Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture 9780827611320, 0827611323

Citation preview

Outside the Bible

1

The Jewish Publication Society expresses its gratitude for the generosity of the following sponsors: National Endowment for the Humanities

JPS Pioneer Edward E. and Betsy Z. Cohen Dedicated to Ellen Frankel, for all her good leadership. David Lerman and Shelley Wallock In loving memory of Philip Wallock. Reynold F. and Bette S. Paris In memory of our parents and the six million who perished so we may survive.

JPS Patron Geraldine and Harold Cramer To increase our learning. Hartley Koschitzky

JPS Benefactor Wendy and Leonard Cooper For our parents, children, and grandchildren. Tamar and Abraham Eisenstat To our parents, who taught us tzedekah, and to our children, the joys of our lives. Phyllis Hammer In memory of Michael Hammer. Samuel P. Mandell Foundation Rabbi David Wolpe In memory of Rabbi Gerald Wolpe.

JPS Friend Norman and Marsha Lee Berkman Dedicated to the memory of our parents and in honor of our children and grandchildren. Past President D. Walter Cohen Congratulations to The Jewish Publication Society on its 125th Anniversary. Dr. Arthur S. Elstein & Dr. Rochelle S. Elstein In memory of our parents and in honor of our children and grandchildren. Clergy of Congregation Emanu El, San Francisco “One thing God has spoken, two things I have heard” (Ps 62:12). Solomon J. Freedman Haverford Trust Gittel and Alan Hilibrand Dedicated to David Smith, Esq., who leads and inspires by example. Charles S. Houser To all who listen for God’s voice— numinous, fanciful, and profound. Wayne and Debbie Miller In honor of Iris Mitzner. Drs. Robert and Vera Basch Moreen In honor of our sons, Gabriel and Raphael. Rabbi Barry and Deborah Schwartz In appreciation to Carol Hupping, Sarah Segal, Alx Block, and Trisha Lubrant. Ione Apfelbaum Strauss Rabbi Sheldon Zimmerman In honor of The Jewish Center of the Hamptons.

Univer sit y of Nebr a ska Pre ss · Lincoln

1 Outside the Bible Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture

Edited by Louis H. Feldman, James L. Kugel, and Lawrence H. Schiffman

The Je wish Publication Societ y · Phil adelphia

© 2013 The Jewish Publication Society. All rights reserved. Published by the University of Nebraska Press as a Jewish Publication Society book. Manufactured in the United States of America. Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture has been made possible in part by a major grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities: Exploring the human endeavor. Any views, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this book do not necessarily represent those of the National Endowment for the Humanities.

Publication of this volume was assisted by the Virginia Faulkner Fund, established in memory of Virginia Faulkner, editor in chief of the University of Nebraska Press. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Outside the Bible: ancient Jewish writings related to scripture / [edited by] Louis H. Feldman, James L. Kugel, Lawrence H. Schiffman. 3 volumes cm (cloth: alk. paper) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 9780827609334X 1. Rabbinical literature—History and criticism. 2. Judaism—History—Post-exilic period, 586 B.C.– 210 A.D. I. Feldman, Louis H. II. Kugel, James L. III. Schiffman, Lawrence H. BM496.6.O98 2013 296.1—dc23 2013023876 Designed and set in Arno Pro by Shirley Thornton, A. Shahan, and Laura Wellington.

Contents

Acknowledgments Introduction List of Abbreviations Important Dates of the Second Temple Period The Septuagint The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha The Writings of Philo Josephus and His Writings The Dead Sea Scrolls

Emanuel Tov James L. Kugel David T. Runia Louis H. Feldman Lawrence H. Schiffman

xiii xv xix xxvii 1 7 11 18 24

The Bible Translated into Greek (the Septuagint) Introduction to the Septuagint Selections Genesis 11 Deuteronomy 32 Joshua 20 Joshua 24 Selections from Samuel to Kings (1–4 Kingdoms LXX) 1 Samuel (1 Kingdoms LXX) 1 1 Samuel (1 Kingdoms LXX) 2 1 Kings (3 Kingdoms LXX) 2 1 Kings (3 Kingdoms LXX) 5 1 Kings (3 Kingdoms LXX) 11 Selections from Jeremiah Jeremiah 10 Jeremiah 27 (34 LXX) Jeremiah 43 (50 LXX) Proverbs 1 Selections from Esther Esther 1 Esther 3 Esther 8 Additions to Esther Job 34 Daniel 4

Emanuel Tov Emanuel Tov Emanuel Tov Emanuel Tov Emanuel Tov

33 34 38 41 44

Emanuel Tov

47 48 51 55 61 65 68 69 72 76 78 83 84 89 92 97 111 115

Emanuel Tov

Emanuel Tov Emanuel Tov

Michael V. Fox Emanuel Tov Emanuel Tov

Additions to Daniel Matthias Henze The Story of Susanna and the Elders The Prayer of Azariah and The Song of the Three Jews Bel and the Dragon 1 Esdras Sara Japhet

122 123 129 135 140

Sustained Biblical Commentaries: Retellings and Pesharim Commentary on Genesis A Ages of Creation The Book of Giants The Genesis Apocryphon Admonition Based on the Flood Jubilees Pseudo-Jubilees Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities Pseudo-Daniel Son of God Pesher Nahum Pesher Habakkuk

George J. Brooke Andrew D. Gross Loren Theo Stuckenbruck Matthew J. Morgenstern and Michael Segal Alex P. Jassen James L. Kugel James L. Kugel Howard Jacobson John J. Collins John J. Collins Shani Berrin Tzoref Bilhah Nitzan

211 216 221 237 263 272 466 470 614 620 623 636

Greek Jewish Interpreters Demetrius the Chronographer Artapanus Eupolemus Pseudo-Eupolemus Pseudo-Hecataeus, “On the Jews” Theodotus, “On the Jews” Philo, the Epic Poet Ezekiel, the Tragedian Pseudo-Orpheus Pseudo-Philo, On Samson and On Jonah

Lorenzo DiTommaso Erich S. Gruen Gregory E. Sterling Gregory E. Sterling Bezalel Bar-Kochva Howard Jacobson Harold W. Attridge Howard Jacobson David E. Aune Gohar Muradyan and Aram Topchyan

669 675 686 705 714 721 726 730 743 750

The Biblical Interpretations of Philo Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus On the Creation of the World Allegorical Interpretation 1.31–62 On the Life of Abraham On the Migration of Abraham On the Life of Moses On the Decalogue On the Special Laws 1–4

Aram Topchyan and Gohar Muradyan David T. Runia Maren R. Niehoff Ellen Birnbaum Peder Borgen Maren R. Niehoff Sarah Judith Pearce Naomi G. Cohen

807 882 902 916 951 959 989 1033

The Biblical Interpretations of Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities Preface to Jewish Antiquities Creation The Flood Abraham Journeys to Canaan and Egypt The Akedah Joseph and Potiphar’s Wife The Rape of Dinah Moses’s Campaign against the Ethiopians The Sending of the Spies The Revolt of Korah The Story of Balaam The Death of Moses Mosaic Constitution The Altar across the Jordan The Levite and His Wife Deborah Jephthah’s Vow The Birth of Samson The Marriage of Ruth and Boaz Massacre at Nob God Rejects Saul The Witch of Endor The Death of Saul David Kills Goliath David and Bathsheba The Death of Absalom Solomon’s Wisdom in the Case of the Two Harlots Phoenician Writings on Solomon’s Wisdom Solomon’s Magical Powers Solomon’s Prayer at the Temple Dedication The Return from Exile Esther

Louis H. Feldman Louis H. Feldman Louis H. Feldman Louis H. Feldman Louis H. Feldman Louis H. Feldman Louis H. Feldman Louis H. Feldman Louis H. Feldman Louis H. Feldman Louis H. Feldman Louis H. Feldman David M. Goldenberg Silvia Castelli Silvia Castelli Silvia Castelli Silvia Castelli Silvia Castelli Silvia Castelli Silvia Castelli Silvia Castelli Silvia Castelli Silvia Castelli Silvia Castelli Silvia Castelli Silvia Castelli

1137 1142 1147 1151 1156 1163 1169 1174 1179 1187 1191 1197 1202 1226 1231 1236 1240 1244 1251 1255 1258 1263 1268 1273 1279 1283

Pablo Torijano Pablo Torijano Pablo Torijano Pablo Torijano Paul Spilsbury Paul Spilsbury

1288 1291 1294 1299 1302 1310

Interpretive Texts Centering on Biblical Figures Life of Adam and Eve 1 Enoch Apocalypse of Abraham Melchizedek Aramaic Levi Document Visions of Amram Song of Miriam

Gary A. Anderson Miryam T. Brand Alexander Kulik Joseph L. Angel Michael E. Stone and Esther Eshel Andrew D. Gross Sidnie White Crawford

1331 1359 1453 1482 1490 1507 1511

Apocryphon of Joshua The Vision of Samuel Pseudo-Ezekiel The Apocryphon of Ezekiel The Letter of Jeremiah 1 Baruch 2 Baruch 3 Baruch Prayer of Nabonidus 4 Ezra

Miriam Zangi and Hanan Eshel Andrew D. Gross Devorah Dimant Benjamin G. Wright III Steven D. Fraade Steven D. Fraade Adam H. Becker Yevgeniy Y. Zingerman John J. Collins Karina Martin Hogan

1513 1517 1520 1529 1535 1545 1565 1586 1604 1607

Annette Yoshiko Reed James L. Kugel Kenneth Atkinson Andrew D. Gross Harold W. Attridge

1671 1697 1856 1869 1872

Kenneth Atkinson Esther Eshel Daniel K. Falk Daniel K. Falk Daniel K. Falk Michael D. Swartz Angela Kim Harkins Eileen Schuller Eileen Schuller Pieter W. van der Horst James L. Kugel Esther G. Chazon Hanan Eshel

1903 1924 1927 1939 1960 1985 2018 2095 2106 2110 2138 2143 2148

Peter Enns Benjamin G. Wright III Pieter W. van der Horst David A. deSilva Armin Lange

2155 2208 2353 2362 2399 2402 2405 2408

Testaments Testament of Abraham Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs Testament of Moses Testament of Kohath Testament of Job

Prayers and Psalms Psalms of Solomon Self-Glorification Hymn Daily Prayers Festival Prayers Words of the Luminaries Angelic Liturgy Thanksgiving Hymns (Hodayot) Apocryphal Psalms Non-Canonical Psalms Greek Synagogal Prayers Prayer of Enosh Prayer of Manasseh Prayer for King Jonathan

Wisdom Writings Wisdom of Solomon Wisdom of Ben Sira Pseudo-Phocylides, Sentences 4 Maccabees Wisdom Literature from the Qumran Library Wiles of the Wicked Woman Words of the Maskil to All Sons of Dawn Book of Mysteries

Beatitudes Instruction-like Composition B Musar leMevin

2411 2414 2418

Philosophical Treatises of Philo On the Virtues (51–174) On the Contemplative Life Hypothetica

Walter T. Wilson David M. Hay Gregory E. Sterling

2447 2481 2501

Stories Set in Biblical and Early Post-Biblical Times Joseph and Aseneth Judith Tobit 4 Baruch 3 Maccabees

Patricia Ahearne-Kroll Betsy Halpern-Amaru George W. E. Nickelsburg Pablo Torijano Sara Raup Johnson

2525 2590 2631 2662 2681

Historical Writings Set in Post-Biblical Times The Letter of Aristeas 1 Maccabees 2 Maccabees Jewish War: Excursus on Jewish Groups Against Apion

Erich S. Gruen Lawrence H. Schiffman Daniel R. Schwartz Albert I. Baumgarten John M. G. Barclay

2711 2769 2832 2888 2898

Sectarian Texts: Community, Law, and the End of Days Rule of the Community Damascus Document Temple Scroll Some Precepts of the Torah War Scroll New Jerusalem

Alex P. Jassen Joseph L. Angel Lawrence H. Schiffman Lawrence H. Schiffman Jean Duhaime Joseph L. Angel

Appendix 1: Books of the Bible The Traditional Hebrew (Masoretic Text) and the Septuagint Appendix 2: List of Second Temple Literature Writings of Philo Writings of Josephus Apocrypha Pseudepigrapha Primary Documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls Source Acknowledgments Contributors General Subject Index

2923 2975 3036 3108 3116 3152

3173 3175 3175 3175 3175 3176 3179 3197 3201

Acknowledgments

A project of this magnitude could only be accomplished with the collaborative work of many people. We are grateful to: The contributors, among the leading scholars in their fields, who made great effort to convey their knowledge and insights in ways accessible to a wide range of readers. The members of the Advisory Board, who provided guidance on editorial policy and reviewed the texts: Ellen Birnbaum, John J. Collins, Yaakov Elman, Erich S. Gruen, Richard Hidary, Martha Himmelfarb, George W. E. Nickelsburg, Tessa Rajak, Edward P. Sanders, Peter Schaefer, Daniel R. Schwartz, and James C. VanderKam, and Barry Scott Wimpfheimer. Eric Greenberg, whose original suggestion led to the creation of this book. Ruth Clements, project editor, whose skillful reviews and many editorial contributions were invaluable. Ellen Frankel, former ceo and editor in chief of The Jewish Publication Society (jps), who, with Lawrence Schiffman, set plans in place for the project in 1994 and spearheaded it until her retirement in 2009. Carol Hupping, jps managing editor, who worked with Dr. Frankel on the project from its start and assumed overall direction of the project upon Dr. Frankel's retirement. jps Director Rabbi Barry Schwartz and Development Director Sarah Kroloff Segal. jps editors Julia Oestreich, Hila Razabi, Eunice Smith, Rachel Schonwetter, and Miriam Newman. Copyeditors Emily Law, David Aitken, Michele Alperin, Amy Gottlieb, and Debra Corman. Proofreader Paula Fuchsberg. The staff of the University of Nebraska Press.

xiii

Introduction

Outside the Bible offers readers an entirely new look at a group of ancient—and sometimes overlooked—Jewish writings. The texts included in this collection were written by Jews in the period between the end of the Babylonian exile (538 bce) and the transmission of the Mishnah (200 ce). They were written in a variety of languages in the places where Jews lived during that period—in Judea, Egypt, Asia Minor, Syria, and elsewhere. Many of these works contain reflections on the Hebrew Bible; they retell biblical history, or seek to fill in some of the blanks in biblical narratives, or set out rules for living or philosophical ideas based on the precepts of the Torah. In addition to these, other texts propose new understandings of Jewish history, or visions of the “end time”; still others consist of prayers and hymns that once formed a part of everyday devotions. Most of these texts will be quite new to Jewish readers. The reason is that, in the wake of the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple and the gradual acceptance of Rabbinic Judaism as normative, these books were, for various reasons, taken off the official Jewish bookshelf. Many of them survived only thanks to Christians: some were preserved as “Old Testament apocrypha” in Christian Bibles, while others were stored away in Christian libraries in Greece, Ethiopia, Italy, and elsewhere. As a result, this great collection of Jewish writings has generally been better known to Christians than to Jews. Christian scholars have pored over these works in search of connections to the New Testament and other early Church writings and have sought to find in them precedents for various Christian doctrines and beliefs. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were first discovered in 1947, these too were widely explored by Christian scholars for their possible connections to early Christianity; it is only relatively recently that Jewish scholars have examined their relationship to Jewish prayers, Rabbinic halakhah ( Jewish law), and Jewish biblical interpretation. Outside the Bible puts these ancient books back into their original Jewish context: they were written by and for Jews and their main concern was with Jewish life, Jewish Scripture, and the Jewish religion. In combining works of the most diverse sort—adventure stories, apocalypses, fictional last wills and testaments, prayers, and so on; works aimed at a general audience and works originally intended solely for members of a specific movement or sect; texts originally composed in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek—the editors have sought to uncover the underlying unity of this body of writings. They all were written in the Second Temple period and all were grappling, in one way or another, with the great issues that confronted Jews during that time. What is more, they all are connected to the Jewish writings that preceded and followed them. Therefore, in commenting on the texts, our contributors (Christians as well as Jews) have intentionally sought to trace heretofore neglected connec-

xv

tions to other Jewish writings, from the Hebrew Bible itself to the vast body of Rabbinic writings contained in Mishnah, Talmud, and midrashic anthologies. It is thus hoped that Outside the Bible will offer all readers an entirely new perspective on a fascinating body of material deriving from one of Judaism’s most significant and fruitful periods of creativity. A Brief Historical Sketch Jewish life in the Second Temple period was marked by a succession of foreign regimes. After the return from the Babylonian exile in the late 6th century bce, Judea existed for a time as part of the Persian Empire. Then, in 336 bce, Alexander the Great completed his conquest of the region, inaugurating a long period of Hellenistic domination. Judea came under the rule of Alexander’s successors, first the Ptolemies in Egypt and then the Seleucids in Syria. Greek civilization was attractive to many Jews, who adopted the Greek language, expressed enthusiasm for such institutions as the gymnasium and the theater, and in general became ardent Hellenizers. Still, other Jews held back, suspicious of foreigners and eager to hold on to their own traditions and folkways. Hellenization became a major stimulus for ferment in Jewish religious thought at the time. Things came to a head under the rule of Antiochus Epiphanes, the Seleucid king of Syria: his imposition of Hellenizing measures in the Land of Israel ultimately led to the revolt of the Maccabees and the establishment of an independent Jewish state in the middle of the 2nd century bce. But Judean independence was short-lived; it came to an end with the growing Roman influence in the region and, ultimately, with Roman rule in 63 bce. At first, the Romans governed through vassal kings, among whom Herod the Great is the best known. But within a few generations, the Romans shifted to rule by administrators, known as procurators or prefects, who were generally unskilled appointees—ignorant, corrupt, and sometimes brutal. In 66 ce, Jewish unrest culminated in a revolt against the Romans. Four years later, the Romans conquered Jerusalem, despoiled and destroyed the Second Temple, and carried away vast booty and numerous slaves. This event marks the traditional end of the Second Temple period. Judaism in this period was a complex, dynamic phenomenon. Over these centuries, it gradually came to redefine itself more as a religion than a nationality. The localized, sacrificial cult in the Jerusalem Temple was augmented by prayer liturgies, private worship, and the study of Scripture. Prophecy was superseded by various kinds of seers and mystics, but even more importantly by scribes, learned in the sacred traditions and texts. And as the Jewish population scattered into a widening Diaspora, they shared a collective religious and cultural identity centered on the Scriptures—in their original Hebrew or Aramaic, or translated into Greek—which became a unifying force within Judaism. This Collection Organizing the wide variety of materials to be included in Outside the Bible presented a particular challenge to the editors. To sort materials by more or less traditional categories (Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Hellenistic writings, Dead Sea Scrolls), we felt, would only perpetuate the fragmented perception of these writings as the singular products of isolated

xvi

Introduction

Second Temple Jewish writers. To classify them primarily by literary genre, while perhaps useful for identifying some common elements, would risk missing a central feature that unites most of these documents—their prevalent stylistic and thematic connection to Hebrew Scripture. Therefore, we have arranged the selections in a way that highlights their closeness to the Hebrew Bible, starting with actual translations, then moving to various types of biblical commentary and rewritten biblical narratives, and proceeding from these to laws, liturgies, and rules for living drawn from the language and themes of the Hebrew Bible. In selecting the writings, we have attempted to be both wide-ranging and representative. We have included a broad range of writings by both Greek-speaking and Aramaic/ Hebrew-speaking Jews, as well as a number of works sometimes thought to have been drastically altered by Christian redactors. Regrettably, both the size and scope of these volumes has meant that some works have been omitted, and some have had to appear in excerpted form. In such cases, the excerpts have been carefully chosen to represent as fully as possible the characteristic ideas or techniques of the text in question. As mentioned, the works included in Outside the Bible bear witness to a common set of concerns shared by nearly all Jews in the Second Temple period, as well as to many common elements (despite differences) in their religious practices and—perhaps most strikingly—a common interest in, and common approaches to, biblical interpretation. Lost or neglected for many centuries, these texts have much to teach us today about Judaism in this crucial period. It is our hope that the current volume, which contains nearly all the important Jewish writings that have survived from that period, will offer readers a sustained look at a remarkable body of literature. How to Use This Book Each text in Outside the Bible is preceded by a brief introduction that gives a summary of its contents, a history of its composition and transmission, its significance for Jewish (and sometimes Christian) history and biblical interpretation, and a guide to reading that highlights specific issues for understanding the text. A short list of additional readings points the interested reader to more detailed or focused treatments of the text. Both the introduction and the commentary to the text itself are sometimes accompanied by additional notes that provide more references or technical information, or highlight additional matters of interpretation. References to other texts in these volumes are set bold at the first mention in each reading. A Note on the Translations Most of the translations in these volumes have been adapted from published translations, and we are grateful to those previous publishers for their permission to reprint here. A number of texts, however, have been newly translated for this collection. Among them are Philo’s Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus, newly translated from the ancient Armenian translation of its original Greek; 1 Esdras, translated from a complex and problematic Greek manuscript tradition; the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, translated from a notoriously layered Greek text derived in great measure from a now largely lost Hebrew

Introduction

xvii

and/or Aramaic original; the Genesis Apocryphon, one of the Qumran manuscripts, whose decipherment presents scholars with a continuing challenge; and Temple Scroll, the longest of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Whether previously published or appearing here for the first time, all the translations have been worked through by their authors with an eye toward representing the underlying text as authentically as possible, fully rooted in its Second Temple milieu. Louis H. Feldman James L. Kugel Lawrence H. Schiffman

xviii

Introduction

Abbreviations

Hebrew Bible

2 Sam.

2 Samuel

Amos

Amos

Song of Sol.

Song of Solomon

1 Chron.

1 Chronicles

Zech.

Zechariah

2 Chronicles

Zeph.

Zephaniah

2 Chron. Dan.

Daniel

Deut.

Deuteronomy

New Testament

Eccles.

Ecclesiastes

1 Cor.

1 Corinthians

Esther

Esther

1 John

1 John

Exod.

Exodus

1 Pet.

1 Peter

Ezek.

Ezekiel

1 Thess.

1 Thessalonians

Ezra

Ezra

1 Tim.

1 Timothy

Gen.

Genesis

2 Cor.

2 Corinthians

Hab.

Habakkuk

2 John

2 John

Hag.

Haggai

2 Pet.

2 Peter

Hosea

Hosea

2 Thess.

2 Thessalonians

Isa.

Isaiah

2 Tim.

2 Timothy

Jer.

Jeremiah

3 John

3 John

Job

Job

Acts

Acts

Joel

Joel

Col.

Colossians

Jon.

Jonah

Gal.

Galations

Josh.

Joshua

Eph.

Ephesians

Judg.

Judges

Heb.

Hebrews

1 Kings

1 Kings

Mark

Mark

2 Kings

2 Kings

Matt.

Matthew

Lam.

Lamentations

Phil.

Philippians

Lev.

Leviticus

Philem.

Philemon

Mal.

Malachi

Rev.

Revelation

Mic.

Micah

Rom.

Romans

Nah.

Nahum

Neh.

Nehemiah

Talmud

Num.

Numbers

B.

Babylonian Talmud

Obad.

Obadiah

J.

Jerusalem Talmud

Prov.

Proverbs

M.

Mishnah

Ps.

Psalms

T.

Tosefta

Ruth

Ruth

Arak.

Arakhin

1 Sam.

1 Samuel

Avod. Zar.

Avodah Zarah

xix

Avot

Avot

Shek.

BB

Bava Batra

Shev.

Shevi’it

BK

Bava Kamma

Shevu.

Shevu’ot

BM

Bava Metzi’a

Sot.

Sotah

Bek.

Bekhorot

Suk.

Sukkah

Ber.

Berakhot

Ta’an.

Ta’anit

Betz.

Betzah

Tam.

Tamid

Shekalim

Bik.

Bikkurim

Tem.

Temurah

Demai

Demai

Ter.

Terumot

Ed.

Eduyyot

Uk.

Uktzin

Er.

Eruvin

Yad.

Yadayim

Git.

Gittin

Yev.

Yevamot

Hag.

Hagigah

Yoma

Yoma

Hal.

Hallah

Zev.

Zevahim

Hor.

Horayot

Hul.

Hullin

Other Abbreviations Used in These Volumes

Kelim

Kelim

1QS

Thanksgiving Hymns (Hodayot)

Ker.

Keritot

1 Apol.

First Apology (Apologia; Justin)

Ket.

Ketubbot

2 Bar.

2 Baruch

Kid.

Kiddushin

3 Bar.

3 Baruch

Kil.

Kil’ayim

4 Bar.

4 Baruch

Ma’as.

Ma’aserot

1 Clem.

1 Clement

Ma’as. S.

Ma’aser Sheni

1 En.

1 Enoch

Mak.

Makkot

2 En.

2 Enoch

Meg.

Megillah

3 En.

3 Enoch

Men.

Menahot

1 Esd.

1 Esdras

Mid.

Middot

2 Esd.

2 Esdras

Mo’ed

Mo’ed

4 Esd.

4 Esdras

Mo’ed Kat.

Mo’ed Katan

1 Macc.

1 Maccabees

Ned.

Nedarim

2 Macc.

2 Maccabees

Neg.

Nega’im

3 Macc.

3 Maccabees

Naz.

Nazir

4 Macc.

4 Maccabees

Nez.

Nezikin

Abraham

On the Life of Abraham (De Abrahamo; Philo)

Nid.

Niddah

Abst.

On Abstinence (De abstinentia; Porphyry)

Ohol.

Oholot

Ach.

Acharnians (Acharnenses; Aristophanes)

Or.

Orlah

Add. Dan.

Additions to Daniel

Parah

Parah

Add. Esth.

Additions to Esther

Pe’ah

Pe’ah

Adv. Haer.

Adversus omnes Haeres (Irenaeus)

Pes.

Pesahim

Aen.

Aeneid (Virgil)

RH

Rosh Hashanah

Aeth.

Aethiopica (Heliodorus)

Sanh.

Sanhedrin

AG

Abba Gorion

Shabbat

Ag. Ap.

Against Apion (Contra Apionem; Josephus)

Shab.

xx

Lists of Abbreviations

Ag. Ber.

Aggadat Bereshit

BGU

Ag. Cleom.

Agis and Cleomenes (Agis et Cleomenes; Plutarch)

Bib

Biblica

BibOr

Biblica et orientalia

Ag. Esth.

Aggadat Esther

C. Ap.

Agriculture

On Agriculture (De Agricultura; Philo)

Against Apion (Contra Apionem; Josephus)

ALD

Aramaic Levi Document

C. Cels

Against Celsus (Contra Celsum; Origen)

Alex.

Alexander (Plutarch)

Cant.

Alleg. Interp.

Allegorical Interpretation (Legum allegoriae; Philo)

Canticum canticorum (Song of Songs, Latin Bible [=Song of Solomon])

Cav. Tr.

Cave of Treasures

Anab.

Anabasis (Arrian, Xenophon)

CBQ

Catholic Bible Quarterly

ANET

Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament

CD

Cairo Genizah copy of the Damascus Document

ANRW

Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung

Cherubim

On the Cherubim (De cherubim; Philo)

Ben Gurion University

Cho.

Libation-Bearers (Choephori; Aescylus)

CIJ

Corpus inscriptionum judaicarum

Ant.

Jewish Antiquities (Antiquitates judaicae; Josephus)

Civ.

Anth. pal.

Palatine Anthology (Anthologia palatina; Greek Anthology)

The City of God (De civitate Dei; Augustine)

Comm. Zech.

Antid.

Antidosis (Isocrates)

Commentary on Zechariah (Commentariorum in Zacharian libri III; Jerome [= Hieronymus])

Aph.

Aphorisms (Aphorismata; Hippocrates)

Confusion

Apoc.

Apocalypsis

On the Confusion of Tongues (De confusione linguarum; Philo)

Apoc. Ab.

Apocalypse of Abraham

Congr.

On the Preliminary Studies (Philo)

Apoc. Mos.

Apocalypse of Moses

Contempl. Life

Apocr. Jer.

Apocryphon of Jeremiah

On the Contemplative Life (De vita contemplativa; Philo)

Apol.

Apology of Socrates (Apologia; Plato)

Corp. inscr. attic.

Corpus inscriptionum atticarum

Aristocr.

Against Aristocrates (In Aristocratem; Demosthenes)

CPJ

Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum

Creation

On the Creation of the World (Philo)

As. Mos.

Assumption of Moses

CRINT

Ath. pol.

Constitution of Athens (Athēnaīn politeia; Aristotle)

Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum

CSCO

To Autolycus (Ad Autolycum; Theophilus of Antioch)

Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium

Decalogue

On the Decalogue (De decalogo; Philo)

Avot R. Nat.

Avot of Rabbi Nathan

Dem.

Demosthenes (Plutarch)

Ax.

Axiochus (Plato)

Demon.

Ad Demonicum (Or. 1; Isocrates)

Bar.

Baruch

Der. Er. Rab.

Derekh Eretz Rabbah

Barn.

Barnabas

Der. Er. Zut.

Derekh Eretz Zuta

BBR

Bulletin for Biblical Research

Descr.

BDB

Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon

Description of Greece (Graeciae description; Pausanius)

Deut. Rab.

Deuteronomy Rabbah

Autol.

BEATAJ

Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken Judentums

Dial.

Dialogue with Trypho (Dialogus cum Tryphone; Justin)

Bel

Bel and the Dragon

Dial. mort.

Ben.

On Benefits (De beneficiis; Seneca the Younger)

Dialogues of the Dead (Dialogi mortuorum; Lucian)

Diatr.

Diatribai (Epictetus)

Lists of Abbreviations xxi

Did.

Didache

Flaccus

Against Flaccus (In Flaccum; Philo)

Flight, Fug.

On Flight and Finding (De fuga et inventione; Philo)

Dig.

Digesta ( Justinian)

DJD

Discoveries in the Judaean Desert

DJDJ

Discoveries in the Judean Desert of Jordan

Flor.

4Q174 Florilegium

Dom.

Domitianus

GCS

Dreams

On Dreams (De somniis; Philo)

Die griechische christliche Schriftsteller der ersten [drei] Jahrhunderte

Drunkenness

On Drunkenness (De ebrietate; Philo)

Gen. Ap.

Genesis Apocryphon

Gen. Rab.

Genesis Rabbah

DSD

Dead Sea Discoveries

DSSR

Dead Sea Scrolls Reader

Gen. Rabbati

Genesis Rabbati

Geogr.

Geography (Geographica; Strabo)

Giants

On Giants (De gigantibus; Philo)

GLA, GLAJJ

Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism

God

On God (De Deo; Philo)

Good Person

That Every Good Person Is Free (Quod omnis probus liber sit; Philo)

Ecclus.

Ecclesiasticus (= Sirach)

Ecl.

Eclogues (Eclogae; Virgil)

EJL

SBL Early Judaism and Its Literature

El.

Elektra (Sophocles)

Embassy

On the Embassy to Gaius (Legatio ad Gaium; Philo)

Ep.

Moral Letters (Epistulae morales; Seneca [the Younger])

Gyn.

Gynecology (Gynaecology; Soranus)

Ep. ad Pyth.

Epistula ad Pythoclem (Epicurus)

Haer.

Ep. Arist.

Epistle of Aristeas (= Letter of Aristeas)

Refutation of All Heresies (Refutatio omnium haeresium [Philosophoumena]; Hippolytus)

Ep. Barn.

Epistle of Barnabas

HALOT

Ep. Jer.

Epistle of Jeremiah (= Letter of Jeremiah)

The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon to the Old Testament

Epid.

Epidemics (Epidemiae; Hippocrates)

Heir

Epin.

Epinomis (Plato)

Who Is the Heir? (Quis rerum divinarum heres sit; Philo)

Epitaph. Bion.

Epitaphius de Bion)

Her.

Heroines (Heroides; Ovid)

EstBib

Estudios bibliques

Herc. fur.

Esth. Rab

Esther Rabbah

Madness of Hercules (Hercules furens; Euripedes)

ESV

English Standard Version of the Bible

Hipp. maj.

Greater Hippias (Hippias major; Plato)

ET

general English translation of the Septuagint

Hist.

Histories (Historiae; Tacitus, Herodotus, or Sallust)

Eternity

On the Eternity of the World (De aeternitate mundi; Philo)

Hist. eccl.

Ecclesiastical History (Historia ecclesiastica; Eusebius)

Eth.

Ethiopic

Hist. Phil.

Eth. eud.

Eudemian Ethics (Ethica eudemia; Aristotle)

Epitome of Pompeius Trogus’s “Phillipic Histories” (Historiae Philippicae; Justin)

Hist. Rech.

History of the Rechabites

Eth. nic.

Nicomachean Ethics (Ethica nichomachea; Aristotle)

History

Histories (Historiae; Polybius)

Euerg.

Against Evergus and Mnesibulus (In evergum et mnesibulum; Demosthenes)

Hom. Exod.

Homilies on Exodus (Homiliae in Exodum; Origen)

Eum.

Eumenides (Aeschylus)

Hom. Num.

Exod. Rab.

Exodus Rabbah

Homilies on Numbers (Homiliae in Numeros; Origen)

History of Animals (Historia animalium; Aristotle)

Expos.

Expositio (Theon of Smyrna)

HTR

Harvard Theological Review

Ezek. Trag.

Ezekiel the Tragedian

HUCA

Hebrew Union College Annual

FGH

Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker

Hypoth.

Hypothetica (Philo)

Fin.

De Finibus (= De Fin; Cicero)

IEJ

Israel Exploration Journal

xxii Lists of Abbreviations

Il.

Iliad (Ilias; Homer)

Lyc.

Lycurgus (Plutarch)

Inst.

Orator’s Education (Institutio oratoria; Quintilian)

Marc.

Against Marcion (Adversus marcionem; Tertullian)

Ios.

De Iospeho (Philo)

Mart. Isa.

Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah

Is. Os.

On Isis and Osiris (De Iside et Osiride; Plutarch)

Meg. Ta’an.

Megillat Ta’anit

Mek. Amalek

Mekhilta Amalek

Isthm.

Isthmionikai (Pindar)

Mek. Bahodesh

Mekhilta Bahodesh

J.W.

Jewish War (Bellum judaicum; Josephus)

Mek. Besh.

Mehkilta Be-shallah

JANES

Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society

Mek. Bo

Mekhilta Bo

JAOS

Journal of the American Oriental Society

Mek. d’Rashbi

Mekhilta de-Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai

JBL

Journal of Biblical Literature

Mek. Exod.

Mekhilta Exodus

Jdt.

Judith

Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael

JHI

Journal of the History of Ideas

Mek. R. Ish.

JJS

Journal of Jewish Studies

Jos. Asen.

Joseph and Asenath

Joseph

On the Life of Joseph (De Iosepho; Philo)

JQR

Jewish Quarterly Review

JSJ

Journal for the Study of Judaism

JSOT

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

JSP

Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha

JSQ

Jewish Studies Quarterly

JTS

Journal of Theological Studies

Jub.

Jubilees

Mek. Shirata

Mekhilta Shirata

Mek. Vayassa

Mekhila Vayassa (=Mekhilta Wayassa’)

Mem.

Memorabilia (Xenophon)

Metam.

Metamorphoses (Ovid)

Metaph.

Metaphysica (Aristotle)

Midr. Abba Gurion Midrash Abba Gurion Midr. Ag.

Midrash Aggadah

Midr. Esth. Rab.

Midrash Esther Rabbah

Midr. Hag.

Midrash Haggadol

Midr. Ps.

Midrash Psalms (= Midrash Tehillim)

Midr. Sam.

Midrash Samuel

Midr. Shoher Tob

Midrash Shoher Tob

KJV

King James Version of the Bible

L.A.B.

Book of Biblical Antiquities (Liber antiquitatum biblicarum; Pseudo-Philo)

Midr. Song

Midrash Song of Solomon

L.A.E.

Life of Adam and Eve

Midr. Tan.

Midrash Tannaim

LCL

Loeb Classical Library

Midr. Tanh.

Midrash Tanhuma

Leg.

Laws (Leges; Plato)

Midr. Vay.

Midrash Vayyissa’u

Legat.

Legatio ad Gaium (Plato)

Migration

Legends

Legends of the Jews (Ginzberg)

On the Migration of Abraham (De migratione Abrahami; Philo)

Let. Aris.

Letter of Aristeas

Mith.

Mithridatic Wars (Mithridatica; Appian)

Lev. Rab.

Leviticus Rabbah

MLM

Musar leMevin

Lex.

Lexicon (Photius)

MMT

Library

Historical Library (Bibliotheca historica; Diodorus)

Miqsat Ma’ase ha-Torah (Some Precepts of the Torah)

Mor.

Moralia (Plutarch)

Life

The Life (Vita; Josephus)

Moses

Life of Moses (De vita Mosis; Philo)

Liv. Pro.

Lives of the Prophets

MS S

manuscript Codex Sinaiticus

Lives

Lives of the Philosophers (Philosophoi Biol; Diogenes Laertius)

MS Syl

manuscript Codex Sylvester

Mur.

Murabbaat

LSJ

Greek-English Lexicon (Liddell, Scott, Jones)

Names

On the Change of Names (De mutatione nominum; Philo)

Luc.

Lucullus (Plutarch)

Nat.

LXX

Septuagint

Natural History (Naturalis historia; Pliny the Elder)

Lists of Abbreviations

xxiii

Nat. d.

On the Nature of the Gods (De natura deorum; Cicero)

Phil.

Philoctetes (Sophocles)

Phileb.

Philebus (Plato)

NEB

New English Bible

Phys.

Physics (Physica; Aristotle)

Nem.

Nemeonikai (Pindar)

Pirke R. El.

Pirke Rabbi Eliezer

NETS

New English Translation of the Septuagint

PL

Patrologiae Latinae

Planting

On Planting (De plantatione; Philo)

NHC

Nag Hammadi Codex

NJ

New Jerusalem

NJPS

New Jewish Publication Society Bible translation

NovT

Novum Testamentum

NovTSup

Supplements to Novum Testamentum

NRSV

New Revised Standard Version of the Bible

NT

New Testament

NTS

New Testament Studies

Num. Rab.

Numbers Rabbah

Od.

Odyssey (Odyssea; Homer)

Odes Sol.

Odes of Solomon

PLCL

Loeb Classical Library

Plut.

The Rich Man (Plutus; Aristophanes)

Poet.

Poetics (Poetica; Aristotle)

Pol.

Politics (Politica; Aristotle); also Statesman (Politicus; Plato)

Pomp.

Pompeius (Plutarch)

Posterity

On the Posterity of Cain (De posteritate Caini; Philo)

Pr. Azar.

Prayer of Azariah

Pr. Jos.

Prayer of Joseph

Pr. Man.

Prayer of Manasseh

Praep. ev.

Preparation for the Gospel (Praeparatio evangelica; Eusebius)

Prelim. Studies

On the Preliminary Studies (De congressu eruditionis gratia; Philo)

Off.

On Obligations (De officiis; Cicero)

OG

Old Greek translation of the Bible

OGIS

Orientis graeci inscriptiones selectae

Princ.

OJPS

Old Jewish Publication Society Bible translation

First Principles (De principiis [Peri archōn]; Origen)

Prot.

Protagoras (Plato)

Ol.

Olympionikai (Pindar)

Providence

On Providence (De providential; Philo)

On Animals

On Animals Fit for Sacrifice (Philo)

Ps.-Eup.

Pseudo-Eupolemus

Op.

Works and Days (Opera et dies; Hesiod)

Ps.-Ezek.

Pseudo-Ezekiel

Or. Graecos

Address to the Greeks (Oratio ad Graecos; Tatian)

Ps.-Jon.

Pseudo-Jonathan

Ps.-Orph.

Pseudo-Orpheus

OT

Old Testament

Ps.-Philo

Pseudo-Philo

OTE

Old Testament Essays

Ps.-Phoc.

Pseudo-Phocylides

P. Petr.

Petrie Papyri

Ps.-Sol.

Pseudo-Solomon

P. Polit. Iud.

Papyrus of the Jewish Politeuma

Pss. Sol.

Psalms of Solomon

PA

Panim Aherim

Pyr.

PAM

Palestine Archeological Museum

Outlines of Pyrrhonism (Pyrrhoniae hypotyposes; Sextus Empiricus)

Pan.

Refutation of All Heresies (Panarion [Adversus haereses]; Epiphanius)

Pyth.

Pythian Odes (Pythionikai; Pindar)

QE

Questions and Answers on Exodus (Quaestiones et solutiones in Exodum; Philo)

QG

Questions and Answers on Genesis (Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin; Philo)

QGE

Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus

Quaest. conv.

Quaestionum convivialum libri IX (Plutarch)

Paneg.

Panegyricus (Isocrates)

Parm.

Parmenides (Plato)

Pesik. Rab.

Pesikta Rabbati

Pesik. Rab Kah.

Pesikta de Rab Kahana

PG

Patrologiae Graecae

Phaed.

Phaedo (Plato)

Phaedr.

Phaedrus (Plato)

xxiv Lists of Abbreviations

Quaest. rom.

Quaestiones romanae et graecae (Aetia romana et graeca; Plutarch)

SR Strat.

Strategy (Strategicus; Onasander)

Ran.

Frogs (Ranae; Aristotle)

Strom.

RB

Revue Biblique

Miscellanies (Stromata; Clement of Alexandria)

Rep.

De republica (Cicero)

Sull.

Sulla (Plutarch)

Studies in Religion

Resp.

Republic (Respublica; Plato)

Sus.

Susanna

RevQ

Revue de Qumran

SVF

Stoicorum veterum fragmenta

Rewards

On Rewards and Punishments (De praemiis et poenis; Philo)

Symp.

Symposium (Plato)

Syr. Men.

Sentences of the Syriac Menander

Rhet.

Rhetoric (Rhetorica; Aristotle)

Syr.

The Syrian Wars

RSV

Revised Standard Version of the Bible

Testaments

Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

Ruth Rab.

Ruth Rabbah

T. Ab.

Testament of Abraham

S. Eli. Rab.

Seder Eliyahu Rabbah

T. Adam

Testament of Adam

S. Eli. Zuta

Seder Eliyahu Zuta

T. Ash.

Testament of Asher

S. Olam Rab.

Seder ‘Olam Rabbah

T. Benj.

Testament of Benjamin

S. Rab. d’Bereshit Seder Rabbah d’Bereshit

T. Dan

Testament of Dan

Sacrifices

On the Sacrifices of Cain and Abel (De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini; Philo)

T. Gad

Testament of Gad

T. Isaac

Testament of Isaac

Sat.

Satires (Satirae; Juvenal)

T. Iss.

Testament of Issachar

SB

Sammelbuch griechescher Urkunden aus Aegypten

T. Jac.

Testament of Jacob

T. Job

Testament of Job

T. Jos.

Testament of Joseph

T. Jud.

Testament of Judah

T. Levi

Testament of Levi

T. Mos.

Testament of Moses

T. Naph.

Testament of Naphtali

T. Reub.

Testament of Reuben

T. Sim.

Testament of Simeon

T. Sol.

Testament of Solomon

T. Zeb.

Testament of Zebulon

Tanh.

Tanhuma

Tanh. Ber.

Tanhuma Bereshit

Tanh. Ekev

Tanhuma Ekev

Tanh. Hukkat

Tanhuma Hukkat

Tanh. Lekh.

Tanhuma Lekh Lekha

Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas

Tanh. Naso

Tanhuma Naso

Sobriety

On Sobriety (De sobrietate; Philo)

Tanh. Noah

Tanhuma Noah

SPCK

Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge

Tanh. Shelach

Tahuma Shelach

Tanh. Shoftim

Tanhuma Shoftim

On the Special Laws (De specialibus legibus; Philo)

Tanh. Tzav

Tanhuma Tzav

Tanh. Vayikra

Tanhuma Vayikra

SPhilo

Studia Philonica

TDNT

SPhA

Studia Philonica Annual

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament

SBL

Society of Biblical Literature

Scut.

Shield (Scutum; Hesiod)

Sen.

On Old Age (De senectute; Cicero)

Sent.

Sentences (Menander)

Sera

On the Delays of Divine Vengeance (De sera numinis vindicta; Plutarch)

Shir Rab.

Shir ha-Shirim Rabbah

Shir Zuta

Shir ha-Shirim Zuta

Sib. Or.

Sibylline Oracle

Sifre Deut.

Sifre Deuteronomy

Sifre Num.

Sifre Numbers

Sifre Z.

Sifre Zutta

Sir.

Wisdom of Ben Sira (Sirach)

SJSOT

Supplement to the Journal of the Old Testament

SNTSMS

Spec. Laws

Lists of Abbreviations xxv

Tg. Deut

Targum to Deuteronomy

Also Used

Tg. Esth.

Targum to Esther

||

parallel to

Tg. Ezek.

Targum to Ezekiel

=

equal to

Tg. Exod.

Targum to Exodus

ad loc.

ad locum, at the (same) place

Tg. Jer.

Targum to Jeremiah

am

anno mundi

Tg. Jon.

Targum Jonathan

Aram.

Aramaic

Tg. Judg.

Targum to Judges

Arm.

Armenian

Tg. Neof.

Targum Neofiti

bce

Before the Common Era

Tg. Nev.

Targum of the Prophets (=Targum Nevi’im; Targum Jonathan)

BH

Biblical Hebrew

ce

Common Era

Tg. Onk.

Targum Onkelos

Tg. Ps.-J.

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan

Tg. Rishon

Targum Rishon (Targum of Esther 1)

Tg. Sheni

Targum Sheni (Targum of Esther 2)

Tg. Yer.

Targum Yerushalmi

Theaet.

Theaetetus (Plato)

Theog.

Theogony (Theogonia; Hesiod)

Tim.

Timaeus (Plato)

Tob.

Tobit

Top.

Topics (Topica; Aristotle)

Traditions

Traditions of the Bible

Tro.

Daughters of Troy (Troades; Euripides)

Tusc.

Tusculan Disputations (Tusculanae disputationes; Cicero)

Tusc. disp.

Tusculanae disputations (Cicero)

Unchangeable

That God Is Unchangeable (Quod Deus sit immutabilis; Philo)

Var. hist.

Various History (Varia historia; Aelian)

VC

Vigiliae Christianae

Ver. hist.

A True Story (Vera historia; Lucian)

Vesp.

The Life of Vespasian (Vespasianus; Suetonius)

Vir. ill.

On Illustrious Men (De viris illustribus; Jerome)

Virt. vit.

On Virtues and Vices (De Virtutibus et vitiis; Pseudo-Aristotle)

Virtues

On the Virtues (De virtutibus; Philo)

VT

Vetus Testamentum

Vulg.

Vulgate (Latin translation of the Bible)

Wis.

Wisdom of Solomon

Worse

That the Worse Attacks the Better (Quod deterius potiori insidari solent; Philo)

Yal.

Yalkut

Yal. Shimoni

Yalkut Shimoni

ZAW

Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

xxvi

Lists of Abbreviations

chap.

chapter

Gk.

Greek

Heb.

Hebrew

ibid.

in the same place (ibidem)

Lat.

Latin

lit.

literally

Midr.

Midrash

ms, mss

manuscript, manuscripts

MT

Masoretic Text

OL

Old Latin

par.

paragraph(s)

pl

plural

se

Seleucid Era

v., vv.

verse, verses

Important Dates of the Second Temple Period 600 bce

Babylonian Empire assumes control of Syria-Palestine

586 bce

Destruction of the First Temple, expulsion of Jews to Babylonia

Persian Period, 538–333 bce 539–538 bce

Cyrus the Great gains control of Mesopotamia and allows Jews to return to Judea

520–515 bce

Second Temple built

Hellenistic Period, 336–63 bce 336–334 bce

Alexander the Great secures rule of Greece

334–323 bce

Alexander conquers the East, including Judea

323–301 bce

Wars among the Diadochi, Alexander’s would-be successors

301 bce

Ptolemaic rule established in Egypt, North Africa, and Palestine

285–246 bce

Reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, who sponsored Septuagint

221 bce

Seleucid King, Antiochus III, invades Palestine for the first time

Ptolemaic Period

Seleucid Period 201–198 bce

Seleucid conquest of Palestine under Antiochus III

168–164 bce

Maccabean (Hasmonean) Revolt, desecration of the Temple

164 bce

Rededication of the Temple

160 bce

Death of Judah Maccabee

152 bce

Jonathan established as High Priest; Josephus first mentions Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes

143–134 bce

Simon’s term of office; Seleucids relinquish all claims on Judea

134–104 bce

Reign of John Hyrcanus (“Yohanan Kohen Gadol”)

Hasmonean Rule

103–76 bce

Reign of Alexander Jannaeus, greatest expansion of Hasmonean kingdom

76–67 bce

Reign of Salome Alexandra (“Shlomzion HaMalka”)

Roman Period 63 bce–337 CE 63 bce

Roman conquest of Jerusalem by Pompey

44 bce

Murder of Julius Caesar

40 bce

Parthian invasion of Palestine; Herod flees to Rome

37 bce

Herod captures Jerusalem

xxvii

ca. 20 bce–50 ce

Lifespan of Philo of Alexandria

4 bce

Death of Herod; his kingdom is split among his sons

6 ce

Establishment of direct Roman rule in Judea

26 (or 19)–37 ce

Pontius Pilate’s term as Procurator in Jerusalem

30 or 33 ce

Jesus is crucified by the Romans

37–ca. 100 ce

Lifespan of Flavius Josephus

66–70 ce

First Jewish revolt against Romans

70 ce

Titus sacks Jerusalem and destroys the Second Temple

73 or 74 ce

Siege of Masada

116–117 ce

Jewish uprisings in Diaspora

132–135 ce

Bar-Kokhba Revolt

135–138 ce

Hadrianic persecutions

ca. 220 ce

Mishnah is compiled

late 3rd century ce

Tannaitic (halakhic) midrashim are compiled

4th century ce

Tosefta is compiled

306–337 ce

Reign of Constantine; Christianity legalized and becomes imperial religion

Byzantine Period, 337–638 ce 4th–5th century ce Jerusalem Talmud is compiled 5th century ce

First aggadic midrashim are compiled (Genesis Rabbah)

ca. 415 ce

Abolition of Jewish Patriarchate

500–1000 ce

Masorete transcription of the Hebrew Bible

638 ce

Muslim conquest of Palestine

6th–7th century ce Babylonian Talmud is compiled

xxviii Second Temple Period

Outside the Bible

1

The Septuagint Emanuel Tov “Septuagint” is the ancient Jewish-Greek translation of Hebrew Scripture. Septuaginta means “seventy” in Latin (usually abbreviated as LXX). This name derives from the tradition that the first Greek translation of the Torah (Pentateuch) was prepared by 72 elders, 6 from each of the 12 original tribes. The number 72 was subsequently rounded off to 70.1 The story of the miraculous creation of the translation is first found in the Hellenistic Jewish Letter of Aristeas (§301–7) and in the slightly later writings of Philo of Alexandria.2 At the same time, Rabbinic tradition, especially in the Talmud (B. Sof. 1.7), says there were 5 translators of the Torah, 1 for each book; this is more probable than 72 or 70. History and Transmission According to the Letter of Aristeas, the translation of the Torah into Greek was initiated by Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Egypt (reigned 285–246 bce), and was centered in Alexandria. This date is probably correct, although most other details in this Letter may be fictive. The translations of the rest of the Hebrew Bible, the Prophets and the Writings, were completed by the middle of the 1st century bce. The grandson of Ben Sira knew the translation of the Prophets and part of the Writings in 132 or 116 bce, according to different computations of the date of his Greek translation of Ben Sira’s treatise (see also Wisdom of Ben Sira). Like Hebrew Scripture, the LXX was transmitted in various ways: first in scrolls, later in book form (codex), as well as through citations in other manuscripts, etc. The form of the Hebrew Scripture with which we are most familiar is the Masoretic Text (MT). Forerunners of the MT are found among the Dead Sea Scrolls fragments dating from the 3rd century bce until the 2nd century ce. The LXX, likewise, is known from ancient parchment (leather) and papyrus scrolls and codices, among them several fragments of early copies found near the Dead Sea. The most reliable complete texts of the LXX, however, are preserved in Christian biblical manuscripts, the codices B (Vaticanus), A (Alexandrinus), and S (Sinaiticus), from the 4th and 5th centuries ce. With the aid of these codices, earlier papyri, and evidence from the church fathers, modern editions reconstruct the early form of the LXX. Nature and Content The translation of the Torah into Greek was soon to be followed by piecemeal translations of the other books of Hebrew Scripture. However, just as the Torah influenced the rest of the biblical books, so the LXX—strictly speaking, the translation of the Torah—gave its name to the collected Greek translations of the remaining Hebrew books. Thus, the label “LXX” ultimately came to designate a group of many translations of the various biblical

1

books, translations that represent different approaches and were produced at different times. In the current version of the LXX, most books reproduce the original Greek translations (the “Old Greek”), but some reflect anonymous later revisions, for example 2 Kings (called 4 Kingdoms in the LXX) and the Song of Songs. The book of Daniel of the LXX contains a revision by a Jewish scholar, Theodotion.3 These internal differences among the various translations in the collected Greek Scripture texts existed already in antiquity, and consequently modern editions of the LXX are of equally mixed character. When analyzing books of the LXX, one has to take this variety into consideration. The Septuagint contains Greek versions of all the books of Hebrew Scripture, and also Greek versions of Hebrew books, such as Baruch and the Wisdom of Ben Sira, that were not included in the Hebrew canon. And the books in the LXX are arranged in a different sequence from their order in Hebrew Scripture. In the Hebrew Bible, the three large divisions are Torah, Prophets, and Writings; the divisions reflect the various scriptural books composed at different stages of the creation of the Bible. The books of Greek Scripture are arranged according to their content, in a somewhat different order: Torah and historical books, books of poetry and wisdom, and prophetic books, followed by the books of the New Testament (NT).4 Within each group, the sequence of the books differs from Hebrew Scripture. For example, in the Greek, the book of Ruth (included among the Writings in the Hebrew) follows the book of Judges, since its story took place “in the days of the Judges” (Ruth 1:1). Often the names of the books differ from their counterparts in Hebrew Scripture (e.g., Samuel–Kings are named 1–4 Kingdoms in the LXX). The Character of the Translation In the modern world, we are accustomed to translations of literary compositions, and it is hard to imagine that at one time no such translations existed. Indeed, in antiquity, crosscultural enterprises such as the translation of Hebrew Scripture into Greek were a rarity. In fact, the LXX embodies the first major translation from an oriental language into Greek, and it was the first written translation of Hebrew Scripture. Therefore, the translators had to overcome many problems. When trying to analyze the Hebrew and Aramaic words, the translators could not resort to tools such as dictionaries or other sources of lexical information; they had to rely on their living knowledge of these languages and on exegetic traditions relating to words and contexts. We may assume that the translators were guided by such traditions when a specific rendering is found also in other sources. Thus a kesitah (a monetary unit of unknown value) is rendered in the LXX (Gen. 33:19; Josh. 24:32; Job 42:11)—and also in the Aramaic Targum Onkelos and the Latin Vulgate—as “lamb” (cf. also Gen. Rab. 79:7). By the same token, the identification of difficult words was often guided by the context. Such a procedure frequently was little more than guesswork, especially in the case of rare and unique Hebrew words. The LXX was written in Koine, the Hellenistic dialect of Greek that was in general use by those who spoke and wrote in Greek from the 4th century bce onward. Research into the language of the LXX is important, since this work forms the largest literary source writ-

2 Emanuel Tov

ten in this dialect. However, the study of the language of the LXX is complicated because of its many lexical and syntactic Hebraisms transforming characteristic Hebrew idioms to the Greek language, where such idioms do not exist. The high level of adherence to the Hebrew by the translators created new meanings and usages that can only be explained against the Hebrew background of the LXX. Thus the standard rendering of shalom as eirēnē created a new shade of meaning in 2 Sam. 11:7, where “David asked . . . how the war was going” (u-li-shelom ha-milhamah), . which was rendered as “and the peace of the war” (eis eirēnēn tou polemou). The first translators had to develop their own translation styles. The general approaches of translators are usually labeled “literal” and its opposite, “free” (or “contextual,” or when exceedingly free, “paraphrastic”). Between these two extremes many gradations and variations may be discerned, from slavishly faithful to extremely paraphrastic (when the wording of the parent text is hardly recognizable). The books of the LXX are characterized by different translation styles that often appear within books of similar content. The reason for these differing styles is unclear. For example, the Greek versions of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the books of the Minor Prophets are rather literal (the original form of these books was translated by one individual), while the translation of Isaiah is free—at times very free. Similar differences are visible within the Writings, where Psalms is presented in a very literal Greek version and the translations of Job and Proverbs are quite free, sometimes paraphrastic. Analysis of the level of freedom and literalness in the translators’ approaches forms a key element in our understanding of translation styles and their use in the text-critical analysis of Hebrew Scripture. In short, the argument runs as follows: If a translator represented his Hebrew text faithfully in small details, we would not expect him to insert major changes in the translation. Therefore, when we find major differences between the LXX and MT in relatively faithful translation units, they must reflect different Hebrew texts. These differing Hebrew texts are of central importance to our understanding of Hebrew Scripture. Most of the books of Hebrew Scripture were rendered into Greek in a relatively faithful way, while some are characterized by very literal renderings. In books of the latter type we can more easily assess the nature of the deviations from the MT. Some books, however, were rendered freely. These units pose special challenges, since in these cases it is more difficult to assess the nature of the Hebrew text behind the LXX (see Selections from Joshua, Selections from Esther, and Selections from Daniel.). The LXX was translated from a Hebrew text that differed, often greatly, from the MT. This is not surprising, since in antiquity many differing copies of the Hebrew Scripture text were in circulation. All these copies were considered “Scripture” in early Judaism (but not in the later Rabbinic Judaism) and in Christianity, and they are accepted as such also by most scholars. In our analysis of Hebrew Scripture, we should supplement the data of the MT with valuable information included in the LXX, some Qumran scrolls, and the Samaritan Pentateuch. Small differences between the LXX and the MT—minor changes inserted by scribes

The Septuagint 3

and mistakes made while copying the manuscripts—are recorded in the critical text editions of individual books of the MT. While some are also noted in the commentary on selections from the LXX in these volumes, the commentary focuses mainly on large differences between the MT and the LXX. Such differences may involve a whole chapter or even a complete book. In some cases, the LXX contains a compositional layer that may have preceded the text of the MT (for example, in the books of Joshua and Jeremiah). In other cases, the Hebrew text underlying the LXX rewrote the MT, in ways that often resemble midrashic techniques (e.g., in 1 Kings, Esther, and Daniel). In yet other cases, the relation between the two texts cannot be determined easily (e.g., in Genesis, 1 Samuel, and Proverbs). The World of the Translators Many renderings reflect the cultural environment of the translators, which consisted of elements of both Palestinian and Egyptian society. The Egyptian background is visible in some local technical terms. For example, nogsim, “taskmasters,” in the story of the Israelites in Egypt (Exod. 3:7 and elsewhere) was rendered as ergodiōktai, literally, “those who speed up the workers,” known from Egyptian papyri; the Hellenistic division of cities into nomoi (districts) is reflected in Isa. 19:2 LXX. The translators often added religious background to sayings in Hebrew Scripture. See the examples given in Proverbs 1 and Selections from Esther; see further Isa. 5:13: “Therefore my people go into exile without knowledge” (NRSV), to which the LXX added “of the Lord.” Likewise, Targum Jonathan often identified “knowledge” with “the Torah” (Isa. 28:9 etc.). In several places, the translators interpreted the context as referring to the messiah. “A star rises from Jacob, a scepter comes forth from Israel” in Num. 24:17 MT is interpreted in the LXX as “A star shall come forth out of Jacob, and a man shall rise out of Israel” (emphasis mine). A similar interpretation is reflected in the Aramaic Targumim. In other instances, the translators avoided a physical depiction of God. Thus in Num. 12:8 MT, “and he beholds the likeness of the Lord” is rendered in the LXX as referring to the “glory of the Lord.” Significance The Jewish origin of the LXX is described in the Letter of Aristeas, in Rabbinic literature, and various additional sources. Its Jewish nature is reflected in its terminology and exegesis. Several Hebrew words were preserved in the LXX in their Hebrew or Aramaic form (at the time of the translation, Aramaic was more commonly spoken by Jews than was Hebrew). Some Hebraized Greek words in the LXX probably reflected the spoken language of the Alexandrian Jews, such as sabbata (Heb. Shabbat, Aram. shabta‘) and pascha (Heb. pesach, Aram. pascha’). Jewish exegesis is visible wherever a special interpretation of the LXX is known also from Rabbinic literature. Such exegesis reveals the Palestinian background of at least some of the translators. For example, the Gk. to deuteron epidekaton, “second tithe,” in the LXX of Deut. 26:12 differs from the term found in the MT: shenat ha-ma‘aser, “the year of the tithe.” Here,

4 Emanuel Tov

the LXX translator has read the Heb. as shenit ha-ma‘aser, literally “second, the tithe”; this interpretation represents the influence of the Rabbinic term ma‘aser sheni (“second tithe”), mistakenly read into the biblical text. The LXX translation was a Jewish venture, created for Jews and probably also for Gentiles. It was used by Jews in their weekly ceremonial reading from Scripture,5 and served as the base for the philosophical-exegetic works of Philo and the historical-exegetic writings of Josephus. However, the central position of the LXX in Judaism did not last for a long period. It was soon recognized that the LXX often differed from the Hebrew text that was current in Palestine from the 2nd to the 1st centuries bce onward and that was later to become the MT. These differences were not to the liking of the Pharisaic (proto-Rabbinic) circles, who held on to the exact wording of the MT, and soon a trend developed to replace the LXX with new translations. These new translations adapted the Old Greek translation to the Hebrew text then current in Palestine. They also changed the wording of the original translation when it imprecisely represented the source text. Because of their revisional character, the translations that were produced after the Old Greek translation are usually called “revisions.” The Jewish dislike of the LXX became even stronger when the Greek writings of early Christianity (the New Testament, or NT) based themselves, quite naturally, on the LXX (for Christianity: the Greek translation of the Old Testament). The LXX influenced the NT at various levels. Many of the terms used by the LXX translators became part and parcel of the language of the NT. For example, christos, originally a Gk. rendering of the Heb. mashiach, “the anointed,” became the accepted appellation of Jesus of Nazareth. Furthermore, the NT quotes the LXX frequently, and some of its theological foundations are based on the wording of passages in the LXX. At an early stage the belief developed that this translation was divinely inspired and hence the way was open for several church fathers to claim that the LXX reflected the words of God more precisely than the Hebrew Bible. In the West, Christianity held on to the LXX as Holy Scripture until it was replaced by the Vulgate translation, by the church father Jerome (ca. 400 ce). In the Russian and Greek Orthodox churches, the LXX is still considered sacred. Suggested Reading Bickerman, Elias. “The Septuagint as a Translation.” In Studies in Jewish and Christian History, Part 1, 167– 200. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des Antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 9. Leiden: Brill, 1967. Dines, Jennifer M. The Septuagint. London: T. & T. Clark, 2004. Fernández Marcos, Natalio. The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Versions of the Bible. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Jellicoe, Sidney. The Septuagint and Modern Study. Oxford: Clarendon, 1968. Seeligmann, Isaac L. “Problems and Perspectives in Modern Septuagint Research.” Textus 15 (1990): 169–232. Silva, Moisés, and K. H. Jobes. Invitation to the Septuagint. Grand Rapids mi: Baker Academic, 2000. Swete, Henry B. An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 2nd ed. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1914. Tov, Emanuel. “The Septuagint.” In Mikra, section 2, The Literature of the Jewish People in the Period of the Second Temple and the Talmud, edited by M. J. Mulder, 1:161–88. Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum. Assen-Maastricht: Fortress/Van Gorcum, 1988. ———. “The Nature of the Large-Scale Differences between the LXX and MT S T V, Compared with Similar Evidence in Other Sources.” In The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between the Mas-

The Septuagint 5

oretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuaginta Reconsidered, edited by Adrian Schenker, 121–44. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 52. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2003. ———. The Parallel Aligned Text of the Greek and Hebrew Bible (division of the CATSS database, directed by R. A. Kraft and E. Tov), module in the Accordance computer program, 2002 (with updates 2003–) and the Logos computer program, 2004 (with updates 2005–).

Notes 1. The number 70 recurs in Jewish tradition: “seventy of the elders of Israel” went up to the mountain of Sinai together with Moses (Exod. 24:1, 9); 70 elders were appointed to assist Moses (Num. 11:16); the 70 members of the Sanhedrin. 2. The story was taken up and expanded in later Christian sources as well, especially in Epiphanius’s treatise, On Weights and Measures, paragraph 9 (4th century ce). 3. At the end of the 2nd century ce Theodotion rendered large parts of Hebrew Scripture into Greek in Ephesus, Asia Minor, based on an earlier anonymous translation. 4. The placing of the prophetic books immediately before the writings of the NT, found in manuscript B of the LXX, dating to the 4th century ce, probably reflects a Christian viewpoint. 5. There is ample literary evidence for the notion that Scripture was read in Greek in religious gatherings of Greek-speaking Jewish communities from the 1st century bce onward. For example, Philo (Good Person 81–82) refers to this custom in Alexandria.

6 Emanuel Tov

The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha James L. Kugel The terms “Apocrypha” and “Pseudepigrapha” are used to designate two loosely defined groups of texts that have survived—for the most part in translation from the original Hebrew or Aramaic—thanks to their having been preserved by various Christian churches. This fact in itself should make clear that the terms themselves, as well as the distinction between them, are proper to Christianity. From a Jewish standpoint, these texts, along with the Dead Sea Scrolls and the writings of Philo, Josephus, and other Hellenistic Jewish authors, all belong to a single corpus of Jewish writings of the Second Temple period. Some of these writings clearly were considered to be sacred texts, but for one reason or another they were not incorporated into the canonical collection that makes up our current Jewish Bible. This is certainly true of many of the Apocrypha; some were doubtless thought to be no less holy than such biblical books as Genesis or Psalms. But when the Christian scholar Jerome (ca. 331–420) set out to translate Hebrew Scripture into Latin, he put aside a number of books that were not in the Rabbinic canon as “Apocrypha,” the Greek term meaning “put aside” or “hidden away” (perhaps used by Jerome as an equivalent of the Hebrew genuzim). The works usually included under the rubric Apocrypha, are: 1 and 2 Maccabees (some Christian Bibles also include 3 and 4 Maccabees), 1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus), 1 Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah, Psalm 151, Additions to the Book of Daniel (comprised of The Prayer of Azariah, The Song of the Three Youths, The Story of Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon), Additions to the Book of Esther, and The Prayer of Manasseh. The Pseudepigrapha include a far more fluid body of texts. The name “pseudepigrapha” means “falsely attributed writings,” a reflection of the practice common in Second Temple times for authors to conceal their real identity and attribute their writings to various biblical figures—Enoch, Abraham, Moses, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezra, and so forth. But this name does not properly describe all the works generally included under the rubric of pseudepigrapha: a number of them contain no attribution of authorship whatsoever. These works, like those of the Apocrypha, cover a wide range of literary genres. Many are accounts of dream visions or divine revelations (such as 1 and 2 Enoch, the Apocalypse of Abraham, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, etc.). Others take the form of spiritual last wills, in which a dying ancestor instructs his descendants about the proper path to follow in life (the Testament of Job, the Testament of Abraham, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, etc.). Still others are expansive retellings of biblical material (the Life of Adam and Eve, Jubilees, Pseudo-Philo’s Book of Biblical Antiquities), as well as collections of ancient wisdom, pseudepigraphic psalms, and yet other material. Together, these works comprise the largest body of Jewish writings from the Second Temple period that we possess, surpassing in volume

7

the whole collection of the Dead Sea Scrolls, or the Septuagint, or the writings of individual authors such as Philo or Josephus. Ancient Biblical Interpretation One valuable aspect of these works is that nearly all of them reveal something about how the Torah and other sacred texts were commonly interpreted at the time in which the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha were written. (The same, of course, is true of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Hellenistic Jewish writings.) The interest in the meaning of Scripture, and often the willful attempt to promote a new interpretation of ancient texts, is most evident in works like Jubilees or the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. In both, the author deliberately sets out to comment on well-known biblical narratives from Genesis, seeking to resolve inconsistencies or apparent contradictions in the text, as well as to flesh out details in the story and, often, to bring out some new teaching or lesson from the biblical narrative. Jubilees and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs stand out among all the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha by dint of their intense focus on explaining and expanding the stories of Genesis. They also reveal an interesting feature of ancient biblical interpretation. Although commentaries per se did exist in ancient times (in, for example, the writings of Philo and the Dead Sea Scrolls pesharim), a rather popular way of commenting on texts was not to cite a verse and then offer an explanation, but rather to explain via retelling. Commentators would rewrite a text in their own words, inserting into it their own understanding. If, for example, the original text contained a problematic word or phrase, or a place name no longer in use, the commentator would replace it with a different word or phrase that everyone would understand, or the name of a place that everyone would recognize. The same principle operated on the level of sustained narrative. In retelling a biblical story, the commentator would insert explanations of how something happened, or what motivated this or that biblical figure to act as he or she did. Sometimes these insertions went on for pages, nor were they always intended merely to clarify or fill in gaps in the narrative. Often they were designed to justify questionable items—to explain, for example, why it was not reprehensible of Abram to have instructed his wife Sarai to say that she was his sister. Sometimes these ancient commentators also sought to find in biblical texts justification for their own, polemical claims—such as the attempt by the author of Jubilees to condemn any contact of Jews with non-Jews. Offhand Exegesis Jubilees, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and one or two others of the biblical Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha are indeed bent on interpreting, or reinterpreting, biblical narratives. But many of the other texts included under these rubrics refer to biblical texts in an altogether offhand manner, as if incorporating unconsciously some existing piece of interpretation. In many cases, it seems that the writer is simply reflecting what he or she has heard or learned from others—teachers or preachers or other public figures. It is well to remember that books in this period were extremely expensive and relatively rare; it is altogether likely that those who studied ancient texts were simply taught to memorize them—

8 James L. Kugel

and that, along with the text itself, they learned by heart a standard interpretation of each passage or verse. Under such circumstances, it must not have always been easy for them to distinguish between text and standard commentary. So it is that many writers introduce a bit of interpretation (what is called an interpretive motif) without explaining, or perhaps even realizing, that such an explanation does not appear in the Scriptural text itself. To give but one example among many: the book of Judith is essentially an adventure tale, the story of its heroine’s brave confrontation with the villain Holofernes. The book has very little (if any) interest in ancient interpretive traditions per se. But just before the climactic scene, Judith prays a short prayer: O Lord God of my ancestor Simeon, to whom you gave a sword to take revenge on those strangers who had torn off a virgin’s clothing to defile her, and exposed her thighs to put her to shame, and polluted her womb to disgrace her; for You said, “It shall not be done—yet they did it. . . .” O God, my God, hear me also, a widow. ( Jdth. 9:1–4) In this prayer is evidence of at least two ancient interpretive motifs that derive from the biblical story of Dinah (Gen. 34). The first maintained that Levi and Simeon were each given a special, heaven-sent weapon (here, “a sword”) with which to take revenge on the people of Shechem for the rape of their sister. There is no mention of such a weapon having been given in the biblical story, but the same interpretive motif appears in the Testament of Levi (3:1) section of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and may be hinted at as well in the Hellenistic romance, Joseph and Aseneth (23:13–14). Another interpretive motif appears in Judith’s assertion that God said, “‘It shall not be done’—yet they did it.” This is a reference to Gen. 34:7, where it is apparently Jacob’s sons who say to each other, “Such a thing shall not be done.” But an ancient motif found in Jubilees (30:5) and elsewhere held that these words were uttered not by Jacob’s sons, but by God himself. Here, then, are two examples of the sort of offhand references to existing exegetical traditions that are common in Second Temple writings. Focus on Genesis It is an interesting feature of the books included in the biblical Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha that the exegetical motifs that they cite are overwhelmingly focused on narratives that appear in Genesis. (One partial exception is the Book of Biblical Antiquities, which retells biblical narratives from Genesis through 1 Samuel). This stands in opposition to the many texts from Qumran that are concerned with matters of halakhah ( Jewish law), for example, the Temple Scroll and Some Precepts on the Torah [4QMMT]); the same is true of the writings of Philo and Josephus, both of whom show a profound interest in, and familiarity with, halakhic traditions. But such matters are relatively neglected in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. Perhaps the reason lies in the fact that these texts have all survived thanks to early Christians. It may be that the relative lack of interest in halakhic matters in early Christianity caused the early Church to put aside Jewish texts focused on such things and to concentrate instead on those connected to Genesis. Of course, there is much to be learned from the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha apart

The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha 9

from ancient biblical interpretation. Indeed, these texts open a window onto the whole world of Second Temple Judaism. That is, they tell us much about the actual way of life of Jews in this period; their social and political conditions, both within Judea and outside of it; what they thought about themselves in relation to their immediate neighbors; to what extent different circles within the population had been influenced by Hellenism and Greek thought, and how they themselves felt about this influence; and finally, how they sought to connect themselves to Israel’s biblical past, as well as their hopes and dreams about the future. All these subjects have been investigated in the past, but there remains much to be discovered—sometimes, between the lines—in this important group of texts from the Second Temple period. Suggested Reading Charles, R. H. Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1913. Charlesworth, J. C. Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. Garden City ny: Doubleday, 1983, 1985. Kugel, J. L. The Bible as It Was. Cambridge ma: Harvard University Press, 1997. Nickelsburg, George W. E. Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Augsburg-Fortress, 2005. Sparks, H. F. D. The Apocryphal Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1984. Stone, M. E. Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period. Philadelphia: VanGorcum-Fortress, 1984.

10

James L. Kugel

The Writings of Philo David T. Runia Philo of Alexandria is the most important representative of Hellenistic Judaism, the Greekspeaking variety of Judaism that flourished in Alexandria and elsewhere in the Diaspora from 200 bce to 100 ce. Philo ’ s Life We obtain very little explicit information about Philo from his own writings. Josephus refers to him only once, in Ant. 18.259–60. This passage tells us four things: (1) that Philo was “held in the highest honor” in the Jewish community of Alexandria; (2) that he was the brother of Alexander the Alabarch, a leading member of the community and one of the richest men in the Roman Empire; (3) that he was “not unskilled in philosophy”; and (4) that he was placed at the head of an embassy of Alexandrian Jews that traveled to Rome to protest to the Emperor Gaius Caligula against the anti-Jewish mob violence that had taken place in Alexandria in 38 ce, a perilous adventure that could have cost Philo his life. Josephus may well have derived this last item of information from Philo’s own account of the delegation, which has survived under the title On the Embassy to Gaius. At the beginning of this work Philo describes himself as a “senior person” who has gone gray through length of years (Embassy 1). This is the only secure chronologic evidence that we have for his life. He was probably born about 20 bce and had died by about 50 ce. Philo was born into a very rich and influential Jewish family in Alexandria. There can be no doubt that he enjoyed the privileges of Roman citizenship and had the benefit of an extensive education in the liberal arts and philosophy. In his writings he often speaks in general terms about social and cultural events that he attended in Alexandrian society. At the same time his writings attest to his deep involvement in the life of the Jewish community, even if concrete details about his participation in religious and educational institutions are lacking. The 4th-century church father Jerome relates that Philo was of priestly descent (Vir. ill. 11). There are good arguments for accepting this testimony; in an incidental comment in one of his dialogues, Philo tells us that he traveled to Jerusalem “to pray and sacrifice in the ancestral Temple” (Prov. 2.107). Apart from the embassy, the most interesting evidence on Philo’s life in his own writings is furnished by two surviving dialogues that depict discussions in his family circle (On Providence 2 and Whether Animals Have Reason). In both works the chief interlocutor is his nephew Tiberius Julius Alexander, who apostasized from his Jewish beliefs, became governor of Egypt, and participated in the campaign that led to the destruction of the Temple in 70 ce. Philo passionately defends Jewish belief in divine providence against the skeptical Alexander. At the end of the dialogue Alexander concedes victory to his uncle

11

(Prov. 2.113), but this may well have been wishful thinking on Philo’s part. In his introduction to On the Special Laws (3), Philo wistfully looks back on a time when he could devote his attention to philosophy and remain untouched by political cares (Spec. Laws 3.1–6). Here he is probably referring to the events leading up to the embassy, but they are also an indication of the dark clouds that were beginning to threaten the Jewish community in Alexandria during Philo’s lifetime. The community found itself in an increasingly precarious situation, sandwiched between the educated Greek citizen body and the native Egyptian populace, both of whom were deeply hostile to Jews. Such social and ideological conflict, which could burst into open violence at any time, is the backdrop for Philo’s writing. Works Philo was a prolific author. Almost 50 treatises by his hand have survived, amounting to about 2,500 pages of text. The best-known edition of his works in the Loeb Classical Library takes up no less than 12 volumes. Yet we know that at least a third of his writings have been lost. Moreover, not all of the extant works have survived in the original Greek; nine treatises, including the above-mentioned dialogues, are available only in a literal Armenian translation produced in Byzantium (present-day Istanbul) in the 6th century. The vast majority of Philo’s writings are commentaries on Scripture, focusing almost exclusively on the Torah, translated into Greek (the Septuagint, LXX). These commentaries can be grouped into three lengthy series, discussed at more length below. In some cases Philo explains the same biblical text in all three series, allowing direct comparison of the different methods of scriptural interpretation that he used in each. They are: Allegorical Interpretation, which consists of 21 treatises. Here Philo gives a detailed and complex exposition of Gen. 1–17. Through the use of the exegetic technique of allegory, he interprets the early history of humanity and the life of the patriarch Abraham in terms of the moral life and religious quest of the soul. Exposition of the Law, in 10 books. This is a more varied work directed at a wider audience. It offers a detailed explanation of the Torah, or Law, in its broadest sense. It commences with an explanation of the Creation account in Gen. 1–3, which is seen as laying a philosophical basis for the Law. It then moves on to the patriarchs as living embodiments of the Law, before turning to detailed exposition of the Decalogue and the other ordinances of the Mosaic Law, with emphasis on both literal observance and symbolic interpretation. There is also an introductory account of the life of Moses in two books, which is best seen as an introduction to the whole series rather than as belonging specifically to the Exposition. Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus, comprising six books (four on Genesis and two on Exodus). Imperfectly preserved in Armenian, this presents questions and answers on the biblical text in its literary sequence. Most of the (usually) short chapters contain literal interpretation, followed by figurative (or allegorical) interpretation. The purpose of this work is to provide a kind of repository of exegetic material, to be used in teaching or perhaps in the synagogue.

12 David T. Runia

A small group of historical-apologetic treatises also survives. Two of these deal with the violence against the Jews in Alexandria in 38 ce and its aftermath. In a famous work titled On the Contemplative Life, Philo paints an intriguing portrait of a group of Jewish ascetics living in the countryside outside Alexandria. His corresponding work on the “practical” life, describing the Essenes, has been lost, but fortunately we have a shorter chapter on the Essenes in another of Philo’s works (Good Person 75–91). These works are of inestimable value because they draw a picture of Jewish life and thought outside Palestine at the height of Second Temple Judaism. The group of five philosophical treatises is most intriguing. Three of these have only survived in an Armenian translation, On Providence 1 and 2 and Whether Animals Have Reason. There is also a treatise on the indestructibility of the cosmos and one titled That Every Good Person Is Free. These works, which make virtually no reference to Scripture at all, provide us with much highly valuable source material on Hellenistic philosophy and are relevant to the concerns of a Jewish intellectual. This is particularly clear in the case of the theme of divine providence, which is the subject of two of the five works. Philo ’ s Bible Philo’s writings contain a huge number of quotations from and references to the Jewish Bible. These have been collected together in a supplementary volume to the Biblia Patristica.1 This invaluable resource lists all the biblical quotations of the church fathers up to about 400 ce. Of the 129 columns of references, 123 are to the first five books, ascribed in the tradition to Moses, and only 6 to the rest of the Bible, including the Psalms and Prophets. This remarkable imbalance certainly tells us something important about Philo, which may well also extend to the rest of Alexandrian Judaism. Scripture for Philo is primarily, if not exclusively, the Torah. The chief reason for Philo’s focus on the Pentateuch is his great admiration for Moses. Philo is convinced that Moses was the author of the entire Torah, including the account of his death at the end, which Moses prophetically foresaw. At the beginning of his treatise on the biblical Creation account, On the Creation of the World, Philo introduces Moses to his readers as one who “not only had reached the very summit of philosophy, but had also been instructed in the many and most essential doctrines of nature by means of oracles” (Creation 8). This quote, if read carefully, indicates Philo’s double take on the origin of Scripture: On the one hand, God instructed Moses what to write, so that the authority of Scripture ultimately derives from God himself. But on the other, Moses is considered to be the divine instrument in formulating the writings that are transmitted under his name. Philo is convinced that these books, if read properly, contain all the wisdom and guidance that one needs to know in order to lead a good life, devoted to God. They represent a sacred text whose authority is paramount and unconditional. To some degree Philo tends to present Moses as a kind of Greek philosopher who founded a school of thought (hairesis), of which the Jewish people are disciples. This was a useful way of presenting the Jewish

The Writings of Philo

13

religion in the Greek intellectual context of Alexandria, especially since the Greeks had great respect for sages who lived long ago and left behind writings with great authority. Philo was of course well aware that Moses had written his books in Hebrew, or Chaldean, as he sometimes calls it. He himself, however, always refers to the Mosaic books of the Septuagint. As noted above, he wrote a biographical introduction to Moses and his writings in which he presents Moses under four headings: king (or leader), legislator, priest, and prophet. Moses’s role as author of Scripture is discussed mainly under the second heading (though it is also relevant to the fourth). Philo gives a famous account of how the Torah was translated into Greek on the instigation of none other than King Ptolemy of Alexandria (Moses 2.25–44; see also The Letter of Aristeas). Philo believes that the LXX is an exact translation of the original Hebrew text. He himself was almost certainly unable to read the Hebrew Bible in the original; the divine authority of the LXX was for him an article of faith.2 Philo ’ s Way of Reading the Bible Most of Philo’s writings are commentaries of differing kinds on the Torah. In them he makes crucial assumptions about the nature of the sacred text. For example, Moses writes nothing that is in any way superfluous; every word of his text, including all its names and numbers, is drenched with meaning, and that meaning is of direct relevance to people’s lives. For Philo, the sacred text has literal meaning. The patriarchs were real people who lived long ago, and the Torah’s injunctions for daily living are to be obeyed literally. He disagrees sharply with those contemporaries who argued that the Law had only symbolic significance (Migration 89–93). But his real interest is in the symbolic meaning of both the lives of the patriarchs and the regulations of the Torah. According to Philo, the wisdom of Scripture lies primarily in its hidden meaning, which can be uncovered only through the process of allegorical interpretation. He himself is famous (or notorious) for the complex systems of allegorical exegesis that he developed in response to the biblical text. For Philo, the patriarchs not only are humans who existed in history, but in a deeper sense stand for the soul in its relation to God. Abraham symbolizes the learning soul, Isaac the soul that is gifted by nature and is thus self-taught, Jacob the soul that strives for excellence and perfection through practice. The scheme behind this interpretation has its roots in Greek philosophy. Philo applies it to the Bible, and it allows him to discern spiritual depth in stories that on the surface may seem archaic or even alien. Philo’s method of allegorical exegesis makes many of his writings difficult and even convoluted; the reader often needs guidance to follow the complex chains of thought. The aim of his method, however, is simple: to show that Scripture is relevant for the life of the soul in quest of God. Contributing to the complexity is the fact that Philo sometimes gives differing or even competing explanations of the same text. Such multiple exegesis has its roots in the school setting of Alexandrian Judaism. Generations of exegetes had interpreted the Bible before Philo and he is keen to record their efforts, though he never mentions any names. Perhaps he sensed that these opinions had to be preserved before they disappeared.

14 David T. Runia

Philo ’ s Significance Without the evidence supplied by Philo’s copious writings, our knowledge of this fascinating period in the history of Jewish life and thought would be severely impoverished. His significance is particularly great in the following areas: Philo gives us a substantial amount of information about Jewish life in Alexandria at the beginning of the Common Era. His record of political events fleshes out the accounts of Josephus to a considerable degree. He also informs us about various Jewish groups in the Diaspora. His accounts, however, are often annoyingly vague and general. He also tells us much about Jewish observance of the Law in his time. Certain practices that later became standard in Rabbinic Judaism are foreshadowed in Philo’s writings. It is obvious that there was continuity between Judaism in Palestine and Judaism in the Diaspora. However, here too it is often hard to pin him down because he is commenting on the Bible and not explicitly describing contemporary practice. It is also likely that Philo was already acquainted with midrashic material that is recorded in Rabbinic texts. Because he quotes or paraphrases the LXX extensively in his works, Philo is a fundamental witness to the state of the biblical text in his time. His Bible is certainly not identical to the text as we have it today, but neither does he provide evidence for a separate edition that now has been lost. His writings are a crucial witness to the commentary tradition on the Greek Bible. His own exegesis, and especially his use of the allegorical method, is a unique product of Alexandrian Judaism. It also preserves evidence of other commentary traditions that preceded him. Philo testifies to an extensive interaction between Jewish culture and the dominant Greco-Roman culture of the Alexandria of his day. Nowhere did Jews adapt themselves to the dominant culture more than in this metropolis. A positive attitude to Greek cultural achievement is a hallmark of Alexandrian Judaism. Philo probably went further in this than most of his fellow Jews. He is also an important witness to the culture of early Imperial Alexandria aside from its links to Judaism. His command of the Greek language is outstanding, and the information he provides on Greek education, literature, science, and particularly philosophy is invaluable. He is a sharp observer, and even his observations of ancient sport incorporated in similes and metaphors have been considered informative by classical scholars. Philo was an exact contemporary of Jesus and an older contemporary of Paul. His writings form an important backdrop for the New Testament, even though Alexandria plays a limited role in that work. New Testament scholars have pored over Philo’s works for centuries in an attempt to understand how the Christian religion grew out of Second Temple Judaism.

The Writings of Philo

15

Philo ’ s Influence Philo’s writings had practically no influence on Judaism as it developed after the destruction of the Temple in 70 ce and the disastrous Jewish revolt in Egypt in 115–117 ce. The Rabbis were not interested in Philo because his attitude toward Greek culture differed so strongly from their own, and medieval Judaism was unaware of his existence. As far as Judaism is concerned, his writings were rediscovered by the Italian Jew Azariah dei Rossi in the late 16th century. On the other hand his writings were warmly embraced by early Christian thinkers, who saw in him a kindred spirit. They were attracted to his use of the Greek Bible and the allegorical method, as well as to doctrines such as the transcendence of God, the creation of the cosmos, the Logos, and providence. They also found his accounts of the life and role of Moses useful for apologetic purposes. The early Christians preserved Philo’s writings, first in Alexandria, and later in the libraries of Caesarea and Byzantium. Philo was regarded by Christian scholars as a “good Jew”—that is, one whose writings were acceptable to Christians—and this reputation continued in the medieval period. Today both Jewish and Christian scholars carry out extensive research on his writings and thought, the results of which are distilled in the various contributions to these volumes. Suggested Reading Philo’s writings are best consulted in the edition of the Loeb Classical Library: Philo: In Ten Volumes (and Two Supplementary Volumes). Translated by F. H. Colson, G. H. Whitaker, and R. Marcus. Cambridge ma: Harvard University Press, 1929–1962.

There is an excellent anthology: Winston, David. Philo of Alexandria, The Contemplative Life, The Giants, and Selections. The Classics of Western Spirituality. New York: Paulist Press, 1981.

Three volumes have been published in the new Philo of Alexandria Commentary Series: Runia, David T. Philo of Alexandria, On the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses. Leiden: Brill, 2001. van der Horst, P. W. Philo’s Flaccus: The First Pogrom. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Wilson, Walter T. Philo of Alexandria on Virtues: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary. Leiden: Brill, 2011.

The best recent general introduction is: Borgen, P. Philo of Alexandria: An Exegete for His Time. Leiden: Brill, 1997.

For Philo’s philosophical and theological thought, see: Winston, D. Logos and Mystical Theology in Philo of Alexandria. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1985.

For extensive use of Philo’s evidence in an account of Second Temple Judaism, see: Sanders, E. P. Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 bce–66 ce. Philadelphia: Trinity, 1992.

16

David T. Runia

For Philo’s reception in the Christian tradition, see: Runia, D. T. Philo in Early Christian Literature: A Survey. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.

Notes 1. Éditions du CNRS: Paris, 1982. 2. The miraculous translation was of the Torah, or Pentateuch, only. Later all the other books of the Hebrew Bible were also translated, and some originally Greek works were added as well.

The Writings of Philo

17

Josephus and His Writings Louis H. Feldman Titus Flavius Josephus, the important Jewish historian and prolific writer, provided us with our only detailed descriptions of Jewish history, politics, and culture of the Second Temple period, including first-hand accounts of the fall of Jerusalem in 70 ce and the events leading up to the emergence of nascent Christianity and the early Diaspora. His Life Few scholars have been neutral in their judgment of the life of Josephus. In the 19th century Jewish and Christian scholars alike condemned him almost unanimously. Aside from Josephus’s own autobiography and the references to his career in his Jewish War, the sources for his life are slight. Among pagan writers, Suetonius (Vespasian 5.6), Appian (frag. 17), and Cassius Dio (66.1) mention his prediction that Vespasian would become emperor, and Porphyry (De abstinentia et esu animaliums 4.11) cites Josephus’s discussion of the three philosophical schools (Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes). Perhaps the Talmud’s silence about him is due to the fact that he was an “outsider.” That said, an attempt has been made to find a hidden reference to him in minor talmudic tractates (Derek Eretz Rabbah 5, Pirke Ben Azzai 3) that mention a visit of several sages to a nameless (to be sure, pagan) philosopher in Rome who is seeking his intercession with the Emperor Domitian. Born in Jerusalem in 37 ce, Josephus was given the Hebrew name Joseph ben Mattityahu. In his autobiography, Life (2), he is proud of the fact that he was descended on his father’s side from the first of the 24 courses of priests and on his mother’s side from the Hasmonean kings. We know nothing of his life until the age of 14 (Life 8) except that he made great progress in his education and gained a reputation for such an excellent memory and understanding that he was universally consulted by the chief priests and leaders of Jerusalem for his precise information on the laws. Starting at the age of 16, he spent three years gaining personal experience as a Pharisee, a Sadducee, and an Essene, after which, he says, he spent three years living with a hermit named Bannus. Finally, he began a political association with the Pharisees. At the age of 26 he went on a successful mission to Rome to gain the release of certain priests from prison. Though he had no military experience, two years later, at the beginning of the Jewish revolt against Rome, he was chosen by the revolutionary council in Jerusalem to be general in Galilee. There he eventually surrendered to the Romans; predicted that the general Vespasian would be chosen emperor; and received a tract of land outside Jerusalem, some sacred books, the liberation of some friends, Roman citizenship, lodging in the former palace of Vespasian, a pension, and other amenities. In Life (29), however, which tells the story at greater length, Josephus asserts that when he was appointed, the leaders in Jerusalem, who favored pacification, dispatched him to

18

induce the rebels to fight only in self-defense. He pretended to agree with the rebels, while actually hoping that the Roman general, Cestius Gallus, would in the meantime quell the revolution. One wonders why Josephus, once appointed, did not undertake guerrilla warfare, as his Maccabean ancestors had done so successfully more than two centuries earlier, or why he did not retreat with his army to Jerusalem, which he knew was by far the best fortified of all the Jewish strongholds, rather than shut himself up in the tactically hopeless trap of Jotapata. The suspicion is strong that Josephus was playing a double role; and indeed he says in an extraordinarily candid passage (Life 72) that when the revolutionary John of Gischala had asked for the imperial grain in Galilee, so that he might secure the income he needed to construct defenses for Gischala, Josephus refused, saying that he intended to reserve the grain “either for the Romans or for my own use.” Again, the fact that in the suicide pact with his men at Jotapata Josephus somehow managed to be among the last two to die has led to suspicions that he arranged the drawing of the lots. Indeed, the Slavonic version (War 3.391), which hardly seeks to discredit Josephus, states quite explicitly that “he counted the numbers with cunning and thereby misled them all.” His Works Josephus’s earliest work, the Jewish War, in seven books, was originally written in Aramaic, though nothing remains of that version. In 79–81 ce Josephus himself translated it into Greek, with the aid of some assistants. His magnum opus is his Jewish Antiquities, completed in 93–94, in 20 books covering the span of history from Creation to the outbreak of the revolution against the Romans. Life defends his action as general in Galilee; and his Against Apion, in two books, written shortly thereafter, refutes the charges of anti-Semites, notably that the Jews are actually of recent origin, that they worship the head of an ass in the Temple, and that they practice ritual murder. Though we have 133 manuscripts in whole or in part of the Greek text of Josephus, the earliest dates from as late as the 10th or 11th century, a full 1,000 years after their composition. Only one brief papyrus fragment (War 2.576–79, 582–84), dating from the 3rd century ce, remains. The many discrepancies between it and the manuscripts suggest that the manuscripts are not completely accurate. Josephus the Historian The importance of Josephus as an historian may be gauged by comparing what we know about the century before the end of the first Jewish insurrection against the Romans with the little we know about the century thereafter. In view of the fact that we have so little historical information about this period in Rabbinic writings and in the works of nonJewish writers, Josephus’s information is quite important. It is of particular value because of his claim (which has surely been debated) that he is a critical historian who found fault with other historians (whose works, unfortunately, no longer exist). Josephus has indeed supplied us with a detailed account of the events leading to the Jewish insurrection and to the destruction of the Second Temple, but we have no such historian for the succeeding events. It is no exaggeration to say, for example, that we have more information from his

Josephus and His Writings 19

writings about the infamous Herod than about any other figure in Greek or Roman antiquity—even Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar. His Significance as a Writer Josephus, however, is much more than a historian. His significance is particularly great in the following areas: Inasmuch as he presents us with a paraphrase of the Bible, he is an important early witness to the biblical text whose paraphrase can be compared not only with the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) and the Septuagint (LXX) in its various versions, but also with the Dead Sea Scroll fragments. His importance for our knowledge of the biblical canon is particularly great because our other sources, such as the LXX, are either fraught with incredibly complex problems of their own; sectarian, such as the texts of the Samaritans or the Dead Sea Scrolls; or were written later, such as the Talmud or the writings of the church fathers. Josephus represents one of the earliest extant stages in the history of the midrashic tradition, and his works can be compared not only with the later targumim and midrashim, but also with the writings of Philo, other Greco-Jewish writers, the Apocrypha, the Pseudepigrapha, Pseudo-Philo’s Book of Biblical Antiquities and other writings, and the Dead Sea Scroll’s Genesis Apocryphon. He is one of the earliest witnesses to the Jewish halakhic (legal) tradition, perhaps a century later than the Dead Sea Temple Scroll, somewhat later than Philo’s On Special Laws, and earlier by a century than the recorded Mishnah. He presents by far our fullest account of the momentous change in the history of Judaism, including its enormous success in winning converts, which led Judasim from its biblical phase to its Rabbinic era. His works, along with some Samaritan inscriptions and papyri and the Dead Sea Scrolls, are our fullest account of the development of sectarian movements in Judaism—Samaritanism, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Essenes, and the revolutionary Fourth Philosophy. The period Josephus covers in such detail is the era just before and during the emergence of Christianity and hence is crucial for an understanding of the infant years of this new religious group. Josephus is the archaeologist’s chief guide in the process of recreating the economic, social, political, and cultural life of Judea, particularly for the two centuries before the destruction of the Second Temple. And he is our chief guide for the economic, social, political, cultural, and religious life of the Diaspora during this period, particularly in Egypt, Asia Minor, Syria, Babylonia, and Rome. He occupies an important place in the history of Greek and Roman historiography, a link in the joining of the Isocratean and Aristotelian schools. Josephus is an important source for much of Greek, Roman, and Parthian political and

20

Louis H. Feldman

military history (for example, he gives us a far fuller account of the assassination of the Roman emperor Caligula and the accession of Claudius than any other writer). He is by far our most important source for the relations between Jews and non-Jews, including in particular the phenomena of anti-Semitism and philo-Semitism during the Hellenistic and Roman periods. As the author of the first extant autobiography from antiquity, he is important for establishing the canon of this genre, which was to culminate in Augustine’s Confessions. An important source for Greek vocabulary and grammar of the Hellenistic period, Josephus uses this knowledge to shed great light on our understanding of the writings of the period, notably those of Philo, the New Testament, and papyri. Josephus ’ s Sources for His Biblical Paraphrase Josephus seems to have had access to three textual traditions for the Bible (Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic), and his use of one or more of these texts appears to have varied from book to book as he paraphrased the Bible. What complicates the matter is that apparently a number of divergent Greek and Hebrew biblical texts were extant in Josephus’s time, as we see in the LXX, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Dead Sea manuscripts. In his autobiography (Life 7–8) he tells us that he was born and raised in Jerusalem and that at an early age he made such great progress in his education that he far excelled his compatriots in Jewish learning, which was presumably centered on knowledge of the Torah in Hebrew. Consequently, he knew the Hebrew text well, and he regarded it as having been unalterably fixed long before he came along (Ag. Ap. 1.42). It is hard, however, to prove at any given point what text Josephus relied on, since he was usually paraphrasing and elaborating rather than translating. We must not discount the possibility that he is perhaps following a Jewish tradition independent of both the MT and the LXX, as we may infer from his agreement with Pseudo-Philo, even in some places where its views are found neither in the MT nor in the LXX. The fact that the Talmud, the targumim, and the midrashim continue to show latitude in their quotations from the Bible for centuries thereafter indicates that the text of the Bible was still being debated. Since Josephus was writing in Greek, he would naturally have been inclined to employ a Greek text of the Bible. Nevertheless, one would a priori expect him to have shied away from using the LXX, notwithstanding Pseudo-Longinus’s compliment in his On the Sublime (9.9), because it is stylistically inferior to the classical authors whom Josephus knew so well (Herodotus, the tragedians, Plato, Xenophon, Aristotle, and, above all, Thucydides) and because it would be readily understood only by those who already were acquainted with the Bible in its original language. The fact that he paraphrased the Bible in Greek would in any case seem to indicate that he hoped to improve on the LXX; otherwise there would hardly have been much point in a new version. Hence, it is only where the style of the LXX is more polished, as in the Additions to Esther or in 1 Esdras, that one would expect him to adhere to its text. An Aramaic targum is a third possibility for the source of Josephus’s paraphrase. Ara-

Josephus and His Writings 21

maic was in all probability Josephus’s primary language, as it was for the Jews generally in Palestine at his time. While it is true that the earliest extant targum for the Pentateuch, that of Onkelos, dates from the 2nd century ce, there can be little doubt that the practice of translating the Bible into the Aramaic vernacular in the synagogue was much older. The fact that the origin of the targum of Onkeles is attributed to Ezra (5th century bce) by Rav (3rd century ce, Megillah 3a) meant that in later centuries, at least according to the Rabbinic tradition, it had the sanctity associated with the great name of Ezra. If Josephus is much freer in vocabulary, style, order, and content in his rendering of biblical material in books 1–5 of Jewish Antiquities, where he is paraphrasing the Pentateuch, Joshua, and Judges, than he is in books 6–11, this may be due to the availability of targumim for these earlier books. Salient Features of Josephus ’ s Paraphrase of the Bible As an historian Josephus is careful and consistent in his approach. The most striking feature, however, of his paraphrase of the Bible in his Jewish Antiquities is his insistence (Ant. 1.17) that he will neither add to nor omit anything from the biblical narrative; and yet he takes liberties, and often very considerable liberties, with the biblical text. We may note the following factors that influenced him in doing so: Defense of the Jews against charges of misanthropy and dual loyalty by his primarily non-Jewish audience; A cryptic prediction, addressed to Jews, of the forthcoming fall of the Roman Empire; Concern with the contemporary problem of assimilation and intermarriage; Special regard, as a proud priest, for the priesthood and for the Temple in Jerusalem; Insistence that his biblical heroes are fully comparable to pagan heroes in their good birth, precociousness, handsome stature, wealth, wisdom, courage, temperance, justice, respect for truth, humanity, mercy, hospitality, gratefulness, generosity, and piety; Respect for law and order and for the concept of a just war; contempt for the masses, for demagogues, and for the revolutionaries of his day; and abhorrence of civil strife; Realistic attitude and even high regard for the superpower of the day and loyalty to the rulers; Opposition to messianic and messianic-like movements; and de-emphasis on God’s role in history and on miracles; Tolerance and respect toward non-Jews and especially non-Jewish leaders and nonJewish religions; and concern to refute the view that Jews are busybodies and are aggressively seeking converts; Events, notably in his remarks about the biblical Flood (Ant. 1.93–95); Romance, particularly in his treatment of the Esther narrative; Women, particularly in his downgrading of Deborah and of Queen Salome Alexandra; Prediction (Ant. 10.210);

22

Louis H. Feldman

Intermarriage, particularly in his treatment of Samson and Solomon; Jerusalem, as seen in his defense of God’s action in choosing Aaron rather than Moses as first high priest (Ant. 3.190). Josephus ’ s Influence In view of all this, it is not surprising that during the Middle Ages Josephus was regarded as an authority in such diverse fields as biblical exegesis, chronology, arithmetic (a popular mathematical problem, the so-called Josephus-spiel, was based on how he might have arranged the lots so that he and one of his men would be the last ones chosen to commit suicide), astronomy, natural history, grammar, etymology, and Jewish theology; and, through the Testimonium Flavianum (Ant. 18.63–64), the authenticity of which has been much debated, he was considered the most crucial non-Christian witness to the life, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus, and the responsibility of the Jews for his death. Moreover, his work served as the chief guide to the sites of the Holy Land for pilgrims and Crusaders; his works were even permitted to be read during Lent at the monastery of Cluny. In the period from 1450 to 1700, more editions of Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities and Jewish War were published than of any other Greek work. Because of his data on the background of the birth of Christianity, he played a key role in the controversies of the Reformation and in the readmission of the Jews to England under Cromwell. In more recent times, the translation of Josephus into English by Whiston in 1737 has been reprinted 217 times and this translation has very often occupied a place on the shelves of non-Jewish English-speaking people between the Jewish Scriptures and the New Testament, since Josephus spans particularly that period. Indeed, among the strictest English Protestants in the early 18th century only the Bible and Josephus were permitted to be read on Sundays. In fact, the earliest book by a Jewish author (other than the Bible) printed in the United States was L’Estrange’s translation of the Jewish War, in 1719; and the second book of Jewish authorship to be printed in the United States was Morvvyn’s English translation of Josippon, the Hebrew paraphrase of the Jewish War. Suggested Reading Bilde, Per. Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, His Works, and Their Importance. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988. Feldman, Louis H. Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1937–80). Berlin: de Gruyter, 1984. ———. Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998. ———. Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible. Leiden: Brill, 1998. ———. Flavius Josephus: Judean Antiquities 1–4. Leiden: Brill, 2000. ——— and Hata, Gohei, eds. Josephus, the Bible, and History. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1989. Rajak, Tessa. Josephus: The Historian and His Society. 2nd ed. London: Duckworth, 2002. Schwartz, Seth. Josephus and Judaean Politics. Leiden: Brill, 1990. Thackeray, Henry St. J. Josephus, the Man and the Historian. New York: Jewish Institute of Religion, 1929.

Josephus and His Writings 23

The Dead Sea Scrolls Lawrence H. Schiffman The term “Dead Sea Scrolls” refers to the collection of manuscript finds from the caves of Qumran, on the shore of the Dead Sea, 10 miles south of Jericho. They were discovered between 1947 and 1956 in 11 different caves, which were located in Jordan until the Six Day War of 1967, when they came into the possession of Israel. Carbon 14 dating and paleography (the study of the scripts) have determined these scrolls to be about 2000 years old. While some were quite long, most of them have only survived as fragments. Below the caves on the plateau is the settlement of Qumran. Most scholars believe that this building complex housed the people who collected the Scrolls. They are most often identified with a Jewish sect known as the Essenes; the sect probably inhabited this site from about 100 bce to 68 ce (see Josephus’s account in his Jewish War). The Dead Sea Scrolls—the earliest Hebrew and Aramaic Jewish documents composed after the books of the Hebrew Bible—are our main source of information about the religious history of Judaism between the close of the Bible (ca. 400 bce) and the compilation and editing of the Mishnah (ca. 220 ce). Little other contemporary information about this period exists. Therefore, from these ancient texts it is possible to learn a great deal about the history of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple period and about the Jewish background of early Christianity. Discovery and Publication At the end of the 19th century Solomon Schechter, then at the University of Cambridge, was alerted to old manuscripts in a synagogue attic in Cairo. This storehouse of old Hebrew texts is known as the Cairo Genizah. When Schechter examined the manuscripts, he found two puzzling texts that appeared to be from an ancient sect. He called them the Zadokite Fragments, and these same texts were later found also at Qumran. In 1947 a Bedouin herdsman located Cave 1 of Qumran. The first seven scrolls he discovered were written on animal skins, wrapped in linen and placed in large storage jars. These scrolls divided into two lots: one was sold to Khalil Iskander (Kando), a Bethlehem merchant, who sold them to Professor Eleazer Sukenik, who bought them for the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The others were sold to Athanasius Samuel, and the Syrian Metropolitan of Jerusalem, and later purchased for the Hebrew University of Jerusalem by Yigael Yadin, professor of archaeology. While archaeologists excavated Qumran, the Bedouin continued to search for scrolls, and sold them through Kando to the Palestine Archaeological Museum (now the Rockefeller Museum). Eventually some 900 manuscripts were identified, broken into some 80,000 fragments. With the exception of some manuscripts in private hands, most of the scrolls are in the Shrine of the Book of the Israel Mu-

24

seum and in the Rockefeller Museum in East Jerusalem. One unique text, the Copper Scroll, the text of which is actually beaten onto a copper sheet, remains in Jordan. After the discovery of the fragments, an international team of scholars was constituted in Jordan to piece them together and publish the texts and translations. The team was active until the early 1960s, but clearly the enormous amount of work involved was too much for them. The team continued to work on its own, withholding the scrolls from the view of outside scholars. In 1967 Israel took control of the Rockefeller Museum, where the majority of the scrolls were located. When the team still failed to publish their manuscripts by the early 1990s, the Israel Department of Antiquities came under international pressure to act. Subsequently it ended the monopoly by allowing any scholar access to the scrolls, appointing a new editor in chief, and increasing the members of the international team. The appointment of a new editorial team hastened the publication of the texts, all of which became available in transcription and translation by 2002. Today any fragment that can be read, even ones containing only a few letters, appears in the official publication, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, published by Oxford University Press, and in other editions. And there are other photographs and editions online that anyone can access. The Nature of the Scrolls The contents of the scrolls contain many literary genres (such as biblical commentaries, liturgy, prayer texts, and sectarian documents), divided into three sections: biblical books; other literature of Second Temple times, often called apocryphal or pseudepigraphical works; and the literature of the sect itself. In addition, tefillin (phylacteries) and mezuzot (small scrolls affixed to the doorpost) have been found at Qumran. A few fragments were written on papyrus, and some texts appear in Greek or Aramaic, although the largest part is in Hebrew—in a Hebrew dialect that only the Qumran sect used. How did this particular group of documents find their way to the Qumran caves? Most scholars agree that the Scrolls were probably gathered together by a sectarian group occupying the building complex at Qumran, adjacent to the caves. They were composed over a very long period. The earliest compositions are ancient biblical materials such as the Torah—the Five Books of Moses. The collection also includes texts written at various times during the Hellenistic period, from the 4th century bce on. It is widely recognized that most of the Aramaic documents found at Qumran were composed before the sect even came into being and then were imported to Qumran after the sect occupied the settlement. Scholars have come to terms such texts “pre-Qumranian.” We must carefully distinguish between the dates the texts were composed and the dates they were copied. The documents were written over many centuries, from the earliest days of Israelite history (before 1000 bce) through the end of the Second Temple period (70 ce). They were gathered into the Qumran collection between approximately 150 bce and 68 ce, when the Qumran settlement came to an end. The date of composition is critical to an understanding of their context and helps us identify the historical allusions concealed in some of the texts. Other compositions, if ordered chronologically, can help us construct the development of the thought of this unusual sect.

The Dead Sea Scrolls

25

Although a few of the Qumran texts were copied as early as the 3rd century bce, most were copied between the 2nd century bce and the early 1st century ce. Indeed, this was the heyday of the sect and its building complex at Qumran. The community was most probably destroyed at the hands of the Romans in 68 ce as part of the military campaign to crush the Great Revolt of the Jews against Rome (66–73 ce). The collection itself can best be described as a library. A large percentage of the scrolls come from Cave 4, an artificially hewn cave only a five-minute walk from the buildings that served as the center of sectarian activity. Judging from the regularly spaced rows of holes found in the cave walls, we can infer that the cave had wooden shelves of some type. When the cave was abandoned, the shelves eventually rotted and collapsed, leaving the scrolls on the floor of the cave. This explains their damaged and fragmentary condition. Fortunately, other scrolls survived with little damage in neighboring caves, some in protective jars, apparently placed there to save them from destruction shortly before the conquest of Jerusalem by the Romans. As in any library, the collection contains a wide variety of works valued by its owners, not simply books composed and copied by them. Accordingly, the Qumran caves have yielded information on the views held by the sect and their opponents, as well as those of related, but not identical, groups in the complex landscape of Second Temple Judaism. For this reason, not only do the scrolls let us reconstruct the views of those who gathered them, but they also shed light on a variety of trends in ancient Judaism. At this point, we must dispel some erroneous theories about the Scrolls. First, they are not the library of the Jerusalem Temple. Clearly, if there is anything that unifies this collection, it is its owners’ opposition to the practices and procedures of the Temple in the hands of the priestly leadership. Second, the Scrolls are not the documents of an early Christian sect. Contrary to claims by certain sensationalists, the documents never mention Jesus, John the Baptist, or James the Just, the “brother” of Jesus. In fact, carbon-14 testing and paleography—the study of the shapes of the Hebrew letters—confirm that all the material was composed before the rise of the early church, so that the Dead Sea Scrolls cannot refer to those events. Further, the Scrolls in no way reflect Christian beliefs. What the Scrolls Teach Us As stated earlier, the Scrolls are our primary source of information about the history of Judaism between the canonization of the Bible and the Mishnah, the period that witnessed the rise of Rabbinic Judaism. They also give us glimpses into the Jewish background of early Christianity. The formation of the Scrolls sect coincides with the aftermath of the Maccabean Revolt. When the victorious Hasmonean rulers ( Judah the Maccabee’s family) adopted the rulings of the Pharisees (forerunners of the talmudic Rabbis) regarding the conduct of the Temple in about 152 bce, the loyal opposition—a band of pious Sadducees—left Jerusalem and retreated to the desert, taking up residence at Qumran. The scrolls were gathered at Qumran by this sect.

26 Lawrence H. Schiffman

Our primary source about the Sadducean origins of the sect is an extremely important text known as the Halakhic Letter (Miktzat Ma’ase ha- torah, or more simply, 4QMMT, which may be translated as Some Precepts of the Torah). From that text we have discovered that the religious legal tradition of the Dead Sea sect was primarily Sadducean. Knowing this, we can begin to reconstruct from the Scrolls the nature of this priestly group’s system of biblical interpretation and law, of which we knew almost nothing before. Further, it is now clear that the Dead Sea sect underwent a gradual process of development and radicalization, transforming it into the community we recognize from the sectarian scrolls. Although this community is identified as Essene, many scholars, myself included, maintain that the term “Essenes” encompasses a much wider movement than this one particular sect. The Halakhic Letter, along with the text known as the Temple Scroll, contains many polemical arguments against the Pharisees. Such arguments help us to deduce numerous Pharisaic legal teachings and prove that many laws enshrined in the Mishnah in about 220 ce already existed in the Hasmonean period. Other texts enable us to expand on the history of the Pharisees already known from Josephus and from Rabbinic traditions. And this is only a small part of what we can learn from the Qumran scrolls about the major Jewish sects in Second Temple times. In the documents specific to the Qumran sect itself, we find evidence of a highly dualistic Judaism, dividing individuals into predestined lots of good and evil. Evildoers were to be destroyed at the End of Days, expected to dawn immediately. The sect organized itself in preparation for this messianic period, closely studying the Bible for guidance and strictly adhering to Jewish law as they interpreted it. The sect also gathered the texts of related groups, placing them in its library along with approximately 225 biblical texts. Those other compositions, some previously known, others unknown, were preserved here in the original Hebrew or Aramaic. Numerous prayer texts, those of either the sect or other groups of Jews, were also preserved, as were tefillin and mezuzot, which are quite similar to those in use today. Biblical Books All books known to us from the Hebrew Bible are represented in the Dead Sea Scrolls, some in only tiny fragments, except for the book of Esther. Esther might be absent on ideological grounds, or a manuscript of it just did not survive. The most well preserved are Isaiah A and the Temple Scroll. The texts of these books are very similar to modern Bibles, although there are some variants, attesting to the fluidity of the text in the Second Temple period. Various types of Bibles have been noted: one very similar to the traditional Hebrew (the Masoretic Text), in use today in modern Bibles; a text that served as the basis for the Septuagint translation; and Bibles that resemble the Samaritan Pentateuch. Numerous manuscripts reflect mixed texts with various features. Within 100 years or so after Qumran, the text was greatly standardized and variants removed.

The Dead Sea Scrolls

27

Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphical Books Additional compositions, not in the biblical canon, were in the possession of general readers of the time. Known as Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, some of these writings were discovered at Masada, located south of Qumran on the western shore of the Dead Sea as well. They include books like Jubilees, Wisdom of Ben Sira, and Enoch, some of which had survived in Greek or Latin, or Ethiopic, but were unknown in the original Hebrew or Aramaic. Sectarian Literature The sect, often identified with the Essenes known from Josephus, possessed many literary genres. First and foremost, they composed the rules by which one might become a member of the sect, and they described the daily routines of the members. Infractions of the rules resulted in punishments. There were many legal texts dealing with the proper way of observing the Sabbath and holidays, the operations of the courts and judges, relations with non-Jews, and other legal topics. The sect prayed together and ate at a communal table. They also maintained ritual purity for which they built many mikvaot (ritual bathing pools) to cleanse body and soul. Their hymns and liturgical compositions were recited on a daily basis, while others were reserved for special occasions. Introspective religious poetry, biblical commentaries, mystical visions, and a description of the war at the End of Days are some of the genres featured in the scrolls. The Copper Scroll is unique because it purports to be a guide to a hidden treasure somewhere in the Judean Desert. The beliefs of the sect included antagonism to anyone outside the sect. Such people were sinners who had perverted the word of the Lord and broken His covenant. The sect was the true Israel and a substitute for the Temple of Jerusalem, which the sect would not visit because it was, in their opinion, polluted by not operating according to the dictates of sectarian law. In fact, the halakhic ( Jewish legal) disputes that the sectarians had with the Jerusalem establishment are detailed in Q4MMT. The laws of the Qumranites tended to be most like the Sadducees, of all the sects known from this time. Q4MMT has been called a foundation document of the sect because after it was circulated, the sectarians left Jerusalem where they despaired of seeing their reforms carried out, and settled in Qumran. There they waited for the End of Days, and the great eschatological war in which all sinners would be eliminated. The righteous of the sect would then reconstitute the Temple according to their own ideals and live on to bask in the Messianic Age. Until that day, the sectarians had to maintain pure, strictly halakhic lives. Their laws and rituals were established by the sectarian assembly, a hierarchical institution that determined what the law demanded through inspired biblical exegesis. The sect also had a hierarchy of officers and ranks in the eschatological army. When the apocalypse occurred, the sectarians, with the help of the angels, would fight against all heavenly and earthly opponents and inaugurate the Messianic Age. Two messiahs would be present, the messiah of Aaron and the messiah of Israel, religious and political leaders, respectively. Various Qumran manuscripts contain a solar calendar. Not only did the sect reject the luni-solar calendar used by other Jews, but they added their own holidays to the biblical

28

Lawrence H. Schiffman

festivals. They practiced communal use of property, which members brought into the sect. Although some scholars had posited that the membership was celibate, the texts often speak of women, the state of marriage, how old one must be to get married, etc., so it is unlikely that the sect renounced marriage and procreation. The Dead Sea Scrolls Speak to Us Today The Dead Sea Scrolls offer us more than obscure knowledge about ancient history and antiquarian curiosities. They have come to life anew in our own day, specifically because they indirectly address issues confronting us in our own times. This in large measure explains the intense public interest in the Scrolls and in the scholars who study them. The Scrolls speak to us across the centuries about the issue of pluralism in Judaism. Through them, we get a glimpse of an era characterized by several competing approaches to Judaism, each claiming a monopoly on the true interpretation of the Torah. All these approaches, with the exception of the extreme Hellenizers, demanded observance of the Torah’s commandments. (The extreme Hellenizers, however, embraced Greek culture to the extent that they actually identified the God of Israel with Zeus and allowed pagan influences even in their religious practices.) These approaches differed only on certain theological issues and the particular rulings of the Law and its interpretation. Although their disputes are different from those dividing our communities today, we can benefit by studying how these groups interacted with each other and negotiated their diverse approaches. The Scrolls could also help us clarify the relationship of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel. As with every major archaeological find in Israel today, the discovery of these ancient scrolls ties contemporary Jews to their past through the land, for it was there that so much of ancient Jewish history took place, and it is there that the future of the Jewish people is now being shaped. As archaeology rediscovers the past, it is also creating the present. The issues that the Scrolls raise—God, Torah, messiah, holiness—still powerfully resonate as the modern State of Israel gropes toward its own identity. Finally, the Scrolls can help to forge better relations between Jewish and Christian communities. Now, after two millennia of strife, the two faiths, so deeply linked by common origins, are establishing a new relationship in the aftermath of the Holocaust. Here the Scrolls speak to us again, showing precisely how Christianity emerged from currents in ancient Judaism, much more widespread in the period than we previously imagined. The Dead Sea Scrolls are important to the history of Judaism in that they are a snapshot of what Jewish law and belief were like in the immediate postbiblical period. They also illustrate the origins of mysticism, apocalypticism, and messianism—seminal ideas that were carried forth in later Rabbinic Judaism and into the Christian milieu of the New Testament. Through the Scrolls we can observe the role of local texts, the sources of ancient translations, and the process of standardization. Their use of the Hebrew language is a goldmine for an understanding of the linguistic development that took place between the end of the Bible period and the Mishnaic period. They truly afford a glimpse into the development of Western religion in these most formative years.

The Dead Sea Scrolls

29

Suggested Reading Abegg, Martin Jr., Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible. New York: HarperCollins, 1999. Charlesworth, James H., ed. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. 7 vols. to date. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck); Louisville ky: John Knox, 1994. In Discoveries in the Judean Desert (DJD) series, 40 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1955–2009. García Martínez, Florentino, and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, eds. and trans. Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Lim, Timothy, and John J. Collins, eds. The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Parry, Donald W., and Emanuel Tov, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader. 6 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Schiffman, Lawrence H., and James C. VanderKam, eds. Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. 2 vols. Oxford: University Press, 2000. Schiffman, Lawrence H. Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: The History of Judaism, the Background of Christianity, the Lost Library of Qumran. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995. VanderKam, James C., and Peter Flint. The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significance for Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2002. Vermes, Geza. The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. New York: Allen Lane, Penguin, 1997. Wise, Michael, Martin Abegg, and Edward Cook. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996; rpt. 1999.

30

Lawrence H. Schiffman

The Bible Translated into Greek (The Septuagint)

Introduction to the Septuagint Selections Emanuel Tov The text selections that follow, from the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the traditional Hebrew or Masoretic Text (MT), are portions of ten books of the Bible and of one apocryphal book, 1 Esdras, which is not found in the Hebrew Bible but is in the LXX. The commentary accompanying the text provides a partial commentary on the content and highlights the differences between Greek and Hebrew Scripture. A commentary on the LXX is somewhat unusual in scholarship, since we are used to commentaries mostly on the MT. However, to some scholars the LXX is as important as the MT, and in antiquity it was considered just as much Holy Scripture as the traditional Hebrew text. For more on the Septuagint itself, see the essay “The Septuagint,” elsewhere in these volumes. Some of the discrepancies between the LXX and the MT were created when the Greek translators used ancient Hebrew scrolls that differed from the traditional Hebrew text, sometimes to a great extent. In other cases translators inserted their own views in the translation. And still others “doctored” the Hebrew in an attempt to improve it, shortening, expanding, or changing the content. In many cases it is not clear if the translators changed their Hebrew text or if they worked with different Hebrew readings. However, in several instances, such as Deut. 32:43, Jeremiah, and many parts of 1 Samuel, we do know the Hebrew source of the translation. In other details it is probable that the translator worked from the same Hebrew text, as that included in the Samaritan Pentateuch. The nature of the commentary that follows is determined by the character of the translation and the differences between the Greek and the Hebrew Bibles. Some selections allow for a description of the translators' theology, their slight rewriting of biblical stories, and their views on a given chapter. But often the commentary dwells on the nature of the particular Hebrew text that the translator used and how it differs from the MT. Some selections consist of intriguing stories, while others deal with dry lists or technical descriptions. The description of the procedure followed in the Levitical cities in Josh. 20, for instance, requires a greater number of technical comments than other selections. The texts were selected to illustrate the various types of differences between the Greek and Hebrew Bibles. Only a few sections from the Torah are included because the Greek translation of the Torah is quite similar to its Hebrew counterpart. The only Torah sections here are a list of the ages of the patriarchs (a so-called genealogy) in Gen. 11 and the end of the Song of Moses (Deut. 32:43). Selections from the historical books include two chapters in Joshua, but there is none from Judges, since Judges in the LXX is very close to the MT. The major differences between the historical books in Hebrew and Greek are well illustrated by five selections here from Samuel and Kings. Of the three Major Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel) only Jeremiah is included because only it differs in major ways from Hebrew Scripture. None of the twelve Minor Prophets are here since they do not differ from the MT in any special way. From among the Writings, Proverbs and Job stand out for their Hebrew–Greek discrepancies, as do the books of Esther and Daniel. 33

Genesis 11 Emanuel Tov Genesis 11:10–32 in the Septuagint (LXX) stands alone in presenting 10 generations of patriarchs from Shem to Terah, the father of Abram,(see the comment below on v. 13). In addition, the LXX differs from the traditional Hebrew or Masoretic Text (MT) and the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) in many genealogical details.1 The LXX is closer to the SP than to the MT. The list of patriarchs in these three texts provides two sets of numbers, giving the age of each patriarch at the birth of his firstborn and the number of years the patriarch lived afterward. There is a certain pattern to the differences between the sources regarding the patriarchs’ ages at the births of their firstborns (see the table here). The main difference is that the LXX and the SP usually add 100 years (50 in the case of Nahor) to the age given in the MT version.2 All other ancient translations (the Targumim, Peshitta, Vulgate, and later Greek translations) agree with the MT; however, the chronology of Jubilees mainly reflects that of the SP, and the chronological system of Josephus in his Jewish Antiquities mostly agrees with that of the LXX. Since the Greek translator of Genesis usually represents his underlying Hebrew text faithfully, it stands to reason that he translated from a text that differed quite a bit from the MT in Gen. 11. The partial agreement between the LXX and the SP supports this view since the latter is in Hebrew. It is hard to determine whether the LXX version preceded that of the MT, was translated from the MT but changed it, or was independent from it altogether.3 In any event, the chronological data in the LXX must be taken into consideration when interpreting this chapter of Genesis. t.1 Chronological Differences among the Sources Genesis 11:10–32: Ages of the Patriarchs at the Birth of Their Firstborn Name MT SP

LXX

Shem (v. 10) Arpachshad (v. 12) Kenan II (v. 13) Shelah (v. 14) Eber (v. 16) Peleg (v. 18) Reu (v. 20) Serug (v. 22) Nahor (v. 24) Terah (v. 26)

100 135 130 130 134 130 132 130 79 70

100 35

100 135

30 34 30 32 30 29 70

130 134 130 132 130 79 70

Suggested Reading Hendel, Ronald S. The Text of Genesis 1–11: Textual Studies and Critical Edition, 61–80. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

34

Translation 10And these are the generations of Sem [Shem]: Sem was a son of one hundred years when he became the father of Arphaxad [Arpachshad], in the second year after the flood. 11And Sem lived after he became the father of Arphaxad five hundred years, and had sons and daughters, and died. 12And Arphaxad lived one hundred thirty-five years and became the father of Kainan. 13And Arphaxad lived after he became the father of Kainan four hundred thirty years, and had sons and daughters, and died. And Kainan lived one hundred thirty years and became the father of Sala [Shelah]. And Kainan lived after he became the father of Sala three hundred thirty years, and had sons and daughters, and died. 14And Sala lived one hundred thirty years and became the father of Eber. 15And Sala lived after he became the father of Eber three hundred thirty years, and had sons and daughters, and died.

Commentary 11:10. in the second year after the flood Thus all the versions read, including the MT, even though the chronological implications are problematic: Noah was 500 years old when his firstborn son, Shem, was born (Gen. 5:32), and 600 years old at the time of the Flood (Gen. 7:6). Accordingly, Shem should have been 102 years old when he became the father of Arpachshad, and not 100, as stated in this verse. (This is addressed in B. Sanh. 69b and by Ibn Ezra to Gen. 10:21.) 11. and died This detail is lacking in the MT. The SP reads: “and all the days of Shem were six hundred years and he died.” 12. Kainan Here, the MT has “Shelah” (as does the SP, Targum Onkelos, and Targum Neofiti). The LXX replaces Shelah with Kainan, but since Shelah is then named as his son, the change actually adds a generation. Thus, although in the MT Shelah is the son of Arpachshad, according to the LXX he is his grandson. This Kainan may be called Kainan II, since all texts agree that Kainan I (Kenan in Hebrew Scripture) is one of Adam’s great-grandsons in the list of generations in Gen. 5:9–12. The addition of Kainan II in the LXX (similarly added at 10:24 LXX) creates a round number for this genealogical list (ten names instead of nine in the MT) that matches the number of names in the similar list in chapter 5. Since this extra generation is lacking in the parallel lists in 1 Chron. 1:18, 24, it probably did not belong to the original version of the list. 13. four hundred thirty years Cf. Gen. 11:13 MT: “four hundred three years”; Gen. 11:13 SP: “three hundred three years.” and died. And Kainan . . . died Lacking in the MT; the SP says of Arphaxad (SP: “Arpachshad”): “and he died” (without mention of Kainan). The details in the LXX for Kainan’s age at the birth of his firstborn and the number of years he lived afterward (130, 330) are identical to those of the next patriarch in the list, Shelah. 15. three hundred thirty years Here, the MT reads “403 years”; the SP reads “three hundred three years.” and died So also the SP; lacking in the MT. The same pattern recurs in Gen. 11:17, 19, 21, 23, 25. Source of Translation: The Septuagint (LXX) translation is that of Robert J. V. Hiebert, in Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, eds., A New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS) (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), with slight alterations. Unless otherwise noted, MT translations are from the NJPS. Note that upon first mention of a personal name in the LXX text, its NJPS version is given in brackets. The Samaritan Pentateuch is from the edition of A. Tal and M. Florentin, The Pentateuch: The Samaritan Version and the Masoretic Version (Tel Aviv: Haim Rubin Tel Aviv University Press, 2010).

Genesis 11

35

16And Eber lived one hundred thirty-four years and became the father of Phalek [Peleg]. 17And Eber lived after he became the father of Phalek three hundred seventy years, and had sons and daughters, and died. 18And Phalek lived one hundred thirty years and became the father of Ragau [Reu]. 19And Phalek lived after he became the father of Ragau two hundred nine years, and had sons and daughters, and died. 20And Ragau lived one hundred thirty-two years and became the father of Serouch [Serug]. 21And Ragau lived after he became the father of Serouch two hundred seven years, and had sons and daughters, and died. 22And Serouch lived one hundred thirty years and became the father of Nachor [Nahor]. 23And Serouch lived after he became the father of Nachor two hundred years, and had sons and daughters, and died. 24And Nachor lived seventy-nine years and became the father of Thara [Terah]. 25And Nachor lived after he became the father of Thara one hundred twenty-nine years, and had sons and daughters, and died. 26And Thara lived seventy years and became the father of Abram and Nachor and Harran [Haran]. 27These then are the generations of Thara: Thara was the father of Abram and Nachor and Harran, and Harran was the father of Lot. 28And Harran died before his father Thara in the land in which he was born, in the country of the Chaldeans. 29And Abram and Nachor took wives for themselves; Abram’s wife’s name was Sara [Sarai], and Nachor’s wife’s name was Melcha [Milcah], the daughter of Harran, the father of Melcha and the father of Iescha [Iscah]. 30And Sara was barren, and she was not bearing children. 31And Thara took his son Abram and his son’s son, Lot son of Harran, and his daughter-in-law Sara, his son Abram’s wife, and he brought them out of the country of the Chaldeans to go into the land of Chanaan [Canaan], and he came as far as Charran [Haran], and settled there. 32And the days of Thara in Charran amounted to two hundred five years, and Thara died in Charran. 17. three hundred seventy years The MT reads “430 years”; the SP has “two hundred seventy.” 19. two hundred nine years The SP says “one hundred nine years.” 21. two hundred seven years The SP has “one hundred seven years.” 23. two hundred years The SP says “one hundred years.” 25. one hundred twenty-nine years Here, the MT says “119 years”; the SP reads “sixty-nine years.” 28. the country In this verse as well as in Gen. 11:31 and 15:7, the LXX explains “Ur” of the MT not as the name of a place, but as a general term meaning “country.” 31. he brought them out Cf. the MT: “they set out together” (lit., “they set out with them”). The discrepancy between the two texts derives from their different reading of the consonants of the verb yts’ (MT: vayetse’u [they set out]; LXX and SP: wayotse’ [and he brought out]) and the MT’s addition of the plural ending to the verb. In the MT version, the identity of “they” is unclear (the LXX has “he,” i.e., Thara [Terah]). 32. the days of Thara in Charran Both the MT and the SP lack this detail. two hundred five years The MT also specifies “205 years,” but the SP records Terah’s life span as “one hundred forty-five years.”

36 Emanuel Tov

Notes 1. Although in its present formulation the Samaritan Pentateuch is a sectarian text, its earliest form, probably from the 3rd century bce, was most likely based on a nonsectarian Israelite text. 2. The Samaritan Pentateuch makes up for these differences by subtracting 100 years from the number of years each patriarch lives after begetting his firstborn. 3. Opinions are divided regarding the relationship between the three traditions. Some scholars consider the system of the MT original; others prefer the LXX; and yet others claim that both of these or all three (including the SP) derive from a common original text that was changed in different ways in all three sources. For a detailed analysis, see Hendel, Text of Genesis 1–11, on this passage. Hendel himself believes that the incorporation of an independent list into the Genesis narrative created incongruence between the list and surrounding verses that was solved in three different ways.

Genesis 11

37

Deuteronomy 32 Emanuel Tov The Song of Moses (Deut. 32:1–43), one of the most beautiful poems in Scripture, focuses on the relationship between God and his people until the end of Moses’s life. It starts off by inviting heaven and earth to listen to the poet, after which it depicts God’s justice, Israel’s disloyalty, and God’s punishment of Israel and of its enemies. The joyous ending of the poem draws on motifs mentioned at its beginning and describes God’s vengeance on Israel’s enemies. In general the various versions of this Song reflect the same theology, but not so at its end nor in verse 8, where the Septuagint (LXX) and a Qumran scroll (4QDeutj) draw on an ancient motif of the supreme God allotting the peoples of the world to different gods, among them the nation of Israel to its own God, YHWH (see note 3). It is difficult to determine the original shape of this Song, but in some instances the LXX— joined by one or another of the Qumran scrolls, as specified in the commentary—seems to present a more authentic version than the traditional Hebrew or Masoretic Text (MT). The ideology of the Song’s ending strikes a more genuine note in the LXX (whose ending is longer than that of the MT), and in the Qumran scroll 4QDeutq (which dates to the 2nd half of the 1st century bce). The MT version was shortened and altered, probably in an act of theological censorship.1 Suggested Reading Tigay, Jeffrey H. The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy, 314–15, 513–18. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996.

38

Translation 32:43aBe glad, O skies, with Him, 43band let all the sons of God worship Him. 43cBe glad, O nations, with His people, 43dand let all the angels of God prevail for Him. 43eFor He will avenge the blood of His sons, 43fand take revenge, and repay the enemies with a sentence; 43gand He will repay those who hate, 43hand the Lord shall cleanse the land of His people.

Commentary 43a. Be glad, O skies, with Him Cf. the MT: “Gladden, O nations, His people” (NJPS: “O nations, acclaim His people!”). In the MT, “nations” (goyim) are invoked to “gladden His people,” in contrast to the invitation to the skies (i.e., the heavens) to “be glad . . . with Him” in the LXX. For a poet to address the nations in this way is not unusual in Scripture, but in this particular poem, the invocation seems out of place. The essence of this poem is that God helped Israel to survive its wars by killing these very nations, and the poem is full of expressions of vengeance against them (e.g., v. 35). Urging those same nations to be glad seems odd.2 43b. sons of God This remarkable colon, occurring also in 4QDeutq but lacking in the MT, is paralleled by other verses in the MT in which the “sons of God,” also named “divine beings,” are mentioned (e.g., Ps. 29:1; 82:1). This colon was probably removed from the MT because the phrase “sons of God” was considered an unwelcome polytheistic depiction of the world of the Divine. Tendentious changes are never consistent, and indeed such “sons of God” are mentioned elsewhere in the Bible.3 43c. Be glad, O nations, with His people This colon is very similar to Deut. 32:43a and probably duplicates that colon by mistake (it is not found in the MT or 4QDeutq). 43d. and let all the angels of God prevail for Him Similar phrasing occurs in Ps. 96(97):7. This colon runs parallel to colon b. It is not found in the MT or 4QDeutq; these two colons probably represent alternative formulations, mistakenly combined by the translator or a later scribe.4 43g. and He will repay those who hate This colon, running parallel to colon f, is also not represented in the MT. The parallel structure of the lines in this Song requires that we understand this colon as original. Probably it was accidentally omitted in the source of the MT and 4QDeutq. 43h. cleanse the land of His people By killing the enemies of Israel and spilling their blood in the earth, God will “cleanse” the land that has been polluted by the blood of the Israelites. The concept of that the blood of a slain person pollutes the land, and the subsequent process of cleansing, are mentioned in an ancient ceremony described in Deut. 21:8. The wording of the LXX (“the land of his people”) is also present in 4QDeutq and is preferable to the MT (“His land,

Source of Translation: The Septuagint (LXX) translation is that of Melvin K. H. Peters, in Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, eds., A New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS) (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), with slight alterations. Unless otherwise noted, MT translations are from the NJPS. Note that upon first mention of a personal name in the LXX text, its NJPS version is given in brackets. The Samaritan Pentateuch is from the edition of A. Tal and M. Florentin, The Pentateuch: The Samaritan Version and the Masoretic Version (Tel Aviv: Haim Rubin Tel Aviv University Press, 2010).

Deuteronomy 32

39

His people”; NJPS: “the land of His people”). The latter either represents a scribal error or represents a change in the text that obscures the idea of cleansing the land through spilling of the blood of the enemies.

Notes 1. One of the arguments in favor of this assumption points to the incomplete poetic structure of v. 43 in the MT. The context calls for additional colons (poetical units consisting of half-verses) to make a balanced structure, as we find in the LXX and the Qumran scroll. The first and last colons of the MT (a and g) are not matched by parallel colons, but the alternative text of the LXX does contain such parallels, namely colons b and h. 2. The MT presumably inserted the following changes: (1) “skies” (LXX) to “peoples” (NJPS: “nations”); (2) “be glad” (as in Ps. 32:11; 81:2 in MT) to “make glad” (Ps. 32:11 NJPS: “Rejoice . . . exult . . . shout for joy”; Ps. 81:2 NJPS: “Sing joyously . . . raise a shout”; and Deut. 32:43 NJPS: “acclaim”). (3) ‘mw, read as ‘immo (“with him”) in the LXX, to ‘ammo (“His people”). That the MT cannot reflect the original text becomes clear from its continuation: “For He’ll avenge the blood of His servants” in the next colon implies the direct mention of God in the preceding colon (“with Him” as in the LXX, rather than “His people” as in the MT). It stands to reason that “skies” of the LXX was original in this context, providing the Song with an artistic framework. The skies were invoked at the beginning of the poem (v. 1) as well as at the end in the LXX version (v. 43). Probably the word “skies” was removed as inappropriate for a poet to invoke as equal to or even higher than God. The LXX agrees with 4QDeutq, so it probably reflects a Hebrew reading that differed from the MT, and not the translator’s change. Although the MT lacks the image of the skies rejoicing, the midrash in Sifre Deut. 333 includes a remnant of it by commenting, “and even the skies and the earth [rejoiced] as Scripture states: shout, o heavens” (Isa. 44:23). 3. A similar polytheistic phrase was likewise removed from Deut. 32:8 where the MT now reads, “When the Most High gave nations their homes / And set the divisions of man, / He fixed the boundaries of peoples / In relation to Israel’s numbers.” The presumed earlier text referring to “the number of the sons of El” is reflected in the LXX and 4QDeutj. The Targum Yerushalmi (Pseudo-Jonathan) combines both readings (see also Ibn Ezra ad loc.). 4. Probably “sons of God” (Deut. 32:43b) and “angels of God” (v. 43d) refer to the same entity, since the Greek word angeloi sometimes renders “sons” in the phrase “sons of (God)” ( Job 1:6; 2:1) or “God” (Ps. 8:6 [NJPS: “divine”]).

40

Emanuel Tov

Joshua 20 Emanuel Tov In Num. 35:9–15 (part of the so-called Priestly Code) and in Deut. 19:1–13, the Torah gives detailed regulations for cities of refuge to be set aside in the Promised Land upon its conquest. These were places of sanctuary or asylum, where a person who unintentionally killed someone could reside without fear of blood revenge. The regulations were implemented by Moses (Moyses LXX ) himself (Deut. 4:41–43) and by Joshua (Iesous LXX; Josh. 20). In the book of Joshua, after referring to the cities of refuge, God explains the institution of these cities to Joshua. Among other things, God describes the procedure for admission to such a city (20:4). The textual sources differ among themselves. The traditional Hebrew or Masoretic Text (MT) contains elements from both Num. 35 and Deut. 19, while the shorter text of the Septuagint (LXX) mainly follows Num. 35 (the Priestly Code). Most likely the LXX reflects an earlier form of this chapter, while the MT (followed by all other sources) reflects a later version that brought the laws of the Priestly Code into harmony with those of Deuteronomy.1 Suggested Reading Rofé, Alexander. “Joshua 20: Historico-Literary Criticism Illustrated.” In Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism, edited by Jeffrey H. Tigay, 131–47. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985. Spencer, John R. “Cities of Refuge.” In Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by D. N. Freedman, 5:657–58. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

41

Translation 1And the Lord spoke to Iesous [ Joshua], saying, 2“Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘Give the cities of refuge, of which I spoke to you through Moyses [Moses], 3a place of refuge for the slayer who has smitten a soul involuntarily; and the cities shall be for you a place of refuge, and the slayer shall not die by the next of kin in blood, 6until he stands before the congregation for judgment.” 7And he set apart Kades [Kedesh] in Galilee in the mountain of Nephthali [Naphtali]. And Sychem [Shechem] in the mountain of Ephraim, and the city of Arbok [Kiriath-arba] (this is Chebron [Hebron]), in the mountain of Ioudas [ Judah]. 8And beyond the Jordan he gave Bosor [Bezer] in the wilderness on the plain, out of the tribe of Rouben [Reuben], and Aremoth [Ramoth] in Galaad [Gilead], out of the tribe of Gad, and Gaulon [Golan] in Basanitis [Bashan], out of the tribe of Manasse [Manasseh]. 9These were the cities designated for the sons of Israel and for the guest abiding among them, that anyone who smites a soul involuntarily may flee there, so that he will not die by the hand of the next of kin in blood, until he stands before the congregation for judgment.

Commentary 3. involuntarily The MT uses two synonymous expressions: “by mistake, unintentionally.” Usually such duplication reflects emphasis, but in this case the repetition is theological and has literary significance. The word “unintentionally” was added by way of harmonization in the MT on the basis of Deuteronomic law regarding cities of refuge (see Deut. 19:4). The original phrase, “involuntarily”—found in both the MT and the LXX—is that of the Priestly Code (Num. 35:11). a place of refuge, and the slayer shall not die by the next of kin in blood The MT puts it more succinctly: “a refuge from the blood avenger,” while the LXX spells out the implication of the turning to the refuge. Following Josh. 20:3, the MT adds a long section (vv. 4–6 MT): 4He shall flee to one of those cities, present himself at the entrance to the city gate, and plead his case before the elders of that city; and they shall admit him into the city and give him a place in which to live among them. 5Should the blood avenger pursue him, they shall not hand the manslayer over to him, since he killed the other person without intent and had not been his enemy in the past. 6He shall live in that city. This added section follows the ideas and terminology of Deut. 4:42 and 19:4, 11–12.2 6. until . . . judgment The MT adds “until the death of the high priest who is in office at that time. Thereafter, the manslayer may go back to his home in his own town, to the town from which he fled.”3 This addition (based on Num. 35:25) determines that the manslayer will be protected as long as the high priest is in office. This law probably reflects an ancient custom according to which a priest could guarantee the safety of those seeking asylum in a shrine or the Temple as long as he was in power. This ancient custom is reflected in the story in 1 Kings 2:28 in which Joab holds on to the “horns of the altar.” At the same time, according to Lev. Rab. 10:6 and B. Mak. 11b, the death of the high priest serves as an atonement for the sin of the unintentional killer who is thus no longer subject to the threat of retaliation by the blood avenger.

Source of Translation: The Septuagint (LXX) translation is that of Leonard J. Greenspoon, in Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, eds., A New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS) (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), with slight alterations. Unless otherwise noted, MT translations are from the NJPS. Note that upon first mention of a personal name in the LXX text, its NJPS version is given in brackets.

42 Emanuel Tov

Notes 1. Also elsewhere the book of Joshua leans heavily on Deuteronomy. See, e.g., chap. 8:30–35, based on Deut. 27. 2. The original law of Josh. 20 allowed the unintentional killer to stay in the city until the community could decide on his guilt. The added text in the MT, however, mentions a hearing by the elders, creating tension in the context. Accordingly, in v. 4 MT (not in the LXX), the manslayer is received into the city of refuge as one who is recognized as having killed by mistake and thus becomes a legally acceptable refugee. His acceptance into the city of refuge is based upon the considered opinion of the elders of the city, who hear his version of the incident at the city gate (vv. 4–5 MT). On the other hand, according to the continuation of the text in v. 6 (common to the MT and LXX), the manslayer has yet to be brought to trial (NJPS: “until he can stand trial before the assembly”). In the short text of the LXX, in which vv. 4–5 are lacking, this tension does not exist. 3. This addition thus produces an awkward phrase in the MT: “He shall live in that city until he can stand trial before the assembly, [and remain there] until the death of the high priest who is in office at that time” (v. 6, NJPS). This truncated phraseology is noted by R. David Kimhi and can be resolved only by inserting the words “and remain there” as appear in brackets in the NJPS translation.

Joshua 20

43

Joshua 24 Emanuel Tov Joshua 24 contains Joshua’s (Iesous LXX) speech at the end of his “career.” He reviews Israel’s history and invokes the people to renew the covenant with God. After the tribes’ renewal of that covenant, the chapter narrates the death of Joshua and Eleazar ( Josh. 24:33), following which the Septuagint (LXX) adds a section (vv. 33a–b) that is not found in the traditional Hebrew or Masoretic Text (MT), at the very end of the book. The Hebraic diction of this passage allows for a relatively reliable reconstruction of the Greek text into Hebrew; see the comment on verse 33. The verses at the end of the book, together with the remainder of Joshua, point to the existence, at some point, of a shorter combined book: Joshua–Judges. Suggested Reading Rofé, Alexander. “The End of the Book of Joshua according to the Septuagint.” Hen 4 (1982): 17–36.

Translation 24:33And it happened after these things that Eleazar son of Aaron, the high priest, died, and was buried in Gabaath of Phinees [Phinehas] his son, which he gave him in Mount Ephraim. 33aOn that day the sons of Israel took the ark of God and carried it around in their midst. And Phinees served as priest

Commentary 24:33. And it happened after these things These words are not found in Josh. 24:33 MT. The diction is typical of Hebrew rather than Greek (as in Hebrew wayehi ahare hadebarim ha’eleh, literally, “and it happened after these things,” in Gen. 21:1; 22:20; Josh. 24:29 MT). The phrase helps to link the added verses to the previous ones in the LXX. the high priest Not found in the MT. 33a. carried it around For the use of this verb in conjunction with the ark, see 1 Sam. 5:8, 9; 1 Chron. 13:3. The information about the movement of the ark in this verse is the only detail known concerning the whereabouts of the ark in the period between Josh. 8:30–35 (Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim near Shekhem) and the first chapters of 1 Samuel (Shiloh).

Source of Translation: The Septuagint (LXX) translation is that of Leonard J. Greenpoon, found in Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, eds., A New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS) (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), with slight alterations. MT translations are from the NJPS, except where otherwise indicated. Note that upon first mention of a personal name in the LXX text, its NJPS version is given in brackets.

44

in the place of Eleazar his father until he died, and he was interred in Gabaath, which was his own. 33bAnd the sons of Israel departed each to their place and to their own city. And the sons of Israel worshipped Astarte [Ashtoreth] and Astaroth [Ashtaroth] and the gods of the nations round about them. And the Lord delivered them into the hands of Eglom [Eglon], the king of Moab, and he dominated them eighteen years. 33a. Phinees served . . . in the place of Eleazar his father The same Phinees (MT Phinehas) served as priest in Bethel at the time of the later Judg. 19–20, which tells the story of the Levite’s concubine and the ensuing war. See Judg. 20:28: “Phinehas son of Eleazar son of Aaron the priest ministered before Him in those days.” In Israel of the time of Josiah onward, the only accepted cultic center was the Temple in Jerusalem. Writing from that later perspective, the author of Joshua emphasized for his audience that in earlier times local shrines were still permissible, such as the one in Bethel where Phinehas served in front of the ark. Likewise, M. Zev. 14:5–8 allowed for the following places of worship: Gilgal, Shiloh, Nob, Gibeon, and Jerusalem. 33b. And the sons of Israel departed each . . . to their own city This sentence repeats the content of Josh. 24:28 (MT: “Joshua then dismissed the people to their allotted portions”). Israel worshipped . . . the gods of the nations . . . And the Lord delivered them into the hands of Eglom This passage reflects details in the Hebrew texts of Judg. 2:12–13 and 3:12–14 as opposed to their Greek translations. Astarte and Astaroth The name Astarte represents Ashtoreth in the MT. Ashtoreth was the female companion of Baal, the main heathen god of the period, also worshiped by Israelites in conjunction with the God of Israel or in his stead. Ashtoreth is the singular form of this name, and Ashtaroth (Astaroth in the LXX) is the plural form of the female Canaanite deities (the transcriptions of these names in Greek letters are slightly different). Joshua 24:33b LXX presents the two forms together as the result of a scribal mistake. Eglom . . . dominated them eighteen years This verse ends with a reference to Eglom (Eglon), the king of Moab, the oppressor of the Israelites mentioned at Judg. 3:12. The book of Judges, which narrates the tribulations of the ancient Israelites in the period after Joshua and before the period depicted by the book of Samuel, describes how various Israelite tribes were saved from oppressive foreign rule by local heroes, or “Judges.” Eglon is the second oppressor introduced in Judges and is ultimately overthrown by the Benjaminite Ehud (LXX) son of Gera. Josh. 24:33b LXX thus bypasses the beginning the book of Judges. However, this shortened description of the history of the Israelites may well reflect the original story as related in an earlier combined book, Joshua–Judges. The beginning of the book of Judges, up to the story of Ehud and Eglon in Judg. 3:12–30, contains mainly material that may have been added later.1 The sequence of events narrated at the end of the Greek book of Joshua ( Josh. 24:33a–b LXX) depicts what may well have been the original sequence of events: the death of Joshua and Eleazar ( Josh. 24:29–33 MT LXX), the movement of the ark (see commentary on v. 33a), the service of Phinehas ( Judg. 20:28), the beginning of the people’s sin ( Judg. 2:12–13 and 3:12–14), and part of the first story typifying the chain of events in the book of Judges: the oppression of the Israelites by Eglon ( Judg. 3:12).

Joshua 24

45

Notes 1. This secondary material comprises Judg. 1 and 2:1–6, which describe ancient traditions about the conquest of areas in Canaan running parallel to the stories of the conquest in the book of Joshua; Judg. 2:6–23 and 3:1–6, which function as a theological introduction to Judges; and Judg. 3:7–11, which tells the story of the first Judge, Othniel, lacking all detail, and possibly merely added as a story exemplifying the ideological introduction. The author of the Cairo Genizah copy of the Qumran Damascus Document (CD) probably knew the Hebrew text now reflected in Josh. 24:33a–b LXX. CD 5:1–5 is the only known text that mentions within one context the ark, the death of Eleazar, the death of Joshua, and the worship of the heathen Ashtaroth.

46

Emanuel Tov

Selections from Samuel to Kings (1–4 Kingdoms LXX) Emanuel Tov The books of 1–2 Samuel and 1–2 Kings in the Hebrew Bible form one large unit in Greek Scripture, called 1–4 Kingdoms. The relationship between the traditional Hebrew or Masoretic Text (MT) and the Septuagint (LXX) is rather complex in Samuel–Kings. For example, the Greek translations of 1–2 Samuel and 1–2 Kings are diverse in character, hinting at different layers and types of translation.1 Five selections from the presumably original translation are examined below, two from 1 Samuel (chapters 1 and 2) and three from 1 Kings (2:35, 46; 5:1–15; 11:1–8). The LXX 3 Kingdoms rewrites the text now included in the MT of 1 Kings, probably representing a Hebrew text that greatly differed from 1 Kings. Among other things, it presents Solomon (Salomon LXX), Jeroboam (Ieroboam LXX), and Ahab (Achaab LXX) in a more favorable way; adds “theme summaries”; rearranges the sequence; and reorganizes the book’s chronology. All three selections examined in this book (from 1 Kings 2, 5, 11) emphasize Solomon’s wisdom.2 In their Greek form, and probably also in the earlier Hebrew form from which the translation was made, these units were considered to be authoritative Scripture. The differences between the LXX and the other witnesses to 1 Kings are among the largest in Greek Scripture. Usually, the differences between the MT and LXX are in small details, while the selections included here focus on the larger differences between the two texts, particularly discrepancies between the Hebrew and Greek texts of 1 Kings. It is unclear why this book has been singled out for extensive rewriting, but it is not impossible that other books were likewise rewritten, yet lost in the course of their transmission. The LXX of 1 Samuel often deviates from the MT in small details, and this translation is very significant, as it often agrees with the Qumran manuscript 4QSama dating to ca. 50–25 bce. Suggested Reading van Keulen, Percy S. F. Two Versions of the Solomon Narrative: An Inquiry into the Relationship between MT 1 Kgs. 2–11 and LXX 3 Reg. 2–11. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 104. Leiden: Brill, 2005.

Notes 1. The current consensus is that 1 Samuel, the first half of 2 Samuel, and 1 Kings reflect the original translation, named the Old Greek (OG), while the remainder (the second half of 2 Samuel and 2 Kings) reflects an early revision of the OG that brings the translation into line with the MT. 2. A similar stress is placed on Solomon’s wisdom in Josephus and in Rabbinic literature. For Josephus, as revealed in his Antiquities, Solomon is not only a man of wisdom, but also of piety, justice, and bravery. See L. Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 570–628. For Rabbinic sources depicting Solomon’s great wisdom, see Aaron Rothkoff, “Solomon: In the Aggadah” in Encyclopedia Judaica, 18:759–61.

1 Samuel (1 Kingdoms LXX) 1 1 Samuel 1:21–28 depicts the visit of Elkanah (Elkana LXX), Hannah (Hanna LXX), and Samuel (Samouel LXX) to Shiloh (Selo[m] LXX). They arrive at different times but act together, especially in making their offerings. The traditional Hebrew or Masoretic Text (MT), the Septuagint (LXX), and the Qumran Hebrew biblical scroll 4QSama (50–25 bce) differ in significant details. For example, Hannah’s actions are minimized in the MT in order not to mention a woman’s involvement in cultic activities (e.g., 1 Sam. 1:23 MT: “His word”; v. 24 MT: “she brought him”; v. 25 MT: “they brought the boy”; v. 28 MT: “And they bowed low there before the Lord,” compared with the LXX and 4QSama; see the comment on v. 23 below). 4QSama often agrees with the LXX in its original readings as opposed to the MT; that is, the LXX translation often reflects an underlying Hebrew text that agrees with the Hebrew of 4QSama but disagrees with the later version of the Hebrew represented by the MT. Suggested Reading Walters, Stanley D. “Hannah and Anna: The Greek and Hebrew Texts of 1 Samuel 1.” JBL 107 (1988): 385–412.

Translation 21And the man Elkana [Elkanah] and all his household went up to offer in Selom [Shiloh] the sacrifice of the days and his vows and all the tithes of his land; 22and Hanna [Hannah] did not go up with him, for she said to her husband, “Until the boy goes up if I shall wean him, and he will appear to the

Commentary 1:21. offer The MT adds “to the Lord” in accordance with the standard phrase. in Selom Lacking in the MT. This addition in the LXX (repeated in 1 Sam. 1:23 LXX and 4QSama) clarifies where the action is taking place, although the reader should know from 1 Sam. 1:3 that it takes place in Shiloh (LXX Selom; cf. Selo in v. 3 LXX). vows and all the tithes of his land Lacking in the MT. Elkanah’s “vows” here should probably be understood as his “votive sacrifice” (1 Sam. 1:21 NJPS). Indeed, Deut. 12:6 requires the Israelites to bring both votive sacrifices and tithes to the central place of worship, here Shiloh. 22. with him This addition in the LXX, lacking in the MT, further clarifies that Hannah did not go up to Shiloh together with her husband. until the boy goes up if I shall wean him That is, “When the child is weaned, I will bring him” (NJPS). Source of Translation: The Septuagint (LXX) translation is that of Bernard A. Taylor, in Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, eds., A New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS) (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), with slight alterations. Unless otherwise noted, MT translations are from the NJPS. Note that upon first mention of a personal name in the LXX text, its NJPS version is given in brackets.

48 Emanuel Tov

face of the Lord and stay there forever.” 23And her husband Elkana said to her, “Do what is good in your sight; stay until you have weaned him; only may the Lord establish that which goes out of your mouth.” And the woman remained and nursed her son, until she weaned him. 24And she went up with him to Selom with a three-year-old bull calf and bread and an oiphi [ephah] of flour and a nebel [jar] of wine and she entered into the house of the Lord at Selom, and the boy was with them. 25And they brought (him) before the Lord and his father slaughtered the sacrifice that he used to do from days to days to the Lord, and he brought the boy near and slaughtered the bull calf. And Hanna the mother At the end of the verse, 4QSama adds, “[I will de]dicate him as a Nazir forever all the days of [his life]” (similarly Josephus, Ant. 5.347: “but the woman remembered the vow she had made concerning her son, and delivered him to Eli, dedicating him to God, that he might become a prophet. Accordingly his hair was suffered to grow long, and his drink was water”). The expanded text of the Qumran scroll clarifies that Samuel was a Nazarite, although this is actually obvious in light of 1 Sam. 1:11 NJPS: “I will dedicate him to the Lord for all the days of his life; and no razor shall ever touch his head.” Also in Sir. 46:13 and M. Naz. 9:5, Samuel is called a Nazir. 23. establish that which goes out of your mouth The formulation of the LXX should be compared with that of the MT: “May the Lord fulfill His word” (NJPS). The LXX, in accord with 4QSama, describes Elkanah’s words from Hannah’s viewpoint as the fulfillment of her vow, while the MT considers his words to be the confirmation of an earlier utterance by God. Compare the latter case with the terminology used for vows in Num. 30:3 NJPS: “he must carry out all that has crossed his lips [literally, ‘comes out of his mouth’].”1 24. she went up with him The young Samuel’s journey to Shiloh is flavored slightly differently in the various sources, with the LXX giving him a bit more independence compared with the MT (NJPS: “she took him up with her”) and 4QSama (“she took him up”).2 After “him,” the MT and probably also 4QSama (in the missing text of the scroll) add “when she had weaned him” in accord with 1 Sam. 1:23. three-year-old bull calf The MT has “three bulls.” Hannah probably offered only a single bull (LXX and 4QSama) and not “three bulls” (MT), since the next verse in the MT speaks about “the bull.” The text of the MT was corrupted when the original words pr mshlsh (“three-year-old bull”) underlying the LXX were divided wrongly in the forerunner of the MT to read prm/shlshh (literally, “bulls three”). Indeed, a parallel instance of an offering of a “three-year-old heifer” is mentioned in Gen. 15:9 (in both LXX and MT). bread The bread—mentioned in the LXX and 4QSama but lacking in the MT—is a usual component of offerings (see Exod. 29:1–2 NJPS: “a young bull of the herd and two rams without blemish; also unleavened bread”). she entered . . . and the boy was with them Cf. the MT: “she brought him” (NJPS). The LXX version gives more independence to Hannah as well as to the boy, while in the MT, Hannah’s main task is to bring the boy to the Temple. (See also the comment on 1:24, she went up with him.) 24–25. the boy . . . the boy Instead of the long text of the LXX, the MT only has two words: wehana‘ar na‘ar, “and the boy was a boy” (NJPS: “the boy was still very young”).3 The details in the LXX help explain Elkanah’s presence in Shiloh, otherwise unaccounted for in the MT (in that text, Elkanah goes up to Shiloh in v. 21 and apparently waits there until Hannah arrives much later, after weaning the boy).4 25. And Hanna, the mother of the boy, brought him The MT says simply, “they brought the boy” (NJPS). The LXX presents Hannah much more prominently than the MT, probably reflecting the

Selections from Samuel to Kings 49

of the boy brought (it) to Eli 26and said, “By me, sir! Your soul lives, I am the woman who stood before you when praying to the Lord; 27for this boy I prayed, and the Lord has granted me my request that I requested of him. 28And I lend him to the Lord as long as he lives, a loan to the Lord.” original text. The flow of ideas is more natural in the LXX since Hannah is mentioned in the next verse, while in the MT she is mentioned in v. 26 without any introduction in the previous verse. 28 The various sources display two different endings of the story. The MT mentions an unidentified male, probably Elkanah: “And he bowed low there before the Lord” (NJPS has “they” instead of “he”). The MT likewise focuses on Elkanah in 2:11a (“Then Elkanah went home to Ramah”) without mentioning Hannah.5 On the other hand, 4QSama focuses on Hannah in v. 28, ascribing to her the actions that the MT attributes to Elkanah: “[and she left] him there and she bowed down [to the Lord].” As in the Qumran scroll, the LXX of 2:11 ascribes these actions to Hannah upon her finishing the Song (prayer) that appears in 2:1–10: “And she6 left him there before the Lord, and departed to Armathaim.”7 The three sources thus depict the leading person in this action as either Hannah (LXX, 4QSama) or an unnamed male, probably Elkanah (MT). Interestingly, Gen. Rab. 56:2 explains, against the MT, that Hannah is the one who bowed. We cannot be sure if the author of the midrash used a text similar to that of the LXX or if he simply ignored the grammar of the MT.

Notes 1. Either the LXX or the MT was altered, but it is difficult to establish the direction of the change. The MT reading could have been changed by the authors of 4QSama and the LXX because a “word” of the Lord (as in the MT) is not mentioned in the preceding verses. By the same token, the reading of 4QSama and the LXX may have been corrected in the MT because the mentioning of a “word” of the Lord is more respectful than a vow uttered by a human. The latter scenario is more likely, as the MT also minimizes the role of Hannah in other instances (see introductory comments). 2. These differences probably arose from differing readings of the consonants ’tw as ‘oto (him) in 4QSama and ’itto in the parent text underlying the LXX. The latter word was changed to ‘immah (with her) in the MT. 3. Apparently the longer text in the LXX was original, and textual corruption took place between the first and second occurrences of the word “the boy.” 4QSama contains an addition similar to that in the LXX, but because of its fragmentary status, the details cannot be verified. 4. According to the MT, Elkanah went twice to Shiloh (vv. 3, 21), while according to the LXX he went there three times (3, 21, 25). The LXX also resolves the identity of the unnamed male in v. 28 MT: “and he [NJPS: ‘they’] bowed low there before the Lord.” It was Elkanah who slaughtered the bull in v. 25 (thus LXX and 4QSama), and it was he who prostrated himself before the Lord in v. 28. At the same time, the longer text of the LXX and 4QSama is not without problems; see, for example, the double offering made by Elkanah in 1 Sam. 1:25. 5. The NJPS translation reads “Elkanah [and Hannah],” while noting that the Hebrew simply reads “he.” 6. The translation is based on codex B, the most important manuscript of the LXX. NETS has “they,” based on all other manuscripts. 7. The sole difference between the LXX and the scroll is that in the scroll this episode appears just before Hannah’s Song, while the LXX mentions it just after the Song.

50 Emanuel Tov

1 Samuel (1 Kingdoms LXX) 2 In this Song, Hannah thanks God for having given birth after a long period of infertility. Although the issue of infertility does arise in the Song in all its versions (see 1 Sam. 2:5 MT: “the barren one bears seven”), several verses do not suit Hannah. For example, Hannah was not saved from an enemy as mentioned in verse 1. This Song may have been composed as a thanksgiving hymn applicable to different situations of salvation, and subsequently placed on Hannah’s lips. The greater part of the Song (vv. 2–8) praises the absolute power of God over mortals, enabling God to bring about changes, especially from a bad to a good situation, as in the case of the barren woman. The moral of the Song as expressed in verses 9–11 differs much in the three major textual traditions: the traditional Hebrew or Masoretic Text (MT), the Septuagint (LXX), and the Hebrew Qumran scroll 4QSama dating to 50–25 bce. The main idea of the original form of the Song—namely, the absolute power of God over mortals— has been reinterpreted in two different directions in the preserved texts. Each of these witnesses makes the Song of Hannah more relevant to its context on the theological level. The Song is presented in an arrangement of colons (poetical units consisting of halfverses). The Hebrew source of the LXX, longer than the MT, can be reconstructed with relative confidence because of the partial support of 4QSama and the relatively faithful nature of the translation, which remains close to its underlying Hebrew text when that is known with certainty. Suggested Reading Tov, Emanuel. “Different Editions of the Song of Hannah and of Its Narrative Framework.” Chap. 29 in The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. Willis, John T. “The Song of Hannah and Psalm 113.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 25 (1973): 139–54.

Translation 1And she said, “My heart was made firm in the Lord,

Commentary 2:1. And she said In the LXX, the Song starts with this unassuming introduction, while in the MT it is described as a prayer (NJPS: “And Hannah prayed”). Probably the prayer element was added in the introduction to the Song on the basis of 1 Sam. 1:26, where Hannah’s earlier prayer is Source of Translation: The Septuagint (LXX) translation is that of Bernard A. Taylor, in Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, eds., A New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS) (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), with slight alterations. Unless otherwise noted, MT translations are from the NJPS. Note that upon first mention of a personal name in the LXX text, its NJPS version is given in brackets.

Selections from Samuel to Kings 51

my horn was exalted in my God; my mouth was made wide against enemies, I was glad in your deliverance. 2For there is none holy like the Lord, and there is none righteous like our God, there is none holy besides You. 3“Boast not, and speak not lofty things, let not big talking come forth from your mouth; for the Lord is a God of knowledge, and a God who prepares His own ways. 4The bow of the mighty has become weak, and weak ones have girded themselves with might; 5full of bread they suffered loss, and the hungry have forsaken the land; for a barren one has borne seven, and she who is rich in children became weak. 6The Lord puts to death and brings to life, He brings down to Hades and brings up; mentioned in her words to Eli: “I am the woman who stood here beside you and prayed to the Lord” (NJPS). 2. none righteous like our God Cf. the MT: “none beside You.” Here, the MT stresses the uniqueness of God, while the LXX mentions his righteousness. However, the uniqueness of God is also mentioned in the LXX of this verse, and His righteous character also underlies the praise in verses 2–8 in both versions. there is none holy besides you Cf. the MT: “There is no rock like our God.” As elsewhere in the LXX, the translator avoids the description of God as a “rock,” possibly because he did not like the comparison of God to a stone, and instead stresses his holiness as in the first part of the verse. 3. a God who prepares His own ways Cf. the MT: “By Him actions are measured.” The exact meaning of the Hebrew text of the MT is unclear, but if the NJPS translation is correct, both the MT and LXX designate God’s planning of His actions. 5. suffered loss Cf. the MT: “must hire out for bread.” This verse, like verses 4–8 in general, stresses the many possible changes from one extreme to the other one due to God’s total control of the fate of humans. The context thus requires the reading of the MT, in which the opposition between “Men once sated” and “must hire out for bread” is natural. The reading of the LXX was caused by a mistaken interchange of similar letters and their inversion between niskaru, “must hire out” (MT) and nehsaru, rendered by the LXX as “suffered loss.” the hungry have forsaken the land Cf. the MT: “Men once hungry hunger no more.” Not understanding the Hebrew verb hdl correctly (used transitively as “to stop something” and intransitively as “to cease”), the translator took it as requiring an object (that is, as a transitive verb), and then supplied such an object (“the land”). 6. Hades Cf. the MT, “Sheol” and the King James Version (KJV), “the grave.”1

52 Emanuel Tov

7The Lord makes poor and makes rich, He brings low, and He raises on high. 8(a) He raises up the needy from the ground (b) and lifts the poor from the dunghill (c) to make them sit with the mighty of the peoples (d) even making them inherit a throne of glory. 9(a)Granting the prayer to the one who prays (b) He has even blessed the years of the righteous; (c) for not by strength is a man mighty. 10The Lord will make His adversary weak, the Lord is holy. Let not the clever boast in his cleverness, and let not let the mighty boast in his might, and let not let the wealthy boast in his wealth, but let him who boasts boast in this: to understand and know the Lord and to execute justice and righteousness in the midst of the land. 8. of the peoples The LXX added “of the peoples” to the MT “nobles,” probably on the basis of a variant Hebrew reading. a throne of glory Note that although verse 8 ends with this phrase in the LXX, both the MT and 4QSama add to the earlier text of the LXX what is now v. 8e–f: “For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s; / He has set the world upon them” (NJPS).2 9. Granting . . . righteous The MT of verse 9a–b—“He guards the steps of His faithful, / But the wicked perish in darkness”—differs significantly from the beginning of verse 9 in the LXX (and in 4QSama), indicating that the presumed earlier text that underlies all three of these sources has been interpreted differently in the LXX and 4QSama.3 This different interpretation, which we call 9a'-b', mentions a person who makes a vow, with a clear allusion to Hannah. After mentioning the various categories of a powerful change from a bad to a good situation and from good to bad (vv. 4–8), God’s granting of “the vow to the one who vows” in verse 9a–b seems to be a mere afterthought. This verse in the LXX may well reflect an attempt to relate the Song more closely to Hannah’s situation.4 According to v. 9c found in all traditions, physical strength is not what gives people their ability to prevail. The idea of this colon forms the logical conclusion of vv. 4–8, and not 9a–b, showing that the only power determining the fate of humans is that of God. 10. The Lord will make his adversary weak Cf. the MT: “The foes of the Lord shall be shattered” (NJPS). Let not the clever boast . . . in the midst of the land This long explanatory addition, found in the LXX and 4QSama but not in the MT, derives from the MT of Jer. 9:22–23. When reading 1 Sam. 2:9c: “for not by strength is a man mighty” (NETS) as well as v. 3: “Boast not, and speak not lofty things” (NETS), the Hebrew scribe (followed by the LXX) was apparently reminded of these verses in Jeremiah stressing similar ideas. However, the inappropriate placement of the

Selections from Samuel to Kings 53

The Lord ascended to the heavens and thundered. He will judge earth’s ends and gives strength to our kings and will exalt the horn of His anointed.” 11And they left him there before the Lord and departed to Harmathaim [Ramah], and the lad was ministering to the face of the Lord, before Eli the priest. addition, which falls between two related phrases of the Hebrew (“The foes of the Lord shall be shattered; / He will thunder against them in the heavens”), raises the possibility that it was originally written in the margin of a manuscript and later mistakenly inserted into the text itself. 11. And they left him there . . . and departed to Harmathaim This formulation differs from that of the MT: “Then Elkanah [literally, “he”] [and Hannah] went home to Ramah; and the boy entered the service of the Lord” (NJPS adds “and Hannah”). See also the comment on 1 Sam. 1:28 in 1 Samuel (1 Kingdoms LXX) 1:21–28 (Elkanah, Hannah, and Samuel in Shiloh).5

Notes 1. Here, as elsewhere, the translator chose the closest word in the Greek language to Sheol, so that the choice of this word does not necessarily imply that the translator transferred the mythological and conceptual aspects of the Greek Hades to the Greek translation. At the same time, it is remarkable that a Greek (pagan) mythological concept found its way into the Jewish translation. While the translators probably had no special intentions, next generations of Jewish readers may have explained “Hades” differently. 2. This addition in the MT changes the presumably earlier text of the LXX in a completely different direction. Starting with the conjunction “for,” the added text is supposed to explain the previous colons by referring to God’s cosmic powers (“pillars of the earth”), but in actuality it fails to do so. Colons 8a–d, as well as v. 9, focus on God’s ability to determine the fate of individuals, while 8e–f, the added clause in the MT (and 4QSama), praises God’s universal powers. Why would someone wish to stress God’s cosmic powers in this context? The added colons in 8e–f are not inappropriate in ancient Israelite thinking. However, they present the Divine from a different angle than was probably intended by the original poet. 3. In all versions of the Song, vv. 4–5 mention unexpected changes for the better and the worse in the fate of individuals. Likewise, in vv. 6–8 the Song refers to God’s power in changing the personal fate of individuals. The implication of these two groups of verses is that the unexpected change in one’s personal condition is determined by God. For example, in v. 4a the fate of the strong one whose power fails is due to God. Therefore, v. 9a–b of the MT seems appropriate. However, in the original short version of the Song, the sudden changes described in vv. 4–8 merely exemplify the strength and autonomy of God (for similar ideas, cf. Ps. 113:7–8). The original ideas of the Song have been given a theological slant in the MT by stressing the power of loyalty to God. It is the person who is loyal to God who will experience an improvement in his or her condition. For example, the God-fearing barren woman will give birth, while the barren woman who is not loyal to God will not be blessed in this way. 4. The mention of the righteous in the LXX and 4QSama in v. 9b' somewhat parallels the mention of the persons who are loyal to God in v. 9a in the MT. The phrase in the LXX may be taken to imply that those who witness a change in their personal fate, as mentioned in vv. 4–5, are the righteous. 5. The insertion of the Song at two different locations in the context may indicate the late addition of that Song in the history of Samuel. When it was inserted into the text, it was inserted in a slightly different place in some manuscripts. In MT, an act in the Temple (1:28b) is followed by the Song (2:1), while in the LXX the Song (2:1–10) precedes a similar act in the Temple (2:11). See the commentary on 1:28.

54

Emanuel Tov

1 Kings (3 Kingdoms LXX) 2 The Masoretic Text (MT) of 1 Kings 2 covers the end of David’s (Dauid LXX) reign and his son Solomon’s (Salomon LXX) accession to the throne (vv. 1–12); the execution of David’s oldest living son, Adonijah (Adonias LXX), and of Joab (Ioab LXX), commander of David’s army (vv. 13–35); and the execution of Shimei (Semei LXX) (vv. 36–46), a Benjaminite who had once insulted David but whom David had pardoned. It is Solomon who orders all three executions. The parallel text of 1 Kings in the Septuagint (LXX)— also called 3 Kingdoms or 3 Reigns—covers the same events, but in the middle and end of the chapter it adds two long “theme summaries” concerning Solomon’s wisdom.1 The first one, Summary 1, inserted after verse 35 (after the execution of Joab), contains 14 verses, denoted 35a–o; Summary 2, inserted after verse 46 (the end of the chapter), contains 11 verses, denoted 46a–l. Summary 1 is not connected to the context, while Summary 2 is. These summaries repeat verses occurring elsewhere in 1 Kings 3–11. They are out of chronological order, since the Solomonic history only starts with chapter 3. The summaries were originally composed in Hebrew as supplements to the MT and were translated into Greek. They were part of a Hebrew composition whose authors freely rewrote the text of 1 Kings. The clearest indication of this assumed process is probably the reworking of the story of Pharaoh’s (Pharao LXX) daughter (see below, v. 35c). For each verse in the translation, a reference is provided in brackets to its parallel in the canonical text (MT and/or LXX). These parallels are usually more or less identical with the text in the Summary (“=”), unless the reference is introduced by “cf.” Suggested Reading Gooding, David W. Relics of Ancient Exegesis: A Study of the Miscellanies in 3 Reigns 2. Society for Old Testament Studies Monograph Series 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976.

Translation [After the Execution of Joab]

35And the king put Banaiou [Benaiah] son of Iodae [ Jehoiada] over the army in his place; and the

Source of Translation: The Septuagint (LXX) translation is that of Bernard A. Taylor, in Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, eds., A New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS) (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), with slight alterations. Unless otherwise noted, MT translations are from the NJPS. Note that upon first mention of a personal name in the LXX text, its NJPS version is given in brackets.

Selections from Samuel to Kings 55

kingdom was being established in Ierousalem [ Jerusalem]; and the king appointed the priest Sadok [Zadok] first priest in the place of Abiathar. Summary 1

35a[= 1 Kings 5:9 MT LXX] And the Lord gave Salomon [Solomon] discernment and very great wisdom and breadth of mind like the sand which is by the sea, 35b[= 5:10 MT LXX] and the discernment of Salomon was greatly multiplied above the discernment of all ancient sons and above all discerning men (NETS: “prudent ones”)] of Egypt. 35c[= 3:1 MT] And he took the daughter of Pharao [Pharaoh] and brought her into the city of Dauid [David] until he first finished his house and the house of the Lord and the wall of Ierousalem round about; [cf. 6:38, 7:1 MT; 7:1a (7:38) LXX] in seven years he made and finished (them). 35d[= 5:29 MT LXX] And Salomon had seventy thousand (men) bearing a burden and eighty thousand stonecutters in the hill country.

Commentary 2:35. and the kingdom was being established Cf. 1 Kings 2:12 MT LXX: “and his rule was firmly established.” These words are lacking in the MT in 2:35. first priest These words are lacking in the MT. Benaiah carries this title also in 1 Chron. 27:5. According to some scholars, these words were removed from the MT because Solomon had no authority to appoint priests.

Summary 1 These verses (1 Kings 2:35a–o LXX) summarize Solomon’s activities, partly following 1 Kings 4:20– 5:12 MT (for a similar summary, see 9:15–28 MT). After a general description of Solomon’s wisdom (1 Kings 2:35a–b LXX), Summary 1 moves to Solomon’s marriage to Pharaoh’s daughter (v. 35c). Next come three details concerning his building activities: the preparations for building the Temple (v. 35d), the Temple utensils (v. 35e), and a few details concerning other building activities in Jerusalem (v. 35f). The story then returns in that same verse to Pharaoh’s daughter, then to a listing of his offerings (v. 35g) and the number of his chief officers (v. 35h). The end of Summary 1 returns to Solomon’s building activities (v. 35i), to which a remark is added (v. 35k) stressing that Solomon finished the Temple first before engaging himself in these building activities. Summary 1 then proceeds to the story of Shimei (vv. 35l–o), continued in the text of the MT and in the LXX itself. 35c This verse (= 1 Kings 3:1 MT) recurs in the LXX at a later stage in the story (1 Kings 5:14a). The details narrated in this verse cover the first stage in the story of Pharaoh’s daughter; the second one is included in 2:35f.3 The omission of an actual marriage to the daughter of Pharaoh (1 Kings 3:1 MT) in 1 Kings 2:35c LXX may well be intentional, as a similar trend is visible in B. Yev. 76a–b questioning the marriage of Solomon with a non-Israelite. Along the same lines, Lev. Rab. 12:5 explains that Solomon married the daughter of Pharoah only after the completion of the building of the Temple in order that his intermarriage should not defile his involvement in the construction. In that case the mentioning of the marriage in 5:14a LXX (not MT) could reflect a different intention or a different hand.

56

Emanuel Tov

35e[= 7:23 MT LXX (7:10)] And Salomon made the sea2 [= 7:24 MT LXX (7:11)] and the supports and the great basins [7:3–9 MT; 7:40–46 LXX] and the pillars [(NJPS: columns); ] and the fountain of the court [= 7:23, 44 MT LXX (7:10, 30)] and the bronze sea. 35f [cf. 11:27b MT LXX; 10:22a LXX; 12:24b LXX] And he built the citadel and its defenses and he cut through the city of Dauid; [= 9:24 MT, cf. 8:11a MT and LXX; 9:9a LXX] thus Pharao’s daughter went up from the city of Dauid to her house which he built for her. Then he built the citadel. 35g[= 9:25 MT] And three times in the year Salomon would offer up (NETS: “And Salomon would offer up in the year three”) whole burnt offerings and peace offerings on the altar that he built for the Lord, and would burn incense. And he finished the house. 35h[= 9:23 MT; 5:30 MT LXX] And these are the chief officers who were appointed over the works of Salomon; three thousand six hundred overseers of the people, of those who performed the work 35e This brief and incomplete summary of the preparation of the Temple utensils is based on 1 Kings 7. 1 Kings 2:35e quotes from that chapter according to the sequence of the LXX, in the terminology of the MT: tank, gourds, lavers, and columns (= sea, supports, buckets, and pillars according to the LXX [NETS]). The activities that are ascribed to Hiram in the MT are performed here by Solomon, probably reflecting a tendentious change. 35f. And he built the citadel This little episode is recounted no less than three times in the LXX beyond the present verse: 10:22a LXX, in a summary referring to the building of the citadel; 11:27b MT LXX; and 12:24b in an addition to the LXX. This repetition shows how complicated the composition redaction history of the Hebrew text behind 1 Kings was. and its defenses The Greek translation probably reflects sagar (closed up) in the parallel verse 11:27 LXX (even though the related noun misgeret [border, rim] is not translated elsewhere as epalxis, “defense”). and he cut through [that is, broke through the walls of] the city of Dauid This verse states exactly the opposite of its parallel, 11:27 LXX: “He . . . closed up the fence of the city of Dauid his father.” (NJPS: “Solomon . . . repaired the breach of the city of his father, David.”). What looks at first sight like a textual confusion with the next word in 11:27 MT (peretz [breach]) probably is part of a clever design characterizing Summary 1. Only after Solomon cuts through the city can Pharaoh’s daughter be brought to her own abode. The next phrase, “thus Pharaoh’s daughter went up,” probably refers to this new possibility. from the city of Dauid to her house This episode continues 1 Kings 2:35c, in which Pharaoh’s daughter at first was brought to the city of David. Here, in v. 35f, she is brought to her own house. The exact relation between the two stages of this story forms a key element in the understanding of the nature of the Summaries. While several episodes of this story occur in different places in the MT and the LXX, only in Summary 1 have they been combined into one organic unit. Solomon’s building activities (vv. 35d–g) placed between the two parts of the story form an integral part of the narrative: Solomon moves Pharaoh’s daughter from her temporary house to her own abode only after he has finished building a house for the Lord (v. 35c). 35g. peace offerings The use of shelamim for “peace offerings” in the MT, like the reference to “peace” (shalom) in verse 46g, may well reflect a playful game with Solomon’s name (Shelomoh). 35h. three thousand six hundred This figure is also recorded in 2 Chron. 2:1 and 1 Kings 5:30 LXX, as against 3300 at 5:30 MT, and 550 at 9:23 MT. We have no means to evaluate these different figures; possibly they reflect scribal corruptions.

Selections from Samuel to Kings 57

(NETS: “of the people who did the work”). 35i[= 9:15, 17, 18 MT; cf. 10:22a LXX] And he built Assour [Hazor] and Magdo [Megiddo] and Gazer [Gezer] and upper Baithoron [Beth-horon] and Baalath [Baalith]; 35konly after he built the house of the Lord and the wall of Ierousalem round about, after these he built these cities. 35lAnd while Dauid was still alive he commanded Salomon saying, [= 2:8 MT LXX] “Behold, with you is Semei [Shimei] son of Gera, son of the offspring of the Iemini, from Chebron [Hebron]; 35m[= 2:8 MT LXX] he cursed me with a painful curse on the day I was going into Camps [Mahanaim], 35n[= 2:8 MT LXX] and he came down to meet me at the Jordan, and I swore to him by the Lord saying: If he will (not) be put to death with a sword! 35o[= 2:9 MT LXX] And now do not hold him guiltless, for you are a prudent man, and you will know what you shall do to him, and you shall bring his gray head down with blood to Hades.” 36And the king summoned Semei and said to him, “Build yourself a house in Ierousalem and sit there and you shall not go out from there to any place whatever.” [The story of Shimei continues here, in verses 37 through 45.] 46And King Salomon commanded Banaia son of Iodae, and he went out and struck him [Shimei] down (NETS: “and did away with him”), and he died. Summary 2

46a[cf. 2:9 MT LXX] And King Salomon was very prudent and wise, [= 4:20 MT] and Ioudas [ Judah] and Israel were very many as the sand which is by the sea in great number, eating and drinking and 35l–o The story of Shimei of the house of Saul, in 2 Samuel and 1 Kings, is told in several places. Shimei curses David because of David’s bloodguilt (2 Sam. 16:5–13), but later David grants him clemency (19:16–23). On his deathbed David tells Solomon not to hurt Shimei (1 Kings 1:8–9), and indeed Solomon promises him that he will protect Shimei as long as he stays in Jerusalem. However, Shimei leaves the city, upon which Solomon orders him killed (1 Kings 2:36–46). 1 Kings 2 MT recounts the story in two segments, verses 8–9 (David’s words on his deathbed to Solomon) and verses 36–46 (the events leading to Shimei’s death). In the LXX, on the other hand, verses 8–9 are repeated as the last verses of Summary 1 after verse 35 so that they come immediately before verses 36–46. The LXX thus presents one continuous story that either represents the original text or a later harmonization.4 35l. from Chebron The mentioning of Bahurim as Shimei’s birthplace in the parallel verse 2:8 (MT and LXX) is more likely than Chebron, as Shimei probably did not come from David’s capital. Possibly the reading of verse 35l was created by scribal confusion. It is not impossible that a midrash-like change inserted here the name of Hebron, the town from which Absalom started his rebellion against David (2 Sam. 15:7). 35n. If . . . a sword The Hebraistic phrase means, “if he will not be put to death . . . (may God bring all manner of evil upon me).”

Summary 2 Like Summary 1, Summary 2 starts off with a generalized remark concerning Solomon’s wisdom, adjoined with a statement about the well-being of the Israelites (1 Kings 2:46a). After recording the extent of Solomon’s rule and the people paying duties to him (v. 46b), the Summary

58

Emanuel Tov

being happy; 46b[= 5:1 MT; see also 2:46k LXX; 10:26a LXX; 5:14 LXX] and Salomon was chief among all the kingdoms, and they were bringing gifts and they were serving Salomon all the days of his life. 46c[cf. 9:19 MT] And Salomon began to open the resources of Lebanon, 46d[cf. 9:18 MT] and he built Thermai in the wilderness. 46e[= 5:2 MT LXX] And this was the meal (NETS: “midday meal”) for Salomon: thirty kors of choice flour and sixty kors of ground meal, [= 5:3 MT LXX] ten choice calves and twenty pasture-fed oxen and one hundred sheep besides deer and gazelles and choice wild (NETS: “fatted”) birds. 46f[= 5:4 MT LXX] For he was chief everywhere across the river from Raphi [Rafia] to Gaza, among all the kings across the river; 46g[= 5:4 MT LXX] and he was at peace on all his sides round about; [= 5:5 MT] and Ioudas and Israel lived in confidence, each under his vine and under his fig tree, eating and drinking, from Dan and as far as Bersabee [Beer-sheba], all the days of Salomon. 46h[= 4:2 MT LXX] And these were the officials of Salomon: Azariou [Azariah], son of Sadok, the priest and [cf. 4:5 MT LXX] Orniou son of Nathan chief of those in charge and [cf. 4:6 MT LXX] Edram over his house and [cf. 4:3 MT LXX] Souba (the) scribe and Basa son of Achithalam (the) recorder and [cf. 4:4 MT LXX] Abi son of Ioab commander-in-chief and [cf. 4:6 MT LXX] Achire son of Edrai over the levies and [cf. 4:4 MT LXX] Banaia, son of Iodae, over the main court and over the brickworks and [cf. 4:5 MT LXX] Zachour [Zaccur], son of Nathan, the counselor. 46i[= 5:6 MT] And Salomon had describes Solomon’s building activities (vv. 46c–d). Verses 46e–g are again parallel to 1 Kings 5, namely, 5:2–5. These verses deal with the provisions consumed by Solomon’s household (v. 46e), the extent of his dominion (v. 46f), the peaceful results of his rule (v. 46g), and Solomon’s officers (v. 46h). Verse 46i continues with the text of chapter 5 (v. 6), mentioning the number of Solomon’s horses. It ends with general statements about the extent of Solomon’s dominion (2:46k) and his rule in Jerusalem (v. 46l). 46c. Salomon began to open the resources of Lebanon This detail is not reflected in 9:17–18 MT: wayiben et ba‘alat, “Solomon fortified Ba‘alath.” The LXX may reflect a different vocalization of MT ba‘alat, namely, ba‘alot taken as “resources” or “districts.” 46f. from Raphi to Gaza The parallel verse (5:4 MT) reads “from Tiphsah to Gaza,” indicating the extent of Solomon’s rule in the large area from Tiphsah near the Euphrates until Gaza. On the other hand, according to 2:46f, Solomon ruled in a very restricted area, from Raphi to Gaza (some 22 kilometers apart). This reading may reflect a midrashic change by the translator implying that just as Solomon ruled over a small area, so he ruled over the whole world. Such a tendency is reflected in B. Meg. 11a: “and the other said that Tiphsah and Gaza are near one another [and that what is meant is that] as he [Solomon] ruled over Tiphsah and Gaza, so he ruled over all the world.” It is also possible that for some other reason Tiphsah was replaced with Rafia, much better known to an Egyptian-Jewish scribe. 46h The list of Solomon’s officials in this long verse is longer than the one in the parallel 1 Kings 4:2–6 MT (= LXX). 1 Kings 2:46h lists the general overseer, the overseer of the house, a scribe, a recorder, the commander of the troops, a financial officer, two overseers of building activities, and a counselor. The MT, on the other hand, has two secretaries, three priests, and two scribes, as well as additional members of the staff. There are numerous differences in small details between the names, and the two lists may well reflect separate sources.

Selections from Samuel to Kings 59

forty thousand brood mares for chariots and twelve thousand horsemen. 46k[= 5:1 MT; 10:26a LXX; v. 2:46b LXX] And he was chief among all the kings from the river and as far as the land of the foreigners (= Philistines) and to the borders of Egypt. 46l[= 4:1 MT LXX] Salomon son of Dauid reigned over Israel and Ioudas in Ierousalem. 46i. brood mares The Greek translator misunderstood the rare word ’urwot, “stalls (of horses)” (5:6 MT), rendering it “brood (mares).”

Notes 1. The summaries were intended to stress the God-given wisdom of Solomon (see 1 Kings 2:35a LXX), just as 1–2 Chronicles and 11QPsalms Scrolla 27 stress David’s wisdom. 2. For example, the first reference to 7.23 refers to the words “And Salomon made the sea.” 3. The placement of this verse at 1 Kings 3:1 MT is least appropriate, since it has no connection with the context and refers to various building activities that are described only in chapter 5. Its placement at 1 Kings 5:14a LXX is the most appropriate, since it immediately precedes the building of the Temple mentioned in this verse, referring to the cooperation between Solomon and Hiram in vv. 15–32 regarding building materials. 4. The LXX is awkward, since vv. 8–9 occur twice in that version in very close vicinity. However, in the LXX scrolls this repetition may have been intentional: Scholars believe that the original scroll of the LXX of 2 Samuel ended with the death of David in 1 Kings 2:11, and since 2 Samuel and 1 Kings were contained in separate scrolls, the two occurrences of vv. 8–9 would have been postponed in two different scrolls.

60

Emanuel Tov

1 Kings (3 Kingdoms LXX) 5 The Septuagint (LXX) does not always provide an exact parallel to the traditional Hebrew or Masoretic Text (MT) of Hebrew Scripture. The content of 1 Kings 4:20–5:14 MT, for example, differs significantly from that of the LXX version of these verses in 1 Kings. In the MT, this section describes the extent of Solomon’s (Salomon LXX ) realm and its internal prosperity (4:20; 5:1, 4–5), his daily consumption of food (5:2–3), the provisions brought to him (5:6–8), and his wisdom (5:9–14). Several of the elements in this section of the MT appear in the LXX in a different order; some are lacking; and some new elements are added. The sequence in the LXX is as follows: the provisions brought to Solomon (5:1 = 5:7–8 MT), his daily consumption of food (5:2–3), the extent of his realm (5:4), his wisdom (5:9–14), and Solomon’s marriage to Pharaoh’s (Pharao LXX) daughter (5:14a = 3:1 MT; 5:14b = 9:16–17 MT). The two sequences above show that the LXX added the story about Pharaoh’s daughter in 5:14a–b. These verses are more appropriate here than at 1 Kings 3:1 and 1 Kings 9:16–17 (where they are lacking in the LXX), as is the placement of 5:7–8 MT in the LXX as 5:1. The content of 1 Kings 4:20–5:1 MT (the extent of Solomon’s realm and its internal prosperity) appears only at 1 Kings 2:46a–b LXX, and that of 1 Kings 5:5–6 MT (internal prosperity and Solomon’s food) appears only at 1 Kings 2:46g, i LXX. These verses did not fit the topic of the rewritten and abbreviated form of 1 Kings 5 in the LXX. More so than the MT, the LXX displays a literary unity that was probably formed after the creation of the disharmonious text of the MT, in which diverse material is often juxtaposed (see introductory comments to Samuel-Kings [1–4 Kingdoms LXX]”).

Selections from Samuel to Kings 61

Translation 1And thus the officials would supply provisions for King Salomon [Solomon] and everything ordered for the table of the king, each one in his month, they did not alter a thing; and they also used to bring to the place where the king might be, barley and straw for the horses and the chariots, each according to his charge. 2And these were Salomon’s provisions for one day: thirty kors of choice flour and sixty kors of ground meal 3and ten choice calves and twenty pasture-fed oxen and one hundred sheep besides deer and gazelles and choice birds, grain fed. 4For he ruled across the river, and he was at peace on all sides round about. 9And the Lord gave Salomon discernment and very great wisdom and volume of mind like the sand that is by the sea, 10and Salomon abounded greatly, above the discernment of all ancient people, and above all the discerning [people] of Egypt. 11And he was wise beyond all humans; he was wise beyond Gaithan [Ethan] the Ezraite [Ezrahite] and Haiman [Heman] and Chalkal [Chalkol] and Darda, son of

Commentary 5:1 This verse (= 1 Kings 5:7–8 MT) describes the provisions for King Solomon provided by the officials (or prefects) mentioned in the immediately preceding verses in the LXX (1 Kings 4:7–19 [v. 20 is lacking]), and its position is thus more appropriate in the LXX than in the MT. In the MT, the position of this text farther down at 5:7 is problematic, as it mentions “All those prefects” even though the list of prefects itself is separated from 5:7 by unrelated text at 4:20–5:6. the officials would supply . . . everything ordered for the table The Greek phrase rendered here as “everything ordered” probably reflects a misunderstanding of the MT. In that version the prefects provided “for King Solomon and for all who were admitted to King Solomon’s table.” 4. across the river The MT adds “from Tiphsah to Gaza,” not found in the LXX, but presented in a different form in the added Summary 2 of the LXX as 1 Kings 2:46g (see “1 Kings [LXX 3 Kingdoms] 2:35 and 46”). 5–8 The numbering of the verses in the LXX—which skips from 5:4 to 5:9—reflects the different placement of the text in 5:5–8 MT in the LXX. The content of 5:5–6 MT appears in the LXX as part of Summary 2 in 1 Kings 2:46g and i. The content from 5:7–8 MT appears in the LXX at the beginning of 1 Kings 5. 9. great wisdom Josephus describes Solomon as a “philosopher” (Ant. 8.2.5 §44), and according to him this wisdom includes the supernatural ability of expelling demons: “God also enabled him to learn that skill (technē) which expels demons” (§45). The midrash similarly elaborates on Solomon’s great wisdom. See, for example, Num. Rab. 19:3 and above in the introductory comments. B. Git. 68b relates Solomon’s struggles with and ultimate triumph over the demon Ashmedai. 11 The MT adds: “His fame spread among all the surrounding nations.”

Source of Translation: The Septuagint (LXX) translation is that of Bernard A. Taylor, in Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, eds., A New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS) (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), with slight alterations. Unless otherwise noted, MT translations are from the NJPS. Note that upon first mention of a personal name in the LXX text, its NJPS version is given in brackets.

62 Emanuel Tov

Mal [Mahol]. 12And Salomon spoke three thousand proverbs, and his songs were five thousand. 13And he spoke of trees, from the cedar that is in Lebanon to the hyssop that comes out through the wall, and he spoke of animals and of birds and of reptiles and of fish. 14And all the people used to come to hear the wisdom of Salomon, and he would receive gifts from all the kings of the earth who were hearing of his wisdom. 14aAnd Salomon took the daughter of Pharao for himself for a wife and brought her into the city of Dauid [David] until he finished the house of the Lord and his own house and the wall of Ierousalem [ Jerusalem]. 14bThen Pharao king of Egypt went up and captured Gazer [Gezer] and burned it and the Canaanite, who lived in Mergab, and Pharao gave them as send-off gifts to his daughter, Salomon’s wife; and Salomon built Gazer. 15And King Chiram [Hiram] of Tyre sent his servants to anoint Salomon in place of his father Dauid, for Chiram had affection for Dauid all the days. 12. three thousand . . . five thousand The MT’s tally of Solomon’s songs is more modest: “one thousand and five.”1 Altogether Solomon had 4,005 compositions in his name according to the MT, and 8000 according to the LXX. The first figure reminds us of the 4,050 compositions ascribed to David in 11QPsalms Scrolla 27.2 See also “The Magic of Solomon” (Ant. 8.44–49), comment on 8.44. 14. he would receive gifts from all the kings of the earth The tradition that Solomon received gifts from other kings is also reflected in 1 Kings 10:25 LXX; the additional verse 1 Kings 2:46b LXX; and 2 Chron. 9:24 LXX. This tradition is lacking in the MT, which is awkwardly phrased, indicating that it may have left out these words by mistake: “Men of all peoples came to hear Solomon’s wisdom, [sent] by all the kings of the earth” (1 Kings 5:14 NJPS). 14a The story of Solomon’s marriage to Pharaoh’s daughter fits gracefully here and not in 1 Kings 3:1 MT or 1 Kings 2:35c LXX (for all commentary on 1 Kings 2, see “1 Kings [3 Kingdoms LXX] 2:35 and 46”). 1 Kings 5:14a–b combines most of the elements in the first stage of the story of the marriage, while not including the second stage, narrated in 1 Kings 9:24 MT (= 2:35f LXX); 8:11 MT; 9:9a LXX. These elements have been carefully moved to their present place in the LXX, just before Solomon’s preparations for the building of the Temple. This verse stresses that Pharaoh’s daughter was moved to her own house only after Solomon finished building the Temple. 14b. Mergab This word may be a corruption of Gezer or of the two words appearing in the immediate context in MT in 9:16 “in the town, he killed” (ba‘ir harag). 15. to anoint Salomon According to the LXX, it is Hiram who anoints Solomon through his “servants.” However, in the MT and LXX, the priest Zadok has already anointed Solomon in 1 Kings 1:39. It is not impossible that the LXX preserves here an alternative tradition about the anointing of Solomon. Less likely is the view of some scholars that the anointing by Hiram has been removed from the MT of v. 15. The exact wording of the MT is problematic, since the purpose of the expedition of Hiram’s officials is unclear in that version: “King Hiram of Tyre sent his officials to Solomon when he heard that he had been anointed king in place of his father” (1 Kings 5:15).

Selections from Samuel to Kings 63

Notes 1. In Rabbinic tradition, Solomon’s songs and proverbs were of a sacred nature: “R. Hamnuna said: ‘What [are the allusions in what was] written in Scripture: And he spoke three thousand proverbs; and his songs were a thousand and five? This teaches that Solomon uttered three thousand proverbs for every single word of the Torah and one thousand and five reasons for every single word of the Scribes’” (B. Er. 21b). 2. The figure quoted in the LXX may have been created by a later Greek copying error (pentakischiliai [5,000] developing from pente kai chiliai [1005]).

64

Emanuel Tov

1 Kings (3 Kingdoms LXX) 11 The content of 1 Kings 11:1–8 in the traditional Hebrew or Masoretic Text (MT) differs from that of the parallel verses in 1 Kings (called 3 Kingdoms) of the Septuagint (LXX). Both versions depict the sins of King Solomon (Salomon LXX) in marrying foreign wives and being involved in idolatry, but the LXX makes the latter sin more acceptable to the reader.1 In the LXX, the fact that he was married to foreign women in his old age made him an easy prey for them, since they induced him to venerate non-Israelite gods. In the MT, on the other hand, Solomon himself initiates idolatrous acts. The description of the sins of 1 Kings 11 was problematic also for the Chronicler, who simply omits the chapter in his account of Solomon. Suggested Reading Talshir, Zipora. “1 Kings and 3 Kingdoms—Origin and Revision, Case Study: The Sins of Solomon (1 Kgs 11).” Textus 21 (2002): 71–105.

Translation 1And King Salomon [Solomon] loved women. And he had seven hundred ruling women and three hundred concubines. And he took foreign women, both the daughter of Pharao [Pharaoh], Moabites,

Commentary 11:1. And King Salomon loved women The MT of this verse (NJPS: “King Solomon loved many foreign women”) stresses Solomon’s sins more than the LXX by mentioning that the king has many women and that they are “foreign.” More important, the differences between the two versions (change of sequence, addition and omission of details) create two slightly different images of the king. In the MT, the king sins against the Torah, taking only foreign women, and thus transgressing the laws of Deut. 7:1–4 (NJPS: “You shall not intermarry with them . . . For they will turn your children away from Me”) and 17:17 (NJPS: “And he [i.e., the king] shall not have many wives, lest his heart go astray”). In the LXX, on the other hand, Solomon’s main vice is that he loves women, only some of whom are foreign. He sins against the Torah, but these sins are made more acceptable. 1–4. seven hundred . . . wives turned away his heart Note that 1 Kings 11 LXX has no equivalent for verse 3 in MT. The Greek translation moves “seven hundred ruling women and three hundred concubines” (from the similar statement at 11:3a MT) into 11:1 LXX, and moves “and his foreign Source of Translation: The Septuagint (LXX) translation is that of Bernard A Taylor, in Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, eds., A New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS) (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), with slight alterations. Unless otherwise noted, MT translations are from the NJPS. Note that upon first mention of a personal name in the LXX text, its NJPS version is given in brackets.

Selections from Samuel to Kings 65

Ammonites, Syrians as well as Idumeans [Edomites], Chettites [Hittites] and Amorrites, 2from the nations that the Lord forbade to the sons of Israel: “You shall not go in to them, and they shall not go in to you, lest they turn away your hearts after their idols”; Salomon clung to them for love. 4And it happened at the time of Salomon’s old age that his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God as was the heart of his father Dauid [David], and his foreign wives turned away his heart after their gods. 5[= 1 Kings 11:7 MT] Then Salomon built a high place to Chamos [Chemosh], idol of Moab and to their king, idol of the sons of Ammon 6[= v. 5 MT] and to Astarte [Ashtoreth], abomination of the Sidonians. 7[= v. 8 MT] And thus he did for all his foreign wives, they were offering incense and sacrificing to their idols; 8[= v. 6 MT] and Salomon did evil before the Lord, he did not go after the Lord as Dauid his father. wives turned away his heart after their gods” (from the similar phrase at 11:3b MT) to 11:4 LXX, thereby omitting verse 3 in the translation. Moabites . . . Amorrites The list of Solomon’s foreign wives is slightly different in the two sources. The MT has “Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite women.” The omission of the MT’s “Sidonian” (NJPS: “Phoenician”) in the LXX is probably a mistake, since verse 6 LXX mentions “Astarte, abomination of the Sidonians” (v. 5 NJPS: “Ashtoreth the goddess of the Phoenicians”).2 The LXX adds “Amorrites” (elsewhere, NJPS “Amorites”), possibly influenced by the previous chapter (1 Kings 10:22b) where they appear in the LXX immediately after the Hittites. 4. his foreign wives turned away his heart after their gods Women’s negative influence over the king regarding idolatry is foreseen in Deut. 17:17 (MT: “lest his heart go astray”), even more so in Deut. 7:4 (NJPS: “they will turn your children away from Me”) and in the Temple Scrolla (56:19: “lest they turn his heart from following me”).3 The sequence of the cause and effect in the MT has been reversed in the LXX. In the MT, the foreign wives make Solomon’s behavior change in his old age, while the LXX attributes the change to the ailments of old age.4 Note also that the LXX changes 1 Kings 11:5 of the MT (NJPS: “Solomon followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Phoenicians, and Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites”). In particular, the LXX omits “Solomon followed”—an active phrase that describes the king as pursuing idolatrous activities on his own initiative—thereby implying that his worship of foreign gods results from his being led astray by his idolatrous wives. This delicate shifting of responsibility presents Solomon in a slightly more positive way. Some details from 11:5 MT (NJPS: “Ashtoreth the goddess of the Phoenicians”) and from 11:5, 7 MT (NJPS: “the abomination of the Ammonites”) found their way in a combined form into 11:5 LXX, namely “and to Astarte, abomination of the Sidonians” (recall that NJPS translates “Sidonians” as “Phoenicians”). 5. idol of Moab The MT adds a more concrete location (NJPS: “on the hill near Jerusalem”) for this idolatrous “high place” built by Solomon. The sinning of Solomon is thus made more tangible in the MT, which may be exactly why this detail is omitted in the LXX. and to their king As often elsewhere in the LXX (e.g., 1 Kings 11:33), the name of the god Molekh or Milkom is misrepresented by the Hebrew noun melekh (king). 5–6. built a high place . . . to Astarte The high place for Astarte is not mentioned in the MT, which merely reads, “Solomon followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Phoenicians” (v. 5 NJPS). 8. he did not go after The LXX reflects the Hebrew phrase welo halakh, “he did not walk after,” instead of the MT’s “Solomon . . . did not remain loyal” (v. 6 NJPS). In the MT, this theological evaluation occurs in the middle of the account of Solomon’s actions, while in the LXX—more appropriately—it serves as a summary.

66

Emanuel Tov

Notes 1. Probably the LXX reflects an earlier Hebrew text (see introductory comments to Samuel to Kings [1–4 Kingdoms]”). However, if the changes were introduced by the translator himself, the translation may reflect a liberal attitude toward intermarriage, which was practiced often in the 2nd century bce when the translation was produced. 2. The addition of “Syrians” in the LXX probably reflects a textual confusion in one of the two versions. Since daleth is close to resh, edomiyot (Edomite women) of the MT is almost identical to aramiyot (Syrian women), so that the latter word was either added in the LXX or omitted in the MT. 3. The link between the Deuteronomic injunctions and King Solomon’s behavior was also made at B. Sanh. 21b and at Sir. 47:19: “You gave your loins to women, and let them rule your body.” 4. Josephus explains Solomon’s unusual behavior not only to non-Jews, but also to Jews: “And as he grew into years, and his reason became weaker by length of time, it was not sufficient to recall to his mind the institutions of his own country; so he still more and more condemned his own God, and continued to regard the gods that his marriages had introduced” (Ant. 8.194).

Selections from Samuel to Kings 67

Selections from Jeremiah Emanuel Tov The three main versions of Jeremiah that have survived from antiquity are the traditional or Masoretic Text (MT) in Hebrew; the Septuagint (LXX); and two Hebrew scrolls from Qumran, 4QJerb and 4QJerd, dating to the first half of the 2nd century bce. The MT is followed quite closely by the Peshitta (Syriac), Targum (Aramaic), and Vulgate (Latin) translations. The LXX differs from the MT in two central matters: the order of the chapters and verses and the length of the text. The translator has rendered in a relatively literal fashion a Hebrew book similar to that contained in the two Qumran scrolls. The selections from Jeremiah (Ieremias LXX ) below are Jer. 10:1–11; 27 (34); 33 (40); and 43 (50) (numbers in parentheses refer to the numbering system of the LXX different from the MT chapter numbers). The LXX is shorter than the MT by one-sixth. It lacks words, phrases, sentences, and entire sections contained in the MT. The differences between the two text forms, which are not characteristic of scribal intervention, were created at an early stage, when the book of Jeremiah was still being composed. They reflect different editions of Jeremiah; the LXX and the two Qumran scrolls probably contain the earlier, shorter edition I, while the MT presents the expanded, later edition II. Edition II contains many sections not found in edition I, the largest of which are Jer. 33:14–26 and 39:4–13. One of the major differences between the two versions pertains to the forms of personal names, for which see the commentary to Jer. 43 (50). Suggested Reading Janzen, J. Gerald. Studies in the Text of Jeremiah. Harvard Semitic Monographs 6. Cambridge ma: Harvard University Press, 1973. Tov, Emanuel. “The Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah in the Light of Its Textual History.” In Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism, edited by Jeffrey H. Tigay, 211–37. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985.

68

Jeremiah 10 The prophecy described in Jer. 10:1–11 in the Masoretic Text (MT) contains both mockery of idols and praise of the Lord. The text refers with disdain to the idols’ manmade origins and their inability to walk, speak, or do any harm or good. The mockery is included in verses 2–5, 8–9, 11, while the remaining verses 6–7 and 10 praise the Lord. The verses containing this praise are lacking in the Septuagint (LXX), as well as in the Qumran scroll 4QJerb. Many scholars believe that these shorter texts reflect the original form of Jer. 10, and that the tradition behind the MT reflects a later text in which the praise of the Lord has been added in order to stress the futility of the idols. The addition of these verses in the tradition of the MT went together with the splitting up of verse 5 into two parts. In the development of Scripture, usually elements were added, not deleted. Moreover, it is intrinsically more plausible that verses of praise were added than omitted.1 Suggested Reading Ben-Dov, Jonathan. “A Textual Problem and its Form-Critical Solution: Jeremiah 10:1–16.” Textus 20 (2000): 97–128.

Translation 10:1Hear the word of the Lord that he spoke to you, O house of Israel. 2This is what the Lord says: Do not learn according to the ways of the nations, and do not be afraid of the signs of the sky, for they are afraid of them to their faces 3For the precepts of the nations are vain: there is a tree from the forest, cut down, a work of a carpenter, and a molten image. 4They have been adorned with silver and gold; they fastened them with hammers and nails, and they shall not be moved.

Source of Translation: The Septuagint (LXX) translation is that in Albert Pietersma and Marc Saunders, eds., A New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS) (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), with slight alterations. Unless otherwise noted, MT translations are from the NJPS. Note that upon first mention of a personal name in the LXX text, its NJPS version is given in brackets.

Selections from Jeremiah 69

5aWrought silver it is—they will not walk. 9Beaten silver will come from Tharsis [Tarshish], gold of Mophas (MT: Uphaz) and a hand of goldsmiths—works of craftsmen all, they will clothe them in blue and purple. 5bRaised they will be carried, for they will not walk. Do not be afraid of them, for they shall not do evil, and there is no good in them.

Commentary 10:5 Jer. 10:5 MT is split into two different parts in the LXX, with the Greek parallel to 10:9 MT intervening. The sequence of elements in the LXX may well be preferable to that of the MT, as the verses describing the work of the artisans on the idols (vv. 3, 4, 5a, 9) are juxtaposed in the Greek version. 5a. Wrought silver it is The MT reads: “They are like a scarecrow in a cucumber patch.” Although the two texts differ greatly, their consonants are close: ktmr mqshh in the MT, and ktm mqshh in the Hebrew text underlying the LXX. 5a–5b Into the midst of these verses—and with some rearrangement of sequence—the MT adds verses 6–8: “6O Lord, there is none like You! / You are great and Your name is great in power. / 7Who would not revere You, O King of the nations? / For that is Your due, / Since among all the wise of the nations / And among all their royalty / There is none like You. / 8But they are both dull and foolish; / Their doctrine is but delusion; / It is a piece of wood.” The MT adds elements of praise to the shorter text of the LXX and 4QJerb, as do all other ancient versions. The situation is rather complex, since one of the MT’s added verses (v. 8) speaks about idols, and since the sequence of verses in the LXX (vv. 5a, 9, 5b) differs from that in the MT. 5b The MT adds verse 10 (similar in nature to vv. 6–7): “But the Lord is truly God: / He is a living God, / The everlasting King. / At His wrath, the earth quakes, / And nations cannot endure His rage.” For the phrase “living God,” see also Jer. 23:36 MT. For the imagery in 10:10b MT, see Isa. 29:6. 9. gold of Mophas The MT reads: “gold of Uphaz.” The LXX reflects a misreading of the first letter of me-ophir, “of Ophir,” the traditional source of gold (see 1 Kings 10:11).

70 Emanuel Tov

11Thus shall you say to them: Let gods who did not make the sky and the earth perish from the earth and from under this sky. 11 In the MT, this verse is written in Aramaic; it is the only Aramaic verse found in the Hebrew Bible, apart from the books of Daniel and Ezra. The reason for writing this verse in Aramaic is unclear, and the verse is often considered a late gloss (addition) to the biblical text at a period when Aramaic was spoken. However, some officials of Judah knew Aramaic in the period preceding Jeremiah (see 2 Kings 18:26). Therefore, the prophet could have included a verse in Aramaic.2 The Aramaic verse is ancient, since it was found in the parent text of the LXX, probably produced around 150 bce. to them These words refer to the idols, last mentioned in Jer. 10:9 MT or 10:5b LXX, and not in the preceding verse (10:10 MT), implying that verse 10 is indeed a later addition to the text.

Notes 1. Parallels for such additions are the so-called doxologies (i.e., liturgical formulas of praise to God) at the ends of the five divisions of the book of Psalms, probably added when those divisions were created within the book. See, e.g., Ps. 41:14; 72:18–20. 2. An explanatory remark in the Targum explains this Aramaic verse as a reply to local people’s attempts to convert Jews to their religion: “This is a copy of the letter that the prophet Jeremiah sent to the elders of the Diaspora of Babylon.”

Selections from Jeremiah

71

Jeremiah 27 (34 LXX) Jeremiah 27 of the Masoretic Text (MT) (34 in the Septuagint, or LXX) tells the tale of Jeremiah (Ieremias LXX ) delivering a prophecy to a group of kings meeting in Jerusalem with King Zedekiah (Sedekias LXX ). The prophet calls for the complete submission to King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon (Nabouchodonosor LXX) in accordance with God’s plans. At the end of the chapter Jeremiah speaks out against the false prophets who prophesy optimistically to the Israelites, telling them that they need not surrender to Nebuchadnezzar. Among other things, Jeremiah opposes the claim of these prophets that the Temple vessels taken by Nebuchadnezzar (when he sent the people of Judah [Iouda LXX] and the inhabitants of Jerusalem [Ierousalem LXX] into exile in Babylon) will be returned. Jeremiah says that this will not happen, and that these prophets should implore God not to allow the remaining Temple vessels to be removed from Jerusalem. Most of the expansions in the MT to the short text of the LXX are based on ideas or details in the context, or reflect stylistic or theological concerns. The MT devotes great attention on the fate of the Temple vessels, adding details from the context in Jeremiah and 2 Kings. Suggested Reading Stulman, Louis. The Other Text of Jeremiah: A Reconstruction of the Hebrew Text Underlying the Greek Version of the Prose Sections of Jeremiah. New York: University Press of America, 1985. Tov, Emanuel. “Exegetical Notes on the Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX of Jeremiah 27 (34).” Chap. 22 in The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999.

Translation 34:1[= 27:2 MT] Thus did the Lord say: Make bonds and collars, and put them around your neck. 2[= 27:3 MT] And you will send them to the king of Idumea [Edom] and to the king of Moab and to the king of the sons of Ammon and to the king of Tyre and to the king of Sidon by the hands of their

Commentary 34:1 Runs parallel to Jer. 27:2 MT. The LXX lacks 27:1 MT, which reads: “At the beginning of the reign of King Jehoiakim son of Josiah of Judah, this word came to Jeremiah from the Lord.” In the earlier edition of the book, which was written before the MT and LXX, but is still reflected in the LXX, this chapter had no editorial heading linking the prophetic vision to a certain date Source of Translation The Septuagint (LXX) translation is that in Albert Pietersma and Marc Saunders, eds., A New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS) (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), with slight alterations. Unless otherwise noted, MT translations are from the NJPS. Note that upon first mention of a personal name in the LXX text, its NJPS version is given in brackets.

72 Emanuel Tov

envoys who are coming to meet them in Ierousalem [ Jerusalem], to King Sedekias [Zedekiah] of Iouda [ Judah]. 3[= 27:4 MT] And you will instruct them to say to their masters: “Thus did the Lord the God of Israel say: Thus you shall say to your masters: 4[= 27:5 MT] Because it is I who by my great strength and my lofty effort have made the earth and I will give it to whom it may seem good in my eyes, 5[= 27:6 MT] I have given the earth to King Nabouchodonosor [Nebuchadnezzar] of Babylon to serve him, and the wild animals of the field to work for him.” 6[= 27:8 MT] And the nation and the kingdom, as many as do not put their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, I will visit them with dagger and with famine, said the Lord, until they are consumed in his hand. 7[= 27:9 MT] And you, do not keep heeding your false prophets and your diviners and your dreamers and your soothsayers and your sorcerers, when they say, “You shall not work for the king of Babylon.” 8[= 27:10 MT] For they are prophesying lies to you, so as to distance you far from or historic event (like chapters 2, 7, 16, 47). Such headings were added at a later stage in the MT edition. In this case, the MT heading from the preceding chapter mentioning Jehoiakim (26:1 MT) was added mistakenly to 27:1 as well. However, the events depicted in Jer. 27 (34 LXX) take place during the subsequent reign of Zedekiah (see 27:3, 12 MT). 3. the Lord The MT adds “of Hosts” (tzeva’ot) referring to the heavenly powers (possibly meaning “angelic armies”) of God.1 5. to King Nabouchodonosor of Babylon to serve him The MT reads: “to My servant, King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon.” The phrase “My servant” recurs in Jer. 25:9 and 43:10 MT, but is also lacking in the parallel Greek verses, 25:9 and 50:10 LXX. The difference between 34:5 LXX and 27:6 MT probably arose because the original Hebrew text contained the root l‘vdw, which the MT translated as ‘avdi, “my servant,” and the LXX interpreted as le‘ovdo, “to serve him.” The choice of the infinitive verb form in the LXX also creates a pleasing parallel with “to work for him” in the same verse. work for him Following 34:5 LXX (27:6 MT), the MT adds verse 7: “All nations shall serve him, his son and his grandson—until the turn of his own land comes, when many nations and great kings shall subjugate him.” This addition states that Babylon, the instrument of God’s punishment, will ultimately be punished itself (see also 25:14 MT). That this addition was not part of the underlying text is particularly evident in 27:6 MT, in which the added section does not flow smoothly within the surrounding text. In verses 6 and 8 of the MT, nations are told to surrender to Babylon, and in this context a punishment of Babylon itself is not expected. According to one explanation, the MT refers to the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, but Nebuchadnezzar did not have a grandson who ruled. More likely, the phrase “his son and his grandson” simply means “many generations” after Nebuchadnezzar (cf. especially Jer. 2:9 MT LXX). 6. the nation and the kingdom The MT adds: “that does not serve him—King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon—and” (v. 8). This stylistic addition is meant to stress beyond 27:6 MT that Nebuchadnezzar is God’s instrument of punishment. A similar addition is found in the MT of Jer. 21:7 and 25:9 (against the LXX). 7. when they say The MT adds: “to you, saying” (NJPS: “to you”). The MT often adds l’mr, “saying,” “as follows,” to the shorter underlying text (see, e.g., Jer. 1:4, 39:16 MT). 8. so as to distance you far from your land To explain this consequence of listening to false prophets and the like, the MT adds: “I will drive you out and you shall perish.” The addition is based on 27:15 MT, which is similar in content to the present verse.

Selections from Jeremiah 73

your land. 9[= 27:11 MT] And the nation that brings its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon and works for him, I will also leave him on his own land, and he will work for him and will live in it. 10[= 27:12 MT] And I spoke to King Sedekias of Iouda according to all these words saying, “Enter your neck, and work for the king of Babylon 11[= 27:14 MT], because they are prophesying wrong things to you; 12[= 27:15 MT] for I did not send them, says the Lord, and they are prophesying wrongly in my name so as to destroy you, and you will perish, you and your prophets who are [wrongly] prophesying lies to you.” 13[= 27:16 MT] I spoke to you and all this people and the priests saying, Thus did the Lord say: Do not listen to the words of the prophets who are prophesying to you, saying, “Behold, the vessels of the Lord’s house are returning from Babylon,” for it is they who are prophesying wrong things to you, 14[= 27:17 MT] I did not send them. 15[= 27:18 MT] If they are prophets, and if there is a word of the Lord in them, let them counter me. 16[= 27:19 MT] For thus did the Lord say: Even some of the remaining

9. on his own land The MT adds “declares the Lord” (27:11). This phrase has been added sixty-five times to the shorter underlying text by the MT. 10. Enter your neck The MT adds by way of explanation: “under the yoke of the king of Babylon; serve him and his people, and live!” (27:12). The first part of this phrase has been repeated from 27:8, 11. The MT also rearranges the elements of 27:8 to form an additional verse (27:13): “Otherwise you will die together with your people, by sword, famine, and pestilence, as the Lord has decreed against any nation that does not serve the king of Babylon.” 11 Just before this verse, the MT reads: “Give no heed to the words of the prophets who say to you, ‘Do not serve the king of Babylon’” (27:14). This section in the MT must be close to the original text, as the next words in both the MT and LXX—“because they are prophesying wrong things to you” (34:11 LXX)—are hard to understand without this preface. In the LXX, “they” seems to refer misleadingly (and ungrammatically) to the king of Babylon, while in the MT “they” refers correctly to the false prophets mentioned in the previous verse. Accordingly it stands to reason that these words were erroneously omitted by the LXX. 13. are returning from Babylon The MT narrows the time frame: “shall shortly be brought back from Babylon” (27:16 NJPS). This addition is probably based on the date mentioned in Jer. 28:3 MT (= 35:3 LXX) for the return of the Temple vessels (“two years”). 14. I did not send them The MT reads instead: “Give them no heed. Serve the king of Babylon, and live! Otherwise this city shall become a ruin” (27:17). The MT version is based on 27:12 and further on Jer. 25:18 and 26:9 MT. 15. let them counter me The MT expands on this greatly: “let them intercede with the Lord of Hosts not to let the vessels remaining in the House of the Lord, in the royal palace of Judah, and in Jerusalem, go to Babylon!” (27:18). While the challenge as declared in the LXX is general, in the MT it is very specific.2 16. thus did the Lord say: Even some of the remaining vessels The MT version is more specific: “thus said the Lord of Hosts concerning the columns, the tank, the stands, and the rest of the vessels remaining in this city” (27:19). In the LXX, the prophet threatens that the vessels still left in the Temple will eventually be exiled to Babylon. These vessels are specified in the MT on the basis of Jer. 52:17 (= 2 Kings 25:13), where they are mentioned in a different sequence. Among

74

Emanuel Tov

vessels, 17[= 27:20 MT] which the king of Babylon did not take when he exiled Iechonias [ Jeconiah] from Ierousalem, 18[= 27:22 MT] shall enter into Babylon, says the Lord. other things, they include “the rest of the vessels remaining in this city,” left in the royal palace (see Jer. 27:18, 21 MT). 17. the king of Babylon The MT reads: “King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon” (27:20). Nebuchadnezzar’s name is often added in the MT to the shorter phrase “king of Babylon”; see Jer. 28:14; 29:3, 21; and so on. Iechonias Cf. the MT: “son of Jehoiakim of Judah” (27:20). One of the characteristic features of the MT is its frequent expansion of proper nouns by adding the name of the father or a title such as “king (of Judah).” Jeconiah’s name is also expanded in this way in Jer. 28:4. from Ierousalem The MT adds “to Babylon, with all the nobles of Judah and Jerusalem” (27:20), probably on the basis of Jer. 29:2. Following 34:17 LXX (= 27:20 MT), the MT inserts 27:21: “for thus said the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel, concerning the vessels remaining in the House of the Lord, in the royal palace of Judah, and in Jerusalem.” This stylistic addition repeats parts of 27:18–19 in order to remind the reader of the main issue. The editor of the MT has added so many elements in the preceding two verses that he feels obliged to repeat these details. 18. shall enter into Babylon, says the Lord Again, the MT version adds more detail: “They shall be brought to Babylon, and there they shall remain, until I take note of them—declares the Lord of Hosts—and bring them up and restore them to this place” (27:22). The MT additions in this verse stress that the vessels still left in the Temple will be exiled to Babylon but subsequently will be returned to Jerusalem. The mention of their return is not consistent with the spirit of the surrounding verses, which deal with false prophets and not with the fate of the Temple vessels. Even if the vessels’ fate were central to this verse, it would be anticlimactic to mention the ultimate return of the vessels to Jerusalem immediately after the threat of their plunder. Historically, the false prophets were right, since the Temple vessels were ultimately returned to Jerusalem (see Dan. 5:2–3; Ezra 1:7, 11; 6:5). The later text of the MT added these words, but without taking into consideration the tensions in the context.

Notes 1. In all of the thirty-four occurrences of the phrase “Thus says the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel” in the MT of Jeremiah, the word tzeva’ot, “of hosts” (or tzeva’ot ’elohe yisrael, “of Hosts, the God of Israel”) is lacking. This feature is usually explained as one of the many expansions of formulas in the MT. However, according to another view, the term “of Hosts” was systematically removed from the book of Jeremiah, since the phrase YHWH tzeva’ot does not occur at all from Genesis through Judges. 2. The discrepancy between “me” (LXX) and “the Lord” (MT) may have been created by a textual error. A scribe may have written b-y’ (with Y’) as y’ (an abbreviated form of the name of God), which was later misunderstood as by (for me), or vice versa. However, similar interchanges of the first and third person occur elsewhere in this chapter in the MT (see vv. 2, 4 vs. 11, 15).

Selections from Jeremiah 75

Jeremiah 43 (50 LXX) In the turbulent days after the capture of Jerusalem (Ierousalem LXX), Johanan (Ioanan LXX) and the other leaders bring the people to Egypt, against the wish of God as transmitted by Jeremiah (Ieremias LXX). According to the prophet, God wishes the people to instead remain in Palestine and surrender to Nebuchadrezzar (Nabouchodonosor LXX). God tells Jeremiah to perform a symbolic action in Tahpanhes (Taphnas LXX) at the entrance to Pharaoh’s (Pharao LXX) palace signifying that Nebuchadrezzar will overpower even Egypt. The special nature of the Septuagint (LXX) is clearly revealed in this chapter, in which the features of the short Greek text—particularly regarding the forms of names—are easily visible when compared with the longer Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT). The underlying text of this tradition must have been Hebrew, since the LXX has elements in common with the Qumran scroll 4QJerd (containing Jer. 43:2–10). The extent of that scroll helped to determine the scope of the section excerpted here from the LXX (50:4–10).

Translation 50:4[= 43:4 MT] So Ioanan [ Johanan] and all the leaders of the force and all the people did not obey the voice of the Lord, to settle down in the land of Iouda [ Judah]. 5And Ioanan and all the leaders of the force took all those remaining of Iouda who had returned to settle down in the land—6the mighty

Commentary 50:4, 5 [= MT 43:4, 5]. Ioanan The MT has “Johanan son of Kareah.” Most of the MT references to Johanan’s parentage are missing in the LXX (e.g., those at 40:13, 15, 16 MT). Usually the LXX presents the full form in the beginning of each episode (see, e.g., “Ioanan of Karee” at 40:13; 41:11; 43:2, all MT). 5. who had returned The MT adds: “from all the countries to which they had been scattered and had sojourned . . . in Judah.” The shorter text of the LXX implies that the Judeans returned from other places in Judah as well as from distant places. The MT specifically mentions the remote exile, here as well as in 40:12, where the expanded phrase “All these Judeans returned from all the places to which they had scattered” is added in the MT1 to the short text of 47:12 LXX. The next phrase in 40:12 MT—“They came to the land of Judah”—foreshadows the use of the full phrase “the land of Judah” in 43:5 MT, against “in the land” in 50:5 LXX. Source of Translation: The Septuagint (LXX) translation is that in Albert Pietersma and Marc Saunders, eds., A New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS) (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), with slight alterations. Unless otherwise noted, MT translations are from the NJPS. Note that upon first mention of a personal name in the LXX text, its NJPS version is given in brackets.

76 Emanuel Tov

men and the women and the rest, and the daughters of the king, and the souls whom Nabouzardan [Nebuzaradan] had left with Godolias [Gedaliah] son of Achikam, and the prophet Ieremias [ Jeremiah] and Barouch [Baruch] son of Nerias [Neriah]. 7And they entered into Egypt for they did not obey the voice of the Lord. And they entered into Taphnas [Tahpanhes]. 8And a word of the Lord came to Ieremias in Taphnas, saying: 9Take some large stones for yourself, and hide them in the entrance to Pharao’s [Pharaoh’s] house in Taphnas in the sight of the men of Iouda. 10And you will say, Thus did the Lord say: Behold, I am sending for and will bring King Nabouchodonosor [Nebuchadrezzar] of Babylon, and he will set his throne over these stones that you have hidden, and he will raise his weapons against them. 6. Nabouzardan Cf. the MT: “Nebuzaradan the chief of the guards.” The full title occurs more frequently in the MT than in the LXX. Likewise, in 41:10 the short name Nabouzardan of the LXX is expanded to his full title in the MT. Godolias son of Achikam The MT expands this to read: “Gedaliah son of Ahikam son of Shaphan.” Most of the MT references to Gedaliah’s line of parentage are either shorter or missing altogether in the LXX (cf., e.g., 40:9, 11 MT with parallel 47:9, 11 LXX; or 41:2 MT with parallel 48:2 LXX). Only twice does the LXX give the expanded line of parentage, at the beginning of an episode (39:14; 40:5 LXX). Whenever the parallel text in 2 Kings refers to Gedaliah, it gives just the name alone, as in the Greek Jeremiah ( Jer. 40:7, 9 LXX = 2 Kings 25:23, 24; Jer. 41:2, 3 = 2 Kings 25:25). 9. hide them The MT adds “in mortar in the brick structure.” The short text of the LXX indicates that the stones were concealed in the entrance of Pharaoh’s palace, while the addition in the MT explains the technique used in concealing these stones. The details are unclear, however, since the words translated as “mortar” and “brick structure” (NJPS) are very rare in biblical Hebrew. 10. And . . . say The MT adds: “to them.” The MT frequently adds clarifying phrases such as “to them,” or “to me” to verbs of saying (e.g., Jer. 17:19 MT). the Lord The MT adds “of Hosts, the God of Israel.” See the comment on Jer. 27:3. King Nebouchodonosor of Babylon The MT prefaces this title with “My servant,” thus naming Nebuchadnezzar (rendered “Nebuchadrezzar” at Jer. 43:10 NJPS), a non-Israelite, God’s servant; that is, someone who performs God’s plan for the world (just as Cyrus is named God’s “anointed” in Isa. 45:1). The full phrase “My servant, King Nebuchadnezzar [or Nebuchadrezzar] of Babylon” occurs earlier at 25:9; 27:6 MT; in the parallel LXX verses, the king is not even mentioned. Thus, Nebuchadnezzar is known as God’s servant in the MT of Jeremiah, but not in the LXX. Some scholars believe that this phrase was omitted by a Greek translator who would not accept the idea of a non-Israelite being God’s servant.

Notes 1. In this case, the MT agrees with the Qumran scroll 4QJerd, which also adds the phrase “All these Judeans returned from all the places to which they had scattered” to the shorter parallel Greek verse (47:12 LXX).

Selections from Jeremiah

77

Proverbs 1 Emanuel Tov After some general words of introduction to the book (vv. 1–7), Proverbs 1 gives short wisdom teachings on two topics: the deadly consequences of ignoring parental wisdom (vv. 8–19), and the risk of disregarding the prudent advice of the author of the book (vv. 20–33). The Septuagint (LXX) provides a free and often paraphrastic translation of its Hebrew parent text, which is much more closely reflected by the traditional or Masoretic Text (MT) for this chapter of Proverbs.1 At the same time, most of the discrepancies between the underlying Hebrew text, usually the MT, and the Greek probably derive from the free translation character of the LXX, which gives us insights into the exegetic and theological world of the Alexandrian-Hellenistic Jewish community. Some of these differences involve the transformation of general ideas in the Hebrew book of Proverbs into religious thoughts in the Greek translation. This pertains especially to the Hellenistic-Jewish tendency to stress the virtues of the pious and vices of the impious (see the comments on vv. 10, 18, 19, 22, 31, 32 below) as well as the Jewish adherence to the nomos, Torah.2 Other changes involve a desire to clarify the Hebrew text to the Greek readers in the Hellenistic period, and even to formulate equivalent wisdom sayings that approximate the implication of the Hebrew text.3 More than anywhere else in the LXX, the translation of Proverbs often presents double or even triple translations of the same verse (see comments on vv. 7, 14, 21, 27 below). Suggested Reading Cook, Johann. The Septuagint of Proverbs: Jewish and/or Hellenistic Proverbs? Concerning the Hellenistic Colouring of LXX Proverbs. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 69. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Tov, Emanuel. “Recensional Differences between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint of Proverbs.” In The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint, chap. 28. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999.

Translation 1:1Proverbs of Salomon [Solomon], son of Dauid [David], who reigned in Israel: 2to learn wisdom and discipline, and to understand words of prudence

Source of Translation: The Septuagint (LXX) translation is that of Johann Cook, in Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, eds., A New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS) (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), with slight alterations. Unless otherwise noted, MT translations are from the NJPS. Note that upon first mention of a personal name in the LXX text, its NJPS version is given in brackets.

78

3and to grasp subtlety of words and to understand true righteousness and to direct judgment, 4in order that he might give shrewdness to the innocent, and both perception and insight to the young child. 5For by hearing these things the wise will become wiser, and the discerning will acquire direction 6and he will understand an illustration and an obscure word, both the sayings and the riddles of the wise. 7aThe beginning of wisdom is the fear of God, 7a'and understanding is good for all those who practice it; 7a"piety unto God is the beginning of perception, 7b the impious, however, will despise wisdom and discipline. 8Hear, my son, your father’s discipline, and do not reject your mother’s precepts; 9for you will receive a crown of graces for your head and a golden collar around your neck. 10My son, let not impious men lead you astray, and do not consent,

Commentary 1:3. subtlety of words and to understand The MT reads: “the discipline for success” (or: “instruction in wise dealing” [NRSV]). The LXX did not render musar, “discipline,” according to its base meaning, but possibly derived the word from the root s-w-r, “to turn aside,” while adding “of words,” influenced by the translation “words of prudence” in verse 2. The Hebrew haskel, rendered “success” or “wise dealings,” is not connected in the LXX with the preceding word, as in the MT. It is linked with the following words and accordingly rendered as “and to understand.” true righteousness and to direct judgment Cf. the MT: “Righteousness, justice, and equity.” Having linked haskel with the following and not the preceding words (see previous comment), the LXX restructured the sentence, creating a parallelism that is not found in the Hebrew. While doing so, the translator added the adjective “true” and changed the noun “equity” into a verb: “to direct.” 7. The beginning of wisdom . . . is the beginning of perception The first line of Prov. 1:7 MT—“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge”—is translated in three different ways in 1:7 LXX. The first rendering (v. 7a) is literal, with the elements of the MT version reversed stylistically. The second rendering (v. 7a') is a variation on verse 7a, at the same time echoing Ps. 111:10 MT (110:10 LXX): “The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord; / all who practice it gain sound understanding.” The third rendering (Prov. 1:7a") is also literal, although different from verse 7a. The triple rendering reflects either different original translation attempts or mistaken combinations of details from various Greek manuscripts.4 10. impious men The MT reads “sinners.” Here, as often elsewhere in the Greek translation of Prov. (see introductory comments), a general term for sinners (hata’im) has been rendered by a religious term (asebēs, lit. “ungodly”), implying that the text speaks about sins committed against religion.

Proverbs 1

79

11“Come with us, partake in bloodshed, and let us hide a just man unjustly in the earth, 12and let us swallow him alive like Hades and let us remove his remembrance from the earth; 13let us take his valuable possessions, and let us fill our homes with booty. 14aBut throw your lot among us, 14band let us all acquire a common purse, 14b'and let us have one wallet.” 15Do not walk in the way with them, but keep your foot from their paths; 16for their feet run to evil and they are quick to shed blood; 17for nets are not spread without reason for winged creatures. 18For they who take part in murder store up evil for themselves, and the destruction by transgressing men is evil. 19These are the ways of all who perform lawless deeds; for by impiety they take away their own life.

11. and let us hide a just man unjustly in the earth Cf. the MT: “Let us lie in wait for the innocent / (without cause!).” The difference between the MT and the LXX probably resulted from the translator’s reading of the MT intransitive nitzpenah, “let us lie in wait,” as transitive natzpinah, “let us hide.” The transitive understanding of the verb required the addition of a phrase, namely “in the earth.” 12. Hades For the concept of Hades in the LXX, see the comment on 1 Sam. 2:6. and let us remove his remembrance from the earth This translation differs significantly from the MT: “Whole, like those who go down into the Pit.” There seems to be no connection between the Hebrew and the Greek, and therefore the LXX is probably based on a different Hebrew text such as Ps. 34:17: “The face of the Lord is set against evildoers, / to erase their names from the earth.” 14. and let us all acquire . . . one wallet The parallel line in Prov. 1:14 MT—“We shall all have a common purse”—is rendered twice in the LXX, once freely (v. 14b: “and let us all acquire a common purse”), and once literally (v. 14b': “and let us have one wallet”). Possibly, version 14b’ is a correction of version 14b (see the comment on 1:7 above). 18. For they who take part in murder A free translation of the MT version: “But they lie in ambush for their own blood; / They lie in wait for their own lives.” The Greek translator has rendered the MT “their own blood” as “murder” (as in the translation of Prov. 28:17 (NJPS: “bloodguilt”) and “ambush” as “take part.” The words “and the destruction by transgressing men is evil” reflect a free moralizing addition loosely based on v. 27. 19. all who perform lawless deeds; for by impiety they take Cf. the MT: “all who pursue unjust gain; / It takes . . .” Here, the MT betza‘ (“unjust gain” in the materialistic sense) is transformed in the LXX to religious transgressions (a-noma, “lawless deeds,” deeds against the nomos, Torah). By the same token, the LXX adds the word “impiety,” describing the actions of the evildoers.

80

Emanuel Tov

20Wisdom sings hymns in the streets, and in the squares she leads frankly, 21aand on the top of the walls she proclaims, 21band at the gates of the powerful she waits, 21b'and at the gates of the city she speaks boldly: 22“As long as the innocent hold on to righteousness, they will not be ashamed; but the fools, since they are lovers of pride, after they became impious they hated perception 23and they became liable to reproofs. Look, I will bring forth to you the expression of my breath, and I will teach you my word. 24Since I would call but you did not heed and I would prolong words but you were not paying attention, 25but you would make my counsels invalid, and disregarded my reproofs, 26therefore I in turn will also laugh at your destruction, and I will rejoice when ruin comes upon you. 27aYes, when confusion strikes you unexpectedly, 27band destruction arrives like a whirlwind, 27cand, when affliction and siege come upon you, 27c’or when ruin comes upon you.” 21. on the top of the walls The MT reads: “At the head of busy streets.” The difference between the MT and LXX was created through an interchange of similar-looking Hebrew letters (MT hmywt, “busy streets”; LXX h ̣mwt, “walls”). and at the gates of the powerful . . . she speaks boldly The MT, which reads simply “At the entrance of the gates, in the city, she speaks out,” has been rendered twice in the LXX. Translation 21b is based on an interchange between similar-looking words (MT she‘arim, “gates”; and LXX sarim, “rulers”). A similar interchange is reflected in Prov. 8:3 (MT “gates”; LXX “gates of rulers”). Proverbs 1:21b' LXX reflects the MT faithfully. In that translation, “boldly” may reflect an etymological rendering of ’amareha, “her words,” according to the root hit’amer, “to boast.” 22. As long as the innocent . . . will not be ashamed The “simplicity” characterizing the “simple ones” in the MT is changed in the LXX to a positive characterization, “righteousness.” At the same time, the rhetorical question of the MT appears in the LXX as an assertive statement. impious In the Greek translation, “fools” (NRSV) has been filled with religious content (for similar examples, see the introductory comments). 27. and, when affliction . . . or when ruin comes upon you The MT version (“When trouble and distress come upon you”) has been rendered twice, more or less literally in Prov. 1:27c LXX, and with changes from the MT in verse 27c'.

Proverbs 1

81

28For it shall be when you call upon me, then I will not listen to you; evil people will seek me but will not find me. 29For they hated wisdom, and did not choose the fear of the Lord, 30nor were they willing to pay attention to my counsels, but despised my reproofs. 31Therefore they shall eat the fruits of their own way and be filled with their own impiety; 32for because they would wrong the simple, they will be murdered, and an inquiry will ruin the impious. 33But he who hears me will dwell in hope and will be at ease without fear of any evil.”

28. evil people will seek me Cf. the MT: “They shall seek me.” In his wish to create a contrast between “good” and “bad” people, the Greek translator has added the word kakoi, “evil people,” as in 1:18. 31. their own impiety The MT version: “their own counsels”—has been given a religious content in accord with the translator’s system of translating (for similar examples, see the introductory comments). Likewise, “fools” (NRSV) in verse 32 has been rendered “impious” in the LXX.

Notes 1. However, in other parts of Proverbs, the LXX reflects an underlying Hebrew text very different from the MT, one that probably echoes a different editorial stage in the development of the book. Among other things, chapters 24–31 LXX are arranged in a completely different sequence from the MT. Further, several verses, such as Prov. 4:7; 8:33; 16:1, 3; 20:14–19 are lacking in the Greek translation. Likewise, many verses have been added in the LXX, some on the basis of a Hebrew original differing from the MT (for example, 3:16a, 22a). 2. In Prov. 17:11, the LXX translation implies that the mal’akh (messenger, angel) of the MT is sent by the Lord. This translator often inserts into the Greek translation—or perhaps finds in the Hebrew parent text—ideas from other verses in Proverbs (see v. 18) or elsewhere in Scripture (see, e.g., v. 12). 3. Thus in Prov. 17:16 LXX, the additional part of the verse of the LXX (v. 16a) not found in the MT reflects a paraphrase and moral elaboration of the theme of the Hebrew version of Prov. 17:16: Money has no value for fools, and a house bought by a rich fool is doomed to be destroyed. See also Prov. 6:1, 8; 11:16. 4. According to the well-known theory of the Septuagint scholar Paul Anton de Lagarde, the literal translations (vv. 7a and 7a") are secondary, correcting the earlier, free rendering (v. 7a').

82 Emanuel Tov

Selections from Esther Emanuel Tov The book of Esther is a historical novel that utilizes dramatic effects and suspense. In its base form in the traditional Hebrew or Masoretic Text (MT), the story often lacks background information since it focuses on the actions of the heroes. The Septuagint (LXX) supplies some of this background information, but not for all details. When compared with the MT, the LXX adds, omits, and changes many small details, as well as complete verses.1 It also adds six large sections at key points in the book, including a section before the beginning and a section at the end. These additions, known as Additions to Esther A–F, are an integral part of the translation but are traditionally discussed separately; see Additions to Esther. The LXX translation of Esther, produced in the late 2nd or early 1st century bce, probably in Palestine, is a literary work distinct from that of the MT. In its Greek form, and probably also in its earlier Hebrew form, this work was considered Scripture. The LXX reshapes the story of the MT in many places. For example, in Additions B and E it gives a verbatim account of the king’s edicts against the Jews (LXX Judeans; Add. Esth. B.1–7) and on their behalf (E.1–24). Probably the most characteristic feature of the LXX is the addition of a religious background to a book that lacks even the mention of God’s name in the MT (e.g., in Esther 2:20; 4:8; 6:13; also, the LXX Esther is concerned about observance of the dietary laws, unlike Esther of the MT).2 The Greek Esther thus conforms to the remainder of Scripture by explaining the events in Israel’s history as determined by its God. Suggested Reading Crawford, Sidnie W. The Additions to Esther: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections. Vol. 3: The New Interpreter’s Bible, 941–72. Nashville: Abingdon, 1999. Omanson, Roger L., and Philip A. Noss. A Handbook on the Book of Esther: The Hebrew and Greek Texts. UBS Handbook Series. New York: American Bible Society, 1997.

Notes 1. The LXX omits details that it considers superfluous, as the Hebrew book is at times verbose (see Esther 3:13; 5:6). The LXX also explains several details that are significant for understanding the story; for example, that Queen Vashti’s (LXX Astin’s) feast (1:5, 11) is a wedding banquet. On the other hand, like the MT, the LXX does not explain why Vashti refuses to attend the banquet. 2. As in the Greek Esther, God’s name is mentioned everywhere in the Midrash. Esther’s concern for dietary laws in Add. Esth. C.27–28 should be compared with Rabbinic exegesis: B. Meg. 13a, and Tg. Sheni 2:7; for Esther 2:7 LXX: “he trained her for himself as a wife” (MT: “Mordecai adopted her as his own daughter”), cf. B. Meg. 13a: “A Tanna taught in the name of R. Meir: Read not ‘for a daughter’ [lebat], but ‘for a house’ [lebayit], [that is, a wife].”

83

Esther 1 In the Masoretic Text (MT), as in the Septuagint (LXX), Esther 1 describes the extent of King Ahasuerus’s (LXX Artaxerxes’) empire, his banquets, the banquet hosted by Queen Vashti (Astin LXX), the invitation extended to her by the king, her refusal to make an appearance, and the subsequent dramatic banishment of the queen. The version in the LXX covers the same events but with certain revisions. A major change in the Greek translation is the addition of Mordecai’s (Mardochaios LXX) dream before the beginning of the Hebrew story. This dream, traditionally named Addition A, foreshadows Mordecai’s actions narrated in the canonical book and introduces Artaxerxes and Haman.1 See also Additions to Esther.

Translation [Follows Addition A (Prologue with Mordecai’s Dream)] 1:1Now it happened after these things in the days of Artaxerxes [Ahasuerus]—this Artaxerxes controlled one hundred twenty-seven lands from India—2in those days when King Artaxerxes was enthroned in the city of Susa [Shushan], 3in the third year when he was king, he gave a feast for his Friends, and for the other nations, and for those highly esteemed of the Persians and Medes, and for the rulers of the

Commentary 1:1. after these things This phrase is added in the LXX after “It happened” of the MT. It reflects a typical Hebrew expression (ahar hadevarim ha’eleh, “after these things”) that must have been included in the parent text of the LXX, since it reflects Hebrew and not Greek idiom. The addition of this expression suits the LXX version of Esther 1:1, which follows immediately upon Addition A, containing a lengthy dream of Mordecai’s. The LXX adds the same phrase at the beginning of verse 4. Artaxerxes “Ahasuerus” of the MT, usually identified with Xerxes (485–465 bce). However, Midr. Esth. Rab. 1:3 and the LXX identify him throughout as Artaxerxes.2 3. for his Friends and . . . other nations The MT has: “for all the officials and courtiers.” The term “Friends,” which is capitalized in the English version of the Greek translation, was an official title

Source of Translation: The Septuagint (LXX) translation is that of Karen H. Jobes, in Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, eds., A New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS) (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), with slight alterations. Unless otherwise noted, MT translations are from the NJPS. Note that upon first mention of a personal name in the LXX text, its NJPS version is given in brackets.

84 Emanuel Tov

satrapies. 4And after these things, after he had displayed to them the great wealth of his kingdom and the glory of the celebration of his wealth for one hundred eighty days, 5and when the days of the wedding feast were completed, the king gave a wine party for the nations present in the city, for six days, in the courtyard of the house of the king. 6It had been decorated with linen and cotton curtains hung on cords of linen and purple attached to gold and silver blocks on pillars of marble and other stones. There were couches of gold and silver on a mosaic pavement of emerald, mother-of-pearl, and marble. There were gossamer throws in many colors embroidered with roses all around. 7The goblets were made of gold and silver, and a miniature cup made of ruby was on display that was worth thirty thousand talents. The wine was abundant and sweet, which the king himself drank. 8Now this wine party was not by established law, but so the king wanted it, and he ordered his stewards to do as he and his men wanted. 9And Astin [Vashti] the queen gave a wine party for the women in the royal quarters where King Artaxerxes was. 10Now on the seventh day, when he was feeling merry, the king told Haman [Mehuman], and Bazan used at the Ptolemaic court for the king’s close associates. The same term is used in Esther 1:13 LXX for the king’s “sages learned in procedure” (MT). 5. when the days of the wedding feast were completed The LXX gives the MT’s more general phrasing in verse 5 (“At the end of this period” [literally, “these days”]) a very specific twist by describing the “banquet” of 1:3 MT as a “wedding feast.” This interpretation is not reflected in any other ancient source, but runs parallel to the wedding banquet the king arranges for Esther (2:18), likewise called “wedding feast” in the LXX. See also the comment on 1:11 below. for six days The second banquet, held “for the nations present in the city,” lasted six days according to the LXX, but seven according to the MT and all other sources.3 6. It had been decorated Here, the LXX clarifies that the decorations described in this verse pertain to the courtyard mentioned in verse 5. The beginning of verse 6 is not present in the MT. 6–7. linen and cotton curtains . . . goblets . . . of gold and silver The story goes into great detail describing the finery of the banquet hall. Although not all the technical terms are understandable in either language, it is clear that the Greek LXX expands4 upon the Hebrew MT’s portrayal of the curtains, couches, and cups, with details reflecting the array of riches in Hellenistic times, possibly at wedding feasts of wealthy people (see v. 5). Indeed, various historical sources describe the great opulence displayed in the Persian cities of Susa and Persepolis.5 7. thirty thousand talents An enormous amount of money, each talent being valued at approximately 30 kilograms of gold (for example, according to 1 Kings 10:14, King Solomon received 666 talents of gold each year). The wine was . . . sweet The MT calls it “royal,” equivalent to the LXX’s expression “wine . . . which the king himself drank.” 8. this wine party was not by established law According to several Assyrian texts, when the king drank at a banquet, everybody drank; the king usually determined the amount of drink consumed, which may be translated as the “established law” (NJPS) mentioned in MT. However, in the LXX the drinking procedure at this wine party—described as a departure from the normal convention (probably, the customary restrictions)—is diametrically opposed to that described in 1:8a MT, which literally translates as: “and the drinking was according to convention, no one compelled [the guests to drink]”6 (NJPS: “And the rule for the drinking was, ‘No restrictions!’”). These words in the MT should be viewed in light of the following words, “to comply with each man’s

Selections from Esther 85

[Bizzetha], and Tharra [Harbona], and Boraze [Bigtha], and Zatholtha [Zethar], and Abataza [Abagtha], and Tharaba [Carcas], the seven eunuchs who attended King Artaxerxes, 11to bring the queen to him in order to proclaim her queen and to place the diadem on her, and to show her to the rulers and her beauty to the peoples, because she was beautiful. 12But Astin the queen did not obey him to come with the eunuchs. The king was angry and he was enraged. 13Then he said to his Friends, “This is how Astin spoke, therefore give your ruling and judgment on this.” 14So Arkesaios [Carshena], Sarsathaios [Shethar], and Malesear [Meres, Marsena?], the rulers of the Persians and Medes who were close to the king and seated first by the king, approached him. 15And they reported to him what, according to law, must be done with Astin the queen, because she had not done the things ordered by the king through the eunuchs. 16Then Mouchaios [Memucan] said to the king and the rulers, “Astin the queen has wronged not only the king, but also all the rulers and governors of the king.” 17(For he had wishes” (v. 8b), understood similarly by the LXX, although the exact implication of the LXX is unclear. Thus, 1:8b NJPS: “For the king had given orders to every palace steward to comply with each man’s wishes”; 1:8b LXX: “and he ordered his stewards to do as he and his men wanted.” 10. Haman In the Greek version, the MT’s Mehuman (LXX: one of the seven eunuchs who attended the king) is identified with Haman, that is, the central character in the Esther story who appears at 3:1, possibly because the two names reflect the same Hebrew root. In B. Meg. 12b and Midr. Abba Gorion 1, Memucan is likewise identified with Haman. This Memucan, the king’s “close adviser” in 1:14 MT, is not mentioned in the LXX list at 1:14 (see the commentary on v. 14). Haman . . . Tharaba The Greek names of the “seven eunuchs who attended” differ from those in the MT, either because of textual corruption in the transmission of the Greek manuscripts or because the translator used a slightly different Hebrew manuscript. 11. in order to proclaim her queen In the LXX, the king calls for the queen to attend her own coronation ceremony, also reflected in Esther 1:5 where the LXX refers to her wedding feast. “To proclaim her queen” in the LXX (representing himlikh, “he crowned”) probably reflects the similar consonants in the MT (ha-melekh, “the king”). The phrase used in 1:10 MT (“before the king wearing a royal diadem”) does not necessarily refer to a wedding ceremony. 13–15 In these verses, the LXX creates an action and dialogue instead of the parenthetical remark in verses 13–14 MT on the content of verse 13. 13 Cf. 1:13 MT: “Then the king consulted the sages learned in procedure [literally, ‘who knew the times,’ probably court astrologers]. (For it was the royal practice [to turn] to all who were versed in law and precedent.)” The LXX adds some color to this description by referring to the queen’s reply and by having the king explicitly ask the sages for their “ruling and judgment,” foreshadowing the formulation of verse 15.7 14 Here, the MT lists the names of the king’s “closest advisers,” while in the LXX, those “who were close to the king . . . approached him.” The LXX translator probably misunderstood the consonants of the MT, reading wehaqarov, “and the one who was closest [to the king],” as wehiqriv, “and he approached.” The MT has a longer list of the ministers of Persia and Media: “Carshena, Shethar, Admatha, Tarshish, Meres, Marsena, and Memucan.” The number of these ministers is recorded as “seven” in the MT, while no explicit number is given in the LXX. 15. And they reported to him The addition of these words in the LXX is almost required by the different scenario followed in that version. In the MT, the king addresses his advisers in verse 13a, but because of the long parenthesis explaining the task of the advisers (vv. 13b–14), the king’s

86

Emanuel Tov

reported to them the words of the queen, and how she defied the king.) “Therefore, just as she defied King Artaxerxes, 18so this very day the other princesses of the rulers of the Persians and Medes, when they hear what was said to the king by her, will similarly dare to dishonor their husbands. 19Therefore, if it pleases the king, let him issue a royal order, and let it be written according to the laws of the Medes and Persians, and let it not be applied differently, neither let the queen any longer come to him; and let the king give her royal position to a woman better than she. 20Let the law declared by the king be heard, whatever law he enacts in his kingdom. And thus all women shall bestow honor on their own husbands, from the poor to the rich.” 21This word pleased the king and the rulers, and the king did as Mouchaios said. 22He sent word throughout the whole kingdom, to every land in its own language, so that they had fear in their homes.

question is posed only in verse 15. The reply, from the mouth of the adviser Memucan, is contained in verse 16. However, in the LXX the king poses his question already at the end of verse 13, his advisers approach him in verse 14, and the introduction to the first reply is contained in the added words, quoted above, at the beginning of verse 15.8 16. the queen has wronged not only the king According to the LXX, the queen sins not only against the king, but also against “all the rulers and governors of the king.” In the MT, she sins against a larger body of people, namely “all the peoples in all the provinces of King Ahasuerus.” 17–18 While including the queen’s sin of defying the king as in the MT, the LXX leaves out the suggestion that her actions will stir up all the wives in the kingdom. This idea has been moved in the LXX to the next verse: “will similarly dare to dishonor their husbands.” In rewriting verse 18, the LXX translator omitted the last words of 1:18 MT: “and there will be no end of scorn and provocation.” 19. the queen Cf. the MT, which says simply “Vashti.” Following the king’s rejection of Vashti, the MT no longer refers to her as “queen” (see also 2:1, 4, 17 MT). Although the LXX does not share this subtle distinction in 1:19, in chapter 2 it reflects the MT. 20. kingdom The MT adds: “vast though it is.” MT emphasizes the extent of the king’s realm as presented in v. 1. 22. throughout the whole kingdom The LXX has shortened the MT’s longer list (“to all the provinces of the king, to every province in its own script and to every nation in its own language”) by omitting the superfluous mention of “script,” which would be closely connected to differences in language. so that they had fear in their homes A rephrased and shortened version of the MT, which reads: “that every man should wield authority in his home and speak the language of his own people.”

Notes 1. The exegetic features of the LXX include a detailed depiction of the riches of the banquet (vv. 6–7), a dialogue and a course of actions in vv. 13–15 instead of a parenthetical remark in the MT, and the rewriting of the scenario of vv. 17–18. 2. Opinions are divided as to which of the three kings bearing that name was intended by the LXX, Artaxerxes I (Longimanus), son and successor of Xerxes I, ruled 465–424 bce; Artaxerxes II (Mnemon), son and successor of Darius II, ruled 404–358 bce; or Artaxerxes III (Ochus), son and successor of Artaxerxes II, ruled 358–338 bce. Josephus, Ant. 11.184, identifies the king as Artaxerxes I. 3. In Hebrew Scripture, “seven” usually has a symbolic meaning of completeness, and it likewise indicates a recurring motif in Esther (seven chamberlains [eunuchs] in 1:10, seven princes in 1:14, seven chosen maids

Selections from Esther 87

4.

5. 6.

7.

8.

88

in 2:9, and the seventh year of the king’s reign in 2:16). The original reading was probably changed by the LXX. Could this reading imply that the feast started on a Sunday and ended just before the Sabbath? In any event, the sequence of the elements in the Greek of the LXX (literally translated as “days six” rather than “six days”) suggests a Hebrew rather than a Greek origin for this reading. For example, the “silver rods” of Esther 1:6b MT are expanded in 1:6 LXX to “gold and silver blocks”; the MT’s “alabaster columns” (v. 6b) are “pillars of marble and other stones” in v. 6 LXX; and the “golden beakers” of 1:7 MT are “goblets” of “gold and silver” in v. 7 LXX. See Herodotus, 2:126; 3:96; 8:27; 9:8. The background of the LXX rendering is probably the translator’s misunderstanding of the words “according to convention, no one compelled” that led him to add a negative (not) in the translation of the preceding words: “was not by established law.” In the MT the king turns to the sages in general terms, adding a parenthetical remark about the procedure followed under such circumstances. The LXX and the MT share many words, yet their content differs, possibly because the translator misunderstood the words devar hamelekh, “the word of the king,” as dibber hamelekh, “the king spoke,” rendered as “the queen spoke.” In the wake of this change, the general description of the advisers as “those who know law and precedent” (MT) has been changed to an actual request by the king to “give (your) ruling and judgment” (literally: “law and justice”). Since the advisers have already approached the king in v. 14 LXX, there is no room in that version for posing a question in v. 15. Given this new scenario, the translator rephrased v. 15, reshaping the king’s question in that verse into a reply by his advisers. Thus the king’s question in the MT (“‘What,’ [he asked,] ‘shall be done, according to law, to Queen Vashti’”) is rephrased in the LXX as: “And they reported to him what, according to law, must be done with Astin the queen.” Memucan’s reply is in place in the MT, but in the LXX, the ministers’ report forms a second answer.

Emanuel Tov

Esther 3 In the book of Esther, the Septuagint (LXX) omits and changes various details found in the traditional Hebrew or Masoretic Text (MT). The Greek translation also adds details, among them the exact text of the king’s decree after verse 13 (so-called Addition B). Esther 3 is a key chapter in the book since it introduces Haman and narrates how he plotted against the Jews ( Judeans LXX). In this chapter the reader hears how Mordecai (Mardochaios LXX) brings down Haman’s anger upon himself and the Jewish people, and how the king approves Haman’s plan and issues a decree to destroy the Jews.

Translation 3:1After these things King Artaxerxes [Ahasuerus] honored Haman son of Hamadathos [Hammedatha], a Bougean [Agagite], and exalted him and set him above all his Friends. 2And all who were in the court would bow down to him; for the king had commanded them to do so. But Mardochaios [Mordecai] would not bow down to him. 3Then those in the court of the king spoke to Mardochaios, “Mardochaios, why do you disobey what the king says?” 4Day after day they spoke to him, and he would not listen to them. So they revealed to Haman that Mardochaios was opposing the commands of the king;

Commentary 3:1. a Bougean In the MT, the standard description of Haman is “Agagite,” usually explained as a descendant of Agag, king of the Amalekites, traditionally bitter enemies of the Israelites (see Exod. 17:8–16; Num. 24:20, etc.). Accordingly Josephus describes Haman as “by birth an Amalekite” (Ant. 11.209). Bougaios could reflect a corrupted form of Agagite in Greek, or it could mean “braggart.” Various midrashim also say that Haman was an Amalekite.1 This tradition is also reflected in the Torah portion read on Purim, which is Exod. 17:8–16 concerning Amalek (B. Meg. 31a). Friends See the comment on Esther 1:3 in the previous chapter. 2–4 Many details in the MT version of these verses are omitted in the LXX in order to produce a smoother translation. 4. that Mardochaios was opposing the commands of the king In specifying that Mordecai’s opposition to the king’s command is why the Friends speak to Haman about him, the LXX is more explicit than the MT, in which the king’s courtiers tell on Mordecai “in order to see whether Mordecai’s resolve would prevail.” Source of Translation: The Septuagint (LXX) translation is that of Karen H. Jobes, in Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, eds., A New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS) (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), with slight alterations. Unless otherwise noted, MT translations are from the NJPS. Note that upon first mention of a personal name in the LXX text, its NJPS version is given in brackets.

Selections from Esther

89

and Mardochaios revealed to them that he was a Judean ( Jew). 5When Haman learned that Mardochaios would not bow down to him, he was very angry. 6And so he planned to destroy all the Judeans ( Jews) under the rule of Artaxerxes. 7He made a decision in the twelfth year of Artaxerxes’ reign, and cast lots day by day and month by month to destroy the people of Mardochaios on one day. The lot fell on the fourteenth of the month that is Adar. 8Then he spoke to King Artaxerxes saying, “There is a certain nation scattered among the nations throughout all your kingdom; their laws are different from all the nations, and they disobey the king’s laws, so that it is not expedient for the king to tolerate them. 9If it pleases the king, let a decree be issued to destroy them, and I will pay into the king’s treasury ten thousand talents of silver.” 10And the king took his signet ring and put it on the hand of Haman to seal what had been written against the Judeans ( Jews). 11The king said to Haman, “Keep the silver, but treat the nation as you wish.” 12Then the king’s secretaries were summoned on the thirteenth day of the first month, and they wrote as Haman commanded to the governors and to the rulers of every land—from India to Ethiopia—to one hundred twenty-seven lands and to the rulers of the nations in their own language in the 6. And so he planned to destroy all the Judeans ( Jews) The LXX omits the beginning of verse 6 MT: “But he disdained to lay hands on Mordecai alone; having been told who Mordecai’s people were.” Cf. also the LXX phrase “destroy all the Judeans [ Jews] under the rule of Artaxerxes” with the longer MT version: “do away with all the Jews, Mordecai’s people, throughout the kingdom of Ahasuerus.” The shorter LXX version was probably meant to streamline the translation. 7. in the twelfth year The MT adds here as well as in verse 12 the exact date: “In the first month, that is, the month of Nisan, in the twelfth year . . .” and cast lots The subject in the LXX is Haman, while in the MT the lots are cast “before Haman.” The latter phrase is lacking in the LXX. to destroy the people of Mardochaios on . . . the fourteenth of Cf. the MT, which does not mention the purpose of casting the lots in this verse since the purpose is clear from the preceding verse. Nor does the MT mention the result of casting the lots (only in v. 13 MT does the reader hear that the “thirteenth day” of Adar has been chosen).2 9. I will pay The MT adds: “to the stewards.” This detail was probably omitted by the translator for stylistic reasons. ten thousand talents of silver The MT also cites this sum. Josephus, however, increases this amount to 40,000 talents of silver, to emphasize Haman’s hatred of the Jews (Ant. 11.213). 10. and put it on the hand of Haman The LXX is more explicit here than the MT, which reads: “and gave it to Haman.” to seal what had been written against the Judeans (Jews) Here, the LXX differs completely from the MT, which simply says the king gave the ring to Haman, “the foe of the Jews.” Possibly the LXX translator understood the root tz-r-r (MT: “foe”) as “to bind,” as in the LXX of Gen. 42:35, Prov. 30:4, and so on. 12. from India to Ethiopia This is a harmonizing addition (reconciling the presence of this phrase at Esther 1:1 MT; 8:9 MT LXX) not found in the MT. The LXX omits the MT “to every province in its own script and to every people,” occurring also in 1:22 and 3:14, as well as “and sealed with the king’s signet,” occurring also in 3:10 and 8:8, 10.

90

Emanuel Tov

name of Artaxerxes the king. 13It was sent by couriers throughout Artaxerxes’ empire, to destroy the race (people) of the Judeans ( Jews) in one day of the twelfth month, which is Adar, and to seize their property. [Verses 13a–g (Addition B) are presented with commentary to Additions to Esther.] 14Copies of the letters were posted in every province, and it was enjoined on all the nations to be ready for this day. 15The matter proceeded quickly even to Susa [Shushan]. While the king and Haman were sitting down to drink, the city was being thrown into confusion. 13. in one day of the twelfth month, which is Adar The exact day of the planned destruction of the Jews, almost a year after the edict, is not mentioned here in the LXX. It is difficult to know whether this omission is intentional, as this date is mentioned in 8:12, also in the LXX. The general content of the king’s edict is given in 3:13–14 MT, while the verses added after verse 13 of the LXX (also designated B.1–7) present its exact wording.3

Notes 1. See Mek. R. Ish., Masechta de-Amalek 2, 139; 160; Esth. Rab 10:13; and Tg. Esth. II 3:1. 2. In both details the LXX may well reflect the original form of this verse, which was accidentally omitted in the MT. At the same time, the date in the LXX (14 Adar) remains problematical, since v. 13 MT as well as 8:12 (MT LXX) mention the 13th day of Adar. Some manuscripts of the LXX likewise read here “thirteenth.” 3. A similar letter is summarized in Josephus (Ant. 11:216–9), and a different one is included in the Tg. Sheni to Esther after 3:13. This letter by Artaxerxes announcing the destruction of the Jews as instigated by Haman runs parallel to the so-called Addition E in Esther 8 LXX, announcing the salvation of the Jews. Both letters were probably composed in Greek. They are phrased along the lines of contemporary Hellenistic edicts by kings and skillfully imitate the heavy bureaucratic prose of the time.

Selections from Esther

91

Esther 8 Esther 8 tells how the bad fate of the Jews ( Judeans LXX) is reversed. The king gives Haman’s property to Esther and promotes Mordecai (Mardochaios LXX) (vv. 1–2). Esther pleads for her people and obtains the means to their salvation (vv. 3–8). In the traditional Hebrew or Masoretic Text (MT), the king issues an edict, dictated by Mordecai (v. 9), allowing the Jews to take revenge on their enemies (vv. 11–14), while in the Septuagint (LXX), the parallel verses display various important differences. Among other things, the letter of King Ahasuerus (Artaxerxes LXX) is written by the king himself (vv. 11–14 LXX), and not dictated by Mardochaios (vv. 8–9 MT). Verses 8–13 MT are rewritten as two separate letters in the LXX, one by Mordecai to the Jews (v. 9) and one by the king to the satrapies (Addition E of the LXX). Mordecai’s letter, written in the name of the king, allows the Jews “to live in accordance with their laws” (which the MT does not say) and mitigates the MT’s extensive description of the self-defense and revenge now permitted of the Jews against their enemies (v. 11 MT). The second letter constitutes a new literary creation. (For more on this, see Additions to Esther.) The rewritten Greek verses 8–13 are in harmony with Addition E of the LXX, and were probably created by the same individual who in these verses acted as a translator and in the Addition freely wrote a letter in Greek without reference to a Hebrew underlying text. Various details in Mordecai’s criticism of Haman included in Addition E echo the phrasing of the earlier criticism of Haman against the Jews in Esther 3. Among the Hellenistic elements in the Greek Esther 8 are the summoning of Mordecai by the king (v. 1) and the reconstructed edict included in Addition E. Exegetic changes in the LXX include the naming of Haman as a Macedonian in Esther 9:24 LXX as well as in Addition E.10;1 Esther’s concern about her own safety (Esther 8:6); and the king’s active participation in the hanging of Haman (8:7). Suggested Reading De Troyer, Kristin. “The Letter of the King and the Letter of Mordecai.” Textus 21 (2002): 175–207.

92 Emanuel Tov

Translation 8:1On that very day King Artaxerxes [Ahasuerus] granted to Esther all that belonged to Haman the slanderer; and Mardochaios [Mordecai] was summoned by the king, for Esther had revealed that he was related to her. 2Then the king took the signet ring, which he had taken from Haman, and gave it to Mardochaios. So Esther appointed Mardochaios over everything of Haman’s. 3Then she spoke again to the king and she fell before his feet, and pleaded that he revoke the evil of Haman and what he had done to the Judeans ( Jews). 4So the king held out the golden rod to Esther,

Commentary 8:1. Artaxerxes “Ahasuerus” in the MT. See the comment on Esther 1:1, Artaxerxes. all that belonged to Haman The MT literally reads: “Haman’s house” (NJPS: “the property of Haman”). A similar translation occurs in 8:7. the slanderer [Greek diabolos] The MT has here “the enemy of the Jews” (tzorer hayehudim). The same term is used in Esther 7:4—“for the adversary is not worthy of the king’s trouble”—while elsewhere in Esther, tzorer has been rendered as “enemy” (3:10 and 9:24). It is unclear whether diabolos already possessed the meaning of “devil” as in the LXX translation of Job (MT: satan). In any event, in the present verse, where the LXX does not reflect the words “of the Judeans ( Jews),” diabolos is probably intended as “devilish person” in general. was summoned by the king Here, the LXX translator transforms the general statement of the MT, which literally reads: “came before the king” (NRSV) (NJPS: “presented himself to the king”) to the reality of Hellenistic times, in which ordinary persons could not come before the king unless summoned. “To come before” (sometimes, per NJPS: “to enter the king’s presence”) is also used elsewhere in this way (1 Kings 1:23, 28, 32 MT). that he was related to her Cf. this interpretation to the MT, starting with the RSV, the most literal version (“what he was to her”; NJPS: “how he was related to her”; and Vulg.: “that he was her uncle.”). Note that the MT in its most literal reading can also be interpreted as Esther’s revealing her feelings toward Mordecai, rather than a familial relationship. 2. took the signet ring, which he had taken from Haman Cf. the MT: “The king slipped off his ring, which he had taken back from Haman) . . .” (NJPS). According to the MT, the king at first gave his own ring to Haman (Esther 3:10), wore it again, and upon removing the ring from his finger gave it to Mordecai. According to the LXX, the king did not wear the ring in the interim period. 3. and pleaded that he The MT reads literally: “and fell at his feet and besought him with tears” (RSV). The omission of Esther’s tears in the LXX may have been intentional, but more likely the LXX translator abbreviated the parent text from which he was working. Haman The MT adds “the Agagite.” Except for the first occurrence of “the Agagite” in Esther 3:1, that word is not represented in the LXX (3:10; 8:3, 5; 9:24). what he had done to the Judeans The interpretation by the LXX takes the MT version (NRSV: “the plot that he had devised against the Jews”) one step further. The same phrase has been rendered similarly in 9:25 LXX: “as much evil as he had devised to bring upon the Judeans.” Source of Translation: The Septuagint (LXX) translation is that of Karen H. Jobes, in Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, eds., A New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS) (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), with slight alterations. Unless otherwise noted, MT translations are from the NJPS. Note that upon first mention of a personal name in the LXX text, its NJPS version is given in brackets.

Selections from Esther 93

5and Esther rose and stood before the king. And Esther said, “If it pleases you, and if I have found favor, let an order be dispatched to revoke the letters sent by Haman, which were written to destroy the Judeans ( Jews) who are in your kingdom. 6For how can I bear to see the suffering of my people? And how can I be saved amid the destruction of my lineage?” 7Then the king said to Esther, “If everything belonging to Haman I gave and turned over to you, and him I hanged on the pole, because he plotted to lay hands on the Judeans ( Jews), what more do you seek? 8You (pl.) also write in my name as it pleases you (pl.), and seal it with my ring: for whatever is written as the king commands and sealed with my ring cannot be countermanded.”

5. If it pleases you, and if I have found favor The LXX abbreviates the longer version of the MT: “If it please Your Majesty, and if I have won your favor and the proposal seems right to Your Majesty, and if I am pleasing to you . . .” (NJPS). In this and the next verse, the LXX changes the official use of the third person of the MT (the king) to the informal speech in the second person. On the other hand, the same phrase “If it please Your Majesty” is rendered literally in 5:4, 8 LXX. 6. how can I be saved The implication of the LXX is: “If all my relatives are killed, how can I expect to be saved?” while the MT says: “And how can I bear to see the destruction of my kindred!” continuing the first part of the verse, where Esther expresses her distress at the idea of watching her people suffer. In the second part, in the MT Esther expresses concern for her relatives, while in the LXX she is concerned about her own safety. This interpretation in the LXX is probably directly related to Mordecai’s warning to Esther in 4:13 MT: “Do not imagine that you, of all the Jews, will escape with your life by being in the king’s palace.” 7. to Esther . . . to you . . . you seek In the MT, the king speaks “to Queen Esther and Mordecai the Jew.” The omission of Mordecai in the LXX could reflect a tendentious change—that is, a tendency to leave Mordecai out based on some bias favoring Esther—but such an assumed tendency is not paralleled by other details in the broader context except that “you” (“to you . . . you seek”) is in the singular form in the rest of 8:7. For in the next verse, the LXX reads, “You [pl.] also write. . . and seal [pl.]” (as in the MT); and Addition E of the LXX, inserted after Esther 8:12, places Mordecai more in the foreground than does the MT. him I hanged In the LXX, the king has an active role in the execution as opposed to the MT, which reads “he has been impaled on the stake” (NJPS). Likewise, in 2:23 LXX the king plays an active part in the hanging of the two eunuchs: “So the king interrogated the two eunuchs and hanged [or ‘hung’] them”; cf. the MT: “The matter was investigated and found to be so, and the two were impaled on stakes” (NJPS). what more do you seek? These words are lacking in the MT. In this LXX addition, the king points out to Esther that he has done everything that could be done. The added phrase may imply a mild rebuke.2 8. You . . . write The MT adds “with regard to the Jews.” The possible omission of this phrase in the LXX or its addition in the MT is stylistic rather than tendentious. In the next verse, both the Hebrew and Greek versions speak about Mordecai’s edict being directed “to the Jews.” The king is quoted in this verse in the third person in the MT (“. . . in the king’s name . . . the king’s signet . . .”), but in a more lively way using the first person in the LXX (“in my name . . . my ring . . .”). You (pl.) also write in my name as it pleases you (pl.) Significantly, in MT the king turns to both Esther and Mordecai, while Mordecai dictates the letter alone (v. 9). See the commentary on verse 9.

94 Emanuel Tov

9And so the secretaries were summoned in the first month, which is Nisa [Nisan], on the twentythird day of the same year; and they wrote to the Judeans ( Jews) what had been commanded to the administrators and rulers of the satrapies from India to Ethiopia, one hundred twenty-seven satrapies country by country, each according to its own language. 10It was written by the king, and sealed with his ring, and they sent the orders by couriers, 11how he ordered them to live in accordance with their laws in every city, both to help themselves and to deal with their adversaries and their enemies as they 9 This verse, containing 43 words and 192 letters, is the longest verse in Hebrew Scripture. It contains Mordecai’s letter, parallel to Esther 3:12 MT describing Haman’s letter. The two verses are phrased in very similar words in Hebrew, but not in Greek. in the first month . . . of the same year According to the LXX, Mardochaios’s letter is sent only 10 days after that of Haman in 3:12. In the MT, on the other hand, exactly 70 days intervene between the two letters, the second one being sent “on the twenty-third day of the third month, that is, the month of Sivan.” The figure of 70 days may have a special meaning in the MT (cf. the 70 years of exile at Jer. 25:11–12; 29:10; Dan. 9:2). and they . . . commanded The MT reads: “and letters were written, at Mordecai’s dictation, to the Jews . . .” According to the MT, the king allows Mordecai to formulate a letter in his name and to send it as a royal edict to the Jews, the satraps, the governors and the officials. In the Greek version of the edict, Mardochaios’s name is omitted in Esther 8:9, possibly in order to give the edict more credence as a royal document. More important, in the rephrased Greek version, the letter is sent only to the Judeans ( Jews), quoting commands that have been given earlier to the “administrators and rulers of the satrapies.”3 The separate languages in which these letters are written are mentioned only once in the Greek version of verse 9, but twice in the MT, in which the Hebrew version is singled out: “to every province in its own script and to every people in its own language, and to the Jews in their own script and language.” A separate mentioning of the Hebrew language in v. 9 of the LXX would have been inappropriate, since the end of that verse refers to the letter written in many languages and not to a letter of Mardochaios to the Jews as mentioned in the MT. 10. couriers The MT adds: “ riding steeds used in the king’s service, bred of the royal stud.” The Greek translator probably considered these details superfluous. 11. to live in accordance with their laws These words have been added in the LXX to the MT’s “The king has permitted the Jews . . .” This tendentious addition in the LXX stresses an element that must have been important to the author of this translation and to the Diaspora Jews to whom the translation was sent. Without any base in the MT, the added words stress the right of the Jews to live according to their own laws. A similar remark is found in Add. Esth. E.19–20: “and to allow the Judeans to live in accordance with their own precepts and to join in helping them in order that they might defend themselves against those who attack . . .” The mention of the laws (nomoi) of the Judeans should be viewed in light of Esther 3:8, where they are presented as opposed to those of the king. to deal with their adversaries . . . as they wished The Greek version—probably meant not only for Jews, but also for Gentiles—mitigates the harsh language of the revenge permitted to the Jews in the MT: “to assemble and fight for their lives; if any people or province attacks them, they may destroy, massacre, and exterminate its armed force together with women and children, and plunder their possessions” (NJPS). Note that the killing of Jewish “children and women” as in-

Selections from Esther 95

wished, 12on a single day in the whole kingdom of Artaxerxes, on the thirteenth of the twelfth month, which is Adar. [Verses 12a–x (Addition E) are presented with commentary in Additions to Esther.] 13Let the copies be posted conspicuously in all the kingdom, so that all the Judeans ( Jews) should be ready on this day to fight against their adversaries. structed in Haman’s edict in 3:13 MT is likewise lacking in the LXX (although the Greek version does prescribe taking the Judeans’ “young children as plunder”). 12 A long, 24-verse addition to the MT in the LXX (the so-called Addition E) provides the text of Artaxerxes’s letter to his 127 provinces, running parallel to Mardochaios’s letter to the Judeans contained in the Greek Esther 8:9. The Greek tradition reconstructs that edict verbatim, not as a historical document, but as a literary device. A similar letter is included in the alternative Greek translation (the Alpha-Text) and summarized in Josephus (Ant. 11:273–83), and a different letter is included in the Tg. Sheni to Esther after verse 13. This letter by Artaxerxes heralding the salvation of the Judeans runs parallel to the letter inserted within Esther 3 LXX (the so-called Addition B; see Additions to Esther), announcing the destruction of the Judeans as instigated by Haman. 13. to fight against A milder version of the MT’s “to avenge themselves.”

Notes 1. This name may allude to Alexander the Great (356–323 bce) the Macedonian, who initiated the Hellenistic culture that at various times was criticized by the Rabbis. See W. W. Tarn, Hellenistic Civilisation, 3rd ed. (Cleveland/New York: Meridian Books, 1961), 210–38; and M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, Volume One (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), 107–254. 2. These words may have been added in the LXX because the translator misunderstood the syntax of the verse. In the beginning of the sentence, the translator probably took hinneh, “behold,” as meaning “if ” (cf. Aramaic and sometimes also Hebrew hen). Therefore the independent sentence (“Behold . . .”) has become a subordinate clause (“If . . .”), necessitating the addition of a supplementary phrase. The supplement in the LXX may have been influenced by Esther 7:2 MT: “What is your wish, Queen Esther? It shall be granted you. And what is your request? Even to half the kingdom, it shall be fulfilled.” 3. The MT, on the other hand, explicitly mentions separate dispatches of the letter to the “Jews and to the satraps, the governors and the officials.” In the rewriting in the LXX, the king first sends a letter to the Jews (v. 9). This is Mardochaios’s letter, sent in the name of the king (see v. 8 LXX). The contents of a second letter, to the satrapies, implied by the wording of the Greek v. 9, are contained in the long Addition E after v. 12. That letter represents a novelty in the story and is phrased along the lines of contemporary royal Hellenistic edicts.

96

Emanuel Tov

Additions to Esther Michael V. Fox The Septuagint (LXX) of the book of Esther includes six supplemental passages (Additions A–F), as well some expansions and changes elsewhere. The Additions are the responses of early readers to the book, who sought to address several problematic issues in the story (such as Esther’s dietary practices in the palace and her sexual relations with the king) and also to adjust the theology to contemporary expectations. The Additions appear inserted at the appropriate points of the book and must be read in context.1 Ideally they should be read in a complete translation of the LXX. The placement and content of each Addition is as follows: Addition A (A.1–17 [NRSV 11:2–12:6]; appears at the beginning of the book of Esther: It includes Mordecai’s dream (A.1–11 [NRSV 11:2–12]) and his exposure of a conspiracy (A.12–17 [NRSV 12:1–6]). Addition B (B.1–7 [NRSV 13:1–7]; follows MT 3:13): The royal decree to kill the Jews. Addition C (C.1–30 [NRSV 13:8–10]; follows MT 4:17): Mordecai’s prayer (C.1–11) and Esther’s prayer (C.12–30). Addition D (D.1–16 [NRSV 15:1–16]; follows C.30: Esther’s entry to the throne room. Addition E (E.1–24; follows MT 8:12): The royal decree to spare the Jews. Addition F (F.1–11 [NRSV 10:4–11:13]; follows MT 10:3): Mordecai’s interpretation of his dream in Addition A. Colophon (F.11 [NRSV 11:1]; follows F.10). Authorship and History The Additions were composed and inserted into the LXX at different times, between the late 2nd century bce and the middle of the 1st century ce. Their likely origin is Ptolemaic Egypt, a background reflected in Additions B and E in particular. It was a time of severe anti-Semitism alongside a degree of royal patronage for the Jews.2 Additions B and E have the same author and were composed in Greek. Additions C and D are really a single unit. It is unclear whether Additions A, C, D, and F were written by the same person. F is an interpretation of A, probably by a different author, since there is some incongruity between the dream and its interpretation; see the comment on A.5, below. It is likely that Additions A, C, D, and F (or parts thereof) were composed in Aramaic or Hebrew.3 Significance The Additions, together with some other supplementary material, place God explicitly in the center of the events and adjust the book to attitudes and usages found elsewhere in the Bible. The most important difference between the Additions and the Hebrew text

97

(Masoretic Text) is the central role of God, who is not mentioned in the MT. God is often mentioned in the Additions and sometimes in other verses in the LXX as well, namely Esther 2:20; 4:8; and 6:13. The Additions are integrated into the LXX and should be read in that context. For the most part, the LXX is fairly close to the MT, but there are a few significant differences. Like the Additions, the smaller LXX changes typically enhance the role of God, piety, and Jewish law. Following are examples of LXX changes on the verse level. Esther 2:16 (NJPS): “Esther was taken in to King Ahasuerus . . . in the tenth month, which is the month of Tebeth” Esther 2:16 (LXX): “So Esther went in to King Artaxerxes in the twelfth month, which is Adar.” The reason for this change is unclear. (The 10th of Tevet did have significance as the onset of the siege of Jerusalem.) Esther 2:20 (NJPS): “But Esther still did not reveal her kindred or her people, as Mordecai had instructed her; for Esther obeyed Mordecai’s bidding, as she had done when she was under his tutelage.” Esther 2:20 (LXX): “Esther had not disclosed her country—such were the instructions of Mordecai; but she was to fear God and keep his laws, just as she had done when she was with him.” The LXX adds mention of God. Esther 3:7 (NJPS): “pur—which means ‘the lot’—was cast . . . [until it fell on] the twelfth month, that is, the month of Adar.” Esther 3:7 (LXX): “The lot fell on the fourteenth day of the month of Adar.” A different Greek version has, correctly, “thirteenth.” The Hebrew of v 7b reads, literally, “from day to day and from month to the twelfth month, the month of Adar.” The day of the month is missing, though required by context. The Greek Alpha Text (but not the LXX) reads “thirteenth.”4 This either reflects the correct Hebrew text or supplies the date on the basis of 8:12; 9:1; and 9:17. Esther 4:8 (NJPS): Mordecai shows the eunuch Hathach the written law calling for the Jews’ destruction, then bids him to “show it to Esther and inform her, and charge her to go to the king and to appeal to him and to plead with him for her people.” Esther 4:8 (LXX): Mordecai sends this message to Esther via the eunuch Hachratheus: “Haman, who stands next to the king, has spoken against us and demands our death. Call upon the Lord; then speak to the king in our behalf, and save us from death.” This prepares the way for Esther’s prayer in Addition C. In the LXX Mordecai instructs Esther to pray, which is the expected response to a perilous situation like this. Esther 6:13 (NJPS): Haman’s wife says, “If Mordecai . . . is of Jewish stock, you will not overcome him; you will fall before him to your ruin.” Esther 6:13 (LXX): Haman’s wife says, “If Mordecai is of the Jewish people, . . . you will surely fall. You will not be able to defend yourself, because the living God is with him.” The LXX makes explicit the religious reason for Haman’s doom. Esther 8:17 (NJPS): “And many of the people of the land professed to be Jews.” Esther 8:17 (LXX): “And many of the Gentiles were circumcised and became Jews.” The MT’s mityahadim is ambiguous. It may mean “professed to be Jews” or “became Jews.” The LXX makes it clear that the Gentiles in question fully converted to Judaism. Esther 10:3 (NJPS): “For Mordecai the Jew . . . was highly regarded by the Jews and popular with the multitude of his brethren; he sought the good of his people and interceded

98

Michael V. Fox

for the welfare of all his kindred.” Esther 10:3 (LXX): “Mordecai . . . was great in the kingdom, as well as honored by the Jews. His way of life was such as to make him beloved to his whole nation.” The MT has, literally, “speaks peace” where NJPS translates “interceded for the welfare.” The Greek translation explains this idiom as describing Mordecai’s personal behavior rather than his political services on behalf of the Jews. In the LXX Esther, God has scripted the events in advance (see Addition A), and he has determined the outcome. The Jews are explicitly pious and scrupulous in following the demands of Torah. In crisis, they pray (Add. Esth. A.9; C). The Jews’ strength lies not in their personal fortitude, and not at all in military tactics and courage, but only in prayer and faith in God. Though the Additions are Jewish in origin, they have been maintained only in Christian traditions, particularly the Greek Orthodox, for whom the LXX is still sacred Scripture. Some of the material of the Additions became known to the Jews through Josippon, a 10thcentury chronicle of the Jews traditionally ascribed to Joseph ben Gurion. The chronicle derives its material largely from Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities. The Additions have some parallels in the midrashim, in Tg. Esth. I (Tg. Rishon) and, especially, in the periphrastic and expansionistic Tg. Esth. II (Tg. Sheni).5 The parallel passages were composed independently of the Greek Additions, in response to the same perceived lacks, above all the mention of God, the history of Israel, and the prayers of the Jewish heroes. One possible case of a shared tradition is Addition E; see the introduction to Addition E, below. Suggested Reading Clines, David J. A. “The Esther Scroll, 168–74.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 30. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1984. Day, Linda. “Three Faces of a Queen.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 186. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Dorothy, Charles. “The Books of Esther: Structure, Genre, and Textual Integrity.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 187. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Fox, Michael V. “Character and Ideology in the Book of Esther, 168–74, 265–73.” Grand Rapids mi: Eerdmans, 1999. —. The Redaction of the Books of Esther: On Reading Composite Texts. SBL Monograph Series 40. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991. Levenson, Jon D. “Esther, 27–34 and passim.” Old Testament Library. Louisville ky: Westminster John Knox, 1997. Moore, Carey A. “Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah: The Additions.” Anchor Bible 44. Garden City ny: Doubleday, 1977. NETS. A New English Translation of the Septuagint. Ed. Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright. Oxford: Oxford University. Esther, translated by Karen Jobes: pp. 425–41. Vialle, Catherine. Une Analyse narrative compare d’Esther TM et LXX. Louvain: Université Catholique de Louvain, 2007. Wace, Henry. “The Rest of the Chapters of Esther.” In The Holy Bible: Apocrypha, 1:361–402. London: John Murray, 1888.

Additions to Esther 99

Translation Addition A

1In the second year of the reign of Artaxerxes [Ahasuerus] the Great, on the first day of Nisan, Mordecai son of Jair son of Shimei son of Kish, of the tribe of Benjamin, had a dream. 2He was a Jew living in the city of Susa [Shushan], a great man, serving in the court of the king. 3He was one of the captives whom King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon had brought from Jerusalem with King Jeconiah of Judea. And this was his dream: 4Noises and confusion, thunders and earthquake, tumult on the earth! 5Then two great dragons came

Commentary Addition A A.1–11 The LXX Esther begins with a dream that introduces explicit theological concerns into the book. Whereas God is not mentioned in the traditional Hebrew text, he is prominent in the Additions and several other places in the LXX Esther. Addition A imagines the struggle between Mordecai and Haman as a cosmic cataclysm, a clash between the forces of good and evil. Mordecai’s dream is not entirely coordinated with the story and seems to have an independent origin. In the dream proper (Add. Esth. A.4–10), the two dragons threaten the whole world. Contrary to the traditional Hebrew text of Esther, all Gentile nations are arrayed against Israel. The Jews cry out to God, and he sends hope—a “tiny spring,” which, as the reader will learn, represents Esther—and from this comes a “river” of salvation. The events of the book of Esther are thus predetermined (A.12). A.1 In the second year of the reign of Artaxerxes the Great One year before the Hebrew Esther begins. The Hebrew calls the king Ahasuerus, which is actually the Hebrew form of Xerxes (that is, Xerxes I, “the Great”—485–465 bce), not Artaxerxes (that is, Artaxerxes II, 404–358 bce). The LXX, however, consistently calls the king Artaxerxes. Nisan March–April. A.3. with King Jeconiah That is, in 597 bce, in the first wave of exiles from Jerusalem (2 Kings 24:6– 17). Mordecai is identified again in Esther 2:5. A.5. two great dragons If the dream arose as an independent tradition quite separate from Addition F (as some scholars have suggested), both dragons would seem to have originally represented evil forces threatening the entire world (or perhaps, more specifically, the king and Haman). That both dragons were evil would seem only logical, since at their roaring, “every nation prepared for war, to fight against the righteous nation.” The “righteous nation” is clearly Israel; if the roaring dragons stir up the other nations to make war on Israel, then both dragons must be evil. Moreover, in the NJPS Bible translation, various sea monsters are God’s enemies (e.g., Isa. 27:1; Ps. 148:7; Job 7:12; 26:13). In apocalyptic literature as well, dragons are consistently symbols of evil (2 Bar. 29:3–8; 2 Esd. [4 Ezra] 6:52; Rev. 12:3; 13:2; 20:2). However, later on in the AddiSource of Translation: The translation is the NRSV (with a few changes in the paragraph breaks), available in the New Oxford Annotated Apocrypha, ed. Bruce M. Metzger and Roland E. Murphy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1977), 41–56. This includes a rendering of the entire LXX Esther with the Additions in their correct places. Another complete translation is in NETS. Unless otherwise noted, translations of the Masoretic Text (MT) are from the NJPS. Upon first mention, names in the translation of the Greek are followed by their NJPS spelling in brackets, if different.

100 Michael V. Fox

forward, both ready to fight, and they roared terribly. 6At their roaring every nation prepared for war, to fight against the righteous nation. 7It was a day of darkness and gloom, of tribulation and distress, affliction and great tumult on the earth! 8And the whole righteous nation was troubled; they feared the evils that threatened them, and were ready to perish. 9Then they cried out to God; and at their outcry, as though from a tiny spring, there came a great river, with abundant water; 10light came, and the sun rose, and the lowly were exalted and devoured those held in honor. 11Mordecai saw in this dream what God had determined to do, and after he awoke he had it on his mind, seeking all day to understand it in every detail. 12Now Mordecai took his rest in the courtyard with Gabatha [Bigthan] and Tharra [Teresh], the two eunuchs of the king who kept watch in the courtyard. 13He overheard their conversation and inquired into their purposes, and learned that they were preparing to lay hands on King Artaxerxes; and he informed the king concerning them. 14Then the king examined the two eunuchs, and after they had confessed it, they were led away to execution. 15The king made a permanent record of these things, and Mordecai wrote an account of them. 16And the king ordered Mordecai to serve in the court, and rewarded him for these things. 17But Haman son of Hammedatha, a Bougean, who was in great honor with the king, determined to injure Mordecai and his people because of the two eunuchs of the king. Addition B

1This is a copy of the letter: “The Great King, Artaxerxes, writes the following to the governors of the hundred twenty-seven provinces from India to Ethiopia and to the officials under them: tions (Add. Esth. F.7), when Mordecai explains the meaning of this dream, he says that the dragons represented Haman and himself. In the light of the foregoing, such an interpretation seems strange. First of all, it is unexpected to find a dragon representing the force of good. Second, the dragons do not actually clash in the dream in A. It is likely that F represents a later author trying to apply an originally independent allegory to the book of Esther. A.7. a day of darkness and gloom In biblical eschatology, the end-time is often pictured as one of darkness (e.g., Jer. 4:28; Joel 2:10–11; Zeph. 1:15). A.9. they cried out to God Though the “tiny spring” foreshadows redemption, it is the Jews’ outcry and prayer that actually bring about God’s salvation. A.12–17 Mordecai’s discovery of the eunuchs’ plot. This event is reported in Esther 2:19–23 in both the MT and the LXX. A.12. Gabatha and Tharra Permutations of Hebrew Bigthan and Teresh (Esther 2:21 NJPS). A.13. lay hands on That is, harm. A.17. a Bougean The LXX calls Haman a “Bougean” in Esther 3:1 as well, while the Hebrew identifies him as an Agagite (3:1), a descendant of the Amalekite king Agag (see 1 Sam. 15:8) and, hence, of Amalek himself, Israel’s archenemy (Deut. 25:17–19). No ethnic group called Bougean is known. Some associate the name with Bagoas, a eunuch companion of Alexander the Great. Most likely it is a made-up name, playing on Greek bougaios, “bully, braggart.” This verse gives a motive for Haman’s hatred of Mordecai. According to the Josippon, the eunuchs were Haman’s relatives.

Addition B Addition B replaces Esther 3:13–14 (MT) and gives a fuller form of the royal edict to destroy the Jews. Its style is pompous and convoluted, emulating Ptolemaic bureaucratic prose. The king Additions to Esther 101

2“Having become ruler of many nations and master of the whole world (not elated with presumption of authority but always acting reasonably and with kindness), I have determined to settle the lives of my subjects in lasting tranquility and, in order to make my kingdom peaceable and open to travel throughout all its extent, to restore the peace desired by all people. 3“When I asked my counselors how this might be accomplished, Haman—who excels among us in sound judgment, and is distinguished for his unchanging goodwill and steadfast fidelity, and has attained the second place in the kingdom—4pointed out to us that among all the nations in the world there is scattered a certain hostile people, who have laws contrary to those of every nation and continually disregard the ordinances of kings, so that the unifying of the kingdom that we honorably intend cannot be brought about. 5We understand that this people, and it alone, stands constantly in opposition to every nation, perversely following a strange manner of life and laws, and is ill-disposed to our government, doing all the harm they can so that our kingdom may not attain stability. 6“Therefore we have decreed that those indicated to you in the letters written by Haman, who is in charge of affairs and is our second father, shall all—wives and children included—be utterly destroyed by the swords of their enemies, without pity or restraint, on the fourteenth day of the twelfth month, Adar, of this present year, 7so that those who have long been hostile and remain so may in a single day go down in violence to Hades, and leave our government completely secure and untroubled hereafter.” Addition C

1Then Mordecai prayed to the Lord, calling to remembrance all the works of the Lord. 2He said, “O Lord, Lord, you rule as King over all things, for the universe is in your power and there claims that his motive in ordering the mass murder is to ensure the peace of the realm. Tg. Sheni too has an expanded royal decree, but it is quite different from the one in Addition B. A very similar edict for the destruction of the Jews—this one ordered by Ptolemy IV Philopator—appears in 3 Macc. 3:11–30, written in the 1st century bce.6 The quotation of putative royal records in Additions B and E heightens the impression of authenticity and makes outsiders testify to the truth of the Jewish religion (Add. Esth. E.16, 18).7 B.4–5. a certain hostile people . . . doing all the harm they can The king expands Haman’s allegations against the Jews, calling them hostile to all nations and a threat to the public order. These accusations were commonplaces of Greco-Roman anti-Semitism.8 B.6. our second father That is, as dear to Artaxerxes as a second father, and also a source of advice and wisdom, second only to the king’s real father. Cf. the way Joseph is appointed “father to Pharaoh” (Gen. 45:8), that is, his chief counselor. fourteenth In the MT, the day of the decreed destruction is the thirteenth of Adar. The LXX in its present form is contradictory, specifying “thirteenth” in Esther 8:13; Add. Esth. E.20; and Esther 9:1, but “fourteenth” in Esther 3:7 and Add. Esth. B.6. The reason for the contradiction is unknown. Perhaps the first day of fighting was confused with the first day of celebration. The Greek Alpha Text (see note 4) also has “thirteenth.”

Addition C Addition C supplies something whose absence in the traditional Hebrew text surprised later readers: prayers for salvation. In the MT, these are only hinted at—in Mordecai’s mourning (Esther

102 Michael V. Fox

is no one who can oppose you when it is your will to save Israel, 3for you have made heaven and earth and every wonderful thing under heaven. 4You are Lord of all, and there is no one who can resist you, the Lord. 5You know all things; you know, O Lord, that it was not in insolence or pride or for any love of glory that I did this, and refused to bow down to this proud Haman; 6for I would have been willing to kiss the soles of his feet to save Israel! 7But I did this so that I might not set human glory above the glory of God, and I will not bow down to anyone but you, who are my Lord; and I will not do these things in pride. 8And now, O Lord God and King, God of Abraham, spare your people; for the eyes of our foes are upon us to annihilate us, and they desire to destroy the inheritance that has been yours from the beginning. 9Do not neglect your portion, which you redeemed for yourself out of the land of Egypt. 10Hear my prayer, and have mercy upon your inheritance; turn our mourning into feasting that we may live and sing praise to your name, O Lord; do not destroy the lips of those who praise you.” 11And all Israel cried out mightily, for their death was before their eyes. 12Then Queen Esther, seized with deadly anxiety, fled to the Lord. 13She took off her splendid apparel and put on the garments of distress and mourning, and instead of costly perfumes she covered her head with ashes and dung, and she utterly humbled her body; every part that she loved to adorn

4:1) and in the fast that Esther declares (4:16). The prayers of Mordecai and Esther in Addition C draw heavily on biblical models, especially the prayers of Daniel (Dan. 9:3–19), Nehemiah (Neh. 9:6–37), Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. 20:5–12), and Ps. 22. In response to this same absence, Tg. Sheni gives Mordecai a lengthy prayer at 4:1 and Esther, at 5:1 (on Esther’s prayer, see below). In Esther 4:8b (LXX), a few verses before Addition C, the LXX expands the Hebrew sentence by having Mordecai urge Esther to “call upon the Lord,” so as to prepare the way for Esther’s prayer, as shown in the introductory comments of this chapter. C.5. it was not in insolence or pride Readers must have been puzzled by Mordecai’s refusal to bow down to Haman, which could only endanger the entire community. Nothing forbids a Jew to bow before a mortal. Israelites do so, for example, in Gen 33:3; 42:6; 1 Kings 1:23; and Esth 8:3. The author seems to be imputing to Mordecai the Greek attitude that it is disgraceful to bow to humans; see Herodotus, Hist. 7.136. This notion of dignity would have been shared by others in the Hellenistic period, which is the likely time of Esther’s authorship.9 The resistance to bowing to humans would have been exacerbated by the ancient ethnic enmity between Jews and Amalekites, from which Haman the Agagite was descended. In the LXX, Mordecai justifies his refusal on the grounds that he acted not out of personal pride, but only out of respect for God’s honor. LXX’s explanation too seems to reflect the Greek objection to bowing to humans reported by Herodotus. The Rabbis did not share this attitude and so had to seek for other explanations. They supposed that Haman considered himself divine (B. Sanh. 61b) or that he had embroidered an idol on his clothing (Esth. Rab. 7:8; cf. Tg. Rishon on 3:2). Bowing to Haman would constitute idolatry, a cardinal sin that one must not commit even at risk of death (Dan 3:18, 6:11; B. Sanh. 74a). Another Rabbinic explanation is that Haman had earlier sold himself as a slave to Mordecai (Tg. Rishon [3:2; B. Meg. 15ab]). It was beneath Mordecai’s dignity to bow to a former slave. Mordecai’s prayer concludes with a plea for deliverance. C.11. And all Israel cried out The communal outcry was on the occasion of the fast that Esther had proclaimed for the Jews in Esther 4:16. for their death was before their eyes They saw themselves on the brink of destruction.

Additions to Esther 103

she covered with her tangled hair. 14She prayed to the Lord God of Israel, and said: “O my Lord, you only are our king; help me, who am alone and have no helper but you, 15for my danger is in my hand. 16Ever since I was born I have heard in the tribe of my family that you, O Lord, took Israel out of all the nations, and our ancestors from among all their forebears, for an everlasting inheritance, and that you did for them all that you promised. 17“And now we have sinned before you, and you have handed us over to our enemies 18because we glorified their gods. You are righteous, O Lord! 19And now they are not satisfied that we are in bitter slavery, but they have covenanted with their idols 20to abolish what your mouth has ordained, and to destroy your inheritance, to stop the mouths of those who praise you and to quench your altar and the glory of your house, 21to open the mouths of the nations for the praise of vain idols, and to magnify forever a mortal king. C.14–17 Esther’s entreaty strongly resembles Jewish prayers of the Persian period and beyond, for example in Dan. 9:3–5. Both Daniel and Esther are Jews in Persia. They both make supplication with fasting and sackcloth and ashes (Dan. 9:3; Add. Esth. C.13). They declare God’s faithfulness to Israel and praise his deliverance of the ancestors (Dan. 9:4; Add. Esth. C.16). They confess Israel’s sinfulness (Dan. 9:5; Add. Esth. C.17–18). The Targumim to Esther ascribe prayers to Esther; these are quite different from Add. Esth. C.13–17. An Aramaic version of her prayer was found in the Vatican library. This is apparently derived from the Yossipon.10 Esther’s prayer has some associations with Ps. 22. The speakers of both are in danger and declare that God is their only helper (Add. Esth. C.14; Ps. 22:11–12). Both refer to God’s deliverance of the ancestors (Add. Esth. C.16; Ps. 22:5–6) and to the lion’s mouth (Add. Esth. C.14, 22; Ps. 22:24). Esther’s story and her words are brought into even tighter association in Rabbinic retellings. In B. Meg. 15b, as Esther comes into the “Chamber of Idols,” the Divine Presence leaves her, and she says: “My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?” (Ps. 22:2). Do you perhaps judge inadvertent offenses like purposeful ones and forced actions like willing ones? Or perhaps [you have abandoned me] because I called him a dog, as it says, “Save my life from the sword, my precious life from the clutches of a dog.” (Ps. 22:21) She retracted and called him a lion, as it says, “deliver me from a lion’s mouth (Ps 22:22).” Like the retelling of the story in B. Meg., Addition C makes Esther pious and—insofar as possible—observant of Jewish law. Midr. Teh. makes Esther the speaker of Ps. 22 and has her uttering three prayers.11 C.13. ashes and dung A sign of mourning and penitence. C.15. for my danger is in my hand I am taking my life in my hands. C.16. I have heard in the tribe of my family She knows Israel’s history from family traditions rather than from study of Scripture. C.17–21. now we have sinned before you . . . because we glorified their gods Esther’s confession has no basis in the Hebrew Esther, which does not hint at Israelite defection to foreign gods. Rather, it tells about an unexplained and unpredictable crisis. The belief that the Exile and the consequent national suffering was punishment for worshiping other gods is standard throughout the Bible. Nehemiah and Daniel make very similar confessions (Neh. 9:32–37; Dan. 3:1–17). C.18. You are righteous, O Lord! That is, you are justified in all the tribulations you have brought upon us; cf. Neh. 9:33.

104 Michael V. Fox

22“O Lord, do not surrender your scepter to what has no being; and do not let them laugh at our downfall; but turn their plan against them, and make an example of him who began this against us. 23Remember, O Lord; make yourself known in this time of our affliction, and give me courage, O King of the gods and Master of all dominion! 24Put eloquent speech in my mouth before the lion, and turn his heart to hate the man who is fighting against us, so that there may be an end of him and those who agree with him. 25But save us by your hand, and help me, who am alone and have no helper but you, O Lord. 26You have knowledge of all things, and you know that I hate the splendor of the wicked and abhor the bed of the uncircumcised and of any alien. 27You know my necessity—that I abhor the sign of my proud position, which is upon my head on days when I appear in public. I abhor it like a filthy rag, and I do not wear it on the days when I am at leisure. 28And your servant has not eaten at Haman’s table, and I have not honored the king’s feast or drunk the wine of libations. 29Your servant has had no joy since the day that I was brought here until now, except in you, O Lord God of Abraham. 30O God, whose might is over all, hear the voice of the despairing, and save us from the hands of evildoers. And save me from my fear!” C.24. the lion The king, awesome and terrifying (Add. Esth. D. 6–7). In her prayer in B. Meg. 15b, Esther first calls the king a dog, then calls him a lion, quoting Ps. 22:22: “Deliver me from a lion’s mouth.” C.26–29 Esther insists that she takes no pleasure in her luxurious state or her marriage to the foreigner. These things have been imposed on her. C.26. the splendor of the wicked “Wicked” is plural and refers to Gentiles generally, or at least the wicked among them, and not specifically the king. and abhor the bed of the uncircumcised Intermarriage with various nations is forbidden in Deut. 7:3–4; this interdiction is explicitly expanded to include marriage with any foreigner in Ezra 10:2 and Neh.13:23–27. The Addition makes it clear that Esther had no choice in the matter. (In the Hebrew narrative, her induction into the harem is described in passive verbs that emphasize her passivity, but whether the intermarriage in itself is disturbing is left open.) The Rabbis, troubled by the thought that Esther would have intercourse with her Gentile husband, bring out her passivity by suggesting that she was just “natural soil,” tilled without her consent (B. Sanh. 74b). C.27. the sign of my proud position Her royal turban. a filthy rag Literally, “menstruous rag.” This was considered ritually impure and caused defilement (Lev. 15:19–20, etc.). C.28. And your servant has not eaten Like Daniel and his friends (Dan. 1:8, 13, 15), Esther has managed to keep kosher in a foreign court. the wine of libations Greek banquets, the model for Artaxerxes’s banquets here, would begin by pouring out a little wine as an offering to the gods. For Jews, drinking the remaining wine would be tantamount to an act of idolatry.

Additions to Esther 105

Addition D

1On the third day, when she ended her prayer, she took off the garments in which she had worshiped, and arrayed herself in splendid attire. 2Then, majestically adorned, after invoking the aid of the all-seeing God and Savior, she took two maids with her; 3on one she leaned gently for support, 4while the other followed, carrying her train. 5She was radiant with perfect beauty, and she looked happy, as if beloved, but her heart was frozen with fear. 6When she had gone through all the doors, she stood before the king. He was seated on his royal throne, clothed in the full array of his majesty, all covered with gold and precious stones. He was most terrifying. 7Lifting his face, flushed with splendor, he looked at her in fierce anger. The queen faltered, and turned pale and faint, and collapsed on the head of the maid who went in front of her. 8Then God changed the spirit of the king to gentleness, and in alarm he sprang from his throne and took her in his arms until she came to herself. He comforted her with soothing words, and said to her, 9“What is it, Esther? I am your husband. Take courage; 10You shall not die, for our law applies only to our subjects. Come near.” 11Then he raised the golden scepter and touched her neck with it; 12he embraced her, and said, “Speak to me.” 13She said to him, “I saw you, my Lord, like an angel of God, and my heart was shaken with fear at your glory. 14For you are wonderful, my Lord, and your countenance is full of grace.” 15And while she was speaking, she fainted and fell. 16Then the king was agitated, and all his servants tried to comfort her. Addition D In the MT, Esther simply enters the throne room—at peril to her life—and awaits the king’s response, hoping that he will extend his scepter and spare her. In Addition D, she is a more nervous, frail, and stereotypically feminine creature than in the MT. She gasps and faints in anxiety when approaching the powerful and frightening king and does so once again when he shows her mercy. She flatters him by claiming that her swoon was due to awe of his splendor rather than fear for her life. These qualities are intended to make her more appealing to a late Hellenistic readership, which might be uncomfortable with the Hebrew Esther’s boldness.12 In Addition D (as in Additions B and E), the king is treated with respect, whereas in the MT he is something of a buffoon. In Addition D, glory radiates from him as he sits on his throne. He is also a kindly husband, aiding and reassuring his timorous wife. Addition D embellishes all aspects of the scene: the beauty of Esther’s clothing, the king’s anger, her trepidation, and—after God’s intervention—the king’s graciousness. The closest parallel to this scene is in the Hellenistic Jewish book of Judith.13 D.10. for our law applies only to our subjects That is, the decree in 4:11 that anyone who appears before the king uninvited is to be put to death, unless the king grants clemency. A similar Persian law is reported by Herodotus (Hist., 3.772, 77, 84, 118, 140), though in Herodotus’s telling it was possible to request an audience.

106 Michael V. Fox

Addition E

1The following is a copy of this letter: “The Great King, Artaxerxes, to the governors of the provinces from India to Ethiopia, one hundred twenty-seven provinces, and to those who are loyal to our government, greetings. 2“Many people, the more they are honored with the most generous kindness of their benefactors, the more proud do they become, 3and not only seek to injure our subjects, but in their inability to stand prosperity, they even undertake to scheme against their own benefactors. 4They not only take away thankfulness from others, but, carried away by the boasts of those who know nothing of goodness, they even assume that they will escape the evil-hating justice of God, who always sees everything. 5And often many of those who are set in places of authority have been made in part responsible for the shedding of innocent blood, and have been involved in irremediable calamities, by the persuasion of friends who have been entrusted with the administration of public affairs, 6when these persons by the false trickery of their evil natures beguile the sincere goodwill of their sovereigns. 7“What has been wickedly accomplished through the pestilent behavior of those who exercise authority unworthily can be seen, not so much from the more ancient records that we hand on, as from investigation of matters close at hand. 8In the future we will take care to render our kingdom quiet and peaceable for all, 9by changing our methods and always judging what comes before our eyes with more equitable consideration. 10“For Haman son of Hammedatha, a Macedonian (really an alien to the Persian blood, and quite Addition E The king writes a letter to all his subjects. As in Addition B, the style is ornate and diffuse. The king excuses his earlier decision on the grounds that it was made under deception, and he cancels “Haman’s” decree (which was actually the king’s). Addition E presents a more flattering view of Gentile royalty than one gets from the Hebrew book. The king comes across as something of a philosopher and public benefactor. He was duped but not actively complicit in Haman’s scheme. His enlightenment about the dangers of slander may reveal what Jews think kings should be like. Tg. Sheni 8:13 has a similarly expansive letter in which the king proclaims his own humility and the Jews’ honesty and peacefulness, and also blames the entire episode on Haman. Moreover, the Targum ascribes Haman’s scheme to a desire to steal the kingdom. It even says that Haman was once “father of the king.” The similarities suggest at least an awareness of a tradition of the king’s second letter common to both Tg. Sheni and Addition E. However, extensive differences in wording argue against direct dependence of Tg. Sheni on Addition E. E.2–8 Artaxerxes explains that some men (such as Haman) are led by excessive honors to become arrogant and to scheme against their benefactors. Moreover, the men in authority are often persuaded to become accomplices in the shedding of innocent blood. He promises to ignore slanderers in the future. E.10–16 The king describes Haman’s scheme against the Jews as a plot against the empire itself, an attempt to transfer power from the Persians to the Macedonians (to which nation Haman is said to belong). E.10. A Macedonian On the face of it, to designate Haman as a Macedonian assumes that “Macedonian” is an insult and refers to an enemy (as “Agagite” does in MT 3:1; see the comment on

Additions to Esther 107

devoid of our kindliness), having become our guest, 11enjoyed so fully the goodwill that we have for every nation that he was called our father and was continually bowed down to by all as the person second to the royal throne. 12But, unable to restrain his arrogance, he undertook to deprive us of our kingdom and our life, 13and with intricate craft and deceit asked for the destruction of Mordecai, our savior and perpetual benefactor, and of Esther, the blameless partner of our kingdom, together with their whole nation. 14He thought that by these methods he would catch us undefended and would transfer the kingdom of the Persians to the Macedonians. 15“But we find that the Jews, who were consigned to annihilation by this thrice-accursed man, are not evildoers, but are governed by most righteous laws 16and are children of the living God, most high, most mighty, who has directed the kingdom both for us and for our ancestors in the most excellent order. 17“You will therefore do well not to put in execution the letters sent by Haman son of Hammedatha, 18since he, the one who did these things, has been hanged at the gate of Susa with all his household— for God, who rules over all things, has speedily inflicted on him the punishment that he deserved. A.17.a , above). But this is strange, since the Jews held no particular hostility toward the Macedonians. On the contrary, Jewish legend portrayed Alexander of Macedon favorably, and some Jews in Alexandria even styled themselves Macedonians. Moreover, LXX Esther treats royalty with some respect, and royalty for the author of this Addition would have been the Ptolemaic dynasty, which was a successor to Macedonian rule. Just possibly calling Haman a Macedonian is a gibe at Jews who took the designation for themselves. Or perhaps Haman is called a Macedonian just for the sake of the anachronistic notion that the ultimate betrayal a Persian could attempt would be to surrender the kingdom to the Macedonians, that is to say, the Greek empires founded by Alexander. Since this actually happened, calling Haman a Macedonian would be ironic, with the irony directed at the Persians. E.14. would transfer the kingdom of the Persians to the Macedonians What the Persian king feared did come to pass, when Alexander defeated Persia in 331 bce. Perhaps this historical reminiscence is supposed to be a prophecy—unintentional on the king’s part—that the Macedonian kingdom would prevail. A Hellenistic Jewish audience could savor the irony. E.15. the Jews . . . are governed by most righteous laws The king praises the Jews and their Law. E.16. children of the living God An echo of Deut. 14:1 (“You are children of the Lord your God”). In Addition E, the king recognizes Israel’s God as the universal deity and ruler of Persia’s destiny past and present. A motif of biblical and postbiblical Jewish literature shows a foreign ruler, usually after a difficult experience, recognizing the rulership of Israel’s God over all the earth; see Dan. 2:46–47; 3:28–33; Num. 22–24; and Jdt. 5:5–21. Especially close is Nebuchadnezzar’s “confession of faith” in Dan. 3:31–4:34. E.17–24 The king orders his people—on pain of death—to allow the Jews to obey their own customs and requires his subjects to support the Jews in their hour of trial. Moreover, the Persians too are to celebrate the day as a reminder of deliverance and the destruction of enemies. Addition E depicts the resolution of the crisis in less violent terms than does the body of the book, in which there is as much bloodshed as in the Hebrew version (Esther 9:1–15). E.18. has been hanged . . . with all his household This is a slip, since Haman’s sons are not hanged until several months later; see Esther 9:10.

108 Michael V. Fox

19“Therefore post a copy of this letter publicly in every place, and permit the Jews to live under their own laws. 20And give them reinforcements, so that on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, Adar, on that very day, they may defend themselves against those who attack them at the time of oppression. 21For God, who rules over all things, has made this day to be a joy for his chosen people instead of a day of destruction for them. 22“Therefore you shall observe this with all good cheer as a notable day among your commemorative festivals, 23so that both now and hereafter it may represent deliverance for you and the loyal Persians, but that it may be a reminder of destruction for those who plot against us. 24“Every city and country, without exception, that does not act accordingly shall be destroyed in wrath with spear and fire. It shall be made not only impassable for human beings, but also most hateful to wild animals and birds for all time.” Addition F

1And Mordecai said, “These things have come from God; 2for I remember the dream that I had concerning these matters, and none of them has failed to be fulfilled. 3There was the little spring that became a river, and there was light and sun and abundant water—the river is Esther, whom the king married and made queen. 4The two dragons are Haman and myself. 5The nations are those that gathered to destroy the name of the Jews. 6And my nation, this is Israel, who cried out to God and were saved. The Lord has saved his people; the Lord has rescued us from all these evils; God has done great signs and wonders, wonders that have never happened among the nations. 7“For this purpose he made two lots, one for the people of God and one for all the nations, 8and these two lots came to the hour and moment and day of decision before God and among all the nations. 9And God remembered his people and vindicated his inheritance. 10“So they will observe these days in the month of Adar, on the fourteenth and fifteenth of that month, with an assembly and joy and gladness before God, from generation to generation forever among his people Israel.” Addition F Mordecai decodes the symbolism of his earlier dream by identifying its components with the events he has just been through. Not all items are explained, and some explanations, such as of the two dragons, do not conform well to the events of the dream; see below. F.3. light and sun That is, salvation and joy. This is based on LXX Esth. 8:16 (NRSV): “And the Jews had light and gladness.” The “day of darkness and gloom” of Add. Esth. A.7 is left unmentioned, perhaps because it did not come to pass in the present story. F.7. two lots These are not mentioned earlier but are suggested by the name Purim, a plural noun meaning “lots.” Possibly, the number two was associated with the two days of Purim (9:27), though that is not explicit. The lots here are understood as figures for God’s determination of the day when Israel will be saved and its enemies punished, namely the thirteenth and fourteenth of Adar. At the same time, Addition F divides humanity into two “lots” or groups—Israel and the Gentiles—each with its own fate. This is similar to the way the Covenanters in Qumran divided the world into two “lots”: the lot of God and the lot of Belia’al (1QS 2:1, 5). The lot of God is the Covenanters’ own community. The lot of the demonic Belia’al comprises all the wicked, which for the Covenanters meant all other Jews and all Gentiles. Additions to Esther 109

11In the fourth year of the reign of Ptolemy and Cleopatra, Dositheus, who said that he was a priest and a Levite, and his son Ptolemy brought to Egypt the preceding Letter about Purim, which they said was authentic and had been translated by Lysimachus son of Ptolemy, one of the residents of Jerusalem. F.11 This concluding remark—the colophon to the Greek Esther—is attached to Addition F. While it seems to give specific information about the translation of the book of Esther, it contains many ambiguities. Since several kings called Ptolemy had wives named Cleopatra, the notice allows for a dating in 114–113, 78–77, or 49–48 bce. Whoever wrote the notice does not endorse the claims about the origin of the document. The book was apparently translated in Jerusalem, but the author of the colophon does not clarify which of the LXX Additions were present in the document that was brought to Egypt. Note that the author refers to the book of Esther as the “Letter about Purim.”14

Notes 1. In his Latin translation (the Vulgate), the church father Jerome (4th century ce) translated these passages but placed them at the end of the book, where they were numbered 10:4–16:24. NRSV returns them to their correct places but maintains, confusingly, the Vulgate’s numbering, as noted below in brackets. 2. For a clear and comprehensive description of Egyptian anti-Semitism, see Peter Schäfer’s Judeophobia (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997). 3. For language and dating, see Carey Moore, Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah, 165–67. Moore provides a complete commentary on the Additions, to which many of the present annotations are indebted. Especially valuable is Vialle, Une Analyse narrative, which provides a literary commentary on both MT Esther and LXX Esther. Levenson, Esther, integrates the LXX Additions into his commentary on MT Esther. For studies of the ideology of the Additions, see Fox, Character and Ideology in the Book of Esther, 265–73; and Clines, The Esther Scroll, 168–74. 4. The Alpha Text is a Greek translation of a Hebrew text distinct from the MT that (some argue) holds in some ways an earlier form of the story; see Clines, The Esther Scroll (with a full translation on pp. 216–47) and M. V. Fox, Redaction, 10–95. A translation of the Alpha Text alongside the LXX can be found in NETS. 5. Both targums are found in the Rabbinic Bible (Miqra’ot Gedolot) and translated, with apparatus and notes, by Bernard Grossfeld in The Two Targums of Esther: The Aramaic Bible 18 (Collegeville, MN: Michael Glazier, 1991). 6. There is evidence that the author of the royal letters in Additions B and E was influenced by 3 Maccabees. A common thread in these texts is the assumption of a basic Gentile hostility toward the Jews that may be converted into a recognition of Jewish loyalty and value to the throne. See Noah Hacham, “3 Maccabees and Esther: Parallels, Intertextuality, and Diaspora Identity,” JBL 126 (2007): 765–85. 7. See Clines, The Esther Scroll, 173. 8. See Fox, Character and Ideology, 49. 9. See Fox, Character and Ideology, 39–40. 10. A translation appears in Moore, Additions, 215. 11. See Esther Menn, “No Ordinary Lament: Relecture and the Identity of the Distressed in Psalm 22,” Harvard Theological Review 93 (2000): 301–41, at 317–27. 12. Swooning is a favorite device in the Hellenistic romance, which was a genre of tales of adventure and love popular in Greco-Roman times. Moreover, prayers such as Esther’s in Addition C, even though they have clear Jewish antecedents, are also at home in the Hellenistic romance. 13. Moore, Additions, 220–22. 14. See further Elias Bickerman, “The Colophon of the Greek Book of Esther,” JBL 63 (1944): 339–62.

110 Michael V. Fox

Job 34 Emanuel Tov In chapter 34 of the book of Job, Elihu (Elious LXX), a friend of Job (Iob LXX), again refutes Job’s contention of innocence. Starting with Job’s claim to be righteous, which implies that God is not righteous, Elihu asserts that Job is wicked (vv. 7–9) and that God’s righteousness is beyond question (vv. 10–28). In verses 34–37, Elihu remarks that “wise” men— unlike Job—realize that Job has spoken foolishly and risks multiplying his sins against God. The differences between the Septuagint (LXX) and the traditional Hebrew (Masoretic Text) stem from the Greek translator’s free approach: the LXX rephrases and frequently streamlines ideas and verses in the MT, probably in response to the often verbose and repetitive Hebrew text. Suggested Reading Cox, Claude E. “Elihu’s Second Speech according to the Septuagint.” In Studies in the Book of Job, edited by W. E. Aufrecht, 36–53. Studies in Religion 16. Waterloo: Wilfred Laurier University Press, 1985.

Translation 1Now Elious [Elihu] resumed and said: 2“Hear me, you wise men; O you, who know, give ear to what is good—

Commentary 34:2. give ear to what is good This is a tendentious rendering of the MT, which reads: “give ear to me.” The words “what is good” are influenced by the end of 34:4 MT, which is omitted in the Greek translation. Following 34:2, the MT adds verses 3–4: “For the ear tests arguments / As the palate tastes food. / 4Let us decide for ourselves what is just; / Let us know among ourselves what is good.” These verses were omitted by the Greek translator, possibly because he felt that verse 3 did not advance the main argument and that verse 4 contained merely general introductory thoughts. Scribal error could also account for this omission, since the eye of a scribe or translator could have jumped from the first occurrence of “what is good” to the second one. Source of Translation: The Septuagint (LXX) Old Greek translation is that of Claude E. Cox, in Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, eds., A New English Translation of the Septuagint (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007). Unless otherwise noted, MT translations are from the NJPS. Note that the LXX transliteration is given in parentheses upon first mention of names in the introductory comments and commentary, and the MT version is given in brackets upon first mention of names in the LXX text.

111

5because Iob [ Job] has said, ‘I am righteous; the Lord dismissed my case, 6and played false in my judgment, 8seeing that I have not sinned or acted impiously or shared a way with doers of lawless acts, to walk with the impious.’ 9For do not say, ‘There will be no visitation of a man’— when there is visitation to him from the Lord! 10“Therefore, you intelligent of heart, hear me: far be it from me to act impiously before the Lord, and before the Almighty to pervert what is right. 11Rather, he repays a person, according to what each of them does. 12Now, do you think the Lord will do what is amiss? Or will the Almighty pervert justice? 13He that created the earth? And who is it that sustains what is under heaven and all it contains? 14For if he should wish to confine and to keep his spirit with himself, 15all flesh will die together, and every mortal return to dust, whence too he was formed.

6. and played false in my judgment Job 34:6a MT reads: “I declare the judgment against me false;” and continues with verses 6b–7: “My arrow-wound is deadly, though I am free from transgression. / 7What man is like Job, / who drinks mockery like water; . . ?” Why the Greek translator omitted these lines is uncertain. 8. seeing that I have not sinned or acted impiously The absence of verses 6b–7 in the LXX means that 34:8 LXX is still part of Job’s self-defense (as quoted by Elihu). The Greek translator has accomplished this by starting verse 8 with the last words of verse 6b, skillfully continuing with Job’s complaint. In the MT, however, Job’s quoted speech ends at verse 6b, and Elihu’s negative description of Job resumes in 34:7. Accordingly, 34:8 MT is direct speech from Elihu. 9. For do not say Cf. 34:9 MT: “For he says, ‘Man gains nothing / When he is in God’s favor.’” In the MT, this verse explains the previous one (“For . . .”). That is, Elihu is claiming that Job socializes with impious men in the belief that pleasing God will not benefit him. The translator probably did not understand the Hebrew, added a negation (“For do not say”), and changed the idea of this verse to a positive thought (i.e., that men are looked upon by God). 11. Rather, he repays a person, according to what each of them does The MT goes on to say: “And provides for him according to his conduct;” (v. 11b). The translator may have considered this half-verse superfluous after verse 11a MT. 13 The LXX rephrases the MT (“Who placed the earth in His charge? / Who ordered the entire world?”) while expressing the same ideas. 15. whence too he was formed Not found in the MT.

112 Emanuel Tov

16“But lest he rebuke you, hear these things; give ear to the sound of my words. 17Look then at him that hates lawless acts, and destroys the wicked, since he is forever just. 18Impious is he who says to a king, ‘You are acting lawlessly!’ 19he no reticence before a person of worth, nor knows how to accord honor to the prominent, so that their persons be respected. 20But crying out and begging, a man will prove to be of no use to them, for they used people lawlessly, when the powerless were being turned aside. 21“For he is one that views human deeds, and nothing of what they do has escaped him, 22nor will there be a place to hide for those that do lawless acts. 23For the Lord observes all people— 24he who comprehends inscrutable things, things both glorious and extraordinary without number; 25he who reveals their deeds, 26and has extinguished the impious— 18. Impious is he who says to a king The MT reads: “Would you call a king a scoundrel,” and adds verse 18b: “Great men, wicked?” These words were probably omitted in the LXX because of the identical thoughts expressed in both parts of the verse. 19 In the MT, this verse speaks about God’s impartiality to people: “He is not partial to princes; / The noble are not preferred to the wretched; / For all of them are the work of His hands.” In the LXX, on the other hand, the verse probably refers to the impious person who does not honor the great (mentioned in v. 18). The Greek of this verse does not speak of God, and the last words differ completely from the MT. 20 In the MT, this verse—not connected with the preceding one—describes turmoil, death, and havoc in society: “Some die suddenly in the middle of the night; / People are in turmoil and pass on; / Even great men are removed—not by human hands.” On the other hand, the Greek translation seems to continue the description of the preceding verse, probably describing the results of the wrongdoing recorded in that verse. 23. For the Lord observes all people This half-verse presents a second translation of 34:21 MT. Cf. 34:23 MT: “He has no set time for man / To appear before God in judgment,” implying that God can summon a man at any moment. This verse has been omitted in the LXX. 24. he who comprehends inscrutable things . . . without number Cf. the MT: “He shatters mighty men without number / And sets others in their place.” In part, the difference between the LXX and MT versions arose because the translator confused two similar-looking Hebrew words: yd‘ in the LXX; and yr‘ in the MT. Furthermore, the Greek translator has rendered 34:24a MT twice in the LXX, while omitting v. 24b MT.

Job 34 113

yes, they were in plain view before him, 27because they turned aside from God’s law, and did not recognize his requirements. 34“So, the intelligent of heart will say these things, and a wise man will have grasped what I said. 35But Iob did not speak with intelligence, and his words were without knowledge. 36Nonetheless, learn O Iob! No longer give a response as fools do, 37lest we add to our sins, and lawlessness be reckoned against us, while speaking many words before the Lord.” 27. because they turned aside from God’s law, and . . . his requirements Cf. the MT: “Because they have been disloyal to Him / And have not understood any of His ways.” The LXX translator presents “disloyalty” as specifically moving away from God’s law (nomos), as in verse 37, and “His ways” more narrowly as dikaiōmata (i.e., “requirements,” referring to the mitzvot). Emphasis on adherence to God’s nomos reflects late biblical and later periods. Following 34:27, the MT continues with verses 28–30: “Thus He lets the cry of the poor come before Him; / He listens to the cry of the needy. 29When He is silent, who will condemn? / If He hides His face, who will see Him, / Be it nation or man? 30The impious man rules no more, / Nor do those who ensnare the people.” At the end of Job 34 MT, reasons are given why God acts against the wicked: they turned away from God (v. 27), the persons harmed by the wicked turn to God (v. 28), and God does not want the godless to reign (v. 30). In addition, Elihu says that God reveals himself only when he wishes (v. 29). The LXX presents only the argument in verse 27 MT. Given that Elihu’s main argumentation is not harmed by this shortening, stylistic abbreviation is probably involved. Also lacking in the LXX are verses 31–33 MT, describing why the wicked are punished: “Has he said to God, / ‘I will bear [my punishment] and offend no more. / 32What I cannot see You teach me. / If I have done iniquity, I shall not do so again’?” / 33Should He requite as you see fit? / But you have despised [Him]! / You must decide, not I; / Speak what you know.” The Greek translator may have removed these verses because the same ideas are presented in the preceding chapter ( Job 33:14–33). 36. Nonetheless, learn O Iob! No longer give a response as fools do According to the MT, Job continues to be chastised: “Would that Job were tried to the limit / For answers which befit sinful men.” The LXX, however, is much more lenient, speaking about a learning process (possibly due to an interchange of similar-looking words: MT ybhn, interpreted in the LXX as ybyn). 37. lest we add to our sins . . . lawlessness In his concluding remark in the MT, Elihu makes harsh statements about Job’s behavior. The LXX, on the other hand, refers to the combined sins of Job and his friends (“we . . . our sins”). The explanation of LXX is also assumed by the Rabbis in Lev. Rabbah 4: “So did Job say, ‘If indeed I have erred, My error remains with me’ (Job 19:4). His friends replied, ‘If he adds to his transgression, he will add sin amongst us,’ ( Job 34:37) amongst us do you add sin.’” The paraphrase in the LXX specifies the type of transgressions involved, referring to anomia, “lawlessness”—that is, rejection of the nomos, the law (see also the comment on 34:27). 114 Emanuel Tov

Daniel 4 Emanuel Tov Daniel 4 in the Masoretic Text (MT) tells of King Nebuchadnezzar’s (Nabouchodonosor’s LXX) dream of an enormous tree that provides shelter and food for many. By divine decree, the tree is felled with only its stump left remaining in the ground (vv. 1–14). Daniel’s interpretation indicates that the dream refers to the king, and he tries to convince him to atone for his sins (vv. 15–24). However, the king’s subsequent behavior attests to arrogance and madness (vv. 25–30). Finally, the king turns to God, is fully rehabilitated, and is returned to power as king (vv. 31–34). The commentary below covers only verses 1–24. The Septuagint (LXX) version of chapter 4, like that of chapters 5–6, differs greatly from the Aramaic text of the MT.1 (Daniel is one of the few biblical books that contain portions originally written in Aramaic.) The Greek text lacks a few sections, such as verses 3–6 of the MT, but on the whole is much longer (see vv. 14a, 30a–c, 34a–c). Its exegetic expansions depend much on the language and imagery of the stories and dreams in chapters 2–3 and 5–7. At the same time, the MT also seems to be expanded (see vv. 3–6), so that the exact relation between the two texts is complicated.2 The LXX reflects various theological interpretations that may derive from either the translator or the rewritten Aramaic composition. Thus, all MT verses referring to Daniel possessing a “spirit of the holy gods” are lacking in the LXX (4:5–6; 5:11, 14), the phrase “Most High” is added to the MT (v. 21), and the king’s mania is described as resulting from his destruction of Jerusalem (vv. 1, 19).3 Suggested Reading Henze, Matthias. The Madness of King Nebuchadnezzar: The Ancient Near Eastern Origins and Early History of Interpretation of Daniel 4. Supplements for the Study of Judaism 61. Leiden: Brill, 1999.

115

Translation 4:1In the eighteenth year of his reign, Nabouchodonosor [Nebuchadnezzar] said, “I was living at peace in my home, and prospering on my throne. 2I saw a dream and I was alarmed, and fear fell upon me.

Commentary 4:1 In the MT, the story of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream is preceded by an introduction that appears in Dan. 3:31–33.4 This introduction in the MT presents chapter 4 as an autobiographical letter of the king to all the peoples. The king’s praise of God at the end of the chapter (4:34) forms the end of this letter. The LXX version of the story contains no such introduction. Instead, a passage corresponding to MT 3:31–33 has been added to verse 34 at the end of the story: “And now, I will show to you the deeds that the great God has done with me (v. 34c LXX).”; the king’s account is here described as a “circular letter” (4:34b LXX, corresponding to the MT’s introductory remark—correctly placed—at 3:32). That verses 34a–c LXX refer to the future, although the events they describe have already taken place in the preceding verses, indicates that their position at the end of the Greek chapter is probably a later change. In the eighteenth year of his reign The LXX adds this historical heading to the first verse of the MT.5 Undoubtedly, this addition is meant to imply that the king’s mania resulted from his destruction of Jerusalem in 587 bce, a link not made in the MT. The 18th year of King Nebuchadnezzar is also mentioned in Jer. 52:29 MT as the year of the destruction of the Temple. The same event is mentioned in an addition to Dan. 4:19 in the LXX: “how you ravaged the house of the living God.” on my throne This is a free rendering of the MT: “in my palace.” In the rewritten Greek Daniel, the king was at peace and prospering on his throne, probably because Jerusalem had been destroyed earlier in the same year. 2 The LXX contains a free paraphrase of the MT: “I had a dream that frightened me, and my thoughts in bed and the vision of my mind alarmed me.” It is unclear whether the “on my bed” of the LXX reflects the end of v. 2 or the beginning of v. 7. The phrase “in bed” appears in verses 2, 7, and 10 MT, but is rendered in Greek only once within verses 2, 7 LXX. After Dan. 4:2, the MT adds verses 3–6: “I gave an order to bring all the wise men of Babylon before me to let me know the meaning of the dream. 4The magicians, exorcists, Chaldeans, and diviners came, and I related the dream to them, but they could not make its meaning known to me. 5Finally, Daniel, called Belteshazzar after the name of my god, in whom the spirit of the holy gods was, came to me, and I related the dream to him, [saying], 6Belteshazzar, chief magician, in whom I know the spirit of the holy gods to be, and whom no mystery baffles, tell me the meaning of my dream vision that I have seen.’”

Source of Translation: The Septuagint (LXX) translation is that of R. Timothy McLay, in Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, eds., A New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS) (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007). Unless otherwise noted, MT translations are from the NJPS. Note that the LXX transliteration is given in parentheses upon first mention of names in the introductory comments and commentary, and the MT version is given in brackets upon first mention of names in the LXX text.

116 Emanuel Tov

7I was sleeping and, lo, a tall tree was growing on the earth. Its appearance was huge and there was no other like it. 9Its branches were about thirty stadia long, and all the animals of the earth found shade under it, and the birds of the air hatched their brood in it. Its fruit was abundant and good, and it sustained all living creatures. 8And its appearance was great. Its crown came close to heaven, and its span to the clouds, filling the area under heaven. The sun and the moon dwelled in it and illuminated the whole earth. This addition in the MT indicates that the king first summons the wise men. When the king realizes that they are unable to explain the dream (v. 4), Daniel is asked to explain it (vv. 5–6). In both versions, the dream itself is recited at this point (vv. 7–14).6 In chapter 4, the MT sequence is problematic, since the magicians are found unable to interpret a dream whose content has not yet been described.7 7. I was sleeping The MT has a longer text—“In the visions of my mind in bed I saw”—that was possibly abbreviated in the LXX. a tall tree In the LXX, the description of the tree in the king’s dream is more elaborate than that of the MT, whose verse 7b reads simply: “I saw a tree of great height in the midst of the earth.” Its appearance was huge Echoed nearly verbatim at verse 8 LXX: “and its appearance was great,” which likewise does not occur in the MT, unless it represents “The tree grew and became mighty” (v. 8a MT).8 there was no other like it Like several other details in the LXX, this addition is based on Ezek. 31:8: “No tree in the garden of God / Was its peer in beauty” (NJPS). 9, 8 These verses appear in reverse sequence in the MT (Dan. 4:8, 9). There seems to be no major reason for preferring one sequence to the other. Verse 8 continues the train of thought of verse 7 regarding the height of the tree, with both referring to its “appearance,” while verse 9 mentions other aspects of the tree. However, in the explanation of the dream in verses 17–18–19, the MT follows the sequence of the LXX (vv. 7–9–8). That tradition is also reflected in the similar picture in Ezek. 31:5–6, 10. 8. and its span to the clouds This translation, stressing the size of the tree, seems to be influenced by the picture of the large tree in Ezek. 31:10 MT: “thrust its top up among the leafy trees.” In the Greek version of Dan. 4:8, MT ‘awotim is rendered “clouds” on the basis of ‘awot, “clouds.” The sun and the moon dwelled in it This poetic image, indicating that the tree is exceedingly large, may represent a Babylonian astrological motif. illuminated Probably represents a second rendering of h ̣azuteh, “its visage, image,” translated as “appearance” in NETS earlier in the verse. 9. The Greek translation of Dan. 4:9 is a rephrased and somewhat rearranged parallel of the MT. The LXX includes an intriguing departure from the first line of the Hebrew verse (“Its foliage was beautiful”) by specifying the exceeding length of the branches (30 stadia is approximately 6,000 meters). The second line of the MT verse (“And its fruit abundant”) appears toward the end of

Daniel 4 117

10I continued looking in my sleep; lo, an angel was sent in power out of heaven. 11And he called and said: ‘Cut it down and destroy it, for it has been decreed by the Most High to uproot and render it useless.’ 12And thus he said: ‘Spare one of its roots in the ground, so that he may feed on grass like an ox, with the animals of the earth in the mountains, the Greek verse (“Its fruit was abundant”). Two lines in the MT version (“There was food for all in it. / . . . All creatures fed on it”) are merged in the LXX as “it sustained all living creatures.” The MT’s “in its leaves” (NJPS: “on its branches”) is rendered in the LXX as “in it.” The phrase “hatched their brood” in the LXX is influenced by Ezek. 31:6 (NJPS: “In its branches nested / All the birds of the sky”). 10. an angel was sent in power out of heaven The MT has “a holy Watcher coming down from heaven.” In the LXX, the angel does not just “come down from heaven,” but is actually sent by God. The LXX word for angel (angelos) renders here and in Dan 4:20 the Aramaic ‘ir, “watcher, guardian angel.” These “watchers” cannot be identified with any certainty in biblical literature before the time of Daniel, while in the extrabiblical literature they appear frequently in such Apocryphal books as 1 Enoch and Jubilees, and in various Qumran documents. 11. And he called The MT adds “loudly.” Cut . . . useless The MT has “Hew down the tree, lop off its branches, / Strip off its foliage, scatter its fruit. / Let the beasts of the field flee from beneath it / And the birds from its branches.” Both texts expand at different points, yet the general ideas are very similar. The MT depicts the cutting down of the tree in greater detail, while the LXX adds, “for it has been decreed by the Most High,” thereby stressing that the real force behind the angel is God. The addition in the LXX of hypsistos, “the Most High,” is one of the characteristics of the Greek Daniel, visible also in the explanation of the dream in Dan. 4:21 as well as in 5:1. 12. Spare one of its roots in the ground The MT has “But leave the stump with its roots in the ground,” and adds: “In fetters of iron and bronze, / In the grass of the field, / Let him be drenched with the dew of heaven.” The stump signifies the hope of restoration as in Isa. 6:13; 11:1. The words “in fetters of iron and bronze” are not represented in the Old Greek, but they appear in the king’s description of his dream in Dan. 4:14a LXX as “with shackles and bronze manacles.” This image shows that the speaker is moving from tree imagery to beast imagery, but it is unclear how the “fetters of iron and bronze” relate to either one. One line of interpretation refers to the placing of metal bands on trees, while another ascribes this image to the king (cf. v. 14a). A third possibility is that the shackles were put on animals. Various changes differentiate the LXX from the MT: The LXX omits “In the grass of the field,” moves “with the dew of heaven” to the next verse, and expands the picture of the MT’s “And share earth’s verdure with the beasts” to “he may feed on grass like an ox / with the animals of the earth in the mountains.” The “ox” appears again in the interpretation of the dream (vv. 32–33) and is also mentioned in 5:21 “He was fed grass like cattle.” There is no parallel in the MT of Daniel for the “mountains” of the LXX. Possibly this word indicates that these animals are closer to God.

118 Emanuel Tov

13and his body may be changed from the dew of heaven, and he may graze with them for seven years, 14until he acknowledges that the Lord of heaven has authority over everything, which is in heaven and which is on the earth, and does with them whatever he wishes.’ a 14 It was cut down before me in one day, and its destruction was in one hour of the day. And its branches were given to every wind, and it was dragged and thrown away. He ate grass with the animals of the earth. And he was delivered into prison, and was bound by them with shackles and bronze manacles. I marveled exceedingly at all these things and my sleep escaped from my eyes. 15And when I arose in the morning from my bed I called Daniel, 13. his body may be changed . . . and he may graze The MT: “Let his mind be altered from that of a man, / And let him be given the mind of a beast.” The LXX mentions the “ox” in the previous verse and “graze” in the present one. for seven years This represents a free rendering of the MT: “And let seven seasons pass over him,” continuing the image of the previous verse (see also v. 29 LXX). Josephus, Jerome, and medieval Jewish commentators also explain the MT’s “seven seasons” as seven years. Likewise Nabonidus’s affliction in Prayer of Nabonidus, lasts seven years (see note 3). 14 Before this verse, the MT adds “This sentence is decreed by the Watchers; / This verdict is commanded by the Holy Ones.” Cf. Dan. 4:20 LXX: “the verdict of the great God will come upon you.” The involvement of the Watchers or God is not represented in the LXX, but the essence of their verdict is transferred to the next words. until he acknowledges The supreme power of God must be acknowledged by the king, according to the LXX, and by all living creatures, according to the MT. The LXX states that God “does with them whatever he wishes,” while in the MT, “He gives it [i.e., the kingdom] to whom He wishes.” Interestingly enough, the exact phrase in the MT is found in the LXX in Dan. 4:28, indicating that the reworked text of the LXX is based on a Hebrew and not a Greek text. The MT adds in v. 14: “And He may set over it even the lowest of men.” The closest parallels to the idea in the MT are probably Hannah’s Song in 1 Sam 2:8 (“He raises the poor from the dust, / Lifts up the needy from the dunghill, / Setting them with nobles, / Granting them seats of honor”) and Job 5:11. 14a. It was cut down before me . . . He ate grass with the animals There is a tendency in Dan. 4 MT to change details in the wording of the dream to agree with the subsequent description of its interpretation. The LXX goes one step further by reporting the fulfillment of God’s command (vv. 11–14) in an added verse, 14a, within the dream itself. This new verse, using the words of the earlier verses, reports the cutting down of the tree and its change—now symbolizing the king—into a beast (for the wording, cf. v. 12).9 The diction of this added verse shows that it was originally composed in Aramaic.10 15 The general contents of the Greek and Aramaic verses run parallel, but the details differ. In the LXX, the king calls upon Daniel for the interpretation of the dream; according to the MT, Dan-

Daniel 4 119

the leader of the savants and the head of those who decide dreams, and I described the dream for him, and he showed me its entire interpretation. 16But since Daniel was greatly amazed and since foreboding pressed him and since he was afraid, as trembling seized him and his appearance changed, having shaken his head, having marveled for one hour, he answered me in a quiet voice: ‘O king, may this dream be for those who hate you, and [may] its interpretation come upon your enemies! 17The tree that was planted in the earth, whose appearance was great—it is you, O king, 18and all the birds of the [sky] which nest in it. The strength of the earth and the nations and all the languages unto the ends of the earth and all countries serve you.19Furthermore, the fact that that tree was exalted and neared heaven, and that its span touched the clouds is: You, O king, have been exalted above all humans who are upon the face of the whole earth. Your heart was exalted with pride and power, vis-à-vis the holy one and his angels. Your works were seen; how you ravaged the house of the living God pertaining to the sins of the sanctified people. 20And the vision, which you saw, that an angel was sent in power by the Lord and that he said to destroy and cut off the tree: the verdict of the great God will come upon you 21and the Most High and his angels are pursuing you. 22They will take you away to prison and send you away into a desert place. 23And the root of the tree iel does not need to be called, since he has been on the scene from Dan. 4:5 onward. As in verses 3–6, the LXX does not mention the contest between Daniel and the magicians, which is a central element in the MT. Further, the equation between the names of Daniel and Belteshazzar made in the MT of this verse as well as in verses 5 and 16 is lacking in the LXX. It is found in both the MT and LXX of Dan. 1:7. 16. But . . . trembling seized him . . . his appearance changed The expanded text of the LXX reports Daniel’s physical reaction following Nebuchadnezzar’s account of his vision. The MT merely reads: “Then Daniel, called Belteshazzar, was perplexed for a while, and alarmed by his thoughts.”11 This expansion is probably influenced by his reaction following the appearance of the handwriting on the wall in Dan 5:6 MT: “The king’s face darkened, and his thoughts alarmed him; the joints of his loins were loosened and his knees knocked together.” 17–19. The tree . . . it is you, O king The interpretation of the dream in these verses leans heavily on the wording of the dream in Dan. 4:7–8, especially in the MT. In its reworking of the text, the LXX adds images referring directly to the figure of the king. Thus, the LXX adds a section about nations serving the king (v. 18). The growth of the tree symbolizes the king’s “pride and power” (v. 19). This aspect is enhanced by the reference to the king’s destruction of Jerusalem (v. 19: “you ravaged the house of the living God”), which was considered a direct insult against God (see also the comment on v. 1, In the eighteenth year of his reign). 20 The detailed description of the tree’s fate in the MT is shortened in the LXX, but some theological aspects are enhanced. As in verse 10, the LXX indicates here that God sends the angel and further adds that “the verdict of the great God will come upon you” (cf. v. 21 MT). 21. and his angels The king will be pursued by God and the angels in the LXX, while only by God in the MT. The LXX thus names the unidentified agents who inflict the punishment on the king in the next verse in the MT. 22. prison . . . a desert place The LXX explains the punishment of the MT (“driven away from men”) in more practical terms. At this point, the MT adds the precise details of the dream.

120 Emanuel Tov

which was spared, since it was not uprooted: the place of your throne will be kept for you for a season and an hour. Lo, they are being prepared against you and they will whip you and they will bring the judgments against you. The Lord lives in heaven and his authority is over the whole earth. 24Entreat him concerning sins and atone for all your iniquities with alms, so that equity might be given to you and you might be long-lived on the throne of your kingdom and not be destroyed. Gladly receive these words; for my word is accurate and your time is complete.’ 23. The Lord lives in heaven . . . over the whole earth Explains the parallel statement in the MT of verse 23 (“Heaven is sovereign”), which is the only reference in Scripture to “heaven” as a designation for God. 24. equity might be given . . . you might be long-lived . . . and not be destroyed The king’s reward, should he repent, is described in detail in the LXX but not in the MT.

Notes 1. Most Greek Scripture manuscripts of Daniel contain the later translation by Theodotion that represents the MT exactly, while the LXX (the “Old Greek”), probably prepared in the late 2nd or early 1st century bce, has been preserved only in three sources. The reason for the scant representation of the Old Greek evidence is that the early Christian church replaced the free translation of the LXX with Theodotion’s literal version in the early 2nd century ce. 2. The LXX translation is free; cf. such rewritten verses as vv. 2, 15. Beyond this freedom, one recognizes at the base of the LXX an Aramaic composition that rewrote an early text like the MT version of Daniel. However, some would say that the composition from which the LXX was rendered preceded the MT. 3. Some scholars believe that the biblical story is somehow influenced by an ancient tale that is also reflected in the Qumran composition Prayer of Nabonidus, dating from 75–50 bce. This composition tells a similar story about King Nabonidus, who reigned from 556 to 539 bce. This king retreats to Teima, an oasis in the Arabian Desert, and devotes himself to the moon god Sin. He is smitten with a disease for a period of seven years, and after a Jewish diviner tells him to give honor to God, the king is reinstalled. 4. These verses were mistakenly attached to Dan. 3 as vv. 31–33 when the chapter division for the MT was prepared in the Middle Ages. 5. The LXX adds a similar heading to Dan. 3:1 (the vision of the golden image). 6. The sequence in the MT resembles that of chapter 2, in which the king first calls upon “the magicians, exorcists, sorcerers, and Chaldeans” (Dan. 2:2) and later upon Daniel (2:24–26) in order to tell them the dream. The MT’s dependence on chapter 2 is evident also in the terminology. Daniel is called here “chief magician” (4:6 MT) as in 2:48 MT (“chief prefect of all the wise men of Babylon”). 7. The LXX version of the story, in which the contest between the magicians and Daniel is lacking, probably represents the original form of this chapter (see further the comment on v. 15). The situation in Dan. 2 is different, since the king asks the magicians and Daniel to tell him both the dream and its interpretation. Therefore, they were called in at an early stage. 8. This phrase, probably influenced by 10:7 LXX or 10:8 MT and LXX, recurs in the explanation of the dream in v. 20. 9. The technique used in the addition of v. 14a, which relates the execution of God’s command of vv. 11–14, is known from several texts. See especially the additions to the story of the Ten Plagues in Exod. 7–11 in the Samaritan Pentateuch. 10. See, for example, the phrases “in one day,” “in one hour of the day” (cf. v. 16), and “were given to every wind.” 11. At Dan 4:16, the style changes in the MT. Chapter 4 is written primarily in the first person, with a section (vv. 16–30) in the third person. In the LXX, on the other hand, the whole chapter is written in autobiographical style in the first person.

Daniel 4 121

Additions to Daniel Matthias Henze The book of Daniel is significantly longer in the Greek and Latin versions of the Bible than it is in the Masoretic Text (MT), where it is written in Hebrew and Aramaic. Differences between the three versions include some short insertions, and in chapters 4–6, the text of Daniel in the Old Greek is completely different from what appears in the MT. However, the most significant difference is that the Greek and Latin Bibles contain three longer Additions as well: The Story of Susanna, the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews, and Bel and the Dragon. The three Additions closely resemble the stories about Daniel in Dan. 1–6. They are set in the Jewish Diaspora; they portray Daniel interacting with foreign monarchs; and in Bel and the Dragon, Daniel is thrown into the lions’ den, much as in Dan. 6. The Additions do not appear to be dependent on the Hebrew/Aramaic book, however. Rather, they are independent compositions that resulted from an ongoing process of composing stories associated with Daniel, a popular biblical and literary character in the Jewish Diaspora. These stories had become part of the “received” (or canonical) Greek Jewish biblical tradition by the 1st century bce. Suggested Reading Collins, J. J. Daniel. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Gruen, E. S. Heritage and Hellenism. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998. Moore, C. A. Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah: The Additions. New York: Doubleday, 1977. Nickelsburg, G. W. E. Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005.

122

The Story of Susanna and the Elders The apocryphal Story of Susanna and the Elders is about a devout Jewess in Babylon who is unjustly accused of adultery and condemned to death, but ultimately proven innocent and vindicated when Daniel intervenes at the last moment. Date of Composition Susanna’s date of composition is not known, though the 3rd or 2nd century bce is likely. The two extant Greek versions diverge significantly from one another. In the Old Greek, Susanna follows the book of Daniel as chapter 13, together with Bel and the Dragon, whereas Theodotion places Susanna before chapter 1, presumably because Daniel is here called “a young lad” (Sus. 45). Theodotion is significantly longer than the Old Greek and adds numerous details. Significance In genre and setting, the story of Susanna resembles the legends about Daniel in Dan. 1–6, as well as other Jewish novels of the period, such as Esther (including the Greek Additions) and the apocryphal books of Judith and Tobit. That a woman plays a leading role links this story to books such as Esther, Ruth, and Judith, though by comparison Susanna remains rather passive. She is set apart not by her deeds (it is Daniel, after all, who rescues her), but by her piety. Not much is known about the origin of the story. Composed originally in Hebrew, or perhaps in Aramaic, no Semitic source text survives, and—like the other two Additions to Daniel—the story is now preserved in two Greek versions: the Old Greek and the later Theodotion. Modern interpreters have found in Susanna the Jewish reworking of a pagan folklore motif about the wise and righteous protagonist who is accused and condemned to death but rescued by God and ultimately vindicated (cf. Gen. 37–50; Ahiqar; Wis. 2–5). Many scholars also suggest that Susanna is a Pharisaic work written as a polemic against Sadducean court procedures. The Pharisees encouraged more demanding examination of witnesses (cf. M. Sanh. 5:1–2; M. Avot 1:8–9; J. Sanh. 6:3, 23B) and ruled that false witnesses in a capital case must be executed even if the defendant had not yet been executed (M. Mak. 1:4).

Additions to Daniel 123

Translation 1There was a man living in Babylon whose name was Joakim. 2He married the daughter of Hilkiah, named Susanna, a very beautiful woman and one who feared the Lord. 3Her parents were righteous, and had trained their daughter according to the law of Moses. 4Joakim was very rich, and had a fine garden adjoining his house; the Jews used to come to him because he was the most honored of them all. 5That year two elders from the people were appointed as judges. Concerning them the Lord had said: “Wickedness came forth from Babylon, from elders who were judges, who were supposed to govern the people.” 6These men were frequently at Joakim’s house, and all who had a case to be tried came to them there. 7When the people left at noon, Susanna would go into her husband’s garden to walk. 8Every day the two elders used to see her, going in and walking about, and they began to lust for her. 9They suppressed their consciences and turned away their eyes from looking to heaven or remembering their

Commentary 1–4 These verses, which are attested only in Theodotion (the Old Greek lacks an introduction), set the scene for the book. Susanna, the daughter of righteous parents, is the wife of an eminent Jew living in Babylon. Three of Susanna’s attributes are emphasized from the outset, all typical of the Jewish novella and with parallels in related literature, and all essential for the plot of the story: Susanna is “a very beautiful woman” (repeated in v. 31; cf. Esther 2:7; Tob. 6:12; Jdt. 8:7); she has been raised by her parents “according to the law of Moses,” which means that she is very pious, even in the face of persecution (cf. Jdt. 8:6–8; Dan. 3:17); and she is married to a husband of great wealth and social standing, in whose house the Jews gather frequently (cf. Esther 2:15– 18; Jdt. 8:7). Unlike the other Jewish novels to which Susanna can be compared—Esther, Dan. 1–6, Tobit, Judith—the story of Susanna and the Elders unfolds entirely in the Jewish world of the Diaspora community. There is no Gentile king here, no threat to Jewish existence, no rivalry between Jewish protagonists and Gentile court officials. By focusing exclusively on the Jewish community, the storyteller exposes some of the community’s most precarious shortcomings: in spite of their social standing, the two elderly judges are corrupt; the community’s judicial system is defunct; and the same assembly that is quick to condemn Susanna has the elders executed only a few verses later and praises God “who saves those who hope in him” (Sus. 60). 5–14 Two of the judges appointed that year, who gather daily in Joakim’s house to administer justice, fall in love with Susanna and, without telling anyone, lust after her (cf. Exod. 20:17). One day, when they discover their shared passion, they conspire how they can find Susanna alone. 5. Wickedness came forth from Babylon The storyteller prefaces his account of the two elders with a derogatory remark, so the reader already anticipates their wicked intentions. The origin of the saying is unknown, though the portrayal of the two scoundrels is remarkably reminiscent of the two false prophets mentioned in Jer. 29, which contains a letter sent by Jeremiah to the exiles in Babylon. In it the prophet accuses the two prophets of telling lies and committing adultery with their neighbors’ wives ( Jer. 29:20–23).1 Earlier in the same chapter of Jeremiah, the prophet encourages the exiles to build houses and plant gardens ( Jer. 29:4–7), which reinforces the imSource of Translation: This translation is the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), taken from A New English Translation of the Septuagint, ed. A. Pietersma and Ben G. Wright (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007).

124 Matthias Henze

duty to administer justice. 10Both were overwhelmed with passion for her, but they did not tell each other of their distress, 11for they were ashamed to disclose their lustful desire to seduce her. 12Day after day they watched eagerly to see her. 13One day they said to each other, “Let us go home, for it is time for lunch.” So they both left and parted from each other. 14But turning back, they met again; and when each pressed the other for the reason, they confessed their lust. Then together they arranged for a time when they could find her alone. 15Once, while they were watching for an opportune day, she went in as before with only two maids, and wished to bathe in the garden, for it was a hot day. 16No one was there except the two elders, who had hidden themselves and were watching her. 17She said to her maids, “Bring me olive oil and ointments, and shut the garden doors so that I can bathe.” 18They did as she told them: they shut the doors of the garden and went out by the side doors to bring what they had been commanded; they did not see the elders, because they were hiding. 19When the maids had gone out, the two elders got up and ran to her. 20They said, “Look, the garden doors are shut, and no one can see us. We are burning with desire for you; so give your consent, and lie with us. 21If you refuse, we will testify against you that a young man was with you, and this was why you sent your maids away.” 22Susanna groaned and said, “I am completely trapped. For if I do this, it will mean death for me; if I do not, I cannot escape your hands. 23I choose not to do it; I will fall into your hands, rather than sin in the sight of the Lord.” 24Then Susanna cried out with a loud voice, and the two elders shouted against her. 25And one of them ran and opened the garden doors. 26When the people in the house heard the shouting in the garden, they rushed in at the side door to see what had happened to her. 27And when the elders told their story, the servants felt very much ashamed, for nothing like this had ever been said about Susanna. 28The next day, when the people gathered at the house of her husband Joakim, the two elders came, pression that the setting of the story of Susanna presupposes a world similar to that of Jeremiah’s letter and may even have been modeled after it. 15–27 The scene is rather terse in the Old Greek. There, the elders simply approach Susanna and try to force her into having intercourse with them, with no further description of the circumstances. Only Theodotion has the famous episode of Susanna’s bath in the orchard (Sus. 15–18), which is well known from artistic and musical depictions of the story. The erotic element of the bath scene has been compared to the Greek romance. But the first crucial moment in the story is not a scene of sexual pleasure or violence but of theological decision (cf. Gen. 39:9). Being raised according to the law of Moses (Sus. 3), Susanna knows that the punishment for adultery is death (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22), though her wording suggests that it is not death she fears but sin against God, another indication of her piety (cf. B. Sanh. 74A). 24. with a loud voice Susanna cries out, which in and of itself is an affirmation of her innocence (cf. Deut. 22:24), and at once the elders too begin to shout, though not out of innocence but—as the text puts it—“against her.” When help rushes in, it is only the elders who tell their fabricated version of the story. 28–41 During the gathering of the community, the elders bring their case against Susanna and again tell their story. The narrator leaves no doubt about their true intentions and again introduces the scene with a derogatory remark, noting that the elders come to Joakim’s house to have her

Additions to Daniel 125

full of their wicked plot to have Susanna put to death. In the presence of the people they said, 29“Send for Susanna daughter of Hilkiah, the wife of Joakim.” 30So they sent for her. And she came with her parents, her children, and all her relatives. 31Now Susanna was a woman of great refinement and beautiful in appearance. 32As she was veiled, the scoundrels ordered her to be unveiled, so that they might feast their eyes on her beauty. 33Those who were with her and all who saw her were weeping. 34Then the two elders stood up before the people and laid their hands on her head. 35Through her tears she looked up toward heaven, for her heart trusted in the Lord. 36The elders said, “While we were walking in the garden alone, this woman came in with two maids, shut the garden doors, and dismissed the maids. 37Then a young man, who was hiding there, came to her and lay with her. 38We were in a corner of the garden, and when we saw this wickedness we ran to them. 39Although we saw them embracing, we could not hold the man, because he was stronger than we, and he opened the doors and got away. 40We did, however, seize this woman and asked who the young man was, 41but she would not tell us. These things we testify.” Because they were elders of the people and judges, the assembly believed them and condemned her to death. 42Then Susanna cried out with a loud voice, and said, “O eternal God, you know what is secret and are aware of all things before they come to be; 43you know that these men have given false evidence against me. And now I am to die, though I have done none of the wicked things that they have charged against me!” “put to death” (Sus. 28). The scene of the trial differs in the two Greek versions. The Old Greek specifies, for example, that Susanna came to her trial together with her parents, 4 children, and 500 maids. In the Old Greek, the elders demand that Susanna be stripped naked in front of the assembly, “in order that they could be sated with lust for her beauty” (v. 32; cf. Ezek. 16:37–39; Hos. 2:4–5; M. Sot. 1:5–6), while Theodotion inserts the phrase “for she was veiled” (Sus. 32), implying that Susanna merely had to take off her veil to expose her face. 34. laid their hands on her head This gesture carries a wide range of meanings in the Jewish Bible, and its meaning here is not clear. This is the only explicit bodily contact between the seducers and Susanna, though it is also possible that the gesture follows an ancient rite, according to which witnesses lay their hands on the victim’s head in a capital case before the punishment is carried out (see Lev. 24:14); according to Deuteronomy, two witnesses are required for a capital punishment (Deut. 17:6; 19:15). 42. with a loud voice Once again Susanna cries out, though this time in prayer. The prayer is not a prayer for intercession, as is sometimes asserted (Susanna does not ask God to intercede), but another affirmation of Susanna’s innocence. Susanna chooses to defend herself against the twisted accusations of the elders not by addressing the elders directly or, for that matter, by bringing her plea before the assembly that just condemned her. Instead, she says a prayer before God, the supreme Judge (cf. Jdt. 9:2–14; Add. Esth. 14:3–19). Since God knows all secret things, she prays, God surely knows that Susanna is innocent. Before she prays, Susanna “looked up toward heaven” (Sus. 35), which recalls the earlier description of the two lecherous elders, who, overcome by their lust, “turned away their eyes from looking to heaven” (v. 9). The contrast between them could not be more stark.

126 Matthias Henze

44The Lord heard her cry. 45Just as she was being led off to execution, God stirred up the holy spirit of a young lad named Daniel, 46and he shouted with a loud voice, “I want no part in shedding this woman’s blood!” 47All the people turned to him and asked, “What is this you are saying?” 48Taking his stand among them he said, “Are you such fools, O Israelites, as to condemn a daughter of Israel without examination and without learning the facts? 49Return to court, for these men have given false evidence against her.” 50So all the people hurried back. And the rest of the elders said to him, “Come, sit among us and inform us, for God has given you the standing of an elder.” 51Daniel said to them, “Separate them far from each other, and I will examine them.” 52When they were separated from each other, he summoned one of them and said to him, “You old relic of wicked days, your sins have now come home, which you have committed in the past, 53pronouncing unjust judgments, condemning the innocent and acquitting the guilty, though the Lord said, ‘You shall not put an innocent and righteous person to death.’ 54Now then, if you really saw this woman, tell me this: Under what tree did you see them being intimate with each other?” He answered, “Under a mastic tree.” 55And Daniel said, “Very well! This lie has cost you your head, for the angel of God has received the sentence from God and will immediately cut you in two.” 56Then, putting him to one side, he ordered them to bring the other. And he said to him, “You offspring of Canaan and not of Judah, beauty has beguiled you and lust has perverted your heart. 57This is how you have been treating the daughters of Israel, and they were intimate with you through fear; but a daughter of Judah would not tolerate your wickedness. 58Now then, tell me: Under what tree did you catch them being intimate with each other?” He answered, “Under an evergreen oak.” 59Daniel said to him, “Very well! This lie has cost you also your head, for the angel of God is waiting with his sword to split you in two, so as to destroy you both.” 60Then the whole assembly raised a great shout and blessed God, who saves those who hope in him. 61And they took action against the two elders, because out of their own mouths Daniel had convicted them of bearing false witness; they did to them as they had wickedly planned to do to their neighbor. 46. he shouted with a loud voice At the last minute, God stirs up the holy spirit in Daniel (in the Old Greek, an angel gives Daniel a spirit of understanding), and so it is now Daniel who shouts, rebuking the assembly for not having cross-examined the elders properly on their false testimony.2 50–64 Daniel separates the two judges and interrogates them independently (cf. Deut. 19:15–21; M. Sanh. 5:1–3).3 Each questioning consists of two parts: Daniel first denounces each of the elders for his lifelong perversion of justice and effectively convicts him prior to the interrogation, but then proceeds to ask him under which tree the purported sexual encounter took place. Each gives a different location, and so their perjury is quickly exposed. Each interrogation has a certain comic effect and revolves around a pun: the name of each tree anticipates the elder’s punishment. The Greek for “mastic tree” (scînon) is a play on the verb “he will split” (sci/sei), and the Greek for “oak” (prînon) is a play on the verb “to saw” (pri/w). It has been suggested that the Greek wordplay proves that the story of Susanna was originally composed in Greek, but this ignores the possibility that the Greek translator introduced the pun into the story.

Additions to Daniel 127

62Acting in accordance with the law of Moses, they put them to death. Thus innocent blood was spared that day. 63Hilkiah and his wife praised God for their daughter Susanna, and so did her husband Joakim and all her relatives, because she was found innocent of a shameful deed. 64And from that day onward Daniel had a great reputation among the people. 62. they put them to death The punishment of the elders corresponds to the punishment they had intended for Susanna: they are executed in her stead (cf. Dan. 6:25 NJPS; Bel 22, 42; Esther 7:10). This punishment accords with Deut. 19:16–21, which stipulates that one shall do to the false witness as he intended to do to the wrongly accused, though the ways of dealing with false witnesses had been much mitigated by Rabbinic times, and they would hardly have been executed (M. Sanh. 5:1–2). According to the M. Mak. 1:4, witnesses are only punished under Deut. 19:19 if a second set of witnesses proves that the first witnesses were not present at the crime scene and could not have witnessed it. If witnesses simply contradict each other, however, they do not receive the punishment they attempted to mete out. Some scholars believe that the book of Susanna was excluded from the biblical canon by the Rabbis because it contradicts this Rabbinic law. In Rabbinic tradition, which generally represents the Pharisaic view, false witnesses are only killed if the defendant has been sentenced but not yet executed, as is the case here. According to the Sadducees, however, false witnesses are only executed if the defendant had already been executed but not if their lie was caught beforehand (M. Mak. 1:6). The Susanna narrative follows the Pharisaic view. 64. that day onward Daniel had a great reputation among the people The two Greek versions end on different notes. The Old Greek ends in praise of the youth and with the admonition, “let us watch out for young able sons” (Sus. 62), whereas Theodotion concludes with a praise of Daniel.

Notes 1. B. Sanh. 93A relates a story about these same two false prophets who proposition the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar. She informs her father about them and Nebuchadnezzar throws the two prophets into a furnace where they are burned to death. 2. M. Sanh. 6:1 stipulates that a herald would walk in front of the accused while on the way to the place of execution calling on anyone to bring evidence of innocence. If any bystander claimed to have such evidence, then the accused is returned to the court. Here too the case is reopened after Daniel’s protest. 3. M. Sanh. 5:2 relates that Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai (1st century ce) questioned witnesses about the appearances of stems of fig trees. This tradition may be related to the scene in the Susanna story where Daniel uses two similar looking trees to acquit the defendant. Interestingly, the Falashic version of the Susanna story also mentions a fig tree.

128 Matthias Henze

The Prayer of Azariah and The Song of the Three Jews The apocryphal Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews is inserted into the Aramaic narrative between Dan. 3:23 and 3:24, where it appears as Dan. 3:24–90 in the Greek and Latin Bibles. Daniel 3 tells the story of Daniel’s three companions, who refuse to worship a golden statue set up by Nebuchadnezzar in the province of Babylon. In Dan. 3:23 the three young men are tied up and thrown into a fiery furnace, and in 3:24–25 the Babylonian king is astounded to see four men (the three companions and an angel) walking freely and unharmed in the flames. The insert in the Greek text bridges the somewhat abrupt transition from Nebuchadnezzar’s fury to his astonishment, and tells the reader what happened in the furnace and underscores the miraculous nature of the episode. Furthermore, ancient readers may have been bothered that Nebuchadnezzar praises God (Dan. 28) while the three companions are silent (see B. Sanh. 92B). The Rabbis similarly insert prayers into the mouths of the three companions (B. Pes. 118A). The Greek Versions Composed originally in Hebrew, no Semitic source text of the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews survives. The Prayer is now preserved in two Greek versions: the Old Greek and the later Theodotion. The two Greek versions diverge only slightly from one another, which suggests that they both go back to the same Semitic original. The medieval Chronicle of Jerahmeel includes an Aramaic version of Daniel 3 with the Prayer. Guide to Reading The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews consists of three parts. The first part is the Prayer of Azariah (vv. 1–22). In form, this prayer is a communal confession of sin, with the community (not Azariah, as the narrative introduction would suggest) as its subject. Such prayers are common in post-exilic literature.1 The Prayer closely adopts the covenant theology characteristic of its period. It follows the theology of the book of Deuteronomy,2 according to which obedience brings the blessings of the covenant, and disobedience, its curses. The second part is a short prose insert that describes the extreme heat of the furnace and explains the mysterious appearance of the angel (vv. 23–27). The third part, finally, is the Song of the Three Jews (vv. 28–68).

Additions to Daniel 129

Translation 1They walked around in the midst of the flames, singing hymns to God and blessing the Lord. 2Then Azariah stood still in the fire and prayed aloud: 3“Blessed are you, O Lord, God of our ancestors, and worthy of praise; and glorious is your name forever! 4For you are just in all you have done; all your works are true and your ways right, and all your judgments are true. 5You have executed true judgments in all you have brought upon us and upon Jerusalem, the holy city of our ancestors; by a true judgment you have brought all this upon us because of our sins. 6For we have sinned and broken your law in turning away from you; in all matters we have sinned grievously. 7We have not obeyed your commandments, we have not kept them or done what you have commanded us for our own good. 8So all that you have brought upon us, and all that you have done to us, you have done by a true judgment. 9You have handed us over to our enemies, lawless and hateful rebels, and to an unjust king, the most wicked in all the world. 10And now we cannot open our mouths; we, your servants who worship you, have become a shame and a reproach.” 11“For your name’s sake do not give us up forever, and do not annul your covenant. 12Do not withdraw your mercy from us, for the sake of Abraham your beloved and for the sake of your servant Isaac and Israel your holy one, 13to whom you promised to multiply their descendants like the stars of heaven and like the sand on the shore of the sea.” 14“For we, O Lord, have become fewer than any other nation, and are brought low this day in all the world because of our sins. 15In our day we have no ruler, or prophet, or leader, no burnt offering, or sacrifice, or oblation, or incense, no place to make an offering before you and to find mercy. 16Yet with a contrite heart and a humble spirit may we be accepted, 17as though it were with burnt offerings

Commentary 1–2. They walked around The Prayer begins with a brief narrative introduction. As the three young men walk around unharmed in the midst of the flames, Azariah begins to pray and blesses God. In Dan. 1:7, the king’s chief officer changes the names of Daniel and the three youths, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, to Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, but the Prayer uses only their Hebrew names (vv. 2, 66). Daniel is conspicuous for his absence from both Dan. 3 and from the Prayer. 3–10 The psalm itself begins with an affirmation of God’s justice. God is just and his judgment is true. Israel is currently delivered into the hands of her enemies and lives under an unjust king. However, Israel deserves her present plight, because the people have broken the law and have not kept the commandments. 11–13. do not give us up forever . . . you promised The prayer continues with a plea to God not to abandon Israel or annul the covenant, for the sake of God’s name and for the sake of God’s covenantal promise to Abraham to make him a great nation (cf. Gen. 15:5). 14–17. For we, O Lord, have become fewer The psalmist continues his plea for mercy. Israel has become the smallest of all nations, without a leader, a prophet, or even a way to bring offerings. In language Source of Translation: The translation is the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), taken from A New English Translation of the Septuagint, ed. A. Pietersma and Ben G. Wright, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007). Note that verse numbers from the book of Daniel are based on the NJPS translation, which differs slightly in versification from the NRSV.

130 Matthias Henze

of rams and bulls, or with tens of thousands of fat lambs; such may our sacrifice be in your sight today, and may we unreservedly follow you, for no shame will come to those who trust in you.” 18“And now with all our heart we follow you; we fear you and seek your presence. 19Do not put us to shame, but deal with us in your patience and in your abundant mercy. 20Deliver us in accordance with your marvelous works, and bring glory to your name, O Lord. 21Let all who do harm to your servants be put to shame; let them be disgraced and deprived of all power, and let their strength be broken. 22Let them know that you alone are the Lord God, glorious over the whole world.” 23Now the king’s servants who threw them in kept stoking the furnace with naphtha, pitch, tow, and brushwood. 24And the flames poured out above the furnace forty-nine cubits, 25and spread out and borrowed from David, the finest biblical poet and model penitent (cf. Ps. 51:16–17; 141:2), the psalmist asks that “a contrite heart and a humble spirit” be acceptable to God in place of the sacrifices of lambs and bulls. Some modern interpreters assert that the three young men offer not only their contrite hearts, but even their lives to God, as they are ready to die in the fiery furnace, with the result that sacrifice in the Prayer is replaced with martyrdom (in a similar vein, see Dan. 11:33–35). 18–22 The Prayer of Azariah ends with a prayer for deliverance. The congregation is now ready to seek God’s presence and appeals to God to be merciful. 21–22. let them be disgraced Instead of putting Israel to shame, it is Israel’s enemies who deserve to be shamed (cf. Ps. 25:3; 40:15). In these two verses the congregation asks for its enemies to be overthrown, so that all nations come to realize that the God of Israel alone is God. This fits well with the literary context of the Prayer as it stands today, within Daniel, since the stories in Dan. 1–6 frequently end with a doxology from the foreign monarch in praise of the universal sovereignty of the God of Daniel.3 However, several factors indicate that the Prayer was most likely not composed for its present context, but existed independently at some point and was only later interpolated here. One is its Deuteronomic theology, expressed as the belief that the people’s current affliction is the result of Israel’s sin—a theology nowhere to be found in Dan. 1–6 (although it has a striking parallel in Dan. 9:4–19). Another factor is that the situation presumed in the Prayer is at odds with the present plight of Azariah. According to the Prayer of Azariah, Israel is currently living among her enemies under a wicked king. The king in question could of course be Nebuchadnezzar, the king in Dan. 3, but in Dan. 1–4, Nebuchadnezzar’s encounter with Daniel in general is rather amicable. The Prayer’s implied context better matches the general conditions of the Jews during post-exilic times, particularly during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in the 2nd century bce; the Prayer may have been composed then, although we cannot be certain. A final indication that the Prayer is most likely a secondary insertion lies in its very form, a communal confession of sin and a petition for mercy, not exactly the kind of prayer one would expect from a young man in a fiery furnace. 23–27 The two parts—Prayer of Azariah, and the Song of the Three Jews—are bridged by a short prose narrative. The prose section links not only the two psalms but also the Addition as a whole to its narrative context in Dan. 3. It describes the extreme heat of the furnace and the appearance of the angel. 23–25 These verses exaggerate the gigantic proportions of the blaze and relate how the king’s servants keep adding more fuel to the fire, including napthta (possibly petroleum; cf. also 2 Macc. 1:30–36), pitch, tow, and brushwood. As a result, the flames reach a height of close to 80 feet, or 49 cubits, so that even some of the royal workers are consumed by the fire (similarly in Dan. 3:22).

Additions to Daniel 131

burned those Chaldeans who were caught near the furnace. 26But the angel of the Lord came down into the furnace to be with Azariah and his companions, and drove the fiery flame out of the furnace, 27and made the inside of the furnace as though a moist wind were whistling through it. The fire did not touch them at all and caused them no pain or distress. 28Then the three with one voice praised and glorified and blessed God in the furnace: 29“Blessed are you, O Lord, God of our ancestors, and to be praised and highly exalted forever; 30And blessed is your glorious, holy name, and to be highly praised and highly exalted forever. 31Blessed are you in the temple of your holy glory, and to be extolled and highly glorified forever. 32Blessed are you who look into the depths from your throne on the cherubim, and to be praised and highly exalted forever. 33Blessed are you on the throne of your kingdom, and to be extolled and highly exalted forever. 34Blessed are you in the firmament of heaven, and to be sung and glorified forever. 35Bless the Lord, all you works of the Lord; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever. 36Bless the Lord, you heavens; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever. 26–27. But the angel of the Lord came down Here is the surprising appearance of an angel, also noticed by Nebuchadnezzar in Dan. 3:24–25 (cf. also Sus. 44–45 in the Old Greek). The angel appears in order “to be with Azariah and his companions” and to drive the flames out of the furnace, so that the young men can survive. 28. Then the three with one voice praised . . . glorified . . . blessed The angel’s intervention inspires the three young men to sing a long hymn glorifying God. This verse forms a short narrative introduction to the Song of the Three Jews. 29–68 The Song of the Three Jews is a hymn of praise that calls on the entire creation to join in the praise of God, much like Ps. 148, which may have inspired its composition. Unlike the Prayer, the Song does not presuppose a situation in which the community is persecuted and lives under a wicked king. Apart from an editorial gloss at the end (vv. 66–68), it has nothing in common with Dan. 3. The Song therefore is most likely an independent composition that may well have originated in a context different from the Prayer. Because of its timeless motifs and the lack of any historical references, the Song’s date of composition is difficult to determine. 29–34 These verses open the hymn with a sequence of blessings that amount to a majestic doxology in praise of God, who is enthroned in the heavenly Temple and praised by the universe (cf. Ps. 96; 97). 35–65 This section is distinct in form, in that each line ends with an identical antiphonal refrain, “sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever,” a liturgical form known from Ps. 136 in the biblical Psalter. This part can further be subdivided into three, roughly parallel sections. Verses 35–51 call on the heavens and all that is in them—angels; waters above the heavens; powers; sun, moon,

132 Matthias Henze

37Bless the Lord, you angels of the Lord; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever. 38Bless the Lord, all you waters above the heavens; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever. 39Bless the Lord, all you powers of the Lord; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever. 40Bless the Lord, sun and moon; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever. 41Bless the Lord, stars of heaven; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever. 42Bless the Lord, all rain and dew; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever. 43Bless the Lord, all you winds; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever. 44Bless the Lord, fire and heat; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever. 45Bless the Lord, winter cold and summer heat; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever. 46Bless the Lord, dews and falling snow; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever. 47Bless the Lord, nights and days; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever. 48Bless the Lord, light and darkness; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever. 49Bless the Lord, ice and cold; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever. 50Bless the Lord, frosts and snows; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever. 51Bless the Lord, lightnings and clouds; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever. 52Let the earth bless the Lord; let it sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever. 53Bless the Lord, mountains and hills; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever. 54Bless the Lord, all that grows in the ground; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever. 55Bless the Lord, seas and rivers; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever. 56Bless the Lord, you springs; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever. 57Bless the Lord, you whales and all that swim in the waters; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.

and stars; rain and wind, and so on—to join in the hymn of praising God. Verses 52–60 then turn to the earth and all that is in it—mountains, all that grows on the ground, seas and rivers, whales and all that swim in the waters, and so on. The last to be called on to praise God are “all people on earth” (v. 60). The order in which the constituents of creation are listed roughly follows their order in the Creation account in Gen. 1 (cf. Ps. 104). Verses 61–65, finally, present an appeal to Israel to join in the hymn—Israel, the priests of the Lord, the servants of the Lord, the spirits and souls of the righteous, and those who are holy and humble in heart. 66–68. Bless the Lord, Hananiah, Azariah, and Mishael The conclusion of the Song of the Three Jews brings the reader back to the situation that provoked the Song in the first place. The three men call on themselves to exalt God and to thank him for delivering them from the fiery furnace. Verses 67–68 recall Ps. 136:1–3. The Song’s final three verses feel somewhat strained. They inter-

Additions to Daniel 133

58Bless the Lord, all birds of the air; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever. 59Bless the Lord, all wild animals and cattle; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever. 60Bless the Lord, all people on earth; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever. 61Bless the Lord, O Israel; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever. 62Bless the Lord, you priests of the Lord; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever. 63Bless the Lord, you servants of the Lord; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever. 64Bless the Lord, spirits and souls of the righteous; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever. 65Bless the Lord, you who are holy and humble in heart; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever. 66Bless the Lord, Hananiah, Azariah, and Mishael; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever. For he has rescued us from Hades and saved us from the power of death, and delivered us from the midst of the burning fiery furnace; from the midst of the fire he has delivered us. 67Give thanks to the Lord, for he is good, for his mercy endures forever. 68All who worship the Lord, bless the God of gods, sing praise to him and give thanks to him, for his mercy endures forever.”

rupt the cadence created by the recurring refrain in the main section of the Song, and may well have been added by a redactor who adopted a previously existing hymn and tried to tie it into its new literary context. Despite the evident liturgical character of the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews, neither text became part of the Jewish liturgy. However, the Song is attested in some Christian hymnals and liturgies, where it is known as the Benedicite opera omnia. In addition, many of the themes and formulas found in these texts are common to other Second Temple prayers and remain part of subsequent Jewish liturgy.4

Notes 1. 2. 3. 4.

See, e.g., Dan. 9:4–19; Ezra 9:6–15; Neh. 1:5–11; 9:5–37; and Bar. 1:15–3:8. See especially Deut. 28–32. Cf. Dan. 2:47; 3:28–29; 4:35–37; 6:26–27; Bel 41. David Flusser, “Psalms, Hymns and Prayers,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran, Sectarian Writings, ed. Michael E. Stone (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 554.

134 Matthias Henze

Bel and the Dragon The apocryphal story Bel and the Dragon consists of two roughly parallel tales. In the first (vv. 1–22), Daniel uncovers the ongoing fraud committed by the Babylonian priests of the idol Bel, who secretly consume the daily food rations prepared for their idol while claiming that it is Bel who eats them. In the second tale (vv. 23–42), Daniel kills a large serpent that is worshiped by the Babylonians. Daniel is then thrown into the lions’ den but survives miraculously, while the prophet Habakkuk provides him with food. Provenance The original language of Bel and the Dragon is unknown, though Hebrew or Aramaic seems most likely. Bel and the Dragon is preserved in two Greek versions, the Old Greek (OG) and Theodotion, where the story is placed at the end of the book of Daniel. Rabbinic literature retells part of the dragon story in Hebrew (Gen. Rab. 68) and Aramaic ( J. Ned. 3:2, 37D) and the entire addition is found in Syriac in a medieval midrashic collection.1 The date of composition is likewise unknown, with most scholars proposing the 3rd or 2nd century bce. Some interpreters have suggested that Bel and the Dragon is drawn in part from Isaiah, in which the God of Israel also speaks to Cyrus (Isa. 45:1), telling him that there is no other god besides the God of Israel (45:5–6), who is the Creator (45:18). Furthermore, Isa. 46:1 LXX opens with the words, “Bel has fallen.” All these aspects of Isaiah have close parallels in Bel and the Dragon. Other interpreters have pointed to Jeremiah, where the inhabitants of Zion mourn their own defeat by King Nebuchadnezzar, by comparing the Babylonian tyrant to a “dragon” (also translated as “monster,” see Gen. 1:21, Isa. 27:1, 51:9) who has “filled his belly with my dainties” ( Jer. 51:34). Of course, Bel and the Dragon may have been inspired by more than one motif or text. The reader is struck, above all, by the book’s lightheartedness and humor—completely absent from any of its alleged biblical base texts such as Job, Isaiah, and Jeremiah. Bel and the Dragon has some obvious affinities with Dan. 6: both have as their central motif the lions’ den (Bel 31–32; Dan. 6:17–24); both are legends set at the court of a foreign monarch (Bel 3–5; Dan. 6:1–3); in both stories the king’s signet ring is instrumental (Bel 14, 17; Dan. 6:18); and both stories end with the death of the accusers and their families (Bel 42; Dan. 6:25). Bel and the Dragon and Dan. 6 have therefore been called “variations” or “duplicate narratives” of the same story, with Bel and the Dragon the more developed of the two narratives. But we should be careful not to exaggerate the similarities; nor assume that the parallels imply that one version developed out of the other. Neither story shows clear signs that it depends on the other.

Additions to Daniel 135

Guide to Reading The two tales contained within Bel and the Dragon may well have originated independently (in the Old Greek version the king remains anonymous; in the Theodotion version the king of the first tale is Cyrus the Persian, whereas in the second episode he remains nameless). Yet in their present form they are woven into a single story by a number of elements: the central topic of both tales is the satirical polemic against idols and idolatry, a prominent theme in exilic and post-exilic literature;2 both tales draw a sharp contrast between the worship of idols and Jewish monotheism, insisting that only Daniel worships “the living God” (v. 25) besides whom there is no other God (v. 41; see also Isa. 45:5–6); and the tales are linked by the motif of food—which Bel cannot consume, which promptly destroys the giant serpent, and which Daniel receives from Habakkuk.

Translation 1When King Astyages was laid to rest with his ancestors, Cyrus the Persian succeeded to his kingdom. 2Daniel was a companion of the king, and was the most honored of all his friends. 3Now the Babylonians had an idol called Bel, and every day they provided for it twelve bushels of choice flour and forty sheep and six measures of wine. 4The king revered it and went every day to worship it. But Daniel worshiped his own God.

Commentary 1–2. When King Astyages was laid to rest The two Greek versions introduce the story rather differently. Verse 1 of the Old Greek begins, “From a prophecy of Habakkuk,” thereby attributing Bel and the Dragon to the corpus of texts associated with the prophet Habakkuk; even though the two tales were originally independent, the superscription treats them as a unit. Verse 2 introduces Daniel as if he was unknown to the reader, “There was a certain person, a priest, whose name was Daniel.” The verse then continues to speak of Daniel as “a companion of the king of Babylon,” suggesting that the king in Bel and the Dragon is a Babylonian king. Theodotion, by contrast, begins verse 1 with a superscription that is modeled after the prophetic books of the Bible, “And King Astyages was added to his ancestors, and Cyrus the Persian received his kingdom.” According to Theodotion, then, the king of Bel and the Dragon is the Persian King Cyrus. In 550 bce, Cyrus dethroned Astyages (585–550 bce), the last king of Media. Here, Bel and the Dragon differs from the book of Daniel, where Cyrus replaces an otherwise unknown “Darius the Mede” (Dan. 6:1; 6:28). 3–22 This brief episode is a fine example of an idol parody. The idol in question, Bel (meaning “lord”), was the Akkadian equivalent to the Canaanite god Baal. In Babylon, the same deity was known as Marduk, or Merodach (see also Isa. 46:1; Jer. 50:2; 51:44). Herodotus describes Source of Translation: The translation is the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), taken from A New English Translation of the Septuagint, ed. A. Pietersma and Ben G. Wright (New York: Oxford, 2007). Note that verse numbers from the book of Daniel are based on the New Jewish Publication Society (NJPS) translation, which differs slightly in versification from the NRSV.

136 Matthias Henze

So the king said to him, “Why do you not worship Bel?” 5He answered, “Because I do not revere idols made with hands, but the living God, who created heaven and earth and has dominion over all living creatures.” 6The king said to him, “Do you not think that Bel is a living god? Do you not see how much he eats and drinks every day?” 7And Daniel laughed, and said, “Do not be deceived, O king, for this thing is only clay inside and bronze outside, and it never ate or drank anything.” 8Then the king was angry and called the priests of Bel and said to them, “If you do not tell me who is eating these provisions, you shall die. 9But if you prove that Bel is eating them, Daniel shall die, because he has spoken blasphemy against Bel.” Daniel said to the king, “Let it be done as you have said.” 10Now there were seventy priests of Bel, besides their wives and children. So the king went with Daniel into the temple of Bel. 11The priests of Bel said, “See, we are now going outside; you yourself, O king, set out the food and prepare the wine, and shut the door and seal it with your signet. 12When you return in the morning, if you do not find that Bel has eaten it all, we will die; otherwise Daniel will, who is telling lies about us.” 13They were unconcerned, for beneath the table they had made a hidden entrance, through which they used to go in regularly and consume the provisions. 14After they had gone out, the king set out the food for Bel. Then Daniel ordered his servants to bring ashes, and they scattered them throughout the whole temple in the presence of the king alone. Then they went out, shut the door and sealed it with the king’s signet, and departed. 15During the night the priests came as usual, with their wives and children, and they ate and drank everything. 16Early in the morning the king rose and came, and Daniel with him. 17The king said, “Are the seals unbroken, Daniel?” He answered, “They are unbroken, O king.” 18As soon as the doors were opened, the king looked at the table, and shouted in a loud voice, “You are great, O Bel, and in you there is no deceit at all!” 19But Daniel laughed and restrained the king from going in. “Look at the floor,” he said, “and notice whose footprints these are.” 20The king said, “I see the footprints of men and women and children.” 21Then the king was enraged, and he arrested the priests and their wives and children. They showed him the secret doors through which they used to enter to consume what was on the table. 22Therefore the king put them to death, and gave Bel over to Daniel, who destroyed it and its temple. a massive statue of solid gold, sitting at a golden table on a golden chair in a temple in the center of Babylon, which still received offerings in the days of Cyrus and was later destroyed by Xerxes (Hist. 1.183). 7. only clay inside and bronze outside Daniel ridicules the idol in a phrase reminiscent of the argument against idols in Isa. 40:18–20 (see also Dan. 2:33). 22. Therefore the king . . . gave Bel over to Daniel, who destroyed it The God of Daniel emerges as the clear winner in this story. But Bel is not the only loser; the Gentile king, Cyrus, comes across as gullible and easily manipulated (see especially Bel 4, 6, 8, 18). In fact, Daniel laughs outright at him twice in this short episode, first after the king claims that Bel must be truly a living god, since the food he is served disappears (v. 7), and then again when the king sees the food gone and hastily proclaims that “there is no deceit” in Bel (v. 18)—only to discover, of course, that he had been deceived all along by the priests. Thus, both Bel and the Gentile monarch become the target of our author’s penetrating ridicule. (For another such example involving a Gentile king, see 1 Esd. 3–4).

Additions to Daniel 137

23Now in that place there was a great dragon, which the Babylonians revered. 24The king said to Daniel, “You cannot deny that this is a living god; so worship him.” 25Daniel said, “I worship the Lord my God, for he is the living God. 26But give me permission, O king, and I will kill the dragon without sword or club.” The king said, “I give you permission.” 27Then Daniel took pitch, fat, and hair, and boiled them together and made cakes, which he fed to the dragon. The dragon ate them, and burst open. Then Daniel said, “See what you have been worshiping!” 28When the Babylonians heard about it, they were very indignant and conspired against the king, saying, “The king has become a Jew; he has destroyed Bel, and killed the dragon, and slaughtered the priests.” 29Going to the king, they said, “Hand Daniel over to us, or else we will kill you and your household.” 30The king saw that they were pressing him hard, and under compulsion he handed Daniel over to them. 31They threw Daniel into the lions’ den, and he was there for six days. 32There were seven lions in the den, and every day they had been given two human bodies and two sheep; but now they were given nothing, so that they would devour Daniel. 33Now the prophet Habakkuk was in Judea; he had made a stew and had broken bread into a bowl, and was going into the field to take it to the reapers. 34But the angel of the Lord said to Habakkuk, “Take the food that you have to Babylon, to Daniel, in the lions’ den.” 35Habakkuk said, “Sir, I have 23. Now in that place there was The second tale begins abruptly, without any transition. It can be subdivided into three scenes: Daniel blows up the dragon (Bel 23–27); Daniel survives in the lions’ den (vv. 28–32); and Daniel receives food from the prophet Habakkuk and is vindicated (vv. 33–42). a great dragon, which the Babylonians revered The serpent as deity has deep roots in the ancient Near East. In the Babylonian Epic of Creation (Enuma Elish), Bel/Marduk, the chief deity of Babylon, is said to have vanquished Tiamat, the embodiment of primordial chaos. Remnants of the motif of the serpent as a mythological monster are found in the Hebrew Bible; cf. Job 7:12; Ps. 74:13–14; 104:26; Isa. 27:1. 24–25. living god . . . living God Echoing verses 4–5 in the story of Bel, the double use of this phrase—with the crucial difference between “god” and “God”—is key in the Theodotion version of this first scene of the Dragon story. 27. pitch, fat, and hair It is not clear how this combination would kill the dragon. In Rabbinic versions of this story, the dragon is fed skins of camels filled with straw and hot coals ( J. Ned. 3:2, 37d) or straw with nails hidden inside (Gen. Rab. 68). 28. The king has become a Jew The destruction of their god by their Gentile king is, for the Babylonians, a clear sign that the king has become a Jew. The Old Greek adds, not without irony, that the pit was intended for the king’s conspirators, and that Daniel was thrown to the lions in order to deprive him of “the good fortune of a burial” (v. 32). This accusation is reminiscent of the story in 2 Macc. 9:17, in which Antiochus IV Epiphanes promises to convert to Judaism if the God of Israel cures him of his affliction (cf. Jdt. 14:10; Dan. 4). 33–42 The Habakkuk scene begins abruptly and may well be an interpolation. Its main connection with Bel and the Dragon is the subject of food.

138 Matthias Henze

never seen Babylon, and I know nothing about the den.” 36Then the angel of the Lord took him by the crown of his head and carried him by his hair; with the speed of the wind he set him down in Babylon, right over the den. 37Then Habakkuk shouted, “Daniel, Daniel! Take the food that God has sent you.” 38Daniel said, “You have remembered me, O God, and have not forsaken those who love you.” 39So Daniel got up and ate. And the angel of God immediately returned Habakkuk to his own place. 40On the seventh day the king came to mourn for Daniel. When he came to the den he looked in, and there sat Daniel! 41The king shouted with a loud voice, “You are great, O Lord, the God of Daniel, and there is no other besides you!” 42Then he pulled Daniel out, and threw into the den those who had attempted his destruction, and they were instantly eaten before his eyes.

36. Then the angel . . . took him by the crown of his head Cf. Ezek. 8:3. 38. You have remembered me, O God Daniel’s recognition of God’s role in saving him creates another affinity with Dan. 6 (see Dan 6:22–23). 40–42. the king came to mourn. . . . Then he . . . threw into the den those who had attempted his destruction The reversal of fortunes described in Bel 40–42 forms another affinity with the story in Dan. 6 (see Dan. 6:21–25). 41. You are great, O Lord, the God of Daniel Bel and the Dragon concludes with the king’s solemn acclamation of the uniqueness of Daniel’s God (cf. Isa. 45:3–5). Similar doxologies are found in the book of Daniel; see Dan. 2:47; 3:28–29; 4:35–37; 6:26–27. Bel and the Dragon as a whole thus ends as a conversion story.

Notes 1. See A. Neubauer, Book of Tobit (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1878), 39–43. It is possible that this midrash preserves an original Semitic version of the story, but it is more likely that it is simply a translation of the Vulgate. 2. Isa. 40:18–41:7; 44:9–20; 46:1; Wis. 13:1–15:17; Epistle of Jeremiah; Apoc. Ab. 1–8; Jub. 12:2–5; 20:8–9.

Additions to Daniel 139

1 Esdras Sara Japhet The apocryphal book 1 Esdras (or Esdras A) is not included in the Hebrew Bible but forms part of the Septuagint (LXX). The name of the work is derived from its position in the LXX: after Chronicles and before Ezra-Nehemiah, designated there as Esdras B or Esdras B-C. In the Vulgate the book appears after Ezra-Nehemiah and is designated 3 Esdras. 1 Esdras is a history, one expression of the wider literary corpus of late biblical historiography. It is an account of the history of Israel from the 18th year of Josiah’s reign (622 bce) to the ministry of Ezra the scribe during the reign of Artaxerxes (458–457 or 398–397 bce), that is, a period of about 170 or 230 years.1 It is better defined as “corrective history,” designed to provide a revised history of a period already told, written from a new vantage point and responding to the reality, views, and aspirations of the author’s time. The work is written in a specific literary technique, which recent scholarship describes as “rewritten Bible.” The major part of 1 Esdras is built from texts borrowed from the biblical books of Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles, presented either literally or slightly changed, and only a relatively small part of the book consists of passages peculiar to this book. By its topic and contents 1 Esdras is a story of destruction and restoration. It is structured in three parts and describes the history of Israel as a process of three stages, presented as a historical continuum: (1) the end of the Judean kingdom, which includes the history of the last kings, the conquest of Judah by the Babylonians, the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem, and the exile of the people (1 Esd. 1); (2) the physical restoration of Judah and Jerusalem, which includes the return from exile, the rebuilding of the Temple and Jerusalem, and the resettlement of the land of Judah, all achieved during the reigns of Cyrus and Darius (1 Esd. 2–7); and (3) the full religious and spiritual restoration of the Judean community under the leadership of Ezra through the firm establishment of religious norms and practices expressed in the exclusion of all foreign elements and the establishment of the Law as the guiding power in the life of the community (1 Esd. 8–9). Authorship and Provenance Most of 1 Esdras is borrowed from the biblical books of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah; only a relatively small part of the book consists of passages unique to it. Chapter 1 (except for 1:22–23) is taken from 2 Chron. 35–36, and 1 Esd. 2 and 5:7–9:55 are taken from Ezra 1–10 and Neh. 7:72–8:13a. The rest of the book, 1 Esd. 1:21–22 and 3:1–5:6, is composed of two literary elements: the story of the three guardsmen, taken basically from another, unknown source, and short passages written by the author of 1 Esdras himself. With the absence of comparative material, the distinction between these literary elements cannot always be achieved with certainty, in particular within the story of the three guardsmen (3:1–4:63). Since the greater part of 1 Esdras is an almost literal repetition of passages from Ezra-

140

Nehemiah and Chronicles, the question of the relationship between these works attracted the attention of scholars from the earliest beginnings of research and was extensively dealt with. The prevalent view for many years was that 1 Esdras was a fragment of a larger work, designated “the Chronistic History,” which consisted of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah as one continuous composition. As a result of this foundational premise, 1 Esdras was not studied as a work by itself but rather as a witness of the supposed Chronistic History, of which it was regarded as a fragment. The major questions posed by scholars revolved around matters of priority—which version is closer to the original Chronistic History: the canonical works of Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles or 1 Esdras? This question was applied to all aspects of the books: the accuracy of the text, the originality of the literary format, and the reliability of the historical account. There are three main issues regarding the literary format: the originality of the story of three guardsmen—found in 1 Esdras but absent from Ezra-Nehemiah; the originality of Nehemiah’s memoirs, found in Ezra-Nehemiah but absent from 1 Esdras; and the order of the events, with the different position in 1 Esdras of Ezra 4. In practice, 1 Esdras was mostly regarded as a version or an edition, by which the original reading of the supposed Chronistic work was reconstructed. Recent studies of the late biblical historiography, however, demonstrate that Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles were two independent works, written by different authors at different periods, and that the supposed Chronistic History was nothing but an unfounded scholarly construct. The consequences of this change for 1 Esdras are obvious: it cannot consist of a fragment of a work that never existed! The view of 1 Esdras as a work in its own right has become even clearer with the realization that it consisted of one composition within a vast literary corpus—peculiar of its time—written in the literary technique of “rewritten Bible.” With this in mind, the translation and commentary below regards 1 Esdras not as a fragment of a biblical work, actual or constructed, but as a work in and of itself, and all its peculiarities understood and explained from this vantage point. In considering the provenance and date of 1 Esdras, a clear distinction should be made between the original book, written in Hebrew and Aramaic, and the Greek translation. While the provenance of the Greek translation can be set in the 2nd century bce, perhaps in Egypt, there are no explicit historical or linguistic data by which the date of the book itself may be fixed. Nevertheless, some pertinent considerations—the distance of 1 Esdras from the actual Persian background, the reflection of Hellenistic concepts and terminology, the book’s rather free handling of the transmitted materials and the details of the historical account, the book’s specific view of the history of the restoration period, and the conclusion of 1 Esdras with the office of Ezra the scribe and priest as the model of the high priesthood—may lead to a probable conclusion. All these considerations point to the height of the Hellenistic period in the 3rd century bce, in Jerusalem, as the most probable date and place of the book’s composition. Translation and Transmission The Greek translation of 1 Esdras is a work in itself, independent of the LXX translations of Ezra-Nehemiah or Chronicles. Compared with the Greek translations of the LXX, the

1 Esdras 141

Greek of 1 Esdras—although still reflecting on many occasions the original Semitic language at its base—is less literal, more fluent, and rather elegant. Yet, there are still cases in which the text is less than clear, and the causes of these unsmooth texts are not always apparent: they may reflect difficult, inexplicable, or perhaps corrupt Semitic readings in the translator’s Vorlage; they may stem from the translator’s misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the original texts; or they may be a result of errors introduced into the text during the process of transmission. All these possibilities should be taken into consideration. Studies of the Greek idiom of 1 Esdras demonstrate its peculiar vocabulary and syntax and its similarities with other books of the Apocrypha—in particular the books of Maccabees—as well as with the language of the Greek papyri of the time. The scholarly consensus is that the Greek idiom reflects the specific form of the language prevalent in Egypt in the 2nd century bce. In addition to Greek, 1 Esdras is extant in Latin, Syriac (but not in the Peshitta), Ethiopic, Armenian, and Arabic—all deriving from the Greek.2 There are two critical editions of 1 Esdras: the 1935 edition by Brooke and McLean,3 and the 1974 edition by Hanhart. The editions differ in their methodology, their division of verses, and many details. The translation and commentary below are based on Hanhart. One problem facing the translator of 1 Esdras is that of names. Ezra-Nehemiah, and following it 1 Esdras, abounds with lists of names. 1 Esdras renders these names with a variety of methods, and no one consistent method can be recognized in its presentation. In some cases the names are presented in a straightforward transliteration of the Hebrew; for other names 1 Esdras uses conventional Greek forms, which appear also in the Septuagint, such as Zorobabel for Hebrew Zerubbabel, Nabouchodonosor for Hebrew Nebuchadnezzar, Esdras for Hebrew Ezra, the names of the Persians kings: Cyrus for Hebrew Koresh, Dareios for Hebrew Daryavesh, Artaxerxes for Hebrew Artachshasta. Less common names are given a Greek style by their formation with Greek phonetic equivalents or simply by the addition of a Greek suffix. There is no way to determine whether the forms suggested by 1 Esdras were actual executions of the names in the author’s time (like the name Je[ho] shua, consistently presented as Jesous) or theoretical formulations with no realization in the actual speech. Moreover, names in general are susceptible to textual corruptions, perhaps more than any other element of the language, and this is also the case in 1 Esdras. The textual corruptions may have occurred during any phase of transmission—of the Hebrew Vorlage or the Greek version. Another aspect of the problem is the differences between Greek manuscripts of 1 Esdras regarding the forms of the names. Given the problems inherent in the presentation of names, one would have perhaps expected that 1 Esdras would refrain from presenting the full scope of unfamiliar names and shorten some of the lists, but the opposite is the case. It seems that 1 Esdras regarded the lists of names as an important component of the historical account that gave it an aura of authenticity and included in its presentation the complete lists found in its sources. The modern translator to English faces a serious problem in the presentation of the names: should she/he attempt to restore the forms as presented in the Masoretic Text (as followed, for instance by the Anchor Bible), or should she/he adhere to the forms of the

142 Sara Japhet

Greek text as presented in 1 Esdras? After much consideration I decided to leave most of the names in their Greek form, trusting that the modern reader would not only be able to identify Cyrus, Darius, or Jeremiah (rather than Yirmiahu), Isaiah (rather than Yishaiahu), but would actually prefer them in view of their use in standard English translations. As a rule I refrained from restoring the Hebrew forms of the names, but there are some exceptions to this rule, such as the name Ezra, for which I followed my predecessors and used the Hebrew form Ezra rather than the Greek form Esdras. I also refrained from correcting the text when it seemed corrupt. I applied a number of considerations and tried to do my best; the degree of my success should be judged by the readers. Theology and Purpose Because of the limited scope of the author’s writing, scholars were at a loss in discovering the book’s purpose and theological message. Even when the nature of the book as a work of its own was recognized, its purpose remained a puzzle, and scholars complained that “we should perhaps conclude that . . . it is a mistake to look for a purpose at all.”4 My own contention is that the author of 1 Esdras succeeded in expressing his purpose, theology, and historical perspective, by employing four means: 1. Literary extent of the historical account and the selection of the borrowed material, especially the author’s choice to base his description of the destruction of the kingdom of Judah on that of Chronicles rather than on 2 Kings; the beginning of the story with the climax of Josiah’s reign, at the celebration of the Passover; the omission of the story of Nehemiah and the presentation of Nehemiah himself as a person of secondary significance in the time of Zerubbabel; and the conclusion of the historical account with the leadership of Ezra and the reading of the Law. 2. Modifications, short additions and omissions, introduced into the borrowed texts, which alter the contents and message of the borrowed material. The size of these changes varies from single words to phrases and full sentences, but they are extensive. Since the work is found only in Greek translation, it is not always possible to establish the origin of the diverse reading: the book’s author, the Greek translator, or perhaps a textual corruption in the transmission of the text. 3. Rearrangement of the material by transfer of borrowed passages to other positions in the story and their integration in different literary and historical contexts, mainly (a) the transfer of Ezra 4:6–24 after Ezra 1, thus relegating the adversary’s intervention in the building of the Temple and the Persian king’s command to stop the building to a much earlier phase in the story of the restoration, the result of which is a different chronology of the events in the early stages of the restoration period; and (b) the continuation of Ezra 10 with Neh. 7:72–8:13a, after the omission of Nehemiah’s story. 4. Author’s additions: a short passage in 1 Esd. 1:22–23, some additions to the story of the three guardsmen, and occasional additions throughout the whole account. Thus, although the major part of 1 Esdras is built of borrowed texts, it nevertheless expresses a peculiar view of the history of the restoration period.

1 Esdras 143

The purpose and message of 1 Esdras may be learned from the overall historical presentation and from the three foci of the historical account: the historical continuity, the figure and significance of Zerubbabel, and the figure and leadership of Ezra the priest and scribe. Historical Continuity 1 Esdras presents an immediate continuity between the destruction of the Judean kingdom by the Babylonian kings and the restoration of Judah at the time of Cyrus and portrays the history of the restoration against the background of the destruction. The account opens with the celebration of the Passover in Josiah’s 18th year, which signifies the climax of Josiah’s reign and the beginning of the decline, and goes on to describe the quick decline toward the final destruction—the conquest of the land of Judah, the end of the Davidic dynasty, the destruction of Jerusalem, the burning down of the Temple, and the exile of the remaining population. It then moves directly to Cyrus’s declaration and the process of restoration. The immediate historical continuity between destruction and restoration is also underlined by several aspects of the story. First is the insistence on the correspondence between destruction and rehabilitation, through the transfer of the rebuilding of Jerusalem to the beginning of the restoration period at the time of Zerubbabel, the omission of the story of Nehemiah, and the suppression of Nehemiah’s building of the wall and all his other projects. This continuity is also expressed in the emphasis of 1 Esdras that the rebuilt Temple of the restoration was a direct continuation of the first. According to 1 Esdras, in the first period of the restoration Judah returned to its former state of physical well-being in every way, and the consequences of the destruction were fully reversed: Jerusalem and the Temple were rebuilt, the vessels were returned, and the exiles settled back in their original localities. Zerubbabel

A well-known feature of 1 Esdras is the elaboration and glorification of the figure of Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel. Although some scholars express doubts regarding the originality in 1 Esdras of the story of the three guardsmen and of some references to Zerubbabel in the story, the tendency to glorify Zerubbabel is undeniable. The buds of this tendency may be found already in Ezra-Nehemiah, but it is further developed in 1 Esdras. From a quantitative point of view, the insertion of the story of the three guardsmen makes Zerubbabel the major figure of the entire period. More importantly, Zerubbabel is presented as “the wisest of all” and as a man who relinquished the glorious future that awaited him as a viceroy of Darius and who preferred to put himself at the service of his people. His Davidic ancestry is fully recorded, he is explicitly presented as the governor of Judah, he is awarded the title “servant of the Lord,” the term of his office is prolonged at both ends, and he is described as having taken part in all the events of the restoration during the time of Cyrus and Darius. Ezra While all the material related to the activity of Ezra is borrowed from Ezra-Nehemiah, with no additions and only light variations, Ezra’s figure and historical significance are differ-

144 Sara Japhet

ently portrayed. By the omission of Nehemiah’s memoirs and the positioning of Nehemiah himself as a secondary figure in the time of Zerubbabel, Ezra remains the single leader in the last phase of the historical account, and by the change in his titles he is presented not just as “priest” and “scribe” but as “high priest” wearing the sacred vestments and “reader of the Law.” His activities are the last phase in the restoration of the Judean community. When all these features are taken together the result is a new picture of the restoration period. In the first part of the period described, Judah was ruled by Davidic kings, but their reign ended with a disaster. In the second period, under the leadership of Zerubbabel, the Temple was built and the land of Judah and the city of Jerusalem were physically rehabilitated under the auspices of the Persian rulers. The climax of the historical process, however, was reached in the third period, with the firm establishment of the religious norms and conduct in Judah under the leadership of Ezra. The political power in this period, as in the preceding one, was that of the Persian emperors who gave Ezra an extensive bill of rights, but the leader of the people of Judah was Ezra the high priest. With the culmination of the historical process the author of 1 Esdras arrived at his goal: the actual situation in Judah in his own time, with the land of Judah ruled by Hellenistic kings and the hegemony over the people of Judah invested in the hands of the high priests. The course of Israel’s history under God’s providence led from the period of the kingdom— which turned out to be a failure—through the restoration of Judah and the return of the exiles in the time of Zerubbabel to the ultimate leader, the high priest Ezra. Thus the history of the restoration as presented in 1 Esdras offers the means of legitimization for the political order of the author’s time; it grants sanction to the ideology that supported this reality and to the exclusive rule of the high priests. Reception and Influence Since 1 Esdras was not included in the Hebrew Bible, it was lost from the Jewish literary corpus at an early, but unknown date. Its Greek translation, however, was included in the LXX and received there a priority of place, before the Greek translation of Ezra-Nehemiah. 1 Esdras’s status and significance in the early period are best illustrated by Josephus’s including it—together with Ezra-Nehemiah—in his account of the Persian period and preferring its historical presentation to that of Ezra-Nehemiah. 1 Esdras’s later history was less spectacular: it was lost to the mainstream of Rabbinic Judaism and also did not fare very well in the Christian tradition. Although it was part of the LXX, translated into Latin and quoted by early Greek and Latin church fathers, it was criticized by Jerome and later excluded from the canon by the Council of Trent (1546).5 It was nevertheless printed as an appendix in small letters in the Tridentine Bible and came to occupy a peculiar secondary position in the Christian Bible. As for the Jewish literary tradition, the book itself indeed remained lost, but its contents became known through the book of Josippon ( Josephus Gorionides)—composed in Italy in the 10th century and wrongly regarded as the work of Josephus—which became the main Jewish source for the history of the Second Temple period. In its account of the

1 Esdras 145

Persian period the author of Josippon drew not only from Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities, but also from 1 Esdras itself, probably in its Latin translation. However, although Josippon was known to Jewish sages of the Middle Ages and explicitly referred to by several of them (e.g., Rashi and others), there is no reflection in their allusions and quotations of the sections of Josippon dependent on 1 Esdras. 1 Esdras returned, so to speak, to the corpus of Jewish literature only with modern translations of the Apocrypha. Suggested Reading Coggins, R. J., and M. A. Knibb. The First and Second Books of Esdras. Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. Cook, S. A. “1 Esdras.” Vol. 1. In The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, edited by R. H. Charles, 1–58. Oxford: Clarendon, 1913. De Troyer, K. “Zerubbabel and Ezra: A Revived and Revised Solomon and Josiah? A Survey of Current 1 Esdras Research.” Currents in Biblical Research 1 (2002): 30–60. Eskenazi, T. C. “The Chronicler and the Composition of 1 Esdras.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 48 (1986): 39–61. Fried, Lisbeth S., ed. Was 1 Edras First: An Investigation into the Priority and Nature of 1 Edras. Atlanta: SBL, 2011. Japhet, S. “1 Esdras: Its Genre, Literary Form, and Goals.” In Was 1 Esdras First: An Investigation into the Priority and Nature of 1 Esdras, edited by Lisbeth S. Fried, 209–23. Atlanta: SBL, 2011. —. “Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel against the Background of the Historical and Religious Tendencies of Ezra-Nehemiah, 2.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 95 (1983): 218–29. Myers, J. M. 1 and 2 Esdras: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary. Anchor Bible 42. Garden City: Doubleday, 1974. Talshir, Z. 1 Esdras: A Text Critical Commentary. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2001. —. 1 Esdras: From Origin to Translation. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999. Williamson, H. G. M. “The Problem with 1 Esdras.” In After the Exile: Essays in Honour of Rex Mason, edited by J. Barton and D. J. Reimer, 201–16. Macon ga: Mercer University Press, 1996.

146 Sara Japhet

Translation The Last Kings of Judah (1:1–55) Reign of Josiah (1:1–31) Josiah’s Passover (1:1–20)

1:1Josiah kept the Passover in Jerusalem to his Lord; he slaughtered the Passover sacrifice on the 14th

Commentary 1:1–55 The Bible contains two different accounts of the last phases of the Judean kingdom: 2 Kings 23–25 and 2 Chron. 35–36. Although it is clear—and universally agreed—that the account in Chronicles is based on 2 Kings, there are extensive differences between the two, in both the general view of the period and various details. 1 Esdras derives its account from Chronicles rather than from Kings and seems to have done so for two main reasons: the description of Josiah’s Passover, which covers only three laconic verses in 2 Kings 23:21–23 and 19 verses in 2 Chron. 35, and the view of the destruction, which differs not merely in a series of details, but in the general view of the destruction, its stages, and its place in the history of Israel. First Esd. 1 follows faithfully 2 Chron. 35–36, with quite a few changes of detail, some omissions, and an additional passage (1 Esd. 1:21–22). 1:1–31 The reign of Josiah is the watershed in the history of Judah. The political and religious peak of his reign was followed by an accelerated decline toward destruction and exile. Unit structure: Josiah’s Passover (1:1–20 = 2 Chron. 35:1–19), theological evaluation (1:21–22), and Josiah’s end (1:23–31 = 2 Chron. 35:20–26). 1:1–20 The peak of Josiah’s reign was the celebration of the Passover in his 18th year. This date also marked the beginning of the decline, and this is where 1 Esdras begins its story. The focus of the account is the Passover sacrificial ritual, while the historical aspect of the festival, its origin in the Exodus from Egypt, is not even hinted at in the whole chapter. While the focus of 1 Esdras is the same as in 2 Chron. 35, 1 Esdras is shorter and exhibits less interest in the ritual procedure. The Passover account emphasizes the following points: (1) the location of the Passover and its date: Jerusalem, on the 14th of the first month; (2) the insistence that everything was done as ordained: according to the precepts of Moses, the command of David, and the order of Josiah; (3) the role of the Levites, who acted as the king’s right hand in implementing his command; and (4) the historical uniqueness of the event: nothing like it has taken place, neither before nor after. Unit structure: introduction/general framework (1:1), address to Levites (1:2–6), preparations (1:7–10), sacrifice and celebration (1:11–17), and conclusion and evaluation (1:18–20). 1:1. Josiah kept the Passover The introductory verse—taken with a very slight change from 2 Chron. 35:1—emphasizes the location of the Passover in Jerusalem and the date of the festival (the prescribed 14th day of the first month). Both points originally had a polemic edge, but while the location of the Passover in Jerusalem, following the finding of “the book,” is the point in 2 Kings 23:21, the date is of particular interest for the Chronicler’s account because of the contrast between Josiah’s Passover and that of Hezekiah, which was celebrated on the 14th of the second month (2 Chron. 30:15). The polemic edge is lost in 1 Esdras; it does not tell about the finding Source of Translation: The translation is based on R. Hanhart, Esdras liber I, Göttingen Septuaginta 8/1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974 [2nd ed. 1991]).

1 Esdras 147

day of the first month. 2Having stationed the priests, girded (in their vestments), in their shifts in the Temple of the Lord, 3he told the Levites, the Temple servants of Israel, to sanctify themselves to the Lord when depositing the Holy Ark of the Lord in the house that King Solomon son of David, had built. 4“You need not carry it on your shoulders, and now serve the Lord your God and minister to his people Israel. And prepare (yourselves) according to your fathers’ houses and families, in accordance with the writing of King David of Israel and the grandeur of Solomon his son. 5And, standing in the Temple at your posts according to the divisions of the fathers’ houses of the Levites—who are before your brothers the sons of Israel—6slaughter the Passover (sacrifice) and prepare the sacrifices for your brothers and perform the Passover according to the commandment of the Lord given to Moses.” 7And Josiah gave to the people who were present 30,000 lambs and kids and 3,000 cattle. All these were given of “the book” prescribing the centralization of the festivals in the “chosen place,” and it does not include Hezekiah’s Passover. The introductory verse remains a neutral statement of introduction. 1:2–3. having stationed the priests These introductory verses, taken from 2 Chron. 35:2–3 but differently structured, join together the priests and the Levites, referred to separately in 2 Chron. 35:2–3. Josiah’s address, however, is directed—as in 2 Chron. 35—only to the Levites. The peculiar issue of 1 Esd. 1:3 is the reference to the Ark. Already in 2 Chron. 35:3 the reference to the Ark is somewhat problematic because according to its literal meaning the change from carrying the Ark on the Levites’ shoulders to depositing it in the Temple occurred in the time of Josiah. Nevertheless, the message of Chronicles seems clear: the change in the roles of the Levites is the result of the change in the historical circumstances; since their original role as bearers of the Ark came to an end, they became available for other functions, to serve “the Lord your God and His people Israel” (2 Chron. 35:3). This explanation becomes blurred in 1 Esdras, which seems to refer to the very act of depositing the Ark in the Temple and to the need of the Levites to sanctify themselves for this purpose. The Levites are identified in 1 Esd. 1:3 as hierodouloi (Temple servants). This term is used in 1 Esdras as a technical definition of the Nethinim, one of the lower classes of Temple personnel eventually absorbed into the broader class of Levites, and this was probably the rendering of 1 Esdras, which already assumes the integration of the different classes into the Levitical class. In speaking about the priests, 1 Esdras added a reference to their ritual garments—a matter that it emphasizes throughout the story. 1:4–6. you need not carry it The address to the Levites is cited almost verbatim from 2 Chron. 35:3b– 6. The Levites, who are viewed as newcomers to the Passover ritual, are instructed by the king regarding their general role—the service of the Lord and the people—and in particular their task of slaughtering the Passover animals, which is emphasized throughout the account. According to earlier sources the slaughtering was performed by laymen (Exod. 12:6; 34:25); the transfer of this task to the Levites resulted most probably from the centralization of the Passover celebration in Jerusalem. All the new aspects of the Passover—its celebration in the central Temple, the transfer of the slaughtering to the Levites, and the ensuing results for the entire ritual—are repeatedly presented as the fulfillment of ancient commands and arrangements. The organization of the Levites into divisions is ascribed to the command of David and followed by the instruction of Solomon, the slaughtering of the sacrifices by the Levites is ascribed to Moses, and the entire ritual procedure is described as “the command of King Josiah” (1 Esd. 1:16=2 Chr 35:16). 1:7–9. and Josiah gave According to 2 Chron. 35:7–9 the king contributed sacrificial animals for the people who were present, and the officials contributed animals for the people, priests, and

148 Sara Japhet

as an offering to the people and to the priests and to the Levites from the king’s possessions. 8Chelkias, Zacharias, and Esuelos, the overseers of the Temple, gave to the priests for the Passover (sacrifice) 2,600 sheep and 300 cattle. 9Jechonias, Samaias and Nathanael his brother, and Asabias and Ochielos and Joram, the officers of the thousands, gave to the Levites for the Passover (sacrifice) 5,000 sheep and 700 cattle. 10While all these were proceeding nicely, the priests and the Levites—holding unleavened bread—took their positions before the people, according to their families and to their divisions of fathers’ houses, to offer to the Lord, as written in the book of Moses, and this in the morning. 11And they roasted the Passover (sacrifice) with fire as ordained, and boiled the sacrifices in copper vessels and pots, with a pleasing odor, and distributed to all from among the people. 12After that they prepared for themselves and for their brothers the priests, the sons of Aaron, 13for the priests were offering the fats until late in the night, and the Levites prepared for themselves, and for their brothers the priests, the sons of Aaron. 14And the Temple singers, the sons of Asaph, were in their posts, as prescribed by David and Asaph and Zacharias and Eddinous, of the king’s retinue. 15And the gatekeepers (were) at each gate; no one had to leave his daily service because their brothers the Levites prepared for them. Levites. This matter is differently presented in 1 Esdras: the king’s donations were intended for everyone—people, priests, and Levites—and the officials donated to their own people: “the overseers of the Temple” to the priests, and “the officers of the thousands” to the Levites. The definition of the Levite leaders as “officers of the thousands” is rather unusual and may refer to army officers (1 Chron. 27:1). 1:10. while all these were proceeding The verse is an epitome of 2 Chron. 35:11–12a, but rather than describing the execution of the ritual, it functions as a conclusion of the preparations: everyone took his place, ready to perform the ritual in strict adherence to the Law of Moses. The verse is famous for two features: “unleavened bread” and “in the morning.” Both readings are generally regarded as misreadings by the Greek translator: mas.s.ot (unleavened bread) in place of mis.wat (the command of), and boqer (morning) in place of baqar (cattle). One wonders, however, whether at least the first reading is not an intentional correction, intended to leave out “the command of the king” before the reference to “the book of Moses.” The omission of 2 Chron. 35:11–12a leaves out of the story the technical aspects of the sacrificial procedure: the actual slaughtering by the Levites, the transfer of the blood to the priests in order to throw it on the altar, the flaying of the animals’ hides, and the distribution of the prepared sacrifices to the people. The omission could have been motivated either by 1 Esdras’s lack of interest in the technical issues of the sacrifice or by these details not being in harmony with the practice of the time. 1:11. and they roasted This is the only reference to actual sacrificial ritual in 1 Esdras, but it relates only to the postsacrificial stage—the roasting of the meat and its distribution. The mention of “pleasing odor” at this stage is rather out of place, for it is the burning of the fats rather than the preparation of the meat for consumption that is expected to produce a “pleasing odor to the Lord”; it is more often regarded as an inner-Greek corruption. 1:12–15. after that they prepared These verses, an almost literal repetition of 2 Chron. 35:14–15, highlight the diligence, efficiency, and commitment of the Levites. All the other classes of the cult personnel—priests, Temple singers, and gatekeepers—could go on with their regular tasks and still take part in the celebration of the Passover, because all their needs were provided by the Levites, repeatedly designated “their brothers.” “Singers” in earlier sources are always presented

1 Esdras 149

16The (sacrificial) ritual to the Lord was completed on that day; the Passover was celebrated and the sacrifices were offered on the altar of the Lord, in accordance with the command of King Josiah. 17And the sons of Israel who were present at that time celebrated the Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread for seven days. 18Such a Passover was not celebrated in Israel since the time of the prophet Samuel. 19None of the kings of Israel had observed such a Passover as Josiah and the priests and the Levites and the Judeans and all Israel who were present in their residences in Jerusalem kept. 20In the 18th year of Josiah’s reign, this Passover was celebrated.

in 1 Esdras as “Temple singers,” to distinguish them from secular singers (seen in 5:41). Another change is made in the title of the leaders of the Temple singers. They are not presented as “seers,” as in Chronicles, but as part of the king’s retinue; they are nevertheless presented as David’s associates in the original establishment of the Temple singers’ role. 1:16. the (sacrificial) ritual The conclusion of the Passover ritual makes clear that everything was carried out according to the instruction of the king. 1:17. and the sons of Israel The celebration of the Passover is followed by a seven-day celebration of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. The significance of this part of the festival is played down, and no details are provided regarding the place of the celebration: did the people go back to their settlements, as prescribed in Deut. 16:7, or did they stay in Jerusalem, as in the Passover celebrated by Hezekiah (2 Chron. 30:21–27)? 1:18–20. such a Passover The conclusion of the story highlights the uniqueness of Josiah’s initiative. It repeats in two different ways that nothing like it was ever celebrated in the kingdom of Israel, neither in the pre-Davidic period, represented in Chronicles by the prophet Samuel, nor by any of the kings. From the perspective of 1 Esdras, which views the event from a later chronological point than the one presupposed in Chronicles, the uniqueness of the event was not only in comparison with the past but also in comparison with the future: nothing like it—under the leadership of a Davidic king in an independent kingdom—would ever occur again at any historical time. 1 Esdras introduces a slight but revealing modification to the text taken from 2 Chron. 35:18–20, which mentions three groups among the participants: Judah, all Israel that were present (i.e., people from outside of Judah who came to Jerusalem from northern Israel), and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. 1 Esdras mentions only two groups: “the Judeans and all Israel who were present in their residences in Jerusalem.” Although the term “Israel” is preserved, it does not refer to anyone outside the boundaries of Judah. Only the people who lived in Judah and Jerusalem celebrated the Passover in Josiah’s time; no one else.

150 Sara Japhet

Theological Observation (1:21–22)

21And the deeds of Josiah, with a heart full of piety, were upright before his Lord. 22His deeds were recorded in former times, [together with the deeds] of those who sinned and acted impiously toward the Lord more than any people and kingdom and intentionally grieved him. And the words of the Lord against Israel were fulfilled. Josiah’s End (1:23–31)

23And after all this activity of Josiah, King Pharaoh of Egypt came up, going to wage war at Charka1:21–22 This theological observation is the only relatively extensive passage that 1 Esdras adds to the account of the last kings of Judah. It is placed at the turning point in the history of Judah, after the account of Josiah’s unique performance and his strict adherence to the “Law of Moses” and “the command of David” and before the account of his last war and untimely death. A note with the same theological role is found at the same place in the story in 2 Kings 23:25–27, where the exemplary figure and deeds of Josiah are balanced against the sins of Manasseh and God’s decision is pronounced to “banish Judah from My presence.” The Chronicler omitted this note from the parallel narrative because of the contradiction between its theological message and his own views of God’s justice and providence. 1 Esdras reintroduces the theological note but rephrases it. and the deeds of Josiah 1 Esdras does not mention Manasseh explicitly but seems to refer to him in mentioning those who “intentionally grieved” the Lord (2 Kings 21:6 = 2 Chron. 33:6) and did “greater evil than the nations” had done (2 Kings 21:9). Also peculiar to 1 Esdras is the reference to writing. The deeds of Josiah were “recorded” for the benefit of later generations—the penchant of 1 Esdras to writings and records is amply illustrated in the book. The text of 1 Esdras is difficult; I tried to clarify it by the addition of a few words, certainly implied but not explicitly written. 1:23–31 Josiah’s war against the king of Egypt, described briefly in 2 Kings 23:29–30, is greatly elaborated in 2 Chron. 35:20–24a. The laconic remark that Pharaoh killed Josiah upon seeing him (2 Kings 23:29b) is amplified in Chronicles to include the Egyptian king’s address, sent to Josiah by messengers, a description of Josiah’s response (2 Chron. 35:21–23), the account of Josiah’s death, and a short introduction. The significance of these additions lies in their theological role: Josiah’s death in the war was not a random, military act of Pharaoh, but punishment from God for Josiah’s sin: disobedience to the word of the Lord. The Chronicler needed this addition to settle the incongruence between Josiah’s untimely death and his conception of God’s justice and providence. According to the Chronicler’s concepts of God’s justice, Josiah’s death could be explained only as punishment, which necessarily was preceded by sin. The Chronicler provided these necessary supplements in his account of the event. 1 Esdras follows the story of Josiah’s death as presented in 2 Chronicles, but further clarifies and emphasizes its theological message through small additions and changes. Unit structure: Josiah’s death in war (1:23–29), mourning over Josiah (1:30), and the record of Josiah’s reign and deeds (1:31). 1:23. and after all this Following 2 Chron. 35:20, 1 Esdras prefaces the story with a short introduction; it does not mention that Pharaoh’s destination was a war against Assyria, but adds to the 2 Kings account the location of the battle: Carchemish on the Euphrates. Contrary to 2 Chronicles, however, 1 Esdras systematically omits the name of the Egyptian king and refers to him as Pharaoh or “the king of Egypt.”

1 Esdras 151

mis on the Euphrates, and Josiah went out against him. 24And the king of Egypt sent to him, saying: 25“What is there for me and you, king of Judah? Not against you was I sent by the Lord God; rather, my war is on the Euphrates. And now, the Lord is with me. And as the Lord who is with me is hastening me, move away and do not oppose the Lord.” 26But Josiah, on his chariot, did not turn away from him but went on to fight against him, and did not heed the words of the prophet Jeremiah from the mouth of the Lord. 27He waged war against him in the valley of Maggedaous, and the officers came down toward King Josiah. 28And the king said to his servants: “Remove me from the battle for I am very sick.” His servants moved him immediately from the battle line, 29and he mounted his second chariot. Having been brought back to Jerusalem, he died [literally: left his life] and was buried in his paternal grave. 30They mourned for Josiah in all Judah, and the prophet Jeremiah lamented over Josiah; the nobles with the women lament over him to this day; this was established to take place forever, for all the house of Israel. 31These things are recorded in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah. And every act of the acts of Josiah, and his glory, and his understanding of the Law of the Lord, and his earlier deeds and those of the present, are narrated in the Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah. 1:24–26. and the king of Egypt The main thrust of Pharaoh’s address is that he was sent to battle by God and should not be disturbed on the way. Pharaoh refers to his God as “the Lord who is with me”; the Chronicler identified this God with the God of Josiah but used the general title “God.” In all the occurrences of this title—five times in this short passage—1 Esdras replaces “God” by the title “the Lord God” or simply “the Lord,” the title of the God of Israel. According to 1 Esdras, Pharaoh’s God was the God of Israel, and he was hastening him to wage war on the Euphrates. Moreover, rather than “Josiah . . . [was] heedless of Necho’s words from the mouth of God” (2 Chron. 35:22),1 Esdras reads “Josiah . . . did not heed the words of the prophet Jeremiah from the mouth of the Lord.” 1 Esdras does not specify where and when Jeremiah spoke to Josiah about this issue, but the message is clear: Josiah should have listened to the Lord’s warning and retreated from battle, but he did not. The tragic outcome was thus fully justified. 1:26–29. but Josiah Although there are some differences in detail between 1 Esdras and 2 Chron. 35:22–24a, the general picture is similar: Josiah was wounded in battle, was moved to Jerusalem, and died there. 1:30–31. they mourned for Josiah The account of the mourning over Josiah—the most detailed and comprehensive description of mourning in the Bible, exceeding even that of Moses (Deut. 34:8)—was introduced into the story by the Chronicler, and 1 Esdras followed. The statement that this mourning was established “forever” and has been practiced “to this day” raises the historical question regarding the actual practice of this mourning at the time of the Chronicler, or even later at the time of 1 Esdras. There is no historical evidence for the persistence of this practice, but the later Midrash identifies the lament “I am the man” in Lam. 3 as Jeremiah’s lament over Josiah; the notes of 2 Chronicles and 1 Esdras may perhaps reflect the origins of this tradition. “Laments” mentioned in 2 Chron. 35:25 and traditionally explained as the title of the book of Lamentations is replaced in 1 Esdras by “the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah.” 1:31. these things are recorded The laconic note about the recording of Josiah’s deeds in 2 Kings 23:28 is broadened in 2 Chron. 35:26 and then somewhat rephrased in 1 Esdras by the reference to “his understanding of the Law of the Lord.”

152 Sara Japhet

The Four Last Kings of Judah (1:32–55) Jechonia (1:32–34)

32And some of the people took Jechonia, Josiah’s son—being 23 years old—and made him king in place of Josiah his father. 33He reigned in Judah and Jerusalem three months. The king of Egypt deposed him from reigning in Jerusalem 34and fined the people 100 talents of silver and one talent of gold. Joakeim (1:35–40)

35And the king of Egypt crowned Joakeim his brother king of Judah and Jerusalem. 36Joakeim fettered the officers and, seizing his brother Zarios, he brought him out of Egypt. 37Joakeim was 25 years old when he became king of Judah and Jerusalem, and he did evil before the Lord. 38King Nabouchodonosor of Babylon came up against him, bound him in copper fetters, and took him away to Babylon. 39And

1:32–55 The records of the last four kings of Judah are greatly abbreviated in 2 Chron. 36 and further changed in 1 Esdras. The names and relationships of the last reigning kings are attested in the Bible in three different constellations and further changed in 1 Esdras. According to 2 Kings 24 three of Josiah’s sons became kings: Josiah’s immediate follower was Jehoahaz, his second son (who according to Jer. 22:11 was also called Shallum); Jehoahaz was followed by his elder brother Eliakim/Jehoiakim; who was then followed by his son, Josiah’s grandson, Jehoiachin (Coniah in Jer. 22:24 and Jeconiah in 1 Chron. 3:16–17). The last king, Zedekiah (originally Mattaniah), was Jehoiachin’s uncle, a third son of Josiah (2 Kings 24:17). The order and names of the kings are preserved in Chronicles but the last king, Zedekiah, is described there as Jehoiachin’s brother, that is, Jehoiakim’s son rather than his brother (2 Chron. 36:10; also 1 Chron. 3:16). Another tradition, preserved in 1 Chron. 3:15, enumerates four sons of Josiah—Johanan (not known from any other source), Jehoiakim, Zedekiah, and Shallum (= Jehoahaz?)—and presents another Zedekiah as son of Jehoiakim. 1 Esdras has a different constellation altogether: the follower of Josiah is called Jeconiah rather than Jehoahaz, and he is followed by Joakeim (= Jehoiakim) his brother; the following king is Joakeim’s son—as elsewhere—but he is called Joakeim II, rather than Jehoiachin; and the relationship of the last king, Zedekaiah, whether son of Jehoiakim (as in Chronicles) or his brother (as in Kings), is not mentioned. It seems that 1 Esdras’s new constellation is an attempt to harmonize the different traditions and to upgrade Jehoiachin somewhat, who becomes Josiah’s son rather than his grandson. All these changes, however, are not expressed in the actual account, which follows the main lines of 2 Chron. 36. Unit structure: Jechonia (1:32– 34 = 2 Chron. 36:1–3 [ Jehoahaz]), Joakeim (1:35–40 = 2 Chron. 36:4–8a [ Jehoiakim]), Joakeim II (1:41–43 = 2 Chron. 36:8b–10a [ Jehoiachin]), and Zedekiah (1:44–55 = 2 Chron. 36:11–21). 1:32–34. and some of the people “The people of the land” of 2 Chron. 36:1 are presented here as “some of the people,” probably because the meaning of the term “the people of the land” had changed over the years and did not fit anymore. It is also changed in 1 Esd. 5:69 (= Ezra 4:4) by its formulation in the plural. Another difference in this account is the omission of the king’s exile to Egypt (in 2 Kings 23:34, “where he died,” omitted in Chronicles). 1:36. Joakeim fettered the officers The report of 2 Chron. 36:4b that the Egyptian king deported Jehoahaz to Egypt is turned in 1 Esdras into a rather obscure note about some acts of Jehoiakim himself: he “fettered the officers” and took his brother Zarios “out of Egypt.” Neither the episode nor a brother of Jehoiakim by the name Zarios are known from any other source.

1 Esdras 153

Nabouchodonosor took some of the holy vessels of the Lord, carried them away and put them in his temple in Babylon. 40What was told about him, his impurities, and impiety are written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings. Joakeim II (1:41–43)

41And Joakeim his son reigned in his place. He was 18 years old when he became king, 42and he reigned in Jerusalem for three months and 10 days; he did evil before the Lord. 43And after a year, Nabouchodonosor sent and took him away to Babylon, together with the holy vessels of the Lord. Zedekiah (1:44–55)

44And he made Zedekiah king of Judah and Jerusalem when Zedekiah was 21 years old, and he reigned 11 years. 45And he did evil before the Lord and did not heed the words spoken by the prophet Jeremiah from the mouth of the Lord. 46He violated the oath that Nabouchodonosor made him swear in the name of the Lord, and rebelled. He hardened his neck and his heart and transgressed the laws of the Lord, God of Israel. 47And the leaders of the people and of the priests acted very impiously and lawlessly, beyond all the abominations of all the peoples, and polluted the sanctified Temple of the Lord in Jerusalem. 48The God of their fathers sent through his messengers to call them back, in order to spare them and his dwelling place. 49But they mocked his messengers, and on the day that the

1:38–39. Nabouchodonosor, king of Babylon The Chronicler reformulated the history of Jehoiakim and made it similar to that of Jehoiachin his son: Jehoiakim was exiled to Babylon, together with some of the Temple vessels. 1 Esdras follows this view, and the details found in 2 Kings 24:1b–4, 7 are omitted in both sources. 1:41–43. and Joakeim his son Except for the change in the king’s name, 2 Chron. 36:8b–10a is repeated literally. The title of the Temple vessels throughout the book is “the holy vessels.” 1:44–55 The reign of Zedekiah is the account of the end of the kingdom of Judah, which according to the Chronicler’s view was God’s punishment for the sins of one generation, that of Zedekiah. He thus enumerates in detail the sins of this generation and of all segments of the Judean society. The Chronicler’s description of the destruction itself, however, is shorter than its parallel in Kings, and the 24 verses (2 Kings 24:18–25:21) are condensed into 10 (2 Chron. 36:11–20a) and reformulated. Chronicles also omitted the continuation of the story in Kings, about the fate of Gedaliah and Jehoiachin (2 Kings 25:21–30) and replaced it by a short conclusion that refers to the end of the servitude and the beginning of Cyrus’s declaration (2 Chron. 36:20b–23). This picture, with small modifications in detail, is followed in 1 Esdras. Unit structure: Zedekiah’s reign and sins (1:44–49), the Chaldean invasion and its cruelties (1:50–53), and the length of the servitude (1:54–55). 1:45–46. and he did evil The general statement of 2 Kings 24:19 that Zedekiah “did what was displeasing to the Lord” is spelled out in 2 Chronicles as two different sins: disobedience to the Lord’s will transmitted to him by Jeremiah, and violation of the oath to Nebuchadnezzar sworn by the name of God, thus desecrating God’s name. More importantly, Zedekiah’s transgressions are presented as having been committed intentionally: “He stiffened his neck and hardened his heart.” To this description 1 Esdras adds that it is the Law of the Lord that Zedekiah intentionally transgressed. The insistence and obstinacy of Zedekiah’s conduct evoked and justified God’s fierce anger and retribution.

154 Sara Japhet

Lord spoke, they scorned his prophets until, being angry with his people because of their iniquities, he commanded the kings of the Chaldeans to come up against them. 50They killed their young men with the sword in the surroundings of their holy Temple and spared neither the young men nor the young women, neither the old nor the young, for he delivered them all in their hands. 51All the holy vessels of the Lord, the large ones and the small ones, and the chests of the Lord and the royal stores, they took and brought to Babylon. 52They set the house of the Lord on fire, broke down the walls of Jerusalem, and burnt all their towers by fire, 53and utterly destroyed—putting out of use—all her glorious things. Those who survived, he carried away by the sword to Babylon. 54And they became slaves to him and to his sons until the reign of the Persians, to fulfill the word of the Lord in the mouth of Jeremiah. 55Until the land had enjoyed its Sabbaths, all the days of its desolation it will keep the Sabbath, until the completion of 70 years.

1:47. and the leaders According to the Chronicler’s concept of God’s justice, each segment of society is punished for its own sins, and there is no transference of sin or punishment from one to the other. He thus continues to describe the sins of the people, represented by their leaders, and of the priests in order to explain Judah’s severe fate. He also specifies that they defiled God’s Temple, a sin that not only evoked God’s anger against the perpetrators but justified the destruction of the Temple itself. 1:48–49. the God of their fathers The worst aspect of the king’s and the people’s sin is their refusal to repent. The tone of theodicy is the strongest in this passage: God did everything in his power to avoid the catastrophe, as his mercy and compassion overrode the strict attribute of justice. God offered the people the means to prevent the impending fate by constantly sending prophets to warn them and make them repent, but the people not only refused to heed the prophets but scorned them and the word of God they were declaring. Punishment was inevitable. 1:50–53. they killed their young men Second Kings reported in detail many facts related to the end of the kingdom: the fate of Zedekiah himself (25:4–7), the details of the copper objects plundered from the Temple (25:13–17), the names and titles of the leaders brought before the Babylonian kings and executed (25:18–21), and poor farmers being left in the land (25:12). It also referred to the aftermath of the destruction and to the fate of Gedaliah in Judah (25:22–26) and of Jehoiachin in Babylonia (25:27–30). The Chronicler omitted all these details and presented in an elevated style, influenced by that of Lamentations, only the main points of the destruction. This is the record, with some changes of detail, followed by 1 Esdras. The punishment included everyone and everything: death; plunder; destruction of the Temple, city walls, and towers; and the utter destruction of every valuable object. The survivors who escaped death were deported to Babylon. 1:54. and they became slaves The story does not end with the destruction but with the prospect of restoration. The length of desolation is calculated from two perspectives: the prediction of Moses, repeated almost literally, that the land would lay waste in order to make up for all the Sabbatical years that the people did not observe (Lev. 26:34–35, 43), and Jeremiah’s prophecy that the “these peoples” will bear the yoke of the Babylonian servitude for 70 years ( Jer. 25:11; 29:10). Our text combines the two perspectives and presents them as Jeremiah’s prophecy; the precise historical term and the identity of the liberator are specified: the rise of the Persian kingdom.

