Performances of Ancient Jewish Letters: From Elephantine to MMT 9783666550935, 9783525550939, 9783647550930

Citation preview

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplements

Edited by Armin Lange, Bernard M. Levinson and Vered Noam Advisory Board Katell Berthelot (University of Aix-Marseille), George Brooke (University of Manchester), Jonathan Ben Dov (University of Haifa), Beate Ego (University of Osnabrück), Esther Eshel (Bar-Ilan University), Heinz-Josef Fabry (University of Bonn), Steven Fraade (Yale University), Maxine L. Grossman (University of Maryland), Christine Hayes (Yale University), Catherine Hezser (University of London), Alex Jassen (University of Minnesota), James L. Kugel (Bar-Ilan University), Jodi Magness (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill), Carol Meyers (Duke University), Eric Meyers (Duke University), Hillel Newman (University of Haifa), Christophe Nihan (University of Lausanne), Lawrence H. Schiffman (New York University), Konrad Schmid (University of Zurich), Adiel Schremer (Bar-Ilan University), Michael Segal (Hebrew University of Jerusalem), Aharon Shemesh (Bar-Ilan University), Günter Stemberger (University of Vienna), Kristin De Troyer (University of St. Andrews), Azzan Yadin (Rutgers University)

Volume 20

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Marvin Lloyd Miller

Performances of Ancient Jewish Letters From Elephantine to MMT

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

For Elfreda With Whom I Continue to Create My Story

Cover: Ezra Reads the Law to the People (Neh. 8:1–12) Ó Gustave Dor¦ (1832–1883), common licence CC-0 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data available online: http://dnb.d-nb.de. ISSN 2197-0092 ISBN 978-3-647-55093-0 You can find alternative editions of this book and additional material on our Website: www.v-r.de Ó 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Theaterstraße 13, 37073 Göttingen/ Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht LLC, Bristol, CT, U.S.A. www.v-r.de All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher. Typesetting by Konrad Triltsch GmbH, Ochsenfurt

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Contents

List of Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Primary Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Secondary Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9 9 10

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

15

Chapter 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Performance Criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.1 Different Approaches to Performance . . . . . 1.1.2 Towards a Definition of Performance Criticism 1.2 Performance and Ethnopoetics . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Performance and Folklore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 New Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

17 19 19 25 27 29 34

Chapter 2 Going Behind the Scenes: History of Scholarship 2.1 History of Scholarship of Ancient Letters . . . . . . . . 2.1.1 Greek Letters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.2 Aramaic Letters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.3 Hebrew Letters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 What is a Letter? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 History of Scholarship of MMT . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

37 38 38 41 45 49 53 56

Chapter 3 Setting the Stage: Methods . . . . . . . . 3.1 Contributions of Historical Critical Methods . . 3.1.1 Form Criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.2 Redaction Criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Contributions of Recent Insights into Texuality 3.2.1 Semiotics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2 Oral Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

57 58 58 60 61 61 65

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

6

Contents

3.3 Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

71

Chapter 4 Preparing for the Performances . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 From Text to Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.1 How to Read a Letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.2 Letter Carriers and Readers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Performances and Audiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1 Embodiment of a Text for an Audience . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2 Interaction with the Audience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.3 Authority of the Performer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.4 Performance and Cultural Memory . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Performance in Second Temple Judaism . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.1 Some Scholarly Proposals for Jewish Scribal Traditions 4.3.2 Performances of Ancient Jewish Letters . . . . . . . . 4.3.3 Qumran Scribal Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

73 74 75 81 83 84 86 90 93 95 96 98 100 102

Chapter 5 Performances of two Free Standing Letters from Egypt 5.1 Form And Function Of Ancient Letters . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Hermopolis Family Letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.1 Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.2 Texture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.3 Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Passover Letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.1 Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.2 Texture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.3 Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Summarizing the Performances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

105 106 109 110 113 122 126 127 129 137 139

Chapter 6 Performances of two Embedded Jewish Letters 6.1 Aramaic Letters in Ezra: An Overview . . . . . . . . 6.2 An Embedded Aramaic Letter : Ezra 5 . . . . . . . . 6.2.1 Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.2 Texture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.3 Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 An Embedded Hebrew Letter : Jeremiah 29 . . . . . . 6.3.1 Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.2 Texture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.3 Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 Summarizing the Performances . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

141 142 145 145 148 157 160 161 165 181 185

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

7

Contents

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

187 188 189 192 204 206 206 213 218 219

Chapter 8 A Case Study of the Performances of MMT . . . . 8.1 Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1.1 Scene 1: Calendrical Section . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1.2 Scene 2: Legal Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1.3 Scene 3: Exhortation Section . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1.4 Evaluation of the evidence gathered from the text 8.2 Texture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2.1 Oral Register . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2.2 Cultural Traditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3 Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.1 Late Second Century BCE Performances . . . . . 8.3.2 Late First Century BCE. Performance . . . . . . . 8.3.3 A Performance Reflecting on an Earlier Tradition 8.4 Bringing the Performances Together . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

221 222 223 225 241 246 247 247 250 254 255 258 260 263

Chapter 9 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

267

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

275

Ancient Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

303

Modern Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

309

Subject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

315

Chapter 7 Performances of two Greek Letters 7.1 An Embedded Letter in Greek Esther . . 7.1.1 Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1.2 Texture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1.3 Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 An Introductory Letter to 2 Maccabees . 7.2.1 Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.2 Texture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.3 Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 Summarizing the Performances . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

List of Abbreviations

Primary Literature In most instances, abbreviations and matters of style in this study follow The SBL Handbook of Style: For Biblical Studies and Related Disciplines, edited by Billie Jean Collins, Bob Buller, and John F. Kutsko (2nd edition; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014). Arrian Epict. diss. CD Cicero Brut. De or. Flac. GL Herodotus Hist. Homer Il. Isocrates Panath. Josephus Ant. Longinus [Subl.] Mishnah Pesah ˙ Pausanias Descr. Philo Abraham Good Person Rewards

Epicteti dissertations (Discourses of Epictetus) Cairo Genizah copy of the Damascus Document Brutus De oratore Pro Flacco Greek Leningrad Codex Histories Iliad Panathenaicus Jewish Antiquities De sublimitate (On the Sublime) Pesahim ˙ Description of Greece On the Life of Abraham That Every Good Person is Free On Rewards and Punishments

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

10

List of Abbreviations

Parmenides Phaedrus Demosthenes De genio Socratis De elocutione 1Q Genesis Apocryphon 1Q Hodayot or Thanksgiving Hymns 1Q pesher on Habakkuk Rule of the Community 4Q Apocryphon of Jeremiah 4Q Florilegium or Midrash on Eschatology 4Q Miqsat Ma as´e ha-Torah ˙ 4Q pesher on Psalms 11Q targum of Job papyrus Murabba at ˘

˘

Plato Parm. Phaedr. Plutarch Dem. Gen. Socr. Pseudo-Demetrius Eloc. Qumran 1QGen ap 1QH 1QpHab 1QS 4QApocJer 4QFlor 4QMMT 4QpPs 11QtgJob papMur Talmud Ber. Meg. Xenophon Cyr. Mem.

Berakot Megillah Cyropaedia Memorabilia

Secondary Literature AB AbB ABS ABD AJSL AOAT AP AS ASOR BDB BHS BMAP

Anchor Bible ˝ bersetzung. F.R. Kraus. Vol. 7. LeiAltbabylonische Briefe im Umschrift und U den: Brill, 1977. Archeology and Biblical Studies The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992 American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures Alter Orient und Altes Testament Aramiac Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C.A. Cowley. Oxford: Clarendon, 1923. Aramaic Studies American School of Oriental Research Brown, Francis, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Edited by K. Elliger and W. Rudolph. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1983. Brooklyn Museum of Aramaic Papyri. E.G. Kraeling. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

11

Secondary Literature

BibInt BRev BTB BWANT BZAW CBQ CEJL CHJ

˘

Biblical Interpretation Series Bible Review Biblical Theology Bulletin Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Catholic Biblical Quarterly Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature Cambridge History of Judaism. Edited by William D. Davies and Louis Finkelstein. 4 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984–2006. CJAS Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity Series CRBS Current Research in Biblical Studies DJD X Qimron, Elisha and John Strugnell. Qumran Cave 4, V: Miqsat Ma as´e Ha˙ Torah. Discoveries in the Judean Desert X. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. DSD Dead Sea Discoveries GBS Guides to Biblical Scholarship EBib Etudes bibliques EDSS Encyclopedia of Dead Sea Scrolls GHCLOT Gesenius’s Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures. F.H. Wilhelm Gesenius. Repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950. HALOT The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann J Stamm. Translated and edited under the supervision of Mervyn E.J. Richardson. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994–1999. HAT Handbuch zum Alten Testament HCOT Historical Commentary on the Old Testament HKAT Handkommentar zum Alten Testament HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs HTS Harvard Theological Studies HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual ICC International Critical Commentary IES Israel Exploration Society KJV King James Version JAOS Journal of American Oriental Society JB Jerusalem Bible JDS Judean Desert Studies JHS Journal of Hellenic Studies JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies JNSL Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series JSP Journal for the Study of Pseudepigrapha JSQ Jewish Studies Quarterly JSS Journal of Semitic Studies KAI Kanaanäische Inschriften (Moabitisch, Althebräisch, Phonizisch, Punisch). Edited by Mark Lidzbarski. Giessen: Töpelmann, 1907.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

12

List of Abbreviations

LAI LEH

Library of Ancient Israel Lust, Johan, Erik Eynikel, and Katrin Hauspie, eds. Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Rev. ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2003. LHBOTS The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies LSJ Liddell, Henry George, Robert Scott, and Henry Stuart Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. with revised supplement. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. LSTS The Library of Second Temple Studies LXX Septuagint NASB New American Standard Bible NCBC New Century Bible Commentary NEB New English Bible NETS A New English Translation of the Septuagint and Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under that Title. Edited by Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. NASB New American Standard Bible NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament NJPS Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures: The New JPS Translation according to the Traditional Hebrew Text NTOA Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament NIDOTTE New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Edited by Willem A. VanGemeren. 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997. NIV New International Version NRSV New Revised Standard Version NTS New Testament Studies NTTS New Testament Tools and Studies OLAW Orality and Literacy in the Ancient World OTL Old Testament Library OTS Old Testament Studies PN Personal Name PRSt Perspectives in Religious Studies RB Revue biblique RevQ Revue de Qumran SBL Society of Biblical Literature SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series SBLSBS Society of Biblical Literature Sources for Biblical Studies SBLSup Society of Biblical Literature Supplement SBLSymS Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series SDSSRL Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature SR Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses STDJ Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah StPB Studia Post-Biblica TAD Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt. Bezalel Porten and Ada Yardeni. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1988–89. TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Secondary Literature

13

and Helmer Riggren. Translated by John T. Willis et al. 8 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–2006. TLOT Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. Edited by Ernst Jenni, with assistance from Claus Westermann. Translated by Mark E. Biddle. 3 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997. TUMSR Trinity University Monograph Series in Religion VT Vetus Testamentum WAW Writings from the Ancient World WBC Word Biblical Commentary WMAT Wissenschaftliche Monographie zum Alten Testament WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographie zum Alten und Neuen Testament WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament ZAH Zeitschrift für Althebräistik ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Preface

