflections on the Status of the Early Enochic Writings,” in Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism (ed. M. Popović; JSJSup 141; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 143–54 (154). However, it is unclear in what sense the term “authoritative” is used here and whether indeed the authority in question is identical to that accorded to biblical texts. In my judgment, two different types of authority are involved and the use of the same term for both blurs their differences. See n. 39 in the “Introductory Essay” in this volume.

256

Hebrew Pseudepigrapha at Qumran

character of such rewritten Bible texts is indicated by the use of precisely these procedures, as well as by their practice of eliminating redundancies, combining features from parallel episodes in other biblical books, not found in such proportions in biblical textual witnesses. The use of the rewriting methods listed above requires a close relationship between the reworked biblical source and the text that is reworking it. Indeed, all the known parabiblical works, except for the Aramaic Genesis Apocryphon, are written in Hebrew. Even instances of this genre that were well known before the discovery of the Qumran Scrolls, Jubilees, and Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum were composed in Hebrew. So we may conclude that the reworking of the Hebrew Bible in this manner belonged to the sphere of the literature written in Hebrew during the Second Temple period. The number and variety of these parabiblical texts has been augmented considerably with the publication of all the Qumran documents. Important for the study of these compositions is the fact that most of them, unknown from any other source, are now extant in their original Hebrew. Not surprisingly, the study of these new compositions and their technique of readapting the biblical texts has become a focal issue in recent Qumran research. However, it is worth noting that many of the available parabiblical texts, from both Qumran and elsewhere, are narratives. This characteristic is so prominent in the corpus of parabiblical texts that some scholars assert that rewritten Bible texts are only of a narrative type.3 Indeed, up to the present, most of the research has been devoted to this type of reworking of the Hebrew Bible. Two recent surveys of the parabiblical texts by Daniel Falk and Sidnie White Crawford illustrate this tendency by concentrating exclusively on this genre.4 The predilection for reworking biblical narrative sections, especially those from the Torah, indeed indicates the importance and authority of the Pentateuch among Jewish authors at the time. However, as noted by George Brooke, reworking of other biblical genres, among them poetic, prophetic, and sapiential, is also extant and should therefore be addressed.5 Before the discovery of the Scrolls, and before the full contents of the Qumran library were known, it was often remarked that whereas the reworking of passages from the Torah and Former Prophets was commonplace, there appeared 3 Cf. Philip S. Alexander, “Retelling the Old Testament,” in It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars (eds. D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 99–121 (116). Alexander bases his definition on the study of four works, all of them reworking narratives. 4 Cf. Daniel K. Falk, The Parabiblical Texts: Strategies for Extending the Scriptures in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 8; New York: T & T Clark, 2007); Sidnie White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008). 5 Cf. George J. Brooke, “The Rewritten Law, Prophets, and Psalms: Issues for Understanding the Text of the Bible,” in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries (eds. E. D. Herbert and E. Tov; London: British Library, 2002), 31–40 (31).

Hebrew Pseudepigrapha at Qumran

257

to be no record or transmission of the adaptation of biblical prophecies. Known are stories such as the Martyrdom of Isaiah, Paraleipomena Jeremiae, the Apocryphon of Ezekiel preserved in several patristic citations, and the Lives of the Prophets collection, but all of them are later than the Qumran material and tell stories about the prophets but do not adapt prophecies transmitted by the biblical tradition under their names.6 During the first phase of Qumran research, scholars were under the impression that the same was true of the Scrolls, for only pesher commentaries on prophetic utterances were known.7 However, among the Qumran documents, two texts were found that address the prophetic discourse in a different manner. One of them, Pseudo-Ezekiel, clearly may be described as a rewritten Bible text. The other, Apocryphon of Jeremiah C, has an affinity to apocalypses.8 It transmits revelations divulged to the prophet Jeremiah, but these visionary disclosures are free compositions and do not rewrite Jeremiah’s biblical prophecies. Only one fragment, 4Q385a 18, contains actual rewriting of biblical sections, but it reworks narrative passages from the book of Jeremiah, and not the prophet’s oracles. Apparently, the fact that both Jeremiah and Ezekiel witnessed the destruction of Jerusalem and the First Temple is the reason that they were chosen to be the authors of pseudepigraphic works foretelling the course of history and future redemption. Let us first turn to Pseudo-Ezekiel, a clear example of rewritten prophecy.9 It happens that the largest surviving fragments from the five copies of the composition retrieved from Qumran cave 4 belong to a sequence that reworks prophetic 6 A survey of various references to Ezekiel in later and patristic literature is offered by Benjamin G. Wright, “Talking with God and Losing His Head: Extrabiblical Traditions about the Prophet Ezekiel,” in Biblical Figures outside the Bible (eds. M. E. Stone and T. A. Bergren; Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1998), 290–315; Dimant, “Resurrection, Restoration, and Time-Curtailing in Qumran, Early Judaism, and Christianity,” in Collected Studies, 249–68. 7 For the use of Ezekiel in other Qumran texts, see Devorah Dimant, “The Apocalyptic Interpretation of Ezekiel at Qumran,” in Messiah and Christos: Studies in the Jewish Origins of Christianity Presented to David Flusser on the Occasion of His Seventy-Fifth Birthday (eds. I. Gruenwald, S. Shaked, and G. G. Stroumsa; TSAJ 32; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992), 31– 51; Florentino Garcίa Martίnez, “The Interpretation of the Torah of Ezekiel in the Texts from Qumran,” in Qumranica Minora (ed. E. J. C. Tigchelaar; STDJ 64; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 1–12. 8 Cf. Dimant, DJD XXX. The original single collection of manuscripts has been divided into the two compositions, a division now generally accepted. For a survey and critique of recent opinions objecting to this split or its details, see Dimant, “Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C in Perspective,” in Collected Studies, 423–40. The arguments advanced there also refute those of Mladen Popović against the split in idem, “Prophet, Books and Texts: Ezekiel, Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Authoritativeness of Ezekiel Traditions in Early Judaism,” in Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism, 227–51 (237). Eibert Tigchelaar’s claim that 4Q390 has to be separated from the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C due to the lack of overlapping (idem, “Classifications of the Collection of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Case of Apocryphon of Jeremiah C,” JSJ 43 [2012]: 519–50) is questionable. For, the absence of overlapping between 4Q390 and the remaining copies of Apocryphon of Jeremiah C is insufficient to rule out their extraordinary and unique literary and terminological affinity as an indication that they belong to the same work. 9 For the following textual details of Pseudo-Ezekiel, see the Appendix, below.

258

Hebrew Pseudepigrapha at Qumran

passages from Ezekiel 37, relating the vision of the dry bones. The beginning of this sequence is preserved in three manuscripts, 4Q385, 4Q386, and 4Q388. The fullest text of this column is yielded by frgs. 2 + 3 of 4Q385. The second copy, 4Q386, consists mainly of a single large fragment with remains of three consecutive columns. Since its first column overlaps with the vision of the dry bones in 4Q385, 4Q386 provides the following sequence, thus yielding a string of three columns: the vision of the dry bones in col. i, a prophecy concerning the land of Israel in col. ii, and a prophecy regarding Babylon in col. iii. Fragment 4 of 4Q385 concerns the future inheritance of Israel, undoubtedly the land of Israel, so it connects with the eschatological themes that run through the three previous columns and into the beginning of the following one. The conclusion of the eschatological section appears clearly in the first four lines of frg. 6 of 4Q385, for these lines continue the theme of the vision of the dry bones; in this connection they refer to Isa 26:20 and also mention “fissures,” probably an allusion to tombs. So the four lines of frg. 6 conclude the sequence of topics related to resurrection, the revival of Israel and the return to its land, and the punishment of Egypt and Babylon. The concluding character of these lines is also indicated by the heading that follows in line 5 of frg. 6, which announces a new section and a new subject, the merkabah vision. The secondary character of the reworking of the biblical model is evident in many details. Thus, for instance, the reworking of the vision of the dry bones refers to the scene of the valley filled with bones shown to the biblical Ezekiel, but the scene itself is omitted by Pseudo-Ezekiel.10 Also nonbiblical is the oracle against Egypt in 4Q386 1 ii, which follows the interpretation of the vision of the dry bones. Thus, the sequence preserved in the five columns described above manifests the systematic and detailed development of a set of specific subjects, all related to final redemptive events: the resurrection of the righteous, the return of Israel to the land of Israel, and the vengeance wrought upon Babylon and perhaps also Egypt. The structural cohesion of this sequence is achieved by regular alternation between concise citations and nonbiblical supplements. Another unifying element is the repeated formula “and they will know that I am the Lord.” It is probably to be reconstructed at the beginning of frg. 2 of 4Q385, and is preserved at the end of line 4 of the same fragment and in the first line of the second column of 4Q386 frg. 1. In all three cases, the locution stands at the end of a divine prophetic discourse, and the conclusion of the speech and its commentary are also marked by an empty space. Thus, the repeated use of this formula is a structural marker of the entire sequence. This locution is a typical Ezekielian concluding formula, which also appears in the biblical model of Pseudo-Ezekiel, namely 10 See

4Q385 2 5–6 and my comments in Dimant, DJD XXX, 24.

Hebrew Pseudepigrapha at Qumran

259

Ezek 36:38 and 37:14. The author of Pseudo-Ezekiel obviously appropriates this typical phraseology as part of his effort to lend an Ezekielian flavor to his text. In addition, the thematic progression of the five columns in question is held together by following closely the sequence of Ezekiel 36–38. Chapter 36 predicts the rebuilding and repopulation of the desolate land of Israel. Chapter 37 prophesies the revival of the people of Israel and the return to their land, and ch. 38 describes the final demise of Gog, the leader of the Gentile armies. These are also the topics at the heart of the five columns of Pseudo-Ezekiel, but appear there with sizeable expansions and adaptations. In elaborating on these themes, Pseudo-Ezekiel employs familiar Bible-reworking techniques: while keeping the main biblical sequence, it condenses and abbreviates certain details, integrates relevant references to other biblical books, such as Isa 26:19–20, and incorporates nonbiblical additions. These methods result in the cohesive development of a well-defined eschatological continuum. However, it is worth noting that while the basic sequence of the biblical prophecies of Ezekiel is followed in this section of the scroll, this is not the case in other passages from Pseudo-Ezekiel. The clearest evidence of an abrupt change of subject and sequence appears in frg. 6 of 4Q385. As noted, lines 1–4 are part of the previous elaboration of the resurrection theme, as well as the return of Israel to its land.11 However, an entirely different subject, the merkabah vision, is presented from line 5 onwards and the change is introduced by a title “The Vision that Ezekiel Saw” (‫[ המראה אשר ראה יחזק[אל‬4Q385 6 5]). Textually and thematically, there is no connection between the previous eschatological topics and this vision. Moreover, the vision follows Ezekiel 1 and 10, with additions from other biblical and nonbiblical sources.12 It thus discontinues the adherence to Ezekiel 36–38, which was the basis of the preceding five columns. In the first edition, I suggested that the merkabah vision in PseudoEzekiel accords with Ezek 43:3. This verse states that Ezekiel saw a vision “as the vision of the River Kebar,” namely the one depicted in ch. 1. Alternatively, the suggestion has been advanced that Pseudo-Ezekiel may have been based on a Hebrew version of Ezekiel that displayed chs. 36–40 in a different order, similar to that reflected in the Old Greek Papyrus 967 and one manuscript of the Old 11 Mladen Popović argued that 4Q385 6 with its merkabah vision may have opened the composition. See idem, “Prophet, Books and Texts,” 235. Popović finds support for his contention by referring to the early article I published with John Strugnell, in which we argued for a similar idea (see John Strugnell and Devorah Dimant, “4Q Second Ezechiel,” RevQ 13 [1988]: 45–58 [48]). Firstly, he disregards the transition from the conclusion of the resurrection theme in 4Q385 6 1–4 to the introductory title 4Q385 6 5 that presents the merkabah vision. This passage is obviously from the middle of the work, not from its beginning. Secondly, the recourse to one of the earliest presentations I wrote with Strugnell is faulty, since it was written well before I could shape my own independent ideas. All publications preceding the final version of DJD XXX should be read in the light of this final text. 12 See the analysis in Dimant, DJD XXX, 46–49 n. 5.

260

Hebrew Pseudepigrapha at Qumran

Latin (Vetus Latina) version.13 However, both explanations account neither for the abruptness of the change of subject nor for the introductory title. Moreover, the fact that a Masada manuscript of Ezekiel, dated to around the beginning of the era, follows the sequence of the Masoretic Text (Ezek 36:23b–38) suggests that this order was well established at this early stage.14 The analysis below shows that the placement of the merkabah vision in Pseudo-Ezekiel is not to be explained in terms of a divergent biblical order, but rather in terms of a different literary principle. This is, then, another feature of Pseudo-Ezekiel that points to its secondary parabiblical rather than biblical character. In fact, another section of Pseudo-Ezekiel is also introduced by a title. It is preserved in the single fragment, 4Q385b. The fragment reworks the prophecy against Egypt recorded in Ezekiel 30. As is the practice of Pseudo-Ezekiel elsewhere, it also interweaves here locutions from other prophetic passages dealing with similar themes, such as Jeremiah, Joel, and Zephaniah.15 But for our purpose the beginning of the fragment with the title “[And these are the] words of Ezekiel” (‫ [ואלה] דברי יחזקאל‬4Q385b 1 4) is significant. In his recent re-edition of Pseudo-Ezekiel, Elisha Qimron considers that this passage constitutes the beginning of the entire work and places it at the beginning of his version.16 However, this abrupt introduction does not connect easily with the sequence evidenced by most of the surviving fragments, which are developed around the eschatological resurrection and return. Also, this beginning does not explain the placement of the merkabah vision after the eschatological section. The additional title of 4Q385b combined with that introducing the merkabah vision suggests another literary organizing principle. It appears that Pseudo-Ezekiel is built in sections based on specific themes. The development within the blocks follows the outline of the respective biblical sections, but the sections themselves are arranged according to major topics of special interest to the author. The sequence of the blocks cannot be retrieved due to the fragmentary status of the copies, but it certainly adopts an order that is different from the biblical sequence of Ezekiel’s prophecies. We may remark further that such a literary structure permits the combining of various thematic groups, and therefore other such groups that are no longer extant may have been included in the original work. This is, in fact, suggested by 4Q391, a possible further copy of Pseudo-Ezekiel,17 which depicts 13 Cf. ibid., p. 21. See Johan Lust, “Ezekiel 36–40 in the Oldest Greek Manuscript,” CBQ 43 (1981): 517–33 (522–25). 14 As remarked by Eibert Tigchelaar, “Notes on the Ezekiel Scroll from Masada (MasEzek),” RevQ 22 (2005): 269–75 (275). 15 See Dimant, DJD XXX, 73–75. 16 Cf. Elisha Qimron, The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings. Volume Two (Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi Press, 2013), 84 (Heb.). 17 Cf. Mark Smith, DJD XIX, 153–93. Some unique features of this papyrus manuscript not found in other copies of Pseudo-Ezekiel cast some doubt upon it being a copy of this work. See the comments in Dimant, DJD XXX, 9, 11.

Hebrew Pseudepigrapha at Qumran

261

scenes from the temple worship.18 So the fact that most of the extant fragments of Pseudo-Ezekiel deal with eschatological topics may be due to the vagaries of manuscript survival. Other non-eschatological themes may have been included in the original version of the composition. Thus, labeling Pseudo-Ezekiel as “eschatological”19 misrepresents the writing as a whole. If this analysis is correct, Pseudo-Ezekiel presents a method of adapting biblical prophecies different from that used by the rewritten biblical narratives. In reworking the prophetic materials, as exemplified by Pseudo-Ezekiel, the organizing principle is that of topical associations rather than the straightforward sequence of the biblical model. Perhaps this method has been used to accommodate the specific generic character of the prophetic discourse, which lacks narrative sequence but is built around thematic formations. If so, we have here a method for rewriting the Bible that differs from that of the narrative and legal rewriting known from Qumranic and non-Qumranic specimens. This should provide food for thought regarding the general character of the method of rewriting the Bible, and about other possible forms of this method. The limited critical discussion on prophetic rewriting is probably due to the paucity of relevant specimens. The parallel case of the much larger Qumran sapiential corpus also lacks a systematic discussion of the ways in which it rewrites and uses the biblical wisdom literature. The above outline of the literary structure of Pseudo-Ezekiel shows that this work is a distinctive specimen within the rewritten Bible genre. It differs considerably from the book of Ezekiel, not only in the sequence of the reworked sections but also in the large sections of additional matter that are formulated in later nonbiblical Hebrew, and in the insertion of smaller details from other biblical and nonbiblical books. This mélange of elements clearly indicates the secondary exegetical character of Pseudo-Ezekiel in relation to its model, the book of Ezekiel. This specific literary makeup should be considered in discussions regarding whether Pseudo-Ezekiel was as authoritative as its biblical model.20 In recent years, this issue has been brought up in connection with the textual character of the book of Ezekiel. This biblical book is preserved in two different recensions, the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint, the latter being shorter than the former by about 4–5 percent. There is now a consensus that the Greek translation is based on a different Hebrew Vorlage, the Masoretic version often being of an expansive character.21 In the discussion regarding these two ver18 Cf.

4Q391 65 6–8. does, for instance, Popović, “Prophet, Books and Texts,” 229, 244–45. 20 In discussing the Qumran Scrolls from the canonical perspective, James VanderKam addresses only the Qumran texts that adapt the Pentateuch. Cf. idem, “Questions of Canon Viewed through the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Canon Debate (eds. L. M. McDonald and J. A. Sanders; Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002), 91–109. 21 See Emanuel Tov, “Recensional Differences between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint of Ezekiel,” in The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint (VTSup 19 As

262

Hebrew Pseudepigrapha at Qumran

sions, great value is placed on the short version of Ezekiel, which underlies the pre-Hexaplaric Greek translation of the second-century C. E. Papyrus 967, and the related evidence of the Old Latin (Vetus Latina).22 Given the textual fluidity of biblical texts, evidenced by the collection of Qumran biblical manuscripts, it has been argued that the book of Ezekiel circulated in two recensions, one long and one short, much like the book of Jeremiah. However, the case of the book of Jeremiah is different in several significant respects. The Septuagint version of this book is considerably shorter than the Masoretic Text version, by some one-seventh. More importantly, Qumran produced two witnesses to the short edition, 4QJerb (4Q71) and 4QJerd (4Q72a). As for Ezekiel, the situation is quite different. The quantitative difference between the Septuagint of Ezekiel and its Masoretic version is much smaller. Moreover, all the copies of the book of Ezekiel found at Qumran (1Q9, 3Q1, 4Q73, 4Q74, 4Q75, 11Q4) and Masada (Mas 1043–2220, MasEzek23) produce the tradition of the Masoretic Text.24 This evidence, which is older than Papyrus 967 by more than a century, shows that the tradition of the Masoretic Text was already predominant in the land of Israel during the final centuries of the Second Temple era,25 at least in the circles of the Qumran community and the Masada refugees. So the notion that the short Ezekiel recension and Pseudo-Ezekiel circulated side by side, were equally authoritative, and influenced each other is unsubstantiated by the facts.26 The question of whether Pseudo-Ezekiel was accorded the same authority as the biblical prophecies of Ezekiel is a complex one, and cannot be resolved on the basis of textual similarity. The present tendency to equate the level of authority of parabiblical texts with that of their biblical models due to the fluidity of the biblical text and its free adaptation in the rewritten Bible works misses, in my judgment, the fundamental differences between the two. Although they are interlinked, the authority invested in the biblical texts is dissimilar to the kind of authority assigned to parabiblical texts. It is the difference between the inspired 72; Leiden, Brill, 1999), 397–410; Johan Lust, “Major Divergences between LXX and MT in Ezekiel,” in The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered (ed. A. Schenker; Atlanta: SBL, 2003), 83–92; idem, “The Ezekiel Text,” in Sofer Mahir: Essays in Honor of Adrian Schenker (eds. Y. Goldman et al.; VTSup 110; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 153–67 (156–61). 22 Cf. Lust, “Ezekiel 36–40 in the Oldest Greek Manuscript”; idem, “Ezechiel dans la Septante,” in Les recueils prophetiques de la Bible: Origines, milieux, et contexte proche-oriental (eds. J.-D. Macchi et al.; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2012), 337–58. 23 Cf. Shemaryahu Talmon, “1043–2220 (MasEzek) 35:11–38:14,” in Masada VI: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965: Hebrew Fragments from Masada (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1999), 59–75. For additional readings and corrections, see Tigchelaar, “Notes on the Ezekiel Scroll from Masada.” 24 See the survey of Hector M. Patmore, “The Shorter and Longer Texts of Ezekiel: The Implications of the Manuscript Finds from Masada and Qumran,” JSOT 32 (2007): 331–42. 25 See Tigchelaar, “Notes on the Ezekiel Scroll from Masada,” 275. 26 Advanced by Popović, “Prophet, Books and Texts,” 228–29 et passim.

Hebrew Pseudepigrapha at Qumran

263

text and its inspired interpretation that should serve as the measure of each par­ ticular authority. The second prophetic pseudepigraph discovered at Qumran, the Apocryphon of Jeremiah  C, is constructed according to yet another organizing principle. Here, the available material is more abundant. None of the extant fragments yields titles of the type found in Pseudo-Ezekiel. Two fragments present narrative passages, a genre completely lacking in the surviving Pseudo-Ezekiel material.27 One of these fragments, 4Q385a 18 i–ii, gives an account of Jeremiah’s final actions before leaving Jerusalem for Egypt.28 The other fragment, 4Q389 1, produces an account similar to Bar 1:1–3:8, associated with the prophet’s scribe, Baruch. In Baruch, a gathering in Babylon is described that took place a year before the restoration of the exiled King Jehoiachin mentioned in 2 Kgs 25:27 and Jer 51:31.29 The remaining Apocryphon of Jeremiah C fragments provide various sections of a divine speech addressed in the second person to either a single person, perhaps Jeremiah, or a group, perhaps the audience at the Babylonian gathering. This divine discourse consists of a review of Israelite history. Some passages refer to biblical events, such as the kingdom of David and Solomon, and are referred to in the past tense, whereas another group of fragments is formulated in the future tense and describes events during the Second Temple period or the eschatological era. This particular distribution of materials is clearly similar to the configuration in apocalyptic works known outside Qumran, such as Daniel 10–12, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch. These compositions consist of a short narrative framework presenting a seer and his circumstances. It serves as a platform for a long and detailed divine or angelic address to the seer that reveals the historical sequence from an early time through to the present and on to the future. The assumption that Apocryphon of Jeremiah C constitutes a similar composition accords best with the variety and configuration of the materials attributed to it. Indeed, the organization of the fragments along these lines has resulted in a significant and coher27  While the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C may be defined accurately as a “Historical Apocalypse” this is not the case for Pseudo-Ezekiel, as claimed by Matthias Henze, “4QApocryphon of Jeremiah C and 4QPseudo-Ezekiel: Two ‘Historical’ Apocalypses,” in Prophecy after the Prophets? The Contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Understanding of Biblical and ExtraBiblical Prophecy (eds. K. de Troyer and A. Lange; CBET 52; Leuven: Peeters, 2009), 25–41. For Pseudo-Ezekiel lacks a narrative framework and a running historical survey. Although it contains sections about the history of Israel, they are not arranged around a temporal sequence. 28 Column i of 4Q385a 18 reports on the commandments Jeremiah gave the deportees departing for Babylon. He accompanied them “until the river,” probably the Euphrates, but did not go with them to Babylon itself, as is clear from col. ii, which places him in Egypt. This should correct Matthias Henze’s statement that Jeremiah went with the captives to Babylon. See idem, “4QApocryphon of Jeremiah C and 4QPseudo-Ezekiel,” 29; idem, Jewish Apocalypticism in Late First Century Israel (TSAJ 142; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 110. 29 See the article “From the Book of Jeremiah to the Qumranic Apocryphon of Jeremiah C ” in this volume.

264

Hebrew Pseudepigrapha at Qumran

ent divine revelation of history probably revealed to Jeremiah. Thus, the two surviving narrative sections mentioned above possibly came from the narrative framework, perhaps from the opening and conclusion of the work, whereas the various historical sections are taken from the survey of history divulged to the seer, namely Jeremiah. While some criticism lingers regarding the assignment of 4Q390 to Apocryphon of Jeremiah C, few have contested the above outlined construction of this apocryphon.30 Even those who separate 4Q390 from the remaining manuscripts treat it as a revelation accorded to a seer, perhaps Jeremiah. From the point of view of biblical reworking, the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C presents a very different case from that of Pseudo-Ezekiel. Except for the passage about Jeremiah in 4Q385a 18, which is based on Jer 40:1–6, 44, there is no adaptation of specific biblical sections. Perhaps the reworking of narrative traditions related to Baruch in 4Q389 1 also reflects an older view connecting Jeremiah with Baruch, which is elaborated upon in Bar 1:1–3, 8, and is thus considered to be “biblical.”31 However, the method used in the survey of history is different. It relies on biblical information when pertinent passages are available, especially when referring to circumstances of the First Temple era such as the reign of David and Solomon, mentioned in frg. 1 of 385a. But most of the fragments produce details related to postbiblical times and have no counterparts in the biblical literature. Therefore, the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C cannot be labeled a “rewritten Bible” text as is Pseudo-Ezekiel. Its materials belong to a different literary sphere that is closer to pseudepigraphic apocalypses than to proper parabiblical texts. All known apocalypses draw on biblical information and, at times, even reproduce detailed biblical descriptions. However, the basic elaboration is not related to specific biblical sources but is a free development of various themes, both biblical and nonbiblical. Moreover, these themes are ordered along a precise temporal sequence, often calculated in terms of a heptad chronology of year-weeks and jubilees. This is illustrated very well by the Enochic Animal Apocalypse, Daniel 10–12, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch. The Apocryphon of Jeremiah  C does likewise,32 so it belongs to a different genre than that of rewritten Bible. Qumran Cave 4 has thus supplied us with two methods by which prophetic texts were adapted in the literature composed in Hebrew during the Second Tem30 See Kipp Davis, The Cave 4 Apocryphon of Jeremiah and the Qumran Jeremianic Tranditions (STDJ 111; Leiden: Brill, 2014), but he offers a model very similar to the one proposed in DJD XXX (see, for instance, his outline in ibid., 90–95). See my review of this volume in JTS 67 (2016): 689–97. 31 See Dimant, DJD XXX, 107–10; Henze, Jewish Apocalypticism in Late First Century Israel, 88, 131, 160–62 and the articles “4 Ezra and 2 Baruch in Light of Qumran Literature” and “From the Book of Jeremiah to the Qumranic Apocryphon of Jeremiah C” in this volume. 32 See Dimant, DJD XXX, 113–15.

Hebrew Pseudepigrapha at Qumran

265

ple period. One reworks prophetic discourses using thematic grouping, while the other draws freely on various biblical themes to create a new apocalypse. As we have seen, this generic difference entails different methods of reliance on the Hebrew Bible. But it also reflects on the specific languages employed by each genre. A very close reliance on the biblical text generates rewritten Bible compositions written mostly in Hebrew. On the other hand, maintaining merely a loose connection to the Hebrew Bible permits generic apocalypses to be written in Hebrew as well as in Aramaic, as in the case of the Aramaic Animal Apocalypse. As a concluding remark, it is worth noting that both Pseudo-Ezekiel and Apocryphon of Jeremiah C display significant links, both thematic and stylistic, with the later Hebrew apocalypses 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch. Such connections point to an unbroken literary tradition in Hebrew, spanning from as early as the second century B. C. E. to the second century C. E. Yet the practices of reworking scriptural prophecies and attributing apocalypses to scriptural prophets was discontinued, or at least not attested to, beyond Qumran. However, the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C is uniquely placed in the complex of late Second Temple Jewish literature. Not only does it constitute a single exemplar of attribution of an apocalyptic-like vision of history to a scriptural prophet, but this vision also displays links to the specific ideas and terminology of the Qumran community. It also attests to various connections to non-Qumran texts such as the book of Baruch and the Enochic Animal Apocalypse. The fact that the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C is written in Hebrew renders it similar to the sectarian literature, which is written exclusively in this language. At the same time, this apocryphon cannot be termed “sectarian” for it lacks the peculiar sectarian style and nomenclature. The place of this unique configuration in the early Jewish apocalyptic literature and the nature of its contacts with the Qumran milieu have yet to be investigated.

‫‪Hebrew Pseudepigrapha at Qumran‬‬

‫‪266‬‬

‫‪Appendix‬‬ ‫‪Pseudo-Ezekiel (4Q385)33‬‬ ‫‪Frg. 2‬‬ ‫‪Parallels: 4Q386 1 i 1–10‬‬ ‫‪4Q388 7 2–7‬‬ ‫‪[ 1‬כי אני יהוה] הגואל̇ עמי לתת להם הברית   ‪vacat‬‬ ‫‪[ 2‬ואמרה יהוה] ראיתי רבים מישראל אשר אהבו את שמך וילכו‬ ‫‪֯ 3‬בדרכי[ לבך וא]לה מתי יהיו̇ ו̇היכ̇כ̇ה̇ ישתלמו חסדם ויאמר יהוה‬ ‫אלי אני אראה[ ]את בנ̇י̇ ישראל וידעו כי אני יהוה  ‪vacat‬‬ ‫‪ 4‬‬ ‫◦בו֯ עצם אל עצםו ופרק‬ ‫ויק ֯‬ ‫‪[ 5‬ויאמר ]בן אדם הנבה על העצמות ואמרת ֯‬ ‫‪[ 6‬אל פרקו ויה]י כן֯ ויאמר שנית הנבא ויעלו עליהם גדים ויקרמו עור‬ ‫רוח‬ ‫ויאמר שוב אנבא על ארבע רוחות השמים ויפחו ֯‬ ‫֯‬ ‫‪[ 7‬מלמעלה ויהי כן]‬ ‫‪[ 8‬בהרוגים ויהי כן] ו̇י̇[ח]י֯ ו̇ עם רב אנשים ויברכו את יהוה צבאות אש[ר]‬ ‫‪[ 9‬חים  ‪  vacat‬ו]אמרה יהוה מתי יהיו אלה ויאמר יהוה אל[י עד]‬ ‫‪[ 10‬אשר      ומקץ י]מ̇ים יכף עץ ויזקף[ ]‬ ‫‪Frg. 3‬‬ ‫‪PAM 44.195‬‬ ‫ [  ]◦ת ו֯ א̇◦[ ] ◦◦◦[ ]‬ ‫֯‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫ויע[מד]ו̇ על[ רגליהם להודות]‬ ‫‪ ]  [ 2‬יהוה ויקומו כל העם ֯‬ ‫‪[ 3‬ולהל]ל את יהוה צבאות ואף אני מ[לל]תי עמהם[ ]‬ ‫‪ vac[at [ 4‬ויאמר יהוה אלי בן[ אדם אמ]ו֯ ֯ר להם̇[ ]‬ ‫אשר[ ]‬ ‫֯‬ ‫קבו]רתם ישכבו עד‬ ‫֯‬ ‫‪ [ 5‬במקום‬ ‫מקב]ריכם ומן הארץ [ ]‬ ‫֯‬ ‫‪[ 6‬‬ ‫מצר[ים ]‬ ‫֯‬ ‫]ל̇ אשר̇ [ע]ו̇ל‬ ‫‪  [ 7‬‬ ‫‪Frg. 4‬‬ ‫‪]                 [ 1‬תחת דוני‬ ‫‪ 2‬ש̇מח את נפשי ויתבהלו ה̇ימים מהר עד אשר יאמרו‬ ‫‪ 3‬האדם הלא ממהרים הימים למען יירשו בני ישראל‬ ‫‪ 4‬ויאמר יהוה אלי לא אש[י]ב פניך יחזקאל הנ̇[נ]י̇ גו֯ דד‬ ‫‪ 5‬את הימים ואת השני[ם    ]ל[ ]‬ ‫‪ 6‬מצער כאשר אמרת ל[ ]‬ ‫‪[ 7‬כי ]פי יהוה דבר אלה ‪] v]acat‬‬ ‫‪Frg. 634‬‬ ‫‪ 1‬והיו עמי ה[ ]‬ ‫‪ 2‬בלב טוב ובנ֯ [פש חפצה ]‬ ‫‪ 3‬וחבא כמעט ק[ט ]‬ ‫‪ 4‬ומבקיעים י̇[ ]‬ ‫‪ 5‬המראה אשר ראה יחז̇ק̇[אל ]‬ ‫‪ 6‬נגה מרכבה וארבע חיות חית[     ובלכתן לא יסב ו ]‬ ‫‪33 The‬‬

‫‪text and translation are from Dimant, DJD XXX, 23–51.‬‬ ‫‪5 preserved only five letters and probably came from one of the preceding‬‬ ‫‪columns. Cf. Dimant, ibid., 42.‬‬ ‫‪34 Fragment‬‬

Hebrew Pseudepigrapha at Qumran

267

] ‫ אחור על שתים תלך החיה האחת ושתי ר̇ג̇ל̇[יה‬7 ]‫ [ע]ל[ ]ל[ ]◦◦ ֯ב[אח]ת היה נשמה ופניהם זה בעקר ז[ה ודמות‬8 ]‫ הפ[נים אחד ארי אח]ד̇ נשר ואחד עגל ואחד של אדם והית[ה יד‬9 ]‫מחברת מגבי החיות ודבקה ב[כנפיהן ]והא̇[ופ]נ֯ [ים‬ ֯ ‫ אדם‬10 ]‫הא[ופנים שבלי אש‬ ֯ ‫ אופן חובר אל אופן בלכתן ומשני עברי‬11 ]       [‫ וה̇יה בתוך גחלים חיות כגחלי אש‬12 ] ‫ והאופני̇ם והחיות והאופני̇ם ויה[י ע]ל̇[ ראשם רקיע כעין‬13 ] ‫ ֯ה ֯ק ֯ר ֯ח הנור[א וי]הי קול[ מעל רקיע‬14 ]           [◦]  [‫ [  ]ל‬15

Translation Frg. 2 1. [for I am the Lord] who redeems my people, giving unto them the covenant. vacat 2. [And I said: ‘O Lord!] I have seen many (men) from Israel who have loved your Name and have walked 3. in the ways of [your heart. And th]ese things when will they come to be and how will they be recompensed for their piety?’ And the Lord said 4. to me: ‘I will make (it) manifest[ ]to the children of Israel and they shall know that I am the Lord.’ vacat 5. [And He said:] ‘Son of man, prophesy over the bones and speak and let them be j[oi]ned bone to its bone and joint 6. [to its joint.’ And it wa]s so. And He said a second time: ‘Prophesy and let arteries come upon them and let skin cover them 7. [from above.’ And it was so.] And He said: ‘Prophesy once again over the four winds of heaven and let them blow breath 8. [into the slain.’ And it was so,] and a large crowd of people came [to li]fe and blessed the Lord Sebaoth wh[o] 9. [had given them life. vacat and] I said: ‘O Lord! when shall these things come to be?’ And the Lord said to m[e: ‘Until ] 10. [ after da]ys a tree shall bend and shall stand erect[ ] Frg. 3 2. [  ] Lord. And all the people rose up and st[oo]d on[ their feet to thank] 3. [and to prai]se the Lord Sebaoth and I, too, s[po]ke with them[  ] 4. [ va]cat And the Lord said to me: ‘Son[ of Man, Tel]l them[  ] 5. [in the place of their bur]ial they will lie until[  ] 6. [     from] your [grav]es and from the earth [  ] 7. [     ] which [the yok]e of Eg[ypt  ] Frg. 4 1. [ ]Instead of my grief 2. make my soul rejoice and let the days hasten quickly that it be said 3. by men: ‘Indeed the days are hastening on so that the children of Israel may inherit.’ 4. And the Lord said to me: ‘I will not re[fu]se you, O Ezekiel! I will cut 5. the days and the year[s ]

268

Hebrew Pseudepigrapha at Qumran

6. a little as you said [   ] 7. [for ]the mouth of the Lord has spoken these things v[acat   ] Frg. 6 1. and my people shall be [    ] 2. with contented heart and with [willing] s[oul ] 3. and conceal yourself for a little wh[ile ] 4. And from fissures [    ] 5. The vision which Ezek[iel] saw [ ] 6. a radiance of a chariot, and four living creatures; a living creature[ and while walking they would not turn] 7. backwards; upon two (legs) each living creature was walking, and [its] two legs [    ] 8. [up]on[ ] in [on]e there was spirit and their faces were one beside the oth[er. And the appearance of] 9. the fac[es, one a lion, on]e an eagle, and one a calf, and one of a man, and there wa[s a hand of] 10. a man joined from the backs of the living creatures and attached to[ their wings ] and the whe[e]l[s,] 11. wheel joined to wheel as they went, and from the two sides of the whe[els were streams of fire] 12. and there were in the midst of the coals living creatures like coals of fire[  ] 13. and the wheels and the living creatures and the wheels; and there wa[s ov]er[ their heads a firmament like] 14. the terri[ble] ice. [And there w]as a sound[ from above the firmament ]

4 Ezra and 2 Baruch in Light of the Qumran Literature The last fifty years have witnessed an extraordinary revival of interest in Jewish pseudepigraphic literature transmitted in translations and by various Christian churches. It was prompted by the discovery of the Qumran Scrolls in the middle of the last century but also by new critical editions of the various pseudepigraphic works. The discovery among the Scrolls of copies of the early 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and the sources of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and their thematic links to the Qumran scrolls, forged a connection between subsequent research of these writings and the study of the Qumran documents. But this was not the case with 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch. These two works have been recognized as interdependent,1 in that they compile a variety of apocalyptic traditions and use common literary sources.2 In recent years, a number of publications have examined the structure, meaning, and context of 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch,3 as well as their relationship.4 The influence of the book of Daniel on the two writings is overt; 4 Ezra explicitly refers to Daniel and his visions (12:11–12), while 2 Baruch interprets Baruch’s vision of the forest (chs. 36–37) in terms of the four kingdoms scheme (39:3–6), borrowed from Daniel 2. Most scholars agree 1 Most scholars opt for the dependence of 2 Baruch on 4 Ezra. For a summary of research and references, see Daniel M. Gurtner, Second Baruch: A Critical Edition of the Syriac Text with Greek and Latin Fragments, English Translation, Introduction and Concordances (New York: T & T Clark, 2009), 15–16. However, Matthias Henze is of the opinion that the two drew independently on numerous sources and oral traditions. See Matthias Henze, Jewish Apocalypticism in Late First Century Israel: Reading Second Baruch in Context (TSAJ 142; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 158–59, 181–86. 2 For 4 Ezra, see Joseph Schreiner, Das 4. Buch Esra (JSHRZ V/4; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlag Gerd Mohn, 1981), 299; Michael E. Stone, Fourth Ezra (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 21–23. For 2 Baruch, see Pierre-Maurice Bogaert, L’Apocalypse Syriaque de Baruch (SC 144; Paris: Cerf, 1969), 1:80–81. The present article considers the main body of 2 Baruch (chs. 1–77) and the attached Letter of Baruch addressed to the nine-and-a-half tribes (chs. 78–87) as a single work, given the numerous interconnections between the two. Cf. Mark F. Whitters, The Epistle of Second Baruch: A Study of Form and Message (JSPSup 42; Sheffield: Academic Press, 2003), 33–34; Gurtner, Second Baruch, 25–26. 3 See Stone, Fourth Ezra; Gwendolyn B. Sayler, Have the Promises Failed? A Literary Analysis of 2 Baruch (Chico: Scholars Press, 1984); Whitters, Epistle of Second Baruch. 4 Cf. Tom W. Willett, Eschatology in the Theodicies of 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra (JSPSup 4; Sheffield: Academic Press, 1989); Klaus Berger in collaboration with Gabriele Fassbeck and Heiner Reinhard, Synopse des Vierten Buches Esra und der Syrischen Baruch-Apokalypse (Tübingen: Francke, 1992); Henze, Jewish Apocalypticism, 148–86.

