Law and Life: The Interpretation of Leviticus 18:5 in Early Judaism and in Paul (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 2.Reihe) 9783161495311, 9783161515842, 3161495314

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament · 2. Reihe Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (München) Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors Friedrich Avemarie (Marburg) Judith Gundry-Volf (New Haven, CT) Hans-Josef Klauck (Chicago, IL)

241

Preston M. Sprinkle

Law and Life The Interpretation of Leviticus 18:5 in Early Judaism and in Paul

Mohr Siebeck

Preston M. Sprinkle, born in 1976; B.A. in Biblical Studies at The Master’s College (California), MDiv in Biblical Exegesis from The Master’s Seminary (California), PhD in New Testament from Aberdeen University (Scotland); currently Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies in the School of Biblical and Theological Studies at Cedarville University (Ohio, USA).

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-151584-2 ISBN 978-3-16-149531-1 ISSN 0340-9570 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. © 2008 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. 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 printed by Laupp & Göbel in Nehren on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

For Christine My best friend – my treasured wife

Acknowledegments This book represents a slight revision of my Ph.D. dissertation, written under the supervision of Dr. Simon J. Gathercole (now at Cambridge University) and submitted to Aberdeen University in March, 2007. Choosing a dissertation topic is one of the most important decisions a young scholar will make. One might be a bit confused, perhaps perturbed, therefore, that I chose to spend three years researching half a verse in the Hebrew Bible – Lev 18:5b! Indeed, at times I have found it difficult to answer the question often asked: ―So what are you working on in your Ph.D.?‖ The facial expressions I received upon hearing my topic have ranged from the standard blank stare to the token ―ah yes;‖ a courtesy gesture of course. I have found that the quickest way to vindicate the relevance of my topic is with the analogy that Lev 18:5 was the ―John 3:16 of Early Judaism.‖ Paul seems to believe, moreover, that this passage was diametrically opposed to his own ―John 3:16,‖ namely, Hab 2:4 (cf. Gal 3:11–12). Sometimes this explanation would quicken the blank stare or elicit another, perhaps more genuine, ―ahhh yes,‖ bringing a certain amount of reassurance that I did not travel half way around the world to examine a very small tree in a very large forest. In any case, Moses has not let me down! This project has been a joyful journey into the world of Second Temple Judaism, Paul‘s view of the law, and the relationship between early Jewish and Pauline soteriology – areas of biblical research that all carry a great amount of relevancy. And I have many to thank for this rich endeavor. I first wish to thank Dr. Simon J. Gathercole, my supervisor, mentor, and friend, who devoted countless hours to my research. His perceptive eye and demand for precision, while painful at times, have caused me to rethink and rewrite almost everything that passed his desk. All remaining mistakes are, of course, my own. I would also like to thank my Ph.D. examiners, Dr. R. Barry Matlock (Sheffield) and Dr. Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer (Aberdeen), who offered both encouraging and challenging remarks concerning this work, and Prof. Jörg Frey, the editor of the WUNT II series, for accepting this thesis for publication. Next, my thanks goes to Joey Dodson and Ben Reynolds who read through a vast portion of this book, and whose fellowship during my studies (sometimes when we should have been studying!) was as rich and memorable as one could ask for. Many other fellow students – especially the

VIII

Acknowledgements

―boys at Cambridge‖ – made the ivory tower a quite fun place to be: Justin Hardin, Joel Willetts, Charles Anderson, Dan Gurtner, Steve Witmer, Brian Lugioyo, and others. Many other readers need to be thanked including, Dr. Peter J. Williams, Prof. I. Howard Marshall, Dr. Michael F. Bird, Dr. Tim Gombis, Dr. Todd A. Wilson, and my brother-in-law, Benjamin Foreman. I also benefited much from late night walks with Dr. Richard Bell, who (re)acquainted me with the theological depth of Martin Luther, and Dr. Douglas Campbell, who took many hours of his time to walk me through a Barthian reading of Paul. Email correspondence with Prof. John M. G. Barclay, Prof. David Winston, Prof. Alan Mendelson, Dr. J. Ross Wagner, and Prof. C. E. B. Cranfield (via post), to name only a few, all helped shape various portions of this book. Lastly, I thank Prof. Tom Schreiner who first suggested this topic to me, and who has exemplified what it means to be a Christian biblical scholar. Along quite different lines, I also wish to thank my family for their continual support: my mother, my father, and my in-laws all offered constant encouragement in their own unique ways. A special thanks to my three daughters, Kaylea, Aubrey, and now Josie, who was born just five days before I submitted my Ph.D. thesis. You have all kept me real and provided the much needed love and laughter. My greatest source of encouragement and joy has come from my wife, Christine, who made the move from California to Scotland and never ceased to believe in me. You sacrificed time, money, and many other earthly treasures to run with me in this journey. To you I dedicate this book. Above all, I thank my Lord Jesus Christ, ―who loved me and gave himself up for me‖ (Gal 2:20), and whose grace sustained me during these years of research. May the pages that follow be a satisfying aroma.

Cedarville (Ohio), November 2007

Preston M. Sprinkle

Table of Contents Acknowledgements ....................................................................................... VII Notes .............................................................................................................. XV

Chapter 1: Introduction ...............................................................................1 1.1 Introduction to Leviticus 18:5.................................................................1 1.2 History of Research ................................................................................1 1.2.1 Research on Paul and the Law ........................................................1 1.2.2 Research on Leviticus 18:5 .............................................................6 1.3 Method and Procedure ..........................................................................14 1.3.1 Criteria for Detecting an Allusion to Leviticus 18:5.....................14 1.3.2 Procedure and Approach ...............................................................20 1.3.3 Definitions .....................................................................................22 1.4 Overview ...............................................................................................23

Part 1: Leviticus 18:5 in Ancient Judaism............................................25 Chapter 2: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Leviticus, Ezekiel, Nehemiah, and the Septuagint ..................27 2.1 Leviticus 18:5 in Its Literary Context ...................................................27 2.1.1 The Meaning of Leviticus 18:5b ...................................................28 2.1.1.1 Md)h – the person ................................................................28 2.1.1.2 Mt) h#o(y – will do them ....................................................30 2.1.1.3 Mhb yxw – will live by them.................................................31 2.1.2 Summary .......................................................................................34 2.2 Leviticus 18:5 in Ezekiel ......................................................................34 2.2.1 Allusions to Leviticus 18:5 in Ezekiel 18, 20, and 33 ..................35 2.2.2 Leviticus 18:5 in the Literary Framework of Ezekiel ...................37 2.2.3 Summary .......................................................................................40

X

Contents

2.3 Leviticus 18:5 in Nehemiah 9:29 ......................................................... 40 2.3.1 The Function of Leviticus 18:5 in Nehemiah 9:29 ...................... 41 2.3.2 Summary ...................................................................................... 44 2.4 The Septuagint Translation of Leviticus 18:5...................................... 45 2.4.1 Introduction to LXX Leviticus, Ezekiel, and Nehemiah.............. 45 2.4.2 LXX Leviticus 18:5...................................................................... 46 2.4.3 LXX Ezekiel................................................................................. 49 2.4.4 Leviticus 18:5 in 2 Esdras 19:29 .................................................. 50 2.4.5 Summary ...................................................................................... 50

Part 2: Leviticus 18:5 in Early Judaism ............................................... 53 Chapter 3: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in the Damascus Document ..................................................................... 55 3.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 55 3.2 Leviticus 18:5 in the Damascus Document (CD) III, 15–16 ............... 56 3.2.1 CD II, 14–III, 20: The Restoration of the Faithful Remnant ....... 57 3.2.2 Leviticus 18:5: Its Form and Biblical Source .............................. 58 3.2.3 The Interpretation of Leviticus 18:5 in CD III, 15–16 ................. 60 3.2.3.1 The meaning of Mh (―them‖) and hyxw (―will live‖) .......... 60 3.2.3.2 Leviticus 18:5 as a reversal of the death-bringing ―guilty inclination‖ ........................................ 62 3.2.3.3 Leviticus 18:5, Deuteronomic theology, and the restoration of the faithful remnant .................................. 63 3.2.3.4 E. P. Sanders on grace and works in CD III ......................... 66 3.2.4 Summary ...................................................................................... 68 3.3 Leviticus 18:5 in 4Q266 ...................................................................... 68 3.3.1 The Setting of the Expulsion Ceremony ...................................... 69 3.3.2 Leviticus 18:5 and the Prayer of Expulsion ................................. 71 3.3.2.1 Its form and biblical source .................................................. 71 3.3.2.2 Leviticus 18:5 and divine and human agency ...................... 72 3.3.2.3 Meaning of hyxw (―will live‖).............................................. 73 3.3.2.4 Crossing the boundaries and forfeiting life .......................... 74 3.3.3 Summary ...................................................................................... 75

Contents

XI

Chapter 4: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Words of the Luminaries (4Q504).....................................................77 4.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................77 4.2. Deuteronomic Theology and Its Scriptural Foundation ......................79 4.3 Leviticus 18:5 and the Sunday Prayer ..................................................81 4.3.1 Its Form and Biblical Source ........................................................81 4.3.2 Wilderness Rebellion and the Forfeiture of Life ..........................82 4.3.3 The Deuteronomic Blessing of Life ..............................................83 4.4 Summary ...............................................................................................85

Chapter 5: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in the Psalms of Solomon .........................................................................87 5.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................87 5.2 Theological Outlook .............................................................................89 5.2.1 Eschatology in the Psalms of Solomon .........................................89 5.2.2 The Obedience of the Righteous and the Mercy of God ...............90 5.3 Leviticus 18:5 in Psalms of Solomon 14:2–3 .......................................93 5.3.1 Establishing the Allusion ..............................................................93 5.3.2 Leviticus 18:5 and Eschatological Life .........................................94 5.3.3 Obedience, Mercy, and Leviticus 18:5 .........................................97 5.4 Conclusion ..........................................................................................100

Chapter 6: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Philo‘s De Congressu 86–87 .............................................................101 6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................101 6.2 Encyclical Education in Philo and De Congressu ..............................102 6.3 De Congressu 1–88 .............................................................................103 6.4 Philo‘s Use of Leviticus 18:5..............................................................105 6.4.1 The Form of the Text ..................................................................105 6.4.2 Leviticus 18:5 and the True Life .................................................105 6.4.3 Is Philo Also among the Covenantal Nomists? ...........................110 6.5 Conclusion .........................................................................................114

XII

Contents

Chapter 7: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Pseudo-Philo‘s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum ..................... 115 7.1 Introduction ........................................................................................ 115 7.2 Deuteronomic Theology and the Irrevocable Covenant of God ........ 117 7.3 L.A.B.‘s Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Joshua‘s Address (23:10) ............ 120 7.3.1 The Context of L.A.B. 23 .......................................................... 120 7.3.2 Establishing the Allusion ........................................................... 121 7.4 The Interpretation of Leviticus 18:5 .................................................. 123 7.4.1 Leviticus 18:5 and Eternal Life .................................................. 123 7.4.2 Leviticus 18:5 and Unconditional Mercy................................... 123 7.4.3 Potential Objection: Judgment According to Obedience in L.A.B.? .............................. 125 7.5 The Function of Leviticus 18:5 .......................................................... 128 7.6 Conclusion ......................................................................................... 129

Part 3: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Paul .......................................... 131 Chapter 8: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12................ 133 8.1 Introduction ........................................................................................ 133 8.2 The Citation of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12 ............................... 134 8.2.1 The Form of Leviticus 18:5........................................................ 135 8.2.2 Paul‘s Argument in Galatians 3:11–12 ...................................... 136 8.2.3 Leviticus 18:5 and Habakkuk 2:4 as Antithetical Soteriologies ........................................................... 138 8.3. Review of Approaches to the Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12 .................................... 142 8.3.1 ―Dogmatic‖ Approach ................................................................ 143 8.3.2 Nomological Approach .............................................................. 145 8.3.3 Salvation Historical Approach ................................................... 147 8.3.4 Anthropological Approach ......................................................... 148 8.3.5 Divine and Human Agency Approach ....................................... 150 8.3.6 Summary .................................................................................... 151

Contents

XIII

8.4 Leviticus 18:5 in View of Divine and Human Agency in Galatians..............................................153 8.4.1 The Theological Shape of Galatians 1 and 2 ..............................153 8.4.2 Galatians 3:2–5: Works of Law and the Flesh ............................156 8.4.3 Habakkuk 2:4 and Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:11–12: Depictions of Divine and Human Agency ......................................160 8.4.4 Summary .....................................................................................164 8.5 Conclusion ..........................................................................................164

Chapter 9: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Romans 10:5 ...................165 9.1 Introduction .........................................................................................165 9.2 Review of Approaches ........................................................................168 9.2.1 Antithetical Approach .................................................................168 9.2.2 Correlative Approach ..................................................................169 9.2.3 Arguments for an Antithetical Approach ....................................170 9.3 Paul‘s Interpretation of Leviticus 18:5 in Romans 10:5 .....................173 9.3.1 Running, Seeking, and Doing the Law: Divine and Human Initiative in Romans 9:6–10:8..........................177 9.3.2 Deuteronomy 30:12–14 as Antithetical to Leviticus 18:5 ..........179 9.3.2.1 The Prohibited Quest ...........................................................181 9.3.2.2 The Elimination of the ―Doing‖ Language .........................182 Excursus 1: Deut 30:12–14 in Baruch and Philo .................................183 Excursus 2: The Law unto Life – Or Death? Romans 7:7–8:11 ..........185 9.4 Conclusion ..........................................................................................189

Part 4: Summary and Comparison........................................................191 Chapter 10: Comparison and Conclusion ...........................................193 10.1 A Comparison of Second Temple Interpretations of Leviticus 18:5 ................................193 10.1.1 The Relative Importance of Leviticus 18:5 in Paul and Early Judaism .......................................193 10.1.2 Leviticus 18:5 and Eschatological Life .....................................195

XIV

Contents

10.1.3 Leviticus 18:5 in View of Divine and Human Agency ............ 196 10.1.4 Leviticus 18:5 and the Blessings and Curses of the Covenant...................................... 199 10.2 Implications for Paul and the Law ................................................... 200 10.2.1 Paul and Judaism on Grace and Obedience ............................. 200 10.2.2 Challenges to the New Perspective .......................................... 203 10.2.3 Paul, Judaism, and the Law: Conflicting Paradigms of Restoration ............................................ 206 Bibliography ................................................................................................ 209 Primary Sources and Reference Works ................................................... 209 Secondary Sources ................................................................................... 210 Index of Sources .......................................................................................... 229 Old Testament ......................................................................................... 229 New Testament ....................................................................................... 232 Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha .............................................................. 235 Dead Sea Scrolls ..................................................................................... 236 Philo of Alexandria ................................................................................. 238 Rabbinic Literature ................................................................................. 239 Index of Modern Authors ............................................................................ 241 Index of Subjects and Key Terms ................................................................ 243

Notes Citations and abbreviations in this monograph follow the style given in P. H. Alexander et al. (eds.), The SBL Handbook of Style: For Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical and Early Christian Studies. The NA27 convention is followed of excluding accents where manuscript variants are cited. Biblical references are in the form of chapter:verse.

Chapter 1

Introduction 1.1 Introduction to Leviticus 18:5 This study will examine the interpretation of Lev 18:5 in early Jewish and Pauline literature. Leviticus 18:5 says: ―So you shall keep my statutes and my judgments, which the person shall do and live by them.‖ The last half of this passage is referred to in later OT literature (Ezek 20:11, 13, 21; Neh 9:29), in various Jewish texts in Second Temple Judaism (e.g., Pss. Sol. 14:2–3; CD III, 15–16; L.A.B. 23:10; Philo, Congr. 86–87), and in Paul (Gal 3:12; Rom 10:5). It became one of the most popular biblical passages in early Judaism, capturing as it does the axiom that obedience to the Mosaic law will lead to life (see also Deut 30:19). For the apostle Paul, however, it seems that this passage is not so highly esteemed. For him, Lev 18:5 means that the law is antithetical to righteousness by faith (esp. Gal 3:11–12). Our study will seek to understand the theological significance of Lev 18:5 in early Judaism and in Paul, and how their respective interpretations of this passage compare with each other. In this introduction, we will give a brief account of the current discussion on Paul and the law (§1.2.1), examine previous work done on Lev 18:5 (§1.2.2), lay out our method and procedure for the task (§1.3), and conclude with a brief overview of our project (§1.4).

1.2 History of Research 1.2.1 Research on Paul and the Law In Gal 3:12, Paul cites Lev 18:5 as a description of the Mosaic law: ―The law is not of faith, but [it is] ‗the one who does these things will live by them‘.‖ Whatever Paul found wrong with the law is contained in nuce in his understanding of Lev 18:5. Such a fundamental assertion by Paul, then, locates this present study in the general context of the debate concerning Paul‘s view of the law. A brief review is necessary.

2

Chapter 1: Introduction

In 1977, E. P. Sanders published his watershed book, Paul and Palestinian Judaism,1 in order to correct the aberrant caricature of early Judaism as a religion of meritorious works-righteousness.2 Sanders challenged many assumptions about first century Judaism, and the implications of this challenge have proved seminal for Pauline theology. Responses to Sanders, both supportive and critical, are legion.3 On the supportive side, James D. G. Dunn has developed Sanders‘s basic thesis into what is now called the ―new perspective‖ on Paul. The last twenty-five years have witnessed numerous books and articles by Dunn that have challenged traditional (Lutheran and Reformed) views on justification by faith in Paul, early Jewish soteriology, and, of course, Paul‘s view of the Mosaic law.4 On the critical side, Robert Gundry,5 Mark Seifrid,6 Tom Schreiner,7 and Seyoon Kim8 – to name just a few – have (re)read the material quite differently, supporting more or less a traditional understanding of Paul. 1 Subtitle: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1977); see too, idem, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1983). 2 For previous works that sought to correct this caricature, see my, ―The Old Perspective on the New Perspective: A Review of Some ‗Pre-Sanders‘ Thinkers,‖ Themelios 30 (2005), 21–31. 3 Recent reviews of the discussion since Sanders can be found in Stephen Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 178–248; idem, ―The ‗New Perspective‘ at Twenty-Five‘,‖ in Justification and Variegated Nomism (vol. 2; ed. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O‘Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2004), 1–38; Andrew H. Wakefield, Where to Live: The Hermeneutical Significance of Paul‟s Citation from Scripture in Galatians 3:1–14 (SBLDS 14; Atlanta: SBL, 2004), 23–56. 4 Dunn‘s pre-1990 articles are collected in James D. G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1990). Articles from 1990–2004 are collected in idem, The New Perspective on Paul (WUNT 185; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2005). See also his The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), and his commentaries on Romans (Romans 1–8, 9–16 [WBC 38a–b; Dallas: Word, 1988]) and Galatians (Epistle to the Galatians [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1993]). N. T. Wright is often viewed alongside Dunn as a primary advocate of the ―new perspective,‖ and indeed Wright‘s views do come close to Dunn on many points (see esp. his, What Paul Really Said [Oxford/Grand Rapids: Lion/Eerdmans, 1997]). However, Wright himself argues for a ―fresh perspective‖ on Paul (see note 9) as distinct from the ―new perspective.‖ 5 ―Grace, Works, and Staying Saved in Paul,‖ Bib 66 (1985), 1–38. 6 Justification by Faith: The Origin and Development of a Central Pauline Theme (Leiden: Brill, 1992); idem, Christ, Our Righteousness: Paul‟s Theology of Justification (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2000); idem, ―The ‗New Perspective‘ on Paul and Its Problems,‖ Themelios 25 (2000), 4–18. 7 The Law and Its Fulfillment: A Pauline Theology of Law (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993); idem, ―‗Works of Law‘ in Paul,‖ NovT 33 (1991), 217–44. 8 Paul and the New Perspective: Second Thoughts on the Origin of Paul‟s Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002).

1.2 History of Research

3

Recently, the discussion is moving forward. New questions are being asked; different solutions are being proposed; theses combining both new and old perspectives abound.9 Of particular importance is the relationship among election, grace, obedience, salvation, and judgment in early Judaism and Paul. Several recent works along these lines are worthy of mention since it is in the general purview of these issues that the interpretation of Lev 18:5 may be placed. Kent Yinger examines the motif of judgment according to deeds in his published doctoral dissertation, Paul, Judaism, and Judgement According to Deeds.10 Yinger agrees with Sanders that early Judaism was not a religion of works-righteousness and that entrance into the covenant was by grace alone. One‘s obedience to the covenant stipulations was a response to God‘s prior grace, and it maintained one‘s status as a covenant member. On judgment day, the deeds of the righteous ―confirm or reveal one‘s fundamental loyalty to God,‖11 but they do not make one righteous before God. In turning to Paul, Yinger finds the relationship between grace and obedience largely the same.12 In fact, both patterns of religion view grace and obedience synergistically. Obedience is not a condition for entry into the covenant, but only a condition for maintaining one‘s status. Why then do Judaism and Paul have radically different views on Lev 18:5? Although Yinger never discusses this text, we may suppose that it is not the ―doing‖ that Paul found problematic, for Paul and Judaism exhibit the same understanding of the role of obedience. It is ―these things‖ (the law), rather, that Paul opposes; the law has been replaced by Christ and faith as the new identity markers. Simon Gathercole, a few years after Yinger, takes up a similar subject but comes to different conclusions.13 For one, he critiques Yinger for understanding Paul to be just as synergistic as his Jewish contemporaries.14 While agreeing with Sanders and Yinger that entrance into the covenant was 9

Some different approaches to Paul include, A. Andrew Das‘s ―newer perspective‖ (Paul, the Law, and the Covenant [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2001]; idem, Paul and the Jews [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004]), N. T. Wright‘s ―fresh perspective‖ (Paul: Fresh Perspectives [London: SPCK, 2005]), and the so-called ―apocalyptic approach‖ taken by J. Louis Martyn (Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [New York: Doubleday, 1997]; idem, Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul [Nashville: Abingdon, 1997]) and Douglas Campbell (The Quest for Paul‟s Gospel: A Suggested Strategy [JSNTSup 274; New York: T & T Clark/Continuum, 2005]). 10 (SNTSMS 105; Cambridge: CUP, 1999). 11 Yinger, Paul, 285. 12 Yinger notes the following differences between Paul and Judaism: 1) the Christ-event replaces the law in defining one‘s membership in the people of God; 2) the role of the Spirit in enabling obedience among Christians, ―while not absent, is certainly heightened significantly in Paul‖ (Paul, 289). 13 Where is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul‟s Response in Romans 1–5 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002). 14 Boasting, 14–15.

Chapter 1: Introduction

4

by God‘s grace and election, Gathercole argues, moreover, that vindication of individual Jews at the final judgment was conceived in terms of both divine election and human effort. But in Paul, while obedience is necessary for the final vindication of the Christian, Paul‘s conception of Christian obedience ―is radically different from that of his Jewish contemporaries.‖ Gathercole argues that ―for Paul, divine action is both the source and the continuous cause of obedience for the Christian.‖15 Early Jewish views on obedience, however, lack both Paul‘s radically pessimistic anthropology and explicit ascription of covenantal obedience to divine empowerment.16 For Gathercole, then, as we will see below, Paul‘s opposition to Lev 18:5 runs deeper – the ―doing‖ itself as a precondition to blessing, and not just the law as an outdated identity marker, is problematic for Paul‘s understanding of the gospel. In dialogue with Yinger, Gathercole, and Sanders, Chris VanLandingham understands the relationship among election, obedience, justification and final judgment differently.17 With Yinger, VanLandingham argues for much continuity between Paul and Judaism on these matters. But against Yinger (and Sanders), he stresses the priority of obedience, not unconditional election or God‘s grace, for final justification. VanLandingham criticises Yinger for downplaying the notion that believers receive eternal life on the basis of their deeds.18 In fact, even God‘s election of Abraham was a response to Abraham‘s obedience, establishing a pattern for divine and human relation.19 In early Judaism, ―God‘s covenant with the Jewish people does not determine one‘s eternal destiny; that, rather, depends on one‘s behavior.‖20 Likewise in Paul, ―Appropriate reward and punishment result respectively in either eternal life or damnation, with one‘s behavior forming the sole criterion, though for Paul, salvation comes only to one who is a believer.‖21 We may say, therefore, that according to VanLandingham and Yinger, there is no fundamental different between Judaism and Paul regarding divine and human agency in matters of justification, preservation, or final judgment.22 15

Boasting, 264. While Yinger notes the role of the Spirit in enabling behaviour in Paul‘s view of obedience, Gathercole goes beyond Yinger in that the Christ event itself is a source of divine empowerment (―Paul‘s theology of empowerment is not merely pneumatological . . . but Christological;‖ Boasting, 133). 16 Boasting, 132–34. For an assessment of Paul‘s pessimistic anthropology, see Timo Laato, Paul and Judaism: An Anthropological Approach (trans. T. McElwain; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995). 17 Judgment & Justification in Early Judaism and in Apostle Paul (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2006). 18 Judgment, 5–6. 19 Judgment, 18–65. 20 Judgment, 17. 21 Judgment, 17 (emphasis mine). 22 ―The Last Judgment is not a judgment over the work of Christ or even over what the Holy Spirit has done in the believer; it is a judgment over the individual and what he or she

1.2 History of Research

5

These studies demonstrate that the discussion regarding the relationship between Paul and Judaism is becoming less polarised (e.g., Paul stressed grace while Judaism stressed works). Now, the questions that arise concern the nature of Jewish and Christian obedience, the relationship between initial and final justification, the different conceptions of what grace actually means in each pattern of religion, and the priority of divine and human action. Does God respond to prior human action, or do humans respond to God‘s prior action – and does it matter? Does one enter into the covenant (God‘s favour) solely through grace or do works play a part? Is Paul just as synergistic as his Jewish contemporaries? And what exactly does synergism mean? Francis Watson‘s magnum opus on Paul addresses many of these issues in light of Paul‘s interpretation of Scripture.23 Both Paul and his contemporaries draw their theologies from the same body of texts; therefore, the way to assess the theology of Judaism and Paul is to examine the similarities and differences in their readings of Scripture. On the whole, Watson is critical of Sanders, Dunn, and others, who draw too much continuity between Paul and Judaism in their understanding of divine and human agency. While being sensitive to the variegated strands of Judaism represented by Second Temple literature, Watson sees in Paul a radical emphasis on divine agency. Paul‘s theological construct is drawn from Scripture and shaped by God‘s saving action in Christ. So for Watson, ―there does appear to be a distinction between a reading of the torah that lays all possible emphasis on the promise to Abraham of unconditional divine saving action, worldwide in its scope,‖ such as in Paul, ―and a reading centred upon the demand emanating from Sinai for specific forms of human action and abstention,‖24 which Watson finds evident throughout the different bodies of Jewish literature. One final work that addresses the relationship between divine and human agency is the recent collection of essays, Divine and Human Agency in Paul and His Cultural Environment.25 The book consists of eight articles that compare Paul to Judaism, several of which are relevant to our topic. John Barclay, for instance, examines the concept of grace in Paul and Philo and concludes that Paul has a heightened sense of divine agency; grace is conceived in the sense of divine empowerment, which was central to Paul‘s understanding of Christian obedience.26 Phillip Alexander believes that the Qumran community was radically predestinarian – God ―is the cosmic has done‖ (Judgment, 335). But could Paul possibly conceive of the believer‘s behaviour as somehow separate from the work of Christ or the Spirit? 23 Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (London: T & T Clark/Continuum, 2004). 24 Hermeneutics, 29. 25 (ed. John M. G. Barclay and Simon J. Gathercole; LNTS 335; London: T & T Clark/Continuum, 2006). 26 ―‗By the Grace of God I Am What I Am‘: Grace and Agency in Philo and Paul,‖ in Divine and Human Agency, 140–57.

Chapter 1: Introduction

6

puppet-master who pulls everyone‘s strings.‖27 Stephen Westerholm, however, points out that Paul‘s anthropology was much more pessimistic than his contemporaries.28 Simon Gathercole suggests that God even ―shapes human disobedience so that it serves . . . the purpose of revelation,‖ according to Paul.29 Francis Watson again takes up the relation between divine and human agency as witnessed in the interpretation of Scripture in 4QMMT, 4 Maccabees, and Galatians.30 All of these Second Temple interpreters read Scripture with a different set of presuppositions. For Paul, the Christ-event has re-shaped his reading of Scripture and his thinking on the relation between divine and human agency. While our subject matter (Lev 18:5) is different from these previous studies, the very formulation, ―the one who does these things will live by them,‖ is naturally related to the same field of ideas. The topic at hand concerns a central theological formulation that, as we will argue, renders eschatological life as conditioned upon obedience to the law. Many Second Temple Jewish texts incorporate Lev 18:5 into their own conception of the life-giving power of the law. But the apostle Paul does not. For him, the law leads to death, while life is found through faith in Christ. In the light of our survey of literature above, several questions arise in regard to Jewish and Pauline views of Lev 18:5. What does Paul find wrong with Lev 18:5? Does the Leviticus formulation suggest perfect obedience, or self-righteous legalism? Does Lev 18:5 conflict with Paul‘s view of grace and divine agency? How does Paul‘s understanding of grace, obedience, and salvation compare with his early Jewish contemporaries as seen in their interpretations of Lev 18:5? Does Paul‘s opposition to Lev 18:5 mean that he has ipso facto rejected the law? Or does Paul actually oppose Lev 18:5? And, apart from the Pauline issues: How was Lev 18:5 understood on its own terms in the literature of Second Temple Judaism? These are just some of the questions that we will seek to answer in light of the current soteriological interests in Paul‘s view of the law. 1.2.2 Research on Leviticus 18:5 Many of the vast number of books on Paul and the law, along with commentaries and studies on Romans and Galatians, frequently make 27

―Predestination and Free Will in the Theology of the Dead Sea Scrolls,‖ in Divine and Human Agency, 27–49 (48). 28 ―Paul‘s Anthropological ‗Pessimism‘ in Its Jewish Context,‖ in Divine and Human Agency, 71–98. 29 ―Sin in God‘s Economy: Agencies in Romans 1 and 7,‖ in Divine and Human Agency, 158–72 (171). 30 ―Constructing an Antithesis: Pauline and Other Jewish Perspectives on Divine and Human Agency,‖ in Divine and Human Agency, 99–116.

1.2 History of Research

7

reference to Lev 18:5 and note its importance.31 But this was not always the case. In fact, references to Lev 18:5 are virtually absent in E. P. Sanders‘s Paul and Palestinian Judaism – a striking fact in light of the subject matter and sheer size of the book.32 Sanders‘s second book on Paul and the law exhibits the same neglect.33 Likewise, N. T. Wright only devotes one page to Lev 18:5 in his Climax of the Covenant, a study of ―Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology,‖ and his recent commentary on Romans contains only a few lines on Lev 18:5 in Rom 10:5, while devoting no less than seven pages to Deut 30:12–14 in Rom 10:6–8.34 More recently, however, interest in Lev 18:5 has increased. James Dunn discusses Lev 18:5 often in his recent works,35 noting that in the Durham-Tübingen symposium on Paul and the law in 1994, the interpretation of Lev 18:5 ―was only beginning to come to the surface.‖36 Gathercole, in his recent book on Paul and Jewish soteriology, includes several extended discussions on Lev 18:5.37 Friedrich Avemarie believes that Lev 18:5 is ―one of the most important OT texts in early Jewish reflection on the torah.‖38 This recent interest in Lev 18:5 suggests that there is a need for a thorough study of the interpretation of this passage in early Judaism and in Paul. Studies of this passage have not been entirely lacking from previous scholarship, however. In 1971, Walter Kaiser wrote an essay discussing Paul‘s use of Lev 18:5 in the context of the unconditional (Noahic, Abrahamic, Davidic) and conditional covenants (Sinaitic).39 Kaiser contends that all covenants have elements of both demand and grace, and that the latter 31

B. Longenecker, The Triumph of Abraham‟s God: The Transformation of Identity in Galatians (Nashville: Abingdon, 1998), 119–22, 135–36, 164–65; Charles H. Cosgrove, The Cross and the Spirit: A Study in the Argument and Theology of Galatians (Macon, GA.: Mercer, 1988), 58–61, 90–91; Das, Paul, 253–56, 262–65; Wakefield, Where to Live, 159, 167–72, 174–77. 32 The Scripture index only lists four pages where Lev 18:5 is referred to and his only discussion of the text occurs in a footnote (Palestinian, 483 n. 37). 33 Again, only four references are listed and there is very little discussion (Paul, 40, 53 n. 23, 54 n. 30, 67). 34 N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 149; idem, ―The Letter to the Romans,‖ in New Interpreter‟s Bible Commentary (vol. 10; ed. Leander Keck; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002), 658–64. 35 See in particular, Dunn, New Perspective, 65–66; idem, Theology, 152–53, 374–75; cf. idem, ―‗Righteousness from the Law‘ and ‗Righteousness from Faith‘: Paul‘s Interpretation of Scripture in Romans 10:1–10,‖ in Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament: Essays in Honor of E. Earle Ellis for His 60 th Birthday (ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne and Otto Betz; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 216–28. 36 Dunn, New Perspective, 65. 37 Boasting, 66–67, 100–102, 121–23. 38 Private conversation, July 2004. 39 ―Leviticus 18:5 and Paul: Do This and You Shall Live (Eternally?),‖ JETS 14 (1971), 19–28.

Chapter 1: Introduction

8

precedes the former. In fact, Kaiser comes close to the conclusions of E. P. Sanders several years later: ―[The covenant] does not depend upon merit nor favouritism, but only God‘s grace and his election for service.‖40 With this in view, Kaiser examines Paul‘s use of Lev 18:5 in Rom 10:5 in light of its original context in order to show that the verse refers neither to legalistic lawobservance, nor to perfect behaviour.41 In fact, Paul does not place Lev 18:5 (Rom 10:5) in opposition to Deut 30:12–14 (Rom 10:6–8); rather, Lev 18:5 is ―Moses‘ authoritative and revealed description of true righteousness, which is near to every one of them, i.e., it is the same thing as the word of faith which Paul preached.‖42 Kaiser‘s article, while very thin on its actual treatment of Lev 18:5,43 anticipates many later interpreters who approach Rom 10:5–8 in the same manner, understanding Leviticus and Deuteronomy as correlative not antithetical citations. Paul, then, according to Kaiser, has no problem with Lev 18:5. Needless to say, his article failed to take into account the references to Lev 18:5 in Jewish literature, later OT tradition, and even Paul‘s use of the text in Gal 3:12. In the same year, Nils A. Dahl published an article dealing with Paul‘s hermeneutical procedure in solving the scriptural contradiction between Hab 2:4 and Lev 18:5 in Gal 3:11–12.44 ―The Bible is full of contradictions,‖45 says Dahl, and Gal 3:11–12 is only one of many passages where ―Paul deals with contradictory passages in Scripture.‖46 Dahl examines Hab 2:4 and Lev 18:5 in Gal 3:11–12 in order to illustrate Paul‘s familiarity with the later rabbinic method of resolving contradictions in Scripture as represented by Hillel‘s 13th middah: ―Two scriptural passages which correspond to one another yet conflict with one another, should be upheld in their place until a third passage comes and decides between them.‖47 As with the rabbis, Paul sees one text as more fundamental (Hab 2:4) and the other (Lev 18:5) as a contradiction. This contradiction must be resolved by showing how the opposing text is ―upheld in its place.‖ That is, Paul must show how Lev 18:5 fits into the scheme of Hab 2:4 so that both texts maintain their scriptural 40

Kaiser, ―Leviticus 18:5,‖ 23 (emphasis original). Kaiser draws on George E. Howard who argued this point in an article on Rom 10, ―Christ the End of the Law,‖ JBL 88 (1969), 331–37. 42 Kaiser, ―Leviticus 18:5,‖ 27. 43 Kaiser spends roughly one page on Lev 18 and another page on Paul‘s actual citation of Leviticus in Rom 10. 44 ―Widersprüche in der Bibel, ein altes hermeneutisches Problem,‖ StTh 25 (1971), 1–19; reprinted and translated as, ―Contradictions in Scripture,‖ in Nils A. Dahl, Studies in Paul: Theology for the Early Christian Mission (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977), 155–77. 45 ―Contradictions,‖ 159. 46 ―Contradictions,‖ 161. 47 Mekilta Pisha 4 on Exod 12:5; Sifre Num 58 on Num 7:89, cited in Dahl, ―Contradictions,‖ 162. 41

1.2 History of Research

9

validity. ―Rightly understood the Law is in harmony with the promises. It had a subordinate function which contributed to the realisation of the promises.‖48 Therefore, to uphold the validity of the law after the promise has been realised in Christ is to misunderstand the true intention of the law itself. Dahl‘s seminal study on Paul‘s hermeneutical procedure has evoked many responses, as we will see. As with Kaiser, however, Dahl did not take into account any of the OT or early Jewish allusions to Lev 18:5, nor, in contrast to Kaiser, did he address Paul‘s use of Leviticus in Rom 10:5. In response to Dahl, Johann Vos deals with Paul‘s citation of Lev 18:5 in both Romans and Galatians.49 He discusses Paul‘s interpretation of Lev 18:5 along similar lines as Dahl, but shows that Paul demonstrates closer affinities to Hellenistic rhetoric. Against Dahl, and much of the rabbinic material that Dahl evokes, Vos says that it is better to see Hab 2:4 and Lev 18:5 as passages representing two opposing halachot presented by two different parties, not simply as two Scripture passages understood by one party to be contradictory.50 Thus, the real contradiction is between the halachah of his opponents and Paul‘s (scriptural) doctrine of faith-righteousness. In order to win the argument, Paul shows in Gal 3:19–25 that the law actually contributes to the realisation of the promise, proving that the agitators have misunderstood the true intention of the law. 51 Vos then cautiously approaches Rom 10:5–8, aware of the possibility that Paul actually correlates Lev 18:5 with Deut 30:12–14. Nevertheless, Vos argues that, as in Galatians, Paul opposes not so much Lev 18:5, but his opponent‘s halachah which this text was used to support. While Vos‘s study is the first major treatment of Lev 18:5 in both Gal 3:12 and Rom 10:5, as with the previous treatments he does not examine the OT or early Jewish writings that allude to Lev 18:5. Alain Gignac has written a lengthy article on Paul‘s use of Lev 18:5 in Galatians and Romans.52 In it, he interacts extensively with Dahl and Vos.53 On the whole, Gignac agrees with both of their approaches, though he tends to give more credence to Dahl.54 With both Dahl and Vos, Gignac agrees that 48

―Contradictions,‖ 174. ―Die hermeneutische Antinomie bei Paulus (Galater 3.11–12; Römer 10.5–10),‖ NTS 38 (1992), 254–70. 50 Vos points out that Paul was not primarily concerned with resolving the apparent contradiction between two passages of Scripture, but to resolve the tension between law and promise (―Antinomie,‖ 257). 51 ―Antinomie,‖ 266. 52 ―Citation de Lévitique 18,5 en Romains 10,5 et Galates 3,12: Deux lectures différentes des rapports Christ-Torah?‖ Église et théologie 25 (1994), 367–403. 53 ―Citation,‖ 369–70, 372–76, 386–87. Gignac‘s third dialogue partner is Chris Stanley (―‗Under a Curse‘: A Fresh Reading of Galatians 3.10–14,‖ NTS 36 [1990], 481–511. 54 ―Vos minimize l‘influence juive chez Paul, les procédés rhétoriques juifs ayant été modelés selon lui au contact de las rhétorique hellénistique;‖ Gignac, ―Citation,‖ 369. Other 49

10

Chapter 1: Introduction

Paul solves the apparent contradiction between Hab 2:4 and Lev 18:5 in Gal 3:12 by subordinating the latter to the former.55 Gignac then goes beyond any previous study on Lev 18:5 by considering the intertextual relationship between Hab 2:4 and Lev 18:5.56 He says that Paul‘s citations of Habakkuk and Leviticus reflect the original context of the citations (whether ―consciemment ou non‖)57 and argues that Paul‘s interlocutors would have felt the impact of Paul‘s exegesis on this deeper level. Therefore, Paul argues on two levels. First, he is directing his argument to his Gentile audience, to whom ―Le texte de la Septante ne résonne pas à leurs oreilles dans toutes ses subtilités.‖ To this audience, Paul‘s Hellenistic rhetorical techniques would suffice in order to persuade. Second, with his intertextual argument, Paul ―s‘adresse à un auditoire averti, en ce qui concerne l‘Écriture,‖ namely, his judaizing opponents.58 As such, Gignac can hold together the validity of both Paul‘s Hellenistic rhetorical techniques (following Vos; cf. Stanley) directed to the Gentile Galatians, and his Jewish hermeneutical procedure (following Dahl) aimed at his Jewish opponents. Gignac‘s study on Galatians is intriguing, but his most challenging conclusion comes in his study on Rom 10:5–8. Unlike previous studies that assume Paul is using Lev 18:5 the same way in both places, Gignac believes that Paul views Lev 18:5 and Deut 30:12–14 synthetically. ―Galates n‟est pas le brouillon ou la copie-carbone de Romains;‖59 in each letter, Paul is dealing with different issues.60 Gignac‘s study is unfortunately neglected in scholarship, though it is the most thorough treatment of Lev 18:5 to date. One major lacuna in this article, along with every previous study thus far, is an examination of the early Jewish literature. Moreover, while dealing with the original context of Lev 18, Gignac fails to take into account the use of Lev 18:5 in Ezekiel and Nehemiah. J. Louis Martyn, who draws heavily on Vos, represents one of the more unique approaches to Paul‘s use of Lev 18:5 and Hab 2:4 in Gal 3:11–12.61 disagreements include: Vos‘s endorsement of judicial rhetoric in Galatians, whereas Gignac (with Stanley) says that it is closer to deliberative rhetoric (―Citation,‖ 370), and Vos‘s attempt to see both Rom 10:5–11 and Gal 3:11–12 as portraying an antinomy, while Gignac reads Rom 10 synthetically (―Citation,‖ 370). 55 ―Citation,‖ 387. 56 ―Citation,‖ 379–86. 57 ―Citation,‖ 386. 58 ―Citation,‖ 386. 59 ―Citation,‖ 402. 60 ―Dans un cas, il se demande: qu‘est-ce qui sauve? (Galates); dans l‘autre cas, il se demande: pourquoi les Juifs ne suivent-ils pas le Christ? (Romains). Par conséquent, la réponse à la première question pose l‘antithèse entre foi et Loi, entre Ha 2,4 et Lv 18,5, et la réponse à la seconde question pose la complémentarité entre Loi et foi, entre Lv 18,5 et Dt 30,12–14‖ (―Citation,‖ 402). 61 Galatians, 328–334.

1.2 History of Research

11

Martyn uses a modification of Vos‘s proposal,62 but disagrees with Dahl, Vos, and Gignac in one major way: in pitting Habakkuk against Leviticus, Paul seeks not to resolve the contradiction but to emphasise it. 63 The law, according to Martyn, utters a false promise through Lev 18:5: In Hab 2:4 Paul hears nothing other than that blessing promise and that elicited faith [sic]. In Lev 18:5, however, he hears nothing other than the voice of the Law that, failing to have its origin in faith, can utter only a false promise, doubtless one means by which it enacts its universal curse.64

Not only does a real contradiction stand between Habakkuk and Leviticus according to Martyn‘s reading, but ―the contradiction between these two texts is altogether essential.‖65 The law in no way contributes to the realisation of the promise. Martyn‘s study, however, is limited to Paul‘s use of Lev 18:5 in Galatians. The last few years in particular have witnessed many studies on Lev 18:5. Joel Willitts‘s 2003 article, ―Context Matters,‖66 is the first to take into account the later OT and early Jewish interpretation of Lev 18:5 as a background for understanding Paul‘s use of it in Gal 3:12. Willitts examines the original context of Lev 18, its later use in Ezek 20 (vv. 11, 13, and 21), Neh 9:29, and its interpretation in the Damascus Document from Qumran (CD III, 16–17). He then argues that, in light of its Jewish interpretation, ―faith‖ and ―law‖ in Gal 3:11–12 represent two distinct periods in salvation history. As such, Paul reads Lev 18:5 as an ―entire clause . . . which signifies the period of history characterised by the unrealised covenant potential,‖ while Hab 2:4 signifies ―the new redemptive historical position where the righteous person now stands.‖67 The contrast between faith (Hab 2:4) and law (Lev 18:5) is between two periods in redemptive history. Willitts is to be commended for his fascinating study, in particular for his attention to the interpretation of Lev 18:5 outside of Paul. However, Willitts does not cover Paul‘s use of Lev 18:5 in Rom 10, nor does he take into account many other places where this text is alluded to in Jewish literature. It is this wider usage of Lev 18:5 in early Jewish literature that was the focus of Simon Gathercole‘s recent article.68 In offering a challenge to the 62

Galatians, 329–30. Galatians, 333. 64 Galatians, 333. 65 Galatians, 333. 66 ―Context Matters: Paul‘s Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12,‖ TynB 54 (2003), 105–22 67 ―Context Matters,‖ 119. 68 ―Torah, Life, and Salvation: Leviticus 18:5 in Early Judaism and the New Testament,‖ in From Prophecy to Testament: The Function of the Old Testament in the New (ed. Craig A. Evans; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004), 126–145. 63

12

Chapter 1: Introduction

―new perspective‖ on Paul (especially Dunn), Gathercole examines the interpretation of Lev 18:5 in early Jewish and Christian texts.69 Through his study, Gathercole demonstrates that Lev 18:5 was understood in almost every instance soteriologically to refer to eternal life conditioned upon lawobedience. Gathercole‘s survey of texts is wide-ranging and testifies to the popularity of Lev 18:5 in Second Temple Judaism. However, covering so many texts in one article has its drawbacks: each text naturally receives minimal attention. I will argue, moreover, that not only do many texts that Gathercole examines not actually allude to Lev 18:5 (Bar 4:1, Let. Aris. 127, 1QS IV, 6–8, 4 Ezra 7:21; Luke 10:28, Mark 10:17–22),70 but there are other texts where Lev 18:5 is clearly alluded to, yet were neglected in his study (4Q266 11, 4Q504 6, L.A.B. 23:10).71 In the same year that Gathercole published his article, Francis Watson produced one of the most stimulating accounts of Paul‘s interpretation of Scripture since Richard Hays‘s Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul.72 Watson‘s Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith73 is more than a book on Paul‘s interpretation of Scripture, however. It is an account of Paul‘s soteriology as a whole, in relation to his Jewish contemporaries. Regarding his treatment of Lev 18:5, Watson devotes an entire chapter to Paul‘s reading of this passage – mostly in Rom 10:5 – and compares Paul‘s use to Josephus.74 Watson‘s reading of Lev 18:5 in Paul is thought provoking, and his interaction with Judaism‘s concept of law and life is judicious. But his comparison between Paul and Josephus is obscured by one factor: Josephus does not quote or allude to Lev 18:5.75 To be sure, Watson‘s purpose is not simply to compare different uses of Lev 18:5 in Second Temple Judaism; rather, he is more interested in comparing conceptual frameworks between Paul and his contemporaries. In any case, the lacuna for a thorough study of the early Jewish interpretation of Lev 18:5 remains. 69 Philo (Congr. 86–87), Bar 4:1, Let. Aris. 127, Pss. Sol. 14:2–3, 1QS IV, 6–8, CD III, 14–16, Targum Ezekiel (on chs. 20 and 33), 4 Ezra 7:21; m. Mak. 3:15, Luke 10:28, Mark 10:17–22, Rom 10:5, and Gal 3:12. 70 Gathercole himself is not convinced on some of these texts (esp. Bar 4:1, Let. Aris. 127, 1QS IV, 6–8), but deals with them in response to Dunn‘s previous reading of them (see below). 71 Gathercole does briefly mention 4Q266 but only in passing (Gathercole, ―Torah, Life,‖ 136). 72 (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1989). Hays himself made this statement in his review of Watson‘s book at the annual SBL meeting in Philadelphia, November, 2005. 73 See note 23. 74 Watson examines the original context of Lev 18:5 (315–29), its use in Gal 3:12 (329– 30), its use in Rom 10:5, with particular attention to its relation to Deut 30:12–14 (330–41), and Josephus‘ understanding of law and life (342–53). 75 The closest Josephus comes is in C. Ap. 2.17–18 but Watson himself suggests that an allusion to Lev 18:5 is not readily apparent (Hermeneutics, 343–44).

1.2 History of Research

13

Investigations of the Rabbinic interpretation of Lev 18:5 have been carried out by Danny Schwartz and most thoroughly by Friedrich Avemarie in his book Tora und Leben.76 Leviticus 18:5 was one of the most popular law-life passages in Rabbinic literature and was interpreted in different ways. In cases where preserving one‘s life and keeping the torah were mutually exclusive (e.g., in religious persecution), one was not only allowed to break the law to save his life, but was even commanded to do so.77 The rationale was Lev 18:5: one should live by these things, not die by them.78 Leviticus 18:5 was also interpreted to refer to life in the age to come, the reward for those who kept the commandments.79 Both Schwartz and Avemarie touch on Pauline and Second Temple Jewish interpretations of Lev 18:5, but this certainly was not their focus. Avemarie, however, does turn to Paul‘s use of Lev 18:5 in Romans and Galatians in a recent article on Lev 18:5.80 Avemarie‘s conclusion is similar to Gignac‘s in that he believes Paul has used Lev 18:5 differently on each occasion. Like Gignac, Avemarie argues that, while Paul opposes Lev 18:5 to Hab 2:4 in Gal 3, he correlates Lev 18:5 with Deut 30:12–14 in Rom 10. The greatest contribution of Avemarie‘s study, to my mind, is his meticulous organization and critique of the different approaches to Lev 18:5 in Paul, including the views of the early Church Fathers.81 Nevertheless, and again, the later OT and early Jewish use of Lev 18:5 receives little attention.82 From this survey of works on Lev 18:5, we find several lacunae that need to be filled. First, there is a need for a detailed study of the Jewish literature, taking into account the different theological concerns and tendencies of each individual book. Gathercole and Willitts both examine Lev 18:5 in its later usage, but their studies were necessarily brief. Therefore, a primary concern of this study is to give due attention to Lev 18:5 as it functions in the theological shape of each individual writing. Second, and somewhat related, 76 Tora und Leben: Untersuchungen zur Heilsbedeutung der Tora in der frühen rabbinischen Literatur (TSAJ 55; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 104–117, cf. 376–99; D. R. Schwartz, Leben durch Jesus versus Leben durch die Torah: Zur Religionspolemik der ersten Jahrhunderte. Franz-Delitzsch-Vorlesung 1991 (Münster: Franz-DelitzschGesellschaft, 1993); see also G. S. Oegema, Für Israel und die Völker: Studien zum alttestamentlich-jüdischen Hintergrund der paulinischen Theologie (NovTSup 95; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 95–101. 77 Avemarie, Tora und Leben, 105; Schwartz, Leben durch Jesus, 5. 78 Avemarie, Tora und Leben, 104–117. 79 Avemarie, Tora und Leben, esp. 377–83; cf. Oegema, Für Israel, 96–97. 80 ―Paul and the Claim of the Law According to the Scripture: Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12 and Romans 10:5,‖ in The Beginnings of Christianity: A Collection of Articles (ed. Jack Pastor and Menachem Mor; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2005), 125–48 81 ―The Claim of the Law,‖ 130–37. 82 Avemarie briefly notes the use of Lev 18:5 in Ezekiel, LXX Leviticus, Philo, CD, 4 Ezra, Luke, Mark, and the Targums (―The Claim of the Law,‖ 127–28).

14

Chapter 1: Introduction

is the need to study Lev 18:5 in Second Temple Judaism on its own terms. Every study on Lev 18:5 thus far approaches the issue from a Pauline perspective, examining its usage as background for Paul. But this has the danger of projecting Pauline concerns onto non-Pauline texts. To be sure, this study is concerned with the relationship between Paul and his Jewish contemporaries, but we will seek to study the Jewish literature in its own right, not merely as background material. Third, previous studies have focused too narrowly on only one or two specific concerns that arise from Lev 18:5. For instance, Gathercole‘s study sought only to argue that Lev 18:5 referred to the attainment of eschatological life, not life within the covenant. Willitts examined Ezekiel, Nehemiah, and the Damascus Document, but only as background material for understanding Gal 3:12. Therefore, this current study will attempt to address all these issues and more. Fourth, it is common for New Testament interpreters when they refer to Lev 18:5 to list a string of references in early Judaism and the Old Testament that supposedly refer to this text. However, in many cases it is not altogether clear that a reference to Lev 18:5 can be established. Therefore, this study will only consider texts where an allusion can be confidently detected. But in order to accomplish this last task, we need first to establish our criteria for detecting an allusion to Lev 18:5.

1.3 Method and Procedure 1.3.1 Criteria for Detecting an Allusion to Leviticus 18:5 As with any study on the use of Scripture in the New Testament (including Second Temple Judaism), we must develop criteria through which we can determine whether an allusion to Lev 18:5 is apparent.83 Determining a direct allusion to Lev 18:5 is especially important, since the concept of ―law and 83 There are many studies that develop similar criteria from which I have drawn my own; see esp. Hays, Echoes of Scripture, 29–32; cf. idem, ―‗Who has Believed Our Message?‘: Paul‘s Reading of Isaiah,‖ in New Testament Writers and the Old Testament: An Introduction (ed. John M. Court; London: SPCK, 2002), 53–62; Michael Thompson, Clothed with Christ: The Example and Teaching of Jesus in Romans 12.1–15.13 (JSNTSup 59; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 32–36; Brian S. Rosner, Paul, Scripture and Ethics: A Study of 1 Corinthians 5– 7 (AGAJU 22; Leiden: Brill, 1994),17–20; Roy E. Ciampa, The Presence and Function of Scripture in Galatians 1 and 2 (WUNT 102; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1998), 24–25; Timothy W. Berkley, From a Broken Covenant to Circumcision of the Heart: Pauline Intertextual Exegesis in Romans 2:17–29 (SBLDS 175; Atlanta: SBL, 2000), 60–64. For a critical discussion of criteria and method in detecting allusions, see Stanley E. Porter, ―The Use of the Old Testament in the New: A Brief Comment on Method and Terminology,‖ in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel (ed. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1997), 79–96 (80–88).

1.3 Method and Procedure

15

life‖ is widespread in Second Temple literature. Our study, however, is not a study of the concept of law and life, but more narrowly a study on a particular text that encapsulates this concept. Criterion 1: Verbal Correspondence. At least two elements of Lev 18:5 must be detected. The elements are 1) poih/sate au0ta/, or poih/saj au0ta// Mt) h#o(y; 2) a!nqrwpoj/Md); 3) zh/setai/yxw; and 4) e0n au0toi=j/Mhb. As Gathercole notes, we can be flexible concerning tense, number, and mood of the verbs.84 This criterion is the most important and thus must be met in order to detect an allusion; however, while being necessary, this criterion is not sufficient: other criteria will help substantiate an allusion to Lev 18:5. Criterion 2: Another Source.85 Even if two elements of Lev 18:5 are present, if the apparent allusion can be traced more directly to another OT text, then an allusion to Lev 18:5 may be in question. In such cases, we must be sensitive to the possibility that Lev 18:5 is conflated with another text. But in some cases, as we will see, another text is so clearly in view that a conflation with Leviticus is unnecessary. Criterion 3: Contextual Parallels. If there are other words from the near context of Lev 18:5 (e.g., 18:1–4) in the passage in question, then this will strengthen an allusion to Lev 18:5, if such an allusion is in doubt. Thus for instance, if the terms e0pithdeu/mata/h#o(m (Lev 18:2), prosta/gmata/My+p#Om/Myqx (Lev 18:3–4), or kri/mata/My+p#Om (Lev 18:3–4), occur in the near context of the apparent allusion to Lev 18:5, then this would strengthen an allusion to this text.86 Criterion 4: Recurrence.87 If there is a clear allusion to Lev 18:5 elsewhere in the same document, this will strengthen an allusion to Lev 18:5 in a less clear passage. However, if the document clearly refers to another Scripture passage that conveys a law-life concept (e.g., Deut 30:15–20), then it may be that this other passage is in view (see below under 4 Ezra 7:21). Criterion 5: Syntactical Tension.88 If the apparent allusion to Lev 18:5 exhibits syntactical tension in its present text (e.g., a pronoun with no 84

Gathercole, ―Torah, Life,‖ 129; cf. Rosner, Scripture and Ethics, 19; Berkley, Broken Covenant, 60–61. 85 Cf. Rosner, Scripture and Ethics, 19; cf. Thompson‘s ―Dissimilarity to Graeco-Roman and Jewish traditions,‖ which asks, ―Is there a more immediate and relevant parallel from another source?‖ (Clothed, 33–34). 86 The same would apply to the near context of Ezek 20:11, 13, 21 or Neh 9:29 where the Leviticus clause is used. 87 Hays used this criterion in reference to the writings of Paul (Echoes, 30; cf. Rosner, Scripture and Ethics, 19). 88 See Thompson, Clothed, 34. For this criterion used in unmarked ―citations,‖ see Dietrich-Alex Koch, Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus (BHT 69; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1986), 13; Christopher D. Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique

16

Chapter 1: Introduction

antecedent), then it may be that the writer has adopted Lev 18:5 without adjusting its wording. As such, this may strengthen the probability of an allusion to Lev 18:5, if such probability was in question. An example may be found in Gal 3:12 where in the clause, o9 poih/saj au0ta_ zh/setai e0n au0toi~j, the plural au0ta/ and au0toi~j does not have a clear antecedent in Gal 3:11– 12.89 These are the five criteria that we will use in this study. Other studies on the use of the OT in the NT/Early Judaism have come up with criteria additional to these that may be helpful in some cases but are problematic for our current investigation. For instance, some have used the criterion of ―conceptual similarities‖ between the apparent allusion and its precursor text.90 But, as we have stated above, since our study is focused specifically on the use of Lev 18:5 and not simply the concept of ―law and life,‖ ―conceptual similarities‖ may actually muddle the correlation – there are many OT texts that convey the concept that obedience to the law will lead to life. It may be that if a passage contains a law-life theme, then the author may be drawing on the general concept of law and life, not specifically Lev 18:5. The general conception that obedience to the law will lead to life can be, and probably was, formed by multiple OT texts, as the following diagram illustrates: Scriptural Text

Concept of Law and Life

―choose life that you may live‖ (Deut 30:19) ―to walk in his ways and to keep his commandments . . . that you may live and multiply‖ (Deut 30:17) ―if a man does them he will live by them‖ (Lev 18:5) ―he has done justice and righteousness; he will surely live by them‖ (Ezek 33:16)

Second Temple Text ―the law of life‖ (Sir 45:5; 4 Ezra 14:30)

Obedience to the law will give life.

―the commandments of life‖ (Bar 4:1)

―written in your law . . . that those who want to live in the last days may do so‖ (4 Ezra 14:22)

This diagram shows that there may be multiple OT texts that contribute to a general concept of law and life, and early Jewish texts may draw on this in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature (SNTSMS 69; Cambridge: CUP, 1992), 37. 89 Although the antecedent may be in 3:10. We will also see this in L.A.B. 23:10. 90 Thompson, Clothed, 32; Berkley, Broken Covenant, 63–64.

1.3 Method and Procedure

17

(widespread) concept without alluding to a specific text. Therefore, the criterion of ―conceptual similarities‖ will not be employed in this study. With our criteria in view, we can examine a few texts where scholars have seen an allusion to Lev 18:5, although such an allusion may be ruled out. Again, this is not to suggest that the law-life concept is not present in these texts, but that a direct allusion to Lev 18:5 is not apparent. Some have seen an allusion to Lev 18:5 in Let. Aris. 127, which reads: to\ ga\r kalw=j zh=|n e0n tw=| ta\ no/mima sunthrei=n ei]nai (―To live well consists in keeping the laws‖).91 Here, we only have one verbal similarity to Lev 18:5, the infinitive zh=|n. This fails to pass criterion 1; thus, an allusion to Lev 18:5 cannot be confidently detected.92 Another text where an allusion to Lev 18:5 is sometimes considered is Bar 4:1 which reads: pa/ntej oi9 kratou=ntej au0th=j [i.e. h9 bi/bloj tw=n prostagma/twn tou= qeou=] ei0j zwh/n, oi9 de\ kataleipontej au0th\n a0poqanou=ntai (―All who hold her [i.e. book of the commandments of God] fast will live, but those who abandon her will die‖).93 Here, we have a clear reference to the law-life concept in general (obedience to the ―book of the commandments‖ will lead to life) but not a clear allusion to Lev 18:5 in particular. The only verbal similarity is Baruch‘s ei0j zwh/n to Leviticus‘s zh/setai;94 thus, this text fails to meet criterion 1. Another passage where it is unlikely that Lev 18:5 is referred to, though sometimes thought to be, is 1QS 4:6–8: These are the foundations of the spirit of the sons of truth in the world. And the reward of all those who walk in it (hb yklwh lwk) will be healing, plentiful peace in a long life, fruitful offspring with all everlasting blessings, and eternal enjoyment with endless life (xcn yyxb), and a crown of glory with majestic raiment in eternal light. (1QS 4:6–8)

As in the texts above, there is no clear allusion to Lev 18:5.95 The only verbal similarity is with yyxb, but this is not sufficient for detecting an allusion to Leviticus.96 In 4 Ezra 7:21, there is a reference that reflects Lev 18:5 more that the previous three passages, but still does not meet our criteria: Mandans enim mandavit Deus venientibus quando venerunt, quid facientes viverent et quid observantes non punirentur (―For God strictly ordained for those entering the world when they should come, what they should do to live, and what to do to 91

Dunn, Theology, 153 n. 126. Rightly Gathercole, ―Torah, Life,‖ 128–29. 93 F. Mußner, Der Galaterbrief (HTKNT 9; Freiburg: Herder, 1974), 229. 94 Gathercole, ―Torah, Life,‖ 129. 95 Contra Don Garlington, ―Role Reversal and Paul‘s Use of Scripture in Galatians 3.10– 13,‖ JSNT 65 (1997), 85–121 (103); Dunn, Theology, 153 n. 126. 96 Gathercole notes that ―the allusion to Lev 18:5 is extremely vague‖ here (―Torah, Life,‖ 133–34). 92

18

Chapter 1: Introduction

avoid punishment‖). The verbal similarities between facientes and viverent to poih/saj/h#o(y and zh/setai/yxw satisfies our first criterion. Criterion 4, however, renders an allusion to Lev 18:5 unlikely: the author has another lawlife text that he cites explicitly, Deut 30:19 (―I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse; so choose life that you may live,‖ cited in 4 Ezra 7:129; cf. Deut 30:15; 2 Bar. 19:1; Sir 15:17). This strengthens the possibility that the author‘s law-life text is Deut 30:19 and not Lev 18:5. Moreover, the author has alluded to Deut 30:19 in 7:20 where the ―law of God‖ is ―set before‖ Israel.97 It is also clear that Deut 30:19, but not Lev 18:5, has an explicit life and death contrast, as does 4 Ezra 7:21. In light of criterion 4, then, it is probable that the author has Deut 30:19 in view here in 7:21.98 The final possible allusion that is perhaps the strongest is in Luke 10:25– 28. Here, the nomikos asks Jesus, ―what must I do to inherit eternal life‖ (ti/ poih/saj zwh\n ai0w/nion klhronomh/sw; Luke 10:25), whereby Jesus responds: ―What is written in the law? How do you read it? (10:26)‖ After the nomikos cites Deut 6:5 and 19:18 (10:27), Jesus responds: ―You have answered rightly; do this and you will live‖ (tou~to poi/ei kai_ zh/sh|, 10:28). While most interpreters perceive an allusion to Lev 18:5 here, 99 I have argued elsewhere that the text alluded to is actually Gen 42:18.100 Compare the three texts: Tou~to poi/ei kai_ zh/sh| Do this and you will live. (Luke 10:28b) Tou~to poih/sate kai_ zh/sesqe Do this and you will live. (Gen 42:18 LXX) Fula/cesqe pa/nta ta_ prosta/gmata mou kai_ pa/nta ta_ kri/mata mou kai_ poih/sete au)ta/

a$ poih/saj a!nqrwpoj zh/setai e)n au)toi~j Keep all my statutes and all my judgments and do them, which by doing a man will live by them. (Lev 18:5 LXX)

97 The language of 4 Ezra 7:20 ―relates to Deut 30:15 which is quoted in 7:21‖ (Michael Stone, 4 Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1990), 200. 98 ―The present verse [7:21] refers specifically to God‘s command, which is clearly that of Deut 30:15, a verse that already influenced the formulation of 7:20‖ and ―was a particular favorite of our author‖ (Stone, 4 Ezra, 201). 99 For the most thorough treatments, see W. R. Stegner, ―The Parable of the Good Samaritan and Leviticus 18:5,‖ in The Living Text (ed. D. Groh and R. Jewett; Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, 1985), 27–38; E. Verhoef, ―(Eternal) Life and Following the Commandments: Lev 18,5 and Luke 10,28,‖ in The Scriptures in the Gospels (ed. C. M. Tuckett; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997), 571–77; Gathercole, ―Torah, Life,‖ 140– 41. 100 Preston M. Sprinkle, ―The Use of Genesis 42:18 (Not Leviticus 18:5) in Luke 10:28: Joseph and the Good Samaritan,‖ BBR 17 (2007), 193–205.

1.3 Method and Procedure

19

While our first criterion for detecting an allusion to Lev 18:5 is satisfied with the terms poi/ei and zh/sh|, the correspondence to Gen 42:18 is still greater.101 Other factors support an allusion to Gen 42:18. First, while Lev 18:5 is never alluded to elsewhere in Luke, the Joseph Story is (Gen 37–50).102 Second, the very next phrase in Luke also reflects a scene from the Joseph Story. In Luke 10:29, the narrator says that the nomikos ―wanted to justify himself‖ (o( de_ qe&lwn dikaiw~sai e(auto/n). A similar statement occurs in the Joseph Story. When Judah and his brothers are brought back to Joseph, Judah falls on the ground before him and declares: ―What can we say to my lord? What can we speak? And how can we justify ourselves?‖ (ti& dikaiwqw~men, Gen 44:16).103 The correspondence between Luke 10:29 and Gen 44:16 is striking in light of the connection between Luke 10:28 and Gen 42:18. Has Luke intended to paint the portrait of the parable of the Good Samaritan on the canvass of the Joseph Story? This interpretive possibility may re-shape our reading of this Lukan parable but cannot be entertained here.104 For our present purpose, in light of our criterion 2 (the closer affinities between Luke 10:28 and Gen 42:18) we conclude that a direct allusion to Lev 18:5 in Luke 10:28 cannot be confidently established. There are other possible allusions to Lev 18:5 in Jewish and Pauline texts that we find tenuous, but we will examine these later in this study. 105

101 The main difference is that the command in Genesis is plural (spoken to Joseph‘s brothers) and the command in Luke is singular (spoken to the nomikos). The other difference, that the command in Luke (poi/ei) is in the present tense and in Genesis is aorist (poih/sate), is not a significant variation. 102 Jesus being 30 years of age (Luke 3:23) may reflect Gen 41:46; Luke 12:16–19 may allude to Gen 41:35–36; the parable of the lost son (Luke 15:11–32) resembles the Joseph Story; Luke 20:14 alludes to Gen 37:20; see further, Sprinkle, ―The Use of Genesis 42:18,‖ 198. 103 ―How can we prove our innocence‖ (NIV); ―How shall we clear ourselves in the matter of Dinah . . . how shall we clear ourselves in respect of Benjamin‖ (Gen. Rab. 92:9). Jubilees gives a fairly literal rendering of Gen 44:16: ―And they said to him, ‗what can we say? (With) what can we defend ourselves?‘‖ (Jub. 43:9). All of these translations and commentaries pick up on the reflexive nature of the hithpa‘el qd+cn, which was translated with the Greek ti& dikaiwqw~men. Dikaiou~n in the passive only occurs here in Gen 44:16 in the Pentateuch. It also occurs in the psalms (LXX 18:10; 50:6; 142:2) and Isaiah (LXX 42:21; 43:9; 43:26; 45:25). However, the hithpa‘el qd+cn, only occurs here in the OT at Gen 44:16. 104 See my suggested reading in, ―The Use of Genesis 42:18,‖ 203–205. 105 These include Pss. Sol. 9:5 (see page 98), L.A.B. 19:9 (see pages 129), and Rom 7:10 (see page 185).

Chapter 1: Introduction

20

Therefore, the texts that remain to be examined – apart from the OT passages discussed in the Prolegomena – are the following: – – – – – – – –

CD III, 15–16 4Q266 11, I–II 12 4Q504 6 II, 17 Pss. Sol. 14:2–3 L.A.B. 23:10 Philo, Congr. 86–87 Gal 3:12 Rom 10:5

1.3.2 Procedure and Approach But before discussing these texts, a few comments on our method and procedure are in order. First of all, this study is primarily an examination of how Lev 18:5 functioned in the literature of early Judaism and in Paul, and my chronological boundaries are 200 B.C.E. and 100 C.E.106 This study is not primarily concerned with how this text was understood in the original context of Lev 18, nor with the later use of it in the OT (Ezekiel and Nehemiah). Therefore, I have included an examination of Lev 18:5 in the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint under the title Prolegomena, while the bulk of this study is contained in Part One (Early Judaism) and Part Two (Paul). So, while it will be necessary first to trace the trajectory of Lev 18:5 in the Hebrew (and Greek) Scriptures, it is its later Second Temple interpretation that is my primary interest. Second, I will be looking at the Jewish interpretation of Lev 18:5 in its own right, not just as a background for Paul. That is, I do not begin this study with the a priori assumption that Paul‘s opposition to Lev 18:5 will reflect the understanding of this text in Jewish literature. Paul may be in dialogue with a different ―Judaism‖ (or Jewish Christianity) from that which we find in the available texts that refer to Lev 18:5.107 Furthermore, I will attempt not to project issues in Paul‘s theology back onto our reading of the Jewish texts, but will discuss Lev 18:5 within the theological framework that arises out of each individual work. As we will see, many of the individual Jewish documents have different concerns from Paul as well as other Jewish documents. For instance, Pseudo-Philo‘s Biblical Antiquities (L.A.B.) is thoroughly nationalistic in its outlook, while the Damascus Document (CD) of Qumran is 106 There are no allusions to Lev 18:5 that I am aware of in literature between Nehemiah (mid-5th Century B.C.E) and 4Q504 (early 2 nd Century B.C.E.). The post 100 C.E. rabbinic interpretations of Lev 18:5 have been sufficiently covered by Friedrich Avemarie in his Tora und Leben. 107 See the insightful methodological comments in Gathercole, Boasting, 26.

1.3 Method and Procedure

21

sectarian; L.A.B. is interested in the salvation of the nation, while CD is interested in the salvation of the Qumran (or Essene) community. We will, then, discuss each allusion/citation to Lev 18:5 within the purview of the theological concerns of each individual document. Third, while this study is focused on an individual text (half a verse to be precise!), I am more interested in the theology that is read out of (or into) the text than the actual form of the text itself. It will be necessary to discuss matters of form and Vorlage on some occasions, but this will not attract our primary attention. It will be evident that Lev 18:5 functions to support and convey certain soteriological concepts, such as the role of obedience in eschatological life, and it is these theological matters that will be the focus of this study. Fourth, this study is more author-centred or text-centred than it is readercentred. I am interested in how the author employed and understood the text, not primarily how the original readers would have understood it.108 This is especially important in Romans and Galatians where Paul is writing to a largely Gentile audience, an audience that may or may not have understood the theological point that Paul was trying to make through the citation. In fact, Christopher Stanley has drawn attention to the possibility that many in the Galatian and Roman churches who first heard Paul‘s letters being read, and thus his citation of Lev 18:5, may not have had enough scriptural awareness to know that Paul was even citing Scripture.109 Perhaps they would have been more persuaded by the rhetorical function of the text as it stands in Paul‘s argument, and nothing more.110 These are certainly important matters, but they will not be our primary focus in this study. I am mainly interested in the Jewish and Pauline understanding of Lev 18:5, not the impact the text had on recent (perhaps illiterate) Gentile converts.

108

My study, then, is closer to Francis Watson‘s Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith, which is concerned with Paul‘s (and Judaism‘s) own understanding of Scripture, than to Christopher Stanely‘s, Arguing with Scripture (subtitle: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul [London/New York: T & T Clark/Continuum, 2004]), which is concerned with the impact that Paul‘s citations would have had on his audience. For a discussion, see the scintillating dialogue between Stanley (―A Decontextualized Paul? A Response to Francis Watson‘s Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith‖) and Watson (―Paul the Reader: An Authorial Apologia‖) in JSNT 28 (2006), 353–62, 363–73 109 Stanley, Arguing with Scripture, 127–28. 110 ―Since the competent audience would have known nothing about Paul‘s questionable application of the verse from Leviticus, their attention would have centered on the validity of Paul‘s assertion in the first part of the verse, not the quotation‖ (Stanley, Arguing with Scripture, 128).

22

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.3.3 Definitions Before we begin, we must define a few terms that we will be using throughout this study. Citation, Allusion, Echo. Generally, I am using the terms ―citation,‖ ―allusion,‖ and ―echo,‖ as ―points along a spectrum of intertextual reference, moving from the explicit to the subliminal.‖111 I will be using the term ―citation‖ only in reference to Paul since he is the only author under consideration that uses a citation formula with reference to Lev 18:5 (e.g., Rom 10:5). Gal 3:12 may be considered an allusion since there is no citation formula, but since there is a formula in Rom 10:5 and since the verbal agreement between Gal 3:12 and Lev 18:5 is so close, we may consider Paul‘s reference to Lev 18:5 in Galatians as a citation. In the Jewish literature, however, apart from Philo (Congr. 86–87), every reference to Lev 18:5 is best seen as a subtle, though probably conscious, allusion. Leviticus 18:5, Leviticus formulation, et al. I will be using the phrases ―Lev 18:5‖ and ―Leviticus formulation‖ more or less synonymously unless otherwise specified to refer to the clause, ―which if a person does them he will live by them,‖ without regard to a specific OT context (e.g., Lev 18, Ezek 20, or Neh 9).112 In many cases, it will be difficult and even unnecessary to pin down a precise OT passage for the allusion. Deuteronomistic and Deuteronomic. I will be using the terms Deuteronomistic and Deuteronomic in very particular senses. With Deuteronomistic, I simply mean general characteristics of the theology of Deuteronomy and the literature influenced by this book (e.g., Joshua– 2 Kings). But with the term Deuteronomic, I am referring more specifically to the conditionality of covenantal blessings and curses; the so-called Mosaic ―if . . . then‖ that is emphasised in Deuteronomistic literature.113 Or as Jack Lundbom states: ―Deuteronomic theology is best summed up in Joshua‘s words to the people at Shechem: if you disobey the covenant, Yahweh will not forgive your sins; instead he will punish you (Josh 24:19–20).‖114 This Deuteronomic conditionality is seen more clearly when viewed against the backdrop of what we may call a prophetic theology that 111 Hays continues: ―As we move farther away from overt citation, the source recedes into the discursive distance, the intertextual relations become less determinate, and the demand placed on the reader‘s listening powers grows greater‖ (Echoes, 23). 112 On some occasions, I may simply use ―Leviticus‖ to refer to ―Lev 18:5‖ but only where it is clear that the book as a whole is not in view. 113 For a discussion on the use of the terms Deuteronomistic and Deuteronomic, see Richard Coggins, ―What Does ‗Deuteronomistic‘ Mean?‖ in Those Elusive Deuteronomists (JSOTSup 268; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 22–35. 114 J. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 21A; New York: Doubleday, 1999), 471.

1.4 Overview

23

emphasises the unconditionality of blessing, as summarised by Walter Brueggemann: Prophetic eschatology is articulated in oracles of promise, in which these mediators move beyond the tight constructs of blessing and curse, deed and consequence, reward and punishment, and banish the Mosaic “if” from the horizon of possibility. The oracles of promise are originally utterances without antecedent, certainly not rooted in or derived from the data or circumstance at hand, but rooted in Yahweh‘s circumstance-defying capacity to work newness.115

I do not suggest, however, that all the prophetic literature in the Hebrew Bible exhibits this same structure, nor do I suppose that all Deuteronomistic literature (Deut–2 Kings) exhibits a conditional construct.116 It is clear, however, that a large strand of prophetic tradition reveals a strong emphasis on restoration as a unilateral act of God, while Deuteronomistic literature abounds in ―if . . . then‖ formulations. Therefore, the term Deuteronomic, though potentially problematic, will be used as convenient shorthand for the type of theology described above.

1.4 Overview With these methodological points in view, we will proceed with our study in four sections. Our first section, Part One, will examine Lev 18:5 in the contexts of Leviticus, Ezekiel, Nehemiah, and the Septuagint translations of the Hebrew Bible. Our next section, Part Two, will deal with the interpretation of Lev 18:5 as it is alluded to or cited in Jewish literature written from 200 B.C.E. to 100 C.E. The material is analysed roughly in chronological order according to the general scholarly consensus of when these documents were written.117 Our third section, Part Three, will look at Paul‘s use of Lev 18:5 in Galatians and then in Romans. Finally, Part Four will consist of a comparison between Paul and early Judaism on their interpretations of Lev 18:5, and will also offer some implications for Paul‘s view of the Mosaic law.

115 Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997], 646) (emphasis added). 116 For instance, the Song of Moses (Deut 32) is highly ―prophetic‖ in its eschatology, while Haggai and Nehemiah exhibit a more ―Deuteronomic‖ theology of restoration. 117 However, I will examine the Damascus Document before 4Q504 (even though the latter is probably earlier), since the Damascus Document is a much more significant document and will therefore make a good entry point into the Qumran literature.

Part 1

Leviticus 18:5 in Ancient Judaism

Chapter 2

The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Leviticus, Ezekiel, Nehemiah, and the Septuagint 2.1 Leviticus 18:5 in Its Literary Context Leviticus 18 occurs in what is commonly called ―The Holiness Code‖ (hereafter H), which consists of Lev 17–26.1 H, as the title suggests, concerns the holiness of the people of Israel as summarised in 20:26: ―Thus you are to be holy to me, for I YHWH am holy; and I have set you apart from the peoples to be mine.‖ Following the regulations concerning blood (Lev 17), chapter 18 is focused on various sexual prohibitions (18:6–23). These prohibitions are framed by general admonitions in 18:1–5 and 18:24–30;2 moreover, the contents of chapter 18 are repeated in chapter 20 (especially vv. 10–21), forming a bracket around chapter 19.3 The exhortations of 18:1–5 and 1

See the discussion in Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22 (AB 3b; New York: Doubleday, 1991–2001), 1332, 1448–1449; cf. J. Joosten, People and Land in the Holiness Code: An Exegetical Study of the Ideational Framework of the Law in Leviticus 17–26 (VTSup 67; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 6–7; John Hartley, Leviticus (WBC 4; Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1992), xxx–xxxv. Milgrom argues, rightly to my mind, that Lev 17 in the present form serves as a bridge between chapters 1–16 and 18–26 (cf. Mary Douglas, Leviticus as Literature [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999], 219–27). Francis Watson (Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith [London: Continuum, 2004], 316 n. 4) follows V. Wagner (―Zur Existenz des sogenannten ‗Heiligkeitsgesetzes‘,‖ ZAW 86 [1974], 307–16) in seeing Lev 17 as related to the material in chapters 1–16, and thus chapters 18–26 may be seen as a unit. Virtually all scholars agree that chapter 27 has been appended to chapter 26, the original conclusion to the book. 2 While 18:1–5 corresponds to 18:24–30, there is a difference in time. In vv. 24–30, the assumption is that the land has been defiled, its former residents (unnamed) have been cast out, and Israel, who is presumably in the land, is exhorted to keep YHWH‘s ―statutes and judgments‖ in order to remain in the land. In vv. 1–5, however, Israel ―is standing in neutral space,‖ neither in Egypt nor in Canaan, and she is faced with the command to obey torah which will result in ‗life‘‖ (cf. Deut 30:15–20) (see Adrian Schenker, ―What Connects the Incest Prohibitions Listed in Leviticus 18 and 20?,‖ in The Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception [ed. Rolf Rendtorff and Robert A. Kugler; VTSup 93; Leiden: Brill, 2003], 162–85 [180]; Klaus Grünwaldt, Die Heiligkeitsgesetz Leviticus 17–26: Ursprüngliche Gestalt, Tradition und Theologie [Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999], 213–14). 3 Mary Douglas thus concludes that Lev 19 is the apex of the entire book of Leviticus (Leviticus, 234–40; idem, ―Justice as the Cornerstone: An Interpretation of Leviticus 18–20,‖

28 Chapter 2: The Use of Lev 18:5 in Leviticus, Ezekiel, Nehemiah, and the Septuagint

18:24–30 are repeated again in 20:22–24 where a similar summary is given. In light of these connections between chapters 18 and 20, we can regard these three chapters (18, 19, 20) as a unit, the theme of which may be summarised as the ―necessary conditions for Israel‘s remaining in the land.‖4 Violation of the laws given in this section will result in either the death penalty (cf. 20:10– 20) or extirpation (the termination of one‘s family line, see note 10) if broken by an individual. If the community of residents as a whole fails to obey these laws, then the land will ―vomit‖ them out (Mkt) Cr)h )yqt, 18:28). 2.1.1 The Meaning of Leviticus 18:5b Leviticus 18:5b occurs at the end of the general admonitions in Lev 18:1–5. The text reads: And YHWH spoke to Moses and said, ―speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‗I am YHWH your God. You shall not do according to the deeds (h#o(mk) of the land of Egypt where you dwelt, nor shall you do according to the deeds (h#o(mkw) of Canaan where I am bringing you, and you shall not walk in their statutes (Mhytqxbw). You shall do my judgments (y+p#Om) and keep my statutes (ytqx), to walk in them, I am YHWH your God. And you shall keep my statutes (ytqx t) Mtrm#Ow) and my judgments (y+p#Om t)w), which if a person does them, he will live by them (Mhb yxw Md)h Mt) h#o(y r#O)). I am YHWH. (Lev 18:1–5)5

The following analysis will focus more closely on the language of 18:5b: Mhb yxw Md)h Mt) h#o(y r#O). 2.1.1.1 Md)h – the person The shift from the second person plural addressed specifically to Israel (ynb l)r#oy) in vv. 2–5a to the third person singular represented by the generic Md)h in v. 5b is striking.6 The use of Md)h is probably given in order to include the ―resident alien‖ (rg) as 18:26 suggests: ―But you, the native, and the resident alien (rgh), are to keep my statutes and my judgments, and not

Int 53 [1999], 341–50). Milgrom goes even further: ―Lev 19 is the center of the Torah‖ (Leviticus 17–22, 1767). On the narrative frame of chapters 18 and 20, see Grünwaldt, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 108–22; Schenker, ―Incest Prohibitions,‖ 162–85; Milgrom, Leviticus 17– 22, 1765–68. 4 Schenker, ―Incest Prohibitions,‖ 176. The metaphor of the land ―vomiting out‖ its inhabitants only occurs three times in the Hebrew Bible (Lev 18:25, 28; 20:22). 5 Similar exhortations are echoed throughout H as a whole, e.g. 18:26, 30; 19:19, 30, 37; 20:22; 22:31–33; 25:18–19; 26:3–4, 14–15, 43, 46; see K. Elliger, Leviticus (HAT 4; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1966), 236 n. 3; 237 n. 6, 7; and the discussion below. 6 This does not necessitate, however, seeing 18:5 as a later addition as K. Elliger (Leviticus, 233) and Alfred Cholewinski (Heiligkeitsgesetz und Deuteronomium: Eine vergleichende Studie [AnBib 66; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1976], 36) claim. See the discussion in Grünwaldt, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 35.