My initial exploration in performance was as an undergraduate student who was asked to be the resident composer for the Western Film Board at the University of Alberta as part of a team of up-and-coming film actors, actresses, directors, technicians, and musicians. The summer was spent composing and arranging music for students who were learning the art of creating stories. The experience of being a part of their acting, directing, and filming sessions exposed me to the excitement of telling stories from a particular point of view. That involvement developed into opportunities for me to act in short sketches, plays, and musicals. My emphasis then shifted from music composing to being a pastor and during that period I memorized and performed several books of the New Testament in an attempt to bring the biblical text to life before an audience. The next stage consisted of applying my past experiences to the rigors of academic inquiry. I arrived at performance criticism through the back door. My doctoral dissertation on ancient letters was under the direction of George Brooke, whose patient oversight guided my investigation. He suggested that performance may offer an approach that is fresh and contribute something new to the understanding of ancient letters. Professor Alex Samely, a member of my dissertation panel, examined parts of my rough study and pressed me to pursue performance criticism as the centrepiece of my investigation. The course of my inquiry was now set. After having completed my dissertation, Bernard Levinson graciously asked me to consider converting my work into a book for the Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplement series. I optimistically indicated that it would only take me a few months to complete the revisions. The next two years consisted of rethinking aspects of how these letters may have been performed. Significant changes were adopted that reshaped and refined the study, such as incorporating ethnopoetics into the structure of the text, engaging more robustly with primary sources, and considering a wide range of modern treatments on the subject. The anonymous reviewer generously provided extensive critical feedback that trig-

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

16

Preface

gered new ways of strengthening my approach. Obviously, all remaining errors and weaknesses in the study are my responsibility. There are several people who have encouraged me along the way, in particular Dorothy Peters, who has been a strong supporter of my academic endeavours, and Dirk Büchner, who has been a great dialogue partner. Finally, thanks to my adult children, Jace and his wife Andrea, Tristan and his wife Shiyara, and Jonathan, who perform around the dinner table and at all family events and provide enough laughter and joy to off-set some of the more tedious aspects of studying performance criticism. I reserve my deepest gratitude for Elfreda, my wife, who has lived my performance story in all its stages and has supported me no matter where my story has taken me.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Chapter 1 Introduction

“Performance” is a contested concept. Continued debate by sociologists, anthropologists, theatre experts, and other specialists seems to result in constructive disagreement. The decision to adopt the term in the title of this volume was made with some hesitation. Indeed, it has been argued by some sociologists that all social behaviour can be considered a performance, a view that is too broad to be helpfully applied to ancient letters. On the other hand, theatre studies have frequently narrowed the field too much by including only theatrical presentations as performances, which is not a workable definition because the ancient Jewish letters under review were most likely not performed on a theatrical stage. If “performance” cannot satisfactorily be defined, how can I apply the term in a meaningful way to this study? Recognizing that there are conceptual differences among experts concerning “performance,” it seems best to consider how the term will be used in this book. It seems clear that a definition needs to be considered that includes both verbal and non-verbal means used to promote the meaning of a letter. The perspective adopted here implies that ancient letters were read, or better performed, most likely before an audience. Having said that, we cannot assume that all letters were read in public, and therefore this study will argue for that position whenever it seems plausible. Until recently scholarship on ancient Jewish letters has been relatively scarce, to some extent due to the concerns over the authenticity of some letters embedded in literary texts. It seems to be time for a re-evaluation of many of these ancient letters and an opportunity to apply a new methodological perspective on Jewish letters. This book sets out to explore the impact a performance may have had on an audience by piecing together evidence for performance that is fragmentary and ambiguous. The intent of this difficult task is to re-animate the letters for performance in order to offer interpretive glimpses into the text.1

1 By “texts” I refer to a wide range of material including oral and printed texts. The term “text” etymologically comes from the root meaning “to weave,” which is the way certain cultures

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

18

Introduction

Before going on to discuss the individual letters in this volume, I would like to devote some thought here to the historical background of performance criticism, particularly as it applies to letters. The study of ancient Jewish letters is a recent development in Biblical Studies. In the early twentieth century, the pioneering publications on ancient letters—such as Gustav Deissmann, Francis Exler, and Ioannis Sykutris—focused on categorizing Greek letters.2 These methodological approaches yielded invaluable results and laid a foundation for further studies. One of the significant consequences of their inquiry was that understanding the form of ancient letters was now viewed as worthy of serious study. With new archaeological discoveries being made at the beginning of the twentieth century, the formal aspects of Aramaic letters could be highlighted and compared with letters found in the Hebrew Bible. It has been a very welcome development that several important figures have taken up the task of studying Aramaic letters from different perspectives. Joseph Fitzmyer provided a description of the Aramaic epistolarly corpus, Philip Alexander studied nonbiblical Aramaic letters from the Persian era and Paul Dion considered the possible influences of other cultures on letter writing.3 More recent research has considered Jewish letters written in Hebrew. For instance, Dennis Pardee compared Hebrew letters from different groups, regions, and time periods, Dirk Schwiderski considered Hebrew and Aramaic letters from the ninth century BCE to the Bar Kokhba letters, and Mark Whitters emphasized the characteristics of Jewish festal letters.4 A fuller treatment of scholars’ works that have contributed to our understanding of ancient Jewish letters is given in the next chapter.

understood the term. We say “weave a tale” or “spinning a yarn” as an expression of what a text may imply. 2 Gustav Adolf Deissmann, Licht vom Osten: Das Neue Testament und die neuentdeckten Texte der hellenistisch-römischen Welt (Tübingen: Mohr, 1908); repr. Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated from Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman Period, trans. Lionel R.M. Strachan (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995); Francis Xavier J. Exler, The Form of the Ancient Greek Letter of the Epistolary Papyri (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1923); repr., A Study in Greek Epistolography (Chicago: Ares, 1976); Ioannis Sykutris, “Epistolographie,” in Pauly’s Real Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (Suppl. 5; Stuttgart: Metzlersche, 1924). 3 Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “Some Notes,” JBL 93 (1974): 201–24; Philip S. Alexander, “Remarks on Aramaic Epistolography in the Persian Period,” JSS 23 (1978): 155–70; Paul E. Dion, “The Aramaic ‘Family Letter’ and Other Related Epistolary Forms in Other Oriental Languages and in Hellenistic Greek,” in Studies in Ancient Letter Writing, ed. J.L. White (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982). 4 Dennis Pardee, “Letters,” ABD 4:282–85; Dirk Schwiderski, Handbuch des nordwestsemitischen Briefformulars: Ein Beitrag zur Echtheitsfrage der aramäischen Briefe des Esrabuches (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000); Mark F. Whitters, The Epistle of Second Baruch: A Study in Form and Message (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2003).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Performance Criticism

1.1

19

Performance Criticism

What is missing in most treatments of ancient Jewish letters is the consideration of how a text may have been actualized in performance. If the “medium is the message” as Marshal McLuhan has suggested,5 then documents must be experienced in the original medium, which may include oral storytelling or recitation to an audience. Performance criticism helps expose and address the possible misperception or misinterpretation that may arise from a methodology that reads back into the ancient world the documentary system of the eighteenth to twenty-first centuries, a practice called media anachronism by Tom Boomershine.6 In order to arrive at a clearer understanding of performance criticism and how it may supplement our understanding of ancient Jewish letters, it is helpful to consider the various approaches scholars have employed as they reflected on performance theory and from their observations suggest a definition that can be used in our study of letters. Since our emphasis is the performance of ancient letters in communities, I will give a brief overview of how some social science experts and linguistic theorists used performance as a model or metaphor to understand better human behaviour.

1.1.1 Different Approaches to Performance In contrast to focusing on the meaning of words and phrases, using a performance perspective considers what is happening in the performance of a text and what effect or function the text may have had in a social context.7 In light of our concern to understand better performances of ancient letters as an event that frequently occurred in a community setting, it seems useful to begin by asking how social sciences may contribute to our understanding of performance. Two categories of the social sciences that serve as a point of entry for our study are 5 Marshall McLuhan, Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, 2nd ed. (Toronto: McGraw Hill, 1964; New York: Penguin Books, 1990). Critics of McLuhan accuse him of technological determinism. 6 Tom Boomershine, “Biblical Storytelling and Biblical Scholarship,” NOBS Scholars Conference, Aug 2–7, 2009. 7 I prefer to use the term “performing” rather than “reading” a text, because a performance implies that the reader will gesture, modulate the voice, act out the text and the term suggests that an audience response is expected. The interest in this book concerns the ways in which a letter works as a composition-as-performance in order to have an impact on an audience. For contributions of reader-response to performance criticism, see David Rhoads, “Performance Criticism: An Emerging Methodology in Second Temple Studies—Part II,” BTB 36 (2009), 167.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

20

Introduction

anthropology, which offers theories and strategies that scholars have used to explain human behaviour, and sociology, which is primarily concerned with the practice of performance. In his analysis of culture, Clifford Geertz, an anthropologists and cultural critic, noted in the early 1980s an “enormous amount of genre mixing in intellectual life.”8 In his essay “Blurred Genres,” he identified three newer interpretive concepts for the study of human behaviour, namely “game,” “drama,” and “text.”9 The context of experimentation with making connections between anthropology and performance must include theatre practitioner Richard Schechner, who outlined seven “areas where performance theory and the social sciences coincide.”10 There are four characteristics he cites that also intersect with our study of ancient Jewish letters: 1. Performance in everyday life, including gatherings of every kind. 2. The structure of sports, ritual, play, and public political behaviors. 3. Analysis of various modes of communication (other than the written word); semiotics. 4. Ethnography and prehistory—both of exotic and familiar cultures.11 According to Schechner performance is a cultural event and can occur in “play, games, sports, dance, music, and ritual.”12 Using Schechner’s model of performance “means promoting an approach to performance that unsettles divisions between high and low, that advocates a radically contextual and socially grounded analysis…and that links scholarship to modes of praxis outside the academy.”13 From a similar perspective, Victor Turner was the first to develop the concept of “social drama,” which emphasized the “temporal and collective dimensions” 8 Clifford Geertz, “Blurred Genres: The Refiguration of Social Thought,” repr. Local Knowledge (New York: Basic Books, 1983), p. 19. He also noted that scholars were not as interested in “the sort of thing that connected planets and pendulums” as those things that “connect chrysanthemums and swords.” 9 Shannon Jackson, Professing Performance: Theatre in the Academy from Philology to Performativity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 146. Our emphasis will be on “drama” and “text.” 10 Richard Schechner, “Drama, Script, Theatre and Performance,” Drama Review 17 (1973): 5. This special edition of Drama Review was devoted to “Theatre and the Social Sciences” in which guest editor Schechner listed the seven areas of intersection. 11 The three categories that Schechner lists that do not significantly impact our study on ancient Jewish letters are: “connections between human and animal behavior patterns with an emphasis on play and ritualized behavior”; “aspects of psychotherapy that emphasize person-to-person interaction, acting out, and body awareness”; and “constitution of unified theories of performance, which are, in fact, theories of behavior” (Schechner, “Drama, Script,” 5). 12 Schechner, Performance Theory, rev. ed. (New York: Routledge, 1988), 6. 13 Jackson, Professing Performance, 80–81; emphasis original.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Performance Criticism