270

4 Ezra and 2 Baruch in Light of the Qumran Literature

that both writings were composed in Hebrew by Jewish authors around the turn of the second century, so probably in the land of Israel.5 Dated as they are to the decades following the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 C. E., 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch are placed chronologically after the disappearance of the Qumran community; therefore, both have been studied chiefly in the context of the emerging rabbinic Judaism and early Christianity.6 Their connections to the Qumran literature have been noted only sporadically,7 especially in relation to Qumran Cave 1 scrolls8 and various apocalyptic themes.9 However, very few of the Qumran texts published in the last three decades were considered for 5  Cf. the survey of various opinions on this matter by Schreiner, Das 4. Buch Esra, 294–95. On the Jewish character of 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, see James S. Davila, The Provenance of the Pseudepigrapha: Jewish, Christian, or Other? (JSJSup 105; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 128–31, 139–40. For Hebrew as the original language of 4 Ezra, see Michael E. Stone, “Some Remarks of Textual Criticism of IV Ezra,” HTR 60 (1967): 107–15. As for 2 Baruch, the sole manuscript that preserves a Syriac version of this composition states that it was translated from the Greek. Assuming a Hebrew original underlying a Greek translation is Albertus F. J. Klijn, “Die syrische Baruch-Apokalypse,” in Apokalypsen (JSHRZ V/2; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1976), 110–11; Henze, Jewish Apocalypticism, 25. Others opt for a Greek original (cf. the survey of opinions by Gurtner, Second Baruch, 10–13). In my judgment, the presence of various stylistic and thematic links connecting 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch to the Qumran Hebrew compositions adds weight to the case for a Hebrew original of both documents, which were later translated into Greek. 6 See, for instance, the surveys of Gerbern S. Oegema, Supplementa (eds. H. Lichtenberger and G. S. Oegema; JSHRZ VI/I, 5; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2001), 58–75, 94–115. See also the updated survey of George Nickelsburg, published a few years later, which reproduces the same traditional view. See idem, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah (2nd ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005), 270–85. 7 A series of recent studies on 4 Ezra do not contain a single reference to Qumran documents. See, e. g., Alden L. Thompson, Responsibility for Evil in the Theodicy of IV Ezra (SBLDS 29; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977); Bruce W. Longenecker, 2 Esdras (Guides to the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995); Edith McEwan Humphrey, The Ladies and the Cities (JSPSup 17; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 57–83. 8 For 4 Ezra, see Schreiner, Das 4. Buch Esra (only very occasionally); Bruce W. Longenecker, Eschatology and the Covenant: A Comparison of 4 Ezra and Romans 1–11 (JSNTSup 57; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991) (only Hodayot and the Community Rule); Stone, Fourth Ezra. Stone was able to insert into his commentary a few preliminary comments about the relation of 4 Ezra to Pseudo-Ezekiel, having attended a lecture I delivered in April 1988. See Stone, Fourth Ezra, 42–43. The use of Qumran texts in recent discussions of 2 Baruch is particularly rare. See Whitters, Epistle of Second Baruch; Gurtner, Second Baruch. Similar omissions are noted in Rivka Nir, The Destruction of Jerusalem and the Idea of Redemption in the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch (Atlanta: SBL, 2003). Nir refers to several Qumran documents but does not mention Pseudo-Ezekiel or the AJ, which have direct bearing on her subject and on her problematic thesis that 2 Baruch is Christian. For a critique of Nir’s thesis, see Davila, The Provenance of Pseudepigrapha, 130–31; Matthias Henze, “Book Reviews,” JSP 15 (2006): 145–48. Slightly better off is the monograph of Henze, Jewish Apocalypticism, which refers to several Cave 4 texts published recently. 9 Cf., for instance, Michael A. Knibb, “Apocalyptic and Wisdom in 4 Ezra,” JSJ 13 (1982): 56–74 (71); Florentino García Martínez, “Traditions Common to 4 Ezra and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Qumranica Minora I: Qumran Origins and Apocalypticism (STDJ 63; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 153–67 (originally published in French in 1991).

4 Ezra and 2 Baruch in Light of the Qumran Literature

271

this purpose until now. But the final publication of the Qumran Pseudo-Ezekiel and Apocryphon of Jeremiah C (AJ hereafter) in 2001 has changed the picture dramatically.10 The two documents reveal striking thematic and stylistic links to 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch. Dated to the second century B. C. E., Pseudo-Ezekiel and AJ attest to older antecedents of themes and forms used by 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch.11 Once a possible connection between 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch and these two Qumran compositions was established, the question of their relationship with the Qumran library in general was re-opened. Indeed, when 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch are systematically examined in the light of the Dead Sea documents, many additional connections may be noticed, especially with recently published Qumran texts. So, although 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch are not contemporary with the Qumran Scrolls, most of which were composed in the second and first centuries B. C. E., the numerous similarities they share with the Scrolls point to some sort of correlation between them. Yet, to date, no systematic and detailed comparison of 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch with Pseudo-Ezekiel and the AJ 12 has been undertaken. Neither have 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch been thoroughly examined in light of Qumran’s rich depository of apocalyptic and other traditions.13 The present examination looks more deeply into some aspects of this close relationship in a wider historical perspective. It is therefore diachronic, the kind of investigation deemed a necessary correlate to the synchronic analysis proposed by most of what has been written on 4 Ezra together with 2 Baruch. It shows that much is to be gained from a careful and thorough perusal of 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch in light of the Qumran library. How10 Cf. Dimant, DJD XXX, 153–93. Eadem, “Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C in Perspective,” in Collected Studies, 423–40 and the article “Hebrew Pseudepigrapha at Qumran: Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C” in this volume. 11 This fact was taken in consideration by Henze, Jewish Apocalypticism, 160–62, in discussing the theme of time-curtailing in Pseudo-Ezekiel (4Q385 4 2–7), 4 Ezra (4:26, 34), and 2 Baruch (20:1–2; 83:1). 12 For preliminary observations on this theme, see Dimant, DJD XXX, 13–14, 37–40, et passim; García Martínez, “Traditions Common to 4 Ezra and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” 13  Sporadic details of Pseudo-Ezekiel have been objects for analysis, most of them published before the full editio princeps was out. See Menahem Kister, “Barnabas 12:1, 4:3 and 4QSecond Ezekiel,” RB 97 (1990): 63–67; Menahem Kister and Elisha Qimron, “Observations on 4QSecond Ezekiel (4Q385 2–3),” RevQ 15 (1992): 595–602; Richard Bauckham, “A Quotation from 4QSecond Ezekiel in the Apocalypse of Peter,” RevQ 15 (1992): 437–45; Émile Puech, La croyance des Esséniens en la vie future: immortalité, résurrection, vie éternelle? (Paris: Gabalda, 1993), 2:605–16; idem, “L’image de l’arbre en 4QDeutero-Ezechiel (4Q385 2, 9–10),” RevQ 16 (1994): 429–40; Benjamin G. Wright, “Qumran Pseudepigrapha in Early Christianity,” in Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (eds. E. G. Chazon and M. E. Stone; STDJ 31; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 183–93. For articles published concomitant with or soon after the full publication, see Devorah Dimant, “4Q386 ii–iii: A Prophecy on Hellenistic Kingdoms?” RevQ 18 (1998): 511–29; eadem, “Resurrection, Restoration and Time-Curtailing in Qumran, Early Judaism, and Christianity,” in Collected Studies, 249–68. See also Hanan Eshel, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State (Grand Rapids/Jerusalem: Eerdmans/Yad Ben-Zvi, 2008), 151–60.

272

4 Ezra and 2 Baruch in Light of the Qumran Literature

ever, the pertinent Qumran data are by no means exhausted in this short presen­ tation. Much remains in the treasures of the Qumran Scrolls to illuminate a host of details in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, and awaits further research.

Historical Times according to 4 Ezra, PseudoEzekiel, and Other Qumranic Texts One of the major notions put forth by 4 Ezra is that the temporal course that regulates historical events consists of a string of preordained periods, “times,” in the nomenclature of this writing.14 In one of the answers the angel Uriel (4:1) gives Ezra, he illustrates the temporal sequence using the genealogy of the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (6:7–8). This illustration points to a fundamental law of the temporal chain, namely, that it comes in a fixed order, the latter follows the former.15 Other facets of the temporal progression are listed in 4:36–38: “… For He (i. e., God) has weighed the age in the balance, and measured the times by measure, and numbered the times by number.”16 This statement affirms that time is apportioned in precise duration and “weight.” Therefore, the entire temporal range is final. Being predetermined, it actualizes the divinely planned course of time from beginning to end (6:6–7; 7:74; 13:57–58; 14:9, 16). Thus, the measured number of times is actualized until the entire sequence is unfolded (11:44). This measured finality governs human activity as well as nature’s processes. 4 Ezra illustrates this aspect by the precise and fixed span of time needed for grain to grow in a field (4:29–32) or for human pregnancy (5:46–49). In another metaphor, the world’s limited span of existence is presented in organic terms, compared to human youth and old age (5:50–55), suggesting a decrease in energy towards the end of the process.17 The immutability of the precise measure of time for every phenomenon in the present world reflects the divinely established laws for humanity and for the cosmic-natural order. When the period of time apportioned to the present world is consumed, a different kind of time will be ̈ (cf., e. g., 4 Ezra 4:36–37; 6:7; 14 Expressed in the Latin by tempora and in the Syriac by ‫ܙܒܢܐ‬ 7:75; 11:44). The Latin edition of 4 Ezra cited in the present article is that of Roger Grayson et al., Biblia Sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem (4th ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), 1931–74. The Syriac is cited according to the edition of Raphael J. Bidawid, “4 Esdras,” in Vetus Testamentum Syriace iuxta simplicem syrorum versionem IV/iii (Leiden: Brill, 1973). 15 The law is elucidated by an allegorical interpretation of the biblical depiction of Jacob’s birth when he seized Esau’s heel (Gen 25:26). The hand represents the beginning, whereas the heel stands for the end (6:9–10). 16 … quoniam in statera ponderavit saeculum et mensura mensuravit tempora et numero ̈ ‫ ܘܡܡܫܚ ܡܫܚ ܐܢܘܢ‬.‫ܡܜܠ ܕܡܬܩܠ ܬܩܠܗ ܩܕܝܫܐ ܠܥܠܡܐ‬ numeravit tempora; ‫ ܘܡܡܢܐ ܡܢܐ ܐܢܘܢ‬.‫ܠܙܒܢܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܠܥܕܢܐ‬. The translation is that of Stone, Fourth Ezra, as are all the translations of 4 Ezra in the present article, unless otherwise stated. 17 The organic unity of the temporal sequence is also implied by the comparison of the judgment to a round crown (5:42), to which the terms “earlier” or “later” are not applicable.

4 Ezra and 2 Baruch in Light of the Qumran Literature

273

established, eternal, immeasurable, and incorruptible (7:30, 40–42). The coming of this measureless reality will be signaled by disturbances of the measurable and orderly flow of time, for example by abnormal births (6:21) and by disorder in the trajectory of the luminaries (5:4–5). The day of judgment itself is marked by the absence of luminaries and, consequently, the lack of seasons and temporal changes (7:39–42). By implication, the events signaling the approaching new age will be governed by laws entirely different from those regulating the orderly and measurable reality. Prominent among them is the resurrection of the dead, which will annul bodily decay, and the great judgment, which will dispense the ultimate reward to the righteous and punishment to the wicked (7:32–35), actions delayed during ordinary, measurable time. Since the principles controlling the course of time were predetermined by God at the moment of creation, they are mysterious and enigmatic in character. This premise underlies Ezra’s quest for the sense and meaning of the historical circumstances of his day. It is also embedded in the uncovering of the mysteries of history by way of angelic explanations and visionary revelations. For divine mysteries may be imparted and interpreted only by divine disclosure and solely to the few who are wise and worthy because they are righteous. According to 4 Ezra, Abraham (3:13–14), Moses (14:5; also in 2 Bar. 59:4), and Ezra himself earned such favor (10:38–39). In 2 Baruch, it is Baruch who is found worthy of such disclosure (13:3; 25:1; 56:1–2). In addition, Ezra is instructed to keep this knowledge secret (14:8, 46). The similarity of these depictions to the figure of the Qumran Teacher of Righteousness, who is said to have gained knowledge of the secrets of history (1QpHab II, 7–10; VII, 3–5), is notable.18 It should be stressed here that the orderly and measured character of the created world, especially in its natural, physical aspects, is a view already accepted in the biblical prophetic and psalmodic literature,19 as well as in various apocalyptic works. The uniqueness of the view advanced by 4 Ezra consists in its assigning of “measure” and “weight” to time itself. These characteristics constitute one aspect of time as being a finite series of periods.20 18 Noted by Stone, Fourth Ezra, 366. Stone compares the statement in 1QpHab that God has revealed to the Teacher of Righteousness the secrets of the biblical prophecies with 4 Ezra 12:12, which claims to reveal the meaning of the fourth kingdom that remained unknown in Daniel 2. According to 2 Bar. 4:3–5, Adam, Abraham, and Moses were shown the future eschatological temple. 19 Cf., e. g., Ps 104:19, 24; Job 38:5; Prov 8:27–29. Note especially Isa 40:12: “Who measured the waters with the hollow of His hand … and weighed the mountains with a scale and the hills with a balance?” (‫… ושקל בפלס הרים וגבעות במאזנים‬ ‫)מי מדד בשעלו מים‬. Here, the verbs “measure” and “weight” are applied to natural elements, whereas in 4 Ezra 4:36–38 and the Qumran texts cited below they are applied to time. See also the comments of Stone, Ancient Judaism, 69–70. 20 This is why comparisons offered by some commentators of the view expressed here by 4 Ezra, T. Naph. 2:3, and the Wisdom of Solomon 11:20 (see, e. g., Jacob M. Myers, I and II Esdras [AB 42; Garden City: Doubleday, 1974], 175; Schreiner, 4. Buch Esra, 321; Stone,

274

4 Ezra and 2 Baruch in Light of the Qumran Literature

The view of time expressed by 4 Ezra is obviously indebted to earlier revelatory visions of history attributed to Daniel (chs. 2–7, 8–12), Enoch (Apocalypse of Weeks [=1 En. 93:1–10; 91:11–17]; Animal Apocalypse [=1 En. 85–90]), and Moses (Jub. 1:9–18, 23; Assumption of Moses) as has been noted.21 These apocalyptic compositions also perceive the span of time as a string of periods, each defined by its specific character, length, and precise place in the overall sequence. This succession is arranged according to a predetermined divine plan, established at the moment of creation. The course of historical time is therefore conceived as a succession of time units that obey the laws engraved on them by that divine blueprint at the moment of creation. Hence, the progression of time is a single entity, governed by a specific set of rules. Each time segment is therefore related to the others,22 and consequently its meaning may be grasped fully only in relation to the entire historical sequence. But since the laws governing this sequence are engraved in the divine plan for the world, they are beyond the cognizance of ordinary humans. Only divine revelation can explain the true meaning of the historical mysteries, and this understanding is granted only to the worthy and the righteous prophet or seer.23 Thus, venerable figures such as Enoch, Moses, and Daniel were accorded such revelatory visions. Essentially, this is also the view espoused by 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch. 4 Ezra’s view of the eschatological age should be understood in the light of its concept of time as a sequence of specific, measurable segments. This age, coming as it does at the conclusion of the measurable, limited, and corruptible time, will be immeasurable, eternal, and incorruptible (e. g., 7:29–31, 112–113; 8:52–54). The same Latin term saeculum is employed in these contexts to designate both the current time and that to come. Usually translated “world,” this term has been interpreted as relating to a theory of two diametrically opposed “worlds,” the current one and that of the future.24 However, the translation “world” accentuates the spatial aspect of the term, which is not its main sense.

Fourth Ezra, 97) are inappropriate. For these sources speak of the fixed measure of the physical creation, whereas the above passage from 4 Ezra relates to the measured temporal sequence. 21 Cf., e. g., Wolfgang Harnisch, Verhängnis und Verheiβung der Geschichte: Untersuchungen zum Zeit‑ und Geschichtsverständnis im 4. Buch Esra und in der syr. Baruchapokalypse ­(FRLANT 97; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969), 248–67; Michael A. Knibb, “2 Esdras,” in The First and Second Books of Esdras (eds. R. J. Coggins and M. A. Knibb; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 128; Schreiner, Das 4. Buch Esra, 321; Stone, Fourth Ezra, 93–94, 97–98, 158–59, 416–17. 22 For the implications of this concept for the interpretation of both history and related texts, see Devorah Dimant, “Time, Torah and Prophecy at Qumran,” in Collected Studies, 301–14 and eadem, “Exegesis and Time in the Pesharim from Qumran,” ibid., 315–32. 23 For an analysis of these notions in the apocalyptic literature, see the article “Election and Laws of History in the Apocalyptic Literature” in this volume. 24 Cf. Harnisch, Verhängnis und Verheiβung, 96–106; Michael E. Stone, Features of the Eschatology of IV Ezra (HSS 35; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 44–83.

4 Ezra and 2 Baruch in Light of the Qumran Literature

275

In most occurrences, it stands for “age” or “epoch.”25 Given the use of saeculum in 4 Ezra in contexts related to the temporal sequence, either “age” or “epoch” is the proper translation. Only such a rendering brings forth the true meaning of the distinction between the present and future eras. Two “worlds” are involved only in the sense of two kinds of time, the present limited, finite, and corruptible time as distinct from the ultimate eschatological one, which is without measure, eternal, and free of all limitations. This idea is not new. It appears in the secondcentury B. C. E. Apocalypse of Weeks (= 1 En. 91:17), where limitless time and the Edenic existence of the righteous mark the era that follows the conclusion of the numbered string of periods (compare 4 Ezra 6:28; 7:13, 31, 39–42). The affinity of 4 Ezra and also 2 Baruch with the well-known early apocalypses has been duly noted by all students of these writings. However, less attention has been paid to the striking similarities 4 Ezra displays to specific Qumran texts, in particular those published in the last two decades. Most notable is the similarity observed in Pseudo-Ezekiel, which predates 4 Ezra by more than two centuries. 4 Ezra shares with this Qumranic writing a particular nexus of ideas: the finality of time and the promised reward for the righteous. The concerns of Pseudo-Ezekiel are expressed in Ezekiel’s question about the appointed time and the nature of the reward awaiting the righteous (4Q385 2 3; 4Q386 1 i 1–2; 4Q388 7 4–5). The same type of questioning is echoed in 4 Ezra (e. g., 3:36; 4:27, 36–38; 5:34, 50). In this context, the similarity observed in the recurring question of Ezra, “When will these be?” (4:33; 6:59), is most striking. Notably, this question receives an answer from Pseudo-Ezekiel using almost the same wording (4Q385 2 3, 9).26 Another remarkable request expressed by Ezekiel is for time to be curtailed so that Israel will receive its inheritance (4Q385 4–5). The inheritance of Israel is also of concern to Ezra when he asks: “Why do we not possess our world as an 25 The chief sense of the Latin saeculum, and the analogous Greek αἰών, is “Generation, age, period.” Cf. Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958), 1613–14; P. G. W. Glare, Oxford Latin Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980), 7:1676; Walter Bauer and Frederick W. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (3rd ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 32–33. This meaning is conveyed in several instances in 4 Ezra. Thus 7:113 employs the Latin tempus instead of saeculum, indicating that a temporal notion is involved. The idea is also expressed by 14:11–12, where the saeculum is divided into twelve parts, ten of which have already elapsed, indicating a concept of time. In his detailed survey of the two “worlds” notion in 4 Ezra, Stone stresses that the two “may be called ‘times’ or saecula.” See Stone, Features of the Eschatology of IV Ezra, 44–83 (81). The argument of Harnisch, Verhängnis und Verheißung, 96–106, rests on reconstructing a translation process in which the Latin goes back to the Hebrew via Greek: saeculum ← αἰών ← ‫עולם‬. But given the Qumran evidence adduced below, the process saeculum ← αἰών ← ‫עת‬/‫ קץ‬may also be postulated. 26 Compare 4Q385 2 3: ‫ ;וא]לה מתי יהיו ואיככה ישתלמו חסדם‬4Q385 2 9: ‫מתי יהיו אלה‬, with 4 Ezra 4:33 Quo et quando haec? ‫ܥܕܡܐ ܐܠܡܬܝ ܘܐܡܬܝ ܗܠܝܢ‬, and 6:59 Usquequo haec? ‫ܥܕܡܐ‬ ‫ܐܠܡܬܝ ܗܠܝܢ‬. The same question in the same context appears in 2 Bar. 24:4; 41:5. See the discussion below.

276

4 Ezra and 2 Baruch in Light of the Qumran Literature

inheritance?” (6:59).27 The surviving fragments of Pseudo-Ezekiel do not contain statements about the sequence of historical periods. However, the cluster of queries about the future, resurrection as the final reward for the righteous (4Q385 2–3; 4Q386 1 i; 4Q388 7), and time-curtailing, suggest a view of history identical to that of other early apocalypses and of 4 Ezra.28 In 4 Ezra, the link between the question about the “end of signs” announcing the eschaton (6:11)29 suggests a similar connection. Indeed, Ezra’s intense concern with the flow of time, and the angel’s statements that the temporal progression is at its final stage (4:50) and that the world “is hastening swiftly to its end” (4:26), impart a view similar to the time-curtailing of Pseudo-Ezekiel.30 Just as in Pseudo-Ezekiel (4Q385 2–3; 4Q386 1 i; 4Q388 7), 4 Ezra also ties its questioning about time-hastening to the resurrection of the righteous (7:32–36).31 The affinity of 4 Ezra’s formulations about time to Qumranic statements on this subject, in particular to the sectarian compositions, may be explained by the interest both share in apocalyptic speculations. For the owners of the Qumran library were avid readers of apocalypses, such as those assembled in the Enochic compendium, the book of Daniel, and the various Aramaic apocalypses, copies of which were found among the Qumran documents. The influence of these apocalyptic visions is evident in the compositions the Qumranites authored, for they adopt the same view of the historical process. The sequence of times preordained by God is referred to by the major sectarian writings such as the Damascus Document, the Community Rule, Hodayot, the Pesher of Habakkuk,

 Cf. also 6:55; 7:11, 96 and the comment in Stone, Fourth Ezra, 188 ad. 6:55. nexus is particularly close to 2 Bar. 83:1–8. Cf. the discussion below. 29 It is worthwhile noting that the reading “end of signs” is attested by only some of the textual witnesses (Latin, Syriac, Ethiopic, and Georgian), whereas others supply “fullness of days” or “the time and the days” (Armenian versions). Cf. Stone, Fourth Ezra, 162. The variant readings yield a sense closer to the questioning of Ezekiel, for the query is, in fact, related to the coming of the eschaton. 30 See the analysis of Dimant, “Resurrection, Restoration and Time-Curtailing,” and the comments of Henze, Jewish Apocalypticism, 160–62. 31 In 4 Ezra, resurrection precedes the great judgment, which dispenses rewards to the righteous and metes out punishments to the wicked. So resurrection comes to the wicked as well as the righteous, and is not reserved merely for the righteous, as stated by Pseudo-Ezekiel. Perhaps also Dan 12:2 expresses the idea of resurrection for both the righteous and the wicked prior to their respective reward or punishment. See the comments of John J. Collins, Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 392–93. 27

28 This

4 Ezra and 2 Baruch in Light of the Qumran Literature

277

and Pesher on the Periods.32 In the Qumran texts, the notion is referred to by the terms “Periods” (‫)קצים‬33 or “the Divisions of Times” (‫)מחלקות העתים‬.34 However, the view of time as “weighted,” “measured,” and “numbered”35 in 4 Ezra 4:36–38, strikingly similar to several statements in Qumranic sectarian compositions, is particularly intriguing. According to the Community Rule, during the yearly covenant-renewal ceremony, the Qumran sectaries vowed “not to deviate from any single one of all the commandments of God in their periods” (1QS I, 13–14).36 The wording suggests that the precise manner of God’s commandments is determined by the specific character of each “time” (‫)עת‬.37 The same idea is conveyed by another passage from the Community Rule, which interprets Isa 40:3 as a reference to “the midrash of the Torah which He commanded by the hand of Moses to act according to what has been revealed from time to time” (1QS VIII, 15). The Maskil is additionally instructed “to walk with every living being according to the measure (‫ )תכון‬of every time and the weight of every man” (1QS IX, 12).38 These statements express the idea that the practice and understanding of the Torah precepts depend on the particular point in time when their sense is “revealed.” The revelation of the meaning of the Torah, then, 32 See, for instance, CD II, 9–10; XVI, 2; 1QS III, 15; IV, 13–16; 1QHa V, 15; IX, 16; 1QpHab VII, 2–14. The Pesher on the Periods (4Q180) is especially significant since it explicitly presents a teaching about the historical periods. See the fresh edition and discussion of Devorah Dimant, “The Pesher on the Periods (4Q180) and 4Q181,” in Collected Studies, 385–404. Contrary to the widespread view first advanced by Józef T. Milik, 4Q180 is not a copy of 4Q181. See Dimant, ibid.; eadem, “On Righteous and Sinners: 4Q181 Reconsidered,” in Collected Studies, 405–21. 33 Cf., e. g., CD II, 9–10; 1QS I, 14; III, 15; IV, 16; 1QHa IX, 16, 24; 1QpHab VII, 13; 4Q180 1 1–4; 4Q417 1 i 7; 4Q418 123 ii 2–3. 34 Cf. CD XVI, 3–4; 4Q216 1 11; 4Q217 2 1; 4Q228 1 i 2, 4, 7; 4Q286 1 ii 9–12. See the discussion in Dimant, “What is the ‘Book of the Divisions of Times’?” in Collected Studies, 369–83. 35 Cf. the quotation in n. 16 above. 36 ‫ ולוא לצעוד בכול אחד מכול דברי אל בקציהם‬. The translation is that of James H. Charlesworth, “Rule of the Community,” in Rule of the Community and Related Documents (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; The Dead Sea Scrolls 1; Tübingen/Louisville: Mohr Siebeck/Knox, 1994), 7, with a slight alteration. 37 ‫ מדרש התורה א[ש]ר צוה ביד מושה לעשות ככול הנגלה עת בעת‬. See the analysis of this passage in Devorah Dimant, “Not Exile in the Desert but Exile in Spirit: The pesher of Isa 40:3 in the Rule of the Community and the History of the Scrolls Community,” in Collected Studies, 455–64. 38 ‫ אלה החוקים למשכיל להתהלכ בהם עם כל חי לתכון עת ועת ולמשקל איש ואיש‬. Note also 1QS IX, 17–18. For the meaning of ‫ תכון‬in Qumran sectarian texts, see Menahem Kister’s definition: “… The word ‫ תכון‬is used to refer to a defined measure of time in nature (X, 6–7), to a defined measure of eschatological time (the Pesher of Habakkuk VII, 12–14), and to the proper, legal measure of what should be done (V, 7). In all its meanings, ‫ תכון‬is related to law, whether the law of nature, the law of history, or halakhah – all of which are equally the law of God.” Cf. Menahem Kister, “Commentary to 4Q298,” JQR 85 (1994): 237–49 (241). Note also the discussion of Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, To Increase Learning for the Understanding Ones: Reading and Reconstructing the Fragmentary Early Jewish Sapiential Text 4QInstruction (STDJ 44; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 242–44.

278

4 Ezra and 2 Baruch in Light of the Qumran Literature

is an ongoing process that is dependent upon the temporal course. This meaning is also determined by the “measure” of each time and the “weight” of every man, namely the degree of his understanding. Especially remarkable is the particular affinity of the 4 Ezra 4:36–38 definition of time to that in a specific segment of the Qumran sectarian documents, namely, the wisdom texts.39 Most of the specimens belonging to this category and their ramifications still need a thorough and systematic investigation.40 The present study is one of the first to make note of their peculiar relationship to 4 Ezra. The most prominent work of this Qumranic genre is the comprehensive Instruction, represented by seven substantial, or perhaps eight, copies (1Q26; 4Q415–4Q418, 4Q418a, 4Q423, 4Q418c [?]). Much of the surviving text is written as advice to “the understanding one.” One of these counsels reads as follows: “And grasp the mystery of being according to the [w]eight of the periods and the measure of[” (4Q418 77 4).41 Although the line is broken, the use of the terms “weight” (‫ )משקל‬and “measure” (‫ )מדה‬in connection with the temporal periods (‫ )קצים‬suggests the view advanced by 4 Ezra, namely, that each period is endowed with specific “measure” and “weight.” Note, also, 4Q418 127 5–6: “For God has made all the things of his ot and He has meted them out in truth[ ]..[f]or in righteous balance He has weighed out all their portion.”42 The metaphor of balance used here to present the divine measure of everything is telling and can be compared to the simile of scales for the measuring of time used by 4 Ezra 4:36. Another example with the same meaning is found in the same Qumran writing: “… for with a measure of truth and a weight of righteousness God has meted out all …” (4Q418 126 ii 3).43 39 An early study from the pen of Michael Knibb surveyed wisdom elements in 4 Ezra, relating mainly to biblical texts and Ben Sira. See idem, “Apocalyptic and Wisdom in 4 Ezra,” JSJ 13 (1982): 56–74. However, links between 4 Ezra and the Qumran wisdom literature shown here suggest that this is an important line of investigation for the understanding of wisdom elements at Qumran and in the apocalyptic literature, and merits further research. 40 For a recent summary of research on Qumran wisdom texts, see John Kampen, Wisdom Literature (Eerdmans Commentaries on the Dead Sea Scrolls; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 9–28. 41 ]‫וקח ברז נהיה על [מ]שקל קצים ומדת‬. Cf. also 4Q298 3–4 i 6:‫“( [ מדד תכונם‬He measured their measure”) and Kister’s comment “… we can infer that the central topic of these lines is the measure and limits fixed by God.” Cf. Menahem Kister, “Comments to 4Q298,” DJD XX, 24. For a survey and analysis of the term ‫תכון‬, see Menahem Kister, “Physical and Metaphysical Measurement Ordained by God in the Literature of the Second Temple Period,” in Reworking the Bible: Apocryphal and Related Texts at Qumran (eds. E. G. Chazon, D. Dimant, and R. A. Clements; STDJ 58; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 153–76 (167–68). Kister collected a wide array of sayings on the measured and weighted aspects of the creation found in Second Temple Jewish works, including the sayings of 4 Ezra and the Qumran sapiential texts cited here. However, in my judgment, only in the Qumran sectarian literature and the apocalyptic literature is this idea fully developed and applied to the notion of time. 42 ‫כי אל עשה כול חפצי אוט ויתכנם באמת[ ]ל[ כ]י במוזני צדק שקל כול תכונם‬. 43 ‫ …[ באי[פ]ת אמת ומשקל צדק תכן אל כול‬.

4 Ezra and 2 Baruch in Light of the Qumran Literature

279

The introductory section of Instruction should be understood in the light of these ideas on the measuring of time. This passage, partly surviving in two copies (4Q416 1; 4Q418 1), depicts the orderly created world and time and the laws governing them by way of the luminaries. In this context, the expression “to measure with a measure” survived.44 It refers to the measured way in which the world and human destinies were predetermined. Various sayings in Instruction suggest that these particular temporal qualities affect the behavior and understanding of the beings living under the rule of time. These notions are hinted at also in the above-cited passages from the Community Rule. Although some measured aspects of the created world may be seen as a development of the ideas spelt out by Isa 40:12, the combination of a predetermined temporal span with an orderly universe is a peculiarity of Qumran and 4 Ezra thinking. Equally impressive is the affinity between formulations of two other wisdom texts from Qumran, Mysteries and Time of Righteousness, both apparently sectarian. The two tackle the final stages of the temporal course, an issue central also in 4 Ezra. 4 Ezra describes the future eternal age as a time in which “evil shall be blotted out and deceit shall be quenched, and corruption shall be overcome, and the truth shall be revealed” (6:27–28).45 In another verse, this final age is similarly described as “the beginning of the immortal age to come, in which corruption has passed away, sinful indulgence has come to an end, unbelief has been cut off, and justice has increased and truth has appeared” (7:113–114).46 A similar depiction of this final stage is given by Mysteries, preserved in three, or perhaps four copies (1Q27, 4Q299–4Q300–4Q301[?]): “This shall be the sign that this shall come to pass: when the birth times47 of evil are shut up and wickedness is banished in the presence of justice, as [da]rkness is banished in the presence of light, or as smoke vanishes and i[s no] more, in the same way wickedness will vanish forever and justice will be manifest, as the sun will the 44 ‫( למשור במשורה‬4Q418 1 1). For ‫משורה‬, “measure” (of capacity), see 1 Chr 23:29; 4Q299 6 i 5; m. Abot 6:4. Cf. HALOT 2:640; Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (New York: 1967), 1:851. The combination of this noun with the unique infinitive ‫ )ל)משור‬caused difficulties for commentators and translators (cf., e. g., Tigchelaar, To Increase Learning, 176–77 and n. 6). But, given the context, the passage (4Q416 1 // 4Q418 1), as well as other statements on the theme cited above (note especially the use of the measure terms ‫משקל‬, ‫ איפה‬in 4Q418 126 ii 3), the verb should be understood as denominative of ‫משורה‬, the entire locution stressing the measure by which history and creation are measured. 45 Delebitur enim malum et extinguetur dolus. Florebit autem fides et vincetur corruptela, et Ostendebitur; ‫ ܘܡܬܚܙܐ ܫܪܪܐ‬.‫ ܘܡܙܕܟܐ ܚܒܐܠ‬.‫ ܘܫܘܚܐ ܗܝܡܢܘܬܐ‬.‫ܡܬܜܥܝܐ ܓܝܪ ܒܝܫܬܐ ܘܕܥܟ ܢܟܐܠ‬. 46 … et initium futuri inmortalis temporis, in quo pertransivit corruptela, soluta est intemperantia, abscisa est incredulitas, crevit autem iustitia, orta est veritas; ‫ܘܪܝܫܗ ܕܥܠܡܐ ܕܥܬܝܕ ܗܘ‬ ‫ ܘܡܫܬܪܝܐ ܫܪܝܚܘܬܐ ܘܡܬܒܜܐܠ ܟܦܘܪܘܬܐ ܘܪܒܝܐ ܙܕܝܩܘܬܐ ܘܕܢܚ ܫܪܪܐ‬.‫ܕܐܠ ܡܐܬ ܕܒܗ ܥܒܪ ܚܒܐܠ‬. Compare also 4 Ezra 7:34. 47 The rendering “birth time” for ‫ מולד‬suggests the astrological background of this term. See Matthew Morgenstern, “The Meaning of byt mwldym in the Qumran Wisdom Texts,” JJS 51 (2000): 141–44.