2.1 Leviticus 18:5 in Its Literary Context

29

do any of these abominations.‖7 Throughout H, most of the laws given to the Israelites are also obligatory for the rg, while some laws are only optional. Those that the rg is obliged to keep are connected with the purity of the land.8 Prohibitions such as eating blood (17:10–26), child sacrifices to Molech (18:21; 20:2–5), or sexual prohibitions (incest: 18:7–17; 20:10–12; bestiality: 18:23; 20:16; homosexuality: 18:22; 20:13) are to be kept by all who reside in the land, including the rg.9 The transgression of these prohibitions by an individual will result in the death penalty or extirpation (―cut off,‖ trk),10 and if the populace as a whole (Israelites, natives, resident aliens) transgresses these particular prohibitions, then the land will ―vomit out‖ ()qt [from )yq]) all its inhabitants (18:25, 28; 20:22). The rationale, then, behind these prohibitions is the potential of defiling the land – the purity of the land is integral to the purity of its residents.11 Other laws, however, are only binding on the Israelites residing in the land.12 The rg may observe them if s/he wishes, but is not obligated to do so.13 In light of H‘s laws and prohibitions binding on the rg, it seems that the use of Md)h in 18:5b is deliberate: both the ―sons of Israel‖ and the resident alien are obliged to ―do them‖ (the ―statutes and judgments‖ of vv. 4–5a).

7

So Joosten, The People and the Land, 76–78; cf. Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1522, 1581; contra Douglas C. Mohrmann (―Making Sense of Sex: A Study of Leviticus 18,‖ JSOT 29 [2004], 57–79 [76]) who says that Md)h is a collective singular representing the nation as a whole. 8 Cf. Milgrom: ―The violation of a prohibition generates a toxic impurity that radiates into the environment, polluting the sanctuary and the land‖ (Leviticus 17–22, 1417). 9 Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1416–20; 1493–1501; Joosten, The People and the Land, 54– 73. 10 For the meaning of trk, see Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 457–61; idem, Leviticus 17–22, 1733–34, 1767; Joosten, The People and the Land, 79–82. trk occurs 13x in Lev (17:4, 9, 10, 14; 18:29; 19:8; 20:3, 5, 6, 17, 18; 22:3; 23:29; cf. 23:30). The term is much debated and four interpretations are possible: 1) death penalty by human agency, 2) excommunication, 3) extirpation (the termination of one‘s family line) and 4) some type of divine punishment. That trk includes death by divine agency is supported by Lev 20:2–5 (cf. Judg 4:24; 1 Sam 24:22; 1 Kgs 11:16; 18:4; so Joosten, The People and the Land, 80; similarly Wenham, Leviticus, 285), and this probably includes the sense of extirpation as well (so Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 457–60). 11 See Joosten, The People and the Land; Schenker, ―Incest Prohibitions,‖ 177. 12 These include the prescription for dwelling in booths (23:42) and the observance of the paschal sacrifice (Exod 12:48). The laws concerning blood in Lev 17 contain some differences for the rg and the Israelite (see Joosten, The People and the Land, 63–64; Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1497–98). 13 If the rg does wish to, say, offer a sacrifice to Israel‘s god, then the manner in which sacrifice is made must correspond to the sacrificial law-code.

30 Chapter 2: The Use of Lev 18:5 in Leviticus, Ezekiel, Nehemiah, and the Septuagint

2.1.1.2 Mt) h#o(y – will do them The term Mt) (―them‖) refers back to the twqx (―statutes‖) and My+p#Om (―judgments‖) of 18:3–4, and seems to refer to laws in general, perhaps the law-code contained in H. Statements that speak of ―doing‖ the ―statutes and judgments‖ are evident throughout H in summary passages (cf. 18:26; 19:37; 20:22; 22:31; 25:18; 26:3), suggesting that the references here in 18:3–5 are not restrictive (i.e. not limited to the specific laws of chapter 18). The generic tenor of the ―statutes and judgments‖ of 18:3–5, therefore, indicates that 18:5b has all laws in view.14 This view has been recently challenged by Douglas Mohrmann who argues ―the laws and statutes in 18.5 are the sexual laws specifically.‖15 His conclusion is based largely on the probability that the ―bookends‖ of chapter 18 (i.e. 18:1–5 and 24–30) are the work of a redactor who added these passages in order to form a bracket around the sexual laws of vv. 6–23. Therefore, the ―statutes and judgments‖ are limited to this intervening material.16 While this view is possible, it is unlikely for two reasons. First, as stated above, summary formulas exhorting Israel to ―keep‖ and ―do‖ the ―statutes and judgments‖ occur throughout H; they are not limited to 18:1–5, 24–30. There is no indication that these other identical statements refer to something more restrictive than all the laws of H.17 Second, the ―statutes and judgments‖ are positive commands, and thus should not be limited to the prohibitions of chapter 18.18 These prohibitions are captured best by the exhortation to ―not do according to the deeds (h#o(mk) of the land of Egypt where you dwelt‖ (18:3) and to not ―do according to the deeds of Canaan where I am bringing you, and you shall not walk in their statutes (Mhytqxbw).‖ These ―deeds‖ and ―statutes‖ reflect the sexual prohibitions of vv 6–23 but are not identical to the positive commands of 18:4–5. We conclude, then, that the ―statutes and judgments‖ (i.e. the content of Mt)) should not be limited to the sexual prohibitions of 18:6–23. And yet, as we stated above, chapters 18–20 do form a unit and the closing remarks in 20:22–26 add a sense of closure to this section. Chapter 19, moreover, contains many performative commands that are fundamental to the conceptual world of H. Perhaps, then, the ―statutes and ordinances‖ of 18:3–5 refer to all (i.e. non-specific) laws of H in general, but with a mild orientation toward the 14

So Hartley, Leviticus, 293; Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1522. ―Making Sense of Sex,‖ 76. 16 Mohrmann, ―Making Sense of Sex,‖ 59–63, 76. 17 ―All‖ in the sense of non-specific. This does not mean that the ―statutes and judgments‖ refers to every single law, otherwise this would exclude the rg who is not required to obey every law in H. 18 Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1522; Joosten, The People of the Land, 77. 15

2.1 Leviticus 18:5 in Its Literary Context

31

material in chapters 18–20, material that is relevant for both the native and the rg. 2.1.1.3 Mhb yxw – will live by them Two issues surround this phrase: 1) the meaning of yxw, and 2) the syntactical function of the b in Mhb. There have been various proposals for the meaning of yxw in 18:5b, some of which overlap:19 1. To live (walk) according to the ―statutes and ordinances‖ (Kaiser) 2. To live a distinct life as a nation in contrast to the surrounding nations (Mohrmann) 3. To remain alive (i.e. to not die) (Noth). 4. To live a blessed life of prosperity (Wenham) 5. To enjoy the covenant blessings in chapter 26:3–13 (Watson). 6. To enjoy a state of holiness and purity that is necessary in order to remain in the land (Bigger; cf. Grünwaldt). View 1 interprets yxw as synonymous with Klh in 18:4 (Mhb tkll), and thus renders the b of Mhb as ―in them‖ in the sense of according to them (rather than instrumental, ―by them‖). This view is possible from both the syntax20 and the context (cf. v. 4). But we will see below that there are strong arguments against this view. View 2 has recently been proposed by Douglas Mohrmann who says, ―[L]iving in Lev. 18.5 was first and foremost national life within the confines of its distinctive (holy) calling by God in relationship to their national neighbors. No doubt physical and economic prosperity were behind this . . . but they must remain subsidiary.‖21 The statutes and judgments are the boundary markers of a distinct type of life that Israel is called to live. It is not altogether clear, however, whether he agrees with views 1 or 3–6, though he seems closer to the former: life is not a result of doing the commandments but corresponds to the doing itself. The last four views (3–6) are not mutually exclusive and each reads yxw as a result of obedience. Martin Noth (3) understands the term in its most basic sense when he says that it refers to physical life; thus, the one who does them will remain alive (i.e. he will not die).22 But the term cannot be reduced completely to mere physical life: plenty of people were ―alive‖ outside The MT reads yxw whereas the Samaritan Pentateuch and Targums read hyxw; see GKC §76i and Hartley, Leviticus, 282. 20 So Levine, Leviticus, 119, although he ends up siding with the instrumental view. 21 Morhmann, ―Making Sense of Sex,‖ 78. 22 Noth, Leviticus, 134; N. H. Snaith, Leviticus and Numbers (London: Thomas Nelson, 1967), 122. 19

32 Chapter 2: The Use of Lev 18:5 in Leviticus, Ezekiel, Nehemiah, and the Septuagint

Canaan but could not lay claim to the promise of Lev 18:5. Gordon Wenham (4) rightly critiques Noth and says that yxw refers to a blessed life of economic and social prosperity, a view that makes good sense in light of the Deuteronomistic concept of life.23 Francis Watson (5) agrees with Wenham and says that ―life‖ is specifically the covenantal blessing of earthly prosperity depicted in 26:3–13 (cf. Deut 28:1–14). The opposite of these blessings are the curses of 26:14–39.24 The final view (6) understands ―life‖ in light of the cultic context of H. For example, Stephen Bigger says that 18:5 is linked with the following sexual prohibitions and the promise of ―life‖ is linked with personal purity: ―such impurity, especially in sexual matters, was deemed a threat to life itself.‖25 Klaus Grünwaldt offers a similar interpretation and notes further that ―life‖ ultimately means ―das Leben vor Gott.‖26 This is why failure to carry out the ―statutes and ordinances‖ will lead to separation from the community and the land in which God dwells.27 As stated above, it is not immediately clear what precisely is meant by ―life‖ and all of the interpretations above are credible. The issue cannot be decided by syntax since the syntax can support either view. The absence of other uses of the term yx in the near context adds further difficulty.28 We can note, however, five arguments in favour of the ―result‖ view (views 3–6). First of all, there is a phrase in 18:29 that reflects the language and thought of 18:5: 18:29

wtrknw

hl)h twb(wth lkm

h#o(y r#O) lk yk

18:5

yxw

Mhb . . . Mt)

Md)h . . . h#o(y r#O)

Here in 18:29, the author says, ―the one who does any of these abominations will be cut off.‖ Since extirpation (―cut off‖) is a result, and this statement seems to reflect 18:5, then it may be that the ―life‖ of 18:5 also is a result of 23

Wenham, Leviticus, 253; cf. Hartley: ―Placed in the context of the parenesis (vv 24–30), it means that Israel will have a secure, healthy life with sufficient goods in the promised land as God‘s people‖ (Leviticus, 283). 24 Hermeneutics, 318–19. 25 Bigger, ―The Family Laws of Lev 18 in Their Setting,‖ JBL 98 (1979), 187–203 (191). 26 Das Heiligkeitsgesetz, 388–89. 27 See Gründwalt, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz, 388. According to H, the conception of the presence of God relates both to the temple and to the land, the later being an extension of the former (Joosten, The People, 176–80). 28 The verb occurs only two other times in H (25:35, 36) where it unambiguously means, ―to dwell.‖

2.1 Leviticus 18:5 in Its Literary Context

33

doing the commandments.29 Second, there are other passages that contain general exhortations to obey the statutes, judgments, or commandments, and describe the result of this obedience. The result is always related to dwelling in the land. And you shall keep my statutes and my judgments and shall not do all these abominations . . . so that the land may not vomit you out. (Lev 18:26, 28) You are to keep all my statutes and all my judgments and do them so that the land to which I am bringing you to dwell will not vomit you out. (Lev 20:22) You shall do my statutes and keep my judgments and do them so that you may dwell securely in the land. Then the land will yield its produce and you will eat your fill and dwell securely in it. (Lev 25:18–19) If you walk in my statutes and keep my commandments and do them, then I will give you rains in their seasons so that the land will yield its produce and the trees of the field will bear their fruit . . . and you shall dwell securely in your land. (Lev 26:3–4, 5b)

Dwelling in the land, therefore, is the result of obedience while disobedience elicits expulsion or death. Other similar exhortations do not list any result for obedience (19:19, 30, 37; 20:8; 22:31–33), but when a result is listed it is always related to land – the ability to dwell in it or the prosperity of the land itself. It is possible, therefore, that the ―life‖ of 18:5 is correlated with dwelling securely in the land, and this blessing is the result of Israel‘s obedience to the statutes, judgments, and commandments. We can also note, third, that ―life‖ is a common term used in Deuteronomistic literature to refer to a covenantal blessing, a blessing that is contingent upon obedience (e.g., Deut 4:1; 5:32–33; 8:1; 16:20; 30:6, 15–20). Fourth, LXX Lev 18:5 clearly renders ―life‖ as a result of doing as we will see below. 30 And last, Ezekiel, who draws on H extensively and exhibits many commonalities in thought and ideology, clearly renders ―life‖ as a result, both in his allusions to Lev 18:5 (Ezek 20:11, 13, 21) and in the restoration oracle where life-language abounds (37:1–14 passim). We tentatively conclude, then, that ―life‖ is a result of doing the ―statutes and ordinances‖ according to the author of H. And if Lev 18:5 can be read in connection with the blessings of 26:3–14, as convincingly argued by Watson, then we can refer to the ―life‖ of 18:5 as a covenantal blessing of ―life.‖ Our second interpretive issue is the syntactical function of b in the phrase Mhb. It can be rendered either as ―in them‖ in the sense of ―in accordance with them,‖ or as ―by them‖ in the sense of ―by means of them.‖ In the former 29

Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1522. However, this may be due either to his understanding of the Hebrew or his own theological bias. As such, the LXX interpretation adds only minor support for the ―result‖ view. 30

34 Chapter 2: The Use of Lev 18:5 in Leviticus, Ezekiel, Nehemiah, and the Septuagint

rendering, the ―life‖ is not a result of ―doing‖ the commandments but is nearly synonymous with the performance itself: to do the commandments is to live by them.31 In the other view, ―life‖ is a result; it is gained by means of doing the commandments. Support for the first view – taking the b as a locative – comes in 18:4 where the phrase Mhb tkll clearly means, ―to walk in them‖ (i.e. to live in accordance with the statutes and judgments). However, in the light of the meaning of yxw discussed above, the b of Mhb should be rendered as ―by them,‖ not ―in them.‖ The Israelite and the resident alien who performs the ―statutes and judgments‖ will enjoy the covenantal blessing of abundant (and long) life in the land of Israel. 2.1.2 Summary We have examined the meaning of Lev 18:5b in the context of H and concluded that its exhortation is given to both the Israelite and the rg. While the ―statutes and judgments‖ are a general description of all (i.e. non-specific) the laws of H, the narrative unit of 18–20 suggests a mild focus on the purity laws related to the land in 18–20. The ―life‖ of 18:5 probably refers to ―life‖ as a result of doing the ―statutes and judgments‖ and may also extend to the covenantal blessings of 26:3–13, which also relate to the land. Failure to carry out Lev 18:5, then, will result in extirpation, death, or expulsion from the land, and ultimately will evoke the covenant curses of 26:14–39.

2.2 Leviticus 18:5 in Ezekiel Leviticus 18:5 is alluded to three times in Ezek 20 (vv. 11, 13, 21) and perhaps elsewhere in Ezek 18 and 33.32 Since I have argued elsewhere 31

So Walter Kaiser, ―Leviticus: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections,‖ in The New Interpreter‟s Bible Commentary in Twelve Volumes (ed. Leander Keck; vol 1; Nashville: Abingdon, 1994), 985–1191 [1124–25]. 32 This of course assumes that H is earlier than Ezekiel. Some scholars, mostly those from the late 19th and early 20th centuries, believe that Ezekiel is earlier than H (see e.g. Rudolf Smend, Der Prophet Ezekiel [Keh 2nd ed.; Leipzig, 1880]; J. Herrmann, Ezechielstudien [BWANT 2; Leipzig, 1908]; recently defended by Klaus Gründwaldt, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz). Most scholars today believe that Ezekiel is later than H, and I will be following the majority view; see e.g. H. Graf Reventlow, Wächter über Israel (BZAW 82; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1962); Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20 (AB 22a; New York: Doubleday, 1983); Paul Joyce, Divine Initiative and Human Response in Ezekiel (JSOTSup 51; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989); Leslie Allen, Ezekiel 1–19 (WBC 28a; Dallas: Word, 1994); Avi Hurvitz, A Linguistic Study of the Relationship Between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel (Paris: Gabalda, 1982); Thomas Renz, The Rhetorical Function of the Book of Ezekiel (VTSup 76; Leiden: Brill, 1999); Ka Leung Wong, The Idea of Retribution in the Book of Ezekiel (VTSup 87; Leiden: Brill, 2001). Walther Zimmerli, in his highly influential work on Ezekiel, argues that both the book of Ezekiel [through an ―Ezekiel school‖] and H developed

2.2 Leviticus 18:5 in Ezekiel

35

concerning the significance of Lev 18:5 for the structure and theology of the book as a whole, I will only summarise my argument below.33 I will first note the allusions to Lev 18:5 in Ezek 18, 20, and 33, and then explain the function that the Leviticus text has within the scope of the book. 2.2.1 Allusions to Leviticus 18:5 in Ezekiel 18, 20, and 33 Leviticus 18:5 is clearly alluded to on at least three occasions in Ezek 20: Mhb yxw Md)h Mwt) h#o(y r#O) Mtw) yt(dwh y+p#Om t)w ytwqx t) I revealed to them my statutes and my judgments which if a person does them he will live by them. (Ezek 20:11) Mhb yxw Md)h Mt) h#o(y r#O) ws)m y+p#Om t)w wklh )l ytwqxb They did not walk in my statutes and they despised my judgments which if a person does them he will live by them. (Ezek 20:13) yxw Md)h Mt) h#o(y r#O) Mtw) tw#o(l wrm#O )l y+p#Om t)w wklh )l ytwqxb Mhb They did not walk in my statutes and they did not keep my judgments which if a person does them he will live by them. (Ezek 20:21)

These allusions are clear. There is another possible reference to Lev 18:5 a few verses later, though with an ironic twist: Mhb wyxy )l My+p#Omw Mybw+ )l Myqx Mhl yttn yn) Mgw And I also gave to them statutes which were not good and judgments by which they could not live. (Ezek 20:25)

Whatever these ―no good laws‖ refer to,34 it seems clear that this statement is rhetorically connected to the previous three Leviticus clauses (20:11, 13, 21). Since Israel has chosen not to ―walk in the statutes and keep the judgments by which they could live,‖ God has sealed their fate by giving them ―no good laws by which they cannot live‖ (20:25).35

together and had a mutual influence upon each other (Ezekiel 1 [Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979], 46–52, 68–71). 33 Preston M. Sprinkle, ―Law and Life: The Use of Leviticus 18.5 in the Literary Framework of Ezekiel,‖ JSOT 31 (2007), 55–73. 34 Some interpreters say that Ezekiel is referring specifically to first-born sacrificial laws of Exod 22:28–29, whether it was abused or simply misinterpreted (see e.g. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 411–12; Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985], 182–87). 35 Ezekiel is especially fond of exploiting God‘s sovereignty through radical acts of vengeance. For instance, in 9:7 God gives a command to ―defile the temple.‖ In 14:9 God is said to be the cause of the deceptive prophet. In 20:39 Yahweh commands the present generation to ―Go, serve everyone his idols.‖ It seems that a similar type of rhetoric is being used here.

36 Chapter 2: The Use of Lev 18:5 in Leviticus, Ezekiel, Nehemiah, and the Septuagint

While commentators frequently recognise the allusions to Lev 18:5 in Ezek 20, they often miss similar references to this text in Ezek 18. The following passages also reflect Lev 18:5: hyxy hyx )wh qydc Mt)36 tw#o(l rm#O y+p#Omw Klhy ytwqxb [If] he walks in my statutes, keeps my judgments to do them, he is righteous, he will surely live. (Ezek 18:9) hyxy hyx wyb) Nw(b twmy )l )wh Klh ytwqxb h#o( y+p#Om . . . he does my judgments, walks in my statutes, he will not die in the iniquity of his father, he will surely live. (Ezek 18:17) hyxy hyx Mt) h#o(yw rm#O ytwqx lk t) h#o( hqdcw +p#Om Nbhw When the son does justice and righteousness, when he keeps all my statutes and does them, he will surely live. (Ezek 18:19) hqdcw +p#Om h#o(w ytwqx lk t) rm#Ow h#o( r#O) wt)+x lkm bw#Oy yk (#Orhw hyxy hyx But if the wicked man turns from all his sin which he does, to keep all my statutes and does justice and righteousness he will surely live. (Ezek 18:21)

In all of these passages, criterion 1 is satisfied since the two constituents h#o( and hyx are apparent, and the terms rm#O (―keep‖) and Klh (―walk‖) are found in the near context of Lev 18:3–5,37 thus criterion 3 is also satisfied. This is strengthened further since the object of h#o( (or rm#O, Klh) is the ―statutes and judgments‖ (twqx My+p#Omw) which corresponds to Lev 18:2– 5. In light of the clear references to Lev 18:5 in Ezek 20 (criterion 4), it is likely that the prophet is alluding to Lev 18:5 here as well. Furthermore, as mentioned above, the concept of ―life‖ as a result of ―keeping/doing‖ the ―statutes‖ and ―judgments‖ occurs only once in H (Lev 18:5), suggesting that Ezek 18 is alluding to Lev 18:5 when employing a similar law-life concept.38 Ezekiel 33:10–20 may also exhibit the influence of Lev 18:5, as indicated by its literary connection to chapter 18 (esp. vv. 21–32) and by the opening question that sets the tone of the following discourse: ―Surely our transgressions and our sins are upon us, and we are rotting away in them; how then can we live? (hyxn Ky)w)‖ (33:10b). This establishes the main burden of the following verses: how can Israel live? Life language is pervasive in this 36

I have amended the MT (tm)) to conform to the LXX (au)ta/) following most commentators; see Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 330; Zimmerli, Ezekiel I, 371; G. A. Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1936), 199. 37 Klh is mentioned twice in Lev 18:3–4. rm#O occurs in Lev 18:4 and 18:5a. 38 A similar connection occurs throughout Deuteronomy as well. However, Ezekiel draws upon H much more than on Deuteronomy and explicitly alludes to Lev 18:5 three times in chapter 20. Therefore, Ezekiel‘s conception of ―living‖ as a result of ―keeping/doing‖ the ―statutes‖ and ―judgments‖ should be connected to H and specifically to Lev 18:5.

2.2 Leviticus 18:5 in Ezekiel

37

section (vv. 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19) and the phrase Myyxh twqx (―the statutes of life,‖ 33:15) is perhaps related to the Leviticus allusions in chapters 18 and 20.39 An allusion to Lev 18:5 may also be detected in 33:19: hyxy )wh Mhyl( hqdcw +p#Om h#o(w wt(#Orm (#Or bw#Obw40 But when the wicked turns from his wickedness and does justice and righteousness, he will live by them. (Ezek 33:19)

In short, Lev 18:5 is alluded to throughout Ezek 18, 20, and perhaps 33. The theological function of this text for the book as a whole is significant as we will briefly show. 2.2.2 Leviticus 18:5 in the Literary Framework of Ezekiel The book of Ezekiel is known for its literary precision and creativity. There is a careful structure in Ezekiel marked by repetition of themes to the extent that no part can be fully understood in isolation from the rest of the narrative 41 – and the function of Lev 18:5 is no different. The Leviticus formulations in Ezekiel are connected to, and perhaps generative of, two dominant motifs in the book: the obligation for Israel to obey the ―statutes and judgments‖ of the law, and the blessing of ―life‖ that will be giving to those who obey. The phrase ―walking in my statutes and observing my judgments‖ occurs early in the book (5:6–7; 11:12, 20), but displays a particular density in chapters 18 (vv. 9, 17, 19 cf. 21) and 20 (vv. 11, 13, 18, 19, 21 cf. 25) where it is often connected to Lev 18:5 as we have seen. This formula does not occur again until 36:27, where God causes Israel to ―walk in my statutes and observe my judgments,‖ and finally in 37:24, where the Davidic king enables Israel to ―walk in my statutes . . .‖ etc. A similar trend is exhibited with Ezekiel‘s use of life language. The verb hyx, which occurs in the first part of the book (3:18, 21; 13:19, 22; 16:6), is also abundant in chapters 18 (vv. 9, 13, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 32) and 20 (11, 13, 21, 25). The verb does not occur again until the transitional section 33:10–20 (vv. 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19) and in the vision of the dry bones in 37:1–14. This framework, then, suggests that there is a composition connection between the unfulfilled ―statutes and ordinances‖ in chapters 18 and 20 with their fulfilment in 36:25 39 Cf. Zimmerli: ―Eine schöne Umschreibung und Auslegung des kurzgerafften twqx Myyxh von 33,15 ist in 20, 11.13.21 zu hören‖ (W. Zimmerli, ‗―Leben‖ und ―Tod‖ im Buche des Propheten Ezechiel,‖ ThZ 13 [1957], 494–508 [498]). 40 The Leviticus text has Mhb whereas Ezekiel has Mhyl( here, but perhaps it is no more than a stylistic variation. 41 As Rolf Rendtorff states: ‗[N]icht nur Texte nach bestimmten Gesichtspunkten gesammelt worden sind, sondern daß manche Texte schon im Blick auf den kompositorischen Zusammenhang formuliert worden sind . . .‘ (―Ez 20 und 36,16ff im Rahmen der Komposition des Buches Ezechiel,‖ in Ezekiel and His Book [ed. J. Lust; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1986], 263; see too Renz, Rhetorical Function.

38 Chapter 2: The Use of Lev 18:5 in Leviticus, Ezekiel, Nehemiah, and the Septuagint

and 37:24; likewise, there is a connection between the life unattained by Israel in chapters 18, 20 and 33 and their new life in 37:1–14. Here in the vision of the dry bones, life language abounds once again (vv. 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 14); thus, the life that was offered in the earlier portions of Ezekiel is finally given in Ezek 37 when God‘s breathes life into the nation. The general connection can be seen as follows: ―statutes and judgments‖ unfulfilled in Ezek 5, 11, esp. 18, 20, cf. 33

―statutes and judgments‖ fulfilled through divine agency in Ezek 36:27 and 37:24

blessing of life unfulfilled in Ezek 18, 20 and 33

blessing of life fulfilled through divine agency in Ezek 37:1–14

The relationship between the ―statutes and judgments‖ formula and the potential life therein is summarised in Lev 18:5. Thus, even where Lev 18:5 is not directly alluded to (e.g., chs. 36–37), it is probable that this text had some influence on both the life language and the ―statutes and judgments‖ formula that occurs throughout the book. A brief summary of the law-life (and death!) theme in Ezekiel reveals a striking relationship between Lev 18:5 and the restoration oracle in Ezek 36– 37. In Ezek 18, God offers the nation life conditioned upon their obedience to the ―statutes and judgments‖ and their practice of ―justice and righteousness.‖ Ezekiel 18 as a whole is a subtle rebuke to the entire nation since it is clear that they are not carrying out these commands: ―O house of Israel, is it not your ways that are not right?‖ (18:29); ―make for yourselves a new heart and new spirit‖ (18:31); ―why will you die, O house of Israel . . . therefore, repent and live‖ (18:31–32). Israel has not performed the ―statutes and judgments‖ and thus they have chosen death rather than life. Chapter 20 carries the theme of law and life and makes explicit what was stated subtly in chapter 18: Israel has rejected God‘s ―statutes and judgments‖ and has forfeited the life therein. That is, Israel has not met the conditional demands of Lev 18:5, so God has given her ―no good laws by which she can not live by‖ (20:25). Restoration is promised in Ezek 20:33–44, not in response to the repentance of the nation but solely by God‘s sovereign initiative. As seen above, life language is absent from 20:25 until 33:10–20 where it dominates once again. Here, as in chapter 18, the conditional offer of life is held out, but it is clear that Israel‘s wickedness is far too great; life gained by her initiative is impossible. Ezekiel 33, then, amplifies the portrait of a dying nation, which began in chapter 18 and carried on in chapter 20. Although in

2.2 Leviticus 18:5 in Ezekiel

39

principle the wicked house of Israel can live if they turn from their sin, even they acknowledge that such an event is not likely to happen (33:10b). This sets the stage for the restoration oracle, beginning in Ezek 36–37. This passage emphasises God‘s initiative in restoring the wicked nation and is a direct response to the desperate situation portrayed in chapter 20. 42 In particular, the ―statutes and judgments‖ formula, last seen in 20:25, is used again in 36:27. But here, it is God himself who causes Israel to obey: Mty#o(w wrm#Ot y+p#Omw wklt yqxb r#O) t) yty#o(w 43 Mkbrqb Nt) yxwr t)w And I will put my Spirit in you and cause you to walk in my statutes and you will keep my judgments and do them. (Ezek 36:27)

This statement is a divine reversal of the disobedience of Israel to the ―statutes and judgments‖ of Yahweh of the previous dispensation. What was previously held out as a conditional possibility is here fulfilled by God himself in restoration. The divine agency in eliciting obedience from the nation is also seen in Ezek 37: w#o(w wrm#Oy ytqxw wkly y+p#Ombw Mlkl hyhy dx) h(wrw Mhyl( Klm dwd ydb(w Mtw) And my servant David will be king over them and they will have one shepherd for all of them, and they will walk in my statutes and keep my judgments and do them. (Ezek 37:24)

Once again, it is God‘s initiative that causes Israel to obey through the Davidic king.44 Since Israel was unable to do the ―statutes and judgments,‖ Yahweh must incite obedience in the program of restoration. The same ―statutes and judgments‖ formula is maintained while the agency in carrying these out has changed. Life language is not mentioned in either 36:27 or 37:24 mentioned above, but there is a connection between 36:27a (―And I will put my spirit within you‖) and the revivification of Israel in 37:1–14, where life language abounds once again. In 36:27a Yahweh puts his xwr ―within them,‖ and in 37:1–14 it is this same xwr that causes Israel to live once again. Therefore, there is a connection between the ―statutes and judgments‖ as a way to life in chapters 18 and 20, which was unfulfilled, and the ability to keep them by divine agency (36:27; 37:24) through the life-giving Spirit in chapter 37. With chapter 37, then, the relationship of Lev 18:5 to the framework of Ezekiel is complete and may be laid out by the following diagram, modified slightly from the one at the beginning of this section:

42

Along with Rendtorff‘s article, ―Ez 20 und 36,16ff,‖ see also Greenberg, Ezekiel, 1.382–83; Renz, Rhetorical Function, 110–11. 43 On this construction, see Cooke, Ezekiel, 395; cf. GKC, §157. 44 For the Davidic king enabling obedience, see Sprinkle, ―Law and Life,‖ 71.

40 Chapter 2: The Use of Lev 18:5 in Leviticus, Ezekiel, Nehemiah, and the Septuagint

Chs. 18, 20, 33: ―if you walk in my statutes and my judgments you will live‖

36:27: ―I will put my Spirit within you and cause you to walk in my statutes . . .‖

37:1–14: the Spirit gives life 37:24–28: the Davidic king enables Israel to “walk in my statutes and observe my judgments”

What was previously conditioned upon human agency – ―if the person does these things he will live by them‖ – is now replaced by divine agency. Israel will indeed do the ―statutes and judgments‖ and ―live by them,‖ but through God‘s initiative. 2.2.3 Summary Leviticus 18:5 is alluded to in various passages in Ezekiel, most explicitly throughout chapter 20. What many interpreters fail to notice is the degree to which this text has influenced the theology of the book as a whole. We have attempted to show that not only was Lev 18:5 alluded to in chapter 18 and 33, but that it also bears a relationship to the oracle of restoration in Ezek 36–37. It seems that the prophet did not believe that Israel was capable of meeting the conditional demands of Lev 18:5; life and obedience to the ―statutes and judgments‖ will be elicited from the nation through divine agency.

2.3 Leviticus 18:5 in Nehemiah 9:29 Nehemiah 9 consists of a long penitential prayer made by the Levites (9:5) on behalf of the remnant of Israel.45 The prayer probably has an origin 45

For general discussions on the form, structure, and theology of the prayer, see the commentaries by H. G. M. Williamson, Ezra–Nehemiah (WBC 16; Waco: Word Books, 1985), 305–10; Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezra–Nehemiah: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster-John Knox, 1988), 301–303; F. C. Fensham, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 222–223, 227–229. See also the articles by Tamara Cohn Eskenazi, ―Nehemiah 9–10: Structure and Significance,‖ Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 3 (2000–2001), 1–9; Rolf Rendtorff, ―Nehemiah 9: an Important Witness of Theological Reflection,‖ in Tehillah le-Moshe: Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenburg (ed. M. Cogan, B. L. Eichler, and J. Tigay; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 111–17, and H. G. M. Williamson, ―Structure and Historiography in Nehemiah 9,‖ in Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Panel Sessions: Bible Studies and Ancient Near East (ed. Goshen-Gottstein; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988), 117– 31. There have also been three recent dissertations published on the prayer, covering the tradition history (Mark J. Boda, Praying the Tradition: The Origin and Use of Tradition in Nehemiah 9 [BZAW 277; Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1999]), use of Scripture

2.3 Leviticus 18:5 in Nehemiah 9:29

41

independent from its present location in Nehemiah, but as it stands in the final form it makes up the centre of the covenant renewal ceremony of Neh 8–10.46 The prayer outlines Israel‘s history from creation to exile (9:5–31) and concludes with a petition for forgiveness and deliverance of the present community (9:32–37). Several features of the historical review stand out. The prayer is saturated with scriptural allusions, most of which are drawn from Deuteronomistic literature, although all portions of the Pentateuch are represented.47 Theologically, the prayer displays patterns of Deuteronomic retribution – when Israel disobeys they are justly punished – and yet God‘s grace, compassion, and everlasting forgiveness are also portrayed. God has not and will not ―make an end of them or forsake them‖ (9:31); indeed, God‘s role as a gracious ―giver‖ is highlighted throughout.48 The law of Moses is emphasised as well, and for the author of Neh 9, the grace of God is not opposed to the law of God; rather, the ―gift‖ of the law is itself an act of grace.49 The law, in fact, exhibits a central place in the prayer and is even viewed alongside of YHWH himself: to reject the law is to reject God; to return to God is to return to the law.50 2.3.1 The Function of Leviticus 18:5 in Nehemiah 9:29 The final portion of the prayer (vv. 26–31) forms a unit and displays a cyclical pattern of sin–judgment–petition–restoration evident in the book of

(Judith H. Newman, Praying by the Book: The Scripturalization of Prayer in Second Temple Judaism [SBLEJL 14; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999], 55–116), and theological and literary aspects of the prayer (Michael W. Duggan, The Covenant Renewal in Ezra–Nehemiah [Neh 7:72b–10:40]: An Exegetical, Literary, and Theological Study [SBLDS 164; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001]). 46 See Williamson, Ezra–Nehemiah, 276; cf. M. A. Throntveit, Ezra–Nehemiah (IBC; Louisville: John Knox, 1992), 95–96, 103. 47 Williamson, Ezra–Nehemiah, 312; Newman, Praying, 63–65; Rendtorff, ―Nehemiah 9,‖ 111. 48 God is the subject of the verb Ntn 14 times in the prayer and YHWH as a gracious giver is a theme reiterated throughout; see M. Gilbert, ―La Place de la loi dans la prière de Néhemiah 9,‖ in De la Tôrah au Messie (ed. M. Carrez, J. Dore, and P. Grelot; Paris: Desclee, 1981), 310; Duggan, Covenant Renewal, 168–69. 49 Throntveit, Ezra–Nehemiah, 105. The central role of Exod 34:6, cited in Neh 9:17b and echoed throughout the prayer (cf. vv. 19, 27, 28, 31), highlights the importance of the grace and compassion of God; see the analysis by Judith H. Newman, ―Nehemiah 9 and the Scripturalization of Prayer,‖ in The Function of Scripture in Early Jewish and Christian Tradition (JSNTSup 154; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1998), 112–123; idem, Praying by the Book, 88–92. 50 Gilbert, ―Néhemiah 9,‖ 313; Williamson, Ezra–Nehemiah, 316.

42 Chapter 2: The Use of Lev 18:5 in Leviticus, Ezekiel, Nehemiah, and the Septuagint

Judges (e.g., 2:11–23).51 The people rebel (v. 26, 28a), they are delivered into the hands of their enemies (27a, 28b), they cry to God who ―hears from heaven‖ (27b, 28c), and God delivers them (27c, 28d). The third cycle begins in v. 29 and it is here that Lev 18:5 is alluded to: w)+x Ky+p#Ombw Kytwcml w(m#O )lw wdyzh hmhw Ktrwt l) Mby#Ohl Mhb d(tw Mhb hyxw Md) h#o(y r#O) Mb And you admonished them in order to turn them back to your law. Yet they acted arrogantly and did not listen to your commandments but sinned against your judgments, which a man will do and live by them. (Neh 9:29)

This third wave of rebellion results in the divine judgment of exile: ―Therefore, you gave them into the hand of the people of the lands‖ (9:30b). God‘s gracious commitment to his people is emphasised once again (9:31), leaving the other two elements of the cycle – petition and restoration – to be taken over by the present community who write themselves into the script of Israel‘s history by entreating God to forgive and restore their generation (9:32–37).52 The community then makes a ―faithful agreement‖ (Mytrk hnm), 10:1 [Eng. 9:38])53 and vows to ―enter into a curse and oath to walk in God‘s law . . . and to keep and do all the commandments of YHWH our Lord‖ (10:30[29]). Regarding the function of the Leviticus formulation, we can make the following observations. First, we may note that the Lev 18:5 clause occurs in a prayer. While this is the first time the text has been cited in this framework, it will occur later in Second Temple prayers on two occasions (4Q266 11; 4Q504 6). It may be, then, that later uses of Lev 18:5 are actually drawn from the prayer of Neh 9. Second, as in Ezek 20, Lev 18:5 is alluded to in reference to Israel‘s rebellious past. As with Ezek 20, then, Lev 18:5 functions negatively: the text

51

Blenkinsopp also notes similarities between Neh 9:26–31 and Ezek 20 (Ezra– Nehemiah, 306). 52 Gilbert, ―Néhemiah 9,‖ 313; Duggan, Covenant Renewal, 165–66. 53 The sense of the phrase hnm) Mytrk has been a matter of much dispute. It can be rendered, ―to make a covenant‖ (RSV), or ―to make a firm agreement‖ (NIV). For a discussion, see David A. Glatt-Gilad, ―Reflections on the Structure and Significance of hnm) (Neh 10:29–40),‖ ZAW 112/3 (2000), 386–95; Williamson, Ezra–Nehemiah, 331–32. Eskenazi argues, rightly to my mind, that the phrase, in whatever sense it is taken, is structurally associated with the faith of Abraham in 9:8 (―And you did find his heart faithful [Nm)n] before you‖). As such, the faithful pledge of 10:1 echoes the faithful heart of 9:8 and binds the persona of Abraham together with the renewed community: God‘s dealings with Abraham are the foundational paradigm of how he will deal with the faithful remnant (see Eskenazi, ―Nehemiah 9,‖ 5–8; similarly Fredrick C. Holmgren, Israel Alive Again: A Commentary on the Books of Ezra–Nehemiah [ITC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987], 136– 37; Throntveit, Ezra–Nehemiah, 108).

2.3 Leviticus 18:5 in Nehemiah 9:29

43

is used to describe what Israel should have done but failed to do.54 This is different from the original context of Lev 18:5 where the text is used apodictically, as a prescription of what Israel should do. In Ezekiel and Nehemiah, Lev 18:5 is a description of the past not a prescription for the present. Furthermore, both passages portray a cyclical pattern of the rebellion (Ezek 20:5–26 and Neh 9:26–31). In Ezek 20, each generation (the one at Sinai and two different wilderness generations) rebels against YHWH and participates in a downward spiral of apostasy, an apostasy described as failing to carry out Lev 18:5 (Ezek 20:11, 13, 21, cf. 26).55 Here too in Neh 9:26–31, we see three cycles of rebellion by Israel in the land. Again, Lev 18:5 is written into the third cycle (vv. 29–31) in reference to their apostasy. In light of the commonalities between Ezek 20:5–26 and Neh 9:26–31, it may be that the author of Neh 9 has drawn the Leviticus formulation from Ezek 20 rather than Lev 18 – if we must choose between the two.56 Third, we may note a major difference between the function of ―life‖ according to Nehemiah‘s use of Leviticus as opposed to Ezekiel‘s use. In Ezekiel, while the nation forfeited the life through their incessant rebellion, they will gain it through the agency of the Spirit when God restores the nation (Ezek 36:25–26; 37:1–14). Here in Nehemiah, however, while the nation forfeits the life of Leviticus, there is no explicit fulfilment of this conditional offer of life in the rest of the narrative. In order to reverse the cycle of national disobedience (9:26–31), the renewed covenant community cries out to God in confession and petition (9:32–37) and makes a ―faithful agreement‖ (hnm) Mytrk) to obey God‘s commandments, ordinances, and statutes (10:30), and yet ―life‖ is not mentioned in their hope of restoration. One final observation related to the previous one; the relationship between divine and human agency in the hope of restoration is quite different from Ezekiel. Here in Nehemiah, the community still awaits restoration, hoping to obtain it through their renewed agreement. But unlike Ezekiel whose vision of restoration is unilateral, Nehemiah‘s hope is more synergistic: God will

54 So Joel Willitts, ―Context Matters: Paul‘s Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12,‖ TynB 54 (2003), 105–122 (113–14). 55 See Sprinkle, ―Law and Life,‖ 65–68. 56 Boda argues that the author of Neh 9 has used Ezek 20 at various points in the prayer (Praying, 14, 166–67; following W. Chrostowski, ―An Examination of Conscience by God‘s People as Exemplified in Neh 9:6–37,‖ BZ 34 [1990], 253–61). He notes the following similarities: 1) the emphasis on rebellion in the wilderness, 2) the relationship between the wilderness and the giving of the law, 3) the emphasis on the Sabbath command in association with terms for law, 4) references to two distinct wilderness generations, and 5) linkage of adjectives with terms for law (Boda, Praying, 167). Gilbert notes that the author has been inspired by ―Lv 18,5 ou d‘Ez 20,11.13.21‖ and goes on to point out the correspondence between Neh 9:29 and Ezek 20 (―Néhémie 9,‖ 313–14).

44 Chapter 2: The Use of Lev 18:5 in Leviticus, Ezekiel, Nehemiah, and the Septuagint

restore the community when it repents and turns back to God‘s law (Neh 10:1 [9:38], 29–32 [28–31]). 2.3.2 Summary Nehemiah‘s use of Lev 18:5 is similar to Ezek 20 and may be drawn from this latter passage. The Leviticus clause, however, is just one of many allusions in this Scripture-saturated prayer, which raises a question concerning its significance. Is this text fundamental to the author‘s theology as was the case in Ezekiel, or is he simply using biblical phraseology with little or no reflection on the text‘s original meaning? Judith Newman has argued that the use of Scripture in Neh 9 is more complex than has usually been perceived and refers to the author‘s use of Scripture as a ―learned reflection‖ on the prior texts.57 If the author of Nehemiah has adapted the Leviticus formulation through ―learned reflection,‖ the source of this reflection was probably Ezek 20 and not Lev 18. But the author may not have had any specific passage in mind with his use of the Leviticus formulation. He may be using what Bonnie Kittel has described as a ―deliberate biblical expression‖ borrowed from Scripture as a ―common stock‖ phrase, ―authenticating his style, theology, and language.‖58 The author, then, is not ―alluding‖ to Ezek 20 in the sense of drawing attention to that former passage; rather, he may be using what has become, or is becoming, a standardised phrase or common idiom.59 In this case, the Leviticus formulation is used to describe what Israel should have done but failed to do, thus forfeiting the covenant blessing of life. Leviticus 18:5 does not seem to be as fundamental to Nehemiah‘s theology as it was to Ezekiel‘s, and yet the subtle use of Lev 18:5 as a ―common stock‖ phrase testifies to its (growing) popularity. This suggestion is supported by its frequent, albeit allusive, use in latter Second Temple literature, as we will see below.

57

Newman, ―Scripturalization,‖ 112; idem, Praying, 63–65. Bonnie Kittel, The Hymns of Qumran: Translation and Commentary (Atlanta: Scholars Pres, 1981), 48–55 (50). Kittel is referring to the allusive use of Scripture in the Hadayot hymns of Qumran, but I find her discussion most appropriate for the similar use of Scripture in Nehemiah 9. 59 Boda also refers to the Leviticus clause as an ―idiom‖ (Praying, 64, 177). 58

2.4 The Septuagint Translation of Leviticus 18:5

45

2.4 The Septuagint Translation of Leviticus 18:5 2.4.1 Introduction to LXX Leviticus, Ezekiel, and Nehemiah The field of Septuagint studies has been rapidly growing in recent years and specialists are addressing a variety of new issues.60 However, very few of these matters will affect our examination of the Lev 18:5 in LXX Leviticus, Ezekiel, and Nehemiah. In the following, we will first introduce the translation tendencies of each book, and then examine the translation of Lev 18:5 in the LXX against the backdrop of the MT.61 Scholars agree that the Pentateuch was translated into Greek in the middle of the third century B.C.E.62 Subsequent translations of the rest of the Hebrew Bible into Greek probably occurred sometime in the following century by multiple authors in, perhaps, different locations.63 The translation of the Pentateuch was probably carried out by a group of Alexandrian Jews, and not an individual, since there are variations in translation technique among these five books. Regarding Leviticus, the translation is much more literal than the (relatively) freer translations of Genesis and Exodus, though the Pentateuch as a whole is generally more literal than the translations of other books such as Isaiah and Proverbs.64 This does not mean, however, that LXX Leviticus is purely mechanical: there are plenty of instances where the translator tried to 60

See the recent collection of essays in Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden, eds., Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures (SBLSCS 53; Atlanta: SBL, 2006). 61 Although it is anachronistic to refer to the LXX Vorlage as the ―MT,‖ I will be using the term as a designation for ―the majority text that we have in Hebrew that witnesses to the HB [Hebrew Bible]‖ (see R. Timothy McLay, The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003], 7–8). It should also be noted that there is no attestation of this text among the Leviticus fragments found at Qumran, and the Samaritan Pentateuch is similar to the MT: Md)h Mt) h#o(y r#O) y+p#Om-t)w ytqx t) Mtrm#Ow hwhy yn) Mhb hyxw. Regarding the terms ―LXX‖ and ―Septuagint,‖ I will be using these interchangeably to refer to the critical edition of the Göttingen edition as the best possible replication of the original Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. For the use of the terms Septuagint versus Old Greek, see Karen H. Jobes and Moisés Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint (Grand Rapids: Baker: 2000), 30–33. 62 The famous story of the translation is recorded in the Letter of Aristeas but the historicity of this account is widely disputed. For a discussion, see Benjamin G. Wright III, ―Translation as Scripture: The Septuagint in Aristeas and Philo,‖ in Septuagint Research, 47– 61; Jobes and Silva, Invitation, 33–37. 63 The prologue to Sirach, dated around 132 B.C.E., refers to the translation of the rest of the books of the Hebrew Bible. 64 John Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Leviticus (SCS 44; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), ix, xxii; Anneli Aejmelaeus, On the Trial of the Septuagint Translators (Kampen: Pharos, 1993), 84–85, P. Harlé and D. Pralon, Le Lévitique (La Bible d‘Alexandrie 3; Paris: Cerf, 1988), 49.

46 Chapter 2: The Use of Lev 18:5 in Leviticus, Ezekiel, Nehemiah, and the Septuagint

―make sense‖ of the text,65 although free renderings are rare in comparison to other Pentateuchal books.66 It is likely, then, that a different translator is responsible for Leviticus.67 LXX Ezekiel exhibits a fairly literal translation as well,68 though scholars dispute how many translators were involved.69 The relationship between the LXX Ezekiel and the MT is also debated, making it difficult for scholars to speak confidently of perceived pluses and minuses.70 These issues, however, will not affect our brief comments on LXX Ezekiel. Second Esdras (MT EzraNehemiah) also is a very literal translation, perhaps in reaction to the free translation of 1 Esdras.71 Again, as with LXX Ezekiel, the translation tendencies in 2 Esdras will not affect our treatment of 2 Esdras 19:29. 2.4.2 LXX Leviticus 18:5 The Göttingen Septuagint72 renders the MT of Lev 18:5 as such: hwhy yn) Mhb yxw Md)h Mt) h#o(y r#O) y+p#Om -t)w ytqx-t) Mtrm#Ow (Lev 18:5 MT) kai_ fula/cesqe pa/nta ta_ prosta/gmata/ mou kai_ pa/nta ta_ kri/mata/ mou kai_ poih/sete au0ta/, a$ poih/saj a1nqrwpoj zh/setai e0n au0toi~j: e0gw ku/rioj o( qeo_j u9mw~n. 65

See the examples in Wevers, Notes, xix–xxv; cf. Harlé and Pralon, Le Lévitique, 47–81. See Anneli Aejmelaeus, Parataxis in the Septuagint: A Study of the Renderings of the Hebrew Coordinate Clauses in the Greek Pentateuch (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1982), 159–84, esp. 166. 67 Jobes and Silva, Invitation, 169; Aejmelaeus, Parataxis, 175. 68 See Galen Marquis, ―Consistency of Lexical Equivalents as a Criterion for the Evaluation of Translation Technique as Exemplified in the LXX Book of Ezekiel,‖ in VI Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies (ed. Claude E. Cox; SCS 23; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 405–424; idem, ―Word Order as Criterion for the Evaluation of Translation Technique and the Evaluation of Word-Order Variants as Exemplified in LXX-Ezekiel,‖ Textus 13 (1986), 59–90. For an examination of the various pluses and minuses of LXX Ezekiel, see Johan Lust, ―Exegesis and Theology in the Septuagint of Ezekiel: The Longer ‗Pluses‘ and Ezek 43:1–9,‖ in VI Congress, 201–232. 69 L. J. McGregor, The Greek Text of Ezekiel: An Examination of Its Homogeneity (SCS 18; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), esp. 5–19. 70 See E. Tov, ―Recensional Differences Between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint of Ezekiel,‖ in Emanuel Tov, The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint (VTSup 72; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 397–410. I am using the term ―plus,‖ popular in Septuagint studies, rather than ―addition‖ to avoid prejudicing one text over another, e.g. the MT over the LXX Vorlage (see Jobes and Silva, Invitation, 52 n. 16). 71 Jennifer Dines, The Septuagint (London: T & T Clark. 2004), 17–18. For a recent discussion on the literalness of 2 Esdras, see R. Glenn Wooden, ―Interlinearity in 2 Esdras: A Test Case,‖ in Septuagint Research, 119–44. 72 Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1939–). The editors for the books examined in this section are John Wevers (Leviticus, 1986), Joseph Ziegler (Ezekiel, 1952), and Robert Hanhart (2 Esdras, 1993). 66

2.4 The Septuagint Translation of Leviticus 18:5

47

(Lev 18:5 LXX)

There are three notable differences between the LXX and the MT marked in bold. First, the LXX has two plusses of pa/nta in 18:5a.73 The adjective pa~j occurs over 200 times in LXX Leviticus and in all but 20 occasions there is a corresponding lk or Mymt74 in the MT. It is striking that 8 of these 20 modify the commandments, statutes, or judgments of YHWH (apart from 18:5, see also 4:27; 18:26 [2x], 30; 25:18 [2x]). Some of the summary passages75 that refer to keeping the law already have lk and thus are translated with pa~j (19:37; 20:22; 26:15), but it seems that the LXX translator may have deliberately added the adjective to almost every other summary passage. The two exceptions are 22:31 and 26:3 where neither the Hebrew nor Greek have the adjective lk/pa~j. If the translator has added pa~j to his Vorlage – which is difficult to prove beyond doubt – then this may testify to a heightened sense of comprehensive torah observance. Second, the LXX phrase kai_ poih/sete au0ta/ has no correspondence in the MT.76 The lack of evidence for a different Vorlage suggests that the translator, whether intentionally or unintentionally, has added the phrase. Wevers is probably correct that this addition ―represents an attempt to include everything that v.4 had said here as well.‖77 This addition also influenced the translation of the next clause discussed below. The third and final difference is the rendering of the Hebrew imperfect h#o(y with the aorist participle poih/saj. This may in effect have led to the omission of Mt) (―them‖)78 and the conjunction w in the next clause. The difference here can be clearly seen against the backdrop of the very literal translation of Theodotion: o3sa poih/sei au0ta_ o9 a1nqrwpoj kai_ zh/setai e0n au0toi~j (Lev 18:5b Theod)

This characteristically literal translation of Theodotion has represented each Hebrew constituent in Greek.79 Does this mean, then, that the original LXX 73 The second plus has dropped out in mss 107‘–125 through homoioteleuton, according to John Wevers (In addition to the apparatus in the Göttingen Septuagint, see his, Text History of the Greek Leviticus [MSU 19; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986], 47). 74 Mymt is usually translated by dia_ panto/j; e.g. 6:6 [13], 13 [20]; 24:2, 8. 75 For the summary passages of Leviticus, see page 33 above. 76 The plus is not found in manuscripts 107‘–125, 53‘, the Arabic and Syro-hexaplaric versions. Wevers thinks that this plus is recensional (Notes, 274). 77 Wevers, Notes, 274. 78 This direct object is, however, attested in the papyri manuscript 767, Paul (Gal 3:12), Philo, Chrysostom, and Athanasius. 79 The translation of the perfect yxw with the future zh/setai accurately conveys one possible way to render the waw-consecutive following an imperfect verb. In this construction, the second verb often takes on the aspect of the main verb (see GKC §112). In this instance, the translator has accurately rendered the sense of the Hebrew by not translating w with kai/,

48 Chapter 2: The Use of Lev 18:5 in Leviticus, Ezekiel, Nehemiah, and the Septuagint

translator has given a free rendering or modified his Vorlage? As it stands, the Greek translation subordinates the first verb (poih/saj) to the second (zh/setai). The question, however, is whether this is a modification of the Vorlage, or simply one possible way to render the Hebrew. John Wevers thinks that this relative clause ―adds something new‖ to the Hebrew: by subordinating the first verb to the second, the translator places the stress on zh/setai e0n au0toi~j.80 Wevers fails to note, however, that the syntax of the Hebrew, where an imperfect is followed by a waw + perfect, is capable of conveying the sense of subordination rightly captured by the LXX. 81 For instance, MT Deut 2:25 reads: Kynpm wlxw wzgrw K(m#O Nw(m#Oy r#O) . . . who will hear the report of you and will tremble and be in anguish in your presence. (Deut 2:25)

There are many features similar to the construction in Lev 18:5, such as the relative r#O) (―who‖) introducing an imperfect verb (Nw(m#Oy, ―will hear‖) followed by a waw + perfect (wzgrw, ―they will tremble‖). The sense of the first clause is clearly subordinate to the second: the trembling and anguish are dependant upon hearing the report. And this sense is rightly captured by the LXX: oi3tinej a0kou/santej to_ o1noma/ sou taraxqh/sontai kai_ w0di=naj e3cousin a0po_ pro/spou sou. . . . who, having heard your name, shall thus tremble and have anguish from your presence. (Deut 2:25 LXX)

As with LXX Lev 18:5, the first verb is translated with an aorist participle, the waw is left untranslated, and the second verb is rendered as a future; thus the translation: ―who, having heard your name, shall thus tremble and they shall have anguish from your presence.‖ Here in Deut 2:25, the LXX has rightly captured the sense of the Hebrew where the imperfect is logically subordinate to the following waw + perfect. This type of construction in the Hebrew is

since these terms function rather differently in their own language (see Aejmelaeus, Septuagint Translators, 51–53). 80 Notes, 274–75; cf. Avemarie: ―Lev 18:5 LXX possibly presupposes a soteriological reading as well; it abandons the syntactical equation of h#o(y and yxw in favour of a subordination of the participle poih/saj under the future tense zh/setai, so that a modal or conditional relation is implied‖ (Fredrich Avemarie, ―Paul and the Claim of the Law According to the Scripture: Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12 and Romans 10:5,‖ in The Beginnings of Christianity: A Collection of Articles [ed. Jack Pastor and Menachem Mor; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2005], 125–48 [127]). 81 Wevers notes that ―by downsizing h#o(y to a participle, the ‗them‘ might then be transferred to the main verb‖ (Notes, 275).

2.4 The Septuagint Translation of Leviticus 18:5

49

most often seen in conditional sentences,82 where the waw + perfect functions as the apodosis of a protasis-apodosis construction; hence, the so-called apodosis-waw.83 In sum, the LXX rendering of Lev 18:5b is not necessarily a modification of the sense conveyed by the Hebrew; the Hebrew is capable of conveying what is captured by the Greek. It seems that the translation of h#o(y with the aorist participle poih/saj may be the result of the previous addition of kai_ poih/sete au0ta/ in 18:5a. Having added this last phrase, the choice of the aorist participle may have been a way to avoid a tautology. 2.4.3 LXX Ezekiel As noted above, an allusion to Lev 18:5 occurs three times in Ezek 20 (vv. 11, 13, 21) and each time the Hebrew is the same:84 Mhb yxw Md)h Mtw) h#o(y r#O) Mtw) yt(dwh y+p#Om t)w ytwqx t) Mhl Nt)w (Ezek 20:11 MT) kai_ e1dwka au0toi~j ta_ prosta/gmata/ mou kai_ ta_ dikaiw/mata/ mou e0gnw/risa au0toi~j, o3sa poih/sei au0ta_ a1nqrwpoj kai_ zh/setai e0n au0toi=j. (Ezek 20:11 LXX)

The Greek is a very literal translation of the Hebrew and conforms almost exactly (LXX Ezekiel has no article) to Theodotion‘s translation of Lev 18:5 (see above). LXX Lev 20:13 and 21 read the same as 20:11 except for using a4 instead of o3sa. The allusions to Lev 18:5 in Ezek 18 (vv. 9, 17, 19, 21) are also apparent in the LXX without any pluses or minuses to the MT. In chapter 33 there are other possible allusions to Lev 18:5, as we have seen, and there is one plus in the LXX that may bring this out. hyxy wyx h#o( hqdcw +p#Om o3ti kri/ma kai_ dikaiosu/nhn e0poi/hsen, e0n au0toi~j zh/setai. (Ezek 33:16)

The Hebrew hyxy wyx (―he will surely live‖) is usually translated by the Greek zwh~| zh/setai (cf. 18:9, 17, 19, 28; 33:15); however, in 33:16 the 82

Following here the basic definition of a conditional sentence offered by T. O. Lambdin: ―Any two clauses, the first of which states a real or hypothetical condition, and the second of which states a real or hypothetical consequence thereof, may be taken as a conditional sentence‖ (Introduction to Biblical Hebrew [London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1971], 276). While a conditional sentence often begins with a M), Nh, or yk, sometimes it has no indicators as in Lev 18:5. 83 For this function, see especially Bruce K. Waltke and M. O‘Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 525–42; P. Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Subsidia Biblica, 14; 2 vols.; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1991), 512–18, 529–32, and the examples cited. 84 Compare Ezek 20:13 and 21, which both read: Mhb yxw Md)h Mt) h#o(y r#O) (―which if a man does them he will live by them‖). The only difference between these texts is the form of the object marker Mtw) (20:11, with the w) and Mt) (20:13, 21, without the w).

50 Chapter 2: The Use of Lev 18:5 in Leviticus, Ezekiel, Nehemiah, and the Septuagint

phrase e0n au0toi~j zh/setai (―he will live by them‖) is different from the MT. This may be due to a different Vorlage, but it also may be added by the LXX translator to the Hebrew text. If this latter case is correct, then the translator may have been influenced by the wording of Lev 18:5 or the allusions to this text in chapter 20.85 As such, the LXX translator would have been the first to recognise the presence of Lev 18:5 in Ezek 33. 2.4.4 Leviticus 18:5 in 2 Esdras 19:29 Leviticus 18:5 is alluded to in Neh 9:29b: w)+x Ky+p#Ombw Kytwcml w(m#O )lw wdyzh hmhw Ktrwt l) Mby#Ohl Mhb d(tw Mhb hyxw Md) h#o(y r#O) Mb (Neh 9:29) kai_ e0pemartu/rw au0toi~j e0pistre/yai au0tou_j ei0j to_n no/mon sou, kai_ ou0k h1kousan, a0lla_ e0n tai~j e0ntolai~j sou kai_ e0n toi~j kri/masi/ sou h9ma/rtosan, a4 poih/saj au0ta_ a1nqrwpoj zh/setai e0n au0toi=j (2 Esd 19:29 [=Neh 9:29 MT])

The LXX is the same as LXX Lev 18:5, but there is a slight difference between LXX 2 Esd 19:29 and MT Neh 9:29: 2 Esd 19:29 has the plus au0ta/ while the Hebrew text of Neh 9:29 lacks a corresponding Mt), which is present in MT Lev 18:5. If the addition was deliberate, it may have been done to assimilate the text to LXX Leviticus, testifying to the author‘s awareness of the precise wording, and perhaps popularity, of Lev 18:5 at the time of translation. However, it is nearly impossible to tell whether the LXX translator has made an addition to his Vorlage or whether he is dealing with a Vorlage different from our MT. In short, there are no major pluses or minuses that reveal a clear theological Tendenz in the translator‘s understanding of Lev 18:5. 2.4.5 Summary While some scholars note the improvement that the LXX has made on Lev 18:5, we have seen that the translator may have simply rendered what the Hebrew itself conveys. In any case, the Septuagint clearly understands life as a result of doing the commandments (Again, our only dispute is whether the Hebrew may convey this conditional sense as well.) With the allusions to Lev 18:5 in Ezekiel, the wording is more literal than LXX Lev 18:5 and resembles Theod Lev 18:5. Furthermore, there may be an improvement upon Ezek 85

It was common for later LXX translators to consult the Pentateuch to aid their translations, and Tov notes that allusions to the Pentateuch were often phrased according to the LXX Pentateuchal passage; see E. Tov, ―The Impact of the LXX Translation of the Pentateuch on the Translation of the Other Books,‖ in Mélanges Dominique Barthélemy (ed. P. Casetti, O. Keel, and A. Schenker; Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1981), 577–92 (esp. 588–89).

2.4 The Septuagint Translation of Leviticus 18:5

51

33:16, showing an awareness of the wording of Lev 18:5 – though we must exercise caution in matters related to the translator‘s Vorlage. Second Esdras 19:29 resembles Neh 9:29 with one minor plus that does not greatly affect the sense of the passage.

Part 2

Leviticus 18:5 in Early Judaism

Chapter 3

The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in the Damascus Document 3.1 Introduction The Damascus Document has been known to modern scholarship for almost one hundred years since it was first discovered in Cairo and subsequently published by Solomon Schechter in 1910.1 This manuscript is referred to as CD (Cairo Damascus). Its significance was augmented with the Qumran excavations in the 1940s and 1950s when ten fragmentary manuscripts of the Damascus Document were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. These manuscripts are referred to as 4Q266–273, or the 4QD manuscripts, 5Q12 and 6Q15.2 We will examine both CD and the first 4QD fragment, 4Q266, since Lev 18:5 is alluded to in each manuscript. Since the discovery of the 4QD manuscripts from Qumran, numerous issues have arisen in Qumran studies including: the origins of the Qumran community,3 the literary growth of the Damascus Document,4 and the relationship between halachic matters5 in CD/4QD and other Qumran 1 Documents of Jewish Sectaries, I: Fragments of a Zadokite Work (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1910). 2 The 4QD (Damascus Document) fragments are published in Joseph Baumgarten, Qumran Cave 4. XIII. The Damascus Document (4Q266–273) (DJD 18; Oxford: Clarendon, 1996). Over half of the material found in these manuscripts overlaps with CD. The most significant changes to our understanding of CD in light of these later manuscripts include a section that precedes CD I (4Q266 1 a–b; 2 I, 1–6a; 4Q267 1, 2–8; 4Q268 1, 1–8) and a concluding section that portrays an expulsion ceremony not recorded in CD (4Q266 11 1–20; 4Q270 7 I, 15–21; II, 11–15); for a detailed discussion, see Charlotte Hempel, The Damascus Texts (Sheffield: Academic Press, 2000), 26–43. 3 For a discussion on the origins of the community according to CD, see Hempel, The Damascus Texts, 54–70. An earlier discussion can be found in P. Davies, The Damascus Covenant: An Interpretation of the “Damascus Document” (JSOTSup, 25; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1983), 1–47. 4 See the series of articles by Murphy O‘Connor in note 7 below, and the monograph by Davies in note 3 above. 5 There is a dispute concerning the use of the term halachah as a description of Qumran law. Otto Betz rightly contends that the term halachah describes rabbinic oral law as distinct from the written Mosaic law. The Qumranites, however, believed that their (what we would call) sectarian law was the right interpretation of the Mosaic law, not something distinct from it (O. Betz, ―The Qumran Halakhah Text Miqsat Ma„se Ha-Torah [4QMMT] and Sadducean,

56

Chapter 3: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in the Damascus Document

documents, especially the Rule of the Community (1QS) and 4QMMT.6 Nevertheless, these issues are of minor importance for our study. In examining the use of Lev 18:5 in the Damascus Document (CD III, 15–16 and 4Q266 11 I–II, 12), we will assume a Qumran Sitz im Leben, since we know that the document was read and preserved by the Qumranites, while remaining undecided concerning its origin.7 I will also ignore source critical issues regarding the document, since I will be looking at the final form. We will first examine the allusion to Lev 18:5 in CD III, 15–16, and then its allusion in what probably would have been the end of the original document, 4Q266 fragment 11.

3.2 Leviticus 18:5 in the Damascus Document (CD) III, 15–16 CD can be divided into two sections, typically labelled the Admonition (CD A I–VIII, CD B XIX–XX), and the Laws (CD A IX–XVI). The Admonition begins with three discourses each beginning with the phrase, ―And now listen . . .‖ (CD I, 1; cf. II, 2; II, 14).8 The first discourse (I, 1–II, 1) recounts the history of Israel from exile to the raising up of the Teacher of Righteousness. The second discourse (II, 2–13) gives a dualistic portrayal of God‘s dealings with the righteous and the wicked, similar to the Two Spirits Essene, and Early Pharisaic Tradition,‖ in The Aramaic Bible: Targums in Their Historical Context [JSOTSup 166; ed. D. R. G. Beattie and M. J. McNamara; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994], 176–202 (182–85). However, I will use the traditional term halachah – as many Qumran scholars still do (e.g. both Hempel and Schiffman use it in the works below) – to refer to Qumran sectarian law since I can find no better alternative. For a discussion, see Charlotte Hempel, The Laws of the Damascus Document: Sources, Traditions and Redaction (STDJ 29; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998), 25–26; and recently Lawrence H. Schiffman, ―The Dead Sea Scrolls and Rabbinic Halachah,‖ in The Dead Sea Scrolls As Background to Postbiblical Judaism and Early Christianity (STDJ 46; ed. James R. Davila; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 3–24. 6 For all these issues and others, see the survey and discussion in Charlotte Hempel, The Damascus Texts. 7 While I do not assume a particular view about the origin of CD, I find most convincing the theory put forth by Murphy-O‘Connor (―A Literary Analysis of Damascus Document VI,2–VIII,3,‖RB 78 [1971], 210–32; idem, ―The Essenes and their History,‖ RB 81 [1974], 215–44) and followed largely by Davies (The Damascus Covenant, 21–47). They examine CD apart from other Qumran documents, since this is, they argue, the main document which intentionally gives a thorough reconstruction of the community‘s origins. Their view takes the exilic ideology of CD literally and thus places the origin of the community in Babylon sometime between 586 B.C. and the mid-second century B.C.E. The ideology of CD, according to O‘Connor and Davies, should be seen as pre-Qumranic and reflects the views of a wider (and certainly earlier) Essene movement. 8 All translations of CD will be my own based on the text reproduced by M. Broshi, ―The Text of CDC,‖ in The Damascus Document Reconsidered (Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society, 1992), 10–49. All translations of the biblical text are likewise my own.

3.2 Leviticus 18:5 in the Damascus Document (CD) III, 15–16

57

Sermon of 1QS III, 13–IV, 25. The third discourse begins with II, 14, but scholars dispute where it ends. Nearly all interpreters agree that it extends to at least IV, 12a, but for practical reasons, we can limit the context to II, 14– III, 20, since in III, 21 the author begins a slight shift in focus with his midrash on Ezekiel 44:15.9 In what follows, we will first survey the relevant portion of the third discourse (II, 14–III, 20), which provides the literary context for understanding the allusion to Lev 18:5 (CD III, 15–16). We will then look at the Leviticus clause, examining the form and potential biblical source of the allusion. Next, we will consider the content and meaning of ―them‖ (Mhb) and the meaning of ―will live‖ (hyxw), both of which have been transformed from their original biblical meaning. Following this, we will examine the Leviticus allusion in the light of some wider theological issues that are involved in the context of CD II and III, including its relationship to the ―guilty inclination‖ that has brought death to the nation of Israel (CD II, 14– III 12a), and the relationship between divine grace and human obedience in the formation of the community. 3.2.1 CD II, 14–III, 20: The Restoration of the Faithful Remnant The third discourse of the Admonition begins (―And now listen you who . . .‖ II, 14) with a summons to accept, or reject, the teaching of the Damascus community.10 The historical narrative begins with the pre-flood generation (II, 15–21) and includes Noah and his family (III, 2), Abraham and the patriarchs (III, 2–5a), the generations in Egypt and the wilderness (III, 5b–9a), the monarchy (III, 9b), the exile (III, 10–12a), and concludes with the new covenant11 made with the post-exilic generation (III, 12b–20).12 And this last 9

O. J. R. Schwarz sees III, 20–IV, 2b as comprising a different genre than II, 14–III, 20d. She labels the former as one of ―Die erzählenden Texte‖ and the latter as one of ―die exegetischen Texte‖ (Der erste Teil der Damaskusschrift und das AT [Diest: Lichtland, 1965], 75–82, 89–90). 10 There is a debate concerning the audience to whom this third discourse is directed. J. Murphy-O‘Connor labels this section (CD II, 14–VI, 1) ―An Essene Missionary Document,‖ and thus believes that the audience are not members of the Essene movement (―An Essene Missionary Document? CD II, 14–VI, 1,‖ RB 78 [1971], 201–29). Davies takes a modified form of Murphy-O‘Connor‘s view and says that this section is ―catechetical‖ and is directed to ―initiates in the process of making their choice‖ whether to join the community or not (Damascus Covenant, 77 [emphasis original]). M. Knibb is similar, and probably correct, when he says that this discourse is oriented toward those who are either on the verge of entering the community or those who have just recently entered (Michael A. Knibb, The Qumran Community [Cambridge Commentaries on Writings of the Jewish and Christian World 200 BC to AD 200; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987], 27– 28). 11 The term ―new covenant‖ is not used in CD III, but it is found throughout the rest of CD (VI, 19; VIII, 21; IXX, 33; XX, 12; cf. 1QpHab II, 3). From the rest of the document, it is clear that since III, 12b– 20 refers to the foundation of the covenant community, the covenant

58

Chapter 3: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in the Damascus Document

generation are the founders of the author‘s community. Therefore, this narrative is constructed with a view of history that constitutes the theological basis of the formation of the community itself. The discourse is grounded in the exhortation not to ―be attracted by the thoughts of a guilty inclination and lascivious eyes‖ (II, 16). Here, the ―guilty inclination‖ (hm#O) rcy) is the sin that has ensnared each generation who fell away from God. From II, 14 to III, 12a, therefore, the author traces the infectious destruction of the death bringing ―guilty inclination‖ throughout the history of Israel (see §3.2.3.2 below). Apart from a small group of faithful Jews (Abraham and the patriarchs) who resisted this inclination, the entire nation has succumbed to it and perished as a result. 3.2.2 Leviticus 18:5: Its Form and Biblical Source This plight is countered by God‘s decisive act in revealing the ―hidden things‖ to the remnant that remained faithful in the midst of Israel‘s demise (III, 12b– 17a), and the Leviticus allusion occurs in reference to this act. But with those who remained steadfast in God‘s precepts, with those who were left from among them, God established his covenant with Israel 13 forever, to reveal (twlgl) to them hidden things (twrtsn)14 in which all Israel had gone astray: his holy Sabbaths and his in mind in III, 13 (―God established his covenant with Israel forever‖) is the same as the ―new covenant‖ referred to throughout CD (so Craig A. Evans, ―Covenant in the Qumran Literature,‖ in The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period [ed. Stanley E. Porter and Jacqueline C. R. De Roo; Leiden: Brill, 2003], 58–59; Martin G. Abegg, ―The Covenant of the Qumran Sectarians,‖ in The Concept of the Covenant, 81–97 [86– 87]; Knibb, The Qumran Community, 34). 12 Phillip Davies, against the majority who say the text refers to events in the secondcentury B.C.E., argues that the text is referring literally to the post-exilic Babylon community, with whom God renewed his covenant (Damascus Covenant, 83). Whether the events recorded in III, 12–20 refer to the sixth-century or the second-century, it is clear that the Qumran community saw this event as the beginning of their covenant and fundamental to their own existence. 13 The term ―Israel‖ here is used to designate the community as elsewhere in CD (see I, 4– 5; IV, 4–5; XII, 2; XV, 5; cf. 1QS II, 22); see further P.R. Davies, ―The Judaisms in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Case of the Messiah,‖ in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Historical Context (ed. Graeme A. Auld, et al.; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000), 219–32 (31–32); Joseph M. Baumgarten and Daniel R. Schwartz, ―Damascus Document (CD),‖ in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents (ed. James H. Charlesworth; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck); Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 17; contra Markus Bockmuehl, ―1QS and Salvation at Qumran,‖ in Justification and Variegated Nomism: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism (vol. 1; ed. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O‘Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 381–414 (393 n. 44); Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1977), 247. 14 These two phrases are probably alluding to Deut 29:28 (MT); cf. 4Q508 2, 4.

3.2 Leviticus 18:5 in the Damascus Document (CD) III, 15–16

59

glorious feasts, his just stipulations and his truthful paths, and the wishes of his will which if a man does he will live by them (Mhb hyxw Md)h h#o(y r#O), Lev 18:5). He disclosed (xtp) to them and they dug a well of plentiful water; and whoever spurns them shall not live (hyxy )l Mhys)wmw). (CD III, 12b–17a)

The clause Mhb hyxw Md)h h#o(y r#O) reflects the wording of Lev 18:5 (Mhb yxw Mt) Md)h h#o(y r#O)).15 The clause should probably be considered an allusion rather than a citation, since there is no citation formula or explicit interpretive comments that follow. The allusion is woven into the discourse of restoration explicating the result of following the community‘s halachah. But is the writer alluding directly to Leviticus? While a straightforward reference to Leviticus is possible, I suggest that Lev 18:5 is mediated to CD through the interpretive context of Ezek 20 (vv. 11, 13, 21). Ezekiel 20, like CD II, 14–III, 20, is a review of Israel‘s rebellious history, and written into this history is the flagrant disobedience against the statutes and judgments of God, ―by which if a man does he will live by them‖ (Ezek 20:11, 13, 21). Moreover, in both CD and Ezekiel the Sabbath command is fundamental. It is connected to the Leviticus clause each time in Ezek 20, and in CD III, 14–16 the ―holy Sabbaths‖ are part of the content of the things (―them‖) which a man must do. Sabbath keeping, then, is integral to the Leviticus clause in both Ezekiel and CD. Another point of contact between Ezek 20 and CD III comes in CD III, 17, ―whoever spurns them will not live‖ (hyxy )l Mhys)wmw). The term s)m (―spurn, despise‖) is associated with the Leviticus clause in Ezek 20:13, ―They did not walk in my statutes, and they spurned (ws)m) my judgments, which if a man does he will live by them.‖16 Again in Ezek 20:24– 26, the author says: ―because they did not do my judgments, but spurned (ws)m) my statutes and defiled my Sabbaths. . . I gave them statutes that were not good and judgments by which they could not live‖ ()l Mhb wyxy). This last phrase in Ezek 20:26 echoes the previous three Leviticus formulations and may lie behind CD III, 17 cited above. Finally, it should be noted that there is nothing in Lev 18 as a whole that is picked up on in CD III in order to establish a more definite point of contact. We conclude, then, that the author of CD is probably drawing the Leviticus clause from its later scriptural use in Ezek 20.17

CD has hyxw rather than the older yxw, but the difference is insignificant. Cf. Ezek 20:16: ―because they spurned (ws)m) my ordinances and as for my statutes, they did not walk in them‖ (see too 1QS III, 5–6). 17 So too Davies, Damascus Covenant, 84–85. 15 16

Chapter 3: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in the Damascus Document

60

3.2.3 The Interpretation of Leviticus 18:5 in CD III, 15–16 3.2.3.1 The meaning of Mh (―them‖) and hyxw (―will live‖) In Ezek 20, the content of ―them‖ (Mh) is the ―statutes and judgments‖ (twqx My+p#Omw) of God‘s law, the Mosaic law revealed at Sinai to the nation of Israel. Here in CD III, the content of Mh has changed. No longer is it the ―statutes and judgments‖ that are available to the nation of Israel, but the sectarian halachah that has been revealed to the founders of the Qumran community; the twrtsn – the ―hidden things in which all Israel has gone astray.‖18 The phrase no doubt refers to halachic matters listed in CD III, 14– 15: the ―holy Sabbaths,‖19 ―glorious feasts,‖20 ―just stipulations,‖21 ―truthful paths,‖22 and ―the wishes of his will.‖23 This revelation of God in the form of new laws is enacted in the community‘s exegesis.24 The twrtsn are discussed in 1QS V where their connection to exegesis is explicit: ―They (perverse men) have not sought him nor inquired his statutes so as to discover the hidden things (twrtsn) in which they err to their shame‖ (1QS V, 12). Here, exegesis (seeking and inquiring through the statutes) done properly, that is, through the inspiration of the community, will lead to the discovery of the hidden things.25 This is also seen in CD III, 16b,

The term twrtsn occurs sixteen times in Qumran literature; 1QS V, 11; 1QH IV, 9; XXVI, 1; 4Q173 1, 4; 4Q268 1, 7; 4Q375 1 II, 8; 4Q401 14 II, 7; 4Q401 17, 4; 4Q427 7 I, 19; 4Q438 4 I, 2; 4Q463 2, 4; 4Q508 2, 4; 4Q509 212, 1; 4Q512 34 V, 15; 5Q13 1, 11; see Abegg, ―The Covenant,‖ 85; A. Shemesh and C. Werman, ―Hidden Things and Their Revelation,‖ RevQ 18 (1998), 409–27; Lawrence H. Schiffman, The Halakhah at Qumran (SJLA 16; Leiden: Brill, 1975), 22–32; Davies, Damascus Covenant, 85–87. 19 w#Odq twtb#O. These Sabbath laws are expounded in CD XX, 14–XI, 18 and 4Q265 6 (Schiffman, Halakha, 77–133). 20 wdwbk yd(wmw. These, together with the ―holy Sabbaths‖ (see note 22 above), reflect the 364-day solar calendar so important for the Qumran community (cf. 1QS I, 11–15; 4Q317–330, 334, 337, 394; 11QPsa; Jubilees, passim; and 1 En 6–8, 72–82). See the discussion in Knibb, The Qumran Community, 34; cf. Abegg, ―Covenant,‖ 86–87. 21 wqdc twdy(. These are probably a summary of the requirements of the (new) covenant; cf. the ytp#Om qdc that summarise the requirements of the covenant in 1QS III, 1 (so Abegg, ―Covenant,‖ 87). 22 wtm) ykrdw. The waw is explicative and the phrase is probably a summary of the previous three (Abegg, ―Covenant,‖ 87). 23 wnwcr ycpxw. This is a general summary of these halachic matters and probably refer back to the opening exhortation – ―so that you can choose what he is please with‖ (II, 15) (Murphy-O‘Connor, ―Missionary Document,‖ 207). 24 These ―new laws‖ were probably not considered fundamentally different from the old laws or the Mosaic torah, but constitute a fuller understanding of God‘s previous torahrevelation; see Davies, Damascus Covenant, 86; Schiffman, The Halakhah, 22–32. 25 See Schiffman, The Halachah, 22–25; Abegg, ―The Covenant,‖ 86. 18

3.2 Leviticus 18:5 in the Damascus Document (CD) III, 15–16

61

where God ―disclosed to them26 and they dug a well of plentiful water.‖ The content of God‘s disclosure are the twrtsn of the preceding passage and the digging of the well is the exegesis of the Qumranites, as seen in the ―wellmidrash‖ of CD VI, 3–11 (Num 21:8).27 There is a tension, therefore, between divine and human agency. God reveals, but this revelation is appropriated through rigorous exegesis of the biblical text (more on this below, §3.2.3.4). The content of Mh has been transformed, therefore, from written law, available to the nation, to halachah available to the sectarian community. Likewise, the meaning of hyxw (―will live‖) has also changed. In Leviticus, ―life‖ refers to the covenant blessing of an abundant (perhaps longer) life. In Ezekiel, ―life‖ refers to spiritual revival and return to the land, and though it has eschatological connotations, it does not refer to eternal life as such. But in CD, eternal life seems to be in view as we will see below. This ―life‖ is partially experienced in the present, but will be fully realised after the judgment of God.28 While the construction Mhb hyxw could be rendered ―will live in accordance with them,‖ it is best to render the phrase as ―will live by them,‖ understood as gaining life as a result of doing the laws.29 That eternal, or at least eschatological, life is in view seems clear from the statement in CD III, 20: ―Those who remain steadfast in it [the sure house] will live forever‖ (xcn yyxl).30 Here, eternal life is a result of persevering within the Qumran 26

García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar add the phrase ―these matters‖ in parentheses after the verb xtp (The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition: Vol. 1 [1Q1–4Q273] [Leiden: Brill, 1997], 555; so too Baumgarten and Schwartz, ―Damascus Document,‖ 17) but Davies has previously argued correctly, I think, that the verb is not intended to have a formal object (Damascus Covenant, 85). 27 Davies, Damascus Covenant, 85–86, 28 Cf. 1QS IV, 6–7a: ―The visitation (tdwqpw) of all who walk in it will be healing, plentiful peace in length of days, fruitful offspring with all everlasting blessings, eternal enjoyment with endless life (xcn yyxb), and a crown of glory with majestic raiment in eternal light (Mymlw( rw)b);‖ IV, 11b–13a: ―And the visitation (tdwqpw) of all those who walk in it will be for an abundance of afflictions at the hands of all the angels of destruction, for eternal damnation (Mymlw( tx#Ol ) by the scorching wrath of God of revenges, for permanent terror and shame without end with the humiliation of destruction by the fire of the dark regions.‖ 29 Translated rightly by M. Wise, M. Abegg, and E. Cook: ―which Man should carry out and so have life in them‖ (Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation [San Francisco: Harper Row, 1996], 54). For this understanding, see especially Simon J. Gathercole, ―Torah, Life, and Salvation: Leviticus 18:5 in Early Judaism and the New Testament,‖ in From Prophecy to Testament: The Use of the Old Testament in the New (ed. C. A. Evans; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004), 126–45 (135–37); idem, Where is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul‟s Response in Romans 1–5 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 100–102. 30 Cf. D. Schwartz: ―Hier also wird ganz deutlich angenommen, daβ unser Leviticus-Vers Leben als Lohn für Einhalten der Torah verspricht, und hier ist weiter auch ausdrücklich gesagt, daβ das Leben, das hier versprochen ist, das ewigen Leben ist (xcn yyxl – CD 3,20)‖

62

Chapter 3: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in the Damascus Document

community, which requires that one faithfully performs the Qumran halachah; eternal life is the result of obedience.31 That eternal life is in view is supported by the phrase, ―all the glory of Adam is for them‖ (III, 20). The reference to the ―glory of Adam‖ (Md) dwbk), popular in Qumran literature (1QS IV, 23; 1QH IV, 14–15; 4QpPs [4Q171] III, 1–2; 4Q504 8),32 suggests a return to the Adamic state – a state not fully realised in the present age.33 That life is a future reward is also suggested by the phrase in III, 17 mentioned above, ―whoever spurns them [the ―hidden matters‖] will not live.‖ Life here cannot refer to mere existence since those who did not follow the sect‘s halachah remained alive nonetheless. The thought, then, seems to be that those who spurn the ―hidden things‖ will not live in an eschatological sense; they will not be rewarded with life while those who remain faithful to the ―hidden things‖ will receive eternal life (both now and not yet).34 3.2.3.2 Leviticus 18:5 as a reversal of the death-bringing ―guilty inclination‖ As we noticed above, the narrative of II, 14–III, 12a traces the power of the ―guilty inclination‖ (hm#O) rcy) in effecting death in every period of Israel‘s history. The relationship between the Leviticus allusion and this hm#O) rcy has gone virtually unnoticed by scholars, and yet the connection is informative.35 Terms connoting death or expulsion (e.g., ―cut off,‖ III, 1, 7, 9; ―died,‖ III, 9; ―perished,‖ III, 10) abound and signify the consequence of submitting to the ―guilty inclination.‖ That this ―inclination‖ and its effects (Leben durch Jesus versus Leben durch die Torah: Zur Religionspolemik der ersten jahrhunderte [Franz-Delitzsch-Vorlesung 2; Münster: Franz-Delitzsch-Gesellschaft, 1993], 9). 31 Gathercole, ―Leviticus 18:5,‖ 140. For other references to ―eternal life,‖ see 1QS IV, 7; XI, 5–8. The Qumran community believed that they partially enjoyed present participation in eternal life (see 1QH XI, 19–23; IXX, 10–14; 1QM XXII, 1–5). 32 On the phrase ―glory of Adam,‖ see Crispin H. T. Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 42; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2002), 75–77. 33 Knibb, The Qumran Community, 35–36. 34 Along with Gathercole, see also Murphy-O‘Connor, ―Missionary Document,‖ 208; Evans, ―Covenant,‖ 60; Friedrich Avemarie, ―Paul and the Claim of the Law According to the Scripture: Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12 and Romans 10:5,‖ in The Beginnings of Christianity: A Collection of Articles (ed. Jack Pastor and Menachem Mor; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2005), 125–48 (128). 35 J. Louis Martyn is an exception. He makes a brief comment in his Galatians commentary regarding the ―evil inclination‖ and Lev 18:5: ―the quotation of Lev 18:5 in CD III, 15–16 lies in a context that emphasizes the power of the Law to overcome the deathdealing power of the Impulsive Desire of the Flesh, a theme of the Teachers‖ (Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 33a; New York: Doubleday, 1997], 315 n. 98). Martyn does not develop this suggestion, however.