21

of social action and the ability of performances “to transmute not just opinions but…also…the people who hold them.”14 By using a performance analogy, he sought to explain social activity in festivals, carnivals, rituals, and protest movements of an intercultural world.15 Turner emphasized the use of drama as a metaphor for cultural activities and applied performance to social life at large.16 In a similar way, Milton Singer argued that the observations of traditions could provide “the most concrete observable units of the cultural structure” as demonstrated in events such as dance, weddings, recitations, religious festivals, and so forth, which he termed “cultural performances.”17 There are three major contributions cultural studies have made in how we understand performance. Their concerns have invited readers to probe the function performance may have had within a culture; they drew attention to the relation of performer to audience; and they required readers to consider how particular performance contexts were established.18 These advances in the concept of performance can usefully be applied to ancient letters, particularly when we consider how reading a text may have been experienced in a community, especially those letters that have an emphasis on rituals and festivals. From a sociological point of view, comes the recognition that all social behaviour is in some way performed and that an exploration of the implications of these performative actions can be analyzed and understood. Although much can be said concerning how researchers in sociology applied the concept of role playing to their field of study, our particular emphasis is on how human actions can be seen as signs of a social role.19 The way in which social roles are constructed and/or performed and how human communication operates is the central concern of semiotics. In an influential work, Umberto Eco considers performance from a semiotic standpoint and concludes that something is a sign “only because it is interpreted as a sign of something by some interpreter.”20 14 Quoted in Geertz, “Blurred Genres,” 28. 15 Victor Turner, Schism and Continuity in an African Society : A Study of Ndembu Village Life (Manchester University Press, 1957; repr., Yale University Press, 1996). Turner based his concept of “social drama” on the work of Arnold van Gennep, The Rites of Passage, trans. M.B. Vizedon and G.L. Caffee (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1960; from the original Rites de Passage, 1908). 16 Turner, Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1974). 17 Milton Singer, ed., Traditional India: Structure and Change (Philadelphia: American Folklore Society, 1959).Turner’s model was more concerned with traditional structures of dramatic action and Singer developed a model that drew more directly upon the performance situation of theatre. For a comparison of Turner and Singer’s models, see Marvin Carlson, Performance: A Critical Introduction (New York: Routledge, 2003), 19–20. 18 Carlson, Performance, 33. 19 For a more extensive discussion of performance in society, see Carlson, Performance, 34–55. 20 Quotation of Charles Morris is found in Umberto Eco, “Semiotics of Theatrical Performance,” The Drama Review 21 (1977):107–17, here 112.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

22

Introduction

According to this perspective, in the process of a performance an everyday object can be reformed and recreated as a signifying image, thus the boundary between “actual” and “imaginary” is difficult to maintain. A contribution to performance theory by Bert States is his view that any activity in which an audience and a work interacts is “a way of seeing—not, that is, the thing seen or performed (from ritual to parade to play to photograph) but seeing that involves certain collaborative and contextual functions (between work and spectator) which are highly elastic.”21 Thus, he contends that the audience is joined to a “certain kind of actual,”22 which holds in tension the “actual” and “imaginary” or the mimetic and “real.”23 What the analysis of social performance reflects is that there is a close relationship between everyday activities and performance in a “formal” setting, or more precisely, between performance (reading a letter, saying a prayer, giving a prophecy, etc.) and performativity (presentation of one’s self in a social setting).24 To put it another way, some models tend to view performance from an audience’s standpoint and others emphasize a performer’s perspective,25 in either case the vocabulary of performance has been used by some social science experts to analyze cultural activity and seems to have application to our study of the performance of ancient letters. What these models have not emphasized is how language can be used to construct a context. A typical performance of a letter is a solo performance, and a typical performer of letters used little in the way of scenery or props, with the individual body remaining at the centre of the performance—speech and gestures are the principal means of communication. Therefore, it is not surprising that many scholars interested in linguistic studies have contributed to performance theory by grounding speech in a contextualized social event in which a performance takes place, in other words, a speech can be understood as consisting of the speaker’s knowledge of a language as well as the performance or application of

21 Bert O. States, “Performance as Metaphor,” Theatre Journal 48 (1996): 2–26, doi: 10.1353/ tj.1996.0021; emphasis original. 22 States, Great Reckonings in Little Rooms: On the Phenomenology of Theatre (Berkley : University of California Press, 1985), 45. 23 Carlson, Performance, 54. 24 See particularly, Erving Goffman, Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1959). Goffman was not concerned with the question “What is performance?” because in his view the term “performance” was simply a metaphor for social behaviour. His major concern was to determine in what ways we repeat and present ourselves. 25 For example, Schechner, Performance Theory, uses a model of “restored [or twice-behaved] behaviour,” which emphasizes the performer’s perspective, while Peggy Phelan, Unmarked: The Politics of Performance (London: Routledge, 1993), emphasizes the role of the spectator. She describes performance as “the interaction between the art object and the spectator [which] is, essentially, performative” (p. 147).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Performance Criticism

23

that knowledge in a community.26 Similar to the interdisciplinary attitude of many social science experts discussed above, several linguistic scholars combined social sciences with performance and formed new fields of study, such as sociolinguistics. According to Carlson, “Dell Hymes, one of the leading developers of modern sociolinguistics, very much reflects these relationships and concerns, urging a more ‘functional’ linguistics to supplement more traditional ‘structural’ linguistics,”27 thus situating a speech event in a performative context. Other scholars who have drawn upon social sciences in conjunction with linguistics are Mikhail Bakhtin,28 who uses “utterance” as a principal concept and Julia Kristeva, who contends that “language remains incapable of detaching itself from representation.”29 What is being emphasized by these two related positions is that performance is located in language. As a further explanation of the oral features that focus on language as performance, is a position that is represented by the pioneering work of John Austin’s speech-act theory.30 In short, his view is that the function of language is not merely to state things, but to do things.31 Stating things is only one function of language, and those who state things may also intend to do something with their language. Expanding the concept of 26 Noam Chomsky, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1965), distinguished between the “competence” and “performance” of a speaker. 27 Carlson, Performance, 57. 28 Mikhail Bakhtin, Speech Genres and Other Late Essays, trans. by Vern W. McGee (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1986). Carlson in Performance describes Bakhtin’s view in this way : “According to Bakhtin, the ‘utterance,’ is a strip of language that is ‘always individual and contextual in nature,’ and ‘inseparable link’ in an ongoing chain of discourse, never reappearing in precisely the same context, even if, as often occurs, a specific pattern or words is repeated” (p. 57). 29 Julia Kristeva, Desire in Language, ed. Leon Roudiez, trans. T. Gora, A. Jardine, and L. Roudiez (New York: Columbia University Press, 1980), 79. Kristeva’s position is in response to what she calls Bakhtin’s “omnified stage of carnival.” 30 The concept of speech-act theory that has provided a method for considering language as performance is associated with John Austin, How to do Things with Words (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975) and Austin’s student, John R. Searle, Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969). For a concise history of speech-act theory, see Carlson, Performance, 56–75. For the performative dimensions of language, see J.E. Botha, “The Potential for Speech Act Theory for New Testament Exegesis: Some Basic Concepts,” Hervormide Teologiese Studies 47 (1991): 294–303; R. Briggs, “The Use of Speech Act Theory in Biblical Interpretation,” CRBS 9 (2001): 229–76; idem, Words in Action: Speech Act Theory and Biblical Interpretation: Toward a Hermeneutic of Self-Involvement (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2001); see also the cautions expressed by Anthony C. Thiselton, “The Supposed Power of Words in Biblical Writings,” JTS 25 (1974): 283–99. He writes that “acts of blessing in the Old Testament rest on accepted conventions; on procedures or institutions accepted within Israelite society, and usually involving conventionally accepted formulae. They are effective, in most cases, only when performed by the appropriate person in the appropriate situation” (p. 294). 31 An example of this position is the “I do” pronouncement during a marriage ceremony. These words carry an intention of marriage; not merely a pronouncement using words.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

24

Introduction

speech-act theory, Eli Rozik argues that speech acts should be analyzed not as part of language but as part of action, which may be accompanied by non-verbal cues.32 The key to this clarification is that the indicative force used in letters of request or the descriptive information found in the introduction to a letter may reveal something about the intention or experiences of the author(s) or elicit a desired response from the audience—a point which may have been more clear and direct in a performance. The important shift that this book emphasizes is how information from the disciplines of anthropology, sociology, and linguistics can be used, not merely to understand how the text was created, but more importantly how letters operated in the context of a community and how a fresh meaning may be sought through considering a letter’s performance. These modern approaches to performance must be adapted to the oral/performance setting of the Second Temple literary culture, which falls into several categories or processes. First, letters were initially written by the sender or dictated to a scribe for the production of a text. This oral/aural setting may have consisted of the official writing of governmental decrees, memoranda, and treaties, or during the dictation of personal letters. Second, some letters were subsequently embedded in a narrative in which the readers and re-readers understood that the texts “were composed under the assumption that they would be read in the setting of oral performance.”33 Third, letters were most likely performed in a community. To be fair these three processes are general practices and do not consider other aspects of ancient letter writing, such as, translation, letter composition exercises, and ostraca. Performance theory has attempted to demonstrate the dynamic nature of the relationship between author, text, and interpretive audience, as well as between performance and life, precisely because the text was influenced by the performative context in which it was shared and adapted to match different community settings.34 This brief analysis and commentary on performance theory can be used to develop our own perspective on how performance criticism can be defined, particularly as it applies to ancient Jewish letters.

32 Eli Rozik, Generating Theatre Meaning: ATheory and Methodology of Performance Analysis (Brighton: Sussex Academic, 2008). 33 Martin Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE–400 CE (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 18. 34 See Emanuel Tov, “Scribal Practices Reflected in Texts from the Judean Desert,” vol. 1 of The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment, ed. Peter Flint and J. VanderKam (Leiden: Brill, 1998). “When copying from an existing text, most ancient scribes incorporated their thoughts on that text into the new version which they produced. Thus they added, omitted, and altered elements; all of these changes became part of the newly created text, in which the new features were not easily recognizable since they were not marked in a special way” (p. 424).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Performance Criticism

25

1.1.2 Towards a Definition of Performance Criticism The purpose for our study of performance criticism is to explain the features of ancient Jewish oral culture and to clarify the function of a letter in relation to performance. As has been shown, performance criticism is a sprawling discipline. It includes theatre and performance studies, social sciences and linguistics and is a term that “has a wide range of meanings, from the traditional practice of critically analyzing performance histories, through the study of the presentation of theatre and drama, to the anthropological and sociological study of identity, politics, and power.”35 In order to create a guide for navigating through the complex issues of understanding performance, I will now set out how the term is going to be used in this study.36 Fundamental to a definition of performance to many who are engaged in this field is the repeatability of an action. As an example of this position, Richard Schechner defines “performance” as “restored behaviour,” even though he recognizes that repetition occasionally entails differences and variations on the same text.37 Critical to Schechner’s notion of performance is his description that restored behaviour is “living behavior as a film director treats a strip of film. These strips of behavior can be rearranged or reconstructed; they are independent of the causal systems (social, psychological, technological) that brought them into existence. They have a life of their own.”38 The emphasis that Schechner brings to the study of performance from an anthropological perspective is that performance theory can be used to explore a tradition. This position can usefully be applied to ancient letters if we image that the performer of the letter had in mind to restore or recreate a written text and that each performance is distinctive and may provide a fresh access to understand better patterns of behaviour in a community. The “restored behaviour” in letters is immediately evident in that the opening frequently identifies the sender(s) and recipient(s) and may state their location, thus during the presentation of the text 35 Terry Giles and William J. Doan, Twice Used Songs: Performance Criticism of the Songs of Ancient Israel (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009), 142. 36 Jackson, Professing Performance, suggests that the flexibility of the concept of performance helps to clarify how scholarship works with different assumptions. She contends that “performance’s many connotations and its varied intellectual kinships ensure that an interdisciplinary conversation around this interdisciplinary site rarely will be neat and straightforward” (p. 15). Rhoads, “Performance Criticism,” 9–14, gives seven components of the performance event: act of performing, composition-as-performance, performer, audience, material context, socio-historical circumstance and rhetorical effect/impact. 37 Schechner, Between Theatre and Anthropology (Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press, 1985), 35. 38 Schechner, Between Theatre, 35. Also quoted in William Doan and Terry Giles, Prophets, Performance, and Power: Performance Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (New York: T& T Clark, 2005), 14.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