280

4 Ezra and 2 Baruch in Light of the Qumran Literature

world be established and all those who curb the wondrous mysteries will no longer exist …”48 It is also notable that this text speaks of a specific sign that announces the coming eschaton. 4 Ezra describes a series of such signs foretelling the approaching dawn of the eschatological era (5:1–12; 6:20–25; 13:29–32).49 Another wisdom text from Qumran, Time of Righteousness (4Q215a), employs similar terms in describing the final era: “… and distress of (the) oppressor and trial(s) of (the) pit, and by them shall be refined elects of righteousness and He will obliterate all their wickedness on account of His mer[c]ies. For the Period of Wickedness is completed, and all injustice shall [pass awa]y. [For] the Time of Justice is coming, and the earth will be filled with knowledge and glorification of God in [ ], the Period of Peace is coming.”50 The above-mentioned passage from Instruction depicts this final stage in almost identical words: “… and all injustice will end and the Period of Tru[th] will be completed.”51 The importance of the terms ‫תכון‬/‫“( תכ״ן‬measure/measurement”) in these Qumranic texts,52 comparable to the parallel term in 4 Ezra “weighed in scales” (instarera ponderavit, 4:36) is especially noteworthy. In light of the above Qumran parallels, 4 Ezra’s short and, at times, enigmatic statements on the temporal “weight” may be better understood. These affinities also say something about the background and sources of 4 Ezra’s ideas. Important in 4 Ezra is the recompense promised to the righteous in the eschatological era. This motif, too, has several parallels in Qumran writings. 4 Ezra 8:52 lists “wisdom perfected beforehand” among the gifts the righteous will gain in the eschatological age.53 This notion is elucidated by the statement that man cannot understand God’s laws for the creation because “one who is corrupt in the corrupt world cannot understand the way of the incorruptible” (4:11). By implication, the true knowledge belongs to the future eternal incorruptible era (7:13, 113). Qumranic texts also speak of the knowledge of God that will fill the world in that future time (1Q27 1 i 7; 4Q215a 1 ii 5), taking up the formulation of Isa 11:9. But, in such contexts, these Qumran

48  ‫וזה לכם האות כי יהיה בהסגר מולדי עולה וגלה הרשע מפני הצדק כגלות [ח]ושך מפני אור וכתום עשן‬ ‫א אינמה עוד‬ ֹ ‫ וכול תומכי רזי פל‬.‫( וא[יננ]ו עוד כן יתם הרשע לעד והצדק יגלה כשמש תכון תבל‬1Q27 1 i 5–6). For the translation (with a few changes), see DSSSE, 1:67. In this context, several other points of contact merit further study, such as the correspondence of 4 Ezra 6:27–28 and 7:113– 114 to the above Qumran documents. 49 See also 2 Bar. 48:31–38; 70:2–10. For remarkable analogies in describing the rift within Israel, see the Apocalypse of Jeremiah  C (4Q387 2 ii 4–5; 3 6–9; 4Q390 2 i 6) and Jub. 23:11–25. 50 ‫ כיא שלם קצהרשע‬.‫וצרתמציק ונסוי שחת ויצרופו בם לבחירי צדק וימח כול רשעם בעבור חס[ד]יו‬ ‫ [כיא] באה עת הצדק ומלאה הארץ דעה ותהלת אל בו◦[ ]בא קצהשלום‬.‫( וכול עולה ת[עבו]ר‬4Q215a 1 ii 3–6). 51 ‫( וכל עולה תתם עוד ו ֺשלם קץ האמֺ[ת‬4Q416 1 13). 52 On the meaning of this term, see n. 38 above. 53 … ante perfecta sapientia; ‫ܘܫܠܡܬ ܚܟܡܬܐ‬. Compare also 4 Ezra 6:28; 7:34. See the comments of Schreiner, 4 Buch Esra, 369; Stone, Fourth Ezra, 287.

4 Ezra and 2 Baruch in Light of the Qumran Literature

281

texts do not mention the predetermined character of this wisdom.54 Nevertheless, the distinct emphasis placed by sectarian works on the angelic wisdom to be partaken by the righteous Qumranites in the future suggests the same idea.55 Additional aspects of the final reward awaiting the righteous specified by 4 Ezra are also matched by sectarian texts. 4 Ezra asserts that the future reward of the righteous will consist of eternal existence in delight (7:96; 8:52). Eternal existence is also promised by several sectarian texts to the followers of the Qumran ideology and praxis,56 as is the enjoyment they are to experience.57 Also of note is the emphasis on truth, which is characteristic of the final period both in 4 Ezra58 and in Qumran sectarian texts.59

2 Baruch, Pseudo-Ezekiel, and Other Qumran Texts Composed around the time in which 4 Ezra was authored, the author of 2 Baruch struggled with similar questions: the meaning of the destruction of the (second) temple, the fate of Israel in the wake of this catastrophe and how and when the righteous would be rewarded and the wicked punished. Underlying this questioning is the same concept of historical time outlined above, espoused by early apocalypses and 4 Ezra. Also 2 Baruch speaks of “the course of times” revealed to the seer, in this case to Baruch, Jeremiah’s scribe. God has shown Baruch the sequence of historical times, as Baruch recounts: “Behold, you have shown me the course of time and what will come to be after these things” (14:1).60 Else54 Beside well-known biblical expressions of the primordial wisdom (cf. Prov 8:22–26; Job 23–27), commentators of 4 Ezra also refer to 1 Cor 2:7. See, e. g., Myers, I and II Esdras, 247; Schreiner, 4 Buch Esra, 369; Stone, Fourth Ezra, 287. 55 Cf. 1QS IV, 22; 1QHa IX, 21. 56 Cf. CD III, 20; 1QS IV, 7; 4Q181 1 i 4, 6. 57 Cf. 4Q171 1–10 ii 9, 11; iii 11. The verb used by this Qumran text (the Pesher of Psalms) to designate the enjoyment is a hithpa‘el of the root ‫“( ענ״ג‬enjoy”). 58 6:28; 7:34, 114; 14:18; Stone, Fourth Ezra, 165, remarks that these five sections share five concepts, some of which are expressed in antithetical pairs: truth and deceit (6:27–28; 7:34, 114; 14:18), good and evil (6:27; 8:52), and justice and injustice (7:34, 114). Worth noting is the parallel lists of antithetic qualities in the Community Rule: truth and deceit (1QS IV, 5, 9), good and evil (1QS IV, 3, 9–10), and justice and injustice (1QS IV, 4, 9). 59 The importance of the noun ‫“( אמת‬truth”) in the sectarian writings of the Qumran community is well known. Compare, for instance, the use of this noun as attributive of the Spirit of Light (1QS III, 19; IV, 23), of the members of the Qumran community (‫ו‬/‫“[ בני אמת‬sons of (his) truth”], e. g., CD VII, 10; 1QS IV, 5; 1QM XVII, 8), and of the purification of the world at the final redemptive age (1QS IV, 19, 21). See the analysis in Dimant, “The Vocabulary of the Qumran Sectarian Texts,” in Collected Studies, 57–100 (83). ̈ ‫ܗܐ ܐܘܕܥܬܢܝ ܕܘܒܪܗܘܢ‬. For ‫ ܕܘܒܪܐ‬in the sense of 60 ‫ܕܙܒܢܐ ܘܡܕܡ ܕܥܬܝܕ ܕܢܗܘܐ ܡܢ ܒܬܪ ܗܠܝܢ‬ “course,” see Michael Sokoloff, A Syriac Lexicon: A Translation from the Latin; Correction, Expansion and Update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum (Winona Lake/Piscataway: Eisenbrauns/Gorgias Press, 2009), 277 under ‫ܕܒܪ‬. The Syriac quotations from 2 Baruch in the present article follow the editions of Sven Dedering, “Apocalypse of Baruch,” in The Old Testa-

282

4 Ezra and 2 Baruch in Light of the Qumran Literature

where, the divine promise to reveal to Baruch the details of the historical events is stressed: “I will … tell you true things and give you instructions about the course of times …” (20:6).61 As the architect and creator of the temporal course (48:2–3), God is the sole master of the string of periods and the only one who knows them from beginning to end (54:1).62 The most significant expression of this view is evinced by the long symbolic vision shown to Baruch of the course of history. It appears as a cloud from which rained twelve streams of alternating dark and bright water (53), representing the alternating periods of good and evil human generations until the final judgment and redemption (56–74). Notably, the different types of water issued from a single cloud. The author states explicitly that this cloud represents “the span of the world made by God when he thought to create the world” (56:3–4).63 So time is a single coherent entity, divided into segments in which specific historical events take place according to the preordained order laid down in the divine plan. Thus, also in this conceptual framework, questions reverberate regarding the unknown time of reward and punishment: “When will you visit your works?” (24:4),64 “What will happen to them (the righteous)?,” and “How will the last times receive them?” (41:5).65 The similarity, both in formulation and theme, to the queries in Pseudo-Ezekiel and 4 Ezra noted above is remarkable.66

Calculation of History A significant aspect of historical time as a series of periods is its final and measurable character. Although 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch do not present specific chronologies in any systematic way, they nevertheless include references to chronological calculations. 4 Ezra 14:11–12 state that time (saeculum) is divided into twelve segments, of which nine-and-a-half have already elapsed. Perhaps ment in Syriac according to the Peshitta Version IV/3 (Leiden: Brill, 1973). The translations of 2 Baruch follow Gurtner, Second Baruch, with occasional alterations, unless otherwise stated. ̈ ‫ܘܫ̈ܪܝܪܬܐ ܐܡܠܠ ܥܡܟ ܘܐܦܩܕܟ ܥܠ ܕܘܒܪܐ‬. 61  ‫ܕܙܒܢܐ‬ ̈ ‫ ܘܠܘܩܒܠ‬.‫ܕܒܙܒܢܐ ܓܪܫ ܡܝܬܐ ܐܢܬ ܒܡܠܬܟ‬ ̈ 62 ‫ܥܒܕܝܗܘܢ ܕܥܡܘ̈ܪܝܗ ܕܐܪܥܐ ܡܣܪܗܒܬ ܪܫܝܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܘܡܕܡ‬ ̈ (“And you bring about the things which happen in ̈ ‫ ܘܣܘܦܗܘܢ‬.‫ܕܙܒܢܐ‬ ‫ܕܥܕܢܐ ܐܢܬ ܒܠܚܘܕܝܟ ܝܕܥ ܐܢܬ‬ their times by your word. And against the works of the inhabitants of the earth you hasten the beginnings of times. And you alone know the ends of seasons”). 63 ‫ܗܘܝܘ ܐܘܪܟܗ ܕܥܠܡܐ ܗܘ ܕܥܒܕ ܚܝܠܬܢܐ ܟܕ ܐܬܚܫܒ ܕܢܥܒܕ ܥܠܡܐ‬. ܿ ‫ܘܐܡܬܝ ܦܩܕܬ‬. Most of the translators adopted the reading ‫ܥܒ ̈ܕܝܟ‬ ܿ and rendered it 64 ‫ܥܒ ̈ܕܝܟ‬ “works” (as above). Bogaert preferred the variant ‫ܥܒ ̈ܕܝܟ‬ and translated it “serviteurs.” Cf. ܼ Bogaert, Apocalypse de Baruch, 1:480. 65 ‫ܡܢܐ ܗܟܝܠ ܗܘܐ ܠܗܠܝܢ ܐܘ ܐܝܟܢܐ ܡܩܒܠ ܠܗܘܢ ܗܘ ܙܒܢܐ ܐܚܪܝܐ‬. 66 Cf. n. 26 above. 2 Baruch mentions here the “pit of agony” as the place of punishment for the wicked. It should be compared to the place of punishment for the wicked in 1QS IV, 13: ‫“( אש מחשכים‬the fire of dark regions”). See also 2 Bar. 85:13, which states that when the wicked are judged there will be “the way to the fire and the path that leads to glowing coals.” The translation is that of Albertus F. J. Klijn, “2 (Syriac Apocalypse of) Baruch,” OTP 1:652.

4 Ezra and 2 Baruch in Light of the Qumran Literature

283

4 Ezra’s statement that God “weighed” the world and “measured” the periods (4:36–37) implies an overall chronology. Also 2 Baruch contains references to an overall chronology. Chapter 27:1–15 mentions the calculation of twelve time units in relation to twelve periods of upheaval preceding the final eschatological redemption. In addition, the vision of the bright and dark waters (ch. 53) details the alternation of twelve such waters and finally twelve rivers (53:11), and 2 Bar. 28:2 mentions a time of tribulation, calculated by “weeks and seven weeks.” The question in 2 Baruch concerning the personal “weight” by which the righteous will be judged (41:1–2) may relate to the same ideas and thus also be connected to the teaching of 4 Ezra and the Qumranic wisdom texts that concern time. For, in the context of the final reward, Baruch asks, “Or how will the last time receive them? Will they surely be weighed? Or will their time surely be weighed?” (41:5–6).67 Calculating periods using seven-year and jubilee chronologies was current in early apocalypses, such as Daniel 9, the Apocalypse of Weeks (= 1 En. 93:1–10; 91:11–17), and the Animal Apocalypse (=1 En. 89:59–90:16) but was also important in the Qumran sectarian literature, as evidenced by its 364-day calendar and the sabbatical chronologies of the Calendrical Texts (4Q319–4Q321; 4Q323– 4Q325; 4Q329).68 The jubilee chronology of the book of Jubilees, respected and read by the members of the Qumran community, is well known. But of special significance for 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch is the septennial chronology employed by the Qumranic AJ (4Q385a, 4Q387, 4Q387a, 4Q388a, 4Q389, 4Q390), given its other connections with 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch. For, unlike Jubilees, which concentrates on the early pre-Sinaitic history, the AJ applies septenary chronology to post-biblical history,69 as does the Animal Apocalypse. In this context, an additional interesting point of contact specifically between the AJ and 2 Baruch should be noted. It concerns the idea of the temporal sequence as a finite and calculable span. Alongside the basic similarities pointed out above, 2 Baruch has several features that are particularly close to the AJ, suggesting a more intimate association of the former with the older literary tradition. It was noted above that 2 Baruch refers to a seven-week and jubilee chronology (28:1–2). Particularly notable is the use made by the AJ and 2 Baruch of the root ‫“( של״ם‬to complete”) in reference to the lapse of time between one period and another or the completion of a time section. For this purpose, the AJ employs the noun ‫“( שלמות‬completion”), derived from the same root.70 The 67 ‫ܕܗܠܝܢ‬

‫ ܐܘ ܕܠܡܐ ܡܬܬܩܠܘ ܡܬܬܩܠ ܙܒܢܗܘܢ‬.‫ܐܘ ܐܝܟܢܐ ܡܩܒܠ ܠܗܘܢ ܗܘ ܙܒܢܐ ܐܚܪܝܐ‬ the use of sabbatical chronology in early sources, see the summary of James C. VanderKam, Calendars in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Measuring Time (London: Routledge, 1998), 93–109. 69 Cf. 4Q387 2 ii 3–4; 4Q390 1 7; 2 i 4, 6. 70 Cf. 4Q387 2 ii 3–4: ‫“( עד שלמות עשרה יבלי שנים‬until the completion of ten jubilees of years”). Note CD IV, 10 ‫“( ובשלים הקץ‬when the period is completed”); 4Q416 1 13 ‫ושלם‬ ‫“( קץ האמ[ת‬and the period of tru[th] will be completed”). 68 On

284

4 Ezra and 2 Baruch in Light of the Qumran Literature

same Semitic root, with the same meaning, is used by 2 Baruch in reference to the same idea.71 This linguistic correlation in the context of a range of time units in the predetermined course should serve as a pointer to the Hebrew traditions that nurtured the ideology of 2 Baruch. That 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch assume a calculable time sequence is also conveyed by a corollary idea, namely, the notion of time-curtailing. Developed in detail in 2 Baruch but already present in Pseudo-Ezekiel, the idea consists of asserting that God will hasten the passing of time in order to advance the moment of redemption.72 At first glance, there seems to be an intrinsic contradiction in espousing the fixed measurability with the order of the historical periods on one hand and the notion of time-curtailing on the other hand. Yet, this notion could have developed only from the view of time as a calculable and predetermined sequence. For, once the temporal course is measurable and determined by a preconceived divine plan, its curtailing is possible by another divine decree. In this context, time-curtailing may involve the shortening of specific periods, perhaps the last one, rather than the discarding of entire periods from the sequence. This seems to be conveyed by the wording of the relevant passage in Pseudo-Ezekiel: “I will cut the days and the years.”73 Another possible understanding of this promise is that the days and years themselves will be shorter. The concept of time-curtailing, which is introduced in the context of the final judgment, outlining reward and punishment, aims at encouraging the despairing seer by stressing that the temporal course is nearing its completion. In 4 Ezra, the measured temporal span is said to be nearing its final conclusion (5:55): the time already past is longer than the time left in the preordained sequence (4:26, 39–52). In 2 Bar. 20:1–2, the angel Ramiel informs Baruch that the periods to come will pass more quickly than the foregoing ones (see also 23:7). In both, the acceleration of time is to be effected in order to bring about the final judgment with its rewards and punishment (4 Ezra 4:26–32; 2 Bar. 20:1; 83:1). This is precisely the context of the idea of time-curtailing evinced by the second-century B. C. E. Pseudo-Ezekiel. In 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, time acceleration seems to be connected with the idea that most of the temporal sequence has already past and that the world is in its “old age” (4 Ezra 4:26–28; 5:55; 2 Bar. 85:10), which is similar to the view of early apocalypses that history is nearing its final stages and that the authors are placed at this concluding section. So perhaps in passages not preserved also Pseudo-Ezekiel assumed a chronology most of which had already 71 Cf. 2 Bar. 19:6–8; 27:15; 30:3. In all these cases, the formulation ‫“( שלם זבנא‬the completion of time”) appears. 72 See 4 Ezra 4:26; 2 Bar. 20:1–2; 83:1–2 (from the letter of Baruch). For a detailed analysis of these ideas in Pseudo-Ezekiel and related sources, see Dimant, “Resurrection, Restoration, and Time-Curtailing” in Collected Studies, 249–68. 73 ‫( הנני גודד את הימים ואת השני[ם‬4Q385 4 4–5). Perhaps the idea of time-curtailing emanates from the disappointment of the type expressed by the Pesher of Habakkuk (1QpHab VII, 7–14) regarding the fact that the “last generation” lasts longer than expected.

4 Ezra and 2 Baruch in Light of the Qumran Literature

285

elapsed. Also significant is the introduction of resurrection as the final reward of the righteous. This is clearly stated in Pseudo-Ezekiel74 and is echoed in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch.75 Concern over the exact time when justice will be carried out is emphasized by the repeated question: “When will this be?” occurring in all three works. So, even though the extant fragments of Pseudo-Ezekiel do not contain the entire or partial sequence of periods, the concerns expressed in them are identical to those in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch and suggest that Pseudo-Ezekiel has the same view of history as being a well-defined span of periods. In conclusion of the discussion on this issue, we may note that affinities between Qumranic texts, both sectarian and non-sectarian, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch have been surveyed in relation to two groups of ideas. One is centered on the notions of time sequence and time-hastening, and the other on the eschatological era with resurrection as the reward for the righteous and an inheritance for Israel. It is therefore of great interest that the nexus of time-curtailing and resurrection in an eschatological context occurs in another close contemporary of 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, namely the Biblical Antiquities. This work, originally written in Hebrew, is dated to sometime during the first century C. E.76 In a narrative style, it reworks biblical history from its beginning to the reign of Saul. In ch. 19, the author recounts the vision of history Moses was shown on Sinai, a tradition also assumed by 4 Ezra 14:5 and 2 Bar. 59:4.77 In this vision, God reveals to Moses the resurrection awaiting the righteous, as well as the time-curtailing: “When I will draw near to visit the world, I will command the years and order the times and they will be shortened, and the stars will speed up and the light of the sun will hurry to set and the light of the moon will not abide; for I will hasten to raise up you who are sleeping in order that all who will be restored to life will dwell in the place of sanctification that I showed you” (19:13).78 Also noteworthy is Moses’ query in this context: “… show me how much time has passed and how 74 4Q385

2 2–9; 4Q386 1 i 1–10; 4Q388 7 2–7. 4 Ezra 7:32. Here, all will be resurrected before the great judgment. Compare 2 Bar. 21:24; 24:1; 30:2; 50:1–4. 76  For Hebrew as the original language of the Biblical Antiquities, see Daniel J. Harrington, “The Original Language,” in Charles Perrot and Pierre-Maurice Bogaert, with the collaboration of Daniel J. Harrington, Pseudo-Philon Les Antiquités Bibliques (SC 230; Paris: Cerf, 1976), 2:75–77; Howard Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (AGAJU 31; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 1:215–24. A pre-70 C. E. date is argued by Pierre-Maurice Bogaert, in Perrot and Bogaert, Les Antiquités Bibliques, 66–74; Jacobson, Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, 199–210, summarizes the arguments for a post-70 C. E. date, but some of them lose their cogency in light of the above evidence from Qumran. 77 That Moses received such a revelation is also stated by other sources. Cf. Ezekiel the Tragedian, Exagoge 7.440. See Carl R. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors; II: Poets (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 366. The same tradition is recorded by many rabbinic sources. Cf., e. g., Sifre Deut. § 357 on Deut 34:1 and Tg. Ps.-J. ad. loc.; Lev. Rab. 26,7. 78 Et erit cum appropinquaverit visitare orbem iubebo annis et precipiam temporibus et breviabuntur et accelerabuntur astra, et festinabit lumen solis in occasum, et non permanebit lumen lune; quoniam festinabo excitare vos dormientes, ut quem ostendi tibi locum sanctifica75 See

286

4 Ezra and 2 Baruch in Light of the Qumran Literature

much remains” (19:14).79 Time-curtailing is an old motif alluded to by Ben Sira 33:10 (= 36:8) and taken up in Matt 24:22 and Mark 13:20. But the connection between resurrection and time-curtailing is specific to the Biblical Antiquities, 2 Bar. 20:1–2; 83:1–2, and probably 4 Ezra 4:26; 12:20, as noted by commentators of all three works.80 Yet, with the publication of Pseudo-Ezekiel, a fourth witness to the same nexus, we are now able to assign this group of ideas to a much older tradition. The later first-century writings took it up and developed it further. A final note on the perception of history is in order. In the manner of all ancient apocalypses, Pseudo-Ezekiel, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch perceive historical times as mysterious and enigmatic. This aspect of history is represented by cryptic symbolic visions revealed to Ezra or Baruch, which require decoding imparted by God or his angel.81 In this connection, an interesting similarity is seen in Pseudo-Ezekiel and the two later apocalypses. In the case of Pseudo-Ezekiel, a significant reversal occurs. The biblical prophet is shown the vision of the dry bones first and the questions, here asked by God, come later (Ezek 37:1–3), whereas in Pseudo-Ezekiel it is the prophet who first presents the questions and then receives the answers in the vision.82 In the same way, visions are shown to Ezra and Baruch as answers to their queries.83 Although all three writings are formulated in “dialogue” form, Pseudo-Ezekiel differs from 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch in that it weaves its ideas around the biblical prophecies of Ezekiel. The biblical text serves as the thread around which the various content units are arranged,84 whereas 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch are connected to the biblical framework only in a general and very loose way. Interestingly, a different form is selected by the AJ. Here, the detailed sequence of history, past and future, is divulged to Jeremiah (4Q385a 18 i 1), a clearly non-biblical feature. So, while Pseudo-Ezekiel is written as an expansion and explication of the biblical prophecies of Ezekiel, tionis in eo habitent omnes qui possunt vivere; the Latin citation and the translation are taken from Jacobson, Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, 1:28, 122–23. 79 Ostende mihi quanta quantitas temporis transiit et quanta remansit; the Latin citation is from Jacobson, Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, ibid. 80 See Charles Perrot, “Commentaire,” in Perrot and Bogaert, Les Antiquités Bibliques, 2:644–45; Stone, Fourth Ezra, 94; Bogaert, Apocalypse de Baruch, 2:47. 81 See the visions of the woman and the eagle in 4 Ezra (9–10; 11–12:1) and the vision of the cloud shedding water in 2 Baruch (53). In 4 Ezra, Uriel is the angel responding to Ezra (4:1, 13; 5:31), but at times it is God himself (e. g., 6:11–20). In 2 Baruch, the dialogue is mostly with God (e. g., 1:1; 3:2; 4:1; 5:1–2; 10:1) but at times with the angel Ramiel (54:3). 82 4Q385 2 2–4; 4 4–5; 4Q386 1 i 3–4; 4Q388 7 4–5. 83 4 Ezra 10:59; 2 Bar. 54:6. 84 See the article “Hebrew Pseudepigrapha at Qumran: Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C” in this volume; Albert L. A. Hogeterp, “Resurrection and Biblical Tradition: Pseudo-Ezekiel Reconsidered,” Bib 89 (2008): 59–69; Mladen Popović, “Bones, Bodies and Resurrection in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Human Body in Death and Resurrection (eds. T. Nicklas, F. V. Reiterer, and J. Verheyden; Deuteronomical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2009; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2009), 221–42 (230–36).

4 Ezra and 2 Baruch in Light of the Qumran Literature

287

the AJ adopts the form of the apocalypses, namely a vision of the historical se­ quence encased in a narrative framework. Although the AJ relates to the biblical Jeremiah, and some passages overtly rewrite sections from the biblical book attributed to this prophet,85 most of the surviving sections relay sequences from a vision of history, in part summarizing biblical data but introducing many nonbiblical details. Detaching itself from a specific biblical sequence, the AJ thus freely expresses its vision of history. However, whether in rewritten Bible form or as an apocalypse about history, both Pseudo-Ezekiel and the AJ attribute their compositions to major prophetic figures who are well known from their written utterances. Moreover, the two Qumranic works were penned at a time when the biblical prophecies transmitted under the names of Jeremiah and Ezekiel were already considered authoritative. So the presence at Qumran of prophetic reworking attests to the existence and vitality of such a genre during the Second Temple era, which perhaps developed precisely because the original prophetic compositions were already canonical. In contrast, after 70 C. E., apocalyptic revelations were not attributed to known prophets but to other figures such as Ezra and Baruch.86 Finally, it is interesting to observe the difference in atmosphere between the Qumran writings and the two later apocalypses. An atmosphere of hope still seems to pervade Pseudo-Ezekiel, as it does in other early apocalypses, and their authors appeared to have studied the sequence of periods in order to be prepared for the final redemptive era they believed to be approaching. This is true of the Enochic Apocalypse of Weeks and the Animal Apocalypse, of the book of Daniel, and the contemporary Pseudo-Ezekiel. The situation is different in 4 Ezra and, to some extent, also in 2 Baruch. 4 Ezra, especially, is marked by a penetrating probe into the place of justice in history, and even displays a tinge of despair 85 4Q385a

18 i reworks Jer 40:1–6; 51:59–64. 4Q385a 18 ii rewrites Jeremiah 44. works regarding prophets are narrative-haggadic rather than records of their words. To this type of writings belong the Paraleipomena Jeremiae, the Martyrdom of Isaiah, and the Apocryphon of Ezekiel. On the Martyrdom of Isaiah, perhaps written originally in Hebrew during the first century, see Michael A. Knibb, “Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah,” OTP 2:146–49. The Apocryphon of Ezekiel is the title given to a lost work, excerpts of which are cited by the church fathers and various other sources. Since one citation is found in the apostolic 1 Clem. 8:3, dated to the end of the first century, the lost apocryphon must be earlier. But the short surviving excerpts do not tally with any of the passages recovered from the Qumran Pseudo-Ezekiel, neither do they correspond to its style. The largest citation by Epiphanius (Adversus Haereses 64.70, 5–17) relates the parable of the blind and the lame, also known in a Hebrew rabbinic version (Mek. to Exod 15:1; Lev. Rab. 4, 5; b. Sanh. 91a–b). It represents the soul and the body and their promised resurrection. See James R. Mueller and Stephen E. Robinson, “Apocryphon of Ezekiel,” OTP 1:487–95; James R. Mueller, The Five Fragments of the Apocryphon of Ezekiel: A Critical Study (JSPSup 5; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994). The link of resurrection to Ezekiel made by this apocryphon provides additional evidence for this exegetical complex, already present in Pseudo-Ezekiel. The fact that two works attributed to Ezekiel existed in the first century is also stated by Josephus (Ant. x, 79). He may, in fact, be referring also to the Qumranic Pseudo-Ezekiel. 86 Later

288

4 Ezra and 2 Baruch in Light of the Qumran Literature

(3:30–36; 4:22–25). Reading between the lines, the attentive reader may, perhaps, perceive criticism of the early apocalyptic view of history as a solution to the problem of theodicy. This is also suggested by the fact that Ezra’s questioning is found chiefly in the argumentative first three sections, and not in the final visions.87 It takes a series of visionary revelations to convince this author of the judgment and redemption to come.

Narrative Traditions in Apocryphon of Jeremiah C and 2 Baruch The above discussion dealt with the concept of time shared by Pseudo-Ezekiel, the AJ, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch. However, from the perspective of the narrative framework, the AJ is linked to 2 Baruch in a special way, since both relate to the traditions surrounding the prophet Jeremiah. The AJ ’s particular contribution to this literary tradition is its early attestation to the depiction of Jeremiah as an apocalyptic seer.88 The observations offered below are just a small sample of the insights that may be gained by comparing the two compositions and the Jeremianic literature in general.89 The following comments will relate to two motifs common to the AJ and 2 Baruch: a) Letters sent to Babylon; b) Mosaic features attributed to Jeremiah or Baruch. a) Letters sent to Babylon: The biblical prophecies attributed to Jeremiah include accounts of letters sent by the prophet to Babylon (Jer 29:1–24; 51:64). This detail served as a springboard for several pseudepigraphic elaborations in subsequent literary products of the Jeremianic cycle. Letters from or to Jeremiah are mentioned in all the compositions attributed to this prophet. Among the earliest is the Letter of Jeremiah, a short Jewish text incorporated into the scriptural Apocrypha. Although transmitted in Greek, it was originally composed in Hebrew probably during the second century B. C. E.90 It shares several narrative 87 4 Ezra is divided into seven sections. The first three present Ezra’s prayers and questions with the answers he receives; the last four describe the visions revealed to Ezra and their interpretation. See Stone, Fourth Ezra, 50–51. 88 The literary relationship between Jeremiah and Baruch, and how the minor Baruch of the Hebrew Bible became a major literary pseudonym, should be treated separately. See the earlier survey of Christian Wolff, Jeremia im Frühjudentum und Urchristentum (Berlin: AkademieVerlag, 1976). However, the entire question merits fresh investigation in light of the new evidence furnished by the AJ. The recent survey by Wright leaves room for further research. See J. Edward Wright, Baruch Ben Neriah: From Biblical Scribe to Apocalyptic Seer (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2003). See the article “From the Book of Jeremiah to the Qumranic Apocryphon of Jeremiah C” in this volume. 89 See also the observations of Kipp Davis, The Cave 4 Apocryphon of Jeremiah and the Qumran Jeremianic Traditions (STDJ 111; Leiden: Brill, 2014), 234–52. 90 For Hebrew as the original language of the Letter of Jeremiah, see, e. g., Antonius H. J. Gunneweg, “Der Brief Jeremias,” in Unterweisung in lehrhafter Form (JSHRZ III/2; Gütersloh: GütersloherVerlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1975), 185; Carey A. Moore, Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah: The Additions (AB 44; Garden City: Doubleday, 1977), 258, 326; Reinhard

4 Ezra and 2 Baruch in Light of the Qumran Literature

289

elements with the AJ. The superscription of the Letter of Jeremiah describes it as “a letter which Jeremiah sent to those about to be led captive to Babylon.”91 So this letter is purported to have been addressed to the deportees to Babylon just before leaving the land of Israel. It refers either to the first deportation of 597 B. C. E., thus alluding to the letter sent by Jeremiah at that time (Jer 29:1–2),92 or to the deportation of 586 B. C. E., thus referring to Jer 40:1–2. Whichever the case may be, the agreement between the Letter of Jeremiah and the AJ is remarkable in that both describe the message of the prophet to the exiles before they left the land of Israel (4Q385a 18 i 6–11). Also, both present Jeremiah’s instructions as emanating from a divine commandment.93 However, the method of delivery and content of Jeremiah’s message are different in the two writings: the Letter of Jeremiah is said to be a written document, while the AJ describes an oral prophetic communication. In addition, the Letter of Jeremiah delivers an admonition against idolatry, whereas the AJ records Jeremiah’s instructions to the captives to be loyal to the covenant in their land of exile. The AJ also may have contained an admonition against idolatry in one of the lost sections, similar to the warning addressed to the Jews in Egypt, which survived in 4Q385a 18 ii 8–10, but this must remain a conjecture. The traditions regarding Jeremiah that are shared by the Letter of Jeremiahand the AJ are further illuminated by the impressive agreement in one detail between the AJ and what 2 Macc 2:1–8 cites as found “in the documents”94 concerning Jeremiah. According to these records, obviously literary texts, the passage in 2 Maccabees notes: “the prophet gave the Torah to those who were being led into exile and admonished them not to forget the Lord’s commandments …”95 Here, both the Torah and the admonition are mentioned, as they are in the AJ. The wording of the 2 Maccabees account is so similar to the story in 4Q385a 18 i that one wonders whether 2 Maccabees is, in fact, citing the passage from the AJ.96 In addition, in the name of these “documents,” 2 Maccabees attributes to Jeremiah an admonition against idolatry (2:2) and a divine disclosure regarding G. Kratz, “Der Brief des Jeremia,” in Odil H. Steck, Reinhard G. Kratz, and Ingo Kottsieper, Das Buch Baruch, Der Brief des Jeremia, Zusätze zu Esther und Daniel (ATD Apokryphen 5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998), 74. For the end of the third-century or beginning of the second-century B. C. E. date of the Letter, see Kratz, “Der Brief des Jeremia,” 81–84. Moore, Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah: The Additions, 328 opts for a late fourth‑ or beginning of the third-century B. C. E. date. 91 The translation is that of Moore, ibid., 333. 92 Thus Moore, ibid., 334; Kratz, “Der Brief des Jeremia,” 88. 93 For the AJ, see 4Q385a 18 i 2 “and] Jeremiah the prophet [went out] from before the Lord” (‫ )ויצא] ירמיה הנביא מלפני יהוה‬and 4Q385a 18 i 8 cited in n. 106 below. Cf. Dimant, DJD XXX, 160. 94 ἐν ταῖς ἀπογραφαῖς; 2 Macc 2:1. 95 For the translation, see Jonathan A. Goldstein, II Maccabees (AB 41A; Garden City: Doubleday, 1983), 156. 96 See Dimant, DJD XXX, 107–08.

290

4 Ezra and 2 Baruch in Light of the Qumran Literature

the instruction to hide the tabernacle and the ark (2:4), a theme later reappearing in the Paraleipomena Jeremiae (3:8), and in 2 Baruch (6:7–10). In connection to the hiding of these holy relics, 2 Maccabees ascribes Mosaic features to Jeremiah by telling how he concealed them in a cave on the mountain “that Moses ascended to see the heritage promised by God” (2 Macc 2:4). Mosaic features are lent to Jeremiah also by the AJ and 2 Baruch, as they are to Ezra by 4 Ezra (see below). The Letter of Jeremiah and the texts cited by 2 Maccabees are not the only literary evidence affiliated with the AJ. A surprisingly close link is observed between the AJ and the Book of Baruch of the Apocrypha. The Book of Baruch is a compendium of five sections that are distinct in literary character and aim, and either composed by a single author or assembled by an editor. The first part, which contains narrative traditions about Baruch, was certainly written in Hebrew, as perhaps also were the other sections.97 It is the first section that is particularly relevant to the present discussion. It relates how, at a gathering of exiles in Babylon, Baruch read a letter he had composed. In the Greek version of the book of Baruch, this event took place “by the river Soud” (1:1–3). One of the fragments belonging to the AJ also mentions a public gathering at which something was read “on the river Sour.”98 The similar circumstances and especially the identical location, Sour/Soud, suggests the same tradition. However, in the Book of Baruch, the letter read by Baruch is his own, while the AJ ’s extant text suggests that Jeremiah is the author of the document, sent from his abode in Egypt.99 These differences illustrate the transformation Jeremiah and Baruch went through in this literature.100 Pre-70 texts, such as the Letter of Jeremiah and the AJ, place Jeremiah in Jerusalem even after the temple’s demise. In this   97 For Hebrew as the language of the entire original, see Steck, “Das Buch Baruch,” in Steck, Kratz, and Kottsieper, Das Buch Baruch, Der Brief des Jeremia, Zusätze zu Esther und Daniel, 20. A Hebrew original for Bar 1–3:8 has been shown convincingly by Emanuel Tov, The Book of Baruch also called I Baruch (Greek and Hebrew) (SBLTT 8; Missoula: SBL, 1975). For Greek as the language of the final edition of the book of Baruch, see, e. g., Gunneweg, “Das Buch Baruch,” 170. For a second-century B. C. E. composition of this work, see Moore, Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah: The Additions, 260; Steck, “Das Buch Baruch,” 22–23.  98 ‫( על נהר סור‬4Q389 1 7). The Greek has Soud. This is evidently a case of confusion of the letters resh and dalet (‫סוד‬/‫)סור‬, which are graphically very similar. But note the Syriac translation, which has ‫ ܨܘܪ‬with resh as in the AJ. See Dimant, DJD XXX, 222.  99 “J]eremiah son of Helkia from the land of Egyp[t” (‫ י]רמיה בן חלקיה מארץ מצר[ים‬4Q389 1 5). 100 Cf. 4Q389 1 5–7. See the discussions of Lutz Doering, “Jeremia in Babylonien und Ägypten: Mündliche und schriftliche Toraparanese für Exil und Diaspora nach 4QApocryphon of Jeremia C,” in Frühjudentum und Neues Testament im Horizont Biblischer Theologie (eds. W. Kraus and K.-W. Niebuhr; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 50–79; Doering, “Jeremiah and the ‘Diaspora Letters’ in Ancient Judaism: Epistolary Communication with the Golah as Medium for Dealing with the Present,” in Reading the Present in the Qumran Library: The Perception of the Contemporary by Means of Scriptural Interpretations (eds. K. de Troyer and A. Lange; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 65–67.