1 Esdras 155

The Beginning of Restoration (2:1–25) Cyrus’s Declaration and Its Aftermath (2:1–14) Cyrus’s Declaration (2:1–6)

2:1In the first year of the reign of Cyrus, [king] of the Persians, in order to accomplish the word of the Lord in the mouth of Jeremiah, 2the Lord aroused the spirit of Cyrus, king of the Persians, and he made a proclamation through his entire kingdom, and also in writing, saying: 3“Thus says Cyrus, the king of the Persians: the Lord of Israel, the Lord Most High, declared me king of the world 4and 2:1–25 The transition from destruction to restoration is made already in Chronicles, where the historical account ends with the first sentences of Cyrus’s declaration. 1 Esdras follows this clue and moves directly from the end of Chronicles to the beginning of Ezra, where it presents the history of the restoration in two phases: the rebuilding of the Temple and the city of Jerusalem in the time of Cyrus and Darius, based primarily on Ezra 1–6 with additions and a change of order, and the activity of Ezra in the time of Artaxerxes, based on Ezra 7–10 + Neh. 7:72–8:13a. The beginning of the story follows Ezra 1 almost verbatim: the restoration was initiated by Cyrus, who issued a declaration in the first year of his reign as king of the Babylonian Empire allowing the Judeans to return to Judah and build the Temple in Jerusalem. It was followed by the people’s prompt response and the delivery of the sacred vessels to Sheshbazzar (Sanabassaros in 1 Esdras), who brought them back to Jerusalem. At this point, however, 1 Esdras departs from the historical sequence presented in Ezra and rather than continuing with the return from Babylon (Ezra 2), the erection of the altar, and the laying of the Temple foundations (Ezra 3), moves to the interference of the local opponents of Judah, the correspondence between the provincial authorities and King Artaxerxes, and the cessation of building and restoration, as depicted in Ezra 4:6–24. Unit structure: Cyrus’s declaration and its aftermath (2:1–14), and letter of accusation to Artaxerxes and its aftermath (2:15–25). 2:1–14 Upon conquering Babylon and assuming the rule of the Babylonian Empire, Cyrus adopted all the titles of the former Babylonian kings, as illustrated by the epigraphic evidence; only later was the title “king of Persia” adopted by Darius. In our pericope (but not in 6:16 = Ezra 5:13) Cyrus is presented four times by the anachronistic title “king of the Persians.” This fact, together with considerations relating to the contents, style, and vocabulary of the declaration, leads many scholars to regard the declaration of Ezra 1:2–4 as an inauthentic document, composed by the author of Ezra-Nehemiah on the basis of Ezra 6:3–5. Other scholars, however, attribute the differences between the two versions to their different format, goal, and addressees. Be that as it may, these considerations do not apply to 1 Esdras, who simply reproduced Ezra 1 as is. Unit structure: Cyrus’s declaration (2:1–6), popular response to the declaration (2:7–8), and delivery and return of the holy vessels (2:9–14). 2:1–2. in the first year Cyrus’s declaration is dated in the first year of his reign (the date repeated in 6:23 = Ezra 6:3), the first year of his reign over the Babylonian Empire (538 bce). Cyrus’s act is presented in a theological framework: it was not a political initiative motivated by pragmatic considerations, but the result of the “arous[ing] of the spirit” by the God of Israel, the purpose of which was to “accomplish the word . . . of Jeremiah.” It thus expresses the dominant concept of biblical historiography that all historical events are fulfillment of preceding words of God. 2:3–4. thus says Cyrus The words attributed to Cyrus make him recognize that his achievement of world domination was not his own but was made possible by the act of God, and it is at God’s

156 Sara Japhet

assigned me to build him a house in Jerusalem that is in Judah. 5Now, if any of you is of his people, may his Lord be with him, and may he go up to Jerusalem that is in Judah and build the house of the Lord of Israel, he is the Lord who dwells in Jerusalem. 6Now, those who live in [their] places let them help him—the one who is in his place—with gold and with silver, with gifts, with horses and cattle, together with the other things set aside by vows, for the Temple of the Lord in Jerusalem.” Popular Response to the Declaration (2:7–8)

7The heads of the fathers’ houses of Judah and of the tribe of Benjamin, and the priests and the Levites, and all those whose spirit the Lord had aroused, arose to go up in order to build the house of the Lord in Jerusalem. 8And those around [them] helped with everything, silver and gold, horses and cattle and a great number of vowed gifts of the many whose spirit had been aroused. Delivery and Return of the Holy Vessels (2:9–14)

9And King Cyrus brought out the holy vessels of the Lord that Nabouchodonosor had taken out from Jerusalem and had put them in his temple of idols, 10Cyrus, the king of the Persians, took them out

command that he was initiating the building of the Temple in Jerusalem. As appropriate for the Persian period, the title of this God in Ezra 1:2 is “God of heaven,” repeated in several places in Ezra-Nehemiah and other contemporary sources.6 This title is generally avoided by 1 Esdras and is either omitted, changed, or replaced by other titles. Here it is replaced by “the Lord Most High” (‘el ‘elyon; e.g., Gen. 14:18–22). This consistent change discloses the distance from the Persian period and its theological vocabulary. 2:5. now, if any of you The festive, theological introduction is followed by Cyrus’s actual permissions granted to the Judean community in Babylon: to go up to Jerusalem, to build the Temple, and—in the next verse—to transfer money and goods from the Diaspora to Jerusalem and Judah. A comparison with Cyrus’s grants in 6:23–25 (= Ezra 6:3–5) discloses the emphasis laid here on the return of the people. It is placed here as the first item, but not even hinted at in the other version. It also points clearly to the addressees of the declaration: the Judeans in exile, for whom the building implied as a matter of fact a return to Judah, rather than those in Judah itself. 2:6. now, those who live Cyrus’s generous permission to the Judeans to transfer money and goods from Babylon to Jerusalem seems to replace his own commitment to cover the expenses of the building from the resources of the Persian government, as mentioned in the other version of the declaration (6:24 = Ezra 6:4). This view of the matter may be interpreted in two ways: as a reflection of a later realization that the promised governmental support was in fact never implemented or as a wish to compare the return from Babylon to the Exodus from Egypt, when the departing Israelites carried with them money and goods given by their Egyptian neighbors (Exod. 12:35–36). 2:7–8. the heads of the fathers’ houses The declaration is met with immediate response from both the Judeans and their neighbors. The Judeans, having been inspired by God, consisted of members of three tribes: Judah and Benjamin are mentioned explicitly, and the tribe of Levi is presented in its division into two professional classes: priests and Levites. Their neighbors followed suit and, as suggested by Cyrus, helped the departing Israelites. 2:9–11. and King Cyrus Cyrus accompanied the series of permissions with a special gesture: the delivery to the returning Judeans of the Temple vessels plundered by the Babylonians. In 6:23–25

1 Esdras 157

and handed them over to Mithridates his treasurer, 11by whom they were delivered to Sanabassaros, the ruler of Judah. 12This was their number: golden libation cups 1,000, silver libation cups 1,000, silver censers 29, golden bowls 20, silver [bowls] 2,410, other vessels 1,000. 13All the returned vessels of gold and silver 5,469, 14were brought back by Sanabassaros from Babylon to Jerusalem, together with those of the exile. Letter of Accusation to Artaxerxes and Its Aftermath (2:15–25) Letter of Accusation to Artaxerxes (2:15–20)

15In the time of Artaxerxes, king of the Persians, Beslemos and Mithridates, and Tabellios, and Raoumos, and Beeltemos, and Samsaios the scribe, and the rest of those who associated with them, dwelling in Samaria and other places, wrote him the following letter against those residing in Judah and Jerusa-

(Ezra 6:3–5) the return of the vessels is included in the declaration itself, whereas here it is described as an additional act of Cyrus. From a literary point of view it seems that the author of Ezra 1 reformulated and restructured the memorandum of 1 Esd. 6:23–25. The bureaucratic procedure is well illustrated: from Cyrus to his treasurer, and from him to the leader of the Judeans. As in many other cases in 1 Esdras, the names of the protagonists are differently presented, but their identity may be established by comparison to Ezra. The name Sanabassaros seems to be a conflation of Sheshbazzar (Ezra 1:8) and Shenazzar (1 Chron. 3:18). 2:12–13. this was their number The official list has the impressive number of over 5,000 small vessels, most of them silver, but also a great number of golden vessels and “others.” The text of 1 Esdras—including the names of the vessels and their numbers—differs in detail from that of Ezra 1:9–11a and may perhaps reflect a better version of the list. 2:14. were brought back According to Ezra 1, the vessels were indeed brought back to Jerusalem by Sheshbazzar, a fact confirmed by 1 Esd. 6:18–19 (= Ezra 5:15–16). Their return is also mentioned by the prophet Isaiah (52:11). Notwithstanding its own mention of the return of the vessels, 1 Esdras later on attributes the actual return of the vessels to Zerubbabel, who received them from Darius (4:44, 57). The issue of “the vessels,” already of great significance in Ezra, is further elaborated in 1 Esdras, and their place in the story is augmented. According to this version, Cyrus took the vessels from their place in Babylon and intended to return them but did not accomplish it; the vessels were later transferred to Zerubbabel, who brought them to Jerusalem. 1 Esdras tries to harmonize the two views but the harmonization is only partly successful, as is evidenced by the present verse. 2:15–25 The correspondence with Artaxerxes, which resulted in the complete cessation of the work, is transferred to this place in 1 Esdras from Ezra 4:6–24. Its original place in Ezra 4 is already problematic: from a historical perspective it places Artaxerxes between Cyrus and Darius rather than in his correct chronological place after Xerxes, Darius’s successor; from the perspective of its contents it is supposed to interrupt the building of the Temple, while in fact it deals throughout with the building of the city. The answer to these difficulties—as has been long recognized—is that following his wish to illustrate the interventions of Judah’s enemies by official documents and not having one in his possession, the author of Ezra-Nehemiah used a document from a later period and introduced it at this place. 1 Esdras moves the correspondence to the time of Cyrus but the historical results are even grimmer. Not only does it place Artaxerxes in this unhistorical date, but it contrasts with his own view of the building procedure. 1 Esdras postpones the

158 Sara Japhet

beginning of the work to the time of Darius, after the appointment of Zerubbabel (4:43–45, 51, 63); the stopping of the building at this point remains entirely out of place. While the majority of scholars regard the order of the events as presented in Ezra 4 to be more original than that of 1 Esdras, some scholars are of the opinion that the original order is preserved in 1 Esdras. It seems that no solution would solve all the difficulties in the historical and literary presentations, but two further considerations favor viewing Ezra as original and the change of order in 1 Esdras as a tendentious and distant reworking. First, the new order serves 1 Esdras’s tendency to present the building of the Temple and the city of Jerusalem as one contemporary enterprise, united from the very beginning of the period. Cyrus’s declaration mentioned only the Temple, but in order to join the building of the city to that of the Temple 1 Esdras introduces immediately after Cyrus’s declaration the correspondence with Artaxerxes, which dealt with the building of the city, and also inserts into it references to the Temple. This line is followed later on in the account, most prominently by the omission of the story of Nehemiah, the builder of Jerusalem. Second, there is the identification of King Artaxerxes, whose insertion at this point immediately after Cyrus is extremely difficult. The solution seems to be offered by an assumption, followed explicitly in later Jewish sources but may go back to earlier times, that “Artaxerxes” was not the name of any Persian king but a general title, used for any king, like “Pharaoh” for the Egyptian kings (Seder Olam Rabbah 30:12). This understanding of the name, which provided the framework for the Rabbinic chronology of the Persian period, was of course possible only when the Persian period and the literature relating to it were observed from a distance and the identity of the Persian kings had already been forgotten. If this assumption is applied to 1 Esdras, the “Artaxerxes” of the following passage could be any king at that date—either Cyrus himself, who changed his mind, or even better, his son Cambyses, who followed him. This is indeed the picture presented by Josephus. This hypothesis does not explain all the tensions in 1 Esdras, but together with its view of the process of restoration, it does ease them to a great extent. Unit structure: letter of accusation to Artaxerxes (2:15–20), the king’s response (2:21–24), and cessation of the work (2:25). 2:15. in the time of Artaxerxes The source of 1 Esdras in Ezra 4:6–24 mentioned three different letters: one at the time of Xerxes, presented in general terms (4:6), and two at the time of Artaxerxes (4:7; 4:8–24), of which the third is prefaced by a long introduction and cited in full. 1 Esdras has only one letter, with a rather simple introduction. Nevertheless, even the short introduction, which omits many of the details of Ezra 4:9–10, contains allusions to the two other letters: the topic of the letter, defined as “those residing in Judah and Jerusalem,” is taken from the letter to Xerxes (Ezra 4:6), and the list of the senders of the letter includes three names taken from the first letter to Artaxerxes (Ezra 4:7); they are not mentioned in the correspondence itself.

1 Esdras 159

lem. 16“To King Artaxerxes [our] lord, your servants Raoumos the reporter, and Samsaios the scribe, and the rest of their council, and the judges in Coelesyria and Phoenicia. 17Now, be it known to the king [our] lord that the Judeans who came up from you to us, having come to Jerusalem, are building the rebellious and evil city, repairing its marketplaces and walls, and laying down the foundations of a Temple. 18Now, if this city is built and the walls finished, they will not only refuse to pay tribute but also withstand kings. Since the matters of the Temple are now in progress, we consider it appropriate not to ignore these matters but notify [our] lord the king, that if it seems good to you, let a search be made in the books of your fathers, 19and you will find in the memoranda what has been written about them, and you will know that this city was rebellious and caused troubles for kings and cities, and the Judeans carried on in it rebellion and troubles from of old, and for this reason this city was destroyed. 20Now therefore we inform you [our] lord the king, that if this city is built and its walls raised up you will not have access to Coelesyria and Phoenicia.” 2:16. to King Artaxerxes The letter begins with a formal address, absent from Ezra 4:11, and presents the names of the senders, taken from Ezra 4:9. Of the long list of peoples and functions mentioned in Ezra 4:9–10, our verse retains only the “judges” and relates them to “Coelesyria and Phoenicia” (1 Esdras’s Greek equivalent of the administrative term “Beyond the River”) the name of the satrapy in the Persian period—repeated in 1 Esdras seven times (2:20, 23; 4:48; 6:28; 7:1; 8:64). 2:17. now, be it known The accusation is straightforward: the newcomers from Babylon are building the city of Jerusalem. To the details of Ezra 4:12—building the city, repairing the walls, and laying the foundations—1 Esdras adds repairing of the marketplaces and the specification of the general term “foundations” as referring to the foundation of the Temple, thus combining into one the building of the city and the Temple. Already at this stage of stating the facts, the city is described as “rebellious and evil,” anticipating the following accusations. 2:18. now, if this city Judah’s opponents strike immediately at a sensitive spot for the Persian king, the threat embodied in a fortified city to the financial interests of the kingdom. They also add to it the possibility of an actual rebellion, not mentioned in Ezra 4:13. They do not, however, substantiate their claims with any actual facts; rather, they refer the king to the history of Jerusalem, advising him to look for precedents of such a possible scenario. 2:19. and you will find The opponents connect the present-day desolation of the city to its history. Judging from this history, a fortified Jerusalem would strive for independence, and this is something that the king would certainly wish to avoid. The accusers speak very generally of “old times” and do not mention any specific period or event, but their confident reference to the royal “memoranda” may imply that what they have in mind is the Judean struggle for independence at the time of Zedekiah, which ended with the Babylonian conquest. 2:20. now therefore we inform you The accusers conclude their letter with the claim that a far-reaching threat to the welfare of the empire is inherent in the building of Jerusalem, a threat to the emperor’s dominion of the whole satrapy of Coelesyria and Phoenicia.

160 Sara Japhet

The King’s Response (2:21–24)

21Then the king wrote back to Raoumos, the writer of records, and to Beeltemos and Samsaios the scribe, and all the rest of those who were associated with them, who dwelt in Samaria and Syria and Phoenicia, as follows: 22“I read the letter that you sent me. I ordered that it be investigated and it was found that this city resisted kings from of old, 23and men conducted rebellion and wars in it, and there were strong and mighty kings in Jerusalem who ruled and exacted tribute from Coelesyria and Phoenicia. 24So now I have ordered to prevent these men from building the city, and precaution be taken that nothing regarding these matters be done, and that all these evil things go no further to the annoyance of kings.” Cessation of the Work (2:25)

25Then, when the document of King Artaxerxes was read, Raoumos and Samsaios the scribe and all those who were associated with them, moving with haste to Jerusalem, with horses and a host of soldiers, began to hinder the builders. And the building of the Temple in Jerusalem ceased until the second year of the reign of Darius, the king of the Persians. The Story of the Three Bodyguards (3:1–4:63) The Competition between the Bodyguards (3:1–16a) Darius’s Banquet (3:1–3)

3:1King Darius held a great banquet for all his subjects, and for all his household and for all his officials

2:21–23. then the king wrote back The king followed the advice of his officials in Samaria and ordered a search in the state archives. His results were even broader than those made by the accusations of his officials, and his response was rather concise. He confirmed that “this city resisted kings from of old,” but also that it posed a serious rival to the empire’s welfare, as there were kings there who actually “exacted tribute” from the entire satrapy. We have no way to confirm the king’s claim—such an extensive dominion of the kingdom of Judah is not attested anywhere—unless we go very far back in history to the stories about the united kingdom, which would indicate that the Persian king consulted not only his royal memoranda, but also Jewish historical sources. 2:24. so now I have ordered The king makes no attempt to hear the other side; his reaction is completely in line with the accusers’ position and his conclusion is straightforward: the rebuilding of the city must be stopped immediately! The tone of the king’s letter and his general stand toward Jerusalem can be well understood if placed in their original position, in the early days of Artaxerxes, with their political problems and unrest. His order to stop the building of the city would also provide a suitable background for the later appeal of Nehemiah to go back to Jerusalem and build it. In its present position in 1 Esdras, however, after the benevolent attitude of Cyrus toward Judah, it is completely incomprehensible and defies any historical reasoning. Such lack of historical logic would not bother the author of 1 Esdras, who was far removed from the Persian period. 2:25. then, when the document The effect of the king’s message was immediate: the building was stopped by force. Unfortunately, the voices of the local Judean governor and the Judean community are not presented, neither in the original version of this episode nor in 1 Esdras. 3:1–4:63 The story of Darius’s three bodyguards, known by several similar titles, is peculiar to 1 Esdras. Its basis is formed by a universal wisdom tale about a competition for the title “the wisest

1 Esdras 161

man in the kingdom”; the means by which this title with all its ancillary benefits is to be awarded is a rhetorical debate on the topic of who or what is the strongest thing in the world. This debate is the focus and target of the story. The speeches included in the story are of a most general character and apply to issues common to all human beings in a variety of social and political backgrounds. This universal wisdom tale was secondarily adapted to a specific historical context by the identification of some of the protagonists with known historical figures and by its insertion into a specific point in the history of the restoration. The episode is placed in Darius’s palace in the second year of his reign, and the protagonists are King Darius and Zerubbabel. Some of these adaptations, like the identity of the king, run smoothly and create no literary or historical problems. The secondary character of other details, like the identification of the “third guardsman” with Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel, remains apparent. The multilayered character of the story demonstrates that it was not written originally by the author of 1 Esdras but, following his literary procedure in the entire work, taken from an existing story and adapted to his own needs. Although the general contours of the story are clear, with the absence of any other version of the story, it is difficult to distinguish between the original format of the story and its adaptations. One interesting question about this story relates to its original language. Although some earlier scholars claimed that it was written originally in Greek, it has been convincingly shown that both the adaptations of 1 Esdras and the original story were written in a Semitic language, still reflected in the Greek translation. Because of their similarity and reciprocal influence it is not easy to decide whether this language was Hebrew or Aramaic. The author of 1 Esdras was obviously versed in both languages, as both served as his sources in Ezra-Nehemiah. The affinity between the story and other biblical texts was observed long ago, and sometimes one can hear in the literary texture echoes of complete verses from earlier literature. I will refer to the most obvious of these echoes in the commentary. Unit structure: competition between the bodyguards (3:1–16a), speeches (3:16b–4:41), outcome of the competition (4:42–57), and thanksgiving and rejoicing (4:58–63). 3:1–16a As in many other wisdom tales, the episode is placed in the king’s court, in the framework of a banquet. However, rather than forming part of the banquet’s entertainment, the competition between the bodyguards is placed in the private precincts of the king, as a kind of aftermath of the banquet. Moreover, the competition takes place after the banquet’s guests have already departed, and when Darius decided to go on with the competition and assume the role of judge, he again summoned all his officials who had just departed. The connection between the banquet and the debate is superficial, and the king’s banquet was added under the influence of similar stories, perhaps specifically the story of Esther. The logic of the story raises several questions. The initiative to draw up a competition and set its conditions are said to have come from the bodyguards themselves, perhaps out of boredom in their nightly shift. But this is a rather unusual picture: is it thinkable that the bodyguards would dictate to the king what to do and specifically how to reward the one declared wisest? Moreover, Darius is described as having awakened twice—could it not be a result of some textual corruption through translation or transmission? Unit structure: Darius’s banquet (3:1–3), terms of the competition (3:4–9), statements by guardsmen (3:10–12), and setting of the speeches (3:13–16a). 3:1–3. King Darius held Darius’s banquet is dated to his second year, and the opening of the story lays emphasis on the large gathering of every official and person of distinction in Darius’s empire. The only information about the banquet itself is that “they ate and drank and . . . departed”—in contrast to the elaborate description in Esther 1:3–9. The description of Darius’s em-

162 Sara Japhet

of Media and Persia, 2for all his satraps and commanders and governors, his subjects in 127 satrapies from India to Ethiopia. 3And they ate and drank and, having had enough, departed. And King Darius retired to his bed chamber, went to sleep, and woke up. The Terms of the Competition (3:4–9)

4Then the three young men, the bodyguards who kept guard over the person of the king, said to one another: 5“Let each one of us make one statement about the strongest [thing]. And to the one whose statement appears wiser than that of the others, to him King Darius will give great presents and great prizes. 6He will wear purple, drink from gold [cups], sleep on a gold [couch], and have a chariot with gold bridles, a linen turban, and a necklace around the neck. 7He will sit next to Darius because of his

pire as comprising 127 provinces is anachronistic, for at that time the empire did not reach these extreme boundaries and Darius had not yet organized the empire along these lines; it is clearly influenced by Esther 1:1. 3:3. and they ate The author’s interest is to set the background of the competition rather than describe the banquet itself, and even the duration of the banquet is not mentioned (in Esther, the banquet of Xerxes lasted 180 days throughout the empire, followed by a seven-day banquet in the capital). The reference to Darius’s waking up at this point is not clear. Is it a preemptive allusion to what will take place later (3:9), or is it a reference to a kind of sleeplessness (cf. Esther 6:1) that has been mistranslated? The immediate continuation of the story takes place, however, during his sleep. 3:4. then the three young men According to this story the king’s bodyguard consisted of three men. It makes sense that the unit should be larger than one man, for both security and convenience, but in this case it is possible that the number was indicated by literary conventions rather than actual historical circumstances. 3:5. let each one of us The bodyguards suggest the idea of the competition and its conditions. The topic is expressed quite concisely, but the conditions are described in great detail. The judicial procedure is suggested in a most general way: the “statement appears wiser,” without any reference to the manner in which this will be decided. The person who will become obligated by the results of the competition is expressly the king: “To him King Darius will give.” This manner of proposing the conditions of the competition perhaps suits the wisdom tale, but certainly not actual historical circumstances. 3:6. he will wear The gifts awarded by the king all revolve around the winner’s status as a member of the royal entourage, expressed in the standard signs of this office. Externally, these signs include clothes and accessories: purple clothes, golden cups, a golden couch, and a chariot with golden bridles (Esther 1:6; 8:15; Dan. 5:7, 16, 29 [“they clothed Daniel in purple”]; Song 3:10). The other symbols of royalty are the turban, described in the Bible as part of the high priest’s attire (Exod. 28:4, 37; Ezek. 21:31), and the golden necklace, presented as a special royal sign (Dan. 5:7, 16, 29; Gen. 41:42). 3:7. he will sit Finally, the winner’s status is explicitly defined: “sit next to Darius” (i.e., be second to the king) and “kinsman of Darius.” Both titles belong to the terminology of the court, the second more specifically of the Persian court. For “second to the king,” see Gen. 41:40, 43; 1 Sam. 23:17; 2 Chron. 28:7; Esther 10:3. In Esther 1:14, seven “ministers of Persia and Media” who sat in the “first place in the kingdom” are described as “ha[ving] access to the royal presence.” It is rather

1 Esdras 163

wisdom and be called kinsman of Darius.” 8Then each of them wrote his statement, sealed it, and put it under the pillow of King Darius, and they said: 9“When the king wakes up, they will give him the written statements; the one whom the king and the three officials of Persia decide that his statement was the wisest, to him will be given the victory, as has been written.” The Guardsmen’s Statements (3:10–12)

10One wrote: “Wine is the strongest.” 11The other wrote: “The king is the strongest.” 12The third one wrote: “Women are the strongest, but truth prevails over all.” The Setting of the Speeches (3:13–16a)

13When the king woke up, they took the document, gave it to him and he read. 14He sent and summoned all the officials of Persia and Media, the satraps and the commanders, the governors and the consuls. He sat in the council hall, and the document was read before them. 15And he said: “Call the young men so that they themselves explain their statements.” So, they were summoned and came in, 16and they said to them: “Tell us about what has been written.” The Speeches (3:16b–4:41) The Power of Wine (3:16b–23)

The first one, who spoke of the strength of wine, began and said as follows: 17“O men! How exceed-

strange that the extension of such exceptional distinctions would be decided by the guardsmen themselves (contrast Dan. 5:7; Gen. 41:40; Esther 6:6–10). 3:8–9. then each of them The judicial procedure is clarified: the decision is to be made by the king and the “three officials of Persia,” the highest authority of the empire besides the king himself (Dan. 6:3). The procedure is not confirmed by the story itself. 3:10–12. one wrote The reader expects to find three candidates for the title of “the strongest.” The story, however, presents four, making the last speaker first suggest one idea and then go back on his own words and suggest another. This structure by itself may suggest that the fourth item was not original to the story and was added at some point, perhaps even by the author of 1 Esdras himself. As we will see later, there is also an essential difference in perspective and context between the three first candidates on the one hand and the fourth on the other. 3:13–16. when the king woke up The story then proceeds smoothly: the king wakes up, reads the statements, summons his officials, and asks the three youths to vindicate their views by oral presentations. The stage is prepared for the main part of the wisdom tale, the speeches about “the strongest.” 3:16b–4:41 The three first speeches are set in a similar rhetorical framework: after a short introduction presenting the speaker and his topic, the speech begins with an exclamation, follows with a presentation of the arguments, and ends with another exclamation. The fourth speech deviates from this rhetorical framework. It begins indeed with a vocative “O men!” but moves immediately to the presentation of the arguments and mentions the topic, truth, only later (3:35). Also the end of the fourth speech differs from that of the others, as it consists of a blessing rather than of the standard exclamatory address.

164 Sara Japhet

There is, however, a literary link between the third and fourth speeches. Differently from his two predecessors, the third speaker does not limit his arguments about the power of women to general statements and ends his speech with an actual example from the private precincts of the ruling king. This part of the third speech (4:29–31) serves as a springboard for the fourth speech, which follows after a short pause. It seems therefore that not only the fourth speech but also the end of the third are part of a secondary literary layer, which set the wisdom tale in a specific historical context. To this layer we should also ascribe the gloss in 4:13. The fourth speech differs from the first three also by its perspective. Wine, king, and women are presented from the perspective of the common experience of men in their physical and social reality. The fourth item, truth, by contrast, is an abstract spiritual concept and belongs to another sphere. The argument moves from the practical aspects of human life to the spiritual foundations of the world, from the sphere of the secular to the sphere of religion. One question posed by the speeches is their present order. The logic of the story demands a gradual progress between them, with each later speaker referring to the arguments of his predecessor. This happens only partially in the present order. The first speech about wine already refers to the king, the topic of the following speech, but the second speech, on the power of the king, does not refer to the speech that preceded it. This may suggest that the original order of the speeches was different, king first and wine second. On the other hand, at least in its present form there is a strong connection between the second speech about the king and the following one about women. Another aspect of this question is the length of the speeches, which become longer as they proceed, and the speech about wine is indeed the shortest. Thus, in the absence of further evidence this matter cannot be fully settled. Unit structure: the power of wine (3:16b–23), the power of the king (4:1–12), the power of women (4:13–32), and the power of truth (4:33–41). 3:16b–23 The speech on the power of wine is a unified rhetorical piece, led by one major idea: wine’s detrimental influence over humans and its destructive effect on the conventional social order and propriety. The detrimental power of wine is alluded to in the Bible (Isa. 5:1; 28:1, 7; Prov. 20:1; 31:4–5), but there it is balanced by the pleasure of wine and its positive effect on human well-being (Ps. 104:15; Eccles. 9:7; 10:19). This point is absent from the present speech. Unit structure: introduction (3:16b), wine—the great equalizer of minds (3:17–18), wine—the cause of illusionary happiness (3:19–20), wine—the cause of ruthless and unrestrained behavior (3:21–22), and conclusion (3:23). 3:17. O men! The speech begins, appropriately, with an exclamatory statement and moves immediately to the leading idea: the power of wine lies in its ability to confuse the minds of human beings. After drinking wine, a man “is not himself ” anymore.

1 Esdras 165

ingly strong is wine! It confuses the mind of all the men who drink it! 18It turns the mind of the king and the mind of the orphan to be one and the same, of the slave and of the freeman, of the poor man and of the rich man. 19It turns the mind toward feasting and rejoicing, and he does not remember any grief or debt. 20It makes all hearts rich, and he remembers neither king nor satrap, and it makes him speak of everything in talents. 21And when they drink they do not remember the friendship of fellows and brothers and draw out swords for no big thing. 22And when they sober up from the wine they do not remember what they have done. 23O men! Is not wine the strongest that makes one act in this way!” Having said that, he was silent. The Power of the King (4:1–12)

4:1The second one, who spoke of the strength of the king, began to speak: 2“O men! Are not men exceedingly strong! They master the land and the sea and all things in them. 3But the king is even stronger; 3:18. it turns the mind The first illustration of wine’s power is its equalizing effect, as it erases all social distinctions. The highest persons on the social ladder and the lowest persons on this ladder are influenced by wine in the same way; they all become equal in their state of confusion—king and orphan, slave and free, poor and rich. While the last two couplings are rather standard, the first is somewhat unusual and presents a social situation in which the orphan is the weakest member of the society. (For a similar pair, although differently qualified, see Eccles. 4:13.) 3:19–20. it turns the mind toward feasting Wine creates a false feeling of strength and happiness. It makes people leave the realities of the world and move to a happy, unrealistic world of freedom and joy. They forget their obligations, either financial or social, the hierarchical order of society, and their place in it, and become in this imaginary existence happy, free, and rich. 3:21–22. and when they drink Wine exerts its power also on human personality and behavior: it makes people lose control of their actions and act with unbalanced temper and violence. Moreover, they cannot even be reproached for their behavior under the influence of wine because they lose the sense of responsibility and the more positive emotions of love and friendship. When they sober up from the wine they do not remember what they have done. 3:23. O men! The speaker ends his speech with a concluding exclamatory address: the thing that is capable of exerting such an influence on human beings and human society is surely the strongest! 4:1–12 The leading idea of the second speech is the unlimited control of the king over the lives and actions of his subjects. This power is presented from a negative perspective: the king’s subjects are devoid of personal freedom and lack the ability to choose and decide; all their actions, good or bad, are dictated by the king’s orders. The speech is built around the contrast between the king’s dominion and his subjects’ obeisance and is rather daring in its critique of the social and political order. While the speech about wine brought to light the weakness of human nature, which turns upside down under the influence of wine, one may sense a tone of criticism in the description of the king’s unjustified total power. Unit structure: introduction (4:1), the king’s dominion over his subjects (4:2–3), the power of the king over his army (4:4–5), the power of the king to exact tribute (4:6), the total submission of the many to the will of the one (4:7–10a), the protection of the king’s body (4:10b–11), and conclusion (4:12). 4:2. O men! The second speaker begins his speech in an argumentative tone and starts from an accepted general maxim—the power of people. The line of his argument is simple: people are the strongest creatures of the world, but since they are dominated by the king’s will, he is the su-

166 Sara Japhet

he rules over all and dominates them, and whatever he tells them, they obey. 4If he tells them to wage war one against the other, they do. If he sends them against enemies, they go and conquer mountains, walls, and towers. 5They kill and are killed and do not transgress the word of the king. If they are victorious they bring everything to the king, both what they plunder and everything else. 6Those who do not serve in the army nor go to war, but till the soil, when again they reap what they sow, they carry it to the king and compel one another to pay tribute to the king. 7He is but one man, but if he tells [them] to kill, they kill; if he tells [them] to lay off, they lay off; 8if he tells [them] to strike, they strike; if he tells [them] to destroy, they destroy; if he tells [them] to build, they build; 9if he tells [them] to cut down, they cut down; if he tells [them] to plant, they plant. 10And all his people and all his forces obey him. Furthermore, he reclines and eats and drinks and lies down, 11while they keep guard round about him; no one can leave to do his own work or disobey him. 12O men! How is not the king the strongest, that he is thus obeyed!” And he was silent. preme power on earth. The statement about human rule of the world sounds like an echo of the story of the creation: “Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth. . . . Fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth” (Gen. 1:26, 28 NRSV). However, while this blessing invests in human hands only the dominion over the world’s living creatures, the second speech describes humans as rulers of “the land and the sea and all things in them.” This general statement is then illustrated from several perspectives. 4:4–5. if he tells them The first illustration of the king’s power is his military activities and his power over his soldiers: his decision to act violently and wage war is fully obeyed and carried out, even at the price of the soldiers’ lives. The speech presents the king’s wish to wage war as a whimsical, personal decision, with no justification of any kind. His army will do whatever he commands them and make the greatest effort to satisfy his goals, with no questions asked or disobedience considered. Moreover, the gains of war in spoil and other things are also the king’s, as everything is brought to him by his forces. 4:6. those who do not serve Second to the army are the civilians who do not serve in the army. They too are obedient to the king’s command and express it by the tribute they pay. Not only are they careful to offer the yield of their labor to the king, but they also keep an eye on each other. No one is exempt from this obligation. 4:7–10a. he is but one man The speaker expresses his amazing observation of the king’s ability to dominate. Although he is but one man, everything that he commands, positive or negative, is blindly obeyed! The speaker does not explain the source of this authority, its social framework, or its religious foundations, nor does he present the subjects’ obeisance as exacted by force. It is an unexplained, subservient obeisance to this one man, the king. 4:10b–11. furthermore, he reclines As a final point the speaker turns to the efforts made to guard the king’s person and welfare. The king is just a human being and his behavior is no different from that of any man, as he satisfies his needs in food, drink, and sleep. Nevertheless, every effort is made to keep him safe and secure. He is guarded around the clock, and his guards keep their shifts faithfully, with no negligence. This final remark alludes to the narrative framework of the episode—the competition between the king’s bodyguards. 4:12. O men! The speech ends with an exclamation: a man who is obeyed in this way is certainly the strongest. 1 Esdras 167

The Power of Women (4:13–32)

13Then the third one, who spoke about women and truth—he was Zorobabel—began to speak: 14“O men! Is not the king great? Are not men numerous? Is not wine powerful? But who dominates them? Who rules over them? Is it not women? 15Women gave birth to the king and to all the people who rule over sea and land; 16to them they were born, and they raised them—those who planted the vineyards, from which wine comes. 17They make the garments of men, and they extend glory to men; men cannot exist without women. 18And if they have gathered gold and silver and every nice thing, and they see one woman, pretty in appearance and beauty, 19they let go of all these things and gape at her. Opening their mouth they look at her, and all of them prefer her to the gold and silver and all the nice things. 20A man leaves behind his own father who raised him, and his own country, and clings to his own wife. 21With his wife he dies [literally: leaves his soul] and remembers neither his father nor his mother nor his country. 22It should hence be known to you that women rule over you. Do you not labor and work 4:13–32 The arguments of the third speech relate to its two predecessors, particularly to the second: the king is indeed the strongest among human beings, but all men, including the king, are dominated by women. The speech is composed of two parts: general arguments in support of the case, and an illustration of the argument by a specific example. The second section alludes to the actual circumstances of the ruling king and paves the way to the historical adaptation of the story. Unit structure: introduction (4:13), women are the masters of men (4:14), women as mothers (4:15–17), the power exerted by feminine beauty (4:18–19), a man’s attachment to his wife (4:20–27), the episode in the king’s chambers (4:28–31), and conclusion (4:32). 4:13. then the third one The standard presentation of the speaker is disturbed here by the identification of the speaker by name: “He was Zorobabel.” With this note the historical setting of the episode is resumed and brought to the attention of the reader: it was an actual event, within a historical framework. 4:14. O men! The speech begins in an exclamatory formulation, followed by a series of rhetorical questions that connect the speech to the previous ones. The point of departure for the questions is a confirmation of the preceding claims: king and wine are indeed powerful, but both, and mankind in general, are dominated by a stronger power—women. 4:15–17. women gave birth The source of women’s power is the combination of biological and social facts: they give birth to human beings and raise their offspring. The speaker does not explain how these facts endow women with power—is it a biological tie, a psychological attachment, or the result of social conditioning? The final statement that “men cannot exist without women” has a double entendre: they cannot exist biologically because they are borne by women, and they cannot exist socially and psychologically because their needs are provided by women. 4:18–19. and if they have gathered The speaker then goes on to describe the attraction of men to women: a beautiful woman would make a man prefer her to all his material treasures, not as an act of will but as an internal, psychological drive. 4:20–21. a man leaves behind From the attraction of the feminine beauty the speaker moves to the attachment of man to his wife. In a statement that alludes to Gen. 2:24, he states as a fact that a wife is more important to a man than are his parents and his country; it is with her that he prefers to live his life until death. 4:22. it should hence be known After presenting “the facts of life,” the speaker turns again to the audience: they should acknowledge their master! From the neutral description of facts, the speaker

168 Sara Japhet

hard and give and bring it all to women? 23A man takes his sword, goes forth to raid and plunder and steal, to sail the sea and rivers; 24he faces a lion and walks in the dark, and when he steals and plunders and robs, he brings it to his beloved. 25A man loves his own wife, much more than his father and his mother. 26Many lost their own minds because of women and became slaves because of them. 27And many have perished and stumbled and sinned because of women. 28And now, will you not believe me? Is not the king great in his authority? Are not all countries afraid to approach him? 29I saw him and Apame, the king’s concubine, the daughter of the eminent Barthakos, sitting at the right hand of the king. 30She removed the crown from the head of the king, put it on her own, and slapped the king with her left hand, 31and in addition to that, the king was looking at her with an open mouth. If she smiled at him, he smiled, if she was angry with him, he flattered her, so that she would be reconciled to him. 32O men! Are not the women the strongest, that they can act like this?” moves to a critical perspective: men are practically and psychologically subservient to women; all their actions, good or bad, are motivated by their wish to serve and satisfy women’s pleasure. 4:23–24. a man takes his sword A man is ready to do everything, to face danger and hardships, to behave in an antisocial and dangerous manner, all in order to please a woman. 4:25–27. a man loves his own wife A man’s “beloved” is his wife, for whose sake he would do everything in his power. For her sake he would risk his most valued material and spiritual possessions: sanity, freedom, integrity, social ethics, and even life. 4:28. and now Instead of the expected final exclamation about the power of women, the speaker opens with a new address and presents to the audience an illustration of his claims, taken from the nearest surroundings: the king and his concubine. If you were convinced, he says, that the king is the strongest of men, let us examine how this great man becomes weak by his attachment to a woman! 4:29–31. I saw him and Apame This is the most daring part of the speech: a detailed description of the king’s behavior in his most private domain. He is presented as a play tool in the hands of his concubine, a slave of her whims. The authenticity of the scene is strongly emphasized by the identification of the participants by name and descent: the revered King Darius and Apame, daughter of Barthakos. Scholars have tried to identify the concubine and her father with known historical figures but so far these attempts bear no convincing conclusions. Whether because of our limited knowledge, because the names were corrupted in their Greek transcription, or— more radically—because they were fictitious in the first place, aimed to enhance the rhetorical force of the speech—the fact is that so far they remain unidentified. 4:32. O men! At this point the speech is concluded with the standard exclamation: are not women the strongest! However, the other part of the conclusion, the reference to the speaker’s silence, is omitted, because this is not, indeed, the true conclusion of his address, which will come later, in 4:41.

1 Esdras 169

The Power of Truth (4:33–41)

33Then, as the king and his officials looked at one another, he began to speak about truth. 34“O men! Are not women strong? The earth is vast, the heaven is high, and the sun is swift in its course, as it turns around in the circuit of heaven and races back quickly to its own place in the one day. 35Is not he great who does all these? Truth is great and stronger than all these! 36The whole earth calls upon the truth. The heavens praise her. All the works shake and tremble. There is not any injustice with her. 37Wine is unrighteous! The king is unrighteous! Women are unrighteous! All the sons of men are unrighteous 4:33–41 The finale of the third speech was an act of courage already hinted at in the figure of the speaker. As a bodyguard with the closest proximity to the king, he was expected to keep his observations to himself and act with discretion. In sharing with the public his impressions of the king’s behavior, he transgressed his primary obligation to discretion and put in jeopardy both the king’s authority and his own life. Will the king forgive him for this transgression? Being fully aware of his position and taking advantage of the public’s embarrassment at the situation, he begins to justify his disclosure by turning to the true value that guided his actions, truth. From a literary point of view, the last part of the speech on women and the speech about truth are thus tightly connected. In the context of the debate, the topic and arguments of the fourth speech are of a deconstructive nature. Human reality is set aside, and the question of the strongest is approached from an ontological-philosophical perspective: what is the strongest and most lasting value in the whole universe? Unit structure: introduction (4:33), truth—the supreme power (4:34–35), comparison between truth and everything else (4:36–38), apotheosis of truth (4:39– 40), and the judgment (4:41). 4:33. then, as the king The shocking impact of the last part of the speech about women is expressed by the silence of the audience, including the king and his officials. The young man takes advantage of the embarrassing moment and continues his words. 4:34. O men! The speaker first posits the results of his earlier arguments and restates the power of women. However, in a swift turn of mind and with no interruption, he regains the attention of the crowd by leaving the format of the speeches followed so far and moving to a new and different reasoning. His gaze is turned to the universe: earth, heaven, and sun. The speaker’s words are replete with biblical allusions. The description of the course of the sun seems a combination of two verses: Ps. 19:7 and Eccles. 1:5. The allusion to the height of the skies and the width of the earth echoes Job 11:9, where they are compared to God’s acts. 4:35. is not he great? The rhetorical manipulation of the speaker is transparent. He refers most explicitly to a “he,” the supreme transcendent power who created earth, heaven, and sun, but contrary to one’s expectations refrains from identifying the creator as “God” or, at least in the context of Wisdom Literature, as Wisdom. The identification of the supreme creating power as “truth” is certainly conditioned by the context, the juxtaposition of the authority of the king with the true source of authority, the genuine supreme power, truth. 4:36. the whole earth The speaker goes on to list the virtues of truth: she is called upon, praised, and revered by the most powerful forces because of her essential quality: justice. Truth is the measure for all beings. 4:37–38. wine is unrighteous All the previous candidates for the title of strongest, in the order of their presentation, are then compared with truth with the rod of justice. They are all unrighteous, and so are human beings in general, including the king. Because of its very essence as a corrupt creature, humanity is destined to perish; only truth will prevail and rule forever.

170 Sara Japhet

and all their works are unrighteous, all such things! There is no truth in them. In their unrighteousness they will perish. 38But truth endures and is strong forever. She lives and rules forever and ever. 39There is no partiality or preference with her, but she renders justice to all the unrighteous and wicked, and all are content with her deeds. 40There is nothing unjust in her judgment. Hers is the power and the kingdom, the authority and the greatness for all eternity. Blessed be the God of truth!” 41And he stopped speaking. Then all the people shouted and said: “Truth is great and strongest of all!” The Outcome of the Competition (4:42–57) Zerubbabel’s Request (4:42–46)

42Then the king said to him: “Ask what you wish—more than what was written—and we will give it 4:39–40. there is no partiality The speech ends with an apotheosis of truth in two stages. First is her justice in judgment, acknowledged and valued by everyone. The phrasing of these statements is almost a literal repetition of the attributes of God listed by King Jehoshaphat in his instruction to the judges: “For there is no perversion of justice with the Lord our God, or partiality, or taking of bribes” (2 Chron. 19:7 NRSV; cf. Deut. 10:17). Then comes a general apotheosis of her strength, dominion, authority, and eternity, an apparent epitome of David’s blessing of God in 1 Chron. 29:10–13: “Blessed are you, O Lord, the God of our ancestor Israel, forever and ever. Yours, O Lord, are the greatness, the power, the glory, the victory, and the majesty; for all that is in the heavens and earth is yours; yours is the kingdom, O Lord, and you are exalted as head above all” (NRSV). The fourth speech ends with an exclamation that at last discloses the figure intended all along and identified by the attribute of truth—“Blessed be the God of truth!” This attribute is based on Chronicles, in the designation of God as “the God of truth” (2 Chron. 15:3, rendered “the true God” by English translations). The speech on truth is an exemplary piece of Jewish rhetoric. It is fused with biblical concepts of the God of Israel, the one and only God, the creator of heaven and earth. It acclaims one of the most important tenets of Judaism—God’s justice in his rule of the world, compared with the injustice of humanity—and it judges all human beings by the same rod of justice before God. However, up to the very end the speech is phrased in general terms and presents its topic in the most universal framework of human existence. 4:41. and he stopped speaking The last exclamatory blessing of God concludes the speech with no need to confirm that “truth is the strongest.” One can hear the raised voice and the devotion put into the climactic ending of the speech, greatly emphasized by the silence that followed. The reaction of the audience is expected and self-evident. It is a public acclamation of the higher values of human life and is the final conclusion of the competition: “Truth is great and strongest of all!” 4:42–57 The king joins the judgment of the crowd to announce the outcome of the competition. The circumstances of the fourth speech and the inherent criticism of the king’s behavior are all put aside and forgotten. The king is ready to fulfill his promises, to bestow on the winner all the signs of victory as set in the conditions of the competition. However, this becomes unnecessary because the third guardsman—who is Zerubbabel—forgoes his personal benefits and turns the king’s favor into an instrument in promoting the interests of his people. Zerubbabel is thus presented not only as “the wisest of all” but also as the most devoted person to his people’s interests and needs. Impressed by Zerubbabel’s petition, Darius grants him all that he asked for, and more. Differently from the other royal decrees and documents in Ezra-Nehemiah, Darius’s grants are recorded in a third-person narrative style rather than in a first-person style. Unit struc-

1 Esdras 171

to you, because you were found the wisest. You shall sit next to me and be called my kinsman.” 43Then he said to the king: “Remember the vow that you made on the day you received the kingdom, to build Jerusalem, 44and to return all the vessels that had been taken out from Jerusalem, that Cyrus set aside when he vowed to cut Babylon off and vowed to send [them] out there. 45And you vowed to build the Temple that the Edomites set on fire when Judah was destroyed by the Chaldeans. 46And now, this is what I request, lord king, and what I ask from you, and this is your greatness. I beg of you now to fulfill your vow that you vowed to fulfill by your own mouth to the King of heaven.”

ture: Zerubbabel’s request (4:42–46) and Darius’s grants (4:47–57); structure of second subunit: letters concerning a military escort (4:47), letters concerning provision of timber (4:48), letters concerning the status of Judah and the reclamation of land (4:49–50), financial support for the Temple ritual and personnel (4:51–56), and return of the vessels (4:57). 4:42. then the king said to him Of the conditions set at the beginning of the competition, the king mentions only the most important: he offers to make Zerubbabel his counselor, bearing the honorary title “kinsman of the king.” For all the other prizes of victory he lets Zerubbabel set down his own requests. 4:43–45. then he said to the king This is a moment of trial for Zerubbabel, now that all the doors to personal success have been opened, and it is at this moment that he appears in all his personal greatness. Rather than asking anything for himself, his requests apply to the welfare of his people and to the king’s involvement in its promotion. Quite in the spirit of the competition, Zerubbabel sets the supreme value system as background for his request: he reminds the king of his vow and asks him to fulfill it. At least formally, Zerubbabel enables the king to become a better person and ruler, a man faithful to his word. The reference to an earlier vow of Darius identifies his commitment to the Judean community as something that he had already undertaken in the past; all that he is asked to do now is to act as a man of honor and implement his policy. Zerubbabel mentions three items included in the king’s earlier vow: building Jerusalem, return of the vessels, and building the Temple; their conjunction is a faithful representation of 1 Esdras’s view throughout his story. Darius does not deny the existence of a vow when he “received the kingdom,” but there is no mention of it in any of our sources. The Ezra-Nehemiah story passes in silence over Darius’s first year and mentions only that work on the Temple ceased until the second year of Darius, and then the building was resumed under the influence of the prophets (Ezra 4:24–5:2). This gap has now been filled by the supposed vow, but no details are provided regarding its circumstances and how it came to the attention of Zerubbabel who, according to the narrative setup, was Darius’s bodyguard. (For 1 Esdras’s different view of the delivery of the vessels see the comment on 2:14.) In Zerubbabel’s report the Babylonians are described as responsible for the conquest of Judah, but the burning of the Temple is attributed to the Edomites, a view that brings to mind Ps. 137:7. This choice of detail may be a means of facilitating Darius’s decision regarding the Temple, or it may reflect the contemporary enmity toward the Edomites and the political conflicts and contrast of interests (see comment on 4:50). 4:46. and now The conclusion of Zerubbabel’s words acknowledges the grand dimensions of his request: fulfilling it will be a sign of the king’s greatness. Similar to his rhetorical technique in the speech, only at this point does Zerubbabel mention that the king’s vow was “to the King of heaven,” and therefore its fulfillment is an absolute obligation. The pagan king’s acknowledgement of “the King of heaven,” whom Zerubbabel regarded as the God of Israel, is part of the universal viewpoint of the Wisdom Literature. 172 Sara Japhet

Darius’s Grants (4:47–57)

47Then King Darius stood up and kissed him and wrote letters for him to all the stewards and the governors and the commanders and the satraps that they should escort him and all those who were going up with him to build Jerusalem. 48And he wrote letters to all the governors of Coelesyria and Phoenicia and those in Lebanon to transport cedarwood from Lebanon to Jerusalem in order that they should build the city with him. 49And he wrote concerning all the Judeans who were going up from his kingdom to Judah about their freedom, that no official or governor or satrap or steward may invade their gates. 50And that all the land that they occupy shall be free of tribute, and that the Edomites hand over the villages that they took from the Judeans. 51Twenty talents are to be given yearly for the building of the Temple, until it is built, 52and another 10 talents yearly for the offering of the daily sacrifices on 4:47. then King Darius stood up Without further ado the king turns to grant Zerubbabel’s requests and enters into practical details that Zerubbabel did not mention. The king begins with the role of Zerubbabel himself and then proceeds with the return of the Judeans to their homeland. All these details—the appointment of Zerubbabel, the return to Jerusalem, the sending of letters to the Persian officials on the way, and the escort provided by the provincial authorities—are taken from Neh. 2:6–9 as part of 1 Esdras’s general tendency to antedate the building of Jerusalem and to ascribe it to Zerubbabel rather than to Nehemiah. 4:48. and he wrote The second issue on the king’s agenda is the supply of timber for the building. This aspect of the restoration is presented in Ezra 3:7 in the context of rebuilding the Temple, when the returning Judeans took steps to purchase cedarwood from the Sidonians and the Tyrians “in accord with the authorization granted them by King Cyrus.” In our context it is the king himself who sends letters to his officials in these provinces to provide the returning Judeans with cedarwood, not just for the Temple but for the city as well. That this account is actually a duplicate of other texts is highlighted by 1 Esd. 5:53 reproducing verbatim Ezra 3:7 and describing the Judeans themselves as taking care to purchase cedarwood for the building of the Temple according to the permit of Cyrus. No harmonization is attempted in 1 Esdras to smooth out these contradictory pictures. 4:49. and he wrote Darius goes on to deal with other matters concerning the execution of his vow and refers to two matters, the first of which is the granting of a special status to the province of Judah. Although there is no explicit allusion to the appointment of Zerubbabel as governor, Judah is described as a self-governing unit within the Persian Empire, with no submission to another governor or satrap. The immediate continuation of the story with the inspection of the satrap Tattenai, taken from Ezra 5, does not confirm and actually contradicts the autonomous status of Judah. It seems rather that the author of 1 Esdras wished to express his own aspirations as having been fulfilled by Darius’s decree to Zerubbabel. This is also expressed in the following matter. 4:50. and that all the land The other aspect of the restoration of Judah is the reclamation of the land seized by the Edomites. The gradual expansion of the Edomites to the territories of Judah is well evidenced by historical and archeological testimony but is never mentioned in Ezra-Nehemiah. Here, again, the handling of this matter is attributed to Darius—an idealistic antecedent to the author’s own time. In a further unprecedented step, Darius declares an exemption from tribute for all the returnees. 4:51–52. 20 talents After taking care of the civilian aspects of the restoration of Judah, Darius now turns to matters pertaining specifically to the Temple, its construction, and ongoing operation,

1 Esdras 173

the altar in accord with their commandment, to offer 17. 53And let there be freedom to all who go up from Babylon to build the city, to them and to their children and to all the priests who go up. 54And he wrote that expenses [be given], and the holy garments in which they minister. 55And he wrote to give the Levites their expenses, until the time when the house was completed and Jerusalem built. 56And he wrote to give land and wages to all the guards of the city. 57And he sent back all the vessels that Cyrus took out from Babylon; all that Cyrus ordered to do he commanded to do, to send back to Jerusalem. and allots 20 talents for the building and 10 talents yearly for its ongoing operation. The source of the money is not specified, but since the inhabitants of Judah were exempt from tribute, the assumption is that the money would be supplied by other royal sources. A royal grant for the building of the Temple is included in Cyrus’s decree as recorded in Ezra 6:4 and is repeated and enlarged by Darius after the visit of Tattenai (Ezra 6:8–9). These data are repeated in 1 Esdras in the respective contexts (1 Esd. 6:24, 28–29). In our context, 1 Esdras predates these allowances and places them before the return of Zerubbabel and before the visit of Tattenai, but does not refer to them in the continuation of the story. Again, no harmonization between the different pictures has been attempted. 4:53. and let there be freedom Before moving to the Temple functionaries—priests, Levites, and gatekeepers—1 Esdras returns to the status of the returning Judeans. They are all, including their offspring, to be free citizens, with no bond tying them to any previous claimant. 4:54. and he wrote Not only the regular upkeep of the priests is granted by the king, but also the priests’ attire—a matter emphasized throughout 1 Esdras. 4:55. and he wrote The allowance for the Levites is presented as a temporary grant, limited to the period of the building. The view of the Levites as supervisors of the work follows Ezra 3:8–9; according to the present text, however, their role seems to be limited to this endeavor. 4:56. and he wrote The last group to be provided for by the royal treasury is the guards of the city, who are granted both land and wages in order to secure their proper upkeep. This may express the author’s view of the “gatekeepers”; in Ezra-Nehemiah and elsewhere they are presented as the guards of the Temple and part of the Temple personnel, while here they are linked to the protection of the city. A major group of the Temple personnel, greatly emphasized in the literature of the Second Temple—the singers—is not mentioned at all. At the end, the only segment of the Temple personnel whose regular upkeep is provided by the crown is the priesthood. 4:57. and he sent back Finally there is a reference to the Temple vessels. Following the view presented above, 1 Esdras regards Cyrus’s action in the matter of the vessels as incomplete: Cyrus ordered the return of the vessels after he had taken them out of Babylon, but did not carry it through. It is now put into action by Darius.

174 Sara Japhet

Thanksgiving and Rejoicing (4:58–63) Zerubbabel’s Prayer (4:58–60)

58When the young man went out, he lifted up his face to heaven, toward Jerusalem, and praised the King of heaven, saying: 59“From you is victory, from you is wisdom. Yours is the glory and I am your servant. 60Blessed be you, who gave me wisdom; to you I extend gratitude, Lord of the fathers.” The People’s Response (4:61–63)

61And he took the letters and went to Babylon and told all his brothers. 62They blessed the God of their fathers, for he gave them rest and release, 63to go up and build Jerusalem and the Temple on which his name is called, and they celebrated for seven days, with music and joy. Return to Judah (5:1–45) Getting Organized (5:1–6) General Facts (5:1–3)

5:1After these things, the heads of the fathers’ houses, according to their tribes, chose to go up with

4:58–63 The conclusion of the meeting between Darius and Zerubbabel is not recorded, and the story remains somewhat unfinished. In the spirit of the fourth speech, however, immediately after departing from the king, Zerubbabel offers thanks and praise to God, facing Jerusalem. What was downplayed throughout the story—God as the cause of protection and victory—is made explicit through Zerubbabel’s prayer of thanksgiving. Unit structure: Zerubbabel’s prayer (4:58–60) and the people’s response (4:61–63). 4:58. when the young man The remark that Zerubbabel offered praise to the Lord while facing toward Jerusalem reflects the general practices of prayer in the author’s time. 4:59. from you is victory Very much in harmony with the account of the entire episode, Zerubbabel ascribes to the Lord the three attributes illustrated in the competition: wisdom, victory, and glory—with wisdom being the most emphasized. Zerubbabel acknowledges that his wisdom was granted to him by God and declares himself God’s servant. The form of the prayer, “from you is the victory,” follows the example of 1 Chron. 29:11 (also in the fourth speech), but the items mentioned are all related to the present context. 4:61. and he took What appeared so far as a story about the fortunes of a certain individual in the royal court is now put in the context of the Judean Diaspora in Babylon. Zerubbabel is not just his own man and a bodyguard of the king, but a delegate of his people. 4:62–63. they blessed the God Zerubbabel’s account and the letters he was carrying were a source of great joy for the Judean community in Babylon. They too acknowledged that the benevolence of the Persian king had been inspired by God, and to him they gave thanks and praise. 5:1–7:15 The account of the restoration now returns to the source in Ezra and adheres to it from Ezra 2:1 to the end of the book, with the exclusion of Ezra 4:6–24, which was presented previously in 1 Esd. 2:15–25. At this point of literary transition 1 Esdras adds its own connecting passage (5:1–6). From the perspective of the historical and narratological logic, the continuation between 1 Esd. 3–4 and the story of the restoration as presented in Ezra 2–6 creates a series of discrepancies and tensions (see comments). Unit structure: return from Babylon to Judah (5:1– 45) and preparing the altar and building the Temple (5:46–7:15).

1 Esdras 175

their wives and sons and daughters, and their male slaves and female slaves and their cattle. 2And Darius sent with them 1,000 horsemen, to settle them down in Jerusalem in peace, with musical instruments and tambourines and flutes, 3and all their brothers were playing. And he made them go up with them. 5:1–45 Darius’s decree was the impetus for a massive return to Judah. The date of the return is not specified, but since the competition is dated in 1 Esdras to Darius’s second year—implied by the continuation between 1 Esd. 2:25 and 3:1 and explicitly stated in 5:6—and allowing some time for the organization of the massive return, it may be dated at the earliest to later in the second year of Darius or to his third year. In Ezra-Nehemiah the return is set in the reign of Cyrus, following his declaration. The list of returnees appears twice in Ezra-Nehemiah: Ezra 2, repeated here with light changes, and Neh. 7:6–72, of which only the last verse is repeated in 1 Esd. 9:37. The most important feature of the list is its underlying definition of identity. The people are viewed as a cultic community, its members categorized according to their position in the liturgical hierarchy. The first category is laymen, those who have no active role in the performance of the Temple functions, defined in Ezra 2:2b as “the people of Israel,” with “Israel” thus denoting a liturgical category rather than a national or ethnic one. In 1 Esdras the classes of the community remain the same, but the name “Israel” is replaced by a simpler “of the people.” In the register of the laymen the returnees are affiliated with either families or settlements, with no mention of the traditional affiliation with the tribes of Israel. It seems that this traditional affiliation has become an abstract and ideological concept, rather than a living component in the genealogical records. The account of the return does not provide any details regarding the journey itself, and even the returnees’ reaching their destination is not mentioned (contrast Ezra 8:31–32; Neh. 2:9, 11). Even the dates of their departure and arrival are left out. The story ends with the donations contributed to the Temple and the fact of settlement. Unit structure: getting organized (5:1–6) and the return (5:7–45); structure of second subunit: introduction (5:7–8); list of returnees (5:9– 42): laymen (5:9–23), Temple personnel (5:24–35), people without proven descent (5:36–40), summing up (5:41–42); and arrival (5:43–45). 5:1. after these things The people of the exile who returned to Judah are described as those who chose to do so, namely, who made a voluntary decision to return. This statement and the following verse indicate that only a part of the exiled Judeans returned to Judah, while the rest remained in Babylon. The returning Judeans are presented as comprising entire households, including slaves and livestock (cf. Ezra 2:64–67 = 1 Esd. 5:41–42). The view that the spirit of the returnees was aroused by God (1 Esd. 2:7 = Ezra 1:5) is not repeated. 5:2–3. and Darius sent The departure of the Judeans from Babylon is accompanied by a large military escort provided by Darius. Its task is to ensure a secure journey and to enable the returnees to settle down in peace. The return is thus presented as an act of relocation and rehabitation, carried out by the Persian government. The returnees are also accompanied by their brothers, and the two parties are said to accompany the caravan with song and music. Although the view of the military escort as a company of musicians is somewhat unusual, it is perhaps 1 Esdras’s demonstration that Isaiah’s prophecy was actually fulfilled: “You shall leave in joy and be led home secure” (Isa. 55:12). The end of 1 Esd. 5:3 remains unclear: does it mean that Darius forced the accompanying brothers to join the caravan?

176 Sara Japhet

The Leaders (5:4–6)

4These are the names of the men who went up according to their families, their tribes and their divisions. 5The priests, the sons of Phinees son of Aaron, Jesous son of Josedek son of Saraia, and Joakim [his] son, [and] Zorobabel son of Salatiel, of the house of David, of the family of Fares, of the tribe of Judah, 6who spoke wise words before Darius, the king of the Persians, in the second year of his reign in the month of Nisan, the first month. The Return (5:7–45) Introduction (5:7–8)

7These are the men of Judah, who came up from the captivity of exile, whom Nabouchodonosor, the king of Babylon, deported to Babylon; 8they returned to Jerusalem and to the rest of Judah, each one 5:4. these are the names of the men The heading is phrased as a preamble to the entire record of the returning people but is followed in fact only with the names of the leaders. Another heading (5:7–8), taken from the source in Ezra 2:1–2, introduces the list. In this introductory verse the people are defined according to three categories: family, tribe, and division. While the first two are based on the conventional concepts of the people’s lineage, the “divisions” reflect a later development in the Second Temple time, when the laypeople were divided into “divisions” (m’amadwt) paralleling those of the priests and Levites for the performance of cultic functions. Of the three categories, only the first is reflected in the list itself. 5:5. the priests Contrary to what one would expect on the basis of the preceding narrative, the first to be mentioned is not Zerubbabel but the priests. The text as it stands is difficult. It opens with the plural “the priests” but mentions only one, Jesous, who is then followed by a second leader, Joakim, presented as son of Zerubbabel, while Zerubbabel himself is ignored. These problems are all solved by the assumption of a slight textual corruption, which needs the most minor reconstruction of the text. The translation of the text follows the scholarly consensus on this matter: the leaders consist of two priests, Jesous and his son Joakim, and Zerubbabel. The leaders of the return are accorded lengthy pedigrees: the lineage of Jesous, presented briefly in other sources as “the son of Josedek,” is traced back one more generation to Saraia and then attached to the founders of the priesthood, Aaron and Phineas. The details of this lineage may have been gleaned from the priestly genealogy in 1 Chron. 5:30–40, but were probably well known at the time of the author. Zerubbabel the son of Salatiel, whose Davidic ancestry is suppressed in Ezra-Nehemiah, is here traced back to the most distinguished lineage: David, Fares, and Judah. 5:6. who spoke wise words The passage concludes with an elaboration of the merits of Zerubbabel and the explicit mention of the date. 5:7. these are the men of Judah The people returning to Jerusalem and Judah are presented as members of the exile formed by the deportation of Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar. In fact, since three generations elapsed between these events, these people are not the deported persons themselves but their offspring. Rather than “the people of the province [medinah]” in Ezra 2:1, 1 Esdras presents the returnees as “the men of Judah.” 1 Esdras avoids the word medinah elsewhere in the parallel texts (Ezra 4:15 = 1 Esd. 2:19; Ezra 5:8 = 1 Esd. 6:8; Ezra 6:2 = 1 Esd. 6:22; Ezra 7:16 = 1 Esd. 8:13), and it is also missing in Chronicles. The terminology peculiar to the Persian period is thus avoided. 5:8. they returned to Jerusalem The picture of a peaceful resettlement after a gap of almost 70 years,

1 Esdras 177

to his own town. They came with their leaders: Zorobabel, and Jesous, Neemias, Zaraias, Resaias, Enenios, Mordochaios, Beelsaros, Aspharasos, Borolios, Roimos, Baana. List of Returnees: Laymen (5:9–23)

9The number of those from the people and their leaders: the sons of Phoros 2,172. The sons of Safat 472. 10The sons of Aree 756. 11The sons of Phaathmoab, the sons of Jesous and Joab 2,812. 12The sons of Olamos 1,254. The sons of Zatou 945. The sons of Chorbe 705. The sons of Bani 648. 13The sons of Bebai 623. The sons of Asgad 3,322. 14The sons of Adonikam 667. The sons of Bagoi 2,066. The sons of Adinos 454. 15The sons of Ater son of Hezekias 92. The sons of Kilan and Azetas 67. The sons of Azuros 432. 16The sons of Hannias 101. The sons of Arom, the sons of Bassai 323. The sons of Hariphos 112. 17The sons of Baiteros 3,005. The sons of Baithlomon 123. 18The men of Netebas 55. The men of Enatos 158. The men of Baitasmon 42. 19The men of Kariathiarios 25. The men of Kapiras and Berot 743. 20The Chadiasians and Hammidians 422. The men of Kiramas and Gabbes 621. 21The men of Makalon 122. The men of Baitolion 52. The sons of Niphis 156. 22The sons of the other Kalamo and Onous 725. The sons of Jerechos 345. 23The sons of Sanaas 3,330. List of Returnees: Temple Personnel (5:24–35)

24The priests: the sons of Jeddos son of Jesous, of the sons of Anasib 972. The sons of Emmeros 1,052. 25The sons of Phassouros 1,247. The sons of Charme 1,017. 26The Levites: the sons of Jesous and Kadmielos and Bannos and Houdios 74. 27The Temple singers: the sons of Asaph 148. 28The gatekeepers: the sons of Salum, the sons of Atar, the sons of Tolman, the sons of Akoub, the sons of Ateta, the sons of Sobi, all 139. 29The Temple servants: the sons of Esau, the sons of Asipha, the sons of Tabaoth, the sons of Keras, the sons of Soua, the sons of Phadaios, the sons of Labana, the sons of Haggaba, 30the sons of Akoud, the sons of Outa, the sons of Ketab, the sons of Agaba, the sons of Subai, the sons of with no struggle or debate of any kind, seems rather impossible in historical terms, but this is already the picture in Ezra 2. The number of the leaders is 12, certainly a typological number, but there is no reference to the origin of this number, the traditional number of the tribes of Israel. 5:9–23. the numbers of those from the people The list of laymen consists of 35 units, presented in a consistent formulation: unit name, followed by the number of its individuals. The units are described as either families, generally prefaced by the definition “the sons of,” or localities, prefaced by the definition “the men of.”7 These definitions are not fully consistent; names that seem to represent localities (like Baiteros and Baithlomon in 5:17; Jerechos and Sanaas in 5:22b–23) are sometimes prefaced by “the sons of,” the definition used for families. At one point in the list two units are identified by gentilic names—Chadiasians and Hammidians (5:20a). The list is inconsistent in the arrangement of these units: it begins with families (5:9–16) and continues with localities (5:17–19), two gentilic groups (5:20a), localities (5:20b–21a), families (5:21b-22a), and further localities (5:22b–23a). The precise distinction between the units thus becomes rather uncertain. The numbers vary greatly, from the smallest unit of 67 (5:15) to the largest units of over 3,000 (5:13, 23). 5:24–35. the priests The Temple personnel consist of six classes, registered in a descending order on the hierarchical ladder: priests, Levites, Temple singers, gatekeepers, Temple servants (Nethinim), and the sons of Solomon’s slaves. The numbers are telling: while the four priestly families number over 4,000, the number of the Levites is 74, the Temple singers 148, the gatekeepers

178 Sara Japhet

Hanan, the sons of Kathoua, the sons of Geddour, 31the sons of Jairos, the sons of Daisan, the sons of Noeba, the sons of Chaseba, the sons of Gazera, the sons of Ozios, the sons of Phinoe, the sons of Asara, the sons of Basthai, the sons of Asana, the sons of Maani, the sons of Naphisi, the sons of Akouph, the sons of Hachiba, the sons of Asour, the sons of Pharakim, the sons of Basaloth, 32the sons of Meedda, the sons of Koutha, the sons of Charea, the sons of Barchus, the sons of Serar, the sons of Thomoi, the sons of Nasie, the sons of Atipha. 33The sons of the slaves of Solomon: the sons of Hassaphioth, the sons of Pharida, the sons of Jeeli, the sons of Lozon, the sons of Geddel, the sons of Saphuthi, 34the sons of Hatil, the sons of Phakareth Sabie, the sons of Sarothie, the sons of Masias, the sons of Gas, the sons of Addous, the sons of Soubas, the sons of Apherra, the sons of Barodis, the sons of Saphat, the sons of Amon. 35All the Temple servants and the sons of Solomon’s slaves 372. List of Returnees: People without Proven Descent (5:36–40)

36These were the returnees from Thermelee and Thelersas, [with] their leader Charaath, Adan, and Amar; 37they were unable to report their fathers’ houses and descent, if they were from Israel: the sons of Dalan son of Touban, the sons of Nekodan 652. 38And of the priests, who laid claim to the priesthood but [their family register] was not found: the sons of Hobbia, the sons of Hakkos, the sons of Joddous, who married Augia, of the daughters of Pharzellaios and was called by his name. 39Their record of descent 139, and the two lowest classes together, comprised of numerous small families, 372. This is the most detailed presentation of the classes of the Temple personnel, repeated only in the second occurrence of the same list in Neh. 7. The only other occurrence of “Nethinim and the sons of Solomon’s slaves” as two distinct classes is in the brief note of Neh. 11:3, where, however, there is no mention of Temple singers and gatekeepers, most probably because they were already seen as part of the Levites. Even the concluding verse of the present list does not include “the sons of Solomon’s slaves” (Ezra 2:70 = Neh. 7:72; in the parallel 1 Esd. 5:45 the Nethinim are omitted as well). The lists of the Temple functionaries in Chronicles do not mention the two lower classes at all and include the Temple singers and the gatekeepers among the Levites. 5:36–37. these were the returnees The last part of the list includes two groups of people whose lineage could not be ascertained. Following the order of the main list, the first to be mentioned are laymen who claimed to be of Israelite origin but could not prove it (5:36–37), followed by Israelites who claimed to be priests but could not prove it (5:38–40). The people who claim to be Israelites are presented in Ezra 2:59–60 as belonging to three large families and having come from five localities. In 1 Esdras, three of the five place names are presented as a name of the families’ leader. Since indeed this group consisted of three families, 1 Esdras may have preserved a better reading. In Ezra 2:59–60 two of the families have common biblical names (Delaiah and Tobiah), and the third could be Semitic. These original forms are not preserved in 1 Esdras. Although these people could not prove their Israelite origin, they were nevertheless included among the returnees and no measures were taken against them. It was perhaps assumed that the written records of their lineage were not preserved in the far localities from which they came. 5:38. and of the priests The matter of the priests is different. No doubts were raised regarding their Israelite origin, but their specific priestly lineage could not be certified by adequate written documents. This remark illustrates the sensitivity to the lineage of the priests, whose holiness derived from their lineage as descendants of Aaron, the first priest. 5:39. their record of descent Differently from the Israelites who could not prove their descent, actual

1 Esdras 179

was searched in the [family] register but was not found, and they were removed from the priesthood. 40And Neemias and Hattharias told them not to partake in the consecrated [food] until a high priest arises [literally: stands up], dressed with the insight and the truth [Hebrew: Urim and Thummim]. Summing Up (5:41–42)

41All Israel, from 12 years of age, besides their male slaves and female slaves, were 42,360, their male slaves and female slaves 7,337, harpists and singers 245, 42camels 435, and horses 7,036, mules 245, donkeys 5,525. measures were taken against uncertified priests. However, one of the three families included in this group, the family of Hakkos, is listed as a fully fledged priestly family in 1 Chron. 24:10. It is also probable that the distinguished priest Meremoth son of Uriah (Ezra 8:33) was a descendant of this family (cf. Neh. 3:4, 21). 5:40. and Neemias and Hattharias According to Ezra 2:63 the case of these priests was brought before and decided by “the Tirshata”—long identified as an honorary Persian title equivalent perhaps to “His Excellency”—referring perhaps to the contemporary governor without mention of his name. In Neh. 8:9 and 10:2 this title is accorded to Nehemiah, and 1 Esdras adopts this identification for the present situation. Although “Tirshata” is presented here as a proper noun and the person by that name placed next to Nehemiah, it is generally accepted that this is a corruption of an original text that read: “And Nehemiah the Tirshata told them.” With this identification 1 Esdras moves Nehemiah from the historical context in which he appeared in Ezra-Nehemiah to the time of Darius, as a contemporary of Zerubbabel. The decision of the governor was that the matter did not fall within his jurisdiction and should be determined by divine authority, through the oracular instrument of “Urim and Thummim.” Since this instrument was not reinstated in the Second Temple period, the actual meaning of the decision was that the matter was postponed indefinitely. 1 Esdras understands the Hebrew term “Urim and Thummim” as relating not to a specific priestly instrument (Exod. 28:30), but to abstract concepts, and translates them according to their Hebrew etymology: “insight” (for Urim: “light) and “truth” (for Thummim: “truth, honesty”). 5:41. all Israel The summary presents first the total number of the returnees and their adjacent human groups: slaves—male and female—and singers. It is not made clear whether the total number includes male members only or also women. The addition in 1 Esdras of “from 12 years of age” may perhaps hint that those counted were male alone, as the age of 12 for maturity is mentioned in Rabbinic sources (Mishnah, Niddah 5:6). The total number is given as 42,360, while the sum of the individual numbers in the list itself amounts only to about 30,000. Even if the numbers indicate whole households and not just adult males, they could not represent a possible historical datum of a single return. Judging from the complex nature of the list, especially in its first part, it is possible that rather than a list of one massive return it is a combination of several different lists. That the people are recorded also according to their settlements, most prominently towns of Benjamin, makes it possible that the original source of the list was not a list of returnees but a record of a census of the residents of Judah at some historical point. Even in this case the numbers seem too high. The numbers of slaves is quite large for a group of returnees. That they are presented as a group by themselves may imply that they were of a non-Israelite origin and did not belong to any of the Israelite families; there is however no explicit reference to this matter. 5:42. camels 435 The list concludes with the riding animals: camels, horses, mules, and donkeys. In Ezra 2:66–67 the largest species is donkeys; in 1 Esdras it is horses.

180 Sara Japhet

Arrival (5:43–45)

43And some of the leaders, according to their fathers’ houses, upon arriving at the Temple of God in Jerusalem, vowed to erect the house on its site according to their ability 44and to give to the Temple, to the treasury of the works, 1,000 minas of gold, and 5,000 minas of silver, and 100 priestly garments. 45The priests and the Levites and some of the people settled in Jerusalem and in the country, and the Temple singers and the gatekeepers and all Israel in their villages. Preparing the Altar and Building the Temple (5:46–7:15) Preparing the Altar and Laying the Foundations of the Temple (5:46–70) Preparation of the Altar (5:46–52)

46With the arrival of the seventh month, and the sons of Israel being all in their places, they assembled

5:43. and some of the leaders The people coming to Jerusalem take upon themselves to support the building of the Temple. This is very much in line with Cyrus’s declaration that the financing of the building was relegated to the people and provided by donations (1 Esd. 2:6 = Ezra 1:4). This view, however, deviates from the present context of 1 Esdras, where the return follows the decree of Darius (1 Esd. 4:51) with his commitment to finance the building from the royal treasury. 5:44. and to give In the parallel narrative of Neh. 7:69–71 the donations for the construction of the Temple were offered by three components of the people: the Tirshata, the heads of the fathers’ houses, and the rest of the people. This detailed record is contracted here to one donation, that of “the leaders, according to their fathers’ houses” (5:43). The donations consist of gold, silver, and priestly garments, but the numbers differ in each of the sources. 5:45. the priests and the Levites The pattern of settlement is not entirely clear in this record. It seems that the priests and Levites settled in Jerusalem, the Temple singers and the gatekeepers in the villages, most of the laypeople in the villages, with part of them in Jerusalem. The account of this in Ezra 2:70 and Neh. 7:72 is more general and less clear. The conclusion of the chapter with a note about settlement puts the story in a fine framework, making the ending correspond to the beginning: “They returned . . . each one to his own town” (5:8). 5:46–70 Following his source, the author of 1 Esdras now turns to Ezra 3, with the description of the first steps toward the realization of the Persian king’s decree. The story follows faithfully Ezra 3:1–4:5, with only occasional changes along the way. The main difference between the stories, however, is in the chronological framework: according to 1 Esdras, these acts took place in the time of Darius rather than in the time of Cyrus. Unit structure: preparation of the altar (5:46–52), laying the foundations of the Temple (5:53–62), and disturbances to the building (5:63–70). 5:46–52 The seventh month marks the beginning of the building enterprise. The people settled in their towns gather in Jerusalem “as one man” to fulfill—for the first time after their arrival—the commandment of pilgrimage. They use this sacred time to renew the altar, to resume the sacrificial ritual, to celebrate the Festival of Tabernacles—the most important festival in the holy calendar—and to establish the regular sacrificial ritual from this point onward. Unit structure: gathering in Jerusalem (5:46), preparing the altar (5:47–49a), and establishing the sacrificial cult (5:49b–52). 5:46. with the arrival It is not specified how long after their arrival that the returnees began to put their plans into action, but the endeavor was ignited by the arrival of the seventh month, when

1 Esdras 181

as one man in the open space at the first gate toward the east. 47Then Jesous son of Josedek and his brothers the priests, and Zorobabel son of Salatiel and his brothers stood up and prepared the altar of the God of Israel, 48to offer on it burnt offerings in accordance with the prescriptions of the book of Moses, the man of God. 49Some of the other peoples of the land joined them, and they erected the altar on its site, because all the peoples of the land were in enmity with them and overpowered them. And they offered sacrifices at the proper time and burnt offerings to the Lord, morning and evening. 50And they celebrated the Festival of Tabernacles as ordered in the Law, and the daily sacrifices as fitting. 51And after that the regular offerings, and sacrifices of the Sabbaths and the New Moons and all the consecrated festivals, 52and all who made a vow to God. They began to offer sacrifices to God from the first day of the seventh month, but the Temple of God had not yet been built. everybody gathered in Jerusalem to celebrate the holidays of the month. Thus, although the actual building was undertaken by limited groups of workers, it is viewed as the project of the entire people. The place of the gathering, not mentioned in Ezra 3:1, is provided by 1 Esdras: “At the first gate toward the east.” From a historical perspective the unspecified statement of Ezra 3 is more appropriate, since at this historical point the wall and the gates have not yet been built; the mention of any gate would be anachronistic. 5:47–48. then Jesous son of Josedek The first step in the process of restoration is the renovation of the altar. According to Ezra-Nehemiah and 1 Esdras, the sacrificial cult was inaugurated by the returnees after the long break caused by the destruction of the Temple in 586 bce This view is put in question by the evidence of Jer. 41:5 and Hag. 2:10–14. The preparation of the altar is performed by the two leaders of the community, the high priest Joshua and the governor Zerubbabel—although their titles are not mentioned—“and [their] brothers,” priests on the one hand and high officials of the province on the other. 5:49. some of the other peoples According to Ezra 3:3, already at this early stage of the restoration “the peoples of the land” threatened the returning exiles, who had to build the altar in face of this animosity. 1 Esdras presents this matter differently and refines the apparent tendency of Ezra 3 to a more subtle attitude toward the peoples of the land: while most of the people around Judah were indeed opposed to the revival of Judah and obstructed it, some of them supported the people of Judah and assisted them in the building. The preparation of the altar was followed by the resumption of the regular daily sacrifice in the morning and in the evening (Num. 28:3–8). 5:50. and they celebrated Although according to 5:52 the offering of sacrifices began on the New Moon of the seventh month, only the Festival of Tabernacles is mentioned as having been celebrated. The day of remembrance on the first day of the seventh month (Lev. 23:24) and the day of atonement on the 10th of the month (Lev. 23:27) are not mentioned. 5:51–52. and after that the regular offerings The final note offers a summary of the issue. All the obligatory regular sacrifices, as listed in the Pentateuch (Num. 28–29), are concisely presented: the daily sacrifices, the additional sacrifices of the Sabbaths and New Moons, and the sacrifices of the holidays. Also mentioned are the voluntary sacrifices offered as vows by the people at large. The final summarizing statement presents a problem: the regular service was initiated on the first day of the seventh month, although at that time the Temple had not yet been built. This statement can be interpreted in two ways: as an innocent statement of a chronological datum or as an apologetic—or even critical—acknowledgement that sacrificing on the altar in the absence of a Temple was problematic. The question was posed by later Rabbinic sources and settled by the claim that the procedure was legitimized by a prophetic saying (M. Zev. 62a; also M. Ed. 8:6).

182 Sara Japhet

Laying the Foundations of the Temple (5:53–62)

53And they gave silver to the stonecutters and carpenters, and food and drink and oil to the Sidonians and the Tyrians, to bring them cedarwood from Lebanon, to carry [them in] rafts to the port of Joppa, in accordance with the written permission [granted] to them by Cyrus, the king of the Persians. 54In the second year of his arrival in Jerusalem to the Temple of God, in the second month, Zorobabel son of Salatiel and Jesous son of Josedek and their brothers and the Levitical priests and all those who returned from the exile to Jerusalem began 55and laid the foundations of the Temple of God, on the first day of the second month of the second year of their coming to Judah and Jerusalem they laid the foundations of the Temple of God. 56They appointed the Levites from 20 years of age over the work of the Lord. Then Jesous took his position with his sons and his brothers, and his brother Kadmiel, and the sons of Jesous Emadaboun, and the sons of Joda son of Iliadoun, with their sons and brothers, all the Levites as one man, to supervise those who did the work in the house of the Lord, and the builders built the Temple of the Lord. 57And the priests stood clothed in their vestments with musical instruments and 5:53–62 Laying the foundations of the Temple follows. Unit structure: provision of building materials and craftsmen (5:53), laying the foundations (5:54–55), appointment of the Levites (5:56), and festive ceremony (5:57–62). 5:53. and they gave silver The building materials included stones and timber, and the craftsmen recruited were stonecutters and carpenters, but the passage lingers on the provision of the cedarwood, described along the model of Solomon’s preparation for the building of the First Temple (1 Kings 5:21–25). It is rather doubtful that the Second Temple was built with cedarwood, as it is difficult to conceive that the impoverished and drought-stricken Judean community could afford to pay with “food and drink and oil” for this expensive timber (cf. Hag. 1:6–11). The mention of the purchase of cedarwood and the permit granted by Cyrus, following Ezra 3:7, are difficult in the context of 1 Esdras since according to its historical view this matter was taken care of by Darius in his grants to Zerubbabel (4:48). These difficulties stem from the preservation of the original wording of Ezra 3, with no attempt at harmonization. 5:54–55. in the second year Along the model of Solomon’s Temple, the laying of the foundation is set in the “second month” (1 Kings 6:1), the date emphasized in 1 Esdras by repetition. There is no way to verify whether the date is authentic, having been chosen by the community under the influence of Solomon’s precedent, or whether it is a literary means of creating a stronger link between the two temples. According to Haggai, the work began on the 24th day of the sixth month (Hag. 1:15) and the laying of the foundations took place on the 24th day of the ninth month (2:18). The “priests and Levites” of Ezra 3:8 become here “the Levitical priests” (also 1 Esd. 5:60), a term found only once in Ezra-Nehemiah (Ezra 10:5), perhaps due to a textual error. The change of 1 Esdras implies a change in the status and role of the Levites, who are limited here to the supervision of the building enterprises. This is very much in line with Darius’s decree, where the Levites were seen as a temporary force, responsible for the building of the Temple and the city. 5:56. they appointed the Levites The building was carried out by craftsmen, but the supervisors of the work were the Levites, belonging to four Levitical families. 5:57–58. and the priests stood The laying of the foundations is celebrated in a ceremony of music and praise with no sacrifices (cf. the dedication ceremony in 1 Esd. 7:7–8 = Ezra 6:17). The strict division between the different performers of the musical instruments, with the trumpets restricted to the priests (Ezra 3:10), is blurred in 1 Esdras in two ways: the priests are said to have

1 Esdras 183

trumpets, and the Levites, the sons of Asaph with cymbals, praising and blessing the Lord as [established] by King David of Israel. 58And they raised their voice in praise, giving thanks to the Lord, “for his goodness and his glory are forever in all Israel.” 59And all the people blew trumpets and shouted with a loud voice, praising the Lord for the erection of the house of the Lord. 60Some of the Levitical priests and the heads of their fathers’ houses, the old men who saw the former house, came to this one being built with much weeping and crying, 61while many with a loud voice, with trumpets and joy, 62so that the people did not hear the trumpets because of the crying of the people, but the crowd was sounding the trumpets so powerfully that they were heard from afar. Disturbances to the Building (5:63–70)

63Upon hearing [it], the enemies of the tribe of Judah and Benjamin came to find out what the sound of the trumpets had been 64and discovered that the people of the exile were building the Temple of the Lord God of Israel. 65Approaching Zorobabel and Jesous and the heads of the fathers’ houses, they said to them: “Let us build with you. 66Like you we obey your Lord, and to him we sacrifice since the days of Asbasareth, the king of the Assyrians, who brought us here.” 67Then Zorobabel and Jesous

both trumpets and other musical instruments, and the trumpets are sounded also by the people at large (see comment on 5:59). The musical ceremony consists of singing of psalms, accompanied by musical instruments, both seen as established by David. 5:59. and all the people The priests and Levites are joined by the people at large. They not only respond with the refrains of psalms, but add their own trumpets and loud shouting. The dominant feature of the ceremony is its being carried with a loud voice, an expression of great excitement and joy. 5:60–62. some of the Levitical priests The passage describes in a touching way the ambivalent feelings toward the new building, expressed by the different segments of the community. For the majority of the people, the prospect of a new Temple was a cause for gratitude and joy, while for the old people, who remembered with nostalgia the First Temple, the poor dimensions of the new building were a source of agony, a feeling expressed most eloquently by Haggai: “Who is there left among you who saw this House in its former splendor? How does it look to you now? It must seem like nothing to you” (2:3). The “loud voice” heard far and wide was a mixture of weeping and singing, of joy and agony. 5:63–64. upon hearing [it] The connection between the loud voice of the ceremony and the initiative of the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin is already alluded to in Ezra 4:1, but is made explicit in the statement of 1 Esdras: the enemies came to find out the reason for the loud voice. 5:65–66. approaching Zorobabel The enemies of Judah and Benjamin, later referred to as “the peoples of the land” (5:69), are identified as the peoples whom an Assyrian king brought to the land. This is an allusion to 2 Kings 17:24–33 (where the name of the Assyrian king is not given) and perhaps also to Ezra 4:10 (not repeated in 1 Esdras), which mentions King Osnappar. The name of the Assyrian king as spelled in verse 66 does not resemble any otherwise known name of an Assyrian ruler. The claim of these people that they were worshiping the same God and sacrificing to him may allude to the worship conducted in the sanctuary of Bethel (2 Kings 17:28, 33). 5:67–68. then Zorobabel and Jesous The leaders of the community reject the offer of participation with a general statement: Cyrus’s permit to build was granted to us, and we alone will build the Temple. The rejection, however, may have had two other reasons: (1) the view that these people

184 Sara Japhet

and the heads of the fathers’ houses of Israel said to them: “It is not for you and us to build the house of the Lord our God. 68We alone will build to the Lord of Israel, just as Cyrus, the king of the Persians, ordered us.” 69So the peoples of the land demoralized [literally: put to sleep] those in Judah and impeded the activity of building 70with plotting and demagoguery and gathering against them; they prevented the completion of the building during the entire lifetime of King Cyrus. They were hindered from building for two years, until the reign of Darius. Resumption of the Building (6:1–33) Resumption of Building and Inspection of the Governor (6:1–6)

6:1In the second year of the reign of Darius, the prophets Haggaios and Zacharias son of Eddo proph-

did not belong to the people of Israel—a fact that they themselves admitted; and (2) the fear that the acceptance of their offer would imply the recognition of their own worship as a legitimate form of the worship of God—a recognition that would undermine the exclusivity of Jerusalem as the sole place of worship. The worship of these people has already been characterized in 2 Kings 17:29–33 as a syncretistic practice. 5:69. so the peoples of the land The rejected offer of participation becomes a stimulus for intensive activity against the building. The opponents of Judah follow every possible line of action to hinder the building, their activities lasting until the reign of Darius. To Ezra 4:5 (about the hindrances to the work), our verse adds the statement taken from Ezra 4:24 and mentioned in the comment on 1 Esd. 2:25 that the building operations were completely stopped until the reign of Darius. While the literary procedure of 1 Esdras is transparent, its effect on the historical picture is rather embarrassing. According to 1 Esdras, the competition of the three guardsmen took place in the second year of Darius and was followed by a massive return, settlement, assembling in Jerusalem, and laying the foundation of the Temple in the second year of their arrival. How then could the work be stopped now “for two years, until the reign of Darius”? As we see elsewhere, the joining together in 1 Esdras of literary pieces causes difficult discrepancies, which are not fully harmonized into a coherent historical picture. 6:1–33 The story of the building continues with the source of Ezra 5–6, and despite the difficulty of the date in the new configuration of 1 Esdras, there is a special emphasis on the date, following either Ezra 4:24 or Hag. 1:1. The letter to Darius contains a detailed record of the encounter between the governor and the Judean leaders: the visit itself, the inquiry, the lengthy answer of the Judean leaders, and the governor’s request for further instructions. The focus of the letter is the answer of the Judean leaders, who relate the history of the Temple from its initiation by Solomon to the present. The two points of the historical account are clearly expressed: this is not a new building but the restoration of an old one, and the permission for its restoration was granted by Cyrus. Unit structure: resumption of building and inspection of the governor (6:1–6), letter to Darius (6:7–21), and Darius’s response (6:22–33); structure of second subunit: introduction (6:7), visit (6:8–9), inquiry (6:10–11), answer of Judean leaders (6:12–19), and request for instructions (6:20–21); structure of third subunit: search in the archives (6:22), Cyrus’s memorandum (6:23–25), Darius’s instructions (6:26–33) concerning help for the building of the Temple (6:26–27), provisions for the sacrificial cult (6:28–30), punishment of transgressors (6:31–32), and conclusion (6:33). 6:1–2. in the second year The resumption of the building is attributed to the encouragement of the

1 Esdras 185

esied to the Judeans in Judah and Jerusalem, in the name of the Lord God of Israel upon them. 2Then Zorobabel son of Salatiel and Jesous son of Josedek stood up and began to build the house of the Lord that is in Jerusalem, and with them the prophets of the Lord assisting them. 3At that time Sisinnes, the governor of Syria and Phoenicia, and Sathrabouzanes and their associates came to them and said to them: 4“Who ordered you to build this house and to complete this roof and all the other things. And who are the builders who are carrying out all these?” 5And the elders of the Judeans enjoyed the favor of the watchful eye of the Lord over the exile, 6and they were not prevented from building until Darius was informed about them and an answer received. Letter to Darius (6:7–21)

7A copy of the letter that Sisinnes, the governor of Syria and Phoenicia, and Sathrabouzanes, and the associates, the rulers in Syria and Phoenicia, wrote and sent to Darius: “To King Darius, greetings. 8Let all be known to the king our lord, that going to the land of Judah and coming to the city of Jerusalem, we found the elders of the Judeans of the exile in the city of Jerusalem building a great new house to two prophets active at that time. The prophecies of Haggai and Zech. 4:9–10, however, do not refer to a resumption of the building but to its actual beginning. 6:3. at that time The builders of the Temple are paid a visit by the highest Persian official of the region, the satrap of “Beyond the River” (Ezra 5:3) and his entourage, his jurisdiction defined in 1 Esdras by the later, Greek definition: “Syria and Phoenicia.” The text does not disclose the motivation of the visit, whether it was prompted by complaints against the building or was a routine procedure of the Persian authorities. The high rank of the supervising official may suggest that the first was the case. 6:4. who ordered you The inquiry is phrased in direct speech, and the questions are simple: what is the legal basis of the enterprise, and who are the persons responsible for it? 6:5–6. and the elders of the Judeans The answer of the Judean leaders is not immediately recorded; it is presented later, as part of the letter sent by the governor of Beyond the River to his masters in Persia. All that we are told at this point is that the builders were allowed to proceed with the work, and this may imply that their claims seemed acceptable to the inquiring governor. In the spirit of the book, the permission to continue is seen as a special grace of God, by whose command through the prophets the project was undertaken. 6:7. a copy of the letter The introduction to the correspondence presents again the precise identity of the senders with the clarification that “the[ir] associates” were “rulers in Syria and Phoenicia,” and the mention of the explicit addressee, King Darius, followed by the opening of the letter itself with the standard greetings. 6:8. let all be known In an orderly manner, the governor first presents the facts of the visit and his findings. The report of his going to Jerusalem—textually more detailed and more coherent than in the Masoretic Text of Ezra 5:8—does not specify the motivation for the trip but moves directly to the findings: the building of a great new Temple. The governor explicitly defines the Temple as “new,” a point not mentioned in Ezra 5:8 but certainly the essence of the elders’ response.

186 Sara Japhet

the Lord, of costly hewn stones and timber set in the walls. 9And that work is done with speed, and the work proceeds successfully at their hands and is being completed with all splendor and attention. 10Then we asked these elders saying: ‘Who ordered you to build this house and to lay down the foundations of these works?’ 11In order to inform you and write to you, we also asked the men who were their leaders and demanded from them a list of names of their leaders. 12They answered us saying: ‘We are the servants of the Lord, the creator of heaven and earth. 13The house was built and completed many years ago by a great and mighty king of Israel. 14But when our fathers sinned provokingly against the Lord of Israel of heaven, he gave them into the hands of Nabouchodonosor, the king of Babylon, the king of the Chaldeans. 15They destroyed and burned the house and took the people into exile to Babylon. 16But in the first year of the reign of Cyrus in the land of Babylonia, King Cyrus wrote to build this house, 17and the holy vessels of gold and silver, which Nabouchodonosor took out from the house in Jerusalem and put them in his own temple, King Cyrus took out again from the temple in Babylon and handed them over to Zorobabel and the governor Sanabassaros. 18And he ordered him: “Take all these 6:9. and that work The rather dry description of the Temple in Ezra 5:8 is turned in the hands of 1 Esdras into praise of its grandeur: it is “a great new house” (6:8; Ezra has “the house of the great God”); built with “costly hewn stones” (“hewn stone” in Ezra), and the work is proceeding successfully “and is being completed with all splendor and attention” (added in 1 Esdras). 6:10–11. then we asked The governor repeats in his letter the two questions that he posed to the Judeans: what is the official authorization of the project, and who are the men responsible for the work? The last point is emphasized in 1 Esdras by repetition. 6:12. they answered us saying The first point in the answer of the elders is the identification of the God to whom the Temple is dedicated. The universal title of Ezra 5:11, “the God of heaven and earth,” is rephrased in a more Jewish form: “The Lord, the creator of heaven and earth.” 6:13. the house was built Immediately following is the claim that the building was not new, since it was built many years ago by a great king of Israel. 6:14–15. but when our fathers The elders then recount, in theological terms shared by many peoples of the ancient Near East, the circumstances of the Temple’s destruction: the destruction of the Temple, the conquest of the land, and the exile of the people were God’s punishment of his people. Here again, the universal title “God of heaven” is somewhat rephrased to “the Lord of Israel of heaven.” 6:16. but in the first year The elders state briefly, with a precise statement of the date and circumstances, that the permission to build was granted by Cyrus. 6:17. and the holy vessels The Temple vessels, plundered by the Babylonians and returned by the Persians, are presented as a major aspect of the restoration and are repeatedly referred to. The recipient of the vessels is identified in Ezra 5:14 as Sheshbazzar, who was appointed governor on that occasion. 1 Esdras repeats this information but adds the name Zerubbabel (Zorobabel) to that of Sheshbazzar (Sanabassaros). The wish to augment Zerubbabel’s role in the restoration and connect him to its very beginning is understandable and very much in line with 1 Esdras’s goals; it further blurs, however, the historical picture. According to 1 Esdras, Zerubbabel appeared on the historical scene at the time of Darius, following his victory in the competition about the strongest; his introduction to the preceding phases of the restoration is quite awkward. 6:18. and he ordered him The text continues in the singular, with the command to transfer the vessels and to build the Temple addressed to Sheshbazzar alone.

1 Esdras 187

vessels and put [them] in the Temple in Jerusalem, and let this Temple of the Lord be built on its site.” 19Then this Sanabassaros, having arrived, laid the foundations of the house of the Lord in Jerusalem and from then until now it is being built but has not reached completion.’ 20Now, then, if the king so decides, let search be made in the royal archives of the lord king in Babylon, 21and if it is found that the house of the Lord in Jerusalem was built with the consent of King Cyrus, let the decision of our lord the king concerning these things be sent to us.” Darius’s Response (6:22–33)

22Then King Darius ordered to search the royal archives stored in Babylon, and in the stronghold of Ecbatana in the land of Media a scroll was found, on which was a memorandum, as follows: 23“In the first year of the reign of Cyrus, King Cyrus ordered that the house of the Lord in Jerusalem be built, where they sacrifice with a perpetual fire. 24Its height 60 cubits, width 60 cubits, with three layers of hewn stones, and one layer of new local wood, and the expenses to be given from the house of King Cyrus. 25And the holy vessels of the house of the Lord, of gold and silver, which Nabouchodonosor took out from the house in Jerusalem and brought to Babylon, be restored to the house in Jerusalem, and placed there where they had been.” 26He commanded to take charge and for Sisinnes, the gover6:19. then this Sanabassaros The account of the elders ends with the contemporary situation, which poses one of the known problems of the history of the restoration. They claim—contrary to the information of Ezra 3, repeated above in 1 Esd. 5:54–55—that it was Sheshbazzar who laid the foundations of the Temple. 6:20–21. now, then The governor presents his request as comprised of two issues: confirmation, on the basis of official documents, of the elders’ story, in particular their claim that the building was authorized by Cyrus, and whatever the answer to this question, instructions from Darius how to further handle the matter at hand. 6:22–33 Darius indeed followed the suggestion of his governor and conducted a search in the archives in order to confirm the Judeans’ claims. He found a memorandum with Cyrus’s permission and delivered his own instructions for the handling of the matter. However, contrary to the smooth flow of the story in Ezra 6, here the whole matter is problematic, since Darius is presented as being faced with this issue for the first time, while in 1 Esd. 4—following the competition of the three guardsmen—he had already dealt with this matter and issued his own decree. As already pointed out, the cause of these tensions is the incorporation of the story of the three guardsmen into the account taken from Ezra, with no further harmonization. 6:22. then King Darius A document confirming the claims of the Judean elders is found in the royal archives in Media and fully quoted. 6:23. in the first year The text of Cyrus’s memorandum is presented as part of the narrator’s story with no epistolary introduction. 6:24. its height 60 cubits The memorandum contains details not mentioned in Cyrus’s declaration quoted in 2:3–6 (= Ezra 1:2–4): the measurements of the building, the method of construction, and most significantly, the responsibility taken by King Cyrus to cover the expenses of the project. 6:25. and the holy vessels Furthermore, the return of the vessels is explicitly mentioned as part of the decree, thus fully confirming all the claims of the elders of Judah. The memorandum does not include, contrary to 1 Esd. 2:3–6 (= Ezra 1:2–4), a call to the exiles to return to Judah. 6:26. he commanded 1 Esdras changes the second-person address of Ezra 6:6–7 to a third-person

188 Sara Japhet

nor of Syria and Phoenicia, and Sathrabouzanes and their associates, and the appointed rulers of Syria and Phoenicia, to keep away from the place and let Zorobabel, the servant of the Lord, the governor of Judah, and the elders of the Judeans build this house of the Lord on [its] site. 27“I command to build [it] completely and to take care to help those of the Judean exile, until the house of the Lord is finished. 28And from the tribute of Coelesyria and Phoenicia payment be given diligently to these men—[to] Zorobabel the governor—for sacrifices to the Lord, for bulls and rams and lambs, 29as well as wheat, and salt, and wine and oil, regularly, year by year with no dispute, to be used daily according to what the priests in Jerusalem dictate, 30so that libations be offered to the God Most High on behalf of the king and his children, and they pray for their life. 31And to command that whoever transgresses what has been ordered and ignores one of the written orders, a beam be taken out from his own house and he be hanged on it, and his property become the king’s. 32Therefore, may the Lord whose name is called there destroy every king and people who extends his hand to hinder or damage this house of the Lord that is in Jerusalem. 33I, King Darius, issued a decree; it should be implemented accordingly, with diligence.” account, thus presenting it as the account of the narrator, in continuation of the style of 1 Esd. 6:22. Until this point the representatives of the Judean community were presented as “the elders of the Judeans”; Darius’s response refers for the first time also to “the governor of Judah” (cf. Ezra 6:7); and 1 Esdras takes the lead and identifies the anonymous governor as “Zorobabel, the servant of the Lord, the governor of Judah,” with clear allusion to Hag. 2:23 and Zech. 4:9. 6:27. I command to build Darius proceeds with his own instructions, which exceed the favors granted by Cyrus, and the slight rephrasing of 1 Esdras makes them even more favorable. His first order to the governor and his entourage is not only to abstain from obstructing the work, but actually to assist the Judeans in its execution. 6:28–29. and from the tribute Following Cyrus’s decree, Darius commands that the expenses of the building should be covered by the royal court—here specified as “the tribute of Coelesyria and Phoenicia”—making the governor himself responsible for this financial support. Exceeding Cyrus’s allowance, he also allots funds for the maintenance of the regular daily and annual sacrificial ritual as ordered by the priests. Here again 1 Esdras adds a reference to Zerubbabel, the local governor, as the recipient of the money. 6:30. so that libations Darius now points to the motivation for all these benefactions: the sacrifices “to the God Most High” (“the God of heaven” in Ezra 6:10) should be on behalf of the king, and the priests in Jerusalem should pray for the welfare of the king and his sons. With these measures Darius actually includes the Temple in Jerusalem in the chain of royal temples spread around the empire. 6:31. and to command The next command refers to the governor’s obligation to spread the word further to the inhabitants of the province and to take care that any hindrance in the prosecution of the building project or any damage to the Temple itself would be punished with the utmost severity. 6:32. therefore, may the Lord Darius then turns to secure the future of the Temple by appealing to God, “whose name is called there,” to destroy any power, a king or a people, who would try to harm it. 6:33. I, King Darius, issued a decree Darius ends his letter with the strongest affirmation: these are the king’s orders that should be fully and expediently implemented.

1 Esdras 189

End of the Building Project (7:1–15) Completion and Dedication of the Temple (7:1–9)

7:1Then Sisinnes, the governor of Coelesyria and Phoenicia, and Sathrabouzanes and their associates, following what was ordered by King Darius, 2took charge of the works of the Temple, assisting diligently the elders of the Judeans and the Temple officers. 3The holy work prospered, with the prophesying of the prophets Haggaios and Zacharias, 4and they completed these things by the command of the Lord God of Israel, and with the consent of Cyrus and Darius and Artaxerxes the kings of the Persians, until the sixth year of Darius, king of the Persians. 5The house was completed by the 23rd [day] of the month of Adar in the sixth year of King Darius. 6And the sons of Israel and the priests and the Levites and the rest of those of the exile who associated with them acted according to what [was written] in the book of Moses 7and offered at the dedication of the Temple of the Lord 100 bulls and 200 rams and 400 lambs, 812 he-goats for a sin offering for all Israel, according to the number of the 12 heads of the tribes of Israel. 9The priests and the Levites, girded [in their vestments] took their posi7:1–15 The end of the building project follows. Unit structure: completion and dedication of the Temple (7:1–9) and celebrating Passover (7:10–15). 7:1–2. then Sisinnes 1 Esdras enlarges the active role of the governor in the building of the Temple by adding to the general statement of Ezra 6:13 that he diligently followed Darius’s orders. According to 1 Esdras the governor actually supervised the work and assisted the builders, both the elders and the Temple officers. 7:3–4. the holy work prospered According to Ezra 6:14 the building of the Temple was supported by the prophets and executed on the one hand under the command of the God of Israel and on the other hand under the command of three Persian kings. In the rephrasing of 1 Esdras, the role of the Persian rulers was limited to consent. As on other occasions, 1 Esdras emphasizes the date of the completion of the work by repeating it, adding the date already in 1 Esd. 7:4. 7:5. the house was completed The date given for the completion of the house is the sixth year of Darius, on the 23rd day of Adar rather than the 3rd day of the same month in Ezra 6:15. Although there are no conclusive arguments in favor of either date, most scholars prefer the 1 Esdras reading. The building of the Temple thus lasted four years, from the second to the sixth year of Darius; the building of Solomon’s Temple took seven years (1 Kings 6:37–38). 7:6. and the sons of Israel 1 Esdras rephrases the description of the dedication in several subtle ways. For unknown reasons it omits the note that the dedication was celebrated with joy, but emphasizes by repetition that it was carried out in accord with “the book of Moses.” 7:7–8. and offered The only information about the dedication ceremony is the number of sacrifices offered on the occasion. The kind of sacrifices is not explicitly stated, but it seems that they were all holocausts—burnt entirely on the altar—in addition to 12 goats for sin offerings on behalf of the people. No sacrifices of well-being, of which the people themselves partake, are mentioned. Although the number of the sacrificial animals is rather large—700 altogether—it falls short in comparison with Solomon’s dedication ceremony, in which the sacrifices of well-being alone are said to have numbered 142,000 animals (1 Kings 8:63). 7:9. the priests and the Levites The point of Ezra 6:18 is that the divisions of the priests and Levites were established at the dedication of the Temple in accordance with “the book of Moses”; according to the phrasing of 1 Esdras it is the performance of the ceremony that followed the pre-

190 Sara Japhet

tions according to [their] divisions for the service of the Lord God of Israel, in accordance with the book of Moses; and the gatekeepers at each gate. Celebrating Passover (7:10–15)

10And the sons of Israel of the exile kept the Passover on the 14th [day] of the first month, when the priests and the Levites were purified together. 11But all the sons of the exile were not purified when all the Levites were purified together. 12They slaughtered the Passover (sacrifice) for all the sons of the exile and for their brothers the priests and for themselves. 13And the sons of Israel of the exile, all those who were separated from the abominations of the peoples of the land seeking the Lord, ate. 14They celebrated the Festival of Unleavened Bread for seven days, rejoicing before the Lord, 15for he turned the mind of the king of the Assyrians toward them, to strengthen their hands in the service of the Lord God of Israel. scriptions of the book of Moses. As a matter of fact, the establishment of the divisions of priests and Levites is not mentioned in the Pentateuch. 7:10–15 The story of the Temple ends with the celebration of the Passover and the following Feast of Unleavened Bread, the festivals nearest in time to the date of the dedication. It is taken for granted but not explicitly stated that the festivals were celebrated in Jerusalem, in the precincts of the Temple. 7:10–12. and the sons of Israel The aspect of purity, already highlighted in Ezra 6:19–22, is here further elaborated with the addition of 1 Esd. 7:11. Although both the priests and the Levites purified themselves, the stronger emphasis is put on the purity of the Levites, who took upon themselves the slaughtering of all the sacrifices—for the people, the priests, and themselves. The particular statement of 1 Esdras that the people who came from the exile were not purified seems to be influenced by the story of Hezekiah’s Passover in 2 Chron. 30. 7:13. and the sons of Israel 1 Esdras refrains from mentioning the non-Israelites who joined in the Passover festival by employing the phrase “all those who were separated from the abominations of the peoples of the land” as a characterization of the returning Israelites rather than as a definition of a separate group. 7:14–15. they celebrated The story ends with the celebration of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, presented explicitly as the culmination of the building project. It is the providence of the Lord that turned the hearts of the foreign king—here bearing the archaic title “the king of Assyrians”—to support them in their service of the Lord.

1 Esdras 191

The Ezra Story (8:1–9:55) Ezra’s Mission to Jerusalem (8:1–64) Introduction (8:1–7)

8:1After these events, during the reign of Artaxerxes, king of the Persians, Ezra son of Saraias, son of Ezerias, son of Chelkias, son of Salemos, 2son of Saddoukos, son of Achitob, son of Amarias, son of Ezias, son of Mareroth, son of Zaraias, son of Saouia, son of Bokka, son of Abisoue, son of Phinees, son of 8:1–9:55 The third and last part of 1 Esdras consists of the story of Ezra the scribe, taken from Ezra 7–10 and Neh. 7:72–8:13a. Nehemiah’s memoirs are omitted, but the episode beginning with Neh. 7:72 indicates that 1 Esdras knew Ezra-Nehemiah in its present format. Like the first unit of Ezra-Nehemiah, Ezra’s story also includes an authentic document in its Aramaic language: Artaxerxes’s letter of rights granted to Ezra (1 Esd. 8:8–24 = Ezra 7:11–26). The style of the story is composite and moves from a third-person narrative, presenting Ezra as the protagonist of the story, to a first-person autobiographical style, and then back to a third-person presentation. The style of 1 Esdras follows its source. The entire story of Ezra revolves around matters of a religious nature, relating to the upkeep of the Temple and to the establishment of religious Law and norms as the guiding force in the life of the Judean community. The story is composed of three large units: Ezra’s mission to Jerusalem, including Artaxerxes’ letter of rights; the case of mixed marriages; and the reading of the Law. The convincing scholarly suggestion that in the original story the reading of the Law preceded the episode of mixed marriages and that the present order was introduced by the author of Ezra-Nehemiah because of literary, compositional, and ideological considerations is irrelevant for 1 Esdras, which faithfully follows the material in Ezra-Nehemiah in its present order. According to the present chronology, Ezra’s activity covered a period of about a year and a half. He left Babylon in the first month of the king’s seventh year and arrived in Jerusalem in the fifth month (1 Esd. 8:6 = Ezra 7:9); the convocation in Jerusalem on the matter of mixed marriages took place in the ninth month (1 Esd. 9:5 = Ezra 10:9); and the investigation of the matter was concluded by the first month of the next year (1 Esd. 9:17 = Ezra 10:17). It was followed immediately by the reading of the Law (1 Esd. 9:37 = Neh. 7:72). Unit structure: Ezra’s mission to Jerusalem (8:1–64), the episode of mixed marriages (8:65–9:36), and reading the Law (9:37–55). 8:1–64 Ezra’s mission to Jerusalem is the first major topic. Unit structure: introduction (8:1–7), Artaxerxes’s letter of rights (8:8–24), and return to Jerusalem (8:25–64). 8:1–2. after these events The first two verses introduce Ezra the priest with the longest pedigree in the Bible. His lineage is traced back 16 generations, through the high priests during the First Temple period to Aaron the founder of the priesthood. A similar list, augmented at the middle by the addition of a few names and presented in the opposite direction, appears in 1 Chron. 5:30–40. In the list in 1 Esdras, Ezra is presented as son of Saraias, the last high priest of Solomon’s Temple (2 Kings 25:18) and the brother of Jehozadak (1 Chron. 5:40). This would place him one generation before Jesous son of Josedek, one of the leaders of the return in the time of Cyrus and Darius. At the same time, he is presented as having lived in the time of King Artaxerxes of Persia, who ruled 465–425 bce (if the first king by that name is intended), or even later (if the second king by that name is intended), at least over 100 years after the destruction of Jerusalem and the death of Saraias. This impossible chronology could be solved only by the harmonistic solution that “son of Saraias” actually means “of the descendants of Saraias.” On its own this is a possible

192 Sara Japhet

Eleazar, son of Aaron, the first priest, went up. 3This Ezra came up from Babylon, being a skillful scribe in the Law of Moses, which was given by the God of Israel. 4The king extended honor to him—having found favor before him in all his requests. 5Some of the sons of Israel and of the priests and Levites and the Temple singers and the gatekeepers and the Temple servants came up with him to Jerusalem 6in the seventh year of the reign of Artaxerxes in the fifth month, this was the seventh year of the king. Leaving Babylon on the first day of the first month they arrived in Jerusalem on the first day of the fifth month, because of the good journey that was provided for them by the Lord. 7For Ezra possessed great knowledge, so as to omit nothing from the Law of the Lord and from the commandments, to teach all Israel all the ordinances and judgments. Artaxerxes’s Letter of Rights (8:8–24)

8A copy of the written order of King Artaxerxes [given] to Ezra the priest, the reader of the Law of the interpretation of the word “son,” but it is not in line with the present list, where the word “son” carries a literal meaning, referring to actual sons. Another possible explanation of this difficulty is the claim that the long pedigree attached to Ezra is a late construct, based on ideological rather than historical considerations. Be it as it may, in the story of Ezra in Ezra-Nehemiah, Ezra is not presented as a high priest. (For the view of I Esdras, see below.) 8:3–4. this Ezra came up Already at this stage we are told that Ezra found favor in the king’s eyes, with 1 Esdras replacing “God’s hand” with the king’s “favor.” 8:5–6. some of the sons of Israel The brief summary of the return provides the chronological framework: the seventh year of Artaxerxes, from the first day of the first month to the first day of the fifth month. Following its general practice, 1 Esdras highlights the date by repeating it. The dates indicate that the journey took place in the spring, the best time of year for travel. The safe arrival in Jerusalem is presented as due to a special divine grace. The caravan of returnees included all the components of the Judean community, as enumerated in the list of returnees in 5:9–35 (except for “the sons of Solomon’s slaves”); in the list itself, however, the classes of Temple singers and gatekeepers are absent (8:29–48). 8:7. for Ezra possessed 1 Esdras rephrases the many virtues of Ezra: he not only “dedicated himself ” but “possessed great knowledge”; he not only “studied the Teaching of the Lord” but omitted “nothing from the Law.” His goal was “to teach all Israel.” 8:8–24 Artaxerxes’s letter of rights is a formal document in the first-person royal style, dealing systematically with the different areas of the province’s life. It presents Ezra’s virtues and mission, his authority and prerogatives; it is addressed to the kingdom’s functionaries responsible for its implementation; and it is permeated with a religious spirit and religious terms. Its language is Aramaic, as befitting a document intended for the western region of the empire. Unit structure: introduction (8:8), preamble (8:9–10a), the mission’s goal (8:10b–12), transfer of money and its purpose (8:13–16), the Temple vessels (8:17–18), provisions by the treasurers of the province (8:19–21), exemption from tribute (8:22), appointment of judges (8:23), and punishment of violators (8:24). 8:8. a copy The narrative introduction to Artaxerxes’s decree is rephrased in 1 Esdras in several ways: the last sentence is omitted, and the “scribe/scholar” (sofer) is replaced by “the reader of the Law of the Lord,” a favorable term in 1 Esdras, which no doubt reflects the reality of his time. The mention of “copy” is emphasized by repetition.

1 Esdras 193

Lord—the copy as follows: 9“King Artaxerxes to Ezra the priest and the reader of the Law of the Lord, greetings 10and benevolence. I decided and commanded that those of the people of Judah, and of the priests and the Levites, and of those who are in our kingdom, who wish and choose to go up with you to Jerusalem, 11as many as consider [to do so], let them hurry up, as was decided by me and my seven Friends, the counselors, 12in order to investigate in Judah and Jerusalem, the compliance with [what is] in the Law of the Lord. 13And to carry back to Jerusalem gifts that I and my Friends have vowed to the Lord of Israel, and all the gold and silver that is found in the land of Babylon for the Lord in Jerusalem, together with what is donated by the people for the Temple of their Lord in Jerusalem. 14The gold and the silver to be collected for bulls and rams and lambs and what is appropriate for them, 15in order to offer sacrifices to the Lord on the altar of their Lord in Jerusalem. 16Whatever your brothers may wish to do with the gold and silver shall be done according to the will of your God. 17And the holy vessels of the Lord that are given to you for the needs of the Temple of your God in Jerusalem you will deposit before your God in Jerusalem. And the rest that may be lacking [literally: that may fall 8:9. King Artaxerxes The edict opens with a formal address, identifying the sender and the addressee, with the conventional greetings. The title of Ezra is abbreviated again to become “the reader of the Law.” 8:10–11. and benevolence 1 Esdras adds to the king’s greetings a reference to his “benevolence” or “loving kindness” (philanthrōpia), a characterization of the king’s goodwill toward his subjects illustrated by the letter. From this point on, the edict continues in the first person and begins with the permission to return to Judah, phrased in the most inclusive terms: the commission was decided not only by the king himself but also by his seven counselors (“Friends”); the rights were granted to an unlimited number of the Judeans, including the priests and the Levites—whoever wishes to do so—living anywhere in the Persian kingdom. 1 Esdras also adds that the people are asked to hurry and leave, in order to expediently fulfill the king’s mission. 8:12. in order to investigate In Ezra 7 the addressee of the king’s letter is Ezra himself—he is sent to perform all the tasks mentioned from this point on. In the rephrasing of 1 Esd. 8:12–15 the commission is addressed—somewhat awkwardly—to all those who return. From 8:16 onward the edict is addressed again to Ezra himself. The first task presented to Ezra is to investigate whether the inhabitants of Judah complied with “the Law of the Lord.” This is indeed the basis of the actual steps taken later by Ezra: the handling of mixed marriages and the reading of the Law. 8:13. and to carry back The second permission granted to the returnees is to transfer financial resources from the Persian kingdom to Judah for the maintenance of the Temple and its ritual. The gold and silver should come from three sources: vowed gifts of the royal court, gold and silver collected in the province of Babylon for the support of the Temple, and any money that any of the people of Judah anywhere would donate for that purpose. 8:16. the gold and the silver The financial support is assigned to meet the requirements of the regular sacrificial needs of the Temple. The final discretion in the use of the money is left to “the will of your God.” 8:17–18. and the holy vessels The orderly implementation of the regular service also implies the possession of adequate equipment, termed “the vessels of the Lord.” These should be supplied from two sources: donations given to Ezra before his return—for whose transfer to Jerusalem he is granted special permission—and support of the royal treasury.

194 Sara Japhet

to you] for the needs of the Temple of your Lord, 18you will provide from the royal treasury. 19I, King Artaxerxes, have ordered the treasurers of Syria and Phoenicia that whatever Ezra the priest, the reader of the Law of the God Most High, sends for, shall be diligently given to him, up to 100 talents of silver, 20and likewise up to 100 cors of wheat, and 100 measures of wine, and salt in abundance. 21Everything according to the Law of God shall be diligently accomplished for the God Most High, so that no wrath is incurred upon the kingdom of the king and his sons. 22And to you be it said, that no tribute whatsoever or any other imposition may be laid upon any of the priests and Levites and Temple singers and gatekeepers and Temple servants and functionaries of this Temple, and no one may have authority to impose these on them. 23And you, Ezra, with the wisdom of God, appoint judges and magistrates to judge all those who know the Law of your God in all of Syria and Phoenicia and teach those who do 8:19–20. I, King Artaxerxes The all-inclusive royal grant for the needs of the Temple is now defined: it should be provided by the treasurers of the satrapy of “Syria and Phoenicia,” it should include both money and basic staples, and it should amount to 100 talents of silver and specified amounts of wheat, wine, and salt (oil has probably fallen out of 1 Esdras due to scribal error). It is not stated, however, if this is a one-time donation or a regular annual support. Since the same topic is dealt with in Darius’s decree (6:29) the second possibility seems to be the case. The titles of both God and Ezra are presented in the terms of 1 Esdras, rather than as reproductions of Ezra 7:21. 8:21. everything according to the Law The motivation of the king’s benevolence and his special care for the Temple is now clearly stated: the wish to secure God’s goodwill toward the king and the kingdom. 8:22. and to you be it said The last issue pertaining to the Temple service is the exemption from taxes granted to the Temple personnel, identified by their classes. This privilege is peculiar to Artaxerxes’s decree; it is not included in any of the earlier edicts of the Persian kings and is further emphasized in 1 Esdras by repetition. The classes accord with those mentioned in the list of returnees (5:24–35 = Ezra 2:36–58), except that “the sons of Solomon’s slaves” are understandably replaced by a more general term: “functionaries of [the] Temple.” It is perhaps privileges of this sort that in the first place motivated the classification found in the lists. 8:23. and you, Ezra The final privilege mentioned in the edict relates to the nature and extent of Ezra’s authority: he is nominated as the highest authority in all religious affairs, not only for the people of Judah but for all the Israelites in the satrapy of Syria and Phoenicia. This authority is put into effect in two ways: the supervision of the religious judicial system by the appointment of judges and the teaching of the Law to all those who are unfamiliar with it. This is the actual realization of the attributes of Ezra as “the reader of the Law of the Lord.” We have no clue regarding the realization of this privilege: was this position ever realized? If yes—was it exclusive to Ezra, or was it continued after him? How in practice did it operate? Ezra, and following it 1 Esdras, records two episodes related to this aspect of Ezra’s authority: the handling of mixed marriages and the reading of the Law. However, Ezra’s authority is presented in those contexts as emanating from his own spiritual superiority as a priest and a scholar, and in neither case is there a reference to the Persian empowerment. Moreover, both events are presented as one-time occurrences, with no continuation in the people’s life. 8:24. all those who violate The decree ends with the sanctions that should be taken in case of violation. The phrasing refers clearly to two parallel legal systems—the Law of God and the law of the king—and violation of either should be severely punished. As mentioned above, no detail

1 Esdras 195

not know. 24All those who violate either the Law of your God or that of the king shall be punished immediately, whether by death or by corporal punishment, by monetary penalty, or by imprisonment.” Return to Jerusalem (8:25–64)

25“Praised be the Lord alone, who put these things in the heart of the king to glorify his house in Jerusalem 26and granted me honor before the king and his counselors and all his Friends and officials.” 27Due to the support of the Lord my God, I gained courage and gathered men of Israel to go up with me. 28These are the leaders, according to their fathers’ families and divisions, who went up with me from Babylon in the reign of King Artaxerxes. 29Of the sons of Phinees, Garsomos. Of the sons of Jetamaros, Gamelos. Of the sons of David, Hattous son of Sechenias. 30Of the sons of Phoros, Zacharias and with him, by record, 150 men. 31Of the sons of Phaathmoab, Elionias son of Zaraias and with him 200 men. 32Of the sons of Zathoe, Sechenias son of Jezelos and with him 300 men. Of the sons of Adinos, Ben

is given anywhere regarding the actual operation of these parallel systems, by themselves and in conjunction. 8:25–64 There is no formal transition from Artaxerxes’s edict to Ezra’s prayer of thanksgiving, and no introduction to the change of style from the third-person narrative style to a first-person account by Ezra himself, to be followed from this point until after Ezra’s confession in 8:88 (= Ezra 10:1). After a short prayer of thanksgiving, Ezra turns immediately to carry out the first item on the agenda: return to Judah. The story of the return is longer and more detailed than any other presentation of this topic, but even here the greater part of the story is devoted to the organization of the caravan and the preparation for the voyage, and only one verse (8:60) is devoted to the journey itself. Unit structure: prayer of thanksgiving (8:25–26), the return (8:27–59), arrival in Jerusalem (8:60–64); structure of second subunit: introduction (8:27), list of returnees (8:28– 40), the voyage (8:41–59): recruitment of Levites (8:41–48), fasting and prayer (8:49–53), securing the transfer of the valuables (8:54–59). 8:25–26. praised be the Lord In the pious spirit that permeates the entire story, Ezra sees the favor extended to him by the king and his court and the measures undertaken by the king to strengthen Jerusalem and its Temple as a sign of God’s special grace, which turns the heart of the king toward him. 8:27. due to the support The recognition of God’s goodwill is what prompts Ezra to follow the king’s decree and begin to organize the return to Judah. In 1 Esdras there are several cases of rephrasing in the passage; for example, “God of our fathers” in Ezra 7:28 is changed to “Lord alone.” 8:28–29. these are the leaders The list of returnees opens with the names and descent of the three leaders: two priests, Garsomos and Gamelos, belonging to the priestly families of Eleazar— through Phineas—and Ithamar, and an offspring of the house of David, Hattous son of Sechenias, mentioned also in 1 Chron. 3:22. 8:30–40. of the sons of Phoros The list includes only laymen, with no priests or any other member of the Temple personnel, although several individual priests are mentioned later in the story (8:54). Of the other classes of the Temple personnel, the Levites and the Temple servants will be mentioned in 8:46–47. The list of returnees records in a unified formula (with minor changes in some cases) the names of 12 families, their heads, and the number of men in each group. There is no mention of the other components of the caravan (women, children, slaves, etc.) or the total number of returnees. There are some textual differences between the parallel lists, and in cer-

196 Sara Japhet

son of Jonathos and with him 250 men. 33Of the sons of Elam, Jesias son of Gotholios and with him 70 men. 34Of the sons of Saphatias, Zaraias son of Michaelos and with him 70 men. 35Of the sons of Joab, Abadias son of Jezelos and with him 212 men. 36Of the sons of Bania, Salimoth son of Josaphias and with him 160 men. 37Of the sons of Babi, Zacharias [son of] Bebai and with him 28 men. 38Of the sons of Asgath, Joanes [son of] Hakatan and with him 110 men. 39Of the sons of Adonikam, the last ones, these are their names: Eliphalatos, Jeouel, and Samaias and with them 70 men. 40Of the sons of Bago, Outhi son of Istalkouros and with him 70 men. 41I assembled them at the river called Theras and we encamped there three days. And I examined them, 42but did not find there any one of the sons of the priests and of the Levites. 43I sent to Eleazaros and Idouelos and Maasmas and Elnatan and Samaias and Joribos, Nathan, Ennatan, Zacharias, and Mosollamos, the leaders and men of knowledge, 44and told them to go to Addaios, the leader in the place of the treasury, 45instructing them to talk to Addaios and to his brothers and those in the place of the treasury, to send us Temple functionaries for the house of our Lord. 46They brought us—by the mighty hand of our Lord—learned men of the sons of Mooli son of Levi son of Israel, Asebebias and his sons and brothers 18, 47and Asebias and Announos and tain cases (in particular 8:32, 36) it seems that 1 Esdras preserves a better reading. There are also small differences in the numbers, but there is no way to determine which reading is original. The smallest group has only 28 men, and the largest 300. In Ezra 8 the sum total of the men is 1,496 and in 1 Esdras-1,690; taking into consideration the other members of the families and related persons, the total number could have come up to 7,000 people. There is no way to determine the accuracy of this data. Some of the heads of the families are recorded with their patronym (e.g., 8:31–32) while some others are mentioned only by name. The reference to “record” is limited to 8:30 and is not repeated later on. 1 Esd. 8:39 deviates from the list’s fixed formula; no explanation is offered for the change, but it may be due to the use of a different kind of documentation. 8:41–42. I assembled them According to Ezra 8:15, Ezra did not find Levites among the assembled crowd and made a special effort to locate them and make them join the caravan. According to 1 Esdras, Ezra did not find priests either. In the continuation of the story 1 Esdras reports only the search for the Levites. Since several individual priests do appear in the story (8:54), it seems that the original list did include names of priestly families, which somehow dropped from the list in its transmission. The absence of the priestly families prompted 1 Esdras to change this verse, but he did not adjust the continuation of the story to the change. The wish to add Levites to the caravan stems from the view of the returnees as a symbolic representation of the entire people. 8:43–45. I sent to Eleazaros Ezra appoints a delegation of 10 learned men and sends them to a community known for having a constituent of Levites. Their instruction is to urge the inhabitants of this community to send some Levites to join the caravan. The name of the place, Casiphia in Ezra 8:17, is understood as an attribute and presented as “the place of the treasury.” This little episode sheds some interesting light on the whereabouts of the Judean exiles in Babylon, their habitations, leadership, and communication network. 8:46–47. they brought us The delegation returns with two groups of Levites, of 18 and 20 men each, affiliated with two of the ancestral Levitical families. There are differences in the names of the founding fathers between the two versions. As in other cases, Ezra attributes the success of the delegation to the special grace of God.

1 Esdras 197

Osaias [his] brother, of the sons of Chanounaios and their sons 20 men, 48and of the Temple servants, whom David and the leaders gave for the service of the Levites, 220 Temple servants, all registered in the record of names. 49I proclaimed there a fast for the young men before our Lord, 50to ask of him a good journey, for us and for our children who were going with us, and [our] cattle, 51for I felt ashamed to ask the king for an escort of foot soldiers and horsemen, as security against our adversaries. 52For we said to the king: “The might of our Lord is with those who seek him, to set everything right.” 53And we beseeched our Lord again for all these things and found him merciful. 54I set apart 12 men of the heads of the priests, Serebias and Assamias and 10 men of their brothers with them, 55and I weighed out [literally: set] to them the silver and the gold and the holy vessels of the house of our Lord, which the king and his counselors and his officials and all Israel had donated. 56And I weighed [literally: set] and handed over to them 650 talents of silver, and 100 talents of silver vessels, and 100 talents of gold, and 20 golden bowls, and copper vessels of fine copper, glittering like gold, 12 vessels. 57And I said to them: “You are holy to the Lord and the vessels are holy, and the silver and the gold are a votive offer8:48. and of the Temple servants The Levites are accompanied by a larger group of “Temple servants” (Nethinim), a lower order of Temple functionaries whose establishment is ascribed to David. This attribution is not substantiated by any other testimony; the Nethinim are not mentioned in the Chronicler’s description of David’s organization of the Temple functionaries (1 Chron. 23–26) or anywhere else in his descriptions of the Temple service. 8:49–50. I proclaimed there a fast Of the preparations for the journey Ezra mentions only two matters, the first of which is a day of fasting and praying, appealing to God to secure the caravan a safe journey. Here for the first time we learn that the caravan consisted not merely of men but of entire households and their livestock. 1 Esdras specifies that the fast was not declared for everyone but only for “the young men.” 8:51–52. for I felt ashamed Ezra explains, and perhaps apologizes for, the necessity of the fasting: because of his piety and his confidence in God’s protection—which he expressed orally to the king—he did not ask the king for military escort; he now had to make sure that this protection would indeed be granted. Taking into consideration the vulnerability of the caravan due to its size, composition, considerable load of money and valuables, and the length of the journey, such a protection was certainly necessary. 8:53. and we beseeched Ezra’s final claim that God accepted the people’s prayer already anticipates the safe arrival in Jerusalem, told later. 8:54. I set apart The last matter to be taken care of is the safe delivery of all the valuables from Babylon to Jerusalem. For this difficult task Ezra nominates 12 priests, whose leaders are mentioned by name. 8:55–56. and I weighed out The gold and silver are weighed, the vessels are precisely counted, and everything is properly recorded. 8:57. and I said to them The delivery of the caravan’s treasures to the priests is accompanied by Ezra’s admonition that (a) the priests were chosen for this office of trust because of their holiness, as appropriate for the holy vessels; (b) the money is holy too, because it is a “votive offering to the Lord”; (c) the holy treasure belongs to God, for whom it was offered; and (d) the safeguarding of the treasures is temporary, because they are to be delivered to the Temple overseers and put in its chambers.

198 Sara Japhet

ing to the Lord, the Lord of our fathers. 58Take care and guard [them] until you deliver them to the leaders of the priests and Levites and the heads of the fathers’ houses of Israel in Jerusalem, in the chambers of the house of our Lord.” 59So the priests and the Levites who received the silver and the gold and the vessels that were in Jerusalem carried them to the Temple of the Lord. 60Having left the River Theras on the 12th [day] of the first month to go to Jerusalem—by the mighty hand of our Lord that was upon us; and he saved us, the Lord, from the way and from every enemy—we came to Jerusalem. 61Having been there three days, the silver and the gold were weighed out and handed over to the priest Marmothi son of Ouria, in the house of our Lord, 62and with him Eleazar son of Phinees; there were with them also the Levites, Josabdos son of Jesous and Moeth son of Sabannos. All by number and weight; the total weight was written down at that time. 63Those coming up from the exile offered sacrifices to the Lord God of Israel: 12 bulls for all Israel, 96 rams, 72 lambs, 12 he-goats for a welfare offering, all as a sacrifice to the Lord. 64They delivered the king’s orders to the royal stewards and to the governors of Coelesyria and Phoenicia, and they extolled the people and the Temple of the Lord. 8:59. so the priests and the Levites The priests take upon themselves the difficult task and its conditions. The addition of Levites to the priests seems a conventional literary phrasing; they were not mentioned at the beginning of this episode as part of the body of treasurers. 8:60. having left the River Theras This is the only verse dedicated to the journey itself: they went out, they traveled safely, and they arrived. The departure from Babylon is dated on the 12th day of the first month, very close to the date of the Passover and to the time of the Exodus from Egypt. The decision to begin the journey at this time is rational—it is the time of spring, the best season for the trip. However, the model of the Exodus, although not explicitly mentioned, may also have had a part in the timing. 8:61–62. having been there three days After some rest—the typological three days (see also 8:41)— the first task to be fulfilled is the delivery of the money and the vessels to the responsible persons in Jerusalem. No details are provided at this time; only a statement that everything was properly weighed and recorded. 8:63. those coming up The narrative moves—for two verses only—from the first-person style of “I” and “we” to a third-person account in a manner of summary, the first-person style to be resumed in 8:65. The sacrifices offered upon the people’s arrival consist of bulls, rams, lambs, and he-goats, the numbers of which are all multiples of 12, symbolizing their being offered “for all Israel.” The he-goats, originally offered as sin offerings (7:8), are described in 1 Esdras as welfare offerings—quite unusual for this kind of animals. 8:64. they delivered The story of the return ends with the handling of its administrative aspect— the delivery of the documents to the relevant officials. How this was done and by whom is not stated, but the retrospective note, that they “extolled the people and the Temple,” rounds up the entire pericope.

1 Esdras 199

The Episode of Mixed Marriages (8:65–9:36) The Problem (8:65–67)

65All these things having been concluded, the leaders approached me, saying: 66“The people of Israel and the rulers and the priests and the Levites did not separate [themselves] from the foreign peoples of the land with their impurities, from the Chananites and Chettites and Pherezites and Jebusites and Moabites and Egyptians and Edomites. 67They and their sons have married their daughters, and the holy seed has been mixed with the foreign peoples of the land. The leaders and the nobles shared this iniquity from the beginning of this affair.” 8:65–9:36 After the handling of the formalities, Ezra is free to begin his true mission, “to investigate in Judah and Jerusalem, the compliance with . . . the Law of the Lord” (8:12). He does not need to wait long, for the people take the initiative and approach him with their burning problem— mixed marriages. We are not told what prompted the people to raise this issue, but it is possible that the reading of the Law, now presented as taking place after the handling of this matter, originally preceded the people’s approach. This order of the events is corroborated by the chronological details: Ezra’s arrival in Jerusalem in the fifth month (8:6), the handling of mixed marriages beginning in the ninth month (9:5), and the reading of the Law in the seventh month (9:37). If this was indeed the original order, it was changed already in Ezra-Nehemiah, and the new order is followed in 1 Esdras. A major component of this unit is Ezra’s address to God. It is commonly described as “Ezra’s prayer” but is rather a lengthy and moving confession of sin, based on a deep sense of guilt. It is grounded theologically in the concept of theodicy, as expressed by the final declaration: “O Lord, . . . you are benevolent” [literally: “righteous” ( JPS: “benevolent”). God’s righteousness, not benevolence, is the essence of theodicy, and the literal rendering should be preferred.] (Ezra 9:15); and its tone is that of profound despair. The confession is not a conventional piece of liturgy but a living expression of the actual historical situation. Its many allusions to earlier texts reformulate these texts and serve as a vehicle for Ezra’s religious views and convictions. Unit structure: the problem (8:65–67), Ezra’s reaction and confession (8:68–87), the people’s response (8:88–9:2), the convocation in Jerusalem and its follow-up (9:3–17), and the list of perpetrators and final action (9:18–36). 8:66–67. the people of Israel The problem as presented to Ezra is mixed marriages that spread among all the members of the community, first and foremost among the aristocracy. The complaint of the leaders joins together four historical peoples now extinct—Chananites (Canaanites), Chettites (Hittites), Pherezites (Perizzites), and Jebusites—and in Ezra 9:1 four contemporary peoples—Moabites, Ammonites, Egyptians, and Amorites (probably, Edomites). Our text has only seven nations, as the Ammonites are not included. The Pentateuch has different laws concerning these groups (the “seven nations” in Deut. 7:1–3, the Moabites and Ammonites in 23:4, the Egyptians and Edomites in 23:8–9); their presentation together obliterates the differences between them, turns them into one group, and applies to all of them the same severe law of total exclusion and separation. The absence of Ammonites from 1 Esdras could be explained as a scribal error. Mixed marriages are described in one direction—the taking in marriage of foreign wives. The other possibility suggested in Deut. 7:3—of giving Israelite daughters in marriage to foreign men—is not brought up in this context.

200 Sara Japhet

Ezra’s Reaction and Confession (8:68–87)

68Upon hearing these things I rent my clothes and the holy garments and pulled out the hair of my head and beard; I sat down in reflection, deeply grieved. 69And all those who were moved by the word of the Lord of Israel gathered to me, as I was mourning over the iniquity, and I sat down in deep grieving until the evening sacrifices. 70Being aroused from my fast, with my clothes and the holy garments rent, I fell on my knees and stretched the hands to the Lord, and said: 71“O Lord, I feel disgraceful and ashamed before your face 72for our iniquities have increased above our heads, and our misbehavior has risen up to heaven. 73Already from the time of our fathers to this day we have been in great sin. 74Because of our sins and those of our fathers we were given in shame—together with our brothers, and our kings, and our priests—to the kings of the earth, to the sword, to exile, and to plunder, until this very day. 75And now, for a little while there was mercy from you toward us, O Lord, with a root and a name left to us in the place of your holiness, 76and our light unveiled in the house of our Lord, to give 8:68. upon hearing these things Ezra’s reaction to the news is that of a man in shock. He does not speak and goes into all the gestures of great mourning, including the rending of his priestly coat; he sits on the ground and fasts. 8:69. and all those This extreme reaction, in deeds rather than in words, attracts the attention of the crowd, who then gather around him. Ezra describes them as “those who were moved by the word of the Lord,” alluding perhaps to the reading of the Law that preceded the leaders’ complaint and prompted it. 8:70. being aroused from my fast After a day of fasting Ezra breaks his silence, but even now does not address the surrounding crowd but turns in prayer to God, in a long confession of sin and remorse. 8:71–72. O Lord Ezra opens with a personal note in the first-person singular, but moves immediately to the first-person plural, as a speaker for the community. After expressing his own feeling of shame, he turns to the acknowledgment of the people’s sin, described in the most extreme terms. 8:73–74. already from the time The confession begins with a historical retrospect and introduces the concept of theodicy: the burden of sin lies on the shoulders of the people from of old, and this has been the cause of God’s wrath and punishment. It is our fault that we suffer the hardest and harshest conditions, brought about by God’s justified retribution. Although Ezra turns to the past, to the sins of “our fathers,” he still preserves the personal tone: we, not they, “have been in great sin.” 8:75. and now With this phrase, conventionally marking a turn in the speech, Ezra turns to the present situation and describes it as a moment of grace. Although God’s righteousness demanded that the people be punished in the most severe way, his grace overpowered his anger and he acted with mercy. It is only because of God’s mercy that the people survived and began to rehabilitate their life. Ezra’s phrasing moves from a third-person speech about God to a second-person direct address to God. 8:76–78. and our light unveiled Ezra is not blind to the political reality: the people are in a state of servitude to the Persian rulers! God’s grace toward his people was shown not in acts toward a political change, but within the framework of this political order. The signs of God’s grace are the very survival of the people, the restoration of life in Judah and Jerusalem, and the existence in glory of God’s Temple. The concept of God’s providence, characteristic of Ezra-Nehemiah

1 Esdras 201

us sustenance in the time of our servitude, for in our servitude we were not abandoned by our Lord, 77but he extended to us grace before the kings of the Persians to give us sustenance 78and to glorify our Temple and to raise the ruins of Zion, to give us a foundation in Judah and Jerusalem. 79And now, having all these things, what shall we say, O Lord? We have transgressed your commandments that you gave by the hands of the prophets your servants, saying: 80’The land that you are coming to inherit is a polluted land, by the pollution of the foreign peoples of the land, who filled it with their impurities. 81And now, do not marry your daughters to their sons and do not give their daughters to your sons 82and do not ever seek to be at peace with them, so that you grow strong and eat the goodness of the land and bequeath [it] to your sons forever.’ 83And with all this befalling us because of our evil deeds and our great sins—for you, O Lord, have lightened the burden of our sins 84and have given us such a root—shall we again violate your Law, to mix with the impurity of the peoples of the land? 85Do not be angry with us to destroy us, to leave [us] no root or seed or our name. 86O Lord of Israel, you are truthful, for we have been left with a root to this very day. 87Behold, we are now before you in our guilt, for there is no more standing before you with all these things.” The People’s Response (8:88–9:2)

88While Ezra was praying and confessing, weeping and falling to the ground before the Temple, a very great crowd from Jerusalem gathered around him, men and women and youths, for the weeping of and followed in 1 Esdras, is that God worked through the kings of Persia; they were God’s agents for the welfare of his people. 8:79. and now With another new address to God, Ezra returns to the topic at hand—a detailed theological explanation of the sin: mixed marriages are a transgression of God’s commandment that was delivered to the people of Israel by the prophets. 8:80–82. the land Ezra describes the nature of the transgression as a quotation of prophetic sayings: the land is in a state of impurity caused by the foreign nations. In order to be established in the land and enjoy its goodness, any contact with these peoples, in particular any marriage with them, is harmful and forbidden. Contact with foreign peoples is “the root of all evil” and a threat to the very survival of the people of Israel in their land. The individual ideas used in Ezra’s arguments—the need to bolster the survival of Israel in its land and the attribution of impurity and abomination to the foreign peoples—are taken from various biblical sources, particularly in the Pentateuch. However, their conjunction into a comprehensive whole and their use as an explanation for Israel’s present situation are Ezra’s own. It is an interesting example of a theological midrash. 8:83–85. and with all this befalling us The conclusion, addressed to God, seems self-evident: with God’s righteousness as a basic presupposition, illustrated in the punishment inflicted on Israel in the past, with God’s present momentary grace toward his people, and with the enormity of the transgression of mixed marriages—is not mixed marriage the greatest risk for the survival of Israel? 8:86–87. O Lord of Israel The final invocation sums up the gist of the confession: God is truthful, we are guilty, how shall we survive? 1 Esdras prefers the adjective “truthful” to the more common term “righteous.” 8:88. while Ezra was praying Ezra’s dramatic action attracted a great crowd, who joined him in mourning and came forward with practical suggestions to solve the problem.

202 Sara Japhet

the multitude was great. 89And Jechonias son of Jeelos, of the sons of Israel, answered Ezra and said: “We have sinned against the Lord and married foreign women from the peoples of the land. But now there is hope for Israel 90in this matter. Let us take an oath to the Lord to expel all our wives of foreign origin with their children, as decided by you and by those who are obedient to the Law of the Lord. 91Rise and act, for the action is yours and we are with you to act with strength.” 92So Ezra got up and made the leaders of the priests and Levites and of all Israel swear to act according to these things, and they swore. 9:1Ezra got up from the court of the Temple and went to the chamber of Joanan son of Eliasibos 2and spent the night there. Mourning over the great iniquities of the crowd, he did not eat bread or drink water. The Convocation in Jerusalem and Its Follow-up (9:3–17)

3So a proclamation was issued throughout all Judah and Jerusalem for all those of the exile to assemble in Jerusalem. 4And those who do not come within two or three days, according to the decision of the leading elders, his cattle would be consecrated and he would be alienated from the community of the exiles. 5So all those of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin assembled in Jerusalem within three days—

8:89–91. and Jechonias son of Jeelos The practical steps to be taken are not proposed by Ezra but by one of the crowd. Convinced by Ezra’s rhetoric force, he acknowledges the people’s guilt and proposes the most severe step possible: to cure the impurity of the community by dissolving the marriages and expelling not only the foreign wives but also their children. Being perhaps aware of the severity and cruelty of the proposed action, he presents it as supported by all the adherents to the Law and urges Ezra to take responsibility and act on the spot, offering the community’s support. In Ezra 10:3, Shechaniah (= Jechonias in 1 Esd. 8:89) defines the suggested procedure as a covenant with God and his proposed steps as conforming to the Law. In fact, no such instructions are found in the Pentateuch, and the difficult claim is omitted in the rephrasing of 1 Esdras. 8:92. so Ezra got up Ezra indeed follows Shechaniah’s/Jechonias’s proposal. He takes advantage of the moment and of the feelings of remorse that swept the crowd and puts them all under oath. 9:1–2. Ezra got up With the people’s oath Ezra’s task of the day came to an end, and he retired to the chamber of the priest Joanan son of Eliasibos. His mood, however, did not change, and his deep aggravation at the people’s transgression made him go on with mourning and fasting. The name of the priest may offer a chronological anchor for the event. Eliashib (1 Esdras: Eliasibos) is mentioned several times as the high priest during the time of Nehemiah (Neh. 3:1; 13:4), and if the priest mentioned in the episode of mixed marriages—whether a high priest or not—is the son of this Eliashib (Neh. 12:23), a solid chronological framework is provided for Ezra’s office and activity. 9:3–4. so a proclamation The first step toward implementation of Shechaniah’s/Jechonias’s suggestion and the oath undertaken by the leaders of the people is a general convocation in Jerusalem. The enforcement of the convocation is effected by threats of punitive actions—the exclusion from the community and the confiscation of property—rather than by the need to take action or the authority of Ezra. The power of exclusion from the community may be based on the cohesive social structure and the authority of the leaders, but the power to confiscate property implies—but does not explicitly mention—an official authority. 9:5. so all those The people identified earlier as “those of the exile” living in Judah and Jerusalem are now presented as “of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin.” This double definition points to the

1 Esdras 203

this being the ninth month, the 20th [day] of the month. 6And the whole crowd sat down in the open space of the Temple, shivering because of the beginning of winter. 7Ezra stood up and said to them: “You have acted lawlessly and married foreign wives, to add guilt upon Israel. 8Now, confess and give honor to the Lord, God of our fathers, 9and do his will and separate [yourselves] from the peoples of the land and from the foreign wives.” 10So all the crowd answered and said in a loud voice: “We will do as you said. 11But the crowd is great, the time is winter, and we have no strength and are unable to stand in the open, and our task is not for one day or two, for we have sinned excessively in these matters. 12Let the leaders of the community stay [literally: stand up], and all those from our settlements who have foreign wives, let them come at appointed times, 13each one with the local elders and judges, until the wrath of the Lord upon us because of this matter is alleviated.” 14Jonatas son of Azaelos and Jezias son of Thokanos approved of this, and Mosollamos and Levis and Sabbataios assisted them. 15And those of the exile did according to all these things. 16Ezra the priest selected for himself men, heads of fathers’ houses, all by name, and they sat down to examine the matter on the first day of the 10th month. 17And the matter of the men who married foreign wives was concluded by the first day of the first month. List of Perpetrators and Final Action (9:18–36)

18Of the priests were found [those] having foreign wives: 19Of the sons of Jesous son of Josedek and his brothers: Maseas and Eleazaros and Joribos and Jodanos. 20They committed [literally: cast the hands] to peculiar view of both Ezra-Nehemiah and 1 Esdras, that the Judean people of the period were all descendants of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, and all of them returning exiles. A drop of humor is inserted into the story with the remark that the assembled crowd was trembling, both because of the awesomeness of the occasion and the winter weather. 9:7–9. Ezra stood up At this time Ezra addresses the assembling crowd with a concise and authoritative speech, with no emotional outbreak or preaching. He puts down his demand—presented as a fulfillment of God’s command—of absolute separation from non-Israelites. 9:10–11. so all the crowd The crowd responded in a rational way. Although they admitted that Ezra’s demand was fully justified and should be obeyed, they asked to postpone its implementation. The project was too big to be dealt with on the spot, the circumstances were unfavorable, and an orderly procedure should be established. Is it too far-fetched to suggest that the crowed also hoped—without saying so—to win time and perhaps avoid the suggested strict measures? 9:12–13. let the leaders The suggestion of the crowd consists of several steps: establishment of a committee composed of leading persons of the community, an orderly identification of the culprits, an organized legal examination of each case, and the necessary outcome—the separation from the foreign women. 9:14. Jonatas son of Azaelos The identity or position of these persons is not specified but it seems that they were representatives of the crowd and supported their request. 9:15–17. and those of the exile The suggested procedure is accepted, and Ezra turns immediately, already at the beginning of the 10th month, to establish a committee of well-known leaders and to put the decision into effect. The investigation of the matter throughout Judah and the preparation of the list took another three months, until the first day of the first month. 9:18–20. of the priests The list of perpetrators who married foreign women is organized according to the same categories as the other lists in Ezra-Nehemiah, but with the placement of the laypeople at the end of the list. The perpetrating priests belong to the four priestly families, the first men-

204 Sara Japhet

expel their wives and [to offer] rams in atonement for their transgression. 21And of the sons of Emmer: Ananias and Zabdaios and Manes and Samaios and Jereel and Azarias. 22And of the sons of Phaisour: Elionais, Maesias, Ismaelos, and Nathanelos and Okidelos and Salthas. 23And of the Levites: Jozabdos and Semeis and Kolios—he is Kalitas—and Pathaios and Ooudas and Joanas. 24Of the Temple singers: Eliasibos, Bakchouros. 25Of the gatekeepers: Salloumos and Tolbanes. 26Of Israel: of the sons of Phoros: Jermas and Jezias and Melchias and Miaminos and Eleazaros and Asibias and Bannaias. 27Of the sons of Elam: Matanias and Zacharias, Jezrielos and Obadios and Jeremoth and Elias. 28And of the sons of Zamoth: Eliadas, Eliasimos, Othonias, Jarimoth, and Sabathos and Zerdaias. 29And of the sons of Bebai: Joanes and Ananias and Zabdos and Emathis. 30And of the sons of Mani: Olamos, Mallouchos, Jedaios, Jasoubos, and Asaelos and Jeremoth. 31And of the sons of Addi: Naathos and Moossias and Lakkounos and Naidos and Matthanias and Sesthel and Balnouos and Manasseas. 32And of the sons of Annan: Elionas and Asaias and Melchias and Sabbaias and Simon, Chosamaios. 33And of the sons of Asom: Maltannaios and Mattathias and Sabadaious and Eliphalat and Manasses and Semei. 34And of the sons of Baani: Jeremias, Moadios, Maeros, Jouel, Mamdai and Pedias and Anos, Karabasion and Eliasibos, and Mamnitanaimos, Eliasis, Bannous, Elialis, Someis, Selemias, Nathanias. And of the sons of Ezora: Sessis, Ezril, Azaelos, Samatos, Zambris, Josepos. 35And of the sons of Nooma: Mazitias, Zabadaias, Edais, Jouel, Banaias. 36All these married foreign wives and they sent them away with [their] children.

tioned being the family of the high priest, Jesous son of Josedek. The procedure regarding the four members of this family is precisely recorded: they are to expel the foreign wives and to offer a guilt sacrifice in atonement for their transgression. This procedure is not mentioned again, but it might have applied also to the members of the other priestly families, “their brothers.” 9:21–22. and of the sons of Emmer Of the other three priestly families—Emmer, Harim, and Phaisour—1 Esdras omits the name of Harim and two of its members. The total number of priests is thus 17 in Ezra 10 and 15 in 1 Esdras. 9:23–25. and of the Levites Of the other Temple functionaries there are six Levites, one singer in Ezra 10 but two in 1 Esdras, and three gatekeepers, altogether 10 or 11. 9:26–35. of Israel Ten families with 86 members are enumerated in Ezra 10, and 11 families with 76 members in 1 Esdras. It seems that in Ezra 10:36–42 some family names were presented as personal names, and most of these corruptions, but not all, are represented in 1 Esdras. All the family names in their Hebrew form are included, in a different order, in the list of returnees of Ezra 2:1–42, but this accord is not preserved in the Greek forms of the names. Altogether the list registers over 110 men, all recorded by names and family affiliation. 9:36. all these married foreign wives According to Ezra 10:44 the affair of mixed marriages was not practically resolved; it simply states: “All these had married foreign women, among whom were some women who had borne children.” This ending may be interpreted from three different perspectives: from a textual perspective as a textual corruption, from a literary perspective as a result of the omission of the final passage that held information about the actual conclusion of the affair, and from a historical perspective as indicating that no further action was undertaken and the affair was concluded by the promulgation of the list. This is not the case in 1 Esd. 9:36, which states unequivocally that the women and their children were actually expelled. Some scholars (and translations) adopt 1 Esdras as the original reading, while others regard it as a tendentious

1 Esdras 205

Reading the Law (9:37–55) Assembling in Jerusalem (9:37–38)

37The priests and the Levites and some of Israel settled in Jerusalem and in the country. On the first day of the seventh month, as the sons of Israel [were] in their settlements, 38the whole multitude as one man assembled in the open space in front of the east gate of the Temple, Reading the Law of the Lord (9:39–48)

39and they told Ezra the high priest and reader to bring the Law of Moses, which had been given by the Lord God of Israel. 40So Ezra the high priest brought the Law to the crowd, from man to woman, and

change by the author of 1 Esdras. The seemingly textual difference would result in quite opposing views regarding the issue of mixed marriages on the one hand and the success of Ezra’s mission on the other hand. 9:37–55 The final episode of 1 Esdras is the public reading of the Torah (the Law) on the New Moon of the seventh month. The beginning of the story in 1 Esdras is a bit awkward because the mention of the settlement of some of the people in Jerusalem is out of context; it is well explained by the continuation of the story in Ezra, where the reading of the Law in Neh. 8 follows the list of the returnees in Neh. 7. It demonstrates that 1 Esdras does not reflect an original version of the story, but is dependent on Ezra-Nehemiah. Unit structure: assembling in Jerusalem (9:37– 38), reading the Law of the Lord (9:39–48), and celebrating the holy day with joy (9:49–55). 9:37–38. the priests and the Levites The statement about the settlement seems incomplete, as it tells that “the priests and the Levites and some of Israel settled in Jerusalem and in the country” and does not mention where the other parts of the people settled. It seems that the text has already suffered some omission in Neh. 7:72 and became even more blurred in the present version. Be that as it may, the very reference to the settlement is out of place in the present context. The first day of the seventh month is also the date of the people’s assembly in Jerusalem in the time of Zerubbabel and Joshua (1 Esd. 5:46 = Ezra 3:1) and the question arises whether this is a regular New Moon celebrated in the Temple or already reflects the day of “sacred occasion” (NJPS) or “holy convocation” (NRSV) prescribed in Lev. 23:24 and Num. 29:1, which is to become the New Year’s Day in later Judaism. The celebration of this day in Ezra-Nehemiah differs substantially from the Pentateuchal instructions. On the one hand the Pentateuch calendar of holidays does not include this day among the pilgrimages; on the other hand, none of the terms that identify this day in the Pentateuch (zkrwn trw’h, mqr’qwdsh, shbatwn, ywm trw’h) are repeated in Ezra-Nehemiah. It seems rather that the New Moon of the seventh month derived its significance in Ezra-Nehemiah from its connection to the celebration of the main pilgrimage— the Festival of Tabernacles (Succoth). According to Neh. 8:1 the convocation took place at the space before one of the city gates, the Water Gate. In 1 Esdras it is moved to the precincts of the Temple, both here and in 9:41. 9:39. and they told Ezra Although the teaching of the Law was a major aspect of Ezra’s mission (1 Esd. 8:7, 23 = Ezra 7:10, 25), according to this chapter the reading of the Law was initiated by the people rather than by him. This is one of three places where 1 Esdras awards Ezra the title “high priest” (also 9:40, 49), with no corroboration in Ezra-Nehemiah; it certainly expresses a major tenet of his view of the restoration period. 9:40–41. so Ezra the high priest The crowd includes the entire community, both men and women.

206 Sara Japhet

to all the priests, to listen to the Law, on the first day of the seventh month. 41And he read in the open space in front of the Temple gate, before the men and the women, from dawn to the middle of the day, and the whole crowd gave [their] mind to the Law. 42Ezra the priest and the reader of the Law stood upon a wooden platform that had been prepared 43and beside him, on the right side, stood Mattathias, Samous, Ananias, Azarias, Ourias, Hezekias, Baalsamos, 44and on the left side, Phadaios, Misael, Melchias, Lothasoubos, Nabarias, Zacharias. 45Ezra took up the book of the Law before the multitude, for he was seated gloriously before all of them. 46And at the opening of the Law, all stood up erect, and Ezra blessed the Lord God Most High, the Almighty God Sabaoth. 47And the whole crowd answered: “Amen,” and lifted up the hands, fell to the ground, and prostrated to God. 48And the Levites—Jesous and Annious, and Sarabias and Jadinos, Jakoubos, Sabbataios, Autaias, Maiannas and Kalitas, Azarias and Jozabdos, Hananias, Phalias—taught the crowd the Law of the Lord. They read the Law of the Lord, inspired by the reading. Celebrating the Holy Day with Joy (9:49–55)

49And Hattharates said to Ezra the high priest and the reader, and to the Levites who were teaching the crowd, with regard to all: 50“This day is holy to the Lord”—everybody was weeping upon hearing the The mention of women is noteworthy since they are not registered in any of the lists and their presence throughout the story is rather undistinguished. Nevertheless, they are mentioned three times in Ezra-Nehemiah as participants in public assemblies: in the gathering around Ezra during his mourning over mixed marriages (Ezra 10:1), in the reading of the Law (Neh. 8:2–3), and in the making of the covenant (Neh. 10:29–30). The first two are included in 1 Esdras. These explicit references indicate that women did take part in the public life of Judah, even in events of religious nature. 1 Esdras rephrases the verse by the addition of “all the priests” as part of the crowd. 9:42–44. Ezra the priest The setting is very clearly presented: Ezra is standing on a raised wooden platform facing the people, flanked on each side by an honor guard of six or seven men (six and seven in Neh. 8:4, seven and six in 1 Esdras, with differences in the names), and all the assembling crowd in front of them. 9:45–47. Ezra took up the book 1 Esdras elaborates somewhat the description of the ceremony that preceded the reading: Ezra took the book, opened it in front of the people, the entire congregation stood up, Ezra blessed the Lord, the people responded with “Amen” and raised their hands, and everybody prostrated themselves with their faces to the ground. The title of God in Neh. 8:6—“the Lord, the great God”—is rephrased in 1 Esdras to “the Lord God Most High, the Almighty God Sabaoth.” Then the reading began. 9:48. and the Levites While Ezra was reading the Law from above the platform, 13 Levites were explaining its meaning to the crowd. In both Neh. 8 and 1 Esdras it is emphasized—although in different terms—that the people fully understood what was read to them. 9:49–50. and Hattharates said to Ezra It seems that the text underwent several modifications before it reached the somewhat unclear version of 1 Esdras. The original of Neh. 8:9 presented Ezra and the Levites as instructing the people and telling them that the day was holy and should be celebrated with joy. This text was secondly enlarged by the interpolation of “Nehemiah the Tirshata,” which introduced Nehemiah to the event and joined him to Ezra and the Levites as the instructors of the people. Two further changes were introduced in 1 Esdras. The unfamiliar title “Tirshata” was conceived as a personal name, Hattharates, and the name “Nehemiah” was omit-

1 Esdras 207

Law—51“Go now, eat fat [food] and drink sweet drinks, and send gifts to those who have nothing, 52for the day is holy to the Lord. Do not be sad, for the Lord will honor you.” 53And the Levites ordered all the people saying: “This day is holy, do not be sad.” 54So everyone went to eat and drink and rejoice and send gifts to those who have nothing and to rejoice exceedingly. 55For they were inspired by the words that they were taught. And they assembled. . . . ted. In the present version of 1 Esdras it is not Ezra and the Levites who instruct the people, but Hattharates who instructs Ezra and the Levites. 9:51–52. go now Two features mark the day as a day of joy: eating and drinking well, and sending gifts to the poor. These features mark the festive day also in Esther 9:22. 9:53. and the Levites The Levites transmit the instruction of Hattharates to the people and urge them to relinquish their sadness. 9:54–55. so everyone went The people follow the instructions and turn the day into a day of great joy. They do it, however, not because they were told but—as before—because they understood the instructions and were deeply moved. The book ends abruptly with the beginning of the next passage—“and they assembled”—and raises the question of the ending of 1 Esdras. Was this the original ending of the book, with an intentional break at this point, or was it a result of some textual corruption that left the book without its end? The two positions are advocated in the scholarly literature, but a major consideration is that these opening words follow the Greek version of the text rather than the Hebrew. The Hebrew text of Neh. 8:13 literally reads: “On the second day they assembled.” This was probably represented in Greek translation by “and they assembled on the second day,” which implies that the text was curtailed not in its original Hebrew but in its Greek version and does not represent the original form of the work. How much further did the original text go? There is no way to restore the original ending, and so no certain answer to the question can be offered. It seems reasonable to assume that the story went on to include the Feast of Tabernacles (Neh. 8:13–18), which ended nicely with the daily reading of the Law, but this cannot be determined conclusively.

Notes 1. The time span is dependent on the identification of King Artaxerxes, in whose reign Ezra’s activity took place. If the king was Artaxerxes I, the year of Ezra’s arrival in Jerusalem would be 458 bce; and if Artaxerxes II, the year would be 398 bce. 2. J. M. Myers, I and II Esdras: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary, Anchor Bible 42 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1974), 5. 3. A. E. Brooke and N. McLean, The Old Testament in Greek, vol. 2/4: I Esdras, Ezra-Nehemiah (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1935). 4. H. G. M. Williamson, “The Problem with I Esdras,” in After the Exile: Essays in Honour of Rex Mason, ed. J. Barton and D. J. Reimer (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1996), 216. 5. S. A. Cook, “I Esdras,” in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, ed. R. H. Charles (Oxford: Clarendon, 1913), 1.3; and Myers, I and II Esdras, 17–18. 6. Ezra 5:11, 12; 6:9, 10; 7:12, 21, 23; Neh. 1:4, 5; 2:4, 20; Dan. 2:18, 19, 37, 44. 7. NRSV reads “those from” for “the men of ” in 5:18–21.

208 Sara Japhet

Sustained Biblical Commentaries: Retellings and Pesharim

Commentary on Genesis A George J. Brooke Commentary on Genesis A (4Q252) is the best preserved of a small group of commentaries on the scriptural book of Genesis found in the Qumran caves. It was written on a single piece of leather in six columns of 22 lines each; it is mostly the top part of the scroll that survives. Commentary on Genesis A contains interpretations of selected passages from Gen. 6 to Gen. 49. It is put together from the commentator’s own work and extracts from other writings, some of which were sectarian; that is, they were themselves composed by members of the sect who collected the Qumran scrolls together. The manuscript was penned in the second half of the 1st century bce, but it might be a copy of an earlier compilation. In its present form it reflects the widespread interest in Genesis among the Qumran sectarians and the wider movement of which they were a part. Intriguingly some issues in Genesis seem to have been of greater concern than others: there is nothing here on creation or on the figure of Joseph, but much attention to the Flood, Abraham, and the blessings of Jacob. Significance Scholars debate whether the commentary is concerned principally with problems in the plain meaning of the text of Genesis, each addressed in turn, or whether an overarching theme runs through the selected items, such as unfulfilled blessings and curses or the possession and purity of the land. The label “commentary” is sufficiently flexible to cover the wide variety of types of interpretation contained in 4Q252. These range from what looks like rewritten Bible (i.e., a rephrasing of a scriptural passage where there is no distinction between the authoritative text and the author’s explanations) to pesher (a form of commentary that first quotes a scriptural text and then introduces a separate interpretation, using a set literary formula; see commentary on col. 4). Commentary on Genesis A is important because it comes from the end of the Second Temple period at a key moment in the development of Jewish biblical interpretation, as that moved from mostly implicit paraphrastic forms to predominantly explicit forms as in the later Rabbinic midrashim. Suggested Reading Bernstein, Moshe. “4Q252: From Re-Written Bible to Biblical Commentary.” Journal of Jewish Studies 45 (1994): 1–27. —. “4Q252: Method and Context, Genre and Sources.” Jewish Quarterly Review 85 (1994): 61–79. Brooke, George J. “The Genre of 4Q252.” Dead Sea Discoveries 1 (1994): 160–79. —. “The Thematic Content of 4Q252.” Jewish Quarterly Review 85 (1994): 33–59. —. “252. 4QCommentary on Genesis A.” In Qumran Cave 4.XVII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3, edited by G. Brooke et al., 185–207. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 22. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Fröhlich, Ida. “Biblical Narratives in Qumran Exegetical Works (4Q252; 4Q180; the Damascus Document).” In Qumranstudien, edited by H.-J. Fabry, A. Lange, and H. Lichtenberger, 111–24. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996.

211

Saukkonen, Juhana. “The Story behind the Text: Scriptural Interpretation in 4Q252.” PhD diss., University of Helsinki, 2005. Trafton, Joseph L. “Commentary on Genesis A (4Q252 = 4QCommGen A = 4QPBless).” In The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, vol. 6B: Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents, edited by J. H. Charlesworth, 203–19. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002.

Translation1 Column 1 (fragments 1, 2)

1[In] the 480th year of Noah’s life their time came for Noah and God 2said, “My spirit will not dwell among humanity forever” [Gen. 6:3a]; and their days were determined at 120 3years until the time of the waters of the Flood. And the waters of the Flood were upon the earth [Gen. 7:10b] in the year of the 600th year 4of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the first day of the week, on its 17th day [Gen. 7:11a], on that day 5all the fountains of the great deep burst forth and the windows of the heavens were opened [Gen. 7:11b] and there was rain upon 6the earth for 40 days and 40 nights [Gen. 7:12] until the 26th day in the 7third month, the fifth day of the week. And the waters swelled upon the earth for 150 days [Gen. 7:24], 8until the 14th day in the seventh month [Gen. 8:4a] on the third day of the week. And at the end of 9150 days the waters decreased [Gen. 8:3b] for two days, the fourth day and the fifth day, and on the 10sixth day the ark came to rest on the mountains of Hurarat; i[t was the] 17th day in the seventh month [Gen. 8:4]. 11And the waters continued to decrease until the [10th] month [Gen. 8:5a], its first day, the fourth day 12of the week the tops of the mountains appeared [Gen. 8:5b]. And it was at the end of 40 days [Gen. 8:6a] of seeing the tops of 13the moun[tains that] Noah opened the window of the ark [Gen. 8:6b], on the first day of the week, that is, the 10th day 14in the [11th] month. And he sent the dove [Gen. 8:8a] to see if the

Commentary 1:1–3 The commentator determines that Noah was given the insight that the 120 years of Gen. 6:3 refers to the maximum amount of time people had to live before the Flood came, rather than to time allotted for repentance or to the human life span itself.2 This commentator notes that Noah was 480 when God made his declaration; his purpose was to show the span of 120 years (Gen. 6:3), rather than to restate the information on Noah’s age in Gen. 5:32. 1:3–2:5 The Genesis Flood story is abbreviated and rewritten with an emphasis on dates. Two systems are used: the scriptural day of the month is combined distinctively with the day of the week. This is the earliest known Jewish text to use days of the week for dating. The dating system shows that the Flood lasted 364 days (as in Hebrew Scripture), which the commentator asserts is a complete year,3 and so for him although the Flood begins on the same date as in Hebrew Scripture, it ends on the same date in the following year (not 10 days later as in the LXX’s lunar-based calculations). This schematic solar year is known in 1 Enoch, the book of Jubilees, and some strictly sectarian compositions (4Q394 frags. 3–7 1:2–3; 11QPsa 27:6–7). The emphasis on the days of the week highlights to the reader that during the Flood nothing ever happened on a Sabbath. Source of Translation The translation is my own, adapted from that in DJD, volume 22 (cited above).

212 George J. Brooke

waters had abated [Gen. 8:8b] but it did not 15find a resting place and came back to him [to] the ark [Gen. 8:9a]. And he waited seven days f[urther] 16and he sent it out again [Gen. 8:10] and it came back to him and leaves of an olive tree, newly plucked, were in its beak [Gen. 8:11a]. [This was the 24th] 17day of the 11th month, on the first day of the wee[k. And Noah knew that the waters had abated] 18from upon the earth [Gen. 8:11b]. And at the end of seven fur[ther] days [he sent forth th]e [dove and it did not] 19return again [Gen. 8:12]; it was the fi[rst] day [of the 12th] month, [on the first day] 20of the week. And at the end of [31 days from sending forth the dov]e when it did not 21return again [Gen. 8:12b], the wat[ers] dried up [from upon the earth and] Noah removed the covering of the ark 22and looked and behold [the waters had dried up [Gen. 8:13b], ] on the first day of the first month [Gen. 8:13a], Column 2 (fragments 1, 3)

1in the 601st year [Gen. 8:13a] of Noah’s life [LXX Gen. 8:13a], and on the 17th day of the second month, 2the earth dried up [Gen. 8:14], on the first day of the week, on that day Noah went forth [Gen. 8:18a] from the ark at the end of a 3complete year of 364 days, on the first day of the week, in the seventh 4[blank] one and six [blank] Noah from the ark at the appointed time, one 5complete year [ ]. And Noah awoke from his wine and knew what 6his youngest son had done to him. And he said, “Cursed be Canaan! The slave of slaves may he be to his brothers” [Gen. 9:24–25]. But he did not 7curse Ham, but his son, because God blessed the sons of Noah [Gen. 9:1] and in the tents of Shem may He dwell [Gen. 9:27a]; 8the land He gave to Abraham his friend [cf. 2 Chr. 20:7]. Terah was 140 years old when he went forth 9from Ur of the Chaldees and entered Haran [Gen. 11:31b]. And Ab[ram was 70] years old. And for five years 10Abram stayed in Haran. And after he left [ ] the land of Canaan, 60 [ ] 11the heifer and the ram and the go[at [Gen. 15:9a] ] Abram to [ ] 12the fire when it pass[ed [Gen. 15:17b] ] . . . he took . . . [ ] 13at Ab[ram]’s departure [ ] Canaan . . . [ ] 14[blank]. Column 3 (fragments 1, 3, 4, 5)

1As it is written [ ] 12 2men [ Gomo]rrah and also 3this city [ ] righteous 4I will not [(Gen. 18:31?]] . . . only they shall utterly destroy [Deut. 13:16] 5and unless there are found there [Gen. 18:32] [ and all] 2:5–8 The compiler makes brief mention of the curse of Canaan and provides an explanation for Noah’s curse of his grandson rather than his son; the explanation, that God’s blessing of Ham could not be overruled by Noah,4 acts as a transition to the comments on Abram. In the transition it is notable that the text of Gen. 9:27 is understood to imply that God himself, rather than Japheth, “will dwell in the land of Shem.”5 The exclusion of Japheth might indicate a 2nd- or 1stcentury bce political concern with ridding the land of Greeks. The assertion that God gave the land to Abraham his friend is based on the language of 2 Chr. 20:7.6 2:8–10 The commentary is a rewritten version of Gen. 11:26–12:4 that puts the information in those verses in the right chronological order, noting that Abram lived in Haran for five years and then in Canaan for 60 years before Terah died.7 2:11–13 There is a very fragmentary representation of the covenant of the pieces (Gen. 15:9, 17). 3:1–2 The 12 men may be an allusion to the 12 princes of Gen. 17:20 (but cf. also Deut. 1:22–23 and Josh. 4:2). 3:2–6 These lines rehearse the Sodom and Gomorrah story with phraseology from Deuteronomy interwoven into the retelling. In this way the laws of war in Deut. 13 and Deut. 20 are applied to

Commentary on Genesis A

213

which is found in it [Deut. 20:11] and its booty [Deut. 13:17] 6and its little children [Deut. 20:14], and the rest . . . [ ] ever. And Abraham 7stretched forth his hand [and took [Gen. 22:10] hea]vens 8and said [Gen. 22:11a] to him, “No[w I know [Gen. 22:12b?] . . . ] 9your beloved from [me [Gen. 22:12b] . . .] 12El Shaddai will ble[ss [Gen. 28:3] . . .] 13the blessing of your father [Abraham [LXX Gen. 28:4] . . .] 14[ ] . . . [ ]” Column 4 (fragment 5)

1Timna was the concubine of Eliphaz, the son of Esau. And she bore him Amalek [Gen. 36:12a], he whom 2Saul destroyed [cf. 1 Sam. 14:48; 15:3, 7] [blank] as he spoke to Moses, “In the latter days you will wipe out the memory of Amalek 3from under the heavens” [Deut. 25:19]. [blank] The blessings of Jacob: “Reuben, you are my firstborn 4and the firstfruits of my strength, excelling in destruction and excelling in power. Unstable as water, you shall no longer excel. You went up onto 5your father’s bed. Then you defiled it [Gen. 49:3–4a]. On his bed he went up!” [blank] Its interpretation is that he reproved him for when 6he slept with Bilhah his concubine. And he said, “You are my firstborn [ ] Reuben, he was 7the firstfruits in order . . .” Column 5 (fragment 6)

1“A ruler shall not depart from the tribe of Judah” [Gen. 49:10a]. When Israel rules 2[there will not] be cut off one who occupies the throne for David [ Jer. 33:17]. For “the staff” [Gen. 49:10a] is the covenant of the kingship; 3the [thous]ands of Israel are “the standards” [Gen. 49:10a], until the coming of an anointed one [= messiah] of righteousness, the shoot of 4David. For to him and his seed has been given a covenant of the kingship of his people for everlasting generations, which 5he kept . . . [ ] the Law with the men of the community, for 6[ ] . . . it is the congregation of the men of 7[ ] . . . he gave/Nathan. the situation in Gen. 18, and since those laws apply only to cities within the land, the claim is made implicitly that the boundary of the land was beyond Sodom and Gomorrah (as in Ezek. 47:15–20). 3:6–10 The Akedah (Gen. 22) is included briefly from the moment at which Abraham’s raised hand is prevented from delivering the fatal blow to Isaac (4 Macc. 13:12 and 16:20 focus on the same dramatic moment). It is difficult to discern what motivated the commentator to present the passage in this truncated way.8 3:12–14 A small fragment with part of the Isaac’s blessing of Jacob (Gen. 28:3–4) probably belongs in this column; its scriptural text partially reflects the LXX. 4:1–3 What may be the end of a section mentions the birth (Gen. 36:12) and eventual annihilation of Amalek.9 It seems that the commentator was aware that Saul did not carry out God’s command to wipe out the Amalekites completely and so, with an adjusted use of Deut. 25:19, projected the fulfillment of the order into the end of days. 4:4–7 These lines contain the beginning of the quotation and interpretation of the blessings of Jacob (Gen. 49). The blessings are understood as containing promises that are to be fulfilled in the end times. The interpretation is introduced by a technical sectarian formula (Hebrew pishro) known in particular from the so-called pesharim, running commentaries on Isaiah, the Twelve Prophets, and Psalms, the most well known of which is the Commentary on Habakkuk (1QpHab). The blessing of Reuben is the first to be discussed: Reuben is rebuked because of his sexual misconduct with Bilhah (Gen. 35:22). 5:1–7 The extant text provides a concluding citation of Gen. 49:10 and an interpretation of the bless-

212 George J. Brooke

Column 6 (fragment 6]

1“He shall provide [royal] pleasures” [Gen. 49:20b]. [ ] 2beauty [Gen. 49:21b] . . . [ ] 3the . . . [ ]

ing of Judah. This is eschatological and messianic, Judah being associated with the promise of an end-time king (as in T. Jud. 24). The “shoot of David” is a designation borrowed from Jer. 23:5 and 33:15; it is used of the Davidic messiah in the Qumran sectarian texts 4Q161 (Commentary on Isaiaha), 4Q174 (Eschatological Commentary A),10 and 4Q285 (Sefer ha-Milhamah).11 The interpretation also refers to the sectarians responsible for this commentary, “the men of the community” (a sectarian self-designation that was used widely; e.g., 1Q31 1:1; 1QS 6:21; 7:20; 8:11; 9:7, 10; 4Q165 9:3); the end times described in the interpretation have already begun in the historical circumstances of the sect. 6:1–3 This column contains the remains of the citation and comment on the blessings of Asher and Naphtali.

Notes 1. Italic type represents text that is exactly or very close to Hebrew Scripture (except for spelling of numbers over ten). 2. Sources that consider Gen. 6:3 to refer to the time given to repent include the Targumim Mek. R. Ish. 5, Gen. Rab. 30:7; and B. Sanh. 108a. Those that understand it to refer to lifespan include Gen. Rab. 26:6; L.A.B. 3; Ant. 1.75. 3. The LXX begins the Flood 10 days later and so also presents it as lasting a complete year, but a lunar one of 354 days. 1 En. 106:15 also speaks of a deluge of one year. 4. The same explanation is given in Gen. Rab. 36:7. 5. Both views are represented in Gen. Rab. 36:8, B. Yoma 10A, and Pes. Rab. 35. 6. Developing the phraseology of Isa. 41:8, Abraham is also called friend of God in numerous other sources, including Pr. Azar. 12; Jub. 19:9; Ap. Ab. 9:6; 10:5; T. Ab. A:1:6; etc. 7. Seder Olam Rabbah 1 also computes that Abram spent five years in Haran, but after God had spoken with him between the pieces. 8. 4Q225 2 i 12-ii 9 also contains a reworking of the Akedah with some minor similarities to that in 4Q252. 9. The Amalekites are typologically significant as archenemies in T. Sim. 6:3 and as a source of sexual defilement in L.A.B. 45.3. 10. This composition is now called Eschatological Commentary A, to distinguish it from 4Q177 and other compositions. 11. Some scholars restore line 5 to read “Interpreter of] the Law,” a figure who accompanies the Shoot of David most explicitly in the sectarian thematic commentary 4Q174.

Commentary on Genesis A

215

Ages of Creation Andrew D. Gross Ages of Creation, preserved only in small fragments, recasts biblical history as the unfolding of a predetermined divine plan. Discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran, the preserved portions of this text deal with the time period from Noah and the Great Flood up through the life of the patriarch Abraham (Gen. 6–22). There appear to be two extant versions of this composition—fragments of two scrolls from Qumran Cave 4 known as 4Q180 and 4Q181, both of which date to the 1st century ce. The relationship between these two versions has been a matter of some dispute, as they do not appear to be copies of the same text. While some scholars regard the two as separate compositions, the present treatment adopts a middle ground, treating these texts as separate but related. The authors believed not only that the entire course of history had already been predestined by God at Creation, but that it will proceed according to a well-structured scheme. In this text, they attempt to discern the structure of this scheme by identifying the periods into which God subdivided history. These ideas about history have close parallels in contemporary Jewish apocalyptic literature such as Daniel, Jubilees and 1 Enoch. Ages of Creation also has close links both in its content and in its vocabulary to other literature from Qumran, making it likely to have been composed by the sect to whom the Dead Sea Scrolls belonged. Suggested Reading Allegro, John. Qumrân Cave 4.I (4Q158–4Q186), 77–80. DJD 5. Oxford: Clarendon, 1968. Campbell, Jonathan G. The Exegetical Texts. Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 4. London: T. & T. Clark, 2004. Dimant, Devorah. “‘The Pesher on the Periods’ (4Q180) and 4Q181.” Israel Oriental Studies 9 (1979): 77–102. Dimant, Devorah. “Ages of Creation.” Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 11–13. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Milik, Jósef T. “Milkî-s ̣edeq et Milkî-reša‘ dans les anciens écrits juifs et chrétiens.” JJS 23 (1972): 109–24. Milik, Jósef T., with Matthew Black. The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4, 248–52. Oxford: Clarendon, 1976. Roberts, J. J. M. “Wicked and Holy (4Q180–181).” In The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Vol. 2: Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents, 204–13. Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck); Louisville ky: Westminster/John Knox, 1995. Strugnell, John. “Notes en marge du volume V des ‘Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan.’” RevQ 7 (1970): 252–55.

216

Translation 4Q180 Fragment 1

1Interpretation concerning the ages which God has made: An age to conclude [all that there is] 2and all that there will be. Before creating them he determined [their] operations [. . .] 3one age after another age. And this is engraved on the [heavenly] tablets [for the sons of men,] 4[for a]ll the ages of their dominion. This is the sequence of the son[s of Noah, from Shem to Abraham,] 5[unt]il he sired Isaac; the ten [generations. . .] 6[blank line] 7[And] interpretation concerning Azazel and the angels wh[o came to the daughters of man] 8[and] sired themselves giants. And concerning Azazel [is written ] 9[to love] injustice and to let him inherit evil for all [his] age [ ] 10[. . .] (of the) judgments and the judgment of the council of [ ]

Commentary 4Q180 Fragment 1 1. Interpretation The Hebrew used here, pesher, links this text to a genre of biblical interpretation known exclusively from the Dead Sea Scrolls. In pesher texts, God reveals to a select group his plan for the end-time through interpretations of biblical prophecies. Ages In the author’s view, when God created the universe, he predetermined the course of events according to a well-structured timetable. This timetable was divided up into specific periods or ages (Hebrew qeitz). Other texts from Qumran use similar language to refer to this timetable (e.g., Rule of the Community 3:15; 4:13, 16; Pesher Habakkuk 7:12–14; and Thanksgiving Hymnsa 1:24). 3. [heavenly] tablets God established his divine plan by writing it on tablets that could not be altered. Other Second Temple era Jewish texts such as 1 Enoch (81:1–2; 93:2; 103:2; 106:19) and Jubilees (16:3; 19:9; 30:19–20; 31:32; 32:21–22) mention these tablets and even claim that their authors have read the tablets. 4. their dominion According to God’s preordained timetable, different groups would successively hold dominion over the world. Daniel 2, 7, and 8 express this idea as a succession of empires such as Persia and Greece, while other texts from Qumran express it as a back-and-forth struggle between the forces of good and evil (e.g., Rule of the Community 3:15–19; Damascus Document 2:7–10). 5. ten [generations. . .] As noted in M. Avot 5:2, there are 10 generations from Adam to Noah and 10 more from Noah’s son Shem to Abraham. A scheme of 10 generations can also be found in Sib. Or. 1, 2, and 4. Instead of the word “generations,” some editors restore “weeks” here because of its use in 4Q181 2:3. This terminology is familiar from other Jewish apocalyptic works such as 1 Enoch (93; 91:11–19), which divides human history into a 10-week timetable, and Dan. 9, which also speaks of a divine timetable divided into units called “weeks.” 6 This blank line separates the introductory section from what follows. 7. Azazel and the angels In the Bible, the figure Azazel is mentioned only in connection with the Yom Kippur “scapegoat” ritual (Lev. 16). In postbiblical Jewish literature such as 1 Enoch, however, Azazel is one of the fallen angels who descends to earth and corrupt mankind, leading to the Great Flood (Cf. B. Yoma 67b). Source of Translation: The translations have been slightly adapted from F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (Leiden: Brill, 1997–1998), 371–75.

Ages of Creation

217

Fragments 2–4 Column 2

2:1[Mount Zi]on on which resides [ ] 2because [thi]s l[and] is attractive for Lot(?) to inherit [ ] 3a land [] The three men [who] 4appear[ed to Abraha]m at the oak wood of Mamre are angels. [And what it] 5[says, “The sh]out of Sodom and Gomorrah is l[oud] and their sin is 6very serious. I am going down to see: (if it corresponds to) their shout which comes 7[right to me, I will wre]ak destruction, and if not, I will know [it.” The interpretation of] the word [concerns all] 8fle[sh] which [. . . and] to every [mouth] 9which speaks [. . .] and I will check it, for everything [is inscribed in conformity with the age of] 10[its] tes[timony, since] before creating them he knew [their] thou[ghts.] Fragments 5–6

1[for e]ver. [ ] 2[And what is wr]itten concerning the land [ ] 3[ ] two days’ journey [ ] 4[is] Mount Zion, Jerusale[m ] 5[ and wh]at is written concerning Pharaoh [ ] 4Q181 Fragment 1 Column 2

2:1for guilt in the community with the coun[sel of his] people, to wallow in the sin of the sons of man, and for great judgments and vile maladies 2in the flesh. According to the powerful deeds of God and in line with their evil, according to {the foundation of their impurity} their impurity, he delivered the sons of the he[avens] and the earth to a wicked community until 3its end. In accordance with God’s compasFragments 2–4 Column 2 2:5–10 In Gen. 18, God declares to Abraham his intention to destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because of their sinful ways. According to Gen. 18:20–21, which is quoted here in lines 5–7, God will investigate whether these cities are as sinful as he has heard, indicating that God has not yet sealed their fate. The authors of 4Q180 took particular interest in this passage as they believed in total predestination, and thus assumed that the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah had been sealed since the time of Creation.

Fragments 5–6 4. Mount Zion, Jerusale[m] A late tradition recorded in 2 Chron. 3:1 associates the site of Solomon’s temple with Mount Moriah, the site of the so-called Binding of Isaac described in Gen. 22 (cf. Gen. Rab. 55:2; J. Ber. 4:5 8c). Combined with the fact that Abraham and Isaac’s journey to Mount Moriah lasted at least two days (see 4Q180 5–6 3), the Binding of Isaac could perhaps be the topic of this section. 5. Pharaoh It is quite likely that this refers to Abram and Sarai’s encounter with Pharaoh during their sojourn in Egypt described in Gen. 12. If so, and one assumes that the text followed the biblical sequence of events, then 4Q180 fragments 5–6 , lines 3–4 (the reference to Mount Zion) could not be related to the Binding of Isaac and fragments 5–6 would have to be placed between fragment 1 and fragments 2–4.

4Q181 Fragment 1 Column 2 2:2. God . . . delivered the sons of the he[avens] and the earth to a wicked community According to the authors, evil had had dominion over the world, but all in accordance with God’s divine plan.

218 Andrew D. Gross

sion and in accordance with his goodness and the wonder of his glory he approaches some from among the sons of the world so that they can be considered with him in the com[munity of] 4[the g]ods to be a holy congregation in the position of eternal life and in the lot with his holy ones [ ] 5his [wonder]ful mysteries, each man according to his lot which he as[sig]ned to [him ] 6[ ] for et[e]rn[al] life [ ] Fragment 2

1[to Abraha]m [until he sire]d Isaac; [the ten generations ] 2[the daughters of] man and sired giant[s] For similar expressions of this idea elsewhere in Qumran literature, see Rule of the Community 3:21–23 and Damascus Document 2:7–10. {the foundation of their impurity} This phrase had been erased and written over by the scribe. the sons of the he[avens] and the earth The cosmic battles between good and evil envisioned by the authors were played out in both the heavenly and earthly realms. That is to say, the forces of good and evil were represented among both angels and humans. 3. its end The Heb. term here, keitz, which occurs so frequently in 4Q180, indicates that the dominion of evil had a predetermined end point. 3–5. God . . . approaches some from among the sons of the world According to these lines, a select community—to which the authors of this text presumably believed they belonged—has been set aside by God to hold dominion when evil’s reign finally ends. 5. [wonder]ful mysteries Because other texts composed by the Qumran sect use this combination of terms (Rule of the Community 11:19; Thanksgiving Hymnsa 15:27; 19:10), the phrase has been reconstructed here accordingly. These mysteries refer to the divine secrets about God’s plan for history to which only the select community was privy. his lot Predestination means that every person’s fate has been sealed since Creation, including whether they will side with evil or good. Here, line 4 refers generally to those whose “lot” was to be part of God’s select. Line 5, however, reflects a more nuanced version of this “lot” beyond the binary dualism of good and evil. Other Qumran sectarian texts (e.g., Rule of the Community 2:23 and 4QHoroscope) acknowledge that alignment with good and evil varies by degree from person to person.

Fragment 2 1–2. For those who argue that 4Q180 and 4Q181 are copies of the same composition (Milik 1972, 110; Roberts 1995, 204), these lines provide the strongest evidence. On the one hand, certain key phrases (e.g., “to Abraham until he sired Isaac” and “the daughters of man and sired giants for themselves”) occur both here and in 4Q180 1 4–8—albeit reconstructed to some degree. On the other hand, these phrases are spaced out quite differently in their respective manuscripts— 4Q180 clearly includes more text between these phrases—indicating that the manuscripts are not identical copies. Some scholars (Strugnell 1970, 252; Dimant 1979, 89–91; 2000, 12) suggest that one text is quoting the other (or perhaps both were using a third, common source).

Ages of Creation

219

for themselves [ ] 3to Israel in the seventieth week to [ ] 4And those who love injustice and inherit evil [ ] 5for the eyes of all those who know him [ ] 6and his goodness is unfathomable [ ] 7these are the wonders of [his] knowledge [ ] 8he has established them in his truth and [ ] 9in all their ages [ ] 10the[ir] creatures [ ] 3. seventieth week Jewish apocalyptic literature commonly includes timeframes divided into 70 units such as years or generations. These time frames encompass great tribulations but eventually result in redemption or judgment (e.g., 1 En. 10:11–12; 89:59; Dan. 9:2; and T. Levi 16:1; 17:1). The term “week” can refer simply to a unit of seven, whether it be seven days, seven years, or seven generations (see 1 En. 93; 91:11–19; Dan. 9:24, 25; and Pesher on the Apocalypse of Weeks (4Q247). 4. those who love injustice and inherit evil Some scholars see an overlap here with 4Q180 1 9, which contains the phrase “[to love] injustice, and to let him inherit evil.” Despite the similarity, however, the two phrases are not identical, which again gives the impression that 4Q180 and 4Q181 are merely related compositions.

220

Andrew D. Gross

The Book of Giants Loren Theo Stuckenbruck The Book of Giants elaborates on events that took place before the Great Flood according to Gen. 6:1–4. The biblical tradition tells about angelic “sons of God” (NJPS “divine beings”) siring “the heroes of old, men of renown” during a time when a race of “Nephilim” were found to be on earth. In Giants, similarly these heroes are identified with the Nephilim who, in turn, are identified as those to whom the “daughters of men” (Gen. 6:4) gave birth. Whereas in Genesis there is no obvious connection between this event and the evils that led to the Great Flood, Giants (which picks up on early Enochic traditions, e.g. 1 En. 6–11) narrates the violence committed by the Nephilim against humanity and the created order and tells how they learn that they will be punished by God. History Giants is preserved only in fragmentary form. Until the middle of the 20th century, fragments of it were accessible only through Manichaean sources, that is, works that were written or preserved by a widespread sect founded by Mani during the 3rd century ce. The Manichaean fragments survive in several languages (Middle Persian, Uygur, Sogdian, Parthian, Coptic, and Latin), but it was the discovery of Aramaic fragments in 10 manuscripts from the Dead Sea Scrolls (as below) that made the book readable for the first time in its original language of composition. Links between Giants, Daniel 7, and the Enochic Book of the Watchers suggest a date of composition during the first third of the 2nd century bce, though a date during the latter part of the 3rd century bce is also possible. Significance Unlike much of 1 Enoch, Giants is not a pseudepigraphon told in the name of antediluvian patriarch Enoch. Instead, it is a formally anonymous work that narrates the events leading up to the Flood, with the giants functioning as the main characters, along with the fallen angels and Enoch. Together with the angelic beings who sired them they are blamed for deteriorating conditions on earth. The crisis becomes so extreme that the human souls’ cries for justice are heard (cf. 1 En. 9:10), resulting in divine judgment through intramural violence among the giants and through the Flood. The storyline emphasizes how it happens—primarily through dreams and their interpretations by Enoch—that the giants learn that they will be held to account for their oppression of humanity. From the Second Temple period, Giants is the only document that mentions a number of the giants by name. These include, for example: Ohyah (1Q23 29+6Q8 1:4–5; 4Q203 4:3, frag. 7a.5; 4Q530 2 ii 1, 15;1 4Q531 22:9; cf. 4Q531 46:1) Hahyah (4Q203 4:3; cf. 4Q530 2 ii+6+7 i+8–11+12:6–15)

221

Gilgamesh (4Q530 2 ii 1; 4Q531 22:12) Hobabish (4Q203 3:3; 4Q530 2 ii 2) Mahaway (1Q23 27:2; 4Q203 2:4; 4Q530 2 ii+6+7 i+8–11+12:1–3, 7 ii 6) Unlike Pseudo-Eupolemus,2 who linked the biblical Noah or Nimrod (Gen. 10:8; in Ps.Eup. he is called Belos) and Abraham genetically to the giants, Giants joins the early Enochic tradition in insisting that the giants did not physically survive the Flood. In addition, the book mentions by name several of the rebellious angels known through the Book of the Watchers (so Baraqel, Shemihazah, Azazel/Asael, Anael) as well as one of the angels who functions as an agent of divine judgment (Raphael). Guide to Reading A translation of the fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls is arranged below by manuscript. However, because each of the manuscripts contains different parts of the book and ultimately has content that precedes or follows that of other manuscripts, it is appropriate here to offer a reconstruction of the storyline of the book. A sequence of its contents may have looked something like the following (with square brackets around those parts for which there is no direct manuscript evidence): a) an account about the angels’ fall and siring of giants through human women (4Q531 1) b) the giants’ violent activities on earth against nature and humans (1Q23 9+14+15; 4Q206a i + 4Q533 4; 4Q531 2–3; 4Q532 2) c) a report about these events is brought to Enoch’s attention (4Q206 2) d) Enoch petitions God about the situation (4Q203 9–10; 4Q531 4; 4Q531 17); e) conversations among the giants about their deeds (4Q203 1); f) a first pair of dreams given to the giants (2Q26; 6Q8 2); g) [a first journey to Enoch by the giant Mahaway, with the reading of the first tablet;] h) disagreement between the giants Ohyah and Hahyah about the meaning of the dreams (6Q8 1); i) admission of the fallen angels’ powerlessness (4Q531 22); j) Ohyah and the giant Gilgamesh(?) interpret their dreams pessimistically and optimistically (4Q531 22) k) [initial punishment of the angel Azazel (cf. 4Q203 7a);] l) the giants anticipate their judgment (4Q203 13); m) an initial punishment of the giants (4Q203 7b i) and intramural fighting among the giants (cf. 4Q531 7) n) reading of the second tablet which pronounces divine punishment of the fallen angels and the giants (4Q203 8; 4Q530 1; cf. 4Q203 7b ii); o) Gilgamesh and some giants remain hopeful (4Q530 2 ii+6+7 i+8–11+12:1–3); p) second pair of dreams given to Ohyah and Hahyah (4Q530 2 ii+6+7 i+8–11+12:4–20);

222

Loren Theo Stuckenbruck

q) Mahaway’s second journey to Enoch (4Q530 2 ii+6+7 i+8–11+12:20–24 and 4Q530 7 ii 3–10); r) Enoch’s interpretation of the second pair of dreams (4Q530 7 ii 10–11); s) Mahaway returns to report Enoch’s interpretation to the giants (4Q531 14); and t) prophecy (Enoch’s?) of final bliss (1Q23 1+6+22). Suggested Reading Henning, W. B. “The Book of Giants.” bsoas 11 (1943–1946): 52–74. Milik, J. T. The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments from Qumrân Cave 4. Oxford: Clarendon, 1976. Nickelsburg, G. W. E. 1 Enoch 1. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. Puech, É. “Les fragments 1 & 3 du Livre de Géants de la Grotte 6 (6Q8 1–3).” RevQ 74 (1999): 227–38. —. “4Q530; 4Q531; 4Q532; 4Q533 [and 4Q206a 1–2].” In Qumran Cave 4.XXII: Textes araméens, première partie: 4Q529–549, edited by É. Puech, 1–115. DJD 31. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001. Reeves, J. C. “Utnapishtim in the Book of Giants?” JBQ 112 (1993): 110–15. —. Jewish Lore in Manichaean Cosmology: Studies in the “Book of Giants” Traditions. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1992. Stuckenbruck, L. T. “4Q203, 1Q23–24; 2Q26; 6Q8.” In Cryptic Texts and Miscellanea, Part 1: Qumran Cave 4.XXVI, edited by S. J. Pfann et al., 8–94. DJD 36. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000. —. “The ‘Angels’ and ‘Giants’ of Genesis 6:1–4 in Second and Third Century bce Jewish Interpretation: Reflections on the Posture of Early Apocalyptic Traditions.” DSD 7 (2000): 354–77. —. “Giant Mythology and Demonology: From the Ancient Near East to the Dead Sea Scrolls.” In Die Dämonen. Demons, edited by A. Lange, H. Lichtenberger, and K. F. D. Römheld, 318–38. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003.

Translation 1Q233 Fragments 1 + 6 + 22

2two hundred donkeys, [two] hundred wild asses, [ 3two hundred sheep, t[w]o hundred rams[ 4field from every living creature, and thousands from a gr[apevine 5upon [ ]Then [

Commentary 1Q23 Fragments 1 + 6 + 22 2–4. two hundred donkeys The text refers to eschatological fertility and may be influenced by 1 En. 10:17–19; for similar motifs, see 2 Bar. 29:5–7; Sifre Deut. 315, 317; B. Ket. 111b, 112b. Source of Translation: The translations are from Donald W. Parry and Emanuel Tov, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader, vol. 3, Parabiblical Texts (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 472–503, 506–7, 510–14, unless otherwise noted. I have used the NRSV for biblical translations.

The Book of Giants

223

Fragments 9 + 14 + 15

2]and they knew [ 3] was great upon the earth[ 4] and they killed man[y 5]a hundred giants, [a]ll who[ 1Q244 Fragment 1

3] the [ ] and the river(?) [ 4] the [ ] and the donkeys and [ 5] and every[ 6] the [ ] and the [ 7] and the lightning bolts[ Fragment 2

2]upon [the] ear[th Fragment 5

3] their [ ] and every [ 4]and the rain and [the] dew[ Fragment 7

1] day of the end[ 2] everything complete[d 3u]pon those who[ Fragment 8

2there is ]not peace for you[ Fragments 9 + 14 + 15 2–5. they killed The destructive activities described here probably relate to the acts of the giants before the Flood. See 1 En. 7:3–5.

1Q24 Fragment 5 4. the rain and [the] dew For this phrase, see also 4Q203 11 ii 2. Fragment 7 1. day of the end This may refer either to the destruction to come from the Flood or, more likely, to the final annihilation of evil at the end-time. Fragment 8 2. there is ]not peace for you This is a formula that pronounces doom and functions as a curse; in Giants see 4Q403 13:3.5

224

Loren Theo Stuckenbruck

2Q26

1] “Wash the tablet in order to ef[face (it!)” 2]and the waters rose up over the [tab]let[ 3] and they lifted the tablet from the waters, the tablet which[ 4] [ ]for them all[ 4Q2036 Fragment 1

1When I sub[mit/] conse[crate ] 2Baraqel [ ] 3my face still[ ] 4I arise[ Fragment 2

1traces [ ] [ 2concerning them[ 3[ 4and] Mahaw[ay answer]ed[ Fragment 3

2his companions [ 3Hobabish and [ 4and what will you give me for k[illing

2Q26 1–3. Wash the tablet . . . to ef[face The effacing (or erasure) of writing on a tablet by water may signify the destruction of the evil generation in the waters of the Flood (1–2), while the tablet being lifted above the waters may refer to the protection of Noah’s ark (3). For the destruction of a tablet within the context of the Flood, see the medieval Midrash of Shemhazai and Azael 9. The removal of writing means that this tablet is to be distinguished from the other tablets mentioned in 4Q203 7 and 8.

4Q203 Fragment 3 3. Hobabish The giant’s name may allude to the Humbaba (or in Old Babylonian, Huwawa), a monster who guarded the Cedar Mountain in the Gilgamesh Epic and loses a fierce battle against Gilgamesh and his companion Enkidu. In the ancient Epic, the origins of which go back at least to the late 3rd millennium bce, Gilgamesh is a heroic character who, after Enkidu’s death, embarks on a failed quest for immortality. The mention of Gilgamesh as a giant in 4Q530 2 ii 1 and as one of the giants in 4Q531 12 may be an echo of the Epic since the giants, who hope to survive any cataclysm to come, find themselves unable to obtain divine mercy or reprieve.

The Book of Giants

225

Fragment 4

1] their [ 2] [ 3] Ohyah said to Ha[hyah 4] from above the earth and [ 5]the[ ear]th. W[hen 6]they prostrated and wept bef[ore Fragment 5

2]he inflicted violence (upon) the[m 3]they were killed [ Fragment 7a

3and [yo]ur strength [ 4[ 5Th[en] Ohyah [said] to Hahya[h 6us [and ] Aza[z]el and he made h[im 7the giants and the W[atchers]. All [their] com[panions] will lift themselves up [against Fragment 7b i

1:2] 3]Then they answered, “They gave birth 4from ]Watchers 5] he has imprisoned us and overpowered yo[u Fragment 7b ii

2:1to you [ 2the two tablets[ 3and the second until now has not been rea[d Fragment 8

1[The] boo[k of ] 2[] 3A copy of the s[ec]ond tablet of the le[tter ] 4in a do[cu]ment of the hand of Enoch, the scribe of interpretation [ the Watcher]

Fragment 7a 7. W[atchers] A frequent designation for angelic beings, whether they are good (see 1 En. 1:2; 12:1; 33:3; Dan. 4:13, 23) or disobedient (though the text of 1 Enoch doesn’t relate the term “watchers” to their disobedience, it references their disobedience in 1 En.).7 Fragment 8 4. Enoch, the scribe of interpretation Described as the writer of this “second tablet,” Enoch is also designated “the noted scribe” elsewhere in Giants.8

226

Loren Theo Stuckenbruck

5and holy one to Shemihazah and all [his] co[mpanions ] 6“Let it be known to you th[at ] [ ] 7your activity and (that) of [your] wive[s ] 8those (giants)[ and their ] son[s and] the [w]ives o[f ] 9through your fornication on the earth, and it (the earth) has [risen up ag]ainst y[ou and is crying out[ 10and raising accusation against you [and ag]ainst the activity of your sons[ ] 11the corruption which you have committed on it (the earth) [ ] 12has reached Raphael. Behold, destru[ction all who are in the heavens, and who are on the earth,[ 13and who are in the deserts, and wh[o] are in the seas. And the interpretation of [this] matter [will become] 14evil upon you. So now, set loose what you hold captive [ ] 15and pray.” [ ] Fragment 9

1] and all [ 2](they) [sh]ake before [your] glo[rious] splendour[ 3be bl]essed because [you] kno[w] all mysteries [ 4]and nothing has defeated you [ 5b]efore you. And now [ 6]the rule of your greatness [ 7] [ Fragment 10

1and [now, my Lord[ 2] you have increased. And if [ 3]you wish and [

9–12. your fornication . . . activity of your sons . . . corruption Concerning the misdeeds of the giants, see 1 En. 8:4–9:3; 9:10. 12. Raphael In the Enochic Book of the Watchers, Raphael functions as one of a quartet of angels who listens to the cries of victims of violence (1 En. 9:1), as intercessor (9:4–11), and as one who enforces divine punishment against Azazel, one of the fallen angels (13:4–6). A further fragmentary document that features Azazel and links him to other “angels” is 4QAges of Creation (4Q180–181), which in part presents itself as “a pesher concerning Azazel” (4Q180 1.8; cf. 1.9). In 1 En. 22:3–13, Raphael interprets Enoch’s vision of the “spirits of the dead” raising their complaints toward heaven.

Fragments 9–10 The “you” in these two fragments is best understood as a reference to God, to whom the words, which form part of a petitionary prayer, are addressed. It is possible that the text in 4Q531 Fragments 13 and 7 belong to the prayer as well. Similarities between 4Q203 Fragments 9–10 and 1 En. 84:3–6 suggest that the prayer is here being spoken by Enoch.9

The Book of Giants

227

Fragment 13

1and] they [prostrat]ed from [ 2th]en he said to him[ 3]there is [not] p[eace] for you[ 4] he was [ 4Q20610 Fragment 2

1] and every[ 2it was repo]rted to Enoch the sc[ribe of interpretation 3] [ ] Behold the Great One[ Fragment 3 i

1:5]the[ earth] all[ ] devising 6] in it blood was being poured 7]they were [ ] [ ] in it[ a]ll 4Q53012 Fragment 1 i

1:2[ this vision] is for cursing and sorrow. I am the one who confessed 3[ ] the whole group of the castaways that I shall go to 4[ the spirits of the sl]ain complaining about their killers and crying out 5[ ] that we shall die together and be made an end of [ 6[ ] much and I will be sleeping, and bread according to[ 7[ ] for my dwelling; the vision and also 8[ ] entered into the gathering of the giants Fragments 2 i + 3

1[ ]let him place it 2[ h]eavens with Fragment 13 3. there is [not] p[eace] for you As in 1Q24 8 2, this is a curse formula, possibly directed against the fallen angels or the giants; see, for example, 1 En.12:5; 16:4.

4Q206 Fragments 2–3 Since on paleographic grounds it is not clear that these fragments belonged to the 1 Enoch manuscript, 4Q206 1–2 (4QEnoche), Puech has redesignated them as 4Q206a.11 The text of 4Q206 3 i overlaps with that of 4Q533 4, with some variants.

4Q530 Fragment 1 1:3. the whole group of the castaways For the same text, see 1 En. 9:10.

228

Loren Theo Stuckenbruck

3[ ] will be numbered with all 4[ ] let them be reckoned in the reckoning of years, from 5[ ] these [se]ven days in their wat[ch ] 6[ ] you will [not] rejoice, but do not [ ] Fragment 4

1] g[oo]d [ 2let them] be reckoned in [ Fragment 5

1] his brother [will r]ule ov[er 2he will not be a]ble to investi[gate 3] let [them] not kno[w 4] and not [ Fragments 2 ii + 6 + 7 i + 8 + 12

1concerns the death of our souls and all his comrades [en]tered, [and Oh]yah told them what Gilgamesh said to him 2and H[o]babish shouted (?) and a [jud]gement was pronounced against his soul and the guilty one cursed the potentates 3and the giants were glad at his [words]. Then he turned and was curs[ed and com]plained against him. Thereupon two of them had dreams 4and the sleep of their eyes fled from them, and they arose ([and the sleep of] their eyes fled from them and they arose) and they o]pened their eyes 5and came to [Shemihazah their father ? and then] (told) their dreams in the assembly of [their comrades] the monsters 6[and Hahyah the giant said: “in] my dream I was watching this very night 7[and there was a large garden planted with all sorts of trees ] and [i]t had gardeners and they were watering 8[every tree in the garden all the days ? ] large [sho]ots came out of their root 9[and from one tree came three shoots. I watch]ed until tongues of fire from 10[heaven came down. I watched until the di]rt was covered with all the water, and the fire burned all 11[the trees of this orchard all around and it did not burn the tree and its shoots on] the earth, whil[e it was 12[devastated with tongues of fire and water of the delug]e. This is the end of the dream. Fragments 2 ii+6+7 i+8–11+12 1–2. Gilgamesh . . . H[o]babish The mention of Gilgamesh and Hobabish demonstrates the lingering influence of the Epic of Gilgamesh (see the comment on 4Q203 3:3). 3–20. Thereupon two of them had dreams . . . all the giants [and monsters] grew afraid Two dreams, given to the sibling giants Hahyah and Ohyah respectively (6–12, 16–20), are visions of irreversible divine judgment against the fallen angels and the giants. The setting of the first dream envisions destruction in a garden; if 6Q8 Fragments 3 and 2 can be assigned to some of the missing

The Book of Giants

229

13[Then Hahyah asked them about the meaning of the dream and] the giants were [not] able to tell him 14[the d]rea[m and he said to Azazel (?)] this [dr]eam you will give [to no]ch the noted scribe, and he will interpret for us 15the dream. Thereupon his fellow Ohyah declared and said to the giants, 16I too had a dream this night, O giants, and, behold, the Ruler of heaven came down to earth 17and the seats were arranged and the Great Holy One sat do[wn, on hundred hun]dreds served him, one thousand thousands 18[prostrated themselves; al]l [of them] in front of him, were standing and behold[ boo]ks were opened and a judgment was pronounced and the judgment of 19[The Great One was w]ritten [in a book] and a signature was signed for [the great king] (is) over all who live and (all) flesh and over 20[all those who rei]gn. And such is the end of the dream.[ Thereupon] all the giants [and monsters] grew afraid 21and called Mahaway. He came to the assembly [of the monsters] and the giants and they sent him to Enoch 22[and they delib]erated and said to him: “Go [to him for the ro]ad [of the place] is similar for you since 23for the first [time] you have heard his voice. And he said to him, “He will tell [y]ou the interpretation of the dreams and that everyone will be appeased 24wi]th those who really wish it (?). They brought in it [(between them?) Fragment 7 ii

2:3[ ] how long the giants have to live. [ he mounted up in the air] 4like strong winds, and flew with his hands like an ea[gle to the east of the earth and he passed above] 5the inhabited world and passed over Desolation, the great desert [and he moved from there in the direction of the Paradise of Justice] 2:6and Enoch saw him and hailed him, and Mahaway said to him “What [has happened to you”, and Mahaway replied to him: “I have been sent]

text in lines 8 and 9–11, then the dream also envisions the survival of a tree with three shoots (i.e., Noah and his sons), so that it refers in effect to the Flood event in Gen. 6–8. The text of the second dream shares a significant number of details with the judgment scene in Dan. 7:9–14, suggesting that both share a tradition preserved in different forms. It is possible that the reference to “hundreds” and “thousands” (line 17 of this fragment) in comparison to the “thousands” and “myriads” in Dan. 7:10 reflects a more conservative form of the tradition that, at this point, lies behind Dan. 7. It is possible that, while the first dream is more immediately concerned with the punishment of the rebellious angels and their progeny through the Flood, the focus of the second is eschatological. In this case, the function of the Flood as a type for eschatological events would compare with this motif in Enochic tradition (1 En. 10:1–11:2; 67:1–69:298; 91:5–9; 93:4; 106:19–107:1) and is picked up in the New Testament (Matt. 24:36–44; Mark 5:1–20; Luke 17:26– 27; 1 Pet. 3:18–22). 21. Mahaway This giant is sent by the other giants to learn the interpretations of the two dreams from Enoch. See the comment on 4Q530 7 ii.

230

Loren Theo Stuckenbruck

7hither and thither a second time to Mahaway [in order that you will explain to me/us the meaning of the two dreams which I/we hear] 8your words, and all the monsters of the earth. If [the interpretation of the two dreams will be given until everyone has] 9sworn [in his oath] and will be ad[ded to] the knowledge and wisdom of the scribe] 2:10[in order that we may k]now from you their interpretation. [ Then Enoch explained to Mahaway dreams] 2:11[and he said (to him) “With regard to the gar]deners that [came do]wn from heaven, [these are the Watchers who have come down Fragment 7 ii

In Second Temple traditions, journeys to Enoch for interpretations of dreams or extraordinary events are otherwise made only by Enoch’s son, Methuselah, at the request of Lamech, the father of Noah; see 1 En. 106:8–107:2 and Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20 2:22–523). 4Q53113 Fragment 1

1the Watch]ers are defiled [ 2they begot] giants and monsters [ 3of the Watchers] they begot, and behold, as g[iants ? 4]with its blood and by the hand of [disturbance 5giants] which did not suffice for them and [their ch]ildren[ 6] and they were seeking to devour many [ 7] [ 8] the monsters opened it. [ Fragments 2–3

1]the moon[ 2everything that the] earth produced [ 3the hea]ven[ and all] the great fish [ 4]and all the birds of the sky with all that grew[ 5and with] plants yielding seeds of the earth and all kinds of grain and all the trees[ 6and with ]sheep; small cattle, with[ 7al]l creeping things of the earth and after everything[ 8eve]ry harsh deed and utterance of[ 9] male and female, and among humans [ 4Q531 Fragment 1 1–8. the Watch]ers are defiled . . . they begot] giants . . . seeking to devour Together with fragment 2, this text elaborates on the rebellion of the angels and violence committed by the giants before the Flood; cf. 1 En. 7:3–5; Jub. 5:2 and 7:24.

The Book of Giants

231

10] knowledge [ ] wisdom and [ Fragment 4

1and] the fountains of[ 2]and all the creeping things of [the] e[arth 3]you made all t[hese 4] the great [ Fragment 5

2] [ 3s]aid to him, I know while[ 4] and all that is upon you [ Fragment 6

2] taking [ 3]you gave to him this reminder [ 4]defiled upon you [a great] de[filement] in[ Fragment 7

1]and to Ahiram and[ 2and to] Anael and to Barake[l and to the m]onsters [ 3] and to Naamel and to Ra[ziel] and to Ammiel[ 4and to] all these giants. What sins for you that [you] slew [ 5] Did not all these depart through your sword[ 6much blood was shed, ]like great rivers on [the] e[arth 7]upon you, A[sael] Fragment 12

1]there are all[ 2he th[rew down his garment[ 3] and like sparks o[f fire Fragment 13

1] you (or: I) bound him (or: it) and made to rest [ Fragment 7 1. Ahiram Possibly the name of a giant. 2. Anael . . . Barake[l Fallen angels; see 1 En. 6:7. 3. Naamel . . . Ra[ziel] . . . Ammiel The name Naamel, which means “God is friendly” and probably refers to a fallen angel, has no parallel elsewhere. The names Raziel (if correctly restored) and Ammiel are attested in later sources.14 Fragment 13 The text belongs to a prayer, perhaps uttered by Enoch; see also 4Q203 Fragments 9–10; the comment on 4Q203 Fragment 9; and 4Q531 Fragment 17 below.

232

Loren Theo Stuckenbruck

2] before one (?) [ 3] glorious[ 4] from the splendour [ 5] in his image [ 6] of light [ Fragment 14

1] a thousand thousands [were serving] him [ 2] not alarmed at any king and [ 3great fear] seized me and I fell on my face; I hea[rd] his voice [ 4] he dwelt [not] among human beings and he did not learn from them[ 5] [ 6] which [ ]vessel two[ Fragment 17

1hon]est ones and you consecrated[ 2] you made me an eternal[ 3] to mourn all the times of[ 4] you sent [ 5]flesh and [ Fragment 18

1]holy exalted, position of[ 2]luminary, ruin of destruction [ 3] we, for [we] have sinned[ 4] and I am ruined and [they] shall pe[rish 5man]kind [ Fragment 19

2] many [dee]ds of violence on the dry land 3] n[ot] bones are we and not flesh 4fl]esh and we shall be wiped out from our form 5] your holy ones to us[ Fragment 14 1. a thousand thousands [were serving] him An allusion to Ohyah’s dream in 4Q530 2 ii 16–20. 3. great fear] seized me . . . I hea[rd] his voice The speaker may be Mahaway, who is recounting his journey to Enoch for interpretations of the giants’ dreams. 4. he dwelt [not] among human beings This is probably a description of Enoch.15 Fragment 19 3–4. n[ot] bones are we and not flesh . . . we shall be wiped out from our form With these words, the giants acknowledge that they will survive a destruction, although not in their original form (of flesh). Together with 1 En. 15:3–16:1, this text makes it possible to reconstruct the origin of

The Book of Giants

233

Fragment 22

1[on the left hand] and the right [I sought] every place[ and a right]eous man was not [found 2[among the progeny of] their s[eed 3[ I am] mighty, and by the mighty strength of my arm and my own great strength 4[and I went up against a]ll flesh, and I made war against them; but I did not 5[prevail, and I am not] able to stand firm against them, for my opponents 6[are angels who] reside in [heav]en, and they dwell in the holy places. And they were not 7[defeated, for they] are stronger than I. 8[ ] of the wild beast has come, and the wild man they call [me.] 9[Their vengeance ? ]and then Ohyah said to him I have been forced to have a dream 10[and] the sleep of my eyes [vanished], to let me see a vision. Now I know that because of 11[the vision I will not] sleep, and I will not hasten for [them the judgment of the assem]bly[ 12[and then Gi]lgamesh said: “Your dream [ ] pea[ce ? 4Q532 16 Frament 2

1ea]rt[h 2]flesh [ 3]and monster]s 4] they would arise [ 5] the earth [ 6] they were considering [ 7] from the watchers upon [ 8in] the end it will perish and die [ 9] they caused great corruption in the [earth

demonic beings from the giants, who are half-angel and half-human. When punished for their deeds, the flesh of the giants is destroyed while they survive in a disembodied form. Given their former existence, the giant spirits’ inclination is to recover their once embodied state, with humans—who survived the Flood with their bodies intact—being the prime target. This explanation may lie behind some exorcism narratives of the Jesus tradition in the New Testament (see, e.g., Mark 5:1–20 and Luke 11:24–26).

Fragment 22 3–6. [ I am] mighty . . . but I did not [prevail . . . for my opponents [are angels A fallen angel describes his lack of power against God’s angels. 9–11. Ohyah said . . . I have been forced to have a dream Ohyah tells of a dream vision, probably one that is different from that which he recounts in 4Q530 2 ii 16–20.

234

Loren Theo Stuckenbruck

10this did not] suffice for them to ea[t 11] the land and until [ 12] in the land in all [ 13]great, and now not [ 14they [pl]aced a stro[ng] bond 4Q53317 Fragment 3

1] children prayed before him [ 2] {written} and all of them will seek you concerning [ 3there is] written concerning you a word [saying Fragment 4

1to de]ceive [upon] the earth all [ 2blood] was poured out and lies they were s[peaking 3G]o[d] a deluge upon the earth[ 6Q818 Fragment 1

2[ ]Ohyah [answer]ed and said to Mahaway [ (Sp?) 3[ ]and does not tremble? Who has shown you everything? [ and Mahaway answered] 4[ and said to Ohya]h, “Baraqel my father was with me.” [ 5[ ]Mahaway had not [fi]nished [te]lling what [Baraqel had shown him,] 6[when Ohyah answered and said to ]him, “Behold, I have heard of wonders! If [a] barren [woman] were to give birth[ Fragment 2

1its three shoots [ ] 2I was [looking] until they came[ ] 3this garden, all of it, [ ]

6Q8 Fragment 1 3–4 In the story, Baraqel is the father of Mahaway. According to the Middle Persian version of the story (Kawân Frag. c 6 [this numbering is taken from W. B. Henning (see under Suggested Readings above)]) and the later Midrash of Shemhazai and Azael, Shemihazah is the father of the giant siblings Ohyah and Hahyah. Fragment 26 1. Lubar Giants perhaps assumes that Lubar is the mountain where the ark of Noah came to rest after the Flood; see Jub. 5:28; 7:1; Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20 12:13); and Pseudo-Daniel 4Q244 8:3.

The Book of Giants

235

Fragment 26

1Lubar [ 2in the direction [ 3and he chose [ 4]sons of [

Notes 1. 4Q530 2 ii is reconstructed from a number of different fragments (frags. 2 and 6–12). In the commentary that follows, complex citations such as this will be given in full in the footnotes. 2. Cited in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.17.1–9; 9.18.2. 3. Translation by Loren Stuckenbruck. 4. Translation by Loren Stuckenbruck. 5. For this phrase in the Enochic tradition, see 1 En. 12:5; 13:1; 16:4 (Book of the Watchers) and 93:11,16; 94:6; 98:11,16; 99:13; 101:3; 102:3; 103:8 (Epistle of Enoch). In the Dead Sea texts, see 1QS ii 9; 4Q280 2:2; 4Q410 1:5; and 4Q511 3:5. 6. Translation of 2Q26 and 4Q203 by Loren Stuckenbruck. 7. See 1:5; 6:2; 10:7, 9, 15; 12:4; 13:10; 14:3; 15:2, 9; 16:2). Cf. the discussion in Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 140–41; also see fragment 7b i 4 and fragment 8 4. 8. See 4Q530 2 ii + 6 + 7 i + frags 8–11 + 12:14 and perhaps 4Q206a 2:2. 9. See Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants from Qumran, (TSAJ, 63; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 94–98. 10. Translation by Edward Cook. 11. See Puech, DJD 31:111. 12. Translation by Edward Cook. 13. Translation by Edward Cook. 14. See Puech, DJD 31:61. 15. So also 1 En. 93:2; 106:7 (cf. 12:1–2); and Pseudo-Jubilees at 4Q227 2:1. 16. Translation by Edward Cook.) 17. Translation by Edward Cook. 18. Translation by Loren Stuckenbruck.

236

Loren Theo Stuckenbruck

The Genesis Apocryphon Matthew J. Morgenstern and Michael Segal The Genesis Apocryphon is a fragmentary work from the Second Temple period, discovered at Qumran, that retells stories from the early sections of the biblical book of Genesis. The existing portions of the work focus on the story of Noah and the early episodes in the life of Abraham. Genesis Apocryphon is the name given by modern scholars to this previously unknown work preserved in a single, damaged manuscript among the original lot of seven scrolls uncovered in Qumran Cave 1. Most of the scroll, comprising 22 columns, was purchased for the Hebrew University in 1955, though some small fragments had previously been separated from the main part of the scroll and survive in other hands. The scroll was brought to Jerusalem where the difficult process of unrolling it began. Even at the time of its discovery, the manuscript was poorly preserved, and large sections of the text, in particular the lower parts of many columns, were unreadable. Infrared photographs taken in the 1950s provide the best visual record of the scroll as it was preserved at the time of its discovery. Owing to the tremendous difficulties in reading the text, the original editors, Yigael Yadin and Nahman Avigad, chose to publish a near-complete transcription of only five of its columns (2, 19–22), and partial transcriptions of a few others. This volume provided the base text for all subsequent scholarship, the most notable of which has been Joseph Fitzmyer’s editions and commentaries. Not until 1992 was another column published, while a preliminary edition of the remaining unpublished materials, based on new digital images of the scroll, was published in 1996. A complete new edition was published by Daniel Machiela in 2009. As it now survives, the manuscript contains only part of the original work. The scroll was rolled with the last-written sections at the center; consequently the earlier parts of the scroll, which were more toward the outside, have been lost. As a result, it is not possible to ascertain with any certainty how much of the manuscript may have been lost, though the existence of consecutive page numbers on three of the strips of parchment may imply that a considerable amount of text preceded the extant columns. Already at the time of rolling, the text ended abruptly, for reasons that are not known. Perhaps the manuscript represented a work in progress, or perhaps the continuation of the lengthy work was once preserved in another scroll. Authorship and History Although the manuscript itself may be dated on paleographic grounds to the 1st century bce, the work itself (or parts of it) may be much older. Attempts to date the text have primarily focused on two criteria: the literary relationship with other, similar texts and the profile of the language in which it is composed. Both criteria point to a general dating of

237

somewhere between the 3rd and 1st centuries bce, but a more precise dating has not been achieved. While some parts of the work parallel the Book of the Watchers (1 En. 1–36), which is generally accepted as being a work from the 3rd century, the literary evidence centers mainly on the relationship with the book of Jubilees. Both the Apocryphon and Jubilees contain extensive retellings of the patriarchal narratives, with many similarities in their details. In particular, we may point to the great correspondence between the descriptions of Noah’s division of the earth among his sons found in both works, and the chronology surrounding Abram and Sarai’s sojourn in Egypt. Three possible explanations exist for this similarity, and all three have found support among certain scholars: (1) the account in the Apocryphon draws on Jubilees; (2) the account in Jubilees draws on the Apocryphon; (3) both works draw on a third, lost source. If our text draws on Jubilees, it would point to a date sometime after the final composition of that work, which, on the basis of its historical allusions, scholars have set in the 2nd century bce. However, if Jubilees is dependent on the Apocryphon, it would indicate that the Apocryphon predates the final composition of Jubilees. The linguistic evidence is similarly problematic. Scholars are in agreement that following the breakup of the Achaemenid Empire the literary Aramaic used across the Middle East became less standardized and increasingly showed the influence of local spoken dialects. Accordingly, later texts are generally linguistically closer to the local vernaculars than are earlier texts, which remain more faithful to the literary norms of the Persian period. However, in practice, the degree of conservatism and innovation employed by different writers working in different places seems to have varied. Furthermore, linguistic innovations are notoriously difficult to pinpoint chronologically, and this is especially the case when no dated literary texts from the period survive. Moreover, it is possible that copyists introduced later grammatical forms into an earlier work, especially since we are dealing with a language that was still widely spoken at the time. By comparing the language of the Apocryphon to contemporary inscriptions, in particular to the dated inscriptions of the Nabataeans, Kutscher proposed that the Apocryphon was written around the 1st century bce or perhaps slightly later.1 Significance Outside of the Bible, the Apocryphon remains the lengthiest Jewish Aramaic literary composition to have survived from the Second Temple period. Apart from its linguistic and stylistic worth, it provides a unique glimpse into the development of biblical interpretation and rewriting as well as valuable evidence for the literary world from which Rabbinic Midrash emerged. Guide to Reading Although the scroll is severely damaged in places, enough of it survives to allow a fairly secure reconstruction of its contents in most cases.2 The text is far from uniform in both its content and its style. Several parts are narrated in the first person by biblical figures (Lamech, Noah, and Abram), while others are told in the third person. Furthermore, while

238 Matthew J. Morgenstern and Michael Segal

some parts of the work follow the biblical narrative closely, and almost represent word-forword translations of the Hebrew original into Aramaic, others have only a weak connection with the biblical source. The phrase “the book of the words of Noah” appears prior to the Noachite material, which may imply that this section was drawn from a pre-existing work. Although other works from the Second Temple period similarly show shifts in the narrator’s voice (e.g., Tobit) or contain biblical and nonbiblical materials (e.g., Jubilees), they tend to show a greater degree of authorial unity. As it stands, the Apocryphon has the distinct appearance of being an eclectic composition that has drawn on a variety of sources to produce an expansion on the biblical narrative.3 Nonetheless, some clear exegetical tendencies can be identified in the Apocryphon, which may be the work of its compiler or of his literary sources. In particular, Bernstein has identified three literary devices employed in the Apocryphon to embellish the biblical narrative: rearrangement, anticipation, and harmonization. The Apocryphon sometimes alters the order of events to make the biblical narrative flow more smoothly, for example, moving up the statement of Lot’s wealth (Gen. 13:5) and juxtaposing it to that of Abram’s wealth (Gen. 13:2) so as not to break the narrative of their conflict. The author occasionally adds information that anticipates details assumed by the biblical narrative. For example, the Apocryphon explicitly states that the three brothers Mamre, Arnem (sic), and Eshkol set off with Abram to the battle with the five kings and to save Lot (paralleling Gen. 14:14), while the biblical narrative mentions that they participated in the war only when it comes to dividing up the spoils (Gen. 14:24). A clear example of harmonization is found in the ascribing of events related in the story of Sarah and Abimelech (Gen. 20) to the similar story of Sarah and Pharaoh (Gen. 12). The diverse character of the Apocryphon’s contents and the apparent lack of a unifying framework provide a challenge to those seeking to characterize the genre of the work. Based on the more complete columns that were published in the 1950s, many scholars recognized the work as containing “midrashic” embellishments of the biblical narrative, and some regarded it as being similar to the later Palestinian Targumim. However, further research has highlighted the distinctions between these genres. The Apocryphon does not employ the structure of statements and prooftexts employed in Rabbinic midrashim, nor does it share the structure of the classic Targumim. Accordingly, most scholars today share the view that the Apocryphon should be ascribed to the genre of “rewritten Bible,” a genre that retells the biblical stories in a free and expansive manner, often incorporating new elements designed to explain perceived contradictions, omissions, and other problems in the biblical text. Suggested Reading Philip S. Alexander. “Notes on the ‘Imago Mundi’ of the Book of Jubilees.” JJS 33 (1982): 197–213. —. “Retelling the Old Testament.” In It Is Written—Scripture Citing Scripture: Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, edited by D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson, 99–121. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Moshe J. Bernstein. “Divine Titles and Epithets and the Sources of the Genesis Apocryphon.” JBL 128 (2009): 291–310.

The Genesis Apocryphon

239

—. “Re-arrangement, Anticipation, and Harmonization as Exegetical Features in the Genesis Apocryphon.” DSD 3 (1996): 37–57. Joseph A. Fitzmyer. Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1: A Commentary. Rev. 3rd ed. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 2004. Daniel A. Machiela. The Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon. Leiden: Brill, 2009.

Translation Column 04

(2) that we shall receive a stranger in all . . . (5) can grow strong and withstand . . . of your wrath and who is it . . . (6) the heat of your wrath? . . . (7) and the humble and the lowly quivering and trembling . . . (8) Now, behold, we are bound/ prisoners . . . (10) your wrath . . . (11) in your wrath . . . From when we shall go to the house of . . . the Great [Ho]ly One . . . (12) And now, your hand is close to strike . . . and to remove all . . . (13) his words, . . . of our bondage is ending . . . a fire which was seen . . . (15) and are struck from behind and n[o] longer . . . (17) and beseeching . . . lest . . . (18) before the Eternal Lord. Column 1

(1) . . . they would descend and . . . with the women . . . (2) and the mystery of evil which . . . (3) and the mystery which . . . (4) not known . . . (8) if they are all of your sons . . . (9) medicines, magic practices, and sorc[eries] . . . (11) some of the deed that . . . (12) on the dry land . . . (21) a strong bond . . . 5 (24) and as a shame for all flesh . . . (25) and He sent to you by emissaries . . . (26) to the earth and to descend . . . people . . . (27) what to do. Mankind to earth . . . (28) He did to them/made them, and (to) all flesh.

Commentary Column 0 The context of this column is unclear. 0:8. we are bound/prisoners Recalls the description of the fallen angels in 1 En. 10:4, 12; 14:5; 88:1, 4; Jub. 5:10; 10:11. The fallen angels appear in a brief, enigmatic story in Gen. 6:1–4 in which they reproduce with human women, begetting giants. This story was perceived in antiquity as the source of sin and demonic forces in the world. If the sinning angels are the subject of this passage, then they are apparently referring to God’s wrath.

Column 1 1:1. with the women This expression also appears to refer to the same episode described in Gen. 6:1–4. 1:2, 9. Mystery of evil . . . medicines, magic practices and sorc[eries] These elements could also refer to the same story; cf. 1 En. 8. 1:24, 28. all flesh The phrase “all flesh” is found throughout Gen. 6 in the context of the sins of mankind and their impending destruction in the Flood. This column follows the general order of Source of Translation: The translation is our own.

240 Matthew J. Morgenstern and Michael Segal

Column 2

(1) And then I thought to myself, “The pregnancy is from the Watchers, and the seed is from the Holy Ones and of the Nephilin,” (2) and my mind was greatly disturbed on account of this child. [blank] (3) Then I, Lemech, became perturbed, and I went in to [my wi]fe, Batenosh . . . I . . . (4) and a witness by the Most High, by the Great Master, by the King of all E[ternities] . . . (5) the sons of heaven, that you will truthfully tell me everything . . . (6) you must tell me, without falsehood, this . . . (7) by the King of all Eternities, that you will speak with me truthfully and without falsehood . . . (8) Then my wife, Bathenosh, with great vehemence, spoke and cried . . . (9) and she said, “O my brother, and O my master, recall my youthfulness6 . . . (10) b[efore] the time,7 with my breath within its sheath. And I am [telling you] everything truthfully . . . (11) and then my mind was greatly disturbed. (12) Now when my wife Bathenosh saw that my countenance was disturbed, (13) she curbed her passion, speaking to me and saying, “O my master and O my brother . . . (14) my youthfulness! I swear to you by the Great Holy One, by the King of Hea[ven] . . . (15) that this seed is from you, and this pregnancy is from you, and this planting of fruit is from you! . . . (16) and not from any stranger, nor from any Watcher or from any of the Sons of Hea[ven . . . Why is the form of ] (17) your countenance so disturbed and deformed, and your spirit so downcast? . . . (18) I am speaking to you truthfully. (19) Then I, Lamech, ran to Methuselah my father, and everything . . . [Enoch] (20) his father, and that he may know everything from him for certain, since he is beloved and de[sired] . . . (21) his lot is apportioned, and everything is made apparent to him. And when Methushe[lah] heard . . . (22) he ran to Enoch, his father, to know everything from him truthfully . . . (23) his will, and he went the length of the land of Parvaim and there he found him at the end of . . . (24) and he said to Enoch, his father: Gen. 6, in which the story of the bene elohim and the women is immediately followed by a description of humanity’s sinful behavior and their epic punishment.

Column 2 This column, which centers on the birth of Lamech’s son Noah, is relatively well preserved, but still not complete. A parallel version of the story is found in 1 En. 106–7. In this first-person account, Lamech is apprehensive of Noah’s origins, suspecting that he is the offspring of the “Sons of Hea[ven]” (or “Watchers”) and women, as described in Gen. 6:1–4. While the specific circumstances for his suspicions are not preserved from the preceding column, in the parallel version in 1 Enoch it is Noah’s supernatural appearance and behavior at his birth (including the ability to speak!) that has led to Lamech’s doubts. In the version found in 1 Enoch, Lamech immediately approaches his father Methusaleh to ask Enoch (Methusaleh’s father) whether his fears are well founded. In the Apocryphon version, Lemech first approaches his wife Batenosh, who demonstrates to him that he is the father by recounting details from their sexual encounter. The name Batenosh (the same name is attributed to her in Jub. 4:28) appears to be a rendering of the “daughters of men” in Gen. 6:2. Lamech’s concern was that she was among those women who participated in this activity. The interaction between Methusaleh and Enoch continues through col. 5. 2:20. since he is beloved and de[sired] This refers to Enoch, who is one of the heroes of Jewish literature of the Second Temple period. Gen. 5:22, 24 describe how Enoch “walked with God,” and “God took him”, instead of the expected mention of his death. The motif of Enoch’s eternal life is greatly expanded in these later compositions.

The Genesis Apocryphon

241

“O my father and O my master, to whom I am . . . (25) and I say to you, Do not be angry with me that I came here to . . . (26) is frightening to you . . . ” Column 3

(2) and not to linger . . . (3) for in the days of Jared my father . . . (4) the sons of . . . (9) on all the land . . . (10) beneath this sea . . . (11) the land . . . (12) the land . . . Now go . . . (13) truly and without falsehood8 . . . (17) will divide all the earth [No complete words survive on the remainder of this column.] Column 49

(1) they will stir up . . . (3) forever . . . evil . . . (11) I/you saw fit to exact judgment . . . name . . . (12) great and the period/end . . . the face of the earth . . . (14) upon them. Column 5

(1) and he wrote them all . . . (2) And to you, Methuselah, [my s]on . . . that this you[th], (3) just as I, Enoch . . . n[ot] from the Sons of (4) Heaven, rather from Lamech your son . . . (5) and in blood they were not . . . (6) but . . . (7) your son Lamech feared his appearance and . . . (8) in veritable truth which . . . (9) Now, I shall tell to you my son and I shall make known to you . . . Then truthfully . . . (10) Go and tell Lamech, your son [that] . . . (11) and they put him on the earth, and every act of . . . (12) his face, it lifted up to me and his eyes shone like the s[un] . . . (13) This youth is a flame, and he . . . (14) the seed from a foreigner . . . (16) shall be disturbed and destroyed . . . (17) eternal . . . giving . . . (18) doing. They shall do great acts of lawlessness until . . . (19) . . . and all the paths of lawlessness . . . (20) now, I shall tell you, my son . . . 2:23. the land of Parvaim Cf. 2 Chron. 3:6—“gold of Parvaim,” perhaps reflecting a faraway land. If this is the meaning here, then perhaps it refers to a distant location, where Enoch resided.

Column 3 3:3. for in the days of Jared my father The speaker here is Enoch, son of Jared. This probably refers to the time when the sons of God descended to the earth in order to cohabit with the women. It is based on a play on the Heb. root y-r-d, which means “descend.” The same etymology is found in 1 En. 6:6; 106:13; and in Jub. 4:15. 3:17. will divide all the earth The division of the earth is mentioned in Gen. 10:25, during the generation of Peleg. An extensive account of the division of the earth in the time of Noah is described in Jub. 8–9.

Column 5 This column continues the story of Lamech’s suspicions regarding the circumstances of Noah’s birth, which end after Enoch reassures Methusaleh that Noah is not the offspring of the Sons of Heaven. 5:12. his face, it lifted up to me and his eyes shone like the s[un] This describes Noah’s special appearance. A similar portrayal appears in the parallel story in 1 En. 106:5, 10 and in 1Q19. 5:18–19. They shall do great acts of lawlessness until . . . all the paths of lawlessness Referring either

242 Matthew J. Morgenstern and Michael Segal

(21) your son, make known this secret . . . (22) will be done in his days . . . (23) bless the Lord of All . . . (24) Now when Methuselah heard . . . (25) and spoke with Lamech his son of the secret . . . (26) Now when I, Lamech, . . . (27) rejoiced that (he) brought forth from me . . . (29) [A copy] of the book of the words of Noah Column 6

(1) from iniquity, and in my mother’s womb I sprouted for righteousness. And when I emerged from my mother’s womb, I was planted for righteousness, (2) and all my days I practiced righteousness, and walked the paths of eternal truth . . . (3) he who scorns the ways of truth, and to warn me of the path of falsehood that leads to eternal darkness. . . (4) . . . and I girded my loins with a vision of truth and wisdom and with a cloak of . . . (5) all the paths of lawlessness. (6) Then I, Noah, became a man, and I clung to truth and held firm to wisdom . . . (7) I went, and I took his daughter Emzara as a wife. She became pregnant from me and bore me th[ree] sons [and daughters]. (8) Then I took wives for my sons from my brother’s daughters, and I gave my daughters to my brother’s sons according to custom of the eternal law (9) [which] the Most High [commanded] to mankind. to the behavior of the Watchers themselves, their gigantic offspring, or humanity, which eventually began to sin as a result of their oppression by these superhuman figures.15 5:26–27. Now when I, Lemech, . . . rejoiced that (he) brought forth from me Lamech is relieved to learn that he indeed has fathered the child. This note concludes this section of the Apocryphon. 5:29. the book of the words of Noah These words follow a blank line and probably represent the beginning of a new section, which relates to the life of Noah. The text in the columns that follow switches to the first person. A similar expression is found in col. 19 (“book of the words of Enoch”), and scholars have speculated as to whether this refers to an extant “Book of Noah” from which this section is quoted. While the evidence does not allow for a definite conclusion in this regard, there is extensive evidence of written (and probably oral) traditions surrounding the character of Noah in antiquity.

Column 6 6:1. . . . and in my mother’s womb I sprouted for righteousness Lines 1–5 describe Noah in his youth, in contrast to line 6 which refers to his becoming a man. This expanded description of Noah’s righteousness stems from Gen. 6:9, according to which “Noah was a righteous man; he was blameless in his age.” planted for righteousness The same metaphor is attributed to Noah in his testament to his sons in Jub. 7:34: “Now listen, my children. Do what is just and right so that you may be rightly planted on the surface of the entire earth.” 6:3. and to warn me of the path of falsehood that leads to eternal darkness It is not specified who has warned Noah against the path of falsehood, whether it be God, a divine intermediary, or his father. 6:7. Emzara An identical name for Noah’s wife is found in Jub. 4:33; it means that she is “the mother of offspring.” This name acquires special meaning subsequent to the Flood, when, as the mother of Noah’s three sons, she is the mother of all subsequent generations. 6:8–9. and I gave my daughters to my brother’s sons according to custom of the eternal law [which] the Most High [commanded] to mankind The Torah does not mention the birth of any daughters

The Genesis Apocryphon

243

And in my days, when had been completed for me according to the calculation that I had reckoned—. . . (10) ten Jubilees, then the taking of wives for my sons was complete . . . (11) of the heavens in a vision, and I saw and was shown and was informed about the conduct of the Sons of Heaven, and what all . . . (12) the heavens. Then I hid this mystery in my heart, and did not make it known to anyone. (13) . . . to me and a great Watcher to me as a messenger, and as an embassy of the Great Holy One . . . (14) and in a vision spoke to me and stood before me . . . (15) [em]bassy of the Great Holy One a voice was made heard to me: “To you they say, O Noah!” . . . (16) before me and I thought . . . all the behavior of the sons of the earth. I comprehended and saw all . . . (17) they will succeed and they chose among those . . . (18) two weeks. Then was sealed . . . (19) of blood that that the Nephilim spilled. I remained calm and waited until . . . (20) the Holy Ones who were with the daughters of ma[n] . . . (21) in sorcery . . . (23) Then I, Noah, found grace, greatness and righteousness . . . (25) up to the gates of heaven . . . (26) to the people and to the livestock and to the beasts and to the birds to Noah. According to the Apocryphon, Noah and his brother exchanged their sons and daughters in marriage, with Noah serving as the earliest model of endogamous marriage (cf. Tob. 4:12). 6:9–10. And in my days, when had been completed for me . . . ten Jubilees, then the taking of wives for my sons was complete The text here presents a chronological difficulty. According to Gen. 5:32, Noah was 500 years old when his sons were born. If one assumes that a jubilee equals 50 years (it is either 49 or 50 according to Lev. 25), then according to the current text of the Apocryphon, when ten jubilees were completed for Noah, when he was 500 years old, all of his sons were already married! Perhaps therefore, in the lacuna before the period of ten jubilees, one should reconstruct a period of week-years (1 week = 7 years), up to six, allowing for additional time between the births of Noah’s children and their subsequent marriages. Alternatively, the number refers to a period of time other than age. 6:11–12. of the heavens in a vision . . . Then I hid this mystery in my heart, and did not make it known to anyone Noah’s vision here refers to the (mis)behavior of the Watchers, already mentioned above. While the specific content of the vision is not preserved, it is referred to as raza, which indicates that it is part of heavenly, mysterious knowledge. In light of the context here, referring explicitly to the Watchers’ behavior, it is possible that the divinely revealed mystery also reveals their impending punishment. According to 1 En. 10:1–14, four angels were dispatched: the first to warn Noah of the coming of the Flood, and the next three to announce the punishments for the Watchers and their gigantic offspring. The current column preserves another reference to a vision, possibly a continuation of the first, but the remains are too fragmentary to establish this with certainty. There too are allusions to the misdeeds and violence (including bloodshed) perpetrated by the Watchers and their offspring. 6:23. Then I, Noah, found grace, greatness and righteousness In contrast with the Watchers, Noah is found to be righteous. This perhaps reflects a slight expansion of Gen. 6:8: “But Noah found favor with the Lord.”

244 Matthew J. Morgenstern and Michael Segal

Column 7

(1) over/upon them, the land and all that it is upon it, in the seas and on the mountains . . . (2) all the constellations of the heavens, the sun, the moon and the stars and the Watchers . . . (5) honor and my reward I shall give you. (7) The Great Holy One, and I rejoiced at the words of the Lord of heaven, and I cried out . . . [large untranslatable passage] . . . (17) praying . . . (19) . . . to aid me and to build . . . (21) all the behavior . . . (23) and the assembly of . . . Column 8

(1) its mate after it . . . tied . . . (4) eternal . . . (9) and in every . . . (16) and in/according to your week(s) . . . (18) and like a vow . . . (19) and approximately three weeks . . . [large untranslatable section] . . . (33) and your sons after you and all . . . Column 910

(3) . . . I [g]ive this rule . . . Column 10

(1) Great [One]. Then . . . who appointed . . . [large unreadable section] . . . (8) and glorify and praise . . . (9) all of you to your Lord . . . (10) to the king of all eternities, forever and ever, and for all eternities. (11) Then . . . on the earth . . . and it took from . . . (12) found, for . . . the ark landed, one of the mountains of Ararat, and the eternal fire . . . (13) And I atoned for the whole earth. First . . . (14) [a he-goat] and then there came . . . and I burned its fat upon the fire. Secondly . . . (15) I poured out their blood at the base of the altar, and I burned all their flesh on the altar. Thirdly, I offered up young turtle-doves (16) wi[th] them upon the altar; their blood and . . . I put fine flour mixed in oil with frankincense as Column 7 7:1–5 These sentences perhaps reflect the rewards and blessing that Noah will receive after the Flood (cf. Gen. 9:1–17), although the cosmic nature of this description would make it unique. 7:19. and to build The command to Noah to build probably refers to the ark and hence the antediluvian period. The blessings found above would therefore have been transferred from their location in the biblical story, where they follow the Flood.

Column 10 10:12. the ark landed, one of the mountains of Ararat Cf. Gen. 8:4. In col. 12, the name of the mountain is specified as Lubar. An identical tradition is found in Jub. 5:28. From the order of events preserved in this fragmentary text, it seems that Noah offered the sacrifices while still on the ark. and the eternal fire Apparently Noah used a pre-existing fire when he built an altar and offered sacrifices after the Flood (Gen. 8:20–22). 10:13. And I atoned for the whole earth A similar ritual is found in Jub. 6:2–4, reflecting a specific view of the nature of the offering in Gen. 8. The earth was filled with the lawlessness of mankind according to Gen. 6:11–13, and needed to be ritually expiated when it began anew. Some of the details of this offering can be traced to the sacrificial regulations found in Leviticus, such as the

The Genesis Apocryphon

245

their meal offering . . . (17) . . . and I was putting salt on all of them. And the scent of my burnt offering went up to the [hea]vens. (18) Then the Most High . . . Column 11

(1) I, Noah, was in the doorway of the ark, the springs . . . (9) for the mountains and of the wildernesses for the . . . (11) [Then] I, Noah, went out and walked through the land to its length and breadth . . . (12) upon it, there was luxuriance in their leaves and in their fruit. All the land was filled with grass, herbage and grain. Then I praised the Lord of (13) [heaven] who performed wonders; He is eternal and His is the praise. Then I blessed once again that He had had mercy on the land and that He had removed and obliterated from it (14) all those indulging in lawlessness, evil and falsehood, and that He delivered a righteous man . . . all He acquired for his sake. (15) . . . to me . . . heaven, He spoke to me and said to me: “Fear not, O Noah, I am with you and with your sons who will be like you for eternity . . . (16) fill the land and rule over all of them; over its seas and over its wildernesses and over its mountains and over all that is within them. Behold, I (17) am giving to you and to your children all of it to eat of the greenery and the herbage of the land. However, you shall not eat any blood. Your fear and awe . . . (18) for eternity . . . (19) I to you . . . your sons.” Column 12

(1) See, I have put my bow [in the clouds] and it became to me as a sign in the clouds and . . . the [e] arth . . . (3) appeared to me . . . [large unreadable section] (8) . . . on the mountains of Horarat.11 And after that I went down to the base of this mountain, I

sprinkling of salt on sacrifices in Lev. 2:13. While Gen. 8:20 specifies whole burnt offerings, the treatment of the blood in the Apocryphon and Jubilees follows more closely the rituals associated with the sin offering (Lev. 4). It is unclear whether this assimilation was intentional. Noah purified the land before disembarking from the ark. 10:18. Then the Most High As in Gen. 8:21, the scent of the offering caused God to react.

Column 11 11:1. I, Noah, was in the doorway of the ark Noah’s location at this point in the narrative bolsters the assertion made above that the expiation of the land took place while he was still on the ark. 11:11. [Then] I, Noah, went out and walked through the land to its length and breadth Noah is described here in terms used regarding Abram in Gen. 13:17. 11:12. there was luxuriance in their leaves and in their fruit. All the land was filled with grass, herbage and grain The description of the earth after the Flood harks back to the Garden of Eden and alludes to the motif of the postdiluvian period as a new creation. Note, however, the tension with col. 12, which describes the desolation after the Flood. 11:15. “Fear not, O Noah, I am with you and with your sons who will be like you” Perhaps this formulation also creates a parallel between Abram and Noah (cf. Gen. 15:1; Gen. Ap. 22:30).

246 Matthew J. Morgenstern and Michael Segal

and my sons, and we built . . . (9) for the desolation was great in the land. And [sons] and [daugh]ters were bo[rn to my sons] after the flood. (10) To [Shem], my eldest son, was born first Arpachshad two years after the flood. And all the sons of Shem, all together, [wer]e (11) [Elam] and Asshur, Arpachshad, Lud and Aram, and five daughters. And [the sons of Ham were Kush and Mizrai]n and Put and Canaan and seven (12) daughters. And the sons of Japheth were Gomer and Magog and Madai and Yavan and Tubal and Mashoch12 and Tiras and four daughters. (13) Then I and all my sons started to work the land, and I planted a large vineyard on Mount Lubar. After four years it produced [much] wine for me, (14) and I brought down all the wine. Now when the first festival came, on the first day of the first festival in the (15) [first] month . . . in my vineyard; and in my vineyard I opened up this vessel and began to drink it on the first day of the fifth year . . . (16) the vineyard. On that day I summoned my sons and grandsons and all of our wives and their daughters and we gathered together and we went . . . (17) and I blessed the Lord of heaven, God Most High, the Great Holy One, who delivered us from destruction . . . (18) . . . and to all . . . who interceded on my behalf . . . (19) . . . I lay down upon my bed and . . . [large unreadable passage] . . . (27) every year . . . Column 13

(8) [the birds of the heav]ens and the beasts of the field, the [ ] of the earth and the creeping creatures of the dry land . . . the (9) . . . stone and pottery were chopping and taking of it for themselves. I watched those of gold Column 12 12:9. And [sons] and [daugh]ters were bo[rn to my sons] after the flood Gen. 10 details the genealogy of Noah’s offspring, but mentions only males in this lineage. Throughout this column in the Apocryphon, the text adds female offspring (“daughters”)—five daughters for Shem, seven for Ham, and four for Japheth—a total of 16 granddaughters for Noah. This matches the number of grandsons, both in the parallel lists of the Apocryphon and in Genesis 10—Shem (5), Ham (4), Japheth (7). The addition of the girls was intended to explain the origins of their wives. 12:13. Then I and all my sons started to work the land, and I planted a large vineyard Gen. 9:20 records Noah planting the vineyard, but does not mention his sons working the land. Mount Lubar The name of the mountain, not mentioned in Genesis, is also found in Jub. 5:28; 7:1, 17; 10:15. 12:14–16 The narrative expansion here is based on the law of the status of fruits during the first five years of a tree’s life, found in Lev. 19:23–25. A similar account is found in Jub. 7:1–6. According to the Apocryphon, Noah did not drink from the wine during the fourth year, but rather put it aside until the beginning of the fifth year. This interpretation of the enigmatic kodesh hillulim la-YHWH in Lev. 19:24 is not consonant with either the sectarian position that the fourth-year fruits belong to the priests,16 nor with the Rabbinic position that they are to be consumed by their owner in Jerusalem like the second tithe.17

Columns 13–15 These columns present an extended dream vision revealed to Noah. This large addition is prompted by a tendentious interpretation of the biblical story of Noah’s nakedness in Gen. 9:21. This story, which reflects poorly on Noah’s character, has been reinterpreted so that the key verb va-

The Genesis Apocryphon

247

and silver . . . (10) iron, and were chopping every tree and taking of it for themselves. I watched the sun and the moon (11) and the stars chopping and taking of it for themselves. I watched until the crawling things of the land and the crawling things of the water finished it off (12) and it ended.13 (13) I turned to observe the olive tree, and behold, the olive tree grew in its height. And for many hours in the glory of the great foliage . . . (14) and appeared amongst them. I was examining this olive tree, and behold, the majority of its leaves . . . (15) they were casting and tying with it. And I marveled at this olive tree and its leaves. I marveled greatly . . . (16) the [four] winds of heaven blowing strongly and violently against this olive tree, removing its branches and smashing it. First (came) (17) the West [wind] and struck it and stripped off some of its leaves and its fruit and cast them in all directions. After it [came the Nor]th wind . . . (18) its fruit . . . Column 14

(7) . . . we know . . . (9) Listen and hear: you are the great cedar that stood before you in your dream on the highest of mountains . . . (10) the scion that comes from it and grows to its height, three sons . . . (11) Now that you saw the first scion clinging to the stump of the cedar . . . and wood from it . . . (12) [The first] son will not part from you all of his days, and in his progeny your n[am]e will be called . . . (13) [the first son] will come forth as a righteous planting for all . . . (14) lasting for eternity. And that you saw the scion clinging to the [stu]mp of [the cedar] . . . (15) And that you saw the top of the other scions . . . (16) part of their boughs were entering into the boughs of the first one, two sons . . . (19) the mystery . . . (22) first of all . . . the allotted portion . . . Column 15

(9) And that you saw all of them . . . and turning away, the majority of them will be wicked. And that you saw . . . (10) a great man/warrior coming from the south of the land, the sickle in his hand and the fire with him . . . (11) it is the Lord of Greatness that will come from the south of the land . . . (12) and

yitgal (Gen. 9:21), “and he uncovered himself,” now refers to the divine revelation of a dream.18 Much of the imagery in this vision is difficult to understand, due to the fragmentary nature of the text, although it can be ascertained that col. 13 describes the felling of many trees by various natural powers, followed by col. 14, which describes Noah as a cedar, and his sons as offshoots of that cedar. The text refers to his oldest son, presumably Shem, who will not depart from his father. The entrance of some of the boughs into the first one can reasonably be understood as a reference to the unauthorized settlement of one of Noah’s other sons (or their offspring) in the territory of Shem: Jub. 10:28–34 describes how Canaan, the son of Ham, settled in an area not assigned to him according to the divinely sanctioned division of the earth ( Jub. 8–9), thereby resulting in his being cursed (and also justifying the later conquest of the Promised Land by the Israelites). Noah’s vision shares some motifs with other roughly contemporary revelations. Thus, for example, Daniel 4 relates to the chopping down of a high, proud tree as representing the disgrace of the proud king (Nebuchadnezzar or Nabonidus). While the precise meaning of all the elements in the vision is very difficult to ascertain, it is possible that the felling of the many trees refers to the Flood, which entailed the annihilation of the entire human race, except for Noah

248 Matthew J. Morgenstern and Michael Segal

wickedness, and will cast upon the fire all iniqu[ity] . . . (13) and that you saw . . . (14) in them a wall, four angels . . . (15) a wall from all the . . . of the land, that they may not rule . . . (16) and their boughs with great . . . and their fruit . . . (18) all of the peoples, and all of them shall worship and be confused. (19) . . . Do not marvel at this dream and do not . . . (20) I have made it all known to you for certain, and so it is written about you . . . (21) [Then I,] Noah, [awoke] from my sleep and with the sun high . . . (22) to [She]m, my son, and I made all of it kn[own] to [him] . . . (23) righteous . . . Column 16

(8) . . . until it reaches . . . (9) (of) the sea that is between them; the source of Mahaq until the Tina [R]iv[er], and it passes as a spring (10) the entire land of the North until it reaches the source . . . (11) this boundary passes the waters of the Great Sea until it reaches [ ]ra and . . . (12) And Noah allocated a lot to Japheth and his sons to inherit as an eternal inheritance. (13) Blank (14) The second lot came out for Shem, for him and his sons as to inherit [as an eternal inheritance] . . . (15) . . . the waters of the Tina river . . . (16) . . . [Tin]a river . . . the [Mae]ota [Se]a which reaches the b[ay] of (17) the great Salt Sea. And this boundary runs as a spring of waters (from) this bay . . . (18) until the bay of the sea that faces toward Eg[ypt] and passes . . . (19) . . . until it reaches the lot of . . . (20) . . . to the east (21) . . . (22) . . . (23) and it goes . . . (24) . . . (25) . . . [blank]. (26) and to Ham [came out the third lot] . . . (27) . . . until it reaches . . . Column 17

(7) Shem divided his portion between his sons. First it fell to [E]lam in the north, by the waters of the Tigris River until it reaches the R[ed S]ea, (8) to its source that is in the North, and . . . to the west to Ashur until it reaches the Tigris . . . And after it (9) to Aram, the land between the two rivers, until it reaches the top of M[ount] . . . And after him to Lud . . . (10) fell this Mount Taurus, and this portion passes westward until it reaches Magog . . . the east. All that . . . the Eastern Sea (11) in the north of the gulf of this bay that stands at the head of three portions to the sou[th]. For Arpachshad . . . (12) that faces south, all the land that the Euphrates irrigates, and all . . . (13) all the valleys and the plains that are between them, and the peninsula that is in the bay . . . (14) and Horarat and Amana until it reaches . . . (15) the portion that his father Noah apportioned him and gave to him. and his family. Following that destruction, the survivors, with Noah represented by a cedar and his offspring as boughs of the tree, are the “family tree” from which the peoples of the world emerged (cf. Gen. 10). The dream concludes with the representation of God as a divine warrior, emerging from the south in order to confound the enemies of his people. This imagery is adopted from biblical theophany scenes (cf., e.g., Deut. 33:2; Hab. 3:3).

Columns 16–17 These columns describe the division of the world among Noah’s sons, and are parallel to the description in Jub. 8:11–9:15. Both of these geographical descriptions reflect expansions of the Table of Nations found in Gen. 10, which offers a genealogy of the nations of the world as the descendants of Noah following the Flood. For an extensive discussion of the geopolitical background of this world map and its possible connection to contemporary geographical descriptions, see Machiela.19

The Genesis Apocryphon

249

(16) Japheth [also] divided between his sons. First he gave to Gomer in the north up to the river Tina, and after him to Magog, and after him (17) to Media, and after him to Javan, all of the coastlands that are alongside Lud. And between the bay that is near Lud and the [s]econd bay. To Tubal, that which is on the other side of . . . (18) in the land. To Meshech . . . of the sons of Ham. Column 19

(7) There I invoked the [name of] G[od] and I said, “You are . . . (8) eternal.” . . . I had still not reached the Holy Mountain. So I set forth to [ ] (9) and I traveled southward . . . went until I reached Hebron, Columns 19–22 These columns, which include all of the Abram material found in the Apocryphon, are in a far better state of preservation than the rest of the scroll. These columns were therefore among the columns published by Yadin and Avigad, and were and will continue to be among the passages most ripe for discussion by scholars. This high level of preservation, coupled with their relative similarity to the narrative in Gen. 12–15, allows for a close comparison with the biblical text as well as an exploration of the exegetical motivations underlying many of the changes from the biblical text. Most of these columns present an account of what happened to Abram and Sarai in Gen. 12–15. The retelling of Gen. 12–13 is somewhat expansive and exhibits numerous differences from the biblical narratives, while that of Gen. 14 and the preserved portions of Gen. 15 are relatively close to the source text. The difference between these two sections also expresses itself in the perspective from which each is written: first-person narration until col. 21, 22 (parallel to Gen. 12–13), and third person from 21, 23 until the end of col. 22. 19:7–8. There I invoked the [name of] G[od] and I said, “You are . . . eternal Parallel to Gen. 12:8. As is common in exegetical texts from this period, the content of the prayer to God, which is not explicit in the biblical text, has been added by a later author (the text of the prayer here is fragmentary). 19:8. Holy Mountain Refers to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.20 While it is possible that in this context it might refer to the mountain of Bethel,21 its purpose here would then be unclear. A comparison of the commandments to Abraham in Gen. 12 and 22 (the Akedah) may suggest a possible explanation. In each of these instances and employing identical language, Abraham is commanded by God to go to a location not yet specified. In Gen. 12:1, it is to an unnamed land, while in 22:2, it is to the land of Moriah on a mountain to be specified by God. According to the tradition found in 2 Chron. 3:1 (perhaps already present in Gen. 22:14), the mountain on which it took place was the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Ancient interpreters noted the linguistic similarity between the commandments in Gen. 12 and 22, and it is suggestive that the Apocryphon connects the two as well. Perhaps this author viewed the commandment in Gen. 22 as the continuation of that in Gen. 12—while the first was fulfilled by Abram’s migration to Canaan with his family, it was only completed when he arrived at the Holy Mountain ready to sacrifice his son Isaac. 19:9–10. went until I reached Hebron, and [at that time] Hebron was built. And I lived [th]ere [two yea]rs The biblical text (Gen. 12:9) notes that Abram journeyed southward but does not indicate a specific locale. While the two-year period has been reconstructed here, it has been preserved explicitly in 22:28. A similar two-year sojourn in Hebron is mentioned in Jub. 13:10. This additional information is perhaps patterned along the national story of Israel’s enslavement and

250 Matthew J. Morgenstern and Michael Segal

and [at that time] Hebron was built. And I lived (10) [th]ere [two yea]rs. Now there was a famine in all of this land, and I heard that there was g[rai]n in Egypt. So I traveled to . . . (11) to the land of Egypt . . . [When] I [reach]ed the Carmon River, one of the (12) heads of the river, [I sa]id . . . “Until now we have been in our own land.” And I [p]assed the seven heads of this river . . . (13) “Behold, now we have crossed our land and have entered the land of the sons of Ham, the land of Egypt.” (14) And I, Abram, dreamt a dream on the night that I entered the land of Egypt. I saw in my dream a cedar tree and a palm tree . . . (15) together from [one] roo[t]. People came, seeking to chop down and to uproot the [ce]dar tree and to spare only the palm tree. (16) Now the palm tree cried out and said, “Don’t cut down the [c]edar, for both of us have [sprouted] from one root,” and the cedar tree was spared for the sake of palm tree (17) and was not chopped down. I awoke in the night from my sleep and said to Sarai, my wife, “I dreamt a dream . . . (18) [I] am afraid [because of] this dream.” She said to me, “Tell me your dream that I may know (it).” So I began to tell her my dream (19) and said to [her] “ . . . dream . . . that they will seek to kill me and to spare you. But Exodus from Egypt (cf. the comparison of the two narratives by R. Phineas in Gen. Rab. 40). Jacob and his clan lived in Hebron before descending to Egypt in the second of seven years of famine.22 For a continuation of this motif, see below for the period of five years prior to Sarai’s abduction by the Pharaoh. The building of Hebron at this time is based on Num. 13:22, which dates this as seven years prior to the establishment of the Egyptian city of Zoan, mentioned in the commentary to l. 22 below. Sarai’s abduction would thus have occurred at the time of the founding of Zoan. 19:10. Now there was a famine in all of this land, and I heard that there was g[rai]n in Egypt Genesis 12 does not explain why Abram and Sarai chose to go specifically to Egypt during the famine. The reason given here reflects a direct borrowing of Gen. 42:2, which explains why Jacob sent his sons to Egypt. 19:11. the Carmon River The precise identity of this body of water, which demarcates the boundary between Canaan and Egypt, is unclear. Avigad and Yadin suggest that it is the same as Qeramyon mentioned in M. Parah 8:10 and B. BB 74b, the latter of which specifically describes it as one of the rivers surrounding the Land of Israel.23 19:12. the seven heads of this river Greek writers roughly contemporaneous to the Apocryphon similarly describe seven “mouths” of the Nile River.24 19:14. And I, Abram, dreamt a dream on the night that I entered the land of Egypt The addition of a dream, perceived in antiquity as a form of divine communication, offers a justification for Abram’s seemingly selfish behavior in the biblical story. Instead of presenting him as an opportunist who is willing to endanger his wife to save his own skin, this interpreter has now transformed Abram into a prophet who received a divine warning about this impending danger. Furthermore, according to the content of the dream, Sarai, represented by the palm tree, is the one who raises her concerns over possible harm to Abram, represented by the cedar tree, and not Abram himself. 19:14–15. cedar tree and a palm tree . . . together from [one] roo[t] The combination of a cedar and a palm is based on Ps. 92:13, in which they are used as metaphors for the righteous. An identical intertextual connection between the Abram/Sarai story and Ps. 92:13 is later found in Rabbinic literature (Gen. Rab. 40).

The Genesis Apocryphon

251

this is all the favour (20) that [you can/must do for me]: every[where] that [we go say] of me, ‘He is my brother,’ that I may live for your sake and my life will be spared on your account . . . (21) to ta[k]e you away from me and to kill me.” And Sarai cried at my words on that night. (22) . . . Pharaoh Zo[an] . . . and Sarai, to turn to Zoan . . . (23) greatly within her that no [man] should see her [for five year]s, and at the end of those five years . . . (24) three men from the nobles of Egypt . . . of Phara[oh] Zoan about my words and my wisdom, and they gave [me] . . . (25) and they [asked] for themselves literature, knowledge and truth; so I read before them the book of the words of Enoch . . . (26) in the famine that . . . to remain until . . . (27) with much food and drink . . . wine . . . Column 20

(2) How splendid and beautiful is the form of her face, and how . . . (3) and fine is the hair of her head, how lovely are her eyes, how delightful is her nose, and all the radiance of (4) her face . . . How lovely is 19:20. that I may live for your sake and my life will be spared on your account In contrast to Gen. 12:13, “that things may go well for me on your behalf,” which suggests that Abram would acquire wealth from Pharaoh due to his supposed relationship with Sarai (a proposition confirmed in v. 16), here Abram’s request is limited to the domain of her helping to save his life. 19:22. Pharaoh Zo[an] Zoan is a city in Egypt mentioned seven times in the Bible,25 although never juxtaposed with the name Pharaoh. Its introduction here is most probably related to the mention of Hebron, which according to Num. 13:22 was built seven years prior to Zoan (cf. also Jub. 13:12). 19:23. that no [man] should see her [for five year]s, and at the end of those five years An identical five-year period is found in Jub. 13:11. This five-year period possibly reflects a midrashic tendency to paint the story of Abram and Sarai’s descent to Egypt with the colors of the national descent and subjugation prior to the Exodus (see comment on 19.9–10 above). According to Gen. 45:6, Joseph invited Jacob and his family to come to Egypt after two years of famine, with five more years left to go. The Torah thus describes a two-year period during which Jacob’s family was still in Canaan (Hebron), followed by five-year period in which they were in Egypt before their eventual subjugation at the hands of Pharaoh, while the Apocryphon added a two-year sojourn in Canaan, followed by five years in Egypt, after which Sarai was abducted by the Egyptian monarch. 19:24. three men from the nobles of Egypt Isaiah refers to the foolishness of “the nobles of Tanis/ Zoan, the sagest of Pharaoh’s advisors” (19:11, 13), who are sure of their own wisdom but will eventually be disgraced (30:4). my words and my wisdom, and they gave [me] Although the text is missing the object specifying what they gave him, it is logical to assume that they rewarded him for his pedagogical services. These payments were made prior to Sarai’s abduction, leaving no room for concern that Abram became rich as the result of Pharaoh paying him for his wife/sister. 19:25. so I read before them the book of the words of Enoch Enoch was considered one of the great figures of Judaism in antiquity, with a broad and extensive body of literature surrounding this enigmatic character (see esp. 1 Enoch). References to a “book of Enoch” are found elsewhere in Jewish literature from this period,26 although here the Apocryphon is referring more to Enochic traditions in general and not to a specific composition. 20:1–8 This head-to-toe description of Sarai’s extraordinary beauty by Pharaoh’s advisors serves as a poetic expansion of Gen. 12:14–15.27

252 Matthew J. Morgenstern and Michael Segal

her breast, and how beautiful all her whiteness. Her arms, how beautiful, and her hands, how (5) perfect, and . . . the appearance of her hands. How lovely are her palms, and how long and fine all the fingers of her hands; her feet, (6) how beautiful! and how perfect are her thighs. No virgin nor bride who enters the bridal chamber is more beautiful than she; more than (7) all women she is beautiful, and her beauty surpasses all of them. And with all this beauty, there is much wisdom in her; her handiwork (8) is fine. Now when the king heard the words of Horkanos and the words of his two companions—that the three of them spoke with a single voice—he greatly desired her, and sent (9) quickly and had her brought. When he saw her, he was astounded at all her beauty. He took her as his wife, and was about to kill me. But Sarai said (10) to the king, “He’s my brother,” so that I might be rewarded for her sake. Thus I, Abram, was spared for her sake, and was not killed. Then I, (11) Abram, cried bitterly with Lot, my brother’s son, the night that Sarai was taken from me by force. (12) That night I prayed, entreated and asked for mercy, and I said in sorrow—with my tears running down—“Blessed are you, Lord Most High, Lord for all (13) eternities. For you are Lord and Sovereign over all. You are empowered over all the kings of the earth to mete out justice. Now, (14) I place my complaint before you, regarding Pharaoh Zoan, king of Egypt, because my wife has been taken away from me by force. Mete out justice to him for me, and show your great hand (15) against him and all his household; let him not be allowed this night to defile my wife for me! Then they shall all know you my Lord, that you are the Lord of all the kings (16) of the earth. I cried and fell silent. That night God Most High sent a spirit of affliction to afflict him and all the people of his household— an evil spirit—(17) and it afflicted him and all the people of his household, so that he was unable to touch her, nor did he have intercourse with her, though she was with him (18) for two years. At the 20:9. and was about to kill me This outcome is the fulfilment of Abram’s dream from col. 19, according to which the sole purpose of Abram’s claiming that Sarai was his sister was to save his life. This stands in contrast to Gen. 12:16, where Abram is rewarded financially because of his relationship with Sarai. 20:11. with Lot, my brother’s son Lot does not play any role in the biblical story of the descent to Egypt, and is in fact not mentioned anywhere in the short story in the Masoretic Text of Gen. 12:10–20 (although he did accompany Abram and Sarai to Canaan in Gen. 12:5 and out of Egypt in 13:1 [and 12:20 according to the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint]). 20:12–16. That night I prayed, entreated and asked for mercy The biblical story does not include any reference to a prayer in this context. The placement of prayers in the mouths of biblical characters is common in Jewish literature in antiquity.28 20:16. That night God Most High sent a spirit of affliction God’s response to the situation is seemingly the result of Abram’s prayer. 20:17. so that he was unable to touch her, nor did he have intercourse with her This addition in the retold version of this story has been influenced by the similar detail in the narrative in Gen. 20:4 (regarding Sarah and Abimelech). 20:17–18. though she was with him for two years In this version of events, Pharaoh’s afflictions continued for an extended period of two years until they intensified and became unbearable, similar to the plagues in the time of the Exodus.29 The chronological framework of Jub. 13:11–16 also assumes that two years passed from the time Sarai was taken until she and Abram departed Egypt (they arrived in Egypt in the third year of the seventh week of the 40th jubilee—1956 from the

The Genesis Apocryphon

253

end of two years the afflictions and diseases grew too strong and powerful for him and his household, so he sent for (19) and summoned all the [wise men] of Egypt and all the magicians, along with all the physicians of Egypt—could they cure him from this affliction along with the men of (20) his household? But all the physicians, magicians and wise men could not even begin to cure him, for the spirit afflicted all of them (21) and they fled. Then Horkanos came to me and requested of me that I come and pray for (22) the king, and that I lay my hands upon him that he could live, for he had seen [me] in a [d]ream. Now Lot said to him, “My uncle Abram cannot pray for (23) the king while Sarai his wife is with him. Go now and tell the king that he should send his wife back to her husband and he will pray for him and he will live.” (24) When Horkanos heard Lot’s words, he went and said to the king, “All the afflictions and diseases (25) with which my Lord, the king, is afflicted and diseased are on account of Sarai, Abram’s wife. Now return Sarai to Abram her husband (26) and this affliction and spirit of purulence will depart from you.” So he summoned me to him and said to me, “What have you done to me? Why did you tell (27) me ‘She is my sister,’ when she was your wife, so that I took her as a wife? Here is your wife. Take her and leave (28) all the provinces of Egypt. Now pray for me and my house and let this evil spirit be exorcised from us!” So I prayed for . . . (29) him, and I laid my hands on his [hea]d, the affliction was removed from him and the evil [spirit] was exorcised [from him] and he lived. Then the king arose and gave (30) me . . . many gift[s] and the king swore an oath to me that he had not [had intercourse] with

Creation; Sarai was taken by Pharaoh after five years, i.e., in the first year of the first week of the 41st jubilee—1961; Abram and Sarai departed from Egypt and returned to Canaan in the third year of that same week—1963). 20:18–21 The motif of the successful Israelite/Jewish courtier in competition with Gentile wise men is also found in the Hebrew Bible.30 The formulation in the Apocryphon combines elements from the Daniel narratives, particularly the inclusion of magicians among the wise men.31 However, the strongest basis for influence appears once again to be the influence of the Exodus story on the “mini”-Exodus in the time of Abram (cf. esp. Exod. 9:11 in which the hartummim, “sorcerers,” were unable to withstand the effects of the plague of boils). 20:21–22 The motif of Abram praying for the welfare of the afflicted king is borrowed from the similar story in Gen. 20:6–7, 17. While God also appeared in a dream there in order to suggest that Abraham pray on the king’s behalf, in that story He also revealed to Abimelech that Sarah was Abraham’s wife. 20:22–23. Now Lot said to him, “My uncle Abram cannot pray for the king while Sarai his wife is with him” The biblical story does not explain how Pharaoh became aware that Sarai was Abram’s wife. To fill this interpretive vacuum, the Apocryphon took advantage of Lot’s implied presence in Egypt with Abram and Sarai (see comment to 19. 11 above). The prerequisite that Sarai needed to leave Pharaoh before Abram could pray on the king’s behalf is implied in the order of clauses in Gen. 20:7. 20:29–30. Then the king arose and gave me . . . many gift[s] Gen. 20:17 also records that Abraham received gifts after the king discovered that Sarai was his wife. This offers an alternative legitimate explanation of Abram’s amassing of wealth before departing Egypt—not due to his having taken advantage of his relationship with Sarai.

254 Matthew J. Morgenstern and Michael Segal

her and had not [defiled] her. Then he re[turned] (31) Sarai to me and the king gave her [mu]ch [silver and g]old, and much raiment of fine linen and purple . . . (32) before her . . . and even to Hagar. Then he handed her over to me, and appointed with me a man to take [me . . . ] out of Egypt. (33) Then I Abraham went with great amount of flocks and also with silver and gold, and I went up from [Egypt, with Lot], (34) my brother’s son, with me. Lot too acquired for himself great flocks, and took a wife for himself from the daughters of [Egypt]. So I camped [with him] Column 21

(1) everywhere that I (had) encamped until I reached Beth El, the place where I had previously built the altar, and I built it for a second time (2) for [myself] and I offered upon it burnt offerings and a meal offering to God Most High, and there I invoked the name of the Lord of all ages, and praised the name of God and blessed (3) God and there gave thanks before God for all the property and the goodness that He had bestowed upon me: that He had been good to me and returned me (4) to this land in well-being. 20:30–31. Then he re[turned] Sarai to me and the king gave her [mu]ch [silver and g]old, and much raiment of fine linen and purple Gen. 12 mentions the bestowal of gifts only on Abram but not Sarai. The origins of this addition may lie in the interpretation of a difficult verse in Gen. 20 that immediately follows Sarah’s return to Abraham and his receiving of gifts from Abimelech: “And to Sarah he said, ‘I herewith give your brother a thousand pieces of silver; and it will be for you a kesut enayim [and] for all who are with you’” (v. 16). While this phrase is probably meant to be interpreted metaphorically as a “declaration of virtue,”32 the more common meaning of the term kesut in Biblical Hebrew is in reference to clothing.33 Thus the medieval exegete Radak interprets this verse as referring to garments that Abraham was to purchase for Sarah and her maidservants. Following the tendency throughout this section in the Apocryphon to harmonize the accounts in Gen. 12 and 20, perhaps a tradition that was created in the reading of the latter then influenced the former. 20:32. and even to Hagar Alternatively, “and even Hagar.” Hagar is first mentioned in Gen. 16:1 as Sarai’s Egyptian maidservant. She is included here as foreshadowing in anticipation of that reference.34 Furthermore, maidservants are mentioned among the list of riches that Abram amassed while in Egypt (Gen. 12:16). 21:1. everywhere that I (had) encamped until I reached Beth El The formulation of Gen. 13:3–4 mirrors 12:8–9 as Abram and his family return to Beth El. The rewritten version expands this parallel to include all the encampments along the way (cf. also Gen. Rab. 41:3). and I built it for a second time Gen. 13:4 notes that Abram returned to where he had built the altar “at first” (parallel to “formerly” in v. 3), but does not mention that the altar underwent any change. The Apocryphon, however, views this reference to a “first” time as a contrast to a rebuilding of the altar. 21:2. and I offered upon it burnt offerings and a meal offering to God Most High If Abram built an altar, then it is only logical that he offered sacrifices on it; cf. similarly l. 20 below and Jub. 13:16.

The Genesis Apocryphon

255

(5) After that day, Lot parted from me on account of our shepherds, and he went and settled in the Jordan Valley and all his flocks (6) with him. Furthermore, I added a great deal to what he already had. He was pasturing his flocks and reached Sodom; there he bought a house for himself (7) and settled in it, while I was settled in the mountain of Bet El. I was unhappy that Lot, my brother’s son, had left me. (8) God appeared to me in a night vision and said to me, “Go up to Ramat Hazor, which is to the north (9) of Bet El where you are living, and lift up your eyes and look to the east, the west, the south and the north, and look at all (10) this land that I am giving you and to your progeny for all ages. So I went up the next day to Ramat Hazor and I looked at the land from (11) that high place—from the River of Egypt to Lebanon and Senir, and from the Great Sea to Hauran and all the land of Gebal up to Kadesh and all the Great Desert (12) to the east of Hauran and Senir up to the Euphrates. Then He said to me, “To your progeny I shall give all of this land and they will inherit it for eternity, (13) and I shall multiply your progeny as the dust of the ground, that no man can count; so too your progeny will not be counted. Arise, walk and go (14) and see how great is its length and how great is its depth, for I shall give it to you and to your progeny after you for all eternity. 21:5–7. After that day, Lot parted from me on account of our shepherds . . . I was unhappy that Lot, my brother’s son, had left me In the biblical account, Abram suggests that he and Lot split up due to the friction between their shepherds (Gen. 13:8–9). The Apocryphon version places all the blame for their separation on Lot’s shoulders. Cf. Jub. 13:17–18, which explains Abram’s grief as due to the lack of children of his own. 21:6. I added a great deal to what he already had This general statement about Abram’s generosity to Lot allows for the additional detail in 22:1–2: that the person who reported Lot’s capture to Abram was a shepherd Abram had given to him.35 there he bought a house for himself Lot’s purchase of a home in Sodom foreshadows the story of the destruction of the city in Gen. 19.36 At the same time, the rewritten story here makes no mention of the problematic and sinful nature of the residents of Sodom (as in Gen. 13:13). 21:8. God appeared to me in a night vision and said to me, “Go up to Ramat Hazor” God’s promise to Abram in Gen. 13:14–17 is presented as a night vision. Abram is commanded to ascend a mountain and view the Promised Land in the same way that Moses was to do so some generations later (Deut. 3:27). Ramat Hazor near Bethel is probably the same Hazor as in Neh. 11:33. 21:11–12. from the River of Egypt to Lebanon and Senir . . . to the east of Hauran and Senir up to the Euphrates The borders of the Promised Land here do not correspond to the details found in any single biblical description, but rather are a composite of various biblical sources. The list is bounded by the river of Egypt and the Euphrates, which match the covenantal promise to Abram in Gen. 15:18. The desert and Lebanon (along with the Euphrates) were promised to Israel as part of the description of the land in Moses’s farewell address (Deut. 11:24; see also Josh. 1:4). Senir was an alternate name for Hermon (Deut. 3:9). The Hermon and Lebanon together form the Land’s northern boundary. The Great Sea is the biblical term for the Mediterranean Sea, which bounds the land.37 Hauran is mentioned in the list of borders in Ezekiel’s vision of the ideal land (Ezek. 47:16, 18) and refers to an area east of the Jordan River and south of the Hermon. Gebal could theoretically reflect one of two different locations—either in the south in the land of Edom (see below l. 29) or in the north in the vicinity of Tyre and Sidon (Ezek 27:9).

256 Matthew J. Morgenstern and Michael Segal

(15) Then I, Abram, went off to go around and look at the land, and I started to go around from the River Gihon and went alongside the sea until (16) I reached Mount Taurus. Then I went a[long] the Great Sea of Salt and went alongside Mount Taurus to the east to the breadth of the land (17) until I reached the Euphrates River, and I turned by the Euphrates until I reached the Red Sea to the east. Then I betook myself along (18) the Red Sea until I reached the bay of the Reed Sea that comes off the Red Sea. I turned southward until I reached the Gihon (19) River, then I turned back and came to my house in well-being. I found all the people of my household in well-being. I went and settled at Elone Mamre in Hebron, (20) North-East of Hebron, and I built an altar there and offered upon it a burnt offering and a meal offering to God Most High. Then I ate and drank there (21) along with all the people of my household, and I sent to call Mamre and Ernam14 and Eshkol, the three Amorite brothers, my friends, and they ate together (22) with me and drank with me. (23) Before those days, Chedarlaomer, the king of Elam, Amraphel, the king of Babylon, Arioch, the king of Cappadocia, (and) Tiral, the king of Goiim, which (24) is Mesopotamia, came and waged war against Bera, the king of Sodom, and against Birsha, the king of Gomorrah, and against Shinab, the king of Admah, (25) and against Shemiabad, the king of Zeboiim, and against the king of Bela. All these banded together for battle in the Valley of Siddim. But the king (26) of Elam and the kings who were with him overpowered the king of Sodom and all of his allies, and they imposed a tribute upon them. For twelve years they (27) paid their tribute to the king of Elam, but in the thirteenth year they rebelled against him. So in the fourteenth year the king of Elam led all (28) his allies, and they went up by way of the desert, striking and plundering from the Euphrates. They struck the Rephaim who were However, the use of Gebal within the Apocryphon, and the conjunction here with Kadesh, to be identified with Kadesh-Barnea (see, e.g., Num. 34:4; Josh. 15:3), make the former more plausible. 21:15–19 The rewritten version adds Abram’s fulfilment of the command in Gen. 13:17. The locations to which he travels do not match those in the promise word for word, but use contemporary (often nonbiblical) geographical references to describe the contours of the land. 21:21–22. and I sent to call Mamre and Ernam and Eshkol . . . and they ate together with me and drank with me The addition of these three characters at this point in the narrative serves to anticipate their explicit mention in Gen. 14:13 as allies of Abram, and in 14:24 as being among those who went out to battle with Abram.38 The Apocryphon describes them as friends of Abram even prior to the battle of Gen. 14. Cf. below, col. 22, ll.6–7, and ll.23–24 for the continuation of this motif. 21:23. Before those days The story parallels the war of the kings in Gen. 14. The chronological connection at the beginning of the chapter indicates that the story of Gen. 14 began prior to the conclusion of the story told in Gen. 13. Chedarlaomer, the king of Elam is placed at the head of the list here since he is presented as the leader of the other kings in Gen. 14:4–5. The rewriter has updated the biblical place names to “Babylon . . . Cappadocia” to reflect current usage. “Tiral” is attested here in the LXX (Targal), Peshitta, and Jubilees, against the masoretic Tidal. 21:25. Shemiabad The name of the king according to the Samaritan Pentateuch of Gen. 14:2. 21:26–27. they imposed a tribute upon them . . . paid their tribute This offers an interpretation of Gen. 14:4, according to which “they served” Chedarlaomer for 12 years.39

The Genesis Apocryphon

257

in Ashtera-(29)Karnaim, the Zumzummim, who were in Ammon, the Emim, [who were in] ShavehHakerioth, and the Hurrians, who were in the mountains of Gebal, until they reached El-(30)Paran, which is in the desert. They then turned back and destroyed Ein-[Dina ] . . . which is in Hazazon-Tamar. (31) The king of Sodom went out to meet them along with the king of [Gomorrah, the k]ing of Admah, the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela. They began the battle (32) in the Valley o[f Siddim] against Chedarlaomer [and the kings] who were with him. The king of Sodom was defeated and fled and the king of Gomorrah (33) fell, and many . . . The king of Elam plundered all the property of Sodom and (34) [Go]morra[h] . . . and Lot was taken captive, the son of the brother Column 22

(1) of Abram who was living in Sodom together with them, and all of his flocks. Then one of the shepherds (2) whom Abram had given to Lot and had escaped from the captivity came to Abram—now Abram was (3) still living in Hebron—and told him that Lot, his brother’s son, had been taken captive along with all of his property, but had not been killed, and that (4) the kings had set out by way of the Great Valley toward their city, taking captives and plundering and striking and killing while going (5) to the city of Damascus. Abram cried out over Lot, his brother’s son, but regained his strength (6) and selected from his ser21:29. Zumzummim, who were in Ammon The description of the Zuzim of Gen. 14:5 has been supplemented by Deut. 2:20: “Rephaim, whom the Ammonites call Zammzumim.” the mountains of Gebal Seir of Gen. 14:6 is identified with Gebal. The same identification is found in Targum Neofiti, Fragment Targum (ms V), and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. Cf. also Ps. 83:7–8, and the discussion in 21, 11 above. 21:32–33. The king of Sodom was defeated and fled and the king of Gomorrah fell According to Gen 14:10, the kings of Sodom and Gemorrah fell into the bitumen pits, which were numerous in the area, while the other kings succeeded in escaping. Subsequently in the chapter, however, the king of Sodom appears to Abraham unharmed (Gen. 14:17, 21–24). In order to solve this tension, the rewritten story here distinguishes between the king of Gemorrah who fell, and the king of Sodom who was defeated but was able to flee. The identical distinction is found in Jub. 13:22; for additional attempts to solve this exegetical problem, see Gen. Rab. 41; and Rashi, Radak, Ramban to this verse. 22:1–2. one of the shepherds whom Abram had given to Lot and had escaped from the captivity The identity of the anonymous “fugitive,” marked by a definite article in Gen 14:13, has intrigued interpreters; cf. the comment above to 21:6. Rabbinic interpretation has identified him with the giant Og based upon Deut. 3:11, where he is only one of the Rephaim to remain.40 22:3. his brother’s son Gen. 14:14, 16 both refer to Lot as “his brother” with the broader meaning of “his kinsman.” The relationship here (and in line 5) is clarified to refer to Lot as his nephew; cf. 21, l. 34 above (parallel to Gen. 14:12). For the same clarification, see Targum Neofiti and some manuscripts of Targum Onkelos to Gen. 14:14, 16. 22:5. Abram cried out over Lot, his brother’s son, but regained his strength This expansion to the biblical text is intended to heighten Abraham’s emotional concern for his nephew, and his courage in rescuing him.

258 Matthew J. Morgenstern and Michael Segal

vants three hundred and eighteen warriors elected for battle. Arnem, (7) Eshkol and Mamre also set out with him. He pursued them until Dan, and found them (8) encamped in the Valley of Dan. He attacked them by night from all four sides, and went on killing (9) them through the night. He routed them and pursued them, and they all fled (10) until they reached Helbon, which is situated to the north of Damascus. He took away from them everyone that they had captured (11) and everything that they had plundered, and all their valuables. He also rescued Lot, his brother’s son, along with all of his flocks, and all (12) of the captives that they had taken he brought back. Now the king of Sodom heard that Abram had brought back all of the captives (13) and all of the plunder, and went up to meet him. He came to Salem—that is Jerusalem—and Abraham was encamped in the Valley (14) of Shaveh—that is the Valley of the King in the Valley of Bet-Hakerem. And Melchizedek, the king of Salem, brought out (15) food and drink for Abram, and all of the people with him. Now he was a priest to God Most High, and he blessed (16) [A]bram and said: “Blessed is Abram to God Most High, Master of the heavens and the earth. And Blessed is God Most High (17) who delivered up your enemies into your hand.” Then he gave him a tenth of all of the property of the king of Elam and his companions. 22:6–7. Arnem, Eshkol and Mamre also set out with him See the comment on col. 21, lines 21–22. 22:8–9. from all four sides The purpose of dividing the troops in Gen. 14:15 was to attack the opposition from all directions. 22:10. Helbon, which is situated to the north of Damascus All versions of Gen. 14:15 read Hobah as the place until which they were pursued. The toponym Helbon appears once in the Bible, in Ezek. 27:18, which notes that its wine was traded by Damascus. 22:10–11. everyone that they had captured and everything that they had plundered, and all their valuables This list of items that Abram succeeded in rescuing is expanded vis-à-vis Gen. 14:16. It now opens with the people that had been captured, shifting the focus from the possessions found at the head of the biblical list. 22:13. He came to Salem—that is Jerusalem Commentators have noted the abrupt shifts in Abraham’s interactions in Gen. 14, starting with the king of Sodom in the Valley of Shaveh (v. 17), then moving to Melchizedek king of Salem (18–20), and then back to the king of Sodom (21–24). The addition of the king of Sodom’s arrival in Salem/Jerusalem is intended to mitigate this tension. A similar tradition is perhaps reflected in the Aramaic Targumim to Gen. 14:17.41 The identification of Salem with Jerusalem is already present in Ps. 76:3, the only other instance in the Bible where this toponym appears. All of the Aramaic Targumim to Gen. 14:18 replace Salem with Jerusalem. 22:15. food and drink for Abram, and all of the people with him According to Gen. 14:18, the priest Melchizedek brought out “bread and wine” followed by a blessing, without specifying a human recipient for the food, perhaps indicating a ritual context; cf. also Gen. Rab. 43; Rashi (midrasho). The Apocryphon interprets these food items to be nourishment for the famished warriors returning from battle; cf. similarly Ant. I.10.2; Rashi (peshuto). The extensive traditions surrounding the priestly Melchizedek in Ps. 110:4 and in early Jewish and Christian sources are not reflected in the Apocryphon. 22:17. Then he gave him a tenth of all of the property of the king of Elam and his companions The biblical text of Gen. 14:20 itself is ambiguous about who gave the tithe to whom (cf. e.g. the discussion of Radak). Here it is Abraham who, returning with the war spoils, offers the tithe to

The Genesis Apocryphon

259

(18) Then the king of Sodom approached and said to Abram, “My master Abram, (19) give me the people of mine who are in your captivity, whom you took from the king of Elam, and (20) all of the goods are left for you.” Then Abram said to the king of Sodom, “I raise my (21) hand today to God Most High, the Master of the heavens and the earth, lest I take a thread or even a bootstrap (22) from anything that is yours, lest you should say ‘All of the wealth (23) of Abram is from me,’ except for what the young men who are with me have already eaten, and except for the portions of the three men who (24) went with me. They have the right to give you their portion.” So Abram returned all the goods and all (25) the captives and gave (them) to the king of Sodom. He released all of the captives that he had with him from that land (26) and sent them all off. (27) After these things, God appeared to Abram in a vision and said to him, “Behold, ten years (28) have now elapsed since you left Haran. You passed two here, seven in Egypt and one (29) since you returned from Egypt. Now, inspect and count everything that you have and see how many times they have multiplied over (30) all that left with you on the day you left Haran. Now, do not fear. I am with you, and I shall be to you (31) a support and strength; I shall be a shield upon you and a buckler for you, against anyone who is stronger than you. Your wealth and property (32) will greatly increase.” Melchizedek.42 Jub. 13:25–27, although fragmentary, appears to also view Abram as the one who offers the tithe, but from his firstborns and not from the booty. 22:21. God Most High In Abraham’s response to king of Sodom in the Masoretic text of Gen 14:22 (similarly the Vulgate and the Targumim), he swears in the name of “YHWH, God Most High.” This contrasts with Melchizedek’s use of “God Most High” (Gen. 14:19). However, the LXX, Peshitta, and the Apocryphon all lack the Tetragrammaton. It was most probably added as a gloss in the version preserved in the Masoretic text by a scribe who wished to emphasize the difference between Abraham and the non-Israelite priest. 22:24. They have the right to give you their portion This is a reformulation of Gen 14:24—the portion belongs to them and they can do with it as they see fit. 22:24–26. So Abram returned all the goods . . . from that land and sent them all off The rewritten version adds Abraham’s fulfilment of his vow to the king of Sodom; see above the comment on 21:15–19. 22:27–29. Behold, ten years have now elapsed . . . one since you returned from Egypt The period of ten years has been adopted from Gen. 16:3 and transferred to the opening of the “Covenant between the Pieces” (parallel to Gen. 15). The latter has no date in the biblical text, and perhaps the scribe responsible for introducing it here wished to anchor the promise of salvation after 400 years to a specific starting point. The chronological summary here refers back to and expands the data discussed previously; see the comments above on col. 19, lines 9–10 and 23–24. The patriarchs did not depart from Egypt immediately after the five-year period during which Sarai was with Pharaoh, but remained there for another two years. For an identical ten-year period, see Jub. 13:8–16; 14:1.43 22:29–30. Now, inspect and count everything that you have and see how many times they have multiplied over all that left with you on the day you left Haran God’s beneficence to Abraham since his departure from Haran, the fulfilment of His blessings and promises (Gen 12:1–3; 13:16), reassures Abraham that this covenant will also come to fruition.

260 Matthew J. Morgenstern and Michael Segal

But Abram said: “My Master, Oh Lord, I have plenty of wealth and property; what use are (33) all of [th]ese given that when I die, I shall go bare, bereft of children, and one of my household servants will inherit me, (34) Eliezer son [of Damascus] . . . to . . . me. And He said to him, “This one will not inherit you, but rather the one who shall go forth . . . ”

Notes 1. E.Y. Kutscher, “The Language of the ‘Genesis Apocryphon’: A Preliminary Study,” in Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls (eds. C. Rabin and Y. Yadin; Scripta Hierosolimitana IV; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1958), 1–35. 2. The following is a brief overview of the subject matter: 0 (=1Q20) Col. 1 Col. 2 Col. 3 Col. 4 Col. 5 Col. 6 Col. 7 Col. 8 Col. 9 Col. 10 Col. 11 Col. 12 Col. 13 Col. 14 Col. 15 Col. 16 Col. 17 Col. 18 Col. 19 Col. 20 Col. 21 Col. 22

Uncertain Uncertain Lamech challenges Bathenosh, his wife, about her pregnancy Enoch assures Methuselah that Bathenosh’s pregnancy is from Lamech Uncertain; perhaps a vision of impending destruction End of Enoch’s speech; birth of Noah Noah’s opening speech; the calling of Noah Noah informed he will survive the impending destruction Uncertain; presumably, the coming of the Flood No writing survives The ark lands on one of the mountains of Ararat; Noah brings a sacrifice Leaving the ark, Noah finds new Eden; instruction about not eating blood Birth of Noah’s grandchildren; firstfruits of vine A vision of a great olive tree Interpretation of vision of the trees Interpretation of vision of man with a sickle Division of earth between Japhet and Shem and Ham Division of earth between sons of Shem and Japhet No writing survives Travels and dream of Abram Praise of Sarai; Abram cures Pharaoh Abram travels the land; start of battle of the kings Abram rescues Lot; complains of being unable to conceive

3. See Moshe J. Bernstein, “Divine Titles and Epithets and the Sources of the Genesis Apocryphon,” JBL 128 (2009). 4. The remains of this column are extremely fragmentary, and the text is not entirely coherent. 5. Reading in l. 21: esur takif. 6. Ar. ’adina refers to the luxuriant state of youth. It may be a euphemism for fertility. 7. Ar. ’aneta. Cf. Exod. 21:10. 8. This sentence is parallel to En. 106:18 in its Aram. formulation. 9. Little of this column survives. 10. Only one phrase of this column survives. 11. The spelling of the toponym Horarat reflects a phonetic variant of the masoretic form Ararat. 12. Reflects a morphological variant of the masoretic form Meshech. 13. The meaning of this expression is extremely uncertain. The text repeats the words mayya ve-saf, but it is not clear if this happened through a scribal error or it has another meaning. 14. Reflects a variant of the masoretic form aner. 15. Cf. Gen 6:5; 1 En. 6–11 et al.; Jub. 5. 16. Jub. 7:35–37; 11QTemple 60:3–4; 4QMMT B 62–64.

The Genesis Apocryphon

261

17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.

30. 31. 32. 33. 34.

35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43.

E.g., M. Ma’as. S. 5:1; Sifre Num. 6. D. Machiela, Genesis Apocryphon, 102–104. D. Machiela, Genesis Apocryphon, 85–105. Isa. 27:13; 56:7; 66:20; Jer. 31:23; Ezek. 20:40; Joel 2:1; 4:17; Zech. 8:3; Ps. 2:6; et al. See Jub 13:5, although that reading might be the result of textual corruption. Cf. Gen 37:14; 46:1; Jub. 44:1. N. Avigad and Y. Yadin, A Genesis Apocryphon: A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judaea ( Jerusalem: Magnes and Heikhal Ha-Sefer, 1956), 25. Fitzmyer, Genesis Apocryphon, 182–83. Num. 13:22; Isa. 19:11, 13; 30:4; Ezek. 30:14; Ps. 78:12, 43. See esp. Jub. 21:10, which relates specifically to Abraham’s knowledge of such writings; cf. also T. Simeon 5:4; T. Levi 10:5; 14:1; T. Dan 5:6; T. Naphtali 4:1. The motif of Sarah’s extraordinary beauty is also very prominent in Rabbinic literature; see Fitzmyer, Genesis Apocryphon, 193. For a prayer at this specific time, see also Abraham 95; J.W. 5.9.4 §380 (Fitzmyer, Genesis Apocryphon, 201). Note the use of the same term nega (“plague”) in Gen. 12:17 and Exod. 11:1 regarding the plague of the firstborn. Moreover, the unique expression negaim gedolim, “mighty plagues,” in Gen. 12:17 is reminiscent of Deut. 28:59–60: “mighty plagues . . . (the sicknesses of Egypt).” Gen. 41:8–46; Exod. 7:11, 22; 8:3; 9:11; Dan. 2:2–12; 4:3–6, 15; 5:7–8, 11–12. Cf. Dan 2:10, 27; 4:4; 5:7, 11, 15. See HALOT, 489. See Exod. 21:10; 22:26; Deut. 22:12; Isa. 50:3. The term “anticipation” here follows Bernstein, “Re-arrangement.” Cf. the opinion of R. Simeon b. Yochai in Gen. Rab. 45:1 that Hagar was Pharaoh’s daughter whom he had presented to Sarai following her ordeal in his palace. Alexander, “Retelling,” 107. Fitzmyer, Genesis Apocryphon, 219. Num. 34:6, 7; Josh. 1:4; 23:4; Ezek. 47:15–20. Bernstein, “Re-arrangement,” 45–46. For a similar meaning of the root ‘-v-d cf. e.g. Judg. 3:14–15; 2 Sam. 8:2, 6; 2 Kings 17:3. Cf. Gen Rab. 41; Tanhuma Hukkat 25; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan; Rashi. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon, 245. See also Heb. 7:1–2; Ant. I.10.2; Pirke R. El. 27 (in which Melchizedek is identified with Shem). The clear literary connection between the two compositions precisely on this point, and the integration of this chronological datum within the larger scheme of each work, perhaps offers an avenue for assessing the relationship between them; see the discussion in M. Segal, “The Literary Relationship between the Genesis Apocryphon and Jubilees: The Chronology of Abram and Sarai’s Descent to Egypt,” Aramaic Studies 8 (2010): 71–88.

262 Matthew J. Morgenstern and Michael Segal

Admonition Based on the Flood Alex P. Jassen The Admonition Based on the Flood (scroll 4Q370) consists of two fragmentary columns. Column 1 is a prose narrative recounting the Flood and the events leading up to it. It begins by describing the agricultural abundance in which God created the world. In return, he demanded that humans properly acknowledge this bounty by blessing God (and presumably remaining obedient). The text reports that humans instead did evil and rebelled against God, and then God punished them by bringing the Flood. What follows is a reformulation of portions of the Flood story of Gen. 6–9. Column 2 of 4Q370 is extremely fragmentary and therefore difficult to decipher with certainty. It contains several statements regarding human sin and redemption as well as the transient nature of human life. It concludes with an exhortation not to rebel against God’s words. The two columns are very different in their content and literary style. We cannot know for certain what preceded or followed the fragmentary remains of each column or if the content of these two columns is related. Several factors suggest that they are intended to be read together. The story of the Flood in column 1 is employed as a historical example of the disastrous results of human sin and disobedience to God. This example is reinforced in column 2 by references to the ephemeral character of human life. The author then draws upon the historical example to exhort the reader to remain faithful to God. The specific language of the admonition in column 2 (line 9, “Do not rebel”) brings the reader back to the very first act of collective human insolence in column 1 (line 2, “and they rebelled against God”). The use of historical examples for exhortation and admonition is a technique well known in biblical and Jewish literature. See, for example, Deut. 1–3; Ps. 78, 105, 106; Neh. 9; 3 Macc. 2:1–20; 6:1–15; and the Damascus Document 1–8, 19–20 (the Flood example, however, is not found in any of these sources). Authorship and History The text of 4Q370 was most likely not composed by the Qumran community. It lacks any explicit sectarian language and freely employs the Tetragrammaton (the four-letter name of God, which was generally avoided in sectarian writings). In addition to literary correspondence with other Second Temple texts, it contains many themes and ideas prevalent in Judaism at the time. In particular, 4Q370 contains many points of contact with Second Temple Wisdom traditions, and two of the textual overlaps are with Wisdom texts (Hymn to the Creator and 4Q185, Sapiential Work). Based on this evidence, 4Q370 was probably composed sometime in the late Second Temple period, perhaps within Wisdom circles. What remains of the Admonition is one Hebrew fragment (10 x 19 cm) containing two columns, found in Qumran Cave 4. Its date of composition is unknown. The manuscript is written in a late Hasmonean-era semiformal script, which suggests that the manuscript

263

was copied around the second half of the 1st century bce. It is not clear, however, how much earlier the text was composed. Several portions contain literary parallels with other Second Temple writings (see below). The direction of influence, however, is not always certain. Moreover, many of the parallel texts are themselves difficult to date. Significance Several textual parallels with biblical and Second Temple literature appear within 4Q370. In the case of the biblical literature, the author has clearly reformulated this material. In the case of similarities between 4Q370 and certain works from Second Temple literature, it is not always clear which text came first. The text’s opening reference to the Earth’s agricultural abundance is an expansion of a passage from the Hymn to the Creator, a hymn praising God as creator that is found in the Cave 11 Psalms Scroll (11QPsa 26:9–15). This hymn contains several Wisdom elements. That 4Q370 expands the Hymn suggests that the former is a reformulation of the latter. Carol Newsom has highlighted several textual parallels between 4Q370 and Ezek. 36:19– 20, 30–31, 36. Ezekiel 36 describes divine punishment for human misdeeds and the restoration of Israel to its land and its renewed enjoyment of the land’s abundant bounty. Both themes figure prominently in 4Q370’s rewriting of the Flood narrative. The majority of column 1 is a retelling of the Flood story in poetic parallelism. The basic structuring elements and many of the details follow the text of the Flood account in Gen. 6–9. Additional details not found in Genesis are drawn from inner biblical references to the Flood, related biblical imagery, and Second Temple traditions. Slight variations from the book of Genesis are likely the result of the author quoting the text from memory or using a textual tradition different from the Masoretic Text, although several exegetical modifications can be found. The Flood story is not merely summarized; rather, the author emphasizes the particular aspects of the story that are useful for the text’s larger didactic purposes. For example, Noah is completely ignored throughout the text. The reformulation of the story focuses on the nature of human apostasy and the disastrous results of this disobedience. Including details about Noah would reorient the story to one of human righteousness and salvation. The second half of column 2 (4Q370 2:5–9) contains significant textual overlaps with 4Q185 1–2 i–ii (Sapiential Work). 4Q185 exhorts its audience to faithful obedience by appealing to the example of God’s mighty deeds during the Exodus. Although only the first few overlapping words are preserved in 4Q370, it seems likely that the remainder of the lines contained further material from 4Q185. The admonition in column 2 of 4Q370 therefore contains its own historical example (the Exodus) while simultaneously referring back to the example of the Flood in column 1, to instill a sense of obedience in the audience. The few textual differences indicate that these manuscripts are not multiple copies of the same text. Rather, one text has slightly adapted the other, though it is not clear which text came first. Suggested Reading Feldman, Ariel. “The Reworking of the Biblical Flood Story in 4Q370.” Hen 29:1 (2007): 31–49.

264 Alex P. Jassen

García Martínez, Florentino, and Gerard P. Luttikhuizen. Interpretations of the Flood. Themes in Biblical Narrative 1. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Jassen, Alex P. “A New Suggestion for the Reconstruction of 4Q370 1 i 2 and the Blessing of the Most High (Elyon) in Second Temple Judaism.” DSD 17:1 (2010): 88–113. Lewis, Jack P. A Study of the Interpretation of Noah and the Flood in Jewish and Christian Literature. Leiden: Brill, 1968. Newsom, Carol A. “370. 4QAdmonition Based on the Flood.” In Qumran Cave 4.XIV: Parabiblical Texts, Part 2, edited by M. Broshi et al., in consultation with J. C. VanderKam, 85–97. DJD 19. Oxford: Clarendon, 1995. —. “4Q370: An Admonition Based on the Flood.” RevQ 13 (1988): 23–43.

Translation (1:1) He crowned the mountains with pro[duce and] He poured out food upon them. And (with) good fruit He satisfied all. “All who shall do my will, let them eat and be satisfied,” said

Commentary 1:1 This line is not the beginning of the composition, but what preceded it is not certain on account of the fragmentary nature of the manuscript. upon them That is, upon the mountains. He crowned . . . good fruit Describes the state of agricultural abundance in which God created the world and in which it continued to exist until the Flood. No such notice is found in the Creation account in Genesis. This entire clause adapts a passage from the Hymn to the Creator: Hymn 1. Crowning the mountains with produce, 4Q370 1:1. He crowned the mountains with produce Hymn 2. Good food [’okhel tov] for all living beings 4Q370 1:2a. He poured out food [’okhel] upon them, 1:2b. And with good fruit [ufri tov] He satisfied all. The most notable element is the reformulation of the phrase “good food” in the Hymn to the Creator, such that in 4Q370 each of these words appears in a separate clause with its own verb of divine action. All who shall do my will This clause may also be understood as modifying the preceding clause. Namely, the “all” (kol) who are satisfied are only “all” (kol) who do God’s will. let them eat and be satisfied This clause seems initially to have been omitted by the scribe and thus was added above the line on the manuscript.

Source of Translation: This translation is a modified version of Carol A. Newsom’s “370. 4QAdmonition Based on the Flood” (cited above).

Admonition Based on the Flood 265

the L[o]rd, (2) “and they shall bless the name of [the Most Hig]h.” “And behold, they then did evil in my eyes,” said the Lord. And they rebelled against God with their a[cti]ons. (3) And the Lord judged L[o]rd Second Temple texts generally avoid the use of the Tetragrammaton. 4Q370 freely employs it. 1:2. and they shall bless The theme of blessing God as creator of earthly bounty is common in biblical and Jewish tradition.1 The language of 4Q370 draws upon Deut. 8:10: “When you have eaten your fill, give thanks to (lit. bless) the Lord your God for the good land which He has given you.” By drawing upon Deuteronomy, 4Q370 creates an equivalency between the Land of Israel and the Earth at the time of Creation. Both are imbued by God with overwhelming agricultural abundance for humans to enjoy. Proper acknowledgment of God’s favor is the requirement for enjoying this bounty. Bless the name of [the Most Hig]h Deut. 8:10 serves as the scriptural source in Rabbinic tradition for the requirement to recite the Grace after Meals (Birkat ha-Mazon).2 The practice of reciting a thanksgiving prayer after meals was already known in the Second Temple period, and several sources contain close parallels to the later formalized text of the Rabbinic Grace after Meals.3 The divine name “Most High” (Elyon) often appears as the object of praise and blessing in the Second Temple period. In this capacity, the exhortation to bless “the Lord your God” in Deut. 8:10 is reoriented in Second Temple thanksgiving prayers after meals to indicate the blessing of the “Most High” God (Elyon).4 This formulation reflects the growing disuse of the Tetragrammaton in liturgical practice (in contrast to the free use of the Tetragrammaton in 4Q370). and behold, they then Newsom notes that the extreme awkwardness of the syntax here may be a deliberate attempt to shock the reader and place more emphasis on the human sin. evil Presumably, they failed to follow the divine directions provided in the previous line and therefore did not properly acknowledge God for the bounty He provided. The idea of preventing the Flood by blessing God is not found in other Second Temple or Rabbinic literature. In 1 Enoch, however, at the behest of his father, Enoch blesses God in an attempt to preserve a small remnant of survivors after the Flood (1 En. 83–84). they rebelled against God with their a[cti]ons Human insolence extends beyond merely failing to bless God. Deut. 8:10 mandates blessing as acknowledgment for the divine bounty, not for its own sake. Failure to do so will inevitably result in the gradual disregard of God and the covenant (vv. 11–18), followed by the embracing of other gods (v. 19). These actions, stresses Deuteronomy’s author, will result in the eventual exile of the people from the land (v. 20) and the loss of all its abundant resources, a scenario that plays itself out in Neh. 9:25–27 with identical language.5 The text of 4Q370 indicates that the early generations of humanity followed this same pattern. Their failure to acknowledge God for the agricultural bounty they enjoyed eventually led to their complete abandonment of God, precipitating the divine response of the Flood. The explanation provided by 4Q370 for the Flood (abundance → forgetting God → sin → Flood) is likewise found in Rabbinic literature as one of the primary explanations for the Flood.6 1:3. the Lord judged Genesis never employs such formal language of divine judgment. The combination of divine judgment in response to sinful human “action” (‘alila) and “ways” (derakhim) is common in the prophetic censure of Israel.7 The specific language employed here seems to draw upon Ezek. 36:19: “I scattered them among the nations, and they were dispersed through the countries: I punished them in accordance with their ways and their deeds.” Moreover, Ezek 36:20 asserts that Israel “caused My holy name to be profaned” while in exile, the exact oppo-

266 Alex P. Jassen

them according to a[l]l their ways and according to the thoughts of the [evil] inclination of their heart. He thundered against them with [His] strength. All the (4) foundations of the ea[rth] shook; and [wa]ters broke from the depths. All the windows of the sky were opened; and all the de[pths] overflowed [with] mighty waters. (5) The windows of the sky p[our]ed out rain. He destroyed them in the Flood [. . .]; site of the blessing of the divine name required in the previous line of 4Q370. The larger section of Ezekiel prophesies that the exiled Israel will be restored to its land, where it will once again enjoy abundant bounty (vv. 29–30). This corresponds to the earlier theme in 4Q370 of a twofold equivalency between the Land of Israel and Earth at creation, and between exile from the land and the Flood. according to . . . according to The divine response is not capricious, but commensurate with the wrongdoing of humanity (see also Jub. 5:11). according to the thoughts of the [evil] inclination of their heart Follows Gen. 6:5. Genesis, however, never explicitly states that humans’ evil inclination developed into actual evil activity. The reformulation of Gen. 6:5 together with the previous clause at 4Q370 1:3 (“according to a[l]l their ways”) makes this point explicit and therefore fully justifies the divine response (cf. L.A.B. 3:3). thundered The imagery of divine thunder (r-‘-m) is not employed in the account of the Flood in Genesis 7. This imagery is found in biblical poetic descriptions of God vanquishing Israel’s enemies and in more general descriptions of God’s awesome might.8 The application of this divine imagery to the Flood may be influenced by Ps. 29:3: “the God of glory thunders [hir‘im], the Lord, over the mighty waters.” Ps. 18:14–16 (with its parallel 2 Sam. 22:14–16) also describes how “Then the Lord thundered [vayar‘em] from heaven . . . / The ocean bed was exposed; the foundations of the world were laid bare by Your mighty roaring [miga‘aratekha], O Lord.”9 strength In the Bible, divine thunder is more commonly described as occurring with God’s voice.10 1:3–4. All the foundations of the ea[rth] shook This imagery is not found in the account of the Flood in Genesis 7. The allusion to the Flood in Isa. 24:18 describes how the “sluices are opened on high, / And earth’s foundations tremble.” See also Prov. 8:29: “When He assigned the sea its limits, / So that its waters never transgress His command; / When He fixed the foundations of the earth.” In this verse, “assigned the sea its limits” is parallel to “fixed the foundations of the earth.” Thus, the removal of the sea’s limits through a Flood simultaneously eliminates the Earth’s foundations. [Wa]ters broke from the depths Minimal reformulation of Gen. 7:11a. All the windows of the sky opened This language parallels the end of Gen. 7:11 (see also Isa. 24:18; cf. Deut. 28:12). 1:4–5. All the de[pths] overflowed [with] mighty waters. The windows of the sky p[our]ed out rain A reformulation of Gen. 7:11 and an exegetical expansion of 7:12. Gen. 7:11 (and its reproduction here in 4Q370) describes the opening of two sources of rain—the great “depth” (tehom) and heavenly “windows” (‘arubbot). Gen. 7:12 reports that the rain (geshem) fell for 40 days and 40 nights. Following its own parallel structure, 4Q370 produces a twofold account of the floodwaters that describes how the same two sources (tehomot; ‘arubbot) poured forth with rain (mayim; matar).11

Admonition Based on the Flood 267

[. . .] all of them, for it crossed over [. . .] (6) Therefore everything wh[ich was on] dry land was [wiped out]; and humankind and [beast and all] birds, every winged thing d[ie]d. The Gi[an]ts too, did not escape. (7) And [. . .] God made [a sign of the covenant]; His bow He set [in the cloud so] that He would remember the covenant 1:5. all of them Likely preceded by some additional verb of death or destruction. Genesis continues by describing Noah and his family entering the ark and therefore surviving the Flood (7:13–16). But in the extant text of 4Q370, Noah is completely ignored. for it crossed over This entire line is fragmentary and difficult to reconstruct. The subject could be God (i.e., “He passed over”). There may be an allusion to Isa. 28:14–15, where “men of mockery” maintain a false hope that their pact with Death/Sheol will save them “When the sweeping Flood passes through (ki ‘avar).” This would reinforce the claim that everyone died in the Flood (cf. Gen. Rab. 38:6). 1:6. Therefore The narrative resumes following Gen. 7:21–23. all everything wh[ich was on] dry land Echoes Gen. 7:22b. Humankind and [beast, and all] birds, every winged thing Paraphrases Gen. 7:23. See also Gen. 7:14: “every bird, every winged thing” (wekhol tzippor kol kenaf) (cf. Gen. 6:20 LXX). [wiped out] . . . d[ie]d Following Gen. 7:22–23, we would expect the first clause to have the verbal root m-w-t (“to die”) and the second clause, m-w-h (“to be wiped out”). The first lacuna is too long for this reconstruction (and an initial nun is extant on the manuscript). Newsom therefore suggests that the two biblical verbs of death are inverted in 4Q370. Gi[an]ts The offspring of the sons of angels and the human women in Gen. 6:1–4. Also identified (v. 4) as Nephilim. (See LXX, Tg. Onk., Tg. Neof. at Gen 6:4; 1QapGen 2:1; Gen. Rab. 26:7; cf. Num. 33:11.) did not escape Addresses the exegetical problem presented by the report in Gen. 7:21–23 that all humans and earthly creatures perished in the Flood. What of the half-human, half-angelic Giants? Like several other Second Temple traditions, 4Q370 emphasizes that they too died in the Flood.12 In Rabbinic literature only Og (and Sihon according to some traditions) survived from among the Giants.13 1:7 The beginning of line 7 is too fragmentary for any reconstruction. It may contain some reference to the cessation of the floodwaters. The central role of Noah (see Gen. 8) is omitted from the story. [a sign of the covenant] Reconstructed based on Gen. 9:13 (see also Gen 9:12 for the same term). His bow He set [in the cloud Echoes Gen. 9:13, although Genesis has God speaking in the first person while 4Q370 preserves a third-person narrative.14 so] that He would remember the covenant Echoes Gen. 9:16. In 4Q370, the paraphrase of the rainbow covenant selects the universalistic passages in Genesis while excluding those referring to Noah and his family.

268 Alex P. Jassen

(8) [. . .] [There shall never again be] floodwaters for [destruction]; The rumbling of waters [shall not be lo]osed (9) [. . .] they made . . . and clouds [. . .] for waters [. . .] (10) [. . .] (2:1) from iniquity, they will seek[ (2) the Lord will declare innocent[ (3) and He will purify them from their iniquity[ (4) their evil in their knowing (how to distinguish) bet[ween good and evil (5) they spring forth, but like a shadow are their days o[n the earth 1:8 The beginning of line 8 is too fragmentary for reconstruction. There may be some mention of the participants in the covenant as in Gen. 9:17. floodwaters This expression (me mabul) appears only in Gen. 9:11. The entire phrase, however, draws on the similar expression mayim lemabul in Gen. 9:15: “so that the waters shall never again become a flood.” The rumbling of waters [shall not be lo]osed Following its pattern of poetic parallelism, 4Q370 introduces this clause that is not found in Genesis. The phrase “rumbling of water” is found in Jer. 10:13 and the Hymn to the Creator (11QPsa 26:10; see also 1QHa 10:16, 27; 11:14 [parallel to 4Q432 5 1], 16). 1:9–10 Line 9 is too fragmentary to provide any reconstruction. “They made” is written above the line (see note on line 1: “let them eat and be satisfied”). The term for “clouds” (shekhakim) used here does not appear in Genesis.15 Minimal ink traces of the tops of a few letters appear on line 10, though not enough to determine the exact letters. 2:1. from iniquity, they will seek The verb for “to seek” here (d-r-sh) sometimes means “to make supplication” before God.16 Perhaps the text describes an attempt to seek redress from sin. 2:2. the Lord will declare innocent This text may report a positive divine response to the human actions in the previous line. 2:3. and He will purify them from their iniquity For this expression—which refers to the divine purging of sin from humans—see Jer. 33:8; Ezek. 36:33 (cf. the use of Ezek. 36 in column 1); Ps. 51:4; 1QS 3:7–8; 1QHa 1:32. 2:4. their evil, in their knowing (how to distinguish) betwee[n good and evil Newsom suggests this reconstruction based on similar language in Gen. 2:9, 17; 3:5, 22; 1 Kings 3:9. The line seems to begin in the middle of a sentence. It may describe some of the conditions necessary for the divine purification—that is, recognition of one’s sinfulness and the ability to distinguish between good and evil. 2:5–9 Lines 5–9 are parallel with 4Q185 1–2 i–ii. 2:5. they spring forth “They” refers to humanity. While the verb “spring” (s-m-h) generally refers to plant life, it is sometimes used to describe the ephemeral character of human life ( Job 8:19; Sir. 14:18). The section immediately preceding the overlapping content in 4Q185 (1–2 i 10) employs it as part of a larger botanical metaphor illustrating human transience on earth.17 but like a shadow are their days o[n the earth The metaphor of a shadow to describe the fleeting nature of human life is widely employed.18 Parallel text in 4Q185 1–2 i 13: “Like a shadow are his days upon the land.” In 4Q185, this clause precedes an exhortation to listen to the words that follow.

Admonition Based on the Flood 269

(6) and forevermore He will have compassion[ (7) the mighty acts of the Lord, remember the won[ders (8) on account of the dread of Him; and [your] sou[l] will rejoice[ (9) those who follow you. Do not rebel against the word[s of the Lord. 2:6. and forevermore, He will have compassion Not in parallel text in 4Q185. See, however, Ps. 103:17: “But the Lord’s steadfast love is for all eternity.” The remainder of 4Q370 2:6 may therefore contain some additional elements from Ps. 103:17, which would agree with the general themes of the fragment. 2:7. the mighty acts of the Lord, remember the won[ders See 4Q185 1–2 i 13–14: “Draw wisdom from the [m]ight of God. Remember the wonders he did in Egypt and the portents [in the land of Ham].” The author of 4Q185 appeals to the historical example of the Exodus to compel the audience to follow God’s will. This passage in 4Q185 reinforces the similar, more-developed appeal to the Flood example in column 1 of 4Q370. 2:8. on account of the dread of Him; and [your] sou[l] will rejoice See 4Q185 1–2 i 15–1–2 ii 1: “Let your heart tremble on account of the dread of Him, and do [His will], your [so]ul [will rejoice] according to His good mercies.” Recalling God’s mighty actions during the Exodus (and also during the Flood) will elicit fear and therefore the desired fidelity to God. 2:9. those who follow you Could be understood in terms of time (i.e., those who succeed you) or in the abstract (i.e., your followers); another possible meaning is “from the two of you.” This phrase is not represented in 4Q185; cf. 4Q185 1–2 ii 3: “for your children after you.” rebel See 4Q185 1–2 ii 3: “Do not rebel against the words of the Lord.” This seems to be the climax of the preserved portion of 4Q370. The example of the Flood in column 1 and the evaluation of the passing nature of human life in column 2 are all intended to emphasize this point—human fate is ultimately in the hands of God; one must therefore not transgress against the divine command. “Rebellion” (m-r-h) is the very word employed to describe the first act of human sedition in 4Q370 1:2.

Notes 1. Jub. 22:6–9; 4Q434 2; Hymn to the Creator 6–7 (11QPsa 26:13–14); Josephus, J.W. 2.131; Rabbinic Grace after Meals. 2. See Mek. Bo’ Pisha 16; T. Ber. 6:1; J. Ber. 7:1 11a; J. Meg. 4:1 74d; B. Ber. 21a, 48b. 3. Josephus reports that the Essenes praise God before and after meals (J.W. 2.131). Two Qumran Deuteronomy manuscripts contain (along with other passages) excerpts from Deut. 8:5–10 (4QDeutj,n), which likely served a liturgical purpose for the prayer after meals. For parallel language see Jub. 22:6; Sir. 36:12–14, 17–19; 4Q434 2; Did. 10. The Second Temple texts do not reflect a stabilized text as is found in Rabbinic tradition. 4. The blessing of the divine name is a common theme in both the Rabbinic Grace after Meals (e.g., “Blessed are you O Lord our God”) and its Second Temple antecedents (Jub. 22:6–9; 4Q434 2 9–11). The Second Temple texts employ “Most High,” while Rabbinic liturgy returns to the Tetragrammaton as the object of blessing as in Deut. 8:10 (see further, Jassen, “A New Suggestion”). 5. See also Deut. 11:15–17. 6. See T. Sot. 3:6–7; Mek. Be-shallah Shira 2; Sifre Deut. 43, 318; Gen. Rab. 28:6–7; 36:1; Lev. Rab. 4:1; 5:1; B. Sanh. 108a; Tanh. Be-shallah 12; Num. Rab. 9:24; 21:23. A similar explanation is provided by Philo (Abraham 26.134) and Josephus (Ant. 1.194) for the wickedness of Sodom. The allusion to the Flood in Job

270 Alex P. Jassen

7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

12. 13.

14. 15. 16. 17.

18.

22:15–20 mentions that even though God “filled their houses with good things” (v. 18), he was still rejected (v. 17). Philo also remarks that the Flood generation abounded in material and physical prosperity, yet chose wickedness (Moses 2.10.53). In Second Temple period literature the Flood is usually attributed to the menacing influence of the fallen angels from Gen 6:1–4 (see, e.g., Jub. 5, 1 En. 6–11). See Judg. 2:19; Jer. 4:18; 7:3, 5; 17:10; 18:11; 23:22; 25:5; 26:13; Ezek. 14:22–23; 20:43–44; 36:17, 19; 31; Hos. 4:9; 12:3; Zech. 1:4, 6. For the former, see 1 Sam. 2:10; 7:10; Isa. 29:6; Ps. 18:14//2 Sam. 22:14. For the latter, see Ps. 29:3; Job 37:4–5. God “thunders loudly” in the description of the Flood in Sib. Or. 1:219. See note 8. A nearly identical exegetical paraphrase of Gen. 7:12 is found in Jub. 5:24–25. Verse 24 reproduces Gen. 7:11 (“heavenly floodgates”//“great deep”). Jubilees 5:25 follows the twofold parallelism of the preceding verse and reports that the “floodgates sent down water” for the 40 days and the “springs of the deep sent up water” until water filled the Earth (cf. Sib. Or. 1:220–24). 3 Macc. 2:4; Wis. 14:6; Sib. Or. 2:232; 2 Bar. 56:15–16; 3 Bar. 4:10; cf. Sir. 16:7; Bar. 3:26–28. On the death of the Giants, see Tg. Ps.-J. at Deut. 2:11; 3:11. On Og, see Tg. Ps.-J. at Gen. 14:13 and Deut. 3:11; B. Zev. 113b; B. Nid. 61a; Num. Rab. 19:32; Pirke R. El. 23. This tradition is based on the mention of Og in Deut. 3:11 as the last (i.e., the only one left) of the Rephaim (= Giants). On the survival of Sihon, see Deut. Rab. 11:10. Rabbinic tradition identifies Og and Sihon as brothers born to Ahiah the son of the original fallen angel Shemhazai (B. Nid. 61a). See Gen. 9:6, 16 LXX, where God’s first-person speech appears rather than the third person in the MT. See Isa. 45:8; Prov. 3:20; Job 36:28; 1QHa 11:13; cf. Ps.18:12//1 Sam. 22:12. See Ezek. 14:7, 10; Amos 5:5–6; Ps. 22:27; 77:3. Human transience is compared to plant life in the Hebrew Bible (Isa. 40:6–8; Ps. 90:5–6; 102:12; 103:15–16; 129:6; Job 14:2), the New Testament ( James 1:10–11; 1 Pet. 1:25), Rabbinic literature (B. Eruv. 54a), and the Day of Atonement liturgy (U-netaneh Tokef). See also Homer, Il. 6.146–49; Horace, Odes 4.7. This metaphor is sometimes employed specifically for evil people (Ps. 37:2, 20; 92:8; 1 En. 48:9; 2 Bar. 82:2). Job 8:9; 14:1–2; Eccles. 6:12; 8:13; Ps. 39:7; 102:12; 108:23; 144:4; 1 Chron. 29:15; Wis. 2:5 (cf. 5:9). This metaphor (based on the biblical passages) is well represented in Rabbinic literature (Gen. Rab. 96:2; [parallel to Eccles. Rab. 1:2; 6:12; Tanh. Va-yehi 2:2]; Midr. Ps. 119:10) and the Day of Atonement liturgy (U-netaneh Tokef). See also Sophocles, Ajax, 125.

Admonition Based on the Flood 271

Jubilees James L. Kugel The book of Jubilees is arguably the most important and influential of all the books written by Jews in the closing centures bce. It is a treasure-house of ancient biblical interpretation, composed by an unknown author who thought deeply about the Torah and Judaism. Jubilees was prized by the Dead Sea Scrolls community; parts of no fewer than 15 manuscripts of this book were found in the caves at Qumran.1 But its influence certainly went beyond this group. Although Rabbinic Judaism rejected Jubilees, in part because of some of its doctrines, many of its interpretive traditions are paralleled in the Talmuds and various midrashic collections, as well as in the early poetry of the synagogue, suggesting possible influence. It also played an important role in early Christian communities, and it is thanks to them that the book has been preserved in its entirety to this day. Jubilees is a retelling of much of the book of Genesis and the first part of the book of Exodus. It claims to have been communicated to Moses on Mount Sinai by God’s chief angel, the “angel of the Presence.” Moses had gone up the mountain to receive the Torah; before he could go down again, Jubilees relates, God ordered His angel to dictate another book to Moses, a dated history of events “according to the Torah and the Testimony” (see below). That other book was the book of Jubilees itself. Although it retells much of the material in Genesis and Exodus, its retelling is accompanied by all sorts of new information designed to answer questions about the biblical narrative: How did humanity continue to develop if Adam and Eve had only sons? When did God decide that Israel was to be His special people? Where was Abraham when God first spoke to him? When and why was the tribe of Levi chosen for the priesthood in Israel? In addition to answering such questions, Jubilees’ author sought to communicate an overall message of hope and encouragement to the Jews of his day and to urge them to follow stricter standards of morality and religious observance. Authorship and History The date of Jubilees’ composition is still the subject of some debate. Most scholars believe that it was written sometime early in the 2nd century bce, although a still earlier date is not to be ruled out.2 It was composed in Hebrew by a learned Jew who probably lived in or near Jerusalem. Among the Hebrew fragments found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, the earliest has been dated (on the basis of its paleography and carbon-14 dating) to the last quarter of the 2nd century bce. Despite its early popularity, Jubilees would probably have been lost forever because of its disapproval by Rabbinic authorities, who exercised extensive control over Judaism within of the Land of Israel after the destruction of the Temple in 70 ce. The Rabbinic prohibition on studying the “outside [or “heretical”] books” (M. Sanh. 10:1) doubtless included

272

Jubilees on various counts. The Hebrew text of Jubilees apparently ceased to be copied and preserved by Rabbinic Jews at this time. Early Christians, however, included it within the collection of books they considered sacred, and it was soon translated into Greek and (apparently) Syriac,3 then the principal languages of much of the Christian world. From Greek it was translated into Latin and Ge’ez (an ancient language of Ethiopia). The book was thus known in the Christian world and alluded to here and there in the writings of the church fathers. It was cited at length by three Christian writers in particular: Epiphanius of Salamis and the Byzantine chroniclers Georgius Syncellus and Georgius Cedrenus. As time went on, however, its influence waned, and the Greek and Latin translations disappeared from sight.4 It was only in the mid-19th century that a Christian missionary in Ethiopia, J. L. Krapff, “rediscovered” the work in the biblical manuscripts of the Abyssinian Church and brought a copy of it to Europe, where the Semitist August Dillmann prepared a German translation (1850–51). Ten years later, M. Ceriani found and published a Latin manuscript containing about a third of the book. In 1989, J. C. VanderKam published a scholarly edition and translation of the Ethiopic text, noting all the important textual variants of the extant Hebrew, Latin, and Syriac fragments. His edition remains the most reliable basis for the text of Jubilees.5 Title of the Book “Jubilees” was apparently not the original title of this book. The earliest reference to its title is found in the Damascus Document (col. 16:3–4) of the Dead Sea Scrolls community, where it appears as “The Book of the Divisions of Times according to Their Jubilees and in Their ‘Weeks.’” This title well reflects one of the book’s outstanding features: its frequent assigning of a date to the events of Genesis by referring to the jubilee and year in which they took place. Thus, Cain was born “in the third week of the second jubilee.” The length of a jubilee is somewhat ambiguous in the Bible: according to Lev. 25:8, it is a period of 49 years, while according to Lev. 25:11, 50 years. The author of Jubilees held by the former interpretation. As a result, each jubilee divides easily into seven subgroups of seven years apiece; these subgroups are conventionally called “weeks,” although “groups of seven” would be a more accurate translation. In asserting that Cain was born “in the third week of the second jubilee,” therefore, Jubilees’ author means that Cain was born sometime after the world’s first jubilee (years 1–49) plus two more “weeks” (years 50–63), but before the start of the fourth week in the year 71. In other words, Cain was born sometime between the years 64 and 70 after the Creation. The title given in the Damascus Document is not, however, the same as the title that appears in the various Ethiopic manuscripts of the book. There the title is longer and probably better reflects how the full Hebrew title read: “This is the account of the divisions of times— according to the Torah and to the Testimony—of the events of the years, of the weeks of their jubilees throughout all the days of yore as was related to Moses on Mount Sinai.” The expression “according to the Torah and to the Testimony”—which also appears in Jub. 1:4–5, 26, 29, and later verses—was an important one for the overall stance of the book. It derives from a somewhat mysterious verse in the book of Isaiah, where God says: “Bind

Jubilees 273

up the testimony [te‘udah], seal up the instruction [torah] with My disciples” (Isa. 8:16). Even today it is not clear what Isaiah was referring to, nor—more to the point—is anyone sure what the author of Jubilees meant by quoting this phrase. The word Torah certainly seemed, in Second Temple times, to refer to the Pentateuch; but what was the te‘udah? The author of Jubilees may have understood it to be the name of an otherwise unknown book, or he may have decided to see in the word te‘udah a reference to part of the book known today as 1 Enoch, which he does indeed call a te‘udah later on in Jubilees (see below on 4:18–19). Whichever the case, the author of Jubilees is asserting that his own history of patriarchal times is based on these two authoritative works, books that were mentioned in tandem by God in the time of Isaiah. By mentioning these two works, the author is, in effect, stating Jubilees’ credentials: “This chronological account is based on those two sacred books mentioned by Isaiah, the Torah and the [book of] the Te‘udah.” As for the actual word te‘udah, since it seemed to come from the common Hebrew root for “testify,” the Greek (and consequently the Ethiopic) translators rendered it as “testimony.” But the author of Jubilees probably did not wish it to be understood in that sense, nor more broadly as “message,” but rather as warning, since his own work—based, as he says, on the book of the Te‘udah—warns of the fell consequences of Israel’s disobedience.6 For that reason, it is best to translate the te‘udah referred to in the title as “the [book of the] Warning.” One matter deserves further clarification. Our book of Jubilees is not itself the te‘udah, “the [book of the] Warning.” Rather, the author states clearly what Jubilees is: “the book of the divisions of times.” This crucial phrase ought best to be understood as meaning a chronological history. That is to say, Jubilees is not merely a list of dates and in that sense the “divisions of the times.” Rather, it is a presentation of the early history of Israel and its ancestors—based, the author claims, on the historical data found in those two books, the Torah and the Te‘udah—with dates provided for all the important events. In fact, at one point the author seems to say that Jubilees presents only a part of the great chronology that God has worked out for Israel’s history; according to Jub. 1:29, the divinely arranged series of jubilees runs all the way to the eschaton, the end-time when all life will be renewed. That is why God sets out for His angel the specific limits of the history to be given to Moses: it is to run from the creation of the world until the building of the desert Tabernacle (1:27). The rest is to remain hidden. Significance Apart from answering specific questions about the stories of Genesis and Exodus, the author of Jubilees had a definite ideological message he wished to communicate through his book. He lived in a time when, no doubt, many of his countrymen were despairing of Israel’s future. It may well be, they reasoned, that at one point God adopted Israel as His own people, just as ancient Scripture related (Exod. 19:5–6). But that day was long gone. In the meantime, He had allowed the Northern Kingdom of Israel to fall to the Assyrians, never to rise again; the Southern Kingdom, Judah, had similarly fallen to the Babylonians, and much of its citizenry had been exiled to Babylon. Unlike the Northerners, the Judean exiles had subsequently been allowed to return to their homeland, but they were nonetheless a subject people, ruled over first by Persia, then Ptolemaic Egypt, then Seleucid Syria. Was

274 James L. Kugel

this a fitting arrangement for a people allegedly chosen by the Lord of heaven and earth? Instead, it seemed a clear indication that God’s adoption of Israel as his own people, an act inaugurated with the great covenant at Mount Sinai, must no longer be in force. Israel had violated that covenant—first the Northerners, then the Southerners—and had therefore been rejected; the apparently unending years of foreign domination were a clear indication that Israel had fallen into God’s disfavor. It was principally to combat such a negative reading of history that the original author of Jubilees wrote his book. He began by having Moses hear the “prediction” of all the evils that would lead to up to the Babylonian exile (Jub. 1:9–14). This was to be a terrible catastrophe, but it would ultimately be followed by Israel’s repentance and restoration (Jub. 1:15) as well as the explicit reversal of the Pentateuch’s own curses that were said to be Israel’s lot if it violated the Sinai covenant (Jub. 1:16). In other words, Jubilees’ author readily accepted that Israel had sinned and been punished—but this hardly spelled the end of its historic bond with its God. Israel was and always had been God’s own people. Israel’s continuing connection with God was, for Jubilees’ original author, the great message carried by the book of Genesis—and the reason why he chose a retelling of its stories as the ideal instrument for communicating his theme. Genesis is, after all, full of accounts of God’s dealings with Israel’s remote ancestors, Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, and Jacob and his wives and children. These stories all give evidence of the close connection between God and Israel’s forebears; they not only interact directly with God, but God rewards them—most tangibly in the grant of the land of Canaan to them and their descendants. For the author of Jubilees this was proof positive that God’s adoption of Israel did not begin at Mount Sinai, as one might assume from a straightforward reading of Exod. 19:5–6, but that it had begun long before—going back, his book asserted, to the very first Sabbath in history (the one that immediately followed the six days of the Creation), when God decided to create Israel as His people (Jub. 2:19–20). The covenants concluded with Abraham in Gen. 15 and 17, along with the promises made to Jacob in Gen. 28:13–14, were thus not, as it might seem, merely intended as a grant of the land of Canaan, nor yet a vague pledge of numerous descendants, but an eternal alliance. They, no less than the Sinai covenant, bound Israel to its God forever. To say this likewise implied a certain diminution of the importance of the Sinai covenant itself. It was not the first and sole basis of the alliance between God and Israel, but only one covenant among several; its violation, therefore, could hardly have occasioned a definitive rupture between the two parties. So yes, Israel had failed to keep the conditions of the Sinai covenant, a sin for which it had been duly punished through the Babylonian conquest and exile. But once punished, the child is forgiven. Whatever the political ups and downs that had subsequently characterized Israel’s history, there could be no doubt that God’s alliance with Israel was still in effect and would continue eternally. This was the basic message of comfort that the author of Jubilees wished to communicate, and in retelling Genesis he sought to give it concrete expression. Thus, as mentioned, God’s choice of Israel as His people was moved back from Exod. 19 to the seventh day of the Creation (based in part on the divine assertion in Exod. 4:22 that Israel was God’s “firstborn

Jubilees 275

son”). The author also went to the trouble of having Israel’s remote ancestors worship God in much the same way as they were to worship Him after Sinai. True, there was no temple or tabernacle in pre-Sinai times, indeed, no established priesthood. But Genesis did mention that various patriarchs had built altars and offered sacrifices to God. With this slim bit of evidence to support him, the author of Jubilees asserted that a chain of priests had in fact existed from earliest times—one priest at a time—and that these priests were in every sense continuous with the later levitical priesthood. Thus, Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Levi are represented in Jubilees as forming a continuous chain of priests, with each new priest being instructed by his predecessor in proper priestly procedure. To further illustrate the continuity between these pre-Sinai priests and their post-Sinai successors, the author of Jubilees detailed the form and content of the sacrifices that they offered, having these conform to prescriptions for sacrifices found later in the Pentateuch, principally in Leviticus. For the same reason, the author depicted these pre-Sinai priests as celebrating (and properly observing the sacrificial laws of) various holy days—the Festival of Booths, the Feast of Weeks, the Day of Atonement—even though these holy days were first mentioned only later in the Torah, as part of or following the Sinai covenant. Indeed, the author was so bold as to assert that the very reason for the existence of these holy days was to be found not in the divinely given prescriptions of the Sinai covenant, but in the events of the patriarchs’ own lives. That is to say, God did not command Abraham to celebrate the Festival of Booths (Sukkot); on the contrary, such-and-such a thing happened in Abraham’s life, and as a result he inaugurated the celebration of this festival on his own initiative (Jub. 16:5–27). Only later did God tell Moses to promulgate a law in the Torah (Lev. 23:33–35) commanding Israelites to celebrate the festival and to celebrate it on the precise date that Abraham had chosen for it. Similarly, Noah planted a vine and picked its fruit in the fourth year, which he guarded until the fifth year (Jub. 7:1–3); it was only much later, and in apparent imitation of Noah’s act, that the Torah ordained similar treatment for the fruit of all trees (see Lev. 19:23–25). The Day of Atonement, Jubilees relates, came about because of the false report that Jacob’s sons gave him, to the effect that Joseph had been killed by a wild beast. Jacob “lamented all night . . . and all the next day,” and as a result, it was decreed in the Torah “for the children of Israel that they mourn [for their sins] on the tenth (day) of the seventh month.” Once again, here was a practice inaugurated by a patriarch on his own initiative (and based on what turned out to be a lie!) that later came to be a divinely commanded holy day. The author’s purpose in saying these things is clear. They were another way of undercutting the importance of the Sinai revelation. Things really didn’t begin at Sinai, but with Israel’s ancestors—especially Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. God had established his earliest covenants with them—with them and their descendants, that is, with us, the Jews of Jubilees’ own day. We were God’s people long before the Sinai covenant, we worshiped Him back then in the same way that we worship Him now, and we will remain His people forever. Not all, of course, was sweetness and light in the view of Jubilees’ author. In particular, he believed that Judah in his own day was plunged in fornication and impurity, the latter term referring not to the ritual impurity imparted by contact with dead bodies and

276 James L. Kugel

the like, but impurity arising largely from sexual immorality and contact with “foreigners,” that is, non-Jews. In addition, he felt that Israel in his day was lax about a number of other commandments: he repeatedly stresses Israel’s failure to observe properly the Sabbath and various holy days. It was for such reasons, he claimed, that Israel still lived under foreign domination and had not yet been restored to its former glory and power. But if it now could abandon its waywardness in these matters, God would surely return His people to their proper place of honor and their lives would be blessed beyond measure (Jub. 23). The author had another argument to use against those who despaired of Israel ever rising to its former glory. It was not an argument that he himself invented. Even before he wrote, others had suggested that any despair about Israel’s future was the result of people’s failure to see the “big picture.” If only one could step back and view history not in terms of tens or even hundreds of years but still larger units, one would recognize the hand of God behind all the apparently chaotic ups and downs that had characterized the Judeans’ history since the Babylonian conquest and subsequent exile. One such “big picture” approach was to see in the very successsion of foreign powers who ruled Judea–Babylonians, Medes, Persians, Greeks—an expression of a divine plan, since each oppressor had ruled for a time, only to be cast off later on.7 A somewhat different and potentially more sophisticated approach adopted by other writers during Second Temple times was to fix on the larger unit of time called the jubilee. After all, the jubilee was mentioned as a significant measure of time within the Torah itself—so it must be important! This 49-year unit was not only composed of seven subunits of seven years apiece (“weeks of years”—see above under “Title of the Book”), but the jubilee itself could be thought of as a subunit of still larger blocks of time. So it was that some writers of this period liked to think of history as moving forward in units of 10 jubilees apiece—490 years.8 But even that might be on the small side; perhaps the main events in Israel’s history were demarcated by even larger units. The point was that, if one considered these larger numerical patterns, the idea of divine control of Israel’s history could be upheld despite the little surface disturbances that might spring up for a century or two and then disappear. In his recounting of patriarchal history, the author of Jubilees was careful to divide his chronological history into jubilees as a way of invoking this idea. History, he seemed to be asserting with each new date, marches forward in multiples of these 49-year units. Indeed, he explicitly endorsed this notion at the end of the book, pointing out that precisely 50 jubilees (2,450 years) separate the “time of Adam” (i.e., the time of the creation of the world in six days) from the time of Israel’s crossing the Jordan and entering the land of Canaan (Jub. 50:4–5). Surely that round number—50 jubilees exactly!—could not be an accident, and it indicated that similarly large patterns were to be found in Israel’s later history as well. So do not despair, the author was saying to his countrymen, the apparent disorder of a few hundred years disappears when you consider these larger patterns. With regard to his own post-exilic period, the author of Jubilees never gets around to having the angel of the Presence say what those larger patterns might be. They were apparently written in the “book of the Te‘udah,” where they are said to go on “until eternity.”9 But these things were not revealed to Moses, to whom the angel transmitted only that part of

Jubilees 277

the chronological history that dealt with the past and immediate future, from the Creation to Israel’s entry into Canaan. The author was thus content to suggest that God’s master plan for history worked in extremely large units without going into the details. Keep this in mind, he seemed to say, and the apparent chaos of recent times could be made to disappear. The Interpolator As sometimes happened with books in ancient times, the original text of Jubilees underwent modification during the course of its transmission.10 An anonymous writer, known here as the Interpolator, inserted 29 passages of his own into the book—a little more than one passage in every two chapters. Most of his interpolations are brief, some consisting of only a single sentence or two; others, however, go on for as long as 15 verses. They are easily identified by their distinct terminology. Thus, the Interpolator frequently refers to laws that are “ordained and written in the heavenly tablets.”11 (The “heavenly tablets” seem to be just that, writing tablets that had been inscribed and kept in heaven since the beginning of time, and on which were recorded not only the laws to be given to Moses on Mount Sinai, but also halakhic rulings on various matters and a record of future events and divine rulings about individual people.) Sometimes the Interpolator omits mention of the tablets but simply refers to things that have been “written and ordained” or “written and inscribed” for the Israelites to do; with such phrases, it seems to be understood that it is on the heavenly tablets that these things are written. The Interpolator also likes to have the angel of the Presence turn to Moses and say, “And you, Moses, command the Israelites to do such-and-such.” Finally, he is fond of asserting that the law or practice that he has just described “has no temporal limits” but is to be kept by the Israelites “for eternal generations.” All these phrases constitute the “signature” of the Interpolator. The fact that his legal rulings sometimes conflict with the original author’s words, and that he sometimes even seems to have misunderstood what the original author meant, make it clear that these “heavenly tablets” passages are all later insertions and not the work of the original author.12 Although we do not have a great deal of his writing, the Interpolator’s ideology emerges fairly clearly from his various insertions in the book (see below). He obviously shared many of the original author’s beliefs, including a horror of foreigners and their “impurity.” Like the original author, he also utterly rejected the lunisolar calendar endorsed by other Jews, espousing instead a calendar based on the sun alone. Indeed, it seems possible that the Interpolator belonged to a larger group that lived in accord with these principles and claimed the book of Jubilees as their authoritative source. Yet, there were aspects of the book that he (and, quite possibly, his group) found profoundly troubling. Primary among these was the original author’s implication here and there that the laws promulgated at Sinai had originated in the spontaneous actions of the patriarchs—that, in the example given above, the laws of the Festival of Booths later promulgated by Moses in the Torah were essentially based on what Abraham had spontaneously done. But for the Interpolator, all the Torah’s laws must have originated with God. That is why he insisted in his interpolations that, despite what the text of Jubilees might seem to be saying, the rules governing festivals and

278 James L. Kugel

other practices had actually been written in the heavenly tablets long before Abraham or Israel’s other ancestors had seemingly observed them for the first time. The Interpolator did not invent the idea of the heavenly tablets. The idea of such heavenly writings, and even the phrase “heavenly tablets,” is found in texts going back to ancient Mesopotamia,13 and the tablets are mentioned frequently in 1 En. 81:1–2, 93:2, 103:2, 106:19, 107:1, and elsewhere in the biblical Pseudepigrapha. But in these other texts, what is recorded on high are future events, or the good and bad deeds of human beings. The Interpolator adopted the idea of these heavenly writing tablets but turned it to a new purpose; they would be the place in heaven where God had also inscribed the Torah’s laws from the beginning of time. Therefore, no matter what the original author had implied about Noah or Abraham or Jacob having initiated this or that practice, the Interpolator was usually quick to add: “And thus it is ordained in the heavenly tablets,” or “That is why it is written in the heavenly tablets to do exactly this,” and so forth. Through some unmentioned act of divine manipulation, God had arranged for the patriarchs to unwittingly inaugurate a practice that had already been prescribed in laws written on high long before.14 The Interpolator’s insertions definitely changed the overall thrust of the original Jubilees. Now the book seemed to be saying that the deeds of Israel’s ancestors did indeed match some of the laws given to Moses on Mount Sinai, but not because God had decided to institutionalize in the Torah certain practices that those ancestors had created on their own initiative. Rather, now it seemed that those ancestors had simply been manipulated into obeying laws that were written long before in the heavenly tablets. Moreover, in order to drive this point home, the Interpolator sought to expand on the original author’s list of precedents for the laws of festivals and other matters so as to include all sorts of other laws from the Pentateuch—Cain’s punishment after the murder of Abel reflected a divine statute that was also written down in the law of Deut. 27:24; God’s covenant with Noah was consonant with the law of the tamid sacrifices (Exod. 29:38–42 and Num. 28:3–8), and so forth. In these cases as well, the Interpolator asserted, the actions of these ancient figures from Genesis merely reflected things established in God’s eternal laws, which He Himself had inscribed on the heavenly tablets from the beginning of time. The Interpolator’s insistence that human actions had had no role whatsoever in the creation of the Torah’s laws is of a piece with what he writes about the calendar. One calendrical system in use in Second Temple times was similar to the one used later in Rabbinic times: months were determined by the phases of the moon, with each month starting after two reliable witnesses had attested to having seen the new moon (see M. RH 1–2). Such a system was a horror to the Interpolator, precisely because it depended on human intervention for the fixing of dates—not only the start of each month, but, as a consequence, also the occurrence of all God’s sacred festivals and other holy days within each month. Were not such things fixed in advance by God? He therefore has the angel of the Presence warn Moses against “those who will examine the moon diligently” and use it to determine the beginnings of months (Jub. 6:36). As mentioned above, both the original author (see Jub. 2:9) and the Interpolator (6:34– 37) espoused a calendar in which the moon plays no part. Months are (as in today’s civil cal-

Jubilees 279

endar) arbitrary units of days with no connection to the moon; every month must consist of exactly 30 days, so that 12 months equal 360 days. The Interpolator further specified that the official year is to consist of 364 days; that is, to the 360 days of the 12 months were added four apparently extramensual days (i.e., free-floating days outside the regular sequence of months) at equal intervals, one apiece after the 3rd, 6th, 9th, and 12th months (see 6:23–31). The official year thus had exactly 364 days or—more to the point—exactly 52 Sabbaths.15 In the same spirit, the Interpolator could not accept the biblical stipulation that the date of the Feast of Weeks (Shavuot) was to be determined by people counting seven weeks from the time of Passover. In one of his longest interpolations, he set out to claim that the name of this festival did not refer to “weeks” (shavuot) counted by people each year, but to “oaths” (shevuot), specifically, the oaths sworn by Noah and his sons after the great Flood. Thus, the “Festival of Oaths” had nothing to do with humans counting—in fact, the Interpolator asserts, this festival had been celebrated in heaven long before human beings began celebrating it. All this bespeaks his own particular mentality. Such positions put him at odds with the school of ancient Judaism known variously as that of the Pharisees, the “sages,” the “elders,” and so forth—a close spiritual ancestor of Rabbinic Judaism. In the Interpolator’s comments there is a clear anti-Pharisaic note. He disagrees with them not only on the issue of the calendar, but also about the laws of the Sabbath and various festivals, the second tithe, fruit trees, and so forth. Perhaps most significantly, he apparently rejected their whole reliance on orally transmitted traditions of halakhah and interpretation. That may indeed be why he became an interpolator into, rather than just an interpreter of, the book of Jubilees itself: it was crucial to him that all his ideas appear to be part of some reputedly ancient written source, since only written words, and not oral traditions, had validity in his eyes. Despite the rather different outlooks of Jubilees’ original author and the Interpolator, and despite the strikingly unique terminology used by the Interpolator to introduce his legal insertions, the final document incorporating the Interpolator’s remarks into the original book of Jubilees reads quite smoothly. Indeed, it is only recently that scholars have come to consider the possibility that Jubilees is not a unitary work. In part this is because the two authors did agree on a number of basic issues (which is probably one reason why the Interpolator spent the effort he did on “correcting” parts of Jubilees rather than writing an entirely new book). But one must also credit the Interpolator with having gone about his work with some care and even artistry. Moreover, although the number of insertions by the Interpolator is rather large, they still constitute only a small percentage of the overall book; Jubilees remains overwhelmingly the work of its original author. For all these reasons, the composite nature of Jubilees is not immediately apparent. In any event, in its final form Jubilees went on to have a distinguished career; it won a faithful following among members of the Dead Sea Scrolls community and doubtless other Jewish groups in Second Temple times; it also attracted numerous readers among early Christians. Still later, it went on to influence (sometimes unwitting) commentators and homilists on the book of Genesis in later centuries of the Common Era; indeed, its message of renewed hope and a return to God continued to speak to generations of readers.16

280 James L. Kugel

Passages Attributed to the Interpolator 2:24–33, The Laws of the Sabbath. 3:9–14, Impurity after Childbirth. 3:29–31, Nudity Forbidden. 4:5–6, Cain’s Curse Anticipates Deut. 27:24. 4:31–32, Death of Cain and Lev. 24:19–20. 5:13–19, Strict Justice after the Flood and the Day of Atonement. 6:10–14, Blood Not to Be Eaten, But instead Used for Tamid Sacrifices (connection to Exod. 29:38–42 and Num. 28:3–8). 6:17–22, The Festival of Shavuot. 6:23–38, The 364-Day Calendar. 13:25–27, Law of the Tithe. 14:20b, Abraham Kept Shevuot (connected to “The Festival of Shavuot” above). 15:25–34, Addition to the Laws of Circumcision. 16:3–4, Isaac’s Name Was Already Written in Heavenly Tablets. 16:9, Lot Condemned. 16:28–31, Supplement to Festival of Booths Laws. 18:18–19, The Binding of Isaac took Place on Passover. 19:8–9, Abraham’s Tenth Trial. 23:32, Moses’s Predictions Recapitulate the Heavenly Tablets. 24:33, Isaac’s Curse of Philistines Recapitulates the Heavenly Tablets. 28:6b–7, Wrong to Marry the Younger Daughter First. 30:8–17, Prohibition of Intermarriage Operates in Both Directions. 30:18–23, God’s Friends and Enemies. 31:31–32, Isaac’s Blessing Written on the Heavenly Tablets. 32:9c–15, Law of the Second Tithe. 32:27b–29, The Eighth Day of Assembly. 33:10–20 ,Why Reuben and Bilhah Were Not Killed. 41:23–26, Why Judah and Tamar Were Not Killed. 49:2–17, Laws of Passover Sacrifice. 49:22–23, Laws of Unleavened Bread. Suggested Reading Doran, R. “The Non-Dating of Jubilees: Jub. 34–38; 23:14–32 in Narrative Context.” JSJ 20 (1989): 1–11. Kister, M. “Observations on Aspects of Exegesis, Tradition, and Theology in Midrash, Pseudepigrapha, and Other Jewish Writings.” In Tracing the Threads: Studies in the Vitality of Jewish Pseudepigrapha, edited by J. C. Reeves, 1–34. SBL EJL 6. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994,. Kugel, J. Traditions of the Bible. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998. —. A Walk through Jubilees. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Najman, H. Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism. SJSOT 77. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Segal, M. The Book of Jubilees: Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology and Theology. Leiden: Brill, 2007. VanderKam, J. C. Textual and Historical Studies in the Book of Jubilees. HSM 14. Missoula mt: Scholars Press, 1977. —. The Book of Jubilees: A Critical Text. CSCO 510; Scriptores Aethiopici 87. Louvain: E. Peeters, 1989.

Jubilees 281

—. The Book of Jubilees (Translation). CSCO 511; Scriptores Aethiopici 88. Louvain: E. Peeters, 1989. Werman, C. “The Rules of Consuming and Covering the Blood in Priestly and Rabbinic Law,” RevQ 16 (1995): 621–36.

Translation: The Book of Division Title

This is The Account of the Division of Days of the Law and the Testimony for Annual Observance according to their Weeks (of years) and their Jubilees throughout all the Years of the World just as the Lord told it to Moses on Mount Sinai when he went up to receive the tablets of the Law and the commandment by the word of the Lord, as He said to him, “Come up to the top of the mountain.”

Commentary of the Divisions of Days This phrase (better: of the divisions of the times; Heb. mahlekot ha-ittim) in Jubilees means a chronological history, that is, a history in which important events are accompanied by the date of their occurrence in anno mundi (i.e., calculated from the time of the Creation). of the Law and the Testimony That is, based on two sacred books, the Law (the Torah) and the (book of) Testimony (the te‘udah). The phrase “the Torah and the te‘udah” refers here to two sacred texts whose contents form the basis of this chronological history; see introductory comments as well as below on verse 4. for Annual Observance Better: “of the events of the years”; that is, it relates events dated by the years in which they took place. their Weeks [of years] and their Jubilees throughout all the Years of the World17 “Their weeks” refers to the groupings of 7 years in which they took place and “their Jubilees” to groups of 49 years, significant units. “Throughout all the years of the world” is better rendered as “throughout all the days of yore.” To reword the title thus far: “This book is a chronological history, based on the Torah and the Te‘udah, of certain events, dated by their years, as well as by their ‘weeks’ and their jubilees, throughout all the days of yore.” The earliest reference to the title of this book is found in the Damascus Document (col. 16:3–4) of the Dead Sea Scrolls community, where it appears in shorter form: “The Book of the Divisions of Times according to their Jubilees and in their ‘Weeks.’ “ just as the Lord told it to Moses18 on Mount Sinai when he went up to receive the tablets of the Law and the commandment “Law” refers to “Torah.” The operating fiction of Jubilees is that God first gave Moses the Torah on Mount Sinai and then had the “angel of the Presence,” His chief angel, dictate the contents of Jubilees to Moses. For that reason, the phrase “when he went up to receive the [stone] tablets [of] the Law and the commandment” (taken from Exod. 24:1) is potentially significant; see below on 1:1. by the word of the Lord This book was related to Moses on God’s orders. Source of Translation: The translation, with minor alterations, is from O.S. Wintermute, “Jubilees [2nd century bc]: A New Translation and introduction,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth (New York: Doubleday, 1983–85), 2:35–142.

282 James L. Kugel

Moses Is Summoned to the Mountain 1:1In the first year of the Exodus of the children of Israel from Egypt, in the third month on the six-

teenth day of that month, the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Come up to Me on the mountain, and I shall give you two stone tablets of the Law and the commandment, which I have written, so that you may teach them.” 2And Moses went up to the mountain of the Lord. And the glory of the Lord dwelt upon Mount Sinai, and a cloud overshadowed it for six days. 3And He called to Moses on the seventh day from the midst of the cloud. And the appearance of the glory of the Lord was like fire burning on top of the mountain. 4And Moses was on the mountain forty days and forty nights. Moses Is Instructed to Write a Book

And the Lord revealed to him both what (was) in the beginning and what will occur (in the future), the account of the division of all of the days of the Law and the testimony. 5And he said, “Set your

1:1. In the first year of the Exodus . . . in the third month on the sixteenth day The Ten Commandments had already been proclaimed on the preceding day, the 15th;19 now God calls to Moses alone to ascend the mountain to receive further instruction for 40 days and nights (Exod. 24:12–18). Come up to Me on the mountain This is God’s summons to Moses in Exod. 24:12; the rest of this verse is cited in Jubilees’ next words: “and I shall give you two stone tablets of the Law [i.e., the Torah] and the commandment[s], which I have written, so that you may teach them.” As he did in the title sentence, the author again cites Exod. 24:12; but why this verse in particular? While other biblical verses speak of God giving the Ten Commandments to Moses (see Exod. 34:28; Deut. 4:13; and 10:4),20 the fact that Exod. 24:12 mentions “the stone tablets, the Torah, and the commandment” seems to state clearly that Moses was given many more commandments than those 10. In fact, this verse might be interpreted as implying that Moses received a body of commandments even beyond those contained in the Torah—such as the additional stipulations found in the book of Jubilees itself. Exod. 24:12 was used for a similar purpose, but still more expansively, in B. Ber. 5a: “The ‘tablets’ refers to the Ten Commandments, ‘the Torah’ to Scripture [i.e., to the Pentateuch as a whole], ‘and the commandments’ to the Mishnah, ‘which I wrote’ to the Prophets and the Writings, ‘to teach them’ to the gemara [i.e., oral teachings about the Mishnah, Torah, and other topics]—this verse [thus] teaches that all of these were given to Moses on Mount Sinai.” 1:2. for six days See Exod. 24:16. 1:4. And the Lord revealed to him both what [was] in the beginning That is, at the time of the Creation (“in the beginning” here alludes to the first words of Gen. 1:1). God had to reveal these things because no humans could know them on their own. and what will occur (in the future) Which humans also cannot know. the account of the division of all the days of the Law and the testimony In other words, the chronological history contained in this book, which includes the things narrated both in the Law (the Torah) and also in the testimony (the Te‘udah, the book of the Warning), with each incident being assigned its proper date in years, starting from the creation of the world. 1:5. Set your mind on every thing Deut. 32:46.

Jubilees 283

mind on everything which I shall tell you on this mountain, and write it in a book so that their descendants might see that I have not abandoned them on account of all of the evil which they have done to instigate transgression of the covenant which I am establishing between Me and you today on Mount Sinai for their descendants. 6And thus it will be, when all of these things happen to them, that they will know that I have been more righteous than they in all their judgments and deeds. And they will know that I have truly been with them. Moses Is Told How the People Will Forsake the Lord in the Land of Promise

7“And you, write for yourself all of these words which I shall cause you to know today, for I know their rebelliousness and their stubbornness before I cause them to enter the land which I swore to their fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, saying, ‘I will give to your seed a land flowing with milk and honey.’ 8And they will eat and be satisfied, and they will turn to strange gods, to those who cannot save them

and write it in a book In Exod. 34:27 Moses is also commanded to “write these commandments,” but here Jubilees adds “in a book,” perhaps to stress that only books (like Jubilees itself) can be relied on (as opposed to the oral traditions espoused by his halakhic opponents). so that their descendants might see that I have not abandoned them Lev. 26:44; this is the author’s main purpose in writing Jubilees. He knew, of course, that long after the time of Moses the Babylonians had conquered Judah and that thereafter the Jews had remained a subject people until his own day. At the same time, he asserts, even in their sinfulness God has not abandoned them “on account of all of the evil which they have done” (in the sense of: despite all the evil). The point of Jubilees is that none of this came about because God had abandoned Israel, but because the people had strayed from the covenant, that is, because of all that the Israelites “have done to instigate transgression of the covenant.”21 1:6. I have been more righteous than they The Ethiopic text duplicates a Hebrew idiom (Gen. 38:26; Job 4:17; Ezek. 16:52) that means “I have been proven right,” sometimes in a courtroom setting, or more generally (as here), “I am right and they are wrong.” Such a divine courtroom may in fact be implied by the next words: “in all their judgments [better: in all their punishments, those meted out to Israel in the court of divine justice] and [all their] deeds.” Jubilees then goes on to explain: If Israel has suffered, this does not mean that I have abandoned them. Rather, “I have truly been with them” all the time—the connection between God and Israel began at Creation; continued throughout the patriarchal period, long before God had given Israel any laws at Mount Sinai; and continues to this day. 1:7. for I know their rebelliousness Jubilees’ author tried to write in as “biblical” a Hebrew as possible, often peppering his discourse with phrases cited from the Pentateuch and elsewhere; this tendency is particularly pronounced in the opening chapter of the book, as the author tries to establish for readers that it is really Moses who is writing. This verse is thus a patchwork of different biblical phrases: “rebelliousness and . . . stubbornness” appear together in Deut. 31:27; “to your seed” is used frequently in Genesis;22 and “to your seed” together with “a land flowing with milk and honey” are recurrent phrases in the Pentateuch; see especially Deut. 31:20. When they will eat and be satisfied Deut. 31:20; the citation continues into the next verse (1:8) with the words: “they will turn to strange [better: foreign] gods ,” likewise from Deut. 31:20.

284 James L. Kugel

from any of their affliction. And this testimony will be heard as testimony against them, 9for they will forget all of My commandments, everything which I shall command them, and they will walk after the Gentiles and after their defilement and shame. And they will serve their gods, and they will become a scandal for them and an affliction and a torment and a snare. 10And many will be destroyed and seized and will fall into the hand of the enemy because they have forsaken My ordinances and My commandments and the feasts of My covenant and My Sabbaths and My sacred place, which I sanctified for Myself among them, and My tabernacle and My sanctuary, which I sanctified for Myself in the midst of the land so that I might set My name upon it and might dwell (there). 11And they will make for themselves high places and groves and carved idols. And each of them will worship his own (idol) so as to go astray. And they will sacrifice their children to the demons and to every work of the error of their heart. The Murder of Prophets, the Captivity, and the Loss of the Cult

12“And I shall send to them witnesses so that I might witness to them, but they will not hear. And they will even kill the witnesses. And they will persecute those who search out the Law, and they will neglect

1:8. And this testimony will be heard as testimony against them This verse is a (somewhat garbled) echo of Deut. 31:21; its apparent meaning is that Jubilees will later serve as a witness, testifying that the Israelites were duly warned in advance of what will happen. This is not merely a play on the word te‘udah and its root he’id (testify), but it also refers to a cardinal principle of post-exilic jurisprudence: no one is to be punished without prior warning. Therefore, the author specifies that the words of warning dictated to Moses here—words that are apparently based on what is written in the Torah and the book of the Te‘udah—will always be around to demonstrate that the People of Israel were indeed forewarned. 1:9. for they will forget all of My commandments Despite the warning of Deut. 8:11. and they will walk after the Gentiles, and after their defilement and shame23 “Defilement” is better rendered as “their idols,” and “shame” as “their abominations” (Heb. to’evot, which is synonymous with “idols”). The people’s moral impurity is, according to Jubilees’ author, the reason for the Jews’ difficulties in his own time—despite God’s never having abandoned them. Moreover, they “will serve their gods”—the greatest of sins—“and [this] will [be . . .] a snare,” apparently mokesh, the same word used in Exod. 23:33 and Deut. 7:16. 1:10. many will be destroyed and seized and will fall into the hand of the enemy That is, the Babylonians. This is as specific as Jubilees’ author ever gets with regard to later history; cf. chapter 23 below. the feasts of my covenant This nonbiblical phrase may be alluding to the covenants God established with Israel’s ancestors and which—according to Jubilees—were the basis for such later festivals as Weeks and Booths. 1:11. high places and groves “Groves” refers to “sacred groves.” These are stereotypical sins mentioned in Scripture (Deut. 16:21; 23:25); it seems unlikely that these were a real problem in Jubilees’ day. The same is true of child sacrifice “to the demons,” a practice (mentioned in Deut. 32:7) which had likely ceased in Israel long before the time of Jubilees. 1:12. I shall send to them witnesses . . . so that I might witness to them Better: “I shall send to them prophets . . . so that I might warn them”; Heb. he’id means both to testify at a trial and to warn. Deuteronomy and later biblical books, along with Jubilees, use this verb to describe the prophet’s

Jubilees 285

everything and begin to do evil in My sight. 13And I shall hide My face from them, and I shall give them over to the power of the nations to be captive, and for plunder, and to be devoured. And I shall remove them from the midst of the land, and I shall scatter them among the nations. 14And they will forget all of My laws and all of My commandments and all of My judgments, and they will err concerning new moons, Sabbaths, festivals, jubilees, and ordinances. Repentance and Restoration

15“And afterward they will turn to Me from among the nations with all their heart and with all their soul and with all their might. And I shall gather them from the midst of all the nations. And they will seek Me so that I might be found by them. When they seek me with all their heart and with all their soul, I shall reveal to them an abundance of peace in righteousness. 16And with all My heart and with all My soul I shall transplant them as a righteous plant. And they will be a blessing and not a curse. And they will be the head and not the tail. 17And I shall build My sanctuary in their midst, and I shall dwell with them. And I shall be their God and they will be My people truly and rightly. 18And I shall not forsake them, and I shall not be alienated from them because I am the Lord their God.” Moses’s Prayer of Intercession

19And Moses fell upon his face, and he prayed and said, “O Lord, my God, do not abandon Your peofunction of warning the people;24 “but they will not hear” (cf. 2 Chron. 24:19); and “they will even kill” the prophets (cf. Neh. 9:26). 1:13. I shall hide My face from them That is, ignore their pleas: Deut. 31:17, 18. 1:14. And they will forget all of My laws As a consequence they “will err concerning new moons, Sabbaths, festivals, jubilees, and ordinances.” That is, they will not use the proper calendar endorsed by Jubilees, but will start the months at the appearance of the new moon; this will cause them to celebrate festivals on the wrong day, and miscalculate the start of the jubilee year and the larger unit of time it represents. Even the Sabbath will be desecrated because, although it is independent of the calendrical system, using the wrong calendar will ultimately cause festivals to fall on the Sabbath when they should not, leading to its desecration. 1:15. And afterward, they will turn to Me Better: “return to Me,” from the Babylonian exile—the punishment imposed because of the aforementioned violations.25 1:16. righteous plant For this phrase, see 1 En. 10:16; 93:5, 10. Israel as a “plant” is a common enough image in the Bible.26 they will be a blessing and not a curse. And they will be the head and not the tail “They” refers to “Israel.” This is a conscious evocation of the Torah’s curses that will befall Israel if it does not keep its part of the covenant: the enemy invader “will become the head and you will be the tail” (Deut. 28:44). This will indeed happen, God tells Moses here, but once Israel returns, physically and spiritually, He will restore Israel to its rightful place, “the Lord will make you the head and not the tail” (Deut. 28:13). 1:19. Moses fell upon his face Because he was distressed at this prediction of disaster. He is particularly disturbed at the thought that “the Gentiles” will rule over Israel (in the author’s own time, the Greeks and their Hellenized followers), since they will further lead Israel astray.

286

James L. Kugel

ple and Your inheritance to walk in the error of their heart. And do not deliver them into the hand of their enemy, the Gentiles, lest they rule over them and cause them to sin against You. 20“O Lord, let Your mercy be lifted up upon Your people, and create for them an upright spirit. And do not let the spirit of Beliar rule over them to accuse them before You and ensnare them from every path of righteousness so that they might be destroyed from before Your face. 21But they are Your people and Your inheritance, whom You saved by Your great might from the hand of the Egyptians. Create a pure heart and a holy spirit for them. And do not let them be ensnared by their sin henceforth and forever.” The Lord Predicts a Restoration of the People

22And the Lord said to Moses, “I know their contrariness and their thoughts and their stubbornness. And they will not obey until they acknowledge their sin and the sins of their fathers. 23But after this they will return to Me in all uprighteousness and with all of (their) heart and soul. And I shall cut off the foreskin of their heart and the foreskin of the heart of their descendants. And I shall create for them a holy spirit, and I shall purify them so that they will not turn away from following Me from that day and forever. 24And their souls will cleave to Me and to all My commandments. And they will do My commandments. And I shall be a father to them, and they will be sons to Me. 25And they will all be called ‘sons of the living God.’ And every angel and spirit will know and acknowledge that they are My sons and I am their father in uprightness and righteousness. And I shall love them. Moses Told Again to Write

26“And you write down for yourself all of the matters which I shall make known to you on this mountain: what (was) in the beginning and what (will be) at the end, what will happen in all of the divisions of the days which are in the Law and testimony and throughout their weeks (of years) according to the jubilees forever, until I shall descend and dwell with them in all the ages of eternity.”

1:20. And do not let the spirit of Beliar A wicked angel, sometimes identified with Satan. Wicked angels were, for the author of Jubilees along with other Jews of this period, a constant source of danger; they could infiltrate people’s minds, leading them astray or even driving them mad. 1:21–25. But they are Your people . . . by Your great might . . . Create a pure heart This is a further medley of biblical phrases: Deut. 9:29; Ps. 51:12; Hosea 5:5; and others.27 1:22. I know their contrariness and their thoughts and their stubbornness In telling this to Moses, God is echoing Deut. 31:27; the middle term is Jubilees’ own addition. Is it deliberately added to suggest divine knowledge of what is inside a human being, a biblical idea but one not present in the Deuteronomy verse; “until they acknowledge [i.e., confess] their sin and the sins of their fathers,” just as in Lev. 26:40. 1:23. foreskin of the heart Deut. 10:16; 30:6. 1:24. they will be sons to Me That is, they will become My children, who are Israel’s true standing: Deut. 14:1. 1:26. what (was) in the beginning See above on 1:3–4. and what (will be) at the end, what will happen A better translation is “what was in the beginning”— that is, from Creation and the time of Israel’s remote ancestors—“and what was later” (a frequent sense of aharon in biblical Heb.), presumably up to the time of Moses himself; “and what is yet to

Jubilees 287

The Angel of the Presence Is Instructed to Write the History for Moses

27And He said to the angel of the Presence, “Write for Moses from the first creation until My sanctuary is built in their midst forever and ever. 28And the Lord will appear in the sight of all. And everyone will know that I am the God of Israel and the father of all the children of Jacob and king upon Mount Zion forever and ever. And Zion and Jerusalem will be holy.” The Angel of the Presence Receives the Tablets Containing the History

29And the angel of the Presence, who went before the camp of Israel, took the tablets of the division of years from the time of the creation of the law and testimony according to their weeks (of years), according to the jubilees, year by year throughout the full number of jubilees, from [the day of creation until] the day of the new creation when the heaven and earth and all of their creatures shall be renewed according to the powers of heaven and according to the whole nature of earth, until the sanctuary of the Lord is created in Jerusalem upon Mount Zion. And all of the lights will be renewed for healing and peace and blessing for all of the elect of Israel and in order that it might be thus from that day and unto all the days of the earth.

come” in still later days, after the time of Moses, such as the catastrophe of the Babylonian exile, hinted at in Jub. 23.28 This is the chronological span of Jubilees.29 1:27–28. And he said to the angel of the Presence The “angels of the Presence” [lit. “of the Face”] are, along with the “angels of holiness,” the highest class of angels, those who are privileged to see God’s face and serve Him directly in the heavenly sanctuary, just as earthly kings allow only some of their servants to be “those who see the king’s face” (see 2 Kings 25:19; Esther 1:10, 14.; tob. 12:15). This particular angel of the Presence is apparently the angel, the one often chosen by God for special tasks, such as communicating the contents of Jubilees to Moses (see 2:1 below). Write for Moses . . . from the first creation until My sanctuary is built Better: “Dictate to” Moses,”30 from Gen. 1 through the end of Exodus. This may sound like a reference to the building of the eschatological temple, such as that mentioned in the Temple Scroll (11Q19) col. 29:3–10; the problem is that this is not, as a matter of fact, what the angel dictates to Moses (see above on 1:26). Jubilees runs only from Gen. 1 through part of the book of Exodus. Perhaps, then, the reference is simply to the completion of the Tabernacle, also called “My sanctuary” in Exod. 25:8, where God promises to “dwell in their midst.”31 1:29. And the angel of the Presence, who went before the camp of Israel Here Jubilees identifies the angel mentioned in Exod. 14:19 as none other than the angel of the Presence, later referred to by God at Mount Sinai in Exod. 33:14, “And He said, ‘My presence [lit. “My face”] will go with you [from here to Canaan], and I will give you rest.’” Jubilees interprets this as meaning that the angel of the Presence will accompany the Israelites into Canaan, but that God will remain at the “mountain of God,” namely, Mount Sinai, an offer that Moses rejects.32 from the time of the creation of the law and testimony Apparently, this phrase was garbled in the Ethiopic translation: the very fragmentary Qumran papyrus of Jubilees 4Q217 frag. 2 sheds some light on the proper wording here. In view of this fragment, the original text of Jubilees likely said that the angel of the Presence “took the tablets [which told] of the divisions of the years—according to the Torah and to the Testimony [i.e., the Book of Warning]—from the time of the Creation, [with everything divided into] the weeks of their jubilees, until the time of the new creation.”33

288

James L. Kugel

Description of Six Days of Creation 2:1And the angel of the Presence spoke to Moses by the word of the Lord, saying, “Write the whole

account of creation, that in six days the Lord God completed all his work and all that he created. And He observed a Sabbath the seventh day, and He sanctified it for all ages. And He set it (as) a sign for all his works.” 2For on the first day He created the heavens, which are above, and the earth, and the waters and all of the spirits which minister before Him: the angels of the Presence, and the angels of sanctification, and the angels of the spirit of fire, and the angels of the spirit of the winds, and the angels of the spirit of the clouds and darkness and snow and hail and frost, and the angels of resoundings and thunder and lightning, and the angels of the spirits of cold and heat and winter and springtime and harvest and summer, and all of the spirits of His creatures which are in heaven and on earth. And (He created) the abysses and darkness—both evening and night—and light—both dawn and In other words, the author is claiming that God told the angel to take the Torah and that other heavenly book, “the [Book of] the Warning,” and dictate their “divisions of the years” and the accompanying account of things to Moses, who could then write it all down; thus was born the earthly receptacle of this precious information, our present book of Jubilees. But the tablets from which the angel of the Presence was here ordered to read to Moses apparently covered far more than the contents of our present book of Jubilees. In fact, they ran up “until the day of the new creation,” an apocalyptic future time such as that described in Isa. 65:17 and 66:22, when “the heaven and earth and all their creatures shall be renewed.” The sun and moon and the planets all undergo cyclical renewal, so such a widescale renewal is actually in keeping with “the powers of heaven and according to the whole nature of earth.” (This great period of renewal would accord well with the Temple Scroll col. 29:3–10, wherein God appears to say that on some future “day of creation” or “day of blessing,” He will “[re]create My sanctuary to establish it for Myself forever.”)34 Moses was thus given to record only part of what these tablets contained. 2:1. in six days the Lord God completed all His work Jubilees thus explicitly rules out the possibility that God’s creation might have continued into the seventh day, as might seem to be implied by Gen. 2:2, “On the seventh day God finished the work.” Other Jewish sources likewise sought to eliminate any ambiguity on this score.35 God “sanctified it [the Sabbath] for all ages,” that is, it was not only the first Sabbath that was declared holy, but all others after that. and He set it (as) a sign A reference to Exod. 31:13 and 17, where the “sign” is a sign of the covenant between God and Israel mentioned in the previous verse. 2:2. and all of the spirits which minister before him These are the angels, often referred to in Second Temple times as “spirits” (ruhot). The Genesis account of Creation never mentions when the angels were created, though their existence is implied in Gen. 2:1, “And the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts,” that is, the hosts (armies) of heaven. If so, the angels must have been created at some point during the preceding six days. Jubilees opts for the first day, perhaps seeing in the phrase “the spirit of God” (Gen. 1:2) an allusion to an angel or the collec-

Jubilees 289

daylight—which He prepared in the knowledge of His heart. 3Then we saw His works and we blessed Him and offered praise before Him on account of all his works because He made seven great works on the first day. 4And on the second day He made the firmament in the midst of the water. And the waters were divided on that day. One half of them went up above, and one half of them went down beneath the firmament (which is) in the middle over the surface of all of the earth. And He made only this (one) work on the second day. 5On the third, day He did as He said to the waters, “Let them pass from the surface of the whole earth into one place, and let the dry land appear.” 6And the waters did as He said. And they turned aside from upon the surface of the earth into one place outside of this firmament. And dry land appeared. 7And on that day He created for it all of the seas in each of their gathering places, and all of the rivers, and the gathering places of the waters on the mountains and in all the earth, and all of the ponds, and all of the dew of the earth, and the seed which is sown, and everything which is eaten, and trees which bear fruit and (other) trees, and the Garden of Eden in Eden—in (the place of) luxury—and everything. These four great species the Lord made on the third day. 8And on the fourth day He made the sun and the moon and the stars. And He set them in the firmament of heaven so that they might give light upon the whole earth and rule over the day and the night and separate light and darkness. 9And the Lord set the sun as a great sign upon the earth for days, Sabtivity of angels. The angels are in charge of such things as “fire . . . winds . . . clouds . . . darkness and snow and hail and frost” (cf. 1 En. 60:12–22); “the angels of [the] resoundings” apparently refers to thunder.36 And (He created) the abysses and darkness . . . which He prepared in the knowledge of his heart Here Jubilees addresses a classic exegetical problem: how could God have created light on the first day (when He said, “Let there be light,” Gen. 1:3) if the sun, the moon, and the stars—the heavenly bodies that transmit light—were not created until the fourth day? One interpretive tradition suggested that the light created on the first day was a special light that allowed God to see all of His creation from end to end.37 By contrast, Jubilees suggests that light was created on the first day in the sense that God conceived of it then, “He prepared [it] in the knowledge of His heart,” even though He would only create the light-bearing heavenly bodies later. That would also explain how the Torah could designate the end of each of the first three days of Creation with the words “And it was evening and it was morning”; there was no actual evening or morning since the sun did not yet exist, but God had prepared the length of time that evening and morning would take “in the knowledge of His heart,” and when that time had passed, He ended each day.38 2:7. and the Garden of Eden in Eden—in (the place of) luxury Better: “in the place of luxuriating.” Was “Eden” (which can mean “luxuriating” in Hebrew) a description of the kind of garden it was, a garden of luxuriating, or was it the name of the place where the Garden was located? Scripture seems to imply both, sometimes calling it “the Garden of Eden” (Gen. 2:15; 3:23; Ezek. 36:35; etc.) and yet elsewhere speaking of “Eden” as the Garden’s location.39 Jubilees thus explains that it was a Garden of Eden, that is, a place for enjoyment, but that it was also located “in Eden.” For Jubilees, the Garden of Eden is still an earthly garden, far to the east (see 8:19–21), though later sources located it in heaven.40

290 James L. Kugel

baths, months, feast (days), years, Sabbaths of years, jubilees, and for all of the (appointed) times of the years—10and it separates the light from the darkness—and so that everything which sprouts and grows upon the earth might surely prosper. These three kinds He made on the fourth day. 11And on the fifth day He created the great sea monsters in the midst of the depths of the waters— for these were made by His hands as the first corporeal beings—and all the fish which move in the waters, and all the birds which fly, and all of their kind. 12And the sun rose above them to make them prosper and above everything which was on the earth, everything which sprouts from the earth, and every tree which bears fruit, and all flesh. These three kinds He made on the fifth day. 13And on the sixth day He made all of the beasts of the earth and all of the cattle and everything which moves upon the earth. 14And after all of this, He made man—male and female He made them— and He gave him dominion over everything which was upon the earth and which was in the seas and over everything which flies, and over beasts and cattle and everything which moves upon the earth or above the whole earth. And over all this He gave him dominion. And these four kinds He made on the sixth day. 15And the total was twenty-two kinds. 16And He completed all of His work on the sixth day, everything which is in the heavens and the earth and the seas and the depths and in the light and in the darkness and in every place. The Significance of the Sabbath

17And He gave us a great sign, the Sabbath day, so that we might work six days and observe a Sabbath from all work on the seventh day. 18And He told us—all of the angels of the Presence and all of the angels of sanctification, these two great kinds—that we might keep the Sabbath with Him in heaven and

2:9. And the Lord set the sun as a great sign upon the earth for days, Sabbaths, months, feast (days), years Genesis had said that God created the sun and the moon “to serve as signs for the set times, the days and the years” (Gen. 1:14). But this potentially implied that the moon had some role in establishing when festivals would occur, as well as in determining the length of the year. Both Jubilees’ original author and the Interpolator endorsed a calendar in which the moon had no role (see introductory comments).41 So Jubilees’ author is at pains here to stress that Gen. 1:14 actually intended to say that the sun alone would determine the “months, feast (days), [and] years”; the moon’s sole function was to shine at night. The sun’s utter supremacy, Jubilees implies, is also reflected in the fact that “everything which sprouts and grows upon the earth” does so with the help of the sun; moonlight will grow nothing. 2:11. the great sea monsters in the midst of the depths These are the first earthly creatures mentioned in the account of the Creation in Ps. 148:7, where, however, the text reads “sea monsters and watery depths.” 2:14. And after all of this, He made man—male and female He made them As Jubilees will go on to explain, the phrase “male and female” (Gen. 1:27) actually means “a female inside a male,” that is, a little female homunculus contained in Adam’s body. Note that Jubilees makes no mention of humanity being made “in His image”—this was apparently too anthropomorphic for the author. 2:15–17. the total was twenty-two kinds That is, the total number of things created in the first six days. This will be an important fact for his later claim that Israel was conceived by God already on the world’s first Sabbath.

Jubilees 291

on earth. 19And He said to us, “Behold I shall separate for Myself a people from among all the nations. And they will also keep the Sabbath. And I will sanctify them for Myself, and I will bless them. Just as I have sanctified and shall sanctify the Sabbath day for Myself thus shall I bless them. And they will be my people and I will be their God. 20And I have chosen the seed of Jacob from among all that I have seen. And I have recorded him as My firstborn son, and have sanctified him for Myself forever and ever. And I will make known to them the Sabbath day so that they might observe therein a Sabbath from all work.” 21And thus He created therein a sign by which they might keep the Sabbath with us on the seventh day, to eat and drink and bless the one who created all things just as He blessed and sanctified for Himself a people who appeared from all the nations so that they might keep the Sabbath together with us. 22And He caused their desires to go up as pleasing fragrance, which is acceptable before Him always. 23There were twenty-two chief men from Adam until Jacob, and twenty-two kinds of works were 2:18. that we might keep the Sabbath with him in heaven Here Jubilees addresses another knot of exegetical questions: If God rested on the seventh day, did He rest only on that one Sabbath, or does He continue to rest on every Sabbath down to the present day? If the latter, then who takes care of the universe on the Sabbath—who makes it rain or snow sometimes, causes the wind to blow, and so forth (all of these functions attributed directly to God elsewhere in Scripture)? Finally, if Sabbath rest is so important, why did not God command the entire world to rest, or at least all humans? The only people who seem to be ordered to rest are the people of Israel. As Jubilees explained in verse 17, “he gave us a great sign, the Sabbath day.” The Sabbath was given to “us,” the angels of the Presence and the angels of sanctification, to celebrate in heaven along with God every week. It is thus the lower classes of angels, “the angels of the spirit of the winds . . . of the clouds and darkness and snow and hail” (listed earlier, in Jub. 2:2) who keep the universe operating while God and the upper angels rest. 2:19. Behold, I shall separate for Myself a people Unique among human beings, Israel will also keep the Sabbath. It has been chosen for this privilege because, though technically human, Israel is also holy and thus altogether different from other peoples. God therefore says He will sanctify one people “just as I have sanctified . . . the Sabbath day.” The connection of the two is important: see below on 2:23. 2:20. I have chosen42 the seed of Jacob from among all that I have seen. And I have recorded him as My firstborn son “Seen” is better translated as “foreseen.” In Exod. 4:22, God is quoted as saying, “Israel is My firstborn son.” This assertion puzzled interpreters: in what sense could the People of Israel, descended from Jacob, the second son of Isaac and Rebecca, and before them from Abraham, Terah, Shem, Noah, and so forth, be called God’s “firstborn”? Jubilees’ answer is unique—and surprising. God planned the existence of Israel during the first week of Creation, long before Israel’s progenitor, Jacob, even existed; in fact, it was then that He resolved to grant Jacob’s descendants the privilege of keeping the Sabbath along with God and His top angels. In this sense, then, Israel’s “creation” goes back to the first week in history—so of course they deserve to be called God’s “firstborn”!43 2:21. to eat and drink and bless Jubilees bears witness to the tradition (not found in Scripture itself) that the Sabbath is to be a day of feasting and prayer. 2:23. There were twenty-two chief men Apart from addressing this specific problem of Israel’s being called God’s “firstborn,” this section of Jubilees has an overriding purpose, and that is to assert that God’s selection of Israel goes back not (as one might suppose) to the time of the Sinai cov-

292 James L. Kugel

made before the seventh day. The former is blessed and sanctified, and the latter is also blessed and sanctified. One was like the other with respect to sanctification and blessing. 24And it was granted to the former that they should always be the blessed and sanctified ones of the testimony and the first law just as he had sanctified and blessed Sabbath day on the seventh day. The Laws for Keeping the Sabbath

25He created heaven and earth and everything which He created in six days. And the Lord made the seventh day holy for all of His works. Therefore He commanded concerning it, “Let everyone who will do any work therein die. And also whoever defiles it let him surely die.”

enant (see Exod. 19:4–6), but way back to the first week of Creation. The author’s main argument for this claim has just been seen: since the first Sabbath occurred on the seventh day of the world’s Creation, and since only one people, Israel, was commanded to keep the Sabbath, God must already have “chosen” Israel when He instituted the first Sabbath. But Jubilees had three other arguments to solidify the connection between the Creation and God’s choice of Israel. We have already seen that God’s announcement in Exod. 4:22 that “Israel is my firstborn son” makes sense if Israel was indeed “conceived” in that first week. Moreover, there were 22 generations (“chief men”) from Adam until Jacob.” Since, according to Jubilees’ reckoning, 22 things were created in the Creation, it could be no coincidence that Jacob, the ancestor of the people of Israel, was born in the 22nd generation after Adam.44 Here was another stitch connecting Jacob’s “conception” with the Creation. Finally, when God created the Sabbath, He “blessed the seventh day and made it holy” (Gen. 2:3). It just so happened that, according to Scripture, there was something else that God “blessed” and “made holy,” and that was the people of Israel (Deut. 7:6 and 14). Here, too, the connection between the two could hardly be coincidental. Was not the Torah hinting by this as well that the choice of Israel went back to the very first Sabbath? For, just as “the former [the Sabbath] is blessed and sanctified, and [better: so] the latter [ Jacob] is also blessed and sanctified. One was like the other with respect to sanctification and blessing.” 45 In fact, a careful examination of verses 19–24 reveals how insistently the author joins the words “bless” and “sanctify” (i.e., “make holy”). They appear together twice in verse 19, again in verse 21, three times more in verse 23, and twice more in verse 24. 2:24. it was granted to the former that they should always be the blessed and sanctified ones of the testimony and the first law “The former” refers to Israel. This makes tolerably good sense; however, 4Q216 7:17 reads: “It was granted to these [ Jacob’s descendants] that they should be the blessed and holy for all times. And this is the first ‘testimony’ [te‘udah] and law [torah].” This marks the beginning of the Interpolator’s first insertion (see introductory comments). It is noteworthy that he uses the original author’s title phrase, “the Torah and the Testimony” (or here, in reverse order) to signify not the names of two sacred books (as the original author intended), but an individual law or other item written on the heavenly tablets; that is, he interprets the phrase ha-torah ve-ha-te‘udah (or its inversion, ha-te‘udah ve-ha-torah) as essentially a hendiadys (two words that are used idiomatically to designate a single thing or concept) to mean: “divinely given ruling or teaching.” The fact of the unique connection between the Sabbath and Israel is indeed the very first torah-and-te‘udah, going back to the time of the world’s creation. 2:25. Therefore He commanded concerning it Having asserted that Israel and the Sabbath are, as it were, joined at the hip, the Interpolator now makes the transition, via a paraphrase of Gen.

Jubilees 293

26And you, command the children of Israel, and let them guard this day so that they might sanctify it and not do any work therein, and not defile it because it is more holy than any day. 27And everyone who pollutes it let him surely die. And anyone who will do any work therein, let him surely die forever so that the children of Israel might guard this day throughout their generations and not be uprooted from the land because it is a holy day and a blessed day. 28And every man who guards it and keeps therein a Sabbath from all his work will be holy and blessed always like us. 29Make known and recount to the children of Israel the judgment of the day that they should keep the Sabbath thereon and not forsake it in the error of their hearts. And (make known) that it is not permitted to do work thereon which is unlawful, (it being) unseemly to do their pleasure thereon. And (make known) that they should not prepare thereon anything which will be eaten or drunk, which they have not prepared for themselves on the sixth day. And (make known that it is not lawful) to draw water or to bring in or to take out any work within their dwellings which is carried in their gates. 30And they shall not bring in or take out from house to house on that day because it is more holy and it is more blessed than any day of the jubilee of jubilees. On this day we kept the Sabbath in heaven before it was made known to any human to keep the Sabbath thereon upon the earth. 31The Creator of all blessed it, but He did not sanctify any people or nations to keep the Sabbath thereon with the sole exception of Israel. He granted to them alone that they might eat and drink and keep the Sabbath thereon upon the earth. 32And the Creator of all, who created this day for a blessing

2:1–3, to the subject that really interests him (and that was not at all included in the original author’s explanation of the Sabbath), namely, the rules for keeping the Sabbath and the punishment for their violation. Note that in paraphrasing Gen. 2:1–3, the Interpolator is careful to reassert that everything was created in six days, with no work being left over for the seventh (as one might suppose from the ambiguous wording of Gen. 2:2, “On the seventh day God finished the work”—see above on 2:1). This being the case, anyone who, unlike God, does not finish working on the sixth day, but does “any work” on the Sabbath or in some other way “defiles it” is to be punished by death. 2:26. And you, command the children of Israel “You” refers to Moses. This is one of the Interpolator’s signature phrases. In this case he details the specific prohibitions of work on the Sabbath as he knew them. These stipulations, like the 39 categories of work prohibited in Rabbinic Judaism (M. Shab. 7:2), go well beyond what the Torah itself forbids. Thus, . . . 2:29. they should not prepare thereon anything which will be eaten or drunk This is perhaps implied in the Pentateuch by the manna narrative of Exod. 16:21–30 but it is never stated as a general Sabbath prohibition; similarly, there is no Torah prohibition of drawing water. Jer. 17:21–22 prohibits “bearing a burden” on the Sabbath and “bringing [it] into the gates of Jerusalem,” as well as “taking any burden from your houses” (see also Neh. 13:19–22). The Interpolator thus states that it is unlawful to “bring in or . . . take out any work within their dwellings which is carried in their gates.” 2:30. they shall not bring in or take out from house to house on that day This specification is reminiscent of the Rabbinic prohibition of removing items from one domain to another (M. Shab. 1:1). we kept the Sabbath in heaven before it was made known to any human . . . upon the earth “We” refers to angels. The Interpolator is eager, in this case as in his other insertions, to assert that these laws and practices did not start with the great revelation of divine law at Mount Sinai or even

294 James L. Kugel

and sanctification and glory, blessed it more than all days. 33This law and testimony was given to the children of Israel as an eternal law for their generations. The Naming of Animals 3:1And in six days of the second week, by the word of the Lord, we brought to Adam all of the beasts,

and all of the cattle, and all of the birds, and everything which moves on the earth, and everything which moves in the water, each one according to its kind, and each one according to its likeness: the beasts on the first day, and cattle on the second day, and the birds on the third day, and everything which moves upon the earth on the fourth day, and whatever moves in the water on the fifth day. 2And Adam named all of them, each one according to its name, and whatever he called them became their names. 3And during these five days Adam was observing all of these, male and female according to every kind which was on the earth, but he was alone and there was none whom he found for himself, who was like himself, who would help him. The Creation of Eve

4And the Lord said to us, “It is not good that the man should be alone. Let us make for him a helper who is like him.” 5And the Lord our God cast a deep sleep upon him, and he slept. And He took one bone from the midst of his bones for the woman. And that rib was the origin of the woman from the midst of his bones. And He built up the flesh in place of it, and He constructed a woman. 6And He awakened Adam from his sleep, and when he awoke, he stood up on the sixth day. And He brought her to him and he knew her and said to her, “This is now bone of my bone and flesh from my flesh. This one will be called my wife because she was taken from her husband.” 7Therefore a man and woman shall be one. And therefore it shall be that a man will leave his father and his mother and he will join with his wife and they will become one flesh.

(as the original author liked to claim) with the deeds of Israel’s remote ancestors. Rather, they were inscribed on the heavenly tablets from the very beginning. 2:33. This law and testimony This is the Interpolator’s way of referring to an individual statute; see above on 2:24. Note that these Sabbath laws are considerably different from the Sabbath laws that appear at the very end of Jubilees (50:6–13), suggesting that the latter are a still later addition to the book.46 3:1–5. we brought to Adam all of the beasts In Gen. 2:18, God says, “It is not good for man to be alone; I will make a fitting helper for him.” God then created “all the wild beasts and the birds of the sky and brought them to the man to see what he would call them . . . but for Adam, no fitting helper was found.” This narrative scandalized the author of Jubilees, since it seemed to imply that God had first sought a mate for Adam from the animal kingdom and, only after seeing that Adam did not call any of the animals “my wife” or “woman” or something similar, decided to create a mate for Adam from his own “rib” or “side.” How could such a narrative square with the Torah’s own prohibition of bestiality (Exod. 22:18; Deut. 27:21), not to speak of Jubilees’ repeated warnings against “all impurity and fornication”? The author therefore changed the order of things: First, “we [the angels] brought to Adam all of the beasts, and all of the cattle, and all of the birds . . . And Adam named all of them.” In the course of naming them, Adam noticed that all the beasts

Jubilees 295

The Laws of Purification after Childbirth

8in the first week Adam was created and also the rib, his wife. And in the second week He showed her to him. And therefore the commandment was given to observe seven days for a male, but for a female twice seven days in their impurity. 9And after forty days were completed for Adam in the land where he was created, we brought him into the Garden of Eden so that he might work it and guard it. And on the 80th day his wife was also brought in. And after this she entered the Garden of Eden. 10And therefore the command was written in the heavenly tablets for one who bears, “If she bears a male, she shall remain seven days in her impurity like the first seven days. And thirty-three days she shall remain in the blood of her purity. And she shall not touch anything holy. And she shall not enter the sanctuary until she has completed these days which are in accord with (the rule for) a male (child). 11And that which is in accord with (the rule for) a female is two weeks—like the two first weeks—in her impurity. And sixty-six days she shall remain in the blood of her purity. And their total will be eighty days.” 12And when she finished those eighty days, we brought her into the Garden of Eden because it is more holy than any land. And every tree which is planted in it is holy. 13Therefore the ordinances of these days were ordained for anyone who bears a male or female that she might not touch anything came in pairs, “male and female according to47 every kind [i.e., species] . . . but he was alone and there was none whom he found for himself, who was like himself, who would help him.” Only then (v. 4) did God say, “It is not good that the man should be alone. Let us make for him a helper who is like him” and Eve was shaped “from the midst of his bones.” 3:8. in the first week Adam was created and also the rib, his wife The biblical narrative states that the first humans were made on the sixth day of Creation (Gen. 1:27). After that came the first Sabbath, and only after that comes the narrative of Adam and Eve (Gen. 2–3). But who were those first humans created in Gen. 1:27? One possibility is to see Gen. 2–3 as a “flashback,” detailing how those first humans in Gen. 1:27 had been created. The author of Jubilees follows this course, but only in part. Adam and Eve were both created in the first week, he says, but Eve’s creation actually occurred in two stages. At first, Eve was just “the rib,” a kind of little humanoid inside of Adam. That is why Gen. 1:27 could say that “male and female He created them” when referring to the creation of Adam—the female was still inside the male. It was only “in the second week,” Jubilees asserts, that God took this female “rib” out and shaped her into a fit mate for Adam; then “He showed her to him.” Jubilees stresses that Eve’s final emergence took place on the sixth day of the second week, fully seven days after Adam’s emergence (v. 6). The reason is that the author had thought of a clever way to support his own particular scenario for Eve’s creation. He cited a certain law in Lev. 12:1–5 concerning a woman who gives birth. That law is somewhat puzzling, since it states that if a woman gives birth to a son, “she shall be impure for seven days,” but if she gives birth to daughter, her period of impurity is 14 days. Why this difference? Jubilees’ answer is that this difference reflects the fact that Adam was created at the end of the first week, whereas Eve was not created (fully) until the end of the second week—hence, one week of impurity for a boy, two weeks for a girl. This law, he sought to claim, backed up his own understanding of the different amounts of time it took for Adam and Eve to be created. 3:9–14. after forty days were completed Reading the foregoing section of Jubilees, the Interpolator felt that something was missing. After all, the same law in Lev. 12:2–5 has a further stipulation: although the mother’s impurity lasts either 7 or 14 days, depending on the sex of the baby, she

296 James L. Kugel

holy and she might not enter the sanctuary until these days are completed for a male or female. 14This is the law and testimony which is written for Israel so that they might keep it always. The First Seven Years in Eden

15And during the first week of the first jubilee Adam and his wife had been in the Garden of Eden for seven years tilling and guarding it. And we gave him work and we were teaching him to do everything which was appropriate for tilling. 16And he was tilling. And he was naked, but he neither knew it nor was he ashamed. And he was guarding the Garden from the birds and beasts and cattle and gathering its fruit and eating. And he used to set aside the rest for himself and his wife. And what was being guarded he set aside. must wait an additional period—33 more days for a male, and 66 more for a female—before being able to enter the Temple. He therefore added two new “facts” not found in Genesis: (1) that the Garden of Eden was like a temple, indeed, it is “more holy than any land” since “every tree which is planted in it is holy” (v. 12)48 and (2) that Adam and Eve waited different periods of time before being able to enter the Garden (vv. 9 and 12). He then restated the Leviticus law, adding what he believed the original author had left out (starting in 3:10, “And therefore [i.e., in keeping with this,] the command was written in the heavenly tablets).” Of course the Genesis story says nothing about Adam or Eve waiting any period of time before entering Eden. But the Interpolator noticed that, according to the biblical account, neither Adam nor Eve was created within the Garden of Eden itself: God apparently created Adam somewhere else and then, only afterward, “placed” him in the Garden (Gen. 2:8, 15). Likewise, only after Eve’s creation did God “[bring] her to the man” (Gen. 2:22). If so, the Interpolator concluded, Adam and Eve must have waited their 40 and 80 days respectively somewhere outside the Garden.49 In so stating, however, the Interpolator seems to have lost the drift of the original author’s argument: Adam was created in the first week, Eve in the second; this explains the otherwise irrational distinction between the periods of impurity for a boy and for a girl in Lev. 12:2–5. But this explanation in no way implies that Adam and Eve were themselves impure at the time of their creation—how could they be? They were not born at all; God Himself created them as adult human beings. Surely He did not impart any impurity to them! But the Interpolator apparently missed the original author’s meaning. If Jubilees said that Adam and Eve were somehow connected to the law of impurity after childbirth, then it must have been that they themselves were impure; that is why the Interpolator said that they had to wait 40 and 80 days respectively before entering Eden. (Eve did not have to wait those 80 days by analogy; she had to wait, the Interpolator explains, because the Garden of Eden was like God’s temple, and an impure person could never be allowed in such a place.) But in so saying, he created an absurdity. Not only was it absurd to think that God had somehow imparted impurity to Adam and Eve, but the original law in Lev. 12:2–5 in any case says nothing about the impurity of the child, only about the impurity of the mother.50 3:14. This is the law and testimony That is, the Torah-and-te‘udah, used by the Interpolator to mean an individual ruling or teaching. 3:15–16. And during the first week of the first jubilee “Week” here should really be translated as “seventh,” the seven-year unit that constitutes one-seventh of a jubilee (49 years). Jubilees then explains what was involved in God’s placing Adam in the Garden “to plow it and guard it” (Gen. 2:15), namely, doing “everything which was appropriate for tilling” as well as “guarding the Gar-

Jubilees 297

The Fall

17At the end of seven years which he completed there, seven years exactly, in the second month on the seventeenth day, the serpent came and drew near to the woman. And the serpent said to the woman, “The Lord commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from any tree which is in the Garden.’” 18And she said to him, “The Lord said, ‘Eat from all of the fruit of the trees which are in the Garden.’ But the Lord said to us, ‘You shall not eat from the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the Garden, and you shall not touch it lest you die.’” 19And the serpent said to the woman, “It is not (true) that you shall surely die because the Lord knows that on the day you eat of it your eyes will become opened and you will become like gods, and you will know good and evil.” 20And the woman saw the tree that it was pleasant and it was pleasing to the eye and its fruit was good to eat and she took some of it and she ate. 21And she first covered her shame with a fig leaf, and then she gave it to Adam and he ate and his eyes were opened and he saw that he was naked. 22And he took a fig leaf and sewed it and made an apron for himself. And he covered his shame. 23And the Lord cursed the serpent and He was angry with it forever. And He was angry with the woman also because she had listened to the voice of the serpent and had eaten. And He said to her, 24“I will surely multiply your grief and your birth pangs. Bear children in grief. And to your husband is your return and he will rule over you.” 25And to Adam He said, “Because you listened to the voice of your wife and you ate from that tree from which I commanded you that you should not eat, the land shall be cursed because of you. Thorns and thistles shall sprout up for you. And eat your bread in the sweat of your face until you return to the earth from which you were taken because you are earth and to the earth you will return.” Expulsion-Day Sacrifice and the Law of Covering Shame

26And He made for them garments of skin and He dressed them and sent them from the Garden of den from the birds and beasts and cattle.” In addition, Jubilees says that Adam was “gathering its fruit and eating [it]” and “he used to set aside the rest for himself and his wife.” In saying this, the author seeks to add another explanation of the somewhat surprising mention of “guarding” in Gen. 2:15: it refers to both guarding the Garden from birds and animals and storing (another sense of Heb. shamar, “guard”) the fruit already harvested. 3:17. in the second month on the seventeenth day An ill-starred date, the same day on which the floodwaters began to fall (Gen. 7:11). 3:20. the woman saw the tree that it was . . . pleasing to the eye and its fruit was good to eat in Gen. 3:6 Eve (“the woman”) saw that the tree “was good for eating and a delight to the eyes.” The order seemed illogical to the author of Jubilees—the fruit ought to have appealed first to her eye, and only after that should she have guessed that it tasted good as well. So the author of Jubilees changed the order.51 He also had Eve cover herself with a fig leaf before approaching Adam (contra Gen. 3:6–7), apparently to avoid any implication of immodesty. 3:24. And to your husband is your return Jubilees, in common with other Second Temple period sources, renders MT’s “your urge” (teshukah) as “your return” (teshuvah), which may reflect a textual variant or possibly a different understanding of the former word.52

298 James L. Kugel

Eden. 27And on that day when Adam went out from the Garden of Eden, he offered a sweet-smelling sacrifice—frankincense, galbanum, stacte, and spices—in the morning with the rising of the sun from the day he covered his shame. 28On that day the mouth of all the beasts and cattle and birds and whatever walked or moved was stopped from speaking because all of them used to speak with one another with one speech and one language. 29And He sent from the Garden of Eden all of the flesh which was in the Garden of Eden and all of the flesh was scattered, each one according to its kind and each one 3:27. he offered a sweet-smelling sacrifice A crucial theme for the author of Jubilees is that there had been a functioning priesthood from earliest times; this was very important because it supported his overall claim that God’s indissoluble connection to Israel went back to Israel’s earliest ancestors (and not simply to the Sinai covenant); our ancestors had always had priests serving God. The author is therefore at pains to show that Noah, Abraham, Levi, and others were in fact part of a great chain of pre-Sinai priests (kohanim). Genesis actually inspired this claim, since at several points it presents Noah (8:20), Abraham (12:8 etc.), and others as building altars and offering sacrifices on them. How far back did this chain go? It would be nice to have it start from the very beginning, that is, from Adam. But in the book of Genesis Adam is never said to have built an altar or offered a sacrifice to God—and with good reason! After all, most of the narrative of Adam and Eve is taken up with their stay in the Garden, where they are naked, while the Torah clearly states that a priest’s “nakedness may not be exposed” when he makes an offering (Exod. 20:26). Where, then, could Jubilees’ author claim to have found a hint in Genesis that Adam had functioned as a priest? The mention in Genesis that God made clothes for Adam and Eve provided this author with the necessary clue. Evidently, God must have done so not out of any love of haberdashery per se, but in order to allow Adam at last to take up his priesthood and worship Him properly. Indeed, the fact that the clothes in question were “tunics of skin” (Gen. 3:21) suggested that these were indeed priestly garments, since the Pentateuch later specifies that the priest’s clothing include a certain kind of “tunic” (Exod. 28:4, 39; etc.). frankincense, galbanum, stacte, and spices Having thus established that Adam had been properly equipped by God to become a functioning priest, Jubilees’ author put him to work. Of course, God had condemned Adam to vegetarianism (Gen. 3:18), so the sacrifice he offered could not be an animal but only incense. Here, Jubilees’ author clearly evokes later priestly law, whereby it is commanded to “take the herbs stacte, onycha, and galbanum, these herbs together with pure frankincense” (Exod. 30:34). Adam decides to use these spices on his own initiative; presumably, he later passes down these details to the next priest in the chain until the ingredients come to be commanded by God at Mount Sinai. The original author then concluded his account of these events by saying that they took place “in the morning with the rising of the sun from the day [i.e., from the time] he covered his shame,” thus explaining why it was only after God had given Adam his clothing that he could make this offering. 3:28. the mouth of all the beasts The beasts’ mouths were shut; there was nothing unusual about the snake having been able to speak with Eve earlier in the Garden—all animals could speak until the day of the expulsion. Cf. Creation 156; Ant. 1.41.53 3:29–31. he sent from the Garden of Eden all of the flesh “Flesh” is better rendered as “animals.” For the Interpolator, the Bible’s mention of God covering Adam’s nakedness suggested another possibility entirely. Hellenistic society may have celebrated nudity,54 but this was anathema to many Jews. The Interpolator therefore asserts that God clothed Adam because nudity in itself is

Jubilees 299

according to its family, into the place which was created for them. 30But from all the beasts and all the cattle He granted to Adam alone that he might cover his shame. 31Therefore it is commanded in the heavenly tablets to all who will know the judgment of the Law that they should cover their shame and they should not be uncovered as the Gentiles are uncovered. The End of the First Jubilee in ‘Elda

32And on the first of the fourth month Adam and his wife went out from the Garden of Eden and dwelt in the land of ‘Elda, in the land of their creation. 33And Adam named his wife Eve. 34They had no son until the first jubilee but after this he knew her. 35And he tilled the land as he had been taught in the Garden of Eden. The First Murder and the Law of Manslaughter 4:1And in the third week in the second jubilee, she bore Cain. And in the fourth she bore Abel. And in

the fifth she bore ’Awan, his daughter. 2And at the beginning of the third jubilee, Cain killed Abel because the sacrifice of Abel was accepted, but the offering of Cain was not accepted. 3And he killed him in the bad, at least for the people of Israel. He therefore asserts that it is commanded in the heavenly tablets that Jews, that is, “all who will know the judgment of the Law [better: all those who will know the law of the Torah], . . . cover their shame and . . . not be uncovered as the Gentiles are,” that is, the Greeks. Thus, while both the original author and the Interpolator sought to derive some legal teaching from Gen. 3:21, it is only the original author who sought here to connect this verse to a law given later in the Pentateuch, namely, that of the “tunics” and incense associated with the priests (Exod. 28:4, 39; etc.; 30:34). By contrast, the Interpolator connects Gen. 3:21 to a law not written anywhere in the Pentateuch: that all Jews, not just priests, are required to “cover their shame” at all times.55 Therefore it is commanded in the heavenly tablets The Interpolator frequently asserts that “For this reason [presumably al ken]” some law was written in the heavenly tablets. He does not mean by this that the law was written in the tablets as a result of a particular historical incident (in this case: God did not first decide to permit “Adam alone” to cover his shame and then, as a consequence, turned the avoidance of public nudity into a commandment on the heavenly tablets). Rather, the laws written on the heavenly tablets are God’s timeless and eternal ordinances. The Heb. phrase might thus be better understood as “That is why it was [or “is”] commanded,” or perhaps “in keeping with this it was [or “is”] commanded.”56 3:32. the land of Elda An otherwise unknown place. 4:1. she bore Awan, his daughter If in Genesis Adam and Eve had only sons (Cain, Abel, and Seth), how did the human race perpetuate itself? Jubilees, in common with other Second Temple sources, stipulates that at least one female was born to Adam, “Awan, his daughter”: later (Jub. 4:8), Azura is born.57 4:2. Cain killed Abel The story of Cain was problematic for the author of Jubilees on several counts,58 and he might have skipped it entirely. If he did not, it was principally because of the biblical story’s mention of Abel’s “blood” crying out “from the earth to heaven.” Blood—human and animal—is a major theme in the book, so the author stressed that Cain was punished “because of the blood of his brother.”

300 James L. Kugel

field, and his blood cried out from the earth to heaven, making accusation because he killed him. And the Lord rebuked Cain on account of Abel because he killed him. And He made him a fugitive on the earth because of the blood of his brother. And He cursed him upon the earth. 4And therefore it is written in the heavenly tablets, “Cursed is one who strikes his fellow with malice. And all who have seen and heard shall say ‘so be it.’ 5And the man who saw and did not report (it) shall be cursed like him.” 6Therefore when we come before the Lord our God we will make known all of the sins which occur in heaven and earth and which are in the light or in the darkness or in any (place). The Descendants of Adam

7And Adam and his wife were mourning four weeks of years on account of Abel. And in the fourth year of the fifth week they rejoiced. And Adam again knew his wife and she bore a son for him. And he named him Seth because he said, “The Lord has raised up another seed for us upon the earth in place of Abel because Cain killed him.” 8And in the sixth week he begat ‘Azūra, his daughter. 9And Cain took his sister, ’Awan, as a wife, and she bore for him Enoch at the end of the fourth jubilee. And in the first year of the first week of the fifth jubilee, buildings were constructed in the land. 4:4. And therefore it is written in the heavenly tablets See above on 3:31. Another of the Interpolator’s insertions begins here. As he often did, he saw in this narrative a chance to assert that an incident in Genesis reflects something that had been written in the eternal laws of the heavenly tablets and that was later to be promulgated by Moses in the Pentateuch. As for which eternal law was foreshadowed in the narrative of Cain and Abel, the Interpolator could have fixed on the obvious choice, “You shall not murder” (Exod. 20:13). But since Gen. 4:11 said that, as a result of this murder, Cain was “cursed,” this suggested to the Interpolator a connection to a verse that appears in Deuteronomy, “Cursed is one who strikes down his fellow with malice” (Deut. 27:24). Cain’s being cursed by God could thus be seen as a reflection in Genesis of this divine pronouncement. Although this verse in Deuteronomy concludes, “And all the people shall say Amen,” the Interpolator rephrased this as “And all who have seen and heard shall say ‘so be it’ [i.e., Amen].” This allowed him to slide into another topic. A certain law in Leviticus prohibits someone who “has heard a public adjuration [literally, a public “curse”]”—presumably as in Deut. 27:24—from refusing to testify in a case covered by that adjuration, since he is “one who has seen or heard or [otherwise] knows” about the case and therefore ought to testify (Lev. 5:1). On the basis of this law, the Interpolator then adds: “And the man who saw and did not report (it) shall be cursed like him [Cain].” In this way, the Interpolator managed to connect Cain’s murder of Abel with two later laws, Deut. 27:24 and Lev. 5:1.59 4:6. Therefore . . . we will make known all of the sins This verse reflects the Hebrew text of Deut. 27:24, “Cursed is one who strikes down his fellow in secret.”60 If it was done in secret, how can the offender be known? Indeed, how does God find out about all the misdeeds of humans taking place simultaneously in different parts of the world? It was the job of the angels, His servants (along with the heavenly Enoch), to report on what they had observed in the course of their daily rounds. 4:9. buildings were constructed in the land Jubilees apparently infers from the fact that Cain’s son Enoch “became a city-builder” (Gen. 4:17) that until that time, there were no fixed dwellings— after all, Cain had been a nomad (Gen. 4:12).

Jubilees 301

And Cain built a city and he named it with the name of his son, Enoch. 10And Adam knew Eve, his wife, and she bore nine more children. 11And in the fifth week of the fifth jubilee, Seth took ‘Azūra, his sister, as a wife. And in the fourth year of that week, she bore for him Enosh. 12He was first to call the name of the Lord upon the earth. 13And in the seventh jubilee in the third week, Enosh took Noam, his sister, as a wife. And she bore a son for him in the third year of the fifth week. And he named him Kenān. 14And at the end of the eighth jubilee, Kenān took for himself a wife, Mu’aleleth, his sister, (as) a wife. And she bore a son for him in the ninth jubilee in the first week in the third year of that (week). And he called him Mahalalel. 15And in the second week of the tenth jubilee, Mahalalel took for himself a wife, Dinah, the daughter of Baraki’el, the daughter of his father’s brother, as a wife. And she bore a son for him in the third week in the sixth year. And he called him Jared because in his days the angels of the Lord, who were called Watchers, came down to the earth in order to teach the sons of man, and perform judgment and uprightness upon the earth. The Birth and Work of Enoch

16And in the eleventh jubilee Jared took for himself a wife and her name was Baraka, the daughter of Rasuyal, the daughter of his father’s brother, as a wife, in the fourth week of that jubilee. And she bore a son for him in the fifth week, in the fourth year of the jubilee. And he called him Enoch. 17This one was the first who learned writing and knowledge and wisdom, from (among) the sons of men, from (among) those who were born upon earth. And he wrote in a book the signs of the heaven 4:10. she bore nine more children “She” refers to Eve. Although this is not mentioned in Genesis, Adam and Eve’s additional children do figure elsewhere in writings of the Second Temple period: according to L.A.B. 1:2, they had “twelve sons and eight daughters” after the birth of Seth. 4:11. She bore for him Enosh in the generations following Seth, Enosh and Kenan were born. Their unnamed wives are given names in Jubilees, Noam and Mu’aleleth; the author often supplies names for people (especially women) who are anonymous in Genesis. Marrying one’s sister, as Enosh did, was apparently deemed an unavoidable practice in the first generations of humanity.61 4:15. he called him Jared because in his days the angels of the Lord, who were called Watchers, came down to the earth The author connects Jared’s name with the common verb for “descend” (yarad); cf. 1 En. 6:6 and many later sources. The angels who descended are the “sons of God” who “saw how beautiful the daughters of men were” in Gen. 6:1–2. In the Second Temple period, they were called irin in Aram. (1 En. 1:5; cf. Dan. 4:14). The origin and meaning of the term is unclear; interpreters apparently associated the name with the Aram. and Heb. root ‘-i-r, “awake,” perhaps because angels tirelessly perform their tasks without sleeping.62 to teach the sons of man, and perform judgment and uprightness upon the earth “To . . . perform judgment and uprightness” is better rendered as “to do what is just and upright.” According to the author of Jubilees, the Watchers’ original motives were good; it was only later that things went amiss. 4:17. This one was the first who learned writing and knowledge and wisdom “This one” refers to Enoch. Mentioned in passing in Gen. 5:18–24, he became the subject of much speculation in Second Temple times. Because of the phrase “for God had taken him,” this biblical passage suggested to some that Enoch had ascended to heaven while yet alive,63 where he continued to live

302 James L. Kugel

according to the order of their months, so that the sons of man might know the (appointed) times of the years according to their order, with respect to each of their months. 18This one was the first (who) wrote a testimony and testified to the children of men throughout the generations of the earth. And their weeks according to jubilees he recounted; and the days of the years he made known. And the months he set in order, and the Sabbaths of the years he recounted, just as we made it known to him. 19And he saw what was and what will be in a vision of his sleep as it will happen among the children of men in their generations until the day of judgment. He saw and knew everything and wrote his testimony and deposited the testimony upon the earth against all the children of men and their generations. 20And in the twelfth jubilee in its seventh week, he took for himself a wife and her name was ‘Edni, the daughter of Dan’el, his father’s brother, as a wife, and in the sixth year of this week she bore a son for him. And he called him Methuselah. eternally next to God’s heavenly throne. As a result of this tradition, a number of books containing Mesopotamian science and lore were attributed to Enoch’s authorship (as a resident of heaven, he must have been privy to many secrets hidden from ordinary humans’ eyes), including the various parts of our current 1 Enoch. Enoch is thus said here to have written “in a book the signs of the heavens according to the order [i.e., the patterns] of their months,” and the “book” in question would seem to be some version of what is now 1 En. 72–82; the author of Jubilees clearly knew some of the literature attributed to Enoch and viewed it as authoritative. Writing this book, according to the author of Jubilees, enabled Enoch to tell human beings “the (appointed) times of the years according to their order”—that is, equipped with this knowledge, people would know the proper time to celebrate festivals and the like. 4:18. This one was the first (who) wrote a testimony and testified to the children of men throughout the generations That is, “Enoch was the first to write a te‘udah [warning] in which he warned the children of men.” This may be a reference to the moral adjurations and visions of the future in the literature attributed to Enoch. Furthermore, he made known “their weeks according to jubilees,” that is, presumably, how the passage of time is reckoned through these 49-year periods and their 7-year subunits; and he also made known “the days of the years,” that is, how many days there are in a solar and a lunar year (see 1 En. 72–74). He also arranged “the months” and related “the Sabbaths of the years,” that is, the sabbatical years. 4:19. he saw what was and what will be Enoch had a vision of the future and subsequently “wrote his testimony [apparently a te‘udah, a warning] and deposited the testimony upon the earth” to testify “against all the children of men,” bearing witness to the fact that they had been properly warned. This seems to be a reference to material now contained in 1 Enoch (i.e., an earlier form of 1 En. 85–90 and/or the Apocalypse of Weeks 93:1–10; 91:11–17), which also divides time into “weeks of years.” The former section is an allegorical vision of all human history, from Adam and Eve to the great time of judgment and the dawn of a new age, while the Apocalypse of Weeks section divides history into 10 periods of “sevens,” culminating in the arrival of a “new heaven” and “many weeks [i.e., “sevens”] without number forever.” It is possible that this writing of Enoch might be none other than the book of the Te‘udah referred to by Jubilees’ author (see the introductory comments and above on Jub. 1:4, 27, 29). If so, the fact that Enoch deposited this warning on earth would explain how it got down here and circulated until Isaiah was ordered to bind it up (Isa. 8:16).

Jubilees 303

21And he was therefore with the angels of God six jubilees of years. And they showed him everything which is on earth and in the heavens, the dominion of the sun. And he wrote everything, 22and bore witness to the Watchers, the ones who sinned with the daughters of men because they began to mingle themselves with the daughters of men so that they might be polluted. And Enoch bore witness against all of them. 23And he was taken from among the children of men, and we led him to the Garden of Eden for greatness and honor. And behold, he is there writing condemnation and judgment of the world, and all of the evils of the children of men. 24And because of him none of the water of the Flood came upon the whole land of Eden, for he was put there for a sign and so that he might bear witness against all of the children of men so that he might relate all of the deeds of the generations until the day of judgment. 25And he offered the incense which is acceptable before the Lord in the evening (at) the holy place on Mount Qater. 26For the Lord has four (sacred) places upon the earth: the Garden of Eden and the mountain of the East and this mountain which you are upon today, Mount Sinai, and Mount Zion, which will be sanctified in the new creation for the sanctification of the earth. On account of this the earth will be sanctified from all sin and from pollution throughout eternal generations. The Generations from Enoch to Noah

27And in the fourteenth jubilee Methuselah took as his wife ‘Edna, daughter of ‘Azri’al, his father’s brother, as a wife, in the third week in the first year of that week. And he begot a son. And he called him Lamech. 4:21. they showed him everything which is on earth and in the heavens, the dominion of the sun Since Enoch was in heaven, the angels could teach him directly about heavenly things, including the sun’s exclusive role in determining the length of “days, Sabbaths, months, festivals, years” and so forth (2:9). 4:25. he offered the incense Since Eden was itself like the Temple (see above on 3:9–14), it was thus only fitting that Enoch—who, like Adam, was a priest—should offer sacrifices to God. He offered incense “of the holy place” (better: of the sanctuary, i.e., the incense later to be offered in the Jerusalem Temple) with the correct mixture of spices that can only be offered in a proper sanctuary (Exod. 30:32, 34–37)—at its appropriate time, the evening (Exod. 30:8). on Mount Qater The text is not altogether clear here, and the place of Enoch’s offering may have been called “the mountain of incense” (har ha-ketoret). This same mountain’s geographic location seems to be glossed in the next verse as “the mountain of the East,” in apposition to the Garden of Eden, which precedes it, that is, “the Garden of Eden which is the mountain of the East.” This would accord well with the tradition that located Eden on earth, but atop some high mountain somewhere to the east.64 But in the course of Jubilees’ transmission, the apposition “the Garden of Eden, the mountain of the East” apparently came to be misunderstood as referring to two earthly sanctuaries instead of one. This would explain the contradiction between the assertion here that there are “four sacred places on earth,” that is, four proper sanctuaries, and Jub. 8:19, where it is said that there are only three: Eden, Sinai, and Zion. In truth, there always were only these three, each located on a mountaintop, with Eden’s mountain being “the mountain of the East.” Jubilees specifically mentions that Mount Zion will be sanctified in the new creation for the sanctification of the earth. This may be the same “new creation” referred to in Jub. 1:29 or may simply refer to the creation of this third and “new” sanctuary in the time of King Solomon.65

304 James L. Kugel

28And in the fifteenth jubilee in the third week, Lamech took for himself a wife, and her name was Betenos, the daughter of Baraki’il, the daughter of his father’s brother, (as) a wife. And in that week she bore a son for him and he called him Noah, saying, “This one will console me from my grief and from all of my labor and from the land which the Lord cursed.” The Death of Adam

29And at the end of the nineteenth jubilee in the seventh week, in the sixth year, Adam died. And all of his children buried him in the land of his creation. And he was the first who was buried in the earth. 30And he lacked seventy years from one thousand years, for a thousand years are like one day in the testimony of heaven and therefore it was written concerning the tree of knowledge, “in the day you eat from it you will die.” Therefore he did not complete the years of this day because he died in it. Abel Avenged—Law of Retaliation

31At the end of that jubilee Cain was killed, one year after him. And his house fell upon him, and he died in the midst of his house. And he was killed by its stones because he killed Abel with a stone, and with a stone he was killed by righteous judgment. 32Therefore it is ordained in the heavenly tablets: “With the weapons with which a man kills his fellow he shall be killed just as he wounded him, thus shall they do to him.” 4:28. Lamech took for himself a wife, and her name was Betenos Betenos(h), who is mentioned as well in the Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen 2:2), a text apparently dependent on Jubilees. This one will console me Gen. 5:29. 4:30. he lacked seventy years from one thousand years God had warned Adam about the Tree of Knowing Good and Evil that “on the day that you eat of it, you will die” (Gen. 2:17). Yet Adam went on to live to the age of 930 (Gen. 5:5). Was God lying? Jubilees explains that “a thousand years are like one day in the testimony [better: fixed time] of heaven”66 (an assertion based on Ps. 90:4, “For in Your sight a thousand years are like yesterday”). If so, God was referring to the unit of time that He calls a “day,” namely, 1,000 years. If Adam lived to the age of 930, then he must have passed away sometime in the late afternoon of one of God’s days.67 4:31–32. Cain was killed one year after him The book of Genesis does not report how Cain died; the original author of Jubilees similarly skipped the subject. As far as he was concerned, Cain’s story ended with his being cursed and exiled (above, on 4:1–4), since that was, after all, the punishment decreed by God in Gen. 4:12. But the absence of any account of Cain’s death in the Bible gave rise to a number of exegetical creations.68 The Interpolator saw here another fine opportunity to connect something from Genesis with a law that appears later on in the Torah (and thus to assert that the law had always existed on the heavenly tablets). Lev. 24:19–20 reads: “If anyone maims his fellow, as he has done so shall it be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has inflicted harm on a person, so shall it be inflicted on him.” The Interpolator apparently understood the two (somewhat repetitive) halves of this verse in two different senses: “as he has done” refers to the kind of harm inflicted (fracture, loss of an eye or a tooth, etc.), whereas “As he has inflicted harm” refers to the means by which the harm was in-

Jubilees 305

The Birth of Noah’s Sons

33And in the twenty-fifth jubilee Noah took a wife for himself and her name was ’Emzara, daughter of Rake’el, daughter of his father’s brother, as a wife, in the first year, in the fifth week. And in its third year she bore for him Shem. And in its fifth year she bore for him Ham. And in the first year of the sixth week she bore for him Japheth. Corruption of All Flesh When Angels Mate with Humans 5:1And when the children of men began to multiply on the surface of the earth and daughters were born

to them, the angels of the Lord saw in a certain year of that jubilee that they were good to look at. And they took wives for themselves from all of those whom they chose. And they bore children for them; and they were the giants. 2And injustice increased upon the earth, and all flesh corrupted its way; man and cattle and beasts and birds and everything which walks on the earth. And they all corrupted their way and their ordinances, and they began to eat one another. And injustice grew upon the earth and every imagination of the thoughts of all mankind was thus continually evil. The Punishment of Angels and Annihilation of Their Offspring

3And the Lord saw the earth, and behold it was corrupted and all flesh had corrupted its order and all who were on the earth had done every sort of evil in his sight. 4And He said, “I will wipe out man and all flesh which I have created from upon the surface of the earth.” 5But Noah alone found favor in the sight of the Lord. flicted. Cain’s invented death through the collapse of his house upholds both halves of the verse: “Cain was killed” as punishment for Abel’s murder, and he was killed specifically by his house’s stones because “he [had] killed Abel with a stone.” 4:33. she bore for him Shem The birth order of Noah’s sons is not clear from Genesis. Genesis 6:9 and 9:18 imply that Shem was the oldest. However, Gen. 10:21 is ambiguous; it could be understood as saying that Shem was either “the older brother of Japhet” or “the brother of Japhet, the oldest.” The latter reading would be strengthened by Gen. 10, in which Noah’s descendants are listed in the order: Japhet, Ham, and Shem. Nonetheless, Jubilees here asserts that Shem was the oldest brother; cf. Gen. Ap 12:10, “[to Shem,] my eldest son”; also Vulg.; B. Sanh. 69b. 5:1. daughters were born to them In common with other Second Temple period sources, Jubilees assumes that the proximate cause of the Flood was the mating of the “sons of God” with the daughters of men in Gen. 6:1–4. These “sons of God” are, for Jubilees and other interpreters, the angels of the Lord. The offspring born of their union with humans were held to be giants.69 5:2–3. injustice increased upon the earth Jubilees inherited a mass of traditions about the causes of the Flood, some of them apparently from 1 Enoch. Among those mentioned here is injustice (Heb. hamas in Gen. 6:11, translated as “injustice” in the LXX); this form of corruption then spread from humans to “cattle and beasts and birds and everything which walks on the earth.” Jubilees says this to explain why it was not merely the Nephilim and human beings who were wiped out by the Flood, but other living things as well; cf. 7:24. Indeed according to the biblical account God saw that the earth itself was “corrupted” (Gen. 6:11); interpreters concluded that a purifying bath— the Flood—was necessary to return the earth to its prior state (see 1 En. 7:5–6; 9:1–2; 106:17).

306 James L. Kugel

6And against his angels whom He had sent to the earth He was very angry. He commanded that they be uprooted from all their dominion. And He told us to bind them in the depths of the earth, and behold, they are bound in the midst of them, and they are isolated. 7And against their children a word went forth from before His presence so that He might smite them with the sword and remove them from under heaven. 8And He said, “My spirit will not dwell upon man forever; for they are flesh, and their days will be one hundred and ten years.” 9And He sent his sword among them so that each one might kill his fellow and they began to kill one another until they all fell on the sword and they were wiped out from the earth. 10And their parents also watched. And subsequently they were bound in the depths of the earth forever, until the day of great judgment in order for judgment to be executed upon all of those who corrupted their ways and their deeds before the Lord. 11And He wiped out every one from their places and not one of them remained whom He did not judge according to all his wickedness. 5:6. And against his angels . . . he was very angry These are the “sons of God” mentioned in Gen. 6:1. God instructs “us” (presumably the “angels of the presence,” including the narrator of the book of Jubilees) to tie them up (cf. 1 En. 10:4–8) so that they may be held indefinitely under the earth. (Being angels, they apparently could not themselves be killed.) Though not often recognized as such, this theme of binding the wicked angels actually originated as an exegetical motif, that is, a way of explaining an apparent problem in the biblical narrative: God’s promise in Gen. 9:11 never to bring another flood to destroy humankind. Why should He have promised such a thing? Surely it was not because He had decided to lower His standards and show a greater tolerance for human wickedness! Instead, it must have been because God did something— restrained the wicked angels—that would prevent humanity as a whole from going astray again. 5:7–8. And against their children That is, the Nephilim; “a word went forth from before His presence [i.e., millifnei, a less anthropomorphic way of saying “God sent forth a word”] so that He might smite them [an impersonal verb, better translated as “so that they might be smitten”]”: being only half-angels, the Nephilim could be killed, in contrast to their angelic fathers. God then explained: “My spirit will not dwell upon [i.e., in] man forever; for they are flesh.” This biblical verse (Gen. 6:3), long a mystery to interpreters,70 receives a novel interpretation in Jubilees. The author has removed it from its original context, where it seems to be a divine pronouncement about all human beings, and redefined it as a statement about the Nephilim. Such hybrid beings are, Jubilees understands, a monstrosity; therefore God says He will not allow “My spirit” (the angelic part of these hybrids) to “dwell” in the human part “forever,” but will destroy the Nephilim in “one hundred and ten [a mistake; it should be 120] years.” In common with other Second Temple period texts, Jubilees understands the 120 years of Gen. 6:3 not as a new limit to the human life span (for how would that square with the 400+ years in the lives of Noah’s sons, grandsons, great-grandsons, and so forth?), but as a sentence pronounced against the Nephilim and the other members of their generation. 5:10. until the day of great judgment This appears to be a reflection of another interpretive tradition of Gen. 6:3, which associates the Heb. yadon (“dwell” in the previously cited translation)71 with the Heb. din, “judge.” If so, then God was announcing that He would not judge the angels right away; instead they would be bound, awaiting their full punishment on the great judgment day. A somewhat similar understanding is reflected in M. Sanh. 10:3, which apparently understands the verse as meaning “My spirit will not judge the generation of the Flood for the world to come [i.e., understanding le’olam, ‘forever,’ as if it were le’olam ha-ba, ‘for the world to come’].” That

Jubilees 307

A New Righteousness: The Impartial Judge Will Forgive

12And He made for all His works a new and righteous nature so that they might not sin in all their nature forever, and so that they might all be righteous, each in his kind, always. 13And the judgment of all of them has been ordained and written in the heavenly tablets without injustice. And (if) any of them transgress from their way with respect to what was ordained for them to walk in, or if they do not walk in it, the judgment for every (sort of) nature and every kind has been written. 14And there is nothing excluded which is in heaven or on earth or in the light or in the darkness or in Sheol or in the depths or in the place of darkness. And all their judgments are ordained, written, and engraved. 15He will judge concerning every one: the great one according to his greatness and the small one according to his smallness, and each one according to his way. 16And He is not one who accepts persons, and He is not one who accepts gifts when He says that he will execute judgment upon each one. If one gave everything which is in the earth, he would not accept gifts or persons. And He would not accept (anything) from his hand because He is a righteous judge. is why Jubilees says that “not one of them remained whom He did not judge”—even though their sentence was not carried out right away but remained suspended while they were bound under the earth. 5:12. a new and righteous nature In addition to the motif of the wicked angels (the Watchers) being bound under the earth, 1 En. 10 had included another motif, repeated here, to the effect that God “made for all His works [better: for all human beings, i.e., His ma’asim] a new and righteous nature so that they might not sin in all their nature forever,” that is, so that they would not keep sinning as they had been doing until now. “[Henceforth] all will be righteous, each in his kind, always.” This motif, it seems, originated as another way of explaining God’s promise never to bring another flood: He retooled human nature—previously judged by God to be “nothing but evil all the time” (Gen. 6:5)—so that all of humanity would never again sin as it had before the Flood and so require the same punishment.72 5:13–16. The judgment of all of them “Judgment” is better rendered as “punishment.” The idea of a newly righteous human nature apparently troubled the Interpolator. After all, if all humans became—as Jubilees’ author had just said—“righteous” after the Flood, then why are some people still sinning? Struggling with this problem, the Interpolator came up with a novel solution. In the post-Flood world, even though the new, improved version of human beings was far better than its predecessor, this hardly meant that sinfulness itself had ceased to exist. Indeed, to make sure that any further sinfulness would be kept under strict control, God had accompanied His retooling of human nature with a tightening of enforcement procedures. Before the Flood, people were apparently not fully punished for their sins: that is how things had gotten out of hand, until God had no alternative but to destroy most of humanity and start over again. But now, each and every sin committed would automatically be punished with the full force of the law: the penalty for every kind of sin “has been ordained and written in the heavenly tablets” and will be carried out “without injustice.” This passage also suggests that, while humans are free to go about their lives making choices, judgment—mishpat, meaning the penalty imposed for all possible infractions—“for every (sort of) nature [i.e., for every kind of creature] “and every kind [of sin] has been written.” God’s judgment is thus to be absolutely fair and unbending: “He is not one who accepts persons” (i.e., shows favoritism; the expression appears in Deut. 10:17; cf. 16:19) nor

308 James L. Kugel

17And for the children of Israel it has been written and ordained, “If they return to Him in righteousness, He will forgive all of their sins and He will pardon all of their transgressions.” 18It is written and it is ordained, “He will have mercy on all who return from all their error, once each year.” 19But to any who corrupted their way and their counsel before the Flood, He did not show partiality, except Noah alone, for He showed partiality to him for the sake of his sons whom He saved from the waters of the Flood (and) for his sake because his heart was righteous in all of his ways just as it was commanded concerning him. And he did not transgress anything which was ordained for him. The Flood

20And the Lord said, “Let everything which is upon dry land be blotted out: men and cattle and beasts and birds of the heaven and whatever moves on the earth.” 21And He commanded Noah to make an ark for himself so that He might save himself from the water of the Flood. 22And Noah made an ark in all respects just as He commanded him in the twenty-second jubilee of years in the fifth week in the fifth year. And he entered it in the sixth year in the second month on the first of the second month until the sixteenth day. 23And he and everything which we brought to him entered into the ark. And the Lord shut it up from outside on the evening of the seventeenth. 24And the Lord opened the seven floodgates of heaven, and the mouths of the springs of the great deep were seven mouths in number; 25and these floodgates sent down water from heaven forty days and forty nights, and the springs of the deep sent up water until the whole world was full of water. 26And the water increased upon the earth, fifteen cubits the water rose over every tall mountain; and the ark rose from upon the earth, and it moved upon the surface of the water. 27And all of the water stayed upon the surface of the earth five months, one hundred and fifty days.

one “who accepts gifts,” that is, takes a bribe (ibid.). However, the people of Israel, God’s chosen ones, have a unique advantage in this process of divine judgment, the Day of Atonement: 5:17–18. He will have mercy on all who return from all their error, once each year This happens on the Day of Atonement, which is described in Lev. 16; the Interpolator, however, adds a specification not found there: only if “they return to Him in righteousness” (i.e., sincerely) will they be forgiven. (Lev. 16:30, by contrast, actually makes it sound as if atonement was automatic, requiring nothing more than the release of the scapegoat and the ceremony in the Temple.) For the Interpolator, however, in common with other Second Temple period sources (see also M. Yoma 8:9), atonement required the worshiper to turn aside from past sins and not repeat them; moreover, this refers to people returning “from all their error”; apparently intentional sins are not worked off by the Day of Atonement.73 5:21–23. He commanded Noah to make an ark The author skipped the measurements of the ark as well as the numbers of clean and unclean animals to be brought aboard the ark (perhaps because of the apparent contradiction between Gen. 6:19 and 7:2). 5:27. five months, one hundred and fifty days Along with other Jews, Jubilees’ author endorsed a calendar in which every month has exactly 30 days; these months are quite independent of the

Jubilees 309

28And the ark went and rested on the top of Lubar, one of the mountains of Ararat. 29And in the fourth month the springs of the great deep were closed and the floodgates of heaven were held shut. And on the first day of the seventh month, all of the mouths of the deeps of the earth were opened. And the water began to go down into the depths below. 30And on the first of the tenth month, the heads of the mountains appeared, and on the first of the first month, the land appeared. 31And the water dried up from upon the earth in the fifth week, in its seventh year. And on the seventeenth day in the second month, the land was dry. 32And on its twenty-seventh day, he opened the ark and he sent out of it the beasts, and cattle and birds and whatever moved. Debarkation and Sacrifice 6:1And on the first of the third month, he went out of the ark, and he built an altar on that mountain.

2And he made atonement for the land. And he took the kid of a goat, and he made atonement with its phases of the moon (see the introductory comments). He had a powerful argument in favor of this calendar: the Flood story, where it says that the rains began to fall “in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month” (Gen. 7:11); then the waters continued to swell on the earth until “the end of one hundred and fifty days . . . in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month” (Gen. 8:3–4). In other words, from the 17th of the second month to the 17th of the seventh month is 150 days. That works fine for Jubilees’ calendar: five 30-day months equal 150 days. But it will not work for any lunar calendar, since five consecutive lunar months can never come out to 150 days; at best they can equal 148. That is why Jubilees gleefully stresses what Genesis does not: “And all of the water stayed upon the surface of the earth five months, one hundred and fifty days.” 5:28. on the top of Lubar, one of the mountains of Ararat The mountain is not named in the Bible (see Gen. 8:4), but this same name appears below (7:1), as well as in Gen. Ap 12:13 and in Epiphanius, Syncellus, Cedrenus, and other sources.74 5:31. the seventeenth day in the second month This is one full year after the rains began; the same date is reported in 4Q252 Commentary on Genesis 2:1. Both stand in contradiction to Gen. 8:14, which reads “twenty-seventh day” in all versions. Note that in the LXX version the Flood begins on the 27th of the second month (Gen. 7:11), so that in its chronology the Flood also lasted exactly one year. 6:1. the first of the third month Noah’s sacrifice and covenant—which Jubilees’ author is about to describe—took place in the third month. It certainly could have happened sooner (the earth was dry nearly two weeks earlier). But for Jubilees’ author, a careful reader of Scripture, the third month seems to be the month in which covenants are concluded. It was not only the month in which God here made a covenant with Noah, but also the month of the great covenant between God and Israel at Mount Sinai (apparently in the third month on the basis of Exod. 19:1, explicitly so in Jub. 1:1). The author of Jubilees connected two additional covenants with the third month, God’s covenant with Abraham (Jub. 14:20) and Jacob’s covenant with Laban (Jub. 29:5–7); these have no date in the Bible, but both occur in Jubilees in the third month. Moreover, Isaac was “the first one circumcised according to the covenant” (Jub. 16:14); this too took place in the third month. It was indeed the author’s “Covenant Month” par excellence. (See further on 14:19–20.) 6:2–3. And he made atonement for the land Jubilees’ author skips over some of the details of what happened after the Flood—Noah sending out a raven and a dove, for example—while elabo-

310 James L. Kugel

blood for all the sins of the land because everything which was on it had been blotted out except those who were in the ark with Noah. 3And he offered up the fat upon the altar. And he took a calf, a goat, a lamb, [kids], salt, a turtledove, and a young dove, and he offered up a burnt offering on the altar. And he placed upon them an offering kneaded with oil. And he sprinkled wine, and placed frankincense upon everything. And he offered up a sweet aroma which was pleasing before the Lord. The Covenant with Noah and Laws Prohibiting the Eating of Blood

4And the Lord smelled the sweet aroma, and He made a covenant with him so that there might not be floodwaters which would destroy the earth. All the days of the earth, seed (time) and harvest will not cease. Cold and heat and summer and winter and day and night will not change their ordinances or cease forever. 5“But as for you, increase and be multiplied on the earth and become many upon it, and become a blessing upon it. Fear and terror of you I will set upon everything which is on the land or in the sea. 6And behold, I have given you all of the beasts and everything which flies and everything which moves upon the earth and in the water, the fish and everything, for food like the green herbs. And I have given you everything so that you might eat. 7But flesh which is (filled) with life, (that is) with blood, you shall not eat—because the life of all flesh is in the blood—lest your blood be sought for your lives. 8From the hand of every man, from the hand of every (creature), I will seek the blood of a man. Whoever pours out the blood of a man, by man his blood shall be poured out, because in the image of the Lord He made Adam. rating on others. Thus, as might be expected, he specifies that Noah “took the kid of a goat” to atone, in keeping with the later practice for the first of the month (Num. 28:15). The other items, “a calf, a goat, a lamb, [kids],75 salt, a turtledove, and a young dove”—all figure in various sacrificial laws, although this particular combination corresponds to no prescribed offering in the Torah,76 nor does it conform to the more general statement about Noah’s sacrifice in Gen. 8:20. 6:4–8. the Lord smelled the sweet aroma, and he made a covenant with him The author introduces a slight, but significant, change in the order of events here, asserting that God made a covenant with Noah immediately upon smelling the sweet odor of Noah’s sacrifice. In Genesis this covenant is not mentioned until 11 verses after God smells the sweet savor (Gen. 9:9). Apparently it was important for the original author to imply that Noah’s sacrifice was actually part of a covenant ceremony, and that further, this covenant involved an obligation on the part of Noah and his descendants. In Genesis, of course, God’s promise never to bring another flood required nothing of Noah and said nothing about not eating blood. But by introducing the word “covenant” before God’s undertaking never to bring another flood, Jubilees’ author implies that God’s promise was made in the context of a mutual agreement that called on Noah’s descendants never to eat blood: “But flesh which is (filled) with life, (that is) with blood, you shall not eat—because the life of all flesh is in the blood—lest your blood be sought for your lives. From the hand of every man, from the hand of every (creature), I will seek the blood of a man.”77 Thus, the whole biblical narrative from Gen. 8:20 to 9:17 became, for Jubilees’ author, one great covenant ceremony, the first in a series of covenants and promises that bound Israel and God long before the Sinai revelation.