26

Introduction

the performer would bring to mind or restore the thoughts and particular setting of the alleged author.39 This does not preclude that letters could have been read in different communities at different times, but rather that with each new presentation the letter’s author and social setting is re-restored. From another angle, Richard Bauman contends that performance mirrors our ability to (re)present what we perceive by providing “a consciousness of doubleness, through which the actual execution of an action is placed in mental comparison with a potential, an ideal, or a remembered model of an action.”40 The importance of this entry to performance is that it suggests that performance is always performance for an audience, even if the audience is the self, such as a piano player, who may place him or herself against a mental standard. According to this model, when performing letters the “consciousness of doubleness” can be viewed on a few levels, which may change over the course of a reading or when a letter is read in a different social context. For instance, while reading a letter the performer may take on the role of the author of the letter, the person(s) mentioned in the letter, an “outside” objective voice for the letter, or a commentator of the text. No matter what role the performer assumes it is important that what the text symbolizes and represents must be recognized by both the audience and performer in order for the desired emphasis to be achieved. The performer may wish to highlight the seriousness or humour of a text and this emphasis could have been achieved through the modulation of the voice or a bodily gesture. Bauman emphasizes how performance is “framed in a special way,” thus distinguishing performance from other forms of verbal communication.41 Another area of theoretical emphasis is provided by Mary Thomas Crane, who uses a cognitive approach and states that …our ability to represent what we perceive in language follows from this [cognitive] process of embodied enaction, and is shaped by it. Theatrical performance perhaps uniquely mirrors this process, since it involves both a physical reality of embodied enactment and a secondary level of representation that emerges from it.42

Using this perspective, it becomes clear that an aspect of performance theory is that performance is an embodied enactment and is part of the meaning of a text 39 Bernard Oestreich, Performanzkritik der Paulusbriefe, WUNT I 296 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), suggests that the social status of the sender and receiver would influence what was said and how it was said. He writes: “Der soziale Status der Briefpartner und das Verhältnis von Absender und Empfänger beeinflusst also, was gesagt wird und wie es gesagt wird” (p. 12) (emphasis original). 40 Cited in Carlson, Performance, 5. The original Bauman quote is from Richard Bauman, “Performance,” in International Encyclopedia of Communications, ed. Erik Barnouw (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989). 41 Bauman, “Performance,” 41. 42 Mary Thomas Crane, “What Was Performance?” Criticism 43 (2002): 167–87, here 171.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Performance and Ethnopoetics

27

and may function as a vehicle for community formation. Therefore, a performance can be viewed as a representation of a text using a semiotic system of language and codes. Embodied enactment as understood in this study includes activities that are presented in a community, such as, reading, prophesying, storytelling, praying, teaching, and so forth. It appears that a broad view of performance is needed that includes a world that is created and given meaning both on the page and in the body, that is, through discourse and embodiment, through representation and experience.43 This inquiry into the various perspectives on performance suggests three aspects that appear to apply to ancient texts and that will be used to define how I will employ the term. A performance occurs through the interaction of these three elements: reading a text (restored behaviour) to a person or community (consciousness of doubleness) that includes embodied actions. Precisely because performance criticism is an eclectic discipline, it allows for the integrated appreciation of form and function to underpin meaning. Therefore, to analyze a letter from a performance point of view, the distinctly oral features will need to be discerned, along with the implied aural impact.44 The question remains whether there is a way to find in these approaches and definitions a means to get access to the performative event by considering the textual remains of letters. If that task is possible, then we can further explore whether this method can offer new insights into our understanding of the function of letters.

1.2

Performance and Ethnopoetics

In anticipation of the translation and explanation of several Jewish texts and in reflection of my position that performance of ancient letters was frequently contextualized in social settings, I suggest that what needs to be considered is a fresh rendering of ancient Jewish letters as oral performances that have been transmitted into written form. Writing systems capture only one aspect of what was said, leaving how it was said and with what intention woefully underrepresented. John Miles Foley, in an attempt to avoid the binary categories of 43 Giles and Doan, Twice Used Songs, 14; Crane, “What Was Performance?” 171. 44 Carlson required a whole book to provide an overview of the modern concept of performance, but in the end was uneasy with how best to define performance for “performance by its nature resists conclusions, just as it resists the sort of definitions, boundaries, and limits so useful to traditional academic writing and academic structures” (Performance, 189). This observation should remind us that the definition used for performance in this book is tentative and not meant to be exhaustive.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

28

Introduction

orality and writtenness, describes an oral composition as “oral poetry.”45 He divides oral poems into four categories: oral performance, voiced texts, voices from the past, and written oral poems.46 A method of transcribing oral poems from a source language that attempts to capture the social impact of performances is referred to as ethnopoetics,47 which is “concerned with the aesthetic patterning of oral literary forms and the problems of translating and rendering them in print in such a way that the artistry of their oral performance is not lost.”48 The fieldwork of two sociolinguists, Dell Hymes and Dennis Tedlock, offer some helpful ways in which language can be used not merely to transfer information, but also to uncover a community’s culture and identity by the poetic use of language. Both Hymes and Tedlock have studied the oral communication of First Nations’ Peoples of North America focusing on different ethnic groups as they function in society.49 The inclusion of the audience as part of the meaning of the text has been a particular concern of Hymes, whose writings have provided the concept of “ethnography of communication” in which “one needs to investigate directly the use of language in contexts of situation, so as to discern patterns proper to speech activity.”50 Tedlock acknowledges Hymes’ contribution that oral narratives can be represented as a form of oral poetry ; however, Tedlock contents that more than the verbal wording needs to be translated and scripted. He includes extralinguistic markers such as pauses, higher volume, quicker metre, crescendos, and so forth, in an 45 John Miles Foley, How to Read an Oral Poem (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2002), 29–30. Foley admits that the term “oral poem” has its difficulties, but contends that the phrase is used in a particular way. He adds the prefix “oral” to the term “poetry” to cover more than written texts. 46 Foley, How to Read, 39–53. 47 Ethnopoetics concerns two principle factors. The “ethno” prefix speaks of a new affiliation with an “ethos,” a people, a nation, an ethnic group and “poetics” foregrounds artfulness, virtuosity and the artistic enhancement of an experience. See Bauman, “Discovery and Dialogue in Ethnopoetics,” Journal of Folklore Research 50 (2013): 187–89. 48 Bauman, “Folklore,” in Folklore, Cultural Performances, and Popular Entertainments: A Communications-centered Handbook, ed. Richard Bauman (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 39. 49 Dell Hymes, Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach (University of Pennsylvania Publications in Conduct and Communication; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1981); idem, Now I Know Only So Far: Essays in Ethnopoetics (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2003); Dennis Tedlock, Finding the Center : The Art of the Zuni Storyteller, 2nd ed. (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1999); idem, The Spoken Word and the Work of Interpretation (University of Pennsylvania Publications in Conduct and Communication; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983). A good brief overview of ethnopoetics is given by James A. Maxey, From Orality to Orality: A New Paradigm for Contextual Translation of the Bible, Biblical Performance Criticism 2 (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2009), 86–95, from which this section is heavily dependent. 50 Hymes, “Foundations,” 9; see also, idem, “Introduction into the Ethnographies of Communication,” American Anthropologist 66 (1964):1–34.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Performance and Folklore

29

attempt “to demonstrate how one might translate the style of a narrative as it was performed.”51 The principal challenge for translation and interpretation is how to present in print what has been orally performed. Hymes was one of the sociolinguists who shifted the emphasis from a study of grammatical or linguistic features to considering how a performance in a specific context may have taken place. His process of translating a text from a source language was to reformat the structure by using a “measured” verse approach, which stresses how oral performance can be, to some extent, embodied in a text.52 The term “measured” is descriptive of how the material can be divided, not according to stress and syllable, but according to “the relation of putative units to each other within the whole.”53 Rather than dividing a narrative by paragraphs, using a verse analysis emphasizes that “narratives consist, not only of lines, but of lines in patterned relations to one another. Differences in emphasis and shape and interpretation can be specified in the texts themselves.”54 The advantage of his analysis is that Hymes insists that every presentation is an interpretation of the text’s structure. Using this paradigm, he divides stories of the Chinook First Nation’s peoples into lines, characterized by a change in predicate, and verses, divided according to the text’s changes in people, place, time, speaker, often signaled by particles that translators ignore.55 Larger units, called stanzas, consist of grouping verses and lastly scenes are defined by drastic changes in events, participants, or time. In addition to using traditional methods of classifying letters by considering form critical approaches, this study will blend various communication models, such as ethnopoetics, to understand more comprehensively how a text may have functioned in a community.

1.3

Performance and Folklore

I have touched on the distinction that has been made between oral and written texts and how this divide has been challenged by performance theory, as well as other disciplines. From a different point of view, the field of ethnopoetics has 51 Maxey, From Orality to Orality, 89. 52 Hymes, “In Vain I tried to tell you”: Essays in Native American Ethnopoetics (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1981). Hymes focused on the literature of First Nation Peoples from the North Pacific Coast but his principles can usefully be applied to other forms of literature. 53 Hymes, “In Vain”, 318. 54 Hymes, “Now I know,” x. 55 Hymes, “In Vain”, 142–83; Antoinette Clark Wire, Holy Lives, Holy Deaths: A Close Hearing of Early Jewish Storyteller, Studies in Biblical Literature 1 (Atlanta: SBL, 2002), 15–16.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

30

Introduction

suggested a way to re-present an oral narrative performance on paper. Hymes argued that folklore studies were contributing significantly to sociolinguistic research and that a “convergence of approach” between ethnography of communication and folklore had occurred. He concludes: “It can be maintained, indeed, that folklore is a special case of the ethnography-of-speaking approach.”56 The close ties between the two fields will be considered in the study of ancient letters. During the 60s and 70s data from anthropological studies have been used by folklore (or, if you prefer, tradition) specialists to shift the emphasis from the analysis of a text to the concern with how a text may have functioned in a social context, a method called “contextual approach” by folklorists Richard Dorson.57 A contextual approach has been used in conjunction with performance theory as a means of classifying folklore based on the involvement of the audience with the performer.58 The challenges of folklore specialists and those studying ancient letters are similar : how to represent an orally performed text in print. Elizabeth Fine in her book, The Folklore Text: From Performance to Print examines the key concepts of the performance approach adapted by folklore experts and differentiates between artistic verbal performance and other forms of gaining information.59 According to Fine, the ideal text would enable the reader to recreate the qualities of the original performance, perceiving its unique form, and would allow the reader to understand the performance not simply as a communicative process but as an aesthetic mode of communication.60 What becomes clear is that the text of folklore and ancient letters needs to reflect a performance. If that is the case, then the study by folklore specialists can inform our investigation of how ancient letters can be understood and represented on paper. Therefore, in an effort to further shape our understanding of ancient Jewish letters, I would like to propose a method adapted from folklore specialist Alan Dundes, who distinguishes three aspects of analysis by considering its text,