3.2 Leviticus 18:5 in the Damascus Document (CD) III, 15–16

63

are a dominant motif in the narrative is clear from the following passage, which summarises the previous historical overview: And their sons died through it (wb), and through it (wb) their kings were cut off, and through it (wb) their warriors perished, and through it (wb) their land was laid waste. Through it (wb), the very first to enter the covenant made themselves guilty. (CD III, 9b–10b)

In each case, the antecedent of wb (―through it‖) goes back to II, 16 where the ―guilty inclination‖ was first mentioned. The solution to the death-bringing power of this inclination is the revealed halachah in III, 12a–17. This halachah is that ―which if a man does he will live by them;‖ that is, the one who remains faithful to the laws of the community has the power to resist the death-brining ―evil inclination.‖ The period preceding the formation of the community is marked by this death, but the period after the ―hidden things‖ are revealed is marked by ―life‖ for the covenant community who ―does these things‖ (III, 16, 17, 20; cf. VII, 6). These ―hidden things‖ according to CD‘s interpretation of Lev 18:5, are the life-giving solution to the death-bringing power of the ―guilty inclination.‖36 3.2.3.3 Leviticus 18:5, Deuteronomic theology, and the restoration of the faithful remnant The founding of the sectarian community and their ―new covenant‖ with God was read off the pages of the final chapters of Deuteronomy (chs. 28–30; cf. Lev 26) as seen in the following allusions:37 – ―Having walked in the stubbornness of their heart‖ (CD II, 17; III, 5; III, 11–12; cf. Deut 29:18)38 – ―Having deserted God‘s covenant‖ (CD III, 11a; cf. Deut 29:25) – ―Revealing to them hidden things‖ (CD III, 13b–14a; cf. Deut 29:28)39

36

Cf. 1QS V, 4–5. There are no direct citations of Scripture in CD II, 14–III, 20, and yet the author has clearly constructed his discourse through allusions to the biblical text. Most scholars interested in CD‘s use of Scripture usually focus on the midrash sections (e.g. III, 21–IV, 6; IV, 14–V, 8; VI, 3–11) where Scripture is cited explicitly (see e.g. Aharon Shemesh, ―Scriptural Interpretations in the Damascus Document and their Parallels in Rabbinic Midrash,‖ in The Damascus Document: A Centennial of Discovery (ed. Joseph Baumgarten, Esther Chazon, and Avital Pinnick; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 161–75; Steven D. Fraade, ―Looking for Legal Midrash at Qumran‘, in Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Michael Stone and Esther Chazon; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 59–79). An exception is Jonathon Campbell, The Use of Scripture in the Damascus Document 1–8, 19–20 (BZAW 228; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995), who focuses largely on the allusions in CD. 38 See too CD VIII, 8, 19; IXX, 20, 33; XX, 9–10; 1QS I, 6; II, 13–14, 26; III, 3; V, 4. 39 See Shemesh and Werman, ―Hidden and Revealed,‖ 410–14. 37

Chapter 3: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in the Damascus Document

64

Other phrases and motifs, which may not be seen as direct allusions, are nonetheless characteristic of Deuteronomy or Deuteronomistic literature including, ―keeping the commandments of God;‖40 ―each one doing his desire;‖41 and ―they did not obey the voice of their creator.‖42 These allusions and motifs show that the author of CD has a theological construct that embraces Deuteronomy, and he understands the formation of his covenant community in light of Israel‘s destiny foretold by Moses in the final chapters of this book (viz. chs. 28–30).43 That is, Moses said that if Israel did not keep the commandments of God, but walked in the stubbornness of their heart, then God‘s anger would be aroused and he would bring down the curses of the covenant upon the nation (Deut 28:15–68; 29:17–27). CD understands the rebellion of Israel to have taken place – and still to be taking place – and yet from Deut 29–30 believes that the restoration and life is available to the remnant who return to the law and the Lord. According to CD, the ―hidden things‖ that ―belong to the Lord‖ (Deut 29:28) have been revealed, and the community as the remnant of Israel has turned to the Lord (Deut 30:1–2).44 The covenanters who have kept the revealed things are rewarded with the ―hidden things;‖45 and if they keep these ―hidden things,‖ then they will enjoy 40

CD II, 18, 21; III, 5–6, 12–13; cf. Deut 5:10; 7:9; 8:2, 11; 28:45; 30:10; Josh 22:5; 8:58. CD III, 12a; cf. Michael Fishbane: ―standard deuteronomic language for religious anarchy (cf. Deut 12:8; Judg 21:25)‖ (―Use, Authority and Interpretation of Mikra at Qumran,‖ in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading, and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity [ed. M. J. Mulder; CRINT 2.1; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988], 339–77 [357]). 42 CD III, 7b–8. The phrase may be taken from Psalm 106:25 (―They grumbled in their tents and did not obey the voice of the LORD‖), but the language of the psalm (―obeying the voice of the LORD‖) is a common phrase sounded throughout Deut 28–30 (esp 28:45; also 28:1, 2, 13, 15, 62; 30:2, 8, 10, 12, 13, 20). 43 See Shemesh and Werman, ―Hidden Things,‖ 409–27; Aharon Shemesh, ―Expulsion and Exclusion in the Community Rule and the Damascus Document,‖ DSD 9 (2002), 44–74 (56). Michael Fishbane argues further that the entire flow of Deut 28–30 was followed by the author of CD in II, 14–III, 20. In both Deuteronomy and CD, the ―hidden‖ and ―revealed‖ things (Deut 29:28; CD III, 13–14) are the centre point between covenant rebellion (Deut 29:13–27, compare CD II, 17–III, 12a) and covenant restoration (Deut 30:1–20, compare CD III, 12b–20) (Fishbane, ―Use, Authority,‖ 358–59; cf. Campbell, Use of Scripture, 78); cf. G. Brooke who sees an imitation of the structure of Deuteronomy in 4QMMT and 1QS (―The Cannon Within the Cannon At Qumran and in the New Testament,‖ in The Scrolls and the Scriptures: Qumran Fifty Years After [ed. Stanley Porter and Craig A. Evans; JSPSup 26; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997], 242–56 [254–55]). 44 Compare CD XV, 9–10, where the repentant covenanter is said to ―return to the law of Moses with all his heart and all his soul,‖ with Deut 30:2, ―and you [Israel] will return to the LORD your God and obey his voice with all your heart and soul‖ (cf. CD XV, 12; 1QS V, 8). 45 Cf. Shemesh and Werman: ―the sect believed this [the revelation of the hidden things] was a divine privilege granted only to those who rigorously observe the revealed laws‖ (―Hidden and Revealed,‖ 418, cf. 416). 41

3.2 Leviticus 18:5 in the Damascus Document (CD) III, 15–16

65

the covenantal blessing of life (Deut 30:6, 15, 16, 19, 20).46 The covenantal blessing of ―life,‖ therefore, held out in Deut 30 was encapsulated, for the author of CD, in Lev 18:5. This formulation, as we have seen, was probably taken from Ezek 20, and yet CD‘s understanding of the restoration of Israel and the Leviticus formulation is different from that prophet. For Ezekiel, the rebellious nation of Israel constantly rejected the covenantal blessing of life (Lev 18:5 in Ezek 20:11, 13, 21) by spurning the commandments. But Ezekiel, unlike CD, predicted that this promise of life (Lev 18:5) will be accomplished through the agency of the divine Spirit (Ezek 37:1–14); the author of CD read the Leviticus clause through the Deuteronomic framework of blessing and curse and maintained its conditional formulation in the eschatological age: the obedient ones are blessed while the disobedient are cursed. For Ezekiel, the entire nation is hopelessly rebellious and can only receive the blessing of life through a unilateral act of God; for CD, while most the nation is rebellious, there is a small remnant of faithful adherents to the law and it is these obedient ones who respond positively to God‘s revelation of new laws. The very construction of the Leviticus formulation rightly captures their theological understanding of covenant blessing. Obedience to the ―hidden

Similar readings of Deut 28–30 are attested throughout Qumran literature. See for instance the covenant renewal ceremony of 1QS I, 15 –II, 25 where the Qumran community has escaped the curse of the covenant spelled out in Deuteronomy. This ceremony, in fact, is modeled upon the ceremony of Deut 27–28 as seen by the following points of contact: 1) The setting of the Levites who ―curse all the men of the lot of Belial‖ picks up on Deut 27:14, the so-called dodecalogue of Shechem (Deut 27:14 –26); 2) 1QS II, 4–5 (―May God hand you over to terror‖ echoes Deut 28:25; 3) the communal response ―Amen, Amen‖ picks up on the response of the nation in Deut 27:15–26 (cf. Neh 8:6); 4) 1QS II, 11–18 is a sustained exegesis of Deut 29:18–19 MT). This is similar to the ideology of 4QMMT. Here, the author and his community are living in a time when ―part of the blessings and curses has occurred that are written in the b[ook of Mos]es‖ (4QMMT C 20–21). The blessings are for those who are obedient to the halachic laws of 4QMMT and the curses have fallen upon the rest of Israel. The author supports this from Deut 30:1–2 and 31:29 in 4QMMT C 13–16. The way to escape from the covenant curse is by returning to the law of Moses, or more specifically, the works of the Law (y#o(m hrwth 4QMMT C 27) described in 4QMMT A–B. This document, therefore, reflects a similar ideology noted above in 1QS I–II and CD II–III: Israel as a whole has transgressed the covenant thus evoking the covenant curse, and the way of escape is to return to the law via the halachah of the community. The same perspective is seen in the so-called ―Law of the King‖ in 11QT LIX, 2 –21. This passage draws extensively upon Deut 28–31 (e.g. 28:36–37, 48, 64; 31:17–18) and Lev 26 (e.g. 26:15, 31–32) and applies the Deuteronomic blessings to ones who return to the law and the curses to the ones who forsake it (see Yigal Yadin, The Temple Scroll (3 vols.; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1983), 2.65–70). 46

Chapter 3: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in the Damascus Document

66

things‖ brings life; or, the one who does these things will live by them. 47 So then, the author of CD has a theological view of history similar to Deut 28– 30: the restoration of Israel, and with it, the blessing of life, is contingent upon law obedience, and the Leviticus formulation rightly captures this. For Ezekiel, however, the Leviticus clause signifies what Israel should have done but failed to do, and the ―if . . . then‖ formulation is replaced in the eschatological age where ―life‖ is granted through unilateral divine action. 3.2.3.4 E. P. Sanders on grace and works in CD III Having highlighted how CD understands the restoration of Israel, we can see more clearly a deficiency in E. P. Sanders‘s understanding of CD III. In particular, the response of the faithful remnant to the disclosure of God (III, 12a–17a) challenges Sanders‘s understanding of the relationship between grace and works in CD. Sanders reacts against those who think that CD III, 14–16 and the Leviticus allusion teach a salvation by works; instead, ―it is clear that human obedience, although necessary, does not initially open the path to salvation.‖48 According to Sanders, ―it is the covenant which assures its members of life, while obedience keeps one in the covenant.‖49 Sanders, however, fails to recognise that God establishes this (new) covenant with an obedient community already in existence: ―with those who remained steadfast in God‘s commandments, with those who were left from among them, God established his covenant with Israel50 forever‖ (CD III, 12a–13). God may have revealed the ―hidden things,‖51 but this revelation is toward a preexisting obedient community. In reference to the formation of the community, of which the Leviticus clause plays a fundamental part, it seems best to speak of a tension between human and divine agency.52 Sanders rightly thinks that a tension exists with 47

Cf. Davies: ―the obedience to the law of those outside the community can only be a charade‖ (Damascus Covenant, 87). 48 Palestinian Judaism, 295. 49 Palestinian Judaism, 295. 50 The term Israel is used as a designation for the remnant; see note 13. 51 Sanders, Palestinian Judaism, 269. 52 CD V, 20–VI, 11a is a parallel passage to CD II, 14–III, 20 and also contains a tension between divine and human action in the formation of the community. The tension between divine and human agency in Qumran as a whole, usually discussed in terms of predestination and free will, is striking. Within a single document, the Qumranites can speak of entrance into the community as a matter of one‘s free choice (1QS I, 1–III, 12; V, 1–VII, 25), and yet refer to the human will as a product of divine providence (1QS II, 13–IV, 26). The tension is displayed in the Damascus Document as well. The Admonition – so named because it exhorts its audience to take a form of action – displays both sides of the tension. So for instance, two (I, 1–II, 1; II, 14–III, 20) of the first three discourses accentuate a free-will (or ―Deuteronomic‖) theology that asserts a reward/punishment scheme for obedience/ disobedience. The second of these three discourses (II, 2–13), however, contains a theology

3.2 Leviticus 18:5 in the Damascus Document (CD) III, 15–16

67

regard to individuals who enter the community: entering the community is the result of both man‘s free choice and God‘s election.53 But Sanders does not see the same tension in the actual formation of the community and establishment of the (new) covenant. For Sanders, God‘s disclosure of the ―hidden things‖ (CD III, 12b–17) is entirely a matter of divine initiative. As we have seen, however, God‘s decisive act in establishing a new covenant does not create a faithful remnant; rather, it is a response to an obedient group already in existence. Both God‘s action and man‘s deeds are essential in the formation of the community. 54 The divine-human tension is succinctly captured in CD III, 16b: ―He [God] disclosed and they dug a well of plentiful water.‖ That is, God discloses halachic matters to the community, and yet it is their ―digging‖ – their exegesis of scriptural texts – through which they may find plentiful (living) water (cf. ―the well of living waters,‖ CD XIX, 34).55 In short, the author of CD understands eschatological life to be a conditional reward to those who persevere in obedience to the sect‘s halachah,56 and yet this conditionality did not conflict with the author‘s understanding of divine grace. In any case, contrary to Sanders, the initiative of God is not the sole or prior cause in the formation of the new covenant community.

typical, if not dependant upon, the predestinarian thought exhibited in the Sermon of the Two Spirits in 1QS III, 13–IV, 26. While it is not our intention to relieve this tension between divine predestination and human free will, we do suggest that the section of the Admonition that is relevant for our study (II, 14–III, 20) exhibits an underlying ―Deuteronomic‖ theology of reward and punishment. I do not suggest that this should be described in terms of meritorious deeds or legalistic behaviour, but in terms familiar with some strands of Old Testament tradition, predominately in Deuteronomistic literature (Deut–2 Kings). While a rigid predestinarian thought dominates CD II, 2–13, when reviewing Israel‘s history and the founding of the new covenant community (as in CD I, 1–II, 1 and II, 14–III, 20), divine action is not explicitly prior to, or the cause of, human action. For some recent treatments on predestination (divine agency) and free will (human agency) at Qumran, see Philip S. Alexander, ―Predestination and Free Will in the Theology of the Dead Sea Scrolls,‖ in Divine and Human Agency in Paul and His Cultural Environment (ed. John M. G. Barclay and Simon J. Gathercole; London: T & T Clark/Continuum, 2006), 27–49; Bockmuehl, ―1QS,‖ 394–97; Armin Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination: Weisheitliche Urordnung und Prädestination in den Textfunden von Qumran (STDJ 18; Leiden: Brill, 1995); idem, ―Wisdom and Predestination in the Dead Sea Scrolls,‖ DSD 2 (1995), 340–54. 53 Palestinian Judaism, 261–70. 54 This does not mean that the obedience of the remnant should be seen as meriting the revelation of God, but it does mean that God‘s initiative is not prior to human initiative within the scope of salvation history. 55 Similarly, Davies, Damascus Covenant, 85; Murphy-O‘Connor, ―Missionary Document,‖ 208; Shemesh and Werman, ―Hidden and Revealed,‖ 419–20. 56 See too CD VII, 4b–6a; 1QS IV, 6b–8a.

Chapter 3: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in the Damascus Document

68

3.2.4 Summary Our study of CD‘s allusion to Lev 18:5 has noted several points. First, we saw that the author alluded to the Leviticus formula(s) in Ezek 20, or at least read Lev 18 in light of Ezek 20. Second, the content of ―them‖ and the meaning of ―will live‖ have been transformed from their original biblical context; ―them‖ refers to halachic matters and ―will live‖ connotes eternal life. Third, the Leviticus allusion is a reversal of the death-bringing power of the evil inclination, which has infected the nation of Israel as a whole. Fourth, we noted that the Leviticus formulation reflects a Deuteronomic theology of restoration and speaks of the covenantal blessing of life promised to the repentant community according to Deut 30. This theological construct, fifth, sees obedience to the laws – as interpreted through inspired exegesis of the community – as a precondition for the attainment of this life. And this theological construct, which exhibits a tension between divine and human agency in the formation of the community, conflicts with E. P. Sanders‘s understanding of this passage, where God‘s grace is the sole criterion for the establishment of the new covenant.

3.3 Leviticus 18:5 in 4Q266 As mentioned in the introduction to CD, there have been eight manuscripts of the Damascus Document discovered in cave four along with two small fragments found in caves five and six.57 The largest and most complete of these manuscripts is 4Q266 (or 4QDa), and has been dated to the middle or end of the first century B.C.E.58 The manuscript covers material that is previous to CD I, 1 (frg. 1 a–b; frg. 2 I, 1–6), material that parallels the Admonition (e.g., frgs. 2–3), and much material that either overlaps the Laws (e.g., frgs. 8, 9) or adds material to it (e.g., frgs. 5, 6, 7, 10, 11).59 The last two fragments (frgs. 10–11) continue with a list of offences and punishments from

57

See note 2 above. 4Q266 could have been a earlier draft of the Damascus Document or, as Baumgarten postulates, a private copy written for personal use, Baumgarten, Qumran Cave 4, 2; cf. his early work in idem, ―The Laws of the Damascus Document in Current Research,‖ in The Damascus Document Reconsidered, 51–62. For the most definitive treatment of the laws of 4QD together with CD, see Hempel, The Laws; for an overview of the issues, see her Damascus Texts. 59 Baumgarten points out that one of the most important outcomes of the discovery of the 4QD manuscripts was the fact that the Laws of the Damascus Document are now known to be twice as long as the Admonition (Qumran Cave 4, 7; cf. Shemesh, ―Expulsion and Exclusion,‖ 57–58). 58

3.3 Leviticus 18:5 in 4Q266

69

the final portion of the Damascus Document (CD XIV, 18–23)60 and concludes with an expulsion ceremony that occupies most of fragment 11.61 Within this ceremony, the ―priest who rules over the many‖ (11 I–II, 8) prays a prayer of blessing on the community and curse on the expultant,62 and it is in this prayer where Lev 18:5 is alluded to (11 I–II, 12). Charlotte Hempel outlines fragment 11 as follows:63 – I–II, 1–5a Admonition to accept one‘s judgment willingly – I–II, 5b–14b Expulsion ceremony – I–II, 14c–16c Treatment of those who fail to ostracise the expelled member – I–II, 16b–18a The annual assembly of the members of the camps in the third month – I–II, 18b–20 The end of the document In order to understand how the author uses the Leviticus clause, I will first explain the setting of the expulsion ceremony to set the wider context. I will then examine the Leviticus clause by discussing the potential biblical source(s) from which the clause is drawn. Finally, and most importantly, I will discuss some theological issues surrounding the prayer that may illuminate our understanding of Lev 18:5; namely, the tension between divine and human agency, the meaning of hyxw, and the implications of being expelled from the community. 3.3.1 The Setting of the Expulsion Ceremony 1QS I, 16–III, 12 records a covenant renewal ceremony where the Qumran community would gather on the third month just prior to the Feast of Weeks (Shavuot).64 The purpose of the Qumran ceremony, being clearly modelled 60

A similar penal code is found in 1QS VI, 24–VII, 26. For a comparison of these two codes, see J. M. Baumgarten, ―The Cave 4 Version of the Qumran Penal Code,‖ JJS 43 (1992), 268–76; C. Hempel, ―The Penal code Reconsidered,‖ in Legal Texts and Legal Issues (ed. M. J. Bernstein, F. García-Martínez, and J. Kampen; STDJ 23: Leiden: Brill, 1997), 337– 48; idem, The Laws, 141–48. 61 The ceremony is overlapped in part by a portion of 4QD270 7 I. 4Q270 covers the first 6 lines of 4Q266 then cuts off in the middle of line 7. 62 The term ―expultant,‖ though not in the Oxford English Dictionary, is used in Qumran scholarship on 4Q266 to refer to the one who has been expelled from the community. 63 Hempel, The Laws, 178–83. 64 The ceremony was prescribed in Deut 27:11–26, but in Deuteronomy it was a one-time event (the Qumran ceremony was annual) after Israel crossed the Jordan (cf. Josh 8:30–35). Steven Fraade says that the community‘s main innovation of Deut 27–28 was turning it into an annual ceremony (―Rhetoric and Hermeneutics in Miqsat Ma‗ase Ha-Torah [4QMMT]: The Case of the Blessings and Curses,‖ DSD 10 [2003], 150–61 [156]).

70

Chapter 3: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in the Damascus Document

upon Deut 27,65 was to reaffirm the status of existing members and instate new members into the new covenant community. As in Deut 27, a central element in the ceremony was the pronouncement of blessings and curses; blessings upon all who are part of the community, including its new members, and curses upon all who exists outside the community.66 The expulsion ceremony in 4Q266 11 also takes place on the third month (4Q266 11 I–II, 17; 4Q270 7 II, 11) and includes the pronouncement of a curse upon the expultant, the one who has left the realm of the blessed community. This suggests some relationship between these two ceremonies; perhaps the expulsion ceremony of 4Q266 was part of the covenant renewal ceremony recorded in 1QS.67 In any case, it is clear that the blessings and curses function in the same way in each ceremony: in both 1QS and 4Q266, the blessings and curses carry covenantal and dualistic connotations.68 The covenantal conception is evident in its relationship to the original covenant ceremony in Deut 27. In both cases, those who have broken the covenant educe the curse, and those who are faithful to the covenant are blessed. The dualistic conception is seen in the antithetical presentation of the blessings and curses.69 Unlike Deut 27, the blessing and curses are not only punishments of retribution for individual sins of members within the same community, but assignments of individuals to the realms of light and darkness – to belong to the Qumran community is to be blessed, while all others are cursed.70 In both ceremonies (1QS and 4Q266), there are only two realms in which one dwells: the realm of blessing, in the community, and the realm of 65 The commonalities include: 1) both are ceremonies of covenant renewal, 2) the centrality of the blessings and curses, which are 3) pronounced by the priests and Levites (see Fraade, ―Rhetoric and Hermeneutics,‖ 157–58 for the differences here), and 4) the double ―Amen, Amen,‖ spoken by the people. 66 On this ceremony, see Fraade, ―Rhetoric and Hermeneutics,‖ 155–59. 67 See Hempel, Laws, 184, citing J. T. Milik, ―Milki-sedeq et Milki-resa dans les anciens écrits juifs et chrétiens,‖ JJS 23 (1972), 95–144 (136); B. Nitzan, ―4Qbereakhot a–e (4Q286– 290): A Covenantal Ceremony in the Light of Related Texts,‖ RQ 16 (1995), 487–506. 68 The motif of blessings and curses was popular among the Qumranites. For a discussion, see Bilhah Nitzan, Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry (STDJ 12; Leiden, Brill: 1994), 119–43; Fraade, ―Rhetoric and Hermeneutics,‖ 150–61. 69 The blessing and curses of 1QM XIII, 1–6 clearly exhibit this dualistic conception; cf. 4Q286 7 II, 1–5. 70 Nitzan writes: ―Unlike the Bible, we no longer find a group of blessings posed against a group of curses, both of which are addressed to the same people. Instead, there is one group of blessings invoked upon those who enter into the covenant and undertake to observe it, and against it there are two groups of curses: first to those who do not enter the covenant, and second to those who have entered the covenant, but intentionally violated there commitment‖ (Qumran Prayer, 126); see too Fraade, ―Rhetoric and Hermeneutics,‖ 159; M. A. Elliott, The Survivors of Israel: A Reconsideration of the Theology of Pre-Christian Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 290–96.

3.3 Leviticus 18:5 in 4Q266

71

curse, all who are outside the community. In the expulsion ceremony (4Q266 11 I–II), the expultant who has committed apostasy passes over from the realm of blessing to the realm of curse, and this assignment is enacted through the pronouncement of the priest and the people who ―curse everyone who goes to the right or to the left of the law‖ (4Q266 11 I–II, 17–18). 3.3.2 Leviticus 18:5 and the Prayer of Expulsion 3.3.2.1 Its form and biblical source In the midst of the expulsion ceremony, the ―priest who governs the many‖ speaks to the expultant in the form of the following prayer: (9) Blessed are you, who is everything, in your hands is everything, you do everything, you have founded (10) the [na]tions according to their families, and according to their languages, and according to their tribes, and you have led them astray in a trackless (11) wilderness. You chose our fathers and gave their descendants your truthful ordinances (12) and your holy judgments (hk#Odwq y+p#Omw hktm) yqwx), which the man will do and live (h#o(y r#O) hyxw Md)h). And you established boundaries (htlbgh twlwbgw) (13) for us and you curse those who cross them (htwr) Mhyrbw( t)). And we are your people of your ransom and the flock of your pasture. (14) You curse those who cross them and we have established [this curse] (htwr) ht) wnwmyqh wn)w Mhyrbw( t)) (4Q266 11 I–II, 9–14a)

The prayer can be divided into three portions: 1) the divine praise that opens the prayer (11, 9–10a), 2) the review of Israel‘s history culminating in the gift of the law (11, 10b–13a), and 3) the affirmation of the community‘s right standing with God and his curse upon those outside the community (11, 13b– 14a).71 The content of the prayer gathers many themes from the Admonition, exhibiting a similar theological outlook as the opening passages of CD.72 It may be seen as an abbreviation of the community‘s ideology as a whole expressed primarily in dualistic categories (cf. CD II, 2–13). God establishes the nations, yet rejects them while choosing the patriarchs, of whom the members of the community are the direct descendents. God has given the community the ―truthful ordinances and . . . holy judgments,‖ which are probably the ―hidden laws‖ discovered through inspired exegesis (cf. twrtsn, CD III, 13). The Leviticus clause is attached to these laws as it was in CD III, 15–16, promising ―life‖ to the members of the community who carry out these sectarian halachot. 71

See Hempel, Laws, 181. Shemesh, ―Expulsion and Exclusion,‖ 57. For a comparison between the prayer and the Admonition, see Hempel, Laws, 181–2. The similarities between the prayer and the Admonition include: 1) the reference to the wandering in a ―trackless wilderness‖ (4Q266 11 I–II, 10–11; CD I, 15, 2) the allusion to Lev 18:5 (4Q266 11 I–II, 12; CD III, 15–16), 3) the reference to ―boundaries‖ and those who cross them (4Q266 11 I–II, 12–14; CD I, 16; V, 20; XIX, 15–16; XX, 25), and 4) a review of Israel‘s history culminating in the gift of halachic laws (4Q266 11 I–II, 9–12a; CD II, 14–III, 17a). 72

72

Chapter 3: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in the Damascus Document

The clause corresponds to the MT, but does not have the indirect object Mhb (―by/in them‖) as in CD III, 16. It is difficult to understand why the author has left out the Mhb, especially since it was included in CD III, 16. Whatever the reason, the omission makes it clear that the ―life‖ in question is more than a life regulated by the law (see below). It is also difficult to determine which biblical context – if any – the author is alluding to with the Leviticus clause. The reference to ―ordinances‖ and ―judgments‖ prior to the clause may link it to Lev 18:4–5 or Ezek 20 (vv. 11, 13, 21), and yet its use as part of a review of Israel‘s history finds affinities to both Ezek 20 and Neh 9. Perhaps this latter passage is the best option among the three since it contains adjectives describing these laws: You gave them upright judgments (Myr#oy My+p#Om) and true laws (twrwtw tm)), good ordinances and commandments (Mybw+ twcmw Myqx). Neh 9:13b

Perhaps the author of 4Q266 was influenced by this passage when he used similar terms to describe the ordinances and judgments of God (yqwx hk#Odwq y+p#Omw hktm)). Moreover, the context of a prayer in both Neh 9 and 4Q266 11 strengthens our suggestion that the author is reflecting on this passage. It may be, then, that the author of 4Q266 11 has read the Leviticus clause out of Neh 9, perhaps conflating 9:13 with 9:29. 3.3.2.2 Leviticus 18:5 and divine and human agency Regarding Lev 18:5 in CD III, 15–16, we saw a tension between divine and human agency, illustrated clearly in the revelation of new laws (divine agency) and the rigorous exegesis by the community that appropriates this revelation (human agency). Here in the prayer of expulsion, dualistic categories dominate, placing the emphasis on divine agency. So for instance, God is the author and source of ―everything‖ (lwkh), he ―found the nations‖ and even ―led them astray in a trackless wilderness,‖73 but he chose the fathers and their descendants (= the community). In this tension, then, the emphasis is on the divine – and yet there still is a tension. The cooperation of the human agent with the divine is seen in the phrase t) htwr) ht) wnwmyqh wn)w Mhyrbw(, which I have rendered, ―you curse those who cross them [the boundaries] and we have established [this curse]‖ (4Q266 11 II, 14a). The meaning of the final clause, ―we have established‖ (wnwmyqh wn)w), is ambiguous.74 It probably refers either to the community‘s fulfilment of the 73 In CD I, 15, this metaphor of being lead astray in a ―trackless wilderness,‖ drawn from various biblical passages (Deut 32:8–10; Ps 107:40; Job 24:24), has the ―scoffer‖ as the subject. Here in the prayer, however, it is God who has lead them astray. 74 The meaning of the final phrase, wnwmyqh wn)w, which I have rendered ―we have established [the curse],‖ is disputed. García Martínez and Tigchelaar render it, ―us you [God] have raised up‖ (Study Edition, 1. 597) and Baumgarten similarly has, ―you . . . preserved us‖ (Qumran Cave IV, 77). Both of these translations take wn)w as the object rather than the

3.3 Leviticus 18:5 in 4Q266

73

law, or to their act of carrying out the curse that God has implemented upon the expultant. This latter sense is argued for by Aharon Shemesh: ―the members of the Community see themselves as responsible for carrying out the divine plan‖ by expelling the cursed member from their community. 75 While we favour the interpretation of Shemesh, either of these two meanings display a tension between divine and human action. God curses those who cross his law (= ―boundaries,‖ see below), but man must fulfil it – either by enacting the curse or by obeying the law. This tension is also seen in the Leviticus clause. The ―truthful ordinances and holy judgments‖ are a divine gift (httn) to the descendants of the fathers (divine action), but the community must do them in order to have life (human action). So while divine action dominates this prayer, the Leviticus formula is used to highlight the human side of the equation. This is very similar to how the clause was used in CD III, 15–16. 3.3.2.3 Meaning of hyxw (―will live‖) The absence of Mhb (―by/in them) noted above suggests that the ―life‖ in question is a result of doing the ―truthful ordinances‖ (hktm) yqwx) and ―holy judgments‖ (hk#Odwq y+p#Om);76 a regulatory understanding of hyxw (―will live‖) depends on Mhb and thus can be ruled out here. This does not mean, however, that ―life‖ here is necessarily eternal: unlike CD III, there is no explicit reference to eternal life here in the prayer. The reference to eternal life in CD III may support such a reading here, especially since there are many commonalities between the prayer of expulsion and the opening passages from CD.77 However, the conceptual world of the prayer is dualistic. There are two realms, the realm of blessing and the realm of curse. It is assumed that the ones who remain in the community are the Md)h who is doing the ordinances and judgments. If eternal life is in view, it must also include, then, a present realisation of this life by virtue of being an obedient subject. Hempel, however, takes wn)w as a subject and renders the phrase, ―we have upheld‖ and adds her own ―the correct observance of the law‖ as the object of ―upheld‖ (Laws, 181). In Hempel‘s translation, the end of the prayer contrasts the disobedience of apostates (those who cross the boundaries) and the obedience of the faithful members. This interpretation makes sense, but the absence of any direct object of wnwmyqh argues against it. A. Shemesh discusses the issue and instead renders the phrase: ―you cursed those who transgress them, and we have fulfilled‖ (―Expulsion and Exclusion,‖ 47). The implied object of ―fulfilled‖ (wnwmyqh), according to Shemesh, is the enactment of the curse which God has pronounced upon the expultant. In other words, the community, through the expulsion ceremony, is implementing the curse that God has pronounced upon the offender (Shemesh, ―Expulsion and Exclusion,‖ 47–48). I have adopted an interpretation similar to Shemesh‘s above. 75 ―Expulsion and Exclusion,‖ 48. 76 Rightly Gathercole, ―Torah, Life,‖ 136. 77 See further Hempel, Laws, 181–2.

74

Chapter 3: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in the Damascus Document

member of the community. To live is to exist in the realm of blessing, in the realm of the community; to be expelled from the community is to be cast out in the realm of curse, in the realm of death. This is why in one instance a crime eliciting expulsion is described as an offence ―requiring the death penalty‖ (twm rbdb) (4Q266 10 II, 1).78 To leave the community is to die, to remain in the community, which necessitates obedience to their halachah, results in life, a life both now and not yet. 3.3.2.4 Crossing the boundaries and forfeiting life The obedience of the community is summarised in the Leviticus clause, while the apostasy of the expultant is described as crossing the boundaries (twlwbg) that God has set for the community. A brief discussion of this latter phrase will highlight the notion of corporate sectarian soteriology79 represented by Lev 18:5. In the penal code of the Damascus Document,80 various crimes are mentioned which are worthy of expulsion.81 Here in the expulsion prayer, none of these crimes are mentioned, but it is clear that the expultant has ―crossed the boundaries‖ (4Q266 11 II, 12a–14a). ―Boundaries‖ and those who ―cross boundaries‖ are common metaphors in the Admonition of CD. In CD I, 16 the ―scoffer‖ is depicted as ―removing the boundary with which the forefathers had marked their inheritance, so that the curses of his covenant would adhere to them‖ (―them‖ is national Israel). This alludes to Deut 19:14 (―you shall not move your neighbour‘s boundary mark, which the ancestors 78 García Martínez and Tigchelaar translate twm rbdb as, ―a capital matter‖ (Study Edition, 1.595); likewise, Hempel translates it, ―a capital case‖ (Laws, 142). I am following Martin Abegg who translates it as, ―requiring the death penalty,‖ and understands the term as a ―metaphor for expulsion from the community (―The Covenant,‖ 95). 79 My phrase corporate sectarian soteriology is inspired by Mark Adam Elliott‘s discussion of ―soteriological dualism,‖ a theological construct used to describe the remnant theology of many early Jewish sects (see his, Survivors, 305–354). He uses the phrase ―corporate soteriology‖ along with ―soteriological dualism‖ to refer to the theological selfunderstanding of various remnant groups, especially Qumran, who have taken over the nationalistic promises of Israel and applied them to a more narrow corporate entity, the sect. In this corporate soteriology, both membership in the community and obedience to the sect‘s halachah are essential for attaining and maintaining one‘s salvation. 80 The penal code is recorded in CD XIV, 18b–22; 4Q266 10 I–II; 4Q277 9 VI; 4Q269 11 I–II; 4Q270 7 I. 81 These include gossiping against members of the community (4Q270 7 I, 6–7; cf. 1QS VI, 27–VII, 2), rejecting a ruling of the community (4Q267 9 VI, 2; 4Q270 7 I, 11), grumbling against the leadership (4Q270 7 I, 13–14), and having sexual relations with one‘s wife during a time when it was forbidden (4Q267 9 VI, 4–5; 4Q270 7 I, 13–14); see further Abegg, ―Covenant,‖ 94–95; on the penal code in 4QD, see Baumgarten, ―Qumran Penal Code,‖ 268–76; Hempel, Laws, 141–48. A similar penal code is found in 1QS VI, 24–VII, 26 and 4Q265 4 I.

3.3 Leviticus 18:5 in 4Q266

75

have set‖), and perhaps Deut 27:17 (―Cursed is he who moves his neighbour‘s boundary mark‖).82 The phrase occurs again in CD V, 20 and XIX, 15–16 where the author uses the phrase lwbg to describe what the apostates have removed. Those who shifted the boundary are those who ―entered the covenant of conversion, but have not left the path of traitors and have defiled themselves by paths of licentiousness‖ (CD XIX, 16–17). The last mention of the boundary occurs in CD XX, 25–26 where there is a warning that apostates who ―entered the covenant, transgressing the boundaries of the law‖ (hrth lwbgh), will ―be cut off from among the camp‖ when God returns. Here, lwbgh is used metaphorically to describe the prescriptions of the law. 83 This is similar to what we find in 4Q266 11 II, 12–13 where the ones who have crossed the boundaries have ―turned to the right or to the left of the law‖84 and are thus cursed by the community (4Q266 11 II, 17–18). Here in 4Q266, it seems that like CD XX, 25–26, crossing the boundary constitutes high-handed rebellion against the community‘s halachah. Such defiance denotes apostasy and is worthy of expulsion. From these various passages in the Admonition along with the reference to boundaries here in the prayer, we can conclude that these boundaries are the halachic matters of the law, and crossing them constitutes sins, or a sin, worthy of expulsion. The expultant, by committing such acts, has moved from the realm of life to the realm of death, from blessing to curse. The Leviticus clause, then, is used here as a description of corporate sectarian soteriology; corporate, since all members of the community are by definition doing the ―truthful ordinances and holy judgments;‖ sectarian, because other members of national Israel cannot rightly do the law apart from its inspired interpretation available only within the community; and soteriology, since doing the sectarian law is required for salvation, a salvation envisioned as entrance into the community, maintenance of one‘s status within the community, and securing one‘s final judgment in the eschaton. 3.3.3 Summary The use of Lev 18:5 in 4Q266 exhibits both similarities to and differences from its use in CD. While both have probably drawn the Leviticus formula from its later OT context, CD reads the text in light of Ezek 20 while 4Q266 probably reads it in light of Neh 9. Both CD and 4Q266 also display the tension between divine and human agency that is prevalent through the Scrolls. The prayer of expulsion in 4Q266, while generally emphasising the divine side of the tension, uses Lev 18:5 to capture the human side of the 82

Campbell, The Use of Scripture, 56. Hempel, Laws, 182; Knibb, Qumran Community, 24; Cf. Philo, Spec. Leg. 4.149 where the boundary of Deut 19:14 is interpreted to refer to ―unwritten law.‖ 84 Deut 28:14; cf. L.A.B. 25:3; 38:2. 83

76

Chapter 3: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in the Damascus Document

tension, as does CD. The attainment of life is contingent upon doing the community‘s halachah. This life may include eternal life, but is also, at least partially, realised in the present. Leviticus 18:5, then, is not understood primarily as a conditional promise to individual members, but to the community as a whole. To be part of the community is to be obedient. As such, the dualistic conception of life/death, blessing/curse, member/nonmember, which permeates the prayer, signifies that the entire community by virtue of their membership and obedience (the one necessitates the other) is dwelling in the realm of life.

Chapter 4

The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Words of the Luminaries (4Q504) 4.1 Introduction The fragmentary manuscripts 4Q504 and 4Q506 (4QDibHam),1 or Words of the Luminaries (twr)mh yrbd), are a collection of liturgical prayers believed to have been recited each day of the week, either at sunset or sundown.2 The manuscript 4Q504 is the oldest of this collection, dated to the mid-second century B.C.E., while 4Q506, which overlaps 4Q504 considerably, is dated to the mid-first century C.E. Therefore, Words of the Luminaries was being copied at least two hundred years after its original composition, giving evidence that it had a longstanding function and popularity in the Qumran community.3

1

M. Baillet originally included 4Q505 as representing part of Words of the Luminaries (Discoveries in the Judean Desert VII: Qumrân grotte 4, III [4Q482–520 [Oxford: Clarendon, 1982], 168–70), but this has been criticized by F. García Martínez (―Review of Qumrân Grotte 4, III [4Q482–4Q520], by M. Baillet,‖ JSJ 15 (1984), 161–62) and D. Falk, Daily, Sabbath, and Festival Prayers in the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 27; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 59–60. Falk and García Martínez point out that 4Q505 belongs with 4QFestival Prayers, along with 4Q508–509. All references to 4Q504 will be based on the reconstruction by Emil Puech, which is now accepted by most scholars over Baillet‘s original DJD edition; see Emil Puech, ―Review of Qumrân Grotte 4, III [4Q482–4Q520], by M. Baillet,‖ RB 95 (1988), 407–409. 2 The title refers ―to the liturgical use of these prayers at the interchange of the luminaries, that is, at sunrise and/or sunset;‖ Falk, Daily, Sabbath, 59, 86. It is impossible to tell if their liturgical function was actually carried out. That they were adapted by the Qumranites and used during the times of prayer seems probable (cf. 1QS X, 1b –3a, 10; 1QM XIV, 12–14; 1QH XX, 4–11 [XII, 4–11]; the nightly prayers in 1QS VI, 7–8); Falk, Daily, Sabbath, 87– 88. Falk also points out that it is not altogether clear whether the congregation as a whole recited the prayers or if the prayer leader(s) recited the prayer with the congregation responding, ―Amen, Amen.‖ Given the brevity of each prayer, it seems like the latter is most likely (Falk, Daily, Sabbath, 84–85). 3 On the dating of 4Q504 and 4Q506, see Falk, Daily, Sabbath, 62; Esther Chazon, ―Is Divrei Ha-Me‟orot A Sectarian Prayer?‖ in The Dead Sea Scrolls Forty Years of Research (ed. Devorah Dimant and Uriel Rappaport; STDJ 10; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 17.

78

Chapter 4: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Words of the Luminaries (4Q504)

4Q504 is probably a non-sectarian, and thus pre-Qumranic, text.4 Reasons for a non-sectarian origin include: 1) no positive sectarian terminology,5 2) no mention of prayer being a substitute for temple sacrifice, nor is there any criticism of a corrupt temple,6 3) the palaeographical date for the manuscript makes a Qumran composition highly unlikely,7 and 4) the form and structure of 4QDibHam (along with 4QFestival Prayers [4Q505, 508–509]) are distinct from other Qumranic prayer collections.8 Each daily prayer begins with a designation of the day of the week (e.g., hlpt Nw#Oy)rh Mwyl, 4Q504 8 I, 1) followed by a petition to God to ―remember‖ (rwkz) his mighty acts in history.9 These historical remembrances progress chronologically throughout the weekly prayers. Not only does each prayer represent a coherent theme, but the entire collection portrays an even larger historical narrative, thus demonstrating that 4QDibHam is not just a liturgical text, but an intricate piece of literature.10 Leviticus 18:5 is alluded to in the middle of the Sunday prayer (4Q504 6 II, 17). Great difficulty lies in understanding the use of this text, since both the allusion and the near context are fragmentary. Thus, our conclusions regarding the use of Lev 18:5 will be made with caution. In the following, I will first examine the Deuteronomic theology that is found in these prayers, looking in particular at three passages from the Pentateuch that give evidence for this theology. I will then proceed to examine the allusion to Lev 18:5 in the Sunday prayer, drawing on both the near and more distant context of the prayers as a whole where statements similar to Lev 18:5 are found. 4 See especially Chazon, ―A Sectarian Prayer?‖ 3–17; cf. Falk, Daily, Sabbath, 61, 85; Dennis Olson, ―Words of the Lights,‖ in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations Vol. 4a (ed. James Charlesworth; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 108. 5 Chazon, ―Sectarian Prayer?‖ 14–16. This lack of sectarian terminology is especially significant in the well preserved historical section in the Friday prayer (4Q504 1–2 XVI– XVII). If such an account was composed by the Qumran sect, a sectarian account of the history would likely be apparent as in 1QpHab or CD (Chazon, ―Sectarian Prayer?‖ 15–16; Falk, Daily, Sabbath, 89). 6 Falk, Daily, Sabbath, 89 7 Cf. Chazon: ―The latest date for the manuscript borders on the earliest date evidenced for the settlement at Qumran‖ (―Sectarian Prayer?‖ 9). 8 Falk, Daily, Sabbath, 62–63. 9 Nitzan, Qumran Prayer, 93. The Sabbath prayer (1–2, XVIII) differs in that it begins as a ―praise for the Sabbath day‖ (tb#Oh Mwyb twdwh), and instead of a petition to ―remember,‖ the author exhorts the participant to ―give thanks‖ (1–2 XVIII, 4). 10 See especially Esther Chazon, ―4QDibHam: Liturgy or Literature?‖ RQ 15 (1991–92), 448–50. The narrative begins with the creation of Adam (frag. 8), and moves to the Sinaitic Covenant (3 II, 12–17), the discipline in the wilderness evoking the covenant curses (1–2 XIV), the Davidic Covenant (1–2 XV, 5b–8a), the desolation of the land and exile (1–2 XVI), and subsequent sin-punishment-atonement (1–2 XVI).

4.2. Deuteronomic Theology and Its Scriptural Foundation

79

4.2. Deuteronomic Theology and Its Scriptural Foundation 4QDibHam contains prayers of communal confession that are typical of the post-exilic period, similar to other prayer-texts such as, Ezra 9, Neh 9, Dan 9, and Bar 1:15–3:8. As with these other texts, 4QDibHam is saturated with Deuteronomic theology. Israel is God‘s chosen people, but they have sinned, evoking the covenant curses that reside upon the nation. Through the prayers, a portion of the nation is confessing their sins (and the sins of the nation), pleading with God to remember his covenant mercies, and asking him to help them repent and return to God in obedience to his law.11 This Deuteronomic cycle of sin-punishment-repentance-restoration is read off the pages of Scripture, focusing on three specific portions of the Pentateuch – Lev 26, Deut 28–32, and Num 14.12 Leviticus 26 takes pride of place in the prayers.13 This chapter contains the blessings (26:3–15) and curses (26:16–39) of the covenant: blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience. Leviticus 26:40–45 looks forward to a time when Israel will confess their sins and repent from her iniquities, thus initiating their restoration (cf. Lev 26:40–42: ―If they confess their iniquity . . . then I will remember my covenant with Jacob‖). The author alludes to Lev 26 on many occasions, and this final section – Lev 26:40–45 – seems to provide a foundation for the author‘s own understanding of his historical situation.14 That is, Israel has sinned and evoked the covenant curses, but a 11 See especially 4Q504 4 III, 11; 4Q504 1–2 XIII, 13–14; 4Q504 1–2 XVI, 12–13; 4Q504 1–2 XVII, 8–9. Similar petitions can be found in Neh 9:32–10:1 (MT), Ezra 9:8–15. 12 Falk, Daily, Sabbath, 72, 69 n. 62 13 Leviticus 26:32 is alluded to in 4Q504 1–2 XVI, 3b–5 (―Even their land became desolate by their enemies; for you have [pou]red out your fiery anger in your zealous fire, so that it was made desolate‖). Lev 26:25 is alluded to in 4Q504 1–2 XIV, 7b–9 (―You have made us great in the years of our generations [. . .] /evil/ illnesses, famine, thirst, plague, the sword [. . . requi]tal of your covenant . . .‖). Along with these, there are many allusions to Lev 26:40–45 as seen in the next note. 14 Leviticus 26:44–45 is alluded to in 4Q504 1–2 XVI, 6b–9 (―But in all this you did not reject the descendants of Jacob, nor despise Israel to their destruction, to annul the covenant with them. For you are a living God, you alone, and there is no other apart from you. You remembered your covenant . . .‖). Leviticus 26:40–43 is alluded to in 4Q504 1–2 XVII, 4b– 8b (―And now, on this very day on which our heart has been humbled, we atone for our iniquity and for the iniquity of our fathers in our disloyalty and /our/ rebellious behaviour. But we have not rejected your trials, and our soul has not despised your punishments to the point of breaking your covenant, with all the anguish of our soul‖). This latter passage is striking since in Leviticus God says that Israel did ―reject my ordinances and their soul despise my statutes,‖ but in spite of this God will not break his covenant with them. The emphasis in Leviticus is God‘s faithfulness in spite of their sin, but in 4Q504 it is on the community enduring the discipline of God yet holding fast to the covenant. Leviticus 26:41 and 46 is probably alluded to again in 4Q504 4 III, 7b –11 (―You redeem us and forgive our iniquity and [our] s[in] [. . .] your [prece]pts, the law which [you] comman[ded] by the hand

80

Chapter 4: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Words of the Luminaries (4Q504)

remnant represented by the author and his community is confessing their sin and pleading with God to restore the covenant. The author frequently alludes to passages in Deut 28–32, which also refers to the blessings and curses.15 Again, this text illuminates the author‘s understanding of his setting, highlighting in particular the notion that the covenant curses have fallen upon the nation. The prayers here are a plea to reverse these curses and turn them into blessings. The community‘s plea is modelled upon a third text from the Pentateuch, Num 14:13–19, where Moses also pleads on behalf of the nation after they have sinned. This text is alluded to once in the Sunday prayer (6 II, 10–11), twice in the Wednesday prayer (3 IX, 7; 7 X, 13–14), and once in the Thursday prayer (1–2 XIII, 7–11).16 The frequent use of Moses‘ prayer in the wilderness, along with the pervasive theme of covenant curse, seems to indicate that the community believed that they were in a similar situation. Just as Moses interceded for wicked Israel, thus turning away God‘s wrath toward the nation, so these faithful Jews, through their prayers (like Moses), are trying to atone for the present rebellious nation and thus lift the covenant curses from the people. These three portions of Scripture (Deut 28–32; Lev 26; Num 14) have shaped the author‘s Deuteronomic conception of salvation history: the nation is under the curses of the covenant and by the confession and repentance of the faithful Israelites,17 the covenant can be restored and the curses can be lifted. This covenant restoration will be achieved through the penitential of Mose[s . . .] [. . .] which/whom . . . [. . .] in a[l]l [. . .] [. . . a kingdom of] priests and a holy nation [. . .] [. . . w]om you chose. Circumcise the foreskin of [our heart . . .]‖). 15 In the Thursday prayer, the author lists various covenant curses which echo Deuteronomy: ―for, you heal us of madness, /blindness/ and confusion [of heart]‖ (1–2 XIII, 14b–15a); compare Deut 28:28: ―the LORD will smite you with madness and with blindness and with confusion of heart.‖ More covenant curses are mentioned explicitly in the same prayer in a text cited above: ―you have raised us over the years of our generations . . . /evil/ illnesses, famine, thirst, plague, the sword . . . requital of your covenant‖ (1–2 XIV, 7b–9a). The five curses mentioned here echo the covenant curses in Deut 28:21, 48, 59 (see Nitzan, Qumran Prayer, 95 n. 25). In the same fragment, the author writes: ‗And clung to us [. . .] your [pre]cepts which Moses wrote and your servants the prophets who[m] you [s]ent, so that evil would [over]take us (wnt[rq]l) in the last days‘ (4Q504 1–2 XIV, 11b–14a). The phrase, ―And clung to us‖ (wnb qbdtw) is fragmentary, but it probably echoes statements in Deut 28 which refer to the curses ―clinging‖ to Israel (compare Deut 28:21: ―The LORD will make pestilence cling [qbdy] to you . . . ,‖ and 28:60, ―and He will bring back on you all the diseases of Egypt of which you were afraid, and they shall cling to you‖ [wqbdw]). The other phrase, ―so that evil would overtake us in the last days,‖ is drawn almost verbatim from Deut 31:29, ―and evil will befall you (Mkt) t)rqw) in the last days.‖ 16 See Chazon, ―Liturgy or Literature?‖ 452–53. 17 This would included the pre-Qumranic community that composed and recited these prayers and the Qumran community which undoubtedly adopted these prayers as an important part of their liturgical life for the 200 years of their existence.

4.3 Leviticus 18:5 and the Sunday Prayer

81

prayers of the community, who like Moses in the wilderness (Num 14:13–19) are standing in the gap to atone for the rebellious nation. The allusion to Lev 18:5 in the Sunday prayer will be examined more closely in light of this Deuteronomic theological conception.

4.3 Leviticus 18:5 and the Sunday Prayer 4.3.1 Its Form and Biblical Source Leviticus 18:5 is cited in the midst of an overview of Israel‘s history during the Sunday prayer. The citation comes in fragment 6 line 17, and although the text is fragmentary, the author is clearly using the phraseology from the Leviticus passage. I will cite most of fragment 6 for clarity: 6 [. . . Re]member, please, that all of us are your people. You have lifted us wonderfully 7 [upon the wings of] eagles and you have brought us to you. 18 And like the eagle which watches its nest, 8 circles [over its chicks,] stretches its wings, takes one and carries it upon [its pinions]19 9 [. . .] we remain aloof and one does not count us among the nations. 20 And [. . .] 10 [. . .] you are in our midst, in the column of fire and in the cloud [. . .] 11 [. . .] your [hol]y [. . .] walks in front of us, and your glory is in [our] midst 21 [. . .]12 [. . .] the face of Moses, [your] serv[ant] 13 [. . .] For you [. . .] 14 [. . .] /and he is innocent/, and you do not acknowledge innoc[ent]22 15 [. . .] as one disciplines [his son. . .] 2316 [. . . hol]y ones and pure [laws . . .] 17 [. . . which if the] man [does them], he shall live by them [. . .] 18 [. . . the o]a[t]h which [you] swo[re . . .] 19 [. . .] in your face [. . .] . . . [. . .]. (4Q504 6 II, 6–19)

This portion of the prayer contains many allusions to Scripture, as indicated in the footnotes. The Leviticus clause is alluded to in line 17: [. . .].b Mb yxw Md)[h Mtw) h#o(y r#O) . . .] [. . . which if the] man [does them], he shall live by them [. . .] (4Q504 6 II, 17)

18 Exod 19:4: ―You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I carried you on eagles‘ wings and brought you to myself.‖ 19 Deut 32:11: ―like an eagle that stirs up its nest, that hovers over its young, he spreads its wings to catch them and carries them on its pinions.‖ 20 Numb 23:9b: ―Behold, a people who dwells apart, and shall not be reckoned among the nations.‖ 21 Numb 14:14: ―They have already heard that you, O LORD, are with these people and that you, O LORD, are seen eye to eye, while your cloud stands over them; and you go before them in a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night.‖ Numb 14:22; ―all of the men who saw my glory and the miraculous signs I performed in Egypt and in the desert but who disobeyed me and tested me ten times.‖ 22 This might be a conflation of Exod. 20:7 and Numb. 14:18 (see Olson, ―Words of the Lights,‖ 121). 23 Deut 8:5.

Chapter 4: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Words of the Luminaries (4Q504)

82

Although the only portion of the text that is visible is Mb yxw Md) (―man will live by them‖), the editors are in agreement that the original text contained the words of Lev 18:5 – Mb yxw Md)h Mtw) h#o(y r#O).24 The old form yxw is used, as it is in Lev 18:5 and Ezek 20 (Neh 9:29 has hyxw), and 4Q504 has Mb instead of Mhb. These minor differences, however, do not affect the sense of the text. It is difficult to tell from which scriptural passage the author is drawing the allusion, but in light of our discussion below, it is more likely that he is not thinking in terms of Lev 18, but more along the lines of Ezek 20 or Neh 9 where the text is used negatively to speak of what Israel did not do. 4.3.2 Wilderness Rebellion and the Forfeiture of Life Bilhah Nitzan understands the Leviticus clause as part of a narrative created by other allusions in this fragment.25 The narrative recalls God‘s kindness and intimacy toward Israel during the exodus from Egypt.26 The order of allusions is as follows: – – – – – – – –

Exod 19:4–5 Deut 32:11a Num 23:9 Num 14:14, 22 Exod 34:7 [?]; Num 14:18 [?] Deut 8:5 Neh 9:13 [?] Lev 18:5

From this reconstruction, we can probably detect a thematic narrative that begins with God‘s covenant with Israel at Sinai (Exod 19:4–5; Deut 32:11b), and then recalls Israel‘s rebellion in the wilderness, which is implied through the allusion to Moses‘ intercessory prayer (Num 14:14, 22). Following this is God‘s chastening Israel in the wilderness (Deut 8:5), his gift of laws (Neh 9:13),27 and the promise of Lev 18:5. The Leviticus clause, then, occurs after 24 Baillet, Qumrân Grotte 4, 160; Olson, ―Words of the Lights,‖ 120–21; García Martínez and Tigchelaar, Study Edition, 2.1009; cf. Nitzan, Qumran Prayer, 94 n. 23. 25 All of the texts alluded to here in fragment 6 are cited elsewhere in 4Q504, except Lev 18:5. The covenant at Sinai in Exod 19:3–13 is evoked again in the Wednesday prayer (3 IX, 12–13). Moses‘ petitionary prayer in Num 14:13–19 is alluded to in three other places (3 IX, 7; 7 X, 13–14; 1–2 XIII, 7–11 esp. 7b–8a). Deuteronomy 8:5 is alluded to in the Thursday prayer (1–2 XIV, 6b–7a). 26 Nitzan, Qumran Prayer, 94. 27 The actual giving of the law is lost in the manuscript. However, Nitzan reconstructs line 16 as, ―[. . . and gave us ho]ly and pur[e laws]‖ (My#O[wdq My+p#Om wnl Nttw] [. . . My]rwh+w). While ―holy and pure‖ are the only words visible, it is possible that these modify the My+p#Om in light of Neh 9:13, where adjectives are used to describe the giving of

4.3 Leviticus 18:5 and the Sunday Prayer

83

Israel has rebelled in the wilderness, which brings the allusion more in line with Ezek 20 where all three occurrences of the clause are after a description of Israel‘s rebellion in the wilderness. There is also a close resemblance between this prayer and the prayer of Neh 9, which is even clearer if the author has alluded to Neh 9:13 in line 16 (see note 27). Although the fragmentary nature of this prayer prevents any definite conclusions, it seems probable that like Ezekiel and Nehemiah, the author here is using Lev 18:5 negatively, describing what Israel forfeited in the wilderness.28 But is it merely a description of what historic Israel has lost, and not something that the community hopes to gain? The rest of fragment does not indicate that the community believed themselves to be ―doing these things,‖ but the other prayers in 4Q504 have similar formulations that indicate that part of their plea to God was for strength to be able to perform the laws and thus enjoy the covenantal blessings. It may be, then, though it is impossible to tell for sure, that the community alluded to Lev 18:5 negatively in the Sunday prayer, but hoped, nevertheless, that God would acknowledge their plea and bless them with life (viz. Lev 18:5) as a response to their obedience.29 We will examine below how this may help illuminate the author‘s understanding of Lev 18:5. 4.3.3 The Deuteronomic Blessing of Life It is difficult to determine if the life in question in the Leviticus clause is life as a reward or a life regulated by the law.30 There is no hard evidence in fragment 6 to argue one way or the other. We may be able to detect a faint correlation between the life-giving power of the law (Lev 18:5) and the reference to the ―breath of life‖ breathed into Adam‘s nostrils, which was mentioned at the beginning of the Sunday prayer (8 I, 5). The implication from the rest of fragment 8 may be that just as Adam has forfeited this life through his disobedience to the commandment (8 I, 8–10), so too Israel has forfeited the life held out in the law through their disobedience in the the laws, and in light of fragment 3 II, 14–15 (upon all the[se] ordin[ance]s and precepts [. . .] and the good [ones] . . . and holy ones‖) where Neh 9:13 seems to be evoked. 28 For Nehemiah, however, the forfeiture of the life of Lev 18:5 happens after Israel has entered the land. 29 This would be similar to Neh 9–10, where Nehemiah‘s community hopes to gain through renewed obedience what historic Israel lost in the wilderness; it may be implied, though not explicitly stated, that the community sees the Leviticus formulation as still relevant – even necessary – for their restoration. 30 Since there is no mention of an afterlife in these prayers, it is very unlikely that the ―life‖ in question is an eternal life. I think that Emil Puech‘s suggestion that the reference to the ―book of life‖ in the Friday prayer (1–2 XVII, 14) indicates a belief in a resurrection is tenuous at best; see his La Croyances des Esséniens en la Vie Future (Paris: Cerf, 1993), 563–68.

Chapter 4: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Words of the Luminaries (4Q504)

84

wilderness. While this correlation is suggestive, it is not conclusive: the fragmentary nature of our evidence, again, prevents us from any definite conclusions. Nevertheless, we may be on firmer grounds by turning to the Deuteronomic pattern of reward (blessing) and punishment (curse) that occurs throughout these prayers. In 4QDibHam, obedience receives the covenantal blessing while disobedience receives the covenantal curse. We have seen this above with regard to the frequent use of Lev 26 and Deut 28–32, where the curses of the covenant have come upon the nation for their disobedience. Likewise, the plea from the community is for strength to obey so that the curses will turn into blessings. There are two statements in these prayers that follow this logic, a logic that we think is also applied to Lev 18:5: [. . .] . . .with all heart and with all soul and to implant your law in our heart, [so that we do not stray from it,] either to the right or to the left. For you have healed us from madness, /blindness/ and confusion [of heart . . .]. (4Q504 1–2 XIII, 13–15a)

Here in the Thursday prayer, a plea is made that God would strengthen Israel to obey the law, not turning ―either to the right or to the left.‖31 This plea is followed with another petition that God would, as a result of this obedience, reverse the covenant curses of ―madness, blindness, and confusion of heart‖ (see note 15 above). So here, the implicit logic is that obedience to the law brings the blessings (or, takes away the curses) of the covenant. If this same framework can be applied to the Lev 18:5 allusion, it would suggest that the community is reading this text as something the nation has lost – they forfeited the covenant blessing of ―life‖ and received instead the curse – but which they, the speakers of these prayers, hoped to receive through renewed law-obedience. Another similar statement can be found in the Friday prayer: You did favours to your people Israel among all [the] lands where you had exiled them in order that they might be made to return to their heart and to turn to you and to listen to your voice, [according to] all that you commanded through the hand of Moses your servant. [Fo]r you have poured your holy spirit upon us, [to be]stow your blessings to us, so that we would look for you in our anguish. (4Q504 1–2 XVI, 11b–16)

Here again, though equally implicit, the covenantal logic follows that if Israel turns to God and listens to his voice, then he will bestow his blessing on them. These references do not explicitly define the type of life referred to in the Leviticus citation, but they do help demonstrate that for these prayers, obedience to the law is rewarded with the blessings of the covenant and the reversal of the curses. So then, although the fragmentary nature of the 31

Cf. Deut 28:14. This phrase is popular in Qumran literature and refers to whole-hearted obedience, the neglect of which will lead to expulsion 1QS I, 15; III, 10; 4Q266 11 I–II 17.

4.4 Summary

85

manuscript limits our discussion, there seems to be enough evidence to detect a Deuteronomic interpretation of ―life‖ in the Leviticus citation. The one who obeys the law is the one who will receive the blessing of the covenant – ―life‖ – a ―life‖ that, as we have seen, was forfeited by historic Israel in the wilderness.

4.4 Summary The fragmentary nature of 4QDibHam makes the allusion to Lev 18:5 difficult to assess. Nevertheless, we are able to make a few general observations about this allusion in light of the theological outlook of the prayers as a whole. We perceive a strong Deuteronomic covenantal theology throughout the collection, focusing on the blessings and curses of the covenant. From the standpoint of the community that stands behind this collection, they see the present nation of Israel as still under the curses of the covenant, and just as Moses stood in the gap to intercede for the rebellious nation in the wilderness (Num 14:13–22), so too the community pleads that God would remove his curses from the nation and renew their obedience to the law. We made the suggestion that this Deuteronomic framework may illuminate the author‘s use of Lev 18:5. Having proposed that Lev 18:5 is being used negatively, as it is in Ezek 20 and Neh 9, we argued that Lev 18:5 was understood as an offer of life forfeited through the rebellion of Israel, but still capable of being met through renewed obedience to the law. The life of the Leviticus clause is the covenantal blessing of life still available to the one who does these things.

Chapter 5

The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in the Psalms of Solomon 5.1 Introduction Several introductory issues regarding the Psalms of Solomon are relatively easy to establish.1 Virtually all scholars agree that these psalms reflect the beliefs of a community rather than an individual,2 that they were originally written in Hebrew (and subsequently translated into Greek and Syriac) around the middle of the first century B.C.E.,3 that the historical backdrop is Pompey‘s Roman invasion of Jerusalem,4 and that they contain a polemic against Israel‘s leadership which had authority over the temple at the time.5 Unfortunately, the identity of the author has not received such unanimous consensus. While most scholars of previous generations considered the

1

I am working from the Greek text of A. Rahlfs, ed., Septuaginta (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979), 2.471–89. All English translations are my own. 2 R. B. Wright: ―Clearly the writer speaks of and for a community that is bound together by persecution and hope for the future. The concerns expressed are not individual but communal . . . it is a unity, not of authorship but tradition‖ (―Psalms of Solomon,‖ in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha [ed. James H. Charlesworth; 2 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1985], 2.641; D. Falk, ―Psalms and Prayers,‖ in Justification and Variegated Nomism [ed. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O‘Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid; WUNT 140; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001], 7–56 [35]; P. N. Franklyn, ―The Cultic and Pious Climax of Eschatology in the Psalms of Solomon,‖ JSJ 18 [1987], 1–17 [14–15]; E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1977], 387–88). While I consider the psalms to be the product of a community, I will continue to refer to the author in the singular for convenience. 3 Wright, ―Psalms of Solomon,‖ 2.640; Falk, ―Psalms and Prayers,‖ 35, follows J. Wellhausen, Die Pharisäer und die Sadducäer (Greisswald: L. Bamberg, 1874), 112, who suggests a general date of 80–40 B.C.E. 4 But see K. Atkinson, ―Toward a Redating of the Psalms of Solomon: Implications for Understanding the Sitz im Leben of an Unknown Jewish Sect,‖ JSP 17 (1998), 95–112 (esp. 99–100). 5 Cf. Pss. Sol. 1:8; 2:3, 5; 7:2; 8:13, 26; 17:51; cf. H. E. Ryle and M. R. James, Psalms of the Pharisees, Commonly Called the Psalms of Solomon (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1891), xlvii; J. Trafton, ―The Psalms of Solomon in Recent Research,‖ JSP 12 (1994), 3–19 (4, 12); J. O‘Dell, ―The Religious Background of the Psalms of Solomon,‖ RevQ 3 (1961), 241–57 (241–42).

Chapter 5: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in the Psalms of Solomon

88

psalms to be Pharisaic,6 recently Pharisaic authorship has been challenged.7 The issue is not entirely relevant for our purpose, and so we will not take a strong view on authorship – though I think a case can still be made for Pharisaic authorship, or at least that the psalms come from ―circles closely related to the Pharisees.‖8 Leviticus 18:5 is alluded to in Pss. Sol. 14:2–3. Before examining this text, I will first discuss the theological outlook of these psalms relevant for our study. I will then look at the allusion to Lev 18:5 in Pss. Sol. 14:2–3, considering its theological function. Particular attention will be given to understanding the type of life conveyed by Lev 18:5, and its contribution to our understanding of the soteriology of these psalms.

6

James and Ryle in their highly respected work on the Psalms of Solomon believed that ―there can be no doubt of their Pharisaic origin;‖ hence, the title of their work: The Psalms of the Pharisees, Commonly Called The Psalms of Solomon. Though this commentary is outdated, it still gives one of the most thorough defences of Pharisaic authorship (see Psalms of the Pharisees, xlix–lii). More recent advocates of Pharisaic authorship include: S. HolmNielsen, Psalmen Salomons (JSHRZ 4/2; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1977), 58–59, and M. Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous: A Comparative Study of the Psalms of Solomon and Paul‟s Letters (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1995), 141–180; similarly, N. T. Wright says that the Psalms of Solomon shows ―strong traces of a revolutionary Pharisaism;‖ The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 162. For a recent review of the literature devoted to authorship, see K. Atkinson, An Intertextual Study of The Psalms of Solomon (SBEC 49; Lewiston, U.K.: Edwin Mellen Press, 2000), 420–24. 7 Many scholars credit the psalms to an unknown Jewish sect (Atkinson, ―Toward a Redating,‖ 112; P. Winter, ―Psalms of Solomon,‖ in The Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible [ed. G. A. Buttrick; 4 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1962], 3.958–60), or suggest that it is unwise to label the community sectarian at all (e.g. E. P. Sanders considers these psalms as ―generally pietist;‖ Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 B.C.E.–66 C.E. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1992), 452–55; idem, Palestinian Judaism, 387–88. Some scholars have even suggested an Essene origin based on many parallels between these psalms and the Dead Sea Scrolls. For instance, O‘Dell has shown many theological beliefs shared between the Essenes and the author(s) of the psalms but ends up concluding that they are a product of the Hasidim, broadly speaking; O‘Dell, ―Religious Background,‖ 257; similarly, Wright, ―Psalms of Solomon,‖ 2.642. Franklyn is more positive in seeing the parallels between the Psalms of Solomon and the Dead Sea Scrolls as suggestive at least that these were the product of ―an unnamed stream in the Essene movement;‖ Franklyn, ―Cultic and Pious,‖ 17. Against Essene authorship, see Roland Deines, ―The Pharisees Between ‗Judaisms‘ and ‗Common Judaism‘,‖ in Justification and Variegated Nomism, Vol. 1, 443–504 (480). 8 G. W. E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981), 203.

5.2 Theological Outlook

89

5.2 Theological Outlook 5.2.1 Eschatology in the Psalms of Solomon Although it has been questioned by some,9 these psalms accentuate an eschatology which includes resurrection and an afterlife. Some interpreters have affirmed without much of a doubt that these psalms refer to a bodily resurrection.10 Others say that it is impossible to tell whether it is a resurrection of the body or the spirit,11 while some deny that the collection refers to resurrection at all.12 The main passage that attracts attention in this debate is Pss. Sol. 3:11–12: The destruction of the sinner is forever (ei0j to_n ai0w~na), and he will not be remembered when he (God) visits (e0piske/pthtai) the righteous. This is the share of the sinners forever (ei0j to_n ai0w~na), but those who fear the Lord will rise up to eternal life (a0nasth/sontai ei0j zwh_n ai0w/nion), and their life will be in the Lord‘s light, and it will never end (ou0k e0klei/yei e1ti). (Pss. Sol. 3:11–12)

This passage clearly refers to a resurrection, and probably one that is bodily. First of all, it seems that there is an allusion to Dan 12:2, a passage that forms the bedrock of early Jewish belief in bodily resurrection.13 Both passages speak of ―rising up unto eternal life‖ and both depict some sort of heavenly light.14 There are also similarities in the mention of the fate of the sinner and 9

Cf. R. H. Charles: ―In these psalms [1–16] there are hardly any references to the future;‖ A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life in Israel, In Judaism and in Christianity, or Hebrew, Jewish and Christian Eschatology (Jowett Lectures 1898–99; London, 1899), 223. 10 Winninge, Sinners and Righteous, 41; Wright, Resurrection, 162. 11 Ryle and James, Psalms of the Pharisees, li; Atkinson, Intertextual Study, 68–69; J. J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to the Jewish Matrix of Christianity (2d Ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 113–14; Wright, ―Psalms of Solomon,‖ 2.655; G. W. E. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972), 134; idem, ―Judgement, Life-After-Death, and Resurrection in the Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha,‖ in Judaism in Late Antiquity: Part Four: Death, Life-After-Death, Resurrection and the World-To-Come In the Judaisms of Antiquity (ed. Alan J. Avery-Peck and Jacob Neusner; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 141–62 (155–57). 12 G. Stemberger, Der Leib der Auferstehung: Studien zur Anthropologie und Eschatologie des palästinischen Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (AnBib 56; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1972), 56–61; A. Büchler, Types of Jewish-Palestinian Piety from 70 B.C.E. to 70 C.E. (New York: Ktav, 1922), 153–55. 13 See 1 En 91:10; 92:3–5; 2 Macc 7:9, 14; T. Jud. 25; T. Benj. 10:8; cf. also 2 Bar. 30:2– 5; 50–51; 4 Ezra 7:32, 97; John 5:28–29; Acts 24:15. 14 See Wis 3:7a; 1 En. 39:7; 50:1; 58:3–4; 92:4; 108:12–15; 1QS IV, 18; 4 Macc 9:22; 2 En. 65:8; cf. LXX Isa 53:11; see Wright, Resurrection, 110–113, 115, 154, 156–158, 160, 169; 204–05; H. C. C. Cavallin, Life After Death: Paul‟s Argument for the Resurrection of the Dead in 1 Cor 15, Part 1: An Enquiry into the Jewish Background (Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1974), 203–5. This ―light‖ probably refers to the glory of the transformed body as is typical in

90

Chapter 5: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in the Psalms of Solomon

the context of judgment. The parallels between Pss. Sol. 3:11–12 and Dan 12:2, then, suggest a belief in bodily resurrection. Second, the reference to ―eternal life‖ itself, apart from the Danielic connection, suggests an afterlife. This is not an improved life in this age; rather, it is a life lived on the other side of the judgment, a life that ―will never end‖ (ou0k e0klei/yei e1ti, 3:12).15 The context of judgment16 indicates that the life referred to here is not simply a continuation of earthly life, but new life that can only be gained on the other side of death. This eschatological outlook in 3:11–12 is seen throughout these psalms (2:31; 13:11–12; 15:10–13), including Pss. Sol. 14 which alludes to Lev 18:5. As such, the author believed that God will visit the earth in judgment to deal out retribution to both the sinner and the righteous. The sinner will be destroyed and the righteous will inherit eternal life. 5.2.2 The Obedience of the Righteous and the Mercy of God Perhaps the most complicated issue in the Psalms of Solomon is the relationship between the obedience of the righteous and the mercy of God. On the one hand, the author affirms that ―our works are in the choosing and power of our own souls‖ (9:4), but on the other hand, that ―his ways are directed by the Lord‖ (6:2)17 – is God or man responsible for salvation? There have been two very different approaches to this issue. One view says that these psalms exhibit a clear instance of ―works-righteousness.‖ The pious community, the righteous, receive mercy from God based on their behaviour.18 Another approach says that the righteous receive mercy from God not because of their behaviour but because of God‘s prior election and early Jewish writings and seen also in Paul, on which see my, ―The Afterlife in Romans: Paul‘s Glory Motif in Light of the Apocalypse of Moses and 2 Baruch,‖ in Lebendige Hoffnung – ewiger Tod?! Jenseitsvorstellungen im Hellenismus, Judentum und Christentum (ed. Manfred Lang and Michael Labahn; ABG 24; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2007), 201-233. 15 George W. Buchanan, The Consequences of the Covenant (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970), 48–49; O. Cullmann, Christ and Time: The Primitive Christian Conception of Time and History (trans. Floyd V. Filson; London: SCM Press, 1951), 45–46, 51, 61; H. Sasse, ―ai0w~na,‖ TDNT, 1.198–99. 16 The context of judgment is suggested by the term e0piske/ptomai, ―visit‖ (―they [the wicked] will not be remembered when he visits the righteous‖), which bears strong eschatological overtones (cf. Mal 3:1; Zech 14:3, 9; Dan 7:9; 1 En. 1:3b–4, 9; 96:7–8; Wis 3:7, 13; see Nickelsburg, Immortality, 120 n. 32, 33; p. 131, 157; A. Oepke, ―e0piske/ptomai,‖ in TDNT, 2.602; Cavallin, Life After Death, 58, 127–28. 17 See too 5:4; 16:3–9. 18 Wellhausen, Die Pharisäer; H. Braun, ―Vom Erbarmen Gottes über den Gerechten: Zur Theologie der Psalmen Salomos,‖ ZNW 43 (1951), 1–54; similarly Mark A. Seifrid, Justification by Faith: The Origin and Development of a Central Pauline Theme (NovTSup 68; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992), 109–32.

5.2 Theological Outlook

91

covenant, a covenant that was made with the patriarchs as an act of grace. The behaviour of the righteous is the proper response to God‘s prior mercy, but God‘s mercy remains the basis for their salvation.19 Simon Gathercole argues for a mediating position: works-righteousness is not in view and the covenant is based on God‘s prior mercy; however, future life is contingent upon obedience. The tension, then, between God‘s election of Israel and life based on obedience is held together.20 In light of these approaches, two observations are in order. First, while the righteous are the ones who receive mercy,21 the author does not normally refer to righteous deeds as the basis for receiving God‘s mercy.22 The righteous are not perfect; they sin,23 are disciplined by God,24 confess their sin and repent,25 and the whole process is underscored by the mercy and power of God.26 In Pss. Sol. 3, for instance, the difference between the sinner and the righteous is not that the latter is free from sins, but that when he does sin ―he looks to where his salvation will come,‖ namely, ―from God [his] Saviour‖ (3:5–6). The righteous ―constantly searches his house to remove his unintentional sins‖ (3:7), but the sinner ―adds sin upon sin in his life‖ (3:10). The righteous repent from sin and place their confidence, not in their own ability to repent or to perform deeds of righteousness, but in God who graciously brings them out of their demise. The same perspective is seen in Pss. Sol. 16. Here, the righteous person has fallen into sin (16:1–2) but is rescued from his plight by God. He then exclaims, My soul was drawn away from the Lord God of Israel, but the Lord had come to my aid in his everlasting mercy. He jabbed me as a horse is goaded to keep it awake; my saviour and protector at all times saved me. I will give thanks to you, O God, who came to my aid for salvation, and who did not count me with the sinners for destruction. (Pss. Sol. 16:3–5)

There is no thought of robust repentance based on the moral strength of the righteous; God, rather, is responsible for bringing the individual out of his

19

Büchler, Jewish-Palestinian Piety, 128–195; J. Schüpphaus, Die Psalmen Salomon: Ein Zeugnis Jerusalemer Theologie und Frömmigkeit in der Mitte des vorchristlichen Jahrhunderts (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977), esp. 99–107; Sanders, Palestinian Judaism, 387– 409; Winninge, Sinners and Righteous. 20 Where is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul‟s Response in Romans 1–5 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 63–67. 21 See 2:33–36; 4:25; 6:6; 9:6–7; 10:3; 13:12; 14:1, 9; 15:13; 16:1–15. 22 I say ―normally‖ because there are two possible exceptions: 9:3–5 and 14:1–5. These will be discussed below. 23 3:6–8; 9:7; 10:1; 13:10; 16:1–11; 17:5. 24 3:4; 7:3, 9; 8:26, 29; 10:1–3; 13:7–10; 16:1–4, 11; 18:4. 25 3:5–8; 9:7. 26 See especially 16:1–15; cf. 10:1–4.