Jubilees 311

9And as for you, increase and become many in the land.” 10And Noah and his sons swore that they would not eat any blood which was in any flesh. And he made a covenant before the Lord God forever in all of the generations of the earth in that month. 11Therefore, He spoke to you so that you also might make a covenant with the children of Israel with an oath in this month upon the mountain. And you will sprinkle blood upon them on account of all of the words of the covenant which the Lord made with them for all time. 12This testimony is written concerning you so that you might keep it always lest you ever eat any blood of the beasts or birds or cattle throughout all of the days of the earth. And the man who eats the blood of the beasts or cattle or birds throughout all of the days of the earth shall be uprooted, he and his seed from the earth. 13And you, command the children of Israel not to eat any blood so that their names and seed might be before the Lord God always. 14And there is no limit of days for this law because it is forever. They shall keep it for their generations so that they might make supplication on your behalf with blood before the altar on every day. And at the hour of daybreak and evening they will seek atonement on their own behalf continually before the Lord so that they might guard it and not be rooted out. 6:9. And as for you, increase and become many in the land A paraphrase of Gen. 9:7. 6:10–14. Noah and his sons swore Here the Interpolator inserted another passage. He began by asserting that, in response to the covenant ceremony described just before, Noah and his sons swore that they “would not eat any blood which was in any flesh.” This oath is the Interpolator’s invention—there is no such oath in Genesis. Its purpose was to lay the foundation for a verbal tie between the word for “oaths” (shevuot) and the holiday that the Interpolator wished to associate with it, the Feast of Weeks (Shavuot), otherwise known as the Festival of Firstfruits.78 6:11. And you will sprinkle blood upon them Before the Interpolator could get to the Feast of Weeks, however, he sought to associate the oath sworn by Noah and his sons with two quite unrelated issues. The first was the Sinai covenant. The Interpolator reminded Moses that God “spoke to you so that you also might make a covenant with the children of Israel with an oath in this month,” a covenant to be marked by Moses sprinkling blood on the people at its conclusion (Exod. 24:8). He did so, according to the Interpolator, as a reminder of the oath that Noah and his sons had sworn centuries before, not to eat blood. In saying this, the Interpolator sought to add credibility to his invention—the oath sworn by Noah and his sons—by suggesting that Moses sprinkled the blood at Mount Sinai to remind the Israelites of that oath. 6:14. at the hour of daybreak and evening The second thing to which the Interpolator sought to connect the blood prohibition was a law that appears later in the Pentateuch, the requirement that the priests offer the two daily tamid sacrifices “in the morning and in the evening” (see Exod. 29:38–42 and Num. 28:3–8). This was part of his overall effort to connect whatever he could in Jubilees to some law written on the heavenly tablets and later promulgated by Moses at Mount Sinai. Unfortunately for the Interpolator, the Torah’s account of the tamid sacrifices mentions nothing about blood,79 and it certainly says nothing about not consuming blood—but that did not stop him. He therefore said that the Israelites are to “keep it [the prohibition of blood consumption] for [better: throughout] their generations so that they might make supplication on your [better: their] behalf 80 with blood before the altar on every day”—as if to say that the tamid sacrifices are only made possible by Israel’s renunciation of consuming blood. (Note that this passage, although brief, is studded with the Interpolator’s “signature” phrases: “This testimony [meaning: an individual law] is written [that is, on the heavenly tablets] . . . all of the days of the

312 James L. Kugel

15And He gave a sign to Noah and his children that there should not again be a flood upon the earth. 16He set His bow in the clouds for a sign of the covenant which is forever, that the water of the Flood should therefore not be upon the earth to destroy it all of the days of the earth. The Feast of Shevuot

17Therefore, it is ordained and written in the heavenly tablets that they should observe the feast of Shevuot in this month, once per year, in order to renew the covenant in all (respects), year by year. 18And all of this feast was celebrated in heaven from the day of creation until the days of Noah, twentysix jubilees and five weeks of years. And Noah and his children kept it for seven jubilees and one week of years until the day of the death of Noah. And from the day of the death of Noah, his sons corrupted earth . . . And you, [Moses,] command the children of Israel81 . . . there is no limit of days for this law . . . for [i.e., throughout] their generations . . . on every day.” 6:15–16. he gave a sign to Noah and his children These verses had originally followed verse 9, finishing off the original author’s account of Noah’s covenant with God. 6:17–18. They should observe the feast of Shevuot Having laid the groundwork for his association of Noah’s covenant with the Feast of Weeks (see above, on 6:10), the Interpolator proceeds to make that connection explicit here: it is not meant to be pronounced the Feast of Weeks (Shavuot) but the Festival of Oaths (Shevuot). This change conformed to the Interpolator’s overall ideology. As someone who disliked the very idea of humans having a role in deciding holy matters (see the introductory comments), he was certainly disturbed by how the date of the festival of Shavuot (“Weeks”)82 was to be determined according to the Torah. It was called “Weeks” because, year after year, its date was to be arrived at by counting off seven weeks from the day on which the first offering of the new barley crop (called the omer) was brought before God (Lev. 23:15–21; Deut. 16:9–11).83 But to the Interpolator, the whole idea of human beings having some part in determining the date of one of God’s holy days—counting off seven weeks—seemed horrible. Elsewhere, he inveighs against those who “carefully observe the moon” and thereby make “a profane day a festival” (Jub. 6:36–37)—an allusion to the practice (normative in Rabbinic Judaism) of determining the start of each month, and hence of any festival that falls within that month, on the basis of human sightings of the fleeting sliver of the new moon. Surely, for someone who believed that all of God’s laws had been decided and inscribed in the heavenly tablets before the start of human history, the whole idea of this procedure must have seemed altogether wrong. To have human beings determine the date of the Feast of Weeks by counting off weeks could hardly have looked any better to the Interpolator. What is more, different groups within Judaism differed as to when this counting of weeks was to start: the Pentateuch specified it was to begin “the day after the Sabbath” (Lev. 23:15)—but which Sabbath was that? The whole subject was mired in controversy.84 It was to undo all this, and to stress the blood prohibition in the process, that the Interpolator undertook his ambitious project of turning Shavuot into Shevuot. He said that this festival, like all of Israel’s holy days, had been written on the heavenly tablets long before the time of Noah and his sons: “all of this feast was celebrated in heaven from the day of creation until the days of Noah.” But God had apparently manipulated events so as to have Noah and his sons swear an oath in the third month never to consume blood—hence this third-month festival’s name, the Festival of Oaths. If its real name was “Oaths” and not “Weeks,” then humans count-

Jubilees 313

it until the days of Abraham, and they ate blood. 19But Abraham alone kept it. And Isaac and Jacob and his sons kept it until your days, but in your days the children of Israel forgot it until you renewed it for them on this mountain. 20And you, command the children of Israel so that they might keep this feast in all of their generations as a commandment to them. One day per year in this month they shall celebrate the feast, 21for it

ing off weeks need have nothing to do with it.85 The Interpolator therefore makes no mention of anyone counting off seven weeks—on the contrary, if this festival was celebrated in heaven “from the day of creation,” there were certainly no human beings around to determine its date. Noah’s celebrating it simply marked its first arrival on earth. 6:18–19. Abraham alone kept it The Interpolator asserts that “Noah and his children kept it,” but what had originally been designed as a universal festival (Noah and his descendants constituted all of humanity) thus became a strictly Israelite festival after Noah’s sons abandoned it and it was celebrated by “Abraham alone,” who subsequently passed it on to Isaac and Jacob and his sons, that is, the people of Israel. Abraham’s descendants then continued observing the day until Moses’s own time. 6:19. in your days, the children of Israel forgot it Better: “in your [own] days, [Moses,] the children of Israel forgot it.” This second act of forgetting was crucial to the Interpolator, because he still had to account for a major difficulty in his attempt to identify his newfangled creation, “The Festival of Oaths,” with the biblical Feast of Weeks/Festival of Firstfruits. The plain fact is that the festival called Shavuot in the Torah has absolutely nothing to do with oaths—or with Noah, for that matter. It is an agricultural festival, the beginning of the wheat harvest—that is what the Torah consistently says, and that is how Jubilees’ original author viewed it as well. What is more, Jubilees’ author had, not surprisingly, been careful to create a precedent for this festival in his narration of the life of Abraham (Jub. 15:1–2), just as he did with the Festival of Booths (see below on 16:20–27). Why should the same festival have had two different precedents, one in the time of Noah and the other in the time of Abraham? To such problems the Interpolator devised a bold solution. He asserted that his creation, the Festival of Oaths, had originally been an entirely separate festival from Firstfruits—they have two names in the Bible because, at first, they were quite unrelated. Firstfruits was indeed an agricultural festival inaugurated by Abraham, but Oaths, the Interpolator claimed, was a commemoration of Noah’s covenant with God. If they were two different festivals, then of course they had two quite different origins—Oaths in Noah’s time and Firstfruits in the time of Abraham. Moreover, if the original author had represented Abraham as inaugurating Firstfruits, the Interpolator was careful to insert into the narrative that Abraham had also “renewed the feast [of Oaths] and the ordinance for himself forever” (Jub. 14:20b), quite apart from this celebration of Firstfruits. But if they were originally two separate festivals, why does the Torah act as if they are one and the same, apparently using the names Firstfruits and Weeks/Oaths interchangeably? The Interpolator’s answer is that the two originally separate festivals were fused into one on Mount Sinai: 6:20. One day per year in this month they shall celebrate the feast After Oaths was forgotten for the second time, in the days of Moses, it was reformulated in the Torah so as to be combined with Firstfruits, as Moses explains here: from now on, the two festivals are to be celebrated on the same day, “for it is [both] the feast of Shevuot and it is the feast of the firstfruits.” This act of combination posed no problem to the Interpolator’s sense of the eternity of God’s laws: the heavenly

314 James L. Kugel

is the feast of Shevuot and it is the feast of the firstfruits. This feast is twofold and of two natures. Just as it is written and engraved concerning it, observe it. 22This is because I have written it in the book of the first law, which I wrote for you, so that you might observe it in each of its appointed times, one day per year. And I have told you its sacrificial offerings so that the children of Israel might remember them and observe them in their generations in this month one day each year. 23And on the first of the first month and on the first of the fourth month and on the first of the seventh month and on the first of the tenth month are the days of remembrance and they are the days tablets, like the Torah after it, specified only that Oaths/Weeks was to be celebrated sometime in the third month, and that practice would certainly continue. It was only as an act of pragmatism (because the festival had been forgotten) that Oaths and Firstfruits were now to be fused. But this would still leave Oaths in the third month, as it always had been. 6:21–22. This feast is twofold and of two natures That is, it combines two originally separate holy days. That is why, the angel of the Presence adds, “I have written [this] . . . in the book of the first law” (better: the first book of law), that is, the Torah, which speaks of a single festival, “Weeks”/“Firstfruits,” so that you might observe both on a single day86 and not as two separate festivals. As for the date of this festival, the Interpolator knew full well that the Torah never specified a precise date for Shavuot; the festival merely had to be celebrated sometime in the third month. However, now combined with Firstfruits, its precise date would henceforth be the 15th of the third month.87 As to the purpose of the Sinai Revelation, the case of Shavuot/ Shevuot highlights, in miniature, what Jubilees’ original author and the Interpolator had in common, as well as how they differed. According to Jubilees’ original author, God chose the People of Israel as His own at the time of the Creation, and Israel’s earliest ancestors—Noah, Abraham, Jacob, and the others—inaugurated at least some practices that later became the laws of the Torah (such as the laws governing the observance of various holy days, the laws of priestly sacrifices, the prohibition of eating blood, and miscellaneous other laws such as that governing fruit trees; see below on 7:1–3). If so, at least some of the laws promulgated by Moses at Mount Sinai (starting in Exod. 20) were rooted in the doings of Israel’s ancestors long before: at Sinai these little family practices of Israel’s patriarchs were turned into the divinely authorized laws of a nation (though they were also supplemented by other, new laws). For that reason, the covenant concluded with Israel at Mount Sinai was not, in Jubilees’ view, something altogether new that tied Israel to its God. That tie had existed from the time of the patriarchs, and it was therefore not subsequently abrogated by Israel’s failure to keep the Sinai laws, as some might think. Israel was duly punished for violating the Sinai laws—in the Babylonian exile and in other ways (see below on chap. 23)—but it had never ceased, and never would cease, to be God’s chosen people. The Interpolator seems to have agreed with Jubilees’ author in other ways, but his various legal interpolations were designed to deny any implication that the Torah’s laws were a continuation of practices inaugurated by the patriarchs. He wished to assert on the contrary that those matters had in fact been written down on the heavenly tablets from the beginning of time. Noah, Abraham, and the others were thus, whether they knew it or not, acting in accord with what God had legislated long before. To strengthen this claim, the Interpolator sought out further possible connections between incidents in Genesis and the laws promulgated at Sinai or afterward, asserting each time that whatever was being done did not anticipate a law at Sinai but rather recapitulated a law that had existed for eternity on the heavenly tablets. Both writers thus undercut

Jubilees 315

of appointed times in the four parts of the year. They are written and inscribed for an eternal witness. 24And Noah ordained them for himself as feasts for eternal generations because they were a memorial for him. 25And on the first of the first month, he was told to make an ark. And on it the land dried up, and he opened up and saw the land. 26And on the first of the fourth month, the mouths of the deeps of the abysses which were beneath were shut. And on the first of the seventh month, all of the mouths of the depths of the earth were opened, and the water began to go down into them. 27On the first of the tenth month the heads of the mountains appeared, and Noah rejoiced. 28And therefore he ordained them for himself as feasts of remembrance forever, and thus they are ordained. 29And they set them upon the heavenly tablets. Each one of them is thirteen weeks from one to another of the remembrances, from the first to the second, and from the second to the third, and from the third to the fourth. 30And all of the days which will be commanded will be fifty-two weeks of days, and all of them are a complete year. 31Thus it is engraved and ordained on the heavenly tablets, and there is no transgressing in a single year, from year to year. The Danger in Failing to Observe a 364-Day Calendar

32And you, command the children of Israel so that they shall guard the years in this number, three the newness of the Sinai covenant, but in opposite ways. For one, that covenant was merely an extension of earlier practices and an earlier connection between God and Israel, while for the other the laws of Sinai were mere copies of a great heavenly document that had existed eternally. 6:23–29. on the first of the first month The fact that five consecutive months in the Torah’s Flood narrative equal 150 days was the original author’s proof that lunar months had no part in the Torah’s true calendar (see above on 5:27): its months must be arbitrary units of 30 days apiece. But 12 such months would still leave it 5¼ days short of the solar year. Some system of incorporating the missing days must have been envisaged. Possibly they were just added on at the end, like the five extramensual days added at the end of the year in the Ptolemaic “civil calendar” (plus a sixth day once every four years). Jubilees’ author did not say. In any case, the Interpolator advocated a somewhat more detailed form of this same calendar, according to which the “official year” was to consist of 364 days. This would yield exactly 52 weeks—and 52 Sabbaths—year after year. But for such a system to work, the “extra” four days had to exist outside the 12 months; they were to be free-floating days distributed at equal intervals through the year, “on the first of the first month and on the first of the fourth month” and so forth, in commemoration of the four stages of the Flood narrative.88 Thus, every three-month period would always be followed by a free-floating extramensual day. This would allow “each one of them” (the days of remembrance) to be “thirteen weeks” (91 days, i.e., three months plus the extra floating day) “from one to another.” Unfortunately, the Interpolator could not maintain that these extra days had been in the sacred calendar from the beginning of time—as he no doubt would have liked—because then there would have been one day too many in the Torah’s Flood chronology.89 So, although he loved the idea of calendrical immutability and certainly bristled at the idea of any human meddling with the sacred order, he had no choice but to say that, as soon as the Flood was over, Noah introduced these four “days of remembrance.” 6:32. And no one shall corrupt its (appointed) time from its days or from its feasts That is, the holy days will be observed in their proper time only if Israel follows this calendar. But the Interpola-

316 James L. Kugel

hundred and sixty-four days, and it will be a complete year. And no one shall corrupt its (appointed) time from its days or from its feasts because all (of the appointed times) will arrive in them according to their testimony, and they will not pass over a day, and they will not corrupt a feast. 33But if they are transgressed, and they do not observe them according to his commandment, then they will corrupt all of their (fixed) times, and the years will be moved from within this (order), and they will transgress their ordinances. 34And all of the sons of Israel will forget, and they will not find the way of the years. And they will forget the first of the month and (appointed) times and Sabbaths. And they will set awry all of the ordinances of the years. 35For I know and henceforth I shall make you know—but not from my own heart, because the book is written before me and is ordained in the heavenly tablets of the division of days—lest they forget the feasts of the covenant and walk in the feasts of the Gentiles, after their errors and after their ignorance. 36And there will be those who will examine the moon diligently because it will corrupt the (appointed) times and it will advance from year to year ten days. Therefore, the years will come to them as they corrupt and make a day of testimony a reproach and a profane day a festival, and they will mix up everything, a holy day (as) profaned and a profane (one) for a holy day, because they will set awry the months and Sabbaths and feasts and jubilees. 38Therefore, I shall command you and I shall bear witness to you so that you may bear witness to them because after you have died your sons will be corrupted so that they will not make a year only three hundred and sixty-four days. And therefore, they will set awry the months and the (appointed) times and the Sabbaths and the feasts, and they will eat all of the blood with all flesh. tor knew that this was not the case; he therefore has the angel of the Presence “predict” that all the sons of Israel will forget the proper calendar. 6:35. For I know and henceforth I shall make you know—but not from my own heart This verse provides a rare bit of emphasis: I’m not telling you this on my own authority, the angel of the Presence tells Moses, but because the book is written before me, the chronological history from which I am dictating; it (the Book of the Division of Days) tells me what has been “ordained on the heavenly tablets.” 6:36–37. there will be those who will examine the moon diligently Looking into this chronological history, the angel knows that people will switch to lunar months, and it is this willful act that will cause the festivals to be observed on the wrong days. “Therefore, the years [i.e., a time] will come” when the people of Israel will corrupt the proper calendar “and make a day of testimony [i.e., a festival]”90 the cause of divine reproach because it will not have been properly celebrated, “and a profane day a festival.” 6:38. Therefore, I shall command you and . . . bear witness to you Better: “warn you.” That is, I am commanding and solemnly warning; see above on 1:8. Since punishment for any sin requires prior warning, once people start down this path of wrongly observing God’s holy days and “set awry the [starting point of the] months and Sabbaths and feasts and jubilees,” they will end up with one of the worst of cultic violations: “they will eat all of the blood with all flesh [i.e., kinds of meat].”

Jubilees 317

Noah’s Sacrifice 7:1And in the seventh week in the first year in that jubilee, Noah planted a vine on the mountain on

which the ark rested, whose name is Lubar, (one) of the mountains of Ararat. And it produced fruit in the fourth year, and he guarded its fruit; and he picked it in that year in the seventh month, 2and he made wine from it, and he put it in a vessel, and he guarded it until the fifth year, until the first day on the first of the first month. 3And on that day he made a feast with rejoicing. And he made a burnt offering to the Lord, one calf from the bulls, one ram, a lamb of seven years, and one kid of the goats in order that he might thereby seek atonement for himself and for his sons. 4And he prepared the kid first. And he placed some of its blood on the flesh which was on the altar which he had made. And all of the fat and the bull and the ram and the lamb he offered up upon the altar, where he made the burnt offering. And he offered up all of their flesh upon the altar. 5And he placed all of their sacrifice upon it, kneaded with oil. And after that, he sprinkled wine in the fire which he had placed upon the altar. And he presented frankincense upon the altar, and offered up a sweet odor which is pleasing before the Lord his God, 6and rejoiced. And he drank some of that wine, he and his sons, with rejoicing. The Curse of Canaan and the Blessing of Shem

7And when evening came, he entered into his tent, and lay down drunk. And he slept, and was uncovered in his tent as he was sleeping. 8And Ham saw Noah, his father, naked. And he went out, and told 7:1–2. Noah planted a vine the mountain . . . (one) of the mountains of Ararat “The mountain” referred to here is Mount Lubar. After the long interpolation, the original author’s account resumes. In keeping with Gen. 9:20, he recounts that Noah planted a grapevine on Mount Lubar (on this name, see above on 5:28). The planting of this vine inevitably raised a legal question in the mind of Jubilees’ author. The Genesis narrative said nothing about Noah waiting a certain period of time before being able to consume the vine’s fruits, but such a waiting period is specified by the law of Lev. 19:23–25. Jubilees’ author, in keeping with his desire to have Israel’s ancestors initiate such legal practices on their own, goes out of his way to assert that the vine produced fruit in the fourth year, which Noah then harvested and turned into wine, but that Noah then “put it in a vessel, and he guarded it until the fifth year.” These details are clearly an interpretation of Lev. 19:23–25, although they do not appear to conform to the halakhic practices of any other known group.91 (On other interpretations of Lev. 19:23–25, see below on Jub. 7:36.) The sacrificial animals listed here also appear in Num. 29:2–5, but there the offering is made on the first day of the seventh month, that is, the “Day of Trumpet Blasts” (Lev. 23:23–25; Num. 29:1–6), the Rabbinic Rosh Hashanah. However, in the Temple Scroll column 14, a sacrifice is possibly prescribed, as here, for “the first day . . . of the first month.” Note also that the first day of the first month (1 Nisan) is, in Rabbinic reckoning, also a special day, the starting point for the regnal years of kings and for the Torah’s lists of festivals (M. RH 1:1). It is also noteworthy that here, once again, Noah functions as a full-fledged priest, part of the “chain of priests” theme dear to Jubilees’ author. 7:7. And when evening came Noah’s drunkenness thus arose in pious circumstances, as part of his sacrificing and celebrating before God; he also “lay down drunk,” a somewhat extenuating circumstance lacking in the biblical account. 7:8. Ham saw Noah, his father, naked As a result, Noah curses Canaan, Ham’s son. Jubilees does not

318 James L. Kugel

his two brothers outside. 9And Shem took his garment, and he stood up, he and Japheth, and they placed the garment on their shoulders and, turning backward, they covered the shame of their father, and their faces were backward. 10And Noah woke up from his wine, and knew everything which his youngest son had done to him. And he cursed his son and said, “Cursed is Canaan, let him be an enslaved servant of his brothers.” 11And he blessed Shem, and said: “May the Lord, the God of Shem, be blessed. And may Canaan be his servant. 12May the Lord enlarge Japheth, and may the Lord dwell in the dwelling place of Shem, and may Canaan be his servant.” 13And Ham knew that his father cursed his youngest son, and it was disgusting to him that he cursed his son. And he separated from his father, he and his sons with him: Cush and Mizraim and Put and Canaan. The Cities of Noah’s Three Sons

14And he (Ham) built a city for himself and he named it after his wife, Na’eltama’uk. 15And Japheth saw it and was jealous of his brother. And he also built a city for himself and named it after his wife, ‘Adataneses. 16And Shem dwelt with his father, Noah, and built a city near his father on the mountain. And he also named it after his wife, Sedeqetelebab. 17And behold, these three cities were near Mount Lubar, Sedeqetelebab was in front of the mountain on its east, and Na’eltama’uk was facing south, and ‘Adataneses was toward the west. The Sons of Shem And Japheth

18And these are the sons of Shem: Elam and Ashur and Arpachshad, who was born two years after the give any reason here for Noah’s cursing Canaan instead of the guilty party, Ham himself. Other ancient sources point out that Ham had already been blessed by God (Gen. 9:1), so his curse had to be transferred to the next generation.92 Later, Jubilees notes that “through the sin of Ham, Canaan sinned,” which seems to be an alternative solution; see below on 22:21. 7:12. May the Lord enlarge Japheth, and may the Lord dwell in the dwelling place of Shem Here Jubilees resolves the ambiguity of Gen. 9:27, “And may He [or he, i.e., Japhet] dwell in the tents of Shem.” Rabbinic Judaism recognized both interpretations: see Gen. Rab. 36:8. 7:13–14. he separated from his father Ham and his sons leave Noah, but they do not go too far (see 7:17). Ham then built a city for himself and “named it after his wife, Na’elatama’uk”: the name of Ham’s wife is not mentioned elsewhere; it may well be that “Na’elat” represents nahalat, “the hereditary land of ” and “ama’uk” the actual name of Ham’s wife. 7:14–17. Na’eltama’uk . . . Adataneses . . . Sedeqetelebab Jubilees is at pains to give names to unnamed biblical persons, especially wives. 7:16. Shem dwelt with his father He did this because he was the ideal son, the ancestor of the Israelites, unlike Ham, who left his father, and Japhet, who was jealous of Ham. 7:18. these are the sons of Shem As in Gen. 10:22. Unlike the Torah, Jubilees has Shem’s descendants precede those of Japhet; see above, on 4:33.

Jubilees 319

Flood, and Lud and Aram. 19The sons of Japheth are: Gomer and Magog and Madai and Javan, Tubal and Meshech and Tiras. These are sons of Noah. The Testament of Noah: Avoid Fornication, Blood Pollution, Injustice

20And in the twenty-eighth jubilee Noah began to command his grandsons with ordinances and commandments and all of the judgments which he knew. And he bore witness to his sons so that they might do justice and cover the shame of their flesh and bless the one who created them and honor father and mother, and each one love his neighbor and preserve themselves from fornication and pollution and from all injustice. 21For on account of these three the Flood came upon the earth. For (it was) because of the fornication which the Watchers, apart from the mandate of their authority, fornicated with the daughters of men and took for themselves wives from all whom they chose and made a beginning of impurity. 22And they begot sons, the Naphidim, and all of them were dissimilar. And each one ate his fellow. The giants killed the Naphil, and the Naphil killed the Elyo, and the Elyo mankind, and man his neighbor. 23And everyone sold himself in order that he might do injustice and pour out much blood, and the earth was full of injustice. 24And afterward, they sinned against beasts, and birds and everything which moves or walks upon the earth. And they poured out much blood upon the earth. And all the thoughts and desires of men were always contemplating vanity and evil. 25And the Lord blotted out everything from the face of the earth on account of the evil of their deeds. And on account of the blood which they poured out in the midst of the land, He blotted out everything. 7:20. And he bore witness to his sons Better: “he warned his sons,” by ordering them to (1) do justice (probably Heb. la’asot mishpat, “practice justice”); (2) avoid nudity (“cover the shame of their flesh”); (3) bless the One who had created them;93 (4) honor their parents; (5) love their neighbor; and (6) avoid all fornication, (7) pollution, (8) and injustice—a total of eight. He then goes on to admonish them about shedding human blood or consuming the blood of animals. All this derives from Gen. 9:4–6. 94 But it is certainly striking to see how the author has deviated from this passage. In Gen. 9:4–6, it is God who tells Noah and his sons not to eat meat with the blood in it and adds that shedding a man’s blood is a crime that requires the death of the murderer. But Jubilees’ author puts these words, as well as the Torah’s later regulations about blood95 into the mouth of Noah—a particularly striking instance of his desire to attribute divine laws to human initiatives. 7:21–25. For on account of these three Here Jubilees repeats the reasons for the Flood. This account matches earlier traditions,96 but is strikingly at odds with what Jubilees had recounted in Jub. 5. Here, the mating of the angels with the daughters of men is “the beginning of impurity” (i.e., the first incidence of impure behavior), but Jub. 5:1 says nothing of the kind. Jubilees 5 contains no mention of the names given here, the Nephilim and the Elyo. On the other hand, this catalogue in chap. 7 never mentions the tying up of the wicked angels beneath the earth, nor the divine decree “My spirit shall not dwell” (Gen. 6:3), cleverly interpreted in Jub. 5:7–8, nor the destruction of, specifically, the half-breed offspring of the angels and the daughters of men that came in its wake. In short, this passage seems to have been cited from another source. But the common source of both sections seems to be 1 Enoch; see specifically 7:1–5; 10:4–8, 11–15; and 10:9–10, where all the above-named items are present. 7:23. do injustice and pour out much blood Jubilees’ author returns to one of his favorite themes:

320

James L. Kugel

26“And we were left, I and you, my children, and everything which entered with us into the ark. And behold, I see your deeds before me that you have not been ones who walked in righteousness because you have begun to walk in the paths of corruption. And each one of you will be separated from his neighbor. And this one will be jealous of that one, and (I see) that you will not be together, O my sons, each one with his brother. 27For I see, and behold, the demons have begun to mislead you and your children. And now I fear for your sakes that after I die, you will pour out the blood of men upon the earth. And you will be blotted out from the surface of the earth. 28For all who eat the blood of man and all who eat the blood of any flesh will be blotted out, all of them, from the earth. 29And no man who eats blood or sheds the blood of man will remain upon the earth; and neither seed nor posterity will remain alive for him under heaven. For they will go down into Sheol, and into the place of judgment they will descend. And into the darkness of the depths they will all be removed with a cruel death. 30“And let no blood from any of the blood which is in anything be seen upon you on the day when you sacrifice any beast or cattle or what flies upon the earth. But do a good deed for yourselves by covering that which will be poured out upon the surface of the earth. 31And you shall not be like one who eats with blood, but beware lest they should eat blood before you. Cover the blood, because thus I was commanded to testify to you and to your children together with all flesh. 32And you shall not eat living flesh lest it be that your blood which is your life be sought by the hand of all flesh which eats upon the earth. 33For the land will not be cleansed of the blood which is poured out upon it, because by the blood of one who poured it out will the land be cleansed in all of its generations. The Testament of Noah and the Law of Reserving Firstfruits

34“And now, my children, hear (and) do justice and righteousness so that you might be planted in righteousness on the surface of the whole earth, and your honor may be lifted up before my God who saved me from the water of the Flood. 35And behold, you will go and build for yourselves cities, and you will

how the fact that “much blood” was shed ultimately led God to bring the Flood. See also below verses 24, 25, 27, 31–32. This leads him (vv. 28–29) to put in Noah’s mouth the biblical prohibition “[eating] the blood of any flesh”97 as well as the related requirement (v. 30) of “covering that which will be poured out upon the surface of the earth” (cf. Lev. 17:13). “Cover the blood, because thus I was commanded to testify to [better: warn] you [vv. 30–31].” See also above on 6:10–11. 7:26. And we were left, I and you, my children Meanwhile, at some point the text has slid into a direct address by Noah to his sons, evident in these words. This direct quote may have begun even earlier, in verse 21. 7:27. the demons have begun to mislead you and your children For Jubilees’ author (but not the Interpolator), demons and wicked angels are a constant danger, since they can enter the mind and mislead people. These “demons” are apparently the offspring of the wicked angels (the “Watchers”) who came down to earth before the Flood (Jub. 5:1), but they are different from the halfangel, half-human creatures engendered by the wicked angels with human females, since those creatures all perished (Jub. 5:9). See below on 10:1–13; cf. Jub. 12:20. 7:27–33. you will pour out the blood of men See above, on 6:10–11.

Jubilees 321

plant in them every plant which is upon the earth and every tree, moreover, which bears fruit. 36For three years its fruit will not be gathered from everything which may be eaten, but in the fourth year its fruit will be gathered. And let one offer up the firstfruits which are acceptable before the Lord Most High, who made heaven and earth and everything, so that they might offer up in the juice the first of the wine and the oil as firstfruits upon the altar of the Lord, who will accept it. And that which is left the servants of the house of the Lord will eat before the altar which receives (it). 37And in the seventh year make its release so that you might release it in righteousness and uprightness. And you will be righteous and all your plants will be upright, 38because, thus, Enoch, the father of your father, commanded Methuselah, his son, and Methuselah (commanded) Lamech, his son. And Lamech commanded me everything which his fathers commanded him. 39And I am commanding you, my sons, just as Enoch commanded his son in the first jubilees. While he was alive in his seventh generation, he commanded and bore witness to his son and his grandsons until the day of his death.” 7:36. For three years its fruit The author had already given his understanding of the commandment about fruit trees found in Lev. 19:23–24 (Jub. 7:1–3). He presents Noah as picking the fruit in the fourth year, making it into wine, but then waiting until the first day of the fifth year to drink it. This interpretation of Lev. 19:23–24 is basically paralleled in the Gen. Ap 12:13–15, but not in any other text known from this period. Two other lines of interpretation are, however, well known. One side held that, in keeping with a long-standing practice (see Judg. 9:27 and Isa. 62:8–9), the fruit borne by a tree could not be eaten during the first three years, but in its fourth year it was to be consumed by its owners in God’s sanctuary. This is basically the practice in Rabbinic Judaism, with some minor modifications ( J. Pe’ah 7:6 [20 b-c]). The other side held that the fruit in the fourth year was to be given to the priests, who would offer the firstfruits on the altar and then keep whatever was left over of the fourth year produce for themselves.98 Someone— probably not the Interpolator since this verse makes no mention of the heavenly tablets or the other, usual indicators of his presence—inserted this brief “correction” to the author’s words in Jub. 7:1–3. Perhaps the person responsible for this insertion is the same late editor who inserted the Sabbath laws of Jub. 50:6–13. 7:37–39. And in the seventh make its release A somewhat difficult verse. The Ethiopic manuscripts read: “in the fifth year.” If this is intended as a restatement of Lev. 19:25, then “make its release” must be a somewhat garbled version of the rest of the verse, “you shall eat its fruit, adding its produce for yourselves,” that is, the fifth year frees the fruit for consumption by its owners, now that the priests have had their share. But others have suggested that instead of “fifth year” the text originally read (as in this translation) “seventh year” and that the text had now turned to the matter of the sabbatical year: if you “make its release”—that is, carry out the provisions of the sabbatical year—then “all your plants will be upright [better: all your planting will be successful].” Jubilees 7:37–39 would thus return us to the writing of the original author, and this seems all the more likely because these verses are altogether characteristic of his thinking: “Observe the seventh-year agricultural rest,” he also has Noah tell his descendants, because “thus, Enoch, the father of your father, commanded Methuselah, his son, and Methuselah” commanded “Lamech, his son. And Lamech commanded me everything which his fathers [had] commanded him.” In other words, once again a human being initiates a practice that was later to become a divine law, the law of the seventh fallow year (Exod. 23:11; Lev. 25:2–7) and then passes the practice on to his descendants.99 Noah thus instructs his sons “just as Enoch commanded his son [Methuselah] . . .

322 James L. Kugel

Cainan’s Discovery of Astrological Lore 8:1And on the twenty-ninth jubilee in the first week, at its beginning Arpachshad took a wife and her

name was Rasu’eya, daughter of Susan, daughter of Elam, as a wife. And she bore a son for him in the third year of that week, and he called him Cainan, 2and the child grew. And his father taught him writing. And he went forth in order that he might seek a place where he could build a city. 3And he found a writing which the ancestors engraved on stone. And he read what was in it. And he transcribed it. And he sinned because of what was in it, since there was in it the teaching of the Watchers by which they used to observe the omens of the sun and moon and stars within all the signs of heaven. 4And he copied it down, but he did not tell about it because he feared to tell Noah about it lest he be angry with him because of it. The Descendants of Cainan

5And in the thirtieth jubilee in the second week in its first year, he took a wife and her name was Melka, daughter of Madai, son of Japheth. And in its fourth year he begot a son and he called him Shelah because, he said, “I have certainly been sent out.” 6And in the fourth year Shelah was born and he grew up. And he took a wife and her name was Mu’ak, daughter of Kesed, his father’s brother, as a wife in the thirty-first jubilee in the fifth week in the first year. And she bore a son for him in its fifth year, and he called him ‘Eber. 7And he took a wife, and her name was ‘Azurad, daughter of Nebrod, in the thirty-second jubilee in the seventh week in its third year. 8And in its sixth year she bore a son for him. And he called him Peleg because in the days when he was bom the sons of Noah began dividing up the earth for them-

until the day of his death”: presumably Methuselah’s death, since Enoch never died, according to the common interpretation of Gen. 5:24 (cf. Jub. 4:23). 8:1. Rasu’eya, daughter of Susan See above, 4:13–15. This name seems to represent retsuyyah, “desirable.” “She bore a son for him . . . Cainan”: he is not mentioned in Gen. 11:12 MT, but he does appear in the LXX version (cf. Luke 3:36); there Cainan is the father of Shelah, making Arpachshad Shelah’s grandfather instead of his father, as in the MT.100 8:3. And he read what was in it. And he transcribed it. And he sinned . . . since there was in it the teaching of the Watchers This writing thus contained part of the illicit knowledge transmitted by the sinful angels (the “Watchers,” above on 4:15) to the daughters of men. The Watchers had observed “the omens of the sun and moon and stars,” and Cainan apparently began worshiping these heavenly bodies in the mistaken belief that they controlled life below. 8:8. the sons of Noah began dividing up the earth for themselves Better: “for in his days the earth was divided.” Heb. niflegah (“divided”) is a play on Peleg, as in Gen. 10:25. This passive verb does not say who did the dividing, but to some interpreters it seemed reasonable that it was Noah’s sons who had consciously set out to divide the known world among themselves—and this notion fit well with the names of their children, many of which coincided with the Hebrew names of wellknown places: Cush (Ethiopia), Mizraim (Egypt), Canaan, and so forth. Moreover, Gen. 10:32 concludes that same chapter by saying: “These are the groupings of Noah’s descendants . . . and from these the nations branched out over the earth after the Flood,” that is, they branched out according to the way Noah’s descendants had divided things up.

Jubilees 323

selves. Therefore he called him Peleg. 9And they divided it in an evil (manner) among themselves, and they told it to Noah. The Division of the Earth

10And it came to pass at the beginning of the thirty-third jubilee, that they divided the land (in) three parts, for Shem, Ham, and Japheth, according to the inheritance of each, in the first year in the first week, while one of us who were sent was dwelling with them. 11And he called his children, and they came to him, they and their children. And he divided by lot the land which his three sons would possess. And they stretched out their hands and took the document from the bosom of Noah, their father. 8:9. they divided it in an evil (manner) among themselves That is, “they divided [the earth].” There was a problem, however, with the above scenario: the next chapter of Genesis begins with the story of the tower of Babel, which depicts all humanity as still being one large family, with everyone having “the same language and the same words” and everyone settling together “in a valley in the land of Shinar” (Gen. 11:1–2). So did Noah’s sons split up or didn’t they? Jubilees’ author seeks to resolve this difficulty by saying that their faulty division of the earth necessitated a second division by Noah himself.101 But why was that first division “evil”? It seems that Jubilees’ author viewed the genealogy of Gen. 10 as reflecting this first division, and it was “evil” because the descendants of Ham are identified in Gen. 10 with all sorts of sites that, in the author’s view, ought to have been allotted to Shem: places near Israel’s homeland like Babylon and Nineveh (10:9), or still closer locales such as Sidon (10:15), or—worst of all!—the land of Canaan itself (10:16–20). In Jubilees’ recounting (8:12–21), these and a great many other territories are said ultimately to have been allotted to Shem in the redivision; Ham’s son Canaan then illegally seized some of them despite what had been decreed (Jub. 8:27–34). As for the textual justification for this redivision, perhaps Jubilees saw in the biblical passive “was divided” (Gen. 10:25) a hint that the logical person to allocate the land to Noah’s sons— Noah himself—did not do so. It simply “was divided,” that is, Noah’s sons did so on their own, perhaps quarreling in the process. They finally “told it to Noah,” and he redivided the land in the presence of “one of us [angels] who . . . was dwelling with them,” thus ensuring divine approval. 8:11. And he divided by lot the land That is, “the earth.” This was a further demonstration that the ultimate division of the earth was divinely determined. Moreover, “they . . . took the document” that was apparently executed by Noah to formalize this redivision in legal fashion. The land was redivided into parts, corresponding to the three continents distinguished by Greek geographers, namely, Europe (the inheritance of Japhet), Asia (the inheritance of Shem), and Africa (the inheritance of Ham). It may seem odd that such a fierce opponent of Hellenism as Jubilees’ author should adopt this Greek scheme (along with many of its details), but this was simply part of the educated discourse of his day; in fact, the “Ionian world map” had been in circulation since the late 6th century bce.102 As will be clear below, however, the author of Jubilees introduced a number of modifications, both to accommodate the table of nations in Gen. 10:1–32 as well as to reflect his own ideology of Israel’s supremacy. (For example, Jubilees wanted to have Shem, Israel’s ancestor, get as much territory as possible—that is, all of Asia—in contrast to the implications of Gen. 10.)

324 James L. Kugel

Shem’s Portion

12And the lot of Shem was assigned in the document as the middle of the earth, which he would take for his possession and for his sons for eternal generations from the midst of the Rafa Mountains, from the mouth of the water of the river Tina. And his portion goes toward the west through the midst of this river, and it goes on until it draws near to the water of the abysses from which this river goes forth. And its waters pour forth into the Me’at Sea. And this river goes on into the Great Sea. And everything which is toward the north belongs to Japheth, and everything which is toward the south belongs to Shem. 13And (his portion) goes on until it draws near Karaso, which is in the bosom of the tongue which looks toward the south. 14And his portion goes on toward the Great Sea. And it goes straight until it draws near to the west of the tongue which looks toward the south because the name of this sea is the tongue of the Sea of Egypt. 15And it is turned from there toward the south, toward the mouth of the Great Sea on the shore of the waters. And it goes on toward the west of ‘Afra. And it goes on until it draws near the water of the river Gihon, and toward the south of the water of Gihon, toward the shore of that river. 16And it goes on toward the east until it draws near to the Garden of Eden toward its south, to the south and east of all the land of Eden, and to all of the east. And it turns in the east, and it comes forth until it draws near toward the last of the mountain whose name is Rafa. And it goes down toward the shore of the mouth of the Tina River. 17This portion was assigned by lot to Shem and to his sons to possess it forever for his generations forever. 18And Noah rejoiced because this portion was assigned to Shem and for his sons. And he remem8:12. the lot of Shem, the good son, was “the middle of the earth” in the redivision: this matches Ezekiel’s notion of the Land of Israel as the earth’s “navel” (Ezek. 38:12). Rafa Mountains Rafa reflects the Rhipaean mountains of Greek geographers, the Urals of today; “from the mouth of the water of the river Tina,” that is, the river Don; the same name appears in Gen. Ap 16:15–16 and subsequently. Note that in the Genesis Apocryphon the first lot belongs to Japhet, while Shem’s is the second; for if Shem’s lot was determined by lot, why should the assignment have begun with “the center of the earth” rather than with the northernmost or southernmost portion? But for Jubilees, Shem is clearly superior, so things must start with him. The Tina River flows into “the Me’at Sea”—Lake Maeotis, the modern Sea of Azov, the northern arm of the Black Sea, between southwest Russia and southeast Ukraine. “The Great Sea” here is thus apparently not the Mediterranean (which this name usually designates in Hebrew), but the Black Sea. 8:13. Karaso This is perhaps Cheronese, in the region of Thrace, or perhaps the Aegean island of Icarus, or its mainland counterpart, Karia. The “Sea of Egypt” seems to designate the eastern Mediterranean. 8:15. the mouth of the Great Sea Since the Great Sea is presumably the Mediterranean, this may designate the Nile Delta; “toward the west of Afra” has been identified with Africa, but a more attractive possibility is the isle of Pharos, off Alexandria; “the river Gihon,” mentioned in Gen. 2:13, is perhaps identified here with the Nile, though the two seem to be separate rivers in Sir. 24:27. (in Jer. 2:18 LXX, the “waters of Shihor,” apparently in or near Egypt, is translated “waters of Gihon.”) 8:16. all the land of Eden For Jubilees, as for many other ancient sources, Eden was an actual spot on earth; only gradually did it make its way into the sky.103

Jubilees 325

bered everything which he spoke with his mouth concerning him because he said: May the Lord God of Shem be blessed, and may the Lord dwell in the dwelling place of Shem. 19And he knew that the Garden of Eden was the holy of holies and the dwelling of the Lord. And Mount Sinai (was) in the midst of the desert and Mount Zion (was) in the midst of the navel of the earth. The three of these were created as holy places, one facing the other. 20And he blessed the God of gods, who placed in his mouth the word of the Lord, and also the Eternal God. 21And he knew that a blessed portion and blessing had reached Shem and his sons for eternal generations: all the land of Eden, all of the land of the Red Sea, all of the land of the East, India, along the Red Sea, and its mountains, all of the land of Basa, all of the land of Lebanon, the islands of Caphtor, all of Mount Senir, Amanus, Mount Asshur, which is north, all of the land of Elam, Asshur, Babel, Susa, Media, all of the mountains of Ararat, and all of the region beyond the sea, which is beyond Mount Asshur, which is toward the north, the blessed and wide land. And everything which is in it is very good. Ham’s Portion

22And to Ham was assigned the second portion toward the other side of the Gihon, toward the south on the right of the Garden. And it goes on toward the south, and it goes along all of the mountains of fire. And (his portion) goes on toward the west, toward the Atel Sea. And it goes on westward until it draws near the Ma’uk Sea, to which nothing descends without perishing. 23And it goes forth in the north to the end of Gadir. And it goes forth along the edge of the water of the sea into the waters of the Great Sea until it approaches the river Gihon. And it goes on along the Gihon River until it approaches the right side of the Garden of Eden. 24And this is the land that went forth to Ham as a portion which he will possess forever for himself and for his children for their generations forever. Japheth’s Portion

25And for Japheth the third portion was assigned beyond the Tina River toward the north of the mouth of its waters. And it goes on toward the northeast of all of the region of Gog and everything east of it. 8:18–20. and may the Lord dwell This restates Gen. 9:27, but this time without mention of Japhet, and with the same interpretation as above 7:12. God dwells in Shem’s portion because it includes “Eden . . . Mount Sinai . . . and Mount Zion,” the three sanctuaries on earth where God was present. 8:20. he blessed the God of gods . . . and also the Eternal God Hebrew for “Eternal God” is El Olam. Jubilees is careful to have his heroes and heroines bless God as an act of thanksgiving after any successful outcome. The “also” is somewhat puzzling here, but see Gen. 21:33. 8:21. beyond the sea Probably the Caspian Sea. 8:22. the mountains of fire These are unknown, perhaps a mythological site. 8:23. Atel Sea The Atlantic; the Ma’uk Sea is not clearly identified, but the apparent name etymology that follows, along with the probable reading of the Gen. Ap 16:9 as mhk, may indicate “Sea of Destruction” as a name of the northern body of water whose southern part is the Atel. Gadir Probably to be identified with Gibraltar, or possibly Cadiz. 8:25. Gog Has been identified as a region somewhere in the northern parts of Asia, perhaps in Lydian Asia Minor or else Scythia; the name may reflect Gog in Ezek. 38, although there Gog is a person whose homeland is called Magog.

326 James L. Kugel

26And it goes on toward the north to the north. And it goes toward the mountains of Qelt toward the north, toward the Ma’uk Sea, and it comes toward the east of Gadir up toward the edge of the water of the sea. 27And it goes on until it draws near toward the west of the Fereg and it returns toward ‘Afreg. And it goes on toward the east, toward the water of the Me’at Sea. 28And it goes on toward the side of the Tina River, toward the northeast until it approaches the end of its waters, toward Mount Rafa. And it goes around to the north. 29This is the land that came to Japheth and to his sons as the portion of his inheritance which he will possess for himself and for his sons for their generations forever: the five great islands and a great land in the north. But it is cold, and the land of Ham is hot, but the land of Shem is not hot or cold because it is mixed with cold and heat. The Portions of the Sons of Ham, Shem, and Japheth 9:1And Ham divided (his land) among his sons. And the first portion was assigned to Cush toward the

east, and west of him for Mizraim. And west of him for Put. And west of him for Canaan. And toward his west was the sea. 2And Shem also divided among his sons. And the first portion was assigned to Elam and his sons toward the east of the Tigris River until it approaches toward the east of all of the land of India, along the Red Sea on its shores, the waters of Dedan, and all of the mountains of Mebri and Elam all of the land of Susa, and everything which is beside Pharnak as far as the Red Sea and up 8:26. mountains of Qelt That is, “of the Celts,” probably referring to the Alps or the Pyrenees, which were inhabited by Celtic populations who at that time were in what is now northern Spain or eastern France and Switzerland. 8:29. the five great islands These have been identified as Cyprus, Crete, Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica (or perhaps Malta). 9:1. the first portion was assigned to Cush toward the east Having thus assigned the three continents to Noah’s three sons, Jubilees then proceeds to identify individual lands on each continent with various offspring, starting with Ham (see Gen. 10:6). Ham’s son Cush received the territory of Nubia and Ethiopia; to the west of Cush was the share of Ham’s second son, Mizraim, the same name as the Hebrew word for Egypt; to “the west of him” (i.e., Mizraim), was the share of Ham’s third son, Put, namely, the territory of modern Libya. Canaan, Ham’s youngest son, received his share to the west of Put’s share (Libya), that is, in the region of today’s Algeria. Jubilees’ author is eager to say that Ham’s son Canaan was originally assigned territory that was nowhere near the land that later bore his name; it was only by thievery that Canaan later seized territory that was originally assigned to Shem’s descendants (Jub.10:27–34). 9:2–3. the first portion was assigned to Elam Part of Shem’s territory was assigned to his son Elam and included part of modern Iran, “east of the Tigris River until it approaches . . . all of the land of India.” “Dedan” is the name of a people in Arabia.104 This place ill suits the geographical context, and it has therefore been suggested that the “waters of Dedan” may refer to Dodone/Sidodone, along the southern Persian coast in ancient Carmania. mountains of Mebri and Elam These seem to be the Zagros Mountains and the interior mountain ranges of Iran. all of the land of Susa The ancient capital of the Persian empire (“Shushan” in the book of Esther), Susa is about 150 miles east of the Tigris (the modern city of Shush). Pharnak Has been identified with the region of the Pharnacotis River in ancient Marginae, east of the Caspian Sea in modern southeast Turkmenistan.

Jubilees 327

to the Tina River. 3And also to Asshur was assigned the second portion, all of the land of Asshur and Nineveh and Shinar and as far as the vicinity of India. And then it goes up and skirts the river. 4And to Arpachshad was assigned the third portion, all of the land of the region of Chaldea toward the east of the Euphrates, which is near the Red Sea, and all of the waters of the desert as far as the vicinity of the tongue of the sea which faces toward Egypt, all of the land of Lebanon and Senir and Amana as far as the vicinity of the Euphrates. 5And to Aram the fourth portion was assigned, all of the land of Mesopotamia, between the Tigris to the Euphrates, toward the north of the Chaldeans up to the vicinity of Mount Asshur and the land of Arara. 6And to Lud the fifth portion was assigned, Mount Asshur and everything pertaining to it until it approaches the Great Sea. And it draws near toward the east of Asshur, his brother. 7And Japheth also divided the land of his inheritance between his sons. 8And the first portion was assigned to Gomer toward the east from the north side up to the river Tina. And in the north to Magog was assigned all of the inner parts of the north until it approaches toward the Sea of Me’at. 9And to Madai: his portion was assigned that he should take from the west of his two brothers as far as the 9:3. Asshur . . . Nineveh . . . Shinar . . . All biblical sites in Mesopotamia. and as far as the vicinity of India. And then it goes up and skirts the river VanderKam’s translation reads: “and Sak as far as the vicinity of India [where] the Wadafa River rises”; this appears to be the better reading. Sak is Scythia, but the identity of the Wadafa River is less sure. Perhaps it is the Hydaspes River, known from a battle fought by Alexander the Great, located in northwestern India. 9:4. Arpachshad He received the region east of Chaldea, in southern Mesopotamia. the east of the Euphrates, which is near the Red Sea A name used by Greek geographers to describe various bodies of water, here it is probably the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea (part of the Indian Ocean). and all of the waters of the desert “The waters” presumably refers to oases. The “desert” is probably the Syrian desert, between Mesopotamia and the eastern Mediterranean, and in addition the entire Arabian Peninsula to the south, bordered by “the tongue of the sea which faces toward Egypt,” the modern Red Sea, as well as “all of the land of Lebanon” (which here may designate all the Land of Israel; cf. Jub. 10:29; also Deut. 3:25 and Tg. Onk. ad loc. “the [ Jerusalem] Temple”) as well as Senir (Deut. 3:9) mentioned in tandem with Amana (Song of Sol. 4:8); this is perhaps Mount Amanos in northern Syria, or perhaps a site farther south (and closer to Senir and the Lebanon), that is, in the anti-Lebanon. 9:5. Aram He received the somewhat vague biblical territory that bore his name, here apparently those parts of Mesopotamia not assigned to Arpachshad: Chaldea in the south and Asshur (Asshur, Nineveh, and Shinar) farther north, “up to the vicinity of Mount Asshur,” perhaps the eastern Taurus and northwestern Zagros mountains, near the area of Lake Van in modern Turkey, and “the land of Arara,” apparently biblical Ararat, ancient Urartu. 9:6. Lud He receives the general area of Lydia, in Asia Minor, and some of the northern regions of Asia to the east of it, stretching to the Caspian Sea. 9:7. Japhet also divided the land His son Gomer (see Gen. 10:2) received the land “east from the north side up to the river Tina” (the Dan), that is, some of the territory of modern Russia. The next son, Magog (again, Gen. 10:2), received the territory approaching the Me’at Sea (i.e., the Black Sea), that is, his territory included some parts of modern Ukraine and Eastern Europe.

328 James L. Kugel

islands and up to the coasts of the islands. 10And to Javan the fourth portion was assigned, every island and the islands which are toward the side of Lud. 11And to Tubal the fifth portion was assigned in the midst of the tongue which draws near toward the side of Lud’s portion as far as the second tongue into the region beyond the second tongue into the third tongue. 12And to Meshech the sixth portion was assigned, everything on the other side of the third tongue until it approaches the east of Gadir. 13And to Tiras the seventh portion was assigned, four great islands in the midst of the sea which approaches the portion of Ham. And the islands of Kamaturi were assigned by lot to the sons of Arpachshad as an inheritance for him. The Curse Against Violating Boundaries

14And thus the sons of Noah divided for their children before Noah, their father. And he made them all swear an oath to curse each and every one who desired to seize a portion which did not come in his lot. 15And they all said, “So be it and so let it be to them and to their sons forever in their generations until the day of judgment in which the Lord God will judge them with a sword and with fire on account of all the evil of the pollution of their errors which have filled the earth with sin and pollution and fornication and transgression.” Madai (Medea), oddly enough, did not receive the land associated with his name, but rather the land “west of his two brothers,” in other words, Western Europe, including “the islands,” probably the British Isles. 9:10. Javan Ionia, Gen. 10:4. He receives every island in the Aegean Sea (except for those hugging the eastern coast, which belong to Lud), but apparently nothing on the mainland—a jab at Alexander’s conquests? 9:11. Tubal Gen. 10:2. He apparently received the mainland peninsulas of Greece and Italy; Meshech (Gen. 10:2) received southern France, Spain, and Portugal, Gadir apparently being Gibraltar or Cadiz (see above). Tiras received “the four great islands,” of which three, Corsica, Sardinia, and Sicily, were among the “five” mentioned earlier (see above on 8:25–30); the fourth might conceivably be Malta, Cyprus, or Crete. The islands of Kamaturi may refer to Caphtor (Crete), and perhaps Cyprus as well, in which case this would be a parenthetical note clarifying that these were not part of Tiras’s lot. 9:14–15. he made them all swear an oath Canaan, Ham’s son, will violate this oath in Jub.10:29–34, encroaching on the territory assigned to his uncle Shem. As a result, the Canaanites will be expelled (as narrated in the book of Joshua), even though the land had been known after Canaan’s encroachment as the “land of Canaan.” In the coming “day of judgment,” God will punish those who have violated these boundaries and invaded the territory of others. In the process they also will have “filled the earth with sin and pollution and fornication and transgression”: see Lev. 18:3, 28. These violators included not only the ancient Egyptians and Canaanites mentioned in Leviticus, but also the Ptolemaic rulers of Judah in Jubilees’ own time. (For Jubilees no less than for Rabbinic Judaism, the Egyptians were “plunged in wantonness.”) In view of the divinely ordained and legally binding act of redivision described in Jub. 8:10–11, the Ptolemaic occupation of Judah was a clear violation.

Jubilees 329

Noah’s Prayer against the Demons 10:1 In the third week of that jubilee the polluted demons began to lead astray the children of Noah’s

sons and to lead them to folly and to destroy them. 2And the sons of Noah came to Noah, their father, and they told him about the demons who were leading astray and blinding and killing his grandchildren. 3And he prayed before the Lord his God and he said, “God of the spirits which are in all flesh, who has acted mercifully with me and saved me and my sons from the water of the Flood and did not let me perish as You did the children of perdition, because Great was Your grace upon me, and great was Your mercy upon my soul. Let Your grace be lifted upon my sons, and do net let evil spirits rule over them, lest they destroy them from the earth. 4But bless me and my sons. And let us grow and increase and fill the earth. 5And You know that which Your Watchers, the fathers of these spirits, did in my days and also these spirits who are alive. Shut them up and take them to the place of judgment. And do not let them cause corruption among the sons of Your servant, O my God, because they are cruel and were created to destroy. 6And let them not rule over the spirits of the living because You alone know their judgment, and do not let them have power over the children of the righteous henceforth and forever.” The Binding of the Nine Tenths of the Demons

7And the Lord our God spoke to us so that we might bind all of them. 8And the chief of the spirits, Mastema, came and he said, “O Lord, Creator, leave some of them before me, and let them obey my 10:1–4. the polluted demons began to lead astray Jubilees had already recounted that, even before the Flood, God had ordered the half-breed children of the “Watchers” (the wicked angels) to slaughter each other and thus be removed “from under heaven” (Jub. 5:7). Jubilees then adds that they were tied up “in the depths of the earth forever, until the day of great judgment” (5:10). (The Watchers, being angels, could not be killed as their sons were, but merely imprisoned until the Day of Judgment.)105 That might seem to have settled matters, but apparently the Watchers had other offspring, “the polluted demons.” Noah therefore prays here for their elimination. 10:5. these spirits These are apparently the “spirit” part of the divine-human hybrids, liberated once their physical bodies had been killed.106 These demons, mentioned above in 7:27, are a constant threat, and Noah therefore prays for protection. He rightly addresses his prayer to “God of the spirits which are in all flesh,” cleverly adopting this phrase from Num. 16:22 and 27:16 and giving it a new twist: God, you are also the God of those demons/spirits who, though they are spirits, nevertheless are in flesh, that is, they can get inside human beings and make them misbehave. So please, do not let them rule over my descendants. “Shut them up and take them to the place of judgment.” (The phrase “Great was your grace upon me” is borrowed from Ps. 86:13.) 10:7–9. the Lord our God spoke to us At first, God complied with Noah’s request. But here the wicked angel Mastema, a central figure in the book, intervenes.107 He asks God to leave him a minimal number of followers, and God agrees: a 10th of the evil spirits who had previously been his are to remain unbound. The theme of the evil spirits being bound up after the Flood

330 James L. Kugel

voice. And let them do everything which I tell them, because if some of them are not left for me, I will not be able to exercise the authority of my will among the children of men because they are (intended) to corrupt and lead astray before my judgment because the over of the sons of men is great.” 9And He said, “Let a tenth of them remain before him, but let nine parts go down into the place of judgment.” 10And He told one of us to teach Noah all of their healing because He knew that they would not walk uprightly and would not strive righteously. 11 And we acted in accord with all of His words. All of the evil ones, who were cruel, we bound in the place of judgment, but a tenth of them we let remain so that they might be subject to Satan upon the earth. 12And the healing of all their illnesses together with their seductions we told Noah so that he might heal by the means of herbs of the earth. 13And Noah wrote everything in a book just as we taught him according to every kind of healing. And the evil spirits were restrained from following the sons of Noah. 14And he gave everything which he wrote to Shem, his oldest son, because he loved him much more than all of his sons. The Death of Noah

15And Noah slept with his fathers and was buried on Mount Lubar in the land of Ararat. 16Nine hundred and fifty years he completed in his life, nineteen jubilees and two weeks and five years. 17On account of his righteousness in which he was perfected, his life on earth was more excellent than (any of) the sons of men except Enoch, for the work of Enoch had been created as a witness to the generations of the world so that he might report every deed of each generation in the day of judgment. The Tower of Babel

18And in the thirty-third jubilee, in the first year of this second week, Peleg took a wife whose name was Lomna, daughter of Sina’ar. And she bore a son for him in the fourth year of that week. And he was apparently inherited from 1 En. 10:11–14; 13:1–2, where the evil Shemihazah and his associates are sentenced to be bound up for 70 generations (cf. 4Q203 frag. 7; Jude 6). Later Enoch sees them (1 En. 21:6, 10; and above Jub. 5:6.) But if all the evil spirits are bound up, who is left to keep leading humans astray? It is apparently for that reason that Satan/Mastema is given at least some troops here; cf. 1 En. 19:1. 10:10–14. teach Noah all of their healing Having allowed a 10th of the wicked angels to roam free, God told “one of us” good angels (presumably Raphael, whose name is associated with healing) to teach Noah all the healing (medicines), since it was obvious that the wicked angels would not “strive righteously” (better: fight fairly) but would attack humanity with all manner of diseases and ills. Noah subsequently “wrote everything in a book” to preserve the secrets of these medicines. 10:15. Noah slept with his fathers He died, having lived 950 years. Noah’s lifetime on earth, Jubilees adds, was “more excellent [i.e., longer] than (any of) the sons of men except Enoch”: somewhat puzzling, since both the LXX and MT agree that Methuselah lived to age 969, though the Samaritan Pentateuch puts his death at age 720.108 Enoch had gone to Eden (Jub. 4:23), where he continues to exist because he was given a special role: to warn “the generations of the world” that their deeds were being recorded and would be reported on the Day of Judgment.

Jubilees 331

called him Reu because, he said, “Behold, the sons of man have become evil with perverse counsel so that they are building a city and a tower for themselves in the land of Shinar.” 19For they departed from the land of Ararat toward the east into Shinar, because in his days they built a city and a tower, saying, “Come let us go up in it into heaven.” 20And they began building. And in the fourth week they baked bricks in fire, and bricks were for them like stones. And the mud with which they plastered was bitumen, which came out of the sea, and the springs of water in the land of Shinar. 21And they built it; forty-three years they were building. Its width was two hundred and three bricks. And the height of a brick was one third its length. Five thousand, four hundred and thirty-three cubits and two palms its height rose up. And thirteen stades (was its wall). 22And the Lord our God said to us, “Behold, the people are one and they have begun working. Now nothing will escape them, behold, let us go down and let us mix up their tongues so each one will not hear another’s word, and they will be scattered into cities and nations, and, therefore, one counsel will not reside with them until the day of judgment.” 23And the Lord went down and we went down with him. And we saw the city and the tower which the sons of men had built. 24And He mixed up their tongues, and, therefore, one did not hear another’s word. And so they ceased to build the city and the tower. 25Therefore, all of the land of Shinar is called Babel because there the Lord mixed up all the languages of the sons of men. And from there they were scattered into their cities according to each of their languages and nations. 26And the Lord sent a great wind upon the tower and overthrew it on the earth, and behold, it is between Asshur and Babylon in the land of Shinar; and He called it “the Overthrow.” Canaan’s Seizure of Land in Shem’s Portion

27And in the fourth week in the first year in the beginning of it, in the thirty-fourth jubilee, they were scattered from the land of Shinar. 28And Ham and his sons went into the land which was his possession, which he found in his portion in the land of the south. 29But Canaan saw that the land of Lebanon as far as the river of Egypt was very good. And he did not go into the land of his inheritance toward the 10:18. And he called him Reu, because, he said, “Behold! the sons of man have become evil Perhaps a double etymology in Heb., reflecting re’u (written with an alef, meaning “behold”) and re’u (written with an ayin) suggesting ra, “evil.” 10:19. let us go up in it into heaven The biblical narrative never says what was wrong with the plan to build a “city and tower with its top in the sky” (Gen. 11:4). Here, Jubilees’ author supplies an answer: the builders actually intended to invade heaven.109 10:23. And the Lord went down and we went down with him “We” refers to “angels.” This detail is intended to explain the plural in Gen. 11:7, “Let us go down.” 10:26. the Lord sent a great wind upon the tower The Bible says nothing of the tower’s fate, and Jubilees fills the gap, in common with Sib. Or. 3:101–7; 11:10–13; and Ant. 10:26; Midr. Tanh. Noah 18; etc. and He called it “the Overthrow” This is apparently a play on the name “Shinar” (from n-’-r, “shake”). 10:29. But Canaan saw that the land of Lebanon . . . was very good Noah’s grandson Canaan had, along with the others, sworn an oath not to encroach on anyone else’s territory; his own homeland was in North Africa, west of Put (above, on 9:1, 14–15). Nevertheless, seeing the green and

332 James L. Kugel

west, that is the sea, but he dwelt in the land of Lebanon, eastward and westward, from the bank of the Jordan and from the shore of the sea. 30And Ham, his father, and Cush and Mizraim, his brothers, said to him, “You have dwelt in a land which is not yours nor did it come forth for us by lot. Do not do this, because if you do this, you and your children will fall in the land and be cursed with sedition because by sedition you have dwelt and by sedition your children will fall and you will be uprooted forever. 31Do not dwell in the dwelling of Shem because it came to Shem and his sons by lot. 32You are cursed and you will be cursed more than all of the sons of Noah, our father.” 33But he would not listen to them and he dwelt in the land of Lebanon from Hamath to the entrance of Egypt, he and his sons, until this day. 34And, therefore, that land is called Canaan. The Settlement of Japheths’s Sons

35And Japheth and his sons went toward the seam and they dwelt in the land of their portion, but Madai saw the land of the sea and it did not please him. And he begged it from Elam and Asshur and Arpachshad, from the brother of his wife. And he dwelt in the land of Media near his wife’s brother until this day. And he called his dwelling place and the dwelling place of his sons Media after their father, Madai.

pleasant land that was part of Arpachshad’s portion (above, on 9:4), he opted instead to dwell in Lebanon (here, as in Jub. 9:4, meaning the future homeland of Israel), “from the bank of the Jordan and from the shore of the sea [i.e., the Mediterranean].” 10:32. You are cursed Better: “[already] cursed.” An allusion to Gen. 9:25, but they add that Canaan “will be cursed [even] more” for violating the oath of Jub. 9:14–15 and the curse that went along with it. 10:33–34. But he would not listen to them Canaan did not heed this warning and stayed where he was; this explains both why “that land is called Canaan” and also why the Canaanites were ultimately, and justly, expelled. In so saying, Jubilees was responding to an inconsistency between the widely accepted Ionian world map (see above on 8:8–11) and the genealogy of Gen. 10 (the so-called “table of nations”). According to the latter, Canaan was a descendant of Ham (Gen. 10:6) and so should have had his home in the territory assigned to Ham, that is, somewhere in Africa. But if so, why is the “land of Canaan” located in the area assigned to Shem? Jubilees’ explanation is that Canaan was indeed assigned a place in North Africa, but dissatisfied, he illegally seized part of Shem’s territory instead. 10:35. Madai saw the land of the sea He had previously been assigned the territory of Western Europe (Jub. 9:9), but that remote and cold territory apparently did not appeal to him. Unlike Canaan, he begged his family’s permission to move far to the east, and they granted it: hence the name of the land of Madai (Media). The reason for Jubilees’ mention of this change is similar to his reason for inventing Canaan’s switch of territory (above on 10:27–34). Jubilees’ author knew perfectly well that Madai was located to the east and thus was part of the Asian continent that he claimed had been assigned to Shem. Yet according to the genealogy of Gen. 10:2, Madai was one of the sons of Japhet—hence his territory ought to have been in the northern continent that Japhet received. Jubilees therefore claims that Madai’s territory was switched—unlike Canaan’s switch, this one was done by common consent.

Jubilees 333

The Birth of Serug Marks the Rise of War and Other Evils 11:1And in the thirty-fifth jubilee, in the third week, in the first year thereof, Reu took a wife and her

name was ‘Ora, daughter of ‘Ur, son of Kesed. And she bore a son for him and he called him Seroh in the seventh year of that week in that jubilee. 2And the sons of Noah began fighting in order to take captive and to kill each other, to pour the blood of man upon the earth, to eat blood, to build fortified cities and walls and towers, so that (one) man will be raised up over the people, to set up the first kingdoms to go to war, people against people and nation against nation and city against city, and everyone (will act) to do evil and to acquire weapons of battle and to teach their sons war. And they began to take captive a city and to sell male and female slaves. 3And ‘Ur, the son of Kesed, built the city of ‘Ur of the Chaldees and he named it after his name and his father’s name. 4And they made for themselves molten images, and everyone worshiped the icon which they made for themselves as a molten image. And they began making graven images and polluted likenesses. And cruel spirits assisted them and led them astray so that they might commit sin and pollution. 5And the prince, Mastema, acted forcefully to do all of this. And he sent other spirits to those who were set under his hand to practice all error and sin and all transgression, to destroy, to cause to perish and to pour out blood upon the earth. 6Therefore he called the name of Seroh, “Serug,” because everyone had turned back to commit all sin and transgression. The Birth of Nahor

7And he grew up and dwelt in ‘Ur of the Chaldees near the father of his wife’s mother. And he used to worship idols. And he took a wife in the thirty-sixth jubilee, in the fifth week, in the first year thereof. And her name was Melka, daughter of Kaber, daughter of his father’s brother. 8And she bore for him 11:2. the sons of Noah began . . . to pour the blood of man upon the earth They did this despite their oath (Jub. 6:10–11), and even “to eat blood,” the arch-crime of Jubilees’ author; this is also the beginning of warfare, slavery, and idol worship. 11:3–4. Ur, the son of Kesed, built the city of Ur of the Chaldees Since Abraham was to be born in that city and, according to an old tradition, rebel against its worship of idols, Jubilees is careful to say “that they made for themselves molten images, and everyone worshiped the icon which they made for themselves.” Mastema’s troops, the “cruel spirits,” helped the people in this idolatrous worship “and led them astray” (see above on 10:1–6). 11:5. And the prince, Mastema, . . . sent other spirits “Prince” is better rendered as “angel.” He sent other spirits to the humans whom he had already subdued to his powers. 11:6. Therefore he called the name of Seroh, “Serug” Cf. Gen. 11:20. In the MT, the “g” in this name lacks a dagesh and thus is not rendered as a plosive (like our “g”) but a velar fricative, Serugh. For this reason it is rendered in the LXX as Seroukh. In Jubilees this name apparently suggests the root s-r-h, a root frequently used in Aramaic and Mishnaic Hebrew to mean “to go astray,” “commit an offense.” It thus seems that the proper word order here has been confused in the process of translation: the text intended to say that Serug’s name was called Seroh “because everyone had turned back to commit all sin and transgression.” In L.A.B. 4:16, Serug is, on the contrary, one who refused to follow alien practices such as astronomy or child sacrifice. 11:7–8. used to worship idols Serug had worshiped idols and passed the practice on to his son Nahor, Abraham’s grandfather. In Jubilees’ time, Chaldea was famous for its astronomers, the best

334 James L. Kugel

Nahor in the first year of that week. And he grew up and he dwelt in ‘Ur among the Chaldeans, and his father taught him the researches of the Chaldeans in order to practice divination and astrology according to the signs of heaven. The Birth of Terah Marks a Devastation by Crows

9And in the thirty-seventh jubilee, in the sixth week, in the first year thereof, he took a wife. And her name was ‘Iyaska, daughter of Nestag of the Chaldees. 10And she bore for him Terah in the seventh year of that week. 11And Prince Mastema sent crows and birds so that they might eat the seed which was being sown in the earth in order to spoil the earth so that they might rob mankind of their labors. Before they plowed in the seed, the crows picked it off the surface of the earth. 12And therefore he called him Terah because the crows and birds were impoverishing them. And they ate their seed. 13And the years began being barren because of the birds. And they ate all of the fruit of the trees from the groves. If ever they were able to save a little from all of the fruit of the earth in their days, it was with great effort. The Birth of Abram and His Piety

14And in this thirty-ninth jubilee, in the second week, in the first year, Terah took a wife and her name was ‘Edna, daughter of ‘Abram, daughter of his father’s sister. 15And in the seventh year of that week, she bore a son for him, and he called him Abram, after the name of his mother’s father because he died before his daughter conceived a son. 16And the lad began understanding the straying of the land, that everyone went astray after graven images and after pollution. And his father taught him writing. And he was two weeks of years old. And he separated from his father so that he might not worship the idols with him. 17And he began to pray to the Creator of all so that He might save him from the straying of the sons of men, and so that his portion might not fall into straying after the pollution and scorn. in the world; this pursuit was connected with astrology and the worship of heavenly bodies. Serug thus taught his son Nahor “to practice divination and astrology according to the signs of heaven,” a science he would in turn pass on to Terah, Abraham’s father. 11:11. And Prince Mastema sent crows and birds Again, “prince” is better rendered as “angel.” This is apparently an old legend.110 11:12. therefore he called him Terah The connection between this name and impoverishment remains unclear, and apparently this was so even in ancient times. Jerome says the root means to “chase away,”111 perhaps thinking of the Aramaic t-r-k. Another Aramaic root, t-r-’, means “break, shatter,” but this hardly fits Jubilees’ claim that Terah was so named “because the crows and birds were impoverishing them.” Perhaps the intended etymology is to be found in the next verse, “If ever they were able to save a little from all of the fruit of the earth . . . it was with great effort.” This last phrase was presumably the Heb. tirhah, phonologically close (though not identical) to Terah. 11:15. after the name of his mother’s father because he had died before his daughter conceived a son Jubilees implies that it is unlawful to name a newborn after a living relative, or even one who died after the child was conceived. The former practice is observed in some Jewish communities, but the latter interdiction is otherwise unattested. 11:16. And the lad began understanding In keeping with other sources, Jubilees has Abram recognize the folly of idol worship at an early age.112

Jubilees 335

Abram’s Successful Efforts against the Crows

18And the seed time arrived for sowing in the land. And they all went out together so that they might guard their seed from before the crows. And Abram went out with those who went out. And the lad was fourteen years old. 19And a cloud of crows came so that they might eat the seed, and Abram used to run up to them before they settled upon the earth. And he would call out to them before they settled upon the earth to eat seed, and he said, “Don’t come down. Return to the place whence you came.” And they turned back. 20And he caused the cloud of crows to turn back seventy times in that day. And none of the crows settled on any of the fields where Abram was, not one. 21And all who were with him in all of the fields saw him as he was calling out. And all of the crows turned away. And his reputation was great in all the land of Chaldea. 22And all who would sow came to him during that year. And he used to go with them until the seed time passed. And they sowed their land and harvested in that year enough food, and they ate and were satisfied. 23And in the first year of the fifth week, Abram taught those who were making the implements for oxen, the skilled carpenters. And they made implements above the ground facing the handle of the plow so that they might place seed upon it. And the seed would go down from within it onto the point of the plow, and it would be hidden in the earth. And therefore they were not afraid of the crows. 24And they did likewise upon all of the plow handles above the ground. And they sowed and tilled all of the earth just as Abram commanded them. And therefore they were not afraid of the birds. Abram’s Plea to Avoid Idolatry 12:1And it came to pass in the sixth week, in its seventh year, that Abram spoke to Terah, his father, say-

ing, “O father.” And he said, “Behold, here I am, my son.” 2And he said: “What help or advantage do we have from these idols before which you worship and bow down? 3Because there is not any spirit in them, for they are mute, and they are the misleading of the heart. Do not worship them. 4Worship the God of heaven, who sends down rain and dew upon the earth, 11:18–24. And the seed time arrived The rest of an old legend (above, 11:11); Abram is thus presented as a “cultural hero,” credited with the invention of the plow.113 12:1–8. Abram spoke to Terah This section derives from an old midrashic motif, ultimately based on Josh. 24:2–3. It recounts that Terah was an idolator, indeed a maker of idols and/or a priest of idolatry.114 Though raised in this creed, the young Abram soon came to reject it and worship “the God of heaven.” Apparently, Abram has not yet had any direct contact with this God; his urgings are based solely on the folly of worshiping statues, since “there is not any spirit in them.” Jubilees’ account is paralleled by Jdt. 5:6–9; Apoc. Ab. 1; 3; Ant. 1.154–57; Gen. Rab. 39:1; etc. Here, however, even Terah is not a true idol worshiper, since Jubilees holds that Abram’s father must have been a righteous man; it is the people of Ur who have “made me minister before them [i.e., before the idols].” He adds: “And if I speak to them in righteousness [better: if I tell them the truth], they will kill me.”

336 James L. Kugel

and who makes everything upon the earth, and created everything by His word, and all life is in His presence. 5Why do you worship those who have no spirit in them? Because they are works of the hands, and you are carrying them upon your shoulders, and there is no help from them for you, except great shame for those who made them and the misleading of the heart for those who worship them. Do not worship them.” 6And his father said to him, “I also know (that), my son, but what shall I do to the people who have made me minister before them? 7And if I speak to them in righteousness, they will kill me because their souls cleave to them so that they might worship them and praise them. Be silent, my son, lest they kill you.” 8And he told this matter to two of his brothers, and they were angry with him, and he kept quiet. The Marriages of Abram and His Brothers

9And in the fortieth jubilee, in the second week, in its seventh year, Abram took a wife and her name was Sarai, daughter of his father, and she became a wife for him. 10And Haran, his brother, took a wife in the third year of the third week, and she bore a son for him in the seventh year of that week. And he called him Lot. And Nahor, his brother, took a wife. Abram Burns the House of Idols

In the sixtieth year of the life of Abram, i.e. in the fourth week, in its fourth year, Abram arose in the night and burned the house of the idols. And he burned everything in the house. And there was no man who knew. 13And they rose up in the night, and they wanted to save their gods from the midst of the fire. 14And Haran rushed to save them, and the fire flared up over him. And he was burned in the fire and died in Ur of the Chaldees before Terah, his father. And they buried him in Ur of the Chaldees. Departure to Haran

And Terah went out of Ur of the Chaldees, he and his sons, so that they might come into the land of Lebanon and into the land of Canaan. And he dwelt in Haran. And Abram dwelt with Terah, his father, in Haran two weeks of years. 12:12–15. Abram arose in the night This is the author’s explanation of Gen. 11:28, “And Haran died in the presence of Terah his father, in the land of his kinfolk, in Ur of the Chaldeans.” The last clause seemed odd and perhaps unnecessary after the previous one; but since the Heb. ur can mean “fire,” the author prefers to understand this sentence as referring to “a fire of the Chaldeans,” specifically a fire of their idols, in which Haran perished as he tried to save them. The family then departs for Canaan but stops on the way in Haran (Gen. 11:31). Abram stays with his father there for 14 years. The same understanding of ur underlies the well-known motif of God’s having “taken [rescued] you out of the fire of the Chaldeans” (Gen. 15:6), that is, saved Abram from a fiery furnace.115

Jubilees 337

Abram’s Night Nigil

16And in the sixth week, in its fifth year, Abram sat up during the night on the first of the seventh month, so that he might observe the stars from evening until daybreak so that he might see what the nature of the year would be with respect to rain. And he was sitting alone and making observations; 17and a word came into his heart, saying, “All of the signs of the stars and the signs of the sun and the moon are all in the hand of the Lord. Why am I seeking? 18If He desires, He will make it rain morning and evening, and if He desires He will not send (it) down; and everything is in His hand.” 19And he prayed on that night, saying: “My God, the Most High God, You alone are God to me. And You created everything, and everything which is was the work of Your hands, and You and Your kingdom I have chosen. 20Save me from the hands of evil spirits which rule over the thought of the heart of man, and do not let them lead me astray from following You, O my God; but establish me and my seed forever, and let us not go astray henceforth and forever.” 21And he said, “Shall I return unto Ur of the Chaldees who seek my face so that I should return to them? Or shall I dwell here in this place? Make the straight path prosper before You in the hand of Your servant that he might serve. And do not let me walk in the error of my heart, O my God.” Abram Is Called to the Land of Promise

22And he finished talking and praying and behold, the word of the Lord was sent to him by my hand, saying, “Come forth from your land and from your kin and from your father’s house into the land which I shall show you, and I shall establish you as a great and numerous people. 12:16–20. Abram sat up during the night on the first of the seventh month, so that he might observe the stars Although he had rejected idol worship, Abram still believed that the stars could be used to predict the character of the year with respect to the rains. But now he realized that the God of heaven, the only deity who exists in reality, can determine the rainfall on His own: “everything is in his hand.” Abram therefore prays directly to this God (apparently for the first time in his life), asking to be saved from the evil spirits who roam the earth (for evil spirits, see above on 10:1–6).116 12:21–22. Shall I return unto Ur Where was Abram when he thus prayed? When God first speaks to Abram in Gen. 12:1, He says, “Depart from your land and your kindred and your father’s house.” Presumably these words must have been uttered when Abram was still in Ur, since this was his “homeland” and the place of his kindred (moledet)—his family in the largest sense. But Gen. 11:31 had already reported that Abram had left Ur and settled in Haran. Gen. 12:1 might thus be a kind of flashback, explaining how it happened that Abram had left Ur. In context it would seem that Abram was indeed already in Haran, since Gen. 12:4 describes

338 James L. Kugel

23And I shall bless you and I shall make your name great, and you will be blessed in the land and all the nations of the earth will bless themselves by you. And whoever blesses you I shall bless and whoever curses you I shall curse. 24And I shall be God for you and your son and for the son of your son and for all of your seed. Do not fear henceforth and for all the generations of the earth. I am your God.” The Revival of Hebrew

25And the Lord God said to me, “Open his mouth and his ears so that he might hear and speak with his mouth in the language which is revealed because it ceased from the mouth of all of the sons of men from the day of the Fall.” 26And I opened his mouth and his ears and his lips and I began to speak with him in Hebrew, in the tongue of creation. 27And he took his father’s books—and they were written in Hebrew—and he copied them. And he began studying them thereafter. And I caused him to know everything which he was unable (to understand). And he studied them (in) the six months of rain. The Blessing of Terah

28And it came to pass in the seventh year of the sixth week that he spoke with his father and let him Abram’s departure from Haran with these words: “And Abram went forth as the Lord had commanded him [apparently, in Gen. 12:1] . . . Abram was seventy-five when he left Haran.” So where was he really? Interpreters were divided.117 The ingenious solution of Jubilees’ author: Abram was indeed in Haran, but in the meantime the people of Ur “seek my face [i.e., beseech me] so that I should return to them.” Abram thus asks God whether he should stay in Haran or return to Ur. God’s answer is essentially Gen. 12:1, but now with a different meaning: “Come forth from your land and from your kin [i.e., do not go back to Ur],” “and from your father’s house” here in Haran, and go “into the land [of Canaan,] which I shall show you.” 12:24. And I shall be God for you Better: “I will become your God.” I am your God This is the author’s theological addition to Gen. 12:2–3. 12:25. And the Lord God said to me “Me” is the angel of the Presence, who is to teach Abram Hebrew, “the language which is revealed” (presumably so called because it is the language of heaven, though this is nowhere stated outright in Jubilees); cf. Jub. 3:2, which implies that Adam is the creator of the names of the animals. But Hebrew was the “tongue of creation,” that is, the language God used to create the world in Gen. 1; it had been forgotten by humans “from the day of the Fall”: not “the fall of man” in the Garden of Eden—Jubilees knows of no such concept— but the fall, that is, the collapse, of the tower of Babel.118 A knowledge of Hebrew was necessary for Abram to read his father’s books, the writings of Enoch and Noah (see below on 21:10). 12:27. And he began studying That is, “studying [his father’s books],” which contained the teachings that had been passed down from the time of Enoch and Noah, including matters of priestly procedure. Abram studied Hebrew throughout “the six months of rain” since there is little agricultural work to do after planting. This might also explain why Abram was later referred to as “Abram the Hebrew” (Gen. 14:13); he was the one who revived the Hebrew language. 12:28–29. he spoke with his father Abram told his father that he was going to Canaan merely to see

Jubilees 339

know that he was going from Haran to walk (in) the land of Canaan so that he might see it and return to him. 29 And Terah, his father, said to him: “Go in peace. May God eternal make straight your path and the Lord be with you and protect you from all evil [and grant favor upon you and mercy and grace before those who see you.] May none of the sons of men rule over you to do evil to you. Go in peace. 30And when you have seen a land pleasant to your eyes to dwell in, come and take me to you. And take Lot, the son of Haran your brother with you (as) a son for yourself. The Lord be with you. 31But Nahor, your brother, leave with me until you return in peace. And we will all go together with you.” Abram’s Sojourn at Bethel 13:1And Abram went from Haran. And he took Sarai, his wife, and Lot, his brother Haran’s son, into

the land of Canaan. And he came to [Hazor]. And he walked to Shechem. And he dwelt by a tall oak. 2And he saw, and behold the land was very pleasant from the entrance of Hamath to the tall oak. 3And the Lord said to him, “to you and to your seed I will give this land.” 4And he built there an altar and he offered up upon it a burnt offering to the Lord, who appeared to him. 5And he removed from there into the mountain, with Bethel toward the west and Ai toward the east, and he pitched his tent there. 6And he saw and behold, the land was wide and very good and everyit and return. Ancient commentators were troubled by the fact Abram is said to have left Haran at the age of 75 (Gen. 12:4), apparently alone, thus abandoning his aged father (who would then have been 145 according to Gen. 11:26). Genesis never speaks of Terah later joining his son in Canaan or of Abram ever returning to his father; by implication, Terah must have died alone in Haran at the age of 205 (Gen. 11:32) without ever having seen Abram again. Various alternatives were proposed by commentators; see 4Q252 Commentary on Genesis; Migration 177; Acts 7:4.119 Here, Jubilees makes clear that Abram only left his father temporarily; cf. Seder Olam120 and later Rabbinic texts. 13:1. And he dwelt by a tall oak This corresponds to Gen. 12:6: “And he passed through the land . . . to Elon Moreh.” This apparent place-name in the MT is understood here as the common noun allon (“oak”) with ram or muram, “lofty,” corresponding to the MT moreh. (Since this reading is also attested in the LXX, it seems to have been a textual variant of Gen. 12:6 rather than an independent interpretation by Jubilees’ author; cf. “high land” for eretz ha-moriyyah in Jub. 18:2 and Gen. 22:2 LXX.) 13:2–4. And he saw, and behold the land was very pleasant Jubilees supplies Abram’s reaction to his new homeland to explain his subsequent action, “and he built an altar there.” Genesis implies, but does not specify what happened next: Abram “offered up upon it a burnt offering to the Lord.” (This is one of many indications to Jubilees’ author that Abraham was a functioning priest, having inherited that function from his forebear Shem.) 13:5–7. And he removed from there into the mountain. . . . And . . . saw . . . the land was wide and very good Better: “he removed . . . [toward] the mountain [country121] . . . and saw [that] the land. . .” The subsequent description of the land’s lushness contrasts sharply with the events in Genesis;

340 James L. Kugel

thing was growing upon it: vines and figs and pomegranate trees, oaks and ilexes and terebinths and olive trees and cedars and cypresses and date trees and every tree of the field, and water was upon the mountains. 7And he blessed the Lord who brought him out of Ur of Chaldees and brought him into this land. 8And it came to pass in that first year, in the seventh week, on the first of the first month, (that) he built an altar on that mountain and he called on the name of the Lord: “You (are) my God, the eternal God.” 9And he offered up a burnt offering to the Lord upon the altar so that He might be with him and not forsake him all the days of his life. Abram Travels South to Hebron and Egypt

10And he arose from there and he went toward the South and he reached Hebron—and Hebron was built then. And he dwelt there two years. And he went to the land of the South as far as Bealoth. And there was a famine in the land. 11And Abram went into Egypt in the third year of the week and he stayed in Egypt five years before his wife was taken from him. 12And Tanis of Egypt was built then, seven years after Hebron. 13And it came to pass when Pharaoh took Sarai, the wife of Abram, that the Lord plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues on account of Sarai, the wife of Abram. 14And Abram was honored with many possessions: sheep and oxen and asses and horses and camels and male and female servants and silver and much gold. And Lot, his brother’s son, also had possessions. 15And Pharaoh returned Sarai, the wife of Abram. And he sent him out from the land of Egypt. Abram Returns to Bethel and Is Promised the Land

And he went to the place where he had pitched his tent first, to the place of the altar. Ai was east and Bethel west. And he blessed the Lord his God who brought him back in peace. 16And it came to pass there, the first thing we hear about the land was that there was a famine (Gen. 12:10). Here, Abram expresses his thanks for the gift of the land: “And he blessed the Lord.” 13:8. You (are) my God, the eternal God See Gen. 21:33 and below, verse 16; also Gen. Ap 19:7–8. 13:10–12. he went toward the South and reached Hebron Gen. 12:9 says that Abram went “southward,” but Jubilees specifies that he arrived at Hebron because, in a parenthetical aside, Num. 13:22 says, “Hebron was built seven years before Zoan [Tanis] in Egypt.” Jubilees’ author interprets this as a statement of the great age of the two cities (in fact, he cites the verse explicitly; Jub. 13:12). Since Abram is about to journey to some unnamed locale in Egypt, a place where Pharaoh and his ministers were located (Gen. 12:15), it seemed logical that that place was the ancient city of Zoan. (See also Gen. Ap 19:22, 24.) If so, Hebron was also already in existence, and Abram would likely have passed through it on his southward journey “as far as Bealoth” (either the place named in Josh. 19:44 etc. or the similar-sounding one in Josh. 15:24). 13:13–15. Pharaoh took Sarai, the wife of Abram Jubilees passes quickly over the incident in Gen. 12:10–20, skipping entirely Abram’s instruction to Sarai to say that he is her brother; apparently this cowardly stance troubled Jubilees’ author.122 He also inverted the order of things, mentioning Pharaoh’s gifts of “sheep and oxen and asses and horses,” etc., after Pharaoh had been stricken for taking Sarai, rather than before, as in Genesis—apparently to avoid giving the impression that these gifts were a bride-price paid by Pharaoh to the cooperative Abram.

Jubilees 341

in that forty-first jubilee, in the third year of the first week, (that) he returned to this place. And he offered up upon it a burnt offering and he called upon the name of the Lord. And he said: “You, O God, Most High, (are) my God forever and ever.’’ 17And in the fourth year of that week Lot separated from him. And Lot dwelt in Sodom. And the men of Sodom were great sinners. 18And his heart was sad because his brother’s son had separated from him, because he had no sons. 19(It was) in that year, when Lot was taken captive, that the Lord spoke to Abram after Lot had separated from him, in the fourth year of that week: “Lift up your eyes from the place where you are dwelling toward the North and South and West and East, 20because all of the land which you see I will give to you and your seed forever. And I will make your seed like the sands of the sea. (Even) if a man were able to number the sands of the earth, he would not (be able) to number your seed. 21Arise and walk in the land in its length and its breadth and see all (of it) because I will give it to your seed.” Abram at Hebron Reacts to Lot’s Capture

And Abram went to Hebron and he dwelt there. 22And in that year Chedorlaomer, king of Elam; and Amraphel, king of Shinar; and Arioch, king of Sellasar; and Tergal, king of the nations, came and killed the king of Gomorrah, but the king of Sodom fled. And many fell with wounds in the valley of Siddim, by the sea of salt. 23And they took captive Sodom and Adam and Zeboim. And they took Lot, the son of Abram’s brother, captive and all of his possessions. And he went to Dan. 24And one who escaped came and told Abram that his brother’s son had been taken captive. 25And he armed the servants of his house. The Law of the Tithe

[U]pon Abram and his seed a tenth of the firstfruits to the Lord. And the Lord ordained it (as) an ordinance forever that they should give it to the priests, to those who minister before him so that they might possess it forever. 26And there is no limit of days for this law because He ordained it for eternal 13:17–21. Lot separated from him Lot leaves Abram, apparently for no reason (contrast Gen. 13:6– 11), and chooses to settle in Sodom, whose inhabitants “were great sinners.” Perhaps as a result of divine disfavor at this choice, Lot is taken captive later that year. God then instructs Abram to explore the land as in Gen. 13:14–17.123 13:22. And in that year The beginning of an account of the war described in Gen. 14:1–16 in which Lot is taken captive. Jubilees’ author shortened the beginning of the biblical account; the text then breaks off in all manuscripts—apparently the result of a copyist’s error early in the chain of transmission.124 13:25–27. a tenth of the firstfruits The text resumes with a discussion of the law of the tithe (see Lev. 27:30–33; Deut. 14:22–23), occasioned by the mention of the gift of a tithe (one-tenth) in Gen. 14:20. Although it does not mention the heavenly tablets, verses 26 and 27 have the other hallmarks of the Interpolator: “there is no limit of days for this law because He [God] ordained it for eternal generations.” While these are thus clearly the Interpolator’s words, it is not unlikely that the preceding words were part of the original author’s account of the primordial, first tithe in history (Gen. 14:20). Abraham would have initiated it on his own—following the pattern established by the original author—and then passed the practice on to his descendants, that is, it became a regular practice “upon Abram and his seed [to give] a tenth of the firstfruits to the

342 James L. Kugel

generations so that they might give one tenth of everything to the Lord: grain and wine and oil and oxen and sheep. 27And He gave (it) to His priests to eat and drink while rejoicing before Him. Abram Restores Booty to the King of Sodom

28And the king of Sodom approached him and bowed down before him. And he said, “Our lord Abram, give us the people whom you saved, but let the booty belong to you.” 29And Abraham said to him, “I life my hand to the God Most High (that) I will (not) take anything of yours, (even) a thread or shoelace lest you say ‘I have made Abram rich,’ but only what the young men have eaten and the portion of the men who went with me, ‘Aner and ‘Eschol and Mamre. Let them take their portion.” Abram’s Dream and Sacrifice at Mamre 14:1And after these things, in the fourth year of this week, on the first of the third month, the word of

the Lord came to Abram in a dream, saying, “Don’t fear Abram, I am your defender and your reward (will be) very great.” 2And he said, “O Lord, O Lord what will you give me? I am going on without children, and the son of Maseq, the son of my handmaid, is Eliezer of Damascus. He will be my heir, but you have not given seed to me.” 3And He said to him, “This one will not be your heir, but one who will come from your loins will be your heir.” 4And He took him outside and he said to him, “Look into the heaven and count the stars if you are able to count them.” 5And he looked at the heaven and he saw the stars. And He said to him, “Thus shall your seed be.” 6And he believed the Lord and it was counted for him as righteousness. 7And He said to him, “I am the Lord who brought you from Ur of the Chaldees so that I might give you the land of the Canaanites to possess forever and (so that I might) be God for you and for your seed after you.” 8And he said Lord.” At this point the Interpolator hastened to add that this law too was written on the heavenly tablets: “the Lord ordained it (as) an ordinance forever.” Who gave the tithe to whom was a difficult question for interpreters; Gen. 14:20 simply says “he gave him a tenth of everything.” The recipient here seems to have been Melchizedek, described as “a priest of God Most High” (Gen. 14:19); some ancient interpreters identified Melchizedek as another name for Shem.125 13:28–29. And the king of Sodom approached him The narrative of the original author resumes here. These verses retell Gen. 14:21–24, whereby the king of Sodom proposes to keep the human captives for himself and leave the rest to Abram; Abram demurs, “I lift up my hand” (the common gesture of oath taking) that “I will (not) take anything.” See also Gen. Ap 22:18–26, which adds that Abram did indeed carry out his promise to give spoils away. 14:1–6. the word of the Lord came to Abram in a dream This section retells Gen. 15:1–21, where God shows Abram a glimpse of the future. Despite God’s initial assurance, “I am your defender,” Abram is troubled that he does not yet have children. The somewhat confusing wording at the end of Gen. 15:2 in the MT is rendered here in a way similar to that of the LXX (“the son of Masek, my home-born female slave, is Damascene Eliezer”). Abram believes God’s promise that he will have numerous offspring, “and it was counted for him as righteousness.”126 14:7. who brought you from Ur of the Chaldees Jubilees repeats God’s promise in Gen. 15:7, to the effect that Abram would receive “the land of the Canaanites to possess forever,” but adds that He will be “God for you and your seed after you,” which, to Jubilees’ author, was apparently as important as the grant of the land.

Jubilees 343

“O Lord, O Lord, how shall I know that I shall inherit?” 9And He said, “Take for Me a young animal of three years and a goat of three years and a sheep of three years and a turtledove and a pigeon.” 10And he took all of these in the middle of the month. And he was dwelling by the oak of Mamre, which is near Hebron. 11And he built and altar there. And he slaughtered all of these, and he poured out their blood upon the altar. And he divided them in the middle. And he placed them facing one another, but the birds he did not cut up. 12And the birds came down upon the pieces and Abram kept turning them away and he did not let the birds touch them. 13And it came to pass when the sun set that a terror fell upon Abram. And behold a great dark horror fell upon him. And it was said to Abram, “Surely know that your seed with be strangers in an alien land. And they will serve them. And they will make them suffer four hundred years. 14But I will judge the people whom they will serve. And afterward they will come forth from there with many possessions. 15And you will go to your fathers in peace and be buried in a good old age. 16And in the fourth generation they will return here because the sins of the Amorites have not yet been completed.” The Covenant with Abram

17And he woke up from his sleep and stood up. And the sun had set and there was a flame. And behold an oven was smoking and flames of fire passed between the pieces. 18And on that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, “to your seed I will give this land from the river of Egypt to the great river the Euphrates River: the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, the Perizzites, and the Rephaim, the Phakorites, and the Hivites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.” 19And that day passed and Abram offered up the pieces and the birds and their (fruit) offering and their libation. And the fire consumed them. 20And on that day we made a covenant with Abram just as we had made a covenant in that month with Noah. And Abram renewed the feast and the ordinance for himself forever. 14:8–12. how shall I know that I shall inherit? That is, “inherit [it].” As in Genesis, Abram asks for some ceremonial enactment of this promise and is told to take some sacrificial animals; “he took all of these in the middle of the month,” that is, the 15th day of the third month, the Month of Covenants (above on 6:10–11). Abram “poured out their blood upon the altar” (not mentioned in Genesis, but in keeping with later priestly practice). 14:13. a terror fell upon Abram According to Gen. 15:12, “As the sun was about to set, a deep sleep fell upon Abram.” Jubilees’ author forgoes mention of this, citing only what is said at the end of that verse, apparently in anticipation of what God tells Abram next, that his descendants will be enslaved in Egypt. 14:17. And he woke up from his sleep and stood up This is Jubilees’ emphatic way of asserting that God’s covenantal promise to give Abram the whole of the land from the Euphrates to Egypt was no dream. 14:19. Abram offered up the pieces and the birds . . . And the fire consumed them That is, their slaughter was ultimately for the purpose of offering a regular, priestly sacrifice and not some spooky ceremony, as might appear from Gen. 15:10–17. 14:20. we made a covenant with Abram just as we had made a covenant in that month with Noah

344 James L. Kugel

Sarai Offers Her Handmaid, Hagar, to Abram

21And Abram rejoiced and he told all of these things to Sarai, his wife. And he believed that he would have seed, but she did not give birth. 22And Sarai advised Abram, her husband, and she said to him, “Go into Hagar, my Egyptian maid. It may be that I will build seed for you from her.” 23And Abram heard his wife Sarai’s word and he said, “Do (it)!” And Sarai took Hagar, her Egyptian maid, and she gave her to Abram, her husband, so that she might be a wife. 24And he went into her. And she conceived and bore him a son and she called him Ishmael, in the fifth year of that week. And that year was the eightysixth year in the life of Abram. The Offering of the Firstfruits and the Covenant Changing Abram’s Name 15:1In the fifth year of the fourth week of that jubilee in the third month, in the middle of the month,

Abram made a feast of the firstfruits of the harvest of grain. 2And he offered up a new sacrifice upon the altar, the firstfruits of the food for the Lord, a bull and a goat and a sheep upon the altar (as) a burnt offering to the Lord. And (their) fruit offering and their libation he offered up upon the altar with See Jub. 6:10. “We” refers to “the angels of the Presence.” This last clause makes it clear that Jubilees’ author thought of the third month as “Covenant Month.” And Abram renewed the feast This apparently refers to the Festival of Oaths, “and the ordinance” to keep it each year; see above on 6:20–22. This brief sentence was inserted by the Interpolator. Abram renewed it “for himself ” but not for Noah’s other descendants. 14:21–24. he told all of these things to Sarai This brief section introduces the story of Sarai’s handmaid, Hagar, and her son, Ishmael. Note, however, that there is not a word about Sarai’s mistreatment of Hagar and her subsequent flight (Gen. 16:6–14). 15:1–2. Abram made a feast of the firstfruits Abram initiates this feast “in the third month, in the middle of the month,” that is to say, on the 15th.127 (Jubilees’ author, who wrote this passage, clearly knew nothing of the Interpolator’s words in 6:17–22.) As with the other festivals, Abram’s offering of the firstfruits here will serve as a precedent for a festival whose existence will only officially be announced later in the Pentateuch. Abram presents these as a new sacrifice (specifically, a burnt offering, an olah) just as is later prescribed in the Torah (Lev. 23:18; Num. 28:27), though the details differ. Of course, the Torah says nothing of Abram offering the firstfruits, at this time or any time. But Jubilees’ author goes on to “prove” that Abram did indeed initiate such a festival in the third month—by means of the birth of Isaac. For when God announces the future birth of Isaac to Abraham and Sarai, He says that it will take place la-mo’ed ha-zeh (Gen. 17:21). This expression basically means “at this season” (NJPS), though the Bible gives no indication of what that “season” might be. Jubilees’ author, however, cleverly reinterprets this phrase as meaning “at this festival” (another meaning of mo’ed). Since Jubilees has just announced the existence of a festival in the middle of the third month, this would mean that Isaac was to be born during this same festival one year later. And so it comes to pass: “in the third month, in the middle of the month, in the time when the Lord told Abraham. Isaac was born on the feast of the firstfruits of the harvest” (Jub.16:13). And what more appropriate time for Isaac, the “first fruit” of Sarah’s womb, to be born! Thus, in saying la-mo’ed ha-zeh, God was made out to be referring to the third-month festival of firstfruits that Abram had just celebrated for the first time.

Jubilees 345

frankincense. 3And the Lord appeared to Abram and He said to him, “I am God Shaddai. Be pleasing before Me and be perfect. 4And I will make My covenant between Me and you and I will make you increase very much.” 5And Abram fell on his face and the Lord spoke to him, saying, “Behold, My ordinance is with you and you will be the father of many nations. 7And your name therefore will not be called Abram, but your name will henceforth and forever be Abraham because I have established you (as) the father of many nations. 8And I shall make you very great and I shall make you into nations. And kings will come from you. 9And I shall establish My covenant between Me and you and your seed after you in their generations for an eternal ordinance so that I might be God for you and your seed after you. 10And I shall give to you and your seed after you the land where you sojourn, the land of Canaan, which you will possess forever. And I shall be God for them.” 11And the Lord said to Abraham, “And you also keep My covenant, you and your seed after you. And you will circumcise all of your males. And you shall circumcise your foreskins and it will be a sign of the eternal ordinance between Me and you. 12And a son on the eighth day you will circumcise, every male in your generations, the servant of the house and whomever you purchase with money from all of the sons of the foreigner, whom you have acquired, who was not from your seed. 13The (servant) born in your house will certainly be circumcised and the one whom you have purchased with money will be circumcised. And My covenant will be in your flesh for an eternal ordinance. 14And whatever male is not circumcised, the flesh of whose foreskin was not circumcised on the eighth day, that soul shall be uprooted from its family because he has broken My covenant.” 15And the Lord said to Abra15:3–7. Be pleasing before Me and be perfect God appears to Abram and addresses him directly. The wording here follows Gen 17:1 LXX (as well as its translation of the same expression in Gen 5:22); for apparent theological reasons, the Hebrew “walk about before Me and be perfect” seemed a strange commandment in late Second Temple times. Do not all creatures walk about before the God of all? Then, in keeping with Gen. 17:5, God changes Abram’s name to Abraham and promises him numerous descendants, who will inhabit “the land where you sojourn” (i.e., where you have been until now merely a resident alien). 15:11. keep My covenant Since Jubilees’ author has placed these events in the third month, “Covenant Month,” Jubilees saw this as the appropriate time for God to have commanded Abraham concerning the covenant of circumcision (Gen. 17:10). 15:14. And whatever male is not circumcised . . . on the eighth day, that soul . . . has broken My covenant Here the author asserts, as Genesis does not, that failure to circumcise a male newborn on the eighth day will be deemed a violation of the covenant, even if the circumcision is performed later. His greater stringency is perhaps to be interpreted as a response to delays or outright neglect in keeping this commandment in Second Temple times, perhaps as a result of Greek influence. In keeping with Gen. 17:10–13, Jubilees says that circumcision is not to be practiced exclusively by Israelites, but by “you [Abraham] and your seed after you . . . [as well as by] the servant of the house . . . [and even anyone whom] you purchase with money from all of the sons of the foreigner, whom you have acquired, who was not from your seed.” This was not the opinion of the Interpolator: see below on 15:28.

346 James L. Kugel

ham, “Sarai, your wife, will therefore not be called Sarai because Sarah is her name. 16And I will bless her and I will give you a son from her. And I will bless him. And he will become a people. And kings of nations will come from him.” Abraham’s Concern for Ishmael

17And Abraham fell on his face and he rejoiced and pondered in his heart whether a son would be born to one who was one hundred years old or (whether) Sarah, who was ninety years, would give birth. 18And Abraham said to the Lord, “Would that Ishmael might live before You.” 19And the Lord said, “Yes, but Sarah will bear a son for you and you will call him Isaac. And I shall raise up My covenant (as) an eternal covenant with him and with his seed after him. 20And concerning Ishmael I have heard you. And behold I shall bless him, and make him grow and increase him very much. And twelve princes he will beget. And I shall make him into a great people. 21But My covenant I shall establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear for you in another year during these days.” 22And He finished talking with him and the Lord ascended from Abraham. The Circumcision of Abraham’s Household

23And Abraham did as the Lord said to him and he took Ishmael, his son, and all of the male servants of his house and also whomever he bought with money, every male who was in his house, and he circumcised the flesh of their foreskins. 24And that very same day Abraham was circumcised and every man of his house and the servant of his house. And all of those who were purchased for money from the sons of aliens were also circumcised with him. 15:15–22. Sarai, your wife Jubilees relates Sarai’s name change to Sarah and announces that she will give birth (Gen. 17:15–16). Instead of laughing as in Genesis, Abraham rejoiced at this surprising announcement; the same tactic appears in Ant. 1:198 and in Targum Onkelos on Gen. 17:17; Targum Neofiti and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan in the same verse render “was astonished.”128 15:19–22. you will call him Isaac God then speaks as in 17:19–21, asserting that this baby “Sarah will bear for you in another year during these days” (better: in keeping with this festival in the coming year).129 15:23–24. Abraham did as the Lord said Abraham then circumcises himself and his household, in keeping with Gen. 17:23–27. Logically, this should end the pericope: circumcision has been commanded and carried out. 15:25–34. This law is for all the eternal generations Here the Interpolator begins another insertion, using with one of his characteristic phrases, “for all the eternal generations” (better: for the generations forever). He then asserts that “there is no circumcising of days.” This is a curious phrase; in combination with the next phrase, “and there is no passing a single day,” it seems intended to stress that circumcision must be carried out on the eighth day specifically, no sooner or later. “Circumcising of days” thus seems to be a pun, “cutting short the days.” The Interpolator adds that all this is, as usual, “written in the heavenly tablets.” Then he explains that this is because it is “the nature of all of the angels of the presence and all of the angels of sanctification,” the two top categories of angels, to be, like Israelite males, circumcised.

Jubilees 347

The Laws of Circumcision

25This law is for all the eternal generations and there is no circumcising of days and there is no passing a single day beyond eight days because it is an eternal ordinance ordained and written in the heavenly tablets. 26And anyone who is born whose own flesh is not circumcised on the eighth day is not from the sons of the covenant which the Lord made for Abraham since (he is) from the children of destruction. And there is therefore no sign upon him so that he might belong to the Lord because (he is destined) to be destroyed and annihilated from the earth and to be uprooted from the earth because he has broken the covenant of the Lord our God. 27Because the nature of all of the angels of the presence and all of the angels of sanctification was thus from the day of their creation. And in the presence of the angels of the presence and the angels of sanctification He sanctified Israel so that they might be with Him and with his holy angels. 28And you command the sons of Israel and let them keep this sign of the covenant for their generations for an eternal ordinance. And they will not be uprooted from the land 29because the commandment was ordained for the covenant so that they might keep it forever for all of the children of Israel. 30For the Lord did not draw Ishmael and his sons and his brothers and Esau near to Himself, and He did not elect them because they are the sons of Abraham, for He knew them. But He chose Israel that they might be a people for Himself. 31And He sanctified them and gathered them from all of the sons of man because (there are) many nations and many people, and they all belong to Him, but over all of them He caused spirits to rule so that they might lead them astray from following Him. 32But over Israel He did not cause any angel or spirit to rule because He alone is their ruler and He will protect them and He will seek for them at the hand of His angels and at the hand of His spirits and at the hand 15:28. And you command the sons of Israel and let them keep this sign of the covenant For the Interpolator, circumcision is a commandment incumbent on the Israelites alone. This is in sharp contrast with Gen 17:10 and Jubilees’ author, who likewise defined the commandment as incumbent on “you and your descendants after you” (which would presumably include the sons of Ishmael, of Esau, and so forth), indeed even house-born slaves and others who have no genetic connection to Abraham (Jub. 15:11–13). 15:30. For the Lord did not draw Ishmael and his sons and his brothers and Esau near to himself “His brothers” should probably be “their brothers.” Even though some of these peoples may also practice circumcision (as they apparently did), it is not a sign of their having been chosen by God. But he chose Israel that they might be a people for himself The Interpolator notes that “(there are) many nations and many people, and they all belong to Him [God]”—a universalistic-sounding sentiment, but he means merely that God ultimately controls all peoples, yet not directly; instead, “over all of them He caused spirits to rule so that they might lead them astray.” See also below 16:17–18. The Interpolator is here restating the then-common understanding of Deut. 32:8–9: God appointed various angels (“sons of God”—this phrase appears in place of “sons of Israel” in the LXX and other ancient versions of Deut: 32:8) to rule over the other nations of the world, but He rules directly over Israel, without an angelic intermediary.130 15:32. He will protect them and . . . seek for them at the hand of His angels That is, He will call to account any of the angels in charge of other nations if they seek to harm Israel, so that He might guard them and bless them.

348 James L. Kugel

of all of His authorities so that He might guard them and bless them and they might be His and He might be theirs henceforth and forever. A Prediction of Future Faithlessness Regarding Circumcision

33And now I shall announce to you that the sons of Israel will deny this ordinance and they will not circumcise their sons according to all of this law because some of the flesh of their circumcision they will leave in the circumcision of their sons. And all of the sons of Beliar will leave their sons without circumcising just as they were born. 34And great wrath from the Lord will be upon the sons of Israel because they have left His covenant and have turned aside from His words. And they have provoked and blasphemed inasmuch as they have not done the ordinance of this law because they have made themselves like the Gentiles to be removed and be uprooted from the land. And there is therefore for them no forgiveness or pardon so that they might be pardoned and forgiven from all of the sins of this eternal error. Account of Sarah’s Laughter 16:1And on the new moon of the fourth month, we appeared to Abraham at the oak of Mamre and we

talked with him and we also caused him to know that a son would be given to him by Sarah, his wife. 2And Sarah laughed because she heard that we discussed this matter with Abraham. And we reproached her. And she was afraid and denied that she laughed about the matter. 3And we told her the name of 15:33–34. the sons of Israel will deny this ordinance . . . because some of the flesh of their circumcision they will leave Here the Interpolator “foresees” that the rules of circumcision will be violated. Circumcision was a crucial issue in Judea after Alexander’s conquest and the rise of Hellenism: Greeks denounced the practice as barbaric, and Hellenizing Jews therefore sometimes neglected it entirely or performed partial circumcisions or used other procedures to hide the signs of circumcision so as to be able to participate in sporting events of the gymnasium—naked, as Greek practice dictated—without shame (see 1 Macc. 1:15; T. Mos. 8:3; Ant. 12.241). The Interpolator predicts that “all of the sons of Beliar” (i.e., Heb. benei beliya’al, a common biblical phrase meaning wicked or worthless people; Beliar here is not what he is elsewhere, a Satanic figure) will do even worse and neglect circumcision entirely, making “themselves like the Gentiles to be removed and . . . uprooted from the land,” that is, the Land of Israel. 16:1. And on the new moon This should be “on the first day”; as we have seen (introductory comments and above on 1:13–14) Jubilees takes no account of the new moon in reckoning dates. we also caused him to know that a son would be given to him If God had already told Abraham that Sarah would bear him a son (Gen. 17:19), why should the “three men” (angels) of Gen. 18:2 have come to announce the same thing (Gen. 18:10)? This was a problem for all interpreters. Here the author gives his answer: on the first of the fourth month, that is, two weeks after God had spoken with Abraham in Gen. 17:19, the angels appeared to Abraham and repeated the same announcement (i.e., “we also caused him to know” that Sarah was to give birth) but this time Sarah too was informed: 16:2–4. And Sarah laughed She laughed at the idea of becoming pregnant at her age (Gen. 18:12). Her laughter might seem to have been the cause of her future son being named Isaac (since the apparent root of this name means “laugh”), but such an idea hardly suited the Interpolator’s sen-

Jubilees 349

her son Isaac—just as his name was ordained and written in the heavenly tablets—4and (that) when we returned to her at a specific time she would have conceived a son. The Destruction of Sodom

5And in that month the Lord executed the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah and Zeboim and all of the district of the Jordan. And He burned them with fire and sulphur and He annihilated them till this day just as (he said), “Behold, I have made known to you all” of their deeds that (they were) cruel and great sinners and they were polluting themselves and they were fornicating in their flesh and they were causing pollution upon the earth.” 6And thus the Lord will execute judgment like the judgment of Sodom on places where they act according to the pollution of Sodom. The Sin of Lot’s Daughters

7And we saved Lot because the Lord remembered Abraham and He brought him out from the midst of the overthrow. 8And he and his daughters also committed sins upon the earth which were not (committed) on the earth from the days of Adam until his time because the man lay with his daughters. 9And behold it is commanded and it is engraved concerning all of his seed in the heavenly tablets so that He will remove them and uproot them and execute their judgment just like the judgment of Sodom and so that He will not leave seed of man for him on the earth in the day of judgment.

sibilities—and it certainly could not be that Isaac received the name he did because of an impropriety on the part of his mother. Besides, God had already instructed Abraham to name his son Isaac in Gen. 17:19. In view of this, the Interpolator drew the obvious conclusion: Isaac’s name had actually been established long before: “we [angels] told her the name of her son Isaac—just as his name was ordained and written in the heavenly tablets.” Missing here is the whole account of Abraham’s generous preparation for his angelic visitors. Perhaps Jubilees’ author was scandalized by the implication that angels—spiritual beings—might have eaten actual food.131 16:5–7. the Lord executed the judgment of Sodom Jubilees’ author also omits the story of Abraham bargaining with God on behalf of the potential righteous men in the city of Sodom (Gen. 18:16– 33) and the subsequent account of the angels’ visit at Lot’s dwelling in that city (Gen. 19:1–14). He certainly would not have approved of the suggestion that Lot might have been one of those “righteous men” mentioned by Abraham, and what could have been more hateful to this author than a story that seemed to imply that humans could have sexual relations with the visiting angels? But if he skipped over those elements, he nevertheless found in the story’s conclusion— God’s utter destruction of Sodom—a most useful lesson. After all, he frequently stresses that fornication and impurity are the two great sins that Israel must avoid.132 Therefore, after alluding to the Torah’s own description of the Sodomites’ faults (that the people were “cruel [better: wicked]133 and great sinners”—see Gen. 13:13),134 he then adds his own two favorite sins, asserting that the people of Sodom “were polluting themselves and . . . were fornicating in their flesh.” If Lot was saved, he adds, it was only because he was Abraham’s nephew—he hardly merited being saved on his own. 16:9. behold it is commanded and it is engraved It seems that even this was not a sufficiently severe judgment of Lot for the Interpolator, who adds that the fate of Lot’s descendants had been “en-

350 James L. Kugel

Events Surrounding the Birth of Isaac at Beer-Sheba

10And in this month Abraham moved from Hebron and went and dwelt between Qadesh and Shur in the mountains of Gerar. 11And in the middle of the fifth month he moved from there and he dwelt by the Well of the Oath. 12And in the middle of the sixth month the Lord visited Sarah and did for her as He had said. 13And she conceived and she bore a son in the third month, in the middle of the month, in the time when the Lord told Abraham. Isaac was born on the feast of the firstfruits of the harvest. 14And Abraham circumcised his son on the eighth day. He was the first one circumcised according to the covenant which was ordained forever. 15And in the sixth year of the fourth week we went forth to Abraham at the Well of the Oath. And we appeared to him just as we said to Sarah that we would return to her. And she had conceived a son. 16And we returned in the seventh month and we found Sarah pregnant before us. And we blessed him and we announced to him everything which was commanded for him that he would not die until he begot six more sons and he would see (them) before he died. And through Isaac a name and seed would be named for him. 17And all of the seed of his sons would become nations. And they would be counted with the nations. But from the sons of Isaac one would become a holy seed and he would not be counted among the nations 18because he would become the portion of the Most High and all his graved . . . in the heaven tablets.” God will remove all of his descendants, “uproot them and execute their judgment just like the judgment of Sodom.” (This jangles somewhat with the previous mention of the angels saving Lot.) 16:10. the mountains of Gera These are near Beer-sheba, where Abraham lives next. Technically Beer-sheba (the name is rendered here in translation as the “Well of the Oath”) has not yet been named in Jubilees—contrast Gen. 21:31—but since it was subsequently named by Isaac (Jub. 24:25), the angelic narrator feels free to use that name with Moses. Here, chronologically, ought to come the incident between Sarah and Abimelech recounted in Gen. 20:2–17. Jubilees’ author skips it entirely, as he does a similar incident involving Abimelech and Rebecca in Gen. 26:6–11 (below on 24:13); both are profoundly embarrassing to this author, not only because these biblical heroines came perilously close to zenut, “fornication,” but even more because these incidents involved a non-Jew, Abimelech. For the same reason Jubilees had foreshortened the account of Pharaoh’s taking Sarah in Gen. 12:10–20 (above on Jub. 13:12–15), omitting any mention of Abraham’s role in the deception. 16:12. the Lord visited Sarah and did for her as he had said This is a citation of Gen. 21:1. God’s visit to her here, on the 15th of the sixth month, was what apparently enabled Sarah to become pregnant, since Isaac was born exactly nine months later—on the 15th of the third month, that is, “on the feast of the firstfruits of the harvest” (above on 15:1–3). Isaac was then circumcised on the eighth day. 16:16–19. And we returned in the seventh month and we found Sarah pregnant “We” refers to angels. Following his quick summary of Isaac’s conception, birth, and circumcision (vv. 12–14), Jubilees’ author relates an appearance of angels to Abraham that had taken place earlier, while Sarah was still pregnant with Isaac. This flashback is intended to explain the origin of the Festival of Booths (Sukkot). But there is no such angelic appearance reported in Genesis. (This is not the appearance of the three angels to Abraham in Gen. 18:1–15; at that time, Sarah was not pregnant—indeed one of the angels’ purposes in coming was to announce that Sarah’s long pe-

Jubilees 351

seed would fall (by lot) into that which God will rule so that he might become a people (belonging) to the Lord, a (special) possession from all people, and so that he might become a kingdom of priests and a holy people. 19And we went our way and we announced to Sarah everything which we had told him. And both of them rejoiced very greatly. Abraham Observes the Feast of Booths at Beer-Sheba

20And he built an altar there to the Lord who delivered him and who made him rejoice in the land of his sojourn. And he celebrated a feast of rejoicing in this month, seven days, near the altar which he built by the Well of the Oath. 21And he built booths for himself and for his servants on that festival. And he first observed the feast of the booths on the earth. 22And in these seven days he was making offering every day, day by day, on the altar a burnt offering to the Lord: two bulls, and two rams, and seven lambs, one kid on behalf of sins so that he might atone thereby on behalf of himself and his seed. 23And for a thank offering: seven rams and seven sheep and seven lambs and seven he-goats and their (fruit) offerings and their libations and all their fat he offered upon the altar as chosen burnt offering to the Lord for a sweet-smelling odor. riod of infertility would soon come to an end.) What gave the author of Jubilees the right to invent this second angelic appearance to Abraham—and why did he invent it? The answer to the first question lies in Gen. 18:10 and 18:14; in both of these verses, the angels assert that they will return to Abraham “and Sarah shall have a son.” To Jubilees’ author, this cannot mean that the angels are, as it were, speaking on God’s behalf and announcing that He will return and that, as a consequence, “Sarah will have a son”—for this author, angels are clearly different from God. Besides, God had already announced that He would return in Gen. 17:21. Thus, when the angels say they will return, they are certainly not talking about God’s visit to Sarah mentioned in Gen. 21:1 (see above on 16:13). Instead, they must mean that they will come back at the time when Sarah already “has” a son, namely after her son has been conceived and is safely in her womb. Since such a second angelic appearance seemed to be implied by the angels’ words in Gen. 18:10 and 14, Jubilees’ author took it upon himself to fill in the details: the angels appeared again to Abraham one month after God had enabled Sarah to become pregnant (Jub. 16:12), and they used the occasion to inform Abraham about his future progeny—not only Isaac, presently in utero, but about other future descendants as well. Abraham was told by the angels that “he would not die until he begot six more sons” (as indeed the Bible later reports; Gen. 25:1–2) and that the progeny of these six, like the progeny of Ishmael, would become nations in their own right. None of these nations, however, will be like Abraham’s descendants through Isaac and his son Jacob. Those descendants alone are destined to become a “holy seed” (Heb. zera kodesh, a crucial biblical phrase for Jubilees: see Isa. 6:13 and Ezra 9:2), one “not . . . counted . . . among the nations” (Num. 23:9), since they alone will be “the portion of the Most High” (Deut. 32:9), a “people (belonging) to the Lord, a (special) possession from [among] all people [Exod. 19:5] . . . [indeed] a kingdom of priests and a holy people” (Exod. 19:6).135 16:20–25. And he built an altar there in response to this joyful news, Abraham celebrates what was to become the Feast of Tabernacles or Booths (Sukkot), since that is the festival of “joy” par excellence, the only festival on which the Torah commands that people rejoice (Lev. 23:40; Deut. 16:14). The sacrifices reported here are at odds with those prescribed in Num. 29:12–40; the offering of incense is, however, apparently the same as that of Exod. 30:34.

352 James L. Kugel

24And in the morning and evening he offered the fragrance of frankincense, and galbanum, and stacte, and nard, and myrrh, and spices, and costum. All seven of these he offered, crushed, mixed in equal parts (and) pure. 25And he observed this feast seven days, rejoicing with all his heart and with all his soul, he and all of those who were in his house. And there was no alien with him or any who were not circumcised. 26And he blessed his Creator who created him in his generation because by His will He created him for He knew and He perceived that from him there would be a righteous planting for eternal generations and a holy seed from him so that he might be like the one who made everything. 27And he blessed and rejoiced and called the name of this festival “the festival of the Lord,” a joy acceptable to God Most High. 28And we eternally blessed him and his seed who are after him in every generation of the earth because he observed this feast in its (appointed) time according to the testimony of the heavenly tablets. 29Therefore it is ordained in the heavenly tablets concerning Israel that they will be observers of the feast of booths seven days with joy in the seventh month which is acceptable before the Lord (as) an eternal law in their generations throughout all (time), year by year. 30And there is no limit of days for this because it is ordained forever concerning Israel so that they should observe it and they should dwell in tents and that they should place crowns on their heads and so that they should take branches of leaves and willow from the stream. 31And Abraham took branches of palm trees and fruit of good trees and each day of the days he used to go around the altar with branches. Seven times per day, in the morning, he was praising and giving thanks to his God for all things.

there was no alien with him or any who were not circumcised “Alien” refers to a foreigner. This was a requirement for partaking of the Passover offering (Exod. 12:43, 48); Jubilees apparently extends it to this festival as well. Israel will be “a righteous planting . . . and a holy seed.” For the former, see Jer. 23:5; 33:15; for the latter, above on Jub.16: 19–20. 16:27. called the name of this festival “the festival of the Lord” Sukkot is regularly called simply “the festival” in biblical and Rabbinic texts, though this is not its “official” name (and therefore is attributed to Abraham):136 with this, Jubilees’ author ends his description of the first Sukkot, a precedent for the festival described later in the Torah (Lev. 23:34–36, 39–43).137 16:28–31. And we eternally blessed him “We” refers to angels. To the preceding description the Interpolator appends his own, characteristic additions. Abraham was blessed “because he [had] observed this feast . . . [in accordance with what had been written long before] in the heavenly tablets.” It is written in those same heavenly tablets that Israel is forever after to observe the same festival throughout “their generations . . . year by year.” The Interpolator then mentions something that the original author had omitted from his description of the festival, the curious provision of Lev. 23:40: “On the first day you shall take the product of a goodly tree, branches of palm trees, boughs of leafy trees, and willows of the brook, and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God for seven days.” It is not clear why the original author had omitted these details,138 but their absence clearly disturbed the Interpolator, so he inserted them here. Thus, in addition to having to “dwell in tents” (better: booths),139 the Israelites are to “place crowns” (perhaps of woven palm fronds; cf. Lev. 23:40)140 “on their heads”: they are likewise to “take branches of leaves,”141 the equivalent of Lev. 23:40 anfei etz avot “and willows from the stream” (arvei nahal in the same verse).142 Having added these requirements, the Interpolator then asserts that Abraham followed them as well, taking “branches [i.e., lulavim] of palm trees”143 “and fruit of good

Jubilees 353

The Feast for the Weaning of Isaac 17:1 In the first of the fifth week in that jubilee Isaac was weaned. And Abraham celebrated a great feast

in the third month on the day that his son, Isaac, was weaned. 2And Ishmael, the son of Hagar, the Egyptian woman, was in the presence of Abraham, his father, in his place. And Abraham rejoiced and he blessed the Lord because he had seen his sons and had not died without sons. 3And he remembered the word which was told to him on the day that Lot separated from him. And he rejoiced because the Lord had given him seed upon the earth so that they might inherit the land. And he blessed the Creator of all with all his eloquence. The Banishment of Hagar

4And Sarah saw Ishmael playing and dancing and Abraham rejoicing very greatly. And she was jealous of Ishmael and she said to Abraham, “Drive out this girl and her son because the son of this girl will not inherit with my son, Isaac.” 5And the matter was grievous in the sight of Abraham because of his maidservant and because of his son that he should drive them away from him. 6And the Lord said to Abraham, “Let it not be grievous in your sight on account of the lad and the girl. (As for) everything which Sarah said to you, obey her words and do (it) because it is through Isaac that a name and seed will be named for you. 7But regarding the son of this girl, I will make him into a great people because he is from your seed.” trees.” Since in later times Jews used to go around the altar with branches as part of the Sukkot celebration, Abraham is said here to have anticipated this practice. 17:1–3. Isaac was weaned Isaac’s weaning was the occasion for a great celebration in Gen. 21:8. The biblical text does not say when this celebration took place, but Jubilees’ author locates it two years after Isaac’s birth, “in the third month,” Covenant Month. 17:3. he remembered the word which was told to him in Gen. 13:14–16 (Jub. 13:20) he had been told that he would have numerous offspring. he blessed the Creator of all with all his eloquence Abraham did this, literally, “with full voice.” 17:4. Sarah saw Ishmael playing and dancing Gen. 21:9 says only “playing,” a word that might be understood as “mocking”; perhaps Jubilees’ author added “and dancing” to suggest otherwise (the Latin text has “playing with Isaac,” as in the LXX and Vulgate). 17:6. because it is through Isaac that a name and seed will be named for you God reassures Abraham about the banishment of Hagar and Ishmael. The Hebrew of Gen. 21:12 (“for it is through Isaac that offspring will be called [or ‘named’ or ‘considered’] for [or ‘by’] you”) is not altogether clear; does it mean that only Isaac’s future descendants will be called (or even will be considered) Abraham’s offspring? That hardly seemed likely to interpreters—certainly Ishmael’s children, along with the children of Keturah (Gen. 25:1–4), were also considered Abraham’s descendants. An alternative was to understand that verb as something like “will be proclaimed”—that is, Isaac will be your descendant par excellence, the one everyone connects with you. Jubilees’ explanatory addition, “a name and [a] seed” (presumably shem vazera, in the sense of a “reputation and a seed”) may be intended in this sense.144 17:7–14. regarding the son of this girl That is, Ishmael. The narrative here proceeds as in Gen. 21:10–21, with only a few changes. Thus, “an angel of the Lord, one of the holy ones” speaks to Hagar— one of the “angels of holiness” who serve God directly and thus can speak for Him. The incident

354 James L. Kugel

8And Abraham rose at the crack of dawn and he took bread and a water skin and set it on the shoulder of Hagar and the lad and he sent her away. 9And she went and wandered in the desert of Beersheba and the water was used up from the skin and the lad thirsted and was unable to walk and he fell. 10And his mother took him and cast him under one of the olive trees and she went and sat opposite him a distance of one (arrow) shot because, she said, “Let me not see the death of my child.” And sitting down, she wept. 11And an angel of the Lord, one of the holy ones, said to her, “What are you weeping for, Hagar? Having arisen, pick up the child and take him in your arms because the Lord has heard your voice and He has seen the child.” 12And she opened her eyes and she saw a well of water. And she went and filled the water skin. And she gave the child a drink and arose and went toward the desert of Paran. 13And the child grew and was a hunter. And the Lord was with him. And his mother took a wife for him from the maids of Egypt. 14And she bore a son for him and he called him Nebaioth because, she said, “The Lord was near to me when I called to him.”

concludes (unlike Genesis) with the birth of Ishmael’s first son, Nebaioth (see Gen. 25:13). Why “the Lord was near to me when I called to Him” should explain the name Nebaioth is something of a mystery; though the root n-b-’ does mean “call” in Arabic, Akkadian, and other Semitic languages, this meaning is not attested as such in Heb. or Aram., where n-b-’ means “prophesy.” (Perhaps Jubilees’ author thought it appropriate for Ishmael to give his son a name relying on the Arabic sense of this root.) For God’s being “near” when people call (as a trope for hearing prayers), see Deut. 4:7; Ps. 145:18. The next item in the Genesis narrative, Abraham’s encounter with Abimelech and the naming of the “Well of Oath” (Be’er Sheva) is omitted entirely in Jubilees. The reason is that the author found repugnant any account of a treaty or agreement between Abraham or the other patriarchs and the Philistines; they, along with all other non-Israelites, are to be banished from Israel’s sacred land. (See below on Jub. 24:14–26.)

Jubilees 355

Mastema’s Plot to Test Abraham

15And it came to pass in the seventh week, in its first year, in the first month, in that jubilee, on the twelfth of that month, that words came in heaven concerning Abraham that he was faithful in everything which was told him and he loved the Lord and was faithful in all affliction. 16And Prince Mastema came and he said before God, “Behold, Abraham loves Isaac, his son. And he is more pleased with him 17:15. on the twelfth of that month The story of the offering of Isaac (the Akedah) begins on the 12th because Abraham and Isaac do not arrive at their destination until “the third day” (Gen. 22:4); the author has arranged the dates so as to have the offering of Isaac take place on the significant day of the 15th of the first month. A significant day for Jubilees’ author is either the 1st or the 15th of the month. Good or important things happen on such days; bad or unimportant things do not. The clearest demonstration of this principle is found in the dates assigned by the author to the births of Jacob’s sons (see below on 28:9–24): the “insignificant” children were all born on insignificant days, but Levi, Judah, and Joseph were all born on significant days, the 1st or the 15th of the month (see Jub. 28:9–24).145 The same is true of events: Abraham offers a sacrifice at Bethel on the 1st of an unnamed month (Jub. 13:8); God promises Abraham numerous descendants on the 1st of the third month (Jub. 14:1); the angels appear to Abraham on the 1st of the fourth month (Jub. 16:1); Isaac was born on the 15th of the third month (16:13); and so forth.146 Unimportant or unfortunate events are generally not assigned dates. The fact that some significant days also coincide with festival dates in the Jewish calendar does not necessarily mean that the event in question is intended to serve as a precedent for the later festival. Thus, for example, the author located Abraham’s “covenant between the pieces” on the 15th of the third month (Jub. 14:10), not as a precedent for the Festival of Firstfruits—that precedent came later, when Abraham did indeed offer his firstfruits to God (Jub. 15:1)—but simply because it was a significant day in the “Covenant Month” par excellence (above, on 6:4–9). In the same way, the 15th day of the first month also happens to be the first day of Passover, but the offering of Isaac was not, for Jubilees’ author, in any way connected to this later festival, which commemorates an entirely different event, the exodus from Egypt. As we shall see, however (below on 18:17–19), the Interpolator misunderstood the original author’s intentions in this dating. 17:15–16. words came in heaven concerning Abraham In the story of the offering of Isaac, ancient interpreters faced a major problem: why should an omniscient God need to test Abraham at all? Surely He knew that Abraham would obey; why put him through it? The answer given by Jubilees’ author (and shared by other sources: L.A.B. 32:1–2; B. Sanh. 89b) is that God had been challenged by Satan (here, the “Prince [better: the Angel] Mastema”) to prove Abraham’s obedience. God certainly knew how the test would end, but He nevertheless put Abraham through it in order to answer Mastema’s challenge. This ancient midrash (ultimately inspired by Job 1:6–12) was tied to the opening verse of the episode, “And it came to pass after these things” (Gen. 22:1). The Heb. devarim can mean either “things” or “words”; this line of interpretation opted for the latter meaning in order to suggest that “words came in heaven concerning Abraham” and that it came to pass after these words that God was challenged to put Abraham to the test. Another ancient midrash took devarim in this same verse as “things” in order to suggest that this was not the only time that God had put Abraham to the test—and Jubilees adopted this other approach as well. “And it came pass after these things that God tested Abraham” (Gen. 22:1) could thus be taken to mean that the somewhat vague “things” being referred to were earlier tests: after these

356 James L. Kugel

than everything. Tell him to offer him (as) a burnt offering upon the altar. And You will see whether he will do this thing. And You will know whether he is faithful in everything in which You test him.” 17And the Lord was aware that Abraham was faithful in all of his afflictions because He tested him with his land, and with famine. And He tested him with the wealth of kings. And He tested him again with his wife, when she was taken (from him), and with circumcision. And He tested him with Ishmael and with Hagar, his maidservant, when he sent them away. 18And in everything in which He tested him, he was found faithful. And his soul was not impatient. And he was not slow to act because he was faithful and a lover of the Lord. The Sacrifice of Isaac 18:1And the Lord said to him, “Abraham, Abraham.” And he said, “Here I am.” 2And he said, “Take your

beloved son, whom you love, Isaac, and go into the high land and offer him up on one of the mountains that I will make known to you.” 3And he arose while it was still dark at daybreak and he loaded his ass and took two of his young men servants with him and Isaac, his son. And he split the wood of the sacrifice and he went to the

things, God tested Abraham again.” Out of this midrash developed the motif that God had tested Abraham no fewer than 10 times (see M. Avot 5:3).147 17:17. And the Lord was aware Jubilees’ author knew of the general theme of “Abraham the tested,” but he apparently did not know of the specification that there were precisely 10 tests, since he mentions only 6 here in addition to the Binding of Isaac: “he tested him with his land” (by telling him to leave his homeland; Gen. 12:1); “and with famine” (when he arrived in Canaan; Gen. 12:10); “with the wealth of kings” (if the tests are being presented in biblical order, this must refer to the great possessions given to Abraham by Pharaoh in Gen. 12:16; more likely, however, it is a reference to the offer of wealth by the king of Sodom in Gen. 14:21, which Abraham refused); and “again with his wife when she was taken (from him) [by Pharaoh; Gen. 12:15]”; “and with [the pain of] circumcision [Gen. 17:24]”; “with Ishmael and with Hagar, his [Abraham’s] maidservant,” banished by Sarah (Gen. 21:10). The Interpolator, by contrast, knew the “10 tests” tradition and therefore took the trouble to insert mention of it in connection with Sarah’s burial (Jub. 19:8). In either case, these previous tests made it clear that Abraham would pass this one as well—so, precisely for that reason, God did not hesitate to respond to Satan’s challenge. 17:18. he was found faithful This is this adjective’s fourth appearance since verse 15. This drumbeat repetition of “faithful” (ne’eman) is all the more surprising because the word does not appear at all in the Genesis story. Its first occurrence in connection with Abraham is in Neh. 9:8; thereafter it became his adjective par excellence;148 “faithful” in the sense of “reliable” soon morphed into “having faith [in God].”149 For “a lover of God,” see Isa. 41:8; 2 Chron. 20:7; and below on 19:9.150 18:1–2. Take your beloved son, whom you love This represents the version of the text preserved in the LXX, which apparently had yedidekha (your beloved) for MT yehidekha (your only one). go into the high land The same wording is found in the LXX, suggesting an underlying Hebrew text with eretz ramah, instead of MT eretz moriyah, “the land of Moriah.” See above on 13:1–9. 18:3–8. arose while it was still dark at daybreak An emphatic restatement of Gen. 22:3, stressing Abraham’s zeal to obey even this difficult demand. The rest follows the biblical narrative with only a few changes. “And he arrived at a well of water” is added to show Abraham’s concern for

Jubilees 357

place on the third day. And he saw the place from afar. 4And he arrived at a well of water and he said to the young men, “Stay here with the ass and I and the child shall go. And when we have worshiped we shall return to you.” 5And he took the wood of the sacrifice and put it on the shoulder of Isaac, his son, and he took the fire and the knife in his hand. And the two of them went together to that place. 6And Isaac said to his father, “Father.” And he said, “Here I am, my son.” And he said to him, “Behold, the fire and the knife and the wood, but where is the lamb for the burnt offering, father?” 7And he said, “The Lord will see about the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.” And they drew near to the (holy) place of the mountain of the Lord.8And he built an altar and he placed the wood on the altar. And he bound Isaac, his son, and he placed him on the wood which was on top of the altar, and he stretched forth his hand, and took the knife in order to slaughter Isaac, his son. 9And I stood before him and before Prince Mastema. And the Lord said, “Speak to him. Do not let his hand descend upon the child. And do not let him do anything to him because I know that he is one who fears the Lord.” 10And I called out to him from heaven and I said to him, “Abraham, Abraham.” And he was terrified and said, “Here I am.” 11And I said to him, “Do not put forth your hand against the child and do not do anything to him because now I know that you are one who fears the Lord and you did not deny your firstborn son to me.” 12And Prince Mastema was shamed. And Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw a ram was caught in the thicket by his horns. And Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up for a burnt offering instead of his son. 13And Abraham called that place “The Lord has seen,” so that it is said “in the mountain the Lord has seen.” It is Mount Zion. his servants; he would not leave them just anywhere. “Behold, the fire and the knife and the wood”: the knife is not mentioned in the biblical account (22:7); Jubilees corrects the omission. They “drew near to the (holy) place of the mountain of the Lord”: Jubilees uses the phrase from Gen. 22:14; later, he adds that this is Mount Zion (18:13). The mountain of Moriah was specifically identified as being in Jerusalem in 2 Chron. 3:1. 18:9–11. And I stood before him and before Prince Mastema That is, “I [the angel of the Presence] stood before him [Abraham] and before [the angel] Mastema.” Precisely at that moment, God told the angel of the Presence not to harm Isaac, “because I know that he is one who fears the Lord.” There was one further problem with the idea of God’s testing Abraham. If God truly knew how the test would end and tested Abraham only to show Mastema that Abraham was indeed faithful, why, in Gen. 22:12, is Abraham told to cease and desist “because now I know that you are one who fears the Lord.” “Now I know” seems to imply that previously God did not know! Therefore, Jubilees inserts something here that is not found in the Genesis account: “Do not let his hand descend upon the child,” God says to the angel, “because I know that he is one who fears the Lord.” Not “now I know,” just “I know”—because in fact God knew all along that Abraham was His faithful servant. It was only the angel, in repeating God’s message, who inserted the word “now”—the angel did not know! 18:13. The Lord has seen This reading is attested as well in the LXX (MT, “will be seen” or “is regularly seen”). On “it is Mount Zion,” see above on 18:3–8.

358 James L. Kugel

14And the Lord called Abraham by his name again from heaven just as He caused us to appear so that we might speak to him in the name of the Lord. 15And He said, “I swear by Myself, says the Lord, because you have done this thing and you have not denied your firstborn son, whom you love, to Me that I shall surely bless you and I shall surely multiply your seed like the stars of heaven and like the sand of the seashore and your seed will inherit the cities of their enemies. 16And all of the nations of the earth will bless themselves by your seed because you obeyed My word. And I have made known to all that you are faithful to Me in everything which I say to you. Go in peace.” 17And Abraham went to his young men and they got up and went (to) Beer-sheba together. And Abraham dwelt by the Well of the Oath. 18And he observed this festival every year (for) seven days with rejoicing. And he named it “the feast of the Lord” according to the seven days during which he went and returned in peace. 19And thus it is ordained and written in the heavenly tablets concerning Israel and his seed to observe this festival seven days with festal joy. 18:14. And the Lord called Abraham . . . just as He caused us to appear Jubilees stresses that this time God does not speak through an angelic intermediary but addresses Abraham directly from heaven. (In Gen. 22:15, by contrast, it is “the angel of the Lord” who calls out to Abraham a second time.) For Jubilees, the distinction between God and his angels is absolute; if the biblical text has God tell Abraham that “I have sworn by Myself,” then He must be speaking directly. Note that while others may swear “by God,” when God swears, it must be “by Myself.” It is thus God who promises Abraham directly that his descendants, including the Jews of Jubilees’ own day, will ultimately inherit the cities of their enemies and be blessed. 18:16. I have made known to all Better: “to everyone.” This was another, quite separate midrashic tradition designed to solve the “now I know” problem discussed above on 18:9–11. Since the biblical text did not yet come with today’s vowel-points, many words were potentially ambiguous. If, instead of reading attah yada’ti, “Now I know,” one were to read the same letters as attah yidda’ti, God would be saying, “Now I have made known,” “Now I have informed.” According to this interpretation151 God knew all along how the test would come out, but at its conclusion asserted, “Now I have made known,” to Mastema and all future generations, how faithful a servant Abraham is. Jubilees’ author probably preferred the solution put forward in 18:9–11 (though even there the Latin text has him say, “because I have shown,” manifestavi), but here he alludes to the second solution, which, judging by its diffusion, was certainly well known.152 18:17–19. Abraham went to his young men That is, he “went [back]” to them. The author’s retelling ends in verse 17, as the biblical story does (Gen. 22:19). At this point, the Interpolator153 adds his own, brief conclusion to a story narrated by the original author. As explained above on 17:15, Jubilees’ author had located the Binding of Isaac on the significant day of the 15th of the first month, which happens to be the date of the first day of Passover; but nowhere did the original author suggest that Abraham made a sacrifice of thanksgiving or celebrated in some other fashion on that day, thus anticipating the festival of Passover. With good reason! He knew perfectly well that Passover commemorated the exodus from Egypt—and said so (Jub. 49:18). Thus, the incident of the Binding of Isaac was fundamentally different from Abraham’s offering his firstfruits on the day that was to become the Festival of Firstfruits (Jub. 15:1), or his rejoicing and offering a sacrifice on the day that was to become the festival of rejoicing par excellence (the Festival of Booths; Jub. 16:20–27), or Jacob’s mourning on the day that was to become the day on which Israelites mourned for their sins (the Day of Atonement)—all these

Jubilees 359

The Death and Burial of Sarah 19:1 In the first year of the first week in this forty-second jubilee Abraham returned and dwelt two

weeks of years opposite Hebron, Kiryath Arba. 2And in the first year of the third week of this jubilee, the days of Sarah’s life were completed and she died in Hebron. 3And Abraham went to weep for her and bury her. And we were testing him whether he would exercise self-control. And he was not impatient, with the words of his mouth and he was found self-controlled in this also and he was not filled with anxiety 4because with the self-control of his spirit he spoke with the sons of Heth so that they might give him a place in which to bury his dead. 5And the Lord gave him favor in the presence of all who saw him. And he begged politely from the sons of Heth and they sold him the land of the cave of Machpelah, which is opposite Mamre, i.e. Hebron, for four hundred silver (pieces). 6And they begged him, saying, “Let us give (it) to you free.” But he did not take (it) from their control free because he gave the price for the place (in) full silver. And he bowed down to them twice and afterward he buried his dead in the cave of Machpelah. 7And all the days of the life of Sarah were one hundred and twenty-seven. These (are) two jubilees and four weeks and one year. These (are) the days of the life of Sarah. 8This (is) the tenth trial with which Abrawere indeed precedents for later holy days. If this distinction is somewhat subtle, that may explain why it was apparently lost on the Interpolator, who adds here that Abraham “observed this festival every year (for) seven days with rejoicing . . . according to the seven days during which he went and returned in peace”—as if everyone could see that this story was somehow intended to serve as a precedent for the seven days of Passover. But if one follows the dates of the narrative, the seven days in question start on “the twelfth of the month” (Jub. 17:15), not the 15th, as Passover does. It is thus clear that the Interpolator misunderstood; although he wrote that it is “ordained and written on the heavenly tablets” that Israel should keep the “festival” in question in the future, this was not at all the original author’s intention in his dating of the events. 19:2–7. the days of Sarah’s life were completed The death and burial of Sarah (Gen. 23) was, according to Jubilees, another of Abraham’s trials (above on 17:15–16). Here Abraham is being tested by the angels; God had no need to put Abraham to the test. 19:5. he begged politely from the sons of Heth That is, the Hittites. This was a test because of the protracted negotiations Abraham had to conduct before burying his wife. These were of course particularly distasteful for the author in that they involved conducting business dealings with non-Israelites. Nevertheless, he was courteous, all the while holding his nose, as it were, at the indignity of it all. As in his earlier tests, here too Abraham succeeded. He could have mentioned in his dealings with Hittites that God had promised him and his descendants the whole land, but he did not. 19:8–9. This (is) the tenth trial at this point, the Interpolator adds his own conclusion. He is aware (as the original author apparently was not) of the tradition holding that Abraham was tested by God precisely 10 times (see M. Abot. 5:3), and by his count, this was the 10th and final test. He basically repeats what Jubilees’ author had already said: this was a test of Abraham’s patience since, although God had already promised Abraham the land, “he [Abraham] did not say a word concerning the rumor [better: promise]” that God would give him the whole land, but was content to buy the burial plot from the Hittites.

360 James L. Kugel

ham was tried. And he was found faithful, controlled of spirit. 9And he did not say a word concerning the rumor which was in the land that the Lord said He would give it to him and to his seed after him, but he begged a place there so that he might bury his dead because he was found faithful and he was recorded as a friend of the Lord in the heavenly tablets. The Marriage of Isaac and the Birth of His Children

10And in the fourth year thereof he took a wife for his son, Isaac, and her name was Rebecca, daughter of Bethuel, the son of Nahor, Abraham’s brother, the sister of Laban and daughter of Bethuel. And Bethuel was the son of Melca, who was the wife of Nahor, Abraham’s brother. 11And Abraham took a third wife and her name was Keturah from the daughters of his household servants because Hagar died before Sarah. 12And she bore six sons for him: Zimram, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah, in two weeks of years. 13And in the sixth week in the second year Rebecca bore two children for Isaac, Jacob and Esau. And Jacob was smooth and upright, but Esau was a fierce man and rustic and hairy. And Jacob used to he was recorded as a friend of the Lord in the heavenly tablets By this the Interpolator seeks to refer to Isa. 41:8, where God describes Abraham as one “who loved Me” (in some translations, “My friend”). This became a famous part of Abraham’s reputation; he is called a “friend of God” in numerous sources.154 The same appellation also appears frequently in Rabbinic and patristic sources. The Interpolator says that this is recorded “in the heavenly tablets” and thus it seems always to have been written there: this future appellation of Abraham’s was of course written on high long before Isaiah spoke it.155 19:10. he took a wife for his son The long story of Abraham’s servant and his mission to find a wife for Isaac (Gen. 24) is skipped entirely—for Jubilees’ author, apparently nothing was to be learned from that episode. On Abraham’s third wife and descendants: see Gen. 25:1–5. 19:13. Rebecca bore two children for Isaac, Jacob and Esau Jubilees’ author altered somewhat the biblical story of the birth and early youth of Jacob and Esau (Gen. 25:20–34). First, there is no mention of Rebecca’s barrenness nor of the divine oracle she receives foretelling Israel’s eventual triumph over Edom (Gen. 25:21–23). Jubilees also omits the account of Jacob seizing his brother’s heel as they were born (v. 26). Perhaps the reason for both is that Jubilees’ author is well aware that the Genesis narrative does not present Jacob as particularly virtuous—from the womb on, Jacob keeps trying to get what rightly belongs to Esau. On the other hand, the author shows no desire to show the athletic, happy-go-lucky Esau in a particularly bad light, as later writers did. No son of Isaac, he felt, could be truly bad. He is thus content to say that Jacob was “smooth156 and upright”; the former adjective in Greek (meaning “relatively lacking in body hair”) is based on Gen. 27:11; the latter represents the Heb. tam (“straightforward, upright”) in Gen. 25:27. As for Esau, he is a “fierce man and rustic and hairy.” The words “fierce” and “rustic” (i.e., uncouth) are based in a general way on Gen. 25:27: someone who loves hunting must be fierce enough not to shrink at the sight of violent death, and a “man of the field” can be taken as meaning “rustic,” that is, not a man of the town or city.

Jubilees 361

dwell in the tents. 14And the youths grew up and Jacob learned writing, but Esau did not learn because he was a rustic man and a hunter. And he learned war, and all of his deeds were fierce. Abraham’s Blessings for Jacob

15And Abraham loved Jacob, but Isaac loved Esau. 16And Abraham saw the deeds of Esau and he knew that in Jacob a name and seed would be named for him. And he called Rebecca and he commanded concerning Jacob because he knew that she loved Jacob more than Esau. 17And he said to her, “My daughter, guard my son Jacob because he will be in place of me upon the earth and for a blessing is in the midst of the sons of men and a glory to all the seed of Shem 18because I know that the Lord will choose him for himself as a people who will rise up from all the nations which are upon the earth. 19And behold, Isaac, my son, loves Esau more than Jacob, but I see you as one who loves Jacob rightly. 20Be even better to him and let your eyes be lovingly upon him because he will be for us a blessing upon the earth henceforth and for all generations of the earth. 21Let your hands be strong and let your heart rejoice in your son, Jacob. Because I love him more than all of my sons. He will be blessed forever and his seed will be one which fills all of the earth. 22If a man is able to count the sand of the earth, then his seed will be counted. 23And all of the blessings with which the Lord blessed me and my seed will be for 19:14. Jacob learned writing This odd assertion is also based on Gen. 25:27, where Jacob is said to “dwell in tents.” Since a single person would normally need no more than one tent, ancient interpreters understood this to mean that, apart from his own residence, Jacob frequented the dwelling place of a teacher, who taught him how to write (or, in the Rabbinic version of this motif, taught him Torah).157 Esau did not learn . . . he learned war Not at this stage of life, but later on, as his father foresaw (Gen. 27:40). 19:15. Abraham loved Jacob Genesis 25:28 asserts that Esau was the favorite of his father and Jacob, of his mother. Jubilees’ author certainly did not like this characterization of Jacob as a mama’s boy. More to the point, however, the author considered Jacob to be Abraham’s “true” descendant, while Isaac was principally important as the means to Jacob’s birth. So, although Abraham’s death had been recounted in Gen. 25:8, Jubilees’ author knew that he must have still been alive at the time of Jacob and Esau’s birth, since Isaac, who was born when Abraham was 100 (Gen. 21:5), was himself 60 at his sons’ birth (Gen. 25:26); Abraham was thus to live another 15 years before dying at the age of 175 (Gen. 25:7). Genesis does not state which of his grandsons Abraham preferred, but Jubilees’ author had no doubt who his favorite would have been. 19:16–18. And he called Rebecca That is, Abraham called. He instructed his daughter-in-law to continue to favor Jacob, since he already knew that “Rebecca . . . loved Jacob” (Gen. 25:28). Abraham also knew that Jacob’s descendants would be a “people who will rise up [better: who will be a special treasure]158 [distinct] from all the nations which are upon the earth” (see Exod. 19:5; Deut. 7:6). 19:21–23. I love him more than all of my sons That is, “sons” in the sense of descendants. Abraham repeats the words that God spoke to him, “If a man is able to count the sand of the earth” (Gen. 13:16), and then explains that “all of the blessings with which the Lord blessed me” (like the one just cited) will henceforth apply specifically to Jacob and his descendants (a point never made in Genesis).

362 James L. Kugel

Jacob and his seed always. 24And in his seed my name will be blessed and the names of my fathers Shem and Noah, and Enoch, and Mahalalel, and Enosh, and Seth, and Adam. 25And they will serve to establish heaven and to strengthen the earth and to renew all of the lights which are above the firmament.” 26And he called to Jacob in the sight of Rebecca, his mother, and he kissed him and blessed him, and said, 27“Jacob, my beloved son, whom my soul loves, may God from above the firmament bless and may He give you all of the blessings with which He blessed Adam and Enoch and Noah and Shem. And everything which He told me and everything which He said that He would give me may He cause to cleave to you and your seed forever according to the days of heaven above the earth. 28And may the spirit of Mastema not rule over you or over your seed in order to remove you from following the Lord who is your God henceforth and forever 29and may the Lord God be for you and for the people a father always and may you be a firstborn son. Go, my son, in peace.” 30And the two of them went out together from Abraham. 31And Rebecca loved Jacob with all of her heart and all of her soul much more than Esau, but Isaac loved Esau more than Jacob. Abraham’s Farewell Testimony for His Children 20:1And in the forty-second jubilee, in the first year on the seventh week, Abraham called Ishmael and

his twelve children and Isaac and his two children and Keturah’s six children and their sons. 2And he 19:27. Jacob, my beloved son Rather, “grandson.” Abraham blesses him, mentioning Adam, Enoch, Noah, and Shem. This was the priestly line, according to Jubilees and other Second Temple period sources (see above on 3:27; 4:17–23; 6:1). As seen earlier, a section of Jubilees is missing (see above on 13:22–25), one that would doubtless have mentioned the person of Melchizedek, “Priest to God most high” (Gen. 14:18) and his interaction with Abraham. It is likely that, along with other Second Temple period sources, Jubilees identified him with Noah’s son Shem, mentioned here.159 If so, then Shem would have been Abraham’s immediate predecessor in the priesthood, which is why he is mentioned here. 19:28 And may the spirit of Mastema160 not rule over you Better: “spirit[s].” See above on 10:1–6. 19:29. and may you be a firstborn son That is, “[His, God’s] firstborn son.” This is an allusion to Exod. 4:22, where Israel is specifically called God’s “firstborn son.” See above on 2:20. 20:1. on the seventh week Probably should be amended to “sixth week,” since Abraham would have died before this date in the seventh week.161 20:1–10. Abraham called Ishmael and his twelve children and Isaac and his two children in Genesis, Abraham dies without giving his children his spiritual “testament,” that is, his last bit of advice and wisdom. But other biblical figures do so—Jacob, Moses, David, and others—and it eventually became a convention in Second Temple period literature to create such spiritual testaments for various biblical figures: Abraham (Testament of Abraham), Isaac (Testament of Isaac), Levi (ALD), Judah (4Q538 Testament of Judah), Moses (Testament of Moses), and so forth. Here, Abraham’s “last words” to his descendants are an example of this genre. On the vague basis of Gen. 25:5–6, Jubilees’ author supposed the existence of a family conclave, including all of Abraham’s grandchildren; since Abraham was about to send most of them away (Gen. 25:6), this was his last chance to impart to them some of the wisdom he had acquired in his lifetime.162 God had said this would happen in Gen. 18:19: “For I know him that he will command his children and his posterity to keep the way of the Lord to do righteousness and justice.” “Command,” Heb. tsivvah, has the technical meaning of “proclaim one’s last will or charge,” and Abraham proceeds here to do just that.

Jubilees 363

commanded them (a) that they should guard the way of the Lord so that they might do righteousness and each one might love his neighbor, and (b) that it should be thus among all men so that each one might proceed to act justly and rightly toward them upon the earth, 3and (c) that they should circumcise their sons in the covenant which He made with them, and (d) that they should not cross over either to the right or left from all of the ways which the Lord commanded us and (e) that we should keep ourselves from all fornication and pollution, and (f) that we should set aside from among us all fornication and pollution. 4And when any woman or girl fornicates among you you will burn her with 20:2. guard the way of the Lord An allusion to Gen. 18:19. Jubilees’ author probably interpreted this phrase to mean keeping the various teachings passed on by Enoch, Noah, and Abraham himself. so that they might do righteousness This again cites Gen. 18:19, which, however, uses the common biblical phrase, la’asot tsedakah umishpat. Interestingly, Jubilees does not include the last word of this phrase, “to do righteousness and justice”; perhaps “do righteousness” alone suggested to him, as to other Second Temple period authors, to “keep the commandments.”163 and each one might love his neighbor Lev. 19:18; for Jubilees’ author, as for later Rabbinic interpreters, a central commandment.164 that it should be thus among all men165 Abraham is thus adumbrating (and interpreting) a commandment given only later to Israel. (This one was particularly important to Jubilees, since it implied that all the Abrahamic nations ought always to be at peace with one another.) Moreover, his descendants are “to act justly and rightly” (Deut. 12:28; cf. 4Q398 Halakhic Letter [frag.14–17, col.2:7], where so doing is also deemed “righteousness”). 20:3. circumcise their sons As verse 1 had specified, this commandment was given to all of Abraham’s descendants, in keeping with Gen. 17. This also parallels Jub. 15:11–12, on which see above. However, Jub. 15:28–30 states that circumcision is a commandment given to the Israelites alone. The reason is that 15:11–12, like the present passage, was written by Jubilees’ original author, who, following the biblical text, understood circumcision to be the sign of “the covenant between Me and you and your offspring” (Gen. 17:10)—all Abraham’s offspring. The Interpolator, however, saw circumcision as a commandment incumbent on Israelites alone. they should not cross over either to the right or left from all of the ways which the Lord commanded us Roughly = Deut. 28:14. Here, unexpectedly, the text says “us”; what started out as the angelic narrator’s account of Abraham’s words to his descendants now seems to be a direct citation from those words. that we should keep ourselves from all fornication and pollution, and that we should set aside from among us all fornication and pollution “Pollution” is better rendered as “impurity.” This nearrepetition could be the result of a scribal error, or it could be a summons to society as a whole not to tolerate such behavior in its citizens. 20:4. you will burn her with fire Lev. 21:9 orders this punishment for the daughter of a priest (kohen); the same punishment was evoked in the biblical story of Tamar (Gen. 38:24), who was not the daughter of a priest; that may explain its mention here. (See below on 41:23–26.) The Torah’s legislation distinguishes between a woman who is married or engaged and one who is not (Deut. 22:20–28), but Jubilees does not.

364 James L. Kugel

fire, and let them not fornicate with her eyes and hearts and let them not take wives from the girls of Canaan because the seed of Canaan will be rooted out of the land. 5And he told them the judgment of the giants and the judgments of the Sodomites just as they had been judged on account of their evil. And on account of their fornication and impurity and the corruption among themselves with fornication they died. 6And you guard yourself from all fornication and impurity, and from all corruption of sin, so that you might not make our name a curse, and all your life a hissing, and all your sons a destruction by the sword. And you will be cursed like Sodom, and all your remnant like the sons of Gomorrah. 7I exhort you, my sons, love the God of heaven, and be joined to all of His commands. And do not go after their idols and after their defilement. 8And do not make gods of molten or carved images for yourselves, because it is vain and they have no spirit. Because they are the work of hands, and all those who trust in them trust in nothing. Do not worship them and do not bow down to them. 9But worship the Most High God, and bow down to Him continually, and hope for His countenance always, and let them not fornicate with her eyes and hearts The Heb. surely read: “And let them not stray (yiznu; lit. “go a-whoring”) after their eyes and after their hearts,” an evocation of Num. 15:39, translated too literally into the Ethiopic text. and let them not take wives from the girls of Canaan This is a common theme in Gen. 24:3 and 28:1; for Jubilees’ author, any contact between a Jew and a non-Jew results in impurity. 20:5. he told them the judgment of the giants and the judgments of the Sodomites “Judgment” in both cases is better rendered as “punishments,” and “the giants” as “the Watchers.” God’s punishment of the Watchers and the people of Sodom were two famous examples of divine justice. The two are mentioned together in Sir. 16:7–8 and 3 Macc. 2:4–5. And on account of their fornication and impurity and . . . corruption Cf. the three causes of the Flood in Jub. 7:20. Although Jubilees’ author sometimes includes a third term along with fornication and impurity, it is clear that these two are, in his eyes, the main source of Israel’s troubles. See above on 7:20; 9:14–15; and especially 16:5–7; as well as below on 23:8–21. 20:6. all your life a hissing166 That is, a sign of derision when contemplating a ruin,167 hence the biblical cliché “a hissing and a ruin.”168 20:8. gods of molten or carved images . . . they have no spirit These are virtually the same words spoken by Abraham to his father in Jub. 12:2–4; they reflect, among others, Exod. 20:5. 20:9. and hope for his countenance always This seems to be a quote from Ps. 105:4 and should be translated “beseech [i.e., pray to] Him”; and “do what is upright and righteous,” etc.169

Jubilees 365

and do what is upright and righteous before Him, so that He might be pleased with you, and grant you His mercy, and bring down rain for you morning and evening, and bless all your works which you have made on the earth and bless your food and your water, and bless the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your land, and the herds of your cattle and the flocks of your sheep. 10And you will become a blessing upon the earth, and all of the nations of the earth will desire you, and they will bless your sons in my name, so that they might be blessed just as I am. 11And he gave gifts to Ishmael and to his sons and to the sons of Keturah and he sent them away from Isaac, his son, and he gave everything to Isaac, his son. 12And Ishmael and his sons and the sons of Keturah and their sons went together and they dwelt from Paran to the entrance to Babylon in all of the land which faces the east opposite the desert. 13And these mixed with each other, and they are called Arabs or Ishmaelites. Abraham’s Farewell Testimony for Isaac 21:1And in the sixth year of the seventh week of this jubilee Abraham called Isaac, his son, and he com-

manded him, saying, “I am old and I do not know the day of my death and I am filled with my days. 2Behold I am one hundred and seventy-five years old, and throughout all of the days of my life I have 20:11. he gave gifts to Ishmael and to his sons and to the sons of Keturah Gen. 25:6; that is, these other sons (Gen. 25:2–4) were not disinherited entirely. 20:13. mixed with each other An etymology of the word “Arab,” as if from the Heb. arab, “mingle,” “mix.” 21:1. I am old This introduces another spiritual testament, the second of three (see above on 20:1). The normal pattern is to have only one, presented to all the dying person’s descendants simultaneously, as in chapter 20. If Jubilees’ author has added two more, it is because he wished to have Abraham pass on to Isaac alone a detailed set of priestly instructions (based on a section of the ALD)170 that would be irrelevant to Jacob, since he was never to become a priest.171 At the same time, Jacob was, for Jubilees, Abraham’s true spiritual heir, so he merited the special blessing and very last words in chapter 22. I do not know the day of my death Cf. Gen. 27:2; as if to say that as far as Abraham knew at the time, these might indeed be his last words. That might explain why Abraham is actually addressing Isaac at some period before his actual death (see below). As in 20:2, so here the phrase “commanded him” (better: gave him his [final] charge; Heb. vayyitsavvehu in 4Q219 1:1) has the technical sense of “to give one’s last spiritual will or testament.” 21:2. one hundred and seventy-five years old This is apparently a mistake in the Ethiopic text, since 4Q219 1:13 seems to have read “one hundred and seventy-two.”172 It is easy to imagine a scribe “correcting” this figure to fit Abraham’s well-known age at his death, 175; on the contrary, it may have been the author’s intention to introduce a time gap between Abraham’s charge to Isaac and his last words to Jacob.173 366 James L. Kugel

been remembering the Lord and sought with all my heart to do His will and walk uprightly in all His ways. 3I hated idols, and those who serve them I have rejected. And I have offered my heart and spirit so that I might be careful to do the will of the one who created me 4because He is the living God. And He is holy, and faithful, and He is more righteous than all (others) and there is no accepting of persons with Him or accepting of gifts because He is a righteous God and He is the one who executes judgment with all who transgress His commandments and despise His covenant. 5And you, my son, keep His commandments and ordinances and judgments, and do not follow pollutions or graven images or molten images. 6And do not eat any blood of beasts or cattle or any bird which flies in heaven. 7And if you slaughter a sacrifice as an acceptable burnt offering of peace, slaughter it, but pour out its blood on the altar. And offer up all the fat of the burnt offering on the altar with fine flour kneaded with oil, together with its libation. You will offer it all together on the altar (as) a burnt offering, (as) a sweet aroma before the Lord, 8and the fat of the thanksgiving offering you will place upon the fire which is on the altar. You shall remove the fat which is on the belly, all of the fat of the internal organs and the two kidneys, all of the fat which is on them and on the thighs and the liver together with the kidneys. 9And you will offer all of this up as a sweet aroma which is acceptable before the Lord together with its (fruit) offering and its libation for a sweet odor, the bread of a burnt offering to the Lord. 10And eat its flesh on that day and in the second (day), but do not let the sun of the second (day) set upon it until it is consumed. And do not let it remain until the third day because it will not be acceptable since it was not chosen. Therefore, it will not be eaten. And all of those who eat it will raise up sin against sought with all my heart to do his will A slightly different version of this sentence seems to underlie a Dead Sea Scrolls Jubilees fragment (4Q219): “And I have soug[ht Him with all my heart to do His will].” This is the biblical idiom “to seek [darash] the Lord,” that is, to seek His favor, to beseech Him. 21:4. holy, and faithful, and . . . more righteous than all (others) This last phrase is a Hebrew idiom used in the legal sense, that is, He will always be found to have acted rightly; see above on 1:6. no accepting of persons That is, no favoritism; the expression is taken from Deut. 10:17, as is the next phrase, “accepting of gifts,” that is, bribes. 21:5. keep His commandments and ordinances and judgments Deut. 8:11. Genesis. 26:5 says that Abraham kept “My charge, My commandments, My laws, and My teachings,” so it is only fitting that he should tell his offspring to do the same. Presumably, these include the commandments that Abraham has already learned from his forebears, some of them in writing (above, on 12:25– 27); he has in turn passed these teachings on to his son Isaac. and do not follow pollutions Better: “idols.”174 21:6. do not eat any blood A key issue for the author of Jubilees;175 see above on 6:10–11. 21:7. And if you slaughter a sacrifice There follows a set of instructions about the offering of sacrifices that is paralleled by the passage of priestly instructions incorporated in the ALD.176 For the biblical basis and wording, see Lev. 1–8. 21:10. do not let the sun of the second (day) set upon it until it is consumed See Lev. 7:16–18; 19:6–7; Jubilees, in common with Rabbinic sources, understands from the phrase “on the day following” (Lev. 19:6) to be saying that the meat may be eaten only until sunset of the second day.

Jubilees 367

themselves. Because thus I have found written in the books of my forefathers and in the words of Enoch and in the words of Noah. 11And you shall put salt in all of your offerings, and you shall not omit the salt of the covenant from any of your offerings before the Lord. 12And take caution with the wood of the offering that you do not bring wood for the offering except of such as these: cypress, bay, almond, fir, pine, cedar, juniper, fig, olive, myrtle, laurel, and asphalathos. 13But place some of these trees under the burnt offering on the altar (with) their appearance tested. And you will not place any split or dark wood, (but) wood strong and pure which has no spots, perfect, and new growth. And you will not place old wood (there) because its aroma has gone out because there is not, therefore, an aroma upon it as before. 14Except for these trees, there is none other that you will put on (the altar) because its aroma has separated and the smell of its aroma will go up to heaven. 15Keep this commandment and do it, my son, so that you might act uprightly in all of your deeds. 16And at all of the (appointed) times be pure in your body and wash yourself with water before you go to make an offering upon the altar. And wash your hands and your feet before you approach the altar. And when you have completed making the offering, wash your hands and feet again. 17And let there not be seen any blood upon you or your garments. Be careful, my son, be extremely careful of blood. Cover it in the earth. 18And, therefore, do not eat blood because it is life, and you shall not eat any blood. 19And do not accept gifts for any human blood lest it be poured out in vain, without judgment, because it is blood which is poured out to cause sin for the earth. And the earth is not able to be purified of human blood except by blood of one who shed it. 20And you shall not accept gifts or tribute for human blood—blood through blood—so that

Because thus I have found written Better: “found [it] written.” How did Abraham know these rules of proper sacrificing? Since he is part of a “chain of priests” stretching back to Adam (see above on 3:27, 6:1, 19:26), he could have been instructed by his predecessor priest, Shem. But Abraham had also learned Hebrew in order to be able to read “his father’s books” (above, on 12:25–27). Perhaps the missing section about Melchizedek/Shem (see above on 13:22–25) explained the transfer of the priesthood to Abraham in circumstances that would have required him to learn priestly regulations from the (written) words of Enoch and of Noah instead of, or in addition to, the instructions of Shem.177 Since this section was written by the original author and not the Interpolator, it makes no mention of these provisions being written in the heavenly tablets, as the Interpolator surely would have done. 20:11. you shall not omit the salt of the covenant Lev. 2:13; see above on 6:1. 21:12. take caution with the wood This list of the different kinds of acceptable wood is also paralleled in ALD 7:5–6. The ALD and T. Levi 9:12 both stipulate that there are 12 kinds of acceptable wood, as here, but other Jubilees manuscripts list 13, and 1 En. 3 speaks of 14.178 21:13–14. split or dark wood . . . because its aroma has gone These further provisions about the wood are not paralleled in the ALD, indeed, the latter specifies that split wood must be used; perhaps Jubilees has misunderstood its source, since the split wood is to be examined for worms (ALD 7:4). 21:16. at all . . . times be pure in your body Priestly ablutions are, of course, a biblical requirement. 21:17. let there not be seen any blood On covering the blood (Lev. 17:13), see above on 6:9–14. Jubilees then reiterates that it is forbidden “to eat any blood” (21:18). This leads metaphorically to the next commandment. 21:20. you shall not accept gifts or tribute for human blood Here Jubilees, in keeping with Gen. 9:6 and Lev. 35:30–33, forbids “ransoming” someone guilty of murder (and perhaps even of wounding his

368 James L. Kugel

you may be accepted before the Lord God Most High, and He will be the protector of the good, and so that you might guard yourself from all evil, and so that He might save you from all death, 21I see, my son, every deed of mankind, that (they are) sins and evils; and all of their deeds are defilement and corruption and contamination; and there is no righteousness with them. 22Be careful not to walk in their ways, and to tread in their path, or to commit a mortal sin before God Most High so that He will hide His face from you, and deliver you into the power of your sin, and uproot you from the earth, and your seed from beneath the sky, and your name and seed will perish from all the earth. 23Turn yourself aside from all their deeds and from all their defilement; and keep the commands of God Most High, and perform His will, and act uprightly in all things. 24And He will bless you in all your deeds, and He will raise up from you a righteous plant in all the earth throughout all the generations of the earth; and my name and your name shall not cease from beneath heaven forever. fellow) with monetary compensation. Rather, the only proper compensation is “blood through [better: for] blood”; only this, Jubilees says, “[will be] accepted before the Lord God Most High.” He will be the protector of the good Better: “His guarding [mishmar] will be over the good,” as in 4Q219 2:21. This is a curious assertion. To begin with, the Heb. mishmar really does not mean “protection” so much as “guarding” (sometimes of prisoners); however, in late biblical Hebrew and at Qumran it was used in the sense of “steady service,” especially in the Temple.179 It thus seems more likely that the original text read: “and His service will be to your benefit,” that is, may your serving God and being in proximity to Him bring you only good. so that you might guard yourself from all evil, and so that He might save you from all death Better: “from every evil spirit [reshef],” as in 4Q219 2:22. The word reshef here is probably not intended as an abstract noun, “pestilence,” nor yet as a reference to a long-forgotten pagan god, but as a generic evil spirit, that is, a wicked angel of the sort that Jubilees often warns against.180 21:21. there is no righteousness with them 4Q219 2:24 has for “righteousness” emet, that is, with them “there is no faithfulness [to God’s precepts],” a restatement of Deut. 32:20. 21:22. your name and seed will perish See above on 17:6. For this phrase 4Q219 2:27 reads “your name and your remembrance,” the latter term being a synonym for “name” in biblical Hebrew; however, here the Ethiopic text seems preferable. The meaning is that, as a result of you and your descendants being uprooted, your name will also disappear—a common biblical notion (see Deut. 25:6). 21:24. a righteous plant The version of this verse in 4Q219 reads: “[and He will raise up from you a plant of] truth upon the land.” That is, Isaac will be the father of Jacob, whose descendants will fill the land of Canaan. Jubilees 369

25Go, my son, in peace. May God Most High, my God, and your God strengthen you to do His will, and may He bless all of your seed and the remnant of your seed for eternal generations with all righteous blessing so that you might be a blessing in all of the earth.” 26And he went out from him rejoicing. Abraham’s Celebration of the Feast of Firstfruits 22:1And it came to pass in the first week of this forty-fourth jubilee in the second year, that year in which

Abraham died, that Isaac and Ishmael came from the Well of the Oath to Abraham, their father, to observe the feast of Shavuot, which is the feast of the firstfruits of the harvest. And Abraham rejoiced because both of his children came, 2for Isaac had many possessions in Beer-sheba. And Isaac used to go and inspect his possessions and return to his father. 3And in those days Ishmael came to see his father. And both of them came together, and Isaac slaugh22:1. in the first week of this forty-fourth jubilee This date in the Ethiopic mss. appears to be mistaken, since it would have Abraham dying at the age of 233, whereas Gen. 25:7 says he died at the age of 175. 4Q219 Jub. col. 2:35 reads “in the first week of the fo[rty-]third jubilee.” This would not quite solve the chronological problem, however, since it would still have Abraham die at too old an age, 184 instead of 175. (Note that Abraham says in Jub. 22:7 “I am now 175 years of age,” so Jubilees’ dating here must clearly be off.) It may well be that 4Q219 itself represents a later copyist’s attempt to come close to Abraham’s biblical age; the original numbers may have been altogether distorted. 22:1–2. to observe the feast of Shavuot, which is the feast of the firstfruits of the harvest Abraham had already inaugurated the Festival of Firstfruits in Jub. 15:1; now his sons Isaac and Ishmael are said to keep it as well. Note that Jubilees’ author first identifies this festival by its other name, Shavuot, “Weeks,” explaining that the two names refer to the same festival. It is clear from this that he knew nothing of the Interpolator’s insertion concerning the Festival of Oaths (Shevuot), since, according to Jub. 6:19–20, Shevuot only came to be combined with the Festival of Firstfruits “during your lifetime, [Moses,]” after the Israelites had neglected its observance. There is also a slight contradiction between the Interpolator’s assertion there that the festival was kept by “Abraham alone” (followed by Isaac and Jacob), since here, clearly, Ishmael is also keeping it. 22:2. Isaac used to go . . . and return to his father This is a subtle dig at Ishmael. According to Gen. 18:1 and subsequently, Abraham had lived for a time at Mamre, near Hebron. He later went south to Gerar (Gen. 20:1, Jub. 16:10), and from there to Beer-sheba (Gen. 21:33–34; 22:19). Nevertheless, Jubilees seems to believe that, after Sarah’s burial in the cave of Machpelah near Hebron (Gen. 23), Abraham stayed in Hebron, since that is where he is in Jub. 22. Presumably, since Abraham had purchased a field near Hebron (Gen. 23:17), he must have decided to move there, near his wife’s grave. Isaac, meanwhile, was said to have gone to the southland (Gen. 24:62), where he is sighted first at Gerar (Gen. 26:1; cf. Gen. 26:17) and later at Beer-sheba (Gen. 26:23, 33). On the basis of the biblical text, therefore, it would have been reasonable to assume that Isaac continued living in Beer-sheba while his aged father dwelt in or near Hebron. However, Jub. 22:2 implies that Isaac, the dutiful son, actually lived with his father and used to go to Beer-sheba only to inspect his possessions and then returned to his father. 22:3. in those days Ishmael came to see his father By contrast, Ishmael did not regularly visit his father; it was only on this occasion that Ishmael made the trip, accompanying Isaac there. (It was necessary to have both of them together at Hebron when Abraham dies, since, according to Gen.

370 James L. Kugel

tered a sacrifice as a burnt offering and offered (it) up upon the altar of his father which he built in Hebron. 4And he sacrificed a thank offering and made a feast of joy before Ishmael, his brother. And Rebecca made new round cakes of new grain. And she gave them to Jacob, her son, to take to Abraham, his father, from the firstfruits of the land so that he might eat and bless the Creator of all before he died. 5And Isaac also sent by the hand of Jacob a good thank offering to Abraham so that he might eat and drink. 6And he ate and drank and blessed God Most High who created heaven and earth and who made all the fat of the earth and gave it to the sons of man so that they might eat and drink and bless their Creator: 7“And now I thank You, my God, because You have let me see this day. Behold, I am one hundred and seventy-five years old, and fulfilled in days. And all of my days were peaceful for me. 8The sword of the enemy did not triumph over me in anything which You gave to me or my sons all of the days of my life until this day. 9O my God, may Your mercy and Your peace be upon Your servant and upon the seed of his sons so that they might become an elect people for You and an inheritance from all of the nations of the earth from henceforth and for all the days of the generations of the earth forever.” Abraham’s Blessing for Jacob

10And he called Jacob and said, “My son, Jacob, may the God of all bless you and strengthen you to do righteousness and His will before Him. And may He elect you and your seed so that you become a people for Him who always belong to His inheritance according to His will. And you, my son, Jacob, draw near and kiss me.” 11And he drew near and kissed him. And he said: “Blessed is my son, Jacob, and all his sons, unto the Lord, Most High, forever. May the Lord give you righteous seed, and may He sanctify some of your sons in the midst of all the earth. May the nations serve you, and all the nations bow down before your seed. 12Be strong before men; And rule over all the seed of Seth, Then may your ways be righteous, and the ways of your sons, in order to be a holy people. 13May the Most High God give you all blessings (with) which He blessed me, and (with) which He blessed Noah and Adam; 25:9, the two of them buried Abraham in the cave of Machpelah.) Here, clearly, Isaac is the good son, Ishmael the less good. Isaac slaughtered a sacrifice Since the priesthood had already passed from Abraham to Isaac. (Abraham had instructed Isaac about priestly matters in Jub. 21.) 22:4–6. So that he might eat and bless . . . eat and drink and bless It was apparently firmly established that eating and drinking were to be accompanied by a blessing (cf. Jub. 2:21), as in later Rabbinic practice, perhaps under the influence of Deut. 8:10. See also above, on 8:18–20. 22:10–23 Abraham’s blessing is another pastiche of biblical phrases.181

Jubilees 371

may they rest upon the holy head of your seed throughout each generation and forever. 14May He cleanse you from all sin and defilement, So that He might forgive all your transgressions, and your erring through ignorance. May He strengthen you and bless you, and may you inherit all of the earth. 15And may He renew His covenant with you, So that you might be a people for Him, belonging to His inheritance forever. And He will be God for you and your seed in truth and righteousness throughout all the days of the earth. 16And you also, my son, Jacob, remember my words, and keep the commandments of Abraham, your father. Separate yourself from the Gentiles, and do not eat with them, and do not perform deeds like theirs. And do not become associates of theirs. Because their deeds are defiled, and all of their ways are contaminated, and despicable, and abominable. 17They slaughter their sacrifices to the dead, and to the demons they bow down. And they eat in tombs. And all their deeds are worthless and vain. 18And they have no heart to perceive, and they have no eyes to see what their deeds are, and where they wander astray, saying to the tree ‘you are my god,’ and to a stone ‘you are my Lord, and you are my savior’; and they have no heart. 19But (as for) you, my son, Jacob, may God Most High help you, 22:16. keep the commandments of Abraham, your father That is, “your [grand]father.” These are the divine commandments that have already been passed on to Abraham and earlier generations, including: “Separate yourself from the Gentiles, and do not eat with them” because contact with them brings impurity. 22:17. They slaughter their sacrifices to the dead These are the stereotypical sins in Ps. 106:28, 37; Deut. 32:17. 22:18. And they have no heart to perceive Better: “[mind] to perceive.” That is, they cannot understand that worshiping idols is nonsense, cf. Isa. 44:9–20; this was a favorite theme of later writers: Wis. 14:15–20, 15:7–19, and the whole of the Letter of Jeremiah. The idolators are “saying to the tree [better: a piece of wood], ‘You are my god’ and to a stone” ( Jer. 2:27).

372 James L. Kugel

and the God of heaven bless you. And may He turn you from their defilement, and from all their errors. 20Be careful, my son, Jacob, that you do not take a wife from any of The seed of the daughters of Canaan, because all of his seed is (destined) for uprooting from the earth; 21because through the sin of Ham, Canaan sinned, and all of his seed will be blotted out from the earth, and all his remnant, and there is none of his who will be saved. 22And for all of those who worship idols and for the hated ones, there is no hope in the land of the living; because they will go down into Sheol. And in the place of judgment they will walk, and they will have no memory upon the earth. Just as the sons of Sodom were taken from the earth, so (too) all of those who worship idols shall be taken away. 23Do not fear, my son, Jacob, and do not be in terror, O son of Abraham. The Most High God shall protect you from destruction, and from all the ways of error He will deliver you. 24This house I have built for myself so that I might cause my name to dwell upon it in the land. It has been given to you and to your seed forever. And it will be called the house of Abraham and will be 22:20. do not take a wife from any of the seed of the daughters of Canaan Genesis stresses that Abraham’s descendants were not to have Canaanite wives (Gen. 24:3; 28:1), but here Jubilees gives a unique rationale for this prohibition. 22:21. through the sin of Ham, Canaan sinned That is, “Canaan [also] sinned.” Perhaps Jubilees, like other ancient interpreters, means that Canaan was complicit in Ham’s sin,182 but it seems more likely that he believes Ham’s sin was simply the beginning of a chain of misdeeds. Canaan must have learned from his father—that is why he was cursed, says Jubilees’ author—and he then set a pattern of “abhorrent things” (i.e., sexual sins) that were to continue to characterize his descendants (Lev. 18:24–28). Thus, Canaanite women, Ham’s offspring, should not be taken as wives, and it is also why “all of his seed [the peoples of Canaan] will be blotted out from the earth” after the conquest of Canaan by Moses’s successor, Joshua. 22:22. all of those who worship idols As the Canaanites do. 22:23. Do not fear, my son, Jacob, and do not be in terror, O son of Abraham Abraham is rephrasing Jer. 30:10. (Abraham cannot say “and do not be upset, Israel,” as in Jer. 30:10, because this other name of Jacob’s was not revealed until after Abraham’s death.) 22:24. This house I have built for myself so that I might cause my name to dwell upon it in the land “House” here means “family,” that is, Jacob and his descendants; Abraham has “built it,” as it were, to assert that his name is connected specifically with one branch of his descendants, Jacob’s branch. (His other descendants, the Ishmaelites and the Edomites, will not be “in the land

Jubilees 373

given to you and to your seed forever because you will build my house, and you will raise up my name before God forever. Your seed and your name will remain in all the earth’s generations.” A Second Blessing for Jacob

25And he ceased commanding him and blessing him. 26And both of them lay down together on one bed. And Jacob slept on the bosom of Abraham, his father’s father. And he kissed him seven (times), and his compassionate heart rejoiced over him, 27and he blessed him with all his heart and he said, “God Most High (is) the God of all, and Creator of all who brought me out from Ur of the Chaldees so that He might give me this land to inherit it forever and to raise up a holy seed so that the Most High may be blessed forever.” 28And he blessed Jacob, saying, “My son (is) one in whom I rejoice with all my heart and all my emotion. And may Your favor and Your mercy rest upon him and upon his seed always. 29And do not forsake him and neglect him henceforth and for the eternal days. And may Your eyes be open upon him and upon his seed so that You might protect him and bless and sanctify him for a people who belong to your heritage. 30And bless him with all of Your blessings henceforth and for all of the eternal days. And renew Your covenant and Your mercy with him and with his seed with all Your will in all of the earth’s generations.” The Death and Burial of Abraham 23:1And he placed the two fingers of Jacob on his eyes and he blessed the God of gods. And he covered

his face, and stretched out his feet and slept the eternal sleep, and he was gathered to his fathers. 2During all of this (time) Jacob was lying on his bosom and did not know that Abraham, his grandfather, was dead. 3And Jacob awoke from his sleep and, behold, Abraham was cold as ice, and he said, “O father, father!” And none spoke. And he knew that he was dead. [of Israel],” so, although they are technically part of “the house of Abraham” (Gen. 17:23), they will not be the true bearers of his name.) In any case, Jubilees’ author implies, it is altogether appropriate that Israel alone be associated with Abraham’s name, since “you will raise up my name before God forever.” 22:26. And both of them lay down together in one bed The start of a surprising incident, one with no basis in Genesis: Jubilees arranges for Abraham and Jacob to sleep in the same bed, so that when Abraham dies that night Jacob will incur the severest form of impurity, contact with a corpse. There is pointedly no mention of impurity in this and the following passage, nor is it related in Jubilees that Jacob subsequently purified himself—as was of course required by later biblical law (Num. 19:11–13). Was this not the author’s way of thumbing his nose at priestly impurity—not, of course, saying that such laws were unimportant, but asserting that the most troubling form of “impurity” was the kind he has already mentioned: sexual transgressions and any contact with non-Israelites. Perhaps for that reason Abraham refers to Jacob’s descendants here as a holy seed (see above on 16:19–20) who therefore will be free of these corrupting contacts. 23:1. two fingers of Jacob on his eyes A symbolic gesture at the time of a person’s death. and he was gathered to his fathers This is a biblical idiom for death (Num. 27:13; Judg. 2:10, etc.). 23: 3–4. And Jacob awoke from his sleep It is appropriate that Jacob was the first to know of Abraham’s death, and that Isaac heard of it only third hand. For Jubilees, Jacob is Abraham’s “true” descendant, and Isaac principally the means to his birth (above, on 19:15; 22:24).

374 James L. Kugel

4And he rose up from his bosom and ran and told Rebecca, his mother. And Rebecca went to Isaac in the night and told him. And they went together and Jacob was also with them, and a lamp was in his hand. And when they went, they found Abraham lying dead. 5And Isaac fell upon his father’s face and wept and kissed him. 6And the sound was heard in Abraham’s house and Ishmael, his son, arose and went to Abraham, his father. And he wept for Abraham, his father, he and all of Abraham’s house, and they wept greatly. 7And his sons, Isaac and Ishmael, buried him in the cave of Machpelah near Sarah, his wife. And all of the men of his house and Isaac and Ishmael and all of their sons and all of the sons of Keturah wept for him forty days in their places. And the days of Abraham’s weeping were completed. A Discussion of the General Decline in Longevity

8And he lived three jubilees and four weeks of years one hundred and seventy-five years. And he completed the days of his life, being old and full of days. 9For the days of the lives of the ancients were nineteen jubilees. And after the Flood they began to be less than nineteen jubilees and to grow old quickly and to shorten the days of their lives due to much suffering and through the evil of their ways—except Abraham. 10For Abraham was perfect in all of his actions with the Lord and was pleasing through righteousness all of the days of his life. And behold, he did not complete four jubilees in his life until he grew old in the presence of evil (and) his days were full. 11And all of the generations which will arise henceforth and until the day of the great judgment will grow old quickly before they complete two jubilees, and their knowledge will forsake them because of their old age. And all of their knowledge will be removed. 12And in those days if a man will live a jubilee and a half, they will say about him, “He prolonged his life, but the majority of his days were suf23:6. the sound was heard An idiom meaning “the news reached” (Gen. 45:16; cf. Exod. 36:6; Eccles. 10:20). 23:8–10. And he lived three jubilees and four weeks of years This introduces one of the cleverest parts of Jubilees. The author has frequently asserted that God’s people, Israel, is plunged in sin, specifically sexual license (zenut, “fornication”) and impurity (tumah). Yet for all this brazen sinfulness, Israel is not being punished in any obvious way. Has God simply given up on His people? Not at all. Jubilees’ author points out that Abraham “lived three jubilees and four weeks of years” (= 175 years), and died in a decrepit state, “old and full of days.” It was not Abraham’s fault, he says. After the Flood, the human life span began to decrease, as any reader of the Bible knows: no one lived to the age of “nineteen jubilees” (931) anymore; in fact, human life shrank dramatically, so that even the righteous Abraham, “perfect in all of his actions with the Lord . . . did not complete four jubilees [196 years]” by the time he died. Once sinfulness caused humans to live shorter life spans, even the righteous shared in their punishment. But the worst is yet to come, Moses is told here. After your time, “all of the generations . . . will grow old quickly.” 23:12. And in those days if a man will live a jubilee and a half It is here that Jubilees’ account begins to dovetail with Ps. 90, “A psalm of Moses, the man of God,” whose subject is the brevity of human life in comparison to God’s eternal being. If Moses wrote that psalm, Jubilees seeks to imply, it was after the angel of the Presence broke the bad news to him here about the further reduction of the human life span. Thus, by saying “the span of our life is seventy years, or at the most, eighty years” (Ps. 90:10), Moses was certainly not talking about his own lifetime, 120 years, or human life in general (since people in the past lived much longer than Moses), but about the

Jubilees 375

fering and anxiety and affliction. And there was no peace, 13because plague (came) upon plague, and wound upon wound, and affliction upon affliction, and evil report upon evil report, and sickness upon sickness, and every evil judgment of this sort one with another: sickness, and downfall, and sleet, and hail, and frost, and fever, and chills, and stupor, and famine, and death, and sword, and captivity, and all plagues, and suffering.” 14And all of this will come in the evil generation which sins in the land. Pollution and fornication and contamination and abomination are their deeds. 15Then they will say, “The days of the ancients were as many as one thousand years and good. But behold, (as for) the days of our lives, if a man should extend his life seventy years or if he is strong (for) eighty years, then these are evil. And there is not any peace in the days of this evil generation.” The Description of the Future Evil Generation

16And in this generation children will reproach their parents and their elders on account of sin, and on account of injustice, and on account of the words of their mouth, and on account of great evil which they will do, and on account of their forsaking the covenant which the Lord made between them and Himself so that they might be careful and observe all of His commandments and His ordinances and future revealed here by the angel of the Presence. In times to come, he is told, “a man will live a jubilee and a half,” that is, 73 years; and “the majority of his days were suffering and anxiety and affliction,” a restatement of “and most of them are trouble and sorrow” (Ps. 90:10). 23:13–15. And there was no peace Better: “[will be] no peace.” Jubilees now has the angel “foretell” the ills awaiting Israel, leading up to the author’s own day. This section is strikingly vague; this is no “apocalypse” in the traditional sense.183 Instead, it describes only a steady series of calamities, “plague . . . upon plague . . . wound upon wound” and other hardships imposed by God, sometimes through the forces of nature, but also through human agency, “death, and sword [better: warfare], and captivity.” This is as close as this author comes to mentioning any specific times or events. All this has to do with the author’s view of the Sinai covenant (above, on 6:19). Just as that covenant did not, in his opinion, inaugurate the connection between God and Israel—that connection went back to the first week of Creation and was enacted through all God’s dealings with the patriarchs—so Israel’s eventual violation of that covenant (and the Babylonian exile that followed) did not mark the end of God’s connection to Israel. On the contrary, the story that Jubilees tells here is one of steady decline from Moses’s time on, “every evil judgment [i.e., punishment] of this sort” in unending succession. 23:15. Then they will say, “The days of the ancients” Thus, if even today things are not going well, it is because Israel is still sinning—a fact reflected in the diminished human life span. In the arrangement originally intended for humankind, human life was to last as many as 1,000 years, and they were good years; in the future, sinfulness will whittle down a person’s life span to “seventy years or if he is strong (for) eighty years” (again, a direct quote from Ps. 90:10, “the span of our life is seventy years, or if in strength, eighty years”). What is more, those 70 or 80 years will all “[be] evil” (again, Ps. 90:10, “and most of them are trouble and sorrow”). People will not even realize that their shortened life span is the result of divine anger and not “natural causes”! 23:16. children will reproach their parents and their elders An expression of the utmost degeneracy of a society.

376 James L. Kugel

all of His Law without turning aside to the right or left. 17For they all did evil and every mouth speaks of sin and all of their deeds (are) polluted and abominable. And all of their ways (are) contamination and pollution and corruption. 18Behold, the land will be corrupted on account of all their deeds, and there will be no seed of the vine, and there will be no oil because their works are entirely faithless. And all of them will be destroyed together: beast, cattle, birds, and all of the fish of the sea on account of the sons of man. 19Some of these will strive with others, youths with old men and old men with youths, the poor with the rich, the lowly with the great, and the beggar with the judge concerning the Law and the Covenant because they have forgotten the commandments and covenant and festivals and months and Sabbaths and jubilees and all of the judgments. 20And they will stand up with bow and swords and war in order to return them to “the way,” but they will not be returned until much blood is shed upon the earth by each (group). 21And those who escape will not be turned back from their evils to the way of righteousness because they will lift themselves up for deceit and wealth so that one shall take everything of his neighbor; and they will pronounce the great name but not in truth or righteousness. And they will pollute the holy of holies with their pollution and with the corruption of their contamination. Punishment on that Generation Followed by Repentance and God’s Blessings

22And there will be a great plague upon the deeds of that generation from the Lord and He will give them to the sword and to judgment and to captivity and pillage and destruction. 23And He will rouse up against them the sinners of the nations who have no mercy or grace for them and who have no regard for any persons old or young or anyone. For (they will be) cruel and powerful so that they will act more evilly than any of the sons of men. And they will cause turmoil in Israel and sin against Jacob; and much blood will be shed upon the earth; and there will be no one who will gather and no one who will bury. 24In those days, they will cry out and call and pray to be saved from the hand of the sinners, the Gentiles, but there will be none who will be saved, 23:19 because they have forgotten the commandments and covenant and festivals and months and Sabbaths and jubilees and all of the judgments Better: “all of the [laws].” Not so much forgotten as “neglected” (also Heb. shakhah), a reflection of Jubilees’ campaign against his people’s religious laxness in his own time. 23:23. the sinners of the nations who have no mercy or grace . . . and who have no regard for any persons old or young “Grace” is better rendered as “kindness.” Jubilees is evoking the curses pronounced in Lev. 26 and Deut. 28, here specifically alluding to Deut. 28:50.

Jubilees 377

25and the heads of children will be white with gray hairs, and an infant three weeks old will look aged like one whose years (are) one hundred, and their stature will be destroyed by affliction and torment. 26And in those days, children will begin to search the law, and to search the commandments and to return to the way of righteousness. 27And the days will begin to increase and grow longer among those sons of men, generation by generation, and year by year, until their days approach a thousand years, and to a greater number of years than days. 28And there (will be) no old men and none who is full of days. Because all of them will be infants and children. 29And all of their days they will be complete and live in peace and rejoicing and there will be no Satan and no evil (one) who will destroy, because all of their days will be days of blessing and healing. 30And then the Lord will heal His servants, and they will rise up and see great peace. And they will drive out their enemies, and the righteous ones will see and give praise, 23:25. an infant three weeks old will look aged like one whose years (are) one hundred It is hard to know how to interpret this since, as a matter of fact, many newborns do look like the very aged, with wispy hair or bald heads and wrinkled skin. Perhaps Jubilees seeks to suggest that this too is not “natural” at all. The author’s point throughout has been that Israel is indeed being punished for its sins—punished by decreased longevity and hardship—and it does not even realize it. 23:26–27. Children will begin to search the law That is, they will “begin [to study the Torah]” and will realize the error of their parents’ ways; and then the punishment of diminished life spans will gradually be lifted, “until their days [lifetimes] approach a thousand years,” the proper lifetime of a human being, which is the amount originally granted to Adam and Eve before their sin. and to a greater number of years than days Apparently the meaning is that people will now live more years than the number of days that those fast-aging infants were living in Jub. 23:25. It seems that here the author is returning to the words of Ps. 90, interpreting its verse 15, “Give us joy according to the [number of] days that You afflicted us, the years that we suffered misfortune,” as if it meant: “match the number of days of misfortune that we suffered with a corresponding number of years of joy from now on.” In that eschatological heyday, even the aged will not show signs of aging. 23:28–31. Because all of them will be infants and children. And all of their days will be complete and live in peace and rejoicing That is, “all of them will be [as] infants and children.” This echoes Ps. 90:14, “that we may sing for joy in all our days,” that is, in the whole 1,000-year lifetime originally assigned to humans. Then people will “rejoice forever and ever with joy . . . and their spirits will increase joy,” all elaborating on “that we may sing for joy” (Ps. 90:14).

378 James L. Kugel

and rejoice forever and ever with joy; and they will see all of their judgments and all of their curses among their enemies. 31And their bones will rest in the earth, and their spirits will increase joy, and they will know that the Lord is an executor of judgment; but He will show mercy to hundreds and thousands, to all who love Him. 32And you, Moses, write these words because thus it is written and set upon the heavenly tablets as a testimony for eternal generations. Jacob Buys the Right of Firstborn from Esau 24:1And it happened after the death of Abraham that the Lord blessed Isaac, his son. And he arose

from Hebron and went to the Well of the Vision in the first year of the third week of this jubilee, and he lived there seven years. 2And in the first year of the fourth week a famine began in the land other than the first famine which occurred in the days of Abraham. 3And Jacob was cooking lentil soup, and Esau came in from the field hungry, and he said to Jacob, his brother, “Give me some of this reddish-colored soup.” And Jacob said to him, “Hand over your primogeniture (i.e.) this right of firstborn, and I will give you bread and also some of this lentil soup.” 4And Esau thought, “I will die. Of what use is this right of firstborn to me?” And he said to Jacob, “I give it (to) you.” 5And Jacob said, “Swear to me today.” And he swore for him. 6And Jacob gave his brother, Esau, bread and soup. And he ate until he was satisfied. And Esau despised his right of firstborn. Therefore, Esau’s name was called Edom, on account of the reddish-colored soup which Jacob gave him for his right of firstborn. 7And Jacob became the older one but Esau was lowered from his seniority. 23:31. they will know that the Lord is an executor of judgment That is, “they will know . . . [when it comes to other nations,] but He will show mercy to hundreds and thousands, to all who love him” and keep His commandments, that is, Israel (Exod. 20:6). 23:32 And you . . . eternal generations To all this the Interpolator added one line: “And you, Moses, write these words”—and so he did, in the words of Ps. 90—“because thus it is written and set upon the heavenly tablets.” These words were intended to assert that Moses’s knowledge of future events (as evidenced in Ps. 90, authored by him) derived from the heavenly tablets (cf. above on 19:8 and below on 24:33). 24:1. he arose from Hebron Isaac leaves Hebron, where he had settled temporarily to take care of his father (above, on 22:1–2); now he returns to the south, specifically to the Well of Vision, that is, Be’er lehai Ro’i (Gen. 24:62). 24:2–7. A famine began in the land Gen. 26:1; this famine is actually mentioned just after Esau’s sale of his birthright, but Jubilees cleverly has it begin before that incident in order to explain why Esau could have been so famished that he sold his birthright for a bowl of stew. (His hunger was not necessarily the immediate result of his virtuously hunting game for his family; everyone was in a famine.) 24:3–7. Jacob was cooking lentil soup The story itself is told basically as in Gen. 25:29–34, but Jubilees adds bread to the meal promised by Jacob (to fit what Jacob actually gave in Gen. 25:34). Jubilees also saves for the end of the story any mention of the connection between this incident and the

Jubilees 379

Isaac’s Sojourn at Gerar

8And there was a famine upon the earth, and Isaac started to go down to Egypt in the second year of this week and he went to the Philistine king at Gerar, to Abimelek. 9And the Lord appeared to him and he said to him, “Do not go down to Egypt. Dwell in the land where I shall tell you. And sojourn in that land. And I shall be with you and bless you 10because I will give all of this land to you and to your seed. And I will carry out My oath which I swore to Abraham, your father. And I will multiply your seed as the stars of the sky. And I will give to your seed all of this land. 11And all of the nations of the earth will bless themselves by your seed because your father obeyed Me and observed My restrictions and My commandments and My laws and My ordinances and My covenant. And now, obey My voice, and dwell in this land.” 12And he dwelt at Gerar three weeks of years. 13And Abimelek gave orders concerning him and everything which was his, saying, “Any man who touches him or anything which is his let him surely die.” An Account of the Wells Dug By Jacob from Gerar to Beer-Sheba

14And Isaac grew prosperous among the Philistines and had many possessions: oxen, and sheep, and camels, and asses, and much property. 15And he sowed in the land of the Philistines, and he raised grain one hundredfold. And Isaac became very wealthy, and the Philistines became jealous of him. 16And all of the wells which the servants of Abraham dug during Abraham’s lifetime the Philistines stopped up and filled them with dirt after Abraham’s death. 17And Abimelek said to Isaac, “Go away from us because you are much greater than we.” fact that “Esau’s name was called Edom [red],” perhaps to suggest that it was not his hunger for the stew so much as the fact that Esau gave up his right of firstborn for it, that caused his name ever after to be called Edom. Thanks to this, Jacob became the older one, not older in years but in title and rights, that is, he was now considered the bekhor, the firstborn. 24:8–12. there was a famine This is not a new famine, but the same mentioned in Jub. 24:1. For God’s blessing of Isaac, see Gen. 26:2–5. 24:11. My restrictions and My commandments and My laws and My ordinances and My covenant The first four are apparently intended to correspond to the four items mentioned in Gen. 26:5. The fifth, “my covenant,” is presumably added in reference to the covenant(s) found in Gen. 15 and 17. The idea that Israel’s ancestors were bound to God by legal covenants long before Sinai was, as we have seen, extremely important to Jubilees’ author. 24:13. And Abimelek gave orders A glaring omission by Jubilees: instead of telling the story of how a patriarch once again hid the fact that his wife was his wife and all that ensued (Gen. 26:11), a story that clearly embarrassed Jubilees’ author, he gives only its last line: “Any man who touches him or anything which is his,” where “anything which is his” has replaced “his wife” in Genesis. See above on Jub. 16:10. 24:14–26. And Isaac grew prosperous This narrative closely follows Gen. 26:12–34, except for the end, Jub. 24:21–26. Here, Isaac goes to “the Well of the Oath”—the narrator uses this phrase to designate the place later called by that name, that is, Beer-sheba, but as far as Jubilees is concerned, the well itself has not yet been dug. That happens in verse 24: “they dug a well and found running water.” Subsequently, however, Isaac’s servants “dug another well and did not find water” (this

380 James L. Kugel

And Isaac went away from there in the first year of the seventh week. And he sojourned in the valleys of Gerar, 18and they dug again the wells of water which the servants of Abraham, his father, had dug—and the Philistines stopped them up after the death of Abraham, his father. And he named them just as his father, Abraham, had named them. 19And the servants of Isaac dug wells in the valley, and they found running water. And the shepherds of Gerar became angry with the shepherds of Jacob, saying, “The water is ours.” And Isaac named that well “Harshness,” because they had been harsh with us. 20And they dug another well and they also contended about it. And he named it “Hostility.” And he rose from there, and they dug another well, but they were not angered about that, and he called it “Breadth,” and Isaac said, “Now the Lord has made wide (a place) for us. And we have increased in the land.” 21And he went up from there to the Well of the Oath in the first year of the first week in the fortyfourth jubilee. 22And the Lord appeared to him during that night, on the first day of the first month, and he said to him, “I am the God of Abraham, your father. Do not fear, because I am with you and I shall bless you and I shall surely multiply your seed like the sand of the earth because of Abraham, my servant.” 23And he built an altar there where Abraham, his father, had built at first and called upon the name of the Lord and he offered a sacrifice to the God of Abraham, his father. 24And they dug a well and found running water. 25But the servants of Isaac dug another well and did not find water. And they went and told Isaac that they did not find water. And Isaac said, “I have sworn (an oath) on this day to the Philistines. And this thing has happened to us.” 26And he named that place “the Well of the Oath,” because he swore an oath there to Abimelek and to ‘Ahuzzat, his friend, and to Phicol, the commander of his army. 27And Isaac knew on that day that under pressure he swore an oath to them to make peace with them! 28And Isaac cursed the Philistines on that day, and he said, “Cursed be the Philistines for the day of wrath and anger from among all the nations. May the Lord make them as scorn and a curse and (the object of) wrath and anger at the hands of the sinners, the nations, and in the hands of the Kittim. 29And whoever escapes from the sword of the enemy and from the Kittim, may the righteous people uproot them from beneath the sky with judgment, because they will be enemies and foes to my sons in their generations upon the earth. presumes the reading of Gen. 26:32 found in the LXX “We have not found water”). This was surprising: how could such a thing happen to Isaac, son of God’s beloved Abraham? Hearing of the incident, Isaac understands at once: it happened because “I have sworn (an oath) on this day to the Philistines.” Consequently, “he [Isaac] named that place ‘the Well of the Oath,’”184 as a reminder never to make treaties or agreements with the Philistines (see also above on Jub. 17:4–14). 24:27–30. under pressure he swore an oath This is the only reason Isaac would have consented to the oath in question (Gen. 26:29). But an oath, even one sworn under pressure, cannot be undone. Isaac therefore does the next-best thing, uttering a curse (in the biblical world, a kind of negative oath, and an equally effective one) against them. Since his oath with Philistines was a kind of mutual nonaggression treaty, Isaac asks God here to bring about the Philistines’ destruction Himself, first at the hand of unspecified enemies as well as at the hand of the Kittim. This name is found several times in the Bible, where it apparently refers to people from Citium, Cyprus. In Second Temple period literature, it is used to refer to the Macedonians or Greeks, and later on, the Romans.185 By the same token, those same Kittim, as well as the Caphtorim (the Cypriots),

Jubilees 381

30And no remnant will be left to them, nor one who escapes on the day of the wrath of judgment; because all of the Philistine seed is (destined) for destruction and uprooting and removal from the earth. And, therefore, there will not be any name or seed which remains upon the earth for any of the Caphtorim. 31Because if they go up to heaven, from there they will fall; and if they are set firm in the earth, from there they will be torn out; and if they are hidden among the nations, from there they will be uprooted; and if they go down to Sheol, even there their judgment will multiply, and also there will be no peace for them there. 32And if they go into captivity by the hand of those who seek their life, they will kill them along the way. And neither name nor seed will be left for them in all the earth, because they shall walk in an eternal curse.” 33And thus it is written and engraved concerning him in the heavenly tablets to be done to him in the day of judgment so that they might be uprooted from the earth. Rebecca Gives Instruction to Jacob Regarding Marriage 25:1In the second year of this week, in this jubilee, Rebecca called Jacob, her son, and spoke to him, say-

ing, “My son, do not take for yourself a wife from the daughters of Canaan as (did) Esau your brother, who took for himself two wives from the daughters of Canaan. And they have embittered my soul with all their impure deeds, because all of their deeds (are) fornication and lust. And there is not any righteousness with them because (their deeds are) evil. 2And I love you very much, my son. And my heart and affection bless you at every hour of the day and (every) watch of the night. 3And now, my son, heed my voice, and do the will of your mother. And do not take for yourself a wife from the daughters of this land, but from my father’s house and my father’s kin. You will take for yourself a wife from my father’s house. And the Most High God will bless you, and your children will be a righteous generation and a holy seed.” will be annihilated in turn, since these outsiders (it is not clear if Jubilees means actually Cypriots or, more likely, the Macedonian troops of Alexander) dared to conquer Israel’s homeland. 24:31. if they go up to heaven This phrasing is based on Amos 9:2–4; Obad. 1:4; Ps. 139:8. 24:33. And thus it is written and engraved At the end of this passage, the Interpolator inserted this sentence, which says that, in keeping with Isaac’s curse, it had indeed been recorded long before in the heavenly tablets that the Philistines would eventually be “uprooted from the earth [better: land],” and this did indeed happen, but long after the time of Moses. 25:1. do not take . . . a wife from the daughters of Canaan Elaborating on Rebecca’s brief remark in Gen. 27:46 (which was, in Genesis, a pretext for sending Jacob to visit Laban, but here becomes a heartfelt plea against marrying Canaanites), Jubilees’ author created an exchange between mother and son on the subject of intermarriage, one of his favorite themes.

382 James L. Kugel

Jacob’s Response

4And then Jacob spoke with Rebecca, his mother, and said to her, “Behold, O mother, I am nine weeks of years old. And I have not known or touched or been betrothed to any woman. Nor have I been thinking about taking for myself a wife from the daughters of Canaan, 5because I recall, O mother, the words of Abraham, our father. For he commanded me that I should not take a wife from the daughters of Canaan because I should take for myself a wife from the seed of my father’s house and from my (own) kin. 6I heard some time ago that daughters had been born to your brother, Laban. And I have set my heart upon them that I might take a wife from among them. 7And, therefore, I have guarded myself in my soul lest I sin or be corrupted in any of my ways all the days of my life because my father, Abraham, gave me many commands regarding lust and fornication. 8In spite of everything which he commanded me, for these twenty-two years my brother has contended with me and he frequently spoke with me and said, ‘My brother, take as a wife one of the sisters of my two wives.’ But I did not desire to do as he had done. 9I swear, O mother, before you all the days of my life, that I will not take for myself a wife from the daughters of the seed of Canaan and I will not act wickedly as my brother has done. 10Do not fear, O mother. Trust that I will do your will. And I will walk uprightly and will never corrupt my ways.” Rebecca’s Blessing for Jacob

11And then she lifted her face toward heaven and spread out the fingers of her hands and opened her mouth and blessed the Most High God who created heaven and earth. And she gave to Him glory and praise. 12And she said, “May the Lord God be blessed, and may His holy name be blessed forever and ever, He who gave to me Jacob, a pure son and a holy seed; because he is Yours and his seed will (belong) to You for all times and in all generations forever. 13O Lord, bless him and place in my mouth a righ25:4. I am nine weeks of years old That is, “63 years.” Jacob is thus the ideal model of the avoidance of zenut (fornication). 25:6. I heard some time ago Genesis relates that Isaac commanded Jacob to go to Laban’s house (Gen. 28:2), but here the idea comes from Jacob himself. 25:8–10. he frequently spoke with me Rebecca’s excuse for having Isaac send Jacob to Laban’s house was her stated fear that Jacob might marry a Hittite woman as Esau had (Gen. 27:46). But why should she ever have feared that? Here Jubilees has Jacob report that Esau had been urging him to do so for years. Rebecca was thus afraid that, despite Jacob’s innate goodness, he might surrender to this fraternal pressure. 25:9. I will not act wickedly as my brother has done Not only had Esau married two Hittite women (Gen. 26:34; “Hittites” were deemed to be a type of Canaanite), but later, hearing his father’s instructions to Jacob in Gen. 28:1, Esau went on to marry a daughter of Ishmael (Gen. 28:9) rather than one of Laban’s daughters. 25:10. Do not fear186 Better: “Take heart, I will never corrupt my ways,” that is, never go astray. 25:11. she lifted her face toward heaven . . . spread out the fingers That is, “[her] fingers.” This is the common posture for prayer; cf. ALD 3:1–2. 25:12. who gave to me Jacob, a pure son and a holy seed This is a crucial phrase for Jubilees’ author (see above on 16:19).

Jubilees 383

teous blessing so that I might bless him.” 14And at that time, when a spirit of truth descended upon her mouth, she placed her two hands upon the head of Jacob and said: 15“Blessed are You, O Lord of righteousness and God of Ages; and may He bless you more than all the generations of man. May He grant to you the way of righteousness, my son; and to your seed, may He reveal righteousness. 16May He multiply your sons in your life(time); may they rise up according to the number of the months of the year. And may their sons be more numerous and greater than the stars of heaven; and more than the sand of the sea, may their number increase. 17And may He give to them this pleasant land, just as He said that He would, give it to Abraham and his seed after him always; and may they hold it (as a) possession forever. 18And may I see, O my son, that you shall have blessed sons in my lifetime; and a blessed and holy seed, may all your seed be. 19And just as you have given rest to your mother’s soul in her lifetime; the womb of the one who bore you likewise blesses you. My affection and my breasts are blessing you; and my mouth and tongue are praising you greatly. 20Increase and overflow in the land, and may your seed be perfected in every age in the joy of heaven and earth. And may your seed be glad; and on the great day of peace, may it have peace. 21May your name and your seed stand for all the ages; and may God Most High be their God. And may the God of Righteousness dwell with them; and with them may His sanctuary be built in all ages. 22The one who blesses you will be blessed, and all flesh which curses you falsely will be cursed.” 23And she kissed him and said to him: “May the Lord of the world love you; just as the heart and affection of your mother rejoices in you and blesses you.” And she stopped blessing him. 25:14. a spirit of truth That is, true prophecy. 25:15–23. May He bless you more than all the generations of man In her words to Jacob, Rebecca foresees that God will “multiply your sons . . . [so that] they rise up according to the number of the months of the year,” that is, give you 12 of them. Though her son is 63, Rebecca still hopes to be a grandmother and “see . . . that you shall have blessed sons in my lifetime,”187 as she will indeed. When the “great day of peace” foreseen in Jub. 23 comes to pass, “may it [your progeny]” still be around and “have peace.”

384 James L. Kugel

The Account of How Jacob Received A Blessing Intended For Esau 26:1And in the seventh year of this week Isaac called Esau, his elder son, and said to him, “My son, I am

old, and behold my eyes are too dim to see. And I do not know the day of my death. 2And now take your hunting gear, your quiver and your bow. And go out to the field and hunt for me and catch something for me, my son. And prepare for me food, such as my soul desires. And fetch it to me so that I might eat and my soul might bless you before I die.” 3Now Rebecca was listening as Isaac spoke to Esau. 4And Esau went out early to the field so that he might snare and take something and bring it to his father. 5And Rebecca called Jacob, her son, and said to him, “Behold, I heard Isaac, your father, speaking with Esau, your brother, saying, ‘Snare something for me and prepare food for me. And bring it to me. And I will eat, and bless you before the Lord before I die.’ 6And now listen, my son, to my words which I command you. Go to your flock and take for me two good goat kids. And I will prepare them as food for your father just as he desires. And you shall take it in to your father and he will eat and bless you before the Lord before he dies. And you shall be blessed.” 7And Jacob said to Rebecca, his mother, “O mother, I will not refuse anything which my father would eat and which would please him, but I am afraid, my mother, lest he recognize my voice and wish to touch me. 8And you know that I am smooth and Esau, my brother, is hairy. And I shall become in his sight like one who acts wickedly and I shall be doing a deed which he did not command me to do. And he will be angry with me and I shall bring upon myself a curse and not a blessing.” 9And Rebecca, his mother, said to him, “Upon me let your curse be, my son, but obey me.” 10And Jacob obeyed Rebecca, his mother. And he went and took two good and fat goat kids. And he brought them to his mother. And his mother prepared them just as he liked. 11And Rebecca took the favorite clothing of her elder son, Esau, which was with her in the house. And she put it on Jacob, her youngest son, and hides of the goat kids she placed on his hands and on the bare parts of his neck. 12And she gave the stew and bread which she had prepared into the hand of Jacob, her son. 13And Jacob entered to his father and said, “I am your son. I have done as you said to me. Come, and sit down and eat from what I have snared, O father, so that your soul might bless me.” 26:1–12. Isaac called Esau, his elder son Having just been blessed by his mother (thanks to Jubilees’ author), Jacob is now about to be blessed by his father, as recounted in Gen. 27. The narrative basically follows the Genesis account, with only a few pious touches added. Thus, when Rebecca suggests that Jacob pretend to be Esau and bring him his food, Jacob says that he would willingly bring “anything which my father would eat and which would please him,” but adds that he is reluctant to do “a deed which he did not command” (contrast Gen. 27:12). Reassured by Rebecca, he proceeds to do as she says; unlike Genesis, however, this narrative is careful not to make Jacob a liar. 26:13. I am your son He tells his blind father “I am your son” rather than “I am Esau your firstborn” (Gen. 27:19). A widespread, somewhat tongue-in-cheek tradition held that Isaac’s preceding question, “Who are you my son?” was actually to be read as two: “Who are you? My son?” in that case, Jacob’s answer could likewise be divided in two: “I am [indeed your son; but] Esau [is] your firstborn,” in which case Jacob did not lie.188

Jubilees 385

14And Isaac said to his son, “How have you found (it) so quickly, my son?” 15And Jacob said, “It is because your God directed me.” 16And Isaac said to him, “Draw near, and let me touch you, my son, to know whether you are my son Esau or not.” 17And Jacob drew near to Isaac, his father. And he touched him and said, 18“The voice is the voice of Jacob, but the hands are the hands of Esau.” And he did not know him because the change was from heaven in order to distract his mind, and Isaac was unaware because his hands were hairy like the hands of Esau so that he blessed him. 19And he said, “Are you my son Esau?” And he said, “I am your son.” And he said, “Bring it near to me and I will eat some of what you snared, my son, so that my soul might bless you.” 20And he brought it near to him, and he ate. And he brought him wine, and he drank. 21And Isaac, his father, said, “Come to me and kiss me, my son.” And he drew near and he kissed him. 22And he smelled the fragrance of the odor of his garments, and he blessed him and he said: “Behold, the odor of my son is like the odor of a field which the Lord has blessed. 23May the Lord give and multiply to you from the dew of heaven and from the dew of earth, and an abundance of wheat and oil may He multiply for you. May nations serve you, and the people bow down to you. 24Become a lord to your brothers,and may your mother’s sons bow down to you. And may all of the blessings with which the Lord blessed me and blessed Abraham, my father, belong to you and to your seed forever. May the one who curses you be cursed, and the one who blesses you be blessed.” 25And it came to pass after Isaac ceased blessing his son Jacob, and after Jacob went out from Isaac, his father, that he hid himself. And Esau, his brother, arrived from his hunting. 26And he also prepared food and brought (it) to his father and said to his father, “Let my father arise and eat from what I have snared so that your soul may bless me.” 27And Isaac, his father, said to him, “Who are you?” And he said to him, “I am your firstborn, Esau, your son. I have done as you commanded me.” 28And Isaac was very greatly astonished, and he said, “Who is this who hunted and snared (game) and brought (it) to me, and I ate from all (of it) before you came, and I blessed him? And he and all his seed will be blessed forever.” 29And it came to pass when Esau heard the words of his father, Isaac, that he cried out with a very loud and bitter voice and said to his father, “Bless me also, O father!” 30And he said to him, “Your brother came fraudulently and took your blessings.” And he said, “Now I know why his name was called Jacob. Behold he has defrauded me twice. He has taken my right of firstborn and now he has taken my blessing.” 31And he said, “Have you not retained a blessing for me, father?” And Isaac answered and 26:18. The voice is the voice of Jacob Gen. 27:22. If, although Isaac recognized Jacob’s voice, he nevertheless blessed him, it was because “the change189 was from heaven” (i.e., direct, divine intervention) “in order to distract his [Isaac’s] mind.” In other words, this was no shabby deception on Jacob’s part, but part of the divine plan. 26:24. may all of the blessings . . . belong to you and to your seed forever Jacob’s issue, the people of Israel, are the true, intended recipient of the divine blessing. 26:25–34. And Esau, his brother, arrived This section also follows Genesis closely, save for the end.

386 James L. Kugel

said to Esau, “Behold, I have set him up as lord over you, and all his brothers I have given to him that they might be servants to him. And with abundance of wheat, and wine, and oil I have strengthened him. But for you, what shall I now establish, my son?” 32And Esau said to Isaac, his father, “Is there only one blessing of yours, father? Bless me also, father.” And Esau raised his voice and wept. 33And Isaac answered and said to him: “Behold, apart from the dew of the land shall be your dwelling, and apart from the dew of heaven from above. 34And by your sword you shall live, and you will serve your brother. And it will happen when you become great, and you will remove his yoke from your neck, that then you will surely sin completely unto death, and your seed will be rooted out from under heaven.” 35And Esau kept threatening Jacob on account of the blessing with which his father blessed him. And he said in his heart, “Now let the days of mourning for my father draw near. And I will kill Jacob, my brother.” Rebecca and Isaac Counsel Jacob to Go to Haran 27:1And the words of Esau, her elder son, were told to Rebecca in a dream, and Rebecca sent and called

Jacob, her younger son, and she said to him, 2“Behold, Esau, your brother, will take vengeance in order to kill you. 3So now, my son, obey me and arise and flee to Laban, my brother, to Haran. And dwell with him a few days until your brother’s anger is turned away and he abandons his anger with you and forgets the full extent of what you did to him. And I will send and bring you from there.” 4And Jacob said, “I am not afraid. If he desires to kill me, I shall kill him.” 5And she said to him, “(No), lest I be bereaved 26:34. And it will happen when you become great This is an interpretation of the difficult word tarid in Gen. 27:40 (NJPS: “when you grow restive”), “and you will remove his yoke from your neck”;190 that “then you will surely sin completely unto death” interprets “you shall break his yoke” (Gen. 27:40) as if it were “His yoke,” that is, God’s, not Jacob’s, that was causing Esau to give up all obedience to God’s ways. 27:1–5. were told to Rebecca in a dream Genesis reports that Esau “said in his heart” (Gen. 27:41) that he would kill Jacob, but the next verse says that Esau’s words “were told to Rebecca.” How did she know if Esau did not say the words aloud? Hence the necessity for this dream. 27:4. If he desires to kill me, I shall kill him “Desires” is better rendered as “seeks.” This provides some grounds for what Rebecca is quoted as saying in Gen. 27:45, “Why should I be bereaved of both of my sons in one day?” (restated in Jub. 27:5). In the biblical account, one is left to wonder why she fears losing both sons because of Esau’s planned fratricide.

Jubilees 387

of both of my sons in one day.” 6And Jacob said to Rebecca, his mother, “Behold, you know that my father is old. And he does not see because his eyes are dim. And if I leave him it will be grievous in his sight because I am leaving and going from you. And my father will be angry and curse me. I will not go. But when he sends me, only then will I go.” 7And Rebecca said to Jacob, “I will go in and I will speak to him. And he will send you.” 8And Rebecca entered and she said to Isaac, “I despise my life because of the two daughters of Heth whom Esau took as wives for himself. And if Jacob takes a wife from among the daughters of the land who are like these, why then shall I live, because the daughters of Canaan are evil.” 9And Isaac called Jacob and he blessed him and admonished him and said to him, 10“Do not take for yourself a wife from any of the daughters of Canaan. Arise and go into Mesopotamia to the house of Bethuel, your mother’s father, and take a wife for yourself from there, from the daughters of Laban, your mother’s brother. 11And may God Almighty bless and increase and multiply you. And become a company of nations. And may He grant the blessings of my father, Abraham, to you and to your seed after you so that you will inherit the land of your sojournings and all of the land which the Lord gave to Abraham. Go, my son, in peace.” 12And Isaac sent Jacob. And he went to Mesopotamia, to Laban, the son of Bethuel, the Syrian, the brother of Rebecca, the mother of Jacob. Isaac Consoles Rebecca Regarding Jacob’s Future

13And it came to pass after Jacob arose to travel to Mesopotamia that the spirit of Rebecca grieved after her son. And she wept. 14And Isaac said to Rebecca, “My sister, do not weep on account of Jacob, my son, because in peace he will journey and in peace he will return. 15God Most High will protect him from all evil and He will be with him because He will not forsake him all of his days, 16for I know that He will make his ways prosper everywhere he goes until he returns to us in peace and we see him in peace. 17Do not fear on his account, my sister, because he is upright in his way and he is a perfect man. And he is faithful. And is he will not perish. Do not weep.” 18And Isaac comforted Rebecca on account of Jacob, her son, and he blessed him. Jacob’s Dream and Vow at Bethel

19And Jacob went forth from the Well of the Oath in order to travel to Haran in the first year of the second week of the forty-fourth jubilee. And he arrived at Luz, which is in the mountains, i.e. Bethel, on the first of the first month of this week. And he reached the place when it was evening. And he turned 27:6–8. Behold, you know that my father is old Here the pious Jacob expresses a further misgiving: he does not wish to abandon his poor, blind father (whose blindness, we are to have forgotten, had just aided Jacob in fraudulently obtaining his father’s blessing!). In response, Rebecca returns to the excuse in Gen. 27:46, her fear that Jacob will marry a Hittite/Canaanite woman (see above on Jub. 25:1–10), even though she knows full well that Jacob in fact plans to go to Laban’s house in order to marry one of his daughters. 27:17. he is upright in his way and he is a perfect man Better: “he is [righteous] in his way[s].” Though Isaac had initially preferred his son Esau to Jacob (Gen. 25:28), his opinion is in the process of changing. 27:19. On the first of the first month This is the first of Nisan, in keeping with Jubilees’ preference for locating significant events on significant days (see above on 17:15).

388 James L. Kugel

aside from the way toward the west of the public road on that night. And he slept there because the sun had set. 20And he took one of the stones of that place and he placed it at his head beneath that tree and he was traveling alone, and he slept. 21And he dreamed on that night and behold a staircase was set up upon the earth and its head touched heaven. And behold, angels of the Lord were going up and down upon it. And behold, the Lord was standing upon it. 22And He spoke with Jacob and He said, “I am the Lord, the God of Abraham, your father and the God of Isaac. The land upon which you are sleeping I will give to you and to your seed after you. 23And your seed shall be like the sand of the earth. And you shall increase in the West and the East and North and South. And all the peoples of the nations will be blessed in you and in your seed. 24And behold, I shall be with you and I shall protect you everywhere you go. And I shall bring you back into this land in peace because I shall not forsake you until I do everything which I have said to you.” 25And Jacob awoke from his sleep and he said, “Truly this place is the house of the Lord, and I did not know it.” And he was afraid and said, “Dreadful is this place which is none other than the house of God. And this is the gate of heaven.” 26And rising early in the morning, Jacob took the stone which he had placed at his head and he set it up as a pillar for a sign. And he poured out oil on top of it and he named that place “Bethel.” But formerly the name of that area was Luz. 27And Jacob vowed a vow to the Lord, saying, “If the Lord will be with me and protect me in this way in which I am traveling, and if He will give me bread to eat and clothing to put on, and I return to the house of my father in peace, then the Lord will be my God and this stone which I have set up as a pillar for a sign in this place shall be the house of the Lord and everything which You have given me I will tithe to you, my God.” Jacob Is Given Leah as a Wife 28:1And he traveled to the land of the East, to Laban, Rebecca’s brother. And he was with him and

served him for Rachel, his daughter, one week. 2And in the first year of the third week, he said to him, “Give me my wife for whom I have served you seven years.” And Laban said to Jacob, “I will give you your wife.” 3And Laban prepared a banquet and he took Leah, his elder daughter, and he gave her to Jacob as a wife. And he gave to her Zilpah, his handmaid, as an attendant. But Jacob did not know it

27:20–25. And he took one of the stones The narrative of Jacob’s dream vision follows Gen. 28:10–22, but omits Jacob’s “Surely the Lord is present in this place, and I did not know it” (Gen. 28:16). Perhaps Jubilees’ author was disturbed by Jacob’s confession of ignorance about God, or perhaps, in common with other Second Temple period exegetes, he was disturbed by the implication that holiness legitimately dwelled in Bethel, later the site of one of Jeroboam’s temples. 27:26. set it up as a pillar for a sign Jubilees adds “for a sign” (contrast Gen. 28:18), one that will enable him to carry out his vow of a tithe (Gen. 28:22) in the same place: see below on Jub. 32. (Jubilees’ author was also eager to deny any implication that this “pillar” [matzevah] was for purposes of worship, which would violate the law of Deut. 16:22.) 28:1–3. served him for Rachel, his daughter, one week That is, “one week [of years].” The author skips the narrative of Jacob’s first encounter with Rachel and Laban (Gen. 29:1–14) and moves immediately to the story of the switched brides (Gen. 29:15–30).

Jubilees 389

because Jacob assumed that she was Rachel. 4And he entered into her and behold, she was Leah. And Jacob was angry with Laban and he said to him, “Why have you treated me thus? Was it not for Rachel that I served you, and not for Leah? Why have you offended me? Take your daughter, and I will go because you have done evil against me.” 5For Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah because the eyes of Leah were weak, but her appearance was very beautiful, and Rachel (had) good eyes and good appearance and she was very beautiful. The Rule Regarding the Marriage of the Elder Daughter First

6And Laban said to Jacob, “It does not happen thus in our land, to give the younger woman before the elder.” And it is not right to do this because thus it is ordained and written in the heavenly tablets that no one should give his younger daughter before the elder because he should first give the elder and after her the younger. And they will write it down as sin in heaven concerning the man who acts thus. And no one who does this thing will be righteous because this deed is evil before the Lord. 7And you command the children of Israel so that they will not do this thing: “Let not the younger woman be taken or given without the elder one being first (given) because that is very evil.” 8And Laban said to Jacob, “Let the seven days of banquet for this woman continue and then I will give you Rachel so that you might serve me another seven years (and) pasture my sheep just as you did in the previous week.” The Marriage to Rachel and the Birth of Children

9And on the day when the seven days of Leah’s banquet passed, Laban gave Rachel to Jacob so that he might serve him another seven years. And he gave to Rachel, Bilhah, the sister of Zilpah, as an attendant. 10And he served seven years more on account of Rachel because Leah had been given to him gra28:4. and behold, she was Leah All ancient interpreters were puzzled by the fact that Jacob failed to notice until the next morning that the woman in his bed was Leah, not Rachel (Gen. 29:25), and they proposed various solutions.191 Jubilees’ author has Jacob notice as soon as the marriage is consummated, rather than the next morning, since even at that point it is already too late for him to demand a refund. But the author no doubt found the whole tale distasteful, in part because of the implication that Leah, future mother of six of Israel’s tribes, had cooperated in the deception. He thus had Jacob take a principled stand against Laban and say what he does not in Genesis, “Take your daughter, and I will go.” 28:5. because the eyes of Leah were weak, but her appearance was very beautiful Jubilees adds these last words to explain that it was not tawdry lust for Rachel that caused Jacob to stay on—after all, both sisters were beautiful. Jacob preferred Rachel on ophthalmological grounds alone. 28:6–8. And it is not right to do this An insertion of the Interpolator, who saw in Laban’s excuse for his sneaky switch—“It is not the practice in our place to marry off the younger before the older” (Gen. 29:26)—another opportunity to suggest that a story in Genesis reflected one of the eternal teachings that are inscribed on high, namely, that “it is not right” to marry off the younger sister before the older, “because thus it is ordained and written in the heavenly tablets.”

390 James L. Kugel

tis. 11And the Lord opened the womb of Leah and she conceived and she bore a son to Jacob, and he called him Reuben, on the fourteenth of the ninth month, in the first year of the third week. 12But the womb of Rachel was closed because the Lord saw that Leah was hated, but Rachel was loved. 13And Jacob again went into Leah, and she conceived and she bore another son to Jacob, and he called him Simeon, on the twenty-first of the tenth month and in the third year of this week. 14And Jacob again went into Leah and she conceived and she bore the third son to him and he called him Levi, on the first day of the first month, in the sixth year of this week. 15And again Jacob went into her and she conceived and she bore the fourth son to him and he called him Judah, on the fifteenth of the third month, in the first year of the fourth week. 16And in all of this Rachel was jealous of Leah since she was not giving birth, and she said to Jacob, “Give me sons.” And Jacob said, “Have I withheld from you the fruit of your womb? Have I forsaken you?” 17And when Rachel saw that Leah had borne four sons to Jacob, Reuben and Simeon and Levi and Judah, she said to him, “Go into Bilhah, my maid, and she will conceive and bear a son for me.” 18And she gave Bilhah, her maid, to him so that she might be his wife. And he went into her and she conceived and she bore a son to him, and he called him Dan, on the ninth day of the sixth month in the sixth year of the third week. 19And Jacob went into Bilhah again a second time, and she conceived and bore another son to Jacob, and Rachel called him Naphtali, on the fifth of the seventh month, in the second year of the forth week. 20And when Leah saw that she was sterile and was not bearing children, she took and she also gave Zilpah, her attendant, to Jacob as a wife. And she conceived and bore a son to him and Leah called him Gad, on the twelfth of the eighth month in the third year of the fourth week. 21And he went into her again and she conceived and bore another son to him, and Leah called him Asher, on the second of the eleventh month in the fifth year of the fourth week. 22And Jacob went into Leah and she conceived and she bore a son and she called him Issachar, on the fourth day of the fifth month in the fourth year of the fourth week. And she gave him to a nurse. 23And Jacob went into her again and she conceived and she bore twins, a boy and a girl, and she called the boy Zebulun and the girl’s name was Dinah, in the seventh day of the seventh month in the sixth year of the fourth week. 24And the Lord had mercy upon Rachel and opened her womb. And she conceived and bore a son and called him Joseph, on the first of the fourth month in the sixth year of that fourth week. 28:11–24. And the Lord opened the womb of Leah Jubilees’ author ran through the birth of Jacob’s sons quickly, without the name etymologies of Gen. 29 and 30 and without the story of the mandrakes (Gen. 30:14–18), which doubtless outraged his sense of modesty. Note that he assigned significant days of the month—the 1st or the 15th—to the “important” sons, Levi, Judah, and Joseph, while the other sons are born on insignificant dates: Reuben on the 14th of the 9th month, Simeon on the 21st of the 10th month, Dan on the 9th of the 6th month, and so on. (See also above on 17:15.)

Jubilees 391

Laban Persuades Jacob to Continue Working for Wages

25And at the time when Joseph was born, Jacob said to Laban, “Give me my wives and my children. And let me go to my father, Isaac. And let me make a house for myself because I have completed the years which I served you for your two daughters. And I will travel to my father’s house.’’ 26And Laban said to Jacob, “Remain with me for your wages and pasture my flock for me again and accept your wages.” 27And they agreed with one another that he would give to him as his wages each of the lambs and kids which were born (and) on which there were black or spots or white. It would be his wages. 28And all of the sheep bore spotted (lambs) and ones which had variegated markings and ones which had various shades of black. And the sheep bore again lambs which looked like themselves and all which had markings belonged to Jacob and those which had no marking belonged to Laban. 29And the possessions of Jacob multiplied greatly. And he acquired oxen and sheep and asses and camels and male and female servants. And Laban and his sons were jealous of Jacob. 30And Laban collected his sheep from him, and kept watch on him with evil intent. Jacob Flees Secretly to Gilead 29:1And it came to pass after Rachel bore Joseph that Laban went to shear his sheep because they were

the distance of a three days’ journey away from him. 2And Jacob saw that Laban was going to shear his sheep and Jacob called Leah and Rachel and spoke intimately with them so that they might go with him to the land of Canaan. 3For he told them everything, as he had seen it in the dream, and everything which He told him, that he would return to the house of his father. And they said, “We will go with you anywhere you go.” 4And Jacob blessed the God of Isaac, his father, and the God of Abraham, his father’s father. And he arose and loaded up his wives and children and took all of his possessions and crossed over the river and arrived at the land of Gilead. But Jacob concealed his intention from Laban and did not tell him. The Oath between Jacob and Laban and Their Separation

5And in the seventh year of the fourth week, Jacob returned to Gilead, in the first month on the twenty28:27–30. And they agreed with one another This agreement is narrated in Gen. 30:25–43. The text here refers to lambs and kids that are born “black or spots or white,” but the Ethiopic text is notoriously difficult.192 Note in any case that Jubilees’ author does not mention Jacob’s attempts to affect the outcome of his agreement with Laban (Gen. 30:37–43), since they appeared designed to cheat his uncle out of his flocks. On the contrary, it was Laban who “collected his sheep from him,” a creation of Jubilees’ author, perhaps inspired by Gen. 31:42–43; moreover, Laban “kept watch on him with evil intent,” an interpretation of Gen. 31:2. 29:3. as he had seen it in the dream Jubilees does not relate the actual dream as told in Gen. 31:10–13, probably because it quotes God as saying. “I have noted all that Laban has been doing to you; I am the God of Bethel” (Gen. 31:12–13). Certainly Jacob had no need to be told that God has seen everything, and “the God of Bethel” was too limiting a title for the Lord of all. 29:4. Jacob blessed the God of Isaac, his father, and the God of Abraham Jacob did so in keeping with the principle of blessing God in thanks for a good outcome (above on 8:18–20).

392 James L. Kugel

first day of the month. And Laban pursued him. And he found Jacob in the mountain of Gilead in the third month on the thirteenth day. 6But the Lord did not permit him to deal cruelly with Jacob because He appeared to him in a dream at night. And Laban spoke to Jacob. 7And on the fifteenth of those days Jacob prepared a banquet for Laban and for all who came with him. And Jacob swore to Laban on that day. And Laban also swore to Jacob that one would not cross over on the mountain of Gilead against the other with evil intent. 8And they made there a heap for a witness. Therefore that place is called “the Heap of Witness” after this heap. 9But formerly the land of Gilead was called “the land of Raphaim” because it was the land of the Raphaim. And the Raphaim were born as giants whose height was ten cubits, nine cubits, eight cubits, or down to seven cubits. 10And their dwelling was from the land of the Ammonites to Mount Hermon and their royal palaces were in Qarnaim, and Ashtaroth, and Edrei, and Misur, and Beon. 11But the Lord destroyed them because of the evil of their deeds since they were very cruel. And the Amorites dwelt there instead of them, evil and sinful, and there is no people today who have fully equalled all of their sins. And therefore they had no length of life in the land. 12And Jacob dismissed Laban, and he traveled to Mesopotamia, the land of the East. 13And Jacob returned to the land of Gilead. And he crossed over the Jabbok in the ninth month on the eleventh day of the month. And on that day Esau, his brother, came to him and was reconciled to him. And he went away from him to the land of Seir; but Jacob dwelled in tents. 29:5–8. And Laban pursued him Jubilees’ author omits the story of Laban’s hypocritical reproach of Jacob (Gen. 31:26–30) and the following narrative of Rachel’s deception of her father. For the former: this author is actually careful not to portray Laban in too unfavorable a light, skipping even his assertion in the Bible that he uses divination (Gen. 30:27) or here that he has (images of) “gods.” After all, Laban is the brother of Rebecca and the father of Rachel and Leah, all of them the mothers of the people of Israel. As for Rachel, her failure to honor her father and her deception are both best passed over in silence. Jubilees does narrate the pact between Jacob and Laban, which takes place “in the third month . . . on the fifteenth of those days” (a significant day), in “Covenant Month” (above on 6:1; 17:15). 29:9. the Raphaim were born as giants This is because Deut. 2:10 and 21 assert that the Emim and Anakites, both classified as Raphaim, were indeed very tall. Having mentioned the northern area of Gilead, Jubilees’ author discourses on the Raphaim here because they are said to inhabit that region.193 29:10. Qarnaim . . . Ashtaroth . . . Edrei . . . Misur, and Beon “Misur” = mishor, “the plain” or “tableland,” in Deut. 3:10. The palaces of the Raphaim were located in these places, all northern locations associated with the Raphaim; there is no substance to the suggestion that the author mentioned these because two of them were sites of Maccabean victories. 29:11. evil and sinful The Amorites’ postbiblical reputation for sinfulness was based on their mention in Gen. 15:16.194 29:13. in the ninth month on the eleventh day Jubilees’ dating of Jacob’s reunion with his brother Esau tells us that this meeting was without importance. (See above on 17:15, “significant days.”) In fact, Jubilees’ author here performs one of his most drastic foreshortenings, reducing to two verses the whole biblical account of (1) Jacob’s anxieties about encountering Esau (Gen. 32:2– 9), (2) Jacob’s pious prayer (32:10–13), (3) the lavish gift he sends to Esau (32:14–22), (4) Ja-

Jubilees 393

Jacob’s Respect for His Parents Contrasted with Esau’s Disrespect

14And in the first year of the fifth week in that jubilee, he crossed over the Jordan and he dwelt on the other side of the Jordan. And he was pasturing his sheep from the Sea of the Heap as far as Bethshan and Dothan and the forest of Akrabbim. 15And he sent to his father, Isaac, some of all his possessions: clothing, and food, and meat, and drink, and milk, and butter, and cheese, and some dates of the valley. 16And (he also sent) to his mother, Rebecca, four times per year—between the appointed times of the months and between plowing and reaping, and between fall and the rainy season and between winter and spring—to the tower of Abraham. 17For Isaac had returned from the Well of the Oath and had gone up to the tower of his father, Abraham. And he dwelt there away from his son Esau 18because in the days when Jacob journeyed to Mesopotamia, Esau took for himself as a wife Mahalath, daughter of Ishmael, and gathered together all of his father’s flocks and his own wives and went up and dwelt in Mount Seir. And he left his father, Isaac, alone at the Well of the Oath. 19And Isaac went up from the Well of the Oath and dwelt in the tower of Abraham, his father, in the mountain of Hebron. 20And Jacob sent there everything which he sent to his father and mother from time to time, all of their needs. And they blessed Jacob with all their heart and all their soul. Levi and Simeon Avenge the Shame of Dinah 30:1And in the first year of the sixth week he went up to Salem, which is east of Shechem, in peace in the

fourth month. 2And there Dinah, the daughter of Jacob, was snatched away to the house of Shechem, son of Hamor, the Hivite, the ruler of the land. And he lay with her and defiled her, but she was little, cob’s famous wrestling match with the angel (32:23–33), and finally (5) his reconciliation with Esau (33:1–17). Of these items, numbers 1, 3, and 5 were apparently repugnant to Jubilees’ author because they involved an Israelite placating a “foreigner,” the ancestor of the Edomites; item 2, unobjectionable in itself, was inextricably bound to placating Esau; while item 4 was disturbing for theological reasons (disturbing enough was the idea that a man could wrestle with a divine being at all—not to speak of defeating him!). 29:14–16. And he was pasturing his sheep Jacob shepherds his flocks near the “Sea of the Heap.”195 From there he sends gifts to his father, Isaac, since in biblical society males were the principal holders of property, but also, at four regular intervals, gifts to his mother, Rebecca. 29:17. the tower of his father, Abraham An unknown locale, probably to be identified with the “tower of Eder” in Gen. 35:21. 29:18. Esau took for himself a wife He took a new wife, Mahalat (Gen. 28:9), with his other wives and settled in the Edomite homeland around Mount Seir, abandoning his father. 29:20. Jacob sent there everything . . . all of their needs Jacob’s filial piety, paralleled by that of his father Isaac (see above on 22:1–2) is intended here to contrast with Esau’s behavior. 30:1. to Salem . . . in peace Interpreters were in doubt as to the meaning of the word shalem in Gen. 35:18; Jubilees’ author therefore mentioned both possibilities, “to Salem” and “in peace.” 30:2. Dinah . . . was snatched away She was taken by Shechem, the son of Hamor. The author’s assertion that “she was little, only twelve years old” is not mentioned in Genesis; apart from increasing the pathos of the incident, he may have specified this age because it had some particular legal significance (in Rabbinic practice, 12 is the age of majority for a girl).

394 James L. Kugel

only twelve years old. 3And he begged his father and her brothers that she be given to him as a wife, but Jacob and his sons were angry at the men of Shechem because they defiled Dinah, their sister. And so they spoke treacherously with them and defrauded them and seduced them. 4And Simeon and Levi entered Shechem suddenly. And they executed judgment upon all of the men of Shechem and killed every man they found therein and did not leave in it even one. They killed everyone painfully because they had polluted Dinah, their sister. 5And therefore let nothing like this be done henceforth to defile a daughter of Israel because the judgment was ordered in heaven against them that they might annihilate with a sword all of the men of Shechem because they caused a shame in Israel. 6And the Lord handed them over into the hand of the sons of Jacob so that they might destroy them with the sword and execute judgment against them, and so that nothing like this might therefore happen in Israel to defile an Israelite virgin. The Law Prohibiting Marriage with Foreigners

7And if there is any man in Israel who wishes to give his daughter or his sister to any man who is from 30:3. Jacob and his sons were angry Only the sons are so described in Gen. 34:7; actually, Jacob maintains a studied neutrality throughout the incident. 30:4. They killed everyone painfully This alludes to Gen. 34:25, which, however, refers to the Shechemites’ condition before they were killed. Moreover, Jubilees’ author says, “all of the men of Shechem . . . every man they found therein” were killed, and not just the rapist, because all of them “had polluted [better: rendered impure] Dinah,” basing this assertion on the plural verb in Gen. 34:27, “because they had defiled their sister.”196 30:5–7. let nothing like this be done henceforth This is a restatement of Gen. 34:7, “and let it not be done thus.” In Genesis, this is the reaction of Jacob’s sons to the rape—such things should never take place!—but an ancient tradition preferred to see these words as those of the (divine) narrator of the story; God Himself (or, in Jubilees, the narrator of the book, the angel of the Presence) says, “such a thing ought not to be [or, alternatively, ‘will not be’] done”: cf. Gen. 34:7 LXX, Jdt. 9:2 LXX.197 For Jubilees and other writers, these words in Genesis justify all that follows: the “judgment [better: punishment] was ordained in heaven against them . . . the Lord handed them over into the hand of the sons of Jacob . . . so that nothing like this might therefore happen in Israel.” 30:7. if there is any man in Israel The larger lesson of this incident, according to Jubilees’ author, had to do with contact with non-Israelites—in fact, the worst kind of contact, forced sexual contact. He thus recounts the rape in such a way as to remove any ambiguity about Dinah’s role (she did not “go out to visit the daughters of the land” as in Gen. 34:1, but was quite simply “snatched away to the house of Shechem”). She was in no way complicit. Moreover, much of the biblical story is taken up with the subject of marriage negotiations (Gen. 34:8–23). These exchanges, even if conducted hypocritically by Jacob and his sons, filled Jubilees’ author with horror: no Jew should ever make agreements with non-Israelites, and an agreement to give one’s daughter in marriage to such a person was doubly unthinkable. The author therefore skipped almost entirely the biblical account of these negotiations; and although other ancient interpreters, balking at the idea that Jacob and his sons had lied to the Shechemites, felt compelled to say that the negotiations had in fact been sincere (T. Levi 6:3–6),198 Jubilees’ author was under no such constraint. He thus did not hesitate to say that Jacob and his sons “spoke treacherously with them and defrauded them199 and seduced them.”

Jubilees 395

the seed of the Gentiles, let him surely die, and let him be stoned because he has caused shame in Israel. And also the woman will be burned with fire because she has defiled the name of her father’s house and so she will be uprooted from Israel. 8And do not let an adultress or defilement be found in Israel all the days of the generations of the earth because Israel is holy to the Lord. And let any man who causes defilement surely die, let him be stoned, 9because thus it is decreed and written in the heavenly tablets concerning all the seed of Israel: “Let anyone who causes defilement surely die. And let him be stoned.” 10And there is no limit of days for this law. And there is no remission or forgiveness except that the man who caused defilement of his daughter will be rooted out from the midst of all Israel because he has given some of his seed to Moloch and sinned so as to defile it. 11And you, Moses, command the children of Israel and exhort them not to give any of their daughters to the Gentiles and not to take for their sons any of the daughters of the Gentiles because that is contemptible before the Lord. 12Therefore I have written for you in the words of the law all of the deeds of the Shechemites which they did 30:8–9. And do not let an adultress or defilement be found in Israel At this point, the Interpolator inserted his own interpretation of the Dinah story. He had a somewhat different understanding of the story: the point was not so much rape and the horrors of intermarriage, but “defilement” in general (of which intermarriage is, in his view, merely one example). He therefore began by mentioning “an adultress or defilement [better: or any impure person]” and adds, “let any man who causes defilement surely die, let him be stoned, because thus it is decreed and written in the heavenly tablets.” No such broad interdiction of “causing defilement” exists in the Torah; technically, a person who has contracted impurity by touching a corpse can “cause defilement” simply by inadvertently touching someone else—surely he was not to be stoned! But the Interpolator wished to condemn all sorts of defiling (in v. 15 he includes “those who defile the sanctuary of the Lord”). 30:10–11. he has given some of his seed to Moloch Lev. 18:21 commands “You shall not give any of your offspring to be passed to [the pagan god] Molech.” Molech (here “Moloch”) was apparently a Canaanite deity associated with child sacrifice (see further Lev. 20:2–5; 2 Kings 23:10; Jer. 32:35), and to “pass over” probably meant to “pass through fire,” as in Deut. 18:10. But in later times, this verse acquired a new meaning: “And do not give of your seed for sexual relations with a daughter of the nations to pass over to idolatry.”200 Lev. 18:21 was understood by these other interpreters to apply to intermarriage in one direction—a male who has sexual relations with a “daughter of the nations.”201 But to make the connection stick with the Dinah narrative, the Interpolator has to assert that Lev. 18:21 actually applies in both directions, that is, both to those who give their daughters to the Gentiles as well as to those who “take for their sons202 any of the daughters of the Gentiles.” He restates this bidirectional definition later on by saying that Israel “will not be cleansed from this defilement if there is in it a woman from the daughters of Gentiles or one who has given any of his daughters to . . . the Gentiles.” In so saying, of course, he is going well beyond anything suggested by the story of Dinah—or even by the legal lesson transmitted by Jubilees’ author, who, reacting to the biblical narrative, had said that it referred to “any man in Israel who wishes to give his daughter or his sister” to a Gentile (which was what Shechem and Hamor were asking Jacob to do). 30:12–14. Therefore I have written for you In this section, the Interpolator also turned to an issue in the Dinah story that had troubled other interpreters: why should the Torah have given so much attention to a sordid tale of rape and deception—and why, in particular, had it included the de-

396 James L. Kugel

against Dinah and how the sons of Jacob spoke, saying, “We will not give our daughter to a man who is uncircumcised because that is a reproach to us.” 13And it is a reproach to Israel, to those who give and those who take any of the daughters of the Gentile nations because it is a defilement and it is contemptible to Israel. 14And Israel will not be cleansed from this defilement if there is in it a woman from the daughters of Gentiles or one who has given any of his daughters to a man who is from any of the Gentiles. 15For there will be plague upon plague and curse upon curse, and every judgment, and plague, and curse will come. And if he does this thing, or if he blinds his eyes from those who cause defilement and from those who defile the sanctuary of the Lord and from those who profane His holy name, (then) all of the people will be judged together on account of all of the defilement and the profaning of this one. 16And there is no accepting of person or regarding appearance or taking from his hand either fruit or sacrifice or holocaust or fat or the aroma of sweet-smelling sacrifice so that He might accept it. And let any man or woman in Israel who defiled His sanctuary be (dealt with likewise). 17Therefore I command you, saying, “Proclaim this testimony to Israel: ‘See how it was for the Shechemites and their sons, how they were given into the hand of the two children of Jacob and they killed them painfully. And it was a righteousness for them and it was written down for them for righteousness.’” Levi Is Chosen for Priesthood in Recognition of His Zeal

18And the seed of Levi was chosen for the priesthood and levitical (orders) to minister before the Lord always just as we do. And Levi and his sons will be blessed forever because he was zealous to do ceptive words spoken by Jacob’s sons, “We cannot . . . give our sister to a man who is uncircumcised, for that is a disgrace among us” (Gen. 34:14). The reason, the angel of the Presence explains, is that those words are actually true: “it is a reproach to Israel” to indulge in intermarriage or even to look the other way when someone else does. 30:15. plague upon plague and curse upon curse These will strike Israel if it allows even one foreign woman in its midst. For this reason, even someone who “blinds his eyes from those who cause defilement” must be punished. This includes not only those who overlook intermarriage, but also those who “defile the sanctuary of the Lord and . . . those who profane His holy name”— all of these being forms of “defilement,” but quite unrelated to the Dinah story. 30:18–20. Levi was chosen for the priesthood This ancient tradition is attested in the (original author’s) book of Jubilees, ALD, and other texts; Jacob’s son Levi had been chosen while he was still alive to become the ancestor of the priestly tribe in Israel. (There is no hint of this in Genesis, but it derived in part from Mal. 2:4–7.) These texts offered various reasons for Levi having been so honored: because he prayed a pious prayer (ALD 3:1–18; T. Levi 2:3–12); because Isaac prophetically designated him and his descendants to inherit the priesthood (Jub. 31:11–17); or because Levi was “given to God” as a result of Jacob’s tithing of his sons (Jub. 32:3–8; Tg. Ps.-J. to Gen. 32:25; Pirke R. El. 37). This very multitude of explanations suggests that, while the tradition that Levi and his descendants were chosen during his own lifetime was widely known, there was no unanimity as to why. The Interpolator here adds another reason: it was as a result of his heroic slaughter of the Shechemites that Levi’s tribe was chosen. Such an idea was not without its problems; if Levi had performed this righteous deed in company with his older brother Simeon, why did they not jointly share in the reward? It was well known, however, that one of the sons

Jubilees 397

righteousness and judgment and vengeance against all who rose up against Israel. 19And thus a blessing and righteousness will be written (on high) as a testimony for him in the heavenly tablets before the God of all. 20And we will remember for a thousand generations the righteousness which a man did during his life in all of the (appointed) times of the year. And (it) will be written (on high) and it will come to him and his descendants after him. And he will be written down as a friend and a righteous one in the heavenly tablets. A Warning against Breach of Covenant

21All of these words I have written for you, and I have commanded you to speak to the children of Israel that they might not commit sin or transgress the ordinances or break the covenant which was ordained for them so that they might do it and be written down as friends. 22But if they transgress and act in all the ways of defilement, they will be recorded in the heavenly tablets as enemies. And they will be blotted out of the book of life and written in the book of those who will be destroyed and with those who will be rooted out from the land. 23And on the day that the children of Jacob killed Shechem he wrote (on high) for them a book in heaven that they did righteousness and uprightness and vengeance against the sinners and it was written down for a blessing. later born to Simeon was called “Saul the son of the Canaanite woman” (Gen. 46:10). For the Interpolator (and doubtless others as well), this very fact was proof that Simeon, in having relations with a Canaanite woman, had violated the very prohibition that had made the slaughter of the Shechemites meritorious in the first place. No priesthood for him! 30:19. a blessing and righteousness will be written (on high) as a testimony for him in the heavenly tablets Better: “a blessing and righteousness [are entered] as a ruling for him.” Apparently, this reward had not been written there forever, but was only now entered as a result of his actions. 30:20. And we will remember for a thousand generations the righteousness which a man did203 Better: “the [righteous deeds] which [this] man did.” “We” signifies “the angels.” all of the (appointed) times of the year This presumably means “throughout the year.” 30:21–23. so that they might do it and be written down as friends In general, the Interpolator adds, people who keep God’s laws and covenant are written down as friends on the heavenly tablets, while their opposites are written as enemies. This notion, characteristic of the Interpolator (see above Jub. 19:8), bespeaks a dualistic outlook known from the Dead Sea Scrolls and elsewhere. “Friends” are, more literally, “those who love [Me],” and in using this word as well as in saying that they will be remembered “for a thousand generations,” the Interpolator was evoking for readers the assertion in the Decalogue that God “shows kindness to the thousandth generation of those who love Me and keep My commandments” (Exod. 20:6). By contrast, the Interpolator says, those who “transgress [My laws] . . . will be recorded in the heavenly tablets as enemies,” literally, “those who hate [Me].” For such people, God “visits the guilt of the parents upon the children,” etc. (Exod. 20:6). That is why “on the day that the children of Jacob killed Shechem he wrote . . . a book [better: a document was written] in heaven [attesting] that they did righteousness and uprightness.”

398 James L. Kugel

The Conclusion of the Shechem Incident

24And they brought forth Dinah, their sister, from the house of Shechem and they took captive everything which was in Shechem: their sheep and their oxen and their asses and all their herds and all their goods. And they brought forth everything to Jacob, their father. 25And he spoke with them because they slaughtered the citizens, for he was afraid of those who inhabited the land: the Canaanites and the Perizzites. But the terror of the Lord was in all of the cities which surrounded Shechem and they did not rise up to pursue the sons of Jacob because a dread had fallen upon them. The Preparation for Pilgrimage to Bethel 31:1And on the first of the month, Jacob spoke to all of the men of his house, saying, “Purify and change

your clothes, and having arisen, let us go up to Bethel, where on the day when I fled from the face of Esau, my brother, I made a vow to Him who has been with me and has returned me unto this land in peace. Remove the strange gods that are among you.” 2And they handed over the strange gods and what was on their ears and what was on their necks and the idols which Rachel stole from Laban, her father, and she gave everything to Jacob, and he burned it and crushed it and destroyed it and hid it under an oak which was in the Land of Shechem. Jacob Invites His Father to Come to Bethel

3And he went up on the first of the seventh month into Bethel. And he built an altar in the place where he had slept and had erected a pillar. And he invited his father, Isaac, and his mother, Rebecca, to come 30:24–25. And they brought forth Dinah The original author’s narrative resumes where it left off in Jub. 30:17: Dinah is returned to her family, while her brothers “took captive everything that was in Shechem.” Jubilees’ author of course omits mention of “all their children and their wives” (Gen. 34:29) in the list of booty that follows; if the point of the story was, for Jubilees’ author, the horrors of contact with foreigners, surely they would not have taken any human prisoners. After the Shechem incident was over, Jacob expressed misgivings (Gen. 34:30), but this, Jubilees explains, was only because “he was afraid of those who inhabited the land,” and not because there was anything morally questionable about slaughtering the entire population204 because of one rapist. 31:1–3. let us go up to Bethel Gen. 35:1–5 describes God’s summons to Jacob to go to Bethel and “build an altar,” as well as the subsequent preparations for the trip. That passage does not specify the purpose of building an altar there, but Jubilees’ author does here: it is to pay off “a vow to Him who has been with me and has returned me unto this land.” Jubilees makes no mention of God’s ordering Jacob to Bethel—the initiative seems here to come from Jacob. Jubilees does not want to imply (as Rabbinic sources later did) that Jacob had been negligent in not fulfilling his vow.205 31:3. And he invited his father, Isaac But why had Jacob not simply built an altar at Bethel the first time and offered a sacrifice then and there, as Noah, Abraham, and other figures had done? According to Jubilees, in those ancient days the priesthood passed down the family line, one priest per generation (see above on 19:26, etc.). But Jacob was not a priest; his father, Isaac, was still the functioning priest of his generation. For that reason, even now Jacob cannot offer the sacrifice himself, but has to ask his father to come to Bethel and do it. Thus, having arrived at Bethel on another significant day, “the first of the seventh month” (the “Day of Trumpet Blasts,” Lev. 23:23; Num. 29:1–6), Jacob invites his parents to Bethel, asking Isaac to officiate at the sacrifice.

Jubilees 399

to him in the (time of) sacrifice. 4And Isaac said, “Let my son Jacob come and let me see him before I die.” Jacob’s Visit to His Father, Isaac

5And Jacob went to his father, Isaac, and to his mother, Rebecca, at the house of his father, Abraham, and he took with him two of his sons, Levi and Judah. And he came to his father, Isaac, and his mother, Rebecca. 6And Rebecca went out from the tower at the gates of the tower to kiss Jacob and embrace him because it revived her soul when she heard, “Behold, Jacob, your son, has arrived.” 7And she kissed him, and she saw his two sons and she recognized them and she said to him, “Are these your sons, my son?” And she embraced them, saying, “in you may He bless the seed of Abraham and may you become a blessing upon the earth.” 8And Jacob went in to Isaac, his father, in the chamber where he was lying down, and his two children were with him. And he took the hand of his father and, bowing down, he kissed him. And Isaac hung on the neck of Jacob, his son, and he wept on his neck. 9And the darkness passed from the eyes of Isaac and he saw Jacob’s two sons, Levi and Judah, and he said, “Are these your sons, my son, because they resemble you?” 10And he told him that they were truly his sons: “And certainly you have seen that they are truly my sons.” The Blessing of Levi

11And they drew near to him and he turned and kissed them and embraced the both of them together. 12And a spirit of prophecy came down upon his mouth. And he took Levi in his right hand and Judah in his left hand. 13And he turned to Levi first and he began to bless him first, and he said to him, “May the God of all, i.e. the Lord of all ages, bless you and your sons in all ages. 14May the Lord give you and your seed very great honor. May He draw you and your seed near to Him from all flesh to serve in

31:4–12. Let my son Jacob come and let me see him before I die Isaac, apparently ill, declines, asking instead that Jacob come to him. Jacob does so, taking Levi and Judah along with him. Nothing of this visit is recounted in Genesis, but Jubilees cleverly “deduced” its existence from the passing mention in Gen. 35:8 of the death of Rebecca’s servant woman, a certain Deborah, at Bethel. After all, Jacob has recently returned to Canaan after a twenty-year stay in Laban’s house in Aram; if he now arrives at Bethel and, shortly thereafter, Deborah dies there, what was she doing in Bethel? Surely she did not accompany Jacob to Aram 20 years earlier and remain with him until now! So it must be, Jubilees suggests, that after arriving in Bethel, Jacob went to visit his parents (who were then living near Hebron, “at the house of his [Isaac’s] father, Abraham, . . . [that is] the tower”—presumably the “tower of Abraham”; see above on 29:14–20).206 Jacob then must have returned to Bethel with his mother Rebecca and her servant Deborah, whereupon Deborah died at Bethel. This side trip to visit Isaac was extremely important for Jubilees’ overall understanding of what went on at Bethel—as he will now explain. 31:9. the darkness passed from the eyes of Isaac That is, his blindness (Gen. 27:1) suddenly abated. 31:12. a spirit of prophecy came down upon his mouth This spirit allowed him to offer his prophetic blessings of Levi and Judah.

400 James L. Kugel

His sanctuary as the angels of the presence and the holy ones. May your sons’ seed be like them with respect to honor and greatness and sanctification. And may He make them great in every age. 15And they will become judges and rulers and leaders for all of the seed of the sons of Jacob. The word of the Lord they will speak righteously, and all of his judgments they will execute righteously. And they will tell My ways to Jacob, and My paths to Israel. The blessing of the Lord shall be placed in their mouth, so that they might bless all of the seed of the beloved. (As for) you, your mother has named you ‘Levi,’ and truly she has named you. 16You will be joined to the Lord and be the companion of all the sons of Jacob. His table will belong to you, and you and your sons will eat (from) it, and in all generations your table will be full, and your food will not be lacking in any age. And all who hate you will fall before you, and all your enemies will be uprooted and perish, and whoever blesses you will be blessed, and any nation which curses you will be cursed. The Blessing of Judah

And to Judah he said: “May the Lord give you might and strength to tread upon all who hate you. 31:14. serve in His sanctuary as the angels of the presence and the holy ones Better: “[Levi will] serve in His sanctuary [on earth just] as the angels of the Presence and the holy ones [i.e., the angels of holiness].” That is, just as they serve Him in the great, heavenly sanctuary that all Second Temple period writers believed existed just above the clouds.207 31:15. become judges and rulers and leaders208 This reflects the priesthood throughout the post-exilic period, when there was no king and Judah had been, since the late 6th or early 5th century, a “temple state.” In addition, “The word [Lat. ‘speech’] of the Lord they will speak righteously [better: faithfully], and all of his judgments [Lat. iudicia, i.e., laws] they will execute righteously [judge fairly] . . . they will tell My [Lat. ‘His’] ways to Jacob, and My paths to Israel.” These words are an expansion of Moses’s blessing of the Levites in Deut. 33:10 (and perhaps influenced as well by Mal. 2:6–7). The blessing of the Lord shall be placed in their mouth This is a reference to the priestly blessing in Num. 6:22–27. 30:16. You will be joined to the Lord Levi’s name was explained in Gen. 29:34, but here Jubilees’ author supplies a more dignified etymology, “You will be joined [teluvveh].”

Jubilees 401

Be a prince, you and one of your sons for the sons of Jacob; may your name and the name of your son be one which travels and goes about in all the lands and cities. Then may the nations fear before your face, and all of the nations tremble, [and every nation trembles]. 19And with you will be the help of Jacob and with you will be found the salvation of Israel. 20And on the day when you sit on your righteous throne of honor, there will be great peace for all the seed of the beloved’s sons. Whoever blesses you will be blessed, and all who hate you and afflict you and curse you will be uprooted and destroyed from the earth and they shall be cursed.” Jacob’s Visit with Isaac

21And turning, he kissed him again and embraced him and rejoiced greatly because he had seen the sons of Jacob, his own true son. 22And he withdrew from his embrace and fell down and bowed down to him. And he blessed them. And he rested there near Isaac, his father, during that night. And they ate and drank joyfully. 23And he made the two sons of Jacob sleep, one on his right and one on his left, and it was counted to him (as) righteousness. 24And Jacob told his father everything during the night, how the Lord had shown him great mercy, and how He had made all of His affairs prosper and protected him from all evil. 25And Isaac blessed the God of his father, Abraham, who did not withhold His mercy and His righteousness from the son of his servant Isaac. Isaac’s Farewell to Jacob

26And in the morning, Jacob told his father, Isaac, (about) the vow which he had made to the Lord and the vision which he had seen and that he had built an altar and everything was prepared to make 31:18–20. And to Judah he said What he said was “Be a prince,” that is, the political leader, “you and one of your sons”; presumably, this “son” will rule in every generation, but doubtless Jubilees’ author had in mind one son in particular, King David, a Judahite, whose fame will be one that “travels and goes about in all the lands and cities”, though it is not impossible that the author is thinking of the messianic king to spring from David’s descendants, about whom it was said that he would be “the expectation of the nations” (Gen. 49:10 LXX). The same verse doubtless stands behind the further wish that “the nations fear before your face” [i.e., be afraid of you]. 31:22–25. And Jacob told his father everything during the night That is, how God had “protected him from all evil [better: every evil thing],” an echo of Gen. 48:16, and “did not withhold his mercy and his righteousness from the son of his servant Isaac,” a direct quotation from Gen. 24:27. 31:26–31. And in the morning Jacob then explains the purpose of his visit, the vow that he had made, but Isaac declines, being too infirm. He does, however, send Rebecca, and Deborah along with her, back to Bethel with Jacob; see above on 31:4–10. Jacob must at first have been perplexed— who would officiate as a priest and receive his tithe?—but then he recalled the prayer with which

402 James L. Kugel

a sacrifice before the Lord just as he had vowed and that he had come to set him upon an ass. 27And Isaac said to Jacob, his son, “I am not able to come with you because I have grown old and I am not able to endure on the way. Go, my son, in peace, because I am one hundred and sixty-five years old today. Therefore I am not able to travel. Set your mother (on the ass) and let her go with you. 28I know, my son, that you came for my sake. And let this day be blessed on which you have seen me alive and I have also seen you, my son. 29Prosper and perform the vow which you made and do not delay your vow because the vow will be sought. And now hasten to do it, and may the one who created everything, to whom you vowed the vow, be pleased.” 30And he said to Rebecca, “Go with Jacob, your son.” And Rebecca went with Jacob, her son. And Deborah (was) with her. And they reached Bethel. Jacob Reflects on the Blessing of His Sons

31And Jacob remembered the prayer (with) which his father blessed him and his two sons, Levi and Judah, and he rejoiced and he blessed the God of his fathers, Abraham and Isaac. 32And he said, “Now I know that I and my sons have an eternal hope before the God of all.” And thus it is ordained concerning the two of them, and it has been written (on high) for them as an eternal testimony in the heavenly tablets, just as Isaac blessed them. Jacob’s Tithe and Sacrifice at Bethel 32:1 And he stayed that night in Bethel. And Levi dreamed that he had been appointed and ordained

priest of the Most High God, he and his sons forever. And he woke from his sleep and blessed the Lord. 2And Jacob rose early in the morning on the fourteenth of that month and he gave a tenth of everything which came with him: man, (and) beast, gold, (and) all (sorts of) vessels and clothes. And he gave a tenth of everything. 3And in those days Rachel conceived Benjamin, her son. And Jacob counted his sons from him and

his father had blessed him and his two sons, Levi and Judah, and realized that Levi would become the next priest. 31:32. And thus it is ordained For the Interpolator, the fact that Isaac had blessed Levi and Judah “down here” was another act of human initiative that could not seem to stand on its own. He therefore adds after this allusion to Isaac’s blessing that the whole matter had been “written . . . for them as an eternal testimony [better: ruling] in the heavenly tablets.” 32:1–2. And Levi dreamed that he had been appointed This dream was another motif (cf. ALD 4:11– 13; T. Levi 8) designed to confirm his selection as priest. The next morning, “the fourteenth of that [seventh] month” (the day before another significant day, the 15th of the seventh month, which was also the start of Sukkot, the Festival of Booths), Jacob starts setting aside the things for his tithe. 32:3. And in those days Rachel conceived Benjamin This mention of Jacob’s tithe serves as an introduction to another, quite separate tradition about how Levi came to be the priestly tribe: Jacob counted his sons for the purpose of giving God a tithe of them as well. Counting backward from his 12th son, Benjamin (then in utero), he arrived at Levi who, as number 10, therefore ought to be given to God as part of Jacob’s vow to return to God a 10th of all he had acquired; in other words, Levi was a human tithe (cf. Pirke R. El. 37; Tg. Ps.-J. 32:25). Jacob therefore “put garments

Jubilees 403

upward, and (the lot of) Levi fell with the portion of the Lord. And his father put garments of the priesthood upon him and he filled his hands. 4And on the fifteenth of this month he brought to the altar fourteen bulls from the herd and twenty-eight rams and forty-nine sheep and seven lambs and twenty-one kids of the goats (as) a burnt offering upon the altar of sacrifices, well pleasing for a sweetsmelling aroma before God. 5This was his offering from the vow which he made to tithe together with their (fruit) offerings and their libations. 6And when the fire consumed it he burned incense upon the fire above it. And for a thank offering: two bulls and four rams and four sheep and four he-goats and two lambs, each a year old, and two kids of the goats. Thus he did at dawn for seven days. 7And it happened as he and all his sons and his men ate there joyfully for seven days that he blessed and praised the Lord, the one who delivered him from all his affliction and who granted him his prayers. 8And he gave a tithe of every clean animal and he made a burnt offering, but the unclean animals he did (not) give to Levi, his son, but every human soul he gave to him. 9And Levi served as priest in Bethel before Jacob, his father, (apart) from his ten brothers. And he was a priest there. And Jacob gave his vow. Thus he tithed a second tithe to the Lord and he sanctified it and it was sanctified to him. The Law of the Tithe

10And therefore it is decreed in the heavenly tablets as a law to tithe the tithe again in order to eat it before the Lord from year to year in the place where it is determined that His name shall dwell. And there is no limit of days to this law forever. 11This ordinance is written to observe it year after year to of the priesthood upon him” (no doubt given to him by Isaac) and “filled his hands,” that is, ordained him for the priesthood. 32:4–7. on the fifteenth of this month This is referring to the seventh month, the time of the Festival of Booths (which had already been instituted as a festival by Abraham in Jub. 16:20–27), when Jacob brought forth a lavish set of sacrifices (cf. Num. 29:12–32). Thus he did at dawn for seven days in keeping with the festival that Abraham had instituted. 32:8–9a. And he gave a tithe The laws of tithing in Num. 18:21, 24 (Levites are to receive all tithes) seem to contradict those of Deut. 14:22–29 (Levites get the full tithe once every three years; at other times, the owner consumes the tithe or its monetary equivalent at the Temple). Here, although the matter is far from clear, Jubilees’ author seems to follow neither. 32:9b–15. Thus he tithed a second tithe Both the original author and the Interpolator had connected Abraham’s tithe in Gen. 14:20 to the later laws of tithing (Lev. 27:30–33; Deut. 14:22–23); see above on Jub. 13:25–27. The Interpolator saw in the mention here of Jacob’s payment of a tithe an opportunity to discourse on the institution of a second tithe, neglected by (or unknown to) Jubilees’ author. Thus, once “Jacob gave his vow” [better: what he had vowed; namely, a 10th of his property], he “tithed a second tithe.” The whole idea of a second tithe is the result of trying to reconcile the apparently contradictory instructions of Num. 18:21, 24 and Deut. 14:22–29. The Interpolator, the author of this passage, shares with Rabbinic Judaism the basic idea that there is a “second tithe,” but his understanding of its nature is different from that of the Rabbis. In apparent agreement with Deut. 14:22–29, the Interpolator stipulates that this tithe is to be consumed (by the tithe’s owner, though this is not specified) “in the place where it is determined that His name shall dwell,” that is, the Jerusalem Temple. He further stipulates that the tithe is to be given and consumed during its season.

404 James L. Kugel

eat the second tithe before the Lord in the place where it is determined. And there is not to be (anything) left over from it from this year to the year which is to come. 12For in its year the grain will be eaten until the days of the harvest of the grain of the year, and the wine (will be drunk) until the days of the wine, and the olive (will be used) until the day of its season. 13And everything which is left over from it and which grows old will be unclean. Let it be burned in the fire because it has become impure. 14And thus they shall eat it together in the sanctuary and they shall not let it become old. 15And the whole tithe of oxen and sheep is holy to the Lord and it will belong to the priests who will eat it before Him year after year because it is so ordered and engraved on the heavenly tablets concerning the tithe. Jacob’s Vision Which Prevented Him from Sanctifying the Court at Bethel

16And in the second night, on the twenty-second day of this month, Jacob planned to build up that place and to build a wall around the court and to sanctify it and to make it eternally holy for himself and his sons after him. 17And the Lord appeared to him in the night and blessed him and said to him, “Your name will not be called Jacob, but you will be named Israel.” 18And He said to him again, “I am the Lord who created heaven and earth, and I shall increase you and multiply you very much. And there will be kings from you; they will rule everywhere that the tracks of mankind have been trod. 19And I shall give to your seed all of the land under heaven and they will rule in all nations as they have desired. And after this all of the earth will be gathered together and they will inherit it forever.” 20And He finished speaking with him, and He went up from him. And Jacob watched until He went up into heaven. 21And he saw in a vision of the night, and behold an angel was descending from heaven, and there were seven tablets in his hands. And he gave (them) to Jacob, and he read them, and he knew everything which was written in them, which would happen to him and to his sons during all 32:12. in its year the grain will be eaten That is, previously harvested grain. the wine (will be drunk) until the days of the wine Better: “until the time for the wine [i.e., the grape] harvest,” and so forth. 32:14. And thus they shall eat it together in the sanctuary This alludes to Deut. 14:23. 32:15. the whole tithe of oxen and sheep is holy to the Lord and it will belong to the priests This seems closer to Num. 18:21, though there it is the Levites, and here the priests, who receive the tithe. 32:16. Jacob planned to build up that place That is, Bethel, the spot at which he had earlier seen his vision of the great ladder (Gen. 28) and had now offered sacrifices to God. Now he would turn it into a sacred precinct, “to sanctify it and to make it eternally holy.” 32:17–19. the Lord appeared to him The Lord also changed his name to Israel and blessed him (as in Gen. 35:9–12), saying “I shall increase you and multiply you very much.” 4Q223–24 uses the same verbs as Gen. 35:11, “Be fruitful and multiply,” turning these biblical words of blessing into a promise “I will cause you to be fruitful and multiply.”209 Jacob’s descendants “will rule in all nations as they have desired” (better: as they wish), confirming Isaac’s words to Jacob in Gen. 27:29. 32:20–21. And He finished speaking with him, and He went up from him That is, God finished speaking and went up. No sooner was this divine encounter finished than Jacob had another: an angel appeared to him with seven tablets narrating what “would happen to him and to his sons during all the ages.”210

Jubilees 405

the ages. 22And he showed him everything which was written on the tablets. 23And he said to him, “Do not build this place, and do not make an eternal sanctuary, and do not dwell here because this is not the place. Go to the house of Abraham, your father, and dwell with Isaac, your father, until the day of your father’s death 24because you will die peacefully in Egypt and you will be buried honorably in this land in the tomb of your fathers with Abraham and Isaac. Do not fear, because just as you have seen and read, thus will everything come to pass. But you write down everything just as you have seen and read (it).” 25And Jacob said, “My lord, how will I remember everything that I read and saw?” And he said to him, “I will cause you to remember everything.” 26And he went up from him and he woke up from his sleep and he recalled everything that he had read and seen and he wrote down all of the matters which he had read and seen. The Institution of the Day of “Addition” to the Feast

27And he observed there yet one (more) day and he sacrificed in it according to everything which he had been sacrificing on the previous days. And he called it “Addition” because that day was added, but 32:23. Do not build this place, and do not make it an eternal sanctuary The angel further instructed him not to do at Bethel what he had vowed.211 The reason for this instruction is clear: Although Bethel was a sacred spot in biblical times (and eventually the site of one of Jeroboam’s two temples), the Torah mandated the building of a temple only in the one “place that the Lord your God will choose” (Deut. 12:5), namely, Jerusalem. Jacob’s vow to build a temple at Bethel could not, even retrospectively, be allowed to stand. What is more, Genesis never reports that Jacob did keep that part of his vow. Failure to keep a vow was a serious offense; so here, an angel officially relieves him of his responsibility. 32:23. Go to the house of Abraham, your father His house, according to Gen. 35:32, was in Hebron. 32:24. because you will die peacefully in Egypt These words seem a bit strange, indeed a non sequitur. “And you will be buried honorably in this land” seems to pick up on the previous command to go to the house of Abraham and Isaac (“this land” clearly refers to Hebron). just as you have seen and read, thus will everything come to pass The text now seems to return to the beginning of this passage in 32:21–22, when the angel shows Jacob the seven tablets: from here, the subject of the seven tablets continues to the end of the passage in 32:36. All this seems a bit suspicious. Indeed, the fact that Jacob has two divine visions the same night (vv. 17–19 and 21–26) in itself suggests that the second one is not the work of the original author.212 At the same time, it seems unlikely that the author of the second vision was the Interpolator: the second vision does not even identify the seven tablets as part of, or copied from, the Interpolator’s beloved “heavenly tablets”! Moreover, the passage contains none of his characteristic expressions and it departs strikingly from his usual modus operandi, which, as we have seen, is to insert large chunks of text rather than interweaving smaller ones. One must therefore consider the possibility that the second vision was specially inserted here by some otherwise unknown third party.213 32:27. And he observed there yet one (more) day The original author’s narration resumes here. Having recounted Jacob’s celebration of the seven-day Festival of Booths at Bethel (a festival that Abraham had initiated back in Jub. 16:20–27), the author sought to attribute to Jacob the institution of yet an eighth day of celebration following those seven days, as stipulated in the Torah (Lev. 23:34–36; Num. 29:35). He thus said that Jacob “observed there yet one (more) day,” an

406 James L. Kugel

eighth day of celebration after the Festival of Booths. Here, then, was another bit of the Torah’s legislation that began with something initiated spontaneously by one of the patriarchs on his own. To back up this claim, Jubilees’ author had a clever idea. This eighth-day celebration is referred to in the Torah as an atzeret, “assembly” (a name preserved in later Judaism, which still calls this holy day [yom shemini] atzeret). The reason for this name is not given in the Torah, but Jubilees’ author sought to connect it to the verb atzar, “retain, hold back.” It was called that, he said, because Jacob had been “held back there one [more] day” (Jub. 32:27 in the Latin translation). So once again, an altogether human circumstance—Jacob’s being “held back” an extra day—was responsible for one of the festive days eventually commanded in the Torah. Needless to say, the Interpolator did not like this explanation. He could not change what the original author had said, but he could, and did, add his own, altogether contrary explanation: Jacob may have decided to call this extra day atzeret, and the name may have stuck and even found its way into the Torah. But as for the day itself, its real name had always been “Addition.” That was the name that had been written on the heavenly tablets long before, “because it [i.e., this eighth day of celebration] was added to the days of the Festival of Booths” (Jub. 32:29 in the Latin translation). So Jacob may have given it his own name after having been “held back” an extra day, but that was nothing unusual; Jacob also was the one, the Interpolator states, who started the custom of calling the Festival of Booths by the abbreviated name “The Festival.”214 Thus did the Interpolator seek to undo the significance of the name atzeret as explained by Jubilees’ original author. However, he made one mistake. In supporting his argument with this further claim that Jacob had also abbreviated the real name of “the Festival of Booths” to “the Festival,” he seems to have forgotten that the original author had already attributed that change to Abraham in Jub. 16:27. These two competing names (“Retention” and “Addition”) in one passage were confusing to later editors and/or translators of Jubilees—so they set about making the passage more consistent. The Ethiopic tradition bears witness to one attempt, which had changed Jub. 32:27 to read: “And he called it ‘Addition,’ because the name was added,” thus eradicating any trace of the clever argument of Jubilees’ author (that it was called “Retention” because Jacob had been “held back there one [more] day”). The Latin translation is closer to the original version, but— also for reasons of consistency—it erred in the opposite direction, modifying the Interpolator’s last sentence (32:29) to read: “And its name was called ‘Retention’ [replacing the Interpolator’s ‘Addition’ but leaving the next words untouched] because it was added,” an explanation that now makes no sense.

Jubilees 407

the previous (days) he called “the feast.” 28And thus it was revealed that it should be. And it is written in the heavenly tablets. Therefore it was revealed to him so that he might observe it and add it to the seven days of the feast. 29And it was called “Addition” because it is written (on high) in the attestation of feast days according to the number of days of the year. The Death of Deborah

30And on the night of the twenty-third of that month Deborah, the nurse of Rebecca, died. And she was buried south of the city under the oak at the river. And that place was called “Deborah’s River” and the oak (was called) “the Oak of Sorrow for Deborah.” Rebecca’s Departure

31And Rebecca went and returned to her house, to his father, Isaac, and Jacob sent in her hands rams and sheep and he-goats so that she might make for his father a meal such as he desired. 32And he traveled after his mother until he approached the land of Kabrâtân. And he dwelt there. The Birth of Benjamin and Death of Rachel

33And Rachel bore a son in the night and called him “son of my sorrow,” because she suffered when she bore him, but his father called him Benjamin, on the eleventh of the eighth month in the first year of the sixth week of that jubilee. 34And Rachel died there and she was buried in the land of Ephrata, i.e. Bethlehem. And Jacob built a pillar on the tomb of Rachel, on the road above her tomb. Account of Reuben’s Sin with Bilhah 33:1And Jacob went and dwelt toward the south of Magdaladra’ef. And he and Leah, his wife, went to

his father, Isaac, on the first day of the tenth month. 2And Reuben saw Bilhah, the attendant of Rachel (and) his father’s concubine, washing in the water privately, and he desired her. 3And hiding at night, 32:32–34. approached the land of Kabratan This is apparently based on a misunderstanding of Gen. 35:16: “some distance (kivrat ha’aretz) short of Ephrath.” (Cf. LXX ad loc.: “When he drew near a chabratha of land to enter Ephratha,” in which chabratha is apparently taken as a specific measure of length; apparently Jubilees’ author took the same word as a proper noun.) Thereafter Rachel died in childbirth and was buried near Bethlehem. 33:1–3. toward the south of Magdaladra’ef Apparently in Heb. “the tower of Eder”; see Gen. 35:21. This is perhaps identical to the “tower of Abraham” (above on 29:14–20). Having settled there, he and Leah went to visit his father, Isaac; this is apparently the visit referred to in Gen. 35:27 (which Jubilees’ author seeks to locate before Reuben’s sin, rather than after, according to the biblical order), mentioned here to explain Jacob’s absence from the family compound. 33:2. And Reuben saw Bilhah It was thus during this absence that Reuben committed his sin with Bilhah (see Gen. 35:22; 49:3–4). Jubilees’ author explains that it was the sight of Bilhah bathing that caused him to sin, a midrashic elaboration of Gen. 49:4, “wanton as water.” How can water be wanton? Ancient interpreters explained this phrase as meaning that Reuben had been “wanton in [or ‘through, on account of ’] water,” namely, that he had spied on Bilhah bathing naked and that this was the cause of his sin.215

408 James L. Kugel

he entered Bilhah’s house at night and found her sleeping in her bed, alone in her house. 4And he lay with her. And she woke up and looked, and behold, Reuben was lying with her on the bed. And she uncovered the hem of her (skirt) and seized him and screamed and recognized that it was Reuben. 5And she was ashamed because of him and released her hand from upon him. And he fled. 6And she lamented greatly concerning this matter. And she did not tell anyone at all. 7And when Jacob came and sought her, she said to him, “I am not clean for you since I have become polluted for you because Reuben has defiled me and lay with me at night, but I was sleeping and I was unaware until he had uncovered my skirt and lain with me.” 8And Jacob was very angry with Reuben because he had lain with Bilhah, for he had uncovered his father’s robe. 9And therefore Jacob did not draw near her since Reuben had defiled her. And the deed of any man who uncovers his father’s robe is very evil because he is despicable before the Lord. The Laws of Incest

10Therefore it is written and ordered in the heavenly tablets that a man should not lie with his father’s wife, and he should not uncover his father’s robe because that is defilement. They shall certainly die together, the man who lies with his father’s wife and also the wife because they have made a defilement 33:3. alone in her house Bilhah was alone because Jacob had gone off to visit Isaac; for the same reason, Jacob’s reproach of Reuben in Gen. 49:4 says “You [singular] went up on your father’s bed,” alone, because Bilhah was already there, fast asleep. 33:4. she uncovered the hem of her (skirt) The text is apparently confused here. Eth. kanəfə refers to a wing or to the edge of a garment and reflects the Heb. kenaf. To uncover a man’s kenaf is, in the biblical idiom, the untoward result of someone indulging in improper sexual relations or conduct with the man’s wife (Deut. 23:1; 27:20)—but it is always the man’s kenaf that is uncovered. Perhaps the text nevertheless uses this expression to, as it were, explain the biblical idiom: Reuben literally exposed Bilhah’s kenaf, which was rightly the exclusive property of her husband and, in that sense, “his.” If so, it would seem that the original text must have read: “she awakened and saw that Reuben was lying with her in bed and that he had uncovered the hem of her skirt [i.e., that he had had sexual relations with her] and she took hold of him [to restrain him from further offense]216 and shouted out when she realized that it was Reuben.” In other words, Jubilees was at pains to assert that Bilhah was completely innocent and, as soon as she woke up, did all she could to restrain Reuben. 33:7–9. And when Jacob came and sought her As an innocent victim, Bilhah confides in Jacob when he returns, and he has no further relations with her. (This may imply that, according to pre-Rabbinic sources, even the innocent victim of rape is thereafter forbidden to her husband.) For Jubilees’ author, the lesson is clear: “any man who uncovers [the covering of his father, his act] is very evil because he is despicable before the Lord.” 33:10–14. Therefore it is written and ordered Better: “written and ordained.” As so often, the Interpolator intervenes in an attempt to connect a story in Genesis with the Torah’s later laws, in this case the Torah’s prohibition of relations with one’s father’s wife,217 which, as usual, was written long before “in the heavenly tablets.” There it says that both the guilty parties “shall certainly die together, the man who lies with his father’s wife and also the wife.” In fact, this prohibition was not only written once in the heavenly tablets (presumably in the verse corresponding to Lev. 20:11),

Jubilees 409

upon the earth. 11And there shall be no defilement before our God among the people whom He has chosen for himself as a possession. 12And again it is written a second time: “Let anyone who lies with his father’s wife be cursed because he has uncovered his father’s shame.” And all the holy ones of the Lord said, “So be it, so be it.” 13And you, Moses, command the children of Israel and let them keep this word because it is a judgment worthy of death. And it is a defilement. And there is no forgiveness in order to atone for a man who has done this, forever, but only to execute him and kill him and stone him and to uproot him from the midst of the people of our God. 14For any man who does this in Israel should not have life for a single day upon the earth because he is despicable and polluted. The Example of Reuben Does Not Permit Exception to Law of Incest

15And let them not say, “Reuben had life and forgiveness after he lay with his father’s concubine and while she had a husband and while her husband, Jacob, his father, was alive.” 16For the ordinance and judgment and law had not been revealed till then (as) completed for everyone, but in your days (it is) like the law of (appointed) times and days and an eternal law for everlasting generations. 17And this law has no consummation of days. And also there is no forgiveness for it but only that both of them should be uprooted from the midst of the people. On the day when they have done this they shall be killed. Moses Is Directed to Warn People of Laws of Sexual Defilement

18And you, Moses, write for Israel, and let them keep this. And let them do according to these words. but “it is written a second time,” that is, in that part of the heavenly tablets that corresponds to Deut. 27:20. There it says that “all the holy ones of the Lord,” that is, the angels, “said ‘So be it, so be it’ [i.e., ‘Amen, amen’]” to correspond to “And all the people shall say Amen” in Deut. 27:20. That the angels in heaven stand in for the Israelites on earth is no accident, since the Interpolator sees Israel as the circumcised, angel-like people (see above on 15:25–27). 33:15–16. And let them not say Having established this incident as the precedent for the later prohibition, the Interpolator takes up a matter not discussed by Jubilees’ author, namely, the fact that Reuben’s crime apparently went unpunished. His answer is that “the ordinance and judgment and law218 [perhaps, ‘the statute and punishment of the law,’ that is, of the Torah] had not been revealed till then (as) completed for everyone [better: fully revealed to all].”219 The reason the Interpolator felt compelled to add this explanation is clear. His normal claim is that in any instance where the patriarchs seem to be initiating a law or practice on their own, they are actually acting in conformity to the statutes written long before in the heavenly tablets. But the case of Reuben and Bilhah seemed to contradict that principle; Reuben was punished, but not executed as he should have been. This case was thus different from all the others in which the Interpolator invoked the heavenly tablets. So he had no choice but to say that, while the “real” law already existed on the heavenly tablets, in this particular case what occurred was a nonprecedent: Jacob followed a “temporary ruling” of his own and disinherited Reuben. The apparent justification for this is the Second Temple theme of “fair warning”:220 one cannot be punished unless prior warning has been given that the act involved is indeed an infraction that carries such-and-such a punishment.221 So Reuben was only disinherited. But from now on, the angel tells Moses, the penalty will be death.

410 James L. Kugel

And let them not commit a sin worthy of death because the Lord our God is a judge who does not accept persons or gifts. 19And say to them these words of the ordinance that they might hear and guard and watch themselves concerning them and they will not be destroyed or uprooted from the earth. For defiled, and an abomination, and blemished, and polluted are all who do them upon the earth before our God. 20And there is no sin greater than the fornication which they commit upon the earth because Israel is a holy nation to the Lord his God, and a nation of inheritance, and a nation of priests, and a royal nation, and a (special) possession. And there is nothing which appears which is as defiled as this among the holy people. The Children of Jacob Appear before Isaac

21And in the third year of this sixth week it came to pass as Jacob and all his sons were traveling that they dwelt (at) the house of Abraham near Isaac, his father, and Rebecca, his mother. 22And these are the names of the children of Jacob: his firstborn, Reuben, and Simeon and Levi and Judah, and Issachar, and Zebulun, the sons of Leah. And the sons of Rachel (are) Joseph and Benjamin. And the sons of Bilhah (are) Dan and Naphtali. And the sons of Zilpah (are) Gad and Asher. And Dinah (is) the daughter of Leah, the only daughter of Jacob. 23And when they came, they bowed down to Isaac and Rebecca. And when they saw them, they blessed Jacob and all of his sons. And Isaac rejoiced greatly because he saw the sons of Jacob, his younger son. And he blessed them. The Sons of Jacob Successfully Defeat an Amorite Coalition 34:1And in the sixth year of this week from this forty-fourth jubilee, Jacob sent his sons with their ser-

vants to pasture their sheep in the field of Shechem. 2And while hiding themselves under the trees, seven kings of the Amorites assembled themselves to fight against them and to plunder their animals. 3And Jacob and Levi and Judah and Joseph were at home with Isaac, their father, because his soul grieved 33:18–20. God . . . does not accept persons or gifts This is the same warning he issued in 5:16.222 For the Interpolator, the story of Reuben and Bilhah is but one instance of the more general category of fornication, [that is, zenut], a sin altogether unbefitting Israel because it is “a holy nation . . . a nation of priests, and a royal nation” (derived from Exod. 19:6 “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation”). 33:21–23. Jacob and all his sons were traveling The genealogy presented dryly in Gen. 35:22–25 is taken as a hint that the children listed there accompanied Jacob on his trip (his second, according to Jubilees) to visit his father and mother, mentioned in Gen. 35:27. 34:1–2. Jacob sent his sons . . . to pasture their sheep in the field of Shechem Much later in the Genesis narrative, the aged Jacob is close to death. Turning to his son Joseph, he says, “And now, I assign to you one portion more than to your brothers [lit. “one shekhem more,” a pun on the name of the city being given to Joseph], which I wrestled from the Amorites with my sword and bow” (Gen. 48:22). There is no account in Genesis of any such military encounter between Jacob and the Amorites of Shechem. Here, Jubilees’ author seeks to fill in the details. (A similar account appears in T. Jud. 3–7 and in Midrash Vayyissa’u,223 a text that was later incorporated into Yal. Shim’oni 1:135 and elsewhere.) 224 Here, the Amorite kings’ attack is reported to Jacob, who is at home with Levi, Judah, and Joseph (the “good” sons).

Jubilees 411

him, and they were unable to leave him. And Benjamin was the youngest and therefore he dwelt with his father. 4And the kings of Tafu, and the kings of ‘Aresa, and the kings of Seragān, and the kings of Sèlo, and the kings of Gā’as, and the kings of Bethoron, and the king of Ma’anisakir, and all of those who dwelt in that mountain, who dwelt in the woods of the land of Canaan, came. 5And they reported it to Jacob, saying that, “Behold, the kings of the Amorites have surrounded your sons and they have plundered their herds.” 6And he and his three sons and all of his father’s servants and his servants arose from his house and went against them with six thousand men who carried swords. 7And he killed them in the field of Shechem and he pursued those who fled and killed them with the edge of the sword. And he killed ‘Aresa and Tafu and Seragān and Sèlo and Ma’anisakir and Gā’as, and he collected his herds. 8And he prevailed over them and decreed a tribute against them so that they might give a tribute of five of the fruits of their land. And he built Robel and Tamnatares. 9And he returned peacefully and he made peace with them and they became servants to him until the day he and his sons went down into Egypt. 34:4. And the kings of Tafu The names of the kings’ home cities are somewhat different in the various versions of this tradition: Tafu is Tappuah ( Josh. 16:8), Aresa is apparently a deformation of Hazor ( Josh. 11:1), Seragan may be Zarethan ( Josh. 3:16), Selo is Shiloh, Gaas is Ga’ash ( Josh. 24:30), Bethoron is apparently Beit Horon ( Josh. 1:10), and Ma’anisakir may be connected with Mahanayim (Gen. 32:2) or something like “Mahane Soker” (some such place may be alluded to in the New Testament, John 4:5. (These names are repeated in a different order and spelling in 34:7.) 34:7–8. And he killed them in the field of Shechem Jacob arrives and defeats the coalition forces armed against them, imposing a “tribute of five [better: a fifth] of the fruits of their land,”225 which was paid “until the day he [ Jacob] and his sons went down into Egypt.” For various reasons it seems that Jubilees’ narrative of this war with the Amorites and the later war of Jacob’s and Esau’s sons (Jub. 38:1–14) derives from a still more ancient text recounting one or both of these wars. One indication of the independent existence of such a text is the awkward transition into this war material in Jubilees. Indeed, there is some indication that this underlying text may well have been written in Greek: that would explain the numerous spelling errors of Hebrew names in Midrash Vayyissa’u, where, for example, the city H ̣azor is written as Hasor or Asor. If so, it may be that this section of Jubilees stems from a Hellenistic Jewish writer’s heroic account—written in Greek—of the brave deeds of Jacob’s son Judah and his brothers. It is not impossible to suppose that this heroic celebration of Jacob’s sons was in fact part of the now-lost portion of Theodotus’s ancient epic poem (entitled “On the Sons of Israel”?), of which only a few fragments of the section on Dinah survive. 34:9. And he returned peacefully Following this war, Jacob “made peace with them,” and they remained subordinated to him “until the day that he and his sons went down to Egypt.” This assertion appears to be modeled on the outcome of that other war, between Jacob and Esau (below, chap. 37), which concludes by saying that the Edomites “continued paying tribute to Jacob until the day that he went down to Egypt” (38:13).

412 James L. Kugel

The Brothers Sell Joseph and Deceive Their Father

10And in the seventh year of this week he sent Joseph from his house to the land of Shechem in order that he might know about the welfare of his brothers, and he found them in the land of Dothan. 11And they acted fraudulently and made a plot against him to kill him, but they repented and sold him to a band of Ishmaelites. And they took him down to Egypt and sold him to Potiphar, a eunuch of Pharaoh, the chief guard, the priest of the city of Heliopolis. 12And the sons of Jacob slaughtered a kid and dipped Joseph’s garment into the blood and sent (it) to Jacob, their father, on the tenth of the seventh month. 13And he lamented all of that night, because they had brought it to him in the evening. And he became feverish in lamenting his death, and said that, “A cruel beast has eaten Joseph.” And all of the men of his house lamented with him on that day. And it happened as they were mourning and lamenting with him all that day 14that his sons and his daughter rose up to comfort him but he was not comforted concerning his son. The Death and Burial of Bilhah and Dinah

15And on that day Bilhah heard that Joseph had perished and she died while mourning for him. And she was dwelling in Qafratef. And Dinah, his daughter, also died after Joseph perished. And these three lamentations came upon Israel in a single month. 16And they buried Bilhah opposite the tomb of Rachel, and they also buried Dinah, his daughter, there. 17And it happened, as they lamented for Joseph one year, that he was not consoled, because he said, “I will go down to the grave lamenting for my son.”

34:10–12. he sent Joseph from his house That is, Jacob sent Joseph. Jubilees’ author does not begin the long tale of Joseph and his brothers (Gen. 37: 39–45) from the beginning. There is no mention here of Jacob’s favoring Joseph and the “ornamented tunic” he gave him (Gen. 37:3), nor of Joseph’s childhood dreams (Gen. 37:5–11) and his brothers’ resentment. Here, without explanation, his brothers treat him “fraudulently” (better: treacherously). Similarly, Jubilees’ author reports that they repented (better: changed their minds) about killing him without any mention of Reuben’s or Judah’s role (Gen. 37:21–22, 26–27) in this change of plans. Like many Second Temple and Rabbinic sources, Jubilees’ author identifies Potiphar, Joseph’s owner, with “Potiphera, priest of the city of Heliopolis” (i.e., biblical On), the father of Joseph’s wife in Gen. 41:45. 34:12–14. And the sons of Jacob slaughtered a kid Joseph’s brothers send Joseph’s garment, dipped in the slaughtered kid’s blood, “on the tenth of the seventh month,” the date of the Day of Atonement. Here, then, is another holy day rooted in the doings of the patriarchs. (Note that this is quite different from the Interpolator’s precedent for, and understanding of, the Day of Atonement; see above on 5:17.) Jubilees stresses that Jacob “lamented all of that night” because the Torah makes clear that observance of the Day of Atonement begins in the evening: “on the ninth day of the month, in the evening, from evening to evening you shall observe this Sabbath” (Lev. 23:32). 34:15–17. And on that day Bilhah heard Thus, Bilhah and Dinah also died at this time, adding to the mourning that, for Jubilees’ author (but not the Interpolator), characterizes this holy day.226 Bilhah was in Qafratef, which may represent Kafirat Efrayim, that is Chephirah ( Josh. 9:17) in the territory of Ephraim. If so, this specification may have been made to suggest a connection between that place-name and kapparah (atonement).

Jubilees 413

A Day of Memorial Established for the Crime against Joseph

18Therefore it is decreed for the children of Israel that they mourn on the tenth (day) of the seventh month—on the day when that which caused him to weep for Joseph came to Jacob, his father—so that they might atone for them(selves) with a young kid on the tenth (day) of the seventh month, once a year, on account of their sin because they caused the affection of their father to grieve for Joseph, his son. 19And this day is decreed so that they might mourn on it on account of their sins and on account of all their transgressions and on account of all their errors in order to purify themselves on this day, once a year. The Wives of the Sons of Jacob

20And after Joseph perished, the sons of Jacob took wives for themselves. The name of the wife of Reuben (was) ‘Ada. And the name of the wife of Simeon (was) ‘Adiba’a, a Canaanite. And the name of the wife of Levi (was) Melka, from the daughters of Aram, from the seed of the sons of Terah. And the name of the wife of Judah (was) Betasu’el, a Canaanite. And the name of the wife of Issachar (was) Hezaqa. And the name of the wife of Zebulun (was) Ni’iman. And the name of the wife of Dan (was) ‘Egla. And the name of the wife of Naphtali (was) Rasu’u, who (was) Mesopotamian. And the name of the wife of Gad (was) Maka. And the name of the wife of Asher (was) ‘Iyona. And the name of the wife of Joseph (was) Asenath, an Egyptian. And the name of the wife of Benjamin (was) ‘Iyasaka. 21And Simeon repented and took another wife from Mesopotamia as his brothers had. 34:18. Therefore it is decreed But not “ordained and written on the heavenly tablets,” since this passage is being written by Jubilees’ original author, not the Interpolator. The he-goat that Joseph’s brothers had slaughtered (cf. Gen. 37:31) is now mentioned again (i.e., to “atone for them[selves] with a young kid”) since it represents one of the main elements of the biblical Day of Atonement, the kid whose blood is taken behind the curtain of the sanctuary (Lev. 16:7). As a result, “this day is decreed so that they might mourn on it on account of their sins.” (Mourning is, however, somewhat less than repentance). The mourning of this day serves the Israelites “to purify themselves”—based on the use of “purify” (letaher) in Lev. 16:30. 34:20. the sons of Jacob took wives for themselves No list of the wives of Jacob’s sons appears in the Bible, although some of them are mentioned here and there in the narrative. Simeon’s anonymous Canaanite wife (Gen. 46:10; see above on 30:18–20) is named here ‘Adiba’a; Levi’s wife, Melka, also appears in T. Levi 11:1; Judah’s wife, Betasu’el, is the daughter (bat) of the Canaanite Shua in Gen. 38:2. But what of the strictures against marrying a Canaanite (above on 30:18–20)? In the case of Simeon, Jubilees’ author had little choice: his Canaanite wife was a biblical fact. But Simeon is reported to have had other sons (Gen. 41:45), and these were presumably from a different woman (since only Saul is described as “the son of a Canaanite woman”), so the author adds here that “Simeon repented” about having married a Canaanite, and “took another wife from Mesopotamia as his brothers had” done. As for Judah, he did have three sons with Batshua, but these apparently died without issue; the tribe of Judah consists of the descendants of Judah and the non-Canaanite Tamar. Equally important, Jubilees’ author mentions that Levi’s wife, Melka, was “from the daughters of Aram,” indeed “from the seed of the sons of Terah,” in other words, from Abraham’s extended family. The author could not have been happy about Joseph’s Egyptian wife, Asenath, but this was another biblical fact, mentioned in Gen. 41:45; at least she was not a Canaanite. 414 James L. Kugel

Rebecca’s Conversation with Jacob Predicting Her Death 35:1And in the first year of the first week in this forty-fifth jubilee, Rebecca called to Jacob, her son. And

she commanded him with regard to his father and brother that he should honor them all the days of Jacob’s life. 2And Jacob said, “I will do everything just as you have commanded me because this thing is an honor and a greatness for me and a righteousness for me before the Lord, that I should honor them. 3And you, mother, know from the day I was born until this day all of my deeds and everything which is in my heart, that I always think of good for everyone. 4And why would I not do this thing which you have commanded me, that I should honor my father and my brother. 5Tell me, mother, what perversity you have seen against me and I will withdraw from it and mercy will be upon me.” 6And she said, “My son, all my days I have never seen against you anything perverse but only uprightness. But I will rightly tell you, my son, (that) I shall die within this year, and I shall not pass through this year alive because I have seen in a dream the day of my death, that I shall not live more than one hundred and fifty-five years. And behold, I have completed all of the days of my life which I will live.” 7And Jacob laughed about his mother’s words, because his mother said that she would die, but she was sitting opposite him, and her strength was in her. And she was not suffering loss of strength, because she was coming and going and seeing (clearly), and her teeth were sound, and no disease had touched her all the days of her life. 8And Jacob said, “I (would be) happy, mother, if my days approached the days of your life and my powers were thus in me as your powers. And you will not die because you have spoken to me (in) idle jest concerning your death.” Rebecca’s Conversation with Isaac Concerning Jacob and Esau

9And she went in to Isaac and she said to him, “One request I beg of you. Make Esau swear that he will not harm Jacob and will not pursue him hostilely because you know Esau’s inclination, that it has been evil since his youth. And there is no goodness in him because he wants to kill him after your death. 10And you know everything that he has done from the day that Jacob, his brother, traveled to Haran until this day, that he abandoned us with all his heart and did evil with us. He gathered your flocks and robbed all of your possessions before your face. 11And while we were begging and asking for what was ours he acted like a man who was taking pity on us. 12And he is bitter against you because you blessed Jacob, 35:1–8. Rebecca called to Jacob Rebecca is the powerful woman of Jubilees. Having already given her the lengthy blessing in chapter 25 above, Jubilees’ author now assigns her another important role. Foreseeing her own death, she wishes to make sure that relations in her family will remain cordial—that Jacob will properly honor his father and that he will deal peacefully with his brother Esau. She speaks with him directly on this point. 35:9–10. Make Esau swear that he will not harm Jacob Here the author has Rebecca complain bitterly about Esau, not only fearing his intentions about Jacob but telling Isaac that “he gathered your flocks and robbed all of your possessions before your face.” (The apparent scriptural basis for this motif is Gen. 36:6: Esau took “all the property he had acquired in Canaan and he went to [some] land out of fear for [mippenei] his brother Jacob” (my translation). How did he acquire this property, and why did he go off with it to a place far from Jacob—if not that “all the property” included things that rightly belonged to Isaac and might some day have been willed to Jacob?).

Jubilees 415

your perfect and upright son, because he has no evil but only goodness. And since he came from Haran until this day he has not been depriving us of anything, for he has always been bringing us everything in its season. And he rejoices with his whole heart whenever we accept (anything) from his hand. And he has been blessing us and has not separated from us since he came from Haran until this day. But he has been dwelling with us continually at home honoring us.” 13And Isaac said to her, “I know and see the deeds of Jacob, who is with us, that with all his heart he is honoring us. And I first loved Esau more than Jacob because he was born first, but now I love Jacob more than Esau because he has increasingly made his deeds evil. And he has no righteousness because all of his ways are injustice and violence. And he has no righteousness around him. 14And now my heart is vexed on account of all his deeds. And neither he nor his seed is to be saved for they will be destroyed from the earth, and they will be uprooted from under the heaven since he has forsaken the God of Abraham and he has gone after his wives and after their defilement and after their errors, (both) he and his sons. 15And you say to me that I should make him swear that he will not kill his brother, Jacob. If he swears he will not abide by his oath, and he will not do goodness, but only evil. 16But if he wishes to kill Jacob, his brother, he will be given into the hand of Jacob. And he will not escape from his hand because he will fall into his hand. 17And you should not fear on account of Jacob because the protector of Jacob is greater and mightier and more honored and praised than the protector of Esau.” Rebecca Seeks Assurances of Fraternal Love between Jacob and Esau

18And Rebecca sent and called Esau. And he came to her and she said to him, “I have a request, my son, which I will ask of you. Say that you will do it, my son.” 19And he said, “I will do everything which you say to me. And I will not refuse your request.” 20And she said to him, “I ask of you on the day when I die that you bring me and bury me near Sarah, your father’s mother, and that you and Jacob love one another, and that one will not seek evil for his brother, but only love him. And you will prosper, my sons, and be honored in the midst of the earth and the enemy will not rejoice over you. And you will become a blessing and a mercy in the sight of all who love you.” 21And he said, “I shall do everything which you have been saying to me. And I shall bury you on the day when you die near Sarah, my father’s mother, just as you have desired so that your bones will be near her bones. 22And Jacob, my brother, I

35:15. If he swears, he will not abide by his oath That is, “if [Esau] swears”; 4Q223–24 4QPapJubilees reads: “If he swears he will not keep and he will not d[o it].” 35:16. But if he wishes to kill Jacob Esau will always lose, “because the protector of Jacob is greater and mightier and more honored and praised than the protector of Esau”:227 Esau is protected by a mere guardian angel, whereas Jacob is protected directly by God, as Deut. 32:8–9 states. See above on 16:17–18. 35:20–24. I ask of you on the day when I die Rebecca asks of Esau that “you and Jacob love one another” and that “one will not seek evil for his brother”: this is Lev. 19:18, “And you shall love your fellow like yourself,” followed by the “negative Golden Rule,” a common interpretation of this same verse;228 see also below on 36:7–11. One would expect that Esau would be presented here and henceforth in an entirely negative light, but the opposite seems to be true. He pledges his undying love for Jacob: “Jacob, my brother, I shall love more than all flesh . . . I swear to you that I will love him,” Esau tells his mother. Was he lying? It would seem rather that he was quite

416 James L. Kugel

shall love more than all flesh. And I have no brother in all the earth except him alone. And this is not a great (thing) for me if I love him because he is my brother and together we were sown in your belly and together we came forth from your womb. And if I do not love my brother, whom shall I love? 23But I beg of you only that you admonish Jacob concerning my sons because I know that he will certainly rule over me and my sons because on the day my father blessed him he set him above and me beneath. 24And I swear to you that I will love him and that I will not seek evil for him all the days of my life, but only good.’’ And he swore to her concerning all of these matters. 25And she called Jacob in the sight of Esau, and she commanded him according to what she had spoken with Esau. 26And he said, “I will do your pleasure. Trust me, that evil will not proceed from me or my sons against Esau and I will not act first in anything except to love (him) only.” 27And they ate and they drank, she and her sons, that night. And she died (at the age of) three jubilees and one week and one year on that night. And her two sons, Esau and Jacob, buried her in the cave of Machpelah near Sarah, their father’s mother. Isaac’s Farewell Advice and Blessings for Jacob and Esau 36:1And in the sixth year of this week, Isaac called his two sons, Esau and Jacob. And they came to him

and he said to them, “My sons, I am going in the way of my fathers to the eternal home where my fathers are. 2Bury me near Abraham, my father, in the cave of Machpelah in the field of Ephron the Hittite which Abraham acquired for a burial place there. In the tomb which I dug for myself there, bury me. 3And I am commanding this, my sons, that you might perform righteousness and uprightness upon the earth so that the Lord will bring upon you everything which the Lord said that He would do for Abraham and for his seed. 4And among yourselves, my sons, be loving of your brothers as a man loves sincere (immediately afterward, in Jub. 36:13–14, Esau voluntarily renounces all claims to the firstborn’s double portion, even though Isaac offers it to him). indeed, Esau later seeks to keep his vow to love Jacob despite his own sons’ vehement objections (37:2–7). The apparent reason for this virtuous side of Esau is that, for Jubilees’ author, genealogy is ineluctable (see above on 12:1–8 concerning Terah’s virtue). Esau is the son of the good Isaac and grandson of the evenbetter Abraham; he must have had good instincts, even if, as Isaac noted above, he did not respect his own vows. 35:25. And she called to Jacob in the sight of Esau That is, “[in the presence of] Esau.” Having secured Esau’s promise to love Jacob, Rebecca then goes back to Jacob and obtains his pledge to act lovingly toward Esau. With the internal relations of her family now arranged, Rebecca dies. (Her death and burial are not reported directly in the Genesis narrative, but they are referred to in Jacob’s words in Gen. 49:31.) 36:1–6. Isaac called his two sons Using the same phrasing as Jacob’s words in Gen. 49:29–32, Isaac here requests to be buried in the cave of Machpelah. He then charges his sons that, “among yourselves,” you shall “be loving of your brothers as a man loves himself,” a commandment later to be given in Lev. 19:18. (It seems that the phrase “among yourselves” is intended to limit the scope of this commandment, much as the Qumran community and others sought to limit it: it did not necessarily mean loving all humanity, nor even all Israel, but only some subsection thereof) and to avoid idolatry (Exod. 20:5), so that God will plant them (Isaac’s descendants) “as a righteous planting” (above on 16:22–23).

Jubilees 417

himself, with each man seeking for his brother what is good for him, and acting together on the earth, and loving each other as themselves. 5And regarding the matter of idols, I command you and admonish you to scorn them and hate them and not to love them because they are full of error for those who worship and bow down to them. 6Remember, my sons, the Lord, the God of Abraham, your father, and (that) I subsequently worshiped and served Him in righteousness and joy so that He might multiply you and increase your seed like the stars of heaven with regard to number and (so that) He will plant you on the earth as a righteous planting which will not be uprooted for all the eternal generations. 7And now I will make you swear by the great oath—because there is not an oath which is greater than it, by the glorious and honored and great and splendid and amazing and mighty name which created heaven and earth and everything together—that you will fear Him and worship Him. 8And (that) each one will love his brother with compassion and righteousness and no one will desire evil for his brother from now and forever all the days of your lives so that you will prosper in all your deeds and not be destroyed. 9And if either of you seeks evil against his brother, know that hereafter each one who seeks evil against his brother will fall into his hands and be uprooted from the land of the living and his seed will be destroyed from under heaven. 10And on the day of turmoil and execration and indignation and wrath, (then) with devouring burning fire just as He burned Sodom so too He will burn up his land and his city and everything which will be his. And he will be wiped out from the book of the discipline of mankind, and he will not be written (on high) in The Book of Life for, (he is written) in the one which will be destroyed and pass on to eternal execration so that their judgment will always be renewed with eternal reproach and execration and wrath and torment and indignation and plagues and sickness. 11I have been speaking and exhorting you, my sons, according to the judgment which will come upon the man who desires to harm his brother.” 12And he divided all his possessions which he had with the two of them on that day, and he gave a larger (portion), to the one whose birth was first: both the tower and everything which surrounded it and everything which Abraham acquired at the Well of the Oath. 13And he said, “I will surely increase 36:8. no one will desire evil for his brother This is again the so-called “negative Golden Rule,” a common interpretation of Lev. 19:18: do not do to anyone what you would not want done to you.229 36:10. he will be wiped out from the book of the discipline of mankind This is an otherwise unknown, and rather strange, book. It seems possible that the “book of ” came from the next phrase, “he will not be written . . . in The Book of Life.” Perhaps, then, the original text said that “Just as He [God] burned Sodom, so too will He burn up his [the errant brother’s] land and his city and everything which is his will be blotted out—(as) an act of discipline/punishment (musar) to mankind, and he himself will be blotted out from the book of life,” the latter a common notion. If, subsequently, a scribe’s eye jumped from the first “blotted out” to the second and he wrote “blotted out from the book,” he might then have caught the error and continued with the “musar [or Gk. paideia] of mankind,” and ended the line as originally written, “and he himself will be blotted out from the book of life.” 36:12. And he divided all his possessions Although Jacob purchased the rights of the firstborn fair and square, Isaac nonetheless initially grants the larger (portion) of his property to Esau, in keeping with Deut. 21:15–17. But Esau nobly refuses, recounting how he sold the rights of the firstborn to Jacob.

418 James L. Kugel

this (portion) for the one whose birth was first.” 14And Esau said, “I have sold to Jacob and I have delivered my right of seniority to Jacob and so let it be given to him, and there is not anything which I can say concerning it because it is his.” 15And Isaac said, “May a blessing rest upon you and upon your seed on this day, my sons, because you have given rest to me, and my heart has not been grieved concerning the right of seniority lest you act perversely concerning it. 16May the Lord Most High bless the man who does righteousness, him and his seed forever.” 17And he finished commanding them and blessing them. And they ate and drank together before him. And he rejoiced because they were in mutual agreement. And they went out from him and they rested that day and they slept. 18And Isaac slept on his bed on that day rejoicing. And he slept the eternal sleep. And he died at the age of one hundred and eighty years. He completed twenty-five weeks and five years. And his two sons, Esau and Jacob, buried him. And Esau traveled to the land of Edom, to the mountain of Seir, and he dwelt there. 20And Jacob dwelt in Mount Hebron in the tower of the land of the sojourning of his father, Abraham. And he worshiped the Lord with all of his heart and according to the commands which were revealed (and) according to the division of the days of his generations. The Death of Leah

21And Leah, his wife, died in the fourth year of the second week of the forty-fifth jubilee. And he buried her in the cave of Machpelah near Rebecca, his mother, and north of the tomb of Sarah, his father’s mother. 22And all of her children and his children went out to weep with him for Leah, his wife, and to comfort him concerning her because he was lamenting her. 23For he loved her very much after Rachel, 36:15. my heart has not been grieved concerning the right of seniority lest you act perversely concerning it Better: “you have put my mind at ease about the birthright—that you will not do anything unfortunate230 because of it”—a somewhat ironic observation in light of the mortal combat the two will shortly fall into because of the inheritance. Thereupon Isaac dies “at the age of one hundred and eighty years,” apparently in anno mundi 2162. 36:20. in Mount Hebron in the tower That Isaac had originally intended to leave to Esau (36:12) but which Esau ceded to Jacob. This is the same tower that Esau’s sons will later attack. according to the commands which were revealed (and) according to the division of the days in his generations This is a difficult verse. The verse starts by asserting that Jacob “worshiped the Lord with all of his [i.e., his whole] heart,” just as would later be commanded in Deut. 10:12. But how exactly can one serve God without commandments to keep? The author therefore adds that Jacob served “according to the commands which were revealed [better: in accordance with the commandments that had been revealed]” up to that point. These presumably included not only the things that had been commanded directly by God, such as circumcision (15:11), but the various things commanded by Israel’s ancestors—Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and so forth. See above on 21:5. 36:21–24. And Leah, his wife, died Leah too is buried in the cave of Machpelah (cf. Gen. 49:31–32). In fact, the Bible does not narrate Leah’s death, but she must have died before Jacob did, since he mentions having buried her (Gen. 49:31). She was last seen alive and well in Jubilees at the time of the Reuben-Bilhah incident (Jub. 33:1), apparently in anno mundi 2143, 40 years or so before Jacob mentions having buried her. This allowed Jubilees some wide range for Leah’s death; for reasons to be seen below, the author decided to locate her death in anno mundi 2167.

Jubilees 419

her sister, died since she was perfect and upright in all of her ways, and she honored Jacob. And in all of the days which she lived with him he never heard a harsh word from her mouth because she possessed gentleness, peace, uprightness, and honor. 24And he remembered all of her deeds which she had done in her life, and he lamented greatly for her because he loved her with all his heart and all his soul. Esau’s Sons Reprove Him for Yielding to Jacob 37:1And on the day that Isaac, the father of Jacob and Esau, died, the sons of Esau heard that Isaac had

given the right of seniority to Jacob, his younger son, and they were very angry. 2And they argued with their father, saying, “Why, since you are the elder and Jacob the younger, did your father give the right of seniority to Jacob and abandon you?” 3And he said to them, “Because I sold my right of firstborn to 37:1. on the day that Isaac, the father of Jacob and Esau, died In blessing his son Esau (Gen. 27:39– 40), Isaac had said to him, “By your sword you shall live, and you shall serve your brother; but when you grow restive, you shall break his yoke from your neck.” (See above on 26:25–35, which, however, is based on a different interpretation of Gen. 27:39–40 from the one about to be used here.) Isaac may have been foretelling events in the distant future,231 but for Jubilees and other interpreters, this prophecy concerned not some later generation, but that of Esau and his sons. The account of Esau’s war with his brother Jacob (Jub. 37:1–38:12) appears as well as in Midrash Vayyissa’u, chapter 3,232 and was incorporated as well into Yal. Shim’oni 1:138 and elsewhere. A considerably shorter account of this war appears in the Greek Testament of Judah section of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. The many common elements suggest that they stem from a common source and/or that the later versions borrowed from earlier ones. The events leading up to the war start “on the day that Isaac . . . died.” This is no coincidence: in Gen. 27:41, Esau said specifically, “When the days of mourning my father arrive, I will kill my brother Jacob.” Indeed, these words, along with Amos 1:11 (“Because he [Edom, i.e., Esau] chased after his brother with a sword and had no pity”), provided a firm biblical basis for the idea that there had been a war between Jacob and Esau, even though the book of Genesis itself had not bothered to narrate those events. It is certainly noteworthy that, of all the different versions of this war, Jubilees has the only one that contains this chronological remark (in fact, one that conflicts with later details). Since this is the only firm chronological “anchor” for this nonbiblical war, it stands to reason that Jubilees here preserves what was the original dating of this war. But there is a chronological problem in the Jubilees account of this war. According to Jubilees’ reckoning, Isaac died in anno mundi 2162, five years before the death of Leah (above on 36:21). But—also according to Jubilees—Jacob “was lamenting [i.e., mourning for] Leah, his wife” (37:14) when the war with Esau begins. So how can Jubilees say that the war broke out on the day that Isaac died, five years earlier? Here one cannot dismiss the discrepancy on the basis of a miscopied date in Jubilees’ transmission: there can be no doubt that Jubilees first narrates the death of Isaac, then the death of Leah, and only after that the war between Jacob and Esau that allegedly began right after Isaac’s death.233 37:2–8. Because I sold my right of firstborn to Jacob Again, Esau is here presented in a relatively positive light. His narration is truthful, and although Isaac “placed me under his [ Jacob’s] hand,” Esau accepts his father’s decree. But if Esau’s ancestry vouchsafes him a measure of virtue and filial piety, this is not true of his own sons, the children of “foreign” women: Echoing Gen. 27:40, they accuse Esau of willingly putting “your neck under his yoke.”

420 James L. Kugel

Jacob for a little dish of lentils. And on the day that my father sent me to hunt and snare [and bring to him] so that he might eat and bless me, he went with guile and brought food and drink to my father and my father blessed him and placed me under his hand. 4And now our father has made us swear, (both) me and him, that we will not seek after evil, either one against his brother, but that we will continue with an affection and a peace, each one with his brother, so that we will not corrupt our ways.” 5And they said, “We will not listen to you in order to make peace with him because our might is stronger than his might and we are stronger than he. We will go against him and we will kill and destroy him and his sons. And if you do not go with us we will do harm to you. 6And now listen to us, and we will send to Aram and to Philistia and to Moab and to Ammon and we will choose for ourselves chosen men who are ardent in battle and we will go against him and we will fight with him and we will uproot him from the land before he seizes power.” 7And their father said to them, “Do not go and make war with him lest you fall before him.” 8And they said to him, “This very (thing) is your (type of) act from your youth until this day, and you put your neck under his yoke. But we will not listen to these words.” Esau’s Sons Hire Mercenaries for War against Jacob

9And they sent to Aram and to Aduram, to their father’s friend, and they hired from them one thousand fighting men, chosen warriors. And they came to them: 10from Moab and from the Ammonites, those who were hired, one thousand chosen men, and from Philistia one thousand chosen fighting men, and from Edom and from the Hurrians one thousand chosen fighting men, and from the Kittim strong men, warriors. Esau’s Approach to Battle against Jacob

11And they said to their father, “Go forth with them and lead them. And if not, we will kill you.” 12And he was filled with wrath and indignation when he saw that his sons were forcing him to go before (them) in order to lead them to Jacob, his brother. 13But afterward he remembered all of the evil which was hidden in his heart against Jacob, his brother, and he did not remember the oath which he swore to his father and his mother that he would not seek any evil against Jacob, his brother, all of his days. 37:9–10. they sent to Aram and to Aduram The spelling of this last name may have been influenced by the government official Adoram mentioned in 2 Sam. 20:24 and 1 Kings 12:18, but it seems likely that the original text was meant to evoke the city of Adora (Dura), five miles west southwest of Hebron (it is called Adoraim in 2 Chron. 11:9). If so, the text seems to be speaking of the eponymous founder of that city, a friend of Esau. In Jub. 38:3, he is called “Aduran the Aramean,” but this would make little sense given the city’s location on the border with Edom: he should more likely be “Adura the Edomite.”234 In light of this, the verse cited above should read: “They sent to Edom, to their father’s friend Adura.” Reinforced by their allies and mercenaries, “from Moab . . . from the Ammonites . . . from Philistia . . . from Edom and from the Hurrians . . . and from the Kittim [perhaps Hittites]”235—all of them enemies of Israel—Esau’s sons go on the attack. 37:13–16. But afterward he remembered Esau’s waffling and ultimate transformation can only be understood in the light of the author’s genealogical view of the world (above on 35:18–27): the son of Isaac and Rebecca could not be altogether bad—indeed, he had been a loving brother until now. His sons, however, are half-breeds; they have no innate goodness. It is they, there-

Jubilees 421

14And with all of this, Jacob did not know that they were coming against him for battle. But he was lamenting Leah, his wife, until they drew very near the tower with four thousand men, warriors and chosen fighting men. 15And the men of Hebron sent to him, saying, “Behold, your brother has come up against you in order to fight with you with four thousand men (who are) girded (with) swords and bear shields and military weapons”; because they loved Jacob more than Esau. And they spoke to him because Jacob was a more generous and merciful man than Esau. 16But Jacob did not believe (them) until they drew very close to the tower. 17And he closed the gates of the tower and he stood on the battlement and spoke with his brother, Esau, and he said, “Is the consolation (with) which you have come in order to console me concerning my wife who died good? Is this the oath which you swore to your father and again to your mother before they died? You have sinned against the oath. And on the day when you swore to your father, you were condemned.” 18And (at) that time, Esau answered and said to him: “Mankind and beasts of the field have no righteous oath which they have surely sworn forever. But daily they seek evil, one against the other, and each one (seeks) to kill his enemy and adversary. 19And you will hate me and my sons forever. And so there is no observing of fraternity with you. [And Jacob said, “Do not act (thus), my brother. As for me, there is no evil in my heart against you. Do not plan evil against me. Know that there is a God and He sees what is hidden and requites to everyone according to his deeds. Calm down the heat of your anger and do not do anything rashly so that evil will come upon you.” Then Esau turned and said harshly:] 20Hear these words of mine which I will speak to you. If a boar changes his hide and his bristles (and) makes (them) soft as wool, and if he brings forth horns upon his head like the horns of a stag or sheep; then I will observe fraternity with you. And if sucklings separate themselves from their mother, you would not be a brother to me. fore, who persuade Esau to join them through a combination of threats and cajoling. At first “he was filled with wrath and indignation” At their disobedience, but afterward he remembered his earlier hatred of Jacob and meanwhile forgot the oath that he swore to his father not to hurt Jacob. A weak character, lacking Jacob’s innate qualities, Esau gives in, violating his oath in the process—a grievous sin. 37:17. this the oath which you swore to your father? Indeed, it seems the not-very-bright Esau had simply forgotten his oath (4Q221 frag. 5:4 reads: “and he did not remember the oath”). 37:18. Mankind and beasts of the field have no righteous oath 4Q224 reads “neither mankind nor snakes make reliable oaths,” which sounds like a popular saying or proverb: don’t trust people any more than you trust snakes! Esau adds: “which they have surely sworn forever,” that is, “even though they may swear it forever.” 37:20. And if sucklings separate themselves from their mother, you would not be a brother to me236 A difficult verse, unfortunately missing in the Latin and Syriac texts, and in the Qumran fragments. The one promising element is the verb “separated,” since this is reminiscent of the oracle given to Rebecca before the birth of Jacob and Esau, “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples

422 James L. Kugel

21And if the wolves make peace with lambs so as not to eat them or assault them, and if their hearts are (set) upon them to do good, then peace will be in my heart for you. 22And if the lion becomes a friend of the ox, and if he is bound with him in a single yoke, and he plows with him and makes peace with him, then I will make peace with you. 23And if the raven becomes white like the Raza bird, then know that I will love you and I will make peace with you. You will be uprooted, and your sons will be uprooted, but you will have no peace.” 24And when Jacob saw that he had planned evil against him from his heart and from his whole being so that he might kill him, and (that) he had come leaping like a wandering boar who had come upon a spear which was piercing him and killing him, and he would not withdraw from it, then he spoke to his own (followers) and to his servants so that they might attack him and all his friends. The Defeat of Esau and His Forces 38:1And afterward Judah spoke to Jacob, his father, and he said to him, “O father, stretch your bow and

shoot your arrows and strike down the enemy and kill the adversary. And may you have might because we will not kill your brother (inasmuch as) he is near to you and with us he is like you with respect to will be separated from your innards” (Gen. 25:23). It would seem that Esau is evoking this oracle and saying something like: “From the time we were separated from our mother, you have not been a brother to me.” Thus, Charles’s suggestion that the original text read: “Since the twins [reading atbu’ə for aţbātə] were separated from their mother, you have not been a brother to me”237 makes eminently good sense, though perhaps “since we were separated at our mother’s breasts” might fit better with 4Q223–24 unit 2 col. 4:8. Charles further suggested transferring this sentence back to Jub. 37:19, since in its present location it interrupts the series of animal images that all express the same idea: “I will never make peace with you.” But that suggestion must now be rejected in the light of 4Q224 (unit 2, column 4, line 8), which preserves the words “you have n[ot] been a brother” in the midst of all the animal imagery, supporting the idea that the Ethiopic text has located this sentence in precisely the right place, even if its wording has been somewhat garbled. 37:23. but you will have no peace Why did Jubilees’ author treat at such great length an incident that, while it fleshes out the prophecy of Gen. 27:40, is certainly not part of the Genesis narrative itself, while at the same time he radically condensed other incidents that are treated in detail in Genesis? Surely this conflict could have been narrated in a sentence or two. But its importance to Jubilees’ author lies in its historical significance. The Edomites, Israel’s cousins despite their mixed genealogy, ought not to have been Israel’s enemies; “You shall not hate an Edomite, for he is your kinsman,” Deut. 23:8 commands. And yet, in post-exilic times, Edom was indeed hated, and hostility, rather than “peace,” generally characterized Judea’s view of Idumea. Jubilees’ lengthy narration is designed to justify that hostility.

Jubilees 423

honor.” 2And then when Jacob drew his bow and shot an arrow and struck Esau, his brother, on his right breast, he killed him. 3And again, he shot an arrow and struck Adoran, the Aramean, in his left breast and drove him back and killed him. 4And afterward, the sons of Jacob and their servants went forth to divide themselves on the four (sides) of the tower. 5And Judah went out in front and Naphtali and Gad and fifty servants with him on the south side of the tower. And they killed everyone they found before them. And not a single one escaped from them. 6And Levi and Dan and Asher went forth on the east side of the tower and fifty (men were) with them. And they killed the warriors of Moab and Ammon. 7And Reuben and Issachar and Zebulun (went) forth on the north side of the tower and fifty (men were) with them. And they killed the fighting men of the Philistines. 8And Simeon and Benjamin and Enoch, the son of Reuben, went forth on the west side of the tower, and fifty (men were) with them. And they killed four hundred strong men, warriors, of the Edomites and Hurrians. And six hundred fled. And the four sons of Esau fled with them and they left their slain father just as he had fallen on the hill which is in Aduram. 9And the sons of Jacob pursued them as far as the mountain of Seir. But Jacob buried his brother in the hill which is in Aduram and he returned to his house. 10And Jacob’s sons besieged the children of Esau on the mountain of Seir. And they bowed down their necks to become servants of the children of Jacob. 11And they sent to their father (to ask) whether they should make peace with them or whether they should kill them. 12And Jacob sent notice to his sons to make peace. And they made peace with them and placed a yoke of servitude upon them so that they might pay tribute to Jacob and his sons always. 13And they continued paying tribute to Jacob until the day that he went down to Egypt. 14And the children of Edom have not ceased from the yoke of servitude which the twelve sons of Jacob ordered upon them until today. The Kings of Edom

15And these are the kings who ruled in Edom before a king ruled the children of Israel until today in the land of Edom. 16And Balaq, son of Be’or, ruled in Edom. And the name of his city was Danaba. 17And Balaq died, and Yobab, son of Zara, who was from Boser, ruled instead of him. 18And Yobab died. And Asam, who was from the land of Teman, ruled instead of him. 19And Asam died. And ‘Adath, son of 38:12–14. Jacob sent notice to his sons to make peace Jacob’s sons, having pursued Esau’s sons to Edom, let them live but “placed a yoke of servitude” on Edom (again echoing Gen. 27:40) “until the day he that he [ Jacob] went down to Egypt.” That the Edomites “have not ceased from the yoke of servitude . . . until today” contradicts the previous sentence (since certainly they did cease payment as soon as Jacob’s family went down to Egypt). This suggests that this last sentence was added by a later writer or copyist toward the end of the 2nd century bce, after John Hyrcanus had conquered Idumea (Edom). 38:15–24. And these are the kings This section is based on Gen. 36:31–42. “Balaq, son of Be’or” appears as “Bela, son of Beor” in Gen. 36:32 MT, while “Balak” appears in Gen. 36:32 LXX (perhaps through confusion of Balak son of Zippor and Balaam son of Beor, the two main figures in the narration of Num. 22–24). The other spellings in this chapter seem likewise to follow those of the LXX, probably introduced when the original Hebrew text of Jubilees was translated into Greek and/or from Greek to Ethiopic.

424 James L. Kugel

Barad, who killed Median in the field of Moab, ruled instead of him. And the name of his city was ‘Avith. 20And ‘Adath died. And Salman, who was from ‘Amaseqa, ruled instead of him. 21And Salman died. And Saul, who was from Ra’aboth, (by the) river, ruled instead of him. 22And Saul died. And Ba’elunan, son of ‘Achbor, ruled instead of him. 23And Ba’elunan, son of ‘Achbor, died. And ‘Adath ruled instead of him. And the name of his wife was Maitabith, daughter of Matarat, daughter of Metabedza’ab. 24These are the kings who ruled in the land of Edom. Joseph in the House of Potiphar 39:1And Jacob dwelt in the land of his father’s sojourning, (in) the land of Canaan. 2These are the gen-

erations of Jacob. And Joseph was seventeen years old (when) they brought him down into Egypt, and Potiphar, Pharaoh’s eunuch, the chief of the guard, bought him. 3And he set Joseph over all of his house and the blessing of the Lord was upon the house of the Egyptian because of Joseph and the Lord caused everything which he did to prosper. 5And Joseph was good-looking and very handsome. And the wife of his master lifted up her eyes and saw Joseph and desired him. And she begged him to lie with her. 6And he did not surrender himself but he remembered the Lord and the words which Jacob, his father, used to read, which were from the words of Abraham, that there is no man who (may) fornicate with a woman who has a husband (and) that there is a judgment of death which is decreed for him in heaven before the Lord Most High. And the sin is written (on high) concerning him in the eternal books always before the Lord. 7And Joseph remembered these words and he did not want to lie with her. 8And she begged him (for) one year. And he turned away and refused to listen to her. 9And she embraced him and seized him in the house so that she might force him to lie with her. And she shut the door of the house and seized him. And he left his garment in her hand and he broke the door and fled outside (away) from her presence. 10And that woman saw that he would not lie with her 39:6. he remembered . . . the words which Jacob, his father, used to read . . . no man . . . (may) fornicate with a woman who has a husband This is an exegetical motif originating in Gen. 49:24, “By the hands of [i.e., thanks to] the Mighty One of Jacob”; the last phrase, avir ya’akov, was apparently interpreted as aviv Ya’akov, “his father Jacob.” Out of this developed the idea that, faced with the advances of Potiphar’s wife, Jacob “remembered his father’s teachings.”238 39:6. the sin is written (on high) concerning him in the eternal books always before the Lord No mention here of the “heavenly tablets,” since this is being written by Jubilees’ original author. 39:8. begged him (for) one year This is the author’s interpretation of “day after day” (Gen. 39:10),239 but “he turned away and refused.”240 38:9. she embraced him and seized him That is, by his garment; Gen. 39:12. And she shut the door . . . and he broke the door “Shut” here means “locked.” This is a midrashic elaboration of the Genesis text, found as well in Joseph, 52 and the Qur’an, Sura 12:25–29. The apparent textual basis for this narrative expansion is the presence of two verbs in Gen. 39:12, “he got away and escaped outside.” Since the second verb specifies “outside,” the first seems to suggest that there was some obstacle to be overcome before Joseph could go outside.241

Jubilees 425

and she falsely accused him before his master, saying, “Your Hebrew servant, whom you love, desired to seduce me so that he might lie with me. And it came to pass when I raised my voice that he fled and he left his garment in my hand when I seized him. And he broke the door.” Joseph in Prison

11And the Egyptian saw Joseph’s garments and the broken door and he heard his wife’s story and he put Joseph in prison, in the place where the prisoners whom the king imprisoned stayed. 12And he was there in the prison and the Lord gave Joseph favor and mercy before the chief guard of the prison because he saw that the Lord was with him and the Lord caused everything which he did to prosper. 13And he left everything in his hands, and the chief guard of the prison knew nothing which was with him because Joseph did everything, and the Lord perfected (it). 14And he dwelt there two years. And in those days, Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, was angry with two of his eunuchs, with the chief of the butlers and with the chief of the bakers. And he put them in prison, in the house of the chief of the guard, in the prison where Joseph was held. 15And the chief of the guard of the prison ordered Joseph to serve them. And he served before them. 16And both of them had a dream, the chief of the butlers and the chief of the bakers, and they told it to Joseph. 17And just as he interpreted to them so it happened to them. And Pharaoh returned the chief of the butlers to his task, but he killed the baker just as Joseph interpreted is for them. 18But the chief of the butlers forgot Joseph in the prison when he made known to him what would happen to him, and he did not remember to tell the Pharaoh what Joseph told him because he forgot. Joseph as an Interpreter of Pharaoh’s Dreams 40:1And in those days, Pharaoh dreamed two dreams in a single night concerning the matter of the fam-

ine which would come upon all of the land. And he awoke from his sleep and called all of the interpreters of dreams and magicians who were in Egypt. And he told them of both of his dreams but they were unable to explain (them). 2Then the chief of the butlers remembered Joseph and he told the king about him. And he brought him out of the prison and told both of the dreams in his presence. 3And he said in the presence of the Pharaoh that both of his dreams were one. And he said to him, “Seven years will come. Abundance will be in all the land of Egypt, but afterward seven years of famine, which (is) unlike any (previous) famine, (will be) in all the land. 4And now let Pharaoh appoint overseers in all the land and let them store up food for a city within the city during the days of the plentiful years. And there will be food for the seven years of famine. And the land will not perish in the presence of the famine because it will be very severe.” 5And the Lord gave Joseph favor and mercy in the sight of 39:10. Your Hebrew slave, whom you love, desired to seduce me “Whom you love” seems to be a mistake for “whom you have brought to us” in Gen. 39:17, a copyist having apparently misarranged the consonants of heve’ta as ahavta. Note that this error appears in 4Q223–24 unit 2 col. 5:3, where “now” (‘atta) likewise seems to be a mistake for ’atta, that is, “you yourself.” 39:11. in the place where the prisoners whom the king imprisoned stayed This somewhat wordier version of Gen. 39:20 MT (“where the king’s prisoners were held”) matches the LXX’s version. 39:14. he dwelt there two years See below on 46:1–4.

426 James L. Kugel

the Pharaoh. And the Pharaoh said to his servants, “We will not find a man wise and knowledgeable as this man because the spirit of the Lord is with him.” Joseph becomes a Ruler in Egypt

6And he set him second in all his kingdom and he made him rule in all of Egypt and he made him ride upon the second chariot of the Pharaoh. 7And he invested him with a garment of byssus and hung a golden chain on his neck and they proclaimed before him “El, El wa Abirer” and he gave him the signet ring on his hand and he made him rule over all his house and he made him great and he said to him, “I will not be greater than you except (regarding) the throne alone.” 8And Joseph ruled in all the land of Egypt and all of the judges and all of the servants of the Pharaoh and all of those who did the king’s work loved him because he walked uprightly and he had no pompousness or arrogance or partiality, and there was no bribery because he ruled all the people of the land uprightly. 9And the land of Egypt was at peace before the Pharaoh on account of Joseph because the Lord was with him and gave him favor and mercy for all his family before all who knew him and those who heard witness of him. And the kingdom of the Pharaoh was upright. And there was no Satan and there was no evil. 10And the king called Joseph “Sephantiphans.” And he gave the daughter of Potiphar, the daughter of the priest of Heliopolis, the chief of the guard, to Joseph (as) a wife. 11And on the day that Joseph stood with the Pharaoh he was thirty years old, when he stood with the Pharaoh. 12And in that year Isaac died. And it came (about) just as Joseph related concerning the interpretation of the two dreams, and there were seven abundant years in all of the land of Egypt. And the land of Egypt was very fruitful, one measure (yielding) eighteen hundred measures. 13And Joseph gathered the food of a city into the city until it was full of grain, until they were unable to count or measure it because of its magnitude. 40:7. they proclaimed before him “El El wa Abirer” This phrase corresponds to the apparently Egyptian word Abrek in Gen. 41:43. Charles suggested that it represents the Heb. El, El, ve’abir El (God, God, and the mighty one of God), noting the parallel expression “mighty one of God” in Jos. Asen. 3:4; 18:1–2; and 21:21. The “mighty one of God” is certainly possible, but it is difficult to see how this could be derived from an original abrek: those same letters might better be understood as representing abirekha, “your mighty one.” This possibility seems a bit more likely in the light of Jacob’s blessing of Joseph in Gen. 49:22–26: there Jacob speaks of “the Mighty One of Jacob” (abir Ya’akov)—that is, God—having somehow saved his son Joseph. Here, then, the Egyptians would be made to be saying, “God, God is your [i.e., Joseph’s] Mighty One.” This is a reasonable guess, but still only a guess.242 40:10. the daughter of Potiphar, the daughter of the priest of Heliopolis Here Jubilees is identifying Poti-phera of Gen. 41:45 with the Potiphar mentioned earlier; the same identification is found in the LXX, where both are called Petephres, as well as in the “Testament of Joseph” 18:3 and Gen. Rab. 86:3. It is certainly striking that Jubilees mentions this marriage at all (he certainly could have skipped it), since for him any close relations with non-Jews was a form of “impurity” to be avoided at all cost. Perhaps significantly, he omits mention of the birth of the couple’s two sons (Gen. 41:50–52).

Jubilees 427

The Story of Judah and Tamar 41:1And in the forty-fifth jubilee, in the second week, in the second year, Judah took a wife for Er, his

firstborn, from the daughters of Aram, and her name was Tamar. 2But he hated (her) and would not lie with her because his mother was from the daughters of Canaan. And he wanted to take a wife from his mother’s people, but Judah, his father, did not permit him. 3And Er, the firstborn of Judah, was evil and the Lord killed him. 4And Judah said to ‘Onan, his brother, “Go to your brother’s wife and act as levirate and raise up seed for your brother.” 5And ‘Onan knew that the seed would not be his (but) only his brother’s and he entered the house of his brother’s wife and poured out (his) seed on the ground and he was evil in the sight of the Lord and He killed him. 6And Judah said to Tamar, his daughter-inlaw, “Remain at the house of your father as a widow until Selah, my son, grows up. And I will give you to him (as) a wife.” 7And he grew up, but Bedsuel, Judah’s wife, did not permit Selah, her son, to marry. And Bedsuel, Judah’s wife, died in the fifth year of that week. 8And in the sixth year, Judah went up in order to shear his sheep at Timnah. And they told Tamar, “Behold, your father-in-law is going up to shear his sheep at Timnah.” 9And she put off the clothes of her widowhood. And she put on a veil. And she made herself beautiful and sat by the gates which are toward the Timnah road. 10And when Judah walked along he found her and presumed that she was a prostitute. And he said to her, “Let me enter into you.” And she said to him, “Come on.” And he entered. 11And she said to him, “Give me my fee.” And he said to her, “I have nothing in my hand except my signet ring of my finger and my necklace and my staff which is in my hand.” ‘And she said to him, “Give them to me until you send my fee to me.” And he said to her, “I will send to you a young goat.” And he gave them to her, and he was with her, and she became pregnant by him. 13And Judah went to his sheep and she went to her father’s house. 14And Judah sent a young goat in the hand of his shepherd, an Adulamite, but he did not find her. And he asked the men of the district, saying, “Where is the prostitute who was here?” And they said to him, “There is no prostitute here with 41:1. Judah took a wife for Er . . . from the daughters of Aram, and her name was Tamar Hence, she was not a Canaanite. (Her origins are not specified in the biblical episode of Judah and Tamar; Gen. 38:1–30.) 41:2. he wanted to take a wife from his mother’s people Again, an element not present in the biblical text. After Er’s death Tamar is given to his younger brother Onan, in keeping with the law of levirate marriage (Deut. 25:5–10), but Onan refuses to have normal relations with her and is likewise killed by God. Judah then promises Tamar that she will be married to his third son, Sela (Shelah), but the villainous Bedsuel (Bat-Shua) did not permit him to marry her. Tamar remains a childless widow. 41:10. Let me enter into you Judah’s words to Tamar in Gen. 38:16 might be interpreted as a crude proposal (NJPS translates, “Here, let me sleep with you”). To avoid giving this impression, Jubilees’ author suggests that he really meant “Let me enter your house” (cf. Jub. 41:5) to which she responds, “Come on.” 41:14. his shepherd, an Adulamite This corresponds to “his friend Hirah the Adullamite” (Gen. 38:12). The Heb. re’ehu can indeed be understood as either “his friend” or “his shepherd,” and the latter is the translation of the LXX. Jubilees’ author, with his horror of close ties with nonJews, would obviously prefer “his shepherd” as well.

428 James L. Kugel

us.” 15And he returned and told him that he did not find (her). And he said, “I inquired of the men of the district. And they said to me, ‘There is no prostitute here.’” And he said, “Let her take (it) lest we become an object of scorn.” 16And when she completed three months it was obvious that she was pregnant. And they told Judah, saying, “Behold, Tamar, your daughter-in-law is pregnant through prostitution.” 17And Judah went to her father’s house and said to her father and her brothers, “Bring her out and let them burn her because she has caused a defilement in Israel.” 18And it came to pass when they brought her out to burn her that she sent to her father-in-law the signet ring and the necklace and the staff. And she said, “Recognize whose these are because I am pregnant by him.” 19And Judah recognized (them) and said, “Tamar was more righteous than I. And therefore let them not burn her.” 20And on account of that she was not given to Selah. And therefore he did not approach her again. 21And after this she bore two children, Perez and Zerah, in the seventh year of this second week. 22And after this the seven years of full harvest which Joseph told Pharaoh (about) were completed. Judah’s Repentance

23And Judah knew that the deed which he did was evil because he lay with his daughter-in-law. And he condemned himself in his own sight. And he knew that he had sinned and gone astray because he uncovered the robe of his son. And he began to mourn and make supplication before the Lord on account of his sin. 24And we told him in a dream that it was forgiven him because he made great supplication and because he mourned and did not do it again. 41:17. Judah went to her father’s house This is not stated in Gen. 38:24. The apparent reason is that Judah’s words in Gen. 38:24, “Take her out [plural] and let her be burned,” have no specific addressee. The author therefore supplies one: “her father and her brothers.” 41:19–20. Tamar was more righteous than I Better: “She’s right,” or even “She wins [in a court case]”;243 on the meaning of this idiom (cited from Gen. 38:26), see above 1:6. The biblical verse continues “inasmuch as I did not give her to my son Shelah.” Since the words translated “inasmuch” (ki al ken) contain the common term for “therefore” (al ken), Jubilees’ author inserted what would more properly follow such a “therefore,” “let them not burn her.” He then inserts the words that had followed the “inasmuch” in Gen. 38:6, but in a new sense: “And on account of that [namely, the fact that Judah had slept with her] she was not given to Selah [subsequently].” If at first it was Bedsuel who prevented Selah from marrying Tamar, now it is the fact that Selah’s father, Judah, has had relations with her that prevents him from marrying her, since that would be another form of defilement. 41:23–24. Judah knew that the deed which he did was evil Between the end of the story and the original author’s conclusion (41:27–28), the Interpolator inserted this passage. He was concerned with an issue that Jubilees’ author passed over, namely, why Judah was not punished for having relations with his daughter-in-law. The answer that the Interpolator provides is that Judah—having sinned inadvertently—“began to mourn and make supplication before the Lord . . . and did not do it again.” This is precisely the same understanding of sin and forgiveness embodied in the Interpolator’s understanding of the Day of Atonement (above on 5:13–19). The Interpolator also mentions Judah’s “ignorance” (v. 25)—he did not know that the woman was Tamar! (This too is reminiscent of the Interpolator’s Day of Atonement, which provides forgiveness “from all

Jubilees 429

Judah’s Forgiveness Contrasted with Subsequent Strict Enforcement of the Law

25And there was forgiveness for him because he turned from his sin and from his ignorance because the sin was great before our God. And anyone who does anything like this, who lies with his motherin-law, they shall burn with fire so that he might burn in it because defilement and impurity have come upon them. In the fire they shall burn them. 26And you command the children of Israel and there will be no defilement in their midst because everyone who lies with his daughter-in-law or with his mother-in-law causes defilement. In the fire they shall burn the man who has lain with her and also the woman. And the wrath and punishment he will cause to cease from Israel. 27And we told Judah that his two sons had not lain with her and therefore his seed stood for a second generation and it would not be uprooted 28because in the integrity of his eyes he went and sought judgment because by the judgment of Abraham, which he commanded his sons, Judah wanted to burn her with fire. their error” in Jub. 5:18.) In contrast to what the Interpolator wrote in the case of Reuben and Bilhah (above on 33:10–17), here he does not invoke the idea that the law and its punishment had not yet been publicly proclaimed (Jub. 33:16) as a mitigating factor. Rather, it is Judah’s sincere repentance and his abandoning his inadvertent sin right away that win the day: as a result, “we [the angels of the Presence] told him in a dream that it was forgiven him.” 41:25. And anyone . . . who lies with his mother-in-law, they shall burn with fire Better: “daughter-inlaw.”244 As with the case of Reuben and Bilhah (see above on 33:10–20), the Interpolator stresses that the facts of this particular case should not be taken as a precedent for leniency. Indeed, as so many times before, the Interpolator finds in this incident a connection between a narrative in Genesis and a law to be promulgated later at Mount Sinai: “And you [Moses] command the children of Israel . . . [concerning someone] who lies with his daughter-in-law [Lev. 18:15; 20:12] or with his mother-in-law [Lev. 18:17]” because in either case he has done something that is impure. This whole insertion by the Interpolator stands in contradiction to the original author’s conclusion, which is found in the next two verses. 41:27–28. we told Judah that his two sons had not lain with her “We” refers to angels. If so, then their marriages to Tamar had never been consummated and Judah was guilty of nothing—so of course the Interpolator’s account of Judah’s repentance and his subsequently being forgiven make no sense. But the original author was in any case not interested in Judah’s guilt or innocence, but in the status of his offspring, from whom the Jewish people are descended; therefore, after he asserted that the marriages were never consummated, he added that Judah’s “seed” (offspring) was allowed to continue into the next generation and was not uprooted. It was quite simply unthinkable to the original author that Judah’s descendants—the Jews—could be the product of an illicit union.245 41:28. because in the integrity of his eyes Better: “in all innocence,” i.e., quite properly, and without ulterior motive. he went and sought judgment That is, he demanded punishment. This addresses an entirely separate question: on what basis could Judah have demanded in the biblical narrative that Tamar be burned (Gen. 38:24)? The author explains that he had acted quite properly, since this is what he had been taught by Abraham (see above on 20:1–10).

430 James L. Kugel

The Arrival of the Years of Famine 42:1In the first year of the third week of the forty-fifth jubilee the famine began to come upon the land

and rain refused to be given to the land because there was nothing which would come down. 2And the earth suffered famine but in the land of Egypt there was food because Joseph gathered the grain of the land during the seven years of full harvest and he guarded it. 3And Egypt came to Joseph so that he might give them food. And he opened up the storehouses where the wheat of the first year was and he sold it to the people of the land for gold. The Sons of Jacob Travel to Egypt for Grain

4And the famine was very severe in the land of Canaan. And Jacob heard that there was food in Egypt and he sent ten of his sons to get food for him in Egypt, but he did not send Benjamin. And the ten sons of Jacob arrived in Egypt with those who were traveling (there). 5And Joseph knew them, but they did not know him. And he spoke with them and interrogated them and said to them, “Are you men not spies? And you have come to examine the paths of the land.” And he locked them up. 6But afterward he released them again, and he made only Simeon stay. And he sent his nine brothers away. 7And he filled their grain sacks with grain and he also put their gold in their grain sacks, but they did not know (it). 8And he commanded them that they should bring their little brother because they told him that their father was alive and also their little brother. The Sons of Jacob Recount Their Adventures in Egypt

9And they went up from the land of Egypt. And they arrived in the land of Canaan, and told their father everything just as they experienced (it) and how the overseer of the district had spoken harshly with them and held Simeon until they would bring Benjamin. 10And Jacob said, “You have therefore bereaved me. Joseph is not (here) and Simeon is not (here) either and you will take Benjamin. Your evil has therefore come upon me.” 11And he said, “My son will not go down with you—perhaps he might become ill—because their mother bore two, and one has perished, and you will take this one from me. If perhaps he became feverish on the way then you would send down my old age to death in grief.” 12For he saw that the money of each one had been returned in his sack, and he feared to send him on account of that. 42:1–12. the famine began to come upon the land This section is a summary of Gen. 41:53–42:38. 42:11. perhaps he might become ill The Hebrew text says that Jacob fears that a mishap (ason) might befall Benjamin; this is a rare word, used only in the Joseph story (Gen. 42:4 and again in 42:38) and in Exod. 21:22–23. Translators were thus unsure of its meaning, as their varying translations attest.246 The LXX renders it in the Joseph story as “become weak [or ill],” and it is apparently that same tradition that influenced the rendering by Jubilees’ author here: “If perhaps he became feverish on the way.”

Jubilees 431

The Famine Causes the Sons of Jacob to Return to Egypt

13But the famine increased and became severe in the land of Canaan and in all the earth except in the land of Egypt. For many of the Egyptians stored up their grain for food after they saw that Joseph was gathering grain and placing it in storehouses and guarding it for the year of famine. 14And the men of Egypt ate it in the first year of their famine. 15And when Israel saw that the famine was very severe in the land and there was no escaping, he said to his sons, “Go, return and get food for us lest we die.” 16And they said, “We shall not go. If our little brother does not come with us, we shall not go.” 17And Israel saw (that) if he did is not send him with them they would all be destroyed due to the famine. 18And Reuben said, “Place him in my hands, and if I do not return him to you, kill both of my sons for his life.” And he said to him, “He will not go with you.” 19And Judah drew near and said, “Send him with me. And if I do not return him to you, I will be guilty before you all the days of my life.” 20And he sent him with them in the second year of that week on the first of the month and they arrived at the district of Egypt with all of those who were traveling (there). And their presents (were) in their hands: stacte, almonds, terebinth nuts, and pure honey. 21And they arrived and stood before Joseph. And he saw Benjamin, his brother, and he knew him. And he said to them, “Is this your little brother?” And they said to him, “He is.” And he said, “May the Lord be merciful to you, my son.” 22And he sent him into his house. And he brought Simeon to them, and made a banquet for them. And they presented him with his gift, which they brought in their hands. 23And they ate before him. And he gave a portion to all of them. And he increased Benjamin’s portion seven times more than any of their portions. 24And they ate and drank, and got up and stayed with their asses. 42:13. became severe in the land of Canaan and in all the earth This verse blends Gen. 41:57 (“for the famine had become severe throughout the world”) with Gen. 43:1 (“the famine in the land was severe”), specifying that the “land” was Canaan. except in the land of Egypt. For many of the Egyptians stored up their grain for food after they saw that Joseph was gathering grain This verse seems to be an interpretation of Gen. 41:55, “Pharaoh said to the Egyptians, ‘Go to Joseph; whatever he tells you, you shall do.’” If all the Egyptians wished was to purchase grain, why did Joseph have to tell them what to do? Jubilees’ author thus understood that Joseph instituted self-rationing among the people at the same time he himself began storing grain for the government; that is why the famine was severe everywhere except in the land of Egypt. (A Rabbinic tradition has it that Joseph told the Egyptians “what to do” in that he instructed them to be circumcised and convert to Judaism [Gen. Rab. 90:6]; apparently, then, later exegetes were equally puzzled by Gen. 41:55, even if the solution they proposed was altogether different from that of Jubilees.) 42:18–19. Place him in my hands Reuben’s crude offer of his own two sons’ lives as collateral for Benjamin (Gen. 42:37) is juxtaposed here to Judah’s offer (Gen. 43:8), even though they are nine verses apart; Jacob accepts Judah’s proposal, thus highlighting his greater trust in the latter. 42:20–23. he increased Benjamin’s portion seven times Benjamin’s portion is “seven times more” than those of his brothers, versus “five times” in the MT; this variant may have been introduced by the Greek translator, since one extant LXX ms. has “sevenfold.”247

432 James L. Kugel

25And Joseph thought of an idea by means of which he might learn their thoughts, whether they had thoughts of peace for one another. And he said to the man who was over his house, “Fill all of their bags with food for them. And also return their money to them in the midst of their containers. And place my cup from which I drink, the silver cup, in the bag of the youngest one and send them off.” Joseph’s Stratagem to Test His Brothers 43:1And he did as Joseph told him. And he filled all their bags for them (with) food. And he also put

their money in their bags. And the cup he put in Benjamin’s bag. 2And (at) daybreak in the morning, they went. And it came to pass when they departed from there, that Joseph said to the man of his house, “Pursue them. Run and reproach them, saying, ‘You have repaid me evil in place of good. You have robbed me of the silver cup from which my lord drinks.’ And return to me their little brother. And hurry, bring (him) before I go to my judgment seat.” 3And he ran after them and he spoke to them according to these words. 4And they said to him, “May God forbid that your servants would do this thing or steal any vessel from your lord’s house. But rather our money which we found at first in our bags your servants have brought back from the land of Canaan. 42:25. learn their thoughts, whether they had thoughts of peace for one another Genesis never explains why, once Joseph had succeeded in having Benjamin (his only full brother) brought to him, he did not reveal his identity right away. Did he wish to put his brothers through one last ordeal as revenge for all the suffering they had caused him? Rejecting any such notion, Jubilees’ author asserts that Joseph still needed to test their intentions and, more specifically, whether, faced with the threat of having their youngest brother lost to them forever, they would stand idly by (as they had with Joseph himself). 43:2. The silver cup from which my lord drinks Jubilees’ author omits the servant’s mention that the “stolen” silver goblet is one that Joseph “uses for divination” (Gen. 44:5). instead, the servant simply says that it is the one “from which my lord drinks.” Joseph’s later words to the same effect (“Do you not know that a man like me practices divination?” Gen. 44:15) are likewise changed: “Did you not know that a man would be pleased with his cup as I am with this cup?” (Jub. 43:10). The reason is that such divination is forbidden by the Torah (Lev. 19:26; Deut 18:10); for Jubilees, it was hardly credible that Joseph would have indulged in a practice God prohibited (or even to have claimed to do so as part of his Egyptian disguise). It is also noteworthy that Jubilees has once again slightly changed the order of things. In Genesis, Joseph asks two questions back to back: “What is this deed that you have done? Do you not know that a man like me practices divination?” The implication of the second question is that, thanks to divination, a “man like me” was bound to discover the brothers’ theft of the goblet. But Jubilees’ author has eliminated Joseph’s first question and moved the second one a bit later to avoid any such implication. Now, he has Joseph refuse the brothers’ offer to all become his slaves, saying “I fear the Lord [better: I fear God],” borrowing a phrase uttered by Joseph in similar circumstances in Gen. 42:18; he then has Joseph add, as if it were an afterthought summarizing the whole, sorry affair: “Did you not know that a man would be pleased with his cup as I am with this cup? And [yet] you stole it from me!” hurry, bring (him) before I go to my judgment seat Jubilees’ author added this detail to explain why Gen. 44:14 mentions that Joseph “was still there [in his house]” when the brothers return: he had purposely stayed there and not gone to work.

Jubilees 433

5Therefore, why would we steal any vessel? Behold, search both us and our animals and wherever you find the cup, in the bag of any one of our men, let him be killed, and both we and our asses will become slaves to your lord.” 6And he said to them, “It will not be so, (but) with the man with whom I find it, he alone, I will take as a servant, but you will return in peace to your house.” 7And when he searched in their baggage, he started from the eldest and ended with the youngest. And it was found in the bag of Benjamin. 8And they tore their clothes and loaded up their donkeys and returned to the city. And they reached Joseph’s house, and they all bowed to him with their face on the ground. 9And Joseph said to them, “You have done evil.” And they said, “What can we say? (With) what can we defend ourselves? Our lord has found the guilt of his servants. Behold, we (are) servants of our lord and also our donkeys.” 10And Joseph said to them, “I fear the Lord. You, go to your houses, but let your brother alone be my servant because you have done evil. Did you not know that a man would be pleased with his cup as I am with this cup? And you stole it from me.” 11And Judah said, “I pray, O lord, let me, your servant, speak a word in my lord’s ear. His mother bore two brothers to our father, your servant. One went forth and was lost, and was not found. 12And he alone was left from his mother, and your servant, our father, loves him. And his life is bound with the life of this (one). And it will come to pass that if we go to your servant, our father, and if the lad is not with us, he will die. And we will bring down our father to death with sorrow. 13And let me, your servant, remain alone instead of the child as a servant to my lord, and let the lad go with his brothers because I was put as a pledge for him at the hand of your servant, our father. And if I should not return him your servant will always be guilty to our father.” Joseph Reveals Himself to His Brothers

14And Joseph saw that the heart of all of them was in accord one with another for good. And he was unable to control his emotion and he told them that he was Joseph. 15And he conversed with them in the Hebrew language and embraced their necks and wept. But they did not recognize him. And they began to weep. 16And he said to them, “Do not weep for me, but hasten and bring my father to me. And I shall see him before I die even as the eyes of my brother Benjamin see. 17For behold this is the second year of famine, and there will still be five years. And there will be no harvest or fruit of the tree or plowing. 18Hasten, come down, you and your households, lest you be destroyed in the famine. And you shall not grieve for your possessions. For the Lord has sent me first to prepare before you so that many people might live. 19And tell my father that I am still alive and behold, you were seeing that the Lord ordained me as a father to the Pharaoh and so that I might rule in his house and over all the land of Egypt. 20And tell my father about all my honor and all the wealth and honor which the Lord has given to me.” 43:14. Joseph saw that the heart of all of them was in accord one with another for good This settled the issue, raised above in 42:25, that was on Joseph’s mind. 43:18. the Lord has sent me first to prepare before you so that many people might live This is the wisdom theme of the biblical story (Gen. 45:5; 50:20): the entire episode was part of God’s great plan.

434 James L. Kugel

The Brothers Return to Canaan to Get Their Father

21And by the word of the mouth of the Pharaoh he gave them chariots and provisions for the way. And he gave them all clothing of many colors and money. 22And he also sent to their father clothing and money and ten asses which were carrying wheat. And he sent them off. 23And they went up and they told their father that Joseph was alive and that he was distributing grain to all of the people of the land. And he ruled over all the land of Egypt. 24And their father did not believe because there was a confusion in his mind. And after this he saw the chariots which Joseph sent and the life of his soul was renewed. And he said, “It is enough for me if Joseph is alive. I will go down and I will see him before I die.” Jacob Observes a Feast of Firstfruits at Beer-Sheba 44:1And Israel rose up from Hebron, from his house on the first of the third month and he went by the

way of the Well of the Oath. And he offered up a sacrifice to the God of his father, Isaac, on the seventh day of that month. 2And Jacob recalled the dream which he dreamed in Bethel, and he was afraid to go down into Egypt. 3And as he was planning to send to Joseph so that he might come to him, and he would not go down, he remained there seven days (to learn) if he would see a vision (concerning) whether he should remain or go down. 4And he observed the feast of the harvest of the firstfruits from old wheat for there was not in the whole land of Canaan a handful of any seed in the land because there was a famine for all the wild animals and the cattle and the birds and also man. Jacob’s Theophany at Beer-sheba

5And on the sixteenth day the Lord appeared to him and He said to him, “Jacob, Jacob.” And he said to him, “Here I am.” And He again said to him, “I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham and Isaac. Do not fear to go down to Egypt because I will make you into a great people there. 6I shall go down with you and I shall bring you (back) and you will be buried in this land. And Joseph will place his hand upon your eyes. Do not fear. Go down into Egypt.” 44:2–3. Jacob recalled the dream These verses are intended to explain Gen. 46:3, where God tells Jacob, “Fear not to go down to Egypt.” Why should he be afraid? Certainly one reason might be the warning that God gave to Abraham in Gen. 15:13—“Know that your offspring will be strangers in a land not theirs and they shall be enslaved and oppressed for four hundred years.” But it is also possible that this verse alludes to the vision of the seven tablets (see above on Jub. 32:21): Jacob remembered reading in those tablets everything that would befall his sons in the future, including their enslavement in Egypt. For that reason, he “was planning to send [word] to Joseph” saying that he would not be going down to Egypt after all. Unsure, however, he waited at Beer-sheba another seven days; then, on the 15th of the month, he observed the Festival of Firstfruits at its proper time (see above on 15:1), although all he had to offer was “old wheat” because of the famine.248 44:5. on the sixteenth day the Lord appeared to him Why not on the 15th, the very day of the festival? It may be that the original verse was mistranslated or else deliberately altered by a copyist to fit the mention of the 16th in 44:8.

Jubilees 435

The Preparation for the Journey to Egypt

7And his children and grandchildren rose up and they loaded their father and their possessions on the chariots. 8And Israel rose up from the Well of the Oath on the sixteenth day of this third month and he went to the land of Egypt. 9And Israel sent Judah before him to Joseph, his son, so that he might examine the land of Goshen, for Joseph told his brothers that they should come to dwell there so they might be his neighbor. 10And it was the best in the land of Egypt. And it was near him for all (of them) and for the cattle. A List of the Children of Jacob

11And these are the names of the sons of Jacob who went into Egypt with their father, Jacob. 12Reuben was the firstborn of Israel. And these (are) the names of his sons: Enoch, and Pallu, and Hezron, and Carmi—five. 13Simeon and his sons; and these (are) the names of his sons: Jemuel, and Jamin, and Ohad, and Jachin, and Zohar, and Shaul, the son of a Zephathite woman—seven. 14Levi and his sons; and these (are) the names of his sons: Gershon, and Kohath, and Merari—four. 15Judah and his sons; and these are the names of his sons: Shela, and Perez, and Zerah—four. 16Issachar and his sons; and these are the names of his sons: Tola, and Phua, and Jasub, and Shimron—five. 17Zebulun and his sons; and these are the names of his sons: Sered, and Elon, and Jahleel—four. 18And these are the sons of Jacob and their sons whom Leah bore to Jacob in Mesopotamia, six, plus one girl, Dinah, their sister. And all of the persons who (were) sons of Leah and their sons, who entered Egypt with Jacob, their father, were twenty-nine. And Jacob, their father, was with them. And they totaled thirty. 19And the sons of Zilpah, the attendant of Leah, the wife of Jacob, which she bore to Jacob, were Gad and Asher. 20And these are the names of their sons who entered into Egypt with him. The sons of Gad (are) Ziphion, and Gaggi, and Shuni, and Ezbon, and Eri, and Areli, and Arodi—eight. 21And the sons of Asher (are) Imnah, and Ishvah, [and Ishvi], and Beriah, and Serah, their one sister—six. 22And all of the persons (were) fourteen. And the total [with those] of Leah was forty-four. 44:11–34. And these are the names of the sons of Jacob Jacob goes down to Egypt, sending Judah ahead to “examine the land of Goshen” (cf. Gen. 46:28). The list of Jacob’s descendants going to Egypt is based on Gen. 46:8–27. There was a problem with that list, however; the names totaled 69, not 70, as stated there. Various solutions were proposed by interpreters.249 Jubilees’ author followed a different procedure for counting and provided different data, which allowed him to arrive at the desired total. Noteworthy is the fact that he assigned five sons to Dan, rather than one as in Gen. 46:23. The apparent basis for this liberty is the fact that the MT reads, “And the sons of Dan, Hushim.” The plural “sons” was taken by Jubilees as a hint that there were sons other than Hushim who were not listed, presumably because “they died during the year they entered Egypt.” He also gives an extra son to Naphtali, Iv. At the same time, he omits mentioning Er and Onan since, as Gen. 46:12 remarks, they had died in Canaan before the descent into Egypt (although Er and Onan are mentioned again in Jub. 44:34); and the grandsons of Judah, Hezron, and Hamul (Gen. 46:12) and of Asher, Heber, and Malchiel (Gen. 46:17).

436 James L. Kugel

23And the sons of Rachel, who (was) the wife of Jacob, (were) Joseph and Benjamin. 24And (sons) were born to Joseph in Egypt before his father entered Egypt whom Asenath, the daughter of Potiphar, the priest of Heliopolis, bore to him, (namely) Manasseh and Ephraim—three. 25And the sons of Benjamin (are) Bela, and Becher, and Ashbel, and Gera, and Naaman, and Ehi, and Rosh, and Muppim, and Huppim, and Ard—eleven. 26And all of the persons of Rachel were fourteen. 27And the sons of Bilhah, the attendant of Rachel, the wife of Jacob, which she bore to Jacob, (are) Dan and Naphthali, and these are the names of their sons who entered Egypt with them. 28And the sons of Dan (are) Hushim, and Samon, and Asudi, and ‘Ijaka, and Solomon—six. 29And they died during the year they entered Egypt and there was left to Dan only Hushim. 30And these are the names of the sons of Naphthali: Jaziel, and Guni, and Jezer, and Shallum, and ‘Iv. 31And ‘Iv, who was born after the years of the famine, died in Egypt. 32And all of the persons [with those] of Rachel were twenty-six. 33And all of the persons of Jacob who entered Egypt were seventy persons. Therefore all these sons and grandsons of his were seventy, but five died in Egypt before Joseph, and they had no children. 34And two sons of Judah, Er and Onan, died in the land of Canaan. And they had no children. And the children of Israel buried those who perished. And they were set among the seventy nations. The Family of Jacob Is Settled in Goshen 44:1And Israel entered into the land of Egypt into the land of Goshen on the first of the fourth month in

the second year of the third week of the forty-fifth jubilee. 2And Joseph came to greet his father, Jacob, in the land of Goshen. And he embraced the neck of his father and wept. 3And Israel said to Joseph, “Let me die now after I have seen you. And now let the Lord, the God of Israel, be blessed, the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac, who did not withhold his mercy and his kindness from his servant Jacob. 4It is enough for me that I have seen your face while I was alive, for the vision which I saw in Bethel was certainly true. May the Lord my God be blessed forever and ever and blessed (be) his name.” 5And Joseph and his brothers ate bread before their father, and they drank wine. And Jacob rejoiced very greatly because he saw Joseph eating and drinking with his brothers before him. And he blessed the Creator of all who kept him and kept for him his twelve sons. 6And Joseph gave to his father and his brothers (as) a gift that they might dwell in the land of Goshen and Ramses and all of the districts (belonging) to them which he ruled over before the Pharaoh. And Israel and his sons dwelt in the 45:1–3: And Israel entered into the land of Egypt Notably absent here are the face-to-face encounters between Pharaoh and Joseph’s brothers and between Pharaoh and Jacob (Gen. 46:31–47:10). This is, once again, probably due to the author’s horror of Jewish dealings with foreigners. Instead, Jubilees’ author expands Jacob’s words in Gen. 46:30 into words of blessing and thanksgiving directed to God, “And now let the Lord . . . be blessed.” 45:4. It is enough for me that I have seen your face while I was alive Charles reasonably suggests emending to “that you are still alive” to bring the text in line with Gen. 46:30, “Now I can die, having seen for myself that you are still alive.” for the vision which I saw in Bethel was certainly true These words seem to have been tacked on as a reference to the seven tablets whose content Jacob had memorized (Jub. 32:21).

Jubilees 437

land of Goshen, the best of the land of Egypt. And Israel was one hundred and thirty years old when he entered Egypt. 7And Joseph provided bread for his father and his brothers and their possessions, as much as was sufficient for them for the seven years of famine. Joseph’s Skill as an Administrator

8And the land of Egypt suffered in view of the famine. And Joseph gathered all of the land of Egypt for the Pharaoh by means of the food. And men and their cattle and everything he acquired for Pharaoh. 9And the years of the famine were completed. And Joseph gave seed and food to the people who were in the land so that they might sow the land in the eighth year because the river was full in all the land of Egypt. 10For during the seven years of famine it was not full. And it did not irrigate except a few places by the shore of the river. But now it was full and the Egyptians sowed the land and it bore much wheat in that year. 11And that was the first year of the fourth week of the forty-fifth jubilee. 12And Joseph took for the king one fifth of everything which bore fruit and he left four parts for them for food and seed. And Joseph set it up as an ordinance for the land of Egypt until this day. The Death of Jacob

13And Israel lived in the land of Egypt seventeen years, and all of the days which he lived were three jubilees, one hundred and forty-seven years. And he died in the fourth year of the fifth week of the forty-fifth jubilee. 14And Israel blessed his sons before he died. And he told them everything which was going to happen to them in the land of Egypt and in the latter days; he made them know how it would come upon them. And he blessed them and he gave to Joseph a double portion upon the land. 15And he slept with his fathers. And he was buried in the cave of Machpelah in the land of Canaan near Abraham, his father, in the tomb which he excavated for himself in the cave of Machpelah in the land of Hebron. And he gave all of his books and his fathers’ books to Levi, his son, so that he might preserve them and renew them for his sons until this day. 45:8–12. the land of Egypt suffered in view of the famine Better: “suffered [because of] the famine.” This passage condenses Gen. 47:13–27, omitting Joseph’s dealings with the people (perhaps, once again, because of the contaminating contact with foreigners) and his purchase of the land for Pharaoh. The text also explains what Genesis does not, that the reason for the famine inside Egypt was that “during the seven years of famine,” the Nile “did not irrigate except a few places,” failing to water the surrounding countryside as it usually did. Once it was restored, Joseph “gave seed . . . to the people” so that they could sow their fields. 45:14. And Israel blessed his sons before he died The author omits the long account of Jacob’s “blessings” of his sons in Gen. 49:1–28, summarizing these as telling them “everything which was going to happen to them” in the future. Missing as well is the lengthy account of Jacob’s earlier granting of a double portion of the inheritance to Joseph, his blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh, and his request to be buried in the cave of Machpelah (all in Gen. 48), though the doubled inheritance and burial are mentioned in passing, “he gave to Joseph a double portion.” 45:15. he gave all of his books and his fathers’ books to Levi This literary heritage originated with Enoch and Noah (4:17–23; 12:25–27); since these books are said to contain matters relevant to the priesthood (part of the priestly instructions later included in the ALD was known to the author of Jubilees), they are given to Levi.

438 James L. Kugel

The Death of Joseph and His Generation 46:1And it came to pass after Jacob died that the children of Israel increased in the land of Egypt. And

they became a numerous people, and they were all in accord in their hearts so that each one loved his brother and each man helped his brother, and they increased exceedingly and increased very much for ten weeks of years, all the days of the life of Joseph. 2And there was no Satan or anything evil all the days of the life of Joseph which he lived after his father, Jacob, because all of the Egyptians were honoring the children of Israel all the days of the life of Joseph. 3And Joseph died at one hundred and ten years of age. And seventeen years he dwelt in the land of Canaan and ten years he remained as a slave and three years in the prison and eighty years under the king ruling all of the land of Egypt. 4And he died and all of his brothers and all of that generation. The Removal of Jacob’s Bones and a Comment on Joseph’s Burial

5And he commanded the children of Israel before he died to carry his bones at the time when they would go out of the land of Egypt. 6And he made them swear an oath concerning his bones because he knew that Egypt would not again bring them forth and bury them in the land of Canaan because when Makamaron, the king of Canaan, was dwelling in the land of Asshur, he fought in the valley with the king of Egypt. And he killed him there. And he pursued after the Egyptians as far as the gates of Ermon. 7And he was unable to enter because another new king ruled Egypt and he was stronger than he. And he returned to the land of Canaan and the gates of Egypt were shut up and there was none who could leave or enter Egypt. 8And Joseph died in this forty-sixth jubilee in the sixth week in the second year. And they buried him in the land of Egypt. And all of his brothers died after him. 46:1. each one loved his brother and each man helped his brother As per Lev. 19:18; see above on 20:2; 36:1–20. 46:2. there was no Satan or anything evil Better: “anyone evil.” These are the forces of Mastema—a 10th of his former troops—who were allowed by God a continued existence after the Flood (Jub. 10:8–9); they still exist, but do not bother Israel so long as Joseph is alive. The word “Satan” here designates a type of wicked angel, and not the Satan known from elsewhere. 46:3. seventeen years he dwelt in the land of Canaan and ten years he remained as a slave The 17 years are based on Gen. 37:2, but the other figures are Jubilees’ interpretation of the biblical data. Thus, the 10 years of Joseph’s enslavement must have included the 3 years in prison mentioned here, since Pharaoh is informed about Joseph’s abilities as a dream interpreter 2 years after his cupbearer’s release (Gen. 41:1), at which time Joseph was 30 years old (Gen. 41:46). Moreover, since he is said to have died at the age of 110 (Gen. 50:26), this meant that Joseph ruled Egypt under Pharaoh for eighty years. 46:5–7. And he commanded the children of Israel One mystery for interpreters was Joseph’s request that his brothers swear an oath to the effect that his remains would be transported for burial in Canaan “when God takes notice” of the Israelites in Egypt (Gen. 50:24–25; Exod. 13:19), presumably at the time of the exodus. His father, Jacob, had similarly requested to be buried in Canaan, but in his case his body was embalmed and transported there almost immediately (Gen. 50:2–5). Why did Joseph not request that the same procedure be followed after his own death? Jubilees’ author explains that “the gates of Egypt were shut up” after a war with Canaan “and there was none who could leave or enter Egypt.” Realizing this, Joseph had his brothers swear that, when

Jubilees 439

The Removal of the Bones of the Children of Jacob

9And the king of Egypt went forth to fight with the king of Canaan in this forty-seventh jubilee in the second week in the second year. And the children of Israel brought forth the bones of the children of Jacob, all except the bones of Joseph. And they buried them in the field in the cave of Machpelah in the mountain. 10And many returned into Egypt but a few of them were left in Mount Hebron. And Amram, your father, was left with them. The Children of Israel Are Reduced to Slavery

11And the king of Canaan was victorious over the king of Egypt and he closed the gates of Egypt. 12And he conceived an evil thought against the children of Israel so that he might cause them to suffer. And he said to the men of Egypt, 13“Behold, the people of the sons of Israel have grown and increased more than we. Come let us act wisely concerning them before they increase. And let us cause them to suffer in slavery before war comes to us, or before they battle with us, or if not (that, then) they will mix with our enemy. And they will depart from our land because their hearts and their faces are upon the land of Canaan.” in the future God should “take notice” of their descendants, the people of Israel, they would be sure not leave his last remains behind.250 46:9–10. the children of Israel brought forth the bones of the children of Jacob It is fine that Jacob and Joseph took pains to be buried in Canaan, but what about Levi, Judah, and the other brothers? Surely their remains were not left in Egypt! Yet the Bible had no account of their being buried anywhere. Several ancient sources filled this gap; Jubilees here recounts that the Israelites took advantage of an Egyptian sally into Canaan to bury the bones of all the brothers “in the cave of Machpelah”—all except Joseph’s bones, since he had previous had them take an oath that his bones would be removed “when God takes notice” of the Israelites at the time of the Exodus.251 46:12. and he conceived an evil thought Better: “an evil plan.” Pharaoh’s words to his wise men in Exod. 1:9–10 were puzzling in one respect: he warns that the Israelites, now grown numerous, may join with Egypt’s enemies “and go up from the land [of Egypt].” But since this was before the Israelites were enslaved, what should stop them from leaving Egypt right away if that is what they wanted? And why should they need to join with Egypt’s enemies to do so? The clever solution of Jubilees’ author was to have these words addressed to the “new king” who rose over Egypt (Exod. 1:8). According to Jubilees’ author, this was not an Egyptian king, but the king of Canaan who conquered Egypt and took over the throne. For him, that the Israelites might “go up from the land of Egypt” was indeed a threat, because “their hearts and their faces are upon land of Canaan”: in biblical Heb. when a person’s face is said to be “toward” or “upon” something, this expresses a longing for or intention to go to it (see Jer. 1:13; 2 Chron. 32:2—rather like the English expression “to have one’s eye on”).252 In this case, the king is worried that the Israelites are planning, once they have the opportunity, to enter Canaan and conquer it. (Contrast Exod. Rab. 1:9, B. Sot. 11a, M. Tanh. Shemot 6, which see “they will go up from the land” as a euphemism for “we [Egyptians] will be forced to leave the land.”) To foil this plan, the Canaanite king of Egypt enslaved the Israelites.

440 James L. Kugel

14And they appointed over them taskmasters to make them suffer in slavery. And they built strengthened cities for Pharaoh, Pithom and Ramses. And they built all of the walls and all of the ramparts which had fallen in the cities of Egypt. 15And they made them slaves by force. And to the extent that they acted cruelly against them, they likewise increased and multiplied. 16And the men of Egypt regarded the sons of Israel as defiled. The Birth and Early Life of Moses 47:1And in the seventh week, in the seventh year in this forty-seventh jubilee, your father came from

the land of Canaan. And you were born in the fourth week, in the sixth year, in this forty-eighth jubilee, which were days of affliction upon the children of Israel. 2And the king of Egypt, Pharaoh, issued an order concerning them that they should throw all of their male children who were born into the river. 3And they continued throwing (them into the river) seven months, until the day when you were born. And your mother hid you three months, and they reported concerning her. 4And she made an ark for you. And she covered it with pitch and asphalt. And she placed it among the reeds by the shore of the river and she placed you in it seven days. And your mother came in the night and suckled you and (in) the day Miriam, your sister, guarded you from the birds. 5And in those days Tharmuth, the daughter of Pharaoh, came in order to bathe in the river and she heard your voice as you were crying and she told her maids to fetch you. And they brought you to her. 46:14. And they built strengthened cities Rather, they “fortified” cities. This is an interpretation of Exod. 1:11 that appears as well in the LXX. 46:16 And the men of Egypt regarded the sons of Israel as defiled This reflects Exod. 1:12. 47:1. And you were born Here begins the somewhat incongruous section of Jubilees in which the angel of the Presence tells Moses about his own life—not only his infancy, which Moses might not remember, but what happened after he was an adult as well. 47:2. throw all of their male children who were born into the river This is actually a gloss on the ambiguous decree of Exod. 1:22, “Every boy that is born you shall throw into the Nile.” Every boy might seem to include the Egyptian newborns as well; Jubilees thus specifies that the decree applied only to the Israelites.253 47:3–4. they reported concerning her That is, the existence of her newborn was reported to the authorities: this is Jubilees’ innovation to explain why “she could no longer hide him” (Exod. 2:3). Moses is then put in his special box by the river, but his mother continues to nurse him at night for seven days, while Miriam stands watch by day to protect him from the birds. (This is a narrative expansion of Exod. 2:4, “And his sister stationed herself at a distance to know what would become of him.” Why mention Miriam’s role if it lasted only a few minutes or even a few hours? Jubilees therefore has it last seven days, necessitating that the baby also be nursed in the interim.)254 47:5. Tharmuth This is the name given to Pharaoh’s daughter here and in Josephus Ant. 2:224. (Artapanus calls her Merris, while Rabbinic tradition identifies her with “Bithiah the daughter of Pharaoh” mentioned in 1 Chron. 4:15–17.) told her maids to fetch you “Maids” is better rendered as “her maidservant.” The Heb. says, “she sent forth her am[m]atah,” which could mean her “female slave” or her “forearm.” The LXX has the former, as do the Ethiopic and Latin texts, but others adopted “forearm.”255

Jubilees 441

6And she took you from the ark and had pity on you. 7And your sister said to her, “Shall I go and call for you one of the Hebrew women who will nurse and suckle the infant for you?” And she said to her, “Go!” 8And she went and called your mother, Jochebed. And she gave a wage to her. And she nursed you. 9And after this when you had grown they brought you to the daughter of Pharaoh and you became her son. And Amram, your father, taught you writing. And after you completed three weeks (of years) they brought you into the royal court. 10And you were in the court three weeks of years until the day when you went out of the royal court. And you saw an Egyptian beating your friend who was from the children of Israel. And you killed him and hid him in the sand. 11And on the second day you found two of the children of Israel striving together. And you said to that one who was acting falsely, “Why are you striking your brother?” 12And he was angry and indignant and said, “Who set you as a ruler and judge over us? Do you also desire to kill me as you killed the Egyptian yesterday?” And you were afraid and you fled because of those words. Moses’s Experience in Midian and Encounter with Mastema 48:1And on the sixth year of the third week of the forty-ninth jubilee you went and dwelt in the land of

Midian five weeks and one year and you returned to Egypt on the second week in the second year in the fiftieth jubilee. 2And you know what was related to you on Mount Sinai, and what Prince Mastema 47:9. And after this when you had grown It is not clear from Exod. 2:10 how old Moses was at the time he was brought back to Pharaoh’s daughter. Presumably, if he had been given to his mother to nurse, he was brought to Pharaoh’s daughter as soon as he was weaned. On the other hand, Moses seems later to know that he is one of the Hebrews and to identify with their plight (Exod. 2:11–12); would he do so if he had been raised in the royal palace from the age of three or four? It seems, therefore, that Jubilees’ author saw two stages here: the child is brought to Pharaoh’s daughter after weaning, perhaps to be officially “adopted” by her, “and you became her son.” But later he is returned to his father Amram for education: he “taught you writing” (in Hebrew, of course; this would be necessary for Moses’s later role in mediating the Torah). Moses stayed with Amram until he was 21 (“three weeks [of years]”); he then returned to the court for 21 years more, until he was 42. (The motif of Moses’s extensive education is found in other sources, apparently to explain Exod. 4:10: if Moses was not “a man of words,” did this not imply that he had never gone to school?)256 47:10. your friend who was from the children of Israel The Hebrew man being beaten by an Egyptian in Exod. 2:11. The Latin text has simply “an Egyptian beating your brother.” 48:1–2. you went and dwelt in the land of Midian257 No account is given here of Moses’s encounter with the daughters of Jethro, a “priest of Midian” (another foreigner!), and all that preceded his marriage to Jethro’s daughter Zipporah. 48:2. And you know what was related to you on Mount Sinai That is, you know the story of the burning bush on Mount Horeb (Exod. 3:1–4:19). The Ethiopic text has: “You know who spoke to you on Mount Sinai,” but this seems to be a mistake: what was said was that Moses had now to return to Egypt. On the other hand, the words “You know who spoke to you” may allude to an ambiguity in the biblical narrative, whereby it is unclear whether Moses’s interlocutor was an angel (Exod. 3:2) or God (Exod. 3:4)—a problem that disturbed other interpreters.258 But if so, why did Jubilees not simply take a stand and say, “You know how God [or: an angel] spoke to you.” On balance, it seems the Latin texts’s “what was spoken” is to be preferred.

442 James L. Kugel

desired to do with you when you returned to Egypt, on the way when you met him at the shelter. 3Did he not desire to kill you with all of his might and save the Egyptians from your hand because he saw that you were sent to execute judgment and vengeance upon the Egyptians? 4And I delivered you from his hand and you did the signs and wonders which you were sent to perform in Egypt against Pharaoh, and all his house, and his servants, and his people. The Plagues on Egypt

5And the Lord executed great vengeance upon them on account of Israel. And He smote them with blood, and frogs, and lice, and dog flies; and evil boils which break out (as) blisters; and their cattle with death; and hailstones with which he destroyed everything which sprouted up for them; and with locust who ate the remainder which was left from the hail; and with darkness, and (with death of) the firstborn of men, and cattle; and upon all of their gods the Lord took vengeance and He burned them with fire. 6And everything was sent in your hand to announce before it was done. And you related it to the king of Egypt before all of his servants and before his people. 7And everything happened according to your word, ten great and cruel judgments came on the land of Egypt so that you might execute vengeance upon it for Israel. 8And the Lord did everything on account of Israel and according to His covenant which He made with Abraham that He would take vengeance upon them just as they had made them serve by force. and what Prince Mastema desired to do with you “Prince” is better rendered as “the angel.” In Exod. 4:24, “the Lord met him [Moses] and sought to kill him.” To all interpreters, it seemed odd that God, having just commissioned Moses to return to Egypt, would now try to kill him; moreover, if an all-powerful God sought to kill Moses, why would He not succeed? Around this grew a rich set of exegetical traditions.259 One early solution, attested in the LXX, Targum Onkelos, and elsewhere, was to suppose that “the Lord” was really a shorthand for “an angel of the Lord”—presumably a wicked angel, hence, here, the angel Mastema. This all occurs “at the shelter”—corresponding to the Heb. malon (“sleeping place,” later “inn”).260 48:3. And I delivered you from his hand In the biblical account, it is the last-minute circumcision that saves Moses’s life, but this apparently bothered Jubilees’ author: instead, the angelic narrator of the book takes all the credit. 48:5. the Lord executed great vengeance upon them The list of plagues here includes dog flies in keeping with the LXX translation of the name of the fourth plague, arov (Exod. 8:17, 20). This same word was understood in Rabbinic tradition as a “mixture” of wild beasts.261 upon all of their gods the Lord took vengeance This is a reference to Exod. 12:12 and Num. 33:4, puzzling to ancient interpreters because these verses do not say how God punished their gods. Jubilees’ author supplied the obvious answer: he “burned them with fire,” that is, burned their statues. This accords with Moses’s own words in Deut. 7:25, “The statues of their gods you shall burn with fire.” 48:8. according to His covenant which he made with Abraham Abraham was told about the Egyptian enslavement and how, afterward, God would bring the Egyptians to justice (Gen. 15:13–14). Once again, it is a covenant with one of Israel’s ancestors that the author chose to highlight.

Jubilees 443

The Escape from Egypt and a Discussion of Mastema’s Deeds

9And Prince Mastema stood up before you and desired to make you fall into the hand of Pharaoh. And he aided the magicians of the Egyptians, and they stood up and acted before you. 10Thus we let them do evil, but we did not empower them with healing so that it might be done by their hands. 11And the Lord smote them with evil wounds and they were unable to stand because we destroyed (their ability) to do any single sign. 12And despite all the signs and wonders, Prince Mastema was not shamed until he had become strong and called to the Egyptians so that they might pursue after you with all the army of Egyptians, with their chariots, and with their horses, and with all the multitude of the peoples of Egypt. 13And I stood between the Egyptians and Israel and we delivered Israel from his hand and from the hand of his people. And the Lord brought them out through the midst of the sea as through dry land. 14And all of the people whom He brought out to pursue after Israel the Lord our God threw into the middle of the sea into the depths of the abyss beneath the children of Israel. Just as the men of Egypt cast their sons into the river He avenged one million. And one thousand strong and ardent men perished on account of one infant whom they threw into the midst of the river from the sons of your people. 15And on the fourteenth day, and on the fifteenth, and on the sixteenth, and on the seventeenth, and on the eighteenth Prince Mastema was bound and shut up from (coming) after the children of Israel so that he might not accuse them. 16And on the nineteenth day we released them so that they might help the Egyptians and pursue after the children of Israel. 17And he hardened their hearts and 48:10. Thus we let them do evil Jubilees’ author here offers further information about his own view of the world’s workings. (See also above on 10:8–9.) God is supremely powerful, but the wicked angel Mastema is nonetheless allowed some freedom to work evil in the world—unless he is specifically restrained. (He is apparently not, for all that, the origin of all bad things that happen in the world—not the full-blown Satan of later writings.) His presence is evoked here to answer a specific question that interpreters had about Pharaoh’s “wizards/magicians” and “wise men”: how was it that they seemed to have some sort of occult power, turning their staves into snakes as Moses did (Exod. 7:11–12) and apparently working other feats (Exod. 7:22;, 8:3)? The answer is that the angel Mastema “aided the magicians of the Egyptians” (v. 9). The angel of the Presence adds that, although he and the other good angels allowed Pharaoh’s wizards to do evil, they did not “empower them with healing,” that is, they did not let them undo the effects of the plagues. Moreover, after a while God “smote them with evil wounds” (v. 11; cf. Exod. 9:11) to prevent them from doing any further magic, which is why their intervention ceased after the fifth plague. Mastema had a further role: inciting the Egyptians to pursue the Israelites on their way out of Egypt. The angel reports: “I stood between the Egyptians and Israel,”262 a reference to “the angel of God” mentioned in Exod. 14:19. 48:14. Just as the men of Egypt cast their sons That is, “[the Israelites’] sons.” Jubilees sees in the drowning of the Egyptian forces at the Red Sea the principle of “measure for measure”: this was a just recompense for the Egyptians’ drowning of the Israelite babies in the Nile (Exod. 1:22).263 And one thousand strong and ardent men . . . on account of one infant Cf. M. Sota, 1:9. 48:15. so that he might not accuse them Since “accusing” is Mastema’s chief function; see above on 10:8–9. 48:16–17. help the Egyptians and pursue That is, “[to] pursue [the Israelites].” Jubilees adds that, although this was done by Mastema, it was really “the Lord our God” who made the Egyptians stubborn “so that he might smite [them] and throw them into the midst of sea.” 444 James L. Kugel

strengthened them. And it was conceived of by the Lord our God that He might smite the Egyptians and throw them into the midst of the sea. 18And on the fourteenth day we bound him so that he might not accuse the children of Israel on the day when they were requesting vessels and clothing from the men of Egypt—vessels of silver, and vessels of gold, and vessels of bronze—so that they might plunder the Egyptians in exchange for the servitude which they subjected them to by force. 19And we did not bring the children of Israel from Egypt in their nakedness. The Feast of Passover, Its Institution and Observance 49:1Remember the commandment which the Lord commanded you concerning Passover, that you

observe it in its time, on the fourteenth of the first month, so that you might sacrifice it before it becomes evening and so that you might eat it during the night on the evening of the fifteenth from the time of sunset. 2For on this night there was the beginning of the feast and there was the beginning of joy. You continued eating the Passover in Egypt and all of the powers of Mastema were sent to kill all of the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh to the firstborn of the captive maidservant who was at the millstone and to the cattle. 3And this is the sign which the Lord gave to them in every house where they saw the blood of a year-old lamb upon its doors so that they would not enter into the house to kill, they would pass over so that all who were in the house might be saved because the sign of the blood was on its doors. 4And the host of the Lord did everything which the Lord commanded them. And they passed over all the children of Israel. And the plague did not come upon them to destroy any life from them 48:18. they were requesting vessels and clothing From their neighbors (Exod. 12:35–36). in exchange for the servitude which they subjected them to by force The Israelites did not wrongfully acquire these items; they merely took what was owed them for their years of forced labor.264 48:19. we did not bring the children of Israel from Egypt in their nakedness That is, we did not bring them out of Egypt empty handed, thus confirming the promise in Exod. 3:21. 49:1. Remember the commandment which the Lord commanded you Having narrated in brief the events of the Exodus, the author introduces his review of the festival’s laws; Moses is commanded to go over the laws “concerning the passover [better: the Passover sacrifice, the pesah], that you observe it in its time” (the phrase used in Num. 9:2–3; 28:2; etc.), that is to say, beginning on the 14th of the first month, “so that you might sacrifice it before it becomes evening and [thus] might eat it during the night.” This sentence was intended to be followed immediately by vv. 18–21, which detail what “before it becomes evening” exactly means as well as how the paschal animal is to be slaughtered and cooked and where the festive meal is to be eaten. 49:2–4. All the powers of Mastema were sent to kill all of the firstborn With this verse the Interpolator introduced a long section about how the first Passover was observed in Egypt and other subjects neglected by Jubilees’ author. While the Israelites were enjoying their celebration, Mastema’s forces killed the Egyptian firstborn. This stands in striking contrast to the previous chapter, where Mastema was described as the Egyptians’ ally, and it was God who killed the Egyptian firstborn (Jub. 48:5). This striking divergence is altogether characteristic of the Interpolator, who, unlike the original author, did not like the idea of angels (good or bad!) acting independently; they are merely agents of God’s will, the good ones to do good and the bad ones to work evil, as God orders. (In fact, apart from this verse, the Interpolator never refers to Mastema at all; all

Jubilees 445

whether cattle or men or dogs. 5And there was a very great plague in Egypt. And there was no house in Egypt in which there was no corpse and weeping and lamenting. 6And all of Israel remained eating the flesh of the Passover and drinking wine and praising and blessing and glorifying the Lord the God of their fathers. And they were prepared to depart from the yoke of Egypt and from evil slavery. 7And you, remember this day all of the days of your life and observe it from year to year all the days of your life, once per year on its day according to all of its law and you will not delay (one) day from (its) day or from (one) month to (another) month. 8For it is an eternal decree and engraved upon the heavenly tablets for all of the children of Israel that they might observe it in each and every year in its day once per year in all of their generations. And there is no limit of days because it is ordained forever. 9And (as for) the man who is purified and does not come so that he might observe it on its appointed day to bring a gift which is acceptable before the Lord and to eat and to drink before the Lord on the day of his feast, that man who is purified and nearby shall be uprooted because he did not bring a gift of the Lord in its (appointed) time. That man shall lift up sin upon himself. 10So that the children of Israel will be ones who come and observe Passover on its appointed day on the fourteenth of the first month between the evenings from the third (part) of the day until the third (part) of the night because two parts of the day are given for light and one third for evening. 11This is what the Lord commanded you so that you might observe it between the evenings. other references to him are in passages written by the original author.)265 Furthermore, “all of the powers of Mastema” is a concept unique to this passage, as is “the host of the Lord,” presumably an army of good angels doing “everything which the Lord commanded them” to do. 49:6. remained eating the flesh of the Passover and drinking wine “Flesh of the Passover” is better rendered as “the meat of the paschal sacrifice.” The specification of wine suggests the wine used in the feasts of the Dead Sea Scrolls community (see 1Q28a col.2:18, 20) as well as the later, Rabbinic stipulation of four cups of wine (M. Pes. 10:1). praising and . . . glorifying Reminiscent of the hymns of the Therapeutae (Contempl. Life 80) or the Rabbinic recitation of the Hallel (M. Pes. 10:6–7; T. Pisha 8 states, “The Egyptian Passover required song and subsequent Passovers require song”). 49:7. remember this day all the days of your life An allusion to Deut. 16:3 (“So that you remember the day of your going out of Egypt all the days of your life”). Its evocation here is striking, since this same verse is evoked in the Passover Haggadah as part of what is to be mentioned on Passover eve (although Ben Zoma’s explanation is taken from M. Ber. 1:9, where it has no connection to Passover). All these and the other connections mentioned in this commentary suggest that the Interpolator was familiar with Pharisaic (or proto-Pharisaic) laws and customs, something not evidenced in the original author. you will not delay (one) day from (its) day or from (one) month to (another) month One of the Interpolator’s main themes: see above on 6:32–38. The mention of this possible delay leads to the subject of the “second Passover.” 49:9. And (as for) the man who is purified Numbers 9:6–12 sets forth the provision for a “second Passover” one month after the first, which is available to those “who are defiled by a corpse or are on a long journey” (Num. 9:10) and are thus unable to keep the first Passover. The Interpolator here assumes a knowledge of this law and recapitulates only Num. 9:13, which forbids someone who is not defiled (i.e., “the man who is purified”) from refraining to offer the paschal sacrifice in its proper time.

446 James L. Kugel

12And it is not fitting to sacrifice it during any time of light except during the time of the border of evening. And they shall eat it during the time of evening until a third of the night. And what is left of all its flesh from the third of the night and beyond, they shall burn with fire. 13And it is not fitting that they should boil it in water. And they shall not eat it raw but roasted in the fire, cooked with care, its head with its inner organs and with its feet. They shall roast it in fire without breaking any of its bones within it because no bone of the children of Israel will be broken. 14Therefore the Lord commanded the children of Israel to observe the Passover on its appointed day. And it is not fitting to break any bone from it because it is the day of the feast and it is the day of the command. And there is no passing over in it (one) day from (its) day or from month (to) month because it shall be observed on the day of the feast. 15And you command the children of Israel to observe the Passover in their days in every year, once per year, on its appointed day. And it will come as an acceptable memorial from before the Lord. And the plague will not come to kill or to smite during that year when they have observed the Passover in its (appointed) time in all (respects) according to His command. 16And it is not fitting to eat it outside of the sanctuary of the Lord, but facing the sanctuary of the Lord. And all the people of the congregation of Israel will observe it in its (appointed) time. 17And all the men who come on its day will eat it in the sanctuary of your God before the Lord, whoever is 49:10. on its appointed day, on the fourteenth of the first month between the evenings Exod. 12:6; Num 9:3, 5. from the third (part) of the day until the third (part) of the night That is, the period covering the slaughter of the animal until the end of the feast. The Interpolator goes on to explain: 49:12. it is not fitting to sacrifice it during any time of light except during the time of the border of evening That is, the darkening part of the day. The Interpolator’s position is that the animal may not be sacrificed until the last third of the day, which sounds like a polemic against the Mishnaic dictum (M. Pes. 5:3) that the animal may be sacrificed anytime after midday. A position similar to the Interpolator’s seems to be attributed to “ben Bathyra” in Mek. R. Ish.: “Make [one] evening for its slaughter and make [one] evening for its eating.” 266 And they shall eat it . . . until a third of the night This runs counter to Exod. 12:10, which says “until morning”; the Mishnah sets midnight as the stopping point (M. Pes. 10:9; M. Zeb. 5:8; T. Pisha 5:13). 49:13 And they shall not eat it raw, but roasted in the fire, cooked with care267 This alludes to 2 Chron. 35:13, “boiled/cooked in fire,” which blends the language of Exod. 12:8 (“roasted in fire”) with that of Deut. 16:7 (“boiled/cooked”). because no bone of the children of Israel will be broken Cf. NT John 19:33–36. 49:14. And there is no passing over in it (one) day from (its) day This was perhaps a play on the word pasah—see also above on 15:25–34 and on 49:7. 49:16–17. it is not fitting to eat it outside of the sanctuary of the Lord The sacrifice must be eaten, according to Deut. 16:5–7, “in the place that the Lord your God will choose,” that is, the Jerusalem Temple. facing Better: next to (Lat. secus, probably representing Heb. etzel, that is to say, in the courtyard next to).

Jubilees 447

twenty years or older, because thus it is written and decreed that they shall eat it in the sanctuary of the Lord. 18And whenever the children of Israel enter into the land which they will possess, into the land of Canaan, they will set up the tabernacle of the Lord in the midst of the land, in one of their tribes, until the sanctuary of the Lord is built upon the land. And it will come to pass when they come and observe the Passover, in the midst of the tabernacle of the Lord that they will sacrifice it before the Lord from year to year. 19And in the days when a house is built in the name of the Lord in the land of their inheritance, they shall go there and they shall sacrifice the Passover at evening when the sun is setting on the third (part) of the day. 20And they shall offer up its blood on the threshold of the altar. And its fat they shall place on the fire which is above the altar. And they shall eat its flesh cooked in fire within the court of the house which is sanctified in the name of the Lord. 21And they shall not be able to observe the Passover in their cities or in any district except before the tabernacle of the Lord or before His house in which His name dwells. And let them not stray from after the Lord. 22And you, Moses, command the children of Israel so that they shall keep the ordinance of the Passover just as it was commanded to you so that you might relate to them its annual (occurrence) each year, both its period of days and the feast of unleavened bread so that they might eat unleavened bread for seven days so that they might observe its feast, and so that they might bring its gift, day by day, during those seven days to rejoice before the Lord upon the altar of your God. 23For this feast you observed with nervousness when you went out from Egypt until you entered into the wilderness of Sur because you completed it on the shore of the sea. 49:17. because thus it is written and decreed that they shall eat it in the sanctuary of the Lord The Interpolator’s insistence on this point appears to be polemical, since this too is in conflict with Rabbinic halakhah: the Mishnah (Makkot 3:3) permits the Passover sacrifice to be eaten anywhere within the city of Jerusalem: cf. m. Pesahim 7:9, 12. 49:18–21. whenever the children of Israel enter into the land Here the original author’s text resumes where it left off at the end of chapter 48.268 He thus continues by saying that after the entry into the land of Canaan, the Israelites are to set up the tabernacle of the Lord. It will serve temporarily, he says, as the place for observing Passover, until a house is built in the name of the Lord, that is, the Jerusalem Temple. Jubilees’ author then gives rules that will obtain on Passover in that sanctuary. His rules are less detailed than the Interpolator’s, but basically the same: the proper time for the Passover sacrifice is on the third part of the day, after which its flesh is cooked in fire, and the meal is to be eaten within the court of the house, that is, the courtyard of the sanctuary—unaware that these things will have already appeared in the Interpolator’s insertion.269 49:22–23. so that they might eat unleavened bread at this point, the Interpolator returns with a brief insertion covering something omitted entirely in the original author’s work: “the feast of unleavened bread.” It is to be celebrated for “seven days to rejoice before the Lord.” But if it is in commemoration of the fact that the Israelites prepared their bread “with nervousness [better: hastily] when you went out from Egypt,” why should it last for seven days? The Interpolator’s answer: it stretched from the beginning of the Exodus “until you entered into the wilderness of Sur” after having crossed the Red Sea. Sur Shur in Exod. 15:22.

448 James L. Kugel

The Laws Pertaining to the Sabbath 50:1And after this law I made you know the days of the Sabbaths in the wilderness of Sin which is

between Elim and Sinai. 2And I also related to you the Sabbaths of the land on Mount Sinai. And the years of jubilee in the Sabbaths of years I related to you. But its year I have not related to you until you enter into the land which you will possess. 3And the land will keep its Sabbaths when they dwell upon it. And they will know the year of jubilee. 4On account of this I ordained for you the weeks of years, and the years, and the jubilees (as) fortynine jubilees from the days of Adam until this day and one week and two years. And they are still forty further years to learn the commands of the Lord until they cross over the shore of the land of Canaan, crossing over the Jordan to its western side. 5And jubilees will pass until Israel is purified from all the sin of fornication, and defilement, and uncleanness, and sin and error. And they will dwell in confidence in all the land. And then it will not have any Satan or any evil (one). And the land will be purified from that time and forever. 50:1–3. And after this law I made you know the days of the Sabbaths in the wilderness of Sin The original author’s account resumes where it left off in 49:21. The angel of the Presence notes that Moses and the Israelites were already told about observance of the Sabbath proper “in the wilderness of Sin” before arriving at Mount Sinai, specifically, the prohibition of gathering manna on the Sabbath (Exod. 16:22–30). 50:2. I also related to you the Sabbaths of the land That is, how the land is to lie fallow once every seven years (Lev. 25:2–7), and “the years of jubilee” (Lev. 25:8–12). But its year I have not related to you “I” is the angel of the Presence, who has presumably not related the full details of the “Sabbaths of the land,” including the remission of debts. This will be related in Deut. 15:1–6, since those details will not be relevant “until you enter into the land which you will possess.” 50:4–5. On account of this That is, in consideration of the units of seven days and seven years and seven-times-seven years (a jubilee), the angel of the Presence, speaking for God, says that He has arranged history so that “from the days of Adam” to this moment on Mount Sinai consists of “forty-nine jubilees [plus] one week and two years,” that is, another nine years. There are “still forty further years” of wanderings in the wilderness before Israel can enter the land of Canaan. (Those 40 years, Jubilees implies, are not punishment for the sin of the cowardly spies [Num. 13:1–14:24], but are for “learn[ing] the commands of the Lord” before entering the Promised Land.) Adding 49 jubilees to those 40 years and the 7 + 2 years already mentioned, this means that Israel will cross the Jordan into its land exactly 50 jubilees after the creation of Adam. There could be no clearer sign, Jubilees’ author implies, that all human history follows a pattern meticulously arranged by God. Therefore, however chaotic Israel’s subsequent history may sometimes seem, it too is following a divinely ordered pattern: the Babylonian exile, the subsequent periods of Persian and Ptolemaic rule—these are part of the many “jubilees [that] will pass [by] until Israel is purified from all the sin of fornication, and defilement, and uncleanness, and sin and error.” But that day will eventually arrive, and then Israel “will dwell in confidence in all the land” (Deut. 33:28).

Jubilees 449

6And behold the commandment of the Sabbaths I have written for you and all of the judgments of its law. 7Six days you will work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. You shall not do any work in it, you, or your children, or your manservant or your maidservant, or any of your cattle or the stranger who is with you. 8And let the man who does anything on it die. Every man who will profane this day, who will lie with his wife, and whoever will discuss a matter that he will do on it so that he might make on it a journey for any buying or selling, and whoever draws water on it, which was not prepared for him on the sixth day, and whoever lifts up anything that he will carry to take out of his tent or from his house, let him die. 9You shall not do any work upon the day of the Sabbath except what you prepared for yourself on the sixth day to eat and to drink and to rest and to observe a Sabbath from all work of that day and to bless the Lord your God who gave to you the day of festival and the holy day. And a day of the holy kingdom for all Israel is this day among their days always. 10For great is the honor which the Lord gave to Israel to eat and to drink and to be satisfied on this day of festival and to rest in it from all work of the occupations of the children of men except to offer incense and to bring gifts and sacrifices before the Lord for the days and the Sabbaths. 11This work alone shall be done on the day of the Sabbath in the sanctuary of the Lord your God so that they might atone for Israel (with) continual gift day by day for an acceptable memorial before the Lord. And so that He might accept them forever, day by day, just as He commanded you. 50:6–13. And behold the commandments of the Sabbaths The preceding lines sound like they should mark the end of the book—and that seems to have been their original role. But apparently a very late editor or copyist (not the Interpolator) inserted the laws of vv. 6–13—he put them here because the preceding section discusses the “Sabbaths of the land,” but in this section, “Sabbath” retains its more usual meaning, the seventh day of the week. This verbal link seemed sufficient to justify the insertion, but these verses are really intended to reword and supplement the Sabbath laws already presented by the Interpolator in Jub. 2:25–33. 50:8. Every man who will profane this day The further Sabbath prohibitions cover anyone (1) “who will lie with his wife” on the Sabbath; (2) who “will discuss a matter [better: who speaks a word about something] that he will do [i.e., something he intends to undertake after the Sabbath] on it” (i.e., discusses it on the Sabbath itself—this is based on the prohibition of “speaking a word” in Isa. 58:13), for example, discussing on the Sabbath a journey he is to set out on, or discussing any buying or selling he intends to do; (3) or who draws water on the Sabbath “which was not prepared for him on the sixth day”; (4) or who “lifts up anything that he will carry to take out of his tent or . . . his house.” (Of these four, items 3 and 4 were already mentioned in Jub. 2:29–30.) 50:9. to eat and to drink and to rest On the positive side, the Sabbath is a time for enjoyment and refraining “from all work of [on] that day and to bless the Lord your God” (cf. Jub. 2:21). That it is a “day of the holy kingdom” sounds a bit like the Rabbinic phrase “kingdom of heaven,” which refers to God’s sole mastery over all creation;270 presumably it is this divine mastery that is enacted every Sabbath. 50:10. to offer incense That is, to offer incense in the Temple. This reflects Exod. 30:8, as well as to “bring gifts and sacrifices before the Lord for the days” (i.e., the twice-daily tamid sacrifice; Num. 28:3–4) “and the Sabbaths,” that is, the temple offerings given regularly every Sabbath (Num. 28:9).

450 James L. Kugel

12And (as for) any man who does work on it, or who goes on a journey, or who plows a field either at home or any (other) place, or who kindles a fire, or who rides on any animal, or who travels the sea in a boat, and any man who slaughters or kills anything, or who slashes the throat of cattle or bird, or who snares any beast or bird or fish, or who fasts or makes war on the day of the Sabbath, 13let the man who does any of these on the day of the Sabbath die so that the children of Israel might keep the Sabbath according to the commands of the Sabbaths of the land just as it was written in the tablets which He placed in my hands so that I might write for you the law of each time and according to each division of its days. The Account of the Division of Days Is Finished Here. 50:12. And (as for) any man who does work on it A further set of prohibitions; anyone who (5) goes on a journey; (6) plows a field; (7) kindles a fire; (8) rides on any animal; (9) travels the sea in a boat; (10) slaughters or kills anything, including even (11) slitting the throat of cattle (better: a domestic animal) or bird in preparation for eating it on the Sabbath; (12) catches either a wild animal, beast or bird or fish; (13) who fasts or (14) makes war—anyone who does any of these on the Sabbath is subject to the death penalty. While some of these items are mentioned in the Torah’s Sabbath laws, none was mentioned in Jub. 2:25–33. 50:13. according to the commands of the Sabbaths of the land All the foregoing things, the writer of this passage adds, are actually in keeping with the commandments for the Sabbaths of the land—an extremely awkward attempt to return to the subject that preceded his insertion. With this, rather abruptly, the book ends.

Notes 1. It is also cited in the Damascus Document (col. 16:3–4), and it was used extensively by the authors of the ALD and the Genesis Apocryphon. 2. G.W.E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 2005), 72–73, probably speaks for the majority of scholars in assigning the book to “the early 160s,” although I feel there is no justification for not dating it at least two or three decades earlier. 3. Individual verses from Jubilees were cited in an anonymous “Syriac chronicle,” suggesting that the author quoted from an otherwise unknown Syriac version of the work. 4. In the 1720s Johann Fabricius gathered what he could of Jubilees from various later citations of it in Greek and Latin writings—but these provided no more than a series of snapshots. 5. His accompanying translation, The Book of Jubilees: A Translation, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 511, Scriptores Aethiopic 88 (Louvain: Peeters, 1989), is hereafter referred to by the siglum: VdK. While the present volume reprints the excellent translation of O. Wintermute, I have frequently noted differences between it and VdK in a footnote. 6. This is clear from the many verses in which the Ethiopic “testify” is a mistranslation of “warn,” Heb. he’id: 4:24, 6:38, 7:32, 30:17, and so forth. Particularly telling is Jub. 4:18: “He [Enoch] was the first to write a testimony [te‘udah]. He testified to [presumably, he’id, i.e., “warned”] mankind of the generations of the earth.” It is clear from this that what a te‘udah does is to warn. 7. This was the theme of the “Four Kingdoms” made famous by the book of Daniel, but with deeper roots and a long afterlife. Perhaps related are the four periods from the destruction of Jerusalem to the end of time in 1 Enoch 89–90. 8. Also reflected in Dan. 9:24–27, where seven weeks of 70 years equals 490 years. 9. See below on 1:29, 4:17–19.

Jubilees 451

10. Other examples of this phenomenon include our current 1 Enoch, the Apocalypse of Abraham, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, 4 Baruch, the “Ladder of Jacob,” as well as numerous instances within the biblical canon. 11. See as well below at 3:31. 12. The distinct “language of the tablets” was first identified as such by L. Ravid, “The Special Terminology of the Heavenly Tablets in the Book of Jubilees,” Tarbiz 68 (1999): 463–71; the contradictions between the “heavenly tablets” passages and surrounding narrative were highlighted in M. Segal, The Book of Jubilees: Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology, and Theology (Leiden: Brill, 2007) and J. Kugel, “The Interpolations in the Book of Jubilees,” RevQ 24 (2009): 215–72. 13. The idea of tablets or a book kept in heaven is very ancient, going back to early Mesopotamian writings; it is found here and there in the Bible and in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha; see S. Paul, “The Heavenly Tablets and the Book of Life,” JANES 5 (1973): 345–54. 14. It might be tempting to think of the Interpolator, who holds that all things had been written in advance by God on the heavenly tablets, as a believer in predestination; but he does not seem to maintain such a stance consistently or even to have been particularly interested in predestination per se. Rather his aim was to undo the harm created by the original author’s implication that some of the Torah’s laws were based on purely human events or on decisions that had been arrived at by the patriarchs on their own. So he adopted the heavenly tablets—along with their inevitable association with predestination—in order to claim that God’s laws had already been decided and recorded on high. 15. See further below on 6:23–29. 16. In the commentary that follows, I have tried to keep references to secondary literature to a bare minimum; a somewhat fuller set of references to recent scholarship is available in my A Walk through Jubilees (Leiden: Brill, 2012). The only exception is my frequent reference to an earlier study of mine, Traditions of the Bible (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998), which I have quite consciously used as a shorthand reference for those interested in examining interpretive traditions found elsewhere in Second Temple literature that parallel those found in Jubilees. 17. This phrase, if understood as “all the years of the world,” cannot be referring to the book of Jubilees, whose history stops with events in the book of Exodus. Rather, the Hebrew original (apparently shenot olam) ought to be compared to Ps. 77:6, “My thoughts turn to days of old, to years long past [shenot olamim],” or Deut. 32:7, “Remember days of old [yemot olam], consider the years of ages past.” 18. VanderKam’s edition of the Eth text reads “as he related to Moses,” and this is apparently a superior reading. But even “he related” is not quite right, since this is actually the third-person singular “impersonal”: see E. Kautzsch and A. E. Cowley, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar (Oxford: Clarendon, 1910), 144.2 (p. 459) and should thus be translated as a passive verb, “it was related.” The title thus far has not mentioned any personal “he” who could be the subject of this clause, neither God nor the angel of the Presence. 19. This is the date of the Festival of Firstfruits, and, quite apart from that, the 15th of any month is a significant day; see below on 17:15–16; 18:17–19. 20. This led to the claim of certain “heretics” that Moses received only these Ten Commandments from God. See on this J. Kugel, Traditions of the Bible (hereafter: Traditions) (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998), 638–40, 677–79. 21. The Ethiopic text has the causative form, “to lead astray” (rendered here as “to instigate transgression of the covenant”), but this is apparently an error; see VdK, 2n. 22. Gen. 12:7; 15:18; 24:7; 26:4; etc. 23. This reconstruction is presented by Eibert Tigchelaar, “A Cave 4 Fragment of Divrei Mosheh (4QDM) and the Text of 1Q22 1:7–10 and Jubilees 1:9, 14,” DSD 12 (2005): 302–11. 24. See Japhet, Ideology of Book of Chronicles, 183–91. 25. On the text of 1:15: VdK, 4n. Here is another pastiche of biblical verses: Deut. 6:5, 30:3; 2 Chron. 15:2; Jer. 29:13; Ps. 119:165; Isa. 61:3; Jer. 33:15; Deut. 30:1, 28:13; Gen. 17:8; Lev. 26:44; Exod. 29:46. 26. E.g., Hosea. 10:1; Ps. 80:9; Isa. 5:7; 60:21; 61:3; Jer. 23:5; 33:15; also 1 En. 10:3, 84:6; and Jub. 16:26; 21:24; 36:6. 27. Also, Deut. 31:27; Lev. 26:40; Deut. 10:16; Exod. 25:15; Ps. 63:9; Jer. 31:8; Jer. 10:10; Deut. 14:1. 28. For this tripartite division of time, with aharon as the middle term, see Eccles. 1:11. 29. Some have concluded that in referring to “what is yet to come,” Jubilees is talking about events in the eschatological future, but this appears unlikely. When God mentions the time in which “I shall descend

452 James L. Kugel

30. 31.

32. 33. 34.

35. 36.

37. 38.

39. 40. 41.

42. 43. 44.

45. 46. 47.

and dwell with them,” He seems to refer to the time of the completion of the desert sanctuary (the Tabernacle), when God is indeed to descend and dwell in Israel’s midst (Exod. 25:8). God’s “return” to Israel after the construction of the Tabernacle is a Rabbinic theme as well: Num. Rab. 13:2 and parallels. See VdK, 6n. Although God does not specifically promise in Exod. 25:8 that He will dwell in their midst “forever and ever,” this addition is entirely in keeping with the ideology of Jubilees’ author and the basic claim of his book (see the introductory comments). Once the desert sanctuary is complete, “the Lord will appear in the sight of all” (as He did in Lev. 9:23, at the inauguration of the Tabernacle) and God’s return to dwell among them eternally will be realized. With this appearance “everyone will know that I am the God of Israel,” and after the Tabernacle is replaced by a permanent temple in Jerusalem, God will be “the king upon Mount Zion forever and ever.” It is then, after the building of the Jerusalem Temple, that “Zion and Jerusalem will be[come] holy.” Surely they became holy in biblical, not eschatological, times (Isa. 11:9; 27:13; 48:2; 52:1; Jer. 31:23; Ezek. 20:40; Zech. 8:3; Ps. 2:6; Neh. 11:1; etc.). Traditions, 736. See on this Segal, Jubilees, 285–87, and sources cited there. This is based on frag. 2 of 4Q217, although, as with frag. 1, it is not clear if this fragment is an exact quote from Jubilees or merely a rough citation thereof. However, its mention of Jerusalem in line 4 would accord well with a similar mention in Jub. 1:29; see also below on 4:26. See Letter of Aristeas, 301–7; Moses 2:31–44; m. Abot 5:6; Mekhilta deR. Y. Wayyissa’ 5; GenRab 10:9; b.; Abot deR. Natan B 37 b. Meg. 9a. The further specification “and thunder and the lightning” is not found in 4Q216 5:7–8. Its presence in the Ethiopic text seems to have arisen from a misunderstanding of the original mention of the Heb. kolot (which on its own can mean “thunder”); however, this was translated into Greek as “sounds” [here: “resoundings”]; that is probably how it acquired the gloss “of thunder and lightning.” See Traditions,47–48, 70–75. The Jubilees interpretation seems echoed in 11Q5 Hymn to the Creator; also Apoc. Ab. 17:18. The phrase “and we [angels] blessed Him” is also paralleled in 11Q5 Hymn to the Creator, where the point of this remark is made explicit, “since He showed them what they had not known,” that is, the angels were mere spectators and not active participants. Gen. 2:8; 4:16; 2 Kings 19:12 [= Isa. 37:12]; Ezek. 27:23; 28:13; Amos 1:5; etc. Further: Traditions, 110–11. A “month” was simply an arbitrary 30-day unit entirely independent of the phases of the moon. The Interpolator further specifies that the official year contains exactly 364 days—it is not clear what the original author thought. 4Q216 treats this as third person: “And He chose”; though perhaps an alef was inadvertently omitted: “And I chose.” God thus conceived of this people before actually bringing it into existence, much as He conceived of light on the first day, long before creating the sun and the moon and the stars. Further: Traditions, 90–91. On the basis of the parallel texts in Epiphanius, Syncellus, and Cedrenus, R. H. Charles suggested that there is a lacuna between vv. 22 and 23: this passage ought to have mentioned the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet and the 22 books of the Hebrew Bible. See R.H. Charles, The Book of Jubilees or The Little Genesis (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1902), 18. But Jubilees’ point is rather different: since there were exactly 22 acts of creation during the six days, this proves that God was already calculating the creation of Jacob 22 generations after Adam. Note that Midrash Tadshe, a minor midrashic composition that apparently borrowed heavily from Jubilees, does make this connection, asserting that the 22 things created in the first week “correspond to the 22 letters of the alphabet and the generations from Adam until the arrival of Jacob” (“Midrash Tadshe,” in A. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch, vol. 3, reprinted Wahrmann Books [ Jerusalem, 1967] 169). See further on Jub. 8:1. A Dead Sea Scrolls manuscript (4Q216 7:16) has: “This one and that one were made together for holiness [and blessing].” They are not the work of the Interpolator, bearing none of his “signature” phrases; see the introductory comments and below on 3:9–14. VdK: “among.”

Jubilees 453

48. That Eden was itself a templelike sanctuary was obvious to all ancient readers: God was, after all, present there, “walking about” (Gen. 3:8). This, along with other biblical verses, led to the widely disseminated tradition reflected here. 49. The same idea, borrowed from Jubilees here, is attested in 4Q265; further: Traditions, 108–10. Midrash Tadshe has a somewhat different rationale: “therefore a woman who gives birth to a male enters the sanctuary after 40 days, which is the time it takes for the fetus to be formed for a male, but [after] 80 days for a female, which is the time it takes for the formation of a female [fetus].” (Midrash Tadshe, 178). For the distinction between the time required for the formation of a male versus a female fetus, see also M. Nid. 3:7. 50. On the relationship between the original author’s account of Adam and Eve’s creation and the Interpolator’s insertion, see my “Interpolations in the Book of Jubilees,” 215–72. 51. A similar reckoning with this problem is found in Avot R. Nat. 1 (Schechter ed. p. 4), which first has Eve observing the snake eating the fruit—which would explain why she first saw that it was “good for eating”—and only later looking at the remaining fruit in the tree and noticing that it was “a delight to the eyes.” 52. See L. Prijs, Juedische Tradition in der Septuaginta (Leiden: Brill, 1948), 57. 53. Further: Traditions, 98–100. 54. Nakedness played a central part in the Greek institution of the gymnasium (from Gk. gumnos, “naked”) as well as in the depiction of the human body in Greek painting and statuary. 55. Jubilees’ original author was also troubled by the matter of public nudity, but he preferred to include it in an entirely different part of his book: Noah’s words of warning to his sons; see below on Jub. 7:20. 56. For this sense of al ken, see Gen. 10:9, Num. 21:14, and Num. 21:27; in these three cases, al ken does not mean “for this reason” or even “as a result of this,” but “in keeping with this,” where the text then cites another source to back up the previous assertion; perhaps the same nuance of “in keeping with this” also underlies Jer. 31:3 and Ps. 1:5. 57. Further: Traditions, 148–49, 158. 58. Like most interpreters, ancient and modern, he probably could not make sense of the Hebrew of Gen. 4:7, and he certainly was troubled by God’s question to Cain, “Where is your brother Abel?” (Gen. 4:9), since the question seemed to imply that God did not know. That is why he omitted both entirely. Moreover, if there was an unbroken chain of priests (above on 3:27), one per generation, why were Cain and Abel offering sacrifices while their priest-father Adam was still alive? 59. Note that the somewhat ambiguous Lev. 19:15, “Do not stand upon the blood of your fellow,” was also interpreted in other Second Temple period sources as a prohibition on withholding relevant testimony. See Sifra, ad loc. 60. LXX reads “with trickery,” “craftily.” 61. Epiphanius of Salamis (ca. 320–403) noted in his Adversus Haereses 39:7 that while in the earliest generations of humanity marriages took place between sisters and brothers, later on men “chose their mates from [the daughters] of their fathers’ brothers,” apparently basing himself on the account of marriages here in Jubilees. 62. In English, “watch” used to mean “stay awake,” as in “night watchman” or a sailor’s “watch”—hence the traditional English translation, “the watchers.” On these Watchers, see Traditions 76–77. 63. See Septuagint ad loc. and Traditions, 173–78, 191–94. 64. On the textual problem see VdK, 28–29n. Eden’s location in the east derives from Gen. 2:8, based on understanding mi-kedem, usually translated as “of old,” as “from the east.” On Eden’s location on earth, sometimes far to the east, see Traditions, 103–5, 139–41; cf. Jub. 8:21–23. 65. Jubilees adds that the earth will be sanctified from all sin, where “sanctified” (tekudash) has its late biblical Heb. and mHeb. sense of “cleansed”; the same sense of cleansing may be intended in the “sanctification of the earth” just preceding. 66. Heb. te‘udah here is not the word used elsewhere by Jubilees for “warning,” but rather a homonym derived from a different root, ya’ad, which had the meaning of “fixed time.” For this usage at Qumran, see 1QM War Scroll 14:13; 1QS Community Rule 1:9, 3:10; and E. Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, HSS 29 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 115. 67. Further: Traditions, 94–95. 68. Traditions, 167; and James Kugel, In Potiphar’s House (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990), 159–72.

454 James L. Kugel

69. The identification of these offspring, referred to as Nephilim in Gen. 6:4, as “giants” derives from an entirely separate biblical passage, Num. 13:32–33, wherein some beings “of great stature” are also called Nephilim. Putting these two passages together, ancient interpreters understood the Nephilim in Gen. 6:4 likewise to be of great stature: the giants who resulted from the mating of angels with humans. The LXX thus translates the word nephilim in Gen. 6:4 as “giants.” 70. See Traditions, 183–85, 208, 212–16. 71. Note that 4Q252 Genesis Commentary 1 reads yadur, unambiguously “dwell”; it is, however, unclear if this represents a different textual tradition of Gen. 6:3 or a deliberate, interpretive alteration. 72. Cf. 1 En. 10:16–21: “Destroy all perversity from the face of the earth, and let every wicked deed be gone . . . Then all the earth will be tilled in righteousness . . . And all the sons of men will become righteous, and all the peoples will worship Me.” 73. The Interpolator’s explanation of the Day of Atonement is thus strikingly different from that of the original author, who connects it with the story of Joseph (Jub. 34:18–19). There, the Day of Atonement is a day of mourning, and repentance plays no part in it. Further: Traditions, 750–52, 762–64. 74. See Charles, Book of Jubilees, 47n, 59n. 75. This perhaps should be omitted since the kid of a goat was mentioned just before. 76. This passage also appears in almost the same form in 1QGenAp. 10:17, save that there the provision concerning salt (Lev. 2:13) is put in the climactic position. 77. Note that this is a combination of Gen. 9:4 and Lev. 17:11. Blood was certainly an important issue for the original author. He frequently mentions the role of blood in sacrificial worship (Jub. 6:2; 7:4, 30–32; 14:11; 21:7), including the prohibition of consuming the blood of a sacrificial animal (see Lev. 3:17; 17:10, 12; Deut. 12:16, 23–25) and the related requirement of covering the animal’s blood after its slaughter (see Lev. 17:11–14; 19:26; and Deut. 12:15–16, 20–26). He alludes to these in Jub. 6:7–9; 7:26–32; and 21:6, 17–18. Another frequent theme of his is the horror of shedding human blood (Jub. 4:4, 6:7; 7:24–29, 32–33; 11:2, 5; 21:19–20; 23:21–33). But blood was important to the Interpolator as well, in particular the twin matters of not consuming sacrificial blood and covering it after slaughter. These issues were apparently the subject of sharp sectarian disagreement in Second Temple times, and this may explain their particular importance to the Interpolator. So the Interpolator saw in the original author’s account of Noah’s sacrifice after the Flood—including God’s stern warning to Noah “not to eat animate beings with their spirit, with the blood” (Jub. 6:7; cf. Gen. 9:4)—an opportunity to elaborate on this subject as well as on the meaning of the (quite unrelated) festival of Shavuot. 78. This was first pointed out by S. Zeitlin, The Book of Jubilees: Its Character and Its Significance (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1939), 6. 79. Although, like any other regular burnt offering, it required the dashing of the blood on the altar—Lev. 1:5. 80. VdK: “for themselves,” i.e., on their own behalf. 81. This phrase is also found in 2:26, 6:13, 6:20, 6:32, 15:28, 28:7, 30:11, 33:13, 41:26, 49:15, 49:22—all of them in insertions of the Interpolator. 82. Also known as the Festival of Firstfruits (i.e., the firstfruits of the wheat harvest: see Exod. 23:16; 34:22; Lev. 23:17; Num. 28:26; etc.). 83. Eventually, the counting of the seven weeks came to be connected by various Jewish groups to the festival of Passover: the phrase “from the day after the Sabbath” (Lev. 23:15) came to be interpreted either as the day after the first day of Passover (Rabbinic Judaism), or the day after the Sabbath that falls within Passover, or the day after the first Sabbath after Passover. However, a literal reading of Lev. 23:15 would suggest that the start of the counting was quite independent of Passover and was determined strictly on the basis of the ripening of the barley crop. 84. See previous note and also J. Milgrom, Leviticus, Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 2040. 85. But if so, then why does the Pentateuch specifically mention counting seven weeks (Lev. 23:15 and Deut. 16:9)? I suspect that the Interpolator’s answer might have been that this instruction was given as an aidemémoire (“You shall count for yourselves,” it says in both these passages) but that it had nothing to do with the essence of the festival. For the Interpolator, the Festival of Oaths never had an exact date: it was simply to be celebrated sometime in the third month. Only in its combined form with Firstfruits did it come to follow Abraham’s precedent and be celebrated in “the middle of the month”—like the other two pilgrimage festivals.

Jubilees 455

86. Wintermute’s translation: “so that you might observe it in each of its appointed times,” reflects the Ethiopic phrase “at each of its times”—in this verse, no doubt a mistake for be-mo'ado, “at its proper time.” 87. The Interpolator made one small but telling error in all this. Although he claimed that the combination of the two festivals took place with Moses on Mount Sinai, he failed to notice that, long before Moses, the two supposedly still-separate festivals had been mentioned in the same breath by Jubilees’ original author, in the story of Abraham. Just before Abraham’s death, according to the original author, Isaac and Ishmael “came from the Well of the Oath [Be’er Sheva] to their father Abraham to celebrate the Feast of Weeks—this is the Festival of the Firstfruits of the harvest” (Jub. 22:1). The original author mentions both names together because, after all, both names appear in the Torah—and he knows nothing of “Weeks” and “Firstfruits” being two different festivals that were combined on Mount Sinai! Indeed, as this sentence makes clear, for him—as for the Pentateuch—“Weeks” and “Firstfruits” are simply two names for the same agricultural festival, one that has nothing to do with the prohibition of consuming blood. 88. It is not clear whether these “first” days were counted outside each month’s 30-day structure or whether the day preceding them was. Note that this is somewhat similar to the calendrical system of 1 En. 72–82 as well as that evidenced in some of the Dead Sea Scrolls; the systems are not, however, identical. 89. The Torah had said that the floodwaters prevailed from the 17th of the second month to the 17th of the seventh month; counting the one extramensual day between the third and fourth months, that would have made for 151 days, not 150—see above on 5:27. 90. For this meaning of te‘udah, see E. Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 115. 91. These same details appear in 1QGenAp 12—not surprising, since that text is dependent on Jubilees in many other matters. But see below on 7:35–36. 92. Traditions, 223. 93. Note that “bless the One who had created them” is reminiscent of the Rabbinic prohibition in the Noahide laws of cursing [with] the name of God, a practice called euphemistically “blessing [with] the Name.” 94. Some ancient interpreters, believing that God ought to have given all of humanity some more complete legal framework, expanded the list of things enjoined on all people in Gen. 9:4–6; see Sifra, Aharei Mot; B. Yoma 67b; also NT, Acts 15:19; Did. 3:1–6. In Rabbinic Judaism, the list eventually became the seven Noahide Laws: see T. Avod. Zar. 8:4; B. Sanh. 56a; see on these Traditions, 224–26. (The Jubilees list could also be seven if “fornication and pollution,” so often mentioned in tandem in Jubilees, is taken as a single prohibition.) 95. Lev. 3:17; 7:26–27; 17:10, 12; Deut. 12:16, 23–25. 96. 1 En. 7:1, 5; 9:1, 9; 86:4; 88:2. 97. Lev. 3:17; 7:26–27; 17:10, 12; Deut. 12:16, 23–25. 98. This is the practice as stated in the Dead Sea Scrolls (4Q394 4QMMT frag. 8 col. 4:12–13; Temple Scroll 60:3–4), and it is what is stated clearly here as well. [The procedure outlined in Jub. 7:1–3 and Gen. Ap 12:13–15 could be accommodated to that of the Dead Sea Scrolls texts mentioned if Noah were not a priest (and if, in the previous year, the fruit had indeed been given to some priest or other). But according to both Jubilees and Genesis Apocryphon, Noah was a priest in every respect—he was the one who built the altar after the flood and it was he who, acting as a priest, offered a sacrifice on it (Jub. 6:1–3). By all rights, therefore, what is described in Jub. 7:1–3 should have occurred in the fourth year, not the fifth. It may be that the author of Genesis Apocryphon, aware of the problem, sought subtly to change the chronology as stated in Jubilees by saying that Noah’s sacrifice was made “in the fifth year after the flood.” In Jubilees it is the fifth year in the life of the tree; but if Genesis Apocryphon held that some considerable time elapsed between the end of the flood and the planting of the vine, then presumably Noah-the-priest’s consumption of the wine could still have taken place in the fourth year after the vine’s planting, the fifth year after the flood. 99. As for Enoch as the initiator of this practice, note that the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs frequently refer to the “writings of Enoch” as containing information about the future, sometimes in regard to future violations of laws: T. Sim. 5:4, T. Levi 10:5, 14:1; T. Jud. 18:1; T. Dan 5:6; T. Naph. 4:1; T. Benj. 9:1. 100. Jubilees had said (2:2:23) that “there were twenty-two leaders of humanity from Adam until [ Jacob].” Rabbinic tradition holds that there were 10 generations from Adam to Noah and 10 more from Noah to Abraham (M. Avot 5:2); with Isaac and Jacob, that makes 22. Note that the first 10 start with Adam and

456 James L. Kugel

include Noah, whereas the second 10 start with Shem, Noah’s son, and go to Abraham (see also 1 Chron. 1:1–28)—in other words, there are a total of 22 people starting with Adam and ending with Jacob. The addition of Cainan might thus seem to throw the calculation off. But one may still reach the number 22 by counting the generations starting after Adam (just as the second 10 in M. Avot start after Noah), arguing that the distance separating Adam from Jacob is 22 generations. It thus seems possible that the original text of Jubilees may have included Cainan, although it is equally possible that the original text was “corrected” to conform to the LXX, following the rationale that the counting is to begin after Adam. 101. There apparently existed an independent tradition also holding that there were two divisions of the earth, the first before, and the second after, the tower of Babel incident. Such a tradition may underlie the narrative in Pseudo-Philo’s Book of Biblical Antiquities, which notes that when “Noah was still alive,” his previously dispersed descendants “all gathered together in one place and lived in accord,” an apparent evocation of Gen. 11:1 and the tower of Babel narrative (L.A.B. 5:2; cf. 6:1, “Then all those who had been separated and were inhabiting the earth gathered and dwelt together”). Since the tower narrative ends with people being “scattered over the face of the whole earth” (Gen. 11:9), that scattering may not have followed their earlier dispersion in the time of Peleg, but may be some new division supervised by God. Jubilees’ author, however, did not endorse precisely this scenario since, despite his vague dating of the redivision (“at the beginning of the thirty-third jubilee,” Jub. 8:10), he recounts Noah’s death (10:15) before the tower of Babel story. On other chronological issues in this section, see Segal, Jubilees, 127–30. 102. A great deal has been written concerning the world map underlying Jubilees and its differences from other world maps; see P.S. Alexander, “Notes on the ‘Imago Mundi’ of the Book of Jubilees,” JJS 33 (1982): 197–213; E. Eshel, “The Imago Mundi of the Genesis Apocryphon,” in L. LiDonnici and Andrea Lieber, Heavenly Tablets: Interpretation, Identity and Tradition in Ancient Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 131 [111–31]; D. Machiela, “The Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20): A Reevaluation of Its Text, Interpretive Character, and Relationship to the Book of Jubilees” (PhD diss., Notre Dame University, 2007), 310–11; C. Werman, “The Book of Jubilees and its Aramaic Sources,” Meghillot 8–9 (2010): 135–74. I am indebted to all of these for this part of the commentary. 103. Traditions, 103–107. 104. See Gen. 10:6–7; 25:3; Isa. 21:13; Jer. 25:23; 49:8; Ezek. 25:13; 27:15, 20. 105. This section, as Segal has amply demonstrated, is closely tied to 1 Enoch 10–11—with some differences, however (Segal, Jubilees, 115–18) 106. Segal, Jubilees, 132. 107. The name Mastema means “loathing,” and he is “the chief of the [evil] spirits”—in other words, Satan (both these names are used in Jubilees to describe the same figure). The two names come from similarsounding roots. Indeed, the verb derived from the same root as Mastema can mean “accuse,” the satanic activity par excellence (see Job 1:9–11). See also below on 48:9–19. He appears again in 11:5, when Mastema “acted forcefully” to encourage idolatry; in 11:11, he sends crows to harass Terah; in 17:16, he incites God to put Abraham to the test; he then reappears in the same story twice more, in 18:9, 12. This is striking, since, apart from Jubilees, Mastema does not generally appear as the leader of the wicked angels. 108. Cf. the long-lived Jared, and note VdK, 60–61n. 109. For related motifs, see Traditions, 228–29, 238–39. 110. S. Brock, “Abraham and the Ravens: A Syriac Counterpart to Jubilees 11–12 and Its Implications,” JSJ 9 (1978): 135–52. 111. See Rönsch, 266–67. 112. Ginzberg, Legends, 1:189. 113. Further: C. Werman, “The Book of Jubilees in Hellenistic Context,” Zion 66 (2001): 275–96. 114. Traditions, 244–49. 115. As recounted in Pseudo-Philo’s L.A.B. 6:16–17; Tg. Neof. On Gen. 11:28–31; Gen. Rab. 38:13; etc.; see Traditions, 267–70. 116. It is certainly noteworthy that Abram undertakes to observe the stars on the first day of the seventh month. This is the biblical festival known as the “Day of Trumpet Blasts,” but no biblical text, nor for that matter any text from Qumran or the contemporaneous literature, knows this day by its later, Rabbinic name of Rosh Hashanah (“the start of the year”). More significantly, apart from M. RH 1:2, only Pseudo-Philo’s L.A.B. seems to know of this festival as a day of judgment (“At the beginning of those days, when you

Jubilees 457

present yourselves, I will declare the number of those who are to die and who are to be born”). Since the rainy season normally begins in the autumn, it was certainly not unreasonable for Abram to contemplate the stars in the autumnal seventh month in order to know “the character of the year with respect to the rains.” Nevertheless, the actual start of the rainy season was conceived to start a bit later in the year, at the time of the Festival of Booths (Sukkot) in the middle of the month—an association preserved in the Rabbinic “Rejoicing of the Place of Water-Drawing” (simhat beit ha-sho’evah). Perhaps in Jubilees, therefore, we have a glimpse of the gradual promotion of the first day of the seventh month as a day of judgment—not of individuals, as in Pseudo-Philo, but of all Israel, whose very existence was dependent on ample rainfall. 117. Traditions, 264–66. 118. Hebrew is called the “holy tongue” in 4Q464Exposition on the Patriarchs fragment 3, column 1; for Hebrew as the first language, see Traditions, 235–37. 119. Traditions, 270–71. 120. Rattner ed., 4. 121. This corresponds to Gen. 12:8 (usually translated now as “the mountain country [in general].”). The verse was potentially confusing to ancient readers, since “the mountain” sounds like it is referring to a specific, known mountain. Jubilees here reproduces the biblical phrase without comment, but the parallel passage in Gen. Ap 19:8 reads: “Up to now I [Abram] had not reached the holy mountain”—i.e., he had not yet reached Mount Zion, the mountain par excellence. In other words, the Genesis Apocryphon seeks to remove any ambiguity, whereas Jubilees does not; indeed all Jubilees does is duplicate the text in Genesis. This is the first of several instances in which the Qumran text Genesis Apocryphon, which copied much material from Jubilees, also stuck in its own additions and clarifications here and there. 122. Note that, by contrast, Genesis Apocryphon provides a clever justification for Abram’s action: he had a prophetic dream of what would occur, and upon awakening he told Sarah, “Now I know [= have just found out] that, [since] you are a beautiful woman, when the Egyptians see you, they will say, ‘This is his wife,’” etc. (Gen. Ap 19:14–20). 123. In the parallel passage in Gen. Ap 21:9–19, the author has Abram immediately undertake an extensive tour of the land in obedience to God’s command. 124. See VdK ad loc. 125. Traditions, 289–91. 126. Cf. Gen. 15:6; 4Q398; Rom. 4:3; Gal. 3:6; etc. See Traditions, 310–11. 127. This is, incidentally, one of the proofs that the Jubilees calendar, unlike that of Qumran, has no 31-day months—otherwise this holiday would fall on the 16th of the month. Ravid made this point in “The Book of Jubilees and Its Calendar: A Reexamination.” DSD 10 (2003): 371–94. 128. See further Traditions, 311–12. 129. The Latin text of Jubilees reads: “secundum tempus hoc in anno ueniente.” Here tempus reflects mo’ed in Gen. 17:21, rendered as kairos in Gen. 17:21 LXX and tempus in the Vulgate. 130. See Traditions, 663–64, 672–73, 701–703. 131. See Traditions, 342–45. 132. Jub. 7:21; 9:15; 20:3–6; 23:15; 25:1; 50:5. 133. The Lat. simply has iniqui, “wicked,” the equivalent of ponēroi in the LXX. 134. See further: Traditions, 331–34. 135. On this, Traditions, 671–74. 136. See 1 Kings 8:2, 65; 12:32; Ezek. 45:25; M. RH 1:2; etc. 137. It is not altogether clear when this first Sukkot was celebrated. It may have occurred right after Abraham heard the news of his future descendants, while Sarah was still pregnant with Isaac—but if this were true, why was this whole incident narrated after the narration of Isaac’s birth (Jub. 16:13). It might thus make better sense to assume that the celebration took place one year after the angels’ announcement (i.e., in the seventh month of anno mundi 1988); the story of the angels’ earlier announcement was then tacked on at the beginning to explain one of the reasons for Abraham and Sarah’s joy. 138. Leviticus 23:40 instructs Israelites to take various tree branches and “rejoice before the Lord,” but it never says what is to be done with those branches or what they might have to do with rejoicing. Perhaps, in keeping with Neh. 8:15, which specifies that these branches are to be taken up “to make booths,” the original author understood this commandment as having to do with the booths’ construction, which he had

458 James L. Kugel

mentioned in general terms in Jub. 16:21. (Cf. Sifra par. Emor 17:10, “Rabbi Yehuda said, ‘Logic dictates that the sukkah is to be thatched with the four species.’”) But the Interpolator seems to have held to a different halakhic school, one that (like the Pharisees and, later, the Rabbis) saw in Lev 23:40 a quite separate commandment to “take the product of a goodly tree, branches of palm trees, boughs of leafy trees, and willows of the brook” and bind them together to create a lulav cluster that was then waved by the faithful on the festival. So he created this insertion. That this section has been inserted into the original text of Jubilees is clear not only in the Interpolator’s characteristic phrasing, but also in the overall structure of vv. 20–31. Verses 20–27 (the original passage) describe Abraham’s actions that are to serve as a precedent for later generations, concluding with Abraham’s blessing of his Creator. Then the Interpolator has the angels bless Abraham for having observed the feast in accordance with what is written in the heavenly tablets— although Abraham, as usual, had never been told to do so in what the original author wrote—and this is followed in turn by further instructions about the festival’s observance and the assertion that Abraham had indeed also followed these further specifications. 139. Lat. has tabernaculis. 140. The MT reads kappot temarim, “branches of palm trees,” but perhaps the reading underlying Jubilees here was kippot temarim, since kippah is a term for light headgear in MH (M. Ket. 5:8). 141. This should be “thick leaves” = Lat. accipere ramos denos, a mistaken rendering of densos. 142. Missing in this list is the taking of “the fruit of a hadar [“goodly”] tree,” but that is mentioned in the next sentence. It seems the text has somehow suffered in transmission. 143. This was apparently the original reading of the text; see VdK, 101–2. It is to be noted that lulav here would seem to indicate the entire lulav cluster, which included the etz avot and willow branches as well. 144. Cf. Pseudo-Philo L.A.B. 32:3, where Isaac—paraphrasing Gen. 21:12—tells Abraham, “about me shall the generations proclaim [apparently mistranslated as “in me the generations will be proclaimed; see further, Traditions, 323] and through me nations will understand how God made a human soul worthy for sacrifice,” where the first clause seems to be paralleled and explained in the second. Understanding Gen. 21:12 as referring to the proclamation or celebration of Isaac’s renown (but not necessarily of his physical role as Abraham’s “seed”) might solve another long-standing exegetical problem: if God had actually promised Abraham in this verse that his future descendants would be called the sons of Isaac, how could Abraham take seriously God’s order in the very next chapter to sacrifice Isaac on an altar? 145. For these three as the “good” sons, see below on 34:1–9. 146. Further examples: Abraham passes the test of the binding of Isaac on the 15th of the first month; God appears again to Abraham on the 1st of the first month (Jub. 24:22); Jacob arrives in Bethel on the 1st of the first month (27:19); the pact between Jacob and Laban takes place on the 15th of the seventh month. Note that, with regard to the Flood, the dates that are not dependent on the biblical chronology are also significant days: “the start of the seventh month,” “the first of the tenth month,” “the first of the first month” (Jub. 5:30–31). 147. Further: Traditions, 297–99, 308. 148. Sir. 44:20; 1 Macc. 2:52; 4Q226 Pseudo-Jubilees frag.7:1–2. 149. Traditions, 308–11. 150. Traditions, 258. 151. Found as well in Pseudo-Philo L.A.B. 32:4; Peshitta 22:12; and Gen. Rab. 56:7. 152. Since there were no vowel-points at the time, Jubilees (along with other ancient interpreters) chose to make the point clear by having Abraham say, “I have made known to all” (since someone cannot “know to all,” but only “make known to all”). 153. As frequently hereafter: see Jub. 19:9; 23:32; 24:13; 30:18–23; 31:31–32. 154. In CD 3:2 (partially); 4Q252 Genesis Pesher, col. 2:8; Pr. Azar. 12; Abraham, 89 and elsewhere; 4 Ezra 3:14; ApocAbr. 10:5; Tg. Neof. and other Targumim on Gen. 18:17; and such early Christian sources as James 2:23 and 1 Clem. 10:1. 155. Note that this assertion is somewhat different from the recording of people’s merits and demerits on high during or after their lifetimes—another traditional function of the Mesopotamian “heavenly tablets”; see Paul, “Heavenly Tablets,” 345–54. Jubilees 30:21–22 thus asserts that righteous Israelites “will be written down as friends,” but if they transgress, then “they will be recorded in the heavenly tablets as enemies.”