56 Hymes, “The Contribution of Folklore to Sociolinguistic Research,” in Toward New Perspectives in Folklore, ed. Karl Kroeber (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1981), 47. This article reflects an address Hymes made in 1969 to the American Folklore Society. 57 Richard M. Dorson, ed. Folklore and Folklife: An Introduction (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972), 45. Much of his approach was derived from the field of sociolinguistics. 58 William H. Jansen, “Classifying Performance in the Study of Verbal Folklore,” in Studies in Folklore in Honor of Distinguished Service Professor Stith Thompson (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1957), was one of the first scholars in folklore studies to use “performance” as a critical category utilized to classify folklore (p. 110). 59 Elizabeth C. Fine, The Folklore Text: From Performance to Print (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1984), 74–88. She states that a live performance is active-receptive, sensuous, immediate, intuitive, preanalytic, integral, unique, and intrinsic. 60 Fine, Folklore Text, 87.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Performance and Folklore

31

texture, and context.61 By text, I refer to the specific ways in which a letter is available to us in a meaningful structure, which can be compared to and contrasted with other ancient letters in order to delineate any standard letter features. The written text is essentially one version or a single reading of a letter and may be analysed independent of its texture. This study emphasizes that a written text was “performance sensitive,” suggesting that the author(s) had awareness that the letter would be orally performed and the meaning of the text would be understood differently according to the audience, performer, and setting.62 Referring to one aspect of our definition, it can be said that the text informs or structures the embodied action of a performance. Attempts to define letters merely by considering the features of a text are doomed to fail for many embedded Jewish letters do not contain what many have defined as idiomatic letter form. By texture, I mean the expressive choices made to read and perform a letter in language, sound, and sight. The most prominent feature that is employed to define some texts as letters is the use of idiomatic letter form. Generally, letters begin by stating the sender and recipient. However, there are other common aspects of letters that can be observed. Ancient letters add texture through the use of a transition or discourse marker. Discourse markers do not add to the propositional content of an utterance but signal “the kind of relations a speaker perceives between different parts of the discourse.”63 A modern example of illustrating the difference between the ways in which words can be used is by considering the two meanings of the word so in each of these sentences: I was sick, so I stayed in bed. John is sick. So, let’s get started.64 61 This method of analysis has been proposed by Alan Dundes, “Text, Texture and Context,” Southern Folklore Quarterly 20 (1965): 251–61, repr. in Interpreting Folklore (Bloomington: Indiana University, 1980), 20–32. This method has been elaborated by Dan Ben-Amos, “Toward a Definition of Folklore in Context,” in Folklore in Context: Essays (New Delhi: South Asian Publishers, 1982). For its application to Jewish narratives, see Wire, Holy Lives. However, I will not be following Dundes’ highly problematic view in which he observes in the biblical text every source-critical and text-critical variant as a sign of folklore. See Dundes, Holy Writ as Oral Lit (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999). For a rebuttal of Dundes’ book, see William M. Schniedewind, “Review of Holy Writ as Oral Lit, Alan Dundes; and Underdogs and Tricksters: A Prelude to Biblical Folklore, by Susan Niditch,” Western Folklore 59 (2000): 334–432. 62 The term “performance sensitive” is used by Hymes, “In Vain,” 131. 63 Uta Lenk, “Discourse Markers,” in Handbook of Pragmatics Online, ed. Jef Verschueren et al., doi:10.1075/hop.3.dis3, http://www. benjamins.com/online/hop/1998), 1. 64 This illustration is from Anna Bonifazi, “Memory and Visualization in Homeric Discourse Markers,” in Orality, Literacy, Memory in the Ancient Greek and Roman World, ed. E. Anne MacKay, vol 7 of Orality and Literacy in Ancient Greece (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 35–36. She suggests that other English examples of phrases that “signal either where the discourse is

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

32

Introduction

In the first example, so connects two states of affairs; whereas, in the second it functions to mark the fact that a meeting can begin even though John is sick. The sentence initial adverb in the second example tends to be uttered by a different intonation from the first example. The most frequent initial adverb that plays a central role in shaping a performance of ancient Jewish letters is “(and) now,” which does not contribute to the content of a letter, but rather signals to the performer and audience that a different part of the text is being introduced. It is understood that the only document we have is a written text, but inherent in the text are words that have a potential for expression that may have been exploited in a performance. Features that add texture to letters consist of speechacts, repetition, parallelism, metonyms, assonance, alliteration, onomatopoeia, and other linguistic signs that allow for the performer to bring the text to life. Although these verbal characteristics are not exclusive to letters, they may indicate that a performance is under way and provide what Bauman calls a “performance frame.”65 These features are “keys or switches—not unlike links on a Web page—that summon a larger context via a specialized code.”66 How a performance is keyed67 is integral to the conception of performance, which connects a text with an oral tradition. Since languages and texts differ, the variety of verbal patterns that support a particular tradition must also differ. Understanding the texture can provide valuable data to suggest how a conversation or event may have been restored or recreated from a written text through performance. Bringing these elements together suggests that the features that are necessary to perform an ancient letter consist of understanding the social impact of the performance, which influences not only what the letter says but also how it will be performed. The special language or “register” determines how a letter is keyed to an oral tradition. Thus, the performer needs to be aware of the specific language feature in order to give the audience clues to understand the message. The verbal techniques employed in the performance and the changes in emphasis, tone, pitch, and timbre adds texture and meaning to the text. Every performance has its own space and time. By paying close attention to the letter’s register, as discussed above, we can better suggest its performance going to where it comes from” are “to begin with,” “what else?” and certain uses of “anyway” (p. 36). 65 Bauman, Verbal Art, 3–58. 66 Foley, How to Read, 113. Here Foley is referring to the phrase “much-suffering divine Odysseus,” which occurs no fewer than thirty-seven times in the Odyssey. The concept Foley uses for understanding Immanent Art in the Odyssey can reasonably be applied to the use of Immanent Art in Jewish letters. 67 This is Ervine Goffman’s term. See Goffman, Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience (New York: Harper Colophon, 1974). See also Bauman, Verbal Art as Performance (Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1977), 15–24.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Performance and Folklore

33

context. By performance context, I do not mean the literal spot where the letter may have been read, but rather to the kinds of performers who may have read these letters and the audiences who may have heard them. This information is gleaned by noticing linguistic clues. In a performance context, the words take on a special meaning, so that what is being said should be understood in a special way.68 Oestreich makes this point explicit when he states that through particular socially defined signals, those who are present know that they are in the role of the audience and the type and manner of the communication should be observed and also assessed.69 The context of a letter refers to the specific social setting in which a letter may have been performed, that is, in a community that may have recognized the context or significance of the text—the consciousness of doubleness. It is important to distinguish between a letter’s function and its context. Generally, function refers to the letter’s intended purpose, such as to encourage a community to celebrate a festival or to ask your mother why she sent such an ugly tunic. Context, on the other hand, attempts to uncover where, when, to whom, and by whom the letter was performed. Therefore, understanding the letter’s context will help determine its function, and vice versa. For Kennedy the audience serves an important function and therefore the “critic needs to ask of what this audience consists, what the audience expects in the situation, and how the speaker or writer manipulates these expectations.”70 Considering context data has the advantage of reflecting on how letters were read and reread in different social contexts and thus expanding the understanding of letters from merely being a method of communication to becoming a clue to the cultural situation in which a letter is set. Here we are informed by the concept of “cultural performances” that suggest that the performance of texts are “occasions in which as a culture or society we reflect upon and define ourselves, dramatize our collective myths and histories, present ourselves with alternatives.”71 Granted, the social setting may be contested by some scholars; however, by considering the interplay of text and texture, we may arrive at a range of performance contexts, and on the other hand, by exploring context data it may help explain variations in text and texture. It is clear, that in order to have a comprehensive definition of ancient letters, its text, texture, and context need to be considered. 68 Bauman, Verbal Art, 9. 69 Oestreich, Performanzkritik, 12. See also Erika Fischer-Lichte, Ästhetik des Performativen (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 2004), 9. She contends that performances always belong in social contexts and these contexts are made explicit in the texts. 70 George Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984), 35. 71 John J. MacAloon, ed., Rite, Drama, Festival, Spectacle: Rehearsals Toward a Theory of Cultural Performance (Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues, 1984), 1.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

34

Introduction

Thus, the analysis of each letter will follow this format: First, a study of the letters’ formal features will be used to understand more comprehensively how the texts may have functioned in a community as presented by a performer. In this section, form criticism will be employed to identify typical patterns of language that give shape to the structure of a letter. For some letters, redaction criticism will be compared with performance criticism to see which method best represents the text. Second, having a better understanding of the structure of a text should suggest a cultural setting for the letters. In this section we will consider how the oral texture uses language to express traditions, through the use of signs, terms, and intertexts, by paying specific attention to the performers’ and audience’s cultural traditions. The primary methods that will be helpful to understand the author(s) use of expressive choices are semiotics and orality. In order to represent better the text as a performance, I will set the text according to a “measured verse” approach, following Hymes’ lead. Finally, the methods employed to understand the text and texture combine to suggest a context in which a letter may have been performed. Performance criticism concerns the performance of Jewish letter writing traditions in an oral culture. All that has been described here should remind us that performance criticism challenges us to rethink our methods from “written to oral, from private to public, from ‘public readers’ to performers, from silent readers to hearers/audience, from individual to communal audience, and from manuscript transmission to oral transmission.”72

1.4

New Directions

Although this study encompasses several disciplines and approaches, to identify its methods as interdisciplinary suggests that categories can be divided into distinct areas. The breath of research required to address the complexity of the social and literary world of Second Temple period Jewish letters will necessitate that the letters be analyzed comprehensively in order to determine what is possible to know and what is possible to propose. The methods that will be employed—form and redaction criticisms, semiotics, oral and performance theory—will be constructed not only from the text, but also from the historical context in which we seek to understand the cultural codes, readers’ beliefs, and letter conventions. The purpose of studying ancient Jewish letters is to discover whether the methods used to understand letter genre could inform us about the text, texture, and context of MMT. This model will not attempt to determine what 72 Rhoads, “Performance Criticism—Part 1,” 6.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

35

New Directions

the text “really” said, but more modestly, “what can really be said” about the worlds created by the authors, performers, and audience of ancient letters. Keeping these considerations in mind, the next chapter will go behind the scenes of a performance and consider the written text. I attempt throughout this chapter to indicate the important advances that have been made in epistolary research. Once the reader understands the process of shaping and refining the approach to letters, we can consider what constitutes a letter. Defining the category “letter” will guide us as we consider the classification of a problematic text, called 4QMMT.73 From describing the historical perspective of ancient letters, chapter 3 sets the stage for considering a performance perspective. Many methods that have been used to understand texts better. A brief overview will be provided concerning form and redaction criticisms, semiotics and orality as models that influenced how the proponents of these approaches viewed texts, with an anticipation of performance criticism as an emerging approach to discussing ancient letters. Despite the advances made by scholars in describing and categorizing letters on the basis of textual evidence, few attempts have been made to contextualize the performance of a letter. Chapter 4 begins by considering how a text may have been read and what role a letter carrier may have played in presenting a letter. By treating the reading of a letter as a performance, consideration is given to the interaction between the performer and audience. The scope is then narrowed to the performance of ancient Jewish letters through understanding scribal traditions, particularly those at Qumran. With this overview in mind, we begin our investigation of the performance of two free-standing letters from the island of Elephantine. In chapter 5, I am looking for clues that suggest that we are indeed studying letters, and I will examine how the performance of the texts may have functioned in a community. These letters have been chosen because they exhibit in a clear manner what has been long recognized by scholars as standard letter form with which other letters can be compared. Our concern is to be attentive to important markers, such as repeated words and sounds, parallel phrases, and verbal formulae that are determinative of ancient letter genre. Once we have a clear understanding of the written texts, we are then interested in the written signals that would indicate how the letter was read aloud, which in turn would suggest that the audience understood what was being performed. Finally, these linguistic clues can suggest the kinds of performers who read these letters and the audiences who heard