4 Ezra and 2 Baruch in Light of the Qumran Literature

291

respect, the book of Baruch is also part of this picture, for it locates Baruch rather than Jeremiah in Babylon.101 But in the post-70 C. E. works, 2 Baruch and the Paraleipomena Jeremiae, Jeremiah goes to Babylon whereas it is Baruch who remains in the ruined Jerusalem to encourage the people who stayed there (2 Bar. 9:2; 33:1–3; Paraleipomena Jeremiae 3:11–13; 4:5–6; 5:21; 6:17).102 The epistolary tradition attached to Jeremiah continued to be developed in these post-70 C. E. Jeremianic compositions. 2 Baruch includes a long letter Baruch wrote “to the nine-and-a-half tribes” (78–87), which is transmitted separately in the tradition of the Syrian Church.103 2 Bar. 77:19 mentions another letter Baruch wrote and sent to Babylon, but it is detailed nowhere.104 Paraleipomena Jeremiae relates to the letter written by Baruch and sent by an eagle to Jeremiah in Babylon (6:13–7:19). b) Mosaic features of Jeremiah: The epistolary tradition developed by the Jeremianic works is closely related to the Mosaic features lent to Jeremiah/Baruch, since the epistles are the vehicle by which admonitory content is addressed to the exiles in Babylon. Such features are observable in several works belonging to the Jeremiah/Baruch cycle, among them 2 Baruch and the Paraleipomena Jeremiae. This tendency is already apparent in the early summary of Jeremianic works cited by 2 Macc 2:4–5, as has been aptly noted in scholarly discussion.105 The AJ has now provided additional evidence of these Moses-like motifs. In the AJ, this feature is expressed in the following statement: “And Jeremiah the prophet went [with them until] the river. And he commanded them what they should do in the land of [their] captivity, [(that) they should listen] to the voice of Jeremiah concerning the things which God had commanded him [to do] and they should keep 101 Contrary

to Jer 43:6, according to which Baruch accompanied Jeremiah to Egypt. Jeremiae is a Jewish work with Christian interpolations (mainly 9:10– 32). It came down to us in Greek and several other ancient languages, but was originally composed in Greek, as has been demonstrated convincingly by Berndt Schaller, “Is the Greek Version of the Paraleipomena Jeremiae Original or a Translation?” JSP 22 (2000): 51–89 (with references to previous literature). Jacob Licht, who translated the work into Hebrew and thought it was originally composed in this language, admitted that the Greek cannot be easily rendered into literal Hebrew, a fact supporting Schaller’s conclusion. See Jacob Licht, “Paralipomena Jeremiae,” Bar Ilan 1 (1963): 66–80 (71) (Heb.). For the date of the composition of this work within the first half of the second century, see, e. g., Stephen E. Robinson, “4 Baruch,” OTP 2:414; Jean Riaud, Les Paralipomènes du Prophète Jérémie (Angers: Université Catholique de l’Ouest, 1994), 131–32; Jenz Herzer, Die Paralipomena Jeremiae (TSAJ 43; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 177–81; Herzer, 4 Baruch (Paraleipomena Jeremiou), xxx–xxxi (see the following article, n. 48). The literary similarities between the narrative sections of 2 Baruch and Paraleipomena Jeremiae are listed in the comparative tables compiled by Bogaert, Apocalypse de Baruch, 1:186–90. It is generally agreed that Paraleipomena Jeremiae is based on 2 Baruch. Cf. Bogaert, Apocalypse de Baruch, 1:220–21; Herzer, Die Parlipomena Jeremiae, 177. 103 Cf. Gurtner, Second Baruch, 24–26. 104 See the comments of Bogaert, Apocalypse de Baruch, 1:178–80. 105 Cf. Wolff, Jeremiah im Frühjudentum und Urchristentum, 79–83; Riaud, Les Paralipomènes du Prophète Jérémie, 53–54. 102 Paraleipomena

292

4 Ezra and 2 Baruch in Light of the Qumran Literature

the covenant of the God of their fathers in the land [of Babylon] …” (4Q385a 18 i 6–10).106 Thus, Jeremiah becomes the prophet who bequeaths a new version of Moses’ Torah, one that is adapted to the new circumstances of the exiles departing to a land of exile, far removed from the temple and the land of Israel.107 It is significant that this Moses-like Jeremiah is also granted a revelation of history, past and future. This combined concern with Torah and forecasting future events is also attached to Moses in the book of Jubilees, a contemporary of the AJ. For Moses in Jubilees receives not only the Torah but also the chronology of history (Jub. 1:27–29). Yet, attributing to Jeremiah both the giving of the Torah and a revelation of history is a novel combination specific to the AJ. It was subsequently taken up by 2 Baruch and applied to Jeremiah’s scribe. Examined in light of the Mosaic model, it is worthwhile noting that the transference of roles from Jeremiah to Baruch clearly took place in the post-70 C. E. compositions, especially in 2 Baruch.108 With Jeremiah in Babylon to encourage and teach the exiles (10:2; 33:2), it is Baruch who preaches faithfulness to the Torah to the people who remained in the land (44:3, 7; 46:5; 84:8), and it is he who receives revelations regarding history. The Mosaic character of Baruch is further enhanced by his final actions. Like Moses, he is instructed to go up the mountain and see the land he is about to leave (76:3). He is also to instruct the people (77:5) and does so by pronouncing a farewell address (77:1–10, 15–16) just as Moses did. Finally, he is to be “taken” without death (25:1; 43:7; 76:2), as was Moses according to a post-biblical tradition.109 Moses’ final addresses are explicitly referred to (84:2–3; cf. Deut 29:9–27; 32:1). Also, the Paraleipomea Jeremiae, dependent on 2 Baruch as it is, shapes its Jeremiah in the Mosaic model (17:18–19; 8:1–3). In light of the similarities between the Qumran texts and 4 Ezra, the Moseslike characteristics lent to Ezra also deserve attention. In 4 Ezra (14:1–6, 23–47), this is done by modeling a long scene on the burning bush episode of Exod 3:2 (14:1–26). In this scene, Ezra receives revelation and a message via a voice emanating from the bush, and the miraculous speaker opens by referring to the bush episode and Moses’ mission (14:3–4). The passage also mentions his sojourn on Mount Sinai, thus alluding to his receiving of the Torah. The sequence of times divulged to Moses is also included (14:5). Thus, by associating the two functions, 4 Ezra takes up the Mosaic model of Jubilees and the AJ. According to 4 Ezra, Moses is instructed to conceal the mysteries of history revealed to him (14:5–6). Ezra, too, gains knowledge of history through special revelation and 106 ‫וילך ירמיה הנביא [עמהם עד ]הנהר ויצום את אשר יעשו בארץ שביא[ם וישמעו] לקול ירמיה לדברים‬ ‫אשר צוהו אלהים [לעשות] ושמרו את ברית אלהי אבותיהם בארץ [בבל‬. 107 Cf. Dimant, DJD XXX, 105. 108 Cf. the comments of Henze, Jewish Apocalypticism, 102–07. 109 This tradition is recorded by Josephus, Ant. iii, 96; iv, 326. See Stone, Fourth Ezra, 172–73; 416–17.

4 Ezra and 2 Baruch in Light of the Qumran Literature

293

is also commanded to conceal the information (14:6–8). The secrecy regarding the temporal sequence is linked to the secrecy surrounding seventy of the ninetyfour books Ezra dictates in trance (14:43–44). Here, again, the Mosaic role is re-enacted in that Ezra dictates the twenty-four books of the Hebrew Bible. The extra seventy books, dictated for transmission only to the wise of Israel (14:40–47),110 represent the additional hidden wisdom that 4 Ezra postulates as esoteric, perhaps apocalyptic writings. Perhaps they are intended for the wise in an era without the temple. Lastly, the final admonitory testament of Ezra to the people (14:28–36) and the divine promise that he will be “taken” without death are reminiscent of the final farewell addresses of the biblical Moses (Deuteronomy 32–33) and his final mysterious disappearance (Deut 34:6). The foregoing survey has shown the close links connecting the Letter of Baruch, the Book of Baruch, the AJ, and the reference to Jeremianic works in 2 Maccabees 2. It is important to note that the first two are composed in Hebrew, as is probably also the case with the writings mentioned by 2 Maccabees. All three stem from the second century B. C. E. at the latest. The fact that all three situate Jeremiah in Jerusalem indicates that this was the dominant tradition in the Second Temple period, still close to the biblical accounts of this prophet. Even the early composition related to the prophet’s scribe, the Book of Baruch, concentrates on his, rather than Jeremiah’s activities in Babylon. While the attribution of Moses-like features to Ezra or Baruch in works composed after the destruction of the Second Temple may be understood in light of this event, it is not the case with the AJ, which predates these circumstances by two centuries. So, assigning Mosaic features to other figures was a literary procedure practiced during Second Temple times. Yet the evidence shows that during that time it was applied only to Jeremiah, who embodies the passage from the First Temple era to that following its destruction. However, it may well be asked in what way the Moses model served an author of the second century B. C. E., and one who was close to the Qumran community circles.111 The author, being close to Qumran sectarian circles, may have selected Jeremiah and the Moses model to mirror his own reservation about the contemporary temple cult and the erroneous Torah exegesis as practiced by the Qumran community’s opponents. Indeed, the author of the AJ sees his own time as a period of strife “over the Torah and the Covenant.”112 110 See

the comments of Stone, ibid., 416–42. the affinity of the AJ to the Qumran texts, in particular the Damascus Document, see Dimant, DJD XXX, 110–12. 112 ‫“( ויתקרע ישראל בדור הה[וא] להלחם א[י]ש ברעהו על התורה ועל הברית‬And Israel will be rent asunder in th[at] generation, each m[a]n fighting against his neighbor over the Torah and over the covenant”; 4Q388a 3 7–8). Matthias Henze discusses Pseudo-Ezekiel and the AJ together with the Aramaic Pseudo-Daniel (4Q243–4Q245). Henze suggests that Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel are inserted in the transition from the independent state to the exile in Babylon, and this historical nexus may explain the Qumranites’ interest in them. See idem, “4QApocryphon 111 On

294

4 Ezra and 2 Baruch in Light of the Qumran Literature

Yet, despite the variety of links connecting Pseudo-Ezekiel and the AJ to 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, they differ fundamentally in that the Qumranic writings select biblical prophets as their chief protagonists, whereas the later works attribute their dialogues and visions to non-prophetic biblical figures. In fact, the Qumranic writings provide the only extant apocalyptic compositions attributed to prophets. Even older apocalyptic forecasts, embedded in Daniel and the Enochic apocalypses, place their revelations into the mouths of non-prophetic figures.113 It is, perhaps, the Qumran context with its interpretative pesharim tradition of enigmatic prophecies that accounts for the appropriation of prophetic forecasts. In this way, the re-adaptation of prophecies to the apocalyptic viewpoint gradually might have been given up, with the growing realization that prophecy had ended. The variety of contacts between the Qumran library and the later apocalyptic works composed in Hebrew, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch, suggests an ongoing Hebrew literary tradition of apocalyptic writing apparently at home in the land of Israel during the centuries before and immediately after the destruction of the Second Temple, from 200 B. C. E. to around 100 C. E. In addition, it points to numerous contacts between the Qumran documents and the later apocalyptic compositions. Especially significant are the links uncovered regarding the common notion of time adopted by 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch and various Qumran texts, in particular the sectarian wisdom texts. These connections shed surprising light not only on the sources of apocalyptic thinking, but also on the enigmatic sapiential compositions found among the Qumran Scrolls. Thus, any future study of later apocalyptic works such as 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch must take into account the Qumranic parallels in addition to those in New Testament and rabbinic literature. Another fact to emerge from the foregoing discussion is that the compositions espousing the above-analyzed ideas, namely Pseudo-Ezekiel, the AJ, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch, are all Hebrew writings. Indeed, they differ in concept and content from the Aramaic apocalypses found at Qumran, such as 1 Enoch, the various patriarchal testaments, and the literature that developed around the biblical book of Daniel.114 Future research of the Hebrew and Aramaic traditions should keep their distinction in mind. of Jeremiah C and 4QPseudo-Ezekiel: Two ‘Historical’ Apocalypses,” in Prophecy after the Prophets? The Contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Understanding of Biblical and Extra-Biblical Prophecy (eds. K. de Troyer and A. Lange, with the assistance of L. L. Schulte; CBET 52; Louvain: Peeters, 2009), 25–41 (37). 113 The case of Daniel is particularly interesting. In the biblical visions and stories assigned to him, he is never called a prophet, nor are his visions or their interpretations presented as prophecies. In ch. 9, Daniel himself seeks the meaning of Jeremiah’s prophecies. But in Qumranic pesharim, written several decades after the composition of Daniel, he is already called “a prophet” and cited and interpreted as such. In 4Q174 (4QFlorilegium) 1 ii 3, Daniel is referred to as “prophet” and a pesher-type interpretation – reserved for prophecies – is applied to Danielic verses, as it is in the Melchizedek Pesher (11Q13 ii 18). 114 See my observations in Dimant, “The Qumran Aramaic Texts and the Qumran Community,” in Collected Studies, 185–94.

From the Book of Jeremiah to the Qumranic Apocryphon of Jeremiah C In recent decades, the critical discussion of the book of Jeremiah has gone through a significant transformation. On the one hand, inquiry into the literary and structural character of the book has gradually distanced itself from viewing it as a reliable account of the life and prophetic discourses of Jeremiah compiled by the prophet’s faithful scribe and companion, Baruch.1 On the other hand, there has been a growing realization that the collection that goes under the name of Jeremiah is a complex entity, shaped through a long process of assembling, editing, and re-interpreting. The final stage in this protracted evolution seems to be a Deuteronomistic redaction made by one or more editors, created during the post-exilic period.2 From the textual perspective, the impact of the manuscripts of Jeremiah found at Qumran has been decisive. While some of the Qumran copies of Jeremiah, 4QJera (4Q70) and 4QJerc (4Q72), produce a long version of Jeremiah that is close to the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT), two others, 4QJerb (4Q71) and 4QJerd (4Q72a), correspond to the textual form of the shorter Septuagint (LXX) Greek translation of this prophetic book. The latter two copies thus supply evidence of the existence of a Hebrew Vorlage underlying the Greek version.3 So, the Qumran evidence introduced into the discussion the fact that 1  See the summary of scholarly opinions on this question presented by William McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah, Volume 2: Commentary on Jeremiah, 26–52 (ICC; London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 1996), cxxxiii–cxxxvi. For a survey of the major positions taken on Jeremiah in recent commentaries, see Robert P. Carroll, “Radical Clashes of Will and Style: Recent Commentary Writing on the Book of Jeremiah,” JSOT 45 (1989): 99–114; idem, “Arguing about Jeremiah: Recent Studies and the Nature of a Prophetic Book,” in Congress Volume: Leuven 1989 (ed. J. A. Emerton; Leiden: Brill, 1991), 222–35. 2 See, e. g., the surveys of Robert P. Carroll, From Chaos to Covenant: Prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah (New York: Crossroad, 1981), 14–18; McKane, Commentary on Jeremiah, clxxii; Thomas C. Römer, “La conversion du prophète Jérémie à la théologie deutéronomiste: Quelques enquêtes sur le problème d’une rédaction deutéronomiste du livre de Jérémie,” in The Book of Jeremiah and its Reception (eds. A. H. W. Curtis and T. C. Römer; Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 27–50; Ronnie Goldstein, The Life of Jeremiah (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2013), 211–18 (Heb.). 3 See J. Gerald Janzen, Studies in the Text of Jeremiah (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973); Emanuel Tov, “The Jeremiah Scrolls from Qumran,” RevQ 14 (1989): 189–206; idem, “Jeremiah,” in DJD XV, 145–207; Pierre-Maurice Bogaert, “De Baruch a Jérémie: Les deux rédactions conservées du livre de Jêrémie,” in Le Livre de Jérémie: Le prophète et son milieu, les oracles et leur transmission (ed. P.-M. Bogaert; Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 168–73.

296

From the Book of Jeremiah to the Qumranic Apocryphon of Jeremiah C

the shorter LXX version was translated from a Hebrew text.4 It has long been known that the Greek translation of Jeremiah included in the Septuagint collection is significantly different from that of the MT version.5 The two differ not only in numerous details and in the order of the material, but also in their overall length. The Greek version is shorter than the MT by one-seventh, a difference of some 3,000 words. The discovery of the Qumran copies that resemble the Greek version demonstrated that the Greek is based on a shorter Hebrew edition, and is not a product of the Greek translators.6 The differences between the two versions are so significant that it is now customary to speak of two editions of the book of Jeremiah. Moreover, further research has shown that the Hebrew version underlying the LXX is earlier than the MT edition, which often attests to secondary insertions.7 As the findings of the Qumran Jeremiah texts were published relatively early on, scholarly discussion has centered on these new data and their implications for the textual form of the Jeremiah prophetic collection. However, more than a decade ago, a Qumranic work presented a different type of evidence related to Jeremiah. Now labeled the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C, this composition is a Hebrew pseudepigraphic text attributed to Jeremiah.8 The work survived in six However, Tov points out that the Qumran Jeremiah fragments that resemble the LXX, 4QJerb and 4QJerd, differ in some cases from the LXX Jeremiah rendering. Thus, the Greek Jeremiah must be based on a Hebrew text that was similar but not identical to that of the Qumranic manuscripts. Cf. Emanuel Tov, “The Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah in Light of its Textual History,” in The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 363–84 (364). 4 See, e. g., William L. Holladay, Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 26–52 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989), 7; Bogaert, “De Baruch à Jérémie,” 172–73. 5 For a concise description of MT Jeremiah and LXX Jeremiah, see Robert P. Carroll, Jeremiah (New York: T & T Clark, 1989), 22–24. 6 The antecedence of a Hebrew Vorlage for the shorter Septuagint translation is now universally recognized. Cf., e. g. Tov, “The Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah”; Bogaert, “De Baruch à Jérémie”; Yohanan Goldman, Prophétie et royauté au retour de I’exile: Les origins littéraires de la forme massorétique du livre de Jérémie (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), 218–25. 7 Cf. Emanuel Tov, “L’incidence de la critique textuelle sur la critique littéraire dans le livre de Jérémie,” RB 79 (1972): 189–99; idem, “Exegetical Notes on the Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint of Jeremiah 27 (34),” in The Greek and Hebrew Bible, 315–31; Pierre-Maurice Bogaert, “Le livre de Jérémie en perspective: les deux rédactions antiques selon les travaux en cours,” RB 101 (1994): 363–406; idem, “De Baruch à Jérémie”; idem, “Le livre de Jérémie 1981–1996,” in Le livre de Jeremie, 411–17 (412–13); Yohanan Goldman, “Juda et son roi au milieu des nations: la dernière rédaction du livre de Jérémie,” in The Book of Jeremiah and its Reception, 151–82 (152–53). 8 Cf. Dimant, DJD XXX, 129–260. The Qumran findings have not yielded a running pesher commentary on Jeremiah or Ezekiel, as they did for Isaiah. However, that such pesharim of these prophets existed is evident from sporadic references to pesher units of both. Jeremiah is cited explicitly in 4Q163 (4QpIsac) 1 4 and 4Q182 1 4, although the citations themselves were not preserved. For Ezekiel, see the pesher of Ezek 44:15 in CD III, 21–IV, 2. In his survey,

From the Book of Jeremiah to the Qumranic Apocryphon of Jeremiah C

297

fragmentary copies,9 and is dated by the editor to the second century B. C. E. at the latest.10 It consists mainly of a survey of past and future history, perhaps revealed to Jeremiah before he went to Egypt. It thus attests to the early elaboration of traditions related to the prophet. However, until recently, the relevance of Apocryphon of Jeremiah C to the study of the two editions of the book of Jeremiah and to the traditions attached to the prophet has attracted little attention.11 George Brooke noted the references to Jeremiah as well as some implicit allusions to passages from this prophet. Cf. George J. Brooke, “The Book of Jeremiah and its Reception in the Qumran Scrolls,” in The Book of Jeremiah and its Reception, 183–205 (194–203).   9 4Q385a, 4Q387, 4Q387a, 4Q388a, 4Q389, 4Q390. There has been some criticism of assigning 4Q390 to this work since, in contrast to the remaining exemplars, it displays no overlapping with other copies. I have associated 4Q390 with the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C on the basis of the unique terminological and stylistic features it shares with other manuscripts. In my estimation, these literary qualities are decisive and justify the association of 4Q390 with other copies of the Apocryphon; contra Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, “Classification of the Collection of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Case of Apocryphon of Jeremiah C,” JSJ 43 (2012): 519–50 (537). For the pertinent arguments, see Dimant, DJD XXX, 93; eadem, “Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C in Perspective,” RevQ 25 (2011): 17–39. 10 Dimant, DJD XXX, 115–16. In eadem, “Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C,” 34, n. 67, I have suggested a different understanding of 4Q387 3 4–6, according to which the three priests mentioned there are viewed positively, and therefore are perhaps to be identified as the first three Hasmonean rulers, Jonathan (161–142 B. C. E.), Simeon (142–134 B. C. E.), and John Hyrcanus (134–104 B. C. E.) rather than the three wicked priests, Jason, Menelaus, and Alcimus, proposed in DJD XXX, 193. If this new identification is correct, Apocryphon of Jeremiah C should be dated to the last quarter of the second century B. C. E. at the earliest. However, I must admit that this date appears to me a little late, given the connections in Apocryphon to Jeremiah C to the somewhat earlier short Hebrew edition of Jeremiah and Bar 1:1–3:8, discussed below. So the identification of the three priests remains an open question. They may very well be earlier figures not mentioned in the known historical records. 11 See now Kipp Davis, The Cave 4 Apocryphon of Jeremiah and the Qumran Jeremianic Traditions (STDJ 111; Leiden: Brill, 2014) with a survey of previous literature; see my assessment of the volume published in JTS 67 (2016): 689–97. In an early survey of Jeremianic materials at Qumran, George Brooke mentioned the few fragments from Apocryphon of Jeremiah C published at the time (4Q385b 18 and 4Q389 1) but, given the incomplete publication, his comments are of a preliminary character. Cf. Brooke, “The Book of Jeremiah and its Reception,” 187–94. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert noted my oral presentation of several pieces from the apocryphon at a Paris congress in 1992. See Bogaert, “Le livre de Jérémie en perspective,” 401 and n. 96. Odil Steck referred to the same lecture in his commentary on the book of Baruch. See Odil H. Steck, Das apokryphe Baruchbuch: Studien zu Rezeption und Konzentration “kanonischer” Überlieferung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 23. In his subsequent publication, he was able to mention the same presentation in its final published form. See idem, “Das Buch Baruch,” in Das Buch Baruch. Der Brief des Jeremia; Zusätze zu Ester und Daniel (eds. O. H. Steck, R. G. Kratz, and I. Kottsieper; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998), 17–70 (27). However, these comments were published several years before the final publication in DJD XXX. Later, Matthias Henze discussed the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C from the perspective of apocalyptic literature. Cf. Matthias Henze, “4QApocryphon of Jeremiah C and 4QPseudo-Ezekiel: Two ‘Historical’ Apocalypses,” in Prophecy after the Prophets? The Contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Understanding of Biblical and Extra-Biblical Prophecy (eds. K. de Troyer and A. Lange with the assistance of L. L. Schulte; Leuven: Peeters, 2009), 25–41. I have discussed sporadic comments on the structure and dating of the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C in Dimant, “Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C.” These remarks do

298

From the Book of Jeremiah to the Qumranic Apocryphon of Jeremiah C

The present article addresses this aspect of the new Qumranic composition by examining it in light of the canonical book of Jeremiah and its two editions together with the affiliated early apocryphal compositions, the Letter of Jeremiah and the Book of Baruch. It will be shown that threads of traditions already embedded in the canonical book are taken up and developed by the Qumranic writing, as they are by the other apocryphal works related to Jeremiah, and thus point to a specific type of continuity hitherto unnoticed.12

A. Preaching to the Exiles Critical discussions of the book of Jeremiah have noted several aspects that characterize the prophet’s preaching. One of them is the admonition to practice the Mosaic Torah. This concern is particularly clear in Jer 17:21–27, which calls for keeping the Sabbath rest, mandated by Exod 20:8; 31:14–16, and in Jer 34:8–17, which demands the release of Hebrew slaves after seven years of bondage, as prescribed by Exod 21:2. These issues are also central to Nehemiah (Neh 10:32; 13:15–22; 5:1–13) and therefore have been assigned to the post-exilic stratum of the Jeremianic compilation.13 In Ernest Nicholson’s opinion, some of these prose discourses were actually composed in Babylon and addressed to the exiles there.14 While this specific historical backdrop to Jeremiah’s preaching in the book of Jeremiah has not gained consent, prophetic messages sent by Jeremiah from Jerusalem to the exiles in Babylon are mentioned in several chapters of the book.15 The theme is taken up and developed further in Apocryphon of Jeremiah C. Perhaps a similar letter sent by Jeremiah to Babylon is suggested by 4Q389 1 (cf. below). What is preserved of the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C in 4Q385a 18 i refers to a Torah that Jeremiah gives to the deportees leaving for not pertain to the issues treated here, neither does the article of Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, “Classification of the Collection of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Subsequent publications dealing with the apocryphon in some detail are by Matthias Henze, Jewish Apocalypticism in Late First Century Israel: Reading Second Baruch in Context (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 110–11, and Lutz Doering, Ancient Jewish Letters and the Beginning of Christian Epistolography (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 190–94. 12 Brooke, “The Book of Jeremiah and its Reception,” 203 notes in a general way the development of Jeremiah traditions in the Second Temple period. But see now Davis, The Cave 4 Apocryphon of Jeremiah. 13 See, for instance, Ernest W. Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles: A Study of the Prose Tradition in the Book of Jeremiah (New York: Schocken Books, 1970), 71, 123. Cf. Goldstein, The Life of Jeremiah, 216–18. Notably, Barton’s survey of the figure of Jeremiah in post-biblical traditions does not elaborate on the theme of preaching to the deportees. See John Barton, “Jeremiah in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” in Troubling Jeremiah (eds. A. R. P. Diamond, K. M. O’Connor, and L. Stulman; JSOTSup 260; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 306–17. 14 Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles, 126–27. 15 Cf. Jer 26; 29; 51:59–63.

From the Book of Jeremiah to the Qumranic Apocryphon of Jeremiah C

299

Babylon following the conquest of Jerusalem and the destruction of the First Temple. According to this account, having received a divine message, Jeremiah accompanied the exiles some distance and “commanded them what they should do in the land of [their] captivity” (4Q385a 18 i 7). A strikingly similar motif occurs in a quotation from a literary source, cited by 2 Macc 2:1–4. In these verses, 2 Maccabees reports that according to what is written “in the records” (ἐν ταῖς ἀπογραφαῖς), the prophet Jeremiah gave “the law” (τὸν νόμον) to the deportees leaving for Babylon. In the same quotation, 2 Maccabees also notes Jeremiah’s admonition to the exiles instructing them not to succumb to idolatry. These details are so similar to the account found in the Qumranic apocryphon (4Q385a 18 i–ii) that 2 Maccabees actually may be quoting from the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C, or both may reflect a third source.16 Whatever the case may be, for our purpose it is significant that additional literary evidence dated to the second century B. C. E. and probably written in Hebrew17 attests to the tradition found in the Apocryphon. The motif of a Torah given to the deportees in Babylon appears also in the apocryphal Book of Baruch but in a different form. Here, it is Baruch who writes “a letter/book” in Babylon. In another section of Baruch, the Mosaic Torah is equated with divine wisdom (3:32–36), much in the vein of Ben Sira 24. It emphasizes that the Torah was given to Israel and had to be practiced also in exile (3:37–4:4). However, it is not clear whether this sapiential piece is presented as part of the book/letter written by Baruch (Bar 1:1). But this pseudepigraphic attribution to Baruch suggests that the praise of wisdom is addressed to the Israelites in exile in Babylon (Bar 3:9–11) rather than in Egypt. In fact, the Book of Baruch is formulated as an address to the Babylonian exiles or the remaining population in Judea but no mention is made of the Egyptian community and Jeremiah’s final prophecies there (Jer 43:5–44). This is also reflected by the later pseudepigrapha related to Jeremiah, 2 Baruch and the Paraleipomena Jeremiae, both of which place the prophet in Babylon.18 It is obvious that the literary tradition related to Jeremiah viewed the Babylonian exilic community as the continuation of the people of Israel. A sharp distinction is also made between the Egyptian and Babylonian communities by the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C. To the deportees, Jeremiah transmits a special Torah adapted for practice in exile, whereas he refuses to pray for those who fled to Egypt (4Q385a 18 i–ii). The refusal motif is adapted from the book of Jeremiah,19 as is the positive attitude 16 This

is what I proposed in Dimant, DJD XXX, 107–08. the date and language of the second letter (2 Macc 2:18), which includes the said reference, see Christian Habicht, 2 Makkabäerbuch (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1976), 199–201; Jonathan A. Goldstein, II Maccabees (Garden City: Doubleday, 1983), 163–64. 18 Cf. the survey of Christian Wolff, Jeremia im Frühjudentum und Urchristentum (TUGAL 118; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1976), 30–35, 45–52. See also Pierluigi Piovanelli, “La Condamnation de la diaspora égyptienne dans le livre de Jérémie (JrA 50, 8–51, 30/JrB 43, 8–44, 30),” Transeuphratène 9 (1995): 35–49. 19 Note Jer 42:20–22. Compare, e. g., Jer 7:18; 11:14. 17 For

300

From the Book of Jeremiah to the Qumranic Apocryphon of Jeremiah C

toward the Babylonian exiles in contrast to the negative view of the Egyptian settlers.20 However, in the Apocryphon the contrast is more pronounced. Another prominent element of the admonition in the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C, delivered to both the deportees and the escapees, is the warning not to fall again into sin. The exhortation to the deportees (4Q385a 18 i 8–11) is phrased in general terms but the complete text may have included an explicit warning against idolatry that was not preserved in the remaining fragments of the Apocryphon but was included in the quotation in 2 Macc 2:4. An explicit warning of this type appears in the following column (4Q385a 18 ii 5–10), but it is addressed by Jeremiah in Egypt “to] the Children of Israel and the Children of Judah and Benjamin.”21 This formulation suggests that the prophet is directing his sermon to Israel at large. The specific wording reflects the post-exilic view that Israel at that time consisted solely of these two tribes.22 In pronouncing the invective against idolatry, the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C takes up the central theme in the book of Jeremiah and other post-exilic prophets (cf., e. g., Isa 44:9–20; 65:3–4; 66:3–4; Jer 19:4, 13; 32:34–35; note Daniel 3), as well as in late Second Temple compositions, such as the quotation in 2 Maccabees 2 and the apocryphal Letter of Jeremiah. This composition is written as a letter sent by Jeremiah to those about to be taken to Babylon and is based on a theme similar to that in Jeremiah 29, 51:60–64. In the later patristic tradition, it is presented as either ch. 6 of the book of Baruch or an appendix to Jeremiah.23 In this tradition, both the Letter of Jeremiah and the Book of Baruch were viewed as additions to the book of Jeremiah.24 Here, the warning against idolatry is addressed to those being deported to Babylon. Thus, this tradition is attested by at least four more or less contemporary works, all probably written in Hebrew: the Letter of Jeremiah, the Book of Baruch, Apocryphon of Jeremiah C, and the document quoted by 2 Macc 2:1–4. They attest to the relevance of this theme to the readers in the land of Israel during the late centuries of the Second Temple period. A similar interest is evidenced in the contemporary Daniel 3, which tells of the  Cf. Jer 24; 42:15–22; 44:11–14. ‫אל] בני ישראל ואל בני יהודה‬. 22 In some sources, the tribe of Levi is included with the two tribes. See 1QM I, 2; 4Q372 1 14. See my comments in Dimant, DJD XXX, 161, 165. 23 Kratz thinks that it was originally composed as such an appendix. See Reinhard G. Kratz, “Der Brief des Jeremia,” in Das Buch Baruch. Der Brief des Jeremia. Zusätze zu Ester und Daniel, 71–110 (74). 24 Given the existence of the Hebrew Apocryphon of Jeremiah C and a Hebrew version of Bar 1:1–3:8, a Hebrew Vorlage also for the Letter of Jeremiah seems plausible. Cf. Kratz, “Der Brief des Jeremia,” 73–74. The oft-quoted reference to 7Q2 as a Greek Qumran fragment of the Letter of Jeremiah rests, in my judgment, on a dubious identification, initially made by Pierre Benoit and Marie-Émile Boismard; cf. Maurice Baillet, “7Q2. Lettre de Jérémie,” in DJD III, 143. A close examination of this tiny papyrus fragment reveals that not a single complete word has survived and the letters still visible are so common that they may fit many other texts. Therefore, 7Q2 cannot be adduced as support for a Greek original of the Letter of Jeremiah. 20

21 ‫ובנימים‬

From the Book of Jeremiah to the Qumranic Apocryphon of Jeremiah C

301

three Jews in Nebuchadnezzar’s court who refused to worship an idol. However, in the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C, idolatry is a predominant theme, since Israel is criticized for worshipping idols during various periods of its history,25 and more recent types of apostasy are compared with the old idolatry.26 As these texts show, along with the Temple Scroll (11QTa LV,15–21), the polemic against idolatry was very much alive during the Second Temple era. Although only a limited amount of text dealing with Jeremiah is preserved in the copies of the Apocryphon, the prophet looms large in them. His role as a witness to the destruction of the First Temple and as the architect of a Torah adapted to the exile renders him a figure analogous to Moses.27 The analogy is already embedded in the figure portrayed in the book of Jeremiah28 but, in explicitly attributing to Jeremiah a special Torah for the deportees, the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C brings this analogy to the foreground.29 This Mosaic role is attributed by other pseudepigraphic works to Baruch30 and to Ezra.31 The selection of Moses as a prototype of Jeremiah dispensing Torah is obvious, but attributing to him a revelation regarding history is less so. However, a tradition that Moses himself received a vision of past and future history is assumed in later pseudepigraphs such as 4 Ezra 14:5 and 2 Baruch 59:4.32 Therefore, the combination of the two motifs in a single personality is part of the Mosaic typology and may have shaped the profile of Jeremiah in the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C.33 25 See

4Q385a 3 7; 4Q387 1 4; 4Q388a 3 6. 4Q387 2 ii 3–5; iii 6–7; 4Q388a 7 1–2; 4Q389 8 ii 3–5; 4Q390 1 7–9; 2 i 6–10. 27 See my comments in Dimant, DJD XXX, 105. 28 On other aspects of this analogy in the book of Jeremiah, see, e. g., Christopher R. Seitz, “The Prophet Moses and the Canonical Shape of Jeremiah,” ZAW 101 (1989): 3–27; Sebastian Grätz, “‘Einen Propheten wie mich wird dir der Herr, dein Gott, erwecken’: Der Berufungsbericht Jeremias und seine Rückbindung an das Amt des Mose,” in Moses in Biblical and ExtraBiblical Tradition (eds. A. Graupner and M. Walter; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2007), 61–77 (76–77). 29 See the remarks on the portrayal of Jeremiah in the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C in Dimant, DJD XXX, 105–07, and in “4 Ezra and 2 Baruch in Light of Qumran Literature” in this volume. 30 Odil Steck identifies a Mosaic function also in Baruch’s activities in Babylon as told by the book of Baruch. See Steck, “Das Buch Baruch,” 19. On the Mosaic typology in 2 Baruch, see the comments of Henze, Jewish Apocalypticism in Late First Century Israel, 102. For the Mosaic features of Jeremiah in the Paraleipomena Jeremiae, see Jean Riaud, Les Paralipomenes du Prophete Jeremie (Angers: Université Catholique de l’Ouest, 1994), 53–54. In general, see Wolff, Jeremiah im Frühjudentum und Urchristentum, 79–83. 31 See the comments of Michael E. Stone, Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 416–42. 32 That Moses received such a revelation is also stated by other sources. For the present purpose, the inclusion of the theme in the second-century B. C. E. Ezekiel the Tragedian, Exagoge 7.440 is significant. See Carl R. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, II: Poets (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 310, 366. The same tradition is developed by the somewhat later Testament of Moses and recorded in various rabbinic sources. Cf., e. g., Sifre Deut, § 357 on Deut 34:1 and Tg. Ps-J. ad. loc.; Lev. Rab. 26, 7. 33 The apocalyptic character of Baruch’s visions in 2 Baruch should now be viewed in light of similar revelations attributed by the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C to Jeremiah. It suggests that 26 Cf.