Jubilees 459

156. The Lat. text is “lenis et rectus.” The former means “soft, smooth, mild, gentle, easy, calm” (Lewis and Short) and might certainly be a translation of Heb. halak via Gk. leios (“smooth, plain . . . smooth-skinned, beardless”). There is no reason to prefer the Ethiopic “perfect and upright” to the Lat. (see VdK, ad loc.); Jubilees inserted “smooth” here to contrast with Esau’s hairiness. 157. Traditions, 354. 158. The Gk. likely had περιούσιος, reflecting Heb. segulah, used notably in Exod. 19:5 to refer to Israel as a “treasured people.” Clearly that is the intended allusion here; Abraham foresees what God will proclaim at Mount Sinai. 159. See Traditions, 284–85. 160. VdK: “spirits of Mastema,” i.e., the underling spirits who are Mastema’s troops. 161. See the discussion in VdK, 115, and references there. 162. This was actually the first of three spiritual “last wills” that Abraham was to pronounce: the others begin in 21:1 and 22:10 below. This one is necessarily of a more general nature, destined for all the different nations who will descend from Abraham. 163. Traditions, 310–11. 164. Traditions, 756–59 and 768–70. 165. Actually, the Ethiopic manuscripts read: “that they should be thus in every war,” but this seems most unlikely; Charles thus proposed conjecturally emending ̣sabə’a (war) to sabə’a (men). The phrase “in every war” may have been introduced in the Ethiopic text because of the next clause, which is omitted in Wintermute’s translation but appears in VanderKam’s edition as “so that they could go against each one [who was] against them.” Again, this seems unlikely; instead, this clause was probably some version of the “negative Golden Rule,” often given as an explanation of Lev. 19:18, which is paraphrased just before it. The original text may thus have said that “each one might love his neighbor and that it should be thus among all men, so that they [i.e., all men] would oppose everything [note that ha-kol was used in BH for both “everyone” and “everything”; the “everyone” or “each one” in the Ethiopic is thus an easily explainable mistranslation] that was opposed to them,” i.e., not to their liking. This “negative Golden Rule”—“What is hateful to you do not to your fellow”—is found as a gloss of Lev. 19:18 in the Didache 3:1–2, Tg. Ps.-J., Lev. 19:18, and other texts. See Traditions, 769–70. 166. This is the version of the Latin text; Eth. has “boasting.” 167. 1 Kings 9:8; Jer. 19:8; 50:13; Zeph. 2:15; Lam. 2:15, etc. 168. Jer. 25:9, 18; 29:18; 51:37; Mic. 6:16; 2 Chron. 29:8. 169. A pastiche of biblical phrases: cf. Deut. 12:8; Joel 2:23; Exod. 23:25; Deut. 7:13; etc. 170. The priestly instructions part of the ALD was originally an independent text; see J. Kugel, The Ladder of Jacob (Princeton: Princeton University Press), 115–68. Rather than put these instructions in the mouth of Isaac, as the ALD had, Jubilees decided to put them in Abraham’s mouth. 171. Ibid. 172. See the discussion in J. VanderKam and J. T. Milik, “Jubilees,” in Qumran Cave 4:VIII Parabiblical Texts Part 1, ed. H. Attridge et al., Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 13 (Oxford : Clarendon, 1994), 43–45; there is a further problem with the years, on which see below on 22:1. 173. VanderKam and Milik, “Jubilees,” 45. 174. “Do not follow pollutions” does not fit with the other two items that follow: statues and molten images; 4Q220 has in place of “pollutions” gillulim, “idols,” and this is certainly the right sense. Jubilees then goes on to specify that this term includes both statues (pesilim) carved out of stone or wood, and massekhot, images made from molten metal. But gillulim may not represent the original text; Lat. has abominationes, and this would more likely correspond to shikkutzim, “detestable things,” a word that was often used as a euphemism for idols, e.g., in Deut. 29:16. It is rendered in the LXX by miasma, “pollution” or “defilement.” 175. Cf. Lev. 3:17; 7:26–27; 17:10, 12; Deut. 12:16, 23–25. 176. This passage in the ALD stems from one of its two principal components, an older text describing Levi’s priestly instructions. Jubilees borrowed those instructions but, having no need to attribute them to Isaac, instead put them in the mouth of Abraham here. 177. Traditions, 275–85. 178. See VdK, 125n; Michael E. Stone, Jonas C. Greenfield, and Esther Eshel, The Aramaic Levi Document (Leiden, Brill, 2004), 164–68.

460 James L. Kugel

179. Thus Nehemiah’s pious prayer, “Account it to my credit, O God, concerning this, and do not wipe out my good deeds that I have done for the house of my God and for His service” (Neh. 13:14; cf. 12:24); see also Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 102: “a division of duty for priests and Levites.” 180. Heb. lehumei reshef in Deut. 32:24 was understood in the targumic tradition as “devoured by unclean birds,” followed by “possessed of evil spirits” as a translation of keteb meriri; by the juxtaposition, the two apparently belonged to the same class of beings. 181. See Gen. 48:16; 27:29; Num. 24:17; Exod. 19:4–5; etc. 182. See Gen. 9:20–24 and Traditions, 223. 183. Numerous scholars have described this and the following verses as a “revelation” that refers to political events in the author’s own time—according to some, an allusion to the events preceding the revolt of the Maccabees, and to others, a revolt of the Essenes against the Jewish establishment. (See Segal, Jubilees, 320–21, and references there.) Neither hypothesis seems likely. Actually, what is striking about this section is precisely its vagueness. Nothing is hinted concerning the collapse of the Northern Kingdom and the exile of its 10 tribes, followed by the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians and the subsequent exile of Judeans. Other compositions written in this period do precisely that; indeed a favorite motif in these compositions was that of the four kingdoms that will oppress Israel in succession: Babylon, Media, Persia, and Greece (or later, Babylon, Persia/Media, Greece, and Rome). See on this Dan. 2:31–45 and 7:1–28, and many later sources, including Lev. Rab. 29:2. Further: Kugel, “The Ladder of Jacob,” HTR 88 (1995): 1–24. 184. It seems possible the original simply read “Shib’a,” as in Gen. 26:33; there is no indication in Jubilees that that oath was sworn over a well, only that the place, which indeed had a well in it, came to be called Beersheba as a result. 185. Traditions, 366–67. 186. 4Q222 1:2 hehalmi: used in late biblical Hebrew in the hiphil as “to strengthen [esp. morally], to cause to take heart”: Isa 38:16, Sir. 15:2; 49:10. Here the form is in the niphal, hence, “take heart.” 187. VdK: “see your blessed children during my lifetime.” 188. For this motif, see Traditions, 359–60; to the sources cited there, add Peshitta ad loc. 189. It is hard to imagine what the underlying Hebrew might have been. Presumably the Lat. aversio (see Rönsch, 134) could represent something like sibbah or mesibbah (both “turn of affairs” in biblical Hebrew: see 1 Kings 12:15; 2 Chron. 10:15). Somewhat less likely is Goldmann’s proposal that an original sumah (a hapax legomenon in 2 Sam. 13:32 that Jubilees would have interpreted as “divine imposition”) was subsequently misunderstood as the (orthographically similar) shunnah, “changed.” 190. See further Traditions, 369–70. 191. Traditions, 378–80. 192. VdK: “a dark gray color and dark mixed with white,” and see his note pp. 183–84. 193. Gen. 14:5; 15:20; Deut. 2:11, 20; 3:11, 13, etc. 194. Traditions, 312–14. 195. See VdK, 188n. One possibility is that the original text read “Sea of Galilee,” but that the second word was accidentally reduced to gal (“heap”), which was then translated literally into the Greek, in which form it subsequently entered the Ethiopic text tradition. 196. See further J. Kugel, “The Story of Dinah in the Testament of Levi,” HTR 85 (1992): 1–34. 197. Traditions, 411–12, 417. 198. Traditions, 420–22. 199. The use of these two apparently synonymous terms, “spoke treacherously” and “defrauded,” apparently corresponds to a single term in Gen. 34:13, bemirmah. Since Tg. Neof., Onk., and Ps.-J. all translate this term as “with wisdom,” it seems likely that Jubilees likewise sought to mitigate the brothers’ falsehood by suggesting that, while intended to deceive Hamor, their words were nonetheless true, as Jub. 30:12–13 goes on to assert (cf. Gen. Rab. 80:8 and parallels). If so, the word translated as “treacherously” (Lat. in dolo) might originally have been be- ormah, a term that can mean both “craftily” and “wisely.” The latter meaning is common enough in biblical Hebrew (Prov. 1:4, 8:5, 12; Job 5:13), but, perhaps under the influence of the Aramaic cognate, the sense later shifted to “wiliness” alone. 200. M. Meg. 4:9; Tg. Ps.-J. to Lev. 18:21; cf. Tg. Neof. margin ad loc. and B. Meg. 25a. Further: Traditions, 425–27. 201. That is to say, “And do not give of your seed” was taken as a reference to male semen; indee, one version of this exegetical tradition takes “to pass over” in the sense of “to make pregnant.” See ibid., loc. cit.

Jubilees 461

202. The words “for their sons” are missing in the Ethiopic text but present in the Latin. 203. VdK adds: “during his lifetime.” 204. Note that Jub. 30:23 implies that they killed the entire population of Shechem (that is the apparent meaning of “Shechem” in this sentence: VdK rightly translates “Jacob’s sons killed [the people of] Shechem” and not just the adult male as in the biblical account. 205. Kugel, Ladder of Jacob, 116–18, 246n7. 206. This trip to his father is also mentioned in passing in ALD 5:1, dependent on Jubilees here. 207. Traditions, 713–15, 730–31. 208. VdK: “princes, judges, and leaders.” The Lat. text omits “leaders.” Note that Heb. shofetim (“judges”) is often used in the sense of (nonjudicial) leaders: Judg. 2:16; 2 Sam. 7:11; etc. 209. VanderKam and Milik, “Jubilees,” 101. 210. Cf. the Prayer of Joseph, fragment B, where Jacob apparently says to one of his sons, “I have read in the tablets of heaven all that shall befall you and your sons.” 211. Cf. Temple Scroll 29:8–10, “I will cause My glory to reside upon it until the day of creation, when I Myself will create My sanctuary, establishing it for all time according to the covenant that I made with Jacob at Bethel.” 212. One reason is that, while the first vision is basically a restatement of Gen. 35:9–12, the second has no biblical “anchor.” If both were the product of the original author, he would have had no reason not to combine them into a single vision so that the whole thing would be anchored in the Genesis narrative. What is more, the very idea that Jacob read and memorized everything that would happen to him and his sons is, on consideration, rather silly. If Jacob now knew, e.g., about how his sons would sell Joseph as a slave, why did he nevertheless send Joseph unaccompanied to meet them in Dothan (Jub. 34:10)? And why did he bitterly mourn Joseph’s death, becoming “feverish” at the thought of his son’s violent demise (Jub. 34:13), if he knew it was all a trick? Jubilees’ author, a careful writer who thought long and hard about Scripture, would hardly have introduced this second vision. 213. A clue to the reason for this late insertion may lie in the angel’s insistence in the second vision that Jacob learn the contents of the seven tablets by heart so that he can “write down everything,” followed by the specification that Jacob subsequently “wrote down all of the matters which he had read and seen.” Why, having memorized the whole text by heart, should Jacob be further required to commit it to writing? He certainly could impart what he had read to his children without writing anything. This mention of the seven tablets having been subsequently written down thus sounds very much like an etiology for some other text, a lengthy revelation of Israel’s future. The author of that text (or some supporter thereof), eager to lend it an air of authenticity, may simply have stuck this reference to it into Jubilees, never considering the logical inconsistency with what Jacob does in the rest of Jubilees if he did indeed have this vision of the future. Candidates for such a visionary text are not lacking, but one particularly suggestive possibility is the highly fragmentary text 4Q537Testament of Jacob. It may be that the same writer inserted two further references to the vision of the seven tablets in Jub. 44:2 and 45:4. For a fuller treatment of this subject, see J. Kugel, A Walk through Jubilees (Leiden: Brill, 2011), chap. 1. 214. The Festival of Booths is indeed sometimes called simply “the Festival,” he-Hag; see 1 Kings 8:2, 65; Ezek. 45:23; Neh. 8:14; 2 Chron. 7:8, 9; 8:3; etc.; and m. Suk. 4:2; RH 1:2; etc. 215. Further: J. Kugel, “Reuben’s Sin with Bilhah in the Testament of Reuben,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, ed. D. Wright, D.N. Freedman, and A. Hurvitz (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 525–54. 216. Or, if this is a continuation of the previous clause, then perhaps the grammatical genders were confused here, and one should instead read: “and that he had taken hold of her, so she shouted out.” 217. See Lev. 18:8; 20:11; Deut. 23:1; 27:20. 218. VdK: “the statute, the punishment, and the law.” 219. The precise wording of this crucial sentence in 33:16 has been a problem for modern commentators. The text appears to be corrupt, but the original idea is not difficult to restore. The angel is telling Moses that, while Reuben was indeed punished—he lost his birthright—he did not receive the full and appropriate punishment, since in Reuben’s time the laws of the heavenly tablets, and in particular this statute and its punishment, had not yet been revealed to everyone as they would be at Mount Sinai. Perhaps, then, the

462 James L. Kugel

original text read: “For in his [i.e., Reuben’s] time the Torah, the law and the punishment had not been completely revealed to all; there was [only] a temporary statute [hok et ve-yamim: i.e., Jacob had created his own ad hoc punishment: disinheritance]. But in your time [be-yamekha] it has become an eternal law for the generations.” If the word “in your time” were accidentally lifted from its proper place and stuck in the middle of “revealed to all; there was . . . ,” then one would basically obtain the surviving Ethiopic text. 220. See above on 1:8. 221. This warning is called hokhahah or tokhahat in the Dead Sea Scrolls and hatra’ah in Rabbinic writings. 222. It is based on Deut. 16:19; note that Jubilees’ author had relied on the same verse in 21:4 and 30:16. 223. See the edition of Midrash Vayyissa’u with ms. variants that was published by J.B. Lauterbach in Vienna, 1933 (privately printed; available at www.hebrewbooks.org). 224. In A. Heiman et al., Yalkut Shim’oni, vol. 2 ( Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1973), 690–94; section 133 is that found in mss.; most printed editions, however, locate this section in 1:133. An account of the same war appears as well in the Chronicles of Yerahme’el and Sefer ha-Yashar; parts are found as well in Bereshit Rabbati; see H. Schwarzbaum, “Prolegomenon,” to reissue of M. Gaster, The Chronicles of Jerahmeel (New York: KTAV, 1971), 48–49. See also Traditions, 374. 225. See VdK, 227n. 226. For the Interpolator, in common with Rabbinic interpreters, it is not enough merely to feel sorry for having sinned, but Israelites must “turn to Him in the right way,” i.e., sincerely repent; see above on 5:17–18. 227. 4Q223–224 adds here: “For like dust be[fore wind, s]o are all the guardians of Esau b[ef]ore the God of [Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of J]acob, [my perfect and de]ar s[on].” See VanderKam and Milik, “Jubilees,” 106, 112. 228. Traditions, 756, 768–70. 229. See Tob. 4:14–15; Hypiothetica 7:6; Didache 3:1–2; Tg. Ps.-J.; and Lev. 19:18, etc.; Traditions, 756, 770. 230. Ethiopic text has “left” or “left-handed,” probably a translation of Greek aristeros, which had the connotation of “boding ill” or “ominous.” 231. Such as the eventual revolt of Edom against Israel during the reign of King Joram (2 Kings 8:20). 232. Again, herein I refer to the Lauterbach edition of Midrash Vayyissa’u with ms. variants. References are to chapter and line number within that chapter, thus: MV 2:51. 233. One might suppose that Jubilees’ author erroneously inserted the mention of Esau’s murderous vow into a story that had originally begun just after Leah’s death, thereby destroying the chronology. In support of such a supposition is the fact that none of the other accounts mention Esau’s vow: Midrash Vayyissa’u says the war began after Leah’s death, and the Testament of Judah has Judah locate the start of the war “in my own fortieth year,” which, according to Jubilees’ chronology, would be anno mundi 2167 or 2168—the same year that Leah died and five years after Isaac’s death. Nevertheless, such a possibility seems most unlikely. After all, there was no thematic or chronological necessity to locate the war between Jacob and Esau immediately after Leah’s death. Since the Bible does not narrate her death or mention how long she lived, theoretically she could have died any time before or after the war of Jacob and Esau. By contrast, Esau’s vow in Gen.27:41 is indeed chronologically connected to this war: in fact, it is the only biblical clue as to when the war might have taken place: “When the days of mourning my father arrive, I will kill my brother Jacob.” But if the period following Isaac’s death would be the natural starting point for this war, how did Leah’s death enter the story? It is certainly suspicious that, in its present form in Jubilees, this narrative involves two different deaths and periods of mourning, Isaac’s (narrated in Jub. 36:18 and then used as the starting point of the war narrative in Jub. 37:1) and Leah’s (narrated in Jub. 36:21 and then mentioned as Esau’s troops are first approaching to attack Jacob, Jub. 37:14). It seems altogether likely that, in its earliest form, there was only one recent death: Isaac’s. Esau and his men approach Jacob, and Jacob shouts down at him what would only be natural to shout down under such circumstances: “Is this the consolation (with) which you have come in order to console me concerning my father?” (After all, Esau’s vow in the Bible had highlighted the fact that he would attack specifically during the mourning period: “When the days of mourning my father arrive.”) But such an impiety on Esau’s part posed a problem for Jubilees’ author, since, as we have seen, Esau was not an altogether bad character for him. The grandson of Abraham, son of Isaac, and brother of Jacob could not be altogether wicked; such a man would certainly mourn his own father’s death and wait until afterward to attack Jacob. But if so, then to whom could Jacob have been referring when he shouted down at Esau, “Is this the consolation (with) which you have come in order to console

Jubilees 463

me?” It was at that point that Jubilees’ author decided to insert his account of Leah’s death and brief obituary (Jub. 36:21–24). If Esau’s attack began during the period of mourning for Leah, then that would hardly impugn Esau’s filial piety in attacking when he did—she was not his wife, after all—and Jacob’s reproach, “This is a fine consolation” could still be preserved simply by substituting “my wife” for “my father.” Apparently, Jubilees’ author did not notice the contradiction created by the opening sentence of the war narrative, “On the day that Isaac died.” But later versions of the narrative—Midrash Vayyissa’u and the Testament of Judah—did, so they eliminated what used to be the opening sentence. (Note that Charles seeks to explain this by saying that “the sons of Esau began their opposition to Jacob from the day of Isaac’s death [2162 A.M.] but did not attack him till Leah died [2167 A.M.]” (Jubilees, 215n). This may explain why Jubilees’ author left in that opening sentence, but I doubt it. After all, the text of Jubilees gives no indication that Esau’s sons kept complaining for five years, or five minutes for that matter. Would not Jubilees’ author have made sure that his readers would understand the delay?) 234. His name thus evolved its final nun or mem in common with other words ending in an open syllable; see Y. Kutscher, Millim ve- toledoteihen ( Jerusalem: Kiryath Sepher, 1974), 101; Qimron, Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 27–28; ; M. Bar Asher, Studies in Mishnaic Hebrew, vol. 1 ( Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2009), 253–54. Note that in Midrash Vayyissa’u he is called “Adoram the Edomite.” 235. See VdK, 245n. The Kittim were also Israel’s enemies, later identified with the Romans; see Traditions, 366. 236. VdK: “The breasts have been separated from their mother, for you have not been a brother to me.” 237. Charles, Jubilees, 218n. 238. This motif appears as well in T. Jos. 3:3; Jos. Asen. 7:5; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen. 49:24. Charles, Jubilees, 447–48. 239. A similar midrashic deduction is based on Esther 3:7, understood as: “in the first month . . . from day to day and from [that first] month to the twelfth month.” See Midrash Tanhuma, Vayyesheb, ad loc. 240. See VdK, 257n. 241. Especially if the verb “fled” were translated into Aramaic as afakh (as it is in Tg. Ps.-J.), it might suggest an act of breaking something, since this verb means both “flee” and “overturn, destroy.” 242. The intial words “Il, Il” might represent Heb. El, El (“God, God”), but since the Ethiopic and Latin texts (elel et habirel) both derive from the Greek text, the letter “i” in “Il Il” might just as well stand for Heb. ayin, alef, het, or heh. 243. See Kugel, Ladder of Jacob, 169–85. 244. Despite the emendations of earlier editors, VdK (275n) suggests that “mother-in-law” here need not be emended because of the general prohibition in Jub. 41:26. But clearly “mother-in-law” hardly suits the facts of the case just described. Indeed, the Interpolator’s subsequent expansion of the specific prohibition deriving from this case to the more general prohibition (anyone who lies with his daughter-in-law or his mother-in-law) is altogether parallel to his expansion of the specific prohibition arising from the rape of Dinah to the more general prohibition of exogamy in either direction, indeed “any form of impurity”; see above on 30:8–17. 245. As for Judah’s demand in the biblical narrative that Tamar be burned (Gen. 38:24), the author explains that he had acted quite properly, since this is what he had been taught by Abraham (in a passage written by the original author, Jub. 20:1–10). 246. J. W. Wevers, LXX: Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), 705. 247. See VdK, 283n. 248. Note that the use of old grain is specifically forbidden in m. Menahot 8:1; however, a baraita in b. Menahot 83b permits old grain. 249. Traditions, 482–84. 250. Other explanations of Joseph’s request are given in T. Sim. 8:1–3; M. Sot. 1:9; Mek. R. Ish. Beshallah 1; Tibat Marka 98–101; and other sources. 251. Cf. 4Q544 Visions of Amram frag. 1, col.1–2; T. Reub. 7:1–2; T. Sim. 8:2; T. Levi 19:5; T. Jud. 26:4; T. Iss. 7:8; T. Zeb. 10:7; T. Dan 7:2; T. Naph. 9:1–3; T. Gad 8:5; T. Ash. 8:1–2; T. Benj 12:3; Ant. 2:199; NT Acts, 7:15–16. 252. Precisely because this idiom was unfamiliar to the Greek translator, he apparently added “their minds [lit. “hearts”] and faces are toward the land of Canaan.” 253. VdK (305n) notes that the Latin text specifies that Pharaoh’s decree was directed against babies who were born to them (“qui nascebantur illis”), while the Ethiopic specifies that the decree was “regarding them.” The Samaritan Pentateuch, the LXX, Vetus Latina, and the Ethiopic text all have “born to the Hebrews” in

464 James L. Kugel

Exod. 1:22, but the absence of this phrase in Jubilees seems to indicate that its underlying text was like the MT. Rabbinic midrash understands the verse as referring to any boy born henceforth, Hebrew or Egyptian: Pharaoh’s counselors had informed him that the birth of the Israelites’ savior was imminent, so in desperation he ruled that all newborn males were to be cast into the river. 254. Cf. M. Sot. 1:9, where Miriam waited “but a brief moment” and was rewarded many times over. 255. Traditions, 528–30. 256. Traditions, 509–510, 530–31. 257. The Ethiopic text has “dwelt there,” without specifying the place, whereas the Latin has Moses going off and settling “in the land of Mad”—that is, the land of Midian (Exod. 2:15)—and this no doubt represents the original (contra VdK, 309n). 258. Traditions, 535. 259. Traditions, 517–19, 538–41. 260. See VdK, 309–10n. The Ethiopic text represents the Greek loanword elatē; it may be, as VdK suggests, that the underlying Heb. had allon in place of malon. 261. Traditions, 563–64. 262. The Ethiopic text has: “I stood between you, the Egyptians and the Israelites,” but the “you,” although supported by all the Ethiopic mss., seems unnecessary here (and is not found in Exod. 14:19). See VdK, 313n. 263. The same theme appears in Wis. 18:5, L.A.B. 9:10, Mek. R. Ish. Shirta 4 (end), B. Sota 11a. 264. The same motif is attested in Ezek. Trag. 162–66; Wis. 10:16–17, 20; Moses 141; Megillat Ta’an. A 107–37. See also Traditions, 553–57. 265. Jub. 10:8; 11:5, 11; 17:6; 18:9, 12; 19:28; and 48:2, 9, 12, and 15. 266. Pisha 5 (last sentence; Horowitz-Rabin, ed., 18). Presumably this wording is a reflection of the biblical expression “between the evenings”: make the first of those evenings (i.e., before sunset) the time for its slaughter, and the second (after sunset) the time for its consumption. 267. See VdK, 319; note that the wording in the Latin is somewhat different, “but you shall eat it roasted diligently in a fire; you shall roast its head with the intestines and with its feet in a fire” (Rönsch, 92). “With care” apparently was a misunderstanding of the Gk. meta spoudēs (see VdK, 319n); this is the phrase used in Exod. 12:11 LXX to translate be-hipazon, “in haste.” However, a common meaning of spoudē is “eagerness, earnestness, diligence”—hence the confusion. 268. The disruption caused by the Interpolator’s insertion (49:2–17) is subtle, but discernible nonetheless. Thus, in 49:1 the original author had begun the subject of how the festival is to be observed in years to come (people must observe it “at its time, on the fourteenth of the first month”). At that point, the Interpolator interrupted things with his historical review of the eve of the Exodus (49:2–6)—wherein Mastema’s role conflicted, as we have seen, with the Mastema depicted in chap. 48. This section is followed by the Interpolator’s turning to the subject of future observance of the festival (49:7–17). He begins (49: 7–8) by restating what the original author had said in 49:1 about celebrating the festival from year to year, adding his warning about celebrating it on the wrong day. After clarifying the matter of the second Passover (49:9), he then moves on to further specifics about the festival’s future celebration: He discusses the timing of the slaughter and eating of the paschal offering (49:10–12) and how it is to be prepared (49:13–14), along with the apparently polemical warnings seen above about celebrating it on the right day and in the right place (49:16–17). This marks the end of the Interpolator’s insertion. Then we return to the original author in vv. 18–21 as if nothing had yet been said about future observance. 269. If the Interpolator agreed with these three items, why did he bother with inserting the long passage of vv. 2–17? He did so in part to cover items omitted by the original author—specifically, the details of the first Passover in Egypt (vv. 1–6), the calendrical exhortation (vv. 7–8), and the warning that the “second Passover” (one month later, Num. 9:10–12) is not available to be used by the man who is purified at the time of the first Passover (Num. 9:13). But if the Interpolator also covered in his insertion the proper time and place of the slaughter and eating of the Passover sacrifice, it was to polemicize against his halakhic opponents and make specific what “between the evenings,” “cooked in fire,” and “in the courtyard of the sanctuary” may or may not have implied—since these were, as seen above, issues in dispute in his day. 270. See on this E. E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987), 400–401.

Jubilees 465

Pseudo-Jubilees James L. Kugel This text from Qumran consists of three fragments, of which the longest and most interesting is translated here. Pseudo-Jubilees acquired its name because, while 4Q225 (along with its related texts 4Q226 and 4Q227) seemed to recapitulate parts of Jubilees and share some of its terminology (for example, referring to its Satan-like figure as “the angel of Mastema”), it was not an actual copy of the text of Jubilees itself. The manuscript fragments have been dated paleographically to the latter part of the 1st century bce or the first decade or two of the Common Era, but its composition might be dated somewhat earlier.

Significance The text contains a retelling of Abraham’s near-sacrifice of his son Isaac that is different from both the biblical account (Gen. 22) and the version in the book of Jubilees (chapter 18). In the climactic scene, as Abraham raises the knife to kill his son, the author of PseudoJubilees describes two opposing groups of angels observing from above: the good angels are weeping at the prospect of Isaac’s imminent death, while the wicked angels are chortling over the same outcome. The motif of weeping angels is known from later, Rabbinic texts,1 but their appearance here seems to have been designed to explain a troubling detail in Jubilees’ version of the events; see comment below on 2:5–6. Suggested Reading Kugel, J. “Exegetical Notes on 4Q225 “Pseudo-Jubilees.” DJD 13 (2006), 73–98. VanderKam, J. C., and J. T. Milik. “4Q Pseudo-Jubileesa.” In Qumran Cave 4. VIII Parabiblical Texts Part 1, DJD 13, edited by H. Attridge, et al., 141–55. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994.

Translation Column 1

[. . .] that s[oul] shall be cut off[. . . 1.2 [from among] his people. [sett]led in Haran twent[y ye]ars

Commentary 1:1–2. that s[oul] shall be cut off This is the punishment of karet, extirpation; see M. Karetot 1:1 for a Rabbinic list of the infractions for which karet is the stipulated penalty. While the reason for its Source of Translation: The translation is my own.

466

1.3 And Ab]raham [said] to God: My Lord, behold I am childless and Eli[ezer] 1.4 is [my household servant] and he will be my heir. [blank] 1.5 [The Lo]rd [said] to A[b]raham: Lift up (your eyes) and observe the stars, and see 1.6 [if you can count] the sand that is on the seashore or the dust of the earth, for if 1.7 these [can be num]bered or if not, such will be your descendants. And he tr[usted] 1.8 in Go[d] and it was reckoned to his credit. And a son was born af[terward] 1.9 [to Abrah]am and he called his name Isaac. And the angel of Ma[s]tema went 1.10 [to G]od and accused Abraham regarding Isaac, and [G]od said 1.11 [to Abra]ham, “Take your son Isaac, [your] only on[e from Sarah, whom] 1.12 you [love] and offer him up to Me as a whole burnt offering on one of the [hig]h mountains

evocation here is not obvious, since the continuation of the text concerns the story of Abraham, karet was perhaps mentioned because of the biblical prohibition of worshiping other gods, a severe infraction.2 The missing portion of this part of the text might thus have said that Abraham left Ur of the Chaldeans because the Chaldeans worshiped other gods (see Jub. 12:1–8); since, Pseudo-Jubilees would appear to say, anyone guilty of this sin “shall be cut off from among his people,” Abraham left Ur and “settled in Haran twenty years.” 1:3–4. behold I am childless and Eli[ezer]. . .will be my heir See Gen. 15:2–3. 1:5–8. This is the continuation of the same passage, Gen. 15:5–6. 1:9–10. And the angel of Ma[s]tema went [to G]od and accused Abraham regarding Isaac Ancient interpreters were puzzled as to why God should have put Abraham to a test (Gen. 22:1); did He not know its outcome in advance? One tradition held that Satan must have challenged God to test Abraham (just as Satan had done in Job 1:6–12); God certainly knew the outcome, but He accepted the challenge to prove Satan wrong. In Jubilees (17:16), as here, it is the wicked angel Mastema who issues the challenge. Mastema is said here to “accuse” (histim) Abraham, a Hebrew root apparently connected to that of Mastema’s name. The Jubilees account does not specify that Mastema accused Abraham, only that there were “words in heaven,” presumably spoken by other angels, in praise of Abraham. Here, by contrast, Mastema accuses Abraham “regarding Isaac”; this is close to the Talmudic version of this tradition, which holds that Satan accused Abraham of failing to offer adequate thanks to God at the banquet held at Isaac’s weaning (Gen. 21:8) just before; see B. Sanh. 89b. 1:11–12. “Take your son Isaac, [your] only on[e from Sarah, whom] you love” Gen. 22:2 says, “Take your son, your only one. . .”—but of course Abraham had two sons, Isaac and Ishmael. (Jubilees had apparently followed the text tradition that read “your beloved son,” yedidekha, instead of MT yehidekha, “your only son.”)3 Pseudo-Jubilees may have sought here to clarify the biblical verse as it appears in the MT by explaining that God was speaking of Abraham’s “only one from Sarah”; Ishmael was the son of Hagar. Cf. Gen. Rab. 55:7. 1:12–13. on one of the [hig]h mountains Gen. 22:2 MT reads, “and go to the land of Moriah,” while the LXX has “and go to the high land” (perhaps reflecting eretz marom or the like), as does Jub. 18:2. Pseudo-Jubilees blends this with the end of the verse, “on one of the mountains that I will show to you.”

Pseudo-Jubilees 467

1.13 [that I will show] you.” And he aro[se and w]en[t] from the wells ne[ar Gerar which] 1.14 [his servants had dug and he we]n[t to the land of Moriah.] And Ab[raham] lifted Column 2

2.1 [his ey]es [and there was a] fire, and he plac[ed the wood on his son Isaac, and they went together.] 2.2 Isaac said to Abraham [his father, “Here is the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb] 2.3 for the sacrifice? Abraham said to [his son Isaac, “God has said that you are to be the lamb that is] 2.4 His.” Isaac said to his father, “A[ll that the Lord has told you so shall you do.”] 2.5 The angels of holiness were standing weeping above [him, saying “Shall God annihilate] 2.6 His sons from the earth? The angels of Ma[stema stood opposite them in the heavens] 2.7 celebrating and saying, “Now he is lost! [For if Abraham withholds his son, he will be found to be] 2.8 false; and if not, he will be found faithful, b[ut his son will die.” And the angel called out] 2.9 “Abraham, Abraham!” He said: Here I am. He said, “N[ow I have made known to everyone that]

1:13–14. from the wells ne[ar Gerar which his servants had dug] Gen. 26:15 refers to the Philistines having stopped up “the wells that his [Isaac’s] father’s servants had dug.” However, the biblical narrative contains no previous mention of any such wells. Here Pseudo-Jubilees (or perhaps an older tradition that this text is citing) may have filled in the missing information: the wells in question were “ne[ar Gerar],” which is where the wells are said to have been located (Gen. 26:17–18). 2:1. [and there was a] fire Gen. 22:4 says that “on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the place from afar.” But how did Abraham know that that was the place? God had said he would “show” it (Gen. 22:2). An ancient interpretive tradition held that the mountain was indicated by a cloud clinging to its top (Gen. Rab. 56:2), or by the divine presence (Shekhinah) hovering above it, in the form of “a column of fire rising from earth to the heavens” (Pirke R. El., chap. 31). 2:3–4. Abraham said to [his son Isaac, “God has said that you are to be the lamb that is] His.” The biblical narrative presents Isaac as an altogether passive, and unknowing, victim. Ancient interpreters4 from the end of the 1st century bce maintained that Isaac was in fact a willing martyr; a tradition found in Gen. Rab., Targum Neophyti, and elsewhere held that Abraham’s words to Isaac in Gen. 22:8 could be read not as one sentence, but two: “God will see to it. The sheep for the burnt offering [is] my son.” This conjectural restoration of the text of Pseudo-Jubilees is based on that tradition. 2:5–6. The angels of holiness . . . above [him, saying “Shall God annihilate] His sons from the earth? The angels of [Mastema stood opposite them in the heavens] Jub 18:16 had concluded the narrative by having God tell Abraham, “I have made known to everyone that you are faithful.” This was a recasting of God’s words in Gen. 22:12, “Now I know that you fear God.” (“Now I know” might indicate that God previously had not known; to avoid such an impression, Jubilees preferred to read the biblical text as if it said, “Now I have made known,”5 appending the words “to everyone” to make that reading clear.) But who was “everyone”? Pseudo-Jubilees created two groups of angels, one good and one wicked, to fill the sky with spectators who could constitute the “everyone” in question.

468 James L. Kugel

2.10 the one who loves Me cannot be false.” God the Lord blessed Is[aac all the days of his life. He became the father of] 2.11 Jacob, and Jacob became the father of Levi, a [third] generation. [blank] 2:10. the one who loves Me6 cannot be false Abraham was described in Isa. 41:8 as “Abraham who loves me.” This became a famous part of Abraham’s reputation among ancient interpreters: he was “the one who loves God” or sometimes a “friend of God.”7

Notes 1. See, for example, Gen. Rab. 56:5, 7; 65:10. 2. See Exod. 34:14. While the penalty of karet is not directly connected in the Torah to the worship of other gods, such worship was associated in Rabbinic writings with the sin of “spurning the word of the Lord” (Num 15:31, namely, spurning God’s word that “I am the Lord your God . . . you shall have no other gods before Me”[Exod. 20:2]). Since such spurning is explicitly punishable with karet, any worship of other gods was deemed subject to that penalty (B. Sanh. 99a). 3. This is the version of the LXX. 4. Abraham 1:72; 4 Macc. 13:12, 16:20; L.A.B. 32:2–3; Ant. 1:232. 5. Reading yidda’ti in place of yada’ti. 6. The final yod is missing in the ms., but this appears to be a mistake. 7. See CD 3:2 (partially), 4Q252 Genesis Pesher, col. 2:8; Prayer of Azariah 12; Abraham, 89; and elsewhere; 4 Ezra 3:14, Apoc. Ab. 10:5; Tg. Neof. and other targums on Gen. 18:17, and such early Christian sources as James 2:23 and 1 Clem. 10:1.

Pseudo-Jubilees 469

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities Howard Jacobson Book of Biblical Antiquities (also known as Liber antiquitatum biblicarum, or L.A.B.), is an example of a genre known as rewritten Bible. The author reviews the biblical narrative from Adam to David, adding, subtracting, embellishing, and revising. He covers biblical material from the book of Genesis through the books of Samuel. The work begins with genealogies from Adam to Noah and continues with stories, some biblical (e.g., the Flood, the Tower of Babel) and some extrabiblical (e.g., Abram’s rescue from the burning furnace). Among important biblical episodes that are not included as part of the chronological narrative are Jacob’s deception of his father, Joseph and Potifar’s wife, Moses and the burning bush, the building of the Tabernacle in the desert, Moses begging to enter Canaan, the fall of the walls of Jericho. Authorship and History L.A.B. survives as a Latin text preserved in approximately 20 medieval manuscripts, the ear-

liest of which dates to the 11th century. Internal evidence confirms that the work’s original language was Hebrew and that the Latin text was translated from a Greek translation of the original Hebrew. Thus, our Latin text stands two stages removed from the original. It is therefore no surprise that it is riddled with corruption. The Latin text itself comes in two recensions. Sometimes one version preserves the superior reading, other times the other. L.A.B was almost certainly written between 70 ce and 150 ce. L. Cohn established over a century ago that L.A.B. was written after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 ce, an argument based on the importance of the date 17 Tammuz in L.A.B. and further developed by James and Howard Jacobson. An author writing in Hebrew in the decades following 70 ce was almost certainly living in Palestine. Thus, L.A.B. falls into the same category as 4 Esdras and 2 Baruch, works written in Hebrew in Palestine not long after the fall of the Second Temple and surviving only in translations at two stages from the original. And like those works, L.A.B. is a reaction and response to the catastrophe that had befallen the Jewish people. The manuscripts attribute L.A.B. to Philo of Alexandria. For many reasons this is impossible; in particular, because Philo did not know enough Hebrew to write in the language. We have no idea who the author of the work was. Indeed, in some sense it is problematic to speak of an author at all. The work as we have it is unquestionably the product of one formative mind, one shaping spirit, yet the contents of the book are so largely derivative that one tends to think of the author as the person who gave this work form rather than substance. Not only is the biblical narrative the foundation of the whole book, but even the deviations and embellishments probably come, in some measure, from a tradition that preceded our author. Still, the very act of selection is a matter of creative decision, and the

470

work as a whole takes on an identity that is uniquely its own and far greater than the sum of its parts. In fairness, some of the substantive innovations in the book may indeed be the author’s own work. But whoever the molder of L.A.B. was, we can feel certain that we will never know his identity. Significance As noted above, L.A.B. is one of a number of works that were written as a reaction to the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Second Temple. The many similarities among these works include themes, ideas, language, phrasing, and imagery. Regardless of which works influenced which others in this group, it seems a fair inference that these works, different though they are in certain respects, all derive from the same historical, cultural, and social context and were all drawing upon a common body of themes, ideas, and goals. L.A.B. is perhaps the earliest extensive rewriting of the Bible that is firmly grounded in the Bible. Certainly, works derived from the biblical narrative already existed in the Hellenistic period. Ezekiel the Tragedian (2nd century bce) produced some of the same kind of “rewritings” found in L.A.B., but Ezekiel’s work is not a predecessor of L.A.B. in any serious way. In L.A.B., the author presents his version of the Bible in biblical form; Ezekiel’s interest is to completely change the form and format. The author of L.A.B. covers nearly the entire narrative portion of the Bible, whereas Ezekiel writes about a single—if extended—episode (the Exodus from Egypt). Joseph and Aseneth, unlike L.A.B., is a fictional narrative that takes off from one or two facts in the Bible and then goes its own independent route. Similarly, our surviving fragments of the treatise by Artapanus do not suggest that his work (written between the mid-3rd and early 1st centuries bce) was a paraphrastic narrative of the Bible. The Genesis Apocryphon scroll found at Qumran (written in Aramaic) sometimes appears to be an imitation of the Bible, though its fragmentary nature makes this somewhat hard to judge. Although in Aramaic, it does sometimes come close to being an imitation of the Bible. Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities contains similarities to L.A.B. (e.g., the tone and themes of Moses’s speech during the Revolt of Korah [Ant. 4.40–50] mirror some invented speeches in L.A.B.). But Jewish Antiquities is written in a completely different (and nonbiblical) style, is highly rhetorical, and exhibits a degree of implicit authorial judgment that is absent in L.A.B. The Palestinian book of Jubilees (composed roughly when Ezekiel was writing) is, on the surface, quite similar to L.A.B. Although Jubilees covers biblical history only through the beginning of Moses’s career, it is, like L.A.B., a continuous prose rewriting of the Bible. Of course, no one would mistake Jubilees for L.A.B.: their central themes are entirely different; the framework of the secret revelation to Moses used in Jubilees is an artifice absent from L.A.B.; and, perhaps most important, Jubilees does not read like an imitation of the Bible, whereas L.A.B. does. In spite of all this, among L.A.B.’s antecedents, Jubilees is probably its closest cousin. With L.A.B. the genre seems to come to a dead halt; only centuries later does it revive. Among L.A.B.’s descendants, surely the work closest to it is the much later Sefer ha-Yashar. L.A.B. is not only one of the earliest surviving works of Midrash, but by virtue of its extensive treatment of the post-Pentateuch historical narratives, it is indeed our single most im-

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

471

portant repository of midrashic exegesis on these books. Later Rabbinic midrashic texts on these books contain much material that is either derivative of L.A.B. or in the same tradition. 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 their situation appears, God will never completely abandon God’s people and in the end will grant salvation and triumph to the Jews. Faced with a communal past filled with trauma and a present colored mainly by catastrophe, how did the author of L.A.B. attempt to convince a people that in the face of their current despair and disaster there was reason for hope and room for optimism? He did this by bringing to bear on his narrative a particularly pointed and tendentious interpretive perspective on Jewish history, centered on the role of God in history. Of course, the Bible portrays God as the prime mover in history, but L.A.B.’s author goes even further, taking pains to emphasize that not only the positive events, but even the very disasters that befall the Jews, are God’s doing. (To a lesser degree, the later prophets often do this as well, but again not to the degree that L.A.B. does.) But God does not act randomly; on the contrary, God acts with reason and consistency. Disasters are nothing but God’s punishment for sin. In other words, God is in complete control. Since God is also truthful, the ultimate salvation of the Jews (in accord with God’s promises) is assured, no matter how long it may take. When the Jews cease sinning grievously and devote themselves faithfully to God and the Law—which is within their power and will at some point happen—salvation will come (cf. L.A.B. 21:6). Guide to Reading Perhaps the most salient features of L.A.B.’s author’s writing are his profound familiarity with the Bible and his ability to fluently compose narrative in biblical style. The reader would do well to read L.A.B. with a Bible at hand, open to the pertinent biblical passage. Suggested Reading Cohn, L. “An Apocryphal Work Ascribed to Philo of Alexandria.” Jewish Quarterly Review 10 (1898): 277–332. Feldman, L. H. “Prolegomenon.” In The Biblical Antiquities of Philo, translated by M. R. James. New York: Ktav, 1971 (first published 1917 by SPCK). Fisk, Bruce N. Do You Not Remember. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Harrington, D. J., J. Cazeaux, C. Perrot, and P.-M. Bogaert. Pseudo-Philon: Les Antiquités Bibliques. Paris: Cerf, 1976. Jacobson, H. A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum. Leiden: Brill, 1996. James, M. R., trans. The Biblical Antiquities of Philo. New York: Ktav, 1971 (first published 1917 by SPCK). Murphy, F. J. Pseudo-Philo: Rewriting the Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Nickelsburg, G. W. E. Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah, revised ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005, 265–70.

472 Howard Jacobson

Translation The Generations from Adam to Noah

The beginning of the world. Adam begot three sons and one daughter: Cain, Noaba, Abel, and Seth. 1:1After he begot Seth, Adam lived 700 years: he begot twelve sons and seven daughters. 2These are the names of the males: Eliseel, Suri, Slumiel, Brabal, Naat, Zara, Maza, Samma, Athal, and Anath. 3These are his daughters: Fua, Iectas, Arebica, Sifa, Tetia, Saba, Asin. 4Seth lived 105 years and begot Enosh. After he begot Enosh Seth lived 807 years and begot three sons and two daughters. 5These are the names of his sons: Elidia, Fonna, and Matha; and of his daughters: Malida and Thila. 6Enosh lived 190 years and begot Kenan. After he begot Kenan, Enosh lived 715 years and begot two sons and a daughter. 7These are the names of his sons: Fo and Haal; and of his daughter: Catennath. 8Cainan lived 170 years and begot Mahalalel. After he begot Mahalalel, Kenan lived 740 years and begot three sons and two daughters. 9These are the names of the males: Athac, Socer, Lfa; and the names of the daughters: Ana and Leva. 10Mahalalel lived 165 years and begot Jared. After he begot Jared, Mahalalel lived 730 years and begot seven sons and five daughters. 11These are the names: Leta, Mata, Cechar, Melie, Suriel, Lod and Otim. These are the names of his daughters: Ada and Noa, Iebal, Mada, Sella.

Commentary The beginning of the world It is not entirely clear whether these words are the beginning of the sentence or a kind of heading. What is clear is that L.A.B.’s author begins in the middle of things, taking for granted his audience’s familiarity with Adam. Like the author of Sefer ha-Yashar, L.A.B.’s author ignores the Bible’s account of how the cosmos was created and begins his narrative with human beings (although on several occasion she also provides some cosmological speculation [e.g., L.A.B. 28:7–9]).1 1.1 Noaba Numerous names occur in L.A.B. that have no clear source in the Bible. No general principle can apply here. Sometimes the names must be taken as inventions (names of women in particular, since the Bible gives far fewer female names than male ones), but on other occasions we need to recognize textual corruption and bring the names into accord with biblical parallels. Every case must be treated on its own. Here, the name Noaba has no ready parallel or explanation. 700 years Throughout L.A.B., and indeed generally in documents from antiquity, numbers pose a thorny problem. Textual transmission is often at its worst. 1:2. Suri, Slumiel Frequently, when the author of L.A.B. needs names for biblically unidentified characters in his narrative, he invents them or takes them—sometimes in adapted form—from elsewhere in the Bible. Thus, for example, in this passage, Anath comes from Judg. 3:31; Naat is probably Nahath, found at Gen. 36:13; and Zarama, Zasam, Maathal should probably be divided so as to give Zara, Maza, and Samma, the exact names that follow Nahath in Gen. 36:13. 1:8. 740 years This cannot be right, not merely because it differs from all other sources including the Masoretic Text (MT) and the Septuagint (LXX), but also because the age is completely out of line with the other pre-firstborn ages (i.e., the age that a man fathered his firstborn) in this section of L.A.B. (and thereby also gives Cainan an unacceptably long life span of 1250 years). We must read 170, as in Gen. 5:12 LXX. Source of Translation: The translation is my own (cited above). Words in are my assumptions of missing text.

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

473

12Jared lived 162 years and begot Enoch. After he begot Enoch, Jared lived 800 years and begot four sons and two daughters. 13These are the names of the males: Lead, Anac, Soboac, and Ietar; and of the daughters: Tetzeco, Lesse. 14Enoch lived 165 years and begot Methuselah. After he begot Methusaleh, Enoch lived 200 years and begot five sons and three daughters. 15Now Enoch walked with God at that time and he was no more, for God took him. 16The names of his sons: Anaz, Zeum, Achaun, Feledi, Elith; and of his daughters: Theiz, Lefith, Leath. 17Methusaleh lived 187 years and begot Lamech. After he begot Lamech, Methusaleh lived 782 years and begot two sons and two daughters. 18These are the names of the males: Inab and Rafo; and of the daughters: Aluma and Amuga. 19Lamech lived 182 years and begot a son and called him, in accord with the time of his birth, “Noah,” saying, “This one will give rest to us and to the earth from those who dwell on it, upon whom punishment will be brought on account of the wickedness of their evil deeds.” 20After he begot Noah, Lamech [blank] lived 595 years. 21And Noah lived 300 years and begot three sons: Shem, Ham, Japheth. The Generations from Cain to Lamech 2:1Cain dwelt in the land trembling, as God had determined for him after he had killed Abel his brother.

The name of his wife was Themech. 2Cain knew Themech his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. 3Cain was sixty-six years old when he did these things, and from then on he began to build cities until he had founded seven cities. These are the names of the cities: the name of the first city was Enoch, corresponding to the name of his son; the name of the second city Mauli, and of the third Leed; the name of the fourth Teze, the name of the fifth Iesca, the name of the sixth Celeth, and the name of the seventh Iebbat. 4After he begot Enoch, Cain lived 715 years and begot three sons and two daughters. These are the names of his sons: Olad, Lizaf, Fosal; and of his daughters: Citha and Maac. All the days of Cain were 730 years; then he died. 5Then Enoch took a wife from the daughters of Seth, and she bore him Irad and Cuut and Madab. Irad begot [blank] Methusael, and Methusael begot Lamech. 6Lamech took for himself two wives. The name of the one was Ada, and the name of the other Sella. 7Ada bore Javal; he was the father of all those who dwell in tents and who pasture cattle. She gave birth for him a second time, to Jobal, who was the first to teach all kinds of musical instruments. 8At that time, when the inhabitants of the earth began to do evil deeds, every man against his neighbor’s wife, and they defiled them, God became angry. And men began to play the lyre and the cythera and every instru1:19. This one will give rest The author of L.A.B. bases his significant etymology in the Heb. root nh ̣, meaning “to rest,” while in the MT nh ̣m means “to console, comfort.” In the Bible, the significant naming of Noah represents relief or comfort brought to humankind from the hard labor of daily existence. In L.A.B., Noah’s naming is modified to provide a moral statement that stresses the difference between Noah and his contemporaries. 2:8. when the inhabitants of the earth began to do evil deeds Here, L.A.B.’s author recounts the beginnings of immorality, in particular sexual immorality, and God’s resultant displeasure. Cf. the opening verses of Gen. 6. midrashic exegesis later twisted Gen. 6:1 out of its natural sense to produce something similar to what L.A.B. has. men began to play the lyre This passage suggests an association between moral corruption and the introduction of music. Cf. Gen. Rab. 23:3, which reports that Jobal’s half sister was known for playing on the timbrel while practicing idol worship. 474 Howard Jacobson

ment of sweet music and to corrupt the earth. 9Sella bore Tobel and Miza and Theffa. This is the Tobel who showed men arts in lead and tin and iron and copper and silver and gold. Then the inhabitants of the earth began to make sculpted objects and to worship them. 10Lamech said to both his wives, Adah and Sella, “Hear my voice, wives of Lamech, and attend to my remark, for I have destroyed men on my behalf and snatched nursing babies from the breast, in order to teach my sons and the inhabitants of the earth to do evil. And now punishment will be exacted from Cain seven times, but from Lamech seventy times seven times.” Noah and the Flood 3:1When men began to multiply upon the earth, attractive daughters were born to them. The sons of

God saw that the daughters of men were very beautiful and took for themselves wives from whom they had chosen. 2God said, “My spirit shall not abide in those men forever, because they are of flesh, but their years shall be 120, at which I have set the limit of the world. But the crimes committed by their hands will not stop.”

2:9. in lead and tin and iron and copper and silver and gold As in the case of Iobal above, L.A.B.’s author expands the biblical description to make Tobel the discoverer of all metallurgy (the Bible mentions only copper and iron, at Gen. 4:22). began to . . . worship them As with Jobal above, the introduction of the arts of civilization brings with it concomitant moral degeneration. Rabbinic sources usually date the beginnings of idolatry to the time of Enosh (see, e.g., Tg. Jon. at Gen. 4:26). Given the discrepancy in ages between the brothers Cain and Seth, we could reasonably assume that Enosh and Tubalkain were contemporaries. 2:10. I have destroyed men on my behalf Midrashic traditions are divided in their portrayals of Lamech and his “song,” some painting it as self-condemnatory, the speech of an evil man, and others presenting it as exonerating a fundamentally good man. Clearly, L.A.B.’s author follows the former tradition. 3:1–3. When men began to multiply upon the earth This passage is not so much a continuation or development of what preceded, but rather another tradition set down alongside it. At L.A.B. 2:8–10 we are told of the corruption that sets in among humankind because of the inventions and behavior of Lamech and his sons, with the resultant divine anger. Now L.A.B.’s author describes the sinfulness wrought by the intermingling of the “sons of God” with the “daughters of men,” and God’s ensuing wrath (cf. Gen. 6:1–7). 3:2. God said, “ . . . their years shall be 120” An essentially verbatim quotation of Gen. 6:3. But the latter is not entirely clear. Do the words mean, “the limit to a person’s life shall be 120 years” or “humankind shall now have [only] 120 more years of existence”? The expanded sentence in L.A.B. reveals clearly how the author wants the verse to be understood here: God is giving humankind a period of 120 years in which to repent and change its ways and thereby avert the evil decree.2 But the crimes committed by their hands will not stop Humankind will persist in its evil deeds, and God’s resolve becomes final. Tg. Neof. mirrors this interpretation, putting into God’s mouth the words, “I gave them a reprieve of 120 years in the hope that they might repent, but they did not.”

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

475

3God saw that among all the inhabitants of the earth wicked deeds were many and they were plotting evil all their days, and he said, “I will blot out man and all the things that grow on earth, for I regret that I made him.” 4But Noah found favor and mercy before the Lord, and these are his generations. Noah, who was a righteous man and blameless in his generation, walked with the Lord. God said to him, “The end of all men who dwell upon the earth has arrived, for their deeds are wicked. And now make for yourself an ark from cedar wood. You will make it in the following way: Its length will be 300 cubits, its width 50 cubits, and its height 30 cubits. You will go into the ark, you, your wife, your sons and the wives of your sons with you, and I will establish my covenant with you, so that I may destroy all the inhabitants of the earth. Now of the clean animals and of the clean birds of the heaven you shall take seven pairs, male and female, so that their seed can live upon the earth. But of the unclean animals and birds you shall take for yourself and for them [blank] to eat.” 5Noah did what God commanded him. He entered the ark, he and all his sons with him. After seven days the water of the flood began to be upon the earth. On that day all the depths and the great spring and the floodgates of the heaven opened; and there was rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights. 6It was then the sixteen hundred and fifty-second year from God’s creation of the heaven and earth, the day on which the earth along with its inhabitants was destroyed on account of the wickedness of their deeds. 7The deluge continued on the earth for one hundred and fifty days. Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark survived. And when God remembered Noah, he made the water subside. 8On the ninetieth day God dried up the earth and said to Noah, “Go out of the ark, you and all who are with you, and increase and multiply upon the earth.” Noah went out of the ark, he, his sons [blank] 3:3. all the things that grow on earth The corresponding biblical verse (Gen. 6:7) lists—after humankind—animals, birds, and creeping creatures. The author of L.A.B. does not include these; instead, he has only plant life (i.e., “the things that grow on earth”), which is not included at Gen. 6:7. Possibly, L.A.B.’s author deliberately avoids having God declare that he will destroy the nonhuman living creatures because the author, like others, was puzzled or even disturbed by the destruction of these (presumably) innocent creatures.3 3:4. You will make it in the following way God’s instructions are essentially an abbreviated quotation of the text in Gen. 6–7, with several changes in language and order. The elaborate architectural details given in the Bible are ignored. 3:5. Noah did what God commanded him Coming as it does after “to eat,” this sentence must be seen as a quotation not only of Gen. 7:5, but also of 6:22. Noah did . . . forty nights This passage is a shortened form of Gen: 7:5–12. 3:6. It was then the sixteen hundred and fifty-second year A number of sources produce dates for the Flood close to L.A.B.’s date of 1652. For example, the MT produces a date of 1656 (cf. S. Olam Rab.4), Josephus gives a date of 1662 [Ant. 8.61–62]). Calculations based on the LXX (e.g., most patristic calculations) produce substantially later dates. God’s creation of the heaven and earth Having begun with Adam, this is L.A.B.’s first reference to God as creator. 3:8 This entire passage is essentially a quotation of Gen. 8:15–21a.

476 Howard Jacobson

and the wives of his sons, and brought out with him all the animals and reptiles and birds and cattle, as God commanded him. Then Noah built an altar to the Lord, and took from every clean animal and clean bird, and offered burnt offerings upon the altar; and it was accepted by the Lord like a restful scent. 9God said, “I will never again curse the earth on man’s account, for the inclination of man’s heart is degenerate from his youth; and so I will never again destroy all living creatures together as I have done. But when the inhabitants of the earth sin, I will judge them by famine or by the sword or by fire or by pestilence; there will be earthquakes, and they will be scattered to uninhabited places. However, I will not again destroy the earth by the water of the flood. For all the days of the earth, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter will not cease day and night as long as I remember those who inhabit the earth, until time is fulfilled.

animals and reptiles and birds and cattle A conflation of Gen. 8:17 and 8:19. The former verse contains all four classes, but has L.A.B.’s second item in the fourth place; the latter verse, while only mentioning three classes, places reptiles between animals and birds as L.A.B. does. it was accepted by the Lord like a restful scent The Bible states, “God smelled the sweet odor” (Gen. 8:21). “It was accepted” appears to have arisen generally from the context and is what the Targumin have here (Onkelos, Jonathan, Neofiti), “God received with favor the offering.”5 The attempt at avoiding the anthropomorphism is apparent. 3:9. I will judge them by famine or by the sword or by fire or by pestilence This echoes the familiar refrain concerning punishments in Jeremiah (who typically mentions sword, famine, and pestilence; e.g., 14:12; 27:8). Fire comes from Isa. 66:16. I will not again destroy the earth by the water of the flood This important passage conflates Gen. 8:21–22, 9:11, and 9:15 and represents one side in a major debate over the essence of God’s oath and covenant here in Genesis. The author of L.A.B. interprets the oath as an assertion that God will never again destroy humankind by a flood (rather, God might use fire, famine, or other such means). This understanding is widely found also in midrashic texts (e.g., T. Ta’an. 3:16). The opposing opinion holds that the oath commits God never to destroy the earth again, by any means (e.g., B. Zev. 116a; Gen. Rab. 39:6). As long as I remember . . . until time is fulfilled This is the first of many end-time passages in L.A.B. Most are to a small or large degree obscure. For the notion of the fulfilling of time, cf. Jer. 25:12, 29:10 (within a specific historical context and with exact numbers); Luke 21:24.

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

477

10But when the years of the world will be complete, then the light will cease and the darkness will be extinguished, and I will bring the dead to life and raise up from the earth those who are sleeping. The underworld will pay back its debt, and the place of perdition will return its deposit so that I will render to each according to his works and according to the fruits of his own deeds, until I judge between soul and flesh. And the world will be at rest, and death will be extinguished, and the underworld will close its mouth. The earth will not be without issue or sterile for those who dwell in it; and no one who has been vindicated by me will be polluted. There will be another earth and another heaven, an everlasting dwelling place.” 3:10 This account of judgment day (not so called in L.A.B.) bears striking similarities to that of 4 Esd. 7:31–44, which also mentions the resurrection of the dead, the absence of both light and darkness, and judgment according to strict canons of justice. This paragraph provides an instructive introduction to L.A.B.’s eschatology After a set period of time, the regular phenomena of nature will cease. At that point God will resurrect all the dead and judge them according to their deserts. (Note that elsewhere in L.A.B., resurrection seems limited to the just; e.g., 19:12, 23:13). We are not told what will happen to those found guilty. For all the rest, presumably, there will be eternal life marked by perfect fertility in a new world. A few implications should be noted. First, at the end of their lives all human beings evidently suffer the same fate: death (which is a prolonged sleep). Resurrection of all the dead takes place at some distant time, not as a reward for anyone but rather as an intermediate stage in which all are judged. Punishment and reward are then allotted by God. God then creates a new world in which the righteous apparently live the same kind of physical existence as in the original world, except that all is perfect and everlasting. We might note at this point the absence of any allusions to the immortality of the soul, the Messianic Age, or paradise. darkness will be extinguished The idea that both light and darkness, day and night, will be absent during the end-time is not unique, appearing, for example, in 4 Ezra 7:40 and probably in the obscure verse at Zech. 14:7. raise up from the earth those who are sleeping The notion of the dead as sleeping in the earth and capable of being awakened goes back to Isa. 26:19 and Dan. 12:2. deposit The Midrash too speaks of the dead in the earth as being the latter’s pikadon—that it must return when God demands (Pirke R. El. 34). until I judge between soul and flesh God resurrects the “dead” in order to render final judgment upon them. L.A.B. here reflects two traditions found in Rabbinic literature: one, that the soul and the body appear before God for judgment as rival litigants (e.g., Mekhilta d’-Rashbi7); the other, that upon death the body goes to one place, the soul to another, and at the resurrection they are both brought before God for judgment (e.g, Sifre Deut. 306;8 cf. 4 Ezra 7:32). the underworld will close its mouth This must mean that the underworld will no longer receive anyone—that is, that no one will die any more, rather than that the underworld will no longer release anyone for judgment. With this interpretation, 2 Bar. 21:23 is a good parallel. no one who has been vindicated by me Like the words that immediately follow, this is probably an echo of Isa. 45:25. There will be another earth and another heaven An echo of Isa. 65:17 and 66:22. an everlasting dwelling place The notion of eternity here probably derives from the implication present in Isa. 66:22 that the “new heavens and new earth” will last forever (so understood, e.g., at Sifre Deut. 47). 478 Howard Jacobson

11The Lord spoke again to Noah and to his sons, saying, “Lo, I will establish my covenant with you and with your seed after you, and I will not again destroy the earth by the water of a flood. Everything that moves and is alive will be food for you, but meat with the blood of the soul you shall not eat. Indeed, whoever will shed the blood of a man, his own blood will be shed, because man was made in the image of God. But you, increase and multiply and fill the earth, like a multitude of fish that multiplies in the waves.” 12God said. “This is the [blank] covenant that I have established between me and you. When I bring clouds to the heavens, my bow will appear in the cloud; and it will be a memorial of the covenant between me and you and all those who dwell upon the earth.” The Descendants of Noah 4:1The sons of Noah who went forth from the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

2The sons of Japheth: [blank] Magog and Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, Tiras, Ashkenaz, Riphath and Togarmah, Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim, Dodanim. The sons of Gomer: Thelez, Lud, Deberleth. The sons of Magog: Cesse and Thifa, Faruta, Ammiel, Fimei, Goloza, Samanac. The sons of Javan: Sallus, Felucta, Fallita. The sons of Tubal: Fanata, Nova, and Eva. The sons of Meshech: Amboradat, Urac, Bosara. The sons of Tiras: Maac, Tabel, Ballana, Samplameac, Elaz. The sons of Ashkenaz: Jubal, Zaraddana, Anac. The sons of Riphath: Doad, Defad, Zead, Enoc. The sons of Togarmah: Abiuth, Safath, Asapli, Zepthir. The sons of Elishah: Zaac, Zenez, Mastisa, Rira. The sons of Tarshish: Meccul, Loon, Zelatabac. The sons of Kittim: Macziel, Temna, Aela, Finon. The sons of Dodanim: Itheb, Beath, Feneth. 3These are the ones who were scattered abroad and dwelled on the mainland among the Persians and Medes and in the islands that are in the sea. Feneth the son of Dodanim went up and ordered that ships of the seas be built. Then a third part of the earth was divided up. 4Gomer and his sons received Ladech. Magog and his sons received Degal. Madai and his sons received Besto. Javan and his sons received Ceel. Tubal and his sons received Feed. Mesech and his sons received Nepthi. Tiras and his sons received Iesca. Duodenin [?Ascenaz?] and his sons received Goda. Riphath and his sons received Bosorra. Togarmah and his sons received Futh. Elishah and his sons received Thabola. Tarshish and his sons received Marecham. Kittim and his sons received Thaan. Dodanim and his sons received Caruba. 3:11. man was made in the image of God Having skipped over the creation of Adam (Gen. 1), the author of L.A.B. now makes his first reference to the creation of humankind in the image of God. 3:12. a memorial of the covenant Similar attempts to circumvent the biblical statements which suggest that God needs a reminder are found in midrashic texts and later commentators.9 Note that at L.A.B. 4:5, the rainbow serves as a reminder only for humankind, not for God. This is the view of Midr. Ag. 22. 4:1 Chapter 4 gives the descendants of Noah at length. For problems with names in L.A.B., see comments on 1:1, Noaba, and 1:3, Naat . . . Anath. 4:3. These are the ones who were scattered abroad The sense suggests that this derives not merely from Gen. 10:5, but also from 10:32.” 4:4 Gen. 10 specifies numerous cities and geographical areas for the descendants of Cham, two for those of Shem, and none for those of Japheth. Thus, the entire lengthy list here is the invention of L.A.B.’s author. Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

479

5Then they began to work the land and to sow upon it. When the earth was thirsty, its inhabitants cried out to the Lord; and he heard them and gave them rain in abundance. When the rain descended upon the earth, the bow appeared in the cloud. The earth’s inhabitants saw the memorial of the covenant and fell upon their faces and made sacrifices of burnt offerings to the Lord. 6These are the sons of Ham: Cush and Mestraim and Put and Canaan. These are the sons of Cush: Seba and Dedan. The sons of Put are: Zeleu, Telup, Geluc, Lefuc. The sons of Canaan: Sidon, Hivi, Racin, Simmin, Uruin, Nemigin, Amathin, Nefin, Telaz, Elat, Cusin. 7Cush begot Nimrod. He began to be arrogant before the Lord. Mestraim begot Ludim and Anamim and Lehabim and Naphtuhim and Pathrusim and Casluhimm, whence came the Philistines and the Cappadocians. 8Then they also began to build cities. These are the cities that they built: Sidon and its surroundings, that is, Resen, Beoso, Gaza, Gerar, Calon, Dabir, Camo, Tellun, Lachish, Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah and Seboim. 9The sons of Shem: Elam, Asshur, Arpachshad, Lud, and Aram. The sons of Aram: Uz, Hul, Gether, and Mash. Arpachshad begot Shelah; Shelah begot Eber. To Eber were born two sons; the name of one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided, and his brother’s name was Joktan. 10Joktan begot Almodad and Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah, Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah, Obal, Abimael, Sheba, Ophir, Havilah, and Jobab. The sons of Peleg were: Reu, Refuth, Zefaram, Aculon, Sachar, Sifaz, Nabi, Suri, Seciur, Falacus, Rafo, Faltia, Zaldefal, Zavis and Arteman, Helifaz. These are the sons of Peleg, and these are their names. They took wives for themselves from the daughters of Joktan and produced sons and daughters and filled the earth. 4:5. they began to work the land and to sow upon it This apparent reference to the beginnings of agriculture seems a bit illogical given the earlier inclusion of “seedtime and harvest” at L.A.B. 3:9, but the author of L.A.B. frequently provides explicit mention of the origins of facets of human civilization. He makes the point that with the division of the earth among the three Noahide lines, three major cultural developments occurred: the establishment of agriculture, the building of cities, and the beginnings of astrology and presumably idol worship. 4:7. He began to be arrogant before the Lord The pejorative coloring of the biblical text (Gen. 10:8) here is common in midrashic exegesis. Tg. Jon. and Tg. Neof. (marginal gloss) at Gen. 10:8 make him “great in sinfulness.” 4:10. They took wives for themselves from the daughters of Joktan This intermarriage between the children of Joktan and Falech has no basis in the Bible. However, L.A.B.’s author has clearly invented this as an important preliminary to his narrative of the story of Abraham, the tower, and the furnace, wherein Joktan will play a significant role. Abraham, who is (biblically) a descendant of Falech’s son Ragau, now becomes a descendant of Joktan as well (and see L.A.B. 6:6).

480 Howard Jacobson

11Reu took as his wife Melcha the daughter of Ruth, and she bore to him Serug. When the day of delivery came, she said, “From this one there will be born in the fourth generation one who will set his dwelling on high and will be called perfect and blameless; and he will be the father of nations, and his covenant will not be broken, and his seed will be multiplied forever.” 12After he begot Serug, Reu lived 119 years and begot seven sons and five daughters. These are the names of his sons: Abiel, Obthi, Salma, Aded, Asal, Zeneza, Accur, Nefis. These are the names of his daughters: Cedema, Derisa, Seifa, Ferita, Theima. 13Serug lived 29 years and begot Nahor. After he begot Nahor, Serug lived 207 years and begot four sons and three daughters. These are the names of the males: Zela, Zoba, Dica, and Fodde. These are his daughters: Tefila, Oda, Selifa. 14Nahor lived 34 years and begot Terah. After he begot Terah, Nahor lived 200 years and begot eight sons and five daughters. These are the names of the males: Recap, Dediap, Berecha, Iosac, Sithal, Nisab, Nadab, Camoel; and his daughters were: Esca, Thifa, Bruna, Cene, Etha. 15Terah lived 70 years and begot Abram and Nahor and Haran. Haran begot Lot. 16Then those who inhabited the earth began to gaze at the stars and started to prognosticate by them and to perform divination and to pass their sons and daughters through fire. But Serug and his sons did not walk in accord with them. 17These are the generations of Noah in their lands according to their tribes and languages, from which the nations were distributed on the earth after the Flood. 4:11. From this one there will be born . . . one who Prophecies of the birth of great men are commonplace in the Midrash and the pseudepigrapha. Another prophecy about Abraham on the occasion of his birth can be found at Sefer ha-Yashar 24. will set his dwelling on high The text clearly refers to Abraham’s abode and thus likely alludes to elonay mamre (e.g., Gen. 13:18; 18:1), taking mamre as if related to ram or marom. will be called perfect and blameless At Gen. 17:1, Abraham is tamim (Vulg. perfectus). The twofold modifier is meant to indicate both moral and physical perfection. The former sense, the basic one in the biblical text (NJPS: “blameless”), is represented by Tg. Neof.’s expansion (“be whole in your good deeds”), while the latter is represented in Tg. Jon. (“be whole in your body”). The latter reflects the midrashic exegesis that Abraham was physically defective because of the flaw of the foreskin and became physically whole only upon circumcision (see, e.g., T. Ned. 2:5; Pirke R. El. 29 [init]). The author of L.A.B. incorporates both understandings of tamim here. Thus, the following reference to the covenant also has a twofold meaning: the covenant between God and Abraham in its broadest sense, and also the rite of circumcision (similarly in midrashic exegesis, e.g., B. Ned. 32a). 4:16. to pass their sons and daughters through fire The Bible occasionally makes exactly this connection between divination (kesamim) and child sacrifice; see 2 Kings 17:17; Deut. 18:10. Serug and his sons did not walk in accord with them Terach’s idolatry is familiar from the Midrash and the pseudepigrapha. The author of L.A.B. is presumably exonerating the entire line from Serug to Abraham from such charges. While such exoneration of Terach is rare in the Midrash, it is not without parallel (see, e.g., S. Eli. Rab. 5:27–2810).

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

481

The Census of Noah’s Descendants 5:1Then the sons of Ham came and made Nimrod their leader; the sons of Japheth appointed Fenech

their chief; and the sons of Shem gathered together and made Joktan their leader. 2When these three came together, they decided to review and count the people who were kin to them. And so, while Noah was still alive, all assembled and lived together, and the earth was at peace. 3In the three hundred and fortieth year after Noah’s departure from the ark, after God dried up the flood, the leaders did a census of their people. 4Fenech reviewed the sons of Japheth. The sons of Gomer, all passing by under their captains’ staffs, were 5,800 in number. Of the sons of Magog, all passing by under their captains’ staffs, were 6,200 in number. The sons of Madai, all passing by under their captains’ staffs, were 5700 in number. The sons of Tubal, all passing by under their captains’ staffs, were 9,400 in number. The sons of Meshech, all passing by under their captains’ staffs, were 5,600 in number. The sons of Tiras, all passing by under their captains’ staffs, were 12,300 in number. The sons of Riphath, passing by under their captains’ staffs, were 11,500 in number. The sons of Togarmah, passing by under their captains’ staffs, were 14,400 in number. The sons of Elishah, passing by under their captains’ staffs, were 14,900 in number. The sons of Tarshish, all passing by under their captains’ staffs, were 12,100 in number. The sons of Kittim, all passing by under their captains; staffs, were 17,300 in number. The sons of Dodanim, passing by under their captains’ staffs, were 17,700 in number. The total of the camp of the sons of Japheth, all men of might and all equipped with arms for battle before their leaders, was 142,200, apart from women and children. The census of Japheth: in all there were 142,000 [?]. 5Nimrod too came forth and all the sons of Ham [blank]; all passing by under their captains’ staffs were found to be 24,800 in number. The sons of Put, all passing by under their captains’ staffs, were 27,700 in number. The sons of Canaan, all passing by under their captains’ staffs, were found to be 32,800 in number. The sons of Seba, all passing by under their captains’ staffs, were found to be 4,300 in number. The sons of Havilah, all passing by under their captains’ staffs, were found to be 24,300 in number. The sons of Sabtah, all passing by under their captains’ staffs, were found to be 25,300 in number. The sons of Raamah, all passing by under their captains’ staffs, were found to be 30,600 in number. The sons of Sabteca, all passing by under their captains’ staffs, were found to be 46,400 in number. The total of the camp of the sons of Ham, all men of valour and equipped with battle gear before their leaders, were 244,900, besides women and children. 6Joktan the son of Shem reviewed the sons of Shem. The sons of Elam, all passing by under their captains’ staffs, were 37,000 in number. The sons of Ashur, all passing by under their captains’ staffs, were found to be 78,000 in number. The sons of Aram, all passing by under their captains’ staffs, were found to be 87,400 in number. The sons of Lud, all passing by under their captains’ staffs, were found to be 30,600 in number. The sons of Arpachshad, all passing by under their captains’ staffs, were found to be 114,600 in number. Their total number was 347,600, 7the total of the camp of the sons of Shem. All were capable of engaging in battle and were equipped for war in the presence of their captains, besides women and children. 8These are the generations of Noah, arranged separately, whose total number altogether was 914,100. All these were counted while Noah was still alive. Noah lived 350 years after the flood. All the days of Noah were 950 years, and he died.

482 Howard Jacobson

Abram and the Tower of Babel 6:1Then all those who had been separated while inhabiting the earth afterward gathered and dwelled

together. Setting out from the east, they found a plain in the land of Babylon. They dwelled there and said to each other, “Behold, it will come about that we will be scattered from each other and in later times we will be fighting each other. Therefore, come now, let us build for ourselves a tower whose top will reach the heavens, and we will make for ourselves a name and a glory upon the earth.” 2They said to each other, “Let us take bricks and let each of us write our names on the bricks and burn them with fire; and what will be burned will serve as mortar and brick.” 3They each took their own bricks, aside from twelve men who refused to take them. These are their names: Abram, Nahor, Lot, Ruge, Tenute, Zaba, Armodat, Jobab, Esar, Abimahel, Saba, Aufin. 4The people of that land seized them and brought them to their chiefs and said, “These are the men who have violated our plans and refuse to walk in our ways.” The leaders said to them, “Why were you not willing, every one of you, to contribute bricks together with the people of the land?” Those men answered and said, “We are not contributing bricks with you, nor are we joining in your wishes. We know only the Lord, and him we worship. Even if you throw us into the fire with your bricks, we will not assent to you.” 5The leaders were angered and said, “As they have spoken, so do to them. Unless they agree to contribute bricks with you, burn them in the fire together with your bricks.” 6Joktan, who was the chief of the leaders, answered, “Not so, but a period of seven days will be given them, and if they repent their evil plans and are willing to contribute bricks with you, they may live. If not, let it be done, let them be burned then in accord with your judgment.” He, however, was seeking a way to save them from the hands of the people, since he was of their tribe and served God.

6:1. we will be fighting each other The desire to prevent warfare is also present in the account in Sefer ha-Yashar of the planning of the tower11 and in Josephus (Ant. 1.110–12). 6.2 In most midrashic elaborations of this story, one of two motivations, or goals, is clearly set forth Either the builders are actually constructing an instrument of idol worship or they are erecting a tower that will enable them to do battle with God in heaven. Neither motivation is apparent in L.A.B. The motivation in L.A.B. is remarkably close to that found in the Bible. First, there is some concern for “security.” Next, building a monument that will endure forever (or at least for a long time) will ensure that the builders—i.e., their reputation—shall long endure. This is why L.A.B.’s author has them write their names on the bricks, for thereby their names shall literally exist as long as the tower does. (A secondary reason may be that the written names serve as a register of who has contributed, and who has not). Both in the Bible and in L.A.B. (also in Ant. 1.113–15), the very erection of such a tower—or at least the thoughts that inspire it—is seen as a hubristic act of rebellion against God, and so must be punished. But neither idolatry per se nor the idea of storming the heavens plays a role in L.A.B. 6:4. We know only the Lord, and him we worship In context this is best taken to mean, “When you instruct us to commit this act of rebellion against God, we refuse to take orders from you, for we listen only to him” (cf. “him alone will we serve” at L.A.B. 23:14).12 6:6. He . . . was seeking a way to save them Both in its language and its plot, L.A.B. is influenced here by two biblical sources. The first is Dan. 6, wherein the enemies of Daniel accuse him to the

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

483

7After saying this, he took them and shut them in the royal house. When evening came, the leader ordered that fifty mighty warriors be summoned to him, and he said to them, “Go forth and take tonight those men who are shut up in my house, and put provisions for them from my house on ten pack animals. The men themselves bring to me, but bring their provisions with the pack animals to the mountains and await them there. Be aware that, if anyone learns what I have said to you, I will burn you in the fire.” 8The men went forth and did everything that their chief had commanded them. They brought the men from his house at night, and they took their provisions and put them on the pack animals and took them to the mountains as he had ordered them. 9The chief summoned to himself those twelve men and said to them, “Be confident and do not fear, for you will not die. For God in whom you trust is mighty, and therefore be secure in him, for he will free and save you. But now, behold, I commanded the fifty men to bring you forth, after taking provisions from my house, and to go ahead into the mountains and wait for you in the valley. Fifty other men I will give you to bring you all the way there. Go and hide yourselves in the same place in the valley; you will have water to drink that flows from the rocks. Keep yourselves there for thirty days, until the anger of the people of the land ceases and until God sends his wrath upon them and breaks them. For I know that the evil plan that they have planned to accomplish will not stand, because their devising is futile. When the seven days are complete and they will look for you, I will say to them, ‘The door of the prison in which they were locked up broke and they went out. They escaped by night. I have sent a hundred men to search for them.’ And I will turn them from the anger that is upon them.” king (as here the enemies of the 12 accuse them to Joktan) in order to have him thrown into the lions’ den (here into the fire), but the king is reluctant and would like to save the victim (Dan. 6:15), as Joktan is described here. The second is the story of Joseph and his brothers at Gen. 37. There, the hostile brothers want to kill Joseph and throw him into a pit, but the senior brother (like Joktan here) is reluctant. L.A.B.’s “to save them from the hands of the people” is a verbatim quote (mutatis mutandis) of Gen. 37:22. 6:9. God in whom you trust is mighty The plot element again comes from Dan. 6, wherein the ruler at once inflicts punishment upon the devout but expresses his assurance that God will save them. Even the language is similar (see Dan. 6:17). Go and hide yourselves The theme of going into hiding from a hostile ruling power and drinking from a stream recalls Elijah in 1 Kings 17:2–7. the evil plan that they have planned to accomplish will not stand, because their devising is futile The traditional Psalmic theme of the vanity of human plans and machinations in the face of God’s (e.g., Ps. 33:10–11; 94:11; Prov. 19:21). When the seven days are complete . . . I will say to them In the broad lines of the plot here, L.A.B.’s author may have been influenced by the story of Rahab and the spies in Josh. 2. Like Joktan here, Rahab conceals the heroes when their enemies come for them and tells them a false story about their escape. Also, both Rahab and Joktan make declarations of their belief in the rightness and superiority of the heroes’ cause. The alleged nighttime escape also comes from the Rahab tale.

484 Howard Jacobson

10Eleven of the men answered him and said, “Your servants have found favor in your eyes, in that we are rescued from the hands of these arrogant men.” 11But Abram alone was silent. The leader said to him, “Why do you not answer me, Abram servant of God?” Abram answered and said, “Behold, today I flee to the mountains. If I have escaped the fire, wild beasts will come forth from the mountains and devour us; or we will lack food and die of famine. We will be found to have escaped the people of the land, but to have fallen because of our sins. And now, as surely as God in whom I trust lives, I will not move from my place where they have put me. If there be any sin of mine such that I should be burned, let the will of God be done.” And the leader said to him, “Your blood be upon your head if you refuse to go forth with these men. If however you are willing, you will be saved; but if you wish to stay, stay as you wish.” And Abram said, “I will not go forth, but I will stay here.” 12The leader took those eleven men, sent another fifty with them and commanded them, saying, “You also wait in the mountains for fifteen days with those fifty who were sent on ahead; afterward, come back and say, ‘We have not found them,’ as I told the former group. And be aware that if anyone disregards any of all these words that I have spoken to you, he will be burned by fire.” After the men set out, he took Abram by himself and shut him up again where he had been shut up. 13When seven days had passed, the people assembled and spoke to their leader, “Deliver to us the men who refused to join in our plan, and we will burn them in the fire.” The leaders sent men to bring them, but they found no one except Abram alone. All of them gathered before their leaders and said, “The men whom you locked up have fled and have evaded our plan.” 14Fenech and Nimrod said to Joktan, “Where are the men whom you locked up?” But he said, “They broke out at night. But I have sent a hundred men to search for them and instructed them that, if they find them, they should not only burn them in fire but also give their corpses to the birds of the heavens; let them destroy them in this way.” 15Then those men said, “This one who alone has been found, let us burn him.” They took Abram and brought him to their leaders. They said to him, “Where are the men who were with you?” He said, “I was asleep during the night; when I awoke, they were not there.” 16They took him and built a furnace and lit it with fire. They threw the bricks into the furnace to be fired. Then the leader Joktan, dismayed, took Abram and threw him with the bricks into the fiery furnace. 6:10. we are rescued from the hands of these arrogant men A line that is in both language and theme distinctly Psalmic.13 6:11. Abram Abram is our hero’s name until God changes it to Abraham. If I have escaped the fire, wild beasts will come The absolute fatalism in this passage is marked. Abram knows that if he is destined to die, nothing he can do will change that. Similarly, his faith in God is absolute. No matter what the circumstances, he is certain that God can save him if God so wills. The rhetoric of the passage is based on two biblical texts, primarily Amos 5:19 (“As if a man should run from a lion / And be attacked by a bear; / Or if he got indoors, / Should lean his hand on the wall / And be bitten by a snake”), also 1 Kings 19:17 (“Whoever escapes the sword of Hazael shall be slain by Jehu, and whoever escapes the sword of Jehu shall be slain by Elisha”). 6:13. Deliver to us the men This is a reminiscence, possibly a calculated one, of the demands made by the men of Sodom at Gen. 19:5.

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

485

17But God stirred up a great earthquake, and burning fire leaped forth out of the furnace into flames and sparks of flame, and it burned up all those standing around in front of the furnace. All those who were consumed in that day were 83,500. But there was not even the slightest injury to Abram from the burning of the fire. 18Abram arose out of the furnace, and the fiery furnace collapsed. And Abram was saved and went off to the eleven men who had been hiding in the mountains, and he told them everything that had happened to him. They went down with him from the mountains, rejoicing in the name of the Lord. No one who met them frightened them that day. They named that place after the name of Abram and in the language of the Chaldeans “Deli,” which means “God.” The Tower and the Dispersion 7:1After these events the people of the land did not turn from their evil thoughts and they came together

again to their leaders and said, “Let not the people ever be defeated. and now let us come together and build ourselves a city and a tower that will never be taken away.” 2When they had begun to build, God saw the city and the tower that the sons of men were building, and he said, “Behold they are one people and there is one language for all. As for what they have begun to do, upon seeing it neither will the earth endure nor will the heavens hold out. If they are not restrained now, they will be daring in all the things they propose to do. 3Therefore, behold, I will divide up their languages and scatter them into all regions so that one man will not recognize the other nor will people understand each other’s language. I will assign them to the cliffs, and they will build for themselves abodes in nests of stalks and will dig caves for themselves and live there like the beasts of the field. And so they will be before me all the time, so that they will never

6:17. God stirred up a great earthquake The description of divine punishment here draws on several biblical passages: the account of the earthquake and fire that destroy Korah and his followers (Num. 16:31–35; this can be seen also at e.g. B. Sanh. 109a, where a third of the tower is swallowed up by the earth); the fire of God that appears suddenly and destroys the disgruntled, at Num. 11:3; and the fiery sparks (cf. “sparks of flame” here) that issue from the furnace and kill the evil bystanders, at Dan. 3:22. 6:18 The narrative in chapter 6 brings together two common stories, the first being the biblical story of the tower of Babel, the second the Rabbinic story of Abraham’s rescue from the furnace (passage from one to the other being made easy by the need for a furnace to bake the bricks). The connecting of these two tales is unique to L.A.B. In the Bible, no connection whatsoever exists between Abraham and the Tower, but Rabbinic literature does make some connections.14 7:2. God saw the city The author of L.A.B. deliberately avoids the Bible’s graphic anthropomorphizing here (Gen. 11:5: “The Lord came down to look”). neither will the earth endure nor will the heavens hold out This is the theme of cosmic empathetic morality, and while more common in the Greco-Roman world, it has a role in the Jewish world as well (cf., e.g., Jer. 2:12, with Kimchi’s interpretation). 7:3. I will assign them to the cliffs God’s declaration here is an expansion of the simple biblical “Thus the Lord scattered them” (Gen. 11:8a) and involves the measure-for-measure punishment that the author of L.A.B. likes so much. Thus, the people who wanted to live together in unity will

486 Howard Jacobson

make such plots, and I will consider them like a drop of water and liken them to spittle. For some the end will come by water, but others will dry up from thirst. 4In preference to all these I will choose my servant Abram, and I will bring him out from their land and will bring him into the land upon which my eye has looked from the beginning. When all the inhabitants of the earth sinned before me and I brought the waters of the flood, I did not destroy it but preserved it. For neither did the fountains of my anger burst forth in it, nor did the waters of my wrath descend on it. There I will settle my servant Abram and I will establish my covenant with him and will bless his seed and be called by him the eternal God.” 5When the people inhabiting the earth had begun to build the tower, God divided up their languages and changed their appearances, and so they did not recognize each other nor did they understand each other’s language. And so, when the builders would order their assistants to bring bricks, those would bring water; and if they requested water, they would bring straw. Thus, their plan was broken, and they stopped building the city. The Lord scattered them from there over the face of all the earth. For this reason the name of the place was called “Babel,” because there God confounded their languages and from there scattered them over the face of all the earth. From Abram to Joseph 8:1Abram went forth from there and dwelled in the land of Canaan and took with him Lot the son of his

brother and Sarai his wife. Since Sarai was sterile and had borne no children, Abram then took Hagar his maid and she bore him Ishmael. Ishmael begot twelve sons. 2Then Lot left Abram and settled in Sodom. But Abram lived in the land of Canaan. The men of Sodom were wicked and great sinners. 3God appeared to Abram, saying, “To your seed I will give this land, and your name will be called

now be scattered all over in small groups; the people who wanted a “civilized” life—that is, to live in a city and occupy a huge building—will now find themselves living in the wild, in huts, caves, or cliffs, more like wild beasts than civilized men. 7:4. In preference to all these I will choose my servant Abram The author of L.A.B. is not alone in connecting God’s choice of Abram to the Tower story. Thus, at Pirke R. El. 24, God’s decision to confound the builders of the tower is tied to his selection of Abram and his descendants. Already at Sifre Deut. 311–12, the explanation given for Deut. 32:8–9 is that setting “the divisions of man” is a reference to God’s scattering of the builders of the tower. I did not destroy it For the tradition that the Land of Israel was not inundated by the Flood, see, for example, Gen. Rab. 32:10; also, the interesting variation at Pirke R. El. 23. 7:5. God . . . changed their appearances The author of L.A.B. is probably alluding here, in addition to the division of languages, to the division of humankind into varied physical features according to races and nationalities. The ancients were perfectly aware of and interested in the differences in physical appearance between geographically distinct peoples. The author of L.A.B. thus makes the Tower story an etiology not merely of humankind’s different languages, but also of humankind’s differing physical characteristics.

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

487

Abraham, and Sarai, your wife, will be called Sarah. I will give to you from her an eternal seed, and I will establish my covenant with you.” And Abraham knew Sarah, his wife, and she conceived and bore Isaac. 4Isaac took for himself a wife from Mesopotamia, the daughter of Bethuel, who conceived and bore to him Esau and Jacob. 5Esau took for himself as wives Judith the daughter of Beeri, Basemath the daughter of Elon, [blank], Oholibamah the daughter of Anah and Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael. Adah bore him Eliphaz. The sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zepho, Gatam, Cenaz, Amalek. Judith bore Tenacis, Ieruebemas; Basemath bore Reuel. The sons of Reuel were Nahath, Zerah, Shammah, Mizzah. Oholibama bore Iush, Ialam, Korah. Mahalath bore Tenetde, Thenatela. 6Now Jacob took for himself as wives the daughters of Laban the Aramean, Leah and Rachel, and two concubines, Bilhah and Zilphah. Leah bore to him Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, and Dinah their sister. Rachel bore Joseph and Benjamin. Bilhah bore Dan and Napthali. Zilphah bore Gad and Asher. These are the sons of Jacob, twelve in number, and one daughter. 7Jacob dwelled in the land of Canaan. Shechem the son of Hamor the Hurrite took Dinah his daughter and raped her. The sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, went in and killed their whole city by the sword; and they took their sister Dinah and went out from there. 8Afterward, Job took her as a wife and begot from her fourteen sons and six daughters, that is, seven sons and three daughters before he was struck down with suffering, and afterward seven sons and three daughters when he was healed. These are their names: Elifaz, Omar, Disan, Bilhan, Esar, Alvan, Theman; and his daughters: Meru, Litaz, Zeli. Such as had been the names of the earlier, so were those of the later. 9Jacob and his twelve sons lived in the land of Canaan. They hated their brother Joseph and they sold him into Egypt to Potiphar, the chief of Pharaoh’s cooks; he spent fourteen years in his house. 8:3. I will give to you from her an eternal seed The author of L.A.B. emphasizes God’s guarantee of the eternity of the Jewish people from its beginnings in a more explicit way than the Bible has (cf., e.g., Gen. 13:15; 17:7–8). 8:6. Laban the Aramean This is the biblical expression (e.g., Gen. 31:20, 24). The rivalry between Jacob and Esau, the former’s flight, and so on, are all passed over in silence. 8:7. killed their whole city The Bible has “slew all the males” (Gen. 34:25). 8:8. Job took her as a wife Dinah’s identification as Job’s wife is an old midrashic tradition. It is found in Aristeas, Testament of Job, and in Rabbinic texts such as Gen. Rab. 19:12. While the Bible does not name Job’s wife, in L.A.B., Dinah is his lifelong spouse. Tradition was able to place Job in Jacob’s time by identifying him with Jobab of Gen. 36:33. 8:9. they sold him into Egypt Here, L.A.B.’s author echoes the words of Gen. 37:36, but he uses an entirely different tradition. For in our Gen. 37 narrative, the brothers have no part in the sale of Joseph into Egypt. But later exegetes revised the biblical narrative in such a way (perhaps growing out of Gen. 45:4: “Then Joseph said to his brothers . . . I am . . . he whom you sold into Egypt.”) as to make them the sellers of Joseph, and it is this tradition that L.A.B. follows.15 fourteen years The Bible never reports how long Joseph resided in Potiphar’s house, but it is clear that L.A.B.’s “fourteen years” is grounded in the biblical account. At the time of his brethren’s hostility and his sale into Egypt, Josephus (read: “Joseph”) is reported as being 17 (Gen. 37:2). When he appears before Pharaoh (Gen. 41:46), he is 30. As L.A.B.’s author leaves out the episodes of Potiphar’s wife and Joseph’s imprisonment, the 14 years (counting inclusively) are all spent in Potiphar’s service. 488 Howard Jacobson

10Afterward, the king of Egypt had a dream. He was told about Joseph, and Joseph explained to him the dreams. After he had explained to him the dreams, Pharaoh made him chief over all the land of Egypt. At that time there was a famine over all the land, as Joseph had interpreted, and his brothers went down to buy food in Egypt because only in Egypt was there food. Joseph recognized his brothers, but was not recognized by them. But he did not deal maliciously with them, and he sent and summoned his father from the land of Canaan; and Jacob came down to him. 11These are the names of the sons of Israel who went down to Egypt with Jacob, each with his own household. The sons of Reuben: Hanoch, Pallu, Hezron, and Carmi. The sons of Simeon: Namuel and Jamin and Ohad and Jachin and [blank] Shaul the son of the Canaanite woman. Now the sons of Levi: Gershon, Kohath, and Merari. The sons of Judah: Er and Onan, Shelah, Perez, and Zerah. The sons of Issachar: Tola and Puvah, Job and Shimron. The sons of Zebulun: Sered, Elon, and Jahleel. And Dinah their sister bore fourteen sons and six daughters. These are the generations of the sons that she bore to Jacob, all the sons and daughters being 52. 12The sons of Dan: Hushim. The sons of Naphtali: Betaal, Neemmu, Surem, Opti, Sariel. These are the descendants of Bilhah that she bore to Jacob; the total was eight. 13The sons of Gad: [blank] Sariel, Sua [blank], Isui, Mofar, Serah their sister; the sons of Beriah, Heber and Melchiel. These are the descendants of Zilphah the wife of Jacob that she bore to him, and all the sons and daughters were ten in number. 14The sons of Joseph: Ephraim and Manasseh. Benjamin begat Bela, Ashbel, Nanubal, Abocmefec, Utendeus. These are the persons whom Rachel bore to Jacob, fourteen. They went down to Egypt and dwelled there 210 years. Amram and the Birth of Moses 9:1After Joseph’s death, the sons of Israel multiplied and increased greatly. A new king, who did not know

Joseph, arose in Egypt, and he said to his people, “Behold, that people is more numerous than are we. Come, let us make a plan against them so that they will not increase.” The king of Egypt ordered all his people, saying, “Every son that is born to the Hebrews, throw into the river; but let their females live.” The Egyptians answered their king, saying, “We will kill their males and keep their females so that we may give them to our slaves as wives. And whoever is born from them will be a slave and will serve us.” This is what seemed worst before the Lord. 2Then the elders of the people gathered the people together in mourning, and they mourned with lamentation, saying, “The wombs of our wives have lost their children; our fruit is delivered to our enemies. Now let us make a resolution and let us establish a rule for ourselves that a man should not approach his wife lest the fruit of their wombs be defiled and our offspring serve idols. For it is better to die without children, until we know what God does.”

8:14. They . . . dwelled there 210 years A traditional number for the stay (or a particular portion of the stay) in Egypt. See, for example, Mek. d’Rashbi on Exod. 12:40.16 9:2 For a remarkable historical parallel to the resolution to become celibate rather than produce children who will not be allowed to observe the ways of the Torah, see Rabbi Ishmael’s remarks at B. BB 60b (end); cf. T. Sot. 15:10.

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

489

3Amram answered and said, “Sooner will the world be destroyed forever or the universe sink into the immeasurable or the heart of the deep touch the stars than that the race of the sons of Israel will be destroyed. Some day the covenant will be fulfilled, that he established with Abraham and said, ‘Your sons will dwell in a land not their own and will be reduced to slavery and afflicted 400 years.’ And behold from the time when the word of God that he spoke to Abraham was spoken, it is 350 years; from the time when we became slaves in Egypt, it is 130 years. 4Accordingly now I will not abide by what you decree, but I will go in and take my wife and produce children so that we will multiply upon the earth. For God will not continue in his anger, nor will he forget his people forever, nor will he cast forth the race of Israel into nothingness upon the earth; nor did he emptily establish a covenant with our fathers. When we did not yet exist, God nonetheless spoke about these things. 5Now therefore I will go and take my wife, and I will not consent to the orders of the king; if it is right in your eyes, so let us all do. For when our wives conceive, they will not be recognized as pregnant until three months have passed, as also our mother Tamar did. For her intention was not to commit fornication, but being unwilling to separate from the sons of Israel she so reflected and said, ‘It is better for me to have intercourse with my father-in-law and die than to have intercourse with Gentiles.’ And she hid the fruit of her womb until the third month. For then she was recognized. When going to her execution, she stopped and said, ‘The man to whom belongs this staff and signet ring and the sheepskin, from him I have conceived.’ Her purpose saved her from all danger. 6Now therefore let us also do thus. When the time of giving birth has been completed, if we are able, we will not cast forth the fruit of our womb. Who knows, perhaps God will act zealously on account of this to free us from our humiliation.” 9:3. Amram answered Amram appears with no introduction at all. The author of L.A.B. undoubtedly relies on his audience’s knowledge. The story of the celibacy plan was common in the Midrash, but Amram was always represented as taking part in it. Only here in L.A.B. is he presented as opposing the plan. The pattern is the same as in L.A.B.’s narrative of Abraham and the Tower. In each, a group of men is presented as faithful to God and adopting a particular plan. But one man stands apart from the group by virtue of his absolute, unyielding, and uncompromising confidence in God. Because of this he refuses to take part in the plan. it is 350 years . . . it is 130 years The Rabbis long noted the contradiction between Gen. 15:13 (400 years) and Exod. 12:40–41 (430 years). They explained it (away) in several fashions. In L.A.B., however, the contradiction is preserved. 9:5. our mother Tamar A remarkable characterization of Tamar, especially when one recalls the injunction at B. Ber. 16b that only four women were to be given the title “mother” (Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, and Leah). It must have to do with the tradition that Tamar was the ancestress of King David (and so of the messiah).17 For the same reason, Ruth is sometimes counted as one of the matriarchs (e.g., Pesik. Rav Kah. 1618). It is better . . . than to have intercourse with Gentiles The condemnation of intermarriage with Gentiles is frequent in L.A.B. 9:6. Who knows, perhaps A certain echo, probably conscious, of Mordecai’s words to Esther at Esther 4:14. There, as here in L.A.B., these words offer hope at a moment of impending catastrophe for the Jewish people. The author of L.A.B. uses the same echo again at L.A.B. 30:4 and 39:3 in similar contexts and to the same effect. 490 Howard Jacobson

7The plan that Amram contemplated was pleasing to God. And God said, “Because Amram’s plan has pleased me, and he has not put aside the covenant established between me and his fathers, behold therefore now he who will be born from him will serve me forever, and I will do wonders in the house of Jacob through him and I will perform through him signs and wonders for my people that I have not done for anyone else; and I will place my glory among them and proclaim to them my ways. 8And I, God, will kindle on his behalf my lamp to reside in him, and I will show him my house that no one has seen. I will reveal to him my majesty and statutes and judgments, and I will kindle an eternal light for him, because I thought of him in the days of old, saying, ‘My spirit will not be a mediator among man forever, because he is flesh and his days will be 120 years.’ “ 9Amram of the house of Levi went out and took his wife from his own tribe. When he had taken her, the others imitated him and took their own wives. And this man had one son and one daughter; their names were Aaron and Miriam. 10The spirit of God came upon Miriam one night, and she saw a dream and reported it to her parents in the morning, saying, “I had a vision this night, and behold a man was standing in a linen garment and he said to me, ‘Go and say to your parents, “Behold the child who will be born of you will be cast forth into the water; likewise through him the water will be dried up. And I will work signs through 9:7. Amram’s plan has pleased me Once again, L.A.B. models his Amram upon Abraham (see comment on 9:3, Amram answered). Amram here, like Abraham in Gen. 22, shows absolute faith in God in circumstances where the life of his child is at stake, and once that faith has been demonstrated, God acknowledges that devotion and blesses the faithful man through his child. I will do wonders . . . through him For the theme of God accomplishing his miracles through Moses, cf. Exod. 4:21; Deut. 34:11. 9:8. My spirit will not be a mediator We may have here an allusion to the notion that Moses functioned as an intermediary between God and the Jewish people. This is of course evident in the Bible, and the term itself (sarsur, “mediator”; Gk. mesites) is frequently used of Moses.19 9:9. went out and took his wife That Amram is now retaking his wife (i.e., refusing to separate from her) becomes apparent from the following “took their own wives” and “this man had one son,” and so on. the others imitated him Just as in the Midrash, Amram’s decision to live with his wife is immediately imitated by the others (B. Sot. 12a). 9:10. The spirit of God came upon Miriam one night Though some sources report a prophecy by Miriam concerning Moses the future savior (e.g. Mek. d’Rashbi 20; B. Sot. 11b, 12b–13a) and others report a dream foretelling his birth (e.g., Amram’s dream in Josephus), L.A.B. appears to be the only source that ties the prophetic dream to Miriam. a man was standing The language closely recalls that describing the appearance of the angel to Joshua at Josh. 5:13 and the appearance of a divine figure at Dan. 8:15, who proceeds to explain a vision (and is called Gabriel). in a linen garment The figure in L.A.B. derives from the man in linen at Dan. 10–12. the child . . . will be cast into the water; likewise through him the water will be dried up This is but a slight variation on the common theme that the Egyptians were drowned in the Sea of Reeds because they drowned the Jewish children in the Nile.21

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

491

him and save my people, and he will exercise leadership always.”’” When Miriam reported her dream, her parents did not believe her. 11The king’s plan became increasingly oppressive against the sons of Israel and they were afflicted and burdened in the making of bricks. 12Jochebed conceived from Amram and hid him in her womb [blank] for three months. For she could not conceal him any longer, because the king of Egypt appointed regional officials who, when the Hebrew women gave birth, would immediately throw their male children into the river. She took her child and made for him an ark from the bark of a cedar tree and placed the ark at the edge of the river. 13That boy was born in the covenant of God and the covenant of his flesh. 14When they cast him forth, all the elders assembled and quarreled with Amram, saying, “Wasn’t this what we said to you when we spoke, ‘It is better for us to die without having children than that the fruit of our womb be cast into the waters’?” When they said this, Amram did not respond. 15Pharaoh’s daughter came down to wash in the river, in accord with what she had seen in a dream, and her maids saw the ark. She dispatched one, and she fetched and opened it. When she saw the boy and noticed that he was covenantal (that is, he was in the covenant of the flesh) she said, “He is one of the Hebrew children.” 16She took him and nursed him. And he became her own son, and she called him by the name Moses. But his mother called him Melchiel. The child grew up and became glorious above all other men, and through him God freed the sons of Israel as he had said. 9:12. Jochebed conceived . . . and hid him in her womb for three months The author of L.A.B. means that the pregnancy was concealed for three months, as is clear from the analogy to Tamar made at L.A.B. 9:5. the bark of a pine The Bible does not speak of wood at all, much less pine. Exod. 2:3 has tevat gome, “a basket of bulrushes.” 9:13. was born in the covenant of God and the covenant of his flesh For the explicit notion of “covenant of [in] the flesh,” cf. Gen. 17:13. 9:15. Pharaoh’s daughter came down . . . in accord with what she had seen in a dream The basic details—the descent to the Nile by the daughter of Pharaoh to wash, accompanied by her maids, and the ensuing discovery of Moses—are derived from the Exodus narrative. But the motivation for her descent (a dream) has no basis in the Bible. Midrashic embellishments there are, e.g. she had skin lesions (Tg. Jon. at Exod. 2:5; PRE 48); she was leprous [Exod. Rab. 1.23], there was a heat wave [Yashar 243]; she went to purify herself from idolatry [Exod. Rab. 1.23]. For a midrashic parallel, see Midr. Hag. at Gen. 23:1,22 where we read, with reference to Prov. 31:15 (“She rises while it is still night”), that the verse alludes to the daughter of Pharaoh who had a divine vision that she would raise the future savior of Israel, and so she would go strolling by the Nile regularly, morning and evening. The association with “night” of the Proverbs verse makes it likely that her vision was a dream.23 9:16. his mother called him Melchiel That is, “God is my king.” Although various midrashic sources enumerate many names for Moses (e.g., Chronicles of Jerahmeel 44.7; Sefer ha-Yashar 243), none appear to mention Malkiel or the like. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 1.2324) writes that, according to the initiates, after his assumption Moses was called “Melchi,” and Syncellus says that Moses’s parents called him Melchias (which he explains as meaning “king”).25 But even closer parallels

492 Howard Jacobson

The Exodus 10:1When the king of the Egyptians died, a new king rose up and afflicted the entire people of Israel.

But they cried out to the Lord, and he heard them. He sent Moses and freed them from the land of the Egyptians. God also sent upon them ten plagues and smote them. These were the plagues, namely, blood and frogs and mixed creatures and hail and pestilence upon cattle and locusts and lice and palpable darkness and the death of the first-born. 2When they had departed that place and were going forward, the heart of the Egyptians was hardened again, and they proceeded to pursue them and found them by the Red Sea. The children of Israel cried out to their Lord and said to Moses, saying, “Behold now the time of our destruction has arrived. For the sea is in front of us, and the throng of enemies is behind us, and we are in the middle. Was it for this that God brought us out? Are these the covenants that he established with our fathers, saying, ‘To your seed will I give the land which you inhabit’? Now let him do with us whatever is pleasing in his eyes.” 3Then the children of Israel, in fear because of the pressing crisis, were split in their opinions according to three plans. The tribe of Reuben and the tribe of Issachar and the tribe of Zebulun and the tribe of Simeon said, “Come, let us throw ourselves into the sea. For it is better for us to die in the water than to be killed by our enemies.” The tribe of Gad and the tribe of Asher and the tribes of Dan and Naphtali said, “No, but let us go back with them; and if they are willing to grant us life, we will serve them.” But the tribe of Levi and the tribes of Judah and Joseph and the tribe of Benjamin said, “Not so, but let us take up our weapons and fight with them, and may God be with us.” 4Moses cried out to the Lord and said, “Lord God of our fathers, did you not say to me, ‘Go and tell the sons of Israel, “God has sent me to you”’? And now behold you have brought your people to the edge of the sea and the enemy has pursued them. But you, Lord, think of your reputation.” exist. Bar Hebraeus (pp. 102–103) reports almost exactly what L.A.B. has, that “Moses’s parents called him Malkel,” and Ishodad of Merv in his Commentary on Exodus26 says that Moses’s parents called him Yamkil, which is probably a corruption of Malkel, since he proceeds to explain the name as meaning “God has ruled.” 10:1. He sent Moses Cf. Ps. 105:26, “He sent His servant Moses.” ten plagues The expression eser makot does not occur in the Bible (cf. Midr. Hag. at Deut. 26:8). Its presence here may be the earliest attested example of the phrase. palpable darkness Derived from Exod. 10:21. 10:2. the heart of the Egyptians was hardened Close to L.A.B. is Exod. 14:17, wherein God is said to stiffen “the hearts of the Egyptians.” the Red Sea The traditional translation (e.g., LXX) of the Bible’s yam suf. 10:3. the children of Israel . . . were split in their opinions according to three plans So too in the Midrash, e.g., Tg. Jon. at Exod. 14:13–14. The notion of disagreement amongst the tribes at the Sea of Reeds derives from Ps. 68:28 The division of opinions here is typical of L.A.B. There are those who are willing to betray the just cause, those who are ready to commit suicide rather than becoming traitors, and those who will plan and fight against the wicked enemy. But the ideal (not represented here except in the actual outcome) is simply to put one’s faith in God and let him save the day. 10:4. did you not say to me Moses’s complaints to God that he has evidently not fulfilled the promises made upon commissioning Moses recall the latter’s words at Exod. 5:22–23.

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

493

5And God said, “Since you have cried out to me, lift up your rod and strike the sea, and it will be dried up.” Moses did all this and God raged at the sea and it dried up. The streams of water stood up and the depths of the earth became visible, and the foundations of the world were laid bare by the fearful roar of God and by the breath of the anger of the Lord. 6Israel passed through the middle of the sea on dry ground. The Egyptians saw this and continued to pursue them. God dulled their minds, and they did not know that they were entering the sea. While the Egyptians were in the sea, God again commanded the sea and said to Moses, “Strike the sea again.” And he did so. The Lord commanded the sea, and it returned to its course and covered the Egyptians and their chariots and horsemen to this day. 7He guided his people in the wilderness for forty years. He rained down for them bread from heaven and brought quail to them from the sea and brought forth a well of water to follow them. With a pillar of cloud he led them by day, and with a pillar of fire he gave them light by night. The Decalogue 11:1In the third month after the departure of the children of Israel from the land of Egypt, they came

to the wilderness of Sinai, and God remembered his words and said, “I will give a light to the world and illuminate their habitations and establish my covenant with human beings and glorify my people above all nations. I will enjoin upon them the eternal statutes that will be a light for the righteous, but will be a punishment for the impious.” 2He said to Moses, “Behold I will call you from the mountain; be prepared and tell my people, ‘For three days let no man approach his wife,’ and on the third day I will speak to you and to them. Afterward you will come up to me, and I will put my words in your mouth, and you will instruct my people,

10:5. strike the sea No smiting of the sea occurs in the biblical narrative. The author of L.A.B., however, is not alone in making Moses strike the sea here. Indeed, this was a widespread tradition whose adherents included Philo, Ezekiel the Tragedian, and Josephus. God raged at the sea and it dried up Thus, L.A.B.’s author makes it crystal clear that it is God, not Moses, who effects the miracle. This is almost an exact quotation of Ps. 106:9. 10:6. God dulled their minds This interpretation of the phrase “God hardened their hearts” is indeed found in the Midrash. Thus, in Lekach Tov at Exod. 10:1 we read that the phrase means, “I will give him dullness and folly.” Furthermore, the notion that God somehow tricked the Egyptians into entering the sea, as is apparent in the next words (“they did not know that they were entering the sea”) is also attested in midrashic literature. A brief mention in Mek. R. Ish.27 reports that God confused the Egyptians (cf. Exod. 14:24) so that they did not know what they were doing. 10:7. brought forth a well of water to follow them There was a targumic-midrashic tradition, rooted in Num. 21:16, of a well that accompanied the Jews through the desert. With a pillar of cloud The L.A.B.’s list of four benefits conferred upon the Jews in the desert (manna, quail, well, pillars of cloud and fire) resembles the list of three benefits (manna, well, clouds) at Mek. Wayassa 5.28 11:1. I will give a light to the world The traditional association of the Torah with light. 11:2. For three days let no man approach his wife The author of L.A.B. states explicitly and unambiguously that the period of celibacy is to last three days (cf. Exod. 19:15).

494 Howard Jacobson

for I have given an everlasting Law into your hands and with this I will judge the whole world. For this will serve as a witness. For if men should say, ‘We did not know you, and so we did not serve you,’ on this account will I punish them, because they did not recognize my Law.” 3Moses did what God commanded him, and he sanctified the people and said to them, “Be prepared for the third day, because in three days God will establish his covenant with you.” And the people were sanctified. 4On the third day, lo, there were sounds of thunder and the brightness of lightning, and the sound of trumpets sounded loudly. There was terror in all the people that were in the camp. And Moses brought the people out toward God. 5And behold the mountains were ablaze with fire, the earth trembled, the hills shook, the mountains tottered, the depths bubbled, all the habitable world was shaken, the heavens folded up, the clouds dripped water, flames of fire burned, thunder and lightning abounded, winds and storms roared, the stars assembled, and angels ran ahead, until God should give the law of his eternal covenant to the children of Israel and give everlasting commandments that will not pass away. 6Then the Lord spoke to his people all these words, saying, “I am the Lord your God who took you from the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery. You shall not make for yourselves graven gods; neither shall you make any abomination [blank] of the sun and moon or of any of the host of heaven; nor shall you make a likeness of any of the things that are upon the earth or of those things that are in the water or creep upon the earth. I am the Lord your God, a jealous God who visits the sins of them

this will serve as a witness The notion that the Torah shall serve as testimony (witness) is already in the Bible. Indeed, Deut. 31:26 (“Take this book of Teaching . . . and let it remain there as a witness against you”) is nearly our text exactly. The Midrash neatly draws on this theme to explain the motive for two tablets of the Law, so that they can serve as the requisite two witnesses (see Midr. Hag. at Exod. 31:18).29 11:5. the mountains were ablaze with fire This is a quotation from Deuteronomy’s account of revelation (4:11, 9:15). the earth trembled That the earth shook at Revelation is not part of the biblical narrative. But such tremors—together with other spectacular natural (or supernatural) phenomena—were commonly so attributed by midrashic exegetes on the basis of external biblical verses that they interpreted as referring to the Revelation. flames of fire burned The reference to fire at Sinai (apart from mentions of lightning) is biblical (Exod. 19:18). See also Mek. d’Rashbi.30 will not pass away Whether the author’s repeated emphasis here on the permanence of the Torah is anti-Christian polemic is not clear. 11:6. the Lord spoke . . . all these words The text of L.A.B. contradicts what is implied by the account at Deut. 5:4 and is explicit in several midrashic accounts (e.g., Pesik. Rab. 2231): that the Jewish people did not hear all the Ten Commandments directly from God. Other sources (including Philo and Josephus) maintain L.A.B.’s author’s view that they did. neither shall you make any abomination The prohibition of images is spelled out in detail in Deut. 4:16–18. In that context, we have explicit references to the worship of “the sun, the moon, [the stars], all the host of the heavens,” the very words L.A.B.’s author uses here.

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

495

that sleep on the living sons of the impious if they walk in the ways of their parents, until the third and fourth generation, but who acts mercifully for a thousand generations to those who love me and keep my commandments. 7You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, lest my words be rendered vain. For God abominates him who takes his name in vain. 8Keep the Sabbath day to sanctify it. For six days do work, but on the seventh day is the Lord’s Sabbath. You shall not do any work on it, you and all your servants, except to praise the Lord in the congregation of the elders and to glorify the Mighty One in the assembly of the aged. For in six days the Lord made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all things that are in them and all the world and the uninhabitable wilderness and all land that is cultivated and all the arrangement of heaven. And God rested on the seventh day. Therefore, God sanctified the seventh day because he rested on it. 9Honor your father and your mother, and fear them, and then your light will rise up. I will command the heaven, and it will give its rain, and the earth hasten its fruit. You will live a long life and dwell in your land, and you will not be without children, for your seed will not be lacking in people to dwell in it. if they walk in the ways of their parents Similar qualifications of the biblical text are found in Rabbinic sources, e.g., Tg. Onk. at Exod. 34:17. 11:8. Keep the Sabbath day The text of L.A.B. here follows the version of Deut. 5:12 (“keep” rather than “remember”). The Samaritan account of the Revelation both here and elsewhere in Exod. 20 follows the version of Deut. 5. praise the Lord That the Sabbath is specially designated for the praise of God is a familiar notion. The Sabbath Psalm (Ps. 92) begins with the words, “It is good to praise the Lord, to sing hymns to your name, O Most High.” Josephus (Ant. 7.305) says that David instructed the Levites to “sing hymns to God” on Sabbaths and festivals. At Jub. 2:21 we read, “the Sabbath to eat and drink and bless God the creator.” Bereshit Rabbati reports that the tradition of praising God on the Sabbath goes back to Adam himself.32 he rested on it The Exodus verse has nothing corresponding to this, but L.A.B.’s author is quoting from Gen. 2:3. 11:9. Honor your father and your mother . . . and then your light will rise up In the Bible, of the Ten Commandments only this one has a reward mentioned for keeping it (Exod. 20:12) and L.A.B.’s author follows suit. Although it is not clear why this particular reward should be offered for filial respect, we have much the same tradition in Rabbinic texts. Thus, in Lekach Tov at Deut. 5:1533 we read that light is sown for the person who honors his parents, and in Midr. Hag. at Exod. 20:1234 this same notion is expressed negatively, that is, the one who curses his parents will have his light extinguished. the earth hasten its fruit There does not appear to be any parallel to the view expressed here—that respect for one’s parents will result in the bountiful fertility of the land—but the reasoning behind it seems apparent. If people will give birth to good offspring, then the earth will give birth to good crops. Once again, the principle of measure for measure is operative here. you will not be without children Again, an addition to the biblical text. As with the earlier one (“I will command the heaven” etc.), the measure for measure principle is the determining factor. If you will be good children, then you will be rewarded with children.

496 Howard Jacobson

10You shall not commit adultery, because your enemies committed adultery against you, but you went out with a high hand. 11You shall not kill, because your enemies had power over you so as to kill you, but you saw their death. 12You shall not be a false witness against your neighbor, speaking false testimony, lest your neighbors speak false testimony against you. 13You shall not covet your neighbor’s house nor whatever he possesses, lest others should covet your land.” 14When the Lord ceased speaking, the people feared with great fear, because they had seen the mountain burning with fire in the midst of torches. They said to Moses, “You speak to us; let not God speak to us lest perhaps we die. For behold today we know that God speaks to man face to face and man shall live. And now we have recognized truly that the earth bore the voice of God with trembling.” And Moses said to them, “Do not fear. For God has come for the purpose of testing you, that you should receive the fear of him into you, so that you will not sin.” 15All the people stood far off, but Moses approached the cloud, knowing that God was there. Then God told him his statutes and his laws, and he kept him with him forty days and forty nights. There he commanded him many things and showed him the tree of life, a piece of which he cut off and took and threw into Marah, and the water of Marah became sweet. It followed them in the wilderness forty years and went up to the mountain with them and went down into the plains. He commanded him about the tabernacle and the ark of the Lord and about the sacrifice of burnt offerings and about the incense and about the duties pertaining to the table and the lamp and about the laver and its base and about the ephod and the breastplate and about the precious stones, so that the children of Israel might make these things. He showed him their likeness in order that he might make them according to the pattern that he had seen. He said to him, “Make me a sanctuary, and the tabernacle of my glory will be among you.” 11:13. You shall not covet . . . lest others should covet your land That coveting your neighbor’s property results in the loss of your land (i.e., the Land of Israel) is stated explicitly at Pesik. Rab. 24.35 11:15. he commanded him many things . . . and the water of Marah became sweet The narrative here violates the biblical chronology, since the episode of Marah (Exod. 15:23–26) comes before the revelation at Sinai. showed him the tree of life The Yalkut Makhiri at Prov. 3:1836 attributes to the Mekhilta a tradition that the tree at Marah was the “tree of life,” exactly as in L.A.B.37 went up . . . and went down This is almost verbatim the description of the well at T. Suk. 3:11. He commanded him about the tabernacle The substance of the prescriptions touched upon in this sentence is presented in great detail at Exod. 25–30. the tabernacle of my glory will be among you L.A.B.’s language is intended to reduce the anthropomorphism of the biblical text (Exod. 25:8: “I will establish My abode in their midst”), while using the same verbal root. The author adapts here the phrasing of Lev. 26:11.

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

497

The Golden Calf 12:1Moses came down. (Having been bathed with light that could not be gazed upon, he had gone down

to the place where the light of the sun and the moon are. The light of his face surpassed the splendor of the sun and the moon, but he was unaware of this.) When he came down to the children of Israel, upon seeing him they did not recognize him. But when he had spoken, then they recognized him. This was similar to the event in Egypt, when Joseph recognized his brothers, they however did not recognize him. Afterward, when Moses realized that his face had become glorious, he made himself a veil with which to cover his face. 2While he was on the mountain, the heart of the people was corrupted, and they gathered together to Aaron, saying, “Make for us gods to serve, as the other nations have, because that Moses through whom wonders were done in our presence has been taken from us.” Aaron said to them, “Be calm. For Moses will come, and he will bring us statutes and will teach us the law and from his own mouth will tell us of the majesty of God and set up rules for our people.” 3When he said this, they did not heed him, so that the word spoken at the time when the people sinned by building the tower might be fulfilled, when God said, “And now if I do not deter them, whatever they think of doing they will venture worse.” Aaron, however, fearful because the people were greatly strengthened, said to them, “Bring us the earrings of your wives.” Each man asked his wife, and they gave immediately. They cast them into the fire, and they were fashioned in a mold, and there came out a molten calf.

12:1. light that could not be gazed upon This probably means “such that one cannot endure looking at it.” This interpretation is supported by the narrative at Exod. 34:29–35, where Moses is ultimately compelled to don a veil in the presence of the Israelites. The Midrash puts it explicitly (Pesik. Rav Kah. 5): “They were unable to look upon his face.”38 they did not recognize him. But when he had spoken, then they recognized him The failure of the Jews to recognize Moses on his descent is unique to L.A.B. 12:2. as the other nations have Essentially the same sort of addition is made here by Pirke R. El. 45, where the Jews tell Aaron, “Make us a god like the gods of the Egyptians.” Moses has been taken from us For midrashic parallels to the theme that the people suspect that Moses has died, see, for example, Tg. Jon. at Exod. 32:1; B. Shab. 89a. Aaron said to them The author of L.A.B. throughout his account here seeks vigorously to paint Aaron in good colors and absolve him of guilt in the sin of the calf (note especially “They cast them” at the end of L.A.B. 12:3). Other midrashic texts also try to justify Aaron, to varying degrees. See for example Pirke R. El. 45; Exod. Rab. 37:2. 12:3. so that the word . . . might be fulfilled No text other than L.A.B. sees God’s words at Gen. 11:6 as a forecast of the calf. Aaron, however, fearful An extenuation of Aaron, exactly as at Tg. Jon., Tg. Neof., and the Fragment Targumim ad Exod. 32:5. Each man asked his wife, and they gave immediately Although the Bible does not directly involve the women, it is clear from Exod. 32:2–3 that the women are included. Thus, L.A.B. follows here the tenor of the biblical narrative, in contrast to other midrashic texts that assert that the women refused to contribute their jewelry to the idolatrous activity.39

498 Howard Jacobson

4The Lord said to Moses, “Hurry from here, because the people have been corrupted and have turned aside from my ways that I commanded them. What if the promises I made to your fathers had been fulfilled, when I said to them, ‘To your seed I will give the land in which you live.’ For behold the people have not even entered the land yet and already now are guilty, and they have abandoned me. Thus, I know that if they enter that land, they will do greater iniquities. Now I in turn will abandon them, but I will turn again and be reconciled with them so that a house may be built for me among them, a house that in turn will be destroyed because they will sin against me. And the race of men will be to me like a drop from a pitcher and will be counted as spittle.” 5Moses descended in haste and saw the calf. He looked at the tablets and saw that they were not written upon, and agitated he smashed them. He stretched out his hands; and he became like a woman in labor with her first child who, when she is seized by pains, her hands are upon her chest and she has no strength to aid her delivery. 6After one hour he said to himself, “Does bitterness persist always, and does evil prevail forever? Now I will rise up and gird my loins, because even if they have sinned, what was declared to me on high will not be in vain.” 7He arose and smashed the calf and cast it into the water and made the people drink of it. Whoever had it in his will and mind that the calf be made, his tongue was cut off; but whoever had consented under compulsion of fear, his face shone. 8Then Moses went up to the mountain and prayed to the Lord, saying, “Behold now, O God, you who have planted this vine and set its roots in the deep and stretched out its shoots to your lofty seat, 12:4. the race of men will be to me like a drop from a pitcher The allusion is to Isa. 40:15. 12:5. He looked at the tablets and saw that they were not written upon It is a familiar midrash that when Moses broke the tablets, the writing flew off them. Avot R. Nat. A.2 and Midr. Hag. at Exod. 32:19 both (like L.A.B.) make the explicit point that Moses first looked at the tablets and noticed that the writing had vanished, and only then shattered them.40 12:6. bitterness In this very context the Midrash too speaks of “bitterness,” saying that Moses, by pleading with God here, turned bitterness to sweetness (Exod. Rab. 43:3). on high That is, when Moses was on Mount Sinai. 12:7. Whoever had it in his will The Bible gives no explanation as to the purpose of the drinking, but the Rabbis took it as a “trial by fire,” intended to determine degrees of guilt and innocence.41 whoever had consented under compulsion of fear The distinction between those who had desired the calf sincerely and those who had not is also present in the Midrash (see, e.g., Pirke R. El. 45; Midr. Hag. at Exod. 32:2042). his tongue was cut off This presumably means that miraculously their tongues fell out. his face shone In the Targum on Song of Sol. 1:5 we read that when the Jews worshiped the calf, their faces became dark. But when they repented, their faces shone. 12:8. O God, you who have planted this vine Israel as a vine(yard) planted by God is a recurrent motif in L.A.B. (18:10–11; 23:11–12; 28:4; 30:4; 39:7). The notion of Israel as a people planted by God goes back to the Pentateuch (Exod. 15:17). The Midrash uses the Israel = Vineyard analogy in this very context (Exod. Rab. 43:9). to your lofty seat The notion of the (metaphorical) vine (or tree) spreading aloft to great heights is present at Ps. 80:9–12 and Ezek. 31:3–8. But the notion of ascending to God’s site is L.A.B.’s.

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

499

look upon it at this moment, because that vine has put forth its fruit but does not recognize its cultivator. And now, if you will be angry at your vine and uproot it from the deep and dry up its shoots from your lofty and eternal seat, no longer will the deep come to nourish it, nor will your throne come to cool that vine of yours that you have destroyed. 9For you are he who are all light; and you have adorned your house with precious stones and gold; and you have sprinkled your house with perfumes and spikenard and balsam wood and cinnamon and roots of myrrh and costum; and you have filled it with various foods and the sweetness of various drinks. Therefore, if you do not have mercy on your vine, all things, Lord, have been done in vain, and you will have no one to glorify you. For even if you plant another vine, it will not trust you, because you destroyed the former one. For if you indeed abandon the world, then who will do for you that which you spoke as God? And now let your anger be kept from your vine. Rather, let that which was said previously by you and what remains to be said be done, and let not your labor be in vain, and let not your portion be sold cheaply.” 10God said to him, “Behold, I pardon, in accord with your words. Carve out then two stone tablets for yourself from the same place whence you cut out the former ones, and write again on them the commandments that were on the first ones.” uproot it Cf. Jer. 45:4, Ezek. 17:9; Matt. 15:13. dry up its shoots Cf. Ezek. 17:9. Also implicit at Isa. 5:6. set its roots in the deep . . . its shoots to your lofty seat For the picture of divine destruction extending from beneath the earth to high above, cf. Deut. 32:22. if you . . . uproot it from the deep . . . no longer will the deep come to nourish it The commentators are silent on this apparently tautological passage. The author’s point here may be to emphasize that God’s entire creation was for the sake of Israel.43 Thus, in the metaphor, the function of the abyss is to nourish the vine (Israel) and that of the throne to refresh it. If the vine is destroyed, the abyss and the throne no longer have any purpose, and God’s creation of them will have been in vain (cf. comment on L.A.B. 12:9, you have adorned your house). 12:9. you are he who are all light For God as “completely light,” see Yal. Shimoni 1:719. you have adorned your house The fundamental point is that God has appointed the world (or paradise) with all fashion of wondrous things, all for the sake of Israel (the vine). roots of myrrh and costum The author of L.A.B. appears to know some botany. The costum plant is a root (Pliny the Elder, Nat. 12.41) and the myrrh tree was tapped from the root to the branches (Nat. 12.68). even if you plant another vine This notion, that God may contemplate planting another vine—that is, choosing another people to replace Israel—is based on God’s proposal in the Bible to destroy Israel and replace them with a people fathered by Moses (Exod. 32:10). Like L.A.B., the Midrash puts into Moses’s mouth arguments (though different ones) to counter this plan of God’s (see, e.g., B. Ber. 32a; Yal. Shimoni 1:392). 12:10. I pardon, in accord with your words The author of L.A.B. is here quoting God’s words at Num. 14:20, in a similar context. Midrashic elaborations of the golden calf story commonly introduce God’s declaration of forgiveness from Num. 14:20 (see, e.g., Deut. Rab. 3:15; Pirke R. El. 46, end). Carve out . . . and write again The author of L.A.B. asserts that Moses wrote the second set of tablets. The biblical narrative supports both possibilities, that Moses wrote them and that God

500 Howard Jacobson

The Tabernacle and the Festivals 13:1Moses hastened and did everything that God commanded him. He went down and made the tabernacle and its vessels and the ark and the lamp and the table and the altar of burnt offerings and the altar of incense and the ephod and the breastplate and the precious stones and the laver and the base and everything that was shown to him. And he made all the vestments of the priests, the belt and the head-dress and the golden plate (the holy crown) and the oil for anointing the priests; the priests themselves he consecrated. When everything was done, the cloud covered them all. 2Then the Lord called to Moses, and God spoke to him from the tent of meeting, saying, “This is the law of the altar, on which you will make sacrifices to me and atone for your souls. With regard to the animals that you will offer to me, from the cattle offer the calf and the sheep and the goat, but from the birds the turtledove and the dove. 3If there will be leprosy in your land and the leper be cleansed, they shall take for the Lord two live chicks and cedar wood and hyssop and scarlet; and he will approach the priest, and he will kill one but keep the other alive. And the leper will be made subject to all the commandments that I have commanded in my Law. 4When the times come round for you, you shall sanctify me as holy on the festival day and rejoice before me on the festival of the unleavened bread and set before me the bread, celebrating a festival of remembrance, because on that day you went forth from the land of Egypt. 5On the festival of weeks you shall set before me bread and make me an offering in thanks for your crops.

wrote them. The text of L.A.B. follows the clear statements at Exod. 34:27–28. The author also says explicitly that Moses hewed the first set of tablets (excideras priores), whereas the Bible unambiguously presents God as the maker of the first tablets (cf. especially Exod. 32:16; see too Deut. 5:18). Indeed, no other postbiblical source credits the making of the first tablets to Moses. 13:1. everything that was shown to him This is based upon the notion, touched upon in the Bible a few times and expanded in the Midrash, that God had shown Moses the “blueprints” of the tabernacle and its apparatus during the revelation at Sinai. (See, e.g., Exod. 25:40; 26:30; 27:8; Num. 8:4.) 13:3. If there will be leprosy in your land It is hard to understand why, of all the possibilities, L.A.B.’s author chose to exemplify sacrifices with that tied to the leper. He may introduce it here in connection with the establishment of the Tabernacle because, according to the Midrash (see, e.g., Num. Rab. 7:1), the isolation of the leper from the community only began with the erection of the Tabernacle. The language in L.A.B. here is based on Lev. 13:9 and 14:34. 13:4 The order of the holidays that follow is chronological (beginning with the month of Nisan) and is that of Lev. 23 and Num. 28–29. rejoice . . . on the festival of the unleavened bread Of particular interest here is that while the notion of rejoicing before God on the festivals is found in the Pentateuch regarding the Feast of Weeks and the Feast of Tabernacles, it is not found regarding Passover. Still, L.A.B. has considerable post-Pentateuch company in explicitly associating “joy” with the celebration of the Passover (e.g., Ezra 6:22, Jub. 49:22). 13:5. On the festival of weeks That is, Pentecost. See Deut. 16:16. The name of the holiday is not mentioned in the Leviticus source.

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

501

6On the festival of trumpets there will be an offering on behalf of your watchmen. Because on it I review creation, so as to take note of the entire world. At the beginning of the year, when you present yourselves, I will decide the number of those who are to die and who are to be born. On the fast of mercy you will fast for me for the sake of your souls, so that the promises made to your fathers may be fulfilled. 7Celebrate for me the festival of the booth, and take for me the beautiful fruit of the tree and a branch of palm and willows and citron and branches of myrtle. And I will remember the whole earth with rain, and the measure of the seasons will be fixed, and I will fix the stars and command the clouds, and the winds will sound, and lightning bolts will run about, and there will be storm and thunder. This will be an eternal sign; and the nights will give dew, as I said after the flooding of the earth.” 8Then he instructed him about the year of the life of Noah, and he said to him, “These are the years that I ordained after the oaths, when I visited the city of men, at which time I showed them the place of creation and decay.” And he said, “This is the place concerning which I taught the first-fashioned one, saying, ‘If you do not transgress what I have commanded you, all things will be subject to you.’ But that one transgressed my ways and was persuaded by his wife; she was deceived by the serpent. Then death was ordained for the generations of men.” 9The Lord proceeded to show him the ways of paradise and said to him, “These are the ways that men have lost by not walking in them, because they have sinned against me.” make me an offering in thanks for your crops There is an illuminating parallel from B. RH 16a: “bring before me two loaves on Pentecost so that the fruit of your trees may be blessed.” 13:6. the festival of trumpets That is, Rosh Hashanah. I review creation Apparently a reference to the notion that God passes all of his creatures in review before him on this day (see M. RH 1:2). the fast of mercy That is, the Day of Atonement. The Rabbis emphasized the theme of mercy in connection with Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur (e.g., Pesik. Rav Kah. 23) and Fast Days were sometimes called “days of mercy” (e.g., B. Ber. 29a). you will fast . . . for the sake of your souls In reference to Yom Kippur, Lev. 16:31 states, “you shall mortify your souls.” The Vatican Fragment Targum paraphrases this exactly as in L.A.B.: “you shall fast for the sake of your souls.” so that the promises made to your fathers may be fulfilled The Rabbis made intimate connections between Yom Kippur and the patriarchs (especially Abraham). Thus, Abraham entered into the covenant of circumcision on Yom Kippur (Pirke R. El. 29). Some called the month of Tishrei “the month of the oath,” since God had therein made his promise to Abraham (Gen. 22:16–18; see Lev. Rab. 29:9, with its stress on God’s mercy in that month). 13:7. the festival of the booth That is, Sukkot, or the Feast of Tabernacles. I will remember the whole earth with rain The Feast of Tabernacles was the occasion for water rituals and prayer for rain (e.g., M. Ta’an. 1:1). 13:8. death was ordained for the generations of men The notion that death was introduced into the world as a result of Adam’s sin was a minority Jewish opinion; see, for example, Tanhuma (Buber) 1:9a. 13:9. to show him the ways of paradise At 2 Bar. 4:5, God is said to have shown paradise to Moses at Mt. Sinai. 13.7–10 Difficult and obscure as much in this section is, nonetheless one can see in broad outline

502 Howard Jacobson

10And the Lord commanded him concerning the welfare of the lives of the people and said, “If they will walk in my ways, I will not abandon them but will have mercy on them always and bless their sowing; and the earth will hasten to yield its fruit, and rain will be to their profit, and the earth will not be barren. But I surely know that they will corrupt their ways 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. For they will know in the last days that on account of their own sins their seed has been abandoned, because I am faithful to what I say.” The Census of the People 14:1Then God said to him, “Do a census of my people from twenty years and up, to forty years, so that

I may show your clans as much as I declared to their fathers in a foreign land, because in a fiftieth part I raised them up from the land of Egypt, but forty-nine fiftieths died in the land of Egypt, when you were residing there. 2When you will have done the census, write down their number [blank] until I fulfill all that I have spoken to their fathers and until I set them securely in their own land; for I will diminish nothing of what I have said to their fathers. And I said to them: ‘Your seed will be like the stars of heaven in multitude.’ By number they will enter the land, and in a short time they will become without number.” 3Then Moses went down and counted them, and the number of the people was 604,550. But he did not count the tribe of Levi with them, because he had been so commanded. But he did count those who were above fifty years, whose number was 47,300. He also counted those who were below twenty years, and their number was 850,850. And he surveyed the tribe of Levi, and their whole number was 100 [blank].

the essential point. The Feast of Tabernacles occasions the mention of God’s blessing of rain; in turn, this recalls the Flood and humankind’s sinfulness (including Adam’s), which deprived humankind of God’s greatest blessings. The Flood and destruction of humanity must serve as a warning to Israel, for just as humankind in general lost God’s blessings by sinning, so too Israel can lose its blessings by sinning (L.A.B. 13:10).44 Note also that our section is a virtual doublet of L.A.B. 19:10. In both, God grants a vision to Moses, including the “paths of paradise.” In both, the theme of rain irrigating the earth is important. In both, there appear to be references to (heavenly?) signs. In both, we hear of what humankind has lost because of its sins. But both conclude with the reassurance that God will remember his people in the end. Usually in midrashic texts, both the warnings and the visions granted to Moses occur shortly before his death, as is the case at L.A.B. 19:10. 14:1. to forty years The Bible merely says the census shall be of those 20 years and up, with no mention of an upper limit. However, L.A.B. 14:3 reveals clearly that L.A.B.’s author means the basic census to be of those from 20 to 50. Thus, as often in L.A.B., corruption has taken place in the account of numbers. Once we realize that L.A.B.’s author wrote “fifty” here, not forty, we can understand how he came to this innovation: he has taken the upper limit for the census of the Levites (Num. 4:3) and adopted it also for the people at large. Josephus does exactly the same thing (Ant. 3.288).

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

503

4Moses told their number to God, and God said to him, “These are the words that I spoke to their fathers in the land of Egypt, and I set their number for 210 years later for all who saw my wonders; and the number of all of them was 109,000,000 men, aside from women. I put to death a great number of them because they did not believe in me. One fiftieth of them was left, and I consecrated them to myself. Therefore I command my people for all generations that they should give to me offerings from their fruits, to be before me as a remembrance of how many of your forefathers I removed from them.” 5When Moses descended and told these matters to the people they mourned and lamented; and they dwelt in the wilderness for two years. The Report of the Spies 15:1Moses sent spies to spy out the land, twelve men, for so he had been ordered. After they had gone

up and spied out the land, they returned to him and brought back fruits from the fruits of the land. But they shattered the heart of the people, saying, “You will not be able to take possession of the land, because it is shut up with iron bars by its mighty men.” 2But two men of the twelve did not speak so, and said, “Just as hard iron can overcome the stars, or as weapons conquer lightning, or thunder is extinguished by the arrows of men, so can these men fight against the Lord!” For they saw that on their ascent lightning from the stars shone forth and thunder sounded along with them and followed.

14:4. for all who saw my wonders This is a virtual quote of Num. 14:22, in the same kind of context and with the same point. God has punished precisely those who witnessed his great miracles in Egypt and nonetheless failed to believe in him. This is not the only theme from Num. 14 (the scouts episode) that L.A.B.’s author has transferred here. they did not believe in me Another echo of the scouts story: Num. 14:11; Deut. 9:23. they should give to me offerings from their fruits “Offerings” refers to the so-called terumah offerings. Although the Bible does not stipulate the quantitative requirements for the terumah offerings, the Rabbis decided that the general standard should be 1/50 (T. Ter. 5, especially 3, 8). The sense is clear: as a result and a reminder of God’s saving 1/50 of the people, the people are to make terumah offerings of 1/50. The etiology is not unlike that for the biblical injunction to offer to God firstborn animals, for God saved the Jewish firstborn in Egypt at the time of the tenth plague (Exod. 13:11–15). 15:2. as weapons conquer lightning What underlies the use of this imagery in our context is the notion that lightning bolts are the weapons of God (e.g., 2 Sam. 22:15). Thus, humankind’s weapons cannot defeat God’s. The same applies to the stars in the preceding sentence, for they too are part of God’s arsenal (cf. Judg. 5:20). For they saw That the scouts were accompanied by omens is a version not found elsewhere. lightning from the stars It seems likely that L.A.B. is here alluding to the ancient notion that the phenomenon of lightning is connected to the stars. (See, e.g., Ep. ad Pyth. 2.101; 1 En. 42:1–2; 44:1.)

504 Howard Jacobson

3These are their names: Caleb the son of Jephunneh, son of Beri, son of Batuel, son of Galifa, son of Cenen, son of Selumin, son of Selon, son of Judah. The second was Joshua son of Nun, son of Eliphat, son of Gal, son of Nefelien, son of Emon, son of Saul, son of Dabra, son of Ephraim, son of Joseph. 4But the people did not listen to the voice of these two, but they were very disturbed and spoke saying, “Are these the words that God spoke to us, saying, ‘I will bring you into a land flowing with milk and honey’? How is it possible that he now brings us up so that we should fall by the sword and our wives will go into captivity?” 5When they had said this, suddenly the glory of God appeared, and said to Moses, “Does the people thus continue not to heed me at all? Behold now the plan that issues from me will not be in vain. I will send the angel of my wrath upon them to break their bodies with fire in the wilderness. However, I will command my angels who watch over them not to plead for them; for I will shut up their souls in the storehouses of darkness, and I will tell my servants, their fathers, ‘Behold this is the seed of which I spoke, saying, “Your offspring will be strangers in a land not their own, and I will judge the nation whom it will serve.”’ I fulfilled my words and made their enemies melt away and put the angels beneath their feet and placed the cloud as shade for their heads. And I commanded the sea, and the depths froze in front of them and walls of water stood forth. 15:3. Joshua son of Nun The genealogy here does not match the details given at 1 Chron. 7:20–27, though the number of generations is exactly right and some of the names appear to be the same. 15:4. Are these the words that God spoke to us The author’s use of God’s promise of a land of milk and honey as a source of complaint in the mouth of Israelites comes from Num. 16:14 (lit., “You have not even brought us to a land flowing with milk and honey”). 15:5. I will send the angel of my wrath The Bible speaks more than once of God sending his angel for the Jews in the desert (Exod. 23:20; 33:2), but these are for beneficent purposes (though 23:21 implies that the angel can also punish). not to plead for them For the angels specifically as intercessors, see T. Levi 3:5; 5:6; 1 En. 40:6. But God will forbid them here from pleading on Israel’s behalf. I will shut up their souls in the storehouses of darkness The exact and special nature of this place and punishment is unfortunately not spelled out. For Hell as a place of utter darkness, see, for example, 2 En. 10:2; S. Rab. d’Bereshit 27.45 I will tell my servants, their fathers The patriarchs are commonly portrayed in midrashic texts as concerned about the fate of their descendants. Particularly similar to L.A.B. here is a passage in Panim Aherim46 wherein God summons the patriarchs and complains to them that the Jewish people deserve to be destroyed because of their behavior in the time of Nebuchadnezzar. Your offspring will be strangers in a land not their own Jub. 48:8 also explicitly connects God’s rescue of the Jews from Egypt with the prophecy and promise at Gen. 15:13–14. I . . . put the angels beneath their feet The author of L.A.B. is alluding to midrashic traditions that certain “angels” tried to prevent God from rescuing the Jews at the time of the Exodus, but God did not heed them (see, e.g., Exod. Rab. 21:7; Jub. 48:9–18). placed the cloud as shade for their heads A reference to the cloud as a source of shade during the daytime (Exod. 13:21), referred to by Moses in his plea before God at Num. 14:14. shade There was a midrashic tradition that the sukkot in the desert to which the Bible refers does not mean real “huts, dwellings,” but simply alludes to the “clouds of glory” that God set over the people (see, e.g., Tg. Jon. and Onk. at Lev. 23:43; B. Suk. 11b).

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

505

6Nothing like this ever happened since the day I said, ‘Let the waters beneath the heaven be gathered together into one place,’ until that day. I brought them forth, but I killed their enemies. I brought them before me to Mount Sinai, and I bent the heavens and descended to kindle a lamp for my people and to set boundaries for creation. I taught them to make a sanctuary for me that I might dwell among them, but they abandoned me and did not have faith in my words, and their sense faded away. Now behold the time will come, and I will do to them as they wished, and I will cast forth their bodies in the wilderness.” 7And Moses said, “Before you took the seed with which to make man upon the earth, was it I who set their ways? So now let your mercy support us forever, and your kindness for many years; for unless you show mercy, who would be protected?” Korah’s Rebellion 16:1At that time he commanded him about the fringes. Then Korah and two hundred men with him

rebelled and said, “Why is an unbearable law imposed upon us in this way?” I commanded the sea God’s direct intervention is not part of the biblical narrative, but is found at Ps. 106:9 (and cf. L.A.B. 10:5). 15:6. Nothing like this ever happened This alludes not to all the events listed in the prior section, but only to the splitting of the sea (“the depths froze in front of them and walls of water stood forth”) and signifies that the miracle at the sea was comparable to God’s assemblage of the waters at the time of Creation. This association between these two events is found in some midrashic texts (e.g., Mek. Besh. 3;47 Exod. Rab. 21:6; Pirke R. El. 42). I bent the heavens and descended These words are nearly an exact quotation of Ps. 18:10. That God tilted the heavens and thereby descended onto Mount Sinai is midrashic (see e.g. Mek. Bahodesh 9;48 cf. 4 Ezra 3:18). a lamp for my people In our context, it seems reasonable to assume that the light is the Torah (cf. L.A.B. 9:8; comment on 11:1). I will do to them as they wished This alludes to the wish of the people expressed at Num. 14:2 and to God’s explicit ironic declaration that he will fulfill their wish at Num. 14:28–29, though L.A.B.’s author himself does not include this wish earlier at the relevant point of the narrative (L.A.B. 15:4). 15:7. let your mercy support us forever, and your kindness for many years The theme of God’s mercy, the notion of “eternity,” and the parallel phrasing are all reminiscent of the Psalms.49 Unless there is a lacuna at this point in the text, the story of the scouts ends with Moses’s plea to God. Not only is God’s response not given (that can reasonably be taken for granted), but remarkably, the most important part of the story in the biblical context—God’s punishing the people with 40 years of wandering in the desert—is completely passed over. It is not clear whether L.A.B.’s author does this with the expectation that his audience will simply remember the outcome or in an attempt to turn the biblical story into a paradigm of God’s mercy. Postbiblical exegetes ( Jewish and Christian) often did precisely that, building on Num. 14:17–20 and making that theme the focus of the story.50 16:1. he commanded him about the fringes. Then Korah . . . rebelled Rabbinic exegesis tied Korah’s rebellion to the prescription on fringes (tzitzit), as a result of the juxtaposition of the revolt (at

506 Howard Jacobson

2God was angry and said, “I commanded the earth, and it gave me man; at first two sons were born to him. The elder rose up and killed the younger and the earth in haste swallowed up his blood. I drove Cain out and cursed the earth and spoke, saying, ‘You will not swallow up blood again.’ 3Now the thoughts of men are very polluted; behold I command the earth, and it will swallow up body and soul together. Their dwelling place will be in darkness and in the place of destruction. They will not die but waste away until I remember the world and renew the earth. Then they will die and not live, and their life will be taken away from the number of all men. The underworld will no longer spit the beginning of Num. 16) to the law on fringes (at the end of Num. 15). See for example Tg. Jon. at Num. 16:2. 16:2. God was angry At Num. 16:15 it is Moses who is angered. God’s anger is alluded to at 16:22. Sefer ha-Yashar 279 has just what L.A.B. has in this context. The author of L.A.B. turns what in the Bible is primarily a struggle between Moses and Korah into a battle between God and Korah. I commanded the earth, and it gave me man The Bible reports that God created man from the dust of the earth (Gen. 2:7), but L.A.B.’s language goes beyond the biblical wording. Still, Jewish sources do consider the earth as “mother of all living creatures.”51 The elder rose up and killed the younger Connecting the story of Korah to that of Cain’s murder of Abel is midrashic (e.g., B. Sanh. 37b). But the connection between the two is considerably stronger in L.A.B. than in the talmudic passage and probably derives ultimately from the identical language at Gen. 4:11 and Num. 16:30 (cf. Lekach Tov at Num. 16:30). Korah and Cain are associated in a number of sources, for example, Jude 11. The reference to Cain and Abel as “the elder . . . the younger” may be a residue of the midrashic tradition that the dispute between Cain and Abel arose because of the question of the relative status and rights of the older versus the younger brother (e.g., Tanh. Bereshit 1:9; Midr. Hag. at Gen. 4:8). I . . . cursed the earth In the Bible, God curses the earth after the sin of Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:17). But when Cain murders Abel, God’s curse is directed at Cain (Gen. 4:11). The author of L.A.B., like several midrashic sources, reinterprets Gen. 4:11 to turn it into a curse of the earth.52 16:3. the thoughts of men are very polluted This probably echoes Gen. 6:5 and 8:21. At the end of this section, L.A.B.’s author compares the fate of Korah and his followers to that of the generation of the Flood. The initial description of the rebels here is then also calculated to align them with the generation of the Flood. it will swallow up body and soul together What underlies the point here is the biblical identification of the blood with the soul (Deut. 12:23). Thus, the earth has been prohibited since the time of Cain from swallowing blood (i.e., from taking possession of both body and soul). This prohibition is now rescinded, and by swallowing Korah and his followers alive, the earth takes possession of both body and soul. The Midrash makes the same point, declaring that only in the case of Korah and his followers did the earth receive both the body and the soul (Sefer Pitron Torah, 167). They will not die but waste away This clearly derives from the word hayim at Num. 16:30, 33 (“They went down alive into Sheol”). The Midrash took this to mean that they abided alive in Sheol, being punished (e.g., Tanhuma [Buber] 4:47a; cf. Bar-Hebraeus at Num. 16:32). Then they will die and not live In other words, when the resurrection of the dead comes about, Korah and his men, who have been enduring in the underworld, will then indeed die. Cf. perhaps the language and notion at Pirke R. El. 34, “I will kill him with a second death from which there is no resurrection.” The author of L.A.B. aligns himself with the hard-liners in the debate on the

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

507

them back, and the place of destruction will not remember them, and their passing will be like that of those peoples of whom I said, ‘I will not remember them,’ that is, the camp of the Egyptians and the race that I destroyed with the water of the flood. The earth will swallow them up. I will add no more.” 4Moses spoke all these words to the people, but Korah and his men were still unbelieving. Korah sent to summon his three sons, who had not joined with him in the plot. 5They however sent word to him, saying, “Just as a painter does not produce an image by his art unless he has been instructed beforehand, so we, who have received the Law of the Lord that teaches us his ways, do not enter upon them except to walk in them. Our father begot us, but the Lord has fashioned us. And now if we walk in his ways, we will be his sons. But if you are unbelieving, go your own way.” And they did not come up to him. 6After this the earth split apart before them. His sons sent to him, saying, “If your madness is still upon you, who will help you on the day of your destruction?” But he did not heed them. The earth ultimate fate of Korah and his men (cf. M. Sanh. 10:3). In particular, the debate at Avot R. Nat. A.3653 between Rabbis Eliezer and Joshua is over whether they will share in the resurrection. the place of destruction will not remember them When others will be restored to life, they will at last be put to death. Their wasting away in the underworld will come to an end; the underworld will have no further thoughts of them; they will be utterly, absolutely, and irretrievably dead.54 I will not remember them In context, this must mean “I will not remember them at the time of the resurrection”; that is, they will not be resurrected for life (cf. above “I will remember the world”). The sentence that follows adds the Egyptians and the generation of the Flood to Korah. Mishnah Sanhedrin 10:2–4 gives a long list of those who have no share in the world to come, including Korah and his followers and the generation of the Flood. The Egyptians are not mentioned. 16:4. who had not joined with him in the plot The exoneration of the sons of Korah is based on two things: first, the assertion at Num. 26:11 that Korah’s sons did not die (together with the rebels); and second, the frequent allusion to the “sons of Korah” in the book of Psalms, evidently as having some role in the Temple service (e.g., Ps. 42:1; 44:1; 84:1). Like L.A.B., midrashic sources occasionally stress that Korah’s sons did not take part in his rebellion (e.g., Lekach Tov at Num. 16:3355; cf. Midr. Ps. 1:1, 6 [Buber] 14–15). 16:5. Our father begot us, but the Lord has fashioned us The notion that our biological father begot us, but God formed us may be related to the Rabbinic notion that God and biological parents are partners in the birth of a child (B. Nid. 31a) if we walk in his ways, we will be his sons This theme is present at Deut. Rab. 7:9 and at Tanh. Ekev 5. Cf. Wis. 2:16, 18. The theme has its roots in Deut. 14:1 (cf. Exod. 4:22; Jer. 31:8; perhaps Deut. 32:5). For the opposite view, that God considers the Jews his children even when they sin, see Sifre Deut. 308. 16:6. His sons sent to him In the biblical narrative the earth splits open (Num. 16:31) and immediately thereafter (16:32) it swallows Korah and his men. The author of L.A.B. introduces a time lapse between the two stages, thereby emphasizing both the continuing possibility of repentance and forgiveness and the recalcitrance of Korah. he did not heed them The author identifies the rebellious Korah with the archvillain and enemy, Pharaoh. The Midrash occasionally associates Korah with Pharaoh (e.g., B. Pes. 119a; cf. Koran 29:39, 40:25).

508 Howard Jacobson

opened its mouth and swallowed up them and their households. Four times the foundation of the earth shook so as to swallow up the men, as it had been commanded. After this, Korah and his company groaned until the stability of the earth was restored. 7The congregation of the people said to Moses, “We cannot stay around this place where Korah and his men were swallowed up.” And he said to them, “Remove your tents from round about them; do not be joined [blank] in their sins.” And so they did. The Selection of the Priest 17:1Then the identity of the priestly family was revealed by the selection of a tribe. Moses was told, “Take

for the twelve tribes one rod apiece and put them in the tabernacle. Then the one to whom my glory will speak, that one’s rod will flower and I will take away the murmuring from my people.” 2Moses did so, and he deposited the twelve rods. The rod of Aaron sprouted and flowered and produced seed of almonds. 3What happened then was like what Israel did while he was in Mesopotamia with Laban the Aramean, when he took almond rods and put them at the cisterns of water; and the flocks came to drink and were divided according to the peeled rods, and they brought forth white and speckled and multi-colored kids. 4Thus the assembly of the people became like the flock of sheep. And as the flocks brought forth according to the almond rods, so the priesthood was established through almond rods. Balak and Balaam 18:1At that time, Moses smote Sihon and Og, the kings of the Amorites, and he apportioned all their

land to his people, and they dwelled in it. 2Balak was king of Moab. He dwelled opposite them, and he was very much afraid. He sent to Balaam the son of Beor, the interpreter of dreams, who lived in Mesopotamia, and sent word to him, saying,

17:1. the identity of the priestly family was revealed In the Bible, the question of the proper possessor of priestly status is inextricably woven into the story of Korah’s rebellion from the very beginning. But in L.A.B., identification of the priestly family has no place in the episode of the rebellion and appears as an independent event that follows thereafter. 17:4. the assembly of the people became like the flock of sheep The comparison of Israel to sheep is commonplace, both in the Bible (cf. Num. 27:17) and afterward. The author of L.A.B. probably means no more than that. The Midrash compares the great number of Jacob’s sheep with the large population of the people of Israel (Yal. Shimoni 2:551; cf. Gen. Rab. 73:11). as the flocks brought forth . . . so the priesthood was established Thus, in essence, just as Jacob’s rods established distinctions between the sheep, so Aaron’s rod determined the distinctions between different groups of Israel and thereby defined the membership of the priesthood. 18:1. Sihon and Og, the kings of the Amorites The tale of the conquest of the Amorite kings is related in Num. 21. he apportioned all their land The author of L.A.B. gives us no indication that the area in question was divided among two and a half tribes, not the whole people.

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

509

“Behold I know that in the reign of my father Zippor, when the Amorites fought him, you cursed them and they were handed over before him. Now come and curse this people, because they are too many for us, and I will honor you very much.” 3Balaam said, “Behold, this pleases Balak, but he does not know that the plan of God is not like the plan of man. He does not realize that the spirit that is given to us is given for a time. But our ways are not made secure unless God wishes it. Now wait here, and I will learn what the Lord will say to me this night.” 4And God said to him by night, “Who are the men who have come to you?” And Balaam said, “Why, Lord, do you test the human race? They cannot endure it, because you knew well what is to happen in the world, even before you founded it. Now enlighten your servant if it be right that I go with them.” 5And he said to him, “Was it not concerning this people that I spoke to Abraham in a vision, saying, ‘Your seed will be like the stars of the heaven,’ when I lifted him above the firmament and showed him the arrangements of all the stars? I demanded his son as a burnt offering and he brought him to be placed on the altar. But I gave him back to his father and, because he did not object, his offering was acceptable before me, and in return for his blood I chose them. Then I said to the angels of the service, ‘Was it not of this man that I said, “I will reveal everything I am doing to Abraham [blank]” 18:2. in the reign of my father The invention of some such story, both here and in the Midrash, derives from Balak’s words (Num. 22:6), “I know that he whom you bless is blessed indeed, and he whom you curse is cursed.” How, the exegete asks himself, does Balak know this? The result is a story such as is found here (and cf. Num. Rab. 19:30; 20:7). come and curse this people, and I will honor you very much Here, L.A.B.’s author has conflated two passages, one from the first embassy sent by Balak to Balaam (Num. 22:6), the other from the second (22:17). 18:3. the spirit that is given to us is given for a time The reference here is probably to the spirit of God that enters into humans temporarily on the occasion of their inspiration. Evidence for such is at Num. 11:25–26 and in those passages in the Prophets where similar events are recounted (e.g. Judg. 11:29; 1 Sam. 10:10). In the case of Balaam this is explicit at Num. 24:2. 18:4. Why, Lord, do you test the human race? The theme of God testing people is common in the Bible. See, for example, Gen. 22:1; Exod. 16:4; Deut. 13:4. The point here appears to be that God tests Balaam with the question qui sunt viri (“Who are the men who have come to you?”). God of course knows the answer and tests Balaam’s recognition of his omniscience. Balaam passes the test. enlighten your servant if it be right that I go with them Balaam never actually puts the question to God in the biblical narrative. 18:5. I lifted him above the firmament and showed him This is a familiar postbiblical theme (an elaboration of Gen. 15:5). See, for example, Gen. Rab. 44:12. in return for his blood I chose them This is remarkable, since in the biblical narrative no blood of Isaac is shed. Indeed, midrashic sources frequently refer to the sacrifice of the ram as representing “blood instead of Isaac’s blood” (e.g., Tanh. Shlach 14; Sefer ha-Yashar 81; Gen. Rab. 56:9). Still, the Mekhilta d’-Rashbi56 similarly indicates that some of Isaac’s blood was indeed shed.57 I chose them Presumably, the notion that Israel’s election resulted from the offering of Isaac could be derived from God’s (strictly speaking, the angel’s) words to Abraham at the end of the episode

510 Howard Jacobson

6And of Jacob his son, the third one whom I called first-born, who, when he wrestled with the angel who was in charge of hymns, did not let him go until he blessed him’? But now behold you propose to go with them to curse those whom I have chosen? But if you curse them, who will there be to bless you?” 7Balaam arose in the morning and said, “Go on your way, because God does not wish me to come with you.” They set out and reported to Balak Balaam’s words. Balak again sent other men to Balaam, saying, “Behold I know that when you offer burnt offerings to God, God will be reconciled with men. Now seek again from your Lord and beg with as many burnt offerings as he wishes. But if he should forgive my wrongdoings, you will have your reward and God will receive his offerings.” 8Balaam said to them, “Behold the son of Zippor is a seer but does not recognize that he dwells among the dead. Now wait here this night, and I will learn what God will say to me.” And God said to him, “Go with them. Your journey will be a stumbling block, and for Balak will prove to be his ruin.” He rose in the morning and went with them. 9His she-ass came by way of the wilderness and saw an angel and crouched down beneath him. And he opened Balaam’s eyes, and he saw the angel and prostrated himself on the ground before him. And the angel said to him, “Hurry and go, because whatever you say will come to pass.” (Gen. 22:16–18). But in fact the election has already been indicated in Gen. 15, 17, and 18. Rabbinic texts assert that notable benefits accrued to the Jewish people as a result of the Akedah— for example, the liberation from Egypt (Mek. d’Rashbi 58); the splitting of the Sea of Reeds (e.g., Mek. Besh. 359); the ultimate resurrection of the dead (Pesik. Rab Kah.60)—but no known texts explicitly name the election of the Jewish people as one of those benefits. 18:6. he wrestled with the angel who was in charge of hymns Jacob’s wrestling partner is simply designated “a man” at Gen. 32:25, but has always (and with good reason: cf. 32:29, 31) been understood to be an angel. One midrashic source appears to agree with L.A.B. in making the wrestler the angel who was in charge of the heavenly singing (Yal. Shimoni 1:132). His need to rush off is thereby explained, since he must return to heaven to sing the morning hymn to God. Thus, three critical events in the history of the patriarchs are cited by God as indications that the Jews are a blessed people and cannot be cursed. First, the covenant of the pieces; second, the sacrifice of Isaac; and third, Jacob’s wrestling with the angel of God. Each event is marked by God’s blessing of the patriarch and his descendants (Gen. 15:5, 18; 22:17–18; 32:29–30). if you curse them, who will there be to bless you? Should Balaam curse Israel, he will lose the possibility of being blessed himself. The Midrash makes this point explicit: Balaam calculated that should he curse Israel, he would be cursed, and so he chose to bless them (Midr. Ag. at Num. 24:9 [Buber] 143; cf. Tanhuma [Buber] 4:71b). 18:7. you will have your reward Balak speaks regularly of rewarding Balaam (cf. Num. 22:17–18, 37; 24:11). 18:8. the son of Zippor is a seer Although the Bible has nothing about Balak’s being a “seer,” the Midrash does, and with the same kind of twist that L.A.B.’s author gives it: Balak was a seer, but did not understand properly what he foresaw (Tanhuma [Buber] 4:68a). 18:9. His she-ass came The biblical story of Balaam and his ass is abridged and transformed. The whole point of the biblical episode is gone: God’s anger (Num. 22:22) is not mentioned; nor is the angel’s sword and near killing of Balaam (not to mention the speaking ass). In L.A.B. the tale has become nothing more than an epiphany for Balaam.

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

511

10He came into the land of Moab and built an altar and offered sacrifices. When he had seen part of the people, the spirit of God came upon him. He took up his poem and said, “Behold Balak brought me to the mountain, saying, ‘Come, run into the fire of those men.’ The fire that waters will extinguish, I cannot resist; indeed, who will resist the fire that consumes water?” And he said to him, “It is easier to take away the heavens and all their expanse and to extinguish the light of the sun and to darken the light of the moon than for one who so wished to uproot the planting of the Most Powerful or to destroy his vine.” He did not know that his spirit was puffed up so as to hasten his own destruction. 11“Behold, I see the vision that the Lord showed me at night. Behold, the time is coming when Moab will be amazed at what is happening to it because Balak wished to persuade the Lord with gifts and to buy a decree with money. Should you not have asked what he sent upon Pharaoh and his land because he wished to reduce them to slavery? Behold, an overshadowing and highly desirable vine; who will be jealous because it does not wither? But if anyone says to himself that the Lord has labored in vain or has chosen them to no purpose, behold now I see the salvation and liberation that will come upon them. I am restrained in my speech and cannot say what I see with my eyes, because there is little left of the holy spirit that abides in me. For I know that I have been persuaded by Balak and have lost time from my life. 12Behold, here is my remaining time. Behold, again I see a vision of the dwelling place of this people. Its brightness shines more brilliantly than the splendor of lightning, and its running is swifter than that of an arrow. The time will come when Moab will groan and those who serve Chemosh, who have 18:10. When he had seen part of the people, the spirit of God came upon him The concept of the “spirit of God” enters the Balaam story here from Num. 24:2. One can see how L.A.B.’s author has stitched together 22:41 with 24:2, for the latter verse’s reference to God’s spirit follows immediately upon a statement that Balaam beheld the Jewish nation, just as at 22:41 (though the exact phrasing is different). He took up his poem The author of L.A.B. (like Ant. 4.112–17) contracts Balaam’s four biblical oracles into one. run into the fire of those men For the notion that the Jewish people is a fire that consumes its enemies (either in this world or the next), see, for example, Obad. 18; Pirke R. El. 40.61 to extinguish the light of the sun and to darken the light of the moon This text recalls apocalyptic visions like Isa. 13:10. to destroy his vine For the notion of Israel as God’s vine(yard), see Isa. 5; Jer. 12; and L.A.B. 12:8. 18:11. the time is coming Here, L.A.B.’s author uses the familiar prophetic prologue (very frequent in Jeremiah), though it does not occur in Balaam’s oracles. to persuade the Lord with gifts That God cannot be bribed is biblical (e.g., Deut. 10:17; 2 Chron. 19:7). if anyone says to himself Probably the Psalmic yomar be-libo (e.g., Ps. 10:11; 14:1) of the fool or the sinner who questions the existence or omnipotence of God. The author of L.A.B. has transferred the theme to the national level, with perhaps some influence from passages like Exod. 32:12 and Deut. 9:28. there is little left of the holy spirit The Midrash reports (at the end of the episode, ad Num. 24:25) that the holy spirit departed from Balaam (Yal. Shimoni 1:771). 18:12. Moab will groan The author has transferred to Balaam’s prophecy words from the bards’ song on the defeat of Moab by the Amorites, with the groan here reasonably given to the Moabites

512 Howard Jacobson

plotted these things against them, will become weak. But I will gnash my teeth, because I have been led astray and have transgressed what was said to me at night. My prophecy will remain manifest, and my words will live on. The wise and understanding will remember my words for, when I cursed, I perished, but though I blessed, I was not blessed.” He said this and was silent. Balak said, “Your God has deprived you of many gifts from me.” 13Then Balaam said to him, “Come and let us plan what you should do to them. Pick out beautiful women who are among us and in Midian, and station them naked and adorned with gold and precious stones before them. When they see them and lie with them, they will sin against their Lord and fall into your hands; for otherwise you cannot overcome them.” 14After saying this, Balaam turned away and went back to his place. Afterward the people were seduced after the daughters of Moab. For Balak did everything that Balaam had showed him. Moses’s Farewell Speech 19:1At that time Moses smote the nations and gave half their spoils [blank] to the people. He began

expounding to them the words of the Law that God had spoken to them on Horeb. 2He spoke to them, saying, “Behold, I am to lie with my fathers and will be gathered unto my people. But I know that you will rise up and forsake the words established for you through me, and God will be angry at you and abandon you and depart from your land. And he will bring upon you your enemies, and they will rule over you, but not forever, because he will remember the covenant that he established with your fathers. (Num. 21:29, a verse echoed in L.A.B.’s next clause too). Interestingly, the bards of the song at Num. 21:27–30 were said by the Midrash to have been Balaam and his father (Tanhuma [Buber] 4:65a). My prophecy will remain manifest, and my words will live on These words may allude to the permanent incorporation of part of Balaam’s prophecy into the daily liturgy, at the beginning of the morning blessings. 18:13. Then Balaam said The version here—in which Balaam advises Balak on how to lead Israel into sin and thereby defeat them—is found in Rabbinic sources.62 adorned with gold and precious stones It is remarkable that L.A.B.’s author makes no mention whatsoever of idolatry here. While the biblical narrative is concerned with immoral sexual behavior, its text clearly indicates that such behavior is merely a prelude to the really grievous crime, that of idolatry. Similarly, Philo, Josephus, and Rabbinic elaborations never lose sight of the central place in the story of idol worship. The only other account I know that totally ignores the role of idolatry in this episode is that found at Sefer ha-Yashar 284. 18:14 The grievous punishment that befalls the Jews after their sinful behavior with the Midianite women (Num. 25:3–9) is passed over by L.A.B.’s author, just as he ignores the serious punishments that followed the episodes of the golden calf and the slanderous scouts. L.A.B.’s representation of Balaam is fundamentally a negative one and he can aptly be called a villain. 19:1. the nations Here, L.A.B.’s author is probably alluding also to the war against the Midianites of Num. 31. 19:2. he will remember the covenant The same theme in contexts like ours can be found at Lev. 26:42, 44–45. The author of L.A.B. is at pains to emphasize that in the end God will remember the covenant and redeem his people.

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

513

3But then you and your sons and all your generations who will rise up after you will lament the day of my death and say in their heart, ‘Who will give us another shepherd like Moses or such a judge to the sons of Israel to make atonement always for our sins and to be answered on behalf of our iniquities?’ 4Today I call to witness against you heaven and earth (for heaven will hear, and earth will give ear) that God revealed himself from the end of the world so that he might place his majesty with you and he kindled in you an eternal light. Remember, o wicked ones; when I spoke to you, you answered saying, ‘All that God has said to us, we will do and hear. But if we transgress or grow corrupt in our ways, you will call the witness against us, and he will destroy us.’ 5You know that you have eaten the bread of angels for forty years. And now behold I bless your tribes before my end comes. You know my toil that I have toiled for you from the time you went up from the land of Egypt.” 6After he said this, God spoke to him a third time, saying, “Behold, you go to lie with your fathers. But this people will rise up and not seek me, and they will forget my Law, by which I have enlightened them, and I will abandon their seed for a time. 7To you however I will show the land before you die, but you will not enter it in this age lest you see the graven images through which this people will start to lapse and be led off the path. I will show you the place where they will serve me for 440 years. After this it will be given over to the hands of their 19:3. shepherd like Moses The metaphor of Moses as shepherd of Israel is common in Rabbinic literature and also found in Philo (Moses 1.60–62; to which cf. Tanhuma [Buber] 2:4a). It is in fact already implicit in the Bible, for when God tells Moses of Moses’s impending demise, Moses asks him to appoint a successor, so that the people will not be “like sheep that have no shepherd” (Num. 27:17). such a judge Although Moses is never called a “judge” in the biblical narrative (I exclude Exod. 2:14), of course he is one (e.g., Exod. 18:13, 16). References to Moses as mediator or intercessor include, for example, Exod. 32:30; 34:9; Num. 14:17–20. 19:4. But if we transgress The biblical narrative contains no such declaration from the people at Sinai. you will call the witness against us, and he will destroy us The notion that the heavens and earth, invoked by Moses as witnesses in his valedictory, will themselves punish the Jewish people should they fail to follow God’s mandates is found at Sifre Deut. 30663 (cf. Deut. Rab. 10:4). 19:5. you have eaten the bread of angels for forty years This description of manna goes back to Ps. 78:24–25 as interpreted in the LXX and the Talmud (B. Yoma 75b). Moses reminds the people of God’s kindness in providing them with manna in the desert at Deut. 8:3, 16. I bless your tribes This alludes to the tribe-by-tribe blessing Moses gives in Deut. 33. 19:6. for a time That God’s abandonment of Israel is brief and temporary is emphasized explicitly at Isa. 54:7–8. 19:7. lest you see the graven images The reason given in L.A.B. for Moses’s not entering the Land of Israel is unique. I will show you the place The Bible reports that when Moses ascends the mountain, God shows him all the Promised Land (Deut. 34:1–4). The author of L.A.B. makes explicit that God shows Moses the center of his worship ( Jerusalem). The Midrash goes even further, having God provide Moses with a vision of the constructed Temple itself (Sifre Deut. 357). This midrash then has God provide Moses a vision of the land occupied by invaders and the Temple destroyed, much like God’s words to Moses here in L.A.B.

514 Howard Jacobson

enemies, and they will breach it and foreigners will encircle it. And it will be on the same day that you smashed the tablets of the covenant which I established with you on Horeb; and when they sinned, what was written on them flew away. Now that day was the seventeenth day of the fourth month.” 8Moses ascended Mount Abarim as God had commanded him, and he prayed saying, “Behold, I have indeed completed the time of my life, I have completed 120 years. And now I beg, may your mercy toward your people and your pity toward your portion, Lord, be firm; may your long-suffering be directed toward your place upon the chosen nation, because you love them beyond all others. 9You know that I was a shepherd. When I pastured the flock in the wilderness, I brought them to your mountain Horeb and then I first saw your fiery angel from the bush. You called me from the bush; I was afraid and turned my face. You sent me to them and freed them from Egypt, but their enemies you drowned in the water. You gave them the Law and statutes by which they should live and enter upon as human beings. For who is the man who has not sinned against you? And unless your patience abides, how will your portion be secure, unless you be merciful to them? Who will yet be born without sin? Chastize them for a time, but not in anger.” That day was the seventeenth day of the fourth month Like L.A.B., Rabbinic texts give the 17th of Tammuz as the date of Moses’s smashing of the tablets (e.g., M. Ta’an. 4:6; S. Olam Rab. 6). If L.A.B. means here that the destruction of Jerusalem also occurred on the 17th, he is in agreement again with some Rabbinic and historical sources that date a key event in the downfall of the First or Second Temple to that day.64 19:8 The author of L.A.B. completely ignores the biblical and postbiblical tradition that Moses pleads with God to allow him to enter the Promised Land. This is consistent with the author’s alteration of the reason for God’s decision to exclude Moses: In L.A.B., God keeps Moses out of Israel as a favor, to spare him seeing how low the people will sink there (see comment on 19:7, lest you see the graven images). your people . . . and your portion The language of Deut. 9:26, 29. The context too is essentially the same: Moses pleads before God to show mercy toward his people (cf. language and context at Joel 2:17). your portion The common notion of Israel as God’s portion.65 19:9. You called me The author of L.A.B. follows the biblical account (reiterated and explained in midrashic texts, e.g., Exod. Rab. 32:9) that, although the angel appeared to Moses, it was God himself who spoke to him. by which they should live and enter upon as human beings This refers in essence to a common interpretation of Scripture: that God bestowed on the Jews his laws in order to give them life but not death (see, e.g., B. Sanh. 74a; T. Shab. 15:17). Consequently, when observance of the laws entails danger to life, God is indulgent. We may paraphrase L.A.B. as follows: “Lord, you gave the Jews laws in order that they should gain life through them and that they should observe the laws, within the limitations imposed by one’s human condition. For all human beings sometimes sin and so you must have mercy on them.” Chastize them for a time, but not in anger L.A.B.’s theme of God’s punishing or abandoning Israel only for brief and temporary periods is here repeated (see L.A.B. 19:6; cf. 2 Bar. 4:1). “Not in anger” reflects the biblical theme that God should (or will) punish Israel, but not out of anger (see esp. Ps. 6:2; 38:2; Jer. 10:24).

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

515

10Then the Lord showed him the land and all that is in it and said, “This is the land that I will give to my people.” He showed him the place from which the clouds draw up water to water the whole earth, and the place from which the river takes its water [and the land of Egypt], and the place in the firmament from which only the holy land drinks. He showed him the place from which he rained down manna upon the people, all the way to the paths of paradise. He showed him the measurements of the sanctuary and the number of sacrifices and the signs by which men shall interpret the heaven. And he said, “These are what have been denied to the human race because they have sinned against me. 11And now your staff with which these signs were performed will serve as a witness between me and my people. When they sin, I will be angry with them but I will recall your staff and spare them in accord with my mercy. Your staff will be before me as a reminder forever, and it will be like the bow with which I established my covenant with Noah when he went forth from the ark, saying, ‘I will place my bow in the cloud, and it will serve as a sign between me and men that never again will the water of a flood be upon all the earth.’ 12I will take you from here and lay you down to sleep with your fathers, and I will give you rest in your resting place and bury you in peace. All the angels will mourn over you, and the heavenly hosts will grieve. But no angel nor man will know your sepulchre in which you will be buried. You will rest in it until I visit the world. I will raise up you and your fathers from the earth in which you sleep and you will come together and dwell in the immortal dwelling place that is not subject to time. 19:10. Then the Lord showed him the land This kind of ascension-vision of the mysteries of nature is found in various Moses traditions.66 the place from which the clouds draw up water to water the whole earth This refers to the notion that the clouds draw their moisture from the depths, as put succinctly at Pirke R. El. 5 (end). the place in the firmament from which only the holy land drinks This is the tradition (Sifre Deut. 42; B. Ta’an. 10a) that distinguishes the source of the rainfall for the land of Israel from that for the rest of the world. the holy land The phrase (in at least one form) goes back to Zech. 2:16. the place from which he rained down manna upon the people The image is the Bible’s (Exod. 16:4; Ps. 78:24). The notion that the manna has a special place in the heavens seems present at B. Hag. 12b. the measurements of the sanctuary This must refer to the Temple and reflects the tradition preserved at Sifre Deut. 357, that God showed Moses the completed Temple. 19:11. Your staff . . . will serve as a witness . . . as a reminder The notion that Moses’s rod will serve as a testimony and reminder for God, so that he will spare Israel when they sin, seems to occur nowhere outside this passage in L.A.B. That L.A.B.’s author is deriving the essential theme here from the rainbow of the Flood story is explicit. Both the rainbow and the rod will serve to avert destruction. 19:12. All the angels will mourn over you That the angels mourn Moses is midrashic. See, for example, Sifre Deut. 355 and Avot R. Nat. B. 25 (end), where the angels actually recall the verse from Isaiah (57:2) cited above. I will raise up you That God promised Moses that he would be resurrected is suggested at B. Sanh. 90b.

516 Howard Jacobson

13But this world will be in my eyes like a fleeting cloud and like yesterday that has passed. When I will draw near to visit the world, I will command the years and order the times and they will be shortened, and the stars will speed up and the light of the sun will hurry to set and the light of the moon will not abide; for I will hasten to raise up you who are sleeping in order that all who will be restored to life will dwell in the place of sanctification that I showed you.” 14Moses said, “If I can make another request of you, Lord, in accord with the abundance of your mercy, be not angry with me, but show me how much time has passed and how much remains.” 15And he said to him, “On one side there is a large black cloud, the fullness of a cloud, on the other side a drop from a ladle. But time will fulfill all things. Four and a half have passed, two and a half remain.” 16When Moses heard this, he was filled with understanding and his appearance was changed to a state of glory; and he died in glory in accord with the word of the Lord, and he buried him as he had 19:13. like a fleeting cloud To the psalmist’s single simile (90:4), L.A.B.’s author has added a second. He is thinking of the image at Job 7:9, an image incorporated into the High Holiday liturgy (“A man’s origins are from dust,” etc.). they will be shortened On the eschatological shortening or speeding up of time, see, for example, 2 Bar. 20:1; 83:1; Mark 13:20.67 The notion does occasionally occur in Rabbinical texts. Thus, at B. BM 85b we read that if the patriarchs were alive to pray together, the messiah would come before his scheduled time. At B. Sanh. 98a we read that if Israel is meritorious, God will hasten to bring the salvation before its appointed time. will hurry to set and . . . will not abide A variation on the biblical notion that on the apocalyptic “day of God” the sun and moon will go dark .68 the place of sanctification that I showed you Presumably a reference to paradise, alluded to in the vision afforded Moses at L.A.B. 19:10. The phrase “place of sanctification” recalls similar language used to refer to Jerusalem and the Temple (e.g., Isa. 52:1; 60:13; Ps. 24:3; Eccles. 8:10), and demonstrates clearly that L.A.B.’s author follows the tradition that either identifies or strongly associates paradise with the “celestial” Jerusalem. 19:14. If I can make another request of you Moses entreats God in language and tone borrowed from Abraham’s famous pleading with God in Gen. 18. how much time . . . remains Numerous pseudepigraphic and Rabbinic texts seek to calculate the endtime, in spite of the injunction not to concern oneself with such matters (B. Meg. 3a, B. Sanh. 97b). 19:15. Four and a half have passed, two and a half remain The author of L.A.B., like others,69 will have thought of 7000 as the appropriate number for the duration of this world based on two things: the fact of the seven-day week and the regular interpretation (based on Ps. 90:4) that for God 1000 years is the equivalent of one day. Thus, the world lasts one week, that is, 7000 years. Inevitably there was confusion over the nature of the Sabbath of the week (i.e., the 7th millennium), and it was sometimes taken as a kind of intermediary period between this world and the next (e.g., S. Eli. Rab. 270; cf. B. RH 31a). As for the use of fractional numbers in apocalypses, this goes back to Daniel 7:25; 12:7 (“a time, times, and half a time”; cf. 9:27), a cryptic phrase which has been taken by a few interpreters to mean “two and a half.” 19:16. he was filled with understanding The Midrash reports that toward the end of his life, God took the tradition of wisdom from Moses and gave it to Joshua, rendering Moses incapable of understanding the exegesis of the Torah (Tanhuma [Buber] 5:7a).

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

517

promised him. The angels mourned his death and went before him all together with lightning bolts and torches and arrows. On that day the hymn of the heavenly hosts was not sung because of the passing of Moses, nor was there such a day from the time when the Lord made man upon the earth, nor shall there again be such forever, that the hymn of the angels should be humbled on account of men, because he loved him very much. He buried him with his own hands in a high place as a light for the entire world. Joshua’s Conquest of the Land 20:1At that time God established his covenant with Joshua the son of Nun, who was left from the men

who had spied out the land; for the lot had fallen upon them that they should not see the land because they had spoken ill about it, and on account of this that generation died. 2Then God said to Joshua the son of Nun, “Why do you mourn and why do you hope in vain, thinking that Moses yet lives? But you wait in vain, for Moses is dead. Take his garments of wisdom and clothe yourself, and with his belt of knowledge gird your loins, and you will be changed and become another man. Was it not about you that I spoke to Moses my servant, saying, ‘This one will lead my people after you, and into his hand I will deliver the kings of the Amorites’?” 3Joshua took the garments of wisdom and clothed himself and girded his loins with the belt of understanding. When he clothed himself with it, his mind was kindled and his spirit was aroused, and he said to the people, “Behold, the prior generation died in the wilderness because they opposed their God. Behold now, all you tribes, be aware today that if you go in the ways of your God, you will prosper. 4If however you do not heed his voice and you be like your fathers, your affairs will be ruined and you yourselves will be crushed and your name will perish from the earth. And what will become of the words that God spoke to your fathers? But though the nations may perhaps say, ‘God has failed, for he has not freed his people,’ nevertheless, when they will recognize that he has not chosen for himself other peoples and done great wonders for them, then they will understand that the Lord does not regard per-

as he had promised him An allusion to God’s words at L.A.B. 19:12. He buried him with his own hands The language is strong, but both the Bible and the Rabbis often used such anthropomorphic language of God. The Talmud declares God’s personal burial of Moses an act of kindness on his part (B. Sot. 14a). 20:2. Why do you mourn On Joshua’s mourning for Moses, see, for example, Avot R. Nat. A.12; Sifre Deut. 305.71 20:4. If . . . you be like your fathers, your affairs will be ruined The notion that the new generation should not be like the generation that went out of Egypt is implied at Num. 32:8, 14; cf. Ps. 78:8, 57. The language is based on passages like Zech. 1:4; 2 Chron. 30:7; Ps. 78:8. what will become of the words that God spoke to your fathers Here, L.A.B. mirrors the Pentateuchal theme wherein Moses reminds God of his past promises when God is angry with the Jewish people (e.g., Exod. 32:13; Deut. 9:27). the Lord does not regard persons This is a quote of the biblical description of God as the honest judge (“who shows no favor and takes no bribe”; Deut. 10:17). because you sinned The notion that the nations will recognize that the downfall of Israel is due not to God’s failure, but to Israel’s sin and consequent punishment, is found at Deut. 29:21–27 and Jer. 22:8–9.

518 Howard Jacobson

sons, but because you sinned through pride, therefore did he take away his power from you and cast you out. Now rise up and set your heart to walk in the ways of your Lord, and he will make you prosper.” 5The people said to him, “Behold, we see today what Eldad and Medad prophesied in the days of Moses, saying, ‘After Moses’s death, the leadership of Moses will be given to Joshua the son of Nun.’ Moses was not jealous but rejoiced when he heard them. From then on all the people believed that you would exercise leadership over them and apportion the land to them. Now even if there is conflict, be strong and resolute, because you alone will be ruler in Israel.” 6On hearing these words Joshua decided to send spies to Jericho. He summoned Cenaz and his brother, Naam by name, the two sons of Caleb, and he said to them, “I and your father were sent by Moses in the wilderness, and we went up with ten other men. On their return they spoke ill about the land and disheartened the people, and they and the heart of the people with them were discouraged. But I and your father alone fulfilled the word of the Lord, and behold we are alive today. Now I will send you to spy out the land and Jericho. Imitate your father, and you also will live.” 7They went up and spied out the city. After they brought back word, the people went up and stormed the city and burned it with fire. 8After Moses died, the manna stopped descending for the children of Israel, and then they began to eat from the fruits of the land. These are the three things that God gave to his people on account of three persons: that is, the well of the water of Marah for Miriam and the pillar of cloud for Aaron and the manna for Moses. After these three died, these three things were taken away from them. 9The people and Joshua fought against the Amorites. They prevailed in battle against their enemies all the days of Joshua, and thirty-nine kings who inhabited the land were destroyed. Joshua gave the land to the people as a possession, to each tribe according to lots, as he had been commanded. 10Then Caleb approached him and said, “You know that the two of us were sent by lot by Moses to go with the spies, and because we fulfilled the word of the Lord, behold we are alive now. And now, if it is pleasing in your eyes, let my son Cenaz be given the territory of the three towers for a portion.” Joshua blessed him, and so he did. 20:5. what Eldad and Medad prophesied The Bible (Num. 11:26) records the fact that Eldad and Medad prophesied, but unlike L.A.B., gives no indication as to the contents of their prophecies. 20:6. He summoned Cenaz The first mention of the mysterious Cenaz, who will play so important a role in L.A.B. 20:7. the people went up The author of L.A.B. completely ignores the tale of the fall of the walls of Jericho, summing up the entire story with a quote from the final verse of that story. 20:8. After Moses died, the manna stopped The Bible asserts that the manna now stopped ( Josh. 5:12) and the Midrash claims that it had been a gift to the people from God for Moses’s sake. With his passing, it ceased. The author of L.A.B. emphasizes this through the introductory words “After Moses died.” These are the three things For the tradition of the three blessings granted for the sake of the three leaders, see, for example, Mek. Wayassa 5;72 B. Ta’an. 9a. the well of the water of Marah The well that accompanied the Jews in the desert for the sake of Miriam is found frequently in midrashic literature.

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

519

The Altar at Gilgal 21:1When Joshua had grown old and was advanced in days, God said to him, “Behold you are old and

advanced in days, the land has proved to be very large, and there is no one to apportion it. After your death this people will mingle with the inhabitants of the land, and they will go astray after strange gods, and I will abandon them as I testified in my words to Moses. But you testify to them before you die.” 2And Joshua said, “You beyond all know, Lord, what moves the heart of the sea before it rages, you have searched out the constellations and numbered the stars and regulated the rain; you know the mind of all generations before they are born. Now, Lord, bestow upon your people a wise heart and an understanding mind; and when you will give your orders to your portion, they will not sin against you and you will not be angry at them. 3Isn’t this what I said before you, Lord, when Achan stole from the proscribed and the people were delivered up before you, and I prayed before you and said, ‘Would it not have been better for us, Lord, if we had died in the Red Sea, where you drowned our enemies, or if we had died in the wilderness like our fathers, than to be delivered into the hands of the Amorites so as to be destroyed forever?’ 4Even if disaster is near us, no evil will befall us. For even if our end be moving toward death, you nonetheless who are before the world and after the world live on. If man cannot devise to prefer one generation to another, he says, ‘God destroys the people whom he has chosen for himself.’ But behold, though we will be in the underworld, you will fulfill your words. Now let the abundance of your mercy sustain your people and choose for your portion a man who will rule your people, he and his offspring. 21:2. regulated the rain For God as the creator and regulator of rain, see, for example, Ps. 147:18; 148:4; Job 28:26; 36:27–8. You beyond all know . . . all generations before they are born These words of Joshua’s bear a strong similarity to parts of the book of Job on matters like God’s mysterious powers, God as the source of wisdom, the association of wisdom with the fear of God, and themes like natural phenomena and the birth of humankind (e.g., Job 28; 38; 39). they will not sin The connection between understanding or wisdom and righteous behavior is made commonly in Jewish texts (independently of Socrates!). See Deut. 32:6; Wis. 9:16–18. 21:3. when Achan stole from the proscribed In the narrative style typical of L.A.B., an important biblical episode that has been passed over without mention in its appropriate chronological context is later mentioned or even reported in detail. 21:4. even if our end be moving toward death, you . . . live on For the contrast between human mortality and God’s immortality, with the corollary that God possesses the eternal continuing ability to act, see, for example, Sifre Deut. 330. who are before the world and after the world For the notion that God is both prior and posterior to the world, see e.g. the (liturgical) angelic text (at a point when God is contemplating the destruction of the world) at J. Ber. 9:2. to prefer one generation to another Meaning that God can reject one generation, but still show favor to another (even a much later one) since he endures forever. Humans, on the contrary, whose life is limited and short and whose vision does not extend to the future, can do no such thing. God destroys the people whom he has chosen The theme that outsiders would say that God has destroyed or will destroy his chosen people is familiar from the Bible (see, e.g., Exod. 32:12; Num. 14:15–16). Another aspect of this theme (“God’s reputation is at stake”) will be picked up a few lines hence (L.A.B. 21:5). 520 Howard Jacobson

5Did not our father Jacob speak about him, saying, ‘The scepter will not be lacking from Judah, nor the ruler’s rod from between his feet’? Now fulfill those words spoken beforehand so that the nations of the earth and the tribes of the world will learn that you are eternal.” 6And he added, saying, “Lord, behold the time will come when the house of Israel will be like a dove who has given birth. She places her young in the nest and does not leave or forget her place. So also these, after repenting of their deeds, will attain the salvation that will come about for them.” 7Joshua went down to Gilgal and built an altar with whole stones and did not lift any iron upon them as Moses had commanded. He set up large stones on Mount Ebal and plastered them and wrote on them very clearly the words of the Law. He gathered all the people together and read into their ears all the words of the Law. 8He came down with them and offered peace offerings on the altar; they all gave much praise in song. They lifted the ark of the covenant of the Lord out of the tabernacle with timbrels and dances and harps and lyres and lutes and every good-sounding instrument. 9The priests and Levites brought up the ark and rejoiced in song, and they put the ark in front of the altar. They offered very many peace offerings upon it, and all the house of Israel sang together in a 21:5. fulfill those words This looks back to “If man cannot devise” of L.A.B. 21:4 and reaffirms the point that God’s reputation among the nations must be maintained. In pleading for Israel at Josh. 7:9, Joshua makes much the same point: if you [God] allow the Jewish people to be destroyed, “what will you do about your great name?” 21:6. the house of Israel will be like a dove In similar language the Targum and the Talmud say that “the congregation of Israel is compared to a dove” (Targum at Ps. 56:1; B. Ber. 53b). Whether Israel is actually ever compared to a dove in the Bible is unclear. The stress is on the faithfulness of the dove, like the faithfulness of Israel, asserting that the dove is faithful to her spouse just as Israel is to hers (i.e., God); that the dove, no matter what the circumstances, will not abandon her nest. See too Shir Rab. 2:30 (at 2:14). does not . . . forget her place The text here refers to the conventional theme of the dove’s remarkable ability to always find its way home (cf. Isa. 60:8 and Noah’s dove, Gen. 8:8–11). 21:7. Joshua went down to Gilgal The Joshua passage at 8:30–35 makes no mention of Gilgal. The author of L.A.B. has conflated two different episodes here, the erection of the altar and stones at Mount Ebal from Josh. 8:30–35, and the erection of stones at Gilgal ( Josh. 4:20). One observation on this passage: Mount Ebal is explicitly mentioned, Mount Gerizim is not. To see this as part of a major anti-Samaritan tendency in L.A.B. is certainly an exaggeration. Still, it is possible that L.A.B.’s author saw no reason to give prominence to the Samaritans’ holy place and so chose to ignore it. On the other hand, since Mount Gerizim plays a role only in the context of the recitation of the blessings and curses—a context not included here—L.A.B.’s author had no particular reason to mention it. 21:8. they all gave much praise in song The text now proceeds with an elaborate account of the celebratory festivities. Nothing of the sort appears in the Joshua narrative. Yet L.A.B.’s author has not “invented” his account, but rather pieced it together from several descriptions of significant celebrations in the Bible. Primary is the story of the restoration of the Holy Ark at 2 Sam. 6 and 1 Chron. 15–16; also of importance is the account of the transfer of the Ark to Solomon’s Temple at 1 Kings 8.

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

521

loud voice saying, “Behold, our Lord has fulfilled what he spoke to our fathers, saying: ‘To your seed I will give the land to dwell in, a land flowing with milk and honey.’ Behold, he led us into the land of our enemies and delivered them broken in spirit before us, and he is the God who sent word to our fathers in the secret dwelling places of souls, saying, [blank]. Behold, the Lord has done everything that he has said to us. Truly now we know that God has confirmed every word of his Law that he spoke to us on Horeb. If our heart keeps to his ways, it will go well for us and for our sons after us.” 10Joshua blessed them and said, “May the Lord grant that your heart abide in him for all time and not depart from his name. May the covenant of the Lord remain with you and not be ruined, but may there be built among you a dwelling place for God, as he said when he brought you into his portion with joy and gladness.” The Altar across the Jordan 22:1After these events, when Joshua and all Israel heard that the children of Reuben and the children

of Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh who dwelt on the other side of the Jordan had built an altar for themselves and were offering sacrifices on it and had made priests for the sanctuary, all the people were very disturbed and came to them at Shiloh. 2Joshua and all the elders said to them, “What are these deeds that are done by you, when we are not yet settled in our land? Isn’t this what Moses said to you in the wilderness, saying, ‘Make sure that on entering your land you do not corrupt your behavior and destroy all this people’? Now why have our enemies abounded unless it is because you have corrupted your ways and made all this trouble? Thus, they will gather against us and crush us.” 3The children of Reuben and the children of Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh said to Joshua and to all the people of Israel, “Behold now, God has implanted the fruit of the womb of men and set up a light that they may see what is in darkness, because he himself knows what are in the hidden places of the abyss and the light abides with him. Now the Lord God of our fathers knows if any of our people or we ourselves have done this deed on account of wickedness, but only for our posterity’s sake so 21:9. Behold, our Lord has fulfilled The same sentiment is expressed twice by Solomon at the dedication of the Temple. 22:1. When Joshua . . . heard that the children . . . had built an altar This seems to directly contradict the biblical account at Josh. 22, which repeatedly emphasizes that although the two and a half tribes erected the altar, they did not offer any sacrifices or even intend to do so. The author of L.A.B. made this calculated change to afford himself the opportunity to belittle the importance of sacrifice (L.A.B. 22:5) and emphasize the importance of study (22:6), for an audience that no longer had the possibility of sacrifice. 22:3. Behold now, God has . . . set up a light that they may see In other words, God knows what is hidden, but he also provides the means for people to see. In our context, the point would be that God knows what our motivations are and has the power to enable us also to understand them. he himself knows . . . and the light abides with him A near quotation of Dan. 2:22. Note that it occurs in a passage where the recognition of God’s omniscience is connected to gratitude to God for bestowing illumination upon human beings.

522 Howard Jacobson

that their heart may not be removed from the Lord our God and that they will not say to us, ‘Behold now, our brothers who are across the Jordan have an altar and offer sacrifice on it, but we in this place, since we do not have an altar, let us withdraw from the Lord our God; for our God is too far from our roads for us to serve him.’ 4On saying this, we said among ourselves, ‘Let us make an altar for ourselves so that they will have enthusiasm for seeking out the Lord.’ Some of us stood up and did it. We stand before you knowing that we are your brothers and innocent. Do therefore whatever is pleasing in the eyes of the Lord.” 5Joshua said, “Is not the Lord the King mightier than thousands of sacrifices? Why have you not taught your sons the words of the Lord that you heard from us? For if your sons had been studying the Law of the Lord, their mind would not have been led astray after a man-made altar. Do you not know that when the people were bereft for a while in the wilderness, when Moses went up to receive the tablets, their mind was led astray and they made idols for themselves. If the mercy of the God of our fathers had not been their guardian, all the community would have become a byword and all the sins of the people would be made public because of your foolishness. 6Therefore, go now and destroy the altar that you built for yourselves, and teach your children the Law and let them study it day and night, so that for all the days of their life the Lord may be for them a that they will not say The author of L.A.B. has changed the dramatic nature of the biblical narrative by putting the charged words in the mouth of the children of the two and a half tribes who stand accused, rather than in the mouth of the children of the nine and half tribes doing the accusing. our God is too far . . . for us to serve him This whole argument has no role in the biblical Joshua episode, but is to a degree based upon the recognition by Deuteronomy that at some point the altar of Jerusalem would be too far for many of the people to come regularly to make sacrifice and that this could produce problems (see especially Deut. 12:20–27). 22:5. Is not the Lord the king mightier The point is clear: genuine devotion to God is more important than offering him sacrifices. The form of the question together with the general context reveals that L.A.B.’s author has 1 Sam. 15:22 in mind. man-made altar The addition of the modifier here is particularly important. On the surface, this adaptation of the biblical episode appears to carry the same purport as the original: to condemn setting up a sacrificial sanctuary outside of the single designated one in the Land of Israel. But by adding the critical adjective “man-made,” the underlying point comes out, for all altars are “manmade.” Thus, L.A.B.’s author is inveighing against attaching great significance to sacrificial altars at all (cf. the thought and language in the post-70 passage at Sib. Or. 4:7–11, 27–30). This point is enhanced by Joshua’s exhortation, in L.A.B. 22:6, to teach one’s children “the Law and let them study it day and night.” Thus, the real opposition in L.A.B.’s account is not between the one authorized sanctuary and others that are not legitimate, but rather between the critical worship of God through study and the lesser form through sacrifice (as in B. Shab. 30a). because of your foolishness As not infrequently in L.A.B., foolishness leads to sin. 22:6. destroy the altar Again, dramatically different from the Bible’s account, where the altar is left standing. the Lord may be for them a witness and a judge Again, L.A.B.’s author drastically alters the biblical account. Whereas there the altar is left standing as a witness ( Josh. 22:27, 34), here the altar is destroyed but God plays the role of witness (and judge).

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

523

witness and a judge. God will be a witness and a judge between me and you and between my heart and your heart, that if you have done this deed out of cunning, you will be punished, for you were going to destroy your brothers. If however you have done it out of ignorance, as you say, because of your sons, God will be merciful to you.” And all the people answered, “Amen, amen.” 7Joshua and the entire people of Israel offered a thousand rams on their behalf as expiatory offerings, and they prayed for them, and he sent them away in peace. They went and destroyed the altar, and they fasted and cried, they and their sons, and they prayed saying, “God of our fathers who know beforehand the heart of all men, you know that our ways were not undertaken out of wickedness before you; nor have we strayed from your ways but we all serve you, for we are the works of your hands. Now have pity on your people and your children.” 8After this Joshua went up from Gilgal and took up the tabernacle of the Lord with all its vessels and the ark of the covenant, and he took them up to Shiloh and set up the Urim and Tummim there. At that time Eleazar the priest was ministering the altar. When all who had come from the people would assemble and seek the Lord, he would teach them with the Urim, for in this way they were given instruction. At the new altar that was in Shiloh Joshua instituted unto this day the burnt offerings that were offered every year by the sons of Israel. 9For until the house of the Lord was built in Jerusalem and sacrifice offered on the new altar, the people were not prohibited from offering sacrifice there, because the Tummim and Urim revealed all things in Shiloh. Until the ark was placed in the sanctuary of the Lord by Solomon, they offered sacrifice there until that day. Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest served in Shiloh. Joshua’s Covenant 23:1Now Joshua the son of Nun, a mighty warrior, organized the people and apportioned the land among

them. While there still remained enemies of Israel upon the land, the time approached for Joshua to a witness and a judge For God as judge, see, for example, Gen. 16:5; Judg. 11:27. The eternal God is here both witness and judge because he will not only testify against the people should they sin, but also decree and bring their punishment. 22:8. took them up to Shiloh The Bible does not tell us where the Tabernacle was transferred from. The text of L.A.B. agrees with Rabbinic tradition that the altar was removed to Shiloh from Gilgal (having resided there 14 years). See B. Zev. 118b; cf. S. Olam Rab. 11. the Urim and Tummim Though they are not mentioned in the Joshua narrative, they would naturally be found at the abode of the sanctuary where the high priest would serve. Eleazar . . . would teach them with the Urim For Eleazar as the utilizer of the Urim and Tummim in the time of Joshua, see Num. 27:21. 22:9. the house of the Lord For the expression of Solomon’s Temple, see, for example, 1 Kings 7:40; 9:1. in Jerusalem This is the only explicit mention of Jerusalem in L.A.B. they offered sacrifice there until that day The Rabbis calculated how long the period of worship at Shiloh was. See, for example, S. Olam Rab. 11 (369 years). Eleazar . . . the priest served in Shiloh Eleazar does not die until the last verse of the book of Joshua (24:33).

524 Howard Jacobson

die. He sent and summoned all Israel throughout all their land, along with women and children, and he said to them, “Gather before the ark of the covenant of the Lord in Shiloh, and I will establish a covenant with you before I die.” 2On the sixth day of the third month all the people including women and children gathered together before the Lord in Shiloh, and Joshua said to them, “Hear, O Israel. Behold, I establish with you the covenant of this Law that the Lord established for your fathers on Horeb. And so wait here this night and you will see what God will say to me about you.” 3While the people were waiting that night, the Lord appeared to Joshua in a vision and said to him, “Such and such words speak to this people.” 4Joshua rose up in the morning and gathered all the people and said to them, “So says the Lord: ‘There was one rock from which I hewed out your father. The hewing-out of that rock bore two men whose names are Abraham and Nahor, and out of the hollowed-out place were born two women whose names are Sarah and Melcha, and they lived together across the river. And Abraham took Sarah, and Nahor took Melcha. 5When the inhabitants of the land were led astray, each after his own devices, Abraham believed in me and was not led astray with them. I rescued him from the flame and took him and led him over all the land of Canaan and said to him in a vision, “To your seed I will give this land.” And he said to me, “Behold now you have given me a wife, and she is sterile. How will I have offspring from that womb that is closed up?” 6And I said to him, “Take for me a three-year-old calf and a three-year-old she-goat and a three-yearold ram, a turtledove, and a dove.” He took them as I commanded him. I cast upon him a deep sleep and encompassed him with fear and before him the place of fire wherein will be expiated the deeds of those who commit iniquity against me, and I showed him the torches of fire by which the righteous ones who have believed in me will be enlightened. 7And I said to him, “These will serve as a witness between me and you, that I will give you offspring from one who is closed up. I will liken to the dove that you took for me the city which your children 23:4. So says the Lord The long passage that follows is an elaboration of the straightforward history of the Jewish people given in Josh. 24. There was one rock from which I hewed out your father A reminiscence of Isa. 51:1–2. The author of L.A.B. understands the verses in a way both different from their natural sense and different from traditional exegesis. For both the verses and their usual interpretations clearly mean that Abraham is the rock from whence the Jewish people were hewn. In L.A.B., Abraham is hewn from the rock, thereby changing the whole point and purpose of the metaphor. one rock The Midrash calls Abraham the rock on which the world was created and uses the very word petra (“rock”) (Yal. Shimoni 1:766). 23:5. were led astray Though the sentence accurately represents the narrative of Genesis, it deliberately ignores Joshua’s explicit mention of the idolatry of Terach and the ancestors of the Jewish people ( Josh. 24:2). 23:6. the place of fire wherein will be expiated the deeds of those who commit iniquity For the notion that some sinners are purified by fire after death, see, for example, T. Sanh. 13:3; Avot R. Nat. A41; B. RH 16b–17a.73

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

525

will build before me. The turtledove I liken to the prophets who will be born from you, and the ram I liken to the wise men who will be born from you and will enlighten your sons; I will liken the calf to the multitude of peoples, who will be made many through you; the she-goat I will liken to the women whose wombs I will open and they will give birth. These prophecies and this night will be a witness between us, that I will not violate my words.” 8I gave him lsaac and formed him in the womb of her who bore him and commanded [blank] to restore him quickly and to give him back to me in the seventh month. Therefore, every woman who gives birth in the seventh month, her son will live, because upon him I summoned my glory and revealed the new age. 9I gave to Isaac Jacob and Esau. And I gave to Esau the land of Seir as a possession but Jacob and his sons went down into Egypt. The Egyptians persecuted your fathers, as you know; but I remembered your fathers and sent Moses my beloved and freed them from there, but their enemies I struck down. 10I brought them out with a high hand and led them through the Red Sea and laid a cloud beneath their feet and led them out through the deep. 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 sources of the deep and impeded the course of the stars and quieted 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 that they would not ruin my covenant. For all things were in motion when I came down, and everything was stirred up at my arrival. I did not let my people be scattered, but I gave them my Law and enlightened them in order that by doing these things they would live and have length of days and not die. 23:8. I . . . formed him in the womb For the notion of God molding the embryo in the womb, see, for example, Isa. 44:24; 49:5; Jer. 1:5. in the seventh month, her son will live The Rabbis believed that babies born at 7 months of gestation were viable, in contrast to those born at 8 months of gestation (see, e.g., Gen. Rab. 14:2). revealed the new age This may refer to the tradition of Isaac’s vision at the time of the Akedah (e.g., Tg. Jon. at Gen. 22:10, he saw the heavenly angels; at Gen. 27:1, he saw the heavenly throne of glory). It also may refer to end-time prophecies put into the mouth of Isaac (e.g., Jub. 31:18–20). 23:9. Moses my beloved A phrase used several times of Moses in L.A.B. (e.g., 24:3; 35:3). See also Moses 1.156; Sib. Or. 2:245; Princ. 3.2.5. 23:10. congealed the flame of fire Descriptions of the Revelation at Sinai include on the one hand the vast turmoil and uproar of nature (winds, thunder, lightning, quakes, etc.—see, e.g., L.A.B. 11:5), and on the other hand the absolute paralysis of nature. The former is emphasized at 11:5, the latter at length here, where everything comes to a standstill. so that they would not ruin my covenant Apparently meaning that the frightening storms, thunder, and so on that accompany God’s descent on Sinai might terrify the people to such an extent that they would decline to receive God’s covenant (cf. Exod. 20:15–17). Thus, God renders the world perfectly quiet to allay the people’s fear and to assure their acceptance of the covenant (cf. L.A.B.’s next sentence). I did not let my people be scattered The Midrash is filled with a variety of accounts as to how God supported the people at Sinai and enabled them to survive and receive the covenant (e.g., Mek. Bahodesh 974).

526 Howard Jacobson

11I brought you into this land and gave you vineyards [blank] cities that you did not build you inhabit. I fulfilled my covenant that I spoke to your fathers. 12And now, if you heed your forefathers, I will pay attention to you forever and protect you, and your enemies will subdue you no more. Your land will be renowned throughout all the world, and your seed elect amidst the peoples, who will say, “Behold, a faithful people; because they had faith in the Lord, therefore the Lord freed them and planted them.” And so I will plant you like a delightful vine and shepherd you like a lovable flock. I will command the rain and the dew, and they will satisfy you all the time of your lives. 13At the end the lot of each one of you will be in eternal life, for you and your seed, and I will take your souls and store them in peace until the time allotted the world be complete. I will restore you to your fathers and your fathers to you, and they will know through you that I have not chosen you to no purpose.’ These are the words that the Lord spoke to me this night.” 14All the people answered and said, “The Lord is our God, him alone will we serve.” All the people rejoiced on that day and made a rededication ceremony for twenty-eight days. Joshua’s Death 24:1After that time Joshua the son of Nun again gathered all the people and said to them, “Behold now

the Lord has testified among you. Today I call to witness against you heaven and earth, that if you continue to serve the Lord, you will be a special people to him; but if you refuse to serve him and you wish to obey the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell, speak today before the Lord and go. But I and my household will serve the Lord.” 2All the people raised their voice and wept and said, “Perhaps God will account us worthy; it is better for us to die in fear of him than to be blotted out from the land.” 3Joshua the son of Nun blessed the people and kissed them and said to them, “May your words be acceptable before our Lord, and may he send his angel and guard you. Remember me after my death and remember Moses the beloved of the Lord, and let not the words of the covenant that he established with you depart from you all the days.” He sent them away, and they went away, each man to his own portion. 23:12. Behold, a faithful people The praise of Israel here is different in substance from that of the Deuteronomy source passage (4:6–8). The author of L.A.B. stresses that the people must be faithful to God. they had faith in the Lord The Bible is filled with statements of Israel’s infidelity toward God, but does not often speak of their fidelity. Still, see Exod. 14:31, for example, for almost these exact words. The reverse scenario is envisioned in the declaration of the nations at Deut. 29:23. I will command the rain and the dew The common blessing, but particularly appropriate in a passage where Israel is compared to a vine and sheep. Cf. especially the curse version at Isa. 5:6. 24:2. than to be blotted out from the land The traditional punishment threatened against the Jews in the Land of Israel (e.g., Deut. 4:26; Josh. 23:13, 15). 24:3 Here, the text echoes passages in the Bible where (farewell) blessings are accompanied by kisses (e.g., Gen. 32:1; 48:9–10; 2 Sam. 19:40; cf. L.A.B. 24:4).

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

527

4Joshua laid himself on his bed and sent and summoned the son of Eleazar the priest and said to him, “Behold now I see with my own eyes the transgression of this people by which they will go astray; but you strengthen yourself for the time you are still with them.” He kissed him and his father and his sons, and he blessed him and said, “May the Lord God of your fathers prosper your ways and those of this people.” 5When he ceased speaking to them, he drew up his feet into the bed and lay with his fathers; and his sons placed their hands over his eyes. 6Then all Israel gathered together to bury him. They made a great lamentation for him, and they said this in their lamentation: “Lament for the wing of this swift eagle because he has flown away from us, and lament for the might of the lion’s cub because he has been hidden from us. Who will go and tell the righteous Moses that we have had a leader like him for forty years?” They finished their lamentation and buried him with their own hands on Mount Ephraim, and they returned each to his own tent. Cenaz and the Sinners’ Confessions 25:1After the death of Joshua the land of Israel was peaceful. But the Philistines sought to fight with the

children of Israel. The latter inquired of the Lord and said, “Should we go up and fight against the Philistines?” And God said to them, “If you go up with a pure heart, fight; but if your heart is defiled, do not go up.” They inquired again, saying, “How will we know if the heart of all the people is the same?” God said to them, “Cast lots by your tribes, and for every tribe, let whoever comes out in the lot be set apart on one side, and then you will know whose heart is pure and whose is defiled.” 2The people said, “First let us appoint a leader among us, and then let us cast the lot.” The angel of the Lord said to them, “Appoint one.” The people said, “Whom will we appoint who is worthy, Lord?” The angel of the Lord said to them, “Cast the lot upon the family of Caleb; whoever will be indicated by lot, he will rule over you.” They cast the lot upon the family of Caleb, and the lot came out upon Cenaz, and they made him ruler in Israel. 24:4. Joshua laid himself on his bed The whole scene is loosely founded upon the archetypal deathbed narrative of Gen. 49. The dying man lies in his bed, summons his heirs or successor, foretells the future, blesses those with him, and dies. 24:6. Lament The central imagery of the lament, the dead man as eagle and lion, is lifted from David’s lament for Saul and Jonathan, wherein the two are compared to eagles and lions (2 Sam. 1:23). for forty years The Bible gives no indication as to how long Joshua led the people. Midrashic texts calculate his tenure variously, most giving 28 years (e.g., S. Olam Rab. 12). None gives 40. 25:1. the land of Israel was peaceful A common phrase in the book of Judges (e.g., 3:11; 8:28). Philistines The biblical episode here deals with the Canaanites, not the Philistines. Cast lots From this point on, the narrative is distinctly influenced by the story of Achan in Joshua, beginning with God’s instructions to cast lots (cf. Josh. 7:14). 25:2. First let us appoint a leader . . . and then let us cast the lot The assertion by the people that they desire a leader followed by instructions to choose one by lot is based upon the selection of Saul as king (1 Sam. 10:19–21), thus establishing a parallel between the selection of the first Judge and that of the first King of Israel. Cenaz One of the great mysteries of L.A.B. is how the (biblically) insignificant Cenaz came to oc-

528

Howard Jacobson

3Cenaz said to the people, “Bring me your tribes and hear the word of the Lord.” The people assembled, and Cenaz said to them, “You know how often Moses the beloved of the Lord commanded you not to transgress the Law to the right or to the left. Joshua too, who was ruler after him, commanded you the same. And now behold we have heard from the mouth of the Lord that your heart is defiled, and the Lord has ordered us to cast lots by your tribes in order that we may know whose heart has turned away from the Lord our God, so that the fury of his wrath not be brought upon the people. I proclaim to you today that, even if someone from my own household comes out in the lot of sin, he will not be saved but will be burned in the fire.” The people said, “What you have proposed to do is good.” 4He brought the tribes before him. From the tribe of Judah there were found 345 men, from the tribe of Reuben 560, from the tribe of Simeon 775, from the tribe of Levi 150, from the tribe of Issachar 665, from the tribe of Zebulun 545, [blank], from the tribe of Gad 380, from the tribe of Asher 665, from the tribe of Manasseh 480, from the tribe of Ephraim 448, from the tribe of Benjamin 267. The total number of those who were found in the lot of sin was 6,110. Cenaz led them all away and shut them up in prison until it should be known what should be done with them. 5Cenaz said, “Was it not about these people that Moses the beloved of the Lord spoke, saying, ‘Perhaps there is among you a root bearing poison and bitterness’? Now blessed be the Lord, who has revealed all the plans of these men and did not let them corrupt the people with their evil deeds. Bring then here the Urim and Tummim, and summon Eleazar the priest, and let us inquire of the Lord through him.” 6Then Cenaz and Eleazar and all the elders and all the congregation prayed together saying, “Lord God of our fathers, reveal to your servants the truth, for we are found not to believe in the wonders cupy so large and important a role in this work. The first judge mentioned by name in the book of Judges is Othniel the son of Cenaz, who is said to have had one major military victory and to have ruled over the people for 40 years ( Judg. 3:9–10). All we hear of Cenaz is that he was Othniel’s father. Nor do other postbiblical texts build up Cenaz, with the exception of Josephus (Ant. 5.182–84), who simply substitutes Cenaz for Othniel. Perhaps we should view the matter not by asking, “Why is this Cenaz—who does such notable things in L.A.B.—unfamiliar to us?” but rather by asking, “What events surrounding Cenaz’s tenure were important enough to justify giving him this role?” In other words, perhaps L.A.B.’s author wanted to incorporate in his history of Israel the elaborate nonbiblical stories that make up L.A.B. 25–28, and preferred to attach them to someone with no role in the biblical account aside from a brief mention of his existence. Thus, Cenaz may be merely the blank character upon whom significant events are imposed. 25:3. Even if someone from my own household comes out. L.A.B.’s presentation here of Cenaz making such a declaration is modeled upon Saul’s statement at 1 Sam. 14:39. L.A.B.’s narrative here is based in part on that of 1 Sam. 14:37–42, wherein Saul inquires of the divine oracle whether to attack the Philistines, is then constrained to conduct a lot to determine where contamination among the people lies, and declares that whoever is found guilty will die, even if the guilty party turns out to be his own son. 25:5. blessed be the Lord A common biblical phrase, often (as here) followed by a relative clause (see, e.g., 2 Sam. 18:28; 1 Kings 8:56). summon Eleazar the priest One is surprised to find Eleazar alive and active, since in the Bible he dies at the end of the book of Joshua, and even L.A.B.’s author did not mention him at L.A.B. 24:4.

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

529

that you did for our fathers from the time you brought them out of the land of Egypt until this day.” The Lord answered and said, “First question those who have been found, and let them confess their deeds that they have done with cunning, and afterward they will be burned in the fire.” 7Cenaz had them brought and said to them, “Behold now you know that Achan confessed when the lot fell on him and he declared everything he had done. Now declare to us your wickedness and schemes. Perhaps, if you tell the truth to us, though you die now, nevertheless God will have mercy on you when he will resurrect the dead.” 8One of them, Elas by name, said, “Will not death soon come upon us, that we will die in the fire? But I tell you, my lord, the acts that we have done wickedly are not all alike. If you wish to seek out the truth clearly, examine the men of each tribe individually and thus any of the bystanders will know the differences among those sins.” 9Cenaz examined those of his own tribe, and they said to him, “We desired to imitate [blank] and make the calf that they made in the wilderness.” After this he examined the men of the tribe of Reuben, and they said, “We desired to sacrifice to the gods of the inhabitants of the land.” [blank]. He examined the men from the tribe of Levi, and they said, “We desired to test the tabernacle, to see if it was holy.” He examined the next ones, from the tribe of Issachar, and they said, “We desired to make inquiry through the demons of the idols, to see if they reveal things clearly.” He examined the men of the tribe of Zebulun, and they said, “We desired to eat the flesh of our own children and to determine whether or not God cares for them.” He examined the next ones, from the tribe of Dan, and they said, “The Amorites taught us what they did, [blank] that we might teach our children, and behold these things are hidden beneath Abraham’s mountain and stored beneath a heap of earth. So send, and you 25:7. he will resurrect the dead The resurrection of the dead is a favorite theme in L.A.B. The language here may mean that God will have mercy and therefore resurrect you. But it could just as well mean that when God resurrects everyone and judges them, then he will have mercy on you. 25:9 No obvious uniformity or monolithic principle links the sins listed here. Most involve no more than the intent to commit some sin; a few, the actual act. If any single theme seems to underlie most of the sins, it is the absence of faith in God. We desired The repeated theme of guilt over the intent to commit a crime is particularly strange given the general Rabbinic distaste for such a view.75 Still, we ought to note that the Talmud apparently makes an exception for idolatry (B. Kid. 39b) and it is the intent to commit that crime, in one form or another, that is mostly the case here. We desired to test the tabernacle, to see if it was holy The ministers of the sanctuary are found guilty of distrusting its sanctity. to eat the flesh of our own children Apparently a reference to some religious ritualistic act of cannibalism. to determine whether or not God cares for them Thus, the sin is not merely the vile act of eating one’s children, but also an act intended, once again, to test God. The Amorites taught us what they did The “ways of the Amorites” are frequently condemned in Rabbinic literature (see, e.g., T. Shab. 6–7). The elaborate list given here of sins committed by the people probably stems from a connection L.A.B.’s author made between two biblical accounts: first, the warning that upon entering the land, the Canaanites (Amorites) must be driven out or destroyed so that the Jews do not learn their corrupt ways (Exod. 34:11–16; Deut. 18:9–14;

530 Howard Jacobson

will find them.” Cenaz sent and found them. He examined the next ones, from the tribe of Naphtali, and they said, “We desired to make what the Amorites made, and behold they are hidden beneath the tent of Elas, who told you to examine us. So send, and you will find them.” Cenaz sent and found them. 10Afterward he examined the next ones, from the tribe of Gad, and they said, “We have committed adultery with each other’s wives.” Then he examined the men of the tribe of Asher, who said, “We have found the seven golden idols which the Amorites call the sacred virgins, and we carried them off with the precious stones set upon them and hid them. Behold now they are laid up beneath the summit of Mount Shechem. So send, and you will find them.” Cenaz sent men, and they removed them from there. 11These are the virgins that, when called upon, showed the Amorites their deeds from hour to hour. They are what seven sinful men devised after the flood. These are their names: Canaan, Futh, Selath, Nimrod, Elath, Desuath [blank]. Nor will there again be their like in the world, graven by the hand of a craftsman or adorned with the variety of painting. They were fixed and set up for the worship of idols. Those precious stones, among which were crystal and prase, had been brought from the land of Havilah; and they were graven in appearance in the manner of open-work decoration. One of them was engraved on the top, and another, as if marked with spots, so shone in its cutting as if it revealed the water of the deep lying beneath [blank]. 12These are the precious stones that the Amorites had in their sanctuary, the value of which was inestimable because when they would enter at night the light of a lamp was not necessary, so brightly did the natural light of the stones shine forth. Among them the brightest was the one that was cut in the fashion of open-work and purified people of demons. For even if one of the Amorites was blind, he would go and put his eyes on it and regain his sight. These Cenaz found, and setting them aside he stored them until he would know what should be done with them. 13After this he examined the next ones, from the tribe of Manasseh, and they said, “We surely profaned the Sabbaths of the Lord.” He examined the next ones, from the tribe of Ephraim, who said, “We desired to make our sons and daughters pass through the fire, to find out if what had been said 20:16–18); and second, the report at the beginning of Judges that the Jews do not actually succeed in dispossessing the Canaanites (esp. Judg. 1:27–36; cf. Exod. 34:11–16 with Judg. 3:5–6). 25:10. We have committed adultery Adultery is specified as one of the sins endemic in the Canaanite people (see Lev. 18:20, 24). seven golden idols The Bible occasionally refers to idols and icons made of gold (e.g., Exod. 32:31; 1 Sam. 6:4; 1 Kings 12:28; cf. Rev. 9:20). 25:11. Seven sinful men The seven men correspond to the seven idols. Contrast the seven pious men at L.A.B. 38:1. precious stones . . . from the land of Havilah Note the reference to Gen. 2:11–12. That Havilah was also known for its gold may be relevant here, since the simulacra (7 golden idols) are made of gold.76 25:12. the light of a lamp was not necessary A precious jewel (or jewels) that supernaturally provides enough light to make any routine source of light (whether natural or artificial) unnecessary occurs in several contexts in Rabbinic literature. Perhaps the most familiar is that of Noah’s ark, of which we are told that one or several precious stones provided illumination for its inhabitants.77

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

531

were true.” He examined the next ones, from the tribe of Benjamin, and they said, “We desired in this time to investigate the book of the Law, to see whether God had really written what was in it or Moses had taught these things on his own.” The Stones 26:1When Cenaz, after hearing all these words, had written them in a book and had read them before

the Lord, God said to him, “Take the men and what was found with them and all their possessions, and put them into the wadi Kison and burn them with fire, so that my anger will turn away from them.” 2Cenaz said, “Shall we burn those precious stones in the fire or sanctify them to you, for among us there are none like these?” God said to him, “If God takes anything for his own sake from what was proscribed, what will man do? Therefore, now take those precious stones and everything that was found, books as well as men, and so arrange things that you place the stones on one side with the books since the fire will not be able to consume them; afterward I will show you how to destroy them. But the men and everything else that was found, burn in the fire. When all the people is assembled, say to them, ‘So will it be done to every man whose heart has turned from his God.’ 3After the fire has consumed those men, then place on the top of the mountain by the new altar the books and the precious stones that cannot be consumed by fire or cut by iron or erased by water. I will command a cloud, and it will go and take dew and send it upon the books and erase what is written in them, because they will not be erased by any other water except that which has never served men. Afterward I will send my lightning, and it will consume those books. 25:13. We desired . . . to see whether God had really written what was in it Such criminal thoughts are attributed by the Midrash to Korah. At J. Sanh. 10:1 (28a) he is said to declare, “The Torah does not have divine origin,” while at Tanhuma (Buber) 4:43b, Korah accuses Moses of inventing injunctions on his own, rather than having received them from God (cf. Num. 16:28). This sin builds upon the rationale provided for the previous one in L.A.B. 25:13 (“to find out,” etc.). Both then fundamentally question the authority and truth of the Bible. 26:1. Take the men . . . and all their possessions The language derives from Num. 16:31–33, in which the destruction of Korah and his followers is described. 26:2. If God takes anything . . . what will man do? God must set an example for us. This is the other side of the principle of imitatio Dei. We must imitate God’s ways, but this also means that God must take pains to set a good example for us. For a nice illustration, see Der. Er. Rab. 5. 26:3. Books Having not heard of the “books” in L.A.B. 25:9 (probably because of a lacuna in our manuscripts), we are unable to say why they should have the supernatural properties here attributed to them. Whether the mysterious books that are associated with Enoch and Noah have any relevance here is impossible to say.78 Afterward Why must the writing be removed from the books before they can be destroyed? Possibly the writing is considered holy in some way such that destroying it along with the books would be profane. If this is so, the books would then stand parallel to the stones, in that they were once sacred (or at least special in some positive way) and have been corrupted by the Amorites. As for the notion of deleting the writing before destroying the books, one thinks of the midrashic expansion of the story of Moses’s breaking the tablets: that the writing first disappeared, and only then did Moses smash them (e.g., L.A.B. 19:7). 26:3. I will send my lightning This is fulfilled at 26:8 in the form of an angel.

532 Howard Jacobson

4But regarding the precious stones, I will command my angel, and he will take them and go and put them in the depths of the sea. I will order the deep, and it will swallow them up, for they cannot abide in the world, because they have been defiled by the idols of the Amorites. I will command another angel, and he will take for me twelve stones from that place whence these seven were taken. When you find them on the top of the mountain where you will place these others, take them and set them on the ephod to correspond to the twelve stones that Moses in the wilderness set on the breastplate and sanctify them according to the twelve tribes. Do not say, ‘How will I know what stone to set for what tribe?’ Behold, I will tell you the name of the tribe and the name of the stone corresponding to the name of the tribe, and you will find them both engraved.” 5Cenaz went and took everything that had been found and the men together with these things, and he gathered all the people to himself again and said to them, “Behold, you have seen all the wonders that God has shown us until this day. And behold, when we sought out all those who devised evil deeds cunningly against the Lord and against Israel, God revealed them to us according to their works. Now cursed be the man who will plot to do such things in your midst, brothers.” All the people answered, “Amen, Amen.” When this had been said, he burned all those men in the fire and everything that had been found with them except the precious stones. 6After this Cenaz wished to test whether the stones would be consumed by fire, and he cast them into the fire. As soon as they fell into the fire, the fire was extinguished. Cenaz took the iron sword in 26:4. the depths of the sea Cf. the story of Adam’s book of secrets that is taken from him by the angels and thrown into the sea (e.g., Hagoren 9, p. 39). they have been defiled by the idols of the Amorites Here is perhaps the central point of the story. The stones were special—indeed they must be replaced by stones of the very same provenance, to be used for sacred and distinguished purposes—yet by their contact with the objects of idolatry they have been polluted and rendered unusable. This is in keeping with the emphatic and repeated Rabbinic prohibition against objects that have been used in—or even intended for use in—idol worship. Thus, the mishnaic tractate on idolatry (M. Avod. Zar.) deals far more with the question of Jews using items related to the practice of idolatry than with the practice of idolatry itself. twelve stones The difference in number emphasizes the difference in purpose. The 7 stones were intended for idolatry (the “seven nymphs”); the 12 stones will correspond to the 12 tribes of Israel and the 12 stones in the breastplate. 26:5. All the people answered, “Amen, Amen” This is the formulaic response to the ritualistic curse. L.A.B. quotes verbatim Deut. 27:15. The doubled Amen is L.A.B.’s unconscious recollection of the same words at Neh. 8:6. 26:6. Cenaz wished to test A remarkable section. God has already told Cenaz (L.A.B. 26:3) that the stones and books are indestructible, yet Cenaz proceeds to test them to determine if this is indeed the case. How does this differ from several of the sins of the tribes previously described, sins that amount to testing God out of lack of faith? The tribe of Levi tests the Tabernacle to see whether it is really holy. Zebulun practices cannibalism to see whether God really cares about the children. Similar is the behavior of Ephraim. True, Cenaz does nothing that is in essence sinful. But his underlying motivation is much the same as theirs. That L.A.B.’s author probably modeled this event loosely on the life of the judge Gideon (as he did with so much in his account of Cenaz) may explain why he does not interpret Cenaz’ behavior as sinful. When God’s angel comes to commission Gideon, the distrustful hero requests a miraculous sign and is given one

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

533

order to break them. When the sword touched them, its iron melted. After this, he wished at least to erase the books with water, but as soon as the water fell upon them it congealed. When he saw this, Cenaz said, “Blessed be God, who has done such great wonders for the sons of men, and he made Adam the first-fashioned one and showed him everything on condition that when Adam sinned thereby, he would deny the human race all he had shown, lest these things gain control over them.” 7After saying this, he took the books and the stones and he placed them on the top of the mountain by the new altar as the Lord had commanded him. He brought a peace offering and offered the burnt offerings on the new altar, 2,000 burnt offerings in all. He gave them as a burnt offering on that day, and he and all the people together rejoiced greatly. 8That same night God did as he had told Cenaz. He commanded a cloud, and it went and took dew from the ice of paradise and poured it on the books and erased them. Afterward came an angel and burned them. Another angel took the precious stones and cast them into the heart of the sea, and he commanded the deep of the sea and it swallowed them. Another angel came and took twelve stones and put them by that place from which the seven had been taken and he engraved on them the names of the tribes. 9Cenaz arose the next morning and found those twelve stones on the top of the mountain where he himself had placed the seven. The engraving on them was such as if the forms of eyes were portrayed on them. 10The first stone, on which was written the name of the tribe Reuben, was like sardinus. The second stone was cut from a crag, and there was engraved the name of the tribe of Simeon, and a similarity to topaz was apparent in it. On the third stone, which was like smaragdus, was engraved the name of the tribe of Levi. The fourth stone, on which the name of the tribe of Judah was engraved, was called crystal, and it was like carbuncle. The fifth stone was prase and upon it was engraved “tribe of Issachar,” and it had the color of sapphire in it. The cut of the sixth stone was like chrysoprase speckled with diverse markings, and there was written “tribe of Zebulun;” jasper was similar to it. ( Judg. 6:17–22). But even this is not enough, for later on he sets not one but two tests for God before undertaking battle (6:36–40). So blatant a testing of God by Gideon will have allowed L.A.B. to invent such behavior for Cenaz. Blessed be God, who has done such great wonders for the sons of men Remarkably similar to some Rabbinic blessings; for example, “Blessed is God who has given of his wisdom to flesh and blood” (B. Ber. 58a). 26:8. Dew from the ice of paradise “Celestial” dew is common in Rabbinic and pseudepigraphic texts (e.g., B. Hag. 12b, 1 En. 36:1). Whether that is also the purport of “paradisiacal” dew is not clear. The supernatural quality of such dew is occasionally noted (e.g., B. Hag. 12b). What ice is doing in paradise is not explained, nor is how dew comes from ice. an angel . . . Another angel . . . Another angel Multiple angels, on the Rabbinic principle that angels perform only one task apiece (see at L.A.B. 27:10). 26:9. as if the forms of eyes were portrayed on them The author of L.A.B. does not spell out the function or the significance of the engraved eyes; perhaps he neither knew nor cared. But parallels exist: at Zech. 3:9, a stone is said to have seven eyes engraved thereon; no explanation is provided or obvious. There are also amulets with eyes engraved thereon that are clearly apotropaic in nature. Apotropaic eyes are familiar on Attic vases as well.

534 Howard Jacobson

11The engraving of the seventh stone shone and displayed within itself, as it were, the poured-in water of the deep, and there was written the name of the tribe of Dan, and it was like ligure. The eighth stone was cut out from adamant, and there was written the name of the tribe of Naphtali, and it was like amethyst. The engraving of the ninth stone was pierced-work from Mount Ophir, and there was written “tribe of Gad,” and the agate was similar to it. The engraving of the tenth stone was hollowed out, and it had the appearance of stone from Thema, and there was written “tribe of Asher,” and the chrysolite was similar to it. The eleventh stone was taken from the Lebanon, and there was written the name of the tribe of Joseph, and the beryl was like it. The twelfth stone was cut out from the height of Zion, and on it was written “tribe of Benjamin,” and the onyx was similar to it. 12God said to Cenaz, “Take these stones and put them in the ark of the covenant of the Lord along with the tablets of the covenant that I gave to Moses on Horeb; and they will be there with them until Jahel will arise to build a house for my name, and then he will set them before me above the two cherubim, and they will be before me as a memorial for the house of Israel. 13When the sins of my people have reached full measure and their enemies will have power over their 26:11. Mount Ophir The land of Ophir was famous for its gold, but we are also told that it was a source of precious stones (1 Kings 10:11). Ophir in the Bible is not described as a mountain, but the phrase “Mount Ophir” is understandable in L.A.B.’s context of mining. from the Lebanon The Lebanon is famous for its trees, not its stones. Perhaps its association with stones here is no more than the result of its being a mountain. the height of Zion The phrase “Mount Zion” means the Temple Mount in 1 Maccabees (cf., e.g., Isa. 4:5), though not always in Josephus. 26:12. put them in the ark Traditionally, within the ark (or adjacent to it) were the two tablets, the vessel containing manna, and the staff of Aaron (Deut. 10:5; Exod. 16:33–34; Num. 17:25; cf. Heb. 9:4); also a copy of the Torah (Deut. 31:26). See especially B. BB 14a–b. L.A.B. places only the tablets therein and is thereby in accord with the narrowest interpretation of the relevant biblical verses. As for the author’s idiosyncratic placement of the stones in the ark, there is a remarkable parallel of sorts. Tertullian says (Marc. 4.13.4) that the 12 stones taken by Joshua from the Jordan were stored in the Holy Ark. This story has no basis in the biblical narrative ( Josh. 4) nor in any midrashic exegesis, but certainly seems connected in some way to L.A.B.’s placement of these 12 stones in the ark. until Jahel will arise to build a house for my name Without doubt, Solomon is meant here; note the exact quotation of 2 Sam. 7:12–13: “I will raise up your offspring . . . He shall build a house for My name.” 26:13. When the sins of my people have reached full measure Whether intentional or not, the echo here of Gen. 15:16 is striking and powerful in its effect. Here it is not used for the Amorites, but for the Jews, much as Jesus chastises the Pharisees with the same language (Matt. 23:32). At B. Arak. 15a, the Rabbis reject the possibility that such a principle could be operative for the Jewish nation. This rejection is especially emphatic at 2 Macc. 6:12–16. The principle may be present with reference to the “four kingdoms” at Dan. 8:23. the former stones There may be here a small but valuable clue to the date of L.A.B., which says that when the Temple will fall both the miraculous new stones and the old ones (of the priestly breastplate) will be removed by God and will not be restored until eschatological times. But if L.A.B. were writing while the Second Temple was still standing, it is unlikely that he would de-

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

535

house, I will take these stones and the former stones along with the tablets, and I will put them back in the place from which they were brought forth at the beginning. They will be there until I remember the world and visit the inhabitants of the earth. Then I will take these and many others, much better ones, from those which the eye has not seen nor has the ear heard nor have they entered the mind of man until the light will come into existence in the world. The just will not need the light of the sun or the brightness of the moon, for the light of those most precious stones will be their light.” 14Cenaz arose and said, “Behold how much good God has made for men, but because of their sins they have been deprived of all these things. Now today I know that the race of men is unstable and their life should be reckoned as nought.” 15Having said this, he took the stones from the place where they had been placed. When he took them, it was as if the light of the sun poured over them and the earth shone from their light. Cenaz put them in the ark of the covenant of the Lord with the tablets as he had been commanded, and they are there to this day. Cenaz’s Victory 27:1After this he armed three hundred thousand men of the people, and went up to fight the Amorites.

He smote on the first day eight hundred thousand men, and on the second day he killed five hundred thousand. 2On the third day certain men of the people spoke slander against Cenaz, saying, “Behold now Cenaz alone spends time at his home with his wife and his concubines, and he sends us into battle to be destroyed at the hands of our enemies.” 3The servants of Cenaz heard this and reported it to him. He commanded the captain of fifty, and the captain brought from them thirty-seven men who had denigrated him, and he shut them up in prison. 4These are their names: Leetuz, Betul, Efal, Dealma, Anaf, Desac, Besac, Getel, Anael, Anazim, Noac, clare that the priestly stones were taken by God at the time of the destruction of the First Temple, not to be returned until the end-time. For he (and his audience) would have been aware that the priestly stones were in fact intact and in place during the Second Temple, though they no longer functioned as of old. Such is, at all events, the accepted scholarly opinion (see too Tosafot’s brief comments at Yoma 21b) and is supported by passages like Josephus’s Ant. 3.218; Let. Aris. 97; T. Sot. 13:2. I will put them back The account in L.A.B. is connected to the familiar story in which the holy vessels are concealed at the time of the destruction of the Second Temple (e.g., 2 Macc. 2:4–5)— but note that versions of this story do not usually include the priestly stones among the hidden objects. One exception is the version at 2 Bar. 6:7–10. which the eye has not seen nor has the ear heard This expression ultimately goes back to Isa. 64:3. 26:15. as if the light of the sun The language is similar to that in Pesik. Rab. 32,79 about the precious stones that will illuminate Jerusalem in the end-time: “all of Lod lit up from their light.” Cenaz put them in the ark Cenaz’s act builds upon Moses’s (Deut. 10:5). 27:1. He smote on the first day The war is described as going through presumably inconclusive battles on the first and second days, then culminating in a decisive victory on the third day. This is precisely the pattern in the war of the tribes against Benjamin in Judg. 20. The consultation of the divine oracle before entering battle ( Judg. 20:18) is also similar to L.A.B. 25:1.

536 Howard Jacobson

Cehec, Boac, Obal, Labat, Enath, Beath, Zelut, Effor, Ecent, Deffaf, Abidan, Esar, Moab, Duzal, Azat, Felac, Igat, Zefal, Eliesor, Ecar, Zebat, Sebet, Nesach, Cere. When the captain of fifty had shut them up according to the command of Cenaz, Cenaz said, “When God will have given victory to his people through my hands, then I will punish those men.” 5After saying this, Cenaz commanded the captain of fifty, saying, “Go and choose from my young men three hundred men and horses of the same number, and let no one of the people know the hour in which I am to go out for battle. Just have the men prepared for the time I will tell you, so that they will be ready at night.” 6Cenaz sent emissaries as spies to see where the large force of the Amorite camp was. The emissaries went and in their spying saw that the large force of the Amorite camp was located on the cliffs and that they were planning to come and fight against Israel. The emissaries returned and reported such and such to him. Cenaz and the three hundred horsemen with him arose by night, and he took trumpets in his hand and began to go down with the three hundred men. When he drew near the Amorite camp, he said to his young men, “Stay here. I will go down alone to have a look at the Amorite camp. If I sound the trumpet, come down; but if not, wait for me there.” 7Cenaz went down alone and before he went down he prayed and said, “Lord God of our fathers, you have shown your servant the wonders that you are ready to do for your people in the last days. Now send one of your wonders to your servant, and I will defeat your enemies so that they and all the nations and your people will know that the Lord saves not by means of a large army or by the strength of horsemen, and that you Lord will make for me a sign of victory today. Behold, I will draw my sword out of its scabbard, and it will shine in the Amorite camp. If the Amorites recognize that I am Cenaz, I know that you have delivered them into my hands. But if they do not recognize me and think I am someone else, I know that you have not heard me but have delivered me to my enemies. But even if I be given over to death, I know that on account of my sins the Lord has not heard me and has handed me over to my enemies. But he will not destroy his portion through my death.” 8He went forth after he prayed, and he heard many of the Amorites saying, “Let us rise up and fight 27:5. Choose from my young men three hundred The use of only 300 men in the battle is one of several elements adopted by L.A.B. in this episode from the story of Gideon at Judg. 7. 27:6. by night The nighttime attack, as in Judg. 7. began to go down The descent too is from Gideon’s story ( Judg. 7:9–11). When he drew near There is clear, but presumably unconscious, influence at this point in the narrative from Gen. 22. When Abraham gets in sight of the appointed place, he speaks to his servants, va-yomer el ne’arav, exactly L.A.B.’s words here, “he said to his young men.” He orders them to stay put, while he and Isaac go alone. This is exactly Cenaz’s instructions to his servants, “stay here, I will go alone” (cf. Gen. 22:4–5). 27:7. He prayed The opening of Cenaz’s prayer is closely modeled on Moses’s at Deut. 3:23–4. he will not destroy his portion Here we see the author’s customary optimistic view that, no matter how bad things are, in the final analysis God will not destroy his people.

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

537

against Israel. For we know that our sacred virgins are there with them, and they will deliver them into our hands.” 9Cenaz rose up and the spirit of the Lord clothed him, and he unsheathed his sword. When its brightness shone on the Amorites like a sharp lightning bolt, they saw it and said, “Is this not the sword of Cenaz who has killed so many of us? What we said is correct, that the sacred virgins have delivered them into our hands. Behold now there is rejoicing for the Amorites today, since our enemy will be delivered over to us. Now therefore rise up, let each one gird himself with his sword, and begin to fight.” 10When Cenaz heard their words, he was clothed with the spirit of power and was changed into another man, and he went down to the Amorite camp and began to smite them. The Lord sent before him the angel Ingethel, who is in charge of hidden things and works without being seen, and another, the angel of strength, who helped him. Ingethel smote the Amorites with blindness so that, since each could not see his fellow, they thought they were their adversaries and they killed one another. Zeruel, the angel who is in charge of strength, held up the arms of Cenaz so they should not sink down. Cenaz killed forty-five thousand men of the Amorites. Forty-five thousand men also died by their smiting of each other. 11When Cenaz had killed such a great number, he wished to release his hand from the sword, because it stuck to the handle of the sword and could not be released, and his right hand had taken on the power of the sword. Then those of the Amorites who survived fled into the mountains. Cenaz sought how to release his hand, and looking up, he saw an Amorite man fleeing. He grabbed him and said to him, “I know that the Amorites are cunning; now show me how to release my hand from this sword, and I will let you go.” The Amorite said, “Go and get a man of the Hebrews, and kill him; and while his blood is still hot, put your hand beneath it; on catching his blood, your hand will be released.” Cenaz said, “As 27:8. our sacred virgins are there with them The notion that the Amorite idols’ presence among the Jews will be disadvantageous to the latter may be adapted from the story at 1 Sam. 5–6, where the presence of the captive Holy Ark amongst the Philistines causes them great problems. 27:10. When Cenaz heard their words This too comes from the Gideon story, in exactly the same context ( Judg. 7:15). he was clothed with the spirit of power A metaphor likely based on Isa. 51:9; 52:1. The words here probably mean simply that when Cenaz heard their words and recognized the fulfillment of his omen, he grew mightily encouraged. Ingethel smote the Amorites with blindness Angels striking the wicked with blindness must at some level be derived from Gen. 19:11. Zeruel, the angel Why the need for two angels? The author of L.A.B. appears to follow the Rabbinic principle that angels do only one mission each (e.g., Tanhuma [Buber] 1:48b). Thus, since two tasks were required here (the blinding of the Amorites and the supporting of Cenaz’s arms), so were two angels. 27:11. the Amorites are cunning That the Amorites were skilled at magic is well known. See, for example, B. Shab. 67a–b; L.A.B. 25:12; 2 Bar. 60:1. The author of L.A.B. seems to have no qualms about having Cenaz inquire after and then adopt the practice of the Amorites here. Perhaps this is related to the Rabbinic position that an Amorite practice that has curative value is not forbidden (B. Shab. 67a).

538 Howard Jacobson

surely as the Lord lives, if you had said, ‘Take a man of the Amorites,’ I would have taken one of them and let you live. But because you said ‘of the Hebrews’, so as to reveal your hatred, you are responsible for your own death, and, just as you have said, so I will do to you.” After saying this, Cenaz killed him. While his blood was still hot, he put his hand underneath and caught it, and it was released. 12Cenaz left and took off his clothes. He threw himself into the river and washed himself. He came up again, changed his clothes, and returned to his young men. But the Lord had sent upon them a deep sleep at night, and they slept and did not know anything of all that Cenaz had done. Cenaz came and aroused them out of sleep, and they looked and saw, behold the field was full of bodies; and they looked at each other wonderstruck. Cenaz said to them, “Why are you amazed? Are the ways of God like the way of man? For among men numbers have significance, but with God only whatever he has decided. And so if God wished to give victory to his people through my hands, why are you amazed? Arise, and gird on, each one of you, your swords, and we will go home to our brothers.” 13When all Israel heard that victory had been accomplished through the hands of Cenaz, all the people went out together to meet him and they said, “Blessed be the Lord who has made you leader over his people and has shown that his words to you were reliable. What we heard in words, now we see with our eyes; God’s prophecy is fulfilled.” 14Cenaz said to them, “Question your brothers, and let them tell you how much they toiled with me in battle.” Those men who were with him said, “As surely as the Lord lives, we did not fight nor did we even know anything except only that, when we awoke, we saw the field full of bodies.” And the people answered, “Now we know that when the Lord decides to give victory to his people, he does not need a great number but only holiness.” 15Cenaz said to the captain of fifty who had shut up those men in prison, “Bring those men here, and we will hear their words.” When he had brought them, Cenaz said to them, “Tell me, what did you see so as to murmur about me among the people.” They said, “Why do you ask us? Now therefore order that we be burned in the fire, because we will not die for this sin that we have been talking about now but for that previous one with regard to which the men were caught and confessed and were burned for their sins. For then we assented to their sins, saying, ‘Perhaps the people will not find us out,’ and 27:12. He threw himself into the river This could be either for cleaning himself from the gore of battle or some form of ritualistic purification from the bloodshed and contact with the dead. Washing as a means of ritual purification is common in the Bible (e.g., Num. 19:19). He . . . returned to his young men This story began (L.A.B. 27:6) with echoes of the Akedah tale and ends with this verbatim quote of Gen. 22:19a: “Abraham then returned to his servants. “ 27:14. Now we know that when the Lord decides to give victory This type of statement, acknowledging God’s power after an unexpected or miraculous event, has biblical roots. See especially Jethro at Exod. 18:11. 27:15. We will not die for this sin . . . but for that previous one The notion that condemnation for a present trespass may in fact be only deserved punishment for an earlier sin is biblical. See the story of Joseph’s brethren, especially Gen. 42:22 and 44:16; also the interesting midrashic apologetic expansion of the biblical story at Num. Rab. 13:17. we assented to their sins Most likely this means that they were aware of the acts taking place and did not report them. Indeed, the Bible enjoins that one who witnesses an act must give testi-

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

539

then we escaped the people. But rightly have we been led by our sins to fall into slandering you.” And Cenaz said, “If then you testify against yourselves, how will I have mercy on you?” Cenaz ordered that they be burned in the fire and threw their ashes into the bed of the wadi Kison, where he had cast those of the great number of sinners. 16Cenaz ruled the people fifty-seven years, and there was fear upon all his enemies all his days. Cenaz’s Vision and Death 28:1When the time approached for Cenaz to die, he sent and summoned all [blank], and Jabis and

Phinehas the two prophets and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, and he said to them, “Behold now the Lord has shown me all his wonders that he has prepared to do for his people in the last days. 2Now I will establish my covenant with you today, that you not abandon the Lord your God after my death. For you have seen all the wonders that came upon those who sinned and what great punishment those who willingly confessed their sins paid, and how the Lord our God destroyed them because they transgressed his covenant. Now therefore have consideration for the members of your household and your children, and abide in the ways of the Lord your God lest the Lord destroy his portion.” 3Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest said, “If Cenaz the leader and the prophets and the people and the elders allow, I will speak the word that I heard from my father when he was dying, and I will not be silent about the command that he commanded me while his soul was being taken.” Cenaz the leader and the prophets said, “Speak, Phinehas. Does anyone speak before the priest who guards the commandments of the Lord our God, especially since truth goes forth from his mouth and a shining light from his heart?” 4Then Phinehas said, “When my father was dying, he commanded me, saying, ‘Say thus to the children of Israel when you are gathered together in assembly, “The Lord appeared to me three days ago in a dream by night and said to me, ‘Behold you have seen, and your father before you, how much I have toiled for my people. But after your death this people will rise up and corrupt its ways and stray from my commands, and I will wax angry with them. But I will recall the time that was before the world, mony (Lev. 5:1), though neither biblical nor Rabbinic law indicate that failure to do so is punishable by execution.80 28:1. the two prophets The midrashic literature asserted that two prophets (named Eldad and Medad) were among the elders who lived on after the death of Joshua (Num. Rab. 3:7). Jabis No such prophet is known. Phinehas Phinehas the priest was sometimes identified with Elijah the prophet (including at L.A.B. 48:1). Internal evidence argues against such identification here, but possibly this identification has somehow produced here a prophet Phinehas independent of the priest. 28:3. Does anyone speak before the priest The Talmud discusses at B. Git. 59b the various priorities that belong to the priest. who guards the commandments of the Lord For the priest as the guardian and teacher of the Law, see Deut. 17:9–12; 33:9–10; Mal. 2. 28:4. your father before you This is Aaron.

540 Howard Jacobson

the time when man did not exist and there was no wickedness in it, when I said, “Let the world be created and those who come into it will praise me. I will plant a great vineyard, and from it I will choose a plant; and I will transplant it and call it by my name, and it will be mine forever.” Although I have done all the things that I said, nevertheless my plant that was called by my name will not recognize me, its planter, but will ruin its fruit and not yield me its fruit. “‘This is what my father commanded me to say to this people.” 5Cenaz and the elders and all the people lifted up their voices and wept together with great lamentation until evening and said, “Will the shepherd destroy his flock for no reason, unless it has sinned against him? But now he is the one who will spare us in accord with the abundance of his mercy, because he has toiled so much over us.” 6When they were sitting, the holy spirit came upon Cenaz and dwelled in him and took away his sense, and he began to prophesy, saying, “Behold now I see what I had not hoped for, and I perceive what I did not understand. Give ear, you who dwell on the earth now, as to how those who resided on it prophesied before me and saw this hour even before the earth was corrupted, so that all of you who dwell in it may recognize the events foreordained by the prophecies. 7Behold now I see flames that do not burn, and I hear springs awakened out of sleep which have no foundation, and I perceive neither the tops of the mountains nor the roof of the firmament, but all things cannot be seen and are invisible and have no place whatsoever. Though my eye does not know what it sees, my heart will find what to say. when I said, “Let the world be created” The point is clear. It was through an act of speech that God created the world. So the psalmist at 33:6, 9; and 148:5. See too Wis. 9:1, Jdt. 16:14. those who come into it will praise me For the notion that God created the world and its creatures for the purpose of praising him, see, for example, Exod. Rab. 17:1; Midr. Alpha-Beta ( Jellinek, 3.12–13). from it I will choose a plant Here Israel is seen not as the vineyard, but as a plant (i.e., a vine) selected by God from his vineyard (presumably all of creation, or all of humankind). For other instances of Israel viewed narrowly as a vine, see Ps. 80:9; Jer. 2:21; Ezek. 17:6. Cf. especially Exod. Rab. 44:1. For God’s selecting Israel as his chosen vine out of various vines or trees, see 4 Esd. 5:23. I will . . . call it by my name Cf. Isa. 43:7 (usually understood to refer to Israel); also Jer. 14:9; Dan. 9:19. This means that Israel is called “God’s people” (e.g. Num. 11:29, 2 Sam. 1:12). it will be mine forever The author of L.A.B. often stresses that God’s relation with Israel is eternal. will ruin its fruit The metaphor is found in the Midrash. When the people (God’s vine) sin, they are compared to a vine that produces sour grapes (Exod. Rab. 43:9). The language is perhaps influenced by Mal. 3:11. 28:6. the holy spirit came upon Cenaz A biblical expression. Several times divine inspiration is described in the following terms: va-titzlah alav ruah hashem, in which the meaning of the verb tz-l-h is unclear. Different Bible translations have interpreted it variously as “came mightily upon him” (KJV), “gripped him” (NJPS), “seized him” (NEB). But in antiquity the verb was widely interpreted as “leap, jump.” he began to prophesy References to prophesying are often preceded by the statement that the spirit of God came upon the person (e.g. Num. 11:26; 1 Sam. 10:10; 19:20).

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

541

8From the flame that I saw (which did not burn) I saw, lo, a spark went down and, as it were, made for itself a platform below. The pattern was like a spider’s or arachnid’s spinning. When the foundation had been made, I saw there was stirred up from that spring, as it were, bubbling foam; and behold it was transformed, as it were, into another foundation. Between the upper foundation and the lower there came from the light of that invisible place, as it were, the images of men; and they walked about. And behold a voice said, ‘These foundations will be for men, and they will dwell therein for 7,000 years. 9The lower foundation had been paved, the upper had stopped foaming. Those who went forth from the light of the invisible place, they will be the ones who will have the name “man.” But when he will sin against me and the time will be fulfilled, the spark will be extinguished and the spring will stop, and so they will pass away.’” 10When Cenaz had spoken these words, he awakened, and his sense came back to him. He however did not know what he had spoken or what he had seen. But this alone he said to the people: “If such is the repose of the just after they have died, it is proper for them to die in the corruptible world so as not to see sins.” When he had said these words, Cenaz died and lay with his fathers. The people mourned him thirty days. Zebul 29:1Afterward the people appointed over themselves as leader Zebul. At that time he gathered the people

together and said to them, “Behold now we know all the toil that Cenaz toiled for us in the days of his 28:8. From the flame . . . from that spring . . . into another foundation In this murky passage, L.A.B.’s author seems to describe the creation of two things he calls foundations, one from the spark of fire, the other from the source of water. The words of Gen. 1:1 (“When God began to create heaven and earth—”) together with L.A.B.’s declaration that humankind appears and occupies the space between these two foundations indicate that they must be heaven and earth. a spark Sparks of fire play a role in God’s creation in the Zohar (86b–87a ad Gen. 14:18). 28:10. He however did not know what he had spoken or what he had seen The notion of the inspired seer who remembers nothing of his words or vision during the period of his inspiration is common. The Midrash tells us that with the exception of Moses and Isaiah (and possibly Elijah), the prophets did not know what they prophesied (Midr. Ps. at 90:1 [Buber] 194a–b).81 If such is the repose of the just The implication is that Cenaz has in effect been asleep during his whole speech, that is, that God has been speaking through him. This accords with the language at L.A.B. 28:6. The general notion that sleep and death are in some sense two sides of the same coin is old and common. Hesiod calls sleep and death brothers (Theog. 756). it is proper for them to die . . . so as not to see sins This bears some resemblance to God’s decision to have Moses die before reaching the Promised Land so as to be spared the sight of his people’s corruption when they get there (L.A.B. 19:7). The people mourned him thirty days Thirty days of mourning, as for Moses and Aaron (Num. 20:29; Deut. 34:8). 29:1. the people appointed over themselves as leader Zebul The section on Zebul raises some of the same questions as that on Cenaz. In both we have a judge who has apparently been invented by L.A.B.’s author. Like Cenaz, who is mentioned in the book of Judges, but is not himself a judge or a major figure, so too Zebul is mentioned in the book of Judges (9:28–41), but is a minor figure. Further, the narrative about Zebul seems pieced together from a variety of episodes in the Bible.

542 Howard Jacobson

life. Now if he had sons, they should have ruled the people. Since daughters survive, let them receive a great portion among the people, because in his lifetime their father was unwilling to give it to them lest he be called avaricious and greedy.” The people said, “Do everything that is pleasing in your eyes.” 2Cenaz had three daughters, whose names were these: the first-born Ethema, the second Feila, the third Zelfa. Zebul gave to the first-born all that was around the land of palms, to the second he gave the olive grove of Ekron, to the third he gave the tilled lands that were around Ashdod. And he gave them husbands, namely, to the first-born Elisefan, to the second Odihel, to the third Doel. 3In those days Zebul established a treasury for the Lord and said to the people, “Behold if anyone wishes to consecrate gold and silver to the Lord, let him bring it to the treasury of the Lord in Shiloh; only let no one who has anything belonging to idols wish to consecrate it to the treasuries of the Lord, because the Lord does not want the abominations of banned things lest you disturb the congregation of the Lord. For the wrath that has passed is sufficient.” All the people, from men to women, brought what their heart prompted, gold and silver. Everything that was brought was weighed: twenty talents of gold and two hundred and fifty of silver. 4Zebul judged the people twenty-five years. When he had completed his time, he sent and assembled all the people and said, “Behold now I go to die; look to the testimonies that our predecessors have testified, and let not your hearts be like the waves of the sea. But just as a wave of the sea understands nothing except what is in the sea, so let your heart ponder nothing else except what belongs to the Law.” Zebul lay with his fathers, and he was buried in the tomb of his father. if he had sons, they should have ruled the people The implications of this statement are interesting: if God chooses to elect a woman as leader of the people, he may (as at L.A.B. 30:2, 5), but the people are not free to do so. since daughters survive This episode is loosely derived from the story of the daughters of Zelophehad at Num. 27:36. 29:2. all that was around the land of palms . . . the olive grove . . . the tilled lands Among the half dozen or so agricultural products that the Bible regularly counts as special to the Land of Israel, three of them are date-honey, olives, and grain, the items alluded to here. 29:3. Zebul established a treasury for the Lord That Zebul establishes a treasury for God is L.A.B.’s author’s significant innovation in this section. The notion of a treasury for God occurs at Josh. 6:19, 24 where we are told that the precious metals taken from Jericho are deposited in God’s treasury. and said to the people This whole section, from Zebul’s call for voluntary contributions to the description of the people’s donations, is influenced by Moses’s call for contributions for building the sanctuary and the ensuing events at Exod. 35. to the treasury of the Lord in Shiloh That the divine treasury will be in or close to the sanctuary (in Shiloh) is natural and was of course the case with Solomon’s Temple (e.g., 1 Kings 7:51). let no one That the instruments of idolatry should be prohibited as offerings to God is obvious. Even lesser “abominations” were prohibited (e.g., Exod. 13:13; Deut. 23:19). The Rabbis went much further than what is explicit in L.A.B., prohibiting Jews from deriving any benefit from many things associated with idol worship.82 29:4. Zebul judged The regular phraseology for the leaders of the book of Judges (e.g., 3:10). cf. L.A.B. 30:1: “judge”). he was buried in the tomb of his father A common ending (see, e.g., Judg. 8:32; 16:31; 2 Sam. 2:32).

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

543

Deborah 30:1Then the children of Israel did not have anyone to appoint for themselves as judge, and their heart

turned away, and they forgot the promise and transgressed the ways that Moses and Joshua the servants of the Lord had commanded them, and they went astray after the daughters of the Amorites and served their gods. 2The Lord became angry at them and sent his angel and said, “Behold I chose one people from all the nations of the earth, that my glory should abide in this world with it; and I sent to them Moses my servant, to declare my laws and statutes, but they transgressed my ways. And behold now I will rouse up their enemies and they will rule over them. Then all the people will say, ‘Because we transgressed the ways of God and of our fathers, therefore these things have come upon us.’ A woman will rule over them and enlighten them for forty years.” 3After this the Lord roused up against them Jabin the king of Hazor and he began to fight against them. Sisera was the general of his army, who had eight thousand iron chariots, and he came to Mount Ephraim and fought against the people. Israel feared him very much, and the people could not hold their own all the days of Sisera. 30:1. they went astray after the daughters of the Amorites and served their gods Cf. Num. 25:1–2 and Judg. 2:17. But this passage should be especially connected to Judg. 3:5–6 where the intermarriage with Canaanite peoples is mentioned and followed by “they worshiped their gods.” 30:2. The Lord . . . sent his angel There is no such angel in the biblical Deborah narrative. But the appearance of angels is common in the book of Judges (e.g., 6:11; 13:3). This particular passage is influenced by the appearance of the angel at Judg. 2:1–4, wherein the angel’s words combine a brief look back at Jewish history and a forecast of punishment for Israel because of its lack of loyalty to God. that my glory should abide in this world with it Cf. Exod. 40:34. For the immanence of God’s glory, see Pirke R. El. 10. This is probably no different from God’s Shekhinah which is often interchangeable with his glory (cf., e.g., the two passages at Mek. Bahodesh 483 and B. Suk. 5a, both of which discuss God’s descent on Sinai: in the one the term Shekhinah is used, in the other kavod is used). The notion that God’s Shekhinah abides only with Israel is Rabbinic (see, e.g., B. Ber. 7a). I sent to them Moses my servant A recollection of Ps. 105:26: “He sent his servant Moses.” Cf. Josh. 24:5. Then all the people will say This is based on the passage at Deut. 31, which predicts the people’s abandonment of God, God’s anger and punishment, and their realization (in a first-person quotation, as here) of their guilt in the matter. enlighten them Deborah is reported in the Bible to be “the wife of Lappidoth” ( Judg. 4:4). The Heb. word lapid means “torch, flame”; the Midrash takes the phrase “wife of Lappidoth” to mean something like “a woman of flame” and builds upon this. Thus at B. Meg. 14a we are told that Deborah made candlewicks for the sanctuary. In this regard we read at Yal. Shimoni 2:42 that God said to Deborah, “just as you increase my light, so I will increase yours.” Similarly, L.A.B.’s author built upon the same foundation to make his Deborah an “illuminator.” for forty years Although the Bible does not explicitly cite the duration of Deborah’s leadership, it does conclude the Deborah episode with the bare statement, “And the land was tranquil forty years” ( Judg. 5:31). Seder Olam Rabbah 12, like L.A.B. here and at 32:18, specifically puts Deborah’s tenure at 40 years.

544 Howard Jacobson

4When Israel had been very much subdued, all the children of Israel gathered together to the mountain of Judah and said, “We said that we were blessed beyond the other nations, and behold now we have been so subdued, beyond all peoples, that we cannot dwell in our own land and our enemies have power over us. And now who has done all these things to us? Is it not our own sins, because we have forsaken the Lord of our fathers and have walked in those ways that have not profited us? Now come, let us fast for seven days, man and woman, infant and suckling. Who knows, perhaps God will be reconciled with his portion so as not to destroy the plant of his vineyard.” 5When the people had fasted seven days, sitting in sackcloth, the Lord sent to them on the seventh day Deborah, who said to them, “Can the sheep that is to be slaughtered make response before the one who will slaughter it, when both the slaughterer and the slaughtered are silent, since he sometimes gets angry at it? And now you became a flock before our Lord, and he led you to the height of the clouds and set the angels beneath your feet and established for you the Law and commanded you through the prophets and chastised you through the leaders and showed you not a few wonders; and 30:4. gathered together The assemblage of the people in Judges takes place at Deborah’s initiative (4:6) and is for the purpose of battle. This entire section on the people’s assemblage to confess, repent, fast, and so on has no parallel in the Bible’s account and is typical of L.A.B. The author of L.A.B. probably concocted it out of the brief retrospective hint at 1 Sam. 12:10, where Samuel refers to the subjugation under Sisera and says, “They cried to the Lord, ‘We are guilty, for we have forsaken the Lord and worshiped the Baalim . . . deliver us from our enemies and we will serve You.’” blessed beyond the other nations Cf. Deut. 33:29; Ps. 144:15; Bar. 4:4. The general tenor of the lament, for the change from a state of greatness and good fortune to submission and helplessness, is the tone and the language of the book of Lamentations. who has done all these things to us The question, “why has Israel suffered so much?” followed by the answer “because of their own sins” comes from Deut. 29:23–24. because we have forsaken the Lord of our fathers In our context this is a near quotation of Deut. 29:24. let us fast for seven days For a communal fast of seven days, see 1 Sam. 31:13 (on the occasion of Saul’s death). Individuals fast for seven days at (for example) 4. Esd. 5:20; 6:35; 2 Bar. 9:2; 12:5. For a fast of repentance, see Jon. 3:5–10. infant and suckling Very young children (generally defined as under the age of nine: e.g., B. Yoma 82a) do not usually take part in Jewish fasts, though Jon. 3:5 indicates that the children of the city of Nineveh participated in the general fast. 30:5. sitting in sackcloth The wearing of sackcloth to demonstrate mourning or repentance is common. See e.g. 1 Kings 21:27; Jer. 6:26; Esther 4:1. Can the sheep The rhetoric is reminiscent of Isaiah’s words at 29:16 and 45:9. the sheep that is to be slaughtered For the metaphor of the sheep led to the slaughter, see, for example, Jer. 51:40; Ps. 44:23; 4 Ezra 15:10. But the major influence here is from Isa. 53:7, which also includes the theme of the victim’s silence. For Israel’s silence in the face of God’s punishment, see, for example, Midr. Ps. at 29:1 (Buber) 116a. And now you became a flock before our Lord The leader reviews for the people their history, as does Joshua at Josh. 24:2; Samuel at 1 Sam. 12:8–13, and the Levites at Neh. 9:7–37.

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

545

for your sake he commanded the luminaries, and they stood still in their own places; and when your enemies came against you, he rained down hailstones on them and destroyed them. Moses and Joshua and Cenaz and Zebul commanded you, and you did not obey them. 6While these were alive, you showed yourselves as obedient to your God; but when these died, your heart also died. You became like iron cast into the fire, which when melted by the flame becomes like water, but when it comes out of the fire it reverts to its hardness. So you also, while those who admonish you fire you, you do what you are instructed; but after they have died you forget everything. 7Behold now the Lord will be favorably disposed to you today, not because of you but because of his covenant that he established with your fathers and the oath that he swore not to abandon you forever (Know, however, that after my death you will start sinning again in your later days). On account of this, the Lord will work wonders among you and deliver your enemies into your hands. For your fathers are dead, but he who established the covenant with them is the living God.” Sisera and Jael 31:1Deborah sent and summoned Barak, and she said to him, “Rise and gird your loins like a man, and

go down and attack Sisera, because I see the stars moving in their courses and preparing for battle on our side. I see too the shining stars that cannot be moved from their courses going forth to impede all the chariots of those who glory in the might of Sisera, who is saying, ‘I will go down to attack Israel he commanded the luminaries and they stood still An allusion to the events at Josh. 10:12–15. when your enemies came against you The author of L.A.B. radically alters the biblical narration to enhance the role of God’s miraculous intervention. In the Bible, the Israelites had come upon the enemy unawares and the hailstones rained down upon them while they were in flight. 30:6. You became like iron The Rabbis occasionally used the tempering process in similes, for example at B. Shab. 41a; Avot R. Nat. A.16.84 The latter bears striking similarity to L.A.B.’s use: it too uses the simile to correspond to moral delinquency and considers the period of morality and proper behavior to coincide with the time the metal is in the fire. it reverts to its hardness “Hardness” as the equivalent of moral intransigence has its roots in the Bible, where we often hear of “hard-hearted” and “hard-necked” people, for example at Exod. 32:9; Deut. 2:30. 30:7. not because of you That God acts kindly toward Israel not because of their meritorious behavior (in fact, they do not deserve such good treatment), but rather to keep faith with his covenant and the oath he swore to the patriarchs, is a biblical theme. See, for example, Deut. 9:5; 2 Kings 13:23. not to abandon you forever A theme common in both the Bible (e.g., Lam. 3:31, almost verbatim) and L.A.B. 31:1. gird your loins like a man These words are a verbatim quotation of Job 38:3; 40:7, but no obvious reason exists for making a connection between Job and Barak. preparing for battle on our side That the stars fought on the Israelites’ side against Sisera is the explicit assertion of the Bible ( Judg. 5:20). Rabbinic texts explain and embellish the bare statement. that cannot be moved from their courses Alluding to the common ancient belief that most stars were “fixed” in their revolutionary courses, L.A.B.’s author declares that the stars abandoned their normally fixed courses to fight for Israel.

546 Howard Jacobson

with my mighty arm, and I will divide their spoils among my servants, and I will take for myself beautiful women as concubines.’ On account of this the Lord said about him that the arm of a weak woman would overcome him and girls would take his spoils and he himself would fall at the hands of a woman.” 2When Deborah and the people and Barak went down to meet the enemies, immediately the Lord disturbed the movement of his stars. He said to them, “Hurry and go, for their enemies fall upon them. Confound their arms and let the strength of their heart be broken, because I have come that my people may prevail. For though my people have sinned, nevertheless I will have mercy on them.” When these words had been spoken, the stars went forth as they had been commanded and burned up their enemies. The number of the slain in one hour was 8,730,000 men; but they did not destroy Sisera, because so they had been commanded. 3When Sisera on his horse had fled to save his life, Jael the wife of the Kenite adorned herself with her adornments and went out to meet him; now the woman was very beautiful. Seeing him, she said to him, “Enter and take food and sleep; toward evening I will send my servants with you. For I know that you will remember me and repay me.” Sisera went in, and when he saw roses scattered on the bed, he said, “If I will be saved, I will go to my mother, and Jael will be my wife.” 4After this Sisera was thirsty and said to Jael, “Give me a little water, because I am exhausted and my soul burns from the flame that I saw in the stars.” Jael said to him, “Rest a bit and then you will drink.” I will divide their spoils This boast comes from both the Egyptians at Exod. 15:9 and Sisera’s mother at Judg. 5:30. On account of this There are three points here: First, because Sisera boasted of his mighty arm, he shall be defeated by the arm of a woman; second, because he boasted of taking spoils for his young men, young women shall take spoils from him; and third, because he boasted of taking captive women as concubines, a woman shall kill him. Thus, L.A.B.’s author gives a threefold “measure for measure” punishment for Sisera. Rabbinic texts also emphasize that Sisera was punished “measure for measure,” though the details vary from those in L.A.B. See, for example, T. Sot. 3:14; Mek. Shirta 2.85 31:2. burned up their enemies That the stars burned up Sisera’s army is midrashic (see, e.g., AG [Buber] 14a;86 cf. Sib. Or. 5:158–59). 31:3. adorned herself with her adornments Here and elsewhere in the ensuing narrative there are parallels in the story of Judith (e.g., Jdt. 12:15). Seeing him . . . I will send This brief encounter, wherein Jael sees Sisera and invites him to eat, sleep, and then depart, is an elaborate expansion of Jael’s words in the Bible: “come in, my lord, come in, don’t be afraid” ( Judg. 4:18). The author of L.A.B. is remembering passages like Gen. 18:2–5; 19:1–2. Cf. also Judg. 19:5–9. roses scattered on the bed In erotic contexts the scattering of roses was common, as was lying on beds of roses. Thus, the sight of roses on the bed spurs Sisera’s erotic expectations. 31:4. because I am exhausted The biblical Sisera says, “Please let me have some water; I am thirsty” ( Judg. 4:19). The author of L.A.B. has changed this by conflating two passages here: that of the biblical Sisera and a second concerning Esau, who comes in from the field and says to his brother Jacob, “give me some of that red stew, for I am exhausted” (Gen. 25:30; NEB).

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

547

5When Sisera had fallen asleep, Jael went out to the flock and got milk from it. When she was milking, she said, “Behold now, remember, Lord, when you distributed all the peoples and nations of the earth, did you not choose Israel alone and liken it to no animal except to the ram that goes before and leads the flock? Look therefore and see that Sisera has made a plan and said, ‘I will go and destroy the flock of the Lord.’ I will take from the milk of these animals to which you have likened your people, and I will go and give him to drink. When he has drunk, he will grow weary, and afterward I will kill him. This will be the sign that you will perform for me, Lord, that, when I enter while Sisera is asleep, if he on waking will ask me immediately, saying, ‘Give me water to drink,’ then I know that my prayer has been heard.” 6When Jael returned and went in, Sisera awakened and said to her, “Give me to drink, because I am burning up very much and my soul is inflamed.” Jael took wine and mixed it with milk and gave him to drink. He drank it and fell asleep. 7Jael took a stake in her left hand and approached him, saying, “If God will perform this sign for me, I know that Sisera will fall at my hands. Behold I will throw him on the ground from the bed on which he sleeps; if he does not sense this, I know that he has been handed over.” Jael took Sisera and pushed him onto the ground from the bed. But he did not sense it, because he was very exhausted. Jael said, “Strengthen in me today, Lord, my arm, for your sake and the sake of your people and those who trust in you.” Jael took the stake and placed it above his temple and struck it with a hammer. While he was dying, Sisera said to Jael, “Behold pain has seized me, Jael, and I die like a woman.” Jael said to him, “Go, boast before your father in the underworld and tell him that you have fallen at the hands of a woman.” By so doing she killed him and left his body until Barak should return. 8Sisera’s mother was named Themech; she sent to her women-friends, saying, “Come, let us go out together to meet my son, and you will see the daughters of the Hebrews whom my son will bring here for himself as concubines.” 31:5. Jael went out to the flock and got milk The Judges narrative merely has her open a skin of milk that is at hand ( Judg. 4:19). except to the ram Rabbinic texts occasionally liken Israel to a ram, but not (to my knowledge) in the same way that L.A.B.’s author does here. See, for example, Midr. Ps. 29:1, 8 (Buber) 116a–b; J. Ta’an. 2:4 (65d). This will be the sign that you will perform for me This whole maneuver is based on the scene at Gen. 24 involving Rebecca and the servant of Abraham. He too asks for a sign from God, indicating that if it comes true “thereby shall I know” (v. 14; cf. L.A.B.’s “then I know”) that God has granted the desired outcome. Jael’s sign here is that Sisera will say, “Give me water to drink,” while the servant’s sign is that Rebecca will say, “Drink, and I will also water your camels.” 31:6. Jael took wine and mixed it with milk The Midrash records that Sisera drank and became drunk (Midr. Hag. at Gen. 23:187). 31:7. If God will perform this sign for me, I know that The earlier omen that she requested has already been fulfilled. More than one biblical hero needs several signs before being assured (e.g., Exod. 4:1–9; Judg. 6:36–40). Jael said to him At Jdt. 13:15, Judith—like Jael here—gloats over her enemy that he has been killed by a woman.

548 Howard Jacobson

9Barak returned from pursuing Sisera and was very disappointed because he had not found him. Jael went out to meet him and said, “Come, enter in, you blessed by God, and I will hand over to you your enemy whom you pursued but were not successful.” Barak entered and found Sisera dead and said, “Blessed be the Lord, who sent his spirit and said, ‘Into the hand of a woman Sisera will be delivered.’” On saying these words he cut off Sisera’s head and sent it to his mother and gave a message to her, saying, “Receive your son, who you hoped would come with spoils.” Deborah’s Song 32:1Then Deborah and Barak the son of Abinoam and all the people together sang to the Lord on that

day, saying, “Behold the Lord has shown us his glory from on high, as he did from the high place when he sent forth his voice to confound the languages of men. He chose our nation and took Abraham our father out of the fire and chose him over all his brothers and protected him from the fire and freed him from the bricks of the building of the tower. He gave him a son in his late old age and took him out of a sterile womb. All the angels were jealous of him, and the serving hosts envied him. 2Since they were jealous of him, God said to him, ‘Kill the fruit of your belly for me, and offer for me as a sacrifice what has been given to you by me.’ Abraham did not dispute, but set out immediately. When he set out, he said to his son, ‘Behold now, my son, I am offering you as a burnt offering and am delivering you into the hands of the one who gave you to me.’ 3The son said to the father, ‘Hear me, father. If a lamb of the flock is accepted as an offering to the Lord as an odor of sweetness and if for the sins of men animals are appointed to be killed, but man is designed to inherit the world, how is it that you do not say to me, “Come and inherit a secure life and time without measure”? What if I had not been born into the world to be offered as a sacrifice to 31:9. He cut off Sisera’s head and sent it to his mother and gave a message Tormenting a mother with the decapitated head of her son is not uncommon in classical literature. Most famous is the end of Euripides’s Bacchae (esp. 1280–1301). Cf. also Virgil, Aen. 9.477–502. 32:1. Then Deborah . . . sang to the Lord . . . saying The contents of Deborah’s song in L.A.B. has virtually nothing in common with Deborah’s song in Judg. 5. The version in L.A.B. is yet again a sort of review of Jewish history, with particular emphasis on two or three events. Its central theme is the manifestation of God’s intervention in human affairs from the celestial regions (as in the cases of Babel, the Akedah, Sinai, Joshua at Gibeon, and Sisera). from on high This probably alludes to the heavenly aid rendered by the stars in the battle against Sisera. he sent forth his voice That the sound of God’s voice causes things to happen is a biblical theme.88 in his late old age Abraham was 100 at Isaac’s birth (Gen. 21:5). 32:2. what has been given to you by me God requests the return of Isaac, who was an unexpected present given to Abraham. For other possible instances of this theme, see the Akedah accounts in Josephus (Ant. 1.229) and Philo (Unchangeable 4). Abraham . . . set out immediately The account in L.A.B. emphasizes Abraham’s immediate obedience, which—although not highlighted this clearly in the biblical narrative (Gen. 22:3: “So early next morning, Abraham saddled”)—is also stressed in midrashic versions.89 I am offering you In the Bible, Abraham never explicitly tells Isaac that he is going to sacrifice him. Contrast Sefer ha-Yashar 78.

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

549

him who made me? Now my blessedness will be above that of all men, because there will be no other. Through me nations will be blessed and through me the peoples will understand that the Lord has deemed the soul of a man worthy to be a sacrifice.’ 4When he had offered his son upon the altar and had bound his feet so as to kill him, the Lord hastened and sent forth his voice from on high saying, ‘Do not slay your son, do not destroy the fruit of your belly. For now I have made you known to those who do not know you and have shut the mouths of those who always malign you. Your memory will be before me always, and your name and his from generation to generation.’ 5He gave Isaac two sons, those also from a womb that was closed up. Their mother was then in the third year of her marriage; and it will not happen in this way to any woman, nor will any female so boast who has intercourse with her husband in the third year. Two sons were born, Jacob and Esau. God loved Jacob, but he hated Esau because of his deeds. 6In their father’s old age Isaac blessed Jacob and sent him to Mesopotamia, and there he begot twelve sons. They went down into Egypt and dwelled there. 7When their enemies had dealt harshly with them, the people cried out to the Lord, and their prayer was heard, and he brought them out of there and brought them to Mount Sinai and brought forth for 32:3. Now my blessedness will be above that of all men Like L.A.B. (note also L.A.B. 40:2), midrashic and targumic sources often emphasize the willingness, even happiness, on Isaac’s part on the occasion of the Akedah. a lamb of the flock The allusion to an se here will recall the hint in the biblical narrative that Isaac is the se, a point made explicitly in midrashic exegesis of the verse (e.g., Pirke R. El. 31: “you are the lamb, my son”). for the sins of men animals are appointed to be killed Alludes to the specific offerings brought to atone for various sins (see, e.g., Lev. 4–5). What if I had not been born Josephus (Ant. 1.232) puts a similar sentiment into Isaac’s mouth: “he did not deserve to have been born at all were he to reject God and his father’s decision.” there will be no other This may testify to the author’s awareness of Christian claims that Jesus’s atonement was efficacious for all men. The author of L.A.B. seems to be saying that Isaac is the only case of human sacrifice recognized by God; there is no other (i.e., Jesus). 32:4. the Lord hastened The same theme is present in the Midrash, that God (or his angel) had to hasten to prevent the slaying of Isaac (e.g., Tanh. Tsav 13). Your memory will be before me always That God will always remember the Akedah and the devotion shown by Abraham is a midrashic theme (e.g., Tanhuma [Buber] 1:58a), though unlike the Midrash, L.A.B. does not indicate what benefits may accrue to the descendants of Isaac and Abraham. 32:5. nor will any female so boast The notion of a long-barren woman glorying in the birth of children may recall Hannah (1 Sam. 2:1–9). 32:7. brought them to Mount Sinai The reviews of Jewish history at Deut. 26 and Josh. 24 do not contain references to the Revelation at Sinai. The elaborate account here grows out of Deborah’s brief allusion to the events at Sinai at Judg. 5:4–5. The Midrash and Targum also expand upon these verses. brought forth for them the foundation of understanding Refers to the giving of the Torah.

550 Howard Jacobson

them the foundation of understanding that he had prepared from the creation of the world. Then when the terrestrial foundation was moved, the hosts speeded the lightnings on their courses, and the winds sounded from their storehouses, and the earth was shaken from its base, and the mountains and cliffs trembled in their fastenings, and the clouds raised their waters against the flame of fire so that it would not consume the world. 8Then the deep gathered together from its springs, and all the waves of the sea came together. Then paradise, giving off the scent of its fruit, and the cedars of Lebanon were shaken from their roots, and the beasts of the field were agitated in their dwelling places in the forest, and all his works came together to see the Lord establishing a covenant with the children of Israel. Everything that the Lord said, he kept, having Moses his beloved as a witness. 9When he was dying, God arranged the firmament for him and pointed out to him then what we now have as witnesses, saying, ‘Let there be as a witness between me and you and my people the heaven that you have entered and the earth on which you have walked until now.’ For the sun and the moon and the stars were servants to us. 10When Joshua arose to lead the people, on the day when he was fighting the enemies, the evening approached while the battle was still going on. Joshua said to the sun and moon, ‘You who have been made ministers between the Lord and his children, behold now, when the battle is still going on, are you abandoning your duties? Therefore stand still today and give light to his children and darkness to his enemies.’ And they did so, as they had been commanded. 11Now in these days Sisera arose to enslave us. We cried out to our Lord, and he commanded the stars and said, ‘Depart from your positions and burn up my enemies so that they may know my power.’ The stars came down and overcame their camp and protected us without any effort. he had prepared from the creation That God had the Torah prepared for the Jewish people long before the Revelation at Sinai is a common midrashic theme. But the Midrash goes well beyond what L.A.B. says, for it commonly reports that the Torah was created long before the creation of the world.90 winds sounded from their storehouses The notion of “storehouses” or “repositories” or “chambers” for the winds goes back to the Bible ( Jer. 10:13; Ps. 135:7; probably Job 37:9). so that it would not consume the world The Midrash contains several different traditions involving the possibility or the fear that the world will be destroyed at the Revelation (e.g., Pesik. Rab. 2191; Mek. d’Rashbi at Exod. 18:1, with the notion of destruction by fire92). 32:8. giving off the scent of its fruit The Midrash reports that a fragrance filled the world at the time of Revelation (e.g., B. Shab. 88b). Also relevant here is the tradition that at the time of the offering of the paschal lamb in Egypt, fragrances from paradise wafted to the place of sacrifice (Exod. Rab. 19:5). Everything the Lord said, he kept Meaning that God has fulfilled all his promises with respect to the covenant. 32:9. witnesses This is a variation on the Rabbinic view that one reason the heavens and earth are chosen as witnesses is that they can ultimately become enforcers of the reward or punishment (e.g., Sifre Deut. 306). 32:11. so that they may know my power It is a common biblical notion that God acts in ways that cause the nations of the world to recognize him or his powers.93

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

551

12Therefore we do not cease singing praise, nor will our mouths be silent in telling his wonders, because he has remembered both his new and his old promises and displayed his deliverance to us. And so Jael is proud among women, because she alone has been successful, killing Sisera with her own hands. 13Go, earth; go, heavens and lightnings; go, angels; go, you hosts; go and tell the fathers in the chambers of their souls and say, ‘The Lord has not forgotten the least of the promises that he established with us, saying, “Many wonders will I do for your children.” ’ Now from this day on it will be known that, whatever God has said to a person that he will do, he will indeed do, even if the person dies. 14Sing praises, Deborah, sing praises, and let the favor of the holy spirit awaken in you, and begin to praise the works of the Lord, because there will not again arise such a day on which the stars will band together and overcome the enemies of Israel as they were commanded. From this hour, if lsrael falls into distress, it will call upon those witnesses along with their servants, and they will perform an embassy to the Most High, and he will remember that day and send the redemption of his covenant. 15And you, Deborah, begin to speak of what you saw in the field, how the people walked and went forth in safety and the stars fought for them. Rejoice, earth, over those dwelling upon you, because the congregation of the Lord that burns incense on you is present. Not unjustly did God take the rib of the primordial man who was fashioned from you, knowing that from his rib Israel would be born. That which is created from you will be a testimony to what the Lord has done for his people. 16Tarry, you hours of the day, and do not want to hurry, that we may declare what our mind can bring forward, for night will be upon us. It will be like the night when God killed the first-born of the Egyptians on account of his own first-born. 17Then I will cease my song, for the time will be readied for his righteous ones. I will sing praise to him at the renewal of creation. The people will remember this deliverance, and it will be a testimony for 32:13. in the chambers of their souls For the notion of “chambers” in which abide the souls of the dead, see, for example, 4 Esd. 4:35, 41; 7:32. he will indeed do, even if the person dies God’s promises will in time be fulfilled, even if the person to whom the promise was made is by then dead; for unlike human beings, God lives forever. In our context this refers to promises made to the patriarchs, but only fulfilled much later. 32:14. it will call upon those witnesses along with their servants Based on L.A.B. 32:9–10, “witnesses” must mean “the heaven” and “the earth,” while “their servants” refers to “the sun and the moon and the stars.” they will perform an embassy to the Most High The heaven, earth, sun, moon, and stars will serve as intermediaries between Israel and God. Israel calls upon them, and they intervene before God on Israel’s behalf.94 32:15. Not unjustly did God take the rib We may have here traditional polemic. Non-Jews argued that the Jewish God was a thief, having stolen Adam’s rib. Jews responded by defending God’s action (e.g., B. Sanh. 39a; Avot R. Nat. B. 895). knowing that . . . Israel would be born A slight variation on the Rabbinic theme that God created the world ultimately for the sake of Israel’s existence. The creation of Eve from Adam’s rib will eventually lead to the birth of Israel. 32:17. at the renewal of creation The eschatological new world is regularly described in such terms (e.g., L.A.B. 16:3; 4 Esd. 7:75; B. Sanh. 97b).

552 Howard Jacobson

them. Let the sea with its deep be a witness, because not only has God dried it up before our fathers, but also he has overthrown the army from its stations and defeated our enemies.” 18When Deborah ceased her words, she went up to Shiloh together with the people, and they offered sacrifices and burnt offerings. When trumpets had been brought to be sounded along with the sacrifices, Deborah said, “This will be as a testimony of trumpets between the stars and their Lord.” Deborah went down from there. She judged Israel forty years. Deborah’s Farewell and Death 33:1When the time of her death drew near, she sent and assembled all the people and said to them, “Lis-

ten now, my people. Behold I admonish you as a woman of God and enlighten you as a member of the female sex. Heed me like your mother and attend to my words as people who will also die. 2Behold I am going to die, the way of all flesh, whither you also will go. Only direct your heart to the Lord your God while you are still alive, because after your death in the world where you live you cannot repent. 3For then death is fixed and the measure is complete, and time and years have returned their deposit. But if you seek to do evil in the underworld after your death, you will not be able, because the desire for sinning will cease and the evil inclination will lose its power, because the underworld too will not restore what it has received and has been entrusted to it unless it is demanded by the one who has made 32:18. She judged Israel forty years The Bible gives no indication as to the length of Deborah’s tenure. But the last verse of the Deborah narrative ( Judg. 5:31) says, “And the land was tranquil forty years.” The author of L.A.B. says the same thing at 30:2, and one tradition holds that Deborah and Barak led the people 40 years (S. Olam Rab.12; Ant. 5.209, explicitly of Barak). 33:1. She assembled all the people and said to them As usual, L.A.B.’s author introduces a valedictory address for the leader of the people. Nothing like this occurs in the biblical account of Deborah. woman of God Apparently the counterpart to “man of God” (e.g., Deut. 33:1). as people who will also die Deborah addresses the people in this manner because the speech she is about to make concerns the mortality of human beings. 33:2. after your death . . . you cannot repent For Rabbinic parallels to this theme, see, for example, Midr. Eccles. 1:15; cf. also the Targum on Eccles. 1:15.96 33:3. years have returned their deposit The notion that life is merely a “deposit” is not unusual (see, e.g., Num. Rab. 9:2; Tanh. Shofetim 12; Heir 103–107, esp. 106). the desire for sinning will cease and the evil inclination will lose its power Some scholars hold that it is unique to L.A.B. that the “evil inclination” will cease immediately after death (rather than in the Messianic era), but passages like Exod. Rab. 41:7 and Tanh. Ekev 11, which speak of the “evil inclination” losing its efficacy, may be referring to the afterlife immediately following death. At all events, the anecdote related at B. BB 58a indicates that the “evil inclination” does not exist after one dies. the underworld too will not restore In combination with the first sentence of L.A.B. 33:3, this would appear to mean: God puts human life on earth as a “deposit,” but after a certain appointed time he claims the deposit and transfers it to the underworld—again as a “deposit”—where it will remain until he chooses to reclaim it again.

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

553

the deposit to it. Now therefore, my children, obey my voice while you have the time of life, and direct your ways according to the light of the Law.” 4When Deborah said these words, all the people raised up their voices together and wept and said, “Behold now, mother, you die, and when you leave your children to whom do you entrust them? Pray therefore for us, and after your death your soul shall be mindful of us forever.” 5Deborah answered and said to the people, “While a man is still alive he can pray for himself and for his children, but after his death he cannot pray or be mindful of anyone. Therefore do not put trust in your fathers. For they will not profit you unless you are found to be like them. But then you will appear like the stars of the heaven, which have now been made manifest among you.” 6Deborah died and lay with her fathers and was buried in the city of her fathers. The people mourned her seventy days, and when they mourned her, they said these words as a dirge: “Behold, a mother has perished from Israel, and a holy one who exercised leadership in the house of Jacob. She strengthened the fence about her people, and her people will long for her.” After her death the land was quiet seven years. Aod the Magician 34:1At that time there came up one of the priests of Midian, Aod, and he was a magician, and he spoke the light of the Law For the phrase “the light of the Torah,” see, for example, B. Ber. 17a; B. Ket. 111b; Sifre Num. 41;97 cf. Wis. 18.4; T. Levi 14:4. 33:5. While a man is still alive Jewish texts sometimes support the notion of the dead interceding upon behalf of the living, but sometimes deny the possibility. The author of L.A.B. here adopts the latter view. do not put trust in your fathers Coupled with his earlier assertion that repentance after death is not possible, L.A.B.’s author is clearly emphasizing the importance of one’s personal responsibility for one’s own behavior and fate in the here and now. unless you are found to be like them This can have two senses. On one hand, your ancestors can be helpful to you by serving as role models. On the other hand, the Rabbis held that if one were pious and the descendant of pious ancestors, then one received credit not merely for one’s own good deeds, but also for those of one’s ancestors (e.g., B. Yev. 64a). you will appear like the stars of the heaven The Sifre (Deut. 10) says that in the future world the faces of the righteous will shine like seven things, and included are the sun, the heavens, and the stars. 33:6. She strengthened the fence This could well be metaphorical, but possibly the words are meant almost literally, for one Rabbinic tradition holds that Deborah restored and fortified cities that had been laid waste (e.g., Midr. Ps. 3:1 [Buber] 18b–19a; cf. the Targum at Judg. 5:7). 34:1. there came up one of the priests of Midian Aod A Midianite by the name of Aod is otherwise unknown. he was a magician, and he spoke Judges 6:1 reports that Israel acted badly, whereupon God gave them into the hands of Midian. The author of L.A.B. takes this brief notice and explains how it came about in detail. He builds upon the tradition that Midianites were adept in the magical arts (see, e.g., Num. 22:7; Tanhuma [Buber] 4:68a).

554 Howard Jacobson

to Israel, saying, “Why do you pay attention to your Law? Come, I will show you something that your Law cannot match.” The people said, “What will you show us that our Law does not have?” He said to the people, “Have you ever seen the sun by night?” They said, “No.” And he said, “Whenever you wish, I will show it to you so that you will know that our gods are powerful and do not deceive those who serve them.” And they said, “Show us.” 2He went away and acted with his magic, giving orders to the angels who were in charge of magic, for he did sacrifice to them for a long time. 3It was demonstrated [?] by the angels before they were judged and lost the age without measure. Because they transgressed, the angels did not have power. After they had been judged, then the power was not given over to any others. They work through those who serve men by magic, until the age without measure comes. 4Then by the art of magic he showed the people the sun by night. The people were amazed and said, “Behold, what great things can the gods of the Midianites do, but we did not know it!” 5God wished to test if Israel was still in its sinfulness, and he let them be, and their work succeeded. The people of Israel were deceived and began to serve the gods of the Midianites. God said, “I will deliver them into the hands of the Midianites, because they have been deceived by them.” He delivered them into their hands, and the Midianites began to subjugate Israel. Gideon and the Angel 35:1Gideon was the son of Joash; he was a valiant man among all his brothers. When it was summer-

time, he came to thresh the sheaves he had, by hiding in the mountain to escape the threatening Midi-

Come, I will show you The author of L.A.B. has constructed this episode on the basis of the Bible’s hypothetical portrait at Deut. 13:2 of the prophet or dreamer who seeks to lead the people away from God on the basis of signs and portents. These sections of Deuteronomy and L.A.B. both assert that God uses such an event to test the people. What will you show us that our Law does not have? This could be an allusion to the Rabbinic notion that everything is contained in the Torah (M. Avot 5:22). the sun by night Allusions to this phenomenon can be found in Egyptian, Jewish, Mithraic, and Greco-Roman texts (see, e.g., 4 Ezra 5:4). Usually the theme is found in other-worldly or eschatological contexts. 34:2. the angels who were in charge of magic Given that ancient doctrines regarding angels identified angel overlords for nearly every type of activity, angelic supervision of magic in L.A.B. is not surprising. 34:3. before they were judged For the “judging of angels,” see, for example, 1 En. 14:4; probably also Thanksgiving Hymns 10:34–36. 35:1 The author of L.A.B. has elaborated and occasionally altered the biblical narrative in this scene, using as a model the episode of Elijah’s flight at 1 Kings 19:3. As a result, the version of Gideon and the angel in L.A.B. and the Elijah story in 1 Kings have certain things in common: the hero in flight, his despair and death wish, the appearance of an angel who encourages and instructs him, divine interrogation, the mountain locale, the justification of God and the condemnation of Israel’s ways, and divine signs.

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

555

anites. Behold the angel of the Lord met him and said to him, “From where have you come, and where are you going?” 2He said to him, “Why do you ask me whence I come, for distress has encompassed me? Israel has fallen into straits; they have been delivered into the hands of the Midianites. Where are the wonders that our fathers told us about, saying, ‘The Lord has chosen Israel specially before all the peoples of the earth’? Behold now he has delivered us up and forgotten the promises that he told our fathers. For we would prefer to be handed over to death once and for all than for his people to be punished thus time after time.” 3The angel of the Lord said to him, “You have not been delivered up without reason, but your own schemes have done these things to you. For, as a result of your abandonment of the promises that you received from the Lord, these ills have come upon you. You have not been mindful of the commandments of God that those who were before you commanded you, and so you have come into the displeasure of your God. But he will have mercy, as no one else has mercy, on the people of Israel, though not on your account but on account of those who are asleep. 4Now come; I will send you, and you will free Israel from the hand of the Midianites. For the Lord says these words: ‘Even if Israel is not just, nevertheless because the Midianites are sinners, for this reason I will pardon my people although I recognize their sinfulness. Afterward I will rebuke them because they have acted wickedly. But for the present I will take vengeance upon the Midianites.’” 5Gideon said, “Who am I and what is the house of my father that I should go against the Midianites to battle?” The angel said to him, “Perhaps you think that as is the way of men, so should be the way of God. But men look to worldly glory and riches, but God to that which is upright and good and to humility. Now therefore go and gird your loins, and the Lord will be with you. For he has chosen you to take vengeance upon his enemies, as, lo, he has commanded you.” 6Gideon said to him, “Let not my Lord be angry if I speak. Behold Moses the first of all the prophets asked the Lord for a sign, and it was given to him. But who am I, unless perhaps, because the Lord has chosen me, he will give me a sign so that I will know that I will be successful.” The angel of the 35:3. You have not been delivered up without reason In the biblical narrative, the angel effectively ignores Gideon’s theological question. The author of L.A.B. puts into the angel’s mouth the traditional biblical explanation for the sufferings of Israel. on account of those who are asleep Apparently an allusion to the concept of “merits of the patriarchs.” The language is somewhat similar at 2 Macc. 8:15. 35:4. Even if Israel is not just . . . I will take vengeance upon the Midianites This theme is essentially biblical. The People Israel are sinners, but the sinfulness of other nations is so much greater that God acts to punish these nations and to benefit Israel, even though that means overlooking the guilt of Israel (see Deut. 9:4–6). 35:5. men look to worldly glory and riches, but God to that which is upright In the context of divine choice of a leader, the contrast between the ways of human beings and God has a model at 1 Sam. 16:7, where Samuel is reminded that humankind uses one set of criteria (external appearance), while God uses a different one (spiritual qualities). 35:6. Moses . . . asked the Lord for a sign The author of L.A.B. is using the encounter between God and Moses in Exod. 3–4 as a model for his scene here.

556 Howard Jacobson

Lord said to him, “Run and bring me water from that well and pour it on that rock, and I will give you a sign.” He went and brought it, just as he had commanded him. 7The angel said to him, “Before you pour water on the rock, ask what you would like to come of it, that it become either blood or fire, or that it completely disappear.” Gideon said, “Let half become blood and half fire.” Gideon poured out the water on the rock, and when he had poured it, half became flame and half blood, and they were both mixed together, that is, the fire and the blood; and the blood did not extinguish the fire nor did the fire consume the blood. Gideon saw these happenings and sought other signs, and they were given to him. Are these not written in the Book of Judges? Gideon’s Victory and Death 36:1Gideon took three hundred men and went out and came to the edge of the camp of Midian and

heard them all speaking to each other, saying, “You will see incalculable disturbance caused by the sword of Gideon coming upon us because God has delivered into his hands the camp of the Midianites and he is going to destroy us, that is, mother along with children, because our sins have reached full measure as even our own gods have shown us but we did not believe them. Now let us rise up and save our own lives and flee.” 2As soon as Gideon heard these words, the spirit of the Lord clothed him and he was strengthened and said to the three hundred men, “Rise up, let each one of you gird on his sword, because the Midianites have been delivered into our hands.” The men went down with him. He approached and began to fight, and they blew the trumpets and cried out together and said, “A sword for the Lord and Gideon!” There fell about 120,000 men of the Midianites, and the rest of the Midianites fled. 3After this Gideon came and assembled the people of Israel and said to them, “Behold the Lord sent me to fight your battle, and I went as he commanded me. Now I make one request of you—do not turn your face away—let each of you give me the golden rings that you have in your hands.” Gideon spread out a garment, and each of them threw in his rings. All were weighed, and their weight turned out to be twelve talents. Gideon took them and made idols from them and worshiped them. 4God said, “There is now only one course, that I should not rebuke Gideon during his lifetime, because, when he destroyed the altar of Baal, then they all said, ‘Let Baal fight for himself.’ Now if I

36:1. mother along with children An echo of Gen. 32:12, implying total destruction. our sins have reached full measure A common theme in Rabbinic texts and L.A.B., based on Gen.15:16. as even our own gods have shown us A rather remarkable statement, which (notwithstanding the fact that it is spoken by a Midianite) almost seems to assign authority and credibility to pagan deities. 36:3. idols The biblical narrative speaks of a relatively neutral “ephod” ( Judg. 8:27). The author of L.A.B. seeks to represent Gideon’s actions in the worst light. worshiped them The Bible says nothing of the sort. Why is Gideon treated so severely in L.A.B.? Probably because L.A.B.’s author is concerned to combat the practice of idolatry and the Bible makes clear that, even if Gideon had nothing pernicious in mind, his act led to the people adopting idolatrous practices ( Judg. 8:27). The author was not alone in his condemnation; see, for example, Ber. Rabbati at Gen. 37:8.98

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

557

should chastise him because he has acted wickedly against me, they will say, ‘Not God, but Baal has chastised him, because he sinned against him first.’ And so now Gideon will die at a good old age so that they should have nothing to say. But afterward, when Gideon is dead, I will chastise him once and for all, because he sinned against me.” Gideon died at a good old age and was buried in his own city. Abimelech 37:1He had a son by a concubine who killed all his brothers, for he wished to be leader of the people.

2Then there came together [blank] all the trees of the field to the fig tree and said, “Come, reign over us.” The fig tree said, “Was I born for kingship or rulership over the trees? Was I planted so as to reign among you? And so as surely as I cannot reign over you, so Abimelech will not get continuance for his rule.” Afterward the trees came together to the vine and said, “Come, reign over us.” The vine said, “I was planted to give sweetness to men. Come, await the fruit of my garden. But as surely as I cannot reign over you, so is the blood shed by Abimelech demanded from you.” Then the trees came to the apple tree and said, “Come, reign over us.” It said, “I have been commanded to provide sweet-smelling fruit for men. So I cannot reign over you and Abimelech will die by stoning.” 3Then the trees came to the bramble and said, “Come, reign over us.” The bramble said, “When the 36:4. they will say God acts pointedly to forestall the possibility of the nations drawing false conclusions about his power and actions (and those of pagan deities). There is a parallel at Pesik. Rab. 6,99 where David seeks to avoid the use of pagan booty in building the Temple, lest (upon the destruction of the Temple) the nations claim that their gods had destroyed the Temple as an act of revenge. And so The author needs to explain why Gideon, if he indeed sinned, suffered no punishment. Some Rabbis, who saw in his making of the ephod an undesirable act (though not as intensely as does L.A.B.’s author), also felt the need to explain why he was not punished. They assert that his intention was good, for he made the ephod to be part of the service of God (Yal. Shimoni 2:64). I will chastise him once and for all Presumably a reference to punishment in the next world. 37:2. Then there came together . . . all the trees of the field The Bible reports an allegorical fable in the mouth of Jotham addressed to the citizens of Sechem, calculated to make them aware of the risks inherent in their behavior toward Abimelech. In L.A.B. the story about the trees is presented as fact; that is, it is simply part of the ongoing narrative. Was I born for kingship The refusals of the trees in L.A.B. have an explicitly teleological focus. Each tree indicates that it was not created for the purpose of ruling, but rather for other distinct ends. No such explicit dimension exists in the biblical account ( Judg. 9:7–15). Abimelech will not get continuance for his rule The Midrash too makes a point of stressing that, as punishment for his acts, Abimelech’s reign was short (Tanhuma [Buber] 1:51b). from you The reference must be to the citizens of Sechem, who are represented in the parable by the trees. Abimelech will die by stoning Note the rhetorical effect achieved in the responses of the trees. The first declares that Abimelech will not rule long, the second that his blood will be hunted, the third that he will be killed—creating in effect an ascending tricolon.

558 Howard Jacobson

thorn was born, truth shone forth in the form of a thorn. When the first-formed was condemned to death, the earth was condemned to bring forth thorns and thistles. When the truth enlightened Moses, it enlightened him by means of a thorn bush. Now you will hear the truth from me. And if you have spoken truthfully to the bramble that it should in truth reign over you, sit in its shadow. But if deviously, let the fire go forth and devour and consume the trees of the field, for the apple tree represents the chastisers, and the fig tree represents the people, and the vine represents those who were before us. 4Now your fate at this hour will be as occurred with Abimelech, who killed his brothers unjustly and wishes to rule among you. If Abimelech be worthy of them over whom he wishes to rule, let him be like the bramble that was made to rebuke the depraved among the people.” And the fire went forth from the bramble and consumed the trees that were in the fields. 5After this Abimelech ruled the people one year and six months, and he died when a woman threw down upon him from a wall half a millstone. Jair 38:1[blank] built an altar to Baal, and he led the people astray, saying, “Everyone who will not sacrifice

to Baal will die.” When all the people were sacrificing, only seven men were not willing to sacrifice. Their names are these: Defal, Abiesdrel, Getalibal, Selumi, Assur, Ionadab, Memihel. 2They answered and said to Jair, “Behold we are mindful of the commandments that those who were before us and Deborah our mother commanded us, saying, ‘Make sure that you do not turn your heart to the right or to the left, but pay attention to the Law of the Lord day and night.’ And now why do 37:3. When the first-formed was condemned to death This represents postbiblical interpretation and has its parallels in Rabbinic sources. The Bible’s account is not clear as to whether Adam is created immortal and only becomes subject to death after he sins. For a Rabbinic text that holds the view espoused in L.A.B. (that Adam’s sin condemned him to death), see, for example, Sifre Deut. 339.100 For the opposite view (that Adam was created mortal), see, for example, S. Eli. Zuta 3.101 truth shone forth . . . truth enlightened The association of light with truth and revelation is commonplace (cf. B. Meg. 16b; Philo, Migration 76; Moses 2.271). The Talmud reports (of a different revelation) that Moses “saw truth” (B. Sanh. 111a, with reference to Exod. 34:6). 37:5. a woman threw down upon him from a wall half a millstone This description of Abimelech’s death from a wall has no support in Judges; rather, L.A.B.’s author is clearly echoing 2 Sam. 11:21. 38:1–4 The elaborate story about Jair found here has no basis in the Bible. Judges gives him three verses (10:3–5) and tells us virtually nothing about his activities. Particularly noteworthy is that the Bible merely describes Jair as a judge of the people ( Josephus speaks briefly but positively of him at Ant. 5.254), whereas L.A.B.’s author turns him into a villain, a judge who becomes corrupt and in turn corrupts the people. built an altar to Baal This is the first of several parallels in L.A.B.’s story of Jair to the story of Ahab and Elijah in 1 Kings 16–18 (cf. here 16:32). Note especially the themes of the silent Baal, a select group of pious men who refuse to worship Baal, the mass slaying of the devotees of Baal, and the role of (divine) fire. 38:2. Deborah our mother commanded us, saying Neither in the Bible nor in L.A.B. does Deborah ever say anything like this (L.A.B. 33:2 is the closest).

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

559

you corrupt the people of the Lord and deceive them, saying, ‘Baal is God; let us worship him’? And now if he is God as you say, let him speak as God and then we will sacrifice to him.” 3Jair said, “Burn them in the fire, because they have blasphemed against Baal.” His servants took them to burn them in the fire. When they put them in the fire, Nathaniel, the angel who was in charge of fire, came forth and extinguished the fire and burned the servants of Jair. But he caused the seven men to escape in such a way that none of the people saw them, because he had struck the people with blindness. 4When he came to the place of Jair, Jair was burned with the fire. Before he was consumed, the angel of the Lord said to him, “Hear the word of the Lord before you die. So says the Lord: ‘I raised you from dust and made you leader over my people, but you got up and corrupted my covenant and led them astray and sought to burn up my servants with the flame because they chastised you. Those who were burned with corruptible fire now are quickened with a living fire and are free. But you will die, says the Lord, and in the fire by which you will die there you will have a dwelling place.’” Afterward he burned him up, and he came to the pillar of Baal and demolished it and burned up Baal along with the people who stood by, that is, a thousand men. Jephthah 39:1After this the children of Ammon came and began to overcome Israel, and they took many of their

cities. The people were in great distress, and gathered together in Mizpah and said to each other, “Behold now we see the oppression that encompasses us, and the Lord has departed from us and is no longer with us, and our enemies have captured our cities, and there is no leader to come in and go out before us. Now therefore let us see whom we should appoint over us to fight our battle.” 2Jephthah the Gileadite was a valiant warrior. Since his brothers were envious of him and had driven him out of their land, he went and dwelled in the land of Tob. Worthless men gathered to him and abode with him. 3When Israel was overcome, they came to the land of Tob to Jephthah and said to him, “Come, rule over the people. Who knows, perhaps for this reason you have been kept safe to this time and saved from the hands of your brothers, in order that you may rule your people in this time.” 38:3. Nathaniel, the angel who was in charge of fire Nathaniel is not identified outside of L.A.B. as the angel of fire. burned the servants of Jair Exactly as at L.A.B. 6:17 and Dan. 3:21, the fire is miraculously deflected from the hero and destroys the villains. none of the people saw them, because he had struck the people with blindness The miraculous inflicting of blindness by an angel in order to aid the righteous also occurs at L.A.B. 27:10 and Gen. 19:11. 38:4. the place of Jair Likely an allusion to Num. 32:41, in which the villages conquered by Jair were named after him. I . . . made you leader over my people Probably a verbatim quotation of 1 Kings 16:2. a living fire The context indicates that the fire is creative or regenerative, which is not a common notion in Jewish texts. But see, for example, B. Hag. 14a where angels are said to be created daily from a river of fire; and B. BK 60B, on the rebuilding of Zion with fire. in the fire . . . you will have a dwelling place For the notion that in the afterlife, sinners will reside in fire, see, for example, 2 Bar. 44:15; for Gehinnom as fire, see, for example, B. Pes. 54a; Mark 9:42.

560 Howard Jacobson

4Jephthah said to them, “Does love so return after hatred, or does time conquer all things, for you drove me out of my land and out of the house of my father and now you have come to me when you are in distress?” They said to him, “If the God of our fathers, though we had sinned against him and he had delivered us up before our enemies and we were oppressed by them, was not mindful of our sins but freed us, why do you, a mortal man, want to recall our iniquities in the time of our distress? Therefore let it not be so with you, lord.” 5Jephthah said, “God can be unmindful of our sins, for he has the time and place in which he as God may restrain himself as a result of his long-suffering; but I, a mortal man and made from the dust to which I will return, where shall I cast off my wrath and the injury that you have done me?” The people said to him, “Let the dove to which Israel has been compared instruct you, because when her young are taken from her, still she does not depart from her place, but she puts away the injury done her and forgets it as if it were in the depths of the deep.” 6Jephthah arose and went with them and gathered all the people and said to them, “You know that, while our leaders were still alive, they warned us to follow our Law. But Ammon and his sons turned the people away from their way in which they walked, and they served strange gods who would destroy them. Now therefore set your hearts on the Law of the Lord your God, and let us beseech him together, 39:4. If the God of our fathers . . . why do you, a mortal man The argument is based on the common Rabbinic principle that human beings should imitate the ways of God. 39:5. God can be Jephthah disputes the premise that human beings should imitate the ways of God, for humankind is fundamentally unlike God. Although the specific objection raised by Jephthah does not seem to have a parallel elsewhere in Jewish literature, the general objection can be exemplified (e.g., Lev. Rab. 24:9). he has the time and place Presumably the sense is that God, being immortal, has no need to hurry to take action. God will always have the opportunity and so can afford to be long-suffering. But humans, being short-lived, know that if they do not act now or soon, they may never get the chance. Thus, they cannot afford to be long-suffering. the dove to which Israel has been compared The comparison of Israel to a dove is common in Rabbinic and pseudepigraphic texts. See comment on L.A.B. 21:6, the house of Israel will be like a dove. when her young are taken away Shir ha-Shirim Rab. 1:63, in its comparison of Israel to a dove, parallels L.A.B. in saying that the mother dove will not leave her cote even if her young are snatched away. 39:6. Ammon and his sons If our text is correct, then “Ammon” here must refer to the eponymous ancestor of the Ammonites rather than to the tribe as a whole, even though the Bible never mentions such a person. they served strange gods That the Jews turned to the worship of Ammonite deities is mentioned at Judg. 10:6. Now therefore set your hearts Jephthah’s concern for the people’s devotion to God is entirely absent from the biblical narrative. Nor does it appear to have any place in the Rabbis’ treatments of this tale. The author of L.A.B. has added this twist to the story.

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

561

and so we will fight against our enemies, trusting and hoping in the Lord that he will not deliver us up forever. Although our sins be abundant, nonetheless his mercy fills the earth.” 7All the people prayed together, men and women, children and infants. When they prayed, they said, “Lord, pay attention to the people that you have chosen, and do not destroy the vine that your right hand has planted, in order that this nation, which you have had from the beginning and always preferred and for whose sake you made the habitable world and which you brought into the land you promised them, should be before you as a portion; and do not deliver us up before your enemies, Lord.” 8God turned from his wrath and strengthened the spirit of Jephthah. He sent a messenger to Getal the king of the children of Ammon and said, “Why are you troublesome to our land and have taken my cities? Or are you upset that the God of Israel did not instruct you to destroy the inhabitants of the land? Now restore to me my cities, and my anger will cease from you. But if not, know that I will come up to you and pay you back for your past actions and repay your wickednesses on your own head. Or do I not remember that you were deceitful to the people of Israel in the wilderness?” The ambassadors of Jephthah spoke these messages to the king of the children of Ammon. 9Getal said, “Did Israel think that it would keep the land of the Amorites that it captured? Therefore tell them, ‘Be aware that now I will take the remaining cities from you and repay you your wickedness and avenge the Amorites whom you harmed.’ “ Jephthah sent another message to the king of the children of Ammon, saying, “Truly I have learned that God has led you to destruction at my hands unless you cease from the iniquity by which you wish to harm Israel. Accordingly I will come to you and show myself to you. For they are not gods, as you say they are, who have given you the portion that you possess; but because you have been led astray after stones, fire will come after you to punish you.” he will not deliver us up forever For the sentiment, cf. Lam. 3:31 (“For the Lord does not Reject forever”). Although our sins be abundant That sins of humans are many, but God’s mercy is great, is a not uncommon theme.102 The best example and closest parallel to L.A.B. is found in the Confessional Liturgy for Yom Kippur, where God is addressed: “We are full of sins, but you are full of mercy.” 39:7. do not destroy the vine The common theme of Israel as God’s vine. The language and general context recall Deut. 9:26. which you have had from the beginning If “from the beginning” here means, “from the beginning of time,” “from creation,” or some such notion, then this alludes to the Rabbinic themes on the antiquity of Israel, that Israel preceded the creation of the world (e.g., Gen. Rab. 1:4, Yal. Shimoni 1:766). your enemies That Israel’s enemies are God’s enemies is commonplace. See, for example, Judg. 5:31; Ps. 83:3; cf. the statement at Exod. 23:22. 39:7–8. Jephthah . . . said, Why are you troublesome to our land Remarkably, L.A.B.’s author has turned the basic dispute on its head. In the Bible, it is the king of Ammon who demands his territory back from the Jews; in L.A.B., it is the Jews who demand their cities back from the king of Ammon. 39:8. Getal the king The Ammonite king is not named in the biblical narrative. 39:9. For they are not gods The author is—not surprisingly—contradicting and combating the express statement of Jephthah in the biblical narrative that acknowledges the existence of a Canaanite god Chemosh ( Judg. 11:24).

562 Howard Jacobson

10Because the king of the children of Ammon would not listen to the voice of Jephthah, Jephthah rose up and armed all the people to go out and fight equipped for battle, saying, “When the children of Ammon have been delivered into my hands and I have returned, whoever meets me first will be a burnt offering to the Lord.” 11God grew angry and said, “Behold Jephthah has vowed that he will offer to me whatever meets him first. Now if a dog should meet Jephthah first, will the dog be offered to me? Now let Jephthah’s vow be accomplished upon his own first-born, that is, upon the fruit of his own belly, and let his request be upon his only-begotten daughter. I however will free my people at this time, not on his account but because of the prayer that Israel prayed.” Seila 40:1Jephthah came and fought against the children of Ammon, and the Lord delivered them into his

hands, and he smote sixty of their cities. Jephthah returned safely, and women came out to meet him with dances. He had an only-begotten daughter and she came out of the house first in the dancing to meet her father. When Jephthah saw her, he grew faint and said, “Rightly was your name called Seila, that you would be offered in sacrifice. And now who will put my heart in the balance and my soul on the scale, and I will stand and see which will weigh more, whether it is the joy that has taken place or the sadness that befalls me? Because I opened my mouth to my Lord with song and vows, I cannot call that back again.” 2Seila his daughter said to him, “Who is there who would be sad to die, seeing the people freed? Or have you forgotten what happened in the days of our fathers when the father placed the son as a burnt offering, and he did not dispute him but gladly gave consent to him, and the one being offered was ready and the one who was offering was rejoicing? 39:11. Now if a dog should meet Jephthah first This is essentially the same condemnation of Jephthah that the Talmud makes at B. Ta’an. 4a. 40:1. women came out to meet him with dances The Bible has only one girl here, the daughter of Jephthah. Clearly, L.A.B.’s author is influenced by the similar language and theme of Exod. 15:20. Judges 11:34 has “there was his daughter coming out to meet him, with timbrel and dance!” while Exod. 15:20 has “all the women went out after her in dance with timbrels.” out of the house The author incorporates into the narrative the critical words of Jephthah’s oath ( Judg. 11:31; cf. “his house” at 11:34). Seila The name probably means “she who was demanded.” The daughter of Jephthah is not named in the Bible; nor is she named elsewhere in ancient or medieval sources. Possibly, though, the name means “she who has been borrowed,” that is, that God has lent Jephthah his daughter and now reclaims the loan. who will put my heart in the balance The image of weighing souls is familiar from Egyptian, Greek, and Jewish sources (e.g., B. Sanh. 103b; T. Ab. 12:13). In general, this becomes the notion of weighing good versus bad deeds for the purpose of divine judgment.103 40:2. who is there who would be sad to die The author of L.A.B. presents Jephthah’s daughter as a willing, indeed happy, martyr. This essentially echoes the portrait presented in the biblical account ( Judg. 11:36), followed also by Josephus (Ant. 5.265). Thus, it is interesting to note that

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

563

3Now do not annul anything you have vowed, but do it all. I make however one request of you before I die, a small petition I ask before I give back my soul, that I may go to the mountains and stay in the hills and walk among the rocks, I and my virgin companions, and I will pour out my tears there and tell of the sadness of my youth. The trees of the field will weep for me, and the beasts of the field will lament for me. For I am not sad that I am going to die nor does it pain me to give back my soul, but because my father was trapped by his vow. If I will not offer myself willingly for sacrifice, I fear that my death would not be acceptable and I would lose my life to no purpose. These things I will tell the mountains, and afterward I will return.” Her father said, “Go.” 4Seila the daughter of Jephthah, she and her virgin companions, set out and came and reported to the wise men of the people, and no one could respond to her word. Afterward she came to Mount Telag, and the Lord thought of her by night and said, “Behold now I have shut up the tongue of the wise men of my people in this generation so that they cannot respond to the word of Jephthah’s daughter, in order that my word be fulfilled and my plan that I thought out not be foiled. I have seen that she is wiser than her father and that the virgin is smarter than all the wise men who are here. Now let her soul be given up in accord with her request, and her death will be precious before me always, and she will go and depart into the bosom of her mothers.” the Rabbis presented a very different picture, representing the daughter as pleading and arguing with her father not to sacrifice her (e.g., Tanhuma [Buber] 3:57a). 40:3. The trees of the field will weep for me That nature mourns for human suffering is a common Greco-Roman theme, but rare in Jewish texts. Even when the Midrash reports that the trees and plants went into mourning on the death of Abel (see introduction to Tanhuma [Buber] 1:79b), one could explain this unusual story on the grounds that aside from his parents Adam and Eve, no other human beings exist yet, to grieve for Abel. But one good parallel to L.A.B. occurs at Pesik. Rav Kah. app. 6.104 If I will not offer myself willingly . . . I fear my death would not be acceptable Perhaps Seila fears that because her death will constitute a human sacrifice, it may be unacceptable in God’s eyes, even though she is willing. Her visit to the elders may be her attempt to get an answer to this question. 40:4. reported to the wise men of the people, and no one could respond Midrashic sources also report that Jephthah’s daughter went to the elders (i.e., the court), to no avail (e.g., Tanhuma [Buber] 3:57a–b). to Mount Telag This may be Mount Hermon. that my word be fulfilled This seems to refer to God’s words at L.A.B. 39:11. If so, the girl’s death is then an integral part of God’s plan. This would suit the tendency of L.A.B.’s author to make tragic and catastrophic events that befall Jews part of God’s prearranged scheme. her death will be precious before me This is a near quotation of Ps. 116:15. The context here suggests that L.A.B.’s author understood the verse as did the Rabbis: that God saw the death of the pious as a desirable thing, either because it enabled them to receive the rewards of the next world or because their presence enhanced the quality of the heavenly kingdom (see, e.g., Midr. Ps. 116:15 [Buber] 239a–b). The notion that a martyr’s suffering and death render him beloved to God is explicit at Mek. Ba-hodesh 6.105

564 Howard Jacobson

5When the daughter of Jephthah came to Mount Telag, she began to weep, and this is her lamentation that she lamented and wept over herself before she departed. She said, “Hear, you mountains, my lamentation, and behold, you hills, the tears of my eyes, and be witnesses, you rocks, to the weeping of my soul. Behold how I am condemned! But let not my life be taken in vain. May my words go forth to the heavens, and my tears be written before the firmament, in order that a father not venture to sacrifice a daughter whom he has vowed, and a ruler not let his only daughter be promised for sacrifice. 6I have not been satisfied by my marriage chamber nor have I been sated with the garlands of my wedding. I was not clothed in splendor in accord with my nobility, and I have not used myrrh and perfume, and my soul has not enjoyed the oil of anointing that was prepared for me. O mother, in vain have you borne your only daughter, since the underworld has become my bridal chamber. Let the perfumes be spilled upon the ground, as well as the blend of oil that you have prepared for me. Let the moth consume the white garment that my mother spun and let the crown that my nurse plaited for me for the occasion wither up. Let the worm devour the coverlet that my skill wove of purple and crimson. Let my virgin companions tell of me in sorrow and lament for me with moans through the days. 7You trees, bow down your branches and weep over my youth, you beasts of the forests, come and bewail my virginity, for my years have been cut short and the time of my life will grow old in darkness.” 8After saying these things Seila returned to her father, and he did everything that he had vowed 40:5. Hear . . . and behold . . . the tears of my eyes Cf. the similar language in the evening Yom Kippur prayer Omnam ken, “hear my prayer and behold the tear of my eye.” be witnesses, you rocks For the invocation of natural objects as witnesses, see, for example, Sifre Deut. 306.106 May my words go forth to the heavens The notion that prayers (and the like) ascend to heaven is common, though usually implicit rather than explicit (e.g., 1 Kings 8:33–34). It is however often explicit in the liturgy, as in the holiday prayer Ya’aleh V’yavo (see also Soferim 19:5107) and in the evening Yom Kippur prayer Ya’aleh, in which it is the fundamental theme. may my tears be written before the firmament The author of L.A.B. may be influenced by Ps. 56:9, which is understood by some commentators to mean that God records tears in his book. 40:6. garlands of my wedding For the use of bridal wreaths at Jewish weddings, see, for example, B. Sot. 49a–b. I was not clothed in splendor The metaphor and language are biblical (e.g., Prov. 31:25 about a woman, Job 40:10 about a human being, Ps. 104:1 about God). the underworld has become my bridal chamber The theme of a bridal chamber becoming a tomb is common in Greek literature, going back most famously to Sophocles’s Antigone 891, but found even earlier. Let the moth consume For the picture of the moth eating clothing, see, for example, Isa. 50:9 Vulg.: tinea comedet eos, “the moth will consume them.” 40:7. trees, bow down your branches It is not uncommon to hear of nature rejoicing in the Bible (e.g. Isa. 44:23). The invocation of natural forces to lament is Greek (e.g., Epitaph. Bion. 1–18; cf. Ecl. 10.13–15). But nature is also depicted as lamenting in Rabbinic texts (e.g., Pesik. Rav Kah. 6108). In Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine texts, trees routinely drop their leaves (or fruit) as a sign of mourning.109 However, a Rabbinic text may be even closer to L.A.B. at Mo’ed Qat. 25b, trees are called upon to bend their heads in mourning.

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

565

and offered burnt offerings. Then all the virgins of Israel gathered together and buried the daughter of Jephthah and wept for her. The women of Israel made a great lamentation and established that in that month on the fourteenth day of the month they should come together every year and weep for Jephthah’s daughter for four days. They named her tomb in accord with her name, Seila. 9Jephthah judged the children of Israel ten years, and he died and was buried with his fathers. Abdon and Elon 41:1After him Abdon the son of Hillel the Pirathonite arose as judge in Israel, and he also judged the sons

of Israel, for eight years. In his days the king of Moab sent messengers to him, saying, “Behold now you know that Israel took my cities; now restore them to freedom.” Abdon said, “Have you not learned from what happened to the sons of Ammon, unless perhaps the sins of Moab have reached full measure?” Abdon sent and took from the people twenty thousand men and came out against Moab and fought with them and killed forty-five thousand men of them, but the rest fled before him. Abdon returned safely and offered burnt offerings and sacrifices to his Lord. He died and was buried in his city Effrata. 2At that time the people chose Elon and appointed him as judge for them. He judged Israel twenty years. In those days they fought against the Philistines and took from them twelve cities. Elon died and was buried in his city. 3But the children of Israel forgot the Lord their God and served the gods of the land’s inhabitants. On account of this they were handed over to the Philistines and served them forty years. 40:8. in that month on the fourteenth day The most natural way to interpret the text is that it indicates an annual four-day period of mourning from the 14th to the 17th. Nothing corresponds to this in the known Jewish calendar. The combination of ritualized lamenting by women with an emphasis on pastoral and rustic themes makes one wonder whether underlying L.A.B.’s version may be the myth of Tammuz, the deity of vegetation who dies in the summer and is lamented by women (see Ezek. 8:14). If we then put the mourning ritual in the month of Tammuz, the fourth and final day of the ritual will be the traditional day of mourning, the 17th of Tammuz, which suggests vestiges of some very intriguing syncretistic tradition. They named her tomb . . . Seila No other evidence for such a site exists. 41:1. Abdon . . . arose as judge in Israel The Bible provides some information on Abdon’s family but otherwise says nothing about him. now restore them Having turned the biblical Jephthah narrative on its head, making Jephthah demand the return of cities from Ammon rather than vice-versa, L.A.B.’s author now creates an episode for the little-known Abdon on the basis of that biblical Jephthah episode. Here, though, he follows it closely, making the enemy king demand the return of cities from the Israelite judge ( Judg. 11:13). unless perhaps the sins of Moab have reached full measure The theme of “fullness of sins” recurs in L.A.B. Abdon guesses that Moab has been unable to learn a lesson from the fate of the Ammonites because the destined time of punishment for the Moabites is now at hand. 41:2. Elon The Bible provides virtually no information about Elon except the length of his tenure ( Judg. 12:11–12).

566 Howard Jacobson

Manoah and Eluma 42:1There was a man from the tribe of Dan whose name was Manoah, son of Edoc, son of Odon, son

of Eriden, son of Fadesur, son of Dema, son of Susi, son of Dan. He had a wife whose name was Eluma the daughter of Remac, and she was sterile and did not bear children to him. Every day Manoah her husband would say to her, “Behold the Lord has shut up your womb so that you do not bear children. Now let me take another wife so that I do not die without offspring.” And she would say, “It is not me whom the Lord has shut up that I may not bear children, but you, so that I do not bear offspring.” He said to her, “Our test will make it clear.” 2They quarreled daily and both were very sad, because they had no offspring. One night the wife went up to the upper chamber and prayed, saying, “Behold, Lord God of all flesh, reveal to me whether it has not been granted to my husband or to me to produce children, to whom it has been forbidden and to whom it has been allowed to bear offspring, in order that the one who is forbidden may sigh over his sins because he remains without offspring. Or if both of us have been deprived, reveal this to us also so that we might bear our guilt and be silent before you.” 3The Lord heard her voice and sent his angel to her in the morning, and he said to her, “You are the sterile one who does not bring forth, you are the womb that is forbidden to bear offspring. But now the Lord has heard your voice and seen your tears and opened your womb. Behold you will conceive and bear a son, and you will call his name Samson. He will be a Nazarite to your Lord. Make sure that he does not taste from any fruit of the vine or eat any unclean thing, because he himself will free Israel from the hand of the Philistines.” When the angel of the Lord had spoken these words, he departed from her. 42:1. a man from the tribe of Dan whose name was Manoah, son of Edoc The Bible tells us nothing of Manoah’s lineage, except that he was a Danite. The author of L.A.B. likes genealogies. a wife whose name was Eluma Manoah’s wife is not named in the Bible, though Rabbinic texts give her a name (e.g., B. BB 91a). But only L.A.B.’s author calls her Eluma. she was sterile The account of John the Baptist’s birth at Luke 1 bears similarities to L.A.B.’s narrative here. her husband would say . . . she would say That Manoah and his wife argued about who bore the responsibility for their barrenness is a midrashic tradition (e.g., Num. Rab. 10:5). It is not me . . . but you She is, as we learn shortly, mistaken. But her remarks may reflect an awareness that a barren woman can tell whether she or her husband is responsible (see, e.g., Midr. Hag. at Gen. 16:2; B. Yev. 65a). 42:2. One night The reference to nighttime may be more than incidental. Nighttime is often considered particularly suitable for personal prayer. See, for example, Ps. 88:2; 119:62. The Midrash reports that Jacob stayed awake at night reciting Psalms (Midr. Ps. 124:1 [Buber] 255a–b). the wife went up to the upper chamber For the solarium (i.e., an upper room or the roof) as a place of prayer, see especially Dan. 6:11; also B. Ber. 34b. 42:3. now the Lord has heard The angel tells Eluma that God has heeded her, she will conceive and have a child, and she should name him Samson. This is clearly based on the account at Judg. 13:3–5, with one sentence apparently a direct quotation. But the angel’s assertion that God has heard her and his instructions for naming the baby are additions to the biblical narrative.

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

567

4She came into the house to her husband and said to him, “Behold, I put my hand over my mouth, and I will be silent before you always because I boasted in vain and did not believe your words. For the angel of the Lord came to me today and informed me, saying, ‘Eluma, you are sterile, but you will conceive and bear a son.’” 5Manoah did not believe his wife, and being confused and sad he himself also went to the upper chamber and prayed and said, “Behold, am I not worthy to hear the signs and wonders that God has done among us or to see the face of his messenger?” 6While he was speaking these words, the angel of the Lord came again to his wife. She was in the field, and Manoah was in his house. The angel said to her, “Run and summon your husband, for God has deemed him worthy to hear my voice.” 7The wife ran and called to her husband, and he hurried and came to the angel in the field. The angel said to him, “Go into your wife and do all these things.” But he said, “I am going, but see to it, sir, that your word be accomplished regarding your servant.” And he said, “It will be done.” 8Manoah said to him, “If I could, I would persuade you to enter my house and eat bread with me. When you would leave, I would give you gifts to take with you to offer as a sacrifice to the Lord your God.” The angel said to him, “I will not enter your house with you, nor eat your bread nor take your gifts. If you offer sacrifice from alien things, I cannot show favor to you.” 9Manoah built an altar upon the rock and offered sacrifices and burnt offerings. When he had cut up the meats and placed them on the altar, the angel sent forth his hand and touched it with the tip of his staff. Fire came forth from the rock, and devoured the burnt offerings and sacrifices. The angel of the Lord went up from him in the flame of fire. 10When Manoah and his wife saw these things they fell on their faces and said, “We will die because we have seen the Lord face to face.” Manoah said, “It was not enough that I saw him but I also asked his name, not knowing that he was the minister of God.” The angel who had come was named Fadahel. 42:4. I put my hand over my mouth For this symbolic gesture, see, for example, Judg. 18:19; Mic. 7:16; Job 21:5; 40:4. Eluma, you are sterile In L.A.B., Eluma reveals that the angel has indicated that she is the party “at fault,” while the Midrash explicitly says that she refrained from telling this to Manoah (Num. Rab. 10:5). 42:5. Manoah did not believe his wife The Bible’s narrative gives not even a hint that Manoah does not believe her ( Judg. 13:8). But the Midrash says exactly what L.A.B. does, that indeed he did not (and adds that the reason was that he did not consider women trustworthy). See Num. Rab. 10:5. 42:8. eat bread with me Manoah’s invitation to the angel at Judg. 13:15 does not mention “eating bread.” The author of L.A.B. has invented this on the basis of the angel’s response at 13:16, “I shall not eat your bread” (KJV). 42:9. Manoah built an altar The Bible simply has Manoah offer the sacrifice on a rock ( Judg. 13:19), though it is afterward called an altar (13:20). 42:10. they . . . said, We will die In the Bible only Manoah says this. His wife then refutes his anxieties (13:22–23). was named Fadahel The Bible does not give the angel a name; in the words “my name is peli,” peli is not a name, but means “a mystery.” The Midrash does however sometimes interpret peli as the name of the angel (e.g., Num. Rab. 10:5, end).

568 Howard Jacobson

Samson 43:1In those days Eluma conceived and bore a son and called his name Samson, and the Lord was with

him. When he had begun to grow up and sought to fight against the Philistines, he took for himself a wife from the Philistines. The Philistines burned her in the fire, because they had been badly humiliated by Samson. 2Afterward Samson got angry at Gaza, and they shut him in and surrounded the city and said, “Behold now our enemy has been delivered into our hands, and now let us gather together and save our own lives.” When Samson arose at night and saw the city closed in, he said, “Behold, now those fleas have locked me up in their city, and now—may the Lord be with me—I will go out through their gates and fight against them.” 3He came and put his left hand beneath the bar of the gate, and he shook the gate in the wall and dislodged it. He held one of the doors in his right hand as a shield; the other he put on his shoulders. Carrying it off, because he had no sword, he pursued the Philistines with it and killed 25,000 men with it. He brought up all the parts of the gate and set them on the mountain. 4Concerning the lion that he killed and concerning the jawbone of the ass with which he killed the Philistines and concerning the bonds that broke off from his arms as it were spontaneously and the foxes that he caught, are not these written in the Book of Judges? 5Then Samson went down to Gerar, a city of the Philistines, and he saw there a harlot whose name was Delilah, and he was led astray after her and took her to himself for a wife. And God said, “Behold now Samson has been led astray through his eyes, and he has not remembered the mighty works that I 43:1. When he . . . sought to fight against the Philistines, he took for himself a wife from the Philistines This is the author’s interpretation—or misinterpretation—of Judg. 14:4. The Bible asserts that Samson’s marriage to the Philistine woman was God’s way of causing the Philistines to take action that would stir Samson to battle against them. The author of L.A.B. makes it Samson’s plan. they had been badly humiliated by Samson It is not clear whether L.A.B.’s author simply takes for granted the actions of Samson described in Judg. 14–15 or whether he means that the Philistines were upset by the marriage of one of their women to an Israelite. At Judg. 14:3, it is Samson’s parents who are upset by his selection of a Philistine bride. 43:2. When Samson arose at night and saw The author of L.A.B. heavily embellishes the brief biblical account at Judg. 11:3. In particular, he turns the biblical tale—which is nothing more than an account of astounding strength—into a battle between Samson and the Philistines. 43:4. the lion . . . the jawbone . . . the bonds . . . the foxes The author refers to four of Samson’s exploits from the biblical narrative.110 43:5. to Gerar The Philistine city Gerar has no place in any of the biblical Samson episodes. Perhaps L.A.B.’s author thought of it as a place of particularly loose sexual mores. Cf. Gen. 20:1–11; 26:6–11. a harlot Josephus also made Delilah a prostitute (Ant. 5.306). took her to himself for a wife Samson does not marry Delilah in the Bible. has been led astray through his eyes “Samson went astray after his eyes and so the Philistines put out his eyes,” according to M. Sot. 1:8. It seems likely that L.A.B. is making the same point here.

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

569

did for him. He has mingled with the daughters of the Philistines and has not paid attention to Joseph my servant who was in a foreign land and became the crown of his brothers because he was not willing to profane his seed. Now Samson’s lust will be a stumbling block for him, and his mingling a ruin. I will hand him over to his enemies, and they will blind him. But in the hour of his death I will remember him, and I will avenge him upon the Philistines just this once.” 6After this his wife pressured him and said to him, “Show me your power and in what your strength lies, and so I will know that you love me.” When Samson had tricked her three times and she was pressuring him daily, the fourth time he revealed to her his heart. She got him drunk, and while he slept, she summoned a barber and he cut the seven locks of his head, and his strength left him, for he himself had so revealed. She called the Philistines, and they beat Samson and blinded him and put him in prison. 7On the day of their banquet they summoned Samson to mock him. He, in bonds by two pillars, prayed saying, “Lord God of my fathers, hear me just this once and strengthen me in order that I may die with these Philistines, because the sight that they took from me was given freely to me by you.” Samson added, saying, “Go forth, my soul, and do not be sad; die, my body, and do not grieve for yourself.” 8He grasped the two columns of the house and shook them. The house and all that was around it collapsed, and killed all who were around it. Their number was 40,000 men and women. Samson’s brothers and his father’s entire household went down and took him and buried him in the tomb of his father. He had judged Israel twenty years. Micah 44:1In those days there was no leader in Israel, but each one did what was pleasing in his own eyes. has not paid attention to Joseph This alludes to the tale of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife (Gen. 39). Joseph is commonly considered a paragon of sexual virtue in Rabbinic texts (e.g., Lev. Rab. 23:10; B. Yoma 35b [“Joseph the righteous one”]). who was in a foreign land Cf. Exod. 2:22; 18:3. The point seems to be that even though Joseph was far from home and in a foreign land and culture, he still maintained his virtue and his values. The same point is made by the Rabbis of the Jews during their slavery in Egypt, that is, they did not change their names, they did not abandon the Hebrew language, and they maintained sexual morality (Mek. Bo 5111). I will remember him The repeated theme in L.A.B., here extended from the people as a whole to their suffering leader. 43:6. She got him drunk Here, L.A.B. shows the influence of stories like Judith’s ( Jdt. 12:20–13:2) and Jael’s ( Judg. 4:19, though the soporific there is milk). In the case of Samson, the element of drunkenness is doubly damning, since he was a Nazirite. 43:7. On the day of their banquet The Bible tells of a great festival in honor of the Philistine god Dagon ( Judg. 16:23–24). to mock him The Bible does not say this explicitly, but it is implicit in the narrative. He . . . prayed The author of L.A.B. leaves out the regrowth of Samson’s hair ( Judg. 16:22), thus placing all the emphasis on Samson’s prayer and God’s role. Go forth, my soul An address to one’s soul when death is imminent is reminiscent of Hadrian’s famous poem “Animula, vagula, blandula” (frag. 3).112 43:8. 40,000 men The Bible says that there were about 3,000 men and women on the roof ( Judg. 16:27). The sum total of the dead is not mentioned (16:30).

570 Howard Jacobson

2At that time there arose Micah the son of Delilah the mother of Heliu, and he had one thousand shekels of gold and four wedges of molten gold and forty shekels of silver. Delilah his mother said to him, “My son, hear my voice, and you will make a name for yourself before death. Take that gold and melt it down and make for yourself idols, and they will serve as gods for you, and you will be their priest. 3Whoever wishes to ask anything through them will come to you, and you will respond to him. There will be an altar in your house and a column made out of that gold that you have; prepare frankincense for burning and sheep for sacrifice. Whoever wishes to offer a sacrifice will give seven shekels for sheep; for incense, if he wishes to burn it, he will give one shekel of silver in weight. Your title will be ‘priest,’ and you will be called ‘reverer of the gods.’” 4Micah said to her, “You have advised me well, mother, how to live. Now your name will be greater than mine, and in the last days all things will be asked of you.” 5Micah set out and did everything that his mother had commanded him. He carved and made for himself three images of boys and calves, a lion, an eagle, a serpent, and a dove. All who were led astray would come to him. If a person wished to ask for a wife, he would ask him by means of the dove; if for

44:2. Micah the son of Delilah Micah’s mother plays an important role in Judg. 17, but is never identified. The targumic addition at Judg. 17:2 makes the same identification as L.A.B. the mother of Heliu Why L.A.B.’s author reports that Delilah is the mother of Heliu is not clear; nor does he clarify who Heliu is. you will make a name for yourself This is the same motivation that inspires the builders of the tower of Babel (Gen. 11:4; L.A.B. 6:1). Take that gold and melt it down In the Bible, Micah hires a smith to fashion the idol ( Judg. 17:4). they will serve as gods for you The Talmud debates whether the mentions of God in the biblical tale of Micah refer to God or to pagan deities (e.g., B. Shevu. 35b). The author of L.A.B. clearly casts his vote for the latter interpretation. you will be their priest In the Bible, Micah does not himself become the attending priest but rather first appoints his son ( Judg. 17:5), later a Levite (17:12–13). 44:3. Whoever wishes to ask anything Although in the biblical narrative Micah does not set up his shrine as an oracle, eventually it comes to serve this purpose ( Judg. 18:5). There will be an altar The biblical account of Micah makes no mention of an altar or offerings. But the Midrash takes for granted that these were part of Micah’s sanctuary, since it refers to incense and smoke that were present (see, e.g., B. Sanh. 103b; Pesik. Rab. 29113). 44:5. images The author’s account here of the varied icons is based both on his familiarity with biblical texts and on his knowledge of idolatry in the world around him, both amongst Jews and non-Jews. If a person wished to ask . . . he would ask by means of Some of the correspondences here between a person’s wish and the image consulted are obvious, such as asking the image of boys for sons, or that of a lion for strength; others are less so. That the people consult specific icons for specific requests reflects the author’s awareness of the pagan practice of identifying individual gods with particular realms and addressing pertinent prayers to the appropriate deity. Thus, for example, one would pray to Apollo to heal the sick (e.g., Paus. Descr. 8.41.8), and to Demeter for good crops (e.g., Hes. Op. 465–66). by means of the dove The relevance of doves to marriage is attested in both Jewish and pagan sources. The dove is often praised in Rabbinic texts for its faithful monogamy (e.g., B. Er. 100b). Doves were familiar in cults of Aphrodite. We are even told explicitly of widows praying to Aphrodite Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

571

sons, by the images of the boys; if for wealth, he would consult him through the likeness of the eagle; if for courage, through the image of the lion. If for boys and girls, he would ask through the images of the calves. But if for length of days, he would ask by the image of the dragon. His wickedness was manifold, and his impiety was full of guile. 6Then, when the sons of Israel were departing from the Lord, the Lord said, “Behold I will uproot the earth and destroy the whole race of men, because, when I set my majesty on Mount Sinai, I showed myself to the children of Israel in a storm. I said that they should not make idols, and they agreed not to carve images of gods. I ordered them not to take my name in vain, and they chose not to take my name in vain. I commanded them to keep the day of the Sabbath, and they consented to sanctify it. I told them to honor father and mother, and they promised they would do it. I ordered them not to steal, and they agreed. I told them not to commit murder, and they accepted not to do it. I commanded them not to commit adultery, and they did not oppose it. I ordered them not to speak false testimony and not to covet each one his fellow’s wife or house or anything that belonged to him, and they accepted. for a new husband (Paus. Descr. 10.38.12). As for icons of doves, they were common in the Near East, including in Israel. An image of a dove was worshiped on Mount Gerizim in the 2nd century (B. Hul. 6a). by the images of the boys Icons of boys, or boylike figures—for example, images or sculptures of the Erotes were common, especially since they were sometimes associated with cherubim. through the likeness of the eagle Representations of eagles were frequently associated with the cults of Zeus and Jupiter. for courage, through the image of the lion Lions have been linked with strength since antiquity (see, e.g., Prov. 30:30). Representations of lions were prominent in the cult of Cybele. for length of days . . . by the image of the dragon The snake was commonly a symbol of longevity because of its length and its apparent regeneration through molting. Cultic images of snakes were common in the Near East, as well as generally in cults of Dionysus and Asclepius. Recall too the use of the copper snake for idolatrous purposes in Israel (2 Kings 18:4). 44:6. I showed myself . . . in a storm The presence of storms at Sinai was also indicated at L.A.B. 11:5. they should not make idols The Second Commandment (Exod. 20:3). The remaining commandments follow in the biblical order, with the exception of “do not steal.” The author of L.A.B. connects Micah’s acts with the violation of the Decalogue. This is also explicit (if less elaborate) in the Midrash, where we read that Micah violated the First Commandment (Pesik. Rab. 21114). they agreed In L.A.B., a variation of this response follows nearly all of the commandments, though the Bible reports only a collective assent to the entire Decalogue (Exod. 24:7; Deut. 5:24). A midrashic tradition has exactly the same thing as L.A.B., reporting that the Jews proclaimed their assent after each commandment (Midr. Ps. 8:3 [Buber] 39a). to keep the day of the Sabbath As in Deut. 5:12 (contrast Exod. 20:8). 44:6–7 In this passage God, planning to seriously punish the Jewish people, enumerates the Ten Commandments and asserts, one by one, that each has been violated by them. This is exactly what we have at Pesik. Rav Kah. 13,115 where God contemplates destroying the Temple because of the sins of the people. they took my name in vain and they have given my name to graven images The prohibition against taking God’s name in vain is regularly taken as a prohibition against false oaths. At Wis. 14:21, the people are condemned for assigning the name of God to wood and stone. What exactly does

572 Howard Jacobson

7[blank] not to make idols nor to perform the service of those gods that have been born from corruption under the name of graven images and of those through which all things have become corrupt. For mortal men made them, and fire served to melt them down. The skill of a man produced them, and hands manufactured them, and mind has contrived them. By accepting these they took my name in vain, and they have given my name to graven images. As for the day of the Sabbath that they agreed to keep, they did abominable things on it. As for my telling them to honor father and mother, they have dishonored me, their creator. As for my telling them not to steal, they have stolen in their minds with graven images. Whereas I told them not to kill, they kill those whom they seduce. Though I commanded them not to commit adultery, they have adulterated their devotion. As for their choice not to speak false testimony, they accepted false testimony from those whom they destroyed. And they lusted for foreign women. 8Therefore, behold I abhor the race of men, and that I may uproot creation, those dying will outnumber those being born, because the house of Jacob is defiled in its wickedness and the sins of Israel are numerous. I cannot totally destroy the tribe of Benjamin on the grounds that they were the first to L.A.B. (and indeed Wisdom) mean? Either that the generic title god belongs only to God and may

not be assigned elsewhere, or that the specific name of God is worshiped through these idols (i.e., the individual believes he is worshiping God but is doing so in a totally unacceptable way. This is clearly the case in the biblical account of Micah). As for my telling them to honor father and mother, they have dishonored me Relating the commandment to respect one’s parents to the reverence of God is common in Jewish sources. Thus, Philo (Decalogue 51) notes that in the first set of five commandments, the first deals with God, the parent of everything, while the last deals with mother and father, the parents of individual creations. The Midrash likes to point out that reverence for one’s parents is the equivalent of reverence for God.116 they kill those whom they seduce This probably means that by inducing others to practice idolatry, they are killing them (either by morally destroying them or by rendering them subject to death at God’s hands). Tertullian makes the same point when he remarks that the idolater commits murder, that is, he kills himself (de Idolatria 1, CSEL 20, p. 30). Cf. Wis. 1:11, where lying is said to destroy the soul. For the general notion that the wicked are considered dead even when alive, see B. Ber. 18b. they accepted false testimony from those whom they destroyed Possibly meaning that the Jews accepted the “testimony” of the local peoples about their gods (see L.A.B. 34:1–4) and so worshiped them. 44:8. I abhor the race of men This clearly means all humanity. But this follows the account of Israel’s violations of the Ten Commandments and proceeds with explicit references to Israel and more allusion to their violation of the Decalogue. The author may be thinking of the Rabbinic notion that the world’s existence is contingent on that of Israel (see, e.g., Exod. Rab. 2:5; AG 3 [Buber] 12b). I cannot totally destroy This not only accords with the narrative of Judg. 20, wherein a small remnant of Benjamin survives, but also recalls the common biblical theme that although God punishes Israel, he will not totally destroy them (e.g., Isa. 6:11–13, Jer. 23:2–3).

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

573

be led astray after Micah. The people of Israel will not go unpunished. But this will be an eternal stumbling block for them, to be remembered for generations. 9I will deliver Micah to the fire, and his mother will be rotting away before him while alive upon the earth, and worms will come forth from her body. Then, while they are speaking to each other, she will say as a mother chastising her son, ‘Behold what a sin you have committed!’ He will respond as a son who answers his mother and acts shrewdly, ‘You have done greater wickedness.’ The image of the dove that he made will be for putting out his eyes, and the image of the eagle will be for bringing fire upon him from its wings, and the images of the boys that he made will be for scratching his sides, and the image of the lion that he made will guarantee that his tormenters will be strong. 10I will not do this to Micah alone, but to all who sin against me. The race of men will know that they should not provoke me by their devices that they devise, but every man will be so punished, that in whatever sin he shall have sinned, with this he will be judged. If they have lied before me, I will command the heaven and it will deny them rain. If a man will covet the property of his neighbor, I will Israel will not go unpunished That is, not only will Benjamin be severely punished, but the rest of Israel will be punished too. Presumably the author of L.A.B. is alluding to the defeats suffered by the Israelite army in Judg. 20. 44:9. His mother will be rotting away That is, what usually happens to the body after death (cf. Job 21:26; Sir. 10:1) will happen to her while still alive. You have done greater wickedness The author cleverly makes this dialogue between mother and son parallel the earlier one (L.A.B. 44:3–4). There, the mother had said that the son would gain a reputation, to which he responded that she would be even more famous. Here, the mother chastises her son for his sin; the son responds by saying that her sins are even greater. the dove that he made will be for putting out his eyes Birds as an instrument for punishing sinners is familiar (particularly in the afterworld). Cf. the Greek legends of Prometheus and Tityos; also the Hell of the Apocalypse of Peter. It is usually ravens that peck out the eyes of corpses (see Prov. 30:17, elaborated at Tanhuma [Buber] 5:9a). Aristophanes jokingly refers to the possibility of one knocking out the eye of a living human being (Ach. 92–3). for scratching his sides This punishment probably refers to flaying, a type of torture familiar from Plato’s picture of the underworld (Resp. 10.616a) and evidently much in favor in Asia.117 At Num. 33:55 and Josh. 23:13, tormenters are described metaphorically as “thorns [nails, scourges] in your side [eyes].” This may be relevant, since it goes along with violent damage to the eyes (as here in L.A.B.). 44:10. in whatever sin he shall have sinned, with this he will be judged This is a common theme, found in Jubilees, Wisdom, Rabbinic texts, and elsewhere. An excellent example is the Egyptians, who tried to destroy the Jewish people through water and were ultimately themselves destroyed by water (Jub. 48:14; Mek. Besh. 6118). If they have lied . . . it will deny them rain Proverbs 25:14 makes an analogy between a man who promises gifts but fails to give them and a cloudy sky that produces no rain. The Midrash creates a causal relationship, taking this to mean that if a man makes a public vow and fails to keep it, then the heavens withhold their rain.119 Note too the language at B. Ta’an. 9b, in its characterization of Babylonians as liars: “just as the Babylonians lie, so too their rains lie” (i.e., fail to fall when expected). If a man will covet the property of his neighbor The sinner desires the property of his neighbor

574 Howard Jacobson

command death and it will deny him the fruit of his belly. If men will swear falsely in my name, I will not hear their prayers. When the soul is separated from the body, then they will say, ‘Let us not be distressed over what we have suffered, but rather because whatever we ourselves have devised, that will we also receive.’” The Concubine’s Rape and Murder 45:1At that time a certain man from the tribe of Levi came to Gibeah, and when he wanted to stay there

the sun set. He wanted to enter there, but those who dwelled there did not let him. He said to his servant, “Go and lead the mule, and we will go to the city of Nob; perhaps they will let us enter it.” He came there and sat down in the square of the city but no one said to him, “Enter my house.” 2There was there a certain Levite whose name was Bethac. When Bethac saw him, he said to him, “Are you Beel from my tribe?” He said, “I am.” He said to him, “Don’t you know the wickedness of those who dwell in this city? Who persuaded you to enter here? Leave here in a hurry and enter my house where I dwell, and stay today. The Lord will shut their minds before us as he shut up the Sodomites before Lot.” Having entered the city, he remained there that night. 3All the inhabitants of the city came together and said to Bethac, “Bring out those who came to you today. Otherwise, we will burn in the fire both you and them.” He went out to them and said to them, “Are not these our brothers? Let us not do evil to them lest our sins be multiplied amongst us.” They answered, “It has never happened that strangers give orders to the local inhabitants.” They entered by and therefore loses his most valued property, namely, his children. A talmudic text is pertinent: “whoever casts his eye upon that which does not belong to him, will have taken from him that which he does possess” (B. Sot. 9a–b). When the soul is separated from the body The notion that the soul (spirit) separates from the body at the time of death may occur in the Bible (Eccles. 12:7). In Rabbinic texts, see B. Yoma 20b (end); Pirke R. El. 34.120 45:1. To Gibeah The author of L.A.B. makes one drastic change in this episode. According to the Bible, the rape and murder of the concubine take place at Gibeah. In L.A.B., the couple comes to Gibeah but then proceeds from there to Nob, where the crimes take place. Why L.A.B.’s author chooses to exonerate Gibeah (relatively speaking; he merely says that they refused to let the couple enter their city) and attribute the heinous crime to the residents of Nob is not obvious. Perhaps he does this for “moral” reasons. At 1 Sam. 22:19, the inhabitants of Nob are brutally murdered for a favor they did for David. The author of L.A.B. may be suggesting that the destruction of the citizenry of Nob was in fact justified, being punishment for their deed here. Cf. L.A.B. 45:3, where the author justifies the murder of the concubine. (See also Ant. 5.136–49; 6.255–61.) 45:2. a certain Levite The welcoming man is not identified as a Levite at Judg. 19:16, nor is he given a name. 45:3. we will burn in the fire both you and them No such threat appears in either the concubine or the Sodom episodes in the Bible. But L.A.B.’s author may be influenced by a similar threat in the Samson narrative, at Judg. 14:15. It has never happened that strangers give orders to the local inhabitants The sentiment is drawn by L.A.B.’s author from the Sodomites’ angry remark to Lot at Gen. 19:9.

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

575

force and dragged him and his concubine off, and they took them outside. After letting the man go, they abused his concubine until she died, for she had strayed from her man at one time when she committed sin with the Amalekites, and on account of this the Lord God delivered her into the hands of sinners. 4When it was morning, Beel went out and, finding his concubine dead, he put her on the mule and hurried away and came to Kedesh. He took her body and cut it up into pieces and sent it throughout the twelve tribes, saying, “These things were done to me in the city of Nob, and those dwelling there rose up against me to kill me, and they took my concubine while I was locked up and killed her. If it is good in your eyes to be silent, the Lord will judge. But if you wish to take vengeance, the Lord will help you.” 5All the men of the twelve tribes were disturbed, and they gathered together in Shiloh, and said to each other, “If such depravity has been done in Israel, shall Israel remain quiet?” 6The Lord said to the adversary, “Do you see that this foolish people was not disturbed at a time when they ought to have died, when Micah acted craftily to lead the people astray with the dove and the eagle and the images of men and calves and lion and serpent? And so, because they were not zealous then, therefore let their plan turn out badly and their heart be confused so that those who allow evil will be destroyed along with the sinners.” by force No violence is committed by the inhabitants at this point in the Judges story. Again, L.A.B.’s author is using material from Gen. 19:9, in which the Sodomites attempt to break down the door. They . . . dragged him and his concubine off The author of L.A.B. exonerates both Bethac and Beel. In the biblical narrative the host offers the concubine (and his own daughter) to the local villains ( Judg. 19:24), and the guest gives her to them (19:25). But nothing of the sort occurs in L.A.B. The two men are entirely innocent victims. Josephus’s version is similar to L.A.B., and the townspeople seize the concubine (Ant. 5.146). she had strayed The author of L.A.B. moralizes her fate as justified punishment. 45:4. he . . . came to Kedesh This is the biblical “Kedesh” (e.g., Josh. 12:22), not “Kadesh.” He . . . sent it . . . saying, These things were done to me In the biblical account, the dismembered corpse is dispatched, but we are not told of any accompanying message. Only later ( Judg. 20:4– 7) does the Levite report these events, and he does so in person. 45:5. they gathered together in Shiloh The biblical account puts the assembly first at Mizpah, and later at Bethel ( Judg. 20:1, 18, 26). The author of L.A.B. may have also been influenced by his recollection of the language at Josh. 18:1 and 22:12, “the whole community of the Israelites assembled at Shiloh.” 45:6. The Lord said to the adversary This must refer to Satan, although we are probably not dealing with a “devil” or “demon” so much as an “adversary” or “accuser.” It is strange that the “adversary” simply listens, while God does the condemning. The author wants to emphasize that God (not the silent and passive Satan) is in charge and responsible for Israel’s suffering, and that he has a good reason in so acting. they were not zealous then God will punish Israel because the murder of the concubine upsets them, but they were not similarly disturbed by the idolatrous practices of Micah—a viewpoint asserted also in the Midrash at Pirke R. El. 38 and B. Sanh. 103b.

576 Howard Jacobson

Benjamin’s Victory Over Israel 46:1At morning, the people of Israel were disturbed and said, “Let us go up and investigate the sin that

has been committed in order that the evil be eliminated from us.” After saying this, they said, “Let us first ask the Lord and learn if he will deliver our brothers into our hands; if not, let us desist.” Phinehas said to them, “Let us bring out the Urim and Tummim.” The Lord answered them, saying, “Go up, because I will deliver them into your hands.” But he led them astray so that he might fulfill his words. 2They went up to battle and came to the city of Benjamin and sent messengers saying, “Send us the men who have done this evil deed, and we will spare you but repay to each his own evil.” The people of Benjamin hardened their heart and said to the people of Israel, “Why should we deliver our brothers to you? If you spare them, we will not fight against you.” The people of Benjamin went out to meet the children of Israel and put them to flight. The children of Israel fell before them, and they smote among them forty-five thousand men. 3The heart of the people was very despondent, and they came mourning and weeping to Shiloh. They said, “Behold the Lord has delivered us before the inhabitants of Nob, and now let us ask the Lord who among us has sinned.” They asked the Lord, and he said to them, “If you wish, go up and fight, and they will be delivered into your hands, and then you will be told why you fell before them.” They went up the next day to fight against them, and the children of Benjamin went out and put Israel to flight and smote among them forty-six thousand men. 4The heart of the people grew very faint, and they said, “Has God wished to lead his people astray? 46:1. Let us . . . investigate the sin The author of L.A.B. is evidently thinking of the biblical injunctions to investigate reports of grievous sins (e.g., idolatry) before taking action. The passage at Deut. 17:2–7 ends, as does this sentence in L.A.B., with the exhortation to eliminate evil from among the people. Let us first ask the Lord Here, L.A.B.’s author changes the biblical account in a remarkable way. Judges reports that before the first battle, the Israelites ask God which tribe should lead the way, and God responds ( Judg. 20:18). Before the second battle, they inquire whether they should continue to fight, and God says yes (20:23). Thus, God does not in fact tell them that they will be victorious until the third battle (20:28), as the Talmud takes pains to remind us (see B. Yoma 73b). Josephus was sufficiently uncomfortable with the biblical narrative that he does not represent the Israelites as consulting God at all until after the two defeats (Ant. 5.151–59). But L.A.B.’s author actually goes in the reverse direction, making it completely explicit and unambiguous that God deliberately deceives the people so as to punish them. Let us bring out the Urim and Tummim The biblical narrative does not explicitly mention the “Urim and Tummim,” but this is a natural inference since Phinehas the high priest is brought ( Judg. 20:28). The Talmud too, when alluding to this episode, takes for granted the use of the “Urim and Tummim” (B. Yoma 73b). so that he might fulfill his words “His words” must refer to God’s words at L.A.B. 45:6. We thus have the paradox that God lies in order that his words may be true (fulfilled). 46:3. they will be delivered into your hands Once again, contrary to the biblical account ( Judg. 20:23), God explicitly deceives the Israelites. 46:4. they said Although the narrative at Judg. 20 reports that the Jews weep, lament, and fast, they do not say anything other than to repeat their question as to whether they should wage battle. The introduction of such explicit puzzlement in L.A.B. comes from Josh. 7:7–9. Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

577

Or has he so decided, on account of the evil that was done, that the innocent as well as those who do wicked deeds should fall?” On saying these words they fell before the ark of the covenant of the Lord and rent their garments and put ashes on their heads, they and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, who prayed and said, “What is this deceit by which you have led us astray, Lord? If what the children of Benjamin have done is right in your eyes, why have you not told us so we might stop? But if it did not please you, why have you allowed us to fall before them?” The Fable of the Lion 47:1Phinehas continued to speak, “God of our fathers, hear my voice and tell your servant today whether

it has been done properly in your sight, or perchance the people have sinned and you wanted to do away with their evil deeds so as to chastise those of us who have sinned against you. For I remember in my youth when Zimri sinned in the days of Moses your servant, and he went in to the Midianite woman and I exercised the zeal of my soul, and hoisted both of them up on my spear. The rest wished to rise up against me and kill me, and you sent your angel and you smote of them twenty-four thousand men, and you saved me from their hands. 2Now you dispatched the eleven tribes, saying to them, ‘Go and smite them,’ but they went and were delivered up. Now they say that your Urim and Tummim are telling lies before you. Now, Lord God of our fathers, do not hide from your servant but tell us why you have done this injustice to us.” 3The Lord saw that Phinehas had prayed earnestly before him, and he said to him, “I swear by myself, says the Lord: if you had not prayed, I would not have been mindful of you in what you said, nor would I have answered you today. Now say to the people, ‘Stand and hear the word of the Lord.’ that the innocent . . . should fall The problem is why those who did not share in the rape-murder crime should be punished as well as the sinners themselves. This question is also raised with regard to the events at Ai, though not in the biblical account but rather in the Talmud (Sanh. 44a). 47:1. hear my voice An echo of the psalmist (Ps. 27:7; 130:2, with Vulg. via LXX). both of them This refers to Zambri and Cozbi (Num. 25:14–15). The author of L.A.B. takes for granted his audience’s familiarity with the story. Till now there has been no mention of a second sinner. I hoisted both of them up on my spear This is a Rabbinic tradition. Thus, Tg. Jon. at Num. 25:8 elaborates, “Phinehas impaled the two on his spear and carried them about through the camp” (perhaps implicit also at Sifre Num. 131). you smote of them twenty-four thousand men Here, L.A.B.’s author has seriously altered the biblical narrative. In the latter, 24,000 Israelites die in a plague (Num. 25:9); Phinehas then kills the two public sinners, whereupon the plague ends. The author of L.A.B. represents the plague (in the form of an angel) as taking place after Phinehas’s bold deed. Josephus does the same (Ant. 4.154–55). In addition, the notion that Phinehas’s act arouses hostility and even a threat upon his life has no basis in the Bible, but is found in Rabbinic elaborations. It is implied in Tg. Jon. at Num. 25:8, where we read that Phinehas held the bodies up before their kin, but they were unable to harm him. Num. Rab. 20:25 duplicates what we have in L.A.B. almost exactly: “the members of Zambri’s tribe wanted to attack Phinehas, but an angel smote them” (a milder version of this appears at Sifre Num. 131121). 47:3. say to the people, ‘Stand and hear the word of the Lord.’ This does not mean that God will directly address the people. Rather, Phinehas is to assemble the people and relate the parable in the name of God. 578 Howard Jacobson

4So says the Lord: There was a mighty lion in the midst of the forest to whose power all the beasts entrusted the forest that he might guard it lest perhaps other beasts should come and destroy it. While the lion was guarding these, some beasts of the field came from another forest and devoured all the young of the animals and destroyed the fruit of their wombs. The lion saw and was silent. The beasts of the field were secure, because they had entrusted the forest to the lion and did not realize that their offspring had been destroyed. 5Some time later there arose from those who had entrusted the forest to the lion a small animal, and he ate up the small cub of another savage beast. Behold the lion roared and threw into confusion all the animals of the forest, and they fought among themselves, and each fought against the other. 6When many beasts were destroyed, another lion’s cub from the other forest saw such great evils and said, ‘Have you not destroyed so many animals? What wickedness is this, that when so many beasts and their offspring were unjustly destroyed at the beginning by other savage animals, and when all the beasts should have been moved to avenge themselves when their offspring were destroyed for no reason, then you were silent and did not speak? But now one cub of a savage beast has perished, and you have so aroused the whole forest that all the beasts unjustly destroy each other in turn, so that the forest is impoverished. Now you ought to be destroyed first, and so the remnant made secure.’ The cubs of the animals heard this and killed the lion first, and they appointed the cub in his place, and all the other beasts together were made subject to him. 7There rose up Micah who caused you to transgress by the things that he and his mother made. Their deeds were sinful and wicked such that no one before them had devised, but by his own craftiness he made graven images such as have not been made until this day. No one acted zealously but all of you were led astray, and you saw the fruit of your belly ruined and you were silent like that evil lion. 8But now, on seeing how this man’s concubine, who had done wicked deeds, died, you were all disturbed and came to me, saying, ‘Will you deliver the children of Benjamin into our hands?’ Therefore I deceived you and said, ‘I will deliver them to you.’ Now I have destroyed you, who were silent then. And so I will take vengeance on all who have acted wickedly.” 9All the people rose up as one and went off. The children of Benjamin came out to meet them, thinking that they would conquer them as before, and they did not know that disaster was inevitably to befall them. When they had come out as at first and pursued them, the people fled from before them so as to give ground. Then they rose up from their hiding places, and the children of Benjamin were caught in between them. 10Those who had been fleeing turned around and the people of the city of Nob were killed, eightyfive thousand, men and women. The children of Israel burned the city, and they took their plunder and destroyed everything with the sword. None of the children of Benjamin survived except six hundred 47:4. There was a mighty lion No substantial parallel to L.A.B.’s fable occurs in Jewish literature or folklore, although some of its individual themes are traditional. Genesis Rabbah 64:10 tells the story of how an eminent Rabbi dissuaded the people from taking ill-advised action by relating to them a lion-fable. 47:10. men and women That Benjaminite women were also slain is explicit at Judg. 21:16. they took their plunder The Judges narrative makes no reference to booty. Again, L.A.B.’s author is drawing from Josh. 8:27.

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

579

men who fled and were not captured in the battle. All the people returned to Shiloh, and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest was with them. 11These are the ones who remained from the race of Benjamin, the leaders of the tribe according to the ten families; these are their names: Of the first family: Ashbel, Zieb, Bela, Rein, Debac, Belloch. Of the second family: Netach, Zenip, Fenoch, Demech, Gera, Saraz. From the third family: Jeremoth, Veloth, Amibel, Genuth, Nefuth, Fienna. From the fourth city: Gemuf and Eliel, Gemet, Soleph, Rafaf, and Doffo. From the fifth family: Anuel, Code, Fretan, Remmon, Peccan, Nabath. The sixth family: Refaz, Sefet, Arafaz, Metach, Adhoc, Balinoc. From the seventh family: Beninmefiz, Araf, Ruimel, Belon, Iaal, Abac [blank]. From the tenth family: Enoflasa, Melec, Meturia, Meac. All the leaders of the tribes who survived were sixty in number. 12At that time the Lord repaid to Micah and his mother all he had said. Micah melted in the fire and his mother wasted away, just as the Lord had said concerning them. Phinehas’s Ascension 48:1At that time Phinehas was verging toward death, and the Lord said to him, “Behold you have passed the 120 years that have been established for every man. Now rise up and go from here and dwell in the desert on the mountain and dwell there many years. I will command my eagle, and he will nourish you there, and you will not come down again to mankind until the appointed time arrives and you will be tested at the appropriate time; and then you will shut up the heaven, and by your mouth it will be opened up. Afterward you will be raised up to the place where those who were before you were 47:11. the first family The author of L.A.B. apparently allots six chieftains to each family. Since there are ten families consisting of 600 men, each family can be presumed to have 60 men, and so it appears that the author has concocted his chieftains on the biblical principle of the sare asarot “chiefs of . . . tens” (Exod. 18:21). 48:1. that have been established for every man The traditional post-Flood life span limit of 120 years (Gen. 6:3). See especially Ant. 1.75, 152. rise up and go from here In this episode, L.A.B.’s author identifies Phinehas with Elijah, thereby echoing a Rabbinic tradition. We must recognize that for L.A.B.’s author, Phinehas and Elijah are not merely cut from the same mold but are identical, one and the same person. go from here These words come from the Elijah narrative (1 Kings 17:3). on the mountain All this implies is that Phinehas will live far removed from the Israelites, perhaps a kind of hermit’s existence. For the early Christians, Elijah was the archetypal and paradigmatic hermit (cf. especially the original Carmelites). many years The long residence of Phinehas in Daneben (L.A.B. 48:1; see Latin text) is thus not to explain his absence during the period of the judges, but rather to account for his absence from the end of the book of Judges until the middle of 1 Kings (in the form of Elijah). my eagle Eagles are occasionally associated with God in the Bible, but in rather loose ways (e.g., Exod. 19:4; cf. As. Mos. 10:8). “My eagle” would be more familiar in the mouth of Zeus. you will shut up the heaven, and by your mouth it will be opened up This refers to Elijah’s stopping the rain and then bringing it (1 Kings 17:1; 18:45) you will be raised up A reference to Elijah’s translation at 2 Kings 2:11. where those who were before you were raised up The only personage in the Bible of whom this can

580 Howard Jacobson

raised up, and you will be there until I remember the world. Then I will bring you, and you will get a taste of death.” 2Phinehas went up and did all that the Lord commanded him. At the time when he appointed him as priest, he anointed him in Shiloh. 3At that time when he went up, the children of Israel were then celebrating Passover, and they instructed the children of Benjamin, saying, “Go up and win wives for yourselves, because we cannot give you our daughters. For we made a vow at the time of our anger. But let it not come about that one tribe be blotted out from Israel.” The children of Benjamin went up and seized for themselves wives and built for themselves Gabaon and began to dwell there. 4The children of Israel were at rest in the meantime and had no leader in those days; each one did what was pleasing in his own eyes. 5These are the commandments and judgments and testimonies and teachings that were given in the days of the judges of Israel, before a king ruled over them. Elkanah 49:1At that time the children of Israel began to make a request from the Lord, and they said, “Let all of

us cast lots to see who it is who can rule us as Cenaz did. For perhaps we will find a man who will free us from our distress, because it is not appropriate for the people to be without a ruler.” reasonably be said, other than Elijah, is Enoch (Gen. 5:24). But the Midrash and pseudepigraphic literature speak of others who also were translated without dying (e.g., Der. Er. Zut. 1:18). until I remember the world An expression L.A.B.’s author likes to use in end-time contexts (cf. L.A.B. 16:3; 26:13). 48:2. Phinehas went up Most likely, this refers to his ascension of the mountain. he anointed him For the “anointment” of the priests, see, for example, Exod. 40:13–15. 48:3. celebrating Passover The biblical narrative refers only to an “annual feast” ( Judg. 21:19). they instructed the children of Benjamin The author of L.A.B. leaves out the episode of Yavesh-Gilead ( Judg. 21:8–14), where a first group of wives is acquired for the Benjaminites. Gabaon According to the Bible, Gabaon was already a Benjaminite city by the end of Joshua’s tenure ( Josh. 21:17; cf. 1 Chron. 9:35). Did L.A.B.’s author forget? Perhaps he means, “they rebuilt Gabaon.” The Bible ( Judg. 21:23) simply says “built their towns.” 48:4. were at rest in the meantime A paraphrase of the repeated theme in Judges that, from time to time, a period of calm occurred in the land of Israel (e.g., 3:11, 30; cf. L.A.B. 33:6). 48:5. These are the commandments. . . given in the days of the judges This is meant to be a sort of formulaic conclusion to L.A.B.’s version of the book of Judges. Cf. the final verse of the book of Numbers (36:13): “These are the commandments and regulations that the Lord enjoined upon the Israelites.” L.A.B.’s author uses the formula even though his own re-creation of Judges has not included many commandments. 49:1. Let all of us cast lots The basic structure of this narrative is probably borrowed from the story of Achan at Josh. 7:14, where the selection by lot proceeds in several stages, but L.A.B.’s author innovates by introducing initial stages wherein God does not respond at all in order to emphasize God’s displeasure with the people. We cannot take this to be a “casting of lots” in the usual manner. For in that case (with a lot drawn or shaken from an urn), it seems impossible to fail to

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

581

2They cast the lot. When no one was found, the people were very sad and said, “The people were not worthy to be heard by the Lord, for he did not answer us. Now let us cast lots at least by tribes, in the hope that perhaps God is reconciled by a large group. For we will learn that God will be reconciled with those who seek him.” They cast the lot by tribes, and upon no tribe did the lot come forth. Israel said, “Let us choose on our own, for we are in straits. For we know that God loaths his people and his soul detests us.” 3A man by the name of Nethez answered and said to the people, “He does not hate us, but we made ourselves so hateful that God abandoned us. And so, even if we die, let us not abandon him, but let us take refuge in him. By walking in our evil ways we have not known him who created us, and so our plan will be in vain. But I know that God will not reject us forever, nor will he hate his people for all generations. Therefore be strong, and let us pray again, and let us cast lots by cities. For even if our sins are many, nevertheless his long-suffering will not fail.” 4They cast lots by cities, and Ramathaim came out in the lot. The people said, “So Ramathaim is more just than all the cities of Israel, for he has chosen it above all the cities.” And they said to each other, “In that city that came out in the lot let us cast a lot by men, and let us see whom the Lord chooses from it.” 5They cast the lot by men, and it indicated no one except Elkanah. Because the lot fell out upon him, the people took him and said, “Come, and be a leader for us.” Elkanah said to the people, “I cannot be a leader over this people, nor can I assess who could be a leader for you. But if my sins have caught up receive a response. Thus, we need to think of some inherently supernatural fashion of lottery, such as that described for the apportionment of the Land of Israel in Rabbinic writings (e.g., Yal. Shimoni 1:773, in which the lots themselves speak and announce the portions) In such cases, it is possible to envision no response whatsoever. Perhaps, however, L.A.B.’s author is referring not to lots in an urn—or at any rate, not only to lots in an urn—but rather to the Urim and Tummim. We have instances both in the Bible and Talmud where the Urim and Tummim were consulted, but no response was forthcoming (e.g., 1 Sam. 14:37; 28:6; B. Sot. 48b). 49:2. God is reconciled by a large group The point is that the initial lottery was targeted at individuals; this one will be directed toward a group (the tribe). The notion that God will be more responsive when a group rather than individuals are involved may reflect the talmudic statement that “God does not reject the prayer of the multitude” (B. Ber. 8a). 49:3. A man . . . answered The author of L.A.B. reiterates his (and the Bible’s) common theme of the lone voice who calls the people back to God. God will not reject us forever The central theme in L.A.B. Cf. Lam. 3:31. 49:5. except Elkanah As the subsequent narrative makes explicit, the selection of Elkanah is really the selection of his unborn son Samuel (L.A.B. 49:7). Thus, the author goes one step further than the biblical narrative, which foretells only the birth of a child to Hannah (1 Sam. 1:17), who as he grows up matures into a prophet of the Lord (3:19–21). When L.A.B.’s author has God foretell the role of Samuel well before his birth, he models Samuel after Jeremiah ( Jer. 1:5). His purpose was probably to elevate the stature of Samuel. I cannot be a leader The common biblical theme of the reluctant chosen leader or prophet. One thinks especially of Moses, Gideon, and Jeremiah. Of course, in our case the apparent designated leader is not in fact the real one. Interestingly, Rabbinic texts occasionally do give Elkanah something of an elevated status, for example in Tg. Jon. at 1 Sam. 1:1, which makes him a disciple of the prophets.

582 Howard Jacobson

with me so that the lot fell upon me, I will kill myself so that you will not defile me. For it is just that I should die only for my own sins rather than to bear the burden of the people.” 6The people saw that Elkanah was not willing to exercise leadership over them, and they prayed again to the Lord, saying, “Lord God of Israel, why have you abandoned your people at a time of their enemy’s victory, and in a time of trouble why have you neglected your portion? Behold even he who was indicated by the lot has not fulfilled your commands. But this man is the only one upon whom the lot fell out and we thought we would have a leader. But behold even he, it turns out, contends against the lot. Whom will we yet ask for? In whom will we take refuge? Where is the place of our rest? For if the covenant that you made with our fathers is true, saying, ‘I will multiply your seed’ and they will experience this, it would have been better to say to us then, ‘I am cutting off your seed,’ rather than that you should reject our root.” 7God said to them, “If I rendered unto you according to your evil deeds, I should pay no attention even to your seed. But what am I to do, for my name has come to be called upon you? Now know that Elkanah, upon whom the lot has fallen, cannot rule over you, but rather his son who will be born from him, he will rule over you and will prophesy. From this time on, a ruler will not be lacking from you for many years.” so that you will not defile me Here, Elkanah seems to recognize that he is a sinner, but only moderately so. His election puts him in a position to substantially worsen his sinner’s status, either through close association with the sinful people or because his position as ruler brings with it responsibility for the people’s sins (cf. Exod. Rab. 27:9, which asserts that appointment to the position of leader entails being held responsible—and indeed being punished—for the sins of the people). Faced with this prospect, Elkanah prefers death in his moderate state of sinfulness. Cf. perhaps the midrashic tradition that God ended Enoch’s life on earth so as to prevent him from being further corrupted by his society (Gen. Rab. 25:1). bear the burden of the people The expression may recall Moses at Num. 11:11. Moses prefers to die rather than to bear the burden of leadership of the people. Cf. to Moses’s words at Num. 11:14– 15; Deut. 1:9, 12. 49:7. what am I to do? God declares that if he were to behave toward Israel as they deserve, he would pay no heed to their prayers. But this he cannot do, because of his special relation with them. for my name has come to be called upon you That God refuses to treat Israel according to their deserts is a common theme. That he so acts out of regard for the fact that Israel is called after his name is already explicit at Dan. 9:18–19. Indeed, it may be the point at I Sam 12:22. but rather his son . . . will rule Certainly an echo, possibly a significant one, of God’s words to David at 1 Kings 8:19 (“you shall not build the House yourself; instead, your son, the issue of your loins, shall”). Other apparent allusions to David and his line in the following narrative suggest that the echo of this verse in L.A.B. is more than a casual verbal reminiscence. a ruler will not be lacking From Gen. 49:10. Particularly noteworthy is that this verse from Genesis is commonly taken by the Rabbis as a reference to the dynasty of David (including the messiah).122

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

583

8The people said, “Behold, Lord, Elkanah has ten sons. Which of them will rule and prophesy?” God said, “None of the sons of Peninnah can rule the people, but the one born from the sterile woman whom I gave to him as a wife will be a prophet before me. I will love him as I loved Isaac, and his name will be before me always.” The people said, “Behold perhaps now God has remembered us to rescue us from the hand of our enemies.” On that day they made sacrifices, peace offerings, and rejoiced according to their customs. Hannah and Eli 50:1Elkanah had two wives. The name of one was Hannah, and the name of the other was Peninnah.

Because Peninnah had sons and Hannah did not, Peninnah mocked her, saying, “What does it profit you that Elkanah your husband loves you, but you are a dry tree? I know that my husband will love me, because he delights in the sight of my sons standing around him like a plantation of olive trees.” 2And so she would mock her daily, and Hannah was very dismayed, but she was God-fearing from 49:8. Elkanah has ten sons The Bible tells us only that Peninnah had children (1 Sam. 1:2). At 1 Sam. 1:8, Elkanah says to Hannah, “Am I not better for you than ten sons?” This however does not mean that he had 10 sons. The account in L.A.B. is an inference from the biblical verse and is paralleled in midrashic texts (e.g., Pesik. Rab. 43123). Which of them will rule and prophesy? The problem of choosing one son out of many to be leader also derives from the biblical tale of the selection of David. God tells Samuel to anoint one of the sons of Jesse as king; Samuel has problems in choosing the correct one. In the end, as here, the youngest is chosen (in L.A.B., still unborn). See 1 Sam.16:1–13. whom I gave to him as a wife Again, L.A.B.’s author emphasizes the divine hand in the birth and role of Samuel. I will love him as I loved Isaac The comparison of Samuel to Isaac is due to the similar contexts of their births, both being born to a beloved wife long sterile. The Midrash also makes comparisons between the two; for example, like Sarah, the sterile Hannah gives her husband another woman to produce children for him (Pesik. Rab. 43124); or both Sarah and Hannah become pregnant on New Year’s day (B. RH 11a). 50:1. you are a dry tree An echo of Isa. 56:3. In Isaiah too the expression is a metaphor for human sterility. standing around him like a plantation of olive trees A clear recollection of Ps. 128:3. That L.A.B.’s author should choose to apply this verse in the story of Hannah is not surprising, since the preceding part of the verse (“your wife shall be like a fruitful vine”) was used by the Rabbis of Sarah (Tanhuma [Buber] 1:52b), and possibly of Hannah herself (Midr. Sam. 2 [Buber] 24b125). 50:2. she would mock her daily The Bible is not quite so extreme, indicating that Peninnah’s taunts were an annual affair (1 Sam. 1:7). But the Midrash also emphasizes the daily and repeated nature of her taunts.126 she was God-fearing from her youth The Bible says nothing of Hannah’s piety or character in general. The Hannah in L.A.B. may remind us of Judith, who is also described as “God-fearing” ( Jdt. 8:29: “You are holy and God-fearing”; my translation). The Midrash uses the same language of Hannah, calling her one of those who feared God (Pesik. Rab. 43127).

584 Howard Jacobson

her youth. When the holiday of Passover approached and her husband went up to sacrifice, Peninnah insulted Hannah, saying, “A wife is not beloved even if her husband loves her or her beauty. Let Hannah not glory in her appearance; but she who glories, let her glory when she sees her offspring before her. When for a woman there will not thus be present the fruit of her womb, love will be in vain. For what did it profit Rachel that Jacob loved her? Had not the fruit of her womb been given her, his love would have been in vain.” When Hannah heard these words, her soul grew faint and it was poured out in tears. 3Her husband saw her and said, “Why are you dismayed? Why do you not eat? Why does your heart become despondent within you? Is not your character worth more than the ten sons of Peninnah?” Hannah listened to him, and she rose up after she ate and came to Shiloh to the house of the Lord, where Eli the priest abode whom Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest had appointed, as he had been commanded. 4Hannah prayed and said, “Did you not, Lord, examine the heart of all generations before you formed the world? Now what womb is born opened or dies closed unless you wish it? Now let my prayer ascend before you today so that I do not go down from here empty-handed, for you know my heart, how I have walked before you from the days of my youth.” 5Hannah did not want to pray out loud as all people do. For then she took thought, saying, “Perhaps I am not worthy to be heard, and Peninnah in her envy of me will mock me more, just as she daily says, ‘Where is your God in whom you trust?’ I know that neither is the woman who has many sons The holiday of Passover The Bible merely indicates that the occasion was an annual holiday (1 Sam. 1:3). The Midrash gives differing opinions as to the specific holiday, suggesting Passover (Ag. Ber. 29:60) or Shavuot (Midr. Sam. 1 [Buber] 23b). her beauty The biblical narrative gives no indication that Hannah was prettier than Peninnah. The author of L.A.B. adopts the motif from another pair of wives, a barren but beloved one, and a fertile but unloved one. The former, Rachel, is described as prettier (Gen. 29:17). Rachel is explicitly mentioned as Hannah’s parallel several lines below. let her glory when she sees her offspring This recalls the talmudic opinion that a childless person is as good as dead (B. Ned. 64b). 50:3. Is not your character worth more than the ten sons To emphasize Hannah’s piety, the author of L.A.B. significantly revises his biblical source (1 Sam. 1:8b), in which Elkanah says, “Am I not better for you than ten sons?” L.A.B. is concerned to emphasize Hannah’s piety. Nearly the same point is made by Sirach when he asserts that one son who fears God and does God’s will is better than many children (Sir. 16:2–3). 50:4. Did you not, Lord, examine the heart of all generations before you formed the world? That God’s foreknowledge was complete even before he created the world is a common theme. let my prayer ascend In spite of the frequency with which people extend their hands or direct their eyes heavenward when in prayer, texts that speak explicitly of prayer “ascending” are not as common. For an example, see Exod. 2:23 (with Sifre Deut. 26128). See also the comment on L.A.B. 40:5, May my words go forth to the heavens. 50:5. Where is your God in whom you trust? The traditional jibe of Israel’s enemies,129 here brought down to the level of the pious individual. neither is the woman who has many sons rich The theme that piety, rather than many children, is what really matters, is also played on by Sirach (16:1–4).

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

585

rich nor is she who has few poor, but whoever abounds in the good will of God is rich. If anyone will know what I have prayed for and will learn that I am not heard in my prayer, he will blaspheme. My soul will not be my only witness, but my tears also will be, tears that are the ministers of my prayers.” 6While she was praying, Eli the priest saw that she was afflicted in spirit and acting like a drunken woman, and he said to her, “Go and remove your wine from yourself.” She said, “Is my prayer so heard that I am called a drunken woman? I am drunk with sorrow, and I have drunk the cup of my weeping.” 7Eli the priest said to her, “Tell me of your shame.” She said to him, “I am the wife of Elkanah; and because God has shut up my womb, I prayed before him that I do not go forth to him from this world without offspring and that I do not die without leaving my image.” Eli the priest said to her, “Go, because I know for what you have prayed; your prayer has been heard.” 8But Eli the priest did not want to tell her that a prophet had been foretold to be born from her. For he had heard, when the Lord spoke concerning him. Hannah came to her house, and her grief was softened, but she told no one what she had prayed. The Birth of Samuel and Hannah’s Song 51:1In those days she conceived and bore a son and called his name Samuel, which means “mighty,” in

accord with what God had called his name when he prophesied about him. Hannah stayed and nursed If anyone will know . . . he will blaspheme The end result of her praying out loud—if her prayer goes unanswered—could be the maligning of God. Hannah avoids doing something that may bring discredit upon God. The notion of hillul ha-Shem, the profanation of God’s name, is common in Rabbinic literature but already present in the Bible (e.g., 2 Sam. 12:14). my tears also will be Perhaps meaning that, since Hannah wants to avoid anyone hearing her prayer, she will pray silently and thus her soul will be the only witness to her prayer, and her tears the only evidence. tears that are the ministers of my prayers With no spoken words to convey Hannah’s prayers, they are transmitted, so to speak, through her tears. The association of tears and prayer is common (e.g., Ps. 39:13), including the notion of unspoken prayer expressed through tears. 50:7. Tell me of your shame In contrast to L.A.B., the Bible never mentions prayer or the nature of Hannah’s problem in the dialogue between Hannah and Eli. I am the wife of Elkanah The biblical Hannah does not identify herself. Of particular note here is that she identifies herself not by her own name but as her husband’s wife. I do not go forth to him The language is striking and unexpected. The author of L.A.B. presumably alludes to the idea that the soul or the spirit returns to God upon the demise of the person (Eccles. 12:7; cf. Pirke R. El. 34, where Ecclesiastes’s “spirit, breath” becomes “soul”; cf. also 4 Ezra 7:78). 51:1. in accord with what God had called his name Since Hannah did not know of God’s prophecy, we must assume—if we wish to be logical—that someone (e.g., Eli) told her after the birth of the child that God had already given him a name. That God had already named the child in his prophecies does not accord with L.A.B.’s narrative at 49:7–8, but is found in the Midrash (see Midr. Sam. 3 [Buber] 26b).

586

Howard Jacobson

the infant until he was two years old. When she had weaned him, she went up with him and carried gifts in her hands. The child was very handsome, and the Lord was with him. 2Hannah placed the boy before Eli and said to him, “This is the desire I desired, and this is the request I sought.” Eli said to her, “You have not asked alone, but the people have prayed for this. This is not your request alone, but it had been promised previously to the tribes. Through this boy your womb has been privileged so that you might provide profit for the people and establish the milk of your breasts as a fountain for the twelve tribes.” 3On hearing this Hannah prayed and said, “Attend to my voice, all you nations, and listen to my speech, all you kingdoms, because my mouth has been opened that I should speak and my lips have been commanded to sing praise to the Lord. Drip, my breasts, and relate your testimonies, because you have been commanded to give suck. For he who is milked from you will be established, and the people will be enlightened by his words, and he will show statutes to the nations, and his horn will be very much exalted. 4And so I will speak my words openly, because from me will arise the ordinance of the Lord, and all men will find the truth. Do not hurry to speak boastfully or to bring forth from your mouth lofty words, but delight in praise, for the light from which wisdom will be born will come forth, that not those who until he was two years old The Midrash too says that Samuel was two years old when his mother brought him to Shiloh (Midr. Sam. 3 [Buber] 27a). The child was very handsome, and the Lord was with him The Bible says nothing about the young Samuel’s physical appearance, although at 1 Sam. 3:19, we learn that “the Lord was with him.” Since this same expression is used of David (1 Sam. 16:18) and Joseph (Gen. 39:3) L.A.B.’s author was probably influenced by the descriptions of David and Joseph’s appearance to add physical beauty to Samuel’s traits. 51:2. your womb has been privileged A variation on a talmudic theme in which Hannah complains that, if she has no child, the breasts that God gave her are purposeless (B. Ber. 31b). The author of L.A.B. uses womb rather than breast. the milk of your breasts as a fountain Cf. the Midrash’s interpretation of “two breasts” (Cant. 4:5) as referring to Moses and Aaron, whose milk was the Torah that they provided to Israel (Shir. Rab. 4:12). The metaphorical use of fountains and springs is common (e.g., Isa. 66:12; Jer. 2:13). 51:3. Hannah prayed Hannah’s hymn in L.A.B. has little to do with her hymn at 1 Sam. 2. Drip, my breasts, and relate your testimonies Perhaps meaning that Hannah’s unexpected status as a nursing mother is a testimony to God’s goodness and power. his horn will be very much exalted The expression “exalted horn” is regular in the Bible. It is in fact used of David, God’s anointed one (Ps. 89:21, 25). Here, however, it is taken from Hannah’s biblical hymn, where it is used once of Hannah herself (1 Sam. 2:1, lit. “My horn is high”), and once of “His anointed one” (1 Sam. 2:10, lit. “He will give power to His king / And will raise the horn of His anointed one; cf. L.A.B. 51:6). But nothing in the adaptation by L.A.B.’s author suggests anything other than that he refers here to Samuel in his prophetic role. 51:4. all men will find the truth Not necessarily implying the universal recognition of God. The “truth” of which Hannah speaks may refer simply to her ensuing remarks, that is, that money does not constitute true wealth, that God punishes the wicked, and so on. the light from which wisdom will be born The association of “light” and “wisdom” is common. Bib-

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

587

possess many things will be called rich, nor those who have borne in abundance will be called mothers. For the sterile one has been satisfied in childbearing, but she who had many children is wretched. 5For the Lord kills with righteous judgment, and brings to life with mercy. For the unjust exist in this world, but he brings the just to life when he wishes. The unjust he will shut up in darkness, but for the just he saves his light. When the unjust have died, then they will perish. After the just have slept, then they will be delivered. So will every judgment endure, until he who holds power be revealed. 6Speak, speak, Hannah, do not be silent. Sing praise, daughter of Batuel, about your miracles that God has performed for you. Who is Hannah that a prophet is born from her? Or who is the daughter of Batuel that she should bear a light to the people? Rise up, you also, Elkanah, and gird your loins. Sing praise about the wonders of the Lord, for Asaph prophesied in the wilderness about your son, saying, ‘Moses and Aaron were among his priests, and Samuel was among them.’ Behold the word has been fulfilled, and the prophecy has come to pass. These words will endure until the horn is given to

lical texts already provide the foundation (Prov. 6:23, Eccles. 2:13). See also Wis. 7:29–30; 18:4. Philo calls wisdom “shining” (e.g., at Planting 40). 51:5. the Lord kills Here L.A.B.’s author expands the brief mentions of God as wielder of life and death, and his relation to the good and the wicked at 1 Sam. 2:6, 9 into an account of the afterlife. The targum’s expansion of Hannah’s song also introduces material of this sort (see 2:6, 8–9). the unjust exist in this world If the text is correct, the point must be that the wicked have a real existence only in this world, in contrast to the righteous, who will enjoy the fruits of another world and another life. The unjust he will shut up in darkness That the wicked ultimately suffer darkness, in contrast to the righteous, is a common idea in extrabiblical sources as well (cf., e.g., Sifre Num. 40, where the “darkness” at 1 Sam. 2:9 is taken to refer to Hell130). for the just he saves his light That light, which is God’s reward for the righteous, goes back to Ps. 97:11. 51:6. daughter of Batuel Hannah’s father is not elsewhere mentioned. for Asaph prophesied in the wilderness The mysterious Asaph is mentioned in the book of Psalms several times as the author of a number of the psalms. But Ps. 99, which the author of L.A.B. proceeds to quote here as the words of Asaph, is not one of them. Several elements will have conspired here. First, L.A.B.’s author wants to enhance Samuel’s stature by having his existence and role foretold many centuries earlier and documented in a biblical text. Second, some of the psalms attributed to Asaph treat events of the desert (Ps. 77; 78). Third, at 2 Chron. 29:30, Asaph is called a prophet. Gathering all these threads together, L.A.B.’s author could manufacture an Asaph who lived at the time of the desert wanderings and foretold the life of Samuel. The Midrash too contains a view that Asaph lived at the time of the desert wanderings (Shir. Rab. 4:3). Samuel was among them Samuel is not a priest in the book of Samuel. These words will endure Apparently meaning that Samuel’s leadership of the people will continue until the coronation of Saul. until the horn is given to his anointed one Some strands of midrashic exegesis take the biblical verse on which this is based (1 Sam. 2:10) to refer to a historical king (David or Solomon: see Exod. Rab. 1:17; 27:4). The author of L.A.B. seems to be referring to Saul, though David is possible.

588

Howard Jacobson

his anointed one and power be present at the throne of his king. Let my son stay here and serve until he becomes a light for this nation.” 7They departed thence and set out with gladness, rejoicing and exulting in heart over all the glory that God had brought about for them. The people came down to Shiloh together with timbrels and dances, lutes and harps, and they came to Eli the priest and presented Samuel to him. They stood Samuel before the Lord, anointed him, and said, “May the prophet live forever, and may he be a light to this nation for a long time!” The Sons of Eli 52:1Samuel was a very young child and knew nothing of these things. While he was serving before the

Lord, the two sons of Eli did not walk in the ways of their fathers and began to do wicked things to the people and multiplied their own iniquities. They resided near the sanctuary, and when the people assembled to sacrifice, Hophni and Phinehas came and provoked the people to anger by seizing their sacrificial offerings before they were offered as holy to the Lord. 2This was pleasing neither to the Lord nor to the people nor to their father. And so their father said to them, “What is this report that I hear about you? Do you not know that I received this position from Phinehas as a pledge? If we wear down what we received, what shall we say if he who entrusted it asks for it back and should vex us over that which he committed to us? Now straighten out your ways and walk in good ways, and your actions will endure. But if you refuse and do not restrain your wicked devices, you will destroy yourselves, and the priesthood will be in vain and what has been sanctified will be reckoned at nought. Then people will say, ‘Did the staff of Aaron flower in vain, has the flower born of it come down to nothing?’ 3And so while you still can, my sons, correct what you have done sinfully, and the men against whom you have sinned will pray for you. But if you are not willing and you persist in your wickedness, I will his anointed one This expression (“God’s anointed one”) is used of both Saul (e.g., 1 Sam. 24:7) and David (2 Sam. 19:22). 51:7. They departed thence This lengthy section is similar to and probably derived from the account of Solomon’s coronation at 1 Kings 1:33–40. They . . . anointed him The notion of anointing a prophet is unusual, but the Bible contains at least one good parallel (1 Kings 19:16, of Elijah’s anointing Elisha as his successor). 52:2. I received this position from Phinehas as a pledge We are dealing with an elaborate metaphor. The priesthood is a deposit, a pledge that is entrusted to the individual (or the family) by God. The individual has an obligation to preserve it well, for it does not really belong to him; he is its guardian. God has the right to expect that it will be maintained in its pristine condition. Otherwise, he may take it back and punish the delinquent guardian. The Rabbis occasionally made use of “deposit” metaphors, particularly of the soul.131 he who entrusted it More than likely the reference is to God, not to Phinehas. He has been gone for some time (48:1–3). Did the staff of Aaron flower in vain The author is alluding to the episode where Aaron is selected by the trial of the rods (Num. 17:17–26). 52:3. the men against whom you have sinned will pray for you That the fate of the sinner depends to some extent upon the person against whom he sins is a biblical notion (see, e.g., Exod. 22:26;

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

589

be guiltless and will only grieve lest perchance I hear of the day of your death before I die. But even if this happens, I will be free of guilt; and though I grieve, nevertheless you will perish.” 4But his sons did not listen, because the Lord had passed judgment about them that they should die, because they had sinned. For when he said to them, “Turn from your evil ways,” they would say, “When we grow old, then we will turn away.” Because of this, though they were warned by their father, they were not permitted to turn, because they were always rebellious and acting very unjustly in despoiling Israel. The Lord was angry at Eli. Samuel and the Divine Voice 53:1Samuel was serving before the Lord, and did not yet know what the words of the Lord were. He

had not yet heard the words of the Lord. He was eight years old. 2When God took note of Israel, he wished to reveal to Samuel his words. Samuel was sleeping in the temple of the Lord. When God was about to call to him, he planned it out first and said, “Behold now, the youth Samuel, though he is beloved before me, nonetheless because he has not yet heard the voice or the speech of the Lord, he is not secure. Nevertheless he is like my servant Moses. I spoke to Moses as an eighty-year old, but Samuel is eight years old. Moses saw the fire first, and his heart was afraid. If Samuel should see fire now, how will he endure? And so now a voice will come to him like that of a man, and not like that of God. When he has understood, then I will speak to him like God.” 3At midnight a voice from heaven called him. Samuel awoke and recognized it as the voice of Eli the priest, and he ran to him and said, “Why did you awaken me, Father? I was afraid, because you never called me at night.” Eli said, ‘Woe is me! Has an impure spirit led my son Samuel astray?” And he said Deut. 24:15). But the Rabbinic treatment is closer to L.A.B.’s, emphasizing that a sin committed against a fellow human being can only be atoned for through forgiveness on the latter’s part (e.g., M. Yoma 8:9). 52:4. When we grow old, then we will turn away The Talmud holds that one who says “I will sin and later repent” is not given the opportunity to repent (B. Yoma 85b). Other exegetes, like the author of L.A.B., attempted to understand why the biblical text asserts that God desired to kill Eli’s sons (I Sam. 2:25). In L.A.B., the author attributes to the sons this unacceptable attitude about sin and repentance; the Rabbis chose alternative explanations (e.g., Sifre Num. 42132). The Lord was angry at Eli Nothing before this suggests any reason for God’s anger with Eli, nor does L.A.B.’s author follow it up in any way. 53:1. He was eight years old The claim that Samuel first received God’s word at age eight seems to be unique to L.A.B. 53:2. Moses saw the fire first, and his heart was afraid The Rabbis used the same theme in their treatment of God’s initial encounter with Moses, namely, that he took pains to reveal himself to Moses in a way that would not terrify him (Exod. Rab. 3:1). a voice will come to him like that of a man This is pretty much the strategy of God with Moses at Exod. Rab. 3:1. 53:3. Father Samuel calls Eli “Father,” corresponding to Eli’s referring to Samuel as “my son.” The latter is biblical (1 Sam. 3:6, 16). an impure spirit The notions of “spirit of impurity” and “evil spirit” go back to the Bible (e.g., Zech.

590 Howard Jacobson

to him, “Go, sleep. For I did not call you. Nevertheless, tell me this, if you remember: How often did he who summoned you call?” He said, “Twice.” Eli said to him, “Tell me, whose voice did you recognize, my son?” He said, “Yours. Therefore I ran to you.” 4Eli said, “In you I see this sign that men will have from today on forever, that if one should call to another twice by night or in midday, they will know that it is an evil spirit. But if he should call again a third time, they will know that it is an angel.” And Samuel went away and slept. 5A second time he heard a voice from heaven, and he rose up and ran to Eli and said to him, “Who called me? For I heard the voice of my father Elkanah.” Then Eli understood that God had begun to call him. And Eli said, “With the two voices by which God called to you, he was like a father and a master; now the third time he will be like God.” 6He said to him, “With your right ear pay attention, with your left be deaf. For Phinehas the priest commanded us, saying, ‘The right ear hears the Lord by night, but the left an angel.’ And so if you hear with your right ear, say, ‘Speak what you wish, because I am listening, for you fashioned me.’ But if you hear with your left ear, come and tell me.” Samuel went away and slept as Eli had commanded him. 7The Lord spoke again, a third time, and the right ear of Samuel was filled. When he realized that the word of his father had come down, Samuel turned on his other side and said, “If I am worthy, speak; for you know more than I.” 8God said to him, “I revealed myself to the house of lsrael in Egypt and chose for myself then as a prophet Moses my servant and did wonders through him for my people and took vengeance on my enemies as I wished. I led my people in the wilderness and enlightened them, as they saw. 13:2; 1 Sam. 16:14). They appear rather frequently in Rabbinic texts, the pseudepigrapha, and the New Testament (e.g., Mark 1:26; Rev. 18:2). 53:4. if one should call . . . twice One can detect here the not uncommon belief that odd numbers are lucky, even numbers unlucky; see, for example, Virgil, Ecl. 8.75; B. Pes. 109b–110b. In the latter lengthy disquisition, the king of the demons is said to be in charge of even numbers (110a). 53:5. Then Eli understood Eli’s realization does not come in the biblical narrative until the third time (1 Sam. 3:8). Thus, while the Bible has four occasions where God calls on Samuel, L.A.B. has only three (see L.A.B. 53:7). Perhaps this has to do with the lucky nature of the number three, as noted above. 53:6. right ear . . . left ear This passage on the right and left ears is mysterious, but the most illuminating clue to its origin comes from the realm of magic. In a magical text that gives instructions on how to receive prophecy, the individual is told to prepare a certain kind of ink and then to put a little of it into his right ear as he speaks his invocation.133 53:7. turned on his other side Once again, this probably has to do with magic. A magical papyrus instructs the person who seeks to receive a prophecy to lie on his right side.134 53:8. God said to him God’s speech to Samuel is built upon God’s words (through his emissary) to Eli at 1 Sam. 2:27, wherein God looks back to the captivity in Egypt and tells of his choice of the priestly line.

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

591

9When tribe rose up against tribe, saying, ‘Why are the priests alone holy?’, I did not want to destroy them and I said to them, ‘Each one of you, give his staff, and the one whose staff will flower, him I have chosen for the priesthood.’ When all had given the staffs as I had commanded, then I commanded that the staff of Aaron should flower in order that his family be established all the days. Now those who have flowered have defiled my sanctuary. 10Therefore behold the time will come, and I will put an end to the flower that was born then and will attack them who transgress the word that I commanded Moses my servant, saying, ‘If you come upon a bird’s nest, do not take the mother with the young.’ Therefore it will befall them that mothers will die with daughters and fathers will perish with sons.” 11When Samuel heard these words, his heart grew faint, and he said, “Will it thus fall to my youth that I should begin to prophesy with the destruction of my educator? And now why was I given in answer to my mother’s prayer? Why has the one who sustains me commanded me to bear evil tidings?” 12Samuel arose in the morning and did not want to tell Eli. Eli said to him, “Listen now, my son. Behold, before you were born God promised Israel that he would send you to them and that you would prophesy. Then when your mother came here and prayed, because she did not know what had happened, I said to her, ‘Go, for what will be born from you will be a son for me.’ So I spoke to your mother and so has the Lord prospered your way. Even should you chastise the one who has brought you up, do not, as surely as the Lord lives, hide from me whatever you have heard.” 13Then Samuel was afraid and told him all the words that he had heard. And that one said, “Will the object formed answer back him who formed it? So I cannot answer back when he, the faithful giver, wishes to take away what he has given. Holy is he who has prophesied; I am under his power.” 53:9. When tribe rose up against tribe The author refers here to the episode of Korah and its aftermath in Num. 16–17. I did not want to destroy them In the biblical narrative, God is on the verge of destroying the people, but Moses and Aaron prevent this from happening (Num. 16:20–22; 17:9–15). that his family be established all the days The flowering of the rod reveals that Aaron and his line have been chosen for the priesthood. 53:10. them who transgress the word that I commanded L.A.B. is not the only text that apparently connects Eli’s sons with the law of Deut. 22:6 (“do not take the mother together with her young”). In the introductory sections of Midr. Sam. 7 (Buber) 33a, immediately preceding the treatment of the sins of Eli’s sons and Eli’s rebuke of them, there is a discussion of the law of the bird’s nest and that of filial devotion. Although the connection is not made explicit, the discussion is surely tied to the disobedience of Eli’s sons. Whether L.A.B.’s author means the reference to the transgression to be taken literally of Eli’s sons is not clear. mothers will die with daughters and fathers will perish with sons The second clause may be taken as referring to the death of Eli and his two sons on the same day (1 Sam. 4:17–18). The first clause presumably serves to provide the necessary basis for the second, since the nest injunction is about the mother bird. There is no mother-daughter (or mother-son) death in the Eli episode (though Eli’s daughter-in-law dies in childbirth on the same day: 1 Sam. 4:20; L.A.B. 54:6). 53:12. what will be born from you will be a son for me The language is taken from God’s words to David about his future son Solomon (2 Sam. 7:12–14). 53:13. Samuel was afraid The text in L.A.B. echoes the biblical phrasing (1 Sam. 3:15) in precisely the

592 Howard Jacobson

The Capture of the Ark 54:1In those days the Philistines assembled their camp to fight against Israel. The children of Israel went

out to fight against them. When the people of Israel were put to flight in the first battle, they said, “Let us bring up the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and perhaps he will fight with us, because in it are the testimonies of the Lord that he established with our fathers on Horeb.” 2When the ark went up with them and arrived at the camp, the Lord thundered and said, “This hour will be like that which occurred in the wilderness when they took the ark without my command, and destruction resulted for them. So also in this hour the people will fall and the ark will be captured so that I will destroy the enemies of my people on account of the ark and chastise my people because they have sinned.” 3When the ark had come into the battle, the Philistines went out to meet the children of Israel and smote them. There was there a man, Goliath the Philistine, and he came up to the ark. Hophni and Phinehas the sons of Eli and Saul the son of Kish were holding the ark. Goliath grabbed it with his left hand and killed Hophni and Phinehas. 4But Saul, because he was swift of foot, fled from him. He tore his garments and put ashes on his head. He came to Eli the priest, and Eli said to him, “Tell me what happened in the camp.” Saul said to him, “Why do you ask me this? For the people are overcome, and God has abandoned Israel, and even the priests have been killed by the sword, and the ark has been delivered to the Philistines.” 5But when Eli had heard of the capture of the ark, he said, “Behold, Samuel prophesied about my opposite context, for the biblical text connects Samuel’s fear to his reluctance to tell Eli, while L.A.B.’s author makes it his motivation for telling Eli. 54:2. the Lord thundered and said The Midrash also introduces an angry speech by God when the ark is conveyed to the battlefield (S. Eli. Rab. 12135). which occurred in the wilderness This must allude to Num. 14:39–45. But in Numbers precisely the opposite occurs: the ark does not go out to the battlefield, but is explicitly said to remain behind in the camp. Nonetheless, Rabbinic exegesis enables us to understand the version in L.A.B. The Rabbis asserted that there were actually two arks in the desert, one that would always remain in the camp, the other that would go out before the people in campaigns (T. Sot. 7:18136; J. Shek. 6:1, 49c). Indeed, the talmudic text appears to imply that the events in Num. 14 were an example of this. The author of L.A.B. has then created an embellished version in which the first ark remains in the tent (as at Num. 14:44), while the second is taken out to the battlefield against God’s will. I will destroy the enemies of my people Even when the People Israel sin and God punishes them for their sins, the punishment becomes an avenue to effect the destruction of their enemies. Here, L.A.B.’s author refers to the events of 1 Sam. 5. 54:3. Goliath the Philistine The introduction of Goliath and Saul into this episode is midrashic (Midr. Sam. 11 [Buber] 39b). with his left hand Clearly so as to leave his right hand available to kill the two men. 54:4. the priests have been killed by the sword Although the biblical text says nothing of the manner of their death, the LXX and the Qumran text at 1 Sam. 2:33 (the prophecy to Eli) both say that the priests will fall “by the sword of men.” 54:5. prophesied about my sons The contrast between Eli’s reception of the report about his sons and that concerning the Ark, while implicit in the Bible, is made explicit in L.A.B., as in Josephus (Ant. 5.358–59).

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

593

sons and about me that we should die together, but he did not mention the ark to me then. And now the tablets have been delivered to our enemies. What can I still say? Behold Israel is utterly ruined, for the statutes have been taken away from it.” When Eli was greatly despairing, he fell from his seat. There died on one day Eli and his sons Hophni and Phinehas. 6The wife of Phinehas sat down to give birth. When she heard these things, all her insides became loose. The midwife said to her, “Be strong, and let not your soul grow faint, because a son is born to you.” The woman said to her, “Behold now this one person is born and four of us die, that is, the father and the two sons and his daughter-in-law.” She called his name Ichabod, saying, “Glory is lost from Israel, because the ark of the Lord has been captured.” When she had said this, her spirit departed. The Return of the Ark 55:1Now Samuel knew nothing of all these matters, because three days before the battle God had sent

him off, saying to him, “Go and see Ramathaim where your dwelling will be.” When Samuel heard what had happened to Israel, he came and prayed to the Lord, saying, “Behold now, in vain is understanding kept hidden from me, that I should see the destruction of my people. Now I fear lest perhaps my days be brought to an end in suffering and my years be concluded in sorrow. When the ark of the Lord is not with me, why should I go on living?” 2The Lord said to him, “Do not be sad, Samuel, because the ark has been taken away. I will bring it back, and I will overthrow those who took it away, and I will avenge my people from my enemies.” Samuel said, “Behold even if you do take vengeance in time, in accord with your long-suffering, nevertheless what will we who die now do?” God said to him, “Before you die, you will see the destruction that I will bring upon my enemies, wherein the Philistines will be destroyed by mice and all kinds of savage creeping things and will perish.” 3When the Philistines had set up the captured ark of the Lord in the temple of Dagon, their god, and when they had come to inquire of Dagon concerning their fate, they found that he had fallen on 54:6. Ichabod Meaning “there is no glory” (1 Sam. 4:21). 55:1. three days before the battle God had sent him off This entire brief episode, with no basis in the biblical narrative, has a remarkable parallel in a midrashic story about Jeremiah: God concocts a pretext to send Jeremiah out of Jerusalem to his hometown and then proceeds to destroy the city. When the prophet discovers the truth, he complains to God (Pesik. Rav Kah. 13; Pesik. Rab. 26).137 Here God sends Samuel from Shiloh to his hometown and in his absence causes the army to be defeated and the Ark taken into captivity. God had sent him off This recalls God’s motivation in L.A.B. for keeping Moses out of the Promised Land, namely, that he not witness the moral corruption of Israel (19:6). Samuel is removed from this scene so as not to witness the physical destruction of Israel. 55:2. even if you do take vengeance As elsewhere in L.A.B., the issue of God’s long-term justice is confronted by the shortness of human life (e.g., L.A.B. 39:5). 55:3. when they had come to inquire of Dagon concerning their fate The biblical account gives no explanation for the Philistines’ presence in the temple in the morning. Josephus has them come to worship (Ant. 6.1). The author’s strange innovation in L.A.B. may reflect his awareness of the oracular reputation of Philistine deities (see 2 Kings 1:2; cf. Isa. 2:6).

594 Howard Jacobson

his face and his hands and feet were lying before the ark. Early in the morning they went out and crucified his priests. The next day they came and found it as the day before [blank] and there was very much death among them. 4The Philistines gathered in Ekron and said to each other, “Behold now we see that destruction is great among us, and the fruit of our womb will perish because the creeping things that have been sent upon us will destroy pregnant women and sucklings and those who give suck.” They said, “Let us see why the hand of the Lord has been strong upon us. Is it not because of the ark, for our god is found daily falling on his face before the ark? And we have killed the priests more than once to no avail.” 5The wise men of the Philistines said, “Behold now we can determine this, whether the Lord has sent destruction upon us on account of his ark or a fitting power has come upon us in a timely fashion. 6Now because all pregnant and nursing women die, and those who nurse are made childless and those who are nursed perish, let us take cows that give suck and yoke them to a new cart and put the ark on it and shut up the cows’ young. If the cows will go forth in such a way as not to turn back to their young, we will know that we have suffered these things on account of the ark. But if they refuse to go forth out of longing for their calves, we will know that the time of ruin has come upon us.” 7Some of the wise men and diviners answered, “Let us not try only this, but let us set the cows at the head of the three roads that are by Ekron. The middle road goes straight to Ekron, the right-hand one to Judaea, and the left-hand one to Samaria. If they set out on the right-hand road and go straight to they crucified his priests No punishment is inflicted upon Dagon’s priests in the biblical narrative. 55:4. will destroy pregnant women Here and at L.A.B. 55:6 we are told that the plague (of crawling creatures) afflicts pregnant and nursing women and their infants. This is remarkable. The biblical account reports three things: widespread death among the Philistines, young and old (1 Sam. 5:9, 11); a symptom called “tumors” (1 Sam. 5:6, 12); and mice who were ravaging the land (1 Sam. 6:5). These are pretty much absent in L.A.B. On the other hand, L.A.B.’s emphasis on pregnant women and nursing mothers is absent in the Bible. 55:6. If the cows . . . we will know This is not spelled out in the biblical narrative, but must be the underlying rationale. the time of ruin has come upon us This makes clear what is slightly ambiguous at L.A.B. 55:5 and 55:7, namely, that in the Philistines’ minds the worse of the two possibilities is that God and his Ark are not responsible for their troubles. The author’s innovation here is remarkable, for it completely reverses the presentation in the Bible, where the Philistines show much less anxiety over this possibility (1 Sam. 6:9). Yet the version in L.A.B. is understandable. If their suffering is God’s doing, the Philistines recognize that they can end it by returning the Ark and making atonement to God. That is why they rejoice (L.A.B. 55:9) when they see that the cows do head for Judaea. If the cows had refused to go forward, indicating that the afflictions did not come from God, the Philistines would have no explanation for their suffering and no means to end it. 55:7. the head of the three roads Josephus (Ant. 6.11) also sets the scene at a triple fork in the road. The choice of a crossroads for this sort of trial is not surprising (cf. Ezek. 21:26), since in the popular imagination crossroads were felt to have magical powers. right-hand one to Judaea, and the left-hand one to Samaria The traditional orientation, with “left” meaning north and “right” south (e.g., Gen. 13:9). to Samaria While this may not be anti-Samaritan polemic, it surely reflects the anachronistic (from

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

595

Judaea, we will know that truly the God of the Jews has destroyed us. But if they go forth by those other roads, we will know that a hard time has come upon us inasmuch as now we have denied our own gods.” 8The Philistines took cows that were nursing and yoked them to a new cart and put the ark on it and set them at the head of the three roads and shut up their calves at home. The cows, although they lowed and yearned for their calves, nevertheless went forth on the right-hand road leading to Judaea. Then they knew they were being destroyed because of the ark. 9All the Philistines gathered together and returned the ark to Shiloh with timbrels and pipes and dances. Because of the savage creeping things that destroyed them they made golden hemorrhoids and [blank] they consecrated the ark. 10Through it the destruction of the Philistines took place. The number of pregnant women who died was seventy-five thousand, sucklings sixty-five thousand, nursing women fifty-five thousand, and men twenty-five thousand. And the land was quiet for seven years. Request for a King 56:1At that time the children of Israel desired and sought a king, and they gathered to Samuel and said,

“Behold now you are old, and your sons do not walk in the ways of the Lord. Now appoint over us a king to judge us, because the word that Moses spoke to our fathers in the wilderness must be fulfilled, ‘Appoint from your brothers a king over you.’” 2When Samuel heard mention of kingship, he was very dismayed in his heart and said, “Behold now I see that it is not yet the time for us to be ruled by a king forever and to build the house of the Lord our God; they seek a king before the proper time. If the Lord will completely refuse it, it seems to me that a king will not be established.” 3The Lord said to him by night, “Do not be dismayed. For I will send them a king who will destroy the perspective of the biblical narrative) viewpoint of one for whom Samaria was no longer a Jewish region. 55:9. the Philistines gathered together While the Bible reports that, in the joy of the moment, the Jews offer the cows as a sacrifice (1 Sam. 6:14), a Rabbinic opinion holds that it was actually the Philistine leaders, who accompanied the Ark all the way back into Judaea, who made the offering ( J. Avod. Zar. 2:1, p. 40c). To Shiloh It is not surprising that L.A.B. has the Ark return to Shiloh, since it has come from there. But this does not jibe with his earlier (L.A.B. 55:8) statement that the cart goes to Judaea. Further, in the Bible the Ark does not go to Shiloh nor is it ever returned there. 55:10. the land was quiet for seven years Nothing like this is in the biblical narrative. 56:1. must be fulfilled The people interpret the biblical text at Deut. 17:15 as a commandment, exactly as some of the Rabbis did (see, e.g., T. Sanh. 4:5; Sifre Deut. 156),138 rather than as a contingent possibility. 56:3. The Lord said to him by night In L.A.B., the revelation to the prophet occurs at night, as is traditional. Josephus (Ant. 6.37–38) also places it at night. The biblical account may imply the daytime (1 Sam. 9:15–16). I will send them a king who will destroy them Thus, in characteristic fashion, L.A.B.’s author establishes clearly that all the ills that befall the people during the reign of Saul are part of God’s plan.

596 Howard Jacobson

them, and he himself will be destroyed afterward. Now he who will come to you tomorrow at the sixth hour, he is the one who will rule over them.” 4On the next day Saul the son of Kish came from mount Ephraim in search of his father’s asses. When he came to Ramathaim, he went in to inquire from Samuel about the asses. He was walking near the shrine. Saul said to him, “Where is he who sees?” (For in that time a prophet was called “one who sees.”) Samuel said to him, “I am the one who sees.” He said, “Can you tell me about my father’s asses, because they are lost?” Samuel said to him, “Refresh yourself with me today, and I will tell you in the morning that for which you have come to inquire.” 5Samuel said to the Lord, “Direct your people, Lord, and tell me what you have planned concerning them.” Saul refreshed himself with Samuel on that day. He arose in the morning, and Samuel said to him, “Behold, be aware that the Lord has chosen you as ruler for his people at this time and has directed your ways, and your time will be directed.” 6Saul said to Samuel, “Who am I and what is the house of my father that my lord should say to me this word? I do not understand what you are saying, for I am young.” Samuel said to Saul, “May your word endure forever, so that you have a long life. Nevertheless, consider this, that your words will be like the words of the prophet whose name will be Jeremiah.” 7Saul went away, and on that day the people came to Samuel and said, “Give us a king as you promised us.” He said to them, “Behold your king will come to you in seven days.” And behold Saul came, and all the signs that Samuel had told him happened to him. Are these not written in the Book of Samuel? Saul 57:1Samuel sent and gathered all the people and said to them, “Behold you and your king. I am in your

midst as God commanded me. 2And so I say to you before your king, as my master Moses the servant of God said to your fathers in the wilderness when the company of Korah rose up against him, ‘You know that I have not taken This is particularly striking given the biblical version of God’s prophecy to Samuel of the coming of Saul, in which God emphasizes that Saul will be the savior of the people (1 Sam. 9:16). at the sixth hour Around noon. The Bible specifies no time, other than that Saul will appear 24 hours after God’s prophecy (which is obviously not the case in L.A.B.). See 1 Sam. 9:16. 56:5. be aware that the Lord has chosen you as ruler Here, L.A.B.’s author has conflated two separate scenes. The Bible represents Samuel as explicitly telling Saul on the second day that Saul has been chosen by God to lead the people (1 Sam. 10:1). The text of L.A.B. follows this. But the Bible has Saul’s profession of modesty take place on the first day (1 Sam. 9:21)—an event that L.A.B. attaches to the second day (L.A.B. 56:6). 56:6. may your word endure forever The allusion is unclear, but it may be a reference to the humility exemplified by Saul’s words. 57:2. my master Moses In Samuel’s mouth the allusion must be to Moses’s status as the master of all the prophets who succeeded him (Pesik. Rab. 31139). rose up against him Here the author represents Korah as rebelling against Moses, to parallel the people’s rebellion against Samuel. But at L.A.B. 16, he told the story of Korah as a revolt against God.

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

597

anything from you, nor have I harmed any one of you.’ Because they lied then and said, ‘You did take,’ the earth swallowed them up. 3And now you, who have not been punished by the Lord, testify before the Lord and before his anointed whether you have sought a king because I treated you badly; and the Lord will be the witness against you. But if now the word of the Lord has been fulfilled, I and the house of my father are free from blame.” 4The people answered, “We are your servants and our king along with us. Because we are not worthy to be governed by a prophet, we said then, ‘Now appoint over us a king who will govern us.’” All the people and the king wept with great lamentation and said, “Long live Samuel the prophet!” and the king stood by. And they brought sacrifices to the Lord. 5Afterward Saul fought with the Philistines for one year and the battle went well. Saul’s Sin 58:1At that time the Lord said to Samuel, “Go and say to Saul, ‘You have been sent to destroy Amalek,

in order to bring to fulfillment the words my servant Moses spoke, saying, “You shall destroy the name of Amalek from the earth,” which he spoke with zeal. Do not forget, but rather destroy every one of them as you have been commanded.’” 2Saul went off and fought against Amalek. But he let Agag, the king of Amalek, live, because he had said to him, “I will show you hidden treasures.” On account of this he spared him and let him live and brought him to Ramathaim. 3God said to Samuel, “You have seen how in an instant the king was corrupted by silver, and he let the king of Amalek and his wife live. Now let them be, so that Agag may come together with his wife they lied then and said, “you did take.” Neither the Bible nor L.A.B.’s account at chapter 16 represents the rebels as accusing Moses of theft. But one midrashic account has them charge Moses with an indirect form of thievery (Midr. Ag. [Buber] 117; cf. also Midr. Ps. [Buber] 14); this account concludes with the statement, “they [Moses and Aaron] seek to take for themselves the property of Israel.” 57:4. Long live Samuel the prophet The people honor the prophet with the traditional proclamation for the king, as for Saul at 1 Sam. 10:24. 58:2. I will show you hidden treasures The Bible simply says that Saul spared Agag, but gives no reason (1 Sam. 15:8–9). According to Josephus (Ant. 6.137), Saul spared him because of his handsome appearance. Since the biblical narrative suggests that Saul spared the high-quality herds out of greed (1 Sam. 15:9; cf. 15:19), L.A.B.’s author may have chosen to represent his sparing of Agag as motivated by greed also. brought him to Ramathaim The Bible has these events taking place in Gilgal. It is not clear whether L.A.B. has just slipped or has deliberately chosen to make the events take place in Samuel’s town. 58:3. he let the king of Amalek and his wife live Agag’s wife is not mentioned in the biblical account. The author of L.A.B. needs her survival for the point he intends to make. let them be L.A.B. could have represented Saul as killed by Agag’s son simply by having a living son escape the battlefield. But (in typical fashion) he wants to emphasize in the clearest and most striking way that the death of Saul is the result of God’s plan (cf. L.A.B. 65:4).

598 Howard Jacobson

tonight; you will kill him tomorrow. But his wife will be kept alive until she bears a male child, and then she too will die. He who will be born from her will become a stumbling block for Saul. Now you get up tomorrow and kill Agag, because Saul’s sin is written before me for all the days.” 4When Samuel arose on the morrow, Saul went out to meet him and said to him, “The Lord has delivered our enemies into our hands just as you said.” Samuel said to Saul, “How badly has Israel acted by demanding you for themselves as a king before the time came for a king to rule over them! And you, sent to do the will of the Lord, have transgressed it. Therefore, he who was allowed to live by you will die now, and those hidden treasures of which he spoke he will not show you, and one who will be born of him will be for you a stumbling block.” Samuel came to Agag with a sword, and killed him and returned to his house. The Anointing of David 59:1The Lord said to him, “Go, anoint him whom I will tell you, because the time is fulfilled in which

his kingdom will come.” Samuel said, “Behold will you now destroy the kingdom of Saul?” And he said, “I destroy it.” 2Samuel went to Bethel and consecrated the elders and Jesse and his sons. Eliab, Jesse’s first-born son, came and Samuel said, “Behold now the holy anointed one of the Lord.” The Lord said to him, “Where is your vision that your heart has seen? Are you not the one who said to Saul, ‘I am the one tonight The author cleverly exploits the biblical narrative’s implication that one night intervened between Saul’s deed and Samuel’s confrontation with him (1 Sam. 15:11–12). He who will be born from her will become a stumbling block for Saul The notion that a descendant of Agag “will cause ruin to the Jews” is connected to the Rabbinic view that Haman was a descendant of the Amalekites. Moreover, some midrashic texts imply, like L.A.B., that Saul’s sparing of Agag for that one night enabled him to have intercourse with his wife, with the result that she conceived a son—who then became the ancestor of Haman.140 One source cites a proverb, “He who respects his enemy will in the end die at his hands” (Alphabet Ben-Sira [Eisenstein, p. 40]). The author of L.A.B. appears to have applied this more immediately than the Midrash, making Saul the direct victim rather than later Jews who suffered at Haman’s hands. Saul’s sin is written before me That God keeps written records about the lives of human beings is already a biblical notion (e.g., Exod. 32:32–33; Isa. 65:6; Mal. 3:16). It becomes commonplace in Rabbinic writings (e.g., B. RH 16b). 58:4. with a sword The Bible does not tell us what weapon Samuel used. The verb used in the biblical passage (1 Sam. 15:33) occurs only here in the Bible. The author of L.A.B. probably chose a sword not only because a sword might have seemed most likely and efficient in the context, but also because of the implications of Samuel’s words to Agag: “As your sword has bereaved women, / So shall your mother be bereaved among women” (1 Sam. 15:33). The correlative (“just as . . . so too”) will be easily interpreted to imply that Samuel uses a sword. 59:2. Are you not the one who said The Midrash also views Samuel’s failure to properly evaluate Eliab as a punishment from God for his arrogant statement “I am the seer” (1 Sam. 9:19). Indeed, L.A.B.’s words here are almost exactly what Sifre Deut. 17 has: “Didn’t you say, ‘I am the seer’?”141

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

599

who sees’? Why do you not know whom you are to anoint? Now the shame is sufficient for you. Seek out the shepherd, the youngest of them all, and anoint him.” 3Samuel said to Jesse, “Send and bring your son from the flock, for God has chosen him.” Jesse sent and brought David, and Samuel anointed him in the midst of his brothers. The Lord was with him from that day. 4Then David undertook to sing this song, and he said, “From the ends of the earth I will give praise, and from the days of old I will extol. When Abel at the beginning shepherded flocks, his sacrifice was more acceptable than his brother’s, and his brother was jealous of him and killed him. But for me it has not gone so, because God protected me and delivered me to his angels and to his guardians to protect me. For my brothers were jealous of me, and my father and my mother abandoned me. When the prophet came, they did not call to me. When ‘the anointed one of the Lord’ was mentioned, they forgot me. But God extended to me his right hand and his mercy. Therefore I will not cease singing praises all the days of my life.” 5While David was still speaking, behold a fierce lion from the forest and a bear from the mountain Seek out . . . and anoint him As often in L.A.B., God’s role is amplified. In the Bible, after the initial lapse with regard to Eliab, Samuel proceeds to review six more brothers and reject them all. He then, on his own initiative, inquires whether there are any more. Only after David is presented to him does God say, “Anoint him.” All this is absent in L.A.B., whose author simply has God tell Samuel virtually at the outset to seek out the youngest and anoint him. 59:3–4. The Lord was with him . . . Then David undertook to sing this song The author of L.A.B. may be making a connection here: David’s poetic ability was the result of God’s inspiration from this point on. This is exactly what Kimhi asserts at 1 Sam. 16:13 and is also remarked by Pseudo-Jerome.142 59:4. Then David undertook to sing . . . and he said, From the ends of the earth I will give praise Noncanonical “Psalms of David” circulated in the late Second Temple period; some were found among the Qumran writings. It is worth noting that the Talmud attributes part of a psalm to the occasion of Samuel’s anointing of David (B. Pes. 119a). Abel at the beginning I am unaware of any connections made between Abel and David outside of L.A.B.

his brother was jealous of him One etymology of Cain’s name derives it from k-n-a (“to be jealous”), and some who have followed this etymology assert that Cain’s murder of Abel was the result of envy on the former’s part.143 my brothers were jealous of me This is a strong echo, virtually a quotation, of Gen. 37:11 (NEB; concerning Joseph and his brothers). The author of L.A.B. may be making a significant association between Joseph and David. The Midrash explicitly compares David and Joseph, noting that both of them retained their fine character even after being elevated to greatness (Sifre Deut. 334).144 my father and my mother abandoned me An echo of Ps. 27:10. But it is no mere echo when L.A.B. puts into David’s mouth words of the psalmist. Rather, it is a case of L.A.B.’s author utilizing Psalms as an autobiographical source for David. 59:5. a fierce lion The battle with the lion and bear is reported by David himself at 1 Sam. 17:34–36. The Bible gives no indication that the episode took place at the time of Samuel’s anointing of David.

600 Howard Jacobson

seized the oxen of David. David said, “Behold this will be a sign for me and a mighty beginning of my triumph in battle. I will go out after them and rescue what has been snatched away and kill them.” David went out after them and took stones from the forest and killed them. God said to him, “Behold, with stones I have delivered up these beasts for you. This will be a sign for you that hereafter you will kill the enemy of my people with stones.” The Exorcism of Saul’s Evil Spirit 60:1At that time the spirit of the Lord was taken away from Saul, and an evil spirit was terrifying him.

Saul sent and brought David, and he played a song on his lyre by night. This is the song he played for Saul so that the evil spirit would depart from him. 2“Darkness and silence were before the world was made, and silence spoke and the darkness became visible. The foundation was created by the fastening together of what had been spread out; its upper part was called heaven and the lower earth. The upper part was commanded to bring down rain according to its season, and the lower part was commanded to produce food for all created things. After this was the tribe of your spirits made. 3Now do not be troublesome, since you are a secondary creation. Otherwise, remember Tartarus wherein you walk. Or is it not enough for you to hear that by means of what resounds before you, I this will be a sign for me That is, David’s fight against the wild animals will foretell his success in human warfare. The Midrash also sees David’s victory over the animals as a sign of his future triumph over Goliath (see Mek. Amalek 2).145 60:1. by night Not specified in the Bible. The author of L.A.B. reasonably assumes that Saul’s depression will manifest itself in his inability to sleep at night. Indeed, at 1 Sam. 19:10 it is evident that such is the case. 60:2. Some elements of the psalm sung here by David show Gnostic influence. But exorcism was commonplace in the world of L.A.B.’s author,146 and Jews were not immune.147 Thus, even Rabbinic literature offers an antidemon incantation (B. Pes. 112a), an exorcism performed by the Rabbis (B. Me’ila 17b), and a story at Tanhuma (Buber) 4:59b that displays Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai’s familiarity with exorcism’s procedures. Further, it is not hard to see the Bible’s story of David and Saul as an instance of exorcism. Josephus certainly thought it was such (Ant. 6.166). Darkness and silence were before the world was made This psalm consists essentially of two interwoven themes. The first is an account of Creation, the second is the exorcism proper. The latter derives naturally from the biblical episode. The former may reflect the Rabbis’ belief that David was himself particularly interested in and expert at ma’ase bereshit, matters pertaining to God’s creation of the world. See, for example, Exod. Rab. 15:22, where we are told that Moses’s account of the Creation (in Genesis) was not always clear and so David in his Psalms took it upon himself to clarify such obscurities. Darkness and Silence were before the world was made At least one midrashic text puts it as explicitly as L.A.B., that darkness existed before God’s creation of the world (Tanh. Va-yak’hel 6). The upper part was commanded Here, L.A.B.’s author follows the teleological thrust of Gen. 1:29–30. 60:3. Tartarus Tartarus is commonly used in Jewish Greek texts for the underworld (e.g., Philo, Rewards 152; Sib. Or. 4:186).

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

601

sing to many? Or do you not remember that your brood was created from an echo in the abyss? But the new womb, from which I was born, will rebuke you, from which in time one will be born from my loins and will rule over you.” When David sang praises, the spirit spared Saul. David and Goliath 61:1After this the Philistines came to fight Israel, and David returned to the wilderness to shepherd

the sheep. The Midianites happened upon him and wanted to take his sheep. He went down to them and fought against them, and he killed fifteen thousand of their men. This is the first battle that David fought while he was in the wilderness. 2A man by the name of Goliath went forth from the camp of the Philistines, and he looked upon Saul and Israel and said, “Are you not the Israel that fled before me when I took the ark from you and killed your priests? Now that you are king, come down like a man and a king, and fight against us. Otherwise, I will come to you and take you captive and make your people serve our gods.” When Saul and Israel heard this, they feared greatly. The Philistine said, “In accord with the number of days during which Israel rejoiced when it received the Law in the wilderness, forty days, so long will I mock them and afterward I will fight with them.” 3When the forty days had been completed and David came to see his brothers’ battle, he heard the your brood was created There is a pointed and significant contrast here between the spirit’s lineage and David’s. The exorcist’s is superior to the demon’s; probably an important factor in predicting the likelihood of a successful exorcism. the new womb An allusion to the familiar apocalyptic notion of a “new age.”148 one will be born . . . and will rule This may refer to Solomon, who was famous for his power over demons (see, e.g., Ant. 8:45), or to a messianic figure (though L.A.B.’s author in general has little interest in the messiah), who is sometimes said to conquer evil spirits (e.g., T. Levi 18:12; 1 En. 69:28). 61:1. The Midianites happened upon him The Bible reports no encounter between David and the Midianites, nor indeed any battle between David and human forces prior to his battle with Goliath. 61:2. he looked upon Saul and Israel The Bible does not yet introduce Saul at this point in the narrative (1 Sam. 17:8), but Josephus has exactly what L.A.B. does, “to Saul and the Jews” (Ant. 6.172). that fled before me when I took the ark The supplement-Targum at 1 Sam. 17:8 also has Goliath mention his capture of the Ark and killing of Eli’s sons. come down like a man Goliath’s challenge in the Bible is general in scope (1 Sam. 17:8–10). In L.A.B., Goliath addresses it directly to Saul. But the supplement-Targum at 1 Sam. 17:8 has Goliath challenge Saul, just as in L.A.B. make your people serve our gods An interesting change wrought by L.A.B.’s author. The Bible’s Goliath speaks merely of enslaving the Israelites (1 Sam. 17:9). Here again, L.A.B.’s author is concerned with the issue of Jews worshiping strange deities. In accord with the number of days . . . forty days The language is closely modeled on Num. 14:34. The Talmud also draws a connection between the 40 days at Sinai and the 40 days of Goliath’s taunts (B. Sot. 42b).

602 Howard Jacobson

words that the Philistine had spoken and said, “Is this the time about which God said to me, ‘I will deliver into your hands by stones the enemy of my people?’” 4Saul heard these words and sent and received him and said, “What is this speech that you spoke to the people?” David said, “Do not fear, O King, because I will go and fight the Philistine, and God will take away hatred and disgrace from Israel.” 5David set out, and he took seven stones and wrote on them the names of his fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Moses and Aaron, and his own name and that of the Lord. God sent Zeruel, the angel in charge of power. 6David went out to Goliath and said to him, “Hear this word before you die. Were not the two women, from whom you and I were born, sisters? Your mother was Orpah, and my mother Ruth. Orpah chose for herself the gods of the Philistines and went after them, but Ruth chose for herself the ways of the Lord and walked in them. Now there have been born from Orpah you and your brothers. Because you rose up today and have come to destroy Israel, behold I too, your kinsman, have come, to avenge my people. For after your death your three brothers too will fall into my hands. Then you will say to your mother, ‘He who was born from your sister has not spared us.’” 7David put a stone in the sling and struck the Philistine on his forehead. He ran toward him and unsheathed his sword. Goliath, while he still had life in him, said to him, “Hurry and kill me, and rejoice.” 8David said to him, “Before you die, open your eyes and see your slayer who has killed you.” The Philistine looked and saw the angel and said, “Not you alone killed me, but also he who was present with you, whose appearance is not like the appearance of a man.” Then David cut off his head. 9The angel of the Lord changed David’s appearance, and no one recognized him. When Saul saw David, he asked him who he was, and there was no one who recognized him. 61:5. he took seven stones and wrote The Bible says “five.” The version in L.A.B. appears to be the only one that specifies seven stones. wrote on them the names of his fathers At Ezek. 37:16, the prophet is directed to write names on pieces of wood. And, of course, the names of the tribes are inscribed on the priestly gems (Exod. 28:9–12). 61:6. Were not the two women . . . sisters? The Rabbis concocted a kinship between David and Goliath by asserting that Ruth and Orpah were sisters (see Yal. Shimoni 2:42; Ruth Rab. 2:9). Your mother was Orpah, and my mother Ruth The Midrash identifies Harapha, the parent or ancestor of a Philistine Goliath (2 Sam. 21:19–22), with Orpah, Ruth’s sister-in-law. 61:7. Hurry and kill me, and rejoice The doomed warrior directs his victorious enemy to kill him. This is a theme in Greco-Roman heroic epic literature (e.g. Virgil, Aen. 10.900), but also occurs in the Bible (e.g., Judg. 8:21; cf. 1 Sam. 15:32). 61:8. The Philistine . . . saw the angel The reference is to Zervihel, mentioned at L.A.B. 61:5. The Midrash also introduces an angel who assists in David’s slaying of Goliath (Midr. Ps. 18:32 [Buber] 80b). 61:9. The angel . . . changed David’s appearance, and no one recognized him This is the author’s way of coping with Saul’s failure to recognize David at 1 Sam. 17:55. The Rabbis found other ways to explain this too.

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

603

David’s and Jonathan’s Covenant 62:1After this Saul was jealous of David and sought to kill him. But David and Jonathan, Saul’s son,

made a covenant together. When David saw that Saul was seeking to kill him, he fled to Ramathaim, and [blank] went out after him. 2A spirit came upon Saul, and he prophesied, saying, “Why are you led astray, Saul, and whom are you pursuing without cause? The time of your kingdom has been completed. Go to your place. For you will die, and David will reign. Will not you and your son die together? Then the kingdom of David will appear.” Saul went away and did not know what he had prophesied. 3David came to Jonathan and said to him, “Come, and let us make a covenant before we are separated from one another. For Saul, your father, seeks to kill me unjustly, and from the time that he realized that you love me he does not tell you what he plans about me. 4For this reason he hates me, because you love me and out of fear that I will reign in his place. Although I have done him good, he pays me back with evil. Though I killed Goliath by the word of the Lord, look at the end that he designates for me, for he has marked out my father’s house for destruction. Would that the judgment of truth might be placed in the balance, so that the assemblage of wise men might hear of his resolution. 5Now I fear that he will kill me and on my account lose his own life. For he will never escape the shedding of innocent blood. Why is my soul pursued? For I, the youngest among my brothers, was tending sheep, and why should I be in danger of death? For I am just and have no wickedness, and why does your father hate me? But the righteousness of my father helps me that I not fall into the hands of your father. Since I am young and tender of age, Saul envies me for no reason. 62:2. Go to your place Saul is pursuing David so as to kill him; the prophetic voice tells him to go back home. This may recall Saul’s decision not to hunt David at 1 Sam.26:23–25, which concludes, “Saul returned to his place” (KJV). 62:4. Though I killed Goliath The reference to David’s slaying of Goliath as a favor to Saul derives from Jonathan’s words at 1 Sam. 19:4–5. he has marked out my father’s house for destruction The Bible gives no indication that Saul has any such malevolent intentions against David’s family. so that the assemblage of wise men might hear of his resolution “His resolution” refers to a vow made by Saul. Our text then refers to a court assembled to hear of Saul’s vow and possibly to annul it. According to Rabbinic law, a court could effectively initiate such annulment proceedings when the oath itself violated biblical law (see, e.g., M. Ned. 9:4). One might recall the story of Jephthah’s oath that led to the killing of his daughter, about which the Rabbis wrote that the high priest should have gone to Jephthah and annulled the vow (Tanhuma [Buber] 3:57a). 62:5. on my account lose his own life The Midrash too represents David as noting that, should his enemies kill him (and the context indicates that Saul is included), they will die for violating the biblical commandment of murder (Midr. Ps. 54:3 [Buber] 145b). the righteousness of my father helps me The Midrash tells of Jesse’s great righteousness (e.g., B. BB 17a).

604 Howard Jacobson

6Had I harmed him, I would ask that he forgive me my sins. For if God forgives wicked deeds, how much more should your father, who is flesh and blood. I went to his house with total devotion, and I was brought before him as an insignificant boy. I put my hands to the lyre, and I blessed him with songs. But he planned to kill me, and like a bird who flees before the hawk, so I fled from him. 7To whom did I say these words, or to whom have I told what I have suffered, except to you and Michal, your sister? As for the two of us, let us go forth together in truth. 8It would have been better, brother, if I had been slain in battle than that I should fall into the hands of your father. For in the battle my eyes would look everywhere that I might protect him from his enemies. Jonathan my brother, hear my words. If there is wickedness in me, chastise me.” 9Jonathan answered and said to David, “Come to me, my brother David, and I will tell you of your judgment. My soul pines away greatly over your sadness, because we are now separated from each other. Our sins have caused this, that we should be separated from each other. But let us be mindful of one another night and day while we live. Even if death separates us, I know that our souls will recognize each other. For your kingdom is in this world, but from you will be the beginning of a kingdom which will come in its time. 10Now like an infant who is taken away from the milk of its mother, so will our separation be. Let the heaven be witness and let the earth be witness to those words that we have spoken between ourselves, and let us weep each one over the other, and let us collect our tears into one vessel and commit that vessel to the earth, and it will be a testimony for us.” 11They wept, greatly, one over the other, and they kissed one another. But Jonathan was afraid, and 62:6. if God forgives wicked deeds, how much more should your father A variation on the Rabbinic principle that “just as God is merciful and kind, so too should you be merciful and kind” (e.g., Mek. Sirata 3149). who is flesh and blood A common postbiblical expression signifying “a mere human being” (e.g., Sir. 14:18; Sifre Num. 84150). like a bird who flees before the hawk The same simile is used in the Midrash about the Israelites trapped at Sea of Reeds, “like a pigeon fleeing from a hawk” (Mek. Besh. 2151). 62:7. Michal, your sister This is the first we have heard of Michal in L.A.B. In the Bible she is also David’s wife (1 Sam. 18:27). 62:8. It would have been better A variation on David’s words to Jonathan at 1 Sam. 20:8, where he indicates that he would rather be slain by Jonathan than fall into Saul’s hands. 62:9. Our sins have caused this What these sins are is not indicated. The author of L.A.B. appears to be assuming that if they are suffering, they must have sinned. your kingdom is in this world The notion of a twofold reign—one in this world, another in the world to come—is also found in midrashic texts. Thus, at Midr. Ps. 57:3 (Buber) 149b, we are told that David’s kingdom will be in both this world and the next. 62:10. let us collect our tears into one vessel The biblical source for placing tears in a vessel is Ps. 56:9, interestingly with reference to David, perhaps in the context of his flight from Saul. The vessel however is God’s. The uniting of their tears in the vessel is a symbolic enactment of the covenant between Jonathan and David. In our context where the friends are separating, the mingling of their tears will also symbolize their continuing closeness and unity in spite of their physical separation.

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

605

he said to David, “Let us remember, my brother, the covenant established between us and the oath set in our heart. If I die before you and you will reign as the Lord has said, do not remember the anger of my father but your covenant that has been established between me and you. Do not remember the hatred with which my father hated you for no reason, but my love with which I have loved you. Do not remember that my father was ungrateful toward you, but remember the table at which we ate together. Do not remember the jealousy with which he was evilly jealous of you but the truth that you and I hold. Do not care about the lie that Saul has lied but the oaths that we have sworn to one another.” They kissed each other. Afterward, David went off into the wilderness, and Jonathan entered the city. Doeg and Abimelech 63:1At that time the priests who dwelled in Nob were profaning the holy things of the Lord and took

for themselves the firstfruits from the people. God became angry and said, “Behold I will destroy the inhabitants of Nob, because they walk in the ways of the sons of Eli.” 2At that time Doeg the Syrian, who was in charge of Saul’s mules, came and said to him, “Are you unaware that Abimelech the priest takes counsel with David, and he gave him a sword and sent him off in peace?” Saul sent and called Abimelech and said to him, “You will die, because you have taken counsel with my enemy.” Saul killed Abimelech and the house of his father, and not one of his family was saved except only Abiathar his son. He went off to David and told him all that had happened to him. 3And God said, “Behold in the year when Saul began to reign, when Jonathan had sinned and he wanted to kill him, this people rose up and did not let him. Now when 385 priests were killed, they are silent and say nothing. Therefore behold the time will come soon, and I will deliver them into the hands of their enemies, and they will fall dead with their king.” 4The Lord spoke thus about Doeg the Syrian: “Behold the time will come soon and a fiery worm 62:11. you will reign The biblical Jonathan also recognizes that David, not he, will rule (1 Sam. 23:17). remember the table at which we ate together An allusion to David’s customary feasting with Saul and Jonathan. See 1 Sam. 20:18–34. the jealousy with which he was evilly jealous of you Apparently a reference to 1 Sam. 18:7–9. The Midrash also explicitly speaks of Saul’s “envy” of David. See, for example, Midr. Ps. 52:5 (Buber) 143a. 63:1. The priests . . . were profaning the holy things The author’s assertion that the priests were corrupt is intended to justify their horrible end, but seems a bit inconsistent with L.A.B. 63:3, where the murder of the priests is viewed as a heinous crime. 63:2. Abimelech the priest takes counsel with David This paranoid view of Saul’s is based on Saul’s words at 1 Sam. 22:13. 63:3. Now . . . they are silent This is the same sort of argument that God uses earlier, namely, that the Jews are energetic in acting when offenses again humans are involved, but lax when it comes to defending God’s interests (L.A.B. 45:6; cf. 47:8). with their king The Midrash agrees with L.A.B.’s author in saying that Saul’s death is his punishment for killing the priests of Nob. See Tanhuma (Buber) 3:23a.

606 Howard Jacobson

will go up into his tongue and make him rot away, and his habitation will be with Jair in the inextinguishable fire forever.” 5All the things that Saul did, and the rest of his deeds, and how he pursued David, are they not written in the Book of Samuel? The Witch of Endor 64:1After this Samuel died, and all Israel gathered together and wept over him and buried him. Then

Saul thought and said, “If I remove the wizards from the land, Israel will remember me after my death.” Saul scattered all the wizards from the land. God said, “Behold Saul has removed the wizards out of the land not for fear of me, but to make a name for himself. Behold he will go to those whom he has dispersed, to obtain divination from them, because he has no prophets.” 2Then the Philistines said to each other, “Behold Samuel the prophet is dead, and who prays for Israel? David, who fought on their behalf, is Saul’s enemy, and he is not with them. Now let us rise up and go and fight against them and avenge the blood of our fathers.” The Philistines gathered together and came to do battle. 3When Saul saw that Samuel was dead and David was not with him, he grew despondent and he inquired of the Lord, but he did not answer him. He sought prophets, but none appeared to him. Saul said to the people, “Let us seek out some diviner and inquire of him what I should plan.” The people answered him, “Behold now there is a woman, Sedecla by name, and she is the daughter of the Midianite diviner who led the people of Israel astray with sorceries, and behold she dwells in Endor.” 4Saul put on ordinary clothing and went off to her, he and two men with him, by night and said to 63:4. into his tongue Doeg has sinned with his tongue and so is appropriately punished in his tongue. inextinguishable fire The notion of fire that is not extinguished goes back to Isa. 66:24. 64:1. to make a name for himself The same goal that partially motivated the builders of the tower of Babel (Gen. 11:4). Cf. also L.A.B.’s Micah (44:2). he has no prophets At 1 Sam. 28:6, the Bible says that there were prophets, but that God did not send any to help Saul. See also L.A.B. 64:3. Josephus’s version is similar (Ant. 6.328–29). 64:2. Behold Samuel the prophet is dead, and who prays for Israel? The death (or prospective death) of the Jewish leader elsewhere in L.A.B. produces anxiety among the Jews as to who will pray on their behalf (L.A.B. 19:3; cf. 33:4–5). Here the motif is turned on its head and used by the enemies of Israel as a source of advantage to them. 64:3. He sought prophets, but none appeared Presumably this means that Saul had banished the prophets or they had fled, and now he was unable to find them (see comment on 64:1, he has no prophets). Saul said to the people In L.A.B., the people as a whole are implicated in Saul’s sin, whereas in the Bible, only Saul’s ministers are involved in the plan (1 Sam. 28:7). By implicating everyone, L.A.B.’s author justifies the rout of the whole people in the battle (1 Sam. 28:19, 31:1). There is a woman, Sedecla The witch of Endor does not appear to be so named elsewhere. Indeed, she is rarely named at all. She may be called Zephania (or something like this) at Pirke R. El. 33. 64:4. Saul put on ordinary clothing 1 Samuel 28:8 says that he donned different clothing. The author of L.A.B. presumably means something like the Midrash, that he put on ordinary garb rather than royal regalia (see Midr. Sam. 24:1 [Buber] 59b).