˘

73 The text of 4QMMT has been reconstructed by Elisha Qimron and John Strugnell from fragments of six manuscripts (4Q394–399) recovered from Qumran Cave 4. The title of the document “4QMMT” is derived from the words “some of the works of the Torah,” which are found in line C26 of the composite text. See, Elisha Qimron and John Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4, V: Miqsat Ma as´e Ha-Torah, Discoveries in the Judean Desert X (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994). ˙

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

36

Introduction

them. Using a comprehensive approach to our inquiry will help determine the genre of a text and will suggest how performance theory can support other methods in understanding more comprehensively how letters may have functioned in a community. Following the same approach, chapter 6 considers lengthier Jewish letters that are embedded in narratives. The letter in Ezra 5 has some of the letter features in the surrounding narrative that are omitted in the body, and the body of the letter in Jer 29 has no significant letter features, except those found in the narrative. We cannot exclude from this inquiry those borderline texts that simply do not fit a particular definition of a letter, especially if the designation merely considers textual indicators. The aim of this chapter is to expand on the existing discussions by more broadly considering the context shared by performer and audience. Performance criticism allows us to be attentive to the oral/aural features of a performance of a text in a community. This approach encourages us to extend how a letter is defined by including how a text functions in performance. Chapter 7 continues our inquiry into understanding letters better by featuring two Jewish letters written in Greek, which appear to be later additions to existing compositions. Greek Esther (Addition E) supplements a tale set in a foreign court and 2 Maccabees begins with a letter that provides the introduction to an alleged historical account. These letters demonstrate that there are different purposes that letters served in a narrative, which when read aloud may have had particular aural effects on an audience. This chapter considers whether letter form may have been used for its capacity to act as a powerful means of bringing the personae of the participants before the audience. Reflection on the different forms and functions of letters and consideration of how they may have functioned in a community leads us to consider MMT as a test case. Conclusions from the previous chapters of texts that in many ways exist at the boundary or on the edge of categories as commonly understood today can be applied to more complex documents. This chapter is devoted to taking into account how the ambiguity of the form of MMTmay suggest that the text did not function in a uniform way, but rather may have operated differently at various times and in various settings. The conclusions are based on observations made from the formal features and language patterns of the text and by considering how the subject matter is variously discussed and by whom. These factors combine in appreciating serially who in the performative event was affected and how the performer, through his voice, gesture, and tone may have interpreted the text for the audience. The intent of this inquiry is to help explain why MMT, or a section thereof, may have been used in various situations and thereby provide a clearer view of the genre of MMT. Considerable work still remains to be done in this field but the hope is that this modest beginning will spur on greater research into the understanding of texts using performance theory.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Chapter 2 Going Behind the Scenes: History of Scholarship

The purpose of looking behind the scenes is to consider those aspects of a performance that are out of public view. Originally the term referred to those who worked on a theatrical piece, but do not appear on stage. Here the term is used for scholars who worked on understanding and categorizing letters, but are not generally recognized for their work in the performance literature. Therefore, I would like to present a history of scholarship that gives a contextualized overview of the methods scholars have used to describe the differences in the forms and functions of ancient letters and to see what issues or problems remain. Letters in antiquity seem to have a variety of structures and some scholars have felt that a distinction between the letter forms was necessary. Since it appears that Greek letters were the first to be studied in detail, I will begin with those theorists who categorize them. As the corpus of Semitic texts increased, some scholars turned their attention to analyzing the formal aspects of canonical and non-canonical Aramaic and Hebrew letters. It is difficult to overestimate the importance of the scholarly attention to the analysis of the structure of Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew letters during the twentieth century as a critical method of inquiry. Using the historical context of Second Temple period letters and ancient letter definitions, specialists in Qumran studies have endeavoured to classify MMT in order to suggest how this document may have been informed by reading other letters. The review of the history of scholarship will show which issues are outstanding in the classification of MMT and how we can attempt to address these concerns.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

38

2.1

Going behind the Scenes: History of Scholarship

History of Scholarship of Ancient Letters

2.1.1 Greek Letters In 1909 Deissmann published a distinctive work, Licht vom Osten,1 in which he concluded that literary form and social context (Sitz im Leben) were interrelated.2 His major effort was to distinguish the features of rudimentary “documents of life” from the “products of literary art,” which had become canonical reading for teaching purposes. He termed the former a “letter” (Brief), and the latter an “epistle” (Epistel). He characterized letters generically as documents of many types such as a lease, application, and receipt and a host of similar documents, which are non-literary. In large measure, according to Deissmann, letters are records of life, not works of art; they merely convey information.3 He further contends that epistles are works of literature, of writers such as Epicurus, Seneca, and Pliny, using conventions and artistic prose and composed for posterity and publication.4 Deissmann concluded that the apostle Paul, who argued directly from his heart on behalf of the lower classes, was the author of “real, non-literary letters…and not the writer of epistles.”5 Deissmann’s work assisted scholars in understanding the formal aspects of a letter and in considering the purpose a letter may have served in a community, a matter which is important to our understanding of the genre of MMT. Peter Lemche has noted that nineteenth century German biblical scholarship was tied to trends in historical theory and ultimately with German unification ideology.6 Deissmann was a part of the rationalist intellectual German tradition influenced by a form-critical (Formgeschichte) view of the text in which the investigation of units was classified according to the character of their formal structure and their possible histories and functions in the oral tradition.7 Criticisms of Deissmann’s work can be leveled on three interrelated fronts. One 1 Deissmann, Licht vom Osten. The English translation will be used. 2 The correlation between literary form and social context had been developed by Hermann Gunkel. 3 Deissmann, Light, 148. 4 Deissmann, Light, 149, 229–30. 5 Deissmann, Light, 240. 6 John N.P. Lemche, The Israelites in History and Tradition (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998), 9. Other scholars have noted the correlation between German scholarship and unification ideology. J. Sasson, “Models for Recreating Israelite History,” JSOT 21(1981): 3–24; A. Oden, Jr., The Bible Without Theology, New Voices in Biblical Studies 4 (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987); Regina M. Schwartz, “Nations and Nationalism: Adultery in the House of David,” Semeia 54 (1991): 35–55; Keith Whitelam, “The Search for Early Israel,” Beer-Sheva 12 (1998): 41–64. 7 T. Alec Burkill, The Evolution of Christian Thought (London: Cornell University Press, 1971), 410.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

History of Scholarship of Ancient Letters

39

major difficulty is that his use of the letter-epistle polarity is a somewhat arbitrary distinction, which cannot be substantiated by the literature.8 Second, the private-friendly-letter and public-political-epistle distinction fits better in a modern era where political life is separated from private life and may not transfer well into Hellenistic culture where the public-private dichotomy may not be as pronounced. Third, his antithesis between warm, artless, friendly letters and impersonal, artificial, literary letters may seem as a description more characteristic of nineteenth century German Romanticism then early epistolary form.9 Therefore, Deissmann’s dictum that “the letter is a piece of life, the epistle is a product of literary art”10 appears to most recent scholars to be somewhat misguided. Nevertheless, we should not minimize the impact Deissmann had on understanding ancient letter form. One scholar who challenged Deissmann’s method of categorizing letters as “real” and “non-real” was Francis Xavier J. Exler, a Catholic priest proficient in Greek and Latin. In his classic work in 1923, Exler divided the corpus of ancient Greek letters from Greco-Roman Egypt into four major sections: familiar, business, petitions, and official correspondence.11 His most significant contribution to the study of letters is the analysis of the opening and closing formulae, as employed in his four categories. Exler claims that internal evidence shows that the variations in the formulae could inform the reader about the purposes of the letters.12 He contends that Deissmann’s distinction between “literary” and “non-literary” letters does not seem to hold, and prefers, rather problematically, to distinguish letters as “real” and “unreal,” with the understanding that neither kind is necessarily literature.13 As a result of his study on the openings of letters, Exler has determined that if a letter is addressed and destined for a definite person or a group of persons, it should be classified as a “real” letter. Although Exler recognizes that a letter destined for only a private person may fall into the hands of others, thus losing the character of a real letter,14 he still maintains that the authorial intent determines when a letter can be considered literature. Avoiding binary categories of letter-epistle made popular by Deissmann, Exler was able to provide a more nuanced approach to the understanding of ancient letters. The weakness in Exler’s approach consists 8 Stanley Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 18, states that Deissmann was criticized almost immediately by scholars for exaggerating the similarities of Paul’s letters to the papyri. 9 For a more comprehensive critique of Deissmann’s work, see William G. Doty, “The Classification of Epistolary Literature,” CBQ 31 (1969): 183–99. 10 Deissmann, Light, 230. 11 Exler, Form, 23. 12 Exler, Form, 23–68. 13 Exler, Form, 16. 14 Exler, Form, 17.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

40

Going behind the Scenes: History of Scholarship

of the distinction he makes between “real” and “unreal” letters based on the literary skill of the sender.15 It appears to be misleading to assume that we can determine the real or imagined expertise or intent of the sender by reading his or her letter. The impulse to categorize epistolary literature did not disappear with the next generation of scholars. In an endeavour to explain the relationship of the sender to the receiver of a letter, Ioannis Sykutris (1901–1937), a Greek born classical philologist, separated letter types into five areas: official, literary/private, philosophical/didactic, letter-in-verse and fictive.16 In Sykutris’ entry on epistolary literature, he included a large variety of letter types, both real and fictive, but still retained Deissman’s distinction between “real” or private letters and literary letters. Sykutris leaves unanswered how to detect pseudepigraphic or fictional elements in letters and, more importantly, how they function in the narrative. The importance of the Greek epistolary studies as a precursor for further exploration into the typology of letters can hardly be overestimated.17 In the midst of these advances, a new field of inquiry was evolving—the study of Aramaic letters.