302

From the Book of Jeremiah to the Qumranic Apocryphon of Jeremiah C

B. Jeremiah and Baruch The realization that the Greek LXX version of Jeremiah reflects a different Hebrew edition of this book, and that this edition is earlier than that of MT, opens new vistas on the study of the group of traditions assigned to Jeremiah. Among other things, it casts new light on the different arrangement of the material in the Hebrew and Greek editions. In the Hebrew MT version, the oracles against the nations are assembled at the end of the collection (chs. 46–51). In the Greek LXX text, they are placed, with some inner variations, in the middle of the book (chs. 26–31). The discourses and biographic episodes related to Jeremiah, arranged by the MT edition in chs. 26–45, are found throughout chs. 33–51 in the LXX. The differing sequences lend a distinctive character to each of the editions. For, instead of concluding with the oracles against the nations, as does the Hebrew (MT chs. 44–45), the Greek ends with Jeremiah’s final admonition to the exiles in Egypt (LXX ch. 51). Especially notable is the placing of a prophecy to Baruch at the conclusion of the prophetic sections in the Hebrew edition underlying the Greek translation (LXX 51:31–35 [= MT 45:1–5]). This placement has been interpreted in various ways. Thus, for instance, Pierre-Maurice Bogaert estimates that the sequence of LXX Jeremiah renders Baruch as not only Jeremiah’s scribe and companion, but also as the guarantor of the preservation of the prophet’s predictions and the witness of their fulfillment.34 According to Martin Kessler, this arrangement suggests that “Baruch became the next link in the Jeremiah tradition.”35 Edward Wright considers that the arrangement makes Baruch “Jeremiah’s prophetic successor.”36 While the editorial policy of the shorter Hebrew Vorlage underlying the Greek may be defined in various ways, it is evident that the close association between Jeremiah and Baruch was made explicit already at the level of the Hebrew edition underlying the Greek translation.

the portrait of Baruch as an apocalyptic visionary in 2 Baruch was not a first-century C. E. creation, as argued by Wright, but had older roots. See J. Edward Wright, “Baruch: His Evolution from Scribe to Apocalyptic Seer,” in Biblical Figures Outside the Bible (eds. M. E. Stone and T. A. Bergren; Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1998), 264–89 (276). 34 Cf. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert, “Le personage de Baruch et l’histoire du livre de Jérémie: Aux origins du Livre deutérocanonique de Baruch,” in International Congress on New Testament Studies (ed. E. A. Livingstone; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1982), 73–81 (74–76, 80–81); idem, “Le livre de Jérémie en perspective,” 403. 35 Cf. Martin Kessler, “Jeremiah Chapters 26–45 Reconsidered,” JNES 27 (1968): 81–88 (86). 36 Cf. Wright, “Baruch: His Evolution,” 266. Jack Lundbom assumes that Baruch himself wrote LXX Jer 51:31–35 (MT 45) as a colophon, but this is based on his assumption that Baruch wrote most of the supplemental prose of Jeremiah. Cf. Jack R. Lundbom, “Baruch, Seraiah, and Expanded Colophons in the Book of Jeremiah,” JSOT 36 (1986): 89–114 (100–101).

From the Book of Jeremiah to the Qumranic Apocryphon of Jeremiah C

303

The LXX rendering of Jeremiah went a step further in articulating this association. Usually dated to the second century B. C. E.,37 it went through a complex process. A century ago, Henry Thackeray suggested that two translators shared the LXX rendering of Jeremiah: the first translated chs. 1–28 while the second completed chs. 29–51.38 Emanuel Tov has further elaborated on this division.39 However, Tov pointed out that there are elements shared by both sections (chs. 1–28 and 29–52) and suggested an earlier common underlying translation. According to him the differences noted in translation technique between chs. 1–28 and 29–52 should be attributed to a reviser rather than to a translator.40 Thackeray had already argued that the translator of LXX Jeremiah 29–51 also translated Bar 1:1–3:8.41 Tov developed this approach but assigned both to a reviser. In his opinion, the reviser of Baruch inserted his changes in order to make the translation conform to a Hebrew text at his disposal.42 If this be the case, the link between the short Jeremiah edition underlying the LXX and Bar 1:1–3:8 was already established at the time of the Hebrew originals of the two editions. In other words, the fact that a reviser corrected LXX Jeremiah 29–52 + Bar 1:1–3:8 on the basis of a Hebrew text implies that Bar 1:1–3:8 was attached to Jeremiah in his Vorlage as an appendix or conclusion.43 Even if the Hebrew originals of the two writings were separated, the translator/reviser of the Greek rendering viewed them as belonging together. So this Vorlage, or its reviser, linked Baruch’s later activities, as recorded in Bar 1:1–3:8, to Jeremiah’s ­preaching.44 It is generally 37 Cf. Gilles Dorival, “L’achèvement de la Septante dans le Judaïsme: De la faveur au rejet,” in La Bible Grecque des Septante: Du Judaïsme hellénistique au Christianisme ancien (eds. M. Harl, G. Dorival, and O. Munnich; Paris: Cerf, 1988), 83–125 (97). 38 Henry J. Thackeray, “The Greek Translators of Jeremiah,” JTS 14 (1903): 245–66. Later, Thackeray retracted this position. Cf. idem, The Septuagint and Jewish Worship (London: The British Academy, 1923), 87. 39 Cf. Emanuel Tov, The Septuagint Translation of Jeremiah and Baruch: A Discussion of an Early Revision of the LXX of Jeremiah 29–52 and Baruch 1:1–3:8 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976), 17–38, 157–59. 40 Cf. Tov, The Septuagint Translation, 111–33. A reviser rather than a translator was suggested earlier by Joseph Ziegler, Septuaginta. Band 15: Jeremias, Baruch, Threni, Epistula Jeremiae (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976), 128 n. 1. 41 Cf. Thackeray, “The Greek Translators,” 261–66. 42 Tov’s conclusions are generally accepted, with a few dissenting voices. Sven Soderland follows Thackeray in arguing that LXX Jeremiah was rendered by a translator and not by a reviser; cf. idem, The Greek Text of Jeremiah: A Revised Hypothesis (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), 191–92. Others think that only a single translator is responsible for LXX Jeremiah. Cf., e. g., Georg Fischer and Andreas Vonach, “Tendencies in the LXX Version of Jeremiah,” in Der Prophet wie Mose: Studien zum Jeremiahbuch (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2011), 64–72 (71 n. 23). 43 Cf., e. g., André Kabasele Mukenge, “Les citations internes en BA. 1,15–3,8: Un procédé rédactionnel et actualisant,” Le Muséon 108 (1995): 211–37 (235–36). 44 Cf. Tov, The Septuagint Translation, 126; idem, The Book of Baruch Also Called 1 Baruch (Greek and Hebrew) (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975), 1 n. 2. Tov is undecided about the original language of the remaining chapters of Baruch.

304

From the Book of Jeremiah to the Qumranic Apocryphon of Jeremiah C

agreed that these first chapters of Baruch were originally written in Hebrew.45 The fact that the first chapters of Baruch were attached to a short Hebrew edition of Jeremiah at an early stage lends credence to the view that this edition intended to present Baruch as a successor to Jeremiah. In light of these considerations, the practice of early Greek and Latin patristic literature to see the Book of Baruch as part of Jeremiah and to include the apocryphal Letter of Jeremiah as the sixth chapter of the Book of Baruch is significant.46 The data furnished by the Qumran Apocryphon of Jeremiah C provides further second-century B. C. E. evidence for the tradition linking the actions of Jeremiah and Baruch, and also for the existence of Hebrew literary texts that recorded such a link. The extant fragments from the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C preserve only two narrative passages that supply the framework for the apocalyptic vision of history; one is related to Jeremiah, the other produces traditions connected with Baruch. According to my reconstruction, the two passages come from the narrative framework of the vision that occupies the bulk of the composition. The passage partly preserved in 4Q389 1 opens the composition, while the section preserved in 4Q385a 18 i–ii concludes it.47 The first column of 4Q385a 18 relates how Jeremiah received a divine message and how he gave commandments to the exiles being taken to Babylon.48 45 Cf., e. g., Robert H. Pfeiffer, History of New Testament Times with an Introduction to the Apocrypha (New York: Harper, 1949), 416–17; Carey A. Moore, Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah: The Additions (Garden City: Doubleday, 1977), 257; Tov, The Septuagint Translation. Tov also provides a Hebrew retroversion of the said section (ibid. 127–29). Some scholars believe that the remaining chapters of Baruch were also translated from a Hebrew text. See, e. g., J. J. Kneucker, Das Buch Baruch (Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1879), 21–29; Pfeiffer, History of New Testament Times, 409, 423; Jonathan A. Goldstein, “The Apocryphal Book of I Baruch,” PAAJR 46–47 (1979–1980): 179–99 (188); David G. Burke, The Poetry of Baruch: A Reconstruction and Analysis of the Original Hebrew Text of Baruch 3:9–5:9 (Chico: Scholars Press, 1982), 24–26; Steck, “Das Buch Baruch,” 18. Burke provides a retroversion into Hebrew of Bar 3:9–5:9 (Burke, The Poetry of Baruch, 65–75, 135–50). Georg Fischer notes many linguistic connections between Baruch 1–2 and Jeremiah. However, he concludes that “How Baruch is portrayed in Baruch, differs markedly from his profile in Jeremiah.” See idem, “Baruch, Jeremiah’s ‘Secretary’?: The Relationships between the Book of Jeremiah and the Book of Baruch,” in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the Scriptures (ed. E. Tigchelaar; Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 137–55 (151–52). 46 Pierre-Maurice Bogaert, “Le nome de Baruch dans la littérature pseudépigraphique: L’apocalypse syriaque et le livre deutérocanonique,” in La Littérature juive entre Tenach et Mischna: quelques problèmes (ed. W. C. van Unnik; Leiden: Brill, 1974), 56–72 (63–72). 47 See the table of episodes as reconstructed by Dimant, DJD XXX, 99–100. 48 Jens Herzer criticized the presentation in DJD XXX for saying that 4Q385a 18 i “speaks of Jeremiah being led with the people to Babylon and teaching them the commandments of God.” He then goes on to say that “not a single word that this reading relies on is preserved in the fragment; rather it has to be hypothetically added.” He therefore rejects “the reconstruction of this fragment as well as others related to it.” See idem, 4 Baruch (Paraleipomena Jeremiou) (Atlanta: SBL, 2005), xxvii n. 73. In fact, just the reverse is stated in DJD XXX. It is emphasized that, according to the said passage, Jeremiah accompanied the deportees to Babylon until “the river” (perhaps the Euphrates, as suggested in the comments; see DJD

From the Book of Jeremiah to the Qumranic Apocryphon of Jeremiah C

305

The second column reports the prophet’s exchange with the refugees in Egypt and his admonition to Israel at large. The two episodes are patterned on Jeremiah 40 (LXX ch. 47) and 43–44 (LXX chs. 50–51) respectively. While 4Q385a 18 concentrates on Jeremiah’s activities, 4Q389 1 develops themes related to Baruch. This fragment relates an episode not recorded in the Hebrew and Greek editions of the book of Jeremiah, but is very similar to circumstances described in Bar 1:2–3. According to the Baruch passage, Baruch wrote “a book” (βιβλίον), perhaps a letter, and read it at a gathering in Babylon in the presence of the exiled King Yehoiachin and other deportees living there (Bar 1:2).49 The contents of the letter are not described but they do not seem to be identical to the message sent by the gathering to Jerusalem, which included money for sacrifices and a version of a confession (Bar 1:10–3:8). The location in Babylon where the gathered people lived, “by the river Soud” (ἐπὶ ποταμοῦ Σουδ; Bar 1:4), is significant. A very similar, if not identical, occasion is depicted in 4Q389 1 6–7: “… [the thi]rty-sixth year of the exile of Israel they read [these] things[ before] a[ll the Children of I]srael upon the river Sour in the presence [ ].”50 Although the name of Baruch is not mentioned in the surviving words of 4Q389 1, the connection made to Jeremiah in 4Q389 1 5 and the three elements that are strikingly similar to the depiction in Bar 1:4 point to the prophet’s faithful companion. The three details recorded in both the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C and the Book of Baruch are the following: a. A gathering is described where something is read in public;51 b. The attendees of this assembly are the Israelites living “on the river Sour”; c. The date of this assembly is recorded. The Apocryphon refers to the thirty-sixth year “of the exile of Israel,” namely, the time that has elapsed since the deportation of King Yehoiachin from Judea in 597 B. C. E.52 In the Book of Baruch, the date given is the fifth year from XXX, 161–62). So the prophet delivered the commandments to the deportees upon their departure to Babylon, a tradition also preserved in the Letter of Jeremiah 1:1 and 2 Macc 2:1–4. Evidently, Jeremiah himself did not go with them to their place of exile for in 4Q385a ii he is described as staying in Egypt. See also the rejoinder to Herzer’s arguments by Doering, Ancient Jewish Letters, 191 n. 117. 49 Cf. Jer 52:31–34. See 2 Kgs 24:12; 2 Chr 36:6; Dan 1:1–2. 50 ‫שלו]שים ושש שנה לגלות ישראל קראו הדברים[ האלה לפני] כ[ל בני י]שראל על נהר סור במעמד‬ ] [‫ד‬. 51 Pfeiffer, History of New Testament Times, 411, points out that the superscription in Bar 1:1 should be translated “the words of the letter” rather than “the words of the book,” for “letter” is the correct translation of the Greek βιβλίον. It should be noted that there is some uncertainty about the contents of Baruch’s letter. It is not clear whether the letter included the following prayer, as some commentators assume. See the comments of André Kabasele Mukenge, L’unité littéraire du Livre de Baruch (Paris: Gabalda, 1998), 33. The parallel in the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C points to a possibility that it was a letter from Jeremiah that was read by Baruch. A similar reading may be suggested for Bar 1:1, 3, 14, namely that Baruch committed to writing the preaching transmitted to him by Jeremiah. The ample quotations from Jeremiah in Bar 1:1– 3:8 may point in this direction. See the survey of Kabasele Mukenge, “Les citations internes.” 52 Cf. Dimant, DJD XXX, 221–22.

306

From the Book of Jeremiah to the Qumranic Apocryphon of Jeremiah C

the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon, namely 586 B. C. E.53 The most striking similar, or even identical, element is the mention of the river Sour. From the description in the Book of Baruch, the river Soud appears to be a specific location in Babylon. The passage in 4Q389 1 is quite fragmentary and perhaps a reference to Babylon appeared in the lost sections. However, the reference in 4Q389 1 7 to the “river Sour” is clear. It is so unique and specific, as is the gathering associated with it, that it is undoubtedly the same location mentioned in Greek in Baruch.54 The variants Sour/Soud can be explained easily as the interchange of two graphically similar letters in Hebrew, resh and dalet (‫ד‬/‫)ר‬, and therefore this presents further proof for the existence of a Hebrew Vorlage for this section in the Book of Baruch.55 4Q389 1 speaks of something read at that gathering, but a description of the contents has not survived. Yet, the fact that Jeremiah is mentioned as being in Egypt, and that an activity is performed “from Egypt”56 suggests that the prophet sent a letter from there and it is being read out at the Babylonian assembly. In the Book of Baruch, it is Baruch’s own letter that is read out on the occasion, whereas in the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C it is probable that a letter from Jeremiah is being presented. This detail is closer to the tradition of the Letter of Jeremiah, written as a copy of a letter addressed by the prophet to the deportees who were about to be taken to Babylon.57 This is the comments of Steck, Das apokryphe Baruchbuch, 19. evidence of the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C now confirms the reading ‫ ܨܘܪ‬of the Syriac translation. So there is no justification for Bewer’s dismissal of it, nor for his conjecture that Soud (Sour) is a mistake for the River Ahawa (‫)אהוא‬, mentioned in Ezra 8:15, 21, 31 (a conjecture adopted by a few other commentators). Cf. Julius A. Bewer, “The River Sud in the Book of Baruch,” JBL 43 (1924): 226–27. 55 While the Greek and Latin translations produce the reading Soud, the Syriac Peshitta reading quoted above betrays knowledge of the form ‫סור‬, recorded in the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C. This supports the view that the Syriac translation of Baruch was familiar with the Hebrew original or a Hebrew tradition, as remarked by Steck, “Das Buch Baruch,” 18 n. 3. This possibility is indicated also by other variants in Syriac. Cf. Pfeiffer, History of New Testament Times, 420. 56 Note the formulation [‫“( מארץ מצר[ים‬from the land of Egy[pt]”) in 4Q389 1 5. 57  The tradition is built on Jer 29:1–3; 51:60–64. See Lutz Doering, “Jeremia in Babylonien und Ägypten: Mündliche und schriftliche Toraparänese für Exil und Diaspora nach 4QApocryphon of Jeremia C,” in Frühjudentum und Neues Testament im Horizont Biblischer Theologie: Mit einem Anhang zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti (eds. W. Kraus and K. W. Niebuhr; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 50–79; idem, “Jeremiah and the ‘Diaspora Letters’ in Ancient Judaism: Epistolary Communication with the Golah as Medium for Dealing with the Present,” in Reading the Present in the Qumran Library: The Perception of the Contemporary by Means of Scriptural Interpretations (eds. K. de Troyer and A. Lange; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 43–72; idem, Ancient Jewish Letters, 190–94. The epistolary tradition attached to Jeremiah  Continued to be developed in post-70 C. E. Jeremianic compositions. 2 Baruch includes a long letter Baruch wrote “to the nine-and-a-half tribes” (ibid., 78–87), which is transmitted separately in the tradition of the Syrian Church. 2 Bar. 77:19 mentions another letter Baruch wrote and sent to Babylon, but it is detailed nowhere. Paraleipomena Jeremiae relates to the letter written by Baruch and sent by an eagle to Jeremiah in Babylon (6:13–7:19). Cf. the survey of Doering, Ancient Jewish Letters, 241–62. 53 See

54 The

From the Book of Jeremiah to the Qumranic Apocryphon of Jeremiah C

307

precisely the situation indicated in 4Q385a 18 i, in which Jeremiah gives a Torah to the deportees. Thus, both reflect a tradition regarding the prophet delivering final instructions to the deportees, a tradition also cited by 2 Macc 2:2. However, the similarity of the details in Bar 1:1–4 and 4Q389 1 is so remarkable that they seem to indicate the same location and the same or a similar occasion. Therefore, it may be assumed plausibly that Baruch was also involved in the episode related in the Apocryphon, although his name is not preserved. This is particularly striking because both of the narrative sections of the Apocryphon, 4Q385a 18 and 4Q389 1, are concerned with the final phase of Jeremiah’s prophetic mission and its aftermath in Egypt, and probably also in Babylon. Thus, the Apocryphon provides additional evidence for the antiquity of the view that Baruch was not only Jeremiah’s scribe, but also his faithful assistant who continued to preach the prophet’s mission in Babylon. Moreover, this tradition seems to have been known and reworked by Hebrew literary texts composed and circulating in the third and second centuries B. C. E. If, as I have proposed, the apocalyptic vision mentioned in Apocryphon of Jeremiah C is being read out by Baruch at the gathering described in the writing,58 it provides a thematic link connecting Baruch with a survey of history, as presented in the later 2 Baruch, composed around 100 C. E.

C. Apocryphon of Jeremiah C and the Book of Baruch The evidence furnished by Apocryphon of Jeremiah C sheds new light on several problems related to the structure and dating of the book of Baruch. This composition, which is preserved in the Septuagint, consists of four distinct literary units: a. A narrative introduction, mentioning Baruch and a gathering in Babylon (1:1–14); b. A penitential prayer addressed to Jerusalem by the assembly in Babylon (1:15–3:8); c. A poem in praise of wisdom, identifying it with the Torah (3:9–4:4); d. A consolation poem addressed to and describing Zion (4:5–5:9). The differing character of these units led many scholars to claim that they were originally separate writings that were compiled later by a single editor.59 Some date this final stage to around 63 B. C. E., after the deportation carried out by Pompey in that year, or sometime during that century.60 However, the first section of the book, 1:1–3:8, having been written originally

58 Cf.

Dimant, DJD XXX, 23. e. g., Bernard N. Wambacq, “L’unite du livre de Baruch,” Bib 47 (1966): 574–78 (575); Moore, Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah, 257. Goldstein and Steck consider the book to be a coherent unit, but for different reasons. Cf. Goldstein, “The Apocryphal Book of I Baruch,” 189; Steck, “Das Buch Baruch,” 18–22. 60 Cf., e. g., Wambacq, “L’unite du livre,” 575; Moore, Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah, 260. 59 Cf.,

308

From the Book of Jeremiah to the Qumranic Apocryphon of Jeremiah C

in Hebrew and presumably composed in the land of Israel, is considered to be the earliest section.61 In light of the evidence surveyed above, an early date at the beginning of the second century or even in the later years of the third century B. C. E. is proposed for Bar 1:1–3:8 for the following reasons: a. The link between this section in Baruch and the short Hebrew version underlying LXX Jeremiah must have preceded the Greek translation, and therefore it can be dated no later than the second century B. C. E., and probably earlier; b. The association between Jeremiah and Baruch as presented by the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C seems to rely on an already existent tradition, which is reflected also in Bar 1:1–3:8. Both seem to rework traditions regarding the final phase of Jeremiah’s prophetic career and the prolongation of his message through the activity of his assistant, Baruch. Dated as they are to the second century B. C. E. or earlier, the traditions they reflect may be of older origin. Previous critical discussion had difficulty in attributing an early date to Bar 1:1–3:8 due to the clear similarity between the penitential confession of sins in Dan 9:5–19 and the confession in Bar 1:15–2:27. Because the Baruch version is longer and obviously reworks some elements appearing in Daniel 9, most commentators consider that Baruch is based on Daniel. In light of this, they date Bar 1:1–3:8 to the second half of the second century B. C. E. at the earliest.62 However, as was noted by some, the confession in Daniel 9 may have been inserted into the text and thus is of an earlier provenance than the rest of the chapter.63 Moreover, although there are some remarkable similarities between the two confessions, it does not necessarily follow that Baruch is based on Daniel; the two may be based on a third liturgical piece, as proposed by some scholars. This suggestion becomes more plausible in light of the Qumran Hebrew evidence. A similar confession of sins is found in the prayer for Friday in the liturgical document Words of the Luminaries. In addition, the links between 4Q389 1 and Bar 1:1–4 point to the existence of a Hebrew text that was similar or identical to Bar 1:1–3:8. The reference in 2 Macc 2:1–4 provides additional indirect evidence for such a text. As witnessed by Neh 9:6–37, Dan 9:4–19, Words of the Luminar-

61 Cf. Pfeiffer, History of New Testament Times, 415; Carey A. Moore, “Toward the Dating of the Book of Baruch,” CBQ 36 (1974): 312–20; idem, Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah, 257. 62 Cf., e. g., Bernard N. Wambacq, “Les prières de Baruch (1,15–2,19) et de Daniel (9, 5–19),” Bib 40 (1959): 463–75; Goldstein, “The Apocryphal Book of I Baruch,” 198; Steck, “Das Buch Baruch,” 22; Marko Marttila, “The Deuteronomistic Ideology and Phraseology in the Book of Baruch,” in Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period (eds. H. von Weissenberg and M. Marttila; BZAW 419; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011), 321–46 (322–23); Fischer, “Baruch,” 153. 63 Cf. Pfeiffer, History of New Testament Times, 415; Moore, “Dating of the Book of Baruch,” 314–15. Goldstein’s arguments in favor of dating the prayer to around 163 B. C. E. are unconvincing (cf. idem, “The Apocryphal Book of I Baruch”).

From the Book of Jeremiah to the Qumranic Apocryphon of Jeremiah C

309

ies64 (4Q504 2 v–vi), and Bar 1:15–3:8, confessions were a well-known Hebrew genre in Second Temple times.65 Therefore, both Dan 9:4–19 and Bar 1:15–3:8 may be adaptations of an earlier version of a penitential confession that was used on liturgical occasions. Upon acceptance of this possibility,66 there is no need to assume that Bar 1:1–3:8 is based on Daniel 9 and therefore must be later than Daniel, namely later than 164 B. C. E.

D. The Apocryphon of Jeremiah C at Qumran How does the complex of Jeremiah-Baruch traditions displayed in the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C fit into the Qumran Scrolls library? It is clear that the owners of these Scrolls were familiar with the two editions of the book of Jeremiah, as well as with the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C. Therefore, they were familiar with the traditions surrounding the prophet and his assistant. This familiarity is indeed reflected in the explicit reference to Jeremiah and Baruch in the Damascus Document VIII, 20.67 Despite its enigmatic character, the names of the two personalities appear together, thus betraying knowledge of their close association, which is more developed than in the references in the book of Jeremiah. However, further explanation is needed to account for the choice of Jeremiah as the recipient of a vision of history. While one may argue that this is a natural follow-up to the predictions attributed to Jeremiah in the canonical book, the attribution of an apocalyptic-type vision to Jeremiah is unique. There are apocalypses attributed to Baruch, such as 2 Baruch, but none is known that is associated with his master. As a matter of fact, there are no pseudepigraphs attributed to any of the Hebrew Bible prophets, although legendary narratives were attached to some, such as the Martyrdom of Isaiah and Paraleipomena Jeremae. However, the Apocryphon is unique not only among the Jewish pseudepigrapha, but also among the Hebrew compositions discovered at Qumran. For, while 64  Compare The Words of the Luminaries, 4Q504 2 v 11–14, and Bar 2:27, 30, 33–34. In his edition, Maurice Baillet compared the wording of this Qumranic prayer to that of Baruch (idem, DJD VII, 147) but Chazon has pointed out correctly that confessional formulations of this type appeared in contemporary liturgy and probably were borrowed from it. Cf. Esther G. Chazon, “A Liturgical Document from Qumran and its Implications: ‘Words of the Luminaries’ (4QDibHam),” (Ph.D. diss., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1991), 287 (Heb.). 65 Although he does not date the prayer in Daniel 9, Collins points out that “it is a traditional piece that could have been composed at any time after the Exile.” See John J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 359. 66 Carey Moore favored this possibility but hesitated to accept it because, in his opinion, no “adequate evidence has been mustered for it thus far.” Cf. idem, “Dating of the Book of Baruch,” 317. However, the new data from Qumran provides the missing evidence and there is no room for hesitation of this kind. 67 ‫“( הוא הדבר אשר אמר ירמיהו לברוך בן נרייה‬this is what Jeremiah said to Baruch son of Neriah”).

310

From the Book of Jeremiah to the Qumranic Apocryphon of Jeremiah C

we possess a rewriting of several passages from Ezekiel in the Pseudo-Ezekiel text, it does not contain a vision of history of the type seen in Apocryphon of Jeremiah C. If I am correct in assuming that the vision of history related in the Apocryphon is revealed to Jeremiah before leaving Jerusalem for Egypt, the revelation may stand as a portent and warning for the future, just as the Torah given by Jeremiah to the deportees is intended for future generations. By combining commandments of the Torah and reviewing past and future sins, the Apocryphon of Jeremiah C turns the prophet into a beacon of two guidelines for Jewish life in the future: obedience to the Torah and avoidance of past sins.

Works Originally Composed in Greek

Pseudonymity in the Wisdom of Solomon Introduction The Wisdom of Solomon (henceforce Wis) has always exercised a peculiar fascination for students of Jewish Hellenistic literature for it offers a unique combination of biblical and Hellenistic elements.1 Alexandria seems the most likely cultural setting for the composition of the mixture of biblical and Hellenistic learning that we find in this book. It is thus a most interesting example of a cross-cultural product. Understandably, the main emphasis of research into this work has been placed on this peculiar mixture.2 However, the reasons for the combination of these very different elements and their function in a given context remains a puzzle.3 The complexity of the book and the different charac1  Cf. the general surveys of Maurice Gilbert, “Sagesse de Salomon (ou Livre de la Sagesse),” DBSup XI (1991), cols. 8–119; John J. Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997), 178–95; Leo G. Perdue, “Wisdom during the Roman Empire: The Wisdom of Solomon,” in The Sword and the Stylus: An Introduction to Wisdom in the Age of Empires (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 292–355; Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, “Einführung in die Schrift,” in Sapientia Salomonis (Weisheit Salomos) (ed. K.W. Niebuhr; SAPERE 27; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 3–37. See also the massive work of Chrysostome Larcher, Le Livre de la Sagesse ou la Sagesse de Salomon (Paris: Gabalda, 1983–1985), 3 vols. As for the date of the composition of Wis, it is generally agreed that it was penned in the early part of the first century C. E. Cf. David Winston, “A Century of Research on the Book of Wisdom,” in The Book of Wisdom in Modern Research (eds. A. Passaro and G. Bellia; Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2005; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2005), 1–16 (14); Niebuhr, “Einführung in die Schrift,” 32. The text editions used in this article are these of Joseph Ziegler, Sapientia Salomonis (2nd ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980) and Heinz-Günter Nesselrath, “Die Weisheit Salomos,” in Sapientia Salomonis (SAPERE 27), 40–111. 2 Cf. Chrysostome Larcher, Études sur le livre de la Sagesse (Paris: Gabalda 1969); James M. Reese, Hellenistic Influence on the Book of Wisdom and its Consequences (AnBib 41; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1970); David Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon (AB 43; Garden City: Doubleday, 1979), 25–63; Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, “Die Sapientia Salomonis im Kontext hellenisctisch-römischer Philosophie,” in Sapientia Salomonis (SAPERE 27), 219–46. On biblical elements in Wis, cf. Patrick W. Skehan, Studies in Israelite Poetry and Wisdom (CBQMS 1; Washington: Catholic Biblical Association, 1971), 149–236; Friedrich V. Reiterer, “Die Sapientia Salomonis im Kontext der frühjüdischen Weisheitsliteratur,” in Sapientia Salomonis (SAPERE 27), 175–89. 3 See the formulation of Winston, “A Century of Research,” 14: “we are still left with no adequate explanation as to what induced our author to display so prominently an apocalyptic scene that clashes so blatantly with his philosophical convictions.” Cf. Maurice Gilbert, La

314

Pseudonymity in the Wisdom of Solomon

ters of its sections led in the past to the view that it is a composite work deriving from several independent sources.4 Yet the occurrence of lexical and stylistic peculiarities throughout the work and the carefully crafted overall structure of the book suggest a single author working according to a unified plan, a view now generally acknowledged.5 The recognition of this fact led to a growing interest in the literary structure and methods of Wis. One of the features of Wis is its pseudepigraphic attribution to king Solomon, not only in its title but also in numerous literary facets. This attribution was accepted in antiquity, a belief reflected by the inclusion of the work into other sapiential compositions attributed to Solomon and included in the Greek scriptural canon. However, Solomon is never mentioned by name in the book yet all the ancient readers knew him to be the author of and speaker in this work. What was the literary procedure by which such an attribution was conveyed to the reader? This matter has received less attention than it warrants and this study aims to address this need. Wis uses one of two main types of pseudonymity current in ancient Jewish literature. The first, found mostly in biblical books, employs titles as a means of pseudonymic attribution without affecting the actual structure or content of the work. An example of this is the attribution to David of some of the Psalms, and the attribution to Solomon of the major part of Proverbs. Such attributions may have been made by later editors or compilers. The second type of pseudonymity, used by most of the Jewish Pseudepigrapha, is organic to the original framework and thus constitutes an integral part of the work. In compositions using this latter type, pseudonymity functions on the formal as well as ideological levels.6 This is also true of Wis but with an important reservation: for, unlike other pseudepigraphic works, Wis does not have a narrative framework that lays out the context and identifies the chief protagonist. So, without details regarding the identity of the speaker, the author resorts to a complex system of biblical alluCritique des Dieux dans le Livre de la Sagesse (Sg 13–15) (AnBib 53; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1973); idem, “La Structure de la Prière de Salomon (Sg 9),” Bib 51 (1970): 301–31. 4  See, for instance, the thesis of Friedrich Focke, who divides the book into two parts, chs. 1–5 and 6–19, on the basis of differences of style and ideas. Cf. idem, Die Entstehung der Weisheit Salomos (FRLANT 22; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1913), 21–50. 5 For studies on the structure of Wis, see Addison G. Wright, “The Structure of Wisdom 11–19,” CBQ 27 (1965): 28–34; idem, “The Structure of the Book of Wisdom,” Bib 48 (1967): 165–84; James M. Reese, “Plan and Structure in the Book of Wisdom,” CBQ 21 (1965): 391–99; Gilbert, La Critique des Dieux; idem, “La Structure de la Prière de Salomon”; Winston, Wisdom of Solomon, 12–14; Maurice Gilbert, “The Literary Structure of the Book of Wisdom: A Study of Various Views,” in The Book of Wisdom in Modern Research, 19–31. 6 The biblical Deuteronomy and the book of Daniel employ the second type of pseudonymity; cf. the remarks of Morton Smith, “Pseudepigraphy in Israelite Literary Tradition,” in Pseudepigrapha (ed. K. von Fritz; Entretiens sur l’Antiquité Classique 18; Geneva: 1972), 191–215. See the recent survey by James R. Davila, “Pseudepigraphy,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism (eds. J. J. Collins and D. C. Harlow; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 1114–17. See the discussion of pseudonymity in the “Introductory Essay” in this volume.

Pseudonymity in the Wisdom of Solomon

315

sions that portray the pseudonymic speaker.7 A detection of these allusions and an exploration of their functions would then unveil the literary mechanism that makes pseudonymity work. Since Wis is presented as the discourse of a biblical figure, it is through the biblical allusions that this literary make-up functions. So this paper will be concerned with allusions that facilitate pseudonymity.

Wisdom’s Structure that Expresses the Solomonic Pseudonymity The pseudonymic framework of Wis is best grasped through its literary structure since, while interlinked by specific allusions,8 its content and form fall into three distinct sections:9 I. 1:1–6:21: an exhortation to judges and kings, written as an address in the second person; II. 6:22–10:21: a personal quest for wisdom, written as a biographic narrative in the first person (except for ch. 10); III. 11–19: an exposition of God’s providence and justice, written in the third person.

Of the three parts, the second, biographical section contains the most explicit references to king Solomon: Solomon’s request for wisdom (1 Kgs 3:9; 2 Chr 1:10) is referred to in Wis 7:8; 9:4, 10–12; Solomon’s fame as a wise king (1 Kgs 3:12–13; 5:9–14; 10:1–3; 11:23–24; 2 Chr 1:12; 9:1–13, 22–23) is mentioned in Wis 8:10–15, while his being chosen to rule Israel and build the temple (1 Kgs 5:7–9; 8:19–20; 2 Chr 1:18–2:8; 6:9–10) are alluded to in Wis 7–9. Written in the first person and including details pertaining to Solomon alone, this discourse is styled as spoken by him. So this section safely may be said to be pseudonymic, presented as the words of the wisest king of Israel. Since all three sections of Wis share stylistic features and form a single line of argument, they seem to fall into the same pseudepigraphic pattern. A careful examination reveals that each part is indeed ascribed to Solomon but in a different way. 7 Leo Perdue bases the attribution to Solomon chiefly on Wis 7–9 (considered below). Given the proficiency in rhetoric of the author of Wis, Perdue thinks that the prevalent rhetoric rule of mimesis – imitation of idealized figures or virtues – underlies this author’s choice of the wise King Solomon as his chief protagonist. Cf. Leo G. Perdue, “Pseudonymity and Greco-Roman Rhetoric: Mimesis and the Wisdom of Solomon,” in Pseudepigraphie und Verfasserfiktion in frühchristlichen Briefen (eds. J. Frey et al.; WUNT 246; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 27–59 (49–51). 8 Cf. Reese, Hellenistic Influence, 122–45. Reese shows the presence in Wis of an internal system of references, “flashbacks,” interlinking the various sections of the entire composition. Cf. also Winston, Wisdom of Solomon, 12–18. 9 Cf. Winston, ibid., 9–12; Otto Kaiser, Die Weisheit Salomos (Stuttgart: Radius, 2010), 52–55.