92

Chapter 5: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in the Psalms of Solomon

plight and the righteous one thanks God for his deliverance.27 In short, while the righteous are said to receive mercy from God, this does not mean that their righteous deeds are the basis for this mercy. Obedience and mercy exist together; neither one nor the other should be overemphasised. A second observation important for understanding the soteriology in these psalms is that the term ―Israel‖ is often used as a designation, not for the nation as a whole but for the righteous remnant within the nation.28 Often in these psalms the ―devout‖ (―pious,‖ ―righteous,‖ etc.) are coterminous with ―Israel‖ (see below on Pss. Sol. 9, §5.3.3).29 This may reflect a stronger sectarian notion in this corpus than is usually recognised and argues against E. P. Sanders who says, ―The ‗free grace‘ passages (God‘s mercy to Israel) have to do with the election and preservation of Israel. They show . . . that all Israel is elect and as such is ‗saved‘.‖30 But all Israel does not receive mercy based on the covenant, only the righteous do, according to our psalmist.31 Against Sanders, membership with national Israel does not constitute the sole requirement for ―getting in,‖32 since being a circumcised Jew does not qualify 27 M. A. Elliot, The Survivors of Israel: A Reconsideration of the Theology of PreChristian Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 560. For the psalmist, the mercy of God does not imply unilateral forgiveness, but divine strength to obey (as in Pss. Sol. 16:1–5 above). This again does not at all mean that the author believed that his deeds were selfrighteous actions (i.e. based solely on human effort), but we should see a distinction between these psalms and – to anticipate our later discussion – Paul‘s view of unilateral divine action: the psalmist would not be sympathetic with Paul‘s concept of the justification of the ungodly (Rom 4:4–5). 28 This is a neglected aspect in scholarship on these psalms, though see now, Elliott, Survivors, 555–61. Sanders sees the pious community as an especially scrupulous group within Israel, but not to be identified with Israel (see esp. Palestinian Judaism, 405–6). 29 For instance, the psalmist in Pss. Sol. 12 denounces the ―criminal‖ and the ―wicked man‖ for his evil speech (vv. 1–4) by asking the Lord to ―destroy the slanderous tongue in flaming fire far from the devout‖ (v. 4). The author then asks for the Lord‘s protection and guidance on the ―quiet person‖ and ―devout.‖ The psalm, however, summarises the contrast between the ―devout‖ and ―wicked,‖ only this time the former is called ―Israel‖ – ―May the salvation of the Lord be upon Israel his servant forever; may the wicked perish once and for all from before the Lord. And may the Lord‟s devout inherit the Lord‘s promises‖ (v. 6). The parallelism here clearly correlates ―Israel‖ and the ―devout‖ suggesting that they are coterminous (rightly Seifrid, Justification, 128 n. 230; Franklyn, ―Cultic and Pious,‖ 3 n. 5). For similar instances, see Pss. Sol. 5:18; 9:8–11; 10:5–8; 14:1–5. Both Sanders (Palestinian Judaism, 408–9) and Falk (―Psalms and Prayers,‖ 45, 50–51) disagree that Israel is used to designate the devout in the psalms. 30 Sanders, Palestinian Judaism, 396 (emphasis original), quoted in Falk, ―Psalms and Prayers,‖ 38. 31 The possible exceptions to this are the more nationalistically focused psalms 11, 17–18. But even here, the thought seems to be a divine cleansing of national Israel so that they will be made like the pious community (see Elliott, Survivors, 560–61). 32 Sanders says that only those Israelites who ―sin in such a way to exclude themselves are cut off from Israel‖ (Palestinian Judaism, 405). But passages such as Pss. Sol. 4:1–8 indicate

5.3 Leviticus 18:5 in Psalms of Solomon 14:2–3

93

one as a member of the covenant. Wicked Jews were considered ―children of the covenant‖ (Pss. Sol. 17:15) and yet they were excluded from the promises; if one of these ―children of the covenant‖ wanted to become part of the righteous community, he would have to demonstrate that he was righteous through behaviour. In sum, the Psalms of Solomon do not portray salvation through selfrighteous works, and yet Sanders‘s category of covenantal nomism is not very helpful either. We should speak, rather, of a tension whereby God‘s mercy is held together with the necessity of obedience. The basis for future life is not purely covenant membership, nor is it merited by works. Participation in the righteous community is essential in order to inherit the covenant promises, and this participation is dependant both upon obedience and upon God‘s mercy.

5.3 Leviticus 18:5 in Psalms of Solomon 14:2–3 Psalms of Solomon 14 draws heavily on the biblical Psalm 1 to contrast the way of righteous (Psalm 1:1–3/Pss. Sol. 14:1–5) and the way of the wicked (Psalm 1:4–6/Pss. Sol. 14:6–9).33 The psalm is also ―a hymn devoted almost entirely to afterlife themes,‖34 and as such, it corresponds to the depiction of the afterlife and judgment themes described above (esp. 3:11–12). 5.3.1 Establishing the Allusion While most scholars indicate that the psalmist is alluding to Lev 18:5 in 14:2b–3a,35 the reference is not as clear as the allusions to Lev 18:5 in other early Jewish and Pauline texts. The context of 14:1–5 will be cited for clarity: (1) The Lord is faithful to the ones who love him in truth, to the ones who endure his discipline, (2) to the ones who walk in the righteousness of his commandments, in the law, which he commanded us for our life (toi~j poreuome/noij e0n dikaiosu/nh| prostagma/twn au0tou~, e0n no/mw|, w{| e0netei/lato h9mi~n ei0j zwh_n h9mw~n) (3) The pious of the Lord will live by it forever (o3sioi kuri/ou zh/sontai e0n au0tw|~ ei0j to_n ai0w~na); the paradise of the Lord, the trees of life (ta_ cu/la th~j zwh~j), are his pious ones. (4) Their planting will never be that the sins of the sinner are subtle, not flagrant, and one would have a difficult time to visibly distinguish between the sinner and the righteous (see Schüpphaus, Psalmen Solomos, 33; Falk, ―Psalms and Prayers,‖ 45). 33 For the use of Scripture in this psalm, see above all, Atkison, Intertextuality, 271–89. 34 Franklyn, ―Cultic and Pious,‖ 11. 35 Simon J. Gathercole, ―Torah, Life, and Salvation: Leviticus 18:5 in Early Judaism and the New Testament,‖ in From Prophecy to Testament: The Use of the Old Testament in the New (ed. C. A. Evans; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004), 131–50 (137–38); James D. G. Dunn, The New Perspective on Paul (WUNT 185; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 66; Winninge, Sinners, 119–20; Holm-Nielsen, Psalmen Salomos, 91.

94

Chapter 5: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in the Psalms of Solomon

uprooted, they will not be plucked out all the days of heaven; (5) for the portion and inheritance of God is Israel. (Pss. Sol. 14:1–5)

The underlined phrases may be compared to Lev. 18:5 (LXX): kai_ fula/cesqe pa/nta ta_ prosta/gmata/ mou kai_ pa/nta ta_ kri/mata/ mou kai_ poih/sete au0ta/, a$ poih/saj a1nqrwpoj zh/setai e0n au0toi~j: e0gw ku/rioj o( qeo_j u9mw~n. (Lev 18:5 LXX)

According to our criterion 1, if there are at least two corresponding elements between the text and Lev 18:5, then it is probable that the author is alluding to this passage. Here, we have the parallel constructions zh/sontai e0n au0tw|~ (Pss. Sol. 14:3a) and zh/setai e0n au0toi~j (LXX Lev 18:5b). Both texts have the future tense of za/w, and the plural zh/sontai suits the plural o3sioi kuri/ou in 14:3a. The singular au0tw|~ (Pss. Sol.) is used instead of the plural au0toi~j (Lev) in order to refer back to the singular no/mw| of 14:2a.36 But even here, no/mw| is coterminous with dikaiosu/nh| prostagma/twn au0tou=, which may pick up on the ta_ prosta/gmata of Lev 18:4–5. This last phrase, along with the reference to toi~j poreuome/noij, which also occurs in Lev 18:3–4 (two times), satisfies criterion 3: other terms that are found in Lev 18:1–5 may strengthen the possibility of an allusion to Lev 18:5. Since no other biblical text corresponds closely to Pss. Sol. 14:2–3 (criterion 2),37 it seems best to conclude that the author does have Lev 18:5 in mind here in Pss. Sol. 14:2–3. 5.3.2 Leviticus 18:5 and Eschatological Life There are two main views on the meaning of the phrase zh/sontai e0n au0tw~|; the same issue we encountered in the original context of Lev 18:5.38 The first view says that the phrase refers to life promised to the ones who obey the law, taking the dative as instrumental (―will live‖ or ―have life by it‖), and should be considered ―eternal‖ or ―never ending‖ life. ―Life,‖ then, is eschatological and doing the law is a precondition for attaining it.39 View two understands the phrase as referring to a life lived in accordance with the law, taking the dative as locative (―will live in it‖). The life is not eschatological, but 36 The e0n au0tw|~ could refer back to either the Lord or the law. With the majority of interpreters, I think that the psalmist has the law in view here. So Cavallin, Life After Death, 60; Ryle and James, Psalms of the Pharisees, 111; Gathercole, ―Torah, Life,‖ 138; Sanders, Palestinian Judaism, 393 n. 13. Atkinson says that it refers to the Lord based on the subsequent allusion to Gen 2–3 (―paradise,‖ ―trees of life‖) where God is the caretaker of the garden (Atkinson, Intertextuality, 280–81). 37 The closest is Deut 5:33 (MT): wklt Mkt) Mkyhl) hwhy hwc r#O) Krdh lkb Nwyxt N(ml (the LXX has o3pwj katapau/sh| se for the Hebrew Nwyxt N(ml). 38 See §2.1.1.3 above (pages 31–34). 39 Gathercole, ―Torah, Life,‖ 138–39; idem, Boasting, 66–67. Sanders seems to take this view, Palestinian Judaism, 393; cf. Holm-Nielson‘s translation: ―Die Frommen des Herrn werden durch das (Gesetz) ewige leben‖ (Psalmen Salomos, 91).

5.3 Leviticus 18:5 in Psalms of Solomon 14:2–3

95

regulatory: the law regulates the life of the pious. As such, doing the law is not a precondition to eschatological life according to this passage.40 The interpretation of this clause depends largely on how one understands the prior phrase, ei0j zwh_n h9mw~n (14:2b). Here, the phrase ―for our life‖ could convey either of the two senses of zh/sontai e0n au0tw~| noted above; God commanded the law in order to regulate the life of the pious, or he commanded it in order to give (eschatological) life to those who obey it. Since all these options are grammatically plausible, the issue must be settled on contextual grounds. There are three main contextual reasons why view one (eschatological life) is the most probable, thus taking the two key grammatical constructions, ei0j zwh_n h9mw~n and zh/sontai e0n au0tw~|, as teleological and instrumental respectively. First of all, when the psalmist states that the ―Lord‘s devout shall live by/in it (e0n au0tw|~),‖ he qualifies this expression with the phrase ei0j to_n ai0w~na. As discussed above (§5.2.1), this phrase is best taken to indicate not merely an improved earthly life, but post-mortem (or, post-judgment) eternal life. This is supported by the same phrase in 14:4 – ―Their planting is rooted forever (ei0j to_n ai0w~na); they shall not be uprooted all the days of heaven‖ (pa/saj ta_j h9me/raj tou~ ou0ranou).41 The pious, therefore, will live forever. Second, that eternal life is in view is supported by the phrase, o9 para/deisoj tou~ kuri/ou, ta_ cu/la th~j zwh~j (―the paradise of the Lord, the trees of life‖), in 14:3b.42 The imagery here, drawn from Genesis 2–3,43 is used to speak of a future paradise similar to the garden of Eden, as is common in early Jewish thought.44 The parallels in other Jewish texts show that this 40

Falk, ―Psalms and Prayers,‖ 47; James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 152–53; cf. Dieter Lührmann, ―Paul and the Pharisaic Tradition,‖ JSNT 36 (1989), 75–94 (86); Don Garlington, ―Role Reversal and Paul‘s Use of Scripture in Galatians 3.10–13,‖ JSNT 65 (1997), 104. James Dunn, however, seems to have modified his understanding of this text. In his Theology of Paul, he takes Pss. Sol. 14:2–3 to refer exclusively to non-eschatological life, but recently he understands this text to refer to both ―a way of life and a way to life‖ (see his, New Perspective, 66, emphasis mine). 41 That eternal life, as opposed to extended earthly life is in view is further supported by the use of ei0j to_n ai0w~na in Pss. Sol. 17:1–3. 42 Schüppaus‘ assertion that 14:3b is a gloss is unfounded (Psalmen Salomos, 60). 43 See Atkinson, Intertextual Study, 280–81 for a good discussion of this allusion. The Hebrew word for garden was translated either by the Greek kh/poj or para/deisoj, but the LXX uses para/deisoj exclusively throughout Gen 2–3 (e.g. 2:9 – to_ cu/lon th~j zwh~j e0n me/sw| tw~| paradei/sw|). The same term is used in Ezek 31:8–9 to refer to the Garden of Eden; McAurther, ―Paradise,‖ in The Interpreter‟s Dictionary of the Bible (ed. G. A. Buttrick; 4 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1962), 3.655. For other references to ―tree of life,‖ see Prov 3:18; 13:12; 15:4; 4 Macc 18:16. 44 ―And he shall open the gates of paradise; he shall remove the sword that has threatened since Adam‖ (Test. Lev. 18:10); cf. Isa 65:22 (LXX): ―According to the days of the tree of life so will the days of my people be‖ (kata_ ga_r ta_ h9me/raj tou= cu/lou th~j zwh~j e1sontai

96

Chapter 5: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in the Psalms of Solomon

imagery in Pss. Sol. 14 probably refers to an eternal afterlife as expressed throughout the book (esp. 3:11–12, see above), although here it seems that there is an already/not yet tension since the pious are identified in the present as ―trees of life.‖45 The pious ones by obeying the law are, like ―trees of life,‖ being nourished through God‘s life-giving commandments. As such, the pious are ―storing up life for themselves with the Lord‖ (cf. Pss. Sol. 9:5, see §5.3.3 below). Third, the end of Pss. Sol. 14 refers to an ―inheritance of life‖ in a passage essential for understanding the author‘s use of Lev 18:5: Therefore, their inheritance (h( klhronomi/a au0tw~n) is Hades (a3|dhj) and darkness and destruction (a0pw/leia), and they will not be found in the day of mercy of the righteous; but the pious of the Lord will inherit life in happiness (oi9 de_ o3sioi kuri/ou klhronomh/sousin zwh_n e0n eu0frosu/nh|). (Pss. Sol. 14:9–10)

The future fate of the wicked and righteous is described as an inheritance. The wicked will inherit ―Hades and darkness and destruction,‖ and the righteous will inherit ―life.‖ Since Hades is the post-mortem abode of the wicked,46 then the ―life‖ which the righteous will inherit is also probably a post-mortem reward.47 All of this will transpire on the eschatological day when God visits the earth ―in the day of mercy of the righteous‖ (e0n h9me/ra| e0le/ouj dikai/wn). In sum, even though the initial reference to life in 14:2b (ei0j zwh_n h9mw~n) does not explicitly speak of eternal life, the other three references to ―life/live‖48 suggest that the author has eternal life in view; a life partially realised in the present, yet fully enjoyed on the other side of judgment. As such, it is best to take the dative (e0n au0tw|~) as instrumental instead of locative, thus rendering the phrase zh/sontai e0n au0tw~| as ―will have life by it‖ (i.e. by law-obedience). This is consistent, as we have seen, with other passages in these psalms that refer to eternal life, a life that is contingent upon law-observance.

ai0 h9me/rai tou~ laou~ mou); see too 1 En. 20:7; Odes Sol. 11:18; cf. 38:17–18. In early Jewish thought, the garden of Eden (Greek: o9 para/deisoj) was seen as the future inheritance of the righteous (see 1 En. 20:7; T. Levi 3:48; 18:10; 4 Ezra 3:6; 2 En. 8:1–6; 2 Bar. 4:2–7; 59:8; Apoc. Mos. 37:5; 40:1; cf. too Rev 2:7; 2 Cor 12:4; Luke 23:43; MacAurther, ―Paradise,‖ 3.655; A. Yarbro Collins, Cosmology and Eschatology in Jewish and Christian Apocalypticism (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 31–32; Buchanan, Consequences, 145–47; Bauckham, The Fate of the Dead: Studies on the Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 87–88; D. S. Russell, The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic (Philadelphia: SCM Press, 1964), 283, 265–66. 45 Cf. 1QH XVI, 4–14 where the righteous are identified in the present as trees of life. 46 Cf. Pss. Sol. 4:13; 15:10; 16:2. 47 So Nickelsburg, Immortality, 133; Cavallin, Life After Death, 59. 48 Wright‘s translation of toi~j poreuome/noij as ―to those who live‖ in 14:2a (Wright, ―Psalms of Solomon,‖ 2.663) is somewhat misleading.

5.3 Leviticus 18:5 in Psalms of Solomon 14:2–3

97

5.3.3 Obedience, Mercy, and Leviticus 18:5 In our discussion above (§5.2.2) we reviewed the different ways that the soteriology of the Psalms of Solomon has been handled and concluded that God‘s mercy and the obedience of the righteous should be held together as preconditions of eternal life. In Pss. Sol. 14:2–3, the allusion to Lev 18:5 emphasises the human side of the equation: life is given to the one who obeys the law.49 Various terms in this passage are used to accentuate human action. Those who inherit life are ―those who love‖ (toi~j a0gapw~sin, 14:1a) God, ―who endure his discipline‖ (toi~j u9pome/nousin paidei/an au0tou~, 14:1b), and ―who walk in the righteousness of his commandments‖ (toi~j poreuome/noij e0n dikaiosu/nh| prostagma/twn au0tou~, 14:2a). This ―righteousness of his commandments‖ is equated with the ―law‖ (no/mw|), and it is by means of ―law‖ that the pious will attain eternal life – ―the pious of the Lord will live by it forever (o3sioi kuri/ou zh/sontai e0n au0tw|~ ei0j to_n ai0w~na, 14:3a). Throughout this passage, especially in the allusion to Lev 18:5, human deeds – performance of the law – are an essential precondition for eternal life. That God‘s mercy is also a precondition to future life is clear from the next psalm: But the ones who fear the Lord will receive mercy in it [the day of judgment] and they will live by the mercy (zh/sontai th~| e0lehmosu/nh|) of their God. (Pss. Sol. 15:13)

Here, in a context similar to 14:9–10 (cf. 14:2–3), and with a construction similar to 14:3 (zh/sontai e0n au0tw|~), the author affirms that the righteous will have life by means of God‘s mercy.50 The writer does not see ―life by law‖ and ―life by mercy‖ as opposites. Both aspects (man‘s obedience God‘s mercy) are fundamental; to suggest that one is more fundamental than the other is to go beyond the textual evidence. Another parallel to 14:2–3 is found in 15:1–4 where the author says, ―The one who does these things will never be shaken by evil‖ (o9 poiw~n tau~ta ou0 saleuqh/setai ei0j to_n ai0w~na a0po_ kakou~). The language here is similar to Lev 18:5 with one element: o9 poiw~n tau~ta.51 There is no other element here to locate an allusion to Leviticus, and yet the passage is informative regarding the nature of obedience. Here, the ―these things‖ (tau~ta) refer back to several acts in vv. 1–3 that constitute dependence upon God: calling on the Lord‘s name (15:1a), expecting help from ―Jacob‘s God‖ (15:1b), confessing God in truth (15:2a), singing a ―new song‖ with a devout and happy heart (15:3). Such things could hardly be considered self-righteous works. So, 49 Schüpphaus rightly says that this psalm (esp. vv. 1–5) is about the actual deeds of the righteous, not only the social circle of the righteous community (Psalmen Salomos, 59). 50 See Holm-Nielsen, Psalmen Salomos, 94; Sanders, Palestinian Judaism, 393. 51 Gathercole considers this a ―possible‖ though ―not as clear‖ reference to Lev 18:5 (―Torah, Life,‖ 138 n. 28).

Chapter 5: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in the Psalms of Solomon

98

while Lev 18:5 is probably not directly alluded to here, the passage is informative concerning the divine-human relation: a necessary aspect to obedience, one which does not conflict with doing the law, is showing dependence on God through confession. These passages above show that the author can speak of life conditioned upon the mercy of God (15:1–5, 13), as well as upon human obedience (14:2– 3). There is one other passage that emphasises this latter half of the equation – a passage very relevant for our purpose since it also speaks of law and life: Our works are in the choosing and in the power of our souls, to do righteousness (tou= poih=sai dikaiosu/nen) and unrighteousness in the deeds of our hands. And in your righteousness you judge the sons of men. The one who does righteousness (o9 poiw~n dikaiosu/nhn) stores up life (qhsauri/zei zwh_n) for himself with the Lord, and the one who does unrighteousness (o9 toiw~n a0diki/an) causes his own soul to be destroyed; for the judgments of the Lord in righteousness are according to man and his house. (Pss. Sol. 9:5)

This passage contains a potential allusion to Lev 18:5, but unlike 14:2–3, detecting one is more difficult. According to criterion 1, we need to find at least two corresponding elements. The closest that we have is o9 poiw~n which is similar to poih/saj in LXX Lev 18:5. But even if we take o9 poiw~n here to represent one point of contact, we are short of another clear common element. The phrase qhsauri/zei zwh_n may stand for the zh/setai of LXX Lev 18:5, but the correspondence is not close enough to be considered a direct allusion.52 We should probably see Pss. Sol. 9:5 as drawing on a general lawlife concept without alluding to a specific scriptural text. Nevertheless, even if the author is not intending a direct allusion to Lev 18:5 here, this passage is important for understanding the relationship between law-obedience and eschatological life in the Psalms of Solomon. Here, it is clear that obedience is the precondition for eschatological life.53 This does not mean that we should understand God‘s mercy in these psalms as ―mercy because of piety‖ as Seifrid thinks.54 As we saw above (§5.2.2), the psalmist does not usually refer to righteous deeds as the basis for God‘s mercy; there are passages that suggest the converse: righteous behaviour is possible only on the basis of God‘s mercy. Neither, however, do we need to rush to the other passages that elevate God‘s mercy in order to conclude, with Sanders, that in spite of Pss. Sol. 9:4– 52

Cf. e.g. Tob 12:8–9: ―It is better to do mercy (poih~sai e0lehmosu/nhn) than to lay up (qhsauri/sai) gold: alms deliver from death, and it shall purge away all sin. They that do mercy and righteousness will be filled with life‖ (oi9 poiou~ntej e0lehmosu/naj kai_ dikaiosu/naj plhsqh/sontai zwh~j) (cf. Tob 4:8–10). 53 That obedience is a precondition does not mean that it is meritorious as Braun thinks (―Vom Erbarmen Gottes,‖ 41; rightly denounced by Schüppaus, Psalmen Solomos, 51 n. 195; 102–103 n. 257). 54 Contra Seifrid, Justification, 133; see also Braun, ―Vom Erbarmen Gottes,‖ 29.

5.3 Leviticus 18:5 in Psalms of Solomon 14:2–3

99

5, ―the salvation of the righteous is due not to their own merits, but purely to the mercy of God, who chose them and who forgives them.‖55 Sanders, in stressing God‘s prior election of Israel, fails to take into consideration the remnant theology that permeates the psalms. As we saw earlier (§5.2.2), throughout the Psalms of Solomon the term ―Israel‖ is applied to the pious community, and this is especially clear in Pss. Sol. 9. Here, the promises made to Abraham concerning the nation of Israel are appropriated by the pious: ―we are the people whom you have loved; look and be compassionate, O God of Israel, for we are yours‖ (v. 8); ―you chose the descendants of Abraham . . . and put your name upon us‖ (v. 9); ―You made a covenant with our ancestors concerning us‖ (v. 10). The entire psalm may be seen as a contrast between the wicked behaviour of national Israel (cf. the use of ―they‖ and ―them‖ in vv. 1–2), which caused their exile (vv. 1–3), and the righteousness of the pious community (vv. 4–7), a community which now makes up the true remnant of Israel (cf. the use of ―we‖ and ―us‖ in vv. 8– 11).56 Therefore, the first-person pronouns of verses 8–10 highlighted above refer to the community of the pious, not the nation as a whole; the national expressions are used to designate the community as the true Israel. All Israel does not receive mercy based on the covenant. In returning to Pss. Sol. 9:4–5, we cannot dismiss its emphasis on human deeds for salvation by simply appealing to the ―free grace passage.‖ Psalms of Solomon 9 portrays the law-life concept in the same purview as Lev 18:5 in Pss. Sol. 14:2–3 (even if there is not a direct allusion to Leviticus in Pss. Sol. 9): only the ones who do the law will attain eschatological life by it. Therefore, while it is unhelpful to suggest that either God‘s grace or man‘s deeds are more fundamental for eternal life,57 it is clear that both the allusion to Lev 18:5 in Pss. Sol. 14 and the law-life concept in Pss. Sol. 9 emphasise the human side of the tension. They refer unambiguously to human deeds as a necessary precondition for future life. And for our study this is important. 55

Sanders, Palestinian Judaism, 393, cf. 391. Falk understands Pss. Sol. 9 differently than both Seifrid and Sanders. He thinks that the psalm is primarily about culpability not about ―the mechanics of God‘s evaluation of persons‖ (―Psalms and Prayers,‖ 42). These verses, then, do not teach that one‘s merits are stored up in heaven, nor should they be seen as the lone passage concerning free will in the psalms; rather, they accentuate ―the fact that no one can hide from God: God sees the evil deeds done in secret as well as the righteous deeds of the pious‖ (―Psalms and Prayers,‖ 42). 56 Contra Sanders, Palestinian Judaism, 389–90. 57 Rightly Gathercole, Boasting, 63–67. Sanders thinks that the reward of life for the righteous and punishment of the wicked (cf. 9:5; 14:10; 15:4, 6, 11–13) are not afterlife recompenses, but rather preservation ―from temporal destruction‖ (Palestinian Judaism, 397, cf. 396, 391 n. 11). This would skew the entire discussion regarding the role of mercy and obedience, and the reward of life. However, Sanders continues to use the term ―salvation‖ throughout his discussion without clarifying what he is referring to (e.g. 391, 408) and so it is unclear what he believes the reward of life actually is.

100

Chapter 5: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in the Psalms of Solomon

Leviticus 18:5 is a text seen as exhibiting the human side of the construct: while not conflicting with the role of God‘s grace, the text itself requires righteous deeds as a condition of eternal life.

5.4 Conclusion We have argued that the author understood Lev 18:5 as referring to eschatological life conditioned upon doing the law. This does not signify selfrighteous deeds, for the author believed that one‘s righteousness was empowered by the mercy of God. God‘s mercy and human behaviour function together in these psalms; both are necessary for eschatological life. Within this tension, the allusion to Lev 18:5 is used to highlight the necessity of human obedience as a precondition for eternal life.

Chapter 6

The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Philo‘s De Congressu 86–87 6.1 Introduction Philo Judaeus was a Hellenistic Jew who was thoroughly acquainted with both the law of Moses and Greek Philosophy.1 We know little about the man himself, except that he lived in Alexandria from about 20 B.C.E.–50 C.E.,2 was probably very wealthy and well-educated, and was among the aristocracy of the Jews in Alexandria.3 Philo was a prolific writer and most of his works that were preserved by the Church still survive.4 Among a series of works called The Allegorical Law is the treatise On Mating with The Preliminary Studies (Latin title: De Congressu Quaerendae Eruditionis [Gratia]),5 and it is in this work where the only citation of Lev 18:5 is found among Philo‘s writings (Congr. 86–87). 1 ―The Torah exegete did not believe that Platonism and Judaism were antagonistic systems; rather, he held that Moses and Plato understood the same realities;‖ George Sterling, ―Philo Has Not Been Used Half Enough: The Significance of Philo of Alexandria for the Study of the New Testament,‖ PRSt 30 (2003), 251–69 (254). 2 The only certain date from his life comes from his account of the great pogrom in Alexandria which started in 38 C.E. under Flaccus during the reign of Gaius Caligula. Philo was chosen to lead a delegation of five men (Legat. 370) sent in 39/40 C.E. by the Jewish community to Gaius Caligula in Rome (Legat. 370; cf. Josephus, Ant. 18.257); see Peder Borgen, Philo of Alexandria: An Exegete for His Time (NovTSup 86; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1997), 14. 3 For an overview of Philo‘s life and thought, see Kenneth Schenck, A Brief Guide to Philo (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2005); Samuel Sandmel, Philo of Alexandria: An Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979); Ronald Williamson, Jews in the Hellenistic World: Philo (Cambridge: CUP, 1989), 1–73; Borgen, Exegete. 4 Philo‘s writings are often categorised under three headings: The Exposition of the Law of Moses, The Allegorical Law, and Thematic and Philosophical Writings; for a discussion, see Peder Borgen, ―Philo of Alexandria,‖ in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus (ed. Michael E. Stone; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 233–82 (233–52), and Jenny Morris in the new edition of Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C. – A.D. 135) (rev. and ed. by M. Black, G. Vermes, and F. G. B. Millar; Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1973–87), 3.2.819–89 (819–26). 5 The title derives from the allegorical reading of Abraham, who ―mates‖ with Hagar (encyclical education) in his pursuit of Sarah (virtue). See the explanation by F. H. Colson, LCL, 4.449.

102

Chapter 6: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Philo‟s De Congressu 86–87

6.2 Encyclical Education in Philo and De Congressu De Congressu is an allegorical treatment of Genesis 16:1–6 which, according to Philo‘s exegesis, expounds the Stoic doctrine that the proper preparation for the study of philosophy is encyclical education. Encyclical education is similar to what moderns would consider a liberal arts education.6 The encyclia consists of several disciplines such as Grammar, Music, Rhetoric, Arithmetic, Astronomy, and Dialectic.7 According to an ancient dictum, ―Those who neglect philosophy and spend their time on ordinary studies are like the suitors who desired Penelope but slept with her maids.‖8 Philo takes over this idea in De Congressu, but reads it through the lens of Genesis: Sarah stands in for Penelope and Hagar for her handmaids. In adopting this metaphor, however, Philo ―goes further than the traditional view of the liberal arts and sciences as stepping-stones to philosophy. He endows the encyclia with inherent spiritual value; this position represents a significant shift in the history of liberal studies.‖9 Studying the encyclia, then, is a vital process in one‘s attainment of virtue and of a true knowledge of God, for ―mastery of the encyclia is . . . a major theological accomplishment.‖10 The necessity of first pursuing encyclical education for attaining virtue should be understood in light of Philo‘s classification of man. For Philo, there are three classes of men:11 1) God-born men which includes incorporeal souls, angels, and human beings of extraordinary character;12 2) heaven-born men (the class to which most men belong), consisting of men whose lives are under the influence of bodily passions but can overcome them if they choose the right path of discipline; and 3) earth-born men who only seek the pleasures of the body.13 It is the second class, the heaven-born men, who, like Abraham,14 can ascend to the level of a God-born man through diligent 6

See Colson, LCL, 4.452. See Congr. 11, 14–18, 74–78; Cher. 105; Agr. 18; Somn.1.205; Mos. 1.23; QG 3.21; QE 2.103. The individual disciplines are discussed at length in Alan Mendelson, Secular Education in Philo of Alexandria (Cincinnati: HUCA Press, 1982), 4–24; cf. M. Alexandre, De Congressu Eruditionis Gratia (vol. 16 of Les Oeuvres de Philon d‟Alexandrie; Paris: Cerf, 1967), 34–41. Philo considers the last discipline, Dialectic (dialektikh/), to be the ―sister and twin, as some have said, of Rhetoric, distinguishing true argument from false‖ (Congr.18). Mendelson says that, ―Dialectic, unlike rhetoric, is a structured discipline which is designed to discover truth and falsity by probing into the particulars of the argument‖ (Secular Education, 11). 8 Plutarch, [Lib. ed.] 7D; see Borgen, Exegete, 163; Mendelson, Secular Education, xxiv. 9 Mendelson, Secular Education, xxiv; see too Sandmel, Philo, 24–25, 57, 84–88. 10 Mendelson, Secular Education, 81. 11 Philo describes these clearly in Gig. 60–61. 12 Somn. 1.135–37; Gig. 8–9. 13 Her. 78–79. 14 Mendelson, Secular Education, 54–55. 7

6.3 De Congressu 1–88

103

practice and instruction in order to arrive at genuine philosophy (= Sarah). The heaven-born man must first ―go into‖ Hagar, that is, go through encyclical instruction15 as a necessary stage in the transcendence of senseperception and the attainment of immortality.16 It is in this general context that Philo cites Leviticus 18:1–5. In the following, I will first survey the flow of thought in De Congressu leading up to the citation of Lev 18:1–5 in Congr. 86–87. I will then discuss Philo‘s text of Lev 18:1–5 and his exegesis of this passage, focusing in particular on the philosophical concept of ―true life,‖ which he draws out of, or reads into, Lev 18:5b. After examining various uses of ―true life‖ in Philo, I will then relate the concept to his exegesis of Lev 18:5 in Congr. 86–87. My main argument will consist in demonstrating that Philo‘s understanding of Lev 18:5 is not akin to ―covenantal nomism‖ as suggested by E. P. Sanders and James D. G. Dunn. I will argue, rather, that ―true life,‖ while not equated with eternal life, is a type of life that must be attained; to ―live by them‖ for Philo means to have achieved a type of life that is conditioned upon one‘s behaviour (in Philo‘s case, the behaviour is education).

6.3 De Congressu 1–88 Philo begins his treatise with an allegorical interpretation of Gen 16:1–2a which reads (as quoted by Philo), Sarah the wife of Abraham did not bear (children) for him. Now she had an Egyptian handmaiden named Hagar. And Sarah said to Abraham, ―Behold, the Lord has closed me up so that I can bear no children. Go into my handmaiden in order that you may have children from her.‖17 (Gen 16:1–2a in Congr. 1)

―Sarah,‖ who for Philo refers to ―virtue‖ (2–3), is barren (9); thus, Abraham must first go into Hagar (= encyclical education) in order to receive children through Sarah (= virtue): ―for we are not able to become offspring of virtue, unless we have first mated with her handmaiden; and the handmaiden of 15

―. . . for the mind of everyone who is born of heaven pursues the encyclia and every other art of every description, sharpening, and exercising, and practising itself, and rendering itself acute in all those matters which are the objects of intellect‖ (Gig. 60). 16 See esp. Gig. 14: ―These are the souls of the ones who have given themselves to genuine philosophy, who from the beginning to the end study to die to the corporeal life that they may partake in a higher immortal and incorporeal life in the presence of the one who is himself uncreated and immortal.‖ It is remarkable that even Moses, who is a God-born man (along with Isaac), is said to have gone through the course of the encyclia (Mos. 1.23). This does not devalue the perfect nature of Moses, but highlights the importance of the encyclia for Philo (so Mendelson, Secular Education, 63–65). 17 All translations are slightly modified from Colson, LCL.

104

Chapter 6: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Philo‟s De Congressu 86–87

wisdom is the encyclical knowledge of music, arrived at by previous instruction‖ (9).18 True virtue, therefore, cannot be attained without first learning encyclical instruction. Philo then goes into a lengthy discussion of several matters including the necessity of learning the encyclia (Grammar, Music, Geometry, Rhetoric, and Dialectic; 13–19), the implication of Hagar‘s Egyptian heritage (20–24),19 the meaning of the names of the patriarchs and their significance (24–53), and a digression on the journeys of the wicked (54–62). Philo then considers Gen 16:3 (Congr. 71), focusing on the issue of Abraham‘s two wives (71–80), and then discusses the ten-year gap that separates Abraham‘s arrival in Canaan from the time when Sarah bore his offspring (81–88) – this latter section provides the context for his citation of Lev 18:1–5. In Congr. 81–84, Philo explains the symbolism of Egypt and Canaan: ―Egypt is the symbol of the passions and the land of the Canaanites is the symbol of the wickedness‖ (83). In the first stage of life, when a person is a child, that person dwells in the land of passions (= Egypt). Subsequently, during the second stage, that person leaves Egypt and sojourns towards wickedness (= Canaan).20 Philo then embarks on a short digression concerning these two lands wherein he quotes Leviticus 18:1–5: Now these are homelands of each respective nature; passions, that is to say Egypt being the country of the age of childhood; and wickedness, that is the land of Canaan, being the country of the age of youth. But the Scripture (i9ero_j lo/goj), although it is well acquainted with the mortal race of our homelands, sets before us what ought to be done and what will be advantageous to us, exhorting us to hate their habits, and customs (ta_ no/mima), and practices (ta_ e0pithdeu/mata), in which it says, ―And the Lord spoke unto Moses, saying: ‗Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the Lord your God; you shall not do (ou0 poih/sete) according to the practices (ta_ e0pithdeu/mata) of the land of Egypt in which you dwelt among them; and you shall not do (ou0 poih/sete) according to the practices (ta_ e0pithdeu/mata) of the land of Canaan, into which I am bringing you there, and by their customs (toi~j nomi/moij) you shall not walk. You shall do (poih/sete) my judgments, and you shall keep my commandments, you shall walk in them. I am the Lord your God. And you shall keep all my commandments and my judgments, and you shall do them. The one who does them shall live by them; I am the Lord your God‘‖ (Lev 18:1–5). Therefore, the true life (h9 pro_j a0lh/qeian zwh/) is walking in the judgments and commandments of God, so that (w3ste) the practices of the godless (ta_ tw~n a0qe/wn e0pithdeu/mata) must be death. And what these practices are has been said. They are (ta/) passions and evil, from which spring the practices (ta/) of the impious and workers of unholiness. (Congr. 85–87) 18

Being an Egyptian, Hagar, or encyclical instruction, involves the ―external senses‖; and since she is a ―sojourner,‖ encyclical instruction is always penultimate – a journey towards virtue (20–24); Cf. Cher. 1–10; Mut. 252–63; QG 3.19–21. 19 Egypt is frequently a symbolic reference to ―bodily passions,‖ cf. Migr. 23; Leg. 3.212. 20 On significance of the different ages, see Her. 294–99; cf. too Opif. 103–104 and the discussion in Mendelson, Secular Education, 40–42.

6.4 Philo‟s Use of Leviticus 18:5

105

Philo then goes into a long arithmological digression concerning the number ten (89–120) before resuming his discussion on Abraham‘s relationship with Hagar in the land of Canaan (121–23).

6.4 Philo‘s Use of Leviticus 18:5 6.4.1 The Form of the Text Leviticus 18:1–5 is quoted with a few minor differences from the LXX.21 Philo‘s citation of 18:5 in particular, however, exhibits some important differences. What is striking is the exact correspondence between Philo‘s text and that of Paul (esp. Gal 3:12). a4 poih/saj au0ta_ a1nqrwpoj, zh/setai e0n au0toi~j. (Lev 18:5 LXX) o9 poih/saj au0ta_ zh/setai e0n au0toi~j. (Congr. 86) o9 poih/saj au0ta_ zh/setai e0n au0toi~j. (Gal 3:12)

Two differences are clear: 1) the LXX text has a subordinate clause beginning with a4, while the text in Philo is an independent clause beginning with the article o9; and 2) Philo‘s text does not include the term a1nqrwpoj. As seen above, Paul‘s citation of Lev 18:5 in Gal 3:12 is identical to Philo‘s. A. Lindemann suggests that a Christian editor has adjusted Philo‘s text to correspond to Paul‘s quotation in Galatians.22 Alternatively, if the present form is original (o9 poih/saj au0ta_ zh/setai e0n au0toi~j), then this might indicate that Lev 18:5b has come to Philo as a free-standing formulation. No longer is Lev 18:5b a dependent clause, but an independent clause that can stand alone. 6.4.2 Leviticus 18:5 and the True Life Philo has been arguing that it is profitable for the person to leave the passions of childhood (= the foreign land of Egypt) and pursue virtue by way of encyclical instruction after adolescence (= the homeland of Canaan). He then states that Scripture (i9ero_j lo/goj) exhorts us to leave the ―customs‖ (ta_ no/mima) and ―practices‖ (ta_ e0pithdeu/mata) of Egypt and Canaan (Congr. 85). Philo draws this exhortation from Lev 18:1–3. Philo goes on to quote 18:4–5 wherein he finds another concept that he accentuates in his conclusion 21 Philo has katoikh/sate whereas the LXX (Lev 18:3) has katw|kh/sate; Philo has au0th~j for the LXX (Lev 18:3) au0th|~; and Philo does not have ta/uta in Lev 18:4 as in the LXX. 22 ―Die Gerechtigkeit aus dem Gesetz Erwägungen zur Auslegung und zur Textgeschichte von Römer 10:5,‖ ZNW 73 (1982), 241 n. 37.

106

Chapter 6: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Philo‟s De Congressu 86–87

– the concept of ―true life‖. The phrase o9 poih/saj au0ta_ zh/setai e0n au0toi~j furnishes Philo with the scriptural proof that, ―The true life (h9 pro_j a0lh/qeian zwh/) is walking in the judgments and ordinances of God‖ (peripatou~nto/j e0stin e0n tai~j tou~ qeou~ kri/sesi kai_ prosta/cesin) so that ―death would be the practices of the ungodly‖ (qa/natoj a2n ei1h ta_ tw~n a0qe/wn e0pithdeu/mata). Philo considers the key feature in Lev 18:5 to be the ―true life‖ that consists in walking in the commandments of God.23 As we will see, the concept of ―true life‖ is important for Philo, which here denotes a qualitatively superior type of life that is causally linked to one‘s education. ―True life‖ is a manner of life, but not a life of ―covenantal nomism;‖ it is a manner of life attained as a result of one‘s educational journey. The phrase ―true life‖ is used frequently by Plato24 and occurs extensively in the writings of Philo, primarily in Legum Allegoriae.25 Generally, ―true life‖ is that incorporeal part of man (his rational soul)26 which God breathed into Adam,27 who was then nourished by the tree of life.28 Now that the soul has been mixed with the body and all its passions, it must journey back to God through a life of discipline, denying the bodily passions in order to arrive at, or return to, the state of ―true life.‖29 This ―virtuous life‖ (a)reth_n bi/on) is ―the true life‖ (th~j a0lhqou~j zwh~j) . . . which is life in its truest form (o3j e0stin a0yeudesta/th zwh/)‖ and is ―shared by a few . . . to whom it is granted 23 Leviticus 18:5 is one of many texts containing the verb za/w that Philo finds in support of his understanding of ―true life,‖ or having some sort of spiritual life with God; see e.g. Gen 45:28 in Leg. 2.93; Deut 30:20 in Post. 12; Deut 33:6 in Mut. 210; Gen 17:18 in Mut. 201; Gen 46:30 in Mut. 210–15). 24 See Plato, Theaet. 176a; 121b; Resp. 490b, 495c; Ep. 7 327d; cf. also Aristotle, Protr. 80b, 90b. This concept of ―true life‖ is similar to the popular philosophical concept of ―living in accordance with nature‖ (see H. A. Wolfson, Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam [2 vols.; Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press, 1948], 2.165–200). Although there was much diversity among ancient philosophers concerning what ―living according to nature‖ means, one commonality among them was that it did not mean living according to a universally authoritative law revealed by God (or, the gods). Philo, however, disagrees. For him, God has revealed universal law in the law of Moses. In light of this, ―to live in accordance with nature‖ is the same as living in accordance to the revealed law; moreover, living in accordance to the Mosaic law is the only way in which a life in accordance to nature could be achieved. Philo‘s underlying assumption is that the universe and the law are not at odds but exist in perfect harmony; for, ―the law is in harmony with the world and the world with the law‖ (Opif. 3; Mos. 2.48). 25 For a discussion of this concept in Philo, see esp. D. Zeller, ―The Life and Death of the Soul in Philo of Alexandria: The Use and Origin of a Metaphor,‖ SPhilo 7 (1995), 19–55 (esp. 20, 24–40, 48). 26 For Philo‘s understanding of the ―rational‖ versus the ―irrational‖ soul, see esp. Leg. 2.4–52. 27 Leg. 1.32, 35; cf. QG 1.16, 55, 70. 28 Leg. 3.52. 29 Post. 12; Migr. 21; Leg. 2.93.

6.4 Philo‟s Use of Leviticus 18:5

107

to escape the aims which engross humanity and to live to God alone (qew~| mo/nw| zh~sai)‖ (Mut. 213). ―True life,‖ then, entails communion with God; a life lived in the presence of God and corresponding to his will.30 Joseph is a prime example (in one strand of Philo‘s thought31) of one of the few who have denied the passions of the body and attained this life: [Joseph] . . . derided lusts and all passions and their gross excesses (Gen 39:14, 17): he feared God (Gen 42:18) even though he was not yet ready to love him: when in Egypt he claimed as his own the life that is true life (to_ zwh~j e0n Ai0gu/ptw| metapoiei~sqai th~j a0lhqou~j), a claim which caused Israel to marvel in just amazement, and to cry, ―It is a great matter in my eyes if my son Joseph still lives (zh~|)‖ (Gen 45:28), and has not shared the death of vain opinions, and of the body the corpse he carries with him: he confesses that he is God‘s (Gen 50:19). (Migr. 21)

To say that Joseph had ―true life‖ while in Egypt, the symbol of bodily passions, means that he was spiritually alive while in the body since he denied its passions.32 Therefore, those who have ―true life‖ ―live an incorporeal life‖ (QG 1.70; cf. Her. 201); they have mastered the passions that dwell in the body (Leg. 2.93). Correspondingly, those who do not have it, who have chosen to live to the bodily passions, are spiritually dead and ―bear their body with them like a tomb that they may bury their unhappy soul in it‖ (QG 1.70; cf. QG 1.16; 4.46). ―True life,‖ which denotes being spiritually alive on earth as in the case of Joseph, can also mean immortal life; those who have it will live forever in the presence of God.33 This does not mean that ―true life‖ is limited to the afterlife. It seems that at least in a few passages Philo indicates that ―true life‖ encompasses both a state of existence in this life as well as that which passes on into eternity.34

30

Post. 69; see Zeller, ―Life and Death,‖ 39. Philo‘s presentation of Joseph is notoriously inconsistent between his Exposition of the Law and his Allegory on the Law; see e.g. Earle Hilgert, ―The Dual Image of Joseph in Hebrew and Early Jewish Literature,‖ BR 30 (1985), 5–21 (7–13). 32 The concept of ―spiritual life‖ and ―spiritual death‖ is pervasive in Philo (Det. 48–49; Her. 292; Somn. 2.235; Fug. 113; Leg. 2.77; Post. 73; Leg. 1.108; QG 4.152); see especially the lengthy discussion in Fug. 53–61, on which see Jaap Mansfeld, ―Heraclitus, Empedocles, and Others in a Middle Platonist Cento in Philo of Alexandria,‖ VC 39 (1985), 131–56 (141– 46). 33 Mut. 213, 216; cf. Gig.14; Post. 12. 34 See esp. QG 1.16: ―What is the meaning of the words, ‗you shall die by the death‘ (Gen. 2.17)? The death of worthy men is the beginning of another life. For life is twofold; one is with corruptible body; the other is without body (and) corruptible. So that the evil man dies by death even when he breathes, before he is buried, as though he preserved for himself no spark at all of the true life, and this is excellence of character. The decent and worthy man, however, does not die by death, but after living long, passes away to eternity, that is, he is borne to eternal life.‖ 31

108

Chapter 6: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Philo‟s De Congressu 86–87

―True life,‖ therefore, is both: 1) an ―excellence of character‖ of those who are spiritually alive in contrast to those who are spiritually dead; and 2) is ultimately ―immortal life‖ of the ―worthy man‖ who ―passes away to eternity.‖35 While the virtuous soul will metaphysically enjoy ―true life‖ when it is finally detached from its body-tomb upon physical death, it can unite itself to the intelligible world during this present life when it has arrived at (or is in the pursuit of) the goal of ―generic virtue‖36 unto which it is migrating.37 But how does one attain to ―true life?‖ It is important to notice that the arrival at ―true life‖ comes after a long spiritual and educational journey, and this journey is only successfully ventured by a few. Philo‘s theological understanding of encyclical education limits potential participants in ―true life‖ to those who have passed through various preliminary stages. This process is evinced clearly in Congr. 86–87, where Philo integrates the concept of ―true life‖ into his discussion of the role of the encyclia in the progress of the migrating soul through various stages.38 Alan Mendelson explains that Philo sees four stages in the educational journey: 1) the age of childhood (Egypt), 2) the age of adolescence (the ten years in Canaan), 3) the age of adolescence after the ten years in Canaan, i.e. the period of the encyclical studies, or mating with Hagar (Congr. 88, 121), and 4) spiritual maturity, or mating with Sarah (cf. Sac. 16). This final stage may (if ever) occur at least twenty years after the person has begun the encyclical education.39 ―True life‖ seems to be a description given to the one who is on his way to, or has already arrived at, the fourth stage of migration.40 He has left the passions of his youth 35

See QG 1.70. See Philo‘s distinction between ―generic virtue‖ as the stage of perfection and ―particular‖ or ―specific virtue‖ in relation to the encyclia in Cher. 6–8; on ―generic virtue‖ and ―particular virtue‖ in general, see Leg. 1.59, 65; cf. 1.22–24. Philo believes that when one progresses from ―particular virtues‖ to ―generic virtue,‖ this represents a progression from the sensible world to the intelligible world; see S. Sandmel, ―Virtue and Reward in Philo,‖ in Essays in Old Testament Ethics: J. Philip Hyatt, In Memoriam (ed. J. L Crenshaw and J. T. Willis; New York: Ktav, 1974), 215–23 (218–19). 37 This is similar to Fred W. Burnett‘s understanding of paliggenesi/a in Philo. He says that ―[t]he rebirth of the soul which occurs after death seems to be on a continuum with the migration of the soul towards perfection before death‖ (―Philo on Immortality: A Thematic Study of Philo‘s Concept of paliggenesi/a,‖ CBQ 46 [1984], 447–70 [464]). This purified soul, after having acquired the cardinal virtues, attains ―a glimpse of what awaits it after physical death‖ (―Philo on Immortality,‖ 456). 38 See too Her. 294–99. 39 Mendelson, Secular Education, 40–42. Mendelson later describes the various substages that grow out of the encyclia, which are scepticism about the world of sense perception, realisation of nothingness of the created being, self knowledge, self-despair, and lastly knowledge of God (Secular Education, 69–76). 40 Alan Mendelson, in private conversation, leans toward the latter, that ―true life‖ entails the actual attainment of virtue (the fourth stage). 36

6.4 Philo‟s Use of Leviticus 18:5

109

(stages one and two in Congr. 81–84) and has embraced Hagar, the encyclia (stage three in Congr. 88), as a necessary prerequisite for the attainment of philosophy and wisdom (stage four). The following chart roughly conveys the relationship between the stages of soul-migration and the realms of ―true life‖ and death: Realm of “death” Stage 1

Stage 2

Realm of “true life” Stage 3.1

Stage 3.2

Stage 4

Immortality

The encyclia

During the third stage of migration, the soul, being trained and disciplined by the encyclia, is sometimes lured back to follow the passions of Egypt (stage 3.1). At other times it is able to control the passions and live virtuously (stage 3.2). The soul finally arrives at the fourth stage, the stage of perfection or ―generic virtue,‖41 when it has achieved final victory over the passions.42 While Philo is not altogether clear, it seems that the ―true life‖ is a description given to the person who is either denying the passions during the third stage (stage 3.2) or has arrived at perfection in the fourth stage.43 In both stages (3.2 and 4), he is walking according to law and thus enjoying ―true life.‖ This raises a question regarding the relationship between the law and encyclical education in Philo. Did Philo believe that one could not virtuously observe the law until he has first ―gone into Hagar‖? This question can only be answered in light of Philo‘s distinction between the literal commands of law and the deeper, allegorical sense of law.44 Philo believed that everyone is obliged to obey the law in its literal commands, 45 and all people, even those who have not pursued the encyclia, are able to do these commands. And yet, in addition to the literal commands, there is a deeper understanding of the law that can only be arrived at after the various stages of migration including the stage of encyclical education.46 For Philo, true law observance requires a true

41

See note 36. Cf. Sac. 16; Gig. 14. 43 See too Spec. 2.229–30 (role of education in bringing the good life); Gig. 60–61 (the three classes of men; role of education); Her. 297–99 (the 4 stages of migration) 44 See Schenck, Philo, 29–37. 45 Legat. 310; cf. Hypoth. 7.14. I thank Professor John Barclay for alerting me to these references. 46 A significant contribution that the encyclia makes in one‘s ascent toward God is in producing scepticism about the world of sense-perception which leads to a true perception of the world of ideas and thus true knowledge of God; see esp. Mendelson, Secular Education, 67–76. 42

110

Chapter 6: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Philo‟s De Congressu 86–87

knowledge of God, and such knowledge cannot be attained apart from a prior study of the encyclia.47 So when Philo concludes in Congr. 87 that the ―true life is walking in the statutes and ordinances of God,‖ this seems to refer not simply to observance of the literal commands of the law, but to a life lived in accordance with the law after leaving the passions of Egypt (Congr. 85) and after going through, or in the later stages of, the encyclia. This makes best sense in light of Philo‘s concept of ―true life‖ and the context of De Congressu.48 This entire treatise (especially the 81–88) concerns the spiritual progression of man toward God through the encyclia. Philo is trying to show how the entombed soul can migrate back to God and attain ―generic virtue.‖ The observance of the literal commands of the law – ―particular virtues‖ – although necessary, are not the sole means by which one can come to a knowledge of God. Only when one has gone through the encyclia can one come to a true understanding of God and enjoy the ―true life‖ therein. In summary, the concept of ―true life‖ is that life of the soul that has denied the bodily passions, embarked on a migration back to God, and is thus in harmony with the incorporeal world. The virtuous soul that arrives at (or is on a steady migration towards) this state is spiritually alive, and when the body/soul mixture is separated upon physical death, the virtuous soul will fully enjoy ―true life‖ in the presence of God. 6.4.3 Is Philo Also among the Covenantal Nomists? We have seen that Philo‘s concept of ―true life,‖ which he read out of Lev 18:5, refers to a form of life conditioned upon one‘s journey through encyclical education. As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, James 47

See e.g. Gig. 60. For a discussion concerning Philo‘s insistence on a correct understanding of God as a prerequisite for authentic law-observance, see David Winston, ―Two Types of Mosaic Prophecy According to Philo,‖ JSP 4 (1989), 49–67; idem, ―Philo‘s Mysticism,‖ SPhilo 8 (1996), 74–82. I thank Professor David Winston for pointing me to his two articles. 48 The significance of the number ten supports my thesis that the ―statutes and ordinances‖ in Congr. 86–87 are understood to refer to the stage of the attainment of ―generic virtue‖ (stage four in the migration of the soul) rather than ―particular virtue.‖ In Congr. 89–120, Philo argues at length that the number ten is a perfect number, since it is ―ten years‖ after leaving ―Egypt‖ that the soul is ready for encyclical instruction. Philo‘s final argument is that the ten commandments are the ―generic heads (genika_ kefa/laia), roots, the sources, the perennial fountains of ordinances containing the commandments positive and prohibitive for the profit of those who follow them‖ (Congr. 120). The ―statutes and ordinances,‖ drawn from Lev 18:4–5, are mentioned in the purview of the later stages of soul migration, a discussion on the significance of the number ten, and the primacy of generic law (ten commandments). Therefore, it seems that these (―statutes and ordinances‖) refer not to ―particular laws‖ that can and should be literally obeyed by anyone and everyone, but to ―generic law‖ and the attainment of ―generic virtue.‖

6.4 Philo‟s Use of Leviticus 18:5

111

Dunn and others think that the ―true life‖ in Congr. 87 signifies ―life within the covenant . . . not the life of the age to come.‖49 ―True life,‖ then, is essentially a life of covenantal nomism. Friedrich Avemarie, on the other hand, disagrees with Dunn, pointing out that the opposition between ―true life . . . to death clearly evinces his soteriological perspective.‖50 Dunn is correct that Philo‘s interpretation describes a manner of life, but as seen in the discussion above, this manner of life must be attained – one can only arrive at true law-obedience after one has come to a true understanding of God through the encyclia. Therefore, while ―true life‖ does signify the manner in which one lives, it is nonetheless a type of life that is causally linked to one‘s journey through encyclical education. The categories of covenant, soteriology, and life in the age to come, are probably not the best framework to project upon Philo.51 Nevertheless, it does seem clear that according to Philo‘s exegesis of Lev 18:5, one‘s education is a precondition for ―true life,‖ and thus Avemarie‘s view is closer to the mark than Dunn‘s. In the following, I will add further support for the view that ―true life‖ is conditioned upon behaviour, and in some sense should be understood as a reward. First, Philo often refers to the concept of ―true life‖ as a reward for behaviour, while placing ―death‖ as the result of wicked behaviour. For instance, in considering Genesis 27:41 in his Quaestiones et Solutiones in

49

James D. G. Dunn, Romans (WBC 38b; Waco Tex.: Word, 1988), 2.601; so also Lindemann (―Die Gerechtigkeit,‖ 241 n. 37); Simon J. Gathercole (―Torah, Life, and Salvation: Leviticus 18:5 in Early Judaism and the New Testament,‖ in From Prophecy to Testament: The Function of the Old Testament in the New [ed. Craig Evans; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004], 128). E. P. Sanders, while not considering Philo‘s use of Lev 18:5, argues that Philo exhibits a soteriological pattern of ―covenantal nomism‖ similar to Jubilees and the Dead Sea Scrolls (―The Covenant as a Soteriological Category and the Nature of Salvation in Palestinian and Hellenistic Judaism,‖ in Jews, Greeks and Christians: Religious Cultures in Late Antiquity, Essays in Honor of William David Davies [ed. Robert HamertonKelly and Robin Scroggs; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976], 11–44 [esp. 26–39, 41–42]). 50 ―Paul and the Claim of the Law According to the Scripture: Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12 and Romans 10:5,‖ in The Beginnings of Christianity (ed. Jack Pastor and Menachem Mor; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2005), 128; so also G. S. Oegema, ―So werden anhand zweier Vergleiche und dem Schluß aus dem Zitat von Lev 18,1–5 zwei Wege einander gegenübergestellt: der Weg zum Leben und der Weg zum Tod‖ (Für Israel und die Völker: Studien zum alttestamentliche-jüdischen Hintergrund der paulinischen Theologie [NovTSup 95; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1999], 95); D. R. Schwartz, Leben durch Jesus versus Leben durch die Torah: Zur Religionspolemik der ersten Jahrhunderte (Franz-Delitzsch-Vorlesung 2; Münster: Franz-Delitzsch-Gesellschaft, 1993), 9. 51 David M. Hay, ―Philo of Alexandria,‖ in Justification and Variegated Nomism: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism, Vol. 1 (ed. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O‘Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 369–70.

112

Chapter 6: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Philo‟s De Congressu 86–87

Genesin,52 Philo wonders how Esau ―should draw near and kill his virtuous brother,‖ and says, For he [Jacob] has been disciplined by training, exercise and labour to trip up and to catch off guard and to repel, not to be tripped up and to be caught off guard and to be repelled. For true life lies before him as a prize (a}qlon), just as, on the other hand, before the wicked and evil man (lies) death, which is through sense-perception (di )ai0sqh/sewj), because of (his) suffering incurable pain. (QG 4.238)

―True life‖ here is a prize that lies before Jacob as a result of his discipline, and ―death‖ is the outcome of the wicked who give in to sense perception. Both ―true life‖ and ―death‖ are results of behaviour. In another passage, Philo associates ―true life‖ with spiritual life, immortality and salvation, and places them in a causal relationship with one‘s desire for (and striving after) heavenly things: Accordingly, a divine response and warning was uttered, that those who strive after low and base and earthly things shall die in respect to true life – the soul, wandering about in the manner of the dead. But those who desire heavenly things and are borne on high shall be saved alone, exchanging mortal for immortal life. (QG 4.46)

Here we have two realms, one consists of ―true life,‖ which is also referred to as being ―saved‖ and attaining ―immortal life,‖ and the second consists of spiritual death (―the soul wandering about in the manner of the dead‖) and mortal life. Those who desire heavenly things will attain ―true life,‖ while those who ―strive after low and base and earthly things‖ will attain spiritual death. Again, Philo explicitly places ―true life‖ in a causal relationship to virtuous behaviour. In Post. 45, Philo says that, ―he who receives death is akin to Cain, who is dying as to the life in accordance with virtue; but he from whom death is sent away and kept at a distance, is most nearly related to Seth, for the good man enjoys true life.‖ ―True life‖ is a state of being that is reserved for one who is ―good‖ in the same way that ―death‖ is reserved for one who is ―wicked.‖ 53 In short, these three passages show that ―true life‖ is a reward for the virtuous soul while death is the recompense for the wicked soul.

52 The Greek original of this work has been lost except for a few fragments. It is preserved in Armenian and Latin translations; see e.g. R. Marcus, Philo: Supplement 1, in Colson (LCL), ix–xv; Borgen, ―Philo,‖ 241–42. 53 For ―death‖ see Post. 73; QG 2.12; QG 2.45 (―death-bringing vices‖). In Congr. 57, Philo refers to ―the true Hades‖ which may reflect the converse to his understanding of ―true life.‖ ―For the true Hades is the life of the wicked (o9 pro_j a0lh/qeian 3Aidhj o9 tou~ moxqhrou~ bi/oj e0sti/n), a life of damnation and blood-guiltiness, the victim of every curse‖ (Congr. 57). Here, Hades is not the mythical abode of the dead, but a this-worldly hell on earth – both a punishment for the wicked and the very life lived by the wicked (cf. Somn. 1.151; Her. 45, 78; cf. Post. 31; QG 4.234).

6.4 Philo‟s Use of Leviticus 18:5

113

A second indication that one‘s behaviour is a precondition for ―true life‖ is evinced through the limitation of those who actual attain ―true life.‖ That is, ―true life‖ is a state of being that is reserved for only a few men and can only be experienced later in ones life. This is especially clear in De Congressu. For Philo, one cannot dwell in ―true life‖ at any point in time by virtue of being in the covenant; rather, as we have seen above, one must progress on a path of discipline via encyclical education before one is capable of leaving behind the passions of adolescence.54 This is why for Philo, ―ignorance brings death, and education and instruction bring immortality.‖55 Furthermore, the study of the encyclia does not guarantee that one will attain virtue. ―Even if a student masters the encyclical disciplines, he is not necessarily able to transcend the world of sense-perception.‖56 ―True life,‖ as with Philo‘s conception of reward in general,57 is something that is attained, and this attainment is contingent upon behaviour.58 In short, ―true life‖ cannot be understood as a life lived by those in the covenant or regulated by the law (―covenantal nomism‖); rather, it is limited to a small number of individuals who progress through the stages of soul-migration, which includes a rigorous and lengthy course of encyclical education.59 54

See especially Mendelson, Secular Education, 41–42; cf. Alexandre, De Congressu, 44

n. 2. 55 Ebr. 140; see too Agr. 163–64; Somn. 2.234. The claim that uneducated people were ―dead‖ was widespread; see Zeller, ―Life and Death,‖ 51–52. 56 Mendelson, Secular Education, 65; cf. 42. 57 Philo‘s conception that God rewards virtuous behaviour while punishing wicked behaviour is especially prominent in De Virtutibus (see esp. 47–50, 174) and throughout De Praemiis et Poenis (see too Mos. 2.53–55, 57, 160). In the Cain Trilogy (Sacr., Det., Post.), however, God seems to punish only by way of human agents and natural disasters while still being directly involved in rewarding good behaviour; see Alan Mendelson, ―Philo‘s Dialectic of Reward and Punishment,‖ SPhilo 9 (1997), 104–125. 58 For Philo, as in Plato, virtue is its own reward, but, as Sandmel points out, virtue being its own reward refers to ―specific virtues‖ not to ―generic virtue‖ (see note 36). Sandmel argues that for Philo, one progresses from ―specific virtue‖ to ―generic virtue,‖ and while ―specific virtues‖ are not an attainment, ―generic virtue‖ is (―Virtue and Reward,‖ 219). 59 To say that ―true life‖ is causally linked to behaviour does not mean, however, that we can detect in Philo a doctrine of works-righteousness. For Philo, divine activity is the primary cause of all good behaviour and virtue. Man is incapable of performing any virtuous actions apart from God‘s prior work (see e.g. Sacr. 54; Ebr. 105–110; Cher. 77; Leg. 1.49; 3.213– 15). For a discussion on the relationship between predestination (divine agency) and free will (human agency), see John M. G. Barclay, ―‗By the Grace of God I Am What I Am‘: Grace and Agency in Philo and Paul,‖ in Divine and Human Agency in Paul and His Cultural Environment (ed. John M. G. Barclay and Simon J. Gathercole; LNTS 335; London: T & T Clark, 2006), 140–57; Francis Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (London: T & T Clark, 2004), 243–52; D. Winston, ―Freedom and Determinism in Philo of Alexandria,‖ in The Ancestral Philosophy: Hellenistic Philosophy in Second Temple Judaism (Providence, RI: Brown University Press, 2001), 135–50. While some passages seem to indicate an

114

Chapter 6: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Philo‟s De Congressu 86–87

6.5 Conclusion Philo argues that one must leave behind the passions of the body (=Egypt) and pursue virtue through a path of encyclical education, and Lev 18:1–5 provides the scriptural support. Philo ends the citation at Lev 18:5 whereby he deduces from the term zh/setai that ―true life consists in the judgments and commandments of God.‖ Some have argued that this does not signify a causal relationship between one‘s behaviour and ―true life,‖ but we have seen that this is an inadequate understanding of Philo. While ―true life‖ cannot be read simply as a soteriological category or as description of the afterlife, it is nevertheless a state of existence attained as a result of virtuous behaviour, which, in Congr. 86–87 includes the progress through encyclical education. Moreover, in considering Philo‘s citation of Lev 18:5, we must note the fact that this is the only citation of Lev 18:5 in his entire corpus that has been preserved. I have found no other clear allusions to this text in my own reading of his works or in my reading of the secondary literature. This is striking since Philo‘s writings are saturated with Scripture (esp. the Pentateuch) and he uses other passages from the Pentateuch on many different occasions.60 We should therefore probably conclude that Lev 18:5 did not play a fundamental role in Philo‘s theology.

element of free will, even here the priority of divine causation is assumed. The clearest example of this is in Spec. 1.43 where Philo says that God gives grace to those who are ―worthy‖ of receiving it (cf. Cher. 98–101; Mut. 51–53). According to Barclay, however, ―‗worthiness‘ does not have the strong sense of earning or deserving God‘s grace, but the weaker sense of being a fitting or appropriate recipient of that goodness‖ (―Grace and Agency,‖ 143). For Philo, then, God is the ultimate source and cause of the progress through encyclical knowledge (see Fug. 172; Congr.122; cf. Leg. 1.38; Mendelson, Secular Education, 39.). 60 Some of Philo‘s favourite passages are Gen 1:27 (Opif. 25, 65, 134; Leg. 1.31–34, 42, 53, 88; 2.4; 3.96; Plant. 19, 44; Conf. 146; Fug. 71), Gen 2:7 (Opif. 134; Leg. 1.32, 53, 88; 2.4, 19, 71; 3.161; Det. 80; Plant. 19), and Deut 30:11–14 (see Post. 84–85; Virt. 183; Mut. 236–37; Somn. 2.180; Quod Omnis. 68; Praem. 79–80).

Chapter 7

The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Pseudo-Philo‘s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 7.1 Introduction Pseudo-Philo‘s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (hereafter, L.A.B.1) is a piece of ―rewritten Bible‖2 covering Genesis to the beginning of 2 Samuel.3 Although the author follows the general storyline of the biblical narrative, many of the individual pericopes are significantly reworked to express the author‘s own interpretive and theological agenda. The original language of the document was most likely Hebrew, from which a Greek translation was made.4 The manuscripts that exist today5 are Latin (Vulgar Latin) translations of the Greek.6 Regarding the provenance, most scholars agree that L.A.B. is Palestinian and reflects the theology of non-sectarian Judaism.7 1

I will be using the abbreviation L.A.B. as a convenient shorthand for both the author and the document. 2 This term was originally coined by Geza Vermes (Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies [StPB 4; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1961], 95, 124–26) and has been used in scholarship since. 3 L.A.B. ends rather abruptly which has led most scholars to believe that the original ending is lost, though Fredrick J. Murphy makes a case for the present ending as original (see his Pseudo-Philo: Rewriting the Bible [New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993], 17–18. Similar pieces of ―rewritten Bibles‖ from this period include Josephus‘ Antiquities, the Genesis Apocryphon found at Qumran, and the book of Jubilees. 4 This is nearly a unanimous consensus among scholars. Alexander Zeron (―Erwägungen zu Pseudo-Philos Quellen und Zeit,‖ JSJ 11 [1980], 38–52) has suggested an Aramaic original but his thesis has not been persuasive. 5 L.A.B. is presently preserved in 18 complete and 3 fragmentary Latin manuscripts, the earliest is from the 11th century; Daniel Harrington, ―Pseudo-Philo,‖ OTP, 2.298. 6 This has been sufficiently demonstrated in the work of Daniel Harrington (―The Original Language of Pseudo-Philo‘s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum,‖ HTR 63 [1970], 503–14; idem, ―The Biblical Text of Pseudo-Philo‘s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum,‖ CBQ 33 [1971], 1–17) and followed by many (see e.g. Howard Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo‟s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum With Latin Text and English Translation [2 vols.; AGAJU 31; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996], 1.215–224). Harrington argues further that the present Latin text of L.A.B. preserves an original Hebrew, not Greek, Vorlage in its biblical citations and allusions (―The Biblical Text,‖ 5). However, Bruce Fisk has contended that since we are two translations removed from the original text of L.A.B., and since the work is by nature an

116 Chapter 7: The Use of Lev 18:5 in Pseudo-Philo‟s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum

The date of the document is debated among scholars. Most agree that the book was written sometime between 135 B.C.E and 135 C.E.8 The debates concerning the date usually centre on whether it is a pre-70 C.E.9 or post-70 C.E.10 work.11 The main argument in favour of a pre-70 C.E. date is the supposition that there is no indisputable reference to the Jewish War or the destruction of the temple.12 To counter this, supporters of a post-70 C.E. date argue that such a reference does occur in L.A.B. 19:7.13 However, despite the embellished account of the biblical text, establishing an original Vorlage is fraught with difficulty. Furthermore, L.A.B.‘s citations of Scripture are extremely allusive and woven into the narrative making it difficult to distinguish his own modifications from the text type he is using (Bruce Fisk, Do You Not Remember? Scripture, Story and Exegesis in the Rewritten Bible of Pseudo-Philo [JSPSup 37; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001], 40–41). 7 Cf. Harrington: ―Pseudo-Philo seems to reflect the milieu of the Palestinian synagogues at the turn of the common era‖ (―Pseudo-Philo,‖ 300; cf. Murphy, Pseudo-Philo, 7). Louis Feldman examined all the possible sectarian motifs in L.A.B. in an attempt to isolate the document to a specific community and has found all the evidence inconclusive (see his, Prolegomenon to M. R. James, The Biblical Antiquities of Philo [New York: Ktav, 1971], xxxiii–xlvii). 8 The date 135 B.C.E. is based on L.A.B. 39:8–9 where the Amorite king who confronted Jepthah is named ―Getal,‖ a possible Semitic variant of ―Kotylas‖ who is the ruler of Philadelphia; cf. Josephus Ant. 13.235; War 1.60 (Murphy, Pseudo-Philo, 6). For the terminal date of 135 C.E., see Christian Dietzfelbinger, Pseudo-Philo: Antiquitates Biblicae (JSHRZ 2/2; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus/Gerd Mohn, 1975), 95–96. A terminal date of 100 C.E. is proposed by Harrington and based on various factors including 1) commonalities with 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, 2) evidence of a Palestinian text-type (Harrington, ―Pseudo-Philo,‖ 299; idem, ―Biblical Text‖), and 3) the decline of the genre of ―rewritten Bible‖ in the second century C.E. Zeron has dated L.A.B. to the third or fourth century C.E. (―Erwägungen‖) but his thesis has been more novel than persuasive. 9 Supporters of this date include: Harrington, ―Original Language;‖ idem, ―Biblical Text;‖ P. M. Bogaert in, Pseudo-Philon: Les Antiquités Bibliques (ed. Daniel Harrington, et al.; SC 230; Paris: Cerf, 1976), 66–74; Murphy, Pseudo-Philo, 3, 6 10 Supporters of this date include: Jacobson, Commentary; Richard Bauckham, ―The Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum of Pseudo-Philo and the Gospels as ‗Midrash‘,‖ in Gospel Perspectives III: Studies in Midrash and Historiography (ed. R. T. France; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983), 33; M. Wadworth, ―A New ‗Pseudo-Philo‘,‖ JJS 29 (1978), 186–91. George Nickelsburg is the most optimistic in proposing a 70 C.E. date (see his, ―Good and Bad Leaders in Pseudo-Philo‘s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum,‖ in Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms [ed. John J. Collins and George W. Nickelsburg; Chico, Ca.: Scholars Press, 1980], 63). 11 For a good summary, see Fisk, Do You Not Remember? 34–40. 12 Cf. Murphy, Pseudo-Philo, 6. Other arguments for a pre-70 C.E. date include: 1) L.A.B. defines the covenant in terms of people rather than place, which is characteristic of pre-70 C.E. works; 2) L.A.B. exhibits what may be called a ―free attitude‖ to the biblical text. Again, this is a characteristic of pre-70 C.E. works; 3) various remarks about the temple and sacrifice demonstrate that the temple-cult is still in operation (cf. esp. L.A.B. 22). 13 ―And it will be on that day as it was on the day I smashed the tablets of the covenant that I drew up for you on Horeb; and when they sinned, what was written on them flew away.

7.2 Deuteronomic Theology and the Irrevocable Covenant of God

117

valiant efforts of Howard Jacobson, who argues that L.A.B. 19:7 refers to the destruction of the temple, this reference is ambiguous and his arguments have been strongly challenged.14 It is probably best to view the work as written sometime in the latter half of the first-century without positing a pre- or post70 C.E. date.15 Leviticus 18:5 is alluded to in L.A.B.‘s retelling of Joshua‘s farewell speech to Israel (L.A.B. 23:10). In order to understand the author‘s use of this text, we will first examine a theological tension in the author‘s view of the covenant that will shed light on the function of the Leviticus clause. We will then look at the allusion to Lev 18:5 in 23:10 in light of the theological design of the book as a whole. What we will find is an understanding of the Leviticus clause that is somewhat different from what we have seen in the Qumran material and the Psalms of Solomon.

7.2 Deuteronomic Theology and the Irrevocable Covenant of God Unlike many of the scrolls found at Qumran, L.A.B. betrays a nationalistic outlook. God has not called out a specific remnant to represent the nation, but has committed himself to save the nation as a whole. The irrevocable nature of God‘s covenant with Israel is the main overarching theme that pervades the book. Howard Jacobson‘s comment is representative of the majority of scholars: If there is a single predominant theme in L.A.B., it is the following: No matter how much the Jewish people suffer, no matter how bleak the outlook appears, God will never completely abandon His people and in the end salvation and triumph will be the lot of the Jews. 16

Now that day was the seventeenth day of the fourth month.‖ The ―seventeenth day of the fourth month‖ (i.e. Tammuz) was believed to be the date of the destruction of the Jewish temple, although there is some debate about whether this refers to the first temple or the second (see esp. Jacobson, Commentary, 202–205). 14 See especially the bibliography in Fisk, Do You Not Remember? 37 n. 70. 15 Fisk, Do You Not Remember? 39–40; similarly Eckart Reinmuth, Pseudo-Philo und Lukas: Studien zum Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum und seiner Bedeutung für die Interpretation des lukanischen Doppelwerks (WUNT 74; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1994), 17–26. 16 Commentary, 241–42. Cf. L.A.B. 18:10: ―It is easier to take away the foundations of the topmost part of the earth and to extinguish the light of the sun and to darken the light of the moon than for anyone to uproot the planting of the Most Powerful or to destroy his vine;‖ cf. also 4:11; 7:4; 9:4, 7; 10:2; 13:10; 19:2; 30:7; 35:3 and 49:3; cf. especially John Levinson, ―Torah and Covenant in Pseudo Philo‘s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum,‖ in Bund und Torah: Zur theologischen Begriffsgeschichte in alttestamentlicher, frühjüdischer und urchristlicher Tradition (ed. Friedrich Avemarie and Hermann Lichtenberger; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1996), 111–27; F. J. Murphy, ―The Eternal Covenant in Pseudo-Philo,‖ JSP 3 (1988), 43–57;

118 Chapter 7: The Use of Lev 18:5 in Pseudo-Philo‟s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum

Israel is neither saved nor preserved on account of their obedience but in spite of their continual disobedience.17 God‘s salvation of his people lies solely in his faithfulness to the covenant made with Abraham.18 This theological tendency will have obvious implications for how we interpret L.A.B.‘s use of Lev 18:5 – to anticipate our discussion below – a text which seems to speak of life as a reward for obedience. In spite of the ubiquitous emphasis on the irrevocable covenant, the book also regularly portrays a Deuteronomic, or retributive, view of sin– punishment–restoration. When Israel sins, God‘s anger is aroused and the nation (or the guilty party within the nation) is punished; yet only for a time. Even within L.A.B.‘s theology of retribution, God‘s anger toward Israel is temporary, and in the end God‘s mercy will triumph.19 Moses, for instance, in his farewell speech tells the people, I know that you will rise up and forsake the words established for you through me, and God will be angry with you and abandon you and depart from your land. And he will bring upon you those who hate you, and they will rule over you, but not forever, because he will remember the covenant that he established with your fathers. (L.A.B. 19:2)

And again, God tells Moses, And when they sin, I will be angry with them but I will recall your staff and spare them in accord with my mercy. (L.A.B. 19:11)

This tension between punishment for disobedience and mercy in spite of disobedience is eased when one considers that the Deuteronomic scheme of sin-punishment is limited to individuals, families, or even generations, but is never applied to the survival of the nation or the constancy of the covenant.20 God may discipline his people at various points in history, but his covenant with them is eternal, and in the end God will resurrect the entire nation and

idem, Pseudo-Philo, 244–46; Fisk, Do You Not Remember? 45–50; Peter Enns, ―Expansions of Scripture,‖ in Justification and Variegated Nomism, Vol. 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism (ed. D. A. Carson, Mark A. Seifrid, and Peter T. O‘Brien; Tübingen: MohrSiebeck; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 73–98 (88–92). 17 ―For even if my people have sinned, nevertheless I will have mercy on them‖ (31:2); ―But he will have mercy, as no one else has mercy, on the race of Israel, though not on account of you but on account of those who have fallen asleep‖ (35:3); ―Even if our sins be overabundant, still his mercy will fill the earth‖ (39:6). 18 4:11; 7:4; 8:3; 9:3; 12:4; 13:10; 19:2; 23:11; 30:7. 19 See e.g. L.A.B. 3:9–10; 12:4; 20:3–4; 30:4; 43:5; 44:10; 45:3, 6; cf. Harrington, ―Pseudo-Philo,‖ 301; Murphy, ―Eternal Covenant,‖ 43–44; idem, Pseudo-Philo, 247–48; Nickelsburg, ―Good and Bad Leaders.‖ 20 God is often pleased with individuals but rarely with groups; cf. 4 Ezra 3:36 (see Murphy, Pseudo-Philo, 225, 246).

7.2 Deuteronomic Theology and the Irrevocable Covenant of God

119

give them eternal life: ―at the end of the lot of each one of you [i.e. the nation] will be life eternal‖ (23:12).21 That the irrevocable covenant overrides the Deuteronomic scheme is evinced through a missing link in the Deuteronomic chain – the repentance of the nation.22 The necessity of repentance, often reflected upon in other Deuteronomic schemes (usually placed between punishment and restoration), is largely neglected in L.A.B.23 This lacuna seems to emphasise the unconditional nature of the covenant by making repentance a subsidiary issue and ―borders on making the actions of the people ultimately irrelevant;‖ the people‘s actions ―may affect the fate of a particular individual, group, or generation, but God‘s covenant with Israel will always endure.‖24 So for instance, Deborah tells her generation, And behold now the LORD will take pity on you today, not because of you but because of his covenant that he established with your fathers and the oath that he has sworn not to abandon you forever. (L.A.B. 30:7)

What is most striking here is that Deborah‘s statement comes after the people repent (30:4–5).25 God‘s mercy, however, does not depend on human action. How then is Lev 18:5 to be understood in a book that does not accentuate Israel‘s obedience as a condition for future life? That is, how much stock is placed in ―doing these things‖ in order for Israel to ―live and have many years and not die‖ (23:10)?

21 Cf. L.A.B. 25:7: ―even if you die now [God‘s punishment for sin], nevertheless God will have mercy on you when he will resurrect the dead;‖ L.A.B. 31:2: ―For even if my people have sinned, nevertheless I will have mercy on them;‖ cf. 35:3. The few passages that may suggest otherwise will be discussed below (e.g. 3:10; 64:7). 22 See esp. Murphy, ―Eternal Covenant.‖ 23 Contra Chris VanLandingham, Judgment & Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2006), 31. For repentance in L.A.B., see 21:6; 30:2–6; 33:2, 5. Repentance is also present in 13:10, though it is not emphasised and in 19:2– 5 and 25:7 it is downplayed. A similar Deuteronomic pattern with no mention of repentance is found in the Testament of Moses, see especially chapters 3–4. For a comparison, see Betsy Halpern-Amaru, Rewriting the Bible: Land and Covenant in Post-Biblical Jewish Literature (Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1994), 59, 62–64, 83–85, 91, 123. 24 Murphy, Pseudo-Philo, 246. 25 Murphy, ―Eternal Covenant,‖ 51.