15 Exler describes the difference between “real” and “unreal” letters in this way : “The difference lies in the fact that the latter is written by one unskilled in the literary art, whereas the former is the product of a litterateur” (Exler, Form, 17). 16 Sykutris, “Epistolographie,” 185–220. Using the writers’ relationship as criteria for his or her typology recalls Cicero’s divisions between public and private letters (Flac. 37). 17 Greek epistolary experts have endeavoured to give evidence for the evolution of the Greek language and explored the letter writing habits of the ancients. For an investigation into the content and the writers’ relationship as criteria for his typology, see Heikki Koskenniemi, Studien zur Idee und Phraseologie des griechischen Briefes bis 400 n. Chr. (Helsinki: Suomalaien Tiedeakatemia, 1956); K. Thraede, Grundzüge griechisch-rPmischer Brieftopik, Zetemata 48 (Munich: Beck, 1970). For a presentation of various types of letters, see ChanHie Kim, The Familiar Letter of Recommendation, SBLDS 5 (Nashville, TN: SBL, 1972); John Lee White, The Form and Structure of the Official Petition: A Study in Greek Epistolography, SBLDS 5 (Nashville, TN: SBL, 1972). For the letters’ setting as a basis for classification of letters, see Luther Stirewalt, Studies in Ancient Greek Epistolography, SBLSup 27 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993). For a recent treatment of Greek letters, consult Patricia A. Rosenmeyer, Ancient Epistolary Fictions: The Letter in Greek Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001); Michael Trapp, ed., Greek and Latin Letters: An Anthology, With Translation, Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003); Ruth Morello and Andrew D. Morrison, eds., Ancient Letters: Classical and Late Antique Epistolography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007); John Muir, Life and Letters in the Ancient Greek World (London: Routledge, 2009). For the influence of the study of ancient letters on the New Testament, see Klauck, Ancient Letters; and Lutz Doering, Ancient Jewish Letters and the Beginnings of Christian Epistolography, WUNT 298 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

History of Scholarship of Ancient Letters

41

2.1.2 Aramaic Letters Since Semitic syntax and letter form is different from Greek, it is important to include the study of Aramaic letters in our consideration of the genre of MMT.18 Although many later Aramaic letters may have been influenced by Greek culture and letter writing form, this survey will concentrate on the new discoveries in Aramaic epistolography. At the beginning of the twentieth century, a discovery at Elephantine was made of ten large original documents written in Aramaic by Jews of Upper Egypt in the time of the Persian kings Xerxes, Artaxerxes, and Darius (471–411 BCE).19 To these were added, in the following year, important new Aramaic documents from Elephantine, edited by Eduard Sachau.20 Godfrey Driver (1892–1975) was commissioned to edit a collection of Aramaic letters comprising a bag of leather, some seals, and a number of documents and fragments written on leather.21 The exact period to which this correspondence should be allocated can only be determined from internal evidence, which is enough to assign them within the fifth century BCE, possibly between 411–408. 18 The discussion of genre is complex and beyond the scope of this chapter. The definition given in The Oxford Classical Dictionary, eds. Simon Hornblower and Antony Spawforth, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 630, will have to suffice for our present purposes: “a grouping of texts related within the system of literature by their sharing recognizably functionalized features of form and content.” However, see Doering, Ancient Jewish Letters, 18–27, on the view that a “letter” is not a “genre.” 19 According to A. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1923), xvi, this military settlement was a Jewish garrison of a Persian king. These texts found in 1906 were edited by a British Assyriologist and linguist, Archibald H. Sayce, Aramaic Papyri Discovered at Assuan (London: Moring, 1906). For the importance of these texts on scholarship see Th. Nöldeke, Zeitschrift für Assyriology und Vordeasiatische Archäologie 20 (1906): 130–35. The genuineness of the papyri published by Sachau has been questioned by L. Bell¦li, An Independent Examination of the Assuan and Elephantine Aramaic Papyri (London: Luzac, 1909), but Bell¦li’s views have been refuted by recent scholarship. G. Beer, “Zur israelitisch-jüdischen Briefliterature,” Alttestamenliche Studien: Festschrift R. Kittel, ed. A. Alt et al., BWANT 13 (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1913), 20–41, aimed to narrow the “gap” between the epistolary form in the “Old Testament histories of literature” of the time. Beer deals with epistolography among the Jews. He traces its origin in pre-exilic times when it was largely shaped by Babylonian models; its development in post-exilic days, when the Persians were the dominant element; and finally its popularization in the Greco-Roman period. According to F. Kobler, Letters of Jews through the Ages: From Biblical Times to the Middle of the Eighteenth Century : Edited with Introduction, Biographical Notes and Historical Comments, 2 vols. (London: Ararat, 1952), Jewish letter writing is characterized by “its introspective note” (1: xxiii). 20 These newly found papyri consisted mostly of writings that the fifth century community deemed unworthy of preservation, such as contracts, wills, oaths, business and family letters, receipts, and tax lists. See, Sachau, Drei aramäische Papyrus-urkunden. There is a handy edition by Arthur Ungnad, Aramäische Papyrus aus Elephantine: Kleine Ausgabe unter zugrundelegung von Eduard Sachau’s Erstausgabe (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1911). 21 Godfrey R. Driver, Aramaic Documents of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1957).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

42

Going behind the Scenes: History of Scholarship

In addition to Driver’s significant documents, a small corpus of eight homogeneous letters from Hermopolis Magna, written in the second half of the fifth century BCE, were discovered in 1945 and originally published by Bresciani and Kamil in 1966.22 In the coming years a few other individual texts were published, which increased the number of Aramaic letters from the Old to the Imperial Aramaic periods (925–200 BCE) to about 100.23 These discoveries provided for a new approach to ancient Aramaic epistolary literature as the sub-discipline moved from probing individual texts to the overview of comparative forms of epistolography. In 1974 Joseph Fitzmyer surveyed Aramaic texts of various sorts, times, and varying lengths in order to highlight the types, providence, and contents of these letters.24 In addition to the texts found in Old and Imperial Aramaic, he also included documents from the first and second centuries CE of which the Bar Kokhba rebellion in 132–35 CE is the largest sub-group. Fitzmyer’s purpose was to organize the formal elements in Aramaic letters and describe the features inherent in Aramaic epistolary form. In addition to inquiring to what extent Semitic interference can be detected in the New Testament, his aim was to highlight those elements that may be of interest to the study of letters found in the Hebrew Bible. There are several aspects of Fitzmyer’s handling of the Aramaic documents that are problematic. First, the question of how the letter in Ezra fits in the overall context of the Aramaic letter tradition is not adequately developed.25 Second, and more significantly in the view of Philip Alexander, is the way in which Fitzmyer synchronically treated the material from widely different periods and cultures and his misguided discussion on the division of the texts according to material on which they were written, whether on skin, papyrus, wood, or clay.26 Despite these concerns, Fitzmyer has contributed to Aramaic epistolography by increasing the awareness of the need for a full investigation of Semitic letter form.27 The prolegomena in the field of Aramaic epistolography provided by Fitzmyer has been expanded by Alexander.28 But in order to avoid the cum22 These letters were published by E. Bresciani and M. Kamil, Le letter aramaiche di Hermopoli (Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 1966). 23 This estimated number of texts is given by Schwiderski, Handbuch, 5. 24 Fitzmyer, “Notes,” 201–25. 25 Fitzmyer, “Notes,” 205. 26 Alexander, “Remarks,” 156. 27 Fitzmyer has subsequently published two volumes that include some aspects of Aramaic epistolography : The Wandering Aramean, SBLMS 25 (Missoula, MT; Scholars Press, 1979); see esp. 183–96; idem. A Manual of Palestinian Aramaic Texts (Second Century B.C. – Second Century A.D.) (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978). 28 Alexander, “Remarks,” 156.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

History of Scholarship of Ancient Letters

43

bersome and sometimes misleading conclusions drawn from a wide range of letters covering centuries of literature, Alexander concentrates on Aramaic letters from the Persian period. He has further narrowed his inquiry by excluding Aramaic letters found in Ezra and Daniel because, as he contends, the authenticity of these letters is problematic and the opening conventions obscure.29 His study has advanced scholarly epistolary understanding by suggesting how regional factors, linguistic evolution, and the occasion for writing may have contributed to the variations in the letter style.30 From his analysis he has been able to determine that the minimum constituents of a Persian period Aramaic letter consist of an opening and a body. One flaw in Alexander’s approach concerns the use of a descriptive model to define a letter. When an author produces a list of necessary conditions that depends on a prior classification of a certain set of “letters,” then a scholar may foreclose too quickly on a text and guarantee a particular outcome.31 By deliberately excluding the “problematic” texts of the Aramaic letters in Ezra and Daniel, Alexander may have predetermined his conclusions. Gibson and Morrison suggest that “one way of deciding where the boundary between letters and other types of text lies…is to consider the borderline cases.”32 It appears from reading Alexander’s study that the boundary between letters and non-letters needs further exploration, for boundary texts may provide valuable information concerning the letters’ function, especially when applied to MMT. As assumptions about the nature of a text and how its meaning is derived change, so does the method of literary inquiry. A statement that expresses current literary interests among some scholars is provided by Adele Berlin, who states that contemporary approaches focus “on matters of the cultural or ethnic identity and/or on the relationship of power among different groups (usually groups of different ethnicity, gender, or social class).”33 The social group that has received increased attention is the non-elites, with special emphasis given to the interaction of family members and their response to power structures within

29 Alexander, “Remarks,” 157. 30 Alexander “Remarks,” 157, cautiously states: “We shall avoid foreclosing too quickly on a definition of a letter : this must emerge from our formal study.” While Alexander acknowledges the need for a cautious approach, in the end he does not supply a working definition of a letter, but merely gives the “minimum constituents” found in Aramaic letters. 31 Gibson and Morrison, “Introduction: What is a Letter?” in Ancient Letters: Classical and Late Epistolography, ed. Ruth Morello and Andrew D. Morrison (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 15. 32 Gibson and Morrison, “Introduction,” 4. 33 Adele Berlin, “Literary Approaches to Biblical Literature: General Observations and a Case Study of Genesis 34,” in The Hebrew Bible: New Insights and Scholarship, ed. Frederick E. Greenspahn (New York: New York University Press, 2008), 49–50.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

44

Going behind the Scenes: History of Scholarship

their own ethnic group and to foreign hegemony.34 The present study will follow along similar lines and provide further examples of the impact of social sciences on our understanding of letters when we discuss performance theory. As a possible example of the current interest in studying family members and nonelites, Paul Dion in 1982 analysed the introductory and concluding formulae of the eight pieces of Hermopolis family correspondence, edited by Driver, and compared them to Greek, Egyptian, and Akkadian letters.35 Dion viewed the opening and closing as the most decisive features in distinguishing this type of correspondence from similar letters during the same period.36 The Hermopolis letters dating from the fifth century BCE used the vocabulary of blood relationships very generously, beginning with the address: “to my sister.”37 This collection of papyrus private letters, most likely of the common class, may offer new literary possibilities in the discussion of the features of Aramaic letters. Letters that are collected can become a means of examining a community, both by investigating the contents of individual letters and by getting the sense of the collection, whether they were meant to be read together or not.38 The challenge that Fitzmyer took up was to provide a description of the corpus and the formal elements found in them, which opened the way for more scholarly investigation of epistolary form. Alexander continued the inquiry by contributing insights to the study of non-biblical letters from the Persian era and Dion analysed epistolary formulae and considered possible influences of other cultures on letter writing. What is lacking in these early investigations in letter form is a comprehensive way of understanding the different functions letters may have served in communities by exploring how they may have been read and performed in an interactive context.