316

Pseudonymity in the Wisdom of Solomon

Wis 1:1–6:21 – Exhortation to Judges and Kings This section consists of five units, each delineated by an “inclusion,” i. e., the repetition of the same word or phrase at the beginning and end of the unit:10 a. 1:1–15 Exhortation to judges to seek justice and wisdom   b. 1:16–2:24     The blasphemous speech of the wicked    c. 3–4    Reward of the righteous and punishment of the wicked   b'. 5:1–23   A speech expressing the remorse of the wicked a'. 6:1–21 Exhortation to kings to seek justice and wisdom

The section is built in a concentric structure consisting of antithetical pairs (a a', b b') arranged around a central nucleus (c). The pairs are interlinked by their content and their place in the structure, as well as an intricate system of crossreferences.11 This structure renders chs. 1–6:21 a tightly organized complex that constitutes a single formal unit. Accordingly, the entire section is to be read as one continuous exhortation, although the actual address style occurs only in the opening and closing sections (1:1–15/6:1–21). It also means that the two distinct themes of this section are closely linked, a fact corroborated also by the closely reasoned argument. The first theme consists of the admonition to kings, while the second describes the lives of the wicked and the righteous. Although nothing is said explicitly of the person delivering the exhortation, there are sufficient indications to identify him as king Solomon. Such an attribution is indicated by both form and content for an exhortation to justice and wisdom would be ascribed appropriately to Solomon. Already the tradition of the biblical historical books depicts him as the ultimate wise and just king, a divinely chosen ruler, on whom God had bestowed divine wisdom and the ability to judge wisely and justly. In fact, an exhortation to justice and wisdom is attributed to Solomon already in Proverbs. Imitating the form and style of Proverbs would, then, be a clear indication of Solomonic authorship; this is precisely the aim of the author of Wis. He works out his exhortation in 1–6:21 by using Proverbs 1–9 as a model.12 This is 10 They are the following: 1:1–15 – δικαιοσύνη; 1:16–2:24 – τῆς ἐκείνου μερίδος; 5:1–23 – στήσεται/ἀντιστήσεται; 6:1–21  – βασιλεῖς/βασιλεύσητε. Cf. Winston, Wisdom of Solomon, 10–12; Lothar Ruppert, “Gerechte und Frevler (Gottlose) in Sap 1,1–6,21. Zum Neuverständnis und zur Aktualisierung alttestamentlicher Traditionen in Sapieintia Salomonis,” in Die Weisheit Salomos im Horizont Biblischer Theologie (ed. H. Hübner; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1993), 1–54 (3–19); Kaiser, Die Weisheit Salomos, 55–58. 11 The form and significance of this system of interlinking call for special study. For example, of the use of word play as an interlinking device in the antithetical pairs, see 1:1–15/6:1–11 – οἱ κρίνοντες τὴν γῆν (1:1)/δικασταὶ περάτων γῆς (6:1); 1:16–2:24/5:1–23 – σκιᾶς (2:5)/σκιά (5:9); ἀήρ (2:3)/ ἀήρ (5:12), ἀέρα (5:11). See n. 14 below. 12 The relationship between Wis 1–6 and Proverbs 1–9 was discussed by Patrick W. Skehan, “The Literary Relationship of the Book of Wisdom to Earlier Wisdom Writings,” in Studies in Israelite Poetry and Wisdom, 172–91. Cf. also Larcher, Études, 97–99; Kaiser, Die Weisheit Salomos, 51.

317

Pseudonymity in the Wisdom of Solomon

evident from the correspondence of form and content as well as the similarity in themes. The resemblance of themes and their sequence is especially striking:

Motifs Common to Proverbs and Wisdom I. Exhortation to wisdom and justice II. The blasphemy of the wicked III. Sin brings death IV. Reward for the righteous and punishment for the wicked V. The remorse of the wicked VI. Exhortation to kings Exhortation for wisdom VII. Wisdom’s cosmic role

Proverbs 1:1–7 1:1–14 1:19, 32

Wis 1:1–2 1:16–2:20 1:12–13

2:21–22 5:11–14 8:14–21 8:1–21 8:22–31

3–4 5:1–23 6:1–23 7

Thus Proverbs 1–9 serves as a formal as well as literary and conceptual model for Wis 1–6:21. In fact, Wis can be viewed as a reflection on Proverbs that comments on, interprets, and develops its various topics. The link between Proverbs and Wis is further reinforced by the gnomic style adopted by Wis in these chapters. In addition, Wis frequently employs Proverbs terminology13 and often alludes to the actual text of Proverbs.14 However, not all the elements in Wis derive from Proverbs. The appeal to rulers is inspired by the Kings-Chronicles narrative, where Solomon is described as venerated by all the kings of the earth (1 Kings 3, 5, 10; 2 Chronicles 1, 9).15 This may be true also of another dominant element in the section, namely, the exposition regarding providence and divine justice. The short comments in Proverbs on the subject cannot account for the scope and depth of the treatment of the matter in Wis. In fact, much of Wis’s originality is revealed in this context, for the author introduces here some of his major novel ideas, such as the hidden meaning of the suffering and early death of the righteous, together with the reward of immortality awaiting them. Yet the actual theme of providence and divine justice is not foreign to the biblical Solomonic legend. It dominates one of its central pieces, 13 Cf. Skehan, “The Literary Relationship”; Richard J. Clifford, “Proverbs as a Source for Wisdom of Solomon,” in Treasures of Wisdom: Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom: Festschrift M. Gilbert (eds. N. Calduch-Benages and J. Vermeylen; BETL 143; Leuven: Peeters, 1999), 255–63. A special problem is presented by the close relationship between Wis and the Greek LXX version of Ben Sira. Cf. Kazimierz Romaniuk, “Le traducteur grec du Livre de Jésus Ben-Sira n’est-il pas l’auteur du Livre de la Sagesse?” RivBib 15 (1967): 163–70. 14 Cf., e. g., Wis 1:1–2/Prov 1:13; Wis 1:12–13/Prov 1:19, 8:36; Wis 1:6/Prov 8:31; Wis 1:2, 6:12, 16/Prov 2:4–5; 8:1–17; 9:6. 15 The actual wording of the address to the kings in both 1:1–2 and 6:1–2 is influenced by the LXX of Psalms 10–11. This illustrates another device employed by Wis, namely references to the same biblical verse as a means of connecting the antithetical sections in 1:1–6:21.

318

Pseudonymity in the Wisdom of Solomon

namely, Solomon’s prayer at the inauguration of the temple (1 Kgs 8:22–53; 2 Chr 6:1–42). This prayer constitutes one of the classical expressions on divine providence and justice. Evidently the fact that it is put into the mouth of a wise and righteous monarch is not accidental. The biblical tradition seems to assign particular significance to the connection between the content of the prayer, the occasion on which it was pronounced, and the person who delivered it. In fact, the biblical narrative appears to imply that it is precisely Solomon who is best suited to deliver a prayer on divine justice; as one who was granted wisdom to mete out justice, he was both representative and a practitioner of dispensing justice on earth. He was doubly fitting for this role, both by his piety and his modesty as represented by the episode in the account in Kings (1 Kgs 8:46; 2 Chr 6:36; compare Wis 9:10–18). In any case, this was how Wis interpreted the biblical presentation of this wise king.16 Solomon’s character and unique career rendered him perfectly suited for the purpose in Wis of preaching wisdom and righteousness and this is one of the reasons why he was chosen as the pseudonymic hero of the work. In what way was this figure of Solomon so appropriate to Wis? The answer to this question lies in the analogy between the rule of God in the universe and that of human kings on earth. The idea that the two are parallel and overlapping is implied already by the biblical thought. It was taken up and developed by the rabbis, who often make a comparison between a mortal king and the divine king. But traces of peculiar Hellenistic terminology point to Wis’s more direct source of inspiration, the Hellenistic theories of kingship.17 For the analogy between divine and human kingship occupied a central place in these theories.18 These theories drew upon similar speculations in Pythagorean and Stoic circles.19 Both schools elaborated the analogy between God as the efficient, just, and 16 Significantly, the author omits mention of Solomon’s idolatrous practice (cf. 1 Kgs 11:1– 10), and prefers the version of the Chronicler. Wis also does not betray knowledge of the tradition cited by Josephus, Ant. viii, 45–46, according to which Solomon was versed in magic. 17  A good example is furnished by the use of the term φιλάνθρωπος (Wis 1:6; 7:23; 12:19), a term related to the notion of φιλανθρωπία, which is central to the Hellenistic kingship theories. Cf. Ceslas Spicq, “La philanthropie hellénistique comme vertu divine et royale,” ST 12 (1958): 169–91; Roger Le Déaut, “Philanthropia dans la littérature grecque jusqu’au Nouveau Testament (Tite III, 4),” in Mélanges Eugène Tisserant (Vatican City: Biblioteca apostolica Vaticana, 1964), 1:225–94. In general, see Edwin R. Goodenough, “The Political Philosophy of Hellenistic Kingship,” Yale Classical Studies 1 (1928): 51–103. 18 These were treated in the popular literary genre of treatises on kingship, excerpts of which were preserved by the fifth-century anthologist Joannes Stobaeus. The fragments have been re-edited by Armand Delatte, Les Traités de la Royauté d’Ecphante, Diotogène et Sthénidas (Liège: Université de Liège, 1942). Holger Thesleff, The Pythagorean Texts of the Hellenistic Period (Åbo: Åbo Akademi, 1965). See also Gerhard J. D. Aaldets, Political Thought in Hellenistic Times (Amsterdam: A. M. Hakkert, 1975), 17–38. 19 Cf. Delatte, Les Traités, 140–43, 158–63; idem, Essai sur la politque Pythgoricienne (Paris: Vaillant Carmanne, 1922), 40, 44–52, 280, 296.

Pseudonymity in the Wisdom of Solomon

319

magnanimous manager of the universe and human rulers, who should imitate the divine example. That these theories were known to Jewish circles in Alexandria is clear from another Jewish apocryphon, the Letter or Aristeas. Originating in Alexandria in the second century B. C. E., it contains a Jewish version of a theory on kingship.20 Examining various sections of Wis in the light of the analogy between the divine ruler and earthly kings sheds an unexpected light on the significance and structure of these sections. Thus, the combination of themes found in the first section, chs. 1–6, – the exhortation and the expositional section on providence – emerge as a single complex argument: On the one hand, the divine rule serves as a didactic illustration and a concrete example of just and wise rule; and the exposition on providence furnishes the model for the exhortation to the kings. On the other hand, the divine rule applies to kings as human beings subject to divine law. In this way, both the exhortation and the exposition are interrelated and form one unit, as reflected also in the concentric structure. If this analysis is correct, the analogy between divine and human rule may be seen as the organizing principle of Wis 1:1–6:21. It would also account for the choice of a kingly figure for a pseudonym, especially one like Solomon; for he attests through his own life the reality and truth of the ideas expressed in the exhortation, and provides the perfect example that links the exhortation to the exposition. He exemplifies both divine and human justice together with obedience and humility. We may see, now, the particular significance of attributing the exhortation to Solomon: the fact that the admonition is delivered by someone who exemplifies its contents in his own life, furnishing further evidence of its truth; in other words, he personally practices the ideas that he advocates. Out of this context emerges another notion crucial to the understanding of Wis, namely the notion of testimony. In the exhortation, this notion is operative mainly in the background; it comes into the foreground in the next section.

Wis 6:22–10:21 – Personal Quest for Wisdom With the change of focus, the form and style also change in this section: the address is replaced by a biographical account in the first person, containing the following units:

20 See the Letter of Aristeas §§ 190–192, 207–212, 221–224, 262, 267, 279–281, 290–292. Cf. Delatte, Les Traités, 141–42; Oswyn Murray, “Aristeas and Ptolemaic Kingship,” JTS 18 (1967): 337–71. Doron Mendels has suggested that the Temple Scroll LVI–LIX, dealing with instructions to the king, constitutes a Jewish sectarian version of a treatise on kingship. Cf. idem, “The Temple Scroll and the Symposia in the Letter of Aristeas,” Shnaton 3 (1978–1979): 245–52 (Heb.).

320 a. b. c. d. e.

Pseudonymity in the Wisdom of Solomon

6:22–23 7 8 9 10

A transitory passage introducing the theme Solomon’s personal quest for wisdom; wisdom’s cosmological nature Solomon’s love of wisdom Solomon’s prayer for wisdom Wisdom saved the righteous and punished the wicked

This section emerges as a narrative consisting of three episodes: the first two concern Solomon’s lifelong search for wisdom; the third episode reproduces his prayer. All three draw on biblical material, the clearest case being the prayer. It is modelled on Solomon’s prayers at Gibeon and at the inauguration of the temple. The picture in chs. 7–8, which describes the actual quest of Solomon, is more intricate. In the absence of a clear-cut biblical precedent, the author uses a mosaic of scriptural references in order to construct the required circumstances. Some idea of his method may be gained from the following list of allusions to biblical verses:

Biblical Allusions in Wis 6–9 Wis I. Introducing wisdom II. Solomon’s quest for wisdom 7:7; 9:4, 10 III. Solomon prefers wisdom to riches 7:8 IV. Wisdom is priceless 7:9 V. Wisdom provides riches 7:11 VI. Wisdom’s cosmological nature 7:13–21 The movements of the stars, the nature of animals and plants VII. Wisdom and God 7:22–30 VIII. Solomon’s love of wisdom 8:2–20 Solomon’s youth 8:2 Courtship of wisdom 8:2 8:9 IX. Solomon takes wisdom as a wife

Hebrew Bible 1 Kgs 3:9 2 Chr 1:10 1 Kgs 3:11 2 Chr 1:11 Prov 3:14; 8:11 Job 12–19 Prov 3:14–18 1 Kgs 3:13 2 Chr 1:12 Prov 8:18 Prov 3:19–20 Prov 8:22–23 Job 28:23–27 Prov 2:19; 8:27 1 Kgs 5:12–13 Prov 7:22–31 Job 28:21–28 Prov 4:3–9 Prov 5:14–19 1 Kgs 3:9 2 Chr 1:10 Prov 4:8–9 Prov 5:18–19 Prov 7:3–4

321

Pseudonymity in the Wisdom of Solomon

Solomon’s life with wisdom 8:10–16 X. Solomon’s prayer for wisdom God’s just judgment 9:4 Request for wisdom 9:4, 10 Human frailty 9:5–6, 14–16 Solomon is divinely elected to rule 9:7–8 Israel and build the temple Wisdom was with God in the creation 9:9

Prov 1:20–21 Prov 8:1–3 1 Kgs 8:32 2 Chr 6:23 1 Kgs 3:7–9 2 Chr 1:9–12 2 Chr 6:36 1 Kgs 5:17–21 2 Chr 2:3; 6:10 Prov 3:19–20 Prov 8:22–31

A detailed examination of the author’s anthological style and method of citation is beyond the scope of this paper but a few observations on its bearing on the pseudepigraphic framework are in place. Notably, chs. 7 and 8 present parallel versions of Solomon’s quest for wisdom, but with important differences. Both accounts use pertinent biblical passages concerning the nature of wisdom (1 Kgs 3; 2 Chr 1; Prov 3, 8; Job 28) interpreting them in a unified biographic pattern.21 Significantly, ch. 7 plays down the erotic element in the figure of Wisdom, while ch. 8 emphasizes it. Perhaps this omission relates to the cosmological aspects of Wisdom treated in ch. 7. The author may have wished to avoid the possibility of Wisdom being identified as a feminine cosmic force. The omission of the erotic elements is even more glaring given the fully developed erotic metaphors in the following ch. 8. In Proverbs, Wisdom is alluded to using the metaphors of mother, sister, bride, and wife (Prov 2:3, 16–19; 4:4, 7–9; 7:4–5). Wis 8 takes up these metaphors and develops them into a picture of conjugal love: Solomon’s courtship of Wisdom (Wis 8:2), marriage (8:9–10), and married life (8:16–17).22 Each represents a different phase in Solomon’s life, marked by new attainments of wisdom. In line with the marriage metaphor, wisdom is depicted not in its cosmological aspect but in its influence in the human sphere, social as well as personal.

21 See also Prov 4:3–5 in conjunction with 1 Kgs 3:7 and 1 Chr 29:1. These verses may have served as an exegetical basis for the picture of Solomon in his youth. 22 Although based on elements in Proverbs, this poem elaborates considerably the erotic theme. The biographical poem as a genre seems to have been popular in post-biblical times, as evidenced by another such poem related to David that appears in the Qumran Cave 11 Psalms scroll (11QPsa XVIII, 3–12). In fact, a biographical poem of this kind with a strong emphasis on the quest for wisdom, represented in erotic metaphors, is also found in ch. 51 of the LXX version of Ben Sira. Part of the Hebrew version of the same poem was preserved in the same scroll (11QPsa XXI, 11–17). The author of Wis may have been familiar with this or similar poems and may have adapted them to the Solomonic figure. Interestingly, the poem is anonymous in both Ben Sira and the Qumran scroll. All three poems may belong to a particular genre of wisdom poems, which merit a separate study.

322

Pseudonymity in the Wisdom of Solomon

It is time now to examine the place of the biographical section in the entire work and its connection to the exhortation in chs. 1–6; the link appears to lie in the support supplied by example and personal testimony from experience. This principle is rooted in the biblical patriarchal stories, which were later interpreted typologically by Jewish Hellenistic authors. Typological representations of heroes and sages were also popular in Hellenistic rhetoric and may have served as another source of inspiration for Wis.23 Another Hellenistic idea that may have influenced Wis is the idealized figure of the sage-philosopher, who devotes his life to philosophical research and leads a virtuous life. In this way, by his own blameless life, he attests to the truth of his moral-philosophical teaching.24 Finally, the biography of Solomon also has the nature of a paradeigma, “a proof from example,” a rhetorical25 as well as biblical procedure. As such, the biography serves as an illustration of righteous kingship and the righteous personal life, the two major themes of the preceding exhortation. The idea of example deriving from experience underlies also the closing chapter of the section (ch. 10): this chapter introduces an anaphoric list of righteous and wicked persons who were saved or punished by wisdom throughout history. The list includes seven generations: Adam – Cain; Noah – the generations of the flood; Abraham – the nations; Lot – the Sodomites; Jacob – Esau; Joseph – his slanderers; and finally Moses with Israel – the Egyptians. This historical list is in line with both the biblical doctrine of illustrations from history and the rhetorical procedure of paradeigma, “proof from example.”26 It thus emerges as a transitional passage connecting Solomon’s autobiographical account with the expositional section on God’s providence during the exodus and the wanderings in the desert that occupies the last section of the work (chs. 11–19). It illustrates the principles of divine providence in the life of the righteous elect and the damned wicked through the course of history. It thus provides the transition from the personal fate of Solomon to the national destiny of Israel. Furthermore, wisdom is presented here as the active force corresponding to divine providence in human history. In this way, the list both illustrates an idea introduced in the exhortation and supplies the link between the wisdom and providence themes. This link is expressed clearly by the procedure of paradeigma. In fact, the entire second sec23 This motif was used frequently in the popular diatribe, one of the most common hortatory forms in Hellenistic rhetoric, which seems to have influenced the author of Wis. Cf. André Oltramare, Les origines de la diatribe roman (Geneva: Imprimeries Populaires, 1926), 57–60; Reese, Hellenistic Influence, 109–14. 24 The idea goes back to Plato, but it was further developed by the Stoics and Cynics. Cf. Armand Delatte, “Le sage-temoin dans la Philosiophie stoico-cynique,” Bulletin de la Classe des lettres et des sciences morales et politiques (Académie royale de Belgique) 39 (1935): 166–68. 25 For the genre of paradeigma, “proof from example,” cf. Reese, Hellenistic Influence, 105; Winston, Wisdom of Solomon, 212. 26 Cf. Armin Schmitt, “Struktur, Herkunft und Bedeutung der Beispielreihe in Weish 10,” BZ 21 (1977): 1–22.

Pseudonymity in the Wisdom of Solomon

323

tion of Wis may be viewed in this light. Thus, there are three kinds of examples of “testimony from experience”: Solomon’s personal career (chs. 6–9); righteous and wicked persons in history (ch. 10); and the roles of Israel and the Egyptians (chs. 11–19). All three illustrate different facets of the major notions introduced in the exhortation in chs. 1–6. Therefore, it may be seen that all the three sections of Wis form a homogeneous sequence formally as well as conceptually and accordingly should fall into one pseudepigraphic framework.

Wis 11–19 – Divine Providence and Justice In the light of the foregoing observations, this section occupies a special place in the structure of the argument, for it illustrates the operation of divine providence and justice in the major event of Israel’s history: the exodus and wanderings in the desert. The special significance of this section is implied also in its peculiar structure: it consists of seven antithetical comparisons between the Israelites and the Egyptians that depict the recompense of the righteous (Israelites) and the punishment of the wicked (Egyptians). The unique feature of these comparisons is the fact that each antithetical pair is closely interrelated. It is precisely this type of comparison that is used in the well-known rhetorical device of synkrisis, “comparison.” In fact, the author of Wis is employing here this very technique.27 Yet while the contemporary Hellenistic rhetoric used synkrisis to indicate an inner relationship between the objects under comparison, Wis constructs its analogies by means of external-analogical relations much in the manner of the rabbinic haggadah.28 Wis thus adapts the rhetoric device to its own purpose; for the author of Wis, the synkrisis is employed to represent the application of the principle “measure for measure” in the administration of divine justice. This rule constitutes a fundamental judicial principle operative already in biblical literature and developed by the rabbis. According to this rule, the sinner is punished in a manner resembling his own crime. In this way, the analogical relationship between crime and punishment points to the wisdom and mystery of divine justice. In this way, too, divine justice is made to include divine wisdom, and as a consequence the third part of Wis is linked to the first section. From this perspective, the antithetical structure of chs. 1–6 is seen as reflecting the same preoccupation with the principle of “measure for measure,” as suggested by both its form and content. We may, then, conclude that the three parts of Wis form a unity and adhere to the same pseudepigraphic pattern, namely, an exhortation by king Solomon on divine wisdom and justice. the use of this procedure here, see Reese, Hellenistic Influence, 98–100. shown by Isaak Heinemann, “Synkrisis oder aussere Analogie in Weisheit Salomos,” TZ 4 (1948): 241–51. 27 For 28 As

4Q127: An Unknown Jewish Apocryphal Work? The uniqueness of the Qumran manuscripts, as is well known, lies not only in their great antiquity, but also in their literary and religious character. Their relationship to a distinctive community also lends these documents a particular importance. In view of this uniqueness, the languages in which these documents were written acquire special significance. It is, therefore, of consequence that the majority of the 900 readable manuscripts that survived at Qumran were written in Hebrew. And some 120 manuscripts, which come from some thirty-three separate works, representing more than 14 percent of the entire collection, are written in Aramaic.1 Compared to the variety of form and content displayed in the Qumran Hebrew documents, those in Aramaic contain mostly narratives and pseudepigraphic visions, lacking the specific features attributable to the literature of the community.2 Also notable is the fact that Qumran produced no personal legal documents and only a few Greek manuscripts.3 These facts strongly emphasize the importance of Hebrew as a vehicle of religious expression at Qumran. In such circumstances, the presence of a small number of Greek manuscripts among the Qumran manuscripts is both intriguing and significant. Unlike Aramaic manuscripts, which were found in all major caves, sizeable Greek manuscripts were unearthed only in Caves 4 and 7. Cave 7 presents a special case, for it contained only these Greek manuscripts. The total number of Qumran Greek manuscripts is twenty-seven, which represents around 3 percent of all the manuscripts found at Qumran. Most of the readable ones yield Septuagint 1 For these numbers, see my updated computation in “The Qumran Manuscripts: Contents and Significance,” in Collected Studies, 27–56 (56). 2 See my survey of the themes particular to the Qumran Aramaic corpus in “The Qumran Aramaic Texts and the Qumran Community,” in Collected Studies, 185–94. For a discussion of the paleography and dating of most of the Qumran Greek papyri, see Peter J. Parsons, “The Scripts and Their Date,” in DJD VIII, 25. Note also Émile Puech, “Les Fragments non-identifiés de 8KhXIIgr et le manuscrit grec des Douze Petits Prophetes,” RB 98 (1991): 161–69. 3 See Emanuel Tov, “The Greek Biblical Texts from the Judean Desert,” in Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran: Collected Essays (TSAJ 121; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 339–64 (339–42). As pointed out by Tov, except for one, all the Qumran Greek texts are literary. In this respect, the small Qumran Greek corpus is unique among the Greek manuscripts found at other sites of the Judean Desert, most of which are documentary. See also n. 36 below.

326

4Q127: An Unknown Jewish Apocryphal Work?

Greek versions of the Pentateuch.4 The paucity of Greek manuscripts at Qumran is particularly striking considering the prominence of Greek in Palestine during that period.5 What was the place and use of Greek in a library dominated by Hebrew and Aramaic as was the library of Qumran? No satisfactory answer has yet been given to this question. One of the Greek texts, first published by Eugene Ulrich,6 provides occasion for reconsideration of the problem. It is 4Q127, named “4Q127 pap4QParaExodus gr,” a Greek papyrus from Qumran Cave 4. The manuscript survived in some eighty fragments, most of which are tiny. This article is an analysis of the five largest and most intelligible fragments, labeled frgs. a-e in the first publication and frgs. 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8 in the subsequent DJD edition. The most obvious clue for identification is found in frg. a (1), as noted by Ulrich. It mentions biblical names such as Pharaoh, Moses, the Red Sea, and perhaps also Aaron and Miriam. The combination of all these names occurs only in one specific biblical context, namely, the crossing of the Red Sea (Exod 14–15). However, the material distribution of the names in the fragment cannot be reconstructed into any section of the corresponding Septuagint Greek rendering of this biblical episode. Moreover, this fragment, as well as others, includes elements not found in the biblical story, such as the mention of angels in frg. b (2). Ulrich has, therefore, rightly concluded that these fragments are not from the Septuagint proper but from a work closely related to it. He designated it “An Exodus Greek Paraphrase,” having in mind works such as the Genesis Apocryphon.7 One may, however, question both this designation and the literary concept it implies, for the term paraphrase suggests a close relationship, at times even an equivalence, between a given work and a specific biblical passage. In the present case, however, only frg. a (1) contains recognizable biblical references, and even there they clearly do not coincide with an actual biblical text. Rather than being a paraphrase of a biblical passage, the present text may have been a looser reworking of biblical and other materials. The search for a possible identification of 4Q127 was conducted by Ulrich with the help of a database of Hellenistic, pagan, Christian, and Jewish authors.8 4 Cf.

Tov, ibid. Saul Lieberman, Greek and Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1962), 1–147 (Heb.); Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism (London: SCM, 1974), 58–65. 6 See Eugene Ulrich, “A Greek Paraphrase of Exodus on Papyrus from Qumran Cave 4,” in Studien zur Septuaginta: Robert Hanhart zu Ehren Anlass seines 65. Geburtstages (eds. D. Fraenkel, U. Quast, and J. W. Wevers; MSU 20; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), 287–98. It was published in a revised and expanded form as “4Q127: Pap4QParaExodus gr,” in DJD IX, 223–42, plate XLVII. 7 See Ulrich, “Greek Paraphrase,” 289. 8 For this purpose, Ulrich used the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. See Luci Berkowitz and Karl A. Squitier, Thesaurus Linguae Graecae: Canon of Greek Authors and Works (2nd ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986). 5 See

4Q127: An Unknown Jewish Apocryphal Work?

327

This database, however, did not include the corpus of works most relevant to the type of Greek text at hand, namely, the Jewish pseudepigrapha that have survived in Greek. A considerable body of Greek originals, translations, fragments, and quotations of this literature has come down to us, and they contain many examples of precisely the mixture of biblical and non-biblical elements of the type found in our papyrus.9 Works belonging to this category throw interesting sidelights on 4Q127. In fact, a close examination of the papyrus in the light of the known Jewish pseudepigrapha yields unexpected insights into this document.

Frg. a (1) This is the largest fragment published by Ulrich and includes the remains of twelve lines, ten of which contain an average of two legible words. It is in this fragment that all the recognizable biblical names appear. Another interesting feature of this fragment is the repeated combination of και ουκ/ξ (lines 2, 5, 9, and 10). This is a clear indication of a paratactic style (note also και in frg. e [8], line 3), so characteristic of the Jewish Koine Greek, reflecting the paratactic Hebrew.10 The letters κα◦ ουχω[ in line 9 of the present fragment may be restored as καὶ οὐχ ὡ[ς, with numerous possible combinations to follow.11 We may, therefore, surmise that frg. a (1) was written in a paratactic style and contained references to the episode of the crossing of the Red Sea. Line 4 employs the uncommon word ἦθος, meaning “custom, law, habit,” used by Classical and Hellenistic authors.12 In the Septuagint, however, it is only used sparsely and only in Ben Sira and 4 Maccabees.13 Nevertheless, the word occurs in a number of non-biblical Jewish or related works,14 which shows that it was in use. However, the cognate term ἔθος15 is more current in the Jewish Koine litera  9 The pertinent texts are assembled as an annex to a concordance, compiled by Albert-Marie Denis, Concordance grecque des pseudépigraphes d’Ancien Testament (Louvain: Université Catholique de Louvain, 1987), 815–925. 10  On the pronounced paratactic character of the Jewish Koine, influenced by both popular Greek and Semitic Hebrew and Aramaic, see Friedrich Blass and Albert Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament (trans. and rev. R. W. Funk; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), 239; A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. 3: Syntax (eds. J. H. Moulton, W. F. Howard, and N. Turner; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1963), 9, 334–35, 342. 11 See the combinations listed in Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (rev. and ed. 3rd ed.; ed. F. W. Danker; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 732–34. 12 See Walter Bauer, Kurt Aland, and Barbara Aland, Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament (6th ed.; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1988), col. 698. 13 See Ben Sira, Prologue 35 and 20:26; 4 Macc 2:7, 21; 5:24; 13:27. 14 The Letter of Aristeas §§ 290–291; T. Asher 4:5, Sib. Or. 4:35. 15 See Bauer and Aland, Wörterbuch, col. 441. The semantic field covered by this term is defined by Spicq in reviewing its use in the New Testament: “personal habit; social, religious or traditional custom; the common practice; legal ruling.” See Ceslas Spicq, Notes de lexi-

328

4Q127: An Unknown Jewish Apocryphal Work?

ture.16 It is sometimes used in the expression “the Law/Custom of the Fathers,” referring to Jewish traditional practices and beliefs.17 In 4Q127, ἦθος may well have formed part of such an expression. It would fit nicely into a paraenetic context, which often admonishes the hearer/reader concerning past sins and calls for future adherence to the traditional Law. Such paraenetic sections are commonplace in Jewish pseudepigraphic works.18 It is therefore quite possible that frg. a (1) is, in fact, a fragment of a similar paraenetic discourse with allusions to biblical historical events and to various misdeeds.

Frg. b (2) This fragment is smaller than the preceding one but nonetheless contains two intriguing words: one is αγγελω[ν, restored by Ulrich as the genitive plural of the noun ἄγγελος. Two lines below, the letters τακρυ[ appear, plausibly restored by Ulrich as τὰ κρυπτά, which, because it is a neuter plural term, designates “the secret/hidden things.”19 Both words occur in the Septuagint, but whereas ἄγγελος is quite frequent, τὰ κρυπτά is a rare word. In any case, in the Septuagint, the two words never occur in the same context as they do here. However, there is one well-known context where the two terms are linked, namely, the story about the fallen angels – the biblical Sons of God – who unlawfully took to themselves mortal women. In the Enochic writings assembled in 1 Enoch, this episode is related in great detail and in a number of variant versions.20 One of these variants portrays the sin of the angels as that of revealing heavenly secrets to the women. Interestingly, only two Enochic works, the Book of Watchers (=1 En. 1–36) and the Book of Parables (=1 En. 37–72), contain references to this tradition.21 Perhaps our fragment also contained allusions to the same tradicographie Neo-Testamentaire, Supplement (OBO 22/3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), 194–201. 16  See, e. g., the Letter of Aristeas 290; 2 Macc 13:4; 4 Macc 18:5; T. Asher 4:5; Acts 28:17; 1 Cor 15:33; Josephus, J. W. vii, 424. 17 See, e. g., 2 Macc 11:25; Acts 26:3; Josephus, J. W. vii, 424. 18 See, for instance, 1 En. 14:4–6; 98:16; 99:1; 101:1; Aramaiac Levi Document (4Q213 1 i); Testament of Qahat (4Q542 1 i–ii); CD II, 16, 18; III, 2–3, 7. 19 This neuter plural occurs in the Septuagint in Deut 29:29, Wis 7:21, and Sir 11:4. It is also used by the New Testament. See Bauer and Aland, Wörterbuch, cols. 921–22. This neuter plural does not occur in the surviving Greek fragments of the Jewish pseudepigrapha assembled by Denis, Concordance. 20 See, e. g., 1 En. 6–16; 86–89; 106:13–14. See also Jub. 5:1–11; 7:21–25; T. Reu. 5:6–7; T. Naph. 3:5; CD II, 17–21. 21 Cf. 1 En. 9:6; 10:7 (and Syncellus’s addition following 8:4), where the Greek has τὰ μυστήρια rather than τὰ κρυπτά; and 1 En. 65:6, 11, 15; 68:1, for which only the Ethiopic survived. However, the Ethiopic for 9:6 uses the word habu’āt, which may also translate τὰ κρυπτά (as in Jer 29 [49]:10; Sir 1:30; cf. August Dillmann, Lexicon linguae aethiopicae ([Lipsiae,

4Q127: An Unknown Jewish Apocryphal Work?

329

tion within the framework of a historical review. A number of such historical reviews with references to the angels are known from postbiblical literature.22 If this is indeed the case, the word ]ουραν◦υ, to be restored as ουρανου (“of heaven”), which occurs in frg. d (7), line 2, acquires peculiar significance, for it may have formed part of the pair υἱοὶ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ or the like. As is well known, the angels are termed “Angels/Sons of Heaven” by pseudepigraphic as well as Qumranic works.23

Frg. c (3) This fragment contains two significant words: ανθ◦◦[ ]ου and ἁμαρτίων. The first word is plausibly restored ἀνθρώ[π]ου by the editor, as the genitive attached to an antecedent. It is a common word and therefore cannot be pinned easily to a specific context. But together with the genitive plural of ἁμαρτίων, it can be fitted into a context of admonition. By itself, the word ἁμαρτία belongs to the wellestablished paraenetic vocabulary current in various apocryphal and pseudepigraphic works.24 Notable is also another similar word, ]νομιασ[ (frg. 9, line 4), restored by the editor as ἀ]νομίας[ (“the iniquity”). To this context may belong the surviving letters ]◦τρυφ◦[ (frg. 10, line 3). The combination and sequence of these letters are quite rare and therefore may point to a specific form of the verb τρυφάω, (“to indulge, delight oneself”25). This meaning would accord well with the lustful motives and the wrongdoing of the rebellious angels. The possible references to the crossing of the Red Sea and the sin of the angels that may be detected in the surviving words of the present papyrus appear also in Jub. 5:7 and 49:12–15. However, the fact that Miriam and Aaron are not mentioned in the Jubilees Red Sea episode does not support an identification of 4Q127 as a fragment of a Greek version of Jubilees. The absence of the names Miriam and Aaron from the Pseudo-Philonic Biblical Antiquities also rules it out 1865; repr., New York: Ungar, 1955], 601). The same words are used of the secrets revealed by the angels in 1 En. 65:6; 68:1. For the Greek, see Matthew Black, Apocalypsis Henochi Graece (Leiden: Brill, 1970); for the Ethiopic, see Michael A. Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978). Compare also the tradition in Jub. 8:2–4, where Keinan is said to have discovered rock inscriptions that contained the astronomical teaching of the Watchers, i. e., the angelic transgressors. 22 For lists of historical periods that open with the episode of the sinning angels, see, for instance, Sir 16:7–10; CD II, 14–III, 12; 4Q180 (published by John M. Allegro, DJD V, 77–79). See my discussion “The ‘Pesher on the Periods’ (4Q180) and 4Q181,” in Collected Studies, 385–404. 23 Cf., e. g., 1 En. 6:2; 14:3; 1QS IV, 22; XI, 8; CD II, 18 (= “Watchers of Heaven”). 24 Cf. Bauer and Aland, Wörterbuch, cols. 84–85. Note the long list of entries under ἁμαρτία in Denis, Concordance, 133–34. 25 Cf. GELS, 623; GELSM, 689.

330

4Q127: An Unknown Jewish Apocryphal Work?

as a possible source for our papyrus.26 The remaining tiny pieces of disparate letters and words without context from 4Q127 do not offer further clues to the content and subject of the Greek text copied therein. However, in light of the foregoing observations about some of the surviving words, it is proposed to identify the work preserved in 4Q127 as a hitherto unknown apocryphal or pseudepigraphic composition.27 The passage preserved in frg. a (1) may have come from a paraenetic section containing allusions to past events and transgressions. In frg. b (2), we may have an allusion to the tradition regarding the rebellious angels. The paratactic style may mean that the Greek is a translation from a Semitic original. That the Qumran library should contain apocryphal works unknown to us is not surprising. Numerous such works, both in Hebrew and in Aramaic, were discovered in the caves.28 It is the fact that this text is in Greek that makes 4Q127 exceptional. As noted above, Greek manuscripts are rare at Qumran and were found only in Caves 7 and 4. Five of them, four from Cave 4 and one from Cave 7, are Septuagint Pentateuch manuscripts. Others were variously identified: 7Q2 was identified as the Letter of Jeremiah 43–44, an identification widely accepted,29 but resting on debatable identification, given the paucity of surviving letters.30 Other small fragments, 7Q3–7Q5, were identified by some scholars as various New Testament passages,31 but the identification failed to convince most scholars.32 Émile Puech has subsequently identified some of the Cave 7 pieces as coming from the final Enochic work, entitled the Epistle of Enoch (= 1 En. 91–105).33 26 In the Biblical Antiquities, both the angelic transgressors and the crossing of the Red Sea are mentioned (3:1 and ch. 10), but the absence of references to secrets or Aaron and Miriam excludes the identification of 4Q127 with it. 27 Eugene Ulrich has recently agreed with this conclusion, having noted the variety of themes figuring in the papyrus fragments: “Thus Devorah Dimant may well be correct in suggesting that it is a lost apocalyptic work.” Cf. idem, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible (VTSup 169; Leiden: Brill, 2015), 157. 28  See my survey “Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha at Qumran,” in Collected Studies, 153–69. 29 See Maurice Baillet, “Grotte 7,” in DJD III, 143. 30 See my comment in “Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha at Qumran,” in Collected Studies, 156, n. 20. 31 The idea was advanced and argued by José O’Callaghan on various occasions. See, for instance, idem, “Les papyrus de la grotte 7 de Qumran,” NRT 95 (1973): 188–95. 32 For a re-evaluation and rejection of the identification of 7Q5 as Mark 6:52‑ 53, see Stuart R. Pickering and R. E. Cook, Has a Fragment of the Gospel of Mark Been Found at Qumran? (Papyrology and Historical Perspectives 1; Sydney: Ancient History Documentary Research Center, Macquarie University, 1989). 33 Cf. Émile Puech, “Sept fragments grecs de la lettre d’Hénoch (1 Hén 100, 103 et 105) dans la grotte 7 de Qumrân (= 7QHéngr),” RevQ 18 (1997): 313–23. Earlier, G.-Wilhelm Nebe proposed identifying 7Q4 with 1 En. 103:3, the Greek translation of which is known from a Chester Beatty papyrus. See idem, “7Q4: Möglichkeit und Grenze einer Identifikation,” RevQ 13 (1988): 629–33.