120 Chapter 7: The Use of Lev 18:5 in Pseudo-Philo‟s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum

7.3 L.A.B.‘s Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Joshua‘s Address (23:10) 7.3.1 The Context of L.A.B. 23 Joshua‘s speech26 is a retelling of Israel‘s history,27 emphasising God‘s covenant relationship.28 The speech begins with an emphasis on the calling of Abraham and God‘s covenant with him (L.A.B. 23:4–7),29 and then rehearses the continuation of this covenant through Isaac and Jacob (23:8), together with his sons (23:9) who were humbled by the Egyptians (23:9). God then sends Moses to free his people (23:9), and through him God gives the law, an event that is cataclysmic: And I brought them out with a high hand and led them through the Red Sea and set a cloud beneath their feet and brought them through the deep. And I brought them to the foot of Mount Sinai, and I bowed the heaven and came down and congealed the flame of fire and stopped up the channels of the abyss and impeded the course of the stars and muffled the sounds of thunder and quenched the fullness of the wind and rebuked the many clouds and stayed their movements and interrupted the storm of the heavenly hosts so as not to break my covenant. For all things were set in motion when I came down, and everything was brought to life when I arrived. And I did not let my people be scattered, but I gave them my law and enlightened30 them in order that by doing these things they would live and have many years and not die (sed dedi ei legem meam, et illuminavi eos ut, facientes hec, vivant et longevi fiant et non moriantur). (L.A.B. 23:10)

The cosmic disturbances in the sinaitic theophany, based on the biblical accounts31 and reflected upon elsewhere in Jewish literature,32 are amplified 26

The Joshua cycle as a whole (L.A.B. 20–24) establishes continuity between Joshua and Moses/Sinai, a manoeuvre that is especially clear in L.A.B. 23. For instance, in 23:2 Joshua says: ―Hear, O Israel. Behold I am establishing with you a covenant of this Law that the LORD established for your fathers on Horeb.‖ The direct reference to the shema (Deut. 6:5) and the notion that this is the same Sinaitic law-covenant (―covenant of this law . . . on Horeb‖) make clear that Joshua‘s Israel is still under the shadow of Horeb. 27 Cf. L.A.B. 10:1–6; 15:6; 30:5. 28 The entire scene is framed with an emphasis on God. In 23:23, God makes clear that he (not Joshua) will speak to the people. This is further explicated by the fact that God gives Joshua his inspiration through a nocturnal vision in 23:3. In 23:4, Joshua makes clear that the Lord is the one speaking which is echoed again at the end of the speech – ―These are the words that the LORD spoke to me this night‖ (23:13). Throughout L.A.B. 23, the author exploits God‘s irrevocable promise to Israel. 29 Cf. Fisk: ―For Pseudo-Philo, father Abraham embodies (literally) Israel‘s past history and present standing as God‘s covenant people‖ (Fisk, Do You Not Remember? 300–301; cf. Murphy, Pseudo-Philo, 110–111). 30 Throughout L.A.B., the law is compared to light (9:8; 11:1, 2; 19:4; 33:3; cf. 2 Bar. 17:4; 18:1–2; T. Levi 14:4; 19:1) and said to have the power to ―enlighten‖ (11:1, 2; 19:6; 23:6, 10; cf. 33:1, 3; 53:8). This probably refers to the revelatory aspect of the law; see Murphy, Pseudo-Philo, 58. 31 Exod 19:16–20; cf. Deut 4:11; 9:15; Judg 5:4–5; Ps 68:8. 32 See especially 4 Ezra 3:18–19; cf. 2 Bar. 59:3; Exod. Rab. 29.9.

7.3 L.A.B.‟s Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Joshua‟s Address (23:10)

121

throughout L.A.B.33 L.A.B.‘s account of the theophany highlights the importance of the giving of the law, as Murphy notes, In Exodus, the theophany focuses on the glory of God and the danger God‘s presence poses for human witnesses. In Pseudo-Philo, the focus is on the Law itself. The cosmic disturbances serve less to highlight God‘s majesty than to dramatize the significance of the giving of the Law by God to human beings. 34

The cosmic disturbances are L.A.B.‘s way of highlighting the importance of the giving of the law as a climactic act of covenant faithfulness, vindicating his promise to Abraham. The entire cosmos awakens and testifies to God‘s faithfulness to his covenant with Abraham.35 The story continues with the establishment of Israel in the land, indicating that God has fulfilled his promise to the fathers (23:11; cf. 21:7–10). After a rehearsal of God‘s earthly blessings related to the land (23:12), L.A.B. concludes with the promise of eschatological blessing for each Israelite: But also at the end the lot of each one of you will be life eternal (vita eterna), for you and your seed, and I will take your souls and store them in peace until the time allotted the world is complete. And I will restore you to your fathers and your fathers to you, and they will know through you that I have not chosen you in vain. 36 (L.A.B. 23:13)

It is debated whether L.A.B. is thinking of individuals or the communal fate of corporate Israel here.37 Given L.A.B.‘s general tendencies concerning Israel, the corporate fate of Israel is probably in view. This is supported by the stress in this passage on all Israel receiving the promise being proclaimed in Joshua‘s speech (e.g., the phrases ―each one of you‖ and ―you and your seed‖; cf. ―all the people . . . woman and children‖ in 23:1–2, 4, 14). This adds a certain tension to the Leviticus citation. Regardless of whether or not all Israel ―does these things‖ (most do not), they all seem to ―live‖ forever. 7.3.2 Establishing the Allusion An allusion to Lev 18:5 in 23:10 can be detected based on three of our criteria. Criterion 1 (if two or more elements are represented, then it is likely that there is an allusion) is satisfied by the two elements, ―having done these 33

L.A.B. reflects upon and exploits this event more than any other biblical or non-biblical work; see 11:5; 15:5–6; 32:7–8. This last passage combines various Edenic images from Gen 1–3 with the Sinaitic theophany, and seems to highlight L.A.B.‘s belief that Israel‘s afterlife will entail a return to paradise (see 19:10, 12–13). 34 Murphy, Pseudo-Philo, 66. Jacobson (Commentary, 725) argues that the God‘s halting the cosmic disturbances was to prevent Israel from being overly frightful. 35 Cf. 32:7–8: ―all his creatures came together to see the LORD establishing a covenant with the sons of Israel.‖ The giving of the law is viewed as God‘s act of covenant faithfulness. 36 Cf. 2 Bar. 50:2–4. 37 Jacobson believes that both elements are present (Commentary, 728).

122 Chapter 7: The Use of Lev 18:5 in Pseudo-Philo‟s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum

things‖ (facientes hec) and ―they would live‖ (vivant). Two other criteria strengthen an allusion here. Criterion 2 is satisfied since there are no other texts which exhibit a better correlation than Lev 18:5. Furthermore, criterion 5 states that if there is syntactical tension in the text, this may suggest that the biblical text has been forced into the present context. This then might strengthen the probability of an allusion. Here, the plural pronoun hec (―these things‖) has no antecedent, which may indicate that the author has simply alluded to the biblical passage without adjusting the wording to fit his own text. We conclude, then, that an allusion to the Leviticus clause can be detected here.38 A comparison with the biblical text, however, reveals some differences between the allusion and its biblical Vorlage: sed dedi ei legem meam, et illuminavi eos ut, facientes hec, vivant et longevi fiant et non moriantur (L.A.B. 23:10) Custodite leges meas atque iudicia quae faciens homo vivet in eis (Lev 18:5 Vulgate) kai_ fula/cesqe pa/nta ta_ prosta/gmata/ mou kai_ pa/nta ta_ kri/mata/ mou kai_ poih/sete au0ta/, a$ poih/saj a1nqrwpoj zh/setai e0n au0toi~j (Lev 18:5 LXX) Mhb yxw Md)h Mt) h#o(y r#O) y+p#Om t)w ytqx-t) Mtrm#Ow (Lev 18:5 MT)

The original Hebrew of L.A.B. may have read something like w#o(y N(ml wyxw Mt) (―so that they will do them and live‖). The Latin facientes (participle) is similar to the Septuagint‘s poih/saj (aorist participle), which translated the Hebrew h#o(y (MT). L.A.B.‘s ut (―so that‖) with the subjunctive vivant is different from the LXX, which uses the relative a3 (reflecting the Hebrew r#O)) and the future zh/setai. The most significant difference between L.A.B. and its biblical Vorlage is the use of the plural subject (vivant) for the singular (yxw). The clause as it stands in L.A.B. applies to the entire nation. It is difficult to establish which biblical context (Leviticus, Ezekiel, or Nehemiah) the author is alluding to. L.A.B.‘s review of Israel‘s history (L.A.B. 23:4–11) resonates with Ezek 20 and Neh 9, but the negative slant on the Leviticus clause in these latter biblical texts makes this improbable. There is nothing in the original context of Lev 18, however, that is incorporated in L.A.B. 23. Perhaps the Leviticus clause was integrated into the present passage with little concern for its original context.

38

Cf. Jacobson, Commentary, 725.

7.4 The Interpretation of Leviticus 18:5

123

7.4 The Interpretation of Leviticus 18:5 7.4.1 Leviticus 18:5 and Eternal Life That the ―life‖ here is eternal life is beyond dispute. Added to the Leviticus clause – ―that by doing these things they would live‖ – is the phrase, ―and have many years and not die.‖ Clearly this addition of ―not dying‖ draws out the eternality of vivant (―they would live‖) in the previous clause. The text also explicitly refers to ―life eternal‖ a few sentences later: ―at the end the lot of each one of you will be life eternal‖ (23:13), clarifying further that ―life‖ in this context is a never-ending afterlife. And this agrees with the book as a whole where afterlife themes are accentuated throughout.39 The Leviticus clause highlights the life-giving power of God‘s law. The ―giving of the law‖ is an event that confirms God‘s irrevocable covenant with Abraham, and it is through this event that God gives eternal life to the nation.40 But what is the function of Israel‘s obedience as it pertains to the future life of the nation? This is a difficult question that will be discussed below. 7.4.2 Leviticus 18:5 and Unconditional Mercy It is clear that eternal life is in view in the Leviticus clause, but it is not altogether clear that the obedience of Israel is a condition, or prerequisite, of that life. Indeed, if Lev 18:5 is understood as highlighting life conditioned upon Israel‘s obedience, this would run against the grain of the main theme of the book, where future life (salvation, inheritance) is solely the result of God‘s unconditional mercy toward Israel – a gift of grace to a disobedient nation. As stated above, L.A.B. believes that Israel will continue to be disobedient, and yet God will never abandon them on account of the covenant made with Abraham and the fathers. While God may discipline Israel for their sin, this discipline is only for a time and in the end God will be merciful to Israel in 39

3:10; 16:3; 18:12; 19:12–13; 25:7; 26:13; 33:3, 5; 34:3; 63:4. The ―giving of the law‖ at Sinai through Moses is an event that is central to L.A.B. (See L.A.B. 11; 15:6; 19:9; 23:10; 26:12; 32:7–8; 44:6–7). In L.A.B., all the covenants are compressed into one covenant stretching from Abraham to the eschaton and comes to a climax in the covenant made by God through Moses on Sinai, as Levison states: ―Thus Horeb becomes the centrepiece of covenant history, the focal point of God‘s actions from the destruction wrought by the covenant with Noah in the distant past to the joy occasioned by the building of the temple in the distant future‖ (―Torah and Covenant,‖ 114–15 and passim; cf. Murphy, Pseudo-Philo, 106–8). As such, the phrase ―giving of the law‖ is used throughout L.A.B. to speak of the Sinaitic covenant as a whole, which ratifies God‘s previous covenant with Abraham and confirms the reliability of God‘s word (see Levinson, ―Torah and Covenant,‖ 124, 126; Murphy, ―The Eternal Covenant,‖ 46). This is similar to the Testament of Moses where the ―the emphasis . . . is on the Torah book as an eschatological revelation, not as Law‖ (Halpern-Amru, Rewriting the Bible, 59). 40

124 Chapter 7: The Use of Lev 18:5 in Pseudo-Philo‟s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum

spite of their rebellion. Obedience is encouraged throughout the book, but it is rarely, if ever, depicted as a condition of Israel‘s salvation.41 This can be illustrated by two examples in L.A.B. where the author had the opportunity to emphasise obedience as a condition for reward and yet failed to do so. First of all, even though Abraham is central to the entire book, L.A.B., unlike other Second Temple Jewish authors, does not exploit Abraham‘s deeds; in fact, Abraham‘s deeds are hardly mentioned. The Abraham story begins in 4:11 with the prediction of his birth and is narrated primarily in chapter 6 (cf. 7:4; 8:1–3). In L.A.B.‘s retelling of the Abraham story, Abraham‘s ―trust in God‖ is his primary attribute (6:9, 11), but his active obedience remains subsidiary.42 The only explicit reference to Abraham‘s obedience comes in the prediction of his birth where he is described as ―perfect and blameless‖ (4:11). The emphasis in the Abraham story, however, falls heavily on God‘s action and his establishment of the covenant with Abraham.43 Throughout chapter 6, Abraham is rather passive in comparison to the biblical account,44 and in the summary of the Abraham story, the deeds of Abraham are not mentioned: the sole focus lies in God‘s merciful choice of Abraham (7:4; 8:1–3). It is striking that even though the biblical account of Abraham holds out the potential to emphasise Abraham‘s obedience45 – and early Jewish46 and Jewish Christian47 exegetes were attentive to this – L.A.B. fails to highlight it. The reason seems clear: the obedience of Abraham has little to do with the pattern and basis of God‘s covenant with him.48 God‘s faithfulness through the covenant is unilateral.49 41

See §7.2 above. L.A.B.‘s view of ―faith‖ seems close to Paul‘s understanding of faith as ―trust,‖ rather than the more standard view of ―faithfulness.‖ 43 See Fredrick J. Murphy, ―Divine Plan, Human Plan: A Structuring Theme in PseudoPhilo,‖ JQR 77 (1986), 5–14 (5–10). 44 In L.A.B.‘s story, Joktan is initially presented as a good character, but unlike Abraham who patiently waits for God to act, Joktan ―combines trust in God with practical action involving cooporation with sinner‖ (Murphy, ―Divine Plan,‖ 10). Human initiative is not praised in the Abraham narrative. This is seen also in the lack of any reference to Abraham‘s obedience in circumcision, which is highlighted in the biblical account (see the next note). In L.A.B., ―circumcision is no product of human hands, of obedience to the stipulations of the covenant with Abraham . . . ; rather, Moses was miraculously ‗born in the covenant of God and the covenant of the flesh‘ (9, 13)‖ (Levison, ―Torah and Covenant,‖ 113). 45 E.g. Gen 17:1–2, 9; 18:19; 22:16–18; 26:3–5. 46 Sir 44:19–21; 1 Macc 2:52; Jub. 23:10; CD III, 2; Lev. Rab. 2.10. 47 Ja 2:14–24. 48 Contra VanLandingham, Judgment & Justification, 29, L.A.B. 18:5 and 32:4 do not say that ―everything Abraham receives from God he deserves.‖ 49 The Abraham story is evoked again in 23:4–7 where it is stated that ―Abraham believed in me and was not led astray‖ (23:5). While Abraham‘s belief is mentioned, his deeds are not, and God is, again, the main actor in this latter rendition of the Abraham story. 42

7.4 The Interpretation of Leviticus 18:5

125

A second example of L.A.B.‘s relative neglect of portraying obedience as a condition of future salvation comes again in his reading of Scripture in 13:10. Here, the LORD speaks to Moses50 concerning ―the salvation of the souls of the people‖ (13:10). God‘s speech consists of a lengthy paraphrase of Lev 26:2–5, a passage that explicates the Deuteronomic ―if . . . then‖ of conditional blessings. L.A.B. begins his paraphrase by closely following the biblical text: ―If they walk in my ways, I will not abandon them but will have mercy on them always and bless their seed; and the earth will quickly yield its fruit, and there will be rains for their advantage, and it will not be barren.‖ Immediately following, however, the conditional ―if . . . then‖ is supplanted with the notion of God‘s unconditional mercy: ―But I know for sure that they will make their ways corrupt and I will abandon them, and they will forget the covenants that I have established with their fathers; but nevertheless I will not forget them forever.‖51 L.A.B. is not at all comfortable with the Deuteronomic notion that ―the salvation of the souls of the people‖ is dependent upon their obedience, and so he must rewrite the conditional theology of Lev 26 in order to uphold the irrevocability of the covenant. Again, when faced with the opportunity to enact the biblical notion of blessing conditioned upon obedience, L.A.B. deliberately argues against it. These are only two examples of L.A.B.‘s tendency to avoid suggesting that Israel‘s obedience is a precondition for future salvation and life. 52 While obedience is encouraged throughout the book,53 the author is rather pessimistic about the reality of Israel becoming obedient. And yet God‘s commitment to Abraham and unfailing mercy towards Israel necessitates the preservation and final salvation of Israel. 7.4.3 Potential Objection: Judgment According to Obedience in L.A.B.? There are statements in L.A.B. regarding judgment according to one‘s works, which seem to suggest that obedience is essential for future reward. The main passage is L.A.B. 3:10: But when the years appointed for the world have been fulfilled, then the light will cease and the darkness will fade away. And I will bring the dead to life and raise up those who are sleeping from the earth. And hell will pay back its debt, and the place of perdition will return its deposit so that I may render to each according to his works and according to the fruits of his own devices (ut reddam unicuique secundum opera sua et secundum fructus adinventionum suarum), until I judge between soul and flesh. (L.A.B. 3:10)

This passage may refer to two different outcomes for the righteous and the wicked: the righteous will receive resurrection and life, and the wicked will 50

Or possibly to Noah (Harrington, ―Pseudo-Philo,‖ 322). See Murphy, ―Eternal Covenant,‖ 47. 52 Cf. the discussion above (§7.2). 53 16:5; 20:4; 21:9. 51

126 Chapter 7: The Use of Lev 18:5 in Pseudo-Philo‟s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum

receive judgment according to their (evil) works. Alternatively, the passage may refer to the resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked, who each receive a judgment ―according to his works and according to the fruits of his own devices‖ (adinventionum). If the latter reading is correct, then deeds (i.e. obedience) are necessary for future reward – at least according to this passage. If the former view is correct, then, while the disobedience of the wicked elicits punished, the resurrection unto life may refer to the unconditional blessing toward all Israel as in 23:13. Kent Yinger argues that the recompense envisioned here refers ―only to the punishment of the wicked, since the phrase ‗fruits of his own devices‘ hints at evil deeds.‖54 Simon Gathercole argues against Yinger since, ―the Latin word adinuentiones [―devices‖] . . . need not be negative;‖55 rather, the word is neutral referring to thoughts whether good or bad. Gathercole is correct that the word can be used in a neutral sense in the Vulgate,56 but has not noticed its negative connotation in judgment passages elsewhere in L.A.B. So for instance, Kenaz exhorts Achan to ―declare to us your wicked deeds and schemes (nequitias vestras et adinventiones)‖ (25:7). Achan responds: ―But I tell you, sir, the schemes (adinventiones) that we have done so wickedly (nequiter) are not all alike‖ (25:8). In his denouncement of idols, something most abhorred in L.A.B., God says: ―The skill of a man has produced them, and the hands have manufactured them, and imagination has invented (adinvenit) them‖ (44:7). Later in the same chapter in the context of future judgment, God says that, ―the race of men will know that they will not make me jealous by their inventions (adinventionibus) that they make, but to every man there will be such a punishment that in whatever sin he shall have sinned, in this he will be judged‖ (44:10). This judgment scene in 44:10 only depicts recompense for evil deeds, not reward for good deeds. In all of these passages,57 adinventio and its cognates are used negatively, thus favouring Yinger‘s view that adinventiones in 3:10 refers exclusively to the evil deeds of the wicked, not the good deeds of the righteous.58 54

Paul, Judaism, and Judgment According to Deeds (SNTSMS 105; Cambridge: CUP, 1999), 81. 55 Where Is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul‟s Response in Romans 1–5 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 80; cf. VanLandingham, Justification, 148–49. 56 For a neutral sense, see Judges 2:19; Isa 3:8, 10; for a negative sense, see Isa 3:8. It is used positively in Isa 3:10 and 12:4 (Gathercole, Boasting, 80). 57 See also 47:7; 52:2; and the discussion in Murphy, Pseudo-Philo, 251, who makes a similar point. 58 Gathercole‘s student Kyoung-Shik Kim argues further for Gathercole‘s view in light of the apparent allusion to Ps 62:13 in L.A.B. 3:10 (―God Will Judge Each One According to His Works: The Investigation into the Use of Psalm 62:13 in Early Jewish Literature and the New Testament,‖ [Ph.D. diss., Aberdeen University, 2005], 133–40). Psalm 62:13 (―For you repay a man according to his work‖), argues Kim, refers both to the recompense of the righteous

7.4 The Interpretation of Leviticus 18:5

127

This view is supported by the context. The entire flood narrative retold by L.A.B. focuses on God‘s judgment of the wicked for their ―evil deeds‖ (operum malorum 1:20; operari iniqua 2:8; iniqua operari 2:10; opera malignitatum 3:3; iniquitatem operum 3:6). In fact, the very establishment of God‘s covenant with Noah was designed ―to destroy all those inhabiting the earth‖ (3:4),59 not to reward the righteous for their good deeds. Therefore, when the judgment of God in 3:10, which is modelled upon the Noahic flood, speaks of recompense ―according to deeds,‖ it is more likely that these ―deeds‖ refer back to the evil deeds of the flood-generation. It is not the case, therefore, that 3:10 refers to a time when ―God‘s mercy will be shown to individuals who are righteous and blameless.‖60 The rest of L.A.B. makes clear that Israel will receive salvation by God‘s mercy in spite of not being righteous and blameless. There are other passages in L.A.B. that refer to judgment according to works, but most of these only refer to the punishment of the wicked for evil deeds, not a reward for obedient Israel.61 The one anomalous passage that asserts otherwise is L.A.B. 64:7 where Samuel is conjured up by Saul and says: ―I thought that the time for being rendered the rewards of my deeds had arrived.‖ Both Yinger and Gathercole agree that this passage refers to a postresurrection recompense for the righteous on account of their good deeds.62 But three things must be kept in mind here. First, this statement does not explicitly indicate that the future life of the nation is dependant upon their obedience. The statement applies to an individual, Samuel, and there is no indication here that Samuel is in some way representative of the nation as a whole. L.A.B.‘s use of Lev 18:5 in 23:10, however, applies to the nation. Second, to say that one is recompensed for good deeds is not exactly the same as saying that future eternal life is conditioned upon obedience. It is possible that Samuel hopes to receive rewards for his deeds in addition to the future life he receives based on God‘s mercy. Third, if this statement does suggest that Israel as a whole will receive future salvation only if they are obedient, then this would run against the grain of the dominant theme of the book. In and the wicked. Its allusion in L.A.B. 3:10, conflated with Jer 17:10 (―the fruit of his deeds‖), refers both to reward for good deeds and punishment of bad deeds since Ps 62:13 originally includes the notion of reward for the righteous (Kim, ―God Will Judge,‖ 137–40). But it is not altogether clear that L.A.B. has employed Ps 62:13 here. It seems that L.A.B. is alluding primarily to Jer 17:10 (―I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, even to give to each man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his deeds;‖ cf. Jer 32:19), which only refers to judgement not vindication (Jacobson, Commentary, 324). 59 See Levison, ―Torah and Covenant,‖ 112. 60 Kim, ―God Will Judge,‖ 140. 61 30:4; 33:3; 44:10. Again, throughout L.A.B., punishment for disobedience is a main theme, but future reward for obedience is rarely mentioned. 62 Yinger, Paul, Judaism, 83; Gathercole, Where is Boasting, 79.

128 Chapter 7: The Use of Lev 18:5 in Pseudo-Philo‟s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum

L.A.B., again, Israel as a whole is rebellious but will be preserved and saved in light of God‘s unconditional mercy and on the basis of his covenant with Abraham and the fathers.

7.5 The Function of Leviticus 18:5 In returning to the Leviticus allusion in 23:10, the question remains: if L.A.B. does not believe that Israel‘s future life is conditioned upon their obedience, then how are we to understand Lev 18:5? I suggest the following options. First, there is a tension in the book between future life dependent upon obedience and future life given in spite of disobedience. If this option is correct, then we must at least speak of a very unbalanced tension where there are only a few statements that speak of conditional life, while the vast majority of other statements affirm unconditional mercy; this would be quite unlike what we have seen in Qumran and the Psalms of Solomon where the tension is more balanced. A second option is that the ―doing‖ language in 23:10 is simply brought in with the Leviticus allusion but not exploited in any way. In this respect, the Leviticus clause is integrated into L.A.B. 23 primarily because it speaks of the life-giving power of the ―giving of the law,‖ but the reference to ―doing‖ (facientes) is included simply because it is part of the allusion. Support for this option may be found in the fact that the plural pronoun hec (―these things‖) has no antecedent, as we saw above. This may indicate that the author has simply used the Leviticus clause without adjusting the wording to fit his own text. The issue is difficult and cannot be solved with certainty, but I suggest that option number two is more probable: the reference to Israel‘s obedience as a condition for future life is included as part of the allusion, but is not the primary point of emphasis.63 L.A.B., then, has accentuated the giving of the law with an allusion to Lev 18:5 primarily because it speaks of the power of the law to give life. This ―giving of the law,‖64 as seen above, refers not to the issuing of a conditional contract as in the Bible, but to the confirmation of the previous unconditional Abrahamic covenant, which possesses the ―saving power‖ (liberationem, 32:12, 14, 17)65 to effect the future life Israel.66 63

Contra Perrot: ―La Loi de Moïse donne la vie et restitue à celui qui la suit parfaitement la qualité originelle du « Premier-formé »,‖ (emphasis added) (Perrot, Pseudo-Philon, 2.131). 64 On the significance of the ―giving of the law,‖ see note 40 above. 65 The translation ―saving power‖ for liberationem is from Harrington, ―Pseudo-Philo,‖ 346–47; Jacobson translates the phrase as ―deliverance‖ (Commentary, 885, 890). 66 Cf. Levison: ―The covenant at Sinai, then, from origin to telos, is an extraordinary force which, because of its unchangeability, does not leave its world or its people unchanged‖ (―Torah and Covenant,‖ 116).

7.6 Conclusion

129

This conclusion finds support from the only other passage that explicitly correlates law and life in L.A.B.: And you gave them the law and statutes in which they might live and enter as sons of men (Et dedisti eis legem et iusticias, in quibus viverent et intrarent sicut filii hominum). For who is the man who has not sinned against you? And unless your patience abides, how would your heritage be established, if you were not merciful to them? (L.A.B. 19:9)

Some have suggested that Lev 18:5 is being alluded to here, 67 but criterion 2 rules this out. The phrase, ―they might live and enter‖68 corresponds much closer to Deut 4:1: ―And now, O Israel, listen to the statutes and ordinances which I am teaching you to do, in order that you may live and enter and take possession of the land.‖ In any case, the law-life principle that we have seen in 23:10 is reflected here in 19:9, even though it is generated by a different biblical text. But unlike both Deut 4:1 and Lev 18:5, L.A.B. here does not refer to law-obedience. The law is given in order to give life, just as in 23:10, but there is no mention of Israel doing the law in 19:9. The context even portrays Israel as sinful, feeble, and in need of God‘s power and mercy to enable them to ―live and enter.‖69 The gift of God‘s law possesses an inherent ability to give strength to Israel, helping her to overcome her frail condition. We suggest that this too is the primary point of the Leviticus clause in 23:10: God gives the law to Israel as the means through which life is granted to the (disobedient) nation.

7.6 Conclusion We have examined the Leviticus clause in L.A.B. 23:10 and noticed a tension between the plain language of the allusion and the covenant theology of the book as a whole. L.A.B.‘s most salient theme is that God will have mercy on Israel despite their disobedience, because his covenant with Abraham is irrevocable. Yet the Leviticus formulation presents obedience – the obedience of the nation – as an apparent pre-condition of her future life. We have sought to resolve this incongruity by suggesting that the ―doing‖ language of the Leviticus allusion does not play a fundamental role in the author‘s understanding of the law–life principle; the reference to Israel doing the law is left over, as it were, from the Leviticus formulation. For L.A.B., God‘s gift of 67

Jacobson, Commentary, 631–2. Perrot is probably correct that entry into the promised land is symbolic for entering into eternal life (Pseudo-Philon, 2.131). 69 The phrase ―sons of men,‖ along with the reference to Israel‘s sinfulness (cf. 1 Kgs 8:46), reinforces the weakness of Israel as they too participate in the lot of humanity (cf. 11:1; 26:6; 2 Bar. 84:11); see Jacobson, Commentary, 631–32. The giving of the law here seeks to overcome this weakness, granting power to live eternally. 68

130 Chapter 7: The Use of Lev 18:5 in Pseudo-Philo‟s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum

the law confirms his covenant with Abraham and gives life to the nation, a nation which, according to L.A.B., will continue to be disobedient. L.A.B. does not endorse the Deuteronomic theology represented by sectarian texts we have examined thus far in our study (e.g., the Qumran material and the Psalms of Solomon), as it pertains to the wider spectrum of God‘s relationship with the nation of Israel. Neither, as we have suggested, does L.A.B. understand Lev 18:5 as a source-text for the ―if . . . then‖ conditional construct. For L.A.B., the Leviticus formulation accentuates the life-giving function of the sinaitic law-covenant, and this life will be given to each Israelite70 by virtue of God‘s promise to Abraham.

70

The book does hold out the possibility that some Israelites will commit apostasy through idolatry and thus forfeit their place in the covenant.

Part 3

The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Paul

Chapter 8

The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12 8.1 Introduction Galatians 3:10–14 is often considered among the most difficult passages in Paul,1 primarily because of the enigmatic way (at least to modern readers) he uses various scriptural texts to support his assertions.2 Paul‘s citation of Lev 18:5 in Gal 3:12, which is at least in some way antithetical to Hab 2:4 cited in 3:11b, has proved to be particularly troublesome, and it is this passage that we will focus on in this chapter. There are various introductory issues of Galatians that are insignificant for our study. We are considering Galatians first in our section on Paul because it was almost certainly written before Romans. We will assume with most interpreters that in the letter, Paul is responding to the infiltration of certain Jewish Christians3 into the Galatian churches, whom Paul refers to as ―agitators‖ (oi9 tara/ssontej, 1:7; cf. 5:10).4 According to Paul, the agitators were preaching a false gospel that is contrary to the one he previously preached to the Galatians (1:6–9; 3:1; cf. 4:12–20; 5:7–12). While ―mirror reading‖ the epistle to understand the message of the agitators can be problematic,5 it is probable that the Galatians were being taught that they must be circumcised (5:2–6; 6:11–16; cf. 2:3–10) and observe certain feasts 1 Richard Hays, ―The Letter to the Galatians,‖ in The New Interpreter‟s Bible (vol. 11; ed. Leander Keck; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2000), 257; N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 137. 2 Deut 27:26 (Gal 3:10b), Hab 2:4 (Gal 3:11b), Lev 18:5 (Gal 3:12b), and Deut 21:23 (Gal 3:13b). 3 But see M. D. Nanos who has argued that the ―influencers‖ (Nanos‘s preferred term for Paul‘s opponents) were non-Christian Jews (The Irony of Galatians: Paul‟s Letter in FirstCentury Context [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002], 137–59, 284–316. 4 We will maintain the traditional description of ―agitators‖ or ―opponents‖ rather than J. Louis Martyn‘s more neutral designation of ―Teachers‖ (Galatians: A Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 33a; New York: Doubleday, 1997], 117–26 and passim), or Nanos‘s designation of ―influencers‖ (Irony, 115–131). 5 See J. M. G. Barclay, ―Mirror-Reading a Polemical Letter: Galatians as a Test Case,‖ JSNT 31 (1987), 73–93, and recently Todd A. Wilson, The Curse of the Law and the Crisis in Galatia: Reassessing the Purpose of Galatians (WUNT 225; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2007), 50–52.

134

Chapter 8: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12

(4:10)6 in order to be full inheritors of the Abrahamic promises (3:6–9, 13–14, 16–18; 4:21–5:1).7 Moreover, it is likely that the agitators were urging the Galatians to take on the entire law (and not only circumcision and calendar matters) in addition to the gospel of faith (3:10; 4:21; 5:3–4).8 Paul therefore writes this letter in order to bring the Galatians back to the true gospel, from which they have departed, or are in danger of departing (5:7–12).9 The following treatment will seek to illuminate Paul‘s citation of Lev 18:5, which is contrasted with Hab 2:4, in Gal 3:12. I will first discuss Paul‘s argument in 3:11–12 leading up to his citation of Lev 18:5 (§8.2). I will then ask why Paul felt that Lev 18:5 was an inadequate and ineffective soteriological formula. In this analysis, I will review the five main approaches to this question, noting both the strengths and weaknesses of each view (§8.3), and then argue from the wider context of Gal 1–3 that the basis of Paul‘s opposition to Lev 18:5 is the priority the text places on human action as a condition for attaining eschatological blessing (§8.4).

8.2 The Citation of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12 Paul concludes his argument about justification by law and justification by faith in Gal 3:11–12 with a citation of Lev 18:5 in Gal 3:12. The passage reads: o3ti de\ e0n no/mw| ou0dei_j dikaiou=tai para_ tw=| qew=|, dh=lon o3ti o9 di/kaioj e0k pi/stewj zh/setai: o9 de_ no/moj ou0k e1stin e0k pi/stewj a0ll ) o9 poih/saj au0ta_ zh/setai e0n au0toi~j. Now because no one is justified before God by the law, it is clear that 10 ―the righteous one will live by faith.‖ But the law is not ―by faith,‖ but rather, [it is] ―the one who does these things will live by them.‖ (Gal 3:11–12)

6

But see T. Martin, ―Pagan and Judeo-Christian Time-Keeping Schemes in Gal 4.10 and Col 2.16,‖ NTS 42 (1996), 105–119. 7 For a discussion of the agitators‘ message, see Bruce Longenecker, The Triumph of Abraham‟s God: The Transformation of Identity in Galatians (Nashville: Abingdon, 1998), 25–34; John M. G. Barclay, Obeying the Truth: Paul‟s Ethics in Galatians (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1988), 36–74; Wilson, Curse, 47–68. 8 B. Longenecker, Triumph, 30–33. 9 For further discussion on these introductory matters, see the essays collected in Mark D. Nanos, ed., The Galatians Debate (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002). 10 With many recent interpreters, I am placing the comma before dh=lon (Wright, Climax, 149 n. 42; Seyoon Kim, Paul and the New Perspective: Second Thoughts on the Origin of Paul‟s Gospel [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002], 129; Frank Thielman, From Plight to Solution: A Jewish Framework for Understanding Paul‟s View of the Law in Romans and Galatians [NovTSup 61; Leiden: Brill, 1989], 127–28; Stephen Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

8.2 The Citation of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12

135

In the following, we will examine the form in which Lev 18:5 is cited (§8.2.1), the logic of Paul‘s argument (§8.2.2), and the meaning of the term zh/setai which links the citations of Hab 2:4 and Lev 18:5 (§8.2.3). 8.2.1 The Form of Leviticus 18:5 Paul cites Lev 18:5 here without an introductory formula. While it is possible that the gegramme/noij of 3:10 is implied in 3:12,11 it may also be that Paul‘s opponents were fond of this text and used it in support of their message. If this was the case, then there was no need for Paul to indicate that he was quoting from Scripture, since the Leviticus formulation was well known to his audience.12 Or, even if the citation was not used by the agitators, given the widespread OT and early Jewish usage of this text, it may be that the Leviticus formula was a familiar expression that was ―in the air.‖ In any case, the form of Paul‘s citation suggests that (whether used by the agitators or known to the Galatians independent of the agitators‘ teaching) Lev 18:5 was a free-standing formula. a4 poih/saj au0ta_ a1nqrwpoj, zh/setai e0n au0toi~j (Lev 18:5 LXX) o9 poih/saj au0ta_ zh/setai e0n au0toi~j (Gal 3:12)

As we saw earlier, the form of Paul‘s citation is the same as Philo‘s: o9 poih/saj au0ta_ zh/setai e0n au0toi~j (Congr. 86)

Both Paul and Philo differ from the LXX13 by substituting o9 poih/saj for a4 poih/saj, and both omit a1nqrwpoj.14 In our discussion of Philo, we noticed 2004], 303 n. 15; B. Longenecker, Triumph, 164; Richard Hays, The Faith of Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1–4:11 [2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002], 207; Andrew H. Wakefield, Where to Live: The Hermeneutical Significance of Paul‟s Citation from Scripture in Galatians 3:1–14 [SBLDS 14; Atlanta: SBL, 2004], 162–67, 207–214). 11 E.g. Richard Longenecker, Galatians (WBC 41; Dallas: Word, 1990), 120. 12 Charles H. Cosgrove, The Cross and the Spirit: A Study in the Argument and Theology of Galatians (Macon, GA.: Mercer University Press, 1988), 59; Martyn, Galatians, 328–334; C. K. Barrett, ―The Allegory of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar in the Argument of Galatians,‖ in Essays on Paul (London: SPCK, 1982), 154–70 (159); cautiously, J. S. Vos, ―Die hermeneutische Antinomie bei Paulus (Galater 3.11–12; Römer 10.5–10),‖ NTS 38 (1992), 254–70 (265). 13 LXX Ezekiel and Nehemiah, as we have seen, largely agree with the text of LXX Leviticus. 14 Some suggest that Paul changed a4 poih/saj to o9 poih/saj in order to correlate Lev 18:5 with the other scriptures cited in 3:10–13: Deut 27:26 (pa=j o4j ou0k e9mme/nei), Hab 2:4 (o9 di/kaioj), and Deut 21:23 (pa=j o9 krema/menoj); see D.-A. Koch, Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus (BHT; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1986), 120; Hans Joachim Eckstein, Verheißung und Gesetz: Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu Galater 2,15–4,7 (WUNT 86; Tübingen: MohrSiebeck, 1996), 145; François Vouga, An die Galater (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1998), 73.

136

Chapter 8: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12

that Lev 18:5 was transformed from a dependant clause into an independent clause that can stand alone. It may be that the agitators (if they quoted this text) used this same independent form as a slogan-like summary to support their teaching: it is much easier to imagine them quoting the text as ―the one who does these things will live by them‖ rather than ―which if a person does them he will live by them.‖ The text also does not have the generic a1nqrwpoj. Since Paul includes this term in his citation of Lev 18:5 in Rom 10:5, it seems clear that Paul deliberately left it out here in Gal 3:12.15 But why? Richard Longenecker suggests that Paul omitted the a1nqrwpoj, since the inclusion of the term would make Lev 18:5 relevant for Gentiles – something the agitators probably emphasised in their use of this text.16 This finds support in rabbinic literature, where the a1nqrwpoj (Md)) of Lev 18:5 was understood to include the Gentile who also is obliged to obey the law. For instance, Rabbi Meir says, Whence do we know that even a Gentile who studies the torah is a High Priest? From the verse, ―which if a man does, he shall live by them.‖ Priests, Levites, and Israelites are not mentioned, but ―men;‖ hence, you may learn that even a Gentile who studies the torah is as a high priest.17 (b. Sanh. 59a)

This parallel, while not conclusive, is at least suggestive that the agitators may too have emphasised the generic tenor of a1nqrwpoj in Lev 18:5. Thus, they have in the very text of Scripture a passage that supports their message: ―the Gentile who does these things (= ‗works of the law‘) will live by them.‖ Although it is difficult to say for sure, Paul‘s omission here suggests that he may have deliberately left the term out in Gal 3:12 in order to steer the text away from its potential application to the Gentile Galatians. Any explanation concerning why Paul cited the text in the form that he did must remain speculative, however. His reasons for quoting the text in this form, moreover, are subsidiary for understanding the point Paul is making with Lev 18:5 in his argument, to which we now turn. 8.2.2 Paul‟s Argument in Galatians 3:11–12 Up to this point in Galatians, Paul has frequently asserted that faith and law are ―at odds with one another.‖18 Here in Gal 3:11a, Paul again asserts that 15

Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature (SNTMS 69; Cambridge: CUP, 1992), 244–45. 16 R. Longenecker, Galatians, 120–21. Alternatively, Stanley believes that Paul omitted the a1nqrwpoj to created a parallel between Lev 18:5 (o9 poih/saj au0ta/) and Hab 2:4 (o9 di/kaioj) (Stanley, Language of Scripture, 244–45). 17 Cf. b.B.Qam. 38a; Midr. Ps. 1.18; Num. Rab. 13.15–16. See the discussions in R. Longenecker, Galatians, 120–21; Martyn, Galatians, 315–16. 18 Graham Stanton: ―I do not think that the initial listeners could possibly have missed the main point Paul was making . . . pi/stij and no/moj are at odds with one another‖ (―The Law

8.2 The Citation of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12

137

―no one is justified by the law (e0n no/mw|)‖19 and he supports this claim with a citation from Hab 2:4 in 3:11b, which serves as Paul‘s first premise for 3:11a. The opening statement in 3:12a is Paul‘s second premise that supports 3:11a. Christopher Stanley portrays Paul‘s logic in the following syllogism: Major premise: The one who is righteous by faith shall live (v. 11b) Minor premise: The law is not e0k pi/stewj (v. 12a, reinforced by v. 12b). Conclusion: No one is justified (= receives life) by law (v. 11a).20

So Paul begins with his conclusion (―no one is justified by the law‖) and supports this by asserting 1) that justification is by faith (Hab 2:4 in 3:11b), and 2) that the law and faith are incompatible (3:12). The logic is clear: if justification is by faith, and if the law is not ―of faith,‖ then justification cannot be by the law.21 Paul‘s statement in 3:12a (―the law is not e0k pi/stewj‖), then, is a second reason why the law cannot justify. Having stated that the law is not e0k pi/stewj, Paul then cites Lev 18:5 as a description – perhaps a summary – of o9 no/moj: the law is not ―e0k pi/stewj‖

of Moses and the Law of Christ,‖ in Paul and the Mosaic Law [ed. James D. G. Dunn; WUNT 89; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1996], 99–116 [101, cf. 110]). Paul first states this antithesis in 2:15–16, ―a person is justified by faith in Christ not by works of law,‖ and claimed that Peter, and probably his audience, knew this. In 3:1–5 Paul appeals to the Galatians‘ own experience in receiving the Spirit ―by a message of faith‖ (a0koh=j pi/stewj) and not ―by works of law‖ (e1rgwn no/mou). 19 I am taking the dative e0n no/mw| as instrumental instead of locative; so Eckstein, Verheißung, 134–35; F. Mußner, Der Galaterbrief (HTKNT 9; Freiburg: Herder, 1974), 228 n. 78; contra Vouga, Galater, 74. Eckstein and Mußner note that Paul intended this phrase to correspond to the e0n au0toi=j of Lev 18:5 in Gal 3:12 (so also H. D. Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul‟s Letter to the Churches in Galatia [Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979], 146). 20 Stanley, ―‗Under a Curse‘: A Fresh Reading of Galatians 3.10–14,‖ NTS 36 (1990), 481–511 (503 n. 58); cf. A. Andrew Das, Paul, the Law, and the Covenant (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2001), 165 n. 59 with bibliography. 21 The de/ in 3:12a probably should be translated as ―moreover,‖ rather than the adversative ―but,‖ since this verse gives another reason for the leading assertion in 3:11a; rightly Martyn, Galatians, 315; similarly Betz, Galatians, 147; George Howard, Crisis in Galatia (Cambridge: CUP, 1979), 63–64. The adversative translation is taken by Frank Matera, Galatians (SP 9; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1992), 119; James D. G. Dunn, Epistle to the Galatians (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1993), 175; R. Longenecker, Galatians, 119.

138

Chapter 8: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12

but it is ―Lev 18:5.‖22 Some interpreters align the individual terms from Hab 2:4 as antithetical to the terms in Lev 18:5:23 Hab 2:4:

o9 di/kaioj

e0k pi/stewj

zh/setai

Lev 18:5:

o9 poih/saj

au0ta//e0n au0toi~j

zh/setai

While Paul certainly opposes Lev 18:5 to Hab 2:4, the precise contrast is between e0k pi/stewj in 3:12a and Lev 18:5 in 3:12b and probably not the individual lexemes in each citation. Betz seems to capture this in his translation of 3:12: ―[T]he law is not ‗by faith‘, but ‗He who does them shall live by them.‖24 The placement of quotation marks around ―by faith‖ seems to suggest – although Betz never states it – that this phrase has been pulled from the Habakkuk citation. It may stand for the entire citation so that the contrast is ultimately between Hab 2:4 and Lev 18:5, but the main element in the Habakkuk text that stands against Leviticus is e0k pi/stewj.25 Since e0k pi/stewj is opposed to Lev 18:5, this may suggest that the main element in Leviticus – that which renders the law as antithetical to faith – is the reference to ―doing.‖26 Precisely why this ―doing‖ is a wrong way to attain life is a question that we will seek to answer in the latter half of this chapter. 8.2.3 Leviticus 18:5 and Habakkuk 2:4 as Antithetical Soteriologies Paul understands Hab 2:4 and Lev 18:5 to be two different ways to gain eschatological life; thus, they are two mutually exclusive soteriological statements. That Paul is thinking in soteriological categories is clear from 3:11a where he states his leading assertion: ―no one is justified (dikaiou=tai) 22 Joel Willitts translates 3:12 as, ―the law is not out of faith, but the law is from ‗the one who does these things ‗will live by them‘;‖ thus, he says that 3:12b designates ―from where the law derives‖ (―Context Matters: Paul‘s Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12,‖TynB 54 [2003], 105–22 [118 emphasis his]). But this assumes that Paul intends the e0k in 3:12a to preface the citation in 3:12b. We prefer to contrast Lev 18:5 to e0k pi/stewj as a whole and assume that the citation is prefaced by e1stin from 3:12a. 23 Stanley adds the term e0n au0tw=| after Hab 2:4 to smooth out the correlation (―‗Under a Curse‘,‖ 504 n. 60; similarly Norman H. Young, ―Who‘s Cursed—And Why? [Galatians 3:10–14],‖ JBL 117 [1998], 79–92 [89]). 24 Betz, Galatians, 147; so also Otfied Hofius, ―‗Werke des Gesetzes‘: Untersuchungen zu der paulinischen Rede von den e1rga no/mou,‖ in Paulus und Johannes: Exegetische Studien zur paulinischen und johanneischen Theologie und Literatur (ed. Dieter Sänger und Ulrich Mell; WUNT 198; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 271–310 (305–306). 25 e0k pi/stewj always means faith in what God has done in Christ; see e.g. Eckstein, Verheißung, 138; F. Mußner, Der Galaterbrief (HTKNT 9; Freiburg: Herder, 1974), 227. 26 Westerholm, Perspectives, 304; M. Silva, ―Faith Versus Works of Law in Galatians,‖ in Justification and Variegated Nomism, Vol. 2: The Complexities of Paul (ed. D. A. Carson, P. T. O‘Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), 217–48 (243).

8.2 The Citation of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12

139

by the law.‖ But what does Paul correlate dikaiou=tai (3:11a) with in 3:11b– 12? Justification here may correspond to o9 di/kaioj in 3:11b; the sense would then be, ―the righteous one (i.e. the one who has been justified) by faith‖ shall have eternal life as a result of that justification.27 zh/setai in both Hab 2:4 and Lev 18:5 is thus understood as the eschatological life that flows from justification. Alternatively, zh/setai may correspond to the event of justification itself, as Lambrecht says: ―[T]he verb ‗will live‘ does not primarily indicate here the full Christian life after justification nor life after death; it points, we think, to the justification itself which occurs through faith, not through the law.‖28 Both views find support in the text. Strength for the first view lies in the obvious relation between dikaiou=tai and o9 di/kaioj. In support of the second view, Paul‘s argument seems to make better sense if dikaiou=tai is correlated with zh/setai in Hab 2:4 and Lev 18:5, for both of these scriptural texts are given to support (both positively and negatively) Paul‘s claim that ―no one is justified by the law.‖ In other words, the phrase ―justified by the law‖ (3:11a) corresponds positively to ―life by doing these things‖ (3:12b) and negatively to ―life by faith‖ (3:11b). This correlation between righteousness/justification and life is found in Gal 3:21: ―For if a law was given which was able to make alive (o9 duna/menoj zw|opoih~sai), then righteousness (h9 dikaiosu/nh) would have really been through the law‖ (cf. 2:20–21). Therefore, while both views understand the term zh/setai soteriologically, we find this latter view more probable. To ―live by them‖ (3:12b) is to be ―justified by law‖ (3:11a).

27

So Eckstein, Verheißung, 142–43. The debate whether the e0k pi/stewj is an adjective modifying o9 di/kaioj or an adverb modifying zh/setai is well known. Eckstein‘s interpretation assumes the former, and many agree (F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982], 161; R. Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians [NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988], 145; J. Fitzmyer, ―Habakkuk 2:3–4 and the New Testament,‖ in To Advance the Gospel: New Testament Studies [New York: Crossroad, 1981], 236–46). For a defense of the adverbial reading, see H. Schlier, Der Brief an die Galater (14th ed; KEKNT 7; Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1971), 131, 133; A. Oepke, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater (3d ed.; THNT; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1973), 106; U. Borse, Der Brief an die Galater (RNT; Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1984), 128; and the thorough defense by H. C. C. Cavallin, ―‗The Righteous Shall Live by Faith‘: A Decisive Argument for the Traditional Interpretation,‖ ST 32 (1978), 33–43. J. Louis Martyn is probably correct that e0k pi/stewj could in fact modify both the noun and the verb; certainly, Paul believes that righteousness and life (which are synonymous in Gal 3:21) are both possible only on the basis of faith (Galatians, 314). 28 Jan Lambrecht, ―Curse and Blessing. A Study of Galatians 3, 10–14,‖ in Pauline Studies: Collected Essays by Jan Lambrecht (BETL 115; Leuven: University Press, 1994), 271–98 (283); see also U. Borse, Galater, 128; Bruce, Galatians, 163; Hays, Faith, 133; Silva, ―Faith,‖ 242; Martyn, Galatians, 314–15;

140

Chapter 8: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12

―Life‖ and ―justification‖ are also understood along the lines of the ―blessing‖ promised to Abraham in Gal 3:8: ―The Scripture, foreseeing that God will justify (dikaioi=) the Gentiles by faith (e0k pi/stewj), previously preached the gospel to Abraham saying, ‗all the nations will be blessed (e0neuloghqh/sontai) in you‘‖ (Gen 12:3; cf. 18:18; 22:18). Paul concludes that ―those who are of faith are blessed,‖ that is, justified, ―with Abraham who had faith‖ (3:9). Blessing and justification are more or less synonymous in Gal 3:8–9.29 Paul maintains this correlation with the introduction of the covenantal curse from Deut 27:26 in 3:10: ―Whoever is of works of the law is under a curse, for it is written, ‗cursed is everyone who does not remain in all things written in the book of the law to do them‘.‖ While ―those of faith‖ (oi9 e0k pi/stewj) are blessed, ―whoever is of works of law‖ (o3soi...e0c e1rgwn no/mou ei0si/n) is cursed. The categories of blessing and curse are common OT and early Jewish designations for covenantal rewards, respective outcomes for obedience and disobedience.30 What is important for our study is that the lifelanguage derived from Habakkuk and Leviticus in Gal 3:11–12 is to be read along similar lines. That is, both Hab 2:4 and Lev 18:5 depict two different ways to escape the covenantal curse and attain the blessing of life.31 Those who ―will live‖ (zh/setai) are those who escape the curse (3:10, 13) and attain the blessing (justification). Again, as stated above, both Hab 2:4 and Lev 18:5 are to be understood soteriologically, as different solutions to the dilemma of ―the curse of the law.‖ But this soteriological understanding of zh/setai has been countered by some recent interpreters who think that zh/setai refers neither to eternal life nor to the event of justification, but to the manner in which one lives.32 James 29 Betz, Galatians, 142; Hays, Faith, 173–77; Schlier, Galater, 130–31; contra Cosgrove, The Cross, 49. 30 In the OT, see e.g. Deut 27–29; Lev 26; Jer 11:3–4; 2 Kgs 22:19; 2 Chron 34:24–25; Isa 24:5–6. The motif of blessing and curse is also prominent in the Dead Sea Scrolls (esp. 1QS II, 11–18; CD I, 13b–17a; 4QMMT C 13–16). 31 ―. . . I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse‖ (Deut 30:19). 32 See in particular James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 152–54, 374–75, and his recent collection of essays, idem, The New Perspective on Paul (WUNT 185; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2005), 65–67; cf. 125–26, 446, 454; see also Robert A. Bryant, The Risen and Crucified Christ in Galatians (SBLDS 185; Atlanta: SBL, 2001), 177; Young, ―Who‘s Cursed?‖ 89; Friedrich Avemarie, ―Paul and the Claim of the Law According to the Scripture: Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12 and Romans 10:5,‖ in The Beginnings of Christianity: A Collection of Articles (ed. Jack Pastor and Menachem Mor; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2005), 125–48 (141). This view is taken up by Andrew H. Wakefield: ―the focus in this verse is not on how one gains that eschatological life, or even on whether or not one truly has that eschatological life, but rather how one carries out the life one already has‖ (Where to Live: The Hermeneutical Significance of Paul‟s Citations from Scripture in Galatians 3:1–14 (SBLDS 14; Atlanta: SBL, 2004), 174; cf. 159, 167–77). Wakefield, however, fails to acknowledge Dunn‘s previous work on Lev

8.2 The Citation of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12

141

Dunn takes this approach and argues that neither the OT nor Paul understands Lev 18:5 to be an offer of life (or righteousness, salvation, etc.) based on deeds, but a description of how God‘s covenant people are to regulate their lives. (We have sporadically seen Dunn‘s comments along these lines in the previous part of our study on early Judaism.33) According to Dunn, Hab 2:4 outlines the basis of covenant righteousness, and Lev 18:5 describes how this righteousness is to be lived out.34 Paul‘s complaint in Gal 3:11–12 (and equally in Rom 10:5), ―is that his fellow Jews have put too much emphasis on that secondary stage,‖35 namely, the maintenance of life by the law.36 Therefore, the sense of the phrase, o9 poih/saj au0ta_ zh/setai e0n au0toi~j, is ―of doing the law and of living within its terms;‖37 eschatological life contingent on obedience is not in view. This view set forth by Dunn and others is not without it problems. As we saw above, zh/setai is to be understood either as a result of justification, or more probably as the event of justification itself.38 In either of these views, zh/setai refers to a soteriological concept of ―life‖ contingent upon lawobedience. Moreover, Dunn‘s argument, his main one in fact, that his reading squares with how the verse is interpreted in the OT and early Jewish literature is difficult to maintain. To support his case, Dunn lists an abundance of texts 18:5 and thus is mistakenly under the impression that he is the first to discover this view. See further my ―Review of Andrew Hollis Wakefield, Where to Live: The Hermeneutical Significance of Paul‟s Citations from Scripture in Galatians 3:1–14, RBL (http://www.bookreviews.org 2005). Don Garlington follows Dunn in seeing Lev 18:5 as an expression of covenantal nomism. He also says that Lev 18:5 speaks not of earning salvation but of persevering in the covenant (―Role Reversal and Paul‘s Use of Scripture in Galatians 3:10–13,‖ JSNT 65 [1997], 85–121 [102–3]). A similar, non-soteriological view can be found in some of the Church Fathers, and surprisingly in the early writings of Martin Luther. For a review and discussion, see Friedrich Avemarie, ―Paul and the Claim of the Law,‖ 130–32. 33 See pages 95 n. 40, 103, 110–113. 34 Theology, 153, 374–75. 35 Theology, 153. 36 Dunn thinks that Paul is not criticising the law itself when he says that ―the law is not of faith,‖ but asserting that faith and law ―have different functions within the divine dispensation of grace‖ (Theology, 153). 37 Galatians, 175. 38 As we have seen, in Gal 3:21 life is equated with righteousness and thus clearly to be understood soteriologically (cf. 2:19–21). The term zw|opoie/w, moreover, has soteriological connotations, referring in Paul‘s letters to the eschatological gift of life (Rom 8:11; 1 Cor 15:45; 2 Cor 3:6). In considering Gal 3:21, Dunn strangely assumes that there was no lifegiving concept of the law in biblical usage; thus, Paul is not interacting with such a concept here. Neither, suggests Dunn, is there any ―hint here of an implication on Paul‘s part that his Galatian opponents thought of the law as life-making‖ (Theology, 154). ―In fact,‖ says Dunn, ―there is no criticism of the law implied here, simply recognition that its function was different‖ (Theology, 154). But this not only makes Paul‘s assertion superfluous, it also goes against the correlation of life and righteousness and the plain meaning of zw|opoie/w.

142

Chapter 8: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12

where Lev 18:5 is alluded to39 and many other texts where an allusion is not all that clear.40 As we have seen in our examination of the Jewish literature, however, none of the passages where Leviticus is clearly alluded to should be interpreted in the sense that Dunn supposes. Even in Ezekiel and Nehemiah, where the afterlife is not in view, ―life‖ is still something that is gained as a result of doing the commandments. Similarly, Philo‘s use of Lev 18:5 (Congr. 86–87), a supposed linchpin for Dunn‘s position, does not clearly refer to ―life within the covenant,‖ but to a type of life attained as a result of a long and rigorous journey through encyclical education. So then, if Paul understands Leviticus to refer to a manner of life and not eschatological life, 41 then his reading runs against, not with, the grain of his Jewish contemporaries. In short, Paul understands Lev 18:5 to be a soteriological claim: ―the one who does these things‖ will have eschatological life (will be justified) as a result of his deeds. But why, for Paul, is this claim antithetical to faith? We have sought to understand the logic of Paul‘s argument in Gal 3:11–12, but the question remains as to why Paul believed that the law can not make alive. Put differently: Why is it not the case that ―the one who does these things will live by them?‖ The rest of this chapter will seek to answer this question. Paul clearly places law (Lev 18:5) and faith (Hab 2:4) in an antithetical relationship, but there have been different approaches to the question why precisely Paul believed that faith in Christ mutually excludes doing the law as a way to gain eschatological life. We will turn now to consider these different approaches.

8.3. Review of Approaches to the Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12 We have seen that Paul understands Lev 18:5 to be a soteriological claim regarding the attainment of eschatological life/justification by way of lawobservance, and this claim is contrary to Paul‘s doctrine of justification by faith. But the question as to why for Paul Lev 18:5 is contrary to Hab 2:4 – 39 Ezek 18:9, 17, 19, 21; 20:11, 13, 21; 33:15–16, 19; Neh 9:29; Pss. Sol. 14:2–3; Philo, Congr. 86–87. 40 Deut 4:1; 5:32–33; 8:1; 16:20; 22:7; 30:15–20; 4 Ezra 7:21; 14:30; Sir 17:11; 45:5; Bar 3:9. See his Theology, 153–54; cf. his Galatians, 174–76. Avemarie, who takes a view similar to Dunn‘s, argues more convincingly when he agrees that early Jewish interpretations of Lev 18:5 reflect a soteriological understanding, but believes that Paul, conscious of this interpretation, reinterpreted Lev 18:5 in a non-soteriological sense in Gal 3:12 (―The Claim of the Law,‖ 141). 41 Dunn has recently stated that he does not see a sharp distinction between a manner of life and eschatological life (New Perspective, 65–66).

8.3 Review of Approaches to the Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12

143

two conceptions that were seen as complementary in early Judaism1 – has received different answers. 8.3.1 “Dogmatic” Approach E. P. Sanders answers our question by stressing the ―dogmatic‖ character of Paul‘s argument: since righteousness is by faith in Christ, therefore it cannot be by doing the law.2 As such, Sanders sees Gal 2:21 (cf. 3:21) as fundamental to Paul‘s argument. In this passage, the gift of righteousness (and life) that is found only in Christ is the sole basis for Paul‘s denial that righteousness can be found in the law: ―for if righteousness is through the law, then Christ died in vain‖ (Gal 2:21).3 Certainly, Gal 2:21 gives strong support for this view. The death of Christ here is the basis for rejecting righteousness through the law; thus, Paul‘s reasoning proceeds from solution to plight.4 Similar logic can be found in 3:11, where faith-righteousness (Hab 2:4) is the basis for Paul‘s assertion that no one is justified by the law. But Sanders‘s view implies that Paul sees no inherent problem with righteousness through the law; God simply brought about righteousness through other means.5 Moreover, after making a dogmatic assertion in 3:11, Paul goes on to elaborate on this assertion in 3:12, giving further evidence why law and faith are incompatible: the former is based on deeds. If the dogmatic assertion was enough for Paul, then there would be no need for 3:12.6 1 See e.g. 1QpHab VII, 14–VIII, 3: [But the righteous man will live because of his faith(fullness) to him] Its interpretation concerns everyone who does the law (y#ow( lwk hrwth) in the house of Judah, whom God will free from the house of judgment on account of their toil (Mlm() and their faith(fullness) (Mtnm)w) in the Teacher of Righteousness.‖ Law obedience (hrwth y#ow( cf. 1QpHab VII, 11; XII, 4–5) is conflated with faith in (the teaching of) the Teacher of Righteousness, and both are necessary for God‘s restoration of the community. Brownlee even suggests that the reference to ―all who do the torah‖ is in accordance with Lev 18:5 (William H. Brownlee, The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk [JBLMS; Philadelphia; Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, 1959], 126). 2 Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), 483–84; idem, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 26–27; Phillip F. Esler, Galatians (NTR; London/New York: Routledge, 1998), 187; Kari Kuula, The Law, The Covenant, and God‟s Plan: Volume 1. Paul‟s Polemical Treatment of the Law in Galatians (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999), 70–73. 3 Beverly Gaventa argues for a similar theological structure throughout the letter as a whole; ―The Singularity of the Gospel: A Reading of Galatians,‖ in Pauline Theology, Vol 1: Thessalonians, Philippians, Galatians, Philemon (ed. J. M. Bassler; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 147–59. 4 Louis Martyn, who agrees with Sanders here, points out that the solution-plight formulation originated with Karl Barth (Galatians, 95 n. 43). 5 Or as Sanders says, Judaism was wrong because it was not Christianity (Palestinian Judaism, 552). 6 Westerholm, Perspectives, 306 n. 20.

144

Chapter 8: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12

J. Louis Martyn takes a form of this dogmatic approach but presses it to its logical extreme; that is, if life cannot come by the law, then Paul believes that Moses uttered a false promise in Lev 18:5.7 Habakkuk, then, contradicts Leviticus and ―the contradiction between these two texts is altogether essential.‖8 Martyn‘s ambitious proposal finds its strongest support in 3:19: ―the law was added in order to provoke transgressions until the seed should come to whom the promise had been made. The law was instituted by angels through a mediator‖ (Martyn‘s translation).9 According to Martyn‘s interpretation, reflected in his translation, the reference to the law being ―instituted by angels‖ (diatagei_j di )a0gge/lwn) suggests that angels, not God, gave the law.10 As such, it would be possible for Paul to consider the promise of Lev 18:5 to be false, for it was not God who was speaking through Moses in Lev 18:5.11 But this reading is difficult to maintain for several reasons. First, if Paul wanted to persuade his audience that God did not give the law, it would have been rather easy for his opponents to counter this assertion with scriptures that explicitly say that God did give the law (see Exod 19:9, 16; 24:15; Deut 4:11; 5:22; Neh 9:13–14, 26, 29). It would be unlikely that Paul would leave himself open to such a counter-argument. Second, while it is probable that Paul wanted to create some distance between God and the law in Gal 3:19–22, this does not necessitate severing God‘s involvement at Sinai altogether.12 The phrase diatagei_j di )a0gge/lwn, then, more likely refers to angels as the agents of the Sinaitic revelation, not the source.13 Third, it is not altogether clear that Gal 3:12 should be read through the lens of 3:19–22. Even if Paul did believe that the law originated with angels in 3:19, this does not ipso facto mean that he understood Lev 18:5 as a false promise. One final problem with 7

Martyn, Galatians, 328–34. Galatians, 333. This seems to flat out contradict what Paul says in Gal 3:21, but see Martyn‘s exegesis of this passage. Martyn renders the phrase kata_ tw~n e0paggeliw~n as ―effectively opposed to the promises.‖ That is, the law cannot thwart so as to annul the promise (Galatians, 358–59). 9 tw=n paraba/sewn xa/rin prosete/qh, a1xrij ou[ e1lqh| to\ spe/rma w{| e0ph/ggeltai, diatagei\j di ) a)gge/lwn e0n xeiri\ mesi/tou. 10 See Martyn, Galatians, 355–57, 364–70. For a similar position, see Hans Hübner, The Law in Paul‟s Thought (ed. John Riches; trans. James C. G. Greig; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1984), 26–27; Kuula, The Law, 96–110. 11 Cf. Hays, Faith, 192: ―from Paul‘s perspective, Lev 18:5 must still be judged unconditionally false.‖ 12 Following Barclay, Obeying the Truth, 91; B. Longenecker, Triumph, 58–59; Betz, Galatians, 168–69; Graham Stanton, ―The Law of Moses,‖ 113; R. Longenecker goes too far, however, in seeing no critique of the law here (Galatians, 140). 13 If Paul wanted to refer to angels as the source of the law, he probably would have used the construction diatagei_j u9p ) a0gge/lwn; so Hays, Faith, 199, but see Martyn, Galatians, 357 n. 209. 8

8.3 Review of Approaches to the Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12

145

Martyn‘s proposal is his description of Lev 18:5 as a false promise. Strictly speaking, a promise can only be deemed false if the conditions have been met. In other words, Martyn‘s interpretation assumes that, although ―these things‖ have been done, Moses‘ promise of life still has not been given. But it is unlikely that Paul believes that the conditions of the Lev 18:5 promise have been sufficiently accomplished. Rather than a false promise, then, it is more likely that Paul understands Lev 18:5 as a conditional offer that has not been, or cannot be, met. In light of these criticisms, the “dogmatic” approach as argued by Sanders and others should be upheld only as a last option: if there is nothing in the letter that gives any further clue concerning an inherent deficiency of lawobservance (i.e. ―doing these things‖), then we may conclude that the reason Paul rejected it was because righteousness came through Christ. Martyn has in a sense taken Sanders‘s view to its logical conclusion, but this to my mind has many problems as we have seen. Therefore, while Paul does make dogmatic assertions on some occasions regarding righteousness by law (e.g., Gal 2:21), he does not do so on every occasion. We find this approach an inadequate way to answer our question concerning Lev 18:5 in Gal 3:12. 8.3.2 Nomological Approach The nomological approach is not far from the dogmatic approach but is more focused on the inability of the law to give life. The law lacks the ability to give life, and it was not the divine intention for it to do so. This nomological approach, moreover, can be distinguished from the more traditional anthropological approach (see below §8.3.4) in that the latter sees the problem residing in the condition of humanity while the former sees it residing in the condition (and purpose) of the law. For instance, H. J. Eckstein, while agreeing that no one can follow the law completely, denies that this is Paul‘s point in Gal 3:12.14 Eckstein argues that Paul rejects the law fundamentally, not because it requires perfect obedience or because it has been pursued legalistically, but because ―das Gesetz von Gott gar nicht dazu gegeben worden ist, Leben zu vermitteln.‖15 It was not God‘s intention to provide righteousness and life through the law. 14

―Zutreffend ist in der Tat, daß die Tora nach Paulus – wie nach dem Selbstverständnis von Heiligkeitsgesetz und Deuteronomium – die uneingeschränkte Befolgung ihrer Weisungen fordert; jedoch wird dieser Aspekt in Gal 3,12 keineswegs als für die Beweisführung konstitutiv hervorgehoben . . .‖ (Eckstein, Verheißung, 148; cf. Stanley, ―A Fresh Reading,‖ 502). 15 Eckstein, Verheißung, 136; see too G. Klein, ―Individualgeschichte und Weltgeschichte bei Paulus,‖ in Klein, Rekonstruktion und Interpretation: Gesammelte Aufsätze am Neuen Testament (BEvT 50; Munich: Kaiser, 1969), 180–224 (206), cited in Eckstein, Verheißung, 149; cf. 144–45; for a similar approach, see Westerholm, Perspectives, 376.

146

Chapter 8: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12

This approach may shed light on the Leviticus citation. Of particular importance is Paul‘s statement in 3:21: o9 ou}n no/moj kata_ tw~n e0paggeliw~n tou~ qeou~; mh_ ge/noito. ei0 ga_r e0do/qh no/moj o9 duna/menoj zw|opoih~sai, o1ntwj e0k no/mou a2n h]n h9 dikaiosu/nh Is the law, therefore, against the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law was given that was able to make alive, then righteousness would really have been by the law. (Gal 3:21)

Here it is clear that Paul does not believe that the law has the ability, nor was it intended, to give life. So at least here, Paul rejects the life-giving power of the law on the basis of the inherent inability of the law itself. Moreover, it does not seem that Paul denies the validity of the life-giving power of the law in light of his anthropology.16 First, from 3:19 (―Why the law, then?‖) it is the salvation historical function of the law itself that is the centre of Paul‘s discussion; Paul‘s anthropology is not the primary focus here. Second, while Paul does mention ―Sin‖ in 3:22, the reference here is cosmic in scope. When Paul says that sune/kleisen h9 grafh_ ta_ pa/nta u9po_ a9marti/an (―the Scripture has enclosed all things under Sin‖) he is probably thinking in terms of the law‘s17 involvement in the enslavement of ―all things‖ (ta_ pa/nta), not only all persons, under the power of Sin. Paul‘s attention, then, is not primarily directed to the Adamic condition of humanity brought about through individual transgressions.18 And so Paul in 3:21 is arguing against the ability of the law to grant life, and his argument is not explicitly based on humanity‘s inability to gain life – though these are not mutually exclusive.19 This does not downplay Paul‘s pessimistic anthropology nor does it deny that 16

Pace B. Longenecker, Triumph, 120: ―Paul evidently assumes a fundamental problem not with the law itself but with the condition of humanity; the law sets out a path to life, but those who seek to live by it inevitably fail to do so.‖ Longenecker finds clear support for this in Rom 7 where Paul labours to defend the law against the potential claim that it was responsible for bringing death rather than life (Rom 7:7–13). There, Paul emphatically, and empirically, claims that the law is not to blame; rather, the sin (or Sin) that took hold of the law and used it to effect death is the culprit. Certainly, in Romans anthropology does play a more predominant role in Paul‘s negative assessment of the law – the law was weak through the flesh (dia_ th~j sarko/j, Rom 8:3a). But this emphasis does not play an explicit role in Paul‘s argument in Gal 3:19–25. And so it seems that while both anthropology and nomology may underlie Paul‘s understanding of the powerlessness of the law in Gal 3:21, the latter has a more central function in his argument. 17 The view that ―the Scripture‖ refers to ―the law‖ here is taken by F. F. Bruce, Galatians, 180; Oepke, Galater, 119; B. Longenecker, Triumph, 124–25; cf. Martyn, Galatians, 360, for a similar view. For opposing views, see Schlier, Galater, 164–65; Betz, Galatians, 175; and the discussion in R. Longenecker, Galatians, 144. 18 Martyn, Galatians, 358–59; cf. Schlier, Galater, 154; Dunn, Galatians, 194; Wilson, The Curse of the Law, 37–38. 19 Cf. Vouga: ―Gott, nicht das Gesetz, hat die Macht, lebendig zu machen‖ (Galater, 75); see too Martyn, Galatians, 359–60; Hays, Faith, 112–16; Kuula, Law, Covenant, 71–72.

8.3 Review of Approaches to the Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12

147

the sinful condition of humanity prevents an adequate performance of the law. But when it comes to the supposed life-giving power of the law, Paul‘s rejects this notion in light of the incapacity of the law itself in 3:21. We see, then, from 3:21 that Paul‘s denial of the law‘s ability to give life is based not explicitly on humanity‘s condition but on the law‘s own condition and its divine intention. While this distinction cannot be pressed too far, it may shed light on Gal 3:12. If Paul‘s reasoning in 3:21 underlies 3:12, then we can find support for the nomological view represented by Eckstein. Paul rejects the law categorically because it was not intended to grant life; ―the one who does these things‖ cannot ―gain life by them‖ since ―these things‖ (lawcommandments) lack the ability to grant life – and neither was it their intention ever to do so. 8.3.3 Salvation Historical Approach As we saw in the introduction to this study, Joel Willitts reads Lev 18:5 in Gal 3:12 against the backdrop of its use in Ezekiel, Nehemiah, and the Damascus Document.20 Ezekiel and Nehemiah use Lev 18:5 to demarcate the ―unrealised covenant potential‖ while in the Damascus Document it signifies ―the realisation of covenant potential.‖21 Paul, then, reads Lev 18:5 in light of its usage in Ezekiel and Nehemiah and understands the clause ―as a conceptual whole designating the pre-restoration condition of Israel.‖22 As such, the terms ―faith‖ (= Hab 2:4) and ―law‖ (= Lev 18:5) in Gal 3:11–12 do not represent ―two mutually exclusive bases for righteousness‖ but ―historical periods in salvation history.‖23 What is wrong with the law and thus Lev 18:5, for Willitts, is that it ―was born and remains biologically linked to the age of unrealised covenantal potential (3:12).‖24 This reading is supported by 3:23–25 where Paul seems to use ―faith‖ and ―law‖ to describe historical periods or epochs: Pro_ tou~ de_ e0lqei~n th_n pi/stin u9po_ no/mon e0frouprou/meqa sugkleio/menoi ei0j th_n me/llousan pi/stin a0pokalufqh~nai, w3ste o9 no/moj paidagwgo_j h9mw~n ge/gonen ei0j Xristo/n, i3na e0k pi/stewj dikaiwqw~men: e0lqou/shj de_ th~j pi/stewj ou0ke/ti u9po_ paidagwgo/n e0smen. Now before this25 faith came, we were confined by the law, being shut up until the faith about to be revealed, so that the law has become our tutor until26 Christ, in order that we might be justified by faith; but when this faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. (Gal 3:23–25)

20

Willitts, ―Context Matters,‖ 119; cf. page 11 of this study. ―Context Matters,‖ 116. 22 ―Context Matters,‖ 119. 23 ―Context Matters,‖ 119. 24 ―Context Matters,‖ 120. 25 The article is used anaphorically, referring back to pi/stewj in 3:22. 21

148

Chapter 8: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12

Here, ―faith‖ is personified and probably refers to the eschatological epoch that has been inaugurated with Christ,27 while the ―law‖ is a paidagwgo/j, being limited for a period of time (―until Christ‖). This passage, in as much as it can be correlated with 3:11–12, may lend support for Willitts‘s conclusion that ―faith‖ (= Hab 2:4) and ―law‖ (= Lev 18:5) delineate two distinct historical eras. The Leviticus formulation, therefore, is opposed to Habakkuk because its relevance is limited to the old age in salvation history. But do Hab 2:4 (faith) and Lev 18:5 (law) mutually exclude each other simply because of their respective salvation historical functions? One problem with this approach is that it downplays, or even eradicates, any inherent deficiency in Lev 18:5. In Willitts‘s view, it seems that the only problem Paul has with adherence to Lev 18:5 is that such adherence is simply past its time: in principle there is nothing wrong with ―doing these things‖ in order to ―live by them.‖28 If Lev 18:5 represents the time of ―unrealised covenant potential,‖ then what has caused its lack of unrealisation? It seems that the nomological approach above, and the anthropological approach below, better account for the plight in humanity‘s relationship with the law. Another problem is with Willitts‘s claim that Hab 2:4 and Lev 18:5 are not presented as ―two mutually exclusive bases for righteousness.‖29 In our exegesis of Gal 3:11–12, however, we saw that this is in fact what Paul says. Both Hab 2:4 and Lev 18:5 are cited as two different premises for the leading assertion that ―no one is justified by the law‖ (3:11a). So while there certainly is an eschatological orientation of ―faith‖ in 3:11–12 (and especially in 3:23– 25), this does not exhaust its validity as the only basis on which one receives righteousness and life. 8.3.4 Anthropological Approach The anthropological approach states that the principle of Lev 18:5 is theoretically true – ―the one who does (all) these things will have life through them‖ – but in practice has been a proven failure: no one since Adam can fulfil the law perfectly.30 A different anthropological approach is taken by

26

I understand ei0j here to be temporal not teleological (so B. Longenecker, Triumph, 118; Betz, Galatians, 178; Kuula, The Law, 178–80). 27 See e.g. Betz, Galatians, 176; Schlier, Galater, 167 n. 7. 28 I am drawing here on R. Barry Matlock who critiques James Dunn on the same grounds (see his ―Sins of the Flesh and Suspicious Minds: Dunn‘s New Theology of Paul,‖ JSNT 72 [1998], 67–90 [77]. 29 ―Context Matters,‖ 119. 30 T. R. Schreiner, The Law and Its Fulfilment: A Pauline Theology of Law (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), 60–61; Matera, Galatians, 124; Kim, New Perspective, 128–64; Bruce, Galatians, 159 (to some extent); Fung, Galatians, 146; R. Longenecker, Galatians, 120–21; Mußner, Der Galaterbrief, 191, 229–31; Borse, Galater, 129: ―Da dem sündigen Menschen

8.3 Review of Approaches to the Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12

149

Rudolph Bultmann who says that ―man‟s effort to achieve his salvation by keeping the Law only leads him into sin, indeed this effort itself in the end is already sin.‖31 The human pursuit of the law leads only to transgression, not only because he fails to keep it, but because the very attempt to do so leads to self-righteous boasting.32 Therefore, the deficiency that Paul saw in Lev 18:5 is primarily anthropological: to ―do these things‖ is impossible due to the sinful condition of man or the sinful (legalistic) way in which the law is pursued, or both.33 This approach has certainly captured a Pauline theme: Adamic humanity is utterly sinful and thus incapable of being justified by the law. 34 But is this what leads Paul to read Lev 18:5 as an inadequate way to attain life? Perhaps, but Paul‘s anthropology must be understood in a way that is sensitive to the context of Galatians. In Galatians, humanity‘s inability to perform the requirements of the law has more to do with their enslavement to the powers of ―this present evil age‖ (1:4; cf. 4:1–11, 21–31) than with the corruption of the human nature itself – the latter is present (e.g., 1:4, 2:20) but not as dominant as the former.35 Even Stephen Westerholm, one who is insistent that die Befolgung aller Gebote aber nicht möglich ist, kann er durch das Gesetz nicht am Leben gelangen (vgl. V. 21f).‖ 31 Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (New York: Scribner‘s, 1951), 1.259–69 (264, emphasis original). 32 Bultmann, Theology, 267. Similarly, Ernest De Witt Burton argues that Paul opposes Lev 18:5 because it is ―a statement of legalism‖ (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians [ICC; Edinburgh; T & T Clark, 1921], 167). 33 Some in this approach, such as Stephen Westerholm and Simon Gathercole, hold to an anthropological approach but do not necessary think that lack of perfect obedience or legalism is the issue. For these interpreters, it is simply the inability of Adamic humanity (including Israel) to adequately obey the law (Westerholm, Perspectives, 418–21; Simon J. Gathercole, Where is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul‟s Response in Romans 1– 5 [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002], 128–35, 222–24 [Gathercole‘s comments are related to Romans, not Galatians here]). 34 I see much less merit in Bultmann‘s version of the anthropological approach, however. 35 Martyn‘s commentary on Galatians emphasises this point beyond most interpreters (Galatians, 95–105 and passim). Martyn contends that in Galatians, humanity‘s plight is not a ―self-caused plight‖ where ―things have gone wrong because human beings have willfully rejected God,‖ but a ―cosmic‖ plight where anti-God powers have enslaved humanity and now rule over the present evil age (Galatians, 97–98 n. 51). Contrary to Martyn, I do not see a sharp distinction between a ―self-caused plight‖ brought on by human transgressions, and a cosmic plight where humanity is a victim rather than a culprit. I do agree, however, that the latter – the cosmic plight – is more dominant in Galatians. A slightly more moderate analysis of this cosmic, or ―apocalyptic,‖ emphasis can be seen in B. Longenecker, Triumph, 35–67 (cf. his astute analysis of Martyn on pgs. 5–13) and Barclay, Obeying the Truth, 96–105. Stephen Westerholm, while seeing more of a cosmic emphasis in Galatians, generally still reads the letter along the lines of a ―self-caused plight‖ (Perspectives, 366–84 and the note below).

150

Chapter 8: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12

Paul generally emphasises the sinful condition of humanity, believes that the idea of enslavement to cosmic powers is evident in Galatians, where ―the human dilemma goes beyond the concrete sins that humans commit; such sins reflect their belonging to an age gone wrong, dominated by sin and, indeed, by powers that are not God.‖36 Therefore, understanding Paul‘s anthropology as a basis for his opposition to Lev 18:5 must take into account the cosmic framework of Galatians. To say that Lev 18:5 is invalid because ―no one fulfils the law perfectly‖37 goes beyond what Paul says in Galatians;38 rather, it is better to say that humanity is enslaved to the cosmic powers of this present evil age and thus wholly incapable of delivering themselves from ―the curse‖ and attaining eschatological life. So Paul‘s anthropology may lie behind his opposition to Lev 18:5, but this should be conceived more in terms of the powerlessness of humanity to escape their enslavement to the powers of this age, and not their inability to obey the law perfectly.39 8.3.5 Divine and Human Agency Approach Francis Watson reads the antithesis in Gal 3:11–12 as one of divine and human agency. He says that Hab 2:4, for Paul, bears witness ―to the radical priority of divine saving action even over the human action enjoined in the law itself,‖40 and notes further that If Habakkuk 2.4 represents one side of this faultline, Leviticus 18.5 represents the other. In the one case, the emphasis falls on the human acknowledgement of God‘s eschatological

36

Westerholm, Perspectives, 380; cf. his ―Paul‘s Anthropological ‗Pessimism‘ in Its Jewish Context,‖ in Divine and Human Agency in Paul and His Cultural Environment (LNTS 335; ed. John M. G. Barclay and Simon J. Gathercole; London: T & T Clark/Continuum, 2006), 71–98 (esp. 79). 37 Matera, Galatians, 124; cf. Kim, New Perspective, 153. 38 Interpreters often appeal to Gal 3:10 to prove that lack of perfect obedience is the problem with 3:12. Here, it has been suggested that Paul‘s apparent contradiction between 3:10a (those of works of the law are cursed) and 3:10b (those who break the law are cursed) can be resolved by assuming a missing premise in Paul‘s argument, namely, that no one can obey the law perfectly (see T. R. Schreiner, ―Is Perfect Obedience to the Law Possible? A Reexamination of Galatians 3:10,‖ JETS [1984], 151–60 and others in note 71). This understanding of 3:10, then, is carried over to 3:12: the one who does these things cannot live by them because he is unable to do them perfectly. However, this reading of 3:10, something fundamental for the anthropological approach, has been severely critiqued by representatives of all other views; see Michael Cranford, ―The Possibility of Perfect Obedience: Paul and the Implied Premise in Galatians 3:10 and 5:3,‖ NovT 36 (1994), 242–58; Martyn, Galatians, 310–11; Schlier, Galater, 132; Dunn, Galatians, 171; Howard, Crisis, 51–54. 39 See my comments in note 76 above. 40 Francis Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (London: T & T Clark, 2004), 162.