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

607

her, “Raise up Samuel for me.” She said, “I fear King Saul.” Saul said to her, “You will not be harmed by Saul in this matter.” Saul said to himself, “When I was king in Israel, even if people had not seen me, they knew nevertheless that I was Saul.” Saul asked the woman, saying, “Have you ever seen Saul?” She said, “I have seen him often.” Saul went outside and wept and said, “Behold now I know that my appearance has changed, and the glory of my kingship has passed from me.” 5When the woman saw Samuel rising up and she saw Saul with him, she shouted out and said, “Behold you are Saul; why have you deceived me?” He said to her, “Do not be afraid, but tell what you have seen.” She said, “Behold, it is forty years that I have been raising the dead for the Philistines, but this sight has never been seen, nor will it be seen in the future.” 6Saul said to her, “What is his appearance?” She said, “You are asking me about divine beings. For behold his appearance is not that of a man. He is clothed in a white robe with a mantle placed over it, and two angels are leading him.” Saul remembered the mantle that Samuel, when he was alive, had rent, and, clapping his hands together, had thrown it on the ground. 7Samuel said to him, “Why have you disturbed me to raise me up? I thought that the time of the payment for my deeds had arrived. And so do not boast, King, nor you, woman. It is not you who have brought me, but rather that order that God spoke to me while I was still alive, that I should come and tell you that you have scornfully sinned now a second time against God. Therefore, after rendering up my soul, my bones were disturbed so that I should speak to you and though dead be heard as one living. 8Now therefore tomorrow you and your sons will be with me when the people have been delivered into the hands of the Philistines; and because your heart was envious what is yours will be taken from you.” my appearance has changed, and the glory of my kingship has passed from me Likely an allusion to the notion that the face of a king shone (see, e.g., Pirke R. El. 16). Saul means that the radiance that had marked his face is no longer present. As this radiance is said to be of celestial origin (see, e.g., Pesik. Rab. 20152), Saul recognizes that he has lost God’s favor. 64:5. Behold you are Saul Neither L.A.B.’s author nor the Bible indicates clearly how the witch comes to recognize Saul. The Rabbis offered several suggestions. Josephus explicitly asserts that Samuel informed her (Ant. 6:332). 64:6. white robe with a mantle “White” is probably a reference to the custom of burial in a white shroud. The Rabbis believed that the dead will rise in the garments they were buried in (Samuel was buried in his robe: see Tanhuma [Buber] 3:41b). 64:7. I thought that the time of payment for my deeds had arrived The Midrash also indicates that Samuel thought he was being brought up to face the final judgment. sinned now a second time Presumably this refers to Saul’s visit to the witch, while the first sin would be his failure to wipe out Amalek. This appears to be the view at 1 Chron. 10:13, and is made explicit at Pirke R. El. 33. 64:8. what is yours will be taken from you This looks like a measure-for-measure punishment: one who envies what another has will in the end lose what he possesses. The Talmud enunciates this principle in virtually the same words: “Who desires what does not belong to him . . . loses what he has” (see B. Sot. 9a–b).

608 Howard Jacobson

9Saul heard the words of Samuel and grew faint and said, “Behold I go to die with my sons, for my destruction will be an atonement for my wickedness.” Saul rose up and went away from there. The Death of Saul 65:1The Philistines fought against Israel, and Saul went out to battle, and Israel fled before the Philis-

tines. Saul, seeing that the battle was very adverse, said in his heart, “Why are you striving to live when Samuel has announced death for you along with your sons?” 2Saul said to his armor-bearer, “Take your sword and kill me before the Philistines come and abuse me.” The armor-bearer was not willing to lay his hands upon him. 3He fell upon his own sword, but was not able to die. He looked behind him. He saw a man running, and he called to him and said, “Take my spear and kill me; my soul is still in me.” 4He came to kill him and Saul said to him, “Before you kill me, tell me who you are.” He said to him, “I am Edabus, son of Agag, king of the Amalekites.” Saul said, “Behold now the words of Samuel have come to pass upon me, for he said, ‘He who will be born of Agag will be a stumbling block for you.’ 5Go and tell David, ‘I have killed your enemy’. And say to him, ‘So says Saul, “Do not remember my hatred and my injustice.”’” 64:9. I go to die with my sons Saul’s acceptance of his fate and willingness to go to his death are in no way indicated in the biblical narrative, but they are stressed in Josephus (Ant. 6.344–45) and the Midrash (e.g., Tanhuma [Buber] 3:42a). my destruction will be an atonement for my wickedness The Midrash too makes Saul’s death his atonement for his sins (see Pirke R. El. 33). 65:4. Edabus, son of Agag The Bible merely identifies him as an Amalekite (2 Sam. 1:8, 13). 65:5. So says Saul The story of Saul in L.A.B. thus ends with the fulfillment of a divine prophecy, the anticipation of David’s kingship, and a plea for forgiveness and reconciliation. Do not remember my hatred and my injustice Saul’s final words echo those of Jonathan to David at L.A.B. 62:11. Thus, L.A.B.’s author chooses to conclude his work on a conciliatory note. He may have been influenced by the custom of the synagogue not to end a scriptural reading with a sentiment of catastrophe; for example, the prophetic reading on “The Great Sabbath” repeats Mal. 3:23 at the end so as not to conclude with the final words of verse 24. The desire to end on a positive note is also characteristic of the Rabbis’ public sermons. Saul’s recognition of the injustice of his behavior toward David has its roots in the Bible, as does the accompanying apology and request for generosity on David’s part (1 Sam. 24:18–23; 26:21). The language, however, recalls that of another repentant enemy of David’s (Shimei son of Gera, at 2 Sam. 19:20): “do not remember the wrong your servant committed.”

Notes 1. The Bible gives Adam no daughters till the anonymous late ones of Gen. 5:4 (cf. L.A.B. 1:2). 2. This interpretation is representative of a familiar midrashic tradition; see, e.g., Tg. Onk. and Tg. Jon., ad loc.; S. Olam Rab. 28, in B. Ratner, ed., Seder Olam Rabba: Die grosse Weltchronik (Vilna: Romm, 1897), 130. 3. See, e.g., Tanh. 1:18b, in S. Buber, ed., Midrash Tanhuma ha-Kadum, 2 vols. (Vilna: Romm, 1885); Philo, QG 2.9.

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

609

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

13. 14.

15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.

24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42.

In Ratner, Seder Olam Rabba, 1. L.A.B.’s author probably wrote va-yhi leratzon lashem. Cf. also Ezek. 20:41. In M. S. Zuckermandel, ed., Tosefta (repr. Jerusalem, 1970), 218–19. See J. N. Epstein and E. Z. Melamed, eds., Mek. d’Rashbi [Hebrew] ( Jerusalem: Mekize Nirdamim, 1955), 76–77. See Louis Finkelstein, ed., Sifre on Deuteronomy (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1969), 341. See, e.g., Midr. Ag. 22; Ber. Rab. 62; Kimchi and Nachmanides ad loc. M. Friedmann, ed., Seder Eliahu Rabba (repr. Jerusalem, 1960). See L. Goldschmidt, ed., Sefer Hajascher (Berlin, 1923), 28. A similar argument in similar contexts can be found at, e.g., Sifre Lev. 19:3; B. Sanh. 49a; Sus. 23; Acts 4:19 and 5:29; H. Musurillo, Acts of the Christian Martyrs: Felix (#20) (New York: Oxford University Press, 1972), 15, 17. See, e.g., Ps. 7:2; 17:7; 19:14; 34:19; 37:40; 59:3; 119:21, 78, 122. For instance, Pirke R. El. 24 reports that Abraham rebuked the builders of the Tower; the connection is more elaborate at Tanhuma (Buber) 1:50a–b, and at Yal. Shimoni 2:703, where, as in L.A.B., Abraham is enticed to help build the tower; the connection is simply taken for granted at Avod. Zar. 19a, top; most remarkably, in his commentary on Gen. 11:1, Ibn Ezra actually says that Abraham did take part in the building. See, e.g., Pirke R. El. 38; T. Gad 2:3; Sefer ha-Yashar 149. It is, unhappily, a tradition that plays an important role in accounts of the great martyrology of Roman times. Epstein and Melamed, Mek. d’Rashbi, 34. See, e.g., Ruth 4:18–22; B. Meg. 10b; Tg. Jon. at Gen. 38:29 (implied); Gen. Rab. 85:9–10. B. Mandelbaum, Pesik. Rab. Kah., 2nd ed. [Hebrew] (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1987), 265. See, e.g., Mandelbaum, Pesik. Rab. Kah, 83–84; J. Meg. 4:74d (top). See Epstein, Mek. d’Rashbi, 100. See, e.g., Wis. 11:5; Jub. 48:14; Mek. Besh., 110 (H–R). M. Marguiles, et al., eds., Midrash Haggadol on the Pentateuch, 5 vols. ( Jerusalem, 1947–76). Other midrashic embellishments on this part of Pharoah’s daughter’s story include, e.g., that she had skin lesions (Tg. Jon. at Exod. 2:5; Pirke R. El. 48), that she was leprous (Exod. Rab. 1:23), that there was a heat wave (Sefer ha-Yashar 243), and that she went to purify herself from idolatry (Exod. Rab. 1:23). Griechische Christliche Schriftsteller (Berlin Academy), 15, p. 95. Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae (Berlin Academy), 12, p. 226. Bar Hebraeus’ Scholia on the Old Testament (Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1931); Ishodad, CSCO 176 (= SS 80) at Exod. 2:10, p. 3). See H. S. Horovitz and Israel A. Rabin, eds., Mek. R. Ish. (repr., Jerusalem: Bamberger and Wahrman, 1960), 108. Horovitz and Rabin, Mek. R. Ish., 173. Marguiles, Midr. Hag., 675. Epstein and Melamed, Mek. d’Rashbi, 143. Meir Friedmann, ed., Pesikta Rabbati (Vienna: Friedmann, 1880), 111a. See C. Albeck, ed., Midrash Bereshit Rabbati ( Jerusalem: Mekitze Nirdamim, 1940), 35–36. S. Buber, ed., Lekach-tob (Wilna, 1884), 18. Marguiles, Midr. Hag., 423. Friedmann, Pesik. Rab., 125b. J. M. Badhab, ed., Yalkut HaMachiri ( Jerusalem: Frumkin Press, 1902), 9. That this was indeed an early exegesis of the biblical verse can be seen from its presence in Origen (Hom. Exod. 7.1, in GCS 29, p. 206), who of course reinterprets it in Christian fashion. Mandelbaum, Pesik. Rab. Kah., 83. E.g., Tg. Jon. at Exod. 32:3; and especially Pirke R. El. 45. S. Schechter, ed., Avot deRabbi Natan (repr. New York, 1967), 11; Marguiles, Midr. Hag., 689. This is like the suspected adulteress of Num. 5. For an elaborate comparison of the Num. 5 ordeal with the episode of the calf, see Num. Rab. 9:45. Marguiles, Midr. Hag., 690.

610 Howard Jacobson

43. See, e.g., Lev. Rab. 36:4; Shir Rab. 7:7; Midr. Ps. 109, p. 465; 4 Esd. 6:55; As. Mos. 1:12. 44. For the parallel made between Adam’s one sin and the possibility of Israel’s transgressing the Torah, see E. E. Urbach, ed., Sefer Pitron Torah ( Jerusalem, 1978), 101, at Lev. 26:3. 45. Seder Rabbah d’Bereshit, in Wertheimer, Batei Midrashot, vol. 1. 46. S. Buber, ed., Midrasch Panim Acherim (Wilna, 1886), 24a–b. 47. See Horovitz and Rabin, Mek. R. Ish., 97. 48. Ibid., 238–39. 49. See, e.g., Ps. 23:6; 25:6; 32:10; 40:12; 51:3; 77:9; 94:18; 138:8; 145:8. 50. See, e.g., B. Sanh. 111a–b, Midr. Ag. at Num. 14:18 [Buber] 109; Origen, Hom. Num. 8.1. 51. E.g., Sir. 40:1; 4 Ezra 10:9–14, and note especially 10:14: terra dedit fructum suum hominum . . . ei qui fecit eam [“the earth has given its human fruit to the one who made her”]; cf. Job 1:21. Here, L.A.B. sounds more like Greco-Roman sources; cf., e.g., Lucretius, 5.791, 805, 822–23 (805 is particularly close: tibi terra dedit primum mortalia saecla [“The earth then produced mortal generations”]). 52. See Epstein and Melamed, Mek. d’Rashbi on Exod. 15:12, p. 95; Pirke R. El. 42; cf. Midr. Hag. at Gen. 4:11. 53. Schechter, Avot R. Nat., 107. 54. The same notion appears in the Pss. Sol. 14:9; 15:10–13. Philo too speaks of “eternal death” for sinners (Posterity 39). 55. Buber, Lekach- tob, 230. 56. Epstein and Melamed, Mek. d’Rashbi, 4. 57. Also found at Midr. Hag. at Exod. 6:2; note too the reference to “Isaac’s ashes” at B. Ta’an. 16a. 58. Epstein and Melamed, Mek. d’Rashbi, 4. 59. Horovitz and Rabin, Mek. R. Ish., 98. 60. Mandelbaum, Pesik. Rab Kah., 451. 61. Also, Friedmann, Pesik. Rab., 11 (end), 46b; Midr. Ps. 22:2, in S. Buber, Midrasch Tehillim (Wilna, 1890), 90b. 62. E.g. Tg. Jon. at Num. 24:14; Chronicles of Jerahmeel 55:10; Philo (Moses 1.294–99); and Josephus (Ant. 4.126–30). 63. Finkelstein, Sifre on Deuteronomy, 333. 64. Ee.g., M. Ta’an. 4:6; J. Ta’an. 4:7 [68c]; Comm. Zach. 8:19 [PL 25:1475]; cf. J.W. 6.93–94. 65. E.g., Deut. 4:20; 9:26; 32:9; Jer. 10:16; Joel 2:17; Ps. 94:14. 66. For such a vision at the burning bush, see Midrash KeTapuach in Wertheimer, Batei Midrashot 1:277–85 on the ascent at Sinai, see, e.g., Pesik. Rab. 20, 98a–b; on the ascent before Moses’s death, see Jellinek 6, xxii–xxiii as well as in Enoch traditions (e.g., 1 En. 71–78). 67. Also worth noting are 1 Cor. 7:29; Ep. Barn. 4:3; and probably 4 Esd. 2:13. 68. E.g., Isa. 13:10; 60:19; Ezek. 32:7–8; Joel 2:10; Mark 13:24–25. 69. Sanh. 97a–b; 2 En. 33:1–2; Pesik. Rab. 1, pp. 4a–b; cf. too Augustine, Civ. 22.30; Barn. 15:4–5. 70. Friedmann, ed., S. Eli. Rab., 6–7. 71. Schechter, Avot R. Nat.; Finkelstein, Sifre on Deuteronomy, 327. 72. Horovitz and Rabin, Mek. R. Ish., 173. 73. Zuckermandel, Tosefta, 434; Schechter, Avot R. Nat., 61. 74. Horovitz and Rabin, Mek. R. Ish., 236. 75. E.g., T. Pe’ah 1:4 (see Zuckermandel, Tosefta, 18); for an interesting discussion of the question with certain qualifications, see M. R. El. 9, in H. G. Enelow, Mishnah of Rabbi Eliezer, 163. 76. It seems unlikely that L.A.B.’s attribution to the Amorites of the use of magical stones in their idol worship is related to the tradition of magical stones used for oracular purposes and also for worship in Phoenicia (e.g., the Baituloi of Philo of Byblus [Eusebius, Praep. ev. 1.10.23] and Damascus [Photius, Lex. 242.203]) 77. E.g., B. Sanh. 108b; J. Pes. 1:1 (27b); Gen. Rab. 31:11; Pirke R. El. 23. 78. See, e.g., 2 En. 33:5–12; Sefer Noah [ Jellinek 3.159] which speaks of a book inscribed on a sapphire and containing all sorts of hidden knowledge, including how to determine the proper times to do certain things. 79. Friedmann, Pesk. Rab., 148b. 80. See, e.g., B. BK 56a; B. Shevu. 30b, 34a; and the mishnahs of chapter 4. 81. Buber, Midrasch Tehillim, 194a–b. 82. See M. Avodah Zarah, esp. 2:3–6; 3–4; cf. too Deut. 7:26; 13:18. 83. Horovitz and Rabin, Mek. R. Ish., 216.

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

611

Schechter, Avot R. Nat., 32b. Horovitz and Rabin, Mek. R. Ish., 123. S. Buber, ed., Midrasch Abba Gorion (Wilna, 1886). Marguiles, Midr. Hag., 370. See, for example, 2 Sam. 22:14; Joel 4:16; Ps. 29:3–9; 46:7. See, e.g., Tanhuma (Buber) 1:55a; Sifre Tazria 1:3; Num. Rab. 17:2; Sekhel Tov (Buber) 1:60, in S. Buber, ed., Midrasch Sekhel Tov (repr. Tel Aviv). 90. E.g., Avot R. Nat. A.31:46a (Schechter, Avot R. Nat., 46a); B. Shab. 88b; Midr. Ps. 90:3 [Buber] 196b. 91. Friedmann, Pesk. Rab., 100a. 92. Epstein and Melamed, Mek. d’Rashbi, 127. 93. E.g., Exod. 7:5; Isa. 37:20; 49:26; Ezek. 25:14; 2 Chron. 6:23). 94. The notion of such intermediaries (usually angels) is not common in Jewish texts, but not as rare as sometimes believed (see, e.g., B. Shab. 12b, Tob. 12:12). 95. Schechter, Avot R. Nat., 12a–b. 96. Other instances can be found in both Rabbinic and pseudepigraphic texts, e.g., Pirke R. El. 43, Midr. Prov. 6:6 (in Buber ed., Midrasch Mishle, 1892) 28a; 2 Esd. (4 Ezra) 7:82; 2 En. 62:2. 97. See H. S. Horovitz, ed., Sifre al sefer bamidbar veSifre Zuta ( Jerusalem: Wahrmann, 1966 [Leipzig, 1917]), 44. 98. Albeck, Midrash Bereshit Rabbati, 174. 99. Friedmann, Pesk. Rab., 25b. 100. Finkelstein, Sifre on Deuteronomy, 388. 101. Meir Friedmann, ed., Tanna de-vei Eliyahu [Hebrew] (Vienna: Friedmann, 1900), 175. 102. See, e.g., 2 Sam. 24:10–14; Neh. 9:26–27; Dan. 9:15–18; Ps. 25:7–11; Ezra 9:6–9; Rom. 5:20. 103. See, e.g., Friedmann, Pesik. Rab., 45, 185b–186a; 1 En. 41:1; 61:8; 2 En. 52:15; 2 Esd. (4 Ezra) 3:34; cf. Job 31:6; Dan. 5:27. 104. Mandelbaum, Pesik. Rab. Kah. 468. 105. Horovitz and Rabin, Mek. R. Ish., 227. 106. See Finkelstein, Sifre on Deuteronomy, 328–29. 107. See M. Higger, Masseket Soferim (New York, 1937), 327. 108. Mandelbaum, Pesik. Rab. Kah., 468. 109. E.g., Anth. Pal. 7.141.5–6; Epitaph. Bion. 31–32; Ovid, Her. 15.151–52. 110. Judg. 14:5f, 15:15, 15:14, 15:4–5. 111. Horovitz and Rabin, Mek. R. Ish., 14. 112. See W. Morel, ed., Fragmenta poetarum latinorum epicorum et lyricorum praeter Ennium et Lucilium, 2nd ed. (1927; revised by C. Büchner, Leipzig: 1982), 169. 113. Friedmann, Pesik. Rab., 137b. 114. Friedmann, Pesik. Rab., 106b. 115. Mandelbaum, Pesik. Rab. Kah, 230–31. 116. E.g., Mek. Bahodesh 8 in Horovitz and Rabin, Mek. R. Ish., 231; B. Kid. 30b; cf. Philo, Decalogue 119. 117. See Herodotus, Hist.1.92; 5.25; Diodorus, Library 15.10.1. 118. Horovitz and Rabin, Mek. R. Ish., 110. 119. Midr. Prov. 25:14 [Buber] 49a; similarly B. Ta’an. 8b. 120. For passages where the notion is taken for granted, see, e.g., J. Mo’ed Qatan 3:3 (82b); Midr. Ps. 11:7 (Buber) 51b–52a. 121. Midr. Ps. 117 122. E.g., Gen. Rab. 97, in J. Theodor and C. Albeck, eds., Midrash Bereshit Rabba ( Jerusalem, 1965), 1219 99.8; Gen. 49:10 in Buber, Midrash Aggadah, 110. 123. Friedmann, Pesik. Rab., 182a. 124. Friedmann, Pesik Rab., 181b. 125. S. Buber, ed., Midrash Samuel (Cracow, 1893). 126. E.g., Friedmann, Pesiqta Rabbati, 182a–b; Midr. Sam. 1 (Buber) 23b. 127. Friedmann, Pesik. Rab., 179b. 128. See Finkelstein, Sifre on Deuteronomy, 39. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89.

612 Howard Jacobson

129. 130. 131. 132. 133.

Cf. Joel 2:17: Mic. 7:10; Ps. 79:10; Jdt. 7:20–21 Vulg. See Horovitz, Sifre al sefer bamidbar, 44. E.g., at Avot R. Nat. A.14 (Schechter, Avot R. Nat., 30a); Tanh. Shofetim 12; Wis. 15:8. See Horovitz, Sifre al sefer bamidbar, 45–46. See PGM 2:39–40, in K. Preisendanz, ed., Papyri graecae magicae: Die griechischen Zauberpapyri (Stuttgart, Teubner, 1973–74), 1:22, 2:39–40. 134. PGM 2:24, in Preisendanz, Papyri, 1:22. 135. Friedmann, S. Eli. Rab., 57. 136. Zuckermandel, Tosefta, 308. 137. See Mandelbaum, Pesik. Rab. Kah, 237–38; Friedmann, Pesik. Rab., 131a–b. 138. See Zuckermandel, Tosefta, 421; Finkelstein, Sifre on Deuteronomy, 208. 139. Friedmann, Pesik. Rab., 144a. 140. See S. Eli. Rab. 20 in Friedmann, S. Eli. Rab., 115; Esther Rabbah Petihta 7; 2 Tg. Esther II 4:12; Alphabet Ben-Sira (Eisenstein, Ozar 1, p. 40). 141. Finkelstein, Sifre on Deuteronomy, 30. 142. Kimhi ad loc in the Biblia Rabbinica; Ps-Jerome at PL 23, 1340. 143. See P. deLagarde, ed., Onomastica sacra, 2nd ed. (Göttingen, 1887; repr. Hildesheim, 1966) 193:25 (p. 218), 203:3 (p. 226); Pseudo-Clementines, Hom. 3.25 (Patrologia graeca 2:128 = Clementina [ed. deLagarde] 3:25 [pp. 42–43]); Eusebius, Praep. ev. 11.6.23. 144. Finkelstein, Sifre on Deuteronomy, 384. 145. Horovitz and Rabin, Mek. R. Ish., 185. 146. E.g., Matt. 8:16; 9:34; Acts 19:13. 147. Cf. Ant. 8.46–7; J.W. 7.185; Tob. 6:8. 148. Cf., e.g., L.A.B. 23:8; Isa. 65:17; Exod. Rab. 15:21; 4 Ezra 7:75). 149. Horovitz and Rabin, Mek. R. Ish., 127. 150. Horovitz, Sifre al sefer bamidbar. p. 80 151. Horovitz and Rabin, Mek. R. Ish., 94. 152. Friedmann, Pesik. Rab., 97b.

Pseudo-Philo, Book of Biblical Antiquities

613

Pseudo-Daniel John J. Collins In 1956, J. T. Milik published several fragments of three manuscripts, all written in Aramaic, that mention the name of Daniel. Two of these manuscripts (4Q243 and 4Q244, or Pseudo-Daniela and Pseudo-Danielb) share some language and content, and certainly belong to the same text. The third, 4Q245 (or Pseudo-Danielc), appears to belong to a different text. We have, then, two different Pseudo-Daniel texts. The manuscripts date to the 1st century ce. Suggested Reading Collins, J. J. “Pseudo-Daniel Revisited.” RevQ 17 (1996): 111–36. Collins, J. J., and P. W. Flint. “243–45. 4Qpseudo-Daniela–c ar.” In Qumran Cave 4.XVII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3, by G. Brooke et al., 95–164. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 22. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. DiTommaso, L. “4Qpseudo-Daniela–b (4Q243–4Q244) and the Book of Daniel.” DSD 12 (2005): 101–33. Flint, P. W. “4Qpseudo-Daniel arc (4Q425) and the Restoration of the Priesthood.” RevQ 17 (1996): 137–50. Milik, J. T. “‘Prière de Nabonide’ et autres écrits d’un cycle de Daniel.” RB 63 (1956): 407–15. Wise, M. O. “4Q425 (PsDanc ar) and the High Priesthood of Judas Maccabaeus.” DSD 12 (2005): 313–62.

Translation Pseudo-Daniela–b

There are 40 fragments of 4Q243, many of them tiny, and 14 of 4Q244. They represent an overview of the biblical history, apparently based on a writing delivered by Daniel at the Babylonian court. Some of the narrative is in the past, but part is a prediction of the future. While the setting and the character of the text resemble what we find in the biblical book of Daniel, the actual content is very different. It includes the primeval history and the pre-exilic period, whereas the biblical Daniel only “predicts” the period after the exile. Milik claimed to find allusions to the biblical motifs of four kingdoms and 70 years.1 However, there is no reference to four kingdoms, and the “seventy years” mentioned at 4Q243 16 1 is not necessarily related to the exile. Milik also believed that the text ended with a reference to resurrection,2 but this supposed reference is actually in 4Q245, and probably does not imply resurrection in any case. The author of 4Q243–44 is clearly familiar with traditions about Daniel at the Babylonian court. Whether the text presupposes the biblical book is doubtful. The text is no earlier than the Hellenistic period, and probably dates to the late 2nd or early 1st century bce.

Source of Translation: The translation is my own, taken from J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint, “243–45. 4Qpseudo-Daniela–c ar.” (cited above).

614

The Court Setting

4Q243 2 1 ]Daniel befo[re 4Q243 2 2 ] Belshazzar [ 4Q244 1–3 1 ]before the nobles of the king and the Assyrians [. . .] of [the] ki[ng 4Q244 1–3 2 ] He appointed[ 4Q244 1–3 3 ]and how [ 4Q244 1–3 4 ]O (or the) king[ 4Q244 4 1 ]east[ ]Daniel said[ 4Q243 1 1 He asked Daniel saying “On ac[count] of[ 4Q243 1 2 your God, and a number[ 4Q243 1 3 he will pray[ 4Q243 3 1 ]there is[ 4Q243 3 2 ]O King (or: the king) 4Q243 5 1 ]Daniel[ 4Q243 6 2 ]and in it was written[ 4Q243 6 3 ]Daniel, who[ 4Q243 6 4 it]was writte[n The Primeval History

4Q243 9 ]to Enoch[ 4Q244 8 2 ]from after the Flood[ 4Q244 8 3 ]Noah from [Mount] Lubar[ 4Q244 8 4 ]a city[ 4Q244 9 2 ]the tower, [whose] heig[ht 4Q243 10 2 o]n the tower, and he se[nt(?) 4Q243 10 3 to] inspect a building[ 4Q243 10 4 th]rone (?)[ 4Q244 13 1 ]and he scattered them[

Commentary 4Q243 2 2. Belshazzar Son of the last king of Babylon, Nabonidus; Belshazzar ruled in his father’s absence. Inaccurately called “King” in Dan. 5:1; 8:1. 4Q244 1 1. the Assyrians They do not appear in the book of Daniel. 4Q243 6 2. and in it was written The reference is apparently to a writing that includes both past and future history, as noted in the introductory comments to Pseudo-Daniela–b above. 4Q243 9 1. Enoch His name here could indicate that he is the supposed author of the writing referred to in the last comment, or a figure in the narrative. 4Q244 8 3. Lubar A mountain of Ararat where the ark ran aground. It is not mentioned in Genesis, but is found in Jub. 5:28; 7:1, 17; 10:15, Gen. Ap. 12:13 and 6Q8 26:1.3 See also The Book of Giants. 4Q243 10 2–3 Compare Gen. 11:5, where the Lord comes down to see the Tower of Babel. 4Q244 13 1. he scattered them The builders of the tower (Gen. 11:8).

Pseudo-Daniel 615

From the Patriarchs to the Exile

4Q243 35 1 ]his reward[ 4Q243 35 2 o]f the land [ 4Q243 11 ii 1 and wis[e me]n, and he sa[id 4Q243 11 ii 2 Egypt, by the hand of[ 4Q243 11 ii 3 rule (or: dominion) in the la[nd 4Q243 12 1 fo]ur hundred [years,] and from 4Q243 12 2 ]their [. . .]and they will come out of 4Q243 12 3 ]their crossing the rive[r] Jordan 4Q243 12 4 ]and their children [ 4Q243 28 1 ]el and Qa[hat 4Q243 28 2 Phineha]s, Abish[ua 4Q243 34 1 ] from the tabernacle[ 4Q243 13 + 4Q244 12 1 The Israelites chose their presence rather than [the presence of God] 2 [and they were sacri]ficing their children to the demons of error, and God became angry at them and sa[id] to give 3 them into the hand of Neb[uchadnezzar king of Ba]bylon, and to make their land desolate of them, because[ 4 ] the exiles [ 4Q243 14 1 After] this it will be don[e 4Q243 14 2 ]hundred king[s 4Q243 14 3 ]them in the midst of [the] p[eoples

4Q243 35 1. his reward This word is used with reference to Abraham in Tg. Onk. at Gen. 15:1. 4Q243 11 ii 1–3 The juxtaposition of “Egypt” and “rule (or: dominion) in the land” suggests the story of Joseph. 4Q243 12 1. four hundred years The duration of the captivity in Egypt (Gen. 5:13; Jub. 14:13). Exodus 12:40–41 gives 430 years. 4Q243 28 1. Qahat Second son of Levi, father of Amram, grandfather of Moses and Aaron (Exod. 6:18; Num. 3:19). Transliterated as “Kohath” in NJPS. 28 2. Phinehas, Abishua Phinehas was the son of Aaron (Num. 25:11); Abishua, the son of Phinehas (1 Chron. 5:30). 4Q243 34 1. the tabernacle See Exod. 35–40. 4Q243 13+244 12 These four lines make the point that the exile was a punishment for demon worship (see Ps. 106: 37, 40–41). To give them into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar Compare the Damascus Document, CD 1:6, where the same phrase is used as a way of referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 bce. In the Damascus Document, this serves as the starting point of a period of 390 years of punishment, after which the elect group emerged. 4Q243 14 2. hundred kings The placement of this fragment is tentative. The reference is to some period of Gentile domination, possibly the exile.

616 John J. Collins

4Q243 7 2 ]the Chaldeans, indeed the children of[ 4Q243 7 3 ]the way of t[ruth 4Q243 8 1 thr]one 4Q243 8 2 from I]srael, men 4Q243 8 3 ]which is not to be changed. The Hellenistic Era

4Q243 21 1 shall]rule for years [ 4Q243 21 2 ]Balakros 4Q243 19 1 y]ears [ 4Q243 19 2 ]rhos 4Q243 19 3 ]os for thir[ty (or three or thirteen) years 4Q243 19 4 ]they will speak[ 4Q243 22 1 so]n, and his name [ 4Q243 22 2 ]to them two[ 4Q243 22 3 ]spoke/speak[ 4Q243 20 1 ]son of [the] king[ 4Q243 20 2 ]twenty [yea]rs[ 4Q243 20 3 ]which[ The End-Time

4Q243 16 1 ]oppressed (?) for [seven]ty years [ 4Q243 16 2 with] his great [ha]nd and he will save th[em 4Q243 16 3 ]powerful [. . .] and the kingdoms of [the] peoples[ 4Q243 16 4 ]It is the h[oly]kingdom [ 4Q243 7 2. Chaldaeans Mention of the Chaldeans implies an exilic setting. 4Q243 7 3. the way of truth This phrase may refer to the formation of a remnant, as in CD 1. 4Q243 8 2. from Israel, men Compare the remnant from Aaron and Israel in CD 1:7: he visited them and caused to sprout from Israel and from Aaron a shoot of planting in order to possess his land. 4Q243 8 3. which is not to be changed Compare Dan. 6:9, where the reference is to a decree of the Persian king. The reference here is obscure. 4Q243 21 2. Balakros A relatively common Hellenistic name, borne by three officers of Alexander the Great. 4Q243 19 The four lines of this fragment contain the endings of two Greek names (-rhos;-os) that cannot be restored. 4Q243 16 1. seventy This number is not certain as the reading is partially restored. Milik assumed it referred to the duration of the exile,4 but 70 is mentioned twice in 4Q390 (1 2; 2 i 6) with reference to other periods. 16 2. with his great hand and he will save them Compare the Exodus, but the verb is imperfect and probably refers to salvation at the end-time. 16 4. holy Only the first letter of “holy” survives. Milik restored the word as “first,” (Aramaic: qdmyt’) assuming a reference to four kingdoms.5

Pseudo-Daniel 617

4Q243 25 2 ]until [ 4Q243 25 3 ]and [the] land will be filled[ 4Q243 25 4 ]all their decayed carcasses [ 4Q243 33 1 ]they [l]eft the wa[y of 4Q243 24 1 the sons of ev]il have led astray[ 4Q243 24 2 after] this the elect shall be assembled [ 4Q243 24 3 ]the peoples, and there will be from [that] day [ 4Q243 24 4 ]and the kings of the peoples[ 4Q243 24 5 ]are doing until [this] day[ 4Q243 26 1 ] the[ir] numbers[ 4Q243 26 2 ] without number [ 4Q243 26 3 Is]rael[ Pseudo-Danielc

Only four fragments of this text survive, and the fourth has only three letters. Again, the content purports to come from a writing and relates to time before and after Daniel. The first fragment has a list of priests and kings. The second is eschatological. The third has only the word “thirty-five.” 4Q245 1 i 2 ] and what 3 ] Daniel 4 ]a book/writing that was given 5 Lev]i, Qahat 6 ]Bukki, Uzzi 7 ]Zado]k, Abiathar 8 ]Hi[l]kiah 9 ] and Onias

4Q243 25 3–4. the land will be filled . . . all their decayed carcasses Presumably those of the fallen enemy. Compare Ezek. 38–39; Rev. 19. 4Q243 24 2. the elect Literally, “the called.” Compare those “called by name” in CD 2:11. 4Q243 26 2. without number The number of the elect. Compare Rev. 7:4–9. 4Q245 1 i 5 Levi can be safely restored as father of Qahat (Gen. 46:11). Much of this list from Bukki to Hilkiah (lines 6–8) is drawn from 1 Chron. 5:27–41 (NJPS and other Hebrew translations; in other English translations: 1 Chron. 6:1–15). 4Q245 1 i 6. Bukki, Uzzi Compare 1 Chron. 6:5 (In NJPS, it is 1 Chron. 5:31, in the geneology of the sons of Aaron, repeated in NJPS 1 Chron. 6:36.) 4Q245 1 i 7. Zadok, Abiathar The two main priests under David (2 Sam. 15:24, 29, 35; 1 Chron. 15:11). Abiathar was not a Zadokite and is not included in the descendants of Levi in 1 Chronicles. 4Q245 1 i 8. Hilkiah The high priest at the time of Josiah’s reform (1 Kings 22:4). 4Q245 1 i 9. Onias There is not enough space for all high priests of the post-exilic period, so the list resumes after a gap. Onias could be Onias I (ca. 300 bce), Onias II (ca. 250 bce), or Onias III (ca. 190–175 bce).

618 John J. Collins

10 ] Jona]than, Simon 11 ]and David, Solomon 12 ]Ahazia[h, Joa]sh 4Q245 2 2 ] to exterminate wickedness 3 ]these in blindness, and they have gone astray 4 th]ese then will arise 5 ]the [h]oly [ . . . ], and they will return 6 ] wickedness 4Q245 3 2]thirty-five[ 4Q245 1 i 10. Jonathan, Simon These can only be the Maccabees. 4Q245 1 i 11. David, Solomon The list of priests is followed by the kings of united Israel and Judah. The two lists may imply that the offices of priest and king should be distinct, and implicitly criticize the combination of these offices in one person by the later Hasmoneans.6 4Q425 2 3. they have gone astray The Aramaic for this phrase could also be read as a noun, “error.” The text on this fragment apparently poses a contrast between two groups, possibly between righteous and wicked priests and kings7 or between the elect and the wicked in the end-time.8 4Q245 2 4. these then will arise Milik thought this was a reference to resurrection,9 but this is not necessarily so. It may simply mean that a group will arise, or come into being. 4Q245 2 5. and they will return The verb could be read as “restore.” In any case, a restoration is implied.

Notes 1. See Milik, “‘Prière de Nabonide’ et autres écrits d’un cycle de Daniel,” 413. 2. Milik, “‘Priére de Nabonide’ et autres écrits,” 414. 3. Lubar is also mentioned as a mountain of Ararat in a minor midrash called “The Book of Noah” printed in J. D. Eisenstein, Ozar Midrashim (New York, 1915), 400. 4. Milik, “‘Priére de Nabonide’ et autres écrits,” 414. 5. Milik, “‘Priére de Nabonide’ et autres écrits,” 413. 6. Wise, in “4Q425 (PsDanc ar) and the High Priesthood of Judas Maccabaeus,” suggests that 4Q425 3 2, “thirty-five,” belongs with this fragment and is the number of priests listed. He then reconstructs a list that continues down to Aristobulus I at the end of the 2nd century bce. This is ingenious, but uncertain because of the fragmentary state of the text. 7. According to Wise, “4Q425 (PsDanc ar) and the High Priesthood of Judas Maccabaeus,” 349–50. 8. According to Collins and Flint, “243–245. 4QPseudo-Daniela–c ar,” 130. 9. See Milik, “‘Prière de Nabonide’ et autres écrits d’un cycle de Daniel,” 414.

Pseudo-Daniel 619

Son of God John J. Collins The fragmentary Aramaic text 4Q246 is variously known as “the Son of God text,” the Aramaic Apocalypse, or the Aramaic Apocryphon of Daniel. While identifying a text by a single motif is not very satisfactory, the first of these titles may be the least problematic. Since the beginning and end are missing, it is difficult to be sure of the genre, although this text is apocalyptic in character. Least satisfactory is the title, Apocryphon of Daniel (4QapocrDan ar). Daniel is not named in 4Q246, although the text has several points of affinity to the book of Daniel. The text consists of two columns, of which the first is torn down the middle so that only the second half of each line survives. The second column is virtually intact but ends with a construct form, which means that it does not contain the end of the text. The first column introduces a prophetic speech by an individual in the presence of a king, apparently interpreting a vision. He speaks of distress and carnage on earth. At the end of the first column a figure is introduced, who will be great on earth, and at the beginning of the second column he is called “son of God” and “son of the Most High.” Upheavals will continue “until the people of God arise.” Then there will be a lasting kingdom, and war will cease. There has been considerable controversy over the identity of the figure, who will be called “son of God.” Milik suggests that he was a Syrian king, and a number of scholars have rallied to that position. They appeal especially to two considerations: he is said to be called (rather than just to be) Son of God, and there is an indentation in the text before the rise of the people of God. This is taken to indicate a turning point in the text, so that all that precedes it is negative. Neither of these considerations is sound. Nothing in the text itself suggests that the titles are inappropriate, and since this kind of literature is notoriously repetitive, it is simplistic to suggest that everything before the alleged turning point must be negative. The closest parallels are found in Luke 1:32–35: “He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David . . . he will be called Son of God.” The titles are clearly messianic in Luke, and they are most plausibly understood to refer to the Davidic messiah also in 4Q246. Authorship and History The manuscript dates from the late 1st century bce. It is not clearly sectarian; that is, it is not clearly a product of a group such as the one described in the Damascus Document or in Rule of the Community from Qumran. It was acquired in 1958 and entrusted to J. T. Milik, who lectured on it at Harvard in December 1972. It was partially published by J. A. Fitzmyer in 1974, on the basis of Milik’s handout. It was eventually published in full by Emile Puech in 1992 and again in the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert series in 1996.

620

Suggested Reading Collins, J. J. The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature, 154–72. Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday, 1995; revised edition: Grand Rapids mi: Erdmans, 2010, pp. 171–90. —. “The Background of the ‘Son of God’ Text.” BBR 7 (1997): 51–62. Cook, E. M. “4Q246.” BBR 5 (1995): 43–66. Cross, F. M. “The Structure of the Apocalypse of ‘Son of God’ (4Q246).” In Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov, edited by Shalom M. Paul, Robert A. Kraft, Lawrence H. Schiffman, and Weston W. Fields, with the assistance of Eva Ben-David, 151–58. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 94. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Fitzmyer, J. A. “The Contribution of Qumran Aramaic to the Study of the New Testament.” NTS 20 (1973–74): 382–407. Reprinted in A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays, by Joseph A. Fitzmyer, edited by Leander E. Keck, 85–113. Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 25. Chico ca: Scholars Press, 1979. —. “4Q246: The ‘Son of God’ Document from Qumran.” Bib 74 (1993): 153–74. García Martínez, F. “The Eschatological Figure of 4Q246.” In Qumran and Apocalyptic: Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran, by F. García Martínez, 162–79. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 9. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Puech, E. “Fragment d’une Apocalypse en Araméen (4Q246=pseudo-Dand).” RB 99 (1992): 98–131. —. “246. 4Qapocryphe de Daniel ar.” In Qumran Cave 4.XVII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3, edited by G. Brooke, et al., 165–84. DJD 22. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Zimmermann, J. “Messianische Texte aus Qumran,” 128–70. Wissenschlaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/104. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998.

Translation . . . . 1:1settled on him. He fell before the throne. . . . . 2O King, forever. Wrath is coming and your years . . . . 3your vision, and all that comes forever. . . . . 4great . . . distress is coming to the earth. . . . . 5great carnage in the provinces. . . . . 6king of Assyria [and E]gypt. . . . . 7will be great on earth. . . . 8they will

Commentary 1:1. settled on him Probably “the spirit of God came upon him.” The prophetic figure is before a royal throne, as in Dan. 2. 1:2. O King, forever Probably “Live, O King, forever.” Cf. Dan. 2:4; 3:9; 5:10; 6:7, 22. Wrath is coming The Aramaic word for “coming” is spelled like the second person masculine pronoun in Hebrew (atah), and many scholars translate this phrase as “you are angry.” Hebrew elements may be present in the text, but it is safer to translate it as Aramaic. 1:3. your vision . . . forever Evidently the king has had a vision that relates to future history. 1:4. great . . . distress Probably meaning war, famine, and pestilence, which are perennial subjects of prophecy. 1:5. carnage The word for “carnage,” nachshir, is a Persian loanword, also found in the War Scroll. 1:6 Some have suggested that the king of Assyria (Syria) and Egypt must be Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who briefly ruled Egypt, but historians dispute whether he was ever king of Egypt. The singular “king” could be distributive (cf. “king of Sodom and Gomorrah” in Gen. 14:10, where the reference is to two kings), and it is even possible that “Egypt” begins a new sentence. 1:7 The subject is not preserved, but cf. Luke 1:32 (“He will be great, and . . .” where the subject is Jesus). Source of Translation: The translation is my own. All biblical translations in the commentary are from the NRSV.

Son of God 621

do, and all will serve. . . 9gr]eat shall he be called and by his name he shall be named. 2:1Son of God he will be called and son of the Most High they will name him. Like comets 2that you saw, so shall their kingdom be. For years they shall reign 3on earth, and shall trample all. People shall trample people, and province (shall trample) province, 4until the people of God arise, and all rest from the sword. 5His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all his ways in truth. He shall judge 6the earth in truth and all shall make peace. The sword shall cease from the earth 7and all provinces shall pay him homage. The great God will be his help 8He will make war for him, and give peoples into his hand, and all of them 9He will cast before him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, and all the depths . . . 1:9 he Refers to the figure who is called “Son of God” at 4Q246 2:1. by his name he shall be named The easiest inference here is that it is by God’s name that he will be called, although “he” may possibly refer to a king with the same name as his father (e.g., Antiochus). 2:1. Son of God he will be called Cf. Luke 1:32–35. For the Davidic king as Son of God, see Ps. 2:7; 2 Sam. 7:14. Cf. also 4Q174 (Florilegium) 1 i 11, which applies 2 Sam. 7:14 to the messianic “Branch of David.” God refers to the messiah as “my son” in 4 Ezra 7:28; 13:32; B. Suk. 52A; and Midr. Teh 2:9–10. While Seleucid kings often claimed to be “god” (theos) or “god made manifest” (Theos Epiphanēs), the title “son of God,” or even “son of (a specific) god” (Zeus or Apollo) never appears on their coins. One king, Alexander Balas, claimed to be theopator, “son of a divine father,” but the “divine father” in question was Antiochus Epiphanes, not Zeus. The Roman emperor Augustus was called divi filius, “son of God” (i.e., son of the divinized Julius Caesar). 2:1–2. Like comets . . . so shall their kingdom be That is, they shall pass rapidly. 2:3. trample Cf. the fourth beast in Dan. 7. People shall trample people Cf. Mark 13:8; 4 Ezra 13:31. 2:4. until the people of God arise This line is indented, marking the transition to the climax of the prophecy. This does not necessarily mean that the “Son of God” is a negative figure, over whom the people of God triumphs. More plausibly, he represents the people of God as their king. (It is possible to read “until the people of God arise” as “until he raises up the kingdom of God,” taking either God or the “Son of God” as the subject.) The fact that conflict continues for a time after his appearance is not surprising. In Dan. 12, there is a time of anguish after Michael arises. In 4 Ezra 13, the advent of the man from the sea is followed by the assault of the nations. 2:5. His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom Cf. Dan. 3:33 (NRSV 4:3), where the reference is to God. Some scholars read “its kingdom,” taking the “people of God” as the antecedent, but the statements that follow are more easily applied to an individual messianic figure. 2:7. The great God will be his help Cf. Pss. Sol. 17:34, 39: “The Lord himself is his king, the hope of him who is strong in the hope of God . . . His hope is upon the Lord: who then can prevail against him.” 2:8 The role of the messiah is to defeat the Gentiles by the power of God. This is already implicit in Ps. 2. The same theme is found in other texts found at Qumran. Cf. 1QSb 5:23–29; 4QpIsaa 8–10, 18–22; 4Q285 5. 2:9. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Cf. Dan. 4:31; 7:14, where the reference is to God.

622 John J. Collins

Pesher Nahum Shani Berrin Tzoref Pesher Nahum (4Q169)—one of the Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran—is a commentary upon the short biblical book of Nahum, one of the 12 minor prophets in the Hebrew Bible. Like the other “continuous pesharim” from Qumran, this composition adapts a biblical prophet’s message about divine retribution to circumstances in the Hasmonean era. “Continuous pesharim” such as Pesher Nahum consist of a series of sequential biblical citations, each followed by a formulaic phrase that includes the word pesher (interpretation): “its pesher concerns.” This linking phrase introduces an interpretation in which the text is applied to the author’s own historical context, which is presumed to be situated in the end-time. The biblical book of Nahum predicts the impending downfall of mighty Assyria as punishment for Assyrian oppression. The author of this pesher indicates that the true message of Nahum’s prophecies is the triumph of his present-day community over its evil opponents, which include groups termed “the Kittim,” “Ephraim,” and “Manasseh.” The author perceives that these prophecies have begun to be fulfilled in events of the recent past, and anticipates the total eradication of his adversaries and the imminent salvation of his community. Authorship and History As with all known continuous pesharim from Qumran, the Pesher Nahum has been preserved in a single Hebrew copy. The manuscript is dated by its script to the latter half of the 1st century bce. The six surviving columns of the pesher contain comments upon all three chapters of Nahum. The scroll employs many expressions that are typical of the polemical compositions of the Qumran community. The author is unknown. Significance Qumran pesher compositions provide information about the transmission of biblical texts, about techniques of early biblical interpretation, and about ideology, historical events, and socioreligious realities of the Second Temple period. The biblical citations in Pesher Nahum are quite similar to those of the Masoretic Text (MT), but there are some minor differences. Some of these reflect typical Qumran spelling, pronunciation, or grammar, while others appear to be simply the result of scribal error. There is some debate over whether pesherists adapted biblical citations to better accommodate pesher interpretations. Thus, for example, the Heb. keura (translated as “despicable”) in 4Q169 3–4 iii 1 differs from the Heb. kerei (meaning, perhaps, “like excrement,” or, as taken by the Septuagint, “as a spectacle”) in the MT of Nah. 3:6. This could reflect the pesherist’s dependence upon a variant text, or a scribal error, or perhaps an intentional emendation of the difficult word in the MT.

623

The pesher’s citations and comments upon biblical texts indicate the authoritative nature of the prophetic texts for the Qumran community. The use of identifying formulas, wordplay, and recontextualization1 show some affinity with Rabbinic midrash. For example, in column 3, the biblical metaphor concerning the “exposure” of Assyria is recast as portraying the anticipated “exposure” of the doctrinal falsehoods of the Seekers-after-Smooth-Things, one of the enemy groups identified in the scroll (see comment on 4Q169 3–4 iii 8–12). An unusual feature of the Pesher Nahum is that it explicitly names historical figures— the Greek kings Demetrius and Antiochus—in addition to relying upon the more typical pesherist use of oblique epithets. In general, the indirect references to historical figures and events found in pesher compositions do not enable the modern reader to uncover new historical data, but they do allow for an enhanced picture of information already known from other sources, especially Josephus and Rabbinic writings. Since the historical events are described in veiled terms, modern researchers differ in their interpretations of the specific historical contexts. Most scholars agree that the Pesher Nahum includes references to the reign of the Hasmonean king Alexander Jannaeus (ruled 103–76 bce) and that of his wife and successor Salome Alexandra (76–67 bce), and to the civil war between their sons that led to the Roman takeover of Judea under Pompey (63 bce). In descriptions of sectarian conflict, the Rabbis focus on halakhic disputes,2 and Josephus emphasizes philosophy and politics.3 The Dead Sea Scrolls reflect both theological and political spheres of discord, and also illustrate social realities and the extent of the enmity between various groups. The Pesher Nahum provides a firsthand perspective of an “out-group” that is persuaded of its own inherent superiority even as it is aware of its sociopolitical inferiority. Two key, interrelated mechanisms for dealing with this potential identity crisis are found in the scroll—the contrast between hidden and revealed reality, and the belief in eschatological salvation. One example of the implementation of these mechanisms in the Pesher Nahum is the recurring polemic against a group termed, cryptically, “the Seekers-after-Smooth-Things,” an epithet derived from biblical characterizations of false prophets (e.g., in Isa. 30:10). The pesherist understands the true meaning of the biblical text of Nahum to be a prediction of the catastrophic downfall for this influential group. If the Seekers-after-Smooth-Things represent the Pharisees, as most scholars believe, then the Pesher Nahum corroborates images of the Pharisees as having enjoyed the following of the masses. This depiction emerges in the works of Josephus and Rabbinic writings,4 but its accuracy has been challenged in recent years. The association of the pesherist’s opponents with hypocrisy and deception also matches descriptions of Pharisees in Josephus, the Talmud, and the New Testament.5 The most controversial portion of the pesher is the reference to hanging “people alive” (4Q169 3–4 i 7). Prior to the initial publication of the scroll, its original editor, J. M. Allegro, reported that the Pesher Nahum described the crucifixion of the Teacher of Righteousness in a manner prefiguring the death of Jesus. This claim does not appear in his official publications, and his subsequent attribution of the “hangings” to Alexander Jannaeus has been generally accepted (cf. Ant. 13.380; J.W. 1.97). Much debate has persisted about whether the pesher’s author approves or condemns Jannaeus’s crucifixion of his Jewish opponents.

624 Shani Berrin Tzoref

Some crucial words of the pesher are missing, so that the phrase describing the event, “[. . .] in Israel aforetimes,” has been restored in two opposite manners: (1) “as was the law in Israel aforetimes” or (2) “as was not done in Israel aforetimes.” Of course, the underlying scholarly concern is whether crucifixion was ever viewed as a valid form of capital punishment in ancient Judaism. However, the pesher does not seem to have any implications for evaluating the historicity or significance of the Christian Passion narrative. Most likely the pesher expresses approval of the executions mentioned, but this does not signal approval of the means of execution, nor of the executioner. The point of the pesher is the fulfillment of Nahum’s predictions of retribution. Guide to Reading Pesher compositions have often been described as “atomizing,” that is, commenting on individual words or phrases in isolation from their original context. Although such a tendency is discernible, the overall structure of this pesher does in fact follow the framework of its biblical base-text, Nahum. Three main sections may be discerned in the preserved portions of the composition: a single column of text is preserved in fragments 1–2; this is the first section. Four columns of text are preserved in fragments 3–4; of these four columns, column i of fragments 3–4 constitutes a second literary unit, and the third unit is found in columns ii–iv of fragments 3–4. The first surviving column of the composition is not in good condition. Bits of comments (lines 1–11) upon Nah. 1:3–6 remain. The prophet’s vivid predictions about the divine punishment of Nineveh are applied by the pesherist to his own contemporary opponents. Regrettably, the names of these opponents have not survived. The “Elect” of the author’s community are pitted against a “wicked” group or groups then in power. It is unclear whether the author here refers to the Roman rulers, or to rival Jewish groups, or to both. The four well-preserved columns of fragments 3–4 polemicize against Jewish opponents of the author: Column i (lines 1–12) comments upon Nahum 2:12–14, in which Assyria is compared to a mighty lion. The pesherist applies the biblical message of this extended metaphor—essentially, “the bigger they are, the harder they fall” to the Jerusalem establishment. Columns ii–iv comment upon Nah. 3:1–12. Verses 1–5 of Nah. 3 are a vivid description of Nineveh’s culpability and downfall. Verses 6–11 compare Nineveh to Thebes, which had fallen earlier. The pesher describes the guilt and downfall of “Ephraim,” alluding to the earlier defeat of “Manasseh,” probably representing the Pharisees and Sadducees respectively. Fragment 5 (lines 1–3) is a small fragment containing only part of Nah. 3:12, and a few words of the preceding pesher interpretation. Suggested Reading Allegro, John M. Qumrân Cave 4.I (4Q158–4Q186). DJD 5. Oxford: Clarendon, 1968. Berrin, Shani L. The Pesher Nahum Scroll from Qumran: An Exegetical Study of 4Q169. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 53. Leiden: Brill, 2004.

Pesher Nahum

625

Doudna, Gregory L. 4Q Pesher Nahum: A Critical Edition. JSPSup 35. Copenhagen International Series 8. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Horgan, Maurya P. Pesharim: Qumran Interpretations of Biblical Books. CBQMS 8. Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1979. —. “Pesharim.” In The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, Vol. 6B, Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents, edited by James H. Charlesworth, et al. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002. Knibb, Michael. “The Commentary on Nahum.” In The Qumran Community. Cambridge Commentaries on Writings of the Jewish and Christian World 200 bc to ad 200. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Lim, Timothy. Pesharim. Companion to the Dead Sea Scrolls 3. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Parry, Donald W., and Emanuel Tov, The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader, Vol. 2: Exegetical Texts. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Yadin, Yigael. “Pesher Nahum (4QpNahum) Reconsidered.” IEJl 21 (1971): 1–12.

Translation Fragments 1–2

1 [. . . He travels in whirlwind and storm, and] clouds are the d[ust of his feet (Nah. 1:3b) Its pesher . . . 2 [. . .]t v[ault]s of his heavens and his earth which b[. . .] 3 He rebu[kes] the sea and dr[ies it up (Nah. 1:4a) Its p]esher: the sea is all the [. . .] 4 to exe[cute] judgment upon them and to destroy them from upon the face of [the world And all the rivers he parches dry . . . (Nah. 1:4a) Its pesher . . .

Commentary Fragments 1–2 2. his heavens and his earth The theme of God’s manifestation in nature is common in biblical imagery of punishment and in ancient Near Eastern descriptions of power in general. The pesher has not been fully preserved but seems to be a brief paraphrase of the poetic biblical text. The words “heaven and earth” may refer to activity in the heavenly realm or may simply spell out a concrete expression of the poetic storm clouds and dust clouds in the biblical verse. 1:4. to exe[cute] judgment . . . and to destroy The pesherist explains the prophet’s metaphorical reference to the drying up of the sea as the total destruction of the wicked. He also specifies that this is an act of punishment, the execution of divine judgment. The enemy is not named here, but many scholars have proposed the Kittim (named in 4Q169 3–4 i 3). The term Kittim represents Gentile enemies in a number of early Jewish writings and may refer variously to Greeks or Romans.6 Similar language and imagery for the utter eradication of wicked opponents appears in column 14 of the cave 1 copy of the Qumran War Scroll.

Source of Translation: The translation is my own, cited above. I have modified the translations of the biblical quotations to conform more to the NJPS, but there are still some discrepancies when necessary for the pesher to make sense. In general, I have tried to follow the translation in my book when this is the case.

626 Shani Berrin Tzoref

5a with [. . .] their [ru]lers, that their dominion will end [. . .] 5 Bashan and Carmel languish] and the blossom of Lebanon wither (Nah. 1:4b) [Its pesher: . . .] 6 peri]sh in it many, the height of wickedness. For the [. . . 7 to Car]mel and to its rulers. Lebanon and the blossom of Lebanon is . . . 8 . . .]tm and will perish from before [. . .] Elect[. . . 9 a]ll the inhabitants of the world Moun[tains quake because of him and the hills melt; 10 the earth [heaves] before him, and before hi[m (rises) the world and al]l [that dwell therein. Who can stand before his wrath, and who 11 can resist] his fury? [. . .] (Nah. 1:5–6) Fragments 3–4

i.1 . . .]a dwelling-place for the wicked of the Gentiles. Where lion and lion’s breed walked, and lion’s cub—

1:5a. with [. . .] their [ru]lers, that their dominion will end These words were not originally included by the scribe, but were added later between lines 4 and 5, presumably to correct the omission of a citation and interpretation of the second half of Nah. 1:4. Lines 3 and 4 describe the destruction of an opponent represented by the “sea”; the pesherist extends the metaphor here, identifying the “rivers” of the biblical verse with the leaders of this opposing group. 1:5. Bashan and Carmel . . . and . . . Lebanon By using these flourishing regions as examples, the biblical text indicates that even the most fertile lands can be withered by divine wrath. The pesherist probably applied this general observation to a specific opponent, but the identification has not survived. 1:7. Lebanon This epithet is used elsewhere in the Dead Sea Scrolls in two distinct manners: it symbolizes either the community itself or the dreaded Kittim. The latter function is probably more suitable here, as in 4Q161 7:1–14. A similar dual tradition is found in Rabbinic writings, in which Lebanon is taken to refer either to the Temple or to powerful individuals or groups, including Gentile kings.7 1:8. Elect Refers to member of the author’s Qumran community, which perceived itself as the only legitimate segment of Israel, God’s chosen nation. The pesherist expects that his group will not only witness and survive the divine judgment, but also play an active role in its implementation. 1:9–11 All that remains in these lines is the quotation of Nah. 1:5–6. None of the pesher has survived. The restoration “[rises]” follows the MT and the traditional reading, but the consonants of the MT might alternatively be rendered as “is laid to waste.” 1:9. a]ll the inhabitants of the world There is no obvious basis for this phrase in the preceding biblical citation, but “world” and “inhabitants” appear in the subsequent citation of Nah. 1:5 in 4Q169 1–2:10. The author may allude here to Ps. 98, which describes the uproar of the world’s inhabitants at the time of divine judgment.

Fragments 3–4 1:1. a dwelling-place The fragmentary interpretation probably refers to Jerusalem. In the biblical text, Assyria is the subject of the metaphor in Nah. 2:12a: “What has become of the lions’ lair, which was a pasture for the young lions?” The prophet Nahum describes Assyria as a mighty superpower, evil but seemingly invincible. The pesherist views Assyria as a sort of code for the Jerusalem establishment, the powerful entity that he opposes. Where lion and lion’s breed walked, and lion’s cub Alternatively, “whither the lion went to bring

Pesher Nahum

627

2 with none to disturb them (Nah. 2:12b) Its pesher: concerning Deme]trius King of Greece who sought to come (upon) Jerusalem at the counsel of the Seekers-after-Smooth-Things 3 . . .] yd the kings of Greece from Antiochus until the rising of the rulers of the Kittim. And afterward will be trampled 4 . . .] The lion tears at his cubs, and strangles his lionesses for prey; (Nah. 2:13a) 5 . . .] upon the Young Lion of Wrath who will smite his great ones, and the men of his counsel the lion’s cub”, or “where the lion went to enter, and the lion’s cub”; Some translators include reference to a “lioness,” but this is an inaccurate rendering of both the biblical text and its citation in the pesher.8 1:2. Deme]trius King of Greece The text is restored here with confidence, as the kings of the Seleucid Greek dynasty were all named Antiochus, Seleucus, or Demetrius. The king mentioned here is probably Demetrius III Eukairos (ruled 94–88 bce), who battled the Hasmonean king Alexander Jannaeus in 88 bce in response to an appeal by a disaffected Jewish faction (as described by Josephus in Ant. 13.372–416; J.W. 1.90–98). Others have suggested that this figure is Demetrius I Soter, who ruled at the end of the Maccabean revolt and during its aftermath (162–150 bce).9 Seekers-after-Smooth-Things This epithet, dorshei hahalaqot in Hebrew, probably refers to the Pharisees or an associated group.10 Josephus does not explicitly designate the anti-Jannaeus faction as Pharisaic, but his description points in that direction. The Talmud does specify the Pharisees as the persecuted opponents of Jannaeus, especially in B. Kid. 66a. Others have suggested that this epithet refers to a faction of Hellenizing Jews in the period of Demetrius I. The term appears elsewhere at Qumran to denote religious opponents of the community, depicted as having great influence over the populace through demagoguery and deception.11 A biblical basis for the epithet is found in Isa. 30:10, which describes the people of Israel as rejecting legitimate prophets, turning instead to those who “speak smooth things (halaqot)” and offer comforting delusions. 1:3. . . .] yd the kings of Greece The missing text is generally restored as “and he did not enter for the Lord did not give her into the ha]nd of the kings of Greece,” which indicates that Demetrius did not achieve his aim in his attempted invasion of Jerusalem. Antiochus Whether this refers to Antiochus III or Antiochus IV, the point being made is that Jerusalem had not fallen to foreigners during a particular period. The pesherist adapts the biblical description in Nahum 12 of the invulnerability of Assyria prior to its final downfall. Kittim This epithet for Gentile enemies appears frequently in the Pesher Habakkuk; there as well as here and in Dan. 11:30, it probably refers to the Romans, though elsewhere it denotes the Seleucids (e.g., 1 Macc 1:1; 8:5; War Scroll.) afterward will be trampled A prediction of a future invasion of Jerusalem, perhaps that by Pompey, in contrast to the city’s relative security since the time of Antiochus. 1:4. [. . .] The lion tears at his cubs, and strangles his lionesses for prey Alternatively, “the lion tears [prey] for his cubs, and strangles prey for his lionesses.” 1:5. the Young Lion of Wrath Probably Alexander Jannaeus. Alternative proposals have focused upon Gentile rulers, including Antiochus IV, Titus, or Pompey.12 The epithet may derive from Prov. 19:12 (“The rage of a king is like the roar of a young lion”); 20:2 (“The terror of a king is like the roar of a young lion”). Jannaeus seems to have been the first Hasmonean ruler to have designated himself “king” as well as “high priest” on his coins. “The Young Lion of Wrath” also appears in a Qumran composition Pesher Hosea, along with the epithet “the Last Priest,” in a similar context

628 Shani Berrin Tzoref

6 . . .] and he fills with prey his] holes and his lairs with torn flesh (Nah. 2:13b) Its pesher concerns the Young Lion of Wrath 7 . . .]mwt on the Seekers-after-Smooth-Things, that he will hang people alive. 8 . . .] in Israel aforetimes, for of one hanged alive upo[n the tree is to be re]ad: “Behold I am against you,” 9 it is the declar[ation of the Lord of Hosts. “I will burn in smoke you]r [multitude], and the sword shall devour your young lions. I will cut [off p]rey [from the land], 10 and no [longer will be heard the sound of your messengers.” (Nah. 2:14) Its pes]her: Your multitude: they are the legions of his army[ ] and his young lions: they are 11 his great ones[. . .] and his prey: it is the [. . . weal]th which q[. . .] y Jerusalem that 12 th]ey will give it [. . .] Ephraim. Israel will be given [. . . about opposition to “Ephraim.” The Qumran Prayer for King Jonathan (4Q448) has been associated by some with Alexander Jannaeus, though this is not definitive.13 who will smite his great ones, and the men of his counsel Because of the ambiguity of the pronouns and Hebrew syntax, and the missing text at the beginning of line 5, it is not clear whether the Lion of Wrath is depicted as smiting an opponent here, or being smitten by one. The context is likely the attack of Demetrius III upon Jannaeus, or its aftermath. 1:7. . . .]mwt Missing text is probably either “death” or “vengeance.” hang people alive Josephus describes Jannaeus’s crucifixion of his opponents following the withdrawal of Demetrius from Judea (Ant. 13.380).14 He states that Jannaeus executed these men, along with their wives and children, in a festive atmosphere, as he and his royal consorts watched triumphantly. The “lionesses” at 4Q169 3–4 i 4 may refer to the adult female victims or the royal consorts.15 1:8. for of one hanged alive upo[n the tree is to be re]ad: ‘Behold I am against [you]’ The pesher views the execution of Jannaeus’s opponents as fulfillment of the divine retribution promised in Nah. 2:14. The pesher may allude to Deut. 21:22–23, which mandates some sort of hanging for certain cases of capital punishment. The Rabbis and Josephus understand this verse as indicating postmortem exposure of certain executed criminals, rather than execution by a form of hanging.16 1:9–2:1. you]r [multitude] . . . your young lions . . . p]rey . . . his messengers The pesher may describe the downfall of Jannaeus, or of his opponent. Note how the pronouns change when the elements are restated in the pesher (“his young lions,” “his prey,” “his messengers”), which would accommodate either interpretation. Beginning with Jonathan, the first Maccabean high priest, the Hasmoneans expanded their military aims beyond their initial objective of securing self-determination. Jannaeus waged numerous military campaigns, maintained diplomatic contacts, and managed conquered territories. 1:11. the [. . . weal]th Perhaps we could restore this as “that is the wealth that the [prie]sts of Jerusalem have amas[sed,” on the basis of the Pesher Habakkuk (9:4–6), which states that the priests of Jerusalem gather wealth from Gentile nations, and asserts that at the end-time, this plunder will be given into the hands of the Kittim. 1:12. Ephraim This epithet appears below together with the Seekers-after-Smooth-Things, who are generally identified with Pharisees. “Ephraim” is either an alternative equivalent epithet, or represents a subset of the Seekers-after-Smooth-Things. The use of this term to delegitimize opponents may have some roots in anti-Samaritan polemic; cf. 4Q372, Narrative and Poetic Composition.

Pesher Nahum

629

ii.1 and his messengers are his envoys, that their voice will no longer be heard among the nations. Woe, city of blood! She is all [deception, with violence] she is filled (Nah. 3:1a) 2 Its pesher: “she” is the city of Ephraim, the Seekers-after-Smooth-Things at the end of days, that the[y will] conduct themselves in deception and falsehoo[ds]. 3 There will not cease predation, nor crack of whip and rattle of wheel, galloping steed, and bounding chariot! Charging horsemen! Flame 4 and flash of spear! Hosts of slain and heaps of corpses, dead bodies without number—they stumble over their bodies (Nah. 3:1b–3) Its pesher concerns the dominion of the Seekers-after-Smooth-Things 5 that there shall not cease from the midst of their congregation the sword of Gentiles, captivity, and plunder, and fever among them, and exile from fear of the enemy; and a multitude of 6 guilty corpses will fall in their days, and there will be no end to the sum of their slain, and even over their fleshly bodies they shall stumble, by their guilty counsel.

2:2. city of Ephraim Jerusalem; in particular the Pharisaic establishment. The Dead Sea Scrolls, and especially the pesharim, often use metaphors pertaining to building to represent communities and sectarian factions. the end of days The subject matter of pesharim is generally eschatological, but the explicit phrase may signal that this section refers to a later period than the previous columns,17 specifically, the period of civil war between Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II, described by Josephus (Ant. 14; J.W. 1). deception and falsehoo[ds] A common accusation in Qumran polemic, especially against the Seekers-after-Smooth-Things and in the epithets “Man of Lies” or “Dripper of Lies.” 2:3. There will not cease predation In the masoretic verse division, this phrase completes the previous verse, describing Assyria’s culpability. The pesherist has attached the phrase forward, so that it begins the list of punishments from which Assyria will suffer. Flame Or “blade.” The MT reads “flame or sword.” Since “sword” appears in the pesher, the omission of the word in the citation is probably a scribal error. 2:4. the dominion of the Seekers-after-Smooth-Things May allude to the reign of Salome Alexandra, wife of Alexander Jannaeus, who is said to have yielded control to the Pharisees (Ant. 13.408– 10; J.W. 112). The pesher here concerns not the dominance of the Pharisees, but their ignominious defeat. 2:5–6. the sword of Gentiles The list of horrors depicts the suffering of the nation after the Pharisees’ fall from power, during the civil war between Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II, which led to Pompey’s bloody takeover of Judea in 63 bce. Similar terms are used to describe the aftermath of the predicted desecration of the Temple by the Kittim in Dan. 11:32–35 (“He will flatter with smooth words . . . and for a while they shall fall by sword and flame, suffer captivity and spoliation.”) 2:5. fever Or “heated strife,” as the word is used in later Hebrew. In the Hebrew Bible, the word appears only in Deut. 28:22, in a list of curses to befall the nation if they violate the covenant. exile from fear of the enemy If this is the period of the civil war, then it is noteworthy that Josephus disparagingly refers to Hyrcanus’s supporters as “some fugitives” (Ant. 14.32), and in his story of “Honi the Circle-Drawer” (Ant. 14.22–24) he records that Honi had gone into hiding because of the hostilities. 2:6. in their days This phrase highlights the author’s concern with the time of fulfillment. guilty corpses . . . guilty counsel A close paraphrase of the biblical text, but the addition of “guilty” supports a theological view of punishment based on fault.

630 Shani Berrin Tzoref

7 Because of the countless harlotries of the harlot, charmingly pleasing, and mistress of sorceries, who betrays nations with her harlotries and peoples with her sor[ce]ries (Nah. 3:4) 8 [Its] pesher concer[ns] the misleaders of Ephraim, who, by their false teaching, and their lying tongue and their deceitful lip, mislead many 9 kings, princes, priests, and populace together with the resident alien. Cities and families will perish through their counsel, n[ob]les and rul[ers] 10 will fall [by the fur]y of their tongue. “Behold I am against you,” it is the declaration of the Lord of H[os]ts, “and you will uncover 11 [your] skirts up over your face; you will sh[ow nat]ions [your] nakedness and kingdoms your shame (Nah. 3:5) Its pesher: [ 12 . . .]cities of the east, for the skir[t]s [. . .] iii.1: the nations in their de[file]ment and in their det]estable abominations. And I will throw loathsome things over you, and I will [de]grade you and I will make you 2 despicable All who see you will recoil from you(Nah. 3:6–7a) 3 Its pesher concerns the Seekers-after-Smooth-Things that at the end of time their evil deeds will be revealed to all Israel,

2:7–10 The pesher adapts the metaphor of harlotry, employed to depict Assyrian culpability in Nah. 3:4, to Pharisaic seduction of the populace and leadership of Judea. Links between sexual offenses and sorcery are found also in Mal. 3:5, and 2 Kings 9:22 (in reference to Jezebel). This stereotype is further developed in 1 En. 7, in the story of the Watchers. 2:7. betrays Or perhaps “entraps”; the Hebrew differs from the MT, so the reading and translation are uncertain. 2:8. their false teaching . . . lying tongue . . . deceitful lip The expressions used to describe the false speech of “Ephraim” are similar to other descriptions of religious opponents of the community found in Rule of the Community (1QS 4:11; 10:21–23), the Damascus Document (CD 5:11), and the Thanksgiving Hymns (1QHa 10:19; 12:16; 13:13–14, 27). teaching Hebrew talmud. The choice of this late Hebrew word to designate the oral teaching of the author’s opponents may provide another clue that those opponents were Pharisees. Of course, the Pesher Nahum was written centuries before the compilation of any Rabbinic corpus that might have been called “Talmud,” but the term may nonetheless be significant.18 2:10–12 In Nah. 3:5, the punishment for Nineveh’s harlotry is exposure, a common practice in the ancient Near East, both for the punishing of harlots and the humiliation of defeated enemies. The pesher is poorly preserved. 3:1–5 The pesher plays with the idea of “exposing.” In the biblical text, Nah. 3:6–7 continues God’s threats concerning the degradation of the harlot/Nineveh. In the Pesher Nahum, the pesherist applies those threats to the Seekers-after-Smooth-Things, predicting that their iniquity will be revealed “at the end of time,” to the triumph of the author’s community. 3:3. their evil deeds will be revealed May refer generally to the leadership’s corruption, but probably also indicates the pesherist’s contempt for his opponents’ halakhic rulings. The motif of eschatological revelation occurs in many early Jewish writings. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, divine revelation of nistarot (hidden things) and of the raz nihiyeh (“mystery of being”)19 to the members of

Pesher Nahum

631

4 and many will discern their iniquity and hate them and despise them because of their insolent guilt. And upon the revelation of the glory of Judah, 5 the simple ones of Ephraim will flee from the midst of their congregation and will leave those who mislead them and will join themselves to Israel. “And they will say, 6 ‘Nineveh has been ravaged!’ Who will console her? Where shall I look for anyone to comfort (Nah. 3:7b) Its pesher [concerns] the Seekers-after7 Smooth-Things that their council will perish and their assembly will be broken up and they will not continue to mislead [the] congregation and the simp[le ones] 8 will not maintain their counsel any more. . . . Are you better than Am[on situated among] the rivers? (Nah. 3:8a) 9 Its pesher: “Amon”: they are Manasseh and “the rivers”: they are the nobles of Manasseh, the honored ones of the [. . . the community is both a sign of their election and a means to further salvation in the end-time (cf. 1QS 5:11–12; CD 3:12–14). A similar view of revelation as both means to and result of salvation appears in Jub. 23. In Rabbinic literature, the most familiar expression of this idea is in cases of halakhic disputes that remain open-ended “until Elijah will come” and resolve the matter.20 Some of the expressions in this interpretation are similar to Dan. 11. 3:4. despise them The Hebrew repeats the form of the word as it appears in the citation, “despicable,” as a variant from the difficult form in the MT, meaning perhaps “spectacle” or “excrement.” And upon the revelation of the glory of Judah The term “Judah” in the Dead Sea Scrolls sometimes seems to refer to the community, in part or as a whole (CD 4:11; Pesher Habakkuk 8:1); and at other times to the entire Jewish nation or to the geographic region of Judea. Most likely, this pesher means that the glory of the community will be revealed to the rest of the nation. 3:5. the simple ones Simplicity may be a virtue or a vice. In this context, it seems to denote the neutral masses who had been swayed by the demagoguery of the Seekers-after-Smooth-Things, but will now reject their former leaders and embrace the author’s community. 3:5–8 Nahum 3:7 is phrased as a rhetorical question in direct address to Nineveh. The pesher does not adopt this literary device, but rather seems to respond again to the previous citation, recapitulating the assertion that the “simple ones” will abandon the Seekers-after-Smooth-Things in favor of the pesherist’s community. 3:7. assembly The word keneset is a late Hebrew term. Although the term signifies “synagogue” in mishnaic Hebrew, earlier suggestions relating this term to the Pharisees do not seem warranted. In the Pesher Genesis (4Q252), the word refers to the leadership of the Qumran community. 3:8–11 Nahum 3:8–10 describes the fate of “Amon” (or perhaps “No-Amon”), the once-mighty city of Thebes, which serves as an example for Assyria of its imminent downfall. Here, the pesherist draws a parallel between Amon and a group that he designates with the sobriquet “Manasseh.” The fate predicted for “Manasseh”—which is generally viewed as the decline of the Sadducees and defeat of Aristobulus II—foreshadows that of a group designated as “Ephraim”—the anticipated eradication of Hyrcanus II and the Pharisees. 3:9. “Amon” . . . Manasseh The association between these terms is supported by their similar sound and contexts.21 Scholars identify Manasseh as the Sadducees based upon Josephus’s statements that ancient Judaism was made up of three major Jewish sects: Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes (J.W. 2.119). The conventional identification of the Qumran community as Essenes, and

632 Shani Berrin Tzoref

10 surrounded by waters, its rampart was the sea and its walls were waters (Nah. 3:8b) 11 Its [pe]sher: they are her [w]arriors, her mighty men o[f w]ar. Ethiopia was her might [and Egypt, and it was without limit. 12 [. . . P]ut and the [Libyans were in your aid. (Nah. 3:9) iv.1 Its pesher: they are the wicked ones of its[. . .], the House of Peleg who have joined themselves to Manasseh. Yet even she w[as] exiled, she we[nt into captivity. Also 2 her young children were dashed to pieces at every street corner. And they cast lots for her honored men and all [her g]reat men [were bound 3 in chains. (Nah. 3:10) Its pesher concerns Manasseh at the final age when his kingdom will be brought low in y [. . . 4 his women, his infants, and his children will go into captivity, his warriors and his nobles by the sword [. . . You too will be drunken 5 you will be obscured (Nah. 3:11a) Its pesher concerns the evil ones of E[phraim 6 that their cup will come after Manasseh [. . . you too will seek 7 refuge in the city from the enemy (Nah. 3:11b) Its pesh[er: upo]n [ the Seekers-after-Smooth-Things as Pharisees, led to a default identification of Manasseh as the Sadducees. Both the dominant theory identifying the Qumran Community with the Essenes and the simple three-sect model have been challenged in recent years, but the association of Manasseh with Sadducees and Aristobulus retains wide acceptance. 3:10. rampart The physical “defenses” of the city in the biblical citation are interpreted in the pesher as the human defenders of a particular faction. The identification is facilitated through wordplay in the Heb. h-y-l, which can mean army as well as fortress. 4:1. P]ut and the [Libyans In Nah. 3:9, additional allies of No-Amon are introduced. In the pesher, these are taken to represent the House of Peleg, allies of Manasseh; wordplay with the initial letters of “Put” and “Libya” is likely. The term “Peleg” denotes separation and evokes the figure of Peleg in Gen. 10:25, who was named for the dispersion of humanity upon the earth. Here, “the House of Peleg” seems to designate defectors from the community. The phrase appears as well in CD 20:22, but it is not clear whether the term refers to a particular group or functions as a more generic term for backsliders.22 4:1–4 The pesherist applies the description of the defeat and exile of No-Amon and its allies in Nah. 3:10 to the downfall of Manasseh. 4:3. at the final age when his kingdom will be brought low The term “final age” seems to indicate yet another shift forward in time, though it is unclear whether these are current events for the author, or anticipated ones. Because the future tense is the natural expression for pesher—which presents itself as a recasting of biblical prophecy and retains forward-looking expressions even for past events—its use here does not necessarily indicate prediction. 4:4–6. cup This word choice is grounded in the reference to drunkenness in the biblical citation, but its effectiveness derives from the common biblical metaphor of the “cup of wrath” to describe divine vengeance.23 4:6–8 The few words that survive of this pesher echo the citation of Nah. 3:11b as it appears in this manuscript. The words “in the city” in the quotation do not appear in the MT.

Pesher Nahum

633

8 their enemies in the city [. . . All your fortresses 9 are fig trees with [tripe fruit; (Nah. 3:12) 10 [. . .] 11 [. . .] 12 [. . .] Fragment 5

1:1 . . .] ym [. . .] 2 [] wl the boundary of Israe[l] m[. . . 3 [“strengthen your fortresses, tread the clay. . . “ (Nah. 3:14)

4:8–9 No interpretation has survived for the citation of Nah. 3:12.

Notes 1. I.e., adaptation of the biblical verse to a context other than its original one. 2. See M. Mak. 1:6; M. Par. 3:7; M. Nid. 4:2; M. Yad. 4:6–7; T. Hag. 3:35. 3. Ant. 13.171–3, 18.11–22, and B.J. 2.119–66, On the politics of the sects, see Shaye Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987), 144–6. 4. See Ant. 13.372 and 399–404, 18.15, B.J. 2.162–6. T. Yom. 1:8, T. Suk. 3:16. 5. See Steve Mason, “Josephus’s Pharisees: The Narratives” in Quest of the Historical Pharisees, edited by Jacob Neusner and Bruce D. Chilton. See Matt. 23; M. Sot. 3:4; B. Sot. 22B. 6. See H. Eshel, “The Kittim in the War Scroll and the Pesharim,” in Historical Perspectives: From the Hasmoneans to Bar Kokhba in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls; Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 27–31 January 1999, ed. David Goodblatt, Avital Pinnick, and Daniel R. Schwartz, 29–44, Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 37 (Leiden: Brill, 2001). 7. See Sifre Deut. 6 and G. Vermes, “Symbolical Interpretation of Lebanon in the Targums: The Origin and Development of an Exegetical Tradition,” JTS 9 (1958): 1–12 (reprinted in G. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism [Leiden: Brill, 1961], 26–39). 8. There is an unclear letter in the text, as well as disagreement about the translation. See Berrin, Pesher Nahum, 47, 134–35. 9. See I. Rabinowitz, “The Meaning of the Key (“Demetrius”) Passage of the Qumran Nahum-Pesher,” JAOS 98, no. 4 (1978): 394–99. 10. See J. C. VanderKam, “Those Who Look for Smooth Things, Pharisees, and Oral Law,” in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov, ed. S. Paul, R. Kraft, L. H. Schiffman, and W. W. Fields, 465–77, Supplements to VT 94 (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2003); and L. H. Schiffman, “Pharisees and Sadducees in ‘Pesher Nahum,’” in Minhah le-Nahum: Biblical and Other Studies Presented to Nahum M. Sarna, ed. Marc Brettler and Michael Fishbane, 272–90 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993). 11. See, for example, the Wisdom texts 4Q184, 4Q185; the Damascus Document and Thanksgiving Hymns; and the Pesher Isaiah C 4Q163 and Catena A 4Q177. 12. See G. Doudna, 4Q Pesher Nahum: A Critical Edition, JSPSup 35, Copenhagen International Series 8 (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001). 13. See H. Eshel, “4Q448, Psalms 154 (Syriac), Sirach 48:20 and 4QpIsa (a),” JBL 119 (2000): 645–59. 14. For divergent views on whether the pesherist approves of crucifixion as a penalty for traitors, particularly in light of the rewording of Deut 21:22–23 in the Temple Scroll 64:6–13, cf. Y. Yadin (“Pesher Nahum

634 Shani Berrin Tzoref

15.

16. 17.

18.

19. 20. 21. 22.

23.

[4QpNahum] Reconsidered,” IEJ 21 [1971]: 1–12) to J. M. Baumgarten (“Does TLH in the Temple Scroll Refer to Crucifixion?” JBL 91 [1972]: 472–81). See also J. A. Fitzmyer, “Crucifixion in Ancient Palestine, Qumran Literature, and the New Testament,” CBQ 40 (1978): 493–513. See T. Ilan, “Shelamzion in Qumran: New Insights,” in Historical Perspectives, 57–68. Ilan notes the possible implicit association with female figures, specifically Shelamzion (Salome Alexandra), the wife and royal successor of Alexander Jannaeus. Ilan is skeptical of any allusion in the pesher to Jannaeus’s concubines, since she doubts the historicity of Josephus’s dramatic account of the executions. Sifre Deut. 221 on Deut 21:22; M. Sanh. 6:4; B. Sanh. 46b. Ant. 4.202, 264. For the range of meanings of “end of days” (Hebrew aharit ha-yamim; Greek eschaton), especially regarding the question of whether the term connotes generally future “latter days” or specifically “last days,” see A. Steudel, “Ahryt hymym in the Texts From Qumran,” RevQ 16, no. 2 (1993): 225–46. S. Zeitlin and S. Hoenig attempted to argue that the use of this word, which they took to be a late technical term, was evidence for the late composition of the Dead Sea Scroll corpus. See, for example, Zeitlin, “The Expression BeTalmud in the Scrolls Militates Against the Views of the Protagonists of Their Antiquity,” JQR 54 (1963): 89–97 and (1964): 340; S. B. Hoenig, “The Pesher Nahum ‘Talmud,’” JBL 86 (1967): 441–45. See M. J. Goff, The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom of 4QInstruction, Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 50 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 33–79. M. Shek. 2:5; M. BM 1:8, 2:8, 3:4–5; M. Ed. 8:7. Knibb (The Qumran Community, 218) suggests that the pesherist may have adjusted the reading of the MT “No-Amon” to “Amon” to better accommodate this wordplay. See R. T. White, “The House of Peleg in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History, ed. P. R. Davies, G. Vermes, and R. T. White, 67–98, JSOTSup 100 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1990). See Isa. 51:17–23; Jer. 25:5–29; Hab. 2:15 (and Pesher Habakkuk 11:8–15).

Pesher Nahum

635

Pesher Habakkuk Bilhah Nitzan Pesher Habakkuk from Qumran (scroll 1QpHab) is a verse-by-verse commentary on the first two chapters of the biblical book of Habakkuk. The commentary shows how the events foretold by the prophet have come to pass in the time and life of the Qumran community. The scroll holds 13 columns, written in Herodian script dating from the second half of the 1st century bce. The text is well preserved except for columns 1 and 2. The right half of column 1 was lost, and column 2 was torn into two separate pieces and damaged along its center; in addition, damage occurred to the two bottom lines (16–17) of columns 1–12. The Qumran pesharim present interpretations of the mysteries hidden in prophetic and other biblical texts1 concerning events that occurred during the Second Temple period (the “present age” of the Qumran community), as well as events that are expected to happen at the end-time (1QpHab 2:7–10; 7:4–5). The author of Pesher Habakkuk uses homiletic techniques to reveal these mysteries.2 Habakkuk’s prophecies referring to treachery are applied to the rivalry between the different Jewish congregations, especially between the Qumran community (the Essenes, called the yahad in the scrolls) and the Pharisees (1:16–2:10; 5:8–12; 10:5–13). His pronouncements concerning the intimidating offensive of the Chaldeans are applied to the Kittim, which refers here to the Romans (2:10–4:15; 5:12–6:12). Verses that mention robbery and assassination are referring to actions taken by Hasmonean priests and rulers (8:3–10:5; 11:2–10). Thus the scroll reflects the political and religious criticism directed by the Qumran community against both regional and worldwide political events during the Hasmonean era. Significance The main figures dealt with in the pesharim are designated by sobriquets, which makes their exact historical identification difficult. These are the Teacher of Righteousness (the leader of the yahad), the Man of the Lie (seemingly a leader of the Pharisees), and especially the Wicked Priest (a Hasmonean ruler or rulers3). Probably this last sobriquet refers to the Hasmonean rulers in power from 152 bce ( Jonathan) through 76 bce (Alexander Jannaeus), before the Roman occupation of Judea in 63 bce: Roman occupation of other nations is described in Pesher Habakkuk (2:10–4:14; 6:5–12), along with a prediction of ultimate Roman domination over the Hasmonean rulers (9:6–7).4 The rivalry between the Qumran community and its opponents persisted during this period, as is clear from pesharim on other biblical books. For example, in Pesher Nahum 3–4 iv 1–5 Menashe is a sobriquet of the Sadducees, and Ephraim is a sobriquet of the Pharisees.5 Ideologically, the historical events are discussed in light of the deterministic-dualistic philosophy of the Qumran community. Both the righteous (the members of the yahad, who observe the Torah) and the wicked (of Israel, along with the Gentiles) are expected to stand trial before God, who will judge them righteously at the end-time. The author ex-

636

presses this expectation in many comments. However, the Qumran community was clearly bothered by the postponement of the Messianic Era beyond the time expected by apocalyptic calculations (cf. Dan. 9:24) (see the comments on Hab. 2:3 in 1QpHab 7:7–8). The pesher reflects the author’s acknowledgment that not all the mysteries of God are revealed to human beings. However, he reassures the community’s members that “all of God’s periods will come according to their fixed order, as he decreed” (7:13). The wording of the pesharim retains some wordings of the biblical verses for verifying the connection between the biblical verse and its pesher. Such interpretive techniques became traditional in other Jewish homiletic biblical interpretation.6 Suggested Reading Bernstein, Moshe J. “Introductory Formulas for Citation and Re-citation of Biblical Verses in the Qumran Pesharim: Observations on a Pesher Technique.” Dead Sea Discoveries 1 (1994): 30–70. —. “Pesher Habakkuk.” In Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, edited by L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam, 647–50. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Brooke, George J. “The Kittim in the Qumran Commentaries.” In Images of Empire, edited by L. C. Alexander, 135–59. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 122. Sheffield: JSOT, 1991. Brownlee, William H. The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk: Text, Translation, Exposition with an Introduction. Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 24. Missoula mt: Scholars Press, 1979. Elliger, Karl. Studien zum Habakuk-Kommentar vom Toten Meer. Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 15. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1953. Flusser, David. “The Roman Empire in Hasmonean and Essene Eyes.” In his Judaism of the Second Temple Period, translated by Azzan Yadin, 175–206. Grand Rapids mi: Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2007. Horgan, Maurya P. Pesharim: Qumran Interpretations of Biblical Books. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 8. Washington dc: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1979. Lim, Timothy H. Pesharim. Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 3. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Nitzan Bilhah. Pesher Habakkuk: A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judaea (1QpHab). [In Hebrew.] Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute, 1986. Rabinowitz, I. “‘Pessher/Pittaron’: Its Biblical Meaning and Its Significance in the Qumran Literature.” Revue de Qumran 8 (1973): 219–32.

Pesher Habakkuk

637

Translation Section 1 1:1[The burden that Habakkuk the prophet saw:

How long, Yahweh,] have I cried out for help, but you do not 2[hear? (Hab. 1:1–2) Its interpretation concerns everything that Habakkuk prophesied concerning the expec]tation of the generation of 3[the last days all the things that are going to co]me upon them 4[I cry out to you “Violence” but you do not save (Hab. 1:2b) Its interpretation is that] they [c]ry out against 5[the violence Why do you make me see evil, and] do you [g]aze at [tr]ibulation? (Hab. 1:3a) 6[Its interpretation concerns who rebelled against] God with oppression and treachery. 7[And destruction and violence are before me; and there is strife, and contention arises.] (Hab. 1:3b) 8[Its interpretation concerns] wg. [ ]ly h[ ] and strife 9[ qu]arrel, and h[ ]h is 10[ ]Therefore the Torah is numbed, 11[and judgment does not go forth to victory. (Hab. 1:4a) Its interpretation is] that they rejected the Torah of God 12[ For the wicked surrou]nd the righteous. (Hab. 1:4b)

Commentary 1:1–15 Only the left side of column 1 remains. The width of the column is based on line 11, for which the reconstruction seems quite certain. The fragmented pesharim in the biblical passages are restored by conjecture. Therefore just a few terms, which appear and are interpreted elsewhere in the scroll, are referred to briefly in the comments. 1:2–3. the generation of [the last days] Cf. 1QpHab 2:7; 7:2; see also the comment on 2:6–8. 1:5. [the violence] See 8:11; 12:9–10; see also the comments on 8:11–12 and 12:9–10. 1:6. [who rebelled against] God See 8:11 and the comment on 8:11–12. 1:11. That they rejected the Torah of God See 5:11–12 and the comment on 5:10–12.

Source of Translation: The translation is that of Maurya P. Horgan (cited above), with occasional modifications as noted. It is useful when presenting pesher to indicate which parts of the text are the biblical passages and which are the commentary, so I have italicized quotations from the Bible.

638 Bilhah Nitzan

13[Its interpretation is: the wicked one is the Wicked Priest, and the righteous one] is the Teacher of Righteousness. 14[ The]refore the judgment goes forth 15[perverted (Hab. 1:4b) Its interpretation . . . ] and not m[ ] Section 2 1:16[

Look, O traitors, and] s[ee] 17[wonder (and ) be amazed, for I am doing a deed in your days that you would not believe if ] 2:1it were told. (Hab. 1:5) [The interpretation of the passage concerns] the traitors together with the Man of 2the Lie, for [they did] not [hearken to the words of] the Teacher of Righteousness (which were) from the mouth of 3God. And it concerns the trai[tors to] the new [covenant,] f[o]r they were not 4faithful to the covenant of God, [and they profaned] his holy name.

1:13. [the Wicked Priest] See 8:8, 16; 9:9; 11:4, 12; 12:2; see also the comments that mention the Wicket Priest. The Teacher of Righteousness See 2:2; 5:10; 7:4; 8:3; see also the comments on 5:10–12; 7:4–5; 8:2–3. 1:14. The judgment Hab. 1:4b. 1:16–2:10 This section presents a three-part pesher on Hab. 1:5 (1QpHab 2:1–3, 3–4, 5–10), focused on the noun “traitors” and the verb “believe.” The different parts of the pesher may refer to different classes of opponents of the Qumran community from the time of its founding leader, the Teacher of Righteousness, until the time of the author of Pesher Habakkuk. 1:16. [Look O traitors] The Masoretic Text (MT) reads here “look at the nations.” The phrase “O traitors” seems to be based on a different Hebrew version, which was also the basis for the Old Greek (OG) and Syriac translations. 2:1–2. the traitors together with the Man of the Lie These are probably members of the Pharisees’ congregation, led by the figure called the Man of the Lie (cf. 10:9–13).7 2:2–3. for [they did] not [hearken to the words of ] the Teacher of Righteousness (which were) from the mouth of God This is the transgression of the aforementioned “traitors.”8 The phrase “[they did] not [hearken]” (lo shame’u) is restored here as a synonym for those who did not believe the words of God as spoken by a human being.9 The opposite is told in the Damascus Document (CD 20:28, 32) to describe the yahad members, who listened to the voice of the Teacher of Righteousness. from the mouth of God Cf. 1QpHab 2:7–8; 7:4–5. 2:3. And it concerns the trai[tors to] the new [covenant] These are members of the yahad who betrayed its rules by joining the congregation led by the Man of the Lie (cf. 5:8–12). The appellation “New Covenant,”10 based on Jer. 31:30–31, designates the system of Torah commandments and Community rules that the yahad members are obligated to observe .11 2:3–4. f[o]r they were not faithful to the covenant of God, [and they profaned] his holy name This concept is based on Lev. 22:31–32.

Pesher Habakkuk

639

5Likewise, the interpretation of the passage [concerns the trai]tors at the end of 6days. They are the ruthless [ones of the coven]ant who will not believe 7when they hear all that is going to co[me up]on the last generation from the mouth of 8the priest to whom God gave into [his heart insig]ht to interpret all 9the words of his servants the prophets, by [whose] hand God foretold 10all that is going to come upon his people and up[on the nations.] Section 3 2:10b

For behold I am raising up 11the Chaldeans, that bitter [and ha]sty nation. (Hab. 1:6a) 12Its interpretation concerns the Kittim, wh[o ar]e swift and strong 13in battle, so as to destroy many [who will fight] against the

2:5–6. Likewise . . . [concerns the trai]tors at the end of days. They are the ruthless [ones of the coven] ant According to 4QpPsa 1–2 ii 13–14 (a pesher on Psalm 37), the ruthless are those who plot to destroy the members of the yahad.12 They will be punished at the end-time (see 1QpHab 12:2–6). 2:6c–8. who will not believe when they hear all that is going to co[me up]on the last generation from the mouth of the priest Specifies in more detail the transgression referred to in 2:2. “The priest” is the Teacher of Righteousness (see 4QpPsa 3–4 iii 15–16). According to the deterministic outlook of the yahad, the term “last generation” defines the last historical generation before the fulfillment of the prophetic eschatological time of salvation (see 1QpHab 7:2, 7, 12; cf. CD 1:12). 2:8–10. to whom God gave into [his heart insig]ht to interpret . . . and up[on the nations] God inspired the Teacher of Righteousness with the faculty of understanding how the events recorded in the words of the biblical prophets on Israel and the nations were to be fulfilled (cf. 1QpHab 7:4–5). For the restoration of “up[on the nations],” cf. 3:4–5. The phrase may allude to the MT version of Hab. 1:5, which was not cited in the text. 2:10–3:17 The pesharim on Hab. 1:6–11 recorded in 1QpHab 2:10–4:14 illustrate the imperialistic aims of the Romans (Kittim) and the military power they use to achieve these aims. In 1QpHab 2:10–3:17, their threat to all the nations is described. 2:12–13. the Kittim, wh[o ar]e swift and strong in battle The threat posed by the Chaldeans, recorded in Hab. 1:6 and reflecting the historical situation of the prophet’s time, is to be fulfilled in the last generation by the Kittim. The sobriquet Kittim is used in Gen. 10:4 for descendants of Japhet who settled in the islands (cf. Ant. 1.128). In Pesher Habakkuk these are the Romans (see 1QpHab 4:10–13; 6:3–5), the superpower that had intimidated the nations of the Middle East since the defeat of Antiochus III at Magnesia in 189 bce (1 Macc. 8:6–7), and the expulsion of Antiochus IV from Egypt in 168 bce.13 The identification of the Kittim as the superpower of the last generation is probably based on Num. 24:24. The phrase “strong in battle” is related to the word “bitter” in Hab. 1:6. Zeph. 1:14 characterizes the eschatological fight of God against the nations in the great day of the Lord.14 Brownlee and Horgan both suggest that this phrase is also reflected in the OG version tous chaldaious tous machetos.

640 Bilhah Nitzan

dominion of 14the Kittim, and the wick[ed ones (that) will betray the covena]nt, and will not be faithful 15to the statutes of [Go]d [ ] 16l[ Who go through the breadth of the land] 17[to take possession of dwelling places that are not their own. (Hab.1:6b) Its interpretation concerns the Kittim ] 3:1and by (way of) the level plain they come to smite and to loot the cities of the land, 2for this is what it says: To take possession of dwelling places not their own. (Hab. 1:6b) Fearful 3and terrible are they. From them goes out their judgment and guile. (Hab. 1:7) 4Its interpretation concerns the Kittim, fear and dread of whom are upon all 5the nations. And in the council their whole plan is to do evil, and with cunning and deceit 6they shall deal with all the peoples. And their horses are swifter than leopards and more fierce 7than the wolves of the evening. They paw the 2:13–15 If the restoration of this part of the pesher on Hab 1:6 is correct, it may reflect the idea that God would use the Romans in order to destroy the wicked nations, such as those of the Seleucid empire (see 1QpHab 4:1–9), and the wicked of Israel (see 9:3–7). 2:13. against For the Hebrew preposition b—with the meaning of “against.”15 3:1. and by (way of) the level plain they come Meaning, figuratively, that the Kittim come unhindered or unimpeded (cf. Isa. 40:4). 3:1–2. to smite and to loot the cities of the land. . . . To take possession of dwelling places not their own Habakkuk 1:6 is interpreted as predicting the aims of the Romans, and is cited again to confirm the correctness of the pesher. This literary formula of confirmation appears also in 1QpHab 3:13–14; 5:6. 3:3. guile The translation of the word she’eto as “guile” is based on the Heb. stem n-sh-a’.16 See the comment on 1QpHab 3:5–6, with cunning and deceit they shall deal with all the peoples.17 3:4–5. the Kittim, fear and dread of whom are upon all the nations The pesherist interprets the “fearful and terrible” Chaldeans (Hab. 1:7) as referring to the Romans, feared by all the nations.18 3:5. in the council their whole plan is to do evil The phrase “their judgment and guile” in Hab. 1:7 is interpreted as an imperial decision reached through consultation and plotting (cf. Prov. 20:18; 24:8; 1 Chron. 12:20). On the Romans’ reputation for military and political plotting, see Sallust, Hist. 4.67.5–7, 20.19 cunning and deceit Based on the word she’eto in Hab. 1:7 (see the comment on 1QpHab 3:3)20 and its parallel root n-ch-l (see Num. 25:18).21

Pesher Habakkuk

641

ground, and their riders spread out from a distance. 8They fly like the eagle, (which) hastens to devour all. They come for violence. The horror 9of their faces is an east wind. (Hab. 1:8–9a) Its in[terpretation] concerns the Kittim, who 10trample the earth with [their] horses and with their beasts. And from a distance 11they come, from the islands of the sea, to devour all the peoples like an eagle, 12and there is no satiety . And with rage [they] gr[ow hot, and with] burning anger and fury 13they speak with all [the peoples, fo]r this is what it 14says: The horro[r of their faces is an east wind. And they gather] captives [like sa]nd. (Hab. 1:9b) 15[ Its interpreta]tion [concerns the kittim, who ] 3:7. They paw the ground, and their riders spread out The scroll’s version of Hab. 1:8b has two verbs: “paw” (related to the horses) and “spread out” (related to their riders), as in the Old Greek version of the passage. The MT version uses the verbs “gallop,” “spread,” “come flying,” and “rushing,” and repeats the noun “their steeds.” 3:9–10. the Kittim, who trample the earth with [their] horses and with their beasts The pesher on Hab. 1:8a concentrates on how the Roman horsemen ruin? the conquered lands with their horses. The verb “trample” interprets the verb “they will paw” (wupasu) of Hab. 1:8 in association with Jer. 50:11, where the verbs “paw” (push) and “trample” (dush) are used to describe the damage done by the Chaldeans. The menace, which is described as fiercer than the evening wolves, is interpreted along the lines of Dan. 7’s description of the deeds of the Fourth Kingdom, which has “great iron teeth—that devoured and crushed, and stamped the remains with its feet” (Dan. 7:7 NJPS; see also Dan. 7:19). The author of Pesher Habakkuk considers the Romans, the imperial kingdom of his time, as the last historical kingdom described in the apocalyptic vision of Daniel. 3:10–11. And from a distance they come, from the islands of the sea This interpretation of Hab. 1:8b reflects the MT’s phrasing (NJPS: “their steeds / Come flying from afar”), rather than the form of the verse cited by the pesherist. The islands of the Kittim are mentioned in Jer. 2:10; Ezek. 27:6. Their distant location is mentioned in Jer. 31:9/10. 3:11–12. to devour all the peoples like an eagle, and there is no satiety The eagle stands metaphorically for the Romans. The phrase “all the peoples” is an addition of the author, who atomized the word kulo (“they all”) of Hab. 1:9, interpreting the word kol (all) as the eagles’ prey, and using the waw of kulo for a conjunction, “and,” to the phrase there is no satiety to the eagerness of spoiling.22 Cf. Hab. 2:5. 3:12–14. And with rage [they] gr[ow hot, and with] burning anger. . . . The horro[r of their faces is an east wind] Where the MT version of Hab. 1:9 reads kadimah, “forward,” the author of Pesher Habakkuk reads kadim, “a hot wind that comes from the east,” which he interprets metaphorically as burning anger. The reading kadim reflects a Hebrew version that underlies the Aramaic, Greek, and Latin biblical translations.

642 Bilhah Nitzan

16[ 17[

] ]

Section 4 3:17[ And at kings] 4:1They scoff, and princes are to them a laughing

matter. (Hab. 1:10a) Its interpretation is that 2they mock great ones, and they despise honored ones; kings, 3and princes they mock, and they scoff at a great people. And They 4laugh at every fortress, and they heap up earth to capture it. (Hab. 1:10b) 5Its interpretation concerns the rulers of the Kittim, who despise 6the fortifications of the peoples and laugh with derision at them; 7and with many (people) they (i.e., the rulers of the Kittim) surround them (i.e., the fortifications) to capture them. And with terror and dread 8they (i.e., the fortifications) are given into their hand, and they tear them down, because of the guilt of those who dwell 9in them. The wind then swept on and passed by

3:17b–4:16a The pesharim on Hab. 1:10–11 illustrate the demeaning attitude of the Romans toward the leaders of their conquered countries, their military strategy of easy conquest, and the arrangement of their government in these countries when they become Roman provinces. 4:2–3. they mock great ones . . . they scoff at a great people The author’s interpretation of Hab. 1:10a, constructed in perfect chiastic parallelism.23 For the Heb. rabbim with the meaning of “great ones,” see Ps. 48:3: “the city of the great king.” For the humiliation of kings and other honored people by the Romans, see Pesher Nahum 3–4 iv 2–4; J.W. 2.357. The surrender of great and strong kingdoms under the Romans is illustrated in 1 Macc. 8:2–10; , J.W. 2.358–61.24 4:4. they heap up earth to capture it “Earth” (aphar) is interpreted allegorically in the pesher on this verse as “many people.” 25 See also the comment on 1QpHab 4:7–8. 4:5. the rulers of the Kittim These are commanders of the Roman army who were nominated to be promagistrates, cum imperio (“governors and proconsuls”) to rule the provinces (cf. 1QpHab 4:10–13a).26 4:5–6. who despise the fortifications of the peoples and laugh with derision at them The Romans, who used equipment for breaching walls, could easily overcome their enemies’ defenses.27 4:7–8. and with many (people) they surround them to capture them. And with terror and dread they are given into their hand This pesher interprets the strategy of war described in Hab. 1:10b. For such a strategy of the Romans see J.W. 3.65–69; 116–29, 146; and Kimchi on Hab. 1:10.28 See also the comment on 1QpHab 4:4. 4:8–9. and they tear them down, because of the guilt of those who dwell in them This explanation may refer to the Roman practice of punishing peoples for resisting them, thereby “compelling” the

Pesher Habakkuk

643

and laid waste and these made their power 10their God. (Hab. 1:11) Its interpretation [con]cerns the rulers of the Kittim 11who, according to the decision of [their] guilty house, pass one 12before the other. [Their] rulers come [on]e after another 13to ruin the l[and. And] these [made] their power their God. (Hab. 1:11b) 14Its interpretation [. . . al]l the people 15l[ ]l 16[ ] Section 5 4:16b

[Are you not from of old,] 17[Yahweh, my holy God? We shall not die, Yahweh,] 5:1for judgment you have set him up, and a rock as his reprover you have established. (Hab. 1:12) (You are) too pure of eyes 2to look on evil, and to gaze at tribulation you

Romans to conquer them with excessive force.29 Alternatively it is an apocalyptic explanation, regarding Rome as the empire established by God for punishing those peoples that tormented Israel, such as the Seleucids, whose empire the Romans conquered.30 4:9. laid waste Heb. we-yashem. Cf. the Latin translation. The MT has we-ashem, “incur guilt” (Hab. 1:11 NJPS). See the next two comments for the interpretation of both text versions.31 4:10–12. the rulers of the Kittim who, according to the decision of [their] guilty house, pass one before the other This pesher responds to the MT version of Hab. 1:11, which includes we-ashem, “incur guilt” (see the previous comment). It refers here probably to the Roman senate, of whose guilty decision the Roman nominated rulers (see 4:5), who ruined the conquered lands (cf. 6:6–8a), were removed, each from before his successor. On “pass one before the other,” see also B. Ket. 17a; T. BK 2:10.32 4:12–13. [Their] rulers come [on]e after another to ruin the l[and]. This pesher interprets the scroll’s version of Hab. 1:11, which reads we-yashem, “laid waste”—referring to the way the Roman commanders desolated the conquered lands through their wars and plundering (see also Plutarch, Lives 12.3–4; 31.4; Ant. 13.421), and to the heavy taxes collected by the Roman rulers from the inhabitants of the conquered lands (Cf. 6:6–8a; 1 Macc. 8:4b).33 4:16b–5:8 The issue raised in Hab. 1:12–13a—that God seems to have established an unjust people in order to punish other peoples”—is resolved in its pesharim (1QpHab 5:3–8) by regarding the activity of the Kittim as the first stage of eschatological judgment against the wicked. Ultimately, God will give final judgment of all the pagan peoples (including the Kittim) and the wicked of Israel “into the hand of ” his chosen community—the yahad—whose members did not go astray after false commandments.

644 Bilhah Nitzan

are not able. (Hab. 1:13) 3The interpretation of the passage is that God will not destroy his people by the hand of the nations, 4but into the hand of his chosen ones God will give the judgment of all the nations. And by means of their rebuke 5all the wicked ones of his people will be convicted (by those) who have kept his commandments 6in their distress. For this is what it says: (You are) too pure of eyes to look 7on evil. (Hab. 1:13a) Its interpretation is that they did not whore after their own eyes in the time of 8wickedness. Section 6 5:8b

Why do you heed traitors, but are

silent when 9a wicked one swallows up one more righteous

5:3. God will not destroy his people by the hand of the nations The interpreter resolves Habakkuk’s complaint (Hab. 1:12) with a reassuring response (see the introductory comments under “Significance”).34 5:4. but into the hand of his chosen ones God will give the judgment of all the nations The final stage of God’s judgment against the wicked, including the Kittim, will be carried out by his chosen ones, the members of the yahad (see The War Scroll). The Heb. spelling behirw, and not behiryw, refers here to “his chosen ones,” as is clear from the subsequent phrase “by means of their rebuke” and other cases of such spelling in the scrolls.35 5:4–6a. And by means of their rebuke all the wicked ones of his people will be convicted (by those) who have kept his commandments in their distress This pesher may be regarded as a theological alteration of the messianic idea, by giving the task of rebuking all the wicked to a collective group, the yahad (cf. 1QS 8:4b–7a, 10b), instead of the shoot of David (Isa. 11:3–4) or the servant of God (Isa. 42:1–4).36 Its members are fit for this mission thanks to their observance of God’s commandments during the “time of wickedness,” as the pesherist notes below (1QpHab 5:7–8). 5:7–8a. they did not whore after their own eyes in the time of wickedness This pesher transforms the biblical subject of Hab. 1:13a from God into the chosen ones of the Qumran community.37 It explains that they are considered pure because they did not reject the commandment of Num. 15:39 (NJPS: “recall all the commandments of the Lord and observe them, so that you do not follow your heart and eyes in your lustful urge”) despite the suffering they endured at the hand of their enemies (1QpHab 5:5–6)38 during the present period of wickedness (see 1QS 1:16–18). 5:8b–12a The pesherist addresses the issue raised in Hab. 1:13b–how can God stand by silently while a wicked person harms one who is more worthy?—by citing a case that involved treachery among the yahad.

Pesher Habakkuk

645

than he? (Hab. 1:13b) Its interpretation concerns the House of Absalom 10and the men of their council, who were silent at the rebuke of the Teacher of Righteousness 11and did not support him against the Man of the Lie who rejected 12the Law in the midst of all their council. Section 7 5:12b

And you make humanity like the fish of the sea, 13like creeping things to rule over it. He brings everythi[ng] up [with the fish]hook and drags it into his net. 14And he gathers it in [his] se[ine. Therefore he sacri] fices to his net; therefore he is glad 15[and shouts for jo] y, [and he burns incense to his fishing net, for on account of them] his portion grows fat 16[and his food is rich. (Hab. 1:14–16) Its interpretation . . .] 17[ ] 6:1the Kittim, and they increase their wealth with all their booty

5:9–10. the House of Absalom and the men of their council A group that betrayed the doctrine of the yahad is therefore titled after the name of Absalom, who betrayed David, his father (2 Sam. 15:10–13). For mention of a similar treachery by another group, the House of Peleg, see CD 20:22–24; 4QpNah 3–4 iv 1. 5:10–12a. who were silent at the rebuke of the Teacher of Righteousness Heb. nadamw “be silent,” is here interpreted in the sense of avoiding any action (cf. Exod. 14:14; 1 Sam. 10:27). Namely, this group did not intervene to support the Teacher of Righteousness during his halakhic debate with the Man of the Lie (see 1QpHab 2:1–3a). This man—who is accused here of hurting (devouring) one more righteous than he by preaching falsely (cf. CD 1:14–15) in the presence of the yahad—caused a rift within the sect.39 5:12b–6:12a Hab. 1:14–17 relays the economic harm done to the conquered nations by the Kittim, and notes their cruelty as a people. Here, Hab. 1:14–16 is cited in its entirety at the end of column 5 and interpreted as a whole; Hab. 1:16 and 17 are then cited separately for interpretation. 5:14–15. Therefore he sacrifices to his net; therefore he is glad [and shouts for jo]y, [and he burns incense to his fishing net] In this version, the content of Hab. 1:16d MT precedes that of 1:15a MT. This ordering of the text is also found in two Greek versions (Lucian i and ii).

646 Bilhah Nitzan

2like the fish of the sea. And when it says, Therefore he sacrifices to his net 3and burns incense to his seine, (Hab. 1:16a) Its interpretation is that they 4sacrifice to their standards, and their weapons of war are 5the objects of their reverence. For on account of them his portion grows fat and his food is rich. (Hab. 1:16b) 6Its interpretation is that they divide up their yoke and 7their tribute—their food—upon all the peoples year by year 8to lay waste many lands. Therefore he draws his sword continually 9to slaughter nations, and he has no compassion. (Hab. 1:17) 10Its interpretation concerns the Kittim, who destroy many with the sword 11—young men, mature men and old men, women and toddlers— and on the fruit of 12the womb they have no compassion. Section 8 6:1. the Kittim The end of a missing clause that interprets Hab. 1:14–15a. 6:1–2. and they increase their wealth with all their booty like the fish of the sea The image used in Hab. 1:14—that God has made humankind as plentiful as the “fish of the sea”40—is applied to the Romans, whose plundering makes their riches similarly plentiful. 6:3–5. they sacrifice to their standards, and their weapons of war are the objects of their reverence Habakkuk 1:16a is interpreted here based on the cult of the standards customary in the Roman army.41 This pesher provides the ultimate proof for the identification of the Kittim as Romans. The parallelism of “net” and “seine” in this verse justifies interpretation regarding the military arms, held by the Roman corps that encircle their enemy. Thus these corps became integrated with the famous characteristic cult of their standards (cf. the Targum to Hab. 1:16).42 6:6–7. they divide up their yoke and their tribute—their food—upon all the peoples year by year The pesherist interprets the words “portion” and “food” of Hab. 1:16b metaphorically as the heavy tax burden laid by the Romans on the citizens of their provinces year by year.43 Compare the metaphor in Jer. 50:17. 6:8. to lay waste many lands Compare the pesher of Hab. 1:11 concerning the “rulers of the Kittim who . . . come one after another to ruin the land” (1QpHab 4:10–13).44 6:10–12a Habakkuk 1:17 is interpreted based on the many victims of the Romans. The list opens with men (in ascending age) and closes with women and children (in descending age).45 Isaiah 13:18 demonstrates similarly the cruelty of the eschatological enemy.46

Pesher Habakkuk

647

6:12b At my station shall I stand, 13and I shall post myself at my fortification, and I shall watch to see what he says 14to me and what [he answers re]garding my objection. And Yahweh did answer me, 15[and he said: “Write the vision and make it. pl]ain upon the tablets so that he can run 16[who reads it.” (Hab. 2:1–2) Its interpretation ]t.[ ] 17[ ] 7:1and God told Habakkuk to write down the things that are going to come upon 2the last generation, but the fulfillment of the end-time he did not make known to him. 3 And when it says, so that he can run who reads it, (Hab. 2:2b) 4its interpretation concerns the Teacher of Righteousness, to whom God made known 5all the mysteries of the words of his servants the prophets. Section 9 6:12b–7:5a This section interprets the message told to Habakkuk at the beginning of Chapter 2 concerning the reader chosen by God to interpret the mysteries of the prophetic words. 6:15–16. he . . . who reads it Note the difference here between Hab. 2:2 MT (NRSV): “a reader”; and the scroll’s version: “he who reads” (cf. 7:3). The interpreter understood the definite article to point prophetically to the Teacher of Righteousness (see 7:4–5a). 7:1–2. and God told Habakkuk to write down the things that are going to come upon the last generation; but the fulfillment of the end-time he did not make known to him The pesher of Hab. 2:2 distinguishes between the tasks of the prophet and the designated reader of his words. The task of the prophet is to foretell eschatological events (see 2:9–10). But the prophetic words do not explicitly reveal the time and circumstances of their fulfillment.47 7:4–5a. the Teacher of Righteousness, to whom God made known all the mysteries of the words of his servants the prophets The problem raised above—that God has not revealed everything to Habakkuk—is resolved with the advent of the Teacher of Righteousness, the chosen reader of the prophetic vision, to whom God has given the ability to decipher the messages hidden within the prophetic words—namely, their pesher (cf. 2:7–10).48

648 Bilhah Nitzan

7:5b For there is yet a vision 6concerning the appointed time. It speaks of/ testifies on/to the end-time, and it will not deceive. (Hab. 2:3a) 7Its interpretation is that the last period will be prolonged, and it will be greater than anything 8of which the prophets spoke, for the mysteries of God are awesome. 9If it tarries, wait for it, for it will surely come, and it will not 10be late. (Hab. 2:3b) Its interpretation concerns the men of truth, 11those who observe the Torah, whose hands do not grow slack in the service of 12the truth, when the last period is drawn out for them, for 13all of God’s periods will come according to their fixed order, as he decreed 14for them in the mysteries of his prudence. Behold [his soul] is heedless, not upright

7:5b–8:3 The pesher on Hab. 2:2–3 encourages the yahad members not to fall into despair even though the “last generation” before the end-time is lasting longer than was foretold by the prophets. According to God’s predetermined plan, the final judgment will be realized in its appointed time to bring about justice, by punishing the wicked and redeeming the righteous.49 7:7–8. the last period will be prolonged, and it will be greater than anything of which the prophets spoke Based on the Heb. verb yapyh, “speak” (cf. Prov. 12:17),50 the pesherist reveals that the vision of Hab 2:3 testifies to the prolonging of the last historical generation. (For more on prolonging of days, cf. Ezek. 12:22; Targum to Hab. 2:3;51 and see the pesher at 1QpHab 7:12.) Historically this revelation became relevant because of the prolonged subjugation of the land of Israel to foreign empires (see Dan. 9:24).52 7:8. for the mysteries of God are awesome The duration of the last historical generation is considered one of the awesome mysteries of God’s plans and deeds, which are beyond human understanding (see1QS 3:23; 4:18), even that of the prophets (cf. 1QpHab 7:1–2). 7:10–11. the men of truth, those who observe the Torah The “men of truth (emet)” is a sobriquet for the members of the yahad, who observe the Torah according to the halakhic interpretation of the Qumran community.53 The term “observing of the Torah” (‘wose ha-torah), appears in 1QpHab 8:1; 12:4–5.54 The halakhic interpretations of the Torah are identified as ma’ase ha- torah in 4Q398 14–17 ii 3 (= 4QMMT). These terms first appear in literature from the Second Temple period.55 7:11b–12. whose hands do not grow slack in the service of the truth, when the last period is drawn out for them The members of the yahad wait for the end-time by strengthening themselves in observing the Torah, despite the prolonged duration of the last generation (cf. 1QpHab 5:5b–6a). In this respect they are different from those who are “slack in the service of justice” (1QS 4:9), and from those who try to terrify them into abandoning the service of God (1QHa 10:37–38[2]:35–36). 7:12–14. for all of God’s periods will come according to their fixed order, as he decreed for them in the mysteries of his prudence This pesher on Hab. 2:3b expresses the deterministic outlook of the ya-

Pesher Habakkuk

649

15[within him.] (Hab. 2:4a) Its interpretation is that [their sins] will be doubled upon them 16[and] they will n[ot] find favor at their judgment [ ]l 17[ And the righteous man will live by his faithfulness]. (Hab. 2:4b) 8:1Its interpretation concerns all those who observe the Torah in the House of Judah, whom 2God will save from the house of judgment on account of their tribulation and their fidelity 3to the Teacher of Righteousness. Section 10 8:3b

And moreover, wealth betrays a haughty man, and 4he is unseemly, who opens his soul wide

had and other apocalyptic circles regarding the length and order of historical periods.56 Therefore, in their view, the period of evil will end at an exact, predetermined time (cf. 1QS 4:18–19).57 See also the comment on 1QpHab 7:8, for the mysteries of God are awesome. 7:15. [their sins] will be doubled upon them Based on the biblical antithesis of the wicked and the righteous found in Hab. 2:4, the pesher on the eschatological judgment of the wicked interprets the word “heap up” (‘upplah), as “will be doubled” (kuplah, but in the imperfect nifal), referring here to the sins of the wicked. Cf. Isa. 40:2 NJPS: “Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, / . . . For she has received at the hand of the Lord / Double for all her sins.” 8:1. all those who observe the Torah The members of the yahad (cf. 1QpHab 7:10–11) are identified as the “righteous man” of Hab. 2:4b, who is destined to live according to Lev. 18:5.58 The “righteous” is interpreted in plural form in the Targum to Hab. 2:4. the House of Judah A sobriquet of the yahad59 that symbolizes the historical kingdom of Judah (CD 7:10–13).60 “House of Absalom” symbolizes a sect in 1QpHab 5:9.61 8:1–2. whom God will save from the house of judgment The pesherist interprets the phrase “will live” in Hab. 2:4b to mean that the members of the yahad will be delivered from the eschatological tribulation by which the wicked will be punished (see 1QpHab 10:3, 5, 12–13; 13:3–4). 8:2–3. on account of their tribulation and their fidelity to the Teacher of Righteousness A pesher on “his faithfulness” of Hab. 2:4b. Loyalty to the doctrine of the Teacher of Righteousness (see also 1QpHab 2:2, 6–8; 7:4–5) will bring life to the members of the yahad 62 despite their affliction during the time of wickedness (cf. 1QS 1:17–18)—or because of it.63 8:3b–9:7 The interpretations of Hab. 2:5–8a (1QpHab 8:8–9:2) deal with a Hasmonean ruler, labeled as the Wicked Priest, and distinguish two different periods of his reign: a righteous one and a wicked one, and his punishment. The second pesher on Hab. 2:8a (1QpHab 9:3–7) refers similar wickedness to the last Hasmonean rulers, and foresees their eschatological punishment. 8:3. wealth betrays Heb. hon yibgod. This seems to be a deliberate alteration of Hab. 2:5 MT, which holds that “wine betrays” (hayayin boged) an arrogant man.64 See its pesher at 1QpHab 8:10–12.

650 Bilhah Nitzan

like Sheol; and like Death he cannot be sated. 5And all the nations are gathered about him, and all the peoples are assembled to him. (Hab. 2:5) 6Do not all of them raise a taunt against him and interpreters of riddles about him, 7who say: “Woe to the one who multiplies what is not his own! How long will he weigh himself down with 8debt?” (Hab. 2:6) Its interpretation concerns the Wicked Priest, who 9was called by the name of truth at the beginning of his standing, but when he ruled 10in Israel, he became arrogant, and he abandoned God, and betrayed the statutes for the sake of 11wealth. And he stole and amassed the wealth of the men of violence who had rebelled against God, 12and he took the wealth of peoples to add to himself guilt of iniquity.

8:4. opens his soul wide like Sheol The lust of his soul for wealth is great.65 8:5. the nations are gathered . . . the peoples are assembled The passive verbs of the scroll’s version change the MT version “Who has harvested all the nations And gathered in all the peoples” (NJPS). The author retains the MT form of the verbs that appear in 1QpHab 8:11b–12a. 8:8. the Wicked Priest This pesher identifies the man of Hab. 2:5 as a Hasmonean High Priest, who was both a priest and a king (see 1QpHab 8:9–10). 8:8–9. who was called by the name of truth at the beginning of his standing This High Priest was considered a legitimate leader at the beginning of his service thanks to his faithfulness to the Law (cf. Mal. 2:6).66 The term “truth” defines the just way of the righteous in 1QS 4:2, 17, 24; 5:3. 8:9–10. but when he ruled in Israel, he became arrogant The pesherist interprets the designation “haughty man” (Hab. 2:5) and the noun “taunt” (mashal; Hab. 2:6) based on how the Wicked Priest’s heart grew proud when his rule over Israel became strong (cf. 2 Chron. 26:16; 1 Macc. 1:3; etc.). 8:10–11. he abandoned God, and betrayed the statutes for the sake of wealth The pesherist interprets Hab. 2:5 to mean that a tremendous lust for wealth caused the haughty Wicked Priest to abandon God’s statutes (for similar cases, see Deut. 8:17; Ezek. 28:5; Ps. 52:9). 8:11–12. And he stole and amassed the wealth of the men of violence who had rebelled against God, and he took the wealth of peoples The Wicked Priest made his wealth by robbing peoples of his own nation, probably the Pharisees, who are themselves accused of plundering in 4QpNah 3–4 ii 4–5,67 and the Gentiles (cf. 1QpHab 8:16–17). The yahad disapproved of any lust for money robbed from Jews or Gentiles.68 8:12. to add to himself guilt of iniquity The image of being burdened with debt in Hab. 2:6b is interpreted in light of the heavy sins under which the Wicked Priest is sinking (see the previous and following comments; cf. also the Targum to Hab. 2:5). For the phrase “guilt of iniquity” (’awon ’ashma) cf. Lev. 22:16. This phrase appears also in the Temple Scroll (11Q19: 35:8, 15).

Pesher Habakkuk

651

And the abominable 13ways he pursued with every sort of unclean impurity. Section 11 8:13b Will it not be pt.[ ]’wm, that your cre[di]tors

14will arise? And will those who make you tremble awake, and will you become their booty? (Hab. 2:7) 15For you have plundered many nations, but all the rest of peoples will plunder you. (Hab. 2:8a) 16The in[terpretation of the passage] concerns the priest, who rebelled 17[and trans]gressed the statutes of [God, and all his enemies will arise and abu]se him s[o that] 9:1his injuries are on account of punishments of wickedness. And horrors inflicted evil diseases upon him,

8:12–13. abominable ways The sins of which the Wicked Priest is guilty. See 1QpHab 12:8–10. In CD 4:17–18, three kinds of “abominable ways” are mentioned: fornication, wealth (robbery), and defilement of the Temple. 8:13. unclean impurity The yahad defined sins as “unclean impurity.”69 8:13b–9:7 The pesherist interprets Hab. 2:7–8 as meaning that the Wicked Priest, along with the last priests of Jerusalem, will ultimately be punished for the plundering they have done. This pesher details the afflictions that the Wicked Priest will suffer (1QpHab 9:1–2), and predicts that the wealth acquired by priests of Jerusalem through plundering will fall to the Romans (9:3–7). 8:13b. pt. [ ]'wm The brackets indicate an erased letter in this word, which is rendered “suddenly.”70 8:16. the priest The Wicked Priest, mentioned above (see also 1QpHab 11:12). 8:16–17. who rebelled [and trans]gressed the statutes of [God] Compare the sins committed by the Wicked Priest in 8:10–13. 8:17. [and all his enemies will arise and abu]se him Restored on the biblical idea of Hab. 2:7, and the continuation of the pesher in 9:1–2 (cf. 9:10–11). This restoration relates to the preserved preposition bo, “abu]se him,” stemmed from the Heb. root ‘-l-l rather than to the Heb. root sh-l-l (“plunder”), as Horgan has it, referring to Hab 2:8a (Pesharim, 18). For the restoration “[abu]se him,” hitpael, from the Heb. root ‘-l-l, “abuse,” see, e.g., 1 Sam. 31:4; Judg. 19:25; see BDB, 759.71 s[o that] This restoration follows the Heb. infinitive lihyot according to Horgan’s translation of 1QpHab 10:1, 12. 9:1. his injuries are on account of punishments of wickedness An explanation for the misfortunes that befall the Wicked Priest. The phrase “his injuries”72 is paralleled in the next sentence by “evil diseases.” For mishpatim in the sense of “punishments,” see the Targum to Ezek. 5:8 and “punishments of fire” (mishpate ’esh) in 1QpHab 10:13.73 And horrors inflicted evil diseases upon him “Horrors” (sha’aruriyot) interprets “those who make you tremble” (meza'aze'eka) of Hab. 2:7b as pertaining to the evil deeds of the Wicked Priest .74 His deeds brought “evil diseases upon him” (cf. Deut. 28:59; 2 Chron. 21:19), which annihilated him.75

652 Bilhah Nitzan

2and acts of vengeance on his carcass of flesh. And when 3it says, For you have plundered many nations, but all the rest of peoples will 4plunder you, (Hab. 2:8a) Its interpretation concerns the last priests 5of Jerusalem, who amass wealth and profit from the plunder of the peoples; 6but at the end of days their wealth together with their booty will be given into the hand of 7the army of the Kittim. For they are the rest of the peoples. Section 12 9:8On account of human bloodshed and violence

done to the land, the city, and all its inhabitants. (Hab. 2:8b) 9Its interpretation concerns the [W]icked Priest, whom—

9:2. and acts of vengeance on his carcass of flesh The pesherist interprets “and will you become their plunder” (Hab. 2:7c) as “vengeance” in the form of afflictions that prove fatal to the Wicked Priest. Based on this punishment of the Wicked Priest,76 some scholars have identified him as Jonathan, who was captured and killed by Trypho (1 Macc. 12:48; 13:23; Ant. 13.192–95).77 But the Hasmonean priest who died of evil diseases was Jannaeus (Ant. 13.398; J.W. 1.106). Compare below, 1QpHab 9:10–11. 9:4–5. the last priests of Jerusalem Refers to the Hasmonean chief priests who succeeded the Wicked Priest.78 These may be Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II, Jannaeus’s sons (Ant. 13.427–29). 9:5. who amass wealth and profit from the plunder of the peoples Their sin mirrors that of the Wicked Priest (1QpHab 8:12; cf. 4QpNah 3–4 i 11). 9:6–7. but at the end of days . . . their booty will be given into the hand of the army of the Kittim The pesherist anticipates retribution for this plundering in the form of the Romans, whose invasion of Judah was expected imminently and viewed as the end-time. In 54 bce, Crassus plundered the treasure of the Temple (Ant. 14:105–9). Rumor had it that the Temple might be sheltering the ill-gotten wealth of the last Hasmonean priests, along with donations sent to the Temple by the Jews and other worshipers (Ant. 14:110–11).79 9:7. For they are the rest of the peoples As the Kittim are the nation that is intended to act at the endtime, they are identified as “the rest of the peoples,” the final empire (cf. Num. 24:24), whom God had used for punishing other wicked nations.80 9:8–10:5 The pesharim on Hab. 2:8b–11 deal with crimes committed by the Wicked Priest against the yahad, and with his punishments—both historical and eschatological. 9:9–10. the [W]icked Priest, whom—because of wrong done to the Teacher of Righteousness and the men of his council This “wrong” refers to the human bloodshed and violence mentioned in Hab. 2:8b, and attested in 1QpHab 12:6, 9–10; 4QpPsa 3–10 iv 8. For “city” as a symbol for “council,” see 1QpHab 10:10.

Pesher Habakkuk

653

because of wrong done to the Teacher of 10Righteousness and the men of his council—God gave him into the hand of his enemies to afflict him 11with disease for annihilation with festering wounds of the soul, beca[u]se he had acted wickedly 12against his chosen ones. Woe to the one who makes an evil profit for his house, setting 13his nest on high to be delivered from the reach of evil. You have planned shame 14for your house, the ends of many peoples and (even) the guilt of your own [sou]l, for 15a sto[ne] will cry out from the wall, [and] beam from the woodwork will give an[swer]. (Hab. 2:9–11) 16[The interpretation of the passa]ge concerns the pr[iest,] who [ ]s 17[ ] : 10 1so that its stones are (built up) by oppression and the beam of its woodwork by robbery. And when 2it says the ends of many peoples and (even) the guilt of your own soul, (Hab. 2:10b) 9:10–11. God gave him into the hand of his enemies . . . for annihilation with festering wounds of the soul This description of the Wicked Priest’s punishment parallels that of 9:1–2. “Festering wounds” (morerim) parallels “disease” and “injuries” (see 9:1). 81 9:11–12. beca[u]se he had acted wickedly against his chosen ones This phrase returns to the idea of 9:9–10a, functioning as a literary inclusio to frame the thought. 9:14. the guilt of your own [sou]l Translates the Heb. phrase hote’ nafshekah in Hab. 2:10. 9:15. beam from the woodwork This translation is based on the Heb. kefis in 1QHa 14:29[6:26] and on the rendition of Heb. ‘esah as “woodwork” in the NJPS and NRSV translations of Hab. 2:11. See also 1QpHab 10:1. 9:16. the pr[iest One of the Hasmonean Wicked Priests. 10:1. its stones are (built up) by oppression and the beam of its woodwork by robbery Refers to a structure built by the priest. According to Josephus, this may be one of the following: a fortress built by John Hyrcanus near the Temple (Ant. 18.91); the fortress Alexandrion, built by Jannaeus (J.W. 1.134; Ant. 14.49; 16.394); a wall made of stones and wood, built by Jannaeus (Ant. 13.391; J.W. 1.99); or even the fortress Masada, initially built by Jonathan (J.W. 7.284).82 10:2. the ends of many peoples Heb. kesot ‘amim (Hab. 2:10): although the phrase is spelled differently than in the first quotation of Hab. 2:10 (kesawot ‘amim; see 1QpHab 9:14), its pesher in 10:3–4 makes clear that the same meaning is understood in both cases.

654 Bilhah Nitzan

3its interpretation: This is the house of judgment, when God will give 4his judgment in the midst of many peoples, and from there he will bring him up for judgment, 5and in their midst he will condemn him as guilty and with a fire of brimstone he will punish him. Section 13 10:5c

Woe 6to the one who builds a city with blood and founds a town with iniquity. Are not 7these from Yahweh of hosts? Peoples toil for fire 8and nations grow weary for nothing. (Hab. 2:12–13) 9The interpretation of the passage concerns the Spouter of the Lie, who caused many to err, 10building a city of vanity with bloodshed and establishing a congregation with falsehood,

10:3–4. This is the house of judgment, when God will give his judgment in the midst of many peoples This pesher refers to the eschatological judgment of the Wicked Priest, and highlights his reversal of fortune by means of an ironic parallel. Instead of finding safe haven in a high fortress, he will be condemned publicly. 10:4–5. and from there he will bring him up for judgment, and in their midst he will condemn him as guilty For a description of the final judgment process, cf. 1 En. 90:23–25.83 The verb “bring up” expresses the high category of the court (cf. Deut. 17:8–9; 25:7; Judg. 4:5; Ruth 4:1). 10:5. and with a fire of brimstone he will punish him The punishment with fire and brimstone written here represents a biblical tradition (cf. Ezek. 38:22; Ps. 11:6; Job 18:15). This represents the eschatological punishment.84 10:5c–11:2 The pesharim on Hab. 2:12–13 deal with the harm done by the Man of the Lie (referred to in this passage as the “Spouter of the Lie”—see the next comment) to those who trust his false teaching. However, the pesherist interprets Hab. 2:14 to mean that when these followers repent, the true knowledge of God will be revealed to them. 10:9. the Spouter of the Lie Heb. matif hakazab. This is the leader of the Pharisees, who is referred to as the Man of the Lie in 1QpHab 2:1–2; 5:11. The title is based on Mic. 2:11. who caused many to err He led many to go astray from the true way of observing the Torah.85 The verbal clause “cause to err” (hif'il of t-'-h)—which characterizes the words of the false prophets in Jer. 23:13, 32; Mic. 3:5—is used in the Dead Sea Scrolls for characterizing the teaching of the leaders of the Pharisees (cf. 1QHa 12:17, 21[4:16, 20]).86 10:10. building a city of vanity with bloodshed and establishing a congregation with falsehood “Builds a city” (Hab. 2:12) is interpreted to mean establishing a congregation (cf. 4QpPsa 3–4 iii 16; Matt. 16:18). For a city as a symbol of congregation, see also “city of Ephraim” (4QpNah 3–4 ii 2); “cities of Judah” (1QpHab 12:9). The congregation built by the Spouter of the Lie is characterized by falsehood and bloodshed (cf. Mic. 3:10).

Pesher Habakkuk

655

11for the sake of his/its glory making many toil in the service of vanity and teaching them 12in w[o]rks of falsehood, with the result that their labor is for nothing; so that they will come 13to the punishments of fire, because they reviled and reproached the elect of God. 14For the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of Yahweh, as the waters 15cover the sea. (Hab. 2:14) The interpretation of the passage [is that] 16when they return [ ]l[ ] 17[ Spouter of] 10:11. his/its glory Heb. kbwdh may be read as masculine or feminine third-person singular.87 If this phrase interprets Hab. 2:13a, it may refer to the glory of God (“his glory” or “his own glory”), which will ultimately be proved by the punishment of the wicked (cf. 1QHa 10:26[2:24]; 7:33[15:20]). Other possibilities include the glory of the Spouter of the Lie (“his glory”)88 and the glory of the city (“its glory”—note that “city” in Hebrew is grammatically feminine). toil Heb. yig'u (from the root y-g-') of Hab. 2:13b is interpreted as referring to the harm done to the followers of the Spouter of the Lie by his false teaching. See also the comment on 1QpHab 10:12–13. service of vanity The opposite of the “service of the truth” performed by the members of the yahad (1QpHab 7:10–12). teaching them in w[o]rks of falsehood Here, the pesherist interprets Heb. lehorotam in the sense of “preaching to them.” 10:12–13a. with the result that their labor is for nothing; so that they will come to the punishments of fire The verb yig'u, on the basis of the root n-g-' has the meanings “to reach”, synonym of “to come” (or “to touch”), and “to inflict.” The second pesher of Hab 2:13b expresses the sense of reaching or coming to the punishment (or to the infliction) of fire.89 Thus their false service to God dooms them to a final “punishment of fire,” whereas the true service performed by the members of the yahad will save them at the end-time (1QpHab 8:1–3a). For more on “the punishments of fire,” see also the comment on 10:5. 10:13. because they reviled and reproached the elect of God Nowhere in Hab. 2:13 does Habakkuk accuse the followers of the Man of the Lie of this particular sin. But according to CD 5:11c–13, those who revile the laws held by the members of the yahad are to be punished by fire (cf. Isa. 50:10–11; 1 En. 91:11). 10:16–11:1. when they return . . . Spouter of] the Lie This pesher on Hab. 2:14 probably deals with Israel’s eschatological repentance; that is, Israel’s turning away, or “returning,” from the erroneous halakhic precepts (cf. 1QSa 1:1–5) taught by the Spouter of the Lie or other leaders of the Pharisees (cf. 4QpNah 3–4 ii 8–9, iii 3–5).

656 Bilhah Nitzan

11:1the Lie, and afterward knowledge will be revealed to them like the waters of 2the sea, in abundance. Section 14 11:2b

Woe to him who gives his

neighbor to drink, mixing in 3his poison, indeed, making (him) drunk in order that he might look upon their feasts. (Hab. 2:15) 4 Its interpretation concerns the Wicked Priest, who 5pursued the Teacher of Righteousness—to destroy him with his poisonous vexation—

11:1. and afterward knowledge will be revealed to them Those who repent will be rewarded with true understanding of the precepts of the Torah (cf. CD 3:13–16; 1QS 9:13) and the wondrous mysteries of God’s providence (cf. 1QS 9:18; CD 13:7–8). 11:1–2. like the waters of the sea, in abundance Cf. Isa. 11:9; see also T. Levi 18:5; 1Q27 1:7. 11:2–11:16 The pesher on Hab. 2:15 deals with a traumatic event in the history of the yahad: A controversy between the yahad and the Priests and Pharisees that oversaw the Temple, over the correct liturgical calendar. The pesher on Hab. 2:16 deals with the punishment of the Wicked Priest who attacked the yahad on that matter. 11:2. his neighbor Renders the Heb. singular re'ehu. Cf. 1QpHab 4:12. 11:3. their feasts Heb. mo'deihem. This is a variant of “their nakedness” (me'oreihem) of the MT. An interchange of some letters could have produced mo'deihem. In Pesher Habakkuk, however, the author interprets Habakkuk based on both possibilities. See 1QpHab 11:6–7; see also the comments on 11:4–6 and 11:6–7.90 11:4–6. the Wicked Priest, who pursued the Teacher of Righteousness . . . to his house of exile This event refers to the conflict between the two priests. For the priesthood of the Teacher of Righteousness, see 1QpHab 2:8. “House of exile” refers to the place where the Teacher of Righteousness was exiled (cf. 1QHa 12:9–10[4:8–9]), or where the Wicked Priest discovered him. The latter meaning might have been derived from the MT version me'oreihem, “their nakedness,” from the root '-r-h, “uncover,”91 which was not cited but was known to the interpreter. See also the comment on 1QpHab 11:6–7. 11:5. to destroy him Heb. lebal'o, from the root b-l-'. The pesherist uses the ambiguity of this word, which can mean “confusing” (cf. Isa. 3:12; 28:7; Ps. 107:27) or “destroying” (cf. Isa. 25:7–8; Lam. 2:2), to interpret the Wicked Priest’s goal: to paralyze the activity of the Teacher of Righteousness. See also the next comment. 11:5–6. his poisonous vexation For this pesher on “his poison” (hamato) in Hab. 2:15, cf. the metaphoric meaning of the “cup of the wine of wrath” in Jer. 25:15 (NRSV), which destroys those who swallow it by making them drunk and confused.92

Pesher Habakkuk

657

6to his house of exile. And at the festival time, (during) the repose of 7the Day of Atonement, he appeared to them to destroy them 8and to make them stumble on the fast day, their restful Sabbath. You will be sated with dishonor 9rather than glory. Drink then you yourself, and totter. 10The cup of Yahweh’s right hand will come around to you, and disgrace (will come) 11upon your glory. (Hab. 2:16) 12Its interpretation concerns the priest whose shame prevailed over his glory, festival time Heb. kes is translated here as “time,” as it is used elsewhere in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Another of its meanings, “end,” is not reasonable in this context. 11:6–7. And at the festival time, (during) the repose of the Day of Atonement, he appeared to them This event in the history of the yahad (cf. 1QHa 12[4]:9c-12) interprets the scroll’s version of Hab. 2:15, which has “their feasts” (see also the comment on 1QpHab 11:3). The appearance of the Wicked Priest at the place of the yahad on the Day of Atonement demonstrates the calendrical controversy between the yahad and the Pharisees. The latter held to a 354-day lunar calendar that was used in the Temple at that time, whereas the yahad supported a 364-day solar calendar, according to which no festival fell on Sabbath93. This controversy caused a split between the yahad and the rest of Israel.94 Because—in light of the calendar they followed—the yahad viewed as illegitimate the High Priest’s Temple service on the Day of Atonement, their position might have been considered a political rebellion against his priesthood.95 11:7. to destroy See the comment on 1QpHab 11:5. 11:8. to make them stumble on the fast day, their restful Sabbath This is a second pesher of mo'adeihem, based on the root m-'-d, “stumble.”96 For the members of the yahad—who used to perform their feast of the Day of Atonement on the tenth day of the seventh month (Lev. 23:27), that fell, according to their 364-day calendar, on a different day of the week than that which was performed in the Temple—could not observe the Day of Atonement properly because they were interrupted by the Wicked Priest. This interruption would be considered a religious “stumble,” for which they might be punished.97 This day is considered both “the fast day”98 and a Sabbath, in the sense that work is prohibited (Lev. 23:30–32). 11:9. totter Heb. whera'el, probably from the Hebrew version of Hab. 2:16 known to the authors of the OG, Syriac, and Latin translations, and to Aquila, who translated the Hebrew very literally into Greek. For the MT version, which has whe’arel, “uncover yourself,” see the Targum to Hab. 2:16. 11:12. the priest The Wicked Priest (cf. 1QpHab 8:16; 9:16). whose shame prevailed over his glory This paraphrase of Hab. 2:16a refers to the aforementioned act of the Wicked Priest of stumbling the members of the yahad from performing the Day of Atonement according to their 364-day calendar.

658 Bilhah Nitzan

13for he did not circumcise the foreskin of his heart, but he walked in the ways of 14inebriety in order that the thirst might be consumed, but the cup of the wrath of 15[Go]d will destroy him, ad[d]ing [upon him his s]ha[me] and a pain 16[. . .]l[ ]l[ ]l[ ] Section 15

17[For the violence to Lebanon will] [cover you and the destruction of beasts] 12:1will overwhelm {you}. On account of human bloodshed and violence (done to) the land, the town and all who inhabit it. (Hab. 2:17) 2The interpretation of the passage concerns the Wicked Priest— to pay him 11:13. for he did not circumcise the foreskin of his heart This pesher comments on the guilt of the Wicked Priest, based on Hab. 2:16 MT. The metaphoric phrase “foreskin of the heart” (‘orlat leb), based on Deut. 10:16 and Jer. 4:4, expresses the stubbornness of one who adheres to his sin,99 about which 1QS 5:4–5 warns the members of the yahad. 11:13–14. but he walked in the ways of inebriety in order that the thirst might be consumed The adherence of the Wicked Priest to his sin is likened to a man’s willful, misguided attempts to quench his thirst through drunken excess (see Deut. 29:18; cf. 1QS 2:13–15). The members of the yahad, on the other hand, thirsted to act righteously according to the laws of God.100 11:14–15. but the cup of the wrath of [Go]d will destroy him Based on the version of Hab. 2:16 that contains whera'el, “totter”,101 the pesherist predicts that God will retaliate against the Wicked Priest for the harm he did to the Teacher of Righteousness. See also the comment on 1QpHab 11:9. 11:15. [Go]d will destroy him Compare the comment on 1QpHab 11:5. 11:15–16. ad[d]ing [upon him his s]ha[me] and a pain [. . .] These words of Hab. 2:16 are used for the eschatological punishment of the Wicked Priest (cf. 10:5), in addition to his past punishment (cf. 9:1–2).102 11:17–12:10a The pesher on Hab. 2:17 deals with God’s retaliatory punishment of the Wicked Priest for his plot to destroy the members and companions of the yahad, and for his abominable deeds that defile Jerusalem and the Temple. 12:1. will overwhelm {you} Heb. yehite[k]a, a parallel form of “will cover you” (yehaseka). In comparison to the former phrase of Hab. 2:17, the author used another version of this verse than the MT yehitan (“will overwhelm them”) Compare the OG, Aramaic, and Syriac translations.103 12:2–6. the Wicked Priest—to pay him his due inasmuch as he dealt wickedly with the Poor Ones . . .—(he it is) whom God will condemn This passage is structured in a somewhat inverted way. A more straightforward order would be as follows: “the Wicked Priest (line 2a), whom God will condemn to complete destruction because he plotted to destroy completely the Poor Ones (lines

Pesher Habakkuk

659

3his due inasmuch as he dealt wickedly with the Poor Ones; for “Lebanon” is 4the Council of the Community, and the “beasts” are the simple ones of Judah, those who observe 5the Torah—(he it is) whom God will condemn to complete destruction 6because he plotted to destroy completely the Poor Ones. And when it says, On account of the bloodshed of 7the town and violence (done to) the land, (Hab. 2:17b) Its interpretation: the “town” is Jerusalem, 8where the Wicked Priest committed abominable deeds and defiled 5b–6a), to pay him his due inasmuch as he dealt wickedly with the Poor Ones” (lines 2b–3a).104 Instead, the author places most of his explanatory remarks about the retaliation principle (along with figurative identifications of “Lebanon” and “the beasts”) (12:2b–5a) before his statement of God’s plan for the Priest, and then restates the retaliatory nature of the punishment (12:6). 12:3. the Poor Ones Heb. ’ebyonim is one of the epithets of the Qumran community.105 It symbolizes their desire for the grace of God and his salvation.106 12:3–4. for “Lebanon” is the Council of the Community This pesher reflects a traditional allegory that identifies the Lebanon as the Temple (cf. the Targum to Hab. 2:17).107 The pesherist applies this tradition to the Qumran community, which is considered as holy as the Temple (see, e.g., 1QS 8:5–6; 1QM 3:4). 12:4. the “beasts” are the simple ones of Judah “The ‘beasts’” symbolizes those who were companions to the Qumran community,108 but still did not have full knowledge of its precepts and halakhic interpretation of the Torah.109 Traditionally, beasts symbolize ignorance,110 and likewise the peta’im (“the simple ones”). Compare, for example, Prov. 1:4 and 8:5, where the peta’im are appealed to as prospective learners. The process of learning “all the precepts of the community” and becoming full members is stated in 1QS 6:13b-23. For an earlier mention of Judah, see 1QpHab 8:1 and the comment on 8:1, the House of Judah. 12:4–5. those who observe the Torah See 1QpHab 7:11.111 12:5–6. whom God will condemn to complete destruction because he plotted to destroy completely the Poor Ones Here is where the pesherist first interprets Hab. 2:17, “on account of human bloodshed.” See also the pesher that appears at 1QpHab 12:2–3a, and cf. the pesher at 11:14, citing the desire of the Wicked Priest to quench his (unholy) thirst. See also the comments on 11:14–15 and 12:6–7. 12:6–7. the bloodshed of the town In his second citation of Hab. 2:17, the pesherist replaces “human” (adam) with “town” (kiryah). 12:7b. the “town” is Jerusalem f. the Aramaic Targum to Hab. 2:17, and see Isa. 1:21, 26. 12:8–9a. where the Wicked Priest committed abominable deeds and defiled God’s sanctuary Bloodshed defiles the Temple (Lev. 20:3; Ezek. 23:39), the holy city (Ezek. 22:1–6), and the holy land (Num. 35:33; Deut. 21:23; 11QTa 64:11–13). Such an accusation may refer to Jannaeus, who crucified 800 Pharisees in Jerusalem.112 For other abominable deeds that defile the Temple and the holy city, see, for example, Ezek. 22:9–12; CD 5:6–11; 12:1–2.113

660

Bilhah Nitzan

9God’s sanctuary. And “violence (done to) the land” (refers to) the cities of Judah, where 10he stole the wealth of the Poor Ones. Section 16 12:10b

What profit does an idol bring, when its maker has shaped (it), 11a molten statue and an image of falsehood? For the maker relies on the things he makes, 12fashioning dumb idols. (Hab. 2:18) The interpretation of the passage concerns all 13the idols of the nations, which they have made so that they may serve them and bow down 14before them, but they will not save them on the day of judgment. Woe 15wo[e to the one who says] to the wood, “Wake up!” “A[rise!”] to a silent [st]one. 16[Can it teach? Behold, it is overlaid with gold and silver, yet no]

12:9–10a. And “violence (done to) the land” (refers to) the cities of Judah, where he stole the wealth of the Poor Ones This pesher seems to refer to the thefts from the settlements of the yahad. “Cities” symbolize congregations (see 1QpHab 10:10 and the comment on that line); Judah is a sobriquet for the yahad (see 8:1); and the dwelling places of the yahad are mentioned in 1QS 6:2. The wealth of the yahad is mentioned in several sources.114 12:10b–13:4 The scroll concludes with the pesharim on Hab. 2:18–20, affirming the futility of idolatry in anticipation of God’s eschatological judgment upon the Gentiles and all wickedness. This punishment will be God’s ultimate response to Habakkuk’s petition against the cruelty of the Kittim (1QpHab 5:12–6:12) and the wicked of Israel.115 12:11. an image of falsehood Heb. marei sheker.116 This was probably the Hebrew version used by the Old Greek translation and the Targum. The MT version, “a teacher of falsehood” (moreh sheker), may be a case of a wrong reading. 12:12–14. all the idols of the nations, which they have made so that they may serve them and bow down before them This pesher concentrates the several images mentioned in Hab. 2:18a into a general definition, and paraphrases the purpose of their worship. 12:14. but they will not save them on the day of judgment This clause expresses the antithesis of pagan hopes.117 For a summary of what will happen on the eschatological day of judgment, see 1QpHab 13:3–4. 12:14–15. wo[e t[o the one who says] According to the MT version the restoration of the beginning of line 14 is hw[y ’wmer ]l's, taking into consideration a mistaken second citation of the word hwy. For a similar mistake see 7:2, where a second citation of the word ‘al is written. Other restoration of line 14 may be h[a’wmer l]'s. Compare the LXX and the Targum to this passage.118 12:16. [Can it teach? . . .] This translation follows Hab. 2:19 MT.

Pesher Habakkuk

661

17[breath is in it. But Yahweh is in his holy temple;] (Hab. 2:19–20a) 13:1and all the earth keeps silent before him. (Hab. 2:20b) Its interpretation concerns all the nations 2who have served the stone and the wood, but on the day of 3judgment God will destroy completely all who serve the idols 4and the evil ones from the earth.

13:1–2. all the nations who have served the stone and the wood That is, the pagan nations. 13:3–4. on the day of judgment God will destroy completely all who serve the idols and the evil ones from the earth The idea of God’s final judgment upon the wicked of the pagan nations and of Israel is mentioned in 1QpHab 5:4–5; 10:3–5.119 The annihilation of all the wicked in the endtime is a famous Jewish tradition.120

Notes 1. Such as the Psalms, for example; an extensive pesher on Psalm 37 is among the Qumran finds. 2. Maurya P. Horgan, Pesharim: Qumran Interpretations of Biblical Books, Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 8 (Washington D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1979), 244–47; Bilhah Nitzan, Pesher Habakkuk: A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judaea (1QpHab) [in Hebrew] ( Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute, 1986), 33–79. 3. Adam. S. van der Woude, “Wicked Priest or Wicked Priests? Reflection on the Identification of the Wicked Priest in the Habakkuk Commentary,” Journal of Semitic Studies 33 (1982): 349–59. 4. David Flusser, “The Roman Empire in Hasmonean and Essene Eyes,” in his Judaism of the Second Temple Period, trans. Azzan Yadin (Grand Rapids: Michigan; Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2007), 175–206; Nitzan, Pesher Habakkuk, 128–32. 5. See David Flusser, “Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes in Pesher Nahum” [Hebrew], in M. Dorman et al. eds., Essays in Jewish History and Philology, in Memory of Gedaliahu Alon (Tel-Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 1970), 133–68. (German translation, 1981). 6. See, e.g., William H. Brownlee, “The Habakkuk Midrash and the Targum of Jonathan,” JJS 7 (1956), 169–86. 7. See the Damascus Document (CD) 1:11b–2:1; 8:13 (= 19:25–26); 4QpPsa 3–10 iv 14. 8. Cf. 4QpPsa 1–2 i 17–19; 1QHa 10:17–18 [2:16–17]; 12:8, 10–11 [4:7, 10–12]). 9. Cf. 2 Chron. 35:22; see also, e.g., Exod. 4:1, 8–9. 10. See CD 6:19; 8:21; 20:12. 11. See, e.g., CD 3:12–16; cf. CD 6:11–19; 1QS 5:2–3, 7–10. 12. Cf. 1QHa 10:34–35 [2]:32–33, based on Ps. 54:5 13. Ant. 12.244, 246; cf. Dan. 11:30; 4QpNah 3–4 i 3. 14. Possibly, the pesherist alluded to the “warrior” mentioned in Zeph 1:14 in identifying the Kittim as the warrior force established by God. Nitzan, Pesher Habakkuk, 69, 157. 15. See, e.g., Num. 21:26; Judg. 11:25; Isa. 63:10. 16. Cf. Gen. 3:13; 2 Kings 18:29; Jer. 4:10; 1QS 5:14. 17. See Brownlee, Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk, 66–67. 18. Cf. 1QpHab 4:7; see also Plutarch, Lives 14.3; 18.2; 31.7. 19. Sallustius Crispus Gaius, in Mitridates’s letter to Arsaces. See Sallust, The Histories, trans. Patrick McGushin, Clarendon Ancient History Series (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 2:47–51, 173–74, 179–84. 20. See F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs (referred to henceforth as BDB), A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907), 674. 21. Cf. Gen. 37:18 (BDB, 647).

662 Bilhah Nitzan

22. William H. Brownlee, “Biblical Interpretation among the Sectaries of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Biblical Archaeologist 14 (1951): 64. 23. That is, following the form ABA′B′–BAB′A′. See Lou H. Silberman, “Unriddling the Riddle: A Study in the Structure and Language of Habakkuk Pesher,” Revue de Qumran 3 (1961): 340; Nitzan, Pesher Habakkuk, 94. 24. Plutarch, Lives 13.4; 18.3; 28.7; 33.3; and Sallust, Hist. 4.67.5–9. 25. Cf. Gen. 13:16; 28:14; Num. 23:10; 2 Chron. 1:9. 26. Andre Dupont Sommer, The Essene Writings from Qumran (Cleveland: Meridian Books, 1962), 260n2. 27. Graham Webster, The Roman Imperial Army (London: A. & C. Black, 1969), 176–79; Adrian Goldsworth, The Complete Roman Army (London: Thames & Hudson, 2003), 188–89; cf. Josephus, Ant. 14.62, 69. 28. For Kimchi’s comment on Hab. 1:10, see Mikra’ot Gedolot: Nevi’im ‘aharonim (The Last Prophets) (New York: Schocken, 1938), 327 (according to the edition published in Warsha, 1922/ 1926). 29. Yitzhak Baer, “Pesher Habakkuk and its Period” [in Hebrew], Zion 34 (1969): 8. 30. Nitzan, Pesher Habakkuk, 71–74, 127–28. 31. The “interpretive technique” used here is the way the pesherist of 1QpHab comments on two different versions of Habakkuk. See ibid., 46–47, 95. 32. See Brownlee, Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk, 82. 33. See David Flusser, “The Roman Empire in Hasmonean and Essene Eyes,” in his Judaism of the Second Temple Period, trans. Azzan Yadin (Grand Rapids, Mich. and Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2007), 175–206. 34. Nitzan, Pesher Habakkuk, 17–19. 35. For this spelling see Nitzan, Pesher Habakkuk, 113. 36. Nitzan, Pesher Habakkuk, 64–65; Brownlee, Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk, 86–87. 37. Elliger, Habakuk-Kommentar, 139–42; Nitzan, Pesher Habakkuk, 51–52, 88. 38. Cf. 10:13; 11:4–8; 12:5–6. 39. F. García Martínez and J. Trebolle Barrera, The People of the Dead Sea scrolls (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 95–96. 40. Cf. Gen. 48:16; Ezek. 47:10. 41. Josephus, Ant. 18.55–56; M. Rostovzeff, “Vaxilum and Victory,” Journal of Roman Studies 32 (1942): 92– 106; Andre Dupont Sommer, Nouveaux aprecus sur les manuscrits de la mer Morte (Paris: Maisonneuve, 1952), 39–48; Jean Carmignac et al., Les textes de Qumran (Paris: Letouzey et Ane, 1963), 2:103; K. M. T. Atkinson, “The Historical Setting of Habakkuk Commentary,” Journal of Semitic Studies 4 (1959), 246–63; Adrian Goldsworthy, The Complete Roman Army (London: Thames & Hudson, 2003), 134–35. 42. N. Wieder, “The Habakkuk Scroll and the Targum,” Journal of Jewish Studies 4 (1953): 16. 43. Plutarch, Lives 25.2; 33.5–6; 45.3; Josephus, J.W. 1.222; Tenny Frank, Roman Imperialism (New York: Macmillan, 1929), 323–24. 44. For this outcome of the Roman tax administration see, e.g., Philo, Spec. Laws 1.143. 45. For ‘ashishim in the sense of “adults,” see Isa. 16:7 and Jer. 48:31 (cf. 4Q502, e.g. 9:4, “their adults and young”; 34:3, “adults and women”). 46. For referring this act that Isaiah predicted on the punishment of the Babylonian by the Medes as alluded to the Romans see Nitzan, Pesher Habakkuk, 71–74. 47. Cf. Philo, Spec. Laws 1.65; Eccles. Rab. 1:8:6; Midr. Shoher Tob 27 to Ps 90:1. 48. The verb yarus, if it derived from the Heb. root r-s-s, is interpreted in the sense of crushing and loosing the ties of the prophetic words (Silberman, “Riddle,” 344). This type of revelation is provided by the Qumran pesher. See Isaac Rabinowitz, “Pesher/Pittaron: Its Biblical Meaning and Its Significance in the Qumran Literature,” Revue de Qumran 8 (1973): 219–32; Horgan, Pesharim, 229–37; Nitzan, Pesher Habakkuk, 29–33; Brownlee, Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk, 23–36; Timothy H. Lim, Pesharim (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 44–53. 49. Jacob Licht, “Time and Eschatology in Apocalyptic literature,” Journal of Jewish Studies 16 (1965): 177–82. 50. The verb yapyh may be translated as “speak” (cf. Prov. 6:19; 14:5; etc.; Rashi on Hab. 2:3) based on the Heb. root p-w-h, “breathe,” “gasp,” “launch forth” (Horgan, Pesharim, 38); yapyh has also been rendered as “testify” in Ugarit (Horgan, ibid.). 51. William H. Brownlee, “The Habakkuk Midrash and the Targum of Jonathan,” Journal of Jewish Studies 7 (1956): 172–73.

Pesher Habakkuk

663

52. Cf. 2 Esdras (4 Ezra) 4[2]:33–38; 6[4]:7–10; Nitzan, Pesher Habakkuk, 19–21, 71–74. 53. See, e.g., 1QS 1:16–17; 5:1. For the sobriquet “men of truth” see 1QHa 6:13[14]:2; 1QHa 15:32–33[7:30]; 1QS 4:5–6; 1QM 17:8. 54. Cf. 4QpPsa 1–2 ii 14, 22. 55. See Neh. 9:34; 2 Chron. 14:3; Rom. 2:13; Gal. 3:5, 10. Cf. also Rabbinic writings; see E. Qimron and J. Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4.V: Miksat Ma'ase ha- torah, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 10 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 139. 56. Cf., e.g., 1 En. 89:59–90:42; 93:1–10 + 91:12–17. The term used in the scrolls for “exact measure” is tikun, from the Heb. token, “measure, amount” (cf. Exod. 5:18; Ezek. 45:11). See M. Z. Kaddari, “The Root TKN in the Qumran Texts,” Revue de Qumran 5 (1965): 219–24; Jacob Licht, “The Attitude to Past Events in the Bible and in Apocalyptic Literature” [Hebrew], Tarbiz 60 (1990): 1–18. 57. Licht, “Time and Eschatology,” 177. 58. See also, e.g., Ezek. 20:11; Neh. 9:29. 59. CD 4:11; cf. 1QpHab 12:4, 9; 1QpMic 8–10 5–8; 4QpNah 3–4 iii 4. 60. David Flusser, “Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes in Pesher Nahum,” in Essays in Jewish History and Philology in Memory of Gedaliahu Alon [in Hebrew], ed. M. Dorman, S. Safrai, and M. Stern, 133–46 (Tel-Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 1970). 61. Cf. CD 20:10,13,22; 1QS 8:5; 9:6. See Bilha Nitzan, “Abshalom, House of,” Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, I. p. 4. 62. Cf. CD 20:27–34. 63. Brownlee (Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk, 127–28) relates this pesher to Isa. 53:11, which in 1QIsaa, b reads: “because of his suffering of soul (me’amal nafsho) he will see light.” 64. The pesherist reads the MT version (hayayin boged), by reading the Heb. letters yyn as the Heb. letters wwn (final n) for the reading hon yibgod, possibly for matching the reality written in the pesher. See C. Rabin, “Notes on the Habakkuk Scroll and the Zadokite Documents,” VT 5 (1955), 152; A. Finkel, “The Pesher of Dreams and Scriptures,” RevQ 4 (1963), 367; Nitzan, Pesher Habakkuk, 177. 65. See Rashi’s comment on Hab 2:5 see Mikra’ot Gedolot, 329. 66. The biblical phrase “to be recorded under the name” in the sense of genealogical affiliation (cf. Gen. 48:6; Ezra 2:61) does not fit here. See Nitzan, Pesher Habakkuk, 178. Horgan translated here “who was called by the true name.” 67. See the definition “assemble of fraud . . . fellowship of violence” in 1QHa 14:8[6]:5 which is similar to the accusation of the Man of Lie, the leader of the Pharisees, in the pesher of 1QpHab 10:9–10 to Hab. 2:12. 68. CD 6:15–16; cf., e.g., 1QS 10:19; 1QHa 18: 24–25, 31–32[10]:22–23, 29–30. 69. See 1QS 3:5–6; 4:10, 21–22; Jub. 21:21; 23:14. 70. The deleted letter may be the ‘ayin of its synonym peta' of the MT version. That is, either the manuscript may show us here a deliberate correction of the MT text, or the scribe intended to write both words peta' pt’wm (see 1QHa 4:17[17:5]), and made an error of haplography. For these and other scholarly suggestions, see Horgan, Pesharim, 42. 71. Brownlee’s suggestion in the Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk, 145, that the abuse will be done by pain-inflicting angels raised by God, is not relevant in 1QpHab. 72. For nego'o, the defective Hebrew spelling of the third-person suffix of the noun nego'im in plural, see Elisha Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Harvard Semitic Studies 29 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), §§200.18, 322.14. 73. See also mishpate nega'im in 1QHa 9:35[1]:33; 19:11[11]:8; 21:36 [frag. 3:16]. 74. Cf. Jer. 5:30; 18:13; 23:14; Hos. 6:10. 75. Nitzan, Pesher Habakkuk, 181–82. 76. Cf. 4QpPsa 3–10 iv 9b–10a. 77. Geza Vermes, Discovery in the Judean Desert (New York: Desclee, 1956), 88–97; Józef T. Milik, Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judaea, trans. J. Strugnell, Studies in Biblical Theology 26 (London: SCM, 1959), 74–78. 78. Brownlee, Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk, 152. 79. Dupont Sommer, Essene Writings, 265. 80. Sommer, Essene Writings, 264–65; Brownlee, Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk, 152.

664 Bilhah Nitzan

81. Cf. 4QDa 3 iv 2; CD 8:4. See J. M. Baumgarten, Qumran Cave 4.XIII: The Damascus Document (4Q266– 273), Discoveries in the Judean Desert 18 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 45–46; and cf. 1QHa 16[8]:26; T. Parah 9:6; M. Neg. 6:8; 8:5 (Yalon, 68). Dupont Sommer, Vermes, Horgan, and García Martínez translated the Hebrew as merire nepes, “bitterness of soul” (i.e., despair). Cf. 1QHa 13:14[5]:12. 82. For a similar image, cf. Jer. 22:13, 17. 83. Cf. Isa. 24:21–22, and see Rashi on 24:22, Mikra’ot Gedolot. Rashi points out on two stages of the eschatological judgment: The condemnation, and the place of punishment. For a similar idea stated in 1QpHab 10:4–5 see L. H. Silberman, “Unriddling the Riddle, a Study in the Structure and Language of the Habakkuk Pesher, RevQ 3 (1961), 323–364 (at 353). 84. See Ezek. 38:22; 1 En. 10:13; 90:24; 4Q387 4:4. 85. See 1QpHab 5:11–12; 10:11–12; cf. 4QpPsa 1–2 i 18–19; CD 1:14–16. 86. See Nitzan, Pesher Habakkuk, 136–38. 87. Read as kebodoh, the Hebrew may indicate the masculine third-person singular (“his glory”) with the suffix hea. For this archaic suffix see Ezekiel Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 183. Read as kbodah, the Hebrew is feminine third-person singular; see, e.g., Horgan (Pesherim, 47); Brownlee (Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk, 170); and Geza Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, 3rd ed. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987. 88. Dupont Sommer, Essene Writings, 265; Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 19; Martin Abegg, DSSR, in Donald W. Parry and Emanuel Tov, eds., with the assistance of Nehemia Gordon and Carli Anderson, Exegetical Texts, The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader 2 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 89. 89. For the pesherist’s exegetical method of using ambiguous meanings of the prophetical words see Nitzan, Pesher Habakkuk, 46–51. 90. For this exegetical method see Nitzan, Pesher Habakkuk, 46–51 (at 48–50). 91. Cf. Zeph. 2:14; Ps. 137:7. Nitzan, Pesher Habakkuk, 46, 49–50. 92. Jer. 25:16a, 27; cf. Isa. 28:7; Ps. 69:22; 1QHa 12:12–13[4]:11–12. 93. Cf. CD 11:17–18. 94. CD 3:12–16; 6:17–19. 95. See Shemaryahu Talmon, “Yom Hakippurim in the Habakkuk Scroll,” in The World of Qumran from Within ( Jerusalem: Magnes; Leiden: Brill, 1989), 186–99. 96. For the exegetical method used in the pesher of Hab. 2:15 see Nitzan, Pesher Habakkuk, 48–50. 97. Cf. Mal. 2:8. For the idea of “stumbling” over a sin, see also Hos. 5:5; 14:2; 1QS 2:12; 1QHa 12:16[4:15]. 98. Cf. Isa. 58:3; 4QpPsa 1–2 ii 9. 99. Cf. Deut. 29:18; Jer. 9:25. 100. Cf. 1QHa 12:11–12[4:10–11]; Amos 8:11. 101. Cf. Isa. 51:17, 22: Jer. 25:15–16. 102. The translation “s]ha[me] and a pain” is related to the Heb. word ky’k’lon of Hab. 2:16, which is combined of two words ky’ and k’lon. See Brownlee, Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk, 193. 103. The Heb. word yehite(ka) is derived from the stem h-t-t, which means “overwhelming” or “terrifying.” Cf. Gen. 35:5; Ps. 52:7. Isa. 8:9; 20:5. See S. Talmon, “Notes on the Habakkuk Scroll,” The World of Qumran from Within ( Jerusalem: Magnes; Leiden: Brill), 145–46. 104. See Horgan, Pesharim, 51–52; Nitzan, Pesher Habakkuk, 81–82; 88–89, 194. 105. 4QpPsa 1–2 ii 9; 3–4 iii 10; cf. 1QM 11:13; 13:14. 106. Cf. 1QM 11:9; 1QHa 13:24[5:22]; cf. e.g. Ps. 40:17–18 (= 70:5–6); Matt. 5:3 (cf. 1QHa 6:14[14:3]; 1QM 14:7). See Jacob Licht, The Thanksgiving Scroll: A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judaea [Hebrew] ( Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute, 1957), 47–48. 107. Cf. Lam. Rab. 1:5; Avot R. Nat. A.4. See Brownlee, “Midrash Habakkuk,” 169–86; Geza Vermes, “The Symbolical Interpretation of Lebanon in the Targumim: The Origin and Development of an Exegetical Tradition,” Journal of Theological Studies 9 (1958): 2–12; idem, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism Haggadic Studies, Studia Post-Biblica 4 (Leiden: Brill, 1961), 26–39. 108. Cf. CD 4:3 and 1QS 5:6. 109. Cf. the epithet “the simple ones of Ephraim” (peta’ei Ephraim), referring to those who accompanied the Pharisees (4QpNah 3–4 iii, 5, 7–8).

Pesher Habakkuk

665

110. Cf. Ps. 49:21; 73:22; Job 18:3; 35:11. 111. The spelling oseh for the construct state of the plural appears in Neh. 2:16; Ps. 106:3. Cf. Sir. 39:33, and MH; Horgan, Pesharim, 53). See A. Sperber, “Hebrew in Parallel Transmission,” Hebrew Union College Annual 14 (1939): 170–71, 193, 205. 112. Ant. 13.380; J.W. 1.97; 4QpNah 3–4 i 5–8. 113. On the stringency of the yahad against any impurity, see CD 11:18–20; 11QTS 45:7–47:18; 4QMMT B.13– 23, 39–54, 58–61; 64–68. 114. 1QS 1:12–13; 1QS 5:2–3; 6:2, 17; 7:6–8; 9:7. 115. See Nitzan, Pesher Habakkuk, 17–19. 116. The scroll’s form, marei, for “an image of,” is created by omitting the ’alef of mar’e and altering the hea of the singular by yod. For a similar alteration, cf. Eccles. 11:9; 1QM 6:13. See Rabin, “Notes on the Habakkuk Scroll,” 153. 117. Cf. Isa. 42:17; 45:16, 20; Jer. 10:14–15 (= 51:17–18). 118. For these suggested restorations see Horgan, Pesharim, 54. 119. Cf. 1QM 1:10. 120. See, e.g., Jer. 25:15–31; Zeph. 1:14–18; Pss. Sol. 15:5–13. For more data see Brownlee, Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk, 217.

666

Bilhah Nitzan

Greek Jewish Interpreters This section features selections from Greek Jewish authors writing mainly in the 3rd through the 1st centuries bce. Most of them are known to us through excerpts preserved in the writings of pagan (and later Christian) authors. Not all of these works are strictly interpretive, but they are usually presented together because of both their similar dating and their fragmentary nature. An exception is the pair of works by Pseudo-Philo, which, though possibly of similar dating with the rest of the group, were transmitted along with a larger corpus of works by Philo, and so come to us as complete compositions.

Demetrius the Chronographer Lorenzo DiTommaso Demetrius was a Jewish historian who flourished in Ptolemaic Egypt, likely in Alexandria during the last decades of the 3rd century bce. The date may be inferred from a note to Ptolemy IV (= Ptolemy IV Philopator, reigned c. 221–205 bce) in fragment 6. Nothing more is known of Demetrius’s life. Of his writings, only six fragments survive, all of which were preserved by early Christian authors.1 Five appear in the Praeparatio evangelica of Eusebius (ca. 260–340 ce), whose source was Alexander Polyhistor, a Gentile anthologist active at Rome in the mid-1st century bce. The sixth, preserved by Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150–215 ce) in his Stromata, is from Demetrius’s book, On the Kings in Judaea. Demetrius is the first Jewish author known to have composed in Greek. His spelling of proper names and other details indicate that he used a Greek version of Genesis and Exodus rather than the Hebrew. As such, he is our earliest independent witness for the existence of these books in Greek (and, by inference, a Greek Pentateuch). Demetrius addressed the historical and religious issues that would have been raised by a careful reading of Scripture. His exegetical approach, called aporiai kai luseis (questions and solutions), was a feature of Hellenistic scholarship and was later employed by Philo of Alexandria (see Questions and Answers in Genesis and Exodus). Demetrius is also representative of the nationalist historians of the era, such as Berosus of Babylon (330–250 bce) and Manetho of Egypt (3rd century bce), who applied elements of the critical rigor of Greek scientific historiography to their local histories. Yet Demetrius cannot be understood solely through the lens of Hellenism, since to some degree his exegetical approach was already implicit in the historical books of Scripture that were the object of his enquiry. He is not an apologist, and neither amplifies the antiquity of his heritage nor exaggerates the attributes of its heroes, who remain untouched by syncretism. Demetrius clarifies difficult sections of the biblical narrative rather than augmenting it with new episodes or the dramatic speeches so common in classical histories. His focus on difficult questions and the complexity of his solutions can obscure our understanding of his purpose. His goal was not to prove the integrity of Scripture or defend its claims against skeptics. He assumed it faithfully recorded sacred history, and that apparent problems and inconsistencies would be resolved by careful study. We learn, for example, how Jacob could have sired twelve children in seven years, why Joseph gave Benjamin a fivefold portion of food and clothing, and whence, during the Exodus from Egypt, the Israelites might have obtained the weapons they used against the Amalekites. The selections below illustrate the nature of Demetrius’s questions and the reasoned, explanatory logic of his solutions. His audience would have been educated Jews, but might have included Gentiles as well.

669

Suggested Reading Bickerman, E. “The Jewish Historian Demetrius.” In Christianity, Judaism, and Other Greco-Roman Cults, edited by J. Neusner, 3.72–84. Leiden: Brill, 1975. DiTommaso, L. “A Note on Demetrius the Chronographer, Fr. 2.11 (= Eusebius, PrEv 9.21.11).” JSJS 29 (1998): 81–91. Doran, R. “The Jewish Hellenistic Historians before Josephus.” ANRW 2.20.1 (1984): 246–97, esp. 248–51. Gruen, E. S. Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998. Hanson, J. “Demetrius the Chronographer.” In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, edited by J. H. Charlesworth, 2.843–54. New York: Doubleday, 1985. Holladay, C. R. Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, 1.51–91. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1983. Sterling, G. Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke—Acts and Apologetic Historiography, 153–67. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Wacholder, B. Z. Eupolemus: A Study of Judaeo-Greek Literature, 44–52. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College– Jewish Institute of Religion, 1974.

Translation Fragment 2 (from Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9:21:1–18)

1Demetrius says that Jacob was 772 years old when he fled to Haran, in Mesopotamia. He was sent by his parents because of Esau’s hidden resentment against him—on account of his father’s having blessed him, thinking him Esau—and also so that there he might acquire a wife.3 . . . 7While Jacob was on the way to Canaan, an angel of God wrestled him and smote the hollow of his thigh, which became numb and made him limp. . . . 11From there Jacob went to Mamre in Hebron to Isaac his father. Joseph was then 17 years old: he was sold into Egypt, and there remained in prison for 13 years, until he was 30 years old. Jacob was now 120 years old, and this was 1 year before Isaac died at the age of 180 years. 12Having

Commentary Fragment 2 3–10 Demetrius provides a lengthy, logical calculation (not translated) that assumes concurrent pregnancies among the mothers and 10-month gaps between the births of children of the same mother.12 7. an angel of God The Hebrew (Gen. 32:25) and Greek (32:24) texts read “man,” but the prophet Hosea asserts that Jacob had struggled with an angel (12:4), a view that later became common.13 Demetrius is the earliest known extrabiblical author to call Jacob’s opponent an angel. 11. Jacob was now 120 years old, and this was 1 year before Isaac died at the age of 180 years This simple statement illuminates Demetrius’s concern over issues that could arise only from a close reading of Scripture. Frag. 2.16 states that Israel “spent 215 years in the land of Canaan.” The figure reflects the 430 years that Exod. 12:40 LXX records for Israel’s time in Canaan and Egypt,14 but stands in contrast to the Hebrew text, which claims 430 years in Egypt only.15 For Demetrius, Source of Translation: The translations are my own. In places I have inserted proper names to facilitate the narrative.

670 Lorenzo DiTommaso

interpreted the king’s dreams, Joseph ruled Egypt for 7 years, at which time he married Aseneth, daughter of Pentephra priest of Heliopolis,4 and sired Manasseh and Ephraim. Two years of famine followed. 13But although Joseph enjoyed good fortune for 9 years, he did not send for his father: his father was a shepherd, as were his brothers, and the Egyptians consider shepherding disgraceful. Joseph himself said that this was the reason he did not send for them, for when his kin did come, he told them that should they be summoned by the king and asked about their livelihood, they were to say they were herdsmen. 14Another issue concerns why Joseph gave Benjamin a fivefold portion at breakfast, even though he could never consume so much meat. Joseph did this because their father had sired six sons5 by Leah but only two sons by Rachel their mother. Accordingly, he gave five portions for Benjamin and he himself took one. Therefore, between them there were six portions, as many as the sons of Leah received. 15Similarly, where Joseph gave a double-folded garment to each brother, he gave Benjamin chronology and genealogy were complementary; his task was to explain the details. Frag. 2.16 shows how he calculated the figure of 215 years as the sum of the 25 years that Abraham spent in Canaan before the birth of Isaac (Gen. 12:4; 21:5), Isaac’s 60 years of age at the time of Jacob’s birth (25:26), and Jacob’s 130 years of age when he went before Pharaoh (47:9). When Joseph was released from prison, he “was 30 years old,” while Jacob “was now 120 years old” (frag. 2.11). Genesis 45:6 implies that 9 more years passed before Joseph, now in the service of Pharaoh, received his brothers in Egypt (frag. 2.12–13). But if Joseph was 39 (frag. 2.18), Jacob must have been 129, which was a year too young for Demetrius’s computation concerning the length of Israel’s stay in Canaan. The problem, then, was the discrepancy between Isaac’s death at 180 and the datum that Jacob did not enter Egypt until he was 130. One might suppose that since “Jacob arrived in Egypt during the third year of famine in Egypt” (frag. 2.17),16 another year had passed, but Demetrius knew that this was not the case, since he determined that Dinah was 39 at the time and she could not be younger than Joseph.17 Demetrius’s answer is more elegant: he concluded that Jacob must have been 120 “1 year before Isaac died at the age of 180 years” (frag. 2.11). Although his calculations do not survive, they probably were based on the recognition that Jacob and Joseph were born in different months (Demetrius pays close attention to months in frag. 2.3, 8–9, 17). Therefore, while Joseph was 30 when Jacob was 120, Jacob could have turned 121 when Isaac died at 180, but before Joseph turned 31. Nine years later, when he went to Egypt, Jacob would have been 130 when his son Joseph was for a few months still 39, at which point Israel’s stay in Canaan ended at 215 years. All this goes far beyond typical Rabbinic calculations of such matters, which tend to be much simpler. 13. Joseph himself said that this was the reason he did not send for them Not every question required a complicated solution; sometimes the answer was in plain view, as it was on this issue, since “Joseph himself ” tells us (Gen. 46:33–34).18 14–15. Joseph gave Benjamin a fivefold portion . . . he gave Benjamin five such garments along with 300 pieces of gold Demetrius addresses two problems. The first concerns the proportions Benjamin received (Gen. 43:33–34; 45:22). Demetrius’s answer follows from ratios: Jacob “had sired six sons by Leah but only two sons by Rachel” (frag. 2.14), and if Joseph reserved a portion for himself, that left five for Benjamin, the other son of Rachel.19 The reading “300 pieces of gold” is based on the Septuagint (the Hebrew text reads “silver”).20 The second problem concerns Benjamin and the food. The sentence begins, “Another issue concerns why,”21 which should be considered in light of frag. 5.16, “Someone asked how.” This language, characteristic of the “questions and

Demetrius the Chronographer

671

five such garments along with 300 pieces of gold. He also sent the same amount to his father so that his mother’s house would be equal. 16And from the time Abraham was chosen from among the nations and migrated to Canaan, they dwelt in the land of Canaan as follows: Abraham, 25 years; Isaac, 60 years; Jacob, 130 years. Thus, in all, they spent 215 years in the land of Canaan. 17Jacob arrived in Egypt during the third year of famine in Egypt there; he was now 130 years old. Reuben was 45 years old, Simeon 44, Levi 43, Judah 42 years and 2 months, Naphtali 41 and 7 months, Gad 41 and 3 months, Asher 40 and 8 months, Zebulun 40 years old, Dinah6 39, Benjamin 28. 18Joseph, Demetrius says,7 turned 39 in Egypt.8 Fragment 3 (from Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9:29:1)

1Moses fled to Midian and there married Zipporah daughter of Jethro, who—insofar as can be reckoned from the names—was a descendant of Keturah, and thus of the stock of Abraham: a descendant of Jokshan son of Abraham by Keturah. From Jokshan was born Dedan, and from Dedan, Reuel,9 and from Reuel, Jethro and Hobab, and from Jethro, Zipporah, whom Moses married. Fragment 5 (from Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9:29:16)

16Someone asked how the Israelites obtained weapons, since they came out unarmed.10 For the Israelites said that they would return again after they had gone out on a three days’ journey and offered sacrifice. Thus it appears that those who did not drown appropriated the weapons of those who did.11 solutions” approach, need not imply an apologetic context. Demetrius’s questions were meant for those who were familiar enough with Scripture to be interested in its finer details (including, as is clear from the commentary on frag. 2.11, its deep chronological structures), while his solutions lack the timbre of justification frequently associated with replies to Gentile skeptics. One has the sense that we have Demetrius’s response to a question, perhaps originally posed by a student, as to why Benjamin received so much food “even though he could never consume” it.

Fragment 3 1. Zipporah daughter of Jethro . . . of the stock of Abraham A Diaspora Jew, Demetrius assumed that Moses had not been polygamous or married outside his people.22 The genealogies of Scripture— “insofar as can be reckoned from the names”—implied this. Gen. 25:1–4 LXX traces the line from Abraham through Keturah to Raguel, whom Demetrius takes to mean Reuel. Demetrius knew that Hobab was the son of Reuel the Midianite (Num. 10:29) and possibly concluded that Hobab and Jethro were brothers on the implication of Judg. 1:16 and 4:11. In frag. 3.2 (not translated) the same genealogies demonstrate how Moses, seventh in line from Abraham, could have married Zipporah, only six generations removed. Finally, Gen. 25:6 notes that Abraham had sent his sons after Isaac to the east.23 This, coupled with the notice that Midian was the name of another son of Keturah, provided the basis for Demetrius’s view (frag. 3.3, not translated) that Moses’s Ethiopian wife (Num. 12:1 LXX)24 was none other than Zipporah.

Fragment 5 16. how the Israelites obtained weapons Weapons were required for the Israelites’ coming battle with the Amalekites (Exod. 17:8–16). Thus they had to “return again” to the seashore, where the dead Egyptians were (14:30). The phrases “those who did not drown” and “those who did” are

672 Lorenzo DiTommaso

circumlocutions for “Israelites” and “Egyptians.” Note also “came out”; the obvious locative, “from Egypt,” is not explicit. Was Demetrius, an Alexandrian Jew, avoiding potential offense? While the Exodus was a national triumph over imperial Egypt and its king, Demetrius’s focus was elsewhere and there was little reason to stress the politically sensitive aspects of the story. A later analogue might be Josephus, who, in order not to offend his Roman patrons, veiled the meaning of the great stone of Dan. 2:34–35, 45 that represents the kingdom of God and will smash and replace the final world empire (Ant. 10.209–10).

Notes 1. Some fragments are disputed, others have been proposed. The convoluted transmission history of the text has caused numerous corruptions (see endnotes to the translation). For the Greek text of all the fragments see C. R. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 1.62–79. 2. The text reads “75 years” but is corrupt; the correct figure, 77, is preserved in frag. 2.2 (not translated) and demanded by Demetrius’s calculations elsewhere. 3. In §§2–10 (not translated), Jacob departs for Haran, in Mesopotamia. He dwells with Laban for 20 years, siring 12 children over 7 years. He then dwells near Hamor for 10 years, when Dinah is raped. Jacob, now 107 years old, moves to Bethlehem, where Rachel dies after giving birth to Benjamin. 4. Gen. 41:45 is the ultimate source. Demetrius overlooks Joseph’s Egyptian name, which varies among the MT, LXX, and other versions, as well as in the extrabiblical literature (cf. Jub. 40:10 and Josephus, Ant. 2.91). Aseneth is mentioned in Jub. 34:20; 40:10; 44:24; and T. Jos. 18. Josephus calls her “Asennēthis,” a virgin (Ant. 2.91). In contrast with his concern over Zipporah (see the commentary on frag. 3.1), Demetrius is unworried by Aseneth’s foreign origin, although Polyhistor may have truncated Demetrius’s text at this point. Other ancient Jewish writers, however, were troubled by Aseneth’s ethnicity. The story of her conversion is the subject of Joseph and Aseneth, a work composed in Greek and likely the product of a Hellenistic-Jewish milieu. Other accounts consider Aseneth to have been the daughter of Dinah, who as an infant was taken to Egypt and adopted by the high priest (Pirke d. El. 38; Tg. Yer. on Gen. 41:45 and 46:20; see further L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews [Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998], 2.38, 76–77; 5.336–37n97, 345nn188–90). 5. The text is unsound in several places, particularly regarding the number of Leah’s sons (the manuscripts read “seven sons”) and the portions. Logic implies the reading preserved in the translation. See Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, 1.84–86nn34–37. 6. Some commentators emend to “Dan.” Since both Dan and Dinah are older than Joseph, the change is unimportant to the issue of Joseph’s age. The ages of some of the children of Jacob are unreliable in the manuscript copies; correct values must be supplied on the basis of the internal logic of the section. 7. Eusebius is quoting Polyhistor’s epitome of Demetrius. 8. The rest of frag. 2.18–19 (not translated) details the generations from Adam to Joseph, the line of descent from Levi, and the ages of the patriarchs when they sired their sons. These ages are not always paralleled in Scripture and differ also from those that can be reasonably reconstructed in the Dead Sea Aramaic chronograph 4Q559. 9. Literally “Raguel.” On Raguel as Reuel, see the commentary. Raguel is the father-in-law of Moses at LXX Exod. 2:18, which both Artapanus (frag. 3.19) and Josephus (Ant. 2.258; 3.63; etc.) follow. Polyhistor’s (or Eusebius’s) introduction to line 59 of Ezekiel the Tragedian’s Exagōgē asserts the same. The matter is complicated by the various names retained by Scripture for Moses’s father-in-law. 10. This point is fraught with confusion; for a full explanation see Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, 1.89–90n88. The Hebrew text of Exod. 13:18 could suggest that the Israelites departed Egypt in military formation, but the word precipitating this interpretation (vahamushtim) was translated in the LXX as “the fifth generation.” Pseudo-Philo states that the Israelites had weapons and that the tribes of Levi, Judah, Joseph, and Benjamin wanted to use them against the pursuing Egyptians (L.A.B. 10:3). 11. The plunder of the dead is retold in Wis. 10:20. Ezekiel the Tragedian identifies the Israelites as unarmed (Exagōgē 210). Josephus does as well (Ant. 2.321), but states that the Egyptians’ weapons were carried to the Israelites by the tide and wind (2.349).

Demetrius the Chronographer

673

12. Jub. 28 and Josephus (Ant. 1.303–8) also discuss the births of Jacob’s children, although Josephus attends more to their mothers. 13. See Josephus, Ant. 1.331–34 (he also calls the figure a “phantom”); Gen. Rab. 77:2; 78:1–3; and Tg. Ps.-J. and Tg. Neof., loc. cit. For later sources see Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, 5.531nn247–50. Explanations of the meaning of “Israel” and “Peniel” in Gen. 32:29, 31 already presume that Jacob’s opponent was superhuman. On the range of ancient interpretations of the Peniel/Penuel event, see J. L. Kugel, The Bible as It Was (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University, 1997), 224–29. 14. The Samaritan Pentateuch agrees with the LXX here, against the MT. On a figure of 430 years from Abraham to Moses, see Gal. 3:17 and Seder Olam Rabbah 3. Pseudo-Philo cites this figure as well (L.A.B. 9:3), but allots only 210 years of it to Israel’s period in Egypt (8:14). 15. None of the surviving fragments records whether Demetrius resolved the tension between LXX Exod. 12:40 and the 400 years of Gen. 15:13 or four generations of 15:16. But it did concern later Jewish writers; see both Exod. Rab. 18:11 and Melk. de Ish., pisha 14 on Exod. 12:40. Josephus mentions both 215 years (Ant. 2.318) and 400 years (2.204). Pseudo-Philo cites 400 years of bondage (L.A.B. 9:3), despite in the next sentence asserting that the period from Abraham to Moses lasted 430 years (see the previous endnote). 16. According to Jubilees, Jacob went to Egypt on the sixteenth day of the third month (44:8) of the second year of the famine (43:17). 17. On Dinah/Dan, see note 6. 18. Another complex of traditions centers on Joseph’s plan to test his brothers and God’s plan that the brothers not recognize Joseph until the proper moment (cf. Philo, Joseph 165); see Kugel, Bible as It Was, 265– 69. These plans would require the sons of Jacob to enter Egypt at the appropriate time. Jos. Asen. 22:1–2 omits the testing of the brothers, but the work presumes the reader’s knowledge of Scripture. 19. In Jub. 42:23 Benjamin receives seven portions. Ginzberg records a well-attested later tradition that Joseph, Aseneth, Ephraim, and Manasseh gave Benjamin their portions, which when added to his own made five (Legends of the Jews, 2.97, with sources in 5.351nn248–49). 20. Josephus preserves both “gold” and “silver” (Ant. 2.167). 21. The Greek is idiomatic; see, e.g., J. Hanson, “Demetrius the Chronographer,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. J. H. Charlesworth (New York: Doubleday, 1985), 2.851: “And they were at a loss.” 22. These concerns were particularly important to some Diaspora writers (cf. Ezekiel the Tragedian, Exagōgē 60–67, and Theodotus frag. 4) but not all (e.g., the court tales of Daniel 1–6 and the so-called Greek Additions to Daniel). See note 5 and note 25. 23. Ethiopia was understood to be part of the East. 24. MT: “Cushite.” Cush often refers to Ethiopia, but is associated with Midian in Hab. 3:7. Tg. Neof. on Num. 12:1 also equates Moses’s Ethiopian wife with Zipporah. An old tradition records that, as a young man in the service of Pharaoh, Moses first repulsed an Ethiopian attack and then invaded the country (Artapanus, frag. 3.7–10; and Josephus, Ant. 2.238–53, who adds that Moses married Tharbis, the daughter of the Ethiopian king). Artapanus could have been rebutting the claim of the Egyptian historian Manetho that Moses invaded Egypt, causing Pharaoh to flee to Ethiopia (reported in Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.241, 246). For later traditions about Moses, Ethiopia, and Zipporah, see Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, 2.283–95.

674

Lorenzo DiTommaso

Artapanus Erich S. Gruen The mysterious and intriguing Artapanus resists labels, eludes characterization, and defies categories. He carries a Persian name, writes in Greek, and has a Jewish perspective. His work jumbles genres and transforms traditions, blending history with fable, propaganda with fantasy, biblical narrative with pagan romance. We possess only three fragments from Artapanus’s treatise, which was entitled either Judaica or Concerning the Jews. The excerpts were quoted by the Greek scholar and collector of information Alexander Polyhistor from Miletus in Asia Minor, writing in the middle of the 1st century bce. Polyhistor’s work itself no longer survives, but the 4th-century ce churchman Eusebius of Caesarea preserved many of Polyhistor’s citations of Jewish authors in his Preparation for the Gospel. Hence we have only a third-hand version of Artapanus, at best. Two of the fragments, on Abraham and Joseph, are quite brief and truncated; a third on Moses is more extensive, elaborate, and engaging. The segment on Abraham depicts the patriarch as bringing his household to Egypt, remaining there 20 years, and teaching the science of astrology to the Pharaoh. Artapanus sees him through the eyes of both Greeks and Egyptians. Abraham is thus not only ancestor of the Jews but also contributor to the origins of culture and learning. The Joseph fragment liberally modifies the biblical version. According to Artapanus, Joseph landed in Egypt through his own shrewdness, escaping the machinations of his brothers rather than being victimized by them. He then became the king’s economic minister, restructuring Egyptian agriculture, placing land tenure for the first time on an equitable footing—a far cry from the biblical narrative that has him extending royal authority and reducing the Egyptian peasantry to serfdom. More striking still, Artapanus makes Joseph the discoverer of measurements, a lasting contribution for which he was much beloved by the Egyptians. The surviving fragment on Moses is far lengthier than the Abraham and Joseph portions combined. Here, Artapanus gives full rein to his imagination. Moses, he reports, acquired the name Mousaios from the Greeks, became the teacher of the mythical Orpheus, and conferred a host of benefits upon humankind, including the invention of ships, mechanisms for stone construction, Egyptian weaponry, hydraulic engines, implements of warfare, and even philosophy. Further, he reconstituted the entire Egyptian political and religious structure, taught hieroglyphics to the priests, made divinities out of cats, dogs, and ibises, taught Ethiopians to practice circumcision, and prompted the worship of the Apis bull. In addition, Artapanus invents adventures for Moses, including a military campaign against Ethiopians, the foiling of an Egyptian assassin, and escape from the plots of a jealous Pharaoh. And he rewrites the ten plagues narrative by having Moses initiate the flooding of the Nile and inspire the use of his rod as part of Isis worship. Instead of being only a

675

lawgiver for the Jews, Moses turns out to be a benefactor of Egyptians and a culture hero for all of humankind. Authorship and History Nothing is known about Artapanus apart from these extracts. He must precede Alexander Polyhistor, who quotes him; thus he wrote no later than the early 1st century bce. He used the Septuagint for his biblical text, thus placing him no earlier than the mid-3rd century bce. The passages preserved by the Christian fathers Eusebius and Clement of Alexandria constitute our only attestations of Artapanus. Perhaps because of his idiosyncratic views, he did not receive mention by any Jewish or pagan writer. Since the surviving fragments all concern themselves with Egypt, it is likely that Artapanus dwelled in that land. And since no Gentile of that time period would have the motivation for retelling and rewriting biblical stories, he was almost certainly a Hellenistic Jew. Significance The work does not fit neatly in a particular genre. It has been classified either as history or romance or some combination thereof, as a vehicle for promoting a syncretistic blend of cultures, or as a means to refute nasty Gentile depictions of Jews. But Artapanus is too slippery and elusive a writer to pigeonhole. The inventive and occasionally whimsical character of his work suggests that Artapanus was less an advocate for syncretism or an embattled apologist than an imaginative spinner of tales, with a light touch, who tampered freely with Scripture and transposed Gentile traditions to place Jewish figures in the center. Suggested Reading Barclay, J. M. G. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 127–32. Edinburgh: Clark, 1996. Braun, M. History and Romance in Graeco-oriental Literature, 1–31. Oxford: Blackwell, 1938. Collins, J. J. “Artapanus.” In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, edited by J. H. Charlesworth, 2.889–903. Garden City ny: Doubleday, 1985. —. Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora, 37–46. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids mi: Eerdmans, 2000. Gruen, E. S. Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition, 87–89, 155–60. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998. Holladay, C. R. Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, 1.189–243. Chico ca: Scholars Press, 1983. Schürer, E. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ. Vol 3. Rev. ed. by G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Goodman, 1.521–25. Edinburgh: Clark, 1986. Sterling, G. E. Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts, and Apologetic Historiography, 167–87. Leiden: Brill, 1992.

676

Erich S. Gruen

Translation Fragment 1 (from Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9:18:1)

Artapanus, in his work Judaica, says that the Jews were named Hermiouth, which means “Jews” when translated into the Greek language; and he says that they were called Hebrews from the time of Abraham. He also says that Abraham came with his entire household into Egypt to Pharethothes, the king of the Egyptians, and taught him astrology. After he had remained there twenty years, he returned to the regions of Syria, but many of those who had accompanied him remained behind in Egypt, attracted by the prosperity of the country. Fragment 2 (from Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9:23:1–4)

1Artapanus says in his book Concerning the Jews that Joseph, the son of Jacob, was descended from Abraham. Because he excelled all the other sons of Jacob in wisdom and understanding, his brothers plotted against him. Anticipating the conspiracy, however, he besought the neighboring Arabs

Commentary Fragment 1 Jews were named Hermiouth The word “Hermiouth,” unattested outside Artapanus, seems to be an allusion to the Greek god Hermes, thus representing an effort by Artapanus to set the Jews in the context of Hellenistic perception. Abraham came with his entire household Artapanus radically rewrites the tale in Gen. 12:10–13:1, omitting Abram’s devious misrepresentation of Sarai as his sister rather than wife and inserting instead the claim that Abram taught astrology to the Egyptian pharaoh. The claim parallels one made by another Jewish-Hellenistic writer, usually designated Pseudo-Eupolemus, who has Abraham discover astrology and Chaldean science and transmit them to Egyptian priests and to Phoenicians.1 These writers plainly endeavor to transform Abraham into a bringer of culture who transmits learning to Near Eastern peoples on a broad front beyond the framework of the biblical traditions. It is interesting to note that the Palestinian Rabbis of Genesis Rabbah carefully deny that Abraham was an astrologer; see Gen. Rab. 46 and 87. In contrast to the Babylonian Rabbis; see Shabbat 156a. after he had remained there twenty years The Bible says nothing about the length of Abraham’s stay or about any of his entourage remaining in Egypt.2

Fragment 2 1. because he excelled all the other sons Artapanus again departs freely from the biblical tale in Gen. 37:2–36. Joseph here preempts his brothers’ plot and takes the initiative in persuading Arabs to convey him to Egypt. He is thus a proactive figure, no mere victim. This is the first extant reference to Arabs as descendants of Abraham, an obvious though confused allusion to the story of Ishmael, son of Abraham and the Egyptian Hagar, handmaiden of Sarah. The Bible itself nowhere equates Arabs with Ishmaelites. Artapanus attests to the identification having already been made by the 2nd century bce.3 Source of Translation: The translation is from Holladay, C. R. Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors (cited above).

Artapanus 677

to transport him to Egypt, and they did as he requested, for the kings of the Arabs, being the sons of Abraham and brothers of Isaac, are descendants of Israel. 2After he came into Egypt and became acquainted with the king, he became minister of finance for the entire country. Prior to that time the Egyptians had farmed the land haphazardly because the countryside was not divided into allotments, and consequently the weak were treated unfairly by the strong. Joseph was the very first to subdivide the land, to indicate this with boundaries, to render much of the waste land tillable, to assign some of the arable land to the priests. 3In addition, it was he who discovered measures, and he was greatly loved by the Egyptians because of these accomplishments. He married Aseneth, the daughter of a priest of Heliopolis, by whom he fathered children. Later, both his father and his brothers came to him, bringing with them many possessions. They settled in Heliopolis and Sais, and the Syrians multiplied in Egypt. 4He says that these people named Hermiouth built both the temple in Athos and the one in Heliopolis. Eventually Joseph and the king of the Egyptians died. As long as Joseph held power over the financial affairs of Egypt, he stored up the grain surplus that had accumulated during the seven years as a result of the immense production, and consequently he became the lord of Egypt. Fragment 3 (from Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9:27:1–37)

1Artapanus says in his book Concerning the Jews that after Abraham and his son Mempsasthenoth died, the king of the Egyptians died as well, and his son Palmanothes received the crown. 2Now Palmanothes

descendants of Israel This may be confusion on Artapanus’s part. But more likely the original text read Ishmael rather than Israel. 2. prior to that time the Egyptians had farmed the land haphazardly Artapanus offers a much more generous portrait of Joseph than does the narrative in Gen. 47:13–26. The biblical story has Joseph expand the authority and land ownership of the pharaoh, converting Egyptian peasants into serfs for the benefit of the crown. Artapanus, by contrast, turns Joseph into a land reformer, ending exploitation of the weak by the powerful, bringing neglected territory back into cultivation, allocating possessions in equitable fashion, and setting aside property for the priests. The author omits the biblical rationale for Joseph’s appointment, a famine in the country, and simply makes him the king’s representative to reorganize Egypt’s economic system. Cf. to Gen. Rab. 90:5, where Joseph’s agricultural activities are also described, but without any mention of the inequity of the results. For the Rabbis this does not seem to have been an issue. 3. it was he who discovered measures Artapanus credits Joseph, like Abraham, with an important contribution to the arts and sciences of antiquity. This serves as another instance of Jewish appropriation of those realms, making the Egyptians dependent upon and grateful recipients of a Jewish invention. 4. he became the lord of Egypt The text accords Joseph even more authority than is suggested in the Bible.4 The statement appears, however, almost as an afterthought in Artapanus and may have been incorrectly inserted in the text by Eusebius. Cf. Gen. 41:41–44.

Fragment 3 1. Abraham and his son Mempsasthenoth “Abraham” is obviously a slip: Artapanus must have intended “Jacob.” And the Egyptian name of his son seems a deliberate distortion of the name given to Joseph by the pharaoh in Gen. 41:45.

678 Erich S. Gruen

dealt meanly with the Jews. First he built Sais, then he set up the temple there. Later he built the sanctuary in Heliopolis. 3He fathered a daughter Merris whom he betrothed to a certain Chenephres, a ruler of the regions above Memphis. At that time there were many rulers in Egypt. But since she was barren, she took as her own a child of one of the Jews and named him Moses. When he became a man, he was called Mousaios by the Greeks. 4This Moses became the teacher of Orpheus. When he reached manhood, he bestowed on humanity many useful contributions, for he invented ships, machines for lifting stones, Egyptian weapons, devices for drawing water and fighting, and philosophy. He also divided the state into thirty-six nomes, and to each of the nomes he assigned the god to be worshipped; in addition, he assigned the sacred writings to the priests. The gods he assigned were cats, dogs, and ibises. He set aside as well land exclusively for the use of the priests. 5He did all these things for the sake of keeping the monarchy stable for Chenephres, for prior to this time the masses were disorganized and they would sometimes depose, sometimes install rulers, often the same persons, but sometimes others. 6Thus, for these reasons Moses was loved by the masses, and being deemed worthy of divine honor by the priests, he was called Hermes because of his ability to interpret the sacred writings.

3. a certain Chenephres This may be a form of the name Chephren, the Egyptian pharaoh known from Herodotus (Hist. 2.127) and Diodorus of Sicily (Bib. hist. 1.64.1). But the story that Artapanus tells of his rivalry and conflict with Moses is found nowhere else and is probably a creation of the author. he was called Mousaios by the Greeks Mousaios was the legendary source of Hellenic verse and song. Artapanus here has the Greeks themselves judge Moses to be equivalent to the figure who exemplified the origins of their literary culture. 4. this Moses became the teacher of Orpheus Artapanus neatly reverses the standard genealogy, which has Mousaios as son or disciple of Orpheus, the celebrated singer in ancient lore. In this fashion Moses becomes the ultimate source of Greek poetry, a remarkable usurpation by the Jewish author. when he reached manhood The transformation of Moses from Israelite leader to cultural hero for the nations is an invention by Artapanus of a quite striking character. The author claims him as benefactor of humankind generally, and particularly of Egyptians. And the benefactions take unusual and surprising forms. Moses supplies the know-how for ships and weapons, for hydraulic and building devices, and (seemingly as an afterthought) for philosophy. Even more remarkably, Artapanus assigns Moses the responsibility for various Egyptian institutions: not only the division into administrative districts (nomes), the landed privileges of the priests, and the use of hieroglyphics, in all of which a Jewish readership could take pride; but even the apportioning of divinities to each nome and the inauguration of animal worship! This has caused considerable consternation to scholars, some of whom have gone to great lengths to reconcile Artapanus’s Jewish convictions with his startling connection of Moses to Egyptian animal cults. But the author’s capriciousness needs to be taken into account.5 His flights of fancy were not necessarily to be taken seriously by knowledgeable contemporary readers, whether Egyptians or Jews. One can, however, find something similar in the Rabbinic interpretation of Deut. 32:8. See Deuteronomy Rabbah, ed. Lieberman, s.v. Shema Yisrael. 6. he was called Hermes The identification here is with the Egyptian conception of the popular Greek god Hermes, a figure they associated with their own divinity Thot, whom they credited

Artapanus 679

7When Chenephres saw the fame of Moses, he became jealous and sought to kill him on some reasonable pretext. Thus when the Ethiopians marched against Egypt, Chenephres, supposing that he had found the right moment, sent Moses against them as the commander of a force of troops. He conscripted a band of farmers for Moses, rashly supposing that Moses would be killed by the enemy because his troops were weak. 8Moses came to the nome called Hermopolis with approximately 100,000 farmers, and he camped there. He commissioned as generals those who would eventually preside as rulers over the region, and they won every battle with distinction. He [Artapanus] says that the Heliopolitans report that the war lasted ten years. 9Thus, Moses and those with him, because of the size of the army, founded a city in this place, and they consecrated the ibis in the city because of its reputation for killing those animals that were harmful to men. They named it “The City of Hermes.” 10So then, although the Ethiopians had been enemies, they came to love Moses, and as a result learned from him the practice of circumcising the genitalia—not only they but all the priests as well. 11When the war was over, Chenephres welcomed him back in word but plotted against him in deed. In fact, after taking away Moses’s troops, Chenephres sent some of them to the borders of Ethiopia as a defense garrison and ordered others to destroy the temple in Diospolis. This temple was constructed with baked bricks, but he ordered them to build another one of stone quarried from the mountain nearby. He appointed Nacheros to be in charge of the construction. 12When he came with Moses to

with the crafts and building arts, with worship of the ibis, and especially with the ability to decipher sacred texts.6 It is no coincidence that Artapanus has Greeks identify Moses with Mousaios and Egyptians identify him with Hermes-Thot. The presentation is designed to suggest a deep integration of Moses into both cultures, not a mere conceit of the author. 7. sent Moses against them The tale of a campaign against Ethiopia owes nothing to the Bible. Artapanus felt free to invent at will. As leader of an expedition against Ethiopia, Moses follows in the footsteps of earlier Egyptian heroes like Sesostris and Semiramis (Diodorus, Bib. hist. 1.55.1; 2.14.4). It also shows up in much later Rabbinic sources, see Yalqut Shimoni 165. 8. the war lasted ten years The phrase deliberately evokes an epic war, most obviously that of the Greeks in Troy. Josephus gives a longer and very different version of Moses’s supposed campaign against the Ethiopians (Ant. 2.238–53). It may have been based in part on Artapanus’s re-creation, but evidently had other sources as well, perhaps even earlier than Artapanus. 9. they consecrated the ibis This notice parallels the tale in Josephus, in which Moses in his Ethiopian campaign brought with him baskets full of ibises, because these fierce enemies of serpents catch and swallow them (Ant. 2.246). 10. the practice of circumcising Herodotus reports that the practice originated with Egyptians (Hist. 2.36) and adds that Egyptians and Ethiopians were the only peoples who had engaged in it from distant antiquity (2.104). It appears therefore that Artapanus has turned this tradition, too, in Moses’s favor, giving him priority among those in Egypt for this practice and having him teach it to Ethiopians as well, a clear instance of cultural usurpation. 12. named a bull Apis Reverence for Apis was central in Egyptian religion, particularly in connection with agriculture.7 By having Moses point out to the pharaoh the value of oxen for tilling the land, thereby prompting the latter to create the cult of Apis, Artapanus neatly makes the Israelite leader originate an Egyptian rite of the most sacred character. And Chenephres proceeds to bury the evidence that this was Moses’s idea—perhaps a bit of mischief by Artapanus.

680 Erich S. Gruen

Memphis, Chenephres inquired of him whether there was anything else useful to mankind, and he suggested a breed of oxen because of their usefulness in tilling the land. Chenephres named a bull Apis and commanded the people to dedicate a temple to it. He also ordered that the animals that had been consecrated by Moses be brought there and buried, wishing thereby to conceal the ideas of Moses. 13But when the Egyptians began to reject Chenephres, he swore his advisors to an oath not to inform Moses of the plot that was being formed against him and he appointed his assassins. 14But no one obeyed, and Chenephres reprimanded Chanethothes whom he had especially designated for the task. Duly censured, Chanethothes promised to make the assault as soon as he found an appropriate time. 15About this time Merris died, and Chenephres entrusted her body to both Moses and Chanethothes for them to transport it to the region above Egypt for burial, supposing that Moses would be killed by Chanethothes. 16But while they were en route, one of those who knew about the plot reported it to Moses. He guardedly buried Merris, then named the river and the city in that place Meroe. This Merris was honored by the inhabitants no less highly than Isis. 17Aaron, the brother of Moses, upon learning of the plot, advised his brother to flee into Arabia. He was persuaded and sailed across the Nile from Memphis, escaping into Arabia. 18Now when Chanethothes learned that Moses had fled, he lay in wait in order to kill him. When he saw Moses approaching, he drew his dagger on him, but Moses reacted too quickly for him, restrained his hand, and then drew his own sword and killed Chanethothes. 19He then fled into Arabia where he took up residence with Raguel, the chieftain of the region, and he married Raguel’s daughter. Raguel wanted to wage war against the Egyptians because he wished to return Moses from exile and thereby establish the throne for his daughter and son-in-law. But Moses would not hear of it because he had regard for his own people. With his proposal for an attack blocked, Raguel ordered the Arabs to plunder Egypt. 20About this time Chenephres also died, the first man ever 16. named the river and the city in that place Meroe This marks yet another clever usurpation by Artapanus. Meroe was the royal seat of Ethiopia.8 The standard story ascribes its designation to Cambyses, the 6th-century Persian ruler of Egypt, who named it after his wife, mother, or sister (versions vary) who died there.9 Artapanus gives the tale his own twist by maintaining that the famed city owed its name to Moses’s honoring of his mother. This fiction adds to the construct that puts Ethiopia as well as Egypt in the debt of Moses. 17. Arabia The vague designation here probably corresponds to Strabo’s location of Arabia as the land between the Nile and the Arabian Gulf (Geogr. 17.1.21). 18. drew his own sword and killed Chanethothes This is evidently an allusion to the Exodus narrative in which Moses slew an Egyptian and fled to Midian (Exod. 2:11–12). But Artapanus has liberally embellished the tale, turning it into the foiling of a dastardly plot and an admirable act of self-defense rather than one of subterfuge and retaliation. 19. Raguel This is the name given to Jethro, the priest of Midian, in the Septuagint text of Exod. 2:18. regard for his own people Reference here is to the Israelites in Egypt, not to Egyptians generally. The term homogenēs (of the same race) indicates that clearly enough. with his proposal for an attack blocked The Greek text is compressed and disputed at this point. The context does imply that Moses’s objections prevented a full-scale assault on Egypt, inducing Raguel to order a plundering raid. Yet Moses subsequently follows divine orders in determining to make war upon the Egyptians. 20. ordered the Jews to be clothed with linen This is an odd form of harassment since linen garments

Artapanus 681

to contract elephantiasis. This suffering befell him because he had ordered the Jews to be clothed with linen and not to wear woolen clothing. He did this so that once they were so marked, they could be harassed by him. 21Moses prayed to God that the people might soon have respite from their sufferings. While he was making his appeal to God, suddenly, he [Artapanus] says, fire appeared out of the earth, and it blazed even though there was neither wood nor any other kindling in the vicinity. Frightened at what happened, Moses fled but a divine voice spoke to him and told him to wage war against Egypt, and as soon as he had rescued the Jews, to return them to their ancient fatherland. 22Taking courage from this, he resolved to lead a fighting force against the Egyptians, but first he went to Aaron his brother. The king of the Egyptians, upon learning of the arrival of Moses, summoned him and inquired of him why he had come. Moses replied that he had come because the Lord of the universe had commanded him to liberate the Jews 23Upon learning this, the king imprisoned him. When night came, all the doors of the prison opened of their own accord, and some of the guards died while others were overcome with sleep; also, their weapons broke into pieces. 24Moses left the prison and went to the palace. Finding the doors open, he entered the palace and aroused the king while the guards were sleeping on duty. Startled at what happened, the king ordered Moses to declare the name of the god who had sent him. He did this scoffingly. 25Moses bent over and spoke into the king’s ear, but when the king heard it, he fell over speechless. were normally a mark of distinction and were indeed worn by Egyptian priests.10 Is Artapanus poking fun at the simplemindedness of the pharaoh? Or is there an ironic allusion here to the biblical prohibition (Lev. 19:19; Deut. 22:11) of the wearing of a mixture of linen and wool? 21. told him to wage war against Egypt The variant on the “burning bush” narrative in Exod. 3:1–10 takes a more forceful turn here. Unlike the biblical account, Artapanus has God order an armed attack, not just remonstrations with Pharaoh, to rescue the Jews. The author never hesitates to depart from the Bible. 22. he resolved to lead a fighting force against the Egyptians This, of course, differs markedly from the Exodus text, which never suggests a military expedition. But other traditions that surface in the Greco-Egyptian writers Manetho (3rd century bce) and Chaeremon (probably 1st century ce), and that may even draw upon Jewish traditions, record upheavals by rebels in Egypt in combination with forces from Jerusalem that conquered the Egyptians and plundered their land. The texts are transmitted by Josephus (Ag. Ap. 1.230–51, 288–92). That Artapanus’s version has much in common with those stories cannot be ascertained. An obvious gap exists in his narrative at this point, for there is no follow-up of Moses’s resolve to conduct an armed campaign. Alexander Polyhistor may have omitted that portion in his summary of Artapanus. Josephus’s rewriting of Exodus here does have the divine voice enjoin Moses to take the role of general and commander of the Hebrew hosts (Ant. 2.268)—though no battle narrative follows. 23. the king imprisoned him This episode is altogether outside the biblical tradition. It owes more to tales of miracle escapes from prison through divine intervention, like that of the Bacchants and Dionysus himself in Euripides’s Bacchae 434–52, 503–10, 610–37. And it has parallels in three different stories recounted in Acts 5:17–25; 12:3–11; 16:23–28. 25. he fell over speechless The text plainly underscores the magical powers of Moses and the awesome character of God’s name, which caused Pharaoh to collapse until revived by Moses himself. But there may also be a comic quality to the scene. The mere whisper of God’s name in the

682 Erich S. Gruen

But Moses picked him up and he came back to life again. 26He wrote the name on a tablet and sealed it securely, but one of the priests who showed contempt for what was written on the tablet died in a convulsion. 27The king then told Moses to perform some sign for him. So Moses threw out the rod that he held and made it a snake. Since everyone was terrified, he seized it by the tail, picked it up, and made it a rod again. 28He then stepped forward a few steps, struck the Nile with his rod, and the river flooded, inundating all of Egypt. It was from that time that the flooding of the Nile began. When the stagnant water began to smell, the animals in the river perished and the people as well began to die of thirst. 29Once these mighty wonders were accomplished, the king said that he would release the people after a month if Moses would restore the river to its banks. So Moses again struck the water with his rod and the waters subsided. 30When this had been done, the king summoned the priests who were over Memphis and threatened to kill them and destroy their temples unless they too performed some marvelous act. Then, using charms and incantations, they made a serpent and changed the color of the river. 31The king became arrogant as a result of such performances as this and consequently mistreated the Jews with every kind of vindictive chastisement. When Moses saw this, he performed more signs and struck the ground with his rod and raised up a certain species of winged creatures to scourge the Egyptians. As a result of his actions, they all broke out in body sores. Even the physicians were unable to cure those who were suffering with the sores. Thus once again relief came to the Jews. 32Once again,

ear of the king, who had mockingly asked for it, resulted in him falling in a heap on the floor— presumably rendering himself a laughingstock to his courtiers. 27. the king then told Moses to perform some sign for him For the remaining portions of the fragment Artapanus gives a somewhat closer approximation of the narrative in Exodus. But he feels no inhibitions in omitting, abbreviating, substituting, or combining material from Exodus. Indeed, the more he echoes the text, the more a knowledgeable reader would notice the deliberate discrepancies. so Moses threw out the rod The story of the rod derives from a combination of Exod. 4:2–5 and 7:8– 13. But Artapanus omits the Egyptian sages and sorcerers whose efforts were outdone by Moses. 28. he . . . struck the Nile with his rod, and the river flooded Artapanus notably modifies the Exodus narrative at 7:14–20. Instead of turning the Nile waters into blood, Moses’s staff caused them to overflow the banks and flood the land. And Artapanus adds the comment that this feat inaugurated the regular flooding of the Nile. Since that feature, as all knew, was the very lifeline of the nation, the author here implicitly gives Moses credit for the most sustaining element in the Egyptian economy and civilization—not at all what the Exodus legend had in mind. stagnant water began to smell This segment largely reproduces Exod. 7:18, 21. 31. the king became arrogant Artapanus leaves God out of this. In Exod. 7:3 it was God who determined to harden Pharaoh’s heart. he performed more signs Artapanus adapts the tale of the ten plagues but picks and chooses at will, in effect supplying his own rendition. He omits certain plagues, but alludes here to the fourth (Exod. 8:20) and the sixth (9:8–12). 32. Moses used his rod Frogs, locusts, and flies evidently refer to the second, third, and eighth plagues (Exod. 7:27–8:3; 8:17–20; 10:12–15). But Artapanus manipulates the biblical tale for his own idiosyncratic purposes. He strikingly claims that Moses’s deed caused Egyptians to place a rod in

Artapanus 683

Moses used his rod to raise up frogs as well as locusts and fleas. It was for this reason that the Egyptians set up a rod in every temple. They do the same with Isis because the earth is Isis's and it produced these wonders when it was struck with the rod. 33Since the king persisted in playing the fool, Moses produced hail and earthquakes throughout the night so that those who fled the earthquakes perished in the hail and those who tried to avoid the hail were destroyed by the earthquakes. Also at that time all the houses and most of the temples collapsed. 34Finally, after enduring such calamities, the king released the Jews. After they had procured from the Egyptians many drinking vessels as well as not a little clothing and numerous other treasures, they crossed the river toward Arabia. They covered a considerable distance and then came to the Red Sea in three days. 35Now the Memphians claim that Moses, being familiar with the countryside, watched for the ebb tide, then led the multitudes through the dry part of the sea. The Heliopolitans, on the other hand, claim that the king rushed down on them with full force, carrying with them all the sacred animals because the Jews were crossing the sea, having taken the possessions of the Egyptians. 36The divine voice came to Moses instructing him to strike the sea with his rod and divide it. When Moses heard this, he touched the water lightly with his rod and the stream divided, and the multitude passed

each temple and connects it in some fashion with the worship of Isis. This must be taken as yet another effort to make Moses responsible for essential features of Egyptian culture and religion. 33. Moses produced hail and earthquakes Hail was the seventh plague in Exod. 9:18–26. But Artapanus adds the earthquakes, perhaps with a touch of malicious glee. He seems to be making some sport of the situation by having Egyptians dart about dodging the one, only to be felled by the other. 34. the king released the Jews Remarkably, Artapanus omits the culminating event, the death of the Egyptian firstborn. This may be due to the abbreviation by Alexander Polyhistor rather than an absence from Artapanus’s text. But, given its pivotal importance in the biblical narrative, it is hard to believe that the lapse stemmed from inadvertent oversight. Artapanus, as he does so frequently, reversed expectations by dropping the most familiar aspect of the legend and directing attention to the novelties that he inserted. procured from the Egyptians This softens the biblical version, which has Israelites “plunder” the Egyptians (Exod. 12:36).11 Artapanus may here reflect a Hellenistic Jewish inclination to set Israelite behavior in a better light. 35. now the Memphians claim The Exodus narrative at 14:21–22 blends two distinct versions of the crossing of the sea without acknowledging the difference: the drying up of the waters to enable passage and the separating of the sea into two walls of water through which the Israelites could move safely. Artapanus interestingly sees them as two independent explanations, while ascribing them not to the Bible but to two Egyptian traditions, one from the Memphians and one from the Heliopolitans. The author, as is his wont, gives a special twist to the legend by citing only Egyptian sources—and thereby perhaps casting a cloud upon their reliability. The Memphite version is a rationalization, indicating that Moses worked out the crossing in advance without divine assistance. The Heliopolitans, by contrast, embrace the construct that has Moses part the waters in obedience to a divine command. 36. the divine voice This must be part of the explanation assigned to the Heliopolitans. The previous sentence alone would not provide the needed contrast with the Memphite version.

684 Erich S. Gruen

through the dry channel. 37When the Egyptians went in together in hot pursuit, he [Artapanus] says that a fire blazed in front of them, and the sea again flooded their path. All the Egyptians were consumed by the fire and the flood. After the Jews had escaped the danger, they spent 40 years in the desert. Meanwhile, God showered upon them meal similar in texture to rolled millet resembling the color of snow. He [Artapanus] reports that Moses was tall, ruddy complexioned, with long flowing gray hair, and dignified. He accomplished these things when he was about eighty-nine years old. 37. a fire blazed in front of them Characteristically, Artapanus alters the biblical narrative in arbitrary fashion. Drowning the Egyptians in the flood waters (Exod. 14:26–28) was not enough. Artapanus adds that they were consumed by fire as well. It is unlikely that he simply expanded upon the pillar of fire and cloud from which God looked down upon the scene (14:24)—a very different matter. Nor is there any likely connection to the fire that accompanied the plague of hail inflicted upon Egypt earlier; Exod. 9:24.

Notes 1. Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9:17:4, 8; 9:18:2. For Josephus’s similar portrait, see Josephus, Abraham. 2. Other postbiblical sources (e.g., Jub. 13:11; 1QapGen 20:18) also speculated on the number of years in Egypt, giving different figures. 3. It appears also in Jub. 20:1, 11–13, a text composed in the same approximate time period as Artapanus, and in the 1st-century bce Greek writer Apollonius Molon (Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9:19:1–2). 4. The term despotes (despot, absolute ruler) is very strong. A comparable statement appears in the JewishHellenistic historian Demetrius, who has Joseph rule (arxai) Egypt for seven years; Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9:21:12. 5. Artapanus shows off his learning by ascribing to Moses the origins of various institutions and contributions that Egyptian traditions conventionally credited to legendary figures such as Isis, Osiris, and Sesostris, thereby going them one better. Numerous strands in these portraits can be found in Greek authors like Herodotus (e.g., Hist. 2.67, 102, 108, 125) and Diodorus of Sicily (e.g., Bib. hist. 1.13.5; 1.15.3–5; 1.54.3; 1.55.2, 7). 6. Cf. Plato, Phaedr. 274–75; Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods 3.56; Diodorus, Bib. hist. 1.16.1–2; 1.43; Plutarch, Is. Os. 352b. 7. Herodotus, Hist. 2.153; 3.28–29; Diodorus, Bib. hist. 1.21.10; 1.84.8–85.5; 1.88.4; Plutarch, Is. Os. 353a, 355c, 359b. 8. Herodotus, Hist. 2.29; Strabo, Geogr. 17.2.2. Diodorus, Bib. hist. 1.33.1–2, locates it on an island in the Nile. 9. Diodorus, Bib. hist. 1.33.1; Strabo, Geogr. 17.1.5; Josephus, Ant. 2.249. 10. Cf. Herodotus, Hist. 2.37; Diodorus, Bib. hist. 5.46.2; Plutarch, Is. Os. 352c–d. 11. Josephus, Ant. 2.314, goes further to allege that the Egyptians willingly bestowed gifts upon the Hebrews! Cf. B. Ber. 9a–b.

Artapanus 685

Eupolemus Gregory E. Sterling

One of the most important 1st century bce doxographers, one who collected the works of other authors in a systematic way, was Alexander Polyhistor (ca. 110–40 bce), a polymath who began life as a slave but was given his freedom and citizenship on the orders of the Roman statesman Sulla (ca. 81 bce). He devoted his energies to collecting quotations from different authors, largely on ethnographic and philosophical matters. His work Concerning the Jews was an important collection of citations from early Hellenistic Jewish authors. Among the Jewish authors Polyhistor cited was Eupolemus. Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150–215 ce) and Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 260–340 ce) independently used Polyhistor’s Concerning the Jews. In his Miscellanies, (Stromata [Strom]) Clement preserved three citations from Eupolemus via Polyhistor (frags. 1, 2, and 5, two of which he attributed directly to Eupolemus (frags. 1 and 5). Eusebius preserved six fragments in his Preparation for the Gospel (Praeparatio evangelica [Praep. ev.] frags. 1, 2, 3, 4; and Pseudo-Eupolemus, frags. 1 and 2), five of which he attributed explicitly to Eupolemus (frags. 1, 2, 3, 41 and Pseudo-Eupolemus, frag. 1). Two of the fragments of Clement and Eusebius are parallel (frags. 1 and 2). Two of the fragments cited by Eusebius probably belong to a Samaritan—author (the ethnic identity is disputed) whom we conveniently call Pseudo-Eupolemus. This leaves us with five fragments: three preserved by Clement (frags. 1, 2, and 5) and four by Eusebius (frags. 1, 2, 3, and 4). Since Eusebius provided the fuller citation, his citations are used in the two cases below where there are overlaps. Authorship and History Eupolemus (meaning “good at war”) was an unusual name for a Jew in the ancient world. There are several statements that help us identify the author. The final fragment suggests that the work was completed in the fifth year of Demetrius I Soter (162–150 bce) or 158– 157 bce. In 161 bce, Judas Maccabeus sent “Eupolemus the son of John the son of Accos and Jason the son of Eleazer” on an embassy to Rome (1 Macc. 8:17; see also 2 Macc. 4:11; Ant. 12.415). The coincidence of the date of the writing and the date of the embassy lead us to identify the author of the fragments with the ambassador, and this is secured by common interests of the author and ambassador: The interest in the Temple that the fragments demonstrate suggests that our author may have been a priest or a Levite associated with the Temple. And we have a lineage for the ambassador that ties him to a priestly family. Eupolemus’s father was named John; the author of 2 Maccabees identifies him as an ambassador to Antiochus III when the Seleucids gained control of Judea (2 Macc. 4:11).2 John is linked to Accos or the Hakkoz family of priests (1 Chron. 24:10). The status of the family as priests makes the selection of the father and son for ambassadorial work an obvious

686

possibility. The congruence of the ambassador’s status as a priest and the author’s interest in the Temple make the identity of the two probable.3 Eupolemus was probably born at the end of the 3rd century bce or the beginning of the 2nd century bce. He grew up in a priestly family in Jerusalem, where he received a good education in both Hebrew and Greek. His father’s early ambassadorial work probably ensured him a broad education. The fragments indicate that he may have known the works of Ctesias (frag. 4 = Praep. ev. 9.39.4) and Herodotus (frag. 4 = 9.39.5). He may have been too old to serve or was deceased when another delegation traveled to Rome without him in 143 bce (1 Macc. 12:16). The five fragments attributed to Eupolemus reflect two major concerns. The first and fifth fragments form an inclusio by situating the work within the contest over culture set off by Alexander the Great’s conquests, when people living in the East reacted to Greek rule by claiming cultural superiority through their antiquity. Fragment 1 presents Moses as a great innovator who helped to establish human culture: He was the “first” sage, the “first” to give the alphabet, and the “first” legislator. Fragment 5 returns to the concern of situating the Jewish people in the larger world by accenting the antiquity of the Jewish people through chronological calculations correlated to dates in the larger world. The second, third, and fourth fragments concentrate on the history of the Temple. Fragment 2 moves quickly through the period from Joshua up to David by summarizing key figures through chronological notices and passing over the judges. Like the biblical Chronicler, Eupolemus concentrated on David and Solomon, and more particularly, on their role in the construction of the Temple. Eupolemus elevated Solomon’s status and the Temple’s by including correspondence between Solomon and the kings of Egypt and Phoenicia. It was no accident that these two kings represented the powers of Eupolemus’s own period: the Ptolemies and Seleucids. The narrative provides a detailed, but selective description of the Temple based on the accounts in Kings and Chronicles, but works freely with the text. It emphasizes the role of prophets in the instructions for the Temple by including two extra biblical references to them. Fragment 3 provides a conclusion to the account of Solomon, and fragment 4 moves to the destruction of the Temple by the Babylonians. Eupolemus was able to incorporate his interest in prophets by including the role of Jeremiah. Significance Eupolemus offers an insider’s perspective on the Temple during the tumultuous events of the middle of the 2nd century bce. While he entitled his work Concerning the Kings in Judea (frag. 1 = Strom. 1.23.153.4),4 he appears to have concentrated on the Temple—at least if our fragments reflect the basic interests of the work (frags. 2 and 4 especially). He wrote at the outset of the Hasmonean period after Judas had cleansed the Temple (164 bce), but prior to Jewish independence in 142 bce. The cleansing of the Temple (1 Macc. 4:36–61; 2 Macc. 10:1–9; Ant. 12.316–26) may have been the event that inspired him to write his history. His embellishments of the biblical text point to a rising national pride as the Hasmoneans attempted to extend their control over Jerusalem and Judea. His work was

Eupolemus 687

probably an effort to provide a sense of identity for the movement by relating their past glories, especially the construction of the Temple. The identity that Eupolemus sought to establish was connected with the traditions of the people through the retelling of the biblical text. However, it was also associated with the world at large. He wrote his account in Greek and self-consciously situated the story of the kings of Judea in the framework of the larger world, especially the Seleucids and Ptolemies. He was unambiguously Jewish, but Jewish in the Hellenistic world. Guide to Reading Eupolemus stands in a tradition of priestly writers living in the ancient East who related their native traditions: Berossus in Babylon, Manethon in Egypt, and later Josephus are all good examples of the tradition that I call apologetic historiography. It is the Eastern tradition that Josephus set out in his historiographical excursus in Ag. Ap. 1.6–56, which may be described as “the story of a subpeople in an extended prose narrative written by a member of the group who follows the group’s own traditions but hellenizes them in an effort to establish the identity of the group within the setting of the larger world.”5 These authors are different from Greek ethnographers who described what they saw and heard, using their own records from their own investigations. At the same time, they hellenize their own records by writing in Greek and using some of the techniques and forms of Hellenistic authors. It is worth reading some of the other priestly authors to understand the tradition. As suggested above, this form of historiography relates both to native traditions and to traditions in the larger Hellenistic world. Eupolemus is most indebted to 1–2 Chronicles for his native traditions, and so it is helpful to read through these biblical books to understand the focus of his work. He also drew from the larger world, and his work is similar in many ways to the group of authors known as local historians, that is, historians who wrote the history of a city or region.6 One of the hallmarks of these works is concern for chronology: the writers structured their works around the reigns of kings or the chief magistrates in Athens known as archons, in the same way that Eupolemus did. They were concerned with origins just as Eupolemus was. The most famous set of local historians are those who wrote about Athens. The most important of these are: Hellanicus (FGH 323a),7 Cleidemus (FGH 323), Androtion (FGH 324), Phanodemus (FGH 325), Melanthius (FGH 326), Demon (FGH 327), Philochorus (FGH 328), and Ister (FGH 334). There is another Jewish work that shares some of the same orientation with the local historians, although not with the attempt to relate the whole history of the people as the apologetic historians: 2 Maccabees. It is worth reading its defense of the Temple along with Eupolemus’s account of its construction and destruction.8 Suggested Reading Doran, Robert. “The Jewish Historians before Josephus.” In ANRW 2.20.1, 246–97, esp. 263–70. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1987. Fallon, F. “Eupolemus.” In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, edited by James Charlesworth, 2:861–72. New York: Doubleday, 1985.

688

Gregory E. Sterling

Freudenthal, J. Alexander Polyhistor und die von ihm erhaltenen Reste jüdischer und samaritanischer Geschichtswerke, esp. 105–30. Hellenistische Studied, 1–2. Breslau: H. Skutsch, 1875. Gruen, Erich. Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition, esp. 138–46. Hellenistic Culture and Society 30. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998. Holladay, Carl R. Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. Vol. 1: The Historians, esp. 93–156. SBL Texts and Translations 20 / SBL Pseudepigrapha Series 10. Chico ca: Scholars Press, 1983. Mittmann-Richert, Ulrike. Einführung zu den historischen und legendarischen Erzählungen, esp. 174–84. Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit 6.1.1. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlag, 2000. Sterling, Gregory E. Historiography & Self-definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography, esp. 207–22. NovTSup 64. Leiden: Brill, 1992; rpt. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. Wacholder, Ben Zion. Eupolemus: A Study of Judaeo-Greek Literature. Monographs of the Hebrew Union College 3. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1974. Walter, Nikolaus. Fragmente jüdisch-hellenistischer Historiker, esp. 93–108. Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistischrömischer Zeit I.2. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1980.

Translation Fragment 1 (Praep. ev. 9.26.1)

Eupolemus says that Moses was the first sage; that he handed down the letters of the alphabet first to the Jews, the Phoenicians received it from the Jews, and the Greeks from the Phoenicians; and that Moses was the first to write laws for the Jews.

Commentary 9.26.1 Fragment 1 celebrates three “firsts” for Moses: he was the first sage, the first to give an alphabet, and the first lawgiver. The emphasis on cultural origins is part of the competitive nature of the Hellenistic world in which authors from groups conquered by the Greeks asserted their cultural superiority in response to Greek military and economic superiority. Superiority was determined by age, expressed by the aphorism “the older is better.” Jews participated in this debate openly. The most surprising claims were made by Artapanus (frag. 3.4), who claimed that Moses was Orpheus’s teacher, the originator of philosophy, and the founder of Egyptian religion—among other things! The three claims by Eupolemus must be understood in this context: he is claiming that Moses was the first sage and that what he gave to the Jews was transmitted through them to other cultures. Both Clement and Eusebius preserved this fragment, although the version in Clement lacks the third claim.9 Moses was the first sage Later Jewish authors made similar claims. Philo considered Moses “perfect” as a sage (Alleg. Interp. 3.140; see also Posterity 173; Giants 47; Drunkenness 37; Migration 201). Josephus thought that he was the wisest legislator (J.W. 3.376) who “surpassed every person who has ever lived in understanding” (Ant. 4.328).10 he handed down . . . the alphabet first to the Jews The origins of the alphabet were disputed in antiquity. Some claimed that the Egyptians invented the alphabet (e.g., Library 1.16.1; 69.5); others claimed the Phoenicians (Herodotus 5.58.1–2; Diodorus 3.67.1); and still others the Greeks (Diodorus 5.57.3–5). Artapanus claimed that Moses taught the Egyptian priests hieroglyphs Source of Translation: The translation is my own. All biblical translations are my own, sometimes relying on NRSV.

Eupolemus 689

Fragment 2 (Praep. ev. 9.30.1–34.18)

9.30.1Eupolemus said in a certain book Concerning the Prophecy of Elijah that Moses prophesied for forty years, then Joshua, the son of Nain, for thirty years. He lived one hundred and ten years and pitched

(frag. 3.4). These claims were part of the debate on cultural origins. In reality, the alphabet developed among Semites who were probably influenced—in part—by the uniconsonantal signs of Egyptian hieroglyphs. The first known examples of alphabetic writing belong to the ProtoCanaanite script from which the Phoenician script evolved. The Phoenician script became the basis for several later scripts including Hebrew and Aramaic. The Greeks also borrowed the Phoenician alphabet, but changed it by converting some consonants into vowels. Moses was the first to write laws for the Jews There were a number of competing claimants for the title of first lawgiver (Diodorus 1.94.1–2; see also Pliny, Natural History 7.191). Josephus knew and used this tradition. He wrote: “Now I claim that our lawgiver surpasses in antiquity the lawgivers mentioned anywhere else.” He then listed a number of Greek legislators whom he said “appear to have been only yesterday or the day before in comparison to him.” At a minimum, Josephus argued, even Jewish detractors had to admit that “our lawgiver was most ancient” (Ag. Ap. 2.154– 56). The claim sometimes took the form of the “theft of philosophy” argument in which Jews argued that the Greeks had stolen their philosophical thought from Moses. The best example of this is the 2nd century bce author Aristobulus (e.g., frags. 3–4). 9.30.1–34.18 Fragment 2, the longest fragment, concentrates on the Temple. It summarizes the period from Joshua until David and then develops the roles of David and Solomon in preparing and constructing the Temple. The major sources for this fragment are the biblical books of Kings and Chronicles. Eupolemus interwove the two accounts, although he preferred Chronicles to Kings. However, he did more than summarize the biblical text: he supplemented and altered it to serve his purposes. One of the most striking additions is the inclusion of the correspondence between Solomon and Vaphres. These letters, along with those between Solomon and Souron that have a biblical base, are early examples of the inclusion of documentary evidence—even when it is fictitious—that became commonplace in 1 and 2 Maccabees and Josephus.11 Clement has a summary of the material in this fragment.12 9.30.1. Concerning the Prophecy of Elijah The title is a problem. It is the only attestation of such a title. It could be from a separate work, but this is unlikely since the contents deal with two kings and never mention Elijah. It may have been a sectional heading that has been confused with a title for the entire work in the transmission of the material. The fragments do have an interest in prophets and prophecy. Moses prophesied for forty years This refers to the 40 years when Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt through the desert.13 Joshua, the son of Nain, for thirty years Some calculations were required to reach the length of Joshua’s prophetic leadership. He was 40 when Moses sent him as a spy ( Josh. 14:7), and lived through the 40 years of the wilderness (Num. 14:34). This makes him 80 when he assumed the leadership of the people. Since he died at 110 ( Josh. 24:29), he led for 30 years. pitched the sacred tent in Shiloh See Josh. 18:1; 19:51. Shiloh, Khirbet Seilun, was an important sanctuary prior to the monarchy ( Judg. 21:1–24, esp. 19–21; 1 Sam. 1:3, 24). It is located in the Ephraimite hill country approximately 19 miles north of Jerusalem. The site was destroyed at an early date,14 perhaps by the Philistines (1 Sam. 4). See comment on 9.34.14, he went to Shiloh.

690

Gregory E. Sterling

the sacred tent in Shiloh. 2Afterward Samuel was a prophet, then by God’s will Saul was chosen as king by Samuel and, after he ruled for twenty-one years, died. 3Then David, the latter’s son, came to power and subdued the Syrians who lived along the Euphrates river and Commagene, the Assyrians who were in Galadene, and the Phoenicians. He fought against the Idumeans, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Itureans, the Nabateans, and the Nabdeans. 4Then 9.30.2. Afterward Samuel was a prophet By moving directly from Joshua to Samuel, the text omits the judges (Iron Age I, 1200–1000 bce). It is impossible to know whether Eupolemus or Alexander Polyhistor skipped this period. Given the nature of the chronological summary as a bridge and the focus on the Temple, it is likely that Eupolemus gave the judges little attention, if any. In this way, his work reflects the structure of 1 Chronicles, which uses genealogies to summarize history until it reaches Saul (1 Chron. 1–9), who serves as a transitional figure to David. then by God’s will Saul was chosen as king by Samuel Modern biblical scholars recognize two different sets of stories that relate Saul’s anointing: an older set (1 Sam. 9:1–10:16 and 10:27b-11:15) and a set that is more critical of the monarchy and reflects the Deuteronomist’s(s’) perspective (8:1–22; 10:17–27a; 12:1–25). after he ruled for twenty-one years The basis for these data is unknown. The text of 1 Sam. 13:1 that gives the length of Saul’s reign is corrupt. Josephus gave 20 years (Ant. 10.143) and 40 years (Ant. 6.378). The author of Acts also knows the 40-year tradition (Acts 13:21). 9.30.3. Then David, the latter’s son David was Jesse’s son (1 Sam. 16:1–13) and son-in-law to Saul (1 Sam. 18:27). The mistake was probably made by Alexander Polyhistor. It would be an easy mistake to make if Eupolemus had only listed Saul as a transitional figure to David. came to power and subdued Eupolemus summarizes David’s military career in three campaigns: first against the Syrians. the Assyrians, and Phoenicians; second against the Idumeans, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Itureans, the Nabateans, and the Nabdeans; third against Souron (contrary to 1 Kings 5:15).15 The summary differs from the biblical text in several important ways. First, Eupolemus omits David’s greatest victory, his subjugation of the Philistines.16 This is a remarkable omission that may reflect the fact that the Philistines had largely disappeared in the Persian period (539–334 bce) and would have had little relevance in the 2nd century bce. Second, Eupolemus updated the geography to reflect the map and military situation of the 2nd century bce. Commagene is not mentioned in the Bible but is in Josephus.17 Galadene is Gilead in the Bible.18 The Idumeans are the later descendents of the Edomites who migrated to the south of Judah and became the enemies of the Hasmoneans. Judas campaigned there regularly.19 Idumea remained a sensitive place until John subdued it and forced the Idumeans to be circumcised in approximately 129 bce (1 Macc. 4:36–59 || 2 Macc. 10:1–8). The Itureans were also a later group. They are mentioned in the Septuagint (LXX) (1 Chron. 5:19), but not in the Masoretic Text (MT) (although see Gen. 25:15; 1 Chron. 1:31). They began moving from the northern reaches of Transjordan into Galilee, a migration that may lie behind Eupolemus’s inclusion of them. Tensions existed between the Hasmoneans and the Itureans; in approximately 104–103 bce Aristobulos conquered them in the Galilee and Transjordan regions and forced them to be circumcised (Ant. 13.318). The Nabateans were an Arab tribe that became important in the 2nd century bce initially as supporters of Judas and Jonathan (1 Macc. 5:24–28; 9:35) and later as opponents of Alexander Jannaeus (Ant. 13.375, 382). The Nabdeans are unknown. The name may be a corrupt form of another name. It is possible that it was originally taken from 1 Chron. 5:19 where the Nadabaioi appear.

Eupolemus 691

he marched against Souron, king of Tyre and Phoenicia whom he forced to pay tribute to the Jews, but he struck a friendship treaty with Vaphres the Egyptian king. 5Since David wanted to build a temple for God, he asked God to show him a place for the altar. An angel appeared to him standing over the place where the altar was to be dedicated in Jerusalem, yet commanded him not to dedicate the temple because he was defiled with human blood and had campaigned for many years. 6The name of the angel was Dianathan. He commanded him to entrust the construction to his son but to take care of the materials that pertained to the construction: gold, silver, bronze, stones, cypress and cedar wood. 7When David heard these things, he commissioned ships to be built in Elana, a city of Arabia, and sent miners to the Ophir, located in the Red Sea, that has gold mines. The miners transported the gold from there to Judea. 9.30.4. Souron This is the biblical Hiram, king of Tyre (ca. 969–936 bce). The spelling is unusual, but there was confusion over the spelling: he is H.ˆirām (2 Sam. 5:11), H.ˆirôm (1 Kings 5:25, 32), and Hûrām (2 Chron. 1:18–2:15). The statement that David campaigned against him runs counter to the biblical narrative that speaks of David’s friendship with Hiram (1 Kings 5:1; see also 2 Sam. 5:11–12 || 1 Chron. 14:1). It may be due to Ps. 83:7, which mentions Tyre as an enemy, since Eupolemus probably thought of David as the author. he struck a friendship treaty with Vaphres There is no record of David’s dealings with a king of Egypt. The name Vaphres comes from Jer. 51:30 LXX. 9.30.5. Since David wanted to build a temple for God This is based on 2 Sam. 7:1–3 || 1 Chron. 17:1–2. he asked God to show him a place for the altar David does not ask this question in the biblical text. Eupolemus followed the lead of the Chronicler in associating David with the location of the altar. David purchases a threshing floor to build an altar to stop a plague (2 Sam. 24:25 || 1 Chron. 21:1–30). The Chronicler records that David decided that this would be the place for the altar (1 Chron. 22:1; 2 Chron. 3:1). yet commanded him not to dedicate the temple because he was defiled with human blood This is a good example of Eupolemus’s closer dependence on the Chronicler than on Kings, which mentions his campaigns but not his defilement through blood (1 Chron. 22:8 || 1 Kings 5:3; 1 Chron. 28:3). 9.30.6. The name of the angel was Dianathan The name is an obvious mistake. Dianathan has to come from the Greek dia Nathan (“through Nathan”). The statement conflates the account of Nathan’s oracle to David about building a house for God (2 Sam. 7 || 1 Chron. 17) and the story of the angel at the threshing floor where the plague was stopped (2 Sam. 24:15–17 || 21:14–17), although according to the Chronicler the prophet Gad delivered the oracle that gave David the choice of punishments that set up the angel’s mission (2 Chron. 21:7–13). Eupolemus may have conflated the accounts of the promise to build a house and the selection of the site of the temple, but Alexander Polyhistor probably confused the “angel” with Nathan. but to take care of the materials that pertained to the construction Recorded by the Chronicler but not by the Deuteronomistic historians (1 Chron. 22:1–19; 28:1–29:19). 9.30.7. he commissioned ships to be built in Elana Elana is Eloth (NJPS; elsewhere called Elath). Eupolemus has ascribed an activity attributed to Solomon by the Deuteronomists and Chronicler (1 Kings 9:26–28 || 2 Chron. 8:17–18) to David in order to heighten the preparations that David undertook for the Temple. The Chronicler made David’s preparations for the temple a major theme; however, Eupolemus has extended even this. The result is to draw a closer connection between David and the temple.

692

Gregory E. Sterling

8After David had ruled for forty years, he handed the reign over to Solomon, his son, who was twelve years of age, in the presence of Eli the high priest and the twelve tribes. He also handed over to him the gold, silver, bronze, stones, and cypress and cedar wood. When he died and Solomon had become king, he wrote to Vaphres, the king of Egypt, the letter copied below: 9.31.1Letter of Solomon King Solomon to Vaphres, king of Egypt, friend of my father, greetings. Know that I have received the kingdom from David my father—through the agency of the Most High God—who ordered me to build a temple for God who created heaven and earth and, at the same time, to write to you to send me from among your people those who can assist me until I have completed everything as needed, just as it was ordered.

9.30.8. After David had ruled for forty years This is taken from 2 Sam. 5:4; 1 Kings 2:11 || 1 Chron. 29:27. Solomon, his son, who was twelve years of age Solomon’s age is not given in 1 Kings 2:12 MT; elsewhere he is called young (1 Kings 3:7; 1 Chron. 22:5; 29:1). However, the LXX gives his age as 12 at the time of his accession (3 Kingdoms 2:12). Eupolemus appears to have followed the LXX or a different Hebrew text upon which the LXX was based. Josephus thought that he was 14 (Ant. 8.211). in the presence of Eli the high priest Zadok was the high priest when Solomon was coronated (1 Kings 1:32–40; 1 Chron. 29:22). The alteration to Eli, who had been dead for years (1 Sam. 4:12– 18), may have been deliberate. The Seleucids put the high priesthood up for sale in the first part of the 2nd century, a move that led to several important consequences. Eventually, the people named Jonathan high priest (152 bce [see 1 Macc. 10:1–21]), a move that probably motivated the Teacher of Righteousness to break with the Hasmoneans and lead a group of followers to Qumran. The Zadokites were associated with the Qumran community, and may have even been involved in its founding.20 Eupolemus’s connections with the Hasmoneans would have made him sympathetic to the break with the Zadokites, a sympathy that would explain the replacement of Zadok with Eli at this critical juncture in the story. He also handed over to him This is based on 1 Chron. 29:1–19, esp. 1–5. he wrote to Vaphres There is no record of Solomon’s correspondence with an Egyptian king in the biblical text. However, there is a record of his correspondence with Hiram (= Souron) (1 Kings 5:1–9 || 2 Chron. 2:3–16). Eupolemus’s correspondence between Solomon and Vaphres is drawn from the correspondence between Solomon and Souron, as the close verbal agreements between the two letters indicate: only 4 of the 49 words in Solomon’s letter to Vaphres are altered in the letter to Souron; the latter also has an additional 5 words. Since the letter to Souron was based on the biblical precedent, the letter to Vaphres was as well. Why did he put the correspondence with Vaphres first and not put the correspondence for which he had a biblical base first? It may be due to the political climate of the middle part of the 2nd century bce that reflected the effort to break free from the Seleucids. The letter follows the practices of Hellenistic epistolography: it opens with the sender, the recipient, and a standard greeting. 9.32.1. King Vaphres to Solomon, the great king It is worth noting that Solomon used the title “king” for himself and Vaphres, but Vaphres called Solomon “the great king” while calling himself “king.”

Eupolemus 693

9.32.1Letter of Vaphres, A Copy King Vaphres to Solomon, the great king, greetings. As I read your letter, I rejoiced greatly and celebrated a magnificent holiday—both I and all of my army—that you had received the kingdom from a man who was good and approved by so great a God. Now concerning the matters that you wrote to me, [more particularly] concerning our people, I am sending you 80,000 and indicating clearly the number who come from specific locales: from the nome of Sethroitic 10,000; from the Mendesian and Sebennytic nomes 20,000 [each]; from the Bousiritic, Leontopolitan, and Athribitic nomes 10,000 each. Be thoughtful about what they need and any other concerns for them to remain in good order and so that they can return home as soon as they have completed their service. 9.33.1Letter of Solomon King Solomon to Souron, king of Tyre, Sidon, and Phoenicia, and friend of my father, greetings. Know that I have received the kingdom from David my father—through the agency of the Most High God—who ordered me to build a temple for God who created heaven and earth and, at the same time, to write to you to send me from among your people those who can assist us until we have completed the service of God, just as I have been ordered. I have also written to Galilee, Samaria, Moab, Ammon, and Gilead to supply their needs from their countries: ten thousand This indicates that Solomon was Vaphres’s superior according to Eupolemus. The letter is based on the letter from Souron to Solomon that has a biblical base (1 Kings 5:7–9). The two letters are very close, but there are more differences between these than there are between the two letters of Solomon. I am sending you 80,000 Eupolemus followed the lead of the biblical text (2 Chron. 2:16–17 gives 153,600 based on 1 Kings 5:29–30, which gives a total of 153,300) but rounded the number up (160,000) and divided it between Vaphres and Souron (80,000 each). the number who come from specific locales The translation hides a problem in the Greek. Mras suggests that an “and” fell out so that the text should read “the number and the locale from which they come.”21 nome A nome was a province or administrative unit in ancient Egypt. If the emendations offered here are correct, all of the nomes are in the Nile Delta. Sethroitic Emended from Sebrithitic following Kuhlmey.22 Athribitic Emended from Bathrithitic following Holsten.23 9.33.1. King Solomon to Souron The letter is based on 1 Kings 5:2–6 || 2 Chron. 2:2–9. who ordered me to build a temple for God David’s charge to Solomon is based on 1 Chron. 28:9–21. See also 29:19. It would be possible to understand the antecedent of “who” to be God; however, this does not make sense since the temple is “for God.” I have therefore understood David to be the antecedent. who created heaven and earth See 2 Chron. 2:11 NJPS (v. 12 NRSV) where this declaration appears in Hiram’s response. I have also written to Galilee, Samaria There is no basis for this in the biblical text. The names Galilee and Samaria are used anachronistically: these are the names of the territories in the 2nd century bce when Eupolemus wrote, not in the 10th century bce at the time of Solomon.

694

Gregory E. Sterling

cors of wheat each month—a cor is six artabai—and ten thousand cors of wine—a cor of wine is ten measures. Olive oil and the rest will be supplied to them from Judea. Beef for meat consumption will be supplied from Arabia. 9.34.1Letter of Souron Souron to Solomon, the great king, greetings. Blessed be God, who created heaven and earth, who chose a good man from a good man. When I read your letter, I rejoiced greatly and blessed God that you had received the kingdom. 2Now concerning the matters that you wrote to me, (more particularly) concerning our people, I am sending you 80,000 Tyrians and Phoenicians. I am also sending you a master builder, a Tyrian man with a Judean mother from the tribe of Dan. You may ask him about anything under heaven

Moab, Ammon, and Gilead The Moabites and Ammonites were enemies of Israel (see the etiological saga of their origins in Gen. 19:30–38). They were located on the east side of the Jordan in modern Jordan (the name of the modern city of Amman is from Ammon). David conquered them and made them vassal states.24 As vassals, they were not part of Solomon’s kingdom, but independent kingdoms that served Solomon. Gilead, on the other hand, was directly administered by Solomon (1 Kings 4:7–19, esp. 13–19). It was north of the area occupied by the Ammonites. ten thousand cors of wheat each month This is different from the biblical text. After Hiram’s response, the Deuteronomist said that Solomon provided Hiram with 20,000 kor of wheat and 20,000 kor of oil annually (1 Kings 5:25 [v. 11 NRSV]). The Chronicler has Solomon promise to supply Hiram’s servants with 20,000 kor of wheat, 20,000 kor of barley, 20,000 bath of wine, and 20,000 bath of oil, but does not specify the time period (2 Chron. 2:9 [v. 10 NRSV]). Eupolemus has Solomon promise 10,000 kor of wheat and olive oil per month, which equals 120,000 kor of each per year. The large amounts suggest Solomon’s wealth and generosity.25 9.34.1. Souron to Solomon, the great king There is a biblical basis for this letter (1 Kings 5:7–9 || 2 Chron. 2:11–16). As was the case with the letter from Vaphres, Souron acknowledges Solomon’s superiority through the use of an expanded title. See comment on 9.32.1, King Vaphres to Solomon, the great king. who created heaven and earth This echoes 2 Chron. 2:11 NJPS (v. 12 NRSV) ; it is not in 1 Kings 5:21 NJPS (v. 7 NRSV). 9.34.2. a Tyrian man with a Judean mother He is mentioned in Hiram’s letter in 2 Chron. 2:13 (vv. 13–14 NRSV) (NJPS has “Huram” in 2 Chronicles) and in the context of the construction work in 1 Kings 7:13–14. Both the Deuteronomists and the Chronicler mention him in the summary of the bronze work (1 Kings 7:40–47 || 2 Chron. 4:11–18). The Deuteronomist gave his name as Hiram whose father was a Tyrian and whose mother was from the tribe of Naphtali, while the Chronicler thought his name was Huram-abi, with a Tyrian father and a mother from the tribe of Dan. Eupolemus followed the Chronicler, but omitted the name. Dan Following the emendation of Potter. 26The manuscripts read “David”; however, this is prob— ably a result of confusion between the abbreviation for David (D AD) and DAN.27 Alexander Polyhistor probably made the mistake. 9.34.3. the needs of the youth Following the emendation of Freudenthal from kai (“and”) to tōn (“of ”).28

Eupolemus 695

that relates to architecture, he will guide you and do it. 3Concerning the needs of the youth who are being sent to you, you will do well to enjoin the governors in each place to supply the things they need. 4When Solomon, with his father’s friends in retinue, had traveled to the mountains of Lebanon with the Sidonians and Tyrians, he transported the wood that had been cut in advance by his father by sea to Joppa and from there by foot to Jerusalem. He began to build the temple of God when he was thirteen years of age. The nations that have already been mentioned and the twelve tribes of the Jews did the work. One tribe per month furnished the 160,000 with everything they needed. He laid out the foundations of the sanctuary at sixty cubits in length and sixty cubits in width, but the width of the building and its foundations were ten cubits. For this is what Nathan, the prophet of God, had commanded him. 5He built by alternating a course of stone and a bonding of cypress wood, securing the two courses with bronze dovetails that weighed a talent each. After he had built (the structure) in this way, he paneled the inside with cedar and cypress wood so that the stone building was not visible.

9.34.4. Solomon . . . had traveled to the mountains of Lebanon The biblical account does not mention this trip. Hiram had the timber floated down the Mediterranean to a place (1 Kings 5:9), more specifically Joppa (2 Chron. 2:16). Eupolemus has heightened Solomon’s personal involvement. with his father’s friends in retinue This is probably David’s court. when he was thirteen years of age The biblical text put the beginning in the fourth year of his reign when he was 16 (1 Kings 6:1 || 2 Chron. 3:2). It may be that Eupolemus wanted to convey the image of Solomon beginning the Temple when he became a man. Alternatively, it may be that Eupolemus wanted to emphasize that Solomon began the Temple at the outset of his reign, without delay. One tribe per month furnished the 160,000 The 160,000 is the sum of the 80,000 Egyptians sent by Vaphres (Praep. ev. 9.32.1) and the 80,000 Tyrians and Phoenicians (9.30.2) sent by Souron. In 1 Kings 5, Hiram had his workers cut the timber, but Solomon conscripted the builders from the Israelites (1 Kings 5:13–16, although see 5:17–18, which includes Hiram’s builders). In 1 Chron. 2:17–18, Solomon drafted foreign workers. He laid out the foundations The dimensions that Eupolemus gives do not agree with the biblical tradition in either the Hebrew or the Greek. See 1 Kings 6:2 || 2 Chron. 3:3. Eupolemus may have derived the 60 cubits in width from Ezra 6:3. Nathan . . . had commanded him 1 Kings 6:11 indicates that Solomon received an oracle, but does not specify the name of the prophet. Eupolemus has supplied the name Nathan, who was active during the careers of David and Solomon. 9.34.5. He built by alternating a course of stone and a bonding of cypress wood This is not in the biblical text. 1 Kings 6:36; 7:12 indicate that Solomon built the inner court by alternating three courses of stone and one course of cedar. Eupolemus may have taken his inspiration from Ezra 5:8; 6:4. he paneled the inside with cedar and cypress wood 1 Kings 6:15–18 suggests that Solomon lined the walls of the Temple with cedar and built the floor of cypress, except for the most holy place that had only cedar. 2 Chron. 3:5 only mentions cypress. so that the stone building was not visible See 1 Kings 6:18. He plated the inside of the sanctuary The biblical text indicates that Solomon plated the walls of the innermost sanctuary (the most holy place) with gold; however, it does not have the panels and

696

Gregory E. Sterling

He plated the inside of the sanctuary with gold by casting five cubit gold panels and nailing them with silver nails that were a talent in weight, like a breast in shape, and four in number. 6In this way he plated it with gold from floor to ceiling. He made the ceiling out of gold coffered work, but made the roof of bronze from bronze roof tiles by first smelting the bronze and then pouring it (into molds). He made two bronze pillars and covered them with pure gold a finger in thickness. 7The pillars were equal in height with the sanctuary and the circumference of each pillar was ten cubits. He set them up, one on the right side of the house and one on the left. He made ten golden lampstands, each weighing ten talents, that he based on the model Moses set up in the Tent of Testimony. 8He stood them up on each side of the sacred precinct: some on the right and others on the left. He made seventy golden lamps so that seven would burn on each lampstand. He also built the gates of the temple, decorated them with gold and silver, and covered them with coffered cedar and cypress. 9He also made a stoa in the northern part of the temple and supported it with forty-eight bronze pillars. He constructed a bronze laver

silver nails that appear in Eupolemus’s account. Compare 1 Kings 6:20–22, 36; 2 Chron. 3:7–9, the latter mentions gold nails. casting The manuscripts read chonnunta, “heaping up”; Freudenthal emended this to choneuonta, “casting.”29 9.34.6. He made the ceiling There is nothing in the biblical text about the ceiling and roof, apart from 1 Kings 6:9 that mentions that the roof consisted of cedar beams and planks. He made two bronze pillars Compare 1 Kings 7:15–22 || 2 Chron. 3:15–17. Eupolemus’s account differs in several ways: he has them plated in gold (only in Eupolemus), makes them equal in height with the sanctuary (versus 18 cubits in 1 Kings 7:15 and 35 cubits in 2 Chron. 3:15), and specifies the circumference at 10 cubits (versus 12 cubits in 1 Kings 7:15 and no specification in 2 Chron. 3:15). 9:34.7. He made ten golden lampstands, each weighing ten talents Cf. 1 Kings 7:49 || 2 Chron. 4:7. Eupolemus alone gives the weight. Eupolemus follows the biblical text that says that the lampstands were divided between the right and left sides. The tabernacle had a single lampstand (Exod. 25:31–40). The number “ten” before “golden lampstands” was apparently elided in the copying of the text, probably because in the Greek text, “ten” occurs twice (deka deka). Seguier suggested this conjecture,30 which I accept. It brings the text into alignment with the biblical text. Moses set up in the Tent of Testimony See Exod. 27:21. 9.34.8. seventy golden lamps Each of the 10 lampstands had 7 lamps, just as the candelabra in the tabernacle had 7 branches (Exod. 25:31–40). He also built the gates of the temple Eupolemus’s account is based on the biblical text but varies in detail: 1 Kings 6:31–36 mentions doors of olivewood for the entrance to the inner shrine (vv. 31–32) and doors of cypress for the entrance to the Great Hall or nave; 2 Chron. 4:9 states that Solomon plated the doors with bronze. The doors were carved according to the Deuteronomists (1 Kings 6:32, 35) and Eupolemus. Some doors or their parts were plated with gold (1 Kings 7:50). On the subject of the doors see also Ezek. 41:21–25. 9.34.9. a stoa in the northern part of the temple This may be dependent on 1 Kings 7:31 LXX, which mentions 48 pillars. a bronze laver Eupolemus’s account differs from the biblical text. According to 1 Kings 7:23–26 || 2 Chron. 4:2–6, the stoa was circular (rather than square as Eupolemus suggests) with a diameter of 10 cubits, a circumference of 30 cubits, and a height of 5 cubits.

Eupolemus 697

twenty cubits long, twenty cubits wide, and five cubits high. He made a brim on it that extended out one cubit beyond the base for the priests to stand on in order to wash their feet and clean their hands. He also made twelve bases for the altar of cast metal with reliefs that were the height of a man. He set them in the back under the laver, on the right side of the altar. 10He made a bronze base two cubits in height near the laver so that the king could stand on it when he prayed so that he could be seen by the Jewish people. He built the altar twenty-five cubits by twenty cubits by twelve cubits in height. 11He made two bronze rings built like a chain and set them on mechanisms that towered above the sanctuary twenty cubits in height and cast a shadow over the entire temple. He hung on each net four hundred bronze bells that each weighed a talent. He made all the nets so that the bells would ring and scare away the birds so that they would not sit on the temple and build nests in the coffered work of the gates and stoa and pollute the temple with their dung. 12He surrounded Jerusalem the city with walls, towers, and ditches. He built a palace for himself. 13At first the shrine was called “Solomon’s temple,” but later by corruption the city was named Jerusalem from the temple, but is correspondingly called by the Greeks Hierosolyma.

He made a brim on it Eupolemus makes the brim extend beyond the biblical description of a “brim like a cup” (cf. 1 Kings 7:26 || 2 Chron. 4:5) to make it possible for the priests to wash in the laver (see Exod. 30:17–21). He also made twelve bases The biblical text says that the laver rested on 12 oxen (1 Kings 7:25 || 2 Chron. 4:4; Jer. 52:20). 9.33.10. He made a bronze base . . . so that the king could stand on it The speaker’s platform is based on 2 Chron. 6:13, but differs in details. He built the altar This is based on 2 Chron. 4:1, but differs in dimensions: 25 × 20 × 12 cubits versus 20 × 20 × 10 cubits. 9.34.11. He made two bronze rings built like a chain The elaborate scarecrows are unique to Eupolemus. The description may have been based on the biblical accounts of the chains associated with the capitals on the pillars (2 Chron. 3:16; see also 1 Kings 7:17). The function of these devices in Eupolemus was to keep the birds away so that they would not pollute the Temple. This agrees with the concerns for purity that began to dominate Jewish identity and practice in the 2nd century bce. Josephus says that the Herodian Temple had sharp gold spikes on its top to prevent the birds from nesting (J.W. 5.224). See also m. Mid. 4:6. 9.34.12. He surrounded Jerusalem the city with walls, towers, and ditches The biblical text credits Solomon with building the walls of Jerusalem (1 Kings 3:1; 9:15), although it does not mention “towers and ditches.” He built a palace for himself 1 Kings 7:1–12 suggests that Solomon built a complex of royal buildings, including the Lebanon Forest House, the Hall of Pillars, the Hall of the Throne or the Hall of Judgment, and two palaces. 9.34.13. Jerusalem . . . Hierosolyma The etymology is a play on the words in Greek. Eupolemus suggests that Jerusalem (Ierousalēm) is from “temple” (hieron). The initial letters are strikingly similar: iero. The Greeks preferred the declinable form Ierosolyma rather than the indeclinable Ierousalēm. Hecataeus of Abdera (in Library 40.3.3) gives a similar etymology, as does Josephus: “David was the first who drove the Jebusites out of Jerusalem and named the city after himself. For in the time of Abraham our ancestor, it was called Solyma, but later named Jerusalem. For

698

Gregory E. Sterling

14When he had completed the temple and had enclosed the city with walls, he went to Shiloh and offered a sacrifice to God, a thousand oxen as whole burnt offerings. He then took the tent, the altar, and the vessels that Moses had made, brought them to Jerusalem, and placed them in the house of God. 15He deposited the ark, the golden altar, the lampstand, the table, and the other vessels there, just as the prophet commanded him. 16He brought an enormous offering to God: 2,000 sheep and 3,500 calves. All the gold that covered the two pillars and sanctuary amounted to 4,600,000 talents. For the nails and the remainder of the decorations of silver it took 1,232 talents. The amount of bronze for the pillar, laver,

the temple (hieron) was named Solyma in Hebrew which means security” (Ant. 7.67). There are some textual problems with the text in Josephus, but it appears that he connected Jerusalem with Solyma and identified this with the Temple. In J.W. 6.438, Josephus says that Melchizedek changed the name of the city from Solyma to Jerusalem after he built a temple. 9.34.14. he went to Shiloh The biblical text has Solomon bring the ark from the City of David or Zion, the southern mount of Jerusalem (1 Kings 8:1 || 2 Chron. 5:2), since David had already brought it there (2 Sam. 6:12–15 || 1 Chron. 15:25–28). Eupolemus had him go to Shiloh, which was the first place that the ark resided in the Promised Land ( Josh. 18:1–10 [see above in Praep. ev. 9.30.1]; 1 Sam. 1:3; 4:3) and became “the chosen place” prior to Jerusalem (Ps. 78:60; Jer. 7:12– 14 || 26:6). As we noted above, the site was destroyed at a relatively early date (see comment on 9.30.1, he pitched the sacred tent in Shiloh). The Chronicler placed the tent in Gibeon (1 Chron. 16:39; 21:29), but had David bring the ark to Jerusalem (2 Chron. 1:3–6). a thousand oxen The biblical text says that the offerings were without number (1 Kings 8:5 || 2 Chron. 5:6). The specific reference to 1,000 may be drawn from the earlier tradition that Solomon offered “a thousand burnt offerings” at Gibeon (1 Kings 3:4), a reference that the Chronicler changed to Jerusalem (2 Chron. 1:6). He then took the tent, the altar, and the vessels that Moses had made This is based on 1 Kings 8:4–9 || 2 Chron. 5:5–10. 9.34.15. just as the prophet commanded him This is the second reference to a prophet not mentioned in the biblical text (see comment on 9.34.4, Nathan . . . had commanded him). Eupolemus emphasizes the role of prophets more than the biblical text does. In these two instances, the statements emphasize the human response to divine oracles concerning the temple. 9.34.16. He brought an enormous offering to God There may be a problem in the text of Eupolemus. He normally makes the numbers larger than the biblical text. In this instance, his numbers are considerably smaller than the 22,000 oxen and 120,000 sheep mentioned in 1 Kings 8:62 || 2 Chron. 7:5. All the gold . . . amounted to 4,600,000 talents The figures are flights of fancy intended to impress the reader with the lavish nature of the decorations. The biblical text does not provide an analogous summary. Cf. the amounts sent to Solomon (1 Kings 9:14, 28) and the summary of what David provided (1 Chron. 22:14). 9.34.17. Solomon sent back the Egyptians and the Phoenicians In the biblical text, Solomon sends the people of Israel home (1 Kings 8:66 || 2 Chron. 7:10).

Eupolemus 699

and stoa amounted to 18,050 talents. 17Solomon sent back the Egyptians and the Phoenicians, each to his own place. He gave each ten shekels of gold—the talent is a shekel. To the king of Egypt, Vaphres, he sent 10,000 measures of olive oil, 1,000 artabae of dates, one hundred jugs of honey, and spices. 18For Souron, he sent to Tyre the gold pillar that is set up in Tyre in the temple of Zeus. Fragment 3 (Praep. ev. 9.34.20)

Eupolemus says that Solomon made 1,000 gold shields, each of which was 500 gold [shekels in weight]. He lived 52 years, of which he ruled 40 years in peace.

He gave each ten shekels . . . the talent is a shekel Eupolemus suggests that Solomon gave the foreign workers a bonus, perhaps in light of the request that Vaphres and Souron had made for him to take care of the workers (Praep. ev. 9.32.1 and 9.34.3). The gesture indicates Solomon’s magnanimity. The equation of a talent with a shekel is wrong: a talent was the equivalent of approximately 3,000 shekels (1 talent = 60 minas, and each mina = 50 shekels). 9.34.18. the gold pillar The gifts to Vaphres and Souron may be based on 1 Kings 9:10–14, although the specifics are so different that they should probably be considered an embellishment of the biblical narrative. The pillar of gold is extrabiblical but is mentioned by Theophilus, about whom we know almost nothing except for the fragment that Alexander Polyhistor cited: “Theophilus says that Solomon sent the leftover gold to the king of Tyre. He fashioned a lifelike and full-size image of his daughter and used the gold pillar to cover the image” (Praep. ev. 9.34.19; see also comment on 9.34.20). The tradition of a famous gold pillar in a temple at Tyre is old and goes back to at least the time of Herodotus, who saw it in a temple of Heracles (Hist. 2.44). See also Ag. Ap. 1.118. The story is remarkable for its openness to pagan cults: Solomon sent a pillar that was set up in a pagan temple. While the text never hints that Solomon worshipped in a pagan shrine, it affirms that he honored a shrine with a gift. The recognition of the importance of the cults of other peoples began as early as the LXX when the translators rendered Exod. 22:27 (28): “you will not speak evil of the gods,” in order to encourage Jews to respect the deities of others.31 Eupolemus has taken this a step further by making a positive statement. 9.34.20 The third fragment brings the discussion of Solomon to a conclusion by accenting his wealth and the length of his reign. The only material between fragments 2 and 3 is the fragment of Theophilus cited above (frag. 3 = Praep. ev. 9.34.18). 1,000 gold shields Eupolemus doubles the number of shields in the biblical text, which says that Solomon made 200 large gold shields of 600 shekels’ weight apiece and 300 gold shields of 3 minas’ (= 150 shekels) weight apiece (1 Kings 10:16–17; cf. also 2 Chron. 9:15–16, which doubles the gold in the 300 shields to 300 shekels apiece). He lived fifty-two years The calculation comes from Solomon’s age at his accession (12; see Praep. ev. 9.30.8) and the length of his reign. he ruled forty years in peace See 1 Kings 11:42 || 2 Chron. 9:30. 9.39.2–5 The next time that Eusebius cites Polyhistor, he quotes this fragment. Eusebius cites a number of descriptions of Jerusalem between fragments 3 (9.34.20) and 4 (9.39.1–5); it is not possible to know what Polyhistor or, more important for our purposes, what Eupolemus, had

700

Gregory E. Sterling

Fragment 4 (Praep. ev. 9.39.2–5)

9.39.2Then Jonacheim [ruled]. During his reign Jeremiah the prophet prophesied. He had been sent by God to check the Jews who were sacrificing to a gold idol whose name was Baal. 3He disclosed the misfortune that was about to come on them. Jonacheim set out to burn him alive. He said that with these pieces of wood they would cook for the Babylonians and as captives would dig the ditches of the Tigres and Euphrates. 4When the king of the Babylonians, Nebuchadnezzar, heard the things that had been foretold by Jeremiah he urged Astibares, the king of the Medes, to campaign with him. 5Having

covered between the two. The second and fourth fragments are related thematically by their interest in the Temple: fragment 2 records its building and fragment 4 its destruction. In fragment 4, in keeping with his interest in prophets, Eupolemus mentions Jeremiah. He may have taken a clue from 2 Chronicles, his main source, which mentioned Jeremiah in connection with the end of Judah (2 Chron. 35:25; 36:12, 21, 22) or he may have known the book of Jeremiah well enough to include it. In this fragment he interweaves stories from Jeremiah with material from 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles. 9.39.2. Then Jonacheim [ruled] This could be either Jehoiakim (609–598 bce [2 Kings 23:36–24:7 || 2 Chron. 36:5–8]) or Jehoiachin (598–597 bce [2 Kings 24:8–17 || 2 Chron. 36:9–10]). The difference between the names of the father and the son is very slight in Hebrew (Yĕhoˆyãkîm vs. Yĕhoˆyakîn) and are identical in Greek transliteration in Kings (Ioakim), although they are different in 2 Chronicles (Ioakim versus Iechonias). Jeremiah’s career extended through the reigns of both ( Jer. 1:2–3). The events narrated in the fragment span the reign of Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin as well as the reign of Zedekiah, Jehoiachin’s uncle (597–586 bce [2 Kings 24:18–25:21 || 2 Chron. 36:11–21]). Eupolemus has telescoped the three. to a gold idol whose name was Baal The gold idol is not mentioned in Jeremiah. It reminds a reader of the calf made from gold (Exod. 32:1–35). Jeremiah frequently critiqued the worship of Baal32 and the prophets who spoke in the name of Baal.33 3.39.3. He disclosed the misfortune that was about to come on them Jeremiah is famous for his oracles that the Babylonians would destroy Jerusalem. Jeremiah did not begin with this message, but came to it through the momentous events that brought the 7th century bce to a close. After Jehoiakim burned Jeremiah’s first scroll of prophetic oracles, the prophet appears to have realized the inevitability of Jerusalem’s destruction ( Jer. 36:1–32, esp. 27–31). Jonacheim set out to burn him alive There were a number of plots against Jeremiah. Perhaps Eupolemus has in mind the Temple sermon ( Jer. 7:1–15 || 26:2–6) and the reaction it provoked ( Jer. 26:8–24). 9.39.4. When the king of the Babylonians, Nebuchadnezzar, heard According to the biblical text, Nebuchadnezzar decided to move against Judea when Zedekiah rebelled against him (2 Kings 24:20–25:1 || 2 Chron. 36:13, 17). Nebuchadnezzar became aware of Jeremiah’s activities when he laid siege and freed Jeremiah ( Jer. 39:11–12; 40:1–6). he urged Astibares, the king of the Medes Ctesias of Cnidos, a late 5th-century bce Greek physician in the court of Artaxerxes, wrote a 23-volume account of Persia that mentioned a Median king named Astibares (FGrH 688 frag. 5 = Diodorus Siculus 2.34.6). The biblical account does not mention the Medes. Eupolemus may have drawn from Ctesias’s entertaining narrative for this detail.

Eupolemus 701

summoned the Babylonians and Medes, he gathered 180,000 foot-soldiers, 120,000 cavalry, and 10,000 chariots for foot-soldiers. He first sacked Samaria, Galilee, Scythopolis, and the Jews living in Gilead. Then he took Jerusalem and took the king of the Jews, Jonacheim, captive. He chose to send the gold, silver, and bronze in the temple to Babylon, except for the ark and the tablets in it that Jeremiah acquired. Fragment 5 (Strom. 1.21.141.4–5)

1.21.141.4In addition, Eupolemus says in a similar work that all the years from Adam until the fifth year 9.39.5. he gathered 180,000 foot-soldiers, 120,000 cavalry, and 10,000 chariots The biblical text does not mention the size of Nebuchadnezzar’s army (2 Kings 25:1 || 2 Chron. 36:17). Since the total number of foot-soldiers and cavalry is 300,000, it is possible that Eupolemus drew the number from the size of Xerxes’s army (Herodotus 8.113; 9.32). He first sacked Samaria, Galilee, Scythopolis, and the Jews living in Gilead 1 Kings 25:8–12 || 2 Chron. 36:17–19 only mention Jerusalem; however, the campaign was broader, as the Lachish Letters that record the final days of Lachish in Judea attest. However, Eupolemus has suggested that the campaign was in the north, a reasonable assumption since the Babylonians would have approached from the north. Unfortunately, he appears to be wrong in his details. The Assyrians destroyed Beth Shean (= Scythopolis [the later Hellenistic name for the city]) in approximately 732 bce, and it lay unoccupied for about 500 years. took the king of the Jews, Jonacheim, captive According to 2 Kings 24:6, Jehoiakim died in office; 2 Chron. 36:5–8 and Dan. 1:1–2 suggest that Nebuchadnezzar carried him into exile. Both Kings and Chronicles relate the capture and exile of Jehoiachin (2 Kings 24:10–12, 15 || 2 Chron. 36:10). He chose to send the gold, silver, and bronze in the temple to Babylon This could refer to 597 bce when Nebuchnezzar took Jehoiachin (2 Kings 24:13 || 2 Chron. 36:10), or to 586 bce when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem and took Zedekiah (2 Kings 25:13–17 || 2 Chron. 36:18). except for the ark and the tablets in it The tradition that Nebuchadnezzar did not send the ark and its tablets to Babylon is not found in the Bible. Eupolemus is the first to attest to the survival of the ark, a tradition that enjoyed wide circulation.34 1.21.141.4–5 The fifth and final fragment is from Clement. Like Demetrius, the 3rd century bce Jewish author, Eupolemus was concerned about the chronology of Israel. Two factors appear to be at work in the dates he provides. First, he is interested in demonstrating the antiquity of the Jews. Just as fragment 1 emphasized Moses as a culture bringer, so this fragment accentuates the age of the Jewish people. Eusebius got the point when he wrote: “Philo, Aristobulus, Josephus, Demetrius, and Eupolemus, Jewish authors, all demonstrated in writing that Moses and the Jewish race are older than Greek origins” (Hist. eccl. 6.13.7). Second, he associates the Jews with the Seleucids and the Ptolemies in an effort to connect the Jewish people to the larger world. Unlike the Teacher of Righteousness, who led a group of Jews out into the world to withdraw from the world, Eupolemus attempted to relate the Jewish people to the larger world. 1.21.141.4. all the years from Adam until the fifth year of the reign of Demetrius, the twelfth year that Ptolemy was king of Egypt The identities of Demetrius and Ptolemy are debated. The problem is that it is difficult to synchronize the fifth year of a Demetrius with the twelfth year of a Ptolemy. There were three Seleucid rulers named Demetrius: Demetrius I Soter (161–150 bce), Demetrius II Nicator (145–138, 129–126 bce), and Demetrius III Eucaerus (95–87 bce). The dates given for the first of these synchronize best—although not perfectly—with a Ptolemy. The most likely

702

Gregory E. Sterling

of the reign of Demetrius, the twelfth year that Ptolemy was king of Egypt, were altogether 5,149. 1.21.141.5From the time that Moses led the Jews out of Egypt to the previously mentioned time was altogether 2,580 years. (From this time until the consuls in Rome, Gnaeus Domitius and Asinius, there were in all 120 years.) Ptolemy is Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II, who initially ruled (170–163 bce) with his brother Ptolemy VI Philometor (180–145 bce) and sister Cleopatra II. He ruled Cyrene from 163–145 bce and then became sole ruler of Egypt in 145 and reigned until 116 bce. The 5th year of Demetrius I Soter is ca. 157–156 bce and the 12th year of Ptolemy VIII Euergetes is 159–158 bce. The discrepancy is likely due to a different count for one or both rulers. There may also have been a textual error. While there are other possibilities, this is the closest synchronization. 1.21.141.5e. From the time . . . to the previously mentioned time was altogether 2,580 years The two dates that are provided place the Exodus very early. If the year 5149 am = 158 bce and the Exodus occurred 2,580 years prior to 5149 or 158 bce, then it occurred in 2,569 am or 2,738 bce. Some have been bothered by this early date and suggested that the text should be emended from 2,580 to 1,580. However, the intention of authors like Eupolemus was to put the date early, not late. Further, the biblical text places the Exodus relatively early: MT places it in 2668 am and the LXX in 3819 am. Thus the text as we have it is closer to MT than the LXX in its calculations. (From this time until the consuls in Rome, Gnaeus Domitius and Asinius The text with the names is corrupt. I have accepted the emendation of Freudenthal.35 Gnaeus Domitius Calvinus was promised a consulship in 40 bce, a consulship that he held in 32 bce. Gaius Asinius Pollio (76 bce–4 ce) was an important figure during Rome’s transition from a republic to an empire. He served as consul in 40–39 bce. During this time he also served as Anthony’s envoy in the peace at Misenum where he helped to restore peace, including a reconciliation between Octavian and Domitius. The fragment appears to use 40 bce as the year when Asinius Pollio was consul and Domitius was promised a consulship. This is in rough agreement with the estimated 120 years from 158–157 bce which would place the writing of this sentence around 40 bce. The sentence was probably added by either Alexander Polyhistor or another writer.

Notes 1. Alexander Polyhistor did not attribute this fragment to Eupolemus, but Eusebius did. 2. Macc. 11:17 also mentions a John who represented the Jews before Lysias in 164 bce, but it is not clear that this was Eupolemus’s father. The author of 2 Maccabees did not connect him with Eupolemus as he had in 4:11. The John of 11:17 could have been the brother of Judas (1 Macc. 2:2). 3. Ag. Ap. 1.218, suggested that Eupolemus was a non-Jew who gave evidence of the Jewish people’s antiquity. Eupolemus’s familiarity with the biblical text and perspective make it unambiguously clear that he was Jewish. Josephus did not recognize his predecessors by name. His confusion here is probably deliberate; as we noted above, he knew the role of Eupolemus as an ambassador for Judas (Ant. 12.415). 4. Praep. ev. 9.30.1 (= frag. 2), gave it the name Concerning the Prophecy of Elijah, but this is probably a sectional heading (see comment on Concerning the Prophecy of Elijah, 9.30.1). The name Concerning the Kings in Judea is the same as that given for the work of Demetrius (frag. 6 = Strom. 1.21.141.1). 5. Sterling, Historiography & Self-definition, 17. 6. For a recent survey of local history with bibliography see Phillip Harding, “Local History and Atthidography,” in A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography, Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World, ed. John Marincola (Oxford: Blackwell, 2007; reprint ed., Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011), 180–88.

Eupolemus 703

7. All references to the fragmentary works of authors of the larger world are from Felix Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (3 vols. in 16 parts; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1929–63). Hereafter FGH. 8. See Robert Doran, Temple Propaganda: The Purpose and Character of 2 Maccabees, Catholic Biblical Quarterly Manuscript Series 12 (Washingon, D.C.: The Cathholic Biblical Association of America, 1981). 9. The version in Clement, Strom. 1.23.153.4 reads: “Eupolemus said in his work Concerning the Kings in Judea that Moses was the first sage; that he handed down the alphabet first to the Jews, and the Phoenicians got it from the Jews and the Greeks from the Phoenicians.” 10. On the wisdom of Moses see Louis Feldman, Josephus’ Interpretation of the Bible (Berkeley/Los Angeles/ London: University of California Press, 1998), 397–401. 11. For details see Gregory E. Sterling, “The Jewish Appropriation of Hellenistic Historiography,” in Marincola, Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography, 239–40. 12. Clement, Stromata 1.21.130.3: “Alexander, who is called Polyhistor, in his work Concerning the Jews recorded certain letters of Solomon to Vaphres the king of Egypt and to [the king] of the Tyrians of Phoenicia and their letters to Solomon. In these it is shown that Vaphres sent 80,000 Egyptian men to him to build the sanctuary. The other [sent] an equal number along with a master builder, a Tyrian with a Jewish mother from the tribe of David, whose name was Hyperon—as it is written there.” 13. Deut. 29:5; see also Exod. 16:35; Num. 14:33–34; 32:13; Deut. 2:7; 8:4; Josh. 5:6. 14. Jer. 7:12, 14; 26:6, 9; Ps. 78:60. 15. Syrians (2 Sam. 8:5–6 || 1 Chron. 18:5–6; 2 Sam. 10:1–19 || 1 Chron. 19:1–19); Idumeans (2 Sam. 8:13–14; 1 Kings 11:15–17; 1 Chron. 18:11–13); Ammonites (2 Sam. 8:12 || 1 Chron. 18:11; 2 Sam. 10:1–19 || 1 Chron. 19:1–19; 2 Sam. 11:1–27; 12:31 || 1 Chron. 20:1–3); Moabites (2 Sam. 8:1–2 || 1 Chron. 18:2; 2 Sam. 8:12). 16. 2 Sam. 5:17–25 || 1 Chron. 14:8–17. 17. J.W. 7.219, 224, 225; Ant. 18.53; 19.276, 338, 355; see also J.W. 5.461; Ant. 18.140. 18. Josephus regularly used a similar form, e.g., Ant. 1.324; 2.32; 4.96. 19. 1 Macc. 4:15 || 2 Macc. 10:15, 17; 12:32; 1 Macc. 4:29 || 2 Macc. 11:5–12; 4:61; 5:3, 65. Judas’s main engagements took place in the hill country of Judea and in the area that we know as the Golan Heights. See Bezalel BarKochba, Judas Maccabeus: The Jewish Struggle against the Seleucids (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), esp. xii for a map of his main engagements with the Seleucids and with local populations. 20. For example, CD iv 1–8, esp. 1; 1QS iv 1–13, esp. 2, 9; ix 14; 1Q28a i 1–2, 22–25, esp. 24. 21. Karl Mras, Die Praeparatio Evangelica (revised Édouard des Places; 2 vols.; Bd. 8 of Eusebius Werke; GCS 43; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1982), in loco. 22. Kuhlmey in the aparatus of Jacoby, FGH 723. So also Holladay, Historians, 144n43. 23. Holsten in the aparatus of Mras, Die Praeparatio Evangelica, in loco. 24. 2 Sam. 8:2 || 1 Chron. 18:2; 2 Sam. 10:1–11:1 and 12:26–31 || 2 Chron. 19:1–20:3. 25. The kor was a Hebrew unit of measure; an artaba is a Persian unit of measure; “measure” is a Hellenistic unit of measure. It is virtually impossible to give precise equivalents today. A kor was approximately 14 bushels in dry measure and between 35 and 60 gallons in liquid measure. This means that Solomon promised to supply approximately 140,000 bushels of wheat per month and between 350,000 and 600,000 gallons of wine each month. 26. Potter in Freudenthal, Alexander Polyhistor, 209. 27. So Holladay, Historians, 147n62. 28. Freudenthal, Alexander Polyhistor, 210 29. Freudenthal, Alexander Polyhistor, 211. 30. Seguier in Freudenthal, Alexander Polyhistor, 211. So also Holladay, Historians, 149n79. 31. For details see Pieter van der Horst, “‘Thous Shalt Not Revile the Gods: The LXX Translation of Ex. 22:28 (27),” SPhA 5 (1993): 1–8. 32. Jer. 2:23; 7:9; 9:14; 11:13, 17; 12:16; 19:4–5; 23:27; 32:29, 35. 33. Jer. 2:8; 23:13. 34. 2 Macc. 2:1–8, esp. 4–8; Life of Jeremiah 11–15; 4 Baruch 3:8–20; 2 Baruch 6.1–9; cf. Ant. 18.85–87, for the Samaritan tradition. 35. Freudenthal, Alexander Polyhistor, 214.

704

Gregory E. Sterling

Pseudo-Eupolemus Gregory E. Sterling A 1st-century bce Roman savant, Alexander Polyhistor, collected a number of works on the Jewish people. Four centuries later, Eusebius, the Christian bishop of Caesarea, used Polyhistor’s collection as a major source for his apologetic work Preparation for the Gospel. Eusebius indicates that Polyhistor had attributed his first three fragments to Eupolemus, Artapanus, and some anonymous authors respectively.1 The fragments attributed to Eupolemus and some anonymous authors overlap enough that they must have come from the same work, here called fragments 1 and 2. Fragment 1 relates five episodes in Abraham’s life. The first is his geographical and chronological setting in Babylon, where he excelled in astrology. The second summarizes his migration to Phoenicia, where he passed his specialized astrological knowledge on to the Phoenicians (Gen. 12:1–9). The third summarizes the unusual story of Gen. 14, in which Abraham rescued Lot and on his return was entertained by Melchizedek at the temple on Mount Gerizim. The fourth recapitulates the marriage of Sarah to Pharaoh when Abraham entered Egypt (Gen. 12:10–20). The fifth is extrabiblical and details Abraham’s contributions to the Egyptian priests at Heliopolis. The account concludes with a genealogical account about the discovery of astrology. Fragment 2 relates the contents of episode 1 and mentions the movements of Abraham to Phoenicia and Egypt in episodes 2 and 4. The relationship between the two fragments is debated. They share the same basic contents and relate them in the same order, but they differ in a number of details. For example, in fragment 1, the giants are dispersed by God following their construction of the tower of Babel, while in fragment 2, the gods destroy all of them through the flood except Belus, who escapes and builds the tower of Babel. The differences in the events, the theistic perspectives, and the punishments meted out to the giants are all noteworthy. How should we explain the similarities and dissimilarities? Is fragment 1 part of the history of Eupolemus and fragment 2 the work of Polyhistor?2 Or did Alexander Polyhistor incorrectly place fragment 1 among the authentic fragments of Eupolemus and then compose a summary that he attributed to anonymous authors (frag. 2)?3 Authorship and History The relationship between the two fragments raises the question of authorship. The most important evidence for the identity of the author of fragment 1 is the geographical orientation of the material. In the third episode, Abraham is entertained “at the temple of Gerizim.” Given the significance of Mount Gerizim for the Samaritans,4 its mention raises the possibility that the author was a Samaritan. A second hint may point in the same direction: the author has a distinct preference for Phoenicia over Egypt. Abraham initially

705

travels to Phoenicia (episode 2). He remains there longer than in the biblical text since the fragment repositions Gen. 14 (episode 3) before Gen. 12:10–20 (episode 4). When Abraham finally arrives in Egypt, the author makes the dependence of the Egyptians on the Babylonians clear, both in direct statements and in the genealogy that he constructs, in which the Ethiopians and Egyptians descend from the Phoenicians (episode 5). The preference given to the area controlled by the Seleucids rather than the Ptolemies combined with the explicit reference to Mount Gerizim suggests that our author was a Samaritan—rather than a Jew—who lived in the Seleucid empire prior to the destruction of the Samaritan temple in 129–128 bce (Ant. 13.254–56), although the limited scope and nature of our evidence can only make this a reasonable possibility.5 It may be that the reference to the temple led Polyhistor to associate the work of this Samaritan author with the work of Eupolemus, who emphasized the Jerusalem Temple. Hence we will call the author Pseudo-Eupolemus. Since fragment 2 is a summary that has noteworthy differences from fragment 1, it was likely the work of an epitomist who altered some of the content in the process of abridging the work. If Polyhistor was the epitomist, then a period of time must have elapsed between his writing of fragment 1 and fragment 2; otherwise it would be hard to explain why he did not note that both came from the same work. If, on the other hand, an earlier epitomist had already summarized the work of Pseudo-Eupolemus, then Polyhistor simply took over the summary. While it is impossible to be certain, the latter is more likely, given Polyhistor’s general care with works that he summarized. Significance Pseudo-Eupolemus offers a universal perspective on Israel’s ancestral traditions. Unlike Eupolemus, who presents Moses as the first wise person, Pseudo-Eupolemus champions Abraham, broadening the origins of Israel. The author constructs a genealogical tree that identifies the ancestors of Israel with Greek gods (so that Enoch = Atlas). By identifying Greek gods with Hebrew heroes, our author has both demythologized the Greek pantheon and built a bridge between the two cultures. The author is a witness to the creative ways in which Samaritans and Jews found to form identities within the Hellenistic world. Similarly, the author draws from an eclectic mix of traditions or sources ranging from Berossus, the Babylonian priest who wrote an account of Babylonia, to Genesis Apocryphon, the Aramaic midrash on Genesis found at Qumran.6 In all of these ways, the author moves ancient Hebrew traditions away from the narrow confines of ancient Palestine to the broader Mediterranean basin. He not only traces Abraham’s movements through the entire Fertile Crescent, but joins the East to the West genealogically and positions Abrahamic/Samaritan traditions at the forefront of the spread of culture. The author thus combines a sense of nationalism and universalism in what we may call particular universalism. Guide to Reading Pseudo-Eupolemus was one of a number of Jewish/Samaritan Hellenistic writers whose

706

Gregory E. Sterling

works have only been preserved in fragments. It is important to read the fragments of other such authors to find overlapping themes and treatments. In particular, it is worth reading the fragments of Theodotus, another 2nd-century bce author preserved by Polyhistor, whose epic retelling of Gen. 34 centers on Shechem, an orientation that may point to a Samaritan provenance. It would also be worth reading other ancient accounts of Abraham, especially the presentations in The Genesis Apocryphon; Artapanus, frag. 1; Philo’s On the Life of Abraham; and Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities (1.148–256). The fragments of Pseudo-Eupolemus belong to a tradition of ancient historiography that I have called apologetic historiography. It is the Eastern tradition that Josephus set out in his historiographical excursus in Ag. Ap. 1.6–56 that may be defined as “the story of a subpeople in an extended prose narrative written by a member of the group who follows the group’s own traditions but Hellenizes them in an effort to establish the identity of the group within the setting of the larger world.”7 Suggested Readings Doran, Robert. “Pseudo-Eupolemus.” In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, edited by James Charlesworth, 2 vols., esp. 2:873–88. New York: Doubleday, 1985. Freudenthal, J. Alexander Polyhistor und die von ihm erhaltenen Reste jüdischer und samaritanischer Geschichtswerke, esp. 82–103. Hellenistische Studied, 1–2. Breslau: H. Skutsch, 1875. Gruen, Erich S. Hellenism and Heritage: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition, esp. 146–53. Hellenistic Culture and Society 30. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998. Holladay, Carl R. Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. Vol. 1: The Historians, esp. 157–87. SBL Texts and Translations 20 / SBL Pseudepigrapha Series 10. Chico ca: Scholars Press, 1983. Sterling, Gregory E. Historiography & Self-definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography, esp. 187–206. NovTSup 64. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Reprint, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. Wacholder, Ben Zion. “Pseudo-Eupolemus’s Two Greek Fragments on the Life of Abraham.” HUCA 34 (1963): 83–113. —. Eupolemus: A Study of Judaeo-Greek Literature, esp. 104–6, 135, 205–6, 287–93 . Monographs of the Hebrew Union College 3. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1974. Walter, Nikolaus. Fragmente jüdisch-hellenistischer Historiker, esp. 137–43. Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistischrömischer Zeit I.2. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1980.

Pseudo-Eupolemus

707

Translation Fragment 1 (Praep. ev. 9.17.2–9) Episode 1: Abraham the Astrologer 9.17.2Eupolemus in his Concerning the Jews in Assyria says that the city of Babylon was first founded by those who were saved from the flood. They were the giants and built the tower whose story has been told. 3When this tower collapsed by the action of God, the giants were dispersed throughout the whole earth. In the tenth generation, he says, in Camarine, a city of Babylon that some call the city of Ur— it means “the city of the Chaldeans”—[or] in the thirteenth generation, Abraham was born. He sur-

Commentary 9.17.2–3 The first story about Abraham locates him chronologically and geographically. It is likely that the author knew the work of the Babylonian priest Berossus, who wrote a history of Babylon. Josephus wrote: “he [Berossus] mentions our ancestor Abraham—although he does not name him, he said the following: ‘in the tenth generation after the flood there was a just and great man among the Chaldeans who had expertise in the heavenly bodies’” (Ant. 1.158). 9.17.2. Concerning the Jews in Assyria This title is problematic if the work was written by a Samartian. In this case, Alexander Polyhistor may have supplied the title. If the author were a Jew, then the author may have supplied the title. the city of Babylon was first founded by those who were saved from the flood Babylon was the Akkadian name for a Mesopotamian city located on the Euphrates River where it is close to the Tigris River. The site was inhabited as early as the 6th millennium bce. Pseudo-Eupolemus’s etiological myth is based on Gen. 10:6–14, which sketches the descendents of Ham, the son of Noah. Among these is Nimrod, whose kingdom began with Babylon (10:8–10). They were the giants The account appears to connect the “giants” (NJPS has “Nephilim”) who antedated the Flood (Gen. 6:4) with the story of Nimrod, who is called a “giant” by the Septuagint (LXX) translators (Gen. 10:8–9). and built the tower The tower is Babel (Gen. 11:1–9). According to the biblical text, Noah’s descendants built a city and a tower. 9.17.3. When this tower collapsed by the action of God The biblical text says that the builders deserted the tower when they could no longer understand each other (Gen. 11:7–8). A later Jewish author may have drawn from Pseudo-Eupolemus in an account of the fall of the tower, as well as from Hesiod’s Theogony. See Sib. Or. 3.97–161. In the tenth generation This is based on the genealogy in Gen. 11:10–32. It assumes that Shem is part of the Flood generation and begins counting with his son Arpachshad. Abram is the 10th generation. in Camarine, a city of Babylon that some call the city of Ur—it means “the city of the Chaldeans” There is some confusion in the text. The Camarine that we know was in Sicily rather than Babylon. The identification of Ur with “the city of the Chaldeans” probably rests on a misinterpretation of ur (Ur) as ir (city). The translators of the LXX regularly rendered ur kasdim (Ur of the Chaldeans) with hē chōra tōn Chaldaiōn (the land of the Chaldeans). in the thirteenth generation This alternative dating is problematic. It may be a later insertion. Source of Translation: The translation is my own.

708

Gregory E. Sterling

passed all in nobility and wisdom and, what is more, discovered both astrology and Chaldean science. Because he rushed headfirst toward piety, he was well-pleasing to God. Episode 2: Abraham’s Migration to Phoenica 4He, by God’s commands, came to Phoenicia and lived there. Because he taught the Phoenicians about the movements of the sun, moon, and all the other celestial bodies, he was well-pleasing to their king. Episode 3: Abraham Rescues Lot Later the Armenians marched against the Phoenicians. After they conquered the Phoenicians and took his nephew captive, Abraham with his household servants came to the rescue, gained control of the

Whether authentic or inauthentic, in this scheme the count begins with Enoch rather than Shem, placing Abraham in the 13th generation (Gen. 5:21–32; 11:10–32). discovered both astrology and Chaldean science Hellenistic authors frequently made claims that their ancestors had discovered culture. The claims were part of a larger contest over culture in which groups argued that they were the font of civilization. Early Hellenistic Jewish authors made these claims. The connection between Abraham and astrology was well known.8 9.17.4 The second story relates Abraham’s migration to Canaan, named as Phoenicia, and his role as a culture-bringer to the Phoenicians. It is based on Gen. 12. came to Phoenicia and lived there Pseudo-Eupolemus used Phoenicia for Canaan. The translators of the LXX sometimes rendered kĕnaʻan, “Canaan,” by phoinikē, “Phoenicia” (Exod. 16:35) or phoinikes, “Phoenicians” ( Josh. 5:12). Similarly they sometimes translated kĕnaʻanî, “Canaanite,” as phoinikē, “Phoenicia” ( Josh. 5:1) and kěnaʻanîm, “Canaanites,” as phoinikes, “Phoenicians” ( Job 40:30). The use of Phoenicia and the Phoenicians reflects the prominent role that the Phoenicians played in Israel in the Persian and early Hellenistic periods. Pseudo-Eupolemus consistently identified the land as Phoenicia and the residents as Phoenicians. He later claimed that Canaan was the father of the Phoenicians (frag 1.9). Pseudo-Eupolemus’s practice could be understood simply as a learned adaptation of the language of the LXX. Alternatively, it could reflect a connection with the Samaritans. According to a letter the Samaritans wrote to Antiochus Epiphanes, the Samaritans called themselves “Sidonians in Shechem” and claimed that they were Sidonians in origin.9 he was well-pleasing to their king This refrain is used at the end of the first two stories about Abraham: the first emphasizes that he was well-pleasing to God and the second that he was well-pleasing to the king whose identity is not known. 9.17.4–6 The third episode is a summary of the unusual story of Gen. 14, the battle of the four kings against the five and Abraham’s meeting with Melchizedek. This episode focuses on Abraham’s military prowess and magnanimity rather than his role as a culture-bringer. 9.17.4. the Armenians The Armenians are not mentioned in the biblical text. The inclusion probably reflects the tensions in the 2nd century bce between the Armenians and Syrians. The tensions developed when the Armenians shifted their allegiance away from Antiochus the Great to Rome after the Romans defeated Antiochus at the Battle of Magnesia in 189 bce (see Geogr. 11.14.15). It is worth pointing out that a Samaritan Chronicle related a war of Joshua against the Armenians.10

Pseudo-Eupolemus 709

captors, and captured the enemies’ children and wives. 5When ambassadors approached him so that he would release the captives after he had received payment, he preferred not to trample upon those in bad fortune, but to return the spoils after he had received food for his young men. He was entertained by the city at the temple of Gerizim—that means “mountain of the Most High.” 6He received gifts from Melchizedek who was a priest of God and king. Episode 4: Abraham Migrates to Egypt and Recovers Sarah from Pharaoh When a famine occurred, Abraham left for Egypt with all his house and resided there. The king of Egypt married his wife since he [Abraham] said that she was his sister. 7He related at length that he was unable to have intimate relations with her and that his people and house were perishing. When he summoned

and captured the enemies’ children and wives This is one of the details that Pseudo-Eupolemus shares with 1Qap Gen 22:11 and which is not in the biblical text (Gen. 14:14–16). 9.17.5. When ambassadors approached him In the biblical text this is the king of Sodom (Gen. 14:17–24). at the temple of Gerizim The biblical text says that Melchizedek was king of Salem (Gen. 14:18). Abraham met the king of Sodom and Melchizedek in the Valley of the King (Gen. 14:17). The identification of Salem was disputed in the ancient world: some thought that it referred to Jerusalem; while others argued that it was in Samaria. The former is supported by Ps. 76:2 and the Genesis Apocryphon found at Qumran (1QapGen 22:13). The latter has the support of Gen. 33:18 LXX : “Jacob came to Salem, the city of Shechem” (versus the Masoretic Text, “Jacob arrived safe in the city of Shechem which is in the land of Canaan”). Pseudo-Eupolemus appears to have agreed with the latter tradition. Shechem was located in the pass between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim. The Samaritans built a temple on Mount Gerizim in the Persian period,11 a point that became a matter of dispute between the Samaritans and the Jews. John Hyrcanus razed the temple in 128 bce.12 Pseudo-Eupolemus’s connection of Melchizedek with Mount Gerizim rather than Jerusalem points to the probable ethnic identity of the author as a Samaritan. 9.17.6–7 The book of Genesis contains two stories that relate Abraham’s dissimulation about Sarah: Gen. 12:10–20, thought to be the Yahwist’s account that relates the story of Abraham in the court of Pharaoh; and Gen. 20:1–18, considered the Elohist’s account that relates the story of Abraham in the court of Abimelech, king of Gerar. The author conflated the two by using Gen. 12 as a frame but including elements from Gen. 20. The placement of Gen. 12 (episode 4) after Gen. 14 (episode 3) was deliberate and ensured that Egypt came last in Abraham’s movements. 9.17.6. He received gifts from Melchizedek The biblical tradition leaves the identity of the giver and receiver ambiguous. Jewish authors tended to clarify the ambiguity. In most cases, Abraham was the giver (1Qap Gen 22:17; Ant. 1.181), but this author makes him the recipient. the king of Egypt married his wife The biblical text says only that she entered his house (Gen. 12:15; cf. also 20:2). 9.17.7. he was unable to have intimate relations with her This appears to be drawn from Gen. 20:3–7. It is emphasized in 1Qap Gen 20:17. When he summoned his diviners In Gen. 20:3–7, God appears to Abimelech in a dream. He relates his exchange with God to his servants (20:8). 1QapGen 20:19–20 has Pharaoh summon various groups, but they flee.

710

Gregory E. Sterling

his diviners, they told him that the woman was not a widow. In this way, the king of Egypt learned that she was Abraham’s wife and returned her to her husband. Episode 5: Abraham Instructs the Egyptian Priests at Heliopolis 8While Abraham lived in Heliopolis with the Egyptian priests, he taught them many new things: he introduced them to astrology and other things, claiming that the Babylonians and he had discovered these things, although he traced their [original] discovery back to Enoch—he was the first to discover astrology, not the Egyptians. 9For the Babylonians claim that Belus was the first, who is also known as Cronus. From this one came Belus and Ham. The latter fathered Canaan, the father of the Phoenicians. From Canaan came a son, Cush who is known as Asbolus by the Greeks, the father of the Ethiopians,

the woman was not a widow In both Genesis stories Abraham presents Sarah as his sister13 as does Pseudo-Eupolemus (in Praep. ev. 9.17.6). The move from “sister” to “widow” is not unreasonable, since there would need to be an explanation for her alleged single status. For this reason I do not follow the proposal of Doran who treats the statement as an “oracular imperative” in which einai chēra = chērainein: “Let the woman not be parted from her husband.”14). 9.17.8–9 The fifth and final episode of fragment 1 relates an extrabiblical event, Abraham’s stay in Heliopolis. Like episodes 1 and 2, this fragment emphasizes Abraham’s role as the bringer of culture. 9.17.8. While Abraham lived in Heliopolis Genesis does not specify a nome or administrative region (i.e., a province in ancient Egypt) for Abraham’s residence. It was probably included here since Heliopolis was considered to be the residence of priests who were philosophers and astronomers (Geogr. 17.1.29). It was also the center of the worship of the sun god, Atum-Re. the Babylonians and he had discovered these things In the first episode, the author indicated that Abraham not only received a Babylonian education, but also discovered astrology. This statement includes the Babylonians in the discovery. he traced their [original] discovery back to Enoch The claim that Enoch discovered astrology is attested in Jewish sources (e.g., Jub. 4:17; 2 Enoch; and esp. 1 En. 72–82). The claim may rest on the statement in Gen. 5:23 that Enoch lived 365 years, the same number of days in the solar calendar. not the Egyptians The Egyptian origin of astrology was a well-known claim in the ancient world (e.g., Herodotus 2.82; Diodorus Siculus 1.81.6). 9.17.9. the Babylonians claim that Belus was the first In Babylonian mythology, Belus was the creator god (= Marduk). As creator of the cosmos, he is associated with astrology.15 Ham The manuscripts read Chanaan (“Canaan”); however, I have followed Bochard’s emendation to Cham (“Ham”), which brings the genealogy into line with Gen. 10:6.16 Doran suggests that we should not accept the emendation but translate: “This Canaan fathered the ancestors of the Phoenicians,”17 but this leaves the ancestor unnamed, an anomaly that leads me to accept Bochard’s emendation. The latter fathered Canaan, the father of the Phoenicians See Gen. 10:6, 15. The latter suggests that he fathered Sidon, which gives a basis for this etiologic claim. From Canaan came a son, Cush who is known as Asbolus In Gen. 10:6, Cush is the son of Ham and brother of Canaan. The insertion of a generation in which Canaan is the father of Cush and Mizraim rather than their brother makes the Ethiopians and Egyptians descendants of the

Pseudo-Eupolemus

711

the brother of Mizraim, the father of the Egyptians. The Greeks claim that Atlas discovered astrology. Atlas and Enoch are the same person. Enoch had a son, Methuselah who came to know everything through the agency of angels and, in this way, we came to know [about these things]. Fragment 2 (Praep. ev. 9.18.2)

In anonymous sources we discover that Abraham traces his ancestry back to the giants. While they resided in Babylonia, they were destroyed by the gods for their impiety. One of them, Belus, escaped death, took up residence in Babylon, built a tower, and lived in it. It was named Belus after the Belus who built it. After Abraham had been educated in the science of astrology, he went first to Phoenicia and taught the Phoenicians astrology, and later came to Egypt. Phoenicians! Asbolus the augur was mentioned by Hesiod, [Scut.] 185. His name, asbolus, means “soot,” which probably explains how he came to be the ancestor of the Ethiopians. The Greeks claim that Atlas discovered astrology This is attested in numerous Greek sources.18 Pseudo-Eupolemus identified Atlas with Enoch. The practice of identifying a god with a human is known as Euhemerism after Euhemerus whose Sacred History claimed that a pillar in a temple on the island of Panchaea related the history of the Olympian deities. The Greek gods were originally humans whose extraordinary contributions led them to be divinized.19 PseudoEupolemus has both undercut Greek mythology and recast the ancestors of the Samaritans and Jews. It is not simply that Atlas has been reduced to human status, but that Enoch is now given a Hellenistic frame of reference. Methuselah who came to know everything through the agency of angels This is a tradition shared with 1Qap Gen 2.19–21 and 1 En. 106:13. 9.18.2 The second fragment provides a summary of the first, second, and fourth episodes of fragment 1. The result is that fragment 2 concentrates on Abraham’s role as the bringer of culture, although only as a vehicle for transmission rather than a discoverer as in fragment 1. It shares the same basic geographic orientation as that found in fragment 1 by tracing Abraham’s movements from Babylon to Phoenicia and then to Egypt. they were destroyed by the gods for their impiety Fragment 1 (= Praep. ev. 9.17.3) said that they were destroyed “by the action of God.” Fragment 2 adds the reason for the destruction. It may be that fragment 2 assumes that the Flood destroyed them, while fragment 1 situates them after the Flood. The use of the plural “gods” is striking. While this could be a literal translation of the Hebrew elohim (“gods” but understood as “God”), the LXX routinely translates this correctly with the singular theos (“God”). The plural might be the work of the epitomist.

Notes Praep. ev. 9.17.2–9, Eupolemus; 9.18.1, Artapanus; and 9.18.2, anonymous authors. So Doran, “Pseudo-Eupolemus,” 2:873–74, 878. Freudenthal, Alexander Polyhistor, 82–91. The Samaritans counted the Ninth and Tenth Commandments of the Ten Commandments as the ninth, and added a tenth that specified Mount Gerizim as the Temple mount (see the Samaritan Pentateuch at Exod. 20:17 and Deut. 5:18). See also John 4:20–22. 5. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 146–48, emphasizes the limits of the evidence. 6. For details see Sterling, Historiography & Self-Definition, 195–204.

1. 2. 3. 4.

712

Gregory E. Sterling

7. Sterling, Historiography & Self-Definition, 17. 8. Artapanus, frag. 1 (Praep. ev. 9.18.1) claims that Abraham taught Pharaoh astrology; Jub. 12.16–21 suggests that Abraham learned about the one God through the heavenly bodies, a conviction that led to his departure; Abraham 68–71, states that Abraham was educated in Babylonian astrology, but learned that there was one God; Ant. 1.154–58, similarly argues that Abraham learned the reality of the one God through his observation of the celestial bodies, which led the Chaldeans to oppose him. 9. Ant. 12.258, 260. 10. See Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (7 vols.; Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1909–1938; reprint, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), 4:13–15 and 6:179. 11. Ant. 11.306–12. 12. Ant., 13.255–56. 13. Gen. 12:11–13, 19; 20:2, 5, 12–13, 16. 14. Doran, “Pseudo-Eupolemus,” 2:881. 15. All references to the fragmentary works of authors of the larger world are from Felix Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (3 vols. in 16 parts; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1929–63). Hereafter FGH. See Berossus, FGH 680 frag. 1. 16. Cited by Freudenthal, Alexander Polyhistor, 208. 17. Doran, “Pseudo-Eupolemus,” 2:881. 18. See, e.g., Herodotus of Heracleia, FGH 31 frag. 13; Dionysius Scytobrachioin, FGH 32 frag. 7; and Xenagorus of Heracleia, FGH 240 frag. 32. 19. Diodorus Siculus 6.1, provides an important citation from the lost work.

Pseudo-Eupolemus

713

Pseudo-Hecataeus, “On the Jews” Bezalel Bar-Kochva In Against Apion (1.183–205 and 2.43) Josephus presents a number of fragments and testimonia from a treatise named “On the Jews,” attributed to Hecataeus of Abdera. Hecataeus (ca. 300 bce), the father of “scientific ethnography,” was renowned for his great ethnographical work on Egypt, into which he included a rather reserved excursus on the Jewish people (Diodorus, Bib. hist. 40.3.1–8). The passages in Josephus, however, describe in a panegyric manner what is claimed to be the history of the Jews in the Persian and early Hellenistic periods, as well as a description of the Jerusalem Temple and the main characteristics of the Jews. The passages (and the treatise) were not alluded to by any other author in antiquity, save for Philo of Byblos (who may have been acquainted with the original treatise) and Eusebius (PE ix.4.2–9), who only quoted Josephus. Authorship and History Philo of Byblos (1st–2nd century ce) was the first to doubt the ascription of the treatise to Hecataeus (ap. Origen, C. Cels. I. 15). The question of authenticity was raised again in the 17th century and has gained momentum in the last two centuries. A close examination of the surviving material shows that almost all the statements and pieces of information are anachronistic, contradict the information at our disposal, or cannot be attributed to Hecataeus. This also renders redundant the suggestion that Josephus used a Jewish adaptation of Hecataeus. The anachronisms, as well as other features of the treatise, lead to the conclusion that it was written toward the end of the 2nd century bce (early in the reign of Alexander Jannaeus) by an Egyptian Jew, who belonged to the “moderate conservative” stream of the various groups of Alexandrian Jewry. This stream strictly adhered to the Torah precepts and to the use of the Hebrew Torah in the religious service and education, strongly rejecting allegorical methods for interpreting the Scripture. Although they were well versed in the Greek language and literature, these Jews seem to have avoided the study of philosophy and reading mythological literature, adopting a Greek curriculum of their own. With a keen interest and constant link with the Land of Judea, they identified themselves with Jews of the Holy Land rather than with their country of residence. The treatise can be regarded as a disguised manifesto of the “moderate conservatives.” Significance The writer’s main purpose seems to have been to legitimize and justify the continuation of Jewish residence in Egypt (implicitly prohibited by the Torah; see Deut. 17:16, 28:68) at a time when the Jewish state was beginning to flourish. The religious legitimation is provided by attributing the initiative for the Jewish settlement in Egypt to the high priest

714

in Jerusalem. This recalls the Letter of Aristeas, in which fictitious authorization by the Jerusalem high priest of the Greek translation of the Torah legitimizes this controversial move. Pseudo-Hecataeus politically justifies settlement in Egypt by indicating that the impetus for settling there was to create a strong and prosperous Egyptian Jewish community, one deeply involved in the political, economic, and especially military life of the Ptolemaic Empire, in order to enable Diaspora Jews to exert their influence on behalf of their kindred in the Holy Land. This explanation has drawn its inspiration from certain historical episodes in which the lobbying power of Egyptian Jews was indeed successful in helping the Hasmonean state, in one instance, at the beginning of Alexander Jannaeus’s reign, even saving it from reoccupation (102–101 bce; see Josephus, Ant. 13.285–87, 353–55). Suggested Reading Bar-Kochva, B. Pseudo-Hecataeus: "'On Abraham and the Egyptians' ascribed to Hecataeus.'" Tarbitz 70 (2001): 327–52. —. Pseudo-Hecataeus: “On the Jews.” Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996. —. The Image of the Jews in Greek Literature: The Hellenistic Period, 90–130. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2010. Doran, R. “Pseudo-Hecataeus.” In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, edited by J. H. Charlesworth, 2.905–19. New York: Doubleday, 1985. Holladay, C. R. Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, 1.277–335. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1983. Schürer, E. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, revised and edited by G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Goodman, 3/1.671–77. Edinburgh: Clark, 1986.

Translation Against Apion 1.183–205

183However, Hecataeus of Abdera, a philosopher and at the same time [a man] most competent in practical matters, having flourished at the time of King Alexander and being associated with Ptolemy son of Lagus, [referred to the Jews] not incidentally, but wrote a book on the Jews themselves, from which I want to present the highlights of some of the things said. 184And first of all I shall establish the date. He mentions the battle of Ptolemy against Demetrius near Gaza. That [battle] took place in the 11th year after Alexander’s death, in the 117th Olympiad, as Castor narrates. 185For under the head of that Olympiad he says: “In this Olympiad Ptolemy son of Lagus defeated Demetrius son of Antigonus who was called Poliorcetes.” And all agree that Alexander died in the 114th Olympiad. It is therefore clear that our nation was flourishing at his (Ptolemy’s) time as well as in that of Alexander.

Commentary Against Apion 1. 183. on the Jews Josephus refers to the contents as well as to the title of the treatise. 184. battle . . . near Gaza The battle of Gaza took place in 312 bce. Castor of Rhodes wrote a work named Chronological Tables, much used in the days of Josephus. Source of Translation: The translation is taken from Pseudo-Hecataeus (cited above), 46–53.

Pseudo-Hecataeus, “On the Jews”

715

186Moreover, Hecataeus goes on to say this: “After the battle at Gaza Ptolemy became master of the places in Syria; and many of the men, hearing of his kindness and humanity (philanthrōpia) wished to accompany him to Egypt and take part in the affairs [of the kingdom].” 187“One of them,” he (Hecataeus) says, “was Hezekiah, high priest of the Jews, a man at the age of around 66, highly thought of by his compatriots and not unintelligent in his mind and, moreover, an able speaker and experienced, if indeed anyone was, in [. . . and] the affairs.” 188“Although,” he (Hecataeus) says: “all the Jewish priests who receive the tithe of the produce and administer public matters number at most about 1,500.” 189And again, referring to the above-mentioned man: “This man,” he says, “having obtained this authority [and?] being well acquainted with us, assembled some of his men and read to them the whole advantage [scroll?]. For he possessed in writing their settling and constitution.” 186. Hecataeus Josephus quotes Hecataeus in order to prove, using Greek authors, that the Jewish people was not a “young” one as argued by anti-Jewish authors, but that its antiquity was recognized as such by distinguished Greeks. However, the most he could show from Hecataeus was that the Jews were a “mature” entity in the time of Alexander and Ptolemy I. his kindness and humanity Ptolemy I’s attitude to the inhabitants of Syria (including the Jews) is described by a number of Gentile and Jewish sources as the opposite of philanthrōpia and humanity (e.g., Josephus Ant. xii.3–6; Ap. I. 205–11; Diod. xix.93.7). This panegyric account could not have been written by a contemporary, even by one who served in the Ptolemaic court. The author of such a sentence could hardly be Hecataeus of Abdera. 187. Hezekiah There was no high priest named Hezekiah. The author could have meant only Hezekiah, the civil governor of Judea known from coins of the late Persian and early Hellenistic periods. He was described by “Hecataeus” as high priest in order to strengthen the main message of the treatise. 188. Although [kaitoi] . . . all the Jewish priests This reservation (unless kaitoi is emended to kai oti) obviously does not refer to the statement about Hezekiah quoted in para. 187, but to another sentence which preceded it in Pseudo-Hecataeus. Its precise contents and wording is anyone’s guess (for instance: “many people, like the Levites, served in the Temple . . . ”). An omission of a sentence or more appears from the introductory words to para. 188 (“he says”). Jewish priests Allocation of the tithes to the priests as an official duty (instead of to the Levites as in Num. 18:23–24) is attested at least from the times of John Hyrcanus (135–104 bce). The number of priests cannot be verified. It may refer only to priests occupied in public administration. 189. well acquainted with us This statement was preceded presumably by a reference to the negotiations between Hezekiah and the Ptolemaic court and to the authority bestowed on the Jewish official. According to the terminology and parallels from Greek foundation stories, it appears that Hezekiah is said to have asked for permission to establish Jewish settlements and was appointed by the court to lead them. advantage This word refers to the advantages and benefits to be found in the charter to establish Jewish settlements, or (by a slight correction of the text) to the scroll containing the charter. their settling and constitution Hezekiah read aloud a document containing the account of the foundation and the constitution of the new settlement(s). These were the two components of the “settlement decrees” usually also engraved on stone and/or written on a scroll in Greek colonies. There is no reason to reject the possibility that the foundation story held a kernel of truth. But the emigration was not a voluntary one, Hezekiah was not a high priest, and this was not

716 Bezalel Bar-Kochva

190Then Hecataeus in turn explains how we regard the laws, that we prefer to suffer everything in order not to transgress against them and [that] we consider it as virtuous. 191“So for example,” he says, “all being insulted by their neighbors and by those who came into [the country], and being frequently abused by the Persian kings and satraps, they could not be persuaded to change their way of thinking, but being exposed because of [their adherence to] them (the laws), they faced tortures and the most horrible deaths rather than deny their ancestral [laws].” 192He provided not a few proofs for the resolute mind with regard to the laws. For he says that once when Alexander was in Babylon and proposed to clear away the ruined Temple of Bel and ordered all the soldiers alike to carry the rubble, only the Jews did not apply themselves to [it], but submitted to many floggings and paid heavy penalties, until the king agreed to grant them indemnity. 193He says yet further: “They destroyed all the temples and altars constructed by those coming to the land against them, for some of which they paid a fine to the satraps and for others they obtained forgiveness.” And he adds that it is just to admire them for these [actions]. 194And he also relates how our nation became overpopulated. “The Persians,” he says, “had formerly deported many tens of thousands of them to Babylon, and after Alexander’s death, no less immigrated to Egypt and Phoenicia because of the turbulence in Syria.” 195And this man himself also recorded the size of the land in which we live and its beauty. He says: “They possess almost 300 myriads [3,000,000] of arourae of the best and most fertile land for all products. Such is the extent of Judea.” 196Indeed he thus also relates that we inhabit Jerusalem, that city,

the beginning of Jewish settlement in Egypt (as seems to be indicated). Jews emigrated to Egypt from the late generations of the First Temple, in the days of Jeremiah, and Jewish settlements are known from the Elephantine Papyri. The deliberate mistakes serve the purpose of the book. 191. they faced tortures This martyrology inevitably echoes events that occurred during the persecutions of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (168–164 bce). There were no such religious persecutions in the Persian period (on the stories in the book of Daniel, see Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, 91–97). 192 There is no independent verification for the participation of Jews in Alexander’s army. The rebuilding of the Temple of Bel is well attested elsewhere. 193. and he adds that it is just to admire them for these [actions] The phrasing “and he adds” indicates that it is not a Josephan addition. It obviously could not have been written by a Greek author. Hecataeus’s positive attitude to paganism is reflected in the remains of his works. 194. the Persians There is a brief reference in Eusebius’s Chronicon to deportation in the late Persian period. It has been connected by scholars to one of the local rebellions in Syria and Phoenicia, presumably in the aftermath of the rebellion led by Tennes, the Sidonian king (348 bce). The number of the deported may be considerably exaggerated. turbulence in Syria This explanation could hardly have been written by a contemporary. The military confrontations between the armies of the Successors took place in the coastal plain (“Phoenicia”), not in the rather isolated Judean hills. 195. 300 myriads Three million arourae (a Ptolemaic unit of measure) equals 8,300 square kilometers. This was the size of Judea in its enlarged borders at the late years of John Hyrcanus’s reign and the early days of Alexander Jannaeus (last decade of the 2nd century bce), after the Hasmoneans annexed Samaria and Idumea to the Jewish state. In the time of Hecataeus, Judea occupied no more than 2,700 square kilometers and was far from fertile, a third of it being desert.

Pseudo-Hecataeus, “On the Jews”

717

the most beautiful and the greatest, from time immemorial, and the same [man relates] thus about the great number of people and the building of the Temple. 197“There are many fortresses of the Jews throughout the country, as well as villages, but only one fortified city, of about 50 stadia [in] circumference, which is inhabited by about 12 myriads [120,000] of people, and is called by them Jerusalem. 198There is there, nearly in the center of the city, a stone wall, 5 plethora long and 100 cubits wide, having double gates inside which there is a square altar, not of hewn, but of collected, unwrought stones, so constructed: 20 cubits long and 10 cubits high, and beside it a great edifice where there is an altar and a lampstand, both covered with gold and weighing two talents. 199Upon these there is a light that is never extinguished night and day. And there are no statues, nor any votive offerings, and absolutely no plants, resembling neither a grove nor anything similar. And the

197. many fortresses The Jews did not, and could not, have “many fortresses” in the time of Hellenistic occupation. Nor were “many fortresses” occupied by the foreign reign (just one, the Jerusalem Akra, perhaps also Beth Zur close to the Idumean border). This anachronism reflects the times of Hasmonean independence. Jerusalem The circumference of Jerusalem (more than 9.5 kilometers) and the number of inhabitants is much exaggerated for the early Hellenistic period. The circumference of the city in the days of Hecataeus stood at 2.2 kilometers and in the time of John Hyrcanus at no more than 5 kilometers. The exaggeration appears also in Jewish works of the Hasmonean period, which found it necessary to glorify the Holy City in that way. The demographic figure is also much exaggerated for the Hasmonean period (in fact, around 40,000). 198. center of the city The Temple was “nearly in the center of the city” under the Hasmonean rulers. In the early Hellenistic period it was well separated from the “City of David” (500 meters to the south), where most of the population was concentrated. 5 plethora long and 100 cubits wide The stone wall was about 154 meters x 51 meters. Judas Maccabaeus built a wall around the Temple after its purification in 164 bce (1 Macc. 4:59–60). There is no evidence for the existence of such a wall earlier. square altar This was the offering altar. The author does not provide any explanation for its primitive construction, which must have appeared strange to a Greek used to magnificent altars, and especially when the magnificent golden altar is also mentioned. The real Hecataeus provides causal explanations for every Jewish custom in his original excursus on the Jews. There are none in the remains of “On the Jews,” even when an explanation is badly needed. Had there been such an explanation in “On the Jews,” Josephus would not have failed to record it, as he himself was puzzled about this custom (Ant. iv.200). beside it a great edifice where there is an altar The reference is to the golden altar, also called “the incense altar” (Exod. 30:1–10). two talents The weight of the lamp alone was two talents (about 74 kilograms) (see Exod. 25:38–39; Temple Scroll 9.11). There is obviously some copying error in the text. The weight of the golden altar was not mentioned. 199. a light that is never extinguished This is reported with regard to the lamp and the offering altar in the times of the Second Temple (e.g., Josephus Ant. iii.199; Tamid 3.9, 6.1; Philo Spec. 1.285). The sentence suggests that the same practice was also observed in the golden-incense altar. nor any votive offerings and absolutely no plants The statement about the absence of votive offer-

718 Bezalel Bar-Kochva

priests pass their time night and day in it purifying themselves by certain [rituals] of purification and entirely abstaining from wine in the Temple.” 200And he further testifies that they served as soldiers under King Alexander and afterward under his successors. And the [actions] performed by a Jewish man, which he witnessed after he was on an expedition, I shall cite as well. 201Now he says thus: “Anyway when I was marching to the Red Sea, a certain Mosollamus was accompanying us, together with the rest of the Jewish cavalrymen who served us as an advance force. [Mosollamus was] a man with a robust mind and, as agreed by all, the best archer among Greeks and barbarians. 202So that man, when many went to and fro along the road, and a certain seer was watching the flight of the birds, and he (the seer) requested all of them to abstain [from all actions], asked why there were halting. 203The seer having pointed out the bird to him, and saying that if it (the bird) stays there, it is expedient for all to wait still longer, and if it rises and flies ahead, to advance, but if [it flies] behind, to withdraw at once. He [Mosollamus], after keeping silence and drawing his bow, shot and, hitting the bird, killed [it]. 204When the seer and some others became irritated and called down curses upon him, he (Mosollamus) said: ‘Why are you raving, [you] wretches?’ Then, taking the bird in his hands he said: ‘How, then, could this [bird], which did not provide for its own safety, say anything sound about our march? For had it been able to know the future, it would not have come to this place fearing that Mosollamus the Jew would draw his bow and kill it.’” 205But this should suffice concerning the evidence of Hecataeus. To those who want to learn more, the book is readily available.

ings and plants in the Jerusalem Temple may be directed against practices in the Oniad Temple at Leontopolis (see Josephus, Ant. 13.66; J.W. 7.428). This is well expected of a “conservative” Egyptian Jew who was loyal to the Jerusalem Temple. purification Purity is repeatedly demanded of the priest by the Pentateuch. According to the Mishnah (Mid. 1:2; Tamid 1:1), the priests also performed guard duties at night. This obviously required purity, and purification rituals were therefore carried out even at night (Mid. 1:9). abstaining from wine in the Temple See, for example, Lev. 10:8–11; cf. Ezek. 44:21; Josephus, J.W. 5.229. The exact and detailed acquaintance of the author with the Jerusalem Temple further suggests that the treatise was written by neither the original Hecataeus nor any other Gentile. 200. they served as soldiers under King Alexander There is no independent evidence for the participation of Jews in the campaigns of the 4th century bce. 201. Jewish cavalrymen Mounted archery was a demanding art of war, requiring long tradition, and confined to certain Asiatic tribes. It is hardly believable that Jews in the early Hellenistic period were already trained in this type of warfare and even had reached a high standard as appears from the story. 203. the bird There is no specification of the bird, as is customary in such cases in Greek literature. Only a few species were regarded as suitable for divination. The rules of Greek divination as we know them were very complicated. The simple rules described by the seer (which actually did not require a seer), show that the author did not have real knowledge of pagan divination. 204. had it been able to know the future Greeks did not believe that birds knew the future, but that their movements are directed by the gods to indicate the destiny to humans, the birds being unaware of it.

Pseudo-Hecataeus, “On the Jews”

719

Josephus, Against Apion 2.43

For he [Alexander the Great] honored our nation, as Hecataeus says about us, that because of the fairness and loyalty shown to him by the Jews, he annexed the land of Samaria to them free of tribute [aphorologēton]. 2.43. Hecataeus This testimonium appears at the beginning of the second book of Against Apion, where Josephus strives to prove that Hellenistic rulers showed good will toward the Jews and granted them privileges. Samaria Samaria was annexed to Judea only in the later years of the reign of John Hyrcanus (112– 107 bce). aphorologēton The phoros (tribute) symbolized the submission of ethnic groups or nations. Relating an exemption from the phoros in this case is impossible, all the more so when referring to an annexed territory. Such an exemption would mean recognition of Jewish independence. This statement can hardly be attributed to Hecataeus of Abdera, a contemporary of Alexander. Moreover, being dependent on the Ptolemaic court, he would not have said this in the days of Ptolemaic rule in the Holy Land. Privileges and concessions allegedly granted by Alexander were frequently presented by the Jews and others to the Successors and later rulers as binding precedents.

720 Bezalel Bar-Kochva

Theodotus, “On the Jews” Howard Jacobson Theodotus’s Greek epic poem, apparently called “On the Jews,” has survived in only 47 lines, with additional comments about the contexts of the fragments by the compiler. Of the eight fragments, seven clearly deal with Shechem and the events surrounding Jacob and his children with respect to that city. The remaining fragment (frag. 3) very likely provides background material for that story. If this is a representative sampling, then it would appear that Theodotus’s epic was entirely focused on one particular brief episode in Genesis (chap. 34), even though its title suggests something more. Authorship and History Theodotus’s fragments come to us, like most Hellenistic Jewish verse, in Alexander Polyhistor’s compilation, quoted by Eusebius. There is no good internal or external evidence for his dates, so the best we can do is put him before Alexander Polyhistor, that is, before the mid-1st century bce. As for his place, again no good evidence exists, but the writing of a Greek hexameter poem in the Homeric mode by a Jew (if such he was) would suggest Alexandria. We know nothing about the man Theodotus. Scholars have long debated if he was a Jew or a Samaritan. Many think the latter, for two main reasons: (1) the attentiveness of the author to Shechem, which appears to be the central focus of what still exists of the poem, and (2) the explicit designation of Shechem as “holy city.” The latter argument is not as strong as it has often seemed, because the use of the adjective “holy” is a Homeric convention and so may have no significance. Second, there is no reason to think that a Jew could not have called Shechem a “holy city” if that is what Samaritans called it. How often we hear a Christian saying “the holy city of Mecca” in spite of the fact that, for the speaker, the city is not necessarily holy. The arguments on the other side seem stronger. Polyhistor, at any rate, thought the poem was “On the Jews” and it is a lot more likely that a work on that topic was written by a Jew than by a Samaritan. In addition, the Samaritans (i.e., the inhabitants of Shechem) are depicted rather nastily in our fragments (especially frags. 2 and 7), more likely reflecting the views of a Jew than a Samaritan (though some argue that a Hellenistic Samaritan would have sympathized with the biblical sons of Jacob rather than with the aboriginal inhabitants of Shechem). Significance Unfortunately, we have no evidence for any subsequent influence of Theodotus’s work, either on Jewish or Christian authors. This could be very different if we had more than a meager 47 verses extant. In any event, even these are enough to show us how deeply the Jews of the time were embedded in Greek culture.

721

Suggested Readings Bull, R. J. “A Note on Theodotus’ Description of Shechem.” Harvard Theological Review 60 (1967): 221–27. Daise, M. “Samaritans, Seleucids, and the Epic of Theodotus.” JSP 17 (1998): 25–51. Feldman, L. H. “Philo, Pseudo-Philo, Josephus, and Theodotus on the Rape of Dinah.” JQR 94 (2004): 253–77. Holladay, C. R. Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, 2.51–204. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. Horst, P. W. van der. “Theodotus.” In Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading, and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible, edited by M. J. Mulder, 526–28. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. Ludwich, A. De Theodoti Carmine Graeco-Iudaico. Regimontii: Hartungiana, 1899.

Translation Fragment 1 (9.22.1)

1It was fertile, browsed by goats and well watered. 2Nor was it a long journey to go from the fields to the city. 3The people did not ever work dense thickets. 4From the city one could see quite close two mighty mountains, 5full of grass and woods. Between them 6is cut a narrow path. On the other side 7is visible watered Shechem, a holy city, 8built down below at the foot of the mountain. Around it a smooth wall 9ran at the foot, a defensive barrier on high. Fragment 2 (9.22.2)

10Let us tell the story from the point when Jacob came to the broad city 11of Shechem. Hamor ruled over his kinsmen, 12together with his son Shechem, very unyielding men.

Commentary Fragment 1 1. it was fertile The phrase refers to the fertility of Shechem and its environs in Samaria. 4. two mighty mountains These are Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal (see, e.g., Deut. 27:12–13). 7. Shechem, a holy city For the possible implications of the expression “holy city,” see introductory comments.

Fragment 2 10 The text is not certain. I translate Ludwich’s emendation. 12. very unyielding men The biblical narrative does not contain any such negative assessment of Hamor and Shechem. Source of Translation: The translation, from Eusebius’s Preparation for the Gospel, is my own.

722 Howard Jacobson

Fragment 3 (9.22.3)

13Jacob came to pasture-rich Syria and left behind 14the broad waters of the roaring Euphrates River. 15He had come there after fleeing the harsh rebuke 16of his brother. Laban gladly received him into his home. 17He was his cousin and was then 18the sole ruler of Syria, being of distinguished lineage. 19Laban consented and promised his youngest daughter in marriage to Jacob. 20But he did not at all intend that this would come about. 21Rather, he wove a plot and delivered Leah, 22his older daughter, to the man’s bed. Still, he did not 23deceive Jacob, who detected the deception 24and took the other daughter. He married both of them, his kin. 25To him were born 11 wise sons and a daughter Dinah, 26who had a beautiful appearance, an admirable figure and a blameless heart. Fragment 4 (9.22.6)

27For it is not lawful for the Hebrews 28to take sons-in-law or daughters-in-law from elsewhere into their homes, 29but only the person who professes to be of the same race.

Fragment 3 13. to pasture-rich Syria The adjective is undoubtedly an inference drawn from the proliferation of Jacob’s flocks in Gen. 30:37–43. Syria If we want to keep the text and also make contextual sense of this passage, then we must assume that Theodotus here uses “Syria” for Mesopotamia. 13–14. left behind . . . the roaring Euphrates River Jacob will have crossed the Euphrates en route to Mesopotamia, but lipen (“left behind”) is usually used for the starting point of a journey, not an intermediate point. Theodotus is careless. 17. his cousin The Bible’s Laban is Jacob’s uncle. Theodotus may be using the Greek anepsios (kin) loosely. To be sure, if one charts the genealogies of both Laban and Jacob, there is some degree of kinship. They were perhaps second cousins. 18. the sole ruler of Syria There is no indication in the Bible that Laban was the local ruler. Josephus (Ant. 1.286) describes him as a person of high standing. Some later Jewish sources do call him a king (Midrash VaYisau 3:2; Yalkut Shimoni VaYishlah 35 §235). 22–23. he did not deceive Jacob Theodotus evidently feels the need to defend Jacob’s wit, for in the Bible he certainly is deceived (Gen. 29:25). 25. 11 wise sons The number refers to the sons born in Mesopotamia.

Fragment 4 27–29 These lines could come either from a speech by Jacob and his sons to Hamor and Shechem or one by Hamor and Shechem, attempting to persuade their fellows to circumcise themselves

Theodotus, “On the Jews” 723

Fragment 5 (9.22.7)

30Now God himself, when he brought the noble Abraham out of his ancestral land, 31called to him from heaven and told the man to strip the flesh from his foreskin, 32together with all his household. 33And so he did. 34This is unchangeable, since God himself so ordered. Fragment 6 (9.22.9)

35For I am well aware of an oracle of God. 36He once said that he would grant 10 tribes to the children of Abraham. Fragment 7 (9.22.9)

37God did mislead the inhabitants of Shechem. For they did not honor 38anyone who came to them, whether wicked or good. Nor did they make just verdicts 39or judgments in their city. 40Their customary behavior was deadly. in order to contract marriages with Jacob’s family. Explicit mention of circumcision will have appeared in lines of the speech not preserved. The “race” issue probably comes from references to becoming “one kindred” at Gen. 34:16, 22.

Fragment 5 30–34 This fragment appears to belong to the same scene as the preceding one. Whoever the speaker is ( Jacob or one of his sons), he is explaining the history and significance of the rite of circumcision. 32. with all his household Similar references are found at Gen. 17:12–13, 27.

Fragment 6 35–36 These lines are labeled by Eusebius as the words of Simeon to his brother Levi, persuading him to take part in the killing of the Shechemites. There is nothing like this in the biblical narrative. 36. he once said Exactly how this oracle relates to the killing of the Shechemites is not clear. 10 tribes What the number 10 is doing here is unclear and no attempt at explaining it has been adequate. Some think it is an allusion to the 10 northern tribes of Israel, others to the Canaanite peoples of Gen. 15:19–21 (though this scarcely suits the language here).

Fragment 7 37–40 The biblical account says nothing about the character and morals of the Shechemites, leaving readers only to infer whatever they will from Shechem’s rape of Dinah. Theodotus seems to have turned the Shechemites into doublets of the inhabitants of Sodom to resolve the ethical problem of the destruction of many innocents. T. Levi 6:9–10 also describes the Shechemites as xenophobic.

724 Howard Jacobson

Fragment 8 (9.22.11)

41So then did Simeon rush against Hamor 42and struck him in the head. He grabbed his neck with his left hand, 43but let it go while it was still gasping, for another task had arisen. 44In the meantime, Levi the wild and mighty grabbed Shechem’s hair 45while the latter was clutching his knees and raging unspeakably. 46He ran him through the collarbone and his sharp sword entered 47his innards by way of the breastbone. Straightway, the spirit left his body.

Fragment 8 41–47 The Bible gives no graphic description of the brothers’ killing of Shechem and his father (cf. Gen. 34:25–26). Theodotus’s account is much more Homeric than biblical. See also T. Levi 6:4.

Theodotus, “On the Jews” 725

Philo, the Epic Poet Harold W. Attridge Fragments of an epic poem, On Jerusalem, written in the classic meter of dactylic hexameter, celebrate the story of Abraham and the physical wonders of Jerusalem. The poem was probably written in the 3rd or 2nd century bce by a Jewish author steeped in the new international culture of the Hellenistic world. The vocabulary and style of the work reflect the tastes of the literary culture of Alexandria in this period and show the degree to which Jews were becoming part of that dominant culture. At the time, learned poetry in the epic meter of Homer and Hesiod flourished. The prolific poet Callimachus, head of the library at Alexandria in the early 3rd century, composed a learned epic, Hecale, on an obscure figure of Greek mythology. In the same period Aratus’s Phaenomena put into hexameters the new astronomical learning of the period. Toward the end of the 3rd century, Apollonius of Rhodes composed his Argonautica, recounting the story of Jason, his Argonauts, and the quest for the golden fleece. That a Jewish author with Greek learning would attempt something similar is not surprising. The most striking feature of the poem is the dramatic evocation of the mysterious story of the Akedah (Genesis 22) to ground the sanctity of the city. A biblical story is here reworked in a new international literary idiom, celebrating Jewish tradition with sophisticated style. Authorship and History Nothing is known of the author of the poem. He is not to be confused with the Alexandrian philosopher and interpreter of the Bible, Philo, active in the 1st century ce. The epic poet must have lived at least a century before the philosopher, perhaps even earlier. His elaborate poetic vocabulary, evident even in the brief fragments that survive, suggests a level of learning to be expected in a major cultural center such as Alexandria. The fragments of Philo’s poetic work illustrate the degree of appropriation of Greek culture by some Jews in the Hellenistic period who used Greek forms to celebrate their heritage. The fragments of this poem were preserved by Alexander Polyhistor, a Greek scholar (ca. 105–135) originally brought to Rome as slave taken captive in the Mithridatic War. His extensive explorations of philosophy, geography, and history, of which only fragments remain, earned him the name “Polyhistor.” In the mid-1st century bce Alexander composed a work about the new eastern peoples brought under Roman domination by Pompey. Eusebius, the Christian historian and bishop of the 4th century, later cited those fragments in his Preparation for the Gospel, Book 9. Guide to Reading The first two closely connected fragments (Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.20.1) describe the Akedah, or Binding of Isaac, recounted in Gen. 22. The location of the fragment in a work on

726

Jerusalem attests the identification of Mt. Moriah with the Temple Mount in this period. A third fragment (Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.24.1) mentions the patriarchs, culminating in Joseph. Although the context is lost, the poem probably presented Jerusalem as a central feature in the promises to the ancestors of Israel. The poem thus fills a gap in the stories of Genesis, where Jerusalem does not appear as one of the cities in the land of Canaan visited by the patriarchs. Three final fragments (Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.37.1–3) describe physical features of the city, particularly its waterworks. Suggested Reading Collins, John J. Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora, 54–57. Grand Rapids mi: Eerdmans, 2000. —. “Spells Pleasing to God: The Binding of Isaac in Philo the Epic Poet.” In Jewish Cult and Hellenistic Culture: Essays on the Jewish Encounter with Hellenism and Roman Rule, 99–111. JSJ Sup 100. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Gutman, Yehoshua. “Philo the Epic Poet.” ScrHier, 1:39–63. Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1954. Holladay, Carl. Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors: Poets, 205–99. Vol 2. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989.

Translation Fragments 1 and 2 (from Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.20.1)

Eusebius introduces the poetic fragment by saying, “Philo speaks on this subject in the first book of his work On Jerusalem”: 1.1 A thousand times have I heard in the ancient laws how once 2 (when you achieved something)1 3 marvelous with the bonds’ knot, O far-famed Abraham, 4 resplendently did your God-beloved prayers abound in

Commentary 1:1. ancient laws The poet apparently refers to Torah. He may have in view the whole story of Abraham, but the focus of the following lines is clearly on the episode recounted in Genesis 22. 3. Marvelous Or perhaps “awesome,” a characterization of the impressive deed of Abraham. the bonds’ knot Refers to the action of Abraham who bound Isaac (Gen. 22:9), thus providing the traditional name of the episode, the Akedah or “Binding” of Isaac when God tested Abraham by asking him to sacrifice his only son. far-famed Abraham An epithet characteristic of epic diction describes Abraham, while the poet directly addresses him for dramatic effect. 4. God-beloved prayers The Greek is literally “God-beloved charms” or “spells.” The allusion is obscure, but may refer to Abraham’s remark to Isaac in Gen. 22:8 that “God himself will provide the lamb for a burnt offering.” Source of Translation: Attridge, Harold W. “Philo the Epic Poet.” In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, edited by James H. Charlesworth, 2:781–84. Garden City ny: Doubleday, 1985.

Philo, the Epic Poet 727

5 wondrous counsels. For when you left the beauteous garden 6 of dread plants, the praiseworthy thunderer quenched the pyre 7 and made his promise immortal. From that time forth 8 the offspring of that awesome born one have won far-hymned praise And so forth, to which he adds after a short while2. 2.1 as mortal hand readied the sword 2 with resolve, and crackling (wood) was gathered at the side, 3 he brought into his hands a horned ram. Fragment 3 (from Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.24.1)

Eusebius introduces the next fragment by remarking, “Philo, too, corroborates the sacred Scriptures in the first book of his work On Jerusalem, saying”: 3.1 For them the Most High, 2 great Lord of all created a most blessed spot, 3 even from of old, yea from the days of Abraham and Isaac 4 and Jacob, rich in children, from whom was Joseph, who was 5 interpreter of dreams for the scepter bearer on Egypt’s throne, 6 revolving time’s secrets with the flood of fate. Fragments 4 to 6 (from Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.37.1–3)

Eusebius writes, “Philo in his work On Jerusalem, says that there is a fountain and that it is dry in winter and full in summer. In his first book he says” 4.1 Above the swimmers is the most wondrous sight, another

5–6. garden of dread plants This obscure allusion may simply refer to Mt. Moriah. The plants would be fearsome because they had provided the wood for the pyre on which Isaac was to be burned. 6. praiseworthy thunderer An epic transformation of a biblical name of God. quenched the pyre Gen. 22 makes no mention of the pyre being either lit or quenched, although fragment 2, line 2 seems to presume that the fire is “crackling.” The expression must be a poetic reference to the divine intervention that halted the sacrificial killing of Isaac. 7. made his promise immortal As a result of Abraham’s test, God made Abraham a promise of numerous offspring by which nations would be blessed (Gen. 22:17–18). 8. offspring The people of Israel are in view. 2.3. horned ram The ram that would substitute for Isaac was caught in a thicket by its horns (Gen. 22:13). 3:2. spot The locale is probably Jerusalem, presented as the goal toward which patriarchal history pointed. A broader reference to the whole of the land might be in view, but the last fragment clearly focuses on the city. 6. Revolving time’s secrets with the flood of fate This obscure phrase probably refers to Joseph’s activities as interpreter of dreams, particularly in his visionary perception of years of plenty and years of famine (Gen. 41).

728 Harold W. Attridge

2 pool. Its sound, with that of the ruler’s baths, fills 3 the deep channel of the stream as it exits. And so forth, to which he adds, farther along, remarks concerning the filling 5.1 For the stream, gleaming on high, fed by moist 2 rains, rolls joyously under the neighboring towers, 3 and the dry and dusty soil on the plain 4 shows the fountain’s far-seen, marvelous deeds, the wonders of the nations and so forth. Then he goes on as follows concerning the high priest’s fountain and the way it empties out: 6.1 And on high do pipes pour out from channels 2 through the earth. 4:2. Pool The referent may be the Pool of Siloam. The “fountain” mentioned in the introduction by Eusebius would be the spring of Gihon, from which waters flowed via Hezekiah’s tunnel to the pool. ruler’s baths This may also be part of the waterworks connected with the Pool of Siloam. Or there may be an allusion to the description of water flowing from the future Temple in Ezekiel 47.

Notes 1. A line to this effect was probably omitted by accident. 2. This comment is by Eusebius. We do not know how much of the poem he omitted.

Philo, the Epic Poet 729

Ezekiel, the Tragedian Howard Jacobson Ezekiel’s Exagoge is a Greek play written after the model of the great classical tragedies of 5th-century bce Athens. If there was a genre called “Jewish Greek tragedy,” then it is the only example that we know of from the ancient world. We have fragments amounting to 269 lines, but we do not know how long the entire play actually was. What we do have breaks down neatly into five episodes: (1) A prologue speech delivered by Moses describes Jewish life in Egypt, his own life from birth to flight from Egypt, and his meeting the daughters of Raguel. (2) Some events at Midian, including a dream of Moses and an interpretation by Raguel, his father-in-law. (3) God appears to Moses at the burning bush and instructs him. (4) An Egyptian survivor reports on the destruction of the Egyptian army at the Red Sea. (5) A Jewish scout reports on the discovery of a good camping site in the desert. The Exagoge’s five episodes, or acts, are in accord with the Hellenistic “rule.” Indeed, it is the only Greek tragedy we know to follow this rule! In addition, the play repeatedly breaks the so-called Aristotelian unities of time and place and clearly is operating under a very different set of dramatic assumptions than did the 5th-century tragedians. Authorship and History There is no significant doubt that the Exagoge was written by a Greek Jew living in Alexandria, the center of hellenized Jewish life in the ancient world. As for the date of the work, we can say with certainty that the play was written between circa 280 bce and circa 50 bce. But a good case can be made for limiting the dates to 200–100 bce, based on the absence of any mention of the Land of Israel and the relationship of Alexandrian Jews to Greeks and Egyptians. Most of the extant fragments have reached us via quotations by the church father Eusebius, who himself tells us that he was taking his quotations from the 1stcentury bce scholar Alexander Polyhistor. No manuscripts of the play survive. We have no idea who Ezekiel was. But we can say that he was a Jew who knew both his Bible (in Greek) and exegetical traditions on the Bible. He was also highly familiar with Greek tragedy and shows significant knowledge of the plays of all three major 5th-century bce tragedians (Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides). Significance Both on the Greek side and on the Jewish one, the Exagoge is a work of major importance. Its fragments represent the most extensive remains of any Hellenistic tragedy—or indeed tragedian—and so Ezekiel becomes our most significant source of evidence for Hellenistic tragedy. For the student of Jewish literary history and thought, Ezekiel is one of our most important sources for the Hellenistic period in the Diaspora. In addition, he is one of our earliest sources of biblical exegesis and in some cases provides pieces of exegesis that do

730

not show up again until much later Rabbinic midrashic collections. There is some evidence that Philo and Josephus made use of the Exagoge, but other clear-cut evidence for its influence on either Jewish or Christian literature is lacking. Suggested Reading Fornaro, P. La voce fuori scena. Turin: Giapichelli, 1982. Heath, J. “Ezekiel Tragicus and Hellenistic Visuality: The Phoenix at Elim.” Journal of Theological Studies 57 (2006): 23–41. Holladay, C. R. Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, 2.301–529. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. Horst, P. W. van der. “Some Notes on the Exagoge of Ezekiel.” Mnemosyne 37 (1984): 354–75. Jacobson, H. The Exagoge of Ezekiel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. —. “Mysticism and Apocalyptic in Ezekiel’s Exagoge.” Illinois Classical Studies 6 (1981): 272–93. Winston, D. “New Light on an Old Drama.” Judaism 35 (1986): 109–13.

Translation 1Moses: When Jacob left Canaan he came to Egypt with seventy souls and fathered a great people that has suffered and been oppressed. 5Till this day we have been ill-treated by evil men and a powerful regime. For king Pharaoh, when he saw our people increasing in number, devised many plans against us. He afflicted us with brickwork 10and the hard labor of construction and he had turreted cities built by our ill-fated men. Then he ordered that the Hebrew male children be cast into the deep-flowing river. My mother hid me for three months

Commentary 1. when Jacob left Canaan Ezekiel follows the traditional practice of Greek tragedy, beginning his play with a lengthy prologue that sets the scene and provides important background information. 2. he came to Egypt with 70 souls Ezekiel closely follows the biblical narrative, beginning with the descent to Egypt of Jacob’s family and the ensuing persecution of the Israelites by the Pharaoh. 14. my mother hid me It is not until the 14th line that the audience becomes aware of the identity of the speaker. Such a delay in identifying the speaker of the prologue is also a common feature of Greek tragedy. Source of Translation: The translation is my own, from The Exagoge of Ezekiel (cited above).

Ezekiel, the Tragedian 731

15(so she told me). But when she could no longer escape detection, she dressed me and exposed me by the bank of the river in the thick and overgrown marsh. My sister Mariam stood guard nearby. Then the princess with her maidservants 20came down to bathe. When she saw me, she took me up and recognized that I was a Hebrew. My sister Mariam then ran up to her and spoke, “Shall I get a nursemaid for this child 25from the Hebrews?” The princess urged her on. Mariam went to fetch our mother who presently appeared and took me in her arms. The princess said to her, “Woman, nurse this child and I shall pay your wages.” 30She then named me Moses, because she had taken me from the watery river-bank. When my infancy had passed, my mother brought me to the princess’ palace, after telling me all about 35my lineage and God’s gifts. Accordingly, for the period of my youth, the princess gave me royal upbringing and education, as if I were her own son. But when I grew into an adult, 40I went forth from the royal palace at my spirit’s urging, to see the deeds and devices wrought by the king.

30–31. she then named me Moses, because she had taken me from the watery riverbank The etymology makes no more sense in the Greek than it does in English. It is simply grounded in the biblical text wherein a connection is made between the name Moshe (Moses) and the verb m-sh-h (to take, draw). Ezekiel nicely combines the biblical etymology with the occasional use in Greek prologues of name etymology. 34–35. after telling me all about my lineage and God’s gifts There is no such indication in the Bible. Ezekiel resolves a problem that inheres in the Bible’s narrative: how does Moses become aware that he is Jewish? 36–37. the princess gave me a royal upbringing and education This is our earliest testimony to Moses’s royal Egyptian education, a theme treated expansively by Philo (Moses 1.20–24) and found in the Christian Bible (Acts 7:22).

732 Howard Jacobson

First, I saw two men fighting, one a Hebrew, the other an Egyptian. I saw that we were alone, no one else was present. 45So I rescued my kinsman and slew the other. Then I buried him in the sand so that no one else should notice and disclose the killing. On the morrow I again saw two men fighting, this time men of the same race. 50I addressed one, “Why are you striking a weaker man?” He answered, “Who made you our judge and overseer? Or are you going to kill me, as you killed the man yesterday?” In fear I thought, “How has this become known?” 55The news quickly reached the king and he sought to take my life. When I heard this I left the country and have now in wandering come to this foreign land. 59Here are seven maidens coming. 60Sepphora: Stranger, this land is called Libya. It is inhabited by tribes of various peoples, Ethiopians, black men. One man is the ruler of the land:

42–43. I saw two men fighting, one a Hebrew, the other an Egyptian In the Bible the Egyptian is manifestly the aggressor, the Jew the victim. Why Ezekiel simply made it a fight between two men is not apparent. 48–49. I again saw two men fighting, this time men of the same race Ezekiel is vague, the Bible is clear: the two men are both Jews. Ezekiel leaves it open for readers/viewers who did not know the Bible to assume that both men are Egyptians. 57–58. I left the country and have now in my wandering come to this foreign land Ezekiel concludes his prologue, leaving us a scene familiar from classical Greek tragedy, the arrival in a foreign land of a hero killer in flight. 59. here are seven maidens coming The encounter depicted is grounded in Moses’s meeting with the daughters of Jethro (also called Raguel in the Greek Bible or Reuel in the Hebrew Bible) at the well in Midian (Exod. 2:16–17). 60–62. this land is called Libya. It is inhabited by tribes of various peoples, Ethiopians, black men In contrast, the Bible reports the place to be Midian. Ezekiel is thinking of Num. 12:1, where we hear of “the Cushite woman he had married.” Ezekiel identifies Sepphora with the wife mentioned in Numbers and makes the inference that Midian was in Africa. 62–65 In the Bible Jethro (=Raguel) is priest of Midian. Ezekiel and other postbiblical texts make him (also) a leader.1

Ezekiel, the Tragedian 733

he is both king and general. He rules the state, judges the people, 65and is priest. This man is my father and theirs. 66Chum: Sepphora, you must reveal this. Sepphora: My father has given me as spouse to this stranger. 68Moses: I had a vision of a great throne on the top of Mount Sinai and it reached till the folds of heaven. 70A noble man was sitting on it, with a crown and a large sceptre in his left hand. He beckoned to me with his right hand, so I approached and stood before the throne. He gave me the sceptre and instructed me to sit 75on the great throne. Then he gave me the royal crown and got up from the throne. I beheld the whole earth all around and saw beneath the earth and above the heavens. A multitude of stars fell before my knees 80and I counted them all. They paraded past me like a battalion of men. Then I awoke from my sleep in fear. 83Raguel: My friend, this is a good sign from God. 66. Sepphora, you must reveal this The character Chum does not exist in the Bible’s narrative. He may have been a suitor of Sepphora who is now disturbed to learn that she has been betrothed to Moses by her father. 68–89 The Bible contains nothing like this scene, in which Moses reports to Raguel a clearly significant dream and Raguel interprets it. Dreams with symbolic character are common in both the Bible and Greek literature. This particular dream displays the influence of both Jewish and classical Greek texts. Thus, for example, Moses’s observation of the cosmos probably derives ultimately from Abraham’s view of the heavens in Gen. 15. The attribution to a biblical figure of a significant dream that does not occur in the Bible is fairly common in postbiblical and midrashic literature. But elements of the dream and interpretation seem to show also the influence of Herodotus (e.g., 1.107–8) and Aeschylus’s Persians (176–214). In the latter, the queen-mother dreams of the downfall of her son, the Persian king, in battle. In addition, aspects of Moses’s dream seem to be perhaps the earliest evidence for Jewish mystical thought. Scholars debate whether Ezekiel is merely presenting such thought or is engaged in polemic against it. 72–75 Daniel 7:9–15 bears significant similarity. The divine being sits on his throne, a man approaches and is given sovereignty, glory, and kingly power. 80. I counted them all See Ps. 147:4, “He reckoned the number of the stars.”

734 Howard Jacobson

May I live to see the day when these things are fulfilled. 85You will establish a great throne, become a judge and leader of men. As for your vision of the whole earth, the world below and that above the heavens— this signifies that you will see what it is, what has been and what shall be. 90Moses: Ha, what is this portent from the bush, miraculous and hard to believe? the bush has suddenly burst into furious flame, yet all its foliage stays green and fresh. What is going on? I shall approach and examine this 95great miracle. For it is hard to believe. God: Halt, great sir. Moses, do not come near, until you have removed your shoes from your feet. For the ground on which you are standing is holy. The voice of God rings out to you from the bush. 100Have courage, my child, and hear my words— for that you, a mortal, should see my face is impossible. But you may hear those words of mine that I have come to speak to you. I am the God of your “patriarchs” (as you call them), 105Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. I have called them to mind, them and my gifts, and so I have come to save my people, the Hebrews. 85. you will establish a great throne This sentence and its implications are completely unbiblical. The notion of Moses as king developed in the Hellenistic period (e.g., Philo, Moses 1.148–49). 89. you will see what is, what has been, and what shall be The Bible contains no clear indication that Moses could foresee the future (he is called a nabi at Deut. 34:10). But the notion is occasionally present in postbiblical and midrashic texts (e.g., Exod. Rab. 40:2). 90–112 Ezekiel dramatizes the episode of the burning bush. The initial part of the scene is missing. Ezekiel repeatedly emphasizes the miraculous character of the event, in contrast to the Bible’s simple “this great sight” (Exod. 3:3). 93. its foliage stays green and fresh Ezekiel’s nonbiblical emphasis on the continuing greenness of the bush is found in Palestinian Midrash (e.g., Exod. Rab. 2:5) and Targum (Jer. Tg. at Exod. 3:2) and is grounded in a wordplay in the Hebrew text (lbs/ lvlv). 101. that you, a mortal, should see my face is impossible No such statement is present in the biblical narrative, but it may be implicit at Exod. 3:6, “Moses hid his face.” However, the principle involved has been adopted from Exod. 33:18–23. 106–7. I have called them to mind . . . and so I have come to save my people God never says anything like this in the burning bush scene, but the notion is present both closely before and after it (Exod. 2:24; 6:3–5).

Ezekiel, the Tragedian 735

For I have seen my servants’ suffering and distress. Now go, and report my words 110to all the Hebrews and then to the king my instructions to you, that you lead my people from the land. Moses: I am not articulate. My tongue is neither skilled at speech nor fluent. I cannot 115address the king. God: I shall soon send your brother Aaron and you will tell him everything I have spoken. He will speak before the king. You shall converse with me, Aaron will receive my instructions from you. 120God: What is that in your hands? Speak quickly. Moses: A rod wherewith to chastise beasts and men. God: Throw it on the ground and withdraw quickly. For it shall turn into a fearsome snake and you will marvel at it. Moses: There, I have thrown it down. Oh Master, be merciful. 125How dreadful, how monstrous. Have pity on me. I shudder at the sight, my limbs tremble. God: Have no fear. Reach out your hand and seize its tail. It shall turn back into a rod. Now put your hand into your bosom and withdraw it. 130Moses: There, I’ve done it. It’s become like snow. God: Put it back into your bosom and it shall be as it was before. 108. I have seen my servants’ suffering and distress The Bible’s story of the Exodus from Egypt contains no allusion to the concept of the Jewish people as “God’s slaves.” Elsewhere in the Bible it does occur (e.g., Lev. 25:42). Ezekiel’s introduction of the theme here is related to the Rabbinic exegesis that the escape from Egypt was a transition from bondage to Pharaoh to the proper state of being slaves to God (e.g., Pes. 5:5 [32c]). 113–19 Ezekiel abbreviates and tones down the emotional character of the biblical scene. In the latter Moses argues at length with God and even arouses his wrath. Ezekiel puts Moses in a more positive, less belligerent, light. Note too that Ezekiel avoids here the biblical Moses’s skepticism about the faith of the Jewish people (Exod. 4:1). 120–31 God performs two miracles for Moses. One has to assume that between lines 119 and 120 there was further dialogue between God and Moses, which concluded with Moses’s saying something like, “What if Pharaoh refuses to listen to us?” 130. it’s become like snow Ezekiel reflects the Septuagint text (Exod. 4:6), “his hand became like snow.” The original (Hebrew) text has, “his hand became leprous, like snow.” The Greek translators were at pains to avoid the reference to leprosy, because there was a widespread anti-Semitic Egyptian claim that the Jews (including Moses) were actually a mob of lepers who were banished from Egypt (see Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.8).

736 Howard Jacobson

132God: With this rod you shall work all kinds of plagues. First, the river, all the springs and pools will flow blood. 135I shall bring a multitude of frogs and lice upon the land. Thereafter, I will sprinkle on them ashes from a furnace and fierce sores will erupt on their bodies. Flies will come and torment many of the Egyptians. Afterward there will come in its turn 140a pestilence and all who possess hard hearts will die. Then I will make the heavens violent: hail mixed with fire will descend and lay men dead. Crops and animals will be destroyed. I will bring darkness for three whole days 145and will send locusts which will destroy all the remaining crops and the young shoots. And after this I shall slay the firstborn children. Thus, I shall bring to an end the arrogance of this evil people. King Pharaoh shall suffer none of the plagues I have described, 150until he sees his firstborn son a corpse. Then in fear he will quickly send forth the people. Further, you will speak the following to the whole Hebrew people: “This month is for you the beginning of your years. In this month I shall bring the people into another land, 155as I promised the patriarchs of the Hebrew race.” 132–51 Important events are often presented in Greek drama via messenger speeches. Ezekiel presents the Egyptian plagues in a variation of that technique, a prophetic speech in God’s mouth. Ezekiel’s conception of the plagues is something like the Philonic (Moses 1.96–97) and Rabbinic one (Exod. Rab. 12:4), in which the 10 plagues are envisioned as three groups of three and one isolated plague. 139–40. there will come . . . a pestilence In the Bible the plague of pestilence affects only animals (Exod. 9:3), in Ezekiel only human beings. This may be related to Ps. 78:50, where the plague of pestilence appears to also affect human beings. In addition, postbiblical exegesis often made associations between this and the tenth plague. If Ezekiel was following this pattern, then human death here can be understood. 140. all who possess hard hearts will die Here we have the beginnings of the notion that the punishment of the Egyptians was penalty for their hardheartedness, a theme found in the early Church. 149–50. King Pharaoh shall suffer none of the plagues . . . until he sees his firstborn son a corpse The Greek text here is not clear. If this translation is correct, then Ezekiel is contradicting the Bible wherein Pharaoh does suffer from earlier plagues. There is some evidence in other postbiblical accounts for the limiting of Pharaoh’s suffering to the last plague (e.g., J. Tg. at Exod. 10:29). 152–74 After concluding his recitation of the plagues, God instructs Moses to transmit to the Jews the laws of Passover.

Ezekiel, the Tragedian 737

Tell the whole people that they should sacrifice the Pesach to God this month on the day of the full moon, before nightfall, and should daub the door with the blood, so that my dread messenger will pass them by. 160During the night you shall eat the roasted meat. Then the king will drive the whole people out in haste. But when you are about to leave, I will make the Egyptians well-disposed to you and each of your women will receive from her neighbor's vessels and raiment of all kinds, 165gold, silver and garments, so that the Egyptians shall render payment for the all the work the Jews have done. When you reach your own land, since you will have had a journey of seven days from that morning on which you left Egypt, 170you shall, for seven days a year, eat unleavened bread, and you shall worship God, sacrificing to Him the firstborn male animals, the offspring that the young mothers first bear and that open first their mothers’ wombs. 175On the tenth day of this month let the Hebrew men take for their families unblemished lambs or calves 160. during the night you shall eat the roasted meat This is intended to limit the time of eating to the nighttime, as in the Bible’s directions (Exod. 12:10). 166. the Egyptians shall render payment for all the work the Jews have done This is obviously an apologetic expansion of the Bible’s description of how the Jews demanded and received precious vessels from the Egyptians (Exod. 12:35–36) and is also a well-attested Rabbinic tradition (e.g., Sanh. 91a). Indeed, the biblical narrative here had become a prime element in anti-Semitic propaganda. The same Talmud passage also reports a debate on the matter between Jews and Egyptians before Alexander the Great. 167–71 The seven-day duration of the Passover holiday is founded on a seven-day journey of the Jews from Egypt. The Bible has nothing like this, not even a mention of a seven-day trip. Although some postbiblical sources ( Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.20–21; Seder Olam Rab. 5) do speak of a sevenday journey from Egypt, none seem to have a clear etiology for the length of the holiday. But this kind of etiology goes back to the biblical model: for example, God worked six days, then rested; so people are enjoined to keep a Sabbath after six days of work. Ezekiel was probably drawing on a current Jewish tradition. 169. that morning on which you left Egypt The Bible does not specify the time of day. Ezekiel was probably familiar with exegetical traditions that emphasized the Jews’ departure during the daytime (e.g., Sifre Deut. 128). 175–76. let the Hebrew men take for their families unblemished lambs or calves The Exodus narrative (12:5) limits the sacrifice to sheep and goats. But Deut. 16:2 enjoins sheep or cattle. Most

738 Howard Jacobson

and keep them until the fourteenth day. Then at evening you shall make the sacrifice and eat it all, including the innards, roasted.] 180In this fashion you should eat it, all girded up, with your shoes on your feet and your walking sticks in your hands. For the king will order that you be banished from the land in haste. But every man shall be summoned. And after you have sacrificed, 185take a handful of hyssop, dip it in the blood and touch it to the two doorposts, so that death will pass the Hebrews by. this festival you shall keep for the Lord, seven days of unleavened bread. No leaven shall be eaten. 190For you shall receive release from these evils and God grants you this month departure from Egypt. This month is the beginning of months and eras. Egyptian Messenger: For when king Pharaoh went forth with this multitude of men from his palace, with armed soldiers, 195all his cavalry, four-horsed chariots, soldiers on the flank and soldiers in the front ranks, there was an awesome host of men drawn up in battle formation. There were infantry in the middle and phalangists, but space was left for the chariots to pass through. 200On the left the horsemen were stationed, on the right were other Egyptians.

likely, Ezekiel simply follows the Deuteronomic text. For “for their families,” “family by family” would be better. 184. but every man shall be summoned If the text is correct, this alludes to the universal application of the Passover sacrificial rite, a theme common in the Bible and in postbiblical texts. “Will be summoned” reflects the Rabbinic principle that no one could partake of the Paschal sacrifice unless he had been previously registered (see Pes. 61a).2 189–90. no leaven shall be eaten. For you shall receive release from these evils The point derives from the ancient allegorical use of leaven for that which is evil or impure. Leaven then becomes a symbol of affliction that the Jews, in celebrating a festival of liberation from persecution, should refrain from eating. (Cf. J. Bek. 4:2;7d; B. Bek. 17a for Rabbinic texts that refer to the leaven as evil.) 193–242 The drowning of the Egyptians in the Red Sea and all the attendant events involved a degree of spectacle that Ezekiel could not have begun to think of representing on the stage. But it was common in Greek drama for scenes of warfare to be reported in messenger speeches. Ezekiel’s is heavily influenced by the messenger speech in Aeschylus’s Persians (353–432), reporting the great defeat of the Persians by the Greeks.

Ezekiel, the Tragedian 739

I inquired as to the total number of the army: it came to one million men. When my army overtook the Hebrews, 205they were lying in groups by the shore of the Red Sea. The men, worn out, were giving food to their children and wives. Flocks and household utensils were all around. 210They themselves were all unarmed and on seeing us cried out tearfully toward the heaven and their ancestral God. There was a great turmoil among the men. We in contrast were delighted. 215We pitched our camp opposite them— the place is called Beelzephon. Since the sun was on the verge of setting, we waited, desiring a morning battle: we were confident in our numbers and our fearsome weapons. 220Then, divine wonders and portents began to occur. A large pillar, looking like a cloud, suddenly appeared and took up a position between our camp and that of the Hebrews. Then their leader Moses took 225the staff of God with which he had previously wrought the prodigies and plagues against Egypt and striking the surface of the Red Sea he split it in two. All of them rushed energetically and swiftly through the sea’s pathway. 230We entered the path quickly, on their track. We hastened forward, but encountered night. Suddenly, the wheels of the chariots 203. it came to one million men This looks like a large round number to make a point. But in fact Jub. 48:14 also reports that the Egyptian host was one million. 224–28 The biblical narrative at Exod. 14:21 reports no striking of the sea, indeed the verse does not mention the rod at all. But the fact is that Josephus (Ant. 2.338) and Philo (Moses 1.177) also report that Moses struck the sea, as do some midrashic texts. It also appears to be so portrayed in a wall painting found in the 3rd-century synagogue at Dura-Europus. It is thus clear that such a version of the crossing of the Red Sea was widespread. Its roots seem to reside in the language of some verses in the Prophets (Isa. 11:15; Zech. 10:11). 231–32. we hastened forward, but encountered night Postbiblical tradition had it that the cloud that came between the two camps cast darkness on the Egyptians while providing light for the Jews.

740 Howard Jacobson

would not turn, as if they were bound fast. From the heavens came a great flash, as if 235of a fire. It seemed that God was helping them. When they had reached the other side, a large wave surged around us. One man, on seeing this, cried out: “Let us run back home and flee the power of the Supreme One. 240For He is helping them, but is wreaking our destruction.” Then the path was washed away and the army perished. Scout: Great Moses, take note of the place we have discovered, by that airy valley. 245It is over there, as, I think, you can see. From there a light flashed out at night, some sort of sign, a pillar of fire. There we discovered a shady meadow and springs of water. The spot is lush and abundant. 250Twelve springs issue forth from one rock, there are many strong and fruitful palm trees, seventy in all. And there is grassland with water round about, forage for our animals.

In Ezekiel’s account, this becomes the first of the series of miraculous—and disastrous—happenings that now befall the Egyptians (Exagoge 231–35). While this is a considerable embellishment over the biblical narrative, it is in line with traditions of multiple awesome events at the Red Sea (e.g., Ps. 106:22; Wis. 19:8). 233. as if they were bound fast Rabbinic texts report that the ground turned to mud under the chariots and so the wheels stuck.3 234–35. from the heavens came a great flash, as if of a fire This expansion of Exod. 14:24 has a long history. It seems already present at Ps. 77:19. 236–38. when they had reached the other side, a large wave surged around us Ezekiel belongs to the tradition that all the Jews were safely across before the Egyptians drowned (no such indication in the Bible). The Rabbis explained that this was intended to keep the Egyptians from thinking that the Jews had also drowned.4 243–69 This is yet another use by Ezekiel of the messenger speech. Context indicates that the messenger here is probably a scout sent to investigate the camping possibilities in the desert. Ezekiel elaborates the terse biblical statement that at Elim there were 12 springs and 70 palm trees (Exod. 15:27). Like Philo (Moses 1.188), Ezekiel makes Elim a wonderful oasis. Rabbinic tradition tended in the opposite direction, making the place’s natural character an inhospitable one. Ezekiel may here be under the influence of his Greek environment, for he appears to have made his scene a Hellenistic utopia. It appears that in The Exagoge Elim was the first encampment after the cross-

Ezekiel, the Tragedian 741

We saw something else too, a strange and remarkable creature, 255such as no man has ever seen before. He was about twice the size of an eagle and had multicolored wings. His breast was purplish and his legs red. From his neck 260saffron tresses hung beautifully. His head was like that of a cock. He gazed all around with his yellow eye which looked like a seed. He had the most wonderful voice. 265Indeed, it seemed that he was the king of all the birds. For all of them followed behind him in fear. He strode in front, like an exultant bull, lifting his foot in swift step.

ing of the sea. Ezekiel evidently left out the encampment at Marah (Exod. 15:23–26). This would be in keeping with Ezekiel’s general tendency to avoid biblical material that might put the Jews in a bad light. That Elim turns out to be a virtual utopia is taken as a sign of divine favor. 254–69 The scout continues his report with the sighting of a strange bird. There can be no doubt that this bird is the fabulous phoenix. One of our sources for this passage explicitly makes the identification. More important, comparisons with accounts of the phoenix guarantee the identification. Why did Ezekiel incorporate into a play on the Exodus the appearance of the phoenix, an appearance that is attested neither in the Bible nor in postbiblical Jewish sources? In general, appearances of the phoenix, which were very rare, were taken to mark a moment or an event of great magnitude. In addition, the tale of the phoenix is one of regeneration and rebirth. On both these counts, Ezekiel may have introduced the phoenix to signify the great import of the redemption of the Jewish people, itself a story of (metaphorical) rebirth. In addition, there was a Greco-Egyptian tradition that the phoenix appeared during the reign of Amasis (Tacitus, Annals 6.28). The latter was thought to be the Pharaoh at the time of the Exodus. Ezekiel—or some other Alexandrian Jew—will have then made an easy connection and established the phoenix as a sort of divine sign of the momentousness of the Exodus. Our fragments of The Exagoge come to an end with the description of the phoenix. Although some scholars suggest additional scenes, it seems very likely, though not certain, that the play indeed ended here.

Notes 1. E.g., Mekhilta d’ Rabbi Ismael, ed. H. S. Horovitz and I. A. Rabin ( Jerusalem 1970, 2nd ed), 190. 2. It should be noted that our text is somewhat suspect and a brilliant emendation yields, in place of “every man will be summoned,” “it shall be called Passover.” This could be right. 3. E.g., Horovitz and Rabin, Mekhilta, 190. See note 1 for details. 4. Horovitz and Rabin, Mekhilta, 113.

742 Howard Jacobson

Pseudo-Orpheus David E. Aune Orpheus was a legendary poet in Greek myth endowed with the gift of enchanting song. Two famous stories about Orpheus were circulated in the ancient world. One story narrates his unsuccessful attempt to bring his lost love, Eurydice, back from the dead by charming Hades with his music. The other relates his rescue of Jason and the Argonauts1 from the bewitching Sirens by countering their magical singing with his own more powerful song. Eventually, Orpheus was credited with several types of cryptic poetry, including oracles, healing songs, theogonies (accounts of the origins of the gods), and initiatory rites (rituals used to induct volunteers into semiprivate pagan religious sects). Pseudo-Orpheus (also called the Jewish Orphica, the Pseudo-orphic fragments, and the Testament of Orpheus) is a short hexameter revelatory poem supposedly spoken by Orpheus to his son or disciple Musaeus, in which he finally recognizes the error of polytheism and informs Musaeus about the nature of the one true God. Authorship and History The text known as the Jewish Orphica was freely revised by a series of anonymous authoreditors from as early as the late 3rd century bce until possibly as late as the 4th century ce.2 As a result, the Jewish Orphica has survived in a number of versions or recensions. Of these, scholars have identified four main recensions, normally referred to as A, B, C, and D, with each one slightly longer than its predecessor. The shortest and probably the most original form of the text is found in recension A (21 lines), written no earlier than the 3rd century bce, probably by a Hellenistic Jewish author. Recension B (31 lines), which includes some material on Abraham (lines 27–31), is an expanded version of A, clearly written by a Hellenistic Jewish author-editor in the 2nd century bce. Recension C (41 lines), which adds some material about Moses (lines 2, 41–42), is probably a revised version of Recension B, written by yet another Hellenistic Jewish author-editor, probably by the mid2nd century bce. Finally, Recension D (46 lines) seems to be a reworked version of recension C by a Christian author, writing as late as the 4th century ce, who reproduces nearly all of Recension C, frequently changing the wording and adding several lines referring to the incarnation of Jesus (lines 17–20). Recension C was cited in a commentary on the Pentateuch by the first Hellenistic Jewish philosopher, Aristobulus of Alexandria (ca. 160 bce). Aristobulus thought that many great Greek philosophers—he included the legendary Orpheus in their ranks, along with Pythagoras, Socrates, and Plato—were dependent for their ideas about God on the Torah. Believing that Orpheus had actually written the Orphic poem he cited in his commentary, he titled it Hieros Logos, or “Sacred Word,” a phrase indicating its dependence on the Torah, the ultimate Sacred Word. Later, the Christian historian Eusebius of Caesarea

743

(ca. 260–340 ce) quoted the same version of Jewish Orphica in his lengthy work Preparation for the Gospel (13.12.5), attributing it to the commentary by Aristobulus. Significance Many fragments of Orphic poetry survive in quotations in Greek writers beginning with Plato (427–347 bce). Orpheus occasionally appears in Jewish art, such as the frescoes in the amazingly well-preserved 3rd-century ce synagogue at Dura Europos, a Roman border city on the banks of the Euphrates in what is now Syria. Guide to Reading The translation that follows is based on the Greek text of Recension C. Suggested Reading Collins, John J. Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora. New York: Crossroad, 1983. Feldman, Louis, and Reinhold Meyer, eds. Jewish Life and Thought among Greeks and Romans: Primary Readings. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996. Georgi, Dieter. The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. Grant, Robert M. God and the One God. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986. Guthrie, W. K. C. Orpheus and Greek Religion: A Study of the Orphic Movement. London: Methuen, 1935. Reprint, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993. Holladay, Carl. Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. Vol. 4: Orphica. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. Lafarque, M. “Orphica: A New Translation and Introduction.” In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, edited by James H. Charlesworth, 2:795–801. Garden City: Doubleday, 1985. Laks, André, and Glenn W. Most. Studies on the Derveni Papyrus. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997. Mras, Karl. Eusebius Werke, Achter Band: Die Praeparatio Evangelica, part 2. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1956, 191–94. Schürer, Emil. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 bc–ad 135), revised by Geza Vermes, Fergus Mill, and Martin Goodman, 3.1:659–67. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986. West, M. L. The Orphic Poems. Oxford: Clarendon, 1983.

744 David E. Aune

Translation Recension C

1I will speak to those to whom it is permitted; shut the doors, you uninitiated ones, 2you who avoid both the laws of the righteous ones laid down by God 3for all at one time. But listen, child of the lightbearing Moon, 4aMusaeus, for I am about to proclaim the truth. 4bLet not what formerly 5appeared in your heart rob you of life itself. 6But pay attention to the divine

Commentary 1–4a. I will speak to those to whom it is permitted Using the language of the mystery religions of antiquity (voluntary, semiprivate religious sects that required secrecy and elaborate initiation rituals), these lines introduce the poem as a secret revelation intended for those belonging to an inner circle, though phrased as if for Musaeus alone. See also the comment on lines 38–41. 1. shut the doors A metaphor meaning “Don’t listen!” you uninitiated Those not formally initiated into a mystery cult and therefore not permitted to be present during the secret rituals (see also the comment on lines 1–4a). 2. righteous ones Refers to those who are initiated. 3. listen This exhortation announces the conclusion of the poem’s introduction, and is formally similar to proclamation formulas used in the Hebrew Bible to introduce prophetic oracles, such as “hear the word of the Lord” (1 Kings 22:19; 2 Chron. 18:18; Amos 7:16). Proclamation formulas are also used in Wisdom Literature, for example, in Prov. 7:24: “Now, sons, listen to me; / Pay attention to my words” (cf. Deut. 32:1; Prov. 4:1; Job 13:6). child of the light-bearing Moon Identified in Plato as Musaeus, offspring of the moon and the Muses (Resp. 364e). 4a. Musaeus A mythical singer of oracles often associated with Orpheus. Some Hellenistic Jews, as well as the Pythagorean philosopher Numenius, regarded “Musaeus” as the Greek name for Moses; this view would reverse the relationship assumed in the Jewish Orphica by casting Musaeus as the teacher of Orpheus (Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.27). 4b-5. what formerly appeared in your heart Meaning the pagan notions of god that Orpheus is seeking to correct through this special revelation to Musaeus. 5. rob you of life itself This is the end of a line in Homer’s Iliad (22.58). “Life” connotes a full life lived out in the knowledge of the true revelation. 6. divine Logos This phrase could mean several different things, based on how the word logos has been understood in the past. For the ancient Greek philosophers, “logos” meant the principle of reason that pervades the universe and was—for some schools of thought (e.g., the Stoics)— identical with God. For Philo of Alexandria (20 bce–50 ce), “divine Logos” referred sometimes to a mediator between God and creation, and sometimes to the sensible world, based on the Platonic notion of the Idea or Logos as a divine model or plan in the mind of God. Finally, “Logos” can mean “word,” so that the phrase “divine word” could be identical with the Torah.

Source of Translation: The translation is my own, based on the Greek text found in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 13.12.5, in the edition of Mras, Eusebius Werke, Achter Band (cited above). Unless otherwise noted, Masoretic Text (MT) translations are taken from the New Jewish Publication Society (NJPS) translation of the Tanakh.

Pseudo-Orpheus

745

Logos, and attend to it, 7ruling that intelligent organ, the heart. And set out ably 8on the course, looking only to the Immortal One who has formed the cosmos. 9An ancient saying provides information about Him: 10“He is one, of Himself self-generated, and by Him are all things completed,” 11and among them He himself goes about and none of those 12with mortal souls sees Him, but He is seen with the mind. 13And He himself from good things does not make evil for mortal 14men, yet discord and hatred accompany him. 15With war and plague and tearful suffering. 16And there is no other. But you would easily understand all things. 17If you would see Him. Before then, here upon the earth 18my child, I will show you, when I see His 19footprints and the powerful hand of the mighty God. 20But Him I do not see; for all around Him a cloud has been set. 21For me, yet it stands tenfold for other people. 7. ruling that intelligent organ, the heart For ancient Greeks, including Aristotle, the heart was the seat of intelligence as well as memory and emotions. Even for Stoics, the “governing principle” of the body was situated in the heart (Diogenes Laertius, Lives 7.159). Here it is the “divine Logos” (Ps.-orph. 5) that humans must allow to rule their lives. 8. the Immortal One who has formed the cosmos Emphasizes the sovereignty of God in creating the universe, a role never assigned to either Zeus or Jupiter in Greek and Roman mythology. In continuity with many texts that were eventually included in the Bible, Judaism continued to maintain that God alone made the world. The title “Immortal One” was a frequent Greek epithet for the gods, used to contrast them with mortal humans. 10–21 This section centers on the oneness, sovereignty, and transcendence of God, using motifs drawn from popular Hellenistic philosophical conceptions of the one God that were adopted by Hellenistic Judaism. According to Aristobulus, Orpheus (like Pythagoras, Socrates, and Plato) was dependent on Moses. 10. He is one alludes to the affirmation of divine unity emphasized in the Shema, the central prayer of Jewish liturgy and the first word of three passages from the Torah (Deut. 6:4–9; cf. M. Ber. 2:2). The Jewish historian Josephus (37–ca. 100 ce) traced the doctrine concerning the oneness of God back to Abraham, the first advocate of monotheism (Ant. 1.154–56). Theophilus of Antioch, a Christian apologist writing around 180 ce, claimed that Orpheus, wrote his Testament at the end of his life and rejected the 365 gods, claiming that there is only one God (Autol. 3.2). self-generated Emphasizes the fact that God alone is the basis for his own being. and by him are all things completed In Pseudo-Aristotle, On the Universe 379b–410a (2nd–1st centuries bce), the unknown author states, “All things are from God and were constituted for us by God,” reflecting the kind of monotheism maintained by Hellenistic philosophers. 13 This line is a doublet of line 21, found only here in Recension D. 16. And there is no other An allusion to the exclusive divine claim in Deut. 4:35: “It has been clearly demonstrated to you that the Lord alone is God; there is none beside Him”; and Deut. 32:39: “See, then, that I, I am He; / There is no god beside Me.”3 18. My child Here, the author alludes to the tradition that Musaeus is the son of Orpheus (Library 4.25.1); the 2nd-century Christian apologist Tatian speaks of Musaeus as a disciple of Orpheus (Against the Greeks 39). In some forms of biblical Wisdom Literature, “my child” is often an affectionate term for a disciple (e.g., Prov. 2:1; 3:1; 4:10, 20; 5:1). 20–21. around him a cloud has been set God is inaccessible to humans and even, ultimately, to Orpheus himself. The cloud in this image acts as a visual symbol of the presence yet hiddenness

746 David E. Aune

22For no one among mortals could see the ruler of men, 23except a certain unique person, by descent a branch of the 24Chaldean people, for he was learned in following the path of the sun 25and the move-

of God. In the Exodus story, God leads his people in a pillar of cloud (Exod. 13:20–22); clouds conceal God as part of the appearance of God on Mount Sinai (Exod. 13:12; alluded to in Ps. 18:12; 105:39); in the Tent of Meeting a cloud representing the presence of God fills the most holy place (Exod. 33:9, 10; 40:34–38), just as the later Temple of Solomon is filled with a cloud of God’s glory (1 Kings 8:10–11; 2 Chron. 5:13–14). 21. yet it stands tenfold for other people Even though the one God is hidden from Orpheus, he is even more hidden from others. 22–28 This passage was added to Recension A by the editor of Recension B, and included in Recension C (the basis of the present translation). 22. For no one among mortals could see the ruler of men In Exod. 33:17–23, Moses asks to see the Presence of God, to which God responds: “you cannot see My face, for man may not see Me and live” (v. 20). The invisibility of God was emphasized sometimes in Greek and Roman sources, but particularly in early Judaism. Philo of Alexandria, the Middle Platonic Jewish philosopher, referred to “the Maker of the whole universe, whose nature is invisible and inscrutable not only by the eye, but by the mind . . .” (Spec. Laws 2.165) and according to Tg. Neof. I to Exod. 33:23: “it is not possible for you to see the face of the Glory of my Shekinah.”4 There are many Rabbinic sources on this theme; one contrasting view, found in Sifra Nedavah 1:2 and Sifre Numbers 103 is that people do not see God in their lifetime, but when they die; according to this view, God is only invisible to some people. 23. Except a certain unique person Refers to Abraham, who alone is said to have seen God. The Torah mentions several times that “the Lord appeared to Abram” (Gen. 12:7; 17:1) and once that “Abraham remained standing before the Lord” (Gen. 18:22), though the text provides no details about these appearances. Targum Ps.-Jonathan to Gen. 18:1: “The Glory of the Lord was revealed to him at the Vision of Mamre.”5 Genesis Rabbah also claims that Abraham was unique in receiving revelation. 24–28. Chaldean . . . for he was learned in following the path of the sun The implication of Abraham’s Chaldean origins is that he has knowledge of astrology. The Chaldeans, who lived in Chaldaea at the head of the Persian Gulf, the traditional home of Abraham, had an ancient reputation as astrologers and astronomers. The Aramaic sections of Daniel (2:5, 10; 4:4; 5:7, 11) describe them as magicians. These lines present him positively as an astrologer, a tradition regarded negatively in both Jubilees (12:16–18), Philo (De Abrahamo 71) and Genesis Rabbah 44:5, which summarize the view of a majority of sages: “you are a prophet, not an astrologer.” They are probably based on Gen. 15:5, where God tells Abraham to look at the sky and count the stars. Amplified in Jub. 12:16–18, this tradition was eventually developed to the point that Abraham is credited with a knowledge of the cosmos ( Josephus, Ant. 1.155–56) and he even becomes a full-fledged astrologer in two fragments preserved by Eusebius, the first by Pseudo-Eupolemus, who claims that Enoch taught Abraham astrology, and the second by an anonymous author, who claims that Abraham taught astrology in Palestine and Egypt (Praep. ev. 9.17.2; 9.18.2). Greeks and Romans also associated Abraham with the science of astrology.6 24. Chaldean people Refers to Abraham’s origins in Ur of the Chaldeans in Mesopotamia (Gen. 11:31– 32). Philo regarded both Moses (Moses 1.5) and Abraham (Abraham 70) as being of Chaldean

Pseudo-Orpheus

747

ment of the sphere as it rotates around the earth, 26in circles regularly, each on its own axis. 27And the winds He guides around the air and streams 28of water. And He reveals a meteor of flame produced by His might. 29And He Himself is established over the great heaven 30on a golden throne, and earth lies under His feet. 31and around the ends of the ocean His right hand 32He stretches, and the foundation of the mountains trembles within violently. 33And it is not possible to endure His mighty force. But in every way 34He is heavenly, and completes all things on earth. 35Since He controls their beginning as well as their middle and end. 36As a word of the ancients, as one born in the underbrush proclaimed 37he received teaching from God in the two tablets of the law.

origin, yet it is probably Abraham that the author has in mind because of the traditional association of Abraham with astrology (see the previous comment). 25. the sphere as it rotates The ancient Greeks believed that the earth, as well as the sun and moon, were spherical (the perfect shape) and that they rotated. 29–32 The insertion of Abrahamic material in lines 25–31 is awkwardly followed by material that centers on God, not on Abraham, in lines 29–32. Though God is not explicitly named, the editor makes the new subject clear by the transitional phrase “And he himself ” (line 29). 30. On a golden throne, and earth lies under his feet An allusion to Isa. 66:1: “Thus said the Lord: / The heaven is My throne / And the earth is My footstool,” emphasizing divine sovereignty. “On a golden throne” reflects the Hebrew Bible metaphor that God has a heavenly throne (Isa. 6:1; Ps. 11:4; 45:7; 47:8; 103:19), symbolizing his sovereignty over creation. 30–31. his feet . . . his right hand Anthropomorphic language such as this is common in the Hebrew Bible but was alien to the world of Hellenistic philosophical thought, suggesting that the authoreditor lives in both worlds. 32 The trembling of the mountains before God reflects the language of theophany (i.e., manifestations of God) in the Hebrew Bible; see, for example, Ps. 114:7: “Tremble, O earth, at the presence of the Lord.”7 35. he controls their beginning as well as their middle and end A phrase based on an ancient Greek way of describing the one God. A fragment of an Orphic poem preserved in the Derveni Papyrus (350 bce) contains this phrase: “Zeus is the beginning, Zeus is the middle, all things are fulfilled by Zeus” (see also Plato, Leg. 4.715e). In Isa. 44:6, God says “I am the first and I am the last” (cf. Isa. 41:4; 48:12). Josephus, in discussing the significance of the First Commandment, explains that “God is the beginning, the middle, and the end of all things” (Ag. Ap. 2.190). A talmudic tradition maintains that God is signified by the Hebrew word emet (truth), because it contains the first, middle, and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet ( J. Sanh. 18a). 36–37 These lines describe a primary aspect of Moses’s ministry: he proclaimed a word of the ancients, i.e., that God controls the beginning, middle and end of all things (see Ps.-Orph. 40). 36. as one born in the underbrush Refers to the famous story of Moses’s birth and concealment in a wicker basket “among the reeds by the bank of the Nile” (Exod. 2:1–4). 37. He received teaching from God in the two tablets of the law That is, the Ten Commandments, written by the finger of God and received by Moses (Exod. 31:18; Deut. 4:13; 5:22; 10:1–5).

748 David E. Aune

38To reveal any more to you is not permitted. My limbs tremble. 39By thought from above He governs over everything in orderly fashion. 40O child, be close to Him in your mind 41And do not abandon this divine message, but rather preserve it in your heart.

38–41 These lines form the conclusion to the poem, which begins the way it ends by using language based on the secrecy of ancient Greek mystery cults, namely that it “is not permitted” to reveal to anyone the details of what cult members have learned. 41. this divine message Refers to the teaching of Orpheus that centers on the oneness of God and his sovereignty over all creation. preserve it in your heart Orpheus tells Musaeus to internalize the commands of God, a concept sometimes expressed in the Hebrew Bible as “Write them on the tablet of your mind” (Prov. 3:3; 7:3). The same phrase occurs in Deut. 11:18 (part of the Shema and the origin of tefillin or phylacteries): “Therefore impress these My words upon your very heart: bind them as a sign on your hand and let them serve as a symbol on your forehead.”

Notes 1. Jason, a hero of Greek myth, was the son Aeson and leader of the Argonauts. One of his main adventures was his successful quest for the golden fleece guarded by a dragon near Colchis on the ship Argo manned by the Argonauts. 2. This discussion is largely based on the view of Carl Holladay, Orphica, vol. 4 of Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), 43–95. 3. See also 1 Kings 8:60; Isa. 44:6, 45:5, 8, 14, 21, 22, 46:9; Joel 2:27. 4. Martin Mcnamara, MSC, Targum Neofiti 1: Exodus: Translated with Introduction and Apparatus, The Aramaic Bible, vol. 2 (Collegeville mn: Liturgical Press, 1994), 13. 5. Michael Maher, MSC, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis: Translated with Introduction and Notes, The Aramaic Bible, vol. 1B (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1992), 66. 6. Feldman and Meyer, Jewish Life and Thought, 114–15. 7. See also Exod. 19:18; Isa. 24:18, 41:5; Ps. 18:8, 46:3, 96:9, 97:4.

Pseudo-Orpheus

749

Pseudo-Philo, On Samson and On Jonah Gohar Muradyan and Aram Topchyan The homilies On Samson and On Jonah are rhetorically embellished literary elaborations or paraphrases of two compact biblical stories. On Samson, drawn from Judg. 13–14, tells of Samson’s birth (about the half of the homily describes its circumstances); his youth and killing of the lion; his marriage with a Philistine woman; his famous riddle; and the murder of 30 Philistines ( Judg. 13–14). On Jonah is the story of the disobedient prophet Jonah, who tried to ignore God’s command and escape from God, narrated in the short book of Jonah. The main theme of On Samson, declared in 2:2, is “what Samson did thanks to his strength,” while chapter 1 is a kind of a preamble, telling briefly how Samson lost his strength in the episode with Delilah ( Judg. 16:4–19). The preamble to On Jonah, in which various craftsmen—and among them, God—are deemed more valuable than their instruments, resembles a rhetorical exercise. Authorship and History The two homilies were written in Greek: the biblical text underlying them is the Septuagint (LXX). Therefore, in some cases (On Jonah 27:3; On Samson 1:5; 15:3; 29:4; 22:2; 27:3; 30:5) the author’s biblical citations deviate from the Hebrew Bible and are identical with the the Armenian version of the LXX. Only in one case (On Samson 41:3) does the biblical quote come from the Hebrew Bible and its content deviates from the LXX. The homilies survive in an old Armenian translation, in about a dozen manuscripts, the oldest of which were copied in the latter half of the 13th century.1 In most of these manuscripts, they are transmitted as part of the Philonic corpus; thus, in Armenian (and maybe already in Greek) tradition these homilies were ascribed to Philo of Alexandria. In fact, On Samson and On Jonah seem to have been translated from Greek by the same person who translated Philo’s works (probably in the late 5th century2); this is apparent from his style, which literally imitates certain linguistic features of Greek. Aucher, the first editor of the homilies, published them as genuine works of Philo of Alexandria. He provided the text with a parallel Latin translation.3 Hans Lewy, a later editor, entitled his book The Pseudo-Philonic De Jona, thus calling into question the assumption of Philonic authorship. Indeed, Philo is not likely to have written the homilies: the approaches of Philo and Pseudo-Philo to the biblical text are quite different. Philo sequentially cites short biblical passages and gives their literal or allegorical interpretation (or both), whereas Pseudo-Philo has composed rhetorically embellished literary versions of biblical stories.4 Folker Siegert, who has thoroughly studied the two homilies, mentions no allusions to specific facts or to datable sources, except for the completion of the LXX translation in the early 2nd-century bce;5 this suggests that the homilies may have been written between this time and the 4th century ce, when Greek oratory flourished in Jewish synagogues.6 In On

750

Samson the biblical story is transferred from a rural to an urban environment whose milieu is suggestive of a city in the Greek-speaking world during the Roman period, in particular, Alexandria. An Alexandrian setting for the text’s composition also comports with these homilies having been transmitted together with Philo’s writings. Significance Siegert regards the art of preaching on sacred texts as an innovation of the Greek-speaking synagogue that was later taken over by Christianity. Before Aucher’s publication of these homilies, no text of this genre—i.e. any speech on a biblical text given during the synagogue liturgy—was known, and previously this art was attested only by indirect witnesses. A simple and archaic worldview characterizes these sermons, and they contain no philosophical reasoning. As for the rhetorical arrangement of the material, it is sophisticated and displays a finely honed skill in psychological analysis. In Siegert’s view, these texts are actual speeches delivered before a synagogue audience, not written compositions:7 it was a common practice in antiquity to declaim long, improvised speeches. These works belong to the genre of epideictic oratory, that is, they are panegyrics or encomia on Jewish heroes. The pomposity of florid and exuberant “Asianic” oratory8 is obvious throughout the text. Thus, the sermons are specimens of “entertainment,” with, of course, theological content: the main topic of On Jonah is “God’s philanthropy” and of On Samson, “the fair Jew.” Along with the stylistic affinity of the two homilies, Siegert notes many differences in their content and ideology; but this does not prevent him from supposing that the works might belong to the same author. Being a good orator, Pseudo-Philo was able to elaborate on his subject matter, although sometimes this leads him to quite contradictory conclusions. Furthermore, according to Siegert the sermons contain no direct references to the Law of Moses, which could explain why Christians have preserved such sermons rather many others that would have been nearer to the Rabbinic Midrash. But the textual absence of the Mosaic Law does not militate against a Jewish origin or against the sermons having been taken seriously by the Jewish community. Its absence in On Jonah can be explained by the sermon’s relationship to the afternoon reading on the Day of Atonement (Meg. 31a), which had a universal message: the story of the Ninevites’ repentance gave this day a meaning that is valid for all mankind. The biblical text of On Samson was the afternoon reading associated with Num. 4:21–7:89 and belonged to the Sabbath, when the Torah was present, and the preacher’s goal was to entertain the synagogue audience until sunset. On Samson and On Jonah were not only an integral part of the Armenian Corpus Philonicum but were also incorporated by Armenian commentators on Philo (from the 13th century onward) in one of the seven “cycles” or “series” of class lectures on Philonic writings. This cycle was called “Exodus”; it included Questions and Answers on Exodus 1–2; On the Special Laws 1.79–81, 131–61, 285–345; 3.1–7; On the Decalogue; Spec. Laws 3.8–63; and On Samson, On Jonah, and On God (De Deo). This series contains the interpretation of moral norms given in the form of the written Law not to all people but to a few righteous persons. According to an Armenian scholar, the triad On Samson—On Jonah—

Pseudo-Philo, On Samson, and On Jonah

751

On God represents the two highest virtues, namely piety and philanthropy in their relation to the creative and the lordly potencies of the Almighty.9 Guide to Reading In elaborating the biblical episodes, Pseudo-Philo uses various literary devices from the arsenal of rhetorical composition. He turns the laconic account of biblical events into detailed descriptions—for example, in the account of Samson tearing the lion (On Samson 27:8–10). He supplies his descriptions with elaborate interpretations; for example, in On Samson, his explanation of the angel’s likeness to God (On Samson 9:6–7); in On Jonah, his excursus on the possibility of deceiving humans and the impossibility of deceiving God when casting lots (On Jonah 11:6–8). At times Pseudo-Philo addresses his interpretations to an imaginary opponent (On Samson 26:1–7); to “one of the audience” (On Samson 35:1–6) or to “a listener” (On Samson 38:1–7). Among the typical rhetorical devices the author employs are comparisons: God is compared with a doctor (On Samson 7:1; On Jonah 2:1); the barrenness of Samson’s parents and their relations with the angel are compared with the story of Sarah and Abraham (On Samson 7:2–3; 14:3–8); Jonah’s tempest is compared with fire (On Jonah 8:3–4). PseudoPhilo also uses metaphor; for example, Jonah is a “rock” (On Jonah 7:4); his release from the belly of the fish is “childbirth,” and the fish carrying him inside is “pregnancy” (On Jonah 25:7–8). Long or short speeches are put in the mouths of the characters, for example, Samson’s speech at his wedding (On Samson 30:1–8); God’s command to Jonah (On Jonah 4–5); and Jonah’s prayer in the belly of the fish (On Jonah 19–26). Similarly, PseudoPhilo elaborates on the shorter remarks of the biblical characters, making them into real speeches; for example, Jonah’s proclamation to the Ninevites (On Jonah 27:1–5). PseudoPhilo also poses rhetorical questions (e.g., On Samson 34:1; 39:2, 5; On Jonah 3:1; 4:5); uses emotional appeals to the characters (On Samson 31:1; On Jonah 17:2); and addresses the audience (On Samson 10:1; 35:1; On Jonah 15:1). He presents a controversy surrounding a specific question, refers to contradictory opinions, and offers arguments against the position unacceptable to him (On Samson 23–24). He cites examples from Scripture to corroborate his view on a particular question (concerning patriarchs receiving various spirits: On Samson 25:2–4). The LXX is sometimes cited literally, but there are also examples of paraphrase. This too is characteristic of the rhetorical method of writing. For instance, “A man of God came to me, and his countenance was like the countenance of an angel of God, very awesome” ( Judg. 13:6) is paraphrased as: “But I saw ( . . . ) the venerable dignity and appearance of an angelic image with a shining and majestic countenance. I could learn from no one [but] from him what I saw, and I conjectured about his nature and his dwelling place. By his grandeur, he looked like a man of God and by the lucent brilliancy of his face, like a citizen of heaven, as if wearing the rays of a luminary” (On Samson 8:3–5). Pseudo-Philo also invents a new episode (the second assembly of the Ninevites [On Jonah 39]) and changes some details of the original stories (e.g., while in the LXX the sailors throw Jonah into the sea, here he jumps himself [On Jonah 14:3], perhaps to achieve a more dramatic effect).

752 Gohar Muradyan and Aram Topchyan

Suggested Reading Kennedy, G. The Art of Persuasion in Greece. Princeton nj: Princeton University Press, 1974. Lewy, H., The Pseudo-Philonic De Jona, Pt. 1: The Armenian Text with a Critical Introduction. London: Christophers, 1936. —. “Homily and Panegyrical Sermon.” In Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period (330 bc– ad 400), edited by Stanley E. Porter, 421–43. Leiden: Brill 1997. —. “Hellenistic Jewish Midrash, 1: Beginnings.” In Encyclopedia of Midrash. Biblical Interpretation in Formative Judaism, edited by J. Neusner and A. Avery-Peck, 1:199–220. Leiden: Brill, 2005. And “Hellenistic Jewish Midrash, 3: Developed Non-Allegorical Forms.” In Neusner and Avery-Peck, Encyclopedia of Midrash, 1:232–50. Lewy, H., and J. de Roulet, trans. Pseudo-Philon: Prédications synagogales, traduction, notes et commentaire par avec la collaboration de J. J. Aubert et N. Cochand (Sources Chrétiennes, 435). Paris: Cerf, 1999. Siegert, F., trans. Drei hellenistisch-jüdische Predigten. Vol. 1: Übersetzung aus dem Armenischen und sprachliche Erläuterungen. Vol. 2: Kommentar. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 20, 61. Tübingen: Mohr, 1980, 1992. Terian, A. Philonis Alexandrini De Animalibus. The Armenian Text with an Introduction, Translation, and Commentary. Studies in Hellenistic Judaism 1. Chico: Scholars Press, 1981. Vardazarjan, O. S. Filon Aleksandriĭskiĭ v vosprijatii armjanskogo srednevekovjja [The Perception of Philo of Alexandria in Medieval Armenia]. Yerevan: Lusabats’, 2006.

Translation of On Samson Chapter 1

(1) Now, after being pulled out from the vortex of ductility10 he was inundated with, and sank into

Commentary 1:1–6 Pseudo-Philo changes the sequence of events and starts his homily with the beginning of the end of the biblical story ( Judg. 16:16). In the continuation of his work, he never refers to Delilah and the treacherous cutting of Samson’s hair again, preferring to orate on other events of his life. Perhaps he begins On Samson with this dramatic episode to tempt the readers (or the audience) and capture their attention for what follows. He regards Samson’s irresistible lust as the main reason for his defeat, describing it in pompous words and, in particular, comparing voluptuousness with a cross upon which victims are nailed. While the Bible is not explicit in considering Samson’s lust as the cause for his betrayal of the secret (stating instead that he yielded to the woman because she harassed and urged him daily, so that “he was tired to death”), Pseudo-Philo’s interpretation accords with that found in Jewish sources. Num. Rab. 9:24, for example, referring to Judg. 16:28 (“Then Samson called to the Lord and said, ‘Lord God, remember me,’” etc.), comments on the verse that Samson’s claim upon God for remembrance was hardly justified since he had lusted after whoredom. Sot. 9b explains “urged him” as Delilah’s separation from Samson at the moment of consummation (i.e., he was unable to satisfy his lust and had to open the secret to her); the conclusion in the Mishnah is that he who went after the desire of his eyes, Source of Translation: The translation of the complete texts of the On Sampson and On Jonah is our own. See introductory comments for information on the Armenian text. Unless otherwise noted, translations of the Masoretic Text (MT) are from the Soncino translation (A. Cohen, ed., Books of the Bible, The Soncino Press, New York: 1975).

Pseudo-Philo, On Samson, and On Jonah

753

the deep of, voluptuousness; he could no more look upward, but had himself wholly turned into lust. (2) As if reproached by a judge, he was forced by the woman to tell the truth. (3) For the woman, having erected the lust as a cross and having nailed upon it the desires like straps, hung him who was caught by them. (4) Now, when she had hung high and unnerved him with gentle and flattering words, penetrating into the viscera of the young man together with the torture of desire, he was unable to abstain from lust (which would be easy to do through prudence), and he started to reveal the ineffable secret and said: “No razor must come upon my head.” (5) And the woman impudently made him sleep upon her knees11 and called for a barber; having at first shaven off chastity from him, she shaved off his strength as well. (6) And alongside the barber there was also an intelligible haircutter, the Devil, who together with the locks cut off his strength too and made him one of the sinful men. Chapter 2

(1) While one needs strength to perform great deeds, wisdom is necessary for us to narrate the story of miracle working. (2) Since Samson got strength to accomplish great deeds, let us ask for wisdom from the One who had given him that power, in order to set wisely before the listeners what Samson did, thanks to his strength. (3) For if in our account we turn out to be ignorant and careless about the veracity of the deeds, we shall not exhaust Samson’s strength but shall blaspheme the grace of God. Chapter 3

(1) In each of His wondrous acts, God demonstrates some other miracle: He shows might, announces philanthropy, reveals supremacy, teaches magnanimity, mentions the blessings kept for the delight of the righteous, or foretells the condemnation awaiting sinners. (2) Now, since God displays through Samson all His benevolence and humaneness, He made this evident by giving him divine gifts already before his birth. (3) For if he were pleasing to the living God [only] after being born, his strength would doubtlessly be a reward for just deeds. (4) But since what had been recently seeded was concealed in his mother’s pregnancy, therefore the gift from above came into being before the birth of its receiver, so the grace and the philanthropic reward were not for just deeds.

lost his eyes. Josephus in Ant. 5.312 relates the episode in more moderate terms, referring neither to Samson’s tiredness to death nor to his immense lust: in the end, according to Josephus, Samson told the truth to the woman, because “she was asking” (deomenēs) and “he wished to please Delilah” (charizesthai boulomenos tēi Dalalei). 1:1. From the vortex of ductility What is meant is Samson’s obedience to Delilah ( Judg. 16:6–17), which, according to Pseudo-Philo, finally turned into overwhelming lust and made the hero reveal his secret. look upward That is, pay heed to God. 2:1–4:7 This is a kind of preamble that, alongside ordinary rhetorical statements (e.g., that physical force is necessary for exploits and that a narrator must be wise) and theological commonplaces (that in each divine action, a new aspect of the wonder-working power of God is revealed, that God is benevolent toward those who carry out his commands but chastises disobedient human beings, etc.), contains the emphatic idea that God had endowed Samson with extraordinary abilities already before his birth, not as a reward for his righteous character but as proof

754 Gohar Muradyan and Aram Topchyan

Chapter 4

(1) Once again God demonstrated His power by granting him strength overcoming that of everyone. (2) And He clearly manifested the might of His activity by giving him superiority over the Philistines. (3) For is it not obvious that those who defeat peoples that serve alien gods also defeat their supreme assistants together with them? (4) And [Samson’s] endowments were irresistible and irrefutable; one can learn this from the gifts that God granted to him. (5) However, in the following way God also showed his discretion: as long as he fully complied with the commands, God too kept in full the gifts [given] to him, but when he disobeyed the commandment, God did not leave the gifts to Samson but imposed a punishment on him for his transgressions. (6) Then He returns again to His love for humans but does not grant all the gifts to him, for it would be unfair to crown the defeated one. (7) Therefore, God provides just a drop of grace, so that, with His utmost humaneness, He should ultimately nullify the death sentence and prevent His gifts from complete extinguishment. (8) But in order not to digress from the subject that we have in mind and not to waste words for other purposes, let us revert to what we have promised and to the beginning of the events. Chapter 5

(1) Samson’s parents, having lived with each other for a long time and having sought for a fruit of their union, did not find it. (2) For the soil of the woman’s field turned out to be sterile and was perplexed: of providence. That is to say, Pseudo-Philo reformulates and interprets in his own way Judg. 13:5 (“For the child shall be a Nazirite unto God from the womb”), a verse also discussed in Num. Rab. 10:5, with references to Jer. 1:5 (“Before I formed you in the belly I knew you; and before you came forth out of the womb I sanctified you”) and Ps. 58:4 (“The wicked go astray from the womb; they err from birth speaking lies”). The other basic motif of this section is the love of God for human beings, the main subject of On Jonah. But here, as distinct from other similar cases, Pseudo-Philo speaks of a quite moderate manifestation of the divine philanthropy, just “a drop of grace,” for due to Samson’s sinful behavior God had to counterbalance His profound humaneness with a portion of severity. 4:3. supreme assistants a gloss in an Armenian manuscript interprets this as “their gods,” and Aucher accepts this interpretation by adding falsos deos in parentheses to praesidentes eis adjutores in his Latin translation.31 5:1–10:3 This part of the homily roughly covers Judg. 13:2–11. In his usual embellishing manner, the author reworks “his wife was barren, and bore not” ( Judg. 13:2) into an allegory of infertile, “perplexed” earth sown in vain and compares God with an artful tiller who, in addition to making the soil fruitful, perfects the seed itself. That is to say, from Pseudo-Philo’s understanding of the story it follows that perhaps the couple’s sterility was not only because of the woman but also the man. A similar doubt is voiced more explicitly in Num. Rab. 10:5, which states that probably there was a quarrel between Manoah and his wife: they blamed each other for their incapability to produce offspring. However, the conclusion is that it was the woman who was barren, because the angel first appeared to her and not to Manoah (according to the same source, the wife was called Zlelponi or Hazlelponi [cf. BB 91a, Tanh. B, 4:160 and elsewhere32], for she turned her face [ponah] to look at the angel; “zalal” applies to the angel, since angels came “under the shadow [zel] of my roof ” [Gen. 19:8]). Pseudo-Philo then remarks that through the angel God

Pseudo-Philo, On Samson, and On Jonah

755

receiving the seed, it did not grow a fruit. (3) Just as the dryness and infertility of this earth needs the visitation of God and a flow of waters over it, likewise when a woman’s soil rejects her fruit, she is in need of the divine spring and grace. (4) While а good and efficient observer, such as a skillful plowman, eradicates whatever impedes growth and makes [the soil] prolific and flat for the sower, the divine grace grants to nature the perfection of the seed itself. Chapter 6

(1) Now, since the philanthropic God saw that the human nature was impotent, He dispatched an angel, as if a bringer of good news to annunciate [the birth] of a child to the barren woman, but actually to command [her] nature with unseen power to accept what had not been sown yet. (2) For I think that in this way He ordered the man to be born and to become a gift of the voice of God and the angel’s service, especially because he was going to carry out the commands of God. (3) Now, in order that the God of everyone should not take an alien into service, He grants him from above to those who did not find, so that the parents should receive a piece of news about the one to be born. (4) And now He conordered the wife “to accept what had not been sown yet,” i.e., the productive intercourse had not taken place before the angel’s appearance. Interestingly, this contradicts the view expressed in Num. Rab. 10:5, namely, that “the semen of that night” was already in the woman’s matrix and she had not “discharged” it before hearing the good news from the angel. A different conception of impregnation by the interference of God is found in Philo’s QG 3:5 regarding Abraham and Sarah: Philo believes that in such cases the childbirth does not take place through begetting but is entirely a result of divine miracle-working. Among Pseudo-Philo’s further embellishments of the biblical laconism are “by his grandeur, he looked like a man of God and by the lucent brilliancy of his face, like a citizen of heaven, as if wearing the rays of a luminary” for “his countenance was like the countenance of an angel of God, very awesome” ( Judg. 13:6); “then, borrowing some speed from the outstripping angel and adding it to her own run, the woman raced with a bird’s swiftness and reached her husband” for “and the woman made haste, and ran” ( Judg. 13:10), etc. This section concludes with a rhetorical judgment on the inferiority of the human face to the angels’ when compared with the archetypal image, though the angelic countenance too does not completely resemble that of God. Noteworthy details about Samson’s parents and the episode of the angel’s coming are provided by Josephus in Ant. 5.276–81. According to him, Manoah (Manōchēs) was a uniquely virtuous man and the principal person in his homeland. Manoah’s wife was the most beautiful woman among her contemporaries, so he crazily loved and was extremely jealous of her. The couple often went together to the suburbs of their city and entreated God to give them a child, but when the angel brought the good tidings, the wife was alone. Since the angel looked like a tall, handsome young man, when the woman told Manoah about the apparition, he became bitterly jealous and did not calm down until he saw the angel himself and understood that a messenger of God was before him. 5:1. Samson’s parents . . . did not find it Cf. Judg. 13:2: “And there was a certain man of Zorah, of the family of the Danites, whose name was Manoah; and his wife was barren, and bore not.” 6:1. He dispatched an angel . . . to accept what had not been sown yet Cf. Judg. 13:3: “And the angel of the Lord appeared to the woman, and said to her, ‘Behold now, you are barren, and bear not; but you shall conceive, and bear a son.’” 6:3. a piece of news Lit. “a piece of gossip” (Arm. banararut’iun; Gk. logopoiēma).

756 Gohar Muradyan and Aram Topchyan

fers upon the parents, as upon the instruments of childbirth, the glory of childbearing. (5) And this was not something insignificant: to cleanse the infamy of childlessness by the birth of an offspring, and He Himself, as the Artisan, provided the piece of news about the child for the salvation of the whole people. Chapter 7

(1) And this is surprising to me, for just as the doctors who practice medicine for people with knowledge rather than with art examine the condition of sick bodies, in order to give the salutary remedy to the patients in measured portions, likewise God cures the illnesses of those whose souls have fallen sick, offering them not simple and artless healing. (2) But why in the case of the barren Sarah it was Abraham who heard the announcement of the child’s birth, whereas here it was the woman who received the messenger of the good tidings? (3) For there the husband was readier than the wife to believe the annunciation, while here Manoah’s wife was readier to believe. Chapter 8

(1) The angel, having annunciated the good news to the woman and having ordered her to beware of drunkenness, withdrew, impregnating the soul with good hope before the womb. (2) And when her husband came back, the woman told him about the visit of God and the vision of the angel, saying she did not know who had appeared to her and in what place he lived. (3) “But I saw,” she said, “the venerable dignity and appearance of an angelic image with a shining and majestic countenance. (4) I could learn from no one [but] from him what I saw, and I conjectured about his nature and his dwelling place. (5) By his grandeur, he looked like a man of God and by the lucent brilliancy of his face, like a citizen of heaven, as if wearing the rays of a luminary.” Chapter 9

(1) When Manoah heard this, exulted in his soul at the expectation of the child, and admired with his ears the impressive solemnity of the message, he ardently called the angel to come again, wishing to see and hear the messenger himself. (2) And God, having forestalled the prayer, gave a command, and once again [the angel] appeared to the woman as she sat in the sown land. (3) This too was a sign of the truth, for her land was also seeded (at which the seed of the external land hinted). (4) Then, bor8:1. having ordered her to beware of drunkenness Cf. Judg. 13:4: “Now therefore beware, I beseech you, and drink not wine nor strong drink, nor eat any unclean thing.” 8:3–5. “the venerable dignity . . . as if wearing the rays of a luminary” Cf. Judg. 13:6: “Then the woman came and told her husband, saying, ‘A man of God came to me, and his countenance was like the countenance of an angel of God, very awesome; but I asked him not from where he was, nor did he tell me his name.’” 8:5. a citizen of heaven Arm. erknak’aghak’ats’I; Gk. uranopolitēs. 9:1. When Manoah heard this . . . wishing to see and hear the messenger himself Cf. Judg. 13:8: “Then Manoah entreated the Lord, and said, ‘O my Lord, let the man of God whom you sent come back to us, and teach us what we shall do with the child who shall be born.’” 9:2. And God . . . as she sat in the sown land Cf. Judg. 13:9: “And God listened to the voice of Manoah; and the angel of God came back to the woman as she sat in the field.” 9:4. Then, borrowing some speed . . . reached her husband Cf. Judg. 13:10: “And the woman made

Pseudo-Philo, On Samson, and On Jonah

757

rowing some speed from the outstripping angel and adding it to her own run, the woman raced with a bird’s swiftness and reached her husband; meanwhile the angel, quick and traversing the air and speedier than the sun and the moon, waited for the woman’s husband. (5) Indeed, God had sown in him so much meekness and His love for human beings. (6) And this is not surprising: for if man was made according to the image of the divine face, a much greater share of the likeness to God was given to the angels’ faces. (7) For the closer they dwell to God, the more is their resemblance to His image. Chapter 10

(1) But I have dragged my homily out, O beloved ones, praising [the angels], since a praise of them is an encomium to the Godhead. (2) For he who eulogizes the nicely adapted appearance admires more the living nature itself, from which the art, having extracted its likeness, has created a copy of the image. (3) However, though we have praised exceedingly [the angels’] appearance, [their] face does not bear the archetypal beauty. Chapter 11

(1) Now that God’s love for humans, the angel’s docility, the woman’s willingness, and the husband’s obedience have been demonstrated (and they all were together: He who gave the order and those who received the order), once again I admire the modest and proficient behavior of the angel. (2) For he did not show up the second time in his first appearance and presented himself to Manoah not as he had appeared to the woman. (3) He came and stood before the sight of human eyes not as the halo of the sun, which strikes with its rays those who look at it; here he was seen to Manoah in a moderate appearhaste, and ran, and told her husband, and said to him, ‘Behold, the man who came to see me the other day has appeared to me.’” 11:1–17:4 Here the author occupies himself with a rhetorical exercise, pronouncing an original eulogy on the angel for his clever conduct and actions appropriate to the situation. The angel, Pseudo-Philo thinks, deserves praise for: (1) showing two natures: one awesome, necessary for the first appearance to the woman, in order to look impressive and make her believe the message, and the other moderate and human, so that Manoah should not fear and should calmly comprehend the divine instruction; (2) not acting haughtily but patiently waiting for Manoah to come and tolerantly answering his questions; (3) declining Manoah’s invitation to dinner and thus giving him to understand that he should honor God and not His (God’s) messenger; (4) not disclosing and thereby usurping his divine name, which ultimately belongs to God; and (5) withdrawing as if on God’s chariot together with the flame and making the final scene of the vision as awe-inspiring as his first apparition to the woman, so that the couple should not doubt the truthfulness of the good news from heaven. Though hardly any direct parallel to PseudoPhilo’s encomium on the angel exists in available sources, the expediency of the angel’s behavior is appreciated in Rabbinic tradition as well. We can refer to Num. Rab. 10:5, which perfectly understands and approves the angel’s conduct: (1) he came back to the wife and not to the husband with good reason, or else his first talk with the woman would become worthless (i.e., the angel would have to repeat to Manoah all that he had said to the wife); (2) when the husband asked the angel to announce again the message directly to him (because women have no right to give directions and are unreliable), the angel justifiably refused, in order to show respect to

758 Gohar Muradyan and Aram Topchyan

ance, artfully, as I have said, and favorably to the affair. (4) For when there were a promise, a gift, and the one who was to get them, it was necessary to assume greatness comparable with the gift, so that [the woman] would receive great faith from a great one. (5) Whereas when there was just a simple talk and a clear commandment, no awesome appearance was needed for the words said; otherwise fright would cause inattention to the commandment. (6) Moreover, it seems to me that the angel’s appearance was divided into two natures, so that both the wife and the husband could see him according to their abilities. (7) And I call Scripture to witness that he appeared so to both. (8) For when the woman described the nature of the one who appeared, she said: “A man of God came to me, and his countenance was like the countenance of an angel.”12 (9) And what about Manoah? It says: “Manoah knew not that he was an angel of the Lord.” Chapter 12

(1) If so, the shining countenance and the tremendous greatness [signified] the wife’s awareness, while the simple appearance and the humble countenance, the husband’s ignorance (for the humble one remained humble even when he told the great thing: he who was first dispatched to the woman).13 (2) And just as a king’s guardian brings good news about a victory over enemies, likewise the angel brought good tidings to the woman about the remission of the barren nature. (3) Thus, first [appearing] to the woman and then for the second time being called by the husband, he did not behave arrogantly and, moreover, did what was unfitting for him: he waited without hesitation. (4) And then, when the husband came there and turned out to be unworthy of his glory, and even very disdainfully asked him who the woman and endear her to Manoah; (3) when the angel was invited to “rejoice over” the meat of a kid, he did not accept the offer, intimating that it is God, not he, who must be honored for the good news (cf. above Pseudo-Philo’s praise of the angel for the same behavior); (4) the angel rightly did not tell his name to Manoah because, according to one of the explanations, when God sends His messengers on missions, He names them variously depending on the specific occasion (cf. Pseudo-Philo’s different interpretation above); etc. Furthermore, both On Samson and Numbers Rabbah compare Manoah trying to entertain the angel with Abraham, but while Pseudo-Philo’s purpose is to show that Abraham was more righteous than Manoah (for the former invited the angels to eat with him before receiving the good tidings), the Rabbinic source wishes to stress the correct reaction of the angels: in the case of Abraham they accepted the invitation and pretended to eat since he had offered them food immediately, not as a “payment” for the message. In this section of On Samson Pseudo-Philo, simultaneously with praising the angel, suggests a noteworthy explanation of the magical power of Samson’s hair: he was to be head of the people and, therefore, had to keep his hair intact, because the head’s thick hair is the symbol of the masses and their strength. 12:3. he waited without hesitation Cf. Judg. 13: 9–11: “And the angel of God came back to the woman as she sat in the field; but Manoah her husband was not with her. And the woman made haste, and ran, and told her husband, and said to him, ‘Behold, the man, who came to see me the other day, has appeared to me.’ And Manoah arose, and went after his wife, and came to the man.” 12:4. disdainfully asked him who he was and from where Cf. Judg. 13:11: “And Manoah . . . said to him, ‘Are you the man who spoke to the woman?’” and Judg. 13:17: “And Manoah said to the angel of the Lord, ‘What is your name, that when your sayings come to pass we may do you honor?’”

Pseudo-Philo, On Samson, and On Jonah

759

he was and from where, and “did you make this advent for the first time or, according to the woman’s request, for the second time?” he neither accused Manoah’s audacious boldness nor avoided the many questions, but started to instruct the one who questioned him as follows. Chapter 13

(1) “He who is now before you was also seen by your wife; I have come to give you good news about a gift. (2) For the Supporter of everyone in trouble (the only One who can relieve hardship and give commands to nature), having seen your marriage infertile due to the obstinacy of nature, dispatched me for two purposes: to open the closed doors of nature and fulfill the wish of the child-loving souls. (3) Now what must those who receive a gift as a reward give in reward for the gift? (4) They must obey the commandment of the Blessed One, namely, the mother has to keep away from tippling and the offspring, from a razor. (5) For the woman should be awake and sober when she bears the one destined for great deeds, and the man should [be sure] that nothing hurts the child who is to be the head of the people. (6) And he must wear the hair as a sign of multitudes, since he will have accumulated the strength of all in his body. (7) Now the head of the people has to remain blameless and unhurt: the sign of a mass shall not be cut. (8) For if this remains so, the multitude of people will be like one body: the tower protected by the one who is to be born will remain undefeated and not demolished. (9) But if the descendant’s head is corrupted or the hair is cut, the masses’ strength will fall, because the man was its repository.” Chapter 14

(1) Hearing this, Manoah showed gratitude to the one who promised, assured the angel that he was going to observe the commandment, and invited him to dinner. (2) Looking at this, one will be surprised at the differences between just men, for indeed there is a long way both from the minor to the medium and from the medium to the extremely righteous.14 (3) For why did Abraham invite the angels to dinner before he got the promise, while Manoah, after receiving it? (4) For Manoah invited him in reward for the gift; he got first and then granted, whereas Abraham set the table before them as a sign of hospitality; he gave first and then received. (5) The offers of both were good but incomparable, because one welcomed the guest thanks to what he got, while the other, thanks to his character. (6) For this reason, in the case of Abraham they entered his tent and pretended to eat of his meal. (7) But one might ask: if they withdrew without eating the meal, how was the food placed before them consumed? (8) Since the angels were full of fire, by means of fire they made the food look consumed. Chapter 15

(1) The angel refused Manoah’s invitation and advised him to change the hospitality offered to him into 13:4. the mother has to keep away from tippling and the offspring, from a razor Judg. 13:4–5: “Now therefore beware, I beseech you, and drink not wine nor strong drink, and eat not any unclean thing. For, behold, you shall conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head.” 14:1. invited him to dinner Cf. Judg. 13:15: “And Manoah said to the angel of the Lord, ‘I beseech you, let us detain you, until we shall have prepared a kid for you.’” 15:1. The angel refused . . . into hospitality to God Cf. Judg. 13:16: “And the angel of the Lord said to

760 Gohar Muradyan and Aram Topchyan

hospitality to God. (2) Accepting the advice to sacrifice to God and wishing to honor the angel as well, Manoah asked: “What is your name, so that we can at least keep it in our memory?” (3) And he, once again giving him to understand that his honor was God’s and, regarding a praise of God as his honor, said: “Why do you seek after my name? It is wonderful.” O divine conversations in heaven, where the prophet teaches the Lord’s wisdom to the hosts of angels! Chapter 16

(1) He did not say, “It is Michael,” nor, “Gabriel,” nor, “The mighty one spoke,” in order not to misappropriate the divine name. (2) What did he say? “It is wonderful”; thus, the angel evidently glorifies [his name] by changing it from time to time according to the needs of the inferior [humans]. (3) Secondly, to demonstrate his loyalty once more, the angel said it was inappropriate to mention the name of the Great and Supreme One; by altering the name, he showed his honor obscurely and gave occasion to comprehension. (4) And when one attempts to comprehend the changing name, the comprehension ends in the glorification of God. (5) And what permanently exists in the glory of God is that He and His kingdom are always unchangeably present for the worshipers. Chapter 17

(1) Now after this he prepared a sacrifice, and the angel waited until the gift of the sacrifice was offered to God. (2) Then together with the offering he ascended the chariot of the Honored One in its movement toward heaven, being taken aloft by the flame of the offering. (3) For the angel had both to demonstrate his rank to Manoah and to divide the miracle between the beginning and the end. (4) And he separated himself into two natures: when he appeared to the wife, he looked awesome at the beginning, and the husband saw his terrible image at the end. (5) So that by his appearance he could persuade the wife to acknowledge the beginning of the event and then could make the husband believe in its accomplishment by the offering and represent the vision as a pledge of the forthcoming wonder. Manoah, ‘Though you detain me, I will not eat of your bread; and if you will offer a burnt offering, you must offer it to the Lord.’” 15:2. “What is your name, so that we can at least keep it in our memory” Cf. Judg. 13:17: “And Manoah said to the angel of the Lord, ‘What is your name, that when your sayings come to pass we may do you honor?’” 15:3. “It is wonderful” Pseudo-Philo follows the LXX; cf. Judg. 13:18: “And the angel of the Lord said to him, ‘Why ask you thus after my name, seeing it is hidden?’” 16:3. the angel said it was inappropriate to mention the name of the Great and Supreme One In the Bible, the angel makes Manoah realize that it is unfit to ask his own (not God’s) name; cf. Judg. 13:18 (see the citation in the previous lemma). 17:1. after this he prepared a sacrifice Cf. Judg. 13:19: “So Manoah took a kid with a meal offering, and offered it upon a rock to the Lord.” 17:2. Then . . . being taken aloft by the flame of the offering Cf. Judg. 13:20: “For it came to pass, when the flame went up toward heaven from off the altar, that the angel of the Lord ascended in the flame of the altar.”

Pseudo-Philo, On Samson, and On Jonah

761

Chapter 18

(1) As soon as Manoah placed on a rock what was needed for the offering, the angel touched it with the apex of his scepter and it suddenly blazed up. (2) And when Manoah saw the offering inflamed in this manner, the angel ascending with the flame and leading the sacrifice to heaven, the admiration of his face turned into awe. (3) This also happened in his virtuous soul, for he was aware of what Scripture says: “No one shall see me and live.”15 (4) Now, supposing to have seen the God of all, he thought his life had become lifeless,16 whereas the woman, when she felt he was scared, heartened him wisely and courageously as follows. (5) “Did this vision,” she said, “mean evil, husband, and was that good thing for a wicked man? If one were condemned to death, his offering would not be accepted. (6) Even for a wicked man it is desirable to see a good vision, and if the Philanthropist has been benevolent to us by the vision itself and by accepting our offering, for what purpose would He condemn the one who honored Him and from whom He accepted the offering as a token and guarantee of his salvation?” (7) A new wonder could be seen: how the husband was full of fear, while the wife of courage, and how he who should have consoled and emboldened the fearful wife was himself afraid and needed consolation, whereas the wife, who should have received a remedy against fright, emboldened the frightened one with words as if with a medicine! (8) Somebody said not vainly that different spirits live inside the visible appearance: a man may have a female soul, and a soul fitting a man may wear a female image.17 Chapter 19

(1) Since the wife received the good tidings, the husband was persuaded, the angel withdrew, and the offering reached its supernal destination; the woman, having got all this help, bore for him Samson,

18:1 The scene is borrowed from Judg. 6:21 (“Then the angel of the Lord put forth the end of the staff that was in his hand, and touched the meat and the unleavened cakes; and there rose up fire from the rock, and consumed the meat and the unleavened cakes”), and it replaces the laconic and obscure “the angel did wondrously” ( Judg. 13:19). Josephus in Ant. 5.283–84 describes the offering in a similar way: the angel touches the flesh with his rod and thus kindles a fire that consumes the meat together with the loaves. 18:1. As soon as Manoah placed on a rock . . . it suddenly blazed up Cf. Judg. 13:19: “So Manoah took a kid with a meal offering, and offered it upon a rock to the Lord; and the angel did wondrously.” 18:4–8 This elaboration of Judg. 13:22–23 includes the author’s own assessment of the situation in general as well as the character of both husband and wife. Whereas one would normally expect fearfulness on the woman’s part and bravery on the man’s, just the opposite wondrously happened: the wife made efforts to encourage the frightened husband. Though we were unable to find the exact saying (“A man may have a female soul, and a soul fitting a man may wear a female image”) ascribed by Pseudo-Philo to “Somebody” in verse 8, and by an Armenian glossator to Plato (see the corresponding footnote), the general idea occurs as early as in Herodotus’s Hist.: cf. 8.88, where Xerxes says, “For me, the men have become women, and the women men.” 18:4. he thought his life had become lifeless Cf. Judg. 13:22: “And Manoah said to his wife, ‘We shall surely die, because we have seen God.’” 18:5–6. “Did this vision . . . guarantee of his salvation?” Cf. Judg. 13:23: “But his wife said to him, ‘If the Lord would have been pleased to kill us, he would not have received a burnt offering and a

762 Gohar Muradyan and Aram Topchyan

the rescuer of the suffering people and the memory of the praised bravery of his life.18 (2) Though looking like others, Samson was far more remarkable in what he was compared with them: the spirit served him as a soul, and his body was more invulnerable and blameless than a diamond. (3) As those who narrate about him witness, it was robust and insensitive to the strike of any iron: a blow to him returned to the giver, and he who struck was himself stricken. (4) However, Samson was watched by the spirit, in order that, so to say, he should not make war against anyone but also should not concede the desired victory to a tyrant. (5) For Samson was unreachable to those who tried to strike him: no arrow of the enemies could wound him, and he resisted those who wished his defeat, turning their evil intent against themselves. Chapter 20

(1) There is a saying that envy usually follows great men, and just as their way of life is perfect, the recorded deeds ascribed to them are [also] perfect. (2) But the feeble nature of humanity seems not to bear the greatness of the grace of God; therefore, although at that time the brave Samson had got a powerful soul and a strong body, he was reproached by the spirit for being weak and more effeminate than fleshly desires.

meal offering from our hands, nor would he have shown us all these things, nor would have told us, at this time, such things as these.’” 19:2–21:6 In these chapters the author grandiloquently describes Samson’s personality and physical abilities, even trying to portray his appearance. When speaking of Samson’s features, he uses common stylistic devices (such as the comparison of the youth’s flourishing face to flowers or his brows to a crescent moon) rather than mentioning anything specific. Though the supernatural strength and heroism of Manoah’s son are unquestionably acknowledged both by Pseudo-Philo and the Rabbis, their views on the size of his body and the extent of his power are quite different. While Pseudo-Philo thinks that Samson looked like other people, Rabbi Simeon the Pious in Sot. 10a supposes that the width between Samson’s shoulders was 60 cubits. Among Samson’s exploits, Pseudo-Philo mentions nothing that equals what Rabbi Assi attributes to him in Sot. 9b, namely, that Samson uprooted two great mountains, Zorah and Eshtaol, and ground one against the other. Interestingly, Jewish sources also refer to a physical defect in the hero’s body unknown to our author: Samson was lame in both legs (cf. Sot. 10a and Nispahim 44). Pseudo-Philo and the Rabbis agree about the weak side of his character: he was unable to resist sensual desires. In this regard Sot. 9b states that Samson rebelled against God through his eyes (i.e., the source of lust), and Pseudo-Philo imagines that “he was reproached by the spirit for being weak” against lasciviousness. He further believes, probably on the basis of Judg. 13:25 (“And the spirit of the Lord began to stir him . . . ”), that the divine spirit “served him as a soul” and controlled everything he did; cf. Sot. 9b, which understands the same biblical passage as “the Shekhinah kept ringing in front of him like a bell,” and then, with reference to Judg. 16:20, notes that Delilah was able to weaken Samson since the Shekhinah had departed from him. 19:2. the spirit served him as a soul Cf. Judg. 13:25: “And the spirit of the Lord began to stir him in Mahaneh-Dan, between Zorah and Eshtaol.” 20:1. just as . . . are [also] perfect The passage is obviously corrupt; our translation is conjectural.

Pseudo-Philo, On Samson, and On Jonah

763

Chapter 21

(1) For when his strength matured and both the healthy vigor of the body and the desire of the soul fully developed within the same period, at that time, I think, his anima wanted coitus with a woman (because his body had become excessively robust). (2) In his full-grown strength, a part of which was for insemination, he wished to sow some seed in the ground, so that his offspring would become the advocate of paternal power, being poured with the seed as an offering. (3) Therefore, neither are boys fit for this affair, since they are immature, nor elders, since they have lost their strength, but Samson was at the right age. (4) And the full-blown flower on his face was like the most beautiful flowers of fields and gardens; it was produced by the bold, pleasant, and nice play of smile in his eyes while the sun’s rays colored his cheeks. (5) This was not like the beauty blooming on girls and women but like that appearing from the deeds of heroes, who in their toil acquire a tan from the supporting sun. (6) The shape of his brows resembled the outline of the moon at the time when the crescent is not yet filled from inside to become a full sphere. Chapter 22

(1) Before his face, charming like the halo of the sun, a Philistine woman cropped up, and the woman 22:1–26:7 Pseudo-Philo presents three opinions on Judg. 14:1–3 (Samson’s lust after the Philistine woman), ascribing the first two to “sages” and arguing against the third, which belongs to unknown opponents. According to the first opinion, which corresponds to Judg. 14:4, it was by the divine will that Samson wished to take a Philistine to wife (the purpose of God was to punish the Philistines in this way, as he actually did: cf. Josephus, Ant. 5.286–87); and according to the second, God never achieves any goal by unjust means: Samson made the choice voluntarily, and God used this opportunity for harming the Philistines. We can draw a parallel with a passage in Sot. 9b that reflects the first and, partly, the second opinion. Though this source refers to Judg. 14:4 (“But his father and his mother knew not that it was from the Lord”) to prove that Samson sinned because God had decided so, it adds that, in any case, he chose his wife following his own inclinations.The third opinion, with which Pseudo-Philo disagrees, blames the spirit (see comment at 19.2–21.6) for the hero’s transgression, claiming that Samson had already received it when he felt the desire for the Philistine woman. Responding to this accusation, Pseudo-Philo attacks his opponents for ignorance of what Scripture says about the various spirits, of wisdom, of might, etc., because Samson had got the spirit of strength, not of justice, and the former cannot be reproached for a lawless action (Pseudo-Philo has in mind Isa. 11:2, which mentions the different essences of the divine spirit). The influence of the spirit of God on Samson is also discussed in Rabbinic sources. Rabbi Nahman in Lev. Rab. 8:2 believes that when the divine spirit dwelled with Samson, his hairs became rigid and knocked one against another like a bell. He further refers to three cases when the spirit affected Samson’s actions, namely in Judg. 14:6, 19; and 15:14. For the notion that the divine spirit can manifest itself in hair, see also Gen. Rab. 4:4, where in “Then the Lord answered Job from the whirlwind” ( Job 38:1), the last word (sa’arah) is understood as “hair” (sa’arot). 22:1. and the woman had a perfect female constitution Arm. ew kinn ēr i dzew kanats’i kar.uts’eal (lit. “and the woman was formed in a female shape”).

764 Gohar Muradyan and Aram Topchyan

had a perfect female constitution. (2) And he turned his sight toward the alien country like one hunted and bound by a vision.19 (3) For when his eyes perceived the yielding prey, and the continuing vision fed the desire, it inflicted a wound upon the soul inside him. (4) The wounded soul was deprived of pious thoughts and changed the nice color of shyness into impudence. Chapter 23

(1) Some sages say he was afire with passion for a Philistine by the will of God, so that it would become a way for him to harm the Philistines, but others say that the Godhead does not wish to save by lawlessness. (2) For He had the power to fulfill both things: to make him enter into a lawful marriage and to punish the Philistines justly, but since Samson chose the wrong path to the alien woman voluntarily, the Almighty God turned Samson’s sin into the punishment of the Philistines. Chapter 24

(1) However others, due to incomplete understanding and inability to comprehend the divine power and Scripture to their own advantage, transform Samson’s sin into an accusation of the spirit; for, they say, he sinned while possessing the spirit. (2) But those who dare say this deserve a double penalty from God; for they have voluntarily blasphemed Scripture and, not knowing the truth, have interpreted maliciously what is good, and have disparaged Scripture. (3) For if he had got the spirit of justice or sagacity, their accusation would be fair, but he had the spirit of strength: what [else could he do]? (4) Justice, not strength could prevent the sin, but Samson had not got this spirit together with the latter; why, disregarding the man, you reproach the spirit of strength, requiring acts of justice from him? (5) For the accused spirit could rightfully answer: “We are various gifts under the reign of the Good and Great One; the nature of each gift is separate, and the grace of each blessing is measured. (6) For to one the spirit of wisdom is sent, to another one, of knowledge and understanding, to a third one, of strength and might, and to a fourth one, of the fear of God.” Chapter 25

(1) Now if the man had got the gifts of all the spirits, he would have to be sinless, but when he had got [only] a drop of grace from the source and the great sea, how could he find the whole, having received just one of the parts? (2) Let us persuade by examples that this is so: our forefather Abraham got the 22:1–2. a Philistine woman cropped up . . . bound by a vision Cf. Judg. 14:1: “And Samson went down to Timnath, and saw a woman in Timnath of the daughters of the Philistines.” 23:1. the Godhead does not wish to save by lawlessness In this case, to save the Israelites from their enemies by Samson’s unlawful marriage to a Philistine woman; cf. Judg. 14:3: “Then his father and his mother said to him, ‘Is there no woman among the daughters of your brothers, or among all my people, that you must take a wife from the uncircumcised Philistines?’” 24:5–6. “We are various gifts . . . of the fear of God” Cf. Isa. 11:2: “And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord?” 25:2. showed himself to be full of goodness, for he believed the Living One Cf. Gen. 15:6: “And because he put his trust in the Lord, He reckoned it to his merit.”

Pseudo-Philo, On Samson, and On Jonah

765

spirit of justice and showed himself to be full of goodness, for he believed the Living One. (3) Joseph got [the spirit] of chastity, proving that his body was full of it to her who gave occasion for this, and defeating the fleshly desire. (4) Simeon and Levi got the spirit of jealousy and displayed it by killing the Shechemites; Judah got [the spirit] of just judgment and demonstrated it when judging his daughter-inlaw. (5) Samson had [the spirit] of strength, and he most perfectly gave evidence of it by his deeds. (6) Now if that spirit had proved to be weak before those who were powerful, it would deserve accusation (for it was expected to manifest strength using Samson as a tool), but if the spirit had remained strong as a gift, and it were other machinations that defeated Samson, why should we make an unfounded accusation against the spirit? Chapter 26

(1) “Yes,” [the opponent] says, “but when Samson sinned, the spirit should have withdrawn, in order not to assist the sinner.” (2) Where, then, could one look for the fulfillment of the divine promise? Are you not the most sworn enemies of the Holy Scripture? (3) For the child’s parents had been given the promise of power—God had sent, and the angel had conveyed it—but he was overcome by the lust for the woman before demonstrating strength by his deeds. (4) Now if the spirit of strength had withdrawn because of Samson’s lust, the promise would have been lost. (5) And do they not sharpen their tongues against the Godhead Himself by saying that Scripture tells a lie, because Samson did not receive the spirit of strength, so the grace is mentioned baselessly (for if he had got it, we would have clearly seen that in his deeds)? (6) Thus, the slander of the impious is found everywhere, but Scripture cannot be slandered and will not surrender to artful words; it speaks with pious and unsophisticated people. (7) This was an apologetic answer concerning the spirit; now let us return to Samson and the divine story. Chapter 27

(1) Thus, he was in the prime of life, and youth was blossoming on his body, and he was a treasure, stronger than a man. (2) Endowed with bodily strength, he traveled with his parents; and the town

25:3. Joseph . . . defeating the fleshly desire Cf. Gen. 39:7–12. 25:4. Simeon and Levi . . . the Shechemites Cf. Gen. 34:25–26. Judah . . . judging his daughter-in-law Cf. Gen. 38:24–26. 27:2–29:4 Not only has Pseudo-Philo invented a fanciful description of Samson’s fight with the lion, but he has also changed an important detail of the story. His narrative suggests that Samson was the “aggressor,” not the lion: it quietly sat under vines and did not even roar against the man (as it does in Judg. 14:5), while Samson attacked and troubled the beast in order to tear it in two. Another version of this battle is found in Josephus’s Ant. 5.287, where Samson does not tear the lion but “strangles” (anchei) it and casts the carcass “into a woody place inside the road.” The scene in Pseudo-Philo depicting how Samson composed the riddle while he looked at the bees making honey in the lion’s carcass has a slightly different parallel in the Rabbinic tradition. According to Lev. Rab. 8:2, Samson, having seen the honeycombs, was meditatively saying to himself: “The lion eats all other animals, but now food has come out of it” (then the lion is compared to Aaron, “who eats of all the sacrifices, but now a sacrifice comes forth from him,” as it is said, “This is the offering of Aaron and his sons” [Lev. 6:13]).