4Q127: An Unknown Jewish Apocryphal Work?

331

In light of this limited evidence of Greek non-biblical texts from Qumran, it is significant that few such manuscripts may have come from apocryphal works. It should also be noted that all the Greek non-biblical works have been copied on papyrus and not on leather, the material of most of the other scrolls from Qumran. Even the Septuagint manuscripts were not all copied on leather. The prominence of leather among the surviving Qumran scrolls may be due partly to its more durable nature as a writing material. Nevertheless, the relationship between writing material, subject matter, and language is intriguing. One cannot help wondering whether there was a real connection between the writing material and the content and language of the text copied on it. From contemporary data beyond Qumran, we know that papyrus served as a writing material for legal, personal, or other documents.34 The library of Qumran shows that leather was preferred as the writing material when sacred and religious literature in Hebrew and Aramaic were involved.35 Would this mean that works that were both apocryphal and in Greek were considered profane and therefore copied exclusively on papyrus, like ordinary profane legal documents?36 The question merits further study. Whatever the case may be, the possibility that another Greek apocryphal text was deposited at Qumran, this time in the central library of Cave 4 and not in one of the peripheral caves, may have significant implications for understanding the nature of the Qumran library and may shed light on the origin and history of apocryphal works preserved in Greek translations.

34 The situation in Palestine during the contemporary period was surveyed by Menahem Haran, “Scribal Workmanship in Biblical Times: The Scrolls and the Writing Implements,” Tarbiz 50 (1980–1981): 68–72 (70) (Heb.). 35 On the use and distribution of leather and papyrus as writing materials at Qumran, see Emanuel Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert (STDJ 54; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 31–36. 36 Cf. the list of Greek texts from Qumran compiled by Emanuel Tov, DJD XXXIX, 215–16. All the eighteen pieces from Cave 7 are on papyrus. Of the eight Greek scrolls found in Cave 4, four are from the Septuagint Pentateuch (4Q119–4Q122), only one of which, 4Q120, is copied on papyrus. Three other texts are unidentified (4Q126, 4Q350, 4Q361).

Index of Sources Hebrew Bible Genesis

6, 14, 65, 67, 79, 100, 119, 154, 158, 188, 228, 236, 245, 246 1:9–10 154 1:20 95 5 100 5:3 95 5:15–20 86 5:15–19 79 5:21–24 64 5:21–23 42 5:22 42 6:1–14 75, 76–78 6:1–4 45, 68, 79, 80, 82 6:1–2 76, 79, 82, 86 6:1 79 6:2 79, 82, 181 6:3 82 6:4 81, 82, 87, 94 6:4–14 86 6:4–7 79 6:5 78 6:6 78 6:11–14 79 6:11–13 83 6:11–12 78 6:12–13 78 6:13–14 78, 84 9:20 190 9:21 95 9:26 147 10 96, 100 10:2–3 95 10:4 113 10:6 95 10:7 86

11 100 14:5 94 14:13 94 16:12 111 18:2 160 18:16 160 22:23 181 23:19 188 24:15 181 24:47–48 228 25:2 111 25:4 111 25:9–10 188 25:26 272 28:1–2 181 29:10–12 228 29:18–28 181 31 243 32:3 65 35:22 251 35:29 188 36:1 111 243, 246 38 38:1–30 248 38:1–2 248 38:2 243, 248 38:16 247 38:17 236 38:20 236 38:26 245 39–41 48 46:29 232 47:9 94, 97 49 63, 70, 169 49:1–2 70 49:3 6

334

Index of Sources

49:4 251 49:10 6, 169 50:13 188 50:25 188 7, 155 Exodus 2:23–24 113 3:2 292 3:9 113 6:20 184 10:22–23 155 13:19 188 14–15 326 15:17–18 135 20:8 298 20:12 232 21:2 298 21:29 107, 162 22:28 199, 200 197, 201, 208, 209 23:19 29:45 129 31:14–16 298 32:4 99 34:26 201, 205, 208, 209 7, 244, 252 Leviticus 1–10 128 6:20 184 13:46 129 15:19–24 83 18:8 251 18:15 244 19:23–25 190 20:11 251 244, 245 20:12 20:14 245 21–22 128 21:9 245, 249 21:17–23 129 23:10 197 23:15–16 206 26:3–11 159 26:14–39 159 26:31 10 27:30–31 206 27:30 202, 205, 208, 209 27:32–33 202, 209 27:32 202, 206

Numbers 1–5 128 5:2–4 129 5:3 129 5:9 197 13:22 94 13:23 198 15:21 197 16:22 144 18:8–20 209 18:11–13 201, 208 18:12 197, 200 18:13 205 18:21–24 202 18:21 198, 202, 206, 208 18:25 209 26:59 184 27:16 144 36:5–12 179 Deuteronomy 36, 62, 113, 314 2:20–21 3:11 94 4:19 95 4:22 250 4:32 10 8:8 198, 205 9:12 115, 161 9:16 161 10:17 87 12:17–18 209 12:17 206 14:22 190, 208 14:22–26 190, 204 14:22–27 190, 203, 207, 209 14:28–29 190, 203 18:4 200, 201, 202, 206, 208 19:4–5 250 21:3 189 22:13 246 23:1 251 23:3 82 23:13–15 129 23:22 199, 200 25:5–6 244 26:1–11 201, 205 26:12–13 190, 203 26:12 203, 208

335

Index of Sources

27:20 251 28:1–14 159 28:15–68 159 28:28–29 162 28:28 166 28:49 113 29:9–27 292 29–33 63, 70 31 36 31:12–21 70 31:29 161 32–33 293 32:1 70, 292 80, 109, 164 32:8 33 13 33:17 98 34:6 293 34:10 13 Joshua 11:22 94 15:63 121 20:7–9 216 20:23 250 21:32 216 Judges 1:21 121 2:11–15 159 2:17 115, 161 2:22 115 4–5 216, 224 4:4–5 210, 216 4:6 216 4:10 216 5:18 216 6:35 216 7:23 216 10–12 111, 112 13:9–10 160 13:22 65 15:1 236 1 Samuel 1:1 224 1:21 205 7:7 164 9:1 224

14:46 111 17:43 112 25:32 147 31:12–13 189 2 Samuel 5:7 121 7:11 159 10:14 111 11:2 252 24:1 84 1 Kings 317, 321 3 3:1 121 3:7–9 321 3:7 312 3:9 315, 320 3:11 320 3:12–13 315 3:13 320 4:20 159 5 317 5:5 159 5:7–9 315 5:9–14 315 5:12–13 320 5:17–21 321 6–8 121 8:1–11 127 8:19–20 315 8:22–53 318 8:32 321 8:36 115 8:46 318 10 317 10:1–3 315 11:1–10 318 11:23–24 315 12:29 214, 215 12:32 199 17–21 161 18:4 161 18:13 161 22:19 95 2 Kings 1–2

215 106, 161

336

Index of Sources

3 112 9:7 161 15:29 215 17 196 17:5–6 215 17:7–23 161 17:13–14 162 17:13 161 17:16 199 18:1–2 196 21:2–16 159 23:5 95 23:10 125 23:29 112 24:2 112 24:12–16 214 24:12 305 25:9–10 122 25:27–30 214 25:27 263

42:18–20 97 42:18–19 161 44:9–20 300 49:14 122 49:17 136 51:10 103 51:11 122 52:1 129, 134 52:10 161 54 137 54:2–3 133 54:11–14 135 54:11–12 133 54:13 135 57:9 99 60:19–20 152 60:21 115 65:2 115 65:3–4 300 66:3–4 300

25, 135, 161, 296 Isaiah 2:1–2 99 2:1 133 2:2–4 114 2:2 114 2:23 134 6:3 150, 151 6:10–11 111 97, 161 6:10 9:1–2 216 9:6 135 9:11 99 11:6–9 135 11:9 286 11:15 103 13:5 10 24:5 182 26:19–20 259 26:20 258 29:18 97 34:4 132 35:5 97, 161 35:8 129 40:3 6, 277 40:11 102, 164 40:12 273, 279 41:4 25

Jeremiah

7, 13, 24, 109, 110, 112, 164, 165, 168, 214, 257, 260, 262–264, 281, 286–294, 295–310 2:24 111 2:30 161 4:7 112, 162 5:5 10 5:6 111, 115 5:21 161 6:16 115 7:18 299 10:12 148 10:25 99 11:14 299 12:9 99 15:1 104 17:21–27 298 19:4 300 19:13 300 23 98 23:1–4 102 23:1–2 164 24 300 25:1 110 25:11–12 24, 109 26 298

Index of Sources

26:20–23 161 29 298, 300 29:1–4 288 29:1–3 306 29:1–2 289 29:10 109 30:10–11 135 31:10 102 32:17 148 32:34–35 300 32:39 115 33:17 169 34:8–17 298 39:2–3 122 39:8 122 40:1–6 264, 287 40:1–2 289 40:44 264 42:15–22 300 42:20–22 299 43:5–44 299 43:6 291 44 287 44:11–14 300 51:15 148 51:30 263 51:59–63 298 51:59–60 287 51:60–64 300, 306 51:64 288 43, 164, 257–262, 310 1 259 3:12 147, 150, 151 10 259 12:2 161 20:40 123 30 260 34 98, 102, 160, 163 34:1–8 164 34:8 99, 111 34:12 102 34:24 164 34:25 99 34:28 99, 135 36–38 259 36:23–28 260 Ezekiel

36:38 259 37 258 37:1–14 84 37:1–3 286 37:14 259 40–48 43 40:2 43 40:3 43 43:3 259 43:9 103 43:10 134 44:9 134 44:15 6, 296 44:16 121 48:30–35 133 Hosea 162 11:9 114 11:11 103 12:10 103 13:7 112, 162 Joel 260 4:17 129 Amos 8:10 175 Obadiah 10–14 112 17 129 Jonah 1:21 147 Micah 4:1–2 114 4:1 114, 123, 134 7:14 102 Habakkuk 113 Zephaniah 260 1:17 97 102, 110, 115 Zechariah 1:12 110 2:14–15 103, 134

337

338 3 105 7:5 110 7:14 132 8:3 103, 134 8:22 132 10:3 102 11 98, 160 11:1–8 164 11:4–17 102 11:4 102 11:7 102 11:11 105, 115 11:15 102 Malachi 1:7 105 1:11 105 1:12 121 3:10 205 3:16 114 Psalms 7, 12, 187, 314 14:2 114 19:7 10 29:1 80 53:3 114 61:7 147 68 7 69:29 114 77:21 98 78:52 98 80:2 102 80:14 111 88:3 123 89:7 80 97:7 65 99:6 104 100:4 98 102:2 114 104:19 273 104:24 273 106:24 132 113:2 147 129:5 122 136:2 87 137:7 112, 122 145:13 147

Index of Sources

Proverbs 7, 314, 316, 317, 321 1–9 316, 317 1:1–14 317 1:1–7 317 1:13 317 1:9 317 1:20–21 321 1:32 317 2:3 321 2:4–5 317 2:16–19 321 2:19 320 2:21–22 317 3 321 3:14–18 320 3:14 320 3:19–20 320, 321 4:3–9 320 4:3–5 321 4:4 321 4:8–9 320 5:11–14 317 5:14–19 320 5:18–19 320 7–9 321 7:3–4 320 7:4–5 321 7:22–31 320 8 321 8:1–21 317 8:1–17 317 8:1–3 321 8:11 320 8:18 320 8:22–31 317, 321 8:22–26 281 8:22–23 320 8:27–29 273 8:27 320 8:31 317 8:36 317 9:6 317 15:8 7 7, 195, 196, 229–237 Job 2:2 65 2:9 232, 234 2:10 232

Index of Sources

6:5 111 11:12 111 12–19 320 23–27 281 28 321 28:21–28 320 28:23–27 320 31:10 234 38:5 273 38:7 80 Lamentations 5:19 147 Ecclesiastes 7 1, 7, 84, 173, 196 Esther 2:5 224 1, 5, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 34, 38, 44–49, 92, 93, 108, 120, 142, 150, 159, 164, 167, 173, 213, 269, 276, 287, 294, 314 1:1–2 305 1:8 196, 218 1:14–15 196 1:16 218 2–7 274 2 19, 21, 23, 48, 269, 273 2:24 30 2:37 87 2:47 87 3 84, 300 4–5 48 4 48 4:10 80 4:14 80 4:20 80 4:34 147 7–12 12, 19, 20, 21, 38, 39, 40 7–8 39 7 39, 44–46, 48, 142 7:1–2 44 7:8 168 44, 46, 131 7:9–10 7:9 131 Daniel

339

7:10 114, 132 7:20 168 7:25 168 8–12 54, 274 9–12 39 9 24, 39, 92, 93, 107, 109, 110, 116, 159, 167, 283, 294, 308, 309 308, 309 9:4–19 9:4–14 159 9:5–19 308 9:24–27 107, 116, 166, 167 9:24 152 9:25–27 23 9:25 7, 110 9:26 50 10–12 263, 264 108, 164 10:13 10:20–21 164 10:21 108 11:30 113 11:33 111 11:35 30 12:1 164 12:2–3 30, 153 12:2 153, 276 12:6 50 12:11–12 269 Ezra 105 1:1 110 1:5 214 105, 213 3:2 3:8 213 3:10–13 122 3:12 123 5:2 105 6:2 230 7:1–4 214 8:15 306 8:21 306 8:31 306 Nehemiah 1–2 105 2:8 121 2:10 112 2:19 112

340 3 122 3:35 112 4:1 112 4:10–17 122 5:1–13 298 7:1–3 122 7:3 121 9 159 9:6–39 308 9:26–30 107, 162 9:26 107, 161 9:32 110 10:32 298 10:36–38 189 10:36 202 10:37 209 10:38 201, 206 12:44 189 13:5 202, 205 13:12–13 205 13:15–22 298 1 Chronicles 1:28 100 1:19 112 2:3 243 3:18–19 213 5:6 216 5:26 216 9:22 104 17:6 164 17:27 147 21:1 84 22 104 23:29 279 29:1 121, 321 29:10 147, 149 29:11 148 2 Chronicles 1 317, 321 1:9–12 321 1:10 315, 320 1:11 320 1:12 315, 320 1:18–2:8 315 2:1–7:11 121 2:3 321

Index of Sources

5:1–4 127 6:1–42 318 6:1–13 315 6:9–10 315 6:10 321 6:23 321 6:36 318, 321 9 317 9:22–23 315 11:15 214 15:15 159 18:18 95 24:19 107, 162 24:20–22 107 24:20–21 161 27:5 112 31:4–6 206 31:5–12 205 31:5–6 189 31:5 201 31:6 202, 209 33:12–13 84 34:9–17 107 35:18 104 36:6 305 36:9–17 162 36:11–20 159 36:15–16 161 36:20–23 109 Samaritan Pentateuch 65, 70, 82 Septuagint

70, 76, 84, 121, 201, 233–236, 262, 295, 296, 325–328, 330, 331

Genesis 5:24 65 5:21–23 65 6:1–4 76–78 6:4 82 6:12–13 78 6:13–14 78 10:8 94

341

Index of Sources

Exodus 23:19 197

2 Chronicles 31:5 201

Leviticus 23:10 197

Tobit 173–237

Numbers 5:9 197 15:21 197 18:3 201 18:12 197, 200 18:21 198 Deuteronomy 18:4 200 26:12 203 32:8 80, 109, 164

Ben Sira

317, 321

Baruch 307 1:1–3:8 303 Symmachus Genesis 6:2 80 Old Latin

1 Samuel 1:21 205

Genesis 5:24 65

Isaiah 49:17 136

Ezekiel 262

Jeremiah 302, 303, 308 14:6 111 29–52 303 29–51 303 47 305 50–51 305 51 302 51:31–35 302 Psalms 10–11 317 Job 2:9–10 233 2:9 233, 234 31:10 234 Esther 4 84 4:17x 196, 218 Nehemiah 10:36 201

Tobit

175, 178, 179, 194, 213, 230 1:2 215 1:7 198, 203–204 1:16 225 5:9 225 7:2 180 Vulgate Jeremiah 14:6 111 Job 31:10

234, 235

Tobit 232 1:16 225 Targum Onqelos Genesis 6:2 80

342 6:4 80 38:2 248 Targum Pseud-Jonathan Genesis 14:13 94 16:12 111 38:2 248 Exodus 22:28 200 23:22 200 Deuteronomy 3:11 94 23:22 200 26:12–13 203 34:1 285

Index of Sources

Targum Neofiti Genesis 16:12 111 Targum to the Prophets Jeremiah 14:6 111 Syriac Jeremiah 14:6 111 Tobit 1–2 215 Baruch 1:3

290, 306

Apocrypha 1 Esdras 3–4 213 3, 5, 88, 159, 165, 173–237 1:1 224, 225 1:2 214, 215 1:4–5 202 1:6–9 218 1:6–8 195, 197–199 1:6–7 200 1:6 197, 199 200, 202–203 1:7–8 1:7 200, 202, 203 1:8 197, 216 1:9–10 219 1:9 224 1:10 179 1:11 196, 218 1:12–16 224 1:13–16 220 1:14 219, 220, 224 Tobit

1:16–18 196 1:16 225 1:17–19 188 1:19 220 1:20 219 1:22 223 2:1–9 196 2:1–6 175 2:3–8 188 2:8 178, 220 3:4 159 3:8 8, 185 3:14–15 184 178, 180 3:15 3:17 223 4:1 219 4:3–4 188 4:12–13 179, 223 4:12 179, 184 4:17 178 5:6 225 5:9 225

Index of Sources

5:10–13 179 5:11 225 5:12 179 5:14 225 6–9 217 6:6–7 185 6:10–19 223 6:12–14 179 6:13 179 6:15 178 6:16–17 185 6:16 179 6:18–19 179 6:19 179 7:2 180, 225 8:2–4 185 8:7 179 9:2 219 9:6 225 10:13 249 12:3 186 13:5–6 159 13:11–17 133 14:3–4 175 14:5 133 14:9 188 14:10 188 14:12 188 14:18 188 173, 196, 214, 218 Judith 4 214 10:5 196, 218 11:13 205 12:1 218 12:2–4 196 12:9 196, 218 196, 218 12:19 1 Maccabees 1:33 121 3:24 112 3:41 112 3:49–50 205 4:22 112 4:41–59 116 11:63–74 217

2 Maccabees 1, 289, 290, 299 2 293, 300 2:1–8 289 2:1–4 299, 300, 305, 308 2:1 289 289, 307 2:2 2:4–5 291 2:4 290, 300 2:18 299 4:12 121 4:28 121 5:5 121 11:25 328 13:4 328 327 4 Maccabees 2:7 327 2:21 327 5:24 327 13:27 327 18:5 328 Wisdom of Solomon 1, 7, 313, 321–323 1–6 323 316, 317 1:1–6:21 1:1–15 316 1:1–2 317 1:12–13 317 1:16–2:20 317 3–4 317 5:1–23 317 6–9 320–323 6:1–23 317 6:1–21 316 6:21–10:21 319–320 7 317, 321 7:7 320 7:8 320 7:9 320 7:11 320 7:13–21 320 7:21 328 7:22–30 320 8 321 8:2–20 320 8:2 320, 321 8:9–10 321

343

344

Index of Sources

1:1–14 307 1:1–3 305 1:2–3 305 1:2 305 1:3 214, 305 1:4 305 1:7–9 214 1:8 264 1:10–3:8 305 1:14 305 1:15–3:8 307, 309 1:15–2:27 308 2:27 309 2:30 309 3:9–5:9 304 3:9–4:4 307 3:9–11 299 3:9–4 299 3:32–36 299 3:32 149 3:37–4:4 299 4:5–5:9 307

8:9 320 8:16–17 321 9:4 320, 321 9:5–6 321 9:7–8 321 9:9 321 9:10 320, 321 9:14–16 321 10 323 11–19 323 11:20 273 9, 159, 278, 327 Ben Sira Prologue 35 327 1:30 328 11:14 328 16:7–10 329 17:17 164 20:26 327 21:30 147 24 299 33:10 (36:8) 286 44:16 65 44:19 122 48:14–15 159 51:12 87 51:30 147 290, 291, 293, 295–310 263, 264, 290, 297, 300, 303, 305, 307, 308, 309 1–2 304 Baruch 1:1–3:8

Letter of Jeremiah 288–290, 298, 300, 304, 306 1:1 305 43–44 330 Susanna

173, 252

Psalm 151

149

New Testament Matthew 23:30 161 23:35 16 24:22 286 24:30–31 107 85, 117 24:37–39 24:37 107 Mark 6:52–53 330 13:20 286

Luke 4:40 187 11:48–50 161 13:34 107 17:25–26 85 17:26 117 Acts 7:52 107 26:3 328 28:17 328

Index of Sources

Romans 5:12–21 101

1 Peter 3:20 85

1 Corinthians 2:7 281 15:33 328

Revelation 34 21–22 135

1 Thessalonians 2:15 161

Pseudepigrapha Apocalypse of Abraham 35 Apocalypse of Zephaniah 34, 35 Apocryphon of Ezekiel 257, 287 Assumption of Moses 13, 34, 36 1:5 36 10:11 36 11:1 36 2 Baruch

5, 13, 19, 34, 38–40, 143, 155, 263–265, 269–310 1–77 269 1:1 286 3:2 286 4:1 286 4:3–5 273 5:1–2 286 6:7–10 290 9:2 291 10:2 292 13:3 273 14:1 281 19:6–8 284 20:1–2 28, 284, 286 20:1 284 20:6 282 28:24 285

23:7 284 24:1 285 24:4 275, 282 273, 292 25:1 27:1–15 283 27:15 284 28:1–2 283 28:2 283 29:4 142 29:51 101 30:2 285 30:3 284 33:1–3 291 33:2 292 36–37 269 39:3–6 269 41:1–2 283 41:5–6 283 41:5 275, 285 43:7 292 44:3 292 44:7 292 46:5 292 48:2–3 282 48:31–38 280 50:1–4 285 53 282, 283, 286 53:1–11 101 53:11 283 54:1 282 54:3 286 54:6 286 55:3 39 56–74 282

345

346

Index of Sources

56–69 23 56:1–2 273 56:3–4 282 59:4 273, 285, 301 70:2–10 280 76:2 292 76:3 292 77:1–10 292 77:5 292 77:15–16 292 77:19 291, 306 78–87 269 83:1–8 276 284, 286 83:1–2 83:1 284 84:2–3 292 84:8 292 85:10 284 85:13 282, 283 34, 35 3 Baruch 11:4 83 14:2 83 4 Baruch (Paraleipomena Jeremiae) 257, 287, 291, 299, 304, 306, 309 3:8 290 3:11–13 291 4:5–6 291 5:21 291 6:13–7:19 291 6:17 291 9:10–32 291 Biblical Antiquities (Liber Antiquitatum biblicarum) 68, 86, 256, 285, 286, 329, 330 19 285 19:13 285 19:14 285–286 1 Enoch

3, 5, 9, 10, 19, 20–24, 27, 29, 34, 36–41, 44, 45, 52, 59–169, 174, 176, 181, 186, 191, 229,

255, 264, 265, 269, 294, 283, 287, 328 1–36 (B. of Watchers)  10, 20, 36, 59, 74, 75, 94, 139, 185, 234, 328 1–5 41 1:5 80 6:16 328 6–11 41, 52, 68, 70–89 6:8 95 6:2 329 6:7 45, 142 7:1–2 94 7:3–4 95 8:4 328 9:1 96 9:4–11 148 9:4–5 148 9:6–10 148 9:6 328 9:11 148 10 86 10:2 45 10:4–8 186 10:4–5 186 150, 328 10:7 10:10 153 10:12 110, 116 10:13 117, 125 10:14–11:2 46 10:15 45 10:16–11:2 117 10:16 115 10:19 101 41, 52, 75, 81 12–16 14–16 44–48, 122 14–15 20, 38 12:1 68 12:2 80 12:3 80 12:4 80 13:8 80 14 41, 44, 45 14:1–2 44 14:3 80, 329 14:4–6 328 14:8–16:4 96

Index of Sources

14:8 44 14:13–18 46 14:15 44, 131 14:18–23 44, 65 15:3–7 81 15:4 83 15:9–16:1 52 15:9–12 82 15:9 150 16 186 17–36 20, 38, 41 17:1 41 18:8 42, 46 18:14–15 117 19:1 52 20 96 21:3 125 22:1 41 22:6–7 83 25:3 42, 46 25:6 94 32:3 42, 70 36:4 146 37–71 (B. of Parables)  20, 37, 43, 59, 96, 139–155, 328 37:1 43 39:3 122 39:11 150 39:12 80 39:13 80 40:2 80 46 43 61:12 80 65:6 328, 329 65:11 328 65:12 115 65:15 328 67:1–2 115 67:2 96 67:5–7 17 68:1 328, 329 70:1–2 65 71:1 65 71:7 80 71:8 9 71:11 146 71:13 96 72–82 (Astronomical B.)  20, 37, 59, 139

347

73:1 41 74:1 41 74:2 41 74:12 191 75:4 41 75:6 41 77:3 42 77:4–8 42 78:10 41 81:1–2 44, 122 81:5 96 81:6 65 83–90 (B. of Dreams)  20, 37, 59, 119, 139 83–84 119 83:2 91 84:2–6 146 84:6 115 85–90 (Animal Apocalypse)  33, 38, 88, 91–137, 158–169, 274 85:1 39 85:3–89:73 160 86–89 328 86:6 52 87:2–3 96 87:3 46 89:9–14 27 89:55–90:5 159 89:59–90:16 24, 283 89:59–62 27 90:9–14 30 90:18–19 117 90:20 45, 46, 131 90:22 27 90:28–29 117 90:40 146 91–105 (Epistle of Enoch)  10, 20, 37, 59, 139, 330 91:1–2 70 91:3–9 70 91:11–12 117 91:14–17 117 91:15 80 91:17 150, 275 93:1–10; 91:11–17 (Apocalypse of Weeks)  9, 37, 38, 92, 120, 274, 283

348

Index of Sources

93:2 39, 44, 48, 96, 122 93:3–10 101 93:4 46, 85 93:5 100, 115 93:6 103 93:7 106, 161 93:8–9 124 93:8 161 93:9–10 111, 116 93:9 30 93:10 115, 117 93:12–14 117 98–99 117 98:16 328 99:1 328 101:1 328 103:2 44 103:3 330 106–107 (Birth of Noah)  20, 37, 59, 139, 182 106 82 106:5 42 106:7 65 106:8 70 106:12 84 106:13–15 53 106:13–14 328 106:13 181 106:14 81 106:19 44, 96, 122 108 37, 139 2 Enoch

1, 19, 34

3 Enoch 43 4 Ezra

5, 8, 12, 13, 19, 26, 28, 34, 38, 39, 40, 93, 143, 155, 263, 264, 265, 269–294 2:2 39 3:22 26 4:4 26 5:14 28 5:42 28 5:44 28 6:49–52 142 14:5 301

Joseph and Aseneth 173 Jubilees

3, 4, 9–14, 19, 23, 34, 38, 53, 64–71, 73, 86, 88, 91–93, 107, 109, 118, 157, 165, 169, 181, 182, 188, 191, 211, 229, 241–253, 255, 256, 269, 283, 292, 329 19, 20, 38–40, 54, 164 1 1:5–15 161 1:8–15 23 1:8–12 169 1:9–18 274 1:9 110 1:10–14 116 1:10 124 1:12 107, 161, 162 1:14 110, 115 1:15–16 111 1:17 103, 117, 134 1:23 274 1:27–29 292 1:28–29 133 1:28 129 1:29 134, 136 2:1 84 3:15 66 3:17 243 3:8–14 243 4:1 80 4:15 79, 86 4:19 96, 122 4:16–25 63, 64 4:22 80 4:23–28 71 4:23–26 71 4:23 42, 65, 66 5:1–11 328 5:4–12 85 5:7–9 82 5:7 329 6:32 191 7:1–7 190, 191 7:21–25 328 7:21 80 7:22 94

Index of Sources

7:35–37 190, 191 8:2–4 329 8:3 80 9:6–10 95 10 186 10:1 82 10:3 144 10:5 80 10:8–9 186 10:8 165 10:9–11 109 10:10–14 83 10:10–13 66 10:12–14 186 10:23 66 11:5 165 13:24–25 205 13:25–27 189, 207 13:25–26 209 13:26–27 206 15:31 109, 164 17:16 165 245, 250 20:4 22:12–14 100 23 19, 20, 38–40, 59, 164 23:9 94 23:11–27 23 23:11–25 280 23:11 9 23:16 115 23:17 153 23:18–25 110 23:22–26 116 23:26 30, 115, 116 25:7 183 25:12 147 30:8 183 32:8–9 206 32:8 189, 206 32:10–14 204 32:10–11 207 190, 207, 209 32:11 37:24 111 41:1–2 248 41:5 246 41:7 246 41:10 247 41:18 245

349

41:19 245 41:23–26 245 41:26 250 41:28 245 47:1–11 188 49:2 165 Life of Adam and Eve 101 28:4 101 41:3 101 Martyrdom of Isaiah 257, 287, 309 Psalms of Solomon 1:8 124 1:2–3 124 3:12 153 5:5 153 5:15 153 8:11–12 124 17:30–31 133 17:30 129 Sibylline Oracles 1, 34–35 4:35 327 Testament of Job 235 21:1 235 24:1–6 235 24:9 235 37:1 235 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs 19, 34, 36, 182, 269 Testament of Reuben 253 3:11 252 5:6–7 89, 328 Testament of Levi 19, 35, 36, 47, 73, 182 2–5 36 2–4 47 2:7–5:1a 47 3:5–6 83

350

Index of Sources

Testament of Dan 6:2 83

5:1–2 47 5:1 47 9:9 124 10:19 19 14:7–8 124

Testament of Naphtali 2:3 273 3:5 80, 328

Testament of Judah 247, 253

Testament of Asher 327, 328 4:5

Other Ancient Works and Sources Eusebius, Praeparatio evangelica 1

262 319 279–281 319 290–291 319, 327 290 328

Ezekiel the Tragedian

Letter of Barnabas 106, 121 16:5

Exagoge 7.440 285, 301 Letter of Aristeas 319 83 123 190–192 319 207–212 319 221–224 319

1 Clement 8:3 287 Lives of the Prophets 257

Qumran Scrolls Damascus Document (Geniza) 10, 31, 100, 128, 136, 149, 165, 169, 189, 196, 206, 255, 276, 293 I, 2–7 161 I, 3–4 169 166 I, 5 I, 7 115, 150 I, 9–12 111, 162 I, 13 115 I, 15 115 II, 5–6 125 II, 6 166 II, 9–10 50, 277 II, 14–II, 12 329 328 II, 16 II, 17–21 328

II, 17–18 II, 17 II, 18 III, 2–3 III, 7 III, 12–13 III, 13–14 III, 19–20 III, 20 III, 21–IV, 6 III, 21–IV, 2 IV, 1 IV, 3 IV, 10 IV, 12–13 IV, 13–15 IV, 13

150 100 80, 328, 329 328 328 115 115, 116 153 281 6 296 124 144 283 108 116 165

351

Index of Sources

IV, 15 V, 6 V, 7–8 VI, 10 VI, 11–19 VI, 14 VII, 10 VIII, 9–12 VIII, 12 VIII, 20 IX, 2–8 X, 8–10 XI, 20–21 XII, 1–2 XII, 22–23 XII, 23 XIII, 1–2 XIII, 20 XV, 7–8 XV, 7 XVI, 2–4 XVI, 2 XVI, 3–4 XVI, 5 XVI, 7 XVI, 10 XIX, 9–10 XIX, 17 XX, 23

165 124 181 50, 167 105 50 281 167 166 309 107 9, 94 7 129 130 50, 108, 130, 167 130 130 50 108, 167 9 50, 162, 166, 277 9, 255, 277 109, 165 116 116 115 115 124

Cave 1 1QS (Community Rule)  10, 31, 150, 167, 270, 276, 277, 279 I, 1–2 6 I, 3 211 I, 13–14 277 50, 200, 277 I, 14 I, 18 116 I, 24 116 II, 5 165 II, 19–22 130 II, 19 168 III, 13–IV, 26 158, 163 III, 15 50, 150, 277 III, 18–IV, 26 157

III, 19 III, 21–25 III, 23 III, 26–IV, 1 IV, 3 IV, 4 IV, 5 IV, 7 IV, 8–9 IV, 8 IV, 9–10 IV, 9 IV, 11 IV, 12 IV, 13–16 IV, 13 IV, 16 IV, 18–23 IV, 18–22 IV, 19–23 IV, 19–20 IV, 19 IV, 21 IV, 22 IV, 23 V, 10–13 VI, 3–6 VIII, 6 VIII, 12–16 VIII, 15–16 VIII, 15 IX, 12 IX, 17–18 IX, 24 X, 1 X, 5 XI, 8

281 187 25 27 281 281 155, 281 281 153 152, 153 281 281 162 166 277 50, 117, 125, 282 50, 277 117 132 101 167 281 281 80, 281, 329 281 116 130 144 6 6 277 277 277 169 50 50 329

1QSa (Congregation Rule) 135 I, 15 130 I, 24 130 1QSb (Blessings Rule) 50 IV, 18 IV, 26 50

352 1QHa (Hodayot) III, 22 V, 15 V, 22 V, 27 V, 29–30 VII, 26–27 VIII, 26 IX, 15–18 IX, 16 IX, 18 IX, 21 IX, 24 X, 15 XI, 23–24 XI, 27–37 XV, 5–16 XVIII, 10 XIX, 18 XX, 11 XXI, 14–16 XXI, 16 XXII, 9

Index of Sources

270, 276 80 277 50 150 150 150 149 150 277 50 281 277 144 151 101 115 144 147 50 145 50 50

1QM (War Scroll) 31, 117, 131, 158 I, 2 113, 300 I, 4 113 165, 167, 169 I, 5 I, 6 121 I, 10–14 117 III, 4–6 117 III, 9 25 VII, 8 155 VII, 14 130 X, 15 50 187 XII, 10–14 XII, 12 166 XIII, 9–18 157, 158 XIII, 11 109, 165 XIV, 4 147 XIV, 7 167 XIV, 13 147 XV, 2 167 XVII, 6 152, 168 XVII, 8 281

1QpHab (Pesher of Habakkuk) 6, 25, 167, 273, 276 II, 11–IV, 13 167 II, 7–10 51, 273 III, 9–14 113 V, 4 144 V, 7–8 167 V, 7 108 V, 8 116 167 VI, 1–8 VII, 2–14 277 VII, 3–5 273 VII, 4–5 51 VII, 7–14 284 VII, 7–8 50 VII, 8 25 VII, 12–14 277 VII, 13–14 25, 50 50, 277 VII, 13 VIII, 8–13 116 X, 3–5 117 X, 5 125 XII, 8–9 124 Isaa 136 1Q9 262 1Q16 7 1Q17 241 1Q18 241 1Q19 37, 87, 88 1Q20 (Genesis Apocyphon)  I–VI 88  I–V 70   I, 10 181   II, 1–6 84   II, 16 80   II, 23 70   V, 3–4 80   V, 12–13 88   VI, 13 80   XX, 12–18 186   XX, 20–29 187 1Q21 182 1Q22 6 1Q23 45 1Q24 45 1Q25 53

Index of Sources

1Q26 278 1Q27 154, 167, 168, 179, 280 1Q32 43 Cave 2 2Q19 291 2Q20 241 2Q23 53 2Q24 43 2Q26 45 Cave 3 3Q1 262 3Q5 241 Cave 4 80, 109, 164 4Q37 4Q70 295 4Q71 262, 295, 296 4Q72 262, 295 4Q72a 295, 296 4Q73 262 4Q74 262 4Q75 262 4Q112–4Q116 31, 28 4Q119–4Q122 331 4Q120 331 4Q126 331 4Q127 325–331 4Q159 204 4Q163 115, 296 4Q164 135 4Q166 56, 162, 166 4Q171 108, 128, 153, 281 4Q174 (Florilegium)  7, 21, 116, 117, 130, 134–136, 294 4Q180 19, 50, 80, 150, 158, 277, 329 4Q181 80, 110, 117, 158, 277, 281 4Q182 296 4Q196–4Q199 175 175, 178–180, 226, 229, 4Q196 233 4Q197 178–180, 229 4Q198 229