8.3 Review of Approaches to the Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12

151

saving action; in the other, it is human action in obedience to the law‘s prescriptions that constitutes the scriptural path to life.41

That is, with the antithesis between Hab 2:4 and Lev 18:5, Paul is not pitting two modes of human action up against each other – e.g., ―believing‖ versus ―doing‖ – but is driving a wedge between divine action and human action in appropriating eschatological salvation.42 So the logic of Paul‘s argument is not that sinful man is unable to gain life from the law, but if he could then the law would issue the life; rather, attaining life and righteousness through the law, for Watson‘s Paul, is a theological construct that is contrary to the gospel of grace. This view is different from the anthropological approach, since it does not see lack of perfection or legalism as the issue; it differs from the nomological approach, since it does see a problem with human endeavour. Watson‘s reading is very compelling, but unfortunately he devotes little space to Paul‘s argument in Gal 3:11–12, focusing primarily on Rom 10:5– 8.43 One point of criticism concerning Watson‘s construal of Lev 18:5 – a point that may underlie his argument but is seldom stressed – is that he does not refer to the human inability to do the law as a factor in Paul‘s opposition to Lev 18:5. We suggested above that while humanity‘s Adamic condition is not a leading anthropological point made in Galatians, it is clear that humanity‘s enslavement to the powers of the present evil age is a primary theme. It seems, then, that at least part of the underlying reason why the priority of human action as a precondition for attaining eschatological life is wrong and ineffective is because of humanity‘s inability, due to their enslavement, to obey the law. In any case, Watson is correct to emphasise the Christological basis for Paul‘s rejection of the Leviticus formula: Lev 18:5 is wrong not only because (among other reasons) of the priority it places on human action, but because God‘s saving action in Christ has relegated all other attempts to gain salvation wholly inappropriate and misleading. 8.3.6 Summary So why is it not the case that ―the one who does these things will live by them?‖ We have reviewed various approaches to this question and have found many helpful points – and a few less helpful ones. First, while support for the dogmatic approach may be found in Gal 2:21, we have not found this 41

Watson, Hermeneutics, 163. This is the same point made by Louis Martyn. In fact, Martyn reads pi/stewj Xristou= as a subjective genitive (the faithfulness of Christ) precisely because, according to him, the divine and human antithesis necessitates it (so also Howard, Crisis, 63–64). Watson, however, maintains this same antithesis while reading pi/stewj Xristou= as an objective genitive (faith in Christ). 43 Watson sporadically discusses Gal 3:11–12 (e.g. Hermeneutics, 200–201, 208, 276–77, 329, 428, 475). 42

152

Chapter 8: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12

approach very satisfying, since it apparently does not see any inherent problem with law-righteousness. The nomological approach finds support in Gal 3:21 and has rightly captured at least one reason why Lev 18:5 is an ineffective formula: ―these things‖ lack the power and intention to give life to the one who does them. The salvation historical approach has rightly emphasised the eschatological orientation of faith and the shift in saving history brought about by the Christ event; however, it fails to adequately account for the plight in Paul‘s thought. Paul‘s problem with Lev 18:5 seems to be deeper than that its adherence is simply past its time. We have found the anthropological approach true, but do not see lack of perfection or legalism as the problem. When understood along the lines of the cosmic framework of Galatians, this approach has much to offer: a humanity enslaved under the powers of this present evil age – which includes the law (!) – does not have the ability to carry out Lev 18:5. Finally, the divine and human agency view is for the most part correct. Leviticus 18:5 exhibits a conditional construct that prioritises human action, an inadequate prioritisation in light of human inability and the emphasis on divine action inherent in the gospel. God has not responded through the gospel to prior human action, but has acted in Christ solely out of his own sovereign initiative. Watson‘s understanding of Lev 18:5 in Paul, then, is accurate, but since he does not develop it within the framework of Galatians, the rest of this chapter will seek to fill this lacuna. In the following, I will argue that Galatians exhibits an antithesis between divine and human agency; thus, ―the one who does these things‖ cannot ―live by them‖ because eschatological life cannot be, and has not been, given as a response to human behaviour. Paul saw the Leviticus construct as a wholly inappropriate and deficient way to appropriate God‘s saving action because it prioritises human deeds – something that will never be forthcoming from people who are in bondage to the present evil age. Deliverance from this evil age, with its curse (3:10), and the granting of eschatological life and justification is solely the result of divine initiative. In order to support this reading, I will look at various passages in Galatians that highlight the contours of divine and human action. First (§8.4.1), I will show that the theological shape of Galatians 1 and 2 exhibits a gospel that prioritises divine action over human endeavour. Second (§8.4.2), the correlation between ―works of the law‖ and ―the flesh‖ (Gal 3:2–5) suggests that law-obedience is a ―merely human‖ way to maintain God‘s activity. Finally (§8.4.3), the opposition between Hab 2:4 and Lev 18:5 itself may portray two different paradigms regarding the attainment of eschatological life. I will elaborate on these points below with a view to contribute to a better understanding of Gal 3:11–12.

8.4 Leviticus 18:5 in View of Divine and Human Agency in Galatians

153

8.4 Leviticus 18:5 in View of Divine and Human Agency in Galatians 8.4.1 The Theological Shape of Galatians 1 and 2 Throughout Galatians, the priority of divine action over human action is accentuated. We see this distinction clearly in Gal 4:9 where Paul corrects himself in mid-sentence: ―but now, knowing God, or rather being known by God‖ (nu~n de_ gno/ntej qeo/n, ma~llon de_ gnwsqe/ntej u9po_ qeou~). Paul‘s abrupt shift from the active to the passive voice demonstrates that he sees a difference between knowing God and being known by God, and that the latter is the proper way to describe one‘s conversion.1 God‘s initiative in ―knowing‖ the Galatians was prior to, and the basis of, the Galatians‘ own coming to know God. The distinction between divine and human action is also prominent in chapters 1 and 2.2 Here, Paul accentuates a ―God-man tension‖ where a ―fundamental opposition between God and man . . . forms the presupposition of Paul‘s whole argument.‖3 In these opening two chapters, Paul underscores the divine source of the gospel, a source that ultimately shapes the theological structure of the gospel itself.4 The gospel that invaded Paul‘s life is marked by divine action, while Paul‘s former life – a life where the human ego is the subject and God is surprisingly absent (1:13–14)5 – is characterised by religious human endeavour. This opposition is set up in the opening sentence: ―Paul, an apostle not from a human source nor through a human agent but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised him from the dead‖ (1:1, Pau~loj a0postoloj 1

Cf. the stimulating essay by John Barclay, ―‗By the Grace of God I Am What I Am‘: Grace and Agency in Philo and Paul,‖ in Divine and Human Agency in Paul, 140–57. Barclay, while not discussing Gal 4:9, refers to similar instances where Paul corrects himself as such (see 1 Cor 15:10, Phil 3:11–12, and Gal 2:19–21). 2 See especially Bernard Lategan, ―Is Paul Defending His Apostleship in Galatians?‖ NTS 34 (1988), 411–30 (418–30); see too G. Lyons, Pauline Autobiography: Toward a New Understanding (SBLDS 73; Atlanta: SBL, 1985), 146–64 (esp. 152–56) (cited in Lategan, ―Apostleship,‖ 419). 3 Lategan, ―Apostleship,‖ 418. 4 It is probable, then, that Paul is more concerned with presenting a paradigm of the gospel itself than with defending his own apostolic authority in these two chapters. Compare the number of occurrences of a0po/stoloj and derivatives (Gal 1:1, 17, 19; 2:8) with eu0agge/lion and derivatives (Gal 1:6, 7, 8 [2x], 9, 11 [2x], 16, 23; 2:2, 5, 7, 14) (noted in Lategan, ―Apostleship,‖ 417 n. 8). This is now the view of the majority of interpreters; along with Letegan, ―Apostleship,‖ see the supporters in note 91. 5 As pointed out by John M. G. Barclay, ―Paul‘s Story: Theology as Testimony,‖ in Narrative Dynamics in Paul: A Critical Assessment (ed. Bruce Longenecker; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 133–56 (138).

154

Chapter 8: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12

ou0k a0p ) a0nqrw/pwn ou0de_ di ) a0nqrw/pou a0lla_ dia_ 0Ihsou~ Xristou~ kai_ qeou~ patro_j tou~ e0gei/rantoj au0to_n e0k nekrw~n). Here Paul departs from the standard way of beginning a letter by emphasising the divine source and agency of his apostleship.6 God, not man, has determined and configured Paul‘s position as an apostle. This distinction between God and man becomes central to his entire autobiographical account (1:1–2:14), where Paul presents himself as a paradigm7 of how the divine gospel encounters and overrides the human agent.8 Thus, Paul reminds the Galatians that by departing from the true gospel, they are turning from ―the one who called you by grace‖ (1:6). Divine calling and the power of grace characterises the gospel that conquered Paul and, at one time, the Galatians. The antithesis is seen again in 1:11–12,9 where Paul says that his gospel ―is not according to human terms, for I neither received it from a human nor was I taught it, but (I received it) through a revelation of Christ‖ (ou0k e1stin kata_ a1nqrwpon: ou0de_ ga_r e0gw_ para_ a0nqrw/pou pare/labon au0to_ ou1te e0dida/xqhn, a0lla_ di ) a0pokalu/yewj 0Ihsou~ Xristou~). The gospel, according to Paul, does not have a ―merely human‖ (kata_ a1nqrwpon),10 but a divine, quality.11 Paul‘s own experience with this gospel displays this tension. His previous religious life was marked by his own endeavour (1:13–14) – the

6 Bryant says that Paul points to Christ and the Father as the sources and agents of his apostolic authority (Rising and Crucified, 113). Martyn distinguishes between source and agency here (Galatians, 83), but this distinction should not be pressed too far. 7 Here, I am following B. R. Gaventa (―Galatians 1 and 2: Autobiography as Paradigm,‖ NovT 28 [1986], 309–26) who argues that Paul‘s autobiographical account of his conversion, along with his apostolic origin, is not primarily apologetic but paradigmatic. Paul, here, is not primarily defending his apostleship but giving a paradigm of how the gospel has laid claim to Paul‘s own life (cf. also Barclay, ―Paul‘s Story,‖ 141–42; Martyn, Galatians, 152–53, 159– 61; B. Longenecker, Triumph, 148–49; G. Walter Hansen, ―A Paradigm of the Apocalypse: The Gospel in the Light of Epistolary Analysis,‖ in Gospel in Paul: Studies on Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans for Richard N. Longenecker [ed. L. A. Jervis and p. Richardson; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994], 194–221, reprinted in The Galatians Debate, 143–54). 8 Cf. J. H. Schütz: ―Paul‘s description of himself . . . already suggests something more than an identification pro forma of the author‘s apostolic status. It signals an elaboration and exposition which, when developed, shows itself to be crucial to the larger purpose and argument of the letter‖ (Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority [Cambridge: CUP, 1975], 114); see too, Martyn, Galatians, 94, 144, 146–51; Gaventa, ―Singularity,‖ 154. 9 Betz, Galatians, 56, 61; Lategan, ―Apostleship,‖ 419–26. 10 The phrase is from Betz, Galatians, 63. 11 Gal 1:11 is often taken as describing the origin of Paul‘s gospel (from God not man) but ou0k e1stin kata_ a1nqrwpon refers to its quality, not origin; rightly, Lategan, ―Apostleship,‖ 419–20, 26: ―The nature of the gospel as contrary to human expectations, not based on human effort, is first and foremost illustrated by Paul‘s conversion from persecutor to preacher and his calling as apostle.‖

8.4 Leviticus 18:5 in View of Divine and Human Agency in Galatians

155

forms and conventions of a merely human religion12 – but God transformed him through his own initiative by setting him apart from his mothers womb, calling him by his grace, and revealing Christ ―in [him]‖ (e0n e0moi/).13 Moreover, the God of the gospel not only transformed Paul through his own initiative at his conversion, but also ―effectively works‖ (e0nh/ghsen) in him through the ―grace which was given‖ (th_n xa/rin th_n doqei~sa/n) to him (2:8– 9). That God alone has the power to transform and give eschatological life is underscored at the end of Gal 2 (2:19–21): For I through the law (dia_ no/mou) died to the law in order that I might live to God (qew=| zh/sw). I have been crucified with Christ; now I no longer live but Christ lives in me (zw= de_ ou0ke/ti e0gw/, zh=| de\ e0n e0moi\ Xristo/j); the life that I now live I live by the faith which is in the son of God (o4 de\ nu=n zw= e0n sarki/, e0n pi/stei zw= th=| tou= ui9ou= tou= qeou) who loved me and gave himself up on my behalf. I do not reject the grace of God; for if righteousness was through law, then Christ died in vain. (Gal 2:19–21)

This passage reveals a striking resemblance to 3:11–13 with the terms ―law‖ (2:19–21 [2x]/3:11–12 [2x]), ―life/live‖ (2:19–20 [5x]/3:11–12 [2x]), ―righteousness/justification‖ (2:21/3:11 [2x]), ―faith‖ (2:20/3:11–12 [2x]), and the reference to the death of Christ as God‘s means of deliverance (2:19–21 [2x]/cf. 3:13). It is surprising, then, how little attention is given to 2:19–21 when commentators deal with 3:11–13.14 While the human side of the divine/human tension is not explicit here, the divine side is, as Hays notes: The whole context portrays Christ as the active agent and Paul as the instrument through which and/or for whom Christ‘s activity comes to expression. Indeed, this unrelenting emphasis on the priority of Christ‘s (or God‘s) willing and doing over any human will or action is the theological keynote of the entire letter.15

This priority of divine action here in 2:20 corresponds with previous depictions of God‘s saving action; namely, Christ‘s death on behalf of sin (tou= do/ntoj e9auto_n u9pe_r tw~n a9martiw~n h9mw~n 1:4) and God‘s act in revealing Christ in Paul (a0pokalu/yai to_n ui9o_n au0tou~ e0n e0moi/, 1:16). Likewise in 2:20, Paul says that Christ ―gave himself for me‖ (parado/ntoj e9auto\n u9pe\r e0mou=), echoing 1:4, and ―Christ lives in me‖ (zh|= de\ e0n e0moi\ 12 See the judicious analysis of Paul‘s view of his past religious life by Barclay, Obeying the Truth, 242–51. 13 Paul‘s own experience with the gospel is punctuated by references to divine activity, highlighted in particular by the frequent use of a0pokalu/yij (1:12, 16; 2:2), a term that establishes ―God as the central actor in this account‖ (Gaventa, ―Galatians 1 and 2,‖ 316; see too, Martyn, Galatians, 152–53, 159–61; Bryant, Risen and Crucified, 148–50). 14 Scott Shauf (―Galatians 2.20 in Context,‖ NTS 52 [2006], 86–101 [101) briefly mentions the similarities, as does Vouga (Galater, 75), but many commentators do not (e.g. Betz, R. Longenecker, Matera, Martyn). 15 Hays, Faith, 155; Barclay, ―‗By the Grace of God‘,‖ 152.

156

Chapter 8: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12

Xristo/j), echoing 1:16. Paul‘s eschatological life is created by divine action, the revelation of Christ in Paul: the ego is not obliterated, but redeemed and enabled to ―live to God.‖16 In sum, Galatians 1 and 2 display the theological contours of the gospel, a gospel that testifies to the priority of God‘s saving action in opposition to human endeavour. This may shed light on 3:12, since this verse is a tightly formulated summary of Paul‘s law-faith antithesis. I suggest that the same God-man tension that punctuates the narrative of Galatians 1 and 2 lies at the heart of 3:11–12. Habakkuk testifies to God‘s intervention in Christ, while Leviticus promotes a merely human way to attain life. This claim will be further supported by the next two arguments. 8.4.2 Galatians 3:2–5: Works of Law and the Flesh Further support for this reading may be found in Gal 3:2–5 where Paul denies that the Galatians received the Spirit ―by works of the law.‖ The meaning of the phrase e1rgwn no/mou (―works of the law‖) has become a point of contention among interpreters and we cannot deal with this issue at length.17

16 Cf. John Barclay: ―The self here is not obliterated or hijacked by another agency; but neither is it simply informed of a new possibility, or instructed into a new view of the world. It is reconstituted in such a fashion that one has to speak thereafter of a dual agency, and not simply of one operating in partnership with the other, but of Christ operating ‗in‘ the human agent‖ (Barclay, ―‗By the Grace of God‘,‖ 152). 17 The interpretation of e1rgwn no/mou has been the subject of a long debate; for a good summary of the issues with extensive bibliography, see Tom Schreiner, ―‗Works of Law‘ in Paul,‖ NovT 33 (1991), 214–44. More recently, the discussion is centred on whether the phrase refers to prescriptions of the law or to the actual performance of those prescriptions. The former view has been argued extensively by Michael Bachmann, ―Rechtfertigung und Gesetzeswerke bei Paulus,‖ TZ 49 (1993), 1–33, reprinted in Antijudaismus im Galaterbrief: Exegetishe Studien zu einem polemischen Schreiben und zur Theologie des Apostels Paulus (NTOA 40; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1999), 1–31; idem, ―4QMMT und Galaterbrief, hrwth y#o(m und ERGA NOMOU,‖ ZNW 89 (1998), 91–113, reprinted in Antijudaismus im Galaterbrief, 33–56). Bachman‘s view has been recently countered by Otfried Hofius, who argues that the phrase refers to the actual performance of the law, see his, ―‗Werke des Gesetzes‘,‖ 271–310, esp. 273–85. With regard to these two options, James Dunn is probably correct in critiquing Bachmann for driving ―a wedge between ‗precept/prescription‘ and ‗deed (prescribed)‘, as though the former could be grasped without thought to the latter‖ (―Noch einmal ‗Works of the Law‘: The Dialogue Continues,‖ in The New Perspective on Paul, 414). Another issue regarding the same phrase, well known now to Pauline scholars, is whether Paul has in mind particular boundary marking commandments such as food laws, circumcision, and Sabbath keeping when he uses the phrase e1rgwn no/mou, or to ―prescribed deeds‖ (the phrase is Dunn‘s) in general. For the former view see, in addition to the article cited above, the more recent articles by James Dunn, ―Yet Once More – ‗The Works of the Law‘: A Response;‖ and idem, ―4QMMT and Galatians;‖ both reprinted in his, The New

8.4 Leviticus 18:5 in View of Divine and Human Agency in Galatians

157

J. Louis Martyn and others are probably correct that e1rgwn no/mou refers to law-observance in general, and that Paul uses the phrase to summarise ―the grand and complex activity of the Jew, who faithfully walks with God along the path God has opened up for him in the law.‖18 The phrase is not inherently negative and cannot refer to ―works‖ in abstraction nor legalistic meritorious deeds.19 e1rgwn no/mou no doubt includes specific ceremonial laws such as circumcision, Sabbath laws, and calendarical matters, but the primary reason why Paul rejects ―works of law‖ as a means of justification is probably not because they present a barrier between Jews and Gentiles. Paul‘s social concerns with ―works of law‖ as regards justification were shaped by his theological convictions.20 Despite the diverse interpretations of e1rgwn no/mou, two points are largely agreed upon among exegetes. First, Paul‘s understanding of ―works of the law‖ correlates with his understanding of Lev 18:5, or may even be derived from this passage.21 As such, justification by ―works of the law‖ (Gal 2:16; cf. Rom 3:20, 28) corresponds to attaining life by ―doing these things.‖ A second point of agreement among interpreters is that Paul‘s reference to ―works of the law‖ in Gal 3:2, 5 is described as ―being perfected by the flesh‖ (sarki/):22 Tou=to mo/non qe/lw maqei=n a)f ) u9mwn: e0c e1rgwn no/mou to_ pneu=ma e0la/bete h2 e0c a0koh=j pi/stewj; ou3twj a0no/htoi/ e0ste, e0narca/menoi pneu/mati nu=n sarki_ e0pitelei=sqe; tosau=ta e0pa/qete ei0kh=|-e1i ge kai_ ei0kh|=. o9 ou}n e0pixorhgw=n u9mi=n to_ pneu=ma kai_ e0nergw=n duna/meij e0n u9mi=n, e0c e1rgwn no/mou h2 e0c a0koh=j pi/stewj;

Perspective on Paul, 207–20, 333–39. This issue is difficult and space prevents us from thoroughly discussing it. 18 Martyn, Galatians, 260–63 (261); Hofius, ―‗Werke des Gesetzes‘,‖ 271–310; Watson, Hermeneutics, 334–35; Das, Paul, 188–90; Eckstein, Verheißung, 122 (a ―neutrale Bezeichnung für die umfassende Toraobservanz‖); cf. the older study by E. Lohmeyer, Probleme paulinischer Theologie (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1954), 31–74, who renders e1rgwn no/mou as ―nomistic service.‖ 19 Contra R. Longenecker, Galatians, 86. 20 See Barclay, Obeying the Truth, 239–42, 246–47, 249–51; cf. B. Longenecker: ―It is certainly true that the issue of nomistic observance focuses on matters of social boundary markers and group identity which pertain to ethnic Israel. But it is also the case that Paul finds the ‗ethnocentric covenantalism‘ of the agitators to be a full-blown example of something fundamentally wrong within the human condition: that is, the tendency toward egocentrism and self-interestedness‖ (Triumph, 76). 21 Gathercole, Boasting, 92–92; Watson, Hermeneutics, 334–35; cf. Eckstein, who points out that in the context of Gal 3:10–12, the antecedent of au0ta/ (3:12b) is toi=j gegramme/noij e0n tw=| Bibli/w| tou= no/mou of 3:10b (Verheißung, 146), which in turn corresponds to e1rgwn no/mou in 3:10a. 22 Joseph B. Tyson, ―‗Works of Law‘ in Galatians,‖ JBL 92 (1973), 423–32 (427); R. Longenecker, Galatians, 103; B. Longenecker, Triumph, 75; Oepke, Galater, 69; R. Jewett, Paul‟s Anthropological Terms (Leiden: Brill, 1971), 99; David J. Lull, The Spirit in Galatia (Chico: Scholars Press, 1980), 104.

158

Chapter 8: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12

I only wish to learn this from you; did you receive the Spirit by works of law or by a report of faith? Thus are you so foolish, having begun by the Spirit are you now being perfected by the flesh? Have you suffered such things in vain – if indeed it was in vain? Therefore, the one who supplies you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, (does he do it) by works of law or by a report of faith? (Gal 3:2–5)

Despite the various interpretive difficulties here,23 it seems clear that Paul correlates ―works of law‖ and ―flesh.‖ The implication from this passage is that the Galatians are trying to maintain the Spirit‘s work among them by means of doing ―works of the law,‖ which Paul describes as ―being perfected by the flesh‖ (sarki/). With regard to sa/rc, Paul could be referring to the act of circumcision (i.e. the removal of flesh from the penis) or to human nature in general, probably highlighting its weakness.24 Understanding the meaning of sa/rc is particularly difficult since Paul uses the term with ―bewildering variety,‖ even within the Galatian letter itself.25 Martyn argues that the term in Gal 3:3 refers to circumcision based on this meaning in Gal 6:12–13 and the association of ―flesh‖ with ―circumcision‖ throughout Gen 17.26 Barclay, however, while agreeing that sa/rc refers to circumcision in Gal 6:12–13, sees a more general sense of ―that which is merely human‖ when sa/rc is opposed to pneu=ma as it is here in Gal 3:3.27 For Paul, the Spirit-flesh dualism designates activity that is merely human as 23 Along with interpretive issues surrounding e1rgwn no/mou, the phrase a0koh~j pi/stewj is also troublesome, as it can have at least four different meanings: 1) hearing with faith, 2) hearing ―the faith‖ (i.e. the gospel), 3) the message that enables, or elicits, faith, or 4) the message of ―the faith‖ (i.e. the gospel-message) (see Hays, Faith, 124–32; Martyn, Galatians, 286–89). That a0koh~j refers to a message rather than the act of hearing is most probable in light of Rom 10:16–17 and 1 Thess 2:13 (along with Hays and Martyn, see also Eckstein, Verheißung, 86–88; Schlier, Galater, 122). Moreover, in prophetic literature, a0koh/ is almost always used to connote the prophetic message (see LXX Isa 52:7; 53:1; Jer 6:24; 10:27; 27:43; 38:18; 44:5; Hos 7:12; Obad 1:1; Nah 1:12; Hab 3:2). Of these texts, Paul is clearly attracted to Isa 52:7 and 53:1 as a source text for his own (prophetic) gospel message. It is also striking that the theophany of Hab 3 about the future salvation of God is called an a0koh/, and this theophanic report is the content of the faithful vision of Hab 2:4. Since Paul‘s gospel message about (God‘s act in) Christ is called ―the faith‖ in Gal 1:23 (cf. 3:23–25; 6:10) it would not be too difficult for Paul to have coined the phrase ―the message of the faith‖ or ―the message which is the faith.‖ Hence, we are inclined to understand a0koh~j pi/stewj as an abbreviation for the ―gospel-message.‖ 24 Paul also uses sa/rc to refer to an evil inclination or desire (cf. Gal 5:17, 24) but this nuance cannot be intended here; rightly Mußner, Galaterbrief, 209. 25 Barclay, Obeying the Truth, 203. For a discussion of sa/rc in Galatians, see Jewett, Anthropological Terms, 95–116; for an investigation into the background of Paul‘s ―fleshSpirit‖ antithesis, see Jörg Frey, ―Die paulinische Antithese von ‗Fleisch‘ und ‗Geist‘ und die palästinische-jüdische Weisheitstradition,‖ ZNW 90 (1999), 45–77. 26 Cf. ―the covenant in your flesh‖ and ―the flesh of your foreskin‖ (Gen 17:11, 13, 14, 23–25); see Martyn, Galatians, 289–94; cf. Jewett, Anthropological Terms, 99–100. 27 Barclay, Obeying the Truth, 202–9; see too Kuula, The Law, 63–64.

8.4 Leviticus 18:5 in View of Divine and Human Agency in Galatians

159

opposed to divine activity through the Spirit.28 Barclay‘s interpretation finds support in 2:16, where pa~sa sa/rc designates humanity in general terms, probably highlighting its weakness.29 Significant also, as Barclay points out, is the contrast between Ishmael who was born ―according to the flesh‖ and Isaac who was born ―according to the Spirit (or promise)‖ (4:23, 29). That is, Ishmael was born through merely human means, while Isaac‘s birth was the result of divine initiative, he was born ―by means of promise‖ (di ) e0paggeli/aj, 4:23).30 The contrast between God and man is amplified in 3:5, where God is the one who ―supplies the Spirit and works powers among them.‖31 God freely gives the divine Spirit, the effective agent (pneumati/) through whom the community was enlivened, and God did this through the faith-message of the crucified Christ and not through the merely human endeavour of law-obedience.32 The point here is that since the Galatians began their Christian lives by receiving the Spirit through the faith-message, they cannot maintain that same divine power through human means; God alone is the source of their miraculous experiences (3:5). In sum, ―works of the law‖ are described as being a merely human means of maintaining the Spirit‘s work among the community. The God-man tension that we have seen in Galatians 1 and 2, therefore, continues to shape Paul‘s discussion in chapter 3. Moreover, the correspondence between ―works of the law‖ and Lev 18:5 suggests that the same God-man tension underlies 3:11–12 as well. As such, Lev 18:5 may also be a merely human way of appropriating eschatological life, while Hab 2:4 presents a paradigm of a person submitting to God‘s saving action in Christ. God does not give life as a response to human action, but creates life through divine intervention (2:20–21; 3:21). 8.4.3 Habakkuk 2:4 and Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:11–12: Depictions of Divine and Human Agency Understanding Hab 2:4 and Lev 18:5 as signifying the two antithetical principles of divine and human agency is not without its problems, however. 28

Barclay, Obeying the Truth, 206; similarly Mußner, Galaterbrief, 209 Also, the reference to ―flesh and blood‖ in 1:16 almost certainly refers to human nature in contrast to the divine (see Louw-Nida, 106). 30 On this point, see Watson, Hermeneutics, 202–8. The divine and human antithesis also seems evident in 1 Cor 3:1–3 and Phil 3:3. Hebrews 7:16–19 is also telling: o4j ou0 kata_ no/mon e0ntolh=j sarki/nhj ge/gonen a0lla_ kata_ du/namin zwh=j a0katalu/tou...ou0de_n ga_r e0telei/wsen o9 no/moj (see Louw-Nida, 106). 31 Hays, Faith, 170. 32 Cf. Eckstein: ―Paulus setzt den menschlichen e1rga ja nicht den Glauben bzw. das gläubige Hören als eine andere menschliche Leistung entgegen, sondern er verdeutlicht durch die Gegenüberstellung von e1rga und pi/stij, daß Glaube und Geistempfang ausschließlich auf Gottes Initiative und Wirken in der Verkündigung des Evangeliums zurückgehen‖ (Verheißung, 86). 29

160

Chapter 8: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12

For one, both texts seem to speak of human action, for even Habakkuk speaks of faith, a human act. One way to solve this issue is to understand e0k pi/stewj as an abbreviation for e0k/dia/ pi/stewj Xri/stou (Gal 2:16; 3:22; cf. 2:20; Rom 3:22, 26; Phil 3:9) and to interpret Xri/stou as a subjective genitive: it is Christ‘s own faith(fullness) (i.e. his death on the cross) that is contrasted with the futile human acts of ―doing these things.‖33 But even if ―faith‖ refers to human belief here, and we think it does, there are other reasons why Hab 2:4 can stand on the divine side of the divine/human antithesis. First, ―faith‖ for Paul is always ―faith in Christ,‖ and ―faith in Christ‖ signifies faith in what God has done in Christ; namely, his atoning death for sins and victorious resurrection from the dead. Westerholm is certainly correct that ―the efficacy of the path of faith lies in what Christ has done for those cursed by the law.‖34 Faith, then, is a human response to God‘s prior saving act in Christ – and this is not a major point of contention among interpreters.35 Second, Paul understands faith itself to be a gift of God, the result of God‘s prior work in the heart of the convert.36 Paul says explicitly that faith is a gift of God in Phil 1:29,37 and it is implied in many other passages that refer to human response to the gospel as a result of God‘s prior action (esp. 2 Cor 4:6; cf. Rom 4:18–22; 1 Cor 2:4–5, 10; 1 Thess 2:13). This explains the 33 So Martyn, Galatians, 314 cf. 263–75; Hays, Faith, 132–41. The literature devoted to the ―pistis Christou‖ debate is legion. For a recent critical assessment of all the views, see Preston M. Sprinkle and Michael F. Bird, ed., The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological Studies (Carlisle, U.K., Paternoster, forthcoming 2008). 34 Perspectives, 304. 35 Despite Eckstein‘s criticisms, I do not think that Schlier‘s descrption of e0k pi/stewj as ―Sichhalten an das Wort Gottes und seine Tat‖ (Schlier, Galater, 133) is very far from Eckstein‘s contention that it refers to faith in Christ (Eckstein, Verheißung, 138). 36 Cf. Hofius: ―Nach dem Zeugnis der Paulusbriefe ist es das verkündigte Wort Gottes selbst, das den Glauben wirkt und schafft, so daß der Glaube in strenger Ausschließlichkeit als creatura verbi verstanden werden muß;‖ Otfried Hofius, ―Wort Gottes und Glaube bei Paulus,‖ in Otfried Hofius, Paulusstudien 2 (WUNT 51; Tübingen: Mohr, 1994), 148–74 (157); see also, Gerhard Friedrich, ―Glaube und Verkündigung bei Paulus,‖ in Glaube im Neuen Testament (ed. Ferdinand Hahn and Hans Klein; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982), 93–113; Timo Laato, Paul and Judaism: An Anthropological Approach (trans. T. McElwain; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995),150–53 (with extensive bibliography); Simon J. Gathercole, ―Justified by Faith, Justified by His Blood: The Evidence from Romans 1:18– 4:25,‖ in Justification and Variegated Nomism, Vol. 2: The Paradoxes of Paul (ed. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O‘Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), 147–84 (161–68); Westerholm, Perspectives, 430–31; idem, ―Paul and the Law in Romans 9–11,‖ in Paul and the Mosaic Law, 215–37 (247–48); contra Heikki Räisänen, ―Faith, Works and Election in Romans 9: A Response to Stephen Westerholm,‖ in Paul and the Mosaic Law, 243. 37 ―Because it has been graciously given to you for the sake of Christ not only to believe in him (to_ ei0j au0to_n pisteu/ein), but also to suffer for his sake.‖

8.4 Leviticus 18:5 in View of Divine and Human Agency in Galatians

161

compatibility of ―faith‖ and ―grace‖ in Paul‘s thought,38 and it is evident in Galatians as well. Just as God‘s initiative was prior to Paul‘s own response of faith (Gal 1:13–17; 2:20), so also the Galatians were ―known by God‖ before they came to know him (Gal 4:9). Therefore, Paul‘s understanding of righteousness e0k pi/stewj in Gal 3:11–12, while referring to the human act of believing, is a testimony to God‘s prior action in salvation. A third reason why Hab 2:4 can represent the divine side of the antithesis, while Lev 18:5 stands for the human side, may be found in Paul‘s reading of Scripture. If Paul is simply reading these texts atomistically, of course, then the broader frameworks of the book of Habakkuk and Leviticus (cf. Ezekiel and Nehemiah) may be irrelevant – but many, if not the majority, of scholars now affirm that Paul normally takes into account the original contexts of his citations.39 But we cannot enter this debate here; thus, the following analysis will be suggestive of at least the hermeneutical potential for Paul to read Hab 2:4 as envisioning a future saving act of God, while Lev 18:5, with its conditional construct, emphasises human praxis as a precondition for future life. Habakkuk as a whole highlights the priority and freedom of divine action, while questioning the effectiveness of the Deuteronomic law-regime. The prophet opens his discourse in a state of confusion: not only did God promise to ―raise up the Chaldeans‖ to bring judgment upon Israel (1:5), but Israel itself faced an internal crises. And the law did not seem to offer any hope: The law (hrwt) is ineffective (gwpt) and justice (tp#Om) never goes forth. The wicked [Judeans]40 surround the righteous; thus, justice (tp#Om) comes out perverted. (Hab 1:4)

Habakkuk‘s complaint here is directed toward the ethical breakdown in society and he criticises the torah for its inability to keep the wicked from

38 Rom 3:22–26, 28; 4:4–5; 5:1; 10:17; cf. 5:9; and esp. Rom 4:16: dia_ tou=to e0k pi/stewj, i3na kata_ xa/rin (on ―grace‖ and ―faith‖ in Paul, see Darrel J. Doughty, ―The Priority of XARIS,‖ NTS 19 [1972–73], 163–80). 39 The literature in support is legion. See the ground breaking work by Richard Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1989), and the recent work by Watson, Hermeneutics. The ―atomistic‖ approach to Paul‘s citations was argued for by Barnabas Lindars, New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of the Old Testament Quotations (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961); for Gal 3:10–14, see Sanders, Paul, 19–27. 40 Marshall Johnson suggests that the wicked here refers to the Chaldeans, and this view finds support in 1:13 where the term is applied to the foreign nation (Marshall Johnson, ―The Paralysis of the Torah in Habakkuk 1:4,‖ VT 35 [1985], 257–66 [259]). However, this reading is difficult in light of 1:2–4 which makes batter sense if it describes internal affairs (so most scholars; e.g. Francis Anderson, Habakkuk: A New Translation and Commentary [AB 25; New York: Doubleday, 2001], 24; Ralph Smith, Micah-Malachi [WBC 32; Waco: Word Books, 1984], 94–95, 99; R. D. Haak, Habakkuk [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1992], 34).

162

Chapter 8: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12

persecuting the righteous.41 This is the only occurrence of hrwt in Habakkuk – it does not occur in the vision-oracle (2:2–5) or in the salvation-poem (3:2– 19). Therefore, the only reference to torah is relegated to a context where the prophet expresses doubts about its effectiveness. The vision oracle itself (2:2– 5), from which Paul cites the prophet (Hab 2:4 in Gal 3:11a), focuses on the certainty of God‘s future act of salvation, an act that is not a response to prior law-obedience. God‘s mysterious dealings with the nation and his future act of salvation are the result of his sovereign freedom; the ―if . . . then‖ construct of Deuteronomic eschatology is banished. Yahweh responds (a second time) in chapter 2 to Habakkuk‘s complaint. The divine assurance of future salvation rests on the reliability of a vision, which, although it may delay, is sure to come (2:2a–3).42 It is probably this vision itself that is referred to, at least in the Hebrew, in the much discussed pronoun of Hab 2:4b: ―but the righteous will live by its reliability (qydcw hyxy wtnwm)b).‖43 The content of the vision most likely refers to the theophany of chapter 3.44 The theophany answers Habakkuk‘s question by promising a future time when God will bring judgment upon his enemies and Although the meaning of gwpt is debated, the sense of ―ineffective‖ is clear from the context and its use elsewhere. It is used in Gen 45:26 to refer to Jacob becoming ―numb‖ or ―fainthearted.‖ In Ps 77:3(2) it refers to ―a wearing paralysis.‖ In Ps 38:9(8) it means ―broken,‖ or ―numbed;‖ see further Johnson, ―Paralysis,‖ 259–60. But is Habakkuk‘s complaint directed to the torah itself or the failure among the Judeans to obey it? Marshall Johnson argues that Habakkuk‘s complaint is directed at a failure inherent in the torah. Habakkuk, according to Johnson, was a ―disillusioned deuteronomist‖ who could not understand why the ―righteous‖ were not being blessed as the torah promised (Johson, ―Paralysis,‖ 264). While Johnson‘s understanding would fit Paul‘s thought well, his argument that the prophet was concerned with the failure of torah to mediate the blessings of Deuteronomy goes beyond the evidence in Habakkuk. It seems best to side with the majority that Habakkuk‘s complaint is directed toward the ethical breakdown in society; see Haak, Habakkuk, 34, G. Janzen, ―Eschatological Symbol and Existence in Habakkuk,‖ CBQ 44 (1982), 394–414 (397–99); Smith, Micah-Malachi, 99. In any case, Habakkuk critiques the efficacy of the torah, whether by its own inherent ineffectiveness or because of its inability to keep the wicked from persecuting the righteous. 42 The delay can refer to either the coming of God or the coming of the vision, although the two cannot be separated completely. For a discussion of this difficult passage, see Anderson, Habakkuk, 205–8; 43 So Janzen, ―Habakkuk 2:2–4 in the Light of Recent Philological Advances,‖ HTR 73 (1980), 53–78 (esp. 54–61); idem, ―Eschatological Symbol,‖ 395, 406; Haak, Habakkuk, 59; Anderson, Habakkuk, 214. 44 Johnson, ―Paralysis,‖ 263; similarly Anderson, Habakkuk, 205, 207, but see 202. The content of the vision is a matter of dispute. It may refer to 1) the coming of the Chaldeans in 1:5–11, 2) the set of woe oracles in 2:6–20, 3) the theophany of chapter 3, 4) the oracle in 2:4–5a (William H. Brownlee, ―The Placarded Revelation of Habakkuk,‖ JBL 82 [1963], 324; similarly Janzen, ―Habakkuk 2:2–4,‖ 76) or 5) the content of the book as a whole (Watson, Hermeneutics, 143). All of these views except (1), however, are either related to or include the theophany of chapter 3. 41

8.4 Leviticus 18:5 in View of Divine and Human Agency in Galatians

163

salvation to his people. In short, the hnwm) that mediates ―life‖ to the righteous one is the reliability that God will intervene to perform a future act of salvation. The reliability of the vision (and thus of God) is meant to evoke a response of ―faith‖ from the prophet and all who are ―righteous,‖ but in the vision oracle of 2:2–5 and the theophany of chapter 3, the emphasis lies in divine action as the solution to the problem of wickedness. Leviticus 18:5, on the other hand, does not depict the same theological outlook. It exhibits a conceptual world similar to the Deuteronomists: blessing will come to those who obey the law. This is the very Deuteronomic conception that was a proven failure in Habakkuk where the righteous are being persecuted, not blessed. In Leviticus itself, the conditions of Lev 18:5 are not met as seen in the book as a whole, for the restoration of the nation (26:40–45) comes after a time of wickedness, apostasy, and exile (26:14–39). Israel‘s rebellion – their failure to ―do these things‖ (Lev 18:5) – is written into the script of salvation history. Israel‘s failure, perhaps even inability, to carry out the Lev 18:5 formula is also seen in Ezekiel, where Israel‘s rebellion is described in terms of not doing the things by which they may live (Lev 18:5 in Ezek 18, 20, 33). God‘s act in restoring the nation – both in causing obedience (36:26–27) and in giving them new life (37:1–14) – is a response to the failure of the Leviticus (Deuteronomic) construct. If Paul had read these texts in light of their original contexts, then he might have concluded that ―la Loi deviant un cul-de-sac (Lévitique) d‘où Dieu seul peut nous tirer (Habaquq).‖45 Leviticus promotes a Deuteronomic ―if . . . then‖ pathway to life, and Habakkuk anticipates God‘s intervention as the solution to the failure of the Deuteronomic paradigm. It is not necessarily the case, then, that Paul emphasises a scriptural contradiction.46 These texts can be read in accordance with Israel‘s scriptural history: Israel‘s failure to gain life through the Leviticus formulation has lead to Habakkuk‘s anticipation of unilateral intervention. What Paul opposes is reading the Christ-event through the lens of a Deuteronomic ―if . . . then‖ pattern of restoration, which is what the agitators were (implicitly?) doing by conflating law-observance with the Christ-event. Throughout Galatians, Paul consistently stresses divine initiative and priority as fundamental to the contours of the gospel of faith. The divine actor is central here in 3:10–14 as well: it is God‘s act in Christ (3:11, 13), not human performance of the law (3:10, 12), which has rescued humanity from the curse of the law. 45 Alain Gignac, ―Citation de Lévitique 18,5 en Romains 10,5 et Galates 3,12: Deux lectures différentes des rapports Christ-Torah?‖ Église et théologie 25 (1994), 367–403 (386); cf. Thielman: ―If Paul is aware of this context when he quotes Hab. 2:4, then he is reminding his readers that they belong to the era of God‘s eschatological deliverance‖ (Plight, 70). 46 Contra Martyn, Galatians, 328–34.

164

Chapter 8: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12

8.4.4 Summary We have argued from various passages in Gal 1–3 that the opposition between divine and human agency is fundamental to the gospel. This is seen throughout Paul‘s argument in Galatians 1 and 2, very clearly in Gal 3:2–5, and potentially in the original contexts of Hab 2:4 and Lev 18:5. We see, then, further support from the Galatian letter for the view of Francis Watson that Lev 18:5 is opposed to Hab 2:4 because it emphasises human action (―doing these things‖) as a condition for eschatological life/justification, while Hab 2:4 affirms the priority of divine action evinced in the gospel. We also believe that this view is compatible with elements of other views, in particular the nomological view and a nuanced anthropological view. Certainly, Paul believes that the law is incapable of giving life, and according to Gal 3:19–22 it was not intended to do so (nomological). Moreover, humanity is enslaved to the powers of this present evil age and lacks the ability to escape the curse under their own power; namely, by ―doing these things‖ so as to gain life ―by them‖ (anthropological, though without the ―legalism‖ or ―sinless perfection‖ slant).

8.5 Conclusion We have made our way through the various exegetical issues in Gal 3:11–12 (§8.2), have reviewed the various approaches to Paul‘s citation of Lev 18:5 (§8.3), and argued from Gal 1–3 that Paul understands Lev 18:5 to be a merely human way to attain eschatological life (§8.4). For Paul in Gal 3:12, Lev 18:5 is unduly optimistic about humanity‘s ability to rescue itself from the plight of the curse of the law (3:10). Rather, faith in Christ (3:11b), who through God‘s initiative has lifted the curse through his death (3:13a), is the only adequate and effective means through which one can be delivered.

Chapter 9

The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Romans 10:5 9.1 Introduction Paul cites Lev 18:5 in Rom 10:5 with no exegetical comments other than an introductory remark, ―Moses writes about the righteousness from the law‖ (10:5), and a reworked citation of Deut 30:12–14 in Rom 10:6–8, which, no doubt, helps to elucidate the meaning of Lev 18:5. These two citations, puzzling in their own right, occur in one of the most important passages in Romans on Paul‘s view of the law and the unbelief of Israel. After discussing Israel‘s election (9:1–23), Paul introduces the theme of Gentile inclusion into the promise (9:24–29). This leads to the topics of law, faith, righteousness, and salvation1 as regards Israel‘s rejection of the gospel. In their pursuit of righteousness, Israel stumbled over Christ (Rom 9:30–33), while the Gentiles believed in him. Paul, however, is desperately concerned with the salvation of Israel (10:1), a salvation they have rejected through their misplaced zeal (10:2) and ignorance of God‘s righteousness in Christ (10:3–4). Paul then introduces two scriptural texts, Lev 18:5 and Deut 30:12–14, as explications of ―righteousness based on law‖ (Lev 18:5) and ―righteousness based on faith‖ (Deut 30:12–14): Mwu+sh=j ga_r gra/fei th_n dikaiosu/nh th_n e0k no/mou o3ti o9 poih/saj au)ta_ a1nqrwpoj zh/setai e0n au0toi=j. h9 de\ e0k pi/stewj dikaiosu/nh ou3twj le/gei: mh\ ei1ph|j e0n th|= kardi/a| sou: ti/j a0nabh/setai ei0j to_n ou0rano/n; tou=t ) e21stin Xristo\n katagagei=n: h1: ti/j katabh/setai ei0j th_n a1busson; tou=t ) e1stin Xristo_n e0k nekrw=n a0nagagei=n. a0lla_ ti/ le/gei; e0ggu/j sou to_ r9h=ma/ e0stin e0n tw=| sto/mati/ sou kai\ e0n th=| kardi/a| sou, tou=t ) e1stin to_ r9h=ma/ th=j pi/stewj o4 khru/ssomen.

1

In Rom 9–11, nomo/j only occurs in 9:30–10:8 (9:31 [2x]; 10:4, 5). pisti/j/pisteu/w is prominent throughout 9:30–10:21 (9:30, 32, 33; 10:4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17), as is dikaiosu/nh (9:30, 31; 10:3, 4, 5, 6 [not at all in 9:1–29 or 11:1–36]) (see Doug Moo, The Epistle to the Romans [NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996], 616–17 n. 3, 4). The concept of salvation is conveyed through the terms dikaiosu/nh, zh/setai (10:5), swthri/a/sw|/zw (10:1, 13), and kataisxu/nw (9:33; 10:11), used somewhat interchangeably throughout 9:30–10:13 as seen clearly in Rom 10:9–10 where dikaiosu/nh and swthri/a are virtually synonymous; see J. Ross Wagner, Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul in Concert in the Letter to the Romans (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 121, 161–62.

166

Chapter 9: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Romans 10:5

For Moses writes concerning the righteousness which is based on law that the one who does these things will live by them. But the righteousness based on faith says thus: ―Do not say in your heart, who will ascend into heaven?‖ This is to bring Christ down; or, ―Who will descend into the abyss?‖ This is to bring Christ up from the dead. But what does it say? ―The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart; this is the word of faith which we are preaching.‖ (Rom 10:5–8)

Leviticus 18:5 is cited here as Moses‘ description of ―righteousness based on law‖ (th_n dikaiosu/nh th_n e0k no/mou),2 and is followed by a reworked citation 2

There is a difficult text-critical issue in Rom 10:5 that exhibits two main readings with many variations. Andreas Lindemann has examined this issue at length and I will follow his conclusions in this chapter (A. Lindemann, ―Die Gerechtigkeit aus dem Gesetz: Erwägungen zur Auslegung und zur Textgeschichte von Römer 10 5,‖ ZNW 73 [1982], 231–50). The two main readings can be distinguished by the placement of the o3ti in each case. Reading A, placing the o3ti after tou= no/mou, reads: Mwush=j ga_r gra/fei th_n dikaiosu/nhn th_n e0k tou= no/mou o3ti o( poih/saj au)ta_ a!nqrwpoj zh/setai e0n au0toi=j (witnesses include: p46 D² M [= 018, 020, 025; 104, 365, 1175, 1241, 2464, 295]; sy(P); variations of this view are attested by B )² Y F G; syP lat [= D, d, f, g] 945). This reading closely resembles LXX Lev 18:5b and is followed by D.-A. Koch, (Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus [Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1986], 293–94), O. Kuss (Der Römerbrief (3 vols; Regensburg: Pustet, 1963–78), 3.754–55), James D. G. Dunn (Romans 9–16 [WBC 38b; Waco, TX.: Word Books, 1988], 2.599), L. Morris (The Epistle to the Romans [PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988], 381), J. Fitzmyer (Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 33; New York: Doubleday, 1993], 589), Moo (Romans, 643 n. 1). Reading B, placing the o3ti after gra/fei, reads: Mwush=j ga_r gra/fei o3ti th_n dikaiosu/nhn th_n e0k no/mou o( poih/saj a!nqrwpoj zh/setai e0n au0th=| (witnesses include: )*; lat.; Vulgate; variations of this reading are attested in A D* 33, 81, 630, 1506, 1881, Coptic). This reading is followed by Nestle-Aland 25th edition, W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans [ICC; T & T Clark: Edinburgh, 1902], 286), J. Murray (The Epistle to the Romans [NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959], 2.46), E. Käsemann (Commentary on Romans [trans. and ed. G. W. Bromiley; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980], 285), C. E. B. Cranfield (Romans 9–16 [ICC; T & T Clark/Continuum, 1979], 2.520–21), A. J. Bandstra (The Law and the Elements of the World [Kampen: Kok, 1964], 103), and T. Rhyne (Faith Establishes the Law [SBLDS 55; Chico, CA.: Scholars Press, 1981], 104–5). If this latter reading is correct, then Paul more or less defines the ―these things‖ of the Leviticus text (statutes and ordinances of the law) as ―the righteousness from the law.‖ In the former reading (A), the Leviticus citation is descriptive of ―the righteousness from the law‖ as a whole. The UBS 4th edition and the Nestle-Aland 27th edition both follow reading A. Bruce Metzger in his textual commentary on the New Testament gives the following reasons: ―A majority of the Committee preferred the former sequence (1) because of early and diversified external support; (2) because copyists would have been more likely to move the o3ti to a position immediately after gra/fei than conversely; and (3) because the expression poiei=n th_n dikaiosu/nhn th_n e0k no/mou is non-Pauline‖ (Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament [2nd ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994], 524). The first argument is certainly true: Group A has early (P46) and diverse attestation including Alexandrian, Western and Byzantine text types. Metzger‘s other two arguments, however, are not as sound. Lindemann, who ultimately agrees with reading A, contends that the emendation of the o3ti

9.1 Introduction

167

of Deut 30:12–14.3 Paramount for our understanding of Lev 18:5 is its relationship to Deut 30:12–14; namely, whether the two texts co-exist antithetically or correlatively. This issue will be the first topic to be discussed in this chapter. We will find that although many interpreters suggest otherwise, there are several reasons why these two texts should be viewed antithetically. But what is the nature of this antithesis? We saw previously in Galatians that Paul considers Lev 18:5 to be a merely human, and thus inadequate, way of appropriating eschatological life, while Hab 2:4 testifies to God‘s saving action in Christ. Paul opposes Lev 18:5 in Gal 3:12 because it prioritises human action, which was fundamental to his former way of life in Judaism (Gal 1:13–14) but contrary to the theological shape of the gospel. While in Rom 9–10 Paul‘s concerns may be different, we will argue that a similar understanding of Lev 18:5 is reflected in this passage as well. In the following, I will first summarise two general approaches to Lev 18:5 and Deut 30:12–14 in Rom 10:6–8, the antithetical approach and the correlative approach. Next, I will defend the view that Lev 18 and Deut 30 should be viewed antithetically not correlatively in 10:5–8. I will then could easily have been done to correspond to Gal 3:12 and LXX Lev 18:5 (―Die Gerechtigkeit,‖ 235). Cranfield agrees with Lindemann‘s critique and points out that the au)ta/ and au)toi=j also occur in Lev 18:5. Once these assimilations were made by the corrector, says Cranfield, it would necessitate the replacement of o3ti, removing th_n dikaiosu/nhn th_n e0k tou= no/mou from the position of direct object (Romans, 2.520–21; so too Moo Romans, 643 n. 1; Schreiner, Romans, 563). The third argument Metzger gives for reading A is again countered by Lindemann who says that the phrase ―to do the righteousness of the law‖ comes from the quote and thus cannot be assessed in terms of ―paulinischen Sprachgebrauch‖ (―Die Gerechtigkeit,‖ 236). Lindemann is, to my mind, correct here; Metzger‘s latter two arguments do not carry much weight. Why, then, does Lindemann still follow the same reading as Metzger? While accepting the argument from external attestation for reading A, Lindemann argues further that this reading is more difficult and thus correct. It is more difficult since the plural direct object au)ta/, along with the plural indirect object au0toi=j, have no antecedent in Rom 10; thus, these terms would have invited an emendation to smooth out the syntax. Furthermore, the phrase ―to write the righteousness of the law‖ is more difficult than reading B‘s ―to write that . . . ,‖ which is well attested in Paul (Rom 3:10; 4:17; 8:36; 1 Cor 9:10; 14:21; Gal 3:10; 4:22) (Lindemann, ―Die Gerechtigkeit,‖ 236–37) This is a difficult issue and we cannot land on one side or the other with complete confidence. In light of diverse and early external attestation and Lindemann‘s arguments for the more difficult reading, however, we will proceed with the assumption that reading A is correct. Contrary to Lindemann, I do not see the sense of the passage being greatly altered by one reading or another. 3 LXX Deut 9:4 and 30:12–14 read: mh_ ei1ph|j e0n th~| kardi/a| sou (9:4)...ou0k e0n tw~| ou0ranw~| e0sti_n le/gwn: ti/j a0nabh/setai h9mi~n ei0j to_n ou0rano_n kai_ lh/myetai h9mi~n au0th_n; kai_ a0kou/santej au0th_n poih/somen. ou0de_ pe/ran th~j qala/sshj e0sti_n le/gwn: ti/j diatera/sei h9mi~n ei0j to_ pe/ran th~j qala/sshj kai_ lh/myetai h9mi~n au0th/n; kai_ a0kou/santej au0th_n poih/somen (30:12–14).

168

Chapter 9: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Romans 10:5

examine 9:6–10:8, noting certain features that will shed light on Paul‘s use of Leviticus in Rom 10:5. I will conclude with an investigation of Paul‘s use of Deut 30:12–14, seeking to understand why Paul used this text to oppose Lev 18:5. I have also included two excurses at the end of the chapter; one on Deut 30:11–14 in Philo and Baruch, and one on the relationship between law and life in Rom 7–8.

9.2 Review of Approaches In order to assess the various ways this passage has been handled, I will divide the approaches under two broad headings, 1) the antithetical approach and 2) the correlative approach. The antithetical approach understands these texts as standing in opposition to each other: Lev 18:5 (Rom 10:5) is antithetical to Deut 30:12–14 (Rom 10:6–8). The correlative approach understands these texts as compatible: Paul cites Deut 30 to redefine the meaning of Lev 18:5. 9.2.1 Antithetical Approach The antithetical approach sees a sharp opposition between Rom 10:5 (Lev 18:5) and Rom 10:6–8 (Deut 30:12–14). In this approach, the ―righteousness of law‖ (10:5) is something that is altogether different from the ―righteousness of faith.‖ This is reflected in the antithetical structure of the entire passage here in Rom 9:30–10:8.4 The citations of Lev 18:5 and Deut 30:12–14 participate in this same antithetical structure: the former represents the wrong way to achieve righteousness and the latter represents the right way. But what is inherently wrong with the Leviticus formulation? Within the antithetical approach, there are various answers to this question, many of which we have already seen with regard to Gal 3:11–12.5 Some say that the problem with Lev 18:5 is that it represents a legalistic means of selfrighteousness – the very attempt to obey the law is sinful.6 Others say that Lev 18:5 refers to perfect obedience that, in light of Paul‘s pessimistic anthropology, is impossible. Obedience to the law itself is not inherently 4

J. S. Vos, ―Die hermeneutische Antinomie bei Paulus (Galater 3.11–12; Römer 10.5– 10),‖ NTS 38 (1992), 259; Koch, Die Schrift, 295. 5 See pages 142–152. 6 So Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (New York: Scribner‘s, 1951), 1.259–69 (esp. 264); idem, ―Christ the End of the law,‖ in Rudolf Bultmann Essays Philosophical and Theoloigcal (London: SCM, 1955), 36–60; Hans Hübner, ―Was Heisst bei Paulus ‗Werke des Gesetzes‘?‖ in Glaube und Eschatologie (ed. E. Grässer and O. Merk; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1985), 123–33; Murray, Romans, 51, 249–51.

9.2 Review of Approaches

169

wrong or legalistic; it simply cannot be achieved by Adamic humanity.7 Others within the antithetical approach argue that Paul cites this text to confront those Jews who seek a righteousness reserved only for those whose life and pattern of religion is marked out by the law. Leviticus 18:5 encapsulates a nationalistic focus that is rendered obsolete with the coming of the universal gospel (see below).8 Still others view the antithesis in terms of divine and human agency. The antithesis is not between two modes of human action, faith and works, but between human action and divine action.9 9.2.2 Correlative Approach Many have argued that there is no antithesis but a correlation between these texts. Some explain the correlation by saying that Christ is the one, the only one, who ―has done these things‖ so as to ―live by them‖ (10:5).10 This ―Christological‖ approach is not the most common way of correlating these texts, however. Most interpreters within the correlative approach say that the 7

Stephen Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 326–30; Eduard Lohse, Der Brief an die Römer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2003), 209–210; Moo, Romans, 627; Vos, ―Antinomie,‖ 254–70; Tom Schreiner, ―Israel‘s Failure to Attain Righteousness in Romans 9:30–10:3,‖ TrinJ 12 (1991), 217; Otfried Hofius, ―Das Evangelium und Israel: Erwägungen zu Römer 9–11,‖ in Paulusstudien I (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), 178–84; idem, ―Zur Auslegung von Römer 9,30–33,‖ in Paulusstudien I, 155–66; Frank Thielman, From Plight to Solution: A Jewish Framework for Understanding Paul‟s View of the Law in Romans and Galatians (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1989), 113; Robert Gundry, ―Grace, Works, and Staying Saved in Paul,‖ Bib 66 (1985), 16–17. 8 Dunn, Romans 9–16, 612; Richard Betchler, ―Christ, the Te/loj of the Law: The Goal of Romans 10:4,‖ CBQ 56 (1994), 288–308 (304–305); cf. George Howard, ―Christ the End of the Law: The Meaning of Romans 10 4 ff.,‖ JBL 88 (1969), 331–37 (334–38). 9 Francis Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (Sheffield: Continuum, 2004); Douglas Campbell, ―Romans 9:30–10:18 – An Apocalyptic Approach,‖ (unpublished paper presented at Duke Divinity School; Durham, NC.: April 2006); E. E. Johnson, The Function of Apocalyptic and Wisdom Traditions in Romans 9–11 (SBLDS 109; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 155–58. Stephen Westerholm (―Paul and the Law in Romans 9–11,‖ in Paul and the Mosaic Law [ed. James D. G. Dunn; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001], 215–37) and A. Andrew Das (Paul, the Law, and the Covenant [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson: 2001)], 234–67) come close to this approach, though they stress the Adamic condition of humanity as the basis of the antithesis. Neither Watson nor Campbell sees ―legalism‖ or lack of perfection as the problem with Lev 18:5. Douglas Campbell differs from Watson in rendering e0k pi/stewj as a reference to Christ‘s own faith(fulness), assuming that an anthropological rendering of the phrase is ―semi-Pelagian‖ (―Apocalyptic Approach,‖ 1, 5, and esp. 26). 10 See Cranfield, Romans 9–16, 522; Bandstra, The Law, 103–105; S. Stowers, A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews, and Gentiles (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994), 308–9; Johannes Munck, Christ and Israel: An Interpretation of Romans 9–11 (trans. Ingeborg Nixon; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967), 86–89; Christopher Bryan, A Preface to Romans: Notes on the Epistle in its Literary and Cultural Setting (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 168.

170

Chapter 9: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Romans 10:5

―righteousness by faith‖ (10:6) represented by Deut 30:12–14 (10:6–8) redefines the true meaning of Lev 18:5. So Edith Humphrey writes: ―[V]erse 5 becomes a clear illustration of Paul‘s initial statement that the righteousness of God is witnessed to in the law and the Prophets (Rom 3:21), and verses 6–8 fill in the meaning of that righteousness, that is, what it means to „do these things and so live by them‘.‖11 Although there are variations within this approach, all interpreters who correlate Paul‘s citations here see Deut 30 as redefining the promise of Lev 18:5. What was promised to the ―doer‖ is attained by the ―believer.‖ 9.2.3 Arguments for an Antithetical Approach While the correlative view has some advantages, there are numerous arguments in favour of an antithetical view. For the following reasons I maintain that Paul intends Lev 18:5 and Deut 30:12–14 to stand in an antithetical relationship. First of all, as we have seen, Paul places Lev 18:5 in an antithetical relationship with Hab 2:4 in Gal 3:12, and virtually all scholars agree on this, even those that take a correlative approach to Rom 10:5–8.12 Now Paul could be citing Lev 18:5 in a different manner in Gal 3, but this is less likely, especially given the crucial role that the Leviticus text plays in Paul‘s overall theology.13

11

Edith Humphrey, ―Why Bring the Word Down? The Rhetoric of Demonstration and Disclosure in Romans 9:30–10:21,‖ in Romans and the People of God: Essays in Honor of Gordon D. Fee on the Occasion of his 65 th Birthday (ed. N. T. Wright and S. Soderlund; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 142 (emphasis original); Leander Keck, Romans (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2005), 254; Friedrich Avemarie, ―Paul and the Claim of the law According to the Scripture: Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12 and Romans 10:5,‖ in The Beginnings of Christianity: A Collection of Articles (ed. Jack Pastor and Menachem Mor; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2005), 125–48 (142–47); N. T. Wright, ―The Letter to the Romans,‖ in New Interpreter‟s Bible Commentary (vol. 10; ed. Leander Keck; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002), 645–46, 655, 658–63; Wagner, Heralds, 164; Richard Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 76–83; L. Gaston, Paul and the torah (Vancouver: University of British Columbia, 1987), 74; Ragnar Bring, ―Paul and the Old Testament,‖ ST 25 (1971), 21–60 (47–52); G. N. Davies, Faith and Obedience in Romans: A Study in Romans 1–4 (JSNTSup 39; Sheffield: JSOT, 1990), 189–98; Robert Badenas, Christ, the End of the law: Romans 10.4 in Pauline Perspective (JSNTSup 10; JSOT Press, 1985), 118–125. In this view, the de/ of vs. 6 is seen as a connective, not as a contrast. Both Keck and Wagner take the de/ in the sense of ―but also.‖ 12 See e.g. Wagner, Heralds, 160; Avemarie, ―The Claim of the law,‖ 138–41, 147–48; Alain Gignac, ―Citation de Lévitique 18,5 en Romains 10,5 et Galates 3,12: Deux lectures différentes des rapports Christ-Torah?‖ Église et théologie 25 (1994), 367–403 (388–401). 13 The importance of the Leviticus formulation in Paul‘s theology is a point constantly reiterated throughout Watson‘s Hermeneutics.

9.2 Review of Approaches

171

Second, the very construction of Paul‘s language suggests an antithesis. James Dunn correctly notes: ―When Paul sets righteousness e0k pi/stewj alongside righteousness e0k something else, with de/ as the linking word, he obviously intends his readers to understand a contrast between the two phrases (4:16; 9:30, 32; as well as Gal 2:16 and 3:21–22).‖14 Paul makes a similar contrast already in Rom 9:30–32 where the Gentiles received righteousness by faith while Israel failed to receive righteousness from the law by works.15 This is supported by the parallel in Phil 3:9, which speaks unambiguously of an antithesis. In Philippians, Paul contrasts e0mh_n dikaiosu/nhn th_n e0k no/mou (―my own righteousness which is from the law‖) with th_n e0k qeou~ dikaiosu/nhn e0pi_ th~| pi/stei (―the righteousness from God on the basis of faith‖). Therefore, it is unlikely that Paul would correlate ―the righteousness from law‖ with ―the righteousness from faith‖ in Rom 10:5–6.16 Third, there are other places in Romans where Paul contrasts the law and its ―works‖ with ―faith‖ (e.g. 3:21–22, 28; 4:13, 14, 16).17 It seems, moreover, that Paul‘s statements concerning ―works of the law‖ are related to, 18 if not derived from19 Lev 18:5: the one who ―does these things‖ is one who does the ―works of the law.‖ This is evident in Gal 3:10–12 where the antecedent of ―these things‖ (au0ta/) of the Leviticus citation (3:12) probably refers back to ―the things written in the book of the law‖ (toi~j gegramme/noij e0n bibli/w|, 3:10b), namely, the ―works of the law‖ (e1rgwn no/mou, 3:10a).20 It would be difficult for Paul, then, in light of his other antithetical statements concerning 14 Dunn, Romans, 2.602; so also Westerholm, Perspectives, 327 n. 44; Vos, ―Hermeneutische Antinome,‖ 258–60. 15 Paul does not actually say that they failed to receive ―righteousness from the law,‖ but that in pursuing the ―law of righteousness‖ (no/mon dikaiosu/nhj) they failed to arrive at the law (9:31). Despite the ambiguity, it seems that the sense is as stated above: Israel failed to receive righteousness by way of the law (See note 42 for this reading). 16 See Vos, ―Hermeneutische Antinome,‖ 258–59. 17 So Westerholm, ―Paul and the Law,‖ 232 n. 55. 18 Watson points out that the terms ―law,‖ ―works‖ and the verb ―to do‖ are all correlated in LXX Exod 18:20, and in Hebrew, ―work‖ (h#o(m) and ―doing‖ (h#o() are both cognates (Hermeneutics, 334; cf. Simon Gathercole, Where is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul‟s Response in Romans 1–5 [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002], 92–93). Paul also seems to use poie/w and e!rgon without much distinction in Rom 1–2. poie/w is used in 1:28, 32; 2:3, 13, and 14, while e!rgon is used in 2:6 and 15 with the verb in 2:10. The correlation of these terms is seen most clearly in 2:13–15 where the ―ones who do (oi9 poihtai/) the law‖ (2:13) and who ―do (poiw~sin) the things of the law‖ (2:14) are the same ones who have ―the work (to_ e!rgon) of the law written on their heart‖ (2:15). So then, even here it seems that the ―works‖ of 9:32 are related to the ―doing‖ of the law in 10:5 (so Vos, ―Hermeneutische Antinome,‖ 259). 19 Campbell, ―Apocalyptic Approach,‖ 17; Watson, Hermeneutics, 333. 20 So Lindemann, ―Die Gerechtigkeit,‖ 234 n. 11; cf. H.-J. Eckstein, Verheißung und Gesetz: Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu Galater 2,15–4,7 (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1996), 146.

172

Chapter 9: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Romans 10:5

―works of the law‖ and ―faith,‖ not to intend the same contrast between the ―righteousness of law‖ exemplified in ―doing these things‖ and the ―righteousness of faith‖ which speaks of God‘s act in Christ. Fourth, and similarly, ―doing‖ the law belongs to the same field of ideas as various other terms that Paul opposes in Rom 9–11 (see §9.3.1 below). For instance, ―works‖ (9:12, 32; 11:6), ―running‖ (9:16), ―seeking‖ (10:3, 20; 11:7), ―ascending‖ (10:6), and ―descending‖ (10:7) are all terms of human endeavour which stand antithetically to ―election‖ (9:11), ―calling‖ (9:12), ―mercy‖ (9:16), ―not pursuing‖ (9:30), ―faith‖ (9:32), ―submitting‖ (10:3), ―confessing‖ (10:9, 10), ―believing‖ (10:9, 10; cf. 9:33; 10:11), and ―grace‖ (11:6), terms which emphasise God‘s initiative, or human response to God‘s prior action.21 It would be odd if o( poih/saj au)ta/ did not belong to the side of human endeavour. Fifth, Paul sets ―the law‖ in direct opposition to ―righteousness of faith‖ in Rom 4:13: ―For the promise to Abraham or to his seed, that he would be the heir of the world, was not through law but through righteousness of faith‖ (ou0 ga_r dia_ no/mou h9 e0paggeli/a tw~| 0Abraa_m h2 tw~| spe/rmati au0tou~, to_ klhrono/mon au0to_n ei]nai ko/smou, a0lla_ dia_ dikaiosu/nhj pi/stewj). While the construction dikaiosu/nhj pi/stewj (4:13) is different from h9 e0k pi/stewj dikaiosu/nh (10:5), the meanings of these phrases are essentially the same: the righteousness that is apart from law is received through faith. Paul goes on in Rom 4:14 to validate this antithesis: ―for if the inheritors are from law (e0k no/mou) then this faith (h9 pi/stij) has been made empty and the promise nullified.‖ ―Faith‖ (or, ―righteousness of faith‖) and ―law‖ are in no way correlated in Rom 4:13–14. Lastly, Paul‘s elimination of the three-fold reference to ―doing the commandment‖ in Deut 30:12–14 supports the antithetical view, despite the attempts to suggest otherwise. By rewriting Deuteronomy, Paul has cut the strongest link between these two passages, a manoeuvre that in itself suggests an antithesis. While N. T. Wright is correct that Deut 30 is a poor text to place in opposition to Lev 18,22 he fails to note how drastically Paul rewrites Deuteronomy to turn it on its head.23 The two texts as they stand in Rom 10 do not display much resemblance. In sum, there are several strong arguments in favour of viewing Lev 18:5 and Deut 30 as antithetical in Rom 10. We will proceed to investigate Paul‘s 21

See Hofius, ―‗Werke des Gesetzes‘: Untersuchungen zu der paulinischen Rede von den e1rga no/mou,‖ in Paulus und Johannes: Exegetische Studien zur paulinischen und johanneischen Theologie und Literature (ed. Dieter Sänger und Ulrich Mell; WUNT 198; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 271–30 (298–99); cf. J. Vos, ―Antinomie,‖ 259; Koch, Die Schrift, 295. 22 ―If Paul had wanted to play Leviticus 18 (‗do this and find life‘) off against some other text, he could hardly have chosen a worse one;‖ Wright, ―Romans,‖ 659 n. 377. 23 See the analysis of Paul‘s rewriting of Deut 30 in Watson, Hermeneutics, 336–41.

9.3 Paul‟s Interpretation of Leviticus 18:5 in Romans 10:5

173

use of Lev 18:5 with the assumption that this text is antithetical to Deut 30:12–14 in Rom 10:5–8.

9.3 Paul‘s Interpretation of Leviticus 18:5 in Romans 10:5 Within an antithetical approach, there have been various suggestions for why Paul opposes Lev 18:5 as seen above. Traditionally, Lev 18:5 was considered to represent a legalistic manner of observing the law, or the law‘s demand for perfect obedience.24 But in the wake of the ―new perspective,‖ many interpreters have abandoned this type of approach. For instance, James Dunn has suggested – in conscious opposition to the traditional approach – that Lev 18:5 expresses Israel‘s way of national righteousness, thus excluding Gentiles from the covenant. Therefore, Dunn says that ―if we are to understand Paul‘s use of Lev 18:5 in context, we must see it as having a particular target – not as condemning all ‗doing‘ or ‗good works‘ in general, but as characterizing that Jewish covenant zeal which restricted God‘s righteousness to ethnic Israel.‖25 Leviticus 18:5, for Dunn, ―pointed up a narrow and particularistic view of the law as Israel‘s alone,‖26 and its ―language and emphasis invited a more restricted understanding of righteousness.‖27 Consequently, and as we saw in Galatians, Dunn says that Lev 18:5 signifies life within the covenant, not law obedience as a condition to eschatological life. Apart from rendering zh/setai e0n au0toi=j locatively (―live in them‖) instead of instrumentally (―live by them‖), a reading which I find as equally implausible here as in Galatians,28 Dunn‘s view of Lev 18:5 as referring to national righteousness is suspect. While he has rightly taken into account the universalistic emphasis in the passage (esp. 9:26–29; 10:4b, 11–13), he has based his view of 10:5 largely on his understanding of ―works‖ in 9:32, ―zeal for God‖ in 10:2, and ―their own righteousness‖ in 10:3. His understanding of these passages, however, is not without its own problems, as we will see 24

See e.g. Cranfield, Romans, 2.510; cf. Moo: ―Criticism of the Jews for ‗legalism‘, the attempt to secure a relationship with God through doing the law, is part and parcel of this texts‖ (Romans, 619 n. 12; Schreiner, ―Israel‘s Failure,‖ 215–20). 25 James D. G. Dunn, ―‗Righteousness from the Law‘ and ‗Righteousness from Faith‘: Paul‘s Interpretation of Scripture in Romans 10:1–10,‖ in Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament: Essays in Honor of E. Earle Ellis for His 60 th Birthday (ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne and Otto Betz; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 216–28 (223); similarly Betchler, ―The Goal,‖ 304–307. A similar approach was taken by George Howard, ―Christ the End.‖ 26 Dunn, ―Paul‘s Interpretation,‖ 223. 27 Dunn, ―Paul‘s Interpretation,‖ 225. 28 Dunn argues along similar lines for this view in Romans as he did in Galatians. In Galatians, however, the emphasis on nationalism as the problem with Lev 18:5 did not play a major factor in his argument.

174

Chapter 9: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Romans 10:5

below. Dunn takes ―works‖ in 9:32 to refer primarily to Jewish identity markers (circumcision, Sabbath, food laws), which restricted lawrighteousness to the Jews.29 ―Zeal for God‖ (10:2) is reminiscent of Jewish heroes who maintained Israel‘s distinctiveness in the face of opposition.30 And ―their own righteousness‖ (10:3) refers not to legalistic self righteousness but to ―Israel‟s righteousness, righteousness which is Israel‘s alone.‖31 Leviticus 18:5 for Dunn picks up on all these concepts and refers therefore to ―Israel‘s claim to a national monopoly of God‘s righteousness.‖32 But Dunn‘s reading of 9:30–10:5 is not entirely persuasive. His interpretation of ―works of the law‖ in earlier portions of Romans may be defensible,33 but it certainly cannot be retained in 9:30–32. For one, Paul does not say ―works of the law‖ but simply ―works‖ in 9:32. Elsewhere in Rom 9– 11, Paul has contrasted ―works‖ with God‘s calling (9:12; cf. 9:16) and his grace (11:6; cf. 4:4–5), suggesting that Paul has in mind at least comprehensive obedience to the law, if not human actions in general.34 Dunn‘s interpretation of ―zeal for God‖ in 10:2 is equally questionable. In the Jewish literature Dunn cites, while separation from Gentiles may have been included in one‘s zeal for God, zeal is primarily aimed to ensure Israel‘s obedience to the law for its own sake, regardless of whether Gentiles are present.35 Dunn‘s interpretation of ―their own righteousness‖ in 10:3 has been embraced by many interpreters,36 but it too runs into difficulties. Most of all, 29

Dunn, Romans 9–16, 593. N. T. Wright agrees: the torah cannot be fulfilled ―by the ‗works of the law‘, the badges of Jewish membership (Sabbath, dietary laws, circumcision) which kept Jews separate from the Gentiles‖ (Climax, 240). In his commentary, Wright says that ―works of the law‖ could refer either to the commandments of the law in general or ―in the (more normal) sense of the works that marked out the Jews from their pagan neighbors.‖ He goes on to say, however, that it is this ―second sense of ‗works‘ that dominates the horizon‖ in 9:30–10:8 (―Romans,‖ 649). 30 The classic examples are Phinehas (Num 25:10–13; Sir 45:23–24; 1 Macc 2:54; 4 Macc 18:12) and Mattathias (1 Macc 2:19–26; cf. ―zeal for the law‖ in 1 Macc 2:26, 27, 50, 58); see further Dunn, ―Paul‘s Interpretation,‖ 221; idem, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 346–54, 368–71; Wright, ―Romans,‖ 653–64. For an astute critique of Dunn‘s reading here, see Vincent M. Smiles, ―The Concept of ‗Zeal‘ in Second-Temple Judaism and Paul‘s Critique of It in Romans 10:2,‖ CBQ 64 (2002), 282–99. 31 Dunn, ―Paul‘s Interpretation,‖ 221. 32 Dunn, ―Paul‘s Interpretation,‖ 224. 33 In particular, I find his view of ―works of the law‖ to be most persuasive in Rom 3:28– 29; but see Rom 3:20 and 4:4–5. 34 See Das, Paul, 238–40; Westerholm, ―Paul and the Law,‖ 228. 35 1 Macc 2:20–29; 4 Macc 18:1, 4, 10, 16; on which see Smiles, ―The Concept of ‗Zeal‘,‖ 287–91. Lohse is probably correct that Paul understands Israel‘s ―zeal for God‖ along the same lines as his own pre-Christian zeal (Gal 1:13–14; Phil 3:3–6) (Römer, 203–204). 36 Dunn, Romans 9–16, 581–83, 593, 595; Keck, Romans, 47; Wagner, Heralds, 158 n. 122; Humphrey, ―Why Bring the Word Down?‖ 141; Wright, Climax, 242; idem, Wright, ―Romans,‖ 654; Bechtler, ―The Goal of Romans 10:4,‖ 297–98; and previously expressed by

9.3 Paul‟s Interpretation of Leviticus 18:5 in Romans 10:5

175

it does not fit the contrast between ―their own righteousness‖ and the ―righteousness of God.‖ While it is true that God‘s righteousness will result in ―righteousness for all who believe‖ (10:4b, 11–13), this is not the direct antithesis to th_n i0di/an [dikaiosu/nhn] in 10:3. It is th_n tou~ qeou~ dikaiosu/nhn and not ei0j dikaiosu/nhn panti_ tw~| pisteu/onti that is contrasted with th_n i0di/an [dikaiosu/nhn].37 This is the same antithesis that Paul gives in Phil 3:9: ―That I might be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own (e0mh_n dikaiosu/nhn) which is based on law, but the righteousness through faith in Christ which is from God (th_n e0k qeou~ dikaiosu/nhn) on the basis of faith.‖ Here, Paul‘s own righteousness is his merely human religious endeavour, and this is antithetical to God‘s righteousness, his saving action in Christ. This parallel is not conclusive, but it is suggestive that Paul has this antithesis in mind in Rom 10:3 where he uses similar terminology.38 In short, ―their own righteousness‖ refers to a righteousness that is sought or pursued through human means, while ―the righteousness of God‖ is God‘s saving action in Christ which is brought to humanity apart from human endeavour such as ―running‖ (9:16), ―pursuing‖ (9:30–31) or ―seeking‖ (10:3).39 While agreeing with Dunn, then, that Lev 18:5 and Deut 30:12–14 stand together antithetically in Rom 10:5–8, I will offer a quite different reading of Lev 18:5 from his. Dunn supposes that his view and the traditional one are the only two options.40 If we disagree with Dunn, then do we necessarily have to embrace a view that Paul opposes Lev 18:5 because it describes legalism, or because it demands perfect obedience? I find this traditional view equally difficult. For one, nowhere in this passage or elsewhere in Romans does Paul critique the law for demanding perfection. That humanity has not obeyed the law, or even cannot obey it, seems clear from 1:18–3:20 and 7:7–25. But in these passages, Paul has in mind humanity‘s and Israel‘s sinful condition, not their falling short on a few commandments here and there. Moreover, in Rom 9–11, Paul does not focus on the disobedience of Israel (or humanity) but on the irrelevance of human activity as it relates to God‘s election and preservation. Likewise, legalism cannot be in view, for Paul does not critique the manner in E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1983], 36– 41; Howard, ―Christ the End,‖ 333, 335–37; 37 Paul probably has Deut 9:4–6 in mind when he contrasts ―their own righteousness‖ with God‘s righteousness, a text which Paul alludes to (Deut 9:4) in Rom 10:6 (―do not say in your heart‖). The Deuteronomy passage contrasts Israel‘s own ability to enter the land and God‘s own righteousness which is the sole basis for entry. 38 See esp. Wilckens, Römer, 221; Lohse, Römer, 205. 39 See further Gathercole, Boasting, 227–30; Tom Schreiner, Romans (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 543–44. 40 See the same criticism raised by R. Barry Matlock, ―Sins of the Flesh and Suspicious Minds: Dunn‘s New Theology of Paul,‖ JSNT 72 (1998), 67–90 (85–86).

176

Chapter 9: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Romans 10:5

which the law is performed or pursued – as if a non-legalistic manner of pursuit would have been quite honourable. Paul, rather, critiques the very pursuit itself (more on this anon).41 This is especially clear in 9:30–32 where Paul contrasts the righteousness that the Gentiles received with the righteousness that Israel failed to receive.42 It is important to notice here that Paul does not say that the Gentiles reached the goal of righteousness because they pursued it correctly while Israel pursued it wrongly; rather, the Gentiles arrived at it (righteousness) while they did not pursue at all!43 It is the very act of pursuing – and doing (9:11–12), running (9:16), seeking (10:3), and so on – that Paul finds antithetical to the righteousness of faith.44 In light of this brief survey of antithetical options, I suggest that neither Dunn‘s nationalistic approach to Rom 10:5 nor some of the previous traditional formulations best account for Paul‘s citation of Leviticus. I will argue for a similar approach taken in our previous chapter on Galatians. Leviticus 18:5 represents a merely human activity that is contrary to the theological structure of the gospel. The law enjoins a human activity as a precondition for blessing, while the gospel of faith is shaped by God‘s unilateral act of redemption in Christ. This type of antithesis is, in my view, even more explicit in Romans than in Galatians. In order to defend this view, I will first consider Paul‘s argument in 9:6– 10:8 where a divine and human antithesis is accentuated (§9.3.1). Following this, I will look at how Paul‘s citation of Deut 30:12–14 informs his use of Leviticus (§9.3.2), arguing that Paul‘s exploitation of the quest motif (§9.3.2.1), along with his elimination of the ―doing‖ language of Deuteronomy (§9.3.2.2), further shapes his argument against human endeavour as a means of attaining eschatological salvation. 41

It seems that Paul critiques the object of the pursuit as well – the ―law of righteousness‖ (9:31). 42 Paul does not actually contrast ―righteousness based on faith‖ (dikaiosu/nhn th_n e0k pi/stewj) with ―righteousness based on law‖ (dikaiosu/nhn th_n e0k no/mou) in 9:30–31, but ―righteousness based on faith‖ (dikaiosu/nhn th_n e0k pi/stewj) with the ―law of righteousness‖ (no/mon dikaiosu/nhj). Lohse solves this incongruity by taking no/moj in the sense of ―norm‖ or ―principle‖ as in Rom 3:27; 7:21, 23, 25; 8:2 (Lohse, Römer, 199). However, Hofius is probably correct that ―law of righteousness‖ when set in contrast to ―righteousness of faith‖ here (9:30–31) simply means the ―righteousness based on law‖ as in 10:5 (―Zur Auslegung,‖ 161–62). 43 Cf. Das: ―What Paul is concerned with is the fact that human pursuit of the law is in principle opposed to God‘s actions on the basis of election. God‘s election is based on faith and not human merit or activity‖ (Paul, 247). 44 Some suggest that while Paul does not say it explicitly, we should fill out his logic and assume that Israel could not produce the works necessary for justification (Moo, Romans, 627; Thielman, Plight to Solution, 113; Schreiner, ―Israel‘s Failure,‖ 217; Gundry, ―Grace,‖ 16–17). While there may be truth to this, I think that at least in Paul‘s argument from 9:11– 11:6, the emphasis is on the very act of pursuing, not the failure of an adequate pursuit.