766 Gohar Muradyan and Aram Topchyan

where Samson went with his parents was called Timnath. (3) When going there, Samson deviated from the path and entered a vineyard; rejoicing at the scene of fruitfulness, he saw a young lion sitting under bunches of grapes. (4) He attacked and roused it, as if intending to wrestle with a pup, not a lion cub. (5) And the fight was worth watching: the mane on the young lion’s neck was the sign of its power while Samson’s vigorous age was clearly seen on his face. (6) When they clung close together, the lion (for irrational animals are furious, whereas rational men, if virtuous, are stronger), as if catching a usual prey, opened its jaws to snap at the prey and assailed with its abdomen pulled in. (7) But just as brave fighters find in enemies’ arrogant fearlessness a motive for their cleaving strike, likewise the brave fighter Samson defeated the young lion thanks to its effrontery. (8) For the valiant man saw the jaws (which are the lion’s weapon in every case) open, and since they were open toward two sides, he put his hands on each [of them]: the left hand held the lower jaw and the right hand, the young lion’s nose and lip. (9) Exerting force against it, Samson opened [the jaws] wider and pressed more and more until he tore the beast in two. (10) When he tore the beast, the rupture passed through the neck, and since there was hardly any way for the rupture to continue, it stopped at the lion’s abdomen. (11) In order to make this known, Scripture says: “And he tore him as he would have torn a kid, and he had nothing in his hand.”20 Chapter 28

(1) Thus, Samson split the lion, left it dead on the ground and went back to join his parents. (2) He did not think his deed was something wonderful, so he even did not let his parents know. (3) After such an exploit, Samson remained quiet and silent; he was not wounded, did not show fear by the color of his face, did not give away the feat by his soul’s confusion, and did not hint at the labor by his tired body. (4) As if having done nothing, he kept silent in calm restraint, and his complexion was fitting to his courage. (5) It seems to me that, endowed with the spirit of strength and resplendent with divine gifts, he was already thinking over the future riddle of the lion and wanted to conceal how he had invented the puzzle. Chapter 29

(1) After his return, he had a wish to see the lion [again]; coming to the same place, he saw the young lion swarming with bees. (2) For the bees, having noticed the jaws in the form of a hollow and having 27:2–3. and the town . . . he saw a young lion sitting under bunches of grapes Cf. Judg. 14:5: “Then went Samson down, and his father and his mother, to Timnath, and came to the vineyards of Timnath; and, behold, a young lion roared against him.” Unlike the Hebrew Bible and the Codex Vaticanus, which state that Samson “came” to the vineyards, the Codex Alexandrinus and the Armenian Bible read “deviated from the path.” 27:6. with its abdomen pulled in In an aggressive arched posture. 28:2. he even did not let his parents know Cf. Judg. 14:6: “But he told not his father or his mother what he had done.” 28:5. the future riddle of the lion The riddle in Judg. 14:14: “Out of the eater came food, and out of the strong came sweetness.” 29:2. For the bees . . . had made a honeycomb there Cf. Judg. 14:8: “And after a time he returned to

Pseudo-Philo, On Samson, and On Jonah

767

found a cavity like [those] on rocks in the beast’s abdomen, had penetrated inside through the young lion’s jaws and had made a honeycomb there. (3) And seeing the splendor of the bees’ organized21 work, he created a riddle more splendid than the honeycombs. (4) For taking “food out of the one who eats” and getting “honey out of the strong one,” he composed, as it became evident, the riddle and proposed it at the wedding feast in the following way: Chapter 30

(1) “O men who honor this wedding! Since it is appropriate on this occasion to gladden not only the body with food but also the soul with speeches, I shall offer at this feast a riddle to you who are here. (2) It is not about a myth but hints at the truth; and since what I will say is true, let a penalty be imposed on the proposer of the riddle, if the listeners turn out to be cleverer by solving it. (3) On the contrary, let him gain profit if, having invented this, by one riddle he achieves triumph over [many] minds. (4) For not only the riddle by itself is commendable and the conditions of this bet make it more significant, but also the listeners, urged by the profit, will examine the saying more diligently, and because of the fear of loss the proposer will find double pleasure after the victory. (5) Now listen what will be the winner’s profit and the loser’s loss: thirty of you22 will consider the riddle, whereas I alone will propose it. (6) If I surpass your number by ability, each of you as a penalty will owe a garment to me, the winner, but if you solve the obscure and unknown riddle, it will be my debt to give the same to each of your bodies. (7) For if each of you is defeated, he will pay one penalty according to the bet, to dress one body,

take her, and he turned aside to see the carcass of the lion; and, behold, there was a swarm of bees and honey in the carcass of the lion.” 29:4. wedding feast The Masoretic Text (MT) and the LXX simply mention “a feast” (cf. Judg. 14:10: “Samson made there a feast; for the young men used to do so”). Pseudo-Philo adds “of wedding” (Arm. harsaneats’n); probably, he followed a variant reading of the LXX that is also reflected in the Armenian Bible: “for the young men used to celebrate wedding so.” 30:1–32:5 Here Pseudo-Philo expands Samson’s short speech, concluding with “Out of the eater came food . . . ” in Judg. 14:12–14; composes an unparalleled panegyric on the wisdom of the riddle; and offers a kind of psychological and physiological analysis as to why the 30 Philistines so rashly and stupidly agreed to take the bet. He simply writes that Samson addressed 30 bettors (“thirty of you”), without any hint at their age or traits; the Bible mentions “thirty companions,” whereas Josephus in Ant. 5.288 says that the Philistines “because of fear” (dia deos: cf. en tōi phobeisthai in the Codex Alexandrinus of the LXX33) gave Samson 30 “most vigorous young men” (tous akmaiotatous), who in pretense were to be his companions but actually had been sent to keep a watch on him. Furthermore, Josephus paraphrases the riddle as follows: “The all-devourer, despite of being very unsweet, produced sweet food from itself ” (hoti to pamboron gegennēkoi boran hēdeian ex autou kai panu aēdous ontos). 30:5. thirty of you Cf. Judg. 14:11: “And it came to pass, when they saw him, that they brought thirty companions to be with him.” 30:7. For if each of you is defeated . . . each body of the winning party Cf. Judg. 14:12–13: “If you can tell me what it is within the seven days of the feast, and find it out, then I will give you thirty sheets and thirty changes of garments. But if you cannot tell me what it is, then shall you give me thirty sheets and thirty changes of garments.”

768 Gohar Muradyan and Aram Topchyan

whereas I will be condemned to adorn many, i.e., each body of the winning party. (8) Now think what this riddle means: ‘Out of the eater came food, and out of the strong came sweetness.’” Chapter 31

(1) O Samson, you disputed well! [You endowed] the first [part] with the strength of the second, and you put forward the weak [part] together with the strong. (2) For it is easy to solve “Out of the eater came food,” since goats and sheep eat, and out of these eaters comes food, that is, milk. (3) But “out of the strong came sweetness” is unsolvable, and [this was done] very wisely and artfully: having proposed to the audience the first, easy one beforehand, he then entangled its easiness with the difficulty of the second, so that the easy one tempts them into a trap and the strong one as if keeps the deceived men in it. (4) For you offered the riddle as proof of not only your strength but also wisdom. Chapter 32

(1) Hearing these words, those who had come to Samson’s wedding for joy undertook to solve the riddle and accepted the offer of the bet before they could really take in the riddle and truly perceive its depth. (2) For being trapped between two evils, [vain] hope and drunkenness, they took the bet more hastily, because drunkenness did not permit them to grasp the matter first and consider it carefully, while the hope had already won and granted the victory to them before thought. (3) For every man by nature expects something good and goes ahead stubbornly, in order that the hope wins, especially those who deluge their mind with drinks. (4) For being attacked by animal desires, the mind becomes waste and drunkenness sinks it. (5) Then the entire reckless animality of the heart, as if after being drawn into an abyss, rises toward reason; and it wakes, rushing to a decision in this animal manner and so strictly confined within the organs. Chapter 33

(1) However, Samson did not manage to entrap [them]: a woman interfered and vehemently broke the snare set by him. (2) She entangled the hunter in her net and let the chased ones free, shattering the trap. (3) Such is, O Samson, a Philistine [woman]: ready for carnal unity at any rate and pretending to love faithfully, but her soul fights against the one with whom the body copulates, spreading her genes among races. (4) Her body is peaceful but her soul is seditious; moreover, she does nothing for peace 32:5. rushing to a decision . . . confined within the organs Pseudo-Philo probably means that reason, subdued by “the organs” (i.e., the “tools” of animal instincts), makes unwise decisions. 33:1–35:6 While there is no appraisal of the wife’s behavior in Judg. 14:16–17, Pseudo-Philo seizes the opportunity to deliver a long woman hater’s speech in the best Philonic tradition.34 A classic example of misogynistic rhetoric, it is directed against the female gender in general and the Philistine women in particular. The author uses familiar phrases such as “the female race . . . is horrible and irresistible,” “only for them it is easy to capture the race of strong men,” “if we deem them timid and obedient, we are defeated,” etc., and as a conclusion he evaluates his accusatory speech as “an antidote, a remedy against the deadly poison.” Though Josephus (Ant. 5.294) does not express his personal negative opinion on what the woman did, he puts in Samson’s mouth the desperate exclamation “Nothing is more deceptive than a woman!” (eipen oude gynaikos einai ti dolerōteron).

Pseudo-Philo, On Samson, and On Jonah

769

but everything for war. (5) For she does not allow anybody to survive and plots against him whom she should protect. (6) She lays a delusive plot, so that one, by accepting what seems to be useful, takes concealed mortal fruits. (7) In a similar way poison is mixed with dishes: the art of cookery deceives, but those who take the poison become proof of the same woman’s evil deed. Chapter 34

(1) Did you see the craftiness of the mind? Did you lose, Samson, the victory because of a woman? (2) Henceforth, be attentive, do not stumble over a second stone and fall, or rather, do not hit the same stone again and do not ignore what you have learnt from nature! (3) Please, be more careful and steadier in the future: the female race, O Samson, is horrible and irresistible; it can enervate and subdue a valiant man, defeat his physical strength by seducing his soul with desire. (4) Only for them it is easy to capture the race of strong men, for they fight not with weapons and not with heroic bravery, but their face is the weapon, their speech is the sword, and their caress and cajolery is the fire. (5) The strangest thing is that when we make peace with them, they win; we can overcome them again, if we are displeased with something, but if we deem them timid and obedient, we are defeated. (6) Moreover, even though they strike and pierce more quickly than all arrows, they cannot strike the one who does not wish it. (7) For their arrows remain ineffective and idle if we ourselves do not excite and arouse them against us. (8) How? The female face came into being as something splendid, but it is a useless weapon when it is laid aside. (9) If you simply bypass it, you go unharmed, but if you confront it and aim with your face at hers in order to win the woman’s face with yours, she will plot and direct her bowstring against you, so that, defeated by her weapon, you will have it stuck in your heart. (10) Thus, there exist useless weapons and idle swords, but we use them against ourselves, becoming their targets.23 Chapter 35

(1) And let no one of the audience deem culpable and blame me for not controlling myself or being audacious beyond measure. (2) For I lingered in this homily writing24 not to do favor to Samson; moreover, the purpose of what I say is not to present the imprudent man as prudent, but first to reproach the Philistines and show their guileful character and second to make this work useful to us. (3) For the vices of the ancestors are a guarantee of the decent prudence of the descendants, since life is one, human nature is the same, snares are all alike, and everyone’s vices are similar. (4) Speaking on such things is purposeful, and though our words concern one who was in the beginning, they are of use for the descendants destined to live with the same illusions. (5) They will find in this speech an antidote, a remedy against the deadly poison. (6) Now, since we were going to tell the story of the riddle, but the amazement at the foreign woman interfered with the discussion and interrupted the narrative, let us go back to where we digressed. Chapter 36

(1) In the morning the wine bibbers, having sobered up from the wine and pondering over the wis-

36:1–40:6 Pseudo-Philo continues his own version of the story about the “wisdom of the riddle,” the Philistines’ inability to solve it, and their decision to blackmail the woman. Once again, Samson’s

770 Gohar Muradyan and Aram Topchyan

dom of the riddle, did not find an answer. (2) They decided that it was the wisest of the riddles and unintelligible to them, because its great wisdom seemed to be unsolvable. (3) The three days which they had requested and the sleepless nights passed, and on the fourth day they fled to claim shelter from Samson’s wife. (4) And this was a true confession of defeat and seeking after an impudent and shameful victory. (5) How? They went to the woman and made a demand: “Woman, we are your city, parents, and home country. (6) The land that you see and your possessions are entirely adjacent to ours, but you united with a stranger, just by agreement and affinity! (7) Now, of so many parts do not give respect to only one, and let your love for the stranger not be steadier than your love for your parents. (8) Samson has offered a riddle to us, and we are struggling against him for property: one riddle is fraught both with laborious trial and the harm of defeat. (9) Since the glory will be common, let us triumph over the stranger, because the dishonor of defeat too will be common: if we, all the citizens, are put to shame, you will also get a part of disgrace. Chapter 37

(1) “Do not crown the stranger instead of your parents; do not honor your husband by our dishonor; and if you see Samson’s face shining and joyous, do not wish to see your parents’ faces sad and depressed. (2) But if you do not want to accept what we say and prefer to support your husband, you will suffer the whole damage, and we will sustain no loss at all. (3) For if you are only concerned about his repute, we will pay the price of the bet from your paternal property and will impose on you the death penalty for your disobedience. (4) Thus, losing nothing, we will even get something, for the price will be exacted from your property, and the grief of our defeat will be compensated by your death.” wife becomes the main target of his severe reproach, which in the end grows to a direct curse (“You, impious, vile woman . . . ”). He disapproves of the Philistines’ ignoble behavior only in passing, as “seeking after an impudent and shameful victory,” and afterward almost justifies it, because, in Pseudo-Philo’s opinion, the woman betrayed her husband “due to her nature” rather than by necessity. Notably, while in Judg. 14:15 the Philistines threaten Samson’s wife with burning her and her father’s house (cf. Josephus’s Ant. 5.291, where the menace is “to burn her” [emprēsein autēn], without a mention of her father’s house), in our text the threat is worded as “death penalty.” According to the MT, after the woman betrayed her husband, she “was given to his companion”; and when later on Samson wished to enter his wife’s room, her father did not allow him to go in ( Judg.14:20; 15:1). In Josephus’s Ant. 5.298, after the betrayal Samson himself “rejects that marriage” (ton de gamon ekeinon paraiteitai), whereas in On Samson Pseudo-Philo blames the woman as the initiator of the divorce,35 both directly (“That is why you did not keep your bride bed after seven days, as usually happens after weddings, but dissolved your marriage”) and indirectly (she revealed her husband’s secret and thereby ruined their wedlock). In the Rabbinic sources, the whole riddle episode seems not to have drawn special attention. 36:3. The three days . . . passed Cf. Judg. 14:14: “And they could not in three days tell what the riddle was.” 37:3. we will pay the price of the bet from your paternal property Cf. Judg. 14:15: “And it came to pass on the seventh day that they said to Samson’s wife, ‘Entice your husband, that he may tell us the riddle, lest we burn you and your father’s house with fire; have you called us to take possession of our goods?’”

Pseudo-Philo, On Samson, and On Jonah

771

Chapter 38

(1) A listener would perhaps say: “If they uttered such threats against the girl, it is unfair to reproach her for preferring her own benefit over that of others.” (2) But read Scripture carefully, and you who now scold those blaming the woman will become the woman’s opponent. (3) For the people who had been proposed the riddle were for three days continually busy with seeking answer to it, and only after the third day they changed their minds and turned to her. (4) She had tempted Samson from the first day on, had pressed him before being pressed by others, and had asked a favor for herself before being asked a favor by others. (5) Thus, her artful plot against Samson was not by necessity, but she rather undertook the task due to her nature. (6) Though we all are doubtful about the matter in question, it is certain that the evil craftiness of the woman in getting the answer was nothing but abuse. (7) Moreover, she was ready to do the favor if she were asked; and when they made the demand, her wickedness grew so as to hatch the plot, to deceive Samson, and to crown the uncircumcised. Chapter 39

(1) Now, in order not to let the story without witness, and to reproach the woman’s knavish deceit as promised, I shall call Scripture itself to witness. (2) Think: what did the Philistines ask the woman and when? What did the woman want and when did she begin to ask it? (3) Accordingly, let us first refer to the Philistines: “And they could not in three days tell what the riddle was . . . they said to Samson’s wife, ‘Entice your husband . . . ’”25 (4) If it was after the third day, on the fourth, that they asked her to entice Samson; she should have started to entice at that time. (5) But what did she do and when did she begin to entice? Let us listen to Scripture itself, which states: “And she wept before him the seven days, while their feast lasted.”26 (6) If so, the first three were the days of her own wickedness, and the other four, of the entreaty. (7) Therefore, we should conclude that she who started plotting before the threats betrayed her husband without any pressure. Chapter 40

(1) What shall I say? You, impious, vile woman! You desired to hear the riddle not to enjoy its composition and not to learn something clever from your husband, but to betray its author and to take the crown away from him who invented it wisely! (2) Were you not ashamed of the nuptial torches, did you not look at the nuptial crown as the symbol of marriage? (3) You did not take compassion on your husband and did not respect the table, but it was in your honor that Samson offered the banquet! (4) You destroyed the marriage before the feast was finished and betrayed your husband before you took off the nuptial crown. (5) Your bride bed became hostile to the one who made it, and you turned the wedding songs into lament. (6) That is why you did not keep your bride bed after seven days, as usually happens after weddings, but dissolved your marriage.

38:4. She . . . pressed him before being pressed by others Cf. Judg. 14:17: “And she wept before him the seven days, while their feast lasted; and it came to pass on the seventh day, that he told her.” 38:6. Though . . . nothing but abuse The passage is corrupt; we have tried to make sense of it. 40:4. You destroyed the marriage Cf. Judg. 14:20: “And Samson’s wife was given to his companion, who was his friend.”

772 Gohar Muradyan and Aram Topchyan

Chapter 41

(1) When the plot proved stronger, and the winner was to lose while the losers were to win, they undertook to solve the riddle. (2) To pay back Samson in full, they stood together and answered: “What is sweeter than honey and what is stronger than a lion?”27 (3) When Samson heard this and [understood] where the plot came from, he said: “The riddle is solved, men, but the victory belongs to the woman, not to men, for ‘if you had not plowed with my heifer, you would not have found out my riddle.’”28 Chapter 42

(1) What wisdom, once again, and what a wonderful second riddle! They would be unable to apprehend it properly if the words did not clearly show their deed. (2) What do you mean, Samson? “If you had not plowed with my heifer, you would not have found out my riddle.” (3) What does this hint at? As it seems to me, this is even beyond our understanding, though we, Samson’s fellow tribesmen, are expected to comprehend his riddles, while to the Philistines they are incomprehensible. (4) Since we do not examine such things to devise plots like them, but we make this research to give thanks to God and keep the memory of wisdom, prompt us, the inquirers: why do you mention the heifer and what is a plowing heifer? (5) We see the heifer not plowed but plowing: why do you call plower the one who was plowed? (6) Very well, O sage, you revealed what had happened in secret! For the female heifer, being among the Philistines, was “plowed” with force and in a hasty assault: “Entice your husband,” but she plowed you. (7) This is so well and artfully expressed by you! For they rushed violently, hurrying “to plow with my heifer.”

41:1–46:5 These concluding chapters of the homily contain: the two final scenes of the riddle story (the Philistines solve the riddle, and then Samson kills 30 of their fellow countrymen to pay the price of the bet), the author’s further praise of Samson’s wisdom and prowess, and his final appreciation of the hero’s character. After mentioning Samson’s angry reaction to the bettors’ answer (“if you had not plowed with my heifer, you would not have found out my riddle”), Pseudo-Philo takes the opportunity to admire once again Samson’s wit and the “wonderful second riddle,” which even Jews—including the author himself (“we, Samson’s fellow tribesmen”: a direct testimony by Pseudo-Philo to his Jewish origin)—would be unable to comprehend, let alone the Philistines. Then, to justify the killing of 30 men, the orator forgets for a moment his anger at the “impious, vile woman” and thinks that “the sage” should not be accused, because he rightly perpetrated the massacre “out of pity for the woman who had been menaced by the Philistines.” Pseudo-Philo is amazed at the mastery by which Samson carried out the bloodshed without spoiling their garments. He also eulogizes Samson for taking vengeance on his offenders later, in due time, because at the moment of his defeat it was necessary to respect the bet first and give what he owed to the bettors! In Rabbinic tradition, namely in Naz. 4b, the killing and stripping of the 30 Philistines by Samson is discussed from the viewpoint of ritual purity: did he, a Nazirite, defile himself by contact with the dead when he slew 30 men and took their clothing? The Rabbis offer two suppositions on this matter: (1) he first stripped and then killed them; (2) he wounded mortally and then stripped them. They accept the latter supposition, concluding therefore that Samson came into contact with the dead. No Rabbinic source regards him as a prophet,36 unlike Josephus and Pseudo-Philo. Josephus says in Ant. 5:285 that as the newborn

Pseudo-Philo, On Samson, and On Jonah

773

Chapter 43

(1) He gave them such an answer and, in order to win by depriving them of the victory, he paid the price of the bet in an uncommon way. (2) Since this foreign tribe was one, he killed their distant relatives and dressed the nearer ones. (3) And those who should have been black robed on the occasion of the slaughter were clothed by him splendidly from the victims’ possessions. (4) As if of two blood brothers only one was clothed, but he disrobed that innocent one to dress the winner. (5) However, this was not in vain, and he did not kill them madly: let no one accuse the sage! (6) He did it out of pity for the woman who had been menaced by the Philistines; they had compelled her to betray Samson and had threatened to burn the woman’s house. (7) When they won, the house was saved from arson, so he lit a fire among the Philistines with his sword not to allow them to gain the victory. Chapter 44

(1) He acted so both for justice and according to the will of the divine Scripture, because Scripture clearly says somewhere: “He who digs a pit shall fall into it.”29 (2) I am surprised at the just Samson: no less at his riddles than at his heroism. (3) For he who slew thirty brave men but took their lives so masterfully that did not even spoil their garments with the bloodshed would certainly be able to ruin a house30 of those who had threatened with ruin. (4) He could have used their unfair victory as an excuse for the slaughter, but if he had done so, he would seem to be afraid of losing the stakes and would violate the rule of the bet. Chapter 45

(1) When the sage realized how to avoid losses and meet his obligation to the bettors, he took the price of the bet from others’ property and paid what was required by the bet, so to say, without losses. (2) Although those who had won by deception deserved a harsher punishment, it was inappropriate for the beaten one to revenge himself on the winners at that time, at the moment of his defeat. (3) Vanquished, he paid the price in order to take revenge at the right time; this is how Samson behaved: having given them what he owed, having done what was due, and having implicitly complied with the bet, he subsequently found the way to wreak vengeance on the offenders. (4) He did no wrong at the time of the boy (whose name means “strong”) grew quickly, his prophetic gift became evident (dēlos ēn prophēteusōn), and Pseudo-Philo considers him an “inspired man,” i.e., a prophet, able to see the forthcoming events before they happen. Like Pseudo-Philo, Josephus finishes his version of the story with a eulogy on the hero (5:317), mentioning his astounding valor; strength; and magnanimity at death, because he did not hesitate to die together with his enemies. As to Samson’s weakness for women, Josephus ascribes it to human nature in general. 43:2. he killed their distant relatives and dressed the nearer ones Cf. Judg. 14:19: “And the spirit of the Lord came upon him, and he went down to Ashkelon, and slew thirty men of them, and took their booty, and gave changes of garments to those who had told the riddle.” 43:6. had threatened to burn the woman’s house Cf. Judg. 14:15: “Entice your husband, that he may tell us the riddle, lest we burn you and your father’s house with fire.” 44:2. no less at his riddles than at his heroism This is what the Armenian text reads, but “no less at his heroism than at his riddles” would be more logical in this context.

774 Gohar Muradyan and Aram Topchyan

bet and was not blamed for not keeping his word; nor did he afterward forgive them, gaining ill repute as a coward but, as befitted a wise and equally just man, he gave without a loss and was not deemed greedy and thankless when he seized others’ possessions. (5) He neither did wrong to provoke vengeance, nor took revenge when he was maltreated, but lingered for a while. Chapter 46

(1) It is typical of inspired men to wait for the events to occur, because with their spirit they see everything beforehand. (2) So when the time came, he wreaked proper vengeance upon the Philistines and after that defeated the wrongdoers. (3) For though he was strong enough to defeat them, it was in due time that he realized how to do so rightly. (4) Since nothing he had chosen was of worth and fitting his morals, it was necessary to consign to oblivion the nuptial bed and the wedding, and to take arms against the men who still wore those garments, the signs of his marriage. (5) And since all the Philistines exceed one another in ungrateful character, it was inappropriate for the just man to be associated with such ungratefulness. 46:1. inspired men Cf. the reference to the “inspired” ( Gk. pneumatophoros) prophets in On Jonah 1:2. 46:2. when the time came . . . defeated the wrongdoers Cf. Judg. 15:1–8 and Samson’s final revenge in 16:28–30.

Pseudo-Philo, On Samson, and On Jonah

775

Translation of On Jonah37 Chapter 1

(1) Some of those who read the prophets are amazed at what is useful to people and some admire their prophecy. (2) However, I also praise those who praise, because I notice them too; and what is more important than anything else is to praise the inspired38 prophets: this is as preferable to what has been chosen as the citharist singer [is preferable] to the cithara, the craftsman to the house, the helmsman to the boat, and the one who grants his mighty skill to an object, to the instrument of any craft. (3) For just as the body’s utility is nothing if it has no moving soul, likewise the craftsman’s, if he does not accept the intellect moving [him] toward crafts. (4) Therefore, I regard the Legislation as a ship carpentered from on high;39 the Pilot of all is seated upon it, rightly steering this world toward the salvation of everyone; and He steers serviceably, administering all affairs, wherever they occur. Chapter 2

(1) Now, He who steers all the cities, saw from on high that Nineveh had gone into a dissolute way of life; He40 is also the cause of the cities, so as a good doctor He sought after the right medicine for the city’s illness, in order to stop the spread of the illness and to outstrip the menace by His help. (2) And this medicine had a reputation contradicting salvation, for wishing to keep alive and protect the city, He dispatched a prophet, threatening it with ruin—correctly, I think, and [in this way] teaching [us] the genuine craft of the doctors (as the most skillful of them [do]; they promise to keep the sick alive and set them upright41 by curing with fire and water). (3) Thus the Allwise,42 who is the only Savior, having proclaimed death and devastation, builds the favor of salvation.

Commentary 1:4–2:1. Therefore, I regard the Legislation as a ship . . . He who steers all the cities The allegory of the pilot (not necessarily referring to God) steering his ship was a commonplace both in biblical commentaries and in other literary genres. Interestingly, in this passage God the Pilot steers three different, though interrelated, “ships”: the Legislation (i.e., the Torah), “this world,” and “all the cities.” The clause “the Pilot of all is seated upon it, rightly steering this world toward the salvation of everyone” has a striking parallel in Philo’s Confusion 98, where he refers to God as “the pilot of the universe, holding the helm and steering all things in a saving way” (ho kybernētēs theos tōn holōn oiakonomōn kai pēdaliouchon sōtēriōs ta sympanta). Another parallel occurs, for example, in Migration 272, where Philo compares “the first wise man in the human race” (Abraham) with a helmsman on a ship. In Rabbinic literature, the symbolic character of the pilot figures, for example, in Lev. Rab. 12:1 (“the steersman sitting on the masthead”) and 21:5 (Rabbi Johanan says that a man must always be like a steersman, on the lookout for performing a religious act). Finally, a remote parallel can be found in Wis. 10:4: “When the earth was flooded . . . wisdom again saved it, steering the righteous man by a paltry piece of wood” (Noah is meant). 2:1–3. as a good doctor . . . having proclaimed death and devastation, builds the favor of salvation The motif of God the healer curing the world even through destruction, which in this paragraph Pseudo-Philo develops in a rhetorical manner, goes back to Exod. 15:26 (“I will not bring upon you any of the diseases that I brought upon the Egyptians, for I the Lord am your heal-

776 Gohar Muradyan and Aram Topchyan

Chapter 3

(1) And the Philanthropist seeks after an associate for their salvation: a man out of many, who is one of them and is regarded as [His] companion; not because He did not know the future (for who gave knowledge to the prophets?), but in order to make the second [deed] more miraculous than the first. (2) Furthermore, He entrusted the salvation of the souls only [to Jonah], dispatching a human for the salvation of humans; He first cured him, reproaching the doctor, for just as they were unhealthy by their way of life, likewise the prophet was incapable of having the knowledge from God, hoping to escape from an inescapable God. Chapter 4

(1) Now, the Lord approached him, as He used to do before, and said the following: “You see, O prophet, the city of Nineveh, to which I have abundantly granted whatever makes inhabitants happy. (2) You see the well-growing cereals, the land sprouting better than any other land, exulting in fecundity thanks to the mild and sweet air surrounding it; they can grumble neither at the coldness of air, er”), Ps. 103:2–3 (“Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits, Who forgives all your iniquities, who heals all your diseases”) et al. and is as if summarized in Deut. 32:39 (“See now that I am he, and there is no god with me; I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal; nor is there any who can deliver out of my hand”). In Rabbinic tradition, a parallel may be drawn with Gen. Rab. 10:4, where Rabbi Phinehas in the name of Rabbi Hama of Sepphoris, referring to Isa. 30:26 (“And He will heal the stroke of their wound”), explains the verse as “He will heal the wound of the world.” 3:1–2. And the Philanthropist seeks after an associate for their salvation: a man out of many . . . hoping to escape from an inescapable God According to Jewish sources, this “associate,” i.e., Jonah, son of Amittai, was one of the thousands of disciples surrounding the prophet Elisha (B. Ket. 106a refers to more than 2,200 disciples of this master). Furthermore, before sending Jonah to Nineveh, God had assigned him another task, namely, to announce death and destruction to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.61 The mentioned sources express the view that this first message of God, addressed to the people of Jerusalem through Jonah, is corroborated by 2 Kings 14:25 (“He restored the border of Israel from the entrance of Hamath to the sea of the Arabah, according to the word of the Lord God of Israel, which he spoke by the hand of his servant Jonah, the son of Amittai, the prophet, which was of Gath-Hepher”). However, this interpretation is not accepted in Mek. Bo 2a and Yebam. 98a, where both revelations of the Shekhinah to Jonah (i.e., in 2 Kings 14:25 and in Jon. 1:1–2) are connected with the affairs of Nineveh. The sources that speak about the first divine message to Jerusalem further narrate that its inhabitants repented and changed their conduct, thanks to which God did not destroy the city and, consequently, Jonah’s prophecy was regarded as “false” (the epithet of which he was so afraid). This is why, in order to avoid falsity for the second time, Jonah decided to flee from God and avoid going to Nineveh; he even preferred to lose his life in the sea rather than see the heathens repent.62 3:1. who gave knowledge to the prophets? Cf. Dan. 2:21: “He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding.” 3:2. the doctor Jonah, who was going to “heal” the inhabitants of Nineveh. 4:1–5:6. “ . . . the city of Nineveh . . . they should not live in delight with any expectation for the future!” This long elaboration of the laconic Jon. 1:2 (“Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and

Pseudo-Philo, On Samson, and On Jonah

777

nor at frequent downpours, nor at the sun [as if it is] hotter than nature itself. (3) Now why do they not give me due thanks? Are words of appreciation a great reward that I demand for so many blessings? (4) They have become so thankless as not only to deny gratitude but also to disregard their Gratifier. (5) Why do they need the sky to be luciferous, the clouds to rain, the soil to bear fruit, the trees to bud, the moon to give light, and the sun to shine with its rays for their ungrateful souls? (6) I think that, having received these things, they have made them futile: they did not see the world with their eyes to acknowledge the Craftsman; they turned a deaf ear to the piety of words; and they even moved their tongue to mention me, the Godhead, with malice. Chapter 5

(1) “If they had compensated for the wickedness against me by righteousness toward one another, perhaps they would be forgiven; but by the malignancy toward themselves, the humans, they have surpassed the malignancy toward God. (2) Just as time has divided them into age groups (into elders, [adult] men, and youths), likewise the sins are different in accordance with their ages. (3) For their youths hunt after carnal pleasure; those who are perfectly sturdy among men use that strength for banditry; and the women differing from one another in appearance adorn themselves to entrap [men]. (4) The deeds of the grayhaired among them, too, are unbearable: since time has deprived them of strength and taken away their beauty, in recompense for the deprivation it has given them reason; they nurture and grow it to harm, equipping themselves for tricks against each other. (5) If they are neither grateful to me nor pleasant to one another, they are a burden for the elements on which they are nourished with thoughtless conduct. (6) Now, what do I want, O prophet? Proclaim destruction to the city: that a very painful death will come upon it, so that in the meantime they should not live in delight with any expectation for the future! Chapter 6

(1) When the prophet heard this, he recalled his art (that is to say, prophecy) and saw the city unharmed cry against it; for their wickedness has come up before me”) as a whole has no parallel either in Rabbinic or in theological literature. The oratorical structure of the divine speech is based on cause-effect relations and is intended to logically prove the truthfulness and fairness of what is said to the listeners: God granted fine weather and prolific lands to the Ninevites, but they turned out to be ungrateful and did not even wish to utter a word of thanks to Him; moreover, making use of the created things, they totally ignored the Creator (cf. Wis. 13.1: “Nor did they recognize the artisan while paying heed to his works”). However, God would forgive even their negligence and blasphemy if they had been righteous toward one another; but since the Ninevites have despised those principal norms of correct behavior, they are no longer worthy of living on the earth. This emphasis on the two primary aspects of human perfection may be traced back to Philo’s Abraham 208, where “piety toward God” (hosiotēs pros theon) and “justice toward men” (dikaiosynē pros anthrōpous) are mentioned as the main virtues of Abraham. 5:3. differing from one another in appearance Irrespective of whether they are attractive or unattractive. 5:6. Proclaim destruction to the city Cf. Jon. 1:2: “Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry against it; for their wickedness has come up before me”; and Jon. 3:2: “Go to Nineveh, that great city, and proclaim to it the message that I bid you.”

778 Gohar Muradyan and Aram Topchyan

even after the proclamation; and as if he was not the servant of God but had received the prophecy by himself, he fled from the city to which he was commanded to go. (2) He was frivolous enough, hoping to escape from the Creator of all; but the Overseer of everyone allowed him, who hoped to escape from God, [to do so,] in order to reproach the prophet, to demonstrate His power, and to make the proclamation to the city more persuasive, so that the city to which death was to be proclaimed should avoid danger and survive. (3) And since it was impossible for him to escape from the Overseer of all, he did not succeed but, being deprived of the knowledge of the future, he fled to cast himself into the bare and open sea. Chapter 7

(1) Since he was walking near the sea in confusion, he came across a ship of war and, stretching his hand toward the sailors, said: “O sailors, where are you going? Where are you steering your boat? In order to help me too, take me aboard!” (2) As they named the city and agreed, he was taken on board the ship—the one who was going to stir up the sea and endanger the sailors. (3) For the prophet, the herald [sent] to the city, on account of the prophecy appeared amid a storm and billows when he boarded the ship. (4) They took into the ship and carried a rock—the one who bore the proclamation, and they turned the navigation against themselves; instead of steering the ship upon the waves, [they had] the waves surging and rolling upon it. (5) Seeking, as I think, complete oblivion, he left the deck of the ship and descended into the belly; and with sadness in his heart, he surrendered himself to oblivion.43 (6) And when the sea no longer possessed the one who had shipped out, it prayed and was scared; but the elements, better than any servant, roused the sea over the prophet and were against the salvation of the fugitive, because he did not wish to be humane toward the Ninevites.

6:1. When the prophet heard this . . . he fled from the city As we have noted in the annotation of 3:1–2, according to several Jewish sources Jonah decided to avoid the task not only because, thanks to his prophetic gift, he saw Nineveh flourishing even after his proclamation, but also because he had already felt bitter disappointment with his announcement of death and destruction to the inhabitants of Jerusalem (when he had been called “false prophet” for the first time). 6:3–7:6. he fled to cast himself into the bare and open sea . . . roused the sea over the prophet Pirke R. Eli. 10; Tanh. Va-Yikra 8; Midr. Jonah 96–97; and Ned. 38a add interesting details to the story of Jonah’s flight and seafaring. Because the prophet believed that the Shekhinah could only appear in heaven and on dry land, he thought that in the open sea it would be possible to avoid another divine revelation and not have to go to Nineveh. When he went to the harbor of Joppa, no ship was there. To test Jonah, God roused a wind and forced a vessel that had left the port two days ago to return to Joppa and take the fugitive aboard. Jonah regarded this as an encouraging sign, hoping that God was well disposed toward his plan. Being in high spirits, he paid enough to hire the whole ship (the payment was 4,000 denarii), but the vessel had hardly made a day’s journey when God hurled a tempest upon the sea.63 According to Gen. Rab. 24:4, this was one of the three most terrible storms the world had ever seen: one of the other two was in the days of Job and the third in the days of Elijah. However, the storm in the days of Jonah was directed against his ship only, and no one else suffered from it. 7:2. the city The city to which they were traveling.

Pseudo-Philo, On Samson, and On Jonah

779

Chapter 8

(1) Now, the steersman left the helm, and the sailors, the other equipment, and they stretched their hands in prayer; however, neither the tempest ceased by their prayer nor the ship rested, but the roar of the waves loudened and the blast of the winds strengthened—they competed with each other in killing the sailors. (2) The surges were covering the ship, and the winds were sweeping off those on the ship before it would sink; and perhaps there was nothing surprising, because the heat of the tempest was inside the ship and aroused a hot wind over the sea. (3) Why did the tempest not die down? For I think that when a conflagration envelops a forest, it increases and cannot be extinguished, but if someone takes away the wood of the forest, the fire, being extinguished, will vanish. (4) Likewise, when the prophet was there, the heat of the tempest inflamed, but when he was away, this was a sign of peace. Chapter 9

(1) But the captain, who was watching the sea and to whom the control of the ship was entrusted, in this great agitation felt that someone was asleep; for the sound of the snore of his nostrils turned out to be his enemy, as it happens to those sunk into deep torpor. (2) For I think that when the mouth is closed and the senses are impeded, the breath passing through the nostrils is pressed, and since there is also a pressure inside the narrow and subtle tubes when they are overfilled with the breath, they wheeze. (3) The tubes are accustomed to doing so, but the prophet snored not so much for a natural reason as due to the punishment imposed [on him] for the reproof of sinners. (4) Now, the captain approached him and said: “Do you sleep lightheartedly, O man? Has deep sleep captured you so that you do not wake up from the splash of the waves and from the turbulence of the sea? (5) Arise, dispel your sleep and pray to your God! Do you not see those who were sailing safely before you got on board the ship, and that they have been at peril since you have boarded? (6) Do you not see the sea springing higher than the air, and that turbulence has seized our ship? Why are you idle while all the others are busy?

7:6. the sea no longer possessed Because Jonah had disappeared from the “sight” of the sea. 8:1. Now, the steersman left the helm, and the sailors, the other equipment, and they stretched their hands in prayer Jewish sources mention representatives of the 70 nations of the earth that are traveling on this ship. Each had his particular idol and faith; the sailors decided that everyone should pray to the deity of his own nation, and whichever god was able to calm the sea was to be acknowledged as the only true divine power. However, since none of the praying travelers got help from his god, the captain of the ship had to approach the sleeping Jonah. When addressing the prophet, the captain says he had already heard that the God of the Jews was the most powerful.64 9:1–2. for the sound of the snore . . . when they are overfilled with the breath, they wheeze This funny description of the process of snoring by Pseudo-Philo is based on the Gk. word errenchen in the LXX (cf. Jon. 1:5: “But Jonah had gone down into the interior of the ship; and had lain down, and was snoring”). The Hebrew Bible reads yeradem (“was fast asleep”). 9:4–7. Do you sleep . . . we too will perish Cf. Jon. 1:6: “So the ship’s captain came to him, and said to him, ‘What do you mean, O sleeper? Arise! Call upon your God! Perhaps God will give a thought to us that we do not perish.’” 9:6. has seized our ship Arm. i mer naws argeleal p’akets’aw (lit. “has been enclosed in our ship”).

780 Gohar Muradyan and Aram Topchyan

(7) If you wish to be content with our labor, you have to entrust your life to others’ care, but by your negligent laziness we too will perish.” Chapter 10

(1) And the prophet woke up and ascended to the deck of the ship; he saw the cloud of the tempest, the ebullition of the waves, the force of the winds, the wail of the men, and the crying of the children— within a short space of time, the souls of all had been seized by death. (2) Looking around from above as if from a high seat, he saw a multitude of misfortunes and surmised that the sea was disturbed by his sins, which from then on he did not try to forget and conceal, thinking that only he was in danger; he saw everyone [suffering] and was consoled. (3) For human beings are accustomed to enduring pain more easily when many people are involved; this creates equality, and each one derives a consoling remedy for his pain from the misfortunes of others. Chapter 11

(1) But the leaders of the crew saw that the prayers were hindered by sins, and they conducted an investigation into each deed; having demanded from the others accounts on the faults of their behavior, they turned to the prophet: approaching him, they made an inquiry about his life. (2) “Who are you,” they asked, “and from where have you come to us? What are the intentions of your heart? What grudge do you hold in your soul? (3) What is the mode of your life? You are small in stature but a burden for 10:2–3. he saw everyone [suffering] and was consoled . . . each one derives a consoling remedy for his pain from the misfortunes of others Nothing similar to this noteworthy episode about the prophet being comforted by others’ anguish together with Pseudo-Philo’s apt remark on egoistic human nature can be found in the other versions of Jonah’s story. 11:1–8. they conducted an investigation into each deed . . . and [God] unmasks him by secret means Pseudo-Philo has slightly changed both the sequence of events and the contents of this part of the biblical story and has invented some additional episodes. Thereby, with his rhetorical approach, he has tried to make the narrative more attractive and intriguing. In Jon. 1:7–8, after the captain speaks with Jonah, the sailors cast lots to know who caused the evil; when the lot falls upon the prophet, they ask him who he is and where he comes from. In our text, the sailors question all the other passengers before they turn to Jonah (it is interesting that they add to their questions a remark about his appearance: “You are small in stature but a burden for the boat”). In his answer, the prophet mentions only what is in his favor, namely, that he is a servant of God, but he says nothing about his disobedience to the divine order and his attempt to escape by way of their ship (cf. the contrary statement in Jon. 1:10 that he had told the sailors about his flight even before the interrogation). Since his response seems doubtful to the crew (because God had given “the entire human wisdom” to them), they decide to cast lots and unmask the wrongdoer; he is no longer able to lie, for God has become the Supreme Judge and reveals his sin with incontestable evidence (the lot clearly points at the prophet). We see a different picture in Rabbinic tradition, where Jonah, immediately after being awakened from sleep, confesses the wrong he has done and urges the captain to cast him into the sea—a harsh punishment that at first the sailors and the passengers do not agree to carry out.65 11:2–3. “Who are you . . . sink the ship!” Cf. Jon. 1:8: “Then they said to him, ‘Tell us, we beg you, for

Pseudo-Philo, On Samson, and On Jonah

781

the boat, and we are afraid that with the load of your deeds you are going to sink the ship!” (4) This is what the captain and all the others asked, but the prophet told them only what was for his benefit; and, guessing at what would be harmful, he kept silent. (5) He called himself a servant of the Lord but said nothing about his disregard of God’s command and his flight. (6) But the only Infallible One gave [them] the entire human wisdom44 to clearly unmask him, for because of the turmoil on the ship and the sailors’ inquiry, a question arose; because of that question, lots were cast, and because of the lot the one disguised from the human beings was discovered and bound. (7) And this [happened] quite expectedly, for when the judges were humans, he thievishly defeated the reason of the judges, but when God became the Supreme Judge, he was no longer able to lie. (8) What does this mean? By means of lots, God judges in favor of righteous men, for during an open [vote] everyone is free to rise or to raise his hand, whereas during a secret [casting of lots] one has no free will and [God] unmasks him by secret means. Chapter 12

(1) Now, when God judged the man and unmasked him by the lot, the seamen in their turn handed him over to his Judge, who was to punish him; according to what Scripture says: “What shall we do to you, that the sea may calm down for us?45 (2) For you are the cause of the tempest, the lot blames you! However, O man, we are neither thirsty for a death nor, as some congenital savages, wish to see how someone is slaughtered; we just want to get rid of this misfortune that surrounds us from all sides.

whose cause is this evil upon us? What is your occupation? Where do you come from? What is your country? And of what people are you?’” In the Bible, the sailors ask these questions to Jonah after casting lots. 11:6. lots were cast . . . was discovered and bound “And they said to one another, ‘Come and let us cast lots that we may know for whose cause this evil is upon us.’ So they cast lots, and the lot fell upon Jonah.” 12:1–15:4. the seamen in their turn handed him over to his Judge . . . that he should learn philanthropy from the beneficence of God There is a significant difference between this paraphrase of Jon. 1:11–15 and what we find in Jewish sources. Here, although the sailors are reluctant to perform the cruel deed (cf. Jon. 1:14, where they ask God not to lay innocent blood upon them), they make the decision to throw the prophet overboard quite quickly and unhesitatingly, declaring that for them “the salvation of many is preferable to one man’s death” (perhaps the seamen act so resolutely because they are sure that “an abyssal angel or a speechless great fish” is going to take care of Jonah). In Pirke R. Eli. 10, Tanh. Va-Yikra 8, Midr. Jonah 97, and especially in Zohar 1, 121a, and 2, 230b–31a, on the contrary, the crew and the passengers make all possible efforts to keep Jonah on the vessel. First, they plunge him into the water up to his knees, and the sea calms down, but when they lift the prophet back the tempest breaks out again. The second time, they immerse him in the water up to his navel, and the storm stops; they raise Jonah out of the sea, and the wind rages in its previous fury. The third time, they lower him into the water up to his neck, and the tempest is pacified, but when the prophet is back on the ship, the waves rise again. Only after these three futile attempts to save Jonah’s life are the seamen convinced that he cannot be kept on board and cast him into the sea.66 As to the other relevant passages that further embellish the story in our text—the prophet’s exciting speech about erecting “an obelisk

782 Gohar Muradyan and Aram Topchyan

(3) Now, if there is a chance for us and for you to come on shore, if our ship can be rescued and we can survive, no one will crave to take a human life that harms nobody, but if by saving your life we will have to die, then for us the salvation of many is preferable to one man’s death. (4) The overcast sky above us, the desired land, and the deep are our witnesses, and the sea element that brought this tempest upon us is also a witness. (5) Look at the necessaries of the [passengers] threatened by this tempest; we are throwing them out of this ship not because of our piratical or inhumane habits and not because we are averse to [others’] luggage; we have to escape from hostile hands, so [the impending danger of] the ship’s terrible and miserable death is the essential thing, not the luggage. (6) O strange man, our ship cannot carry you—go to some other vessel, whichever you want; may you be saved after leaving this ship and bring luck to the other ship where you go, because for us your presence was unfortunate! (7) Perhaps an abyssal angel or a speechless great fish will take care of your soul; thus, neither will you be reproached for the destruction of our ship nor will we be accused for the death of your soul.” Chapter 13

(1) They demanded answer from the man; and the pupil of the philanthropic God, who was not granted life through others’ salvation, was to grant [life to others] through his death. (2) Hearing the philanthropic voice from the philanthropic mouth [of God], he spoke to the supplicants who desired life. (3) “Since you have appointed me as the judge of your lives, my judgment will not be to your disadvantage; for although I seem to be a judge, I have assumed the duty of an accused person. (4) For if you did not expect the judgment from me, I would be able to freely benefit from others’ loss, but since in this peril you have entrusted the verdict to your adversary, I will justify your confidence to my last breath.” Chapter 14

(1) “Why, prophet, why are you slow? Why do you repel your salvation? Make yourself die and, falling into a trap, you will defeat it! (2) Since you were unable to obtain life, it is time to erect by your death an obelisk of humaneness on this vessel and to show yourself as a righteous prophet, for it was you who deserted from the righteous prophecy!” (3) Saying so while they were in the open sea, he threw himself into the wavy deep.

of humaneness” through self-sacrifice (it is worth mentioning that here he himself jumps into the water); the pity expressed by the author for Jonah’s suffering; and the concluding statement about the instructive humaneness of God toward the sinner—they all are remarkable and characteristic inventions by Pseudo-Philo. 12:3. Now, if there is a chance . . . to one man’s death Cf. Jon. 1:14: “And they cried to the Lord, and said, ‘We pray you, O Lord, we pray you, let us not perish for this man’s life, and lay not upon us innocent blood; for you, O Lord, have done as it pleased you.’” 12:5. we are throwing . . . luggage Cf. Jon. 1:15: “they threw the wares that were in the ship into the sea, to lighten it for them.” 13:1. Others’ I.e., the Ninevites’, whose destruction Jonah did not wish to declare, thus as if giving them “salvation”. 14:3. threw himself into the wavy deep Cf. Jon. 1:15: “So they took Jonah up and threw him into the sea; and the sea ceased from its raging.”

Pseudo-Philo, On Samson, and On Jonah

783

Chapter 15

(1) This suffering, O righteous men, was pitiful, for the man undertook to save [others]; compelled by necessity and forced by the lot, by God, and by the [other] humans, he sentenced himself to death and, in his anxiety for others’ rescue, disregarded his own salvation. (2) Hence, one should admire the philanthropy of the Lord, for though the prophet was worthy of punishment because he had fled from his mission, and though death had surrounded him from all sides, it was he who made the decision, and those who voluntarily condemned him had to confess their sin. (3) Thus, the Philanthropist wished not only to have pity on the pitiful man but also to prepare him for his future service. (4) First having imprisoned the prophet in an unavoidable calamity, He then did him good, so that he should learn philanthropy from the beneficence of God, and so that he who had survived thanks to philanthropy should no longer be unwilling to assist the Ninevites. Chapter 16

(1) Now, having healed both illnesses and having taught the man that no one should regard God as unaware or be an obstacle to His love for human beings, He supplied him with a vessel: a huge fish swimming there, which he considered to be a killing beast, but it was the salvation and the guard of salvation; and while the prophet was swimming, the huge fish drew him inside like breath and conceived him alive in its belly. Chapter 17

(1) The belly of the huge fish became the house of the drowning prophet, its eyes the mirror of the 16:1–18:3. He supplied him with a vessel: a huge fish swimming there . . . [it played] a melody by the musician’s fingers Here Pseudo-Philo elaborates Jon. 2:1–2 (“And the Lord appointed a great fish to swallow up Jonah . . . Then Jonah prayed to the Lord his God from the belly of the fish”), which is retold in an embellished form in Rabbinic sources as well. In our text, just as in the Bible, God appoints the sea monster to swallow Jonah at the moment when he plunges into the sea, whereas according to Pirke R. Eli. 10, Tanh, Va-Yikra 8, and Midr. Jonah 97, God had made the great fish during the creation of the world, with the intention to use it in the future as a shelter for Jonah. While Pseudo-Philo compares the fish’s belly with a house for the prophet, its eyes, with mirrors reflecting the exterior for him, and the whole moving monster, with a king’s carriage, the Rabbinic works mentioned use different images: the huge fish is likened to a spacious synagogue, quite comfortable for Jonah, and its eyes, to windows through which the prophet could see everything in the bottom of the sea; the monster also had a diamond shining like the sun that made the underwater world clearly visible to Jonah.67 A contrary view, that the abdomen of the great fish was a torturous place for the prophet, where he was “wasting away,” is expressed in Macc. 6:8; Ibn Ezra on Jonah 4:6 even adds that because of the heat in the fish’s belly, Jonah’s hair had fallen out; and in Tehillim 26:220 God compensates for the prophet’s suffering in the abyss, exempting him from death and allowing him to enter paradise while he was alive.68 Pseudo-Philo, further characterizing the sea monster as a “perfect machine,” makes its mouth and tongue into a tool for Jonah’s prayer.69 16:1. He supplied him with a vessel . . . in its belly Cf. Jon. 2:1: “And the Lord appointed a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.”

784 Gohar Muradyan and Aram Topchyan

external visible things, and the movement of its flippers similar to a king’s chariot. (2) O prophet, you were given great honor when you moved at a chariot’s speed, just as when the huge fish swam toward you! Did any ruler ever have an opportunity to look as deep into the world’s abyss as you? (3) Invisible things have become visible to you! To whom among humans were the ends of the earth seen as clearly as to you, and [to whom] was the abyss of the sea shown as a view? (4) For whom else have the crafts ever rendered such a perfect machine possible, so that you are there and observe everything, but no one sees you, the observer? Chapter 18

(1) Now, since the prophet was seemingly sheltered in the belly of the huge fish but was actually protected by the Arm of God, he prayed [while he was], as we have said, inside the huge fish and subjugated the beast’s mouth to his prayer. (2) And one could see the huge fish turned into an amazing newly made defender of the prophet’s salvation; it opened its mouth to let the prayer out, it lent [him] its tongue for the pronunciation of words. (3) Touched by the prophet as a musical instrument, [it played] a melody by the musician’s fingers. Chapter 19

(1) The prayer of the supplicant was as follows: “If you wanted me to experience intense suffering, I realize that the extent of my sin implies an even harsher punishment. (2) But since you wished me to sin up to here, only until this point of retribution, I am now accepting from you the beginning of charity, so that I should not be cast away from your eyes, though I am far from the eyes of all, and so that you should not put my mouth to silence, though it is [now] silent for everyone. (3) I contemplate you with the eyes of my heart; I ardently move my tongue (since you have allowed me to use it freely) to defend myself. (4) For you listen to those who have committed sins; when supplicants are permitted to see the sovereign and their gifts are accepted, this is the first [sign] of mercy upon them. (5) As to me, I am not only granted the right to speak but also [allowed] to justify myself for the salvation of 18:1. he prayed . . . inside the huge fish Cf. Jon. 2:2: “Then Jonah prayed to the Lord his God from the belly of the fish.” 19:1–25:8. The prayer of the supplicant was as follows: “ . . . shows how natural labor takes place” Pseudo-Philo’s version of the prayer from the belly of the huge fish has little in common with Jon. 2:2–10 (except for some commonplaces in this story, mentioned below) and can be regarded as an original piece of homiletic work. Its main motifs include: 1. Jonah’s penitence for the greatness of his sin, which deserves “even harsher punishment.” 2. The inescapability of divine commands but at the same time the humanity and mercifulness of God ready to listen to sinners (cf. Jon. 2:3: “I cried to the Lord out of my distress, and he heard me”). 3. “The sea raging against” Jonah and “the ship submerging” because of him (cf. Jon. 2:4: “The floods surrounded me; all your billows and your waves passed over me”). 4. The sailors’ judgment on Jonah and the decision to expel him from the ship (“the expulsion of my body as a useless vessel”; a notable detail, making the “vessel” even more useless, is added to this episode in Zohar 1, 121a: the soul of the prophet left him when he was cast into the

Pseudo-Philo, On Samson, and On Jonah

785

my soul. (6) For if you wanted to kill [me,] the condemned man, [what would be] mightier than this beast? (7) Or if you wanted to put me in a grave, what would be deeper than the abyss of the sea? If the whole world above were to fall down, it could be placed in this grave. Chapter 20

(1) “Consequently, I myself have hindered my salvation, but since the Judge is philanthropic, He generously granted46 me actual, not just seeming, salvation, thus demonstrating His profound love for human beings (even though He was merciful to me not without punishment). (2) Now, having exposed me to all this, you are going to be lenient like a sovereign! (3) First I saw the sea raging against me and the ship submerging because of me, then the judgment of those who were on board the ship with me: they were making a decision on my salvation; then the accusation of the lot and the expulsion of my body as a useless vessel; after that, the attack of this enormous beast, which was able to kill by frightening before devouring me. (4) But these sufferings are among the visible things, while the confinement in this narrow place is invisible to all human beings except for the one who has suffered and bears witness to it. (5) For who will see the man that has sunk into this huge fish, who will have pity on someone invisible, and who will seize and pull the sunken one out of this beast’s mouth by thrusting his hand inside? Chapter 21

(1) “For I, who have escaped from the land to the sea, from the sea to the ship, and from the ship into the empty belly of this huge fish, had failed and approved myself a fugitive even before the flight. (2) For I would not be able to hide from the stars and to find food, and because I was to be taken to this place; and while I am in this narrow space, my misfortune has become a fable and the suffering of the prophet has turned into a legend. (3) For does this not seem to be a fable or a legend? As if I am in a vaulted cavity, confined within iron walls, under a copper ceiling, and though I am motionless, the whole world is seen to me. (4) The life of this huge fish has become mine; thinking I am food, the beast has

5. 6.

7.

8.

9.

water and, after a trial in heaven, returned back into his body when the monster was about to swallow him). The deepness of the abyss in which “the whole world above” could be placed (cf. Jon. 2:7: “I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars closed on me forever”). The confinement of the prophet in a “narrow place” (thus, despite the comparison of the great fish with a house and “king’s chariot” for Jonah [see the previous comment] and the claim in 21:4 that he is delighted to be inside the monster, the prophet in fact was not very happy with his new dwelling and fate). The two divine functions: “You chastise the sinners with a judge’s wrath but you take care of them with kingly love” (cf. Philo’s doctrine about the chastening and beneficent powers of God: QE. 2:68 [and our comment on 2:68.2–15], Heir 166, and On Flight and Finding 101). The fabulous salvation of Jonah—comparable with the stories of the fiery furnace (Dan. 3:19– 30), Daniel in the den of lions (Dan. 6:16–23), and even the Jews crossing the divided Red Sea (Exod. 14:21–22)—as another proof of the almightiness of God (in the Rabbinic tradition, these four miracles, among others, are mentioned side by side, e.g., in Gen. Rab. 5:5). Jonah’s humbleness after being taught a lesson and his readiness to fulfill the divine task; this

786 Gohar Muradyan and Aram Topchyan

let me in to use its faculties,47 for I now offer prayer through its mouth, I see through its eyes, I move by its flippers, and being imprisoned in this beast I am delighted rather than shocked. (5) I see the world as if in a mirror, and I see the benevolence toward me more clearly than in a mirror. Chapter 22

(1) “For wishing to instruct me only by fear, you have placed me in a secure place and you have cleaved and opened for me the figure of the huge fish to make the exterior visible; its wrath is like a protective device against those creatures [that would seem] nightmares in the dark to everyone. (2) I must praise you for two things: I have escaped from the teeth of the huge fish that carries me, and I am safe from the menace coming from all the other beasts. (3) Now, pay heed to the prayer of the two of us: to this tool of our voice, which pronounces the prayer on our behalf; retrieve me from this gloomy prison and let this huge fish feed in freedom, or else I too will not have sufficient food, for the fish is unable to eat because of us. Chapter 23

(1) “I know that I have disregarded your command and incited the severest of penitents’ punishments, but I have been taught a lesson and have become humble. (2) I have learned not to escape from the eyes that see all and whose sight embraces everything, and not to ignore and forget divine words. (3) I will obey your might, so that this is recorded in the Holy Scripture for those who will read about me, the fugitive prophet hosted by this ship-prison, the huge fish. (4) Let the ears of humans learn about your saving hand and your mouth consoling sinners, about the refuge given to fugitives and your humaneness toward those who should read this. (5) You have many punishments, but it is your humanity that arrives; you chastise the sinners with a judge’s wrath but you take care of them with kingly love. Chapter 24

(1) “Who among us, having comprehended that one cannot escape from God, will think about flight? Who, after my distressful sinking into the huge fish and after I have avoided the beast’s fury and safely returned back, will [not] believe that the most luminous one among all fed the man without air, with the help of the huge fish whose wrath He had tamed and softened? (2) For He feeds with air both the terrestrial [beings] on the earth and the aquatic [animals] in the sea, and He satisfies the need of our nostrils for breath by means of the winds.

corresponds to “I will pay that which I have vowed” concluding the prayer in Jon. 2:10, as well as in Midr. Jonah 98–99, which contains another version of it in the regular form of the Selikhah (in Pirke R.abbi Eli. 10, Tanh. Va-Yikra 8, and 2 Midr. Jonah 33, Jonah’s entreaty to God from the belly of the fish is quite short).70 Unlike the biblical and the midrashic versions of the prayer, in Pseudo-Philo it ends not with Jonah’s promise to pay what he owes but with a “scientific” remark: the “pregnancy” of the monster with the prophet shows how “natural” childbirth takes place—an attempt to interpret a scriptural episode, in imitation of Philo, rationalistically. 22:3. this tool of our voice The mouth of the fish.

Pseudo-Philo, On Samson, and On Jonah

787

Chapter 25

(1) “Your humanity toward Noah in the first age is well known; for dissolving the whole world in water and inundating those nurtured on the earth, you did not destroy wisdom and with great skill kept the man intact amid the torrents; you gave him the ark as a ship and established your providence upon it as a steersman, so that those who survive should become the beginning of the second age. (2) The unjust fire is a memorial to the second [age] of the patriarchs who defeated the Babylonian tyrants with piety. (3) And since in the present age the King48 adds new miracles to the old ones, [humans,] having received these miracles, will gain even stronger confidence in [His] deeds. (4) And since man defeated fire, no one will ask how the just [ Jonah] remained unaffected by the blasts amid the universal tempest, how the sea was split so that the Jews could cross it, and how the righteous men played with beasts. (5) They will see me, the witness to these things, who fancied his second birth in sleep, they will entrust their lives to me and find the ideal of truth; having seen this instance, they will rely on you in everything. (6) For if one can open the innards of a beast and keep alive its living spirit separated from the body, why should He not keep unharmed that which was made from the earth and was given back to the earth in pledge? (7) This is incredible childbirth, for no one else is present here and no doctor controls the life-giving process; it is vivified inside [the fish] with the help of your Holy Hand and will be accomplished through us, for there is no obstacle to your power herein. (8) Thus, the huge fish’s pregnancy with me shows how natural labor takes place.” Chapter 26

(1) So much he prayed, and his prayer aroused the pity of God; the huge fish was able to relax, for it was commanded to vomit Jonah out on the dry land. (2) When he had seen the world after the second

25:2. The unjust fire . . . with piety Cf. the story of the fiery furnace in Dan. 3:19–30. 25:4. man defeated fire Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego are meant; cf. Dan. 3:19–30. the righteous men played with beasts Probably this reference is to Daniel thrown into the den of lions; cf. Dan. 6:16–23. 25:6. that which was made . . . in pledge Jonah probably means his own body. 25:7. through us Through Jonah himself and the huge fish. 26:1–5. it was commanded to vomit Jonah out on the dry land . . . in a hurry and in complete obedience, he reached the people While in Jon. 3:1–2, after the “vomit,” God addresses the prophet once again, urging him to arise and go to Nineveh, in Pseudo-Philo Jonah so ardently hurries to carry out his mission that, as if himself “transformed into the message,” he needs no second inducement. Casting a glance at the world and giving thanks to God, he hastens to the city. Furthermore, Pseudo-Philo believes that the prophet, “soaked in sweat,” finished the three-day trip in one day, which is perhaps a result of misinterpretation (though Jon. 3:3–4 refers to Nineveh as “an exceedingly great city, three days’ journey in extent,” it does not state that Jonah passed the whole way in one day but that he made the proclamation after “going a day’s journey”). Jonah 2:11–3:4 is further elaborated in Midr. Jonah 99–100, Pirke R. Eli. 10, Tanh. Va-Yikra 8: when the great fish vomited the prophet, he landed on the earth 965 parasangs away from the monster. Having seen the miraculous salvation of Jonah, the sailors of the ship from which he was thrown into the sea denied their idols and became God-fearing proselytes in Jerusalem. These sources too say that

788 Gohar Muradyan and Aram Topchyan

birth and had worshiped God, he undertook his main mission. (3) I think that just as a wild horse frequently rears before it is forcefully tamed (for it is unwilling to accept the bridle), likewise the prophet became humble and calm after many wanderings and after having understood that God, to whom his words were addressed, is inescapable. (4) He not only hastened but [it was] as if [he] himself was transformed into the message; he turned the three-day journey into one day’s simple task with the sole concern of imparting the message from the voice of God to the Ninevites, so that the time determined for [curing] the Ninevites’ illness should not be sluggishly wasted on the journey. (5) Soaked in sweat, in a hurry and in complete obedience, he reached the people. Chapter 27

(1) He stood at a high spot and proclaimed: “O men, inhabitants of this place, remove the bridal canopies from your rooms, take off the bridegrooms’ wreaths, cast away the diadems, and mourn not for the dead but for the living! (2) The Lord of all has limited the duration of your life: three days is your determined time in this city; you are not ignorant of the reason, for you yourselves are aware, but I shall proclaim it to you. (3) You do not acknowledge God, you do not give thanks to God for His gifts, you trample on your oaths, you buy justice, you pervert the judges with bribes, you offend poverty, you worship

the prophet immediately hurried to Nineveh; the greatness of the city is described as follows: it covered 40 square parasangs and its population was 12 times as large as that given in Jon. 4:11 (that is to say, 12 x 120,000).71 26:1. it was commanded to vomit Jonah out on the dry land Cf. Jon. 2:11: “And the Lord spoke to the fish, and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry land.” 26:4. he turned . . . into one day’s simple task Cf. Jon. 3:3–4: “And Nineveh was an exceedingly great city, three days’ journey in extent. And Jonah began to go into the city, going a day’s journey.” 27:1–5. He stood at a high spot and proclaimed: “ . . . whatever you teach to others is spiteful!” The “high spot” is invented by Pseudo-Philo to make the ominous scene even more awe inspiring: the figure of the prophet announcing death and destruction from a high place is really impressive, and this impressiveness is further enhanced by the enumeration of the Ninevites’ sins, some of which are quite sinister (“You disgrace the beauty of virgins . . . and abduct others’ brides . . . you oppress the living, you rob corpses,” etc.). Thus, in this case too, the laconic biblical verse (cf. Jon. 3:4: “And Jonah began to go into the city, going a day’s journey, and he cried, and said, ‘Another forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown’”) has been transformed into an expressive rhetorical piece. In the description of this episode, Midr. Jonah 99–100 emphasizes the strength of Jonah’s voice: thanks to its sonority, it reached every corner of the great city. As to the contents of Jonah’s proclamation, we find a similar passage in Philo’s Abraham (133–36), condemning the Sodomites. However, in contrast to the long “sin list” in Jonah’s message, Philo speaks about two main transgressions of the inhabitants of Sodom: gluttony (gastrimargia); and lewdness (lagneia), which not only destroys others’ marriages but also makes men lust after one another (cf. in our text: “You seek after lawless fleshly pleasures, you defile marriage . . . you wish to show womanhood in men”). 27:2. three days So read both the LXX and the Armenian Bible (instead of the “forty days” of the Hebrew Bible; cf. Jon. 3:4: “And he cried and said: ‘Another forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown’”).

Pseudo-Philo, On Samson, and On Jonah

789

ill-gotten wealth, you seek after lawless fleshly pleasures, you defile marriage, you disgrace the beauty of virgins, you wish to show womanhood in men, you cancel betrothals and abduct others’ brides, you think that you teach lawful things but you inflame unlawful fire. (4) You oppress the living, you rob corpses, you repudiate debts and demand what you have lent to no one: instead of taking your just punishment in the first case, you scheme undeserved penalties in the second. (5) No thoughts on your part are free from spite: whatever you say, whatever you do, and whatever you teach to others is spiteful!” Chapter 28

(1) When the Ninevites heard these words from the prophet, they expressed agreement with his persistent message. (2) They prudently believed the prophet, for though he had not been in the city, he told them about their deeds; therefore, they also believed his prophecy. (3) If he was able to speak about deeds that he had never seen, with the same gift of foresight he could also predict forthcoming events. (4) So the Ninevites summoned men and women, elders and princes, servants, kings, and lords, and mixing the dignities of all at the same place in one sorrowful assembly, they announced the following: Chapter 29

(1) “As righteous men, O citizens, you have the experience of acknowledging rulers and venerating the Judge before the death sentence is imposed upon you. (2) For the veneration of a king by his servants before the death sentence shows the fidelity of the venerating souls, whereas the praise offered after a threat makes an impression of deceit and flattery rather than of love. (3) For [the prophet] seemed only to venerate and not, as we are doing now, seek [God’s] goodwill to cure his soul. (4) However, he too is mortal, one of those that obey the laws of kings (he who proclaimed the death sentence to our city), so we should venerate the Judge, thereby showing the fidelity of the venerating souls. (5)

28:4–36:3. So the Ninevites summoned men and women, elders and princes, servants, kings, and lords . . . so that we are saved Such an “assembly” (Arm. zhoghovaran; Gk. ekklēsia, occurring in Philo’s Abraham 20; or, less probably, synagogē) of the inhabitants of Nineveh, summoned to decide how to react to the divine message, is mentioned neither in the Rabbinic tradition nor in the Bible itself. Cf. Jonah 3:5, according to which immediately after the frightful prophecy the people of Nineveh “believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth” (though afterward [3:7] a “decree of the king and his nobles” addressed to the citizens and ordering everyone to fast and put on sackcloth is also referred to). Oddly enough, instead of the king of Nineveh, “kings” figure in 28:4 (unlike 37:2, where the author follows the biblical version and says that “the king replaced the throne of his power with sackcloth”). Those “kings” are present at the assembly alongside elders, princes, servants, lords, men, and women. Either this is simply a literary device and a remote echo of the Athenian ecclesia or we are dealing here with a remarkable testimony that hints at details of the author’s place and time (i.e., possibly in that place, during Pseudo-Philo’s lifetime, decisions crucial for the whole people were still made by an assembly). Midr. Jonah 99–100 (25–26 in the second version), on the contrary, not only refers to one king but also gives his name: Osnappar of Assyria. Pirke R. Eli. 43 and Tosefta-Targum on Jonah 3:6 mention Pharaoh as the king of Nineveh.72 As for the Ninevites’ speech itself, although it is not

790 Gohar Muradyan and Aram Topchyan

Nothing should hinder our prayer to the Teacher, for [His messenger] is not able to annul the validity of the Law, or else he would himself be the Lawmaker and the Lord of rulers. Chapter 30

(1) “Let us pray, dear friends, to God, the Lord of all, for no law can sap the strength of our supplication; let us plead with the Lord of the Law! (2) For though secondary rulers execute sinners and the laws applied everywhere are for the condemnation of wrongdoers, they do not fulfill their own will but carry out the king’s order. (3) If this is so, we can supplicate until the Great King wishes to save the supplicants; we do not struggle against others’ will, because everyone depends on the will of the King. Chapter 31

(1) “Now, let us think: what have we disregarded that should be done according to the will of God? (2) For we have found someone who knows our way of life and has spoken correctly about it; how must we behave to please God? Let us simply look at what is going on here among us, and we will find the answer. (3) For if one has deviated from his former conduct, he will see something opposite to it, which is the reason for the death sentence, and he can eliminate the threat. (4) Now, O men, what can encourage us more than to find the truth? Chapter 32

(1) “First of all, we have received from God the gift of possessing human nature; but having been born so, we envied animals, and having been created as rational beings, we adopted the character of the irrational animals. (2) For just as they acknowledge only food and do not know their feeder, likewise we, enjoying the fruits of the fields, do not acknowledge the Fruit bearer. (3) Nevertheless, God granted to us by His generous hand not only what we need for food but also things for joy and amusement; and He required nothing in return, until now leaving us carefree. (4) Nor did He wish, when we turned out to be like animals, to treat us in the same way as we treat animals. (5) For when we put food before animals, we require service from them, and if the reared one renders no benefit to the feeder, the food of the animal is regarded as a loss to the feeder. (6) For having granted not only the gift of food but also the gift of life to us, before now He fed this city that rendered no benefit to the Feeder. (7) Tell me, what was His benefit? Which father has edified his sons since the days of our forefathers? (8) Who at the time of his wedding has shown gratitude? At whose birth have thanks been given to the Creator for the child’s beauty? And on what altar has God been glorified? addressed to God directly, in the second person, we can regard it as a penitential prayer containing ordinary commonplaces (e.g., pious men should worship God before they are condemned; they must acknowledge the Fruit bearer and not just consume the fruits; they have abundantly received life and everything else from the Creator but have forgotten to give thanks to Him, thus behaving like irrational animals; the harmonious universe with its luminaries and many other wondrous things witness to the greatness of the Craftsman, who himself is invisible, so it is he who must be glorified; though God at times severely punishes sinners, he shows mercy to penitents and so let Jonah, as a servant of God, pray with them to save the city).

Pseudo-Philo, On Samson, and On Jonah

791

Chapter 33

(1) “Perhaps we should not say this, because one cannot know God, and it is impossible to see the Incorruptible with corruptible eyes; for He who is invisible has invisible glory. (2) However, though at times God takes our incapacity into consideration, at other times He grants His wonderful knowledge to us; remaining unseen in His glory, He has given us eyes to see His [deeds]. (3) He has given us the elements of the world—the heavens, the sun, the moon, the morning star, the harmonious order of numerous stars—so that although we do not see the Craftsman himself, we can recognize Him through these skillfully made things. (4) Has God not clearly shown himself by putting the sky upon the air and by setting it upon some invisible pillars? Does the sun not clearly reveal the Charioteer? (5) When it has a moderate nature, it is driven by someone’s invisible hand over the whole world; as to its burning nature, [God] has enclosed it inside the disc and sprinkles with the rays those that need warmth.49 (6) The rays of God the Craftsman fill and surround the unsurroundаble50 disc; He stretches those rays around the world, and they manifest God and the [work of His] art hung high in the air. Chapter 34

(1) “And if this were not sufficient evidence, we could fix our eyes on another thing produced day after day by God. (2) What is this night star that starts to conceive as if from the air and steadily bears in itself the wisdom of the Craftsman? (3) It accepts the measured daily wax and then again accepts the wane, so that it should neither excessively wax and emit superfluous rays nor wane and appear too late, but so that it mixes the firstborn rays with the later ones and is reborn at the time of death. (4) Then the moon’s giving way to the sun is the sign of the change from night to day, from days to seasons [as well as the sign of] the division of the seasons into months, the months into days, the days into hours, and, again, [of the change] from daytime to the equal nighttime. (5) Everything is determined by time, rules, and measures: the temper of the sea, when sailors navigate on it according to the motion of the stars, the replenishment of the rivers from above or the gift of the fonts springing from below, the vegetation of the fields, and the fruitfulness of the trees. (6) Thus, no useful things grow uselessly, and, when fading, they make way for others to be born. Does all this not reveal the Lord? Chapter 35

(1) “As to us, we have demonstrated only human appearance but not intellect; having got reason for our knowledge and honor, we turned that honor from the Lord into shame. (2) Having seen such a great world, we did not recognize the Creator; and, having seen such a perfect ship, we did not recognize the Pilot. (3) Therefore, since we have just learnt about the philanthropy of God, let us at least acknowledge that we know Him, so that, being saved by His love for humans, we can gain salvation and so that we can enjoy one thing: that our souls are given good praise for repentance. (4) Since the mortal message proclaimed to this city was just, let us in reply do our best to proclaim a salutary message. (5) And what is salutary? Announce a fast and offer prayers to Goodness! (6) For if we understand the threat, 34:2. this night star Pseudo-Philo probably means the moon. 34:5. from above By rains. 35:5. Announce a fast Cf. Jon. 3:5: “And the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast.”

792 Gohar Muradyan and Aram Topchyan

He who has sent it to us will by no means simply yield to anger due to His profound love for humans: despite His severity toward sinners, He is merciful to supplicants. Chapter 36

(1) “And if nobody is brave enough to raise his hands in prayer, because everyone is ashamed of his conduct, we should impel the prophet himself to intercede for us. (2) Let us say to the proclaimer: ‘If you are a servant of God, allow us to use your voice, manifest your prophetic gift generously, without envy and jealousy. (3) Pray as a partner of our life, so that we are saved thanks to your partnership and this city remains impregnable and unharmed thanks to your arrival; be a stronghold for our city and protective armor for its citizens!’” Chapter 37

(1) After saying this, they dismissed the people, and all of them made their way home, and everyone renounced his dignity, and the renouncement was as follows: (2) The king replaced the throne of his power with sackcloth; the judges put down the [scepter], the symbol of edification and their authority; the masters granted freedom to their slaves; the elders scattered ashes over their gray hair; and the old 37:1–38:5. everyone renounced his dignity . . . they unexpectedly saw themselves [alive], and everyone gave thanks to God Once again, the corresponding short biblical passage is retold in an extensively embroidered fashion. In Jon. 3:5–8, the penitence of the Ninevites simply includes fasting, putting on sackcloth,73 and turning from evil ways and violence. To these, Pseudo-Philo has added such fanciful penitential actions as the release of slaves by their masters, the removal of nuptial bed curtains, the lament of virgins over their destroyed hopes and of youngsters over the loss of their youth, etc. The reference to “beast, herd, or flock” in Jon. 3:7 has permitted PseudoPhilo to make God “the Guardian” of not only the Ninevites but also of their domestic animals, which, he says, prayed with the humans for their salvation even though they were irrational;74 38:1 further states that in the gloomy days of repentance those animals had been driven out of barns. The passage can be compared with a similar episode in Jewish sources where the story of the Ninevites’ repentance is also significantly altered:75 young domestic animals were separated from their mothers, which were taken out of stables while the young remained inside; then the Ninevites cried to God that if he shows them no mercy they will not pity the animals. Like Pseudo-Philo, Rabbinic works add fanciful details to Jon. 3:5–8: the king, they state, put ashes on his head, took off his purple clothing, and rolled about in the dust of the streets; the king’s heralds announced the king’s decree everywhere in the city; the Ninevites held their children heavenward and, shedding tears, entreated God to have pity on them; if a man had arrogated to himself another’s property, he made every effort to compensate for the loss and injustice; some people even ruined their palaces to give back a single brick to its legitimate owner; etc.76 In Pseudo-Philo, a remarkable scene concludes the description of the Ninevites’ penitence: after the fast and other penitential actions, they put on costly garments, so that if the city is destroyed they will be buried in those suitable clothes, and if it is saved, they can feast in splendid dress. 37:1–2. everyone renounced his dignity . . . with sackcloth Cf. Jon. 3:5–6: “And the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them to the least of them. And word came to the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he took off his robe, and covered himself with sackcloth, and sat in ashes.”

Pseudo-Philo, On Samson, and On Jonah

793

women pulled out their hair. (3) The bridal canopies were removed from rooms, the wedding candles and torches were quenched, laments and mourning were heard instead of songs; the virgins grieved over their ruined hopes, the youngsters, over [the loss of] their youth, and the children uttered senseless sounds about death unknown to them. (4) And the motif of their lament was: “Who knows if God may yet be moved by entreaties?” (5) They were imbued with such humbleness and such orderly souls, as Scripture says, that thanks to the prayer [God] even became the Guardian of their domestic animals and judged [them too] according to the supplication. (6) And the animals rightly survived (although they had not been accomplices in the human crimes, because they are not demanded to have reason and intellect or to understand men’s intentions, they were part of the Ninevites’ illness, and the destruction of the city would certainly involve them too). (7) Now, the animals prayed in a human way, for they were expected to share the punishment; they stood before [men] in prayer. Chapter 38

(1) And why should we speak about the insensibility of the animals? At that time even human nature changed, for the fathers no longer took tender care of their children, nor the wives of their husbands, nor the servants of their masters; having rejected their own sons, they also drove the animals out from their cribs. (2) They not only abstained from amusements but even banished from their sight the women to whom they were attached. (3) One could neither see a properly set table, nor a throne, nor pleated garments, nor desirable gold, but for everybody the ground was bed, amusement and delight, throne, and household goods.51 (4) Then thinking that by these means they would either gain the love of the Philanthropic Lord or provoke His proclaimed punishment for their sins, they put on their costly clothing: should the announced prophecy win, it will be their burial dress; should the Lord’s humanity grant life to the supplicants, they will feast dressed in fitting garments. (5) This is what happened, for the death sentence was voided; they unexpectedly saw themselves [alive], and everyone gave thanks to God. Chapter 39

(1) They summoned a second assembly and entrusted the words of gratitude to elders. (2) The latter came forward and spoke as follows (meanwhile, the people dared do nothing, for they were still depressed and sad): “As for us, dear friends, we were in fact dead: deservedly punished, we were fallen together with the city. (3) However, we are still alive thanks to the humanity of the Lord. (4) If so, it is appropriate to render thanks for our survival to Him from whom we have received life as a part of 37:4. “Who knows if God may yet be moved by entreaties?” Cf. Jon. 3:9: “Who can tell if God may yet turn and repent?” 37:5. domestic animals According to Jon. 3:7, the animals of Nineveh fasted together with the citizens. 38:5. This is what happened . . . they unexpectedly saw themselves [alive] Cf. Jon. 3:10: “And God saw their doings, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil that He had said He would do to them; and He did not do it.” 39:1–6. They summoned a second assembly . . . with how many gifts will He honor us now when we are pious This scene of the second assembly of the Ninevites, like the first one, as well as their words of gratitude are entirely invented by Pseudo-Philo. The optimistic ending of the passage, where the people believe that thanks to their piety God will grant even more gifts to them, con-

794 Gohar Muradyan and Aram Topchyan

His grace. (4) When a man buys a slave, he receives the gift of physical service in recompense for the expense; would it not be flagrant wickedness not to devote our souls to the One who brought us from death to life? (5) No master grants to the slave the time of his service; nor does a master, having received a part of the slave’s service for his needs, grant the other part to him, whereas the Lord of all has presented the [whole] time of life to us. (6) Thus our conduct must be pleasing to Him; we ourselves are His witnesses, for if He fed us with such great care while we were impious and ignorant of Him, with how many gifts will He honor us now when we are pious and confess [to Him]?” Chapter 40

(1) This was the situation: nobly and very faithfully, they took care of requiting the favor with piety. (2) Meanwhile the prophet, having proclaimed the message to the Ninevites, did not stay in the city; trasts with an original version in the Rabbinic tradition. According to Pirke R. Eli. 43, God was kind toward the inhabitants of Nineveh as long as they remained pious. Forty years (40 days in Yal. 2:550 on Jonah 3) later they returned to their malicious conduct and became more sinful, so God fulfilled the punishment, and the earth devoured them.77 40:2–45:4. Meanwhile the prophet, having proclaimed the message to the Ninevites, did not stay in the city . . . In this fashion the prophet was mourning This corresponds to Jon. 4:1–6, but Pseudo-Philo has changed the sequence of events to make them more logical. While in the Bible the prophet goes out of Nineveh after God has already granted life to its inhabitants and sits “on the east side of the city,” making a booth for himself, in our text he finds a comfortable place before that, in order to watch from a safe distance the ruin of Nineveh. Afterward, since “the salvation of the city could not gladden to the same extent as the nonfulfillment of the proclamation irritated him,” he offers another sorrowful prayer to God (cf. a similar long prayer by the prophet in the second version of Midr. Jonah 34–35) that does not, however, ask him, as in Jon. 4:3, to take his life, and he craftily explains the reasons why he fled, although he knew that no one can escape from God. His purposes were (1) to protect his good name and not be regarded as a false prophet; (2) to proclaim the power and humaneness of God not only on the earth but also on the sea; and (3) to admire once again the miraculous things created by God, including those under the sea, and prove by his salvation how mighty he is. Thus, in accordance with the rhetorical character of the work, Jonah tries, by means of sophistry, to persuade even God that his flight was justified. Among the amazing beings created by God, the prophet mentions Leviathan, who blocks the abyssal torrents with its huge body in order to moderate the enormous strength of underwater streams. As narrated in BB 74b, this monster is so huge that the Jordan River flows into its mouth. Leviathan also figures in Rabbinic versions of the Jonah story:78 after having swallowed Jonah, the great fish was about to die and swam to Leviathan to be eaten by it (this was the duty of all the fish of the sea), but the prophet told Leviathan that he was appointed by God to capture the great fish in the life to come and to offer it as a sacrifice at the table of the just and pious. When Leviathan saw the sign of the covenant on the prophet’s body, it was frightened and fled away, and Jonah and the fish were saved. As to Jonah’s reaction to the salvation of the Ninevites, Midr. Jonah 102 describes it differently: When the prophet saw that the city was saved, he was encouraged to ask God to forgive him, too, for his flight. God did so and also took further care of him: since Jonah had been in the belly of the fish and smelled very bad, he was sorely plagued by insects, so God created the colocynth (kikayon) to protect him not only from the sun but also from those insects.79 40:2–3. Meanwhile the prophet . . . comfortable place for him Cf. Jon. 4:5–6: “And Jonah went out of

Pseudo-Philo, On Samson, and On Jonah

795

nor did he go far from the territory of the city, but he fled from the men to await the disaster from a distance and tried to find a steady observatory. (3) His seat was under a shed covered with colocynth branches: a well-shaded52 and comfortable place53 for him. (4) But while he expected to see the city turned into ashes, he saw it wearing a crown.54 (5) Here, as if an exchange of emotions took place, the Ninevites were filled with the prophet’s joy, while the Ninevites’ sadness and grief passed on to the prophet. (6) For the salvation of the city could not gladden to the same extent as the nonfulfillment of the proclamation irritated him. (7) Now, watching the Ninevites, seeing their dances, hearing the accompaniment of flutes and the clapping of hands, he shed tears and said: Chapter 41

(1) “This is why I fled; it was not an attempt to escape from the all-seeing eye but to protect my good name and honor! (2) I understood that [God] was not sending the death sentence for killing and that in fact He was not going to ruin but to build. (3) I knew that God makes His peace with those who pray: He does not tolerate tears and does not stand the mourning of sufferers. (4) He changes the gloomy expression of His face and grants, [thanks] to the words of prayer, deliverance from death. Chapter 42

(1) “I fled to proclaim not only the humanity of God on the earth but also His might on the sea: how I was carried seated in a belly as if on a coach; how I had the hostile and killer fish as the guard of my body; and how, sitting amid this grave danger as a careless observer and becoming the coachman of the huge fish, due to my punishment I reached the bottom of the sea to have its clear and perfect view! (2) With my tiny eyes, I saw the abyss: the rocks that have taken root amid the waves, the light that gushes forth for the enjoyment of the marine animals, the agitation of the waves, the playfulness of the aquatics, and the various forms of animals. (3) After fleeing from this human world, I received a new, different one instead: I became a swimmer among the aquatic animals; I was fed in the deep like a marine beast; I inhaled wet, not dry, air to survive; I drew breath from the fish’s windpipe; I danced with the playful beasts and moved along with swimmers. (4) How many times I emerged and floated on the surface of the sea to watch the world with the fish’s eyes as something strange and new, and how many times I was thrown by the sea into the middle of the abyss, reaching the bottom and amusing myself with a wrestle against the beast! (5) How the bottom of the sea was below the abyss, shaking

the city, and sat on the east side of the city, and there he made himself a booth, and sat under it in the shadow, till he should see what would become of the city. And the Lord God appointed a castor oil plant, and made it grow over Jonah, that it might be a shadow over his head, to save him from his distress. And Jonah was exceedingly glad of the plant.” 40:6. The nonfulfillment of the proclamation irritated him Cf. Jon. 4:1: “And this displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was very angry.” 41:1–4. “This is why I fled . . . deliverance from death” Cf. Jon. 4:1: “And he prayed to the Lord, and said, ‘I pray you, O Lord, is this not what I said when I was still in my country? Therefore I hastened to flee to Tarshish; for I knew that you are a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and that you repent of the evil.’”

796 Gohar Muradyan and Aram Topchyan

the place and forcing the door of the deep to open and allow the whole water to flow abundantly! (6) Leviathan blocked up the torrent with its body and held its scales against the leaks; fearlessly seated like a winner, it let as much[of the] stream gush upward as its body would permit. (7) And [I saw] not only this but also whence the unknown rivers are born and whence streams spout as springs; where those sources are always consumed and why potable water mixes with salt. (8) [I saw] how terrible the sea monsters’ appearance is and how it resembles that of the terrestrials, [the former] having got four times more savage nature; how sometimes they are amiable and friendly but sometimes show teeth to one another—I saw all this during my wanderings. Chapter 43

(1) “For me the following things, too, are amazing: how does the solid and firm load remain on the sea, the fluid nature not dissolving it? (2) How has the ocean surrounded the earth from outside, enclosing it like a wall, preventing the savage creatures that are said to live beyond it from passing to our land, flowing around the earth but not turning the dry land into sea? (3) And the most wonderful thing is that the Godhead reduced the clashes of perturbation among us, fixing a limit for everyone, imprisoning violence, moderating what is superfluous, encircling the matter by the seashore, and granting a steady abode to all perplexed wanderers. (4) I fled to witness to all this, I chose to be persecuted to see these things, even though I was going to be reproached and accused by God. Chapter 44

(1) “You fled, O divine person;55 having now revived, speak! You fled from God; what place devoid of God were you going to find? (2) Have you not read in the Law: ‘My hand laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens’?56 (3) If you had passed beyond the earth and gone out of the firmament, would you even then be able to hide from the Creator of these things? (4) Indeed it is impossible to overstep the human limits or to escape anywhere from the all-seeing eye. (5) Just as a real and good hunter, knowing whom he is hunting, confuses the prey and plays with it, [as if] allowing the chased animal to flee but turning its flight into nonflight and catching it in a snare after the run, likewise the Hunter of humans, even after the long sea journey, brought the runaway onto the earth, and he was hunted by the trap of prophecy! Chapter 45

(1) “Not in vain I became the messenger of everyone, not in vain I flew by the fish’s flippers; I took my trip in full view of everybody, but, having fled, I knew that everyone is in agreement with God, and I did not intend to teach how to escape from God. (2) For will one flee from God, if he cannot cross the borders of the sea? Can one be disobedient to God who subdues the waves of the sea? (3) Will he reject the divine commandment, [when] even the marine Leviathan has obeyed the commandment of God? Will anyone not wish to save the city of humans, when even the beast did not refuse to preserve the world in its shape, guarding the torrents caused by the abyss and [its] quaking bottom? (4) Would the prophet not be willing toward humans? ?”57 In this fashion the prophet was mourning.

43:1. The solid and firm load Land.

Pseudo-Philo, On Samson, and On Jonah

797

Chapter 46

(1) Now, the Savior of all, having saved the Ninevites from death with his medical art, also came to the prophet to see his illness. (2) “Why are you sad, prophet? The sorrow of your face reveals the sadness of your soul, and your appearance exposes your mood. (3) Although it is a longstanding concern that has harmed your soul, now is the time to get rid of the old sadness and to not wear a new grief. (4) Do you not see that those who, due to their former ignorance, deprived me of thanks, after [your] second birth, the proclamation, and [their] revival, give praise only to me? (5) Why do you not exult at the change in their conduct, and why are you not with them in their thanksgiving? (6) If you lament over the piety of humans, you are unjust; if you envy the salvation of those spared, you are inhumane; but if you are displeased with the falsity of the prophecy, this accusation, prophet, concerns me and not you. (7) You proclaimed not what you wished but what you were entrusted with; it is me, the Autocrat, who issued the threat to them. (8) I possess the power to apply or change laws and to annul a death sentence; having sent the proclamation with veracity, I then transformed it into philanthropy. Chapter 47

(1) The body is unable to go beyond its determined boundaries, because if it oversteps them, others will lose the ownership of their place. (2) Is every creature not lawfully given a separate and individual space (though all the borders are a sign of one Lordship)? (3) When one changes his borders, as we have just said, on what territory does he trespass or which owner does he deprive of space? (4) For he who is there from the beginning knows well his land, while he who enters it later from elsewhere is an occupant. (5) This is so, but here there were two estates belonging to one Lord: the truthfulness of the proclamation and the salvation of the Ninevites; I preferred to be thanked for the salvation of the city and not to be praised for the truthfulness of the proclamation. Chapter 48

(1) You might disagree, prophet, and say: ‘Why did you put me to shame and move my tongue for a lie, why did you win honor through my disgrace?’ (2) You wanted to say these words, but I shall persuade you, prophet, that I not only saved those who were endangered (for that was my purpose) but also did 46:1–53:3. came to the prophet to see his illness . . . they are worthy of humanity This concluding part of the work, based on Jon. 4:7–11, consists of two edifying divine speeches addressed to the prophet, between which, since Jonah continues to be stubbornly angry about the nonfulfillment of his prophecy, God destroys Jonah’s beloved colocynth. Thus, demonstrating to Jonah how painful the loss of something dear can be, God presents a number of logical arguments to prove that the salvation of the citizens is much more important than the accomplishment of the proclamation. Midr. Jonah 102, which mentions another reason why God had produced the colocynth, namely, to protect Jonah from insects (see the previous comment), further narrates that the heat of the sun (not God) withered the plant. The insects began to annoy the prophet again, and he shed tears, wishing for death, but God, instead of taking his life, used the opportunity to show him, by the example of the plant, that he was wrong in desiring the fulfillment of the message (though in Jewish tradition, in contrast to Pseudo-Philo, Jonah’s anger is not particularly stressed).80

798 Gohar Muradyan and Aram Topchyan

not put you to shame in doing this. (3) Just read your proclamation and I shall show you that it is valid: ‘Another three days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown’; is this not what you proclaimed? (4) Now if [the city] did not convert and change its wicked conduct into righteousness after I had used your message, you would really be regarded as a liar. (5) But if your proclamation meant conversion and those who got the message changed, why do you vainly suffer for the accomplishment of the message? (6) ‘Their city,’ you would say, ‘was not overthrown, nor the houses and the walls’; but their hearts and character piously changed, and what was expected to be destroyed became stronger, because I am not eager to demolish stones and buildings. (7) For it would be easier to make a change by ruining walls (they also fall, being overcome by enemies’ and warriors’ weapons), whereas it is the Divine Hand that can lead and turn the soul from wickedness toward piety.” Chapter 49

(1) But perhaps because he would not be persuaded by these words and give up his obstinacy, the Lord ruined the shed, bared the colocynth, and made the prophet lament in tears. (2) While he was mourning over the plant, [God] appeared and spoke to him: “Is this colocynth dear to you, prophet? So is the human race to me. (3) The colocynth shaded your head, having grown upward from inside [the ground] and having spread from above; man too adorns the God-given virtue, drawing words of piety from inside. (4) You wanted the Divine Power to preserve the humidity of this country, so that the colocynth should not wither and shed its leaves. (5) As for me, must I not prevent the souls from withering so that the bodies should not putrefy? (6) You wanted the Divine Power to be pitiless, but judge by considering your own emotions; why do you sympathize with this plant? (7) The colocynth is dear to you, because you need its shadow; the density of the leaves was natural, and the shadow of the properly arranged branches was perfect. (8) And this was by itself, for you cannot say, prophet, that the colocynth was produced by your labor, nor can you claim to have kept night watches over the plant. (8) But you cannot bear seeing the nakedness of the once-thriving and blooming colocynth; the first night brought the plant but the second destroyed it. (9) Now, though you did not plant or water this colocynth and did not skillfully make a fence around it (you just erected reeds to form a booth, so that the colocynth covers and shades you—this much you labored on the plant), but simply found it ready for pleasure, you are not indifferent to the loss of what gladdened you. (10) Would it be right, prophet, not to have compassion on the city: not on plants but on prudent men?

48:3. ‘Another three days . . . overthrown’ Jon. 3:4; “forty days” in the Hebrew Bible. 49:1. bared the colocynth Cf. Jon. 4:7: “God appointed a worm, and it attacked the plant so that it withered.” 49:8. But you cannot bear seeing the nakedness . . . the second destroyed it Cf. Jon. 4:10: “Then the Lord said, ‘You had concern for the plant, for which you did not labor, nor did you make it grow; which came up in a night, and perished in a night.’” 49:10. Would it be right, prophet, not to have compassion on the city: not on plants but on prudent men? Cf. Jon. 4:11: “And should I not spare Nineveh, that great city, where there are more than 120,000 persons who cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?”

Pseudo-Philo, On Samson, and On Jonah

799

Chapter 50

(1) “Since you wanted to make known the greatest Philanthropist, should I have appeared to be inhumane toward humans when you are humane toward inanimate things, [trying] to save them humanly? (2) Do you not think how many children I gave to parents? How many babies, thanks to me, called their parents father and mother? (3) How many women I easily kept alive, granting them the pains of childbirth? How many [children] did not perish, as if surrounded with a fence of reeds?58 (4) The colocynth produced for your individual care was outwardly like a fortress, while on the inside it provided you with the quietness of a cool59 house. (5) Having previously looked at this plant with paternal compassion, I felt pity and changed the death of the condemned into the pleasure of the pregnant, to make their city populous. (6) Shall I lay waste this province and command to destroy this city of men, when you could not even stand the ruin of a shed? Chapter 51

(1) “Ask a tiller (for having fled from the city, you are now in countryside) whether anyone is ruthless toward cultivated and fruit-bearing plants, whether anyone sets his axe to useful trees, whether anyone holds back from rearing a plant, so that it takes root, or can easily extirpate something that has been planted with labor. (2) Will he not at least make every effort to prevent nature from withering edible plants? Will he not restore the strength of those plants and revive them by careful treatment? (3) For the more they fade from external harm, the more the cultivator labors to nourish them; the plants regain their vigor, and infertility turns into fertility. (4) Do you not see how the tillers water dried plants, either slightly furrowing the soil, so that the stream runs freely, or digging a hole around a tree, so that the water that has reached there through effort gathers in it and warms? (5) Do you not see how they skillfully stake the branches creeping up or bending to the ground with reeds, so that the props lift up the weight of the fruits, and how they engraft useful plants? (6) Why do they do this? To prevent [damage], so that their labor should not be in vain. Chapter 52

(1) “Now, if the tillers, not wasting the fruits of their labor, keep them unharmed, shall I waste the Ninevites, thereby wasting the proclamation to them? (2) They are now at the advantage of following good habits; having refused to respect the true Savior [in the past], they now wish to honor Him before He becomes an exterminator. (3) Why, then, should they not be granted salvation through the mitigation of the death sentence by the Judge? (4) I think this is what happens to the cultivator (and I shall persuade you by his very example): having [vainly] expected crop from a tree, he hurries to cut it, but seeing newborn leaf buds, he keeps the tree alive for the sake of fruits. (5) This is fair enough! While trees are cut because of their uselessness, they are spared thanks to fertility. (6) The Ninevites too were once infertile in piety; they did not know the fruit of Divine Justice and gave the honor of the Creator to this world. (7) But now they do not give thanks to the fruits of labor60 and do not worship the heating elements, but they confess to honor the Fruit giver instead of the fruits and have started to worship the Craftsman instead of the world. 52:7. heating elements Perhaps fire (or the sun) is meant.

800 Gohar Muradyan and Aram Topchyan

Chapter 53

(1) “How can I keep unchanged the announced death sentence for those who have changed their character? (2) Although for the impious behavior of humans we sent a pitiless message, for the present righteous conduct we should send them humane words. (3) Just as for the former way of life they deserved a cruel proclamation, likewise for their repentance, on the contrary, they are worthy of humanity.”

Notes 1. The manuscripts are listed in “Introduction,” pt. 1, in The Pseudo-Philonic De Jona Philonis Alexandrini De Animalibus: The Armenian Text with an Introduction, Translation, and Commentary, Studies in Hellenistic Judaism 1 H. Lewy, The Pseudo-Philonic De Jona. Pt. I, The Armenian Text with a Critical Introduction. London: Christophers, 1936, 4–6; and A. Terian, Philonis Alexandrini De animalibus. The Armenian Text with an Introduction, Translation, and Commentary, Studies in Hellenistic Judaism I. Chico: Scholars Press, 1981, 17–20. 2. See our introduction to Philo’s QGE. 3. This Armenian-Latin edition is the basis for our translations: J.B. Aucher, ed., Philonis Judaei Paralipomena Armena: . . . sermo unus de Sampsone, alter de Jona, . . . Venice: Lazari, 1826, 549–77 (On Samson); 578– 611 (On Jonah). We have also used Lewy, Pseudo-Philonic De Jona. Lewy’s introduction, after discussing Aucher’s edition and listing the manuscripts, focuses only on the circumstances and characteristics of the Armenian translation. He makes only a single remark about the work itself (p. 24): “The importance of De Jona is not to be sought in its rhetorical art, in which it is surpassed by many other writings of its time, but in the fact that its author was a Hellenistic Jew. To this it owes a position which its literary quality is very far from giving it.” Lewy, whose critical text is based on six manuscripts as compared to Aucher’s two, made a series of important emendations. 4. This Hellenistic Pseudo-Philo is not to be confused with the very different Pseudo-Philo who authored the Book of Biblical Antiquities. That work was written in Hebrew, in the Land of Israel, between 70 ce and 150 ce (see the introduction to Pseudo-Philo’s Book of Biblical Antiquities elsewhere in this volume). 5. See F. Fiegert, cited in Suggested Reading. 6. Siegert is certain that On Samson and On Jonah were composed by a Jew, since there is no allusion to Christian doctrine. 7. The expression “this homily writing” (On Samson 35:2), although restored, seems to contradict this assertion. 8. Cf. G. Kennedy, The Art of Persuasion in Greece. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1974, 301–21. 9. See O.S. Vardazarjan, Filon Aleksandriĭskiĭ v vosprijatii armjanskogo srednevekovjja (The Perception of Philo of Alexandria in Medieval Armenia) (Yerevan: Lusabats’, 2006), 30–32 (233–34 of the English summary). 10. gijut’iun in Arm. (probably Gk. hygrotēs, which metaphorically means “ductility”: cf. in the LSJL, s.v. hygrotēs II.2); . 11. Judg. 16:19. 12. Judg. 13:6. 13. The passage is obscure and grammatically unclear; we have tried to make a sense of it. 14. Aucher, 557n1 refers to a glossator’s remark (“The first was Abraham, the middle was Lot, and the latest was Manoah”), traces a temporal meaning in this passage, and translates it accordingly: Magnum est intervalum inter minores, et medios, atque inter istos, et novissimos justos (“There is a great interval between the minor and medium as well as between the latter and the latest just”). 15. Exod. 33:20. 16. We have translated literally the Arm. ankeans zkeans iur kartsēr (Gk. original perhaps abiōton ton bion autou enomizen). 17. According to Aucher (560n1), a gloss in an Armenian manuscript ascribes these words to Plato (“Plato has said this: it happens that a woman takes the soul of a man, and a man of a woman”). 18. We have translated literally the obscure Arm. yishatak kenats’ ergets’eloy arut’eann. Aucher (560n2) cites a glossator’s note: “The people commemorated Samson’s glorious deeds in songs.”

Pseudo-Philo, On Samson, and On Jonah

801

19. The Codex Alexandrinus and the Armenian Bible add “and she seemed pleasing to him” to Judg. 14:1 (which is omitted in the Codex Vaticanus). 20. Judg. 14:6. 21. azgi azgi in Arm. (lit. “various,” “diversified,” “classified”). The whole clause seems to be corrupt; a more verbatim translation would be: “And seeing the diversified splendor of the bees’ work,” which hardly makes sense. 22. Cf. Judg. 14:11; instead of “it came to pass, when they saw him, that” (so reads also the Codex Vaticanus), the Codex Alexandrinus and the Armenian Bible read: “it happened that because of fearing him.” 23. dzgelov znosa mezēn in Arm. (lit. “drawing them toward ourselves”). 24. The Armenian manuscripts read i zhaŕangut’eann (in the heritage), which does not make sense and is probably a result of scribal error. Aucher (570n1) correctly suggests changing two letters in the word zhaŕangut’eann and reading it as tshaŕagrut’eann (homily writing), which is confirmed by a glossator’s note: i tshar.d (in this homily). 25. Judg. 14:14–15. 26. Judg. 14:17. 27. Judg. 14:18. 28. “If you had not plowed . . . you would not have found out my riddle”: Judg. 14:18. The reading “plowed” coincides with the Greek Codex Vaticanus (ērotriasate), but the Codex Alexandrinus and the Armenian Bible read “subdued” (cf. the Gk. katedamasate). 29. Eccles. 10:8. 30. zmi tun in Arm. which can also be translated as “the one house.” A gloss in a manuscript says: “He could kill those 30 men who were assembled in one house and bring the house down upon them”; see Aucher, 575n2. 31. Aucher, 51n2. 32. For more references, see Louis Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews. (reprint; 2 vols.; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2003), 2:877–78n111. 33. See n22. 34. Philo’s misogyny is discussed in a number of studies; for references, see note 53 to the QG. 35. Cf. the Codex Alexandrinus (from which the Armenian version was translated): “And Samson’s wife cohabited with his friend” (kai synōikēsen hē gynē Sampsōn tōi nymphagōgōi autou). 36. See Ginzberg, Legends, 2:879n116. 37. This translation was likewise prepared by us for this volume. See the introductory comments for information on the Armenian text. See also the following edition with a critical apparatus: Lewy, The PseudoPhilonic De Jona. 38. hogekir in Arm. (Gk. pneumatophoros). 39. hiusneal i verust in Arm.; the Gk. original probably read something like tektainomenē anōthen. 40. sa in Arm. which means “He” (God) or “it” (Nineveh), i.e., the clause may also be translated as “it is the cause/beginning of all cities”; this, however, seems to be an interpolation. 41. kangnen in Arm. (the Gk. verb was probably orthoō). 42. amenimastn in Arm.; the Gk. text probably read ho pansophos. 43. Cf. Jon. 1:5. 44. hamayn zmardkayin zgitut’iun . . . bereal araji kats’uts’anē in Arm. (lit. “bringing; [He] placed before [them] . . . the entire human wisdom”). The passage seems to be corrupt. 45. Jon. 1:11. 46. Lit. “multiplied” (the Arm. verb is shatats’uts’anem). 47. bnu’tiun in Arm. (Gk. physis). 48. zt’agawors in Arm. in the accusative case, which makes no sense and seems to be a corruption. 49. That is, all beings. 50. anboloreli in Arm. (Gk. akyklōtos). 51. i mēj in Arm. (Gk. ta endon). 52. diurashuk’ ew k’ajastuer in Arm. (a hendiadys for Gk. euskios). 53. gorts in Arm. (lit. “work”).

802 Gohar Muradyan and Aram Topchyan

54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80.

psakakir in Arm. (Gk. stephanēphoros). glukh in Arm. (Gk. cephalē: cf. in the LSJL, s.v. cephalē 2). Isa. 48:13. The passage is corrupt; we have tried to make sense of it. Aucher (609n2) refers to a glossator’s note: “Gloss. haec intelligit de infante in vulva materna servato [The glossator understands this as a hint at a child kept in the maternal womb].” Lit. “dewy” (ts’ōghawor in Arm.; Gk. drosōdēs). According to Aucher (611n1), a glossator interprets this as “and now they do not worship their handmade idols.” See Pirke R. Eli. 10; Tanh. Va-Yikra 8; Midr. Jonah 96; and Yal on Jonah 1. See Pirke R. Eli. 10; Tanh. Va-Yikra 8; Midr. Jonah 96–97; Zohar II, 230b. Cf. Ginzberg, Legends, 2:1031– 32nn26–27, 30. Cf. Ginzberg, Legends, 2:1031–32nn27–28. See Pirke R. Eli. 10; Tanh. Va-Yikra 8, and Midr. Jonah 97; cf. Ginzberg, Legends, 2:1031–32n29. See Pirke R. Eli. 10; Tanh. Va-Yikra 8; and Midr. Jonah 97; cf. Ginzberg, Legends, 2:1031–32n29. Cf. Ginzberg, Legends, 2:1031–32 and notes 29–30. Cf. Ginzberg, Legends, 2:1033 and note 31. Cf. Ginzberg, Legends, 2:1035 and note 38. For references to examples of other speaking animals, see note 265 to our translation and commentary for Philo’s QG. Cf. Ginzberg, Legends, 2:1033 and note 32. Cf. Ginzberg, Legends, 2:1033–34 and notes 33–34. Cf. Ginzberg, Legends, 2:1034 and note 34. Cf. Joel 1:13–14. See comment on 16:1–18:3 and note 69. Cf. Mishnah Ta’anit 2:1, Babli 16a, Yerushalmi 2:65b, Midr. Jonah 100–102, Pirke R. Eli. 43, etc. Cf. Ginzberg, Legends, 2:1034 and note 35. Cf. Ginzberg, Legends, 2:1035 and note 37. Cf. Midr. Jonah 98, Pirke R. Eli. 10, Tanh. Va-Yikra 8. Cf. Ginzberg, Legends, 2:1033–34 and notes 31 and 37. Cf. Ginzberg, Legends, 2:1034–35 and note 37.

Pseudo-Philo, On Samson, and On Jonah

803

The Biblical Interpretations of Philo

Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus Aram Topchyan and Gohar Muradyan Philo of Alexandria’s love for the Bible, which he knew in its Greek version, the Septuagint (LXX), is most explicitly expressed in his two treatises: Questions and Answers on Genesis (QG, in four books) and Questions and Answers on Exodus (QE, in two books). His verseby-verse exegesis in these treatises resembles Hellenistic commentaries on the Homeric poems;1 the question- and-answer method he uses here may also have been practiced in the Alexandrian synagogues.2 The Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus (hereafter Questions) were probably written before Philo’s other exegetical commentaries; they have even been regarded as preliminary notes containing material for later fundamental works.3 The treatises are structured as a series of questions dealing with sequential citations from the Bible, in the form of “What is [the meaning of] xxx?” or “Why [does it say] yyy?”;4 the answers range from several lines to several pages.5 The two treatises contain a total of 646 questions and answers.6 Two main methods of interpretation occur: literal and allegorical. In a limited number of cases Philo explicitly labels the type of exegesis he is going to give, literal or according to the metaphorical sense. While literal exegesis prevails here to a greater extent than in Philo’s other writings, allegorical interpretation seems to be more important for him (e.g., QG 2.79; 3.8; 4.145, 196 contain explicit remarks about the superiority of allegorical exegesis).7 Such exegesis was common in traditional Judaism, whereas allegorical interpretation belonged to the world of Hellenism, and there is no contradiction between them in Philo’s works.8 Detailed study of Philo’s exegetical method in the Questions reveals a wide use of literal interpretation, but also a tendency for presenting various options.9 Furthermore, his contradictory comments on the same biblical notions and personages characterize his exegesis in the Questions as “highly atomistic, looking at the problem of the single text and not aiming at systematics.”10 Nevertheless, it is possible to point to some constant allegories found throughout the Questions, such as, “Man is the mind and woman is the senses,” “God has created two kinds of man: the earthly one and the heavenly one,” “paradise is the allegory of wisdom,” “the four rivers of paradise are the symbols of four human virtues,” and so on. Philo attempted to combine the sophisticated language and conceptions of Greek philosophy with the Mosaic Law, which was an unquestioned authority for him. He believed that both philosophy and the Law were granted to man by God, and that the sublime essence and complicated allegory of the divine revelation was to be deciphered with the help of philosophy. In this approach, Philo founded a new intellectual sphere: rational theology. And his works had a significant influence on both Neoplatonists and the Christian theologians who were becoming widespread in the Near East. Armenia was among the countries where Philo’s treatises extensively circulated, so it is not surprising that some of them have come down to us only in old Armenian translations.

807

Authorship and History The two treatises survive in a late 5th-century Armenian translation from Greek and as a series of Greek fragments cited in works of later authors; there is also a Latin version of the second half of the fourth book of QG. The Armenian Questions was published only once (in 1826), on the basis of five manuscripts found in the Mechitarist library of San Lazaro in Venice.11 Ralf Marcus produced the well-known English translation of the Armenian text with the parallel Greek fragments.12 A new critical edition on a wider manuscript basis and in comparison with all the surviving Greek fragments known today would result in a better text, cleared of many obviously corrupt readings. The Armenian versions of the Questions represent the so-called Hellenizing School of Armenian translation, which originated in the late 5th or early 6th century. Typical of those translations is a high degree of literalism in rendering the word order, syntax, and other grammatical features of the Greek originals. The common practice was to create new Armenian words for Greek compounds, even in cases when there already existed Armenian equivalents for them. This method has been characterized as “servile” or “wooden,” and the Hellenizing Armenian, as “artificial.” However, the extreme literalness of the translations of the Hellenizing School have been highly appreciated for their text-critical importance and are often irreplaceable for the study and publication of Greek originals.13 Many grammatical and lexical features typical of the Hellenizing School can be found in the Armenian versions of Philo’s works. Among them are the so-called doublets, that is, the rendering of one Greek word by two or more Armenian words. This method was used in many other texts, but doublets occur especially frequently in the Armenian translations of Philo.14 Significance The Questions contain both explicit and implicit references to a prior interpretive tradition. Tobin has shown how, for example, Philo’s distinction between the tangible (earthly) man and the intelligible (heavenly) man is based on pre-Philonic interpreters.15 In addition, Philo makes occasional references to Homer or the Greek poets and Greek mythology (e.g., in his commentary on the giants of Gen. 6, at QG 1.92) and often makes direct reference or explicit allusions to Plato in explicating the spiritual/philosophical sense of the legislator’s (i.e., Moses’s) prose on the creation of the cosmos (cf. QG 1.6). Marcus draws interesting parallels between the exegetical methods of Philo, the Rabbis, and the church fathers. He defines three subtypes of Philo’s allegorical exegesis, namely, physical (cosmological or theological), ethical or psychological, and mystical. He characterizes Philo’s twofold (literal and allegorical) interpretation as the forerunner of the fourfold method used by Rabbinic and patristic commentators. Marcus compares the literal exegesis with the literal or historical interpretation of the church fathers and with the peshat of the Rabbis. Philo’s physical interpretation corresponds to the allegorical interpretation of the church fathers and the remez of the Rabbis; his ethical interpretation is comparable with the moral interpretation of the church fathers and the derash of the Rab-

808 Aram Topchyan and Gohar Muradyan

bis; while his mystical exegesis corresponds to the anagogical interpretation of the church fathers and to the sod of the Rabbis.16 Marcus presumes that the book divisions of Philo’s Questions could have initially corresponded to the sedarim of the Babylonian lectionary system. That is to say, each book covered a Pentateuchal portion of about the same length as a weekly lesson in the Babylonian annual cycle of 54 sedarim.17 Royse has demonstrated in detail that those weekly sections, or parshiyot, fit the structure of the Questions,18 and it is possible that Philo simply followed the lectionary divisions of the Bible.19 Medieval Armenian literature was strongly influenced by Philo, as can be seen by the vast number of commentaries written on his works. The Armenian Philonic corpus seems to have been steady, at least from the 13th century on, although commentators knew that Philo had written much more than the limited number of treatises rendered into Armenian.20 The stylistic influence of those translations on Armenian authors was quite significant too.21

Guide to Reading The Armenian versions of Philo, in particular, of the Questions, are often quite difficult to understand, and this has led to scribal corruptions in the course of copying manuscripts. It is possible to decipher some but not all of the obscure passages. Aucher’s Latin translation and Marcus’s excellent English translation have been extremely helpful to our work. Nevertheless, in our translation of the selected parts of the Questions we have revised some of Aucher’s and especially Marcus’s interpretations, mentioning the most important cases in the notes. Our goal was to translate the texts into English as literally as possible so that readers will have a clear idea of what is written in the old Armenian original. As a result, the text reads awkwardly at times and often does not follow conventional rules of word usage and grammar. As in Marcus’s edition, an ellipsis in parentheses (. . .) indicates that the preceding or the following part of the chapter is irrelevant and we have not translated it. We have added words in square brackets that are absent from the original to make the context clearer. Suggested Reading Harris, J. R. Fragments of Philo Judaeus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1886. Hay, D. M., ed. Both Literal and Allegorical: Studies in Philo of Alexandria’s Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991. Marcus, R. “An Armenian-Greek Index to Philo’s Quaestiones and De Vita Contemplativa.” JAOS 53 (1933): 251–82. Mercier, C. Philo: Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesim I et II e versione armeniaca. Les œuvres de Philon d’Alexandrie 34A. Paris: Cerf, 1979. Mercier, C., and F. Petit. Philo: Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesim III–IV–V–VI e versione armeniaca: Complément de l’ancienne version latine. Les œuvres de Philon d’Alexandrie 34B. Paris: Cerf, 1984. Philo, with an English Translation. Edited and translated by F. H. Colson, G. H. Whitaker, and R. Marcus. Loeb Classical Library. 12 vols. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1929–62. Sandmel, S. Philo of Alexandria: An Introduction. New York: Clarendon, 1979. Terian. Philonis Alexandrini De Animalibus: The Armenian Text with an Introduction, Translation, and Commentary. Studies in Hellenistic Judaism 1. Chico ca: Scholars Press, 1981. Vardazaryan, O. “The ‘Armenian Philo’: A Remnant of an Unknown Tradition.” In Studies on the Ancient Armenian Version of Philo’s Works (Studies in Philo of Alexandria) 6, ed. S. Mancini Lombardi and Paola Pontini, 191–216. Leiden: Brill, 2011.

Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus 809

Questions and Answers on Genesis

Translation 1.4.1Who is the “formed man,”22 and how does the one “in the image”23 differ [from him]? 2The “formed man” is the tangible man and the likeness of the intelligible model, whereas the one “in the image,” intelligible but incorporeal, is outwardly the likeness of the prototype, and he is the image of the primordial seal. 3And he is the Word of God, the very beginning, the prototypal idea, the first measurer of everything. 4Therefore, the formable one24 was shaped as if by a potter from dust and earth with regard to the body, and he received a spirit when God blew life into his face, and the blend of his nature was a combination of the corruptible and the incorruptible. 5But the one “in the image” is incorruptible and unmixed,25 from an invisible nature, simple and luminous.26 1.5.1Why is he said to have blown life into his face?27 2First, because the face precedes the body; for the rest was like a base, and the face was established on it like a statue. 3And sensation is the source for the animate kind, and sensation is in the face. 4Second, man has accepted28 not only a part of the anima but also that of the rational anima, and the head is the temple of the mind, as some have said.

Commentary 1.4.1–5 Philo speaks of the earthly and heavenly human natures.242 He even calls the one in “the image” the “Word of God,” regarding him as a kind of intermediary link between the Lord and the earthly man: this is a characteristic aspect of Philo’s theological doctrine. In the Rabbinic tradition, too, humans are considered to have both heavenly and earthly traits, but six or eight qualities are clearly distinguished, by which man resembles either heavenly beings (angels) or animals.243 Cf., for instance, B. Hag. 16a,244 where the three “angelic” qualities are knowledge, erect walk, and speaking the holy language (i.e., Hebrew), while the three animal qualities are eating-drinking, multiplying, and relieving the bowels. 1.4.4. from dust and earth Josephus (Ant. 1.34) states that the earth out of which the first man was formed was “flame-colored” or “red” (pyrros).245 For that reason, he says, the man was called “Adam,” which in the Hebrew language means pyrros. According to a Jewish tradition, the dust was of four colors: red (for the blood), black (for the bowels), white (for the bones and veins), and green (for the pale skin).246 1.5.1. face In Jewish tradition, God first takes a moment to think about where to put Adam’s soul. Different parts of his face are considered (mouth, eyes, ears), and the Lord finally chooses to blow the breath of life into his nostrils.247 1.5.3. the animate kind Philo means that the animate beings perceive through the senses. Source of Translation: The translations of the selection from the Questions are our own. The biblical text is NJPS, unless otherwise noted.

810 Aram Topchyan and Gohar Muradyan

1.6.1Why is God said to have planted paradise and for whom, and what is paradise?29 2“Paradise” literally needs no explanation, for it is a dense place abounding with all sorts of trees. 3But symbolically it is wisdom, divine and human knowledge, also of their causes.30 4For following the creation of the world, it was suitable to constitute the meditative life, so that, by the vision of the world and the things in it, the exaltation of the Father, too, could be achieved. 5For it would be impossible to see what is in nature31 and to exalt the Creator of all things without wisdom, the ideas of which the Creator planted like trees in the ruling leader: the rational soul. 6And the tree of life in the middle is knowledge, not only of the external things, but also of the greatest and highest cause of all beings. 7For the one who can accept a clear appearance of it will be fortunate and happy, truly immortal. 8And wisdom came into being after this world, because paradise appeared after the Creation in order to praise, as poets say about the chorus of Muses, the Creator and his work: the Creator, for being the greatest and the best of causes, and the world, for being the fairest of the things, as Plato said.32 1.12.1What is the river that issued from Eden, by which paradise is watered, and [from which] four rivers are divided: the Pishon, and the Gihon, and the Tigris, and the Euphrates?33 2The sources of the Dkghat and the Aratsani are said to spring from the Armenian mountains, and neither paradise nor the two other sources34 of the river are there. 3Now, paradise is perhaps somewhere far from the land of our habitation, and it has a river flowing under the ground, which fills many and great streams,35 so that, flooding, they send [water] to other recipient streams, becoming wider. 4And since these are pressed by the whirlpool of waves, the force inside them erupts outward, both in the Armenian mountains and elsewhere. 5And these are the seeming sources, rather the spurts of the rivers, or actually the seeming sources, because the divine Scripture is true in everything about the four 1.6.1. paradise Unlike Philo, who places paradise (as Gen. 2:8) in Eden,248 some Jewish legends separate the two from one another: Eden, according to one version, lies beyond paradise and contains 310 worlds and seven compartments for seven groups of the pious.249 In Zohar 1:125a, Eden is located in the seventh heaven, and paradise is opposite Eden, on earth. 1.6.2. abounding with all sorts of trees Cf. the literal parallel in Josephus, Ant. 1.37. Instead of the generalized “all sorts of trees,” a Jewish tradition “specifies” 80 myriads of trees in every corner of paradise.250 1.6.3–6 As distinct from the biblical version centering learning in the tree of knowledge of good and bad, Philo regards the whole paradise as the symbol of wisdom; cf. also Alleg. Interp. 1.64: “Eden, the wisdom of God.” He then stresses the allegory of the tree of life in the middle of the Garden as “knowledge.”251 Here we can draw a parallel with a Rabbinic tradition depicting Jewish scholars sitting beneath the tree of life, the symbol of learning, and explaining the Torah.252 1.6.8. the Creator, for being the greatest This is a slightly free interpretation of Plato’s corresponding passage. In Tim. 92c,253 the cosmos is described as the “greatest, best, and fairest” visible god made in the image of the intelligible god. 1.12.1. the Tigris, and the Euphrates The Dkghat (Dglat in 1.12.6; cf. Josephus, Ant. 1.39: Diglath) and the Aratsani (Phoras [Phrath] in Josephus, Ant. 1.39) are the Tigris and the Euphrates respectively. 1.12.2–3 Philo, in accordance with what he has heard, correctly refers to the Tigris and the Euphrates as having their sources in Armenian mountains (now in eastern Turkey. The specificity of his description, however, is that he places the main river of Eden underground, beneath paradise, which he locates somewhere outside the inhabited world. That subterranean river, he believes,

Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus 811

rivers; for the beginning is a river, not a source. 6Now, perhaps things in this passage are allegorized, and the four rivers are a symbol of four virtues: of prudence, called Pishon with regard to sparing, and of temperance, Gihon, because it works toward food and drinks and influences what is in the abdomen and below the abdomen: lust, and this is earthly; and of courage, Dglat, because it controls the passion that rages in us: wrath; and of justice, Aratsani, because at nothing else are human thoughts more jubilant and joyful than at justice. 1.14.1Why does he place the man in paradise for two things, “to till it and tend it”?36 For paradise needed neither tilling, because everything was perfect as planted by God, nor a keeper, for who was going to do it harm? 2These are the two things that a husbandman has to take into account and fulfill: tilling the field and protecting whatever is in it, because it can be destroyed either by sloth or by harming. 3As to paradise, though it needed none of these things, nevertheless the one who took control and care of it, the first man, had to be in every way an example for the cultivators regarding what should be done. 4And since [paradise] was abounding with everything, it was right to leave to the husbandman the concern for it: the work of digging round, nourishing, hoeing, spading it up, making ditches, watering. 5And protection, though there was no other man, at least from beasts and often from air and water: to irrigate it with abundant water when there is dry wind, and to stop excessive [water] by changing its current when it is raining.

powerfully erupts water from underneath the ground in various parts of the earth, resulting in the emergence of bigger or smaller rivers, streams and springs. Thus, according to Philo, the Pishon, the Gihon, the Tigris, and the Euphrates are overflows of the main river winding under paradise, and their sources above ground are only the “seeming” ones, while the real sources are underground. In Jewish tradition, the water flows from beneath the tree of life and irrigates the whole world. It parts into four streams: the Ganges, the Nile, the Tigris, and the Euphrates.254 Gen. Rab. 15:6 says that the tree under which all the primeval waters branch out is so huge that its trunk is a 500-year journey. Josephus (Ant. 1.38–39) states that the Garden was watered “by one river encircling the whole earth with its flow” and dividing into four parts. Gen. Rab. 16:1–4 gives other etymologies or explanations of the river names. For instance, there the first river is called “Pishon,” because it makes flax grow and flows with tranquility; the third river is Hiddekel-Tigris, called so because it is “a roaring stream.” 1.12.6. four virtues In his usual approach, Philo sees symbols and allegory in many parts of the Bible he comments on. Here he deals with the four virtues, a commonplace in Greco-Roman literature (first discussed by Plato in the Resp. 428a–39a), later on adopted by church fathers and figuring in Christian literature as “the four cardinal virtues”: prudence or wisdom, temperance, courage, and justice. Philo describes in more detail the four rivers as the symbols of the four virtues in the Alleg. Interp. 1.63–87, where he refers to the main river of paradise as the “generic virtue” originating from Eden, the wisdom of God, from which the four branches, the Pishon (prudence), the Gihon (courage), the Tigris (temperance), and the Euphrates (justice) are divided. In our text the Gihon is the symbol of temperance, and the Tigris of courage, which once again corroborates that Philo was not always consistent in his interpretations and at times explained the same symbol in different ways. 1.14.2–5 In this passage, Philo, often inclined to allegorizing, offers a merely practical and quite simple

812 Aram Topchyan and Gohar Muradyan

1.20.1Why does he bring all the beasts to the man to give names to them?37 2The great bewilderment of those engaged in philosophy was resolved by declaring that names are by giving and not by nature. 3For to every one a correct name was given, naturally fitting, by sound judgment. 4This was a job38 of a learned man outstanding in prudence: the giving of names was completely proper to the one not only wise but also the first earth-born. 5Because it was necessary for the leader of humankind and the king of all the earth-born to obtain this great39 honor as well. 6So that, since he was the first to see the beasts and the first to deserve ruling over all, he would also become the first proposer40 and inventor of names.41 7For it would have been futile and silly42 to leave them nameless so that they could be given a name from someone younger, to the disrespect and dissolution43 of the elder one’s honor and glory.44 8But in this case, one should think that the giving of names was so well aimed that immediately after the name was given and the beast heard it, it was struck by the appearance of the pronounced name as by something familiar and relevant. 1.21.1Why does it say, “He brought the beasts to the man to see what he would call them”? For God is never in doubt.45 2Being in doubt is really alien to the divine power; 3in fact it appeared that he was not in doubt. 3But since he had given a mind to the first earth-born and virtuous man, according to which [the man], becoming wise, was innately able to reason, as a leader and ruler46 he urged [his] protégé to display himself and observed the best fruits of his soul.47 4And again, obviously, through him in us, too, [God] forms everything as voluntary and makes ashamed those who say that everything is by necessity. 5Or since humans were going to make use of the animals therefore he ordered the man the giving of their names.48 1.23.1What is, “For Adam no fitting helper was found”?49 2All things assisted and cooperated with the head of humankind: the earth, the rivers, and the sea, the air, the light, and the sky. 3All sorts of fruits and plants, too, cooperated with him, and the herds of cattle and beasts, which were not fierce toward him. 4But indeed none of these was a fitting helper to him, for they were not humans. 5Now, [God] deemed it right to show a human assistant and companion for the man, having perfect similarity in body and soul. explanation: a cultivator must take care of his garden, doing certain works to fertilize the soil and protecting it from possible harm and unfavorable weather conditions. Furthermore, since Adam was the first man, he had to provide a good example for future gardeners. In Jewish tradition, the placing of Adam in paradise has, first of all, a religious meaning: the Garden of Eden was in itself perfect, so it was not necessary to till it (this same statement also occurs in the question in 1.14.1), and the purpose of putting the man in paradise was that he should study the Torah there and comply with the commandments of the Lord.255 However, according to another Rabbinic view (Avot R. Nat. 11:45) God ordered Adam to till and tend the Garden so that his descendants should understand the importance of work.256 1.20.4–8 Philo gives prominence to Adam’s wisdom and regards the invention of exact names for the animals as an evident proof of his intelligence. Considering Adam to be both a wise man and a prophet is consonant with the Jewish tradition, where Adam’s wisdom is described as a prophetic trait. Although earlier Rabbinic sources (e.g., Num. Rab. 19:3) mostly speak of Adam’s wisdom, in S. Olam Rab. 21 he is also referred to as a prophet. In later tradition, Adam appears as the greatest of 48 prophets (e.g., Zohar 1:125a).

Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus 813

1.24.1What is, “And [God] cast a deep sleep50 upon the man and made him sleep”?51 2How does sleep happen? Having lost their way, philosophers were puzzled, whereas the prophet52 clearly explained the issue. 3For sleep by itself is a trance, not the kind related to madness, but to relaxation of the senses and retirement of reason. 4For then the senses are apart from53 the sensitive, and the mind is apart from the senses:54 it keeps quiet,55 neither drawn by the nerves nor supplying them with motion. 5The senses, having interrupted activity due to the separation from the sensitive, motionless and idle, have remained weakened.56 1.25.1What is the rib57 that he took from the earth-born man, and why does he fashion the rib into a woman?58 2The literal sense is clear, for as one meaning of “side,” it is said to be a half of the whole, as both man and woman, parts of nature, are equal for the harmony of one species called human. 3As to the met1.21.4–6 Philo gives three, purely logical, answers to the question, “Why does it [Genesis] say, ‘He brought the beasts to the man to see what he would call them’?” First, God had endowed man with reason and wanted to see how he was going to display it. The second answer deals with the philosophical categories of free will and necessity: according to Philo, it was an opportunity for Adam to act voluntarily, because God has endowed us with free will,257 and this fact refutes the opinion of those who absolutize the role of necessity in everything. The wording of this answer resembles a passage in Aristotle’s Magna moralia 1.16, where the contradiction between voluntary and involuntary actions is discussed, the latter being characterized as done “by necessity.” In Jewish tradition, Adam’s free will is mentioned in Pirke R. El. 19 and Ps. 95, 408, where he voluntarily makes a gift of 70 years from his 1,000-year life to the great soul of David, to which before that only a single minute of life was apportioned.258 Finally, Philo’s third explanation is utilitarian: humans were going to use the animals, so names were needed for the latter. 1.23.2–5 Speaking about the cooperation of the whole nature, all the animals, and even the fruits and plants with the man, Philo does not mention any desire on Adam’s part to have a human assistant. Interestingly, Gen. Rab. 17:4 stresses this aspect of the story, i.e., the creation of woman in accordance with Adam’s wish: he had felt loneliness when the animals had approached him in pairs to receive names. 1.24.2–3 Philo’s Heir 257 helps to identify “the prophet” and understand better his description of sleep here. In that passage, Philo notes that Moses “philosophizes” (cf. the reference to philosophers in QG 1.24.2) and says that the Lord God cast a trance259 upon Adam (Gen. 2:21). By “trance,” he continues, Moses means “the peace and rest of the mind.” In our passage, too, sleep is described as a kind of trance, based on the same biblical words of the prophet (Moses). In contrast to Philo’s philosophical explanation of Adam’s trance, the Rabbinic tradition stresses the practical purpose of casting him into a deep sleep: had Adam seen the formation of the woman from his rib, she would be detestable to him.260 1.25.2–7 Philo’s idea of doubleness, i.e., that woman is one side or a half of man’s “double” body, is expressed differently in a Jewish tradition, namely that Adam was initially created with two bodies (he is also referred to as a hermaphrodite), which afterward God separated from one another, and man’s second body became Eve (e.g., Gen. Rab. 8:1). In another version of the tradition, however, the rib is not associated with one side of the body: it is simply a modest part of Adam, and God forms the woman out of it, hoping that she will be modest like the rib.

814 Aram Topchyan and Gohar Muradyan

aphorical sense, man symbolically means mind, and one of his ribs is the capacity of sensation, and sensation, more variable than reason, should be woman. 4And fortitude and strength some call rib, whence a strong athlete, a fighter, is called “having sturdy ribs.” 5Now, the legislator59 says that woman is from man’s side, implying that a female is a half of a male’s body. 6Witnesses to this are the constitution of the body, the common parts, the motions, the capacities, and the courage and boldness of the soul. 7For everything [in man] is seen in double proportion; insomuch as man’s form compared with that of woman is more perfect and double, half the time was needed for him, 40 days, whereas twice as much, 80 days, was needed for the imperfect woman, so to say, “man’s half part.”60 8So that, while nature was doubling the time, man’s traits changed into those of woman. 9For whose—I mean man’s— nature of the body and soul is in double proportion, his modeling and formation is in half proportion, and whose—woman’s—nature of the body and constitution is in half proportion, her formation and modeling is in double. 1.32.1Did the serpent speak in a human way?61 First, it seems that in the beginning of the creation of the world other animals, too, were not deprived of the ability of speech, but man’s voice had an advantage [over theirs], being clearer and more definite. 2Second, when God is about to work wonders he changes the natures that are below. 3Third, since our souls are full of many sins, they are deaf to any speech other than one or a second language, that which is by habit. 4But the souls of the first,62 being clean and free of evil, were sharpened in every way to perceive all sounds. 5Indeed, [such] senses are no more, because we have obtained a distorted and 1.25.3. man symbolically means mind . . . and sensation . . . should be woman Man “the mind” and woman “the sense”261 are among Philo’s beloved symbols (discussed at length in Alleg. Interp. 1.32, 92; 2.14, 38; cf. also Heir 52–53). Regarding this matter, the Rabbinic tradition seems to display contradictory attitudes. According to one view, woman is endowed with more understanding than man (because God made the rib into an understanding woman), and woman’s intelligence matures more quickly than that of man (cf. Gen. Rab. 18:1 and B. Ber. 61a).262 According to the opposite view, however, man’s intelligence matures sooner than that of woman, since, unlike men, women have no opportunity to develop their mind in school (cf. B. Nid. 45b).263 See also the comment on 1.25.7. 1.25.7. man’s form compared with that of woman is more perfect Philo’s traditional view that woman’s constitution is less perfect than that of man seems to be challenged by the Rabbinic remark about the masculine body being simpler, because it is formed of dust, and the feminine body being more complicated, because it is formed of bone, it must bear children, and women become intelligent more quickly than men (cf. Gen. Rab. 17:8; 18:1).264 1.32.1–7 The contents of this section partly correspond to what we have in Jewish sources. According to them, at the beginning the serpent had extraordinary abilities: like man he walked upright (e.g., Gen. Rab. 20:5) and was mentally as developed as man (cf. Philo’s remark that originally the animals were able to speak like man).265 Furthermore, Philo’s stressing of the linguistic skills of the firstborn finds a parallel in a tradition reflected in Tanh. Ber. 1:4, according to which Adam was the inventor of all 70 languages.266 Philo tries to find a reason why subsequently humans were deprived of those skills and gives two explanations: first, the human soul was afterward mixed with evil, and second, we lost the original huge dimensions of our body, became small creatures, and our senses proportionally weakened.

Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus 815

weak bodily constitution. 6But they had obtained superior and great excellence in body, so it followed that they should also have keener senses and, moreover, philosophical sight and hearing. 7For it is not in vain that some try to become like them, as if they have obtained eyes with which they can see even the natures and creatures and deeds that are in heaven, and perceive with their ears every sort of sound. 1.33.1Why does the serpent speak with the woman and not with the man?63 2Since they are potentially mortal, he operates by artful deception. 3And woman innately is more prone to being deceived64 than man, because his intellect, like his body, is male and able to comprehend the meaning of deception, whereas woman’s [intellect] is more female, and due to softness she easily concedes and can be trapped by verisimilar lies that look like the truth. 4Now, because in old age the serpent sheds its skin from the top of his head to his tail, by stripping himself he blames man, for he exchanged death for immortality. 5Nature is renewed by the beast and from time to time becomes the same.65 6Seeing this she was deceived—she who should have looked, as if at an example, at the one who practiced tricks and deceits, in order to gain ageless and unfading life. 1.37.1Why did the woman first accept the tree and eat of the fruit, and then the man, having taken from her?66 2First, the words potentially mean67 that it was suitable for man to rule over immortality and all good, and woman, over death and all evil. 3As to the metaphorical meaning, woman is a symbol of sense and man of mind.68 4Now, by necessity, sense comes upon sensible things, and, through contact, the impulses of sense also pass into the mind, because sense is stimulated by inferior things, and the mind by sense. 1.40.1What is, “They perceived that they were naked”?69 2They first received the knowledge of this, their nakedness, having eaten from the forbidden fruit. 3And this is the notion and the origin of evil: not yet having used any covering—because the parts of 1.33.3. woman innately is more prone to being deceived than man Philo’s explanation of why the serpent chose the woman for his cunning purpose corresponds to the Rabbinic comment (e.g., Pirke R. El. 13 and Avot R. Nat. [both versions] 1:4–5, 151) that the serpent knew too well the steady character of Adam to try to persuade and play his tricks upon him, so he approached the woman, being aware that women are cheated easily.267 Gen. Rab. 19:4 stresses that Eve ate the fruit, because she heard the plausible words of the serpent (not simply because she saw that the fruit was good and desirable; cf. Gen. 3:6). According to Josephus (Ant. 1.44) the woman in her turn “persuaded Adam” to eat the fruit, instead of just giving it to him (cf. Gen. 3:6). 1.37.2. it was suitable for man to rule over immortality . . . and woman, over death In the Rabbinic tradition, too, woman is associated with death: in funeral processions, women must precede men, walking in front of the corpse, because woman brought death into the world by eating the forbidden fruit (cf. Gen. Rab. 17:8). 1.40.2–4 Philo elaborates on Gen. 3:7 in a philosophical manner, characterizing man and woman, before they ate the fruit, as parts of an immortal and incorruptible whole, and then, after the breach of the harmony between them and nature, as aliens to the environment in which they had lived and as evildoers, now mortal, who were to deal with corruptible things. In some Jewish sources Adam and Eve become naked as a result of eating the fruit (i.e., they were not naked before): they wore “the cloud of glory and a horny skin,” which dropped when they committed the sin, revealing their nakedness (cf. Tg. Yer. Gen. 3:7, 21 and Pirke R. El. 14).268

816 Aram Topchyan and Gohar Muradyan

the whole are immortal and incorruptible—they [now] needed something handmade and corruptible. 4And this knowledge is in being naked, not that the latter caused the change but because the soul comprehended alienation from the entire world. 1.41.1Why do they sew fig leaves as loincloths?70 2First, because the fruit of the fig tree is sweeter and pleasant to the taste. 3Thus, it symbolically implies that they sew and weave together many lascivious desires, one with another. 4Therefore, they gird themselves around the place of the genitalia, which are tools of great affairs. 5Second, because the fruit of the fig tree, as I have said, is sweeter than that of others, and its leaves are harsher.71 6Now, [Scripture] wants to indicate by this symbol that lascivious desires seem to be a slick and smooth motion, but actually they are harsh, and it is impossible to be happy, to feel delight without suffering pain before, and again suffering more pain. 7Because suffering pain is always between two painful moods: one is at the beginning and the other follows. 1.44.1Why do they hide themselves not elsewhere, but among the trees of paradise?72 2Not everything is done with prudence and wisdom by sinners, but sometimes stealers sit upon stolen things, not caring about the consequence that first the closest thing and what lies at their feet will be searched for and found. 3This is what happened then, for it was necessary to run away from the tree from which the misdeed originated. 4And he was caught in the middle of the place, so that the transgression, being very clear and evident, would be reproached and no escape would be possible. 5And this also implies symbolically that every evil relies upon evil, and every lustful person turns to and rests in lust. 1.45.1Why does he who knows everything ask Adam, “Where are you?”73 and why not the woman too? 2These words seem not to be a question but menace and reproof: where are you now, from what good have you deprived yourself, O man; having left immortality and fortunate life, you have moved 1.41.2–5 This original interpretation of Philo mentioning the two contradictory qualities of the fig tree/leaves, namely, sweetness and harshness (wherefore, they signify the inseparability of lust and pain), has no parallel in his other works. In the Rabbinic and Christian traditions, there is an emphasis on the harshness of the fig leaves causing pain to the body (B. Er. 18b; Adv. Haer. 3.23.5). Rabbis, however, also give other answers to the question why the first man and woman used fig leaves as loincloths. For example, Rabbi Jose and Rabbi Berekiah in Gen. Rab. 15:7, in the discussion about what the fruit was that Adam and Eve ate, say that it was fig: when Adam sinned and God expelled him from the Garden, he approached various trees, asking for leaves to cover himself. All the trees refused the deceiver who had deceived his master except the fig tree (because they had eaten its fruit).269 1.44.5. and this also implies symbolically that every evil relies upon evil In other words, a sinner is supported only by the one with whom he had sinned. 1.45.2. these words seem not to be a question but menace and reproof . . . you have moved toward death and misery A similar interpretation of those words being rather a threat and reproach than a question is found in Gen. Rab. 19:9, where God adds, “How have you fallen!” to his question and then continues that before the sin Adam had been ruled by his will, while after that he was going to obey the serpent’s will, and that before the transgression the world from one end to the other had been at Adam’s disposal, while after sinning he would not be able to hide himself among the trees of the Garden. In Der. Er. Rab. 3, when asking, “Adam, where are you?” God stands “at the gate” of paradise (unlike Gen. 3:8, where he moves about in the Garden).

Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus 817

toward death and misery, in which you have been buried! 3And he did not regard the woman as worthy of asking, because she was the beginning of evil and the one who led the man to wretched life. 4But this locus also contains a more appropriate allegory: for the ruler and leader,74 having male’s reason, when it listens to somebody, introduces the vice of the female part as well, that is, sense. 1.68.1Why does he who knows everything ask the brother murderer, “Where is your brother Abel”?75 2He wants man to confess himself willingly, so that he cannot pretend that everything seems to take place by necessity. 3Because the one who killed by necessity would confess that he did it unintentionally, for that which we do not control is irreproachable. 4But he who [killed] willingly disavows it, because sinners are answerable to repentance. 5So [Moses] adds to all parts of his legislation that the Deity is not the cause of evil. 1.74.1What is, “Anyone who meets me may kill me,”76 when there was no other man than his parents? 2First, it could befall him to suffer attacks from the parts of the world that came into being for usefulness and for communion with good but nonetheless punished the malicious. 3Second, because they were afraid of plots by beasts and reptiles, because nature gave birth to them for the punishment of the unrighteous. 4Third, perhaps one might suppose [vengeance] from77 his parents, upon whom he had first inflicted new sorrow and the first distress, for they had not known what death is. 1.81.1Why in Adam’s genealogy is Cain mentioned no more, but Seth is, about whom [Scripture] says to have been in his (Adam’s) likeness and after his image; from whom the generations born by him start to be arranged in a genealogy?78 2The filthy brutal murderer is not mixed with the rank of reason or number, because he is to be cast away like garbage, as someone has said, regarding him as such. 3That is why [Scripture] demonstrates him as neither the successor of his earth-born father nor the originator of the future generations, but it gives both [honors] 79 to the blameless Seth, who is called “the one who drinks water,”80 because he 1.68.2–4 As in 1.45, Philo tries to prove by simple reasoning that God’s questions were not intended for informative answers, since he is omniscient, but for something else. 1.68.5. the Deity is not the cause of evil While Philo accentuates Cain’s free will in the fratricide, because God cannot be the source of evildoing, and while in Josephus’s Ant. 1.55–56 Cain at first attempts to avoid punishment by cunningly deceiving God, in Jewish tradition he insolently accuses the Lord of the murder: “Thou didst create the evil inclination in me. Thou guardest all things; why, then, didst Thou permit me to slay him? Thou didst Thyself slay him.”270 1.74.2–4 There are striking parallels between this passage and Jewish legends: (1) Philo’s “the parts of the world” that were expected to punish Cain corresponds to “the earth quaked under Cain”; (2) Philo’s view that Cain, being unrighteous, was afraid of beasts and reptiles corresponds to Rabbi Judah saying that all the cattle, beasts (“among them, the accursed serpent”), and birds gathered together to demand justice for Abel in Gen. Rab. 22:12; (3) Philo’s statement that Abel’s parents did not know before the murder what death is corresponds to the Rabbinic legend that “for a long time it [Abel’s corpse] lay there exposed, above the ground, because Adam and Eve did not know what to do with it. They sat beside it and wept.”271 1.81.3. [Scripture] demonstrates him as neither the successor . . . nor the originator . . . but it gives both [honors] to the blameless Seth Gen. 4:17–24 refers to Cain’s descendants: Enoch, Irad, Mehujael, Methusael, Lamech, Jabal (“the ancestor of those who dwell in tents and amidst herds”), and his

818 Aram Topchyan and Gohar Muradyan

was irrigated by his father and brought forth hope in his growth and development. 4That is why not in vain and groundlessly [Scripture] says that this one is in the likeness and after the image of his father, in reproach of the elder one, who because of the filth of murder displays in himself nothing of the father, neither in body nor in soul. 5That is why it separated and isolated him from his kin, but to this one, allotting, it granted the honor of seniority. 1.85.1Why, following Enoch’s decease, does [Scripture] say about him: “He was pleasing to God”?81 2First of all, this shows that souls are immortal, because even having become incorporeal they are still pleasing. 3Second, this exalts the penitent, for he remained in the same frame of mind and did not change until the end of his life. 4Because, for instance, some quickly sated people, having tasted of nobleness and goodness and having given hope for health, again returned to the same illness. 1.86.1What is, “Then he was no more, for God took him”?82 2First of all, the decease of worthy and holy men is not death, but taking and bringing to another place. 3Second, something very miraculous happened, because he seemed to be captured and become invisible, for then he was no more. 4And this shows that the man sought disappeared and not only brother Jubal (“the ancestor of all who play the lyre and the pipe”), not figuring in Philo’s comment, which creates the impression that Cain had no offspring at all.272 Pirke R. El. 2 generalizes, dividing the human race into two generations: the pious, born from Seth, and the vicious and ungodly, born from Cain. Ginzberg states that nothing is known in the early Rabbinic sources about the glorification of Seth, but it had prevailed for some time, because a gnostic sect called “Sethiani” identified Seth with the messiah.273 1.81.4. this one is in the likeness . . . the elder one . . . displays in himself nothing of the father, neither in body nor in soul Gen. 5:3 says that Adam begot Seth “in his likeness after his image,” but it keeps silent about Cain’s appearance. The remark that Cain bore no resemblance to his father is Philo’s addition, and it coincides with Pirke R. El. 2, where Cain is mentioned as a son not in the likeness and image of Adam. 1.85.2–3 Philo comments on the passage according to the LXX (“he was pleasing to God” instead of “Enoch walked with God” in the Hebrew text), regarding Enoch as an absolutely righteous person throughout his life, who even after his death continues pleasing God. In most Jewish legends, too, he appears as a rarely pious man and, as such, is believed to have dwelt in a secret place, isolated from others.274 Interestingly, however, Gen. Rab. 25:1 speaks of the dual character of Enoch: at first he had not been listed among the righteous, but among the wicked; he was a hypocrite, behaving sometimes righteously and sometimes wickedly. So the Lord decided to remove him from the earth while he was righteous (before that, he had walked with God 300 years; Gen. 5:24). 1.86.1–3 Enoch’s death was in fact not death: this interpretation is a commonplace in the vast literature concerning Enoch. The ambiguous biblical phrase “God took him” allowed commentators to elaborate on the fantastic disappearance of the righteous man. Although in Gen. Rab. 25:1, Rabbi Jose objects to some “sectarians” who say they have the impression that Enoch did not die, because the word “taking” (as in the case of Elijah; cf. 2 Kings 2:1) is used in the relevant passage, he, too, avoids using the words “die” or “death” and answers: “God took him” means that Enoch was no more in the world. 1.86.3. something very miraculous happened There are exaggeratedly splendid descriptions of the

Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus 819

was captured from their sight, because taking to another place is nothing else but placement, but, as it is stated, from a perceptible and visible locus to an incorporeal and intelligible form. 5The first prophet,83 too, had obtained this gift, for nobody knew his grave; and once again, another one, Elijah, followed upward the divine countenance, which appeared then or, to say more appropriately and exactly, ascended from among those on the earth to heaven. 1.92.1Why were there giants from angels84 and women?85 2Poets tell about the earth-born giants,86 children of the earth. 3But he87 often also uses this name figuratively, wishing to show the excessiveness and Hayk’s size of [their] great bodies. 4And he tells that their creation was mixed, from two things: angels and mortal women. 5But the angels’ essence is spiritual, though they frequently become similar to the human image and change their appearance for immediate needs, such as for knowing women, in order to give birth to hayks. 6But if children are zealous for maternal indulgence, they will move away from paternal virtue, being deprived of it: with the inclination of the wicked race for pleasure and with ignoring arrogance toward the Supreme,88 they will be condemned as responsible for voluntary offense. 7But at times he calls the angels “sons of God,” since those incorporeal beings were not from someone mortal; they are bodiless spirits. 8Especially because the admonisher [Moses] calls good and virtuous men “sons of God,” and the wicked and vicious [he calls] “bodies.” 1.93.1What is, “He was concerned, pondering that he had created man on earth, and he thought it over”?89 miraculous translation of Enoch to heaven in Jewish accounts. Yashar Bereshit 11a–13a, for example, narrates that, after Enoch had lived a long time in a secret place isolated from man, he was taken to the heavens in a fiery chariot drawn by fiery horses. 1.86.5. Elijah . . . ascended from among those on the earth to heaven Gen. Rab. 25:1 also draws a parallel between Enoch and Elijah (cf. the comment on 1.86.1–3). 1.92.3. Hayk Hayk was the mythical ancestor of the Armenians, described as a handsome and powerful giant. Here the translator has probably used his name to render Gk. gigas. 1.92.4–7 “The sons of God” in the LXX (“the divine beings” in the Hebrew Bible (the Masoretic Text) were identified either with angels or with the posterity of Seth. Philo identifies them with angels and assumes that, before having intercourse with mortal women, they had changed their angelic appearance, becoming similar to men. In Jewish tradition, further details are added to this story. According to them, the angels begot the giants (Nephilim) after they had rebelled against God and descended from the heavens to the earth. Their appearance had changed as a consequence of this translation. The women who were to become the mothers of the giants were the descendants of Cain. Cainite women, as Cainite men, had the custom of walking naked and were lascivious. When the fallen angels, now with sublunary bodies, appeared in their land, they were charmed by the beauty of the Cainite women and tempted from the path of virtue (cf. Pirke R. El. 14; Zohar 1:58a; and Zohar Hadash Ruth 99a).275 Gen. Rab. 26:7 states that the giants were called by seven names: Nephilim, Emim, Refaim, Gibborim, Zamzumim, Anakim, and Awim; “Emim” means that their dread fell upon everyone, “Refaim,” that those who saw them melted, and so on.

820 Aram Topchyan and Gohar Muradyan

2Some think that contrition on the part of the Divinity is shown by those words. 3But they think incorrectly, because the Divinity does not change, and neither “to be concerned, pondering,” nor “think it over” are indications of contrition, but of luminous and pure thought: that he is concerned thinking over the reason why he made man on earth. 4And because the earth is a place of misery, [where] the heavenly creature and man are mixed,90 constituted of soul and body, from the Creation to the end it is nothing else but a corpse bearer. 5Now, nothing seems too wonderful in that the Father is concerned and thinks over, because many people obtain wickedness before virtue, being conducted by the two above-mentioned stimuli: by the nature of the corruptible body and by the horrible, most inferior position of the earth. 2.11.1Why does [Scripture] say: “Go into the ark, with all your household, for you alone have I found righteous before me in this generation”?91 2First of all, faith is indicated, because thanks to one righteous and worthy man many people are saved through kinship; like sailors and an army, when [the former] meet a good helmsman, and the latter, one who is skillful in war and a brave commander. 3Second, it praises the righteous man, who had obtained virtue not only for himself but also for his whole household, for which reason they, too, become worthy of salvation. 4And most remarkably, the following was added: that “you alone have I found righteous before me.” 5Because people test [somebody’s] conduct of life in one way and the Divinity, in another. 6For they [do that] by means of visible things, and he, by means of the soul’s invisible thoughts. 7And what follows is also wonderful: that which says (if it were put first), “in this generation, you alone have I found righteous,” so that he would not seem to condemn the former [generations], nor to deprive of hope those who are to come later. 8Such is the literal sense; as to the metaphorical meaning, when God saves the ruler mind, the house-master of the soul, then with it he saves the whole household too. 9I mean, namely, all the parts, those that are partial, and that which is drawn out, speech, and the things of the body. 10Because as the mind is in the soul, likewise the soul is in the body. 11By means of thoughts all the parts of the soul are vigorous, and its92 entire household gains advantage with it. 12And when the 1.93.2–3. some think that contrition . . . is shown . . . the Divinity does not change The equivocal enethymēthē (pondered, was concerned with) and dienoēthē (thought it over) in the LXX permit Philo to comment on the passage in accordance with his concept of the absolute invariability of God276 (which means that he never feels contrition for his deeds). However, the Hebrew text clearly reads that the Lord “regretted” having created man on earth and that “his heart was saddened.” This causes difficulties for the Rabbis in Gen. Rab. 27:4, who, too, do not wish to admit that God regretted his deed, at least not having created man at all. 2.11.2. faith is indicated, because thanks to one righteous and worthy man many people are saved The logic of Philo’s whole comment is that Noah’s virtue and leader’s abilities (below he compares Noah with a good pilot or general, or “the ruler mind” controlling all the parts of the body) were decisive in his and his family’s salvation. Thus, the man’s personal qualities have come to the foreground, and God’s benevolence toward Noah seems to have been somewhat overshadowed. 2.11.7. so that he would not seem to condemn the former [generations], nor to deprive of hope those who are to come later The other generations were believed to have been more righteous. Therefore, Rabbi Johanan in B. Sanh. 108a considers Noah to have been a comparably just and perfect man only in his generation.

Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus 821

whole soul is well again its household, the body, too, gains advantage with it by prudence and moderate habits, by severing beforehand insatiability, which is the cause of diseases. 2.14.1Why does the rain of the Flood last 40 days and as many nights?93 2First of all, day is said in two meanings: one, which is from the dawn to evening, from the sunrise in the east to the sunset; defining in this way, they say that it is day when the sun is above the earth. 3And the second is said “day”: that which is counted with the night too. 4Thus, we call the month “30day period,” mixing with it and considering the time of night. 5Now, having determined these things beforehand, I say it is not futile and in vain that the passage contains in itself 40 days and 40 nights, but in order to announce the two numbers determined for bringing forth humans, 40 and 80, as it is announced by many others, by doctors as well as men studying nature. 6Especially, it is written so in the divine Law, which was the beginning of their becoming naturalists. 7Now, because corruption was going to come everywhere to everybody, both men and women, because of their extreme discord and savage iniquity, the Judge deemed it right to define two periods for perdition; he had determined them during the creation of nature and the first production of living things.94 8For the beginning of genesis is eternity in the particles of seeds. 9Therefore, it was necessary to honor the male with pure and shadowless light, and the female, because she was mingled with night and darkness, and [was] a mixture.95 (. . .) 2.18.1What is, “All the fountains of the great deep burst apart, and the floodgates of the sky broke open”?96 2The literal sense is clear, for it is announced that the sources of everything are the extremities, the earth and the heavens, united for the condemnation of the mortals to perdition, when the waters meet 2.14.5. it is not futile . . . that the passage contains in itself 40 days and 40 nights . . . the two numbers determined for bringing forth humans, 40 and 80 In 1.25.7, Philo says that God needed only 40 days to create the man, a perfect being, and that he needed twice as much, i.e., 80 days, to create the woman, because she was not as perfect as the man, so the Lord had to make more efforts. The logic of the connection between the formation of man and the 40 days and nights of the flooding rain is that the same period necessary for making a human was needed for his destruction. The parallel between the 40 days of the rain and the 40 days during which the human embryo takes shape is also referred to in Gen. Rab. 32:5, where Rabbi Johanan says that the sins had corrupted the features of man that are formed in 40 days. In the same passage, however, another explanation, too, is given for the symbolic meaning of the number 40: the Torah was given to Moses after he had stayed 40 days on the mountain. 2.18.2. the extremities, the earth and the heavens . . . when the waters meet one another In the Rabbinic tradition, the story of the Flood is extensively and fancifully elaborated on. In particular, noteworthy details are added to the scene of earthly and heavenly waters meeting one another. Pirke R. El. 23, for example, says that the waters rising from the deep were female, and the waters pouring down from above were male. This unnatural disaster is paralleled with the unnatural sexual intercourses of the sinful generation. Ginzberg, referring to “others,” comments that the belief that the Flood was caused by the union of the male and female waters (a view also found in 1 En. 54:8–9) goes back to the Babylonian conception of Apsu and Tiamat.277 In Gen. Rab. 32:7, an eyeball symbolizing lasciviousness is regarded as the source of human sins. That is why God punished them with water (i.e., in the same way as the eye sheds tears, God poured the flooding water).

822 Aram Topchyan and Gohar Muradyan

one another. 3Some burst up from the earth, and some flew down from the heavens. 4And it is said very clearly, “the fountains burst apart” for when a burst happens, the rush is unimpeded. (. . .) 2.29.1What is, “The fountains of the deep and the floodgates of the sky were stopped up”?97 2First of all, it is evident that in the first 40 days the currents of the disaster were unceasing, because fountains burst apart from the earth below, and the waterfalls opened from the heavens above, until all the plains and mountainous places were flooded.98 3And for 150 more days they did not cease, neither the waterfalls pouring nor the fountains springing. 4But they were quite moderate, no longer for increasing but for keeping on the spread of the water, and there was supply from above. 5And as an indication of this, [Scripture] now says that the sources and floodgates were closed in 150 days;99 thus, it is evident that as long as they had not been stopped, they were in action. 6Second, it was necessary to close the double reservoir of water, which provided the currents of the Flood, one on the earth, from the sources, and one in the heavens, from the floodgates. 7For as much as supplies of a material run short, it is consumed by being spent by itself, especially when the divine power commands. (. . .) 2.35.1Why does he send out the raven first?100 2The words say that the raven is an animal-messenger and accomplisher, for until now many people attentively wait for its flight and voice, when it croaks, signifying something unknown. 3And as for the metaphorical sense, the raven is a black and impetuous and speedy animal, which is a symbol of wickedness, for it brings night and darkness upon the soul. 4And it is very speedy in opposing, at one time, everything that goes on in the world. 5Second, it brings destruction to those who catch it, and it is very impetuous, for it causes haughtiness and shameless impudence. 6And since virtue is against this, it is bright and stable, and its nature is modest and adorned with shyness. 7Now, it was therefore right, for since in the mind there was a remnant of darkness, which is connected with insanity, he removed it, too, thrusting out beyond the borders.

2.29.4–5. they were quite moderate . . . the sources and floodgates were closed Philo’s purpose is to emphasize some moderateness in God’s punishment: he made the waters milder in order to prevent total destruction. Correspondingly, in Jewish legends the Lord’s humanity is accentuated by his not closing all the fountains when deciding to stop the Deluge, but, for the benefit of mankind, leaving some mineral springs with their healing properties open. According to Gen. Rab. 33:4 and B. Sanh. 108a, those sources were the great well of Biram, the gulf of Gaddor, the cavern spring of Paneas, and the hot springs of Tiberias. 2.35.5–7 Philo means that the Deluge had cleansed the world of human vices like haughtiness and impudence. That is why Noah as the only virtuous man sent away the evil bird symbolizing those qualities. Also, for the brightness of the human mind and sanity of the forthcoming generation, the last residue of dulled consciousness, the raven-darkness was to be removed. The raven as the allegory of darkness is also mentioned in Gen. Rab. 33:5 (with a reference to Ps. 105:28). A remarkable dialogue between the raven and Noah is found in B. Sanh. 108b, where the bird blames Noah and his master (i.e., God) for hating him. He even reproaches his sender for trying to get rid of him, because Noah feels lust for the she-raven! Another Jewish legend narrates that the raven did not execute Noah’s commands and did not return, because he saw a corpse and set to work to devour it.278

Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus 823

2.38.1Why for the second time does he send out the dove “from himself ”101 and “to see whether the waters had decreased,” which is not said about the raven?102 2The dove is first of all a clean animal, then domestic and tame and cohabitant with man. 3For this reason, it obtained the honor of being offered on the altar among sacrifices. 4For this reason, confirming and corroborating,103 (Scripture) said, “sent from himself,” showing it as cohabitant, and by “to see whether the waters had subsided,” as sociable and concordant. 5And these, the raven and the dove, are symbols of wickedness and of virtue. 6For one is homeless, without habitation, without city, unfriendly, irreconcilable, and unsociable. 7And virtue is a matter of humanity, and of sociability; and it is useful. The virtuous man sends this as a messenger of wholesome and saving things, wishing to know and learn of them with its help. 8And in the manner of a messenger, it tells about the true gift: to be cautious of the hurtful things and to admit the useful promptly and with pleasure. 2.47.1Why “in the seventh104 month, on the 27th day of the month, the earth was dry”?105 (. . .) 2The Flood together with the recovery lasted106 for one year. 3Because it began in the 600th year, in the seventh month, on the 27th, so that in this interval of time a year completed, beginning from the vernal equinox and also ending at the same time of the vernal equinox. 4In order that, as I have said, the earthly creatures would perish full of fruits, dooming those that were to make use of them. 5And when [this] was accomplished and the earth freed of evil, it was again found to be full of seed-yielding things and trees that had fruits, which spring brings. 6For he deemed it just to show the earth dried again, as it was when he flooded it, and so to recompense. 7And do not be surprised that the abandoned earth in one day grew everything by the power of God, seeds and trees, becoming suddenly abundant in grass, in corn, in trees, and in fruits, full of everything. 8Because during the creation of the world, too, in one day out of the six, he fulfilled the birth of the plants, and these were already complete by themselves and perfect. 9And they produced fruits, which happened to appear in abundance in the spring season, because God has the ability to make everything not needing time at all. 2.38.2. the dove is first of all a clean animal A messenger must be clean; according to Pirke R. El. 23, if one sends a message by an unclean messenger, he sends it through a fool; he must trust only someone clean who will serve him faithfully as messenger. In Jewish accounts, the faithfulness of the dove is also confirmed by his agreeing, after returning to Noah with an olive leaf, to accept food as bitter as the olive if it is from the Lord’s hands and if he is delivered into the power of men. Gen. Rab. 33:6 states that the olive leaf was from the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem, because the Deluge had not submerged the Holy Land. 2.47.1–2 Philo believes that the Deluge started in the seventh month, and one year later it also ended in the seventh month (instead of the “second” and “second” of the standard versions of Scripture). Furthermore, the “27th day” and “27th day” in Philo are in accordance with the LXX. Gen. 7:11 MT reads “17th” instead of the first “27th,” adding 11 extra days to the duration of the Flood. The disaster lasted for 12 months or one solar year (365 days). The Jewish year is lunar (354 days), so 354 + 11 = 365. According to Gen. Rab. 33:7, the Flood commenced in the month Marheshwan. 2.47.7. the abandoned earth in one day grew everything It follows from Philo’s comment that, immediately after the earth became dry, God filled it with all sorts of plants and trees. Some Jewish legends however, describe a different scene:279 when Noah came out of the ark, the view of the devastated earth was so awful that he began to weep bitterly. According to Gen. Rab. 33:7, the soil was arid, looking as if it had been parched, and nothing would grow on it. Therefore, it was necessary to wait until the next rain in order to sow. 824 Aram Topchyan and Gohar Muradyan

2.48.1Why after the earth had become dry did Noah not go out of the ark before hearing the words; because the Lord God said to Noah: “Come out of the ark, together with your wife, your sons, and your sons’ wives,” and other living things?107 2Righteousness is awesome, in the same way as, on the other hand, iniquity, contrary to it, is arrogant and self-complacent. 3And a proof of awesomeness is not to admit and agree with any words rather than God’s. 4And especially he who had seen the whole earth suddenly becoming a boundless sea would naturally and expectedly think that it might be natural and possible for the misfortune to return again. 5And in such circumstances, he also regarded as orderly the following step: he, who had entered the ark by order of God, could come out again by his order, because he, whom God does not lead, having given an order beforehand, can do absolutely nothing. 2.49.1Why, when they went into the ark, the sequence was: he and his sons, and then his and his sons’ wives,108 whereas when they went out, it was changed? Because (Scripture) says: “Noah and his wife109 came out, and then his sons and his sons’ wives”?110 2By means of “went into,” the words also hint to the childlessness of sperm, and by means of “came out,” to birth. 3Because when they went in, the sons are written with the father, and the daughters-inlaw with the mother-in-law; and when they came out, the married couples: the father with his wife, and again, each of the sons with his wife. 4Because he wants to instruct rather by means of actions than by words what his followers111 ought to do. 5Now, indicating nothing by voice, he said to those who were going in to refrain from sexual intercourse with their wives and, after coming out, to sow children according to nature. 6He admonished this by [their] sequence, not only by shouting and exclaiming: “Since so great a disaster has occurred to all those who were on the earth, do not rejoice in pleasure, for it is not becoming and appropriate.112 7You have enough honor: receiving life, but going to bed with wives suits those who are lascivious and desiring voluptuousness.” 8It was becoming for them to be merciful, as if sympathizing with [their] relatives from mankind, and with total abstinence, when uncertainty was facing them, so that evil would never fall upon them. 9And furthermore, it would be strange for those who did not [yet] exist to be born, due to untimely burning and overwhelming lustful desires,113 while the living were being exterminated. 10But after it had stopped and finished and after [they] had

2.48.2–4 Philo considers Noah’s reverence for God and his fear that the earth could be flooded again as the reasons why he did not come out of the ark until hearing the command to do so. In the Rabbinic tradition, the latter reason appears to be more decisive. Noah is so afraid of another deluge that he refuses to leave the ark even after God orders him to go into the open (e.g., Gen. Rab. 34:6).280 2.49.3. because when they went in Trying to reveal in his usual way of interpretation the inner meaning of the words, Philo repeats a common comment on these scriptural passages, occurring in a number of Rabbinic sources. Both Philo and the Rabbis base themselves on the version contradicting the standard Hebrew text in which, when coming out of the ark, Noah is first followed by his sons (not his wife) and then by his and his sons’ wives. In B. Sanh. 108b it is stated, as in Philo, that God forbade those going into the ark from copulating by means of indicating to Noah the order of entrance. The same comment is found in Gen. Rab. 31:12 and 34:7. In addition, B. Sanh. 108b and Gen. Rab. 36:7 also state that, in spite of God’s command, three inhabitants of the ark had sexual intercourse: the dog, the raven, and Ham.281

Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus 825

got rid of the evil, again, by means of [their] sequence, he instructs beforehand to commit to birth, by writing [that] neither men [must go] with men, nor women with women, but females with males. (. . .) 2.50.1Why did he build an altar without being commanded?114 2Thankfulness to God must be without a command and reluctant sloth, manifesting the soul free of vice. 3Because it is appropriate for one who has experienced good, as being favored by God, to be grateful in willing spirits. 4But he who waits for an order is thankless, being constrained to honor his benefactor perforce. 2.52.1What is, “took of the clean animals and birds and offered whole burnt offerings”?115 2Everything is said in the metaphorical sense: both that he “took” from God every grace and gift, and that [he took] what is of the race of the clean and immaculate in kind. 3In order that [he offers] the most tame and immaculate ones of the domestic [animals], in order that he burns perfect whole offerings. 4Because [they are] a sacrifice of good things, and all are full of wholeness; and they have the significance of fruit, and the fruit is the completion, and the plant is for that. 5This is the literal meaning; as to the metaphorical sense, the clean animals and the birds are the senses and the mind of the sage. 6In the mind, the thoughts are wandering; it is appropriate to bring them all, being whole offerings,116 to the Father, for gratitude, to offer them for sacrifices as stain-free and immaculate offerings. 2.54.1What is, “The Lord God said, thinking it over, ‘Never again will I curse the earth because of man’s deeds, since the devisings of man’s mind always decidedly fall toward evil from his youth; nor will I ever again destroy every living flesh, as I have done: never again’”?117 2The reason shows regret, which is a passion not characteristic of the divine power. 3Because the humans have a feeble and unsteady temperament, just as [their] deeds are full of much uncertainty, but

2.50.3. to be grateful in willing spirits Philo interprets Noah’s sacrifice purely from the aspect of proper behavior: man’s undelayed thanksgiving to his benefactor, without awaiting any corresponding instruction from the latter. As opposed to this approach, some Jewish sources state another, more urging reason why Noah hurried to offer sacrifices to the Lord. When Noah went out of the ark and saw the devastated earth, he blamed God for not having had mercy upon his creatures, despite being called “Merciful.” The Lord was irritated at Noah’s insolence and selfishness (because when he first heard from God that he was going to bring a flood upon the earth, he did not care at all about others). Therefore, in order to conciliate the Lord immediately, Noah offered him the sacrifice.282 According to Gen. Rab. 34:9, the “altar” means the great altar in Jerusalem, where Adam had sacrificed. 2.52.3. the most tame and immaculate ones of the domestic [animals] Clean and tame animals are listed in Jewish accounts, where Noah sacrificed an ox, a sheep, a goat, two turtle doves, and two young pigeons.283 He had chosen those domestic animals because he thought they were appointed for offerings (God had ordered him to take seven pairs of them into the ark).284 2.52.5. the clean animals and the birds are the senses and the mind The animals, since they are terrestrial beings, symbolize the human senses, and the flying birds are the symbol of the mind, which is able to hover high above the earth. There seems to be confusion in Philo or the Arm. translation, because the entire verse has already been introduced as being said “in the metaphorical sense.” 2.54.2. the reason shows regret, which is a passion not characteristic of the divine power The theological axiom that God never feels repentance seems to be challenged more than once in Scrip-

826 Aram Topchyan and Gohar Muradyan

for God there is nothing uncertain and incomprehensible, for he is most strong in opinion and most steady. 4Now, why, whereas the same reason persisted, and [he] knew from the beginning that “man’s mind always decidedly falls toward evil from his youth,” he first destroyed the race with the Deluge and afterward says that he will no more destroy, although the same evil remains in [their] soul? 5But it should be said that all such kinds of words are comprised in the Law for learning and the benefit of instruction rather than for the nature of the truth. 6Because the main points118 that are in the whole legislation are two: one, as it is said, “not like a man,”119 and the second, the Being, is said to chasten “as a man [chastens] his son.”120 7The first is of the truth, for indeed God is not like man, also not like the sun, and not like the heavens; nor like the tangible world, but like God, if it were right to say even so. 8Because that blessed and happiest one does not accept any similitude or comparison or parable; moreover, he is beyond blessedness itself and felicity and whatever is better and higher than these are. 9The second [main point] is of instruction and guidance, narration,121 namely, “as a man,” for chastening us, the earth-born, so that we are not continuously paid back with [his] anger and punishment due to ungracious irreconcilability and lack of peace.122 10Because it is enough to fly into rage and acrimony once, and to inflict punishment on sinners, but if [it happens] many times for the same reason, it is a deed of a savage and brutal soul. 11Because when paying back what is appropriate, as far as it is possible, everyone leaves123 a proper memory about his purpose. 12Now, “thinking it over”124 speaks exactly of God, because his mind and disposition are very stable. 13For our will is unsettled and unstable and trembling, that is why we do not appropriately reflect by thinking [anything] over. 14Because thinking is the issue of the mind,125 but it is impossible for the human mind to be extended and spread, for it is too feeble to pass through everything more perfectly and swiftly. 15But, “Never again will I curse the

ture (cf. the comment on 1.93.2–3). In such cases, Philo, like other pious interpreters, does his utmost to explain the corresponding passages as anything but regret on the part of the Lord. According to Philo, there is no greater sin than to claim that the divine temper is changeable. In Unchangeable 20–32, he once again fixes his attention on Gen. 6:6–7, where God regrets having made man on earth and decides to destroy the existing generation. Here in 2.54, he encounters the same issue, still connected with the Flood, this time, because God, as another apparent expression of repentance, promises not to exterminate the human race again. Philo’s interpretation of God’s oath, “Never again will I doom the earth because of man . . . nor will I ever again destroy every living being,” may be summarized as follows: these words should not be accepted at face value; rather, they have a didactic purpose, because with their help the Lord instructs man not to take revenge on the same wrongdoer for the same misdeed more than once. Furthermore, the philanthropic Lord does not wish to add more evils to those already abundant upon the earth, but since, nevertheless, God does not leave malefactors unpunished, he will bring death only upon them, and not upon the whole mankind. The last statement is generally consonant with a Rabbinic comment in J. Ber. 9, 13d and J. Ker. 77b that God set his bow (i.e., rainbow) in the clouds as a sign that even if men were to become sinful again, their sins would cause no harm to the earth285 (that is to say, the whole world would not be destroyed because of separate people). However, the Rabbinic remark does not indicate, as with Philo, that God, in any case, was going to punish evildoers. It states, instead, that in the course of time humans became pious enough not to sin and live in fear of punishment.286

Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus 827

earth” is very well said, because it is not necessary to add new curses to those existing, insomuch as [the earth] has many evils. 16But although they are endless, insomuch as the Father is good and kind and humane, he eases the evils rather than adds disasters. 17But drawing out of the human soul the wickedness, with the sign of which it is sealed, is as if, according to the proverb, “washing a brick” or “bringing water with a net.”126 18For if, [as Scripture] says, [wickedness] is there originally,127 it is not there in vain and in passing, but is sculpted inside [the soul] and adapted to it. 19Furthermore, because the mind is the ruling and leading part of the soul, [Scripture] adds “decidedly”;128 and the thought that is reflected on decidedly and with care is also examined toward the truth. 20But the decidedness is not toward some sole evil but, as it is evident, toward the “evils” altogether. 21And this does not occur in an instant, but “from his youth,” and not just so, but from the very swaddling clothes, as if [sin] were an integral part, and he were nurtured and trained and brought up together with sins. 22But he says, “Nor will I again destroy every living flesh,” announcing that he will not exterminate the whole of humankind129 in general, but many of the individuals who commit ineffable iniquities. 23Because he does not leave wickedness unpunished and does not give liberty and safety to it, but taking care of the [human] race for his purpose, he determines death for sinners by necessity. 2.56.1Why does God bless Noah and his sons, saying: “Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and rule over it.130 The fear and the dread of you shall be on the beasts and the birds and the reptiles and the fish, which I have given into your hands”?131 2He also grants this wish to the one in his image, man, in the beginning, on the sixth day of the Creation. 3Because [Scripture] says: “And God created man in his image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them, saying, ‘Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and rule over it, and hold sway over the fish and the birds and the reptiles of the earth.’”132 4And now, did not [Scripture] clearly indicate by this that Noah, figuring as the beginning of the second creation of man, is regarded as equally honored with the one who was made first in [God’s] image? 5Now, he divided the beginning of the earthly creatures equally between this one and that one. 6And be attentive! For [God] made the one who was righteous in the time of the Flood king of the earthly creatures; [he] showed him as equally honored not with the formed and earthy [man], but with him who was in the likeness and image of the truly Existent.133 7And to him [he] gives power, making not the formed one but the one who is in [his] image and likeness, the one who is incorporeal. 8For this 2.56.2–6 Noah as the ancestor of the second generation, ruler of the world, and the one whom, together with his sons, God blessed and instructed to “be fertile and increase” is compared with Adam in Jewish tradition (Midr. Hag. 1:168).287 In accordance with his division of the first-created man into the one “in the image of God” and “the formed man” (cf. QG 1.4 and the corresponding comment), Philo draws a parallel between Noah and the former, “incorporeal” one, who was made on the sixth day of the Creation and honored with the blessing “be fertile and increase.” It follows, then, from Philo’s interpretation that the “formed man” made on the seventh day from the dust of the earth was inferior both to the “first Adam” and Noah, the real “kings” of the world. However, there is also a different view in the Rabbinic tradition. Gen. Rab. 34:12 states that “the fear and the dread” of humans upon the animals returned after God blessed Noah and his sons, but men’s dominion over them did not return before the days of Solomon, because he had dominion over the whole region (1 Kings 5:4).

828 Aram Topchyan and Gohar Muradyan

reason, [he] has announced the making of the one incorporeal in [his] likeness on the sixth day, according to the perfect number six, and [the making] of the formed one, after the completion of the world and after the days of the creation of all: on the seventh day. 9Because then, after all this, the formed one appears in an earthy statue. 10Now, after the days of the genesis of the world, on the seventh, (Scripture) says, “Because God had not sent rain upon the earth and there was no man to till the soil,”134 and then, “And God formed man from the dust of the earth, and blew into his face135 the breath of life, and man became a living being.”136 11Now, it is announced by the words, as [Scripture] conveys them, how the beginner of the second genesis of humans becomes worthy of the same kingdom as the man in the image and likeness. (. . .) 2.60.1What is, “Your blood of your souls I will require of every beast and of the hand of man’s brother”?137 2There are two classes of the harmful: one of the beasts and the other of humans. 3But beasts do minor injury, because they have no familiarity with those whom they want to harm, especially because they are not under rule138 but they harm rulers. 4And [Scripture] called the plotting men “brothers,” showing three things. 5First, that we all are cognate humans and brothers, having become intimate by the possession of an old kinship, because we received the heritage of the same mother: the rational nature. 6And second, because almost permanent139 and great are the conflicts and harms between those who are related by blood and especially brothers, either for the sake of portions in inheritance or for the sake of honor in families. 7Because family battles seem to be worse than those between strangers, for they occur with rich and skilled knowledge of [how to] fight. 8Truly, they are natural for brothers, who are aware of what attacks should be applied in strife. 9And third, it seems to me now that [Scripture] includes the noun “brothers” for severe and merciless punishment of murderers, so that they are paid back without forgiveness for what they have done, because they have killed not strangers but their own brothers. 10And [Scripture], in the best way, says that God is the overseer and observer of the murdered. 11For even if people disregard and ignore140 taking revenge, these filthy savages should not be careless, thinking as if, escaping, they have survived.141 12But let them know that they are caught beforehand in the great court of justice, in the divine court established for the vengeance upon savages, for the sake of those who have suffered iniquitous and undeserved misfortunes. (. . .) 2.64.1Why, as a sign that there will be no Flood on the whole earth, he says to have set his bow in the clouds?142 2Some conjecture that the “bow” means what is called by some “girdle of Aramazd,”143 inferring from the form that it is a firm symbol for the rainbow. 3But I do not think they say this soundly. 4First, 2.60.3–6 This comment by Philo on the famous biblical passage is quite original. While Scripture in fact equates the animals to the men as deserving the same punishment when they kill humans, Philo somehow seems to justify the former: the beasts are unconscious of their crime and unfamiliar with their victims; in other words, they are not “brothers” to those who are killed by them. This also contrasts with the Rabbinic comment in B. Sanh. 15b that both men and beasts, if they have committed murder, shall be convicted by 23 judges, as equal murderers, and not live. 2.64.2–14 In order to refute the view widespread in his time that the “bow” placed by God was the rainbow, Philo tries to explain the appearance of the latter “scientifically.” In the end, however, he comes to the quite nonscientific conclusion that if anything is set by the Existent, it must have

Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus 829

this “bow” must have a special nature and essence, for which it is called “of God,” because [he] says, “I have set my bow.” 5But being “of God” and set [by him], it is not something insubstantial and nonexistent. 6And the girdle of Aramazd has no distinct separate nature by itself, but it is the appearance of the sun’s rays in damp clouds. 7And all appearances are nonexistent and immaterial; and [here is] a proof: the girdle of Aramazd never appears at night, though there are clouds. 8But it should also be said, in the second place, that during the daytime, too, when the clouds are darkened, the girdle of Aramazd is not seen before that.144 9But it is also necessary to say other things without lie, due to which the legislator’s “I have set my bow in the clouds” [occurs]. 10For, look, as long as there are clouds, there is no appearance of anything like the girdle of Aramazd, whereas [Scripture] says that upon the gathering of the clouds the bow will be in the clouds. 11Because many times, when the clouds gather and the air darkens and thickens, the rainbow appears nowhere. 12But perhaps by means of the bow the theologian145 announces something else, for the reduction or intensity of earthly affairs, in order that there is neither relaxation weakening up to disintegration and disagreement, nor intensity leading to rupture, but in both cases, fixed power balanced by measure. 13For the great Flood happened by rupture and break, as [Scripture] itself confesses, saying, “the fountains of the great deep burst apart,”146 and not with certain intensity or anything [like that]. 14And second, the bow is not a weapon but an instrument of a weapon, the arrow that pierces. 15And an arrow shot by a bow reaches a faraway part, the things nearby and close to it remaining unaffected. 16This is a sign that the whole earth will never be flooded again, because no arrow reaches every place, but only a distant place. 17Now, symbolically it is the invisible might of God: the arrow that is in the air. 18And “shooting” when clear [air] moves forth, and staying and remaining firm when [there are] clouds,147 it does not let all the clouds turn wholly into water, watching that the earth be dried avoiding a flood. 19It guides and bridles the thickness and density of the air, which especially then is innately used to be rebellious and violent from excessive saturation. 20For when there are clouds, it appears to be filled with itself and to drizzle and to be replete. 2.66.1What is, “Noah began to be a husbandman of the earth”?148 2[Scripture] likens Noah to the first-created earthly man, for, as to the latter, it says the same words, when he went out of the ark. 3For the beginning of agriculture was both then and now, both [times] following a flood. 4For at the first creation of the world the earth was somehow flooded. 5For [God] would not have said, “Let the waters below the sky be gathered into one area, that the dry land may appear,”149 if somewhere the deeps of the earth had not been flooded and full of water. 6But it is not said vainly, “he began to be a husbandman,” because at the second creation of humanity he was the begina certain substance, whereas the rainbow, always appearing incidentally, is immaterial and nonexistent. His comparison of the “bow of God” with the weapon releasing arrows has a parallel in Midr. Hag. 1:172, referring in its turn to Hab. 3:9, where, allegorically, the bow and the arrows of God are mentioned. Nonetheless, the “bow” in Philo’s interpretation has a very peculiar allegorical meaning: a tool for balancing the natural and human powers, to forbid them from going to extremes. Gen. Rab. 35:3, without further specifying whether the rainbow or some other natural phenomenon is meant by the “bow,” states that it signifies God’s likeness (cf. Ezek. 1:28), something that can be compared with the “invisible might of God” in QG 2.64.17. 2.66.6–8 Philo clearly differs the work of a husbandman, which demands great skill and is highly esteemed, from just tilling the ground. Noah, as “a husbandman of the earth” is highly honor-

830 Aram Topchyan and Gohar Muradyan

ning of seed, tilling, and other lives. 7This is the literal meaning; as to the metaphorical sense, being a husbandman and a worker of the earth are different things. 8So, [Scripture] introduced fratricide,150 and it is said about him that he should till the earth [but] not be a husbandman. (. . .) 2.67.1Why was the righteous [man] the first to plant a vineyard?151 2One should be perplexed and puzzled: where did he find a plant after the Flood, when everything on the earth was dried up and destroyed? 3But what was said a bit earlier seems to be true; because the earth was dried up in the springtime, [and] because the spring displayed a yield of plants. 4Consequently, it is probable that the righteous [man] found vines and fruitful vine sprouts and gathered them. 5But it should be announced why he first planted a vineyard and not wheat or barley. 6Because some of the fruits are necessary; it is impossible to live without them, and [there are] some that are a matter of excessive delight. 7Now, those that are necessary for life, the useful ones, he dedicated and left to God,152 not seeking for153 cooperation in [their] production, whereas the excessive ones [are] for humans, because the use of wine is excessive, not necessary. 8Now, in the same way as God by himself, without the cooperation of humans, made the sources of potable water spring out and gave [them to man], likewise wheat and barley; so that only he by himself grants both kinds of food, for eating as well as for drinking. 9But [he] did not take away154 those for delightful life, and did not envy, so men obtained [the right] to proceed to it. 2.77.1Why, when Ham transgresses, does [Scripture] present his son Canaan as the slave of Shem and Japheth?155 able, unlike the fratricide Cain, who was not a skilled cultivator but just tilled the ground. In the Rabbinic tradition (e.g., Tanh. B 1:46) “a husbandman of the earth” or “a man of the soil” is regarded as a respectful designation. However, Gen. Rab. 36:3 subordinates this epithet of Noah to the one given to Moses: at first, Noah was called “a righteous man” (Gen. 6:9) and then “a man of the soil,” but Moses, first called “an Egyptian man” (Exod. 2:19), afterward was called “the man of God” (Deut. 33:1), because he was more beloved than Noah. 2.67.2. where did he find a plant after the Flood, when everything on the earth was dried up and destroyed? Philo’s answer to this question is different from what we find in the Rabbinic tradition. According to Gen. Rab. 36:3, for example, Noah had taken into the ark with him vine sprouts (as well as shoots for fig and olive trees) for planting after the Flood. Pirke R. El. 23 and Tg. Yer. Gen. 9:20 state that Adam had brought the vine shoots from paradise, and Noah found them when he came out of the ark (the sprouts had not been damaged by the Deluge). 2.67.7. the use of wine is excessive, not necessary The idea about wine being something excessive also occurs, more expressly and exaggeratedly, in Jewish sources. B. Sanh. 70a–b states that all troubles to man are caused by wine, and the forbidden tree from which Adam ate was the vine. Unfortunately, Noah, when planting the vine shoots, did not take a warning from Adam, drinking wine (Gen. 9:21) and thus transgressing like the forefather. It is even believed that when Noah was going to plant the vineyard he came into partnership with Satan (the demon Shimadon) (Gen. Rab. 36:3). However, in contrast to these sources, Philo somewhat justifies Noah in QG 2.68 (not included in our selection), saying that Noah, as a righteous and wise man, did not drink wine excessively but only “a part of it.”

Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus 831

2First of all, because the two, the father and the son, were governed by the same depravity; they were mixed and not distinguished, as if both [were] in one body and governed by one soul.156 3And second, because for the curse upon Canaan, the father, too, must have greatly saddened, knowing that he was tortured not because of himself, but rather because of his father, due to the punishment of the leader and instructor of wicked thoughts and speeches and deeds. 4This is the literal meaning; as to the metaphorical sense, they are two: not so much humans as characters. 5And the giving of the names demonstrates this clearly, also demonstrating the essence of things. 6Because “Ham” is rendered as “warmth” or “heat,” and “Canaan,” as “mediators” or “causes.” 3.3.1Why does [he] say: “Take for me157 a three-year-old heifer, and a three-year-old she-goat, and a three-year-old ram, a turtledove, and a pigeon”?158 2[Scripture] mentions five animals that are offered to the Lord’s altar, because these are chosen for sacrifices.159 3Three of the terrestrial [animals]: heifer, goat, ram,160 and two of the birds: turtledove and pigeon, for [Scripture] solemnly states that the eternal offerings originate from the patriarch, who is the beginning of our race. 4But instead of “bring me,” it is very well said, “take for me,” since for a creature nothing is certainly his own, but everything is the gift and grant of God, to whom it is pleasant [when one], having received something, is grateful with all his willingness. 5And [he] orders to take a threeyear-old, one of each animal, because three is a complete and perfect number, consisting of beginning, middle, and end. 6But one should be puzzled: why of three animals does [he] introduce two females, a heifer and a she-goat, and one male, a ram? 7Now, perhaps because the heifer and the she-goat are 2.77.2. the two, the father and the son . . . as if both [were] in one body and conducted by one soul This kind of sophistic judgments in Philo’s comments does not give a clear answer to the logical question: why, though the sinner was Ham and not his son Canaan, was the latter punished together with his father, and even more strictly than Ham? Rabbis, when dealing with Gen. 9:22– 27, have tried to give simpler and more plausible explanations to the story. In Gen. Rab. 36:7, for instance, Rabbi Judah comments that since God had blessed Noah and his sons (Gen. 9:1), there could not be a curse upon Ham after the blessing; therefore, Canaan was cursed instead. Rabbi Nehemiah slightly changes the story to make things clearer: it was not Ham who first saw Noah’s nakedness but Canaan, who then informed his father and uncles. Pirke R. El. 23 goes so far as to allege that Canaan not only saw the naked Noah but also castrated him.288 2.77.6. Because “Ham” is rendered as “warmth” or “heat” In Sobriety 44, Philo explains that the meaning of Ham’s name, “warmth” (thermē), indicates fever in the body and wickedness in the soul. He interprets “Canaan” differently in Sobriety 44, 48, namely, as salos (tossing motion, restlessness). Here two different Arm. words are used for “Chanaan,” which Marcus (Questions 1.169) translates “merchants” and “middle-men,” respectively. We have preferred “mediators” for the first word and “causes” for the second word because, according to the context of Philo’s comment, Canaan and his father “mediated” and “caused” misfortunes for their descendents. 3.3.5. and [he] orders to take a three-year-old, one of each animal In the Rabbinic tradition, the Hebrew word for “three-year-old” is also interpreted as “three kinds.” Accordingly, in Gen. Rab. 44:14 God orders Abram to sacrifice, for different purposes, three kinds of bullocks, three kinds of goats, and three kinds of rams. 3.3.6. why . . . does [he] introduce two females, a heifer and a she-goat, and one male, a ram? The idea expressed by Philo that female animals are sacrificed to atone for sins also occurs, a bit dif-

832 Aram Topchyan and Gohar Muradyan

offered for sins, but not the ram; sinning is from feebleness, and the female is feeble. 8It was appropriate and suitable to say this much first. 9But I am not unaware that all such things give cause to vainly slanderous people for denying and talking idly about the sacred Scripture. 10Now, they say that in this case [Scripture] depicts and demonstrates nothing else but the sacrificial [victim] by the cutting and division of the animals and by the examination of the intestines. 11For they say that “he sat with them” is an indication of harmony and fitting similitude of visible things. 12And these [people], as it is obvious, are among those who judge and estimate161 the whole not by one part but, quite the reverse, a part by the whole. 13For it is better in the latter way: both the name and the object are tested in all respects. (. . .) 3.6.1Why does [Scripture] say, “but he did not cut up the birds”?162 2It hints to the fifth and cyclic essence, of which the ancients say the heavens were made. 3For those that are called “four elements” are mixtures rather than elements; by them [Scripture] divides the divided things into those of which they were mixed. 4In the same way as the earth has enclosed in itself the watery, aerial, and fiery [elements], called [so] rather by conception than by vision. 5And water is not so pure and clean as not to contain a portion of wind or soil, and each of the others, too, is a mixture. 6And the fifth substance is the only one formed as unmixed and pure, for which reason it is not used to be cut. 7Therefore, it is said well that, “he did not cut up the birds.” 8Because the nature of ferently, in Lev. 4:32: “If the offering he brings as a sin offering is a sheep, he shall bring a female without blemish” (in Philo’s comment, the sheep is male, not to be sacrificed for sins but something else). According to Gen. Rab. 44:14, three kinds of rams (i.e., male sheep, in contrast to Lev. 4:32 on the one hand and Philo on the other) should be sacrificed as guilt offerings: one as the guilt offering of an obligation, the second as the guilt offering of doubt, and the third, a lamb, as the sin offering (brought by an individual). Instead of the heifer and the she-goat of the Bible and Philo, the same Rabbinic source refers to two bullocks and one heifer with broken neck and three goats (their sex is unspecified) respectively.289 3.3.11. “he sat with them” This is a citation from Gen. 15:11, where the MT reads “drove them away” instead: “Birds of prey came down upon the carcasses, and Abram drove them away.” The whole sentence in Philo is obscure, and Marcus translates the sentence as follows (Questions 1.179): “And as for what happens to them, they say that this is an indication of chance and of opportunely visible likenesses.” 3.3.12. And these [people] By this example, concerning Gen. 15:11 and not directly related to the passage in question, Philo adduces an additional proof that those “slanderous people” do not attempt to understand the essence of what is said in the Bible but they “judge the book by its cover.” Although Abram “sat with” the birds of prey, this does not mean a harmony between the former and the latter. 3.6.2. fifth and cyclic essence That is to say, the quintessence; cf. Philo’s Heir 282. The term is based on Aristotle’s De Caelo 269a.13(cf. Marcus Questions 1.188 n. e). 3.6.4. watery, aerial, and fiery [elements] This expression, following in the Arm. text the reference to the three elements, rather concerns all the three than only the last, fiery one, as Marcus (Questions 1.188) renders: “The earth contains in itself also a watery (element) and an aerial one and what is called a fiery one more by comprehension than by sight.”

Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus 833

those that are in the heavens, of the planets and the fixed [stars], are high-flying like the birds; they are like163 the two clean birds, the turtledove and pigeon, which do not accept cutting and division. 9For they are of the fifth, simpler and unmixed, essence, and for this reason the indivisible nature is especially likened to oneness.164 3.7.1What is, “And birds came down upon the divided bodies”?165 2For we have said that symbolically the three divided animals, the heifer and the she-goat and the ram, are earth and water and air. 3But [it is necessary] to adjust and fit the response to the question, weighing the truth by the logic of correspondence.166 4Now, perhaps by the flight of the birds over the divided [pieces, Scripture] gives a hint, announcing the attack of enemies. 5For the whole of nature that is under the moon is full of wars and evils, internal and external. 6The birds appear to fly over the divided bodies for food and gluttony. 7And those stronger by nature fall upon the weaker, as if upon dead bodies, often coming upon [them] all of a sudden. 8But they do not fly over the turtledove and the pigeon, because the celestial [creatures] are innocent and free of transgression. 3.9.1What is, “As the sun was about to set, a deep sleep fell upon Abram, and a great dark dread descended upon him”?167 2Some divine calmness came unexpectedly upon the righteous man. 3Because ecstasy, as the name itself clearly indicates, is nothing else but the giving up and the coming out of reason. 4But the race of prophets likes to undergo this, for when the mind is inspired with God and possessed by God, it is no more in itself, for it accepts the Divine Spirit, settling [him] inside. 5Moreover, as it said, “falls upon,” because it does not come upon [someone] quietly and mildly, but unexpectedly makes an attack. 6But what [Scripture] added is also appropriate: that “a great dark dread descended upon him.” 7For all these are raptures of the mind; for he who fears is not within himself, and darkness is an obstacle to seeing, and the greater the dread is, the duller are the seeing and the knowing. 8And these things are not said vainly, but for the demonstration of the knowledge of clear prophesy,168 by which precepts and laws are established by God.

3.6.8–9 The birds, since they are able to soar high, are the symbol of the fifth (after earth, water, air, and fire), the purest, highest, and most inseparable element, the quintessence. This philosophical allegory has no parallel in the Rabbinic tradition, where the bird not cut by Abram appears to be a completely different symbol. According to Gen. Rab. 44:15 and Pirke R. El. 28, the dismembering of the other victims symbolizes the division of the power of Israel’s enemies, whereas the bird that remained whole means that Israel, too, will maintain its wholeness.290 3.7.4. by the flight of the birds . . . announcing the attack of enemies The appearance of the birds of prey is interpreted as something ominous, symbolizing enmity, wickedness, and other human and animal vices. Similarly, in Gen. Rab. 44:16, Abram, trying to get rid of the evil creatures, takes a frail and beats the birds in order to kill them. In Tg. Yer. Gen. 15:11, however, the birds of prey are a different symbol: they indicate the advent of the messiah (but since it was not yet the time for the latter to come, Abram drove the birds away, thus bidding the messiah to wait until the day appointed to him).291 3.9.3. ecstasy . . . is nothing else but the giving up and the coming out of reason Philo’s description of Abram’s sleep as an ecstatic state is similar to his comment (QG 1.24) on Gen. 2:21 (God casts a deep sleep upon Adam), where he explains that phenomenon as a kind of trance, “relaxation of

834 Aram Topchyan and Gohar Muradyan

3.11.1What is, “And you shall go to your fathers in peace, nourished at a good old age”?169 2This undoubtedly hints of the incorruptibility of the soul transferring from habitation in the mortal body, as if going and returning to the metropolis, from where it had migrated before. 3For what else is this, to say to someone dying, “you shall go to your fathers,” if not that [God] represents the other life, that which is without body and which only the soul of a wise [man]170 happens to live? 4And [Scripture] calls Abraham’s171 “fathers” not his parents, including his grandparents and ancestors. 5For not all [of them] were praiseworthy, so that they could be pride and glory to him who reached their same rank. 6But it seemed, as many say, that by the “fathers” [Scripture] hints to all the elements, into which the decomposition [of things] is. 7However, as it seems to me, [Scripture hints to] the incorporeal and the hosts172 of the divine world, which elsewhere it used to call angels. 8But it does not say vainly, “nourished in peace” and that, “at a good old age.” 9For an evil and wicked person is nourished and lives in war, and he deceases and grows old173 in evil. 10But a righteous [man] in both his lives, in that which is with the body and that without the body, lives in peace and is only virtuous.174 11And no one of the foolish [is so], even if he lives longer than an elephant. 12That is why [Scripture] said cautiously, “you shall go to your fathers, nourished” not “at a long old age” but “at a good old age.” 13For many of the foolish [people] strive for175 a long life, but only he who is a lover of wisdom [strives for] a good and righteous [life]. 3.18.1Why “Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children”?176 2It is told that the mother of that race was barren. 3In the first place, in order that the unexpected177 seed of the offspring should appear to be miraculously created.178 4Second, in order that the conception and childbirth should be not so much by marriage to a man as by the providence of God. 5Because childbirth by a barren [woman] does not take place by engendering, but it is the work of the divine the senses and retirement of reason” (cf. also the comment on 1.24.2–3). The Rabbis discussing Gen. 15:12 in Gen. Rab. 34:17 give different explanations to it (one of them is that sleep is a state of stupidity!), some of which can be compared with what Philo says: sleep is one of the three kinds of torpor; the other kinds are prophecy (cf. the relationship between sleep and prophecy in Philo’s comment) and unconsciousness (cf. Philo: when one sleeps, reason departs from him). 3.11.4–7 The generalization of the word “fathers” and its metaphorical interpretation as “the hosts of divine world” by Philo contradicts the concretized comment in Gen. Rab. 38:12, according to which by saying “you shall go to your fathers in peace” God informed Abraham that his father had a portion in the world to come. 3.11.12. not “at a long old age” but “at a good old age” Here Philo understands Gk. kalos (good) as “virtuous,” meaning that, according to what God said, Abraham was going to be so in his old age. Gen. Rab. 63:12, however, stresses another meaning of “good” in the context of Gen. 15:15, namely, “happy”: in fact, Abraham’s old age did not turn out to be happy, because he saw his grandson (Esau) practicing idolatry, immorality, and murder (so the Rabbis interpret Gen. 25:29: “Esau came in from the open, famished”). Therefore, it would have been better for Abraham to leave this world in peace before that. 3.18.2–5 B. Yev. 64b adds that Sarai was not only barren but that she even had no womb. Rabbis have also voiced a doubt (e.g., Gen. Rab. 45:1 and B. Yev. 64a) that the reason for Abram’s and Sarai’s childlessness was that the former, too, was barren (or only he, because Scripture says that Sarai had borne him [not someone else] no children: if she were married to another man, she would

Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus 835

power. 6This is the literal sense; as to the metaphorical meaning, first, childbirth is exclusively related to woman, in the same way as begetting [is related] to man. 7Now, [Scripture] wishes to liken the righteous spirit of the race to the male rather than the female,179 considering that being active, and not bearing, is kindred to it. 8And second, both the righteous mind and the evil beget, but they beget differently and opposite. 9The righteous [mind180 begets] good and useful [things], and the evil and wicked [mind], filthy, disgraceful, and useless [things]. 10And the third is the one that has advanced and is close to the very end, which is called by some “forgotten and unknown light.” 11This one, having advanced, begets neither evil nor righteous [things], because it is not yet perfect. 12And it is similar to one who is not sick and [also] not healthy in his whole body, but still comes to recovery from long sickness. 3.20.1Why does Sarai say to Abraham, “Look, the Lord hath kept me from bearing. Consort with my maid, so that you may beget a child from her”?181 2In the literal meaning, it is the same [as] not to be jealous and envious, to take care of the wise [man] and husband and close kinsman.182 3For the same [purpose], compensating for her childlessness with the help of her maid, she exhibited [her] as her husband’s concubine. 4But also the excess of the love for her husband is signified. 5Since she seemed to be barren, she did not consider it right to let her husband’s house perish without offspring, respecting his benefit more than her own safety. (. . .) 3.34.1Why does [Scripture] say: “And she called the name of the Lord who spoke to her, ‘You are God who saw me,’ for [she] said, ‘And because I saw [him] face to face, appearing to me!’”?183 2Consider the first [point] cautiously; for there was a servant from God,184 like the maid of wisdom.185 3Why is it said that an angel was summoned?186 4In order that [Scripture] matches things to the persons themselves.187 5For it was suitable and appropriate that God, the Supreme One and Prince of All, should appear to wisdom,188 and he who is his word and servant, to the maid and attendant of wisdom. 6But it was not odd [for her] to think that the angel was God. 7For it happens189 to those who

have given birth to children). Thus, the intervention of the divine power, to which Philo also gives prominence, becomes more striking: in addition to Abram being 100 years old and Sarai being 90 (Gen. 17:17) and barren, it turns out that she even had no womb and that Abram was not able to beget, but, by the providence of God, they gave birth to Isaac (Gen. 21:2). 3.18.7. liken the righteous spirit of the race to the male rather than the female What does Philo mean by this passage? Perhaps that, since Sarai was barren and her conception (Gen. 21:2) was “the work of the divine power,” she had a minor role in the birth of Isaac and his descendents (i.e., the “race” born from Abraham and Sarah), so the spirit of that race was more like that of the male progenitor (Abraham). 3.20.2. it is the same [as] not to be jealous and envious The nobility of Sarai’s behavior is also stressed in Midr. Hag. 1:241–42. Regarding the continuation of Abram’s family line more important than her own feelings, she gave her maidservant to her husband as wife without a trace of jealousy. 3.34.5–7 Philo juxtaposes the simple-mindedness of Hagar, the maidservant, with the wisdom of Sarah, the mistress: it was natural for the former, who is compared with “savages,” to take the angel for God; Sarah the Wisdom would never be so naive. Gen. Rab. 45:7–10, commenting on the appearance of the angel to Hagar, does not discuss the issue of the confusion of God’s messenger with God. On the contrary, 45:10 states that when Hagar speaks to God, it is through the angel (as Rebekah, too, according to Rabbi Levi’s interpretation, addresses God through an an-

836 Aram Topchyan and Gohar Muradyan

cannot see the first reason to be deceived: they think that the second is the first. 8As those who have weak eyesight: because being unable to see the corporeal sun, which is in the sky, they think that the rays, which are brought upon the earth, are the sun itself. 9And those who have never seen the great king pay the king’s honor to his minister and to those under him. 10But also savages, having never seen towns even from a high place somewhere, consider a village or a yard to be a big city, and the people in it to be inhabitants of a big city, due to ignorance of what a really big city is. 3.43.1What is, “And you shall no longer be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham”?190 2Some of the tasteless and unrefined,191 moreover, of the profane and of those not belonging to God’s chorus, mock the [man] immaculate by nature. 3And they say, scoffing and reproaching: “Oh great gift! The Leader and Lord of all granted one letter, by which the name of the patriarch increased, in order to become trisyllable instead of disyllable.” 4Oh great diabolism and unrighteousness, that some dare cast aspersions on God! 5And they have been deceived by the versatile appearance of names, while it was necessary to send the mind deeply inside, examining the realities for great achievements in the truth. 6But why don’t you think that Providence grants this letter [as something] ready and, so to say, at hand, and that it is honorable?192 7For first, the first letter of the written sound is “A,” both by order and by value. 8And second, because it is both a vowel and the first among vowels, as if a suitable head. 9And third, for it does not belong to the long proper and to the short proper, but to those in which these two [qualities] are present.193 10For it stretches until [becoming] long, and then again is confined until [becoming] the same short [vowel], thanks to flexibility, as wax being formed in many objects, and forming the word in accordance with diverse and multiple shapes. 11And the reason is that it is the brother of one, from which everything starts and in which [everything] ends. 12And then, [how] does anyone jeer, having perceived or not perceived what a beauty and what necessary letter is being pronounced? 13If he has perceived [it], he is a lover of reproach and a hater of good, and if he has not perceived, it is very easy to deride and make fun of something, trampling on it, which he does not know, as if he knew it. 14But let this be [considered to have been] said in passing, purposelessly, as I have noted,194 and now the necessary and first issue should be studied. 15The addition of “A”: with the help of one letter [Scripture], changing the whole, reformed the position of the soul, endowing it with the knowledge of wisdom instead of the learning in astronomy. 16Because skill in astronomy is acquired in

gel; Gen. 25:22–23). That is, Hagar was aware that it was God’s angel who appeared to her and not God himself. Moreover, Gen. Rab. 45:7 comments that not one but four (the number of times “angel” occurs) or five (the number of times “speech” is mentioned) angels appeared to Hagar. 3.43.2–4 Philo also speaks of these impious men-critics of the Bible—again not mentioning their names, in Names 60–62. Being “among the quarrelsome and always wishing to attach reproaches to irreproachable things,” they waged “unannounced war” against “holy things.” Apparently, those critics (and perhaps Philo’s own opponents) were quite influential in his days. However, as Philo informs, at least one of them had a terrible fate: not long after mocking the addition of one letter in Abram’s and Sarai’s names, that “ungodly and profane” man hanged himself, suffering a deserved punishment. 3.43.15–26 Similar remarks, with slight differences, are found in Philo’s other works (e.g., Abraham 81–83, Names 60–76, Cherubim 4–7, and Giants 62–64). God changed Abram’s name and, thereby, his mission in order to tear him away from purely heavenly matters such as the motions and

Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus 837

one part of the world: in the heavens and in the revolutions and constellations of the stars, while wisdom [is concerned] with the nature of all things, both tangible and intelligible. 17Because knowledge is divine and human wisdom, also [pertaining] to their causes.195 18And of the divine things, some are visible and some are invisible, and [there is] the paradigmatic idea. 19And of the human things, some are corporeal and some are incorporeal; and to receive wisdom about them is a great and real work of capability and fortitude. 20And not only to perceive the substances and natures of all things but also to pursue and examine the causes of each demonstrates an ability more perfect than that of humans. 21Because it is needed that the soul, which accepts so many good things, should be all eyes, completing its life in the world sleeplessly and watchfully. 22And without shadow and in the shining light, it should accept the flashes around [itself], being conducted by God, the Instructor and Leader,196 in order to achieve the knowledge of things and to respond to the causes. 23Now, the disyllable name “Abram” is interpreted as “sublime father,” according to the denomination of sublime computation197 and mathematics. 24But the trisyllable “Abraham” is rendered as “chosen father of sound”: a title of a wise man. 25For what else is the echo in us, if not that which is pronounced: the word-sound? 26And for this a tool is formed by nature: [the sound is uttered] by means of that which is called “thick”198— the windpipe, the mouth, and the tongue. 27And “the father of sound” is our mind, and the chosen mind is righteous. (. . .) 3.48.1Why does [God] say: “And the eight-day-old child shall be circumcised, every male”?199 2He commands to circumcise the prepuce, first of all, in order that illnesses abate. 3Because the disease of the genitalia, [when] inflammation appears on the part covered by the foreskin, is very difficult and frightful to cure. 4But when it is circumcised, [the illness] does not approach. 5Now, if it were also periods of the stars and bring him closer to earthly things. It is not clear on what etymologies “sublime father” and “elect father of sound” are based (in Names 71, Philo states that while the Hebrews would say “Abraham,” the Greeks would call him “elect father of sound” instead, but he does not give any additional explanation of how the meanings of the Hebrew and the Greek denominations are related to each other). Philo’s remarkable and very original commentary, strange as it may seem, demonstrates once again the flight of his thought. Gen. 17:5 interprets “Abraham” as “father of a multitude” (where ab = “father of ” and ham is an abbreviation of hamon [multitude], and the letter resh should be ignored). Gen. Rab. 46:7–8 simply accepts the biblical explanation of the name and warns that whoever, after the change of “Abram” into “Abraham,” continues to refer to “Abram” infringes both the positive (“your name shall be Abraham”) and negative (“you shall no longer be called Abram”) commandment of God. B. Shab. 105a, mentioning a number of examples, among them “Abraham,” states that abbreviated forms are recognized by the Torah, because it is written: “For Ab (the father of) Hamwn (a multitude of) nations have I made you.” B. Ber. 13a explains “Abram” as “father of Aram” (Ab-Aram); Abram was the father of Aram only, but when he received the name “Abraham,” he became the father of the whole world. In this Rabbinic passage, too, any mention of Abraham as Abram is considered to be a violation of both the positive and negative commandments of God.292 3.48.2–11 This rationalistic argumentation for the usefulness of circumcision (in order to avoid diseases of the genitalia, especially spreading in summer and in the hot parts of the world) has no parallel in the Rabbinic comments, which rather see a symbolic meaning in the removal of the foreskin. For instance, according to Gen. Rab. 46:2 God gave that command to Abraham before

838 Aram Topchyan and Gohar Muradyan

possible to avoid other diseases and illnesses by cutting off a member or a part of the body, the amputation of which would not impede the activity of the parts, the mortal man, without realizing it,200 would be transformed to immortality. 6And that it was through the foresight of the soul that [they] wanted to circumcise [themselves] without any ill consequence is clear: because not only the Jews are circumcised but also the Egyptians, Arabs, Ethiopians, and almost all those who live in the southern side, close to the burning zone. 7And what is the particular reason if not that in [those] places, especially in summer, the prepuce of the genitalia—since they have a layer of skin around them and are covered—being warmed, is irritated and wounded. 8And when it is cut off, [the penis] cools down in its nakedness, and the illness, being overcome, is drawn away. 9That is why the nations, which are toward the side of the Plough, and to which from the parts of the world the windy parts are allotted, are not circumcised. 10Because in those parts the warmth of the sun weakens and lessens, and likewise the disease, which appears in the skin from the warmth of the member. 11And one can also find exact evidence supporting my words in the time when the disease mostly occurs: it never happens in winter and, growing, it blossoms and ripens in summer, for it likes to grow in [those] parts [of the body]201 like fire. 12Second, the ancients devoted the foresight of [their] soul [to this] not only for the sake of health but also for the sake of the multitude of people, seeing that nature is animated and very philanthropic. 13Now, as sages they knew why the semen flowing into the folds of the foreskin often, dissipating, happens to be sterile. 14But if there is no obstacle to impede it, [the semen] manages to reach the place that it is going to occupy. 15This is why those of the nations that are circumcised greatly increased until becoming multitudes. 16And our legislator,202 also thinking of and knowing that consequence, immediately commanded the circumcision of infants,203 having the same in mind: that both circumcision and lust meant multitude of people. 17This is why it seems to me that the Egyptians, by circumcising at the second septenary of years,204 when the voluptuous passion for procreation appears, mean that circumcision is for the multitude of people. 18But our decision to perform the circumcision on children was much better and the birth of Isaac so that the latter issues from a holy (the symbolic parallel of “pure” [cf. Gen. Rab. 46:21: “But no less useful to cleanness is the circumcision of the foreskin”] and “healthy” in Philo) source.293 3.48.9. the side of the Plough The constellation also known as the Big Dipper, the Big Bear, the Drinking Gourd; i.e., the north. 3.48.12–15 Circumcision is also regarded as a stimulus for multiplication in Jewish sources. In Gen. Rab. 46:1, Rabbi Judan compares Abraham with the fig tree. At first its fruit is gathered one by one, then two by two, and then three by three, until eventually the figs are gathered in baskets and with shovels. Likewise Abraham was one, then there were he and Isaac, and then these two and Jacob, until eventually, “the Israelites were fertile and prolific; they multiplied and increased very greatly” (Exod. 1:7). This happened after Abraham was circumcised, because the only inedible part of the fig is its stalk, and when the latter is removed, the defect vanishes. The foreskin was like the stalk: it was cut away, the blemish was removed, and Abraham became fertile. Gen. Rab. 46:4 refers to the virile foreskin as the part of the tree where it brings fruit. Consequently, in Zohar 3a circumcision is compared with pruning, after which flowers appear.

Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus 839

with more forethought, because a mature person, since he has free will, would perhaps delay doing the lawful thing for fear. 19Third, [the legislator] also says this for the cleanness of oblations in sacred places, because those who enter the courts of sanctuaries are cleaned by ablutions and sprinkling. 20The Egyptians also shave the whole body, [cleaning off] the hair that covers and overshadows the body, for the sake of looking bright and bare. 21But no less useful to cleanness is the circumcision of the foreskin, at which one feels disgust when seeing how it looks. 22Fourth, there are two genitalia in us, in the soul and in the body; and the thoughts are the genitalia of the soul, and those of the body are those in the body. 23Now, the ancients wished to liken the bodily genitalia to the heart, the principal genitor of the thoughts. 24And nothing is so much like anything as the circumcised [part is like] the heart. (. . .) 4.2.1What is, “He saw, and behold, there were three men above him”?205 2Quite naturally, [Scripture] presents [them] to those who can see: for it happened to be one in three and three in one, for according to the higher reason they are one. 3But if reckoned and numbered together with the principal powers, the creative and the kingly, [God] makes three appearances to the human mind. 4For [one] cannot be so sharp-eyed as to see, distinguishing from anything else, God who is higher than the powers that are inferior to him. 5For at the very moment when [one] claps eyes on God, there appear, together with his essence, the serving powers as well, so that instead of one he produces the appearance of a triad. 6For when the mind starts to comprehend the Existent, then he, being there, is perceived. 7And [although] he makes [himself] one, appearing as the First and the Ruler, it is impossible, as I said a little before, to see him without the unity with others: the principal powers urgently coming into existence with him, the creative, which is called God, and the kingly, which is called Lord. 8For by “looking up with [his] eyes,” [Scripture] means not [the eyes] of the body, for it is impossible to see God with the senses, but [those] of the soul, for at the [appropriate] time he is seen with the eyes of wisdom. 9Now, the soul’s sight of many stupid idlers is always closed, because they are in a deep sleep and are never able to wake up and rush to the affairs of nature, and for the visions and conceptions therein. 10But the spiritual eyes of a righteous person look, being awake; moreover, he is sleepless due to his wish to see, being stimulated and rushing to vigilence. 11For this reason, it is well said in the plural: opening not one eye but all the eyes, which are in the soul, until, together with all the [eyes], he wholly becomes an eye and, becoming an eye, he begins to perceive the lordly and holy divine 3.48.18. a mature person . . . would perhaps delay doing the lawful thing for fear Fear of circumcision was an essential issue also referred to in the Rabbinic tradition. For example, Gen. Rab. 46:2 remarks that Abraham did not circumcise himself at the age of 48, when he recognized his Creator, in order not to frighten the proselytes by the painful act. 3.48.23. the heart, the principal genitor of the thought The heart is also regarded as the center of thinking in Gen. Rab. 46:5: where could Abraham perform circumcision and yet be fit to offer (i.e., remain whole)? If he were circumcised at the ear, he would not be whole and able to hear; if at the mouth, he would not be whole and able to speak; if at the heart, he would not be whole and able to think. Where then could he be circumcised and yet be whole and able to think? Only at the foreskin. 3.48.23. liken the bodily genitalia to the heart Here and in the following sentence, the Arm. text seems to be corrupt. We have slightly revised the passage based on Philo’s Spec. Laws 1.6, where the heart and the generative organ are considered to be alike, because both are ready for pro-

840 Aram Topchyan and Gohar Muradyan

vision, so that one appearance is seen by him as a triad, and the triad, as a unity. 12One should [also] speak of, [and] not omit, what follows this, for it is not said vainly that [three men] “were above him.” 13For above all generated things are God and God’s powers, supplying, taking care, and ruling. 14Now, generally everything that has been said before [occurs] necessarily; since it is not fitting to see a futile vision on the functioning of things, with a single look the mind perceives two appearances. 15One, of God coming together with two higher powers, by which he is attended: the creative, by which he has made and operates the world, and the kingly, by which he governs the beings. 16And the other [appearance is] of strangers: not those whom one happens to meet, but more perfect in body, according to the human nature, and [more perfect] in honor, [according to their] dignity.206 17And having encountered the two appearances, he was drawn by both to see [them], now by one, now by the other, and he was unable to say which of them the true one was. 18Due to cautiousness and doubt about the uncertainty, he did not ignore [them] and did not forget, as some of the idle and sluggish [people do].207 19But he perceived and understood both appearances, considering it better to subdue208 the doubt by truth rather than by falsity, in order to obtain the two great virtues: dignity and humanity. 20Dignity, with one kind of look with which he saw God, and humanity, with the other kind: the look toward the strangers was a contact of equals. 21And that he was attracted by both appearances is evident from Scripture, for whatever is said about one or to one or by one bears witness to an appearance as God, and whatever [is said] about many or to many, as strangers. (. . .) 4.5.1Why does [Scripture] say again in the plural: “Let water be taken; let them wash your feet, and refresh yourselves under the thick209 tree”?210 2This is again related to the different appearance, according to which [he] considered them to be strangers, not having achieved clear knowledge but again being captured and forcefully drawn by the

creation, “the breath within the heart [is generative] of the thoughts and the generative organ, of the living things.” Thus, Philo regards the heart as the generator of the thoughts, and we have translated the above passage accordingly. 4.2.2–22 Another original and sophisticated comment by Philo, the “three men” are considered to be God himself and his two principal powers, the creative and the lordly—an inseparable triad (a unity of the three aspects of God). Abraham did not just see them with his bodily eyes, because they were not tangible, but perceived their presence with the eyes of wisdom or with the eyes of his soul, and this sort of “eyes,” making “one eye” of the person possessing them, are the exclusive quality of the virtuous. Furthermore, the complicated appearance of the three is also understood by Philo as a unity of the divine (God himself) and the human (the two “strangers”), which can be seen with the two kinds of spiritual sight: one for seeing God and the other for seeing the human aspect of his threefold appearance. In contrast to these subtle remarks, a much simpler interpretation of the personality of the “three men” is suggested by other commentators of the passage. Josephus (Ant. 1.196), referring to Abraham’s guests, simply says that he saw “three angels.” The names of those angels are mentioned in Rabbinic sources. According to B. BM 86b, they were Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael: Michael came to bring the good news of Isaac’s birth to Sarah, Raphael, to cure Abraham (of the wound of circumcision), and Gabriel, to destroy Sodom. These same angels as the three visitors to Abraham also figure in Gen. Rab. 48:9 and 50:2.294

Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus 841

excellent and superior and divine face. 3For this reason, indeed he does not give an order and behave in a lordly manner, not daring [to charge] freemen or servants with serving water for washing the feet. 4But him who had made his face visible, him [he considered to be the one] who supposedly [gives] an order, saying, “Let water be taken,” not adding by whom. 5And again, “Let them wash your feet,”211 not being clear and knowing exactly whom. Because, as it seems to me, he is not encouraged by and does not rely upon the tangible appearance of the visible humans, but upon the intelligible—the revelation of the Divine. 6Something like this is also indicated in Scripture, that men are cleansed being washed by water, and the water itself, by the divine foot. 7Symbolically, because the foot is the last and lowest [part] of the body, and the last of the divine things has fallen by lot [upon] air, animating the gathered creatures.212 8For if air does not touch water, agitating it, [the latter] dies.213 9And it becomes very lively, thanks to nothing other than mixing air in itself. 10For this reason, not purposelessly and in vain is it said at the beginning of the Creation that “the spirit of God was borne over the water,”214 which now, allegorizing, [Scripture] symbolically called “foot.” 4.6.1Why did he speak in this way: “I shall take bread and you eat,” and not, “you take”?215 2Once again, by this, too, he manifests [his] doubt and attraction by both appearances. 3For when it is said, “I shall take bread,” he imagines the divine [appearance], to whom he dares not say, “Take food,” but when [it is said], “You eat,” he imagines the strange men.216 4This is the literal sense; and as to the metaphorical meaning, when the mind starts to prepare and organize [itself] and take the holy divine foods (and these are the laws and visions of wisdom), then symbolically it is said to be fed with the divine [food] as well. 5For those foods that are for the perfection of the celestial Olympians are 4.5.3–4 A similar interpretation of the words “let a little water be brought” as a humble request to God rather than a command to servants is found in B. BM 86b, where, for more clarity, “I pray you” is added: “Let a little water, I pray you, be brought.” In reply to Abraham’s words, the Israelites were granted the water springing from the rock (Exod. 17:6: “Strike the rock and water will issue from it”) and Miriam’s well. 4.5.6. men are cleansed being washed by water, and the water itself, by the divine foot Thus, two of the three visitors, “the strangers,” were to clean their feet by washing them, while the third guest, God, was supposed to clean (i.e., sanctify) the water itself with his feet. Since in B. BM 86b God does not figure among the three guests, and all of them are regarded as angels, Rabbi Jannai explains Abraham’s wish to have them wash their feet quite differently: it seemed to Abraham that they were Arabs (cf. Gen. Rab. 48:9: one of the angels looked like a Saracen, the second like a Nabatean, and the third like an Arab) who “worship the dust on their feet,” and he tried to prevent them from entering his tent with unclean feet and defiling it. 4.6.3. “take food,” but when [it is said], “You eat,” he imagines the strange men The Gk. lambanō (to take) in the LXX allows Philo to comment on the passage in this manner. Abraham’s humbleness before the divine countenance makes him offer something strange: he will take the bread and the guest(s) will eat it. In the MT, things are clearer: “And let me fetch a morsel of bread that you may refresh yourselves” (Gen. 18:8). In Jewish tradition, Abraham’s piety, humility, and reverence for the heavenly visitors is demonstrated in a different way. According to B. BM 86b– 87a, being of the truly righteous men “who promise little and perform much” (see also B. Ned. 21b), Abraham spoke only of a morsel of bread, but what he served afterward to his guests was a sumptuous meal.295

842 Aram Topchyan and Gohar Muradyan

also for the rational soul: the desires and cravings,217 by which it is conducted toward the reception of wisdom and the acceptance of perfect virtue. 4.9.1Why does [Scripture] say, “He set [these] before them and they ate”?218 2“They ate” symbolically indicates not food. 3For the blessed and fortunate natures do not eat food and do not drink red wine. 4But this is willingness to understand and support one who begs and trusts [them]. 5For as human strangers who are welcomed and happy with food rejoice in their host and entertainer, likewise the Divinity [rejoices] in those who know how to please with friendliness and without alienation. 6For the righteous and worthy conduct of an upright man is allegorically called the food of God. 4.12.1Why does he say in the singular, “I shall again come to you at the [right] time at this hour, and there will be a son to your wife Sarah”?219 2Why in the singular has it earlier220 been said? 3For according to what this signifies, he imagines not men but that the Father of all has come with his powers. 4But he puts off the gift until a future time, giving a more certain trial to the soul. 5For by the longer period he wishes to make [him] thirstier and to produce an immense craving for righteousness. 6But “the [right] time” is not just the name of the period, [but of the period] with accomplishment, because it is the period of accomplishment, the time of improvement. 7And clear proof of every accomplishment with improvement is what [Scripture] has said. 8For it is typical and characteristic of the divine power to accomplish something with improvement, also of those whom he wishes to favor. 9And [he] refers to “hour”221 not so much [meaning] the length of the periods and intervals as the propriety of order. 10For it so happened that the framework of the year was put in order and arranged according to periods, by which [he] indicates how the soul comes from disorder into order and worthy disposition. 11To this [soul, Scripture] says, [God] will grant, if he sees it remaining in order and evenness, the birth of the self-taught one with a better nature. 4.9.3. for the blessed and fortunate natures do not eat food and do not drink red wine The view that the heavenly creatures do not eat and drink296 was a commonplace in commentaries on the Bible. For example, Josephus (Ant. 1.197) says that when Abraham served the meal to his guests sitting under the oak tree, “they created for him the impression of eating.” And in Gen. Rab. 48:11, when Abraham offers food to the visitors, they directly tell him that they neither eat nor drink, but since Abraham himself eats and drinks, he should do as he said and bring the food (48:14 repeats that there is neither eating nor drinking in heaven). Thus, according to Genesis Rabbah, the three guests do not behave in the way that Josephus describes and Philo highly appreciates, i.e., they do not pretend to eat and drink in order to gladden their host (especially in Abraham 118, Philo admires the miracle that the three celestial beings seemed to drink and eat though they did not). 4.12.1. at the [right] time at this hour The MT reads “next year” (Gen. 18:10). More details about the time of Sarah’s pregnancy and Isaac’s birth are found in Jewish sources. Michael, the greatest of the three angels, declaring that Isaac will be born, draws a line on a wall and says that when the sun crosses one point of the line, Sarah will conceive, and when it crosses the other point, she will bear a child (Midr. Hag. 1:274; Tanh. B 1:107; Pesik. Rab. 6:24b).297 Philo’s specific comment on why God postponed the birth of Abraham’s son (because he wanted the righteous man to become even more perfect) has no parallel in the Rabbinic tradition. 4.12.11. the birth of the self-taught one with a better nature That is Isaac. Philo means that Abraham, hearing the promise of God, would improve himself (or his soul) and more deservedly be re-

Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus 843

4.17.1Why is Sarah as if threatened, whereas Abraham laughed and was not threatened? For [Scripture] says: “And the Lord said to Abraham, ‘Why did Sarah laugh, saying, “Shall I in truth bear a child, old as I am?”’”222 Is not the word of God strong enough? 2That the divine words are actions and powers is known from the foregoing, because nothing is impossible for the Divinity. 3And the threat, as it seems, shows approval rather than reproach to the person, according to the notion of natural anticipation.223 4For she is surprised that, indeed, [despite that] all conditions and probabilities by which birth is completed are removed, a new activity can be sown by God in the whole soul, for the birth of delight, great exultation, which is called in Armenian “laughter” and in Chaldean “Isaac.” 5Whereas Abraham, avoiding, flees and as if saved from the seeming threat of punishment, being firm by the unchanging and unbending persuasion of faith. 6For any doubt is alien to the one who believes in God. 4.20.1Why did Abraham walk with them to see them off?224 2In the literal sense, [Scripture] demonstrates a kind of abundance of humanity in [Abraham’s] hospitality.225 3And having willingly given [them] whatever was suitable, with [his] whole household, he was also so loath to separate and so reluctant to depart [from them] that he lingered and stayed and started on a journey with them. 4And the poet, it seems to me, taking from here, appropriately said that, “One should welcome the present guest and send off him who wishes [to go].”226 5But “see off ” is better than “send off ”:227 it is more communicative and displays a habit of unity. 6But we should not warded with Isaac’s birth. The Arm. passage is difficult to understand; Marcus’s translation (Questions 1.286) is incorrect: “A better progeny through a nature that rises by itself.” 4.17.3–5 Philo again tries to explain the biblical passage in a sophisticated fashion, attempting to persuade the reader that the words of God, in spite of their direct purpose, were in fact not reproof but praise of the clever woman. Likewise, he believes Abraham’s faith was so steadfast that his laughter at the promise to become father again (Gen. 17:17) did not mean any doubt and therefore was not to be blamed by God. A different view is expressed in Midr. Hag. 1:276, namely, that what God said was reproach directed against both Abraham and Sarah, because the former also manifested little faith when he was informed about the forthcoming birth of Isaac. God referred only to Sarah’s disbelief, because he wanted Abraham to note his blunder himself. 4.17.4. and in Chaldean “Isaac” Yishaq means “he laughs” in Hebrew.298 4.20.3. and having willingly given [them] whatever was suitable . . . started on a journey with them In addition to giving prominence to Abraham’s piety (who felt so inspired by the presence of his heavenly guests that he was deeply grieved about their departure), Philo also refers to the two general rules of hospitality. Those rules are to welcome guests properly and to see them off in an equally appropriate manner. In his opinion, they originate from the biblical story about the “three men” visiting Abraham (even Homer, he believes, learned those rules from the Bible!). A similar remark on Abraham’s behavior is found in Midr. Hag. 1:276, discussing the same biblical passage. We read there that Abraham, after he had suitably received his guests, accompanied them and brought them on their way, because even more important then the duty of entertainment is the duty of furthering the guest’s departure. 4.20.4. And the poet, it seems to me, taking from here Our translation literally corresponds to the Arm. version. Strange as it may seem, Philo means that “the poet” (Homer) used the Bible as a source (in general, he believed that Homer’s wisdom originated from his Jewish learning. Mar-

844 Aram Topchyan and Gohar Muradyan

leave aside the metaphorical meaning as well. 7For when the soul of a righteous man once perceives a very clear vision of God and his powers and is filled with craving, it scarcely, or not at all, can depart [from him]. 8If he is [there] and stays, he worships and receives [him] with humbleness, and if, going, he withdraws, because of the craving he returns, having [in himself] the heavenly longing [as] a glue and close link. 9Because not in vain is it said, “walked with them,” but for a more reliable testimony to the powers of the Father, which, he certainly knew, were not far away, even for a short while. 4.26.1What is, “And approaching, Abraham said, ‘You will not destroy the innocent along with the guilty, and shall the innocent be as the impious’”?228 2The literal sense is clear. But as to the metaphorical meaning, man is said to contact God allegorically, not actually. Because [a contact] in body . . . never, give it up, and let it ever not even come to our mind!229 3For the mortal and corruptible essence is settled separately, far away from the uncreated and imperturbable nature, except for the ruler of the soul, which is called mind, [and] which is worthy and capable of contact. 4And the passage toward him who is implored should be suitable, the suppliant offering great eulogy to the one full of beneficence, agreeableness, and love for man. 5For Abraham implores not to destroy the innocent along with the guilty, and not man along with man,230 and not thought along with thought. 6But it seems to me that the clean and undefiled and just characters, in whom nothing iniquitous is mixed, should now be removed from the present example. 7For he is certainly sure that such a man deserves salvation and must by all means survive. 8But shivering and fearing231 concerns him who is defiled and impure, and as one would say, unjust and iniquitous. 9And because,232 acquiring the flare of the sparkling ray and the flashes of the fire of justice, he hopes to be able to convert [men] to spiritual health. 10For he considers it better and more proper that, thanks to cus (Questions 1.293) changes the meaning of the clause: “And in this, it seems to me, he took as his example what the poet fittingly says.” 4.26.1. and approaching, Abraham said, “You will not destroy” Tanh. B 1:88–89 states that, when revealing to Abraham the forthcoming fate of the sinful cities, the intention of God was not simply to inform him but also to get his consent. Several reasons are mentioned why he behaved so, the main of which was that God had promised to give the land of Canaan (including Sodom and Gomorrah) to Abraham. 4.26.2–5 Philo expresses two main concerns in this comment. First, that Abraham “approached” God and spoke to him should by no means be understood in the direct sense, as a physical contact, for he was able to communicate with God only mentally. Second, one should pay special attention to Abraham’s mercifulness: he is asking not for the innocent, because it is out of the question that they will be spared, but for the sinful. (If for the sake of the righteous, God decides not to destroy the cities, the sinners, too, will survive.) This noble quality of Abraham is also praised in Jewish tradition; for instance, in Gen. Rab. 39:6 and Pesik. Rab Kah. 19:139, where Abraham figures as a compassionate “father” trying to prevent the extermination of the Sodomites and Gomorrheans. 4.26.9. the flare of the sparkling ray and the flashes of the fire of justice Cf. Migration 122, where, according to Philo, Abraham believes that even if all other things perish, a small piece of virtue will survive, like a spark of fire.

Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus 845

the innocent [man], the sufferings that are upon the impious should be lightened and eased by the benevolent might of God than that an innocent [man] should be involved because of the unrighteous. 4.39.1What is, “They said, ‘Hey, stand back! You have come to dwell here as an alien, why should you also judge’”?233 2Those who assemble and establish war in the souls,234 makers of dissolution and defilement, put the leader and the teacher235 to shame, saying that, “Oh you, do you not like that you have come to us, not as [fellow] inhabitants and fellow countrymen, whose habits would be enforced on you, and [that you would have had to] adopt236 the habits of our country? 3For our land is dissolute defilement; lascivious desire is the law and the lawful will. 4Now, being allowed to live freely as an alien, do you dare to revolt and disobey? 5And although you should have been quiet, you judge and discriminate237 between affairs, saying as if these are wicked and others are good, these are kind, righteous, and respectable, and these are bad and worthless and vile; converting some into virtue and giving others a share of evil in nature.238 6There is desire in every being, and all things on earth must be reduced to that. 7This is the ancient law of the Sodomites, which some of the boys call ‘auxiliary,’239 such as the boys [who] due to being burdened with grammar cannot receive instruction.” 4.43.1Why does [Scripture] say: it was announced to Lot by the angels, and “he seemed to his sonsin-law as one who jests”?240 2Those who are in [possession of] abundant and uncountable riches, greatness and glory and similar things, and live in health, vigor, and vitality of body, and accumulate lustful desire by all their senses,

4.39.2–5 Based on Gen. 19:9, Philo has invented this address of the Sodomites to Lot. Further details about the same episode, some of which correspond to what Philo says, are found in Gen. Rab. 50:3–7. For example, “Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom” (Gen. 19:1) means that Lot was appointed the chief judge of Sodom that day, being the head of five other principal judges, False Principles, Lying Speech, and so on. Having themselves appointed him judge, the Sodomites then reproach him for judging (cf. “you judge and discriminate between affairs” in Philo). Another parallel: the Sodomites reproach Lot for trying to destroy the laws of their predecessors, according to which strangers were forced into sodomy (cf. “lascivious desire is the law” in Philo) and were robbed. 4.39.7. such as the boys [who] due to being burdened with grammar cannot receive instruction Philo probably means that, according to the Sodomites, the boys engaged in school education are so busy as not to have time for bodily desires. Therefore, for them those desires are secondary. 4.43.2–5 It follows from this interpretation that the inhabitants of Sodom (in particular, Lot’s sonsin-law) were not only lewd and licentious but also very wealthy and had obtained glory and grandeur. (Philo even draws a parallel between Sodom and the Persian and Macedonian empires.) This exaggeration, however, is for a more general purpose, namely, to demonstrate by the example of Sodom that excessive self-confidence and satiation may lead to disasters. Furthermore, according to Philo’s comment, Lot’s sons-in-law not only did not believe him, having the impression that he was joking, but they also laughed at him and thought he was a fool. A similar comment also occurs in the Rabbinic tradition. Midr. Hag. 1:290–91 narrates that the husbands of Lot’s daughters scoffed at their father-in-law, calling him stupid, and were sure that the violins, cymbals, and flutes (organs and cymbals in Gen. Rab. 50:9) joyfully sounding in Sodom could by no means portend destruction.

846 Aram Topchyan and Gohar Muradyan

thinking that they have reached real happiness, do not expect that there can be change and transformation.241 3But they jest and mock those who say that everything that is in and out of the body contains much damage and is ephemeral. 4For who, when the Persians dominated dry land and sea, did hope that they would collapse; and also, when the Macedonians [dominated]? 5But even if somebody ventured to say this, he was by all means mocked as a madman and a fool. 6And no less needful was a change for the opponents of those Gentiles who at that time were famous and celebrated. 7So that the ones whom [others] mocked begin to mock [them], and those who mocked become a mock, regarding the active and variable things as inactive and invariable by nature, [as if they] are immutable and unchangeable.

Notes 1. See the allegorical commentary on Homer written by Crates of Mallus (first half of the 2nd century bce). See Marcus, Questions 1.ix. 2. See, among others, D. T. Runia, “Secondary Texts in Philo’s Quaestiones,” in Both Literal and Allegorical: Studies in Philo of Alexandria’s Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus, ed. D. M. Hay (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 47–80 at 48. 3. S. Sandmel, Philo of Alexandria: An Introduction (New York: Clarendon, 1979), 82. For a study on the parallels between QG and Philo’s other works, see Anita Méasson and Jacques Cazeaux, “From Grammar to Discourse: A Study of the Quaestiones in Genesim in Relation to the Treatises,” in Both Literal and Allegorical: Studies in Philo of Alexandria’s Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus, ed. D. M. Hay (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 125–22. 4. “Why?” was usual in both Hellenistic and Rabbinic exegeses; see S. Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Literary Transmission, Beliefs, and Manners of Palestine in the I Century bce–IV Century ce, Texts and Studies of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America 18 (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1950), 48. 5. Hay regards the question- and-answer format not as an arbitrary literary convention but as a form reflecting the activity of real exegetes who lived before or during Philo’s lifetime. See D. M. Hay, “References to Other Exegetes,” in Both Literal and Allegorical: Studies in Philo of Alexandria’s Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus, ed. D. M. Hay (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 81–97 at 97; Hay also supposes that a number of Philo’s questions and answers could have been influenced by other interpreters’ opinions (95). 6. Counted in Runia, “Secondary Texts in Philo’s Quaestiones,” 60. 7. For a statistical analysis of the types of exegeses, see G. E. Sterling, “Philo’s Quaestiones: Prolegomena or Afterthought?” in Both Literal and Allegorical: Studies in Philo of Alexandria’s Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus, ed. D. M. Hay (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 99–123 at 105. Sterling notes that in QG 1, in 19 cases there is no tension between the literal and allegorical interpretations; in two cases Philo expresses preference for the allegorical over the literal, and in only four instances he rejects the literal, “and even then he does so in a way that does not close the door on it completely.” See ibid., 105, 123; and Hay, “References to Other Exegetes,” 96. 8. Cf. H. A. Wolfson, Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1947–48), 1.57. See also Sterling, “Philo’s Quaestiones,” 122. 9. Cf. Sterling, 105, 123; and Hay, “References to Other Exegetes,” 96. 10. Runia, “Secondary Texts in Philo’s Quaestiones,” 74. 11. J.-B. Aucher, Philonis Judaei Paralipomena Armena (Venice: Lazari, 1826). The oldest of the manuscripts Aucher used was written in 1296 (#1040). There exist 21 manuscripts containing the Arm. Questions or parts of them. The oldest one, copied in 1274, is kept at the Institute of Ancient Manuscripts (Matenadaran) in Yerevan (#5239). 12. Philo, Questions and Answers on Genesis and Questions and Answers on Exodus, ed. Ralph Marcus, 2 vols., Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1953); for the Gk. fragments, see Appendix A in 2.177–237. Our references for the Gk. fragments are to Marcus’s edition. 13. See, A. Tessier, “Some Remarks about the Armenian Translation of Greek Texts,” in Medieval Armenian

Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus 847

14.

15.

16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

31.

32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48.

Culture, ed. by T. Samuelian and M. E. Stone, Armenian Texts and Studies 6 (Chico CA: Scholars Press, 1984), 415–24. Scholars have characterized doublet rendering as the favorite method of the Armenian translator of Philo; see, e.g., G. Muradyan, “Some Lexicological Characteristics of the Armenian Version of Philo Alexandrinus,” Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Armenian Linguistics: McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, May 1–5, 1995, ed. D. Sakayan (Delmar NY: Caravan, 1996), 279–91. See Thomas H. Tobin, The Creation of Man: Philo and the History of Interpretation, CBQMS 14 (Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1983), 33. For Philo’s relationship with previous interpreters, see D. M. Hay, “Philo’s References to Other Allegorists,” SPhilo 6 (1979–80): 41–75. Marcus, Questions 1.ix–x. Marcus, Questions, 1.xiv–xv. J. R. Royse, “The Original Structure of Philo’s Quaestiones,” SPhilo 4 (1976–77): 41–78. Sterling, “Philo’s Quaestiones,” 122. Cf. O. S. Vardazarjan, Filon Aleksandriĭskiĭ v vosprijatii armjanskogo srednevekovjja, 30, 226–43. See examples from the works of about 20 medieval Armenian authors in G. Muradyan, “Le style hellénisant des Progymnasmata arméniens dans le contexte d’autres écrits originaux,” in Actes du Sixième Colloque international de Linguistique arménienne (INALCO–Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 5–9 juillet 1999), Slovo 26–27 (Paris: Publications Langues, 2001–2), 83–94. Cf. Gen. 2:7. Cf. Gen. 1:27. “And unmixed” is a literal translation of Arm., which Marcus (Questions 1.3) translates in the past tense: “the man who was moulded.” “And unmixed” is a literal translation of Arm. which Marcus (Questions 1.4) omits. A literal translation of Arm. , which Marcus (Questions 1.4) translates “pure.” Cf. Gen. 2:7. Marcus (Questions 1.4) translates this in the passive voice (“man is admitted to be”), which, though not grammatically impossible, seems improbable and has caused complications. Cf. Gen. 2:8. Marcus (Questions 1.4) translates “knowledge of the divine and human and of their causes”; but “divine and human” are in the nominative, not genitive, case. Only the following “of their” is in the genitive and probably means “of the divine and of the human.” Marcus (Questions 1.4) translates “for it is not possible for nature to see,” which is inaccurate, because the Armenian reads “the things of nature” or “what is in nature”, which is the equivalent of Gk. ta tēs physeōs and should not be translated as the logical subject of the sentence. Cf. Plato, Tim. 92c. Cf. Gen. 2:10–14. The Pishon and the Gihon. The literal translation of Arm. is “veins.” Cf. Gen. 2:15. Cf. Gen. 2:19. See the Gk. text cited in Marcus, Questions 2.181–82. Gk. ergon; the Arm. translation, probably because of a scribal mistake, reads “mind.” The Arm. translation of Gk. exairetos (chosen). The translation of Arm. Is “interpreter”; the translator has confused Gk. eisēgētēs (proposer) with exēgētēs (interpreter). Gk. tōn epōnymiōn, which corresponds to Arm. (the giving of names). The Arm. is an inexact doublet translation of Gk. atopos (strange). The Arm. is a doublet translation for Gk. katalysis. We have slightly revised the meaning of this Arm. passage based on the Gk. fragment. Cf. Gen. 2:19. The Gk. fragment is found in Marcus, Questions 2.182. The Arm. is a doublet translation for Gk. hyphēgētēs. The passage is obscure both in the Gk. fragment and in the Arm. version. We have tried to offer a logical interpretation. The Arm. passage is corrupt; we have compared it with the Gk. fragment for corrections.

848 Aram Topchyan and Gohar Muradyan

49. Cf. Gen. 2:20. 50. Literally, “trance.” 51. Cf. Gen. 2:21. Our translation literally renders the Arm.. The Gk. fragment is found in Marcus, Questions 2.182. 52. That is, Moses (see the comment on 1.24.2–3). 53. The corresponding Gk. verb is existēmi (to be apart from), from which the noun ekstasis (trance) is derived. In the Gk. fragment, Philo plays on words. 54. The Gk. fragment omits this passage (“and the mind is apart from the senses”). 55. Gk. ēremei (omitted in the Arm. version). 56. Omitted in the Arm. version (“motionless and idle, have remained weakened”). 57. The Arm. translation of Gk. pleuron, the first meaning of which is “side.” 58. Cf. Gen. 2:21–22. 59. Philo’s Moses 2.187 calls Moses the best king and legislator. 60. Cf. Lev. 12:2–5. 61. Cf. Gen. 3:1–5. The Gk. fragment is found in Marcus, Questions 2.183. 62. In the Gk. fragment, the corresponding word is prōtoplastoi (the first-formed). 63. Cf. Gen. 3:1–5. 64. For Philo’s misogyny, see D. Sly, “The Plight of Woman: Philo’s Blind Spot?” in Hellenization Revisited: Shaping a Christian Response within the Greco-Roman World, ed. W. Heleman (Lanham MD, 1994), 173– 88; Romney Wegner, “Philo’s Portrayal of Women—Hebraic or Hellenic?” in “Women Like This”: New Perspectives on Jewish Women in the Greco-Roman World, ed. A.-J. Levine, Early Judaism and Its Literature 1 (Atlanta, 1991), 1.41–66. 65. An obscure passage, literally, “makes similar.” 66. Cf. Gen. 3:6. 67. We have tried to find a simple explanation to the grammatically obscure Arm. phrase. Marcus’s translation (Questions 1.22) is a free interpretation: “According to the literal meaning the priority (of the woman) is mentioned with emphasis.” 68. See the comment on 1.25.3. 69. Cf. Gen. 3:7. 70. Cf. Gen. 3:7. The Gk. fragment is found in Marcus, Questions 2.183. 71. Gk. trachy kai pikrotaton (harsh and very bitter). 72. Cf. Gen. 3:8. 73. Cf. Gen. 3:9. 74. A doublet translation for Gk. to hēgemonicon; cf. 1.6.5. 75. Cf. Gen. 4:9. See the Gk. fragment in Marcus, Questions 2.187–88. 76. Cf. Gen. 4:14. See the Gk. fragment in Marcus, Questions 2.189. 77. Gk. tisin is omitted in the Arm. translation. 78. Cf. Gen. 4:25–5:32. See the Gk. fragment in Marcus, Questions 2.190. 79. Being the successor of his father and the ancestor of the following generation. 80. Marcus (Questions 1.50) translates “Seth . . . being a drinker of water,” but it seems that here the meaning of Seth’s name is referred to; cf. 1.78 (not included in our selection): “‘Abel’ is interpreted as ‘taken up and delivered to God.’ . . . ‘Seth’ is interpreted as ‘drinking water.’” 81. Cf. Gen. 5:24. See the Gk. fragment in Marcus, Questions 2.190. 82. Cf. Gen. 5:24. 83. Moses. 84. The LXX and the Armenian Bible read ‘sons of God,’ while Philo refers to “angels.” Aucher comments as follows: “An old and worn error of some authors confuses those named in Scripture ‘sons of God,’ that is, descendants of Seth most beloved by God, with angels, which is very absurd. However, Philo also gave himself the trouble to add a correct remark at the end of the whole comment” (translation ours). 85. Cf. Gen. 6:4. See the Gk. fragment in Marcus, Questions 2.191. 86. Cf. Hesiod, Theog., 185. 87. Moses. 88. Cf. Ambrosius, De Noe et arca IV.8 (cited from Aucher’s note): “They refuse the mental vigor, which is

Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus 849

the most valuable thing the soul has, and display themselves as imitators of this flesh or of the maternal foolishness.” 89. Cf. Gen. 6:6. Our translation of the Arm. citation is literal. The MT reads: “The Lord regretted that he had made man on earth, and his heart was saddened.” See the Gk. fragment in Marcus, Questions 2.191. 90. Cf. 1.4 and the corresponding comment. 91. Cf. Gen. 7:1. See the Gk. fragment in Marcus, Questions 2.194–95. 92. The mind’s. 93. Cf. Gen. 7:12. See the Gk. fragment in Marcus, Questions 2.196–98. 94. Forty days for making the man and 80 days for making the woman (cf. 1.25.7). Our translation, “two periods for perdition,” literally corresponds to the Arm. 95. The passage seems to be corrupt. Our translation is literal; Philo had probably meant that, unlike man honored with light, woman was “honored” with darkness. 96. Gen. 7:11. 97. Gen. 8:2. See the Gk. fragment in Marcus, Questions 2.199–200. 98. The surviving Gk. fragment omits “because fountains burst apart . . . flooded.” 99. Cf. Gen. 8:3. 100. Cf. Gen. 8:6–7. 101. Marcus (Questions 1.115noteq) comments on this phrase that, since here the LXX reads opisō autou (i.e., after the raven), Philo seems to follow the Hebrew text reading “from him(self).” 102. Cf. Gen. 8:8. 103. This is probably a doublet translation. 104. Here the standard reading of Scripture is “second” instead of “seventh.” 105. Cf. Gen. 8:14. See the Gk. fragment in Marcus, Questions 2.201. 106. The Armenian word for “lasted” is unclear, and Marcus (Questions 1.127) omits it. 107. Cf. Gen. 8:15–17. See the Gk. fragment in Marcus, Questions 2.201. 108. Cf. Gen. 7:7. 109. Here Philo follows the LXX, mentioning Noah’s wife before his sons. In the MT, the wife is referred to after the sons. 110. Cf. Gen. 8:18. 111. Marcus (Questions 1.129) translates “his disciples,” restoring the Gk. equivalent gnōrimous. 112. A doublet translation. Marcus (Questions 1.130) understands the Arm. in its first meaning, “law,” and translates it as “lawful” (“this is not fitting or lawful”). 113. Literally, “being untimely burnt and overwhelmed by lustful desires,” but since this concerns the parents, and not those who were going to be born, we have slightly changed the phrase. 114. Cf. Gen. 8:20. 115. Cf. Gen. 8:20. 116. Or “fruits.” 117. Cf. Gen. 8:21. We have literally translated the Arm. Scripture citation. See the Gk. fragment in Marcus, Questions 2.201–2. 118. Marcus (Questions 1.135) translates it as “texts.” 119. Cf. Num. 23:19. 120. Cf. Deut. 8:5. 121. The doublet renders Gk. hyphēgēsin (guidance, sketch, outline); “exposition” in Marcus’s translation (Questions 1.135). 122. This seems to apply to humans and not God, against Marcus, Questions 1.135: “through His implacable enmity without peace.” 123. Literally, “left.” The whole sentence is very obscure. Marcus (Questions 1.136) translates as follows: “For in requiting one who is to be punished as is possible, I [i.e., God] will make a fitting recollection of each proposition,” which is logically not connected with the previous sentence. “Proposition” seems not to make sense in this context; we have translated it as “purpose” (cf. 2.54.23). 124. Omitted in the MT. 125. Marcus (Questions 1.136 n. e) retranslates this sentence into Gk., referring to a similar passage in Philo’s Unchangeable 34.

850 Aram Topchyan and Gohar Muradyan

126. That is, doing useless work. 127. Gen. 8:21. 128. More literally, “carefully.” The Hebrew text omits this adverb. 129. Literally, “the whole part of the humans.” 130. Arm. translation is from katakyrieusate autēs in the LXX; omitted in the MT. 131. Cf. Gen. 9:1–2. 132. Philo’s citation from Gen. 1:27–28 is not verbatim. 133. Cf. 1.4 and the comment on 1.4.1–5. 134. Cf. Gen. 2:5. 135. “Nostrils” in the MT; cf. the comment on 1.5.1. 136. Cf. Gen. 2:7. 137. Cf. Gen. 9:5. The Arm. citation from Scripture seems to be corrupt; we have rendered it literally. 138. Against Marcus (Questions 1.147), “they are not in authority,” Philo means that since the beasts are not conscious of being ruled by humans, they can harm the latter authority. 139. Literally, “numerous.” 140. This is an obvious doublet translation. 141. The grammatical construction of the sentence is odd and Marcus’s translation (Questions 1.148) is free: “let these men not be carefree and think to escape and be safe though they are impure and savage.” 142. Cf. Gen. 9:13–15. See the Gk. fragment in Marcus, Questions 2.203–4. 143. Aramazd is the Arm. counterpart of Zeus. 144. Marcus (Questions 1.153noteb) comments, “i.e. before the sun comes out.” 145. Moses. 146. Gen. 7:11. 147. Marcus (Questions 1.154) supposes that the skipped subject of this clause is the “air” of the previous sentence, not the “bow.” This seems to be incorrect, because “releasing, shooting [an arrow],” as in one of the preceding sentences, probably concerns the bow, not air, and can hardly mean “is thinned out.” Furthermore, the two other participles, “and staying and remaining firm,” too, are likely to fit the bow and do not have the meaning “is condensed.” 148. Cf. Gen. 9:20. See the Gk. fragment in Marcus, Questions 2.204. 149. Gen. 1:9. 150. That is, Cain; cf. Gen. 4:2. 151. Cf. Gen. 9:20. 152. God himself should take care of growing the plants indispensable to life. 153. Literally, “admitting.” 154. Marcus (Questions 1.159) renders “He did not keep for Himself,” supposing that Arm. is a translation of Gk. ouk enosphisato; although the parallel is probably correct, the expression rather means that God did not “take away” or “steal” than that he “did not keep for himself.” 155. Cf. Gen. 9:22–27. See the Gk. fragment in Marcus, Questions 2.206. 156. Our translation is literal; Marcus (Questions 1.169) translates this “as if using one body and one soul.” 157. Cf. Gen. 15:9. 158. Gen 15:9. The MT reads “young bird” instead of “pigeon.” See the Gk. fragment in Marcus, Questions 2.207. 159. Marcus (Questions 1.177) prefers another meaning of “are chosen,” namely, “are divided”—“and they are divided among these (kinds of) offerings”—which complicates the text by adding “kinds of ” in parentheses and translating the sentence differently (and not quite accurately). 160. Marcus (Questions 1.177) translates “ox, goat and bull. However, the Arm. words also mean “heifer” and “sheep” (“ram”) respectively, and these meanings are preferable in the given context. 161. A doublet translation of Gk. krinousi. 162. Gen. 15:10. In the MT, the word “birds” is in the singular. 163. Literally, “were like.” 164. This is a literal translation of the Arm. Marcus (Questions 1.189) slightly changes the meaning of the clause: “And therefore this nature, more especially resembling unity, is indivisible.” 165. Gen. 15:11. See the Gk. fragment in Marcus, Questions 2.207. The MT reads “carcasses” instead of “divided bodies.”

Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus 851

166. The meaning of the Arm. is obscure. Marcus (Questions 1.189) translates it differently: “But (we must) harmoniously fit the answer to the question by weighing the truth of the comparison in our reason.” We have translated literally. 167. Gen. 15:12. 168. This literally corresponds to the Arm., which Marcus (Questions 1.192) translates “of the clear knowledge of prophecy.” 169. Gen. 15:15. See the Gk. fragment in Marcus, Questions 2.208. The MT reads “buried” instead of “nourished” and “ripe” instead of “good” (literally, “beautiful” in Arm.). 170. “Of a wise [man]” is omitted in the Gk. fragment. Perhaps this is a later scribal addition to the Arm. text. 171. The Arm. always reads Abraham, even where Scripture speaks of Abram. There is one exception, 3.43, where both Abraham and Abram occur, because the chapter discusses the difference between the old name and the new. Sarah occurs only in 4.17. In the other cases it is written Sarai. However, it is impossible to find out what were the spellings in the original translation. The text survives in late manuscripts. 172. “Logoi” in Marcus’s translation (Questions 1.196) based on a variant reading in Arm. 173. A literal translation of Arm. 174. Has no wickedness. Marcus (Questions 1.196) translates “and alone is very good,” which is grammatically possible but seems not to fit the context. 175. Marcus (Questions 1.196) renders the word “linger on,” but the other meaning of Gk. teinō, namely, “aim at” or “strive for,” seems more logical in the context and corresponds better to Arm. translation. 176. Gen. 16:1. See the Gk. fragment in Marcus, Questions 2.208. 177. The Arm. text renders the word as “more miraculous,” the other meaning of Gk. paradoxos. 178. Marcus (Questions 1.202) translates the whole sentence as follows: “First of all, in order that the seed of offspring may appear more wonderful and miraculous.” 179. This is obscure in the Arm. Marcus (Questions 1.203) translates as follows: “(Scripture) therefore wishes the soul of the virtuous man to be likened to the male sex rather than the female.” This is inaccurate, because the word aru (male, man) occurs once in the clause, and if “the soul of the virtuous man” is the literal translation of Arm., then “sex” will remain without “male.” 180. Marcus (Questions 1.203) renders “the virtuous man,” but in the previous sentence, Philo refers to the “virtuous mind” and here, too, he clearly means the same. 181. Gen. 16:2. See the Gk. fragment in Marcus, Questions 2.209. 182. Marcus (Questions 1.205) translates awkwardly: “(but) to look out for the wise man and husband and genuine kinsman,” writing in note f that the construction and sense of the passage were not “wholly clear” to him. The enigma, however, has a simple solution: tesanel (usually, “to see”), which Marcus renders as “to look out for,” also means “to take care of, to look after.” 183. Cf. Gen. 16:13. Our translation is literal (the Arm. text corresponds to the LXX). 184. An angel. 185. Sarah, the symbol of wisdom, because she wisely took care of Abraham’s seed. 186. Our translation is literal, omitting Aucher’s addition (“Lord” or “God”). The reason for Aucher’s emendation is that the verb kochem has two meanings, namely, “to summon, to call up” and “to name,” and Aucher has preferred the latter one. Likewise, Marcus (Questions 1.222), who accepts Aucher’s addition and, furthermore, transforms the sentence: “Hence the angel was called (God).” 187. Marcus (Questions 1.222) translates “in order that she might harmonize the reality to his appearance,” which is obscure and logically not connected with the following sentence (“for it was suitable . . .”). 188. Cf. Gen. 18:9–15. 189. Literally, “happened.” 190. Cf. Gen. 17:5. Philo’s Gk. text spelled Abram’s new name Abraam, that is, adding a second vowel, to represent the MT’s addition of the consonant hay. The ensuing comment talks about the addition, thus reflecting the underlying Gk. spelling. The Arm. text, however, spells the name Abraham, here and elsewhere. 191. Literally, “lacking music and lacking dance/chorus”); a double translation for the Gk. (literally, “without the Muses”). 192. This literally corresponds to the Arm. sentence. Marcus (Questions 1.234) changes the meaning and construction of the sentence: “And yet these (names) which are ready to hand (and) which someone is said

852 Aram Topchyan and Gohar Muradyan

to have granted (in) writing—why do you not believe that (they are the work of) Providence and that this is to be honored?” 193. These remarks reflect the vocal system of Classical Greek, which had long vowels, short vowels, and some vowels that could be both long and short. 194. It is not clear where Philo noted this. 195. The causes of the divine and the human; cf. 1.6.3. 196. Literally, “by the instructor and leader of God” (i.e., “sent by God”). 197. Astronomy is meant (cf. Aucher, Philonis Judaei Paralipomena Armena, 213). 198. It is not clear what the expression “that which is called ‘thick’” means. Marcus (Questions 1.236) omits it. 199. Gen. 17:12. See the Gk. fragment in Marcus, Questions 2.211. 200. Marcus (Questions 1.243) incorrectly renders this “man would not be known as mortal.” 201. Marcus (Questions 1.243) renders this as “in this season,” but Philo clearly means the afflicted part of the body. 202. This word usually refers to Moses, but here probably God is meant. 203. Marcus (Questions 1.244) translates this “prohibited the immediate circumcision of infants.” If we accept that “commanded” was the correct reading, the use of the adverb “immediately” with it, too, will become logical. In Marcus’s translation, it is incorrectly rendered as the attribute of circumcision (“immediate circumcision”). 204. At the age of 14. 205. Cf. Gen. 18:2. 206. A gloss in an Arm. manuscript comments: “[Those whom] he saw [were] not like every men, but giants, with a big body and glorious appearance” (see Aucher, Philonis Judaei Paralipomena Armena, 243). 207. Literally, “of the idle sluggish”; this is a doublet translation. Marcus’s translation is free (Questions 1.272): “Nor did he, like some, out of slothfulness forget them.” 208. Or “tame”; Marcus (Questions 1.272) renders this word “accustom,” which makes his translation of the whole clause somewhat awkward: “Thinking it better to accustom his doubt, by truth rather than by falsehood.” 209. This word is omitted in the Bible (in the Arm. version as well). Aucher (Philonis Judaei Paralipomena Armena, 247n4) regards it as an addition by Philo or an interpreter. 210. Cf. Gen. 18:4. 211. This corresponds to the LXX; in the MT, Abraham’s words suggest that the guests should themselves wash their feet (“bathe your feet”). 212. The passage seems to be corrupt and the meaning is obscure. We have tried to render it as literally as possible (cf. Marcus, Questions 1.277: “while to the air is allotted the last portion of divine things, for it animates the congregated things that have been created”). Probably, “the last of the divine things” is water, which is the “last” boundary of air. It is also unclear which of the elements is “animating” (water or air?). For “the gathered creatures” (“congregated things”), Marcus (n. e) suggests a parallel in Gen. 1:10 (“the gathering of waters”). 213. Judging from the next sentence, this concerns water, not air, though syntactically it is rather connected with the latter. 214. Cf. Gen. 1:2. 215. Cf. Gen. 18:5. 216. Marcus (Questions 1.277) translates “the three strange men,” but the word “three” does not occur in the Arm. text. 217. The meaning of this passage is unclear; we have tried to render it as literally as possible. Marcus’s interpretation (1.277–78) is a little different: “And this is the food that is fitting for the heavenly Olympians, (namely) the desires and yearnings of the rational soul.” 218. Cf. Gen. 18:8. 219. Cf. Gen. 18:10. We have rendered the Arm. citation corresponding to the LXX literally. Marcus’s rendering (Questions 1.285) of the first clause is awkward: “Returning I will come to thee at this season at hours.” 220. In 4.2. 221. Literally, “hours.” 222. Gen. 18:13.

Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus 853

223. One would naturally expect that God is going to reproach Sarah, which in reality did not happen. “According to the notion of natural anticipation” is a literal translation of Arm. Marcus (Questions 1.291) omits the word kartsis (= doxan [opinion, notion] in the accusative case), rendering the expression as “according to natural expectation.” 224. Cf. Gen. 18:16. See the Gk. fragment in Marcus, Questions 2.215. 225. The literal translation of Arm. would be “of [Abraham’s] accepting.” Clearly, his hospitality is meant; the Gk. word could have been hypodochē, as in Abraham 108–10, which tells the same episode and also uses philanthrōpia (humanity) and xenodochos (hospitable) as Abraham’s epithet. Marcus (Questions 1.293), probably because in Aucher’s Latin translation that word is omitted, misunderstands the passage, rendering it as, “the abundance of the humanness with which he [Abraham] was endowed.” 226. The reference is to Odyssey 15.74. 227. Marcus (Questions 1.293) omits the last clause. 228. Cf. Gen. 18:23. The MT omits the last clause (occurring both in the LXX and in the Arm. version of the Old Testament) in Philo’s citation. 229. The clause in the conjunctive mood is used in the exhortative sense, not indicative, as freely rendered by Marcus (Questions 1.300): “For He is far from, and away from, the body, and never even comes into our mind.” 230. “And not man along with man”: omitted in Marcus’s translation (Questions 1.300); Philo means “and not virtuous man along with impious man”; likewise, in the continuation, “and not virtuous thought along with impious thought”; cf. Marcus, Questions 1.300nk. 231. Substantivized infinitives in the Arm. version; it is not clear who should shiver and fear, Abraham (for those who “mingle”) or the sinners themselves? According to Marcus’s rendering (Questions 1.300), Abraham “trembles and shudders for the man who is mixed.” 232. “And Abraham says so, because. . . .” 233. Cf. Gen. 19:9. 234. Our translation is literal; Marcus (Questions 1.313) renders the passage inaccurately: “Those who gather to make war on the soul” (both “assemble” and “establish” are transitive verbs in the active voice, and “war” is their direct object, so “who gather to make war” is incorrect, though it might seem more sensible; furthermore, Arm. translation means “in the souls,” not “on the soul”). 235. Lot. 236. Literally, “envy” or “be zealous in.” 237. Gk. krinō means both “to judge” and “to distinguish.” Here it is used in the first meaning, but the Arm. doublet renders both. 238. Marcus (Questions 1.313) translates “applying the measure of evil to the nature of (or perhaps the measure of an evil nature to) others” or “the measure of an evil nature toothers.” 239. Marcus (Questions 1.314) translates “helper,” which is unclear in this context. 240. Cf. Gen. 19:14. See the Gk. fragment in Marcus, Questions 2.216. 241. A doublet translation of Gk. metabolē. 242. In Tobin’s view, this distinction between the tangible (earthly) man and the intelligible (heavenly) man is based on pre-Philonic interpreters; see Tobin, Creation of Man, 33. For Philo’s relationship with previous interpreters, see Hay, “Philo’s References to Other Allegorists.” Cf., e.g., Virtues 9, where Philo regards man as a being “placed on the boundary between the immortal and the mortal nature”; cf. also Alleg. Interp. 1.88 and elsewhere (1.31–32 etc.). 243. Cf. Louis, Legends of the Jews (reprint, Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2003), 1:47. 244. For more parallels, see Legends, 1:49–50n6. 245. For the peculiar paraphrase and interpretation of biblical subjects in Josephus, see L. Feldman, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible (Leiden: Brill, 1998). 246. Cf. Legends, 1:53, 54n15 for references. 247. See Legends, 1:59, 61n26 for references. 248. In 1.12.3, Philo locates paradise “somewhere far from the land of our habitation.” 249. Legends, 1:19. 250. Legends. 251. For a detailed study on Philo’s views regarding the two trees of paradise, see M. Harl, “Adam et les deux

854 Aram Topchyan and Gohar Muradyan

arbres du Paradis (Gen. ii–iii) ou l’homme milieu entre deux termes (mesos-methorios) chez Philon d’Alexandrie: Pour une histoire de la dottrine du libre-arbitre,” Recheches de Science Religieuse 50 (1962): 321–88. 252. Legends, 1:19, 22n83. 253. For Philo’s use of the Timaeus, see D. T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato, Philosophia Antiqua 44 (Leiden: Brill, 1986). 254. Legends, 1:69n50. 255. E.g., Sifre Deut. 41; Midr. Tan. 22; Gen. Rab. 16:5; Pirke R. El. 12; and Avot R. Nat. 21:44. 256. Cf. Legends, 1:69, 70n54. 257. For the issue of free will in Philo’s works, see Harry A. Wolfson, Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1947), 1.432–56; G. Segalla, “Il problema della volontà libera in Filone Alessandrino,” Studia Patavina 12 (1965): 3–31. 258. Cf. Legends, 1:59, 61–62n28. 259. For Philo’s notion of ekstasis, see B. Belletti, “La concezione dell’ estasi in Filone di Alexandria,” Aevum 57 (1983): 72–89; see also David Daube, “Ecstasy in a Statement by Rabbi Joshua ben Hananiah,” Niv Hamidrasha (1972): 60–62; reprinted in Collected Works of David Daube, vol. 1: Talmudic Law, ed. Calum M. Carmichael (Berkeley, 1992), 455–58, where the author remarks that Philo’s use of ekstasis depends on an early Rabbinic source. 260. Legends, 1:65. 261. For an assessment of the concepts of man and woman in Philo, see Richard A. Baer, Philo’s Use of the Categories Male and Female (Leiden: Brill, 1970). 262. See also Legends, 1:65. 263. See also Legends, 1:67–68n44. 264. See also Legends and n44. 265. Cf. Legends, 1:71, 72–73n60. For speaking animals, cf. Homer, Iliad 19.408–17 (Achilles’s horse); Num. 22:21–35; Josephus, Ant. 4.109 (Balaam’s donkey), and a discussion of these passages in Feldman, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible, 128–30. Cf. Legends, 1:60. 266. Cf. Legends, 1:60, 62n31. 267. Cf. Legends, 1:71, 73n61. 268. Cf. also Legends, 1:72, 73n69. 269. Cf. also Legends, 1:72, 73–74n70. 270. Legends, 1:106. 271. Quotations in this paragraph from ibid., 1:107. Cf. also 1:108–9, n27, n31. 272. Philo discusses Cain’s life after the murder, also referring to his descendents, in On the Posterity of Cain. 273. Legends, 1:116n52. 274. For more stories about Enoch, see ibid., 1:119–31. 275. Cf. also Legends, 1:136. 276. Philo dedicated a separate work to this subject: On the Unchangeableness of God. 277. Legends, 1:148–49n39. 278. Legends, 1:148. 279. Cf. Legends, 1:150. 280. Cf. Legends, 1:150. 281. For more references to Rabbinic sources, see Legends, 1:152n54. 282. Cf. Legends, 1:150, 151n49. 283. For example, Teh. 1, 11; Pirke R. El. 23, 31; and Tg. Yer. Gen. 8:20. 284. Cf. Legends, 1:150–51, 152n52. 285. Cf. Legends, 1:151, 152n55. 286. For references, see Legends, 1:152n55. 287. Cf. Legends, 1:151, 152n53. 288. In other Jewish sources, the castration (or an attempt of castration) of Noah is attributed to Ham; cf. Legends, 1:153–54, 155n61. 289. For more parallels in Jewish sources, see Legends, 1:199n110. 290. Cf. Legends, 1:198, 200n112.

Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus 855

291. Cf. Legends. 292. For more references, see Legends, 1:203n122. 293. For more information on the issue of circumcision in the Rabbinic tradition, see Legends, 1:202, 203nn123–26. 294. Cf. Legends, 1:204, 206n132. 295. Cf. Legends, 1:205, 206nn138–40 for more references. 296. For a discussion of the episode of Abraham’s and the “three men’s” banquet and especially its mystical meaning in Philo, see J. Cazeaux, “Mystique et sagesse: le repas des trois anges et d’Abraham à Mambré vu par Philon d’Alexandrie,” in Prière, Mystique et Judaïsme (Colloque de Strasbourg 1984), ed. R. Goetschel (Paris: Presse universitaires de France, 1987). 297. Cf. Louis, Legends, 1:205, 207n147. 298. Cf. Marcus, Questions 1:291nd.

856 Aram Topchyan and Gohar Muradyan

Questions and Answers on Exodus

Translation 1.1.1“This month [shall mark] for you the beginning of the months; it shall be the first of the months of the year [for you].”1 2[Scripture] thinks that the circulation of the months should be counted from the vernal equinox, and by synonymy2 it is said “first” and “beginning,” these being designated by each other. 3For it is said “first” either by order or by power,3 and the “beginning” appears in the same way; the season that [starts] from the vernal equinox is the first both by order and by power, just like the head of a liv-

Commentary 1.1.1. it shall be the first of the months of the year [for you] As Philo states, the year begins from the vernal equinox (about March 21 in the Northern Hemisphere, coinciding with the beginning of Nisan in the Jewish calendar), which is in the constellation of Aries, “the head of the zodiac.” In modern astronomy, the vernal equinox is regarded as the first point of Aries, the initial sign of the zodiac. 1.1.2–26 Exodus 12:2, which establishes the Jewish lunar year, is one of the most well-known, frequently discussed biblical verses. For example, in Exod. Rab. 15, there are dozens of various comments on it. So we have translated all of Philo’s long analysis of this passage. He interprets the words of God from different aspects: astronomical, semantic, climatological, economical, cosmological, theological, ethnical, and historical. Philo enumerates the qualities that make spring so significant, attempting to explain, as the rationalist, how they reveal the logic of God’s command from philosophical and practical points of view. In the everlasting succession of life and death, spring is the time of birth, fertility, and fieldwork, while in autumn everything withers. That is why the year, which symbolically is the start of life, should be reckoned from the vernal, and not autumnal, equinox. Spring is prior and superior to other periods of the year in a wider cosmological context too, because God created the cosmos in that season, when all things are born. Furthermore, according to Philo, the Jewish calendar should be distinct from other nations’ calendars, especially the Egyptians’. So Scripture, which, according to Philo, directly addresses the Jews, clearly fixes the start of the Hebrew year. It is also significant that God chose the beginning of the year to start in spring, the season when the Jews were released from captivity and migrated from Egypt. Philo’s comment is in general quite original and different from the Rabbinic tradition. A few parallels, nevertheless, may be found. B RH 10b–11a contains two different views regarding the time of the creation of the universe. Rabbi Eliezer states that the sixth day of the creation, when God made Adam and Eve, coincided with the first day of Tishrei, the seventh month of the Jewish year, while in Rabbi Joshua’s opinion, the world came into being in the month of Nisan. Although the latter opinion corresponds to what we read in Philo’s interpretation, one does not get the impression that something well known is repeated, because

Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus 857

ing being.4 4Now, those who are learned in astronomy also place this name5 in the mentioned period, because they call the Ram “the head of the zodiac”; the sun appears in it and gives birth to the vernal equinox. 5And, furthermore, it6 happened to be the “exit” from which the periods of the year, too, are born. 6Now, when the fruits of the seeded things ripen, they then begin the trees’ birth, so that the favors of God last eternally, succeeding one another and uniting the end with the beginnings and the beginnings with the ends. 7And during the first creation of all things, when [God] also made the world, he established everything in it filled with their fruits, [their] thoughts’ peers.7 8Because it was necessary for the Father to be so: not to leave any doubts about anything, neither to add nor to take away [excessively]; and especially in order that the man (whom he was going to entrust the beginning of habits) should be perfect, and that everything [else] should at once be perfectly born. 9And that [Scripture] assumes the vernal equinox to be the beginning of the cycle of the months is evident from the concept of time according to the commandments and traditions of various nations.8 10And one can also verify this by the first sheaves,9 that [God] orders to bring for use to those in service10 on the second day of the feast;11 and the time of the harvest12 is spring. 11But one may be puzzled: why is it so that although there are two equinoxes, the vernal and the autumnal, which nature has set up with the straight bar of equinox, [Scripture] started to count the time not from the autumnal one, but from that which is in spring? 12Because in spring the entire fruitful soil, in the mountains and in the plains, sprouts and flowers and yields fruit, whereas in autumn, after whatever the earth has brought is accumulated, the plants shed their leaves and get dry; and one should grant the beginning to the good and more desired [time]. 13But it seems to me that the autumnal one became a servant of the vernal equinox, as if of a queen; because it serves her, comforting the earth and lightening the trees, whose inner nature had a difficult time, fighting successfully as a wrestler: having strength when accumulating it and [then]

he comes to that conclusion “conscientiously” and “guided by prudence.” Another parallel can be drawn with Exod. Rab. 15:1, 3, where, just as in Philo, the historical significance of Nisan is emphasized (the Israelites were redeemed and left Egypt in that month, therefore, it became the first of the months). Also, Exod. Rab. 15:1, like Philo, remarks on the relationship between the words “first” and “beginning,” referring to several biblical passages (e.g., Isa. 44:6, where God says: “I am the first and I am the last”). In Jewish sources, in general, the establishment of the calendar is connected with the feast of Passover on the 15th day of Nisan: cf., for example, Mek. R. Ish., Bo. 1:2b–3a and Pesik. Rab. 15:78a.82 Likewise, Philo in Spec. Laws 2.150–55, which contains many parallels with the comment in question, speaks about the Passover in connection with the first month of the calendar.83 1.1.4. those who are learned in astronomy Probably meaning Babylonian or Greek astronomers.84 Semantically, Philo stresses the synonymous meanings of “first” (prōtos) and “beginning” (archē), considering the period in question to be the start and the “head” of the seasons both in sequence and by significance. 1.1.10. harvest In Moses 2.223, Philo clearly states that by this spring harvest he means wheat and barley, which are among the most essential kinds of food for humans. 1.1.13. having strength when accumulating it This passage is obscure; according to Marcus’s free rendering (2.4), the fighter is autumn: “It enables them [the trees] to gather together their strength,” but nothing in the Armenian text corresponds to “it enables them.”

858 Aram Topchyan and Gohar Muradyan

again restoring it from the start. 14Now, if so, nobody would be mistaken by saying that, just as heaven is superior among all things, likewise among the seasons spring is superior to and more princely than autumn. 15And not all [people] count the months and years in the same way, but differently: some by the sun and others by the moon. 16And that is why those who celebrate divine festivals have contradictory opinions on the beginnings of the year, establishing beginnings of the seasons’ cycle that contradict [one another] in accordance with the time of their start. 17For this reason, [Scripture] has added: “This month [shall mark] for you the beginning,” indicating a fixed and clear number of seasons, so that they do not follow the Egyptians, being confused [and] deceived by the latters’ customs because of having dwelt in their country. 18For [God] wished this same season to be the start13 of the world’s creation and the beginning of the months and the year for the nation. 19And the season when the world came into being, if one approaches the truth conscientiously, guided by prudence, is the season of spring, because in this period the earth in general blossoms and sprouts and bears its perfect fruits. 20And, as I have said, nothing was imperfect at the first creation of the whole. 21For care was taken that humans should be citizens,14 having gotten a special benefit in reward for piety, [that is] this megalopolis, the world, and citizenship, by which dispensation15 they are conducted. 22Therefore, [God] thought that the season should be the same for the remembrance of the world’s birth and for all that is related to it, so that once again spring is the beginning of every time, because it16 appeared together with the creation of the world. 23And the [Israelite] nation,17 following nature and every dispensation of heaven, similarly and accordingly counts the periods of the months and years, making spring, the same [season], the start, as it was at the creation of the world. 24For at man’s command,18 they were to change their dwelling from Egypt to wherever it was arranged, being convinced by definite words. 25He recorded the first month as the time of migration, but this same [month] is the seventh according to the solar cycle. 26For from the autumnal equinox the seventh [month] is recorded as the time of migration, and it is the first, according to the solar numbering. 1.2.1Why does [God] command to keep watch from the 10th day [of Nisan] over the lamb, which was to be slaughtered on the 14th [day]?19 2First, so that when offering sacrifice one should not at once make the sacrifice without preparation, casually and as something less important, but [should offer it] with care and devotion, as if preparing thanksgiving to God, the Savior and Benefactor of everyone. 3Second, by this remark on the preparation of the sacrifice beforehand, [Scripture] first of all wants to instruct that he who is going to offer sacrifice should prepare his soul and body beforehand: the latter, with holiness and cleanness, to keep away from filth, and the former, to gain the peace that God inspires—release, even though not com-

1.1.18 Nation (Arm. azg = Gk. genos) can also be translated “race” (i.e., the human race), as Marcus (2.5) does, but it seems that Philo means the Israelites in contrast to other nations (the Egyptians in particular). 1.2.2–9 Commenting on the literal sense of the two biblical passages on the paschal lamb to be sacrificed on the eve of Passover (the 14th of Nisan, on the night of the Exodus from Egypt), Philo suggests four practical and logical explanations. The Israelites were commanded to choose the lambs for sacrifice on the 10th of Nisan, so that (1) during the several days preceding the night of the offering they could carefully prepare themselves and not perform the sacrifice in haste; (2) they had time to be purified physically and spiritually; (3) God became sure about the stead-

Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus 859

plete, from the passions that upset [it], because, according to the saying, one should not walk on the pavement of the Temple of God with unwashed feet.20 4Third, [he] wants to test the nation for many days: how is so- and-so in the faith? 5For [God] knew that the doubters certainly were not prepared for the sacrifice, being lazy and careless about their proper and fitting duties. 6Fourth, [Scripture] obviously introduces the failure of the Egyptians (for they were not totally broken and deterred by the things that had befallen them), appointing five days for the misfortunes that were to come upon them, which they had to bear one after another, when the enemies were preparing to offer the sacrifices of victory. 7This is the literal sense; as to the metaphorical meaning, it should happen [so that] the numbers and nature are altogether united. 8Now, when the souls are visibly bright and shining, the appearance of this sets off celebration in the hope for a life without grief and fear, by a happy lot; for on the 10th [day] the complete [and] perfect order21 of the words and reflection is seen.22 9Such is the emotion23 of this; what else can it be if not a festive [mood]? 1.8.1Why a lamb without blemish? 2Allegorically, as I have said, this hints at ideal improvement and, simultaneously, to the male. 3For improvement is in fact nothing but the abandonment of the female gender by changing into the male. 4For the female gender is material, passive, corporeal, [and] sensual, whereas the male is active, rational, incorporeal, [and] more related to the mind and thoughts. 5But not in vain has [Scripture] also added “yearling,” because the year is called “perfect” from the fact that it embraces everything in itself. fastness of their faith; and (4) the Egyptians were struck with new disasters when their enemy was preparing the sacrifice—the sign of their final defeat. The demand of physical purification (one should not enter a sanctuary unwashed) has a parallel in QG 3.48, where Philo speaks of circumcision as a cleansing act (see especially 3.48.19, remarking on “the cleanness of oblations in sacred places”). 1.2.7. it should happen [so that] the numbers and nature are altogether united The meaning of this clause is unclear, perhaps because the Armenian text has been corrupted by scribes. In a similar recondite and allegorical manner Philo interprets “on the 10th of this month each of them shall take a lamb” (Exod. 12:3) in Congr. 105–7: according to him, it is said so, in order that “from the 10th, the sacrifices maintained in the soul should be dedicated to the 10th” (i.e., God, “the 10th portion”). It is difficult to trace a relationship between these remarks of Philo and Jewish sources. For example, Pesik. Rab. 15:78b and Mek. R. Ish., Bo 5:5b and 6:6b simply suggest that the days of the public preparation of the offering were intended for distressing the Egyptians, who had to watch how the animals they worshiped were to be sacrificed.85 1.2.8. the souls are visibly bright and shining Another unclear clause. 1.8.2–12 One of Philo’s beloved subjects is the difference between the superior “male” faculty (i.e., “mind”) and the inferior “female” faculty (i.e., “sense-perception”) (cf., e.g., QG 1.25.3). Here, too, he compares those opposites and, as a consistent misogynist,86 believes that the change from female to male, i.e., the selection of male lambs for the sacrifice, is nothing else but improvement (or progress; Gk. prokopē). As it becomes clear from similar passages in his other works (Alleg. Interp. 3.165 and Sacrifices 112), Philo by folk etymology traces a relationship between the words prokopē and probaton (the word for “lamb” in the LXX), because the latter, in his view, is connected with probainō (to go forward), which means improvement/progress. 1.8.5. but not in vain has [Scripture] also added “yearling,” because the year is called “perfect” Philo supplements these peculiar comments by another one, to confirm the idea of improvement and

860 Aram Topchyan and Gohar Muradyan

6Now, since in two of the four seasons, in autumn and winter, the plants shed their leaves and dry out, and in the other two, spring and summer, they blossom and yield fruit, the souls of the perfected [men] undergo similar things. 7For when they throw off the causes of life, they make almost everything [in them] dry due to desires and all the other sorts of passion. 8And then, sprouting again, [the soul] gives birth to sagacity and prudence and also conceives and brings forth perfect fruits of wisdom. 9And why does [God] command them to prepare lambs and kids24 beforehand? 10Perhaps because Egypt deified those animals most of all; in order that the Defender and Supervisor should demonstrate the defeat of the enemies and the power by which were overcome those who were unable to help even their own deities. 11Furthermore, because the male [lambs] were chosen for everyday offerings, and the goats,25 for the remission of sins. 12And these are signs of a righteous soul craving for perfection; first it was needed to get rid of the sins and then, having washed them off and being cleansed, to perform the everyday [duties] guided by virtue. 1.10.1“And the entire multitude shall slaughter,” [Scripture] says.26 2For at other times the daily priests [elected] from the people, being ordained for taking care of the slaughter, perform the sacrifices, but at the aforementioned Passover all the people without exception are honored with priesthood; for everybody acts personally in the performance of the sacrifice. 3Why? First, because this was the beginning of such sacrifices—the Levites were not yet consecrated as priests, since there was not yet any temple or altar anywhere. 4And second, because the one Savior and Liberator, drawing27 all things toward liberty, regarded the same [people] as worthy of sharing

perfection: the lambs must be yearlings, because the year, as its Greek name, eniautos, suggests, is perfect, containing everything in itself, autos en heautō (itself in itself). This is another example of folk etymology, more clearly formulated in Spec. Laws 4.235. 1.8.10. perhaps because Egypt deified those animals most of all Finally, Philo points to simpler reasons why lambs and kids were chosen for the offering. One of those reasons, namely, that the victims were worshiped by the Egyptians as idols so the sacrifice of those animals would mean their complete defeat, is also mentioned in the Rabbinic tradition. According to Exod. Rab. 16:2–3, by sacrificing the paschal lambs the Israelites drew their hands away from idolatry and slew the gods of their enemies. 1.10.2–16 This comment is especially noteworthy as an example of mythical mentality quite uncharacteristic of the rationalist Philo. Usually relying upon reason and logic, here the commentator is inclined toward exaggeration and fiction to such an extent that he believes all the Egyptians, without exception, were equal in impiety and sinfulness while all the Jews, on the contrary, were equally pious and perfect. The main idea Philo expresses in his interpretation of “all the assembled congregation” in Exod. 12:6 is the absolute equality of the people at the performance of the sacrifice, irrespective of their age and rank, because God granted priesthood to all the Jews. In this respect, Philo differs from the Rabbinic comment in Exod. Rab. 16:1, pointing to a certain hierarchy among the people even at the public offering and stating that the paschal lambs were to be slaughtered by the hands of the elders of the nation (therefore, the redemption of Israel was to be realized through their hands). However, a similar idea of equality, though not as persistent and clearly expressed as in Philo, is found in Exod. Rab. 15:12, where the inclusion of even the poor in the people’s joy (so that “it may be complete”) is regarded as the purpose of addressing the whole congregation.

Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus 861

both liberty and priesthood, [thus] testifying to the equal piety of everyone belonging to the [Israelite] nation. 5And because, I suppose, [he] considered all the Egyptians to be equally impious and unworthy and filthy, thinking of their punishment. 6For they would not suffer such things if they were not guilty before the judging Father, also of [un]justice. 7Thus, that time brought equality to the two populous nations, the Egyptians and the Hebrews: equality in impiety to the former, and [equality] in piety to the latter. 8Third, since no temple had been built yet, [God] showed the living together of good individuals as a temple and altar at home, so that during the nation’s first sacrifice nobody would have anything more [than others]. 9Fourth, [God] considered it fair and worthy that before electing single priests he should grant priesthood to the whole nation, so that not the whole should be decorated with the part, but the part with the whole. 10And since, before all the popular [festivals], the sacrifice was the beginning of the aforementioned Passover, he let the nation perform it with their hands and to slaughter, as the beginning of good things. 11And what is more beautiful than the performance of the divine ritual by everyone together, being instructed to do so? 12So that their nation should become a prototypal example for the wardens and priests of the Temple and those serving as high priests, who must sacredly do their duties. 13Fifth, because [God] wishes that every house and householder behave in this appropriate way [and] not be desecrated at all—just as a priest cleansed of all sins in what he says, does, and thinks. 14And now calling the multitude “congregation,” [Scripture] has given fitting names for a clearer demonstration of vigilance28 under the circumstances, now and in the present case. 15For when the whole multitude was at one place in agreement [and] unity, in order to give thanks for the migration, [Scripture] did not call them “multitude,” “nation,” or “people,” but “congregation.” 16Thus, it happened that they congregated and came to one place not only bodily but also mentally, prepared to perform the sacrifice with one mind and one spirit. 1.12.1Why does [God] command to put [some] of the blood on the doorposts and the lintel of every house?29 2This means that, as I have said a little before,30 every house had at that time become an altar and temple of God for the contemplative.31 3Therefore, he justly presents [some] of the blood of the divine sacrifice [to them] for the front parts of every [house]. 4He honors them, at the same time disdaining the enemies, so that [the Israelites] do not sacrifice with fear but as if making a show and manifesting

1.12.2–6 In addition to repeating and supplementing what he had already said in other chapters, namely, that in the absence of temples every house had symbolically become a temple and that the offering was to be performed openly to spite the Egyptians (and therefore, the sacrificial blood was ordered to be put upon the house temples), Philo suggests another, quite queer, explanation. Comparing metaphorically the lintel with the heart, the house with desire, and the doorposts with reason, he concludes that the blood, their relative, was to be with them on their way toward virtue. Although nothing similar can be found in Jewish sources, Rabbis have offered another allegorical interpretation of the passage. According to Exod. Rab. 1:36 and 17:3, the sacrificial blood on the lintel and two doorposts was to remind the Israelites of their three forefathers: Abraham (the blood on the lintel, because Abraham was the greatest forefather, and the lintel is the highest part of the doorway), Isaac, and Jacob (the two doorposts). 2.27.2–7 Here is an example of Philo’s famous number symbolism. The numbers here—4, 10, 7, and 70—are among those to which Philo attaches special importance, discussing them in his other

862 Aram Topchyan and Gohar Muradyan

boldness through the grandeur and multitude graces of God. 5This is the literal sense, and the allegorical meaning is as follows: our souls being of three parts—the heart is like the lintel, desire [is like] the house, and reason [is like] the two doorposts. 6And since each of these parts is expected to migrate toward justice, piety, and worthy sanctity, and to move to other virtues, it is necessary for the blood, their relative, to accompany [them] toward virtue.32 2.27.1What is, “Then he said to Moses, ‘Come up, you, Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu’”?33 2And you see the God-appropriate number of those assembled for the ascension: the tetrad, which is the essence of the decade, and 70, which was born by multiplying 10 by 7 or 7 by 10. 3But it should be known that by the literal meaning the passage is allegorized. 4For Moses is the purest and most God-loving mind, and Aaron is his word, that is, the reliable interpreter of the truth, and Nadab is the voluntary kind, because [“Nadab”] is translated “voluntary,” and Abihu is the truth from God, for the name is taken in this [sense]. 5Now, behold a soul adorned in all ways, which for the pleasure of God heads toward virtue with [its] ornaments: the worthy mind, the true word, the voluntary [kind] inclined toward piety, and a fence and wall protecting them—an aid from God. 6But let the power of the number 4 be placed under the commander: the oneness comprising [them], because the one prophetic mind obtained by you has three adornments. 7The power of the 70 elders honored in their old age is not from the long duration of time but from the appearance of the perfect numbers, which are worthy of honor and the first rank. 2.29.1Why does [Scripture] say that Moses alone should approach God, and they should not approach, and the people should not go up with them?34 works as well. The perfection and significance of 4 is described, for instance, in Planting 119–25 (the world is composed of four elements: earth, water, air, and fire; the year has four seasons; in geometry, the square has four right and equal angels, which allegorize the correctness of reason, etc.). Creation 47 helps to understand what Philo means by “the tetrad, which is the essence of the decade,” stating that what the number 10 is actually (entelecheia), the number 4 is potentially (dynamei), because the units contained in the latter make 10 by addition (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 10). According to the same passage, 10 for Philo is the “all-perfect” (panteleios) number. Furthermore, a large section of the same work (89–128) discusses the importance of the number 7, starting with the remark that after completing the creation of the world in six (another perfect number) days, God exalted the seventh and called it holy. In QE 2.27.1, Philo does not cite the continuation of the biblical sentence containing “70” (“and 70 elders of Israel”) but, nevertheless, he mentions that number among the other perfect ones: God chose 4 and 70 for Moses and his companions, thereby honoring them. Philo, however, views these symbolic numbers in the literal context of the passage. Thus, we may conclude that Moses and his three companions, as Philo believes, allegorize the different aspects of mental capacities that together form wisdom. In this view, we can draw a parallel, though quite a vague one, with Exod. Rab. 27:2, according to which God showed respect to Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and the 70 elders of Israel thanks to their wisdom (with a reference to Prov. 3:35: “The wise shall obtain honor”). In Lev. Rab. 20:10, however, Nadab and Abihu are mentioned quite negatively, as arrogant people who, walking behind Moses and Aaron, were thinking about the death of those two old men to become the leaders of the community.

Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus 863

2O the best and God-appropriate successive order! 3Only the prophetic mind may come near God, and those in the second place may [only] go up, on the way to heaven; but those in the third place and the people with disorderly character may neither go up nor walk with them but be beholders of those worthy of beholding the blessed way upward. 4But “[Moses] alone should approach” is said quite naturally, because the prophetic mind, when it is inspired and possessed by God, is like the monad completely separate from things that are associated with the dyad. 5And he who is absorbed into the nature of oneness is said to touch God through a kind of kinship. 6For having renounced and abandoned all the mortal genera , he is changed into the Divine; such men indeed become akin to God and divine. 2.30.1Why does Moses, rising early in the morning, set up an altar at the mountain and 12 stones for the 12 tribes of Israel?35 2Either the altar is made of only 12 stones, so that all the tribes of the whole nation might somehow become a holy altar for God, or, apart from the altar 12 stones are erected separately, so that some 2.29.3–4 Philo distinguishes three ranks among the Israelites gathered at the foot of Mount Sinai to receive the Torah from God: Moses symbolizing “the prophetic mind” (ho prophētikos nous) and representing the first rank was the only man allowed to approach God; Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and the 70 elders representing the second rank were to ascend the mountain but stay at some distance from God and Moses; and the common people representing the third rank were to be “beholders of beholders,” i.e., watch from below those that were allowed to see “the way to heaven” (the second group). This in general corresponds to the Bible but makes things clearer, especially the missions of the second and third groups. According to Exod. 24:9–10, Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and the 70 elders of Israel “ascended; and they saw the God of Israel,” whereas Philo following the LXX cites in the relevant comment (QE 2.37) the last phrase as “they saw the place where the God of Israel was standing.” He then explains that no one can ever boast of having seen the invisible God. Philo also uses the opportunity to refer once again to his beloved number symbols, this time, the supreme monad and the inferior dyad. Moses, the mind filled with God, is as if united with him and transformed into absolute and pure oneness, having nothing to do with the mixed duality. As Philo clarifies in Alleg. Interp. 2.2–3, one is the number of God, who is alone, not a compound (ou synkrima) but a single nature (physis haplē), unlike the other beings, which are combinations (polla), soul and body in their turn consisting of different parts. Thus, Moses alone is permitted to come near God because he symbolizes not only the prophetic mind but also the divine monad. In Jewish sources, a different and very noteworthy variant of the episode (Moses alone remaining with God) occurs, according to which all the Israelites except Moses not only stayed at a distance but soon returned to their tents (cf. Exod. 24:14 stating, on the contrary, that the elders of Israel were commanded to wait). According to Mek. d’Rashbi, Bahodesh 3:64a; 9:71a–72b; and Mek. d’Rashbi 113, the whole people had heard the Ten Commandments from God, and they were expecting that the rest of the Torah would also be revealed to them. However, the terrible divine vision on Mount Sinai had so exhausted the Israelites that they were afraid to hear another word from God and die. They wanted to withdraw and begged Moses to be the mediator between them and God. Their wish was found right, so, as B. Shab. 87a mentions, God told Moses to go to the people and send them to their tents.87 2.30.2 The word “stones” in the LXX, instead of the “pillars” in the Hebrew Bible, allows Philo to suggest two explanations of the passage. First, Moses possibly built the altar of 12 stones, so that

864 Aram Topchyan and Gohar Muradyan

people, if they do not participate in the everyday worship, seem to be there through the filling of their absence by the erection of the 12 stones, which have become a memorial to the tribes (whom [Moses] wants to be always close to the Father and [his] ministers). 2.31.1Why does [Moses] send young men and not elders?36 2Since the elders, 70 in number, had taken the nation to [the foot of] the mountain, serving the prophet during his ascension, it would be inappropriate and strange to call again for yet another task those who had already been called earlier for the vision. 3Or else, if [Moses] ordered their peers to offer the sacrifice, it would be insulting to those who were not offering [it] with them. 4Second, because the [men of] old age were [at the same time] elders and a kind of firstfruits37 expected to perform bloodless slaughter, which is more fitting to aged elders. 5Whereas those that in the vigor of youth were sent to offer the sacrifice, the youngsters, since there was a lot of blood in them due to their vigorous youthfulness, would benefit from giving thanks to God and the Father by offering every sacrifice with blood. 6They would [thus] be led by their young age to the desires that bring to piety and not to the rage of unbridled desires. 7This is the literal sense; as to the metaphorical meaning, the soul of an all-wise and God-loving [man]38 has in itself both senile and youthful principles, all [of which are] sacred. 8But the old men and the [principles] that are in them are led toward the observation of nature, while those in the vigor of youth [are led] toward the power of appropriate deeds, until the life (both contemplative and practical) of the goodly ones in it is inscribed on monuments and glorified. 2.33.1Why did Moses, taking one part of the blood, pour it into craters39 and [why did he] pour the other part on the altar?40 2He divides the blood according to its worth, wishing that some of it should be a holy offering to God, and some, a holy ointment instead of oil, for sacredness and perfect purity; furthermore, if one their unity symbolizes the unanimity of the Israelites as if becoming one sanctuary for God. The second explanation is suitable to both “stones” and “pillars,” because Philo considers them a memorial to the 12 tribes, metaphorically replacing the absent worshipers during divine services. The idea that Moses erected a memorial to the Israelites also occurs in Mek. d’Rashbi, Bahodesh 6:63b. 2.31.2–8 Philo’s complicated thoughts regarding the young men performing the sacrifice may be summarized as follows: God had charged the 70 elders with one task, so they could not simultaneously carry out another. If Moses decided to summon other elders for the offering in the absence of those 70 he would offend the latter. Old men are like children—both in early and advanced age, humans are not full of extreme vigor (“blood”) as youths, so bloody offerings befit young men. Furthermore, their unrestrained activity should be directed toward pious deeds (sacrifice, for example) to prevent them from lusting after females. The deeper meaning of the passage in Philo’s interpretation continues the foregoing: the principles (logoi) forming the soul of wise and devout men are both elderly and youthful, and the latter type prevails in youngsters. Therefore, they are tending toward fitting acts (such as sacrifice) to be remembered for ages. A late Jewish tradition in Lekah Tov on Exod. 24:5 contradicts the Bible, stating that the sacrifice was performed by elders (not youths) who, in spite of their old age, carried out the task with youthful vigor.88 2.31.2. the vision That is, the revelation of the Torah. 2.31.3. those who were not offering [it] with them I.e., the 70 elders. 2.33.2–17 This intricate comment is based on allegories. The two portions of the sacrificial blood, according to Philo, signify two different substances: the first part poured into craters becomes a

Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus 865

mixture and is for humans consisting of contrary, mingled principles, whereas the blood poured on the altar is pure and, in fact, only this portion is offered to the luminous essence of God. Then Philo develops this dual symbolism: the unmixed blood allegorizes the qualities (equality, likeness, identity, and unity) characterizing the better, divine genus, while the portion poured into craters signifies the antipodes of those qualities (inequality, unlikeness, diversity, and separation) typical of the worse, human genus; the best part, as if the head, is offered to the Creator, while the rest of the body, which is inferior, is the lot of the material substances such as humans. The symbolism of odd and even numbers occurring in this comment may accordingly be explained as follows: since odd numbers cannot be divided into two equal parts, i.e., they do not consist of proportional contraries, they are unmixed and active, signifying the divine nature, whereas even numbers containing opposite portions, which contradict one another and thus force those numbers to be passive, are related to the mixed essences.89 Other meanings of Exod. 24:6 are revealed in the Jewish tradition. Midr. Tan. 56–57 states that the sacrificial blood was divided into two equal halves; this was done under the control of the angel Michael, so that there would not be a drop more in one half than in the other. Both halves were sprinkled on the altar, one to atone for the people (as a token that the Israelites would never worship idols instead of their God) and the other as a sign that God was never going to exchange the Israelites for another nation.90 Lev. Rab. 6.5 contains a different version, according to which the blood became two halves by itself; one half turned black and the other remained red. Moses put them into equal basins; God commanded him to sprinkle his portion on the people (cf. Exod. 24:8) and their portion on the altar. Thus, here too, as in Philo, the idea that one portion of the blood belonged to God and the other to the people is expressed (though quite differently). 2.34.2–7 Unfortunately, Philo does not discuss what “the book of the testament” or “the book of the covenant” that Moses read to the Israelites was (an issue regarded as quite important in Jewish tradition).91 Was it the whole Pentateuch or a part of it or what? He refers for such a discussion to another work of his (which does not survive), preferring, instead, to give a physical description of Moses’s voice reaching the people not through the vibration of air but in a miraculous way, as a kind of continuous and lucid flow overcoming all obstacles and audible to everyone. Furthermore, he adds a metaphorical remark, imagining God privately and invisibly dictating Moses the testament, of which he conveys to the people only what they are permitted to hear. 2.34.2. the divine testament In Names 53, Philo mentions his discussion of the testament “in two treatises”, probably meaning one work in two books. Perhaps here the reference is to that lost work.

866 Aram Topchyan and Gohar Muradyan

ought to tell the truth, [he does so] to be inspired for receiving the Holy Spirit. 3And the craters are a symbol of the mixed and compound nature, which is ours, for the unmixed genus is divine. 4But everything coming into being by birth is from opposites, one of which must be the recipient of the good and the other of the evil kind. 5Now, whatever is of the better [kind] is allotted to the part of God, [who] has achieved this by [his] simpler and more luminous essence, whereas whatever is of the worse [kind] belongs to the mortal race. 6But one should start with the incorporeal and intelligible things, which are the measures and patterns of the sensible. 7Now, the beginnings of all things form numbers, some of which are odd, having the significance of active causes, and some are even, [having the significance] of matter. 8Now, it is necessary to ascribe the odd form to God, because he is related to acting, and the even, to the mortal race, because it is familiar with tolerance and passivity. 9The same [difference] also occurs in equality and inequality, in likeness and unlikeness, in identity and diversity, in unity and separation. 10Now, in equality and in likeness and in identity and in unity, the better is arranged in a certain order in conformity with God, while what is unequal, unlike, diverse, and separate is in the worse, the dominant part of which is possessed by the mortals. 11But the equivalent of this [difference] is to be seen not only in the incorporeal and intelligible [things] but also in sensible natures. 12Now, already in the universe, heaven itself and all that is in heaven, being worthy of the Divine, best essence and part, approach God and are given to him as offering. 13But those that are sublunary, as they belong to the material and denser part, they are granted to the mortal race. 14Furthermore, in us ourselves the soul is constituted of the rational and the irrational. 15Now, since the rational is good, it is given as offering to the good nature, whereas the irrational, since it is worse, [is given] to the subordinate [one], which we, the uneducated, uninstructed, and disobedient, have got. 16But someone, thinking with good judgment about the mortal body, would say that the ruling head should be offered to the holy Creator and Father, while [the part] from the breast down to the feet, to the material essence. 17Now, [Moses] symbolically assigns this to the craters, because it is mixed and tainted, while he offers the unmixed and pure [part] to God, making a sacrifice [of it]. 2.34.1What is, “Taking the book of the testament, he read it to the ears of all the people”?41 2We have already commented accurately on the divine testament, so it is not necessary now to speak [about it] again. 3But about the reading to the ears we must demonstrate some knowledge. 4It takes place without separation and interruption, not [by means of] the air striking from outside and a noise reaching the ears, but the speaker’s [voice] sounds in them without separation and gap, as a voice uttered [in an] unmixed and luminous [way]. 5So that, if a third thing remains between [them],42 the perception should not be worse because of that interference, but so that [the voice] should sound more reliably, only in a pure way, when the audience and the word come together, without anything separating [them]. 6This is the literal sense; as to the metaphorical meaning, since it was impossible for someone to reach the hearing of such a multitude and to approach [and] speak to the ears, it is necessary to assume the following: that the Teacher43 and [his] adherent were there. 7One of them speaks separately with the pupil44 and hides nothing, not even ineffable things, and the other perceives, offering himself as a worthy volunteer for [learning] the laws of the divine covenant, and as a keeper of things that were not assignable to many but [only] to the one concerned. 2.41.1Why are the commandments written on stone tablets?45 2Tablets and books are handmade, and the writings on them are easily corruptible, because there

Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus 867

is wax on the tablets, which easily rubs off, and the ink46 on papyrus sometimes runs and sometimes looks faded. 3But stones are the work of nature, easily transformable into tablets and into the shapes of polished slabs; and the characters on them are eternal and stable thanks to the firmness of the material. 4Second, it was impossible for the divine commandments to remain hidden in a niche, unavailable to those who yearned to see and study [them], but they had to be published and carried around openly. 5And for those things that were to be publicly shown outdoors durable material was necessary, because of the burning sun and rains falling on [them] (that is why later on the stone slabs were placed in the ark). 6Third, they are stone tablets, denoting the stability of stone and the instability of a tablet, because a tablet is easily written on and erased. 7And this is a symbol of the preservation and abolition of laws: what is written [is a symbol of] preservation, and what is erased, of abolition, for one might rightly say that those who disobey the commandments have no laws at all. 2.42.1If God writes laws. . . .47 2Since God is a legislator according to sublime reasoning,48 good laws, which are also called laws without falsehood, must be established by him and be recorded in writing, not of the hands, because [God] is not anthropomorphic, but at his command and nod. 3For if by his word the heaven and the earth and the whole world were created, and all the substances received [their] form from the divine words, which shaped them, would not the letters immediately become [his] servants, when God said 2.41.3–7 The main idea of this comment, namely the eternity of the Ten Commandments (and the Law in general, of which those commandments are the “heads”; cf., e.g., Decalogue 20), is expressed differently in other works of Philo. Here the hard material of the tablets, stone, is regarded as the guarantee of the commandments’ incorruptibility, but allegorically the Law is immortal thanks to not being recorded on perishable materials but in the mind (see Good Person 47) or in the souls (see Spec. Laws 4.149). The practical part of what Philo says in the comment in question, i.e., the description of the reliable qualities of stone, can be paralleled with the remark in Jewish sources that the tablets were made of very hard sapphirelike stone.92 As to the symbolic significance of the stone tablets, in Philo’s view they had twofold meaning: stone, as a symbol of strong faith and observance of those divine laws, and the tablet covered with wax, one of the usual materials for writing texts, as a symbol of disobedience to the commandments and, thereby, denial of God. 2.42.1. if God writes laws The question is, “Does God write laws?” Here Philo comments on the second clause of Exod. 24:12, where God says he has written the Law and commandments (ton nomon kai tas entolas has egrapsa in the LXX) on the tablets (“I will give you the stone tablets with the teachings and commandments that I have inscribed”). 2.42.2. recorded in writing, not of the hands . . . but at his command Since the idea of God and his appearance are very abstract in Philo’s works, here too, accordingly, he imagines the process of “legislation” as the letters forming the commandments by themselves at the divine order and not inscribed by his hand. This is a significant difference between Philo and Jewish tradition: in the latter, God sometimes has quite material features (cf. the example in comment on 2.29.3–4). Likewise in this case: in contrast to Philo, B. Shab. 89a, for instance, states that when Moses ascended Mount Sinai and approached God, he was adorning with crowns the letters of the Torah, which he had inscribed. God even blamed Moses for not assisting him in that labor. Or, according to B. Sanh. 111a, Moses found God sitting and writing the word “long-suffering” in the Torah.

868 Aram Topchyan and Gohar Muradyan

that the Law must be written? 4Second, the world is a great and lawful city, and it should use good laws of administration; and it is suitable that [the world] has a proper establisher of law and legislator, because in a similar way [God] also brought to light humankind’s contemplative nation in this world. 5And he rightly makes the Law for this nation, [thereby] also proposing the world law, because the chosen nation is the model49 of the world, and her Law is [the model] of the world [law]. 2.45.1What is, “And the glory50 of God descended on Mount Sinai”?51 2This clearly discredits those who either through ungodliness or through stupidity think that there are movements of the Deity pertaining to places and changes. 3For behold, [Scripture] clearly says that not the being of God (that which, according to its essence, is only thought of) but his glory descended. 4And the interpretation of glory is dual: there is [glory] that points to the presence of powers (because a king’s military power, too, is called glory), and there is [glory] that [points] only to opinion and the notion of the divine glory; so that this creates in the minds of those present an image of the arrival of God, who was not there (as if he had come for the firm belief in the things that were to be legislated). 5And the mountain is quite suitable for accepting the revelation of God, as the name “Sinai” indicates, for when it is rendered into our tongue, it means “inaccessible.”52 6Now, the divine place is really untrodden and unapproachable; nor even a very pure mind can climb it up to such a height as to approach it just for touching. 2.46.1Why is the mountain hidden by a cloud for six days, and Moses called above on the seventh day?53 2[God] assigned the same54 number, the hexad,55 both to the creation of the world and to the choice of the contemplative nation, wishing, first, to demonstrate that [it was] he [who] had created both the world and the nation chosen for virtue. 3And second, because he wishes that the nation should be organized56 and adorned in the same way as, in general, the whole world, so that, accordingly and similarly, 2.45.2–6 Philo brings more arguments for his conception of God as incorporeal essence that can be only mentally imagined and is void of such a material quality as movement in relation to place and time. This time, he uses the LXX word “glory” (doxa): it was not God himself who descended on Mount Sinai but his glory (the word Shekhinah, Divine Presence, in the Hebrew Bible would hardly allow him to comment on the passage in this way). Moreover, in accordance with the immateriality and invisibleness of God, Philo considers Mount Sinai to be unapproachable (he even etymologizes “Sinai” as “inaccessible,” a meaning unknown from elsewhere). 2.45.3. not the being of God The comment that it was not God himself who lived on the mountain has a parallel in Jewish tradition. A Tanna who flourished in the mid-2nd century ce opined that the Shekhinah never came down upon the earth; the heavenly voice heard on Mount Sinai made the false impression that God was there.93 Other Jewish sources,94 however, speak about 10 revelations of God on the earth, among which is his descent on Mount Sinai. 2.45.5. the mountain is quite suitable for accepting the revelation of God Philo’s comment contrasts with the remark in Jewish sources that God chose Sinai because it was the smallest, most insignificant, and most humiliated among the mountains (and the others, since they were high had been used for the worship of idols).95 2.46.2–7 Exodus 24:16 gives Philo another chance to accentuate the significance of the numbers 6 and 7. His juxtaposition of crucial events is quite apt and expressive: the creation of the world,

Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus 869

[the nation] should have the suitable order that conforms with the correct laws and canon of the constant, placeless, and unmoving nature of God. 4And the calling of the prophet above is a second birth superior to the first, because that mixed one was through body and had corruptible parents, whereas this one is a pure and simple soul of the ruler [mind],57 changed from a born into an unborn form that has no mother, but only a father, who is also [the Father] of all. 5Therefore, the calling above or, as we have said, the divine birth happened to take place for him according to the nature of the hebdomad,58 the ever-virgin.59 6For he is called on the seventh day, differing in this [respect] from the firstborn [and] earth-born [man], because that one came into existence from the earth, with a body, and this one, from the ether and without a body. 7For this reason, to the earth-born [man] the more familiar number was given, the hexad, while to the differently born [one],60 the superior nature of the hebdomad. 2.51.1What is, “You shall make a sanctuary for Me, and I shall appear among you”?61 2The literal sense is clear, because the Temple is mentioned: the Tabernacle is the archetype of a certain temple. 3And as to the metaphorical meaning, God always appears to his work, which is most sacred—I mean the world. 4For his salutary powers are visible and move around in all the parts of the heaven, the earth, the waters, and the air, and in whatever is in them. 5For the Savior and Benefactor is propitious and he wants to separate the rational race from all animals. 6For this reason, honoring with greatest favor, he grants [them] the great beneficence, his appearance, in which there are all sorts of including the “formed” earthly man, in six days on the one hand and the final election of the Israelites (as the “contemplative nation” deserving to receive the Law) during the six days when Mount Sinai was covered with a cloud on the other; the birth of the “heavenly” man in the image of God on the seventh day of the beginning of the world and the rebirth of Moses on the seventh day of his ascension to Mount Sinai, at his entry into the cloud (when he became equal to the heavenly man). 2.46.6. for he is called on the seventh day The comparison between Moses’s new birth “without a mother” and the “virginal” essence of the number 7 becomes clearer with the help of Alleg. Interp. 1.15. Here Philo refers to the Pythagoreans who compare that number with the ever-virgin goddess born without a mother (Athena), because 7 does not generate any other number below 10 and is not generated by any of them (see note to translation of 2.46.5). Unlike Philo basing his remarks on number symbolism, Jewish sources understand the interval between Moses’s ascent to the mountain and the command of God from the cloud differently, without attaching special importance to the number of days. According to S. Olam Rab. 6, B. Yoma 4b, Y. Ta’an. 4:68b, and other writings,96 Moses needed that period to clean himself of the mortal impurity and be prepared for being taken to heaven by God. 2.51.2–10. It is not easy to follow Philo’s train of thought here. He traces a twofold meaning in Exod. 25:8: first, God commands the Israelites to establish his “dwelling place,” the Tent of Meeting, which later on was to be replaced by the Temple, and second, the biblical verse hints at the “spiritual temple,” that is, the human soul that, after being purified of all mortal sins and passions, becomes worthy of receiving God. Philo understands the divine appearance in two ways. On the one hand, God is always present in the world through his beneficent powers eternally moving throughout the universe and the elements (that is why, as Philo writes in Planting 50, the world is the “sensible house of God,” i.e., the material part of his dwelling that can be perceived by the senses). On the other hand, as an exclusive favor to the humans among all the beings, God

870 Aram Topchyan and Gohar Muradyan

good things, if only there be a proper place, cleansed with sanctity and thorough purity. 7For, O mind, if you do not prepare yourself by yourself, removing the desires, lusts, sorrows, and fears, and removing the stupidities, iniquities, and related evils, and [if you do not] change and fit yourself to the sight of sanctity, you will end your life blind, not being able to see the intelligible sun. 8But if you are consecrated by proper consecration and can dedicate yourself to God and be a kind of animate temple of the Father, you will see what is primary with open eyes, instead of closing [them], and you will come to the end with vigilance instead of the deep sleep in which you were trapped. 9Then will appear to you the apparent [one], who produces for you incorporeal rays, also granting visions of what is certain and ineffable in nature, and [visions] of the abundant sources of other good [things]. 10For the beginning and the end of felicity is the ability to see God, but this is impossible for one who has not made his soul, as I have said, as a sanctuary and a temple of God in every way. 2.52.1What is, “You shall make, according to all that I shall show you on the mountain,62 the patterns of the Tabernacle and [those] of the vessels”?63 2That every imitation of a sensible64 has [as its] source an intelligible exemplar in nature, [Scripture] has demonstrated in many other [passages], as also now. 3Moreover, it has in the best way represented as the instructor of the incorporeal and initial examples not someone created and born but the unborn and uncreated God. 4Since it was appropriate and right to disclose to an intelligent [man] the forms of the intelligible [exemplars] and, in general, the measure of all things (according to which the world is made), for this reason only the prophet, being called, was taken up in order that neither the mortal race should be deprived of the incorruptible countenance nor should the divine and holy essence be proclaimed and publicly shown to many of them.65 5And he was taken to the high mountain, climbing that which others were not permitted, and a thick and dense cloud concealed the whole site, preventing view of those places: not because the nature of invisible things is seen to the bodily eyes, but because many signs of intelligible things are indicated by visions noticeable to the eyes (just as one who learns by seeing figuratively is able to form certain images according to some sign and create their correct and clear likeness). himself with his luminous essence (“the intelligible sun”) appears only to them, provided that their souls are like cleansed sanctuaries. Finally, the divine appearance takes place in the mental sphere, because God is unreachable by the senses (cf. comment on 2.29.3–4). While in Philo the making of the Tabernacle symbolizes the sanctification of the human soul, in Jewish tradition it is interpreted as a different allegory signifying the firmness of the world. As we read in Pesik. Rab. 5:16a, Tanh. Naso 19, Terumah 9, Tanh. B 2:94, and Shemuel 26,97 as soon as the sanctuary was erected, the world became steady; before that it was shaking back and forth. 2.52.2–5 This philosophical comment written in a platonistic manner represents two different aspects of the universe, inseparably connected with each other: the metaphysical world of intelligible patterns (cf. Plato’s eternal ideas) and the physical world of objects perceived by the senses and reflecting the incorporeal unchangeable forms that surround the divine essence. Thus, Philo understands “all that I shall show you on the mountain” as the mental model of the Tabernacle, which Moses (the only human being who got the opportunity to communicate with the intelligible exemplars) was to adopt on Mount Sinai, keep in mind, and then make its material copy on the earth. This dualistic conception of the Tabernacle (or the Temple) is also expressed, in

Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus 871

2.54.1Why does he overlay [the Ark] with pure gold from inside and with gold from outside? 2Others fake with deception the outer surface and leave the inside hidden, and it remains rough and unfinished. 3And they embellish the outside with various ornaments for elegance or for attracting the admiration of the viewers. 4But the divine holy Moses embellishes the inside before the outside with proper ornament—with gold: first, the most costly material of all, and moreover with pure gold, refined and uncontaminated, for the cleanness of the substance. 5This is the literal sense; as to the metaphorical meaning, [it is] as follows. 6There are both invisible and visible species in nature: the invisible and unseen consists of incorporeal things, and it is in the intelligible world, while the visible is made of bodies—this is the sensible world. 7These two species are internal and external; [God] made the internal [species as] incorporeal, and the external, [as] corporeal. 8That which he created [as] undecaying and incorruptible66 was, in addition, [externally] seemly, sacred, and precious. 9Now, the precious gold is allegorically mentioned with regard to the humans’ structure as well, wherefore, necessarily, [with regard] to the soul too. 10But the latter, together with all its virtues, is invisible, [while] the habits and motions of the body are embellished and visible like the gold. 11For a life is perfect if it is [led] by both: by a pure mind, which is not visible, and impeccable and faultless deeds, which can be seen by many. a simpler, unsophisticated fashion, in Jewish tradition. Tanh. Ber. 4:35 and Tanh. Naso 11, for example, mention the heavenly temple of God, which had been erected even before the creation of the world, but, as a sign of his great love for humans, God commanded the Israelites to make an earthly dwelling place for him, so that he could live among them.98 2.54.1. pure gold from inside and with gold from outside Cf. Exod. 25:11. The Hebrew Bible states that the Ark was to be covered with pure gold from both inside and outside, while according to Philo’s comprehension of the passage in the LXX (kai katachrysōseis autēn chrysiō katharō, exōthen kai esōthen chrysōseis autēn), God demanded pure gold only for the inner surface (and ordinary gold for the outside; cf. Marcus, 2.102 n. a). 2.54.2–11 This comment is a result of Philo’s original understanding (or rather misunderstanding) of Exod. 25:11 LXX: as if the gold was to be pure only for the inside, and not the outside, of the Ark (see note to translation of 2.54.1). Accordingly, he regards the two kinds of gold, pure and ordinary, as the symbols of the inner, incorporeal and outer, corporeal worlds (in other words, of the invisible human soul and the visible body) respectively. Unlike those deceivers who look attractive from outside but neglect the virtues of the soul, Moses first of all takes care of the inner chastity. Furthermore, Philo’s logic is that the “ordinary gold,” i.e., moderate external attractiveness in behavior, is sufficient to make someone perfect if his internal qualities are like pure gold. In a similar approach, Philo understands the two golden layers of the Ark as allegorizing the two aspects of human perfection in other works (e.g., Drunkenness 85–86 and Names 43–44, which do not, however, distinguish between the pure and ordinary kinds). A comment on the inner and outer gold of the Ark partly resembling Philo’s symbolism can also be found in the Rabbinic tradition. For example, B. Yoma 72b says that the inside of a scholar studying the Torah must be like his outside (i.e., both must be chaste), or else he will not be a scholar and, moreover, he will be corrupt. In some Jewish commentaries the description of the Ark’s construction does not coincide with the biblical version. The same Rabbinic source, for instance, delineates the Ark as consisting of three separate caskets: one wooden in the middle, nine spans high; one golden inside, eight spans high; and another golden one outside, 10 spans plus a fractional part high.99 Thus, here the two gold layers of the Ark have become separate golden caskets.

872 Aram Topchyan and Gohar Muradyan

2.62.1What are the cherubim?67 2It is translated “much recognition,” in other words, “accumulated knowledge [and] wealth.” 3But [the cherubim] are the symbol of two powers: the creative and the kingly. 4But the creative [power] is the elder according to [our] thought. 5For the powers that are around God are of the same age, but the creative [power] is imagined before the kingly. 6For one is king not of the things that do not exist but of those that have come into being. 7And the creative [power] received a name in the Holy and Divine Scripture, to be called “God,” because the ancients spoke of creating as “putting.” 8And the kingly [power] is called “Lord,” because [the title] “Lord of all” is bestowed on a king. 2.66.1Why are the faces of the cherubim turned toward each other, and both, toward the mercy seat?68 2The image of what is said is very good in a way and fitting; for the creative and kingly powers should be turned toward each other, seeing their own beauty and at the same time the two together uniting for the benefit of the existing things. 3Second, since God is one, Creator and King, [each of them] has 2.62.2–8 The same etymology and symbolism,100 with slight differences, occurs in Philo’s Moses 2.97–100. There, briefly stating that the Hebrew word “cherubim” means “much recognition and knowledge” in Greek, he disagrees with “some” who interpret the figures of the two cherubim on the cover of the Ark as the symbols of the two hemispheres101 (one beneath the earth and the other above the earth, since the whole heaven has wings). Philo offers, instead, his own symbolism, namely, that the two cherubim allegorize the two most ancient and supreme powers of God, creative and kingly: by the former he has created the universe and by the latter he justly rules over all the beings of the world.102 While Philo regards the two cherubim as the symbols of the two aspects of the divine power, that midrashic comment attributes the allegory of the might of God to only one of them; the number of the cherubim corresponds, besides the two tables, also to the two holy names of God, Adonai and Elohim, which describe him as benevolent and as powerful. 2.62.2. much recognition In an attempt to explain Philo’s etymology of “cherubim,” Stein supposes that, in Philo’s view, “cherubim” consists of the Hebrew words hakkir (to recognize) and bin (knowledge) or rabbim (much).103 2.62.7. the ancients spoke of creating as “putting” Philo builds this comment on the similarity between the aorist infinitive theinai of the Gk. verb tithēmi and theos (God). The first meaning of tithēmi is “to put,” but it also means “to make, to cause” (cf. LSJ s.v. tithēmi C2) and so can be connected with the creative power. Philo mentions the relationship between theos and tithēmi elsewhere too (e.g., Moses 2.99). 2.66.2–6 According to the LXX, “the faces” of the cherubim were to be “toward each other,” at the same time being directed “toward the mercy seat”; in other words, they were to look simultaneously at each other and at the mercy seat. Accordingly, in the Greek fragment of this section, the word ekneuō (to turn the head) is used in the question (ta prosōpa eis allēla ekneuei, “the faces are turned toward each other”), which the Armenian translator simply rendered “look” (hayin): “the faces of the cherubim look at each other, and both, at the mercy seat.” Based on this description in the LXX, Philo once again represents the harmonious allegory of the two separate but inseparable powers of God (cf. comment on 2.62.2–8), which are in concord (they peacefully look at each other) and unity (they both look at the mercy seat), having joined their benevolent efforts to do good. The picture is a bit different in the Hebrew Bible, which reads: “They shall confront each other, the faces of the cherubim being turned toward the cover.” It is not clear whether the

Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus 873

rightly received a separate power; for they have been divided appropriately, so that one should create and the other should govern. 4For they are different and have been fitted together in some other way according to the eternal attachment of names to one another, so that the creative [power] should be the guardian of the governing [one], and the kingly [power], of the creative [one], because both are rightly turned toward each other and toward the mercy seat. 5For if God were not well disposed to those who are together, he would neither have made anything by the creative [power], nor would he have established good laws with the royal [power]. 2.68.1What is, “I will speak to you from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim”?69 2First of all, by this [God] demonstrates that the Divinity is superior to the propitious, creative, and all [other] powers, and, furthermore, that he speaks right from the middle of the creative [and the kingly] power[s].70 3And the mind assumes this as follows: the Divine Logos, since it is right in the middle, leaves absolutely nothing void in nature, filling all things, and becomes a mediator and judge for the two sides that seem to be separated from each other, establishing love and agreement, for it is always the cause of partnership and the creator of peace. 4Now, the separate parts of the Ark have [already]

cherubim, looking at the cover (= the mercy seat in the LXX) also look at each other. Rabbi Johanan and Rabbi Eleazar argue on this question in B. BB 99a. The former says that the cherubim faced each other, while the latter objects that their faces “were inward.” The solution to this dispute is that the faces of the cherubim were not always in the same position: when the Israelites obeyed the will of God (“the Omnipresent”), the cherubim looked at each other in agreement; but when Israel disobeyed his will, their faces “were inward.”104 2.68.2–15 Philo, at other places (e.g., QG 4.2) speaking of the Triad consisting of God himself together with the creative and kingly powers, here describes a more complicated six-grade hierarchy of the divine aspects plus “the intelligible world” completing the hebdomad. That world of ideas, according to him, is symbolized by both the Ark, excluding the cover, and its contents, i.e., the Law. As to the upper component of the Ark, that is, the cover or the mercy seat, Philo divides it into four parts denoting a fourfold allegory. The highest, immaterial part is above the cover; it hosts and at the same time symbolizes the supreme Divine Essence (referred to as “the Speaker”), who is invisible and inaudible but dictates the words addressed to Moses. The second part, lower in rank, is “the middle” of the mercy seat, the place of the Divine Logos, mentioned together with the Voice and thus being endowed with a certain sense-perceptible quality (audibility); it is the Logos that audibly speaks to Moses. Finally, the inferior side parts of the cover, on the right and left of the middle, are represented by the figures of the cherubim: each of them allegorizes two divine powers (a main power and its subordinate). The main powers, equal in rank, are the creative and the kingly, and their derivatives are the beneficent (or propitious) and the legislative (or chastening) powers respectively. Jewish sources, too, comment on “from above the cover, from between the two cherubim,” but not in a complicated context of symbols as it does Philo. B. Suk. 5a, for example, explains “from above the cover” as simply a certain height (10 spans, because the Ark was nine spans and its cover was one span) below which God would not come down to the earth. Rabbi Jose explains, referring to Ps. 115:16 (“the heavens belong to the Lord, but the earth he gave over to men”), that the Shekhinah never descended directly on the earth and Moses and Elijah never ascended heaven; even Exod. 19:20, “The Lord came down upon Mount Sinai,” means that he did not come down lower than 10 spans.105

874 Aram Topchyan and Gohar Muradyan

been spoken about, but one should also summarily take up and go over [them] anew, in order to know what they are symbols of. 5For these symbols are the Ark, the Law treasured in it, the mercy seat on it; furthermore, on the mercy seat [were] the cherubim called [so] in the Chaldean language, and above them, in the middle, the Voice and the Logos, and above it, the Speaker. 6Now, if someone can correctly observe71 and understand their nature, it seems to me [that], captivated by their godlike beauty, [he will] give up all other things that are desirable. 7But let us examine what kind each of them is. 8First, [there is] he who is older than the one and the monad and the origin; then [there is] the Logos of the Existent, actually, the procreative essence of existing things. 9And from the Logos of the Existent, as if from a source, two powers split: one is the creative [power], by which the Craftsman set and regulated all things—this is called “God”—and [the second is] the kingly [power], the one by which he is the ruler of those made by the Creator—this is called “Lord.” 10And from these two powers the others have sprung, for alongside the creative [power] the propitious sprouts, whose name is “beneficial,” and [alongside] the kingly [power], the lawgiving, whose exact name is “chastening.” 11And beneath them and near them is the Ark; and the Ark is a symbol of the intelligible world. 12And the Ark symbolically has everything set in the innermost part of the Holy: the incorporeal world, and the Law, which he has called “testaments”; the lawgiving and the chastening powers, the mercy seat, the propitious and the beneficial [powers]; above these, the creative [power], which is the source of the propitious and of the beneficial [powers], and the kingly [power], which is the root of the chastening and the lawgiving [powers]. 13But the Divine Logos, since it is in the middle, is superior [to them], and higher than the Logos is the One Who Speaks. 14And of the things enumerated the number 7 is completed: the intelligible world and the two cognate powers, the chastening and the beneficial; and the two others before these, the creative and the kingly (having more relation to the Craftsman than to what is created),72 and the sixth, the Logos, and the seventh, He Who Speaks. 15Now, if you start from above, the Speaker is the first, and the Logos is the second, and the third is the creative power, and the fourth is the kingly [power]; then below the creative is the fifth [power], the beneficial; and below the kingly is the sixth [power], the chastening; and the seventh is the world [consisting] of ideas. 2.78.1Why are there seven lamps on the lampstand?73 2It is clear to everyone that the seven lamps are symbols of the planets, which correspond to the hebdomad, the sacred divine number. 3Their motion and revolution is through the signs of the zodiac; they are the causes of the things under the moon—of all those that are accustomed to coming to peaceful unity in the air, in the water, on the earth, and always in every mixture of animals and plants. 2.68.8–9 For the three aspects of God, the Divine Triad, cf. QG 4.2 and the comment there. 2.68.13. is superior [to them] Philo wishes to say that the Logos is superior to the other symbols, while the Speaker is superior to the Logos (cf. 2.68.5). Marcus (2.117 n. g) takes the Armenian term here to be a corruption of a verb meaning “there appears,” because the Greek fragment reads hypemphainetai (there appears). But the Armenian verb also means “to be superior to,” which perfectly fits the context of the whole sentence. 2.78.2–3 The comparison of the lampstand with the planets is a commonplace in biblical commentaries, including the Midrashim. Its seven branches are regarded as symbols of the seven planets in Tadshe 11, Tanhuma Beha’aloteka 6, and Yal. 1:219. Philo himself discusses this symbolism in more detail in other treatises (e.g., Heir 221–25; Moses 2.103; and Spec. Laws 1.13–14).

Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus 875

2.79.1Why does [Scripture] say that the lampstand gives light from one side?74 2The planets do not wander around the heavenly sphere through all the parts and sides, but in one side—in the southern. 3For their movement is as if close to our zone, so the shadow does not fall upon the southern side but upon the northern. 4That is why [Scripture] said not improperly that the lampstand gives light from one side, hinting at the revolution of each planet in the southern parts. 2.82.1What is, “Make according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain”?75 2Once again by means of the pattern he hints at the incorporeal heaven, the model and archetype of the sensible [one]. 3For the former is the pattern and seal and measure of the visible [heaven]. 4To this fact he witnesses by saying, “Look,”76 exhorting [Moses] how to keep the contemplation of the soul awake and always watchful for the vision of incorporeal forms. 5For it is clear that if he were to see [something] sensible with the eyes of the body, there would be no need for any [special] command. 2.83.1What is the Tabernacle?77 2First of all, hinting at the incorporeal and intelligible world by means of the Ark, and at the essence of the sensible [world] by means of the table, and at the heaven by means of the lampstand, [God] starts to describe sequentially the things that are under the moon: air, water, fire, and earth, describing the Tabernacle [in accordance with] their nature and essence. 3For the Tabernacle is a moveable temple of

2.79.2–4 Since the seven lamps imitate the seven planets, which also give light but only from the Southern Hemisphere, the lampstand, too, gives light from one, southern side. In Moses 2.102, Philo represents the same notion, adding that the sun, moon, and other planets revolving in the south are very far from the northern regions of the universe. Therefore, the lampstand was placed at the southern side of the Tabernacle. Similar concepts (which, however, do not associate the “one-sided” light with the planets) are expressed in Jewish sources too. Tadshe 11 writes that the only light is in the south: it is the light of the Shekhinah. B. BB 25b says that if someone wishes to become wise, he should pray toward the south (i.e., toward the light of wisdom), and he who desires to become rich should turn to the north when praying. This is symbolized by the lampstand placed to the south of the altar in the Tabernacle and by the table (as a sign of wealth) on the northern side. 2.82.2–5 As in 2.52 and Moses 2.74, once again Philo believes that on Mount Sinai God showed Moses the immaterial models of the Tabernacle and its furnishings, which the prophet beheld with the eyes of his soul and then, after descent, ordered the Israelites to make them in accordance with those incorporeal patterns. Unlike Philo, Exod. Rab. 40:2 speaks of material vessels of the Tabernacle that Moses saw on the mountain as the model forms of the future sacred objects. 2.82.3. for the former is the pattern and seal and measure of the visible [heaven] Philo means that the incorporeal heaven is the pattern, seal, and measure of the corporeal one. 2.83.2–6 The first part of this comment (83.2–3) continues the theme of immaterial and material worlds in connection with the Tabernacle, this time represented by the Ark and the table respectively (see comment on 2.79.2–4). To the symbols of the incorporeal and corporeal worlds Philo also adds a third one, the lampstand (with its seven lamps) allegorizing the heaven (with its seven planets), and then concludes that the portable earthly Tabernacle of God is a part of the changeable world. Thus, he again alludes to the idea that the sanctuary the Israelites made was a reflection of the heavenly pattern. The allegorical meaning of the Tabernacle is interpreted variously in Jewish sources as a symbolic image of the human body or as a representation of heaven

876 Aram Topchyan and Gohar Muradyan

God, and it is not firm and fixed; and those beneath the heaven are [also] unstable and transformable, while only the heaven is immutable in itself and constant. 4But this passage also shows a certain imitation; since they were passing through a desert, where there were neither courts nor houses, but [only] tabernacles were made out of necessity (to provide the aid of warmth in case of cold), [Moses] deemed it right that there should [also] be the holiest temple of the Father and Creator of all things. 5Once again the Tabernacle showed the Divine Name, which needs nothing, [as] dwelling in the same house and tent78 and [as] a cohabitant with those in need—so far as one may imagine—for the sake of receiving piety and appropriate sanctity. 6For what were those who saw the structure of their dwelling place looking like the Divine Temple likely to do if not to worship and bless the Supervisor and Inspector and Caretaker of his power, in return for being close to him? 7And power is proper to God, O ministers! 2.101.1Why does the altar have horns, and not part of it but of one piece79? 2[This is so] because it is not fitting to slaughter [any] of those [animals] that do not have horns, neither those that are sacrificial nor those for anything else. 3Now, the following three are to be offered as sacrifice: the sheep, the ox, [and] the goat; and for food, besides these, [there are] seven more: the gazelle, the deer, the wild goat, the buffalo, the white-rump, the oryx, [and] the giraffe.80 4Each of them has horns, because [God] also wishes to distinguish [the animals] for food; for although they are not offered as sacrifice, they are similar to the sacrificial ones, so that, in this way, those who utilize them for their needs should not offer something contrary to, unworthy of, and alien to the sacrifice. 5Second, the and what it contains.106 Philo’s comment about the dwelling of God being like the wilderness tents finds a parallel in Gen. Rab. 3:9, which says that since the beginning of creation God was eager to enter into partnership with mortals and that this was realized when the Tabernacle was made and he got the chance to dwell among the people. 2.83.4. certain imitation Philo probably means that the Tabernacle was made in the likeness of other tabernacles in the desert. 2.101.2–9 Though Philo’s first explanation of why the altar had horns is based on Deut. 14:4–5, here, too, we should emphasize his originality. He regards the horns as the main distinguishing feature of the 10 eatable animals107 (in Deut. 14:6, that feature is the divided hoof), and thereby the altar’s horns become a reminder of the rule that only horned animals may be eaten. The other two explanations are also quite original: the four horns were directed toward the four sides of the world and thus invited everyone from everywhere to sacrifice on that altar; and, finally, the horns of the altar, as those of the animals, grew directly from it and were a defensive means against enemies (unrighteous sacrificers), goring and opening their sinful souls. In Jewish tradition, the four horns are discussed, for instance, in Tanhuma Terumah 10, according to which those symbols were to atone for the sins of the people who on Mount Sinai had received “the horn of the Torah,” “the horn of the Shekhinah,” “the horn of the Priesthood,” and “the horn of the Kingdom.”

Notes 1. Exod. 12:2. See the Gk. fragments in Marcus, 2.238 (see query at 2.45.1 for format). 2. Gk. kata synōnymian. 3. Philo means that usually (and not in this specific case) “first” is said to indicate either order or power. Marcus (2.2) inaccurately translates the expression “both in order and in power.” It is in the next sentence that Philo speaks about the given case, stating that both order and power are meant.

Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus 877

downturned horns face toward the four sides of the world: toward the east, toward the west, toward the south, and toward the Plough.81 6For it is appropriate that those who are in all the sides [of the world] should bring altogether the firstlings and firstfruits to this one altar and offer sacrifices to God, the Father of the world. 7Third, in a symbolic sense, [this is so] because the horns are outgrowths, which [God] gave instead of repelling weapons to the animals that grow horns (such as the sacrificial ones: the ram, the ox, and the goat), [so that] they repel enemies with their horns. 8In this way he wished to reproach the impious who dare offer sacrifices, instructing that when enemies of truth counteract, the Divine Logos repels them, tearing as if with horns every soul and revealing their wicked and unworthy deeds, which a little before it [the soul]had hidden. 9For these reasons, the horns are not to be put [on the altar] from outside, but [God] commanded that they should be of one piece with the altar, to project [from it], because the sacrificial animals, too, have the outgrowths of the horns from themselves.

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33.

Literally, “in a living being.” “Head.” The vernal equinox. The Arm. is obscure here. Literally, “each nation.” Or “the sheaves of the firstfruits.” Priests. Cf. Lev. 23:10–11. Marcus (2.4 n. c): “i.e., of barley.” Literally, “exit” (Arm. translation of Gk. exodos). Arm. translation of Gk. politeuō; that is, God gave the “great city” (the world) to humans in order that they should be responsible citizens thereof. Arm. translation of Gk. oikonomia, which here may mean either “regulation” or “divine order.” Spring. Or “the [human] race.” Literally, “at the voice of the man.” Philo means Moses. Cf. Exod. 12:3, 6. Cf. Exod. 30:19–21. Arm. translation probably reflects Gk. kosmos, which can also be translated “universe” or “ornament.” The whole sentence is very obscure. Marcus suggests a free interpretation (2.8 and nn. b–g), which, however, is equally difficult to understand: “For when souls appear bright and visible, their visions begin to hold festival, hoping for a life without sorrow or fear as their lot and seeing the cosmos with the weight of the understanding as full and perfect, in harmony with the decad.” Gk. pathos. Cf. Exod. 12:5. Arm. nokhazk’n (billy goats), an unfitting word for “yearlings.” Cf. Exod. 12:6. Arm. translation probably reflects Gk. helkō. It is not quite understandable what Philo means; perhaps he wishes to say that God is always so vigilant that, in accordance with various circumstances, he addresses the people by suitable names. Cf. Exod. 12:7. Cf. 1.10.8. Cf. Marcus, 2.21 and note h: Gk. tois theōrētikois or horatikois, denoting Israel, “the one who sees God.” Our translation is literal. Philo clearly means that since the heart (lintel), desire (house), and reason (doorposts) move toward virtues, the blood akin to (and put on) them should be their companion. Cf. Exod. 24:1.

878 Aram Topchyan and Gohar Muradyan

34. 35. 36. 37.

38.

39.

40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.

53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64.

65.

66.

Cf. Exod. 24:2. Cf. Exod. 24:4. Cf. Exod. 24:5. Meaning of Arm. unclear. Perhaps Philo means that old men are like children. Or perhaps he is implying that they made the “practical” (bloody) sacrifice in youth, and now are brought a second time (as a “new” firstfruits) to perform the contemplative sacrifice. Marcus (2.71) translates “the all-wise and God-beloved soul,” which is inaccurate, because in the Arm. text the two adjectives are used substantively in the genitive case (amenimastin ew astuatsasirin: “of an all-wise and God-loving [man]”) and should not be rendered as the attributes of “soul.” Arm. probably reflects Gk. theophilēs, which means both “loved by God” and “loving God.” We have preferred the second meaning. So read the LXX (kratēras) and the Armenian Bible (khaŕnelisn, a neologism literally rendering Gk. kratēr: “mixing vessel”). The Armenian translator of Philo uses another word that is derived from the verb khaŕnem (to mix): khaŕnots’. The Hebrew Bible reads “basins” (cf. next section). Cf. Exod. 24:6. Cf. Exod. 24:7. Between the speaker and the audience. We suppose that Philo means God and Moses. Marcus (2.76) gives no comment on their identity. God, unseen and unheard by others, speaks with Moses. Marcus (2.76) translates “pupil” in the plural (“disciples”), but the Arm. word is in the singular and, apparently, refers to Moses. Cf. Exod. 24:12. Literally, “writing.” Cf. Exod. 24:12. Cf. Spec. Laws 3.207. Marcus (2.84) renders “in the highest sense of the term.” Marcus (2.85) translates Arm. kerparan (probably, the Gk. word was either idea or morphē) as “likeness”: “for the chosen race is a likeness of the world, and its Law (is a likeness of the laws) of the world.” Arm. translation of doxa in the LXX; the Hebrew Bible reads “Presence” (Shekhinah). Exod. 24:16. See the Gk. fragments in Marcus, 2.250–51. As with some other etymologies of Philo, this one, too, is difficult to understand. Marcus (2.90 n. g) supposes that it “is based upon a fanciful connexion between Sinai and Heb. senêh (the ‘burning bush’ of Exod. 3:2), which is translated batos in the LXX” (Gk.for “inaccessible” is abatos). Then he refers to a play on the words batos and abatos in Philo’s Flight. Cf. Exod. 24:16. See the Gk. fragment in Marcus, 2.251. Arm. translation of Gk. isos; literally, “equal.” A group of six or relating to six. Literally, “put in order.” Cf. QG 1.6.5 and 2.11.8. A group of seven or relating to seven. The Pythagoreans called the number 7 “ever-virgin,” because it is neither factor nor multiple of any number up to 10 (cf. LSJ s.v. aeiparthenos 2). Once again, Philo speaks about the “formed man” and the “man in the image of God” (cf. QG 1.4 and the comments there). Cf. Exod: 25:8. This is not included in the Hebrew Bible. Cf. Exod. 25:9. Arm. amenayn zgalwoy nmanut’iun; Marcus (2.99) translates inaccurately: “every sense-perceptible likeness” (zgalwoy is a substantivized adjective in the genitive case meaning “of a sensible thing” and should not be rendered as the attribute of “likeness”). Philo here means the appearance of God to Moses. Marcus (2.100) renders “not to deprive the race of mortals of an incorruptible vision and not to spread abroad and publish to the multitude these divine and holy essences.” This translation seems to be incorrect, because, first, the usual meaning of Arm. eresk’ (here probably reflecting Gk. prosōpon or opsis) is “face” or “countenance,” not “vision,” and, second, the word “essence” (Arm. ēut’iun, reflecting Gk. ousia) is in the singular, not plural as in Marcus’s rendering. The grammatical structure of the passage is unclear; we have changed Aucher’s punctuation, putting a pe-

Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus 879

67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89.

90. 91.

92.

93. 94. 95.

riod after “[as] corporeal” and starting a new sentence with “that which he created.” Otherwise the translation would be, “the external, [as] corporeal, which he created [as] unputrefying and incorruptible,” contradicting one of Philo’s main doctrines, namely, that the corporeal things are corruptible. Marcus (2.102) does not avoid that contradiction (cf. his translation: “The one who created them made the incorporeal inner [species] and the corporeal outer [species] undecaying and corruptible”). Besides, he changed the syntax of the passage and incorrectly understood or (that which) as the subject (the one who), not the direct object, of the sentence. Cf. Exod. 25:18. The whole of this comment survives in Gk.; see Marcus, 2.253–54. Cf. Exod. 25:20. The whole of this comment, with slight differences, survives in Gk.; see Marcus, 2.255. Cf. Exod. 25:22. The whole of this comment, with slight differences, survives in Gk.; see Marcus, 2.255–56. We have corrected the defective Arm. (omitting “and the kingly” = Gk. kai basilikēs) on the basis of the Gk. fragment. “Observe” is omitted in the Gk. fragment. This is based on the Gk. fragment (syngeneian echousai mallon pros ton dēmiourgon ē to gegonos); the Arm. text here is corrupt. Cf. Exod. 25:37. The Armenian translator of Philo rendered in this way the ek tou henos prosōpou (literally, “from one face”) of the LXX. Cf. Exod. 25:37–38. Cf. Exod. 25:40. Hora in the LXX and “note well” in the Hebrew Bible: omitted in Philo’s citation of Exod. 25:40 in the question. Cf. Exod. 26:1. Philo probably means that the same Tabernacle was for both God and the mortals. Cf. Exod. 27:2. Cf. Deut. 14:4–5. That is, toward the north. See note on translation of QG 3.48.9. See also Legends, 1:534, 536n202 for more references. A similar discussion is also found in Philo’s Moses 2.222–24. Especially the name of the eminent Greek astronomer and mathematician Hipparchos (died after 127 bce) is connected with the study of equinoxes (his discovery of the “precession of the equinoxes” is famous). Cf. Legends, 1:535, 536n206 for more references. For references to studies on Philo’s misogyny, see note on translation of QG 1.33.3. Cf. Legends, 1:610–11, 612nn238–39. Cf. Legends, 1:598, 599n193. In Creation 13, also speaking about odd and even numbers, Philo adds that the odd numbers are male and the even numbers are female; cf. QE 1.8.4, where Philo states that the male gender is active and the female gender is passive. The two portions of the sacrificial blood, a bit differently, are also discussed in Heir 182–85. Cf. Legends, 1:598, 599n195. For different answers to that question, see, for instance, Midr. Tan. 56 and Mek. d’Rashbi, Bahodesh 6:65b. The opinion that Moses read the whole Torah is seen in 1 Macc. 1:57, where the Torah is mentioned as “the book of the covenant.” Cf. Legends, 1:598, 599n195. See, e.g., Shir 5:14. Lekah Tov on Exod. 31:18 adds that the sapphire used for the tablets was taken from the Throne of Glory. According to M. Avot 5:6, God himself had made those tablets at the end of the creation, in the twilight of the eve of Shabbat; cf. Legends, 1:618, 619n258. We have taken this information from Legends, 1:602n206, where it is written, without a specific reference, that the Tanna’s view, alongside other related passages, is “quoted by Theodor.” Such as Gen. Rab. 38:9, Mek. d’Rashbi, Bahodesh 6:64a, Avot R. Nat. 24:102; cf. Legends, 2:824n919 for other references. For instance, in Gen. Rab. 99:1, Tehillim 68:318, Pesik. Rab. 15:78a, and Mek. d’Rashbi, Bahodesh 5:66b. Also, Rabbis have explained the name “Sinai” (one of the five or six names given to the mountain) differently, connecting it with “hatred.” In Exod. Rab. 2:4 we read that it was called “Sinai” because at the time when God gave the Torah to the Israelites on Sinai, his “hatred” (sin’ah) came upon the idolaters, but, accord-

880 Aram Topchyan and Gohar Muradyan

ing to 51:8 because God showed that he loves humans and “hates” (sane) the angels; though the latter also desired to have the Torah, he gave it to mankind. See also Legends, 1:500, 501n113. 96. Cf. Legends, 1:613, 615n246. 97. Cf. Legends, 1:639, n320. 98. Cf. Legends, 1:638–39, n318. 99. Cf. Legends, 1:643, 644n330. 100. For Philo’s conception of the cherubim, see F. Strickert, “Philo on the Cherubim,” Studia Philonica 8 (1996): 40–57. 101. In Cherubim 25, however, Philo himself speaks of the cherubim as symbols of the two hemispheres, because the former face each other and incline toward the mercy seat (cf. the comment on QE 2.66.2–5), just as the latter are opposite each other and incline toward the earth, the center of the universe. 102. Ginzberg (Legends, 1:644n333) writes that there are many points of resemblance between Philo (the present section and Moses 2.97–100) and the Midrashim, but he does not specify those points. Perhaps a partial parallel may be drawn with Tadshe 2. 103. Edmund Stein, Die allegorische Exegese des Philo aus Alexandreia, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 51 (Giessen: Töpelmann, 1929), 52. 104. For other interpretations of “they shall confront each other” in Jewish sources, see Legends, 1:644, n335. 105. Cf. Legends, 1:643–44, n334. 106. Cf. Legends, 1:640n321. 107. Philo lists the 10 four-legged animals that are allowed to be eaten in Spec. Laws 4.105 as well, but without mentioning their horns.

Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus 881

On the Creation of the World David T. Runia On the Creation of the World (De opificio mundi) is Philo’s best-known work and stands at the beginning of all editions and translations of his writings. It is the opening work of the series Exposition of the Law. In it, Philo gives a selective exegesis of the first three chapters of Genesis up to the expulsion from paradise. He argues that before we are ready to understand the Law as it applies to human beings, we must first have an understanding of the Law in its cosmic context, since there is a direct correlation between the Law of God for humanity and the law of nature for the cosmos as the totality of the physical world (Creation 3). This correlation goes right back to the way in which the cosmos was created. The cosmos was first conceived as a plan in the divine Logos, Philo’s term for God’s thinking in relation to the world (§16). God’s plan unfolds in the works of the six days of Creation, which are not to be taken literally, but rather as indicating the cosmos’s order and structure (§13). Because humanity is created “after the image of God,” that is, in relation to his Logos (§25), human beings possess the faculty of reason (§69) and can understand the rationale behind the Law. The influence of the passions, and especially of desire, has caused human beings to turn away from God (§152). Understanding of the main lessons taught by Moses in the Creation account will allow them to achieve “a blessed life of well-being, marked as he is by the doctrines of piety and holiness” (§172, final words of the treatise). In giving its exegesis of the Mosaic Creation account, the treatise touches on many important theological, cosmological, and anthropological themes. The chief of these is the theme of God’s sovereign power. Only God can create the universe (§23), using his incomparable power (§21). Unlike the Bible, however, Philo does give a reason why God created the cosmos. He did so because he was good (§21), the same reason that Plato gave in his cosmological dialogue, the Timaeus (29e). The cosmos, as created through the divine Logos, is an ordered reality. The six days of the Creation account symbolically tell us much about that order (§13). Order is expressed in numbers, which are heavily emphasized in Philo’s exegesis (§§13, 15). Philo’s doctrine of human nature is basically dualistic, contrasting body and mind (or spirit). The human intellect can range far and even tries to gain a vision of God (§71). But human beings living on earth consist of body and soul, infused by the divine spirit (§135). Because God created the cosmos and humanity, God’s providence takes care of both, like a parent looking after children (§§5, 171). This is the final of the five lessons with which Philo ends the treatise (§§170–72). For more on Philo, see the essay “The Writings of Philo,” elsewhere in these volumes. Significance Philo’s treatise is the first example of a new genre of biblical exegesis, the hexaemeral literature, that is, works explaining the six days of Creation. This genre continued to be writ-

882

ten until the Middle Ages. Philo’s exegetical themes found their way into Christian writings, for example, in those of the church fathers Origen, Ambrose, and Augustine. Even in the 17th century, Sir Isaac Newton was an avid reader of Philo’s writings. They were not, however, used by later Jewish interpreters. Because the center of Jewish exegetical activity after Philo shifted to Palestine and Babylonia, where the Rabbis (who wrote in Hebrew and Aramaic and not in Greek) were less interested in philosophical exegesis, and because Christians preserved and used Philo’s writings, his hexaemeral (and other) writings had more influence on Christians than on Jews. Guide to Reading Philo’s treatise is a commentary on the Creation account in Gen. 1–3, which he regards as the work of the prophet and lawgiver Moses. But it is not a running commentary on every word of the text. Instead Philo starts with an introductory section (§§1–12), followed by “chapters” that cite small sections of the text, but generally assume the reader’s familiarity with the biblical text as a whole. When reading, therefore, it is important at all times to bear in mind the biblical text on which Philo is commenting. Suggested Reading Runia, David T. Philo of Alexandria: On the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses. Philo of Alexandria Commentary Series 1. Leiden: Brill, 2002; Atlanta: SBL, 2005.

Translation 1–35 Introduction

1If you consider the other lawgivers, you will find that some drew up the regulations that they regarded as just in an unadorned and naked fashion, while others enclothed their thoughts with a mass of

Commentary Title The treatise is usually referred to by a Latin title used from the 16th century onward, De opificio mundi (On the manufacture of the world). The ancient Greek title is more complete (On the creation of the cosmos according to Moses), specifically drawing attention to the authorship of Moses. It is important to recognize that Philo regards Moses as the author of the Creation account in Gen. 1–3. 1. the other lawgivers Philo begins the treatise with an apologetic theme. Moses, the lawgiver of the Jews, is superior to other lawgivers. No doubt he has especially Greek lawgivers in mind. Early statesmen and philosophers who are recorded as lawgivers are Lycurgus (Sparta), Solon (AthSource of Translation: The translation is my own. For a complete translation and a more extensive introduction and commentary, see Runia, Philo of Alexandria: On the Creation of the Cosmos (cited above). For biblical texts I follow the New English Translation of the Septuagint (2007).

On the Creation of the World

883

verbiage and so deceived the masses by concealing the truth with mythical fictions. 2Moses surpassed both groups, regarding the former as lacking reflection, indolent and unphilosophical, the latter as mendacious and full of trickery. Instead he made a splendid and awe-inspiring start to his laws. He did not immediately state what should be done and what not, nor did he, since it was necessary to form in advance the minds of those who were to make use of the laws, invent myths or express approval of those composed by others. 3The beginning is, as I just said, quite marvelous. It contains an account of the making of the cosmos, the reasoning for this being that the cosmos is in harmony with the law and the law with the cosmos, and the man who observes the law is at once a citizen of the cosmos, directing his actions in relation to the rational purpose of nature, in accordance with which the entire cosmos also is administered. 4In celebrating the beauty of the thoughts contained in this creation account, no one, whether writing poetry or prose, can do them true justice. They transcend both speech and hearing, for they are greater and more august than what can be adapted to the instruments of a mortal being. 5This does not mean, however, that we must keep our peace. No, on behalf of the God-beloved (author) we must dare to speak, even if this goes beyond our ability, presenting nothing from our own supply and statens), Pythagoras (Croton), and Parmenides (Elea). Later philosophers wrote treatises containing idealized constitutions. Famous examples are Plato’s Republic and Laws and the Republic of Zeno, founder of the Stoic school. Philo probably has Plato’s Laws in mind when he thinks of works with a “mass of verbiage.” 2. Moses surpassed both groups In Philo’s On the Life of Moses, he presents Moses as king, lawgiver, priest, and prophet. Moses’s role as lawgiver is consistent with Greek ideas about the founder of a community. The same emphasis is found in Philo’s predecessor Aristobulus (frag. 2–4) and Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.154–286. nor did he . . . invent myths Philo frequently denounces the falsehood of humanly fabricated myths, such as those of Greeks or Egyptians, because they inevitably involved an erroneous theology. In this he followed not only the critiques of idolatry in the Bible, but also the lead of Plato, who in his Republic strongly criticizes the poets for blasphemous stories about the gods and forbids them from being told in his ideal state; see Rep. 377b–383c. 3. The beginning is . . . quite marvelous Philo has to explain why the Pentateuch, called the Law (Nomos) in Greek, starts with an account of Creation and of the early history of the human race and the Jewish people. the cosmos is in harmony with the law Philo here presumes the Stoic theory of natural law. Cosmic law is identified with the rational logos, or divine principle that pervades the cosmos, and is responsible for its order and structure.1 There is thus in Philo’s view a direct connection between the cosmos’s structure and role of law in human life. If you obey the law, you can live an ordered life, in which you will feel at home in the universe as a whole. You can thus become a kosmopolitēs, a “citizen of the world.” 5. we must dare to speak In the second part of his introduction, Philo touches on the method he will use. He is no more than an interpreter of Scripture who merely tries to explain the wealth of thought in his text without imposing any of his own ideas on it. But, we are obliged to say, this is a delusion, because the commentator always brings his own ideas to the text. For example, Philo’s reading of the Genesis account is heavily influenced by his own reading of Greek philosophical works, such as Plato’s Timaeus.

884 David T. Runia

ing only a few things instead of many, namely those to which the human mind can reasonably attain when it is possessed by a love and desire for wisdom. 6For just as even the tiniest seal when it has been engraved is able to contain the representations of things with colossal dimensions, so it may be that the overwhelming beauties of the making of the cosmos as they have been written in the laws, even if they bedazzle the souls of the readers with their brightness, can be elucidated with delineations on a smaller scale. But first a preliminary remark needs to be made, which should not be passed over in silence. A Preliminary Comment on God and the Cosmos

7There are some people who, having more admiration for the cosmos than for its maker, declared the former both ungenerated and eternal, while falsely and impurely attributing to God much idleness. What they should have done was the opposite, namely be astounded at God’s powers as Maker and Father, and not show more reverence for the cosmos than is its due. 8Moses, however, had not only reached the very summit of philosophy, but had also been instructed in the many and most essential doctrines of nature by means of oracles. He recognized that it is absolutely necessary that among existing things there is an activating cause on the one hand and a passive object on the other, and that the activating cause is the absolutely pure and unadulterated intellect a love and desire for wisdom Indirectly Philo is speaking about himself here. He feels this love and desire himself, and it spurs him on. But “wisdom” is ambiguous here. It could refer to the wisdom sought by philosophers such as Plato in his dialogues, or it could refer to the hidden depth of Scripture. Moses is initiated in both, as we shall read in Creation 8. Philo is convinced that both ultimately reach the same goal, knowledge of God. See further the passionate description of the ascent of the intellect in §§69–71. 6. the tiniest seal Philo compares the wonderful contents of the Creation account with his own feeble efforts as commentator. In both cases there is a vast reduction of scale. a preliminary remark This announces the following section (§§7–12), which lays a philosophical foundation for the rest of the commentary. 7. There are some people Philo first presents how one should not think about the relationship between God the creator and the cosmos as created reality. The chief Greek philosopher who defends the eternity of the cosmos is Aristotle. Philo probably does not have him in view, but rather a particular religious mentality that he associates with the Chaldeans.2 Their mistake is to give too much honor to the cosmos, even thinking it to be a god, and not enough to God himself. Maker and Father These terms are used by Plato to describe the so-called Demiurge, the creator figure in his cosmological account in the Timaeus (28c3). Of course they also have a biblical background, although the metaphor of God as Father is less common in the Hebrew Bible and Septuagint than in the New Testament. 8. the very summit of philosophy . . . oracles Philo here summarizes the two main sources of Moses’s supreme knowledge. “Philosophy” represents the peak of human attainment. The instruction by means of “oracles” indicates the knowledge he reveals in his writings also had a divine source. it is absolutely necessary At first glance this statement might seem dualistic, as if there are two principles in reality, God and matter. But it must be noted that only God is presented here as a cause. In fact there is only one principle. intellect Philo takes over the Greek philosophical view of God as nous, who creates through the use of his rational powers, identified below in §20 as his logos. See also §69.

On the Creation of the World

885

of the universe, superior to excellence and superior to knowledge and even superior to the good and the beautiful itself. 9But the passive object, which of itself was without soul and unmoved, when set in motion and shaped and ensouled by the intellect, changed into the most perfect piece of work, this cosmos. Those who declare that it is ungenerated are unaware that they are eliminating the most useful and indispensable of the contributions to piety, the (doctrine of) providence. 10Reason demands that the Father and Maker exercise care for that which has come into being. After all, both a father aims at the safety of his children and a craftsman aims at the preservation of what has been constructed, using every means at their disposal to repel all that is injurious and harmful, while desiring to provide in every way that which is advantageous and profitable. But there is no affinity between that which did not come into being and the one who did not make it. 11It is a worthless and unhelpful doctrine, bringing about a power vacuum in this cosmos, just like (what happens) in a city, because it does not then have a ruler or magistrate or judge, by whom everything is lawfully administered and regulated. even superior to the good For Plato, the Good was the supreme principle (Resp. 509b). For Philo, God is superior. This change gives rise to the question of the relationship between God and the Platonic ideas, to be answered in Creation 16. 9. when set in motion We note that Philo does not tell us where the material basis for the cosmos came from. It is doubtful that he held the doctrine of “creation from nothing,” which later became standard in both Jewish and Christian thought. But this question remains controversial among scholars.3 providence The doctrine of providence is extremely important for Philo, who even devoted two whole treatises to the subject, preserved only in an Armenian translation (with some Greek fragments). See the Loeb Classical Library Philo.4 The doctrine of providence is the obverse of the doctrine of creation. Once the world has been created, it needs to continue its existence, which can happen only if God takes care of it. See also §171, where Philo writes: “that the maker always takes care of what has come into existence is a necessity by the laws and ordinances of nature, in accordance with which parents too take care of their children”, i.e. providence is built into the very structure of created reality and the care that parents lavish on their children is a case where human beings imitate God the creator. 10. Reason demands The argument here uses an analogy from our own experience. Parents produce children, and craftsmen produce works of art. In both cases they look after what they have made. God does the same. But God would not do so if he had not been the world’s Maker. This is why Philo’s opponents eliminate the doctrine of providence. But Philo’s opponents deny that the world has a creator, and so necessarily eliminate the doctrine that God the creator takes care of His creation. 11. a worthless and unhelpful doctrine The denial that the world is created and is cared for by the God who created it. in a city Philo will return to this metaphor below in §18. The term “power vacuum” translates anarchia, literally, “a situation without rule or authority [archē].” As a member of the ruling elite, Philo is afraid of the disorder that can occur when social pressures build up and events spin out of control. This happened in the notorious pogrom against the Jews in Alexandria in 38 ce. (See the essay “The Writings of Philo,” elsewhere in these volumes.)

886

David T. Runia

12But the great Moses considered that what is ungenerated was of a totally different order from that which was visible, for the entire sense-perceptible realm is in a process of becoming and change and never remains in the same state. So to what is invisible and intelligible he assigned eternity as being akin and related to it, whereas on what is sense-perceptible he ascribed the appropriate name “becoming” (genesis). Since, therefore, this cosmos is both visible and sense-perceptible, it must necessarily also be generated. Hence he was not off the mark in also giving a description of its becoming, thereby speaking about God in a truly reverent manner. The Scheme of Six Days

13He says that the cosmos was fashioned in six days, not because the maker was in need of a length of time—for God surely did everything at the same time, not only in giving commands but also in his thinking—but because things that come into existence required order. Number is inherent in order, and by the laws of nature the most generative of numbers is the six. 12. the great Moses It is typical of Philo’s method that he attributes these philosophical ideas to Moses. They are derived, however, from Greek philosophy. In this case he paraphrases a statement that Plato makes in Tim. 27d–28a. what is ungenerated In Plato the contrast is between the realm of being—that is, intelligible entities that have an absolute existence and can be perceived only by the intellect—and becoming—that is, the realm of physical or sense-perceptible entities. Philo subtly changes this to the contrast between God and the physical world of created reality. God is eternal and not created by any superior being; the cosmos comes into being through the act of creation carried out by God. the appropriate name “becoming” A clear reference to the title of the first book of Moses in the Septuagint, Genesis. In contrast to the Hebrew Bible—in which each of the Five Books of Moses receives its name from one of the opening words, the Septuagint follows Greek practice and gives its books thematic names. It suits Philo’s program of philosophical exegesis extremely well that the title of the first book is actually a key philosophical concept. Genesis means “becoming,” the kind of existence that Plato and other philosophers attribute to the world of physical reality. 13. in six days No commentator can avoid the question of what Moses meant by his seven-day scheme of Creation, a unique feature of the biblical Creation account. It is not surprising that Philo does not take the days at face value, for a literal interpretation gives rise to many questions from a logical point of view, e.g., how can there be days before there are heavenly bodies to indicate them. Similarly, in Greek philosophy there had been numerous discussions about whether Plato in his account of the creation of the world in the Timaeus meant it to be taken literally or not. Number is inherent in order Throughout his works Philo shows a great interest in arithmology, that is, the science of numbers. He generally interprets numbers symbolically as representing key features of the reality they describe. Much of his number lore is taken from Greek sources. six Since no creation takes place on the seventh day, six is the number of creation. Philo sees a connection between two features of the number six and the created cosmos: the process of generation and its state of perfection.

On the Creation of the World

887

Of the numbers (proceeding) from the unit, six is the first perfect number. It is equal to [the product of] its parts and is also formed by their sum, namely the three as its half and the two as its third and the unit as its sixth. It is also, so to speak, both male and female by nature, forming a harmonic union out of the product of each of them, for among existing things the odd is male and the female is even. The first of the odd numbers is the three, of the even numbers it is the two, and the product of both is the six. 14So it was right that the cosmos, as the most perfect of the things that have come into existence, be built in accordance with the perfect number six, and, because births resulting from coupling would take place in it, also be formed in relation to a mixed number, the first even-odd number which contains both the form of the male who sows the seed and the form of the female who receives it. 15To each of the days he assigned some of the parts of the universe, making an exception for the first, which he himself does not actually call first, in case it be counted together with the others. Instead he gives it the accurate name “one,” because he perceived the nature and the appellation of the unit in it, and so gave it that title. Day One: Creation of the Intelligible Cosmos

We must now state as many as we can of the things that are contained in it, since it is impossible to state them all. It contains as pre-eminent item the intelligible cosmos, as the account concerning it [day one] reveals. 16For God, because he is God, understood in advance that a beautiful copy would not come

odd . . . and . . . even The association of odd with male and even with female goes back to Pythagorean thought; see Aristotle, Metaph. A 5, 986a25. According to Plutarch, one of the reasons is anatomical (see Mor. 288D). 14. as the most perfect The Greek adjective teleios means both perfect and complete. Just like the number six, the cosmos consists of the totality of its parts (6 = 3 + 2 + 1) and also the product of its parts (6 = 3 x 2 x 1). 15. making an exception for the first Philo here introduces his remarkable exegesis of “day one” of creation. As we shall see in Creation 16, on this day not the physical world, but its blueprint, the intelligible cosmos (see the comment below), is created. he gives it the accurate name “one” Philo has noted that in Gen. 1:5 the text reads literally hēmera mia, “day one”; that is, the cardinal and not the ordinal number is used. This is in fact a Hebraism, but Philo uses it to his philosophical advantage, taking it as evidence for the separate status of what is created on that day. 15. the intelligible cosmos By the time of Philo, Platonism had developed the doctrine of two worlds: the intelligible world and the sense-perceptible world. The former was nonphysical and nontemporal, perceived only by the intellect. It formed the model or plan for the physical world, which was always in a state of becoming or change. The basic idea for the doctrine came from Plato’s Timaeus, where the creating deity, called the Demiurge (literally, craftsman), contemplates a model before ordering the chaotic situation that he confronts (see Tim. 29e–31a). Plato himself does not use the term “intelligible cosmos.” Philo’s On the Creation of the World is the earliest text in which it is found, but there is no need to conclude that Philo invented it. He would have taken it over from contemporary Platonist writings. The intelligible cosmos forms a much tighter unity than the physical world, because there is no dislocation in space. For this reason it is symbolized by the number one or the monad.5

888

David T. Runia

into existence apart from a beautiful model, and that none of the objects of sense-perception would be without fault, unless it was modelled on the archetypal and intelligible idea. Therefore, when he had decided to construct this visible cosmos, he first marked out the intelligible cosmos, so that he could use it as an incorporeal and most god-like paradigm and so produce the corporeal cosmos, a younger likeness of an older model, which would contain as many sense-perceptible kinds as there were intelligible kinds in that other one. 17To state or think that the cosmos composed of the ideas exists in some place is not permissible. How it has been constituted we will understand if we pay careful attention to an image drawn from our own world. When a city is founded, in accordance with the high ambition of a king or a ruler who has laid claim to supreme power and, outstanding in his conception, adds further adornment to his good fortune, it may happen that a trained architect comes forward. Having observed both the favorable 16. a beautiful copy . . . a beautiful model The language of Platonism. See the previous comment. The term “model” is paradeigma, from which our word paradigm is derived. he first marked out the intelligible cosmos Is there anything in the biblical text to justify Philo’s extremely bold interpretation of a separate creation of a different kind of cosmos on “day one”? In his defense we might point out that the heaven is not formed until the second day and the earth until the third day. So there is a kind of “doubling up” in the creation account that needs to be explained (i.e., the heaven and the earth are mentioned as being created both on the first and on subsequent days). 17. in some place Philo has to explain that this other world is not physical. to an image drawn from our own world This remarkable extended image gives a splendid picture of Hellenistic civic life. There are good reasons for thinking that Philo has the foundation of his own city, Alexandria, in mind. See my article, “Polis and Megalopolis: Philo and the Founding of Alexandria,” Mnemosyne 42 (1989), 398–412. a king or a ruler . . . a trained architect Two traditions had arisen about the founding of Alexandria. In the first, Alexander himself takes the initiative, laying out the outline of the city with flour; see the account in Arrian, Anab. 3.1–2. In the second, he makes use of the services of a trained architect, Dinocrates of Rhodes; see Vitruvius, Book 2, preface. Philo follows the second tradition. Note that in the image there are three roles—the king who supplies the opportunity, the architect who does the planning, and the builder who executes the project—and only two separate persons. This may be theologically significant, suggesting that the distinction between God and his logos is only conceptual. Cf. the text in Gen. Rab. 1.1 on the same text in Gen. 1:1: “In the way of the world, a human king who builds a palace does not build it on his own but with the advice of an architect and the architect does not build it from his mind but rather has plans and diagrams to how to build rooms and entrances. So too the Holy One, blessed by He, looked into the Torah and created the world.” Here too there is a separation of roles, but it would be wrong to say that a plurality of creators was involved. Significantly, the plan of creation is here identified with the Torah and not a philosophical concept such the intelligible cosmos. This text is attributed to Rabbi Hoshai’a of Caesarea. It may be assumed that he is quietly correcting Philo’s image, so we have here one of the rare occasions in which a Rabbi made use of Philo’s writings. Hoshai’a was a friend of the church father Origen and it is likely that he gained knowledge of Philo’s treatise through his mediation. See further D. T. Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature: a Survey (Minneapolis: Assen, 1993) 14.

On the Creation of the World

889

climate and location of the site, he first designs within himself a plan of virtually all the parts of the city that is to be completed—temples, gymnasia, public offices, market-places, harbors, shipyards, streets, constructions of walls, the establishment of other buildings both private and public. 18Then, taking up the imprints of each object in his own soul like in wax, he carries around the intelligible city as an image in his head. Summoning up the representations by means of his innate power of memory and engraving their features even more distinctly (on his mind), he begins, as a good builder, to construct the city out of stones and timber, looking at the model and ensuring that the corporeal objects correspond to each of the incorporeal ideas. 19The conception we have concerning God must be similar to this, namely that when he had decided to found the great cosmic city, he first conceived its outlines. Out of these he composed the intelligible cosmos, which served him as a model when he completed the sense-perceptible cosmos as well. 20Just as the city that was marked out beforehand in the architect had no location outside, but had been engraved in the soul of the craftsman, in the same way the cosmos composed of the ideas would have no other place than the divine Logos who gives these [ideas] their ordered disposition. After all, what other place would there be for his Powers, sufficient to receive and contain, I do not speak about all of them, but just any single one in its unmixed state? favorable climate and location Alexandria was famed for its advantageous location on the edge of the Eastern Mediterranean. 18. the intelligible city as an image The plan in the architect’s head corresponds to the intelligible cosmos that God uses as the plan for Creation. 19. The conception we have concerning God Here we get the application of the image to the Genesis Creation account. In Plato, the world of transcendent ideas is separate from the creating deity. Philo changes this, so that the plan of Creation is formed in the mind of God. This change reflects developments in Platonist doctrine, in which the ideas become the objects of divine thought. Philo, however, is more radical, because he makes them the contents of “day one” of Creation; that is, they are actually created by God. 20. the city . . . had no location This answers the question in Creation 16. The creation of “day one” has no physical location, but is located metaphysically in God. no other place than the divine Logos This is the first mention of the figure of the Logos in the treatise. The doctrine of the Logos is one of the most famous in Philo’s thought, particularly because of its significance for understanding the genesis of Christian doctrine. In general the term covers that aspect of God that is directed toward creation, whether conceptually, as here in the creation of the intelligible cosmos as “blueprint” for Creation, or as active agent in the ordering of the physical world and its administration. In this context the Logos’s role can be described as that of God’s reason (we recall that in §8 God was described as intellect; cf. also §69 below). But the term logos is interesting because it retains the link to speech (hence the common translation of John 1:1 as “In the beginning was the Word”) and by implication to the formula “And God said” that is so common in the Creation account. his Powers Philo also has a doctrine of the divine Powers, which he associates with the names of God. The name God (theos) indicates God’s creative Power, the name Lord (kyrios) his ruling Power. These powers are linked with the divine qualities of beneficence and punishment (e.g. at Spec. Laws 1.307). This association also calls to mind the Rabbinic concept of the divine middot, or attributes, of mercy and justice, which the Rabbis associate with God’s names. Interest-

890

David T. Runia

21Among these is also his cosmos-producing power, which has as its source that which is truly good. For if anyone should wish to examine the reason why this universe was constructed, I think he would not miss the mark if he affirmed, what one of the ancients also said, that the Father and Maker was good. For this reason he did not begrudge a share of his own excellent nature to a material which did not possess any beauty of its own but was able to become all things. 22Of itself it was unordered, devoid of quality, lacking life, dissimilar, full of inconsistency and maladjustment and disharmony; but it received a turning and change to the opposite and most excellent state, order, quality, ensoulment, similarity, homogeneity, sound adjustment, harmony, indeed all the characteristics possessed by the superior idea. 23With no one to assist him—indeed who else was there?—but relying solely on his own resources, God recognized that he had to confer the unstinting riches of his beneficence on the nature which of itself without divine grace could not sustain any good whatsoever. But he does not confer his blessings in proportion to the size of his own powers of beneficence—for these are indeed without limit and infinitely great—but rather in proportion to the capacities of those who receive them. The fact is that what comes into existence is unable to accommodate those benefits to the extent that God is able to confer them, since God’s powers are overwhelming, whereas the recipient is too weak to sustain the size of them and would collapse, were it not that he measured them accordingly, dispensing with fine tuning to each thing its allotted portion. 24If you would wish to use a formulation that has been stripped down to essentials, you might say that the intelligible cosmos is nothing else than the Logos of God as he is actually engaged in making

ingly, however, the Rabbinic association of God’s qualities with the two names is the reverse of Philo’s association; see e.g., Gen. R. 33.3. In actual fact Philo is convinced that God does not have a proper name. The best way of speaking about him is to say ho ōn, “he that is,” in conformity with his self-revelation at Exod. 3:14. 21. the reason why this universe was constructed Not a question that Scripture asks, but the philosophical exegete feels a need to ask it. one of the ancients also said Philo paraphrases a famous text of Plato’s here (Tim. 29d–e): “Let us state the reason why he who constructed becoming and this universe did construct it. He was good, and in a good person there can never present any begrudging of anything whatsoever. So, being free of envy, he decided that everything should be as much like himself as possible.” 22. it was unordered Once again we want to ask Philo where this material substrate of creation comes from, but he does not tell us. We see that in Philo’s view it is not part of the creation of “day one,” because that creation is nonphysical. 23. With no one to assist him This shows that the Logos is not an entity separate from God. Jewish monotheism is preserved. without limit and infinitely great By implication God himself is infinite, a theological viewpoint that differs from earlier Greek theology. in proportion to the capacities of those who receive them Both in his doctrine of creation and in his doctrine of divine knowledge, Philo is convinced that God’s greatness has to be adapted to what creation and human beings can withstand. This is the role of the Logos, who “measures out” God’s power, so that it does not overwhelm those who receive it. 24. the intelligible cosmos is nothing else Philo now summarizes his argument in a compact formula.

On the Creation of the World

891

the cosmos. For the intelligible city too is nothing else than the reasoning of the architect as he is actually engaged in the planning of the foundation of the city. 25This is the doctrine of Moses, not my own. When describing the genesis of the human being in what follows, he explicitly declares that the human being was in fact formed “according to the divine image.” Now if the part is image of an image, it is plain that this is also the case for the whole. But if this entire sense-perceptible cosmos, which is greater than the human image, is a representation of the divine image, it is plain that the archetypal seal, which we affirm to be the intelligible cosmos, would itself be the model and archetypal idea of the ideas, the Logos of God. “In the Beginning” Does Not Mean Creation in Time

26When he says that “in (the) beginning God made the heaven and the earth” (Gen. 1:1), he does not take the (term) “beginning,” as some people think, in a temporal sense. For there was no time before the cosmos, but rather it either came into existence together with the cosmos or after it. When we consider that time is the extension of the cosmos’s movement, and that there could not be any movement earlier than the thing that moves but must necessarily be established either later or at the same time, then we must necessarily conclude that time too is either the same age as the cosmos or younger than it. To venture to affirm that it is older is unphilosophical. 27If “beginning” in the present context is not taken in the temporal sense, it is likely that its use indicates beginning in the numerical sense, so that the expression “in (the) beginning he made” is equivalent to “he first made the heaven.” It is indeed reasonable that heaven should in fact be the first thing to enter into becoming. It is the most excellent of the things that have come into existence and is also composed of the purest substance, because it was to be the holiest dwelling-place for the gods whose appearance is perceived by the senses. 28Even if the maker proceeded to make all things simultaneously, 25. This is the doctrine of Moses, not my own Philo now attempts to prove that his interpretation of “day one” as a model for Creation is founded in the biblical text. He appeals to Gen. 1:27, where the human being is created “according to God’s image.” An image (eikōn, cf. our word “icon”) is what is formed in relation to a model. It is important not to follow the usual translation of the Greek phrase kat’ eikona theou (in God’s image) here, because that translation can obscure Philo’s understanding that “image” refers to the divine Logos and not directly to God.6 The text thus in Philo’s view means that human beings are created as a likeness of the divine Logos, who himself is God’s image. Philo thus envisages a double model-image relation. The argument is that if this relation applies to the human being, then it will also apply to the cosmos as a whole. archetypal seal The image of the seal is used to indicate the process of copying. The seal, i.e. the intelligible cosmos, contains the original design, which is copied onto the material on which it is pressed, and so the physical world with all its structural features is produced. 26. When he says Philo now turns to the actual text of the Creation account. not . . . in a temporal sense Philo rejects the idea that time is independent of physical reality and that there was time before the world came into being. But this should not be taken to mean that the cosmos always existed (cf. §7). There was no beginning in time, but there was a beginning of time. 27. composed of the purest substance It almost seems as if Philo has forgotten that he is not speaking of the physical heaven, but its intelligible model. 28. all things simultaneously As we learned earlier, the six days of Creation are not meant temporal-

892

David T. Runia

it is nonetheless true that what comes into a beautiful existence did possess order, for there is no beauty in disorder. Order is a sequence and series of things that precede and follow, if not in the completed products, then certainly in the conceptions of the builders. Only in this way could they be precisely arranged, and not deviate from their path or be full of confusion. The Chief Contents of the Intelligible Cosmos

29First, therefore, the Maker made an incorporeal “heaven” and an “invisible earth” (Gen. 1:2) and a form of air and of the void. To the former he assigned the name “darkness,” since the air is black by nature, to the latter the name “abyss,” because the void is indeed full of depths and gaping. He then made the incorporeal being of “water” and of “spirit,” and as seventh and last of all of “light” (Gen. 1:3), which once again was incorporeal and was also the intelligible model of the sun and all the other light-bearing stars which were to be established in heaven. 30Both “spirit” and “light” were considered deserving of a special privilege. The former he named “of God” (Gen. 1:2), because “spirit” is highly important for life and God is the cause of life. Light he describes as exceedingly “good” (Gen. 1:3), for the intelligible surpasses the visible in brilliance and brightness just as much, I believe, as sun surpasses darkness, day surpasses night, and intellect, which gives leadership to the entire soul, surpasses its sensible sources of information, the eyes of the body. 31That invisible and intelligible “light” has come into being as image of the divine Logos which communicated its genesis. It is a star that transcends the heavenly realm, source of the visible stars, and you would not be off the mark to call it “all-brightness.” From it the sun and moon and other planets and ly but have a structural and perhaps also a didactic purpose. When you build a house, you have to first plan and build the foundations before you begin on the walls and the roof. This tells us a lot about the actual structure of the house. Philo’s remarks here reflect controversy about how Plato’s story in the Timaeus should be interpreted: did he mean it literally or was it just a literary technique that he used in order to discuss how the cosmos was structured? 29. First . . . the Maker made Philo now outlines the seven chief components of the intelligible cosmos, based on an analysis of Gen. 1:1–3. Seven is, of course, a significant number and later in the treatise Philo will devote a lengthy section to explaining its importance (Creation 89–128, not included in this selection). These components are heaven, earth, air, void, water, spirit, light. It is possible to systematize these components into the ideas of the four elements plus life, space, and light. But Philo does not do this explicitly. invisible earth One of the two adjectives used to describe the earth in the Greek Bible in Gen 1:2, aoratos (invisible), differs significantly from that used in the Hebrew Bible, bohu (void). For Philo it is an indication of his interpretation that the first five verses of the Genesis account describe the intelligible plan of the cosmos and not its physical contents. The term aoratos is often used by Plato and his followers of the intelligible ideas; see Pl. Resp. 529b5, Tim. 52a3, Alcinous Did. 7.4. 31. as image of the divine Logos which communicated its genesis This phrase is not easy to understand. It appears that the intelligible light that is formed in the divine Logos is itself an image, i.e., it is an image of an image, yet it is still intelligible. Yet earlier on in §24 he had identified the Logos and with the intelligible cosmos. Perhaps “image” is used here simply to indicate “level”, i.e., the Logos that communicates the intelligible light is at a higher level. The term “communicates” (diermêneusantos) reminds us of the role of the Logos as interpreter (hermêneus). For

On the Creation of the World

893

fixed stars draw the illumination that is fitting for them in accordance with the capacity they each have. But that unmixed and pure gleam has its brightness dimmed when it begins to undergo a change from the intelligible to the sense-perceptible, for none of the objects in the sense-perceptible realm is absolutely pure. 32Well said too is the statement that there was “darkness over the abyss” (Gen. 1:2), for in a way the air is over the void, since it is mounted on and has filled up the entire gaping, empty and void space that extends from the region of the moon to us. 33As soon as the intelligible “light,” which existed before the sun, was ignited, its rival “darkness” proceeded to withdraw. God built a wall between them and kept them separate (Gen. 1:4), for he well knew their oppositions and the conflict resulting from their natures. Therefore, in order to ensure that they would not continually interact and be in strife with each other, and that war would not gain the upper hand over peace and bring about disorder (akosmia) in the cosmos (kosmos), he not only separated light and darkness, but also placed boundaries in the extended space between them, by means of which he kept the two extremes apart. For if they were neighbors, they would produce confusion in the struggle for dominance and would strip in readiness for a great and unceasing rivalry, unless boundaries were fixed in between them to restrain and resolve their confrontation. 34These (boundaries) are “evening” and “morning” (Gen. 1:5), of which the latter announces in advance that the sun is about to rise and gradually forces back the darkness, while the evening follows on the setting sun and gently admits the massive onset of the darkness. Mark well, however, that these two, I mean “morning” and “evening,” must be placed in the order of incorporeal and intelligible reality. For in that realm there is nothing at all that is sense-perceptible, but everything there is ideas and measures and marks and seals, incorporeal entities required for the genesis of the other bodily realm. 35So when “light” came into being, “darkness” retired and withdrew, while “evening” and “morning” were fixed as boundaries in the extended space in between, this necessarily entailed that a measure of time was produced forthwith. The maker “called” this measure “day” (Gen. 1:5), and not the first day, but “day one.” It was named in this way because of the aloneness of the intelligible cosmos which has the nature of the unit. this reason, in Greek thought it is often associated with the god Hermes. Here, the Logos is the communicator or interpreter of the divine will, as indicated in §19. has its brightness dimmed The intelligible light as model for physical light is “absolute brightness,” as it were, and needs to be adjusted for the physical brightness shown by the heavenly bodies. We note that in Exod. Rab. there is also mention of a primordial light that was hidden away. 34. must be placed in the order of incorporeal and intelligible reality Philo reminds his readers of the main feature of his interpretation of “day one,” but in fact his description reminds us more of physical morning and evening than their intelligible counterparts. If the truth be told, his interpretation is rather forced when it comes to points of detail. It is a rather odd mixture of philosophical interpretation inspired largely by Plato and close reading of the biblical text. 35. the aloneness of the intelligible cosmos which has the nature of the unit See comment above on the features of the number one in §15. The term “aloneness” (monōsis) is the same as that used for God and the first human being in §151.

894

David T. Runia

69–71 Why Is the Human Being Created after God’s Image?

69After all these other creatures, as has been stated, he says that the “human being” has come into existence “according to the divine image and according to the likeness” (Gen. 1:26–27). This is most excellently said, for nothing earthborn bears a closer resemblance to God than the human being. But no one should infer this likeness from the characteristics of the body, for God does not have a human shape and the human body is not God-like. The term “image” has been used here with regard to the director of the soul, the intellect. On that single intellect of the universe, as on an archetype, the intellect in each individual human being was modeled. In a sense it is a god of the person who carries it and bears it around as a divine

69 Because Philo’s treatise is written as the first part of his Exposition of the Law, he naturally focuses on that part of the Creation account that deals with the creation of the living being that has the capacity to understand and follow the commands of the Law—that is, the human being. But this means that he must also confront the problem posed by Genesis describing the creation of human beings twice: first as part of the creations of the sixth day in Gen. 1:26–31, and secondly in Gen. 2:4b–7. Consistent with his method in interpretation, Philo thinks that the lawgiver must have had a deeper reason for this double account. This was a controversial issue in ancient Jewish exegesis, and in his writings Philo records a variety of reasons why in the scriptural account human beings were created twice.7 after God’s image Philo has already cited this text above in Creation 25, in which he assumes a double model—first, the image relation between God and his Logos, and second, between his Logos and the human being. This double relation is not mentioned here. Instead Philo compares God and the human being directly and sees a common element in the faculty of intellect. for God does not have a human shape In Greek mythology and art the gods were frequently represented as having a human appearance. One thinks, for instance, of the famous statue of Venus de Milo, where the goddess is portrayed as a beautiful woman. The philosopher Epicurus argued that the gods have human shape, but most philosophers took the viewpoint that the gods are spiritual beings with no physical characteristics. Hellenistic Judaism fiercely opposed this “anthropomorphic” conception of divinity. Philo’s Alexandrian predecessor Aristobulus argued that when the Bible speaks of God in human terms—for example, that he has hands and feet or speaks with a human voice—this should not be taken literally. In Philo the classic text on this issue is God 50–69. In Decalogue 66–75 and Spec. Laws 1.21, Philo attacks the practice of making images of gods out of gold and silver. These are nothing but idols. the director of the soul, the intellect The philosophical background of Philo’s view of human nature is basically Platonist. Human beings consist of body and soul. The former is physical, can be seen by the senses, experiences pleasure and pain, and is prone to getting sick. The latter is spread throughout the body and experiences the thoughts and feelings that allow humans to direct the body to action. The soul itself can be divided into two parts. There is the rational part, the mind or intellect, and there is the irrational part, which is responsible for feelings, emotions, and drives. Philo firmly believes that the rational part should direct and exercise control over the irrational part; otherwise things will go wrong for human beings, as happens below in §151. that single intellect of the universe Rather remarkably, Philo draws an analogy between God as in-

On the Creation of the World

895

image. For it would seem that the same position that the Great Director holds in the entire cosmos is held by the human intellect in the human being. It is itself invisible, yet it sees all things. Its own nature is unclear, yet it comprehends the natures of other things. By means of the arts and sciences it opens up a vast network of paths, all of them highways, and passes through land and sea, investigating what is present in both realms. 70Next it is lifted on high and, after exploring the air and the phenomena that occur in it, it is borne further upward toward the ether and the revolutions of heaven. Then, after being carried around in the dances of the planets and fixed stars in accordance with the laws of perfect music, and following the guidance of its love of wisdom, it peers beyond the whole of sense-perceptible reality and desires to attain the intelligible realm. 71And when the intellect has observed in that realm the models and forms of the sense-perceptible things which it had seen here, objects of overwhelming beauty, it then, possessed by a sober drunkenness, becomes enthused like the Corybants. Filled with tellect of the universe and the mind as directing element in the human being. A similar analogy is found in Rabbinic literature at B. Ber. 10a: “Just as the Holy One, Blessed is He, fills the whole world, so the soul fills the body. Just as the Holy One, Blessed is He, sees but is not seen, so the soul sees but is not itself seen.” In a sense it is a god No less remarkably, Philo likens the human intellect to a god. Hellenistic Judaism in general, and Philo in particular, is not puritanical in the use of the term god (theos). For example, in Creation 27 he describes the heavenly bodies as “gods whose appearance is perceived by the senses.” In defense of this practice as applied to the human being, he can appeal to the Septuagint, where in Exod. 7:1, for example, God says that he gives Moses “as a god to Pharaoh.”8 Its own nature is unclear The mind cannot be studied as physical objects can. Philo draws an analogy between the unknowability of God’s essential nature and the unknowability of the mind. 70. Next it is lifted on high Philo illustrates the powers of the human intellect by imagining that it makes a tour of the whole of reality, beginning on earth, ascending to the heavens, and then going on even further to the higher reality of the intelligible world that only the mind can contemplate. This motif, frequently found in literature of Philo’s time, is called “the ascent of the soul (or mind).” Such an ascent comes in two forms, occurring either while people are still alive (as an elevated daydream) or when the soul leaves the body in death (as in the famous dream of Scipio in Cicero, Rep. 6.10–26). An important source for the motif is the famous myth in Plato’s Phaedrus, in which the soul ascends on the wings of love, joins Zeus and his heavenly chariot, and contemplates the ideas.9 the dances of the planets and fixed stars The ancients were much more aware of the movements of the heavens than we are and were awestruck by their beauty and regularity. Astronomy had the task of explaining these movements in rational terms, but was hampered by the faulty assumption that the sun and the planets revolved around the earth. its love of wisdom Philo is prepared to adapt for his own purposes the Platonic theme of love (erōs), which starts with love of the body and ascends to the pure love of knowledge. For Philo, love of knowledge is fused with love for God. 71. a sober drunkenness The famous mystical motif common in Philo. The soul is so carried away with its love for knowledge and for God that it forgets itself and its earth-bound situation and becomes filled with ecstasy. becomes enthused like the Corybants “Enthused” (enthousiai) means literally “having the god (theos) inside oneself.” The Corybants were the followers of the Greek god Dionysus, who worked themselves into a frenzy with their whirling dances. 896

David T. Runia

another longing and a higher form of desire, which has propelled it to the utmost vault of the intelligibles, it thinks it is heading toward the Great King himself. But as it strains to see, pure and unmixed beams of concentrated light pour forth like a torrent, so that the eye of the mind, overwhelmed by the brightness, suffers from vertigo. 134–35 Creation of the First Human Being from the Earth

134After this he says that “God formed man, taking dust from the earth, and breathed into his face a breath of life” (Gen. 2:7). By means of this text too he shows us in the clearest fashion that there is a vast difference between the “human being” who has been molded now and the one who previously came into being “according to the divine image” (Gen. 1:27). For the human being who has been molded as sense-perceptible object already participates in quality, consists of body and soul, is either man or woman, and is by nature mortal. The human being after the image is a kind of idea or genus or seal, is perceived by the intellect, incorporeal, neither male nor female, and is by nature immortal. 135He says that the sense-perceptible and individual “human being” has a structure which is composed of earthly substance and divine spirit, for the body came into being when the Craftsman took “clay” and “molded” a human shape out of it, whereas the soul obtained its origin from nothing which

a higher form of desire The Platonic erōs motif now gets an unexpected twist. The mind wishes to ascend beyond the intelligible world to God himself. the Great King In Greek culture the Great King was the King of Persia, who had an absolute power far beyond any Greek ruler. The image is often used by Philo to convey his conception of God as absolute monarch.10 overwhelmed by the brightness It is not possible for the mind to see God’s essential nature, so the ascent cannot achieve its final goal. If human beings could see God as he really is, then they would be situated at his level and would no longer be “after his image.” Philo here assumes the conclusions of his negative theology, that is, that we can ultimately know about God only that we cannot know him. 134. there is a vast difference Philo interprets the two accounts in Gen. 1:26–27 and Gen. 2:7 as the creation of two human beings, the first purely intellectual, the second a person of flesh and blood. The first is disembodied, the second has all the characteristics of people such as you and me. The first represents an ideal, the second the reality of human existence. Because Philo is captivated by the ideal of contemplative knowledge, he thinks it would be good if everyone could attain the ideal, but he also realizes that most people do not achieve it and have to be satisfied with a good life at a lower level. is by nature immortal Philo takes over the idea of nonphysical immortality as developed in Greek philosophy. Traces of this conception had already appeared in the later books of the Septuagint and other Hellenistic Jewish writings.11 135. nothing else than the divine spirit Philo converts the biblical term “breath of life” (pnoē zōēs) into the philosophical concept of “spirit” (pneuma). In Stoicism, pneuma is the divine active principle that gives structure to reality at different levels, including the human soul. Philo adapts this idea to the biblical theme of God’s spirit being infused into humans and making them into “spiritual beings.” Basically Philo equates this scheme to the “image” relation he uses to explain Gen. 1:26–27, but it also gives him the opportunity to develop the notion of a spiritual life as On the Creation of the World

897

has come into existence at all, but from the Father and Director of all things. What he “breathed in” was nothing else than the divine “spirit” which has emigrated here from that blessed and flourishing nature for the assistance of our kind, in order that, even if it is mortal with regard to its visible part, at least with regard to its invisible part it would be immortalized. For this reason it would be correct to say that the human being stands on the borderline between mortal and immortal nature. Sharing in both to the extent necessary, he has come into existence as a creature which is mortal and at the same time immortal, mortal in respect of the body, immortal in respect of the mind. 151–52 Woman and the Beginning of Wickedness

151But, since nothing is stable in the world of becoming and mortal beings necessarily undergo reverses and changes, the first human being too had to enjoy some ill fortune. The starting-point of a blameworthy life becomes for him “Woman” (Gen. 2:23). As long as he was single, he resembled God and the cosmos in his solitariness, receiving the delineations of both natures in his soul, not all of them but as many as a mortal constitution could contain. But when “Woman” too was molded, he observed a sisterly form and a kindred figure. Rejoicing at the sight, he came up to her and gave her a greeting. 152She, seeing no other living creature that looked more like herself than he, was glad and modestly responded

opposed to the life of the flesh. See especially his allegory at Giants 53–57, commenting on Gen. 6:3, “my spirit will remain in humans forever because they are flesh.” that blessed and flourishing nature In Greek ethics, well-being (eudaimonia) is the goal or end (telos) of human life. Unlike Scripture, Philo does not hesitate to attribute this state of well-being to God. This is one more indication of the strong influence of Greek philosophy on his thought. on the borderline Philo’s conception of the human being as a borderline creature exerted strong influence on the church fathers. A similar sentiment is also found in 2 En. 30:10 ( J): “From invisible and visible substance I created man, from both his natures come both death and life.” 151. nothing is stable in the world of becoming A very Platonic formulation, implying the distinction between the worlds of being and becoming. the first human being too had to enjoy some ill fortune Note that Philo rewrites the biblical narrative. In his view the arrival of woman on the scene is the beginning of trouble for man, whose life before then was blissful. Philo’s attitude toward women in his biblical exegesis has been seen as rather negative.12 Often, however, this is caused by the systematics of his allegorical exegesis, in which woman symbolizes sense-perception; see Allegories 2.19–52. As long as he was single This recalls the description of “day one,” in which the virtues of the one were celebrated (see comment above on Creation 34). One wonders whether Philo was a bachelor. But other Jewish texts also emphasize Adam’s aloneness.13 he came up to her and gave her a greeting This description contrasts with the biblical account (Gen. 2:22–23), according to which God brings the woman to Adam and Adam speaks of her in the third person. Eve’s reaction in section 152 is also not found in the Bible.

898

David T. Runia

to his greeting. The love that ensues brings together the two separate halves of a single living being as it were, and joins them into unity, thereby establishing in both a desire for union with the other in order to produce a being similar to themselves. But this desire also gave rise to bodily pleasure, which is the starting-point of wicked and law-breaking deeds, and on its account they exchange the life of immortality and well-being for the life of mortality and misfortune. 170–72 Moses Teaches Five Vital Lessons

170By means of the creation account which we have discussed he (Moses) teaches us among many other things five lessons that are the most beautiful and excellent of all. The first of these is that the divinity is and exists, on account of the godless, some of whom are in doubt and incline in two directions concerning

152. The love that ensues Philo again uses the term erōs, but this time he means erotic love, not the love of wisdom as in §69. It is remarkable that Philo introduces this theme here since the Bible does not speak of love or desire between Adam and Eve and does not mention their sexual union until after their expulsion from the Garden. brings together the two separate halves of a single living being In Plato’s dialogue the Symposium, the playwright Aristophanes humorously explains lovesickness with a story about how originally living creatures were round, with four legs, four arms, and two heads. When they misbehaved, Zeus split them in half and now they wander around trying to find “their other half.” Philo here makes a witty allusion to this well-known story about love. in order to produce a being similar to themselves Philo provides this motive to distinguish one kind of union (for procreation) from another (for pleasure only). In his view, which has been influenced by Greek philosophy and in particular by Pythagorean thought, only the former is legitimate; see further K. L. Gaca, “Philo’s Principles of Sexual Conduct and their Influence on Christian Platonist Sexual Principle,” SPhA 8 (1996): 21–39. bodily pleasure, which is the starting-point of wicked and law-breaking deeds Philo’s account of how wickedness entered the world after woman was created is not flattering for women (see also Ben Sira 25:24). As noted above in the note on section 151, the first human being too had to enjoy some ill fortune, he tends to show a negative attitude toward women. But the present passage has to be read carefully. Philo does not say that sexual desire is the beginning of all evil. In fact he approves of sexual desire if it leads to procreation. After all, the human race needs to be continued. The problem is that sexual desire can easily lead to the desire for physical pleasure. It is this desire for pleasure that causes humans to descend into wickedness. 170. he teaches us . . . five lessons In this concluding passage Philo summarizes the chief points he wishes to make in the treatise in a clear and didactic way. The famous Philonic scholar E. R. Goodenough called it “the first creed in history.”14 Although Philo attibutes these teachings to Moses, the influence of Greek philosophy is strong too. In each case Philo gives arguments for why the doctrines should be accepted. on account of the godless The belief in God is central to all that Philo stands for. Note that he does not divide people into theists, agnostics, and atheists. Instead he makes a first division between the godly and the godless, and then divides the second group into those who doubt God and those who deny him. Although Greek thought is predominantly theistic (the number of atheists in antiquity was very limited), it is not as God-centered as Jewish thought.

On the Creation of the World

899

his existence, while others are more reckless and brazenly assert that he does not exist at all, but is only said to exist by people who overshadow the truth with mythical fictions. 171The second lesson is that God is one, on account of those who introduce the polytheistic opinion, feeling no shame when they transfer the worst of political systems, rule by the mob, from earth to heaven. The third lesson is, as has already been said, that the cosmos has come into existence, on account of those who think it is ungenerated and eternal, attributing no superiority to God. The fourth lesson is that the cosmos too is one, since the creator is one as well and he has made his product similar to himself in respect of its unicity, expending all the available material for the genesis of the whole. After all, it would not have been a complete whole if it had not been put together and constituted of parts that were themselves whole. There are those who suppose there to be multiple cosmoi, and there are others who think their number is boundless, whereas they themselves are the ones who are really boundlessly ignorant of what it is fine to know. The fifth lesson is that God also takes thought for the cosmos, for that the maker always takes care of what has come into existence is a necessity by the laws and ordinances of nature, in accordance with which parents too take care of their children. 172He, then, who first has learnt these things not so much with his hearing as with his understanding, and has imprinted their marvelous and priceless forms on his own soul, namely that God is and exists, and that he who truly exists is one, and that he made the cosmos and made it unique, making it, as was said, similar to himself in respect of its being one, and that he always takes thought for what has come into being, this person will lead a blessed life of well-being, marked as he is by the doctrines of piety and holiness. 171. God is one Philo subscribes of course to Jewish monotheism. For the emphasis on God’s unique nature, see §23 and §151. rule by the mob See the comment on §11, in a city. those who think it is ungenerated and eternal See comment on §7, There are some people. the cosmos too is one This is the most surprising of the five doctrines, since Philo nowhere in the treatise discusses the uniqueness of the cosmos. expending all the available material Philo assumes that matter is involved in the creation process, but again does not inform us where it comes from. See comment on §9, when set in motion. multiple cosmoi Philo again makes a division of thought between those who think there is but a single cosmos, and those who believe in a plurality or an infinity of cosmoi. The majority of ancient philosophers, including Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics, held that there was just a single cosmos, although the Stoics thought it renewed itself in an eternal cycle (Philo comments on this in Eternity 8). On the other hand, the atomists and the Epicureans believed that there were infinite cosmoi, of which our cosmos was just one example. boundless . . . boundlessly ignorant A play on words that Philo has taken over from Tim. 55c–d, who attacks the doctrine of infinite worlds held by the atomist Democritus. God also takes thought for the cosmos The doctrine of providence, heavily emphasized in the introductory section, Creation 9–11. The reference to parents recalls the argument at §10. this person will lead a blessed life of well-being The final words of the treatise show that its real purpose is not cosmology, but as a background for the exposition of the Law that will take place in subsequent books. piety and holiness By emphasizing these two virtues Philo gives the treatise a religious and Jewish ending. While piety (eusebeia) is an important virtue in Greek philosophy, it does not have the central place that it occupies in Jewish thought. 900 David T. Runia

Notes 1. See for example Diogenes Laertius, Lives 7.134–38, in A. A. Long and D. N. Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), §34. 2. See Migration 178–81; Heir 96–99; Prelim. Studies 48–49; Names 16; Dreams 1.52–54; Abraham 68–71; Virtues 211–16; QG 3.1. 3. For a different view see D. Winston, Philo of Alexandria: The Contemplative Life, The Giants and Selections, The Classics of Western Spirituality (New York: Paulist, 1981), 7–13. 4. “On Providence,” in Philo, trans. F. H. Colson, Loeb Classical Library 363 (Cambridge ma: Harvard University Press, 1954), 9:445–507. 5. For this doctrine in Greek arithmological sources, see esp. Theon of Smyrna, Expos. 99.24–100.8. 6. Other Philo texts with the same interpretation are found at Alleg. Interp. 3.95–96; Heir 230; Spec. Laws 1.80, 3.83, 3.207; QG 2.62. See further the comments on Creation 69. Unfortunately the NETS translation “according to divine image” obscures Philo’s point here. The Septuagint text uses the noun theou, not the adjective theiou. 7. For more detailed treatment of this problem see T. H. Tobin, The Creation of Man: Philo and the History of Interpretation, CBQMS 14 (Washington dc: Catholic Biblical Association, 1983). 8. See the use of this text in Alleg. Interp. 1.40; Sacrifices 9; Worse 161–62; Names 19; Good Person 43. 9. On this motif see further P. Borgen, “Heavenly Ascent in Philo: An Examination of Selected Passages,” in The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation, ed. J. H. Charlesworth and C. A. Evans, 246–68, JSPSup 14 (Sheffield, England: Sheffield University Press, 1993). 10. See Creation 88; Decalogue 61; Spec. Laws 1.18; Agriculture 2.78; QG 2.44. The famous image at Pseudo-Aristotle, De mundo 6, 398a11–b6 is quite similar, but lacks the level of the intelligible world. 11. See M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism (London: SCM, 1974), 1:196–202. 12. See D. I. Sly, Philo’s Perception of Women (Brown Judaic Studies 209; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990). 13. See Wis. 10:1 and the comments by David Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon, The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1979), 213. 14. See Goodenough’s An Introduction to Philo Judaeus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962), 37.

On the Creation of the World

901

Allegorical Interpretation 1.31–62 Maren R. Niehoff Philo’s Allegorical Interpretation in three books is a close reading of select passages from the book of Genesis, starting with Gen. 2:1 and ending with Gen. 3:19, where Philo focuses on the creation of Adam and Eve and man’s introduction to the Garden of Eden. The creation of the world as described in the first chapter of Genesis does not seem to have been commented upon allegorically, in a sustained non-literal fashion. Rather, Philo considered that chapter to be a separate unit, which he distinguished from the historical and legal parts of the Torah as he perceived it (Rewards 1). He treated the creation of the world in his Exposition of the Law as an introduction to both the Lives of Fathers and Jewish Law (Creation 1–28).1 Allegorical Interpretation is the earliest extant commentary of the Bible in the history of Jewish exegesis (interpretation of a text), where biblical verses are explicitly quoted and then commented upon. Prior to Philo, authors often rewrote biblical material (e.g., Artapanus, Jubilees) without commentary. Philo’s exegetical method later became standard among the Rabbis and helps us to understand their interpretations of Scripture. Authorship and History Philo’s Allegorical Commentary, of which the Allegorical Interpretation is a part, was originally written in Greek and based on the Septuagint (LXX). Its language is rich and often complicated, presupposing an educated audience rather than the beginners he seems to be writing for in some other of his works (e.g., the six-book series, Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus (QGE). Philo wrote the commentary in Alexandria in the early 1st century ce. Alexandria at that time was still one of the most important cultural centers of the Hellenistic world, boasting a long tradition of scholarship, research in the natural sciences, and poetic creativity. The Jews of Alexandria were a significant minority, which had adapted exceptionally well to the melting-pot culture of Alexandria, while maintaining a distinct Jewish identity. Place within Philo’s Work Philo of Alexandria composed numerous works, which survived largely in Christian, not Jewish, circles. The church fathers, especially Origen and Eusebius, appreciated Philo’s works, taking his allegorical method as a predecessor of its Christian counterpart. This adoption of Philo by early Christians gives the impression that his form of Judaism was the essence of Hellenistic Judaism, which was in reality characterized by great variety often difficult to reconstruct of Alexandrian Judaisms, which are often difficult to reconstruct. Thus, the context of Philo’s work can often be known only from his own reference to discussion partners, some of whom held diametrically opposed views.2 Moreover, Philo’s adoption

902

by the church fathers may have led to his alienation from Jewish readers. Azariah de Rossi, who rediscovered his writings in the Italian Renaissance, made heroic efforts to show that Philo was not a Christian, as was generally assumed, but a Jew with characteristically Jewish views. This alienation, however, may have come at a relatively late date. While Philo is not quoted explicitly in any of the Rabbinic sources, there are similarities between his commentaries on Genesis and Genesis Rabbah, suggesting that his works may have been known to the Rabbis.3 D. Bathélemy has even argued that Rabbinic scholars cooperated with the church father Origen in editing Philo’s Allegorical Commentary.4 Philo wrote several types of commentary on the books of Genesis and Exodus, and their relationship to each other is still disputed among scholars today. Most similar to the Allegorical Commentary is Philo’s QGE, in which he also quotes biblical verses, raising problems concerning each and solving them, usually with an allegorical interpretation. A. Terian and G. Sterling have argued that QE are the earliest of Philo’s works, trying out his ideas here before developing them further in the Allegorical Commentary and in the Exposition of the Law.5 Their arguments, however, are not conclusive. One could equally interpret the QGE as an abbreviation of thoughts presented in the Allegorical Commentary. The difference between the works can well be explained as a difference of audience: the Allegorical Commentary addresses an educated readership, while QGE is designed for those with a more basic education, perhaps young students. Significance The importance of Philo’s Allegorical Commentary can hardly be overestimated. It is the earliest extant explicit commentary on the Jewish Scriptures. While Pesher Habakkuk from Qumran also comments on some biblical verses, it does not inquire into the text itself, but is motivated by a historical agenda (affirming its community’s ideology in light of the scriptural text). Unlike the author of Pesher Habakkuk, Philo investigates every detail of the text, leaving scarcely any issue without discussion. But he was by no means the first Jew to examine Scripture. Other fellow Alexandrians, such as the Jew Demetrius, had been inspired by Homeric scholarship and had begun to tackle problems in the biblical text. Yet their work has survived only fragmentarily, making it impossible to accurately assess their scope. Furthermore, Philo provided a full allegorical reading of Scripture, thus creating a new synthesis between the text and philosophy, especially ethics. This combination of specifically Jewish and general values became a model for modern Judaism. In 19th-century Berlin, Philo was hailed as a harbinger of the Enlightenment. A direct line was drawn between him, Maimonides, and Mendelssohn.6 Suggested Reading Birnbaum, E. The Place of Judaism in Philo’s Thought: Israel, Jews and Proselytes. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. Borgen, P. Philo of Alexandria: An Exegete for His Time. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Kamesar, A. The Cambridge Companion to Philo. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Nickelsburg, G. W. E. “Philo among Greeks, Jews and Christians.” In Philo und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen [Philo and the New Testament: Mutual Perceptions]. Edited by R. Deines and W.-K. Niebuhr, 53–72. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004.

Allegorical Interpretation 1.31–62

903

Niehoff, M. R. Philo on Jewish Identity and Culture. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. —. Jewish Bible Exegesis and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Runia, D. T. “Further Observations on the Structure of Philo’s Allegorical Treatises.” Vigiliae Christianae 41 (1987): 105–38. Republished in D. T. Runia, Exegesis and Philosophy: Studies on Philo of Alexandri, chap. 5. Hampshire, Great Britain: Variorum, 1990. Sterling, G. E. “‘The School of Sacred Laws’: The Social Setting of Philo’s Treatises.” VC 53 (1999): 148–64.

Translation Allegorical Interpretation 1.31–62

1.31“And God molded man, taking earth from the land, and breathed into his face a breath of life, and man became a living soul” (Gen. 2:7 LXX). There are two types of humans: for one is heavenly, while the other is earthly. Whereas just as the heavenly type has been born in the image of God, having no part in perishable and altogether earthly substance, the earthly type was shaped out of scattered material, which he has called “earth.” Therefore he says that the heavenly type was not fabricated, but was

Commentary 1.31. LXX Philo regularly quotes the Torah in LXX. In the above quoted verse, there is no significant discrepancy between the Hebrew and the Greek, except that the Hebrew term for “soul,” nefesh, refers in the Bible to life breath or even a living person, whereas the Greek equivalent psychē carries strong connotations of a spiritual entity that is distinct from and even opposed to the material realm. This dichotomy will be the starting point of much of Philo’s subsequent discussion. God Philo uses the term theos (god) without a capital letter when referring to both the God of the Jews and to pagan deities. When pagan writers such as Plato wrote about “god,” Philo could thus easily understand their words to be related to the God of the Jews. There are two types of human beings Philo is the first known Jewish exegete who addresses the question of why there are two Creation accounts, which apparently tell contradictory stories. Philo treats this problem in Creation 134, where he argues at length that the two stories refer to two types of man. Gen. 1:26 LXX speaks of man’s creation in the image of God, thus implying an ideal form of humanity with nothing terrestrial about it, while Gen. 2:7 LXX mentions man’s creation out of the earth, which is taken to mean a material creature. The ideal man was created first, serving as a model for its terrestrial equivalent. Philo thus adopted the Platonic notion of Ideal Forms, which are perfect and absolutely transcendental, serving as models for material creations.7 Philo’s contribution thus consists in applying these Hellenistic notions to the interpretation of textual questions in Scripture. In Rabbinic literature some similar motifs resurface. Certain teachers consider the first Creation story to refer to an androgynos, that is, a bisexual being, while others speak of a huge golem (Gen. Rab. 8:1). In this way they also assume that the first account refers to a prototypical human that does not share the features of regular human beings. which he has called “earth” “He” refers to Moses. Philo often treats Moses as the author of the Torah, interpreting his particular choice of words or exploring other aspects of authorial intention, Source of Translation: The translations are my own.

904 Maren R. Niehoff

modeled in God’s image, while the earthly type is a fabrication, rather than an offspring of the craftsman. 32Now one must think of the earthly man as the mind entering the body, but not having altogether penetrated it. And this earthly mind would have been also earthly and perishable, if god were not breathing into it a power of true life. Then it became—no longer being fabricated—a soul, not [one that is] idle and unshaped, but a truly intellectual and living soul, for he says “and man became a living soul” (Gen. 2:7 LXX). 33Someone may inquire why god generally considered worthy of the Divine spirit the earthborn and body-loving mind and not the mind born in the image of the Ideal Form and in his own image. Second, [one may inquire] what is the precise meaning of the expression “breathed into”? Third, why was it breathed “into the face”? Fourth, why does he mention the word “breath” rather than “spirit” even though he knows the latter word, as when he said “and the spirit of such as why Moses introduced the Torah with an account of the creation of the world (Creation 1–2). On the other hand, Philo defends the Torah as a canon of “holy books” that substantially differs from any other piece of human literature (e.g., Eternity 19). As Y. Amir and H. Burkhardt have shown, the Torah was for Philo both divinely inspired and also written down in a particular way by Moses.8 32. mind entering the body Like Plato, Philo assumes that the mind first existed independently in a spiritual realm before it descended into the body, where it became imprisoned in the material world. Biblical writers still conceived of man in a holistic fashion and did not prefer his “spiritual” functions to his material characteristics. A Jewish contemporary of Philo, however, as well as many Rabbinic teachers, expressed similar notions of a body-mind split (Wis. 8:19; Gen. Rab. 34:10; B. Sanh. 91a–b). Note that for Philo the terms “mind” and “soul” are closely connected: sometimes he refers to the mind as part of the soul, while at other times they are virtually synonymous. 33. Someone may inquire This type of formulaic phrase occurs rather frequently throughout Philo’s Allegorical Commentary and belongs to the widespread Hellenistic genre of question- and-answer literature. One first finds them in interpretations of Homer’s epics, which had attained a central status similar to that of the Bible among Jews. Aristotle composed a famous treatise that offered answers to critical questions on Homer (Aporemata Homerica). Alexandria subsequently became the capital of Homeric scholarship, with Aristarchus (310–230 bce) as its most prominent figure. Demetrius, an Alexandrian Jew flourishing probably during the 2nd century bce, is the first Jew known to have raised questions concerning the biblical text.9 He wrote, for example: “Someone may ask how the Israelites had weapons, as they left Egypt unarmed” (Praep. ev. 9.29.16) or “Why did Joseph give Benjamin a five-fold portion at the meal even though he would not be able to consume so much meat?” (Praep. ev. 9.29.14). By the time of Philo many Jews engaged in a question- and-answer type of exegesis. Philo mentions many examples, which indicate the immense variety of approaches prevalent at the time. Afterward this style was adopted by Christian exegetes and also characterizes Rabbinic literature. why God generally considered worthy of the Divine spirit the earthborn This question, whether raised by Philo himself or by someone else, derives from a comparison of the two Creation accounts. While the first story, which is taken to refer to the spiritual man, does not attribute to him a divine inspiration, it is precisely in the second story, dealing with the earthly creature, that God’s spirit is mentioned. For Philo and his assumed audience it is difficult to understand why God should have thus privileged the more material figure.

Allegorical Interpretation 1.31–62

905

God was lying upon the water” (Gen. 1:2 LXX)? 34In response to the first question one thing must be said, namely that god is generous and happily provides good things to everyone, even to the imperfect, inviting them to partnership and emulation of virtue as well as showing his own overwhelming wealth, which suffices even for those who will not derive very much profit from it. This he showed most clearly also concerning other matters. For whenever he rains upon the sea and causes springs to gush forth in the most desolate places, and waters the poor and rough and barren land by pouring on it rivers with overflowing waters, what else does he show but the superabundance of his wealth and his own goodness? This is the reason why God created no soul barren of the good, even if the use of it is impossible for some. 35Another explanation that needs to be mentioned is the following: he wants to introduce principles of righteousness to the ordinances. The one into whom no true life has been breathed, but is unacquainted with virtue, when being punished for his sins, might say that he is punished without justification, seeing that it is through unfamiliarity with the good that he failed in respect of it, and that he is to blame who breathed no notion of it into him. He will perhaps say that he has not sinned at all, if, as some say, acts committed involuntarily or out of ignorance are not reckoned as wrongs. 36Now the expression “breathed into” is the same as “blew into” or “put a soul into soul34. partnership and emulation of virtue The notion of partnership can be interpreted here either independently or in connection with virtue; that is, God either offers mankind partnership with himself or partnership in emulation of virtue. The first reading seems preferable, because Philo considers the human mind to be similar to God’s and thus capable of close partnership (see further below). 35. introduce principles of righteousness to the ordinances Philo addresses a central problem of ethics, namely the question of whether human beings blame God for their sinfulness, claiming to have been created with a wicked inclination. This problem was first formulated in the Land of Israel by the Jewish wisdom teacher Ben Sira (2nd century bce), who said the following: “Do not say ‘because of the Lord I left the right way’ for he will not do what he hates, do not say ‘it was he who led me astray’ for he has no need of a sinful man. The Lord hates all abominations . . . It was he who created man in the beginning and he left him in the power of his own inclination (yetzer)” (Sira 15:11–4). Similarly, the author of Thanksgiving Hymns at Qumran and the Sages in Pirke Avot contemplated the force of the human inclination (Hymn 9:1–7, Avot 2:11, 4:1, T. Ber. 9:5.10 Parallel to these writers, Philo stresses that God cannot be held responsible for human sin. He draws this conclusion from the verse depicting God as endowing man with His spirit, which he interprets as an endowment with the potential for virtue. It is up to mankind to decide whether or not to realize this potential. 36. the expression “breathed into” Philo inquires why the LXX uses the rare word emphysaō rather than the regular empneō. This inquiry is a beautiful example of philological inquiry on the part of Philo. Taking Scripture as a piece of excellent and indeed canonical literature, he investigates the particular choice of words and notes any unusual usage. His style resembles that of Greek interpreters of Homer as well as Rabbinic exegetes, who also noted unusual or strange words in their foundational texts, providing explanations for their readers in cases where the meaning of a particular line may not be clear. Aristotle was the first to make the treatment of strange words mandatory for proper exegesis (Poet. 25.3).

906 Maren R. Niehoff

less things.” We ought not be filled with the kind of folly that suggests that god requires the organs of a mouth or a nose in order to breathe into. For God is without quality, not just lacking a human form. 37The utterance indicates something of a more scientific nature. For three things are necessary: a thing breathing in, a thing receiving and another thing being inbreathed. Whereas God does the breathing in, the mind is the receiver and the breath is the thing that is inbreathed. What can be inferred from these premises? A union of these three comes about after God has stretched out the power from himself through the intermediary breath even to the object—for what reason other than that we may gain a notion of him? 38 For how could the soul perceive of God, had he not inspired it and clung to it as far as possible. For the human mind would not have dared to rise enough to reach God’s nature, had God himself not drawn him up to himself, as much as it was possible for the human mind to be drawn

We ought not be filled with the kind of folly Philo is concerned lest his readers conceive of God in anthropomorphic terms, attributing to God human shape. His Jewish predecessor, Aristobulos, living in the 2nd century bce Alexandria, is the first known writer to address this point. He appealed to his readers “to grasp the fitting conception of God and not to fall into the mythical and human way of thinking” (Praep. ev. 8.10.2). God is without quality Departing from biblical notions, Philo introduces a distinctly philosophical dimension to the conception of God and insists on a strict transcendentalism, describing God as being above virtue, knowledge, the good itself, and the beautiful itself (Creation 8; Rewards 40). Philo shared this emphasis on God’s transcendence with earlier Platonic thinkers in Alexandria, such as Eudorus. Whereas Philo sometimes speaks of God’s goodness (Alleg. Interp. 1.5), he generally insists, as he does here, that God is “without quality,” has no name, and is unknowable. This last tenet is not meant in an agnostic way. On the contrary, humans have to strive to know God, and God is the only object worth knowing. But whereas it is easy to know that God is, we cannot know what he is (Spec. Laws 1.32). Philo’s position differs from that of the Rabbis, but anticipates the medieval Jewish philosophers. 37. something of a more scientific nature This is Philo’s standard term for the underlying allegorical meaning of Scripture. He calls other exegetes who regularly engage in such interpretation “natural philosophers” (Abraham 99). Often he has in mind an interpretation treating the spiritual realm of the soul or a reading exposing the true beauty of a passage that has been criticized by other exegetes (Names 60). the intermediary breath Philo seeks to bridge the gap between the transcendental God and the human realm by introducing intermediary figures. God’s foremost intermediary is the Logos, his rational part as well as his speech. Philo probably adopted this term from Stoic philosophy, in which it referred to the divine power immanent in the world and was sometimes identified with Zeus. Philo used the term in a new way, referring to that part of God that is active in the creation of the world and remains involved in earthly matters (Creation 24). Similarly, the doctrine of God’s two “powers”—mercy and justice—is built up into a system of intermediaries.11 Abraham’s three guests, mentioned in Gen. 18:2 LXX, are thus identified as God and his two powers (QG 4.2). that we may gain a notion of him According to Philo, human recognition of God is ultimately dependent on divine mercy. This is exemplified by Abraham, who first cleansed himself of the allurements of the material world, but then required God’s grace in order to behold him in a mystical experience (Abraham 68–80).

Allegorical Interpretation 1.31–62

907

up, and had he not made an imprint on it in accordance with the powers susceptible of being grasped by it. 39 God’s breathing “into the face” [can be explained] both in scientific and ethical terms. On the scientific level, [we may say] that he created sense perception in the face. For this part of the body is, more than others, endowed with soul and breath. On the ethical level, the following may be said: as the face is the commanding part of the body, thus the mind is the commanding part of the soul. In it alone God places his breath, deeming it unsuitable to do the same for the other parts of the body, the senses or organs of speech and reproduction. For these are secondary in capacity. 40By what then were these also inspired? Evidently by the mind. For the mind gives to the irrational part of the soul a share of that which it has received from God, so that the mind is inspired by God and the irrational part by the mind—as if the mind is the God of the irrational part, for which reason he did not hesitate to say that Moses is “a God to Pharaoh” (Exod. 7:1 LXX). 41Of the things coming into being, some come into being by God and his agency, while others by God, but not through his agency. The most excellent things are made by God and through his agency. A little further on he says that “God planted a park” (Gen. 2:8 LXX). The mind is [of the nature] of these. The irrational part, on the other hand, is created by God and not through the agency of God, but through the agency of the logical part which is ruling and dominant in the soul. 42He said “breath” and not “spirit” because there is, in his view, a difference between the two. While spirit is perceived of as implying strength and vigor and power, breath is like some air as well as a gentle and soft exhalation. The mind, which has been created according to the image and the idea, could therefore be said to have a share in the spirit—for its reasoning power has strength—whereas the mind created out of unsubstantial and even lighter material can be said to take a share in the air as if in some exhalation, such as those arising from aromatic plants. When these are preserved rather than being burnt for incense there is still a sweet smell from them. 43“And God planted a garden in Eden facing the sunrise and placed there the man whom he had fabricated” (Gen. 2:8a LXX). Moses has indicated the manifold nature of sublime and heavenly wisdom by [using] many names

40. the irrational part of the soul Philo assumes that the soul is divided into a rational and an irrational part, thus reflecting Plato’s anthropology (Resp. 438D–441E, Phaedr. 245–50, Tim. 69C– 70E). The irrational part is connected to bodily functions and the material realm, while the rational part is closer to God and the heavenly realm. The wise man strengthens the rational part of his soul, controlling the lower parts and achieving a healthy balance. As if the mind is the God Having posited a transcendental God, Philo allows for a surprisingly close relationship between God and humankind. Since human beings are endowed with a rational mind that resembles God himself, they also carry the potential to become like him in a broader sense. Indeed, Philo called Moses “god and king,” not hesitating to suggest that Nature obeyed him as “master” and “god” (Moses 1.156–58; Sacrifices 9; cf. Exod. Rab. 2:6, 8:1). 43. garden The Greek term paradeisos derives from Persian and was introduced to the Greek language by Xenophon when describing the abundant parks of the Persian kings and nobles (Anab. 1.2.7). In the Septuagint the word is applied to the Garden of Eden (Gen. 2:8 LXX), for which it became a standard reference in virtually all Western languages. sunrise This is a reference to the East. many names Whereas Philo sometimes follows Stoic and Platonic notions of language, which sug-

908 Maren R. Niehoff

for it, for he has celebrated it as the “beginning” and the “image” and the “vision” of God. Now, by using [the notion of] tending the plants of paradise, he presents earthly wisdom as a copy of that wisdom, as of an archetype. May no such impiety take hold of human reasoning so as to assume that God ploughs the earth and plants gardens, for we will at once raise the question of why [he would do so]. He would not thus procure for himself cheerful reposes and pleasures—may no such mythical fiction ever enter our mind. 44For indeed the whole cosmos would not be worthy to be God’s abode and dwelling-place, because God is His own place and full of Himself and sufficient onto Himself, filling and encompassing everything else which is inferior, incomplete and void, while He Himself is not encompassed by anything, inasmuch as He Himself is One and the Whole. 45God sows and plants earthly virtue in the mortal race, which is a copy and concrete representation of the heavenly one. Having taken pity on our race and seeing that it is composed of abundant and numerous evils, he planted earthly virtue as gest that words are not accidental conventions but express something of the innermost nature of things, here he discusses the different names referring to heavenly wisdom, assuming with Aristotle no intrinsic connection between a name and the thing named. copy . . . archetype These are typical terms in Philo’s vocabulary, describing the complicated relationship between the ethereal and the earthly realm. In his view these two realms are connected, without however involving a contamination of the heavenly. Philo relies on the Platonic distinction between the idea, which is absolutely true and good, lacking a corporeal dimension, and the earthly, which can be known by the senses and does not really exist in a philosophical sense but has certain characteristics to the extent that it participates in the idea. Plato himself hesitated about how to describe the relationship between the ideal and the corporeal, advocating a stringent dichotomy in his earlier dialogues (Phaedo 102D, Parm. 130B), while suggesting some alleviating compromises in his later dialogues, especially in the Timaeus (Tim. 48E–49A1). Philo’s vocabulary is typical of his time and is used by other Middle Platonic philosophers, such as Timaeus of Locrus 30. Rabbinic literature may preserve a faint echo of this Platonic discourse when, for example, using the terms “plans and diagrams” for the Torah, as a model for the created world (Gen. Rab. 1:1). mythical fiction We saw above in Alleg. Interp. 1.33–8 that Philo advocates a strict transcendentalism, arguing that God lacks any attribute that can be described by humans. Now he rejects a literal reading of the biblical text that might suggest God’s actual planting of the Garden and his sojourn in it. Such a thought is, in Philo’s view, a mythical fiction totally foreign to God. On numerous other occasions Philo opposes literal and mythological readings of Scripture, thus distancing himself from an approach that was apparently well established among Alexandrian Jews. In Confusion 1–13, he engages in a particularly detailed discussion with them. The discussion reveals that there were Jewish scholars in Alexandria who rejected allegory and viewed certain parts of Scripture as falling short of the truth. Such passages—for example, the story of the Tower of Babel—were identified as mythical because they are technically impossible and transmit an unreasonable image of God. Philo’s colleagues who rejected allegory nonetheless accepted that such “unreasonable” stories had been integrated into Scripture because Moses sanctioned popular opinion. Philo, like his Jewish predecessor Aristobulus, denied that Scripture could ever have implied mythological images and preferred allegorization. Rabbinic scholars, by contrast, were less committed to such a rationalist approach, often engaging in mythological speculations (e.g., Gen. Rab. 8).

Allegorical Interpretation 1.31–62

909

an assistant and helper against the ailments of the soul—a copy, as I said, of heavenly and archetypal [virtue], which he calls by many names. Indeed, “garden” figuratively means virtue, “Eden” being a suitable place for a garden, because it means “delicacy.” To virtue are suitably connected peace and enjoyment and pleasure in which there truly is living in delicacy. 46And indeed “facing the sunrise” is the planting of the Garden. Right reason cannot set or quell, but is by nature disposed to grow always and, I think, just as the sun after rising fills the darkness of the atmosphere with light, so virtue after rising in the soul illuminates its gloom and disperses the wide darkness. 47“And he placed there,” [Moses] says, “the man whom he had fabricated.” God being good and training our race to the most suitable work, that is virtue, places mind in the midst of virtue, clearly for the purpose that, like a good gardener, the mind may look after and care for nothing else than it. 48Someone may raise the question why, if imitating God’s works is hallowed, I am not allowed to plant a grove near the altar, while God plants the garden, as [Moses] says: “do not plant for yourself a grove and do not make for yourself any wood near 45. figuratively This is one of the terms Philo uses to introduce allegorical interpretations of Scripture. Other terms are “allegory” (e.g., Creation 157) and “underlying meaning” (e.g., Cherubim 21). The nature and origin of Philo’s allegorical method are still disputed today.12 It is clear, however, that Philo upholds the literal meaning of Scripture as far as the law (halakhah) is concerned, opposing radical colleagues, who substitute allegory for observance of the law (Migration 89–94). In his interpretations of the narrative parts of Scripture, Philo’s use of allegory varies: sometimes he offers an additional meaning, enriching Scripture by a further dimension (e.g., Abraham 68– 80), while on other occasions he follows his Jewish predecessor Aristobulus and uses allegory in order to uproot the mythological level of Scripture. The latter is the case here. As we have seen, Philo rejects the notion of God literally planting a garden, which would appear mythological; instead, he offers an allegorical reading. 46. just as . . . so This is a figure of comparison, a technique that Aristotle had already discussed in Rhet. 1393b. During the Hellenistic period, comparison became a standard means of rhetoric, especially in the philosophical schools. The Stoics were even ridiculed because of their exaggerated use of it (Cicero, Fin. 4.23–27). Philo frequently compares biblical items to scenes in everyday life, thus explaining each in terms of the other (e.g., Creation 17–20, 78). While his comparisons remain rather concise, Rabbinic scholars as well as the composers of the New Testament developed this approach further, offering rich stories in their parables (mashal), which are then explained in the nimshal.13 The application of parables to Scripture, however, remains the unique characteristic of Philo and the Rabbis. 48. Someone may raise the question why We have encountered the question-and-answer style of exegesis already in Alleg. Interp. 1.33 (see comments there). Here we have a special example, because Philo does not consider a question that has arisen from a particular verse, but an apparent contradiction between two verses. His predecessor, the Jewish exegete Demetrius, had begun to investigate such issues, without, however, quoting the relevant verses and providing a close textual reading. Philo is the earliest extant Jewish scholar to quote several verses, explaining how they complement each other. This technique subsequently became standard among Rabbinic scholars, while it remained foreign to such exegetes as Josephus, who preferred to present one truth in a continuous narrative (creating a genre referred to as “The Rewritten Bible”). In our particular case, Philo relies for his solution on the allegorical meaning of Gen. 2:8a LXX, arguing that a planting of virtue in the soul behooves God.

910 Maren R. Niehoff

the altar of the Lord your God” (Deut. 16:21 LXX). What can be said? That it is appropriate for God to plant and cherish the virtues in the soul. 49Yet the self-loving and godless mind believes it to be equal to God, deeming himself to be performing, while on close scrutiny it is passive. When God sows and plants good qualities in the soul, the mind who says “I am the planter” is impious. Indeed, do not plant whenever God tends His plants. But if you, O mind, set plants in the mind, plant all the fruit-producing trees, but not the grove, because in the latter there are trees of both a wild and a cultivated kind. Planting sterile wickedness in the soul amid cultivated and fruit-bearing virtue is like leprosy, which is of a double and mixed nature. 50However, whenever you bring together things unmixed as well as mixed, separate and distinguish those of a pure and undefiled nature, which offers unblemished fruits to God, this being the altar. It is alien to this [principle] to say that something is the work of the soul, because all things rely on a reference to God; and thus [alien to this principle] is also to mingle the sterile with the fruit-bearing. And this is a blemish, while unblemished things are offered to God. 51Now whenever, O soul, you transgress any of these, you will injure yourself, not God. Therefore he [Moses] says: “do not plant for yourself ” (Deut. 16:21 LXX). For nobody does such tillage for God, especially when the plants are paltry. And he [Moses] adds again: “do not make for yourselves” (Deut. 16:21 LXX). He says so also on other occasions: “You shall not make together with me gods of silver and gods of gold you shall not make yourselves” (Exod. 20:23 LXX). The one who thinks that God has a quality or that He is not One or not unbegotten or not imperishable or not immovable, wrongs himself, not God, for he says “For yourselves, you shall not make” (Exod. 20:23 LXX). One must think of Him as lacking quality and being One and imperishable and immovable. The one who does not think thus fills his own soul with false and godless opinion. 52Do you not see that even if He leads us to virtue and, being thus introduced, we plant nothing fruitless, but “every eatable tree,” yet He commands “to purge its uncleanness” (Lev. 19:23 LXX). In this case, the LXX notion of uncleanness should be kept. This is the notion of planting: he demands a cutting off of self-deceit, for self-deceit is by nature unclean. 53For now [Moses] only says that “the man whom He fabricated” (Gen. 2.8 LXX) he placed in the Garden. Who indeed is it of whom he later says “the Lord God took the man whom He made in the Garden, so as to till it and guard it”? (Gen. 2:15 LXX). At all events this man is distinct from the other man, the one created according to the image and the idea, such that two men were introduced to the Garden, one fabricated,

50. You shall not make together with me gods of silver Philo refers here to the Decalogue, which is of crucial importance for his overall conception of Mosaic Law. Unlike the Rabbis, he subsumes all the particular laws under the general rubric of the Ten Commandments. Devoting a whole treatise to them (On the Decalogue), he argued that they define the archetypal categories of the Law. He then classified each commandment in terms of these categories. In this passage Philo’s argument connects a mixed or blemished offering of the soul to God (section 50) with idol worship. 53. the man whom he fabricated Philo’s quotation, which uses the word “epoiese” (“fabricated,” “made”) deviates from Gen. 2:15 LXX, which reads “the man whom he fabricated (‘eplasen’).” Either Philo used a different version of the Greek text or, more likely, he adapted the text to his own interpretation, quoting from memory and thus easily making small amendments. two men were introduced to the Garden Philo systematically applies his interpretation of the two creation accounts, which we saw above in Alleg. Interp. 1.31. He now insists that in the Garden, too, there were two types of man, suggesting that disobedience and exile apply only to the earthly

Allegorical Interpretation 1.31–62

911

and the other according to the image. 54The man created according to the idea is not only found in the cultivations of virtues, but is also their tiller and guardian. That means that he is mindful of things he has heard and practiced, while the man fabricated neither tills the virtues nor guards them, but is only introduced to the ordinances thanks to God’s generosity, being about to become a fugitive from virtue. 55Therefore the man whom God only places in the Garden he [Moses] calls “fabricated,” while the one whom he appoints as tiller and guardian is not “fabricated,” but “created.” While He receives this one, He casts out that one. He considered the man whom He receives as worthy of three [gifts] of which well-being is composed: intellectual liveliness, perseverance and memory. Intellectual liveliness is the placing in the Garden, perseverance is the practice of good deeds, while memory is the guarding and careful observation of the precepts. The fabricated mind neither remembers the good nor practices it, being only clever. Therefore, being placed in the Garden he escapes a little later and is cast out. 56“And God caused to spring out of the earth every tree fair to look at and good to eat, and the Tree of Life was in the middle of the Garden, and the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil” (Gen. 2:9 LXX). [Moses] now elaborates on the trees of virtue which He has planted in the soul. These are the particular virtues, the corresponding activities, virtuous actions and what the philosophers call common duties, these being the trees of the Garden. 57[Moses] characterizes these very plants showing that the man, while the heavenly man continuously guards the virtues (based on Gen. 2.15). In this way Philo can also defend his allegorical interpretation of the Garden as a story about human virtue—which, of course, must be an eternal model rather than a once-upon-a-time situation. The circular path traced by Philo’s interpretive method is now closed. It began with his rejection of the literal and mythological meaning of the Garden story and culminates in an emphatic affirmation of everlasting human virtue. 56. particular virtues Philo generally speaks of four particular virtues: prudence, self-mastery, courage, and justice. These are mentioned further down in Alleg. Interp. 1.63–65 and represent the generally recognized virtues in Greek thought. On other occasions, however, Philo substitutes piety for justice, describing all of the virtues as the right mean between excessive extremes (e.g., Unchangeable 164), calls piety “the queen of the virtues” (e.g., Spec. 4. 135, 147) or piety and humanity together “the queens of the virtues,” (e.g., in Virt. 95). This shows that Philo used the terms popular at his time without being fully committed to any one approach. virtuous actions . . . common duties Philo refers here to a known philosophical distinction between absolute moral duties and common duties. While he uses these terms in a rather general sense, without elaborating on their precise meaning, his predecessor Cicero throws some light on their background. Living in 1st-century bce Rome, Cicero translated and explained much of Greek culture to his Latin-speaking audience. He distinguishes between absolute and common moral duties, mentioning their Greek definitions: “whatever is right they define as ‘absolute’ duty, but ‘mean’ duty, they say, is duty for the performance of which an adequate reason may be rendered” (Off. 1:8). 57 Philo echoes here the Aristotelian distinction between theoretical and practical sciences (Metaph. 6.2). This distinction became so famous as an Aristotelian principle that Diogenes Laertius, summarizing Greek philosophy in the 3rd century ce, mentioned it before any other view held by the philosopher (Lives 5.28). It must be noted that Philo generally rejected most of Aristotle’s ideas, such as the eternity of the world (Creation 7) and a critical inquiry into canonical texts

912 Maren R. Niehoff

good is also most fair to be looked at and enjoyed. Some of the arts are theoretical and not practical, such as geometry and astronomy, while some are practical and not theoretical, such as architecture and the art of the smith and all the arts which are called manual. But virtue is both theoretical and practical. It has a theoretical aspect, because leading to it is philosophy with her three parts, logic, ethics and physics. Yet it also has a practical aspect, since virtue is the art of the whole life, which includes all actions. 58And indeed, encompassing theory and practice, virtue again excels very much in each of these. The theory of virtue is most noble, while its practice and use are most desired. Therefore [Moses] says that it is “fair to look at,” which is a symbol of theory, and “good to eat,” which is a sign of the useful and practical. 59The tree of life is the most generic virtue, which some call goodness, from which derive the particular virtues. Therefore it is placed in the middle of the Garden, occupying the most essential place, so that like a king it may be served by guards on each side. Some, however, say that the Tree of Life is the heart, because it is the cause of life and occupies the central place of the body, and it is in their view the leading part. But these should notice that they are exposing a medical doctrine rather than the scientific meaning [of Scripture], while we, as has been said before, hold that generic virtue is called Tree of Life. 60[Moses] expressly says that the tree is in the middle of the Garden. He does not explain concerning the other tree, that of knowing good and evil, whether it is inside or outside the Garden. He merely says “and the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil,” immediately falling silent without explaining where it happens to be, in order that the uninitiated into natural philosophy may not regard with wonder the place of knowledge. What then should we say? That this tree is both inside the Garden and outside of it, inside by virtue of its nature, outside by virtue of its power. 61How so? Our leading principle is allreceiving and like wax receives all impressions, both good and ugly. Therefore Jacob, who strikes with a heel, confesses and says: “Upon me came all these things” (Gen. 42:36 LXX). Upon the soul, being

(Confusion 1–13). Philo also opposed colleagues in the Jewish community who accepted these Aristotelian premises. Yet Aristotle’s notions were so prevalent, especially in Alexandria, where they had gained access through the philosophers and scholars connected to the Library, that even Philo often mentioned certain terms of his. This combination of a more Platonic approach with Aristotelian technical terms subsequently became characteristic of many philosophers and the church fathers. philosophy with her three parts The division of philosophy into three parts—logic, ethics, and physics—was widespread in antiquity and is usually traced to the school of the Stoics, (Lives 7.39). 59. Some, however, say Philo refers here to other allegorical interpreters in the Jewish community. In the above passages, we encountered several references to other interpreters who inquired into the literal meaning of Scripture. While Philo was generally more critical of them, he is sympathetic to colleagues committed to the allegorical method. In this case, however, he disagrees with their particular interpretation, insisting that they miss the “scientific” or “profound” meaning of Scripture. Philo uses this term on other occasions, implying a meaning in accordance with Nature and truth (see, e.g., Abraham 99). He thus reveals his own allegorical interpretations as well as those of his colleagues. 61. Therefore Jacob . . . confesses This is a good example of how Philo uses proof texts. He is the first known Jewish exegete who explicitly juxtaposes verses from different passages, illuminating one verse by reference to another. While this technique became prevalent in later Rabbinic

Allegorical Interpretation 1.31–62

913

one, are carried all the impressions of the whole universe. Whenever it receives the impression of perfect virtue, it becomes the Tree of Life, but whenever it receives the impression of evil, it becomes the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil, since evil is banished from the divine choir. The leading principle which has received it [virtue] is thus within the Garden according to its nature, because in it there is an impression of virtue which is proper to the Garden, yet again it is also outside the Garden because of its power, because the impression of evil is alien to the Divine sunrise. 62What I say may also be understood thus: right now the leading principle of my soul is by nature in my body, but by its power in Italy or Sicily, or whichever country it considers, and in heaven whenever it investigates into it. Therefore it often happens that some, who by nature are in unhallowed places, find themselves in the most holy ones because they imagine virtuous things, and again others, who are in the most hallowed places, are profane in their thought, which inclines toward the worse and receives inferior impressions. Thus evil neither is in the Garden nor is not in the Garden. It can be there by its nature, but by its power it cannot.

writings, it appears to be rather new in 1st-century ce Alexandria. It relies on the notion that the whole of Scripture is one unity that should be explained from within. In the above case Philo typically uses the proof text by disconnecting it from its original context. While biblical Jacob bemoaned the fact that Joseph and Simon were lost and Benjamin had been taken, Philo relies on the verse’s allegorical meaning, taking it to refer to all the impressions that came upon the rational part of the soul.

Notes 1. See J. Royse, “The Works of Philo,” in The Cambridge Companion to Philo, ed. A. Kamesar [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009], 32–64). 2. For details, see M. N. Niehoff, Jewish Bible Exegesis and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011) 75–130. 3. For details, see D. Winston, “Philo and Rabbinic Literature,” in The Cambridge Companion to Philo, ed. A. Kamesar (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009) 231–53. 4. Dominique Barthélemy, “Est-ce Hoshaya Rabba qui censura le ‘Commentaire Allégorique’?” in Philon d’Alexandrie, Colloques nationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (Paris: CNRS, 1967), 45–78. 5. A. Terian, “The Priority of the Quaestiones among Philo’s Exegetical Commentaries,” in Both Literal and Allegorical: Studies in Philo of Alexandria’s Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus, ed. D. M. Hay, Brown Judaic Studies 232 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 29–46; G. E. Sterling, “Philo’s Quaestiones; Prolegomena or Afterthought?,” ibid, 99–124. 6. For details, see M. R. Niehoff, “Alexandrian Judaism in 19th Century Wissenschaft des Judentums: Between Christianity and Modernity,” in Jüdische Geschichte in hellenistisch-römischer Zeit, Wege der Forschung: Vom alten zum neuen Schürer, ed. A. Oppenheimer, (Munich: R. Oldenbourg, 1999), 9–28. 7. Arius Didymus, an Alexandrian Platonist living a generation before Philo, is the first extant writer to mention an Ideal Form of man (Eusebius, Praep. ev. 11.23). 8. Y. Amir, “Authority and Interpretation of Scripture in the Writings of Philo” in Mikra, ed. M. J. Mulder (Assen/Maastricht: Fortress, 421–53.; H. Burkhardt, Die Inspiration heiliger Schriften bei Philo von Alexandrien (Giessen and Basel: Brunnen Verlag, 1988). 9. For further details, see Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis, 38–57 and article on Demetrius in this book. 10. On these and other Rabbinic passages, see I. Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires. Yetzer Hara and the Making of Rabbinic Anthropology (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011).

914 Maren R. Niehoff

11. For details, see H. Ben Sasson and M. Halbertal, “The Name of God and the Quality of Mercy” [Hebrew], in Festschrift for Yehuda Liebes, ed. M. R. Niehoff, et al. ( Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2012). 12. The difficulty is increased by the parallel controversy about allegory in Greek culture. One of the central issues is the question of whether or not allegory served merely as an apologetic means to defend a canonical text, either Scripture or Homer’s epic. Scholars have often identified allegory as a method invented by the Stoics, who sought ways of defending the epic and thus suggested a more elevated, philosophical meaning to replace the literal, mythical level. This approach has been challenged by A. A. Long (“Stoic Readings of Homer,” in Homer’s Ancient Readers: The Hermeneutics of Greek Epic’s Earliest Exegetes, ed. R. Lamberton and J. J. Keaney [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992], 41–66; see also references there to earlier works), who argued that the Stoics did not introduce allegory, but rather were concerned with etymology, which investigates the root meanings of key words and eventually also led to allegory. Similarly, Philo was often interpreted as adopting Stoic allegory in order to defend Scripture and render it more philosophical as well as more “Greek.” This approach has been challenged by D. Dawson (Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexandria [Berkeley 1992], 73–126; see references there to earlier works), who suggested that Philo’s method rather subjects Greek culture to the Jewish Scriptures. 13. See David Stern, Parables in Midrash: Narrative and Exegesis in Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994).