353

4Q199 229 4Q200 175, 229 4Q201–4Q202 37, 61, 68 4Q203 45, 61, 63, 80, 184 4Q204–4Q207 120 4Q204 20, 37, 38, 61, 62, 91, 126 4Q205 20, 37, 38, 61, 91 4Q206 21, 37, 38, 42, 45, 61, 62, 70, 92, 103 22, 23, 61, 91, 92, 120 4Q207 4Q208–4Q211 37, 62 4Q209–4Q211 61 4Q212 20, 38, 61 4Q213–4Q214b 182 4Q213 328 4Q213a 47, 187 4Q215a 167, 280 4Q216–4Q224 241 4Q216 277 4Q217 277 4Q225 109, 165 4Q227 66, 67, 88 4Q228 9, 51, 277 4Q232 43 4Q242 48 4Q243–4Q245 21, 40, 48, 49, 293 4Q246 40, 49, 116, 144 9, 10, 53 4Q247 4Q251 198, 200, 205 4Q252 6, 88, 169 4Q266 50, 149, 200 4Q268 200 4Q269 50 4Q270 10, 50, 189, 196, 197, 201, 206 4Q271 50 4Q286–4Q290 144 4Q286 277 4Q298 278 4Q299 279 4Q300 168, 279 4Q301 167, 279 4Q319–4Q321 283 4Q323–4Q325 283 4Q329 283 4Q350 331 4Q361 331

354

Index of Sources

4Q365a 10, 198, 205 4Q368 6 4Q370 88, 94 4Q372 300 4Q374 144 4Q375 14 4Q376 14 4Q379 6, 7 4Q380 7 4Q381 7 4Q385 28, 84, 258, 259, 266–268, 271, 275, 276, 285, 286 4Q385a–4Q390 164, 283, 297 4Q385a 53, 104, 164–167, 257, 263, 264, 286, 287, 289, 292, 298, 299, 300, 301, 304, 305, 307 4Q385b 260, 297 4Q386 53, 84, 258, 275, 276, 285, 286 4Q387 53, 116, 117, 162, 165–168, 280, 283, 297, 301 4Q387a 164 4Q388 258, 275, 276, 285, 286 4Q388a 165, 167, 293, 301 4Q389 165–168, 263, 264, 290, 297, 298, 301, 304–308 4Q390 53, 105, 109, 115–117, 163, 165, 166, 168, 187, 211, 257, 264, 280, 283, 294, 301 260, 261 4Q391 4Q394 91, 129, 191 4Q397 115 4Q400 147 4Q403 87 4Q405 87 4Q408 151 4Q409 149 4Q410 53 4Q415–4Q418c 278 4Q416 167, 279, 283 4Q417 277 4Q418 152, 168, 277–279 4Q422 88 4Q423 200

4Q444 82 4Q462 154 4Q471a 116, 166 4Q478 175, 229 147, 151, 169 4Q503 4Q504 309 4Q510 82, 168, 187 4Q511 82, 167, 168, 187 4Q521 53, 144, 201 4Q522 10 4Q524 205 4Q530–4Q533 45 4Q530 42, 44–46, 131 4Q534–4Q536 40, 88 4Q534 144 4Q542 328 4Q543–4Q548 184 4Q543 188 4Q544 188 4Q547 188 4Q549 184 4Q552 40, 48 40, 48 4Q552a 4Q553 40, 48 4Q554a 43 4Q555 43 Cave 5 5Q15 43 Cave 6 6Q8 45 6Q12 53 Cave 7 7Q2 330 7Q3–7Q5 330 7Q4 330 7Q5 330 Cave 11 11Q4 262 11Q5 (11QPsa) 7, 12, 133, 147–149, 151, 165, 187, 191, 321 11Q10 234 11Q12 241

355

Index of Sources

11Q13 (Pesher Melchizedek)  7, 21, 50, 107, 144 11Q18 43 11Q19 (Temple Scroll)  10, 14, 103, 117, 130, 181, 189, 190, 198, 201, 202, 204–209, 301 11Q20 10 11Q21 10

II, 216 II, 221 II, 220

Unknown cave XQTob 175

Jewish War ii, 129–133 ii, 160–161 ii, 459 vii, 424 xvii, 171–173

Masada Manuscripts Mas 1043–2220 262 Papyri 259, 262 Papyrus 976 Papyrus Cairo Zenon 59004 217 Papyrus L. Bat. 20 217 Papyrus Gizeh 83 Papyrus Panopolis 60, 70, 77, 148 Philo of Alexandria 1, 97, 162 De sepcialibus legibus I, 131–144 190, 206 205 I, 132–152

198 198 205

De virtutibus 95 201 Josephus Flavius 1, 204, 208 110 179 217 328 142

Jewish Antiquities 292 iii, 96 iv, 240 203, 208 iv, 326 292 v, 346 205 viii, 45–46 318 x, 79 287 xii, 133 121 xii, 138 121 xiii, 154 217 217 xiii, 162 xviii, 19 105 Contra Apionem ii, 211 189

Rabbinic Writings Mishnah

Bikkuim 1:6 205

Abot 3:16 114 6:4 279

Ḥallah 4:9

Berakhot 7:3 147

Middot 1:9 121

202, 205, 206

356

Index of Sources

Qiddushin 1:9 196 Tamid 1:1 121 Zebaḥim 5:8 206

Mekhilta Beshalah, Masechta de Shira 10 135 Exod 15:1

Mekhilta de Rashbi

Babylonian Talmud

Jethro 28, 20

Berakhot 47b 197

Tosefta

‛Erubin 19a 125 Niddah 32a 164 41a 94 Pesaḥim 3a 248 Sanhedrin 91a-b 287 Soṭah 10a 234 Ta‛anit 5a 135 Yoma 2a 121 81a 107, 162 Zebaḥim 116b 128 Palestinian Talmud Pesaḥim 7, 5

121

287

189

‛Abodah Zarah 3:10 197 ‛Arakhin 3:17–18 200 Ḥallah 2:9

205, 206

Sanhedrin 11:1 81 Soṭah 13:10 206 Terumot 2:6 204 Sifre Num § 6   § 119   § 122   § 148

206, 207 202, 205, 206 206 205

Deut § 63, 6   § 109   § 357

200 204 285, 301

Judges § 173

81, 173

357

Index of Sources

Tanḥuma

Sifre Zutta Num 18:21

204

Toledot, 5

112

Later Jewish Sources

Midrash Rabbah Gen 26, 2   26, 5   26, 7   26, 34   36, 7  85   85, 1   85, 4

82 80 94 111 95 248 111 246

Lev 4, 5   13, 5   26, 7

287 111 285, 301

Num 9, 24

234

Esther 10, 11

112

Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer 24 95 Midrash Ha-Gadol Gen 9:27

95

Rashi (R. shelomo Yitḥaki) on Deut 23:22 200 on Ps 80:14 111 on Job 31:10 234 on Ezra 3:12 123

Index of Modern Authors Aaldets, G. J. D. ​318 Abegg, M. ​9 Adler, W. ​2, 6, 94, 148 Aharoni, Y. ​217 Aitken, J. K. ​175, 194, 229 Aland, K. ​327–329 Aland, B. ​327 Albani, M. ​242 Albeck, C. ​201, 203–208, 211, 242 Albright, W.  F. ​220 Alexander, P. S. ​68, 256 Allegro, J.  M. ​329 Alon, G. ​128, 211 Amit, Y. ​248 Anderson, G. A. ​231, 247–250, 252 Aptowitzer, A. ​120 Ariel, C. ​158 Ariel, D. T. ​214, 217 Assefa, D. ​91, 93, 94, 127, 132 Auwers, J.-M. ​194, 204, 230 Bachman, V. ​241 Baillet, M. ​300, 309, 330 Barton, J. ​298 Bauckham, R. ​2, 4, 34, 157, 214, 216, 271 Bauer, W. ​275, 327–329 Baumgarten, A.  I. ​51 Baumgarten, J. M. ​10, 149, 183, 190, 197, 198, 200, 201, 206, 207, 209, 211 Beer, G. ​67, 68, 74, 125 Begg, C.  T. ​235 Bellia, G. ​313 Ben-Dov, J. ​118, 140, 143, 191 Benz, O. ​151 Berger, K. ​63, 269 Bergren, T.  A. ​257, 302 Berkowitz, L. ​326 Berlin, A.  M. ​217

Berner, C. ​20, 22 Bernstein, M. J. ​7, 12, 14, 157, 189 Beuken, W.  A.  M. ​235 Bewer, J.  A. ​306 Beyer, K. ​194 Bidawid, R.  J. ​272 Bietenhard, H. ​135 Birenboim, H. ​125, 128, 131 Black, M. ​52, 59, 74, 76, 79, 87, 91, 92, 94, 103, 105, 108, 109, 141, 148, 151, 160, 329 Blass, F. ​327 Boccaccini, G. ​20, 24, 102, 140, 176, 242 Bogaert, P.-M. ​262, 282, 285, 286, 291, 295–297, 302, 304 Boismard, M.-É. ​300 Bolyki, J. ​189 Bonner, C. ​60, 181 Borger, R. ​65 Böttrich, C. ​34 Bow, B.  A. ​232 Boyce, M. ​21 Brand, M. T. ​157, 187 Braulik, G. ​195 Bredin, M. ​194, 213, 223, 230 Brock, S.  P. ​234 Brooke, A.  E. ​194 Brooke, G. J. ​4, 7, 11, 169, 256, 297, 298 Broshi, M. ​9 Brown, F. ​141 Burke, D.  G. ​304 Calduch-Benages, N. ​317 Caquot, A. ​63, 98, 141, 149, 152 Carmignac, J. ​32, 52 Carroll, R. P. ​295, 296 Carson, D.  A. ​256

Index of Modern Authors

Charles, R. H. ​2, 19, 34, 36, 41, 59, 63, 67, 68, 73–75, 91, 92, 103, 108, 119, 126, 139, 140, 141, 152, 160, 245 Charlesworth, J. H. ​2, 19, 34, 35, 144, 153, 157, 242, 277 Chazon, E. G. ​4, 7, 151, 153, 188, 271, 278, 309 Christian, M.  A. ​195 Clements, R. A. ​4, 153, 188, 278 Clifford, R.  J. ​317 Cogan, M. ​215, 219 Coggins, R.  J. ​274 Collins, A.  Y. ​35, 47 Collins, J. J. ​2, 7, 11, 19, 20, 31–38, 40–44, 46, 140, 141, 143, 208, 276, 309, 313, 314 Cook, E. M. ​183, 188 Cook, J. ​233 Cook, R.  E. ​330 Corley, J. ​193 Cox, C.  E. ​233 Cross, F.  M. ​31 Curtis, A.  H.  W. ​295 Daniel, S. ​198 Danker, F. W. ​275, 327 Davenport, G.  L. ​242 Dávid, N. ​6 Davila, J. R. ​2, 4, 11, 34, 270, 314 Davis, K. ​264, 288, 297, 298 Debrunner, A. ​327 Dedering, S. ​281 De Jonge, M. ​47 Delatte, A. ​318, 319, 322 Dennis, A.-M. ​327–328 De Troyer, K. ​53, 93, 263, 290, 294, 297, 306 Dexinger, F. ​21 Diamond, A. R. P. ​298 Di Lella, A. ​180 Dillmann, A. ​59, 74, 103, 121, 126, 132, 142, 147, 152, 154, 328 Dimant, D. ​3–5, 9–11, 15, 21, 28, 32, 40, 41, 50–53, 60, 74, 75, 83–85, 87, 88, 92, 94, 95, 102, 109, 110, 115, 118, 130, 134, 135, 153–155, 157, 158, 165, 166, 169, 177, 188, 231, 243, 255, 257–260, 264, 266, 271, 274, 276, 277,

359

278, 281, 289, 290, 292–294, 296–297, 299–301, 304, 305, 307, 330 DiTommaso, L. ​133 Dix, G. H. ​59, 60, 62 Doering, L. ​24, 290, 298, 305, 306 Dorival, G. ​233, 303 Drawnel, H. ​37, 140 Egger-Wenzel, R. ​236 Ego, B. ​174, 179, 193, 195, 213, 217, 223, 225 Ekstein, H.-J. ​24 Elgvin, T. ​175, 229 Elman, Y. ​190 Endres, J.  C. ​242 Eph‛al, I. ​219 Eshel, H. ​271 Eshel, E. ​47, 88, 176, 177, 181–184, 187, 191 Evans, C. A. ​157, 242 Fabricius, J. A. ​2, 33 Falk, D. K. ​3, 14, 181, 256 Fassbeck, G. ​269 Feldman, A. ​10, 87, 94, 255 Fischer, G. ​303, 304, 308 Fishbane, M. ​35 Fitzmyer, J. A. ​70, 173, 175, 176, 178–180, 187, 194, 195, 197, 199, 213, 217, 223–227, 229, 230 Flint, P. W. ​3, 9, 20, 38 Flusser, D. ​116, 125, 132, 135, 136, 151, 167, 187 Focke, F. ​314 Fraenkel, D. ​326 Freedman, D.  N. ​252 Frey, J. ​5, 157, 242, 315 Fritz von, K. ​8, 314 Fröhlich, I. ​145, 150, 187, 195 Fuks, A. ​217 Funk, R.  W. ​327 Galil, G. ​215, 218–220 Gamberoni, J. ​195, 209 García Martínez, F. ​32, 33, 37, 38, 49, 52, 59, 74, 88, 157, 270, 271 Garelli, P. ​219 Garrett, S.  R. ​235

360

Index of Modern Authors

Gathercole, S. ​178, 198 Geiger, A. ​195, 211 Geoltrain, P. ​141 Gerleman, G. ​233 Gilbert, M. ​313, 314, 317 Ginzberg, L. ​125 Glare, P.  G.  W. ​275 Goedicke, H. ​219 Goff, M. ​45 Goldman, L. ​10, 14, 87, 94, 176, 184, 185, 188, 255 Goldman, Y. ​262, 296 Goldstein, J. A. ​289, 299, 304, 307, 308 Goldstein, R. ​295, 298 Goodenough, E.  R. ​318 Grätz, S. ​301 Graupner, A. ​301 Grayson, R. ​272 Greenfield, J. C. ​37, 43, 47, 60, 62, 141–144, 182–184, 191, 214, 227 Grelot, P. ​42, 67, 70, 225 Grenet, F. ​21 Gruenwald, I. ​151, 257 Gunneweg, A. H. J. ​288, 290 Gurtner, D. M. ​269, 270, 282, 291 Habicht, C. ​299 Hagen, J.  L. ​19 Hakkert, A.  M. ​318 Halévy, J. ​86 Hallermayer, M. ​175, 178, 229 Halpern-Amaru, B. ​181, 182, 188, 246–148 Hanhart, R. ​178, 193–195, 197, 199, 201, 203, 204, 208, 213, 223, 230 Haralambakis, M. ​234, 235 Haran, M. ​98, 129, 331 Harl, M. ​198, 233, 303 Harlow, D. C. ​2, 11, 314 Harnisch, W. ​274, 275 Harper, R.  F. ​141 Harrington, D. J. ​1, 285 Hartman, L. ​68, 76 Heinemann, I. ​323 Heinemann, J. ​146, 147 Hellholm, D. ​32 Hengel, M. ​151, 326 Henshke, D. ​128–130, 207, 208

Henze, M. ​11, 53, 101, 263, 264, 269– 271, 276, 292, 293, 297, 298, 301 Herbert, E.  D. ​256 Herbert, S. C. ​217 Herzer, J. ​291, 304, 305 Hieke, T. ​178 Himmelfarb, M. ​35, 42, 43, 46, 47 Hirschberg, M.  Z. ​215 Hogeterp, A.  L.  A. ​286 Holladay, C. R. ​1, 285, 301 Holladay, W.  L. ​296 Hollander, H.  W. ​47 Holm, T.  L. ​48 Horowitz, W. ​143 Horst van der, P. W. ​235 Howard, W.  F. ​327 Humphrey McEwan, E. ​270 Hurvitz, A. ​120, 149, 252 Ibba, G. ​24, 176, 242 Jacobson, H. ​285 Janzen, G.  J. ​295 Janzen, W. ​127 Japhet, S. ​81, 104, 107, 127, 216 Jeremias, G. ​46 Kaiser, O. ​315, 316 Kampen, J. ​157, 189, 278 Kappler, C. ​38 Kasher, R. ​98 Kautzsch, E. ​2, 19, 34, 36, 67, 125 Keck, L.  E. ​195 Kessler, M. ​302 Kister, M. ​4, 92, 115, 116, 120, 128, 129, 133, 135, 145, 149, 153, 157, 160, 169, 183, 189–191, 271, 277, 278 Klein, J. ​98 Klijn, A. F. J. ​95, 270, 282 Kneucker, J.  J. ​304 Knibb, M. A. ​8, 10, 20, 22, 37, 43, 60, 87, 103, 142, 144–146, 152, 159, 235, 241, 255, 270, 274, 278, 287, 329 Knoppers, G.  N. ​6 Koch, K. ​20, 21, 23, 34 Kohl, M. ​34 Kollmann, B. ​185 Kooij van der, A. ​233

Index of Modern Authors

Kort, A. ​198 Kottsieper, I. ​223, 289, 290, 297 Kraft, R.  A. ​234 Kratz, R. G. ​6, 176, 289, 290, 297, 300 Kraus, W. ​290, 306 Krüger, T. ​233 Kugel, J. L. ​244, 252, 253 Kugler, R.  A. ​47 Kuhn, H.-W. ​46 Kulik, A. ​35 Kvanvig, H. ​42–44, 48 Landmesser, C. ​24 Lange, A. ​53, 93, 187, 242, 263, 290, 294, 297, 306 Larcher, C. ​313, 316 Le Déaut, R. ​318 Lerberghe, K. ​218, 219 Leslau, W. ​121, 132, 147, 152, 154, 246 Levine, A.  J. ​232 Levinson, B.  M. ​6 Lewis, C.  T. ​275 Lichtenberger, H. ​24, 187, 233, 270 Lieberman, S. ​326 Littman, R.  J. ​232 Livingstone, E.  A. ​302 Longenecker, B.  W. ​270 Lundbom, J.  R. ​302 Lust, J. ​260, 262 Macaskill, G. ​35 Macchi, J.-D. ​262 Machiela, D. A. ​70, 175–177, 181, 182, 186, 187 Mangan, C. ​234 Martin, F. ​74, 122, 126, 141 Marttila, M. ​7, 8, 308 McDonald, L. M. ​1, 8, 261 McKane, W. ​295 McLean, N. ​194 Mendels, D. ​319 Menn, E.  M. ​246–248 Metso, S. ​11 Milgrom, J. ​182, 207 Milik, J. T. ​9, 20, 21, 37, 38, 42, 46, 59– 64, 66, 67, 74, 75, 87, 91, 92, 94, 100, 103, 106, 109, 110, 119, 120, 139–141, 159, 160, 164, 168, 175, 194, 214, 277

361

Millar, F. ​122 Miller, G. D. ​178, 179 Miller, J.  E. ​177 Mittmann-Richter, U. ​233 Moldenke, A.  B. ​220 Moore, C. A. ​173, 174, 179, 180, 193, 195, 213, 216–218, 229–232, 235, 288, 289, 299, 304 Moore, G.  F. ​141 Morgenstern, M. ​279 Morschauser, S. ​198 Moulton, J.  H. ​327 Mueller, J.  R. ​287 Mukenge Kabasele, A. ​303, 305 Munnich, O. ​233, 303 Murray, O. ​319 Myers, J. M. ​273, 281 Na’aman, N. ​215, 216, 219 Najman, H. ​8, 11–13, 41, 97, 162 Naveh, J. ​214, 217 Nebe, G.-W. ​330 Nesselrath, H.-G. ​52, 157, 313 Newman, J. H. ​97, 162 Newsom, C. ​74, 76, 81 Nicholson, E.  W. ​298 Nickelsburg, G. W. E. ​19, 22, 24, 40, 68–70, 75, 91, 92, 94, 97, 98, 108–111, 119, 120, 126, 132, 141, 142, 145, 147, 149, 152, 158, 160, 162, 163, 176, 185, 193, 232, 270 Nicklas, T. ​179, 286 Niebuhr, K.-W. ​290, 306, 313 Nir, R. ​270 Nowell, I. ​174, 195 O’Connor, K.  M. ​298 Odeberg, H. ​143, 150, 151 Oded, B. ​218–220 Oegema, G.  S. ​270 Oliver, I.  W. ​241 Olson, D. C. ​91, 93, 94, 109–111, 119, 120, 140, 164 Oltramare, A. ​322 Oppenheimer, A. ​151, 197, 205, 207 Orlov, A.  A. ​19, 35 Otzen, B. ​173, 174, 193, 223 Owens, J.  E. ​179

362

Index of Modern Authors

Pakkala, J. ​7, 8 Panayotov, A. ​2, 34 Parry, D.  W. ​206 Passaro, A. ​236, 313 Paul, S. M. ​44, 214, 227 Perdue, L. G. ​313, 315 Perrin, A. B. ​174–178, 181, 186, 188, 195 Perrot, C. ​285, 286 Pestman, P.  W. ​217 Petraglio, R. ​236 Pfeiffer, R. H. ​304–306, 308 Philonenko, M. ​235 Pickering, R. ​330 Pinnick, A. ​214, 227 Piovanelli, P. ​142, 144, 299 Pitkänen, P. ​223 Poorthius, M. ​128 Popović, M. ​8, 255, 257, 259, 261, 262, 286 Porter, S.  E. ​157 Puech, É. ​45, 46, 174, 183, 184, 188, 191, 271, 325, 330 Qimron, E. ​158, 183, 184, 189, 200, 206, 260, 271 Quast, U. ​326 Rabin, C. ​63, 245 Rappaport, U. ​112, 151 Reed, A.  Y. ​33, 95 Reese, J. M. ​313–315, 322, 323 Reinhard, H. ​269 Reiterer, F. V. ​179, 286, 313 Riaud, J. ​291, 301 Richardson, N. H. ​173, 193 Riessler, P. ​2, 34 Roberts, J. J. M. ​219 Robinson, S. E. ​287, 291 Rofé, A. ​110 Romaniuk, K. ​317 Römer, T.  C. ​295 Römheld, K. F. D. ​187 Rowland, C. ​34 Ruppert, L. ​227, 316 Russel, D. ​34

Sacchi, P. ​52 Safrai, C. ​128 Safrai, S. ​128 Sanders, J. A. ​1, 8, 261 Schaller, R. ​235, 291 Schiffman, L. H. ​12, 14, 31, 81, 107, 128, 154, 162, 168, 189, 190, 206, 207, 209, 242 Schmidt, N. ​141 Schmidt, P. ​151 Schmitt, A. ​65, 322 Schoors, A. ​218, 219 Schöpflin, K. ​179 Schreiner, J. ​65, 269, 270, 273, 274, 280, 281 Schremer, A. ​180, 181, 183 Schuller, E.  M. ​11 Schulte, L. L. ​294, 297 Schüngel-Straumann, H. ​213, 232 Schürer, E. ​121 Scott, J.  M. ​24 Seeligmann, I. L. ​120, 123 Segal, M. ​7, 11, 20, 65, 190, 191, 241–245, 247, 249–253 Seitz, C.  R. ​301 Shaked, S. ​257 Shemesh, A. ​107, 189, 190, 196, 200, 203–207, 211, 242 Shepherd, D. ​234 Skehan, P. W. ​313, 316, 317 Skempt, V.  T.  M. ​178, 193 Shinan, A. ​247, 248 Short, C. ​275 Short, W.  J. ​52 Simpson, D. C. ​173, 193, 194, 235 Sjöberg, E. ​146 Smith, M(ark) ​260 Smith, M(orton) ​8, 314 Soderland, S. ​303 Sokoloff, M. ​281 Soll, W. ​174 Sparks, H. F. D. ​2, 19, 34, 63, 146, 245 Spencer, R.  A. ​173 Spicq, C. ​318, 327 Spittler, R.  P. ​234 Squitier, K.  A. ​326 Steck, O. H. ​289, 290, 297, 301, 304, 306–308

Index of Modern Authors

Stegemann, H. ​32, 46 Steiner, R. ​88 Stern, E. ​217 Stern, M. ​151 Steudel, A. ​51 Stokes, R. E. ​45, 46 Stone, M. E. ​4, 5, 7, 8, 22, 28, 37, 40, 43, 47, 60, 62, 107, 110, 120, 141, 143, 144, 182–184, 191, 214, 227, 257, 269–276, 280, 281, 286, 288, 292, 293, 301, 302 Stroumsa, G.  G. ​257 Strugnell, J. ​14, 183, 184, 189, 259 Stuckenbruck, L. T. ​2, 3, 5, 22, 24, 40, 45, 61, 63, 70, 93, 113, 116, 117, 145, 148, 175, 177, 178, 181, 182, 194, 198, 229, 230 Stulman, L. ​298 Sussmann, Y. ​128, 129, 189, 209, 211 Suter, D. W. ​74, 140, 141, 143, 146, 151 Svensson, J. ​216 Tabory, J. ​151 Tadmor, H. ​215, 219 Tadmor, M. ​217 Talmon, S. ​262 Tcherikover, V.  A. ​217 Thackeray, H. J. ​194, 303 Theisohn, J. ​140, 142 Thesleff, H. ​318 Thompson, A.  L. ​270 Tigchelaar, E. J. C., ​5, 11, 12, 14, 32, 33, 41, 59, 74, 257, 260, 262, 277, 279, 297, 298, 304 Tiller, P. A. ​91–94, 106, 108–111, 119, 120, 126, 127, 133, 158, 162 Tisserant, E. ​64 Tov, E. ​6, 10, 61, 143, 256, 261, 290, 295, 296, 303, 304, 325, 326, 331 Trebolle Barrera, J. ​190 Trever, J.  C. ​87 Tromp, J. ​36 Trotter, J.  R. ​44–46 Tsafrir, Y. ​122 Tuffin, P. ​94, 148 Turner, N. ​327

363

Uhlig, S. ​141, 146, 152 Ullendorff, E. ​141 Ulrich, E. ​6, 9, 206, 326–328, 330 Unnik van, W.  C. ​304 Urbach, E.  E. ​120 VanderKam, J. C. ​3, 6, 8–11, 13, 19, 21–23, 37, 40–42, 48, 49, 63, 64, 66–69, 97,107, 132, 141–147, 152, 162, 182, 188, 241, 242, 245, 255, 261, 283 Vegas Montaner, L. ​190 Verheyden, J. ​286 Vermes, G. ​122 Vermeylen, J. ​317 Volz, P. ​126 Vonach, A. ​303 Wagner, C. J. ​193,194, 223 Walter, M. ​301 Wambacq, B. N. ​307, 308 Weeks, S. ​175, 178, 194, 198, 213, 229, 230 Weigl, M. ​223, 227 Weinfeld, M. ​151, 218 Weiss, R. ​234 Weissenberg von, H. ​7, 8, 308 Werman, C. ​188, 203 Wevers, J. W. ​76, 326 White Crawford, S. ​6, 10, 256 Whitters, M. F. ​269, 270 Wilk, F. ​52, 157 Will, L. M. ​48, 173 Willett, T.  W. ​269 Williamson, H. G. M. ​256 Winston, D. ​313–316, 322 Wintermute, O.  S. ​35 Wise, M. ​175, 229 Witte, M. ​233, 234 Wolff, C. ​288, 291, 299, 301 Write, A.  G. ​314 Write, A.  T. ​187 Write, B. G. ​159, 257, 271 Write, D.  P. ​252 Write, E. J. ​288, 302 Xeravits, G. G. ​157, 178, 194, 195, 208, 213, 230

364

Index of Modern Authors

Yadin, A. ​135 Yadin, Y. ​14, 62, 124, 125, 128–130, 190, 204, 206, 207 Yardeni, A. ​7 Youtie, H.  C. ​60 Yuditsky, A. ​158

Zadok, R. ​218, 220 Zakovitch, Y. ​247, 248 Zimmermann, F. ​174, 193, 194, 217, 217, 224, 230, 235, 236 Ziegler, J. ​303, 313 Zsengellér, J. ​178, 194, 195, 208, 213, 230

Index of Names and Subjects Abraham ​22–24, 29, 96, 97, 111, 118, 134, 181, 183, 186–188, 244–246, 248, 250, 252, 272, 273, 322 Adam ​26, 27, 29, 94, 95, 100, 101, 134, 242, 243, 273, 324 Ahiqar ​174, 223, 224, 226, 227 Antiochus III ​167 Antiochus IV ​22, 40,159, 168 Apocalyptic ​5, 12, 13, 17, 19–30, 31–54, 85, 85, 91–93, 113, 115, 115–117, 120, 142, 150, 155, 166, 251, 263, 265, 269–271, 273, 274, 276, 278, 287, 288, 293, 294, 297, 301, 302, 304, 307, 309, 313, 330 Apocrypha ​1–6, 8, 15, 73, 91, 196, 218, 119, 251, 288, 290, 298–300, 304, 325–331 Apocryphon of Jeremiah C ​4, 5, 13, 19, 21, 39, 53, 54, 92, 104, 107, 109, 120, 123, 257, 263–265, 271, 288–294, 295–310 Aramaic Levi Document ​3, 5, 19, 36, 46, 47, 91, 176, 179, 181, 182, 184, 191 archangels ​74, 78, 83–86, 96, 108, 114, 134, 146, 148, 160 Belial ​108, 116, 165, 187 Bilhah ​249, 251–253 Cain ​95, 100, 101, 322 Canon/canonical ​1, 5–7, 12, 15, 287, 289, 309, 314 Cynics ​322 David ​7, 12, 29, 103–105, 112, 121, 124, 165, 169, 213, 249, 252, 263, 264, 314, 321

demons/demonic ​52, 82, 108, 109, 116, 123, 157–169, 178–180,185–187, 228, 231 dualism ​52, 157, 169, 187–188 Ecbatana ​179, 185, 217, 219, 220, 224, 225, 230, 231 Elijah ​29, 106, 161 endogamy ​177–185, 223, 228, 232 Enoch/Enochic ​8–10, 20–22, 24, 27, 29, 33, 37, 41–43, 44–48, 49, 52, 59–169, 181, 182, 186, 191, 243, 255, 269, 274, 276, 294, 328 Esarhaddon ​224, 226, 227 Essenes ​105, 179 Eve ​95, 242 exile/exiles ​105, 118, 124, 159, 163, 168, 169, 178, 196, 197, 202, 213, 214, 218, 219, 220, 221, 224, 225, 230, 231, 263, 289–293, 298–302, 304, 305 flood ​22–24, 45, 46, 64, 69, 70, 79, 83–85, 88, 91, 94, 96, 98–100, 102, 111, 113, 117, 119, 148, 322 Galilee ​191, 196, 213–221, 226 Genesis Apocryphon ​4, 5, 68, 70, 75, 76, 88, 91, 174, 176, 181, 182, 186, 187, 191, 256, 326 Gentiles ​95, 96, 98–101, 109, 111, 114, 117, 119, 124, 131, 135, 157–169, 183, 196, 197, 242, 248 halakhah ​128, 129, 162, 177, 190, 191, 193–211, 242, 277 Hebrew Bible ​5, 6, 8, 65, 86, 94, 147, 174, 236, 255, 265, 288, 293, 304

366

Index of Names and Subjects

idolatry ​97, 104, 122–124, 161, 162, 196, 289–300, 301 Isaac ​29, 97, 134, 272 Jacob ​29, 272 Jerusalem ​43, 96, 103–105, 110, 112, 114, 118, 119–137, 161, 163, 168, 189, 190, 197–210, 213, 214, 217, 226, 257, 263, 290, 291, 293, 298, 299, 305–307, 310 John Hyrcanus ​297 Jonathan (Hasmonean) ​217, 297 Joseph ​48, 98, 188, 322 Judah (patriarch & tribe) ​169, 214, 236, 241–253, 300 Judah/Judea (land) ​29, 107, 110, 112, 123, 161, 165, 201, 213, 214, 218, 219, 220, 299, 305, 325 Judah Maccbeus ​92, 105, 113, 116, 119, 241 Kedesh ​214–217, 224 Leah ​181, 228 Levi ​19, 47, 182–184, 187, 191, 198, 248 Levirate ​244–247, 249 Levites ​128, 189, 190, 198, 200, 202, 204, 206–210, 214 Mastema ​109, 165, 186 Media ​217, 224, 230 midrash ​68, 95, 111, 136, 142, 247, 248, 277 Miqṣat Ma‛aśe Ha-Torah (=4QMMT) ​ 116, 125, 128, 129, 136, 183, 189 Moses ​12–14, 21, 29, 38, 63, 66, 84, 96, 104, 105, 126, 127, 160, 184, 188, 197–199, 241, 273, 274, 277, 285, 290–293, 301, 322, 326 Nebuchadnezzar ​21, 48, 109, 110, 168, 301 Nineveh ​196, 215, 217–220, 224–227, 230, 231 Noah ​20, 22–24, 27, 29, 37, 40, 59, 60–62, 70–71, 75, 78, 82–84, 88, 88, 94–96, 100, 111, 114, 118, 122, 126,

134, 142, 181, 182, 186, 190, 191, 242, 248, 322 pesher/pesharim ​6, 7, 21, 56, 109, 115, 135, 169, 257, 294, 296 Plato ​322 priests/priesthood ​47, 117, 128, 129, 182–184, 189, 190, 197, 200–202, 204–207, 209, 210, 214, 249, 297 Pseudo-Ezekiel ​4–6, 15, 21, 28, 53, 84, 257–265, 266–268, 270–282, 284–288, 293, 294, 310 Pseudepigrapha ​1–5, 8, 11, 14, 15, 33, 34, 67, 229, 255–268, 299, 309, 314, 327, 328 pseudonymity ​15, 313–323 Qedushah ​150, 151 Qumran – community ​3, 25, 30, 31, 39, 49, 51, 54, 86, 92, 107, 108, 115–118, 119– 155, 157, 158, 166–168, 181, 189–191, 194, 211, 211, 262, 265, 270, 281, 283, 293 – Scrolls ​1–3, 5, 10, 15, 19, 34, 36, 37, 39, 50, 59, 60, 68, 73, 115, 117, 118, 120, 128, 129, 140, 145, 146–155, 157, 164, 181, 194, 195, 204, 211, 229, 241, 256, 257, 261, 269–272, 276, 294, 309, 325, 331 Rachel ​181, 228 Raga ​217, 219 231, 232 Rebecca ​181, 228, 248 Rewritten Bible ​3, 4, 7, 9–11, 14, 15, 255–257, 261, 262, 264, 265, 287 Sages (the) ​82, 128, 135, 190, 195–197, 199, 202–209 Samuel ​104, 105, 111, 112, 224 Sarah ​178–180, 184–186, 188, 223, 228, 230, 231, 236, 237 Saul ​104, 105, 111, 112, 224, 285 Sennacherib ​219, 224, 227 Shalmaneser ​215, 216, 220, 224 Simeon (Hasmonean) ​297 Sinai – Desert ​125

Index of Names and Subjects

– Mount ​13, 22, 23, 29, 84, 103, 162, 241, 242, 250, 285, 292 Solomon ​7, 12, 103, 104, 121, 123, 124, 127, 128, 131, 160–163, 165, 263, 264, 313–323 Stoics ​322 Tabernacle ​96, 104, 105, 124, 125, 126–131, 133, 134, 136, 160, 290 Tamar ​236, 241–253 Teacher of Righteousness ​51, 273 temple ​40, 43, 105, 123, 130, 281 – First Temple ​13, 22, 97, 103–106, 108, 110, 112, 119, 168, 121–124, 128, 161–165, 169, 257, 264, 293, 299, 301 – Second Temple ​1, 4, 6, 8, 11–13, 23, 25, 26, 28, 30, 39, 49, 73, 88, 89, 97, 105, 110–112, 116, 120, 122–124, 128, 130, 133, 136, 139, 141, 144, 146, 149,

367

152, 158–160, 163, 164, 176, 177, 196, 200, 206, 207, 217, 218, 228, 229, 241, 256, 262, 263, 265, 270, 287, 293, 294, 298, 300, 301, 309 – eschatological temple ​43, 120, 125, 130, 134–136, 273 – heavenly temple ​44, 46, 47, 96, 98, 120, 135, 136, 145, 160 Temple Scroll ​9–11, 14, 15, 62, 105, 118, 124, 125, 128, 129, 136, 155, 204, 206, 207, 255, 319 Tiglath-Pileser ​215, 216 Torah ​4, 6–8, 11, 13, 22, 29, 84, 97, 103, 115, 116, 118, 127–161, 166, 179, 199, 202, 204–207, 209, 211, 216, 218, 242, 245, 249, 250, 252, 256, 257, 277, 289, 292, 293, 298, 299, 301, 307, 310 Zenon ​217