9.3 Paul‟s Interpretation of Leviticus 18:5 in Romans 10:5

177

9.3.1 Running, Seeking, and Doing the Law: Divine and Human Initiative in Romans 9:6–10:8 God‘s initiative is portrayed very emphatically throughout Rom 9 and 10, and it is often contrasted with human endeavour. The terms used to portray this opposition are in the same field of ideas as Lev 18:5. In Rom 9:11–12, Paul says that God chose Isaac ―not because of his deeds whether good or bad‖ (mhde_ praca/ntwn ti a0gaqo_n h2 fau~lon), but ―in order that the purpose of God according to election might remain, not by works but by the one who calls‖ (i3na h9 kat 0 e0klogh_n pro/qesij tou= qeou= me/nh|, ou)k e0c e!rgwn a0ll ) e0k tou~ kalou~ntoj). The antithesis is between God‘s sovereign action and human effort; humans can do nothing to contribute to their election. The divine/human contrast is reiterated again in 9:16 where Paul says: ―So then, it is not of the one who wills or the one who runs but of God who has mercy‖ (a!ra ou]n ou) tou~ qe/lontoj ou0de_ tou~ tre/xontoj a0ll ) tou~ e0lew~ntoj qeou~). The terms qe/lontoj and tre/xontoj portray an arduous human attempt to gain salvation. But God has the freedom to bestow mercy on whomever he pleases, and this is done in spite of human effort (9:15). While Paul begins a new argument in 9:30, he maintains an emphasis on God‘s sovereignty in creating righteousness and salvation.45 God‘s action, again, is contrasted with human endeavour: What shall we say, then? That the Gentiles who do not pursue righteousness (ta_ mh_ diw/konta dikaiosu/nhn) received righteousness, even righteousness by faith, but Israel while pursuing a law of righteousness (diw/kwn no/mon dikaiosu/nhj) did not arrive at law. Why? Because not from faith but as from works (o3ti ou0k e0k pi/stewj a0lla w9j e0c e1rgwn). (9:30– 31)

The language of ―pursuing‖ and ―arriving‖ is suggestive of a race and picks up on the ―running‖ that Paul deemed inappropriate in 9:16 (cf. 10:20; 11:7).46 Paradoxically, those who did not run reached the goal, while Israel has stumbled over the stone47 placed on the track by God. The Gentiles reached the goal through no power or effort of their own; indeed, they are exemplars of the ones to whom God manifests compassion – ―not of the one who wills or runs but of God who has mercy‖ (9:16). 45 Rightly, Westerholm, ―Paul and the Law,‖ 226–228; Schreiner, ―Israel‘s Failure,‖ 211; Käsemann, Romans, 277–28; Wilckens, Römer, 3.211. 46 Contrary to Betchler (―The Goal of Romans 10:4,‖ 292–93), the pursuit of Israel is not a neutral endeavor. This passage must be read from a post Christum standpoint. Paul is not commending ancient Jewish pursuit of the law, but rather is describing those who pursue righteousness in the law in spite of the true righteousness of God in Christ (10:3–4). 47 C. K. Barrett‘s view that the ―stone‖ is the law is certainly mistaken in light of the same citation of Isa 28:16 in Rom 10:11 which refers to Christ (Barrett, ―Romans 9:30–10:21: Fall and Responsibility of Israel,‖ in Essays on Paul [London: SPCK, 1982], 132–53). For an incisive development of this passage, see Wagner, Heralds, 126–57.

178

Chapter 9: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Romans 10:5

The divine/human antithesis is seen again in 10:3 where Paul contrasts ―one‘s own righteousness‖ with the ―righteousness of God.‖48 a0gnoou~ntej ga_r th_n tou~ qeou~ dikaiosu/nhn kai_ th_n i0di/an [dikaiosu/nhn] zhtou~ntej sth~sai, th|~ dikaiosu/nh| tou~ qeou~ ou0x u9peta/ghsan. For while they [Israel] are ignorant of the righteousness of God and are seeking to establish their own [righteousness], they did not submit to the righteousness of God. (Rom 10:3)

Here, the opposition between th_n i0di/an and tou~ qeou~ seems to carry the same divine/human antithesis exhibited in 9:11–12, 16, and 9:30–33. Israel is seeking to establish (zhtou~ntej sth=sai) something that should be submitted to (u9peta/ghsan); the salvation and righteousness brought near in Christ. The pursuing/not pursing motif is expressed with different terms and yet the thought is the same: God‘s saving action in Christ is brought to man apart from human endeavours such as ―running‖ (9:16), ―pursuing,‖ ―working‖ (9:30–31), or ―seeking‖ (10:3). This brings us to 10:5–8 where Paul sets in opposition the ―righteousness which is based on law‖ (th_n dikaiosu/nhn th_n e0k no/mou), represented by Lev 18:5, and ―the righteousness which is based on faith‖ (h9 e0k pi/stewj dikaiosu/nh), represented by Deut 30:12–14. We suggest that the contrast between 10:5 and 10:6–8 picks up on the previous themes we have discussed. In 9:6–10:8, God‘s initiative is set in opposition to human deeds and the latter half of this opposition is captured almost certainly in Lev 18:5. Human endeavour, whether good or bad (9:11), is considered an inappropriate way to gain salvation and righteousness in view of God‘s act in Christ. Here, while it is now the resurrection and ascension (exaltation) of Christ that is in view, God‘s decisive act is once again set in opposition to human endeavour. In short, the opposition between human performance of the law as a way to life (Lev 18:5), and God‘s act in Christ as the realisation of life and salvation (Deut 30:12–14), are expressed in Paul‘s use of Scripture in 10:5–8. The rest of this chapter will seek to draw out this antithesis.

48

I am taking th_n tou~ qeou~ dikaiosu/nhn in the sense of ―God‘s deliverance‖ or ―God‘s promise and power to save,‖ based on the correlation between ―God‘s righteousness‖ and his eschatological ―salvation‖ in the psalms (23:31; 24:6; 35:28; 40:10; 69:27; 71:15, 16, 19, 24; 88:12; 98:1–3; 119:123), deutero-Isaiah (45:8, 21–25; 51:5–6, 8; 59:17; 61:10; 62:1), and other Jewish texts (e.g. Mic 6:5; 1QS XI, 11–15; 1QHª XII, 37; 1QM XVIII, 7–8; 1 En 99:10; 4 Ezra 8:36, 39–40). The debate concerning the meaning of ―righteousness of God‖ is well known. For a recent treatment defending the view taken here, see Michael F. Bird, The Saving Righteousness of God: Studies on Paul, Justification, and the New Perspective (Carlisle: Paternoster: 2007), 6–39.

9.3 Paul‟s Interpretation of Leviticus 18:5 in Romans 10:5

179

9.3.2 Deuteronomy 30:12–14 as Antithetical to Leviticus 18:5 But why would Paul choose Deut 30:12–14 to counter Lev 18:5 when in the original context these two passages could hardly be more similar?49 Leviticus 18:5 promises life to the one who does the commandments and Deut 30:12– 14 says that this ―doing‖ is not too difficult. There have been various approaches to this question. Some understand Paul‘s interpretation to exhibit continuity with the original message of Deuteronomy; thus, Paul views Deut 30:12–14 as typological of what God has done in Christ. The grace manifested in the giving of the law at Sinai corresponds to the grace given through the Christ-event. Mark Seifrid understands Paul‘s interpretation in this way when he writes: ―Paul finds in the theology of Deuteronomy, and more specifically in the giving of the law, a correspondence to the grace which has come in Jesus Christ.‖50 This reading, however, fails to account for one major difficulty: nowhere in Romans or the rest of his letters does Paul view the law as a proleptic manifestation of God‘s grace in Christ. Paul, in fact, explicitly says that God‘s righteousness through faith is manifested ―apart from law‖ (Rom 3:21), that the law brings ―wrath‖ (4:15), ―death‖ (7:10; 8:2), and even ―makes transgression increase‖ (5:20); indeed, ―what the law could not do, God did by sending his own son‖ (8:3). These statements concerning the law could hardly be read in the purview of God‘s gracious activity. It would seem rather strange, then, for Paul to view the giving of the law as a manifestation of grace typological of the grace manifested in Christ. Another approach, sometimes conflated with the previous one, understands Paul‘s interpretation in continuity not so much with Deuteronomy but with other early Jewish interpretation of this same passage. These interpreters point to the similarities between the equation of the law with Wisdom in Jewish interpretation and Paul‘s equation of the commandment with Christ.51 But it is 49

See the discussion in, H.-J. Eckstein, ―‗Nahe ist dir das Wort: Exegetische Erwägungen zu Röm 10:8,‖ ZNW 79 (1988), 204–220 (210–11). For recent reviews of different approaches to this passage, see Douglas Mohrman ―Boast Not in Your Righteousness from the Law: A New Reading of Romans 10.6–8,‖ JGRChJ 2 (2001–2005), 76–99 (96), and Akio Ito, ―The Written Torah and the Oral Gospel: Romans 10:5–13 in the Dynamic Tension between Orality and Literacy,‖ NovT 48 (2006), 234–60. 50 ―Paul‘s Approach to the Old Testament in Rom 10:6–8,‖ TrinJ 6 (1985), 3–37 (36); cf. Moo: ―As God brought his word near to Israel so they might know and obey him, so God now brings his word ―near‖ to both Jews and Gentiles that they might know him through his Son Jesus Christ and respond in faith and obedience‖ (Romans, 653); similarly Campbell, ―Apocalyptic Approach,‖ 6–7. 51 E.g. Prov 30:1–4; Job 28:13–14; Sir 24:23; Bar 3:29–30; Philo passim. For this interpretation, see Jack Suggs, ―‗The Word is Near You‘: Romans 10:6–10 within the Purpose of the Letter,‖ in Christian History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to John Knox (ed. W. R. Farmer, C. F. D. Moule, and R. R. Niebuhr; Cambridge: CUP, 1967), 289– 312; Humphrey, ―Why Bring the Word Down?‖; Hays, Echoes, 80–81; Keck, Romans, 253; Ernst Käsemann, Perspectives on Paul (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), 160–61.

180

Chapter 9: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Romans 10:5

questionable whether Paul‘s intention is to draw out Wisdom Christology from Deuteronomy.52 Even Richard Hays, who endorses this approach, admits that the association is very subtle and does not overtly contribute to Paul‘s argument.53 We suggest that Paul is not citing Deut 30 as a proof text, but is rewriting the text to reconfigure its original message.54 As such, Paul‘s exegetical result is a theological point that is antithetical both to Lev 18:5 and the original context of Deut 30. In the context of Deut 30:11–20, Moses stands on the plains of Moab exhorting Israel to ―choose life that you may live‖ (30:19), to keep God‘s commandments in order to have life (30:16). Conditionality accentuates the entire passage: life is available to Israel only if they do these things. But Paul does not agree; the commandment that was intended to bring life resulted in death (Rom 7:10; 8:2; cf. Gal 2:19). While Moses stands at the beginning of Israel‘s covenant history, Paul stands at the end and views Deut 30 not only in light of Israel‘s rebellion, but though the lens of the prophetic promise that God would intervene decisively through his own initiative (Ezek 36–37; Jer 31:31–34).55 The coming of Christ, then, has rendered Moses‘ exhortation out of date, since the promise of life (Ezek 37:1–14; Rom 8:1–11) was realised through divine action. Deut 30 must be rewritten in light of the Christ event. I suggest that Paul‘s eschatological situation compels him to read and rewrite Deut 30 in the sense outlined above.56 The key to understanding his 52

See the critique by Das, Paul, 259–60 n. 108. Echoes, 81. 54 See esp. Watson, Hermeneutics, 336–41. 55 Eckstein understands this passage in light of the prophetic promise of heart-restoration (―‗Nahe ist dir das Wort‘,‖ 215–16). 56 Eckstein suggests that, as with the Qumranites, Paul reads Scripture in light of the eschatological events that have been brought near in the present. Thus, Paul is not seeking to draw out the ―literal sense‖ of the passage (Eckstein, ―‗Nahe ist dir das Wort‘,‖ 211–12; similarly Dunn, ―‗Righteousness from the law,‖ 217–19, 223–25; Cranfield, Romans, 523– 24; Wilckens, Römer, 2.224–25). I do not agree, however, that Paul‘s three fold tou~t ) e1stin should be identified as a ―pesher‖ interpretive technique, a conclusion that has been severely challenged in recent years. This phrase is often compared to exegetical techniques in the Qumran literature where )z or )wh (―this is‖) is used similar to wr#Op (―its interpretation is‖) to indicate that an interpretation of a passage is being given (e.g. 1QS VIII, 15; 1 QpHab III, 2; XII, 2; CD VII, 15–17). However, Paul and other NT writers use this construction in other places where they are simply explaining (not ―exegeting‖) something that was just said (Rom 7:18; 9:7; Phlm 12; cf. Acts 1:19; Heb 2:14). Furthermore, Mark Seifrid has demonstrated at length that the phrase is also used in Hellenistic literature (esp. in Philo and Plutarch) often in a non-exegetical sense (―Paul‘s Approach,‖ 27–34; so also Mohrman ―Boast Not,‖ 90). Suffice is to say, the use of the phrase by Paul here by no means indicates ipso facto a ―pesher‖ interpretation of Deut 30. For a judicious critique of comparing Qumran ―pesher‖ interpretations with Paul, see Timothy Lim, Holy Scripture in the Qumran Commentaries and Pauline Letters (Oxford: Clarendon, 1997), 124–39; idem, ―Midrash Pesher in the Pauline 53

9.3 Paul‟s Interpretation of Leviticus 18:5 in Romans 10:5

181

exegesis of this passage lies both in what he seeks to draw out of Deuteronomy and also in what he suppresses in it. That is, Paul draws out the motif of the prohibited quest, while eliminating every reference to the ―law/commandment‖ and ―doing;‖ thus, Paul has cut any original link that exists between Leviticus and Deuteronomy. What binds them now is human action promoted by Leviticus (doing these things) but forbidden by Deuteronomy (ascending and descending). 9.3.2.1 The Prohibited Quest The prohibited quest is central to Deut 30:12–14 as it stands now in Romans. Paul conflates Deut 9:4 (―do not say in your heart‖) with 30:12–14 to transform what was originally an instruction by Moses into a stern prohibition.57 Paul uses the language of Deuteronomy to rebuke his opponent for attempting a strenuous quest into the heavens and into the abyss.58 In doing so, Paul has turned the voice of Deuteronomy against the voice of Leviticus.59 The implication is that Paul‘s opponent is taking the forbidden quest in his very attempt to carry out Lev 18:5. Doing the law, according to Paul, is essentially the same as embarking on an arduous quest, and taking this quest practically nullifies the work that God has already done in Christ.60 This is the point of the explanatory glosses. To embark on the quest is to ―bring Christ down‖ from his exalted position in heaven,61 and to ―bring him up from the dead,‖ an act which has already been done by God. In short, Paul Letters,‖ in The Scrolls and the Scriptures: Qumran Fifty Years After (ed. S. E. Porter and C. A. Evans; JSPSup 26; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1997), 280–92. 57 The context of Deut 9 has many affinities to Rom 9–11, including rebuking Israel for placing confidence in ―their own righteousness (Rom 10:3; Deut 9:4, 6), rather than in the God‘s promise to the patriarchs (Rom 9:11–16; cf. 11:28–32; Deut 8:18; 9 5), and the intercession of Paul and Moses (Rom 10:1; cf. 9:3; Deut 9:19–21). Furthermore, in Deut 8:17–18, Israel is warned (―do not say in your heart‖) not to place confidence in her own power ―to do‖ (e0poi/hse/) what only God can do. For a thorough examination of these links between Deuteronomy and Romans, see Mohrmann, ―Boast Not,‖ 82–87, 89; John Paul Heil, ―Christ, the Termination of the Law (Romans 9:30–10:8,‖ CBQ 63 (2001), 484–98 (492–94). 58 Watson says that the words of ―righteousness from faith‖ are directed precisely toward the a1nqrwpoj of Lev 18:5 (Hermeneutics, 340). Many interpreters acknowledge that Paul is arguing against the Leviticus passages because it was a favourite among his opponents (see e.g. Avemarie, ―The Claim of the Law,‖ 148; Moo, Romans, 648 n. 16). M. J. Suggs suggests that Deut 30 was used by his opponents as well (―‗The Word is Near You‘,‖ 301; so also Dunn, Romans 9–16, 603–604). 59 See Watson, Hermeneutics, 340–41. 60 With Koch (Die Schrift, 155, 296 n. 35), the point is not that the law is impossible to do but that it is simply an unnecessary and deviant way to gain the life and righteousness that God has made available in Christ (contra Wilckens, Römer, 2.234). 61 Following Wilckens, Römer, 225–25; Dunn, Romans, 605. Many others suggest that Paul is referring to the incarnation of Christ here; Käsemann, Romans, 288; Cranfield, Romans, 525; Fizmyer, Romans, 590.

182

Chapter 9: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Romans 10:5

uses the prohibited quest motif to confront the ―doer‖ of Lev 18:5 who has ―said in his heart,‖ according to Paul, by doing these things I can attain life by them.62 In focusing on the prohibited quest motif, Paul has reiterated the same theme we saw in the preceding argument. The ―ascending‖ and ―descending‖ signifies human endeavour and picks up on the willing, running, seeking, and so on, of the previous argument (Rom 9:11–16, 30–32; 10:3). But here, Deut 30, which in the original context actually promotes ―doing these things,‖ through its own language now condemns such behaviour. The thought of human endeavour as a prohibited quest is reiterated in the Leviticus citation with the language of ―doing these things‖ (10:5). And it is toward this ―doing‖ that the stern prohibition of 10:6–7 is directed: to do the law in light of what God has done in the exaltation and resurrection of Christ is to embark on an arduous quest that Deuteronomy itself has forbidden. 9.3.2.2 The Elimination of the ―Doing‖ Language Paul has not only transformed Deuteronomy from advocating Lev 18:5 into opposing it, but has also suppressed every reference to the ―law‖ and ―doing the commandment,‖ the main element of Deut 30:12–14.63 I suggest that Paul‘s overt rewriting of the passage at this point is deliberate; he is making an exegetical point by the very suppression of the three-fold ―doing.‖64 Therefore, Paul does not ignore the original context – he knows very well what Deut 30 means – yet he shows that God‘s act in Christ does not fit the paradigm of restoration laid out in Deut 30:11–20; a paradigm where eschatological blessings is conditioned upon law-obedience.65 Paul does not, then, see Deut 30:12–14 being fulfilled in Christ, as if Deut 30:12–14 was a promise to be fulfilled.66 Deuteronomy is not an unconditional promise; it is a 62

Cf. Watson: ―The person who does these things in the hope of acquiring life by them is like the would-be hero who sets off into the unknown in order to acquire the infinitely valuable object that is, in fact, already present and accessible. To practise the law as the pathway to life is to live as though the sending and raising of Christ had never taken place‖ (Hermeneutics, 341). 63 Paul omits kai\ a0kou/santej au0th/n (Deut 30:12), kai\ a0kousth\n h9min poih/sei au0th\n kai\ poih/somen (Deut 30:13), and kai\ e0n tai=j xersi/n sou au0to\ poiei=n (Deut 30:14). For a discussion on these omissions, see Koch, Die Schrift, 130–32; Wagner, Heralds, 163; Watson, Hermeneutics, 339–40; Das, Paul, 257–58. 64 Similarly Koch, Die Schrift, 295; Das, Paul, 261–62. 65 It is on this point that I am in disagreement with Akio Ito, who in a recent article tries to establish too much continuity between the original meaning of Deut 30 and Paul‘s citation of this text in Rom 10 (see his, ―The Written Torah,‖ 234–60). In my reading, Deut 30 (and the whole of Deuteronomic eschatology) has its place in Paul‘s theology: it highlights the inevitable failure of Israel to carry out the demands, leading to the necessity of the promise effective through unilateral intervention. 66 Contra Ito, ―Written Torah,‖ 258.

9.3 Paul‟s Interpretation of Leviticus 18:5 in Romans 10:5

183

conditional offer of ―life,‖ a condition that was never met by the nation of Israel. In summary, Paul does not seek to draw out the original meaning of Deuteronomy in a promise-fulfilment manner. Rather, Paul uses the language of Deuteronomy – conscious of what the passage originally meant – to confront the doer of Leviticus and show that life and salvation have been brought near through God‘s saving initiative in Christ. To continue to live as if the conditional offer is still in effect, to pursue the law as if it will grant eschatological salvation and life, is to embark on an arduous quest that practically nullifies the work of God in Christ. Excursus 1: Deut 30:12–14 in Baruch and Philo The use of Deut 30 in Baruch and Philo illuminates Paul‘s citation of this passage. Baruch gives an example that, to some extent, corresponds to Paul‘s use, while Philo‘s interpretation provides a counter-usage, one to which Paul, according to our reading, is directly opposed. We have argued that Paul has intentionally turned the main element (i.e. the ―doing‖ language) of Deut on its head. Deut 30:12–14 proclaims the ability of Israel to perform the commandment and Paul uses it to speak of divine action. Baruch also reversed the inherent meaning of this passage. In using the language of Deut 30:12–13, Baruch, like Paul, did not incorporate any of the original terms which highlighted Israel‘s ability to do the law. 67 In Deuteronomy, the commandment is near and accessible, and because of this Israel has no excuse not to ―hear and do it.‖ This ability to ―do it,‖ repeated three times in 30:12–14, is replaced by ―bring[ing] her [wisdom] down from the clouds‖ by Baruch (3:29b).68 The metaphor of bringing wisdom down from the heavens refers to the ―vain human attempt to overcome divine transcendence.‖69 Quite unlike Deut 30, which speaks of the accessibility of torah, Baruch turns the passage on its head to speak of the inaccessibility of 67

Compare the two texts:

Ou0k e0n tw=| Ou0rano_n a1nw e0sti_n le/gwn Ti/j a0nabh/setai h9mi=n ei0j to_n ou0rano_n kai_ lh/myetai au0th_n h9mi=n; kai_ a0kou/santej au0th_n poih/somen. Ou0de_ pe/ran th=j qala/sshj e0sti_n le/gwn Ti/j diapera/sei h9mi=n ei0j to_ pe/ran th=j qala/sshj kai_ lh/myetai h9mi=n au0th/n; kai_ a0kousth_n h9mi=n poih/sei au0th/n, kai_ poih/somen. (Deut 30:12–13) Ti/j a0ne/bh ei0j to_n ou0rano_n kai_ e1laben au0th_n katebi/basen au0th_n e0k tw=n nefelw=n Ti/j die/bh pe/ran th=j qala/sshj kai_ eu[ren au0th_n kai_ oi1sei au0th_n xrusi/ou e0klektou=; (Bar 3:29–30) 68 The reference to ―clouds‖ in parallel to ―heavens‖ is a frequent metaphor that speaks of divine transcendence: Deut 33:26; Job 35:5; Ps 36:5; 57:11; 108:4; see Gerald T. Sheppard, Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct (BZAW 151; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1980), 92. 69 Shephard, Hermeneutical Construct, 92.

184

Chapter 9: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Romans 10:5

wisdom.70 This demonstrates that there is at least one other early Jewish interpreter who used Deut 30:12–14 to speak directly against its original intention with regard to the accessibility of the law. Such was not the case with Philo, however. Philo used this text repeatedly to emphasise man‘s ability to perform the laws (Post. 84–85; Virt. 183; Mut. 236–37; Somn. 2.180; Quod Omnis. 68; Praem. 79–80), and like Paul, he draws attention to the reference to the ―heart,‖ ―mouth,‖ and ―hands.‖71 In one particular passage, Praem. 79–80, Philo refers to Deut 30:10–14 in an eschatological discussion concerning the blessings that await the Jewish nation. De Praemiis is divided into three sections: 1–78 deals with rewards and punishments on individuals and households, 79–172 deals with eschatological blessings (79–126) and curses (127–62), and 163–72 concludes with the final eschatological restoration of the Jewish nation.72 Philo paraphrases Deut 30:10–14 at the beginning of the second section: A clear testimony is recorded in the Holy Scriptures. We will cite first the invocations which he is accustomed to call benedictions. If, he says, you keep the divine commandment (qei/aj e0ntola/j) in obedience to his ordinances and accept his precepts, not merely to hear them but to carry them out by your life and conduct, the first benefit (dwrea_n) you will have is victory over your enemies.73 For the commandments (ai9 prosta/ceij) are not too difficult (u9pe/rogkoi) and heavy for the strength of those to whom they will apply, nor is the good far away either beyond the sea or at the end of the earth, so that it requires you a long and wearisome journey, nor has it suddenly left this earth to settle in heaven, so that one can scarcely reach them though he soar on high and wing his way thither. No, it is close by three of the parts to which each of us is constituted, mouth and heart and hand, representing in a figure respectively speech and thought and action.74 (Praem. 79–80)

This reference to Deuteronomy provides the grounds for a lengthy discussion where obedience to the law as a precondition for eschatological blessing is constantly reiterated (see Praem. 82, 98, 101,75 108, 110, 119, 126, 163).76 70 Cf. I. Assan-Dhôte et J. Moatti-Fine, ―Baruch, Lamentations, Lettre de Jérémie,‖ in La Bible D‟Alexandrie (Paris: Cerf, 2005), 66. They say that Bar 29–30 ―reprennent les versets du Deut‖ on the commandment of God, ―mais à la proximité de la Loi de Dieu vantée par le Deutéronome semble s‘opposer l‘inaccessibilité de la sagesse.‖ Baruch‘s wisdom theology forces him to modify the Deuteronomy text, and thus ―si la Loi de Dieu est si près de l‘homme, c‘est bien parce qu‘elle est un don de Dieu; sans Dieu, la sagesse est inaccessible au pouvoir, à l‘intelligence, à la force des hommes‖ (―Baruch,‖ 66). 71 The latter term is in LXX Deut 30:14 but not in the MT. 72 Following P. J. Bekken, ―Paul‘s Use of Deut 30,12–14 in Jewish Context,‖ in The New Testament and Hellenistic Judaism (ed. P. Borgen and S. Giversen; Peabody, Mass : Hendrickson, 1997), 198; see also the analysis by Peder Borgen, Philo of Alexandria: An Exegete for His Time (NovTSup 86; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 262–81. 73 Cf. Lev 26:7; Deut 28:1, 7. 74 The translation is slightly modified from F. H. Colson, LCL, 361. 75 Praem. 101 paraphrases Lev 26:3–4. 76 Bekken, ―Paul‘s Use,‖ 198.

9.3 Paul‟s Interpretation of Leviticus 18:5 in Romans 10:5

185

Philo‘s citation of Deut 30:10–14 is programmatic in ensuring the Jewish nation that doing the law is not that difficult. Eschatological blessings will come if they are obedient. The overall context is similar to Paul in Rom 10– 11,77 but unlike Philo, Paul uses the same text to show that God‘s act in Christ has taken the place of the conditional demands.78 Philo‘s use of Deut 30, then, is an example of what Paul is arguing against with this passage. For Philo, eschatological blessing is conditioned upon obedience to the commands; for Paul, God‘s act in Christ has taken the place of the conditional construct. Paul‘s use of this text exhibits both commonalities with (Baruch) and divergences from (Philo) that of his contemporaries. The commonalties help illustrate that Paul was not entirely alone in his creative exegesis, and the divergences give an example of the type of thinking Paul was trying to counter among his opponents – perhaps even using their same sacred tradition. Excursus 2: The Law unto Life – Or Death? Romans 7:7–8:11 Paul discusses the concept of law and life in Rom 7:7–8:11, and there is a potential allusion to Lev 18:5 in Rom 7:10; thus, this passage is worthy of an extended discussion. It is not, however, integral for my main argument in this chapter, and thus I have made this discussion an excursus. After drawing a close correlation between law and sin in 7:5–6, Paul counters the potential identification of the law with sin in 7:7. It is sin (or, Sin) itself, rather, that uses the law (no/moj, used here interchangeably with ―the commandment,‖ h9 e0ntolh/) to produce death (7:8–9). Paul introduces the enigmatic e0gw/ in a vivid illustration of how sin uses the law/commandment to effect death.79 The e0gw/ testifies that he was alive before the commandment, but when the commandment came ―sin sprang to life‖ (h9

77

See K. Haacker, ―Die Geschichtstheologie von Röm 9–11 im Lichte philonischer Schriftauslegung,‖ NTS 43 (1997), 209–22 (216–19); Borgen, Philo of Alexandria, 278. 78 I disagree with Bekken who tries to emphasize the commonalties between Philo and Paul. Although Bekken rightly understands the antithetical structure of Rom 10:5–8, he wrongly, to my mind, views the antithesis as two different modes of human conditionally (―Paul‘s Use,‖ 200–203). 79 The identification of e0gw/ in Romans 7 is notoriously difficult. The various views can be grouped into four general categories, or ―directions‖ of interpretation as Moo rightly calls them (Romans, 424): the e0gw/ is 1) Adam, 2) Israel, 3) Paul (autobiographical view), or 4) a rhetorical figure. While all of these views have staunch defenders, the strongest view, in my opinion, is that the e0gw/ is referring predominantly to Adam. This ―Adam‖ interpretation has been recently advocated by H. Lichtenberger who says that the history of Adam portrayed by Paul in 7:7–12 provides the paradigm for every person who, apart from Christ, encounters the commandment (see his, Das Ich Adams und das Ich der Menschheit: Studien zum Menschenbild in Römer 7 [WUNT 164; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2004]).

186

Chapter 9: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Romans 10:5

a9marti/a a0ne/zhsen)80 and the e0gw/ died. The commandment, though intended to bring life, only proved to bring death: e0gw_ de_ a0pe/qanon kai_ eu(re/qh moi h( e0ntolh_ h9 ei0j zwh/n, au3th ei0j qa/naton. But I died, and the same commandment which was for life, was found to result in death. (Rom 7:10)

Some have suggested a direct allusion to Lev 18:5 here, 81 but it is more likely that Paul has a more general law-life concept in mind rather than a specific text.82 We can make the following observations about Paul‘s understanding of law and life according to this passage. First, ―unto life‖ (ei0j zwh/n) should be understood in its full theological sense. It is not just ―living‖ as such, but the attainment of eschatological life as a result of obedience to the law/commandment.83 If the e0gw/ is identified as Adam in 7:9–12, then the ―life‖ in question has to do with Edenic life, the eschatological hope of certain strands of early Jewish thought.84 Second, Paul sees the law/commandment as ineffective in producing the life that it offers. Both humanity and the law have become victims to the power of sin, and the law itself has become sin‘s agent to enact sin‘s death sentence over humanity. It is not only the lack of obedience that is the barrier to life, but also the powerlessness of the law itself to conquer sin, to release the death sentence, and to grant life to sinful people. 80 Although a0naza/w retains its full force as ―to live again‖ in Luke 15:24, most commentators rightly interpret it as ―to become enlivened‖ here in 7:10 (see e.g. Cranfield, Romans, 352; Moo, Romans, 438 n. 53). L. Ann Jervis, however, retains the full force of the verb here (―‗The Commandment Which Is for Life‘ [Romans 7.10]: Sin‘s Use of the Obedience of Faith,‖ JSNT 27 [2004], 193–216 [200]). 81 Watson, Hermeneutics, 506; cf. Fitzmyer, Romans, 468; cautiously Moo, Romans, 439. 82 While the Leviticus text exhibits the same conception of the life-giving function of the law, there are no strong verbal connections between these two passages. The term h( e0ntolh/ does not occur in Lev 18:1–5, and ei0j zwh/n is paralleled only by the verb zh/setai. Therefore, Rom 7:10 satisfies none of our criteria for detecting an allusion to Lev 18:5. Moreover, there are many Old Testament and early Jewish texts that seem to contribute to the general notion that the law leads to life (e.g. Deut 4:1; 5:32–33; 8:1; 16:20; 22:7; 30:15–20; Sir 17:11; 45:5; 4 Ezra 14:30; 7:21, 129; Bar 3:9, 4:1; L.A.B. 19:9), and yet there is no one passage that is clearly reflected in Rom 7:10. There is no other text in the OT that connects e0ntolh/ with ei0j zwh/n. The only places that e0ntolh/ and zwh/ occurred together are Sir 45:5 and Bar 3:9. It seems, then, that Paul is most likely drawing upon the concept of the law/commandment in its life-giving function rather than a specific text. 83 So most interpreters (e.g. Cranfield, Romans, 351; Dunn, Romans, 381–84). Douglas Moo, who views the e0gw/ as Israel, not Adam, has to downplay the theological understanding of ―life‖ in this passage; see his, ―Israel and Paul in Romans 7.7–12,‖ NTS 32 (1986), 122–35 (125, 127–28). 84 So clearly Pss. Sol.14:2–3; T. Levi, 18:10–11: ―He shall open the gates of paradise; he shall remove the sword that has threatened since Adam, and he will grant to the saints to eat of the tree of life.‖ A similar thought can be seen in the ―glory of Adam‖ phrases in the Qumran literature (CD III, 20; 1 QS IV, 23; 1 QH IV, 15; 4 Q171 III, 1–2).

9.3 Paul‟s Interpretation of Leviticus 18:5 in Romans 10:5

187

Therefore, The law has been transformed through sin, from a ―commandment unto life‖ (7:10) into a ―law of sin and death‖ (8:2; cf. 2 Cor 3:6). Although the following passage is one of the most disputed (7:13–25), it almost certainly depicts the cooperation of sin and the law, which effects death in non-Christians.85 Whoever Paul seeks to identify with the e0gw/ is not relevant for our purpose. What is important is the solution that Paul gives in 8:1–4 to the plight depicted in 7:7–25: There is therefore now no condemnation to the ones in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life (o9 ga=r no/moj tou= pneu/matoj th=j zwh=j) has set you free from the law of sin and death (tou= no/mou th=j a9marti/aj kai\ tou= qana/tou). For what the law was unable to do (to\ ga\r a0du/naton tou= no/mou), being weak through the flesh, God did by sending his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin (peri\ a9marti/aj)86 by which he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law would be fulfilled in us (i3na to_ dikai/wma tou= no/mou plhrwqh=| e0n h9mi=n), who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.87 (Rom 8:1–4)

The passage has a decided emphasis on divine action as the solution to the dilemma in Rom 7. Liberation and redemption have been accomplished by God through his decisive act in Christ and through the power of the Spirit 85 Kuss, Romerbrief, 482–84; Käsemann, Romans, 192; B. Byrne, Romans (SP; Collegeville Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1996), 225–30; Fitzmyer, Romans, 465; Moo, Romans, 442–67; Wright, ―Romans,‖ 551–52; contra Nygren, Romans, 284–303; Cranfield, Romans, 1.241–47; and Dunn, Romans 1–8, 374–412, who see 7:13–25 as portraying the struggles of a Christian after redemption. 86 For this rendering of peri\ a9marti/aj, see Wright, Climax, 220–25. 87 This passage is disputed at every point, thus we cannot defend our reading at length. One issue deserves attention, however: the meaning of no/moj, used three times in this passage (8:2 [2x], 3). Although widely disputed, the first no/moj (―the law of the Spirit of life‖) probably does not refer to the Mosaic law but more generally to a principle, norm, or authority. This seems clear since in 8:2, the ―law of the Spirit and life‖ performs an act of liberation from ―the law of sin and death.‖ Moreover, in 8:3 the law is unable to do what God has done through the ―law of the Spirit of life‖ and in his act in Christ. But if no/moj refers to the Mosaic law in all three instances, then how can the law be the effective liberator (8:2a), the thing from which we have been liberated (8:2b), and at the same time unable to liberate (8:3a)! It seems best to take, with most interpreters, the ―law of the Spirit of life‖ as the principle (or authority) of the Spirit who gives life, while understanding the next two references to no/moj – ―the law of sin and death‖ and the ―law‖ that was unable to redeem – as the Mosaic torah. ―The law of sin and death‖ is the Mosaic law which cooperated with sin to produce death, as argued by Paul in 7:7–25. For this reading, see esp. H. Räisänen, ―Das ‗Gesetz des Glaubens‘ (Röm 3:27) und das ‗Gesetz des Geistes‘ (Röm 8:2),‖ NTS 26 (1979– 80), 101–17, reprinted in, idem, Jesus, Paul and Torah (JSNTSup 43; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 48–68; so also Cranfield, Romans, 1.375–76; Fitzmyer, Romans, 482–83; Keck, Romans, 196–97; Gordon D. Fee, God‟s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994), 523–24; contra Wilckens, Römer, 122–23; Dunn, Romans, 1.416–17); Wright, Climax, 208–211. Moo (Romans, 476– 77) takes both occurrences of no/moj in 8:2 to refer to a binding principle or authority.

188

Chapter 9: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Romans 10:5

who gives life, a life that the law failed to give in 7:10. There is an underlying antithesis between God, who through Christ and the Spirit redeems and gives life, and the law, which lacked the ability to do so.88 Therefore, while in Rom 9 and 10 the antithesis is between divine and human action, here in Rom 7 and 8 it is between the power of God and the powerlessness of the law to give life. The result of God‘s decisive action is that the ―righteous requirement of the law would be fulfilled in us‖ (to_ dikai/wma tou= no/mou plhrwqh=| e0n h9mi=n, 8:4a).89 Given the emphasis on divine agency, it is unlikely that plhrwqh=| e0n h9mi=n refers to the active fulfilment of the law by believers, but to the act of God in satisfying the sum-total of the requirements of the law through Christ and the Spirit,90 as Brendan Byrne aptly states: The fulfillment spoken of here is in no sense something achieved by Christians themselves; it is something which God, the author of all, works in us through the Spirit as a consequence of the Christ-event. There is a fulfillment of the moral demand, . . . [but this] righteousness is entirely the creation of God operating through the Spirit. 91

88

Cf. Fitzmyer: ―It is God himself who brings about the fulfillment of the law through Christ and the Spirit‖ (Romans, 488) 89 The meaning of to_ dikai/wma (―righteous requirement‖) is disputed. The word was used in 5:16 and 5:18, although the meaning there is equally disputed (the plural is used in 1:32). In all three instances (5:16, 18; 8:4), it could mean ―justification,‖ ―judgment,‖ ―righteous act,‖ or ―righteous requirement.‖ The context is paramount in determining its meaning in all three passages, and here in 8:3 it probably should be rendered ―righteous requirement‖ since the active sense of the other three potential meanings would be awkward here. This is further supported by the frequent use of the plural dikaiw/mata in the LXX and NT to refer to the ordinances or commandments of the law (Moo, Romans, 481 n. 55). Therefore, the to_ dikai/wma that is ―fulfilled in us‖ is probably the sum total of what the law requires (rightly Keck, Romans, 200) (see note below). 90 This is the best rendering of the phrase for two reasons. First of all, the passive plhrwqh=| ―points not to something that we are to do but to something that is done in and for us‖ (Moo, Romans, 483). Second, the singular dikai/wma instead of the plural dikaiw/mata signifies something different than carrying out of the commandments of the law (see note above). Some have suggested that the singular refers to the love command of 13:8–10; thus, believers who love their neighbour as themselves have ―fulfilled the law‖ per se (see H. M. W. van de Sandt, ―Research into Rom. 8,4a: The Legal Claim of the Law,‖ and ―An Explanation of Rom. 8,4a,‖ Bijdragen 37 (1976), 252–69 and 361–78. While this is certainly true, it is questionable whether this is what Paul has in mind in 8:3, where the love command is absent from the near context. It seems that Paul‘s argument is more salvation historical than it is ethical in 8:4. To be sure, upon first hearing the letter, the Romans would not have understood 8:4 to refer to their fulfilment of the law through the love command, an understanding that could only be reached after hearing chapter 13. 91 B. Byrne, ―Living Out the Righteousness of God,‖ CBQ 43 (1981), 557–81 (569), cited by Fitzmyer, Romans, 488; Keck: ―God is the doer who actualizes the right requirement of the law in us‖ (Romans, 200); see also Wilckens, Römer, 128–30; and the incisive discussion in T. J. Deidun, New Covenant Morality in Paul (AnBib 89; Rome: Biblical Institute Press,

9.4 Conclusion

189

The centrality of divine agency in giving life to believers is reiterated again in 8:9–11, where the Spirit, who was God‘s agent in raising Christ from the dead, will also ―give [resurrection] life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you‖ (zw|opoih/sei kai_ ta_ qnhta_ sw/mata u9mw=n dia_ tou= e0noikou=ntoj au0tou= pneu/matoj e0n u9mi=n).92 Eschatological life is created through divine action. In summary, Paul believes that the law cannot give life to mortal man. The life that the law holds out is accomplished through divine agency – the death of Christ and the Spirit of life. How does this compare to Rom 9 and 10? This latter passage does not highlight sin and disobedience as the reason why Lev 18:5 is an inadequate way to attain life; all matters of human activity in light of God‟s activity in Christ are deemed irrelevant. But in Rom 7:7–8:11, the law-life concept is ineffective due to the condition of humanity and the condition of the law – both anthropology and nomology are present. So in this passage, it is not so much the irrelevance of human pursuing that is wrong, but the inability of sinful people to find life and liberation through the Mosaic law. Only God can give life to the dead (7:24).

9.4 Conclusion We have argued that Paul places Lev 18:5 in an antithetical relationship to a rewritten Deut 30:12–14, and that the point of the antithesis is to contrast human (Rom 10:5) and divine (10:6–8) saving initiative. We disagree, then, with other approaches which suggest that Paul opposes Lev 18:5 because it restricts covenantal blessing to national Israel. We also find inadequate some of the more traditional views that understand Lev 18:5 as a legalistic formula or as demanding perfection. What is wrong with Leviticus is that it makes blessing contingent upon human behaviour. But according to Paul‘s gospel, 1981), 71–75. For the view that Christian fulfilment of the law is in view, see Cranfield, Romans, 384–85; Fee, Empowering Presence, 534–37; and others in Moo, Romans, 482 n. 61. However, this does not necessarily mean that Christ fulfilled the law‘s demand for perfect obedience, which is mediated to us through our incorporation in him (contra Moo, Romans, 483–84). The thought has more to do with God‘s act in the death of Christ, not the active obedience of Christ‘s life. 92 With most interpreters, I am taking the genitive tou= e0noikou=ntoj au0tou= pneu/matoj () A C 81 Cyril-Jerusalem, Hippolytus) over the accusative to_ e0noikou=n au0tou= pneu=ma (B D F G Y) (so too Cranfield, Romans, 391–92; Dunn, Romans, 1.414; Moo, Romans, 471 n. 12; Metzger, Textual Commentary, 456 gives it a ―B‖ rating). Fee (Empowering Presence, 552–53), followed by Keck (Romans, 205), takes the accusative and understands the Spirit‘s role to be a guarantee rather than an active agent of future resurrection. However, Käsemann (Romans, 225) and Fitzmyer (Romans, 491–92) are probably correct that the Spirit‘s activity in generating resurrection life can be conveyed by either reading.

190

Chapter 9: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Romans 10:5

blessing (life, salvation, righteousness) is the result of God‘s saving initiative in Christ. The Leviticus formula is no longer applicable. In a daring move, Paul places Deut 30:12–14 in an antithetical relationship with Lev 18:5, two passages that are in fundamental agreement in their original contexts. No longer does Deuteronomy support the Leviticus formulation, but confronts it. The point is that the life the doer is searching for has been brought near through the saving message of Christ; Lev 18:5 is deemed irrelevant. While Moses stood on the plains of Moab, exhorting Israel to hold fast to the commandment and live, to ―do these things‖ so as to ―live by them,‖ Paul stands in the shadow of the cross, urging the Mediterranean world to believe the faith-message and thus be saved (Rom 10:16–17).

Part 4

Summary and Comparison

Chapter 10

Comparison and Conclusion 10.1 A Comparison of Second Temple Interpretations of Leviticus 18:5 10.1.1 The Relative Importance of Leviticus 18:5 in Paul and Early Judaism How important was Lev 18:5 for Paul and the early Jewish authors that we have studied? For Paul, it seems that the passage was very important, for he cites it on two occasions and each time within a crucial argument about the law‘s relationship to salvation in Christ (Gal 3:10–14; Rom 9:30–10:10). But its significance for Paul is seen not merely by the fact that he cites the text more than once, but also in the concepts that, for him, may be traced back to Lev 18:5. In Gal 3:12, Paul understands the Leviticus formula to be a summary of the law: ―The law is not e0k pi/stewj, but it is ‗the one who does these things will live by them‘.‖ It is contrasted here, moreover, with Hab 2:4, one of the most, if not the most, important scriptural passages for Paul.1 In Rom 10:5, Lev 18:5 describes the ―righteousness from the law‖ which is placed in opposition to the ―righteousness of faith,‖ an opposition that Paul evokes elsewhere (Rom 9:31–32; Phil 3:9; cf. Rom 3:20; Gal 2:16). Another concept related to Lev 18:5, and one which Paul fundamentally opposes, is ―works of the law‖ as a means of justification (Gal 2:16; Rom 3:20, 28; cf. Gal 3:2, 5, 10). Romans 3:20 summarises Paul‘s argument in Rom 1:18–3:20 by saying, ―no flesh will be justified before God by works of the law.‖ Likewise, in Gal 2:16 Paul says two times that justification cannot come by ―works of the law.‖ We saw earlier that the Galatians‘ attempt to be perfected by ―works of the law‖ was an endeavour of ―the flesh‖ (Gal 3:2–5).2 In fact, everyone who belongs to ―those of the works of the law‖ are under the curse of the law (Gal 3:10). Clearly, then, Lev 18:5 was an important passage for Paul regarding these soteriological concepts in Romans and Galatians. For the Qumran covenanters, Lev 18:5 is also significant for their understanding of the law, but for them it was understood in a positive way. Even though the text is only referred to in two documents, its two allusions in the Damascus Document (CD and 4Q266) occur in rather important 1 2

See also Gen 15:6 cited in Rom 4:3, 9, 22; Gal 3:6. See pages 156–159.

194

Chapter 10: Comparison and Conclusion

passages.3 The first allusion comes in CD III, where the foundation of the Damascus community is recorded and Lev 18:5 is used to refer to the lifegiving ―hidden laws‖ that were revealed to the covenanters (CD III, 15–16). Leviticus 18:5, moreover, describes the solution to the plight of Israel‘s history: while the nation of Israel more widely has succumbed to the deathbringing ―evil inclination,‖ the community has embraced the life-giving revealed halachah depicted by Lev 18:5 (CD II, 14–III, 20). The end of the Damascus Document records an expulsion ceremony, and Lev 18:5 is alluded to in the priestly prayer over the expultant (4Q266 11 I–II, 12). Here again, this passage signifies the life partially enjoyed4 by the Qumran community through their adherence to the ―hidden laws.‖ Certain acts of disobedience to these laws may result in the transgressor‘s expulsion from the community, which constitutes his spiritual death, the forfeiture of the conditional promise of life in Lev 18:5. Thus, Lev 18:5 seems to be a rather significant passage in the Damascus Document regarding the eternal life that the community has attained (and will attain). For the Psalms of Solomon, Lev 18:5 also seems to be relatively important. While these psalms frequently speak of ―righteousness‖ and righteous deeds, mention of the Mosaic law is surprisingly lacking. The law is only referred to in 14:1–3 and in 4:8, but here only in passing (―sinners . . . who deceitfully quote the law‖). Thus, Pss. Sol. 14:1–5, where Lev 18:5 is alluded to, is one of only two passages where the law is explicitly mentioned, indicating that when the author reflected on the law, Lev 18:5 was his passage of choice. So while the allusion to Lev 18:5 is more difficult to detect than in, say, the Damascus Document, it too seems to play an important role in the psalmist‘s understanding of the soteriological function of the law. While Lev 18:5 seemed to be an important text for the authors of the Damascus Document and the Psalms of Solomon, such does not seem to be the case for Pseudo-Philo‘s Biblical Antiquities (L.A.B.). Its reference to Lev 18:5 (L.A.B. 23:10) refers to the life-giving power of the Mosaic law, but we have argued that the ―doing‖ language of Lev 18:5 actually runs against the grain of the author‘s decided emphasis on the unconditionally of Israel‘s eschatological salvation. In as much as our assessment of L.A.B.‘s theology is accurate, it seems fitting to conclude that Lev 18:5 did not play as fundamental a role in this document as it did in Paul, Qumran, and the Psalms of Solomon. Likewise, it does not seem, in light of the sheer volume of Philo‘s writings and his widespread use of the Pentateuch in these works, that Lev 18:5 was 3

Given the fragmentary nature of the manuscript, the overall importance of Lev 18:5 for 4Q504 cannot be stated one way or another. 4 The ―life‖ held out in Lev 18:5 in 4Q266 and to some extent in CD seems to have an already/not yet scope.

10.1 A Comparison of Second Temple Interpretations of Leviticus 18:5

195

nearly as significant for Philo as other Pentateuchal texts.5 Philo does draw out the concept of ―true life‖ from Lev 18:5, but while the concept itself is important for him, the Leviticus text does not seem to carry the same weight. This is his only citation of Lev 18:5 and there are other passages that Philo uses to support his understanding of ―true life.‖ Moreover, Philo is the only other author whom we have studied who cites all of Lev 18:1–5 instead of just the final clause of Lev 18:5b. It may be that the Leviticus clause (18:5b) did not itself attract Philo‘s attention, but rather received exegetical reflection because it was part of Lev 18:1–5. Assessing Philo‘s motivation here is indeed speculative, but it does seem, in any case, that the clause was not nearly as important for Philo as for our other exegetes. Therefore, it is safe to say that Lev 18:5 is only as important as other texts that Philo uses on one occasion to refer to ―true life,‖ or to spiritual life with God.6 In sum, Lev 18:5 attracts its most noteworthy reflection in Paul, Qumran (esp. the Damascus Document), and the Psalms of Solomon. Paul cites the text negatively to show that the law has nothing to do with faith (Gal 3:12). The author of the Damascus Document alludes to Leviticus to signify the lifegiving power of the ―hidden‖ halachic laws revealed to the founders of the Qumran community. The Psalms of Solomon allude to Lev 18:5 to show that the remnant of Israel, who truly ―love the Lord‖ and ―walk in his commandments‖ (14:1–2a), have eternal life through their obedience to the Mosaic law. 10.1.2 Leviticus 18:5 and Eschatological Life One issue that we have discussed throughout this study is the meaning of zh/setai/(h)yxw in the Leviticus formula. We have argued that Lev 18:5 was understood in Second Temple Judaism and in Paul to refer to eschatological life as a conditional blessing for those who ―do these things.‖7 For writings that envision an afterlife (the Damascus Document, the Psalms of Solomon, L.A.B., and Paul), this includes a post-mortem never-ending life. For other texts where an afterlife is probably not in view (Ezekiel, Nehemiah, 4Q504), the ―life‖ of Leviticus is probably the covenantal blessing of length of days and prosperity. But a sharp distinction between a present experience of this life and a wholly future enjoyment of eschatological life should not be pressed. In many of our documents, eschatological life is both now and not 5

E.g. Gen 1:27; 2:7; Deut 30:11–14; see page 114 n. 60 above. E.g. Gen 45:28 in Leg. 2.93; Deut 30:20 in Post. 12; Deut 33:6 in Mut. 210; Gen 17:18 in Mut. 201; Gen 46:30 in Mut. 210–15. 7 We agree, then, with Simon J. Gathercole, who argued this point in his, ―Torah, Life, and Salvation: Leviticus 18:5 in Early Judaism and the New Testament,‖ in From Prophecy to Testament: The Use of the Old Testament in the New (ed. C.A. Evans; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004), 126–45. 6

196

Chapter 10: Comparison and Conclusion

yet. This seems to be clear in the Damascus Document (it is most clear in 4Q266 11, but also implied in CD III) and the Psalms of Solomon. In L.A.B., however, eschatological life seems to be wholly future, as it is in 4Q504 from what we can make of the document. Philo‘s conception of the afterlife is much different than our other Jewish authors, making a comparison difficult here. But even for him, the ―true life‖ evinced in Lev 18:5b can be partially enjoyed before death and yet is more fully experienced when the soul departs from the body upon death. This already/not yet eschatological life is especially clear in Paul. For Paul in Galatians, life, justification, and the Abrahamic blessing are used more or less synonymously as present soteriological conceptions in Gal 3:8–14 (cf. Gal 2:20 where eschatological life is clearly present). This life is the present experience of an eschatological life that will be fully realized in the future (cf. Gal 6:8). The already/not yet dimension of life is also portrayed in the citation of Lev 18:5 in Rom 10:5–8. Here, zh/setai (10:5) probably corresponds to swthri/a (10:1, 9, 10) and dikaiosu/nh (Rom 9:30–32; 10:3, 4, 5, 6, 10) to refer to the present experience of salvation in Christ; but this salvation and life is not yet fully manifested (Rom 2:7, 10; 5:10, 21; 6:22; 8:11, 18–23). It is this already/not yet eschatological life, then, that obedience to the law is unable to attain, according to Paul. Paul disagrees with all of our Second Temple Jewish interpreters who, while agreeing that eschatological life is both now and not yet, believe that the law is a necessary precondition for eschatological life.8 Throughout this study, therefore, we have argued against those scholars who say that Lev 18:5 was understood by Paul and his contemporaries to refer to ―life in the covenant‖ or a life regulated by the law and not to some sort of future life attained as a result of obedience.9 10.1.3 Leviticus 18:5 in View of Divine and Human Agency In our reading of Paul, we have argued that Lev 18:5 places an unnecessary and inadequate emphasis on human agency in the attainment of eschatological life.10 In Galatians for instance, Paul opposes Lev 18:5 as a description of how one may escape the curse of the law; thus, Lev 18:5 describes a wholly

8

For Philo, education is the precondition for true obedience to the law. See pages 61–62, 74–76, 94–96, 110–113, 138–142. 10 In terms of human and divine agency, then, we largely concur with Francis Watson‘s Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (London: T & T Clark/Continuum, 2004). Our study is different from Watson in two regards, however. First, we interacted with a different body of Jewish literature. References to the Damascus Document and L.A.B. are infrequent in Watson‘s Hermeneutics, and 4Q504, the Psalms of Solomon, and Philo‘s De Congressu are not mentioned at all. Second, our reading of Paul, though very similar to Watson‘s, includes an anthropological dimension that was not evinced in his treatment of Lev 18:5 (see the next note). 9

10.1 A Comparison of Second Temple Interpretations of Leviticus 18:5

197

deficient solution to the plight.11 Since God has intervened in Christ through his own initiative to rescue humanity from the curse, trying to escape the curse through Lev 18:5 post Christum is defective and misguided. For Paul, the gospel of faith testifies to what God has done in Christ. God is the one who has unilaterally acted in the Christ-event to grant life, salvation, and righteousness to the ―ungodly‖ (Rom 4:4–5) who believe in his Son. Paul‘s emphasis on eschatological life as a divine gift (Rom 5:16–21; 6:22–23; 8:1– 4, 11, 13) runs counter to the notion of conditional life inherent in Lev 18:5. It is with the antithesis between divine and human agency that we find a clear – though often overlooked – disagreement between Paul and his Jewish contemporaries. For example, we may compare CD II, 14–III, 20 with Rom 9:6–10:11, a comparison that is very relevant since both passages refer to Lev 18:5. Of course, these two documents are written at different times, for different reasons, and with a different set of presuppositions, but there are enough points of similarities that make a comparison justifiable. Both passages refer to the history of Israel (CD II, 14–III, 12a; Rom 9:6–29) leading up to a decisive act of God (CD III, 12b–17; Rom 9:30–33; 10:3, 6– 8). Both Paul and CD announce the acts of God in Israel‘s history: the testimony of the ―deeds of God‖ for CD (l) y#o(m, CD II, 14–15) and the ―word of God‖ for Paul (o9 lo/goj tou= qeou=, Rom 9:6, 28). For Paul, God‘s election and preservation of his people are due solely to his sovereign freedom, not according to human ―works‖ (Rom 9:12); if fact, deeds whether ―good or bad‖ (praca/ntwn ti a0gaqo_n h2 fau=lon, 9:11) are irrelevant, for it is God who chooses according to his will alone. Not only is the preservation of the elect God‘s unilateral work, but also the eschatological revelation of God (th_n tou= qeou= dikaiosu/nhn, 10:3) is appropriated by those who ―do not seek him‖ (9:30). There is a decided emphasis on the action of God against all forms of human action in Rom 9 and 10: God‘s revelation in Christ is submitted to, not sought after (9:30; 10:3). ―The one who does these things‖ (Lev 18:5) essentially nullifies the work of God in Christ (10:5–8), for it is God‘s act in Christ that has accomplished eschatological life for his people. The opposition between divine and human agency evinced in Romans 9:6– 10:8 is not seen in CD II, 14–III, 20. Throughout the passage, God has preserved those who ―remained steadfast in God‘s commandments‖ 11

Paul is led to this conclusion in view of both his pessimistic anthropology (as emphasised by Stephen Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004]; idem, ―Paul‘s Anthropological ‗Pessimism‘ in Its Jewish Context,‖ in Divine and Human Agency in Paul and His Cultural Environment [LNTS 335; ed. John M. G. Barclay and Simon J. Gathercole; London: T & T Clark/Continuum, 2006], 71–98) and in view of the theological structure of the gospel itself (as emphasised by Francis Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith [London: T & T Clark/Continuum, 2004]).

198

Chapter 10: Comparison and Conclusion

(l) twcmb Myqyzxmbw, CD III, 13; cf. II, 18, 21; III, 5–6); contrary to Paul, the good deeds of the remnant are not only relevant but necessary for their preservation and are a precondition for God‘s eschatological revelation. The revelation of the ―hidden things‖ (twrtsn, CD III, 14), then, is a response to those who have remained faithful to the ―commandments of God‖ (CD III, 12b), and the appropriation of this revelation involves rigorous exegesis – ―digging‖ (CD III, 17) and ―seeking‖ (1QS V, 11) the written law. Therefore, Lev 18:5 is an appropriate description of the solution to the plight. Just as adherence to the ―precepts of God‖ was vital for the preservation of the elect, so also obedience to the ―revealed things‖ are a necessary precondition for eschatological life. The paradigm of restoration is essentially Deuteronomic (see below §10.2.3). The difference between CD and Paul, then, is not simply that the Qumranites esteemed the Mosaic law while Paul did not; rather, Paul understood God‘s saving revelation as a unilateral act, wrought in Christ apart from any prior human obedience.12 Divine and human agency are compatible for the author of CD: both are preconditions for God‘s eschatological revelation. For Paul, however, the priority of divine action (Rom 10:6–8) over human action enjoined in the law (10:5) is central to the gospel of faith. ―The one who does these things‖ embarks on an ineffective and unnecessary quest that is forbidden, according to Paul, by Moses (Rom 10:6–8). The Psalms of Solomon are similar to the Damascus Document in their use of Lev 18:5. These psalms exhibit a tension between divine and human agency – they are both compatible – and Lev 18:5 is used to capture the human side of this tension. In Pss. Sol. 14:1–5 where Leviticus is cited, there is an emphasis on doing the commandments of the law as a precondition for life. The stress on ―doing‖ in Pss. Sol. 14:1–5 and in CD II, 14–III, 20, then, may illustrate an understanding of Lev 18:5 similar to the one which Paul opposed in Romans and Galatians. We have suggested that a primary reason why Paul sees Lev 18:5 as antithetical to the gospel of faith is because of its testimony to human action as a solution to the plight. In support of this, we can turn to the Psalms of Solomon and the Damascus Document for an understanding of Lev 18:5 which may reflect that of Paul‘s opponents. Those who embrace Lev 18:5 do not necessarily view the text as a legalistic construct or as demanding perfect obedience, but they do use it to support the 12 Contra those who say that Paul rejects the law solely on dogmatic grounds (e.g. E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977], 482–84; similarly, Heikki Räisänen, Paul and the Law [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986], 162–98 [esp. 163, 175, 178), and contra Morna Hooker who thinks that Paul is a ―covenantal nomist‖ except that for Paul ―there is a different covenant and a very different kind of law‖ (―Paul and Covenantal Nomism,‖ in Paul and Paulinism [ed. M. D. Hooker and S. G. Wilson; London: SPCK, 1982], 47–56 [56]).

10.1 A Comparison of Second Temple Interpretations of Leviticus 18:5

199

human side of the divine/human tension. We cannot draw a definite conclusion that Paul‘s opponents (at least in Galatians) were influenced by a strand of Judaism that came from Qumran or the community behind the Pss. Sol., but the way Lev 18:5 is interpreted in these Jewish texts may illustrate an understanding of Lev 18:5 that Paul opposed in Romans and Galatians. L.A.B.‟s use of Lev 18:5 is slightly different from CD and the Pss. Sol. As we argued above, L.A.B. on the whole understands Israel‘s eschatological life and salvation as an unconditional gift promised to Israel. As such, Israel‘s confidence in gaining eschatological life rests on God‘s faithfulness to his prior promise made to Abraham, not on the obedience of the nation – something L.A.B. does not believe will be forthcoming. But L.A.B. still cites Lev 18:5 positively to signify the life-giving power of the law. Does he, then, believe Israel must first ―do these things‖ in order to live? We suggested that he did not. God must maintain his unconditional promise to the nation regardless of whether they ―do these things.‖ Thus, while L.A.B. does not cite Lev 18:5 negatively as Paul does, neither, however, does he exploit its reference to human deeds as a precondition to salvation as some of his Palestinian contemporaries did. 10.1.4 Leviticus 18:5 and the Blessings and Curses of the Covenant The narratives of Deut 27–30 and Lev 26 exhibit the Deuteronomic notion of blessings contingent upon obedience and curses upon disobedience, and these passages attracted widespread reflection in early Judaism, especially the Dead Sea Scrolls.13 For the Qumran covenanters, the nation of Israel was under the curse of the covenant through their transgression of the law, while the covenanters had escaped the curse through their obedience to sectarian law. According to our study, Lev 18:5 was read within this framework of blessings and curses. The community is the one who is doing these things; thus, they have escaped the curse and received the blessing of life. The relationship between Lev 18:5 and the Deuteronomic blessings and curses is seen clearly at the end of the Damascus Document in the ceremony of expulsion (4Q266 frg. 11 I–II). Here, the ceremony is modeled upon Deut 27, where the nation was instructed to pronounce curses upon the transgressor of the law and blessings upon the obedient (Deut 27:11–26).14 In 4Q266, a member has committed a serious crime and therefore is to be expelled from the community. His expulsion constitutes spiritual death as he is forced to leave the blessed community; in leaving, he forfeits the life held out in Lev 18:5. The Qumran community, because of their obedience to the revealed halachah, is blessed with ―life,‖ while all others are cursed. So then, we have 13

See pages 63–66, 69–71, 83–85. While Israel is instructed to pronounce both blessing and curse in 27:11–13, in 27:14– 26 it is the Levites alone who pronounce a curse with no corresponding blessing. 14

200

Chapter 10: Comparison and Conclusion

here evidence that Lev 18:5 was used to refer to the covenantal blessing of life along the lines of Deut 27–30. The conceptual correspondence between 4Q266 and Gal 3:8–14, including the use of Lev 18:5 in each passage, is striking. The Pauline text is also written in the general framework of the blessings and curses of Deut 27–30, and Paul even cites Deut 27:26 in Gal 3:10. For Paul, the blessing of Abraham15 is realised in the community of oi9 e0k pi/stewj (3:7, 9), while o3soi...e0c e1rgwn no/mou are under the curse (3:10). Contrary to 4Q266 (and the whole of Qumran teaching on the subject), the way to escape the curse is not through ―doing these things‖ (Gal 3:12; cf. CD III, 15–16; 4Q266 11, I–II 12), or through the ―works of the law‖ (Gal 2:16; 3:2, 5, 10; 4QMMT C 27), but through faith in Christ, the one whose death has lifted the curse for oi9 e0k pi/stewj (3:13). The conceptual world of Paul and Qumran is strikingly similar here. The very thing that Paul opposes in Gal 3:12 is promoted by the Qumranites: Lev 18:5 describes what the covenanters have done to escape the curse and attain the Deuteronomic blessing of life. Did the agitators understand Lev 18:5 in a way similar to the author of the Damascus Document? A comparison, while not conclusive, may be suggestive. While we must be cautious, it seems likely that the agitators believed that through faith in Christ and obedience to the ―works of the law‖ they had escaped the curse of the law which hangs over the nation of Israel and attained the blessing of life. Moreover, they found in the text of Scripture a passage that commands this: ―the one who does these things will live by them‖ (Lev 18:5). Therefore, since there is evidence in 4Q266 (and to some extent in CD III) that Lev 18:5 was understood as the solution to the curse of the law, and since this is precisely what Paul opposes in Gal 3:12, it may be that a similar perspective on Lev 18:5 was embraced by the agitators and taught to the Galatian community.

10.2 Implications for Paul and the Law 10.2.1 Paul and Judaism on Grace and Obedience It is often observed in the wake of the ―Sanders revolution‖ that Judaism and Paul held similar views regarding God‘s grace and human obedience in

15

The blessing of Abraham promised in Gen 12:1–3 was often read through the lens of the covenant theology in Deut 27–30; see Jub. 12:23; 25:22; 26:23; 31:17, 20; Tob 13:9–12; see further Todd A. Wilson, The Curse of the Law and the Crisis in Galatia: Reassessing the Purpose of Galatians (WUNT 225; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2007), 60.

10.2 Implications for Paul and the Law

201

salvation,1 and a brief survey of the hymns from Qumran may support this general impression.2 However, while agreeing with Sanders and others that early Judaism was not a religion of legalistic works-righteousness whereby man attempts to earn favour before God through his own autonomous deeds, we have argued (according to the documents we have examined) that in many Jewish writings God‘s saving grace is a response to prior human action.3 In Qumran, for example, human obedience to the ―revealed‖ (written) law is prior to God‘s revelatory act in forming the new covenant community. Certainly, the Qumranites believed in, and even emphasised, God‘s grace, but they would have not embraced Paul‘s concept of grace as the justification of the wicked (Rom 4:4–5). Perhaps, then, it is not that the Qumranites and other early Jewish interpreters failed to believe that God‘s grace and mercy were fundamental for salvation, but that for Paul, his understanding of grace was radically reconfigured by the Christ-event. Further discussion on Paul and the law will do well to define precisely what is meant by grace in comparing Paul against his Jewish background.4 Regarding the role of obedience in Paul and Judaism, two things can be observed in light of our study on Lev 18:5. First, some strands of Judaism believed in the precondition of obedience for initial salvation. For sectarian Jews (e.g., at Qumran), in as much as salvation was conceived (at least partially) in terms of entering into the sectarian community, prior obedience must be demonstrated. This is true on both an individual level and on a salvation-historical level. On an individual level, in order to enter the 1 Cf. e.g. Morna Hooker: ―. . . just as Palestinian Judaism understood obedience to the Law to be the proper response of Israel to the covenant on Sinai, so Paul assumes that there is an appropriate response for Christians who have experienced God‘s saving activity in Christ‖ (―Covenantal Nomism,‖ 48). One methodological problem I see here is the comparison between an early Jewish understanding of one‘s response to the Sinaitic covenant versus Paul‘s understanding of one‘s response to the Christ-event. A better comparison would be between Paul‘s Christ-event and early Jewish understanding of the new covenant, not the Sinaitic covenant. In this view, as we have seen, getting into the new covenant is not entirely a matter of human response to prior grace (at least in Qumran); rather, divine action is seen as a response to prior human action (e.g. in CD III). 2 E.g. 1QH V, 22–24; VII, 14–20; VIII, 19–22; IX, 21–22; XII, 33–38; XIV, 8–9; XV, 16–24; XVII, 33–35; XIX, 3–13, 30–32. 3 Again, L.A.B. does stress God‘s initiative in salvation more than the other documents, but comparing L.A.B. to Paul is difficult since they are working within different eschatological frameworks. For Paul, and the Damascus Document, God‘s future act of salvation has been already (partially) accomplished, but for L.A.B. (and 4Q504), eschatological restoration is wholly future. 4 See now Chris VanLandingham, Judgment & Justification in Early Judaism and in Apostle Paul (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2006), 18–23, 55–60; cf. Stephen Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 341–51.

202

Chapter 10: Comparison and Conclusion

community, one must first demonstrate some sort of obedience in order to be considered for membership (= salvation).5 On the salvation-historical level, God‘s formation of the new covenant community (CD I, 10–12; III, 12a–17; VI, 2–8) was a response to an obedient remnant already in existence, those ―who held fast to God‘s commandments‖ (CD III, 12). On both levels, human works are not at all conceived as incompatible with God‘s grace. But for Paul, God‘s saving act in Christ grants eschatological life to ―the one who does not work but believes on the one who justifies the ungodly‖ (Rom 4:5); as such, divine saving action in Christ cannot be correlated with the Lev 18:5 principle. No one can gain, should try to gain, or will gain through the law the eschatological life that has been given by God in Christ. But, second, what about after one has entered the community and now looks forward to final salvation? Is it not true that for both Paul and Judaism obedience was a necessary condition for future life? While Paul clearly believed in the necessity of obedience for final salvation, perhaps even just as much as his Jewish contemporaries, for Paul Christian obedience is shaped and generated by Christ and the indwelling Spirit. ―Christian obedience is, according to Paul, not so much the believer‘s response to what God has done in Christ but the effect of God‘s continuing work in the believer, the ‗fruit of the Spirit‘.‖6 It is here that the recent, and on the whole very helpful, work by Chris VanLandingham is flawed. He concludes his study by saying that for Judaism and also for Paul, ―[t]he last judgment is not a judgment over the work of Christ or even over what the Holy Spirit has done in the believer; it is a judgment over the individual and what he or she has done.‖7 But does Paul consider the deeds of Christians as somehow autonomously achieved apart from the work of Christ and the Spirit? Certainly he does not (Gal 2:20; 3:1– 5; 5:16–26; Rom 8:1–18; 1 Cor 15:10; Phil 1:6; 2:12–13). Future studies that compare Paul and Judaism on the role of obedience in final salvation must distinguish between the demand for obedience evinced in Paul and his contemporaries, and the source and formal cause of obedience in each corpus.8 5 ―Anyone from Israel who freely volunteers to enroll in the council of the community, the man appointed at the head of the many shall test him with regard to his insight and his deeds. If he suits the discipline he shall let him enter into the covenant so that he can revert to the truth and shun all injustice, and he shall teach him all the precepts of the community‖ (1QS VI, 13–15; cf. 1QS IX, 15; see further VanLandingham, Judgment & Justification, 106–107). 6 Simon J. Gathercole, Where is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul‟s Response in Romans 1–5 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 133; Westerholm, Perspectives, 431. 7 VanLandingham, Judgment & Justification, 334–35. 8 So for example, in CD II–III the role of obedience before initial salvation (i.e. the formation of the community) and the role of obedience after is largely the same. The main difference is that before, the obedient one is faithful to the revealed law (CD III, 12a), while after he is faithful to the sectarian law (III, 15–16). But the notion of obedience is largely the

10.2 Implications for Paul and the Law

203

10.2.2 Challenges to the New Perspective While this study is intended to be neither critical nor supportive of the ―new perspective,‖ the subject matter at hand has naturally led us to interact with some of its proponents on various issues. On the whole, we concur with E. P. Sanders, James D. G. Dunn, and others who have corrected the gross caricatures foisted upon early Judaism by former New Testament scholars who thought that early Judaism believed that salvation was earned by human effort. It does not seem that Paul viewed Judaism as lacking in God‘s grace and mercy generally conceived (for Paul, though, grace and mercy are defined by the Christ-event). If Paul did hold to such a view regarding his opponents, we would expect it to be evident in his interpretation of Lev 18:5 – a passage that focuses on the necessity of human deeds. But we have not found the passage to be a declaration of self-righteous human effort. This point has been reiterated ad nauseam since 1977 and does not need further reflection. What we have argued in this study is that on the whole, early Jews understood Lev 18:5 to highlight the human side of the divine/human tension that is seen throughout the documents examined.9 In this sense, then, divine action and human action are seen as compatible, but it is this compatibility that Paul opposes with his gospel of righteousness by faith. Despite these complications with the more traditional view of Paul, we have not found the ―new perspective‖ on Paul to be a very helpful alternative in its understanding of early Jewish and Pauline soteriology; as such, we hope to offer some criticisms in light of our examination of Leviticus. Attempting to critique any ―perspective‖ on Paul has its drawbacks, since within each view there are variations of opinion. (Is there such a thing as the new or old perspective on Paul?) Nevertheless, we can propose a few challenges to three distinctives within the ―new perspective‖ on Paul without attempting to critique the approach as a whole or all its adherents. Our observations here are necessarily limited, moreover, since this study is focused on Lev 18:5 in particular, not Paul and the law in general. We will focus then on issues that we have encountered in our examination of the Leviticus passage. First, our study has challenged E. P. Sanders‘s argument that for early Judaism, observance of the law was not a matter of ―getting in‖ but of same; the Leviticus formula holds true on both sides of the eschatological divide. In Paul, however, before the revelation (Rom 3:21–26) there is no obedience (Rom 1:18–3:20), and after the revelation, God is the source and cause (through Christ and the Spirit) of the obedience of the faithful. So the theological structure of Lev 18:5, while embraced by early Judaism, is opposed by Paul: the ―if . . . then‖ formulation of Leviticus runs against the grain of the unilateral gospel that demands nothing but faith in what God has done in Christ. 9 L.A.B., however, is quite different. For him, the emphasis falls heavily on the divine side of the tension – if we should even speak of a tension. Philo is working within a different theological structure, though the divine/human tension may be seen in his use of Lev 18:5 as well.

204

Chapter 10: Comparison and Conclusion

―staying in‖ the covenant; that is, obedience is a response to, not a condition of, salvation which is established by God‘s prior election. It has been shown throughout this study that Sanders‘s construal, while not entirely inaccurate is not entirely accurate either.10 For sectarian Jews, such as the Dead Sea community, adherence to the ―hidden laws‖ revealed by God constitutes one‘s membership in the new covenant. That is, being a member of national Israel did not mean that one was saved as such. One must become a member of the new covenant, sectarian community.11 A similar perspective is seen in the Psalms of Solomon. The sectarian note is sounded more lightly in these texts, but it is heard nonetheless. Being a member of national Israel does not determine one‘s salvation (i.e. one‘s entry into the covenant); rather, life and salvation are given to ―the ones who truly love [God] . . . who walk by the righteousness of his commandments, in the law which he commanded for our life‖ (Lev 18:5 in Pss. Sol. 14:1–2). For Paul, however, salvation comes by faith in what God has done in Christ, not by virtue of any prior human deeds. God‘s saving action is unilateral, not contractual. This is not a return to the old caricatures made by some former NT interpreters, but it does seem clear that Paul‘s opposition to justification by works of law is not without its Jewish background; indeed, it may reflect a reaction to the Deuteronomic theology – the ―if . . . then‖ formulation captured by Lev 18:5 – that pervades the Jewish literature of the time (see below §10.2.3). Second, the antithesis between human deeds and divine saving action suggests more discontinuity between Paul and early Judaism in the literature that we have examined. It is commonplace in scholarship since Sanders (and even before) to point out the remarkable similarities between the soteriological frameworks of early Judaism and Pauline Christianity. The recent studies by Kent Yinger and Chris VanLandingham are prime examples.12 For Yinger, Paul and Judaism both portray a framework where salvation is by grace, and works are a subsequent response to that grace and give evidence of salvation. VanLandingham also argues for continuity, but comes to a very different conclusion: works play a fundamental role in salvation for both Judaism and Paul; they are not just the evidence but the condition of salvation. So here are two divergent conclusions that nonetheless 10 Again, we find Sanders‘s definition of covenantal nomism to be a very good description of the soteriology of L.A.B. It is rather striking that Sanders did not use L.A.B. in support of this thesis, especially since, to my mind at least, this text provides the best proof for firstcentury Palestinian covenantal nomism. For L.A.B., all Israel (except for a few rare exceptions) will be saved and granted eschatological life by virtue of God‘s prior promise made to Abraham. This fits perfectly with Sanders‘s depiction of early Judaism. 11 This is the main concern of Mark A. Elliott, The Survivors of Israel: A Reconsideration of the Theology of Pre-Christian Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000). 12 Kent Yinger, Paul, Judaism, and Judgement According to Deeds (SNTSMS 105; Cambridge: CUP, 1999); VanLandingham, Judgment & Justification.

10.2 Implications for Paul and the Law

205

argue for continuity: Paul and Judaism are of the same soteriological mould. But we have argued that through the lens of Lev 18:5 we can see elements of discontinuity. While early Jewish literature elevates law observance as both the evidence and condition of salvation, Paul‘s gospel was radically shaped by divine saving initiative that gives life apart from any prior human endeavour. In as much as this discontinuity is reflected in the literature, then there is no need to reformulate Paul‘s faith/works antithesis to signify the universal scope of God‘s saving action, rather than the theological shape of that saving action. ―If, for some Jews, law-observance is indeed a condition of divine saving action, then there is no longer any reason to deny that Paul might have contrasted this emphasis on human action with his gospel‘s emphasis on the radical priority of divine action.‖13 Justification by works of the law, then, while not referring to the Jewish attempt to earn salvation ―from scratch by human deeds of righteousness,‖14 can be shown to be a fundamental Jewish axiom in Second Temple literature. A third and final challenge that this study has made concerns the plight in Pauline thought. We have seen that Lev 18:5 was understood as a solution to the plight in Jewish literature (esp. the Damascus Document), and that Paul refutes this very understanding. In Galatians, Lev 18:5 is seen to be an ineffective and inadequate way to escape the plight (viz. the curse of the law). But why? E. P. Sanders‘s dogmatic answer – Lev 18:5 is ineffective because Hab 2:4 is the only effective way – and James Dunn‘s non-soteriological answer – Lev 18:5 is not viewed as a solution to the plight – both seem to fall short of Paul‘s understanding of Leviticus. Neither Sanders nor Dunn give an adequate account of the law‘s relationship to the plight according to Paul. Sanders is probably correct that Paul‘s thinking on the matter begins with the solution and then proceeds to an assessment of the plight, but he has not adequately accounted for the theological reconfiguration that Paul‘s Christology had on the human plight. It is not simply that if righteousness is by faith, then by definition it cannot be by the law. 15 Paul‘s thinking, or 13

Francis Watson, ―Not the New Perspective‖ (unpublished paper presented at the British New Testament Conference, Manchester, U.K., 2001), 1–15 (9); cf. Stephen Westerholm: ―Sanders has shown that Judaism did not generally believe that salvation was earned from scratch by human deeds of righteousness; the point is well taken, but it by no means differentiates Judaism from the classical opponents of ‗Lutheran‘ thought. Each acknowledged human need of divine grace. What the opponents of ‗Lutheranism‘ emphatically did not do, however – what they indeed regarded as morally disastrous to do – was to suggest that humans can contribute nothing to their salvation‖ (Perspectives, 351). 14 Westerholm, Perspectives, 351. 15 E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1983), 68, 84–85; see the judicious summary and critique of Sanders on this point by R. Barry Matlock, ―Almost Cultural Studies? Reflections on the ‗New Perspective‘ on Paul,‖ in Biblical Studies/Cultural Studies: The Third Sheffield Colloquium (ed. J. Cheryl Exum and

206

Chapter 10: Comparison and Conclusion

rethinking, on the plight runs much deeper. His Christology leads him to reassess the effectiveness of law-observance: why exactly did the law fail to give life and salvation?16 Paul‘s answer to this question, an answer that Ezekiel gave over half a millennium before, was that humanity‘s condition (and cosmic enslavement to the powers of this evil age) was so desperate that it necessitates a paradigm of deliverance that circumvents the Deuteronomic contours of Lev 18:5.17 In Dunn‘s construal, the major difference between Judaism and Paul regarding the Deuteronomic pattern of restoration is the scope of God‘s saving act.18 But Dunn fails to recognise that Paul‘s assessment of the human predicament leads him to abandon the contractual nature of Lev 18:5 for the more unilateral paradigm of Hab 2:4.19 Dunn‘s Paul does not have a problem with the inherent Deuteronomic structure of the Leviticus formula – a point we will elaborate on below. 10.2.3 Paul, Judaism, and the Law: Conflicting Paradigms of Restoration So who was correct in their view of Lev 18:5? Was Paul right in his reading of Scripture, while his Jewish contemporaries were wrong? Or was it the other way around? The fact is that both paradigms of restoration evinced in Paul and in Judaism come from the Bible. Here it may be helpful to distinguish, as we have done throughout this study, between restoration that is Deuteronomic and restoration that is prophetic.20 Deuteronomic restoration is more conditional, while prophetic restoration is more unilateral. It is striking, moreover, that both patterns may be found side by side in the OT, as for example in Deut 27–33. Early Judaism generally embraced the pattern of restoration portrayed in the early part of this section (viz. Deut 27–30). Israel is exhorted to obey the law in order to have blessing and life and is threatened with curse and death if they fail to do so (Deut 27:1–28:68; cf. 30:15–20). As the narrative progresses, it becomes clear that the nation will rebel, evoke the covenant curse, and be exiled among the nations (29:22–28; cf. 28:45–48). However, after this the nation will repent and return to the law (30:1–2), and this will initiate God‘s restoration of the nation (30:3–10). Renewed law-obedience is

Stephen D. Moore; JSNTSup 266; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 433–59 (442– 44). 16 Stephen Westerholm, Israel‟s Law and the Church‟s Faith: Paul and His Recent Interpreters (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 155. 17 On Ezekiel, see pages 34–40. 18 See e.g. James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 153, 374. 19 In Dunn‘s treatment of Gal 3:11–12, the theological structure of Hab 2:4 and Lev 18:5 is very similar (Theology, 374). 20 See pages 22–23 for a fuller explanation for these terms.