Allegorical Interpretation 1.31–62

915

On the Life of Abraham Ellen Birnbaum

Philo’s On the Life of Abraham is the second treatise in his exegetical series known as the Exposition of the Law. In this series, before presenting specific laws, Philo—like Scripture—tells of Creation, the early generations of humanity, and Israel’s forebears. After his treatise on Creation, Philo’s On the Life of Abraham introduces the “unwritten laws,” that is, the earliest figures, whose lives were models for the written, Mosaic laws (Abraham 1–6). These figures comprise two triads: Enos, Enoch, and Noah symbolize, respectively, hope, repentance/improvement, and justice (7–47). Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the superior triad, represent virtue attained, respectively, through teaching, nature, and practice. These latter three patriarchs are ancestors of Israel, whose name means “one who sees God,” and seeing God is “the height of happiness” (48–59). With this introduction, Philo now turns to Abraham,1 the main subject of his treatise. Philo recounts five episodes in a section on the patriarch’s virtue of piety in relation to God (60–207) and three episodes in a section on his other virtues in relation to people (208– 61). In each episode but one (245–61, see below), Philo presents the “literal” account followed by an allegorical interpretation. In the section on Abraham’s piety, Philo discusses: Abraham’s migration from Chaldea to Haran, where he discovers God (Gen. 11:31– 12:9). Allegorically, this journey is that of a wise man or soul who travels from false belief in astrology and the “Chaldean creed” (which equates Creation with God) to knowledge of the true God (Abraham 60–88). Abraham and Sarah’s sojourn in Egypt (Gen. 12:10–20), which teaches symbolically that if vice and virtue come together within the soul, God uses virtue to torture the soul’s vice-ridden part (Abraham 89–106). Abraham’s reception of three angelic visitors (Gen. 18), who symbolize God and his two powers (the creative and the kingly) and who correspond to different human dispositions toward the Divine (Abraham 107–32). The destruction by fire of four of the five Sodomite cities (Gen. 19), which represent the five senses (Abraham 133–66). Philo discusses this episode in connection with the episode before and does not mention Abraham here. Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice the beloved son born to him and Sarah (Gen. 22). After responding to critics who question the greatness of this deed, Philo explains that the episode symbolizes the wise man’s recognition that true joy belongs to God alone, who in turn allows humanity a share of this joy (Abraham 167–207). In relation to people (208), Abraham displays such traditional Greek virtues as:

916

justice, when he allows Lot to choose the better territory after their servants quarrel (Gen. 13:5–11). This episode shows that one who values wisdom and virtue cannot dwell together with one who values external goods (Abraham 209–24). courage, in the war between the kings (Gen. 14), which symbolizes the conflict between the five senses and four passions (Abraham 225–44). wisdom and moderation, because he refrained from excessively grieving for Sarah (Gen. 23). Sarah evinces her own merits, especially when she offers her handmaid to Abraham for procreative purposes (Gen. 16:1–6; Abraham 245–61). After describing Abraham’s piety in relation to God and his other virtues in relation to people, Philo now concludes by praising Abraham’s faith in and obedience to God (Gen. 15:6, 24:1, 22:16, 26:5; Abraham 262–76). A blend of genres, On the Life of Abraham combines Jewish exegesis with contemporary Hellenistic forms of writing, such as biography, encomium (expression of praise), and synkrisis (comparison). Because he assumes no prior knowledge of Scripture and provides no evidence to exclude an audience of either Jews or non-Jews, Philo may have had a mixed readership in mind. By presenting the ancestor of the Jews as a virtuous exemplar, and at times superior to others (e.g., Abraham 178–99, 262–67), perhaps Philo wished to bolster and encourage Jews’ pride, inform less knowledgeable Jews or curious non-Jews, reclaim alienated Jews, or assuage hostile non-Jews (e.g., Abraham 28). For more on Philo, see the essay “The Writings of Philo,” elsewhere in these volumes. Significance Because of its ideas, interpretations, and place in Philo’s Exposition of the Law, On the Life of Abraham is one of Philo’s most important treatises. Philo divides the Pentateuch into three parts—Creation, exemplary lives and their opposites, and laws (Rewards 1–3; cf. Moses 2.45–47). On the Life of Abraham introduces the second of these parts, the “historical” (Rewards 2) or “genealogical” (Moses 2.47). Although Philo almost certainly composed treatises on Isaac and Jacob (Joseph 1, Decalogue 1), these are no longer extant. We are therefore fortunate to have this only remaining full-length treatment of one of the patriarchs, especially of Abraham, the first of the patriarchs and founder of the Jewish nation. The longer title of this treatise—“The Life of the Wise Man Made Perfect through Teaching, or the First Book on Unwritten Laws”2—expresses several of Philo’s distinctive, original ideas. He views the early generations as embodying three kinds of laws known in the Greek world: unwritten laws, “laws endowed with soul and reason,” and the law of nature (Abraham 3–6). In contrast to Jubilees’ author and the Rabbis and other sources who believed that these early biblical figures followed the Mosaic ordinances before they were given, Philo claims that the very lives of these figures were laws in themselves, “originals” that the written laws copied. By calling Abraham a wise man and rarely referring to him by name, Philo makes him a universal model. Influenced by the Greek philosophical idea of a telos (goal), for example, Philo transforms God’s command to Abraham to leave his homeland into the sage’s (or soul’s) quest to discover God.

On the Life of Abraham 917

The interpretation that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob represent virtue acquired respectively through teaching, nature, and practice is in Philo’s works a frequent topos (commonplace), which he never directly explains and may have inherited.3 The association of Abraham specifically with teaching appears to be related to Philo’s interpretations of three episodes in Abraham’s life, two of which are discussed prominently in Abraham 60–80. First, Abraham’s departure from Chaldea to Haran and then to Canaan, where God appeared to him (Gen. 11:31, 12:1–7) signifies, according to Philo, Abraham’s discovery of the true God. Although Philo does not explicitly link this episode to teaching here, he does so in Rewards 58. Second, based on this understanding of Abraham’s departure from Chaldea, the change of Abram’s name to Abraham (Gen. 17:5) confirms his transition from belief in astrology and false Chaldean tenets to recognition of the true God. Third and finally, Abraham’s mating with Hagar prior to Sarah’s conception of Isaac (Gen. 16:1–6) allegorically represents Abraham’s pursuit of the encyclical studies (or preliminary curriculum, symbolized by Hagar) before he can mate productively with Sarah—that is, acquire virtue (see e.g., On the Preliminary Studies 11–12). Philo reports that Sarah offers her handmaid to Abraham in order to procreate (Abraham 247–54) but does not include here the allegorical interpretation just described. Although many Philonic interpretations, based on the Septuagint (LXX), diverge from exegesis based on the Hebrew, Philo may show awareness of broader Jewish trends. His grouping of the early generations into two triads is a new contribution. In designating Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as superior to Enos, Enoch, and Noah (Abraham 48), however, Philo may be implicitly responding to the glorification of Enoch and Noah in some other sources. Philo’s depiction of the universal human striving for perfection—with its stages of hope, repentance/improvement, and justice—brings within a single framework several earlier associations to Enos, Enoch, and Noah. In a beautiful tribute based on Gen. 4:26 and 5:1 LXX, though, Philo may be the first to extol hope as uniquely human. He also makes explicit and elaborates upon the notion—heretofore mainly implicit in Greek philosophy— of the human as a microcosm (Abraham 71–76). Although Philo may also derive several etymologies from a traditional source or list of etymologies, he is a rare, early witness to the explanation of “Israel”—found in several later, patristic writings—as “one who sees God.” That Abraham left false Chaldean worship (variously understood) is a widespread motif already apparent in Josh. 24:2. In contrast, however, to Jubilees’ author and Josephus, who portray Abraham as discovering God through observation of the heavens alone, Philo presents him discovering God also through observation of himself (Abraham 71–76). In a section of the treatise not included in the commentary below (Abraham 119–32), the interpretation of Abraham’s three angelic visitors (Gen. 18) expresses important Philonic beliefs about God and his two powers and about human dispositions in relation to God. Philo’s understanding of God’s creative and kingly powers resembles the Rabbis’ divine middot (attributes), but Philo and the Rabbis reverse the connections between God’s qualities and his names (see comment on Abraham 59). While the Rabbis’ Abraham exemplifies admirable qualities in general, Philo’s sage illustrates traditional Greek virtues in specific: justice, courage, wisdom, and moderation, to which Philo adds piety and faith.

918

Ellen Birnbaum

Guide to Reading The introduction and account of Abraham’s migration (Abraham 1–88, presented below) offer an essential orientation to many important Philonic ideas described above, including Abraham’s discovery of the true God. Echoing some themes from these opening sections, the conclusion to the treatise (Abraham 262–76, also presented below) underscores the importance of faith in God generally and the faith of Abraham specifically. Based on Gen. 26:5, this section also affirms that Abraham followed God’s commands without their having been written down and was himself, as Philo declares, an unwritten law. Beyond the detailed commentary on these two sections, presented below, because Philo ostensibly addresses a broad, general audience, one can benefit simply by a straightforward reading of the rest of this treatise. For insight into how Philo’s “literal” presentation differs from Scripture’s plain sense, readers should compare his discussion with the Septuagint. His account of Abraham and Sarah in Egypt, for example, omits Abraham’s apparently deceptive request that Sarah present herself as his sister and focuses instead on the Egyptian king’s licentiousness and God’s saving action. Because some Philonic interpretations (e.g., Enos as a symbol of hope) are based on Greek biblical readings that differ from the Hebrew, readers may wish to compare the Septuagint with the Hebrew Bible as well. Philo’s selection and ordering of material support his purpose in presenting Abraham as a universal exemplar. Philo avoids such particularistic details, for example, as God’s promises to Abraham regarding land and offspring, the covenant between God and Abraham, and the sign of circumcision. Abraham’s separation from Lot (Gen. 13:5–11; Abraham 209–24) follows the near sacrifice of Isaac (Gen. 22; Abraham 167–207) because the latter illustrates Abraham’s piety (which is discussed in the first part of the treatise), and the former illustrates Abraham’s justice in dealing with others (and thus belongs later with Philo’s presentation of Abraham’s virtues in relation to people). To contrast the Egyptian king’s bad behavior with Abraham’s generous hospitality, Philo juxtaposes Sarah and Abraham’s Egyptian sojourn (Gen. 12:10–20; Abraham 89–106) with Abraham’s reception of his three visitors (Gen. 18; Abraham 107–32). Suggested Reading The sources below deal with On the Life of Abraham as a whole or with specific issues discussed in the introductory comments. For readings on additional topics, please see the notes. Birnbaum, Ellen. “Exegetical Building Blocks in Philo’s Interpretation of the Patriarchs.” In From Judaism to Christianity: Tradition and Transition, edited by Patricia Walters, 69–92. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Böhm, Martina. Rezeption und Funktion der Vätererzählungen bei Philo von Alexandria. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005. Brenton, L. C. L. The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English. London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1851; rpt. Peabody ma: Hendrickson, 1999. Colson, F. H., trans. On the Life of Abraham. In Philo, vol. 6, 54–135. Cambridge ma: Harvard University Press, 1935; rpt. 1984. Rahlfs, A., ed. Septuaginta, 8th ed., 2 vols. Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1965, 1935. Runia, David T. “The Place of De Abrahamo in Philo’s oeuvre.” SPhA 20 (2008): 133–50. Sandmel, Samuel. Philo’s Place in Judaism: A Study of Conceptions of Abraham in Jewish Literature. Augmented ed. New York: Ktav, 1971. Termini, Christina. “The Historical Part of the Pentateuch according to Philo of Alexandria: Biography, Genealogy, and the Philosophical Meaning of the Patriarchal Lives.” In History and Identity: How Israel’s Later Authors Viewed Its Earlier History, edited by N. Calduch-Benages and J. Liesen, 265–87. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006.

On the Life of Abraham 919

Translation On Abraham: That Is, the Life of the Wise Man Made Perfect through Teaching, or the First Book on Unwritten Laws

I. 1The first of the five books in which the holy laws are written bears the name and inscription of Genesis, from the genesis or creation of the world, an account of which it contains at its beginning. It has received this title in spite of its embracing numberless other matters; for it tells of peace and war, of fruitfulness and barrenness, of dearth and plenty; how fire and water wrought great destruction of what is on earth; how on the other hand plants and animals were born and throve through the kindly tempering of the air and the yearly seasons, and so too men, some of whom lived a life of virtue, oth-

Commentary 1. the holy laws In Genesis these are “unwritten laws,” according to Philo (Abraham 3–6). The standard Greek translation of Torah—a Hebrew name for the Pentateuch that signifies “instruction”—is nomos, with the primary sense of “law.” Although Philo views the Pentateuch as the law book of Moses (Creation 1–3), he also understands nomos to encompass instruction,5 and he uses nomos in the singular and plural to apply to both the legal and narrative parts of the Pentateuch. Genesis Unlike the Hebrew Bible, in which the first five books are each named according to one of the book’s opening words, titles in the Greek Pentateuch—from which we derive our English titles—pertain to the book’s content. war The war between the kings (Gen. 14). fire and water The destruction through fire of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19:24–25) and the Flood of Noah’s time (Gen. 6:9–8:22). Even though the Flood encompassed the whole earth and the destruction by fire was limited to Sodom and Gomorrah, Philo speaks of the two episodes together (see too Philo, Moses 2.52–56, 263). “Fire and water” may also reflect a Jewish tradition that Sodom was destroyed by a “flood of fire” (cf. Abraham 138 and Gen. Rab. 49:9)6 or a philosophical notion that several destructions of humanity by fire and water will take place (Eternity 146–48; Plato, Tim. 22c–e). virtue . . . vice Greek ethical categories (e.g., Plato, Resp. 348c; Aristotle, Eth. nic. 2.5–6.1105b–1107a). Like many ancient exegetes, Philo generally views biblical figures as either good or bad.

Source of Translation: The translation is by F.H. Colson from the Loeb Classical Library edition of On the Life of Abraham 1–88, 262–76 (vol. 6, pp. 5–49, 129–35, cited above). Unless otherwise indicated, most translations of the Greek Bible provided in the commentary are taken or adapted from Brenton, The Septuagint with Apocrypha (cited above).4 References to Greek biblical verses that do not include a translation follow the numbering used in Rahlfs, Septuaginta (cited above). (Occasionally the numbering in Brenton’s English translation and Rahlfs’s Greek edition differ.) Philonic quotations from the Greek Bible that appear in the treatise are part of Colson’s translation (see above). Unless otherwise indicated, translations of the Hebrew Bible are taken or adapted from NJPS. The appearance of “LXX” after a verse reference in the commentary generally indicates that the meaning or the numbering of the Greek differs from the Hebrew. Sometimes, however, the same-numbered biblical verse in the Greek and the Hebrew can have the same English translation. In these cases “LXX” does not appear after the verse reference. When such a verse is quoted in the treatise and then discussed in the commentary, Colson’s English translation is used; otherwise, Brenton’s English translation from the Greek is used (see above).

920 Ellen Birnbaum

ers of vice. 2But since some of these things are parts of the world, and others events which befall it, and the world is the complete consummation which contains them all, he dedicated the whole book to it. 3The story of the order in which the world was made has been set forth in detail by us as well as was possible in the preceding treatise; but, since it is necessary to carry out our examination of the law in regular sequence, let us postpone consideration of particular laws, which are, so to speak, copies, and examine first those which are more general and may be called the originals of those copies. 4These are such men as lived good and blameless lives, whose virtues stand permanently recorded in the most holy Scriptures, not merely to sound their praises but for the instruction of the reader and as an inducement to him to aspire to the same; 5for in these men we have laws endowed with life and reason, and Moses 2. events which befall it In this broad thematic introduction, Philo alludes to such particular details as the barrenness of Sarah, Rebecca, and Rachel (Gen. 16:1, 25:21, 29:31); the famines during the times of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Gen. 12:10, 26:1, 41:56–42:2), and the years of plenty and famine in Egypt under Joseph (Gen. 41) (see also comments on 1, war and fire and water). Notably missing from this sweeping overview is any reference to the role of God. he dedicated The subject is apparently Moses. Philo often uses the third person indefinitely and we must infer the subject from the context. In this treatise, the translator often supplies “Moses” when his name does not appear in the Greek (e.g., Philo, Abraham 5, 7). Other possible subjects occasionally include “God” or “Scripture.” 3. the preceding treatise That is, Philo’s On the Creation of the World. the law The Greek has “laws,” in the plural. See comment on 1, the holy laws. let us postpone Philo is implicitly addressing why the Mosaic legislation does not immediately begin with laws but instead starts with an account of Creation and the patriarchs (cf. Creation 1–3).7 He follows Moses in describing “living” or “unwritten” laws before the written ones. particular laws The many individual laws from Exodus 20 (the “Ten Commandments,” or Decalogue) through Deuteronomy, which Philo discusses primarily in his treatises On the Decalogue through On the Special Laws 4. Although the Hebrew and Greek Bibles use words like “commandments,” Philo frequently speaks of biblical injunctions as “laws,” perhaps for the benefit of readers more familiar with Greek notions of law than with divinely ordained precepts. Elsewhere, Philo distinguishes between the Decalogue, which contains general headings, and the rest of the commandments, which he designates as “particular laws” (Spec. Laws 1.1, Rewards 2), but here he seems to group the Decalogue together with the rest. copies . . . originals A distinction influenced by Platonic thought, especially as found in Plato’s Timaeus (e.g., 29b). Here, “originals” refers to the law of nature exemplified by Enos, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, whom Philo sees as laws in themselves and whose lives are to be emulated. Scholars disagree about whether or not by calling the particular laws “copies” Philo is implying that they are inferior to the originals. Most recent authors believe that he sees the two kinds of laws as equal.8 4. for the instruction of the reader and as an inducement In accord with the ideals of Plato and other philosophers, Philo understands instruction and persuasion as part of Moses’s role as a lawgiver.9 5. laws endowed with life In Greek, nomoi empsychoi; sometimes translated literally as “ensouled laws” or “living laws.” The term first appears in the Hellenistic period and expresses the ancient Greek notion that the king embodies or is a living representation of the law (Philo, Moses 2.4).10 To this phrase, Philo adds logikoi, reasonable, and he applies the same expression to Moses (Moses 1.162). Moses Not named explicitly in the Greek (see comment on 2, he dedicated).

On the Life of Abraham 921

extolled them for two reasons. First he wished to show that the enacted ordinances are not inconsistent with nature; and secondly that those who wish to live in accordance with the laws as they stand have no difficult task, seeing that the first generations before any at all of the particular statutes was set in writing followed the unwritten law with perfect ease, so that one might properly say that the enacted laws are nothing else than memorials of the life of the ancients, preserving to a later generation their actual words and deeds. 6For they were not scholars or pupils of others, nor did they learn under teachers what was right to say or do: they listened to no voice or instruction but their own: they gladly accepted conformity with nature, holding that nature itself was, as indeed it is, the most venerable of statutes, and thus their whole life was one of happy obedience to law. They committed no guilty action of their own free will or purpose, and where chance led them wrong they besought God’s mercy and propitiated Him with prayers and supplications, and thus secured a perfect life guided aright in both fields, both in their premeditated actions and in such as were not of freely-willed purpose. not inconsistent with nature Prior to the Stoics, who brought the concepts of law and nature into harmony, various Greek philosophers had understood these two concepts to be in opposition.11 See comment on 6, conformity with nature. the laws as they stand Or, the laws laid down; that is, all the particular laws in the Pentateuch (see comment on 3, particular laws). Although Philo does not say so explicitly, he presumably includes living in accordance with these laws as they had come to be interpreted in his day. the first generations Enos, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Since they lived before the written laws were given at Mt. Sinai, an important question for ancient interpreters is whether or not these early figures followed those laws. Philo explains that their very lives were the models for the written laws, which are thus “memorials” of their lives. Other Jewish sources, for example, the Rabbis, answer the question differently (see comment on 276, “one who obeyed the law, some will say”). the unwritten law Philo uses “unwritten law” with a number of meanings; here it apparently refers to the law of nature, which the first generations followed (cf. 2 Bar. 57). Elsewhere Philo calls the patriarchs themselves (“the founders of our nation”—implicitly only Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) “unwritten laws” (Decalogue 1), and he also applies the term to “the lives of those who have earnestly followed virtue” (Virtues 194). “Unwritten law” can signify custom as well (e.g., Spec. Laws 4.149–50; cf. Aristotle, Rhet. 1.14.1375a). Scholars have debated whether or not one can ever identify Philo’s understanding of the term with the Torah she-be-al peh, or the Oral Law of the Rabbis. While similar traditions can sometimes be found in Philonic and Rabbinic literature, it is unlikely that Philonic “unwritten law” and Rabbinic Oral Law are identical.12 6. conformity with nature An ideal in Stoicism first expressed by its founder, Zeno, and embodied, according to Philo, by both the early patriarchs and the Mosaic laws (see also Philo, Moses 2.48). of their own free will Although Pentateuchal law distinguishes between sins committed wittingly and unwittingly (e.g., Lev. 4–5; Num. 15:22–31), it is unclear here how Philo applies this distinction specifically to the first generations. prayers and supplications Because the Bible does not record patriarchal prayers and supplications that would fit his description here, it is unclear what Philo has in mind. For other patriarchal approaches to the Deity, see, e.g., Gen. 12:8, 25:21, and 28:20–22. See also comment on 51, prayers and supplications.

922 Ellen Birnbaum

II. 7Since, then, the first step toward the possession of blessings is hope, and hope like a high road is constructed and opened up by the virtue-loving soul in its eagerness to gain true excellence, Moses called the first lover of hope “Man,” thus bestowing on him as a special favor the name which is common to the race 8(for the Chaldean name for Man is Enos), on the grounds that he alone is a true man who expects good things and rests firmly on comfortable hopes. This plainly shows that he regards a despondent person as no man but as a beast in human shape, since he has been robbed of the nearest and dearest possession of the human soul, namely hope. 9And, therefore, in his wish to give the highest praise to the hoper, after first stating that he set his hope on the Father and Maker of all, he adds, “this is the book of the coming into being of men,” though fathers and grandfathers had already come 7. Moses called the first lover of hope “Man” The Hebrew name “Enosh” means “man,” or human. Philo’s association of Enosh with hope is based on the Greek translation of Gen. 4:26, which differs from the Hebrew. Whereas the Hebrew notes that after Enosh was born, “[i]t was then that men began [‘az huh.al] to invoke the Lord by name,” the Greek says, presumably about Enos, that “he hoped [houtos ēlpisen, perhaps based on the Hebrew verb root y-h ̣-l] to call on the name of the Lord God.” (Enos is an English transliteration of the Greek, which does not have an equivalent for the Hebrew letter shin, as reflected in “Enosh.”) By calling Enos the first lover of hope, Philo incorporates the sense of beginning found in the Hebrew. While Philo and other pre-Rabbinic Jewish and later Christian interpreters see Enos positively, the Rabbis, on the basis of the Hebrew verse, take a negative view of “the generation of Enosh” as idolaters.13 See also Philo, Worse 138. Since the Hebrew of Gen. 4:26 suggests that the Lord and his name were known before Abraham and Moses, the Greek translators may have purposely changed the meaning to preserve Abraham’s distinction as the first to discover God or to avoid the contradiction posed by God’s later revelation of his name to Moses (Exod. 3:14; cf. 6:3).14 8. Chaldean In two exegetical series, his Exposition of the Law and his Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus, Philo occasionally uses this term or forms of it as a synonym for “Hebrew,” to denote either the language or its users; cf. comment on 69, the Chaldeans. he alone is a true man who expects good things For hope (elpis) as expectation of good things, see Pseudo-Plato, Definitiones 416a (possibly 4th century bce). Earlier, elpis had referred to expectation in a neutral sense (e.g., Plato, Phileb. 39e). In what appears to be his original contribution, Philo considerably heightens the significance of elpis by understanding it as integral to human nature.15 9. the Father and Maker of all Philo frequently uses this Platonic epithet for God (e.g., Tim. 28c; see comment on 58, to see the Father and Maker of all). In Scripture, people are often said to place their hope in the Lord, or God of Israel; here Philo emphasizes that God is a universal deity. “this is the book of the coming into being of men” Genesis 5:1 LXX. These words introduce the genealogy that follows in Gen. 5 LXX, but Philo applies them to what precedes—that is, Gen. 4:26 LXX and Enos. The exegetical problem, arising from the Greek translation, that Philo addresses is why Scripture (or Moses) waits until now to acknowledge humans’ coming into being when before Enos there were other humans. The Greek differs from the Hebrew, which translates literally, “This is the book of the generations of Adam [or humankind]” (author’s translation). Instead of “generations” (plural) the Greek has “genesis” (singular, translated in the treatise text as “the coming into being”); instead of “Adam” or “humankind” in the singular, the Greek has the plural “humans” (anthrōpoi, translated in the treatise text as “men”). Since the Hebrew clearly

On the Life of Abraham 923

into being. But he held that they were the founders of the mixed race, but Enos of that from which all impurity had been strained, in fact of the race which is truly reasonable. 10For just as we give the title of “the poet” to Homer in virtue of his pre-eminence, though there are multitudes of poets besides him, and “the black” to the material with which we write, though everything is black which is not white, and “the Archon” at Athens to the chief of the nine archons, the Archon Eponymos, from whose year of office dates are calculated, so too Moses gave the name of man in pre-eminence to him who cherished hope and left unnoticed the many others as unworthy to receive the title. 11He did well, too, in speaking of the book of the coming into being of the true man. The word was appropriate because the hoper deserves a memorial written not on pieces of paper which moths shall destroy but in the undying book of nature where good actions are registered. 12Further, if we reckon the generations from the first, the earth-born man, we shall find that he, who is called by the Chaldeans Enos and in our tongue Man, is fourth. 13Now the number four has been held in high honor by the other philosophers who devoted themselves to the study of immaterial and conceptual realities, and especially by the all-wise Moses introduces the generations of Adam (or humankind) listed in the subsequent verses, it does not pose the same problem as the Greek. the mixed race Rational and irrational (Philo, QG 1.79). Philo sees Enos as founding a “truly reasonable” race because he possessed the distinctively human quality of hope. (See also Philo, Worse 138–39 and QG 1.80; but cf. Rewards 13, in which humans are seen as a mixture of mortal and immortal). 10. the black Melan (black) is also the Greek word for ink. the Archon The highest civilian office in Athens. This chief archon was also called the Archon Eponymous (“eponymous” meaning “relating to one for whom something is named”) because years came to be known by his name for dating purposes. 11. the book Continued exegesis of Gen. 5:1 LXX (see Abraham 9). Contrasting a perishable book with “the undying book of nature,” Philo upholds his claim that the Mosaic law is equivalent to the law of nature. In Worse 139, he calls it “the book of God.” See also comment on 15, set by nature. 12. the first, the earth-born man That is, Adam. Philo distinguishes between what he views as the ideal human whose creation is reported in Gen. 1:26–27 and the earth-born human of Gen. 2:7 (see Creation 69, 134–42; Leg. All. 1.31). the Chaldeans Those who use the Hebrew language (see comment on 8, Chaldean). fourth It is unclear why Philo assigns this number to Enos. After Adam, Enos is fourth to be born (the others are Cain, Abel, and Seth), but in reckonings of this sort (e.g., Philo, Posterity 173, Moses 1.7) Philo usually counts the first figure (here, Adam) so that Enos would be fifth or, as son of Seth and grandson of Adam, the third generation. Some commentators have suggested that in counting Enos as fourth, Philo must be omitting either Cain as unworthy (QG 1.81) or Abel, who was replaced by Seth (Gen. 4:25).16 13. the other philosophers Pythagoras and his followers, who were interested in arithmology. the all-wise Moses The epithet, which he uses frequently for Moses, reflects Philo’s esteem for the Jewish lawgiver. Philo likes to show not only that Moses’s teachings are similar to and compatible with Greek philosophical ideas—as here—but occasionally that Moses himself originated these ideas (e.g., Heir 214). Philo also applies the epithet to Abraham (Cherubim 18), Isaac (Cherubim 47, Sacrifices 43), and Jacob (Sacrifices 48).

924 Ellen Birnbaum

who when glorifying that number speaks of it as “holy and for praise,” and why he so called it has been shown in the former treatise. 14Holy, too, and praiseworthy is the hopeful man, just as on the contrary the despondent is unholy and blameworthy, since in all things he takes fear for his evil counselor; for no two things are more at enmity with each other, men say, than fear and hope, and surely that is natural, for each is an expectation, hope of good, fear on the other hand of evil, and their natures are irreconcilable and incapable of agreement. III. 15No more need be said about the subject of hope, set by nature as a door-keeper at the portals of the royal virtues within, to which access cannot be gained unless we have first paid our respects to her. 16Great indeed are the efforts expended both by lawgivers and by laws in every nation in filling the souls of free men with comfortable hopes; but he who gains this virtue of hopefulness without being led to it by exhortation or command has been educated into it by a law which nature has laid down, a law unwritten yet intuitively learnt. “holy and for praise” From Lev. 19:24 LXX. The Greek verse translates, “And in the fourth year all its fruit will be holy, praiseworthy (ainetos) to the Lord.” In this verse, ainetos, which describes the fruit, probably means “to be used for praise” of the Lord or “for which they may praise” the Lord (cf. B. Ber. 35a)—two senses that accord with the Hebrew: “In the fourth year all its fruit shall be set aside for jubilation (kodesh hillulim) before the Lord.” Philo now applies “holy and for praise” to the number four rather than the fruit. See also Philo, Planting 117–25 and Dreams 1.33. in the former treatise See Creation 47–52, in which Philo details the special properties of the number four in connection with the fourth day of Creation. 14. praiseworthy . . . blameworthy Praise and blame are standard categories of evaluation in Greek thought (e.g., Aristotle, Rhet. 1.3.1358b–1359a; see also Philo’s God 71). Setting up a contrast between “praiseworthy” (from Lev. 19:24 LXX) and blameworthy, Philo returns to the subject of hope and the hopeful man. fear and hope Often contrasted for reasons that Philo explains here (see also Philo, Names 163; Plato, Phileb. 32c). Fear is also one of the passions; see Philo, Abraham 236 and comment on 32, untamed . . . passions. 15. set by nature Just as Philo equates Mosaic law with the law of nature, he often uses “nature” as another way of referring to God (e.g., Abraham 38). a doorkeeper at the portals of the royal virtues within Philo views the ancient figures as representing a progression of virtues in the journey of the soul (see Abraham 26 and comment on 268, fulfilment of bright hopes). As the first of these figures, Enos is thus described as being at the entrance. 16. this virtue Though hope is not generally considered to be a virtue in ancient Greek literature, Philo makes it into one, as he does with several other qualities. See comment on 27, justice, the chief among the virtues. intuitively learnt That Enos became hopeful without external prodding demonstrates that unlike all other laws, the laws of Moses, which embody the unwritten law of nature, can be known intuitively (see Abraham 5–6). Philo places high value on being self-taught, which he associates especially with Isaac (e.g., Prelim. Studies 36) and also with Moses (e.g., Alleg. Interp. 3.135).

On the Life of Abraham 925

17The second place after hope is given to repentance for sins and to improvement, and, therefore, Moses mentions next in order him who changed from the worse life to the better, called by the Hebrews Enoch but in our language “recipient of grace.” We are told of him that he proved “to be pleasing to God and was not found because God transferred him,” 18for transference implies turning and changing, and the change is to the better because it is brought about by the forethought of God. For all that is done with God’s help is excellent and truly profitable, as also all that has not His directing care is unprofitable. 19And the expression used of the transferred person, that he was not found, is well said, either because the old reprehensible life is blotted out and disappears and is no more found, as though it had never been at all, or because he who is thus transferred and takes his place in the better class is naturally hard to find. For evil is widely spread and therefore known to many, while virtue is rare, so that even the few 17. The second place In the first triad; see 48. repentance for sins The association of Enoch with repentance goes back at least as far as Sirach (44:16, Greek, most versions). The Hebrew of Gen. 5:22 translates as follows: “After the birth of Methuselah, Enoch walked with God 300 years.” Instead of “Enoch walked with God,” which appears in Gen. 5:22 and 24, the Greek has “Enoch was well-pleasing to God,”17 a change possibly meant to counter the anthropomorphic implication about God as walking. Because Enoch is said to be well-pleasing to God only after the birth of Methuselah and not before, Philo understands that after Methuselah’s birth Enoch must have repented (QG 1.82). As the biblical references demonstrate, Philo is speaking here about Enoch, son of Jared, from the line of Seth (Gen. 5:18) and not Enoch, son of Cain (Gen. 4:17), whom Philo regards negatively (see, e.g., Posterity 41 and Confusion 123) the Hebrews Those who use the Hebrew language. “recipient of grace” In Greek, kecharismenos. In Posterity 41 and Confusion 123, Philo explains the etymology as “your gift (charis sou),” which is closer to the Hebrew h ̣anoch (h ̣en means “grace”). Many of Philo’s etymologies may have come from other sources or traditional lists.18 “not found because God transferred him” Genesis 5:24 LXX. The Greek differs from the Hebrew, which translates, “Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, for God took him.” Philo here understands the transference in moral terms (see also Rewards 15–21). Elsewhere, though, Philo sees Enoch as having been transferred from the mortal to the immortal realm (e.g., Names 38; see also Heb. 11:5). God’s taking, or transferring, Enoch—viewed as similar to his taking Elijah (2 Kings 2; cf. Philo, QG 1.86)—gave rise in antiquity to a vast literature about what happened to Enoch and what he learned; see, for example, 1 and 2 Enoch. In contrast to these positive views of Enoch, some Rabbis see him as wicked or inconsistent (Gen. Rab. 25.1; cf. Wis. 4:10–14). See also comment on 48, greater is the second trinity. 18. the change is to the better And so Enoch is a symbol of improvement, besides repentance (Abraham 17). all that is done with God’s help For the notion that “God is the cause of good things only,” see Confusion 180; see also Creation 72–75; Abraham 143; cf. Abraham 268. See also Eikhah Rabbah 2.1; Tanhuma Tazria’ on Ps. 5:5. 19. that he was not found Here Philo gives two quite different explanations for this expression in Gen. 5:24 LXX: first, the earlier, evil life has disappeared and, second, the virtuous person is hard to find. virtue is rare For a similar thought, see Philo, Migration 59.

926 Ellen Birnbaum

cannot comprehend it. 20Besides, the worthless man whose life is one long restlessness haunts market-places, theaters, law-courts, council halls, assemblies, and every group and gathering of men; his tongue he lets loose for unmeasured, endless, indiscriminate talk, bringing chaos and confusion into everything, mixing true with false, fit with unfit, public with private, holy with profane, sensible with absurd, because he has not been trained to that silence which in season is most excellent. 21His ears he keeps alert in meddlesome curiosity, ever eager to learn his neighbor’s affairs, whether good or bad, and ready with envy for the former and joy at the latter; for the worthless man is a creature naturally malicious, a hater of good and lover of evil. IV. 22The man of worth on the other hand, having acquired a desire for a quiet life, withdraws from the public and loves solitude, and his choice is to be unnoticed by the many, not because he is misanthropical, for he is eminently a philanthropist, but because he has rejected vice which is welcomed by the multitude who rejoice at what calls for mourning and grieve where it is well to be glad. 23And therefore he mostly secludes himself at home and scarcely ever crosses his threshold, or else because of the frequency of visitors he leaves the town and spends his days in some lonely farm, finding pleasanter society in those noblest of the whole human race whose bodies time has turned into dust but the flame of their virtues is kept alive by the written records which have survived them in poetry or in prose and serve to promote the growth of goodness in the soul. 24That was why he said that the “transferred” was not found, being hard to find and hard to seek. So he passes across from ignorance to instruction, from folly to sound sense, from cowardice to courage, from impiety to piety, and again from voluptuousness to self-control, from vaingloriousness to simplicity. And what wealth is equal in worth to these, or what possession of royalty or dominion more profitable? 25For in very truth the wealth which is not blind 20. the worthless man In what follows, Philo gives a flavor of public life in his contemporary Alexandria, and he doubtless has in mind some specific inhabitants (e.g., Flaccus 20, 33, 41). On similar gatherings in public places see, for example, Plato, Resp. 492b. 22. loves solitude And therefore is “not found” (Gen. 5:24 LXX). On Abraham’s solitude, see Abraham 87. On the solitude of the mind, apart from the senses and speech, see Abraham 30. the many In Greek, hoi polloi, from which we derive the English expression, with similar, negative connotations of the common people, or masses. not because he is misanthropical Philo’s defense of the good man against potential charges of misanthropy is reminiscent of his defense of the Jews against charges of being antisocial, and his claim that the good man “is eminently a philanthropist,” or one who loves people, is similarly reminiscent of his insistence that Jewish laws and the Jewish lawgiver are characterized by their love of humanity (philanthrōpia) (e.g., Spec. Laws 2.167; Virtues 51–174, esp. 141). Philo emphasizes Abraham’s philanthrōpia as well (e.g., Abraham 107, 208, 232). 23. the written records which have survived them in poetry or in prose An apparent reference to nonJewish literature. Philo’s portrayal of the good man as reading the works of great writers from the past conveys his high estimation of and admiration for Greek learning. 24. he passes across Philo describes from and to what Enoch was transferred (cf. Rewards 15–17). The Greek word for repentance, metanoia (Abraham 17, 26), can also signify conversion from false beliefs to belief in the one, true God, and Philo presents a similar list of what the proselyte leaves behind and adopts (see Virtues 175–86, esp. 180–82). 25. the wealth which is not blind Philo often contrasts blind, material wealth with spiritual wealth

On the Life of Abraham 927

but keen of sight is abundance of virtues, which consequently we must needs hold to be, in contrast to the bastard governments falsely so-called, genuine and equitable sovereignty ruling in justice over all. 26But we must not forget that repentance holds the second place to perfection, just as a change from sickness to health is second to a body free from disease; so, then, unbroken perfection of virtues stands nearest to divine power, but improvement in the course of time is the peculiar treasure of a soul gifted by nature, which does not stay in childish thoughts but by such as are more robust and truly manly seeks to gain a condition of serenity and pursues the vision of the excellent. V. 27Naturally, therefore, next to the repentant he sets the lover of virtue and beloved by God, who in the Hebrew language is called Noah but in ours “rest” or “just,” both very suitable titles for the Sage. “Just” is obviously so, for nothing is better than justice, the chief among the virtues, who like the fairest maiden of the dance holds the highest place. But “rest” is appropriate also, since its opposite, unnatural movement, proves to be the cause of turmoil and confusion and factions and wars. Such movement is sought by the worthless, while a life which is calm, serene, tranquil and peaceful to boot is the object of those who have valued nobility of conduct. that has true vision. On wealth as a blind god or character, see Plato, Leg. 1.631c; Aristophanes, Wealth (or, The Rich Man). genuine and equitable sovereignty That is, the rule of virtue in contrast to falsely called rulers. E. R. Goodenough suggests that the latter “must be the parts of the body or soul, or sense perceptions.”19 Philo often contrasts “genuine” and “bastard” (e.g., Abraham 221). 26. repentance holds the second place to perfection Philo’s position is akin to that of Aristotle (Eth. nic. 7.2.1146a, 7.8.1151b–1152a), who considers the virtuous man superior to the morally strong one. This view contrasts with that of R. Abbahu (B. Ber. 34b), who holds penitents to be higher than “the perfectly righteous.” See also comment on 48, greater is the second trinity.20 a condition of serenity and . . . the vision of the excellent Ideals represented, respectively, by Noah (e.g., Abraham 30) and the three patriarchs (Abraham 57). 27. “rest” or “just” Philo gives two explanations for Noah’s name. “Rest” is based on Gen. 5:29 LXX: “This one will cause us to rest (dianapausei) from our works” (cf. Hebrew: “This one will provide us relief [or comfort us, yenah ̣amenu] from our work”; see also Gen. Rab. 25:2). “Just” is apparently unrelated to Noah’s name but comes instead from Gen. 6:9, which says that “Noah was a just man.”21 In Worse 121–23 and QG 1.87, Philo explains the two meanings in relation to each other. the Sage A Stoic ideal.22 By describing Noah and the patriarchs (e.g., Abraham 37, 80) in this way, Philo transforms the particular, historical figures into universal exemplars. The Rabbis also view these figures as wise; see, e.g., Eccles. Rab. 7:19; see also Gen. Rab. 34:5, 39:40. justice, the chief among the virtues According to Plato and the Stoics, the four primary virtues are wisdom, courage, moderation, and justice (e.g., Plato, Resp. 427e–34c; see also Philo, Abraham 219). Besides these, Philo speaks of several others, such as hope (Abraham 16), repentance (Virtues 175–86), humanity (Virtues 51–186), and piety (Abraham 60; see also comment there, piety, the highest and greatest of virtues). He similarly describes as chief or queen of the virtues piety (Spec. Laws 4.135, 147; cf. Abraham 60), piety and humanity together (Virtues 95), and faith in God (Abraham 270). unnatural movement “Unnatural movement of the soul” is a Stoic definition of passion (SVF 3.462, 476).23

928 Ellen Birnbaum

28He shows consistency, too, when he gives to the seventh day, which the Hebrews call Sabbath, the name of rest; not, as some think, because the multitude abstained after six days from their usual tasks, but because in truth the number seven, both in the world and in ourselves, is always free from factions and war and quarreling and is of all numbers the most peaceful. 29This statement is attested by the faculties within us, for six of them wage ceaseless and continuous war on land and sea, namely the five senses and speech, the former in their craving for the objects of sense, deprivation of which is painful to them, speech because with unbridled mouth it perpetually gives utterance where silence is due. 30But the seventh faculty is that of the dominant mind, which, after triumphing over the six and returning victorious through its superior strength, welcomes solitude and rejoices in its own society, feeling that it needs no other and is completely sufficient for itself, and then released from the cares and concerns of mortal kind gladly accepts a life of calmness and serenity. VI. 31So highly does Moses extol the lover of virtue that when he gives his genealogy he does not, as he usually does in other cases, make a list of his grandfathers, great-grandfathers and ancestors in the male and female line, but of certain virtues, and this is little less than a direct assertion that a sage has no house or kinsfolk or country save virtues and virtuous actions; “for these,” he says, “are the generations of Noah. Noah, a man just and perfect in his generation, was well-pleasing to God.” 32But we must not fail to note that in this passage he gives the name of man not according to the common form 28. the seventh day The transition to this subject is based on the theme of rest, expressed by the Greek explanation for Noah’s name, anapausis, which is also a translation for the Hebrew Shabbat, or Sabbath. Instead of cessation from work, however, Philo emphasizes the peacefulness of the number seven. In antiquity, some critics of the Jews saw the Sabbath as inculcating laziness,24 and Philo may thus be implicitly responding to this charge (cf. Spec. Laws 2.60). On the number seven in Philo, see also Creation 89–128; in Jewish tradition, see Ginzberg, Legends 1:8, n. 21.25 Philo’s interest in numerology reflects Pythagorean influence. 29. the five senses and speech The five senses include sight, hearing, taste, smell, and touch (see Philo, Abraham 236). Sometimes Philo includes reproduction as a seventh faculty when doing so suits his discussion (e.g., Creation 117). 30. the seventh faculty Reference to the seven-(or eight-) part soul reflects Stoic influence. Aristobulus may similarly link reason, as the seventh faculty, with the Sabbath, but his meaning is unclear.26 See also Sir. 17:5 (Greek, some versions). the dominant mind Plato uses the phrase, for example, in Leg. 631d; see also Philo, Abraham 74, 83, Creation 69. 31. a sage has no house . . . save virtues and virtuous actions Recalls the Stoic ideal of the kosmopolitēs, or citizen of the world (a term Philo uses several times; e.g., Creation 3, 142–43; Spec. Laws 2.45), who belongs to a commonwealth of wise and virtuous people rather than to a particular city. The words “house,” “kinsfolk,” and “country” are similar to what Abraham is told to leave in Gen. 12:1. “for these . . . are the generations of Noah.” Gen. 6:9. Philo picks up on the strange juxtaposition of the biblical sentences, whereby after mentioning Noah’s generations, Scripture lists his qualities instead of his descendants (see also Philo, God 116–18 and QG 1.97). A similar notion that the fruits of the righteous consist of good deeds can be found in Gen. Rab. 30:6 and Tanh. Noah 2. Philo now turns to discuss each quality—“just,” “perfect,” and “well-pleasing to God.”

On the Life of Abraham 929

of speech, to the mortal animal endowed with reason, but to the man who is man pre-eminently, who verifies the name by having expelled from the soul the untamed and frantic passions and the truly beastlike vices. 33Here is a proof. After “man” he adds “just,” implying by the combination that the unjust is no man, or more properly speaking a beast in human form, and that the follower after righteousness alone is man. 34He says, too, that Noah became “perfect,” thereby showing that he acquired not one virtue but all, and having acquired them continued to exercise each as opportunities allowed. 35And as he crowns him as victor in the contest, he gives him further distinction by a proclamation couched in words of splendid praise, “he was well-pleasing to God.” What better thing than this has nature to give? What clearer proof can there be of nobility of life? For, if those who have been ill-pleasing to God are ill-fated, happy most surely are those whose lot it is to be well-pleasing to God. VII. 36But Moses makes a good point when, after praising him as possessed of all these virtues, he adds that he was perfect in his generation, thus showing he was not good absolutely but in comparison with the men of that time. 37For we shall shortly find him mentioning other sages whose virtue was unchallenged, who are not contrasted with the bad, who are adjudged worthy of approval and precedence, not because they were better than their contemporaries but because they possessed a happily gifted nature and kept it unperverted, who did not have to shun evil courses or indeed come into contact with them at all, but attained preeminence in practicing that excellence of words and deeds with which they adorned their lives. 38The highest admiration, then, is due to those in whom the ruling impulses were of free and noble birth, who accepted the excellent and just for their own selves and not in imi32. to the man who is man pre-eminently To describe Noah as a “just man,” the Greek of Gen. 6:9 uses both “man” (anthrōpos) and “just” (dikaios). Similarly, the Hebrew has ish tzaddik, a righteous man. Because the Greek does not require anthrōpos, and dikaios alone would be sufficient, Philo believes that anthrōpos contributes added meaning (see also Gen. Rab. 30:7). untamed . . . passions Philo frequently refers to the passions as adversaries of the mind, or soul (e.g., Abraham 48). Though he usually refers to the passions collectively without specifying what they are, they include pleasure, desire, fear, and grief (e.g., Abraham 236). The animal imagery (“untamed” passions and “beast-like” vices) calls to mind Philo’s allegorization elsewhere (e.g., Planting 43) of Noah’s ark as the body, which must accommodate the wild beasts, or passions. 33. the combination Of “just” and “man”; see comment on 32, to the man who is man pre-eminently. 34. Noah became “perfect” Genesis 6:9 LXX. To Philo this means that he acquired all the virtues. The Hebrew says that Noah “was” perfect (or “blameless” or “wholehearted”; see Gen. Rab. 30:8). 35. victor in the contest Philo frequently uses athletic imagery from his Greek environment to describe victory over the passions (e.g., Abraham 40, 48; cf. Rewards 6). “well-pleasing to God” Genesis 6:9 LXX. As in the case of Enoch (Gen. 5:22 and 24 LXX), here too the Greek differs from the Hebrew, which translates, “walked with God” (see comment on 17, repentance for sins). 36. not good absolutely Philo takes the words “in his generation” (Gen. 6:9 LXX) as signifying a limit to Noah’s goodness. Other sources understand the phrase to imply that Noah deserved even more praise, since if he was able to be good even in his generation, how much more so would he have been in a better generation.27 37. other sages That is, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. See comment on 27, the Sage.

930 Ellen Birnbaum

tation of or in opposition to others. But admiration is also due to him who stood apart from his own generation and conformed himself to none of the aims and aspirations of the many. He will win the second prize, though the first will be awarded by nature to those others. 39Yet great also is the second prize in itself, for how could anything fail to be great and worthy of our efforts which God offers and gives? And the clearest proof of this is the exceeding magnitude of the bounties which Noah obtained. 40That time bore its harvest of iniquities, and every country and nation and city and household and every private individual was filled with evil practices; one and all, as though in a race, engaged in rivalry pre-willed and premeditated for the first places in sinfulness, and put all possible zeal into the contention, each one pressing on to exceed his neighbor in magnitude of vice and leaving nothing undone which could lead to a guilty and accursed life. VIII. 41Naturally this roused the wrath of God, to think that man, who seemed the best of all living creatures, who had been judged worthy of kinship with Him because he shared the gift of reason, had, instead of practicing virtue as he should, shown zeal for vice and for every particular form of it. Accordingly He appointed the penalty which fitted their wickedness. He determined to destroy all those who were then alive by a deluge, not only those who dwelt in the plains and lower lands, but also the inhabitants of the highest mountains. 42For the great deep rose on high as it had never risen before, and gathering its force rushed through its outlets into the seas of our parts, and the rising tides of these flooded the islands and continents, while in quick succession the streams from the perennial fountains and 38. nature Another way of referring to God (see comment on 15, set by nature). 39. great also is the second prize By comparing the good to the greater, Philo here shows familiarity with the Greek rhetorical technique of synkrisis (comparison).28 which God offers and gives Philo believes that everything that comes from God (here, the “second prize”) is good (see, e.g., Abraham 18 and comment there, all that is done with God’s help). Therefore even though Noah’s standing is secondary to the later patriarchs, his achievement of virtue is great nonetheless. 40. as though in a race Athletic imagery again, this time referring to a contest to be most sinful. (See Abraham 35, victor in the contest.) leaving nothing undone Philo remains general in describing the evildoings that led to the Flood (cf. Moses 2.53). Gen. 6:6 LXX is similarly vague: “And the Lord God having seen that the wicked actions of men were multiplied upon the earth, and that everyone in his heart was intently brooding over evil continually” (see also Gen. 6:11–13). Several interpreters, however, have tried to identify more specifically the evildoings that led to the Flood.29 41. because he shared the gift of reason Through the mind, all humans have a kinship with divine reason, just as did both the human created after the image of God (Gen. 1:27 LXX) and the earthborn human (Gen. 2:7). See comment on 12, the first, the earth-born man; also Creation 77, 146. The Rabbis also recognize features that humans share with celestial beings, or angels, and with terrestrial beings, or animals (Gen. Rab. 8:11, 14:3). the penalty which fitted their wickedness Though Philo does not explain why here, in Worse 170 he notes that the Flood was sent to purge and purify the soul.30 42. the great deep Or, the great sea. According to Gen. 7:11 LXX, “all the fountains of the abyss burst forth, and the flood-gates of heaven were opened.” Here Philo takes the abyss to refer to water from earth below, and in Abraham 43 he interprets “the flood-gates of heaven” as water

On the Life of Abraham 931

from the rivers spring-fed or winter- torrents pressed on to join each other and mounted upward to a vast height. 43Nor was the air still, for a deep unbroken cloud covered the heaven, and there were monstrous blasts of wind and crashings of thunder and flashings of lightning and downfall of thunderbolts, while the rainstorms dashed down ceaselessly, so that one might think that the different parts of the universe were hurrying to be resolved into the single element of water, until, as in one form it rushed down from above and in another rose up from below, the streams were lifted on high, and thus not only the plains and lowlands were submerged and lost to sight, but even the peaks of the highest mountains. 44For all parts of the earth sank below the water, so that it was entirely carried away as though by violence, and the world seemed mutilated by the loss of a great section, its completeness and perfection destroyed and defaced, a thing too terrible for words or even for thoughts. Indeed even the air, except a small portion belonging to the moon, had been completely made away with, vanquished by the rush and violence of the water which perforce occupied its place. 45Then indeed at once all crops and trees perished, for excessive quantity of water is as destructive as the lack of it, and the numberless herds of animals died, tame and wild alike; for it was to be expected that if the highest kind, the human, was annihilated none of the inferior kinds would be left, since they were made for man’s needs, as slaves in a sense meant to obey their masters’ orders. from heaven above. See QG 2.18 on Gen. 7:11 LXX and QG 2.29 on Gen. 8:2 LXX; in these latter passages and elsewhere Philo also interprets the Flood allegorically whereby, for example, heaven signifies mind or reason, earth signifies body and senses, and both mind and body are overwhelmed by vices or passions. 43. Nor was the air still Refers to the water from above (see comment on 42). Philo embellishes the biblical account of the storm and includes such details as wind blasts, thunder, and lightning, which are not mentioned in Genesis. the single element of water According to the Stoics, elements of the universe include earth, air, water, and fire (e.g., Philo, Moses 1.96). In Abraham 44, Philo writes that the water took over even the air. 44. its completeness and perfection Philo views the universe as perfect (e.g., Creation 14, Abraham 74). except a small portion belonging to the moon It is unclear why Philo specifies this and perhaps he is implying that light came only from the moon (cf. Gen. Rab. 33:3, 34:11). That water rose high above the earth into the air is suggested by Gen. 7:19 (the water “covered all the high mountains which were under heaven”) and perhaps Gen. 7:24 LXX (the water “was raised upon the earth”). See also Abraham 46. 45. all crops and trees perished Not mentioned in Scripture. Gen. 7:23 LXX notes that God “blotted out every growth (anastēma; Hebrew, yekum) that was on the face of the earth from man to beast and serpents and birds of the sky” (author’s translation; cf. Gen. 7:4 LXX). Although what is meant by anastēma is unclear, Philo apparently takes it to signify growth of vegetation, perhaps because his biblical text specifies anastēma phytou (growth of vegetation). See Philo, QG 2.15, with note i,31 and QG 2.24; Ps.-Philo 3:3. the inferior kinds Since Gen. 6:5–6 mentions only the wickedness of humans as the reason for the Flood, Philo explains why animals too were punished (see QG 1.94, 2.9). Other sources (e.g., Jub. 5:2) claim that animals were also involved in the sinfulness before the Flood.32 they were made for man’s needs In Creation 77–88, esp. 77–78, Philo explains as a reason for why humans were created last that God first prepared everything else in the universe so that it would be ready for human life.

932

Ellen Birnbaum

46When all these evils, so many and so vast, had burst upon the world in the downpour which that occasion brought, and the unnatural convulsion had shaken all its parts save the heavenly as with a grievous and deadly plague, one house alone, that of the man called just and dear to God, was preserved. Thus he received two gifts of the highest kind—one that, as I have said, he did not perish with the rest, the other that he should be in his turn the founder of a new race of men. For God deemed him worthy to be both the last and the first of our kind—last of those who lived before the flood and first of those who lived after it. IX. 47Such was he who was the best of his contemporaries, and such were the prizes awarded to him, the nature of which is made clear in holy writ. Now the three mentioned above, whether we think of them as men or types of soul, form a series of regular gradation: the perfect man is complete from the first; the transferred stands half-way, since he devoted the earlier part of his life to vice but the latter to virtue to which he passed over and migrated; the hoper, as his very name shows, is defective inasmuch as though he always desired the excellent he has not yet been able to attain to it, but resembles sailors eager to put into port, who yet remain at sea unable to reach their haven. X. 48So now we have explained the first trinity of those who yearn for virtue; but greater is the second trinity of which we have now to speak. The first we may compare to the studies of children, but the latter to the exercises of athletes who are preparing for games which are really sacred, men who despise 46. save the heavenly See comment on 44, except a small portion belonging to the moon. dear to God With the familiar Greek word theophilēs, beloved of God or God-loving, Philo here combines the qualities of Noah’s finding grace before the Lord and his being well-pleasing to God (Gen. 6:8–9 LXX). The same word is used of Noah in Abraham 27. two gifts See also Philo, Moses 2.60, 65; QG 1.96. In Rewards 22–23, Philo mentions Noah’s two “prizes” and identifies Noah with Deucalion, who in Greek mythology also had the distinction of surviving a flood and being both the last and first (see Ovid, Metam. 1.313–415). 47. the three mentioned above That is, Enos, Enoch, and Noah, considered here in reverse order. men or types of soul This distinction corresponds to Philo’s literal and allegorical levels of interpretation, respectively. the perfect man That is, Noah. the transferred That is, Enoch. the hoper That is, Enos. as his very name shows The Greek ellipēs (defective) is a play on elpizōn (hoper). sailors Philo’s nautical metaphor is undoubtedly influenced by his living in the great coastal Mediterranean city of Alexandria, Egypt. 48. greater is the second trinity Enos, Enoch, and Noah make up the first triad; Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob make up the second. In a broader use of synkrisis (comparison; see comment on 39, great also is the second prize), Philo views both triads as seeking virtue, but the second is greater, as he explains in Abraham 36–37 and 47 (see also Abraham 26). (For a similar discussion of these two triads, see Rewards 10–51.) Philo may have had special reasons for assigning the first triad to an inferior status; these may have included the wish to promote Moses and the ancestors of the Jews above the earlier figures, particularly Enoch, who in some ancient literature had achieved a glorified status that rivaled that of Moses.33 games which are really sacred In contrast to Greek so-called sacred games, which involve bodily

On the Life of Abraham 933

bodily training but foster robustness of soul in their desire for victory over their antagonists, the passions. 49How each of these differed from the others while pressing on to one and the same goal will be described in detail later; but there is something to be said about them taken as a whole which must not be omitted. 50We find that these three are all of one house and one family. The last is the son of the second and grandson to the first. All alike are God-lovers and God-beloved, and their affection for the true God was returned by Him, Who deigned, as His utterances show, in recognition of their high and life-long virtues to make them partners in the title which He took, 51for He united them by joining His special name to theirs and calling Himself by one combined of the three. “For this,” He said, “is my eternal name—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob,” relative instead of absolute, and surely that is natural. God indeed needs no name; yet, though He needed it not, He nevertheless vouchsafed to give to humankind a name of Himself suited to them, that so men might be able to take refuge in prayers and supplications and not be deprived of comforting hopes.

competition, Philo views the patriarchs as being engaged in an internal contest of the soul, whose antagonists are the passions. See Philo, Agriculture 113–16 and Abraham 35. 49. one and the same goal In contrast to Scripture, Philo depicts the patriarchs as pursuing a goal, which may be understood variously as elimination of the passions, acquisition of virtue, or achievement of seeing God (see also Rewards 24). Concern with a telos, or goal, reflects philosophical notions; see, for example, Aristotle, Eth. nic. 1.1.1094a. See also comment on 58, the crowning point of happiness. 50. God-lovers and God-beloved Unlike Genesis, Philo provides a context for why Abraham and his family receive special attention from God. the true God As opposed to the false gods worshiped during Philo’s time (e.g., Philo, Decalogue 52–81; see also Wis. 13:1–15:19). in recognition of their high and life-long virtues Not only does Philo account for why the patriarchs receive special attention from God, but he also implies that by being virtuous others can gain God’s favor as well. partners in the title which He took In Exod. 3:15 LXX, God instructs Moses to tell Israel that he was sent by “the Lord God of our fathers, the God of Abraham, and God of Isaac, and God of Jacob.” See also Philo, Names 11–13, Moses 1.75–76. 51. “For this . . . is my eternal name” Exod. 3:15 LXX. In the Bible, this phrase comes after, not before, God mentions his name. Philo, however, changes the order of the words, probably to suit his discussion better. relative instead of absolute Because his name is associated with the patriarchs (e.g., “God of Abraham”) rather than standing alone (e.g., “Lord” or “God”). See also Names 27–28. prayers and supplications Philo claims that the patriarchs themselves made prayers and supplications to God (see Abraham 6 and comment there, prayers and supplications), but he does not address that these would have taken place before God revealed His name to Moses. comforting hopes In Greek, elpis chrēstē (here, singular), a common Philonic phrase (e.g., Abraham 8, 16, 268). Hope is associated with the name of the Lord in Gen. 4:26 LXX (see comments on Abraham 7 and 9, the Father and Maker of all). Although he mentions that Enos placed his hope upon “the Father and Maker of all,” Philo does not emphasize the element of the divine name (see, esp., Abraham 7–9).

934 Ellen Birnbaum

XI. 52These words do indeed appear to apply to men of holy life, but they are also statements about an order of things which is not so apparent but is far superior to the order which is perceived by the senses. For the holy word seems to be searching into types of soul, all of them of high worth, one which pursues the good through teaching, one through nature and one through practice. The first called Abraham, the second Isaac and the third Jacob, are symbols of virtue acquired respectively by teaching, nature and practice. 53But indeed we must not fail to note that each possesses the three qualities, but gets his name from that which chiefly predominates in him; for teaching cannot be consummated without nature or practice, nor is nature capable of reaching its zenith without learning and practicing, nor practice either unless that foundation of nature and teaching has first been laid. 54Very properly, then, Moses thus associated these three together, nominally men, but really, as I have said, virtues—teaching, nature, practice. Another name is given to them by men, who call them the Graces, also three in number; either because these values are a gift of God’s grace to our kind for perfecting its life, or because they have given themselves to the reasonable soul as a perfect and most excellent gift. Thus the eternal name revealed in his words is meant to indicate the three said values rather than actual men. 55For the nature of man is perishable, but that of virtue is imperishable. And it is more reasonable that what is eternal should be predicated of the imperishable than of the mortal, since imperishableness is akin to eternality, while death is at enmity with it. 52. they are also statements Philo draws a contrast between what appears to be and what is (cf. Philo, Migration 86–88). Most manuscripts lack “also” (kai) and it can thus be unclear whether Philo means that these statements supplement the apparent meaning or replace it. the senses Using the Platonic distinction between the senses and the soul, Philo here establishes a principle on which his allegorical understanding is based (see comment on 47, men or types of soul). While the literal level pertains to the sense-perceptible world, the allegorical understanding expresses truths about the soul. teaching, nature and practice The notion that virtue can be acquired in these three ways is commonplace in Greek thought and goes back at least as far as the 5th century bce.34 Philo’s association of these concepts with each of the patriarchs appears frequently (e.g., Names 88, Prelim. Studies 34–38, Rewards 2–27) and may come from an earlier tradition (see also Abraham 54 and comment there, the Graces). 54. nominally men, but really . . . virtues Although he has just observed that the patriarchs symbolize types of soul that pursue virtue, Philo here sees them as virtues themselves, namely, teaching, nature, and practice. (The Greek word aretē, translated here as virtue, can also be understood as excellence.) Philo’s contrast between what is true in word (logos) and deed (ergon)—a Greek convention—again introduces ambiguity about his attitude toward the literal meaning (see comments on Abraham 52, they are also statements and 66, his emigration was one of soul rather than body). Despite this ambiguity, however, Philo generally accepts both the literal and the allegorical meaning, albeit with some exceptions.35 the Graces In Greek mythology, goddesses who personify such qualities as beauty, mirth, and good cheer. Philo acknowledges that this interpretation is not original to him and he offers two explanations for it, both of which pertain to grace or gracious giving.36 a gift of God’s grace For the idea that virtue is a divine gift, see also Sacrifices 57. 55. what is eternal should be predicated of the imperishable Philo is concerned that God’s eter-

On the Life of Abraham 935

XII. 56There is another thing which we must not fail to know: while Moses represented the first man, the earth-born, as father of all that were born up to the deluge, and Noah who with all his house alone survived that great destruction because of his justice and excellent character in other ways as the father of the new race which would spring up afresh, the oracles speak of this august and precious trinity as parent of one species of that race, which species is called “royal” and “priesthood” and “holy nation.” 57Its high position is shown by the name; for the nation is called in the Hebrew tongue Israel, which, being interpreted, is “He who sees God.” Now the sight of the eyes is the most excellent of all the senses, since by it alone we apprehend the most excellent of existing things, the sun and the moon and the whole heaven and world; but the sight of the mind, the dominant element in the soul, surpasses all the other faculties of the mind, and this is wisdom which is the sight of the understanding. 58But he to whom it is given not only to apprehend by means of knowledge all else that nature has to show, but also to see the Father and Maker of all, may rest assured that he is advanced to the crowning point of nal name might appear to be inappropriately associated with three mortal, perishable men; he therefore explains that when God calls himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, he is talking about the virtues of teaching, nature, and practice rather than about real, mortal men (see also Abraham 76). 56. the first man, the earth-born That is, Adam; see comment on 12, the first, the earth-born man. the oracles Philo often refers to Scripture in this way (see too Abraham 270). one species Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are ancestors of Israel, which Philo, using a conventional Greek distinction, speaks of as a species (eidos) of the race (genos) of humans. “royal” and “priesthood” and “holy nation” See Exod. 19:6 LXX. The Greek, which translates, “And you shall be to me royal priesthood and a holy nation,” differs slightly from the Hebrew, which has (as translated), “You shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” 57. “He who sees God” Philo’s explanation of the name “Israel,” which differs from the biblical explanation (Gen. 32:29 LXX), may be related to Jacob’s first words after his name is changed to Israel: “I have seen God” (Gen. 32:31). Philo’s etymology—in Greek, horōn theon—appears frequently throughout his works and may ultimately derive from an original Hebrew ish ra’ah/ro’eh el, a man [who] saw/sees God, though Philo drops a word for “man.” The etymology (including “man”) also appears in Greek in the Prayer of Joseph (possibly contemporary to Philo), and other parallels are found in several later, patristic writings, which may be dependent on Philo. For a later Hebrew parallel, see S. Eli. Rab. 25 (27).37 the most excellent of all the senses See also Philo, Abraham 150, 164. Plato, too, greatly valued sight because it leads to contemplation of the universe and thus to philosophy (e.g., Tim. 47a–c). the sight of the mind The metaphor can be found in works of Aristotle, who seems to draw upon an earlier tradition (Top. 1.17.108a: “As sight is in the eye, so is reason in the soul”; cf. Rhet. 3.10.1411b). See also God 46, in which Philo writes that “mind is the sight of the soul.” Cf. Plato, Resp. 518c. the dominant element in the soul A Stoic phrase. 58. to see the Father and Maker of all See comment on 9, the Father and Maker of all. In Platonic philosophy, the object of intellectual vision is the abstract idea of the good (e.g., Resp. 508b–c, 532b– c); by Philo’s time, such abstractions were becoming identified with ideas about the Divine.38

936 Ellen Birnbaum

happiness; for nothing is higher than God, and who so has stretched the eyesight of the soul to reach Him should pray that he may there abide and stand firm; 59for journeys uphill are toilsome and slow, but the downhill course where one is swept along rather than descends is swift and most easy. And many are the forces which would bear us down, yet none of them avail when God sets the soul suspended to His potencies and with a mightier attraction draws it to Himself. XIII. 60So much for what was needed by way of preliminary discussion on the three in common. We must now speak of the superior merits shown by each separately, beginning with the first. Abraham, then, filled with zeal for piety, the highest and greatest of virtues, was eager to follow God and to be obedient to His commands; understanding by commands not only those conveyed in speech and writing but also those made manifest by nature with clearer signs, and apprehended by the sense which is the most truthful of all and superior to hearing, on which no certain reliance can be placed. 61For anyone the crowning point of happiness Aristotle recognizes happiness, eudaimonia, as the ultimate goal of life. For him, “complete [or perfect] happiness” is contemplation, an activity that uses the divine element, mind, in humans (Eth. nic. 10.7.1177a; cf. Eth. eud. 8.315–16.1249b).39 59. His potencies Philo elaborates differently on these intermediaries in various places; see, for example, Abraham 121, in which he speaks of God’s two senior powers, the creative and the kingly, associated respectively with the two names for God, theos (Elohim, in Hebrew) and kyrios (YHWH, in Hebrew). Elsewhere (e.g., Spec. Laws 1.307) Philo links these powers with beneficent and punitive functions, respectively. His association of God’s beneficent function with theos and punitive function with kyrios is opposite to the Rabbinic connection between God’s middot, or attributes, and His names, because the Rabbis link God’s attribute of mercy with YHWH and His attribute of justice with Elohim (e.g., Gen. Rab. 33.3). 60. Abraham Supplied by the translator. In this treatise Philo rarely calls Abraham—or other biblical figures—by name and when he does, he calls the patriarch “Abraham” rather than “Abram” as he is called in the Bible until Gen. 17:5 (see Abraham 81–82). See also comments on 68, man of wisdom, and 77, “God . . . was seen by Abraham.” piety, the highest and greatest of virtues Philo accords special value to this quality, which is not among the standard Greek virtues (see comment on 27, justice, the chief among the virtues).40 eager to follow God By describing Abraham’s piety and eagerness to follow God at this point in the narrative, Philo—unlike the Bible—provides a possible reason for God’s selection of the patriarch. commands As in Abraham 5, here again Philo addresses, albeit indirectly, how Abraham was able to observe the divine laws before they were given. That commands are “made manifest by nature” lends a universalistic aspect to them since they are available to anyone who observes the natural order (Abraham 61). Philo may also have in mind the divine command to Abraham to leave his home (Gen. 12:1), but he does not mention this command here explicitly. See comment on 62, Under the force of an oracle. clearer signs That is, clearer than speech or writing. the sense That is, sight. See comment on 57, the most excellent of all the senses. superior to hearing See Abraham 150, in which Philo explains that the eyes are more active and courageous than the ears because the eyes “reach out to the visible objects and do not wait to be acted on by them.”

On the Life of Abraham 937

who contemplates the order in nature and the constitution enjoyed by the world-city whose excellence no words can describe, needs no speaker to teach him to practice a law-abiding and peaceful life and to aim at assimilating himself to its beauties. But the clearest proofs of his piety are those which the Holy Scriptures contain, and the first which should be mentioned is that which comes first in order. XIV. 62Under the force of an oracle which bade him leave his country and kinsfolk and seek a new home, thinking that quickness in executing the command was as good as full accomplishment, he hastened eagerly to obey, not as though he were leaving home for a strange land but rather as returning from amid strangers to his home. 63Yet who else would be likely to be so firm and unmoved of purpose as not to yield and succumb to the charms of kinsfolk and country? The desire of these may be said to be born and grow with each of us and is a part of our nature as much as or even more than the parts which unite to make the whole. 64And this is attested by the legislators who have appointed banishment as the penalty second only to death for those who have been convicted of the greatest crimes, though indeed, in my opinion, it is not second to death, if truth gives its verdict, but rather a far heavier punishment, since death ends our troubles but banishment is not the end but the beginning of other new misfortunes and entails in place of the one death which puts an end to pains a thousand deaths in which we do not lose sensation. 65Some men go on voyages for trading purposes in their desire for making money or on embassies or in their love of culture to see the sights of a foreign land. These are subject to influences driving them to stay abroad, in some cases financial gains, in others the chance of benefiting their country, when occasion offers, in its most vital and important interests, in others acquiring knowledge of things which they did not know before and thus providing at once pleasure and profit to the soul, for the stay-at-home is to the traveled as the blind are to the keen-sighted. Yet all these are eager to see and salute their native soil, and to greet their familiars and to have the sweet and 61. constitution The law of nature is the constitution of the universe. assimilating himself to its beauties See Abraham 87 and comment there, to make themselves like his blessed and happy nature. proofs of his piety From here through Abraham 207, Philo presents a series of episodes from Abraham’s life as demonstrations of his piety. (For a list of these episodes, see the introductory comments.) The presentation of these “proofs” of Abraham’s piety calls to mind the notion, held by several ancient interpreters, that the patriarch was tested many times and found to be faithful.41 62. Under the force of an oracle . . . he hastened eagerly to obey Omitting God’s direct command and His promises to Abraham in Gen. 12:1–3, Philo instead emphasizes Abraham’s readiness to comply (see comment on 60, eager to follow God). Philo may wish to downplay references to God until Abraham actually discovers him (Abraham 78–80).42 See also comment on 67, first from Chaldea. as returning from amid strangers to his home This description may suggest Philo’s understanding of Abraham as a proselyte who turns from false Chaldean beliefs to belief in the one true God (see Abraham 69–70, Virtues 212–16).43 64. banishment This was Caligula’s initial punishment of the Roman prefect Flaccus, who was in office in Alexandria during the persecution of the Jews and whom Philo describes in his treatise Against Flaccus (see, esp., 151). (Caligula later ordered Flaccus be put to death.) 65. Some men To enliven his point about the difficulty of leaving home, Philo uses examples from his contemporary environment.

938 Ellen Birnbaum

most desired enjoyment of beholding their kinsfolk and friends. And often when they find the business for which they left home protracting itself they abandon it, drawn by the constraining desire for their own belongings. 66But Abraham, the moment he was bidden, departed with a few or even alone, and his emigration was one of soul rather than body, for the heavenly love overpowered his desire for mortal things. 67And so taking no thought for anything, either for his fellow-clansmen, or wardsmen, or schoolmates, or comrades, or blood relations on father’s or mother’s side, or country, or ancestral customs, or community of nurture or home life, all of them ties possessing a power to allure and attract which it is hard to throw off, he followed a free and unfettered impulse and departed with all speed first from Chaldea, a land at that time blessed by fortune and at the height of its prosperity, and migrated to Haran; then not long afterward he left this too for another place, about which we shall speak after dealing with something else to which I now proceed. XV. 68The migrations as set forth by the literal text of the Scriptures are made by a man of wisdom,

66. the moment he was bidden Genesis 12:4 suggests immediate obedience: “And Abram went as the Lord spoke to him.” See too Midr. Ps. 119:3. with a few or even alone Perhaps to highlight his allegorical interpretation of Abraham’s migration as a journey of the soul, Philo omits Lot, Sarai, and others who accompanied Abraham (Gen. 12:4–5) and leaves vague whether Abraham departed with others or alone. In a different context, Gen. Rab. 42:8 also highlights Abraham’s spiritual aloneness in believing in God. That source explains that Abram is called the Hebrew (ha-ivri; Gen. 14:13) because “the whole world was on one side (me-ever eh ̣ad) and he was on another side (me-ever eh ̣ad). his emigration was one of soul rather than body This statement—which can also be understood as “his emigration was one of soul more than of body”—may again suggest an ambiguity about Philo’s attitude toward the literal meaning (see Abraham 52, and comments there, they are also statements and the senses; also Abraham 54, and comment there, nominally men, but really . . . virtues). Abraham’s physical migration symbolizes his spiritual conversion to belief in the one God; Philo frequently uses the metaphor of migration to describe proselytes (e.g., Spec. Laws 1.52), and in Virtues 219 he calls Abraham “the standard of nobility for all proselytes.” 67. fellow-clansmen The description of whom and what Abraham leaves behind is drawn from Philo’s contemporary Alexandria. a free and unfettered impulse This suggests that Abraham left because of his own promptings rather than God’s command (cf. comment on 62, Under the force of an oracle . . . he hastened eagerly to obey). first from Chaldea According to Gen. 11:31 LXX, Abraham’s father Terah took Abraham, Lot, and Sarai from “the land of the Chaldeans” (the Hebrew has “Ur of the Chaldeans”) to Haran. It would thus appear according to Gen. 12:1 that God’s command came to Abraham in Haran. Philo, however, seems to understand that the command came to Abraham in Chaldea. For a similar understanding, see Gen. 15:7, Neh. 9:7, Acts 7:2–4. a land . . . blessed by fortune An apparently extrabiblical detail that makes Abraham’s departure seem all the more difficult and praiseworthy. for another place See Abraham 85 and comment there, the second migration. 68. man of wisdom This characterization universalizes the story of Abraham, who is not named

On the Life of Abraham 939

but according to the laws of allegory by a virtue-loving soul in its search for the true God. 69For the Chaldeans were especially active in the elaboration of astrology and ascribed everything to the movements of the stars. They supposed that the course of the phenomena of the world is guided by influences contained in numbers and numerical proportions. Thus they glorified visible existence, leaving out of consideration the intelligible and invisible. But while exploring numerical order as applied to the revolution of the sun, moon and other planets and fixed stars, and the changes of the yearly seasons and the interdependence of phenomena in heaven and on earth, they concluded that the world itself was God, thus profanely likening the created to the Creator. 70In this creed Abraham had been reared, and for a long time remained a Chaldean. Then opening the soul’s eye as though after profound sleep, and beginning to see the pure beam instead of the deep darkness, he followed the ray and discerned what he had not beheld before, a charioteer and pilot presiding over the world and directing in safety here. Abraham is portrayed as wise in Rabbinic literature too.44 (See also Abraham 27 and comment there, the Sage.) the laws of allegory Philo does not spell these out. its search Philo transforms God’s command to Abraham into a quest of the soul for God. 69. the Chaldeans Here they represent astrologers, who view creation as God. In Philo’s time, the Chaldeans were widely associated with astrology. The equation of creation with God, however, seems to be linked with some of Philo’s contemporaries (e.g., Philo, Migration 178–79, Virtues 212–14), but it is unclear to whom he is referring specifically.45 See also comments on Abraham 8, Chaldean and 75. the interdependence In Greek, sympatheia, an originally Stoic technical term for the interconnectedness of creation. In Migration 178–81, Philo observes that Moses acknowledges this interconnectedness but disagrees with the Chaldean understanding of God. 70. Abraham Supplied by the translator (see comment on 60, Abraham). Here Philo returns from speaking about a soul to speaking about Abraham and thus blurs the distinction between his literal and allegorical interpretations. for a long time remained a Chaldean Although some Jewish sources portray Abraham as well-versed in astrology,46 Philo presents Chaldean knowledge as something that Abraham must leave behind completely; see comment on 69, the Chaldeans. The Rabbis occasionally associate Abraham with astrology as both a negative force (Gen. Rab. 44:12; B. Ned. 32a on Gen. 15:5) and a positive one (B. BB 16b). the soul’s eye See comment on 57, the sight of the mind. Philo often refers to the soul and mind interchangeably. discerned what he had not beheld before Abraham begins to perceive God’s rulership by opening the soul’s eye. Although he writes that Abraham was raised in the “Chaldean creed,” Philo does not link the patriarch’s perception of God here explicitly with his observation of the stars, as do some other sources, even if this observation may be implicit (see, e.g., Jub. 12:16–21, Josephus, Ant. 1.155–56; see also Gen. Rab. 39:1 and Kugel, Traditions, 260–61). Abraham’s full discovery comes when he goes to Haran, that is, when he studies his own self (Abraham 72–77). In Rewards 41–42 and implicitly in Abraham 60–61, however, Philo also acknowledges that some people arrive at knowledge of God through observing his creation. directing . . . his own work Philo frequently explains divine providence by observing that the Maker cares for what he has made (e.g., Creation 9, 171–72; Rewards 42).

940 Ellen Birnbaum

his own work, assuming the charge and superintendence of that work and of all such parts of it as are worthy of the divine care. 71And so to establish more firmly in his understanding the sight which had been revealed to him the Holy Word follows it up by saying to him, “Friend, the great is often known by its outlines as shown in the smaller, and by looking at them the observer finds the scope of his vision infinitely enlarged. Dismiss, then, the rangers of the heavens and the science of Chaldea, and depart for a short time from the greatest of cities, this world, to the lesser, and thus you will be better able to apprehend the overseer of the All.” 72This is why he is said to emigrate first from the land of Chaldea to that of Haran. XVI. Now Haran in our language means “holes,” a symbol for the seats of our senses through which each of them naturally peers as through orifices to apprehend what belongs to it. 73Yet what use, we might ask, would they be if the invisible mind were not there like a juggler to prompt its faculties, sometimes relaxing and giving them a free rein, sometimes forcibly pulling and jerking them back, and thus causing its puppets at one time to move in harmony, at another to rest? With this example in yourself you will easily apprehend that which you so earnestly desire to know. 74For it cannot be that while in yourself there is a mind appointed as your ruler which all the community of the body obeys and each of the senses follows, the world, the fairest, and greatest and most perfect work of all, of which everything else is a part, is without a king who holds it together and directs it with justice. That the king is invisible need not cause you to wonder, for neither is the mind in yourself visible. 75Anyone who reflects on these things and learns from no distant source, but from one near at hand, namely himself and what makes him what he is, will know for certain that the world is not the primal God but a work of the primal God and Father of all Who, though invisible, yet brings all things to light, revealing the natures 71. the Holy Word In an imaginary biblical address to Abraham, Philo explains why the patriarch goes from Chaldea to Haran. the great is often known Cf. Plato, Resp. 368e–69a, in which Socrates proposes the opposite approach, that is, to learn about justice in the individual by first considering it in the state. from the greatest of cities, this world On the universe as a great city, or megalopolis, a term original to Philo, see Creation 19.47 to the lesser That is, himself as a human being. Recognition of how the mind controls the senses in himself will lead Abraham by analogy to recognition that God controls the world. See comment on 74. Though often associated with Stoicism, the notion that a human is a microcosm of the universe, or macrocosm, is implicit in various earlier philosophical sources, but Philo makes the parallels between human and universe explicit.48 For use of this analogy in Jewish sources, see Ginzberg, Legends, 1:49, n. 4. 72. “holes,” a symbol for the seats of our senses From the Hebrew h ̣or, pluralized as in Aramaic with a final n.49 Sense perception takes place through the openings of the eyes, ears, nose, and mouth (see also Migration 187–88). In Dreams 1.41–60, Philo equates this stage with Socratic self-knowledge, which Abraham surpasses. 74. it cannot be For a similar observation, see Spec. Laws 1.18. For a similar analogy made by Stoics between cosmic reason and the human soul, see Diogenes Laertius, Lives 7.138–39; see also B. Ber. 10a, Creation 69. 75. the world is not the primal God As the Chaldeans supposedly taught. See also Decalogue 52–61; Spec. Laws 1.13–20; comments on Abraham 69.

On the Life of Abraham 941

of great and small. 76For He did not deem it right to be apprehended by the eyes of the body, perhaps because it was contrary to holiness that the mortal should touch the eternal, perhaps too because of the weakness of our sight. For our sight could not have borne the rays that pour from Him that IS, since it is not even able to look upon the beams of the sun. XVII. 77We have a very clear proof of the mind’s migration from astrology and the Chaldean creed in the words which follow at once the story of the departure of the Sage. “God,” it says, “was seen by Abraham.” This shows that God was not manifested to him before, when in his Chaldean way he was fixing his thoughts on the choric movement of the stars with no apprehension at all of an harmonious and intelligible order of things outside the world and the sphere of sense. 78But when he had departed and changed his habitation he could not help but know that the world is not sovereign but dependent, not governing but governed by its Maker and First Cause. And this his mind then saw for the first time with its recovered sight. 79For before a great mist had been shed upon it by the things of sense, and only with difficulty could it dispel this mist under the warmth and fervour of higher verities and so be able as in clear open sky to receive the vision of Him Who so long lay hidden and invisible. He in His love for mankind, when the soul came into His presence, did not turn away His face, but came forward to meet him and revealed His nature, so far as the beholder’s power of sight allowed. 80That is why we are told not that the Sage saw God, but that God was seen by him. For it were impossible that anyone should by himself apprehend the truly Existent, did not He reveal and manifest Himself. XVIII. 81What has been said is attested by the alteration and change in his name, for his original 76. contrary to holiness that the mortal should touch the eternal See Abraham 55 and comment there. Him that IS From Exod. 3:14 LXX: “And God spoke to Moses, saying, ‘I am He who is (egō eimi ho ōn),’ and He said, ‘Thus shall you say to the children of Israel, “He who is (ho ōn) has sent me to you”’” (author’s translation). The Greek ho ōn translates the Hebrew ehyeh (“I will be” or “I am”). The masculine ho ōn, however, also meshes nicely with the philosophical concept of being, to on, expressed by the neuter. Philo uses both masculine and neuter interchangeably to refer to God. Here the phrase ho ōn appears in the genitive and can be either masculine or neuter. See also Abraham 80, 270. 77. “God . . . was seen by Abraham” Or, “The Lord appeared to Abram” (Gen. 12:7).50 The Greek, similar to the Hebrew, expresses the verb “to appear” in the passive of the verb “to see” (see Abraham 80). Although Philo speaks of this appearance as occurring immediately after Abraham left Chaldea, in the Bible it occurs after Abraham is already in Canaan (Gen. 12:5–6, omitted by Philo). See also Philo, Worse 159. Philo’s use of “Abraham” rather than “Abram” in the biblical quotation may reflect the interpretation in Abraham 81–84. the choric movement of the stars In Greek, choreia, or choral dance. The notion can be traced to Plato; see Tim. 40c.51 80. God was seen In Abraham 79–80, Philo derives deeper meaning from the passive verb about seeing God and about God’s role in revealing Himself; see comment on 77, God . . . was seen by Abraham. the truly Existent In Greek, to pros alētheian on, a philosophical epithet for God; see comment on 76, him that IS. 81. What has been said is attested As he will explain in Abraham 81–84, Philo understands Abram’s change of name to Abraham as evidence of the patriarch’s transformation from believing in as-

942 Ellen Birnbaum

name was Abram, but afterward he was addressed as Abraham. To the ear there was but a duplication of one letter, alpha, but in fact and in the truth conveyed this duplication showed a change of great importance. 82Abram is by interpretation “uplifted father”; Abraham, “elect father of sound.” The former signifies one called astrologer and meteorologist, one who takes care of the Chaldean tenets as a father would of his children. 83The latter signifies the Sage, for he uses “sound” as a figure for spoken thought and “father” for the ruling mind, since the inward thought is by its nature father of the uttered, being senior to it, the secret begetter of what it has to say. “Elect” signifies the man of worth, for the worthless character is random and confused, while the good is elect, chosen out of all for his merits. 84Now to the meteorologist nothing at all seems greater than the universe, and he credits it with the causation of what comes into being. But the wise man with more discerning eyes sees something more perfect perceived by mind, something which rules and governs, the master and pilot of all else. And therefore he blames himself severely for his former life, feeling that all his years have been passed in blindness with no staff to support him but the world of sense, which is by its nature an insecure and trology and false Chaldean tenets to believing in the true God (see also comments on Abraham 82, “uplifted father” and “elect father of sound”). In Gen. 17:5, God changes Abram’s name as part of His covenant with the patriarch, and the episode is separate from Abraham’s departure from Chaldea and Haran in Gen. 11:31–12:4. Philo omits not only that God himself changed Abram’s name, but also that He and Abraham entered into a covenant, whose sign was circumcision. These omissions are consonant with Philo’s presentation of Abraham’s spiritual journey as a universal model. Abraham Genesis 17:5. In Hebrew, Abram’s name is changed by adding the letter he, but in Greek the change is from Abram to Abraam, whereby the Greek letter alpha is added. See also Philo, QG 3.43. 82. “uplifted father” In Greek, patēr meteōros; possibly from the Hebrew av (father) ram (elevated). In Names 66–68, Philo explains allegorically that the name refers to the elevation of one who surveys the heavens. Philo obviously plays on the sense of meteōros, “raised up,” to associate Abram with the Chaldean astrological and meteorological mindset. See also comment on 69, the Chaldeans.52 “elect father of sound” Possibly related to the Hebrew av (father), b-r-r (choose), and hemyah (sound).53 Gen. 17:5 (Hebrew) explains Abraham’s new name as “father of a multitude of nations” (av hamon goyim; see also Gen. 17:4); this phrase does not account for the Hebrew letter resh in Abraham’s name (see Gen. Rab. 46:7). In Names 69, Philo interprets allegorically that the father of sound, or the uttered word, is the mind (see also Abraham 83), and “[t]he elect mind is the mind of the wise, since it contains what is best.” Abraham’s new name thus signifies his transition from an astrologer to a wise man. As Sandmel explains, “The meteorologist sees nothing greater than the universe; the sage sees, through his mind, the ruler and governor.”54 In Abraham 99, Philo ascribes a similar interpretation to “natural philosophers,” but it is unclear whether or not the etymology for Abraham given here (Abraham 82) is original to him or comes from another source. 83. spoken thought . . . inward thought The distinction between uttered thought, logos prophorikos, and inward thought, logos endiathetos, originated most likely with the Stoics. ruling mind See comment on 30, the dominant mind. 84. he blames himself severely Genesis offers no support that Abraham blames himself.

On the Life of Abraham 943

unstable thing. 85The second migration which the man of worth undertakes, again in obedience to an oracle, is not as before from state to state but into a desert country in which he continued to wander, never complaining of the wandering or the insecurity which it caused. 86Yet who else would not have felt it a burden not only to be severed from his own country, but also to be driven out of all city life into pathless tracts where the traveler could hardly find a way? Who would not have turned his course and hurried back homeward, paying little regard to future hopes, but eager to escape his present hardships, and thinking it folly to choose admitted evil for the sake of uncertain good? 87Yet he alone appears to have had feelings the opposite of these, and to have thought that no life was so pleasant as one lived without association with the multitude. And that is natural, for those who seek God and yearn to find Him love the solitude which is dear to Him, and in this way first of all hasten to make themselves like His blessed and happy nature. 88So in both our expositions, the literal as applied to the man and the allegorical as applied to the soul, we have shown both man and soul to be worthy of our affection. We have shown how the man in obedience to divine commands was drawn away from the stubborn hold of his associations and how the mind did not remain forever deceived nor stand rooted in the realm of sense, nor suppose that the visible world was the Almighty and Primal God, but using its reason sped upward and turned its gaze upon the intelligible order which is superior to the visible and upon Him who is maker and ruler of both alike. XLV. 262There is another record of praise attested by words from Moses’s prophetic lips. In these it is stated that he “trusted in God.” Now that is a little thing if measured in words, but a very great 85. The second migration Genesis 12:9 LXX: “And Abram departed and having gone encamped in the wilderness.” Cf. Hebrew: “Then Abram journeyed by stages toward the Negeb.” Philo omits Abraham’s departure from Haran to Canaan (Gen. 12:5). again in obedience to an oracle It is not clear why Philo says this, unless he infers God’s command from Gen. 12:8, which states that Abraham “called on the name of the Lord.” a desert country In Philo’s works, the desert, or wilderness, is a symbol for the solitude of those who seek God, and Philo occasionally contrasts the desert with the busyness of the city (e.g., Decalogue. 2–17).55 87. solitude See comment on 22, loves solitude. to make themselves like his blessed and happy nature Reminiscent of the Platonic goal of “assimilation to God” (Plato, Theaet. 176a–b; cf. Philo, Flight 63). Philo does not interpret Lev. 19:2: “You shall be holy for I the Lord your God am holy,” but one wonders whether this idea may also have influenced his understanding of being like God. 88. the literal Philo’s account of the “literal” meaning differs in several ways from the plain sense of Scripture; see, e.g., Abraham 60–67 and comments there, such as Abraham 60, eager to follow God; Abraham 62, Under the force of an oracle; and Abraham 66, with a few or even alone. 262. “trusted in God” Gen. 15:6. In this concluding section of the treatise, Philo emphasizes that Abraham believed in God rather than in bodily and external goods; see also Heir 90–93. Elsewhere Philo uses this verse to underscore Abraham’s faith in going to a land that God would show him (Migration 43–44 on Gen. 12:1) and in binding Isaac (God 4 on Gen. 22:9). Paul uses this verse to distinguish between Abraham’s faith and his obedience to the law (Rom. 4:1–22; Gal. 3:1–14), a distinction that Philo does not make (Abraham 275). words . . . action See comment on 54, nominally men, but really . . . virtues.

944 Ellen Birnbaum

thing if made good by action. 263For in what else should one trust? In high offices or fame and honors or abundance of wealth and noble birth or health and efficacy of the senses or strength and beauty of body? But office is wholly precarious, beset by countless foes who lie in wait for it, and if by chance it is secured the security is accompanied by countless ills in which those in high positions are either the agents or the victims. 264Fame and honor are a most precarious possession, tossed about on the reckless tempers and flighty words of careless men: and, when it abides, it cannot of its own nature contain genuine good. 265As for wealth and high birth, they attach themselves even to the most worthless of men, and even if they were confined to the virtuous they would be a compliment not to the actual possessors but to their ancestors and to fortune. 266Again, neither should we pride ourselves greatly on bodily endowments in which the unreasoning animals have the advantage over us; for what man is stronger or more muscular than the bull among domestic and the lion among wild beasts? Who has a keener sight than the hawk or the eagle? or who is so favoured in powers of hearing as that stupidest of animals, the ass? And as for smell, who has more accurate discernment than the hound, which, as the hunstmen tell us, led unerringly by the scent, races to the distant quarry which it has not seen; for what sight is to other animals the nostrils are to the hounds used for hunting or tracking. 267Health? Why, most of the unreasoning animals are exceedingly healthy and as far as possible free from disease. Beauty? In the competition for this, I should say that some lifeless objects can beat and surpass the comeliness both of men and women. Such are the images and statues and pictures and in general all the creations of the painters and the sculptors which achieve success in either art and rouse the enthusiasm of Greeks and barbarians alike, who set them up in the most conspicuous places to adorn their cities. XLVI. 268Faith in God, then, is the one sure and infallible good, consolation of life, fulfilment of bright hopes, dearth of ills, harvest of goods, inacquaintance with misery, acquaintance with piety, heritage of happiness, all-round betterment of the soul which is firmly stayed on Him Who is the cause of all things and can do all things yet only wills the best. 269For, just as those who walk on a slippery road are tripped up and fall, while others on a dry highway tread without stumbling, so those who set the soul traveling along the path of the bodily and the external are but learning it to fall, so slippery and utterly

263. high offices . . . beauty of body A list of factors whose worth Philo proceeds to question, in Abraham 263–67. See comment on Abraham 269. 266. the unreasoning animals Philo devotes an entire treatise (Whether Animals Have Reason, extant only in Armenian) to whether animals possess reason; he takes the negative position.56 267. Greeks and barbarians alike An expression to indicate the whole world, Greeks and nonGreeks. Philo sees Abraham’s trust in God as superior to the values of the rest of the world. Here Philo sets Abraham—and implicitly all Jews—apart from the rest of the world, but elsewhere he sometimes includes Jews among Greeks (e.g., as Greek speakers; Confusion 129) or among nonGreeks (e.g., Moses 2.27). Philo again provides contemporary examples—here, of painting and sculpture—to make his comments relevant to his readers (see, e.g., Abraham 65, 67). 268. Faith in God In Rewards 27, Philo views faith in God as a reward to Abraham for “adopting the godly creed.” See also Abraham 273 and comment there, repaid him; Virtues 216.57 fulfilment of bright hopes And thus an endpoint of the journey begun with the hoper, Enos (Abraham 7–16). See comment on 51, comforting hopes. Cf. Heb. 11:1. 269. the bodily and the external That is, the values described in Abraham 263–67. These terms al-

On the Life of Abraham 945

insecure are all such things; while those who press onward to God along the doctrines of virtue walk straight upon a path which is safe and unshaken, so that we may say with all truth that belief in the former things is disbelief in God, and disbelief in them belief in God. 270But not only do the oracles attest his possession of the queen of virtues, faith in the existent, but he is also the first whom they speak of as elder, though those who lived before him tripled or many times multiplied his years. Yet of none of them do we hear that he was held worthy of the title and rightly, for the true elder is shown as such not by his length of days but by a laudable and perfect life. 271Those who have passed a long span of years in the existence of the body without goodness or beauty of life must be called long-lived children who have never been schooled in the learning worthy of grey hairs; but he who is enamoured of sound sense and wisdom and faith in God may be justly called elder, a name of like significance to “first.” 272For indeed the wise man is the first of the human race, as a pilot in a ship or a ruler in a city or a general in war, or again as a soul in a body and a mind in a soul, or once more heaven in the world or God in heaven. 273That God marveling at Abraham’s faith in Him repaid him with faithfulness by confirming with an oath the gifts which He had promised, and here He no longer talked with him as God with man but as a friend with a familiar. For He, with Whom a word is an oath, yet says “By Myself have I sworn,” so that his mind might be established more securely and firmly even than it was before. 274So, lude to the three-part division of goods into external goods, bodily goods, and goods of the soul (Plato, Leg. 697b; Aristotle, Eth. nic. 1.8.1098b; see also Abraham 219). Though Philo sets up these values in opposition to faith in God, he is not opposed to them.58 270. the queen of virtues See comment on 27, justice, the chief among the virtues. the existent In Greek, to on. See comment on 76, him that IS. elder Gen. 24:1 LXX. The Hebrew has zaken, “old,” while the Greek has the comparative form presbyteros, “elder,” which, like the Hebrew zaken, implies a title of respect. See also Philo, Abraham 218, Sobriety 17–18, Contempl. Life 67; and Gen. Rab. 59:1–3, 6. 271. “first” In this treatise and elsewhere, Philo recognizes Abraham as notable for several “firsts”: he is first to be called “elder” (Abraham 270), the first and founder of the Jewish nation (Abraham 276; cf. Moses 1.7), and “the first person spoken of as believing in God” (Virtues 216). On the mention of such “firsts” to please an audience, see Quintilian, Inst. 3.7.16. In the present context (Abraham 272), Abraham is first in the same way that the wise man is first of the human race. 272. the wise man Cf. Virtues 186. See also Sandmel, Philo’s Place, 140. 273. repaid him A reference to God’s reward of Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac (Gen. 22; see Abraham 177 and 203).59 the gifts which he had promised Primarily, a multitude of descendants, through Isaac, whom God would bless and to whom he would give the land of Canaan (see, e.g., Gen. 12:1–3, 7). In this treatise, Philo refers to these blessings only indirectly (Abraham 98 and 177) but he does discuss them elsewhere (e.g., Migration 36–126). as a friend with a familiar Cf. Dreams 1.193–95. See also Exod. 33:11 concerning Moses. The Greek Bible that we have does not call Abraham a “friend of God,” but Philo’s version of Gen. 18:17 may have used the phrase. Other ancient interpreters also speak of Abraham as a friend of God (e.g., Jub. 19:9).60 “By myself have I sworn” Gen. 22:16. See Leg. 3.203–7.

946 Ellen Birnbaum

then, the man of worth is elder and first, and so must he be called; but younger and last is every fool who pursues the ways which belong to rebellious youth and stand lowest in the list. 275So much for all this, but to these praises of the Sage, so many and so great, Moses adds this crowning saying “that this man did the divine law and the divine commands.” He did them, not taught by written words, but unwritten nature gave him the zeal to follow where wholesome and untainted impulse led him. And when they have God’s promises before them what should men do but trust in them most firmly? 276Such was the life of the first, the founder of the nation, one who obeyed the law, some will say, but rather, as our discourse has shown, himself a law and an unwritten statute. 274. elder and first . . . younger and last For a similar contrast, see Abraham 218–19. 275. “that this man did the divine law and the divine commands” This is a paraphrase rather than an exact quotation of Gen. 26:5 LXX, in which God addresses Isaac, saying, “Abraham your father obeyed my voice and kept my injunctions and my commandments and my ordinances and my statutes.” Several Jewish sources understand this verse to indicate that Abraham observed God’s laws before they were given.61 See also Philo, Migration 127–31, QG 4.184. unwritten nature See several comments on 5 and comment on Abraham 16, intuitively learnt. God’s promises See comment on 273, the gifts which he had promised. 276. one who obeyed the law, some will say Philo contrasts two interpretations of Abraham. The first, which some people maintain based on Gen. 26:5 and/or perhaps other sources, is that Abraham obeyed the law even before it was written down (see Abraham 5 and several comments there and also the comment on 275, “that this man did the divine law and the divine commands”). For the second interpretation, see the next note. as our discourse has shown, himself a law On this interpretation, which Philo himself propounds, see Abraham 3, copies . . . originals; comments on Abraham 5, laws endowed with life, the first generations, and the unwritten law.

Notes 1. In this treatise Philo rarely uses Abraham’s name and when he does, he refers to him as Abraham rather than as Abram even before the patriarch’s name is changed in Gen. 17:5 (see comment on 60, Abraham). The same practice of referring to the patriarch as Abraham rather than Abram is followed here. 2. The phrase “the First Book” is missing from the Greek and is usually supplied. 3. Especially because the treatise title (which may or may not be original to Philo) refers to Abraham as a wise man made perfect through teaching, one wonders why Philo does not explicitly address the role of teaching in Abraham’s life in this work. A possible reason may be that Philo emphasizes that the early figures of Genesis were able to follow the written laws without instruction from others (e.g., Abraham 6, 16, 61), and it may thus have been awkward for him to highlight Abraham as someone who was taught. 4. When this commentary was originally prepared, A New English Translation of the Septuagint, ed. A. Pietersma and B. G. Wright (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007) had not yet been published. 5. A. F. Segal, “Torah and nomos in Recent Scholarly Discussion,” reprinted in idem, The Other Judaisms of Late Antiquity (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 131–45; A. Reinhartz, “The Meaning of Nomos in Philo’s Exposition of the Law,” SR 15 (1986): 337–45. 6. M. Kister, “Observations on Aspects of Exegesis, Tradition, and Theology in Midrash, Pseudepigrapha, and Other Jewish Writings,” in Tracing the Threads: Studies in the Vitality of Jewish Pseudepigrapha, ed. J.C. Reeves (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994), 17–19. For additional parallels between the Flood and the destruction at Sodom, see L. H. Feldman, “Questions about the Great Flood, as viewed by Philo, Pseudo-Philo, Josephus and the Rabbis,” ZAW 115 (2003): 401–22, esp. 404–8.

On the Life of Abraham 947

7. See also Moses 2.45–52; Rewards 1–3. 8. For a summary of and references to various positions, see E. Birnbaum, “Two Millennia Later: General Resources and Particular Perspectives on Philo the Jew,” Currents in Biblical Research 4 (2006): 250–52. See also C. Termini, “The Historical Part of the Pentateuch According to Philo of Alexandria: Biography, Genealogy, and the Philosophical Meaning of the Patriarchal Lives,” in History and Identity: How Israel’s Later Authors Viewed Its Earlier History, ed. N. Calduch-Benages and J. Liesen (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006), 278–86. 9. A. Kamesar, “The Literary Genres of the Pentateuch as Seen from the Greek Perspective: The Testimony of Philo of Alexandria,” SPhA 9 (1997): 154. See also Termini, “Historical Part,” 272–73. 10. J. W. Martens, One God, One Law (Boston: Brill, 2003), 31–66. See also note 8. 11. See Laws Stamped with the Seals of Nature, ed. D. T. Runia, G. E. Sterling, and H. Najman, SPhA 15 (2003). 12. For a summary of and references to recent positions, see Birnbaum, “Two Millennia Later,” 253. On unwritten law, see also H. Najman, “The Law of Nature and the Authority of Mosaic Law,” SPhA 11 (1999): 55–73; eadem, “A Written Copy of the Law of Nature: An Unthinkable Paradox?” SPhA 15 (2003): 54–63. 13. See, e.g., Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael Bahodesh 6, Gen. Rab. 23:6, and discussion in S. D. Fraade, Enosh and His Generation (Chico ca: Scholars Press, 1984). 14. S. Sandmel, Philo of Alexandria: An Introduction (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), 178n45; M. Harl, La Bible d’Alexandrie: La Genèse (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1986), 119. 15. F. van Menxel, Elpis. Espoir. Espérance (Frankfort: P. Lang, 1983), 295–311. 16. See, e.g., F. H. Colson, Philo (Cambridge ma: Harvard University Press, 1935; rpt. 1984), 6:10, n.b. and 597, note on §12. 17. The Greek of Gen. 5:22 also has 200 years instead of 300. 18. See, e.g., L. L. Grabbe, Etymology in Early Jewish Interpretation: The Hebrew Names in Philo (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 49–113. 19. E. R. Goodenough, By Light, Light (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1935), 130n31. 20. See also Luke 15:7; cf. Midr. Prov. 6; H. A. Wolfson, Philo (Cambridge ma: Harvard University Press, 1975; rpt. 1982), 2:258–59; D. Winston, “Hidden Tensions in Philo’s Thought,” SPhA 2 (1990): 6. 21. For further discussion, see Grabbe, Etymology, 192–93. See also comment at Abraham 32, to the man who is man pre-eminently. 22. D. Winston, “Sage and Super-sage in Philo of Alexandria,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells, ed. D. P. Wright, et al. (Winona Lake in: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 815–24. 23. Stoicorum veterum fragmenta, 4 vols. (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1903–1905, ed. H. von Arnim, vols. 1–3; 1924, ed. M. Adler, vol. 4). 24. Seneca in M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism ( Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974–84), 1:431, no186; Tacitus in Stein, Greek and Latin Authors., 2:25, no281 (5:4:3). 25. L. Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, 2nd ed., 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2003). 26. Eusebius, Praep. ev. 13.12.12; C. R. Holladay, Aristobulus, v. 3 in Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 184–5; 230n142. 27. Gen. Rab. 30:9; Rashi on Gen. 6:9; see J. L. Kugel, Traditions of the Bible (Cambridge ma: Harvard University Press, 1998), 187. While the Greek Bible has “generation (genea)” in the singular, the Hebrew has “generations (dorot)” in the plural. 28. M. Martin, “Philo’s Use of Syncrisis,” Perspectives in Religious Studies 30 (2003): 284. 29. On this and related questions, see Kugel, Traditions, 171–226; D. Dimant, “Noah in Early Jewish Literature,” in Biblical Figures Outside the Bible, ed. M. E. Stone and T. A. Bergren (Harrisburg pa: Trinity, 1998), 124–34. 30. For similar interpretations in antiquity, see Kugel, Traditions, 188–90. 31. R. Marcus, trans., Questions and Answers in Genesis, in Philo. Suppl. 1 (Cambridge ma: Harvard University Press, 1953; rpt. 1979), 92. See also Feldman, “Questions,” 405. 32. Kugel, Traditions, 187–88; Feldman, “Questions,” 404–8. 33. On Enoch, see P. S. Alexander, “From Son of Adam to Second God: Transformations of the Biblical Enoch,” in Biblical Figures, 107–10; The Early Enoch Literature, ed. G. Boccaccini and J. J. Collins (Leiden

948 Ellen Birnbaum

34.

35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42.

43.

44. 45.

46. 47. 48.

49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55.

56. 57. 58. 59.

and Boston: Brill, 2007). On Noah, see Dimant, “Noah,” 130–31; Noah and His Book(s), ed. M. E. Stone, A. Amihay, and V. Hillel (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010). See also Kugel, Traditions, 194. The notion can be found, e.g., in Plato, Meno 70a; Aristotle, Eth. nic. 1.9.1099b, 10.9.1179b; Isocrates, Antid. 186–88. For more on this theme and Philo’s connection of each patriarch with each particular quality, see E. Birnbaum, “Exegetical Building Blocks in Philo’s Interpretation of the Patriarchs,” in From Judaism to Christianity: Tradition and Transition, ed. P. Walters (Leiden: Brill), 69–92. T. H. Tobin, S.J., The Creation of Man: Philo and the History of Interpretation (Washington dc: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1983), 154–61; Wolfson, Philo 1:115–38. On the possible link between interpretation of the Graces and Philo’s interpretation of the patriarchs, see Birnbaum, “Exegetical Building Blocks,” 88–91. For further references and discussion, see E. Birnbaum, The Place of Judaism in Philo’s Thought (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), 65–66, 67–77. Birnbaum, Places of Judaism, 80–85. On eudaimonia in Philo and other Jewish sources, see D. T. Runia, “Eudaimonism in Hellenistic-Jewish Literature,” in Shem in the Tents of Japhet, ed. J. L. Kugel (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 131–57. See G. E. Sterling, “‘The Queen of the Virtues’: Piety in Philo of Alexandria,” SPhA 18 (2006): 103–23. See, e.g., Jub. 17:17–18, 1 Macc. 2.52, m. Avot 5.4, and Kugel, Traditions, 296–99 and 308–9. For this and other suggestions, see S. Sandmel, Philo’s Place in Judaism, augmented ed. (New York: Ktav, 1971), 111 and 115n51. Elsewhere Philo does discuss God’s command and promises in Gen. 12:1–3; see, e.g., Migration 1–126. See also W. L. Knox, “Abraham and the Quest for God,” HTR 28 (1935): 55–60; N. Calvert-Koyzis, “Abraham the Proselyte and Philosopher in the Works of Philo,” in eadem, Paul, Monotheism and the People of God (London: T. & T. Clark, 2004), esp. 24–29. Sandmel, Philo’s Place, 93. Goodenough (By Light, Light, 138) and Wolfson (Philo, 1:329) suggest the Stoics; D. T. Runia suggests, more generally, the “Hellenistic cosmic religion” (Philo of Alexandria: On the Creation of the Cosmos According to Moses [Leiden: Brill, 2001], 111–12, 207–9 [hereafter this work is abbreviated as Creation]). E.g., Pseudo-Eupolemus, in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.17.3–4; Artapanus, in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.18.1; Josephus, Ant. 1.158 (quoting Berosus). See also Kugel, Traditions, 249–50, 259–61. Runia, Creation, 142. First attributed to Democritus (frag. 34), the term mikros kosmos is also found in Aristotle (Phys. 8.2.252b). Philo, however, who uses the Greek brachys kosmos instead of mikros kosmos (e.g., Planting 28), appears to be the first extant source to make explicit just how the human is a microcosm. See G. P. Conger, Theories of Macrocosms and Microcosms in the History of Philosophy (New York: Russell and Russell, 1967), 1–28, esp. 19 and 28. See Grabbe, Etymology, 218. Philo’s quotation differs from the Greek Bible, which—in accordance with the Hebrew—has kyrios, Lord, instead of theos, God. Runia, Creation, 201. See too, Philo, Cherubim 4, 7; Giants 62–64; Grabbe, Etymology, 127–28. C. Schur, On Abraham, in Philo of Alexandria: Writings, ed. S. Daniel-Nataf ( Jerusalem: Bialik Institute and Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1991) 2:91n74 (Hebrew); Grabbe, Etymology, 126–27. Philo’s Place, 115. See also Philo, Names 71, QG 3.43. D. T. Runia, “The Idea and the Reality of the City in the Thought of Philo of Alexandria,” JHI 61 (2000): esp. 370–72. See also H. Najman, “Towards a Study of the Uses of the Concept of Wilderness in Ancient Judaism,” DSD 13 (2006): 99–113. See Abraham Terian, Philonis Alexandrini De Animalibus: The Armenian Text with an Introduction, Translation, and Commentary (Chico ca: Scholars Press, 1981). On Philo’s view of faith, see further Wolfson, Philo, 1:151–152, 2:215–218. Wolfson, Philo, 2:297–302. On the theme of reward and punishment in On the Life of Abraham and in the Exposition in general, see D. T. Runia, “The Place of De Abrahamo in Philo’s oeuvre,” SPhA 20 (2008): 145–50; Termini, “Historical Part,” 271.

On the Life of Abraham 949

60. Philo, Sobriety 55–56, and F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker, Philo (Cambridge ma: Harvard University Press, 1930; rpt. 1968), 3:512 (note); Sandmel, Philo’s Place, 44n130; Ginzberg, Legends, 1:168n4; Kugel, Traditions, 258. 61. For example, Sir. 44:19–20; CD 3:2; M. Kid. 4:14; B. Yoma 28b; Gen. Rab. 64:4. For an extended discussion of how this verse was understood by Jewish interpreters, see J. D. Levenson, “The Conversion of Abraham to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam,” in The Idea of Biblical Interpretation, ed. H. Najman and J. H. Newman (Leiden: Brill, 2004), esp. 20–31. On Abraham and specific practices, see Jub. 13:25–27, 16:20–31, 21:2–20. See also J. L. Kugel, A Walk Through Jubilees (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 391–405.

950 Ellen Birnbaum

On the Migration of Abraham Peder Borgen In On the Migration of Abraham 86–93 (henceforth Migration) Philo interprets the words to Abraham in Gen 12:2, “I will make your name great.” When setting forth his subject matter in Migration 86–88, Philo concludes: “And this fair fame is won as a rule by all who cheerfully take things as they find them and interfere with no established customs, but maintain with care the constitution of their country.” Then, in 89–93, Philo addresses “some” who, by contrast, are in danger of interfering with established customs. Although these potential spiritualists are aware of both the literal and the symbolic aspects of the laws of Moses, they stress the symbolic meaning and neglect the literal observances. Philo applies these comments, based on Gen. 12:2, to Jewish community life, with its observances of the seventh day, its celebration of the festivals, and its practice of circumcision. Significance In his characterization of the seventh day, festivals, and circumcision, Philo draws on scriptural and traditional understandings, as well as on human experience. His formulation of the meaning of the seventh day is somewhat philosophical, but should still be characterized as a concentrated and clear formulation about real observance without digressions into hidden meanings of the numbers or language used in the biblical text. Similarities with the views of the Jewish philosopher-exegete Aristobulus (2nd century bce) suggest that Philo utilizes received tradition. Philo’s exhortation about the seventh day, therefore, fits into the traditions and customs fixed by the “divinely empowered men greater than those of our [i.e., Philo’s] time” (90). Philo seems to exhort himself and persons known to him. More to the point, though, Migration 86–93 deals with the problem that for various reasons certain observances were ignored or attacked or transformed.1 In noting that some among his audience have a correct intellectual understanding of the laws but are tempted toward a lifestyle unhampered by external observances, Philo exhorts them and himself to remember that the concrete and the spiritual aspects of the Law go together: we are not to separate meaning from practice, intellectual understanding from observances. The theme of community is central for understanding the Migration. According to Philo one should combine two ideals: a) to be morally noble; and b) to have the reputation of being so. This “fair fame” is won as a rule by compliance with the established customs of the Jewish community. Therefore it is not sufficient to have the right ideas and ignore the external observances. Those who are in danger of following such an approach are encouraged by Philo to keep both aspects together. Philo includes himself in this appeal. Philo seems here to come close to advocating a pragmatic adjustment to what is appraised

951

by the community in order to avoid the misgivings and the censure of the many. His aim is not adequately formulated in that way, however. His main concern is to maintain the ancestral constitution (politeía) and not to jeopardize its survival in a non-Jewish surrounding. Suggested Reading Borgen, P. Philo of Alexandria: An Exegete for His Time. Leiden: Brill, 1997. ———. “The Sabbath Controversy in John 5.1–18 and Analogous Controversies Reflected in Philo’s Writings.” in Heirs of the Septuagint. Philo, Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity, edited by D. T. Runia, D. M. Hay, and D. Winston. Festschrift for Earl Hilgert (= The Studia Philonica Annual 3). Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991. Cohen, N. G. Philo Judaeus, His Universe of Discourse. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1995. Hay, D. M. “Putting Extremism in Context: The Case of Philo, De Migratione 89–93.” In The Studia Philonica, vol. 9, edited by D. T. Runia and G. Sterling. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. Marcus, R., trans. Philo. Supplement I: Questions and Answers on Genesis. Supplement II: Questions and Answers on Exodus. Cambridge ma: Harvard University Press, 1953. Mendelson, A. Philo’s Jewish Identity. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. Weiss, W. “Philo on the Sabbath.” In Heirs of the Septuagint: Philo, Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity, edited by D. T. Runia, D. M. Hay, and D. Winston. Festschrift for Earl Hilgert (= The Studia Philonica Annual 3). Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991.

Translation (86) What, then, is the fourth gift? That of a great name; for he says “I will make your name great” (Gen. 12:2; my trans. as in NJPS). The meaning of this appears to me to be as follows. As it is an advantage to be good and morally noble, so it is to be reputed as such. And, while the reality is better than the reputation, happiness comes from having both. For very many, after coming to Virtue’s feet with no counterfeit or unreal homage and with their eyes open to her genuine loveliness, through paying no regard to the general opinion have become the objects of hostility, just because they were held to be bad, when they were really good. (87) It is true that there is no good in being thought to be this or that, unless you are so long before you are thought to be so. It is naturally so in the case of our bodies. Were all the world to suppose the sickly man to be healthy, or the healthy man to be sickly, the general opinion by itself will produce neither sickness nor health. (88) But he on whom God has bestowed both gifts, both to be morally noble and good and to have the reputation for being so, this man is really happy and his name is great in every deed. We should take thought for fair fame as a great matter and one of much advantage to the life which we live in the body. And this fair fame is won as a rule by all who cheerfully take things as they find them and interfere with no established customs, but maintain with care the constitution of their country. (89) There are some who, regarding laws in their literal sense in the light of symbols of matters belonging to the intellect, are overpunctilious about the latter, while treating the former with easy-going neglect. Such men I for my

Commentary 89–90 Some The persons referred to by Philo are taught by “the sacred word” and “the customs fixed Source of Translation: The translation is from F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker, Philo with an English Translation, 4. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1958. Bible passages are from NJPS and from the RSV.

952

Peder Borgen

part should blame for handling the matter in too easy and off-hand a manner: they ought to have given careful attention to both aims, to a more full and exact investigation of what is not seen and in what is seen to be stewards without reproach. (90) As it is, as though they were living alone by themselves in a wilderness, or as though they had become disembodied souls, and knew neither city nor village nor household nor any company of human beings at all, overlooking all that the mass of men regard, they explore reality in its naked absoluteness. These men are taught by the sacred word to have thought for good repute, and to let go nothing that is part of the customs fixed by divinely empowered men greater than those of our time. (91) It is quite true that the Seventh Day is meant to by divinely empowered men,” to give attention to both what is not seen and what is seen. “The divinely empowered men” receive a further characterization in Spec. Laws 1:8: Philo tells that they are persons who have made deep research into the writings of Moses. Accordingly, N. G. Cohen seems to be right when she states that the oi retoi nomoi in Migration 89 should not be translated as “laws in their literal sense” but as “the accepted traditional meaning of the laws.”2 Philo draws both on the Scriptures and on the traditions such as they are understood and practiced in the community. In criticizing “some” fellow Jews, Philo notes that their intellectual exploration of reality would be appropriate only in an isolated wilderness or in a spiritual realm separate from real life. In any case, these fellow Jews are not a large group and should not be equated with the various literalists and allegorists glimpsed elsewhere in Philo’s writings. 91–92 Against the background established in Migration 89–90, Philo sets forth a list of exhortations within the structure “it is true that . . . , but let us not for that reason.”3 In this form of exhortation Philo uses the first-person plural, which means that although he agrees with the views of those he addresses, he exhorts himself along with his audience not to do away with the external observances. Then in 93 Philo adds some general comments on the proper relationship between outward observances and their inner meanings. Here the first-person plural is not used. Note that a similar list of observances is found in Avot R. Nat. 26 as a saying by Rabbi Eliezer of Modin. Eliezer is aware that even though the person criticized may have Torah and good works to his credit, misinterpreting the laws (and sinning accordingly) in the ways specified will lead to punishment: “Rabbi Eliezer of Moda’im says: He who . . . despises the festivals . . . has no share in the world to come.”4 91. the Seventh Day Philo deals extensively with the seventh day in his works. In the long excursus in Creation 89–128 the seventh day was the birthday of the cosmos; on this basis he develops a theological and numerological interpretation of the number seven. This number is also central in the interpretation of the seventh day in Decalogue 96–105 and Spec. Laws 2.40 and 56–70. In Migration 89–93, though, Philo does not elaborate on the number seven. In Gen 2.2–3 the seventh day is granted holy status on a cosmic level: God rests on that day. These verses have given rise to a theological controversy, since it is in an apparent conflict with the conviction that God can never cease doing his providential activity in upholding and “governing” the world. Philo’s formulation reflects one solution given to this Jewish debate: relying on the Septuagint (LXX) rendering of Gen. 2.2–3, he reads katépausen as “caused to rest that which, though actually not in operation, is apparently making, but he himself never ceases making” (Alleg. Interpr. 1.6.). Aristobulus had already dealt with the problem in a way similar to that of Philo: “Thus God’s resting does not imply, as some suppose, that God ceased from activity; for, being good, if he should ever cease from doing good, then would He cease being God.”5 The Rabbis offered another so-

On the Migration of Abraham 953

teach the power of the Unoriginate and the non-action of created beings, but let us not for this reason abrogate the laws laid down for its observance, and light fires or till the ground or carry loads or institute proceedings in court or act as jurors or demand the restoration of deposits or recover loans, or do all else that we are permitted to do as well on days that are not festival seasons. (92) It is true

lution to this controversy in Exod. Rab. 30.6: the Sabbath commandment does not forbid one to carry something about in one’s house on the Sabbath. God’s homestead is the upper and lower worlds. He may thus be active within it without coming into conflict with the Sabbath. The cosmic context of the seventh day is also evident here. Philo is firm on Sabbath observance. In Dreams 2.123 he criticizes an official who “tried to compel men to do service to him on it and perform other actions which contravene our established custom, thinking that if he could destroy the ancestral rule of the Sabbath it would lead the way to irregularity in all other matters, and a general backsliding.”6 the power of the Unoriginate and the non-action of created beings The term “Unoriginate” means that God himself is uncreated. He is the active one making the world come into being and upholding his creation; in comparison to the active creator, human beings and the world are dependent, passive, and inactive. Thus the world was, according to this perspective, passive and it rested.7 But let us not . . . light fires The scriptural basis for this statement is Exod. 35:3: “You shall kindle no fire throughout your settlements on the Sabbath day.”8 or till the ground The scriptural basis for this injunction is implied in the prohibition against working, which includes plowing and other kinds of agricultural work. Confer Spec. Laws 2.70, which is based on the commandment to observe the Sabbath day, Exod. 20:8–10 and Deut. 5:12–14. Here, Philo may also allude to Exod. 34:21 which more specifically commands a rest from agricultural activity in general. See also, for example, M. Shab. 7.2, 12.2; and Josephus Ag. Ap. 1.209. or carry loads This prohibition is referred to in Jer. 17.19–27, where verse 22 reads: “Nor shall you carry out burdens from your houses on the Sabbath day.” or institute proceedings in court . . . or recover loans This elaborate listing of various judicial and business activities reflects an urban setting for Philo and his audience. The relevance of this and related issues is evident, especially in a non-Jewish surrounding. According to Josephus the Emperor Augustus in a decree in favor of the Jews of Asia declared that they need not give bond to appear in court on the Sabbath ( Josephus, Ant. 16:163; see also 16:168). or do all else that we are permitted to do . . . on days that are not festival seasons Then Philo formulates an important general rule. Such a rule may be referred to in the discussions of healings on the Sabbath, as exemplified by the synagogue leader in Luke 13:14: “There are six days on which work ought to be done; come on those days and be healed, and not on the Sabbath day.” Confer Deut. 5.13–14. As for Rabbi Eliezer, he said: “He who profanes the Sabbath ... has no share in the world to come” (see citation above).

954

Peder Borgen

also that the Feast [or: keeping of festivals] is a symbol of gladness of soul and of thankfulness to 92. the Feast Or, “the keeping of festivals,” a translation supported by Philo’s choice of the phrase “the general gatherings of the year’s seasons” farther down in the sentence. Philo’s understanding of the feasts seems to be that, as parts of the laws of Moses, they express religious ideas, aspects of philosophy, views on observance, and traditions received and handed on. Glimpses of actual observances appear here and there in Philo’s works; for example, in Flaccus 116–24 the Alexandrian Jews are celebrating the feast of the tabernacles when news of Flaccus’s arrest reaches them; in Spec. Laws 1.69–70 “countless multitudes from countless cities come ..” to participate in the feasts; in Spec. Laws 1.78 Diaspora Jews collect money from the firstfruits and send them to Jerusalem by persons who would offer the sacrifices;9 and in Providence 2.64 Philo reports from one journey of his to Jerusalem to offer up prayers and sacrifices. Philo comments extensively on sacrifices in the feasts. He presupposes and maintains the role of external sacrifice, but emphasizes the importance of its internalization: purity of heart is necessary to approach the altar (Spec. Laws 1.203, 257, 269 and 271). Likewise the true cult is the spiritual cult (Worse 21; Drunkenness 152; Spec. Laws 1.201 and 277). a symbol of gladness of soul and of thankfulness to God This is a common characterization of the festivals, both in Philo’s own works (e.g., Decalogue 161; Prelim. Studies 161–62; QE 2.15; Sacrifices 111 [“joy”]) and in the Bible (e.g., Neh. 8:10; 12:27–43; Ezra 3:10–13; Psalm 100:1–4; 95:1–2). circumcision God’s covenant with Abraham, with circumcision as sign, is found in Gen. 17:10–12 and 14. Although Philo does not discuss circumcision as the covenantal sign, he does draw on the tradition that relates bodily circumcision to ethical and religious circumcision, often seen as circumcision of the heart. For example, in QG 3.46 he interprets the scriptural phrase “you shall circumcise your hardness of heart” (Deut. 10.16 LXX) as meaning “your hard and rebellious and refractory thoughts, and by cutting off and removing arrogance, you shall make the sovereign part10 free and unbound.” In Migration 92, Philo describes circumcision as “the excision of pleasure and all passion,” and further, as ridding oneself of the “impious conceit” wherein the mind believes itself “capable of begetting by its own power.” He elaborates on this in Spec. Laws 1.1–10, where he surveys the reasons for observance of circumcision, including two reasons with which he explicitly identifies himself: I consider circumcision to be a symbol of two things most necessary to our well-being. One is the excision of .... excessive and superfluous pleasure, not only of one pleasure but of all the other pleasures signified by one, and that the most imperious. The other reason is that a man should know himself and banish from the soul the grievous malady of conceit. For there are some who have prided themselves on their power of fashioning as with a sculptor’s cunning the fairest of creatures, man, and in their braggart pride assumed godship, closing their eyes to the Cause of all that comes into being.” (Spec. Laws 1.8–10) It is then evident that both passages maintain, on the one hand, the theological and ethical aspects of circumcision and, on the other hand, its physical observance. Although Philo explicitly keeps the physical rite of circumcision, he, to a very limited degree, specifies how, when, and by whom it shall be performed. For example, in QG 3.52 he writes a commentary on 17.14 LXX: “Why does He prescribe a sentence of death for the infant, saying, ‘The uncircumcised male who shall not circumcise the flesh of his uncircumcision on the eight day, that soul shall be destroyed from its kind’?” Philo’s comment reads: “The law does not declare (anyone) guilty of any invol-

On the Migration of Abraham 955

God, but we should not for this reason turn our back on the general gatherings of the year’s seasons. It is true that receiving circumcision does indeed portray the excision of pleasure and all passions, and the putting away of the impious conceit, under which the mind supposed that it was capable of begetting by its own power: but let us not on this account repeal the law laid down for circumcising. Why, we shall be ignoring the sanctity of the Temple and a thousand other things, if we are going to untary (crime) . . . if the child is not circumcised on the eighth day after birth, what sin has he committed that he should be judged deserving death? Accordingly, some say that the law of interpretation has in view the parents, for it believes that they show contempt for the commandment of the law. Others, however, say that it has imposed a very excessive penalty on infants, it seems, and that those adults who disregard and violate the law are deserving of punishment without regret or remission.” Philo gives a further characterization of the allegorical meaning of the penalty: “... the mind which is not circumcised and purified and sanctified of the body and the passions which come through the body will be corrupted and cannot be saved.” Philo does not here see circumcision simply as the rite by which the child gains entry into the people of Israel; the focus is on the non-compliance of the parents. At various places in his writings Philo deals with questions related to the conversion of persons from pagan polytheism to Jewish monotheism. One example is seen in his treatise On the Virtues 212–19: Abraham was the most ancient member of the Jewish nation (212). In 212–19 Philo surveys the radical change which took place in Abraham’s life. He left polytheism, and began to worship the One God. He was then regarded as king among whom he settled. Abraham sought a different society than the others, however. The divine spirit transformed him. He craved for kinship with God and was ranked among the prophets. By the election of God, who rewards the lovers of piety with imperial powers to benefit those around them, Abraham gained his sovereignty and was regarded as a king. Philo characterizes Abraham’s role with a Greek word which in English is rendered as “canon.” meaning “rule,” “standard,” “model.” “He is the standard of nobility for all proselytes (epelýtai), who, abandoning the ignobility of strange laws and monstrous customs which assigned divine honors to stocks and stones and soulless things in general, have come to settle in a better land, in a commonwealth full of true life and vitality, with truth as its director and president.” The rite of circumcision is not mentioned in this story, neither with reference to Abraham himself, nor with reference to those who follow his example and have come to settle in a commonwealth, politeía, full of true life and vitality. Thus, Philo seems to be familiar with the observance of circumcision, but his expressed concern is the compliance or non-compliance of the parents. As for non-Jews, who have converted to join the Jewish community, Philo relates Abraham as the norm and example for them without mentioning circumcision. He does not specify at what point after the conversion the person should undergo circumcision. While Philo does not mention the covenant with Abraham on circumcision, Rabbi Eliezer does, although referring to those who react negatively: “and annuls the covenant in the flesh.” the Temple Philo can understand the Temple in different ways. In Spec. 1.66–67, for example, Philo states that the cosmos is a temple, but there is also the temple “made by hands” to serve those who pay their tribute to piety and who desire—by means of sacrifices—either to give thanks for blessings or ask forgiveness for their sins. By contrast, in Cherubim 99–100, he seems to discount the earthly Temple altogether: “What house shall be prepared for God the King of kings, the Lord of all, . . . Shall it be of stone or timber? Away with the thought, the very words are

956

Peder Borgen

pay heed to nothing except what is shown us by the inner meaning of things. (93) Nay, we should look on all these outward observances as resembling the body, and their inner meanings as resembling the soul. It follows that, exactly as we have to take thought for the body, because it is the abode of the soul, so we must pay heed to the letter of the laws. If we keep and observe these, we shall gain blasphemy. . . . One worthy house there is—the soul that is fitted to receive Him.” In this passage the essential element is God’s presence in the soul, and not the house of stone or timber as such. Such a statement shows how Philo comes close to maintaining views similar to those to whom he addresses his appeals in Migration 91–92. Here at the close of his appeals he points to the grave implications of a “spiritualization” which is separated from external observance and which ignores ritual worship in the Temple. The translation given above reads: “Why, we shall be ignoring the sanctity of the Temple.” A more precise rendering of the Greek word translated as “sanctity,” would be “ritual,” “worship,” “service [of God].” a thousand other things Philo warns that paying attention solely to inner meanings will lead to the neglecting of many things besides those he has mentioned. If the external observances are ignored, drastic consequences will follow not only with regard to the Temple worship but in a very wide area of activities in society. Although the distinction between spiritual meaning and external observance is not developed clearly in the sayings of Rabbi Eliezer, it still may be of interest to mention examples of sins referred to in this tradition. The resulting attitudes and behaviors may even have been similar in practice to those portrayed in Migration 91–92. The tradition occurs in several versions. The version found in Avot R. Nat. 26 is cited above. The saying occurs in slightly different versions in Sifre Num. on Num. 15:31, B. Sanh. 99a, and Avot 3:11. In all of these places it is rendered as a saying by Rabbi Eliezer of Modin. The sins based on misinterpretation or misbehavior are: being contemptuous toward the Torah (Avot R. Nat. 26), being one who desecrates the Holy Things (Sifre Num. on Num. 15:31, cf. Avot 3:11), defiling the sacred food (B. Sanh. 99a), and offending the holidays and putting one’s fellow to shame publicly (Avot 3:11). And the punishment, according to Rabbi Eliezer, is the same: one who sins in these ways has no share in the world to come. 93. the body . . . the soul Philo presents to his readers some ideas about soul and body to illuminate the spiritual and external aspects of the law. He also deals in a general way with benefits gained by keeping the external observances. Philo likens outward observances to the body and inner meaning to the soul. Portraying the body as the soul’s dwelling place, he sees body and soul as a unity here. Elsewhere, in his work, Philo sometimes portrays the body in a more dualistic way, as a prison (e. g., Drunkenness 101) or a tomb (Leg. Alleg. Interpr. 1.108). a clearer conception The accepted and external observances serve a hermeneutical purpose. By practicing the external observances of the seventh day, the festivals, and circumcision, those who have the right intellectual understanding (Migration 89–90), including Philo himself (91– 92), will get a clearer understanding of what the external observances symbolize. In his work On the Contemplative Life Philo applies the close relationship between body and soul to the hermeneutics of the Therapeutae: “For to these people the whole law book seems to resemble a living creature with the literal ordinances for its body and its soul the invisible mind laid up in its wording” (§78).

On the Migration of Abraham 957

a clearer conception of those things of which these are the symbols; and besides that we shall not incur the censure of the many and the charges they are sure to bring against us. we shall not incur the censure of the many By combining intellectual understanding and external observance one can escape the censure of the many. By mentioning the possible reaction by “the many,” Philo emphasizes the social importance of the observances, as already stressed above in 86–88. Philo pointedly encourages people not to interfere with established customs, but to maintain with care the constitution (politeía) of their country (88). Moreover, in 86 he reports that many, through paying no regard to the general opinion, have become the objects of hostility. the charges The Greek term for “accusation” or “charge,” kategoría, may be used in a broad way, such as in Fug. 36—accusation of hesitation and indolence—or in a technical way within the context of court procedure, such as in Legat. 350, “he [the judge] would listen in turn to the accusation.” Either alternative may be present in Migration 93, but specific issues are discussed by Philo in §§91–92. Rabbi Eliezer announces the judgment as being the suffering of an eschatological punishment: “He . . . has no share in the world to come” (cited above).

Notes 1. The Gospels exemplify controversies on Sabbath observances. See Matt. 12:1–14, Mark 1:21–28 (and parallels), and Mark 1:29–31, Luke 13:10–17, 14:1–6, and John 5:1–18, 9.1–41. Paul was involved in controversies on circumcision as seen particularly in his Letter to the Galatians. 2. N. G. Cohen, Philo Judaeus, His Universe of Discourse (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1995), 226–227. 3. A similar formula is used by Philo in Worse 101–102. 4. S. Schechter, Aboth de Rabbi Nathan, Edited from Manuscripts, with an Introduction, Notes, and Appendices (Vienna, 1887; rpt. New York: Philip Feldheim, 1967), 82. The translation used in the present article is J. Goldin trans. The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967), 112. 5. Fragment 5b in Clement, Miscellanies 6:16.141.7b. Greek text and English translation in C. R. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, Vol. 3: Aristobulus (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 182–83. 6. In Spec. Laws 2.60 and Hypoth. 7.10–14 Philo counters criticism that the Seventh Day meant that the Jews were idle people. Such criticism is found in Juvenal’s Satire 14.96–106 and as a view attributed to Seneca in Augustine De Civitate Dei 6.11. 7. Philo’s somewhat philosophical formulation “teach the power of the uncreated and divine and the nonaction of created beings,” probably is a transcendental modification of the Stoic idea that there are two principles in the universe, the active principle and the passive principle. See for example Diogenes Laertius 7.134. Philo applies this distinction to his view of the transcendental creator and providentially active God in his relation to the created world. 8. Cf. Moses, 2.219; Spec. 2.65 and 251. See also Josephus, Bell. 2.147. 9. See also Legat. 156–57; 216; 291; 311–12. 10. The mind.

958

Peder Borgen

On the Life of Moses Maren R. Niehoff Philo’s On the Life of Moses, written in the mid-1st century ce, is the only Jewish biography of Moses that has survived from Antiquity. The two volumes of Philo’s treatise cover the life span of Moses as a political leader, legislator, and ideal king, giving special attention to his youth and then following his career until his death. It is Philo’s declared purpose to present Moses as “the greatest and most perfect of men” (Moses 1.1). Moses is for him an exemplary figure with direct moral implications for his readers. Philo’s Moses strikes the modern reader as strangely familiar and highly relevant. This impression is created by two features: Philo focuses on the personal character of his hero, highlighting his individuality in the particular circumstances of his life, and uses picturesque anecdotes to show Moses in his daily life. Philo is convinced that “a small matter” can indicate the character of a person more authentically than big actions on the political scene (Moses 1.51). This interest in the private life of a public hero, especially his childhood, renders Philo’s Moses so modern. Another central feature of Philo’s biography may appear to be less modern. Philo revives the past by presenting its heroes as personal examples of virtue. He invites the readers to emulate Moses, implementing his virtues in their own lives, rather than relate to the knowledge of the past in a merely antiquarian fashion. While the modern reader is not used to finding explicit moral instruction in a political biography, Philo’s style of reviving the past in highly personal terms is familiar to us from such practices as reading the Passover haggadah. Here, too, the past is revived in a very personal manner with emphasis on the theological teachings involved.1 Authorship and History Philo’s Moses belongs to a series of writings, called the Exposition of the Laws, in which he explains the continuity of Judaism: from the creation of the world through the biographies of the biblical patriarchs to the Decalogue and the special laws of the Jews.2 Philo wishes to show that there is an intrinsic connection between the different aspects of Judaism: the creation of the world and the foundational laws of nature, which in turn define the image in which Mosaic Law is shaped. The Exposition was written for a wider, non-Jewish audience, as the frequent explanations of very basic facts indicate.3 Philo explains, for example, that the Bible opens with an account of the creation of the world (Opif. 3, Abraham 1). His Moses begins with a complaint about Greek writers, who have neglected the Israelite leader (Moses 1.1–3). The context of turning to a wider, non-Jewish audience can be reconstructed as that of the embassy to the Roman emperor Gaius Caligula.4 Philo traveled to Rome in late 38 ce as the head of the Jewish embassy in order to plead for the civic rights of the Alexandrian Jews after the pogrom in their

959

city. Being constantly deferred by the emperor, Philo and his younger ambassadors spent at least two and a half years in Rome, most likely staying there also after Gaius’s assassination in early 41 ce in order to continue the negotiations with the new emperor Claudius.5 In Rome Philo became familiar with the specific cultural discourse of the capital, which proved to be extremely influential on the intellectual life of the entire Empire, including the Greek-speaking East. In particular, Philo encountered here the philosophy of the Stoics, a school founded in the 4th century bce by Zeno, and very successful in Rome after Cicero popularized their ethics in the 1st century bce. Philo’s turn to biography and his interest in the hero’s daily life can be explained in the context of Stoic philosophy in Rome. The Stoics differed from other Hellenistic schools by acknowledging an impressive variety of exemplary figures as moral authorities, including thinkers from other schools and politicians.6 Moral authority followed from the usefulness of the model.7 Such role models were depicted in real life situations, which could easily be identified by the reader, rather than in an idealized state. Philo’s contemporary Seneca spoke of associating with figures from the past as if they were a “most intimate friend every day” (Brev. Vit. 15.14.5). The reader should “fashion himself in the likeness” of such great personalities (Brev. Vit. 15.2). Philo echoes this approach of Roman Stoicism when presenting heroes of the Jewish past in a highly personal fashion. The reader experiences them in their daily lives, when they confront difficult situations and make good use of opportunities that offer themselves. Much like their Stoic counterparts, Philo’s biblical heroes are “socially embedded.”8 Their virtue consists in a proper mediation of social roles, political responsibilities, and moral convictions. This philosophical background prompts Philo to indulge in anecdotes as a key to understanding the moral character of his heroes. Philo’s Moses belongs to the Exposition and significantly differs from the style of the Allegorical Interpretation, where the personality of Moses is never discussed. In his early writings from Alexandria, Philo instead talks about Moses as the author of the Torah, investigating his particular style of writing. On the Life of Moses is part of a series of five biographies, of which the On the Life of Abraham and the On the Life of Joseph have also survived. Philo also wrote the now lost biographies of Jacob and Isaac (Abraham 48–51, Josesph 1). The biography of Moses seems to have been Philo’s first attempt at biography, where he carefully explains his method, sometimes even sounding a bit apologetic in face of readers, who may have different expectations (Moses 1.51). Unlike the other two extant Lives, the biography of Moses contains no allegorical passages and thus conforms more closely to the standards of Hellenistic biography. Significance The importance of Philo’s biography can hardly be overestimated: he offers not only the first Jewish biography, but the first Hellenistic biography of a personal and moralizing kind, which is a famous marker of Plutarch, who was born about the time that Philo died. Philo thus throws important light not only on the richness of Hellenistic Judaism, but also provides crucial evidence for the development of the genre of biography in the Imperial Period. Moreover, his Moses is of great significance for subsequent forms of Jewish culture.

960 Maren R. Niehoff

Josephus and the Rabbis developed similar interests and introduced biographical sketches of biblical heroes into their writings, even though they engaged respectively in regular historiography and Bible commentary. This continuity of literary motifs shows the degree to which not only Greek-speaking Jews in the Diaspora, but also Hebrew-speaking Jews in the Land of Israel engaged in the contemporary discourse of their Greco-Roman world.

Guide to Reading The selection below focuses on two extended passages from Philo’s Moses, namely the opening chapters of the first volume treating his youth (Moses 1.1–44) and a passage from the beginning of the second volume describing the translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek (Moses 2.12–51). Both passages are of special importance: the former, because it illustrates Philo’s biographical style; and the latter, because it provides insights into Philo’s notion of the Greek Bible, the Septuagint (LXX), as a canonical text. Suggested Reading Colson, F. H. Philo with an English Translation. Loeb Classical Library. London: Heinemann, 1939. Feldman, L. H. Philo’s Portrayal of Moses in the Context of Ancient Judaism. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2007. Momigliano, A. The Development of Greek Biography. 2nd enlarged ed. Cambridge ma: Harvard University Press, 1993. Niehoff, M. R. “Biographical Sketches.” In Envisioning Judaism: Studies in Honor of Peter Schäfer on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. R. Boustan, et al. —.“Biographical Sketches of Biblical Heroes in Genesis Rabbah.” In Festschrift for Peter Schäfer. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, forthcoming in 2013. ———. “Philo’s Exposition in a Roman Context.” Studia Philonica Annual 23 (2011): 1–21. ———. “Philo and Plutarch as Biographers: Parallel Reactions to Roman Stoicism.” In Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 52 (2012): 361–92. Royse, J. “The Works of Philo.” In The Cambridge Companion to Philo, edited by A. Kamesar, 32–64. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Wasserstein, A., and D. Wasserstein. The Legend of the Septuagint: From Classical Antiquity to Today. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Translation 1.1–44

1I intend to write the life of Moses, whom some describe as the legislator of the Jews, others as the

Commentary 1:1. I intend to write the life of Moses Philo presupposes the notion of “writing a life” of a political figure even though he previously never engaged in this genre of historiography, but instead wrote biblical commentaries. some describe [Moses] as the legislator of the Jews, others as the interpreter of the Holy Laws These two descriptions of Moses reflect two different perspectives, the former an outsider’s view, the latSource of Translation: This translation is by Colson (cited above), with adaptations.

On the Life of Moses 961

interpreter of the Holy Laws. I hope to bring the story of this greatest and most perfect man to the knowledge of such as deserve not to remain in ignorance of it; 2for while the fame of the laws which he left behind has traveled throughout the civilized world and reached the ends of the earth, the man himself as he really was is known to few. Greek men of letters have refused to treat him as worthy of memory, possibly through envy, and also because in many cases the ordinances of the legislators of the different states are opposed to his. 3Most of these authors have abused their powers which education gave them, by composing in verse or prose comedies and pieces of voluptuous license, to their widespread disgrace, when they should have used their natural gifts to the full lessons taught by good men ter an insider’s view. While it was common for Greek writers to refer to Moses as the “lawgiver of the Jews,” the notion of Scripture as “Holy Law” is first attested in the Letter of Aristeas from 2nd century bce Alexandria (Let. Aris. 5, 45, 313). The notion of Moses as the “interpreter” of Holy Law implies that the Scriptures were divinely inspired, with Moses fulfilling a special religious role in the transmission of their meaning. This approach significantly differs from that of other Alexandrian Jews, who identified Moses as the author of the Torah and critically analyzed his style of writing, often finding flaws.9 In fact, Philo himself in the Allegorical Interpretation often refers to Moses in such literary terms.10 It is quite likely that Philo assumed a more consistently pious position in the Exposition when addressing outsiders, whom he expects to be ambivalent about Judaism. this greatest and most perfect of men Philo’s enthusiastic praise of Moses right at the opening indicates that he will approach his subject in an encomiastic fashion, idealizing his hero rather than impartially judging both his virtues and vices. In this respect Philo’s method resembles that of his predecessor Nepos as well as Josephus, but differs from that of his successor Plutarch. While Plutarch was generally sympathetic to his heroes, especially the Greek ones, he made considerable efforts to consider their weaknesses as well. For him, both virtues and vices were important as guides to his readers, who could thus learn how to emulate good deeds and avoid mistakes.11 1:2. as he really was This formulation indicates that Philo made truth claims in the manner of ancient historians, who regularly introduce their works as being closer to the truth than that of their competitors. One generation later Josephus introduces his Jewish Antiquities in strikingly similar fashion. Complaining about other historians who have written for the wrong reasons and relied on the wrong evidence Josephus asserts that his account is based on the right sources and reflects the truth (Ant. 1.1–4). 1:2. Greek men of letters Refers to any writer using the Greek language, including, for example, authors of Egyptian origin. Philo’s complaint about their lack of interest in Moses reflects his sense of belonging to a neglected minority group and provides one further indication for pagan ignorance of the Bible in its Greek translation. Only after Christianity appeared on the political scene and made claims to the “Old Testament” did pagan writers, such as Celsus, begin to take the Greek Bible seriously. 1:3. Most of these authors have abused their powers which education gave them Philo identifies “bad” literature as works connected to voluptuousness and license. Such pieces aim only at pleasure and laughter, not serious education. The demand that literature serve moral purposes is thoroughly rooted in Platonism, differing from Aristotle’s more literary and dramatic approach. Philo may also have had in mind the concrete writings of Apion and Chaeremon, both of whom were most likely members of the Egyptian embassy to Gaius, using their time in Rome to compose polemic works against the Jews. lessons taught by good men and their lives Philo advocates that the lives of the great men of the past

962 Maren R. Niehoff

and their lives. In this way they might have ensured that nothing of excellence, old or new, should be consigned to oblivion and to the extinction of the light which it could give, and also save themselves from seeming to neglect the better themes and prefer others unworthy of attention, in which all their efforts to express bad matter in good language served to confer distinction on shameful subjects. 4But I will disregard their malice, and tell the story of Moses as I have learned it, both from the sacred books, the wonderful monuments of his wisdom which he has left behind, and from some of the elders of the nation; for I always interwove what I was told with what I read, and thus believed myself to have a closer knowledge than others of his life’s history. 5I will begin with what is necessarily the right place to begin. Moses was by race a Chaldean, but was born in Egypt, as his ancestors had migrated there to seek food with their whole households, in consequence of the long famine under which Babylon and the neighboring populations were sufferconvey moral lessons to the readers and thus function as role models. He is the first writer in the history of biography to formulate such an overall conception of the genre, which subsequently became famous in Plutarch’s Lives. Both Philo and Plutarch envision the encounter between the reader and the hero of the biography in highly personal terms. For Philo, the heroes of the Bible have no antiquarian interest, but are instead meant to prompt moral improvement in the reader. As he states in the Life of Abraham: “These are such men as lived good and blameless lives, whose virtues stand permanently recorded in the most Holy Scriptures, not merely to sound their praises, but to urge on the readers and induce them to aspire to the same, for in these men we have laws endowed with life and reason” (Abraham 4). For Philo, emulating virtue is identical to following Mosaic Law, both in biblical times and in his own. The heroes of the Bible were virtuous and observed Mosaic Law even before Scripture was written down, precisely because the laws are engraved in Nature and inculcate rational virtue. The Jewish past, including its legal heritage, becomes alive in Philo’s biographies for the contemporary reader to admire and endorse. 1:4. some of the elders of the nation Philo’s famous reference here as a source for his knowledge about Moses has provoked a prolonged discussion about his relationship to the so-called oral tradition.12 Did he, in other words, know proto-Rabbinic traditions, which were subsequently collected in Rabbinic literature? What was his overall attitude to exegetical authorities in the Land of Israel? One school of Philonic scholarship sees Philo as an adept of the Rabbis, but Philo, knowing no Hebrew and regarding Alexandria as a far more important center of culture than “provincial” capitals, he was not very likely to have looked for inspiration to Jerusalem. Moreover, his expansions of the Bible are easily explained as creative readings in the context of Greco-Roman culture, without recourse to later Rabbinic sources. Striking similarities between Rabbinic midrash and Philo’s exegesis thus deserve to be investigated with a view to the question whether the Rabbis similarly engaged in Greco-Roman culture as Philo had done before.13 1:5. I will begin with what is necessarily the right place to begin This expression could be taken to refer to the opening of the biblical story (Exod. 1:14), which Philo accepts as the “necessary” beginning of his own story. Yet a comparison of the two openings shows that this is not the case: while the biblical account focuses on the history of the Israelites in Egypt, Philo immediately draws attention to the person of Moses. He initially mentions the circumstances of his birth— he was a Chaldean by race and born in Egypt—and then provides an ethnographic sketch of Egypt, which has nothing to do with the information provided in the biblical account. Philo thus started his Life from the point of view of the biographical genre. It is significant that Josephus, by contrast, adopted the paradigm of biblical history and introduced his story by consid-

On the Life of Moses 963

ing. Egypt is a land rich in plains, with deep soil, and very productive of all that human nature needs, and particularly of corn. 6For the river of this country, in the height of summer, when other streams, whether winter torrents or spring-fed, are said to dwindle, rises and overflows, and its flood makes a lake of fields which need no rain but every year bear a plentiful crop of good produce of every kind, if not prevented by some visitation of the wrath of God to punish the prevailing impiety of its inhabitants. 7He had for his father and mother the best of his contemporaries, members of the same tribe, though with them mutual affection was a stronger tie than family connections. He was seventh in descent from the first settler, who became the founder of the whole Jewish nation. erations of national politics (Ant. 2.201–4), while the biographer Plutarch regularly proceeded in the same way as Philo. He, too, introduced his Lives by providing background information on the hero’s family and birth.14 Egypt is a land rich in plains, with deep soil Philo’s excursus on Egypt conforms both in style and content to contemporary norms. “Geographical digressions” had become an accepted feature of Roman historiography following Cicero’s influential discussion of it.15 In this view, geographical sketches are a most suitable background for the main plot and especially for the introduction of “the individual actors.” Philo addresses well-known themes in his description of Egypt. Since Herodotus, the Classical ethnographer (Hist. 2.14–19), writers had been fascinated by the unusual tide of the Nile. Contemporary Roman writers still marveled at it as an exceptional phenomenon of Nature. 1:6. the prevailing impiety of the inhabitants Philo draws a connection between the earthward orientation of Egyptian farmers, who do not look to heaven for water, and the general impiety of the land. Philo’s image of Egypt is highly negative. Having spent most of his life in Alexandria, often described in Antiquity as being situated “beside” Egypt, he regards the Egyptians as a symbol of atheism, submersion in bodily pleasures and political unrest. These stereotypes are highly topical in contemporary Rome, where Egypt enjoyed a very bad press since Augustus’s victory over Antony.16 1:7. He had for his father and mother the best of his contemporaries Philo’s stress on the illustrious family of his hero echoes elitist norms of the Greco-Roman world. The biblical authors, by contrast, often highlight the power of God by showing that He is capable of choosing even a shepherd from the flock as a national leader. mutual affection was a stronger tie than family connections Philo advocates the importance of conjugal love, placing it far above formal or genetic ties. Other biblical couples emerge in his narratives as bound by love. Adam and Eve recognize each other as kindred, are “gladdened by the sight” and “filled with glee” (Opif. 152). “Love,” Philo explains, “set up in each of them a desire for fellowship” (152). True fellowship also characterizes the relationship between Abraham and Sarah, who is praised for her support of her husband and her willingness to share his trials (Abraham 245–54). Abraham in turn is deeply affected by her death, appreciating his life companion in a moving eulogy. This ideal of conjugal love significantly differs from Classical notions of marriage, where the woman was supposed to remain unseen as much as possible so as not to disturb her husband. Strict hierarchy rather than fellowship defined such relationships. In Rome, by contrast, Stoic philosophers had begun to advocate the importance of marriage as a relationship between equals.17 founder of the whole Jewish nation Philo introduces Moses as a distant descendent of Abraham,

964 Maren R. Niehoff

8He was brought up as a prince, a promotion due to the following cause. As the nation the newcomers was constantly growing more numerous, the king of the country, fearing that the settlers, thus increasing, might show their superiority by contesting the chief power with the original inhabitants, contrived a most iniquitous scheme to deprive them of their strength. He gave orders to rear the female infants, since her natural weakness makes a woman inactive in war, but to put the males to death, to prevent their number increasing throughout the cities; for a flourishing male population is an advantage to an aggressor which cannot easily be taken or destroyed. 9Now the child from his birth had an appearance of more than ordinary charm so that his parents as long as they could actually set at nought the proclamations of the despot. In fact we are told that unknown to all but few he was kept at home and fed from his mother’s breast for three successive months. 10But since, as is often the case under a monarch, there were persons prying into holes and corners, ever eager to carry some new report to

whom he describes as the “founder of the nation.” In contrast to still prevalent stereotypes about Hellenistic Judaism, it is clear that Philo thinks of the Jewish people in ethnic terms rather than in purely spiritual categories. This sense of concrete nationhood distinguishes him from his subsequent Christian readers, who overlooked Philo’s original intention and interpreted his writings as if they speak only about “Israel in the spirit.” 1:8. to rear the female infants, since her natural weakness makes a woman inactive in war Philo expands here upon the biblical text, which merely states that the girls were to live, while the boys were to be killed (Exod. 1:16). Philo’s explanation adds an element of rationality to the story and gives him an opportunity to inquire into the “natural” characteristics of women. Such features were often discussed in contemporary philosophy, starting in typically Stoic fashion with the bodily nature, which is then interpreted as pointing to certain cultural functions. 1:9. Now the child from his birth had an appearance of more than ordinary charm While Moses is described in the Hebrew text of the Bible as “good,” the LXX already interpreted him as “pretty” or “charming,” thus giving emphasis to the aesthetic dimension of his appearance and his physical appeal to people. Philo further enhances the LXX image of Moses and raises his beauty far above that of ordinary infants. This recourse to the bodily qualities of a hero as his primary characterization is remarkable. In a Classical Platonic context, for example, this would have been rather unthinkable, as nobody would want to identify a hero by reference to his totally unimportant and fleeting physic. Once more, the philosophical background of Philo’s characterization can be found in Roman Stoicism. Panaitius, as reported by Cicero in the 1st century bce, already stressed that men are distinct from the very beginning by their particular physical qualities as well as their dominant traits, both of which determine their subsequent career (Off. 1.107–9). Josephus emphasizes how enchanted Pharaoh’s daughter was by the sight of Moses’s “seize and beauty” (Ant. 2.224), while the Rabbis even imagined Moses so “handsome” that “everybody eagerly wished to see him and whoever beheld him could not stop watching” (Exod. Rab. 1.26). 1:10. exposed him with tears on the banks of the river and departed groaning Philo makes considerable efforts to portray Moses’s exposure by his parents as a highly exceptional and painful decision, forced on them by the circumstances of Pharaoh’s decree. He shows that it was rational for them to expose their infant boy, as they would otherwise have endangered the life of the whole family. While child exposure was accepted in the Greek world on condition of the father’s consent, Stoic philosophers began to oppose the practice on the ground that it violates Nature.

On the Life of Moses 965

the king, his parents in their fear that their efforts to save one would but cause a larger number, namely themselves, to perish with him, exposed him with tears on the banks of the river and departed groaning. They pitied themselves, being forced, as they said in their self-reproach, to be the murderers of their own child, and they pitied him, too, left to perish in this unnatural way. 11Then, as was natural in so strangely cruel a situation, they began to accuse themselves of having made bad worse. “Why did we not cast him away,” they said, “directly when he was born? The child who has not survived to enjoy kind nurtures is not usually reckoned as a human being. But we meddlers actually nurtured him for three whole months, thus procuring more abundant affliction for ourselves and torture for him, only that when we were fully capable of feeling pleasure and pain he should perish conscious of the increased misery of his sufferings.” 12While they departed ignorant of the future, overcome by grief, the sister of the infant castaway, a girl still unmarried, moved by family affection, remained at a little distance, waiting to see what would happen, all this being brought about, in my opinion, by the providence of God watching over the child. 13The king of the country had but one cherished daughter, who, we are told, had been married for a

Equipped with procreative organs, they argued, men, like animals, should not only give birth to offspring, but also protect, raise, and care for it.18 Philo’s late contemporary Musonius Rufus was especially concerned with advocating the raising of children (Lecture 15). When Philo discusses the prohibition of child exposure as a Jewish custom, he characteristically does so from two points of view: Scripture (Exod. 21:22–23), on the one hand, and Nature, on the other.19 1:11. The child who has not survived to enjoy kind nurtures is not usually reckoned as a human being In the contemporary debates about abortion and exposure, the precise point at which an embryo or a new born baby turns into a full human being is an important criterion for establishing the legitimacy of the practice. Philo thus puts into the mouth of Moses’s parents alleviating factors that could easily have been used by his contemporaries in real life circumstances. 1:12. the sister of the infant castaway Miriam’s role in the drama of Moses’s rescue is not expanded beyond the biblical account (Exod. 2:4). Philo follows here in the footsteps of Ezekiel the Tragedian, who had similarly put into Moses’s mouth that “Miriam my sister kept watch over me.”20 This scarcity is interesting in light of later Rabbinic interest in her person. The Tannaitic midrash Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, for example, interprets her “standing at a distance” as a prophetic watching over her younger brother (Shirata 10). all this being brought about, in my opinion, by the providence of God watching over the child Philo freely admits that this addition to the biblical account is his own conjecture. His notion of divine providence is strikingly anthropocentric and even personal. In his view, God accompanies and protects individual figures rather than generally guaranteeing the survival and proper functioning of the cosmos, as Plato had envisioned in his dialogue on the creation, Timaeus. Philo’s notion of providence is rather Stoic in nature, focusing on divine sympathy for humanity.21 He insists that man was created last among God’s creations (Gen. 1.28), because he is “the being dearest and closest” to God and thus deserves to be created after God had already provided all the necessary “means of living and living well” (Opif. 77). In the On the Life of Joseph, too, Philo stresses the role of divine providence beyond the necessities of the biblical account (Joseph 38, 99). One generation later Josephus likes to introduce divine providence and stresses this motif, offering explicit instructions for the reader (Ant. 2.219–23).

966 Maren R. Niehoff

considerable time but had never conceived a child, though she naturally desired one, particularly of the male sex, to succeed to the magnificent inheritance of her father’s kingdom, which threatened to go to strangers if his daughter gave him no grandson. 14Depressed and loud in lamentation she always was, but on this particular day she broke down under the weight of cares; and though her custom was to remain at home and never even cross the threshold, she set off with her maids to the river, where the child was exposed. Then, as she was preparing to make her ablutions in the purifying water, she saw him lying where the marshland growth was thickest and bade him be brought to her. 15Thereupon, surveying him from head to foot, she approved of his beauty and fine condition, and seeing him weeping took pity on him, for her heart was now moved to feel for him as a mother for her child. And recognizing that he belonged to the Hebrews, who were intimidated by the king’s orders, she considered how to have him nursed, for at present it was not safe to take him to the palace. 16While she was still debating, the child’s sister, who guessed her difficulty, ran up from where she stood like a “scout” 1:13. had never conceived a child, though she naturally desired one Philo adds these details to the brief biblical account, which does not explain why Moses was in fact adopted by Pharaoh’s daughter (Exod. 2:5–8). Philo fills in this perceived gap and provides psychological motifs for her positive reaction to the Hebrew baby. The inner life of Pharaoh’s daughter is thus reconstructed and the reader can easily identify with her double plight, both as a woman who naturally desires children, and as a princess, who is expected to provide a male successor for the throne. It is interesting that Josephus lacks Philo’s sympathy for the Egyptian woman and instead remains close to the biblical story (Ant. 2.228). Rabbinic interpreters, by contrast, seem to have been sensitive to the same textual difficulty as Philo, but filled in with their own creative story: Pharaoh’s daughter had been sick with leprosy, but was healed immediately upon “touching the casket.” This was the reason why “she had pity on Moses and loved him with special love” (Exod. Rab. 1.23). 1:14. though her custom was to remain at home and never even cross the threshold The life of seclusion in the house or even in the women’s quarters of the house was a Classical ideal, which Philo cherished and attributes here to Pharaoh’s daughter. In another context, he is proud to say that Jewish women “never even approached the outer doors” and were so rigorously kept inside so that they did not even meet their male relatives (Flaccus 89). Moreover, Seneca, the Roman philosopher and Philo’s late contemporary, famously praises his aunt for “never being seen in public” (Cons. Helv. 19.6). Other intellectuals were less prudish. The Jewish tragedian Ezekiel from 2nd century bce Alexandria, for example, has Pharaoh’s daughter “customarily” go down to the river with her maids “to bathe her limbs.”22 A picture on the wall of the synagogue in Dura Europos even depicts Pharaoh’s daughter as entering the Nile half-naked and surrounded by maids carrying her perfumes and other bathing utensils. While some Jews obviously delighted in the bathing culture of the Greco-Roman world, Philo was keen to protect the lady’s modesty and thus the serious décor of Moses’s early infancy. 1:15. seeing him weeping took pity on him The image of Moses weeping (Exod. 2:6) is not omitted by Philo even though he introduces the scene with an image of Pharaoh’s daughter appreciating his “beauty and fine condition.” Philo explains his weeping as having an emotional effect: it prompted Pharaoh’s daughter to motherly feelings and thus encouraged the adoption. Ezekiel the Tragedian and Josephus, by contrast, delete Moses’s tears altogether, the latter inserting instead a remark on divine providence (Ant. 2.224). Subsequent Rabbinic interpreters discuss Moses’s weeping at length, some identifying it as a regular behavior of an infant, while others remark that

On the Life of Moses 967

and asked whether she would like to take for his foster-mother a Hebrew woman who had lately been with child. 17When the princess agreed, she brought her own and the baby’s mother in the guise of a stranger, who readily and gladly promised to nurse him, ostensibly for wages. Thus, by God’s disposing, it was provided that the child’s first nursing should come from the natural source. Since he had been taken up from the water, the princess gave him a name derived from this and called him Moses, for Mou is the Egyptian word for water. 18As he grew and thrived without a break, and was weaned at an earlier date than they had reckoned, his mother and nurse in one brought him to her from whom she had received him, since he had ceased to need an infant’s milk. He was noble and charming to look upon. 19The princess, seeing him so advanced beyond his age, conceived for him an even greater fondness than before, and took him for her son, having at an earlier time artificially enlarged the figure of her womb to make him pass as her God created Moses “with a deficiency.” Still others argue, parallel to Philo, that the angel Gabriel caused Moses to weep in order to provoke the pity of Pharaoh’s daughter (Exod. Rab. 1.24). 1:16. a Hebrew woman Philo shows no interest in this motif (Exod. 2:7). But Josephus speculates that Moses had rejected Egyptian women, whereupon Miriam was able to suggest a nurse from his own race (Ant. 2.226). Rabbinic interpreters subsequently expand this motif and stress that God did not permit “the mouth which will speak with me to suckle something impure” (Exod. Rab. 1.25). 1:17. called him Moses, for Mou is the Egyptian word for water Philo derives Moses’s name from an Egyptian rather than a Hebrew word, as in Exod. 2:10. Philo’s interpretation takes into account the historical background of the story, assuming that it is far more likely for an Egyptian princess to call her adopted son by an Egyptian name. This attention to verisimilitude is shared by Josephus, who also derives Moses’s name from Mou, while Ezekiel the Tragedian remains loyal to the biblical etymology.23 1:18. was weaned at an earlier date than they had reckoned Philo provides this anecdote, not attested before him, in order to throw light on the character of his hero. Moses’s spontaneous and premature weaning indicates his spiritual tendency, which naturally avoids material pleasures, and foreshadows his extraordinary wisdom in adulthood. Such anecdotes are a key marker of the moralizing biography, which aims at catching the hero’s personality in his private life before entering politics and parallel to his public functions. Subsequently, Philo self-consciously defines this approach in the following terms: “I will describe an action of his [Moses] at this time, though it may appear to be a small matter, shows a spirit of no petty kind” (Moses 1.51). 1:19. so advanced beyond his age This general praise of a hero recurs also in Philo’s On the Life of Joseph, where the protagonist is said to be endowed by “nature” with high spirit and excellence, far beyond the average, for which he is admired by his father, who seeks to foster these gifts.24 The motif of Moses’s maturity is shared by Josephus, who speaks of his “grandeur of intellect and contempt of toil” (Ant. 2.229). Rabbinic exegetes similarly stress that he grew up “not as everybody.”25 It is noteworthy that Philo and Josephus as well as Plutarch assume the uniformity of their heroes’ characters: they expect the qualities prominent in their early childhood to develop and flourish, but not to fundamentally change. There is thus a certain linearity in the descriptions of their lives, which conforms to the Stoic notion of progress.26 artificially enlarged the figure of her womb Philo is once more concerned to render the biblical story more reasonable, thus avoiding criticism of its mythological or fanciful character.

968 Maren R. Niehoff

real and not a supposititious child. God makes all that he wills easy, however difficult is the accomplishment. 20So now he received as his right the nurture and service due to a prince. Yet he did not bear himself like the mere infant that he was, nor delight in fun and laughter and sport, though those who had the charge of him did not grudge him relaxation or show him any strictness, but with a modest and serious bearing he applied himself to hearing and seeing what was sure to profit his soul. 21Teachers at once arrived from different parts, some unbidden from the neighboring countries and the provinces of Egypt, others summoned from Greece under promise of high reward. But in a short time he advanced beyond their capacities; his gifted nature forestalled their instruction, so that his seemed a case rather of recollection than of learning and indeed he himself devised and propounded problems which they could not easily solve. 22For great natures carve out much that is new in the way of knowledge; and, just as bodies, robust and agile in every part, free their trainers from care, and receive little or none of 1:20. he did not bear himself like the mere infant that he was, nor delight in fun and laughter and sport Philo’s stern ethics transpire in this image of young Moses. Unlike the Rabbis, Philo had little sense for the comic or playful.27 His ideal of frugality rather reminds us of the moral instructions given by Musonius Rufus and Seneca, who aimed at an extirpation of the passions rather than their accommodation within an overall rational life, as Aristotle, for example, had suggested. Philo especially praises Moses for his early self-restraint in light of the Egyptian court, where he was exposed to an unlimited variety of pleasures. This interest in the precocity of a character and its correlation with the particular circumstances of life is a Classical motif in biography and generally animates Plutarch’s Lives as well. with a modest and serious bearing Modesty was considered as a sign of a truly wise man as well as of an exemplary teacher. Seneca assumed a similar pose of modesty and told a story about an earlier Stoic teacher, who had refused to be addressed as a wise man, insisting instead on being a learner like the student, who had approached him (Sen., Ep. 116.5). 1:21. a case rather of recollection than of learning No ancient interpreter of the Bible took as much interest as Philo in Moses’s intellectual training. While Ezekiel the Tragedian briefly mentions his “royal upbringing and education,” Josephus and later Rabbinic exegetes indulge in stories about the infant’s portentous assumption of power.28 According to Josephus, Moses tore off the diadem, which Pharaoh had playfully put on his head, while holding him in his arms. Everybody around them immediately grasped that this child will abase the Egyptian empire (Ant. 2.233–37). According to the Rabbis, Moses himself took the crown, while Pharaoh was hugging and kissing him. This anecdote, too, foreshadows Moses’s future role in politics and was treated with much animosity by the surrounding Egyptians (Exod. Rab. 1.26) Altogether lacking such political anecdotes with their emphasis on divine providence, Philo instead dwells on the outstanding intellectual personality of Moses. For this purpose he invokes the Classical Platonic image of the recollection of the soul, most famously discussed in Phaedo 72E. The fact that Philo singles out Moses as a case of recollection rather than learning indicates that he uses the Platonic image in a loose sense. It has been transformed from a general human characteristic into a specific compliment of the hero. he himself devised and propounded problems which they could not easily solve The method of question and answer was central in many forms of learning during the Hellenistic period, ranging from the interpretation of canonical texts to philosophical discussions. Moses’s intellectual precocity thus transpires in his early formulation of problems, which even his teachers could hardly solve.

On the Life of Moses 969

their usual attention, and in the same way well-grown and naturally healthy trees, which improve of themselves, give the husbandmen no trouble, so that “the” gifted soul takes the lead in meeting the lessons given by itself rather than the teacher and is profited thereby, and as soon as it has a grasp of some of the first principles of knowledge presses forward “like the horse to a meadow,” as the proverb goes. 23Arithmetic, geometry, the lore of meter, rhythm and harmony, and the whole subject of music was shown by the use of instruments or in textbooks and treatises of a more special character, were imparted to him by learned Egyptians. These further instructed him in the philosophy conveyed in symbols, as displayed in the so-called holy letters and in the regard paid to animals, to which they even pay divine honors. He had the Greeks to teach him the rest of the regular school course and the inhabitants of the neighboring countries for Assyrian letters and the Chaldean science of the heavenly bodies. 24This he also acquired from Egyptians, who give special attention to astrology. And, when he had mastered the lore of both nations, both where they agree and where they differ, he eschewed all strife

1:22. presses forward “like the horse to a meadow,” as the proverb goes Slightly adapting Plato’s bon mot about Socrates (Theaet. 183D), Philo implies that Moses had similar philosophical strength as Plato’s role model. 1:23. learned Egyptians While Philo has stressed that the Egyptian teachers of Moses arrived “unbidden,” they are depicted in a positive light and thus differ from his stereotypical Egyptians mentioned in numerous other places. The Egyptians are said to impart arithmetic and music as well as astrology (Moses 1.24). It is interesting that Philo specifies their method of teaching, namely the use of “textbooks and treatises of a more special character.” This information reflects practices of the Hellenistic Age, when both more general introductions into a particular field and treatises on specific topics were common. philosophy conveyed in symbols, as displayed in the so-called holy letters and in the regard paid to animals Philo refers here to two specific Egyptian contributions to the contemporary philosophy of religion, which had been established by the Roman thinker Varro.29 The latter interpreted the very concrete items of the Roman cult, such as its statues of the gods, as symbols of philosophical truth and implicitly invited representatives of other cults to do the same for their tradition. Philo’s contemporary Chaeremon embraced Varro’s approach and interpreted the Egyptian cult in a symbolical fashion, suggesting that the hieroglyphs and the animals represent higher philosophical truth.30 He had the Greeks to teach him the rest of the regular school course Philo values Greek education more than the instruction given to Moses by the Egyptians. He assumes that the Greek teachers came to the Egyptian court “under promise of high reward,” while the Egyptians arrived “unbidden” (Moses 1.21). The “school course” or “encyclical education” was a rather broad term at the time. Philo specifies in his treatise On the Preliminary Studies what he has in mind and even provides some autobiographical information regarding his own experience of studying (Congr. 9–19, 74–76). 1:24. the lore of both nations, both where they agree and where they differ Given Philo’s ambiguity toward the Egyptians, it is important for him to maintain a clear distinction between their philosophy and that of the Greeks. He thus undermines the rhetoric of Apion and Chaeremon, who suggest that their Egyptian heritage, interpreted properly, is identical with Greco-Roman philosophy.

970 Maren R. Niehoff

and contention and sought only for the truth. His mind was incapable of accepting any falsehood, as is customary among fighters for a sect, who defend the doctrines they have propounded, whatever they may be, without examining whether they can stand scrutiny, and thus put themselves on a par with hired advocates who have no thought nor care for justice. 25When he was now passing beyond the term of boyhood, his good sense became more active. He did not, as some, allow the lusts of adolescence to go unbridled, though the abundant resources which palaces provide supply numberless incentives to foster their flame. But he kept a tight hold on them with the reins, as it were, of temperance and self-control, and forcibly pulled them back from their forward course. 26And each of the other passions, which rage so furiously if left to themselves, he tamed and assuaged and reduced to mildness. And if they did but gently stir or flutter he provided for them heavier chastisement than any rebuke of words could give; and in general he watched the first directions and impulses of the soul as one would a restive horse, in fear lest they should run away with the reason which ought to rein them in and thus cause universal chaos. For it is these impulses which cause both good and bad—good when they obey the guidance of reason, bad when they turn from their regular course into anarchy. 27Naturally, therefore, his associates and everyone else, struck with amazement His mind was incapable of accepting any falsehood, as is customary among fighters for a sect Philo distinguishes between philosophical truth and the views held by a school. The attitude of intellectual freedom, which is attributed to Moses, strikingly corresponds to that advocated by contemporary Stoics in Rome. Seneca and Epictetus differed from representatives of other Hellenistic schools by rejecting narrow school allegiance and the commentary culture as well as personality cult that regularly go with it.31 Unlike contemporary Platonists, for example, these thinkers acknowledged an impressive variety of exemplary figures, including philosophers from other schools, politicians and heroes mentioned in ancient texts.32 1:25. his good sense became more active Philo shows the continuity and development of Moses’s character. His early tendency for self-restraint and spirituality now emerges as a “good sense,” active in the permanent struggle against the passions. Youth is regarded as a particularly dangerous period in one’s life, when one easily succumbs to the passions. Philo also praises Joseph for withstanding Potiphar’s wife, especially as he is exposed to her advances in his youth, when staying alone in a foreign country (Joseph 254). 1:26. he watched the first directions and impulses of the soul as one would a restive horse Philo describes Moses’s struggle against the passions in basically Platonic terms. This means that in contrast to biblical anthropology he assumes a dichotomy of soul and body, the former being divided into three parts, namely the rational, the spirited and the appetitive. The goal of man is to achieve the right balance between them, seeing that the appetitive parts do not assume control over the rational parts. In the context of Moses Philo thus speaks of “taming” the passions and “reducing them to mildness” rather than of extirpating them, as the Stoics demanded. The image of the restive horse is taken from Plato’s famous discussion of the soul in Phaidrus 245–50, where two horses represent the unruly parts of the soul, which do not easily submit to the rule of their charioteer, the rational part. It is conspicuous that Philo does not fully explore Plato’s ethics and refrains from discussing the division of the soul. He also speaks of the “first directions and impulses,” motifs frequently used in Stoic ethics to signify the reactions of the soul toward external stimuli.33

On the Life of Moses 971

at what they felt was a novel spectacle, considered earnestly what the mind which dwelt in his body like an image in its shrine could be, whether it was human or divine or a mixture of both, so utterly unlike was it to the majority, soaring above them and exalted to a grander height. 28for on his belly he bestowed no more than the necessary tributes which nature has appointed, and as for the pleasures that have their seat below, save for the lawful begetting of children, they passed altogether even out of his memory. 29And, in his desire to live to the soul alone and not to the body, he made a special practice of frugal contentment, and had an unparalleled scorn for the life of luxury. He exemplified his philosophical creed by his daily actions. His words expressed his feelings, and his actions accorded with his words, so that speech and life were in harmony and thus though their mutual agreement were found to make melody together as on a musical instrument. 30Now, most men, if they feel a breath of prosperity ever so small upon them, make much ado of puffing and blowing, and boast themselves as bigger than meaner men, and miscall them offscourings and nuisances and cumberers of the earth and other suchlike names, as if they themselves had the perma1:27. the mind which dwelt in his body like an image in its shrine Philo assumes with Plato that the mind only temporarily “dwells” in the body, having fallen into the material realm after seeing the Ideas. On this view, body and soul are diametrically opposed and this opposition is the starting point of ethics, humanity being called to overcome its bodily limitations and return to the spiritual realm of the ideas. This return is achieved by strengthening the rational part, which is likened here to an image of the gods in a temple. For Philo, as for Plato, ethical progress is indeed linked to becoming like God and imitating his goodness.34 1:28. the pleasures that have their seat below, save for the lawful begetting of children, they passed altogether even out of his memory This formulation approximates the Stoic idea of extirpating the passions rather than taming them. Moses is an exemplary figure, because he no longer fights his sexual desires, but has altogether expelled them from his mind. Philo mentions as an exception the lawful begetting of children, the importance of which he also stresses in the context of the On the Life of Joseph (42–43). 1:29. his desire to live to the soul alone and not to the body Once more, Philo reverts to Classical Platonic notions, stressing the body-soul dichotomy and the importance of living in the soul alone. He exemplified his philosophical creed by his daily actions The theme of “practicing what you preach” is paramount in Roman thought. Already Cato the Elder defined Roman identity in contrast to Greek “loquaciousness,” warning his fellow Romans of the Greek philosopher Carneades, whose reputation relied in his view merely on words rather than deeds and military prowess. 35 Cato generally feared that there was something subversive about Greek talk, which he saw as a threat to Roman law and order. It is highly significant that the Rabbis, like Philo, found this Stoic approach very congenial. Their general focus on Jewish law and the implementation of the mitzvot certainly made them natural adherents of the Stoics. In Pirke Avot, the only theoretical discussion of ethics in the Rabbinic corpus, we also get a glimpse into their thought on the matter. They, too, warned of a life exclusively devoted to study and recommended a healthy balance between thought and action (Avot 2.2). Simon the son of Rabban Gamaliel is quoted as saying: “Not the expounding [of the Torah] is the chief thing, but the doing [of it].”36 1:30. most men, if they feel a breath of prosperity Reversals in the fortune of life provide Philo with a welcome opportunity to contemplate on a person’s character, asking how he or she reacts to unexpected situations. In the present context he stresses normal behavior as a background for a

972 Maren R. Niehoff

nence of their prosperity securely sealed in their possession, though even the morrow may find them no longer where they are. 31For nothing is more unstable than Fortune, who moves human affairs up and down in the draughtboard of life, and in a single day pulls down the lofty and exalts the lowly on high, and though they see and know full well that this is always happening, they nevertheless look down on their relations and friends and set at naught the laws under which they were born and bred, and subvert the ancestral customs to which no blame can justly attach, by adopting different modes of life and, in their contentment with the present, lose all memory of the past. 32But Moses, having reached the pinnacle of human prosperity, regarded as the son of the king’s daughter, and in general expectation almost the successor to his grandfather’s sovereignty, and indeed regularly called the young king, was zealous for the culture of his kinsmen and ancestors. The good fortune of his adopters, he held, was a spurious one, even though the circumstances gave it greater luster; that of his natural parents, though less distinguished for the nonce, was at any rate his own and genuine. 33And so, estimating the claims of his real and his adopted parents like an impartial judge, he requited the former with gratitude and profound affection, the latter with gratitude for their kind treatment of him. And he would have continued to do so throughout had he not found the king adopting in the country a new and highly impious course of action.

better appreciation of Moses’s exceptional qualities. Recalling that most men are fickle and immediately accept good fortune as an intrinsic value as well as an expression of deserved benefit, Philo is able to praise Moses for remembering and even appreciating his original family, which enjoys far less social prestige than his adopted one. 1:31. nothing is more unstable than Fortune Philo repeats this theme on several occasions in Moses, most prominently in Moses’s words to his fellow Jews in Moses 1.41. The instability of fortune is also a prominent theme in contemporary philosophy, prompted probably by the political instability of the 1st century ce. set at naught the laws under which they were born and bred and subvert the ancestral customs Philo may have thought here about his nephew, Alexander Tiberius, who figures as a discussion partner in the Dialogue on the Rationality of Animals. It is possible that Alexander, too, was an ambassador to Rome. Josephus significantly mentions him as someone, who “did not stand by the practices of his people” when making an illustrious career in the Roman army (Ant. 20.100). 1:32. Moses, having reached the pinnacle of human prosperity Philo stresses the height of Moses’s prosperity so that his readers will properly appreciate his exceptional loyalty to his people. This is another instance where Philo explores character by studying the special circumstances of a person’s decision. was zealous for the culture of his kinsmen and ancestors Philo uses here the Gk. term paideia, culture or general education, to describe Judaism, thus placing it beside Greek and Egyptian culture. This is clearly an interpretation suitable for general readers, to whom Philo appeals in his Moses. At the same time, however, we must remember that Philo himself saw Judaism as a form of culture, thus joining several colleagues in Alexandria. Aristobulus, for example, had shown already in the 2nd century bce that Moses’s Torah conforms to Aristotelian philosophy, while many anonymous Jewish exegetes subsequently interpreted the Scriptures as literature comparable to Homer.37 Moreover, the Jewish officials described in the Letter of Aristeas emerge as Hellenistic gentlemen, the translators themselves having received a Greek and Jewish paideia

On the Life of Moses 973

34The Jews, as I have said before, were strangers, since famine had driven the founders of the nation, through lack of food, to migrate to Egypt from Babylon and the inland satrapies. They were, in a sense, suppliants, who had found a sanctuary in the pledged faith of the king and the pity felt for them by the inhabitants. 35For strangers, in my judgment, must be regarded as suppliants of those who receive them, and not only suppliants but settlers and friends who are anxious to obtain equal rights with the burgesses and are near to being citizens because they differ little from the original inhabitants. 36So, then, these strangers, who had left their own country and come to Egypt hoping to live there in safety as in a second fatherland, were made slaves by the ruler of the country and reduced to the condition of captives taken by the custom of war, or persons purchased from the masters in whose household they had been bred. And in thus making serfs of men who were not only free but guests, suppliants and settlers, he showed no shame or fear of the God of liberty and hospitality and of justice to guests and suppliants, Who watches over such as these. 37Then he laid commands upon them, severe beyond their capacity, and added labor to labor; and, when they failed through weakness, the iron hand was upon them; for he chose as superintendents of the works of men of the most cruel and savage temper who showed no mercy to anyone, men whose name of “task-pursuer” well described the facts. 38Some of the workers wrought clay into brick, while others fetched from every quarter straw which served to bind the brick. Others were appointed to build houses and walls and cities or to cut canals. They (Let. Aris. 121). Unlike his predecessor Ezekiel the Tragedian, Philo does not explain how Moses knew of his Jewish background and where he would have encountered Jewish culture at the Egyptian court. While Ezekiel imagined that his mother used her nursing time with her child to recount “everything and telling about the race of our fathers and the gifts of God,” Philo simply assumes that Moses would grow up with a Jewish identity.38 Josephus similarly takes for granted Moses’s awareness of his Jewish roots and has him playfully threaten Pharaoh already as a toddler (Ant. 2.234–36). The theme of loyalty to Judaism is paramount in several other writings. Philo also notes that Joseph remained loyal to his ancestral customs despite his extraordinary success in Egypt. Given the nature of the land, his young age upon arrival there as well as his isolation from the family, Joseph could easily have been “ready for change to alien ways” (Joseph 254). This, however, did not happen, as Philo is happy to report, and Joseph remained loyal to Judaism. Similarly, Josephus a generation later makes a special point of stressing that Joseph “even under this change of fortune did not abandon that virtue which enveloped him,” thus showing “how a noble spirit can surmount the trials of life.”39 1:36. come to Egypt hoping to live there in safety as in a second fatherland Philo explains the situation of the Israelites in biblical Egypt in strikingly contemporary terms. In his historical writings, where he discusses the present-day situation of the Jews in Egypt, he similarly talks about the land of their settlement as a “fatherland” to the foundation and development of which they have significantly contributed (Flaccus 46). In these discussions Jerusalem figures prominently as the “mother-city” of the Jews. According to Philo, Jerusalem became so overcrowded that she sent out settlers to various other places in the world. It is conspicuous that Philo does not explain the Jewish Diaspora in terms of exile and return, but rather in the completely neutral terms of settlement and population growth, which were common in the Hellenistic world from the Classical period onward.

974 Maren R. Niehoff

carried the materials themselves day and night, with no shifts to relieve them, no period of rest, not even suffered just to sleep for a bit and then resume their work. In fact, they were compelled to do all the work, both of the artisan and his assistants, so that in a short time loss of heart was followed necessarily by bodily exhaustion. 39This was shown by the way in which they died one after the other, as though they were the victims of a pestilence, to be flung unburied outside the borders by their masters, who did not allow the survivors even to collect dust to throw upon the corpses or even to shed tears for their kinsfolk or friends thus pitifully done to death. And, though nature has given to the untrammeled feelings of the soul a liberty which she has denied to almost everything else, they impiously threatened to exert their despotism over these also and suppressed them with the intolerable weight of a constraint more powerful than nature. 40All this continued to dishearten and displease Moses, who was unable either to punish those who did wrong or to help those who suffered it. What he could he did. He assisted with his words, exhorting the overseers to show clemency and relax and alleviate the stringency of their orders, and the workers to bear their present condition bravely, to display a manly spirit and not let their souls share the weariness of their bodies, but to look for good to replace the evil. 41All things in the world, he told them, change to their opposites: clouds to open sky, violent winds to tranquil weather, stormy seas to calm and peaceful, and human affairs still more so, even as they are more unstable. 42With such soothing words, like a good physician, he thought to relieve the sickness of their plight, terrible as it was. But, when it abated, it did but turn and make a fresh attack and gather from the breathing-space some new misery more powerful than its predecessors. 43For some of the overseers were exceedingly harsh and ferocious, in savageness differing nothing from venomous and carnivorous animals, wild beasts in human shape who assumed in outward form the semblance of civilized beings only to beguile and catch their prey, in reality more unyielding than iron or adamant. 44One of these, the cruelest of all, was killed by Moses, because he not only made no concession but was rendered harsher than ever by his exhortations, being those who did not execute his orders with breathless promptness, persecuting them to the point of death and subjecting them to every outrage. Moses considered that his action in killing him was a righteous action. And righteous it was that one who only lived to destroy men should himself be destroyed. 1:38. with no shifts to relieve them, no period of rest, not even suffered just to sleep for a bit Philo fills in the gaps in the biblical narrative and illustrates the sufferings of the Israelites in the hope of arousing sympathy on the part of his readers. 1:40. What he could he did. He assisted with his words Philo presents Moses in this passage as a prudent person with a most appropriate sense of his possibilities in a specific situation. Seeing the overwhelming oppression of the Israelites, which also limits his own options, he chooses persuasion and encouragement as a means of improving his people’s condition. Moses’s moderation turns into violent action precisely at the moment when some overseers go even beyond their usual cruelty and become “wild beasts in human shape.” This change of circumstances brings about a change in the hero’s behavior. Moses reacts by killing the overseer, thus provoking the break with his foster father (Moses 1.43–44). 1:44. Moses considered that his action in killing him was a righteous action. And righteous it was Philo has rewritten the brief scene in Exod. 2:11–12 by stressing the legitimacy of Moses’s murder. While the text merely says that Moses saw an Egyptian overseer beating one of the Hebrews

On the Life of Moses 975

2.12–51

12That Moses himself was the best of all lawgivers in all countries, better in fact than any that have ever arisen among either the Greeks or the barbarians, and that his laws are most excellent and truly come from God, since they omit nothing that is needful, is shown most clearly by the following proof. 13Anyone who takes a considered view of the institutions of other peoples will find that they have been unsettled by numberless causes—wars, tyrannies or other mishaps—which the revolutions of fortune have launched upon them. Often, too, luxury, growing to excess by lavish supplies of superfluities, has upset the laws; because the mass of people, being unable to bear “good things in excess,” becomes surfeited and consequently violent; and violence is the enemy of law. 14But Moses is alone in this, that his laws firm, unshaken, immovable, stamped, as it were, with the seals of nature herself, remain secure from the day when they were first enacted to now, and we may hope that they will remain for all future ages as though immortal, so long as the sun and moon and the whole heaven and universe exist. 15Thus, though the nation has undergone so many changes, both to increased prosperity and the reverse, nothing—not even the smallest part of the ordinances—has been disturbed, because all have clearly paid

and killed him when he believed himself unnoticed, Philo has created a drama of changing circumstances, the unusual cruelty of a particular Egyptian prompting Moses to give up his usual restraint and adopt instead a more violent course of action. Philo undoubtedly wishes to justify his hero, especially in view of non-Jewish readers who may be critical of his behavior. Nevertheless, it is highly significant that Philo bases his apology on an exploration of the circumstances, stressing that Moses’s reaction was appropriate, rather than attributing a soliloquy to Moses, where he would debate in tormentis the pros and cons of his planned murder. The problem of Moses killing an Egyptian, which led to his escape to Median, was so acute in the eyes of Josephus, that he omitted the scene altogether (Ant. 2.238–57). Rabbinic exegetes, by contrast, were writing for an internal audience and speculated how precisely Moses had killed the Egyptian, whether he had simply used his fist or rather some instrument (Exod. Rab. 1.29). 2:12. Moses himself was the best of all lawgivers in all countries This opening of the second volume of Moses shows Philo’s overall intention: he appeals to a wide audience, hoping to convince them of the excellence of Moses as a lawgiver. While the first volume of the Life focuses on his personal biography, the second will highlight the exceptionally good quality of his laws. 2:13. being unable to bear “good things in excess” Philo quotes a bon mot from the poet Menander (frag. 724, Koch), mentioned also in Abraham 134. He is fond of this saying because it supports his stern notion of ethics, which we have already encountered in Moses 1.20, according to which virtue alone is sufficient for human happiness. 2:14. his laws firm, unshaken, immovable, stamped, as it were, with the seals of nature herself While some Alexandrian Jews had begun to think of Mosaic Law in historical terms and identified the Binding of Isaac as a primitive layer distinct from Moses’s subsequent legislation against child sacrifice, Philo chose the opposite approach and anchored Jewish law in unchanging nature.40 He relied for this purpose on Stoic notions of Natural Law. Philo’s argument about Mosaic Law being “stamped, as it were, with the seals of nature” thus engages in an ongoing discussion in Rome and places Judaism among the enlightened cultures with a “natural’ constitution. In his treatise On the Creation of the World Philo offers more detailed explanations of the connection between Nature and Mosaic Law. The biblical creation account suggests, in his view, that “the

976 Maren R. Niehoff

honor to their venerable and godlike character. 16But that which no famine nor pestilence nor war nor king nor tyrant, no rebel assault of soul or body or passion or vice, nor any other evil whether of God’s sending or man’s making, could undo, must surely be precious beyond what words can describe. 17Yet, though it may be rightly thought a great matter in itself that the laws should have been guarded securely through time, we have not reached the true marvel. There is something surely still more wonderful, even this: not only Jews but almost every other people, particularly those which take more account of virtue, have so far grown in holiness as to value and honor our laws. In this they have received a special

world is in harmony with the law and the law with the world, and that the man who observes the law is constituted thereby a loyal citizen of the world, regulating his doings by the purpose and will of Nature, in accordance with which the entire world itself also is administered” (Opif. 3). As the Jewish God created the universe, determining its laws, his particular legislation for the Jews conforms to those laws of nature. The result is striking: the very specific regulations of Judaism, such as the holidays and the kosher food laws, are inscribed in nature and fulfill a higher rational as well as philosophical purpose. Their firm anchorage in nature also guarantees their permanence. Among ancient Jews Philo went furthest in drawing a connection between Mosaic Law and Nature. While Josephus also stresses the permanence of Mosaic Law (C.Ap. 1.42–3), no other extant writer was as versed as he was in contemporary philosophy, being able to apply Stoic ethics to an explanation of the halakhah. Previously, the Jewish writers Aristobulus and Aristeas had already begun to offer philosophical interpretations of Mosaic Law. Aristobulus (2nd century bce Alexandria) argued that Mosaic Law had been laid down with a view to “piety and justice and self-restraint and other real goods.”41 He moreover assumed that other nations share these values. The author of the Letter of Aristeas (2nd century bce Alexandria) similarly argued that Mosaic Law inculcates philosophical principles. Asking why God disqualified certain animals as impure, even though these, too, had been created by him, he explained that God is not actually concerned with mice, but uses such animals in order to convey moral instructions by way of symbols (Let. Aris. 128–31). Certain animals are thus excluded from the Jewish kitchen because they represent aggression and violence. Abstaining from them, the Jews distance themselves from those negative qualities and train themselves in more peaceful ways. Like Aristobulus, Aristeas also believed that the religious and ethical approach of Judaism was shared in principle by enlightened Greeks. He even spoke about the God as being acknowledged by others as Zeus (Let. Aris. 16). 2:15. their venerable and godlike character Philo’s conception of Mosaic Law is clearly religious and not secular. In this important respect he differs from Plato’s approach in the Republic, where the philosopher king is identified as the author of good laws, but he instead follows the biblical model and shares contemporary Stoic notions of law. Josephus embraces a similar approach and stresses the divine foundation of Mosaic Law.42 Following his theological interpretation, Philo highlights Moses’s priestly role and pays special attention to his officiating in the tabernacle (Moses 2.101–2). 2:17. almost every other people . . . honor our laws There is a prolonged dispute among modern scholars over the question whether ancient Jews were generally interested in attracting Gentiles, encouraged their conversion, and perhaps even engaged in active missionary activity. Alexandrian Jews generally seem to have been turned inward, writing for a local Jewish audience, while Jews writing in Rome, such as the late Philo and Josephus, participated in what has been described as a “market place situation,” where everybody tried to sell his particular ideology to potential buyers.

On the Life of Moses 977

distinction. 18Here is the proof. Throughout the world of Greeks and barbarians, there is practically no state which honors the institutions of any other. Indeed, they can scarcely be said to meet the vicissitudes of times and circumstances. 19The Athenians reject the customs and institutions of the Spartans, and the Spartans those of the Athenians, nor in the world of the barbarians, do the Egyptians maintain the laws of the Scythians, nor the Scythians those of the Egyptians—nor to put it generally, the Europeans those of Asiatics nor Asiatics those of Europeans. We may fairly say that mankind from east to west, every country and nation and state, show aversion to foreign institutions, and think that they will enhance the respect for their own by showing disrespect for those of other countries. 20It is not so with ours. They attract and win the attention of all, of barbarians and Greeks, of dwellers on the mainland and islands, of nations of the east and the west, of Europe and Asia, of the whole inhabited world from end to end. 21For, who has not shown his high respect for that sacred seventh day, by giving rest and relaxation from labor to himself and his neighbors, freeman and slaves alike, and beyond these to his beasts? 22For the holiday extends also to every herd and to all creatures made to minister to man, who serve like slaves their natural master. It extends also to every kind of trees and plants; for it is not permitted to cut any shoot or branch, or even a leaf, or to pluck any fruit whatsoever. All such are set at liberty on that day, and live as it were in freedom, under the general edict that proclaims that none should touch them. 23Again, who does not every year show awe and reverence for the fast, as it is called, which is kept more strictly and solemnly than the “holy month” of the Greeks? For in this last the untempered wine flows freely and the board is spread sumptuously, and all manner of food and drink and lavishly pro2:19. The Athenians reject the customs and institutions of the Spartans, and the Spartans those of the Athenians Philo’s references to disputes among the Greeks remain very general and resonate well with Josephus’s subsequent claim that the Greeks are unreliable, because they constantly quarrel with each other (Ag. Ap. 1.15–18). 2:21. who has not shown his high respect for that sacred seventh day Philo initially identifies the most visible sign of Jewish life in the Hellenistic world: the Sabbath, which was well known among Hellenistic and especially Roman writers as an ethnic marker of the Jews.43 Somewhat paradoxically, Philo claims that everybody is familiar with its customs, but then provides basic explanations about its nature, apparently assuming that his readers require such information. In the Allegorical Interpretation Philo had already insisted on the importance of observing the Sabbath even if its spiritual value is recognized (Migration 89–93). He thus opposed a minority of Alexandrian Jews, who thought that a spiritual experience is sufficient and may absolve the Jews from actual observance. The most detailed discussion of the Sabbath can be found in Philo’s treatises On the Special Laws (2.56–70). Unlike the Rabbis, Philo did not judge particular cases of halakhah, but rather provided overall philosophical reasons for the most conspicuous features of Jewish observance. Philo, in other words, was not a judge in a Jewish community concerned with questions of practical implementation, but rather a thinker, who approached the topic from a more theoretical point of view. Comparisons to the halakhah as it subsequently developed in the Land of Israel must thus be treated with caution. 2:23. the fast, as it is called, which is kept more strictly and solemnly than the “holy month” of the Greeks Refers here to Yom Kippur, the paradigmatic day of fast, thus also called in early Christian literature (Acts 27.9). The severity of this day is contrasted to the frivolity of its Greek counterpart.

978 Maren R. Niehoff

vided, whereby the insatiable pleasures of the belly are enhanced, and further cause the outburst of the lists that lie below it. 24but in our fast men may not put food and drink to their lips, in order that with pure hearts, untroubled and untrammeled by any bodily passion, such as is the common outcome of repletion, they keep the holiday, propitiating the Father of All with fitting prayers, in which they are wont to ask that their old sins may be forgiven and new blessings gained and enjoyed. 25That the sanctity of our legislation has been a source of wonder not only to the Jews but also to all the nations, is clear both from the facts already mentioned and those which I proceed to state. 26In ancient times the laws were written in the Chaldean tongue, and remained in that form for many years, without any change of language, so long as they had not yet revealed their beauty to the rest of mankind. 27But, in the course of time, the daily unbroken regularity of practice exercised by those who observed them brought them to the knowledge of others, and their fame began to spread on every side. For things excellent, even if they are beclouded for a short time through envy, shine out again under the benign operation of nature when their time comes. Then it was that some people, thinking it a shame that the laws should be found in one half only of the human race, the barbarians, and denied altogether to the Greeks, took steps to have them translated. 28In view of the importance and public utility of the task, it was referred not to private persons or magistrates, who were very numerous, but to kings, and amongst them to the king of highest repute. 29Ptolemy, surnamed Philadelphus, was the third in succession to Alexander, the conqueror of Egypt. In all the qualities which make a good ruler, he excelled not only his contemporaries, but all who have arisen in the past; and even until today, after so many generations, his praises are sung for the many evidences and monuments of his greatness of mind which he left behind him in different cities and countries, so that, even now an act of more than ordinary munifiPhilo thus supports his construction of Jewish identity in terms of opposition to Greek licentiousness. This construct resonates well with the contemporary discourse in Rome, where it was rather fashionable to assume that the Greek Other indulges in exaggerated eating and drinking.44 2:25. is clear both from the facts already mentioned and those which I proceed to state Philo thus introduces his account of the famous translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, which was to become a milestone in Western civilization, allowing the Jews to acculturate quickly to their Hellenistic environment in Alexandria and subsequent Christians to gain access to the Scriptures of the Jews. While Philo never explicitly refers to the Letter of Aristeas, our earliest account of the translation, his version is close enough to it to suggest his knowledge of it.45 Philo’s discussion is our first implicit reaction to the Letter, which he remodels for his own literary purposes. In the 1st century ce, Josephus explicitly mentions Aristeas and closely follows his account in his own story of the translation (Ant. 12.17). Rabbinic exegetes were also familiar with the famous story of the Bible translation into Greek, not in its original version in the Letter, but in the form of later interpretations of it. 2:26. In ancient times the laws were written in the Chaldean tongue Philo regularly identifies the Hebrew Bible as having been written in “Chaldean,” while the Letter of Aristeas speaks of “Hebrew letters and language.”46 2:29. even now an act of more than ordinary munificence . . . are proverbially called Philadelphan after him While it is not clear which proverbial references Philo has in mind here, he wishes to stress the contemporary relevance of king Ptolemy. He expects his readers to be familiar with this figure and enlists his fame as well as munificence for the benefit of the Bible translation.

On the Life of Moses 979

cence or buildings on an especially great scale are proverbially called Philadelphan after him. 30To put it shortly, as the house of the Ptolemies was highly distinguished, compared with other dynasties, so was Philadelphus among the Ptolemies. The creditable achievements of this one man almost outnumbered those of all the others put together, and, as the head takes the highest place in the living body, so he may be said to head the kings. 31This great man, having conceived an ardent affection for our laws, determined to have the Chaldean translated into Greek, and at once dispatched envoys to the high priest and king of Judea, both offices being held by the same person, explaining his wishes and urging him to choose by merit persons to make a full rendering of the Law into Greek. 32The high priest was naturally pleased and, thinking that God’s guiding care must have led the king to busy himself in such an undertaking, sought out such Hebrews as he had of the highest reputation, who had received an education in Greek as well as in their native lore, and joyfully sent them to Ptolemy. 33When they arrived, they 2:31. This great man, having conceived an ardent affection for our laws, determined to have the Chaldean translated into Greek The initiative for the translation is attributed here to the king rather than to the librarian, as in the Letter of Aristeas.47 This difference is significant and shows the different cultural contexts of the respective authors. While the author of the Letter locates his story in the milieu of the Alexandrian library, one of the most famous achievements of his city, Philo addresses a Roman audience, which he does not expect to be interested in the cultural life of the competing metropolis. He instead speaks generally of “some people,” having noticed the usefulness of the Jewish Scriptures (Moses 1.27) and then focuses the story on king Ptolemy Philadelphus, who is constructed here as a role model for his readers. They, too, Philo hoped, would conceive “an ardent affection for our laws.” Moreover, it is highly significant that Philo presents the story of the translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek only in the Moses, while never mentioning it throughout the many treatises of the Allegorical Interpretation. In the latter Philo consistently writes as if Moses had written the Bible in Greek, asking why he uses particular Greek formulations rather than others. It seems that the homogeneous Greek culture of Alexandria, in which the Allegorical Interpretation was written, did not prompt thoughts about the translation or even an awareness of the possible discrepancies between the original and its translation. Rome, by contrast, was bilingual, all of its intellectuals being fluent in both Latin and Greek. The problem of translation from Greek to Latin was often discussed and writers, such as Cicero and Seneca, were acutely aware of the fact that something is always lost in a translation. 48 This cultural context seems to have sharpened Philo’s sensitivity to the fact that the LXX is “only” a translation of the Hebrew Bible and encouraged him to discuss it with a view to an audience familiar with similar issues in their own culture. 2:32. The high priest was naturally pleased and, thinking that God’s guiding care must have led the king to busy himself in such an undertaking Philo considerably abbreviates the detailed account of the Letter of Aristeas, which mentions numerous preparations and quotes the letters exchanged between king Ptolemy and the high priest Eleazar (Let. Aris. 28–51). According to Aristeas, the high priest was delighted by the king’s proposal to translate the Bible and “rejoiced greatly” (Let. Aris. 42). He immediately collected “the whole multitude” and read the king’s letter to them, so that they “might know your piety toward God.” Philo sets new accents to the story. In his narrative the high priest is not only pleased with the king’s proposal, but also points to divine providence involved in the plan. This theme will subsequently become central in Philo’s account of the work of the translation itself. such Hebrews as he had of the highest reputation, who had received an education in Greek as well as in their native lore Philo’s emphasis on the Greek and native education of the translators echoes

980 Maren R. Niehoff

were offered hospitality, and having been sumptuously entertained, requited their entertainer with a feast of words full of wit and weight. For he tested the wisdom of each by propounding for discussion new instead of ordinary questions, which problems they solved with happy and well-pointed answers in the form of apophthegms, as the occasion did not allow of lengthy speaking. 34After standing this test, they at once began to fulfill the duties of their high errand. Reflecting how great an undertaking it was to make a full version of the laws given by the Voice of God, where they could not add or take away or transfer anything, but must keep the original form and shape, they proceeded to look for the most open and unoccupied spot in the neighborhood outside the city. For, within the walls, it was full of every kind of living creatures and consequently the prevalence of diseases and deaths, and the impure conduct of the healthy inhabitants, made them suspicious of it. 35In front of Alexandria lies the island of Pharos, stretching with its narrow strip of land toward the city, and enclosed by a sea not deep but mostly consisting of shoals, so that the loud din and booming of the surging waves grows faint through the long distance before it reaches the land. 36Judging this to be the most suitable place in the district, where they might find peace and tranquility and the soul could commune with the laws with none to disturb its privacy, they fixed their abode there; and taking the the Letter, where they were similarly described as having “not only mastered the Jewish literature, but had made a serious study of that of the Greeks as well” (Let. Aris. 121). 2:33. When they arrived, they were offered hospitality and . . . requited their entertainer with a feast of words full of wit and weight Philo abbreviates here the longest scene in the Letter of Aristeas, which describes the symposium to which the translators had been invited with all the questions and answers on that occasion (Let. Aris. 172–300). Philo obviously considers that account as too long and distracting from the main theme, namely the translation itself. For him, it is important to note that the translators showed themselves to be witty and serious. The Jews thus emerge as requiting the material wealth of the Greeks by spiritual nourishment. 2:34. the laws given by the Voice of God . . . but must keep the original form and shape The demand to preserve a text as received characterizes canonical texts as distinct from regular literary works. The first canonical formulations of the Jewish Scriptures have come down to us from the Jewish Hellenistic writers rather than from authors in the Land of Israel. Indeed, while the latter still used different versions of biblical verses and freely paraphrased Scripture up until the Rabbinic period, Alexandrian Jews had early become aware of the need to preserve the text of the Jewish Scriptures in an appropriately scholarly fashion. it was full of every kind of living creatures and consequently the prevalence of diseases and deaths This choice of a place away from the hustle of the city life resonates well with Philo’s detailed account of the Essenes and the Therapeutae, two groups of Jewish philosophers, one situated on the shore of the Dead Sea and usually identified with Qumran, the other on the Mareotic Lake near Alexandria. 2:35. In front of Alexandria lies the island of Pharos This reference to Pharos is clearly directed toward a Roman audience, who would require an explanation where exactly the island is situated. Alexandrian readers, by contrast, hardly needed such a reminder. Moreover, Philo adds the name of Pharos, not mentioned in the Letter, because he counts on its popularity in the Imperial capital. The lighthouse on Pharos was indeed praised by Roman writers as one of the wonders of the world and appeared on Roman coins and sarcophagi.49

On the Life of Moses 981

sacred books, stretched them out toward heaven with the hands that held them, asking of God that they might not fail in their purpose. And he assented to their prayers, to the end that the greater part, or even the whole, of the human race might be profited and led to a better life by continuing to observe such wise and truly admirable ordinances. 37Sitting here in seclusion with none present save the elements of nature, earth, water, air and heaven, the creation of which was to be the first them of the sacred revelation, for the laws begin with the story of the world’s creation, they became as it were possessed, and under inspiration, wrote, not each scribe something different, but the same word for word, as though dictated to each by an invisible prompter.

2:36. asking of God that they might not fail in their purpose Philo again invokes divine providence as a framework for the translation. 2:37. they became as it were possessed, and under inspiration, wrote . . . but the same word for word, as though dictated to each by an invisible prompter Philo introduces the notion of the translators’ “prophetic inspiration” and “divine possession,” thus dramatically changing the message of the Letter of Aristeas (Let. Aris. 302). Aristeas assumes that each translator wrote his own individual translation, which needed to be accommodated to that of his colleagues. Human work made possible the “accord” of efforts registered by the librarian. Philo inverses this image of cooperation, stressing that “not each scribe [wrote] something different.” Being directed by God, they miraculously produced identical translations, which attest to the perfect nature of the translation itself. In Christian circles the story of the miracle quickly became popular. Approximately a century later Irenaeus gives this account: “The king, desiring to make trial of them privily, and fearing lest by some mutual covenant they might through their translation conceal the truth contained in Scripture, separated them from each other and commanded the whole company to translate the same portion of Scripture; and this he did with all the books. Now when they were assembled together in Ptolemy’s presence and compared every man his translation (with his neighbor’s), God was glorified, and the Scriptures were recognized as indeed divine, in that they had all expressed the same things by the same phrases and the same words from beginning to end, insomuch that even the Gentiles who were present perceived that the Scriptures had been translated through inspiration by God (Adv. Haer. 3.21.2).” This earliest Christian account of the miracle of the translation implies some animosity toward the Jews. The motif of the miracle is used here to counter the Jews’ wish “to conceal the truth,” a claim we often find in Justin Martyr (2nd century ce ). While the Christians relied on the LXX, Jews of the Land of Israel naturally had access to the Hebrew original and often accused the Christians of ignorance and inaccuracy. Philo’s shift of focus from the librarian Demetrius to King Ptolemy is used here for new purposes: the Hellenistic king is enlisted on the side of the Christians, helping to protect them against “the mutual covenant” of the Jews. The Rabbis also encountered the story of the miraculous translation even though there is no evidence that they read any of the previously mentioned stories in their Greek original. Their version is sufficiently general to warrant the assumption that they had heard the story, probably in their encounters with Christians. While the earliest Rabbinic sources only mention “the things which they wrote for King Ptolemy,” registering cases of difference between the Hebrew original and the Greek translation, later references in the Babylonian Talmud speak about God who “put wisdom in the heart of each [translator] and they all agreed of one accord.”50 Parallel to the Christian tradition, this divinely prompted accord is appreciated in light of the fact that the translators had been separated and worked in

982 Maren R. Niehoff

38Yet who does not know that every language, and Greek especially, abounds in terms, and that the same thought can be put in many shapes by changing single words and whole phrases and suiting the expression to the occasion? This was not the case, we are told, with this law of ours, but the Greek words used corresponded literally with the Chaldean, exactly suited to the things they indicated. 39For just as in geometry and logic, so it seems to me, the sense indicated does not admit of variety in the expression which remains unchanged in its original form, so these writers, as it clearly appears, arrived at a wording which corresponded with the matter, and along, or better than any other, would bring out clearly what was meant. 40The clearest proof of this is that, if Chaldeans have learned Greek, or Greeks Chaldean, and read both versions, the Chaldean and the translation, they regard them with awe and reverence as sisters, or rather one and the same, both in matter and words, and speak of the authors not as translators but as prophets and priests of the mysteries, whose sincerity and singleness of thought has enabled them to go hand in hand with the purest of spirits, the spirit of Moses. 41Therefore even to the present day there is held every year a feast and general assembly in the island of Pharos, whither not

72 different “houses.” The Rabbinic tradition furthermore responds to Christian claims about Jewish concealment of the biblical truth. Listing the differences between the Hebrew and the Greek versions under the rubric of divinely inspired translation, the Rabbis inverse the Christian rhetoric and argue that God is on their rather than on the Christian side. 2:38. Yet who does not know that every language, and Greek especially, . . . suiting the expression to the occasion? Philo problematizes the accuracy of a translation, highlighting the inherent gap between the thing named and its possibly multiple names. In the spirit of Aristotle he points also to the adaptability of names: expressions can be suited to the occasion. This fluidity implies the importance of historical context and social convention. Philo’s Roman readers, used to translations from Greek sources in their own culture, would have been sensitive to such problems and can be expected to have appreciated Philo’s thoughtful comments on the matter. the Greek words used corresponded literally with the Chaldean, exactly suited to the things they indicated Philo invokes Stoic notions of language according to which the name of a thing expresses the inherent nature of that thing. Assuming that the name of a god, for example, contains the key to understanding his or her nature, the Stoics inquired into the root meanings of the names and discovered hidden features of their gods. Philo uses this notion of language to explain how it is possible that the Greek translation of the Bible precisely corresponds to the Hebrew original. He suggests that both languages authentically reflect the nature of each thing named. 2:40. if Chaldeans have learned Greek, or Greeks Chaldean, and read both versions Philo refers to Greek speakers who had learned Hebrew in the third person plural, i.e., as an outsider looking upon others who have mastered the original language of the Bible. He himself obviously did not count among them. Philo claims that such bilinguals have compared the translation with its “Urtext” and found it highly satisfactory. It is possible that Philo encountered bilingual Jews especially in Rome, where he frequently met with King Agrippa and through him probably with other Jews from the Land of Israel. there is held every year a feast and general assembly in the island of Pharos Philo stresses the general popularity of Jewish matters and suggests that many Alexandrians would have celebrated the event of the Greek Bible translation. While it is rather unlikely that the island Pharos was overcrowded by such Gentiles, it is possible that Philo interprets people accidentally coming there

On the Life of Moses 983

only Jews but multitudes of others cross the water, both to do honor to the place in which the light of that version first shone out, and also to thank God for the good gift so old yet ever young. 42But, after the prayers and thanksgivings, some fixing tents on the seaside and others reclining on the sandy beach in the open air feast with their relations and friends, counting that shore for the time a more magnificent lodging than the fine mansions in the royal precincts. 43Thus the laws are shown to be desirable and precious in the eyes of all, ordinary citizens and rulers alike, and that too though our nation has not prospered for many a year. It is but natural that when people are not flourishing their belongings to some degree are under a cloud. 44But, if a fresh start should be made to brighter prospects, how great a change for the better might we expect to see! I believe that each nation would abandon its peculiar ways, and throwing overboard their ancestral customs, turn to honoring our laws alone. For, when the brightest of their shining is accompanied by national prosperity, it will darken the light of the others as the risen sun darkens the stars. 45The above is sufficient in itself as a high commendation to the lawgiver; but there is another still greater contained in the sacred books themselves, and to these we must now turn to show the great qualities of the writer. 46They consist of two parts: one the historical, the other concerned with commands and prohibitions, and of this we will speak later, after first treating fully what comes first in order. 47One division of the historical side deals with the creation of the world, the other with particular persons, and this last partly with the punishment of the impious, partly with the honoring of the just. We must now give the reason why he began his law-book with the history and put the commands and the for a picnic as pagans showing respect for Jews and Judaism.51 In any case, this image of general Alexandrian sympathy for the Greek Bible suits his overall purpose in the Moses, namely to induce a similar sympathy in his Roman audience. 2:43. when people are not flourishing their belongings to some degree are under a cloud Philo makes a wise comment about the connection between the political success of a nation and its cultural prestige. It is indeed remarkable that in the time of Varro, namely before significant political tensions arose between Romans and Jews, the latter enjoyed a highly positive reputation. Both Varro and Strabo saw them as a people of philosophers, who conveyed ancient wisdom.52 Following the pogrom in Alexandria, on the other hand, Apion and Chaeremon seem to have been very successful in circulating their polemics against the Jews. Josephus, writing after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, when the tensions between Romans and Jews had come to a new height, still makes considerable efforts to disprove them. 2:44. each nation would abandon its peculiar ways, and throwing overboard their ancestral customs, turn to honoring our laws alone These formulations express Philo’s hope for proselytes, who will join the Jewish community. 2:46. They consist of two parts: one the historical, the other concerned with commands and prohibitions Never before in his Alexandrian writings has Philo discussed the different literary genres of the biblical books. His notion of a historical category resonates well with Roman tendencies for historiography. Josephus followed in this path one generation later. It is interesting that Philo includes here the biblical creation account in the historical treatises of the Bible, while elsewhere he identifies it as a separate category (Rewards 1).

984 Maren R. Niehoff

prohibitions in the second place. 48He did not, like any historian, make it his business to leave behind for posterity records of ancient deeds for the pleasant but unimproving entertainment which they give; but, in relating the history of early times, and going for its beginning right to the creation of the universe, he wished to show two most essential things: first, that the Father and Maker of the world was in the truest sense also its Lawgiver, secondly, that he who would observe the laws will accept gladly the duty of following nature and live in accordance with the ordering of the universe so that his deeds are attuned to harmony with his words and his words with his deeds. 49Now other lawgivers are divided into those who set out by ordering what should or should not be done, and laying down penalties for disobedience, and those who, thinking themselves superior, did not begin with this, but first founded and established their state as they conceived it, and then, by framing laws, attached to it a constitution which they thought most agreeable and suitable to the form in which they had founded it. 50But Moses, thinking that the former course, namely issuing orders without words of exhortation, as though to slaves instead of free men, savored of tyranny and despotism, as indeed it did, and that the second, though aptly conceived, was evidently not entirely satisfactory in the judgment of all, took a different line in both departments. 51In his commands and prohibitions he suggests and admonishes rather than commands, and the very numerous and necessary instructions which he essays to give are accompanied by forewords and after-words in order to exhort rather than to enforce. Again, he considered that to begin his writings with the foundation of the laws, and, 2:48. He did not, like any historian, . . . entertainment which they give Philo repeats his notion of moralizing historiography. He makes similar remarks in the introduction to his On the Creation of the World, where he also stresses that the Jewish Scripture teaches a life in accordance with nature created by God. 2:49. Now other lawgivers are divided Philo distinguishes between a prescriptive and a practical approach to law. While he criticizes the former for treating its subjects as slaves without appealing to their moral sense, he speaks more generally of the second as being “evidently not entirely satisfactory in the judgment of all.” It is important for Philo to show that Mosaic Law does not belong to the former category, even though it contains many instructions without moral explanations as well as rituals which simply require to be observed. He uses the book of Genesis as evidence for Moses’s position between the above mentioned extremes. The Jewish lawgiver is thus shown to have conceived of laws before founding a state, but did so by means of admonition rather than by straighforward commands. 2:51. the very numerous and necessary instructions . . . to exhort rather than to enforce Philo sounds a bit apologetic when stressing that Moses wishes to “exhort” rather than to “enforce,” the latter clearly being very negative. This attention to the moral personality of the subject, who should be convinced in a situation of freedom rather than coercion, resonates well with Stoic emphasis on freedom. Epictetus, for example, open his discourse on the subject by stressing that the moral agent should be free, not “coerced,” to follow his own way toward virtue (Disc. 4.1). Philo has thus interpreted Mosaic Law in light of contemporary ethics and assumes a very important position in the development of halakhah between the Bible and the Rabbis. The latter, too, considered the individual self and the individual’s intentions crucial for a proper functioning of the law.53

On the Life of Moses 985

surveying the greatness and beauty of the whole code with the accurate discernment of his mind’s eye, and thinking it too good and godlike to be confined within any earthly walls, he inserted the story of the creation of the “Great City,” holding that the laws were the most faithful picture of the world polity.

he inserted the story of the creation of the “Great City,” holding that the laws were the most faithful picture of the world polity Philo concludes this section with a reference to a prominent Stoic theme, namely the “Great City,” suggesting again that Mosaic Law extends beyond local customs and approximates universal structures.

Notes 1. Indeed, Yosef Haim Yerushalmi in his seminal study Zakhor has identified such activating use of the past as a prime characteristic of Jewish memory, which has guaranteed its success over so many centuries. 2. For details on the different series of Philo’s works, see J. Royse, “The works of Philo,” in: A. Kamesar ed., The Cambridge Companion to Philo (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 32–64. 3. E. Birnbaum, The Place of Judaism in Philo’s Thought: Israel, Jews, and Proselytes (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996). 4. For details, see M. R. Niehoff, “Philo’s Exposition in a Roman Context,” Studia Philonica Annual 23 (2011), 1–21. 5. For details, see A. Harker, Loyalty and Dissidence in Roman Egypt. The Case of the Acta Alexandrinorum (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 10–21. 6. See esp. Seneca, Ot. 1.4–3.5, Constant. 1.1–2.3, 7.1, Ep. 64; crucial to Seneca’s discourse was the Stoic philosopher Panaitius, whose work had been popularized in Rome by Cicero (see esp. Cic. Off. 1.107–12); see also G. Reydams-Schils, “Authority and Agency in Stoicism,” GRBS 51 (2011), 296–322. 7. See esp. Seneca, Brev. Vit. 14.1–2, 14.5, 13.1–9, Ep. 22–24. 8. This term has been felicitously introduced by Reydams-Schils, The Roman Stoics, 15–52. 9. For details, see Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis, 77–129. 10. For details, see Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis, 133–51. 11. See e.g. Plutarch, Alex. 51.1–6, Phyr. 30.1–2, Dem. 11.1–12.4; see also T. Duff, Plutarch’s Lives: Exploring Virtue and Vice (Oxford: Clarendon, 1999), 52–72. 12. For a good summary of the contemporary discussion and balanced views on the matter, see Feldman, Portrayal of Moses, 27–33; for the roots of the discussion in 19th century scholarship and its ideological background, see M. R. Niehoff, “Alexandrian Judaism in 19th Century Wissenschaft des Judentums: Between Modernity and Christianity,” in: A. Oppenheimer (ed.), Jüdische Geschichte in hellenistisch-römischer Zeit. Wege der Forschung: vom alten zum neuen Schürer (München: R. Oldenburg, 1999), 9–28. 13. Rabbinic engagements with Greco-Roman culture have been explored in the pioneering studies of D. Daube, “Rabbinic Methods of Interpretation and Hellenistic Rhetoric,” HUCA 22 (1949), 239–264; and S. Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 2nd ed., 1962); for more recent studies, see M. L. Satlow, “Beyond Influence: Toward a New Historiographic Paradigm,” in A. Norich and Y. Z. Eliav, eds., Jewish Literatures and Cultures: Context and Intertext (Providence: Brown Judaic Studies, 2008), 37–53; Y. Moss, “Noblest Obelus: Rabbinic Appropriations of Late Ancient Literary Criticism,” in: M. R. Niehoff, ed., Homer and the Bible in the Eyes of Ancient Interpreters (Leiden: Brill, 2012); Y. Paz, “Re-Scripturizing Traditions in Rabbinic Exegesis and Homeric Scholarship,” Niehoff, Homer; Y. Furstenberg, “The Agon with Moses and Homer: Rabbinic Midrash and the Second Sophistic,” Niehoff, Homer. 14. See Plutarch, Alex. 3, Dem. 1.8–2.1, Ant. 1.1. 15. See A. J. Woodman, Rhetoric in Classical Historiography (London: Routledge, 1988), 70–116. 16. For details, see Niehoff, Philo on Jewish Identity, 45–74; S. J. K. Pearce, The Land of the Body (Tübingen: Mohr, 2007). 17. For details, see Reydams-Schils, Roman Stoicism, 143–76.

986 Maren R. Niehoff

18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

31. 32.

33.

34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43.

44. 45. 46. 47. 48.

Cic., De Fin. 4.17, 3.62, 1.23. Spec. Laws 3.109–12, Virt. 128–33. Exagoge 27, Holladay 349. See D. Frede, “Theodicy and Providential Care in Stoicism,” in Traditions of Theology, ed. D. Frede and A. Laks (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 95–108. Exagoge 27, Holladay 349. Cf. Ant. 2.228, to Ez., Exagoge 39 (Holladay 351). Joseph 4; needless to stress that these gifts are not mentioned in the biblical story, for details, see M. Niehoff, The Figure of Joseph in Post-biblical Jewish Literature (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 63–65. Exod. Rab. 1.27. On the Stoic notion of progress, see e.g. Disc. 1.4 See also A. Kovelman, Between Alexandria and Jerusalem (Leiden: Brill, 2005); D. Boyarin, Socrates and the Fat Rabbis (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009). Exagoge 36 (Holladay 355). On Varro’s symbolical interpretation of the Roman cult, see P. van Nuffelen, “Varro’s Divine Antiquities: Roman Religion as an Image of Truth,” CP 105 (2010), 162–88. For details, see P. van Nuffelen, Rethinking the Gods. Philosophical Readings of Religion in the Post-Hellenistic Period (1st century bce–2nd century ce) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming), chap. 1; P. v. d. Horst, Chaeremon, Egyptian Priest and Stoic Philosopher (Leiden: Brill, 1984). For details, see Reydams-Schils, “Authority and Agency.” See esp. Ot. 1.4–3.5, Constant. 1.1–2.3, 7.1, Ep. 64. The Stoic willingness to accept exemplary figures from outside of their own school tradition must also be appreciated in the context of their notion of ancient wisdom to be found in texts not generally considered to be philosophical; for details see: G. Boys-Stones, Post-Hellenistic Philosophy: A Study of its Development from the Stoics to Origen (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001). See esp. Sen. Ira 1.7.1–1.9.4; 2.2.2, 2.3.1–2; see also R. Sorabji, Emotion and Peace of Mind (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 55–75; B. Inwood, Readings in Seneca. Stoic Philosophy at Rome (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 23–64. See esp. Fuga 62–64, where Plato’s Theaetetus is quoted as a proof for the idea of fleeing from the world and imitating god. Cato Mai 22.4–5, 12.4–5, 23.1–2; see also A. E. Astin, Cato the Censor (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978) 157–81. Avot 1.17. For details, see Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis, 58–129. Exagoge 34–5, Holladay 355. Ant. 2.40, 2.42. For details on the historical approach among some Alexandrian Jews, see Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis, 95–111. Aristob., fragment in Eus., PE XIII 12.8. See e.g. Ant. 1.10–26; for details, see S. Mason, Josephus and the New Testament (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2003, 2nd ed.) See esp. Legat. 156–7, where he mentions official Roman acknowledgments of Jewish Sabbath observance; for details on Gentile reactions to the Sabbath, see P. Schäfer, Judeophobia. Attitudes toward the Jews in the Ancient World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997), 82–92. For details, see M. R. Niehoff, “The Symposium of Philo’s Therapeutae: Displaying Jewish Identity in an increasingly Roman World,” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 50 (2010), 95–117. See also A. Wasserstein and D. Wasserstein, The Legend of the Septuagint from Classical Antiquity to Today (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 37–38. Cf. Moses 1.5, 2.31, 2.40, Abraham 8 to Ar. 30. Ar. 9–11; Josephus, as usual, remains closer to the Letter than Philo and has the librarian Demetrius initiate the translation (Ant. 12.12–4). On the importance of translation in Roman culture and theoretical reflections on its nature, see S. R. McElduff, Surpassing the Source: Roman Theories of Translation, PhD diss., University of Southern California 2004.

On the Life of Moses 987

49. For details, see M. P. Fraser, Alexandria (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972) 2.44–45; E. Birnbaum, “Who Celebrated on Pharos with the Jews? Conflicting Philonic Currents and Their Implications,” in: S. InowlockiMeister et B. Decharneux (eds.), Philon d’Alexandrie : un penseur à l’intersection des cultures gréco-romaine, orientale, juive, et chrétienne, Actes du colloque de Bruxelles, 26–28 juin 2007 (Brepols: Turnhout, 2011), esp. n. 8. 50. Mekh. Bo 14, J. Meg. 71D, B. Meg. 9a–b. 51. For a fine discussion of the different options of interpretation, see Birnbaum, Who Celebrated on Pharos. 52. For details, see Stern, Greek and Latin Authors 1.207–12, 261–315. 53. For details, see J. Levinson, “From Narrative Practice to Cultural Poetics: Literary Anthropology and the Rabbinic Sense of Self,” 345–67, in Homer and the Bible in the Eyes of Ancient Interpreters, ed. M. R. Niehoff (Leiden: Brill, 2012).

988 Maren R. Niehoff

On the Decalogue Sarah Judith Pearce Philo’s work, whose full title is On the Decalogue, or On the Ten Words That Are the General Principles of the Laws, stands at the midpoint of his Exposition of the Law. It follows his accounts of the Creation and the lives of the ancestors, the “unwritten laws,” and marks the beginning of his treatment of the “written laws” of the Torah (1). This treatise begins with a series of questions and answers about the revelation on Sinai. First, why did God reveal the laws in the desert? Possible reasons include: 1. because we must leave behind the corruption of the cities in order to return to the law of nature; 2. the desert experience served to purify the people to receive the laws; 3. prepared them to live according to the law of nature; and 4. in exposing them to divine miracles (manna and water), proved the divine origin of the laws (2–17). Second, why were exactly Ten Commandments revealed directly by God? Because the number ten is supremely perfect, it is a sign of things that come from God (the perfection of ten, developed in 21–31, with examples from mathematics, music, and philosophy, is not included in this commentary). Third, how did God communicate directly with the people? Not with a human voice (God is not a created being), but through a miraculous voice created for the occasion (32–35). Fourth, why are the Ten Words addressed as though to one person (“Thou”)? To teach that one just person is as valuable as the entire world; to call upon each person to observe the laws; and to teach kings to show the greatest care in addressing the humblest of their subjects (36–43). Philo concludes this preliminary section with explanations of the wonders that accompanied God’s Revelation at Sinai (especially the voice that came from the fire) (44–49). The Torah specifies that God gave Ten Commandments or “words” (Heb. aseret ha-devarim; in Rabbinic literature, aseret ha-dibrot, “the ten sayings”) to Israel at Sinai/Horeb (Deut. 4:13; 10:4; cf. Exod. 34:28). But it provides no clear statement of how these Ten Words, as given in Exod. 20 and Deut. 5, were to be divided into ten. Philo is in fact our earliest witness to a system for dividing up the commandments into ten and assigning them numbers. In this scheme, the First Commandment corresponds to the first imperative given in the account of the Revelation, “You shall have no other gods besides Me” (Exod. 20:3; Deut. 5:7), while the Second Commandment is identified with the second imperative, the prohibition of graven images (Exod. 20:4–6; Deut. 5:8–10). The same division appears in Josephus (Ant. 3:91) and some Rabbinic sources (Sifre Num. 112; cf. B. Hor. 8a). Another way of dividing the first two commandments takes God’s self-declaration, “I am the Lord your God “ (Exod. 20:2; Deut. 5:6) as the First Commandment; the Second Commandment then begins with the prohibition of having other gods and continues with the prohibition of making graven images.1 The latter method of dividing the commandments is that adopted by Rabbinic Judaism.2 Ancient Judaism knows a variety of systems for ordering the commandments. Accord-

989

ing to the traditional Hebrew text (the Masoretic Text, MT), the command to honor parents is followed by the prohibition of murder (Exod. 20:13), adultery (Exod. 20:14), and theft (Exod. 20:15).3 The Greek translation (the Septuagint, LXX) preserves two other ways of ordering the same commandments: adultery, theft, murder (Exod. 20:13–15 LXX B); and adultery, murder, theft (Deut. 5:17–19 LXX B). Philo’s writings are among a number of ancient sources that follow the ordering of Deuteronomy LXX B (e.g. the Nash Papyrus;4 L.A.B. 11:10–13).5 In the second part of this treatise, Philo explains the Ten Words (Gk. deka logoi) themselves. After introducing them as divided into two sets of five, engraved on two tablets (50–51), Philo discusses the first tablet as being concerned with duties toward God: 1. You shall have no other gods before me. The prohibition condemns polytheism, and especially the worship of created things such as the elements or the heavenly bodies (52–65). 2. You shall not worship images. This prohibition shows the stupidity of worshiping lifeless images, of which the worst example is Egyptian animal worship (66–81). 3. You shall not take the name of God in vain. This prohibition applies to the use of God’s name in oaths and to perjury (82–95). 4. You shall observe the seventh day and keep it holy. The lesson of this commandment is to follow God in setting aside time for contemplation. Philo explains why Scripture speaks of the seventh day as sacred, pointing to several reasons for the sacredness of the number seven (96–105). 5. Honor your parents. This commandment stands at the borderline of the two tablets, because it is concerned with the subject matter of both: duties to God and duties toward created things. Because of their function in generating new life, parents are similar to God; by dishonoring parents, we dishonor God. Since children owe everything to their parents, they should at least follow the irrational animals in caring for their parents’ needs (106–20). The second tablet deals with our duties to human beings: 6. You shall not commit adultery (121–31). 7. You shall not kill (132–34). 8. You shall not steal (135–37). 9. You shall not give false testimony (138–41). 10. You shall not desire your neighbor’s wife, house, field, slaves, ox, ass or any other of your neighbor’s animals, nor anything else that belongs to your neighbor (142–53). In the third part of On the Decalogue, Philo expands on the idea that the Ten Words are the general principles of the “special laws.” Taking each of the Ten Words in turn, he presents other laws of the Torah as “species” of each of the “general principles” that are the Ten Words (summarized in 154–75, but not included in this commentary). Philo concludes the treatise with a final question: why did God not attach any punishments to the Ten Words? He explains that God is good and wishes that human beings might choose what is best of their own free will (176–78).

990

Sarah Judith Pearce

Significance In describing the relation of the Ten Words to the other laws of the Torah, Philo uses several metaphors: the head vis-à-vis the other parts of the body, the genus to the species, and the general principles to the particular. As such, each of the Ten Words has an all-inclusive, universal scope, which reinforces the idea that these Words are the universal law of nature. They are therefore addressed to all people and apply to us in the here and now, wherever we happen to be. For Philo, it is fundamental that the Ten Words heard by the people at Sinai came directly from God, without a mediator. This gives them a very special status within the laws of the Torah, most of which were revealed through Moses as God’s interpreter. Moreover, the first five words are of first importance, because they deal with duties toward God, while the second five are concerned with duties toward human beings. Both sets of commandments, however, are vitally important in guiding us toward the fundamental goals of piety and humanity. In this treatise, as in all the books of the Exposition of the Law, Philo promotes the idea that the Law is wholly reasonable; his commentary, therefore, emphasizes the need for the greatest care for detail in order to discover the logic and rational coherence of the content and arrangement of the Ten Words, as befits the words of God. On the Decalogue is the earliest known commentary on the Decalogue (though Philo himself acknowledges the influence of other interpreters, e.g., Decalogue 15). Many of the questions Philo raises about the Ten Words have also been taken up by later Torah interpreters: why were the commandments revealed in the desert; did God reveal all ten; why are the commandments addressed as if to one person; how do the ten relate to the rest of the laws of the Torah? However, very few large-scale studies have engaged specifically with this treatise. Within Jewish tradition, medieval commentators like Saadia Gaon may have followed certain aspects of Philo’s thinking about the Decalogue. The earliest Jewish scholar known to explicitly discuss Philo is Azariah de’Rossi (1511?–1577?), who writes approvingly of Philo’s conception of the Ten Commandments as “mothers” to all the other laws.

Guide to Reading On the Decalogue is a commentary based on the Torah’s accounts of the giving of the Law at Sinai, and in particular the Revelation of the Ten Words. Like other works in Philo’s Exposition of the Law, this treatise is not a running commentary on each word of the scriptural text. Instead, Philo sets out to grapple with a series of questions prompted by the text and to explain why the Torah says what it says (whether in details or the big picture). This means that Philo assumes that his readers know the texts he is discussing. It is important to remember that Philo follows a Greek translation of the Torah, with some significant differences from the traditional Hebrew text, including the order of the Ten Words (which follow Greek Deuteronomy). In some parts of the commentary, such as Philo’s explanation of the numbers ten (20–31) and seven (102–105), he uses allegory to demonstrate the fullest meaning that can be derived from the words of Scripture by reading them with the eye of reason.

On the Decalogue

991

Suggested Reading Amir, Yehoshua. “The Decalogue according to Philo.” In The Ten Commandments in History and Tradition, edited by Ben-Zion Segal (English version edited by Gershon Levi). Jerusalem: Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1990. German-language translation in Amir, Die hellenistische Gestalt des Judentums bei Philon von Alexandria. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1983. Calabi, Francesca. Filone di Alessandria: De Decalogo. Pisa: Edizioni ETS, 2005. Colson, Francis H. Philo in Ten Volumes (and Two Supplementary Volumes). Vol. 7. Cambridge ma: Harvard University Press–William Heinemann, 1934. Daniel-Nataf, Suzanne. Philo of Alexandria: Writings. Vol. 2 of Exposition of the Law, pt. 1. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute and Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1991 (in Hebrew). Freund, Richard A. “The Decalogue in Early Judaism and Christianity.” In The Function of Scripture in Early Jewish and Christian Tradition, edited by Craig E. Evans and James A. Sanders, 124–41. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Kugel, James. Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as It Was at the Start of the Common Era. Cambridge ma: Harvard University Press, 1998, 633–710. Najman, Hindy. “Decalogue.” In The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow, 526–28. Grand Rapids mi: Eerdmans, 2010. Nikiprowetzky, Valentin. De Decalogo: Introduction, Traduction et Notes. Paris: Cerf, 1965. Sandmel, Samuel. “The Confrontation of Greek and Jewish Ethics: Philo, De Decalogo.” In Two Living Traditions: Essays on Religion and the Bible, 279–90. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1972. Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy 1–11. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (The Anchor Bible). New York: Doubleday, 1991.

Translation 1. Having related in the preceding treatises the lives of those whom Moses judged to be men of wisdom, who are set before us in the Sacred Books as founders of our nation and in themselves unwritten laws, I shall now proceed in due course to give full descriptions of the written laws. And if some allegorical

Commentary 1. preceding treatises Refers to Philo’s books on the lives of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph (of which only On the Life of Abraham and On the Life of Joseph have come down to us). Sacred Books Of the Torah. Philo does not refer more specifically to Genesis, the first book of the Greek Torah, in which the lives of these ancestors appear. Philo rarely refers to individual books of the Bible. unwritten laws The patriarchs lived before the divine laws revealed at Sinai were written down. In Philo’s earlier treatises, the lives of the patriarchs are presented as books “on unwritten laws” (cf. the subtitle of Abraham). By living virtuous lives, based on the laws of nature, the patriarchs (Philo argues) observed the laws of God before they were written down after the Sinai Revelation. Their lives are thus models for the written laws (cf. Abraham 3–6, 276; Abraham as “a law and an unwritten statute”). allegorical interpretation For Philo, the exegetical technique of allegory—“saying one thing by means of another”—is an essential tool in the quest for the most complete understanding of Source of Translation: This translation is from Colson (cited above).

992 Sarah Judith Pearce

interpretation should appear to underlie them, I shall not fail to state it. For knowledge loves to learn and advance to full understanding and its way is to seek the hidden meaning rather than the obvious. 2. To the question why he promulgated his laws in the depths of the desert instead of in cities we may answer in the first place that most cities are full of countless evils, both acts of impiety toward God and wrongdoing between man and man. 3. For everything is debased, the genuine overpowered by the spurious, the true by the specious, which is intrinsically false but creates impressions whose plausibility serves but to delude. 4. So too in cities there arises that most insidious of foes, Pride, admired and worshiped by some who add dignity to vain ideas by means of gold crowns and purple robes and a great establishment of servants and cars, on which these so-called blissful and happy people ride aloft, drawn sometimes by mules and horses, sometimes by men, who bear the heavy burden on their shoulders, yet suffer in soul rather than in body under the weight of extravagant arrogance. the divine Law. Philo speaks of the allegorical interpretation as what “underlies” or is “hidden” within the laws. As an interpreter, he aims to bring these interpretations into the open (Spec. Laws 3.6). Scholars disagree about how much “allegorical” interpretation is in On the Decalogue. At a minimum, we should include the symbolic explanations of the numbers 10 and 7 (20–31, 102–5); and the vision of God’s voice at Sinai (49). 2. To the question . . . we may answer Philo begins the commentary proper with a characteristic sequence of questions and answers, based on the problem (aporia) that the desert is a surprising place in which to promulgate a law code. Philo’s argument implies that legislation is normally associated with cities. depths of the desert Emphasizes the solitude of the desert. Scripture places the Revelation of the commandments at the mountain of God in the Sinai desert. in the first place The first of four possible interpretations, none of which Philo excludes. Philo holds that Scripture conveys multiple meanings.6 most cities are full of countless evils A common idea among philosophers. City life is marked by luxury and corruption of the laws of nature (cf. Plato, Resp. 2.371a–372e). In biblical tradition, the prophets repeatedly condemn city rulers for injustice and impiety (e.g., Isa. 1). Philo may be thinking particularly of Moses’s warning to Israel in the desert not to forget God’s commandments in the future: “When you have eaten your fill, and have built fine houses to live in . . . beware lest your heart grow haughty and you forget the Lord your God” (Deut. 8:12–14). both acts of impiety toward God and wrongdoing between man and man Two classes of evil, corresponding to the two positive principles that Philo identifies with the two tablets of the Decalogue: the promotion of piety and justice for other human beings. 3. genuine . . . spurious Very Platonic formulations. 4. Pride Gk. tuphos; combines notions of arrogance and mental confusion; defined in philosophical terms as the (false) opinion that things exist that do not exist (Sextus Empiricus, Against the Mathematicians 8.5). Tuphos is one of Philo’s favorite words for the “vanity” of false opinions that lead people away from God. vain ideas Platonic theme of false impressions of reality; trapped in the body, the mind creates “images of things which are not, as though they are” (Ios 126, etc.). cars Vehicles. In Philo, the chariot symbolizes inequality, bodily pride, vanity (cf. Dreams 2.16).

On the Decalogue

993

5. Pride is also the creator of many other evils, boastfulness, haughtiness, inequality, and these are the sources of wars, both civil and foreign, suffering no place to remain in peace whether public or private, whether on sea or on land. 6. Yet why dwell on offenses between man and man? Pride also brings divine things into contempt, even though they are supposed to receive the highest honors. But what honor can there be if truth be not there as well, truth honorable both in name and function, just as falsehood is naturally dishonorable? 7. This contempt for things divine is manifest to those of keener vision. For men have employed sculpture and painting to fashion innumerable forms which they have enclosed in shrines and temples and after building altars have assigned celestial and divine honors to idols of stone and wood and suchlike images, all of them lifeless things. 8. Such persons are happily compared in the sacred Scriptures to the children of a harlot; for as they in their ignorance of their one natural father ascribe their paternity to all their mother’s lovers, so too throughout the cities those who do not know the true, the really existent God have deified hosts of others who are falsely so called. 9. Then as some honor one, some another god, diversity of opinion as to which was best waxed strong and engendered disputes in every other matter also. This was the primary consideration which made him prefer to legislate away from cities. 10. He also had a second object in mind. He who is about to receive the holy laws must first cleanse his soul and purge away the deep-set stains which it has contracted through contact with the motley promiscuous horde of men in cities. 5. boastfulness, haughtiness, inequality Characteristics of the tyrant (cf. 40). Some manuscripts read “unholiness” for “inequality.” 6. Yet why dwell . . . ? Rhetorical question, implying the much greater importance of the next topic: tuphos as cause of impiety. 7. keener vision To be sharp-sighted (oxuderkēs) is to have the right conception of God, who is “seen” with the “eye of the soul” rather than that of the body (cf. 67, 82). sculpture and painting In Plato’s Republic (373b), sculpture and painting signify the corruption of the city from a state of original simplicity. Elsewhere, Philo appeals to this theme as justification for Moses’s prohibition of imagery (Giants 59; cf. Ag. Ap. 2.16). 8. compared Technical term for allegorical interpretation. in the sacred Scriptures Deut. 23:3 LXX, “One born from a prostitute shall not enter the congregation of the Lord”; Heb. refers to “one misbegotten” (mamzer). Philo repeatedly interprets this text as prohibiting polytheists.7 In Scripture, the prostitute is a key symbol of idolatry.8 falsely so called Biblical theme of idolatry as worship of “no-gods” ( Jer. 16:20; Hosea 8:6). 9. which was best Or differences “concerning the Most Excellent,” i.e., the Supreme Being (as a title for God, Names 208, 216; Flight 195). diversity of opinion Associated with idolatry in Philo’s interpretation of the Second Commandment (67). 10. deep-set stains The marks of spiritual disease, inflicted by the passions (cf. Eternity 2). For the idea of the wilderness experience as a time of purification prior to the revelation at Sinai see Shir Rab. 2.15. motley promiscuous horde Recalls the “mixed multitude” that left Egypt with Moses.9

994 Sarah Judith Pearce

11. And to this he cannot attain except by dwelling apart, nor that at once, but only long afterward, and not till the marks which his old transgressions have imprinted on him have gradually grown faint, melted away and disappeared. 12. In this way too good physicians preserve their sick folk: they think it unadvisable to give them food or drink until they have removed the causes of their maladies. While these still remain, nourishment is useless, indeed harmful, and acts as fuel to the distemper. 13. Naturally therefore he first led them away from the highly mischievous associations of cities into the desert, to clear the sins out of their souls, and then began to set the nourishment before their minds—and what should this nourishment be but laws and words of God? 14. He had a third reason as follows: just as men when setting out on a long voyage do not begin to provide sails and tillers when they have embarked and left the harbor, but equip themselves with enough of the gear needed for the voyage while they are still staying on shore, so Moses did not think it good that they should just take their portions and settle in cities and then go in quest of laws to regulate their civic life, but rather should first provide themselves with the rules for that life and gain practice in all that would surely enable the communities to steer their course in safety, and then settle down to follow from the first the principles of justice lying ready for their use, in harmony and fellowship of spirit and rendering to every man his due. 15. Some too give a fourth reason which is not out of keeping with the truth but agrees very closely with it. As it was necessary to establish a belief in their minds that the laws were not the inventions of

11. dwelling apart Gk. dioikizō, “to move home.” Alludes to a central theme in Philo’s interpretation of Scripture: the migration of the soul from the bodily passions toward the vision of God (cf. Rewards 15–21). For Philo, Israel’s journey into the wilderness is a great symbol of this spiritual journey in which the passions die away as the soul gets farther from the objects that give life to them. 12. good physicians Adapts Plato, Sophist 230c–d. Since wrongdoing is caused by the passions in the soul, the wise physician must remove the causes of these passions (cf. Sacrifices 121). 13. nourishment Deut. 8:3 (manna). 14. communities The tribes of Israel: cf. Num. 34; Josh. 13–14. principles of justice lying ready for their use For Philo, the Law of Moses is not like the human-made laws of the cities, applicable to particular cities; created by God, identical with the laws of nature (Moses 2.14), the Law is applicable to all cities in the world, and thus serves in advance as the basis of a new constitution in a new land.10 rendering to every man his due Definition of justice attributed to the Greek poet Simonides (Plato, Republic 331e). 15–17. a fourth reason Alludes to Israel’s desert experience.11 For Philo, the desert was the setting for miracles, for proof of the divine power, and for proving Israel’s loyalty to God: cf. Moses 1.164, 202, 225, etc. The Rabbis also suggest various reasons as to why the Torah was given in the desert: e.g., because the wilderness provided a public space, belonging to no one, in which the Torah might be offered to all who would accept it (Mek. R. Ish., Bahodesh 1.80–94; 5.92–101); to avoid quarrels among the tribes of Israel, lest rival tribes should claim “In my territory the Torah was given” (Mek. R. Ish., Bahodesh 5.95–98); to teach that unless we make ourselves ownerless like a desert, we will not be able to acquire Torah; and to show that as the desert has no end, so too the Torah has no end (Pesik. Rab Kah. 12). 15. not the inventions of a man Philo seems to know a tradition, not explicitly stated in Scripture, On the Decalogue

995

a man but quite clearly the oracles of God, he led the nation a great distance away from cities into the depths of a desert, barren not only of cultivated fruits but also of water fit for drinking, 16. in order that, if after lacking the necessaries of life and expecting to perish from hunger and thirst they suddenly found abundance of sustenance self-produced—when heaven rained the food called manna and the shower of quails from the air to add relish to their food—when the bitter water grew sweet and fit for drinking and springs gushed out of the steep rock—they should no longer wonder whether the laws were actually the pronouncements of God, since they had been given the clearest evidence of the truth in the supplies which they had so unexpectedly received in their destitution. 17. For He who gave abundance of the means of life also bestowed the wherewithal of a good life; for mere life they needed food and drink which they found without making provision; for the good life they needed laws and ordinances which would bring improvement to their souls. 18. These are the reasons suggested to answer the question under discussion: they are but probable surmises; the true reasons are known to God alone. Having said what was fitting on this subject, I will proceed to describe the laws themselves in order, with this necessary statement by way of introduction, that some of them God judged fit to deliver in His own person alone without employing any other, and some through His prophet Moses whom He chose as of all men the best suited to be the revealer of verities. 19. Now we find that those which He gave in His own person and by His own mouth alone include both laws and heads summarizing the particular laws, but those in which He spoke through the prophet all belong to the former class. whereby some of Moses’s opponents questioned the genuineness of the divine oracles revealed only to him (Moses 2.176–77, 260–62; QE 2.43; cf. Ant. 3.85–9). 16. evidence Gk. basanos, “touchstone”; the test of genuineness for precious metals and, by extension, for other things. Philo uses the related verb to speak of the proof of the excellence of God’s laws in 48. 17. the good life Classic expression of the goal of the philosophers.12 18. probable surmises Platonic expression, often used by Philo:13 good interpreters aim for the truth, basing their arguments on reason (cf. 40), but the truth they find can only ever be “probable” because the human condition prevents the soul from apprehending the complete truth within Scripture (Eternity 2; Spec. Laws 1.36–38). 19. in His own person Cf. 175. Philo holds that God gave all the Ten Commandments directly at Sinai.14 Other ancient interpreters take only the first two commandments (Exod. 20:2–6)— spoken by God in the first person—as being given directly by God (B. Mak. 24a; Shir Rab. 1.2), and the rest—in which God is spoken of in the third person—through Moses (cf. Deut. 5:5). headsThe Ten Words. Philo introduces his distinctive understanding of the Ten Words in relation to all the other laws of the Torah as the head to the parts of the body, the general to the particular, the genus to the species. Philo also describes the Ten Words as “roots,” “sources,” or “fountains” of the other laws (Congr. 120). Every commandment of the Torah is therefore fundamentally connected, as part of a logically coherent whole, to the Ten Words. This conception underlies Philo’s elaborate treatment of the “particular” or “special” laws of the Torah in relation to their “heads” in the Ten Words, summarized in 154–74 (not included in this commentary) and set out in great detail in the four books On the Special Laws. Nothing precisely like this is known from

996 Sarah Judith Pearce

20. I will deal with both to the best of my ability, taking those which are rather of the nature of summaries first. Here our admiration is at once aroused by their number, which is neither more nor less than is the supremely perfect, Ten. Ten contains all different kinds of numbers, even as 2, odd as 3, and even-odd as 6, and all ratios, whether of a number to its multiples or fractional, when a number is either increased or diminished by some part of itself. (Note: 21–31 not included in this commentary.) 32. These points have been sufficiently discussed and may now be left. We must proceed to carry on the discussion to embrace what follows next. The ten words or oracles, in reality laws or statutes, were delivered by the Father of All when the nation, men and women alike, were assembled together. Did He do so by His own utterance in the form of a voice? Surely not: may no such thought ever enter our minds, for God is not as a man needing mouth and tongue and windpipe. early Jewish Bible interpretation. Rabbinic sources may contain echoes of Philo’s grand plan of connecting each commandment to one of the Ten Words;15 but the earliest known Rabbinic authority to implement Philo’s plan (though without reference to Philo) is Saadia Gaon (in Siddur R. Saadia Gaon).16 (See further in introductory comments.) 20. number The significance of numbers is a central theme in Philo’s interpretation of Scripture, and one to which he devoted a whole treatise (On Numbers, preserved only in fragments). His interpretations of number show an extensive knowledge of the theories of his day, particularly those identified with Pythagorean scholarship. supremely perfect Gk. panteleia; Pythagorean name for the number ten, because it is seen as containing all the real numbers (1–10), from which all other numbers are derived. Here Philo associates the perfection of the number ten with its ability to contain all numbers, ratios, progressions, and harmonies (21–29, not included in this commentary).17 In effect, ten symbolizes the nature of the Ten Words as a perfect whole that contains all the other commandments. even-odd Classification of numbers attributed to the Pythagorean Philolaus. “Even-odd” numbers can be separated into two factors, one odd, and one even, e.g., 6 = 2 x 3. 6 The manuscripts read “five,” which must be a scribal error, since Philo is very familiar with six as the first “even-odd” number.18 all ratios Philo uses Pythagorean terms (cf. Nicomachus of Gerasa, in Pseudo-Iamblichus, Theology of Arithmetic). when a number is either increased or diminished by some part of itself Improper or proper fractions. 32. These points Philo’s elaborate discussion of the perfection of the number ten (21–31, not included in this commentary). ten words Gk. deka logoi (hence “Decalogue”), as in Exod. 34:28 LXX; Deut. 10:4 LXX = Heb. aseret ha-devarim, “ten words.”19 In Scripture, the accounts of the Sinai revelation do not specify the number of “words” or commandments given (Exod. 19–20; Deut. 5). Did He do so by His own utterance in the form of a voice? Interprets Exod. 19:16 LXX: on the third day on Mount Sinai, “there were voices [phōnai]” and a “trumpet voice” (phōnē). Like Heb. kol, Gk. phōnē means both “sound” and “voice.” Scripture is full of references to God as speaking with a voice or in other ways acting like a being with a body (with a “face,” “hand,” etc.). Philo repeatedly warns against the “monstrous folly” of any interpretation of Scripture that takes such statements literally (e.g., Alleg. Interp. 1.36). God is not as a man Num. 23:19 LXX (words of the non-Israelite prophet Balaam). For Philo, this

On the Decalogue

997

33. I should suppose that God wrought on this occasion a miracle of a truly holy kind by bidding an invisible sound to be created in the air more marvelous than all instruments and fitted with perfect harmonies, not soulless, nor yet composed of body and soul like a living creature, but a rational soul full of clearness and distinctness, which giving shape and tension to the air and changing it to flaming fire, sounded forth like the breath through a trumpet an articulate voice so loud that it appeared to be equally audible to the farthest as well as the nearest. 34. For it is the nature of men’s voices if carried to a great distance to grow faint so that persons afar off have but an indistinct impression which gradually fades away with each lengthening of the extension, since the organism which produces them also is subject to decay. 35. But the new miraculous voice was set in action and kept in flame by the power of God which breathed upon it and spread it abroad on every side and made it more illuminating in its ending than in its beginning by creating in the souls of each and all another kind of hearing far superior to the hearing of the ears. For that is but a sluggish sense, inactive until aroused by the impact of the air, but the hearing of the mind possessed by God makes the first advance and goes out to meet the spoken words with the keenest rapidity. is a key statement underlining the nature of the Uncreated God (cf. Unchangeable 53, 60–69; QG 2.54). 33. on this occasion Philo explains that God causes extraordinary phenomena to serve particular occasions (cf. Moses 1.185 interpreting Exod. 15:22–26). invisible sound A sound coming from no visible source, interpreting Deut. 4:12, “you heard the sound of words but perceived no shape—nothing but a voice.” a rational soul Philo explains the “voice of God” as an incorporeal, rational being, created by God for the purpose of directly communicating to Israel the words spoken by God “in His own person.” Philo also speaks of other prophetic agents of God, the divine spirit and angels, as purely rational, incorporeal beings (Moses 2.288; Spec. Laws 1.66); unlike the “voice of God,” they are not created for particular occasions, but have a permanent presence and communicate with both Israelites and non-Israelites. flaming fire The fire from which God’s voice spoke at Sinai.20 Here and in 46, the “flaming fire” and the sound “like the breath through a trumpet” merge into one—two apparent aspects of one reality. This interpretation is rooted in the doctrine that God’s word is identified with the Oneness of God (cf. Unchangeable 82–84). an articulate voice Interprets Exod. 19:19 LXX, “The voices [Heb. “blare”] of the trumpet, increasing, became much stronger.” Philo takes this to mean that the sounds of the trumpet (the words of the voice of God), unlike human words (cf. 34), became clearer the farther they traveled. 35. more illuminating in its ending than in its beginning Another interpretation of Exod. 19:19: the divine words (the “sounds of the trumpet”) became clearer and more luminous as the Revelation continued, and the effect of a spiritual, inner illumination took hold of the people at Sinai. the hearing of the mind possessed by God makes the first advance and goes out to meet the spoken words with the keenest rapidity Interprets Exod. 19:8 LXX: “All the people replied [to Moses] with one accord and said: ‘All that God said we will do and we will hear’” (cf. Exod. 24:7 MT: na’aseh ve-nishma, “we will do and hear,” i.e., “we will perform and obey”). In Exod. 19:8, Israel makes an extraordinary commitment, coming forward to serve God, before the commandments

998 Sarah Judith Pearce

36. So much for the divine voice. But we may properly ask why, when all these many thousands were collected in one spot, He thought good in proclaiming His ten oracles to address each not as to several persons but as to one, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, and so too with the rest. 37. One answer which must be given is that He wishes to teach the readers of the sacred Scriptures a most excellent lesson, namely that each single person, when he is law-abiding and obedient to God, is equal in worth to a whole nation, even the most populous, or rather to all nations, and if we may go still farther, even to the whole world. 38. And therefore elsewhere, when He praises a certain just man, He says, I am thy God, though He was also the God of the world. And thus we see that all the rank and file who are posted in the same line and give a like satisfaction to their commander, have an equal share of approbation and honor. 39. A second reason is that a speaker who harangues a multitude in general does not necessarily talk to any one person, where as if he addresses his commands or prohibitions as though to each individual separately, the practical instructions given in the course of his speech are at once held to apply to the whole body in common also. If the exhortations are received as a personal message, the hearer is more ready to obey, but if collectively with others, he is deaf to them, since he takes the multitude as a cover for disobedience. have even been given. Whereas Philo connects the “eye” of the soul with intellectual understanding, he identifies the “ear” of the soul more closely with the submission of the will and zeal for “hearing” and “obeying” God’s words (cf. Confusion 59). 36. we may properly ask why A new question, inspired by the formulation of the Ten Words as though addressed to one person (“Thou”), even though all Israel was present at Sinai (Exod. 20:15; Deut. 5:1, 19). Ancient interpreters offered different explanations: that the plural “you” was really meant;21 that Israel was being addressed as a unity (L.A.B. 11.6); or that there was a particular reason why God addressed the commandments to individuals (e.g., because God wished to plead with particular individuals, knowing that each of them would in the future violate a different one of the Ten Words, Pesik. Rab. 21.15).22 Philo suggests three possible reasons (36–43). ten oracles Gk. deka logia (50, 175); formulation given in the titles of the books of Spec. Laws. For Philo, it is fundamental that the laws revealed at Sinai were “oracles” directly revealed by God (cf. 16). Thou shalt not steal Philo cites the commandments following Deut. 5:17–19 LXX. 37. each single person, when he is law-abiding and obedient to God, is equal . . . even to the whole world Elsewhere Philo also draws this lesson from other examples in the Torah (Adam, created alone; Noah, saved alone; God’s address to Israel in the singular, as in the Decalogue, etc.; cf. Avot R. Nat. 31). 38. a certain just man Abraham. I am thy God Gen. 17:1 LXX. Philo’s argument, based on the singular “thy,” does not work in the Heb. (MT), “I am El Shaddai.” Philo gives a more elaborate interpretation of this verse in QG 3.39. 39. more ready to obey Example from the world of politics and rhetoric: it is easier to gain acceptance by addressing commands as though to one person. Similarly, Pesik. Rab. 21.16: God enticed Israel to accept the Ten Words by addressing the people as individuals.

On the Decalogue

999

40. A third reason is that He wills that no king or despot swollen with arrogance and contempt should despise an insignificant private person but should study in the school of the divine laws and abate his supercilious airs, and through the reasonableness or rather the assured truth of their arguments unlearn his self-conceit. 41. For if the Uncreated, the Incorruptible, the Eternal, Who needs nothing and is the maker of all, the Benefactor and King of kings and God of gods could not brook to despise even the humblest, but deigned to banquet him on holy oracles and statutes, as though he should be the sole guest, as though for him alone the feast was prepared to give good cheer to a soul instructed in the holy secrets and accepted for admission to the greatest mysteries, what right have I, the mortal, to bear myself proudnecked, puffed-up and loud-voiced, toward my fellows, who, though their fortunes be unequal, have equal rights of kinship because they can claim to be children of the one common mother of mankind, nature? 42. So then, though I be invested with the sovereignty of earth and sea, I will make myself affable and easy of access to the poorest, to the meanest, to the lonely who have none close at hand to help them, to orphans who have lost both parents, to wives on whom widowhood has fallen, to old men either childless from the first or bereaved by the early death of those whom they begot. 43. For as I am a man, I shall not deem it right to adopt the lofty grandeur of the pompous stage, but make nature my home and not overstep her limits. I will inure my mind to have the feelings of a human being, not only because the lot both of the prosperous and the unfortunate may change to the reverse 40. A third reason Interprets Deut. 10:16–18. God’s love for the ordinary individual, the model for the king’s love for his humblest subjects (cf. Let. Aris. 187–8), is a teaching repeated many times by Philo (Spec. Laws 1.307–8, 4.73–74, etc.). The Rabbis also interpret God’s address to Israel, “as if to a single person,” as an expression of God’s love for Israel (Yal. Shimoni, Va-etchanan 829). study in the school of the divine laws Or “schools of holy laws.” For Torah study as a royal duty: Deut. 17:19–20. unlearn Gk. apomanthanō, a Platonic term; in Philo, refers to unlearning passions by following reason and the example of Moses (cf. Migration 151). 41. as though he should be the sole guest According to the Mishnah, Adam was created alone so that every individual might say, “For my sake was the world created” (M. San. 4.5). For Philo, God’s love inspires a similar thought with regard to the Revelation of the Ten Words. Addressed to the individual, the Ten Words call the individual soul to journey toward the vision of God; they are, in the words of a great Philo scholar, “the mystical map for the individual soul.”23 what right have I, the mortal Philo takes on the voice of the king who should model himself on God’s philanthropic nature. In Scripture, God is the model for Israel’s duty of friendship to outsiders (Deut. 10:16–18). nature No mortal should forget the equality of all human beings as children of the same “mother,” nature (cf. Job 31:15; cf. Moses 1.314, etc.). 42. the poorest . . . begot Cf. Deut. 10:18: God “upholds the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and befriends the stranger.” Philo adds other striking examples that are sensitive to the realities of a world with very high mortality and affirm the comprehensiveness of God’s love for human beings. 43. as I am a man Gk. anthrōpos; a human being (cf. 41). change to the reverse Reversal of fortune is inherently part of the mortal experience, a lesson for kings to remember that they are God’s subjects and that only God is the ruler of all.24 1000 Sarah Judith Pearce

we know not when, but also because it is right that even if good fortune remains securely established, a man should not forget what he is. Such was the reason, as it seems to me, why he willed to word the series of his oracles in the singular form, and delivers them as though to one alone. 44. It was natural that the place should be the scene of all that was wonderful, claps of thunder louder than the ears could hold, flashes of lightning of surpassing brightness, the sound of an invisible trumpet reaching to the greatest distance, the descent of a cloud which like a pillar stood with its foot planted on the earth, while the rest of its body extended to the height of the upper air, the rush of heaven-sent fire which shrouded all around in dense smoke. For when the power of God arrives, needs must be that no part of the world should remain inactive, but all move together to do Him service. 45. Near by stood the people. They had kept pure from intercourse with women and abstained from all pleasures save those which are necessary for the sustenance of life. They had cleansed themselves with ablutions and lustrations for three days past, and moreover had washed their clothes. So in the whitest of raiment they stood on tiptoe with ears pricked up in obedience to the warning of Moses to prepare themselves for a congregation which he knew would be held from the oracular advice he received when he was summoned up by himself. 46. Then from the midst of the fire that streamed from heaven there sounded forth to their utter amazement a voice, for the flame became articulate speech in the language familiar to the audience, and so clearly and distinctly were the words formed by it that they seemed to see rather than hear them. Such was the reason . . . alone Cf. Pesik. Rab Kah. Piska 12: according to R. Jose b. Hanina, interpreting “I am the Lord thy God” (Exod. 20:2 par.), God spoke to each individual according to their capacity. 44. natural Gk. eikos, “reasonable.” Philo finds the reason that underlies these miracles of nature in the reality that all elements of nature obey God as their ruler.25 all that was wonderful Refers to the scene at Sinai, following Exod. 19:16–18 LXX (thunder, lightning, trumpet sound [Heb. shofar], fire, and smoke) and Deut. 4:11 (flames and dense cloud from earth to sky). invisible trumpet See comment on 33–35, where Philo associates the trumpet sound with God’s voice. 45. They had kept pure Adapts Exod. 19:14–15, with additions: abstinence from unnecessary pleasures (interpreting Moses’s command to “remain pure”); washing for three days (cf. Exod. 19:15, “Be ready for the third day”); pure white clothes (cf. Exod. 19:14, “they washed their clothes”). abstained from all pleasures save those which are necessary for the sustenance of life In contrast, Josephus adds details that highlight expensive and festive preparations prior to the Revelation (Ant. 3:78–9). on tiptoe with ears pricked up Interprets God’s words to Moses in Exod. 19:11 LXX, “let them stand ready.” 46. from the midst of the fire . . . a voice For the voice from the fire, see LXX Exod. 19:18–19.26 in the language familiar to the audience Anticipates the question of how the people could understand God’s words. they seemed to see rather than hear them Interpreting Exod. 20:18(15) (see comment below). Philo explains why those present thought that they had “seen” the divine words. The exceptional clarity with which the words were articulated created the impression that they were visible, just as the articulate voice sounded through the trumpet is said to have been so loud that it seemed to be audible at a great distance (33). On the Decalogue

1001

47. What I say is vouched for by the law in which it is written, “All the people saw the voice,” a phrase fraught with much meaning, for it is the case that the voice of men is audible, but the voice of God truly visible. Why so? Because whatever God says is not words but deeds, which are judged by the eyes rather than the ears. 48. Admirable too, and worthy of the Godhead, is the saying that the voice proceeded from the fire, for the oracles of God have been refined and assayed as gold is by fire. 49. And it conveys too, symbolically, some such meaning as this: since it is the nature of fire both to give light and to burn, those who resolve to be obedient to the divine utterances will live forever as in unclouded light with the laws themselves as stars illuminating their souls, while all who are rebellious will continue to be burnt, aye and burnt to ashes, by their inward lusts, which like a flame will ravage the whole life of those in whom they dwell. 50. Such are the points which required a preliminary treatment. We must now turn to the oracles themselves and examine all the different matters with which they deal. We find that He divided the ten into two sets of five which He engraved on two tables, and the first five obtained the first place, while the other was awarded the second. Both are excellent and profitable for life; both open out broad 47. “All the people saw the voice” Cites Exod. 20:18 LXX (cf. MT 20:18); the LXX reads the singular “voice” for the Heb. plural kolot, “voices,” or “sounds of thunder.” Reading LXX, Philo takes the “voice” as referring to God’s voice, interpreting MT.27 Some Rabbinic traditions also understand the Heb. kolot as referring to God’s voice, divided into seven voices or even seventy languages so that all peoples should understand (cf. B. Shab. 88b; Exod. Rab. 5.9). fraught with much meaning Another interpretation of Exod. 20:18 LXX. In contrast with human words, there is no delay between God’s speaking and the execution of God’s words in visible actions. This notion of God has clear roots in biblical and Greek thought.28 48. the voice proceeded from the fire See comment on 46. the oracles of God have been refined and assayed as gold is by fire The Psalms speak of God’s “words” as “silver purged in an earthen crucible, refined sevenfold” (Ps.12:7; cf. 19:11). In 16, Philo refers to the genuineness of God’s laws as proved by the “touchstone”—the test for pure gold—of God’s providential care for Israel in the wilderness. 49. symbolically A psychological or ethical allegory of Scripture. For a similar interpretation, see Mek. R. Ish., Bahodesh 4.3–6. will live forever as in unclouded light A life of continuous light. In the Psalms, the revelation of God’s words and commandments is said to light up the understanding.29 with the laws themselves as stars illuminating their souls Inspired by Plato’s Timaeus (47b–e, 90d), Philo has a notion of the rational soul of human beings as an internal “heaven,” illumined by reason, identified here with God’s laws. 50. two sets of five Cf. Mek. R. Ish., Bahodesh 8.69–72; Y. Shek. 49d, etc; an alternative interpretation holds that all ten were written on each tablet (Y. Shek. 49d; Y. Sot. 22d). Scripture states that God’s words were written on two tablets (Exod. 32:15; Deut. 4:13), but it does not indicate which commandments were written on which tablet. He engraved Deut. 9:10: the stone tablets “inscribed by (or “with,” Exod. 31:18) the finger of God” (cf. Ant. 3.101, “And the hand of God was on the writing”). Elsewhere, Philo explains this as meaning that the Law was inscribed by God’s command, not by any humanlike “hands” (QE 2.41–42). broad highroads Philo often speaks in these terms of the “royal road,” along which wise and virtue-

1002

Sarah Judith Pearce

highroads leading at the end to a single goal, roads along which a soul which ever desires the best can travel without stumbling. 51. The superior set of five treats of the following matters: the monarchical principle by which the world is governed: idols of stone and wood and images in general made by human hands: the sin of taking the name of God in vain: the reverent observance of the sacred seventh day as befits its holiness: the duty of honoring parents, each separately and both in common. Thus one set of enactments begins with God the Father and Maker of all, and ends with parents who copy His nature by begetting particular persons. The other set of five contains all the prohibitions, namely adultery, murder, theft, false witness, covetousness or lust. 52. We must examine with all care each of the pronouncements, giving perfunctory treatment to none. The transcendent source of all that exists is God, as piety is the source of the virtues, and it is very necessary that these two should be first discussed.

loving souls journey toward God, the true king (Posterity 101). For Philo, Scripture represents this highroad by many symbols, including the route by which God guided Israel through the “pathless” wilderness (Posterity 154) and the word of God (Posterity 102, interpreting Deut. 28:14). 51. begins with God An implicit explanation of why the first five commandments belong together (cf. Heir 168). They all refer to God’s name, but it does not appear at all in the second set of five (cf. Pesik. Rab. 21). The other set of five contains all the prohibitions All the commandments on the second tablet are prohibitions; those on the first include positive commands as well as prohibitions. For the first three commandments on the second tablet, Philo follows the order given in Deuteronomy LXX— adultery, murder, theft (Deut. 5:17–19; cf. Heir 173);30 cf. Exodus LXX—adultery, theft, murder (Exod. 20:13–15). In the Hebrew Bible (MT), the order is murder, adultery, theft.31 52–65. The First Commandment: Both Philo and Josephus (Ant. 3.91) take Exod. 20:2–3; Deut. 5:6–7 as the First Commandment. Philo focuses on the meaning of the prohibition, “You shall have no other gods besides me” (Exod. 20:3 LXX; cf. Deut. 5:7 LXX, “before me”). Other traditions make this prohibition the beginning of the Second Commandment, connecting it to the prohibition of making graven images (Tg. Neof. on Exod. 20:2–3).32 52. care Gk. akribeia; in Philo, refers to the fullest possible examination of the laws (cf. Decalogue 1; Creation 77, etc.). Josephus says that, of the different groups within Judaism, the Pharisees were considered to have the greatest concern for akribeia in their interpretation of the laws (J.W. 2.162). In contrast with Philo’s commitment to the most detailed exposition of the Decalogue, Josephus follows a tradition that prohibits a person from speaking the commandments openly and verbatim, and he provides only a very abbreviated account of their contents (Ant. 3.90).33 transcendent Gk. aristos, “excellent.” God is the “excellent” source of creation because God is good (cf. Creation 21). piety is the source of the virtues According to earlier Platonic tradition, “There is no human virtue . . . greater than piety” (Epin. 989b). But for Hellenistic philosophers, piety was not one of the standard cardinal virtues (in Platonism, prudence, self-control, courage, and justice) from which secondary virtues were derived (e.g., piety from justice). In contrast, Philo holds that piety is the source or “queen” of other virtues (cf. Spec. Laws 4.147). As a Jew, Philo puts God at the center of his thought.34 very necessary Philo emphasizes the logic underlying the order of the commandments. In the or-

On the Decalogue

1003

A great delusion has taken hold of the larger part of mankind in regard to a fact which properly should be established beyond all question in every mind to the exclusion of, or at least above, all others. 53. For some have deified the four elements, earth, water, air and fire, others the sun, moon, planets and fixed stars, others again the heaven by itself, others the whole world. But the highest and the most august, the Begetter, the Ruler of the great World-city, the Commander-in-Chief of the invincible host, the Pilot who ever steers all things in safety, Him have they hidden from sight by the misleading titles assigned to the objects of worship mentioned above. 54. Different people give them different names: some call the earth Korē or Demeter or Pluto, and the sea Poseidon, and invent marine deities subordinate to him and great companies of attendants, male and female. They call air Hera and fire Hephaestus, the sun Apollo, the moon Artemis, the morningstar Aphrodite and the glitterer Hermes, 55. and each of the other stars have names handed down by the myth-makers, who have put together der of existing things, God has first place; in the order of virtues, piety comes first. That is the reason, Philo suggests, why these matters come first in the Decalogue. delusion Gk. planos, “going astray”; recalls Deut. 4:19 LXX, “When you see the sun and the moon and the stars . . . do not go astray [planētheis] and worship them.” 53. elements Stoic philosophers gave the names of Greek divinities to the elements.35 This was a way of expressing the extension of the divine power to the cosmos. Philo may also be thinking of Egyptian worship of the earth and the Nile’s water, linked to devotion to Isis and Osiris (Moses 1.98; 2.194–95.). sun, moon, planets and fixed stars Plato suggests that these are among the “gods of many barbarians,” and perhaps also of the earliest Greeks (Plato, Cratylus 397d). Philo may also be thinking of Deut. 4:19: God gave the sun, moon, and stars to other peoples; but Israel must not “go astray” by worshiping them. Philo identifies Abraham’s ancestors, the Chaldaeans, as “astrologers,” who venerated the stars instead of God (cf. Abraham 69). This is what Abraham and his descendants left behind, to worship the uncreated God. planets Lit. “the other planets”; counting the sun and moon as planets. fixed stars In Greek astronomy, stars that were believed (incorrectly) not to change position, in contrast with the “wandering” planets (see 104). World-city Gk. megalopolis, “great city.” Drawing on Stoic doctrine, Philo refers to the cosmos, the greatest city of all, in which the heavenly bodies serve as God’s “magistrates” in the divine government of the created world (Spec. Laws 1.13–14).36 54. names The theme of name giving (cf. 55) goes back to Plato’s famous dialogue on the correctness of names, the Cratylus. Philo is strongly influenced by Plato’s theory that names are given by wise name givers who craft names representing the nature of the things named. They call air Hera . . . Hermes Each name involves wordplay, e.g., Gk. aēr, “air,” is an anagram of Hera, wife and sister of Zeus. Plato is the first to suggest that Hera is a “disguised name for air” (Cratylus 404c). Stoic philosophers took such explanations further: e.g., Hera is the name given to the divine power to show that the ruling part of the all-pervading divinity extends to the air (Diogenes Laertius 7.147).37 55. myth-makers Poets and playwrights. Philo condemns mythmaking when it spreads impious notions of God, e.g., stories about the birth of a god (cf. Spec. Laws 1.28).

1004

Sarah Judith Pearce

fables skillfully contrived to deceive the hearers and thus won a reputation for accomplishment in name-giving. 56. So too in accordance with the theory by which they divided the heaven into two hemispheres, one above the earth and one below it, they called them the Dioscuri and invented a further miraculous story of their living on alternate days. 57. For indeed as heaven is always revolving ceaselessly and continuously round and round, each hemisphere must necessarily alternately change its position day by day and become upper or lower as it appears, though in reality there is no upper or lower in a spherical figure, and it is merely in relation to our own position that we are accustomed to speak of what is above our heads as upper and the opposite to this as lower. 58. Now to one who is determined to follow a genuine philosophy and make a pure and guileless piety his own, Moses gives this truly admirable and religious command that he should not suppose any of the parts of the universe to be the omnipotent God. For the world has become what it is, and its becoming is the beginning of its destruction, even though by the providence of God it be made immortal, and there was a time when it was not. But to speak of God as “not being” at some former time, or having “become” at some particular time and not existing for all eternity is profanity. 59. But there are some whose views are affected with such folly that they not only regard the said objects as gods but each of them severally as the greatest and primal God. Incapacity for instruction

56. Dioscuri The sons of Zeus, twins Castor and Pollux, said to live on “alternate days” (Homer, Od. 11.303), one day below the earth, the other above it (Pindar, Nemean Odes 10.80–82). For this reason they were identified with the hemispheres (Sextus Empiricus, Adversus mathematicos 9.37). 57. hemisphere Assumes that the heaven is a sphere of two halves, one bright, one dark (cf. Empedocles, DK 31 A 30). no upper or lower Since the world is a sphere, there is no “above” or “below” except in relation to our place on its surface at any given moment (cf. Plato, Tim. 63a). Philo uses this point to show that the Dioscuri myth is based on a false view of reality. 58. Moses Gk. “he”; Philo never refers explicitly to Moses in his description of the commandments in this treatise.38 It is more likely that Philo refers to God here, since it is God alone, in Philo’s view, who gives the Decalogue. the omnipotent God Literally, “an omnipotent god.” Interprets “other gods.”39 omnipotent Greek autokratēs, “self-ruling”; refers to the idea that God depends on no other being for existence. For Philo, Moses teaches that all parts of the universe are created by and serve God; they have no independent existence apart from God (cf. Creation 46; Spec. Laws 1.13–19, etc.). the world Ancient philosophers were fiercely divided on the question of whether the world is eternal. In his treatise on this question, Philo argues that Plato followed Moses in teaching that the world is created but will not be destroyed; God can destroy the world, but never will (Eternity 13–19; cf. Plato, Tim. 41a). 59. the greatest and primal God The first cause of all. Different philosophers identified this with a single element (e.g., fire, water, air), or with the sky, sun, or earth. Philo is no doubt also thinking of Egyptian religion and its veneration of water as the first element (cf. Moses 1.98). Those who venerate created things as first cause have foolishly forgotten God, the only true Cause (Virtues. 179; cf. Wis. 13:2).

On the Decalogue

1005

or indifference to learning prevents them from knowing the truly Existent because they suppose that there is no invisible and conceptual cause outside what the senses perceive, though the clearest possible proof lies ready at their hand. 60. For while it is with the soul that they live and plan and carry out all the affairs of human life, they can never see the soul with the eyes of the body, though every feeling of ambition might well have been aroused in the hope of seeing that most august of all sacred objects, the natural stepping-stone to the conception of the Uncreated and Eternal, the invisible Charioteer who guides in safety the whole universe. 61. So just as anyone who rendered to the subordinate satraps the honors due to the Great King would have seemed to reach the height not only of unwisdom but of foolhardiness, by bestowing on servants what belonged to their master, in the same way anyone who pays the same tribute to the creatures as to their Maker may be assured that he is the most senseless and unjust of men in that he gives equal measure to those who are not equal, though he does not thereby honor the meaner many but deposes the one superior. 62. And there are some who in a further excess of impiety do not even give this equal payment, but bestow on those others all that can tend to honor, while to Him they refuse even the commonest of all tributes, that of remembering Him. Whom duty bids them remember, if nothing more, Him they forget, a forgetfulness deliberately practiced to their lasting misery. 63. Some again, seized with a loud-mouthed frenzy, publish abroad samples of their deep-seated impiety and attempt to blaspheme the Godhead, and when they whet the edge of their evil-speaking

no invisible and conceptual cause outside what the senses perceive Doctrine that Philo attributes to the Chaldeans, the ancestors abandoned by Abraham in his search for the Uncreated God (Migration 179), and to a wide range of philosophies (Dreams 2.283). 60. the soul . . . the natural stepping-stone to the conception of the Uncreated Adapts Plato’s wellknown comparison of the invisible human soul to the soul that directs the whole world (Plato, Laws 898d–e). By soul, Philo means the human intellect, modeled on God: “it would seem that the same position that the Great director holds in the entire cosmos is held by the human intellect in the human being. It is itself invisible, yet it sees all things” (Creation 69). The Rabbis draw the same comparison, but in different terms: “Just as the Holy One, blessed be He, sees but is not seen, so the soul sees but is not itself seen” (B. Ber. 10a). 61. satraps Provincial governors in the Persian Empire (ca. 550–330 bce), subordinate to its supreme ruler, the Great King. The title satrap continued in use in the Greek and Roman East. 62. a further excess of impiety Deliberate refusal to allow that God matters in human affairs. In Scripture, “The benighted man thinks, ‘God does not care’” (Ps. 14:1). In philosophical terms, Philo associates this type with Skeptics and Epicureans, or, following Plato, Sophists.40 Philo is well aware of challenges to Scripture’s conception of God, probably from within the Jewish community (cf. Names 60–62; similarly, Wis. 2; 1 En. 104:7–10). remembering Him. . . . misery To forget God is to transgress the first two commandments of the Decalogue (cf. Deut. 8:11–19; Sacrifices 55–56). 63. whet the edge of their evil-speaking tongue Biblical image, cf. Ps. 52:4; Sir. 51:2.

1006

Sarah Judith Pearce

tongue they do so in the wish to grieve the pious who feel at once the inroad of a sorrow indescribable and inconsolable, which passing through the ears wastes as with fire the whole soul. For this is the battery of the unholy, and is in itself enough to curb the mouths of the devout who hold that silence is best for the time being to avoid giving provocation. 64. Let us then reject all such imposture and refrain from worshiping those who are by nature our brothers, even though they have been given a substance purer and more immortal than ours, for created things, in so far as they are created, are brothers, since they have all one Father, the Maker of the universe. Let us instead in mind and speech and every faculty gird ourselves up with vigor and activity to do the service of the Uncreated, the Eternal, the Cause of all, not submitting nor abasing ourselves to do the pleasure of the many who work the destruction even of those who might be saved. 65. Let us, then, engrave deep in our hearts this as the first and most sacred of commandments, to acknowledge and honor one God Who is above all, and let the idea that gods are many never even reach the ears of the man whose rule of life is to seek for truth in purity and guilelessness. 66. But while all who give worship and service to sun and moon and the whole heaven and universe or their chief parts as gods most undoubtedly err by magnifying the subjects above the ruler, their offense is less than that of the others who have given shape to sticks and stones and silver and gold to grieve the pious Adapts biblical themes, e.g., Isa. 53:7 (“maltreated . . . he did not open his mouth”); Ps. 69:7–10; cf. Wis. 2:12–20. 64. brothers The stars. Inspired by Platonic tradition (cf. Tim. 38c–39e), Philo holds that stars are a superior form of creation, composed of body and purely rational mind (cf. Giants 8).41 Stars are related to human beings by virtue of being created and rational, but they lack the irrational element of human beings. mind and speech and every faculty Adapts Deut. 6:5. saved Philo returns to the theme of preserving the purity of the soul from corruption.42 65. to acknowledge and honor one God Who is above all A positive formulation interpreting Exod. 20:3; Deut. 5:7. idea that gods are many Polytheism allows the worship of many gods, since no one god is seen as ruling the whole world. In contrast, the First Commandment teaches that God is the only ruler of the world.43 66–81. The Second Commandment interprets Exod. 20:4–6 LXX; Deut.5:8–10 LXX. Philo focuses on the prohibitions of making and serving images.44 66. their offense is less The notion that astral worship ranks as a lesser offense than that of idolatry is found elsewhere in Philo and other Hellenistic Jewish authors.45 Among some ancient Jews, a relatively tolerant view of astral worship seems to have been inspired by Deut. 4:19, which suggests the divine appointment of the heavenly bodies for worship by non-Israelites, though not for Israel (cf. Deut. 29:25).46 By contrast, Rabbinic traditions reject the idea of divine sanction for astral worship (e.g., Sifre Deut. 148, citing R. Jose the Galilean47). In other contexts, Philo develops the idea that contemplation of the heavens may lead to knowledge of God.48 sticks and stones and silver and gold In Scripture, the stuff of which the gods of the nations are made.49 For the prohibition of making gods of gold and silver, cf. Exod. 20:23 LXX, from which Philo also derives the prohibition of making gods of any inferior substance (Spec. Laws 1.22).

On the Decalogue

1007

and similar materials each according to their fancy and then filled the habitable world with images and wooden figures and the other works of human hands fashioned by the craftsmanship of painting and sculpture, arts which have wrought great mischief in the life of mankind. 67. For these idolaters cut away the most excellent support of the soul, the rightful conception of the Ever-living God. Like boats without ballast they are forever tossed and carried about hither and thither, never able to come to harbour or to rest securely in the roadstead of truth, blind to the one thing worthy of contemplation, which alone demands keen-sighted vision. 68. To my mind they live a more miserable life than those who have lost the sight of the body, for those have been disabled through no wish of their own but either through suffering from some grievous disease of the eyes or through the malice of their enemies, but these others have of deliberate purpose not only dimmed but without scruple cast away entirely the eye of the soul. 69. And therefore pity for their misfortune waits upon the former, punishment for their depravity quite justly on the latter. In their general ignorance they have failed to perceive even the most obvious truth which even “a witless infant knows,” that the craftsman is superior to the product of his craft both in time, since he is older than what he makes and in a sense its father, and in value, since the efficient element is held in higher esteem than the passive effect. 70. And while if they were consistent in their sin, they should have deified the sculptors and painters themselves and given them honors on a magnificent scale, they leave them in obscurity and bestow no favor on them, while they regard as gods the figures and pictures made by their workmanship. 71. The artists have often grown old in poverty and disesteem, and mishap after mishap has accomfilled the habitable world In Philo’s terms, the “gods of the cities” are invented by those who believe that material things are the cause of existing beings (Drunkenness 109; Moses 2.205). 67. support Gk. ereisma, the prop that keeps the boat upright on shore. Philo returns to the theme of 9: God must be the measure of all things (cf. Plato, Laws 716c); otherwise the human soul gives up truth for illusions, upset (“without ballast”) by passions, vices, and false opinions (Providence 2:8). Such idolaters are like Plato’s “lovers of opinion” in contrast with the genuine philosophers who are able to contemplate the simple and unchanging truth (Resp. 480a–b). 68. eye of the soul In Plato and Aristotle, the part of the human being that, with the aid of philosophy, can “see” reality or divine truths.50 Philo uses this image repeatedly to express the human ability to grasp something of the reality of God’s nature (cf. Spec. Laws 3.4). 69. punishment Implies that the idolaters’ “ignorance” amounts to a deliberate offense, deserving punishment, cf. 68. “a witless infant knows” Proverbial expression going back to the ancient poets.51 Like Philo, the author of the Wisdom of Solomon speaks of idolaters as “most foolish, and more miserable than an infant” (15:14). Both look back to traditions of the Bible in which idolatry is seen as fundamentally stupid (e.g., Jer. 10:8). the craftsman is superior to the product of his craft Philo frames this idea in philosophical terms— the superiority of the active to the passive element. Fundamentally, Philo presents a typically Jewish notion of idolatry as the worship of dead things (cf. Wis. 15:17). 71. artists In Philo’s world, great value was placed on art and artists (Drunkenness 109; Providence 2:15). The case of artists fallen on hard times while their works are “glorified” sets up a shocking contrast between the treatment of artists and their creations.52

1008 Sarah Judith Pearce

panied them to the grave, while the works of their art are glorified by the addition of purple and gold and silver and the other costly embellishments which wealth supplies, and are served not merely by ordinary freemen but by men of high birth and great bodily comeliness. For the birth of priests is made a matter for the most careful scrutiny to see whether it is unexceptionable, and the several parts which unite to form the body whether they make a perfect whole. 72. Horrible as all this is, we have not reached the true horror. The worst is still to come. We have known some of the image-makers offer prayers and sacrifices to their own creations though they would have done much better to worship each of their two hands, or if they were disinclined for that because they shrank from appearing egotistical, to pay their homage to the hammers and anvils and pencils and pincers and the other tools by which their materials were shaped. 73. Surely to persons so demented we might well say boldly, “Good sirs, the best of prayers and the goal of happiness is to become like God. 74. Pray you therefore that you may be made like your images and thus enjoy supreme happiness with eyes that see not, ears that hear not, nostrils which neither breathe nor smell, mouths that never taste nor speak, hands that neither give nor take nor do anything at all, feet that walk not, with no activity in any parts of your bodies, but kept under watch and ward in your temple prison day and night, ever drinking in the smoke of the victims. For this is the one good which you imagine your idols to enjoy.” 75. As a matter of fact I expect that such advice would be received with indignation as savoring of imprecations rather than of prayers and would call forth abusive repudiations and retorts, and this would be the strongest proof of the wide extent of impiety shown by men who acknowledge gods of such a nature that they would abominate resembling them. the birth of priests Bodily wholeness was required not only of the priests of the Jerusalem Temple,53 but also of non-Jewish priests (cf. Plato, Leg. 6.759). 72. appearing egotistical A reputation for “self-love” in a bad sense; “selfishness” (cf. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 1168b14). Plato defines self-love as the greatest evil: “the cause of all sins in every case lies in the person’s excessive love of self ” (Leg. 731e). For Philo, self-love is more than ordinary selfishness; it is an intellectual attitude that makes human beings “the measure of all things” (Posterity 35). To love God, on the other hand, is to recognize human nothingness, and accept God as the cause of all things (Alleg. Interp. 3.29). 73. to become like God Philo’s doctrine of the imitation of God is rooted in two principal sources: the Platonic tradition (cf. Plato, Theaet. 176b; Leg. 716c–d) and Scripture (cf. Lev. 19:2; Deut. 13:5).54 Philo repeatedly speaks of the goal of becoming as much like God as possible. What this means, in practice, is to try to imitate what Scripture reveals about God, e.g., God’s love for human beings or God’s Sabbath rest (cf. 100). 74. eyes that see not A fundamental theme in Jewish tradition: idols have no power to do anything.55 75. imprecations Recalls the curselike language of Ps. 135:18: “Those who fashion them [idols], all who trust in them, shall become like them.”

On the Decalogue

1009

76. Let no one, then, who has a soul worship a soulless thing, for it is utterly preposterous that the works of nature should turn aside to do service to what human hands have wrought. But the Egyptians are rightly charged not only on the count to which every country is liable, but also on another peculiar to themselves. For in addition to wooden and other images, they have advanced to divine honors irrational animals, bulls and rams and goats, and invented for each some fabulous legend of wonder. 77. And with these perhaps there might be some reason, for they are thoroughly domesticated and useful for our livelihood. The ox is a plougher and opens up furrows at seed time and again is a capable thresher when the corn has to be purged; the ram provides the best possible shelter, namely, clothing, for if our bodies were naked they would easily perish, either through heat or through intense cold, in the first case under the scorching of the sun, in the latter through the refrigeration caused by the air. 78. But actually the Egyptians have gone to a further excess and chosen the fiercest and most savage of wild animals, lions and crocodiles and among reptiles the venomous asp, all of which they dignify with temples, sacred precincts, sacrifices, assemblies, processions and the like. For after ransacking the two elements given by God to man for his use, earth and water, to find their fiercest occupants, they found on land no creature more savage than the lion nor in water than the crocodile and these they reverence and honor. 79. Many other animals too they have deified, dogs, cats, wolves and among the birds, ibises and hawks; fishes too, either with their whole bodies or particular parts. What could be more ridiculous than all this? 76. soulless Or lifeless (apsuchos), cf. 7, 133. Philo reflects widespread criticism of idolatry as the worship of lifeless things: in Jewish tradition, cf. Ps. 135:17; Wis. 13:17; 14:29; among Greek intellectuals, cf. Heraclitus on the lifelessness of images (DK B.5), Timaeus of Tauromenium on lifeless statues of the gods (FGH 566, F 32), etc. works of nature Probably refers to human beings, formed in the “laboratory of nature” (Moses 2.84), contrasted with idols, the works of “human hands” (cf. Deut. 4:28). Egyptians Philo consistently treats Egyptian animal worship as the worst form of idolatry.56 irrational animals Whether animals have reason or not was a hotly debated topic in antiquity, and Philo wrote a whole treatise on the subject (On Animals). Philo agrees with Stoic philosophers that animals lack reason and are therefore inferior to rational human beings. bulls and rams and goats Some of the most important of Egypt’s sacred animals belonged to these species: the Apis bull of Memphis, the ram of Thebes, the goat of Mendes (cf. Herodotus 2.42, 153). For Philo, the Israelite worshipers of the Golden Calf (Exod. 32) were copying the animal worship that they had learned in Egypt (e.g., Spec. Laws 1.79). 77. useful Philo assumes that domestic animals are designed by nature to serve human beings. He alludes here to the ancient belief expressed in Egyptian temple hymns that certain animals were venerated because of their usefulness to human beings.57 clothing For the notion of clothes as “shelter,” cf. Aristotle, Politics 1336a17; often repeated in Philo (e.g., Names 246, “For clothing prevents harm from frost and heat, and by veiling what nature would have hidden promotes decency in the wearers.”). 79. fishes Philo is probably thinking of the famous “sharp-nosed fish,” worshiped in the “city of the sharp-nosed fish,” Oxyrhynchos.

1010

Sarah Judith Pearce

80. Indeed strangers on their first arrival in Egypt before the vanity of the land has gained a lodgement in their minds are likely to die with laughing at it, while anyone who knows the flavor of right instruction, horrified at this veneration of things so much the reverse of venerable, pities those who render it and regards them with good reason as more miserable than the creatures they honor, as men with souls transformed into the nature of those creatures, so that as they pass before him, they seem beasts in human shape. 81. So then He gave no place in His sacred code of laws to all such setting up of other gods, and called upon men to honor Him that truly is, not because He needed that honor should be paid to Him, for He that is all-sufficient to Himself needs nothing else, but because He wished to lead the human race, wandering in pathless wilds, to the road from which none can stray, so that following nature they might win the best of goals, knowledge of Him that truly IS, Who is the primal and most perfect good, from Whom as from a fountain is showered the water of each particular good upon the world and them that dwell therein. 82. We have now discussed as fully as possible the second commandment. Let us proceed to examine carefully the next in order, not to take God’s name in vain. Now the reason for the position of this commandment in the list will be understood by those who have clear-sighted minds, for the name always stands second to the thing which it represents as the shadow which follows the body. 83. So after speaking first about the existence of the Ever-existent and the honor due to Him as such, He follows it at once in orderly sequence by giving a commandment on the proper use of His title, for the errors of men in this part of their duty are manifold and multiform. 80. strangers Philo warns repeatedly against what he sees as the dangerous influence of Egyptian animal worship. He was certainly right about the huge popularity of animal worship in Roman Egypt; from Alexander the Great onward, Greeks—and later Romans—in Egypt were quick to embrace this very distinctive aspect of traditional Egyptian religion. die with laughing Philo can count on the idea that most outsiders to Egypt would find animal worship absurd. Certainly, this was a great source for satire among Greek and Roman intellectuals. Even Socrates had made a joke about it (Plato, Gorgias 482b), and, in more recent times, Virgil had written of Rome’s defeat of “barking Anubis” and the “monstrous gods” of Egypt (Aen. 8.698–700). transformed Adapts Plato’s theory of metempsychosis—the passage of the human soul into an animal whose nature resembles the character of the human soul in its previous embodiment (Plato, Tim. 42c, 92c, etc.). The Platonist Plutarch reports an Egyptian version of this doctrine: Egyptians regard as fit for sacrifice animals that “have embodied in them souls of unholy and unrighteous men who have been transformed into other bodies” (Plutarch, Is. Os. 363b). 82. not to take God’s name in vain Adapts Exod. 20:7 LXX; Deut. 5:11 LXX, “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain; for the Lord will not purify one who takes His Name in vain.” Neither in LXX nor in the MT is it precisely clear what is forbidden. In LXX, the expression epi mataiō, “in vain,” can mean “falsely,” “pointlessly,” “profanely.” Philo’s interpretation reflects these possible meanings.58 shadow which follows the body Implies that the name is the shadow of what it represents (cf. Names 243), and inevitably follows it. Thus, the commandment about God’s name logically follows the first two commandments, which deal with God’s nature.

On the Decalogue

1011

84. To swear not at all is the best course and most profitable to life, well suited to a rational nature which has been taught to speak the truth so well on each occasion that its words are regarded as oaths; to swear truly is only, as people say, a “second-best voyage,” for the mere fact of his swearing casts suspicion on the trustworthiness of the man. 85. Let him, then, lag and linger in the hope that by repeated postponement he may avoid the oath altogether. But if necessity be too strong for him, he must consider in no careless fashion all that an oath involves, for that is no small thing. 86. For an oath is an appeal to God as a witness on matters in dispute, and to call Him as witness to a lie is the height of profanity. Be pleased, I beg you, to take a look with the aid of your reason into the 84. To swear not at all is the best Philo follows an ancient tradition that takes the Third Commandment as referring to the use of God’s name in oaths.59 Philo does not prohibit oaths, but recommends avoiding them if possible. The ideal of avoiding oaths for reasons of piety is particularly associated with Pythagoras, who is said to have taught his students “not to call the gods to witness, man’s duty being rather to strive to make his own word carry conviction” (Diogenes Laertius, The Lives of Eminent Philosophers 8.22). In our passage, Philo appeals to another Greek tradition, namely that an oath is unworthy of the wise, who do not need to be forced by an oath to speak the truth (cf. Spec. Laws 2.2–23).60 Pythagorean influence is probably behind the most radical Jewish attitudes toward taking oaths, e.g., the Essenes, described by Philo and Josephus as avoiding oaths (though they swore oaths of commitment to their community),61 and the outright prohibition of oaths attributed to Jesus in Matthew’s Gospel (Mt. 5.33–37).62 its words are regarded as oaths Because these words are true (cf. Spec. Laws 2.2). For Philo, those who speak truly imitate God: God’s words are oaths because they are always true (cf. Alleg. Interp. 3.204). “second-best voyage” The next-best way; a proverbial expression, borrowed from Plato (Phaedr. 99d, etc.). Applied to taking oaths, this means that if you cannot make others believe your words, you must persuade them with an oath. 85. repeated postponement Elsewhere, interpreting the “special laws” of the Third Commandment, Philo praises those who swear “Yes, by” or “No, by,” adding no names by which to swear (Spec. Laws 2.4). necessity In Philo’s world, oaths were required in many different settings, public and private. Philo mentions, e.g., the oaths sworn by judges (141). 86. an oath is an appeal to God as a witness on matters in dispute A key definition in Philo, probably from a Greek source.63 Biblical oaths appeal to God as witness, e.g., “God Himself will be witness between you and me” (Gen. 31:50 MT);64 “Let the Lord be a true and faithful witness against us!” ( Jer. 42:5). And in the Greek world, oaths normally appealed to the gods to witness the truth of what was being said.65 to call Him as witness to a lie is the height of profanity Cf. Lev. 19:12, “You shall not swear falsely by My Name, profaning the name of your God.” This is the central theme of 86–91. The vain oath may include a gratuitous lie, or the denial of what is well known, or swearing to do what is impossible or against the Law (cf. M. Shevu. 3.8). According to the Rabbis, this means the prohibition of the pronunciation of the name of God in vain (Mek. R. Ish., Bahodesh 7). Be pleased, I beg you, to take a look with the aid of your reason With characteristic politeness, Philo invites readers to engage directly with his argument: to peer right inside the perjurer’s mind to see what is really going on. Such scrutiny is the hallmark of reason. 1012 Sarah Judith Pearce

mind of the intending perjurer. You will see there a mind not at peace but full of uproar and confusion, laboring under accusation, suffering all manner of insult and reviling. 87. For every soul has for its birth-fellow and house-mate a monitor whose way is to admit nothing that calls for censure, whose nature is ever to hate evil and love virtue, who is its accuser and its judge in one. If he be once roused as accuser he censures, accuses and puts the soul to shame, and again as judge, he instructs, admonishes and exhorts it to change its ways. And if he has the strength to persuade it, he rejoices and makes peace. But if he cannot, he makes war to the bitter end, never leaving it alone by day or night, but plying it with stabs and deadly wounds until he breaks the thread of its miserable and ill-starred life. 88. How now! I would say to the perjurer, will you dare to accost any of your acquaintance and say, “Come, sir, and testify for me that you have seen and heard and been in touch throughout with things which you did not see nor hear.” My own belief is that you would not, for it would be the act of a hopeless lunatic. 89. If you are sober and to all appearance in your right mind, how could you have the face to say to your friend, “For the sake of our comradeship, work iniquity, transgress the law, join me in impiety”? Clearly if he hears such words, he will turn his back upon his supposed comradeship, and reproaching himself that there should ever have been the tie of friendship between him and such a person, rush away from him as from a savage and maddened beast. 90. Can it be, then, that on a matter on which you would not dare to cite even a friend you do not blush to call God to witness, God the Father and Ruler of the world? Do you do so with the knowledge that He sees and hears all things or in ignorance of this? 91. If in ignorance, you are an atheist, and atheism is the source of all iniquities, and in addition to your atheism you cut the ground from under the oath, since in swearing by God you attribute a care for 87. monitor Conscience, the cause of the mind’s sufferings (cf. 86). Philo’s conception of conscience as an internal monitor (elenchos) combines Greek and Jewish ideas. It is like the “daemon” of Platonic tradition, the God-given inner voice that holds us back from wrongdoing and urges us to do good (e.g., Plato, Apol. 40a). Philo’s elenchos figure also reflects the Jewish tradition of the LXX where the elenchos (Heb. tokhahat) is the voice of divine wisdom, bringing discipline and education (e.g., Prov. 6:23). 88–91. Philo takes on the voice of conscience, cross-examining the perjurer. The conversational style of argument is typical of the diatribe genre. 89. supposed comradeship Recalls Plato’s statement that “the good man is a friend to the good man only” (Lysis 214c–d). Elsewhere, Philo attributes this idea to Moses (Spec. Laws 3.155 on Deut. 24:16). 91. If in ignorance, you are an atheist In antiquity, the charge of atheism (Gk. atheotēs) was applied disapprovingly to those considered to hold wrong beliefs about the gods. For Philo, atheism is essentially the failure to recognize God, whether by denying God’s existence or God’s providence, or by holding false beliefs. cut the ground from under the oath Implies that atheist perjurers deliberately deceive when they swear by a power that, in their view, will not punish any failure to uphold the oath (cf. Wis.14:28– 31). The teaching that the gods have no providential concern for the created world was especially associated with Epicurean philosophy, and strongly opposed by the Stoics. For Philo, the reality of divine providence is one of Moses’s fundamental teachings (e.g., Creation 171). On the Decalogue

1013

human affairs to one who in your view has no regard for them. But if you are convinced of His providence as a certainty, there is no further height of impiety which remains for you to reach when you say to God, if not with your mouth and tongue, at any rate with your conscience, “Witness to a falsehood for me, share my evildoing and my knavery. The one hope I have of maintaining my good name with men is that Thou shouldest disguise the truth. Be wicked for the sake of another, the superior for the sake of the inferior, the Divine, the best of all, for a man, and a bad man to boot.” 92. There are some who without even any gain in prospect have an evil habit of swearing incessantly and thoughtlessly about ordinary matters where there is nothing at all in dispute, filling up the gaps in their talk with oaths, forgetting that it were better to submit to have their words cut short or rather to be silenced altogether, for from much swearing springs false swearing and impiety. 93. Therefore one who is about to take an oath should have made a careful and most punctilious examination, first of the matter in question, whether it is of sufficient importance, whether it has actually happened, and whether he has a sound apprehension of the facts; secondly, of himself, whether his soul is pure from lawlessness, his body from pollution, his tongue from evil-speaking, for it would be sacrilege to employ the mouth by which one pronounces the holiest of names to utter any words of shame. 94. And let him seek for a suitable time and place. For I know full well that there are persons who, in profane and impure places where it would not be fitting to mention either a father or mother or even any good-living elder outside his family, swear at length and make whole speeches consisting of a string of oaths and thus, by their misuse of the many forms of the divine name in places where they ought not to do so, show their impiety. 95. Anyone who treats what I have said with contempt may rest assured, first, that he is polluted and unclean, secondly, that the heaviest punishments are waiting to fall upon him. For justice, who surno further height of impiety Emphasizes the key idea announced in 86, i.e., to call God as a witness to a lie “is the height of profanity.” “Witness to a falsehood for me” Cf. Spec. Laws 2.11. 92. swearing incessantly and thoughtlessly Cf. B. Ber. 33a: “Whoever says a blessing which is not necessary transgresses the command of ‘thou shalt not take [God’s name in vain]’” (cf. B. Tem. 3b). from much swearing springs false swearing and impiety Cf. Spec. Laws 2.6; Sir. 23:11. 93. pure Literally, “if he is pure” (kathareuei), recalling Exod. 20:7 LXX; Deut. 5:11 LXX, “the Lord will not purify [katharisē].” In LXX, katharizō means “to purify,” while in MT, the Heb. n-k-h (Piel), is usually translated “to clear,” “to leave unpunished.” Following LXX, Philo explores what it means to be “pure,” before finally dealing with the fate of those who remain “unclean” (95). the holiest of names The Tetragrammaton. Only the high priest might pronounce this Name, and only on the Day of Atonement. The purity of the oath taker must be like that of the high priest, i.e., the highest possible degree of purity (cf. Moses 2.114).66 94. profane and impure places Implies that oaths require purity of place as well as person. many forms of the divine name For Philo, the Name of God (Gk. theos) contains many names expressing God’s attributes, e.g., as Creator. Elsewhere, he interprets the Third Commandment as forbidding misuse of the names of God’s powers, i.e., “God” (theos) and “Lord” (kurios).67 95. polluted and unclean The perjurer has “polluted the good name which is by nature unpolluted, the name of God.”68 heaviest punishments Scripture leaves punishment to God (Exod. 20:7; Deut. 5:11; cf. Spec. Laws 2.27,

1014 Sarah Judith Pearce

veys human affairs, is inflexible and implacable toward such grave misdeeds, and when she thinks well to refrain from immediate chastisement, be sure that she does but put out her penalties to loan at high interest, only to exact them when the time comes to the common benefit of all. 96. The fourth commandment deals with the sacred seventh day, that it should be observed in a reverent and religious manner. While some states celebrate this day as a feast once a month, reckoning it from the commencement as shown by the moon, the Jewish nation never ceases to do so at continuous intervals with six days between each. 97. There is an account recorded in the story of Creation containing a cogent reason for this: we are told that the world was made in six days and that on the seventh God ceased from his works and began to contemplate what had been so well created, 98. and therefore He bade those who should live as citizens under this world- order follow God in this as in other matters. So He commanded that they should apply themselves to work for six days but rest on the seventh and turn to the study of wisdom, and that while they thus had leisure for the conthe penalty is to remain in “well-nigh hopeless uncleanness,” “ignored” by God). Philo follows Scripture in leaving retribution to God (Exod. 20:7; Deut. 5:11). God’s transcendent goodness implies that “God as he really is” does not punish sinners directly, but delegates this activity to Justice, personifying God’s ruling power at work in the world (cf. 177–78). Philo’s explanation of the delays of Justice affirms God’s providence (cf. Ios 170; On the Delays of the Divine Vengeance 8). 96. The fourth commandment Exod. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15. seventh day Gk. hebdomē (“the seventh”) = Heb. yom hash’vi’i.69 Philo also refers to this day as the hebdomas, the hebdomad or number seven (99, 102, 103, 105; cf. Ant. 3.91). Philo knows the Gk. sabbaton for Heb. Shabbat, “Sabbath” (Exod. 20:8, 10; Deut. 5:12; etc.), but it does not appear in our passage, because Philo wishes to emphasize the meaning of the seventh day of Creation.70 some states In the Greek world the seventh day of each month marked Apollo’s birthday (Works 770; cf. Hist. 6.57, referring to Sparta). For Philo, the laws of Moses make every seventh day of the week a universal festival, commemorating the birthday of the world, a reminder of its divine Creator (Creation 89; Moses 2.209). The human world forgot this in early times; only Moses showed the right way to observe the seventh day (Moses 1.207; 2.263). 97. story of Creation Gen. 1:1–2:4. God . . . began to contemplate what had been so well created Not stated in Scripture. The LXX says only that God “ceased” from work on the seventh day (Gen. 2:2–3). In good Greek fashion, Philo holds that “cessation” from work is not an end in itself but has a positive purpose, defined here as contemplation.71 To contemplate means essentially “to see”; the divine contemplation on the seventh day recalls the repeated statements in Gen. 1 that God “saw” and approved what he had created on the first six days (cf. especially Gen. 1:31). 98. world- order The “constitution” (politeia) of Moses, as set out in the Torah (cf. Ant. 1.10). The translation brings out Philo’s conception of this constitution as a universal body of law, identical with the laws of nature. follow God The task of the philosopher, as defined by Pythagoras and later philosophers. By observing the Sabbath, one imitates God (Exod. 20:11; Gen. 2:2–3; cf. Pesik. Rab. 23.5). Deuteronomy gives a different explanation of the origins of the Sabbath (Deut. 5:14–15). the study of wisdom Gk. philosopheō. The Sabbath is set aside for the practice of philosophy; cf. Creation 128. This means, above all, the study and practice of the Torah.72 In contrast to other phi-

On the Decalogue

1015

templation of the truths of nature they should also consider whether any offense against purity had been committed in the preceding days. And exact from themselves in the council-chamber of the soul, with the laws as their fellow-assessors and fellow-examiners, a strict account of what they had said or done in order to correct what had been neglected and to take precaution against repetition of any sin. 99. But while God once and for all made a final use of six days for the completion of the world and had no further need of time periods, every man being a partaker of mortal nature and needing a vast multitude of things to supply the necessaries of life ought never to the end of his life to slacken in providing what he requires, but should rest on the sacred seventh days. 100. Have we not here a most admirable injunction full of power to urge us to every virtue and piety most of all? “Always follow God,” it says, “find in that single six-day period in which, all-sufficient for His purpose, He created the world, a pattern of the time set apart for thee for activity. Find, too, in the seventh day the pattern of thy duty to study wisdom, that day in which we are told that He surveyed what He had wrought, and so learn to meditate thyself on the lessons of nature and all that in thy own life makes for happiness.” 101. Let us not then neglect this great archetype of the two best lives, the practical and the contemplative, but with that pattern ever before our eyes engrave in our hearts the clear image and stamp of them both, so making mortal nature, as far as may be, like the immortal by saying and doing what we ought. But in what sense the world is said to have been created by God in six days when no time period of any kind was needed by Him for his work has been explained elsewhere in our allegorical expositions. 102. As for the number seven, the precedence awarded to it among all that exists is explained by the students of mathematics, who have investigated it with the utmost care and consideration. It is the virgin among the numbers, the essentially motherless, the closest bound to the initial Unit, the “idea” of losophies, the law of Moses is the true philosophy (Creation 8, etc.); synagogues are “schools of wisdom” where Jews practice their “ancestral philosophy” every Sabbath (Dreams 2.126–27; Moses 2.216, etc.). truths of nature Perhaps the Creation story in Genesis. In any case, Philo means any study of creation that aims at understanding its Creator (cf. Moses 2.216). Philo borrows the language of Stoic philosophy, in which the study of nature (“physics”) is really the study of theology. they should also consider . . . sin Ethical study of the self. council-chamber of the soul Implies the tribunal of conscience (cf. 87; Worse 40, etc.). 99. no further need of time periods Time is characteristic of the created world. As Eternal Creator, God does not need time to create the world (Decalogue 101; Creation 13, 26–8; etc.). But human creatures must use the six-day time periods to provide for their creaturely needs. 100. piety For Philo, the commandments on the first tablet of the Decalogue promote all the virtues, especially piety. happiness In ancient philosophy, happiness (eudaimonia) is the goal of life; for Philo, the goal is to know God. 101. great archetype God. the two best lives See 108–10. elsewhere Creation 13; Alleg. Interp. 1.2–4. 102. virgin . . . motherless Pythagorean traditions apply these names to the number seven. Seven is “virgin” because it generates no other number in the decad; and “motherless” because seven is

1016

Sarah Judith Pearce

the planets, just as the unit is of the sphere of the fixed stars, for from the Unit and Seven springs the incorporeal heaven which is the pattern of the visible. 103. Now the substance from which the heaven has been framed is partly undivided and partly divided. To the undivided belongs the primal, highest and undeviating revolution presided over by the unit; to the divided another revolution, secondary both in value and order, under the governance of the Seven, and this by a Sixfold partition has produced the seven so-called planets, or wanderers. 104. Not that any of the occupants of heaven wander, for sharing as they do in a blessed and divine and happy nature, they are all intrinsically free from any such tendency. In fact they preserve their uniformity unbroken and run their round to and fro for all eternity admitting no swerving or alteration. It is because their course is contrary to that of the undivided and outermost sphere that the planets gained their name which was improperly applied to them by the more thoughtless people, who credited with their own wanderings the heavenly bodies which never leave their posts in the divine camp. 105. For these reasons and many others beside Seven is held in honor. But nothing so much assures its predominance as that through it is best given the revelation of the Father and Maker of all, for in it, as in a mirror, the mind has a vision of God as acting and creating the world and controlling all that is. 106. After dealing with the seventh day, He gives the fifth commandment on the honor due to par-

produced by no other number.73 Seven was identified with Athena, perpetual virgin, born motherless from the head of her father Zeus (cf. Alleg. Interp. 1.15; Moses 2.209–10).74 closest bound Greek sources associate the number seven and the monad (the number one), based on the idea that the seven neither generates nor is generated (cf. Creation 100). For Philo, this means that the number seven is especially associated with God, the one Creator and ruler of all. In our passage, the intimate connection between these numbers is illustrated by the harmony of the spheres (see below). initial Unit Philo assumes that numbers belong to the created world and are copies of archetypes in the intelligible world. He refers here to the original Monad or One, which he, reflecting Greek traditions, often associates with God and the intelligible world (cf. QG 4.110). Pythagoras is said to have taught that “the starting point of all things is the monad or unit” (Diogenes Laertius 8.25). “idea” Or “archetype.” incorporeal heaven In Platonic terms, the original model of the material heaven that is visible to us. Philo adapts Plato’s account of the “world soul” as comprising two revolving spheres: the one, undivided outer circle of the fixed stars; and the inner circle divided into seven concentric spheres, one for each planet (Tim. 36c–d; cf. Cherubim 22). 103. planets, or wanderers Gk. planētēs, from which we get the English “planet,” originally means “wanderer”; the planets came to be so called because they seemed to “wander” among the fixed stars. 104. Not that any . . . wander Recalls Plato, Laws 822a. 106. the fifth commandment. Adapts Exod. 20:12 LXX; Deut. 5:16 LXX. Philo does not refer explicitly to the reward for keeping this commandment (prosperity and long life in “the good land,” Exod. 20:12 LXX; Deut. 5:16 LXX).75 the honor due to parents Recalls Plato, Laws 717b: proper piety begins with the gods, but includes honors (timai) paid to living parents (cf. 118). the honor Gk. hē timē. Adapts Scripture’s direct command: “honor [tima] your father and your

On the Decalogue

1017

ents. This commandment He placed on the borderline between the two sets of five; it is the last of the first set in which the most sacred injunctions are given and it adjoins the second set which contains the duties of man to man. 107. The reason I consider is this: we see that parents by their nature stand on the borderline between the mortal and the immortal side of existence, the mortal because of their kinship with men and other animals through the perishableness of the body; the immortal because the act of generation assimilates them to God, the generator of the All. 108. Now we have known some who associate themselves with one of the two sides and are seen to neglect the other. They have drunk of the unmixed wine of pious aspirations and turning their backs upon all other concerns devoted their personal life wholly to the service of God. 109. Others conceiving the idea that there is no good outside doing justice to men have no heart for anything but companionship with men. In their desire for fellowship they supply the good things of life in equal measure to all for their use, and deem it their duty to alleviate by anything in their power the dreaded hardships. 110. These may be justly called lovers of men, the former sort lovers of God. Both come but halfway in virtue; they only have it whole who win honor in both departments. But all who neither take their mother” (LXX). Philo’s interpretation emphasizes the requirement of honoring parents through action, not just words. The Rabbis make the same point (cf. Mek. R. Ish., Bahodesh 8). parents Scripture speaks of “your father and your mother.” borderline Philo is concerned with the order of the commandments in the Decalogue, cf. Spec. Laws 2.224. On the division of the two tablets, 51. 107. The reason Philo repeats this explanation in other commentaries (Heir 171–72; Spec. Laws 2.225, referring back to 107). I consider Gk. oimai, implies a tentative suggestion. assimilates The act of generating new life makes parents similar to God, a central motif in our passage: parents are “imitators of God” (111); “servants of God for the task of begetting children” (119); they “copy the Uncreated in His work as the framer of life” (120). In Philo’s theory of creation, the transcendent God has no contact with matter, but delegates the job of creating the mortal world to his immortal powers. As Philo explains elsewhere, mortal parents are “the final form which immortal powers take”; God’s powers allow human parents “at the final stage to copy their creative art and to beget” (Heir 172). This implies that human parents, like the immortal powers, serve God in the task of producing living beings composed of immortal and mortal elements. Their role is to attach the immortal soul to the mortal body; they do not generate this immortal soul, but simply transmit it, just as they themselves received it from God through their parents.76 A key influence behind this conception is Plato’s Timaeus, where the creator God (“Demiurge”) commands the created gods to make mortal creatures, “imitating my power in generating you” (Timaeus 41d). The task of the gods is to “weave together” the mortal and immortal elements to make living beings. What Philo says about parents gives them the same role: they are “instruments of generation” (Heir 171), transmitters of the divine element in the human being. 108–10 For Philo, the contemplative life and the active life are the two main models of “the good life.” Philo sometimes presents the contemplative life as the best (e.g., Migration 47). But he also insists throughout his writings on the necessity of not neglecting either way of life (cf. especially

1018

Sarah Judith Pearce

fit place in dealings with men by sharing the joy of others at the common good and their grief at the reverse, nor cling to piety and holiness, would seem to have been transformed into the nature of wild beasts. In such bestial savagery the first place will be taken by those who disregard parents and are therefore the foes of both sides of the law, the godward and the manward. 111. Let them not then fail to understand that in the two courts, the only courts which nature has, they stand convicted; in the divine court, of impiety because they do not show due respect to those who brought them forth from nonexistence to existence and in this were imitators of God; in the human court, of inhumanity. 112. For to whom else will they show kindness if they despise the closest of their kinsfolk who have bestowed upon them the greatest boons, some of them far exceeding any possibility of repayment? For how could the begotten beget in his turn those whose seed he is, since nature has bestowed on parents in relation to their children an estate of a special kind which cannot be subject to the law of “exchange”? And therefore the greatest indignation is justified if children, because they are unable to make a complete return, refuse to make even the slightest. 113. Properly, I should say to them, “beasts ought to become tame through association with men.” Indeed I have often known lions and bears and panthers become tame, not only with those who feed them, in gratitude for receiving what they require, but also with everybody else, presumably because of the likeness to those who give them food. That is what should happen, for it is always good for the inferior to follow the superior in hope of improvement. 114. But as it is I shall be forced to say the opposite of this, “You men will do well to take some beasts for your models.” They have been trained to know how to return benefit for benefit. Watchdogs guard and die for their masters when some danger suddenly overtakes them. Sheepdogs, they say, fight for their charges and hold their ground till they conquer or die, in order to keep the herdsman unscathed. 115. Is it not, then, a very scandal of scandals that in returning kindnesses a man should be worsted Names 39–45). Philo is particularly critical of contemplatives who have not proved themselves by first living a life of virtue in the practical sphere (e.g., Flight 33–38). The active life is essential training for the contemplative life—for Philo, this principle is illustrated by the examples of Abraham, Jacob, and the Levites, as well as the contemplative Jewish community of the Therapeutae who dedicate themselves to contemplation only after a lifetime of active service. Above all, dedication to the contemplative and active lives is grounded in Jewish tradition, following every six days of activity with a seventh day for contemplation (Spec. Laws 2.64). 112. far exceeding any possibility of repayment Philo often repeats this idea, which is rooted in Greek and Jewish traditions (Nicomachean Ethics 8.16; Sir. 7:28). 113. “beasts ought to become tame through association with men” Assumes that wild creatures are tamed through contact with domestic creatures (QG 2.27). Since human beings are the most civilized of all creatures (115), it follows that wild animals should become tame through contact with humans. to follow the superior in hope of improvement Recalls various statements in Plato on how to progress in wisdom (e.g., Laws 732b). For Philo, Moses teaches the principle of self-improvement through our imitating those better than us (cf. Dreams 1.178).

On the Decalogue

1019

by a dog, the most civilized of living creatures by the most audacious of brutes? But if we cannot learn from the land animals, let us turn for a lesson in right conduct to the winged tribe that ranges the air. 116. Among the storks the old birds stay in the nests when they are unable to fly, while their children fly, I might almost say, over sea and land, gathering from every quarter provision for the needs of their parents; 117. and so while they in the inactivity justified by their age continue to enjoy all abundance of luxury, the younger birds making light of the hardships sustained in their quest for food, moved by piety and the expectation that the same treatment will be meted out to them by their offspring, repay the debt which they may not refuse—a debt both incurred and discharged at the proper time—namely that in which one or other of the parties is unable to maintain itself, the children in the first stage of their existence, the parents at the end of their lives. And thus without any teacher but their natural instinct they gladly give to age the nurture which fostered their youth. 118. With this example before them may not human beings, who take no thought for their parents, deservedly hide their faces for shame and revile themselves for their neglect of those whose welfare should necessarily have been their sole or their primary care, and that not so much as givers as repayers of a due? For children have nothing of their own which does not come from their parents, either bestowed from their own resources or acquired by means which originate from them. 119. Piety and religion are the queens among the virtues. Do they dwell within the confines of souls such as these? No, they have driven them from the realm and sent them into banishment. For parents are the servants of God for the task of begetting children, and he who dishonors the servant dishonors also the Lord. 120. Some bolder spirits, glorifying the name of parenthood, say that a father and a mother are in 115. the most civilized Because human beings have been given reason that allows them to control their passions (cf. Eternity 68). In ancient philosophy, there was much debate over whether nonhuman animals have reason. Philo sides with Aristotle and the Stoics in defining animals as “irrational” and, based on Gen. 1:26–28, subordinate to humans. 116. storks In Greek culture, storks symbolized the mutual love of children and parents.77 Following the same line of thought, the Rabbis explained that the Hebrew name for stork is hasidah, “pious one,” because this bird practices “acts of loving-kindness” among its companions (Midr. Teh. on Ps. 104:14; B. Hul. 63a). Philo also speaks of storks as “moved by piety” (117). 118. children have nothing of their own which does not come from their parents Recalls Plato, Laws 717b–c: a child “should acknowledge that all that it owns and has belongs to those who begot and reared it” and should serve its parents in every way possible. 119. he who dishonors the servant dishonors also the Lord Other interpreters also associate the command to honor parents with the duty to honor God: “Our Rabbis taught: It is said, ‘Honor thy father and thy mother’; and it is also said, ‘Honor the Lord with thy substance’ [Prov. 3:9]: thus Scripture assimilates the honor due to parents to that of the Omnipresent.”78 For Philo, impiety works both ways: “Refusal to reverence God implies refusal to honor parents and country and benefactors” (Moses 2.198). On the foremost place of the fifth commandment among Rabbinic interpreters: M. Pe’ah 1.1; Y. Pe’ah 1:5, 15d. 120. Some bolder spirits Philo is one of them, given what he says in Spec. Laws 2.225: “Parents, in my opinion, are to their children what God is to the world, since just as He achieved existence

1020

Sarah Judith Pearce

fact gods revealed to sight who copy the Uncreated in His work as the Framer of life. He, they say, is the God or Maker of the world, they of those only whom they have begotten, and how can reverence be rendered to the invisible God by those who show irreverence to the gods who are near at hand and seen by the eye? 121. With these wise words on honoring parents He closes the one set of five which is more concerned with the divine. In committing to writing the second set which contains the actions prohibited by our duty to fellow men, He begins with adultery, holding this to be the greatest of crimes. 122. For in the first place it has its source in the love of pleasure which enervates the bodies of those who entertain it, relaxes the sinews of the soul and wastes away the means of subsistence, consuming like an unquenching fire all that it touches and leaving nothing wholesome in human life. 123. Secondly, it persuades the adulterer not merely to do the wrong but to teach another to share the wrong by setting up a partnership in a situation where no true partnership is possible. For when frenzy has got the mastery, the appetites cannot possibly gain their end through one agent only, but there must necessarily be two acting in common, one taking the position of the teacher, the other of the pupil, whose aim is to put on a firm footing the vilest of sins, licentiousness and lewdness. 124. We cannot even say that it is only the body of the adulteress which is corrupted, but the real truth is that her soul rather than her body is habituated to estrangement from her husband, taught as it is to feel complete aversion and hatred for him.

for the nonexistent, so they in imitation of His power, as far as they are capable, immortalize the race.” For Philo, boldness is a very positive quality, associated with Moses and Plato because of their ability to understand the deeper levels of reality. the gods who are near at hand and seen by the eye Parents. Plato’s Laws contrast honors given to parents with the worship of lifeless statues of the gods: “in the eyes of the gods we can possess no image more worthy of honor” than that of our parents (930e–931e). Later philosophers take this idea much further, e.g., Hierocles the Stoic speaks of parents as “images of gods that are supreme likenesses . . . domestic gods, dwelling with us” (in Anthology 4.79.53).79 121. He begins with adultery Gk. moicheia, adultery. Adapts Exod. 20:13 LXX; Deut. 5:17 LXX, “You shall not commit adultery” (ou moicheuseis). Philo follows the order of the LXX in which adultery follows the commandment to honor parents (cf. 51; in the MT the Sixth Commandment is “You shall not murder”). holding this to be the greatest of crimes Philo explains why the prohibition of adultery is first on the second tablet of the commandments (cf. 131). Retelling the story of Potiphar’s wife and her attempt to seduce Joseph (Gen. 39), Philo has Joseph declare that adultery is “the greatest of crimes” (Ios 44). 122. love of pleasure The root of all evils (Posterity 180, cf. Sacrifices 32). Elsewhere, Philo explains that adultery is first on the second tablet “because pleasure is a mighty force felt throughout the whole inhabited world, no part of which has escaped its domination” (Spec. Laws 3.8). 123. there must necessarily be two acting in common Philo explains how adultery inevitably doubles wrongdoing. Following Scripture (e.g., Lev. 20:10), Philo assumes that adultery is sexual intercourse between a married woman and a man who is not her husband. 124. the real truth The adulteress as the student corrupted by her teacher; what is really at issue is the ruin of her soul as she learns to hate her husband. Elsewhere, Philo explains that with adulterers “it is the soul which is incurably diseased” (Spec. Laws 3.11). On the Decalogue

1021

125. And the matter would be less terrible if the hatred were shown openly, since what is conspicuous is more easily guarded against, but in actual fact it easily eludes suspicion and detection, shrouded by artful knavery and sometimes creating by deceptive wiles the opposite impression of affection. 126. Indeed it makes havoc of three families: of that of the husband who suffers from the breach of faith, stripped of the promise of his marriage vows and his hopes of legitimate offspring, and of two others, those of the adulterer and the woman, for the infection of the outrage and dishonor and disgrace of the deepest kind extends to the family of both. 127. And if their connections include a large number of persons through intermarriages and widespread associations, the wrong will travel all round and affect the whole State. 128. Very painful, too, is the uncertain status of the children, for if the wife is not chaste there will be doubt and dispute as to the real paternity of the offspring. Then if the fact is undetected, the fruit of the adultery usurp the position of the legitimate and form an alien and bastard brood and will ultimately succeed to the heritage of their putative father to which they have no right. 129. And the adulterer having in insolent triumph vented his passions and sown the seed of shame, his lust now sated, will leave the scene and go on his way mocking at the ignorance of the victim of his crime, who like a blind man knowing nothing of the covert intrigues of the past will be forced to cherish the children of his deadliest foe as his own flesh and blood. 125. the matter would be less terrible if the hatred were shown openly Philo holds that wrongs by deception are worse than open attacks because it is so difficult to detect and defend against deception (cf. Spec. Laws 4.185, interpreting Lev. 19:16). The theme of a wife’s power to deceive her husband is commonplace in Philo’s world (cf. Embassy 40). it eludes suspicion and deception On this theme, and how God exposes the adulterer’s deception: Pesik. Rab. 24.2. 126. it makes havoc Adultery. Some manuscripts make the verb plural, i.e., “they [the “knaveries” or “wiles”] make havoc.” of three families Philo highlights the power of adultery to destroy whole households as a reason for its prohibition (cf. Spec. Laws 3.11: adulterers must be destroyed “as the common enemies of the human race”). hopes of legitimate offspring Philo holds that the purpose of marriage is to produce legitimate children (Ios 43); one of the basic wrongs of adultery is that it destroys “any honest hopes of begetting a legitimate family” (Spec. Laws 4.203; cf. Sir. 23:23). 127. the whole State Emphasizes the all-embracing evil effects of adultery. Philo’s comments are echoed by Greek thinkers of the same era (e.g., Epictetus 2.4). 128. form an alien and bastard brood Lit. “they (i.e. the children of adultery) corrupt a family that is not their own.” they have no right The argument in 128–29 suggests that illegitimate children do not (when their illegitimacy is known) inherit from their mother’s lawful husband. In contrast, the general view among the Rabbis is that an illegitimate child (included in the phrase “any kind of son”) is reckoned as a member of the family of their mother’s husband (cf. M. Yev. 2.5). The Talmud interprets “any kind of son” as referring to an illegitimate with rights of inheritance (B. Yev. 22b).80

1022

Sarah Judith Pearce

130. On the other hand, if the wrong becomes known, the poor children who have done no wrong will be most unfortunate, unable to be classed with either family, either the husband’s or the adulterer’s. 131. Such being the disasters wrought by illicit intercourse, naturally the abominable and God-detested sin of adultery was placed first in the list of wrongdoing. 132. The second commandment is to do no murder. For nature, who created man the most civilized of animals to be gregarious and sociable, has called him to show fellowship and a spirit of partnership by endowing him with reason, the bond which leads to harmony and reciprocity of feeling. Let him, then, who slays another know full well that he is subverting the laws and statutes of nature so excellently enacted for the well-being of all. 133. Further, let him understand that he is guilty of sacrilege, the robbery from its sanctuary of the most sacred of God’s possessions. For what votive offering is more hallowed or more worthy of reverence than a man? Gold and silver and costly stones and other substances of highest price serve as ornaments to buildings which are as lifeless as the ornaments themselves. 134. But man, the best of living creatures, through that higher part of his being, namely, the soul, is most nearly akin to heaven, the purest thing in all that exists, and, as most admit, also to the Father of 130. most unfortunate With no lawful father, illegitimate children have no family. Philo does not spell out the consequences of this status. Some Hellenistic Jewish authors take a more pessimistic view: that the children of an adulterer will not prosper (Sir. 23:24–25), or will live without honor and without hope of consolation on the Day of Judgment (Wis. 3:17); more positively, according to Rabbi Judah ben Pazzi, “Even illegitimates enter the world to come” (Midr. Kohelet Rab. 4.1). 131. naturally For Philo, the “disasters” caused by adultery provide the reason for its first place in the list of prohibitions. God-detested sin of adultery Cf. Pesik. Rab. 24.2. 132. The second commandment On the second tablet, i.e., the Seventh Commandment, following Deut. 5:18 LXX and the Nash Papyrus (in Exodus MT and Deuteronomy MT, the sixth commandment; in Exodus LXX, the eighth). to do no murder Gk. mē androphonein, “not to kill a man.” Adapts Exod. 20:15 LXX; Deut. 5:18, “You shall not kill” (ou phoneuseis). Philo makes it clearer than LXX or MT (Exod. 20:13; Deut. 5:17) that the prohibition concerns homicide. subverting the laws . . . enacted for the well-being of all Philo presents the killing of fellow human beings as an evil that affects society as a whole. 133. sacrilege Gk. hierosulia, robbing a sacred place. For Philo, the human body is a temple housing the rational soul (cf. Creation 137; Spec. Laws 3.83). Our passage recalls Plato’s Laws (869 b), which compare the killing of parents to temple robbery (hierosulia), the theft of the soul from the temple of the body. A century later, R. Akiba is said to have taught that shedding blood is analogous to damaging the image of God (Midr. Gen. Rab. 34.14) 134. that higher part of his being . . . the soul The intellect or rational soul that, based on Philo’s interpretation of Gen. 1:27, is made in the image of God. as most admit In another passage, Philo makes plain that this is his preferred view: that Moses (in Gen. 1:27; 2:7) presents the rational soul as made in the image of God, “signed and impressed by the seal of God, the stamp of which is the eternal Word” (Planting 18–20).

On the Decalogue

1023

the world, possessing in his mind a closer likeness and copy than anything else on earth of the eternal and blessed Archetype. 135. The third commandment in the second five forbids stealing, for he who gapes after what belongs to others is the common enemy of the State, willing to rob all, but able only to filch from some, because, while his covetousness extends indefinitely, his feebler capacity cannot keep pace with it but restricted to a small compass reaches only to a few. 136. So all thieves who have acquired the strength rob whole cities, careless of punishment because their high distinction seems to set them above the laws. These are oligarchically-minded persons, ambitious for despotism or domination, who perpetrate thefts on a great scale, disguising the real fact of robbery under the grand-sounding names of government and leadership. 137. Let a man, then, learn from his earliest years to filch nothing by stealth that belongs to another, however small it may be, because custom is stronger than nature, and little things if not checked grow and thrive till they attain to great dimensions. 138. Having denounced theft, he next proceeds to forbid false witness, knowing that false witnesses 135. The third commandment On the second tablet, i.e., the Eighth Commandment. This ordering of the prohibition of stealing agrees with Deut. 5:19 LXX; Exod. 20:15 MT; Deut. 5:19 MT (Exod. 20:14 LXX puts the prohibition of stealing between the prohibitions of adultery and killing, i.e., as the Seventh Commandment). forbids stealing Gk. mē kleptein. Adapts Exod. 20:14 LXX; Deut. 5:19 LXX, “You shall not steal” (ou klepseis). the common enemy of the State Philo presents theft as a social evil.81 Interpreting this commandment elsewhere, Philo says that the robber who robs openly and violently “must be written down as a public enemy . . . because he combines shameless effrontery with defiance of the law” (Spec. Laws 4.2). The Rabbis interpret this commandment as applying to kidnaping, based on the view that the Decalogue’s prohibition of theft must be concerned with a type of theft that is punishable by death: this applies only to the theft of persons (B. Sanh. 86a). covetousness In Gk., pleonexia, the desire to have more than necessary; a vice condemned by Greek thinkers as undermining the principles of equality and care for fellow citizens. Elsewhere, Philo emphasizes that covetousness is the vice of bad rulers (e.g., Spec. Laws 4.84–89, 158). 136. So all thieves . . . leadership Recalls the portrait of the tyrant in Plato’s Republic (343a–d): in contrast with the petty thief, the tyrant commits “complete injustice” by subjecting whole cities and is rewarded with great titles for doing so. oligarchically-minded persons People with natures (phuseis) inclined to oligarchy. Oligarchy, “the rule of the few”; defined by Aristotle as government in the interest of the rich (Pol. 3.1279 b 1). Philo rarely refers to oligarchy (155; Good Person 45), but insists that Mosaic laws require rulers to follow God by governing in the interests of their subjects (e.g., Worse 95). 137. custom is stronger than nature Implicit justification for this commandment’s place in the Decalogue: it teaches the custom (ethos) of taking “nothing by stealth” and thus prevents the growth of the oligarchical nature (phusis), which aims at theft on a huge scale. 138. false witness Gk. pseudomarturein, “to be a false witness.” Adapts Exod. 20:16 LXX; Deut. 5:20 LXX, where pseudomarturein represents Heb. anah, “to answer” (i.e., as a false witness; cf. Exod. 20:13 MT; Deut. 5:17 MT).

1024

Sarah Judith Pearce

are guilty under many important heads, all of them of a grave kind. In the first place, they corrupt truth, the august, the treasure as sacred as anything that we possess in life, which like the sun pours light upon facts and events and allows none of them to be kept in the shade. 139. Secondly, apart from the falsehood, they veil the facts as it were in night and profound darkness, take part with the offenders and against those who are wronged, by affirming that they have sure knowledge and thorough apprehension of things which they have neither seen nor heard. 140. And indeed they commit a third transgression even more heinous than the first two. For when there is a lack of proofs, either verbal or written, disputants have resort to witnesses whose words are taken by the jurymen as standards in determining the verdicts they are about to give, since they are obliged to fall back on these alone if there is no other means of testing the truth. The result is that those against whom the testimony is given suffer injustice when they might have won their case, and the judges who listen to the testimony record unjust and lawless instead of just and lawful votes. 141. In fact, the knavery of the action amounts to impiety, for it is the rule that jurymen must be put on their oaths and indeed oaths of the most terrible character which are broken not so much by the victims as by the perpetrators of the deception, since the former do not err intentionally, while the latter with full knowledge set the oaths at nought. They deliberately sin themselves and persuade those who have control of the voting to share their sin and, though they know not what they do, punish persons who deserve no chastisement. It was for these reasons, I believe, that He forbade false witness. guilty under many important heads The idea is that the false witness is guilty of many serious offenses (172; Spec. Laws 4.41–72). Here Philo emphasizes three transgressions. In the first place, they corrupt truth, the treasure as sacred as anything that we possess in life Recalls Plato’s Laws (730 c): “of all the goods, for gods and men alike, truth stands first . . . .[The true man] is trustworthy; but untrustworthy is the man who loves the voluntary lie.” Interpreting the “special laws” of the Ninth Commandment, Philo emphasizes that the false witness deceives the judge by assuming “the mask of good faith and truth” (Spec. Laws 4.53). 140. a third transgression even more heinous than the first two Because false testimony extends wrongdoing to the judges who wrongly convict the innocent (cf. Spec. Laws 4.43). when there is a lack of proofs, either verbal or written The speeches and documents of the litigants.82 disputants have resort to witnesses Implies that witnesses were used only if there was no better means of proof. The distinction between reliance on documentary evidence and on the less reliable testimony of witnesses is characteristic of Greek procedure and attitudes (cf. Rhet. 1.15). Other early Jewish traditions do not present witnesses as a second-class form of testimony, but they do express widespread concern about ensuring the reliability of witnesses (e.g., Ant. 4.219; M. Avot 1.9). 141. jurymen must be put on their oaths Neither Scripture nor the Rabbis refer to an oath taken by judges before judging a case. Philo may know of such oaths from practice, or from Plato’s Laws (856 a), which presents the judge as “swearing by the altar to pronounce true and just judgment to the best of his power.” victims The judges who are deceived. set the oaths at nought Literally, “[the false witnesses] scheme deliberately,” in contrast with the judges who unintentionally violate their oaths.

On the Decalogue

1025

142. The last commandment is against covetousness or desire which he knew to be a subversive and insidious enemy. For all the passions of the soul which stir and shake it out of its proper nature and do not let it continue in sound health are hard to deal with, but desire is hardest of all. And therefore while each of the others seems to be involuntary, an extraneous visitation, an assault from outside, desire alone originates with ourselves and is voluntary. 143. What is it that I mean? The presentation to the mind of something which is actually with us and considered to be good, arouses and awakes the soul when at rest and like a light flashing upon the eyes raises it to a state of great elation. This sensation of the soul is called pleasure. 142. The last commandment Exod. 20:17 LXX (20:17 MT); Deut. 5:21 LXX (5:20 MT). covetousness or desire In contrast to the translation, Philo uses one word, epithumein, “to covet,” “desire.”83 Philo takes this word from Exod. 20:17 LXX; Deut. 5:21 LXX, “You shall not desire [ouk epithumēseis] your neighbor’s wife; you shall not desire [ouk epithumēseis] your neighbor’s house.” In comparison to the traditional Hebrew text, LXX uses epithumein to represent two different Heb. verbs: “You shall not covet” (lo tachmod) (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:20) and “You shall not crave” (lo tit’aveh) (Deut. 5:18). This heightens the importance of epithumein for readers of LXX like Philo. In contrast to the biblical prohibitions, Philo does not address the objects of desire (your neighbor’s wife, etc.), but the emotion of desire (epithumia) itself. An early Rabbinic interpretation also explains at least the first prohibition of the Tenth Commandment as a prohibition of the emotion of desire: “You shall not crave” (Deut. 5:18) prohibits the desire for what belongs to another, while the prohibition “You shall not covet” forbids both the desire and the action taken to obtain what is desired (Mek. d’Rashbi on Exod. 20:17 [14]).84 all the passions of the soul which stir and shake it out of its proper nature Echoes the Stoics, who defined passion or emotion as “an unnatural movement of the soul” (Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta 3.389, etc.). Stoics organized the passions into four main classes—grief, fear, desire, and pleasure (Diogenes Laertius 7.110). Philo’s comments on the passions in 142–46 are close in substance and language to the teaching of the Stoics. hard . . . hardest Introducing this commandment in On the Special Laws, Philo says: “Every passion is blameworthy. . . . But none of the passions is so troublesome as covetousness or desire of what we have not, things which seem good, though they are not truly good. Such desire breeds fierce and endless yearnings; it urges and drives the soul ever so far into the boundless distance while the object of the chase often flies insolently before it, with its face not its back to the pursuer” (Spec. Laws 4.79–80). desire alone originates with ourselves and is voluntary Philo seeks to explain why, of the four passions, desire is the only one prohibited in the Decalogue. To answer this problem, Philo begins by arguing that pleasure, grief, and fear all originate with impressions of external things, and that these passions attack the soul, against its will, creating a sense that something good or bad is actually present (or about to be) (143–45). Desire comes from bad judgment, misled by false impressions of the external objects. 143. elation For the Stoics, pleasure is an “irrational elation,” responding to what seems desirable (Diogenes Laertius 7.114).

1026 Sarah Judith Pearce

144. And when evil, the opposite of good, forces its way in and deals a home thrust to the soul, it at once fills it all against its will with depression and dejection. This sensation is called grief, or pain. 145. When the evil thing is not yet lodged inside nor pressing hard upon us but is on the point of arriving and is making its preparation, it sends in its van trepidation and distress, messengers of evil presage, to sound the alarm. This sensation is called fear. 146. But when a person conceives an idea of something good which is not present and is eager to get it, and propels his soul to the greatest distance and strains it to the greatest possible extent in his avidity to touch the desired object, he is, as it were, stretched upon a wheel, all anxiety to grasp the object but unable to reach so far and in the same plight as persons pursuing with invincible zeal, though with inferior speed, others who retreat before them. 147. We also find a similar phenomenon in the senses. The eyes are often eager to obtain apprehension of some very far off object. They strain themselves and carry on bravely and indeed beyond their strength, then hit upon a void and there slip, failing to get an accurate knowledge of the object in question, and furthermore they lose strength and their power of sight is dimmed by the intensity and violence of their steady gazing. 148. And again when an indistinct noise is carried from a long distance the ears are roused and pressed forward at high speed and are eager to go nearer if they could, in their longing to have the sound made clear to the hearing. 149. The noise however, whose impact evidently continues to be dull, does not show any increase of clearness which might make it knowable, and so a still greater intensity is given to the ceaseless and indescribable longing for apprehension. For desire entails the punishment of Tantalus; as he missed everything that he wished for just when he was about to touch it, so the person who is mastered by desire, ever thirsting for what is absent remains unsatisfied, fumbling around his baffled appetite. 144. depression and dejection Stoics used similar expressions for defining grief (Diogenes Laertius 7.111–12). forces its way in Gk. eisbiasamenon; a correction for the original ekbiasamenon, “pressing upon.” Both readings make sense in the context. 145. trepidation and distress For the Stoics, fear is “an expectation of evil” (Diogenes Laertius 7.112). 146. an idea of something good which is not present Unlike the other passions, desire begins with a person conceiving an idea of something that is not present; this forces the soul to chase what it can never reach (cf. Spec. Laws 4.80–81). The idea that desire comes from within is consistent with Plato’s image of the human soul as imprisoned “by the prisoner’s own active desire, which makes him first accessory to his own confinement” (Phaedr. 82 e). For Philo, desire is characteristic of the fool, and the opposite of imitating God, who “has no wants” (Virtues 9). stretched upon a wheel A form of torture (cf. Embassy 206). Philo compares desire’s effect on the soul to the body’s sufferings on the torturer’s wheel (cf. Spec. Laws 4.82). 149. Tantalus Legendary king and son of Zeus; sentenced to eternal punishment by the gods for abusing their hospitality (cf. Od. 11.582–92). For Philo, Tantalus is always a figure for the soul tortured by desire: forced to stand in water that drains away when he is thirsty and to gaze at fruit that vanishes when he wants to eat it (cf. Heir 269; Spec. Laws 4.81).

On the Decalogue

1027

150. And just as diseases of the creeping type, if not arrested in time by the knife or cautery, course round all that unites to make the body and leave no part uninjured, so unless philosophical reasoning, like a good physician, checks the stream of desire, all life’s affairs will be necessarily distorted from what nature prescribes. For there is nothing so secreted that it escapes from passion, which when once it finds itself in security and freedom spreads like a flame and works universal destruction. 151. It may perhaps be foolish to dilate at this length on facts so obvious, for what man or city does not know that they provide clear proof of their truth, not only every day but almost every hour? Consider the passion whether for money or a woman or glory or anything else that produces pleasure: are the evils which it causes small or casual? 152. Is not the cause why kinsmen become estranged and change their natural goodwill to deadly hatred, why great and populous countries are desolated by internal factions, and land and sea are filled with ever-fresh calamities wrought by battles on sea and campaigns on land? 153. For all the wars of Greeks and barbarians between themselves or against each other, so familiar to the tragic stage, are sprung from one source, desire, the desire for money or glory or pleasure. These it is that bring disaster to the human race. (Note: 154–74 not included in this commentary.) 175. This is all that need be said regarding the second five to complete our account of the ten oracles which God gave forth Himself as well befitted His holiness. For it was in accordance with His nature that the pronouncements in which the special laws were summed up should be given by Him in his own person, but the particular laws by the mouth of the most perfect of the prophets whom He selected for his merits and having filled him with the divine spirit, chose him to be the interpreter of His sacred utterances. 176. Next let us pass on to give the reason why He expressed the ten words or laws in the form of simple commands or prohibitions without laying down any penalty, as is the way of legislators, against 150. unless philosophical reasoning . . . checks the stream of desire The notion that the passions, diseases of the soul, can be controlled by philosophical reasoning is typical of Socratic teaching and commonplace for Philo (e.g., QG 4.72) and his contemporaries, Jewish (e.g., 4 Macc.) and non-Jewish (e.g., Tusc. 4.11.25–26). Philo equates the practice of “healing” the passions of the soul with the observance of Mosaic law (e.g., Contempl. Life 2). all life’s affairs . . . universal destruction Highlights the universal danger that desire threatens to evoke (cf. 151). 152–53. Is it not the cause . . . tragic stage? Desire is seen as the source of wars throughout the world.85 A famous example is the Trojan War, fought over Helen of Troy, a popular subject for Greek tragedies performed in Philo’s Alexandria. 153. one source, desire, the desire for money or glory or pleasure Objects of desire that seem to be things that are good but are not really good. In his discussion of this commandment in On the Special Laws, Philo suggests that desire is the source of almost everything forbidden in the commandments (Spec. Laws 4.84–92; cf. Virtues 100). Rabbinic interpretations of this commandment also link its transgression to transgression of the other commandments (Mek. d’Rashbi on Exod. 20:17; Pesik. Rab. 21.17). 176. without laying down any penalty Ignores the threat of “visiting the guilt of parents upon the children” for transgression of the second commandment (Exod. 20:5; Deut. 5:9).

1028

Sarah Judith Pearce

future transgressors. He was God, and it follows at once that as Lord He was good, the cause of good only and of nothing ill. 177. So then He judged that it was most in accordance with His being to issue His saving commandments free from any admixture of punishment, that men might choose the best, not involuntarily, but of deliberate purpose, not taking senseless fear but the good sense of reason for their counsellor. He therefore thought right not to couple punishment with His utterances, though He did not thereby grant immunity to evil-doers, but knew that justice His assessor, the surveyor of human affairs, in virtue of her inborn hatred of evil, will not rest, but take upon herself as her congenital task the punishment of sinners. 178. For it befits the servants and lieutenants of God, that like generals in wartime they should bring vengeance to bear upon deserters who leave the ranks of justice. But it befits the Great King that the general safety of the universe should be ascribed to Him, that He should be the guardian of peace and supply richly and abundantly the good things of peace, all of them to all persons in every place and at every time. For indeed God is the Prince of Peace while His subalterns are the leaders in war.

He was good God’s goodness is fundamental in Scripture (e.g., Job 34:10–15). Philo is also deeply influenced by Plato’s doctrine that because God is only good, it is wrong to speak of God as causing evil (e.g., Resp. 379a–380d). Accordingly, Philo normally avoids referring to God as directly punishing, preferring instead to describe God as delegating punishment to his ruling power, often identified, as here, with the figure of Justice. Philo’s doctrine of divine punishment has close parallels in Stoic teaching (cf. Stoicoruim Veterum Fragmenta 2.1176). 177. choose the best Cf. Deut. 30:15–20. senseless fear . . . counsellor Recalls Plato, Tim. 69d, referring to “rashness and fear, foolish counselors both.” In Stoic ethics, fear is one of the four passions that the wise must struggle against. For Philo, freedom from the passions is the ideal taught by Moses, leading to knowledge of God through reason alone. Though the Bible demands both fear and love of God (Deut. 10:12–13), Philo holds that love of God is a higher form of piety than fear of God, though fear can also lead to love (cf. Unchangeable 64, etc.; B. Sot. 31a: “greater is he who does the commandments out of love than he who does them out of fear”). justice . . . hatred of evil Philo often represents divine justice in these terms.86 In the Greek world, this description would recall Dikē, the personification of Justice and “assessor” of Zeus (cf. Works 259). Philo applies the same terms to the figure of divine Justice, representing the ruling power of God.87 178. Prince Gk. prutanis, “Lord,” “Ruler”; in Greek tradition, applied to Zeus (e.g., Pyth. 6.21).

Notes 1. Exod. 20:3–6; Deut. 5:7–10; cf. T. Neof., Exod. 20: 20–3; Y. Ber. 18–19. 2. Note, however, that the Jewish Study Bible follows Philo’s system for dividing the first two commandments: Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler, eds., The Jewish Study Bible (featuring the Jewish Publication Society Tanakh Translation) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985), 148 (on Exodus 20). For an excellent account of the variety of approaches to the Decalogue in ancient Judaism, see James L. Kugel, Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as It Was at the Start of the Common Era (Cambridge ma: Harvard University Press, 1998), 634–710. 3. Cf. also 4QDeutn; 4QphylB and G; XQphyl13; Josephus, Ant. 3:92; Samaritan Pentateuch.

On the Decalogue

1029

4. A Hebrew manuscript from Egypt, c. 150 bce, which blends elements from Exod. 20 and Deut. 5 as well as other traditions. 5. Cf. also the variety reflected in New Testament traditions: e.g., adultery, murder, theft, covetousness (Rom. 13:9); adultery, murder, theft, false witness, honoring parents (Luke 18:19–20); murder, adultery, theft, false witness, honoring parents (Matt. 19:18–19); murder, adultery, theft, false witness, fraud, honoring parents (Mark 10:19). 6. Planting 113; Spec. Laws 1.200; QG 3.42; in talmudic tradition, cf. B. Sanh. 34a. 7. Confusion 144, 146; Spec. Laws 1.326, 332, etc. 8. Isa. 57; Jer. 3; Ezek. 16:30; Hosea 4. 9. Exod. 12:38; cf. Migration 152–53; Is Os. 59. 10. Harry Wolfson, Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, vol. 2, rev. 5th printing (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1982), 381. Cf. Mek. R. Ish.: the fact that the Torah was given in the desert, a land belonging to no one, shows that it is free to all peoples (Bahodesh 5). 11. Described in Exod. 15:22–27; 16:13–16; 17:1–8; Num. 11:31; Deut. 8:15–18; 32:10; cf. Isa. 48:21; Wis.11:16. 12. Cf. Plato, Crito 48b; Aristotle, Eth. eud. 1214a15, etc. 13. Cf. Opif. 72, 157; Is. Os. 7; etc. 14. Cf. Exod. 20:1; Deut. 5:4, 19; similarly, Ant. 3.75, 89–90; Mek. R. Ish., Bahodesh 4. 15. J. Shek. 49d; Tg. Ps.-J. on Exod. 24:12. 16. Yehoshua Amir, “The Decalogue According to Philo,” in The Ten Commandments in History and Tradition, ed. Ben-Zion Segal, trans. by Gershon Levi ( Jerusalem: Magnes, 1990), 126–28; David Winston, “Philo and Rabbinic Literature,” in The Cambridge Companion to Philo, ed. Adam Kamesar (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 247–48. 17. Cf. Creation 47; Congr. 88–120; Abraham 244; Moses 2.84; QG 4.110. 18. Creation 13; Spec. Laws 2.58; QG 3.38, 49. 19. Deut. 4:13 LXX gives an alternative translation of the same Heb. expression: deka rēmata, “10 words.” 20. Exod. 19:18; Deut. 4:12, 15, 33, 36; 5:4, 22–26. 21. Tg. Neof. Exod. 20:2; for the opposite view, Pesik. Rab Kah. 12. 22. See further James L. Kugel, Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as It Was at the Start of the Common Era (Cambridge ma: Harvard University Press, 1998), 680–81. 23. Valentin Nikiprowetzky, De Decalogo (Paris: Cerf, 1965), 60. 24. Cf. Posterity 115; Moses 1.30–32, on the Pharaohs’ failure to learn this in the days of Moses. 25. cf. Ps. 104:4; 148:7–8; cf. L.A.B. 23.-10. 26. See also Deut. 4:12, 15, 33, 36; 5:22–23; 9:10; 10:4; cf. 33:2. 27. Cf. Mek. R. Ish., Bahodesh 9; Tg. Neof. on Deut. 5:6. 28. Gen. 1:3, etc.; cf. Creation. 13; Aeschylus, Suppliants 598. 29. Ps. 18(19):9(8); 118(119):130 LXX. 30. The same order appears in the Hebrew Nash Papyrus; L.A.B. 11.10–13 (omitting theft); Luke 18:20; Rom., 13:9; James 2:11 (adultery, murder). 31. Exod. 20:13–15; Deut. 5:17–19; cf. Ant. 3.91. 32. Rabbinic Judaism follows this ordering of the first two commandments. 33. See further Louis H. Feldman, Flavius Josephus, Judean Antiquities 1–4 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 253. 34. Gregory E. Sterling, “The ‘Queen of the Virtues’: Piety in Philo of Alexandria,” The Studia Philonica Annual 18 (2006): 103–23. 35. Cf. 54; Diogenes Laertius 7.147; Cicero, Nat. d. 2.71. 36. Cf. Creation 19; in Flaccus 163, refers to Alexandria. 37. Cf. Contempl. Life 3–4. 38. Moses is named only in Decalogue 1, 18, 45. 39. Exod. 20:3; Deut. 5:7; cf. Spec. Laws 1.19; 2.1. 40. Flight 148; Dreams 2.275–77. 41. David Winston, Logos and Mystical Theology in Philo of Alexandria (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1985), 33–34. 42. Cf. 10–12; Spec. Laws 1.222; QG 2.60, etc. 43. Heir 169; Congr. 133; Decalogue 155; Spec. Laws 1.12–20; 2.1.

1030

Sarah Judith Pearce

44. 45. 46. 47.

48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65.

66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71.

72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77.

78. 79.

Exod. 20:4–5; Deut. 5:8–9; cf. Ant. 3.91. Spec. Laws 1.13–20; Contempl. Life 3–5; Wis. 13:2–10. William Horbury, Herodian Judaism and New Testament Study (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 22. Deut. 4.19 is one of the verses to which, according to Rabbinic traditions, the translators of the Greek Torah made an addition, according to which the heavenly bodies were allotted by God ‘to give light to’ all the peoples. This ‘addition’, which is not in the earliest manuscripts of Greek Deuteronomy, underlines the prohibition of astral cult: the God-given purpose of the heavenly bodies is to shine (and not to be worshiped), cf. Mek. R. Ish. Pischa 14.73–74; B. Meg. 9b. Spec. Laws 3.185–91; cf. Sir. 43; Wis. 13:1–5. Deut. 29:16; Dan. 5:4; cf. Wis. 13:10; Letter of Jeremiah. Plato, Sophist 254a; Aristotle, On the Universe 391a15, etc. Homer, Iliad 17.32; Hesiod, Works and Days 218; etc. Nikiprowetzky, De Decalogo, 78. Spec. Laws 1.80; cf. Lev. 21:17–21; 22:4. Talmudic tradition also roots the principle of imitating God in Scripture, cf. B. Sot. 14a; and see further Wolfson, Philo 2, 195–96. Isa. 40:19–20; 44:9–20; Jer. 10:2–15; Ps. 115:4–8; 135:15–18; Epistle of Jeremiah; Wis. 13:11–19, etc. Posterity 165; Spec. Laws 2.146; Contempl. Life 8–9; Embassy 139. cf. Herodotus 2.75; Artapanus in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.27.9, 12, etc. Similarly, Heb. la-shav can mean “falsely,” “in vain,” “for nothing.” Jer. 7:9; Hosea 4:2; Sir. 23:9–10; Ant. 3.91; Targum Onkelos; Mek. R. Ish., Bahodesh 7; B. Shab. 120a. Sophocles, Oedipus at Colonus 650; Plutarch, Roman Questions (Quaest. Rom.) (Mor. 275c–d); Epictetus (EnchBib 33.5); etc. Good Person 84; J.W. 2.135; cf. Ant. 15.139, 371. Cf. James 5.12. Alleg. Interp. 3.205; Sacrifices 91; Planting 82; Spec. Laws 2.10. LXX is different. TDNT s.v. “horkos,” 457–58 According to the Neoplatonist philosopher Ammonius (5th–6th century ce), the oath differs from a straightforward statement because it includes the “testimony of God” (On Aristotle’s On Interpretation, p. 4a, 21). Cf. Moses 2.196. On the pronunciation of the Name only in the Temple: cf. Sir. 50.20; M. Sot. 7.6; M. Tam. 7.2; on the Day of Atonement, M. Yoma 6.2. Heir 170; cf. Exod. 20:7 LXX; Deut. 5:11 LXX; “the name of the Lord your God.” Spec. Laws 4.40 on Lev.19:11–12.; cf. Sir. 23:10. Exod. 20:10–11; Deut. 5:14; cf. Gen. 2:2–3; etc. When Philo does mention the Sabbath, he often notes that it is a Hebrew word and explains its meaning; for Philo’s readers, “Sabbath” was a foreign word, e.g., Abraham 28. Cf. Aristotle, Nicomachaean Ethics 1176b–1177a. Philo’s interpretation implies that Gen. 2–3 (the second Creation account) reports what God contemplates on the seventh day, i.e., the work of Creation on days one to six. Moses 2.215–16; Spec. Laws 2.61–64; cf. Ag. Ap. 2.175; Acts 15:21; Y. Shab. 15:3, 15a; Pesik. Rab. 23.9. The Pythagorean Philolaus (ca. 470–390 bce) is said to have called the hebdomad “motherless” ( John Lydus, De Mensibus, 35.2–5) because it uniquely neither generates nor is generated. In Creation 100 Philo incorrectly ascribes these names to other philosophers. Likewise, Josephus does not refer to the rewards for observing this commandment (Ant. 3.92). Nikiprowetzky, De Decalogo, 154. Cf. Aristophanes, Birds 1353–57; Aristotle, History of Animals 9.13, “It is a common story that the old birds are fed by their young.” The rare English word “antipelargy” comes from the Greek antipelargeô, “to return kindness,” lit. “to be a stork [pelargos] in return.” B. Kid. 30b; Pesik. Rab. 23/24.2 (in the name of R. Simeon b. Yochai); cf. Mek. R. Ish., Bahodesh 8; 4Q16 Sapiential Work A frg.2, col.3.15–17. Ilaria Ramelli, translated by David Konstan, Hierocles the Stoic: Elements of Ethics, Fragments and Excerpts (Atlanta: SBL, 2009), 83–87.

On the Decalogue

1031

80. See further, Samuel Belkin, Philo and the Oral Law (Cambridge ma: Harvard University Press, 1940), 234. 81. Bernard S. Jackson, Theft in Early Jewish Law (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972), 182–83. 82. Erwin R. Goodenough, The Jurisprudence of the Jewish Courts in Egypt (New Haven ct: Yale University Press, 1929), 184. 83. Josephus sums up the Tenth Commandment as concerned with “the desire (epithumia) to take nothing that belongs to someone else” (Ant. 3.92). 84. Wolfson, Philo, 226–227. 85. Cf. Spec. 4.85; similarly, Tg. Neof. and Tg. Ps.-J. on Deut. 5.21. 86. Migration 225; Is Os. 48; cf. also Esther 8.12d LXX; 4 Macc. 4:21; Wis. 9:4. 87. Cf. Deut. 32:41; Wis. 11:20; Plato, Leg. 716a.

1032

Sarah Judith Pearce

On the Special Laws 1–4 Naomi G. Cohen In contrast to Philo’s allegorical treatises, where the biblical narrative is used as the building blocks of what are by and large philosophical and/or theosophical allegorical constructions, On the Special Laws employs the biblical laws to serve as scaffolding for the recounting and explanation of central facets of Jewish tradition and practice. On the Special Laws also includes, in the manner of midrash, matters of tangential relation to the text, but of close relevance to the reader. Yet it is not a law book like the Mishnah or Maimonides’s Mishneh Torah; nor is this treatise an ancient equivalent of an academic composition. Here, a highly educated writer addresses a sophisticated Jewish audience. The primary audience must have been Jews who, like Philo himself, were fully acculturated to Hellenistic culture and society, and at the same time loyal to their Jewish roots, for only they would have had the requisite knowledge to understand his writings. Philo constantly stresses his loyalty to both the written law and the traditional customs. The avowed object of On the Special Laws 1–4 is to recount and explain central facets of Jewish Law in relation to the Decalogue. Among the facets selected for commentary here are the significance of the Jewish feasts, the Shema, and tefillin, and the symbolic explanations of Temple sacrifices and high priest vestments. Authorship and History No consensus exists regarding the chronologic order in which Philo composed his works. But it is quite possible that Philo worked on different parts of his work simultaneously and/or made additions to works already completed. For more on Philo, see the essay “The Writings of Philo.” Significance Jewish law is a sweepingly comprehensive set of rules for daily life—covering not only prayer and divine service, but also food, drink, dress, sexual relations between husband and wife, and the rhythms of work and patterns of rest—and does in fact constitute a way of living. First and foremost, On the Special Laws 1–4 presents many of the most pertinent of these “rules” in a manner intended to enhance the meaningfulness of their practice. The Mishnah, Talmud, and Codes are devoted to just these matters, and hence much Philonic scholarship has focused on determining the links between Jewish law as expressed in Philo’s writings and in the later traditional codification.1 Philo and Rabbinic Judaism are at one in their expectation that both the laws and the customs must be observed. However, while the Mishnah and the literature that developed in its wake concentrated on the details of how to perform these laws and customs, the vast

1033

majority of Philo’s writings, including On the Special Laws, belong to the genre of homiletic midrash, whose object is to invest maximum spiritual meaning into Torah. The ancient world had no word for what we call “religion,” so Philo and others used the term “philosophy” to refer to writings on the subject, since the term had already come to be used to indicate knowledge that leads to the good life—that is, a recipe for right living, similar to the purpose of religion. The presentation of Judaism as a philosophy is found also in Philo’s On the Life of Moses (2.216)2 and in Josephus’s Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities (e.g., J.W. 2.119; Ant. 13.171. In Ag. Ap. 2.170, Josephus writes that Judaism subsumes within it the entire complement of the Virtues). Philo is probably the first and only source we have for the arrangement of the commandments under the rubrics of the Decalogue until this approach reappears in the writings of theologian and philosopher Rav Saadia Gaon (882–942), who, like Philo, was conversant with Greek philosophy, albeit in its Arabic formulation. In Philo’s day the Decalogue was not only recited as part of the daily Temple service (M. Tam. 5:1), but also formed an integral part of the morning and evening recitation of the Shema;3 it is in fact found in the tefillin from Qumran.4 In view of this, it is not surprising that Philo chose the Decalogue as an appropriate frame of reference for the discussion of the commandments. However, the Decalogue was later omitted from the daily recitation of the Shema as well as from the tefillin, apparently because of the predominant place it came to have in heretical discourse (B. Ber. 12a), or, in the words of the Sages: “because of the allegations / complaints / criticisms of the sectarians / heretics.”5 This development probably explains the adoption of a very different arrangement in Rabbinic literature, where the commandments are midrashically classified as Taryag mitzvot. Taryag is an acronym for the number 613, which in B. Mak. 23b–24a is described as being composed of 248 positive commands and 365 negative ones, with the positive commands equalling the number of the parts of the body, and the negative commands corresponding to the number of days in the solar year. The shift from the Decalogue’s inclusion in the recitation of the Shema and in the tefillin to its omission and the introduction of the Taryag classification would not necessarily have occurred all at once. But the overwhelming and unquestioned acceptance of the new midrashic classification hints that the Rabbis felt an urgent need for an alternative to the association of the commandments with the Decalogue exclusively. Over the years, Rabbinic authorities such as Maimonides have attempted to identify exactly which positive and negative commandments make up the total of 613, but no consensus has been reached, and today the word Taryag has become a virtual synonym for “all the commandments”—that is, the halakhah. The most significant benchmark of Philo’s writings is his indissoluble intertwining of Jewish and Greek conceptualizations (see, e.g., Spec. Laws 1.13–20). What has earned him lasting fame is his presentation of Judaism as a spiritual path in terms of Hellenistic philosophic thought. The frame of reference and values are Jewish, while the thought patterns are Hellenistic. Devoting himself to reading the Pentateuch (or perhaps more accurately, to reading into the Pentateuch the ideas and values that he deemed most important), he penned a many-

1034 Naomi G. Cohen

faceted library of hermeneutic works whose conceptual frame of reference is philosophic. His historical and allegorical writings have attracted the most attention over the generations, but it is primarily in On the Special Laws that he addresses himself to the actual performance of the commandments.

Guide to Reading On the Special Laws follows immediately upon Philo’s On the Decalogue, which commences with the epiphany at Sinai and proceeds to present and discuss each of the Ten Commandments. In On the Special Laws, Philo discusses the simple meaning of each of the Ten Commandments in more detail, following the order in which they appear in the Septuagint (LXX) rather than in the Masoretic Text (MT) (see comment below on 1.12). Under each rubric, he subsumes other biblical commandments as he deems appropriate, making no attempt to be comprehensive. Philo’s expositions of the biblical text of the commandments provide the framework, but what would have made the work interesting to his readers were, of course, his elaborations. At the very beginning of On the Special Laws, Philo tells the reader that he now intends “to examine the particular ordinances” in some detail. However, instead of continuing directly with the study of the commandments under the discrete headings of the Decalogue, he opens Book 1 with a long disquisition justifying the commandment of circumcision (1–11; see also the comment on 1, I will begin). Book 1 is devoted to the First and Second Commandments: “You shall have no other gods besides Me. You shall not make for yourself a sculptured image” (Exod. 20:3–4; cf. Deut. 5:7–8). Under these Philo includes matters referring to the worship of God—many of which are embroidered with allegorical significance—such as the proof of God’s existence, regulations of worship, the description of the Temple in Jerusalem, the sacrifices, and the vestments of the high priest. Book 2 discusses matters associated with the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Commandments: “You shall not swear falsely by the name of the Lord your God” (Exod. 20:7; Deut. 5:11); “Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy” (Exod. 20:8; Deut. 5:12); and “Honor your father and your mother” (Exod. 20:12; Deut. 5:16). The focus in this volume is Philo’s handling of the Fourth Commandment, where he discusses not only the seventh day, but also, by association, matters that are a function of seven (such as shemitah, the sabbatical year, i.e., the seventh year in which the land is left fallow) and all the festive days of the Jewish calendar.6 Book 3 deals with the Sixth and Seventh Commandments, including miscellaneous matters associated with them, in the order of the Decalogue found in the LXX: adultery and murder, rather than that of the MT: murder and adultery. (The excerpt presented here covers only adultery.) Philo prefaces his discussion by an impassioned lamentation over the tidal wave of political concerns that has engulfed him and made it impossible to devote himself, as formerly, to spiritual pursuits. While it is of course well known that during many of Philo’s mature years the political situation was extremely volatile, at the same time there are degrees of emergency. Hence, on the face of it, the allusion here is to the

On the Special Laws 1–4

1035

monumental crisis of 38–41 ce that Philo so eloquently describes in Against Flaccus and On the Embassy to Gaius.7 Perhaps Philo’s lament appears only in the middle of On the Special Laws because it was then that the crisis came to a head, or because he hoped that by then it would have already passed; indeed, as Colson has noted in a footnote to Spec. Laws 2.262, an alternative translation of the final sentence in Spec. Laws 2 might be: “We will proceed to examine the contents of the second table when opportunity offers”—rather than “in due season.” Anyone who has ever been torn between concerns of the spirit and public obligations will empathize with Philo’s description. Book 4 includes Philo’s discussion of matters associated with the Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Commandments: “You shall not steal” (Exod. 20:13; Deut. 5:17); “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Exod. 20:13; Deut. 5:17); and “You shall not covet” (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). The first excerpt presented in this volume (Spec. Laws 4.58–77) concerns the Ninth Commandment. Philo takes the context of false witness as the point of departure for legal justice in general, since it belongs to the domain of the law courts. Along with several digressions, 58–77 contain the first installment of Philo’s discussion of justice. He returns to the subject in 136, from a very different vantage point. Toward the end of Spec. Laws 4, Philo turns from his discussion of which laws fit under which specific rubric in the Decalogue to “some things, common to all, which fit not with some particular number such as one or two, but with all the Ten Great Words” (4.133). He concludes the book with an encomium on “equality,” whose daughter is “Justice”—meaning, in this context, that each receives what is fitting for him (4.230–38). Much of Philo’s writing appears to our 21st-century eyes as rambling and long-winded verbiage, yet at least two of his works, On the Embassy to Gaius and Against Flaccus, make fascinating reading even in our day. It is our knowledge of the current events described by Philo in them and our empathy for them that make the difference. Readers should keep in mind that Philo wrote in a specific time and place, for a specific audience. Reading him with the eyes of his contemporaries often clarifies Philo’s message and at times even transforms a passage, revealing its vitality and leading to insights that are more likely to be true than conclusions drawn from a surface reading. Suggested Reading Belkin, Samuel. Philo and the Oral Law: The Philonic Interpretation of Biblical Law in Relation to the Palestinian Halakah. Harvard Semitic Series 9. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1940. Borgen, Peder. Philo of Alexandria: An Exegete for His Time. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 86. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Cohen, Naomi G. Philo Judaeus: His Universe of Discourse. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1995. ———. “The Jewish Dimension of Philo’s Judaism: An Elucidation of De Specialibus Legibus IV 132–150.” Journal of Jewish Studies 38 (1987): 165–86. ———. “The Greek Virtues and the Mosaic Laws in Philo: An Elucidation of de Specialibus Legibus IV 133–135.” The Studia Philonica Annual 5 (1993): 9–23. ———. “The Elucidation of Philo’s Spec. Leg. 4:137–8: ‘Stamped Too with Genuine Seals.’” In Classical Studies in Honor of David Sohlberg, edited by Ranon Katzoff with Yaakov Petroff and David Schaps, 153–66. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1996.

1036

Naomi G. Cohen

Runia, David. “How to Read Philo.” Norsk Teologisk Tidsskrift 40 (1986): 185–98. Schenck, Kenneth. A Brief Guide to Philo. Louisville ky: Westminster–John Knox, 2005. Urbach, Ephraïm Elimelech. The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs, translated by Israel Abrahams. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987. Reprint, 2006. Wolfson, Harry Austryn. Philo. 2 vols. (particularly 1:217–26). Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1948.

Translation On the Special Laws 1

On the special laws which fall under the two heads of the ten commandments, one of which is directed against the acknowledgement of other sovereign gods save the one, and the other against giving honors to the works of men’s hands. On the Special Laws 1.1–20

1The Ten Words, as they are called, the main heads under which are summarized the Special Laws, have been explained in detail in the preceding treatise. We have now, as the sequence of our disserta-

Commentary two heads Colson renders this as “the two heads,” but the definite article is misleading and is not found in the Greek. other sovereign gods Better: other gods as sovereign. The change in the word order is essential, for otherwise the chapter heading, even though it is not original, would be very misleading. Colson recognizes this and refers the reader to Spec. Laws 1.13–14, where it is obvious that the gods described there are not sovereign, nor do they have absolute powers. The term “gods” appears in Scripture as a common noun, and unless otherwise indicated, does not signify more than phenomenological existence—that is, that people believed in their existence and worshiped them. Philo also sometimes refers to divinely created “powers,” as well as to the heavenly bodies, as “gods,” even while he stresses that they were created by and are subordinate to God (see his explanation in 13–20; see also comments on Spec. Laws 2.1). He uses the term “Powers” quite often (see comments on Spec. Laws 1.45 and on 46, The Powers). The terms “Powers,” “Potencies,” and “Glory” are virtual synonyms in Philo’s writings.8 1.1. as the sequence of our dissertation requires Mangey and Heinemann read, “in the order indicated in the Scriptures,” but this is not convincing since it is patently not the case. Colson cites

Source of Translation: The translation is that of F. H. Colson in the Loeb Classical Library (PLCL), except where I have specifically noted otherwise (in my commentary), some additions to the translation in brackets, and occasional minor changes such as additional commas, to improve the text’s readability. In On the Special Laws 2 I have sometimes shortened the text with ellipses to preserve its major thread. The notes to the texts in PLCL, as well as in the Loeb edition of Josephus, are quoted from freely. Unless otherwise noted, translations of the Talmud are from the Soncino Press edition (ed. Rabbi Isidore Epstein), and those of the Mishnah are from Herbert Danby’s The Mishnah (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933). Unless otherwise noted, Bible passages are from NJPS.

On the Special Laws 1–4

1037

tion requires, to examine the particular ordinances. I will begin with that which is an object of ridicule among many people. On Circumcision

2Now the practice which is thus ridiculed, namely the circumcision of the genital organs, is very zealously observed by many other nations, particularly by the Egyptians, a race regarded as pre-eminent for its populousness, its antiquity and its attachment to philosophy. 3And therefore it would be well for the detractors to desist from childish mockery and to inquire in a wiser and more serious spirit into the causes to which the persistence of this custom is due, instead of dismissing the matter prematurely and impugning the good sense of great nations. Such persons might naturally reflect that all these thousands in every generation undergo the operation and suffer severe pains in mutilating the bodies of themselves and their nearest and dearest, and that there are many circumstances which urge the retention and performance of a custom introduced by the men of old. The principal reasons are four in number. Drunkenness 1 (I believe he intends Drunkenness 11.1), and Dreams 1.1.1, in support of the understanding that this refers to Philo’s own composition. I will begin Instead of beginning with the First Commandment, as we would have expected, Philo commences with a lengthy apologetic discourse on the commandment of circumcision. Indeed, in Hellenistic cities such as Alexandria, where the Greeks exercised naked in their gymnasia and nude statuary abounded in the central plazas, circumcision must have been the most noticeable sign of Judaism and was undoubtedly a very live subject in the Alexandrian Jewish community. Furthermore, in Alexandria, being circumcised not only distinguished between Jew and Greek, but also—since the Egyptians practiced circumcision as well—identified Jews with the Egyptians, who were of a lower civil status than the Greeks. Hence the position that Philo gives to this commandment before proceeding to classify other “ordinances” under the rubrics of the Decalogue. Philo might have justified discussing circumcision first by reminding his readers that this commandment preceded the Decalogue—since Scripture relates how Abraham received this commandment long before the revelation at Sinai—but he does not. Note, however, that Colson reports that Thomas Mangey and Isaak Heinemann render this as “in the order indicated in the Scriptures.”9 On Circumcision Colson notes that in the manuscript, this heading appears just before Spec. Laws 1.1—but it actually refers only to 2–11, so I have placed it here. 2. genital organs Better: organs of generation. Colson renders this as “genital organs,” but “genital” refers to the physical organ, while what is meant here is “generation” or “procreation.” the Egyptians Egypt was perceived as an ancient civilization even in Philo’s time, and was viewed as the cradle of Greek philosophy (cf. Philo, QG 3.47–8). Still, considering the inferior legal and social status of the contemporary Egyptians relative to the uncircumcised Greeks who were Philo’s social frame of reference, it is surprising that Philo begins his encomium on circumcision with a reference to the Egyptian practice of it. His decision to do so lends credence to his statement in Spec. Laws 1.8 that he is relating traditional exegesis. 3. mockery Better: scoffing. Circumstances Better: reasons. the men of old Though it is tempting to consider this to be a synonym for “ancient rabbis,” a com-

1038 Naomi G. Cohen

4One is that it secures exemption from the severe and almost incurable malady of the prepuce called anthrax or carbuncle, so named, I believe, from the slow fire which it sets up and to which those who retain the foreskin are more susceptible. 5Secondly, it promotes the cleanliness of the whole body as befits the consecrated order, and therefore the Egyptians carry the practice to a further extreme and have the bodies of their priests shaved. For some substances which need to be cleared away collect and secrete themselves both in the hair and the foreskin. 6Thirdly, it assimilates the circumcised member to the heart. For as both are framed to serve for generation, thought being generated by the spirit force in the heart, living creatures by the reproductive organ, the earliest men held that the unseen and superior element to which the concepts of the mind owe their existence should have assimilated to it the visible and apparent, the natural parent of the things perceived by sense. 7The fourth and most vital reason is its adaptation to give fertility of offspring, for we are told that it causes the semen to travel aright without being scattered or dropped into the folds of the foreskin, and therefore the circumcised nations appear to be the most prolific and populous. 8These are the explanations handed down to us from the old-time studies of divinely gifted men who made deep research into the writings of Moses. To these I would add that I consider circumcision to be a symbol of two things most necessary to our well-being.

parison of the phrase’s connotation in Decalogue 23 and Spec. Laws 1.195; 2.153 shows that this cannot be automatically assumed. 4. slow fire Or “inward and secret fire” (lit., “burns smoldering”). 5. the consecrated order Better: the people consecrated to God. I have here followed Yonge’s translation10 because clarifies that Jewish circumcision is discussed; the next words in this section confirm that the reference is not to the Egyptians. 6. assimilates the circumcised member Better: the resemblance of the part that is circumcised. Literally: “the likeness of the circumcised part.” to the heart This does not mean that they are initially alike, but rather that they are made so by circumcision. thought being generated by the spirit force in the heart While this was a Hellenistic conceptualization,11 Philo also must have been well aware of the scriptural passages that speak of a circumcised (or uncircumcised) heart. See, for example, Lev. 26:41; Deut. 10:16. Philo refers explicitly to these verses in Spec. Laws 1.304–5. the earliest men Better: ancients. “The earliest men” is more literal, but misleading. 7. its adaptation to give fertility of offspring Many Rabbinic sources emphasize the paramount importance of having children.12 8–11 Following these “traditional explanations,” Philo adds two considerations of his own. The first clearly reflects his ascetic bent, while the heat with which he makes the second comment suggests that he may be speaking on the basis of his own experience. We have no reliable information whatsoever respecting Philo’s personal life.13 8. from the old-time studies of divinely gifted men In contrast to the term “men of old” in Spec. Laws 1.3, which does not necessarily refer to ancient Rabbis in the Jewish tradition, here it is clear from the context that the reference is to traditional Jewish exegesis, which apparently explains Philo’s mention of the practice of the Egyptians in a positive light. Philo now adds his own jus-

On the Special Laws 1–4

1039

9One is the excision of pleasures which bewitch the mind. For since among the love-lures of pleasure, the palm is held by the mating of man and woman, the legislators thought good to dock the organ which ministers to such intercourse, thus making circumcision the figure of the excision of excessive and superfluous pleasure, not only of one pleasure but of all the other pleasures signified by one, and that, the most imperious. 10The other reason is that a man should know himself and banish from the soul the grievous malady of conceit. For there are some who have prided themselves on their power of fashioning as with a sculptor’s cunning the fairest of creatures, man, and in their braggart pride assumed godship, closing their eyes to the Cause of all that comes into being, though they might find in their familiars a corrective for their delusion. 11For in their midst are many men incapable of begetting and many women barren, whose matings are ineffective and who grow old childless. The evil belief, therefore, needs to be excised from the mind with any others that are not loyal to God. The First and Second Commandments

12So much for these matters. We must now turn to the particular laws, taking those first with which it is well to begin, namely those the subject of which is the sole sovereignty of God. tifications for circumcision to the traditional ones he has just listed. Note the difference in the types of argument. 9. palm Better: the first place. Palm no longer has this connotation in English. making circumcision the figure of the excision Colson notes that the Greek here contains a play on words: peritome = circumcision, and ektome = excision. excision of excessive and superfluous pleasure One of many examples of Philo’s rejection of pleasure in general, and except for procreation, of sex, which he considers to be the quintessence of pleasure. In contrast to this, the mainstream Rabbinic approach has a positive attitude respecting sex for pleasure (See M. Ket. 5:6, 7; B. Ket. 61b–62a.) 10. know himself This echoes the famous maxim “Know thyself,” which expresses the idea that one must recognize the limitations of one’s human nature. See also Spec. Laws 1.44; 2.83; Plato, Prot. 343b3; Phileb. 48c. though they might find in their familiars a corrective for their delusion One may perceive here an echo of emotional involvement. As already noted, absolutely nothing reliable is known respecting Philo’s personal life—not even whether he had a wife or children. 12–20 The numbering of the commandments differs between the LXX (Codex Alexandrinus) that is followed by Philo and Josephus (Ant. 3.31), and the accepted order in Rabbinic tradition, which considers Exod. 20:2 (“I the Lord am your God”) to be the First Commandment or “Word” of the Ten Commandments, and Exod. 20:3–6 (“You shall have no other gods,” etc.) to be the Second.14 However, Philo and Josephus consider Exod. 20:2 (“I the Lord am your God”) to be part of the introduction; verse 3 (“You shall have no other gods”) as the First Commandment, and verses 4–6 (“You shall have no other gods”) as the Second Commandment.15 There are also differences in the order of the last three commandments, but they do not interest us at this point. The treatment of the First and Second Commandments by Philo in Spec. Laws 1.12–31 is similar to that found in On the Decalogue, except that in addition to the literal understanding of “idols” in the Second Commandment, Philo adds the idea that this commandment also pro-

1040

Naomi G. Cohen

13Some have supposed that the sun and moon and the other stars were gods with absolute powers and ascribed to them the causation of all events. But Moses held that the universe was created and is in a sense the greatest of commonwealths, having magistrates and subjects; for magistrates, all the heavenly bodies, fixed or wandering; for subjects, such beings as exist below the moon, in the air or on the earth. 14The said magistrates, however, in his view have not unconditional powers, but are lieutenants of the one Father of All, and it is by copying the example of His government exercised according to law and justice over all created beings that they acquit themselves aright; but those who do not descry the Charioteer mounted above attribute the causation of all the events in the universe to the team that draw the chariot as though they were sole agents. 15From this ignorance our most holy lawgiver would convert them to knowledge with these words: “Do not when thou seest the sun and the moon and the stars and all the ordered host of heaven go astray and worship them.” Well indeed and aptly does he call the acceptance of the heavenly bodies as gods a going astray or wandering. 16For those who see the sun with its advances and retreats producing the yearly seasons in which the animals and plants and fruits are brought at fixed periods of time from their birth to maturity, and the moon as handmaid and successor to the sun taking over at night the care and supervision of all that he had charge of by day, and the other stars in accordance with their sympathetic affinity to things on earth acting and working in a thousand ways for the preservation of the All, have wandered infinitely far in supposing that they alone are gods. 17But if they had been at pains to walk in that road where there is no straying, they would at once have perceived that just as sense is the servitor of mind, so too all the beings perceived by sense scribes the worship of “wealth” (Spec. Laws 1.23–29; not included in the selections here). The following sections (13–20) provide a good example of Philo’s hallmark intertwining of Jewish and Greek conceptualizations. 13. the universe . . . is . . . the greatest of commonwealths The comparison of the universe to a commonwealth reflects both Philo’s conception of good government and the Stoic conception of the nature of the world. Philo was apparently the first to use the term kosmopoliths (cosmopolitan)16 to mean “a citizen of the world.” (See also Philo, Creation 3, 143.) As another example of this viewpoint, Philo uses the term megalopolis—which in other ancient sources means “great city”—to refer to the world (see Spec. 1.34; Creation 19; Joseph 29; Moses 2.51). 14. the Charioteer mounted above This is an echo of the figure of the Charioteer and horses found in Plato (Phaedrus 246ff; Statesman 266e9), but the image is not identical. 16. the preservation of the All “The All” (Greek to Pan) is a standard Greek locution for the universe. Philo accepts the conception of the sun, the moon, and the stars as having power and influence over all that has been created, but at the same time he strenuously objects to looking upon them as independent powers. supposing that they alone are gods Philo repeatedly stresses that while the sun, moon, and stars have influence on the course of events, they themselves were created and are subordinate to their Creator. It is unlikely that the difference between this belief system and astrology, which is accepted as a “fact” in talmudic sources, is more than a question of semantics. 17. just as sense is the servitor of mind Philo compares the relation between the inscrutable realm of the transcendent and the realm of perceptible physical existence with the relation between the human mind and the organs of sense.

On the Special Laws 1–4

1041

are the ministers of Him who is perceived by the mind. It is enough for them if they gain the second place. 18For it is quite ridiculous to deny that if the mind in us, so exceedingly small and invisible, is yet the ruler of the organs of sense, the mind of the universe, so transcendently great and perfect, must be the King of kings who are seen by Him though He is not seen by them. 19So all the gods which sense descries in heaven must not be supposed to possess absolute power but to have received the rank of subordinate rulers, naturally liable to correction, though in virtue of their excellence never destined to undergo it. 20Therefore carrying our thoughts beyond all the realm of visible existence let us proceed to give honor to the Immaterial, the Invisible, the Apprehended by the understanding alone, who is not only God of gods, whether perceived by sense or by mind, but also the Maker of all. And if anyone renders the worship due to the Eternal, the Creator, to a created being and one later in time, he must stand recorded as infatuated and guilty of impiety in the highest degree. 1.32–57 God’s Existence and His Essence

32Doubtless hard to unriddle and hard to apprehend is the Father and Ruler of all, but that is no reason why we should shrink from searching for Him. But in such searching two principal questions arise which demand the consideration of the genuine philosopher. One is whether the Deity exists, a question necessitated by those who practice atheism, the worst form of wickedness. The other is what the Deity is in essence. Now to answer the first question does not need much labor, but the second is not only difficult but perhaps impossible to solve. Still, both must be examined. 33We see then that any piece of work always involves the knowledge of a workman. Who can look upon statutes or painting 18. if the mind in us . . . the mind of the universe Philo reiterates the same idea even more strongly (see previous comment). God is described here as the transcendent and inconceivable “mind of the universe.” 19. the gods which sense descries in heaven . . . received the rank of subordinate rulers The very fact that the heavenly bodies are visible defines them as subordinate. 20. God of gods This locution is found in Deut. 10:17 (KJV, OJPS), which is the same verse that contains the three attributes of God mentioned in the first “blessing” of praise in the Amidah.17 The NJPS translation reads: “For the Lord your God is God supreme and Lord supreme [lit., ‘the God of gods and the Lord of lords’], the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who shows no favor and takes no bribe.”18 It is a very central verse in Jewish tradition. Philo’s lengthy discourse here may well reflect a desire to explain a scriptural text that, on the face of it, recognizes other “gods.” Massekhet Soferim 4:6 explains this succinctly: “The first [reference] is Holy [kodesh], and the second profane [hol].”19 the Maker of all This sums up Philo’s description of the Jewish conception of God: immaterial, invisible, apprehended by the understanding alone, with special stress on his being “the Maker of all.” 32–57 These verses relate to the problems of God’s existence and his essence. Philo first brings the argument from design (Spec. Laws 1.35: “surely [this universe] has been wrought by one of excellent knowledge and absolute perfection”) to prove his existence. Then in 36–40 there is the attempt to fathom his essence. Philo describes the exquisite joy of this pursuit, even while he recognizes that it is unattainable. 33. any . . . work . . . involves the knowledge of a workman This was a familiar argument in ancient

1042 Naomi G. Cohen

without thinking at once of a sculptor or painter? Who can see clothes or ships or houses without getting the idea of a weaver and a shipwright and a house-builder? And when one enters a well- ordered city in which the arrangements for civil life are very admirably managed, what else will he suppose but that this city is directed by good rulers? 34So then he who comes to the truly Great City, this world, and beholds hills and plains teeming with animals and plants, the rivers, spring-fed or winter torrents, streaming along, the seas with their expanses, the air with its happily tempered phases, the yearly seasons passing into each other, and then the sun and moon ruling the day and night, and the other heavenly bodies fixed or planetary and the whole firmament revolving in rhythmic order, must he not naturally or rather necessarily gain the conception of the Maker and Father and Ruler also? 35For none of the works of human art is self-made, and the highest art and knowledge is shown in this universe, so that surely it has been wrought by one of excellent knowledge and absolute perfection. In this way we have gained the conception of the existence of God. 36As for the divine essence, though in fact it is hard to track and hard to apprehend, it still calls for all the inquiry possible. For nothing is better than to search for the true God, even if the discovery of Him eludes human capacity, since the very wish to learn, if earnestly entertained, produces untold joys and pleasures. 37We have the testimony of those who have not taken a mere sip of philosophy but have feasted more abundantly on its reasonings and conclusions. For with them the reason soars away from earth into the heights, travels through the upper air and accompanies the revolutions of the sun and

times (Colson, e.g., here cites SVF 2.1009, particularly Cicero, Nat.d. 2.16–17; 3.26). In Alleg. Interp. 3.97–99, Philo calls it “discerning the Artificer by means of his works.” 34. must he not . . . gain the conception of the Maker and Father and Ruler Cf. Gen. Rab. 39:1. “Now the Lord said to Abram: ‘Get thee out’ R. Yitschak said: After he [Abram] went from place to place and saw a castle lit up, he said, ‘Can you say that the castle doesn’t have a ruler?’ The Holy One, blessed be He, appeared and said to him, ‘I am the ruler, the Master of the entire world.’” (my translation). Note that in the midrash, the logical conclusion is accompanied by a direct divine revelation to Abraham. 36. As for the divine essence, though in fact it is hard to track and hard to apprehend Better: untrackable and inapprehensible. Philo’s subsequent text (cf. Spec. Laws 1.40) requires the definitive statement here. In Exod. 33:18–20, Moses asks God, “Let me behold Your Presence!” and God tells him that “man may not see Me and live.” This is traditionally understood to imply that the “divine essence,” by its very nature, cannot be apprehended by a living human being; see, e.g., Maimonides, Hilkhot Yesodei Hatorah 1:10. 37. philosophy To understand the nuances of this word in Philo’s day, it is important to bear in mind that, in the ancient world, the word “religion” connoted demon worship, superstition, and so on. At the same time the Greek word filosofia (philosophy) indicated “a recipe for a good life,” and in certain Jewish contexts it came to refer to what we would call today “the ideological aspects of Judaism.”20 Josephus frequently uses the term “philosophy” in this sense.21 Here it is apparently used to refer to what we would call “the tenets of Judaism” (cf. also Philo, Virtues 65). reasonings and conclusions Gk: logōn kai dogmatōn; this semantic unit appears only in Philo’s writings. Perhaps the text might better be rendered in its Judeo-Greek connotion, as “biblical laws and other regulations.”22 the reason soars away from earth into the heights Rabbinic Sages and scholars renowned for their

On the Special Laws 1–4

1043

moon and the whole heaven and in its desire to see all that is there, finds its powers of sight blurred, for so pure and vast is the radiance that pours therefrom that the soul’s eye is dizzied by the flashing of the rays. 38Yet it does not therefore faintheartedly give up the task, but with purpose unsubdued, presses onward to such contemplation as is possible, like the athlete who strives for the second prize since he has been disappointed of the first. Now second to the true vision stands conjecture and theorizing and all that can be brought into the category of reasonable probability. 39So then just as, though we do not know and cannot with certainty determine what each of the stars is in the purity of its essence, we eagerly persist in the search because our natural love of learning makes us delight in what seems probable, 40so too, though the clear vision of God as He really is is denied us, we ought not to relinquish the quest. For the very seeking, even without finding, is felicity in itself, just as no one blames the eyes of the body because, when unable to see the sun itself, they see the emanation of its rays as it reaches the earth, which is but the extremity of the brightness which the beams of the sun give forth. Conjecture and Theorizing

41It was this which Moses the sacred guide, most dearly beloved of God, had before his eyes when he besought God with the words, “Reveal Thyself to me.” In these words we may almost hear plainly the inspired cry “This universe has been my teacher, to bring me to the knowledge that Thou art and dost subsist. As Thy son, it has told me of its Father, as Thy work of its contriver. But what Thou art in Thy essence I desire to understand, yet find in no part of the All any to guide me to this knowledge. 42Therefore I pray and beseech Thee to accept the supplication of a suppliant, a lover of God, one whose mind is set to serve Thee alone; for as knowledge of the light does not come by any other source but what itself supplies, so too Thou alone canst tell me of Thyself. Wherefore I crave pardon if, for lack of a teacher, I venture to appeal to Thee in my desire to learn of Thee.” 43He replies, “Thy zeal I approve as halakhic prowess are sometimes also associated with esoteric flights.23 Note, too, that the metaphor calls to mind the myth recounted by Plato in Phaedr. 246d–249d. Philo uses the image of “soaring” in similar contexts elsewhere (see, e.g., Spec. Laws 1.207; 2.45; 3.1–5).24 41–50 In this passage, Philo uses the dialogue between Moses and God (Exod. 33:13–23) as a vehicle to present his own conception of God’s essence and God’s relation to the world. Sections 41–44 treat Moses’s request to God: “Reveal Thyself to me” (41, referring to Exod. 33:13 LXX [my translation]). Philo reads into Moses’s request an argument for God’s existence (“This universe has been my teacher, to bring me to the knowledge that Thou art and dost subsist”; Spec. Laws 1.41), while Moses’s further petition in Exod. 33:18 is used in Spec. Laws 1.45–50 to introduce Philo’s conceptualization of God’s essence. He perceives God’s “glory” as indicating God’s “Powers,” which in turn are equated with the Platonic ideas or forms; and these he compares to the seals with which his readers are familiar. For they too impress their form on matter without changing anything of their own essence. 41. Reveal Thyself to me Exod. 33:13. The MT has “Show me now Thy ways (derakhekha).”25 Philo’s quotation is identical with the LXX, which is of course his point of departure.26 yet find in no part of the All Yet do not find in any parts of the universe. 42. Thou alone canst tell me of Thyself This world provides knowledge of God’s existence through his works, but only God himself can provide knowledge of his essence.

1044 Naomi G. Cohen

praiseworthy, but the request cannot fitly be granted to any that are brought into being by creation. I freely bestow what is in accordance with the recipient; for not all that I can give with ease is within man’s power to take, and therefore to him that is worthy of My grace I extend all the boons which he is capable of receiving. 44But the apprehension of Me is something more than human nature, yea even the whole heaven and universe will be able to contain. Know thyself, then, and do not be led away by impulses and desires beyond thy capacity, nor let yearning for the unattainable uplift and carry thee off thy feet, for of the obtainable nothing shall be denied thee.” 45When Moses heard this, he addressed to Him a second petition and said, “I bow before Thy admonitions, that I never could have received the vision of Thee clearly manifested, but I beseech Thee that I may at least see the glory that surrounds Thee, and by Thy glory I understand the Powers that keep guard around Thee, of whom I would fain gain apprehension, for though hitherto that has escaped me, the thought of it creates in me a mighty longing to have knowledge of them.”46To this He answers, “The Powers which thou seekest to know are discerned not by sight, but by mind even as I, Whose they are, am discerned by mind and not by sight, and when I say ‘they are discerned by mind’ I speak not of those which are now actually apprehended by mind but mean that if these other powers could be apprehended it would not be by sense but by mind at its purest. 47But while in their essence they are beyond your apprehension, they nevertheless present to your sight a sort of impress and copy of their active working. You men have for your use seals which when brought into contact with wax or similar material stamp on them any number of impressions while they themselves are not docked in any part thereby but remain as they were. Such you must conceive My powers to be, supplying quality and shape to things which lack either and yet changing or lessening nothing of their eternal nature. 48Some

43. the request cannot fitly be granted to any that are brought into being by creation That is to say that God’s infinite and incorporeal essence cannot be grasped by created corporeal finite being. 44. Know thyself This famous maxim has already been used by Philo above in 10, also in the context of the limitations of human nature. 45. the glory The MT has kevodekha; the LXX reads doksa, “glory.” Thy glory The scriptural term “God’s glory” is identified by Philo here as well as elsewhere with God’s “Powers” (dunameis), which are then equated with the Platonic ideas or forms. 46. The Powers Philo stresses that like God himself, God’s Powers are grasped only by pure intellect. I speak not of those which are now actually apprehended Colson notes that Heinemann and Mangey emend the text to read: “I do not mean that they are now discerned,” which provides a smoother reading. 47. seals Philo uses the term “seals” (sphrageis) to describe the “ideas” or “forms,” both here and in other works: in Drunkenness 133.4, the seal on the plate on the holy crown of the high priest (Exod. 28:36) is equated with “an incorporeal idea”; in Migration 103.4, it is defined as “the original principle behind all principles (sphragis idea estin ideōn)”; and similarly in Names 135.1, it is described as “the seal of the universe, the archetypal idea.” It has been suggested that Philo’s use of “seal” (sphragis) for the “ideas” originated in his allegory of the vestments of the high priest, where the LXX (Exod. 28:36) has the word “seal” (sphragis) for MT hotam.27

On the Special Laws 1–4

1045

among you call them not inaptly ‘forms’ or ‘ideas,’ since they bring form into everything that is, giving order to the disordered, limit to the unlimited, bounds to the unbounded, shape to the shapeless, and in general changing the worse to something better. 49Do not, then, hope to be ever able to apprehend Me or any of My powers in Our essence. But I readily and with right goodwill will admit you to a share of what is attainable. That means that I bid you come and contemplate the universe and its contents, a spectacle apprehended not by the eye of the body but by the unsleeping eyes of the mind. 50Only let there be the constant and profound longing for wisdom which fills its scholars and disciples with verities glorious in their exceeding loveliness.” When Moses heard this, he did not cease from his desire but kept the yearning for the invisible aflame in his heart. Attitude toward Proselytes

51All of like sort to him, all who spurn idle fables and embrace truth in its purity, whether they have been such from the first or through conversion to the better side have reached that higher state, obtain His approval, the former because they were not false to the nobility of their birth, the latter because their judgment led them to make the passage to piety. These last he calls “proselytes,” or newly joined, because they have joined the new and godly. 52Thus, while giving equal rank to all in-comers with all the privileges which he gives to the nativeborn, he exhorts the old nobility to honor them not only with marks of respect but with special friend48. ideas Colson’s text reads: “’forms’ or ‘ideas,’” but “forms” is not found here in the Greek text. they bring form into everything It appears that the only other place where Philo explicitly identifies the Powers (dunameis) with the Platonic Ideas is Spec. Laws 1.329, where the context (beginning in Spec. Laws 1.327) categorizes under five heads those who do not recognize the true God.28 49. I bid you come and contemplate . . . a spectacle apprehended . . . by the unsleeping eyes of the mind Elsewhere Philo allegorizes the name “Israel” as “the [nation] who sees God.” Although Philo does not use the name “Israel” here, this invitation to understand God by contemplating the universe with the “eyes of the mind” may be understood as part of the same conceptualization. 51–53 Philo writes in 51–53 that both native-born Jews and proselytes are included in the category of those “who spurn idle fables and embrace truth in its purity.” The native-born Jews are enjoined to treat proselytes with particular consideration, and they, in turn, are warned against reviling other gods, lest the adherents of those gods respond by reviling the true God. 51. obtain His approval This is the way Colson has understood the text. Yonge renders: “And he [i.e., Moses] receives.” proselytes This is the word regularly used by the LXX to render the Hebrew word ger—of whatever sort. While the word has many meanings depending upon the context, here it indicates complete conversion to what Philo describes in Spec. Laws 4.159 as “one citizenship, and the same law and one God.”29 or newly joined, because they have joined the new and godly commonwealth Better: from the fact of their having come over to . . . unalloyed truth. Colson omits the rest of the sentence found in the Greek text. I have here followed Yonge’s translation, which includes it. 52. the old nobility By this Philo means “native-born Jews.” with special friendship and with more than ordinary goodwill Cf. Lev. 19:34: “The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as one of your citizens; you shall love him as yourself, for you

1046

Naomi G. Cohen

ship and with more than ordinary goodwill. And surely there is good reason for this; they have left, he says, their country, their kinsfolk and their friends for the sake of virtue and religion. Let them not be denied another citizenship or other ties of family and friendship, and let them find places of shelter standing ready for refugees to the camp of piety. For the most effectual love-charm, the chain which binds indissolubly the goodwill which makes us one is to honor the one God. 53Yet he counsels them that they must not, presuming on the equal privilege and equal rank which He grants them because they have denounced the vain imaginings of their fathers and ancestors, deal in idle talk or revile with an unbridled tongue the gods whom others acknowledge, lest they on their part be moved to utter profane words against Him Who truly IS. For they know not the difference. And since the falsehood has been taught to them as truth from childhood and has grown up with them, they will go astray. were strangers in the land of Egypt”; see also Exod. 23:9 and Deut. 10:19.30 Note that Philo, in line with his general practice in this respect, makes no mention of the fact that the Jews had once been “strangers in the land of Egypt” for this might well cause discomfort to his contemporary readers who considered themselves as distinguished citizens. And surely there is good reason for this . . . to honor the one God While I have let Colson’s text stand, Yonge’s text appears to me to be more lucid: “Is not this a reasonable recommendation? What he says is this. ‘Those men, who have left their country, and their friends, and their relations for the sake of virtue and holiness, ought not to be left destitute of other cities, and houses and friends, but there ought to be places of refuge always ready for those who come over to piety; for the most effectual allurement and the most indissoluble bond of affectionate good will is the mutual honoring of the one God.’” virtue and religion Better: virtue and holiness. See the introductory comments and also the comment on Spec. Laws 1.37, philosophy, for why the word “religion” is inappropriate. 53. them The reference is to the proselytes. the gods whom others acknowledge The King James Version (KJV) understands Exod. 22:27 MT in the same way as Philo: “Thou shalt not revile the gods” (KJV)—“gods” with a lowercase g; that is, gods of other nations. Since the LXX has the plural theous for MT elohim, it is natural for Philo to have understood this to mean “gods” rather than the one God. In Moses 2.205 he explicitly states that the reference is not to “the Begetter of the Universe but to the gods of the different cities who are falsely so called.” Josephus paraphrases Exod. 22:27 in a similar vein: “Let none blaspheme the gods which other cities revere” (Ant. 4.207; see also Ag. Ap. 2.237). On the other hand, Rabbinic tradition understands elohim in this verse as a reference to “judges,” and in accord with this, OJPS renders the verse: “Thou shalt not revile God,” explaining in a footnote that this refers to “judges,” while NJPS reads: “You shall not revile God,” without any explanation. lest they This apparently refers to the Gentiles whose gods are being reviled.

On the Special Laws 1–4

1047

Attitude toward Apostates

54But if any members of the nation betray the honor due to the One they should suffer the utmost penalties. They have abandoned their most vital duty, their service in the ranks of piety and religion, have chosen darkness in preference to the brightest light and blindfolded the mind which had the power of keen vision. 55And it is well that all who have a zeal for virtue should be permitted to exact the penalties offhand and with no delay, without bringing the offender before jury or council or any kind of magistrate at all, and give full scope to the feelings which possess them, that hatred of evil and love of God which urges them to inflict punishment without mercy on the impious. They should think that the occasion has made them councilors, jurymen, high sheriffs, members of assembly, accusers, wit54–57 This passage has given rise to a vast amount of discussion, because on first read, the lynching of apostates appears to be prescribed, and some scholars have even proposed that this reflected either the law of the Jewish community in Alexandria, or, at the very least, contemporary practice there.31 Yet, most passages in which Philo recounts the zeal of Phinehas (cf. Num. 25) are clearly intended allegorically: the battle is within the soul.32 And even in the remaining passage where, as here, Philo recounts Phinehas’s act as an historical event (Moses 1.300–304), it is described not as a norm, but as a one-time emergency measure. Finally, see Moses 1.314: “For though the slaughter of enemies is lawful, yet one who kills a man, even if he does so justly and in self-defense, and under compulsion, has something to answer for, in view of the primal common kinship of mankind.” 54. members of the nation Refers to those who were born Jewish, in contrast to proselytes. piety and religion Better: piety and holiness. Since the word “religion” did not have the same meaning in Philo’s day as it does today, its use here in the translation is misleading. Further, the word combination found in the text is a Judeo-Greek locution for what we today would call “Jewish religious observance.” Cf. also Spec. Laws 1.186, where Colson also renders this word combination as “piety and holiness.” Respecting the Day of Atonement, Philo writes there, “On the tenth day is the fast (Num. 29:7–11), which is carefully observed not only by the zealous for piety and holiness but also by those who never act religiously in the rest of their life.” the mind which had the power of keen vision Philo often understands the name “Israel” metaphorically, as those who have the power of (intellectually) “seeing God.” While there are dozens of examples of this in his writings, a single one will suffice. In Alleg. Interp. 3.186 we read: “when the mind lifts itself up away from mortal things and is borne aloft, that which sees God, which is Israel, gains strength.” Philo takes it for granted that his readers would have this in mind, even though he has not stated it explicitly. 55. all who have a zeal for virtue should be permitted to exact the penalties offhand The decisive words in this sentence are should be permitted. The passage must be read as hyperbole, an overstatement used to express Philo’s burning anger respecting apostates. The grammatical construction supports this understanding, and the vehemence suggests a reaction based on personal experience. Perhaps it is worth reminding the reader that Philo’s nephew Tiberius Julius Alexander was almost certainly an apostate.33 jury or council . . . councilors, jurymen, high sheriffs Note too that the passage specifies the normal procedure: “jury or council,” and a few lines after this, catalogues those normally involved in the procedure: “councillors, jurymen, high sheriffs, members of assembly, accusers, witnesses, laws, people” and perhaps “Roman magistrates” (suggested by Goodenough) as well.34

1048 Naomi G. Cohen

nesses, laws, people, everything in fact, so that without fear or hindrance they may champion holiness in full security. 56There is recorded in the Laws the example of one who acted with this admirable courage. He had seen some persons consorting with foreign women and through the attraction of their love-charms spurning their ancestral customs and seeking admission to the rites of a fabulous religion. One in particular he saw, the chief ringleader of the backsliding, who had the audacity to exhibit his unholy conduct in public and was openly offering sacrifices, a travesty of the name, to images of wood and stone in the presence of the whole people. So, seized with inspired fury, keeping back the throng of spectators on either side, he slew without a qualm him and her, the man because he listened to lessons which it were a gain to unlearn, the woman because she had been the instructor in wickedness. 57This deed suddenly wrought in the heat of excitement acted as a warning to multitudes who were preparing to make the same apostasy. So then God, praising his high achievement, the result of zeal self-prompted and wholehearted, crowned him with a twofold award, the gifts of peace and priesthood, the first because He judged the champion who had battled for the honor of God worthy to claim a life free from war, the second because the guerdon most suitable to a man of piety is the priestly office which professes the service of the Father, bondage to Whom is better not only than freedom but also than kingship. holiness Here, Colson again translates the Gk. hosioths (lit., “holiness”) as “religion.” In Philo’s day the word “religion” did not have the same meaning as today. 56. the example of one who acted with this admirable courage The reading of this section together with other Philonic passages shows clearly that this was neither the law nor the custom, and the parallel in Moses 1.301–6 stresses the emergency nature of the situation described in Scripture— that here the very survival of the people was at stake. rites of a fabulous religion Better: mythical rites. 57. the gifts of peace and priesthood See Num. 25:12–13.

On the Special Laws 1–4

1049

On the Special Laws 1.66–73 “The Temple of God” and “The Temple Made by Hands”

66The highest, and in the truest sense the holy, temple of God is, as we must believe, the whole universe, having for its sanctuary the most sacred part of all existence, even heaven, for its votive ornaments the stars, for its priests the angels who are servitors to His Powers, unbodied souls, not compounds of rational and irrational nature, as ours are, but with the irrational eliminated, all mind through and through, pure intelligences, in the likeness of the monad.67There is also the temple made by hands; for 66–97 The intervening sections, Spec. Laws 1.58–65, dealt with the prohibitions against divinations and like practices and concluded the discussion of the proper conception of God. What follows, in 66–298, are practical regulations of worship, which are intended to provide spiritual lessons conveyed in the form of symbolic ritual (e.g., 66–73 identifies the “Temple of God” proper with the entire universe, following which it describes “the temple made by hands.; 96–97, refers to the vestments of the high priest as “a copy of the universe”35). 66–73 As long as it stood, the Temple in Jerusalem served as the principal focus of Jewish consciousness not only for those who lived in Judea, but for the entire Diaspora. At the same time, in line with the conceptualization of the “God of the Jews” as the “Lord of the Universe,” Philo introduces his description of the Temple in Jerusalem by the statement that the entire universe is in fact the Temple of God, with heaven as its sanctuary. It is only after this that he turns to portray the “the temple made by hands”—that is, the Holy Temple in Jerusalem. 66. temple . . . sanctuary The term “temple” is used by Philo to indicate the structure as a whole, while the holiest part, the “Holy of Holies,” is referred to by Philo as the “sanctuary.” temple of God . . . the whole universe It is recounted in 1 Kings 8:27 that at the time of the consecration of the Temple in Jerusalem, King Solomon is quoted as praying: “But will God really dwell on earth? Even the heavens to their utmost reaches cannot contain You, how much less this House that I have built!”. Though reminiscent of this, Philo’s statement is conceptually different, for he defines the entire universe as God’s Temple, with heaven as its sanctuary, adorned and inhabited by the stars, the angels, and unbodied souls of pure intelligence as inhabiting its “sanctuary.” the angels The term has different connotations in different contexts.36 Here the angels are called priests and described as subordinate assistants of God’s Powers (see next comment). His Powers This term has already been used several times by Philo; see, for example, Spec. Laws 1.45–48 (and the comments there), where it is equated simultaneously with the scriptural concept “God’s Glory” and with the Platonic ideas. Likewise, in 1.329 we read, “He [God] made full use of the incorporeal potencies, well denoted by their name of Forms” (this is Colson’s rendering. The Gk. here is “ideas,” not “forms.”. “Powers” in 49 and 66 and “potencies” here and in 329 are different English words for the same thing). Philo conceived of the relation between God and the cosmos as being achieved by a process of emanation, God’s Powers serving as a stage between the transcendent and the immanent. unbodied souls . . . pure intelligences One can gain further insight into this concept by reading Philo’s description of the immortality of the soul in Moses 2.288: “Afterward the time came when he [Moses] had to make the pilgrimage from earth to heaven, and leave this mortal life for immortality, summoned thither by the Father Who resolved his twofold nature of soul and body into a single unity, transforming his whole being into mind, pure as sunlight.”37

1050 Naomi G. Cohen

it was right that no check should be given to the forwardness of those who pay their tribute to piety, and desire by means of sacrifices either to give thanks for the blessings that befall them or to ask for pardon and forgiveness for their sins. But he provided that there should not be temples built either in many places or many in the same place, for he judged that since God is one, there should be also only one temple. 68Further, he does not consent to those who wish to perform the rites in their houses, but bids them rise up from the ends of the earth and come to this temple. In this way he also applies the severest test to their dispositions. For one who is not going to sacrifice in a religious spirit would never bring himself to leave his country and friends and kinsfolk and sojourn in a strange land, but clearly it must be the stronger attraction of piety which leads him to endure separation from his most familiar and dearest friends who form as it were a single whole with himself. 69And we have the surest proof of this in what actually happens. Countless multitudes from countless cities come, some over land, others over sea, from east and west and north and south at every feast. They take the temple for their port as a general haven and safe refuge from the bustle and great turmoil of life, and there they seek to find calm weather, and, released from the cares whose yoke has been heavy upon them from their earliest years, to enjoy a brief breathing-space in scenes of genial cheerfulness. 70Thus filled with comfortable hopes they devote the leisure, as is their bounden duty to holiness and the honoring of God. Friendships are formed between those who hitherto knew not each other, and the sacrifices and libations are the occasion of reciprocity of feeling and constitute the surest pledge that all are of one mind. 67. sacrifices This rings like an apologetic justification of the sacrifices—as fulfilling the innate human need to offer something tangible together with prayers of intercession and thanksgiving. there should not be temples built either in many places or many in the same place See Deut. 12:5–7, 11–14, 17–18. Colson, quoting Cohn and Heinemann, notes that Josephus (Ant. 4.200; Ag. Ap. 2.193) uses the same reasoning to explain this directive as Philo does here: “that since God is one, there should be also only one temple.” This may possibly also be a veiled criticism of the Temple of Onias, situated at Leontopolis.38 68. perform the rites in their houses In the Greek tradition, Hestia, the guardian of the hearth, was worshiped in all homes. I know of no parallel to this in Jewish tradition. It was not prayer that was forbidden outside the Temple, but sacrificial offerings. Philo explains the significance of the pilgrimage to Jerusalem as an expression of true commitment on the part of the pilgrim. religious Gk. euaghs, “pure, holy.” As noted above (see, e.g., the comment on Spec. Laws 1.52, virtue and holiness; and on 54, piety and holiness), while in modern English this can be translated as “religious,” this rendering does not reflect the original connotation of the word religio. 69–70. And we have the surest proof of this in what actually happens In addition to noting its ritual aspect, Philo describes the pilgrimage experience as a refreshing interlude in the cares of daily life and an opportunity to initiate friendships. His only mention of a visit of his own to the Temple in Jerusalem is in Providence 2.64, where he writes, “when I was on my way to our ancestral temple to offer up prayers and sacrifices.” Josephus very graphically describes the multitudes of pilgrims who came from all over the world (see, e.g., J.W. 5; Ant. 15). 70. they devote the leisure, as is their bounden duty Colson notes here that the Greek literally reads, “they are at leisure with the most necessary leisure.”

On the Special Laws 1–4

1051

Description of the Temple Area

71This temple is enclosed by an outermost wall of very great length and breadth, which gains additional solidity by four porticos so adorned as to present a very costly appearance. Each of them is twofold, and the stone and timber used as its materials and supplied in abundance, combined with the skill of experienced craftsmen and the care bestowed on it by the master-builders, have produced a very perfect piece of work. The inner walls are smaller and in a severer style of architecture. 72Right in the very middle stands the sanctuary itself with a beauty baffling description, to judge from what is exposed to view. For all inside is unseen except by the high priest alone, and indeed he, though charged with the duty of entering once a year, gets no view of anything. For he takes with him a brazier full of lighted coals and incense, and the great quantity of vapor which this naturally gives forth covers everything around it, beclouds the eyesight and prevents it from being able to penetrate to any distance. 73The huge size and height of the sanctuary make it in spite of its comparatively low situation as prominent an object as any of the highest mountains. In fact, so vast are the buildings that they are seen conspicuously and strike the eye with admiration, especially in the case of foreign visitors, who compare them with the architecture of their own public edifices and are amazed both at their beauty and magnificence. 71–73 The Temple described by Philo was as it had been renovated by Herod the Great (born ca. 73–74 bce), and was famous for its beauty. 71. Each of them is twofold Colson explains this to mean two rows of pillars (as does Heinemann). The double stoa can be discerned on any picture of the reconstruction. 72. Right in the very middle stands the sanctuary Philo uses the Greek word for “news” to denote the Holy of Holies (see the comment on Spec. Laws 1.66, temple . . . sanctuary). It was indeed in the center of the width of the edifice from a spectator’s viewpoint, even if it was not actually in the center of the entire Temple from a bird’s-eye vantage point. the high priest . . . charged with the duty of entering once a year The mishnaic tractate Yoma is devoted largely to a detailed description of the ritual activities of the high priest on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur).39 To this day central features of the Musaf prayer service on the Day of Atonement are the liturgical compositions, couched in solemn words, that portray the high priest performing his liturgical duties in the Temple, climaxing with his entry into and safe exit from the Holy of Holies. M. Yoma 5:1 merely states that upon his exit he recites “a short prayer,” but B. Yoma 53b provides more detail of the prayer: “May it be Thy will, O Lord our God, that this year be full of heavy rains . . . and permit not the prayers of travelers to find entrance before you” (for they would of course pray that it wouldn’t rain). Parallels are found in B. Ta’an. 24b, and Vayikra Rabba (Vilna) parasha 20, incipit: (d) R. Yudan. 73. of the sanctuary I have added these words for the sake of clarity. despite its comparatively low situation as prominent an object as any of the highest mountains This calls to mind Ps. 125:2: “Jerusalem, hills enfold it, and the Lord enfolds His people now and forever.” Even today, the Temple site itself is not visible from afar on all sides. But, as one comes closer, the Dome of the Rock, believed to stand directly over the site of the Holy of Holies of the Holy Temple, comes into view as the most striking object on the skyline.40

1052

Naomi G. Cohen

On the Special Laws 1.96–97 The Allegorical Symbolism of the Vestments of the High Priests

96For it expresses the wish first that the High Priest should have in evidence upon him an image of the All, that so by constantly contemplating it he should render his own life worthy of the sum of things, secondly that in performing his holy office he should have the whole universe as his fellow ministrant. And very right and fit it is that he who is consecrated to the Father of the world should take with him also that Father’s son, the universe, for the service of the Creator and Begetter. 97There is also a third truth symbolized by the holy vesture which must not be passed over in silence. Among the other nations the priests are accustomed to offer prayers and sacrifices for their kinsmen and friends and fellow countrymen only, but the high priest of the Jews makes prayers and gives thanks not only on behalf of the whole 96–97 The intervening sections contained a general description of the Temple (74–75), its revenues (76–78), the qualifications of the Priests and Levites (79–81), their dress, including a detailed allegorical depiction of the vestments of the high priest (82–95). Sections 96–97 provide a summary of the allegorical symbolism of the high priest’s vestments (see also Spec. Laws 4.69). 96. of the All This is a standard Greek locution for the entire universe (to pan). his own life worthy of the sum of things Apparently an allusion to the Hellenistic ideal (referred to often by Philo) of “living in accord with nature,” from which he deduces, elsewhere in his writing, the ideal of “living according to the Torah.”41 sum of things Or: “worthy of the nature of the universe.” Gk. reads: ths twn olwn fusews. have the whole universe as his fellow ministrant The high priest’s vestments (which have been allegorized in detail in the preceding paragraphs) are represented as allegorically symbolizing the entire universe. Father’s son, the universe Other examples of this metaphor in Philo’s work include Spec. Laws 1.41; Unchangeable 31. Creator and Begetter The word “Begetter” is not infrequently used by Philo as a metaphor for God as creator of the world.42 God is also sometimes described as “sowing” qualities in humankind (e.g., Alleg. Interp. 1.79; 3.181; Spec. Laws 2.29). But Philo’s use of this metaphor differs from his description of God as “consorting” with Wisdom in order to “beget” the universe—an image that is rare in Philo’s writings.When speaking of the “act of creation” of the cosmos, and not merely as a metaphorical manner of speech, Philo uses the image of “begetting” only in Drunkenness 30–31. There he depicts God as creating the cosmos by consorting with Knowledge, whereupon he immediately equates Knowledge with Wisdom (sophia) and modifies the image by the comment, “not as men have it.” In fact, Philo uses the word sunōn in the sense “to consort with,” respecting God, only in Drunkenness 31; the word is not found in the LXX. The only parallel to this image apparent in Philo’s writings is Cherubim 42–47, which he introduces “as a divine mystery . . . for the initiated” (42). 97. the high priest of the Jews makes prayers Philo contrasts the parochialism of other peoples with the universalistic horizon of the Jewish high priest that is represented as encompassing not only all humankind, but even all of nature, by means of his vesture (garments). In Spec. Laws 2.163–64, the Jewish nation as a whole is likened to a priest: “the Jewish nation is to the whole inhabited world what the priest is to the State.”

On the Special Laws 1–4

1053

human race but also for the parts of nature, earth, water, air, fire. For he holds the world to be, as in very truth it is, his country, and in its behalf he is wont to propitiate the Ruler with supplication and intercession, beseeching Him to make His creature a partaker of His own kindly and merciful nature. On the Special Laws 2

On the special laws which fall under three of the ten general commandments, namely the third on the duty of keeping oaths, the fourth on reverencing the seventh day, and the fifth on honoring parents. On the Special Laws 2.1

1In the preceding treatise we have dealt fully with two of the ten heads, one directed against the acknowledgement of other sovereign gods, the other against giving divine honors to any work of men’s hands. And we have described such among the particular enactments of the law as may be properly classed under either head. Let us now discuss the three next in the list, again subjoining those of the special ordinances which belong to them. . . . On the Special Laws 2.39–42, 46–48 The Fourth Commandment

39The next head is concerned with the sacred seventh day. Under this head are included a great number of matters of vital importance, the different kinds of feasts; the release in the seventh year of persons who were naturally free but through times of adversity are in servitude; the charity shown by creditors to debtors in canceling loans to their fellow nationals, this also in the seventh year; the rest allowed both in the lowlands and the uplands to the fertile soil at intervals of six years; and the laws laid down with respect to the fiftieth year. The mere recital of all these is enough to make the naturally gifted perearth, water, air, fire The premise that everything was formed from these four elements was developed by the Greek philosopher Empedocles of Sicily, and dominated natural philosophy for over 2,000 years, until the rise of modern science. 2. oaths Colson notes that this is a very inadequate term to describe what is discussed in Spec. Laws 1.1–38. 2.1. other sovereign gods See the above comments on Spec. Law 1, Title, other gods as sovereign; on 1.16, 19; and on 1.20, God of gods, where Philo explains how he understands Deut. 10:17. work of men’s hands Compare, for example, Moses 2.205, where Philo writes in his explanation of Lev. 24:15–16 “clearly by ‘god’ he is not here alluding to the Primal God, the Begetter of the Universe, but to the gods of the different cities who are falsely so-called . . . idols of wood and stone.” 39–42 In Spec. Laws 2.2–38, Philo discussed matters associated with the Third Commandment, the prohibition against using God’s name in vain. He included under this various facets of swearing, perjury, laws concerning vows, and the pecuniary valuation of votive offerings. Section 39 introduces his discussion of the Fourth Commandment, on observing the Sabbath day (Exod. 20:8–11; cf. Deut. 5:12–15), and Philo hastens to inform the reader that he intends to include under this heading all of the Feasts. He begins in Spec. Laws 2.40 with a summary discourse on the significance of the number seven, and by association, of the number ten. Then in 41 he lists ten feasts, and from there to 222 he presents each of them in quite some detail. 39. the lowlands and the uplands The idea of “lowlands and uplands” is found in the Pentateuch only

1054

Naomi G. Cohen

fect in virtue without any effort on their part and to produce some degree of obedience in the rebellious and hard-natured. 40Now the part played by seven among the numbers has been described at length in an earlier place, where we have discussed the properties which it possesses within the decad, and its close connection with ten itself, and with four, which is the origin and source of ten. Also we have shown how a sevenfold addition of successive numbers beginning with unity produces twenty-eight, a perfect number, equal to the sum of its factors; again, how when brought into a geometrical progression, it produces simultaneously a square and a cube, besides the numberless other beautiful results which the study of it reveals. On these numerical points we must not linger at the present juncture, but we must examine each specific subject which lies before us included under the general head, beginning with the first; and the first subject, as we saw, is the feasts. The Ten Feasts—Their Enumeration

41There are in all ten feasts which are recorded in the law. The first, the mention of which may perhaps cause some surprise, is the feast of every day. The second is that held on the seventh day with six days between, called by the Hebrews in their native tongue Sabbath. The third is the new moon which follows the conjunction of the moon with the sun. The fourth is the “Crossing” festival called Pascha. The

once (Deut. 8:7), where one finds “valleys and hills.” Philo uses it both here and in Decalogue 163 in connection with the seventh year (shemitah, sabbatical year), while elsewhere in Philo it appears to be no more than a stylistic nuance (see, e.g., Moses 1.235; Embassy 47). 40. the part played by seven . . . with ten itself, and with four, which is the origin and source of ten Seven, four, and ten are significant numbers in Pythagorean number symbolism: 4 + 3 = 7, and 4 may be considered a “source of ten” because 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 10 (see Creation 47, 96. A considerable part of On the Creation of the World is devoted to number symbolism (cf. also, e.g., Moses 2.210; Decalogue 158–64). The present passage is one of many examples of Philo’s fascination with “number,” which he considers to be the organizing principle of the cosmos. in an earlier place That is, in Creation 90–127. a sevenfold addition . . . produces 28 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 = 28 (cf. Creation 101). equal to the sum of its factors The factors of 28 are 1, 2, 4, 7, 14 (cf. Creation 101). a geometrical progression . . . produces . . . a square and a cube Examples given in Creation 92–93 include: 64 = 43 and 82; 729 = 272 and 93. 41. There are in all ten feasts . . . recorded in the law Philo discusses the holidays several times. In Decalogue 96–105, he discusses the Sabbath and the number seven. In Spec. Laws 1.168–89, he discusses the “holy days” under the rubric of the first two Commandments, in the context of the regulations of worship, particularly the required sacrifices. In Spec. Laws 2.41–222, he discusses them in detail in association with the Fourth Commandment. Philo’s focus on the “ten feasts recorded in the law” does not rule out the possibility that he knew of other holidays besides those mentioned in the Pentateuch. Like the Rabbis, he may not have considered them “festivals” in the same sense as the biblical holidays.43 the feast of every day The feasts included here are those on which sacrifices were offered in the Temple. This explains why the “feast of every day” is included as a feast, since two sacrifices are required daily. See my comment above on 41.

On the Special Laws 1–4

1055

fifth is the offering of the first ears, the sacred Sheaf. The sixth is the Unleavened Bread. Then comes what is emphatically a seventh, being the feast of Sevens or Weeks. Eighth is the Sacred-month-day, ninth is the Fast, tenth the feast of Tabernacles which concludes the yearly festivals and thus ends up with a perfect number ten. We must begin with the first of these. The Festival of “Every Day ”

42When the law records that every day is a festival, it accommodates itself to the blameless life of righteous men who follow nature and her ordinances . . . XIII 46 . . . such men, we say, in the delight of their virtues, naturally make their whole life a feast. 47These are indeed but a small number, left in their cities like an ember of wisdom to smolder, that virtue may not be altogether extinguished and lost to our race. 48But if only everywhere men had thought and felt as these few, and become what nature intended them to be, all of them blameless and guiltless and lovers of sound sense, rejoicing in moral excellence just because it is what it is, and counting it the only true good and all the other goods but ten feasts . . . a perfect number ten Since the particular “feasts” listed here by Philo are not always so considered, particularly “the feast of every day,” this may be a numerical construct. At the same time, as I pointed out in the previous comment, the list reflects the occasions when sacrifices were offered on the altar in the Temple. the “Crossing” festival called Pascha The word Pascha used here by Philo is the LXX’s transliteration of the Heb. Pesach. In English it is Passover. Philo’s understanding of the term “‘Crossing’ festival” (diabathria) both here and elsewhere is not the same as that found either in the LXX or in Josephus. For an explanation of Philo’s use of this term, see the comments on Spec. Laws 2.145, the fourth feast, called the Crossing-feast . . . Pascha; on 147, Crossing-festival; and on 150; With the Crossing-feast he combines–61 below, where the feasts are also discussed at greater length. the offering of the first ears, the sacred Sheaf Refers to the bringing of the barley offering—that is, the Omer (Sheaf)—on “the day after the Sabbath” (Lev. 23:11). For further discussion of this, see the comment on Spec. Laws 2.162. The sixth is the Unleavened Bread Philo lists the Pascha and the Festival of Unleavened Bread as the fourth and the sixth holidays respectively, placing “the sacred Sheaf ” between them, as the fifth.44 Philo, Josephus, and (for the most part) the Rabbis were aware that the Pascha and the Unleavened Bread were not the same, since they referred to different aspects of an ongoing holiday period. Accordingly, these terms are rarely used synonymously in their works. It was only later, after the destruction of the Temple and the cessation of the Passover sacrifice, that they often came to be used interchangeably. emphatically Colson: “emphatically” or “truly.” The date of the Feast of Weeks is determined by a counting of seven weeks (Lev. 23:15). For the differences of opinion respecting the date of the beginning of the counting, see below, to 162. Philo associates this feast with “the blameless life of righteous men who follow nature and her ordinances.” 42. every day is a festival The idea of the feast of every day is most probably an echo of Num. 28– 29. The LXX version of Num. 28:2 ends with “at my feasts” (MT b’moado, “at its correct time”), and following this, Scripture contains a list of sacrifices that begins with the daily sacrifice (the tamid, or “burnt offering”). 48. But if only everywhere men had thought and felt as these few Philo was aware that this was a Utopian dream.

1056

Naomi G. Cohen

slaves and vassals, subject to their authority, the cities would have been brimful of happiness, utterly free from all that causes grief and fears, and packed with what produces joys and states of well-being, so that each season as it comes would give full opportunity for cheerful living and the whole cycle of the year would be a feast. On the Special Laws 2.56–64 The Sabbath and Other “Sevens”

56After this continuous unbroken feast which has neither beginning nor end, the second to be observed is the sacred seventh day, recurring with six days between. Some have given it the name of virgin, having before their eyes its surpassing chastity. They also call her the motherless, begotten by the father of the universe alone, the ideal form of the male sex with nothing of the female. It is the manliest and doughtiest of numbers, well gifted by nature for sovereignty and leadership . . . 57For seven is a factor common to all the phenomena which stand highest in the world of sensible things and serve to consummate in due order transitions of the year and recurring seasons. Such are the seven planets, the Great Bear, the Pleiades and the cycles of the moon, as it waxes and wanes, and the movements, harmonious and grand beyond description, of the other heavenly bodies. 58But Moses from a higher point of view gave it the name of completion and full perfection when he laid down six as the number under which the parts of the universe were brought into being, seven as that under which they were perfected. For six is even-odd, formed out of twice three with the odd part as its male element and the even as its feminine, and these two, by the immutable laws of nature, are the sources of generation. 59But seven is a number entirely uncompounded, and may be quite properly described as the light of six. For seven reveals 56. the sacred seventh day As in his discussion of the Sabbath in Spec. Laws 2.40, Philo devotes some time here to the mathematical properties and philosophical aspects of the number seven. He then describes how the Sabbath is celebrated; following this, he associates the remaining holy days with it. Some have given it the name of virgin Philo uses the term “virgin” both here and elsewhere to connote “unmated,” and not only in respect to women.45 the ideal form of the male sex with nothing of the female Philo, like many of his generation, perceived the male gender as superior to the female. A far from isolated example of his expression of what he obviously considered to be the “accepted truth” of his day appears in Alleg. Interp. 2.97: “For as on the roads it is possible to see the distinctions of existences . . . so in the soul too there are lifeless, incomplete, diseased, enslaved, female, and countless other movements full of disabilities; and on the other hand movements living, entire, male, free, sound, elder, good, genuine”46 (emphasis added). 57. seven is a factor common to all the phenomena which stand highest in the world of sensible things Philo here enunciates the generally accepted concept that the number seven informs the transitions in nature. 58. six . . . seven Philo combines Scripture with number conceptualization whereby the “odd” is masculine and the “even” feminine. Hence the first six numbers, divided into three pairs, provide the source of generation, and the single, masculine number seven, which follows them, represents the completion of Creation. See, for example, Exod. 20:9–11: “Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the Lord your God: you shall not do any work. . . . For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth and sea, and all that is in them, and He rested on the seventh day” (cf. also Exod. 31:17; Gen. 2:1–3). On the Special Laws 1–4

1057

as completed what six has produced, and therefore it may be quite rightly entitled the birthday of the world, whereon the Father’s perfect work, compounded of perfect parts, was revealed as what it was. Abstention from Work on the Sabbath Day

60On this day we are commanded to abstain from all work, not because the law inculcates slackness; on the contrary it always inures men to endure hardship and incites them to labor, and spurns those who would idle their time away, and accordingly is plain in its directions to work the full six days. Its object is rather to give men relaxation from continuous and unending toil and by refreshing their bodies with a regularly calculated system of remissions, to send them out renewed to their old activities. For a breathing-space enables not merely ordinary people but athletes also to collect their strength and with a stronger force behind them to undertake promptly and patiently each of the tasks set before them. 61Further, when He forbids bodily labor on the seventh day, He permits the exercise of the higher activities, namely, those employed in the study of the principles of virtue’s lore. For the law bids us to take the time for studying philosophy and thereby improve the soul and the dominant mind. 62So each seventh day there stand wide open in every city thousands of schools of good sense, temperance, cour59. the birthday of the world The seventh day is the day of birth, following, as it does, the six days of gestation; see also Creation 89; Moses 1.207; 2.210. 60. On this day we are commanded to abstain from all work Rabbinic tradition differentiates between labor as such and creative work. This is explained in terms of imitatio Dei (imitating God; cf. Lev. 19:2, B. Shab. 133b)—just as God created all things in six days, so too must humans complete their labors in six days (Exod. 20:11). Rabbinic sources define these labors according to activities performed in the construction of the Temple. These are categorized under 39 major headings, each with many subheadings. On the Life of Moses (2.219–20) also reflects a division into major categories and their subheadings, though the words used are not the same (see the comment on Spec. Laws 2.65). not because the law inculcates slackness That Jews did not labor on the Sabbath was a matter of criticism and ridicule in the ancient world.47 The statement that the injunction included working six days, and also the description of the recuperative effect of keeping the Sabbath, apparently reflect an apologetic need on Philo’s part. In light of this cultural background, Philo’s subsequent remarks in Spec. Laws 2.60 may easily be read as defensive rather than merely descriptive. the law . . . is plain in its directions to work the full six days Rabbinic sources contain not only the commandment to keep the Sabbath by desisting from labor, but also the injunction to work on the other six days (see, e.g., Mek. d’Rashbi 20 to Exod. 20:9). The approach of the Sages was by and large that if one labored during the week, whatever work remained undone would, so to speak, “do itself ”; in any event, on the Sabbath one must comport oneself as if there were no work waiting to be done (Mek. d’Rashbi 20). See also Avot R. Nat. A.11: “Love work: What is that? This teaches that a man should love work and that no man should hate work. For even as the Torah was given as a covenant, so was work given as a covenant; as it is said: [Exod. 20:9] ‘Six days shalt thou labor’”;48 similarly T. Shab. (Lieberman) 1:31; cf. further The Ethics of the Fathers 2:2: “It is good to combine Torah study with a worldly occupation, for working at them both drives sin from the mind.” 61. the higher activities, namely, those employed in the study of the principles of virtue’s lore. For the

1058

Naomi G. Cohen

age, justice and the other virtues, in which the scholars sit in order quietly, with ears alert and with full attention, so much do they thirst for the draught which the teacher’s words supply, while one of special experience rises and sets forth what is the best, and sure to be profitable and will make the whole of life grow to something better. 63But among the vast number of the particular truths and principles there studied, there stand out practically high above the others, two main heads: one of duty to God as shown by piety and holiness, one of duty to men as shown by humanity and justice, each of them splitting up into multiform branches, all highly laudable. 64These things show clearly that Moses does not allow any of those who use his sacred instruction to remain inactive at any season. But since we consist of body and soul, he assigned to the body its proper tasks and similarly to the soul what falls to its share, and his earnest desire was, that the two should be waiting to relieve each other. Thus while the body is working, the soul enjoys a respite, but when the body takes its rest, the soul resumes its work, and thus the best forms of life, the theoretical and the practical, take their turn in replacing each other. The practical life has six as its number allotted for ministering to the body. The theoretical has seven for knowledge and perfection of the mind. law bids us Better: those activities that bring to further perfection, these are the study of the Biblical laws and other regulations—bidding us. Philo sometimes uses the term logoi to refer to biblical commandments, and dogmata often means “regulations” of whatever kind, both in Philo and elsewhere. The phrase logōn kai dogmatōn found here should be understood as a reference to “biblical laws and other regulations.”49 See also the comment on Spec. Laws 2.142, the law. for studying philosophy It has already been pointed out in the comment on Spec. Laws 1.37 that what we call “religion,” both Philo and Josephus term “philosophy.” 62. good sense Better: wisdom. Colson here renders phronesis as “good sense,” but elsewhere he too renders it as “wisdom” (e.g., twice in Spec. Laws 4.134–35, the second time in the same combination as here: phronesis and sōphrosynē). good sense, temperance, courage, justice These are traditional “cardinal virtues” in philosophical ethical parlance in the ancient world. These are of course not the only virtues, and while Philo uses them as his overall frame of reference, he does not hesitate to add others. For example, in Moses 2.216, where—as here—Philo describes the Sabbath activities in the synagogue, he first lists these same four cardinal virtues in a slightly different order, and then adds “piety and holiness” as a synonym for living like a good Jew (see also Spec. Laws 2.63).50 the scholars Better: “the listeners.” 63. particular truths and principles Better: Biblical laws and other regulations. See the comment on 2.61. there stand out practically high above the others I prefer Heinemann’s suggestion to render this expression: “there stand out, so to say, high above the others.” two main heads . . . duty to God . . . duty to men The Talmud uses several halakhic categories for the division of the commandments, such as “positive and negative,” “time bound and not time bound,” “biblical and rabbinic.” (For a similar division on Philo’s part, see Heir 168.) 64. The practical life has six . . . The theoretical has seven Philo does not mean by this that only on the Sabbath can one attend to the spiritual aspects of being, but that this day is specially devoted to it; further, this imagery implicitly produces an association with imitatio Dei (cf. the comment on Spec. Laws 2.60, On this day we are commanded to abstain from all work).

On the Special Laws 1–4

1059

On the Special Laws 2.65–110 Prohibitions

65It is forbidden to light any fire on this day, fire being regarded as the source and origin of life, since without it nothing can be executed which serves the requirements necessary for existence . . . 69But the holiday of the Sabbath is given by the law not only to servants but also to the cattle . . . 70There is no need to go through the rest of the list, when even the ox who serves the most useful and indispensable purposes in human life, namely ploughing when the soil is prepared for the sowing, and again thrashing when the sheaves are brought in for the purging of the fruit, is then kept free from the yoke and enjoys the birthday festival of the world. So universally has the sanctity of the day extended its influence. Cancellation of Debts

71So high is the reverence which he assigns to the seventh day that other things which share in the qual65. forbidden to light any fire on this day From Exod. 35:3. In Moses 2.219–20 Philo differentiates between “the lighting of a fire on the seventh day . . . as the primary activity” and the gathering of kindling wood as “brother to, and of the same family as the sin of burning them” (220). Philo’s differentiation is similar to the halakhic recognition that this single act involves two separate transgressions—breaking “the commandment to rest from work” and collecting “materials for fire.” But such variations merely indicate that Philo approaches the topic from slightly different vantage points in different passages (cf. also Spec. Laws 2.250–51).51 70. the ox See Deut. 5:14 and its parallel Exod. 20:10 in the LXX (they are both part of the Decalogue). As Philo himself notes, in the ancient world the ox was indispensable to agriculture. Hence the singling out of the ox is of particular significance. the birthday festival of the world See Gen. 2:1–3, and Exod. 20:11 (Decalogue). The reason given in the parallel version of the Decalogue (Deut. 5:15) is: “Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt and that the Lord your God freed you from there.” Not surprisingly, Philo refrains from mentioning the slavery in Egypt, not only here, but whenever possible. One should bear in mind in this context that Philo of Alexandria is writing to a Jewish audience in Egypt. 71–110 In much of the material that follows, there is a clear distinction made between behavior toward a fellow Jew, and that toward a stranger. Though the justification for this is not explicitly spelled out either in Scripture, in Rabbinic sources, or in Philo, it is that privileges and obligations go in pairs. The fellow Jew is obligated to behave in a certain manner, whereas the foreigner is not. Hence, it would not accord with the rules of justice if foreigners, according to their laws, charged interest on loans made to Jews and purchased Jewish slaves in perpetuity, while Jews could not act in the same manner in their relations with the foreigners. This would not be in accord with what Philo terms “equality” (isoths)—see also the comment on Spec. Laws 4.74, equality, and on 4.165, the spirit of equality. Different treatment for citizens, resident aliens, and women was the norm in the ancient world. This was so in Alexandria, where Philo lived; respecting classical Athens, the accepted hypothesis is that only 10 percent of the inhabitants were citizens with full rights. 71–73 These sections contain the biblical prohibition against usury, as well as the enjoining of a humanitarian attitude toward Jewish slaves. These two topics are connected by the assumption that the primary reason for being sold into slavery is poverty—namely, the inability to defray loans, which Philo discusses in connection with the sabbatical cancellation of debts. He uses

1060

Naomi G. Cohen

ities of the number are honored in his estimation. Thus he lays down a rule for cancellation of debts in every seventh year, both as a succor to the poor and as a challenge to the rich to show humanity, in order that by giving some share of their own to the needy they may expect to receive the same kindness themselves, if any disaster befall them. Human vicissitudes are manifold, and life is not always on the same anchorage, but is like an unsteady wind, ever veering round to the opposite quarter. 72Now the best course would be that the creditors’ liberality should be extended to all debtors . . . 73He does not allow them to exact money from their fellow-nationals, but does permit the recovery of dues from the others. He distinguishes the two by calling the first by the appropriate name of brethren, suggesting that none should grudge to give of his own to those whom nature has made his brothers and fellowheirs. Those who are not of the same nation he describes as aliens, reasonably enough, and the condition of the alien excludes any idea of partnership, unless indeed by a transcendency of virtues he converts even it, into a tie of kinship, since it is a general truth, that common citizenship rests on virtues and laws which propound the morally beautiful as the sole good? Aside: Tirade against Cruelty of Moneylenders

74Now lending money on interest is a blameworthy action, for a person who borrows is not living on a superabundance of means, but is obviously in need, and since he is compelled to pay the interest as

this provision against usury as a springboard to inveigh sharply and at length against the cruelty of contemporary loan sharks (74–78) and of tax collectors (92–95). See also the comment on 89–96 and its note. 71. for cancellation of debts in every seventh year See Deut. 15:1–11. It is clear from the context in Deuteronomy that these loans are meant to be acts of kindness to people in dire financial straits, not commercial business transactions. However, the cancellation of the debt by the sabbatical year caused people to refrain from lending money to the poor. Accordingly, Hillel the Elder introduced the Prozbul (a Greek word whose literal meaning is: “delivering to the jurisdiction of the courts”). This is “a declaration made in court, before the execution of a loan, to the effect that the law of limitation by the entrance of the sabbatical year shall not apply.”52 Hillel the Elder was probably a younger contemporary of Philo, yet there is no hint of the Prozbul in Philo. But this is hardly surprising, because even if it was already instituted by the time Philo was writing, it probably would not yet have become well known and generally accepted. they may expect to receive the same kindness themselves The reason given here for the cancellation of debts every seventh year is intended to encourage those who have given loans, by addressing their self-interest. 73. brethren We would term this “family.” 74–78 Philo—as he often does—uses a biblical prohibition as a springboard to refer to problems of his own time. He now inveighs at length against social problems, beginning with the cruelty of moneylenders. His caustic address to the money shark (usurer) in Spec. Laws 2.75–6 follows naturally upon the biblical injunction to cancel debts on the sabbatical year; similarly, in 89–95, he proceeds to the atrocities committed by tax collectors, describing their practices in lurid colors, after which he reconnects with the major subject of the pericope in 96. 74. lending money on interest is a blameworthy action For the biblical prohibition see Exod. 22:24, Lev. 25:35–37, and Deut. 23:20.

On the Special Laws 1–4

1061

well as the capital, he must necessarily be in the utmost straits. And while he thinks he is being benefited by the loan, he is actually like senseless animals, suffering further damage from the bait which is set before him. Aside: Attack on Cruel Moneylenders

75I ask you, Sir Moneylender, why do you disguise your want of a partner’s feeling by pretending to act as a partner? Why do you assume outwardly a kindly and charitable appearance but display in your actions inhumanity and a savage brutality, exacting more than you lend, sometimes double, reducing the pauper to further depths of poverty? 76And therefore no one sympathizes when in your eagerness for larger gains you lose your capital as well. In their glee all call you extortioner and money-grubber and other similar terms, you who have lain in wait for the misfortunes of others, and regarded their illluck as your own good luck. 77It has been said that vice has no sense of sight; so too the moneylender is blind, and has no vision of the time of repayment, when it will hardly be possible, if at all, to obtain what he has expected to gain by his greed. 78Such a person may well pay the penalty of his avarice by receiving back merely what he provided, and learn not to make a trade of other people’s misfortunes and enrich himself in improper ways. And the borrowers should be granted the privilege of the law’s charity, and pay neither simple nor compound interest, but just the principal. For later, as the proper occasion arise, they will make the same sacrifice to their present creditors and requite with equal assistance those who were the first to bestow the benefit. The Manumission of Hebrew Slaves

79After ordinances of this sort he follows them by laying down a law which breathes kindness and humanity throughout. “If,” he says, “one of your brethren is sold to you, let him continue in slavery for six years but in the seventh be set free without payment.” 80Here again he uses the term brother of a fellow-national, and by this name indirectly sows in the soul of the owner the thoughts of his close relationship to the person in his power. It bids him not despise him as a stranger who has no charm to win his affection, but allow the lesson which the holy word suggests to create a preliminary sense of kinship, and thus feel no resentment at his approaching liberation. 81For people in this position, though we find them called slaves, are in reality laborers who undertake the service just to procure themselves

77. “vice has no sense of sight;” Quotation marks added. Colson notes that the source of this quotation is unknown. 78. the law’s charity, and pay neither simple nor compound interest, but just the principal This is in respect to loans in general, not their sabbatical remission. The same is stated again in Spec. Laws 2.122 (not included here). they will make the same sacrifice to their present creditors Repeats what has been said in 71 respecting the moratorium of debts that Scripture prescribes on the sabbatical year. 79 “If,” he says, “one of your brethren is sold to you.” What follows is a homily on Deut. 15:12–18. 80 Here again he uses the term brother of a fellow-national. The “he” refers to Moses. Philo notes that this is a repetition of what he said above in 73. 81. [hired] laborers In the text, Colson has merely “laborers,” but in a footnote ad loc., he suggests adding “hired,” because what is implied is a specific legal status, above the slave but lower than

1062

Naomi G. Cohen

the necessaries of life, however much some may bluster about the rights of absolute power which they exercise over them. 82We must abate their truculence by repeating these excellent injunctions of the law. The man whom you call a slave, my friend, is a hired person, himself too a man, ultimately your kinsman, further of the same nation, perhaps also of the same tribe and ward, reduced to the guise which he now adopts by actual need. 83Expel, then, from your soul that evil and malignant thing, arrogance. Deal with him as your hired servant, both in what you give and what you take. As for the latter, he will render you his services without the slightest backwardness always and everywhere without procrastination, and anticipate your orders with zeal and rapidity. And you must give him in return food and raiment and take care for his other needs. Do not harness him like an unreasoning animal nor oppress him with weights too heavy and too numerous for his capacity, nor heap insults upon him, nor drag him down by threats and menaces into cruel despondency. Rather grant him time and places for respite according to some regular rule. For while “not too much of anything” is an excellent maxim in every case, it is particularly so between masters and servants. 84When however you have received his services for the fullest term required, namely, six years, and when the truly sacred number of the seventh year is about to begin, grant his freedom to him who is naturally free and grant it without hesitation, my friend, and rejoice that you have found an opportunity of benefiting the highest of living creatures, man, in his chief interest. For a slave can have no greater boon than freedom. 85Be glad, too, to crown your benefaction by bestowing something of each of your various kinds of property to start him on his way. For it is a praise to you that he should not leave your home penniless but well stocked in resources to procure what is necessary. Otherwise the same thing may happen again. He may be reduced by need the other citizens. These laborers are in fact indentured servants rather than slaves, since they are required to serve only a specific number of years (see Deut. 15:12–18). some may bluster This too sounds like an echo of the behavioral norm in Philo’s day. 82. the same tribe and ward This is almost certainly a modernizing of the scriptural statement, for these classifications were current in Alexandria. 83. Deal with him as your hired servant Here, Philo spells out the rights of servants, with the common humanity between master and slave given as their ideological justification. “not too much of anything” This is a proverbial aphorism. See, for example, Plato, Prot. 343b3: “The temple at Delphi . . . [has] the far famed inscriptions . . . ‘Know Thyself ’ and ‘Nothing too much,’” echoed also in Spec. Laws 1.10. 84. when the truly sacred number of the seventh year is about to begin This is in accord with Rabbinic tradition, which also stipulated that the slave is freed after six years of servitude (without reference to the sabbatical year).53 This tradition held sway even while the biblical laws concerning the Hebrew slave were no longer in use in the days of the Second Temple (see, e.g., B. Arak. 29a; Git. 69a). The obligation to release one’s slaves after six years is comparable to the obligation to keep the laws concerning shemitah, the sabbatical year (see Spec. Laws 2.86–88, 96–109). In any event, these passages, as well as the ensuing ones, remain relevant to the appropriate behavior of masters to servants and slaves, whether Jewish or Gentile, and the context here shows that this is what Philo had in mind. 85. Otherwise the same thing may happen again This section stresses the need to send the manumitted slave on his way with financial assistance, lest he again be reduced to slavery. Compare similarly Midr. Tan. to Deut. 15:14, which makes the same remark in the name of R. Yishmael.

On the Special Laws 1–4

1063

to his old unhappy plight and compelled to undertake slavery again through lack of the means of life, and the boon you bestowed upon him may be cancelled. So much for the poor. Shemitah (the Sabbatical Year)

86Then follows a commandment to let the land lie fallow during the seventh year. There are several reasons for this. In the first place he wished to give seven its honorable position in all the series in which time is measured, namely, days, months and years. For every seventh day is holy, a Sabbath as the Hebrews call it, and it is in the seventh month in every year that the chief of all the feasts falls and therefore naturally the seventh year also has been marked out for a share in the dignity which belongs to the number. 87And there is this second reason. Do not, he says, be entirely under the power of lucre but submit voluntarily to some loss, so that you may find it easy to bear some involuntary injury, if ever it should occur, instead of resenting it as some strange and alien misfortune and falling into despair. For some of the rich are so poor-spirited that when adversity overtakes them, they are as mournful and depressed as if they had been robbed of their whole substance. 88But among the followers of Moses all who have been his true disciples, trained in his excellent institutions from their earliest years, by allowing even rich territory to lie idle inure themselves to bear privations calmly and by the lesson of magnanimity thus learned voluntarily and deliberately to let even undoubted sources of wealth fall almost from their very hands. Aside: Evils of Tax Gatherers

89There is also, I think, this third suggestion, that men should absolutely abstain from putting any oppressive burden upon anyone else. For if the different parts of the earth which cannot share in any sensa86–109 While these sections are primarily devoted to the various aspects of shemitah (sabbatical year), Philo also takes this opportunity to inveigh against an acute contemporary problem: the cruelty of the tax collectors. The associational link between the sabbatical year and tax collectors may have been that in Judea, the requirement to pay taxes to the Roman government was most onerous during the “seventh year” (shemitah year) when many farmers did not have any income from the land to enable them to defray the levy. Philo gives four reasons for the institution of the “seventh year” (the scriptural basis for which is Exod. 23:11 and Lev. 25:2–7: 1) the holiness of the number seven as reflected in the hallowing of the seventh day (the Sabbath), the seventh month (Tishrei), and the seventh year (sabbatical year) (Spec. Laws 2:86); 2) training in the ability to have generosity of spirit and to bear privation (87–88); 3) the mandate to “absolutely abstain from putting oppressive burdens on others” (89–96, which includes the bitter attack on tax collectors); and 4) to restore the fertility of the land (97–103). 86. to give seven its honorable position Philo considers this to be part of the series of “seven” that forms the foundation of the Jewish calendar, as well as of the cosmic order. the chief of all the feasts Refers to the Day of Atonement. 88. true disciples I have argued in my Philo’s Scriptures that Philo uses the adjective “true” here to contrast these “disciples of Moses” with others who, in Philo’s eyes, are not “true.”54 89–96 The mandate to refrain from “putting oppressive burdens upon others” is used as a springboard to introduce an appalling description of the excesses of tax gatherers. In Spec. Laws 2:89– 91, Philo leads up to his tirade against the tax collectors gradually and elegantly, arguing initially

1064

Naomi G. Cohen

tions of pain or pleasure yet have to be given respite, how much more must this be the ease with men who not only possess the sense which is common also to the irrational animals but even the special gift of reason through which the painful feelings caused by toil and labor stamp and record themselves in mental pictures, more vivid than mere sensation! 90Let so-called masters therefore cease from imposing upon their slaves severe and scarcely endurable orders, which break down their bodies by violent usage and force the soul to collapse before the body. 91You need not grudge to moderate your orders. The result will be that you yourselves will enjoy proper attention and that your servants will carry out their orders readily and accept their duties not just for a short time, to be abandoned through wearying too quickly, and, indeed, we may say, as if old age had prematurely overtaken them in their labors. On the contrary, they will prolong their youth to the utmost, like athletes, not those who fatten themselves up into full fleshiness, but those who regularly train themselves by “dry sweatings” to acquire what is necessary and useful for life. 92So too let rulers of cities cease from racking them with taxes and tolls as heavy as they are constant. Such rulers both fill their own coffers and while hoarding money hoard also illiberal vices which defile the whole of civic life. 93For they purposely choose as tax-gatherers the most ruthless of men, brimful of inhumanity . . . These persons add to their natural brutality the immunity they gain from their masters’ instructions, and in their determination to accommodate every action to those masters’ pleasure, they leave no severity untried, however barbarous, and banish mercy and gentleness even from their dreams. 94And therefore in carrying out their collecting they create universal chaos and confusion and apply their exactions not merely to the property of their victims but also to their bodies, on which they from the lesser to the greater, then from the inert to the sentient, and following that, from private masters to the rulers of cities; it is in this context that he voices his harsh criticism of the tax collectors appointed by the rulers of cities (92–95). Finally, having described the atrocities committed by the tax collectors55 in lurid colors, Philo reconnects with the major subject of the pericope—the sabbatical year (96). 90. so-called masters See 81–83, where Philo declares that Israelite slaves “are in reality [hired] laborers,” or perhaps indentured servants. Philo and his readers would presumably have been familiar with Lev. 25:55,56 which states: “For it is to Me that the Israelites are servants.” Rabbinic literature uses this verse as a prooftext for the idea that the Children of Israel are not slaves of any human being, but only of God.57 The assumption that nobody is the true master of any other human being is a Stoic notion as well; see, for example, Seneca’s Epistles 47. Seneca was a contemporary of Philo, so the notion must have been a familiar one not only in Jewish circles in their day.58 91. like athletes The literary reference is to Plato’s Phaedr. 239c.59 Philo frequently uses the image of athletes.60 Though the specific sports differed, sports and athletic prowess were at least as important in the Greco-Roman world as they are today. Rabbinic tradition differs markedly in its attitude toward sports. 92–96 In these sections, Philo engages in a bitter tirade against the rapaciousness of tax collectors. He contrasts their callous behavior with the sabbatical laws that enjoin leaving even the land fallow periodically in order to regain its strength, and he cites the laws of nature to illustrate the natural alteration between labor and rest. 92. So too let rulers of cities cease This is the subject of what follows.

On the Special Laws 1–4

1065

inflict insults and outrages and forms of torture quite original in their savagery. Indeed, I have heard of persons who, actuated by abnormal frenzy and cruelty, have not even spared the dead, persons who become so utterly brutalized that they venture even to flog corpses with whips. 95And when anyone censured the extraordinary cruelty shown in refusing to allow even death, the release and in very truth the “end” of all ills, to procure freedom from insult for those who are now beyond its reach, and in causing them to undergo outrage instead of the normal rites of burial, the line of defense adopted was worse than the accusation. They treated the dead, they said, with such contempt not for the useless purpose of insulting the deaf and senseless dust but in order to excite the pity of those who were related to them by birth or some other tie of fellowship, and thus urge them to ransom the bodies of their friends by making a final gift in payment for them. 96Foolish, foolish people, I would say to them, have you not first learnt the lesson which you teach, or are you competent to induce others to show pity, even with the cruelest actions before them, when you have exscinded all kindly and humane feelings from your own souls? And this you have done, though you had no lack of good advisers, particularly in our laws, which have relieved even the land from its yearly tolls and provided it with a rest and respite. 97This land, though to all appearance a lifeless thing, is put into a condition to make its requital and to repay a boon which it received as a free gift but is now eager to return. For the immunity which it has during the seventh year and its rest from labor and complete freedom during the whole annual cycle give it a fertility in the next year which causes it to bear twice as much or even many times as much as in the previous years. 98We may also note that the trainers of athletes take much the same line in dealing with their pupils. When they have thoroughly drilled them by an unbroken course of exercises, before they reach the point of exhaustion, they give them a fresh lease of life by providing relaxations not only from the labor of the training itself but from the dietary regulations as to food and drink, the hardships of which they abate in order to make the soul cheerful and the body comfortable. 99And we must not suppose that here we have the professional trainers to hard work appearing as instructors in slackness and luxury; they are following a scientific method by which further strength and power is given to what is already strong and powerful, and vigor enhanced as though it were a harmony by alternating relaxation with tension. 100This truth I have learnt from the never-failing wisdom of nature who, knowing how toil-worn and weary our race becomes, divided our time into day and night, giving 94. I have heard of persons Note the use of the first person rather than the neutral “there are persons.” This is another indication that the tirade is in fact triggered by Philo’s personal experience of current events. 96. are you competent to induce others to show pity A rhetorical question. which have relieved even the land from its yearly tolls and provided it with a rest and respite Philo uses this association to reconnect with the central subject of the passage: the sabbatical year. 97. give it a fertility in the next year This is both a biblical promise (Lev. 25:20–22) and a physical reality. Even today, in spite of modern fertilizers, many farmers the world over not only rotate their crops, but once every few years let some of their fields lie fallow. 98. trainers of athletes See the comment on Spec. Laws 2.91 and its note. 100. wisdom of nature The reference is to the cycles of the day. Nature also prescribes the alternation between stress and relaxation as a means to achieving renewed strength.

1066

Naomi G. Cohen

the hours of wakefulness to one, and of sleep to the other. 101For, most careful of mothers, her anxious thought was that her children should not be exhausted. In the daylight she wakens our bodies and stimulates them to carry out all the offices and demands of life, and reproaches those who are making it their practice to loiter through life in an idle and voluptuous way. But at night she sounds the recall as in war and summons them to repose and take care of their bodies. 102And men casting off all the sore burden of affairs which has lain heavy upon them from morn till eve, turn homeward and betake themselves to rest, and in the deep sleep which falls upon them cast off the distempers of their daylight troubles, and then again unwearied and full of fresh vigor hasten eagerly each to his own familiar occupation. 103This double course nature has assigned to men by means of sleeping and waking with the result that by alternating activity with inaction they have increased readiness and nimbleness in the various parts of their bodies. Summing Up

104These considerations the prophetic author of our laws had before his eyes when he proclaimed a rest for the land and made the husbandman stay his work after six years. But he gave this enactment not only on the grounds which I have mentioned but also moved by that habitual kindliness which he aims at infusing in every part of his legislation, thereby impressing on the readers of the sacred Scriptures the stamp of good and neighborly customs. 105For he forbids them to close up any field during the seventh year. All olive yards and vineyards are to be left wide open and so with the other kinds of property, whether of sown crops or orchard trees, thus giving an unrestricted use of such fruits as are of natural growth to the poor, quite as much, if not more so, than to the owners. 106Thus on the one hand he did not allow the masters to do any work of tillage because he wished to avoid giving them the painful feeling that they had incurred the expenditure but did not receive the income in return, and on the other hand he thought fit that the poor should for this year at any rate enjoy as their own what appeared to belong to others, and in this way took from them any appearance of humiliation or possibility of being reproached as beggars. 107May not our passionate affection well go out to laws charged with

104. the prophetic author Philo refers to Moses as the author of the Pentateuch, under divine inspiration.61 Indeed Scripture regularly calls the Torah “The Torah of Moses” (e.g., 1 Kings 2:3, Mal. 3:22 || 3:24 LXX), and this is also the case in the Rabbinic tradition. For example, M. Yoma 3:8 states, “as is written in the Law of thy servant Moses.”62 Similar locutions are found in other writings of the time (e.g., NT Luke 2:22; 24:44; John 7:23; Acts 28:23; and Appendix to 3 Enoch, 48d4; T. Jac. 7:3. Even today, when the scroll from which the Torah is read in the synagogue is raised for all to see, the congregation recites, “This is the Teaching that Moses set before the Israelites [Deut. 4:44], which Moses and Aaron recorded [Num. 4:37], at the Lord’s bidding through Moses [Num. 9:23].” This practice, customary in all Orthodox synagogues, is already mentioned in Massekhet Soferim 14:8.63 105. quite as much, if not more so, than to the owners While Lev. 25:6–7 assigns the produce that grows by itself to one’s personal use, this does not exclude the permission granted in Exod. 23:11 for all to use it. Later, the Rabbis forbade the owner to enjoy these fruits because of the fear that farmers would sow their land clandestinely at the end of the sixth year, and then claim that the produce had grown on its own.64

On the Special Laws 1–4

1067

such kindly feeling, which teaches the rich to give liberally and share what they have with others and encourages the poor not to be always dancing attendance on the houses of the wealthy, as though compelled to resort thither to make up their own deficiency, but sometimes also to come claiming a source of wealth in the fruits which, as I have said, develop untilled and which they can treat as their own? 108Widows and orphans and all others who are neglected and ignored because they have no surplus of income, have at this time such a surplus, and find themselves suddenly affluent through the gifts of God, Who invites them to share with the owners under the sanction of the holy number seven. 109And indeed all stock-breeders feel at liberty to take out their own cattle in search of pasturage and to select meadowland of good herbage and particularly suitable for grazing their beasts. Thus they take full advantage of the immunity secured by the time of freedom. And this is not opposed by any grudging on the master’s side. They are under the sway of a very ancient custom, which through long familiarity has won its way to the standing of nature. 110While laying down this first foundation of moderation and humanity, he built on it by adding years to the number of seven times seven and consecrated the whole of the fiftieth year. This he made the subject of many special enactments, all of remarkable excellence, apart from those which are common to other seventh years. The New Moon

140Following the order stated above, we record the third type of feast which we will proceed to explain. This is the New Moon, or beginning of the lunar month, namely the period between one conjunction and the next, the length of which has been accurately calculated in the astronomical schools. The new 108. share with the owners The combination of the injunction in Exod. 23:11 and Lev. 25:6–7 has already been noted in the previous comment. 140–144 In the intervening sections (Spec. Laws 2.110–139), Philo discusses various aspects of the jubilee year (Lev. 25:8–55)—also a function of the number seven—such as the returning of landed property to its original owners (Spec. Laws 2.110–15), among other relevant and more tangential matters. At this point Philo returns to his review of the ten biblical feasts that he listed above in 39 under the rubric of the Fourth Commandment: the Festival of the Sabbath. In 140 he proceeds to “the third feast,” the New Moon, which he discusses at surprising length. Colson has suggested that Philo devoted so much space to the New Moon holiday because the lunar calendar used by the Jews differed from the solar calendar that was employed in Egypt. Although Philo makes no mention of the lunar calendar in his list of reasons for placing the New Moon among the holidays, this faithfully reflects the far greater importance it once had in Jewish consciousness, when the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem announced the appearance of the new moon every month, thereby determining the exact day that the Jewish holidays were to be celebrated (see the comment on 140, the length of which has been accurately calculated). 140. the New Moon, or beginning of the lunar month See too, Spec. Laws 1.177–179 (not presented in this volume) where the sacrifices to be offered on the New Moon in the Temple in Jerusalem are listed, and provided with symbolic meaning. the length of which has been accurately calculated According to M. RH 2, the official time of the appearance of the new moon was determined by means of witnesses who came from all over Judea to the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem, which then made a pronouncement; and this established

1068

Naomi G. Cohen

moon holds its place among the feasts for many reasons. First, because it is the beginning of the month, and the beginning, both in number and in time, deserves honor. Secondly, because when it arrives, nothing in heaven is left without light, for while at the conjunction, when the moon is lost to sight under the sun, the side which faces earth is darkened, when the new month begins it resumes its natural brightness. 141The third reason is, that the stronger or more powerful element at that time supplies the help which is needed to the smaller and weaker. For it is just then that the sun begins to illumine the moon with the light which we perceive and the moon reveals its own beauty to the eye. And this is surely an obvious lesson inculcating kindness and humanity and bidding men never grudge their own good things, but imitating the blessed and happy beings in heaven banish jealousy from the confines of the soul, producing what they have for all to see, treat it as common property, and give freely to the deserving. 142The fourth reason is, that the moon traverses the zodiac in a shorter fixed period than any other heavenly body. For it accomplishes that revolution in the span of a single month, and therefore the conclusion of its circuit, when the moon ends its course at the starting point at which it began, is honored by the law, which declares that day a feast, again to teach us an admirable lesson, that in the conduct of life we should make the ends correspond with the beginnings. And this will be effected if we keep our primitive appetites under the control of reason and do not permit them to rebel and riot like cattle that have no herdsman. 143As for the services that the moon renders to everything on earth, there is no need to dilate upon them. The proofs are perfectly clear. As the moon increases, the rivers and fountains rise, and again diminish as it diminishes. Its phases cause the seas to withdraw and dwindle at the ebb tide, then suddenly rush back with the returning flood, and the air to undergo all manner of changes as the sky becomes clear or cloudy and alters in other ways. The fruits, both of the sown crops and orchard trees, grow to their maturity according to the revolutions of the moon, which fosters and ripens everything that grows with the dewy and very gentle breezes which it brings. 144But, as I have said, this is not the time to dwell at length on the praises of the moon and record and catalogue the services which it renders to living creatures and everything on earth. It is for these or similar reasons that the New Moon is honored and obtains its place among the feasts.

the exact day of the celebration of the Jewish holidays. It is related there in the Mishnah that this date was publicized by means of bonfires lit from hilltop to hilltop all the way to the eastern Diaspora (Babylon), and later by messengers. However, it makes no mention of similar measures respecting the western Diaspora to which Alexandria belonged. This may perhaps explain Philo’s comment that the exact time of the appearance of the new moon was known scientifically.65 141. And this is surely an obvious lesson inculcating kindness and humanity Philo gives four reasons for the celebration of the new moon as a feast. The first two refer to natural phenomena. The other two reasons belong to the realm of ethical teachings. 142. the law In Jewish contexts, such as here, the Gk. ho nomos clearly means “the Torah.”66 again to teach us an admirable lesson . . . make the ends correspond with the beginnings The lesson is the requirement to keep one’s animal instincts under control. 143–144. the services that the moon renders to everything on earth Philo here writes that the singling out of the moon and its place among the feasts is justified by the large number of beneficial natural phenomena connected with it.

On the Special Laws 1–4

1069

Pascha/Passover/The Crossing-Feast

145After the New Moon comes the fourth feast, called the Crossing-feast, which the Hebrews in their native tongue call Pascha. In this festival many myriads of victims from noon till eventide are offered by the whole people, old and young alike, raised for that particular day to the dignity of the priesthood. 145–161 Although today they are considered to be different aspects of a single entity, the Pesach (the Passover sacrifice, the offering of the paschal lamb) and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were originally distinct. Exodus 23:14 and 34:18 describe the Feast of Unleavened Bread as commemorating the Exodus from Egypt. In Leviticus, the “passover offering” and the Feast of Unleavened Bread, though connected, are presented as distinct; see Lev. 23:5–8. Leviticus 23:5–6 commands that the passover offering (i.e., the paschal lamb) be sacrificed toward evening on the 14th of Nisan, and that the Feast of Unleavened Bread be celebrated for the ensuing seven days.67 Philo distinguishes among Passover (pascha, which he also calls diabateria, “offerings made before crossing a boundary”), the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Hag ha-Matzot), and the Sheaf (the bringing of the omer) as separate and distinct feasts. (For more on the Sheaf, see the comment on Spec. Laws 2.162.) The Mishnah, even though it was redacted well over 100 years after the destruction of the Second Temple, remains sensitive to the fact that the word Pesach refers specifically to the slaughtering and offering of the Passover sacrifice on the 14th of Nisan in the afternoon and its eating at the festive meal in the evening that is the beginning of the 15th of Nisan.68 The Mishnah preserves this distinction in spite of the fact that after the destruction of the Temple neither the Passover sacrifices nor the offering of the Sheaf (the bringing of the omer) could continue to be celebrated, and all that was left was their remembrance. In time, the three formerly distinct holidays became merged in the popular consciousness and often came to be referred to collectively as “Passover.”69 In spite of this, in purely liturgical contexts—such as in the holiday addition to the Grace after Meals, and that found in the Amidah—the term “the holiday of the unleavened bread” (Hag ha-Matzot) is preserved. 145. the fourth feast, called the Crossing-feast . . . Pascha In his Migration 25 and Alleg. Interp. 3.94 as well as immediately below in 147, Philo allegorizes the fourth feast as a crossing over from the passions of the body, symbolized by Egypt, to the purified soul. But the allegory does not replace the literal connotation. many myriads of victims from noon till eventide are offered According to Scripture, the proper time of day to slaughter the paschal lamb is “at dusk” (Exod. 12:6, Lev. 23:5, Num. 9:3). The halakhic sources define this as “after midday,” with the Korban Pesach (Passover sacrifice) being offered after the Korban Tamid (the afternoon daily sacrifice). Similarly, M. Pes. 5:3 states: “[If the Passover offering] . . . was slaughtered before midday it is invalid.” So, too, Maimonides writes in Hilkhot Korban Pesach that “it is a positive commandment to slaughter the [Korban] Pesach on the fourteenth of Nisan after mid-day.”70 And since the paschal lamb was in fact slaughtered after the daily afternoon tamid, in practice the time allotted for the sacrifice of the Korban Pesach was even shorter. Both the Talmud (B. Pes. 64b) and Josephus (J.W. 6.9.3) describe the myriads of victims offered by the pilgrims from the Diaspora who filled Jerusalem at the Passover feast in the years shortly preceding the destruction of the Temple. Even though, barring a miracle, such a large number of sacrifices could not possibly have been offered in the Temple during the few hours between the afternoon tamid and nightfall in the existing parameters of time and space,71 it remains abundantly clear that the actual number of people must have been exceedingly great. raised for that particular day to the dignity of the priesthood On this occasion the whole nation per-

1070 Naomi G. Cohen

For at other times the priests according to the ordinance of the law carry out both the public sacrifices and those offered by private individuals. But on this occasion the whole nation performs the sacred rites and acts as priest with pure hands and complete immunity. 146The reason for this is as follows: the festival is a reminder and thank offering for that great migration from Egypt which was made by more than two million men and women in obedience to the oracles vouchsafed to them. Now at that time they had left a land brimful of inhumanity which made a practice of expelling strangers, and what was worst of all, assigned divine honors to irrational creatures, not merely domesticated animals, but even wild beasts. So exceedingly joyful were they that in their vast enthusiasm and impatient eagerness, they naturally enough sacrificed without waiting for their priest. This practice which on that occasion was the result of a spontaneous and instinctive emotion, was sanctioned by the law once in every year to remind them of their duty of thanksgiving. These are the facts as discovered by the study of ancient history. forms the sacred rites and acts as priest. Philo recounts this in a similar manner in Moses 2.224: “a public festival called in Hebrew Pasch, on which the victims are not brought to the altar by the laity and sacrificed by the priests, but, as commanded by the Law, the whole nation acts as priest, each individual bringing what he offers on his own behalf and dealing with it with his own hands.” Talmudic sources explicitly state that the offering of the sacrifices, but not their slaughter, was the prerogative of the priest. M. Zev. 3:1 states that “slaughtering is valid if it is done by them that are not priests, or by women or by bondservants . . . provided that none that is [ritually] unclean touches the flesh.”72 The scriptural basis given for this is the wording of Lev. 1:5, where the work of the priests is differentiated from the slaughtering, and commences after it: “The bull shall be slaughtered before the Lord; and Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall offer the blood.” That in Philo’s day the Passover sacrifice was indeed slaughtered by many of those who brought it—and that this act may even have been seen as particularly righteous—can be concluded from the tradition found in B. Pes. 66a.73 This talmudic passage relates how, when the day for slaughtering the Passover fell on the Sabbath, the people asked Hillel the Elder (a virtual contemporary of Philo) what those who forgot to bring the knives needed for the sacrificing should do, given that they were forbidden to carry them on the Sabbath. He said, “Let us wait and see what happens,” and it transpired that they put the knives in the wool of the lamb or between the horns of the goat that was brought for sacrifice. In the case of the paschal sacrifice it is clear that the laity, though not necessarily the person who offered the sacrifice, slaughtered the animal74—see M. Pes. 8:2: “If a man said to his slave, ‘Go and slaughter the Passover offering for me’,” and M. Pes. 5:6 explicitly states that “an Israelite slaughtered his [own] offering and the priest caught the blood.” Respecting the apparent discrepancy between Spec. Laws 2.145 and what was actually done, it is reasonable to suppose that Philo may not have clearly distinguished between the slaughtering of the animal and the ritual sprinkling of its blood. In any event the description in the Mishnah is in line with 2 Chron. 30:16–17. 146. more than two million Exodus 12:37 and Num. 11:21 both give the number 600,000 for the men who went out of Egypt. Philo’s number is reasonable when the women and children are factored into the number found in Scripture. the facts as discovered by the study of ancient history In contrast to halakhic traditions. 147. those who are accustomed to turn literal facts into allegory Philo does not state that he considers the allegory to be in place of the “literal facts.” What he suggests is that the ritual can be imbued

On the Special Laws 1–4

1071

147But to those who are accustomed to turn literal facts into allegory, the Crossing-festival suggests the purification of the soul. They say that the lover of wisdom is occupied solely in crossing from the body and the passions, each of which overwhelms him like a torrent, unless the rushing current be dammed and held back by the principles of virtue. 148On this day every dwelling-house is invested with the outward semblance and dignity of a temple. The victim is then slaughtered and dressed for the festal meal which befits the occasion. The guests assembled for the banquet have been cleansed by purificatory lustrations, and are there not as in other festive gatherings, to indulge the belly with wine and viands, but to fulfill with prayers and hymns the custom handed down by their fathers. 149The day on which this national festivity occurs may very properly be noted. It is the 14th of the month, a number formed of the sum of two sevens, thus bringing out the fact that seven never fails to appear in anything worthy of honor but everywhere takes the lead in conferring prestige and dignity. 150With the Crossing-feast he combines one in which the food consumed is of a different and unfamiliar kind, namely, unleavened bread, which also gives its name to the feast. This may be regarded from two points of view, one peculiar to the nation, referring to the migration just mentioned, the other universal, following the lead of nature, and in agreement with the general cosmic order. To show that this affirmation is absolutely true, will require some examination. This month comes seventh in order with this symbolical meaning. It reflects Philo’s conviction that reining in the bodily passions is a precondition for the purification of the soul. Crossing-festival Gk. diabathria (= crossing) is understood here in allegorical terms as “crossing over from Egypt,” the symbol for the body and its passions. 148. every dwelling-house is invested with the outward semblance and dignity of a temple Since it is abundantly clear that the vast majority of Jews could not, and hence did not, come to Jerusalem every year to celebrate the three major festivals,75 it is not surprising to learn from a careful reading of Philo that already in his day a seder eve ritual had developed. Philo’s description contains the major elements of the Passover seder celebrated in the home as we know it today. There is the meal, the people are dressed for the festivities, and there is a ritual of traditional prayers and hymns.76 149. the 14th of the month, a number formed of the sum of two sevens Here too Philo ascribes symbolic meaning to the number seven.77 It is given a very prominent place in Scripture; for example, the Sabbath that completes the days of Creation; shemitah; and the jubilee year (7 × 7). Rabbinic midrash, though different in content from that of Philo, also gives it a prominent place. 150. With the Crossing-feast he combines Philo clearly and explicitly distinguishes between the “Crossing-feast” (pascha) and the “Feast of Unleavened Bread,” while also recognizing their close connection. one peculiar to the nation . . . the other universal, following the lead of nature This is in line with Scripture and Rabbinic tradition, both of which reflect the dual aspect of all of the major festivals. Note that even in the Decalogue, the reason given in Deut. 5:15 for the commandment to keep the Sabbath is that the Sabbath should serve as a recollection of the redemption from slavery in Egypt, whereas in Exod. 20:11 the reason given is: “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth and sea.” This month comes seventh in order and number as judged by the cycle of the sun The solar cycle

1072 Naomi G. Cohen

and number as judged by the cycle of the sun, but in importance it is first, and therefore is described as first in the sacred books.151The reason for this I believe to be as follows. In the spring equinox we have a kind of likeness and portraiture of that first epoch in which this world was created. The elements were then separated and placed in harmonious order with reference to themselves and each other. The heaven was adorned with sun and moon and the rhythmic movements and circlings of the other stars, both fixed and planetary. So too the earth was adorned with every manner of plants, and the uplands and lowlands, wherever the soil had depth and goodness, became luxuriant and verdant. 152So every year God reminds us of the creation of the world by setting before our eyes the spring when everything blooms and flowers. And therefore there is good reason for describing it in the laws as the first month because in a sense it is an image of the primal origin reproduced from it like the imprint from an archetypal seal. 153But the month of the autumnal equinox, though first in order as measured by the used by the Egyptians starts in the autumn, but Scripture places the beginning of the year in the spring (the month of Nisan, which corresponds roughly with March-April). This is discussed by Philo at greater length in Creation 116, QG 2.17, and QE 1.1. Note that what Jews today call the New Year (Rosh Hashanah) occurs in Tishrei, the seventh month of the Jewish calendar where it is referred to as “a memorial proclaimed with the blast of horns” and not the New Year (Lev. 23:24; OJPS). On this see comment on Spec. Laws 2.188. Cf. also Num. 29:1. 151. In the spring equinox we have a kind of likeness and portraiture of that first epoch in which this world was created Philo presents Creation as the ordering of the elements and the revelation of the world “in its prime” (153). Parallel to this we find in Pesikta Zutrata (Lekach Tov) to Gen. 1:12: “all that was created was created in its prime . . . And why did the Holy One, blessed be He, create them thus? So that man will find what to eat . . . [Prov. 9:1–2] . . . this is the way of the world, [one] prepares a meal, and then brings in the guests” (my translation). Rabbinic midrash also brings the alternate possibility that the different components of the cosmos were created in their potential stage, and only after rain fell upon them did they grow to maturity (Gen. Rab. parasha 13.1, to Gen. 2:5). The most commonly cited talmudic passage illustrating these viewpoints is B. RH 10b, where the different opinions are stated in the names of R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua. See also Spec. Laws 2.173. In any event the numbering of the months in Scripture reflects the assumption that the beginning was in the spring. elements were then separated and placed in harmonious order Philo generally describes Creation in terms of the creation of order (cosmos) from unordered matter.78 152. the spring . . . is an image of the primal origin reproduced from it like the imprint from an archetypal seal The idea expressed echoes the image of the Platonic ideas. Though Plato does not use the term “seal,” Philo both here and elsewhere associates the term with seals.79 153. But the month of the autumnal equinox M. RH 1:1–2 reads: “There are four ‘New Year’ days: on the first of Nisan [at the beginning of spring] is the New Year for kings [of Israel in Scripture] and feasts;80 . . . on the first of Tishri [at the beginning of autumn] is the New Year for [the reckoning of] the years [of foreign kings]81 . . . and Jubilee years.” There is no reference here to the season of the Creation, but the text continues immediately, “At four times in the year is the world judged:82 at Passover through the grain, at Pentecost through the fruits of the tree, on New Year’s Day all that come into the world pass before him like flocks of sheep . . .83 and at the Feast [of Tabernacles] they are judged through water.”

On the Special Laws 1–4

1073

course of the sun, is not called first in the law, because at that time all the fruits have been gathered in and the trees are shedding their leaves and all the bloom which the spring brought in its prime already scorched by the heat of the summer sun is wilting under the dry currents of air. 154And so to give the name of “first” to a month in which both uplands and lowlands are sterilized and unfruitful seemed to him altogether unsuitable and incongruous. For things which come first and head the list should be associated with all the fairest and most desirable things which are the sources of birth and increase to animals and fruits and plants, not with the processes of destruction and the dark thoughts which it suggests. 155The feast begins at the middle of the month, on the fifteenth day, when the moon is full, a day purposely chosen because then there is no darkness, but everything is continuously lighted up as the sun shines from morning to evening and the moon from evening to morning and while the stars give place to each other no shadow is cast upon their brightness. 156Again, the feast is held for seven days to mark the precedence and honor which the number holds in the universe, indicating that nothing which tends to cheerfulness and public mirth and thankfulness to God should fail to be accompanied with memories of the sacred seven which He intended to be the source and fountain to men of all good things. 157Two days out of the seven, the first and the last, are declared holy. In this way he gave a natural precedence to the beginning and the end; but he also wished to create a harmony as on a musical instrument between the intermediates and the extremes. Perhaps too he wished to harmonize the feast with a past which adjoins the first day and a future which adjoins the last. These two, the first and the last, have each the other’s properties in addition to their own. The first is the beginning of the feast and the end of the preceding past, the seventh is the end of the feast and the beginning of the coming future. Thus, as I have said before, the whole life of the man of worth may be regarded as equivalent to a feast held by one who has expelled grief and fear and desire and the other passions and distempers of the soul. 158The bread is unleavened either because our forefathers, when under divine guidance they were starting on their migration, were so intensely hurried that they brought the lumps of dough unleavened, or else because at that season, namely, the springtime, when the feast is held, the fruit of the corn has not reached its perfection, for the fields are in the ear stage and not yet mature for harvest. It was the imperfection of this fruit which belonged to the future, though it was to reach its perfection very shortly, that he considered might be paralleled by the unleavened food, which is also imperfect, and 155. The feast begins at the middle of the month, on the fifteenth day What follows is a fairly straightforward recapitulation of the scriptural narrative, but embroidered by a stress on the importance of the number seven, which is a central facet of Philo’s conception of the world and of the definition of time intervals. 157. a past which adjoins the first day and a future which adjoins the last The integral and indissoluble connection between the past, the present, and the future is a very basic concept in Judaism. The Gk. archē and telos used here by Philo also have a technical philosophic connotation. The idea that for the man of worth, the whole cycle of the year is an ongoing feast has already been presented by Philo in Spec. Laws 2.48. 158. they brought the lumps of dough unleavened Reflects Exod. 12:34, 39; Deut. 16:3. fruit of the corn The Gk. is sitou karpos; “wheat” is the intended meaning. the unleavened food, which is also imperfect Perhaps one can read this as a Hellenized version of the term “bread of affliction” used to describe the unleavened bread.

1074

Naomi G. Cohen

serves to remind us of the comforting hope that nature, possessing as she does a superabundant wealth of things needful, is already preparing her yearly gifts to the human race. 159Another suggestion made by the interpreters of the Holy Scriptures is that food, when unleavened, is a gift of nature, when leavened is a work of art. For men in their eagerness to temper the barely necessary with the pleasant, have learned through practice to soften by art what nature has made hard. 160Since, then, the spring-time feast, as I have laid down, is a reminder of the creation of the world, and its earliest inhabitants, children of earth in the first or second generation, must have used the gifts of the universe in their unperverted state before pleasure had got the mastery, he ordained for use on this occasion the food most fully in accordance with the season. He wished every year to rekindle the embers of the serious and ascetic mode of faring, and to employ the leisure of a festal assembly to confer admiration and honor on the old-time life of frugality and economy, and as far as possible to assimilate our present-day life to that of the distant past. 161These statements are especially guaranteed by the exposure of the twelve loaves corresponding in number to the tribes, on the holy table. They are all unleavened, the clearest possible example of a food free from admixture, in the preparation of which art for the sake of pleasure has no place, but only nature, providing nothing save what is indispensable for its use. So much for this. The Sheaf

162But within the feast there is another feast following directly after the first day. This is called “the Sheaf,” a name given to it from the ceremony which consists in bringing to the altar a sheaf as a firstfruit, both of the land, which has been given to the nation to dwell in, and of the whole earth, so that it serves that purpose both to the nation in particular and for the whole human race in general. 163The reason of this is 160. children of earth in the first or second generation In Gen. 2:7 and 3:19 it is the original first man who was created, while all of his descendants were reproduced together with Eve. Hence Philo’s reference to “the first or second generation” hardly reflects the Pentateuch, but rather the ancient classic myth. In any event, except for the much later poetic composition (piyyut) recited on the High Holy Days that contains the line “Man, his origin is from dust” (my translation), the traditional conceptualization is expressed rather in Pirke Avot 3:1, which is recited at funerals: “Akavya the son of Mahalalel says: ‘Reflect upon three things and you will not come to commit sin: From where you came . . . from a fetid drop.’” to rekindle the embers of the serious and ascetic mode of faring This is yet another example of Philo’s ascetic bent. 161. the twelve loaves . . . unleavened While the instructions respecting the “showbread” in Lev. 24:5–6 do not explicitly mention the term “showbread,” or that the loaves are unleavened, B. Men. 57a–b includes with it Lev. 2:11, where the unleavened aspect is mentioned, and Philo also understood it in this way.84 162. another feast . . . directly after the first day . . . called “the Sheaf” According to Rabbinic tradition, the bringing of the barley offering (the omer or “sheaf ”) occurred on the day following the first day of Passover—that is, in the evening of the 16th of the first month (Nisan), which is the second day of Passover. (Note that in Jewish tradition, the day commences with nightfall; see, e.g., Gen. 1:5, 8, 13.) The second day of Passover is also the time when the counting of the seven weeks commences that ends in the Feast of Weeks (Shavuot). Determining what “the day after the Sabbath” (Lev. 23:11) meant was an important bone of contention between the Pharisees and the Sadducees.85

On the Special Laws 1–4

1075

that the Jewish nation is to the whole inhabited world what the priest is to the State. For the holy office in very truth belongs to the nation because it carries out all the rites of purification and both in body and soul obeys the injunctions of the divine laws, which restrict the pleasures of the belly and the parts below it and the horde . . . setting reason to guide the irrational senses, and also check and rein in the wild and extravagant impulses of the soul, sometimes through gentler remonstrances and philosophical admonitions, sometimes through severer and more forcible condemnations and the fear of punishment which they hold over it as a deterrent. 164But not only is the legislation in a sense a lesson on the sacred office, not only does a life led in conformity with the laws necessarily confer priesthood or rather high priesthood in the judgment of truth, but there is another point of special importance. There is no bound or limit to the number of deities, male and female, honored in different cities, the vain inventions of the tribe of poets and of the great multitude of men to whom the quest for truth is a task of difficulty and beyond their powers of research. Yet instead of all peoples having the same gods, we find different nations venerating and honoring different gods. The gods of the foreigner they do not regard as gods at all. They treat their acceptance by the others as a jest and a laughing-stock and denounce the extreme folly of those who honor them and the failure to think soundly shown thereby. 165But if He exists Whom all Greeks and barbarians unanimously acknowledge, the supreme Father of gods and men and the Maker of the whole universe, whose nature is invisible and inscrutable not only by the eye, but by the mind, yet is a matter into which every student of astronomical science and other philosophy desires to make research and 163. the Jewish nation is to the whole inhabited world what the priest is to the State This reflects Exod. 19:5–6, which is in the chapter that introduces the Decalogue. There God promises the Children of Israel that if they keep his commandments they will become “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” In Spec. Laws 1.97, the high priest makes prayers on behalf of the entire human race as well as the “parts of nature.” and the horde . . . setting reason to guide the irrational senses This lacuna (after “horde”) is found in Colson’s text. 164. a life led in conformity with the laws Here, as well as elsewhere in Philo’s writings, the word “laws” serves as a Judeo-Greek locution for living according to the precepts of Torah. See comment on Spec. Laws 2.142, the law. The gods of the foreigner they do not regard as gods at all It is not merely polytheism that is criticized here, but the lack of respect on the part of the Gentiles for the gods of others. 165. But if He exists whom all Greeks and barbarians unanimously acknowledge Compare Mal. 1:11: “For from where the sun rises to where it sets, My name is honored among the nations, and everywhere incense and pure oblation are offered to My name . . . said the Lord of Hosts.” Even though Malachi reflects the period of the Persian Empire (c. 550–330 bce), Philo’s statement indicates that he considered this to be an existing phenomenon. The reference is not to Zeus, “the father of gods and men,” because the “barbarians” (non-Greeks) did not acknowledge him. Father of gods and men The locution calls to mind Plato’s reference to Zeus as having “empire over gods and men” (Symp. 197b3), but it is not the same thing, for Zeus was not thought to be the “Maker of the whole universe.” astronomical science The Gk. is mathhmata. Heinemann suggests, “Naturforschung”: study of nature.

1076 Naomi G. Cohen

leaves nothing untried which would help him to discern it and do it service—then it was the duty of all men to cleave to Him and not introduce new gods staged as by machinery to receive the same honors. 166When they went wrong in what was the most vital matter of all, it is the literal truth that the error which the rest committed was corrected by the Jewish nation which passed over all created objects because they were created and naturally liable to destruction, and chose the service only of the Uncreated and Eternal, first because of its excellence, secondly because it is profitable to dedicate and attach ourselves to the elder rather than to the younger, to the ruler rather than to the subject, to the maker rather than to the thing created. 167And therefore it astonishes me to see that some people venture to accuse of inhumanity the nation which has shown so profound a sense of fellowship and goodwill to all men everywhere, by using its prayers and festivals and firstfruit offerings as a means of supplication for the human race in general and of making its homage to the truly existent God in the name of those who have evaded the service which it was their duty to give, as well as of itself. 168So much for this feast as a thanksgiving for the whole human race. But the nation in particular also gives thanks for many reasons. First, because they do not continue forever wandering broadcast over islands and continents and occupying the homelands of others as strangers and vagrants, open to the reproach of waiting to seize the goods of others. Nor have they just borrowed a section of this great country for lack of means to purchase, but have acquired the land and cities for their own property, a heritage in which they live as long established citizens and therefore offer firstfruits from it as a sacred duty. 169Secondly, the land which has fallen to their lot is not derelict nor indifferent soil, but good land, well fitted for breeding domestic animals and bearing fruits in vast abundance. For in it there is no poverty of soil and even such parts as seem to be stony or stubborn are intersected by soft veins of very great depth, the richness of which adapts them for producing life. 170But besides this, it was no uninhabited land which they received, but one which contained a populous nation and great cities filled with stalwart citizens. Yet these cities have been stripped of their inhabitants and the whole nation, except for a small fraction, has disappeared, partly through wars, partly through heaven-sent visitations, a consequence of their strange and monstrous practices of iniquity and all their heinous acts gods staged as by machinery This alludes to the mechanical device used in the ancient theater, which at the crucial moment in the drama introduced a god hovering over the stage in order to resolve the seemingly insoluble conflict. The idiom deus ex machina, “a god from a machine,” comes from this, and refers to providential intervention. 167. using its prayers and festivals and firstfruit offerings as a means of supplication for the human race in general This is one of many examples where Philo uses explanations in terms of universal values. 168–70. But the nation in particular also gives thanks for many reasons After mentioning the universal aspect of the Jewish nation’s benevolence and thanksgiving, Philo brings “national” reasons, beginning with the gratitude of the nation for receiving a good and fruitful land of their own as a heritage and explaining that this is why they offer the firstfruits to God from whom they received it. 170. a consequence of their strange and monstrous practices of iniquity The allusion is to the “seven nations” that lived in Canaan before the Israelite conquest and whom—according to Scripture— God destroyed because of their iniquity and as a warning to the Israelites not to follow in their

On the Special Laws 1–4

1077

of impiety aimed at the subversion of the statutes of nature. Thus should those who took their place as inhabitants gain instruction from the evil fate of others and learn from their history the lesson that if they emulate deeds of vice they will suffer the same doom, but if they pay honor to a life of virtue they will possess the heritage appointed to them and be ranked not as settlers but as native-born. 171We have shown, then, that the Sheaf was an offering both of the nation’s own land and of the whole earth, given in thanks for the fertility and abundance which the nation and the whole human race desired to enjoy. But we must not fail to note that there are many things of great advantage represented by the offering. First, that we remember God, and what thing more perfectly good can we find than this? Secondly, that we make requital, as is most fully due, to Him Who is the true cause of the good harvest. 172For the results due to the husbandman’s art are few or as good as nothing, furrows drawn, a plant dug or ringed around, a trench deepened, excessive overgrowth lopped, or other similar operations. But what we owe to nature is all indispensable and useful, a soil of great fruitfulness, fields irrigated by fountains or rivers, spring-fed or winter torrents, and watered by seasonable rains, happily tempered states of the air which sends us the breath of its truly life-giving breezes, numberless varieties of crops and plants. For which of these has man for its inventor or parent? 173No, it is nature, their parent, who has not grudged to man a share in the goods which are her very own, but judging him to be the chiefest of mortal animals because he has obtained a portion of reason and good sense, chose him as the worthiest and invited him to share what was hers to give. For all this, it is meet and right that the hospitality of God should be praised and revered, God Who provides for His guests the whole earth as a truly hospitable home ever filled not merely with necessaries, but with the means of luxurious living. 174Further, we learn not to neglect benefactors, for he who is grateful to God, Who needs nothing and is His own fullness, will thus become accustomed to be grateful to men whose needs are numberless. 175The sheaf thus offered is of barley, showing that the use of the inferior grains is not open to censure. It would be irreverent to give firstfruits of them all, as most of them are made to give pleasure footsteps (see, e.g., Gen. 15:16; Deut. 9:5). Deuteronomy 18:9, 12 stress the second, didactic aspect: “When you [the children of Israel] enter the land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not learn to imitate the abhorrent practices of those nations . . . it is because of these abhorrent things that the Lord your God is dispossessing them before you.” 171. that we make requital . . . to Him Who is the true cause of the good harvest That is, that we thank him for his bounty. 172. fields irrigated by fountains or rivers Perhaps because Philo lived in Egypt, whose water came from the Nile, he waxes ecstatic about the Promised Land as it is described in Scripture, for example in Deut. 8:7–9: “For the Lord your God is bringing you into a good land, a land with streams and springs and fountains issuing from plain and hill.” 173. God Who provides for His guests the whole earth as a truly hospitable home See comment on Spec. Laws 2.151. In the spring equinox we have a kind of likeness and portraiture of that first epoch in which this world was created. 175. is of barley Although Scripture does not mention barley as the grain to be brought, it is also taken for granted by Josephus, Ant. 3.250 (=3.10.5), and the same is indicated in T. RH 1:12; T. Suk. 3:18; J. RH 1:2 (56d).86 most of them are made to give pleasure rather than to be used as necessaries This is yet one more illustration of Philo’s ascetic bent.

1078 Naomi G. Cohen

rather than to be used as necessaries, and equally unlawful to enjoy and partake of any form of food for which thanks had not been offered in the proper and rightful manner. And therefore the law ordained that the firstfruit offerings should be made of barley, a species of grain regarded as holding the second place in value as food. For wheat holds the first place and as the firstfruit of this has greater distinction, the law postponed it to a more suitable season in the future. It does not anticipate matters, but puts it in storage for the time being, so that the various thank offerings may be adjusted to their appointed dates as they recur. Shavu’ot/The Feast of Weeks

176 The festival of the Sheaf, which has all these grounds of precedence, indicated in the law, is also in fact anticipatory of another greater feast. For it is from it that the fiftieth day is reckoned, by counting seven sevens, which are then crowned with the sacred number by the monad, which is an incorporeal image of God, Whom it resembles because it also stands alone. This is the primary excellence exhibited by fifty, but there is another which should be mentioned. 177One reason among others which makes its nature so marvelous and admirable is that it is formed by what the mathematicians tell us is the most elemental and venerable of existing things, namely, the right-angled triangle. In length its sides are 5, 3, 4, of which the sum is twelve, the pattern of the zodiac cycle, the duplication of the highly prolific six, which is the starting point of perfection since it is the sum of the factors which produce it through multiplication. But we find that the sides when raised to the second power, i.e., 3×3 + 4×4 + 5×5, make 50, so that we must say that 50 is superior to 12 in the same degree as the second power is superior to the first. 178And if the lesser of these is represented by the most excellent of the heavenly spheres, the zodiac, the greater, namely 50, must be the pattern of some quite superior form of existence. But a discussion of this would be out of place at this point. It is quite enough for the present to call attention to the difference, so as to avoid treating a prominent fact as of secondary importance. unlawful to enjoy and partake of any form of food for which thanks had not been offered in the proper and rightful manner This has been incorporated as an integral part of the individual’s daily life in traditional Jewish religious practice. Before partaking of any food one is commanded to recite an appropriate blessing. wheat holds the first place Philo may perhaps here be explaining why the injunction respecting the Sheaf ceremony (of barley) is not considered to belong to the celebration of “the Firstfruits,” the name that is popularly given to the next festival, The Feast of Weeks—see Spec. Laws 2.179 and the comment there. 176. the sacred number by the monad A single day is added to the 7 × 7 to reach the date of the Feast of Weeks, which is on the 50th day. Philo takes advantage of this to introduce the concept of the monad as “the incorporeal image of God.” 177. the right-angled triangle Philo elaborates on the significance of the numbers 12 and 50. See also Philo’s Moses 2.80 and Contempl. Life 65, where these numbers are also discussed and the rightangled triangle is called “the source from which the universe springs”; similarly the significance of numbers is discussed at length in On the Creation of the World, where the right-angled triangle is described as “the starting point of figures of a definite kind” (Creation 97–98).

On the Special Laws 1–4

1079

179The feast which is held when the number 50 is reached has acquired the title of “first-products.” On it is the custom to bring two leavened loaves of wheaten bread for a sample offering of that kind of grain as the best form of food. One explanation of the name, “Feast of First-Products,” is that the first produce of the young wheat and the earliest fruit to appear is brought as a sample offering before the year’s harvest comes to be used by men. 180It is no doubt just, and a religious duty, that those who have received freely a generous supply of sustenance so necessary and wholesome and also palatable in the highest degree should not enjoy or taste it at all until they have brought a sample offering to the Donor, not indeed as a gift, for all things and possessions and gifts are His, but as a token, however small, by which they show a disposition of thankfulness and loyalty to Him Who, while He needs no favors, sends the showers of His favors in never-failing constancy. 181Another reason for the name may be that wheaten grain is pre-eminent as the first and best product, all the other sown crops ranking in the second class in comparison; for as an archon in a city or a pilot in a ship are said to be the first because they regulate the course of the city or the ship, as the case may be, so wheaten grain has received the compound name of “first-product” because it is the best of all the cereals, which it would not be unless it were also the food used by the best of living creatures. 182The loaves are leavened in spite of the prohibition against bringing leaven to the altar, not to produce any contradiction in the ordinances, but to ensure that so to speak there shall be a single kind, both for receiving and giving. By receiving I mean the thanksgiving of the offerers, by giving the immediate return without any delay to the offerers of what they bring, though not for their own use. 183For food that has once been consecrated will be used by those who have the right and authority, and that right belongs to those who act as priests who through the beneficence of the law have the right to partake of any thing brought to the altar which is not consumed by the undying fire—a privilege granted either as a payment for officiating or as a prize for the contests which they endure in the cause of piety, or a sacred allotment in lieu of land, in the apportionment of which they had not received their proper share like the other tribes. 179. The feast . . . has acquired the title of “first-products” This is similar to the name it bears in Num. 28:26: “firstfruits,” and perhaps it is also indicated in Exod. 23:16 (and cf. Lev. 23:20.). But while the name “Feast of Weeks” is found in Deut. 16:10, 16, the name “the holiday of the giving of the Torah” is found neither in the Bible nor in Philo or Rabbinic sources. 180. not indeed as a gift, for all things and possessions and gifts are His Philo stresses that this is not a gift to God, but an expression of appreciation. His sophisticated readership would have appreciated this. 181. Another reason for the name Here too Philo explains the giving of the name bikkurim (“firsts”) to what comes after the Sheaf. 182. The loaves are leavened This is an exception to the categorical statement in Lev. 2:11 that all baked loaves offered on the altar are unleavened. Philo suggests that this is so because after being offered, they are immediately given to the officiating priests to be eaten. It is also worth pointing out that the showbread was given to the priests a week after it had been placed on the altar, and hence would not have been edible had it been made of leavened bread. However, the bikkurim were eaten immediately, and so, even though they were leavened, would be fresh. 183. a privilege granted The reasons Philo gives here for the priests’ right to eat consecrated food accord with Scripture, in lieu of payment for the priests’ service and because the priests have not been allotted land along with the other tribes.

1080

Naomi G. Cohen

184But leaven is also a symbol for two other things: in one way it stands for food in its most complete and perfect form, such that in our daily usage none is found to be superior or more nourishing, and as wheat-meal is superior to that of the other seed crops, its excellence demands that the offering made in recognition of it should be of the same high quality. 185The other point is more symbolical. Everything that is leavened rises, and joy is the rational elevation or rising of the soul. And there is nothing that exists which more naturally gives a man joy than the possession in generous abundance of necessaries. Such rightly call forth gladness and thanksgiving in those who by the leavened loaves give outward expression to the invisible sense of well-being in their hearts. 186The offering takes the form of loaves instead of wheaten meal, because when the wheat has come there is nothing still missing in the way of appetizing food. For we are told that of all the seed crops, wheat is the last to spring up and be ready for harvesting. 187And these thank offerings of the best kind are two in number for the two kinds of time, the past and the future; for the past, because our days have been spent in abundance, free from the experience of the evils of want and famine; for the future, because we have laid by and prepared resources to meet it, and are full of bright hopes while we dispense and bring out for daily use the gifts of God as they are needed by the rules of good economy. The Trumpet Feast (Rosh Hashanah)

188Next comes the opening of the sacred month, when it is customary to sound the trumpet in the temple at the same time that the sacrifices are brought there, and its name of “trumpet feast” is derived

184–86. a symbol A symbolic justification is given for the unusual facets of the offering. Leaven symbolizes joy and the elevation of the soul, wheat is the best grain, and the loaves symbolize completeness. The symbolic explanation for the prohibition of leaven on the altar (Lev. 2.11) may be found in Spec. Laws 1.293–95. 188–214. the sacred month In classic Greek the term hieromhnia, “sacred month,” indicated the month during which the great Greek festivals were held and hostilities were suspended. However, in all 10 instances of Philo’s use of this term, the reference is to the month of Tishrei (seventh month), which contains three major Jewish holidays.87 This is another example of Philo’s giving a Greek word a Jewish connotation when the context invites this. 188–92 The name for this holiday is Rosh Hashanah (the “New Year”). This is the name used in mishnaic sources. In the Bible it is called “a memorial proclaimed with the blast of horns” (Lev. 23:24; OJPS88) or “a day when the horn is sounded” (Num. 29:1; OJPS). Philo explains the name as being due to the fact that the trumpet was sounded in the Temple when the sacrifices were offered. It has therefore been suggested that the shofar was not blown in Alexandria in Philo’s day, but as will become evident as we proceed, this is not necessarily so.89 188. “trumpet feast” Unlike the Mishnah (e.g., M. RH 3:3), which refers to a “ram’s horn” (shofar), Philo uses the word “trumpet” (Gk. salpinks; Heb. hatzotzrah) and not “horn” (= shofar). This is insignificant, since the word regularly used by the LXX for MT shofar is “trumpet” (salpinks). This is the case not only in Lev. 23:24, but even in Exod. 19, where the epiphany at Sinai is described. Different languages have fewer or greater differentiations for certain things, perhaps at least in part depending upon the centrality of the concept in their culture. For example, in the English language, where animal’s horns are hardly, if ever, used as musical instruments, the biblical shofar is called “a ram’s horn” to differentiate it from other “horns.”

On the Special Laws 1–4

1081

from this. It has a twofold significance, partly to the nation in particular, partly to all mankind in general. In the former sense it is a reminder of a mighty and marvelous event which came to pass when the oracles of the law were given from above. 189For then the sound of the trumpet pealed from heaven and reached, we may suppose, the ends of the universe, so that the event might strike terror even into those who were far from the spot and dwelling well nigh at the extremities of the earth, who would come to the natural conclusion that such mighty signs portended mighty consequences. And indeed what could men receive mightier or more profitable than the general laws which came from the mouth of God, not like the particular laws, through an interpreter? 190This is a significance peculiar to the nation. What follows is common to all mankind. The trumpet is the instrument used in war, both to sound the advance against the enemy when the moment comes for engaging battle and also for recalling the troops when they have to separate and return to their respective camps. And there is another war not of human agency when nature is at strife in herself, when her parts make onslaught one on another and her law-abiding sense of equality is vanquished by the greed for inequality.191Both these wars work destruction on the face of the earth. The enemy cuts down the fruit trees, ravage the country, set fire to the foodstuffs and the ripening ears of corn in the open fields, while the forces of nature use drought, rainstorms, violent moisture-laden winds, scorching sun rays, intense cold accompanied by snow, with the regular harmonious alternations of the yearly seasons turned into disharmony, a state of things in my opinion due to the impiety which does not gain a gradual hold but comes rushing with the force of a torrent among those whom these things befall. 192And therefore the law instituted this feast figured by that instrument of war the trumpet, which gives it its name, to be as a thank offering to God the peacemaker and peacekeeper, Who destroys faction both in cities and in the various parts of the universe and creates plenty and fertility and abundance of other good things and leaves the havoc of fruits without a single spark to be rekindled. 189. the general laws which came from the mouth of God The reference is to the Decalogue received at Mt. Sinai, and Philo’s statement echoes Exod. 20:15–16 and Deut. 5:22. While this is in line with the majority Rabbinic opinion that the entire Decalogue was received directly at Sinai, there is also the well-known view relayed in the name of R. Simlai in B. Mak. 23b–24a, and R. Yehoshua [b. Levi] in the Midrash90 that only the first two of the Ten Commandments were delivered directly, while the rest were given through the mediation of Moses. R. Simlai was an early Palestinian Amora (a generation noted for its particular sensitivity to the threat presented by heterodox positions, such as the view that only the Ten Commandments were divine). 191. due to the impiety Philo ascribes the catastrophes of nature to impiety. This is implied in the second paragraph of the Shema (Deut. 11:13–17), which already in Philo’s day was recited twice daily. (See also comment on Spec. Laws 4.136, the other parts of the subject.) 192. the trumpet Philo follows Num. 10:9–10 in combining the peaceful dimension of the “trumpet” with its warlike association. Numbers 10:10 is quoted in the third section (Shofarot) of the Tekiata d’bai Rav,91 which is a central part of the Musaf synagogue prayer service for Rosh Hashanah.

1082

Naomi G. Cohen

The Fast/The Day of Atonement

193The next feast held after the “Trumpets” is the Fast. Perhaps some of the perversely minded who are not ashamed to censure things excellent will say, What sort of a feast is this in which there are no gatherings to eat and drink, no company of entertainers or entertained, no copious supply of strong drink nor tables sumptuously furnished, nor a generous display of all the accompaniments of a public banquet, nor again the merriment and revelry with frolic and drollery, nor dancing to the sound of flute and harp and timbrels and cymbals, and the other instruments of the debilitated and invertebrate kind of music which through the channel of the ears awaken the unruly lusts?194For it is in these and through these that men, in their ignorance of what true merriment is, consider that the merriment of a feast is to be found. This the clear-seeing eyes of Moses the ever wise discerned and therefore he called the fast a feast, the greatest of the feasts, in his native tongue a Sabbath of Sabbaths, or as the Greeks would say, a seven of sevens, a holier than the holy. 195He gave it this name for many reasons. First, because of the self-restraint which it entails; always and everywhere indeed he exhorted them to show this in all the affairs of life, in controlling the tongue and the belly and the organs below the belly, but on this occasion especially he bids them do honor to it by dedicating thereto a particular day. To one who has learnt to disregard food and drink which are absolutely necessary, are there any among the superfluities of life which he can fail to despise, things which exist to promote not so much preservation and permanence of life as pleasure with all its powers of mischief? 196Secondly, because the holy day is entirely devoted to prayers and supplications, and men from morn to eve employ their leisure in nothing else but offering petitions of humble entreaty in which 193–203 “The Fast,” as Philo calls it, or “The Day of Atonement” (Yom Kippur) as it has become generally termed, is the holiest day of the year. Philo writes in Spec. Laws 1.186–88, “On the tenth day is the fast (Num. 29:7–11), which is carefully observed not only by the zealous for piety and holiness but also by those who never act religiously in the rest of their life.” This phenomenon is a familiar one even today. 193. perversely minded The word found here in the Greek text is “heterodox.” While in some contexts it means no more than “different” or “holding opinions that differ from the norm,” in others Philo uses the word in the sense of “having deviant opinions” (see QG 4.217; Sobriety 68;92 Migration 175). It is thus the converse of the modern term orthodox. 194. Sabbath of Sabbaths This is the LXX’s rendition of MT Shabbat shabbaton in Lev. 16:31; 23:32. seven of sevens Philo relates to this in terms of number symbolism. See Philo’s discussion of the holy nature of the number seven, for example in Spec. Laws 2.40, 56–9, 149. 196. the holy day is entirely devoted to prayers and supplications This description fits today no less than in ancient times. However, it is worth bearing in mind that for those who made the pilgrimage to the Holy Temple in Jerusalem, the day provided a very different experience—one full of “happenings.” The major events were the sacrifices offered in the Temple; the reading from the Torah by the high priest, also in the Temple; and the ceremony of the “scapegoat” (Lev. 16:5–10). All of this is described in M. Yoma 6:2–7 and 7:1–2, where it even states that one had to choose which event to attend, since they occurred at different places at the same time. See further M. Ta’an. 4:8 for yet another facet of the day.

On the Special Laws 1–4

1083

they seek earnestly to propitiate God and ask for remission of their sins, voluntary and involuntary, and entertain bright hopes looking not to their own merits but to the gracious nature of Him Who sets pardon before chastisement. 197Thirdly, because of the time at which the celebration of the fast occurs, namely, that when all the annual fruits of the earth have been gathered in. To eat and drink of these without delay would, he held, show gluttony, but to fast and refrain from taking them as food shows the perfect piety which teaches the mind not to put trust in what stands ready prepared before us as though it were the source of health and life. For often its presence proves injurious and its absence beneficial. 198Those who abstain from food and drink after the ingathering of the fruits cry aloud to us with their souls, and though their voices utter no sound, their language could hardly be plainer. They say, “We have gladly received and are storing the boons of nature, yet we do not ascribe our preservation to any corruptible thing, but to God the Parent and Father and Saviour of the world and all that is therein, Who has the power and the right to nourish and sustain us by means of these or without these. 199See, for example, how the many thousands of our forefathers as they traversed the trackless and all-barren desert, were for forty years, the life of a generation, nourished by Him as in a land of richest and most fertile soil; how He opened fountains unknown before to give them abundance of drink for their use; how He rained food from heaven, neither more nor less than what sufficed for each day, that they might consume what they needed without hoarding, nor barter for the prospect of soulless stores their hopes of His goodness, but taking little thought of the bounties received rather reverence and worship the bountiful Giver and honor Him with the hymns and benedictions that are His due.” 200By order of the law the fast is held on the tenth day. Why on the tenth? As has been shown in our detailed discussion of that number, it is called by the learned the all-perfect, and embraces all the progressions, arithmetical, harmonic and geometrical, and further the harmonies, the fourth, the fifth, the octave and the double octave, representing respectively the ratios 4:3, 3:2, 2:1 and 4:1, and it also contains the ratio of 9:8, so that it sums up fully and perfectly the leading truths of musical science, and for this reason it has received its name of the all-perfect. 201In ordaining that this privation of food and drink should be based on the full and perfect number 10, he intended to prescribe the best possible form of nourishment for the best part of us. He did not wish anyone to suppose that as their instructor in the mysteries he was advocating starvation, the most intolerable of sufferings, but only a brief stoppage in 197. when all the annual fruits of the earth have been gathered in The Day of Atonement falls less than a week before the Feast of Tabernacles, whose major significance is on the one hand a thanksgiving for the harvest, and on the other, a remembrance of the People of Israel’s 40 years of wandering in the desert, where God provided for all of their needs (see the next comment). 199. neither more nor less than what sufficed for each day See Exod. 16:14–26. 200. Why on the tenth? What follows is yet another example of Philo’s fascination with Pythagorean notions of number. See similarly Decalogue 20–22. Other examples of Pythagorean number symbolism are found in Moses 2.115 and Creation 52. 201. instructor in the mysteries The Gk. here is hierophant. It sometimes means “instructor in the mysteries,” but Philo, like many in his generation, almost always uses this and similar words metaphorically. This is not to say that he never recounts personal mystical experience. See, e.g., Cherubim 27: “it comes from a voice in my soul, which oftentimes is god-possessed, and divines

1084

Naomi G. Cohen

the influx which passes into the receptacles of the body. 202For this would ensure that the stream from the fountain of reason should flow pure and crystal-clear with smooth course into the soul, because the constantly repeated administrations of food which submerge the body sweep the reason away as well, whereas if they are checked, that same reason stoutly fortified can in pursuit of all that is worth seeing and hearing make its way without stumbling as upon a dry firm causeway. 203Besides, it was meet and right when everything has shown abundance as they would have it, and they enjoy a full and perfect measure of goodness, that amid this prosperity and lavish supply of boons, they should by abstaining from food and drink remind themselves of what it is to want, and offer prayers and supplications, on the one hand to ask that they may never really experience the lack of necessities, on the other to express their thankfulness because in such wealth of blessings they remember the ills they have been spared. Enough on this matter. Tabernacles (Sukkot)

204The last of the annual feasts, called Tabernacles, recurs at the autumn equinox. From this we may draw two morals. The first is, that we should honor equality and hate inequality, for the former is the source and fountain of justice, the latter of injustice. The former is akin to open sunlight, the latter to darkness. The second moral is, that after all the fruits are made perfect, it is our duty to thank God Who brought them to perfection and is the source of all good things. 205For autumn, or after-fruitage, is, as also the name clearly implies, the season after the ripe fruit has been gathered in, when the sown crops and the fruit trees have paid their annual toll and bounden tribute, and the land has richly provided all that it yields for the sustenance of the various kinds of animals without number, both tame and wild, sustenance not only to be enjoyed on the spot and for the moment, but also in the future, through the foresight of nature, the friend of all that lives. 206Further, the people are commanded, during the time of the feast, to dwell in tents. The reason of this may be that the labor of the husbandmen no longer requires that they should live in the open air, as nothing is now left unprotected but all the where it does not know.” But while the existential experience of “possession” as well as central tenets of Philo’s philosophic/theosophic thought are described in On the Cherubim, neither there, nor in the present passage do we find the recounting of what we would define as mystic lore.93 Here, as well as elsewhere, the tenets of Judaism are the “mystery.” 202. this would ensure that the stream from the fountain of reason should flow pure and crystalclear While this is an expression of Philo’s ascetic strain, the idea that fasting is good for the soul and that it helps induce mystical experience is found to some degree in the traditions of many religions. 204–14 Tabernacles (Sukkot) is the last of the three major, or “pilgrimage” festivals: Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles; and in Jewish sources it is the festival par excellence. The New Year and the Day of Atonement belong to a different category. 204. Tabernacles, recurs at the autumn equinox This is the fifteenth of the seventh month (Tishrei).94 206. to dwell in tents See Lev. 23:42–43, where MT uses sukkot. Unlike the MT, the LXX (and Philo in its wake) does not use different words for “tents” (MT ohalim) and “booths” (MT sukkot).95As Philo does here, Josephus (Ant. 3.244) also uses the Gk. skhnh, “tents,” for MT sukkot. See also the comment on Spec. Laws 2.207, to seek a more weatherproof mode of life.

On the Special Laws 1–4

1085

fruits are stored in silos or similar places to escape the damage which often ensues through the blazing sunshine or storms of rain.207For when the crops which feed us are standing in the open field, you can only watch and guard the food so necessary to you, by coming out and not shutting yourself up like a woman who never stirs outside her quarters. And if, while you remain in the open air you encounter extreme cold or heat, you have the thick growth of the trees waiting to shade you, and sheltered under them you can easily escape injury from either source. But when all the fruits are being gathered in, come in yourself also to seek a more weatherproof mode of life and hope for rest in place of the toils which you endured when laboring on the land. Another reason may be that it should remind us of the long journeyings of our forefathers in the depths of the desert, when at every halting-place they spent many a year in tents. 208And indeed it is well in wealth, to remember your poverty, in distinction your insignificance, in high offices your position as a commoner, in peace your dangers in war, on land the storms on sea, in cities the life of loneliness. For there is no pleasure greater than in high prosperity to call to mind old misfortunes. 209But besides giving pleasure, it is a considerable help in the practice of virtue. For people who having had both good and ill before their eyes have rejected the ill and are enjoying the good, necessarily fall into a grateful frame of mind and are urged to piety by the fear of a change to the reverse, and also therefore in thankfulness for their present blessings they honor God with odes and words of praise and beseech Him and propitiate Him with supplications that they may never repeat the experience of such evils. 210Again, the beginning of this feast comes on the fifteenth day of the month for the same reason as was given when we were speaking of the season of spring, namely that the glorious light which nature 207. not shutting yourself up like a woman who never stirs outside her quarters Philo writes similarly in Flaccus 89 respecting the Alexandrian Jewish community: “their women kept in seclusion, never even approaching the outer doors, and their maidens confined to the inner chambers, who for modesty’s sake avoided the sight of men,” and cf. also Spec. Laws 3.169–71. Though Philo’s descriptions of cloistered women may perhaps have reflected a characteristic of traditional Greek society,96 they hardly indicate the social reality either in the contemporary Roman world, or in traditional Jewish life in Judea as portrayed in Scripture and in Rabbinic sources.97 to seek a more weatherproof mode of life This is paralleled in Josephus, Ant. 3.244, which similarly states that “Moses bids each family to fix up tents, apprehensive of the cold and as a protection against the year’s inclemency.” This explanation is not found either in the Bible or in Rabbinic sources, and raises some unanswered questions. Perhaps it echoes a facet of the holidays of the seventh month (Tishre) with which we are no longer familiar. An example of such a possible circumstance is hinted at in my comment to Spec. Laws 2.196: M. Ta’an. 4:8 relates the custom for maidens to dance in the vineyards on the Day of Atonement (as on the 15th of Av)—but were it not for this isolated mention, we would never have suspected that such a custom existed. Another reason This is the same as that given in Lev. 23:42–43. 209. odes and words of praise Colson: “songs.” I demonstrate in my “Psalms, Hymns, Songs and Tehillim” (still in manuscript) that these terms were not understood to be synonyms either in Philo or elsewhere. 210. the same reason as was given when we were speaking of the season of spring See Spec. Laws 2.155. Passover and Tabernacles each come at an Equinox (March and September), adjusted of course

1086

Naomi G. Cohen

gives should fill the universe not only by day but also by night, because on that day the sun and moon rise in succession to each other with no interval between their shining, which is not divided by any borderland of darkness. 211As a crown to the seven days he adds an eighth, which he calls the “closing,” not meaning apparently that it is the closing of that feast only, but also of the yearly feasts which I have enumerated and described. For it is the last in the year and forms its conclusion. 212Perhaps also the number eight, the first cubic number, was assigned to the feast for the following reason: it is the beginning of the higher category of solids, marking where we pass from the unsubstantial and bring to its conclusion the category of the conceptual which rises to the solid in the scale of ascending powers.213And indeed the autumn festival, being as I have said a sort of complement and conclusion of all the feasts in the year, seems to have more stability and fixity, because the people have now received their returns from the land and are no longer perplexed and terrified by doubts as to its fertility or barrenness. For the anxious thoughts of the husbandman are never settled till the crops are gathered in, so numberless are the men and animals from whom they are liable to suffer harm. 214All this long exposition is due to my regard for the sacred seventh day, and my wish to show that all the yearly feasts prove to be as it were the children of that number which stands as a mother . . . The Basket Ceremony

215But besides these we have what is not a feast, but is a general ceremony of a festal character called the to the vagaries of the lunar Hebrew calendar. At least until modern times, the added light at this time of year would have been an important practical consideration. 211. “closing” Philo uses the LXX’s term Exodion (MT Atzeret; NJPS: “solemn gathering”; OJPS and KJV: “solemn assembly”) for the eighth day, the day that follows the seven days of the Feast of Tabernacles mentioned in Lev. 23:36 and Num. 29:35. This Greek word also meant the “exit” or “finale” of a drama. Hence it is fitting as the finale of the festival, and even more so as the completion of the entire festival period. And as Philo has also noted, this is not the completion of the Feast of Tabernacles alone, but of the entire round of the annual series of festivals. The word atzeret is also used for the seventh and last day of Passover (where it is not an extra day): in Deut. 16:8, the LXX again renders Exodion for MT Atzeret. In later times, the eighth day of assembly acquired the additional dimension of a celebration of the conclusion of the annual Torah reading cycle; today, this celebration is called Shemini Atzeret (lit., “eighth assembly”).98 212. the number eight . . . marking where we pass from the unsubstantial and . . . the category of the conceptual As he so often does, here too Philo uses “number” in its philosophic dimension. 214. the children of that number which stands as a mother This again recalls the Rabbinic categorization of the commandments as avot v’toledot (fathers and offspring), although Philo’s simile is “mothers and children.” Philo explains here why all the holidays as well as the miscellaneous injunctions that have “seven” as a constituent element have been included under the rubric of the Fourth Commandment, which commands the people to observe the seventh day (Shabbat)—and this closes the circle that began in Spec. Laws 2.39. As a final comment on this section: I have ended 214 at this point because the manuscript tradition of the continuation of its text is both deficient and problematic. 215–22 Philo closes his review of the feasts with an appendix that he calls “The Basket Ceremony”— the bringing of the firstfruits (bikkurim), at the same time noting that “it has not the prestige

On the Special Laws 1–4

1087

Basket, a name which describes what takes place, as we shall shortly show. That it has not the prestige and standing of a feast is clear for many reasons. For it does not affect the nation as a united whole like each of the others, nor do we find any victim being brought or led to the altar and then sacrificed and given over to be consumed by the sacred and unquenchable fire, nor is there any specified number of days during which the feast is to last. 216But that it has a festal character and nearly approaches the form of a general ceremony can be easily seen. For every person who possesses farms or landed estates takes some of every kind of fruit and fills receptacles which, as I have said, are called baskets, and brings them with joy as a sample offering of his rich fruit harvest, to the temple, and there standing opposite the altar, gives them to the priest. Meanwhile he recites this beautiful and admirable canticle, or if he does not remember it, he listens with all attention while the priest repeats it. 217The sense of this canticle is as follows: “The founders of and standing of a feast” (215). Note similarly that Mishnah Bikkurim, which is devoted to this, is placed in the first division of the Mishnah: Zera’im (Seeds), rather than in the second division: Mo’ed (Set Feasts).99 Rabbinic tradition identifies the firstfruits that are to be brought as those of the seven species listed in Deut. 8:8, with which God blessed the Land of Israel: “a land of wheat and barley, of vines, figs, and pomegranates, a land of olive trees and [date] honey.” The special ceremonies for the firstfruits of the “barley sheaf,” that occur, as we have seen, on the second day of Passover, and also that for the “wheat” that is celebrated on Pentecost, have been recounted above (see the comment on 162 and comments on 175, is of barley and wheat holds the first place). 215. called the Basket See Deut. 26:1–11; Exod. 23:19; 34:26. In Dreams 2.272, Philo allegorizes the passage. 216. it has a festal character and nearly approaches . . . a general ceremony M. Bik. 3 contains a vivid description of the ascent from the villages to Jerusalem, complete with musical accompaniment. But although villagers joined together to go up to Jerusalem with their firstfruits, as is noted immediately below in Spec. Laws 2.220–21, the ceremony was not celebrated by the entire nation at one time, as were the festivals proper, but rather, was celebrated as the fruits in different places ripened. every person who possesses farms or landed estates Compare M. Bik. 1:1–2, where it is stated that the firstfruits must come from land owned by the person who brings them. baskets In Deut. 26:2, 4, the word “basket” translates MT tenne, LXX kartallos Philo has kartalos (with a single letter). This word appears in Philo only here and in Dreams 2.272. The word is a technical term for a basket with a pointed bottom. he recites this beautiful and admirable canticle What follows in Spec. Laws 2.217–19 is a paraphrase of Deut. 26:5–10. This passage in Deuteronomy is widely familiar, because from very ancient times it has been the core text of the Passover haggadah, where it is first recited verbatim and then liberally interspersed with midrashic comments (see M. Pes. 10:4).100 The injunction to recite this passage when the firstfruits are offered on the altar is found in M. Bik. 3:7, and M. Sot. 7:2 states that the passage must be read in Hebrew. In line with M. Bik. 3:6–7, Philo states that when necessary, the priest who receives it helps the one making the offering, by reciting the passage for him. According to a (perhaps later) development mentioned in the Mishnah, in order not to shame those who did not know the canticle, it became the standard custom for the priest to recite it for everyone. 217. The founders of our race abandoned Syria Deuteronomy 26:5 MT reads: Arami oved avi (literally

1088

Naomi G. Cohen

our race abandoned Syria and migrated to Egypt and, though few in number, increased to a populous nation. Their descendants suffered wrongs without number from the inhabitants, and when no further assistance from men appeared forthcoming, became suppliants of God and sought refuge in His help. 218He Who is kindly to all the wronged accepted their supplication and confounded their assailants with signs and wonders and portents and all the other marvels that were wrought at that time, and saved the victims of outrage who were suffering all that malice could devise, and not only brought them forth into freedom, but gave them a land fertile in every way. 219Of the fruits of this land we present a sample offering to Thee, our Benefactor, if indeed we may speak of presenting that which we receive. For all these things, good Master, are Thy boons and gifts, and as Thou hast judged us worthy of them, we take pride and delight in the unexpected blessings which Thou hast given us beyond all our hopes.” 220This canticle is used continually by a succession of worshipers from early summer to late autumn, through the two seasons which constitute a complete half of the year. For the whole population cannot in a body bring the fruits of the season at a fixed time, but must do so at different times, and this may even be the case with the same persons coming from the same places. 221For since some of the fruits ripen more quickly than others, both because of the difference of the situation which may be warmer or colder, and for a multitude of other reasons, naturally the time when the firstfruits are due cannot be exactly defined or limited, but extends over a very considerable period. 222These offerings are assigned for the use of the priests, because they have no territory allotted to them, nor property which brings translates as “my father was a wandering Aramean”; OJPS. NJPS reads: “my father was a fugitive Aramean”). As usual, Philo follows the rendition of the LXX, which has understood the subject of the verse to be Jacob who “abandoned Syria.” However, the midrashic tradition reflected in the Passover haggadah has understood the verse as a reference to Laban when he pursued Jacob in order to try to destroy him. It has rendered it as “an Aramean [Laban] tried to do away with my forefather” by transposing the word oved from an adjective referring to the wandering Aramean Jacob, to a verb whose subject is Laban.101 Even so, the medieval commentator Ibn Ezra points out that the simple meaning of the text is “My father was a wandering Aramean.” 218. signs and wonders and portents and all the other marvels that were wrought at that time This is a paraphrase of Deut. 26:8 that is found in the Passover haggadah (see comment on Spec. Laws 2.216, he recites this beautiful and admirable canticle). 219. a sample offering Better: the firstfruits. Colson has “a sample offering,” but since the context is the bringing of firstfruits, I have preferred this connotation, which is also found in the standard Greek lexicon, Liddel & Scott. 220. from early summer to late autumn This time frame is at one with M. Bik. 1.6: “A man may bring the Firstfruits . . . from Pentecost [i.e., the Feast of Weeks, which occurs in June] until the Feast [of Tabernacles, in September–October].” 221. time when this sample of fruits is due Better: “time when the firstfruits are due.” 222. for the use of the priests This is a fairly close paraphrase of Deut. 18:1–5, which states: “The levitical priests, the whole tribe of Levi, shall have no territorial portion with Israel . . . You shall also give him the firstfruits of your new grain and wine and oil . . . For the Lord your God has chosen him and his descendants, out of all your tribes, to be in attendance for service in the name of the Lord for all time.”

On the Special Laws 1–4

1089

them income, and their heritage consists of the offerings of the nation in return for the religious duties imposed upon them by night and day. 223I have now completed the discussion of the number seven and of matters connected with days and months and years that have reference to that number, and also of the feasts which are associated with it. In this I have followed the order of the principal heads set before us as the sequence of the subjects demanded. I now proceed to the next head, in which we find recorded a statement of the honor due to parents. On the Special Laws 3

On the particular laws which come under two of the ten general commandments, namely the sixth against adulterers and all licentiousness and the seventh against murderers and all violence. On the Special Laws 3.1–6 Lamentation over Political Cares

1There was a time when I had leisure for philosophy and for the contemplation of the universe and its contents, when I made its spirit my own in all its beauty and loveliness and true blessedness, when my constant companions were divine themes and verities, wherein I rejoiced with a joy that never cloyed or sated. I had no base or abject thoughts nor groveled in search of reputation or of wealth or bodily comforts, but seemed always to be borne aloft into the heights with a soul possessed by some God-sent inspiration, a fellow-traveler with the sun and moon and the whole heaven and universe. 2Ah then I gazed down from the upper air, and straining the mind’s eye beheld, as from some commanding peak, the multitudinous worldwide spectacles of earthly things, and blessed my lot in that I had escaped by main force from the plagues of mortal life. 3But, as it proved, my steps were dogged by the deadliest of mischiefs, the hater of the good, envy, which suddenly set upon me and ceased not to pull me down with violence till it had plunged me in the ocean of civil cares, in which I am swept away, unable even to raise my head above the water.4Yet amid my groans I hold my own, for, planted in my soul from my earliest days I keep the yearning for culture which ever has pity and compassion for me, lifts me up and relieves my pain. To this I owe it that sometimes I raise my head and with the soul’s eyes—dimly indeed 223. completed the discussion of the number seven This is the transition to the Fifth Commandment—to honor one’s parents. 3.1. when my constant companions were divine themes and verities Gk. logois kai dogmasin, a word combination idiosyncratic to Philo, who uses it to refer to biblical laws and traditional ordinances.102 of reputation or of wealth or bodily comforts Philo considers these to be the major values of his contemporary society—a view that might just as easily pertain today. 3. the ocean of civil cares Though not exactly the same, this calls to mind the midrash to Num. 11:26– 29 found in B. Sanh. 17a, respecting the unauthorized prophesying of Eldad and Medad. The Talmud asks, “How was Moses to ‘forbid them’ [to continue to prophesy, as Joshua suggested]? He [ Joshua] said to him: Lay upon them public cares, and they will cease [prophesying] of themselves.”103 (See also Tosafot on B. Sanh. 17a). 4. the soul’s eyes In modern English we would say “the mind’s eye.”

1090

Naomi G. Cohen

because the mist of extraneous affairs has clouded their clear vision—I yet make shift to look around me in my desire to inhale a breath of life pure and unmixed with evil. 5And if unexpectedly I obtain a spell of fine weather and a calm from civil turmoil, I get me wings and ride the waves and almost tread the lower air, wafted by the breezes of knowledge, which often urges me to come to spend my days with her, a truant as it were from merciless masters in the shape not only of men but of affairs, which pour in upon me like a torrent from different sides. 6Yet it is well for me to give thanks to God even for this, that though submerged, I am not sucked down into the depths; but can also open the soul’s eyes, which in my despair of comforting hope I thought had now lost their sight, and am irradiated by the light of wisdom, and am not given over to lifelong darkness. So behold me daring, not only to read the sacred interpretations of the Torah but also in my love of knowledge to peer into each of them and unfold and reveal what is not known to the multitude. On the Special Laws 3.7–11 The Sixth Commandment: Adultery

7Since out of the ten oracles which God gave forth Himself without a spokesman or interpreter, we have spoken of five, namely those graven on the first table, and also of the particular laws which had reference to these, our present duty to couple with them those of the second table as well as we can. I will again endeavor to fit the special laws into each of the heads. 8The first commandment in the second table is “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” It comes first, I think, because pleasure is a mighty force felt throughout the whole inhabited world, no part of which has escaped its domination, neither the denizens of land nor of sea nor of the air. For in all three elements, beasts, fowls and fishes all alike treat her with profound respect and deference and submit to her orders, look to her every glance or nod, accept 5. get me wings Echoes Plato’s Phaedr. 246d–249d. Philo uses this Platonic imagery in several places. 6. sacred interpretations of the Torah This is my rendition. Colson reads: “sacred messages of Moses.” Philo is informing his readers that he is using traditional material, while expounding it in a manner that will bring it closer to the understanding of people in general. Peer Better: to look carefully. Gk.: diakuptein. and unfold and reveal what is not known to the multitude Better: to unfold and elucidate what is not familiar to the multitude. Cf. Philo, Vita 78. 7–11 What follows is based primarily upon Lev. 18, which is the Torah reading portion in the synagogue in the afternoon service of the Day of Atonement. 7. I will again endeavour to fit the special laws into each of the heads Philo is reminding the reader that the taxonomy—the fitting of the particular laws under specific rubrics of the Decalogue— is his own contribution. 8. The first commandment in the second table Whereas the MT discusses the prohibition against murder first, and then that of adultery, Philo follows the order used by the LXX, both in Exodus and in Deuteronomy (at least in Rahlfs edition104); he does the same in Decalogue 121–31. pleasure is a mighty force Adultery is defined by Philo as an aspect of pleasure, which—unlike in Rabbinic thought, where pleasure is considered something positive—is disparaged by Philo. In what follows, the appetites for food and for sex are considered pleasurable appetites that need to be reigned in.

On the Special Laws 1–4

1091

contentedly even the caprices of her arrogance and almost anticipate her commands, so promptly and instantaneously do they hasten to render their services. 9Now, even natural pleasure is often greatly to blame when the craving for it is immoderate and insatiable, as for instance when it takes the form of voracious gluttony, even though none of the food taken is of the forbidden kind, or again, the passionate desire for women shown by those who in their craze for sexual intercourse behave unchastely, not with the wives of others, but with their own. 10But the blame in most of these cases rests less with the soul than with the body, which contains a great amount both of fire and of moisture; the fire as it consumes the material set before it quickly demands a second supply; the moisture is sluiced in a stream through the genital organs, and creates in them irritations, itchings and titillations without ceasing. 11It is not so with men who are mad to possess the wives of others, sometimes those of their relations and friends, who live to work havoc among their neighbors, who go about to bastardize wholesale, widespread family connections, to turn their prayers for married happiness into a curse and render their hopes of offspring fruitless. Here it is the soul which is incurably diseased. Such persons must be punished with death as the common enemies of the whole human race, that they may not live to ruin more houses with immunity and be the tutors of others who make it their business to emulate the wickedness of their ways. On the Special Laws 3.12–31 Forbidden Partners

12Excellent also are the other injunctions laid down by the law on the relation of the sexes. It commands abstinence not only from the wives of others but also from widows, in cases where the union 9. even natural pleasure is often greatly to blame Philo rejects immoderation in the satisfaction of one’s carnal desires for food and for sexual satisfaction, even in the realm of the permitted; that is, even when the foods themselves are of the permitted kind, and the sexual intercourse is performed with one’s own spouse. 10. the blame in most of these cases rests less with the soul than with the body Philo differentiates between failing to control voraciousness respecting what are otherwise legitimate carnal desires, on the one hand, and the serious transgressions, on the other. The first is the failure to rein in the calls of the flesh, while the latter is an incurable disease of the soul. 11. Here it is the soul which is incurably diseased This refers to those who commit adultery. In Lev. 20:10 and Deut. 22:22, adultery is punishable by death. Philo justifies this on the grounds that adulterers are a danger to society. 12–31 The prohibitions discussed in these sections appear in the order found in Lev. 18 (though some of them are also found in Lev. 20 and Deut. 22). However, Philo adds to them the prohibition against taking non-Jewish wives (cf. Exod. 34:16; Deut. 7:3) as well as the prohibition against remarrying one’s divorced wife if she has in the interim married someone else (Deut. 24:4). 12. abstinence . . . also from widows Philo often uses the word “widow” to include all women who have been married but are no longer so, for whatever reason, as Colson has pointed out in his comment here. Both here and in Spec. Laws 3.30 this connotation of the word “widow” is evident from the context. in cases where the union is forbidden Colson adds here the words, “by the moral law,” but this is hardly justified. The Gk. themis means “that which is laid down or established.” Philo may also

1092 Naomi G. Cohen

is forbidden by the moral law. 13To the Persian custom, it at once shows its aversion and abhorrence and forbids it as gross sacrilege. For the Persian magnates marry their mothers and regard the children of the marriage as nobles of the highest birth, worthy, so it is said, to hold the supreme sovereignty. 14What form of unholiness could be more impious than this: that a father’s bed, which should be kept untouched as something sacred, should be brought to shame: that no respect should be shown for a mother’s ageing years: that the same man should be son and husband to the same woman and again the same woman wife and mother to the same man: that the children of both should be brothers to their father and grandsons to their mother; that she should be both mother and grandmother of those whom she bore and he both father and half-brother of those whom he begot? 15Even, among the Greeks these things were done in old days in Thebes in the case of Oedipus the son of Laϊus. They were done in ignorance, not by deliberate intention, and yet the marriage produced such a harvest of ills that nothing was wanting that could lead to the utmost misery. 16For a succession of wars civil and foreign was left to be passed on as a heritage to children and descendants from their fathers and ancestors. The greatest cities in Greece were sacked, and armed forces both of natives and allied contingents were destroyed: the bravest leaders on both sides fell one after the other; brothers slew brothers in the deadly feud engendered by ambition for sovereign power. In consequence, not only families and independent territories, but also the largest part of the Greek world perished, involved in the general destruction. For cities formerly well populated were left stripped of their inhabitants as monuments of the disasters of Greece, a sinister sight to contemplate . . . 19All these things appear to me to be the result of the ill-matched matings of sons with mothers. For justice who watches over human affairs avenges the unholy deeds on the impious, and the impiety extends beyond the perpetrators of the deed to those who voluntarily range themselves with the perpetrators. have had in mind the prohibition against marrying a divorced woman on the part of those of priestly lineage. 13. the Persian custom In the Hellenistic world, it was believed that incestuous relationships were customary with the Persians. Philo’s long digression here (13–25), on the customs of the Persians, Greeks, and Egyptians, reflects his rejection of those norms that are contrary to the Jewish tradition. 14. unholiness Better: gross sacrilege. Both here and at the beginning of the next section, the translation “gross sacrilege” for the Gk. anosiourghma is more appropriate than Colson’s (“a very grave offense against holy living”; Colson renders this word the same way in Spec. Laws 1.319). 15. among the Greeks . . . Oedipus the son of Laϊus Philo did not consider it necessary to do more than allude to this in illustration of the dire consequences of such an act. He took it for granted that the Gk. paideia (education) of his readers would automatically fill in the details. 16–18. For a succession of wars civil and foreign Colson notes here that the reference is not only to the war of the Seven against Thebes, caused by the rivalry of the two sons of Oedipus, but also to the later wars of the Epigoni (the sons of the first set of chieftains), which might be regarded as indirectly caused by the curse of Oedipus, and in which according to legend, Thebes was sacked (Cf. Diodorus 4.66). 19. ill-matched matings of sons with mothers These “ill-matched matings” presumably included also the converse: daughters with fathers.

On the Special Laws 1–4

1093

20But such careful precautions has our law taken in these matters that it has not even permitted the son of a first marriage to marry his stepmother after the death of his father, both on account of the honor due to his father and because the names of mother and stepmother are closely akin, however different are the feelings called up by the two words. 21For he who has been taught to abstain from another’s wife because she is called his stepmother, will a fortiori abstain from taking his natural mother . . . for it would be the height of folly while acknowledging the claims of a half parentage to appear to treat with contempt the full and complete whole. 22Next comes a prohibition against espousing a sister, a very excellent rule tending to promote both continence and outward decency. Now Solon the lawgiver of the Athenians permitted marriage with half-sisters on the father’s side but prohibited it when the mother was the same. The lawgiver of the Lacedaemonians, on the other hand, allowed the second but forbade the first. 23But the lawgiver of the Egyptians poured scorn upon the cautiousness of both, and, holding that, the course which they enjoined stopped half-way, produced a fine crop of lewdness. With a lavish hand he bestowed on bodies and souls the poisonous bane of incontinence and gave full liberty to marry sisters of every degree whether they belonged to one of their brother’s parents or to both . . . 24These practices our most holy Moses rejected with abhorrence as alien and hostile to a commonwealth free from reproach and as encouragements and incitements to the vilest of customs. He stoutly forbade the union of a brother with a sister whether both her parents were the same as his or only one. 25. . . Why hamper the fellowfeeling and intercommunion of mankind by compressing within the narrow space of each separate house the great and goodly plant which might extend and spread itself over continents and islands justice Gk.: Dike. In Greek tradition, Dike was the goddess of justice. The word is here used metaphorically as the personification of the concept “Justice,” or perhaps better, “Judgment.” 20. our law . . . has not even permitted the son of a first marriage to marry his stepmother after the death of his father Compare Lev. 18:8, regarding which, in the same spirit, Rashi adds: “including after his death.” Might I point out that a father’s second wife might well be of the same age as the son of a first wife. however different are the feelings called up by the two words The potentially problematic nature of the stepmother’s role is clearly not new. 22. prohibition against espousing a sister The next verse in Leviticus (18:9; cf. also Lev. 20:17) contains the prohibition against the taking of one’s half sister, and it is understood that this applies all the more so respecting the full sister. Now Solon the lawgiver of the Athenians In ancient Greece, marriage with half sisters (from different mothers) is mentioned in many sources.105 However, Plato’s Leg. 838a–b states not only that it was unlawful, but also that most people shrank from it. 23. the lawgiver of the Egyptians . . . gave full liberty to marry sisters of every degree Diodorus (90–21 bce) wrote that the practice is modeled on the marriage of the god and goddess Isis and Osiris (Library 1.27); Sextus Empiricus (who flourished in the 2nd–3rd centuries ce) wrote that, “the [Persian] Magi marry their mothers, and the Egyptians take sisters in marriage” (Pyr. 3.305) and Goodenough cites a papyrus from a later date containing an invitation issued by a mother for the marriage of a brother and sister.106 25. mankind Colson: “men with men.”

1094 Naomi G. Cohen

and the whole inhabited world? For intermarriages with outsiders create new kinships not a wit inferior to blood relationships. 26On this principle he prohibits many other unions, not allowing marriage with a son’s daughter or a daughter’s daughter, nor with an aunt whether paternal or maternal, nor with one who has been wife to an uncle or son or brother, nor again with a stepdaughter whether widow or unmarried, I need not say while the wife is alive, heaven forbid, but even after her death. For the stepfather is virtually a father whose duty is to set his wife’s daughter in the same position as his own. 27Again, he does not allow the same man to marry two sisters either at the same or at different times, even if the person in question has repudiated the one he married first. For while she is still alive . . . he considered that the law of holiness required that the sister should not take the position which the wife has lost by her misfortune, but should learn not to set at nought the rights of kinship; nor use as a stepping-stone the fallen state of one so closely united to her by birth, nor bask at ease while enjoying and returning the caresses of her sister’s enemies . . . intermarriages with outsiders So Colson, the translation should be “marriages with those not related,” because this is the connotation of the Gk. othneious.107 See also the comment on Spec. Laws 3.29. 26. he prohibits many other unions As Colson has noted in his comment on this section, all these degrees of relationship are mentioned in Lev. 18:10–16, except for the prohibition included by Philo against marriage with the maternal uncle’s wife (and while it is intimated in Lev. 20:20 MT, it is not explicitly stated there either and is not found in the LXX translation of the verse). However, Lev. 18:10–16 differentiates between “an aunt” and a “near kinswoman,” a distinction that is not preserved in either our or Philo’s thought patterns. nor with one who has been wife to . . . brother For the prohibition against taking the wife of a brother, see Lev. 18:16, but neither here nor in the next section (Spec. Laws 3.27) does Philo mention the exception to this, namely, the positive injunction in Deut. 25:5–10 to enter into a Levirate marriage (yibbum) with the childless widow of a brother, “to raise up seed to the brother” (Deut. 25:6). Philo probably avoids its mention here because it is out of the context of Lev. 18, but his treatment of the Tamar incident (Gen. 38:6–11) in Virtues 222 demonstrates that he is aware of this injunction. 27. he does not allow the same man to marry two sisters either at the same or at different times This too is found in the same biblical pericope, in Lev. 18:18. Rabbinic halakhah understood Lev. 18:18 as forbidding the taking of two sisters in marriage as long as one of them was still alive, even if the man had divorced the other. Philo’s statement is in agreement with this.108

On the Special Laws 1–4

1095

Proscription of Intermarriage

29But also, he says, do not enter into the partnership of marriage with a member of a foreign nation, lest some day conquered by the forces of opposing customs you surrender and stray unawares from the path that leads to piety and turn aside into a pathless wild. And though perhaps you yourself will hold your ground steadied from your earliest years by the admirable instructions instilled into you by your parents, with the holy laws always as their key-note, there is much to be feared for your sons and daughters. It may well be that they, enticed by spurious customs which they prefer to the genuine, are likely to unlearn the honor due to the one God, and that is the first and the last stage of supreme misery . . . On the Special Laws 3.32–36 The Laws of Family Purity

32Whenever the menstrual issue occurs, a man must not touch a woman, but must during that period refrain from intercourse and respect the law of nature. He must also remember the lesson that the generative seeds should not be wasted fruitlessly for the sake of a gross and untimely pleasure. For it is 29–31 Unlike the proscriptions discussed above, the next two are not based on Lev. 18. Philo seems to have taken advantage of the context of forbidden relationships in Lev. 18 to inveigh against intermarriage, in Spec. Laws 3.29, and against the return of a divorced woman to her original husband if she has been married to another in the interim, in 30–31 (not included in the excerpts. Cf. Deut. 24:1–4). Apparently both of these phenomena were live issues in his day. The prohibition against marrying women from foreign nations is an associational continuation to Spec. Laws 3.24–26, which proscribed marriage with blood relatives and praised the widening of the family circle. The present section circumscribes this widening, excluding those who do not belong to the Jewish people. Note the introductory words “But also” in 29, which connect the qualification contained in it with the preceding sections. 29. But also, he says, do not enter into the partnership of marriage with a member of a foreign nation This section is not connected with Lev. 18, which has been the major frame of reference for the pericope as a whole. Instead, it reflects the prohibitions in Exod. 34:15–16 and Deut. 7:3–4 against joining in wedlock with the seven nations that the Israelites found in Canaan. Philo is at one with Jubilees (30:10–11) and the Mishnah (Sanh. 9:6; Kid. 11:12) in understanding this prohibition to refer to all Gentiles.109 Here the Gk. for “foreigner” is allo-ethnos (one from a “foreign nation”) and not, as in Spec. Laws 3.25, othneious (a non-relative). 32–36 Philo now resumes his interpretation of Lev. 18 and continues in the order of Scripture to the end of Spec. Laws 3.53.110 The primary message of 32–36 is that the purpose of sex is procreation, and should be performed in conditions that are optimally conducive to the birth of children. This approach is also clearly stated elsewhere in his writings, e.g., in Joseph 43: “The end we seek in wedlock is not pleasure but the begetting of lawful children,” and see also Quod Det. 102, and Moses 1.28. 32–33 In these sections Philo presents the main aspect of the laws of family purity (niddah), the point of departure being Lev. 18:19, which forbids a husband to have sexual relations with his wife during the period of her menstrual flow. Philo does not enter into more detail, except to state that the man must not touch his wife during this period. He explains the natural logic of the injunction on the premise that sex is for procreation (see similarly, e.g., Joseph 43, Moses 1.28).

1096

Naomi G. Cohen

just as if a husbandman should in intoxication or lunacy sow wheat and barley in ponds or mountainstreams instead of in the plains, since the fields should become dry before the seed is laid in them. 33Now nature also each month purges the womb as if it were a cornfield—a field with mysterious properties, over which, like a good husbandman, he must watch for the right time to arrive. So while the field is still inundated he will keep back the seed, which otherwise will be silently swept away by the stream, as the humidity not only relaxes, but utterly paralyses the seminal nerve-forces, which in nature’s laboratory, the womb, mold the living creature and with consummate craftsmanship perfect each part both of body and soul. But if the menstruation ceases, he may boldly sow the generative seeds, no longer fearing that what he lays will perish. Matrimony with a Sterile Woman

34They too must be branded with reproach, who plough the hard and stony land. And who should they be but those who mate with barren women? For in the quest of mere licentious pleasure like the most lecherous of men, they destroy the procreative germs with deliberate purpose. For what other motive can they have in plighting themselves to such women? It cannot be the hope of offspring, a hope which they know must necessarily fail to be realized; it can only be an inordinate frenzy, and incontinence past all cure. 35Those who marry maidens in ignorance, at the time, of their capacity or incapacity for successful motherhood, and later refuse to dismiss them, when prolonged childlessness shows them to be barren, deserve our pardon. Familiarity, that most constraining influence, is too strong for them, and they are unable to rid themselves of the charm of old affection imprinted on their souls by long companionship. 36But those who sue for marriage with women whose sterility has already been proved the generative seeds should not be wasted fruitlessly Philo’s explanation recognizes the cyclic nature of women’s fertility, and the need for the man to control himself lest his seed become inundated by the woman’s discharges. 33. the seminal nerve-forces . . . mold . . . each part both of body and soul According to the accepted conceptualization in the ancient world, evident in Philo’s writing as well as that of some of the Sages, the womb was no more than the vessel in which all aspects of the child are molded from the male seed. The woman does not contribute to this process. Yet one also finds the recommendation in Rabbinic tradition that before marrying a girl, one would be well advised to examine her brothers, because most children are similar in character to the mother’s brothers.111 This of course implies genetic input on the part of the woman as well. 34. They too must be branded with reproach, who plough the hard and stony land There is no biblical authority for the prohibition against wedding a barren woman, nor does Rabbinic authority prohibit it, provided that the man already has children. The view of the Sages on this subject is succinctly summarized in M. Yev. 6:6 (with many additional details in the talmudic discussion of this topic). destroy Colson suggests the alternative: “waste.” 35. Those who marry maidens in ignorance, at the time, of their capacity or incapacity for successful motherhood Philo’s expression of his understanding of a barren couple, and his condoning of their remaining together, may or may not reflect personal experience. In any event, in his writings there is no mention of children in a manner that might reflect parenthood.

On the Special Laws 1–4

1097

with other husbands, do but copulate like pigs or goats, and their names should be inscribed in the lists of the impious as adversaries of God. For while God in His love both for mankind and all that lives, spares no care to effect the preservation and permanence of every race, those persons who make an art of quenching the life of the seed as it drops, stand confessed as the enemies of nature. On the Special Laws 4.59–77 Legal Justice

59The first instruction that the law gives to the judge is that he should not accept idle hearing. What is this? “Let your ears, my friend” he says, “be purged” and purged they will be if streams of worthy thoughts and words are constantly poured into them and if they refuse to admit the long-winded expositions, the idle hackneyed absurdities of the makers of myths and farces and of vain inventions with their glorification of the worthless. 60And the phrase “not accept idle hearing” has another signification consistent with that just mentioned. If men listen to hearsay given as evidence, their listening will be idle and unsound. Why so? Because the eyes are conversant with the actual events; they are in a sense in contact with the facts and grasp them in their completeness through the cooperation of the light which reveals and tests everything. But ears, as one of the ancients has aptly said, are less trustworthy than eyes; they are not conversant with facts, but are distracted by words which interpret the facts but 36. those who sue for marriage with women whose sterility has already been proved . . . do but copulate like pigs or goats This is very strong wording, far more severe than any used in this context in Rabbinic tradition, where—as we have already noted (see comment on Spec. Laws 3.9; also, the comment on 8, pleasure is a mighty force)—sex for pleasure is explicitly permitted. those persons who make an art of quenching the life of the seed as it drops This appears to be a reference to birth control. Philo looked upon procreation not only as a Divine commandment to the Jewish people, but as an expression of God’s love for all humankind, and even for all of his creation. This is reflected in the words Philo has just chosen in the preceding sentence, to summarize the entire subject: “God in His love both for mankind and all that lives, spares no care to effect the preservation and permanence of every race [emphasis mine].” 59. he should not accept idle hearing Reflects Exod. 23:1 LXX (MT OJPS: “Thou shalt not utter a false report”). Cf. Targum Onkelos: shema desheker. Under this prohibition Philo includes a prohibition against the taking of sophistic harangues into consideration, as well as popular inventions, mythical and other, on the part of the plaintiff in court. 60. the phrase “not accept idle hearing” has another signification Philo adds what is of particular relevance to the subject at hand: not to accept hearsay evidence, because the recounting of what one has seen is of necessity an interpretation, and not the bare facts. But ears, as one of the ancients has aptly said, are less trustworthy than eyes This is an almost verbatim quotation from Herodotus (Hist. 1.8); Polybius (History 12.27) ascribes something very similar to Heraclitus. The Mishnah, basing itself on Scripture (Deut. 17:6), takes this to be axiomatic: in referring to monetary cases, it states in Sanh. 3:6 that “he must be able to say, ‘In our presence he acknowledged to the other that he owed him 200 zuz.’” And respecting capital cases, the relevant section (Sanh. 4:5) begins, “How did they admonish the witnesses in capital cases? They brought them in and admonished them [saying], ‘Perchance you will say what is but supposition or hearsay or at second hand, or “We heard it from a man who was trustworthy.”’”

1098

Naomi G. Cohen

are not necessarily always veracious. 61And therefore it seems that some Grecian legislators did well when they copied from the most sacred tables of Moses the enactment that hearing is not accepted as evidence, meaning that what a man has seen is to be judged trustworthy, but what he has heard is not entirely reliable. 62The second instruction to the judge is not to take gifts, for gifts, says the law, blind the eyes which see and corrupt the things that are just, while they prevent the mind from pursuing its course straight along the high road. 63And while receiving bribes to do injustice is the act of the utterly depraved, to receive them to do justice shows a half depravity. For there are some magistrates half way in wickedness, mixtures of justice and injustice, who having been appointed to the duty of supporting the wronged against the wrongdoers think themselves justified in refusing without a consideration to record a victory to the necessarily victorious party and so make their verdict a thing purchased and paid for. 64Then when they are attacked they plead that they did not pervert justice, since those who ought to lose did lose and those who deserved to win were successful. This is a bad defense, for two things are demanded from the good judge, a verdict absolutely according to law and a refusal to be bribed. But the awarder of justice who has taken gifts for it has unconsciously disfigured what nature has made beautiful. 65Apart from this he offends in two other ways; he is habituating himself to be covetous of money, and vice is the source from which the greatest iniquities spring, and he is injuring one who deserves to be benefited when that person has to pay a price for justice. 66And therefore Moses gives us a very instructive command, when he bids us “pursue justice justly,” implying that it is possible to do so unjustly. He refers to those who give a just award for lucre, not only in law courts but everywhere on land and sea and one 61. Grecian legislators . . . copied from the most sacred tables of Moses The assumption that the Greeks and other ancients learned from Moses is not confined to Philo.112 62. for gifts, says the law, blind the eyes See Exod. 23:8: “Do not take bribes, for bribes blind the clear-sighted and upset the pleas of those who are in the right.” And see the comment on Spec. Laws 4.64. 63. to receive them to do justice shows a half depravity This echoes Plato (Resp. 352c). Rabbinic literature stresses that it is equally forbidden to take a bribe even in order to give a just verdict—see, for example, Rashi to Exod. 23:8: “. . . even to give a righteous judgment, and how much more so to judge unfairly, for this has already been stated [in Deut. 16:19], ‘You shall not judge unfairly’.”113 64. for two things are demanded from the good judge, a verdict absolutely according to law and a refusal to be bribed Philo belabors this point at quite some length. Although he has followed Plato in principle, like the Rabbinic sources, he stresses the prohibition against bribery under any circumstances. 65. and vice Better: which vice. 66. pursue justice justly Echoes Deut. 16:19–20: “you shall not take bribes, for bribes blind the eyes of the discerning . . . Justice, justice shall you pursue, that you may thrive.” Philo also references this text in Cherubim 15 and Worse 18, but gives it a different connotation in those passages. Rabbinic sources consider Deut. 16:19 to be sufficient for the prohibition against receiving bribes. Note, however, M. Pe’ah 8:9: “So, too, is it with a judge that judges a judgment according to its truth [cf. Deut. 16:20]. And any judge that takes a bribe and perverts judgment shall not die .in old age before his eyes wax dim, as it is written, . . . ‘for a gift blindeth them that have sight’ [Exod. 23:8].”

On the Special Laws 1–4

1099

may almost say in all the affairs of life. 67Thus we have heard of a person accepting a deposit of little value and repaying it with a view to ensnare rather than to benefit the person to whom he gives it. His object was by baiting his hook with trustworthiness in small matters to secure trustfulness in greater things, and this is nothing else than executing justice unjustly, for while repayment of what is due to others is a just deed, it was not done justly being done in pursuit of further gains. 68Now the principal cause of such misdeeds is familiarity with falsehood which grows up with the children right from their birth and from the cradle, the work of nurses and mothers and the rest of the company, slaves and free, who belong to the household. By word and deed they are perpetually welding and uniting falsehood to the soul as though it were a necessary part inherent in its nature, though if nature had really made it congenital it ought to have been eradicated by habituation to things excellent. The Urim and Thumim

69And what has life to show so excellent as truth, which the man of perfect wisdom set as a monument on the robe of the high priest in the most sacred place where the dominant part of the soul resides, when he wished to deck him with a sacred ornament of special beauty and magnificence? And beside truth he set a kindred quality which he called “clear showing,” the two representing both aspects of the reason we possess, the inward and the outward. For the outward requires “clear showing,” by which the invisible thoughts in each of us are made known to our neighbors. The inward requires “truth” to bring to perfection the conduct of life and the actions by which the way to happiness is discovered.

67. Thus we have heard of a person . . . repaying it with a view to ensnare While this statement is not entirely relevant here, it is an exceedingly appropriate association for one whose family was engaged in large scale finance. From the way he expresses himself, both here and elsewhere, Philo must have felt very strongly on the matter, for he severely criticizes this practice in several places. While in Decalogue 172 it is only intimated, the allusion is clear in Unchangeable 101, Planting 101–3, and Cherubim 14, which latter section also quotes, as here, Deut. 16:20. 68. falsehood . . . the work of nurses and mothers This reflects Philo’s attitude toward womankind in general. 69. And what has life to show so excellent as truth Philo would have every reason to expect that a goodly proportion of his readers had made a pilgrimage to the Temple in Jerusalem. For, as we know from the descriptions of Josephus, as well as from Rabbinic tradition, myriads came to Jerusalem from the Diaspora during the festivals.114 And of course anyone who made even a single pilgrimage to Jerusalem during one of the three festivals would have made a point to see the high priest dressed in the holy vestments. the man of perfect wisdom A reference to Moses. set as a monument on the robe of the high priest . . . And beside truth he set . . . “clear showing” For the biblical description of the high priest’s garments, see Exod. 28:2–43. Philo here alludes to the high priest’s breastplate, upon which were set the Urim and Thummim (see Exod. 28:30: “Inside the breastpiece of decision you shall place the Urim and Thummim”). The NJPS translation notes that the meaning of these words is unclear but that they seem to form a kind of oracle; cf. Num. 27:21. By implicitly translating “Urim” as “truth” and “Thummim” as “clear showing,” Philo provides an allegorical explanation of one of the central components of the high priest’s vestments.

1100 Naomi G. Cohen

Instructions to the Judge

70A third instruction to the judge is that he should scrutinize the facts rather than the litigants and should try in every way to withdraw himself from the contemplation of those whom he is trying. He must force himself to ignore and forget those whom he has known and remembered, relations, friends and fellow citizens and on the other hand strangers, enemies, foreigners so that neither kind feeling nor hatred may becloud his decision of what is just. Otherwise he must stumble like a blind man proceeding without a staff or others to guide his feet on whom he can lean with security; 71and therefore the good judge must draw a veil over the disputants, whoever they are, and keep in view the nature of the facts in their naked simplicity. He must come with the intention of judging according to truth and not according to the opinions of men, and with the thought before him that “judgment is God’s” and the judge is the steward of judgment. As a steward he is not permitted to give away his master’s goods, for the best of all things in human life is the trust he has received from the hands of One who is Himself the best of all. 72He adds to those already mentioned another wise precept, not to show pity to the poor man in giving judgment. And this comes from one who has filled practically his whole legislation with injunctions to show pity and kindness, who issues severe threats against the haughty and arrogant and offers great rewards to those who feel it a duty to redress the misfortunes of their neighbors and to look upon abundant wealth not as their personal possession but as something to be shared by those who are in need. 73For what one of the men of old aptly said is true, that in no other action does man so much resemble God as in showing kindness, and what greater good can there be than that they should imitate God, they the created, Him the eternal? 74So then let not the rich man collect great store of gold 70. he should scrutinize the facts rather than the litigants The LXX in both Deut. 1:17 and 16:19 translates MT lo takir(u) panim literally, as “to recognize a face,” and this is apparently the way Philo has read the text. relations, friends . . . enemies Rabbinic law explicitly forbids one to sit as a judge in such cases. See, e.g., M. Sanh. 1–4; B. Ket. 105b.115 71. “judgment is God’s” and the judge is the steward of judgment The phrase “judgment is God’s” echoes Deut. 1:17. Since the human judge is God’s agent, impartial judgment is a religious duty. the best of all Yonge’s rendering is: “the most excellent of all beings.”116 72. not to show pity to the poor man in giving judgment The reference here is to Exod. 23:3: “nor shall you show deference to a poor man in his dispute,” and Lev. 19:15: “You shall not render an unfair decision: do not favor the poor or show deference to the rich.” Philo’s point here is that while kindness and charity are most important characteristics, objectivity is an essential part of true judgment.117 73. what one of the men of old aptly said is true This is almost certainly a reference to Plato’s Theaet. 176a–b and is quoted as such in Philo’s Flight 63. The flight from evil is there called “to become like God (omoiwsis thewi) as far as this is possible; and to become like Him is to become holy, just, and wise.” And see in greater detail below the comments to Spec. Laws 4.188. as in showing kindness The concept that “doing kindness” is a facet of imitatio Dei (imitation of God) is a very important one in Jewish tradition.118 imitate God Gk. mimeisthai, “imitate.” It is clear from the context that the phrase omoiwsis thewi (Plato, Theaet. 176a–b), “to become like God,” which Philo quoted in Flight 63, and the term

On the Special Laws 1–4

1101

and silver and hoard it at his house, but bring it out for general use that he may soften the hard lot of the needy with the unction of his cheerfully given liberality. If he has high position, let him not show himself uplifted with boastful and insolent airs, but honor equality and allow a frank exchange of speech to those of low estate. If he possesses bodily vigor, let him be the support of the weaker and not as men do in athletic contest take every means of battering down the less powerful, but make it his ambition to share the advantage of his strength with those who have none of their own left to brace them. 75All who have drawn water from wisdom’s wells banish a grudging spirit from the confines of the mind and needing no bidding, save their own spontaneous instinct, gird themselves up to benefit their neighbors and pour into their souls through the channel of their ears the word stream which may make them partakers of their own knowledge. And when they see young people gifted by nature like fine thriving plants, they rejoice to think that they have found some to inherit the spiritual wealth which is the only true wealth. They take them in hand and till their souls with the husbandry of principles and doctrines until on their full grown stems they bear the fruit of noble living. 76Such gems of varied beauty are interwoven in the laws, bidding us give wealth to the poor, and it is only on the judgment seat that we are forbidden to show them compassion. Compassion is for misfortunes, and he who acts wickedly of his own free will is not unfortunate but unjust. 77Let punishment be meted to the unjust as surely as honors to the just. And therefore let no cowering, cringing rogue eksomoiwsis, “to be like God” in Spec. Laws 4.188, should likewise be understood as meaning “to imitate” and not “to become like” in the sense of existential similarity. 74. equality Philo’s use of the word “equality” (isoths) should not be understood as we understand it, but rather something closer to “fair dealing.” Plato—who was of course one of the most important components of Philo’s paedeia (classical Greek education)—expresses the concept very well in his Leg. 757.119 75. All who have drawn water from wisdom’s wells Wisdom as water is a common metaphor in traditional Jewish sources, particularly when “wisdom” means Torah: see, for example, B. Ta’an. 7a; BK 82a; and—more than a century before Philo’s time—in the Damascus Document 6:2–10 (4: “the well is the Law”).120 See also the comment on Spec. Laws 4.137–42 and on 4.140, a plenteous stream. through the channel of their ears This does not contradict Philo’s unequivocal statement in Spec. Laws 4.60 that, respecting evidence, sight is superior to “hearsay.” What is referred to here is the physical means by which knowledge and values are transmitted. principles and doctrines Gk.: dogmasi kai theoremasi. The semantic unit dogma kai theorema is not found in Greek literature before Philo, and becomes common only in patristic literature.121 It is a Judeo-Greek word combination meaning something like “laws and their theoretical underpinnings.”122 76. gems Gk. agalmata. In the light of the other instances of Philo’s use of this word, it would probably be better rendered either by “qualities” or “images” (cf. Spec. Laws 4.238; Sobriety 38; and in Virtues 165, “an image enshrined”). Compassion is for misfortunes, and he who acts wickedly of his own free will is not unfortunate but unjust This is an “apology” for the necessity to renounce compassion when acting as a judge. The distinction is made between wanton misdeeds and those that are the result of circumstance. 77. let no cowering, cringing rogue of a poor man . . . penniless condition This describes what must

1102

Naomi G. Cohen

of a poor man evade his punishment by exciting pity for his penniless condition. His actions do not deserve compassion, far from it, but anger. And therefore one who undertakes to act as judge must be a good money changer, sifting with discrimination the nature of each of the facts before him, so that genuine and spurious may not be jumbled together in confusion. 78There is much else which might be said about false witnesses and judges, but to avoid prolixity we must proceed to the last of the ten Great Words . . . “Thou shalt not covet.” [See the Commentary for a summary of 78–131, not translated here.] On the Special Laws 4.132–50 The “Virtues” of General Value

132In these remarks we have discussed the matters relating to desire or lust as adequately as our abilities allow, and thus completed our survey of the ten oracles, and the laws which are dependent on them. have been a common phenomenon. It is not clear whether these words reflect an emotional identification on Philo’s part or a rejection of the phenomenon. one who undertakes to act as judge must be a good money changer To discern between true and counterfeit arguments. The metaphor is highly appropriate to the financial aristocracy to which Philo belonged. 78–131 These sections are not translated in this volume; what follows is a brief summary of their contents. In 78, Philo proceeds to the Tenth Commandment, regarding covetousness, which he interprets to include “appetites” in general: nearly all of the laws that Philo subsumes under this commandment relate to forbidden foods—the prohibition regarding “the firstfruits,” and the laws of kashrut123 (Spec. Laws 4.96–125). Although the association between these laws and the Tenth Commandment is reasonable, since one must not covet what is forbidden, at first glance their placement under this rubric is surprising. Perhaps Philo wished to enhance their importance in the eyes of his audience. In 126–131, Philo concludes his discussion with a lively description of what Num. 11:31–34 MT has called “The Graves of Lust,” and Philo, “The Monuments of Lust.”124 He recounts the people’s lust for meat, God’s sending the quails to serve as meat for the multitude, the lustful reaction of the people, and its dire result. The survey of the legislation under the rubric of one or another commandment is brought to a close in Spec. Laws 4.131 by the pronouncement “Let a man be well pleasing to God, to the universe [Gk.: kosmos], to nature, to laws,125 to wise men, and discard self love. So only will he attain true excellence.” 132–35 In the opening words of 132, Philo informs the reader that at this point he has completed that part of his work in which he has placed “the specific ordinances” under the headings of one or another of the commandments of the Decalogue. He then states in 133–34 that the remainder of the book concerns itself with matters that he defines as being of general relevance. In 135, he introduces his next topic: justice, one of the universal virtues. As is typical with Philo, he relates to the material through both Hellenistic and Jewish frames of reference at one and the same time. 132. thus completed our survey of the ten oracles, and the laws which are dependent on them Philo does not find it necessary to explain his classification under the rubrics of the Decalogue (see introductory comments). This is noteworthy because this is not the traditional classification of the commandments in Rabbinic sources.

On the Special Laws 1–4

1103

For if we are right in describing the main heads delivered by the voice of God as generic laws, and all particular laws of which Moses was the spokesman as dependent species, for accurate apprehension free from confusion scientific study was needed, with the aid of which I have assigned and attached to each of the heads what was appropriate to them throughout the whole legislation. 133Enough then of this. But we must not fail to know that, just as each of the ten separately has some particular laws akin to it having nothing in common with any other, there are some things common to all which fit in not with some particular numbers such as one or two but with all the ten Great Words. 134These are the virtues of universal value. For each of the ten pronouncements separately and all in common drill and inculcate wisdom and justice and godliness and the rest of the company of virtues, with good thoughts and intentions combining wholesome words, and with words, actions of true worth, that so the soul with every part of its being attuned, may be an instrument making harmonious music so that life becomes a melody and a concent in which there is no faulty note. 135Of the queen of main heads . . . as generic laws, and all particular laws of which Moses was the spokesman as dependent species Philo here differentiates clearly between the Decalogue as a whole, which was revealed to the entire nation, and the rest of the Torah, which was given to Moses, who then relayed it to the people. Parallels to this idea may be found in such tannaitic midrashim as Mek. Jethro 9 on Exod. 20:16 referred to above: “And they said to Moses, ‘You speak to us and we will listen’; indicating that they didn’t have the strength to receive directly more than the Decalogue [italics mine], as it is written, ‘If we hear the voice of the Lord any longer we shall die . . . You go closer and hear’ [Deut. 5:23–24]”; and in a similar spirit, Sifre Deut. 32:10. These midrashim envision the entire Decalogue as having been delivered directly by God, while the rest of the Torah was given through the mediation of Moses. See also introductory comments and the comment on Spec. Laws 2.189. I have assigned and attached to each of the heads Philo appears here to inform the reader that the discrete classification in On the Special Laws was his own contribution, even while, as we have noted, he takes it for granted that the principle of classification under the Decalogue is familiar to his readers. On the other hand, although the number 613 for the commandments has become axiomatic, the exact assignment of the specific commandments has never become a matter of consensus (see introductory comments). 133. some things As Colson notes, the “things” are “the virtues,” and not—as in Heinemann’s translation—“the laws.”126 134. These are the virtues of universal value Colson, in his note to 133, explains that what is referred to are the Greek virtues introduced in 134; Heinemann, in contrast, views “these” as indicating the Mosaic laws. However, since the “philosophic” and the “Jewish” parameters of the subject neither can nor should be separated in Philo’s works, this text may well be referring to both. Philo’s line of reasoning is that one can achieve the “virtuous life” from the Greek frame of reference by the fulfillment of the Mosaic commandments. Since according to both the Platonic and Aristotelian schools, “the aim of all legislation . . . (and) what distinguishes a good form of constitution from a bad one” is the achievement of Virtue (Aristotle, Eth. nic. 2.1103b 6–7),127 the Mosaic commandments are in his view the concrete realization of this.128 drill and inculcate Colson renders the Gk. aleiphosi kai protrepousi as: “incite and exhort us to.” combining wholesome words, and with words, actions of true worth While the combining of words with actions is found in later Stoic sources,129 the passage also reproduces the LXX reading of

1104

Naomi G. Cohen

the virtues, piety, or holiness, we have spoken earlier, and also of wisdom and temperance. Our theme must now be she whose ways are close akin to them, that is, justice. On Justice

136One and by no means an inconsiderable part of justice is that which is concerned with law courts and judges. This I have already mentioned, when I dealt at length with the question of testimony in order to omit nothing of the points involved. As it is not my custom to repeat myself unless forced to do so by the pressure of the particular occasion I will say no more about it and with only so much preface address myself to the other parts of the subject. Deut. 30:14. And note that the association of this verse with the philosophic cliché had apparently already been made long before Philo. For while the MT reads: “in your mouth and in your heart, to observe it,” the LXX adds “and in your hands.” The philosophic echo is even clearer in Philo’s Rewards 80; see also Posterity 85, 88.130 135. piety or holiness Colson used “or” rather than the “and” found in the Greek text because the subject is the singular “queen.” I prefer to read the words as a hendiadys—the expression of a single concept by two words, a usage that is not uncommon in Philonic texts. It would then be virtually synonymous with theosebeia. Philo is informing the reader that “piety and holiness”—the observance of the traditional commandments—were the subject matter of Spec. Laws 1–4.132. justice Gk.: dikaiosynē. This is often considered one of the cardinal virtues. The heading “On Justice” appears in the manuscripts at this point, and what follows does indeed comprise a literary unit, culminating at the end of the book with a paean on the theme of “justice” in 230–38. In classic Greek the connotation of the word dikaiosynē is generally understood to be “justice,” in the legal sense, but in Judeo-Greek it indicates a commitment to following the precepts of traditional Judaism (including the commandments).131 Philo uses the word in one or the other connotation, as the context suggests. 136. This I have already mentioned As will become apparent as we proceed, 136 is the continuation of 55–78, which addressed “law courts and judges.” the other parts of the subject That is, the other connotation of dikaiosynē. It would have been evident to Philo’s contemporary readers that in 136, 137, and 141 in particular Philo is using dikaiosynē in its specifically Jewish connotation: “the keeping of the Commandments” (or “Torah”).

On the Special Laws 1–4

1105

The Phylacteries, the Shema, and the Mezuzah

137The law tells us that we must set the rules of justice in the heart and fasten them for a sign upon the hand, and have them shaking before the eyes. The first of these is a parable, indicating that the rules of justice must not be committed to untrustworthy ears since no trust can be placed in the sense of hearing but that these best of all lessons must be impressed upon our lordliest part, stamped too with genuine seals. 138The second shows that we must not only receive conceptions of the good but express our approval of them in unhesitating action, for the hand is the symbol of action, and on this, the law bids us fasten and hang the rules of justice for a sign. Of what it is a sign he has not definitely stated because, 137–42 Before the intervention of scholarly emendation, these sections faithfully reflected both the midrashic tradition current at the time and halakhic praxis.132 The study of Philo’s description of the phylacteries against the backdrop of archeological and literary sources has shown that it accords with the practice at the time, and that Philo’s conceptualization is not out of line with Rabbinic tradition. Here too, as often elsewhere, Philo is close in spirit to Rabbinic tradition as it has found expression in talmudic sources, at the same time that he differs from the details of the halakhah as later codified; a similar study respecting his description of the mezuzah leads to much the same conclusion. Likewise, as in the comment on 75, All who have drawn water from wisdom’s wells, and on 140, a plenteous stream, the unquestioning equation of “water” and “Torah” is entirely at one with Philo’s traditional Jewish cultural heritage.133 137. The law Gk. nomos. Perhaps a clearer rendition of the opening words of this passage would be: “The Commandments, says the Torah, must be set in the heart.” In the LXX, nomos means “Torah” when this is indicated by the context. It would have been self-evident to Philo’s contemporary audience that what follows is referring to “Law” in the connotation “Torah.” we must set the rules of justice The Gk. here for “justice” is ta dikaia, and it is evident from the context that here it means “biblical Commandments.” in the heart and fasten them for a sign upon the hand, and have them shaking before the eyes Philo’s contemporary readers almost certainly would have immediately recognized this paraphrase of the Shema in Deut. 6:4–9 (cf. also 11:18–20). Deuteronomy 6:6, 8, OJPS reads: “And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be upon thy heart . . . And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thy hand, and they shall be for frontlets between thine eyes.” Philo’s allusion to the tefillin, or phylacteries, as “shaking before the eyes” is congruent with their description in B. Men. 34b–35a: that they originally consisted of four separate compartments joined only at the top.134 the rules of justice must not be committed to untrustworthy ears Philo means that what is untrustworthy is the sense of hearing, not the person. In Spec. Laws 4.135, Philo informed the reader that he would be discussing “justice” in a continuation of his remarks on the virtues in 55. The present passage echoes 59–61, where hearsay was rejected as evidence in law courts.135 lessons Colson—following the suggested correction by Cohn that was adopted by Heinemann— corrects the reading of the manuscripts SM(V) from anathhmatwn to mathhmatwn (replacing the initial alpha with a mu) and translates this word as “lessons.” I contend, however, that the mss. reading = “sacred ornaments” not only can, but should be preserved, and that the allusion is to the Urim and Thummim on the breastplate of the high priest, referred to in 69.136 138. for the hand is the symbol of action That is, the theoretical principles of the commandments, referred to in 137 as being “in the heart,” must also be translated into practical action. on this, the law bids us fasten and hang the rules of justice for a sign “This” refers to the hand; Philo

1106

Naomi G. Cohen

I believe, they are a sign not of one thing but of many, practically of all the factors in human life. 139The third means that always and everywhere we must have the vision of them as it were close to our eyes. And they must have vibration and movement, it continues, not to make them unstable and unsettled, but that by their motion they may provoke the sight to gain a clear discernment of them. For motion induces the use of the faculty of sight by stimulating and arousing the eyes, or rather, by making them unsleepful and wakeful. 140He to whom it is given to set their image in the eye of the soul, not at rest but in motion and engaged in their natural activities, must be placed on record as a perfect man. No longer must he be ranked among the disciples and pupils but among the teachers and instructors, and he should provide alludes here to the tefillin shel yad (phylacteries worn on the hand). (See Letter of Aristeas, especially Let. Aris. 159 and the comment there.) 139. the vision of them “Them” refers to “the Commandments,” for this is the Judeo-Greek connotation of the word dikaia that appears here in the Greek text. close to our eyes This refers to the “frontlets” (Deut. 6:8 OJPS and KJV), or tefillin shel rosh (phylacteries of the head). There is reason to suppose that Philo is writing from personal experience, even though the tefillin he describes differs from that which is used today; they were clearly much smaller. Although the Talmud does not set minimum or maximum measurements, Matt. 23:5 NRSV relates that Jesus criticized the sages for “[making] their phylacteries broad,” so presumably those of the general populace were of more modest dimensions (see also the comment on Spec. Laws 4.139, a clear discernment of them).137 they must have vibration and movement As in the comment on Spec. Laws 4.137, this fits the description in B. Men. 34b–35a, that the tefillin originally consisted of four separate compartments joined only at the top. And, unlike the tefillin of today, tefillin of a small size could easily have dangled down onto the forehead. a clear discernment of them For mention in Rabbinic sources of the requirement to be constantly conscious of the tefillin, see, e.g., B. Shab. 12a: Rabbah the son of R. Huna said, “One must feel his tefillin every now and then.” The perceived purpose of wearing tefillin seems to have differed depending on the group of people. Philo’s view of tefillin as an aid to the wearer’s memory, to help one to keep the commandments in mind, accords with that of the Rabbinic sages, based on their interpretation of Exod. 11:9, 18; Deut. 6:8; and 11:18. By contrast, in the popular mind, the tefillin were— and for some still are—a talisman or amulet believed to have the ability to preserve its wearer from harm—in effect, to keep the wearer in God’s mind, rather than helping the wearer keep God in mind. This second view appears in the New Testament. In, Matthew, instead of the word tefillin, we find the Gk. phylakteria, which generally meant “amulet” or “charm” (cf., e.g., Plutarch 2.378b): “. . . they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long” (Matt. 23:5 NRSV). Phylakteria appears only here in the NT, and not at all in the LXX.138 140. to set their image in the eye of the soul . . . engaged in their natural activities The reference is to the tefillin shel Rosh (the “frontlets”) and their contents. Although talmudic sources reveal that in ancient times, many men wore the tefillin the entire day (cf. B. Shab. 12a; Yoma 12a; Men. 36b; Suk. 46a), doing so was impractical for many people, since contact with anything ritually defiling was forbidden while wearing tefillin. This requirement respecting ritual cleanliness is given as the reason why, in view of the practical facets of child nurture, women were not included in this commandment.

On the Special Laws 1–4

1107

as from a fountain to the young who are willing to draw therefrom a plenteous stream of discourses and doctrines. And if some less courageous spirit hesitates through modesty and is slow to come near to learn, that teacher should go himself and pour into his ears as into a conduit a continuous flood of instruction until the cisterns of the soul are filled. 141Indeed he must be forward to teach the principles of justice to kinsfolk and friends and all the young people at home and in the street, both when they go to their beds and when they arise, so that in every posture and every motion, in every place, both private and public, not only when they are awake but when they are asleep, they may be gladdened by visions of the just. For there is no sweeter delight than that the soul should be charged through and through with justice exercising itself in her eternal principles and doctrines and leaving no vacant place into which unjustice can make its way. 142He bids them also write and set them forth in front of the door posts of each house and the gates in their walls, so that those who leave or remain at home, citizens and strangers alike, may read the inscriptions engraved on the face of the gates and keep in perpetual memory what they should say and do, careful alike to do and to allow no injustice and when they enter their houses and again when they go forth men and women and children and servants alike may act as is due and fitting both for others and for themselves. a plenteous stream The metaphor of “Torah” as “water” is quite common throughout Philo’s writings, including Spec. Laws 4.56 (“the water of justice,” etc.—not included in this volume). The image is very much at home both in Rabbinic and in other early Jewish sources; see, for example, M. Avot 2:8, where R. Eleazar b. Arakh is portrayed as “an overflowing fountain”; it is found in many midrashim as well. See also the comment on Spec. Laws 4.137–42 and on Spec. Laws 4.75, All who have drawn water from wisdom’s wells.139 of discourses and doctrines The word combination “discourses and doctrines” was a Judeo-Greek idiom that meant “biblical laws and other regulations.”140 into his ears as into a conduit Philo’s remark here that the ears are a channel leading into the soul seems at first glance to contradict his denigration of the sense of hearing, in Spec. Laws 4.60–61 and 137. However, here as well as in 75 and 107, the ears are no more than a channel providing access to the soul and not independent arbiters. 141. to teach the principles of justice As has been noted in the comment to 137, “justice” (dikaia) in this context refers to “the Commandments.” What follows is a close parallel to the Shema (Deut. 6:7; cf. also 11:19): “Impress them upon your children. Recite them when you stay at home and when you are away, when you lie down and when you get up.” the just Probably should be rendered, “the Commandments.” eternal principles and doctrines This word combination (aidiois dogmasin kai theorhmasin) is not found in the extant literature before Philo, which strongly supports the thesis that it is a JudeoGreek idiom, and in contexts such as this one means “traditional ordinances and their theoretical underpinnings.”141 142. in front of the door posts This is a reference to the mezuzah, and paraphrases the third verse of the Shema (Deut. 6:9; 11:20): “Inscribe them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.” The language of Philo does not follow exactly either the MT or the LXX. It appears that in contrast to B. Men. 34a, which enjoins writing the words on parchment, Philo’s language implies engraving on stone. This is in line with archeological evidence that points to an earlier, less narrowly defined practice (not necessarily sectarian) that was apparently eventually standardized in the form we know today.142

1108

Naomi G. Cohen

Living According to the Ancestral Traditions

143Another most admirable injunction is that nothing should be added or taken away, but all the laws originally ordained should be kept unaltered just as they were. For what actually happens, as we clearly see, is that it is the unjust which is added and the just which is taken away, for the wise legislator has omitted nothing which can give possession of justice whole and complete. 144Further he suggests also that the summit of perfection has been reached in each of the other virtues. For each of them is defective in nothing, complete in its self-wrought consummateness, so that if there be any adding or taking away, its whole being is changed and transformed into the opposite condition. 145Here is an example of what I mean. That courage, the virtue whose field of action is what causes terror, is the knowledge of what ought to be endured, is known to all who are not completely devoid of 143–48 This passage forbids either adding to or subtracting from the divine Commandments. This is a basic, axiomatic principle of the Rabbinic halakhic system,143 and was a matter of consensus in Philo’s day as well. The disunity and dissension culminating in sectarian schism concerned the understanding and interpretation of the Mosaic revelation, not its eternal validity. Thus, even the author of Matt. 5:17, who quotes Jesus as saying, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets” (NRSV) took it for granted that the Law was obligatory. This is not to say that there were not many who took their obligations lightly, and others who, while in principle were committed to the sanctity of every word, “regarded the laws in their literal sense in the light of symbols” (Philo, Migration 89). Indeed, since most successful innovations are the culmination of already existing tendencies, such an approach may well have served as the point of departure for Paul’s abrogation of the requirement to fulfill the Law.144 143. nothing should be added or taken away See Deut. 4:2: “You shall not add anything to what I command you or take anything away from it, but keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I enjoin upon you”; cf. also Deut. 13:1 (12:1LXX): “Be careful to observe only that which I enjoin upon you: neither add to it nor take away from it.” and the just which is taken away This emendation is at the very least superfluous, for the immediate continuation of Philo’s statement here is that “the wise legislator has omitted nothing,” and only in the next section does Philo turn to the aspect of “taking away.” For the major point of the passage, see Spec. Laws 4.147 and the comments there. the wise legislator That is, Moses. justice Gk. dikaiosynē. As the context indicates, this clearly refers to the Commandments rather than legal justice. 144. Further he suggests The identity of the subject “he” is not entirely clear. Perhaps it refers simultaneously to Moses, who has just been called “the wise legislator,” and to Aristotle, for it echoes his statement in Eth. nic. 2.6.15–16.1106b, 36.1107a: “Virtue then, is a state of character concerned with choice . . . a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.”145 This was probably a popular truism. If this is indeed so, before us is yet another example of double entendre so typical of Philo’s style. 145. the knowledge of what ought to be endured This echoes the definition of “courage” that was part of the Stoics’ “school text” material;146 Philo—clearly confident that his readers are familiar with it—quotes it more extensively in Alleg. Interp. 1.68 and Philo also alludes to it in Virtues 1.

On the Special Laws 1–4

1109

learning and culture, even if their contact with education has been but small. 146But if anyone, indulging the ignorance which comes from arrogance and believing himself to be a superior person capable of correcting what stands in no such need, ventures to add to or take from courage, he changes its likeness altogether and stamps upon it a form in which ugliness replaces beauty, for by adding he will make rashness and by taking away he will make cowardice, not leaving even the name of the courage so highly profitable to life. 147In the same way too if one adds anything small or great to the queen of virtues piety or on the other hand takes something from it, in either case he will change and transform its nature. Addition will beget superstition and subtraction will beget impiety, and so piety too is lost to sight, that sun whose rising and shining is a blessing we may well pray for, because it is the source of the greatest of blessings, since it gives the knowledge of the service of God, which we must hold as lordlier than any lordship, more royal than any sovereignty. 148Much the same may be said of the other virtues, but as it is my habit to avoid lengthy discussions by abridgement, I will content myself with the aforesaid examples which will sufficiently indicate what is left unsaid. even if their contact with education has been but small Using his remarks in Spec. Laws 4.146 as a bridge, Philo transfers the barb of this remark to the frame of reference of “piety” in 147. 146. for by adding he will make rashness and by taking away he will make cowardice The paraphrase here of Aristotle’s Eth. nic. 2.1107b—“the man who exceeds in confidence is rash, and he who exceeds in fear and falls short in confidence is a coward”—is the continuation of the quotation begun in Spec. Laws 4.144. 147. In the same way too if one adds . . . to the queen of virtues piety Gk. translated here as “piety” is eusebeia. Philo uses the same argument in this section as in the preceding one, replacing the virtue “courage” with “piety” and coming to the conclusion that, similarly, neither subtraction nor addition leads to true piety. He makes the same point in Unchangeable 162–65, and less explicitly in Migration 143–47. This idea too was also almost certainly “common knowledge” in Philo’s day. Plutarch, who lived not much after Philo (ca. 46–120 ce), makes a somewhat similar point when he writes in Moralia, de Superstitione 171f. “that some persons, in trying to escape superstition, rush into a rough and hardened atheism, thus overleaping true religion which lies between.” Addition will beget superstition Philo is emphatically stressing that not only does “subtraction” (i.e., not having enough piety) beget impiety (asebeia), but also “addition” (i.e., taking piety to an extreme) distorts piety by turning it into superstition (deisidaimonia). His belaboring of the point may well reflect the situation in the Jewish world of his day. the knowledge of the service of God Once again, there is an echo of a Stoic definition (see SVF 3.157, no. 608 = Lives 7.119). See too the Pseudo-Platonic Definitiones 412e 14, where eusebeia is defined as: “dikaiosynē respecting the gods.” 148. what is left unsaid Do these words allude to a literary source that Philo has abridged, or to additional criticism on his part (left unspoken) of those who wished to add or subtract from “piety” (meaning, the Laws)? In any case, Philo has succeeded in conveying a very “Jewish” message by couching it simultaneously in philosophic and Judeo-Greek terminology, making optimal use of double entendre.

1110 Naomi G. Cohen

Thy Neighbor’s Landmarks

149Another commandment of general value is “Thou shalt not remove thy neighbor’s landmarks which thy forerunners have set up.” Now this law, we may consider, applies not merely to allotments and boundaries of land in order to eliminate covetousness but also to the safeguarding of ancient customs. For customs are unwritten laws, the decisions approved by men of old, not inscribed on monuments nor on leaves of paper which the moth destroys, but on the souls of those who are partners in the same citizenship. 150For children ought to inherit from their parents, besides their property, ancestral customs which they were reared in and have lived with even from the cradle, and not despise them because they have been handed down without written record. Praise cannot be duly given to one who obeys the written laws, since he acts under the admonition of restraint and the fear of punishment. But he who faithfully observes the unwritten deserves commendation, since the virtue which he displays is freely willed. 149–50 These sections conclude the first part of an appendix to Philo’s discussion of the commandments under the rubrics of the Decalogue—an appendix that contains “those laws that do not fit under a specific commandment of the Decalogue, but belong to them all” (Spec. Laws 4.133). The first commandment of general relevance raised here was the prohibition against adding to or taking away from what is commanded in the Torah. Philo now brings up its corollary by stating that the obligation to keep the “ancient customs” (Spec. Laws 4.149) is included in the divine legislation. Philo and Rabbinic literature are at one in considering both the prohibition against adding or subtracting as well as the commandment to follow the “unwritten laws” (149) to be biblical injunctions. 149. Another commandment of general value Philo states clearly that what follows is also a general biblical category, and not a detail. Thou shalt not remove thy neighbor’s landmarks which thy forerunners have set up Philo renders this verse (Deut. 19:14) to indicate the obligation to keep the “ancient customs”—namely, that the obligation to abide by the “unwritten laws” and ancient customs is biblical. He considers this to be an important “written law” (Spec. Laws 4.150), presenting it here immediately following the biblical injunction neither to add nor subtract from the biblical laws (cf. Deut. 4:2, 13:1—so OJPS; KJV 12:32) as a corollary to it.147 This understanding of Deut. 19:14 both preceded and followed Philo by hundreds of years.148 For customs are unwritten laws, the decisions approved by men of old For the study of the terms “ancient customs,” “unwritten laws,” “decisions approved by men of old,” and similar terms both within and outside Philo’s writings, and particularly the question of their relation to what in Judaism is called “Oral Law” (Torah she-be-al peh), see my Philo Judaeus.149 150. But he who faithfully observes the unwritten deserves commendation, since the virtue which he displays is freely willed Philo is usually understood here150 to mean that the faithful observance of what he has called “unwritten laws” was not compulsory. But a careful reading reveals that what Philo has actually written is not that the “unwritten laws” are not compulsory, but that, in contrast to the “written laws,” no sanction is specified for their transgression. In support of this understanding of the text, note that below, in Spec. Laws 4.193, Philo writes, “Again, those who handle weights and measures . . . are no doubt subject to market controllers, but ought . . . to do what is just . . . of their own free will.” External compulsion or its absence is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the “unwritten laws” or “ancient customs” are obligatory. Philo and

On the Special Laws 1–4

1111

On the Special Laws 4.151–56 General Remarks on the Appointment of Rulers

151Some legislators have introduced the system of filling magistracies by lot, to the detriment of their peoples, for the lot shows good luck, not merit. In fact the lot often falls to many of the unworthy whom a good man, if he obtained command, would reject as unfit to be classed even among his subjects. 152For those “minor rulers,” as some phrase it, whom we call “masters” do not retain in their service later Rabbinic sources, though not identical either in their frame of reference or in their conclusions, both make an ethical judgment. Philo rates voluntary performance in the absence of legal coercion more highly. The question for the Rabbinic sources is the moral status of an action when there is no legal obligation to perform it. The Rabbis reach the opposite conclusion—namely, the paradoxical consideration that “he who is commanded and fulfills [the command] is greater than he who does the same thing without being commanded” (B. BK 87a; Kid. 31a; et al.).151 151–59 In the manuscripts, the words “On the appointment of rulers” stand at the beginning of 151. Whether or not the title was in the original manuscript, the ensuing passages are indeed concerned with the choice of rulers and the behavior appropriate to them, using Deut. 17:14–20 as the frame of reference. Since the appointment of rulers concerns the people as a whole, rather than one or another individual, in this sense it belongs to the “general” laws. These sections should be read as homiletic hermeneutics, as a passionate tirade cloaked in the guise of biblical interpretation. For when read on the assumption that Philo’s primary intention was to express his personal stand in relation to a burning political issue, and not merely to recapitulate the law relevant to the appointment of rulers, this passage comes alive. Philo’s contemporary readers, who lived and breathed the same political environment as he did, could only have read these sections as a highly charged and caustic tirade, its allusions and innuendo making it as topical as the editorial page of the weekend newspaper is today. 151–56 The length and heated invective of these sections have no foundation in the underlying biblical pericope, hinting that Philo’s text here is more than a mere recapitulation of the biblical text embroidered with popular Hellenistic cultural frames of reference. The text may also be read as leading up to an argument in favor of Agrippa’s being chosen as the next ruler (see the comment on Spec. Laws 4.157–59). 151. filling magistracies by lot Many sources from the classic Greek tradition mention this method, most of them being for relatively minor positions,152 but Philo’s description and rejection of this method of appointment, which begins here, builds to its crescendo in 156 when he refers to “one who is to have in his hands great and populous cities with all their inhabitants.” Can this be directed at anyone other than the Roman emperor? If the emperor is indeed Philo’s intended target, then what we have is a criticism of what had by Philo’s day become the hereditary nature of the succession of the Principate.153 In 151–56, Philo’s use of the Gk. kleros, translated by Colson as “lot,” creates an almost imperceptible shift from this definition into its other major connotation: “inheritance.” Even the first instance of the word here in 151 is probably already a double entendre. Note that in 150, Philo uses the word kleronomein, “to inherit.” Passing from one connotation of a word to another is a stylistic nuance employed by Philo in his writings.154 152. “minor rulers” . . . whom we call “masters” From the context it is clear that what are indicated are slave owners. This comparison has, implicit in it, the servile status of the population respecting the ruler.

1112 Naomi G. Cohen

all they might, whether homebred or purchased, but only those who prove amenable: the incorrigible they sometimes sell in a mass as unworthy to be slaves of men of merit. 153And can it then be right to make masters and rulers of whole cities and nations out of persons chosen by lot, by what we may call a blunder of fortune, the uncertain and unstable? In the matter of tending the sick lot has no place, for physicians do not gain their posts by lot, but are approved by the test of experience. 154And to secure a successful voyage and the safety of travelers on the sea we do not choose (by lot), and send straight away to the helm, a steersman who through his ignorance will produce in fine weather and calm water shipwrecks in which Nature has no part. Instead we send one whom we know to have been carefully trained from his earliest years in the art of steersmanship. Such a one will have made many a voyage, crossed all or most seas, carefully studied the trading ports, harbours and anchorages and roadsteads, both in the islands and the mainland, and know the sea routes as well as, if not better than, the roads on land, through accurately watching the heavenly bodies.155For by observing the courses of the stars and following their ordered movements he has been able to open up in the pathless waste highroads where none can err, with this incredible result, that the creature whose element is land can float his way through the element of water.156And shall one who is to have in his hands great and populous cities with all their inhabitants, and the constitutions of the cities and the management of matters private, public and sacred, a task which we might well call an art of arts, and a science of sciences, be the sport of the unstable oscillation of the lot and escape the strict test of truth, which can only be tested by proofs founded on reason? 153. to make masters and rulers of whole cities and nations In the ancient world, the word “city” meant not only municipality, but was also used for what we would call “country.” Both Athens and Rome were primarily “cities,” even though during much of their existence, they were empires. The Gk. ethnos, which Colson has here translated “nations,” means “peoples” rather than “political entities.” a blunder of fortune Colson, in a footnote to this text, suggests also “a random act of fortune” or “a freak of fortune.” physicians do not gain their posts by lot This expression, along with the ensuing comparison with pilots and navigators, was a popular cliché in Philo’s day. 154. And to secure a successful voyage Note that, whereas in other contexts the comparison of rulers with navigators is concise, here it continues for three complete sections. This suggests that there is indeed more here than a usual cliché, and that a contemporary association is in Philo’s mind—one which was shared by his contemporary readers.155 shipwrecks in which Nature has no part Literally, “handmade shipwrecks.” As Colson has noted at this section, the Gk. is cheiropoieta, “homemade” or “handmade.” 156. great and populous cities As noted in the comment on 151, the most natural assumption is that this is an allusion to the Roman emperor, since it was into his hands that “great and populous cities with all their inhabitants” were entrusted. matters private, public and sacred This trilogy reads like legalistic phraseology.

On the Special Laws 1–4

1113

On the Special Laws 4.157–59 The Brief for Agrippa

157These things Moses, wise here as ever, considered in his soul and does not even mention appointment of rulers by lot, but determines to institute appointment by election. Thus he says “thou shalt establish a ruler over thyself, not a foreigner but from thy brethren,” hereby indicating that there should be a free choice and an unimpeachable scrutiny of the ruler made by the whole people with the same mind. And the choice will receive the further vote and seal of ratification from Him who confirms all things that promote the common weal, even God who holds that the man may be called “the chosen from the race,” in which he is what the eye is in the body. 158The reasons subjoined to show why a foreigner should not be selected are two. First to prevent 157–59 The present commentary reads Spec. Laws 4.151–59 on the hypothesis that it is a brief for the acceptance of Agrippa’s appointment as King of Judea by the newly elected Roman Emperor Claudius.156 Agrippa was not unequivocally accepted by all of his compatriots. The issue must have been a live one not only in Judea but also in the Alexandrian Jewish community, and particularly in such circles as Philo’s own family, which had at one time even been related to Agrippa by marriage (see Josephus, Ant. 19.276–77). Deut. 17:15 reads, “you shall be free to set a king over yourself, one chosen by the Lord your God. Be sure to set as king over yourself one of your own people; you must not set a foreigner over you, one who is not your kinsman.” 157. to institute appointment by election The Gk. word that Colson renders “by election” is cheirotonetas, literally, “chosen by hand”—and that is exactly what happened here: Claudius chose Agrippa. Note too that in Spec. Laws 4.154, the Gk. used was cheiropoieta, “handmade.” One wonders whether Philo meant this to serve as a linguistic association, one that would have been noticed by his sophisticated contemporary readers. thou shalt establish a ruler over thyself, not a foreigner but from thy brethren Scripture mentions “one of your own people” first, whereas Philo mentions the “foreigner” first. As we know both from Josephus and from Rabbinic sources, the prohibition mentioned in Deut. 17:15 against setting a foreigner over the people was a burning contemporary political issue in Philo’s day. For this was when the newly elected Roman Emperor Claudius appointed Agrippa as King of Judea, even though his status as a Jew was questionable.157 unimpeachable scrutiny of the ruler The term “unimpeachable scrutiny” in a similar context is found in Plato, Leg. 6.759c; cf. also Spec. Laws 4.164. The text here refers to the dokimasia, the examination and scrutiny of magistrates after election, to see if they fulfill the legal requirements of legitimacy, full citizenship, and so on. I suggest that this is what Philo meant here, and he argues that Agrippa has passed muster. This connotation is also used by Philo in Flaccus 130. that the man may be called “the chosen from the race” I have added the quotation marks to Colson’s translation, and suggest that this phrase is meant to answer the requirement in Deut. 17:15 that the ruler be “one chosen by the Lord your God . . . one of your own people”; “the man” here is a reference to Agrippa. in which he is what the eye is in the body Colson notes that the text is obscure. This is true, but it is no more obscure than what has preceded it. The Greek text here does not have the definite article and so actually reads: “like eye in body.” Philo is portraying Agrippa as the eye for the Jewish Commonwealth (body) with respect to the Romans.158 158. The reasons subjoined to show why a foreigner should not be selected Philo makes no mention

1114 Naomi G. Cohen

him from amassing a great quantity of gold and silver and cattle and storing up great wealth all unjustly wrung from the poverty of his subjects. Secondly, that he should not gratify his own greedy desires to evict the natives from the land and compel them to emigrate borne hither and thither in endless wandering, or by inspiring in them futile hopes of increased prosperity succeed in taking from them what ere now they enjoyed in security. 159For he assumed with good reason that one who was their fellowtribesman and fellowkinsman related to them by the tie which brings the highest kinship, the kinship of having one citizenship and the same law and one God who has taken all members of the nation for His portion, would never sin in the way just mentioned. He knew that such a one on the contrary, instead of sending the inhabitants adrift, would provide a safe return for those who are scattered on foreign soil, and instead of taking the wealth of others would give liberally to the needy by making his private substance common to all. On the Special Laws 4.160–69 Write Out with His Own Hand

160From the day that he enters upon his office the lawgiver bids him write out with his own hand this of the biblical prohibition against returning to Egypt found in Deut. 17:16, which is entirely understandable given that he and his contemporary readers lived in Alexandria, Egypt. to prevent him from amassing . . . great wealth In the MT, this is an injunction addressed to the Jewish king, who is forbidden “to keep many horses . . . have many wives,” etc. (Deut. 17:16–17). But the LXX, and Philo in its wake, makes this the reason for appointing a kinsman and not a foreigner: “because he [the Jewish king] shall not multiply” (emphasis mine) and so on. all unjustly wrung from the poverty of his subjects Philo’s description of wealth acquired in this reprehensible manner instantly recalls the behavior of the Roman procurators and governors toward the inhabitants of the provinces.159 In fact, Philo’s insistence here “that he [the Jewish ruler] should not . . . evict the natives from the land and compel them to emigrate” is a mirror reflection of his description of the Romans’ behavior in Flaccus 105. Even without any specific reference to current events, I think that Philo must have employed the biblical verses on the appointment of a king (Deut. 17:15–17) to allude to the avarice, greed, and cruelty that was so typical of the foreign Roman rulers, including their eviction of provincials under their rule whenever this served their personal advantage. 159. the kinship of having one citizenship and the same law and one God who has taken all members of the nation for His portion This is a fairly forthright definition on Philo’s part of “who is a Jew.” For the locution “all members of the nation for His portion” see Deut. 32:9 “For the Lord’s portion is His people,” and see once again in Spec. Laws 4.180. 160–69 The biblical springboard here is Deut. 17:18–20. 160. bids him write out with his own hand The biblical text says merely that the king “shall write him a copy of this law in a book” (Deut. 17:18 OJPS),160 without unequivocally stating that he must do this with his own hand. Philo, however, understands it to mean, “by his own hand” and lays great stress on this. For he writes: (160) “he shall write with his own hand,” (161) “after writing,” “with what he has written,” (162) “the work of his own pen,” “his own writing,” (163) “I have written these words . . . without employing another,” etc. (163) . . . I write them in a book.”

On the Special Laws 1–4

1115

sequel to the laws, which embraces them all in the form of a summary. He wishes hereby to have the ordinances cemented to the soul. For the thoughts swept away by the current, ebb away from the mere reader, but are implanted and set fast in one who writes them out at leisure. For the mind can dwell at its ease on each point and fix itself upon it, and does not pass on to something else until it has securely grasped what goes before. 161Still after writing he must endeavor every day to read and familiarize himself with what he has written, so that he may have a constant and unbroken memory of ordinances so good and profitable to all, and thus conceive an unswerving love and yearning for them by perpetually training and habituating his soul to companionship with holy laws. For prolonged associations produce a pure and sincere affection not only for men but for writings of such kinds as are worthy of our love. 162And this will be the case if the ruler studies not the writings and notes of another but the work of his own pen, for everyone is more familiar with his own writing and takes in its meaning more readily. 163Further when he reads he will reason thus with himself. “I have written these words, I, a ruler of such eminence, without employing another, though I have a host of servants. Have I done it to fill the pages of a book like those who write for hire or to train their eyes and hands, the first to sharpen the sight, the second to make themselves swift writers? No, surely not. I write them in a book in order to rewrite them straightway in my soul, and receive in my mind the imprints of a script more divine and ineffaceable. 164Now other kings carry rods in their hands as sceptres but my sceptre is the Book of sequel to the law The Gk. used by Philo for MT mishneh torah is epinomis, a term that recalls the Platonic book of this name. Colson has taken it for granted that Philo is referring to the book of Deuteronomy, but this is not so;161 neither did the sages necessarily understand MT mishneh torah as denoting this. which embraces them all in the form of a summary If the king wrote it “with his own hand,” the document involved must have been a short one. ordinances Colson has “ordinance” in the singular. This is presumably a typist’s error. 161. he must endeavor every day to read and familiarize himself with what he has written A paraphrase of Deut. 17:19. 162. the work of his own pen See the comment on Spec. Laws 4.160. 163. when he reads he will reason thus with himself Philo discusses what follows in the first person, a common enough literary device, which enlivens the somewhat sanctimonious content. like those who write for hire In the ancient world, the “publication” of books was by means of professional copyists, who sat together, with one of their number sitting before them and dictating the text. 164. the Book of the Sequel to the Law The Greek reads “the Book of the Epinomis.” Philo identifies the Epinomis both as the sceptre of the Jewish king and as his unimpeachable ensign of sovereignty. While this can and should be taken figuratively—that is, to indicate that the epitome of the Torah contained in the Epinomis is the king’s unimpeachable document of appointment and constitution—given that in Philo’s day, books were normally in the form of scrolls, he is apparently also describing the king as holding the Scroll of the Epinomis in his hand like a sceptre. Some Rabbinic sources understand the words mishneh torah found here in Deut. 17:18 to be a reference to two scrolls, and describe the second scroll as written in the form of an amulet to be worn on the king’s arm as a royal insignia. While an amulet is not a rod, they both are described as being an appurtenance of the royal ceremonial dress and as a symbol of office.

1116 Naomi G. Cohen

the Sequel to the Law, my pride and my glory, which nothing can rival, an ensign of sovereignty which none can impeach, formed in the image of its archetype the kingship of God. 165And if I ever keep the holy laws for my staff and support I shall win two things better than all else. One is the spirit of equality, and no greater good can be found than this, for arrogance and insolence belong to a soul of mean capacity, which does not foresee the future. 166Equality will earn its just reward, repaid in the goodwill and safety of my subjects, while inequality will create the gravest perils and pitfalls. These I shall escape if I hate inequality, the bestower of darkness and wars, while I shall have a life proof against the malice of enemies if I honor equality, which eschews sedition and is the mother of light and settled order. 167The other thing that I shall win is that I shall not sway to either side as on a balance, deflecting the ordinances and turning them awry, but I shall try to take them along the central highway marching with firm straightforward steps to ensure a life that never stumbles. 168Now the name of “royal” which Moses is wont to give to the central road which lies midway between excess and deficiency, is also given because in a set of three the midmost holds the leading place, joining in union with itself by an indissoluble bond those on either side of it, which also serve as bodyguards to it as to a king. 169A an ensign of sovereignty which none can impeach Compare the use of this same word (anepileptou) in Spec. Laws 4.157, in the phrase “unimpeachable scrutiny of the ruler.” If the topic of Agrippa’s appointment and his compatriots’ reluctance to accept it is indeed in the background, the message here is that the objections are unfounded. 165. the holy laws for my staff and support Philo almost imperceptibly goes from a literal understanding of the words to its symbolic message. the spirit of equality Colson renders Gk. isoths “equality,” which is an accurate translation but hardly embodies its full connotation. Isoths should often be translated as “political equity,” “justice,” “fair dealing,” or “impartiality,” connotations that are often preferred by Philo; see e.g. the comment to 74 above. Another example of Philo’s use of a nuanced connotation is his encomium of “equality” below in 232–38 at the end of Spec. Laws 4 (not included in the Translation). It opens with the words, “All things in heaven and earth have been ordered aright by equality under immovable laws and statutes, for who does not know that the relation of days to nights and nights to days is regulated . . . according to intervals of proportional equality” (italics mine). This does not mean either “equality” in the sense that we are used to understand the word, nor does it mean “identity.” 166. Equality will earn its just reward Almost like a political candidate today, the king is presented as promising that his behavior will earn the goodwill and safety of his subjects, freedom from war, and a transparent, stable government. equality, which eschews sedition Colson has: “equality, who eschews sedition.” 167. I shall not sway to either side as on a balance The image drawn by Philo is that of the ancient scale, which is used even today as the insignia of justice. It is also an echo of Deut. 17:20: “. . . or deviate from the Instruction to the right or to the left.” the central highway Philo here alludes to Num. 20:17: “We will follow the king’s highway, turning off neither to the right nor to the left”; cf. in a similar vein Unchangeable 162. From very ancient times, the “King’s Highway” that follows the eastern side of the Jordan River has been the main road leading from the Red Sea in the south to Damascus (Syria) in the north. Philo must have been familiar with it, since it was in use in Roman times and continues to be so.

On the Special Laws 1–4

1117

law abiding ruler who honors equality, who is impervious to bribes and gives just judgments justly and ever exercises himself in the laws has, he tells us, for his reward that the days of his government shall be long; not meaning that he grants him long years of life spent in presiding over the State, but to teach the ignorant that the law-abiding ruler, even when deceased, lives an age-long life through the actions which he leaves behind him never to die, monuments of high excellence which can never be destroyed. On the Special Laws 4.170–71 Jethro’s Advice: Based on Exodus 18

170The person who has been judged worthy to fill the highest and most important office should choose lieutenants to share with him the duties of governing, giving judgment, and managing all the other matters which concern the public welfare. For a single person even though possessed of unique strength both in body and soul would not be capable of coping with the magnitude and multitude of affairs, be he ever so zealous, but would collapse under their force as they pour in upon him daily from different sides, unless he had helpers all of the best chosen for their good sense, ability, justice, and godliness, and because they not only keep clear of arrogance but hate it as a thing pernicious and utterly evil. 171In such persons the man of high excellence burdened with state affairs will find assistants and supporters well fitted to join in relieving him and to lighten his task. Further, since the questions which arise are sometimes greater and sometimes less, to prevent his wearing himself out in petty matters he will do rightly in entrusting the smaller to his subordinates, while the greater he will be bound to scrutinize himself with the utmost care. On the Special Laws 4.172–78

172And great questions must not be understood, as some think, to mean cases where both the disputants are distinguished or rich or men in high office but rather where the commoner or the poor or the obscure are disputing with others more powerful, and where their one hope of escaping a fatal disaster lies in the judge. 173Both these statements may be justified by clear examples to be found in the sacred laws, exam-

169. who is impervious to bribes and gives just judgments justly See Spec. Laws 4.62–67 and the comments there. that the days of his government shall be long For a somewhat similar interpretation of “long life”— meaning a life lived wisely, more so than a life lasting many years—see Philo, Heir 290. 170. should choose lieutenants. . . for their good sense, ability, justice, and godliness As Philo points out in Spec. Laws 4.173, this echoes Exod. 18:13–26. But while the qualities mentioned here are similar to those listed in Exod. 18:21 (“You shall also seek out from among all the people capable men who fear God, trustworthy men who spurn ill-gotten gain”), the Torah verses describe qualities of people, whereas Philo lists abstract virtues. This reflects the difference between Greek and biblical modes of thought. 172. where the commoner or the poor or the obscure are disputing with others more powerful Philo makes the point that impartial courts are the last recourse for the weak; only such a court is blind to the social, financial, and political status of the litigants. 173–78. Both these statements The first statement—that a wise leader will delegate smaller mat-

1118 Naomi G. Cohen

ples which we do well to copy. For there was a time when Moses himself arbitrated questions of justice, laboring from morning till night, but afterward when his father-in-law arrived and observed the vast burden of affairs which oppressed him through the perpetual flood of persons who had questions to settle, he gave the excellent advice that Moses should choose delegates to judge the smaller matters and keep himself in reserve for the greater and thus allow himself time to rest. 174Moses listened to this truly valuable advice and chose out of the multitude the men of highest repute whom he appointed as subordinate governors and also as judges, bidding them refer the more important suits to himself. 175A record of the course thus taken is included in the sacred books as a lesson to each generation of rulers, first that they should not, under the impression that they are capable of surveying everything, reject the help of councilors which Moses the supremely wise and beloved of God did not reject; next that they should choose officers to act as second and third to themselves and so take care that they did not by wearing themselves out over petty matters neglect the more vital. For human nature cannot possibly reach everything. God’s Special Care for the Weak: The Widow, the Orphan and the Incomer 176I have stated one of the two examples and must add the evidence for the second. I said that the great

cases were those of the lowlier. Lowliness and weakness are attributes of the widow, the orphan and the incomer. It is to these that the supreme king who is invested with the government of all should administer justice, because according to Moses, God also the ruler of the Universe has not spurned them from His jurisdiction. 177For when the Revealer has hymned the excellences of the Self-existent in this manner “God the great and powerful, who has no respect to persons, will receive no gifts and executes ters to well-chosen subordinates (Spec. Laws 4.170–71)—is discussed in 173–75, including the example of Moses himself taking advice in this regard from his father-in-law, Jethro; the second statement—that the truly important cases involve disputes between those of unequal power or status, in which those less powerful are dependent on the special care of the judge (172)—is expounded upon in 176–78. 175. they should not . . . reject the help of councilors . . . they should choose officers This message seems quite appropriate coming from Philo, assuming that he was actively engaged in public affairs when he wrote it (see the comment on Spec. Laws 3.1–6). Note that he says in On the Embassy to Gaius that he was chosen to head the legation from the Jewish community to the Roman emperor at a time of severe crisis. 176. the incomer Heb. ger. From the context it is clear that Philo has the righteous proselyte in mind. the widow, the orphan and the incomer These three are brought together more than 10 times in the book of Deuteronomy as the epitome of the weak, of those in need of special care. God also the ruler Better: God who is the ruler. 177. For when the Revealer Gk. “Hierophant.” It is clear from the context here that the word refers to Moses. God the great and powerful The biblical reference is to Deut. 10:17–18: “For the Lord your God is He is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, the mighty, and the awful, who regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward. He doth execute justice” (OJPS).162 This is the only place in the Pentateuch that contains all three of these attributes together: great, mighty, and awful163—and it serves as the basis for the first benediction of the Amidah.164 Here, though Deut. 10:17–18 is

On the Special Laws 1–4

1119

judgment,” he proceeds to say for whom the judgment is executed—not for satraps and despots and men invested with power by land and sea, but for the “incomer, for orphan and widow.” 178For the incomer, because he has turned his kinsfolk, who in the ordinary course of things would be his sole confederates, into mortal enemies, by coming as a pilgrim to truth and the honoring of One who alone is worthy of honor, and by leaving the mythical fables and multiplicity of sovereigns, so highly honored by the parents and grandparents and ancestors and blood relations of this immigrant to a better home. For the orphan, because he has been bereft of his father and mother his natural helpers and champions, deserted by the sole force which was bound to take up his cause. For the widow because she has been deprived of her husband who took over from the parents the charge of guarding and watching over her, since for the purpose of giving protection the husband is to the wife what the parents are to the maiden. On the Special Laws 4.179–82 God’s Special Relation to Israel: Condition of the Jewish People

179One may say that the whole Jewish race is in the position of an orphan compared with all the nations otherwise quoted verbatim, Philo uses a different word for “mighty” (Gk. krataios rather than the LXX’s isxuros) and he does not mention “awesome.” It is possible that the attribute “awesome” simply is not relevant to the context.165 Incomer, for orphan and widow Better: for the “incomer, and orphan and widow.” This is the immediate continuation of the verse in Deut. 10:18 (see the previous comment), according to the LXX reading,166 but not the MT, which has “the fatherless and the widow, and befriends the stranger.” 178. a pilgirm Gk. metanastas. her husband who took over from the parents the charge of guarding and watching over her In Roman law, a woman was under the tutelage of a male relative even as an adult, and required a male guardian. This did not mean that she was not active in society, but it reflected her legal status. Although apparently Jewish girls were under the tutelage of their parents until marriage, at which time they came under their husband’s jurisdiction, and a divorced or widowed woman often returned to her parents’ home, legally speaking, after the age of 12, Jewish maidens as well as divorced women were their own guardians. At the same time the very early age of betrothal must be borne in mind. As Josephus remarks (Ant. 19.276–77), King Agrippa’s daughter Berenice was betrothed to Philo’s nephew at an early age,167 and there is no indication that this was unusual. 179–82 The preceding section provided the point of departure for 179–82, where the contemporary condition of the Jewish people is compared to the “widow, the orphan and the incomer.” Philo stresses the isolation of the Jewish people relative to the family of nations, but that in spite of the contemporary difficulties, God is their support, thanks to the righteousness of their forefathers. At the same time, he also stresses that noble lineage does not exempt one from righteous behavior; on the contrary, the responsibilities associated with high rank increase culpability if one does not behave correctly. 179. the whole Jewish race is in the position of an orphan Philo takes advantage of his remarks in the last few sections to expound upon the difficult situation of the Jewish people in his day. In On Rewards and Punishments, Philo concludes this entire opus with a much longer, similarly semimessianic message (162–72).

1120

Naomi G. Cohen

on every side. They when misfortunes fall upon them which are not by the direct intervention of heaven are never, owing to international intercourse, unprovided with helpers who join sides with them. But the Jewish nation has none to take its part, as it lives under exceptional laws which are necessarily grave and severe because they inculcate the highest standard of virtue. But gravity is austere, and austerity is held in aversion by the great mass of men because they favor pleasure. 180Nevertheless as Moses tells us the orphan-like desolate state of his people is always an object of pity and compassion to the Ruler of the Universe whose portion it is, because it has been set apart out of the whole human race as a kind of firstfruits to the Maker and Father. 181And the cause of this was the precious signs of righteousness and virtue shown by the founders of the race, signs which survive like imperishable plants, bearing fruit that never decays for their descendants, fruit salutary and profitable in every way, even though these descendants themselves be sinners, so long as the sins be curable and not altogether unto death. 182Yet let no one think that good lineage is a perfect blessing and then neglect noble actions, but reflect that greater anger is due to one who while his parentage is of the best brings shame upon his when misfortunes fall upon them which are not by the direct intervention of heaven Implicit here is the theological statement that some things occur in the world that are not the result of personal divine providence, and that except for extraordinary circumstances, the world runs its own course. A somewhat similar thought is expressed by the Sages in the Talmud; see e.g. B. Avodah Zarah 54b: “Our Rabbis taught: philosophers asked the elders in Rome, ‘If your God has no desire for idolatry, why does He not abolish it?’ They replied, . . . The world pursues its natural course, and as for the fools who act wrongly, they will have to render an account.” But the Jewish nation has none to take its part Philo’s explanation for this is that the strictures of the Torah differ from those of all the other nations, and also that they demand “the highest standard of virtue.” This recalls Haman’s statement in Esther 3:8: “There is a certain people, scattered and dispersed among the other peoples in all the provinces of your realm, whose laws are different from those of any other people.” And note that already in the Pentateuch, the Gentile prophet Bilaam prophesies, “There is a people that dwells apart, Not reckoned among the nations” (Num. 23:9). 180. his people . . . whose portion it is . . . set apart out of the whole human race as a kind of firstfruits Note that Colson does not capitalize “his,” perhaps implying that he views “Moses” as its antecedent in this sentence—but the “people” mentioned here are “God’s people,” hence I have capitalized “His” in the translation. Philo’s phrasing in this section is an echo of Deut. 32:9, which is found in the Torah reading for the Sabbath between Rosh Hashanah and the Day of Atonement (Ha’azinu)168 in the annual cycle that is customary today.169 And cf. the similar expression “all members of the nation for His portion,” in Spec. Laws 4.159. signs of righteousness and virtue shown by the founders of the race One of the important motifs in Jewish prayer is the mention of the patriarchs. A familiar example is the first benediction of the Amidah that is recited three times a day by observant Jews. (See note above to lemma God the great and powerful . . . of section 177.) And of course the prayers for the Day of Atonement are also replete with examples of this. 182. let no one think that good lineage is a perfect blessing and then neglect noble actions Philo here inveighs against the thought that noble birth by itself (the fact that one’s forefathers were the patriarchs), without proper behavior, assures the answer to one’s prayers.

On the Special Laws 1–4

1121

parents by the wickedness of his ways. Guilty is he who, having for his own models of true excellence to copy reproduces nothing that serves to direct his life aright and keep it sound and healthy. On the Special Laws 4.183–88 The Obligations of Contemporary Rulers, in Terms of Imitatio Dei

183The law lays upon anyone who has undertaken to superintend and preside over public affairs a very just prohibition when it forbids him “to walk with fraud among the people,” for such conduct shows an illiberal and thoroughly slavish soul which disguises its malignant ways with hypocrisy. 184The ruler should preside over his subjects as a father over his children so that he himself may be honored in return as by true-born sons, and therefore good rulers may be truly called the parents of states and nations in common, since they show a fatherly and sometimes more than fatherly affection. 185But those who assume great power to destroy and injure their subjects should be called not rulers but enemies acting like foemen in bitter war, though indeed those who do wrong craftily are more wicked than open adversaries. These last show their hostility stripped naked and it is easy to make defense against them; the villainy of the others is hard to catch or trace since they assume a strange garb as in a theatre to hide their true appearance. 186Now “rule” or “command” is a category which extends and intrudes itself, I might almost say, into every branch of life, differing only in magnitude and amount. For the relation of a king to a state is the same as that of a headman to a village, of a householder to a house, of a physician to his patients, of a general to an army, of an admiral to the marines and crews, or again of a skipper

183–88 In these sections, Philo comes full circle and returns to the obligations of contemporary rulers, in terms of imitatio Dei. Quoting Scripture, Philo writes that a ruler must not act fraudulently with his subjects but rather, as a father to his children. He concludes with the observation that, like God, rulers have the power for good and the reverse, for benefit or injury, and if they wish to be like God, they must, like Him, be benevolent. The final paragraph enunciates Philo’s credo respecting God’s nature and His relationship to the universe, and is thus an appropriate place to conclude this anthology. On the Special Laws continues for another 50 sections that cannot be treated within the confines of this commentary, and concludes with a paean to Justice, personified as the daughter of Equality. Philo’s entire work concludes with the books Virtues and On Rewards and Punishments; the latter concludes with a messianic promise (Rewards 162–72), a motif that is also found in Spec. Laws 4.179–81. 183. to walk with fraud among the people Philo understands MT rakhil (Lev. 19:16) in a connotation similar to its rendition in the LXX (dolos, “craft, cunning, strategem”), as a reference to the behavior of the ruler. This differs from what we are used to, for the OJPS and the KJV both render the Heb. lo telekh rakhil be’amekhah as “Thou shalt not go up and down as a tale-bearer among thy people,” which is in line with the way Rabbinic sources understood the verse.170 185. though indeed those who do wrong craftily are more wicked than open adversaries This is a comment on the prohibition against “[walking] with fraud.” If Philo is relating to the current political situation, his contemporaries would have found the passage intensely interesting, rather than the somewhat tiresome verbiage we might perceive it to be. 186. the relation of a king to a state is the same as The long list of parallels is a homiletic trait used by many orators, including those of today. It serves to prepare the audience to accept the ensuing conclusion without further question.

1122

Naomi G. Cohen

to merchant and cargo vessels or of a pilot to the seamen. All these have power both for good and for worse, but they ought to will the better, and the better is to benefit instead of injuring as many as they possibly can. 187For this is to follow God since He too can do both but wills the good only. This was shown both in the creation and in the ordering of the world. He called the nonexistent into existence and produced order from disorder, qualities from things devoid of quality, similarities from the dissimilar, identities from the totally different, fellowship and harmony from the dissociated and discordant, equality from inequality and light from darkness. For He and His beneficent powers ever make it their business to transmute the faultiness of the worse wherever it exists and convert it to the better. 188These things good rulers must imitate if they have any aspiration to be assimilated to God. 187. For this is to follow God Here, Philo expresses a clear and unequivocal statement respecting the nature of the creation and the ordering of the world, worded in the language of classical Greek thought. It is not in conflict with the underlying assumptions of early Rabbinic midrash before the threat of Gnostic heresy made the concept of creation ex nihilo an issue.171 See also the comment on Spec. Laws 2.151, elements were then separated and placed in harmonious order. He too can do both This too is echoed in the first paragraph of the Amidah: “the Creator of all things” (see also the comment on Spec. Laws 4.177, God the great and powerful), as well as at the beginning of the first benediction before the reading of the Shema in the morning: “Who forms light and creates darkness, Who makes peace, and creates all things.”172 equality from inequality See the comment on Spec. Laws 4.74 and on 165, the spirit of equality. He and His beneficent powers For an explanation of Philo’s description of God’s powers, see the comment on Spec. Laws 1, Title, and its note; see also the comments on 1.45 and on 1.46, The Powers. 188. These things good rulers must imitate Philo makes a similar statement in 4.73, where the expression used is mimeisthai Theon, and not as here: eksoimoiwsews ths pros Theon. But from the context, they appear to be expressing the same idea. Colson, in his endnote to 4.188, writes that Philo is undoubtedly thinking of Plato’s Theaet. 176a–b, which he quotes in a different context in Flight 63: “to fly away is to become like God, as far as this is possible; and to become like Him is to become holy, just and wise” (where the Platonic treatise is actually mentioned by name). I think that a closer Platonic parallel is Leg. 716c: “Now God ought to be to us the measure of all things, and not man, as men commonly say . . . and he who would be dear to God must, as far as is possible, be like Him and such as he is.” While this may well be so, it is no less so that the idea of imitatio Dei is also well rooted in Jewish tradition (Mek. R. Ish., Be-shallah, Shira, 3:17; B. Shab. 133b).

Notes 1. The standard work on this in English remains that of Samuel Belkin, Philo and the Oral Law (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1940). Also worth studying are some of Belkin’s predecessors: Zecharias Frankel, Ueber den Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese auf die alexandrinische Hermeneutik (Leipzig: 1851) and Ueber Palästinische und alexandrinische Schriftforschung (Breslaus: 1854); Bernhard Ritter, Philo und die Halacha (Leipzig: 1879); W. Völker, Fortschritt und Vollendung bei Philon von Alexandrien: Eine Studie zur Geschichte der Frömmigkeit, Texte und Unterzuchungen 49.1 (Leipzig: 1938); J. Z. Lauterbach, “Philo Judaeus, His Relation to the Halakah,” in Jewish Encyclopedia, 10:15–18 (New York: 1905); Isaac Heinemann, Philon’s griechische und jüdische Bildung (Breslau: 1931–32); G. Allon, “Le-Heker ha-Halakah be-Philon,” Tarbiz 5 (1933–34): 28–36, 241–46, and Tarbiz 6 (1934–35): 30–37, 452–59. 2. “the Jews every seventh day occupy themselves with the philosophy of their fathers . . . For what are our places of prayer throughout the cities but schools of prudence and courage and temperance and justice

On the Special Laws 1–4

1123

3.

4. 5.

6. 7.

8.

9. 10.

11.

12. 13. 14.

15.

16.

17.

1124

and also of piety and holiness and every virtue by which duty to God and men is discerned and rightly performed.” Papyrologic evidence for the recitation of the Decalogue immediately preceding the Shema is provided by the fragmented Nash Papyrus, dated to ca. 150–100 bce, which contains both texts in that sequence— presumably for liturgical use. See Yigael Yadin, Tefillin from Qumran (X Q Phyl 1–4) ( Jerusalem: IES and the Shrine of the Book, 1969). But the Decalogue, in its respective places in Exodus and Deuteronomy, does remain part of the synagogue yearly Torah reading cycle; it is also the Pentateuchal portion read on Shavuot, which is one of the festivals that commemorates the giving of the Torah at Sinai. He brings the number of festivals to 10, and includes “Every Day” in the list either on the grounds that the Tamid sacrifice is offered twice daily, or simply to complete the number 10. Although Colson points out (in his endnote to this section, on 631–32) that civil turmoil was ongoing, and even suggests that these paragraphs may be no more than “a natural literary device marking that he is just halfway through his great subject,” I find this less than convincing, and agree with Heinemann that it reads as a personal expression of strong feeling. Another example of an autobiographical aside of a very different nature is that in Migration 34–35, which describes his experience as a creative writer: “On some occasions, knowing the substance of what I was to set down, I have found my understanding incapable of giving birth to a single idea, and have given it up without accomplishing anything . . . On other occasions I have approached my work empty and suddenly became full, the ideas flowing in a shower from above.” “Powers” and “Potencies” are simply different translations of the Greek Dunameis; intertwined with the term Dunameis in Philo’s writing is the Greek doksa (MT kavod), “glory.” When Philo uses dunameis as a common noun—e.g., in referring to the sun and the moon as well as angels—he means powers that are created by and subservient to God, who functions through them. Used as a proper noun, Dunameis refers to the essence—as opposed to the attributes—of the Divine, reflecting the thorny problem of differentiating between the two. Philo uses Dunameis to refer to God’s two major aspects: the ruling aspect, expressed by the name Kyrios; and the creative aspect, expressed by the name Theos. With this one may associate the traditional Jewish conception of the Divine middot (“attributes”; lit. “measures”) such as “strict law or punishment” and “goodness or “mercy” (see, e.g., J. Ta’an. 2:65b halakha 1; Gen. Rab. 12:15; 21:7; 33:3). See T. Mangey, Philonis Judaei opera quae reperiri potuerunt omnia, 2 vols. (London: Gulielmi Bowyer, 1742); and Isaak Heinemann noted by Colson ad loc. C. D. Yonge, trans., The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged. It is now in the common domain and may either be purchased very reasonably or downloaded free from the Internet. The pagination in the PLCL has been added to it, thus facilitating its use. Colson notes here (p. 615) that the doctrine and phraseology are Stoic. See, e.g., H. von Arnim, Stoicorum veterum fragmenta (SVF), 4 vols. (Leipzig: Teubner, 1903–24), 2:838; see also the parallel idea below in Spec. Laws 1.214, where either the heart or the brain is the vessel “which admits and retains folly and injustice and cowardice and the other vices.” See, e.g., M. Yev. 6:6; B. Yev. 63b; T. Yev. 8:7; B. Git. 57a. See Dorothy Sly, Philo’s Perception of Women, Brown Judaic Studies 209 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 39–40. Though not explicitly stated there, this order is reflected in B. Mak. 24a (mentioned also under “Significance” in the introduction to this chapter). Cf. also M. Friedmann, ed., Sefer mekhilta d’rabbi ishmael al sefer shemot (with Introduction and Commentary) (Vienna: 1870), 70b; and his edition of Pesiqta Rabbati (Vienna: 1880), 106b. This arrangement is also found in the Codex Vaticanus. Though the details vary, most of the Christian traditions look upon Exod. 20:2–6 as containing both the introduction and the first two commandments, but the numbering adopted by the Roman Catholic and Lutheran churches combines verses 3–6 into a single commandment (the First), in consequence of which, in order to maintain the number ten, what is otherwise considered the final commandment is divided into two. However, Diogenes Laertius (flourished ca. the 3rd century ce), in his Lives of the Philosophers (6.63), ascribes it to Diogenes the Cynic (flourished ca. the 4th century bce). But this is hardly convincing evidence given that Diogenes Laertius lived over 200 years after Philo and over 600 years after Diogenes the Cynic. The Amidah is the prayer recited while standing, thrice daily, and is also known colloquially as the Shemoneh Esrei or ha-Tefillah.

Naomi G. Cohen

18. Deut. 10:17 KJV: “For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh rewards.” The OJPS reads similarly: “For the Lord your God, He is God of gods, and Lord of lords, the great God, the mighty and the awful.” 19. See also Massekhet Sefer Torah 4:4, which refers (among other passages) to Exod. 22:27, “that it is used as both holy and profane” (meshamesh kodesh v’hol). 20. For a discussion of this phenomenon respecting many Greek words, see my Philo Judaeus, 178–224. 21. And also in slightly variant senses: cf., e.g., Ag. Ap. 1.54.4; 2.46–47.3; Ant. 18.9, 11, 23, 25, 259.4—in this last passage, his description of Philo contains the word “philosophy.” 22. This is explained at some length in my Philo Judaeus 158–59, 191–203, 218–20. 23. See, e.g., B. Hag. 14b top–15a, which contains the pericope, “Four entered the Pardes.” 24. A detailed discussion of Philo’s use of this motif is found in David T. Runia, On the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses: Introduction, Translation and Commentary, Philo of Alexandria Commentary Series 1 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 229–30 to Creation 70–71. 25. For examples of parallel passages from traditional midrash that deal with the MT reading here “Thy ways,” see Exod. Rab. 3:1, and cf. also Midr. Ps. to Ps. 103:7, yodia derachav, which refer to God’s attribute of mercy, and his revelation of the future to Moses. 26. On Philo’s use of the Septuagint as his exegetic point of departure, see Cohen, Naomi G., Philo’s Scriptures: Citations from the Prophets and Writings—Evidence for a Haftarah Cycle in Second Temple Judaism, Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 123 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 108–112 passim. 27. For a more extensive discussion, see my Philo Judaeus, chap. 6, esp. 140–42; and for a somewhat different aspect, see also my “Elucidation of Philo’s Spec. Leg. 4.137–8: ‘Stamped Too with Genuine Seals,’” Classical Studies in Honor of David Sohlberg (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 1996), 153–66. 28. Colson gives the reference as 323, but the correct section is 329. See also Wolfson, Philo, 1:217–18. 29. For a discussion of Philo’s use of the term “proselyte” here and elsewhere, as well as the connotation of this term in Scripture, see Belkin, Oral Law, 45–48. 30. For examples of Rabbinic parallels, see Mek. R. Ish. Mishpatim, (Nezikin) parasha 18; Midr. Ps. 146:9 in S. Buber, ed., Midrash Psalms [in Hebrew] (Wilna, 1891), contains a lovely homily that reflects a positive attitude toward proselytes in a spirit similar to that found here in Philo; similarly, Num. Rab. (Wilna), parasha 8, incipit 2. 31. The question of the legal status of lynching both in Philo’s mind and in Rabbinic law is discussed by Belkin in his Oral Law, 111–19, where he cites relevant literature. See also, e.g., Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough, The Jurisprudence of the Jewish Courts in Egypt (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1929), 34, 76–78, 108, 121, 148, 253; Torrey Seland, Establishment of Violence in Philo and Luke: A Study in Non-Conformity to the Torah and Jewish Vigilante Reactions, Biblical Interpretation Series 15 (Leiden: Brill, 1995); J. Juster, Les Juifs dans l’empire romain (Paris: P. Guethner, 1914), 2:158; I. Heinemann, Philon’s griechische un juedische Bildung (1932), 223–27; and Gedalyahu Allon, “Le-Heker ha-Halakhah be’Philon” Tarbiz 6 (1934–4), 30–37. Louis Feldman, in his review of Seland’s book in the Journal of the American Oriental Society 117.1 (1997): 154–55, raises grave doubts that lynching was legal in Philo’s Alexandria. 32. See, e.g., Alleg. Interp. 3.242; Posterity 182–84; Drunkenness 65–74; Names 108. 33. It has been suggested that this was the Alexander addressed in On Providence (see Colson, PLCL 9, p. 447). 34. Colson suggests as an alternative rendering: “governor (of an Egyptian nome).” 35. The symbolism of the vestments of the high priest is described at even greater length in Moses 2.109–35. 36. See Wolfson, Philo, 1:366–84; and more recently, Michael Mach, Entwicklungsstadien des jüdischen Engelglaubens in vorrabbinischer Zeit, Text and Studies in Ancient Judaism 34 (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1992; also in Hebrew as an unpublished PhD diss.). 37. For a beautiful expression of Philo’s conception of the relation between life in this world and the abode of the soul in heaven, see Confusion 77–78: “This is why all whom Moses calls wise are represented as sojourners. Their souls are never colonists leaving heaven for a new home. Their way is to visit earthly nature as men who travel abroad to see and learn. So when they have stayed awhile in their bodies, and beheld through them all that sense and mortality has to show, they make their way back to the place from which they set out at first. To them the heavenly region, where their citizenship lies, is their native land; the earthly region in which they became sojourners is a foreign country.”

On the Special Laws 1–4

1125

38. For more information on this temple, see Josephus, J.W. 7.10.4; talmudic sources include B. Men. 109a; T. Men. 8:12–14; B. Meg. 10a. 39. These are described in Lev. 16, even though there the reference is to the Tabernacle. 40. The site of the Dome of the Rock is sacred to Jews, Muslims, and Christians alike. It was built by the Umayyad caliph Abd al-Malik (9th caliph, late 7th century ce). He did not intend it as a mosque, but as a shrine for pilgrims. It is believed by the Jews to be the site on which Abraham prepared to sacrifice his son Isaac, and by the Muslims to be the place from which the Prophet Muhammad ascended during his Night Journey to heaven. Like the Kaaba in Mecca, it is built over a sacred stone. This stone is believed by many to stand directly over the site of the Holy of Holies of both Solomon’s Temple and Herod’s Temple. 41. A good example of such a syllogistic association is Creation 3: “[The preface to the Torah] consists of an account of the creation of the world, implying that the world is in harmony with the Law, and the Law with the world, and that the man who observes the law is constituted thereby a loyal citizen of the world, regulating his doings by the purpose and will of Nature, in accordance with which the entire world itself also is administered.” On this, see Cohen, “Jewish Dimension of Philo’s Judaism,” 169–70, where I point out that this is meant as a double entendre, a literary form used quite often by Philo. See also Cohen, Philo Judaeus, 274; and Philo’s Scriptures, 163n24. 42. Cf “Begetter of All”—in contrast to mortal parents (Dreams 2.178); “Begetter of All” and “Parent of All” (2.205, 209); “God the parent of All” (Virtues 85); “the Uncreated, Creator of All (Rewards 46). “Begetter” is also found in strings of attributes describing God (cf., e.g., Decalogue 53; Spec. Laws 1.209). 43. In favor of this possibility is the overwhelming degree of correlation between Philo’s rare citations of the Prophets and the traditional haftarah string: “Admonition, Consolation, and Repentance” that are recited between the 17th of Tammuz and the Day of Atonement, and thus include the fasts that commemorate the destruction of the First Temple. See my Philo’s Scriptures: Citations from the Prophets and Writings—Evidence for a Haftarah Cycle in Second Temple Judaism, Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 123 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), esp. 55–69. Another, less convincing correlation lies in Philo’s allegorical references to parashat Amalek (Deut. 25:17–19); see Drunkenness 24 and Migration 143–44. This parashah is associated with Purim, but since it is also found in the Torah reading cycle, we cannot be sure that Philo associated it with Purim. 44. They are described in greater detail later, where the “Crossing” and the “Unleavened Bread” are the fourth and fifth festivals respectively, with the “Sheaf ” as the sixth. Both arrangements are appropriate since the “Sheaf ” ceremony occurs during Passover. 45. Though usually used for females, the Greek word parthenos (translated here as “virgin”) is sometimes, though infrequently, also used for an unmarried man (see A Greek-English Lexicon, 9th rev. ed., s.v. “parthenos III”); in English, the word “virgin” is sometimes, though also infrequently, used to refer to a celibate man (see Roget’s International Thesaurus 4th edition, s.v. “virgin, unmarried” [934.7]); and it is also even used for land that was never tilled, and forests that were never ravished by human means. 46. There is an interesting short monograph written by Genevieve Lloyd: The Man of Reason: “Male” & “Female” in Western Philosophy, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1993), which surveys the history of the assumption that intellect is a masculine characteristic from Pythagoras to modern times. 47. See, e.g., Juvenal, Sat. 14.96–106: “Some who have had a father who reveres the Sabbath . . . the father was to blame, who gave up every seventh day to idleness”; From Menahem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, 3 vols. ( Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974–84: vol. 2, 1980), 2:102–103, excerpt 301. 48. The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan, Yale Judaica Series 10, trans. Judah Goldin (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1955). 49. I have explained this at length in my Philo Judaeus, esp. 191–96, 202–203, 218–20. 50. Cf Spec. Laws 4.133–36 and the comments there on 133; 134, These are the virtues of universal value; and 135–36. 51. For a more extensive discussion, see Belkin, Oral Law, 198–203. 52. A Dictionary of the Targumim: The Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi and the Midrashic Literature, comp. Marcus Jastrow (New York/Berlin/London, 1926), s.v. “Prozbul.” See also M. Shev. 10:3–4: “3[A loan secured by] a prozbul is not cancelled [by the seventh year]. This is one of the things that Hillel the Elder ordained. When he saw that the people refrained from giving loans one to another, and trans-

1126 Naomi G. Cohen

53.

54. 55.

56. 57.

58. 59. 60. 61.

62. 63.

64. 65.

66.

67.

68. 69.

gressed what is written in the Law . . . Hillel ordained the prozbul. 4This is the formula of the prozbul: ‘I affirm to you, such-a-one and such-a-one, the judges in such-a-place, that, touching any debt due to me, I will collect it whensoever I will.’ And the judges sign below, or the witnesses.” The entire subject is discussed in detail, including its various nuances, by Belkin in his Oral Law, 204–9. For example, Belkin notes that the Talmud goes into far greater detail, distinguishing between different types of Jewish slaves: those who had sold themselves because of severe financial straits, and those sold by the courts because of theft. For an explanation see my Philo’s Scriptures, 175–97. Note that Philo’s brother, Alexander Lysimachus, bore the title alabarchos, which referred to the position of tax administrator. Josephus, Ant. 18.259, notes that they are brothers; see also L. H. Feldman’s comment to Ant. 18.159 (LCL). This is the closing verse of Lev. 25, the chapter that deals with the various aspects of the sabbatical and jubilee years that Philo has just discussed. See, e.g., BT Kid. 22b; Rashi to Exod. 21:6. Cf. also M. Avot 6:2, where Exod. 32:16 is rendered midrashically to the effect that the keeping of God’s Law is what makes a person free. On this, see the comment on Spec. Laws 2.142, the law. Philo’s That God Is Unchangeable (Every Good Man Is Free) is devoted to the Stoic “paradox” that only the wise are free. Colson, in his endnote to this section (p. 626), also mentions Lucian, Dial. mort. 10.5, which contains a humorous reference to the stoutness of a certain athlete. See Alleg. Interp. 1.98; 2.21; 3.14, 72; Spec. Laws 2.60, 98; Rewards 5; Flaccus 26. See my Philo’s Scriptures, 177–79, and also, Yehoshua Amir, “Moses as the ‘Author’ of the Torah According to Philo” [Hebrew], Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities 6.5 ( Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1980, 1984), 95–125, 83–103. Translation from Herbert Danby, The Mishnah (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933). Another example: B. Meg. 9a, “Translate for me the Torah of Moses your master.” See M. Higger, ed., Massekhet Soferim (New York: Deve Rabanan, 1937). In prayer contexts, combinations of parts of biblical verses are common. For the history of this combination, see Abraham Berliner, Selected Works Translated from the German into Hebrew ( Jerusalem: 1945), 1:206. See RaMBaN (Nachmanides), Commentary on the Torah, Commentary to Lev. 25:5, and the Rabbinic literature mentioned there. Note that the process of determining the exact dates of the New Moon (performed initially by the Sanhedrin, and later in the publication of the calendar, in 358 ce, by the Nasi (President) of the Sanhedrin, Hillel II) was much more complex than merely determining the exact appearance of the new moon by means of witnesses. See Alan F. Segal, “Torah and Nomos in Recent Scholarly Discussion,” Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses 13 (1984): 19–28 (repr. in Segal, The Other Judaisms in Late Antiquity, Brown Judaic Studies 127 [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987], 131–145); and Cohen, Philo Judaeus, 220–22. The distinction between pascha (the paschal lamb sacrifice) and the Feast of Unleavened Bread appears as well in Ezra 6:19–22 (situated in time after the return from the First Exile, at the beginning of the Second Temple period); see also 2 Chron. 30:2, 13, 15, 18, 21; 35:17–18; and Ezek. 45:21–25. The first nonbiblical evidence we have for this differentiation is the famous edict of Darius to the Jewish garrison in Elephantine dated to 419 bce, which reads: “In the Month of Nisan, let there be a Passover for the Judahite garrison. Now accordingly count fourteen days of the month and keep the Passover, and from the 15th day to the 21st day of Nisan are seven days of Unleavened Bread” (from Papyrus no. 21 [from 419 bce], in A.E. Cowley, ed. and trans., Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century bc [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1923]. Reprinted with a new foreword and bibliography by K. C. Hanson, Ancient Texts and Translations [Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2005], 44–45). See Josephus, Ant. 3.248–50, for more evidence of this differentiation; the Rabbinic understanding of Lev. 23:11, 15 respecting the date of the Sheaf is also reflected in this passage. In Jewish conceptualization the day does not commence at midnight, but at sunset. Thus the evening that follows the afternoon of the 14th of Nisan is the beginning of the 15th of Nisan. See the Tosafot Rid on M. Pes. 99b, Erev Pesahim, which notes that this is the usage here as well as in M. Ta’an. 1:2: “They pray for rain only near to the time for rain . . . On the first Festival-day of Passover.” Like-

On the Special Laws 1–4

1127

70. 71.

72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78.

79. 80. 81. 82. 83.

84. 85.

86.

87.

88.

1128

wise, Shulchan Arukh, Orach Hayyim 469:1 states: “Note that in the Torah, this holiday is called the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and in the language of the Rabbis it is called Pesach, and the same is true in common parlance.” And in Halacha 4, Maimonides adds: “The slaughtering of the [Korban] Pesach is after midday and if one slaughters it prior to midday it is void.” See the calculations made by the mathematician Aviezri Frankel, “Korban pesach b’veit hamikdash: She’elat z’man umakom” [Korban Pesach in the Time of the Temple: Questions of Time and Place], in the memorial volume Yosef Da’at, in memory of Yosef Nitzan, Rehovot: February 2006, pp. 238–44. See in a similar vein M. Ber. 31b; M. Yoma 27a; M. Men. 19a. See parallel in J. Pes. ch. 6, halakha 1, 33a. Belkin, Oral Law, 62. The subject is treated there at length on pp. 61–64. But the reference on p. 63n60 to B. Kid. 40b should be to B. Kid. 41b. See Shmuel Safrai, Haaliya Leregel biyemei Bayit Sheni (=Pilgrimage at the Time of the Second Temple) (Tel-Aviv: Am Hasefer, 1965). This point is discussed convincingly and at length in the book. At the World Congress of Jewish Studies held in Jerusalem, Aug. 2–6, 2009, I delivered a paper entitled, “The Passover Seder Eve in Philo’s Writings.” Spec. Laws 1.182, where the required sacrifices for the festival are listed, contains additional numerical details. This is not in conflict with the underlying assumptions of early Rabbinic midrash. It was only as a result of the appearance of the antignostic polemic that the concept of primeval matter became an issue. For more on this subject, see my comments on Spec. Laws 4.187, where I also refer the reader to the thorough study of David Winston, “The Book of Wisdom’s Theory of Cosmogony,” History of Religions 11/2 (November 1971): 185–200, which contains a wealth of relevant Rabbinic sources; and also my “Philo Judaeus and the Torah True Library,” Tradition (Journal of the Rabbinical Council of America) 41 (2008): 3. Like that on a signet ring, and what today are rubber stamps. On this see my Philo Judaeus, 139–143; and my “The Elucidation of Philo’s Spec. Laws 4.137–8,” 153–66. See Num. 28:16–29:12. The reference is to foreign eras. God’s verdict is reflected by the richness or meagerness of the harvest. “Flocks of sheep” is Danby’s alternative translation found in his footnotes. In the prayers recited on the Day of Atonement, the image is one of a shepherd counting his flock. Danby prefers “legions of soldiers.” See Herbert Danby, The Mishnah (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933). See similarly B. Men. 77b; Sifra Tsav Parsha 7:7; and Pesikta Zutrata (Lekah Tov), Lev. 4a. See M. Men. 10:5, B. Men. 65a, and T. RH 1:15. The Sadducees understood “Sabbath” here as referring to the seventh day of the week—and thus “the day after the Sabbath” was Sunday evening, while the Pharisees interpreted “Sabbath” to indicate the holy first day of the holiday, on which, as on the Sabbath, work is forbidden. Hence, the evidence provided here by Philo, and later by Josephus (Ant. 3.250: “On the second day of unleavened bread, that is to say on the sixteenth . . . they offer to him the firstfruits of the barley.”) is significant in that they are both clearly at one with Rabbinic tradition: the counting of the seven weeks culminating in the Feast of Weeks commenced from the evening of the 16th of the first month (Nisan), that is, the second day of Passover (not of the week). Indeed, the Pharisaic view has a very long tradition behind it, for the Septuagint’s translation of Lev. 23:11 (which was the text used by Philo) reads “the day after the first,” and hence also reflects the view of the Pharisees. See also Belkin, Oral Law, 217–18, and Ritter, Philo und die Halacha, 114. In the latter three instances R. Akiva is quoted as saying, “The Torah says, ‘Bring the barley Omer on Passover.’” However, it should be borne in mind that in traditional parlance the term “Torah” often includes the oral traditions. The instances are: Moses 2.23, Decalogue 159, Spec. Laws 1.168, 180 (3x), 186, 189; 2.41, 188. This is so, although Colson mistakenly understood Moses 2.23 to indicate the Greek term for the Greek sacred month. However, in the Greek text in Moses 2.23, the word “Greek” is not found, nor does the context require or justify its addition, and Philo refers there to the contrast between the solemnity of the Day of Atonement and the festal nature of the other Jewish holidays celebrated during this month. NJPS has: “a sacred occasion commemorated with loud blasts.”

Naomi G. Cohen

89. Belkin, Oral Law, 211–14, discusses the subject from several aspects, particularly to what extent Philo’s statements are in accord with the Mishnah, and whether or not the shofar was sounded in Alexandria. 90. See, e.g., Mek. R. Ish., Jethro, Bachodesh, parasha 9 to Exod. 20:16, lemma: vayomru el. 91. While it is often assumed that Rav composed this work, there is no reason to assume this—as Joseph Heinemann long ago pointed out—but only that Rav transmitted it. On this, see particularly Heinemann’s additions to his Hebrew translation of Ismar Elbogen’s Jüdische Gottesdienst in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung (Frankfort, 1913; Heinemann’s updated Hebrew edition: Hatefila b’Yisrael b’hitpatchuta Hahistorit [Tel-Aviv: Devir, 1972]), 108 and esp. 198–99, and also in Heinemann’s Hatefila bitkufat Hatana’im v’ha’Amora’im, 2 vols. ( Jerusalem: Magnes, 1964); Prayer in the Talmud: Forms and Patterns, English version by Richard S. Sarason (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1977), 17n41, corrected in the English edition. For the connotation of “said” in talmudic sources, see my Philo Judaeus, 37–39. 92. In Sobriety 68, Philo follows the Septuagint reading of Gen. 49:22 that differs from the MT, NJPS: “—Wild colts on a hillside” or alternatively, OJPS: “Its branches run over a wall.” 93. For a more detailed expression of this thesis, see Naomi Cohen, “The Mystery Terminology in Philo,” in Roland Deines and Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, eds., Philo und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen (essays from the International Symposium on the Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti, held in Eisenach and Jena on May 1–4, 2003), Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 172 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 173–87. 94. See Lev. 23:34–36, 39–44; and see Num. 29:12–39 for the list of the required sacrifices. Some parallels in Philo: Decalogue 161; Spec. Laws 1.189. 95. Regarding the Septuagint’s translation of MT ohel vs. sukkot: in Lev. 23:34, 42, 43 the Hebrew sukkot (booths) of the Feast of Tabernacles is rendered as Greek skhnh (tents). Skhnh is also used to render MT mishkan (Tabernacle; e.g., in Exod. 26:1, 6); MT Ohel Mo’ed (e.g., in Exod. 35:21; 40:22); and Hebrew sukkah (booth; Isa. 1:8). Where the MT uses ohel (tent) in Exod. 33:10 to refer both to the abodes of the Children of Israel in the desert and to the Tent of Meeting (the Holy Tabernacle)—“When all the people saw the pillar of cloud poised at the entrance of the Tent, all the people would rise and bow low, each at the entrance of his tent”—the Septuagint uses skhnh. Thus, like the trumpet/shofar pair that was discussed above (see comment to Spec. Laws 2.188, “trumpet feast”), this is an example of a lack of differentiation between words when translated from one language to another. Hence it is futile to try to discover what the actual practice was in Philo’s day in Alexandria from his use of “tents” rather than “booths” for sukkot. 96. On the subject of Philo and women, see Dorothy Sly, Philo’s Perception of Women, Brown Judaic Studies 209 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990). 97. In stark contrast to Philo’s description of women as being confined within their homes, plenty of evidence exists that reveals their relative integration into the social fabric (albeit not in the spheres of leadership or academic pursuits), both throughout Scripture and in Judea in the centuries close to Philo. For example, the ezrat nashim (women’s section) in the Temple was called this because women were not permitted to proceed beyond it, but men were very much present there as well. It was in the ezrat nashim that the raised platform for the Hakhel ceremony was built, and the men proceeded to the ezrat Yisrael and the ezrat Cohanim through it. Anecdotally, certain well-known women in Rabbinic sources reveal that women were not sequestered; e.g., Bruria, the wife of R. Meir, whose sharp tongue to men was proverbial; Martha b. Boethus (M. Yev. 6:4); and Aima Shalom, the sister of Rabban Gamliel of Yavneh and wife of R. Eliezer b. Hyrkanos (B. Shab. 116a). Even the statement found in Pirke Avot 1:5 advising not to “engage in excessive conversation with women” shows that in any event they were not isolated in the manner that Philo describes. The only parallel in Rabbinic sources that I have been able to find to support the sequestration of women described by Philo is Avot R. Nat. A.1: “With ten curses was Eve cursed at that time . . . ‘and he shall rule over thee’ . . . her head is covered like a mourner, and as though she were bound in prison, and banned from all men” (The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan, trans. Judah Goldin [New York: Schocken Books, 1974], 10). Though Avot de-Rabbi Natan in its present form is considered to have been redacted only in the 7th to 9th centuries, at least this vignette must have been earlier since there is a reference to it in B. Er. 100b, even though this too, is centuries after Philo. 98. In Moses 2.35, Philo mentions an annual celebration commemorating the completion of the Septuagint, which took place on the island of Pharos, but he does not indicate that this occurred on the “Eighth Day of Assembly.”

On the Special Laws 1–4

1129

99. For some of what follows see Belkin, Oral Law, 78n38. However, it contains several typos. “Sotah 7.1” should be “Sotah 7.2, and “Bik. 2.7” should be “Bik. 3.7.” 100. See also E.D. Goldschmidt, ed., Haggadah shel Pesach V’toldoteha (The Passover Haggadah and Its Sources and History) ( Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1960), 30. 101. Goldschmidt, Haggadah Shel Pesach V’toldotcha, 30–31. 102. See Cohen, Philo Judaeus, esp. 191–96, 202–3, 218–20. 103. The midrash is referred to by Rashi ad loc. verse 28. 104. Recension A of the Septuagint = the MT in Deuteronomy. 105. See Colson’s comment on this in the endnotes, p. 633. 106. All of the above are cited by Colson, p. 633, in his endnote to 23. 107. See, for example, Decalogue 94.4 (“member outside his family”); Spec. Laws 2.11 (stranger) (= a nonrelative); Embassy 72.1 (“non-related households become related through marriage”). And further, Lidell & Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, 9th rev. ed., s.v. “othneious,” writes that the word is used largely as the opposite of oikeios, which can mean, among other things, “of the same household, family, related.” And finally, this is abundantly clear from Spec. Laws 3.29, where Philo inveighs in no uncertain terms against intermarriage. 108. For a discussion of this, see Belkin, Oral Law, 239–41, as well as Colson’s comments on 27. 109. The prohibition is also associated with other scriptural verses in the Rabbinic sources; see, e.g., B. Kid. 68b; Yev. 17a, 22b; Tem. 29b. And see Belkin, Oral Law, 232–33 for further explanation and discussion of the subject. 110. Philo omits any reference to Lev. 18:20, 21, the first of these verses denouncing simple adultery, which has already been dealt with, and the second against offering children to Moloch, which has no connection with the present subject—even should Philo have understood it, as he probably did, according to the Septuagint: “give thy seed to serve the ruler [= melech].” 111. See, e.g., B. BB 110a; J. 4:11, 66b; and Exod. Rab.(Vilna) parashah 7, 5, aile roshei. 112. And a century and a half after Philo, Numenius of Apamea (flourished in 150 ce) is quoted as saying, “For what else is Plato, but Moses speaking in Attic Greek” (found, e.g., in Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 1.22.150.4; Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.6.9; 11.10.14; Suda, Numenius). See Menahem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism ( Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1980), 2:209–11. And Jerome (4th century) quotes the aphorism that “either Plato follows Philo or Philo Plato” (Vir. ill. 11.7). See, e.g., David Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature—A Survey (Minneapolis: Van Gorcum, Assen, and Fortress, 1993), 4, 313. 113. And see similarly Mek. Mishpatim 20: “You shall not take bribes” (also to Exod. 23:8); B. Ket. 105a–b; Sifre Deut. 144:19; and also in Midr. Tanh. Shofetim sect. 8 (Buber, sect. 9). S. Buber, ed., Midrash Tanhuma ha-Qadum, 2 vols (Vilna: Romm, 1885). 114. The classic work on this subject remains that of Shemuel Safrai, Ha’aliya Leregel biymei Habayit Hasheni [Pilgrimage at the Time of the Second Temple] (Tel-Aviv, 1965). 115. And even though Sifre Deut. 144 is at first glance an exception, it should be understood as prohibiting an attempt by a third party to influence the judge. (See Belkin’s comments, Oral Law, p.181–82nn16–18). 116. C. D. Yonge, trans., The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged. It is now in the common domain and may either be purchased very reasonably or downloaded free from the Internet. The pagination in the PLCL has been added to it, thus facilitating its use. 117. See, in a similar vein, Rashi to Lev. 19:15; Deut. 16:19; Mek. R. Ish. 20; Mek. d’Rashbi 23:3; Sifra, Kedoshim, parsha 2, ch. 4; Maimonides, Sefer ha-Mitzvot, Negative Commandment 277. 118. See, for example, Massekhet Sofrim 3:17; Mek. R. Ish., Be-shallah (Shira), 3, zeh el; Sifre Deut. 1:49, lalekhet bekhol. 119. “For there are two equalities which are called by the same name but are in reality almost the opposite of one another; one of which is the rule of measure, weight and number . . . But there is another equality of a better and higher kind . . . for it gives to the greater more, and to the inferior less and in proportion to the nature of each; and above all greater honor always to the greater virtue, and to the less, less; and to either in proportion to their respective measure of virtue and education. And this is justice . . . which as I was saying is the distribution of natural equality among unequals in each case” (trans. Jowett, italics mine). 120. See my Philo Judaeus, 160–64, for quotations, and see also the bibliography in the footnotes there. 121. Cohen, Philo Judaeus, 202n1.

1130

Naomi G. Cohen

122. The thesis is argued at some length in Cohen, Philo Judaeus, 202–21. 123. The word kasher means “fit” (particularly, but not exclusively, fit according to Jewish law); e.g., a sharp knife is kasher (fit) to cut. In the present context, the Jewish dietary laws define what is kasher to eat. 124. This is the term used by the Septuagint. One of its connotations is “tomb.” 125. Note that in accord with ancient philosophic thought, here, too, “nature” and “laws” are contrasted. 126. Heinemann, Philon’s griechische und jüdische Bildung. 127. Similarly, Leg. 1.631a; Eth. nic. 5.1150b 23–25; 10.1179b 32. See also Wolfson, Philo, 2:200–25. 128. For a detailed discussion of Philo’s use of the virtues in the context of Spec. Laws 4.133–35, see my Philo Judaeus, 86–105, esp. 94–96; and before that my article “The Greek Virtues and the Mosaic Laws in Philo: An Elucidation of De specialibus legibus IV 133–135,” The Studia Philonica Annual 5 (1993): 9–23. 129. See D. Winston, “The Philonic Sage” (Heb.), Da’at 11 (1983), 9–10, and particularly the end of n4, and n5, where parallels of varying degrees of affinity are brought. His thesis, succinctly expressed in the English summary to the article, is that “Philo’s portrait of the wise man is essentially identical with that of the Stoics, faithfully echoing well known paradoxes which they had applied to him.” 130. A more detailed discussion is found in my Philo Judaeus, 99–105, where I also suggest (pp. 104–5) that a vestige of this, albeit divested of all philosophic overtones, may perhaps also be discerned in B. Er. 54a, in the name of R. Yitshak. 131. See my “The Jewish Dimension of Philo’s Judaism—An Elucidation of Philo’s Spec. Leg. 4.132–150,” JJS (Oxford) 38, no. 2 (Autumn 1987), 165–186; and at somewhat greater length, in my Philo Judaeus, 113–28. 132. Note too that although in the present context we cannot devote space to it, 137–42 also contain an artful juxtaposition of the contents of the Shema with the vestments of the high priest, the Shema doing for the Israelite what the vestments do for the high priest. 133. Finally, though space does not allow it to be discussed here, the complete absence of what is today the third paragraph of the Shema, Parashat Tsitsith, from Philo’s description of the Shema, when combined with the relevant Rabbinic literary and archeological sources, has led me to the following conclusion: that its daily recital was most probably instituted more or less at the same time that the recitation of the Decalogue was removed from the Shema pericope, something that had not yet occurred in Philo’s day. Here too, then, Philo is found to be in accord with the current practice of his day—though not of ours. For details see my Philo Judaeus, 129–77. 134. A detailed discussion of the problems raised by scholarship respecting Philo’s description of the phylacteries may be found in my Philo Judaeus, 144–55. 135. See my Philo Judaeus, 132–33, and also my article “The Elucidation of Philo’s Spec. Leg. 4.137–8,” in Classical Studies in Honor of David Sohlberg, 153–66, esp. 155–56. 136. For explanation and discussion of the section, including the connection between these two passages, see my Philo Judaeus, 129–43, and (for a somewhat longer discussion) my article “The Elucidation of Philo’s Spec. Leg. 4.137–8.” 137. For more on the size of tefillin, see Yigael Yadin, Tefillin from Qumran (X Q Phyl 1–4) ( Jerusalem: IES and the Shrine of the Book, 1969); and my Philo Judaeus, Endnote E: “The Size of the Tefillin,” 294–95. 138. For a more detailed discussion of perceptions of tefillin vs. phylacteries, see my Philo Judaeus, 153–55. 139. See further: Steven D. Fraade, “Interpretive Authority in the Studying Community at Qumran,” JJS 44/1 (1993): 54, 58–9, particularly n40, in which he refers to his From Tradition to Commentary (Albany ny: 1991) 18–19, 110–112, 244. For well symbolism in biblical and postbiblical tradition, see Michael Fishbane, “The Well of Living Water: A Biblical Motif and Its Ancient Transformations,” in Michael Fishbane and Emanuel Tov, eds., “Sha’arei Talmon”: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon (Eng. and Heb.) (Winona Lake in: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 3–16. 140. For discussion, see my Philo Judaeus 158, 191–97, 202–3, 220. 141. For a detailed discussion, see my Philo Judaeus, 202–21. 142. See further on this, in greater detail, in Cohen, Philo Judaeus, 164–67, and also 167–76, where the absence in Philo of the third paragraph of the Shema (Parashat Tsitsit) is also discussed. 143. See, e.g., Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Book of Judges, Law of Rebels 2:9 and commentaries; and his Guide of the Perplexed 3:41. See Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed, trans. Shlomo Pines (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963). For how the injunction to neither add to nor subtract from the Commandments paradoxically includes the Oral Law and customs, see below on 149–50.

On the Special Laws 1–4

1131

144. For a more comprehensive discussion of this, see my Philo Judaeus, esp. chap. 9. 145. From Richard McKeon, ed. and trans., The Basic Works of Aristotle (New York: Random House, 1941), 949. 146. See H. von Arnim, ed., Stoicorum veterum fragment (SVF) (Leipzig: B.G. Teubneri, 1903–1905), 3:262ff. Colson’s note here mistakenly reads 1:262ff. I have corrected it from his note to Alleg. Interp. 1.68). 147. I am of the view that what is stated here is not (as Colson, following Heinemann, took for granted) that the laws that Philo discusses in On the Special Laws are either “written” or “unwritten,” but rather that the law to observe the “unwritten laws” is itself a “written” law, i.e., that the obligation to abide by the “unwritten laws” has biblical support and is itself an important general “written law.” 148. For a detailed discussion of the early history of the midrashic understanding of this verse, already attested in the Damascus Document, and in Septuagint mss. tradition, and after Philo, in Rabbinic parallels where it was considered standard, as well its use in patristic literature, see my Philo Judaeus, 250–77 and the bibliography there. See also my article “‘Al taseg Gevul ‘Olim (Peah 5:6, 7:3),” Hebrew Union College Annual 56 (1985): 145–66, esp. 162–65 (English). 149. Cohen, Philo Judaeus, 278–86 (including endnotes M and N), 314–19. 150. See PLCL commentary on this section and the appendix on p. 435. 151. For further discussion see my Philo Judaeus, 269–73. 152. Cf., e.g., Pol. 291a; Resp. 8.557; Leg. 6.692a, 759b; as well as Pol. 2.1274a (beg.) 3, 1294b3, 1317b8, 1318a (beg.) 9. According to Aristotle’s Ath. pol. 8.2, Solon was responsible for the election of the nine archons by lot, while modern scholarship generally attributes to Cleisthenes the introduction of the lot in the appointment of administrative offices. In Philo’s day, this method, often in combination with appointment, was used for various functionaries. 153. But be that as it may, this understanding of the passage is not necessary to consider it to be an introduction to 157ff. that is a brief for the acceptance of Agrippa as King of Judea. 154. One example of this is in Creation 3, where natural law and the Torah are identified with each other with the help of the dual meaning of nomos: “Law of Nature” and “Torah.” And see my note to Spec. Laws 1.96, his own life worthy of the nature of the universe. 155. The verbose description here is in stark contrast to Philo’s use of this very same image elsewhere. Cf., e.g., Flight 27, which is also the only other instance in Philo’s works in which we find the adjectival form kubernhtikos. The imagery is otherwise similar, but unlike Spec. Laws 4.154–56, the description in Flight 27 is very short. And in Spec. Laws 4.58, judges are summarily compared with pilots. But only here and in Dreams 2.85–86 does Philo expound and develop the image of pilot/ruler at length—and Dreams 2.85–86 is also part of a larger passage that scholarship has identified as political allegory; see, e.g., Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough, The Politics of Philo Judaeus (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1938; rpt. Hiledesheim, 1967), 21ff. 156. It is based upon my article “Agrippa I and De specialibus legibus IV 151–159,” Studia Philonica Annual 2 (1990): 72–85. 157. On this see Daniel R. Schwartz, Agripas harishon ( Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, 1987), app. 11, pp. 228–31 [English version: Agrippa I: The Last King of Judaea, Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 23 (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1990)], whose conclusions are mentioned in my article “Agrippa I.” 158. This proposed reading of Spec. Laws 4.157 is found in somewhat greater detail in my article “Agrippa I,” 72–85, esp. 79–80. 159. For a vivid description of the contemporary norm of extremely cruel avarice on the part of Roman procurators and governors and their extortionist tax collectors, see, e.g., Spec. Laws 2.92–95; 3.159–64; also Josephus, Ant. 18.172–76. 160. OJPS “He shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites.” 161. See my “The Names of the Separate Books of the Pentateuch in Philo’s Writings,” Brown Judaic Studies 312, Studia Philonica Annual 9 (1997): 54–78. 162. Although “the God of gods and the Lord of lords” is the alternate reading suggested in NJPS, since NJPS continues in “(18). . . takes no bribe, but upholds the cause of.” I have followed OJPS which contains—the word “justice.” This is both the literal meaning of the pentateuchal verse and is required by the philonic text. KJV also has “He doth execute the judgment.” 163. The phrase containing these three attributes of God is also found in Neh. 9:32. While it is doubtful whether Philo was familiar with the book of Nehemia, that this phrase is already found there, and in a prayer context, points to its having liturgical significance very early on indeed.

1132

Naomi G. Cohen

164. See B. Ber. 33b and its parallel in Meg. 25a for the condemnation of the use of more than these three divine attributes, as well as ruling that these three attributes are the only ones permitted to be stated, and this is so only because they are found here in Deut. 10:17. We read there “you say all these and still go on! It is as if an earthly king had a million denarii of gold, and someone praised him as possessing silver ones. Would it not be an insult to him?” The Amidah is recited three times every day by observant Jews, and in Rabbinic sources is considered “The Prayer” par excellence (see also the comment on Spec. Laws 4.181, whence the first benediction is quoted). Though this is not entirely a matter of consensus, it is considered by many that at least the subjects of the major benedictions were already found in Philo’s day. See my “Shime’on Ha-pikuli hisdir yod-heth berakhoth,” Tarbiz 52/4 (Tammuz-Elul, 1983): 547–55, and to some extent also “Ma hidesh Shemuel hakatan beBirkhat Haminim,” Sinai 94a–b (Tishrei-Heshvan, 1984): 57–70. 165. Jer. 32:18 (39:18 LXX) also has “great and mighty” without “awesome,” in the Greek text of Jeremiah. The same Greek words as in Deut. 10:17 are used (i.e., megas and isxuros). 166. However, Philo has the word epelitos for the Septuagint’s proselutos. 167. See also my article “Aprippa I,” 76–77n15. 168. It can also be considered an echo of Jer. 2:3, which is the closing verse of what today is the haftarah recited on the first of the Sabbaths of Admonition, except in the Italian rite, but as I have argued in my Philo’s Scriptures, 67n41 and esp. 87–88, the haftarah for this Sabbath in Philo’s day may well not have been this but rather Isa. 5:7. 169. For a discussion of the likelihood that the annual cycle was used in the western Diaspora (including Alexandria) in Philo’s day, see in my Philo Judaeus, Endnote A: Torah Reading Cycle, 288–89. And see also my Philo’s Scriptures, 60n19; see also Ralph Marcus’s introduction to his translation of Philo, I Suppl. QG, PLCL, 1953, xiii–xv. 170. See, for example, M. Sanh. 3:7; see similarly in B. Sanh. 32a, as well as Sifra Kedoshim 2 ch. 4, sections 5–7. However, the NJPS does render Lev.19:16 as “Do not deal basely with your countrymen,” which is somewhat closer to the Septuagint. 171. Though Gnosticism is an umbrella term, including many belief systems that were expounded as mythic constructions, the underlying axiom relevant here is the conception that the material world had been created through an intermediary being (demiurge) who was conceived to be evil. It is radically dualistic respecting the nature of the relation between the true God and the material world, which was understood in terms of primeval matter. See the thorough study of David Winston, “The Book of Wisdom’s Theory of Cosmogony,” History of Religions 11.2 (November 1971): 185–200, which contains a wealth of relevant Rabbinic sources, and also my “Philo Judaeus and the Torah True Library,” Tradition 41, no. 3 (2008): 31–48. 172. This is a paraphrase of Isa. 45:7 OJPS: “I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil.”

On the Special Laws 1–4

1133

Outside the Bible

2

The Biblical Interpretations of Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities

Preface to Jewish Antiquities Louis H. Feldman Josephus had originally written his earlier work, Jewish War, in his mother tongue, Aramaic, and only later, with the help of assistants (Ag. Ap. 1.50), since he was not completely at home in Greek, translated it into Greek. His aim in writing Jewish Antiquities, as he states in the essay Against Apion was to correct the ignorance that non-Jews had of Jewish history. In this aim he finds a precedent in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint (LXX). He apologetically insists that Jews have nothing to hide in their Scripture. But there is reason to think that the LXX was also intended for Jews, namely the Jews who, by that time in Egypt, had forgotten their Hebrew and who were at home with Greek. Since, by the time that Josephus had completed his Jewish Antiquities in the year 93, a large percentage of the Jews in the Mediterranean world, perhaps the majority, were more familiar with Greek than with Hebrew, he probably also had a Jewish audience in mind. That this is so may be indicated by his statement that those who obey the laws of the Torah will succeed beyond belief. This can refer only to Jews, since these laws are not incumbent upon non-Jews. Thus, Josephus is particularly sensitive to the charge that Jews are aggressive in converting non-Jews to Judaism. Hence, it is not surprising that he omits the circumcision of the Shemites by Simeon and Levi (Ant. 1.340). In his preface (1.1–17) Josephus promises that he will neither add to nor subtract anything from Scripture in his paraphrase. That he does not live up to this is clear on page after page. He also insists that there is nothing unreasonable in Scripture, and he promises to explain, in a future treatise that he apparently never wrote, the rationality of the Torah. See also “Josephus and His Writings,” elsewhere in these volumes. Suggested Reading Feldman, L. H. Flavius Josephus: Judean Jewish Antiquities 1–4, 3–8. Leiden: Brill, 2000.

Translation 1I see that those who wish to compose histories do not have one and the same motive for their zeal; rather, their reasons are many and very different from one another. 2For some, exhibiting their cleverness in discourse and hunting after the reputation to be derived from it, rush headlong into this branch of scholarship; whereas others, bestowing gratitude upon those to whom the report has perchance happened to relate, have undertaken the toil for this purpose even beyond their ability. 3Then there are some who were compelled by the very straits of events in that they happened to participate to set these forth comprehensively in a clear account. Again, the magnitude of useful events, that currently lie in a state of ignorance, Source of Translation: The translation is from my Flavius Josephus: Judean Jewish Antiquities 1–4 (cited above).

1137

has induced many others to bring forth the history of these events for common advantage. 4Of these aforesaid motives the last two happen to have applied to me also. For I, who learned from experience about the war waged by us Jews against the Romans and the events in it and how it finally turned out, was forced to relate it in detail because of those who devastate the truth in their writing. 5I have taken in hand the present task thinking that it will appear to all the Greeks deserving of studious attention. For it is going to encompass our entire ancient history and constitution of the state, translated from the Hebrew writings. 6I had also already previously taken into consideration, when I was writing the

Commentary 4. devastate the truth In the introduction to his Jewish War (1.1–2), issued, it is generally thought, in 79–80 ce (whereas Jewish Antiquities appeared in 93–94), Josephus similarly attacks those who have written accounts of the war against the Romans in that they have misrepresented the facts. In particular, he attacks Justus of Tiberias (Life 336–39) for having no scruples about falsehood in his account of the war and for having maligned Josephus himself, though Josephus mentions by name no other writer on the war. 5. all the Greeks It appears from this statement that Josephus’s intended audience consists chiefly of non-Jews (so Ant. 1.9, 12; 16.174; 20.262). The person who urged him to write the history was his patron, Epaphroditus, a non-Jew (1.8). That, according to his own statement (20.263), he worked hard to master the Greek language and literature would indicate that he sought an audience that would appreciate this knowledge. Furthermore, that at the close of his work Josephus boasts that no one else would have been equal to the task of composing such a work for the Greek world indicates that his primary audience consisted of non-Jews (20.262). That, however, Josephus’s intended audience also included Jews may be deduced from the fact that in his day, in all probability, Greek was the chief language for a high percentage, perhaps even the majority, of the Jews of the world. As one who had himself become a Diaspora Jew, he might very well hope to reach them and especially to defend himself against the accusations that were constantly being brought against him. That he apologizes for rearranging the order of the biblical narrative with the statement that perhaps “any of my countrymen who read this work should reproach me” (4.197) is an indication the he did expect some Jews to read the work. We can see from his highlighting of certain episodes, for example, the incident of Israel’s sin with the Midianite women (Num. 25:1–9; Ant. 4.131–55), that he sought to reach Jews who had deviated from the commandments in the Torah. Moreover, only Jews would appreciate the cryptic references to the fall of the Roman Empire in Balaam’s prophecy (4.125) and in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (10.210) and, in particular, in the latter passage the invitation to read the book of Daniel. translated The Greek word implies interpretation and not merely mechanical translation. This is evident from the fact that in Josephus’s account of the LXX (Ant. 12.39) Ptolemy’s confidant Demetrius advises the king to select men of advanced age who are well versed in the laws and who will consequently be able to make an accurate translation. When the translation had been completed, the Alexandrians before whom they appeared expressed their approval of the elders who had interpreted (literally, “explained”) the laws and declared that in this state it should remain unaltered. the Hebrew writings Actually, only Ant. 1.1–11.303 is based on the Bible; and these sections are not translations but often are free paraphrases. They add and omit many individual points, large and small, that differ from the biblical original.

1138 Louis H. Feldman

account of the war, to reveal who the Jews were from the beginning and what fortunes they experienced, under what sort of lawgiver they were trained as to piety and the exercise of the other virtues, and the number of wars that they had fought in long ages past before they entered into this last war against their will. 7Since the compass of this account was so great, I separated it by itself and gave the work an appropriate size with its own beginnings and end. As, indeed, is wont to happen to those who have in mind to undertake great tasks, I felt hesitation and delay in translating so great a project into a language that is foreign and strange to us.1 8There were certain people who, through their longing for the history, encouraged me to do it, and, most of all, Epaphroditus, a man who has had a love for every form of culture, but who particularly enjoys the experience of histories, since, indeed, he himself has been associated with great events and diverse vicissitudes. In all of this he has exhibited a marvelous strength of character and an unshakable preference for excellence. 9Yielding to him as to one who is always joining in love of the beautiful along with those who are able to produce something useful or beautiful, and feeling ashamed of myself if I should appear to rejoice in idleness more than in the toil connected with the most beautiful undertakings, I was strengthened to greater enthusiasm. Moreover, besides these considerations that I have stated, I took into account, not incidentally, both whether our ancestors were willing to transmit and some of the Greeks themselves were eager to know about our affairs. 10I found, consequently, that, on the one hand, the second of the Ptolemies, a king who was especially, indeed, zealous in learning and in collection of books, was particularly intent to translate our law and the constitution therein into the Greek language. 11On the other hand, Eleazar, second to none of the high priests among us, did not begrudge the aforementioned king the enjoyment of this advantage. He would by all means have declined unless it had been our tradition to hold nothing in secret of the things that are 6. lawgiver The Rabbis would not call Moses “the lawgiver,” since only God gave the Torah, whereas it came “through Moses’s hand.” 7. the compass of this account In J.W. 1.17, written perhaps between 79 and 81, Josephus gives a different reason as to why he did not write his comprehensive history, namely that many Jews before him (perhaps Demetrius and Eupolemus) had accurately done so, presumably in Aramaic, and that these works had been translated by certain Greeks into Greek without serious error; but these works are lost. 8. Epaphroditus All of Josephus’s works are dedicated to this Epaphroditus, clearly a non-Jew, apparently the person who was noted for his scholarship on Homer and other Greek poets and who is said to have had a library of 30,000 books.2 10. the second of the Ptolemies Ptolemy II Philadelphus ruled Egypt 283–245 bce. The fullest account of the translation of the Pentateuch is found in the Letter of Aristeas and is summarized at some length in Josephus (Ant. 12.11–118) and more briefly in Philo (Moses 2.25–44) and still more briefly in the Talmud (B. Meg. 9a–b and B. Sof. 1:7–8). 11. Eleazar Eleazar is the high priest to whom Ptolemy Philadelphus (Let. Aris. 33) wrote, asking that he send to Alexandria six elders from each of the twelve tribes to translate the Pentateuch into Greek for his library. our tradition to hold nothing in secret Josephus is apparently responding to the charge that the Jews are a secret religious society that deliberately refuses to observe the laws of the state and that inculcates hatred toward non-Jews. This charge is satirized by Juvenal (14.100–104): “Having been wont to flout the laws of Rome, they learn and practice and revere the Jewish law, and all

Preface to Jewish Antiquities

1139

beautiful. 12I truly thought that it was fitting for myself to emulate the magnanimity of the high priest and to suppose that even now there are many who are eager for knowledge similar to the king. For not even he anticipated me in obtaining the entire Scripture, but those who were sent to Alexandria to translate it transmitted this portion alone, namely of the law, that is, the Pentateuch. 14On the whole, one who would wish to read through this history would especially learn from it that those who comply with the will of God and do not venture to transgress laws that have been well enacted succeed in all things beyond belief and that happiness lies before them as a reward from God. 15Therefore I now call upon those who will come upon these books to turn their thoughts to God and to judge whether our lawgiver comprehended his nature worthily and has always attributed to him deeds that are befitting his power, preserving the discourse about him pure from every unseemly mythology that is found among others. . . . 17This narrative will in due course set forth the precise details of what is in the Scriptures according to their proper order. For I promise that I would do this throughout this treatise, neither adding nor omitting anything. that Moses handed down in his secret tome, forbidding Jews to point out the way to any not worshiping the same rites, and conducting none but the circumcised to the desired fountain.” 12. even now there are many who are eager for knowledge Philo (Moses 2.41) notes that on the anniversary of the completion of the translation of the Pentateuch into Greek, a festival was held on the island of Pharos, off the coast of Alexandria, where the translation had been made, to which not only Jews but also others “with their whole multitude” came. That Philo had great hopes that the LXX would lead non-Jews to adopt Judaism is clear from his comment on this annual celebration (Moses 2.44), expressing his hope that “each nation would abandon its peculiar ways and, throwing overboard their ancestral customs, would turn to honoring our laws alone.” the entire Scripture Whereas Ptolemy arranged to have only the Pentateuch translated, Josephus has paraphrased the entire Bible. Though Josephus (Ag. Ap. 1.39–40) mentions that the Bible consists of the five books of the Pentateuch, thirteen books of prophets, and four books of hymns and precepts,3 he does not paraphrase several of the prophets, as well as the books of Psalms, Song of Songs, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes. 14. those who . . . do not venture to transgress laws Josephus is probably thinking of Jews, such as the biblical Zimri (Num. 25:14 and Ant. 4.141–54) and the Hasmonean King Alexander Jannaeus (13.372–83); Anilaeus (leader of a robber band who had an affair with a Parthian general’s wife; 18.340–70); and in his own day Tiberius Julius Alexander (20.100)—all of whom deviated in their observance of the laws of the Pentateuch. 15. unseemly mythology See also Josephus’s sharp attack on Greek mythology in Ag. Ap. 2.239–40, noting that Greek thinkers themselves reduced these beliefs to absurdity: “Who, in fact, is there among the admired sages of Greece who has not censured their most famous poets and their most trusted legislators for sowing in the minds of the masses the first seeds of such notions about the gods? They represent them to be as numerous as they choose, born of one another and engendered in all manner of ways.” 17. according to their proper order Elsewhere (Ant. 4.197) Josephus admits that he has rearranged the order of topics in his paraphrase of the Pentateuch, since, as he says, Moses left what he wrote in a scattered condition, just as he had received it from God. neither adding nor omitting anything In making this promise, Josephus was following what he himself writes about the LXX—namely, that when the translation was completed, the chief officers of the community of Alexandria ordered that if anyone would find any addition to or omission

1140

Louis H. Feldman

from the text of the Pentateuch, he should make it known and correct it (Ant. 12.109). Josephus (Ag. Ap. 1.42) declares that not only he but no one else has for long ages past ventured to add or to remove or to alter a syllable of Scripture. Actually, Josephus has added numerous details and even whole episodes, notably the account of Moses’s campaign in Ethiopia and his marriage to the Ethiopian princess (Ant. 2.238–53), while omitting passages that contain incriminating details, such as Jacob’s deception of his father in order to obtain his blessing (Gen. 27), the JudahTamar episode (Gen. 38), Moses’s slaying of the Egyptian (Exod. 2:12), and the building of the golden calf (Exod. 32). Various theories have been presented to explain Josephus’s failure to abide by his promise: the phrase “neither adding nor omitting anything” is a stock phrase found in a number of authors, notably Dionysius of Halicarnassus; there is a precedent in the Bible itself for presenting an alternative version, namely the book of Chronicles as compared with the book of Kings; by the precise details he may mean not only the written tradition but also the oral tradition as embodied in midrashim; he was relying on the precedent of the Greek tragedians in dealing with the traditional Greek myths; he relied on the ignorance of his readers.4 Perhaps it was easier for Josephus simply to omit embarrassing incidents than to reinterpret them, a task the Rabbis had undertaken, since their intended audience did know Scripture.

Notes 1. Cf. J.W. 1.3 and Ag. Ap. 1.50. 2. See L. H. Feldman, Flavius Josephus: Judean Antiquities 1–4 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 5–6n9. 3. H. St. J. Thackeray indicates how this would correspond to our division of Hebrew Scripture (LCL edition of Josephus 1.179 notes b and c). 4. For a fuller discussion see L. H. Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 37–46.

Preface to Jewish Antiquities

1141

Creation Louis H. Feldman Nowhere is Josephus more aware of the non-Jews who constitute a large part of his audience than he is in his paraphrase of the biblical account of creation. It is surely remarkable that in his account of God’s creation of the world (Gen. 1–2) in Jewish Antiquities (1.27–36), he never even once directly quotes God, whereas the one classical writer, Pseudo-Longinus in his treatise On the Sublime, who paraphrases a passage from the biblical account of creation does quote God’s words. Josephus is clearly trying to present an account that will appeal to rational readers. He thus avoids the inference that God created the world from nothing. He avoids the anthropomorphism and the possible mythological reference that the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters, with its implied portrait of God, possibly reminiscent of the Orphic mythology hovering over the world-egg. He likewise avoids the possible mythological reference to the great sea monsters, since, as he says in his introduction to the whole work (Ant. 1.15), Moses sought to preserve the discourse about him “pure from every unseemly mythology that is found among others.” He is aware of the problem that the text speaks of the days of creation in terms of ordinal numerals and yet speaks of “one day.” He is aware of the theological problem in God’s commandment to the creatures of the sea and the sky to be fruitful and multiply when commandments can be given to humans alone. He is aware of the twofold problem inherent in the text in that God uses the plural “let us make man” and the anthropomorphic implications inherent in God’s plan to make man “after our image.” He resolves such problems by simply omitting them, even though he has promised the reader (Ant. 1.17) that in his paraphrase of the Bible he will neither add nor omit anything. In some cases, notably in dealing with the text that implies that God worked on the seventh day, he adopts the change made by the Septuagint (LXX), according to tradition, under divine inspiration. The most remarkable innovation, presaging modern biblical criticism, is Josephus’s solution, in nonphilosophical but practical terms, to the problem of the so-called two accounts of creation, namely that first God created the pattern to be followed in creation and then, in Gen. 2, he filled in the details. See also “Josephus and His Writings,” elsewhere in these volumes. Suggested Reading Feldman, L. H. Flavius Josephus: Judean Antiquities 1–4, 10–14. Leiden: Brill, 2000.

1142

Translation 27In the beginning God founded the heaven and the earth. When this latter had not come into sight but was hidden in deep darkness, and when a breath from above ran over it, God ordered light to come into being. 28And when this occurred, he, inspecting the whole of the matter, divided the light from the darkness; and to the one he gave the name night, and the other he called day, designating evening and morning the beginning of light and its cessation. 29And this would be the first day, but Moses called it one day. I am capable of giving the reason even now, but since I have promised to give an account of the reasons for everything in a separate work, I am postponing to that time the explanation concerning this. 30After

Commentary 27. founded Josephus uses the verb ektisen (founded, built, brought into being) (this is also the reading of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion in their paraphrases for the Bible) for the Hebrew word bara (Gen. 1:1), rather than the LXX’s epoiēsen, since the former implies more clearly “creation from nothing,” whereas the latter implies “creation from something.” had not come into sight Josephus, like Philo (Creation 29) follows the LXX’s rendering of tohu vabohu as “unseen and unformed,” implying perhaps agreement with Plato’s theory of ideas, that prior to the visible world there existed an invisible world. a breath from above ran over it Josephus is trying to avoid the anthropomorphism implied by the word “hovered” (Gen. 1:2), which the LXX partially eliminates by saying that the breath of God “was borne” upon the water. The connotation of the word merakhefet is not merely hovering but also brooding, with the image that the world-egg was hatched, as it were, from fluid chaos. Josephus, presumably because he feared that such an image would be regarded as equivalent to the Orphic account of creation, avoids it by using a word that implies only that the breath sped rapidly over the surface of the earth. Josephus says in Ant. 1.15 that Moses kept his words concerning God pure “from every unseemly mythology that is among others.” 28. designating evening and morning the beginning of light and its cessation Josephus has omitted reference to Gen. 1:5, which declares that “there was evening and there was morning, one day,” a passage that presents difficulties because the Jewish day did not end at sunrise (and so it is not possible to understand this clause as meaning that the evening and the morning formed the first day) and because it is hard to understand how there could be evening before the day on which light was created. Josephus avoids these problems by omitting this difficult statement altogether and by noting merely that God named the dawn of the light morning and its cessation evening, as does the Bible. 29. to give an account In many other places1 Josephus refers to a projected work, apparently never completed, on “Customs and Causes.” In 20.268 he indicates that it was to be in four books and that it would deal with the opinions that Jews have concerning God and his essence, as well as the reasons for the commandments. That Josephus tells us that the treatise was to be in four books is an indication that he had prepared some kind of outline for the work. Philo (Creation 35) explains that the expression “one” rather than “first” day is due to the uniqueness of the intelligible world and to its having therefore a natural kinship to the number “one.” The Rabbis (Gen. Rab.

Source of Translation: The translation is my own, cited above.

Creation

1143

this on the second of the days he placed the heaven above the universe, when, separating it from the rest, he deemed it proper for it to receive a certain place by itself, both fastening ice around it and rendering it wet and rainy with a view toward giving the benefit from the dews harmoniously to the earth. 31On the third day he established the earth, pouring out the sea around it. And on this very day plants and seeds sprouted straightway from the earth. On the fourth day he adorned the heaven with the sun and moon and the other stars, assigning movements and courses for them by which the revolutions of the seasons might be signified. 32On the fifth day he sent forth in the deep and through the air the creatures that swim and fly, linking them in union and sexual relations for the purpose of giving birth and increasing and multiplying their kind. On the sixth day he created the race of the four-footed creatures, making both male and female. On this day he also fashioned humanity. 33Moses says that the universe and all the things in 3:9) explain that the reason is that God was then the only one in his universe, inasmuch as the angels were not created until the second day. 30. fastening ice around it Josephus adds information to the meager and even telegraphic account of the Bible in order to make it more intelligible to his Greek audience. The Hebrew (Gen. 1:6) that says “let there be a firmament in the midst of the water, and let it divide the waters from the waters” is obscure. Josephus explains that what God did was to set the heavens above the universe and to congeal ice about it. He thus explains the origin of rain. That the heavens contained water is also seen in Gen. Rab. 4:7, which interprets the word “heaven” (shamayim) as a combination of two words, sa mayim (“carries water”). 31. on the third day Josephus omits the biblical statement here, as elsewhere in his paraphrase of Gen. 1, that God saw that what he had created was good, perhaps because this would raise the question as to why there is evil in the world. he established the earth From the biblical account (Gen. 1:9) one might conclude that the earth existed before creation, since, according to it God says, “Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” Josephus resolves this ambiguity by stating explicitly that on the third day God established the earth, pouring the sea around it. Josephus comes very close to Ovid’s formulation (Metam. 1.36–37) that “whoever of the gods it was who created the world” bade the waters to “surround the shores of the encircled earth.” 32. he sent forth . . . the creatures that swim and fly Compare the dictum of the 3rd-century Rabbi Joshua ben Levi (B. RH 11a): “All creatures of the creation were brought into being with their full stature, their full capacities, and their full beauty.” creatures that swim Fearing that his readers might regard as mythical the great sea monsters (the Leviathan and its mate, according to the Rabbinic tradition, B. Avod. Zar. 3b) mentioned in the Hebrew account of creation (Gen. 1:21), a view that would certainly be held by the Epicureans in his audience and that would remind readers of the sea monster to which the mythical Andromeda (Varro, Menippeae 406) was exposed, Josephus says merely that God created the creatures that swim. increasing and multiplying their kind Josephus omits the blessing (Gen. 1:22) that God gives to the creatures of the sea and the sky and that is parallel to the blessing (1:28) that God gives to the human race, since this is in the form of a commandment that would hardly be applicable to fish and birds. he also fashioned humanity The Rabbis (Gen. Rab. 83–87) realized the problem inherent in the use of the plural “let us make man in our image” (Gen. 1:26). They explain that before creating hu-

1144 Louis H. Feldman

it came into being in six days in all and that on the seventh day he ceased and took a rest from his activities, whence we also on this day take leisure from our activities, calling it the Sabbath. This word means “rest” in the language of the Hebrews. 34In particular, Moses began, after the seventh day, to discuss nature, speaking thus about the formation of humanity. God fashioned humanity, taking dust from the earth, and he injected breath and soul into him. This man was called Adam. This signifies, according to the language of the Hebrews, “red,” since,

mans God consulted with the angels. Philo (Creation 72) inferred from this passage a plurality of creators, just as Plato (Tim. 41c, 42e) spoke of the creator as having collaborators. Indeed, the classical Christian commentators generally found in the use of this plural an allusion to the Trinity. In the list of the changes (B. Meg. 9a) that, according to the Rabbis, the translators of the LXX were inspired by God to make, this verse is changed to “I shall make man,” presumably to prevent the reader from concluding that more than one power created humankind. Elsewhere (Ag. Ap. 2.192) Josephus states that God performed his work of creation without assistants, for he has no need of them. Moreover, the classical Jewish commentators were well aware that God’s words (Gen. 1:26), “let us make man after our likeness,” had anthropomorphic implications, and they sought to soften these by explaining that “after our likeness” means “with discernment and understanding” (Rashi) or that it refers to those respects in which the human soul is similar to God (Ibn Ezra and Nahmanides). Josephus avoids this difficulty by omitting the phrase completely and by simply reporting that God formed humankind. There is an apparent contradiction between the biblical statement here that God created male and female of humanity and the separate later creation of Eve. Josephus avoids this problem by stating here that God created “the human” (ton anthrōpon, singular). 33 Josephus avoids the problem inherent in the Hebrew text (Gen. 2:2) that states that God finished the work of creation on the seventh day, since this would imply that God worked on the seventh day and would contradict the immediately following clause that God rested on the seventh day. The LXX avoids the problem by reading that God finished his work on the sixth day; and, to be sure, according to Rabbinic tradition (B. Meg. 9a), this is one of the changes that the translators of the LXX adopted under divine inspiration. Indeed, this is one of changes found in the Peshitta, Jub. 2:16, and Philo’s Questions and Answers on Genesis. The Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen. 2:2 avoids the problem by asserting that the work of creation was completed by the seventh day. this word means “rest” in the language of the Hebrews In a number of other places Josephus indicates his knowledge of Hebrew through citing Hebrew etymologies.2 Whereas the Hebrew text (Gen. 2:2) declares that God rested from all the work that he had done, with no implication that he would later resume his work, Josephus, in stating that he took a rest from his activities, implies that he intended to resume them. So also Philo: “Moses does not give the name of rest to mere inactivity” (Cherubim 87). 34 Josephus may well have been aware of the problem of the so-called twin accounts of creation in Gen. 1 and Gen. 2. Thus he omits any direct paraphrase of Gen. 2:4–6, which is regarded by some as the beginning of a second account of creation. He avoids the issue by stating here explicitly that in Gen. 2:4–6 Moses is merely giving the details of God’s formation of humans. He also explains here that in Gen. 2 Moses begins to interpret nature, just as he had declared in his preface (Ant. 1.18) that much of Moses’s work is devoted to natural philosophy. The term “natural philosophy” is familiar from Aristotle (Sens. 442b25; Metaph. 988b27) and from Epicurus

Creation

1145

indeed, he had come into being from the red earth that had been kneaded. For such is the true virgin earth. 35And God placed before Adam, showing him the creatures, male and female, according to their kind, and he established names by which they are still called even now. And seeing that Adam did not have a partnership and joint living with a female, for there was none, and wondered at the other creatures that did have them, he took out one of his ribs while he was asleep and fashioned a woman from it. 36And Adam recognized her when she had been brought to him, that she had been created from himself. In the language of the Hebrews a woman is called essa. But the name of the woman was Eua. And this signifies “mother of all who live.” (Epistles 1–2). Here Josephus is following the lead of Philo (Creation 29), who had stated the solution in philosophical terms familiar from Plato’s theory of ideas, namely that Gen. 1 describes God’s creation of patterns or ideas and that Gen. 2 describes God’s creation of the details in the visible world based on these ideas. he injected breath and soul into him Josephus apparently felt that the statement (Gen. 2:7) that God breathed into man’s nostrils the breath of life was too anthropomorphic. “red,” since, indeed, he had come into being from the red earth The Akkadian adamatu (dark, red earth) suggests that the Hebrew word adamah (earth) may be derived from adam (red). On Adam being created from red earth and as having the color of true virgin soil, see Philo, Creation 137. 35. he established names In Josephus it is God and not Adam, as in the Bible (Gen. 2:20), who gives names to the animals. The notion that one man had assigned names by his spontaneous declaration seemed naive and ridiculous, at least to the Epicureans (e.g., Lucretius 5.1041–). Thus Josephus avoided this possible objection by having God, not Adam, name the animals. he . . . fashioned a woman Josephus changes the order of biblical events here by placing the creation of the first woman (Gen. 2:22) almost immediately after the creation of the first man. In connecting Adam’s failure to find a mate from the animals and God’s creation of Eve, Josephus makes explicit what is only implicit in the Hebrew text (so also Gen. Rab. 17:4; Avot R. Nat. B 8).

Notes 1. Ant. 1.25, 192, 214; 3.94, 143, 230, 257, 259, 264; 4.198; 20.268. 2. Ant. 1.34, 36, 333; 2.278; 5.121, 200, 201, 323, 336; 6.22, 302; 7.67.

1146

Louis H. Feldman

The Flood Louis H. Feldman Josephus, as a critical historian, was clearly concerned with what his audience, non-Jews and Jews alike, would think of the historicity of the great Flood and of Noah (Gen. 6–9). He was likewise concerned with the theological questions that they would ask: God’s justification in destroying all life, with few exceptions; the apparent lack of attempts by God and Noah to get humans to repent and to improve the world; the justification in allowing Noah and his family to be saved; the reason why Noah offered a sacrifice upon emerging from the ark; and the explanation of the unusually long life of Noah and of people of that era. The Rabbinic tradition, having perfect faith in the revelation of everything in the Pentateuch, is not concerned with supplying external evidence of the historicity of Noah. Josephus, however, cites the evidence of four non-Jewish historians, who corroborate the biblical account. He even, uniquely, like a modern historian, refers the reader to archeological remains of the boat in Armenia. How wicked were humans so as to justify the flood? In his Jewish Antiquities (1.73–108), Josephus explains that their outrages were comparable to those of the giants, as reported by the Greeks. By omitting God’s repentance, Josephus solves the theological problem of how God—who is perfect—could, anthropomorphically, have repented that he had created humankind in the first place. As to how Noah could have remained silent without attempting to convince his fellow mortals, Josephus speaks of him as a preacher and of his being persecuted by his contemporaries. Finally, Josephus is original in offering three reasons why the patriarchs lived so long: their healthy diet, their virtue, and their consequent ability to make accurate predictions in astronomy. See also “Josephus and His Writings,” elsewhere in these volumes. Suggested Reading Feldman, L. H. Flavius Josephus: Judean Antiquities 1–4. Leiden: Brill, 2000. —. “Josephus’s Portrait of Noah and Its Parallels in Philo, Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities, and Rabbinic Midrashim.” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 55 (1988): 31–57.

1147

Translation 73Many angels of God, consorting with women, fathered children who were insolent and despisers of every good thing because of the confidence that they had in their power. For, according to tradition, they are said to have committed outrages comparable to those said by the Greeks to have been done by the giants. 74Noah, disgusted with their actions and being displeased with their endeavors, tried to persuade them to improve their attitude and to change their actions. But seeing that they did not give way but were vehemently overpowered by the pleasure of evils, and fearing lest they even slay him with his wife and children and those who were dwelling with them, he withdrew from the land. 75God loved this man because of his righteousness, but did not condemn the others alone for their wickedness; but since it seemed best to him to destroy also all humanity, as many as there were at that time, and to create another race free of knavery, cutting short their lives and establishing their life expectancy not as formerly but at 120 years, he changed the dry land into sea. . . . 92[After God had sent a flood, Noah] sent forth a dove to ascertain the condition of the earth. When it returned, smeared with mud and carrying an olive branch, he [Noah] learned that the earth had been liberated from the flood. Remaining seven more days, he let loose the animals from the ark and himself went forth with his family and sacrificed to God and took a common meal with his household. Now the

Commentary 73. outrages The Greek word that Josephus uses for the outrages committed by humans is hybristes, so familiar in Greek tragedy in referring to overweening pride. 74. tried to persuade them The portrayal of Noah as a preacher is Josephus’s addition. Rabbinic tradition (B. Sanh. 108b; Gen. Rab. 9:15) also portrays Noah as warning his contemporaries of an impending catastrophe, only to have them deride him. The theme of the persecution of Noah by his contemporaries is also found in Rabbinic literature (Gen. Rab. 32:8). he withdrew from the land The detail that Noah emigrated to another country is unique with Josephus. He may have introduced it to explain how the ark had come to rest in Armenia, whereas Noah had lived in Palestine. 75. because of his righteousness Josephus, like the Bible (Gen. 6:9), refers to Noah’s righteousness, but he omits the biblical statement that he was perfect. Apparently, to make such a statement would raise a question as to where Moses and the Torah marked any advance. Indeed, Philo (Abraham 36) and Rabbi Johanan ben Nappaha (B. Sanh. 108a) remark that the biblical statement that Noah was perfect in his generation indicates that he was good only in comparison with the people of his time. That there was a debate among the Rabbis on this issue is clear from Resh Lakish (B. Sanh. 108a) asserting that Noah deserves even greater praise, since he was righteous in a wicked generation. Create another race Josephus’s statement that God intended to create another race free of knavery, not found in Gen. 6:7, has its parallel in Ovid (Metam. 1.250–52), who similarly notes Zeus’s promise to replace the wicked human race with another race of wondrous origin, as well as in Aeschylus’s Prom. 249–49.

Source of Translation: The translation is my own, cited above.

1148 Louis H. Feldman

Armenians call this place “Landing Place,” for there the ark landed safely, and still today they display its remains. 93All those who have recorded the histories of the barbarians mention this flood and the ark, among whom is Berosus the Chaldean. For he, relating the events connected with the flood, reports them somewhere in this fashion: “It is said that a certain portion of the boat still exists in Armenia on the mountain of the Cordyaeans and that some people remove and carry off pieces from the bitumen. And people use what they have carried off for talismans.” 94Hieronymus the Egyptian, who composed an ancient history of Phoenicia, and Mnaseas and numerous others mention this. And Nicolaus of Damascus in his ninetysixth book, reports these things in these words: 95“There is above Minyas a great mountain in Armenia called Baris, to which, report has it, many took refuge and were saved at the time of the flood, and that someone, drifting in an ark, ran ashore upon the mountain peak, and that the remains of the wood were preserved for a long time. And this would be the one of whom Moses, the lawgiver of the Judeans, wrote.” 96Noah, fearing that God, sentencing men to destruction, might inundate the earth each year, burnt sacrifices and begged God that in the future the original good order might remain and that he inflict no such misery again, through which all the race of living creatures would be likely to be destroyed. He asked that God, having punished the wicked, should spare those who because of their goodness had survived and had been judged worthy to escape the distress. . . .

92. still today they display its remains Josephus (Ant. 20.24–25) identifies the landing place of Noah with the place that in his own day possessed the remains of Noah’s ark, “which to this day are shown to those who are curious to see them.” 93. all those who have recorded the histories of the barbarians While Josephus is eager to establish the historicity of the Flood he does not actually equate Noah with Deucalion of the Greek flood, as indeed Philo (Rewards 23) does. Berosus the Chaldean Berosus (330–250 bce) was a priest in Babylonia who wrote in Greek a history of Babylonia that Josephus (Ag. Ap. 1.128–53) cites at length. 94. Hieronymus the Egyptian This historian is otherwise unknown. Mnaseas This historian flourished around 200 bce in Patara in Asia Minor and was the author of a collection of mythological tales. Nicolaus of Damascus An adviser to Herod, Nicolaus (ca. 64 bce to the beginning of the 1st century ce) wrote a history of the world in 144 books, now lost except for fragments, that served as a major source for Josephus. 95. many took refuge and were saved Josephus’s statement that many were saved at the time of the Flood contradicts the biblical and Josephus’s own view (Ant. 1.76–77) that all of humankind was obliterated in the Flood except for Noah and his family. 96. Noah . . . burnt sacrifices and begged God When Noah emerges from the ark, Gen. 8:20 declares simply that he built an altar unto the Lord; but it gives no reason for the sacrifice that Noah then proceeds to offer. Philo (QG 2.50 on Gen. 8:20) states that it was an act of gratitude. The Rabbis (Gen. Rab. 34:9) conclude that Noah was able to deduce it logically from God having commanded him to take into the ark more clean than unclean animals, the surplus being presumably for the sacrifices later to be offered. Josephus, here attempting to give a reasonable explanation, states that Noah offered a sacrifice to beseech God not to send another flood. The figure of Noah gains in stature in Josephus in that he does not sacrifice to God silently, as in the Bible

The Flood

1149

106[The ancients] were dear to God, having been created by him. Because of their nourishment, which was more suitable to a longer life, they naturally lived so great a number of years. Furthermore, also, because of their virtue and because it was beneficial for the discoveries that they made in astronomy and geometry, which, indeed, they could not have predicted accurately if they had not lived 600 years, since the great year is completed through so great a period, God granted them a longer life. 107All those who have written ancient histories among Greeks and barbarians bear witness to my account. For Manetho, who has composed the record of the Egyptians, and Berosus, who composed that of the Chaldeans, and Mochus and Hestiaeus, and, in addition to these, the Egyptian Hieronymus, who composed that of the Phoenicians, agree with what I have said. 108And Hesiod and Hecataeus and Hellanicus and Acusilaus and, in addition to these, Ephorus and Nicolaus record that the ancients lived for a thousand years. However, concerning such matters let each one judge as is pleasing to him. (Gen. 8:20), but is concerned with the future of the human race and, like Abraham (18:23–30), reasons with God here to maintain the primitive good order of nature and not to send another calamity upon humankind. Noah thus becomes a champion of humankind. 106. great year The great year was supposed to equal from 12,000 to 15,000 years. 107. Manetho This Egyptian priest lived in the 3rd century bce and wrote a history of Egypt in Greek that is cited by Josephus throughout book 1 of Against Apion. Mochus Living in perhaps the 2nd century bce, Mochus wrote a history of Phoenicia in Phoenician. 108. Hesiod Active in the 8th century bce, Hesiod wrote a poem, Works and Days, containing moral precepts, and a poem, Theogony, on the genealogy of the gods. Hecataeus A historian and geographer who flourished ca. 500 bce in Miletus, Hecataeus was the chief predecessor of Herodotus. Hellanicus A chronologist who lived in Mitylene in the 5th century bce, Hellanicus wrote a number of monographs on the history of various parts of Greece. Acusilaus In an attempt to correct Hesiod, Acusilaus, who lived in Argos in the 5th century bce, wrote Genealogies. Ephorus Ephorus of Cyme in Asia Minor, who lived in the 4th century bce, wrote a history of all of Greece. Let each one judge as is pleasing to him Josephus frequently, when he mentions data, especially miracles, that he realizes many of his readers will doubt as preposterous, leaves it up to the reader to decide.

1150 Louis H. Feldman

Abraham Journeys to Canaan and Egypt Louis H. Feldman This passage from Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities (1.154–68) retells the biblical episodes of Abraham’s journey from Mesopotamia to Canaan, at God’s command, and his trip from there to Egypt to avoid famine in his new home (Gen. 12:10–19). The selection illustrates Josephus’s importance as a sophisticated commentator on the Hebrew Bible. In Genesis, when God commands Abraham to leave his home and set out for Canaan (12:1–9), the Bible does not offer a proof that God truly exists. However, Josephus, aware that his worldly hellenized audience, both Jewish and non-Jewish, would expect Abraham to demand such proof, here not only demonstrates God’s existence, but offers an utterly original proof of it, found nowhere else in Jewish or non-Jewish literature of this time: namely, that the world itself testifies to its Creator’s existence, because even the seemingly eccentric behavior of the stars and planets turns out to be orderly and predictable. Moreover, Josephus’s Abraham is very different from the biblical Abraham in his descent to Egypt. In the Bible, fearful of his reception by the Egyptians, Abraham tells Sarah his wife to pretend that she is only his sister—and in consequence is given much wealth by the Egyptians in hopes of an alliance. Here Abraham is seen as confidently ready to engage the most learned of the Egyptians in argument, with the understanding that whoever emerged victorious would convert the other to his point of view. Finally, he introduces the Egyptians to arithmetic and astronomy, of which the Egyptians had previously been ignorant and of which they now become the outstanding scholars in the ancient world. Critical historian that he is, Josephus innovates by citing nonhistorians to support his statements. In his portrayal of Abraham Josephus is attempting to disprove the contention of such influential non-Jewish intellectuals as Apion (Ag. Ap. 2.135) that the Jews had not produced any geniuses, inventors in arts and crafts, or eminent sages. Josephus himself (2.148) quotes the Greek writer Apollonius Molon as saying that the Jews are the only people who have contributed no useful invention to civilization. Josephus’s Abraham is the founder of both Egyptian lore and Greek wisdom. See also “Josephus and His Writings” elsewhere in these volumes. Suggested Reading Feldman, L. H. “Abraham the Greek Philosopher in Josephus.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 99 (1968): 143–56. —. Flavius Josephus: Judean Antiquities 1–4. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Reed, A. Y. “Abraham as Chaldean Scientist and Father of the Jews: Josephus, Ant. 1.154–68, and the Discourse about Astronomy/Astrology.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 35 (2004): 119–58.

1151

Translation 154Abram . . . was clever in understanding all matters and persuasive to his listeners and not mistaken concerning matters about which he might conjecture. 155For this reason he also began to have loftier thoughts than others with regard to virtue, and he determined to bring something new into being and change the conception concerning God held by everyone. He therefore was the first who dared to declare that God was the one craftsman of the universe and that if some other being contributes something to [man’s] happiness, each one supplies something in accordance with his command and not by virtue of his own strength. 156And he inferred these things from the changes in land and sea that are dependent upon the sun and the moon and from all the happenings in heaven. For he said that if they had the power they would have provided for their own orderliness, but since they lack this, it is evident that as many things as they contribute to our increased usefulness they perform not by their own authority but in accordance with the

Commentary 154. Abram At this stage in the biblical narrative, Abraham is called Abram and his wife, Sarai. Later on (Gen. 17) God renames both of them as Abraham and Sarah, as a sign of his promise to them that they should be the ancestors of “a multitude of nations” (17:5). persuasive to his listeners The Greek for “listeners” here is used especially of students who listen to lectures in the philosophical schools. In presenting Abraham as a philosopher, Josephus may be capitalizing on the view, still current in his time, of the Jews as a race of philosophers.1 155. the first who dared to declare Other contemporary sources also argue that Abraham arrived at the idea of one God through his own reasoning about the heavenly bodies and the Creator who directed them.2 In Rabbinic midrash, Abraham arrives at his proof by observing how the elements subdue one another: water subdues fire and, in turn, is subdued by earth, which is dried up by the sun, which is obscured by clouds, and so on, so that finally only God, who made all these elements and heavenly bodies, is worthy of worship (Gen. Rab. 38.13). craftsman Josephus here uses the word “demiurge,” which is so prominent in Plato, the most popular philosopher during the Hellenistic period (see especially Tim. 40C). 156. dependent upon the sun Josephus’s Abraham argues that irregularities in the movements of the heavenly bodies show that they operate not by their own will but by that of “their commander” (i.e., God).3 Abraham’s connection with the stars is well documented in Jewish literature. A Greco-Jewish contemporary of Josephus, Pseudo-Eupolemus, states that Abraham discovered both astrology and Chaldean science (astronomy) (Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.17.3). Another GrecoJewish writer, Pseudo-Orpheus, similarly speaks of a unique figure (presumably Abraham) who was expert in following the course of the sun and the movements of the spheres around the earth (Clement, Strom. 5.14.123.2; Eusebius, Praep. ev. 13.13.50). In these passages, Abraham combats the view held by the Chaldeans that the celestial phenomena themselves cause everything to happen. Philo makes a similar point (Migration 178–79, 181). The Rabbinic tradition (B. Yoma 28b) also notes that Abraham could perform great astronomical speculations and consequently determine the exact hour of the afternoon prayer. The T. Kid. 5.17, commenting on Gen. 24:1, “The LORD had blessed Abraham in all things,” explains that He blessed him with great knowledge of astrology. Source of Translation: The translation is my own, cited above.

1152

Louis H. Feldman

power of their commander, on whom alone it is proper to confer honor and gratitude. 157Since, for these reasons, the Chaldeans and the other Mesopotamians fell into discord against him, he, having decided to emigrate in accordance with the will and assistance of God, settled in the land of Canaan. And having settled there he built an altar and offered a sacrifice to God. 158Berosus mentions our father Abram, though he does not name him, in the following words: “In the tenth generation after the Flood among the Chaldeans there was a certain man, just and great and expert in heavenly matters.” 159Hecataeus has done something more than just mention him. For he composed and left behind a book about him. Nicolaus of Damascus, in the fourth book of his histories, says the following: “Abram was king, having arrived as an alien with an army from the land beyond Babylon called that of the Chaldeans. 160Not long thereafter he and those who had increased in numbers from him, migrated from this land with his people to the land then called Canaan but now called Judea, about whom I shall report in another book. The name of Abram is still even now famous in Damascus, and a village is pointed out called after him ‘Abram’s dwelling place.’” 161Some time later a famine having taken told of Canaan, Abram, learning that the Egyptians were prosperous, was eager to betake himself to them in order both to participate in their abundance and to be a listener to what their priests say about gods. For he said that either he would become their disciple if they were found to be better or he would convert them to a better frame of mind if his thoughts should be bet-

157. the Chaldeans and the other Mesopotamians fell into discord against him Abraham is presented by Josephus as someone persecuted and ready to be a martyr for his faith. This seems to contradict the biblical view (Gen. 12:1; Acts 7:2–3), as well as Josephus’s previous statement (Ant. 1.154) that Abraham left Chaldea at God’s bidding. Pseudo-Philo describes in vivid detail the persecution of Abraham by the Chaldeans and, in particular, his being cast into a fiery furnace (L.A.B. 6.11–18). The Midrash (Gen. Rab. 38.13) describes the trial of Abraham before the wicked Nimrod. 158. Berosus A Babylonian writer active during the 3rd century bce. expert in heavenly matters The early Greek philosophers, notably Thales, are depicted as well versed in science, especially astronomy. Abraham conforms to this model. The 4th-century ce Firmicus Maternus couples Abraham with Orpheus as an astrologer and refers to him as defining the position of the moon and of the sun (Math. 4, prooemium 5). 159. Hecataeus Hecataeus of Abdera was a historian who flourished ca. 300 bce. There is considerable dispute as to the authenticity of the work on Abraham attributed to him here. 160. in another book We apparently have all the works composed by Josephus; this book is unknown, and if it was ever written, no longer exists. Damascus A 1st-century ce Roman historian, Pompeius Trogus, says that the Jews originated in Damascus and that Abraham and Israel were kings of that city. village called . . . “Abram’s dwelling place” Pseudo-Philo asserts that after Abraham was saved from a fiery furnace, the place was named after him (L.A.B. 6.18). 161. he would become their disciple if they were found to be better or he would convert them According to the Bible (Gen. 12:10), the only reason Abraham went down to Egypt was the famine in Canaan. Josephus models his portrait of Abraham on the 6th-century bce sage Solon, who traveled to Egypt and was awed by the wisdom of the Egyptians; and on Pythagoras (6th-century bce), who, according to Isocrates, became a disciple of the priests there, studying their sacrifices and cult practices and later introducing their philosophy to the Greeks. It is in the spirit of

Abraham Journeys to Canaan and Egypt

1153

ter. . . . 165He associated with the most erudite of the Egyptians, whereby it happened that his virtue and his reputation for it became more illustrious. 166Since the Egyptians took pleasure in various practices and belittled one another’s customs and therefore had a hostile attitude toward each other, he, conferring with each of them and exposing the arguments that they used with regard to their individual views, showed that they lacked substance and contained nothing true. 167Therefore, having been admired by them in these relations as an extremely intelligent man and gifted not only in understanding but also in persuading by his words with regard to whatever he would undertake to teach, he pleased them with arithmetic and transmitted to them the lore concerning astronomy. 168For before the arrival of Abram the Egyptians were ignorant of these. For these matters reached Egypt from the Chaldeans, whence they came also to the Greeks. Hellenistic philosophic disputations that Abraham is here said to be ready to adopt the Egyptian priests’ doctrines if he finds them superior to his own, or, if he should win the debate, to convert them to his beliefs. This portrayal of the journey to Egypt has no parallel in any other account of Abraham. The Rabbis speak of him as a missionary, proceeding systematically to make converts to belief in the one God; however, they portray this activity in connection, not with Egyptian wise men, but rather with the visitors to his tent (Gen. Rab. 39.14). He is so effective at this task that he succeeds in making God known as king of the earth as well as of heaven (Sifre Deut. 313 on Deut. 32:10). 165. he associated with the most erudite of the Egyptians Whereas in the Bible (Gen. 12:20), Pharaoh returns Sarah to Abraham and sends him on his way, here Abraham remains and consorts with Egyptian scholars. 167. arithmetic and . . . astronomy Both Plato and Isocrates in the 4th century bce emphasized the importance of mathematics not only for its practical value but also as a training for sharpening the mind. Astronomy was regarded, as we see in Plato’s system of higher education in his Republic, as the queen of the sciences. Astronomy was a science of which the Egyptians had previously been ignorant and which was to become the most popular of the four branches of mathematics in Hellenistic times—the one that aroused the most curiosity because of the practical importance of astrology. Josephus thus presents Abraham as the one who taught the Egyptians the very sciences for which they later became so famous. Josephus does not portray Abraham as teaching the Egyptians about the one God, presumably because this would expose him to the charge of seeking to make converts. The Romans were particularly sensitive about this issue, as we see from the Jews having been expelled from Rome three times for attempting missionary activities: in 139 bce, in 19 ce, and in the middle of the 1st century ce.

Notes 1. See Aristotle, cited in a fragment of Clearchus of Soli, which is mentioned in Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.179. 2. Cf. Apoc. Ab. 7; Jub. 12.17; and the midrashic sources (e.g., Gen. Rab. 39.1) for apparent parallels to this proof in Josephus. See also the account of the laws of Zeleucus of Locri, the Pythagorean, in Diodorus, Bib. hist. 12.20: “In the prelude to his legislation he said that those who dwelt in the city must believe in the existence of the gods and, observing in their minds the heaven and its order and arrangement, must believe that these things are not the work of chance or of men, and revere the gods as being the cause of all that is good in the life of man.”

1154

Louis H. Feldman

3. This proof for the existence of God reflects the form of the argument put forth by the Greek philosophical schools, notably the Stoics (see Sextus Empiricus, Phys. 1.26; Epictetus, Ench. 7; also Philo, Alleg. Interp. 3.97–99; Spec. Laws 1.33–35). This form dates back to Anaxagoras (5th century bce), who presented the argument that the orderly state of the universe manifests a design perfected by the rational power of an infinite mind. Yet Josephus is the only known figure in the history of philosophy who reversed the Platonic (Leg. 12.966E) and Stoic argument for the existence of God, which was based on the regularity of celestial phenomena, to pose an argument based on certain irregularities observed in these phenomena.

Abraham Journeys to Canaan and Egypt 1155

The Akedah Louis H. Feldman The first thing that strikes us about Josephus’s version of the Akedah (Genesis 22) episode in his Jewish Antiquities (1.222–36) is its very length: 2.86 times as long as the biblical narrative in Hebrew and 2.27 times as long as the Septuagint’s (LXX) account.1 This is probably due to the importance of the episode in the midrashic tradition and also because Josephus apparently felt that he had to answer those quarrelsome critics who belittled the story. He felt that he had to reply to those who were presumably horrified by Abraham’s readiness to sacrifice his own son, Isaac. Josephus clearly had in mind a comparison with Euripides’s drama Iphigenia at Aulis, where a father similarly pondered whether to sacrifice his child. But whereas in Euripides the goddess Artemis, to whom the sacrifice is made, is spoken of as rejoicing in human sacrifices, Josephus, eager to answer the blood libel against Jews that was circulating in the 1st century ce, stresses that God did not long for human blood. Josephus significantly sought to leave Isaac “unscathed,” that is, “not suffering” and “emotionless,” values that coincide with those of the Stoics. In a very significant addition, Isaac is said to be 25 years old, not a lad as in the Bible but rather a mature man who is able to make a deliberate choice, which diminishes the horror, and who rushes to the altar. Surely the most striking element in Josephus’s version is his omission of the most important word in the biblical account, akedah (binding), perhaps because he was concerned lest the binding be construed as evidence of Isaac’s reluctance or be incriminating for Abraham. Josephus also omits consideration of the problem of theodicy, so important in the Rabbinic treatment of the episode. The convenient appearance of a ram to be sacrificed in place of Isaac seemed too much for a rationalizing Greek mind, and so Josephus clearly implies that it had always been there. See also “Josephus and His Writings” elsewhere in these volumes. Suggested Reading Feldman, L. H. Flavius Josephus: Judean Antiquities 1–4. Leiden: Brill, 2000. —. “Josephus as a Biblical Interpreter: The Aqedah.” Jewish Quarterly Review 75 (1984–85): 212–52. —. “Josephus’s Portrait of Isaac.” Revista di storia et letteratura religiosa 29 (1993): 3–33.

1156

Translation 222His father Abraham exceedingly loved Isaac, who was his only child and who had been born to him on the threshold of old age as a gift from God. And the child, practicing every virtue and showing attention to his ancestors and exhibiting zeal for the worship of God, won even more the affection and the love of his parents. 223Abraham put his own happiness solely on the hope that on departing from life he should leave behind his son unscathed. He attained this, to be sure, by the will of God, who, wishing to

Commentary 222. his only child This is the reading of the Hebrew. The LXX, which Josephus usually follows, has “beloved,” presumably because the translators were troubled by Isaac actually not being Abraham’s only son. Philo (Abraham 168), combining both the Hebrew and LXX versions, speaks of Isaac as Abraham’s “only” and “beloved” son. threshold of old age Josephus strikingly uses the same phrase that Homer (Il. 24.487) employs when Priam addresses Achilles, begging him to return his son Hector’s body; he reminds him at the height of the pathetic mode of address, that Achilles’s father is as old as Priam “on the deadly threshold of old age.” a gift from God Apparently, to judge from Philo’s comment (Abraham 178), there were “quarrelsome critics” who did not consider Abraham’s action in connection with the sacrifice of Isaac to be great or wonderful; and Josephus is therefore particularly concerned to stress Abraham’s faith during the episode. attention to his ancestors Significantly, the very first quality of Isaac’s character that Josephus sees fit to mention is precisely the one, veneration for one’s ancestors, that both his Hellenistic Greek and Roman audience would have appreciated the most. exhibiting zeal for the worship of God An account such as this of Abraham’s readiness to sacrifice his own son might well have aroused horror in his pagan readers. The philosopher Theophrastus, Aristotle’s student and successor, in a passage otherwise very complimentary to the Jews, since he calls them philosophers by race, may have had the Akedah in mind when he says that “the Syrians, of whom the Jews constitute a part, also now sacrifice live victims according to their old mode of sacrifice; if one ordered us to sacrifice in the same way we would have recoiled from the entire business.” 223. his own happiness It is ironic that in this brief account of the Akedah Josephus on five occasions uses either the noun for happiness, the verb “to be happy,” or the adverb “happily,” employing them with reference to Abraham’s happiness three times and Isaac’s twice, whereas both had been on the very edge of unspeakable disaster. There is a similar irony in Euripides’s Iphigenia at Aulis, with its comparable situation of a father pondering whether to sacrifice his child, where the chorus speaks of “the great happiness of the great.” unscathed There is particular irony in Abraham seeking to leave his son “unscathed,” for the word that Josephus uses here has two very different meanings: “not suffering” and “emotionless”— both of which are actually applicable to Isaac. The term “unscathed” is a particularly common Stoic term for freedom from emotion. This is a prime example where Josephus makes Jewish values coincide with those of the Stoics. Source of Translation: The translation is my own, cited above.

The Akedah

1157

make trial of his piety toward himself, appeared to him and enumerated all the things that he had granted, 224how he had made him stronger than his enemies and how he had his present happiness and his son Isaac owing to his benevolence. He asked him himself to offer this one as a sacrifice and victim to himself, and he bade him to lead him up Mount Morion, build an altar, and offer him as a burnt offering. For thus he would demonstrate his piety toward himself if he valued what was pleasing to God above the preservation of his child. 225Abraham judged it just to disobey God under no circumstances and to obey everything, since all those to whom he is benevolent survive through his providence. He concealed from his wife the command trial of his piety What follows is, in effect, a drama, in form somewhat like the book of Job or Euripides’s Hippolytus. It commences with a prologue, in which God appears to Abraham; then comes the play proper, so to speak, containing a dialogue between Abraham and Isaac; and in an epilogue God commends Abraham and predicts the glorious future of his descendants. enumerated The Bible (Gen. 22:1) begins the narrative of this test of Abraham by God with the vague words “after these things.” Josephus, in typical midrashic fashion, clarifies this by enumerating the benefits that God had bestowed upon Abraham and thus justifies the test. The implication is that having given these benefits to Abraham, God was justified in withdrawing them. 224. Mount Morion The Hebrew text is vaguer in having God tell Abraham to offer his sacrifice “upon one of the mountains of which I shall tell you” (Gen. 22:2). The LXX, which Josephus seems to be following for the most part in this pericope, has “to the lofty land,” with no mention of Moriah, perhaps because moria in Greek means “folly.” Josephus thus avoids the possible sneer that having Abraham take his son to a mountain of folly would evoke from Greek readers. Josephus stresses the connection of Moriah with the Temple at a later point in his history (Ant. 7.333), where he states that David purchased a site for the Temple in the very place where Abraham had brought his son Isaac to sacrifice him and where he refers the reader to his earlier account. But in his eagerness to avoid theological issues as much as possible, Josephus omits a direct statement causally connecting the Akedah with these sacrifices. burnt offering This episode is presented by Josephus as a true sacrifice and a cultic act, bathed in a liturgical atmosphere, with scrupulous observance of the rites, such as we find also in the targumic version of the passage. 225. judging it just to disobey God under no circumstances One would have expected, as we find in Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling, that Abraham would have had some doubts about the sacrifice. According to the midrash (Tanhuma Shelah 27), Abraham did not have any doubts but still was afraid that he would not stand up to the test the next time. In Josephus, however, we read categorically that Abraham thought that nothing could justify disobedience to God. concealed from his wife Josephus adds that Abraham told no one in his household, not even his wife Sarah, about his resolve to sacrifice Isaac, lest they should attempt to hinder him from attending to God’s service. To be sure, Philo (Abraham 170) also adds that Abraham told no one of the divine command; but Josephus is unique in giving the reason for this silence and thus stressing Abraham’s virtue. Josephus may well have sought to avoid the inevitable equation in this respect of Abraham with Agamemnon, who, according to Euripides (Iph. au. 98), attempted to deceive his wife Clytemnestra by writing a letter to her asking her to send their daughter Iphigenia to be married to Achilles, while his real intention was to sacrifice her to the goddess Artemis. Although this contrast between Abraham and Agamemnon is an argumentum ex si-

1158

Louis H. Feldman

of God and the resolution that he had concerning the slaughter of the child. On the contrary, he revealed it not even to anyone of his household, for he would have been hindered from rendering service to God. He took Isaac with two servants and loaded a donkey with the things needed for the sacrificial rite and departed to the mountain. 226For two days the servants accompanied him. On the third, when the mountain was visible to him, he left in the plain those who were with him and proceeded with the child alone to the mountain upon which King David later built the Temple. 227They brought with them as many things as were needed for the sacrifice except for the victim. When Isaac, who was in his twenty-fifth year, was setting up the altar and asked what they were about to sacrifice, since no victim was present, he said that God would provide for them, since he was capable of leading men to abundance of the things that they did not have and of depriving of what they had those who were confident of them. Therefore, he would grant them a victim, if, indeed, he intended to receive his sacrifice benevolently. lentio, it becomes more plausible when it is coupled with other parallels between Josephus and Euripides’s Iphigenia at Aulis. 226. upon which King David later built the Temple On the identification of the Temple Mount with the place where Abraham was ready to sacrifice Isaac see Gen. Rab. 55:7. In his statement that the Temple was built on the site of the Akedah, Josephus avoids stating that David built the Temple on Mount Moriah because Abraham had bound his son there; in fact, he goes out of his way to say (Ant. 7.333) that “it happened” that the Temple was built on the very place where the Akedah had occurred. The Rabbis (Gen. Rab. 55:9), of course, stress the causal relationship of the two events. In identifying the site of the Akedah with the Temple Mount, Josephus may have had in mind an association of the act that Abraham was about to accomplish and the liturgical sacrifices of the Temple, notably the paschal sacrifice. Hence, one is tempted to suggest that he thought of the Akedah as occurring on the fifteenth of Nisan, the first day of Passover, as does Jub. 18:3. 227. Isaac, who was in his twenty-fifth year This is a major addition to the biblical account of the Akedah. The Bible (Gen. 22:5) refers to Isaac as a lad; Philo (Abraham 176) refers to him as a child. According to Jub. 17:15 Isaac was 23. His age at the time of the Akedah is variously given in Rabbinic literature (37, 36, 27, 26). According to the Adler manuscript of Gen. Rab. 56:8 he was 26. The Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen. 22:1 declares that he was 37. Josephus mentions his age presumably because he considered it important to make it clear that Isaac was not a mere lad but a grown man able to make a deliberate choice. This is particularly important to Josephus in view of Iphigenia, with whom Isaac would probably be compared by his Greek readers, being depicted as a young girl scarcely of marriageable age, considerably younger apparently than 25, perhaps no more than 12 to 14 years old. Josephus wishes to stress that Isaac’s action in submitting enthusiastically to sacrifice is the pious decision of a mature man. That Isaac is a grown man who acts deliberately diminishes the horror that such a story would arouse in Josephus’s readers, to judge from Lucretius’s comments (1.101) in his retelling of the parallel story of Iphigenia was setting up the altar The drama here is increased by virtue of Isaac constructing the altar for his own sacrifice in Josephus’s version, whereas in the Bible Abraham builds the altar for the sacrifice (Gen. 22:9).

The Akedah

1159

228When the altar had been prepared and he had laid the chopped wood upon it and things were ready, he said to his son: “My child, I asked God with myriad prayers that you be born to me. When you were born there was nothing that I did not take the trouble with in your upbringing. Nor was there anything that I thought would bring me greater happiness than that I should see you grown to manhood so that when I died I should have you as the successor of my realm. 229Since, however, it was by God’s wish that I became your father and again since, as it seems best to him, I am giving you up, bear this consecration nobly. For I concede you to God, who requires now to obtain this honor from us, in return for the fact that he has been a benevolent helper and ally to me. 230Since you were born [out of the course of nature], depart now from life not in a common fashion but sent forth by your own father to God, the father of all, by the rite of sacrifice. I think that he has judged that you are deserving to be removed from life neither by disease nor by war nor by some other of the afflictions that are conditioned by nature to befall humanity, 231but that he would receive your soul with prayers and sacrificial rites and would keep it near himself. You will be a guardian for me and supporter in my old age, wherefore also I especially reared you, by offering me God in place of yourself.” 228. things were ready Missing from Josephus is the most important word in the biblical account, aqed (to bind)/akedah (binding) (Gen. 22:9), a hapax legomenon in the Bible, that is featured in later Rabbinic references to this incident (e.g., B. RH 16a). Perhaps Josephus omits it because he was concerned lest the binding be construed as evidence of Isaac’s reluctance. Alternatively, the physical binding of Isaac would probably have seemed too much for a Greek audience and would have been incriminating for Abraham. Philo, too, omits any mention of the actual binding, although he at least does describe Abraham as placing Isaac on the altar (Abraham 176), whereas this detail also is omitted by Josephus. he said to his son The Rabbis (Gen. Rab. 56:15) emphasize Abraham’s address to God, in which he asserts that although he could have argued against the divine decree, he did not do so. Such an appeal is fraught with the problem of theodicy. Josephus omits this, in line with his effort to avoid theological problems, which, as we have noted, he apparently intended to deal with in a separate work (Ant. 1.25; etc.). Instead, Josephus invents Abraham’s dramatic address to his son of the type that we find in the progymnasmatic rhetorical exercises of Seneca the Elder. successor of my realm It is especially dramatic to have Abraham recall his prayers for a son who would grow to manhood and become his heir, while, paradoxically, he is about to place Isaac on the altar. 229. I am giving you up Josephus views the sacrifice as a return to God. Similarly, Philo, Unchangeable 4, and Pseudo-Philo, L.A.B. 32:2. 230. out of the course of nature There is clearly a lacuna in the Greek, and the phrase “out of the course of nature” should be supplied. This trait of being born in an extraordinary way and leaving life in a similarly extraordinary way is common in biographies of Greek and Roman heroes (e.g., Heracles, Theseus, Oedipus, and Romulus). Josephus most dramatically mentions Isaac’s good birth at the moment that Abraham is about to sacrifice him. 231. soul This is an allusion to the immortality of the soul. Compare Plato, Apol. 41c.

1160

Louis H. Feldman

232Isaac, for it was necessary for one who had chanced upon such a father to be noble in his attitude, received these words with joy. He said that it was not even right for him to have been born in the first place, if he were about to spurn the decision of God and his father and not readily offer himself to the wishes of both. When if even his father alone were choosing this it would have been unjust to disobey, he rushed to the altar and the slaughter. 233The deed would have been done if God had not stood in the way. For he called upon Abraham by name, preventing him from the slaughter of the child. For he said that he had decreed the slaughter of his child not because he longed for human blood. Nor had he made him his father wishing to deprive him of this son with such impiety, but being willing to test his attitude, to see whether, if commanded, he would obey even such injunctions. 234Having learned the enthusiasm and the high degree of his piety, he said that he took pleasure in what he had offered him. He deemed it proper that he and his race would not fall short of receiving every consideration, and that his son would be very long-lived, and having lived happily would bequeath to his virtuous and legitimate children a great realm. 235He predicted that their race would increase into many nations and much wealth and that there would 232. rushed to the altar Josephus heightens the heroism of Isaac in having him rush upon the altar, thus presenting a more favorable comparison with Iphigenia. In this glorious scene, wholly invented by Josephus, Isaac, when told of his father’s intention to sacrifice him, matches the supreme faith of his father by receiving his words bravely and joyfully. Similarly, in Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen. 22:10, Isaac tells his father: “Bind me properly lest I tremble from the affliction of my soul.” 233. he called upon Abraham by name In Josephus it is God himself rather than, as in Gen. 22:11, an angel who addresses Abraham and produces a ram to take the place of the sacrificial human victim, presumably because the subject was too important to be left to even the best of God’s deputies. So also Philo (Abraham 176) says that God “stopped the deed halfway with a voice from the air.” not because he longed for human blood In this remarkable addition to the biblical account, God himself presents the apology that it was from no craving for human blood that he had given the order to Abraham. In this God would seem to be in direct contrast to Artemis, who, according to the chorus (whether as the voice of the poet himself or the average spectator) in Euripides’s Iph. au. 1524–25, “rejoices in human sacrifices.” Similarly, in connection with Jephthah’s sacrifice of his daughter, Josephus (Ant. 5.266), in an extrabiblical addition, remarks that such a sacrifice was neither sanctioned by law nor pleasing to God. To judge from such writers as Lucretius (1.101), there were pagans who could not accept the idea that the gods delighted in blood. Josephus, perhaps because Jews had been charged with, in effect, a blood libel by Damocritus (in Suidas) and Apion (in Ag. Ap. 2.91–96), goes to great lengths to demonstrate in this speech, put into the mouth of God rather than an angel as in Gen. 22:11, that the God of the Jews does not crave human blood. Josephus here stresses the difference between the purpose of sacrificing children in pagan mythology, which was for the sake of the country, and Abraham’s motive in the case of Isaac. 235. he predicted Josephus’s fullest statement, which is made here, of God’s promise of the supremacy that Abraham’s descendants will exercise is found in God’s remarks to Abraham before the appearance of the ram at the climax of the Akedah, in other words in a purely religious rather than a political context. Josephus’s Roman hosts would have resented a political context (see Ant. 1.185, 191).

The Akedah

1161

be an everlasting memory for their progenitors, and that after taking possession of Canaan by arms they would be envied by all men. 236Having said these things, God brought forth a ram from obscurity for them to sacrifice. They, having borne themselves beyond their hopes and having heard promises of such blessings, embraced one another. Having sacrificed, they returned home to Sarah and lived happily, with God supporting them in all that they wished. 236. God brought forth a ram from obscurity The scene of the ram caught in a thicket by its horns may have seemed grotesque and too much of a miracle for a rationalizing Greek mind. Hence, Josephus omits this and states merely that God brought the ram from obscurity into view, with the clear implication that it had always been there. In the 3rd-century Dura synagogue painting and in the 6th-century Beth Alpha synagogue the ram is not caught in the thicket by its horns but stands quietly next to, or is tethered to, a tree, as if it had always been there, perhaps reflecting the Rabbinic tradition (M. Avot 5:6) that it had been created at twilight on the eve of the Sabbath of creation for its future use. having sacrificed Josephus does not explicitly tell us, as does the Bible (Gen. 22:13), that Abraham offered the ram in place of his son, perhaps because he sought to avoid the theological implication that the ram was a surrogate sacrifice for human sin. lived happily The ending of Josephus’s version of the Akedah—that is, a “lived happily ever after” finale, so typical of Hellenistic novels—is Josephus’s addition to the Bible.

Notes 1. For the relative lengths of Josephus’s versions of other biblical episodes, see L. H. Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 74–82.

1162

Louis H. Feldman

Joseph and Potiphar’s Wife Louis H. Feldman Josephus’s portrayal of Joseph, especially in connection with the incident with Potiphar’s wife in Jewish Antiquities (2.39–60), has been vastly expanded and is strikingly different from that in the Bible (Gen. 39). There are a number of indications that the expansion is influenced by a similar incident in Euripides’s Hippolytus. In the first place, Potiphar gives Joseph an education befitting an educated Greek in the liberal arts. Josephus deemphasizes the role of God in Joseph’s actual achievements. It is not only Joseph’s good looks but also his dexterity that leads Potiphar’s wife to become enamored of him. There is a heightened erotic interest in the contrast between Potiphar’s wife’s daily solicitations, together with her hunt for isolation to seek out Joseph, and Joseph’s persistent refusal to listen to her. Unlike a Rabbinic tradition that at one point Joseph was actually ready to submit to her advances, Josephus’s Joseph consistently refuses. In a crucial extrabiblical addition Josephus’s Joseph, like a Sophist intellectual, takes the initiative to try to convince her, through rational argument, to govern her passion. In the end, in a remarkable addition, when accused unjustly by Potiphar’s wife of trying to rape her, Josephus’s Joseph, like a Stoic, submits silently. See also “Josephus and His Writings” elsewhere in these volumes. Suggested Reading Feldman, L. H. Flavius Josephus: Judean Antiquities 1–4. Leiden: Brill, 2000. —. Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible, 335–73. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998.

Translation 39Potiphar, an Egyptian who was in charge of the cooks of the king Pharaoh, bought Joseph when he was sold by the merchants. He held him in all honor and gave him the education that befits a free man and

Commentary 39. the education that befits a free man This is Josephus’s addition and refers to the “liberal education,” presumably in the seven liberal arts (grammar, rhetoric, dialectic, geometry, arithmetic, music, and astronomy) that Potiphar gave to Joseph. This addition apparently reflects contemporary circumstances, inasmuch as, in Roman times, it was not uncommon for a talented slave to be educated by his master. Josephus, who enjoyed a similar education, is, it would seem, portraying Joseph, his namesake, as his forerunner. Philo (Joseph 38) likewise says that while in Potiphar’s house Joseph received the training that was to stand him in good stead when he would become a statesman, namely in household management, since a house is, in effect, a miniature city. Joseph Source of Translation: The translation is my own, cited above.

1163

permitted him to enjoy a better way of life than the lot of a slave, and handed over to him the care of the affairs of his household. 40He had the benefit of these things, yet did not forsake the virtue that encompassed him, not even under the change of fortune; but he showed clearly that reason is able to overcome the difficulties in life, when it faces them with genuineness and does not merely accommodate itself to the successes of the time. 41His master’s wife was disposed amorously to him because of his handsomeness and his adroitness in his doings. She thought that if she would make this clear to him she would easily persuade him to have thus received an education that, in Josephus’s presentation, is superior even to that of Moses, inasmuch as Josephus is content with the briefest of comments about Moses’s upbringing (he does not specify education). handed over to him the care of the affairs of his household In general, Josephus takes pains to stress the accomplishments of his biblical heroes by deemphasizing the role of God in their actual achievements. Thus, whereas the biblical narrative declares that Potiphar, Joseph’s master, saw that the Lord was with him (Gen. 39:3), Josephus omits God’s role and simply states that Potiphar held Joseph in the highest esteem, presumably because of his efficiency and fidelity. Moreover, Josephus omits the biblical statement (39:5) that God blessed everything in Potiphar’s house and field for the sake of Joseph. 40. did not forsake the virtue that encompassed him The statement that Joseph did not allow his change of fortune to make him abandon his virtue is an addition by Josephus. In the biblical narrative, just before Potiphar’s wife makes her advances, Joseph’s good looks are emphasized (Gen. 39:6). Josephus omits reference to Joseph’s good looks and chooses to stress Joseph’s virtue. reason is able to overcome the difficulties in life This is in line with the advice given in 4 Macc. 1:1: “As I am going to demonstrate a most philosophical proposition, namely that religious reasoning is absolute master of the passions, I would willingly advise you to give the utmost heed to philosophy.” 41. disposed amorously The very beginning of this episode is more romantic in Josephus’s version. Whereas in Gen. 39:7 we are told that Potiphar’s wife cast her eyes upon Joseph and said, “Lie with me,” in Josephus she becomes enamored of him, declares her passion, and proposes an illicit union (Ant. 2.41–42). his adroitness in his doings It is significant that whereas in the Bible it is Joseph’s beauty alone (underscored with the duplicate phrases “ beautiful form” and “fair to look upon”) that attracts Potiphar’s wife (Gen. 39:6–7), in Josephus’s version it is not only his comely appearance but also his dexterity that leads her to become enamored of him. she would easily persuade him There is a striking similarity between Josephus’s account of Potiphar’s wife’s initiative in approaching Joseph and Phaedra’s initiative in soliciting Hippolytus. Apparently, the Phaedra-Hippolytus theme was very popular, as we can gather from the remark of the 2nd-century Pausanias (1.22.1) that “everybody, even a foreigner who has learnt the Greek tongue, knows about the love of Phaedra,” and so we may assume that Josephus and many of his readers would have been acquainted with it as well. The theme recurs in a number of myths, notably in Homer’s account (Il. 6.152–202) of Queen Anteia’s love for her subject Bellerophon. The popularity of this motif may be seen in its frequent appearance in the later Hellenistic novels, such as Heliodorus’s Aethiopica. That Josephus has expanded the episode of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife from 22 lines in the Hebrew and 32 lines in the LXX (Gen. 39:7–20) to 120 lines

1164

Louis H. Feldman

intercourse, since he would consider it a stroke of luck that his mistress had solicited him. 42She was looking at the outward bearing of his slavery at that time but not on the character that remained firm despite his change of fortune. When she made clear her passion and addressed words to him with regard to sexual intercourse, he kept rejecting her request. He judged that it would not be pious to grant her such pleasure, in which there happened to be injustice and insolence toward the one who had bought him and had deemed him worthy of such honor. 43He kept on imploring her to prevail over her passion, setting before her the hopelessness of satisfying her desire, since this would cease when hope was not present. He said that he himself would rather endure anything than be obedient to this request. For, indeed, though it is necessary for one who is a slave to do nothing opposed to his mistress, the contradiction to such orders would shows the great interest and importance that this episode held for him. Indeed, this pericope is the most highly expanded of all the Josephan episodes pertaining to Joseph and of almost all the biblical episodes paraphrased by Josephus. since he would consider it a stroke of luck that his mistress had solicited him This explanation as to why Potiphar’s wife thought that she would succeed in persuading Joseph to have relations with her is Josephus’s addition to the biblical text. 42. kept rejecting her request In Gen. 39:8 when Potiphar’s wife makes her advances, Joseph refuses, which the LXX renders “he was unwilling.” Josephus uses stronger language: he dismissed her entreaties. Josephus thus precludes the view of those Rabbis ( J. Hor. 2:5:46d; Gen. Rab. 87:7; 98:20) who assert that Joseph was actually at the point of yielding to temptation and that only the appearance of his father and/or his mother in a vision cooled his passion and prevented him from sinning. Significantly, in Gen. 39:9 Joseph presents two reasons for declining the proposal of Potiphar’s wife: his obligations toward Potiphar and toward God; Josephus omits the latter, thus emphasizing further the temptation as one of passion. injustice and insolence toward the one who had bought him and had deemed him worthy of such honor Josephus, in an extrabiblical addition, states that Joseph refused the overtures of Potiphar’s wife not merely because of the immorality of the request but also because it would be an outrage to the host who had honored him so highly. Ironically, when Potiphar’s wife accuses Joseph to her husband, she charges him with ingratitude in that he had forgotten the benefits that he had received from Potiphar (Ant. 2.56). 43. imploring her to prevail over her passion Whereas in the Bible Joseph explains why he must refuse the request of Potiphar’s wife (Gen. 39:8–9), in Josephus he himself takes the initiative to try to convince her to govern her passion. The key word here is pathos, which occurs three times in this passage and has the double meaning of “passion” and “suffering.” Joseph’s address to Potiphar’s wife is, in effect, Josephus’s editorial on the theme that reason must prevail over passion. hopelessness The notion of the hopelessness of Potiphar’s wife satisfying her desire is Josephus’s addition to the biblical text. endure anything rather than to be obedient to this request Significantly, when Potiphar’s wife approaches Joseph, he responds here, in a manner reminiscent of a Jewish or Christian martyr, that he will endure anything rather than be obedient to her immoral behest. It is most remarkable that Joseph, who so steadfastly withstands the temptation of Potiphar’s wife, is, nevertheless, in Philo depicted as having a love of bodily pleasure (Dreams 2.16), whereas later (2.106–7) Philo praises him for his rejection of bodily pleasures as represented by Potiphar’s wife.

Joseph and Potiphar’s Wife 1165

have abundant excuse. 44That she did not expect Joseph to oppose her increased her passion still more; and being terribly besieged by her wickedness she again by a second attempt strove to achieve her goal. 45Therefore, when a public festival was at hand, in which it was customary for women to come together frequently in the festal assembly, she feigned illness to her husband. Meanwhile, she hunted for isolation and leisure to seek out Joseph; and having obtained this opportunity, she addressed even more persistent words than the first. 46She said that it would have been well for him to have yielded to her request from the beginning and to have refused nothing, owing to which she, though being mistress, was forced to lower herself beneath her dignity; but even now, by giving in better to sagacity, he would remedy his senselessness in the past. 47For if he were awaiting a second entreaty, this had come and with greater fervor, since she had feigned illness and had preferred the meeting with him to the festival and the festal assembly. If, owing to distrust, he had rejected the first arguments, he should judge that her persistence in them was an indication that there was no evil intent. 48He might expect both the advantage of his present blessings, in which he had participated, by acceding to her passion, and the enjoyment of greater ones if he would be obedient, but that there would be retaliation and hatred on her part if he should reject her request and should put his reputation for self-control above pleasing is mistress. 49For this would not help him if she

44. increased her passion That Potiphar’s wife’s passion was increased by his opposition is Josephus’s addition to the biblical text and serves to add to the intensity of the description. We can see the heightened erotic interest in the contrast between the biblical statement that Joseph did not listen to her daily solicitations (Gen. 39:10) and Josephus’s version that the woman’s love was only the more magnified by his unexpected opposition. 45. a public festival was at hand The romantic element is increased by Josephus’s extrabiblical addition that Potiphar’s wife solicited Joseph during a festival. A festival is also the occasion for a boy to fall in love with a girl according to the opening of the poet Musaeus’s Hero and Leander. So also the Rabbinic tradition cites the details of the festival and the pretended illness of Potiphar’s wife (B. Sot. 36b). It is significant that Josephus also elsewhere adds to the biblical account the detail of a festival in order to increase the erotic element, notably in connection with the seduction of Dinah (Ant. 1.337) and the riddle of Samson (5.289). feigned illness The theme of feigned illness is also found in the pseudepigraphic T. Jos. 7:1–2, though only in Josephus is it made clear that this is a device used by Potiphar’s wife for being alone with Joseph. Her second invitation, she insists, is being made with even greater ardor than the first, as evidenced by the fact that she, like Phaedra in Euripides’s Hippolytus, had feigned illness and had preferred talking to him rather than attending the festival that was then going on. hunting for isolation In Gen. 39:11 we are simply told that on one particular day there was no one else in the house. Josephus’s version is much more romantic in that Potiphar’s wife hunts for isolation in order to seek out Joseph. 46. by giving in better to sagacity Such a medley of passion and reason, promises and threats is precisely the kind of speech that we find being delivered by Phaedra and her nurse in Euripides’s play (Hippolytus 176–524). 48. the enjoyment of greater ones The motif of a threat of death, on the one hand, and a promise of greater authority, on the other hand, is found also in the story of Gyges (Herodotus 1.11). A similar argument is found in the pseudepigraphic T. Jos. 3:2, which is, indeed, the most detailed parallel to Josephus’s account of the episode of Potiphar’s wife and Joseph.

1166

Louis H. Feldman

should turn to accuse him and should fabricate to her husband that he had made an attempt upon her; but Potiphar would rather give credence to her words than to his, even if they should be carried very far from the truth. 50Though the woman said these things and wept, neither did compassion persuade him not to be selfcontrolled, nor did fear compel him, but he resisted her supplications and did not give in to her threats. He chose to suffer unjustly and to endure something more bitter rather than to enjoy the present by giving himself up to his emotions, for which he was conscious that he would justly perish. 51He reminded her of her marriage and her conjugal union with her husband and exhorted her to have more regard for these than for the transitory pleasure of lust, which would later bring her regret that would be painful and would not remedy her sins, and fear of being discovered and the need to remain hidden if the wickedness should not be known. 52On the other hand, association with her husband afforded pleasure without danger and furthermore much self-confidence both before God and before men arising from her conscience. By remaining morally pure she would command greater power over him and would exercise the authority of a mistress toward him, but not with the shame of being a partner in sin. Indeed, it was far better to have confidence in the known deeds of a life well lived than in wickedness kept secret. 53Saying these words and still more that were similar to them, he tried to restrain the impulse of the woman and to turn her passion into reasonableness. But she showed her fervor more impetuously, and throwing her hands upon him, she, abandoning hope of persuading him, wished to compel him. 54Joseph, however, fled in rage, leaving behind his cloak (for, indeed, while she held him, he threw this away and leaped from this room). She became very fearful lest he reveal this to her husband. She, being deeply hurt by his insolence, decided to anticipate him by falsely accusing Joseph to Potiphar and in this manner to 50. though the woman said these things and wept A further romantic extrabiblical touch occurs in the weeping of Potiphar’s wife. 52. self-confidence both before God and before men Whereas in the Bible Joseph exclaims that adultery would be a sin against God (Gen. 39:9), in Josephus’s version he resorts to rational argument in trying to convince Potiphar’s wife to desist from her advances. than in wickedness kept secret In Josephus’s version Joseph takes advantage of the opportunity to preach a sermon to Potiphar’s wife and to the reader about the transient pleasure of lust and the subsequent remorse that she would feel. In making Joseph admonish Potiphar’s wife, Josephus, in effect, transfers to him the role of the nurse, who is Phaedra’s confidant in Euripides’s Hippolytus. 53. to turn her passion into reasonableness A major attribute connected with wisdom, as we see in Thucydides’s portrait (2.60) of the ideal statesman, Pericles, is the ability to persuade. Whereas in Gen. 39:8–9 Joseph’s arguments in refusing the advances of Potiphar’s wife are that he cannot be disloyal to his master and violate the dictates of piety, the Josephan Joseph uses rational arguments in his attempt to turn her passion into the path of reasonableness (so also Philo, Joseph 49, and T. Jos. 7:5). she showed her fervor more impetuously The scene in Josephus is much more passionate than it is in the Bible. Whereas in the latter we do not read of her immediate reaction to Joseph’s rejection of her proposal (Gen. 39:12), Josephus states that she displayed a more violent ardor. 54. Joseph . . . fled in rage The Rabbis (B. Sot. 36b) are divided as to whether Joseph was actually ready to submit to the advances of Potiphar’s wife. In interpreting Gen. 39:11, “one day, when he went into the house to do his work,” Shmuel says that he went to satisfy his carnal desires.

Joseph and Potiphar’s Wife 1167

avenge her having been horribly despised. She believed that to anticipate the accusation was both wise and womanish. 55She sat dejected and disconcerted, feigning, in her anger, that the grief at failing in her lust was due to an attempt at rape. When her husband came and was dismayed at her appearance and asked the reason, she began the accusation of Joseph; “May you die, my husband, or punish a wicked slave who wished to pollute your marriage bed.” . . . 59Giving to his wife credit for being sensible and having condemned Joseph as wicked, he threw him into the dungeon of the criminals. He was even prouder of his wife, bearing witness to her propriety and self-control. 60Joseph, however, putting everything concerning himself in the hands of God, did not apply himself to defending himself or to a precise disclosure of what had happened. In silence he underwent the chains and the distress. He was confident that God, knowing the reason for his misfortune and the truth, would be stronger than those who had bound him; and he straightway received proof of his providence.

55. a wicked slave Whereas in her statement to the men of her house Potiphar’s wife makes a snide remark about the Jewishness of Joseph (“he has brought among us a Hebrew to insult us”; Gen. 39:14), Josephus omits this prejudicial comment and instead concentrates on the romantic aspect. 59. her propriety and self-control There is added irony in Josephus’s extrabiblical remark that after casting Joseph into prison Potiphar was prouder than ever of his wife, testifying to her decorum and sobriety. Of course, as the reader knows, it is her very lack of these qualities that led her to make advances to Joseph and to accuse him of attempted rape. These qualities are precisely those that would more justly apply to Joseph. 60. putting everything concerning himself in the hands of God Here, for the first time in this episode, Josephus introduces God; but whereas in Gen. 39:21 we are told that God was with Joseph and showed him steadfast love, in Josephus it is Joseph who takes the initiative in putting his life totally into God’s hands. in silence he underwent the chains and the distress In an extrabiblical comment, Joseph does not defend himself, but, like the Stoics to whom Josephus may well be appealing, he chooses to submit silently, to suffer unjustly, and to endure even the most extreme penalty.

1168

Louis H. Feldman

The Rape of Dinah Louis H. Feldman In dealing with the rape of Dinah, Josephus was confronted with a dilemma between sympathy for Dinah and condemnation of her brothers, Simeon and Levi, who, according to the Bible (Gen. 34), not only failed to live up to their promise to allow Shechem, the rapist, to marry Dinah, if the males of his nation, the Shechemites, would submit to circumcision, but proceeded to massacre the Shechemites. In Jewish Antiquities (1.337–40), Josephus shows less sympathy for the Shechemites since he adds that the rape occurred at a religious festival, hence a sacrilege. But he also creates more sympathy for Shechem, since he adds that Shechem showed genuine love for Dinah and was ready to give any dowry that Jacob and his sons might ask; and he further adds that the Shechemites graciously offered to open their land to the Israelites and to arrange marriages with them. Whereas the Bible states that Simeon and Levi killed the Shechemites on the third day after the circumcision, when they were in pain, seemingly a cowardly act, Josephus says that they attacked the Shechemites in a surprise military act when they had overly indulged in feasting. Most significantly, Josephus altogether omits the condition that the males be circumcised, and hence there was no promise broken. Rather, their act is simply revenge for the rape of their sister. Moreover, he adds that Simeon and Levi, in massacring the Shechemites, were acting without their father’s permission and that Jacob was stricken with consternation at their deed. Josephus was sensitive to the charge that Jews are illiberal toward non-Jews but he was also sensitive to the charge that Jews actively seek to convert others to Judaism. Hence his silence here about the role of circumcision. See also “Josephus and His Writings” elsewhere in these volumes. Suggested Reading Feldman, L. H. Flavius Josephus: Judean Antiquities 1–4. Leiden: Brill, 2000. —. “Philo, Pseudo-Philo, Josephus, and Theodotus on the Rape of Dinah.” Jewish Quarterly Review 94 (2004): 253–77.

1169

Translation 337Jacob reached the place still now called “Booths” [Hebrew Sukkot], when he came to Sikimon [Hebrew Shechem]. It is a city of the Canaanites. While the Sikimites were celebrating a festival, Dinah—she was Jacob’s only daughter—came into the city in order to see the adornment of the indigenous women. Shechem, the son of the king Hamor, catching sight of her, seduced her through abduction. Being amorously disposed toward her, he implored his father to take the maiden in marriage for him. 338He, having been persuaded, went to Jacob, asking him to give Dinah in lawful marriage to his child, Shechem. Jacob, neither being able to refuse because of the rank of the one appealing to him nor considering it lawful to give his daughter in marriage to a foreigner, decided to ask his permission to hold a council about the

Commentary 337. while the Sikimites were celebrating a festival That the Sikimites (= biblical Shechemites) were holding a festival is Josephus’s addition. This would arouse more sympathy for Dinah, since it was presumably a religious festival; and to be raped at such a time would surely appear to be a sacrilege. The mention of a festival may have come from Theodotus (in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9:22:4). A late Rabbinic tradition (Sefer Hayashar 13; Sekel Tov on Gen. 34:1) likewise speaks of a festival of women. Jacob’s only daughter That Josephus, at the beginning of his narrative of Dinah, mentions, as the Bible does not, that Dinah was Jacob’s only daughter arouses more sympathy for her plight. Shechem . . . seduced her through abduction Shechem would thus be seen in a worse light because the Bible says only that he “took” Dinah and lay with her. being amorously disposed toward her Josephus, in his generally increased respect for non-Jewish leaders,1 by introducing here the romantic element of having Shechem amorously disposed toward Dinah, rather than merely appealing to her emotions, shows greater regard for Shechem by having him actually approach her as a suppliant, rather than merely speak to his father to arrange to have Dinah as his wife. 338. nor considering it lawful to give his daughter in marriage to a foreigner Intermarriage was a delicate topic on which Josephus walked a tightrope, in view of the charges that the Jews were illiberal in their attitude toward non-Jews.2 Moreover, Josephus omits the biblical statement (Gen. 34:7), which would seem to be illiberal, that when Jacob’s sons arrived from the field and heard about the rape of Dinah, they were actually fired deeply with indignation. In particular, non-Jews might well have objected to the statement in the Bible that followed, explaining the reason for this indignation, namely that Shechem had committed an outrage in Israel by lying with a daughter of Jacob, “for such a thing ought not to be done.” Josephus omits totally the negotiations of Hamor with Jacob and his sons. He makes no mention of Hamor’s statement that Shechem longed deeply for Dinah and asked “please” to give her to Shechem as a wife, since such apparently genuine feeling and politeness would have reflected badly on the Israelites if they had refused. In dealing with the request of Hamor for the hand of Dinah (34:8) Josephus carefully balances the fact that it was unlawful for Jacob to marry off his daughter to a foreigner against the fact that the petitioner was of high rank; and so, in an extrabiblical addition, he has him sagely ask Hamor for permission here to hold a council on the matter. Source of Translation: The translation is my own, cited above.

1170 Louis H. Feldman

matters that he requested. 339Therefore, the king departed, hoping that Jacob would permit the marriage, but Jacob, revealing to his children the rape of their sister and the request of Hamor, asked them to hold a consultation as to what it was necessary to do. Most of them kept quiet, being at a loss to decide; but Simeon and Levi, the girl’s brothers, born of the same mother, agreed with each other on some action. 339. the king departed, hoping that Jacob would permit the marriage Josephus makes no mention of the Shechemites’ offer to the Israelites to open the land to them and to arrange marriages with them (Gen. 34:9–10), since this would presumably have aroused the readers’ sympathies for the Shechemites. He likewise omits Shechem’s extremely romantic offer to Jacob and his sons to give whatever dowry, however great, they would ask (34:11–12), since, of course, this would have aroused even more sympathy for Shechem. Simeon and Levi . . . agreed with each other on some action Whereas in the Bible (Gen. 34:13) all the sons of Jacob are described as speaking deceitfully to the Hivites, in Josephus the blame, if there is any, is restricted to Simeon and Levi, since here Jacob—in an extrabiblical addition by Josephus—reveals to his children the rape of their sister and the request of Hamor and asks them to hold a consultation as to what it is necessary to do; and when most of them are quiet, being at a loss as to what to do, it is Simeon and Levi who agree on their plan. Furthermore, Josephus’s audience would have sympathized with these two brothers of Dinah, since, as he adds, they were born of the same mother as Dinah. In addition, whereas in Gen. 34:25–26 Simeon and Levi kill the Hivites on the third day after their circumcision, when they were in pain, and thus may be accused of a cowardly action, in Josephus they attack them in a surprise military action when they had overly indulged in feasting, first killing the guards when they were asleep and then killing all the males but sparing the women. That it was, in an extrabiblical comment, at a festival would remind Josephus’s readers that it was, in a similar extrabiblical comment, at a festival that Dinah had been seduced by Shechem. The punishment would thus appear to be particularly appropriate for the crime. To Roman readers the whole incident might have been reminiscent of the celebrated action, according to the story popularized by Livy (1.58–60), taken by the Romans to avenge the rape of Lucretia by Sextus Tarquinius, the son of King Tarquinius Superbus, through driving Tarquinius Superbus and his sons into exile and establishing a republic in 509 bce. Most significantly, Josephus here omits the condition, recounted at some length in the biblical text (Gen. 34:14–24), that the males of the Shechemites be circumcised, insisted upon by Jacob’s sons, since to give their sister to a man who was uncircumcised would be a disgrace for them, but that if the Hivites would agree to this, they would consent to a general intermarriage between the Israelites and the Hivites. In that case, they would become one people—a proposal that would have struck a responsive chord with a Roman audience that remembered the similar proposal of the Romans to the Sabines after the rape of the Sabine women (Livy 1.9.14–16). Josephus further omits the statement that Hamor and Shechem approved of this proposal and did not delay in implementing it and that, in fact, Shechem was the most respected of all his father’s household (Gen. 34:19). By omitting this Josephus makes the action of Simeon and Levi appear not as treachery in violating an agreement that the Shechemites had entered into but rather as revenge for the rape of their sister. Josephus was quite sensitive about circumcision for two major reasons: first, it is the sign of an everlasting covenant between God and Abraham and Abraham’s descendants (Gen. 17:4–14), in which God guarantees not only that he will make Abraham exceedingly fruitful so that he will be the father of a multitude of

The Rape of Dinah

1171

340While there was a festival and the Shechemites had turned to relaxation and feasting, they, attacking first the guards at night, killed them while they were asleep. Entering the city, they killed every male, and the king and his son together with them, but they spared the women. Having done these things without the consent of their father, they brought back their sister. nations but also in which he promises him and his offspring the whole of the land of Canaan as an everlasting possession; second, the sign of this covenant is the circumcision of every male at the age of eight days and is the sine qua non for a male to join the Israelite people, so that in the words of the biblical text (17:14) “any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.” As a Jew who spent the latter half of his life in the Diaspora and who sought an accommodation with the Romans, Josephus seeks to reduce the centrality of the land of Israel.4 In addition to the omission of reference to the circumcision of the Hivites, Josephus omits the biblical statement (Gen. 34:20–23) made by Hamor and Shechem, apparently completely convinced of the sincerity of the Israelite response, to the people of their city that the Israelites were peaceful people and urging the Hivites to agree to allow them to settle in the land, to trade there, to intermarry with them, and to fulfill the condition demanded by them, namely to circumcise all their males. To have included all of this would certainly have created greater sympathy for the Hivites and would also have illustrated the aggressiveness of the Israelites in seeking proselytes, insisted upon by Jacob’s sons. By omitting this Josephus makes the action of Simeon and Levi appear not as treachery in violating an agreement that the Hivites had entered into but rather as revenge for the rape of their sister. As to Josephus’s omission of the deceit of Simeon and Levi in killing the Hivites after they had fulfilled the condition of circumcision of all the males, Josephus was apparently sensitive to the charge that the Israelites could not be trusted to be honest in keeping their word. 340. while there was a festival This festival, like the one mentioned in Ant. 1.337, is an addition by Josephus. Whereas in Gen. 34:25–26 Simeon and Levi kill the Shechemites on the third day after their circumcision, when they were in pain and thus may be accused of a cowardly action, in Josephus they attack them, in a surprise military move, when they had overly indulged in feasting. without the consent of their father For apologetic reasons, since Jacob was identified as the ancestor of the Jewish people, Josephus takes care to stress that Simeon and Levi, in massacring the Shechemites, acted without their father Jacob’s permission. If we ask why Josephus is so critical of the zealous acts of Simeon and Levi, whereas he approves of the zealousness of Phinehas (Ant. 4.152–55), we may suggest that he is sensitive about relations with non-Jews, whereas he approves of strict enforcement of moral standards with regard to Jews. In Gen. 34:30 Jacob rebukes his sons because their action has brought him personal trouble, and there is no indication that he is really angry with them, let alone aghast at the enormity of their deeds. Perhaps Josephus’s stronger language is influenced by Jacob’s words (49:7) in his blessing of Simeon and Levi (which Ant. 2.194 omits) in which he curses their anger and denominates their wrath as cruel. If we ask how Simeon and Levi were able to overcome the entire adult male population of the Hivites, we may suggest that, according to Josephus, there was a festival, and the Hivites had turned to relaxation and feasting, and Simeon and Levi were able to overcome the Hivites while they were asleep.5

1172 Louis H. Feldman

Notes 1. See L. H. Feldman, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 557–58. 2. See L. H. Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 136–39; and idem, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible, 558. 3. See L. H. Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 300–304. 4. See Feldman Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible, 324–26. 5. Jos. Asen. 23:14 and T. Levi 5:1–3 explain this by noting that their weapons were of divine origin.

The Rape of Dinah

1173

Moses’s Campaign against the Ethiopians Louis H. Feldman In view of Josephus’s promise (Ant. 1.17) that he will neither add anything to nor subtract anything from Scripture in his paraphrase, he nowhere departs from this promise more greatly than in his account of Moses’s military campaign against the Ethiopians in this section of his Jewish Antiquities (2.238–53). He does so primarily in order to explain the reasons why Jews are hated and in order to emphasize the benefits that Jews have given to the people among whom they live. Secondarily, a great leader such as Moses must be presented as a military genius. The Ethiopian campaign is a proving ground for Moses’s later trek through the desert. The sole biblical basis for the lengthy episode of Moses’s Ethiopian campaign is a single verse (Num. 12:1): “And Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses on account of the Cushite woman whom he had married; for he had married a Cushite woman.” One view, found in Exod. Rab. 1:27, is that the Cushite (Ethiopian) woman is Zipporah the Midianite, Moses’s first wife. This would be supported by Demetrius (in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9:29:3) and Ezekiel the Tragedian (59–64), who identify Midian with Ethiopia. Josephus has resorted to this extraordinary expansion for several reasons: 1. This supplies a case history both of the causes of hatred of Jews and of the benefits that the Jews have given to society. 2. Josephus thus shifts the reason for the Pharaoh’s wrath from his umbrage at Moses’s murder of the Egyptian (Exod. 2:11–15), a passage that Josephus omits from his paraphrase, to envy of his military ability. Josephus may be implicitly answering such anti-Jewish writers as Manetho by suggesting that the Egyptians, rather than calumniating the Jews, should be grateful to them for the aid rendered to them by the Jews through Moses, who risked his life to save the Egyptians from the Ethiopian threat. 3. The episode disproves the contention that the Jews are cowards who are militarily inept. Moses turns out to be a brilliant strategist who is fearless in battle against the Ethiopians. Even so great a military leader as the Persian King Cambyses (Herodotus 3.17–26) had failed to conquer Ethiopia. Indeed, the Ethiopians had a reputation for being invincible (Strabo 16.4.4). Even Alexander the Great had failed to overcome them. 4. The biblical text may well make the reader wonder what qualifications a shepherd such as Moses had to lead hundreds of thousands of Israelites in a trek through an unknown desert and in military combat against numerous nations. The Ethiopian campaign turns out to be a proving ground for Moses. 5. Whereas the ibis was considered by the Egyptians to be divine, Josephus por-

1174

trays the ibis as being merely a very useful part of Moses’s strategy to overcome the snakes infesting the desert. 6. The historian must not only inform; he must also entertain. This episode provides romantic interest for Josephus’s readers. 7. There is an apologetic strain, in that Moses abides by his agreement and marries the Ethiopian princess, whereas in the parallel stories of the Greco-Roman legendary and historical traditions, the hero typically betrays the traitoress. As to Josephus’s source, the extant fragments of Artapanus in Eusebius are the closest parallel, but they do not mention Moses’s marriage with the Ethiopian princess. The marriage with an Ethiopian is not found in Rabbinic literature until the 11th century (Tg. Yer. on Num. 12:1). These Rabbinic sources, however, depict Moses as fighting not against but on the side of the Ethiopians and as marrying not the princess but the widow of the Ethiopian king and as reigning as king of Ethiopia for 40 years. Another theory is that he borrowed from Josephon; but though we have several recensions of Josephon, none of them contain any reference to an Ethiopian campaign. The Ethiopians were a permanent, never conquered foe of the Egyptians. We may wonder why Philo, who writes at such length apologetically about Moses in his On the Life of Moses and is particularly concerned to answer the charges of Jew-haters, does not repeat this story, which would have served to answer so many of their contentions. See also “Josephus and His Writings,” elsewhere in these volumes. Suggested Reading Feldman, L. H. Flavius Josephus: Judean Antiquities 1–4. Leiden: Brill, 2000. —. Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible, 402–5. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998. Runnalls, D. “Moses’ Ethiopian Campaign.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 14 (1983): 135–56. Shinan, A. “Moses and the Ethiopian Woman: Sources of a Story in the Chronicles of Moses.” Scripta Hierosolymitana 27 (1978): 66–78.

Translation 238Now Moses, having been born and raised in the manner previously stated, on reaching maturity, made manifest his virtue to the Egyptians. He showed that he had been born for their humiliation and for the exaltation of the Hebrews, making use of the following occasion. 239Ethiopians—they are neighbors of the Egyptians—having invaded their land, carried off and plundered the possessions of the Egyptians. The latter, in their anger, undertook a campaign against them to avenge the contempt. Having been overpowered in battle, some of them fell and others fled shamefully to their own land for safety. 240The Ethiopians, however, followed closely upon them in pursuit. Regarding it as weakness not to overpower all of Egypt, they attacked the land further, and having tasted of its goods they no longer refrained from them. Since Source of Translation: The translation is my own, cited above.

Moses’s Campaign against the Ethiopians 1175

the neighboring regions did not dare to take the field against them when they first attacked, they advanced up to Memphis and to the sea, since none of the cities was able to deter them. 241Pressed hard by this misfortune, the Egyptians turned to oracles and divinations. When God counseled them to take the Hebrew as an ally, the king bade his daughter to offer Moses to become his general. 242When he1 had taken an oath to inflict no injury upon him, she handed him over, judging that the alliance would result in great benefit. She reproached the priests if, after predicting that they would kill him as an enemy, they were not ashamed now to long for his assistance. 243Moses, having been summoned both by Thermouthis and by the king, gladly accepted the task. And the sacred scribes of both peoples rejoiced: the Egyptians that they would overpower the enemy through his ability and then do away with Moses by the same cunning; the Hebrews that it would be possible for them to escape the Egyptians because Moses would be their general. 244Before the enemy had learned

Commentary 241. the king bade his daughter to offer Moses to become his general As we learn from Artapanus (in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9:27:3) the king’s name was Chenephres, the brother and successor of Cheops (compare Herodotus 2.127 and Diodorus Siculus 1.64.1). According to Artapanus, Chenephres was betrothed to Merris, the daughter of Pharaoh Palmanothes. Merris remains unnamed in the account in Exod. 2:1–10, but she is referred to in 1 Chron. 4:18 as Bithiah. Josephus (Ant. 2.243) refers to her as Thermouthis, and Jub. 47:5 refers to her as Tharmuth. According to Artapanus, since she was barren, she adopted a child of one of the Jews and named him Moses. It is striking that whereas in the Septuagint Moses is never called stratēgos (general) or even hēgemōn (leader), in Josephus he is referred to 15 times in Antiquities and once in Against Apion by the former term; in addition, the verb stratēgeō (to be a field commander, to lead an army) is used of him once, and the noun stratēgia (army command, office of supreme commander) twice. Furthermore, the noun hēgemōn is applied to him six times. Indeed, according to Josephus (Ant. 2.268), it was not to him as teacher or legislator that the voice from the burning bush bade Moses to act but rather as general and leader. 242. would kill him as an enemy According to Josephus (Ant. 2.233), Thermouthis put the newborn Moses in the hands of her father, who placed his crown upon the babe’s head in order to please his daughter. Thereupon Moses threw the crown upon the ground and stepped upon it. Exodus Rab. 1:26 and Deut. Rab. 11:10 similarly report that Moses took the crown from the Pharaoh’s head and threw it down. According to Josephus (Ant. 2.234), an Egyptian sacred scribe regarded this as an evil omen and, predicting that the birth of the child would lead to the humiliation of the kingdom, uttered a dreadful scream and rushed headlong to kill him. Thermouthis, however, anticipated the scribe and rescued Moses, and the Pharaoh was hesitant to slay Moses. According to Artapanus, however, the priests had ambivalent feelings toward Moses. He reports (in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9:27:6) that Moses was deemed worthy of divine honor by the priests and was actually referred to by the name of the Greek god Hermes because of his ability to interpret the sacred writings. 243. do away with Moses by the same cunning According to Artapanus (in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9:27:7), when the Pharaoh Chenephres saw Moses’s popularity with the masses, he became jealous and sought to kill him on some pretext. When the Ethiopians went to war against Egypt, he conscripted a band of farmers for Moses and sent him with these troops, supposing that Moses would

1176 Louis H. Feldman

of his approach, he [Moses] took up arms and led his army, making his march not by way of the river but by way of land. There he gave a marvelous demonstration of his ingenuity. 245The land is difficult to traverse because of a multitude of snakes, for it is all-productive of these, since they are not found elsewhere and are nurtured here alone, unusual in their power and harmfulness and strange appearance. Some of them are even winged, so that they cause harm from the ground without being seen and, flying above, inflict injury upon those who do not foresee them. Consequently, he devised a wondrous stratagem for the safety and the harmless march of his army. 246Having prepared baskets made of papyrus, similar to chests, and filling them with ibises, he took them along. This creature is most hostile to serpents, for they flee those that are attacking them; and while withdrawing they are seized by deer exactly as they are and are gulped down. The ibises are tame and are savage to the genus of serpents alone. 247I omit to write more about them since the Greeks are not ignorant of the nature of the ibis. When, therefore, he invaded the land abounding in wild beasts, by means of these he fought off the genus of the snakes, letting them loose upon them and using them to fight in their behalf. Having, therefore, marched in this way he came upon the Ethiopians, who had not perceived them previously. 248Engaging them in battle, he overcame them and deprived them of the hopes that they had against the Egyptians. He proceeded to conquer their cities, and much bloodshed of the Ethiopians ensued. Having tasted the success because of Moses, the army of the Egyptians did not slacken to exert themselves, so that the Ethiopians faced the danger of enslavement and total extermination. 249Finally, having been pushed back into Saba,2 the royal city of Ethiopia, which Cambyses later called Meroe, naming it after his sister, they were besieged. But the place was very be killed by the enemy because his troops were so weak. Nevertheless, his troops prevailed in every battle in a war that lasted for ten years. The Ethiopians, in their admiration for him, came to love him and learned from him the practice of circumcision. Chenephres welcomed Moses back but continued to plot against him, entrusting the task to a certain Chanethothes. Aaron, Moses’s brother, learned of the plot and advised Moses to flee to Arabia. Chanethothes lay in wait for Moses, but Moses anticipated him and killed him, this being Artapanus’s version of how Moses killed the Egyptian who was maltreating Jews (Exod. 2:12). 246. filling them with ibises A parallel may be found in the Palaea historica, which tells how Moses, leading an expedition against the people of India, carried along 3,000 storks to overcome the immense number of serpents along the way. savage to the genus of serpents alone According to Artapanus (in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9:27:9), Moses consecrated the ibis in the city of Hermopolis because of its reputation for killing those animals that are harmful to humans. 247. Greeks are not ignorant of the nature of the ibis Herodotus (2.75–76) describes in detail the appearance of two types of ibis. He says that he himself went to a place in Arabia not far from the town of Buto in his curiosity to learn about the winged serpents that they kill. There he saw countless bones and backbones of serpents. At the beginning of spring, winged serpents, he notes, are said to fly from Arabia toward Egypt; but the ibises encounter them and kill them. He remarks that both the Arabians and the Egyptians greatly honor the ibis for this service. 249. later called Meroe Herodotus (2.29; so also Strabo 17.2.2) states that Meroe is a great city that is said to be the capital of all Ethiopia. According to Artapanus (in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9:27:16), Moses named the city after his adoptive mother, Merris. According to Strabo (17.1.5.790) she was Cambyses’s wife.

Moses’s Campaign against the Ethiopians 1177

difficult to take by siege, since the Nile surrounded and encircled it; and other rivers, the Astapus and Astaboras, made it difficult for those who tried to cross the current to fight against it. 250The city that is within is inhabited like an island with a strong wall surrounding it. As a bulwark against enemies it has the rivers and great embankments in the midst of the wall, so as to be free from inundation when the rivers are borne too violently. These, indeed, made the capture of the city difficult even for those who had crossed the rivers. 251Something like the following, therefore, occurred to Moses, as he was bearing the idleness of the army with displeasure, for the enemy did not dare to engage in battle. 252Tharbis was the daughter of the king of the Ethiopians. Observing Moses leading his army near the walls and fighting courageously, she marveled at the inventiveness of his undertakings. She believed that for the Egyptians, who had earlier despaired of their freedom, he was responsible for their success, while for the Ethiopians, who had prided themselves on their successes against them, he was responsible for their danger in the extreme, she fell madly in love with him. When passion got the better of her, she sent to him the most trustworthy of her servants to enter into discussion about marriage. 253When he accepted the proposal on condition of her surrendering the city and gave pledges on oath, indeed, that he would take her as a wife and that, having conquered the city, he would not transgress the agreement, the deed anticipated the words. After the annihilation of the Ethiopians, Moses, giving thanks to God, contracted the marriage and led the Egyptians back to their land. Astapus The Blue Nile. 252. Tharbis The story of Tharbis, the princess who betrayed her city to the conqueror because of her love for him, is similar to that of Scylla, the daughter of Nisus, the legendary king of Megara, the fate of whose city depended on his red or purple lock of hair. Scylla, like Tharbis, cut off the lock of hair, thus betraying the city to the besieging general Minos either for a bribe (Aescylus, Cho. 612–22) or for love (Ovid, Metam. 8.1–151). daughter of the king In the Chronicles of Moses the wife of the king of the Ethiopians is given to Moses. 253. led the Egyptians back to their land Josephus’s account seems to be contradictory, since, on the one hand, Moses is presented as conquering Ethiopia and leading back the Ethiopian princess and, on the other hand, he is the liberator of Egypt, subjected to jealousy there, with nothing further said about the Ethiopian princess.

Notes 1. The majority of manuscripts read “they.” 2. One of the sons of Ham’s son Cush (Gen. 10:7) is named Sheba, whence the connection of the Queen of Sheba and Ethiopia.

1178

Louis H. Feldman

The Sending of the Spies Louis H. Feldman The most striking change, as compared with the Bible (Num. 13–14), in Josephus’s account of the episode of the scouts in Jewish Antiquities (3.300–316), is the buildup of Moses as a planner, general, and fearless leader of a nation of complainers. Most significantly, it is Moses’s idea rather than God’s to send the scouts. However, aware of the charge that Moses was acting tyrannically, Josephus strikingly has regard for the democratic process in that the Israelites rather than Moses select the scouts. Josephus is sensitive to the charge of superstition and thus avoids adding a letter to a name in order to change a name. He avoids undue exaggeration as hostile to credibility. He is sensitive to the charge of outright theft and hence omits Moses’s instruction to the scouts to take from the fruit of the land of Canaan. He is very sensitive to the charge that the Israelites were punished for accepting the report of the majority of the scouts and insists that this shows the ingratitude of the Israelites for all that God had done for them. He emphasizes the fickleness of the Israelites in their readiness to stone Moses and Moses’s courage in confronting them and in calming them as a true leader who did not dissociate himself from the sufferings of his people. See also “Josephus and His Writings,” elsewhere in these volumes. Suggested Reading Feldman, L. H. Flavius Josephus: Judean Antiquities 1–4. Leiden: Brill, 2000. —. “Josephus on the Spies (Num. 13–14).” Internationales Josephus-Kolloquium Paris 2001, Münsteraner Judaistische Studien 12 (2001): 22–41.

Translation 300From there Moses, leading them up to a place called Pharanx, which is near the boundaries of the

Commentary 300. from there Hazeroth, according to Num. 11:35. In the Bible (13:1) there is no indication of the background of the decision to send spies into Canaan. Nor is there any indication of the connection between this decision and what precedes, namely the punishment inflicted upon Miriam for her criticism of Moses for marrying an Ethiopian woman (12:1). In Josephus this episode comes immediately after the Israelites complain about the lack of food and the appearance of the quails (Ant. 3.295–99). This juxtaposition emphasizes the degree to which the Israelites needlessly complain, whereas faith in God fully guarantees their future. Pharanx The location of Pharanx (Hebrew Paran, the wilderness south of Israel, west of Edom, north of the wilderness of Sinai) and its nature is Josephus’s addition to Num. 12:16, which merely mentions the name. Source of Translation: The translation is my own, cited above.

1179

Canaanites and difficult to live in, gathered the multitude in assembly. Standing up he said, “Since God has decided to bestow two blessings upon you, freedom and possession of a blessed land, you already have the one, since he has given it, and the other you will forthwith receive. 301We are sitting on the boundaries of the Canaanites. Not only neither king nor city, but not even their entire nation gathered together, will prevent us henceforth from advancing. Let us, therefore, prepare for the task. For not without a fight will they give up the land to us, but having been deprived of it in great contests. 302Let us send scouts who gathered the multitude in assembly Josephus’s extrabiblical additions include Moses gathering the multitude in assembly and the entire contents of his speech. In the Bible (Num. 13:17–20), when Moses arrives at the borders of Canaan, he does not speak to the Israelites generally but merely gives direct instructions to the scouts who are to spy out the land. 302. let us send scouts Whereas in the Bible it is God’s idea to send scouts (Num. 13:1–2), Josephus, ever seeking to build up the stature of Moses as a military planner, attributes the plan to Moses (so also Philo, Moses 1.221, and Num. Rab. 16:8.). There is an apparent contradiction between Num. 13:1–2, in which God directs Moses to send the scouts into Canaan, and Deut. 1:22–23, in which the Israelites suggest this to Moses. The Rabbis recognize this problem and attempt to reconcile these verses, whereas Philo and Josephus ignore Num. 13:1–2.

1180

Louis H. Feldman

will ascertain the excellence of the land and the amount of power that they have. But let us all be of one mind, and let us hold in honor God, who is our helper and ally in all matters.” who will ascertain the excellence of the land Whereas in the Bible (Num. 13:1–2) no background or reasoning or expectation is presented in God’s instructions to Moses to send scouts into Canaan, in Josephus, Moses, the commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the Israelites, presents that background as to why scouts are needed to investigate the richness of the land and the strength of the forces of the enemy. In the Bible (13:17–20) these instructions are given by Moses to the scouts after they have been selected. In Josephus Moses explains to the people before selecting the scouts why he is doing so and thus prepares them for what will ensue and raises their morale accordingly. let us all be of one mind Josephus’s word, “be of one mind,” seldom appears in Josephus in the pedestrian sense of “to agree” or “to be unanimous.” Rather, it is usually a theological term, indicating unity of thought and behavior that characterizes genuine Jews.1 Especially in Jewish War Josephus stresses that the opposite of this word, that is, dissension among the rebellious Jews, leads to collapse. Elsewhere he appeals to his politically minded audience by stressing the theme of the disastrous danger of civil strife, so familiar to readers of Thucydides’s description (3.82–84) of revolution at Corcyra. This theme would have struck a responsive chord in many of Josephus’s readers, who might well have been acquainted with the terrible consequences of the lawlessness brought on by the plague in Athens (Thucydides 2.53.1). The Romans, who themselves had experienced a century of constantly recurring civil strife from the struggle of the Senate against the Gracchi, of Sulla against Marius, of Caesar against Pompey, of Brutus against Antony, and of Antony against Octavian, and who had a great tradition of respect for law going back at least to the Twelve Tables, would surely have appreciated such an emphasis on the dire consequences of internecine bloodshed.2 Clearly, Josephus’s emphasis on the importance of unity grew out of Josephus’s own experience in the war against the Romans, in which he stresses over and over again how disastrous for the Jews was their disunity. He adds this point here to protect Moses from the charge that it was, after all, he who had initiated the idea of sending scouts. let us hold in honor God Normally, Josephus diminishes or even omits the role of God in decisionmaking. The chief exception is, as here, when the wrong decision may lead to civil strife. This addition to the biblical text (Num. 13:17) stresses Moses’s piety. In the Bible we read only that Moses sends scouts to spy out the land. Josephus’s Moses, in his speech to the entire people, also exhorts them to be on one mind and to hold God in lasting honor. who is our helper This addition by Josephus prepares the reader to justify what God does to the majority of spies who give up hope of conquering the Canaanites, for it implies that if, indeed, they had recalled all that God had done for them in afflicting the Egyptians with the ten plagues, in enabling the Israelites to leave Egypt, in splitting the Sea of Reeds and defeating the Egyptians, in giving them the means to survive in the totally barren desert by feeding them with manna and quails, and in giving them the power to defeat the Amalekites utterly, they should have had faith that God would enable them to fulfill the promise that he had given them to lead them into the Promised Land.

The Sending of the Spies 1181

303When Moses had said these words, the multitude rewarded him with appreciation. They chose twelve scouts from the most notable men, one from each tribe, who, passing through from the frontier in Egypt 303. they chose twelve scouts In the Bible (Num. 13:16), Philo (Moses 1.221) and Pseudo-Philo (L.A.B. 15:1), Moses selects the twelve spies, whereas in Josephus the Israelites, more democratically, do so. Again, whereas in the Bible (Num. 13:17–20) and in Philo (Moses 1.222) Moses indicates to the scouts what they are to investigate, in Josephus Moses, more democratically, indicates directly to the people what matters the scouts are to investigate. Apparently, Josephus is very sensitive to the charge made by Zimri (Ant. 4.146) that Moses gave orders tyrannically. Josephus (J.W. 4.397) says that the three greatest of calamities are war, tyranny, and faction, but that to the populace war was comparatively the mildest. In effect, this is intended to reply to the charge that, since it was Moses’s idea to send scouts, he had to bear responsibility for their report. twelve scouts One of the scouts mentioned in the Bible is Hoshea the son of Nun (Num. 13:8). The Bible then adds (13:16) that Moses called Hoshea Joshua. Josephus omits this change of name, as he does the changes of name of Abram to Abraham and of Sarai to Sarah. We may surmise that Josephus omitted the change because one of the charges against the Jews, even by someone such as Plutarch (Superst. 8.169c), who was relatively sympathetic to them, was that they were superstitious. Thus, to the Greeks, the addition of an alpha to the name of Abram (Gen. 17:5) would seem difficult to comprehend, as Philo’s efforts (Names 66–76) to explain the matter make clear. The change of a single letter in the name of Sarai to Sarah would similarly seem difficult. The same would be true of the change of the name of Hoshea to Joshua. On the other hand, the change of name of Jacob to Israel and of Joseph to Zaphenath-Paneah in giving a person a completely different alternate name, just as Paris is also known as Alexander and Ascanius is also called Iulus, is not regarded as superstitious. Those appointed to high positions were customarily given names reflecting their newly gained importance. On the other hand, Josephus may well have been sensitive to the scoffing, noted by Philo (Names 60–62), of those who ridiculed such a change of name as that from Abram to Abraham. Hence, Josephus simply omits the change of name of Hoshea to Joshua. the most notable men Josephus omits the names of the twelve scouts (Num. 13:4–15). In his rewriting of the Bible, Josephus, like a rhetorician, is constantly concerned with how his work will sound to the ear. Thus he is eager to avoid burdening his readers with long lists of names, even though this would add to the historicity of his account. For example, he omits the long list of the descendants of Esau (Gen. 36:20–42; Ant. 2.5). Furthermore, he declares (2.176–77) that he is inclined to omit, because of their strangeness to a Greek ear, the list of names of the 70 descendants of Jacob who went down to Egypt (Gen. 46:8–26); he ends up citing the names, but it is only to refute those opponents of the Jews who had contended that the Jews were of Egyptian rather than of Mesopotamian origin. Again (Ant. 7.369), whereas 1 Chron. 27 gives a long list of the names of David’s army officers and administrators, Josephus asserts that he has not thought it necessary to mention their names. Likewise, he omits the names of the families that returned to Jerusalem from Babylonian captivity (Ezra 2:2–61; 1 Esd. 5:4–38; Ant. 11.68), the names of those Jews who sent away their foreign wives at the request of Ezra (Ezra 10:18–44; 1 Esd. 9:18–35; Ant. 11.152), the names of King Ahasuerus’s seven chamberlains (Esther 1:10; Ant. 11.190), the names of his seven counselors (Esther 1:14; Ant. 11.192), and the names of Haman’s ten sons (Esther 9:7–9; Ant. 11.289). Similarly, presumably for the same reason, Josephus (12.57) states that he thinks that it is unnecessary to report the names of the 70 elders who translated the Pentateuch into Greek.

1182

Louis H. Feldman

all of Canaan, reached the city of Amathe and Mount Libanos. After searching out thoroughly the nature of the land and of its inhabitants they returned after spending 40 days on the entire task. 304Moreover, they brought the products that the land bore; and through the beauty of these and through the abundance of blessings that they reported the land had, they roused the multitude to war. But they terrified them, in turn, with the impossibility of the conquest, stating that the rivers were impossible to cross because of their size and depth, that the mountains were impossible for travelers, and that the cities were mighty with ramparts and with the strength of surrounding walls. 305In Hebron, they kept on declaring, they had

Amathe This is Hamath on the river Orontes in Syria. The Hebrew (Num. 13:21) says not “Hamath” but “on the road to” Hamath. It is, nevertheless, hard to suppose that the scouts went so far north, though this is apparently what Josephus thought. The reference may be to Hamat Gader in the valley of the Yarmuk River near the Sea of Galilee.3 Mount Libanos This is the Jebel Libnan mountain range in Syria and is an indication that the northern border of Canaan was considered to extend to southern Syria. Libanos is not mentioned in the biblical account (Num. 13:21–22), which states that the scouts spied the land from the wilderness of Zin to Rehob, near the entrance of Hamath, and that they went up into the Negeb and came to Hebron. after searching out thoroughly the nature of the land If, as Josephus says, the spies spent only 40 days on the entire task they could not have searched out thoroughly the nature of the land and of its inhabitants. One cannot avoid the impression that if they did their job thus they did it superficially. If so, one might well criticize Moses for asking them to do such a huge task in so short a period of time. But the Bible does not indicate such instructions. Apparently, the time frame was left open. Hence, it was the decision of the scouts themselves to attempt such a thorough investigation in such a short period of time, and consequently, they, and not Moses, deserve criticism. Moreover, the report that the scouts bring back is self-contradictory: on the one hand, they, in an extrabiblical comment, in their positive enthusiasm, rouse the people to war. On the other hand, in an authorial comment, they actually terrify the multitude; and, in an extrabiblical remark, they are specific in indicating what frightened them, namely that the rivers were downright impossible to cross because of their size and depth, the mountains were impossible for travelers to climb, and the cities were not merely very greatly fortified but, more specifically, were mighty with ramparts and with the strength of surrounding walls. To give credibility to their statements, the scouts, in Josephus’s report, omit the obvious exaggeration in the statement that all whom they saw were huge, as well as the comment that they felt like grasshoppers, compared with the huge size of the inhabitants, and that the land devours its inhabitants. If they had included such exaggerations we may surmise that this would have undermined the credibility of the whole report; and so the net result was that their frightening report seemed more credible. We may note that similarly, in other places in his reworking of the biblical narrative, Josephus avoids exaggeration and the grotesque.4 304. brought the products that the land bore In the Bible (Num. 13:20) Moses tells the scouts to take from the fruit of the land of Canaan. This raises the question whether this would not be outright theft. We should not be surprised, therefore, that Philo and Josephus, aware of such a charge, do not have Moses thus instruct the scouts. Philo (Moses 1.230) does say that they did pluck some of the fruits, and Josephus here says that they brought back the products of Canaan; but the scouts apparently did so not because Moses had ordered them to do so but on their own initiative.

The Sending of the Spies 1183

encountered the descendants of giants. And the scouts, having observed that the possessions in Canaan were greater than all that they had come upon since the departure from Egypt, were both themselves dismayed and tried to make the multitude thus. 306After what they had heard, they supposed that the conquest of the land was impossible; and having been dismissed from the assembly, they continued to lament with their wives and children, as if God had helped them not at all with action but had promised only with speech. 307Again they reproached Moses and complained loudly against him and his brother Aaron the high priest. They spent a miserable night with slanders against them, and in the morning they hastened together to the assembly, having in mind to stone Moses and Aaron and to return to Egypt. . . . 306. they continued to lament with their wives and children The question might well be raised whether God was justified in deciding that the entire multitude should be condemned to die in the desert when all that they had done was to accept the majority report of a committee, whether appointed by God, Moses, or themselves, especially since in a democratic society, the majority—in this case, ten versus two—should have prevailed, as we see in the traditional exegesis of the scriptural phrase (Exod. 23:2), “follow the multitude,” as formulated in the Rabbinic dictum (B. Ber. 9a): “Where there is a controversy between an individual and the many, the halakah follows the many.” Consequently, the Rabbis (B. BM 59a) insisted that even if a heavenly voice declares that the law is in accordance with the minority, the view of the majority must prevail. A clue to the answer may be seen in the fact that whereas the Bible (Num. 14:1) says that upon receiving the report of the majority of the scouts the people wept, Josephus here says that they wept, together with their wives and children, that is, that the report was accepted by all the people. Josephus stresses that this demonstrates the utter ingratitude of the people in forgetting all that God had done for them and his fulfillment of every promise, including their arrival in and promise of the conquest of the land of Israel. Moreover, we may wonder at God’s condemnation, to die in the plague, of the ten scouts who had brought the majority report (14:36–37), since a plague is likely to spread to innocent people also. Josephus, realizing that this would raise the issue of theodicy, simply omits mention of the plague altogether. 307. having in mind to stone Moses and Aaron The offense of the Israelite multitude is far greater in Josephus than in the Bible in that in the latter they were ready to pelt Joshua and Caleb, the two members of the scouts who dissented from the majority, whereas in Josephus they blamed Moses and Aaron, loading them with abuse, and even intended to stone them, though it was not they who had given the report. Josephus, preferring to put the emphasis on Moses and Aaron and the attempt to stone them, omits totally the decision of the congregation to stone Caleb and Joshua. In short, in Josephus the populace is rebelling not only against God but also, more especially, against Moses and Aaron. Josephus has them fall to the ground not before but after mention is made of Joshua and Caleb’s attempt to calm the multitude (3.310), in order not to damage the reputation of Moses as the fearless charismatic leader who refused to submit to despair and did so only after the final desperate appeal by Caleb and Joshua. One wonders whether Moses and Aaron did this in order to beg for mercy from the people. This would surely not be a sign of leadership. Rather, we would have expected them to stand up to the congregation, in order to refute what had been told to them, and to instill in them the courage to reject the view of the majority of the scouts. Instead, God turns to Moses, and Moses turns to God (Num. 14:11–35). Josephus, in his version (Ant. 3.310), insists that in prostrating themselves, Moses and Aaron

1184

Louis H. Feldman

311Moses, summoning courage, approached the multitude and revealed that God, roused by their insolence, would exact punishment, not indeed in keeping with their misdeeds, but such as fathers inflict upon their children as an admonition. 312He said that God had reminded him, when he entered the Tabernacle and was loudly bewailing his forthcoming destruction by them, that, having received so many benefits and having partaken of such great kindnesses, they had proven ungrateful toward him, and that having been induced by the timidity of the scouts they had regarded their words as truer than his promises. 313For this reason he would not destroy all of them, nor would he annihilate their race, which he held in greater honor than all the rest of humankind. However, he said that he would not permit them to conquer the land of Canaan or to partake of its prosperity, 314but that he would cause them, homeless and without a country, to pass their lives in the wilderness for 40 years, paying this penalty for their transgression. “However, he promised to transmit the land to your children and to make them masters of the good things partaking of which you deprived yourselves due to your lack of self-control.” were beseeching God not on behalf of their own salvation but to free the multitude from its ignorance and to pacify their feelings. 311. Moses, summoning courage, approached the multitude It is not God who must be the central figure in this drama. On the contrary, exactly as we would expect, it is Moses who now summons the courage to confront the multitude and reveals to them that God, aroused by their insolence, will exact punishment. Nevertheless, Josephus is aware that some of his readers will be critical of God for losing his temper, so to speak, and overreacting in a fit of anger. Hence, Josephus immediately adds that God acted not in keeping with the people’s misdeeds, but in a way reminiscent of fathers who inflict punishment upon their children as an admonition. In the Bible God, in his indignation with the Israelites, tells Moses that he will inflict a pestilence upon them and that he will thereafter create a greater and mightier nation out of him (Num. 14:12). Moses (14:13– 19) answers God effectively, since he asserts that when the Egyptians hear of this they will say that the reason why God killed the people is that he lacked the power to bring them into their land. God is then persuaded by Moses’s argument. To say the least, this seems to reflect badly on God and appears to indicate that Moses is more merciful than God. Josephus here, apparently aware of the theological problem, omits the whole passage. Instead, he (Ant. 3.310) does not criticize God at all or imply that his reputation will be damaged. Rather, despite the ugly mood of the multitude, Moses and Aaron, we are told in this extrabiblical addition by Josephus, instead of panicking, show their compassion for the people, their ability to analyze the cause of their depression, and their own true leadership by supplicating God to rid the populace of their ignorance and to calm their spirits (Ant. 3.310). In an extrabiblical passage, God reminds Moses about the benefits that the Israelites had received from him and about their ungratefulness (3.312). For Josephus the trait of showing gratitude is of crucial importance.5 In his attention to the hubris of the Israelites, Josephus is apparently thinking of the contemporary situation in which the revolutionaries, whom he so despised, showed ingratitude to the pax Romana and rebelled against Roman authority. 314. he would cause them . . . to pass their lives in the wilderness for 40 years Josephus omits the biblical statement (Num. 14:34) that the 40 years that the Israelites are condemned to wander in the wilderness correspond to the 40 days during which they spied out the land of Canaan, such a calculus being unworthy of God in Josephus’s eyes.

The Sending of the Spies 1185

315After Moses had spoken these words in accordance with God’s will, the multitude fell into grief and distress. They implored Moses to become their reconciler with God, to free them from wandering in the wilderness, and to provide cities for them. But he kept asserting that God would not approve of such an attempt, for God had not been brought, with the fickleness of humans, to such anger against them but had condemned them after deliberation. 316One should not disbelieve that Moses, being a solitary man, calmed so many myriads of angry men and led them back to a milder mood. For God, being present with him, prepared the multitude to submit to his words; and having often failed to listen to him, they came to know, from their having fallen into misfortune, that disobedience is disadvantageous. 316. one should not disbelieve that Moses, being a solitary man, calmed so many myriads Josephus, aware that readers might ask why Moses did not try to convince God to retract his decision to cause the Israelites to wander in the desert for 40 years, insists that Moses did not dissociate himself from the sufferings of his people. Rather, he says, Moses calmed the huge throng of angry people and, like a true leader, led them back to a milder mood. One surmises that Josephus is thinking of his own ability, as general in Galilee, to pacify angry crowds, despite his isolation (Life 100, 141–42, 146–48, 388).

Notes 1. S. Mason, Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees: A Composition-Critical Study (Leiden: Brill, 1991), 171–73. 2. The theme of the dreadful effects of anarchy and civil war is a central motif in both Jewish War and Antiquities. Thus we may note, for example, the striking coincidence that the phrase that Josephus uses to describe Jeroboam’s sedition, namely that he was “ambitious of great things” (Ant. 8.209), is similar to that which he uses to describe both the arch-revolutionary, John of Gischala (J.W. 2.587), and Josephus’s literary archrival, Justus of Tiberias, who was “ambitious for newer things” (Life 36); see L. H. Feldman, “Josephus’ Portrait of Jeroboam,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 31 (1993): 43–46. Very pointedly, he contrasts the brutal treatment by these “tyrants” of their fellow countrymen with the clemency that the Romans showed toward the Jews, though the Jews were an alien race (J.W. 1.27). One of the leitmotifs of both Jewish War and Josephus’s autobiography is that it was civil strife that cost the Jews most heavily in the war against the Romans. In connection with his own command in Galilee he notes that the principal instigator of the mob claiming that Josephus was a traitor was a certain Jesus son of Sapphias, the chief magistrate of Tiberias, whom Josephus describes as “unrivaled in fomenting sedition and revolution” (Life 134). 3. É. Nodet, Flavius Josèphe: Les Antiquités Juives (Paris: Cerf, 1990), 2.187n6. 4. See L. H. Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 486; and idem, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 173. 5. See Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible, 123–24.

1186

Louis H. Feldman

The Revolt of Korah Louis H. Feldman One of the greatest threats to Moses’s leadership was the revolt led by Korah (Num. 16). In Jewish Antiquities 4.14–58, Josephus, like the Rabbis, emphasizes Korah’s wealth and his ability as a speaker. Like Philo, he stresses that Korah’s charge against Moses is nepotism, as seen in the choice of Moses’s brother, Aaron, to be high priest and that Aaron was chosen in an undemocratic fashion. The most damning charge, as found in Josephus’s addition and as cited also by the Rabbis, is that the laws were not divine in origin but were invented by Moses himself. Josephus, in turn, portrays Korah as a typical demagogue who pretends to be concerned with the public welfare, whereas actually he is totally selfish. Josephus’s Moses, on the other hand, appealing to Stoics in his audience, uses familiar Stoic terminology, emphasizing that all is directed by divine providence and that nothing happens by chance. Moreover, he was aware that many in his audience would regard Korah’s miraculous end as violating scientific expectation and would be unable to accept the biblical text’s statement that the earth swallowed up those who supported Korah. Hence, he paints the scene more scientifically as an earthquake. Whereas the Bible presents the seemingly contradictory view that Korah’s followers were consumed by the earth and by fire, Josephus is in accord with a Rabbinic view that Korah’s followers were swallowed up by fire. See also “Josephus and His Writings,” elsewhere in these volumes. Suggested Reading Feldman, L. H. Flavius Josephus: Judean Antiquities 1–4, 333–49. Leiden: Brill, 2000. —. “Josephus’ Portrait of Korah.” Old Testament Essays 6 (1993): 399–426.

Translation 14Korah, one of the Hebrews who was among the most distinguished both in ancestry and in wealth, was

Commentary 14. wealth The statement that Korah was distinguished in wealth is Josephus’s extrabiblical addition. Besides two references to Korah’s wealth in Ant. 4.14, it is mentioned in three other places (4.19, 25, 26). In the last of these passages Moses readily acknowledges that Korah surpasses both himself and Aaron in the magnitude of his possessions. Like Josephus, the Rabbis (Num. Rab. 10:3) stress the immensity of Korah’s wealth. Wealth is regarded by the Rabbis as one of the prerequisites for a prophet (B. Ned. 38a). According to Rabbi Levi, the mere keys of Korah’s treasure-house actually required 400 mules to transport them (B. Pes. 119a). Source of Translation: The translation is my own, cited above.

1187

an able speaker and most persuasive in dealing with crowds. Seeing that Moses was established in extraordinary honor, he was hostile through envy, for he happened to be a fellow tribesman and was embittered because he claimed that he was more deserving to enjoy this glory by virtue of his being wealthier and not inferior in ancestry. 15Among the Levites, who were his kinsmen, and especially among his kinsmen, he inveighed against Moses. He said that it was dreadful to overlook that Moses was hunting to procure glory for himself and was maliciously pretending to obtain this in the name of God. He said that Moses had given the priesthood to his brother Aaron, contrary to the laws, not by the common decree of the multitude but by his own vote, 16and that, in the manner of tyrants, he was conferring honors upon whomever he wished. He said that hidden outrage was more shocking than the use of force because it robbed of power not only those who were unwilling but those who were not even aware of the conspiracy. . . . 19[Korah said:] “If God had judged that it was proper to hand over the honor [of the chief priesthood] to someone from the tribe of Levi, I am more deserving to obtain this, being on the same level as Moses in ancestry, and superior in wealth and age. But if it should go to the oldest of the tribes, the tribe of Reuben would, of course, have the honor, with Datham, Abiram, and Pelet obtaining it, for they are the oldest of those belonging to this tribe, and powerful through abundance of wealth.” able speaker The statement that Korah was an able speaker and persuasive in addressing crowds is Josephus’s addition. One of the four qualities of the ideal statesman, as we see in the speech that Thucydides (2.60.6) ascribes to Pericles, is the ability to present one’s policy clearly and convincingly before the people. It is, therefore, significant that when Josephus introduces the figure of Korah one of the first points that he makes about him is his ability as a capable speaker. This makes him a formidable opponent of Moses, inasmuch as this is a quality that Josephus ascribes to Moses himself (Ant. 3.13; 4.328). The Rabbis (Num. Rab. 16:1) also emphasize Korah’s power of speech. 15. he inveighed Not only is the speech of Korah expanded from a mere 14 words in the Hebrew to 194 words, but its rhetoric becomes considerably more violent. To the Romans, with their great tradition of respect for the laws, the charge that Moses had acted in defiance of the laws would be especially effective. Likewise, the Romans, who felt so strongly about honorable dealings and who looked with disdain upon “Carthaginian faith” (treachery), would certainly have understood Korah’s charge, upon which Josephus dwells at such length, that Moses had committed an outrage clandestinely. had given the priesthood to his brother The charge of nepotism is also found in Philo’s Rewards 78. his own vote This charge is Josephus’s extrabiblical addition. According to Tanhuma Korah 4, Korah reproached Moses for inventing the laws themselves. So also Zimri, in his attack on Moses (Ant. 4.146). 16. he was conferring honors upon whomever he wished In Rabbinic literature, as in Josephus’s version, Korah is jealous that Moses bypassed him and appointed his cousin Aaron as high priest (Num. Rab. 18:4). 19. I am more deserving In the Bible Korah’s revolt is not motivated by jealousy of Aaron’s high priesthood as such; rather, Korah claims, the method by which Aaron was chosen to be high priest was undemocratic. Like Josephus, the Rabbinic tradition stresses as a motive for the revolt Korah’s desire for the high priesthood (Tanhuma Pequdei 1).

1188

Louis H. Feldman

20Now in saying this, Korah wished to seem to care for the common good, but in fact he was manipulating to have the honor transferred by the multitude to himself. And he spoke these words insidiously with fine-sounding pretext. . . . 22The masses were provoked and bent on stoning Moses, and they assembled in disorderly fashion with clamor and uproar. Standing before the Tabernacle of God they called aloud to drive out the tyrant and for the masses to be rid of their slavery to a person who enjoyed imperious decrees under the pretext of their coming from God. . . . 34[Moses proposed the following:] “On coming together, you will burn the incense in the presence of all the people; and when you have burnt your incense, whosoever sacrifice God judges more pleasing, he shall be elected priest for you, releasing me from the slander of having shown favoritism in conferring this honor upon my brother.” . . . 47[Moses spoke to God:] “Demonstrate now that all things are governed by your providence and that nothing happens by itself and that they come to their goal through your directed will. Show that you care for those who will assist the Hebrews by executing vengeance on Abiram and Datham, who reproach your insensibility as if you are overcome by my craft.” . . . 51When he had spoken these words and while he was weeping, suddenly the earth shook, and a tossing motion was agitated upon it, just as when a wave is tossed through the force of a wind and all the people are afraid. After a crash and a frightful roar had burst forth against their tents, the earth sank and carried down into it all that was dear to them. . . . 20. manipulating Korah is portrayed as a typical demagogue who wishes to make it appear that he is concerned with the public welfare, whereas in reality he is but scheming to have the honor for himself. Mishnah Avot 5:17 cites the rebellion of Korah as the chief example of a controversy that is not “for the sake of heaven” but for selfish reasons. 22. bent on stoning Moses So also the Rabbinic tradition (Num. Rab. 18:4). imperious decrees Like Josephus, the main point stressed by the Rabbinic tradition (Midr. Ps. 1:15) concerning Korah is his attack upon the Torah itself and his attempt to disprove its divine origin. 34. elected priest Josephus employs the language of a political election when he speaks of the election of a priest. The word here used for “elected” literally means to stretch out one’s hand for the purpose of giving one’s vote in the assembly. 47. all things are governed by your providence When Josephus introduces here the theme that all is directed by divine providence (pronoia), his aim is not primarily theological but philosophical. That he seeks to please his Roman audience, composed largely of Stoics, is suggested by the phrase that follows immediately thereafter, namely that the incident proves that nothing happens fortuitously (automatōs). This terminology clearly reflects the Stoic conception of providence and is intended as an attack on the Epicurean notion that the world runs by its own movement. 51. the earth shook In his reworking of the biblical narrative Josephus avoids undue exaggeration and the grotesque as might provoke the ridicule of a later satirist, such as Lucian. So where Num. 16:31–32 has the earth opening its mouth and swallowing up Korah and his followers, in Josephus’s version the event is more scientifically presented as an earthquake, which he then proceeds to compare dramatically to a wave tossed by the violence of the wind. He gives further details as well—a crash and a burst of booming sound.

The Revolt of Korah

1189

56All of them, both the 250 [followers of Korah] and Korah, were annihilated when a fire darted upon them, so that even their bodies vanished. Aaron alone remained alive, not at all harmed by the fire, because it was God who sent it to burn those whom it was necessary to burn. 56. their bodies vanished Josephus tries to avoid the apparent contradictions in his biblical source. One such seeming contradiction concerns the manner in which Korah and his company died. On the one hand, the biblical text states that the earth opened its mouth and swallowed up all the men who belonged to Korah (Num. 16:32). Three verses later, however, we are told that fire came forth from the Lord and consumed the 250 men who had offered incense (16:35), presumably the 250 followers of Korah (16:2). Josephus neatly resolves the problem by asserting that the earth swallowed up Korah’s associate, Datham, and the latter’s followers, whereas Korah’s company was consumed by fire. Rabbinic tradition, bound by adherence to the biblical text, generally asserts that Korah was swallowed up by the earth. The only Rabbinic texts that explicitly state that Korah and his company were consumed by fire are Num. Rab. 4:20 and its parallels.

1190

Louis H. Feldman

The Story of Balaam Louis H. Feldman Josephus, addressing critical readers of the Bible, attempts to solve contradictions, such as the Bible’s apparent conflation of Moabites and Midianites. As one who had a close relationship with the Romans, he seeks to refute the view that the Israelites were hated by whole nations rather than by individuals. He very deliberately attributes the confrontation of the Israelites with the Midianites to a military basis rather than due to anti-Jewish hatred. He is concerned to answer stock charges of anti-Semites, such as that the Israelites are meddlesome in the affairs of other nations. Whereas the Bible views Balaam in the most negative terms, Josephus, amazingly enough, emphasizes his hospitality—the quality that was most deeply appreciated in antiquity. In sharp contrast to the Bible (Num. 22–24), Josephus, in Jewish Antiquities (4.102–125), presents Balaam, motivated by his loyalty to Balak, as advising the envoys sent by Balak to renounce the hatred that they bore to the Israelites. At one point, incredibly, in an extrabiblical addition, he not only blames Balaam but even seems to castigate God! When God appears to contradict himself Josephus amazingly explains that it was all a ruse on God’s part! As to Balaam’s cursing the Israelites, Josephus very generously excuses him by painting him as a proto-Stoic philosopher and as a victim of inflexible fate. By stating that God has granted his providence to the Israelites, Josephus praises Balaam in the highest terms. Whereas the biblical Balaam predicts that the Israelites shall dwell alone, thus exposing them to the charge of misanthropy, Josephus speaks of the excellence of the Israelites as compared with other peoples. He is careful to speak in cryptic terms a prophecy that might be interpreted as a prediction that a calamity would befall a city, which was identified by some as Rome. Since nothing is more important to a historian than his credibility, Josephus was faced with a tremendous problem as to how to present the scene of the donkey speaking to Balaam. Clearly aware of this, Josephus concludes by giving the reader the choice as to believe or not to believe the account. See also “Josephus and His Writings,” elsewhere in these volumes. Suggested Reading Feldman, L. H. Flavius Josephus: Judean Antiquities 1–4. Leiden: Brill, 2000. —. “Josephus’ Portrait of Balaam.” Studia Philonica Annual 5 (1993): 48–83.

1191

Translation 102Balak, the king of the Moabites, who had an ancestral friendship and alliance with the Midianites, observed that the Israelites had grown so greatly and was very worried about his own interests. He had not realized that the Hebrews were not meddlesome in other lands, God, having forbidden them to do so, once they had acquired the land of the Canaanites. He more swiftly than prudently determined to attack with words. 103He decided not to go to war with such men after their successes, who became bolder when overtaken by misfortune; but pondering whether he might be able to prevent their becoming great, he decided to send an embassy to the Midianites with regard to them. 104Since a certain Balaam from the Euphrates, the best seer at that time, had friendly relations with them [the Midianites], they sent some

Commentary 102. Moabites, who had an ancestral friendship and alliance with the Midianites That Balak had an ancestral friendship and alliance with the Midianites is Josephus’s extrabiblical addition. Josephus thus addresses an apparent contradiction in the biblical text, which seems to confuse the Moabites and the Midianites. Similarly, according to the Tg. Yer. on Num. 22:4, Moab and Midian formed a confederate state, with a Moabite and Midianite alternating as king. The Tg. Ps.-J. on Num. 22:4 states that the Moabites and Midianites formed a single people and had a single king. Josephus seeks to attribute hatred of the Jewish people not to whole nations but merely to individuals. The intrusion of the Midianites into a story concerning only Moab may be explained by noting a Rabbinic observation (B. Sanh. 105a) that the alliance between Midian and Moab resulted from their common exposure to the Hebrew menace. Their motive in going to war with the Israelites, according to Josephus, is thus not hatred (Ant. 4.103). In fact, such a presentation casts the Moabites and the Midianites in a much better light. Hebrews were not meddlesome In an extrabiblical detail, Josephus, in introducing the narrative of Balaam, remarks that Balak had not learned that the Hebrews did not interfere with other countries, God having forbidden them to do so. The verb that is used here for interfering implies being meddlesome, being an inquisitive busybody, and is almost always employed in a pejorative sense. 104. Balaam That Balaam is cited, with virtually no introduction, according to an amazing find, in an extrabiblical inscription discovered in 1967,1 indicates that the name of Balaam was well known to the pagan people to whom the inscription in question (apparently dating from the 8th century bce) was addressed, so that we may infer that Balaam’s prophetic status was a tradition of long standing. That the story of Balaam was of great interest to Josephus may be deduced from the extraordinary amount of space that he gives to this narrative.2 Josephus does not give the name of Balaam’s father, Beor (Num. 22:5), perhaps because the name Beor signifies foolishness (compare Tg. Ps.-J. on Num. 22:5) or because he normally omits the antecedents of suspicious people. seer Josephus distinguishes carefully, in his terminology, between pagan and Jewish prophets and even between the classical prophets and those latter-day prognosticators such as himself. He never refers to Balaam by the Greek word prophētēs, presumably because some of his readers were Jews, who would resent such an identification. The word mantis, which he applies to Balaam, refers to one who has foresight and knowledge of future events, whereas the task of the Jewish prophet is to be the voice of God and to declare the knowledge of God to those who come for Source of Translation: The translation is my own, cited above.

1192 Louis H. Feldman

of the distinguished men among them, together with the envoys of Balak, to implore the seer to come in order to utter curses for the complete destruction of the Israelites. 105When the envoys arrived he [Balaam] received them cordially and hospitably; and after dining them he tried to investigate the intention of God what this was that the Midianites were urging. But since he [God] stood in the way, he [Balaam] came to the envoys. While making clear to them his own eagerness and zeal to do what they requested, he revealed that God, who had led him to such great glory for the sake of truth and the prediction thereof, opposed his intention, 106for the army, which they urged him to come and curse, was in favor with God. For this reason he recommended that they go to their people and that they terminate their hostility toward the Israelites. Having said this, he dismissed the envoys. 107But the Midianites, since Balak was extremely persistent and brought forth an urgent plea, sent again to Balaam. Wishing to give the men some benefit, he asked God. He [God], though indignant at the attempt, directed him not to refuse the envoys at all. He [Balaam], not supposing that God had directed him to do so through a ruse, departed together with the envoys. 108Along the road an angel of God blocked advice. And yet, in contrast, the Rabbinic tradition (Sifre Deut. 357) considers Balaam even greater than Moses in that whereas Moses had to pray to God to show him his ways, Balaam could declare of himself that “he knew the knowledge of the Most High” (Num. 24:16). 105. he [Balaam] received them cordially and hospitably There was almost no quality more deeply appreciated in antiquity than hospitality. Hence, the reader will form a distinctly positive picture of Balaam by virtue of the hospitality that he shows in Josephus’s additions to the biblical account, which asserts simply that Balaam told Balak’s envoys to remain overnight (Num. 22:8). Josephus adds that Balaam, the gracious host, gave them supper. 106. the army In referring to the Israelites as an army, Josephus puts the confrontation with the Midianites on a military basis rather than on one of anti-Jewish hatred. that they terminate their hostility toward the Israelites Far from imputing anti-Jewish hatred to Balaam, Josephus presents him as counseling the envoys who had been sent by Balak to renounce the hatred that they bore to the Israelites. By contrast, the Rabbinic view (Tanhuma Balak 9) and that of Philo (Moses 1.266) is that Balaam was not at all sincere in his initial refusal to accompany the envoys. In the Bible Balaam does not give advice, as Josephus reports him doing here, on his own but reports merely that it is God who has refused to allow him to accompany the envoys (Num. 22:12). Moreover, Josephus’s favorable picture of Balaam is enhanced by the fact that, unlike the Rabbinic tradition (Num. Rab. 20:12, 19), which connects Balaam’ desire to gratify the ambassadors with his hatred of them, Josephus has Balaam explicitly inquire of God concerning his intention with regard to the invitation of the envoys. From this statement we see that Balaam’s motive is not actually hatred for the Israelites but rather loyalty to his sovereign, Balak. 107. not supposing that God had directed him to do so through a ruse Even when Balaam, instructed by God to accompany the delegation, agrees to do so, Josephus, in an extrabiblical addition, not only does not blame Balaam but even seems to castigate God, since we are told that Balaam did not realize that God had deluded him in giving him this order. Josephus here appears to agree with the Rabbinic tradition (Num. Rab. 20:9, 11) that it was God who had led Balaam astray by directing him to accede to the request of the envoys. One major difficulty in the Balaam pericope is that in Num. 22:20 God instructs Balaam to accompany the envoys who have been sent to him, whereas a mere two verses later (22:22) God expresses his anger at Balaam for doing

The Story of Balaam 1193

his way in a certain place enclosed completely by stone walls on both sides. The female donkey on which Balaam rode, recognizing the divine spirit, pushed Balaam sideways toward one of the walls, being insensitive to the blows that Balaam, suffering through being crushed against the wall, inflicted upon her. 109When, upon the angel’s persistence, the donkey collapsed through being struck, she, uttering human speech in accordance with the will of God, censured Balaam for being unjust in inflicting blows upon her, though he had no reason for complaining against her for her previous services. But he did not understand that now in accordance with the will of God she was prevented from serving him in the undertaking that he strove to accomplish. . . . this. The Rabbis resolve this contradiction by insisting that since Balaam wanted to act wickedly, he was permitted to do so, inasmuch as “a man is divinely assisted in treading the path he desires” (Num. Rab. 20:12). Josephus resolves the problem by having God express indignation that Balaam should have tempted him and by having Balaam misunderstand God’s sarcasm in permitting him to go with the envoys: it was all a ruse on God’s part. 109. uttering human speech Undoubtedly, one of the greatest challenges that Josephus faced with regard to his credibility as a historian was what to do with the story of Balaam’s donkey that spoke. Indeed, Josephus twice (Ant. 4.109, 110) states that the donkey spoke with a human voice. Josephus might have omitted the incident, as he did several other episodes in the Bible.3 Perhaps Josephus was not deterred from including it because his audience was familiar with the account of Achilles’s horse, Xanthos, which likewise spoke after being unfairly accused by his master (Il. 19.408–17). And just as Balaam’s donkey spoke because God willed it, so Xanthos is said to have spoken because the goddess Hera gave him speech. Both narratives clearly acknowledge that human speech is not natural for animals. Indeed, at the very end of the whole episode of Balaam and not in direct connection with the donkey’s speaking, Josephus includes his familiar refrain: “On this narrative readers are free to think what they please” (Ant. 4.158). Even so, Josephus has taken several steps to make the narrative of the talking donkey less bizarre: (1) he condenses the Bible’s 15 verses (Num. 22:21–35) to four short paragraphs; (2) whereas in the Bible Balaam strikes his donkey three times, Josephus has him doing so only once (Ant. 4.108–9); (3) the Bible has the donkey speaking twice, Josephus only once (4.109); (4) whereas the Bible states that the Lord actually opened the mouth of the donkey (Num. 22:28), Josephus asserts merely that she became conscious of the divine spirit approaching her (Ant. 4.108); (5) readers might well have wondered why a donkey with the supernatural power to speak should be sensitive to pain, as she is in the biblical account (Num. 22:28); perhaps for this reason Josephus represents the donkey as insensible to the blows with which Balaam struck her (Ant. 4.108); and (6) in the Bible when the donkey speaks, Balaam evidences no amazement (Num. 22:29); Josephus, aware that his readers would wonder why a man hearing an animal speak would show no astonishment, declares that Balaam was aghast (Ant. 4.110). In any case, the Bible’s picture of Balaam is much harsher than Josephus’s. In the Bible Balaam is angry (Num. 22:27) and even threatens to kill the animal (22:29), whereas Josephus omits both points. Indeed, he effectively excuses Balaam on the ground that the seer had failed to understand God’s purpose. Moreover, whereas in the Bible the donkey censures Balaam (22:30), the strength of this rebuke is considerably diminished by Josephus’s mere report of it here.

1194 Louis H. Feldman

113Looking at them [the royal escort], he [Balaam] directed the king to erect seven altars and to supply as many bullocks and rams. The king swiftly obeyed, and he [Balaam] sacrificed and burnt them as a whole offering. When he saw the signs of an inflexible destiny, 114he said, “That people is happy to whom God gives the possession of myriad blessings and has granted his providence as an ally and leader for eternity. For there is no human stock to which you [Israelites] will not be judged superior in virtue and in zeal for the pursuits that are best and pure of wickedness. You shall bequeath these to children who are better than yourselves, since God benevolently observes you alone among humanity and provides you with the means by which you may become happier than all others under the sun. . . . 116Are you, therefore, amazed, O blessed army, that from a single father you have become so great? But the land of the Canaanites will hold your present army, consisting of a few. Yet, know that the inhabited world lies before you as a dwelling place forever, and your multitude—as many as is the number of the stars in heaven—will reside on islands and in the continent. Though they are so numerous, the deity will not cease to grant to them plenty of good things of all kinds in peace, and victory and might in war.” 125Falling upon his face, he [Balaam] predicted what sufferings would befall kings and what would befall the most distinguished cities, of which it happened that some had not yet begun to be inhabited, 113. inflexible destiny The same inflexibility is emphasized in Tg. Ps.-J. on Num. 23:8. Josephus avoids blaming Balaam by declaring, in this addition to the biblical text (Num. 23:4), that Balaam realized that his prophecy was governed by inflexible fate. This casts Balaam as something of a Stoic sage. 114. providence The concept of providence, so central in Stoic thought and in Antiquities generally,4 is introduced several times by Josephus in the Balaam pericope in addition to this passage (Ant. 4.117, 128, 157). happier than all others In the Bible (Num. 23:9) Balaam says that the Israelites shall dwell alone and shall not be reckoned among the nations. Josephus, aware of the misanthropy charge, avoids presenting the Israelites as sundered off from all other peoples. Instead he speaks of the excellence of the Israelites as compared with other peoples and has Balaam assert that God has given the Israelites the potential to become the happiest of all peoples. 116. inhabited world Josephus clearly shifts the focus from the land of Israel to the Diaspora: although the Israelites are now circumscribed by the land of Canaan, the habitable world, that is, the Diaspora, lies before them as an everlasting habitation. 125. most distinguished cities Presumably this would include Jerusalem, which was not yet established as the capital of the Israelite state until hundreds of years later by David. If Balaam foretells the calamities that will befall kings and cities of the highest celebrity, Josephus keeps this prophecy cryptic enough so that Gentile readers will not necessarily connect it with Rome, just as he has a similar cryptic prophecy in connection with the interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in his pericope of Daniel (Ant. 10.210). Josephus does not paraphrase the biblical passage (Num. 24:17–18) that predicts that a star out of Jacob and a scepter out of Israel will conquer Edom5 and Seir. Such a prediction was interpreted messianically by Rabbi Akiva (Lev. Rab. 2:54), who, very significantly, nowhere articulates the hope for a personal messiah, since this would involve the defeat of Rome.

The Story of Balaam 1195

along with other events that have happened to people in previous times, through land and sea, within my memory. From all the things that have attained the kind of end that he predicted, one might draw conclusions as to what should also occur in the future. in the future Josephus omits Balaam’s prophecy (Num. 24:17–24) that the Israelites will crush the Moabites, the Edomites, and the Amalekites. He likewise omits that ships from Kittim (identified by some of Josephus’s contemporaries with the Romans; see 1QpHab 3:4, 9–11) shall crush Ashur and Eber and that the Kittim themselves will be overthrown—a prediction that Josephus, who was so indebted to the Romans, could hardly have included.

Notes 1. See J. A. Hackett, The Balaam Text from Deir ‘Alla (Chico ca: Society of Biblical Literature, 1984). 2. Thus, whereas the Hebrew (Num. 22:2–25:9) has 164 lines and the Septuagint 267 lines, Josephus’s version has 363 lines, a ratio of 2.21:1 or 1.36:1, respectively. See L. H. Feldman, “Josephus’ Portrait of Balaam,” Studia Philonica Annual 5 (1993): 110–11. 3. See L. H. Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 37–38, for a list of such passages. 4. See H. W. Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus (Missoula mt.: Scholars Press, 1976), 71–107. 5. On the identification of Edom and Rome see L. H. Feldman, “Remember Amalek!” Vengeance, Zealotry, and Group Destruction in the Bible according to Philo, Pseudo-Philo, and Josephus (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 2004), 62–67.

1196

Louis H. Feldman

The Death of Moses Louis H. Feldman The biblical account of the death of Moses (Deut. 34:1–8) comprises only eight verses. Josephus has expanded this to 12 paragraphs in Jewish Antiquities (4.320–31). Not only has he added a graphic description of the lament of the Israelites for him in anticipation of his death, but he has even described his disappearance in tones that are reminiscent of the disappearance in death of Enoch (Gen. 5:24) and Elijah (2 Kings 2:11–12), as well as the disappearances in death of Aeneas1 and Romulus.2 Furthermore, a certain senator named Numerius Atticus (in Suetonius, Augustus 94.4) swore that he had seen the emperor Augustus after his death ascend to heaven. Because there were some traditions in Rabbinic circles and in Samaritan writings that Moses did not die, Josephus was particularly concerned to refute this view. Moreover, he took great pains to make sure that Moses would not be worshiped as a god. This was particularly necessary in view of the frequency among the Greeks of the apotheosis of heroes, such as Dionysus, Heracles, and Asclepius. In the case of Moses, there is a significant difference between the biblical account and Josephus’s version in that in the Bible (Deut. 31:16) God tells Moses that he is to die, whereas in Josephus (Ant. 4.315) Moses, the central figure in this panorama, announces to the Israelites his impending death. In the Bible it is only after Moses’s death that the Israelites bewail him for 30 days, but there is no description of the wailing itself (Deut. 34:8). In Josephus we have a much more dramatic scene: the wailing is more moving because it takes place after Moses has told the Israelites about his approaching death but while he is still very much alive. Josephus very emotionally adds that all the Israelites followed Moses to the place where he was going to disappear and that Moses, in full command of the situation like the director of an oratorio and in a scene reminiscent of Moses’s direction of the crucial battle against Amalek, signaled with his hand to those who were far off to remain quiet, while urging those who were closer not to make his departure tearful by following him. Moses is the leader par excellence of the people to the very end. Josephus (Ant. 4.323– 26), almost like a lawyer, stresses the point that the Israelites as a group followed Moses to the place where he was going to disappear. They are, therefore, witnesses to the fact that he did die and thus combat the view that he did not die at all. Josephus, the scientific historian, following in the footsteps of his model Thucydides3 and concerned that his credibility should not be questioned, adds that Moses has written of himself that he died because he feared that the Israelites might dare to say that because of his tremendous virtue he had gone up to the Divinity. Indeed, it is significant that Josephus (Ant. 2.293) totally omits the biblical statements in which God tells Moses that Aaron will be his mouth and that Moses will be his “God” (Exod. 4:16) and in which God tells Moses that he has made him a “God” to Pharaoh (7:1), since such a view would seem to contradict strict monotheism. See also “Josephus and His Writings,” elsewhere in these volumes.

1197

Suggested Reading Begg, C. T. “Josephus’s Portrayal of the Disappearances of Enoch, Elijah, and Moses: Some Observations.” Journal of Biblical Literature 109 (1990): 691–93. Feldman, L. H., ed. Flavius Josephus: Judean Antiquities 1–4, 471–75. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Gaster, M. The Asatir: The Samaritan Book of the “Secrets of Moses” together with the Pitron or Samaritan Commentary and the Samaritan Story of the Death of Moses. Oriental Translation Fund n.s. 26. London: Royal Asiatic Society, 1927. Jacobson, H. “Josephus on the Death of Moses.” In Tria lustra: Essays and Notes Presented to John Pinsent, edited by H. D. Jocelyn and H. Hurt. Liverpool Classical Papers 3. Liverpool: Liverpool Classical Monthly. Kushelevsky, B. Moses and the Angel of Death. New York: Lang, 1995. Purvis, J. D. “Samaritan Traditions on the Death of Moses.” In Studies on the Testament of Moses: Seminar Papers, edited by George W. E. Nickelsburg, 93–117. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 4. Cambridge ma: Society of Biblical Literature, 1973. Tabor, J. D. “‘Returning to the Divinity’: Josephus’ Portrayal of the Disappearances of Enoch, Elijah, and Moses.” Journal of Biblical Literature 108 (1989): 225–38. Talbert, C. H. “The Concept of Immortals in Mediterranean Antiquity.” Journal of Biblical Literature 94 (1975): 419–36.

Translation 320After Moses had said these things at the end of his life, and with a blessing had prophesied to each of the tribes the things that in fact were to be, the populace burst into tears while the women also, beating their breasts, demonstrated their feeling at his forthcoming death. The children also, lamenting still more, since they were too weak to overcome their grief, revealed that they comprehended, beyond their actual age, his virtue and great achievement. 321But there was a conflict in outlook between the grief of the young and that of those who had become adults, for the latter, realizing the sort of guardian of which they were being deprived, wept over what was to be, while for the former the grief was both for this reason and because they were losing him, though they had not yet had the opportunity to taste well of his virtue. 322One might deduce the extraordinary degree of wailing and laments of the populace from what happened to the lawgiver: he who had always been persuaded that one ought not to be dejected when the

Commentary 320. at the end of his life See Deut. 33. prophesied Josephus highlights the role of Moses as a prophet, twice identifying him as a prophet when the biblical text does not (Ant. 2.327 vs. Exod. 14:13; Ant. 4.320 vs. Deut. 33:1). burst into tears The description of the wailing for Moses’s approaching death becomes much more graphic in Josephus’s version because it occurs after Moses has told the Israelites about his approaching death but while he is still alive. Moses’s greatness is aggrandized by the children, in their lament, understanding his virtues beyond their years. Most poignant of all is that Moses himself is reduced to tears when he sees the laments of the people. 321. a conflict This entire paragraph is Josephus’s addition.

Source of Translation: The translation is my own, cited above.

1198

Louis H. Feldman

end was forthcoming, since one suffered this in accordance with the will of God and by a law of nature, was overcome with weeping at what was being done by the people. 323All, full of weeping, followed him as he proceeded to the place where he was going to disappear. Moses, signaling with his hand, directed those who were far off to remain quiet, and those who were nearer he urged by means of speech not to make his departure tearful by following him. 324They, deciding to show favor to him in this also, namely to allow him to depart according to his own wish, restrained themselves, weeping with one another. The council of elders alone accompanied him, together with Eleazar the high priest and the general Joshua. 325But when he came to the mountain called Abaris—this is a towering site opposite Jericho, presenting to those looking from it, a most extensive view of the best land of the Canaanites—he sent away the council of elders. 326While he was bidding farewell to Eleazar and Joshua, and was still conversing with them, a cloud suddenly stood over him and he disappeared in a certain ravine.

322. the will of God and by a law of nature Josephus is probably thinking of the parallels in Stoic outlook, such as we find in the cases of Seneca the Younger and the later Emperor Marcus Aurelius. was overcome with weeping In this addition to the biblical text, noting that Moses himself was reduced to tears, Josephus adds an overwhelming humanizing quality in Moses. what was being done by the people Josephus appears to have added this in order that Moses should not appear to have received less honor than Aaron, who died (Ant. 4.83) with the eyes of the multitude upon him. 323. to remain quiet Moses, in his farewell, telling the people not to weep is reminiscent of Socrates’s words to his disciples, telling them not to weep, in Plato’s Phaedo 117D7–E1, as he faces his final moments alone. 324. Eleazar . . . and . . . Joshua This entire paragraph is Josephus’s addition to the biblical text. It is significant that those accompanying Moses are led by the religious head of state, the high priest Eleazar, and by the commander-in-chief of the army and Moses’s successor, Joshua. 325. came to the mountain called Abaris Josephus omits the statement (Deut. 34:1–4) that God showed Moses the entire Land of Israel from the top of Pisgah to Mount Nebo. He omits God’s explanation to Moses as to why he was not permitted to enter the Land of Israel, namely that he committed an offense against him at the waters of Meribath-kadesh (Deut. 32:51). the best land of the Canaanites Josephus omits the statement that God showed Moses the entire Land of Israel, presumably because it would have been embarrassing to present the Jewish revolutionaries’ claim to the entire land and thus appear to justify their claim to independence from Roman rule. 326. a cloud suddenly stood over him and he disappeared Most strikingly, to the biblical account of Moses’s death Josephus has added lamenting people, a walk to the mountain, companions (Eleazar and Joshua) on Moses’s final walk, and disappearance while talking, details that are found in no other postbiblical source, though these sources recount Moses’s last hours in far greater detail than does the Bible.4 And yet, it is precisely these details that are found in Sophocles’s Oedipus at Colonus (notably 1648–64), one of Josephus’s favorite authors.5

The Death of Moses 1199

But he has written of himself in the sacred books that he died because he was afraid that they might dare to say that because of the abundance of the virtue surrounding him he had gone up to the Divinity.

he has written of himself Most strikingly, Josephus has added that Moses has written of himself in the Bible that he died. Josephus was apparently troubled, as was the Talmud (BB 15a) by the question as to how Moses could have written about his own death.6 Another view that Josephus attempted to refute was that Moses, because of his abundant virtue, never died. This was apparently a view held by some of the Rabbis (Sot. 13b). It is the view similarly held by Josephus’s presumed contemporary, Pseudo-Philo (L.A.B. 19.12). Likewise, the pseudepigraphic Assumption of Moses 1:15 appears to combat the view that Moses did not die and that Moses was translated to heaven, since Moses is quoted as saying, “And now I am going in the presence of all the people to rest with my fathers.” Indeed, some Jewish circles must have portrayed Moses as becoming immortal, since we find that Celsus (in Origen, Against Celsus 1:21) says that Moses attained divine honors. The Samaritans elevate Moses to a role as, in effect, a second God. Thus, in the Samaritan book of Memar 5:3 Moses died without realizing that his life had departed from him. According to the Samaritan book of Asatir, Moses occupies a position in the center of time; his life is the high point of human history. that he died Josephus has omitted the statement (Deut. 34:5) that Moses died “at the command of the Lord” (lit., “on the mouth”), which the Talmud (BB 17a) understands to mean “by a kiss,” presumably because Josephus’s more sophisticated readers would find such a view difficult to accept. he was afraid Josephus, addressing his Greek readers, was aware that apotheosis of heroes, such as Dionysus, Heracles, and Asclepius, was frequent among the Greeks. This tendency to apotheosis of Moses may be seen in the Greco-Jewish Ezekiel the Tragedian. In this play (Exagoge 68–89) Moses says that he dreamed about a great throne on top of Mount Sinai on which a noble man (presumably God) was seated with a crown and a scepter, which he gave to Moses.7 Indeed, the motif of the apotheosis of rulers and philosophers became so widespread that it became the subject of satire in the Apolocyntosis of Josephus’s older contemporary Seneca the Younger and in the Parliament of the Gods of the 2nd-century Lucian, but Josephus does not include the statement that God himself buried Moses.

Notes 1. “And the body of Aeneas was nowhere to be seen. Some concluded that it had been translated to the gods and others that it had perished in the river beside which the battle was fought.” Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities 1.64.4. 2. Dionysius: “Sudden darkness rushed down out of a clear and a violent storm burst, after which he was nowhere to be seen; and these writers believe that he was caught up into heaven by his father Mars.” Ovid: “His mortal part dissolved into thin air, as a leaden bullet hurled by a broad sling is wont to melt away in the mid-heavens.” Dionysius 2.56.2 and Ovid, Metamorphoses 14.821–28. 3. See L. H. Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 11 and esp. n17. 4. See H. Jacobson, “Josephus on Moses’ Death,” in Tria lustra: Essays and Notes Presented to John Pinsent, edited by H. D. Jocelyn and H. Hurt, Liverpool Classical Papers 3 (Liverpool: Liverpool Classical Monthly, 1993). 5. L. H. Feldman, “The Influence of the Greek Tragedians on Josephus,” in Judaism and Hellenism Reconsidered (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 427–42.

1200 Louis H. Feldman

6. One view, that of 2nd-century Rabbi Judah bar Ilai or, according to others, Rabbi Nehemiah, is that the last eight verses of the Torah (Deut. 34:5–12) stating the fact of Moses’s death and burial were written by Moses’s successor, Joshua. Another explanation is that of 2nd-century Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai that God dictated these verses and that Moses wrote them in tears. The view of Philo (Moses 2.291) is that Moses “prophesied with discernment, while still alive, the story of his own death and told how he was buried with no one present.” This passage, together with several others in the Pentateuch, is cited by 12th-century biblical commentator Moses ibn Ezra, together with a number of others, that present doubt as to divine authorship of the Pentateuch. He cryptically comments on these passages, “The one who understands will understand.” 7. Likewise, it was told of the 5th-century bce philosopher Empedocles (by Heracleides of Pontus, in Diogenes Laertius 8.68), that after an evening party he disappeared and was nowhere to be found and that one of those present at the party claimed to have heard a voice from heaven declaring that he was now a god. Again, when speaking of the death of the philosopher Apollonius of Tyana, who was born at the beginning of the 1st century ce and was therefore an older contemporary of Josephus, Philostratus (8.29) adds “if he did actually die” and then declares that no one ventured to dispute that he was immortal.

The Death of Moses 1201

Mosaic Constitution David M. Goldenberg In his history Jewish Antiquities, Josephus begins with and paraphrases the Hebrew Bible. His treatment of the biblical legal material is found in books 3 (§§224–86) and 4 (§§67–75, 199–301). The commentary below, on a selected portion of this material (Ant. 4.260–77, 288) illustrates how Josephus paraphrased the Bible. It shows that many of his additions and changes to the biblical text are paralleled in other writings, such as Proverbs and Wisdom of Ben Sira (Ant. 4.260–64, 267), and in contemporaneous biblical interpretation, as reflected in exegesis or in practice. Most prominent among these parallels are those found in the literature of the early Rabbis, the tannaim. We thus find extrabiblical tannaitic parallels to Josephus’s understanding of a number of the laws treated in these sections: the obligation and specifics of honoring parents (Ant. 4.260–64) the hanging, exposure, and burial of an executed criminal (§§263–64) the importance of burial for the dead (§265) the time when and means by which collateral may be taken on a loan (§§268–69) the penalty of double repayment for theft (§271) the time when the biblical law concerning forced entry and theft applies (§271) the conditions under which a fourfold or fivefold penalty applies (§272) the obligations incumbent on a finder of lost objects, including a search for the owner, a public announcement, the content of the announcement, and an oath of innocence before keeping the object (§274) the reasons and the conditions under which one is obligated to help animals in distress (§275) the requirement to give directions to one lost and the prohibition against misleading someone on the road (§276) the prohibition against cursing someone not present (§276; the Rabbinic parallel may be tannaitic) the requirement of monetary compensation for one who killed another when the death was not immediate (§277) the cases when the prohibition against withholding wages applies (§288). The similarities with tannaitic literature extend not only to individual interpretations but also to the reasons for the laws (§§262, 270, 275); the juxtaposition and arrangement of various laws (§§273, 276); the internal structure of laws that are more specific than their biblical counterparts (§§269, 271, 274, 276, 277, 288); and hermeneutical techniques (§267). The element of structure is particularly instructive, for Josephus’s breakdown of each biblical law into more precisely defined cases is typical in the development of any legal system. Indeed, we see that in almost every case, the constituent elements of these laws as

1202

they are divided by Josephus are also found in the tannaitic legal system, the halakhah. The common elements in Josephus and in tannaitic writings provide evidence for an extrabiblical (but biblically based) corpus of legal traditions (whether written or oral; whether exegetically citing and annotating the biblical text or apodictically listing the laws without reference to the biblical text), which served as a source both for Josephus and for later tannaitic literature. This extrabiblical body of tradition would have been one of the lenses through which Josephus viewed and understood the Bible. Significance It is important, at this stage in our knowledge of the ancient Jewish world, not to go beyond the evidence and say, for example, that such a corpus of material equates with the later Rabbinic literature, or that it necessarily served as the single source of that literature, and certainly not that it constituted the only body of legal traditions existing at the time of Josephus. We know of other legal traditions, such as those found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, some of which are also recorded by Josephus as the Jewish law (e.g., J.W. 5.227 and Ant. 3.261 = 11QTemple 45.15–17). What the evidence allows us to say is that Josephus’s biblical laws neither represent a straightforward transmission of the biblical text nor are they exclusively Josephus’s own interpretation. Rather, they indicate that there was an existing body of interpretation that is heavily paralleled in later Rabbinic halakhah and that served as Josephus’s primary source for reading and understanding the corresponding portions of Scripture. Although this information may or may not support Josephus’s self-identification with the Pharisees—generally assumed to be precursors of the tannaim, the early Rabbis1— it certainly argues for the antiquity of significant parts of Rabbinic halakhah, a conclusion corroborated in recent years from the Dead Sea documents.2 Suggested Reading Most of the earlier work on Josephus’s parallels in Rabbinic literature was written in German and French; more recently, in Hebrew. Works that deal with this topic in English include: Blidstein, Gerald. Honor Thy Father and Mother: Filial Responsibility in Jewish Law and Ethics. New York: Ktav, 1975. Feldman, Louis. “Torah and Greek Culture in Josephus.” The Torah U-Madda Journal 7 (1997): 48–59. —. “Use, Authority, and Exegesis of Mikra in the Writings of Josephus.” In Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, edited by Martin Jan Mulder, 507–18. CRINT, Section 2. Literature of the Jewish People in the Period of the Second Temple and the Talmud 1. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. —. Judaean Antiquities 1–4. Vol. 3 of Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, edited by Steve Mason. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Goldenberg, David. “The Halakha in Josephus and in Tannaitic Literature.” JQR 67 (1976): 30–43. —. “Halakhah in Josephus and in Tannaitic Literature: A Comparative Study.” PhD diss., Dropsie College, 1978. —. “Ant. 4.277 and 288 Compared with Early Rabbinic Law.” In Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, edited by Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata, 198–211. Detroit mi: Wayne State University Press, 1987. Thackeray, H. St. J., trans. Josephus: Jewish Antiquities I–IV. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge ma: Harvard University Press, 1967. Vermes, Geza. “A Summary of the Law by Flavius Josephus.” Novum Testamentum 24 (1982): 289–303.

Mosaic Constitution 1203

Translation 260With regard to those youths who scorn their parents and do not grant them their honor whether because of shame or lack of understanding, demeaning them, let the parents first of all warn them with words, for they are autonomous judges over their sons, 261saying that they came together with each other not for the sake of pleasure nor of increasing their wealth by placing in common what the two of them had, but in order that they might have children who would tend them in their old age and who would have from them whatever they needed: “When you were born, we raised you with joy; and giving the great-

Commentary 260–64 These sections paraphrase Deut. 21:18–21, the law concerning the rebellious son. The Bible is specific regarding the offense of the rebellious son: “He is a glutton and a drunkard” (21:20). Josephus, on the other hand, understands the verses as referring in general to dishonor of parents, taking “a glutton and a drunkard” as an example of, or a term for, dishonor. Similarly Philo understood these verses as referring in general to dishonor toward parents (Spec. Laws 2.224–41). The sources for this interpretation are Exod. 21:17 and Lev. 20:9, which require a death penalty for one who meqallels his parents, with the Hebrew word being understood as “to dishonor” (rather than the traditional rendering “to curse”), an interpretation incorporated into some of the Palestinian Targums to these verses.3 So too does Ben Sira (3:11) understand the Hebrew q-l-l as meaning “dishonor.” Taking Deut. 21:18–21 as referring in general to the obligation of honoring parents, Josephus’s text in Ant. 4.260–64 becomes understandable as reflecting Jewish biblical interpretation of the time, as will be seen below. 260. whether because of shame or lack of understanding Here, Josephus has added to the biblical text a reason for the youth’s misbehavior. This extrabiblical flourish is paralleled in Proverbs: in three verses that deal with a son’s behavior toward his father (Prov. 10:5; 14:35; 17:2), shame is opposed to understanding or intelligence; that is, to act shamefully or with a lack of intelligence exhibits improper behavior toward a parent.4 A particularly close parallel to Josephus is Prov. 28:7, “An intelligent son [ben mevin] heeds instruction, / But he who keeps company with gluttons [zolelim] disgraces [or “shames” yakhlim; RSV, NRSV] his father,” which clearly echoes Deut. 21:20, “‘This son of ours is disloyal and defiant; he does not heed us. He is a glutton [zolel] and a drunkard.’”5 Thus, improper behavior toward a father is exemplified by acting in a shameful or unintelligent manner. Whether Josephus drew his addition directly from Proverbs or from a contemporary understanding of Deut. 21:20, which is also reflected in Proverbs, cannot be determined. Clearly, though, in either case Josephus’s addition derives from the Jewish exegetical environment. let the parents first of all warn them with words Josephus goes on to say that if words don’t work, the child is put to death. Philo, however, says that there was another stage after the oral admonition and before the death penalty, that of beating (Spec. Laws 2.232). Tannaitic law similarly has a three-stage process.6 Josephus may have taken the biblical “even after they discipline him [ve-yiseru]” to mean an oral admonition because of the following words in the verse, “[he] will not listen to them,” and the words in verse 20 (RSV), “he will not obey our voice” (MT: einennu Source of Translation: The translation is primarily that of Louis Feldman, Judaean Antiquities 1–4, cited above. I have occasionally substituted the phrasing of H. St. J. Thackeray, trans., Josephus: Jewish Antiquities I–IV, also cited above; or translated passages myself, as indicated in the notes.

1204

David M. Goldenberg

est thanks to God we reared you with devotion, sparing nothing of what seemed to be useful for your well-being and education in the best things. 262Now, however, for it is necessary to grant pardon for the failings of youth, you have sufficiently disregarded the honor toward us. Change to the more reasonable way, considering that God also is annoyed with those who commit an outrage against parents, because He himself is also the father of the whole human race and considers himself dishonored when those who have the same title as himself do not obtain from their children what is fitting for them; and there is the implacable law, the punisher of such acts, which you should not put to the test.” 263If the rebelliousness of the youths is cured by such means, let them be excused from the censures for things that they did not know, for thus the lawgiver will be good and the parents will be fortunate in beholding neither son nor

shomea’ be-kolenu), either making this deduction himself or relying on such a translation tradition of ve-yiseru in verse 18, found in both the LXX (paideusōsin, “educate”) and Targum Onkelos (malpin, “teach, educate”). 261. in order that they might have children who would tend them in their old age This is the only specific obligation for children that Josephus mentions, and obviously the neglect of this duty defines “those youths who scorn their parents and do not grant them their honor.” Contemporaneous Jewish literature understood tending to parents in their old age as a requirement of honoring parents, as did ancient Near Eastern texts.7 Rabbinic literature specifies: “The obligations of a son to a father are to provide him food and drink, to dress him and cover him, to lead him in and out, to wash his face, hands, and feet.”8 The obligation to provide for parents is apparently also seen in the New Testament.9 261–62. we reared you with devotion . . . Now, however, . . . God also . . . considers himself dishonored Josephus gives two reasons for the obligation to honor parents: the parents devote much care to the child’s upbringing, welfare, and training; and honoring parents is tantamount to honoring God, since God is the father of humanity. The implication of the first reason, that honoring parents is repayment of a debt, is stated by Josephus explicitly in Ag. Ap. 2.206: The law hands over to be stoned “one who does not repay the benefits received from [one’s parents].”10 The same idea is found in Wisdom of Ben Sira, Tobit, Letter of Aristeas, Philo, and pagan Hellenistic literature.11 Josephus’s second reason for honoring parents, that it is tantamount to honoring God since God is the father of humanity, is found in Philo, possibly Ben Sira, Qumran literature, and several tannaitic sources. Philo: “Parents are the servants of God for the propagation of children, and he who dishonors the servant dishonors also the master.”12 The tannaitic source puts it this way: “God considers honoring parents equal to honoring him . . . for it is written . . . thus [Scripture] equated honoring parents to honoring God.”13 Josephus’s remark that “God is also annoyed with those who commit an outrage against parents” recalls the tannaitic statement “When one troubles one’s parents God says: ‘It is well that I did not reside with them, for had I done so these children would have troubled me.’” Further, when Josephus says that because God is the father of the human race he therefore “considers himself dishonored when those who have the same title as himself do not obtain from their children what is fitting for them,” we are reminded of the tannaitic proposition that God, father, and mother are partners in the creation of a child.14 263. neither son nor daughter The biblical text speaks of a son only, as does the Rabbinic interpretation of the law (e.g., M. Sanh. 8:1). Josephus, however, refers to a son or a daughter. This change is in accord with Josephus’s interpretation of Deut. 21:18–21 as an instance of honoring parents, which is obligatory on both son and daughter according to tannaitic tradition (e.g., T. Kid. 1:11).

Mosaic Constitution 1205

daughter being punished. 264However, should these words and the teaching from them about moderate behavior seem worthless, and should one make the laws implacable enemies for himself through constant boldness toward his parents, let him be brought forward by them themselves outside the city with the 264. through constant boldness toward his parents The law concerning the rebellious son required repeated acts of dishonor toward the parents, as is indicated in the biblical “who does not heed his father or mother and does not obey them even after they discipline him” (Deut. 21:18). So also Philo and ancient Near Eastern texts require that the rebellious son be a habitual offender.15 let him . . . be stoned The Bible requires a death penalty for one who “is a glutton and a drunkard” (Deut. 21:20) but says nothing about a punishment for one who does not fulfill the general commandment to honor one’s parents. In line with his understanding that this biblical text is but one instance of dishonoring parents, Josephus extends the death penalty to all who dishonor parents, repeating this interpretation with even greater severity in Ag. Ap. 2.217 (“Mere intention of doing wrong to one’s parents . . . is followed by instant death”). Similarly Philo understands the biblical law to require death for dishonor to parents (Spec. Laws 2.232, 248; see also Hypoth. 8.7.2). This was apparently the Pharisaic tradition, as recorded by Matthew and Mark.16 The Bible indicates a trial (“His father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the public place of his community. They shall say to the elders of his town . . .” [Deut. 21:19–20]), which is reflected in the targumic translations and became part of tannaitic law.17 Josephus, however, says nothing of a trial, and seems to view the parents as holding sole authority to order the death of their recalcitrant child. Josephus says this explicitly later, in the narrative of the trials of Herod’s sons.18 Philo too puts the authority for the death penalty in the hands of the parents (Spec. Laws 2.232). It is because the parents have such a right by law or custom that Josephus prefaces his account with the words, “For they are autonomous judges over their sons” (Ant. 4.260). This clause is not meant to explain the immediately preceding “let the parents first of all warn them with words,” for which no judicial authority is necessary, but rather to explain the entire process, of which oral admonition is the first step and a death sentence the last. Despite the explicit statement in the Bible that the rebellious son must be judged by the elders of the town, the practice, as attested by Josephus and Philo, was that the father and mother acted as judge.19 This may be due to the influence of the Roman law of patria potestas, which gave the father such authority over his children.20 In any case, tannaitic law—taking its cue from the biblical verse—required a judicial procedure, although it may have preserved an element of the earlier practice in allowing the parents the right of pardon.21

1206

David M. Goldenberg

masses following and let him be stoned. After remaining during the whole day in the sight of all, let him be buried at night. 265Thus shall it be too with all who howsoever are condemned by the laws to be put to death. Let burial be given even to your enemies; and let not a corpse be left without its portion of earth, After remaining during the whole day in the sight of all The practice of delayed burial for executed criminals or sinners is mentioned by Josephus elsewhere: “With us it is ordained that the body of a suicide should be exposed unburied until sunset” (J.W. 3.377).22 In many nations of antiquity, executed criminals and suicides did not receive burial (or at least, proper funeral rights).23 Similarly the slain enemy was left unburied by the Jews, as well as other peoples of antiquity, in the biblical and Hellenistic periods.24 An echo of this practice may perhaps be seen in the tannaitic law that an executed criminal is not buried in his family tomb. The court had special cemeteries for criminals, where the bodies were deposited in ledges hollowed out of rock. After the body had decomposed, the bones were collected and deposited in the family tomb (M. Sanh. 6:5). The reason given in Rabbinic sources for this practice is that “the pious and the wicked are not to be buried side by side.” After the body has decomposed, the criminal’s sins have been expiated, he is no longer considered wicked, and he may be buried with the pious ( J. Sanh. 6:12, 23d; B. Sanh. 47a–b). during the whole day Similarly, Ant. 4.202 says that the blasphemer is hung “for a day.” Some think that this deviates from Rabbinic tradition, which limits the hanging to a short period of time.25 The Greek, however, does not necessarily mean “an entire day” but “the remainder of the day.”26 Even the reading in Ant. 4.264 (holēs hēmaras), which is also found in a variant to Ant. 4.202, may mean only the “remainder of the day.”27 The (6th-century?) Latin translation of Josephus has an interesting variant to our text: “and after being hung from a plank [or, tree] and remaining during the whole day in the sight of all.”28 The only possible biblical source for this variant is Deut. 21:22–23 NRSV: “When someone is convicted of a crime punishable by death and is executed, and you hang him on a tree, his corpse must not remain all night upon the tree; you shall bury him that same day.”29 Since these verses immediately follow the law of the rebellious son, some assume that Josephus drew on them, extending the law to the rebellious son as well, and that therefore the Latin represents the original reading in Josephus.30 However, Deut. 21:22–23 was understood by Josephus to refer to the blasphemer, and apparently to the blasphemer alone: “Let him who blasphemes God be stoned then hung for a day, and buried ignominiously and in obscurity” (Ant. 4.202).31 This interpretation is paralleled in an early Rabbinic tradition (R. Joshua), contemporaneous with Josephus, which interpreted Deut. 21:22–23 as referring only to a blasphemer (and an idolator).32 In sum, the Greek text of Josephus (exposure with no mention of hanging) appears to be the original, and reflects contemporary practice, while the biblical text speaking of hanging is applied by Josephus to the blasphemer, as it is by the tannaim as well. let him be buried at night Several other times Josephus mentions night burial for executed criminals. In recounting Achan’s execution recorded in Josh. 7:25, Josephus adds to the biblical account that Achan “at night was given the ignominious burial proper to the condemned” (Ant. 5.44). After the execution of Herod’s sons Alexander and Aristobulos, Josephus says that the bodies were laid to rest at night (Ant. 16.394). Also, as noted in the comment on 4.264, After remaining . . . , Josephus writes that “with us it is ordained that the body of a suicide should be exposed unburied until sunset” (J.W. 3.377), thus implying a burial at, or shortly after, sunset for one who kills himself. Finally, in Ant. 4.202 Josephus says, “Let him who blasphemes God be stoned then hung for a day, and buried ignominiously and in obscurity [aphanōs].” Here too the implication

Mosaic Constitution 1207

is that the burial takes place after sunset, not only because it occurs after being hung during the day, but also because the term “obscurity” implies a nighttime burial; aphanōs means literally “unseen.”33 Hints of the practice of sunset burial for executed criminals appear in tannaitic literature, where explanations of Deut. 21:21–23 state that the judicial decision, the execution, and the hanging are carried out immediately before sunset.34 Since the corpse must not remain unburied overnight (Sifre Deut. 221; M. Sanh. 6:4), the body must have been buried during the night, presumably shortly after sunset. Whether the tannaitic explication represents actual practice or not, it apparently indicates a knowledge of night burial. The Palestinian Targums also know of a sunset burial for criminals. In an addition to Num. 25:4 (“‘Take all the ringleaders and have them publicly impaled before the Lord”), the Palestinain Targums add: “and at the setting of the sun you shall take them down and bury them.”35 265. Thus shall it be While syntactically “it” could refer to exposure, hanging (accepting the Latin reading), or night burial, Josephus most probably is referring to burial, since he continues, “Let burial be given even to your enemies.” Josephus refers to the importance of burial in several other places. To deny someone burial, he says, is a dishonor (Ant. 13.403), such treatment being considered terrible (Ant. 6.375, an addition to the biblical narrative), a great impiety (J.W. 4.317), an annulment of the laws of nature, and “an outrage upon humanity and a pollution of the Deity” (J.W. 4.382–83). Jews would risk their lives to provide burial for a dead body (J.W. 4.331–32, 383; cf. J.W. 5.33, 360). Indeed, Jewish law demanded that “we must . . . not leave a corpse unburied, show consideration even to declared enemies” (Ag. Ap. 2.211). Such care for burial was extended as well to the executed criminals (Ant. 4.264, J.W. 4.317), and to the enemy slain in war (Ant. 4.265, J.W. 3.377), as we have seen.36 This concern for burial is found also in other Jewish sources. Numerous biblical passages reflect the view that nonburial is a terrible disgrace.37 Tobit risked his life providing burial, as did those who removed R. Akiva’s body from the prison where the Rabbi had died.38 Speaking of Jewish law and custom, Philo says that one “must not debar dead bodies from burial, but throw upon them as much earth as piety demands” (Hypoth. 7.7 [358]). Indeed, tannaitic law requires that if one finds an unattended corpse, Jewish or non-Jewish, one must bury it.39 This concern extended as well to burial of the slain enemy.40 Thus shall it be too with all who howsoever are condemned by the laws to be put to death The translation given is Thackeray’s. The implication of Feldman’s translation (“Thus let those who in any way whatever have been condemned by the laws be put to death”) is that all who are condemned to death are to be executed in a similar way, i.e., by stoning. However, the Greek reads, “Thus let those who in any way whatever have been condemned by the laws to be put to death,” which is more accurately reflected in Thackeray’s translation. Feldman’s translation may only be due to a typo: the accidental deletion of “to” before “be put to death.”

1208 David M. Goldenberg

paying more than its just penalty. 266Let it not be permitted to lend either meat or drink to any one of the Hebrews at interest, for it is not just to profit from the misfortunes of one’s compatriot; but in helping his needs you should consider as a gain the gratitude of those men and reward that will come from God for this generosity. 267Those who have borrowed whether silver or produce of any kind, liquid or solid, if their affairs through God’s grace proceed to their liking, shall bring back and with pleasure restore these loans to the lenders, as though they were laying them up with their own possessions and would have them again 266–70 In these sections, Josephus treats the laws concerning loans: the obligation of the lender to lend without interest to a fellow Jew (266), the obligation of the borrower to repay the loan on time (267), and the obligations of the borrower if a pledge or security has been taken against the loan (268–70). The biblical sources are Exod. 22:24–26; Lev. 25:35–37; Deut. 23:20–21; 24:6, 10–13. 266. meat or drink While the Bible speaks of lending money or food, Josephus mentions only food; see the comment below on Ant. 4.267. Josephus mentions the prohibition of taking interest also in Ag. Ap. 2.208, although he does not, in that apologetic work, mention that the law is restricted to a fellow Hebrew (see also note 54). Most of Josephus’s comments in Ant. 4.266 are built on biblical notions. That it is not just to profit from the misfortunes of a compatriot (homophylou, lit. “of the same race or tribe”) is implied in Exod. 22:24–26 and Lev. 25:35–37, as well as elsewhere in the Bible,41 and the idea that one who lends to those in need receives God’s recompense in return is stated in Deut. 23:21 (cf. 24:13), as well as elsewhere in the Bible.42 Deuteronomy 24:13, the biblical verse that concludes the laws of pledges with the statement that the borrower will bless the lender, was probably the source for Josephus’s statement that the lender receives the borrower’s gratitude. This verse may have also been the impetus for Josephus’s joining the borrower’s gratitude with God’s recompense: “that he [the borrower] may sleep in his cloak and bless you. And it shall be righteousness for you before the Lord your God.”43 Josephus’s original contribution in this section seems to be the idea that the lender ought to consider the borrower’s gratitude and God’s recompense as the interest in lieu of monetary gain. 267. silver or produce of any kind, liquid or solid The biblical texts refer to clothing (Exod. 22:25–26) and “a loan of any sort” (Deut. 24:10). Josephus’s phrasing “silver or produce” apparently derives from “money” and “food” mentioned in the biblical law of interest (Lev. 25:37; Deut. 23:20; Exod. 22:24, “money”), which he had just dealt with and which precedes the law of pledges in the Bible. Both interest and pledges fall under the category of loans, and Josephus therefore drew descriptive elements from one law and applied it to the other. Such borrowing is particularly reasonable when the two laws follow each other in the Bible, as they do in this case. This technique is similar to the tannaitic hermeneutical rule of semukhin, according to which elements enunciated in one law may be applied to another if the two laws are juxtaposed in Scripture.44 The obligation of the borrower to repay a loan on time, and by doing so enabling the borrower to draw a loan again if need be, is found in Sir. 29:2–3: “Lend to your neighbor in his time of need; repay your neighbor when a loan falls due. Keep your promise and be honest with him, and on every occasion you will find what you need” (NRSV). It is clear from the Syriac translation that “what you need” is to be sought with the lender: “and you will always find your needs with him,” that is, the lender.45 with their own possessions Several manuscripts read “their” (autōn), possibly referring to the lender, in place of “their own” (hautōn), referring to the borrower, but this reading is probably erroneous, as these manuscripts do not record any variant for the preceding “as though” (hōsper).46

Mosaic Constitution 1209

at need. 268But if they are shameless concerning restitution, one must not prowl about the house to seize a pledge before judgment has been given on the matter; the pledge should be asked for at the door, and the debtor should bring it of himself, in no wise gainsaying his visitor who comes with the law to support him. 269If he from whom the pledge has been taken be well-to-do, the lender should retain possession of it until restitution be made; but if he be poor, the lender should return it before sundown, above all if the pledge consist of a cloak, that he may have it for his sleep, God by His nature according pity to the poor. 270But a mill and its accompanying utensils may not be taken in pledge, that folk be not deprived of the very means of preparing their food nor be reduced by want to the worst sufferings. 271For the stealing of

268 A paraphrase of Deut. 24:10–11. Josephus is clearly speaking of a pledge taken when the debtor has not repaid the loan on time, and not a pledge taken at the time when the loan was made. The biblical text offers no indication as to the time the pledge is taken, although “so far as is known, in Israel this property was not taken at the time of the loan.”47 As Josephus, so too the Mishnah discusses pledges taken when repayment has not been made.48 one must not . . . seize a pledge before judgment has been given The Bible says nothing of a judgment before the pledge may be taken, but tannaitic literature does: “If one makes a loan to his fellow, he may take a pledge only through the court.”49 the pledge should be asked for at the door That the creditor may not enter the debtor’s home is stated in Deut. 24:10. the debtor should bring it of himself While the sources cited in note 49 speak of a court functionary taking the pledge, one tannaitic source refers to the creditor himself, as is implied in the biblical text and stated by Josephus: “A creditor who comes to take a pledge should not enter the [debtor’s] house to do so but he should stand outside and the [debtor] should go in and retrieve the pledge.”50 269 A paraphrase of Exod. 22:25–26 and Deut. 24:12–13. To the biblical statements that if the borrower is poor, the lender should return the pledge at sundown, Josephus adds the corollary that if the borrower is well-to-do, the lender may retain possession until restitution is made. This extrabiblical notion is found in a tannaitic text: “‘If he is a poor man, you shall not sleep with his pledge’ (Deut. 24:12)—thus, if he be well-to-do, you may sleep with his pledge.”51 Josephus’s phrase “God by His nature according pity to the poor” apparently derives from the text in Exodus (22:25–26): “If you take your neighbor’s garment in pledge, you must return it to him before the sun sets; it is his only clothing, the sole covering for his skin. In what else shall he sleep? Therefore, if he cries out to Me, I will pay heed, for I am compassionate.” 270 A paraphrase of Deut. 24:6. The reason given by Josephus why a millstone may not be taken in pledge—that it is used to prepare food and thus sustain life—is implicit in the biblical verse (“for he would be taking a life in pledge”) and is the meaning given to the verse in the Targums, tannaitic literature, and Philo.52 271 This section deals with various laws of theft, which Josephus, or his source, has brought together from disparate biblical verses: Exod. 21:16 and Deut. 24:7; Exod. 21:37–22:3; and Exod. 22:6–8. Josephus has also rearranged the biblical order, putting the law of a break-in after the law of theft of money rather than after the law of theft of cattle and before monetary theft, as in the Bible. For the stealing of a person Josephus speaks of stealing a person in general, as does the Masoretic Text (MT) of Exod. 21:16, while Deut. 24:7 and the LXX of Exodus speak of an “Israelite.” Whether or not Josephus chose “person” over “Israelite” for apologetic reasons, as some suggest, the Hebrew

1210

David M. Goldenberg

a person the penalty shall be death; the purloiner of gold or silver shall pay double the sum. He who kills another while engaged in burglary shall be innocent, even though the thief were yet but breaking through his wall. 272He who steals a head of cattle shall pay fourfold as penalty, save in the case of an ox, for which text of Exod. 21:16 would have provided Josephus the necessary support for his rendition of the law—assuming, of course, that the Hebrew text before Josephus was the same as the MT.53 the purloiner of gold or silver shall pay double the sum The Bible (Exod. 22:6–8) treats the law of theft of money or inanimate objects only in the case where these items have been entrusted to another to watch and are stolen from his possession. On the other hand, a case of simple theft is mentioned only in the case of an “ox or a sheep” (Exod. 21:37–22:3). In both cases—simple theft, and theft from the one entrusted—if the thief is caught, he pays double the value of the stolen object (unless the ox or sheep has been slaughtered or sold). Josephus drew the obvious conclusion, as did the tannaim, that theft is theft, whether from the original owner or from the one entrusted with the object.54 He who kills another while engaged in burglary shall be innocent This is a paraphrase of Exod. 22:1 (NRSV 22:2, “If a thief is found breaking in, and is beaten to death, no bloodguilt is incurred.”), but the following verse restricts the law to a case that occurs at night: “If the sun has risen on him, there is bloodguilt in that case,” and so the law was understood by Philo.55 Tannaitic law, however, interprets this verse metaphorically, and thus, like Josephus, draws no distinction between day and night.56 Even though the thief were yet but breaking through his wall Josephus’s ‘breaking through his wall’ explains the MT mah. teret, which is similarly explained by Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (h. rk’ dkwtl’).57 The qualification “even though” implies that the homeowner is innocent whether the thief is killed after he has already broken in or even while breaking in. Exodus 22:1 speaks only of a thief found while breaking in (or in the breach).58 Apparently Josephus understood the verse in a broader sense, not restricted in time to the moment of breaking through, or in space to the place of the breach. After all, if the homeowner is innocent for killing a thief in the act of breaking in, he should certainly be innocent for doing so once the thief has already broken into the house and poses a greater danger to the owner’s life.59 One tannaitic statement goes further and declares that the homeowner is innocent even if he kills the thief outside leaving the house after the theft.60 272. He who steals a head of cattle Exodus 21:37 has “an ox or a sheep.” The Hebrew word translated “sheep” (seh) has the meaning of “small livestock,” including especially goats as well as sheep.61 This was also the understanding of the tannaim.62 Josephus’s “cattle” (boskēma; or “farm animals” as Feldman translates) reflects that understanding. shall pay fourfold . . . fivefold According to the Bible this penalty is assessed only if the animal was either sold or slaughtered. As Josephus, so too Philo (Spec. Laws 4.12) refers to the law of fourfold and fivefold without mention of selling or slaughtering. Although the Mishnah (BK 7:1) and Tosefta (BK 7:12) follow the Bible in requiring sale or slaughter, one tannaitic text omits this qualification, as do Josephus and Philo, perhaps, however, only for stylistic reasons.63 In Ant. 16.3, Josephus says that “the laws ordered that a thief was to pay a fourfold fine,” without any qualification of what was stolen. This all-encompassing statement contradicts Josephus’s statement in Ant. 4.271–72 that stealing inanimate objects (“gold or silver”) requires a penalty of double repayment. There are, however, parallels that are strikingly similar to Josephus’s statement in Ant. 16.3. Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael states, “[If one steals] clothing, fruit, utensils, domestic animals, wild

Mosaic Constitution 1211

he shall be fined fivefold. He who does not have the means to defray the imposed amount shall become the slave of those who had him condemned. 273Let someone who has been sold to a fellow countryman be a slave for six years, but in the seventh year let him be set free. If he has had children from a slave woman at the house of the one who bought him, however, and wishes to be a slave because of good will and affectionate love for his own things, let him be freed when the year of the jubilee arrives—this is the fiftieth year—and let him take along both his animals, or birds, he repays fourfold or fivefold;”64 and Luke 19:8 has Zacchaeus says to Jesus: “Look, half of my possessions, Lord, I will give to the poor; and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will pay back four times as much.”65 the imposed amount Greek epitimion, “the value of the fine.” This presumably differs from the biblical “he shall be sold for his theft” (Exod. 22:2), meaning the value of the animal only, which is indeed the tannaitic understanding.66 Some have suggested that Josephus (and Philo, Spec. Laws 4.3) reflects the law as it was practiced in his day.67 shall become the slave of those who had him condemned Exodus 22:2 says that he should be sold into slavery; it does not say that he should become a slave to the person from whom he stole.68 Two solutions have been proposed by translating the Greek for “of those who had him condemned” (tois katadedikasmenois) differently: “he shall become a slave through whom he was condemned” or “he shall become a slave for the benefit of whom he was condemned.” According to the latter view, the thief either became a slave of the one from whom he stole, or he was sold into slavery with the proceeds going to the one from whom he stole.69 These interpretations would agree with Josephus’s report elsewhere (Ant. 16.3): “The laws ordered that a thief was to pay a fourfold fine, and, if he were unable to do so, he was to be sold.” 273 The relevant biblical verses are Exod. 21:2–5 and Lev. 25:39–41. Deuteronomy 15:12–16 repeats the Exodus verses but adds that the master must furnish the slave with various provisions, a requirement omitted by Josephus. Josephus also omits the law, mentioned in both Exod. 21:6 and Deut. 15:17, that if the slave decides to stay with his master after six years of service, his ear is to be pierced with an awl. Both of those verses add that in such a case, the slave is to serve forever. It is Lev. 25:40 that refers to the jubilee year as the time when the slave is set free. In putting these laws of slavery after Ant. 4.271–72, Josephus is following not the order of the biblical verses but the similarity of topic in the immediately preceding section. Having just told us that if one cannot pay the fine for theft, he is to be sold into slavery, Josephus now continues with laws of slavery. A similar connection is made in Tg. Ps.-J. and Tg. Neof. at Exod. 21:2, “When he is sold as a slave for his theft, to an Israelite, he shall serve six years,” which is based on the tannaitic understanding that Exod. 21:2–6 refers to a case where one is sold into slavery for theft: “Since it says, ‘[He must make restitution;] if he lacks the means, he shall be sold for his theft.’ (Exod. 22:2), I might think that it means forever. Therefore, it says ‘he shall serve for six years’ (Exod. 21:2)— he serves for six years and goes free on the seventh.”70 “‘Then his master shall bring him to God’ (Exod. 21:6)—to the judges. Rabbi said, ‘Scripture is speaking of a case where he is sold by the court for his theft.’”71 An exposition attributed to R. Yoh.anan ben Zakkai (1st century) makes the same connection homiletically: “it is the ear that is pierced because it was the ear that heard the law ‘You shall not steal’ (Exod. 20:13) and yet this man stole anyway.”72

1212 David M. Goldenberg

children and his wife who is free. 274If anyone finds gold or silver on the road, after diligent search for the loser and public proclamation of the place where he found it, let him duly restore it, reckoning it dishonest to profit by another’s loss. Similarly, in the case of beasts which one meets straying in a desert place; but if the owner be not found forthwith, let him keep them at his home, calling God to witness that he 274 This law of restitution of lost property is a paraphrase of Deut. 22:1–3: “If you see your fellow’s ox or sheep gone astray, do not ignore it; you must take it back to your fellow. If your fellow does not live near you or you do not know who he is, you shall bring it home and it shall remain with you until your fellow claims it; then you shall give it back to him. You shall do the same with his ass; you shall do the same with his garment; and so too shall you do with anything that your fellow loses and you find; you must not remain indifferent” (Exod. 23:4 speaks of “your enemy’s” ox or ass). As in the Bible, Josephus divides the lost property into two parts, animate and inanimate objects, although Josephus has changed the biblical inanimate “garment” to “gold and silver,” perhaps recalling Exod. 22:6: “money or goods,” which he had just dealt with in Ant. 4.271.73 Josephus adds to the biblical law the criterion of where the object is found, the notion of a public announcement of the lost item, and a reason for the law. gold or silver on the road . . . beasts . . . straying in a desert place This differentiation of where the object is found, while not in the Bible, is paralleled in tannaitic literature. “A spade or a garment on the road and cow grazing among seeds—these are lost objects”;74 “an ass going through vineyards, utensils lying in the middle of the road.”75 The tannaim further define the place where the animal was found: “An ass or cow grazing on the road is not considered a lost object . . . a cow running through vineyards is a lost object.”76 “The word ‘straying’ [in the Bible] always means outside the boundary.”77 Josephus and the tannaim, then, both add to the biblical law the criterion of place where the object is found, differentiating between animate and inanimate objects.78 after diligent search for the loser A tannaitic source interprets the verse in Deuteronomy to mean that the finder must make a search for the loser.79 public proclamation This addition to the biblical law is also found in tannaitic halakhah: “There was a rock of [losers’] claim in Jerusalem. Whoever lost something would go there and whoever found something would go there. The one would make proclamation and the other would identify the object and take it.”80 The Mishnah many times mentions proclamation as the method of returning a lost item.81 One tannaitic source dates the custom of proclamation to the time of Josephus: “Originally they used to make proclamation . . . however, after the destruction of the temple.”82 Josephus’s description of the proclamation as indicating the place where the object was found is also paralleled in a Rabbinic source, but it is a later, amoraic, one.83 reckoning it dishonest to profit by another’s loss This extrabiblical explanation for the law is similar to the explanation Josephus provided for the prohibition of lending on interest: “for it is not just to profit from the misfortunes of one’s compatriot” (Ant. 4.266). but if the owner be not found forthwith This is a paraphrase of the biblical “If your fellow does not live near you” (Deut. 22:2), with Josephus transforming spatial proximity to temporal proximity, its implied meaning in the Bible.84 let him keep them at his home This rendering by Thackeray is not the best translation of the Greek, which means “let him watch over them,” a translation that Feldman has accepted. Josephus does not mean to imply that the finder may keep the objects for himself. Cf. the translation of M. Hadas to 4 Macc. 2:14,85 and Philo, Virtues 96. calling God to witness that he has not appropriated the goods of another An extrabiblical addition,

Mosaic Constitution 1213

has not appropriated the goods of another. 275It is not permitted to pass by when someone’s beasts, suffering damage owing to a storm, have fallen in mud; reckoning the distress as one’s own, one should join the rescue and lend assistance. 276One must point out the road to those who are ignorant of it, and not, for the pleasure of laughing oneself, impede another’s business by misleading him. Similarly, let no one curse a person not present or a mute person. 277In a fight where there is no iron weapon, if someone is which does appear, however, in the biblical law of theft of an entrusted object at Exod. 22:7 (“If the thief is not caught, the owner of the house shall depose before God that he has not laid hands on the other’s property”). In tannaitic tradition this verse was understood as requiring an oath in court, which is reflected in the Targums’ translation of elohim as “judges” rather than “God.”86 Note also that according to the tannaim, the oath requires “calling God to witness.”87 275 Exodus 23:5 speaks of helping the beast of “your enemy,” while Deut. 22:4 restricts the law to “your fellow.” Josephus is nonspecific, as he is also above in the law of restitution of lost property (Ant. 4.274). Later tannaitic interpretation specified that Exod. 23:5 referred to unloading the animal’s burden, and Deut. 22:4 to reloading it.88 reckoning the distress as one’s own Greek ton ponon oikeion hēgēsmenon. Feldman and Thackeray in their respective translations have presumably taken the subject of the distress (ton ponon) to be the owner of the animal. Whiston, however, understood the subject to be the animal: “reckoning its pain (ton ponon) as his own.”89 His translation would accord well with a Rabbinic understanding of the reason for the law: that one must not cause pain to animals.90 On the other hand, taking the owner as the subject of the pain, another translation is possible if we understand the Greek participial clause (ton ponon oikeion hēgēsamenon) in a causal sense: “since he believed that he would have labored for himself.” Such a translation would also correspond with a Rabbinic (tannaitic) interpretation of the law that requires one to help the distressed owner only if one would have helped were the animal his own.91 276. One must point out the road to those who are ignorant of it There is no biblical requirement to show the road to one who has lost his way. Josephus seems to have drawn on the same source that later served the Rabbis, since such a requirement does appear in tannaitic literature.92 The tannaim considered this law to fall under the category of lost objects: one must return a lost object to its owner whether that object is a possession of the owner or the owner himself. Thus, in tannaitic literature as in Josephus, showing the road is discussed with the laws regarding lost objects. misleading him Does Josephus intend this phrase to mean that “neglecting to give him directions” is prohibited, as implied in the first part of the sentence, or is he introducing an additional element here, intending the phrase to mean that “deliberately misleading him” is prohibited also? The Palestinian Targum provide a direct parallel to the prohibition of deliberately misleading: Tg. Ps.-J. to Deut. 27:18 says “Cursed be the man who misleads a stranger on the road, for he is compared to a blind man.”93 The same notion, less explicitly stated, is found in the Palestinain Targums to Lev. 19:14: “Before a stranger who is compared to a blind man do not put a stumbling block.”94 A stranger, of course, is one who does not know the way. Similarly, let no one curse a person not present or a mute person The meaning of the first clause is that one should not revile or curse someone who is not present to hear.95 Lekah. T. ov, a medieval midrashic anthology based on earlier sources, gives this very interpretation to the biblical “deaf ” in Lev. 19:14 RSV (“You shall not curse the deaf ”; NJPS: insult), which “includes even one [lit. ‘an Israelite’] who does not hear you; all the more so if you are in his presence” (i.e., even one

1214 David M. Goldenberg

struck and dies on the spot, let him be avenged and let the one who has struck him suffer the same. If he is carried to his home and after being ill for several days then dies, let the one who struck him be free from punishment. If, however, he has been saved but has incurred much expense, let him [the one who struck him] pay for all that he has spent during the time of his confinement to bed and all that he has given to the who is capable of hearing you but does not, because he is not in your presence; all the more so if you are in his presence). Josephus may have been aware of this exegetic expansion.96 But why should Josephus have replaced the biblical “deaf ” rather than extending its meaning, as did the Midrash? Furthermore, why did he include “the mute person”? Josephus may have interpreted the biblical prohibition as hinging on the inability of the one cursed to respond, whether because he does not hear the curse or because he is incapable of responding. I think, however, another answer is more likely. The word that is translated “deaf ” in both the MT (h. eresh) and the LXX (kōphon) can mean “mute” as well as “deaf,” and Josephus understood it as meaning “mute.”97 In this, he may have been influenced by a semantic development in which both the Hebrew and Greek words came to mean “deaf and dumb” in Josephus’s time.98 277 Josephus divides this law into three parts: (1) death is immediate, for which the killer receives the death penalty; (2) death is delayed, for which there is no punishment, (i.e., no death penalty); and (3) the victim does not die, for which monetary compensation is made. The third part is clearly derived from Exod. 21:18–19. The first part also may have a biblical basis, either Exod. 21:12 or Lev. 24:17, 21, or both; or possibly Josephus (or his source) deduced it from Exod. 21:18– 19: “and he does not die but has to take to his bed—if he then gets up and walks outdoors upon his staff, the assailant shall go unpunished.” That is, if the victim does die, then he who struck him shall not go unpunished but shall also die. The same deduction was made by the tannaim but is not as clearly enunciated until the amoraic period.99 The second part, however—that one does not receive the death penalty if the person whom he struck remains alive several days before dying—is paralleled in the Bible only regarding the killing of a slave (Exod. 21:20–21). Some scholars believe that these verses, which immediately follow the passage concerning the killing of a freeman, were the source for Josephus, who mistakenly or deliberately combined them in his description of the law for killing a freeman.100 But this view is not supported by the second part of Ant. 4.277, which contains close parallels to Exod. 21:18–19, the biblical treatment of the freeman. While Josephus’s “for several days” may or may not derive from “a day or two” said of the slave (it may be Josephus’s own addition), it is clear that “if he is carried to his home and after being ill” is a paraphrase of “but has to take to his bed” and “let the one who struck him be free from punishment” paraphrases “the assailant shall go unpunished” (Exod. 21:19), both said of the freeman. Josephus’s law of delayed death is not found in the biblical text but it is recorded in Rabbinic literature. According to tannaitic halakhah, the law in the case of a freeman is divided into three parts, as it is in Josephus, with delayed death not requiring the death penalty: “If one smites his fellow . . . and it was determined that the injured party would live, but he died his heirs receive monetary compensation,” but no death penalty.101 This is the meaning of Josephus’s “If he is carried to his home and after being ill for several days,” i.e., it appeared that he would live, and not that it was clear from the outset that he would die but that he lingered on for a while. Josephus’s usage of epeita with a finite verb after a participle indicates that this is his meaning, for such a construction “is often used to mark an opposition between the participle and the verb, marking surprise or the like.”102 Philo also has the same three-part law when

Mosaic Constitution 1215

physicians. 288As in the case of entrusted objects, similarly if one should deprive of wages those who labor with their bodies, let him be hated. Therefore, a poor man ought not to be deprived of his wages, since we know that God has given this to him in place of land and the other possessions. In fact, one ought not even to delay the payment, but should pay him the same day, since God does not wish that the one who has worked should lack the enjoyment of the things for which he labored. discussing the murder of a freeman: “[1] He smites the other with his clenched fist or takes up a stone and throws it. . . . If his opponent dies at once the striker too must die . . . [2] but if that other is not killed on the spot by the blow, but is laid up with sickness and after keeping his bed and receiving the proper care gets up again and goes abroad . . . the striker must be fined twice over, first to make good the other’s enforced idleness and secondly to compensate for the cost of his cure. This payment will release him from the death penalty [3] even if the sufferer from the blow subsequently dies.”103 In summary, Josephus, Philo, and the tannaim in discussing injuries resulting from fights (Exod. 21:18–19) divide the possible results into three cases. (1) Death is immediate; the penalty to the striker is death. (2) Death is delayed; the striker is not punished by death. (3) The victim does not die; the striker makes compensation. 288 The biblical bases for this law are Deut. 24:14–15 and Lev. 19:13. In Ant. 20.220, Josephus notes that laborers on public works projects in Jerusalem were immediately paid for work done. Similarly Jesus’s parable about the laborers in the vineyard (Matt. 20:8) indicates payment at the end of the day without delay.104 those who labor with their bodies This clause is a logical inference from the biblical “a needy and destitute laborer” (Deut. 24:14), that is, excluding those who lend their animals or tools for hire, which agrees with a tannaitic interpretation: “The verse says ‘because they are poor,’—those who are subject to poverty and wealth, therefore excluding animals and utensils which are not subject to poverty and wealth.”105 So too Philo: “The wages of the poor man are to be paid on the same day . . . because the manual worker or load carrier who toils painfully with his whole body like a beast of burden” (Virt. 88). let him be hated This phrase is not found in the biblical account and may have arisen through Josephus’s misreading of nose’ “to depend on” (Deut. 24:15) as sone’, “to hate.” The idea that one ought to hate the evildoer is found elsewhere in Josephus, in Qumran, and in the Targum to Ecclesiastes.106 God has given this to him in place of land and the other possessions In other words, to deny the laborer his wages is tantamount to theft, which Josephus probably deduced from Lev. 19:13: “You shall not defraud your fellow. You shall not commit robbery. The wages of a laborer.” The tannaitic corpus, relying also on Lev. 19:13, is explicit on this matter: “He who withholds the wages of a laborer transgresses five prohibitions: You shall not withhold the wages, you shall not commit theft.”107 one ought not even to delay the payment This division of the law into two parts, total denial of wages and deferment of wages, is apparently based on Lev. 19:13 understanding the verse as containing two separate prohibitions, thus: “You shall not defraud your fellow. You shall not commit robbery” [i.e., total denial]. The wages of a laborer shall not remain with you until morning” [i.e., deferment].”108 since God does not wish A paraphrase of the biblical “he will cry to the Lord against you” (Deut. 24:15).

1216 David M. Goldenberg

Notes 1. David Nahman has recently argued that Pharisaic-tannaitic law represents the common, not specifically sectarian, halakhah of the time, and therefore Josephus’s correspondence with such laws cannot be used to support a Pharisaic identification (“Halakha be-khitve Yosef ben Mattityahu” [PhD diss., Bar Ilan University, 2004], 310–36). Peter Tomson (“Les systèmes de halakha du Contre Apion et des Antiquités,” Internationales Josephus-Kolloquium Paris 2001, ed. Folker Siegert and Jürgen Kalms, 188–220, esp. 203–5; in Münsteraner judaistische Studien 12 [Munich: Lit 2002]), on the other hand, sees the correspondence between Josephus and tannaitic halakhah as an indication that Josephus was a Pharisee. The question of Josephus’s identity remains unsettled because although his legal paraphrase of Scripture may reflect a primarily Pharisaic-tannaitic viewpoint, it does not reflect an exclusively Pharisaic-tannaitic viewpoint. On this, see also Eyal Regev and David Nahman, “Yosef ben Mattityahu veha-halakhot shel ha-kitot biymei ha-bayit ha-sheni,” Zion 67 (2002): 401–33. For how the nonlegal parts of Josephus affect the question of Josephus’s Pharisaic self-identity, see Harold Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus (Missoula mt: Scholars Press, 1976), 6–16, 178. For an alternative to the common view of the Pharisees as precursors of the tannaim, see Martin Goodman, “Josephus and Variety in First-Century Judaism,” Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities 7, no. 6 (2000): 201–11. For others who also question the connection, see Amram Tropper, Wisdom, Politics and Historiography: Tractate Avot in the Context of the Graeco-Roman Near East (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 5n12, and Catherine Hezser, The Social Structure of the Rabbinic Movement in Roman Palestine (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 69, based on the work of Shaye Cohen and Peter Schäfer. 2. See Ya‘akov Sussman, “The History of the Halakha and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Preliminary Talmudic Observations on Miqsat Ma‘ase ha-Torah (4QMMT),” in Elisha Qimron and John Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4.V. Miqsat Ma‘ase ha-Torah, DJD 10 (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1994), 179–200, which is an abridged English version of Sussman’s article in Tarbiz. 59 (1990): 11–76. See several of Lawrence Schiffman’s articles, recently collected in his Qumran and Jerusalem (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2010) especially chapters 10, 12, 19, and “Halakhah and Sectarianism in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Historical Context, ed. Timothy H. Lim (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 123–142. The first several sections (14–30) of Albert Baumgarten’s article, “Rabbinic Literature as a Source for the History of Jewish Sectarianism in the Second Temple Period,” DSD 2.1 (1995), also has a good discussion of the varieties of early halakhah, including Rabbinic and Qumran parallels. The early roots of Rabbinic halakhah extend as well to legal terminology, on which see Elisha Qimron, “Munah.ei ha-halakha bi-megilot midbar yehuda ve-h.ashivotam le-h.eqer toledot ha-halakha,” in The Scrolls of the Judaean Desert: Forty Years of Research, ed. Magen Broshi et al. ( Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1992), 128–38. In recent years there has been increasing interest in the halakhic material from Qumran. For an overview of this material, see Lawrence Schiffman, “Legal Texts and Codification in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Discussing Cultural Differences: Text, Context, and Non-Text in Rabbinic Judaism, ed. Rivka Ulmer (Lanham Md: University Press of America, 2007), 1–21, and Hannah K. Harrington, “Biblical Law at Qumran,” The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years, ed, Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam; with the assistance of Andrea E. Alvarez (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 1:160–185, and note her concluding remarks that “much of the Pharisaic halakhah existed at the time of the writers of these Scrolls” (183). For a bibliography o