10.2 Implications for Paul and the Law

207

fundamental to Israel‘s future restoration, and early Jewish literature on the whole concurs.21 But there is another way to read the final chapters of Deuteronomy, one which understands the restoration to be unilateral (i.e. not dependent upon Israel‘s repentance and return to the law), and one which, no doubt, Paul embraces.22 In reading beyond Deut 30, it becomes clear again that Israel will fall away, break the law and the covenant, and elicit God‘s wrath in the latter days (Deut 31:14–39). But in the restoration portrayed in the Song of Moses (Deut 32), Israel does not repent and return to the law, and yet God restores them nonetheless: For the LORD will vindicate his people, and will have compassion on his servants; when he sees that their strength is gone, and there is none remaining, bond or free . . . [he will say] ―See now that I, I am he, and there is no god besides me; it is I who put to death and give life. I have wounded, and it is I who heal.‖ (Deut 31:36–39)

Restoration and forgiveness are entirely unilateral. The Deuteronomic paradigm seen in Deut 30 gives way to a more prophetic announcement of divine saving action that will deliver the nation with no prior conditions.23 So both paradigms of restoration can be validated from the pages of Scripture. It is not inherently wrong or unbiblical to attempt to attain life through the Deuteronomic Lev 18:5 formula – indeed, Scripture commands it (Deut 30:19). While not inherently wrong, this Deuteronomic pattern does conflict with Paul‘s gospel which he believes is structured along prophetic lines: life does not come through ―doing these things‖ (Ezek 20:11, 13, 21; cf. Gal 3:12; Rom 10:5) but through the agency of Christ (Gal 1:4; 2:20; Rom 3:21–26) and the life-giving Spirit (Ezek 36:27; 37:1–14; cf. Rom 8:3–4, 11, 13). There is continuity, then, in the fact that both Paul and early Judaism were wrestling with Scripture to vindicate their own paradigm of restoration.

21

The pattern is seen especially in Jub. 1:7–25; Bar 1:15–5:9; T. Mos. passim; and throughout the Dead Sea Scrolls (esp. 1QS, 4QMMT, CD, 11QT LIX). 22 See Watson, Hermeneutics, 415–73. 23 This pattern of restoration is clear in Ezekiel as we have seen, and also in Jeremiah.

Bibliography Primary Sources and Reference Works Aland, Kurt. et al., ed. Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993. Baillet, M. Qumrân grotte 4.III (4Q482–520). DJD VII. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982. Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 4th ed. Translated and adapted by William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich. 2nd ed., revised by F. Wilbur Gingrich and Fredrick W. Danker. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1979. Baumgarten. J. M. Qumran Cave 4.XIII: The Damascus Document (4Q266 – 273). DJD XVIII. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. Baumgarten, Joseph M. and Daniel R. Schwartz. ―Damascus Document (CD).‖ Pages 4–57 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Vol. 2: Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995. Brenton, Lancelot C. L. The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English. London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1851; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997. Broshi, M., ed. The Damascus Document Reconsidered. Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society, 1992. Brown, Francis., S. R. Driver and C. A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1959. Charlesworth, James H. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 Vols. New York: Doubleday, 1983; 1985. Colson, F. H., et al., eds. Philo. 10 vols. and 2 supps. Loeb. London and Cambridge, Mass.: William Heinemann and Harvard University Press, 1929–62. Dietzfelbinger, Christian. Pseudo-Philo: Antiquitates Biblicae. Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit 2/2. Gütersloher: Gütersloher Verlagshaus/Gerd Mohn, 1975. Elliger, K. and W. Rudolph, eds. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 3rd ed. Revised by W. Rudolph and H. P. Rüger. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1967 [1977]. Garcia Martinez, F., and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, eds. Dead Sea Scroll Study Edition. 2 Vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997, 1998; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Hanhart, Robert ed. Esdras II. Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum 8.2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993. Harrington, Daniel. ―Pseudo-Philo.‖ Pages 297–377 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1983–1985. Holm-Nielsen, Sven. ―Die Psalmen Salomos.‖ Pages 49–12 in Poetische Schriften. Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit 4/2. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus/Gerd Mohn, 1977. Jacobson, Howard. A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 31. 2 Vols. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996.

210

Bibliography

Jewish Publication Society. JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh, 2d ed. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2000. Joüon, Paul and T. Muraoka. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Subsidia Biblica 14. 2 vols. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1991. Kautzsch, E. editor. Gesenius‟ Hebrew Grammar, 2nd English ed. Revised by A. E. Cowley. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910. Lambdin, Thomas O. Introduction to Biblical Hebrew. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1971. Liddell, Henry George and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon, 9th ed. Revised by Henry Stuart Jones, with Roderick McKenzie. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. Louw, Johannes P. and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. Second Edition. 2 Vol. New York: United Bible Society, 1989. Marcus, R. Philo: Supplement 1. In Philo. 10 vols. and 2 supps. Loeb. Edited by Colson, F. H., et al. London and Cambridge, Mass.: William Heinemann and Harvard University Press, 1929–62. Olson, Dennis T. ―Words of the Lights.‖ Pages 107–53 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations Vol. 4a. Edited by James Charlesworth. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1997. Rahlfs, A., ed. Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes. Two vols. in one. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979 Waltke, Bruce K. and M. O‘Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Wevers, John William, ed. Leuiticus. Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum 2.2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986. . Deuteronomium. Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum 3.2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977. Whiston, W. The Works of Josephus. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1992. Wise, M., M. Abegg, and E. Cook. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation. London and San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1996. Wright, R. B. ―Psalms of Solomon.‖ Pages 639–70 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. 2 Vols. New York: Doubleday, 1985. Yonge, C. D. The Works of Philo. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1995. Ziegler, Joseph, ed. Ezechiel. Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum16. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1952.

Secondary Sources Abegg, Martin G. ―The Covenant of the Qumran Sectarians.‖ Pages 81–97 in The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Jacqueline C. R. De Roo. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Aejmelaeus, Anneli. Parataxis in the Septuagint: A Study of the Renderings of the Hebrew Coordinate Clauses in the Greek Pentateuch. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1982. . On the Trial of the Septuagint Translators. Kampen: Pharos, 1993. Alexandre, M. De Congressu Eruditionis Gratis. Vol. 16 of Les Oeuvres de Philon d‟Alexandrie. Paris: Cerf, 1967. Alexander, Philipp. ―Predestination and Free Will in the Theology of the Dead Sea Scrolls.‖ Pages 27–49 in Divine and Human Agency in Paul and His Cultural Environment. Edited by John M. G. Barclay and Simon J. Gathercole. Library of New Testament Studies 335. London: T & T Clark/Continuum, 2006.

Secondary Sources

211

Allen, Leslie. Ezekiel 1–19. Word Biblical Commentary 28A. Dallas: Word, 1994. Anderson, Francis. Habakkuk: A New Translation and Commentary. Anchor Bible 25. New York: Doubleday, 2001. Assan-Dhôte, Isabelle et Jacqueline Moatti-Fine. ―Baruch, Lamentations, Lettre de Jérémie.‖ Vol. 25.2 of La Bible d‟Alexandrie. Paris: Cerf, 2005. Atkinson, Ken. An Intertextual Study of The Psalms of Solomon. Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen Press, 2001. . ―Toward a Redating of the Psalms of Solomon: Implications for Understanding the Sitz im Leben of an Unknown Jewish Sect.‖ Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 17 (1998): 95–112. Avemarie, Friedrich. ―Paul and the Claim of the Law According to the Scripture: Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12 and Romans 10:5.‖ Pages 125–48 in The Beginnings of Christianity: A Collection of Articles. Edited by Jack Pastor and Menachem Mor. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2005. . Tora und Leben: Untersuchungen zur Heilsbedeutung der Tora in der frühen rabbinischen Literatur. Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 55. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. Bachmann, Michael. ―4QMMT und Galaterbrief, hrwth y#(m und ERGA NOMOU‖ Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 89 (1998): 91 113. Repr. Pages 33–56 in Antijudaismus im Galaterbrief: Exegetische Studien zu einem polemischen Schreiben und zur Theologie des Apostels Paulus. Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus 40. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1999. . ―Rechtfertigung und Gesetzeswerke bei Paulus.‖ Theologische Zeitschrift 49 (1993): 1–33. Repr. Pages 1–31 in Antijudaismus im Galaterbrief: Exegetische Studien zu einem polemischen Schreiben und zur Theologie des Apostels Paulus. Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus 40. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1999. Badenas, Robert. Christ, the End of the Law: Romans 10.4 in Pauline Perspective. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 10. JSOT Press, 1985. Bandstra, A. J. The Law and the Elements of the World. Kampen: Kok, 1964. Barclay, John M. G. ―‗By the Grace of God I Am What I Am‘: Grace and Agency in Philo and Paul.‖ Pages 140–57 in Divine and Human Agency in Paul and His Cultural Environment. Edited by John M. G. Barclay and Simon J. Gathercole. Library of New Testament Studies 335. London: T & T Clark/Continuum, 2006. . ―Paul‘s Story: Theology as Testimony.‖ Pages 133–56 in Narrative Dynamics in Paul: A Critical Assessment. Edited by Bruce Longenecker. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002. . Obeying the Truth: Paul‟s Ethics in Galatians. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1988. Barclay, John M. G., and Simon J. Gathercole, eds. Divine and Human Agency in Paul and His Cultural Environment. Library of New Testament Studies 335. London: T & T Clark/Continuum, 2006. Barker, Paul. The Triumph of Grace in Deuteronomy. Carlisle: Paternoster, 2004. Barrett, Charles K. ―Romans 9:30–10:21: Fall and Responsibility of Israel.‖ Pages 132–53 in Essays on Paul. London: SPCK, 1982. . ―The Allegory of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar in the Argument of Galatians.‖ Pages 154–70 in Essays on Paul. London: SPCK, 1982. Bauckham, Richard. ―Life, Death, and the Afterlife in Second Temple Judaism.‖ Pages 80–95 in Life in the Face of Death: The Resurrection Message of the New Testament. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. . The Fate of the Dead: Studies on the Jewish and Christian Apocalypses. Leiden: Brill, 1998.

212

Bibliography

Bauckham, Richard. ―The Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum of Pseudo-Philo and the Gospels as ‗Midrash‘.‖ Pages 33–76 in Gospel Perspectives III: Studies in Midrash and Historiography. Edited by R. T. France. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983. Baumgarten, Joseph M. ―The Laws of the Damascus Document in Current Research.‖ Pages 51–62 in The Damascus Document Reconsidered. Edited by M. Broshi. Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society, 1992. . ―The Cave 4 Version of the Qumran Penal Code,‖ Journal of Jewish Studies 43 (1992): 268–76. Beker, J. C. Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980. Bekken, Per Jarle. ―Paul‘s Use of Deut 30,12–14 in Jewish Context.‖ Pages 183–203 in The New Testament and Hellenistic Judaism. Edited by P. Borgen and S. Giversen. Peabody, Mass : Hendrickson, 1997. Betchler, Richard. ―Christ, the Te/loj of the Law: The Goal of Romans 10:4.‖ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 56 (1994): 288–308. Berkley, Timothy W. From a Broken Covenant to Circumcision of the Heart: Pauline Intertextual Exegesis in Romans 2:17–29. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 175. Atlanta: SBL, 2000. Betz, Hans Dieter. Galatians: A Commentary on Paul‟s Letter to the Churches in Galatia. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979. Betz, Otto. ―The Qumran Halakhah Text Miqsat Ma„se Ha-Torah [4QMMT] and Sadducean, Essene, and Early Pharisaic Tradition.‖ Pages 176–202 in The Aramaic Bible: Targums in Their Historical Context. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 166. Edited by D. R. G. Beattie and M. J. McNamara. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994. Bigger, Stephen. ―The Family Laws of Lev 18 in Their Setting.‖ Journal of Biblical Literature 98 (1979): 187–203. Bird, Michael F. The Saving Righteousness of God: Studies on Paul, Justification, and the New Perspective. Carlisle: Paternoster, 2007. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Ezra–Nehemiah: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster-John Knox, 1988. Bockmuehl, Markus. ―1QS and Salvation at Qumran.‖ Pages 381–414 in Justification and Variegated Nomism: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism. Vol. 1. Edited by D. A. Carson, Peter T. O‘Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001. Boda, Mark J. Praying the Tradition: The Origin and Use of Tradition in Nehemiah 9. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 277. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1999. Bogart, P. M. Pseudo-Philon: Les Antiquites Bibliques. Edited by Daniel Harrington, et al. Sources chrétiennes 230. Paris: Cerf, 1976. Borgen, Peder. Philo of Alexandria: An Exegete for His Time. Novum Testamentum Supplements 86. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997. . ―Philo of Alexandria.‖ Pages 233–82 in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus. Edited by Michael E. Stone. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984. Borse, Udo. Der Brief an die Galater. Regensburger Neues Testament. Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1984. Braun, H. ―Vom Erbarmen Gottes über den Gerechten: Zur Theologie der Psalmen Salomos.‖ Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 43 (1951): 1–54. Bring, Ragnar. ―Paul and the Old Testament: A Study of the Ideas of Election, Faith and Law in Paul, with Special Reference to Romans 9:30–10:30.‖ Studia theologica 25 (1971): 21– 60

Secondary Sources

213

Brownlee, William H. ―The Placarded Revelation of Habakkuk.‖ Journal of Biblical Literature 82 (1963): 319–25. . The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk. Journal of Biblical Literature Monograph Series. Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, 1959. Bryan, Christopher. A Preface to Romans: Notes on the Epistle in its Literary and Cultural Setting. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Bryant, Robert A. The Risen and Crucified Christ in Galatians. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 185. Atalanta: SBL, 2001. Brooke, George. ―The Canon Within the Canon At Qumran and in the New Testament.‖ Pages 242–56 in The Scrolls and the Scriptures: Qumran Fifty Years After. Edited by Stanley Porter and Craig A. Evans. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplements 26. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. Buchanan, George W. The Consequences of the Covenant. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970. Büchler, A. Types of Jewish-Palestinian Piety from 70 B.C.E. to 70 C.E. New York: Ktav, 1922. Bultmann, Rudolph. Essays Philosophical and Theological. London: SCM, 1955. . Theology of the New Testament. New York: Scribner‘s, 1951. Burkes, Shannon. ―‗Life‘ Redefined: Wisdom and Law in Fourth Ezra and Second Baruch.‖ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 63 (2001): 55–71. Burnett, Fred W. ―Philo on Immortality: A Thematic Study of Philo‘s Concept of paliggenesi/a.‖ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 46 (1984): 447–70. Buttrick, G. A. ed. The Interpreter‟s Dictionary of the Bible. 4 vols. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962. Bruegemann, Walter. Theology of the Old Testament. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997. Burton, Ernest De Witt. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians. International Critical Commentary. Edingburgh; T & T Clark, 1921. Byrne, Brendan. Romans. Sacra pagina. Collegeville Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1996. . ―Living Out the Righteousness of God: The Contribution of Rom 6:1–8:13 to an Understanding of Paul‘s Ethical Presuppositions.‖ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43 (1981): 557–81. Campbell, Douglas. ―Romans 9:30–10:18—An Apocalyptic Approach.‖ Paper presented at Duke Divinity School. Durham, N.C.: April 2006. . The Quest for Paul‟s Gospel: A Suggested Strategy. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement 274. New York: T & T Clark/Continuum, 2005. Campbell, Jonathon. The Use of Scripture in the Damascus Document 1–8, 19–20. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 228. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995. Cavallin, H. C. C. Life After Death: Paul‟s Argument for the Resurrection of the Dead in 1 Cor 15, Part 1: An Enquiry into the Jewish Background. Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1974. . ―‗The Righteous Shall Live by Faith‘: A Decisive Argument for the Traditional Interpretation.‖ Studia theologica 32 (1978): 33–43. Charles, R. H. A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life in Israel, In Judaism and in Christianity, or Hebrew, Jewish and Christian Eschatology. Jowett Lectures 1898–99. London, 1899. Repr. Eschatology: The Doctrine of a Future Life in Israel, Judaism and Christianity (a Critical History). New York: Schocken Books, 1963. Chazon, Esther. ―Is Divrei Ha-Me‟orot A Sectarian Prayer?.‖ Pages 3–17 in The Dead Sea Scrolls Forty Years of Research. Edited by Devorah Dimant and Uriel Rappaport. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 10. Leiden: Brill, 1992. . ―4QDibHam: Liturgy or Literature?.‖ Revue de Qumran 15 (1991–92): 447 55. Cholewinski, Alfred. Heiligkeitsgesetz und Deuteronomium: Eine vergleichende Studie. Analecta biblica 66. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 197.

214

Bibliography

Chrostowski, W. ―An Examination of Conscience by God‘s People as Exemplified in Neh 9:6–37.‖ Biblische Zeitschrift 34 (1990): 253–61. Ciampa, Roy E. The Presence and Function of Scripture in Galatians 1 and 2. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 102. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1998. Coggins, Richard. ―What Does ‗Deuteronomistic‘ Mean?‖ Pages 22–35 in Those Elusive Deuteronomists. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 268. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Collins, Adela Y. Cosmology and Eschatology in Jewish and Christian Apocalypticism. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Collins, John J. The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to the Jewish Matrix of Christianity. 2nd Edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Cooke, A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1936. Cosgrove, Charles H. The Cross and the Spirit: A Study in the Argument and Theology of Galatians. Macon, Ga.: Mercer, 1988. Cranfield, C. E. B. Romans. 2 vols. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1975–1979. Cranford, Michael. ―The Possibility of Perfect Obedience: Paul and the Implied Premise in Galatians 3:10 and 5:3.‖ Novum Testamentum 36 (1994): 242–58. Cullmann, Oscar. Christ and Time: The Primitive Christian Conception of Time and History. Translated by Floyd V. Filson. London: SCM Press, 1951. Cummins, Stephen A. Paul and the Crucified Christ in Antioch: Maccabean Martyrdom and Galatians 1 and 2. Cambridge: CUP, 2001. Dahl, Nils. ―Widersprüche in der Bibel, ein altes hermeneutisch Problem.‖ Studia theologica 25 (1971), 1–19. Repr. and Translated as ―Contradictions in Scripture.‖ Pages 155–77 in Studies in Paul: Theology for the Early Christian Mission. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977. Das, A. Andrew. Paul and the Jews. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004. . Paul, the Law, and the Covenant. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2001. Davies, Glenn N. Faith and Obedience in Romans: A Study in Romans 1–4. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 39. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. Davies, Phillip R. ―The Judaisms in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Case of the Messiah.‖ Pages 219–32 in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Historical Context. Edited by Graeme A. Auld et al. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000. . The Damascus Covenant: An Interpretation of the “Damascus Document.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 25. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1983. Dines, Jennifer. The Septuagint. London: T & T Clark. 2004. Doughty, Darrel J. ―The Priority of XARIS.‖ New Testament Studies 19 (1972–73): 163–80. Douglas, Mary. Leviticus as Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. . ―Justice as the Cornerstone: An Interpretation of Leviticus 18–20.‖ Interpretation 53 (1999): 341–50. Duggan, Michael W. The Covenant Renewal in Ezra–Nehemiah (Neh 7:72b–10:40): an Exegetical, Literary, and Theological Study. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 164. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001. Dunn, James D. G. The New Perspective on Paul. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 185. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2005. . ―Noch einmal ‗Works of the Law‘: The Dialogue Continues.‖ Pages 407–22 in The New Perspective on Paul. . ―Yet Once More – ‗The Works of the Law‘: A Response.‖ Pages 207–20 in The New Perspective on Paul. . ―4QMMT and Galatians.‖ Pages 333–39 in The New Perspective on Paul.

Secondary Sources

215

. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. . Epistle to the Galatians. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1993. . Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1990. . Romans (Word Biblical Commentary 38A. Dallas: Word, 1988. . ―‗Righteousness from the Law‘ and ‗Righteousness from Faith‘: Paul‘s Interpretation of Scripture in Romans 10:1–10.‖ Page 216–28 in Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament: Essays in Honor of E. Earle Ellis for His 60th Birthday. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne and Otto Betz. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987. Eckstein, Hans Joachim. Verheißung und Gesetz: Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu Galater 2,15–4,7. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 86. Tübingen: MohrSiebeck, 1996. . ―‗Nahe ist dir das Wort: Exegetische Erwägungen zu Röm 10 8.‖ Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 79 (1988): 204–220. Elliger, K. Leviticus (Handbuch zum Alten Testament 4. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1966. Elliot, Mark Adam. The Survivors of Israel: A Reconsideration of the Theology of PreChristian Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Enns, Peter. ―Expansions of Scripture.‖ Pages 73–98 in Justification and Variegated Nomism: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism. Edited by D. A. Carson, Mark A. Seifrid, and Peter T. O‘Brien. Vol. 1 of Justification and Variegated Nomism (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 140. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2001. Esler, Phillip F. Galatians. London/New York: Routledge, 1998. Eskenazi, Tamara Cohn. ―Nehemiah 9–10: Structure and Significance.‖ Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 3 (2000–2001): 1–9. Evans, Craig A. ―Covenant in the Qumran Literature.‖ Pages 55–80 in The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Jacqeline C. R. De Roo; Leiden: Brill, 2003. Falk, Daniel. ―Psalms and Prayers.‖ Pages 70–56 in Justification and Variegated Nomism. Edited by D. A. Carson, Peter T. O‘Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 140. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2001. . Daily, Sabbath, and Festival Prayers in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 27. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Fee, Gordon D. God‟s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994. Feldman, Louis. Prolegomena to The Biblical Antiquities of Philo, by M. R. James. New York: Ktav, 1971. Fensham, F. C. The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. Fishbane, Michael. ―Use, Authority and Interpretation of Mikra at Qumran.‖ Pages 339–77 in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading, and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by M. J. Mulder. Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum 2.1. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. . Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985. Fisk, Bruce. Do You Not Remember? Scripture, Story and Exegesis in the Rewritten Bible of Pseudo-Philo. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplements 37. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Fitzmyer, Joseph. Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 33. New York: Doubleday, 1993. . ―Habakkuk 2:3–4 and the New Testament‖ Pages 236–46 in To Advance the Gospel: New Testament Studies. New York: Crossroad, 1981. Fletcher-Louis, Crispin H.T. All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 42. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2002.

216

Bibliography

Fraade, Steven D. ―Rhetoric and Hermeneutics in Miqsat Ma‗ase Ha-Torah (4QMMT): The Case of the Blessings and Curses.‖ Dead Sea Discoveries 10 (2003): 150–61. . ―Looking for Legal Midrash at Qumran.‖ Pages 59–79 in Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Michael Stone and Esther Chazon. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Franklyn, P. N. ―The Cultic and Pious Climax of Eschatology in the Psalms of Solomon.‖ Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period 18 (1987): 1–17. Frey, Jörg. ―Die paulinisch Antithese von ‗Fleisch‘ und ‗Geist‘ und die palästinische-jüdische Weisheitstradition.‖ Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 90 (1999): 45–77. Friedrich, Gerhard. ―Glaube und Verkündigung bei Paulus.‖ Pages 93–113 in Glaube im Neuen Testament. Edited by Ferdinand Hahn and Hans Klein. Neukirchen Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982. Fung, Ronald Y. K. The Epistle to the Galatians. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. Gaston, Lloyd. Paul and the Torah. Vancouver: University of British Columbia, 1987. García Martínez, Florentino. ―Review of M. Baillet, Qumrân Grotte 4, III (4Q482 4Q520).‖ Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Romans Period 15 (1984): 157–64. Garlington, Don. ―Role Reversal and Paul‘s Use of Scripture in Galatians 3.10–13.‖ Journal for the Study of the New Testament 65 (1997): 85–121. Gathercole, Simon J. ―Sin in God‘s Economy: Agencies in Romans 1 and 7.‖ Pages 158–72 in Divine and Human Agency. Edited by John M. G. Barclay and Simon J. Gathercole. . ―Torah, Life, and Salvation: Leviticus 18:5 in Early Judaism and the New Testament.‖ Pages 126–45 in From Prophecy to Testament: The Use of the Old Testament in the New. Edited by C.A. Evans. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004. . ―Justified by Faith, Justified by His Blood: The Evidence from Romans 1:18 4:25.‖ Pages 147–84 in Justification and Variegated Nomism, Vol. 2: The Paradoxes of Paul. Edited by D. A. Carson, Peter T. O‘Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004. . Where is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul‟s Response in Romans 1–5. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Gaventa, Beverly. ―The Singularity of the Gospel: A Reading of Galatians.‖ Pages 147–59 in Pauline Theology, vol 1: Thessalonians, Philippians, Galatians, Philemon. Edited by J. M. Bassler. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991. . ―Galatians 1 and 2: Autobiography as Paradigm,‖ Novum Testamentum 28 (1986): 309–26. Gignac, Alain. ―Citation de Lévitique 18,5 en Romains 10,5 et Galates 3,12: Deux lectures différentes des rapports Christ-Torah?‖ Église et théologie 25 (1994): 367–403. Gilbert, M. ―La Place de la loi dans la prière de Néhemiah 9.‖ Pages 307–16 in De la Tôrah au Messie. Edited by M. Carrez, J. Dore, and P. Grelot. Paris: Desclée, 1981. Glatt-Gilad, David A. ―Reflections on the Structure and significance of hnm) (Neh 10:29– 40).‖ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 112 (2000): 386–95. Greenburg, Moshe. Ezekiel 1–20. Anchor Bible 22A. New York: Doubleday, 1983. Grünwaldt, Klaus. Die Heiligkeitsgesetz Leviticus 17–26: Ursprüngliche Gestalt, Tradition und Theologie. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999. Gundry, Robert. ―Grace, Works, and Staying Saved in Paul.‖ Biblica 66 (1985): 1–38. Haak, Robert D. Habakkuk. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1992. Haacker, K. ―Die Geschichtstheologie von Röm 9–11 im Lichte philonischer Schriftauslegung.‖ New Testament Studies 43 (1997): 209–22. Halpern-Amaru, Betsy. Rewriting the Bible: Land and Covenant in Post-Biblical Jewish Literature. Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1994.

Secondary Sources

217

Hansen, G. Walter. ―A Paradigm of the Apocalypse: The Gospel in the Light of Epistolary Analysis.‖ Pages 194–221 in Gospel in Paul: Studies on Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans for Richard N. Longenecker. Edited by L. A. Jervis and P. Richardson. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Repr. Pages 143–54 in The Galatians Debate. Edited by Mark D. Nanos. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002. Harlé, P. and D. Pralon. Le Lévitique. Vol. 3 of La Bible d‟Alexandrie. Paris: Cerf, 1988. . ―The Biblical Text of Pseudo-Philo‘s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum,‖ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 33 [1971]: 1–17. . ―The Original Language of Pseudo-Philo‘s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum,‖ Harvard Theological Review 63 (1970): 503–14. Hartley, John. Leviticus. Word Biblical Commentary 4. Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1992. Hay, David M. ―Philo of Alexandria.‖ Pages 357–79 in Justification and Variegated Nomism: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism. Edited by D. A. Carson, Peter T. O‘Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid. Vol. 1. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 140. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2001. Hays, Richard. ―Who Has Believed Our Message?: Paul‘s Reading of Isaiah.‖ Pages 46–70 in New Testament Writers and the Old Testament: An Introduction. Edited by John M. Court. London: SPCK, 2002. . The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1–4:11. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. . ―The Letter to the Galatians.‖ Pages 181–348 in The New Interpreter‟s Bible. Edited by Leander Keck. Vol. 11. Nashville: Abdingdon Press, 2000. . Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1989. Hempel, Charlotte. The Damascus Texts. Sheffield: Academic Press, 2000. . The Laws of the Damascus Document: Sources, Traditions and Redaction. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 29. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998. . ―The Penal Code Reconsidered.‖ Pages 337–48 in Legal Texts and Legal Issues. Edited by M. J. Bernstein, F. García-Martínez, and J. Kampen. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 23. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Herrmann, J. Ezechielstudien. Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 2. Leipzig, 1908. Hilgert, Earle. ―The Dual Image of Joseph in Hebrew and Early Jewish Literature.‖ Biblical Research 30 (1985): 5–21. Hofius, Otfried. ―‗Werke des Gesetzes‘: Untersuchungen zu der paulinischen Rede von den e1rga no/mou.‖ Pages 271–310 in Paulus und Johannes: Exegetische Studien zur paulinischen und johanneischen Theologie und Literatur. Edited by Dieter Sänger und Ulrich Mell. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 198. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. . ―Wort Gottes und Glaube bei Paulus.‖ Pages 148–74 in Paulusstudien 2. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 51; Tübingen: Mohr, 1994. . ―Das Evangelium und Israel: Erwägungen zu Römer 9–11.‖ Pages 178–84 in Paulusstudien I. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 51. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1989. . ―Zur Auslegung von Römer 9,30–33.‖ Pages in 155–66 in Paulusstudien I . Holmgren, Fredrick C. Israel Alive Again: A Commentary on the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. International Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987. Hooker, Morna D. ―Paul and Covenantal Nomism.‖ Pages 47–56 in Paul and Paulinism. Edited by M. D. Hooker and S. G. Wilson. London: SPCK, 1982. House, Paul. Old Testament Theology. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1998. Howard, George E. Crisis in Galatia. Cambridge: CUP, 1979. . ―Christ the End of the Law.‖ Journal of Biblical Literature 88 (1969): 331–37.

218

Bibliography

Hübner, Hans. ―Was Heisst bei Paulus ‗Werke des Gesetzes‘?.‖ Pages 123–33 in Glaube und Eschatologie. Edited by E. Grässer and O. Merk. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1985. . The Law in Paul‟s Thought. Edited by John Riches. Translated by James C. G. Greig. Edingburgh: T & T Clark, 1984. Humphrey, Edith. ―Why Bring the Word Down? The Rhetoric of Demonstration and Disclosure in Romans 9:30–10:21.‖ Pages 129–48 in Romans and the People of God: Essays in Honor of Gorden D. Fee on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday. Edited by N. T. Wright and S. Soderlund. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Hurvitz, Avi. A Linguistic Study of the Relationship Between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel. Paris: Gabalda, 1982. Ito, Akio. ―The Written Torah and the Oral Gospel: Romans 10:5–13 in the Dynamic Tension between Orality and Literacy.‖ Novum Testamentum 48 (2006): 234 60. Janzen, G. ―Habakkuk 2:2–4 in the Light of Recent Philological Advances.‖ Harvard Theological Review 73 (1980): 53–78. . ―Eschatological Symbol and Existence in Habakkuk.‖ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 44 (1982): 394–414. Jervis, L. Ann. ―‗The Commandment Which Is for Life‘ [Romans 7.10]: Sin‘s Use of the Obedience of Faith.‖ Journal for the Study of the New Testament 27 (2004): 193–216 Jewett, R. Paul‟s Anthropological Terms. Leiden: Brill, 1971. Jobes, Karen H. and Moisés Silva. Invitation to the Septuagint. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000. Johnson, E. Elizabeth. The Function of Apocalyptic and Wisdom Traditions in Romans 9–11. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 109. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. Johnson, Marshall. ―The Paralysis of the Torah in Habakkuk 1:4.‖ Vetus Testamentum 35 (1985): 257–66. Joosten, Jan. People and Land in the Holiness Code: An Exegetical Study of the Ideational Framework of the Law in Leviticus 17–26. Vetus Testamentum Supplements 67. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Joyce, Paul. Divine Initiative and Human Response in Ezekiel. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 51. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. Kaiser, Walter. ―Leviticus: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections.‖ Pages 985–1191 in The New Interpreter‟s Bible Commentary in Twelve Volumes. Edited by Leander Keck. Vol 1. Nashville: Abingdon, 1994. . ―Leviticus 18:5 and Paul: Do This and You Shall Live (Eternally?).‖ Journal for the Evangelical Theological Society 14 (1971): 19–28. Käsemann, Ernst. Commentary on Romans. Translated and edited by G. W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. . Perspectives on Paul. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971. Keck, Leander. Romans. Abingdon New Testament Commentaries. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2005. Kim, Kyoung-Shik. ―God Will Judge Each One According to His Works: The Investigation into the Use of Psalm 62:13 in Early Jewish Literature and the New Testament.‖ Ph.D. diss., Aberdeen University, 2005. Kim, Seyoon. Paul and the New Perspective: Second Thoughts on the Origin of Paul‟s Gospel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Kittel, Bonnie. The Hymns of Qumran: Translation and Commentary. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1981. Kittel, G., and G. Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976. Klein, G. ―Individualgeschichte und Weltgeschichte bei Paulus.‖ Pages 180–224 in Rekonstruktion und Interpretation: Gesammelte Aufsätze am Neuen Testament. Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie 50. Munich: Kaiser, 1969.

Secondary Sources

219

Knibb, Michael A. The Qumran Community. Cambridge Commentaries on Writings of the Jewish and Christian World 200 BC to AD 200. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Koch, Dietrich-Alex. Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus. Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 69. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1986. Kraus, Wolfgang and R. Glenn Wooden, eds. Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 53. Atlanta: SBL, 2006. Kuss, Otto. Der Römerbrief. 3 vols. Regensburg: Pustet, 1963–78. Kuula, Kari. The Law, The Covenant, and God‟s Plan: Volume 1. Paul‟s Polemical Treatment of the Law in Galatians. Finnish Exegetical Society 72. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999. Laato, Timo. Paul and Judaism: An Anthropological Approach. Translated by T. McElwain. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Lambrecht, Jan. ―Curse and Blessing. A Study of Galatians 3, 10–14.‖ Pages 271–98 in Pauline Studies: Collected Essays by Jan Lambrecht. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum Iovaniensium 115. Leuven: University Press, 1994. Lange, Armin. Weisheit und Prädestination: Weisheitliche Urordnung und Prädestination in den Textfunden von Qumran. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 18. Leiden: Brill, 1995. . ―Wisdom and Predestination in the Dead Sea Scrolls.‖ Dead Sea Discoveries 2 (1995): 340–54 Lategan, Bernard. ―Is Paul Defending His Apostleship in Galatians? ‖ New Testament Studies 34 (1988): 411–30. Lichtenberger, Hermann. Das Ich Adams und das Ich der Menschheit: Studien zum Menschenbild in Römer 7. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 164. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2004. Lim, Timothy. Holy Scripture in the Qumran Commentaries and Pauline Letters. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997. . ―Midrash Pesher in the Pauline Letters.‖ Pages 280–92 in The Scrolls and the Scriptures: Qumran Fifty Years After. Edited by S. E. Porter and C. A. Evans. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplements 26. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1997. Lindars, Barnabas. New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of the Old Testament Quotations. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961. Lindemann, A. ―Die Gerechtigkeit aus dem Gesetz: Erwägungen zur Auslegung und zur Textgeschichte von Römer 10:5.‖ Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 73 (1982): 231–50. Lohmeyer, E. Probleme paulinischer Theologie. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1954. Lohse, Eduard. Der Brief an die Römer. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003. Longenecker, Bruce. The Triumph of Abraham‟s God: The Transformation of Identity in Galatians. Nashville: Abingdon, 1998. . ―Defining the Faithful Character of the Covenant Community: Galatians 2.15–21 and Beyond.‖ Pages 74–97 in Paul and the Mosaic Law. Longenecker, Richard, ed. Life in the Face of Death: The Resurrection Message of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. . Galatians. Word Biblical Commentary 41. Dallas: Word, 1990. Lührmann, Dieter. ―Paul and the Pharisaic Tradition.‖ Journal for the Study of the New Testament 36 (1989): 75–94. Lull, David J. The Spirit in Galatia. Chico: Scholars Press, 1980. Lundbom, Jack. Jeremiah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 21A–C. New York: Doubleday, 1999.

220

Bibliography

Lust, Johan. ―Exegesis and Theology in the Septuagint of Ezekiel: The Longer ‗Pluses‘ and Ezek 43:1–9.‖ Pages 201–232 in VI Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Edited by Claude E. Cox. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 23. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. Lyons, G. Pauline Autobiography: Toward a New Understanding. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 73. Atlanta: SBL, 1985. Mansfeld, Jaap. ―Heraclitus, Empedocles, and Others in a Middle Platonist Cento in Philo of Alexandria.‖ Vigiliae Christianae 39 (1985): 131–56. Marquis, Galen. ―Consistency of Lexical Equivalents as a Criterion for the Evaluation of Translation Technique as Exemplified in the LXX Book of Ezekiel.‖ Pages 405–424 in VI Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Edited by Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glen Wooden. . ―Word Order as Criterion for the Evaluation of Translation Technique and the Evaluation of Word-Order Variants as Exemplified in LXX-Ezekiel.‖ Textus 13 (1986): 59–90. Martyn, J. Louis. Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 33A. New York: Doubleday, 1997. . Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul. Nashville: Abingdon, 1997. . ―Events in Galatia: Modified Covenantal Nomism versus God‘s Invasion of the Cosmos in the Singular Gospel: A Response to J. D. G. Dunn and B. R. Gaventa.‖ Pages 160–79 in Pauline Theology, Vol 1: Thessalonians, Philippians, Galatians, Philemon. Edited by Jouette M. Bassler. Matera, Frank J. Galatians. Sacra pagina 9. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1992. Matlock, R. Barry. ―Sins of the Flesh and Suspicious Minds: Dunn‘s New Theology of Paul.‖ Journal for the Study of the New Testament 72 (1998): 67–90. . ―Almost Cultural Studies? Reflections on the ‗New Perspective‘ on Paul.‖ Pages 433–59 in Biblical Studies/Cultural Studies: The Third Sheffield Colloquium. Edited by J. Cheryl Exum and Stephen D. Moore. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 266. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. McGregor, L. J. The Greek Text of Ezekiel: An Examination of Its Homogeneity. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 18. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985. McLay, R. Timothy. The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Mendelson, Alan. Secular Education in Philo of Alexandria. Cincinnati: HUCA Press, 1982. Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2d ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994. Meyer, Paul.―The Worm at the Core of the Apple: Exegetical Reflections on Romans 7.‖ Pages 62–82 in The Conversation Continues: Studies in Paul and John, Essays in Honour of J. Louis Martyn. Edited by R. T. Fortna and B. R. Gaventa. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1990. Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus. 3 Vols. Anchor Bible 3A–C. New York: Doubleday, 1991–2001. Milik, J. T. ―Milki-sedeq et Milki-resa dans les anciens écrits juifs et chrétiens.‖ Journal of Jewish Studies 23 (1972): 95–144. Mohrmann, Doug C. ―Making Sense of Sex: A Study of Leviticus 18.‖ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 29 (2004): 57–79. . ―Boast Not in Your Righteousness from the Law: A New Reading of Romans 10.6– 8.‖ Journal for Graeco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 2 (2001–2005): 76–99. Moo, Doug. The Epistle to the Romans. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. . ―Israel and Paul in Romans 7.7–12.‖ New Testament Studies 32 (1986): 122–35.

Secondary Sources

221

Morris, Jenny. ―The Writings of Philo.‖ Pages 819–89 in The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C. – A.D. 135), by Emil Schürer. Revised and edited by M. Black, G. Vermes, F. G. B. Millar. 4 vols. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1973–87. Morris, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans. Pillar New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. Munck, Johannes. Christ and Israel: An Interpretation of Romans 9–11. Translated by Ingeborg Nixon. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967. Murphy, Fredrick J. Pseudo-Philo: Rewriting the Bible. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. . ―The Eternal Covenant in Pseudo-Philo,‖ Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 3 (1988): 43–57. . ―Divine Plan, Human Plan: A Structuring Theme in Pseudo-Philo.‖ Jewish Quarterly Review 77 (1986): 5–14. Murphy-O‘Connor, Jerome. ―An Essene Missionary Document? CD II, 14–VI, 1.‖ Revue Biblique 78 (1971): 201–29. . ―A Literary Analysis of Damascus Document VI,2–VIII,3.‖ Revue Biblique 78 (1971): 210–32. . ―The Essenes and their History.‖ Revue Biblique 81 (1974): 215–44. Murray, John. The Epistle to the Romans. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959. Mußner, Franz. Der Galaterbrief. Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 9. Freiburg: Herder, 1974. Newman, Judith H. Praying by the Book: The Scripturalization of Prayer in Second Temple Judaism. Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and Its Literature 14. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999. . ―Nehemiah 9 and the Scripturalization of Prayer.‖ Pages 112–123 in The Function of Scripture in Early Jewish and Christian Tradition. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 154. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1998. Nickelsburg, George W. E. ―Judgement, Life-After-Death, and Resurrection in the Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha.‖ Pages 141–62 in Judaism in Late Antiquity: Part Four: Death, Life-After-Death, Resurrection and the World To-Come In the Judaisms of Antiquity. Edited by Alan J. Avery-Peck and Jacob Neusner. Leiden: Brill, 2000. . Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981. . ―Good and Bad Leaders in Pseudo-Philo‘s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum.‖ Pages 49–56 in Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms. Edited by John J. Collins and George W. Nickelsburg. Chico, Ca.: Scholars Press, 1980. . Resurrection, Immortality and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972. Nitzan, Bilhah. ―4QBerakhot a–e (4Q286–290): A Covenantal Ceremony in the Light of Related Texts.‖ Revue de Qumran 16 (1995): 487–506. . Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 12. Leiden, Brill: 1994. Nygren, Anders. Commentary on Romans. Translated by Carl C. Rasmussen. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1949. O‘Dell, J. ―The Religious Background of the Psalms of Solomon.‖ Revue de Qumran 3 (1961): 241–57. Oegema, G. S. Für Israel und die Völker: Studien zum alttestamentlich-jüdischen Hintergrund der paulinischen Theologie. Novum Testamentum Supplements 95; Leiden: Brill, 1998. Oepke, Albrecht. Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater. 3d ed. Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1973.

222

Bibliography

Olson, Dennis T. Deuteronomy and the Death of Moses. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994. Porter, Stanley E. ―The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament: A Brief Comment on Method and Terminology.‖ Pages 79–96 in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals. Edited by Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Puech, Emil. La Croyances des Esséniens en la Vie Future. Paris: Cerf, 1993. . ―Review of Qumrân Grotte 4, III [4Q482–4Q520], by M. Baillet.‖ Revue Biblique 95 (1988): 407–409. Räisänen, Heikki. ―Faith, Works and Election in Romans 9: A Response to Stephen Westerholm.‖ Pages 239–46 in Paul and the Mosaic Law. Räisänen, Heikki. ―Das ‗Gesetz des Glaubens‘ (Röm 3:27) und das ‗Gesetz des Geistes‘ (Röm 8:2).‖ New Testament Studies 26 (1979–80), 101–17. Reprinted as pages 48 68 in Jesus, Paul and Torah. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement 43. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992. . Paul and the Law. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986. Reinmuth, Eckart. Pseudo-Philo und Lukas: Studien zum Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum und seiner Bedeutung für die Interpretation des lukanischen Doppelwerks. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 74. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1994. Rendtorff, Rolf. ―Nehemiah 9: An Important Witness of Theological Reflection.‖ Pages 111– 17 in Tehillah le-Moshe: Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenburg. Edited by M. Cogan, B. L. Eichler, and J. Tigay.Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1997. . ―Ez 20 und 36,16ff im Rahmen der Komposition des Buches Ezechiel.‖ Pages 260– 65 in Ezekiel and His Book. Edited by J. Lust. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1986. Renz, Thomas. The Rhetorical Function of the Book of Ezekiel. Vetus Testamentum Supplements 76. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Reventlow, H. Graf. Wächter über Israel. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 82. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1962. Rhyne, T. Faith Establishes the Law. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 55. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1981. Rosner, Brian S. Paul, Scripture and Ethics: A Study of 1 Corinthians 5–7. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 22. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Russell, D. S. The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic. Philadelphia: SCM Press, 1964. Ryle, H. E. and M. R. James. Psalms of the Pharisees, Commonly Called the Psalms of Solomon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1891. Saldarini, A. J. Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society: A Sociological Approach. Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1988. Sanday, William, and Arthur C. Headlam. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1900. Sanders, Ed P. Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 B.C.E.–66 C.E. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1992. . Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1983. . Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977 . ―The Covenant as a Soteriological Category and the Nature of Salvation in Palestinian and Hellenistic Judaism.‖ Pages 11–44 in Jews, Greeks and Christians: Religious Cultures in Late Antiquity, Essays in Honor of William David Davies. Edited by Robert Hamerton-Kelly and Robin Scroggs; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976. Sandmel, Samuel. Philo of Alexandria: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979.

Secondary Sources

223

. ―Virtue and Reward in Philo.‖ Pages 215–23 in Essays in Old Testament Ethics: J. Philip Hyatt, In Memoriam. Edited by J. L Crenshaw and J. T. Willis. New York: Ktav, 1974. Schechter, Solomon. Documents of Jewish Sectaries. I. Fragments of a Zadokite Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1910. Schenck, Kenneth. A Brief Guide to Philo. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2005. Schenker, Adrian. ―What Connects the Incest Prohibitions Listed in Leviticus 18 and 20?‖ Pages 162–85 in The Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception. Edited by Rolf Rendtorff and Robert A. Kugler. Vetus Testamentum Supplements 93. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Schiffman, Lawrence H. ―The Dead Sea Scrolls and Rabbinic Halachah.‖ Pages 3–24 in The Dead Sea Scrolls As Background to Postbiblical Judaism and Early Christianity. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 46. Edited by James R. Davila; Leiden: Brill, 2003. . The Halakhah at Qumran. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 16. Leiden: Brill, 1975. Schmithals, Walther. Die theologische Anthropologie des Paulus: Auslegung von Röm 7,17– 8,39. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1980. Schoeps, H. J. Paul: The Theology of the Apostle Paul in the Light of Jewish Religious History. Translated by Harold Knight. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961. Schreiner, Tom. The Law and Its Fulfillment: A Pauline Theology of Law. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. . ―‗Works of Law‘ in Paul.‖ Novum Testamentum 33 (1991):217–44. . ―Israel‘s Failure to Attain Righteousness in Romans 9:30–10:3.‖ Trinity Journal 12 (1991): 209–20. . ―Is Perfect Obedience to the Law Possible? A Re-examination of Galatians 3:10.‖ Journal for the Evangelical Theological Society (1984): 151–60. Schüpphaus, J. Die Psalmen Salomon: ein Zeugnis Jerusalemer Theologie und Frömigkeit in der Mitte des vorchristlichen Jarhunderts. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977. Schürer, Emil. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Christ (175 B.C. – A.D. 135). Revised and edited by M. Black, G. Vermes, F. G. B. Millar. 4 vols. Edingurgh: T & T Clark, 1973–87. Schwartz, D. R. Leben durch Jesus versus Leben durch die Torah: Zur Religionspolemik der ersten Jahrhundert. Franz-Delitzsch-Vorlesung 1991. Münster: Franz-DelitzschGesellschaft, 1993. Schwarz, Ottilie J. R. Der erste Teil der Damaskusschrift und das AT. Diest: Lichtland, 1965. Schlier, Heinrich. Der Brief an die Galater. 14th ed. Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament 7. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971. Schütz, J. H. Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority. Cambridge: CUP, 1975. Seifrid, Mark A. Christ, Our Righteousness: Paul‟s Theology of Justification. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2000. . ―The ‗New Perspective‘ on Paul and Its Problems.‖ Themelios 25 (2000): 4–18. . Justification by Faith: The Origin and Development of a Central Pauline Theme. Novum Testamentum Supplements 68. Leiden: Brill, 1992. . ―Paul‘s Approach to the Old Testament in Rom 10:6–8.‖ Trinity Journal 6 (1985): 3–37. Shauf, Scott. ―Galatians 2.20 in Context.‖ New Testament Studies 52 (2006): 86–101. Shemesh, Aharon. ―Scriptural Interpretations in the Damascus Document and their parallels in Rabbinic Midrash.‖ Pages 161–75 in The Damascus Document: A Centennial of Discovery. Edited by Joseph Baumgarten, Esther Chazon, and Avital Pinnick. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Shemesh, A. and C. Werman. ―Hidden Things and Their Revelation.‖ Revue de Qumran 18 (1998): 409–27.

224

Bibliography

Sheppard, Gerald T. Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 151. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1980. Silva, Moisés. ―Faith Versus Works of Law in Galatians.‖ Pages 217–48 in Justification and Variegated Nomism: The Complexities of Paul. Edited by D. A. Carson, P. T. O‘Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid. Vol. 2. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Smend, Rudolf. Der Prophet Ezekiel. 2d Edition. Leipzig, 1880. Smiles, Vincent M. ―The Concept of ‗Zeal‘ in Second-Temple Judaism and Paul‘s Critique of It in Romans 10:2.‖ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 64 (2002): 282 99. Smith, Ralph. Micah–Malachi. Word Biblical Commentary 32. Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1984. Snaith, N. H. Leviticus and Numbers. London: Thomas Nelson, 1967. Sprinkle, Preston M. ―The Use of Genesis 42:18 (Not Leviticus 18:5) in Luke 10:28: Joseph and the Good Samaritan,‖ BBR 17 (forthcoming 2007). . ―The Afterlife in Romans: Paul‘s Glory Motif in Light of the Apocalypse of Moses and 2 Baruch.‖ Pages 161–93 in Lebendige Hoffnung – ewiger Tod?! Jenseitsvorstellungen im Hellenismus, Judentum und Christentum. Edited by Manfred Lang and Michael Labahn. Arbeiten zur Bibel und Geschichte 24. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2007. . ―Law and Life: The Use of Leviticus 18.5 in the Literary Framework of Ezekiel.‖ JSOT 31 (2007): 55–73. . ―The Old Perspective on the New Perspective: A Review of Some ‗Pre-Sanders‘ Thinkers.‖ Themelios 30 (2005): 21–31. . ―Review of Where to Live: The Hermeneutical Significance of Paul‘s Citations from Scripture in Galatians 3:1–14, by Andrew Hollis Wakefield. Review of Biblical Literature. http://www.bookreviews.org 2005. Sprinkle, Preston M. and Michael F. Bird. The Faith of Jesus Christ: Biblical, Exegetical, and Theological Studies. Carlisle: Paternoster, forthcoming 2008. Stanley, Christopher D. ―A Decontextualized Paul? A Response to Francis Watson‘s Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith.‖ 28 (2006): 353–62. . Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul. London/New York: T & T Clark/Continuum, 2004. . Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature. Society for the New Testament Monograph Series 69. New York: CUP, 1992. . ―‗Under a Curse‘: A Fresh Reading of Galatians 3.10–14.‖ New Testament Studies 36 (1990): 481–511. Stanton, Graham. ―The Law of Moses and the Law of Christ: Galatians 3:1–6:2.‖ Pages 99– 116 in Paul and the Mosaic Law. Edited by James D. G. Dunn. Stegner, W. R. ―The Parable of the Good Samaritan and Leviticus 18:5.‖ Pages 27–38 in The Living Text. Edited by D. Groh and R. Jewett. Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, 1985. Stemberger, Günter. Der Leib der Auferstehung: Studien zur Anthropologie und Eschatologie des palästinischen Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter. Analecta biblica 56. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1972. Sterling, George. ―Philo Has Not Been Used Half Enough: the Significance of Philo of Alexandria for the Study of the New Testament.‖ Perspectives in Religious Studies 30 (2003): 251–69. Stone, Michael. 4 Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1990. Stowers, Stanley. A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews, and Gentiles. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994. Strawson, William. Jesus and the Future Life. London: Epworth Press, 1970.

Secondary Sources

225

Stuhlmacher, Peter. Paul's Letter to the Romans: A Commentary. Translated by Scott J. Hafemann. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994. Suggs, Jack. ―‗The Word is Near You‘: Romans 10:6–10 within the Purpose of the Letter.‖ Pages 289–312 in Christian History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to John Knox. Edited by W. R. Farmer, C. F. D. Moule, and R. R. Niebuhr. Cambridge: CUP, 1967. Thielman, Frank. From Plight to Solution: A Jewish Framework for Understanding Paul‟s View of the Law in Romans and Galatians. Novum Testamentum Supplements 61. Leiden: Brill, 1989. Thompson, Michael. Clothed with Christ: the Example and Teaching of Jesus in Romans 12.1–15.13. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 59. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Throntveit, M. A. Ezra–Nehemiah. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Louisville: John Knox, 1992. Tov, Emanuel. ―Recensional Differences Between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint of Ezekiel.‖ Pages 397–410 in The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint. Vetus Testamentum Supplements 72. Leiden: Brill, 1999. . ―The Impact of the LXX Translation of the Pentateuch on the Translation of the Other Books.‖ Pages 577–92 in Mélanges Dominique Barthélemy. Edited by P. Casetti, O. Keel, and A. Schenker. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981. Trafton, J. ―The Psalms of Solomon in Recent Research.‖ Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 12 (1994): 3–19. Tyson, Joseph B. ―‗Works of Law‘ in Galatians.‖ Journal of Biblical Literature 92 (1973): 423–32. van de Sandt, H. M. W. ―Research into Rom. 8,4a: The Legal Claim of the Law.‖ Bijdragen 37 (1976): 252–69. . ―An Explanation of Rom. 8,4a.‖ Bijdragen 37 (1976): 361–78. VanLandingham, Chris. Judgment & Justification in Early Judaism and in the Apostle Paul. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2006. Verhoef, E. ―(Eternal) Life and Following the Commandments: Lev 18,5 and Luke 10,28.‖ Pages 571–77 in The Scriptures in the Gospels. Edited by C. M. Tuckett. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997. Vermes, Geza. Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies. Studia post biblica 4. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1961. Vos, Johann. ―Die hermeneutische Antinomie bei Paulus (Galater 3.11–12; Römer 10.5–10).‖ New Testament Studies 38 (1992): 254–70. Vouga, François. An die Galater. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1998. Wadworth, M. ―A New ‗Pseudo-Philo‘.‖ Journal of Jewish Studies 29 (1978): 186–91. Wagner, J. Ross. Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul in Concert in the Letter to the Romans. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Wagner, V. ―Zur Existenz des sogenannten ‗Heiligkeitsgesetzes‘.‖ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 86 (1974): 307–16. Wakefield, Andrew H. Where to Live: The Hermeneutical Significance of Paul‟s Citation from Scripture in Galatians 3:1–14. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 14. Atlanta: SBL, 2004. Watson, Francis. ―Constructing an Antithesis: Pauline and Other Jewish Perspectives on Divine and Human Agency.‖ Pages 99–116 in Divine and Human Agency. Edited by John M. G. Barclay and Simon J. Gathercole. . ―Paul the Reader: An Authorial Apologia.‖ Journal for the Study of the New Testament 28 (2006): 363–73 . Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith. London: T & T Clark/Continuum, 2004. . ―Not the New Perspective.‖ Unpublished paper presented at the British New Testament Conference, Manchester, U.K., 2001.

226

Bibliography

Wellhausen, J. Die Pharisäer und die Sadducäer. Greisswald: L. Bamberg, 1874. Wenham, Gordon. Leviticus. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979. Westerholm, Stephen. ―Paul‘s Anthropological ‗Pessimism‘ in Its Jewish Context.‖ Pages 71–98 in Divine and Human Agency. Edited by John M. G. Barclay and Simon J. Gathercole. . Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. . ―The ‗New Perspective‘ at Twenty-Five‘.‖ Pages 1–38 in Justification and Variegated Nomism, vol. 2. Edited by D. A. Carson, Peter T. O‘Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid. . ―Paul and the Law in Romans 9–11.‖ Pages 215–37 in Paul and the Mosaic Law. Edited by James D. G. Dunn. Wevers, John. Notes on the Greek Text of Leviticus. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 44. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. . Text History of the Greek Leviticus. Mitteilungen des Septuaginta Unternehmens 19. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986. Wilckens, Ulrich. Der Brief an die Römer. Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar 6. 3 Vols. Zürich: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978–1982. Williamson, H. G. M. ―Structure and Historiography in Nehemiah 9.‖ Pages 117–31 in Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Panel Sessions: Bible Studies and Ancient Near East. Edited by Goshen-Gottstein. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988. . Ezra-Nehemiah (Word Biblical Commentary 16. Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1985. Williamson, Ronald. Jews in the Hellenistic World: Philo. Cambridge: CUP, 1989. Willitts, Joel. ―Context Matters: Paul‘s Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12.‖ Tyndale Bulletin 54 (2003): 105–22. Wilson, Todd A. The Curse of the Law and the Crisis in Galatia: Reassessing the Purpose of Galatians. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 225. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2007. Winninge, M. Sinners and Righteous: A Comparative Study of the Psalms of Solomon and Paul‟s Letters. Stockhom: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1995. Winston, David. ―Freedom and Determinism in Philo of Alexandria.‖ Pages 135–50 in The Ancestral Philosophy: Hellenistic Philosophy in Second Temple Judaism. Providence, R.I.: Brown University Press, 2001. . ―Philo‘s Mysticism,‖ Studia philonica 8 (1996): 74–82. . ―Two Types of Mosaic Prophecy According to Philo.‖ Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 4 (1989): 49–67. Wolfson, H. A. Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. 2 vols. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1948. Wong, Ka Leung. The Idea of Retribution in the Book of Ezekiel. Vetus Testamentum Supplements 87. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Wooden, R. Glenn. ―Interlinearity in 2 Esdras: A Test Case.‖ Pages 119–44 in Septuagint Research. Edited by Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden. Wright III, Benjamin G. ―Translation as Scripture: The Septuagint in Aristeas and Philo.‖ Pages 47–61 in Septuagint Research. Edited by Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden. Wright, N. T. Paul: Fresh Perspectives. London: SPCK, 2005. . The Resurrection of the Son of God. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2003. . ―The Letter to the Romans.‖ Pages 395–770 in New Interpreter‟s Bible Commentary. Vol. 10. Edited by Leander Keck. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002. . What Paul Really Said. Oxford: Lion; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. . The New Testament and the People of God: Christian Origins and the Question of God. Vol. 1. London: SPCK; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.

Secondary Sources

227

. The Climax of the Covenant. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991. Yadin, Yigael. The Temple Scroll. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1983. Yinger, Kent. Paul, Judaism, and Judgement According to Deeds. Society for the New Testament Monograph Series 105. Cambridge: CUP, 1999. Young, Norman H. ―Who‘s Cursed—And Why? (Galatians 3:10–14).‖ Journal of Biblical Literature 117 (1998): 79–92. Zeller, D. ―The Life and Death of the Soul in Philo of Alexandria: The Use and Origin of a Metaphor.‖ Studia philonica 7 (1995): 19–55. Zeron, Alexander. ―Erwägungen zu Pseudo-Philos Quellen und Zeit.‖ Journal for the Study of Judaism 11 (1980): 38–52 Zimmerli, Walther. Ezekiel. 2 vols. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979. . ‗―Leben‖ und ―Tod‖ im Buche des Propheten Ezechiel.‖ Theologische Zeitschrift 13 (1957): 494–508. Zwiep, A. W. The Ascension of the Messiah in Lukan Christology. Novum Testamentum Supplements 87. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997.

Index of Sources Old Testament Genesis 2–3 12:3 16:1–2a 16:1–6 16:3 17 18:18 22:18 27:41 37–50 39:14 39:17 42:18 44:16 45:28 50:19

95 140 103 102 104 158 140 140 111 19 107 107 18, 19, 107 19 107 107

Exodus 19:4–5 19:9 34:7

82 144 82

Leviticus 4:27 17 17–26 17:10–26 18

18–20 18:1–3 18:1–4 18:1–5 18:2 18:2–5

47 27 27 29 11, 12, 20, 22, 27, 28, 30, 43, 44, 59, 67, 82, 122, 167, 172 30–31, 34 105 15 27, 28, 30, 94, 104, 105, 114, 195 15 36

Leviticus (continued) 18:2–5a 28 18:3 30 18:3–4 15, 30, 94 18:3–5 30, 36 18:4 31, 34 18:4–5 72, 94 18:4–5a 29 18:5a 47, 49 18:6 29 18:6–23 27, 30 18:7–17 29 18:21 29 18:21–32 36 18:22 29 18:23 29 18:24–30 27, 28, 30 18:25 29 18:26 28, 30, 33, 47 18:28 28, 29, 33 18:29 32 18:30 47 19 27, 28, 30 19:18 18 19:19 33 19:30 33 19:37 30, 33, 47 20 27, 28 20:2–5 29 20:8 33 20:10–12 29 20:10–20 28 20:10–21 27 20:11 49 20:13 29, 49 20:16 29 20:21 49 20:22 29, 30, 33, 47

Indexes

230 Leviticus (continued) 20:22–24 28 20:22–26 30 20:26 27 22:31 30, 47 22:31–33 33 25:18 30, 47 25:18–19 33 26 63, 79, 80, 84, 125, 199 26:2–5 125 26:3 30, 47 26:3–4 33 26:3–13 31, 34 26:3–14 33 26:3–15 79 26:5b 33 26:14–39 34, 163 26:15 47 26:16–19 79 26:40-42 79 26:40–45 79, 163 Numbers 14 14:13–19 14:13–22 14:14 14:18 14:22 21:8 23:9

79, 80 80, 81 85 82 82 82 61 82

Deuteronomy 2:25 4:1 4:11 5:32–33 6:5 8:1 8:5 9:4 16:20 19:14 19:18 27 27–30 27–33 27:1–28:68 27:11–26

48, 49 33, 129 144 33 18 33 82 181 33 74 18 70, 199 199, 200 206 206 200

Deuteronomy (continued) 27:17 75 27:26 140, 200 28–30 63, 66 28–32 79, 80, 84 28:1–14 32 28:15–68 64 28:45–48 206 29–30 64 29:17–27 64 29:18 63 29:22–28 206 29:25 63 29:28 63, 64 30 65, 68, 167, 170, 172, 180, 183, 185, 207 30:1–2 64, 206 30:3–10 207 30:6 33, 65 30:10–14 184 30:11–14 168 30:11-20 180, 182 30:12–13 183 30:12–14 7, 9, 10, 13, 167, 168, 170, 173, 175, 176, 179, 181, 182, 184, 189, 190 30:15 18, 65 30:15–20 15, 33, 206 30:16 65 30:17 16 30:19 1, 16, 18, 65, 207 30:20 65 31:14–39 207 31:36–39 207 32 207 32:11a 82 32:11b 82 Joshua 24:19–20

22

Judges 2:11–11

42

Ezra 9

79

168, 182,

165, 172, 178, 183,

180,

Index of Sources Nehemiah 8–10 9

9:29b 9:30b 9:31 9:32–37 9:38 10:1 10:28–31 10:29 10:29–32 10:30 28–31 29–32

41 22, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 72, 75, 79, 82, 83, 85, 122 40 41 72, 82, 83 72 144 42, 144 41, 43 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 1, 11, 40, 41, 42, 50, 51, 72, 82, 144 50 42 41, 42 42, 43 44 44 43 42 44 42, 43 44 43

Psalms 1 1:1–3 1:4–6

93 93 93

Proverbs 12.25 17.6

51 72

Jeremiah 31:31–34

180

Ezekiel 3:18 3:21

37 37

9:5 9:5–31 9:13 9:13b 9:13–14 9:26 9:26–31 9:27a 9:27b 9:27c 9:28a 9:28b 9:28c 9:28d 9:29

Ezekiel (continued) 5 38 5:6–7 37 11 38 11:12 37 11:20 37 13:19 37 13:22 37 16:6 37 18 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 49, 163 18:9 37, 49, 50 18:13 37 18:17 36, 37, 49, 50 18:19 36, 37, 49, 50 18:21 36, 37, 49 18:22 37 18:23 37 18:24 37 18:27 37 18:28 37, 50 18:29 38 18:31 38 18:31–32 38 18:32 37 18:9 36, 38 20 11, 22, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 42, 44, 49, 59, 60, 68, 72, 75, 82, 85, 122, 163 20:5–6 43 20:11 1, 11, 33, 34, 35, 43, 49, 59, 65, 207 20:13 1, 11, 33, 34, 35, 43, 49, 59, 65, 207 20:18 37 20:19 37 20:21 1, 11, 33, 34, 35, 43, 49, 59, 65, 207 20:24–26 59 20:25 35, 37, 38 20:26 43, 59 20:33–44 38 33 34, 35, 37, 38, 49, 50, 163 33:10 37, 38

231

38,

37, 43, 65, 83,

37, 72, 37, 72,

37, 72,

40,

Indexes

232 Ezekiel (continued) 33:10b 36, 39 33:10–20 36, 37, 38 33:11 37, 38 33:12 37, 38 33:13 37, 38 33:15 37, 38 33:16 16, 37, 38, 49, 50, 51 33:19 37, 38 33:22 38 36–37 38, 40, 180 36:25 37 36:25–26 43 36:26–27 163 36:27 38, 39, 40, 207 36:27a 39 37 38, 39 37:1–14 33, 38, 39, 40, 65, 163, 207 37:3 38 37:5 38 37:6 38 37:9 38 37:10 38 37:14 38 37:24 38, 39

Ezekiel (continued) 37:24–28 40 44:15 57 Daniel 9 12:2 Habakkuk 1:4 1:5 2 2:2–5 2:2a–3 2:4

2:4b 3 3:2–19

79 89, 90

161 161 162 162, 163 162 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 133, 134, 135, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 159, 160, 161, 162, 164, 167, 170, 193, 205, 206 162 163 162

New Testament Mark 10:17–22

12

Luke 10:25 10:25–28 10:26 10:27 10:28 10:29

18 18 18 18 12, 18, 19 19

Romans 1:18–3:20 1:18–3:30 2:7 2:10 3:20 3:21 3:21–22

175 193 196 196 157, 193 179 171

Romans (continued) 3:21–26 207 3:22 160 3:26 160 3:28 171 4:4–5 174, 197, 201 4:5 202 4:13 171, 172 4:13–14 172 4:14 171, 172 4:15 179 4:16 171 4:18–22 161 5:10 196 5:16–21 197 5:20 179 5:21 196 6:22 196 6:22–23 197

Index of Sources Romans (continued) 7 187, 188 7–8 168 7:5–6 185 7:7 185 7:7-25 175, 187 7:7–8:11 185, 189 7:8–9 185 7:9–12 186 7:10 179, 180, 185, 187, 188 7:13–25 187 7:24 189 8:1–4 187, 197 8:1–18 202 8:2 179, 180, 187 8:3 179 8:3–4 207 8:4a 188 8:9–11 189 8:11 196, 197, 207 8:13 197, 207 8:18–23 196 9 177, 189 9–10 167 9–11 172, 174, 175 9:6 197 9:6–10:11 197 9:6–10:8 168, 176, 177, 178, 197 9:6–29 197 9:11 172, 178, 197 9:11–12 176, 177, 178 9:11–16 182 9:12 172, 174, 197 9:15 177 9:16 172, 174, 175, 177, 178 9:26-29 173 9:28 197 9:30 171, 172, 177, 197 9:30–10:10 193 9:30–10:5 174 9:30–10:8 168 9:30–31 175, 177, 178 9:30–32 171, 174, 176, 182, 196 9:30–33 165, 178, 197 9:31–32 9:32 171, 172, 173, 174

233

Romans (continued) 9:33 172 10 11, 13, 177, 189 10–11 185 10:1 165, 196 10:2 165, 173, 174 10:3 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 178, 182, 196, 197 10:3–4 165 10:4 196 10:4b 173, 175 10:5 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 20, 22, 136, 141, 165, 168, 169, 172, 173, 176, 178, 182, 189, 193, 196, 198, 207 10:5–6 171 10:5–8 9, 10, 151, 165–166, 167, 170, 175, 178, 196, 197 10:6 170, 172, 196 10:6–7 182 10:6–8 7, 8, 165, 167, 168, 170, 178, 189, 197, 198 10:7 172 10:9 172, 196 10:10 172, 196 10:11 172 10:11–13 173, 175 10:16–17 190 10:20 172, 177 11:6 172, 174 11:7 172, 177 1 Corinthians 2:4–5 2:10 15:10

161 161 202

2 Corinthians 4:6 3:6

161 187

Galatians 1 1–3 1:1–2:14 1:4

153, 156, 159, 164 164 154 149, 155, 207

234 Galatians (continued) 1:6 154 1:6–9 133 1:7 133 1:11–12 154 1:13–14 153, 154, 167 1:13–17 161 1:16 155, 156 2 153, 156, 159, 164 2:3–10 133 2:8–9 155 2:16 157, 159, 160, 171, 193, 200 2:19 180 2:19–20 155 2:19–21 155 2:20 149, 155, 160, 161, 196, 202, 207 2:20–21 139, 159 2:21 143, 145, 151, 155 3 13, 159, 170 3:1 133 3:1–5 202 3:2 157, 193, 200 3:2–5 152, 156, 157–158, 164, 193 3:3 158 3:5 157, 159, 193, 200 3:6–9 134 3:7 200 3:8 140 3:8–14 196, 200 3:8–9 140 3:9 140, 200 3:10 134, 135, 140, 152, 164, 193, 200 3:10a 171 3:10b 171 3:10–12 171 3:10–14 133, 164, 193 3:11 143, 155, 164 3:11a 136, 137, 138, 139, 148, 162 3:11b 133, 137, 139, 164 3:11–12 1, 8, 10, 11, 16, 134, 135, 136, 140, 141, 142, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 155, 156, 159, 160, 161, 164, 168

Indexes Galatians (continued) 3:11–13 155 3:11b–12 139 3:12 1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 20, 22, 105, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 142, 143, 144, 145, 147, 164, 167, 170, 172, 193, 195, 200, 207 3:12a 137, 138 3:12b 138, 139 3:13 140, 164, 200 3:13a 164 3:13–14 134 3:16–18 134 3:19 144, 146 3:19–22 144, 164 3:19–25 9 3:21 139, 143, 146, 147, 152, 159 3:21–22 171 3:22 146, 160 3:23–25 147, 148 4:1–11 149 4:9 153, 161 4:10 134 4:12–20 133 4:21 134 4:21–31 149 4:21–5:1 134 4:23 159 4:29 159 5:2–6 134 5:3–4 134 5:7–12 133, 134 5:10 133 5:16–26 202 6:8 196 6:11–16 133 6:12–13 158 Philippians 1:6 1:29 3:9

202 161 160, 171, 175, 193

1 Thessalonians 2:13 161

Index of of Sources Index Sources

Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Baruch 3:29b

183

2 Baruch 19:1

18

4 Ezra 7:21 7:129

12, 15, 17, 18 18

Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 1:20 127 2:8 127 2:10 127 3:3 127 3:4 127 3:6 127 3:10 125, 126, 127 4:11 124 6 124 6:9 124 6:11 124 7:4 124 8:1–3 124 13:10 125 19:7 116, 117 19:2 118 19:9 129 19:11 118 21:7–10 121 30:7 119 23 120, 122, 128 23:1–2 121 23:4 121 23:4–7 120 23:4–11 122 23:8 120 23:9 120 23:10 1, 12, 20, 117, 119– 122, 127, 128, 129, 194 23:11 121 23:12 119, 121 23:13 121, 122, 123, 126 23:14 121 25:7 126 25:8 126

Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (continued) 30:4–5 119 32:12 128 32:14 128 32:17 128 44:7 126 44:10 126 64:7 127 Letter of Aristeas 127 12, 17 Psalms of Solomon 2:31 90 3 91 3:5–6 91 3:7 91 3:10 91 3:11–12 89, 90, 93, 96 3:12 90 4:8 194 6:2 90 9 92, 98, 99 9:1–2 99 9:1–3 99 9:4 90 9:4–5 98, 99 9:4–7 99 9:5 96, 98 9:8 99 9:8–10 99 9:8–11 99 9:9 99 9:10 99 13:11–12 90 14 90, 93, 96, 99 14:1a 97 14:1b 97 14:1–2 204 14:1–2a 195 14:1–3 194 14:1–5 93–94, 194, 198 14:2a 94, 97 14:2b 95, 96 14:2b–3a 93

235

Indexes

236 Psalms of Solomon (continued) 14:2–3 1, 20, 88, 93, 94, 97, 98, 99 14:3 97 14:3a 94, 95, 97 14:3b 95 14:4 95 14:6–9 93 14:9–10 96, 97 15:1a 97 15:1b 97 15:1–3 97 15:1–4 97

Psalms of Solomon (continued) 15:1–5 98 15:2a 97 15:3 97 15:10–13 90 15:13 97, 98 16 91 16:1–2 91 16:3–5 91 17:15 93

Dead Sea Scrolls 1QH IV, 14–15

62

1QS I, 16–III, 12 III, 13–IV, 25 IV, 6–8 IV, 23 4:6–8 V V, 11 V, 12

56, 70 69 57 12 62 17 60 198 60

CD

A I–VIII A IX–XVI B XIX–XX I, 1–II, 1 I, 1 I, 10–12 I, 16 II, 2 II, 2–13 II, 14–III, 12a II, 14–III, 20 II, 14

20–21, 56, 59, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 71, 73, 74, 75, 76, 193, 197, 198, 199 56 56 56 56 56, 68 202 74 56 56, 71 57, 60, 62, 197 57, 59, 194, 196, 198 56, 57

CD (continued) II, 14–15 II, 15–21 II, 16 II, 17 II, 18 II, 21 III III, 1 III, 2 III, 2–5a III, 5 III, 5–6 III, 5b–9a III, 7 III, 9 III, 9b III, 9b–10b III, 10 III, 10–12a III, 11a III, 11–12 III, 12 III, 12a–13 III, 12a–17 III, 12b III, 12b–17 III, 12b–17a III, 12b–20 III, 13 III, 13b–14a

197 57 58, 63 63 198 198 59, 60, 66, 73, 194, 196, 200 62 57 57 63 198 57 62 62 57 63 58, 62 57 63 63 202 66 63, 202 198 67, 197 58–59 57 71, 198 63

Index of Sources CD (continued) III, 14 III, 14–15 III, 14–16 III, 15–16 III, 16 III, 16–17 III, 16b III, 17 III, 20 III, 21 IV, 12a V, 20 VI, 2–8 VI, 3–11 VII, 6 XIV, 18–23 XIX, 15–16 XIX, 16–17 XIX, 34 XX, 25–26

198 60 59, 66 1, 20, 56, 57, 60, 71, 72, 73, 194, 200 63, 72 11 60, 67 59, 62, 63, 198 61, 62, 63 57 57 75 202 61 63 69 75 75 67 75

4Q266 55, 59, 68, 70, 72, 75, 193, 199, 200 1 a–b 68 2–3 68 2 I, 1–6 68 5 68 6 68 7 68 8 68 9 68 10 68 10–11 68 10 II, 1 74 11 12, 42, 56, 68, 69, 70, 72, 196 11, 9–10a 71 11, 10b–13a 71 11, 13b–14a 71 11 I–II 70, 71, 199 11 I–II, 1–5a 69 11 I–II, 5b–14b 69 11 I–II, 8 69 11 I–II, 9–14a 71 11 I–II, 12 20, 69, 194, 200 11 I–II, 14c–16c 69

237

4Q266 (continued) 11 I–II, 16b–18a 69 11 I–II, 17 70 11 I–II, 17–18 71 11 I–II, 18b–20 69 11 II, 12–13 75 11 II, 12a–14a 74 11 II, 14a 72 4Q266–273

55

4Q270 7 II, 11

70

4Q504 77, 78, 83, 195, 196 1–2 XIII, 13–15a 1–2 XVI, 11b–16 2 XIII, 7–11 3 IX, 7 6 6 II, 6–19 6 II, 10–11 6 II, 16 6 II, 17 7 X, 13–14 8 8 I, 1 8 I, 5 8 I, 8–10

84 84 80 80 12, 42, 83 81 80 83 20, 78, 81 80 62, 83 78 83 83

4Q505 508–509

78

4Q506

77

4QDib Ham Words of the Luminiaries 77, 78, 79, 84, 85 4QD

55

4QDa

68

4QMMT C 27

6 200

Indexes

238 4QFestival Prayers see 4Q505, 508–509

5Q12

55

6Q15

55

4QpPs [4Q171] III, 1–2 62

Philo of Alexandria De Congressu Quaerendae Eruditionis [Gratia] 110, 113 1 103 1–88 103 2–3 103 9 103, 104 13–19 104 20–24 104 24–53 104 54–62 104 71 104 71–80 104 81–84 104, 109 81–88 104, 110 83 104 85 105, 110 85–87 104 86 105, 135 86–87 1, 20, 22, 101, 103, 108, 114, 142 87 110, 111 88 108, 109 89–120 105 121 108 121–123 105 De Migratione Abrahami 21 107 De Mutatione Nominum 213 107 236–237 184

De Praemiis et Poenis (continued) 1–78 184 79–172 184 79–126 184 127–162 184 163–72 184 79–80 184 82 184 98 184 101 184 108 184 110 184 119 184 126 184 163 184 De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini 16 108 De Somniis 2.180

184

De Virtutibus 183

184

Legum Allegoriae 106 2.93 107 Quaestiones et Solutiones in Genesin 1.16 107 1.70 107 4.238 112 4.46 107, 112

De Posteritate Caini 45 112 84–85 184

Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit 201 107

De Praemiis et Poenis 79–80 184

Quod Omnis Probus Liber Sit 68 184

Indexes Indexes

Rabbinic Literature b. Sanhedrin 59a

136

239

Index of Modern Authors Alexander, Philipp 5 Avemarie, Friedrich 7, 13, 13, 111 Barclay, John M. G. 5, 158, 159 Betz, Hans Dieter 138 Brueggemann, Walter 23 Bultmann, Rudolph 149 Byrne, Brendan 188 Dahl, Nils 8–11 Dunn, James D. G. 2, 5, 7, 12, 103, 110– 111, 141, 142, 171, 173, 174, 175, 176, 203, 205, 206 Eckstein, Hans Joachim 145, 147 Gathercole, Simon J. 3, 6, 7, 11–14, 15, 91, 126, 127 Gignac, Alain 9–11, 14 Grünwaldt, Klaus 31, 32 Gundry, Robert 2 Hays, Richard 12, 155, 180 Hempel, Charlotte 70 Humphrey, Edith 170 Jacobson, Howard 117 Kaiser, Walter 7–9, 31 Kim, Seyoon 2 Kittel, Bonnie 44 Lambrecht, Jan 139 Lindemann, A. 105 Longenecker, Richard 136

Lundbom, Jack 23 Martyn, J. Louis 10–11, 143, 144, 157, 158 Mendelson, Alan 108 Mohrmann, Doug C. 30, 31 Murphy, Fredrick J. 121 Newman, Judith H. 44 Nitzan, Bilhah 82 Noth, Martin 31 Sanders, Ed P. 2–5, 7, 8, 66–68, 92, 93, 98, 99, 103, 143–145, 200, 201, 203– 205 Schechter, Solomon 55 Schreiner, Tom 2 Schwartz, Daniel R. 13 Seifrid, Mark A. 2, 98, 179 Shemesh, Aharon 73 Stanley, Christopher D. 11, 21, 137 VanLandingham, Chris 4–5, 202, 204 Vos, Johann 9–11 Watson, Francis 5–6, 12, 31, 32, 33, 150–152, 164 Wenham, Gordon 31, 32 Westerholm, Stephen 6, 149, 160 Wevers, John 47, 48 Willitts, Joel 11, 13, 14, 147–148 Wright, N. T. 7, 172 Yinger, Kent 3–5, 126–127, 204

Index of Subjects and Key Terms Allusion – definition of 22 Blessing 65–66, 79–81, 83–85, 121, 125, 184–185, 199–200 Christ – cross/crucifixion of 155, 202, 203 Circumcision 158 Curse 64, 65, 69, 70–73, 79–81, 84–85, 184, 199–200 Contradiction 11, 144–145, 163 Covenant – blessing of 33–34, 65, 68, 79–80, 83– 85, 189, 190, 195, 196, 199–200 – conditional 7–8, 22, 117–119 – entrance into 3–5, 75, 90–93, 204 – irrevocable 117–119, 123–125 – new 57, 63, 66–68, 70, 201–202, 204 – renewal of 40–44, 69–71 Covenantal Nomism 110–114, 173–176 Deuteronomic 22–23, 41, 63–64, 68, 78, 79–81, 83–85, 117–119, 125–130, 161–163, 206–207 Deuteronomistic see Deuteronomic Divine/Human Agency 5–6, 37, 39–40, 65–67, 69, 72–73, 97, 150–152, 153– 164, 176, 177–178, 186–190, 196–199 Death 32–33, 57–61, 62–63, 68, 111– 112 Echo – definition of 22 Education 102–103, 108–109 Election 4, 92–93, 99 Expulsion 69–75

Flesh 156–159 Glory – of Adam 62 Good Samaritan 18–19 Gospel 152, 153–155 Grace 57, 66, 91, 92, 123–125, 179, 200, 201 Hades 96 Halachah 9, 55, 59–61, 62, 67–68, 71, 74 Holiness Code 27 Humanity – inability of 146–147, 148–150, 168– 169 Intertextuality 10 Judgment 3–5, 75, 125–128 Justification 19, 134, 137, 138–142, 143 Land – purity of 29 Law – works of 136, 156–159, 174 – of life 16–18, 37–40, 83, 97–99, 145– 146, 185–189 Legalism 6, 8, 168–169, 173, 175 Life – eternal 12–13, 15, 60–62, 68, 73–74, 90, 94–97, 99–100, 123, 139, 140, 141–142, 186–189, 195–196 – deuteronomic 32, 34, 65, 83–85 – tree of 93, 95–96, 106 – true 104, 105–114 – regulatory 95–96, 141–142 Mercy see Grace

Faith 134, 136–138, 139, 140, 142, 143, 147–148, 160–164

New Perspective 2–3, 203–206

244 Obedience – and grace 3, 57, 90–93, 97–100, 200– 202, 203 – condition for salvation 5–6, 12, 32–33, 38–39, 61–62, 65–66, 67–68, 73–74, 79–81, 83–85, 90, 96–100, 123–125, 127–129, 141–142, 151–152, 185, 196–199 – divine causation of 39–40 – for future judgment 3–5, 123–127, 125–128 – perfect 173, 174, 175, 198 Paul – apostleship of 153–155 – conversion of 155 Pharisee 88 Perfection 175 Prayer 40–44, 72, 77–85 Prophetic 22–23

Indexes Resident Alien 28–29 Rabbinic 13, 136 Restoration 41–42, 57–58, 63–66, 68, 79–81, 184, 206–207 Resurrection 89–90 Salvation 4, 6, 22, 66, 75–76, 90, 91, 93, 99, 117, 123–125, 127, 141, 146, 151, 161, 162–164, 176, 177–178, 183, 193, 194, 196, 199, 201–206 Spirit 39, 43, 65, 187–189, 202 Virtue 103, 104, 105, 106, 108–110, 112, 113, 114 Wisdom 179–180