˘

34 See for instance, James C. Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990); idem, Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985). 35 Dion, “Aramaic ‘Family Letter,’” 58–76; see also idem, with the collaboration of D. Pardee and J.D. Whitehead, “La letter aram¦enne passe-partout et ses sous-espÀces,” RB 89 (1982): 528–75, for a discussion on Aramaic letter types. 36 Dion, “Aramaic ‘Family Letter,’” 60 37 The use of kinship terms in the praescriptio is poorly attested in Aramaic letters. The question of whether these terms describe real or fictive kinship cannot be decided with certainty, though it appears probable that the terms are used literally. 38 Aramaic documentary letters from Elephantine, as well as other letters from Egypt, have been published by B. Porten and A. Yardeni, Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Egypt: Newly Copied, Edited and Translated into Hebrew and English, 4 vols. (Jerusalem: Hebrew University Press, 1986–90). For a publication of Hebrew and Aramaic letters from the Judean Desert from the Bar Kokhba period from Nahal Hever and Wadi Murabba at, see Y. Yadin et ˙ al., eds. The Documents from the Bar Kokhba˙ Period in the Cave of Letters [Vol. 2]: Hebrew, Aramaic and Nabatean-Aramaic Papyri, JDS 3 (Jerusalem: IES, Hebrew University & Israel Museum, 2002).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

History of Scholarship of Ancient Letters

45

2.1.3 Hebrew Letters Since the Hebrew letters seem to be more limited in number and type than Aramaic letters, our ability to interpret the proper use and function of each formulation is also more limited.39 As more texts from antiquity became available, the problems of classification needed to be addressed. A few notable scholars have endeavoured to compile, translate, and supply an introduction to Jewish letters written in Hebrew. Dennis Pardee’s purpose in surveying the corpus of ancient Hebrew letters was to compare the forms of Hebrew and Aramaic letters using orthographic and epigraphic evidence.40 His interest in Hebrew epistolography was precipitated by the expanding extra-biblical letters in Hebrew, which, he suggests, deserves a full treatment in and of itself.41 According to Pardee, the most complete Hebrew letters of the biblical period consist of address, greetings, transition to body, and body ; all elements being optional.42 In his study he concludes that there are definite discernible differences between the Hebrew letters of the seventh and sixth centuries BCE and those of the second century CE and that there are formulaic differences between groups from different geographical regions.43 Pardee’s emphasis lies in the formcritical analysis of epistolary structure and formulae in order to facilitate comparison with the Aramaic letters published by Fitzmyer. An unavoidable weakness in his analysis is that only a small sample of letters has been preserved. Until a greater diversity of Hebrew letters is discovered conclusions must remain tentative.44 Philip Alexander extended the study of Hebrew texts to include all letters from 200 BCE to 200 CE.45 He divided the corpus broadly using Deissmann’s categories of literary and non-literary letters. Literary letters, according to 39 Dennis Pardee, “Letters” in ABD 4:282–85; here 283. For pre-exilic Hebrew letters, see J. Renz and W. RPllig, Handbuch der Althebräischen Epigraphik, 3 vols. (Darmstadt:Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1995–2003). 40 Pardee’s publication “An Overview of Ancient Hebrew Epistolography,” JBL 97 (1978): 321–46 was part of a larger research project, the Ancient Epistolography Group of the SBL. 41 Pardee, “Letters,” 323. 42 Pardee, “Letters,” states that there are some Ugaritic letters which consist entirely of formulae without the body of the text, but no Hebrew equivalent has been found. See Pardee, “An Overview,” 321–46, whose work is modeled on Fitzmyer’s Aramaic work “Notes,” and stimulated by Ugaritic and Akkadian letters. 43 Pardee, “An Overview,” 342. 44 Pardee has also published Handbook of Ancient Hebrew Letters: A Study Edition, SBLSBS 15 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press), 1982, in which he presents formulaic features and types of Hebrew letters in the extra-biblical and Tannaitic letters. 45 Alexander, “Epistolary Literature” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, ed. Michael E. Stone (Philadelphia: Fortress), 1984.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

46

Going behind the Scenes: History of Scholarship

Alexander, use epistolary form as a means of communicating moral, philosophical, or religious ideas; whereas, non-literary letters have a more specific, everyday purpose and are normally meant for a very limited and precise audience.46 A feature of Alexander’s inquiry is his probe into the question concerning the authenticity of Hebrew letters.47 These fictive letters could include embedded pseudonymous letters attributed either to important religious authorities in the distant past, or to persons of political power in the near past. In 1994 a new presentation of the translation of virtually the complete corpus of surviving letters in Aramaic and Hebrew down to the time of Alexander the Great was compiled by James Lindenberger.48 This volume includes the correspondence from ancient Jewish writers at Yavneh-Yam (seventh century), Arad and Lachish (sixth century), and Elephantine (fifth century). Unlike Alexander’s article on “Epistolary Literature,” Lindenberger’s compilation does not include any letters found in the Hebrew Bible. His study reignited the issue of how to classify letters. He acknowledges in his introduction that Arad 88 “appears to be a remnant of an accession proclamation of one of the kings of Judah” (p. 9) and that Yavneh-Yam may not be a letter but a judicial petition (p. 96). This invites the question: Why are a proclamation of a king and a plea of a worker asking for the return of his garment, neither of which contain the usual epistolary openings, included in the list of letters? The recent entries on the subject of Jewish epistolography by Pardee, Alexander, and Lindenberger, each scholar having compiled a different list of Jewish letters by using different criteria for their selection, shows the difficulty of defining what can be classified a letter by predominately using a description of the letter’s form. A few recent significant monographs that analyze ancient Jewish letters across Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew languages should be noted.49 Recently, Dirk Schwiderski has focused on the idiomatic formal characteristics, such as the opening and closing, of Hebrew and Aramaic letters from the ninth century BCE to the Bar Kokhba letters. His intent was to write a history of the Northwest Semitic letter form with the view to develop criteria for determining the au-

46 Alexander, “Epistolary Literature,” 583. 47 Alexander, “Epistolary Literature,” 585. He views as certain fabrications the Epistle of Jeremiah, the letters in Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch, Paralipomena Ieremiae, and the Greek Additions to Esther, as well as the correspondence between Solomon, Hiram, and Pharaoh in Eupolemos and Josephus. 48 James M. Lindenberger, Ancient Aramaic and Hebrew Letters, WAW 4 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994). Lindenberger offers a rather free translation of the text. 49 P.M. Head, “Letter Carriers in the Ancient Jewish Epistolary Material,” in Jewish and Christian Scripture as Artifact and Canon, ed. C.A. Evans and H.D. Zacharias, LSTS 70 (London: T& T Clark, 2009), considers Jewish letters across the language corpora and focuses on the evidence for letter carriers in Jewish letter texts.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

History of Scholarship of Ancient Letters

47

thenticity of letters found in the canonical book of Ezra.50 Further studies that include Jewish letters written in different languages that also contain New Testament letters are Klauck’s Ancient Letters and the New Testament in which he offers a guide for many Jewish letters51 and the magisterial book by Lutz Doering, Ancient Jewish Letters and the Beginnings of Christian Epistolography, whose view that “Jewish letter writing” is a cultural phenomenon will be placed in a wider context of performance theory and suggest how his views can be expanded.52 Bernhard Oestreich has written a full treatment of the nature of performance in Paul’s letters and attempted to capture the dynamic relationship between the audience and performer.53 In addition to considering a letter’s idiomatic characteristics, such as the opening and closing, scholars have studied a particular type of Jewish letter in which a text is considered based on its social and cultural circumstances. In 1987 Franz Schnider and Werner Stenger were interested in understanding the possible literary characteristics that may be found in letters issued to the Jewish diaspora from the authorities in Jerusalem.54 Although not all diaspora letters were written in Hebrew (the earliest copy we have of 2 Macc 1 was written in Greek and will be discussed in chapter 7), it seems best to mention this letter type here, where we observe how religious practices and social conventions may have shaped letter writing. Schnider and Stenger’s analysis considered the effects of population displacement and cultural upheaval on religious identity and ethnic continuity. With this social history in mind, they studied the openings (Prä50 Schwiderski, Handbuch. Schwiderski’s arguments have been challenged by Jerome A. Lund, “Aramaic Language,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament Historical Books, ed. Bill T. Arnold and H.G.M. Williamson (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 2005), 50–60; Hugh G.M. Williamson, “The Aramaic Documents of Ezra Revisited,” 57–62; Steiner, “Bishlam’s Archival Search Report,” 679–83; and Steinmann, “Letters of Kings,” 5. 51 Klauck, Ancient Letters. 52 Doering, Ancient Jewish Letters, 15; to these must be added, H¦lÀne Lozachmeur, ed. La Collection Clermont-Ganneau. Ostraca,¦pigraphes sur Jarre, ¦tiquettes de bois, vol. 1 of Memoire de l’Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 35 (Paris: Diffusion de Boccard, 2006). 53 Oestreich, Performanzkritik. 54 Franz Schnider and Werner Stenger, Studium zum neutestamentlichen Briefformular, NTTS 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1987), 34–41. Several other authors have been interested in literary characteristics that may be found in letters issued to the Jewish diaspora. See for instance, Irene Taatz, Frühjüdische Briefe: Die paulinischen Briefe im Rahmen der offiziellen religiösen Briefe des Frühjudentums, NTOA 16 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991); M. Tsuji, Glaube zwischen Vollkommenheit und Verweltlichung: Eine Untersuchung zur literarischen Gestalt und zur inhaltlichen Kohärenz des Jakobusbriefes, WUNT 93 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997); K.-W. Niebuhr, “Der Jakobusbrief im Licht frühjüdischer Diasporabriefe,” NTS 44 (1998): 420–43; Lutz Doering, “Jeremiah and the ‘Diaspora Letters’ in Ancient Judaism,” in Reading the Present in the Qumran Library (Atlanta: SBL, 2007); Whitters, Second Baruch.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

48

Going behind the Scenes: History of Scholarship

skript) of the Jewish Diaspora letters (Diasporabrief) and concluded that this epistolary form shared at least four elements. First, the communication is with Jews/Judeans in the Diaspora, addressed to persons who are usually dispersed over a large geographic area and broadly addressed. Second, they argue that the letters claim to be written by a recognized authority (hauptsächlich um wichtige Autoritäten handelt), and often the author writes in response to a supernatural revelation. Third, the contents of the letters deal with instruction or exhortation and the audiences are expected to conform to what is written. Lastly, the purpose of these letters aims at reinforcing Jewish identity and unity among hostile societies or threatening circumstances.55 Schnider and Stenger also include pseudonymous authorship among the most important constitutive features, but Doering disputes that conclusion. He stresses that even though many of the “Diaspora Letters” may be pseudonymous, he does not see “why they necessarily should be so.”56 Communication by means of writing letters by the Jewish community dispersed throughout the known world may have been one of the means of maintaining allegiance to their homeland. Irene Taatz endeavored to characterize a type of Jewish letter tradition that conveyed authoritative instructions to Jewish communities, especially communities in the diaspora. She found the precedent of this Jewish authoritative epistolary tradition embedded in Jer 29 (see chapter 6), which was a letter sent to Jewish exiles in Babylon.57 From this review of ancient Hebrew diaspora letters, it emerges that a new investigation may be able to develop the social context of a letter more fully by including a performative setting as a possible interpretive lens. Schnider and Stenger certainly leave the door open for an inquiry into how to determine pseudepigraphic or other fictional elements in letters and to suggest how letters may have functioned as a means of communication between communities. Another literary expression that may have been employed during foreign occupation is the festal letter. A recent writer who has developed this class of letter is Mark Whitters, who states that the “Jewish festal letters do not have any exact parallels among Greco-Roman letter types. They arose as a peculiarly Jewish response to the challenge of maintaining a uniform religious calendar and

55 Whitters, Second Baruch, 86, includes the Greek language among the genre features, but admits that some of the letters are expressed in language and motifs that show evidence for a Semitic Vorlage. See also, Neibuhr, “Jakobusbrief,” 420. However, it is difficult to understand how language is a marker of genre. 56 Doering, “Jeremiah and the ‘Diaspora Letters,’” 44, n. 4; emphasis original. 57 Taatz, Frühjüdische Briefe. Taatz includes the Bar Kokhba letters (briefly) and the Bagohi petition from Elephantine in her purview, which clearly do not belong to the Diaspora Letter category. Her discussion on the genre of diaspora letters may be in need of updating to include a text from Qumran, published by Devorah Dimant in 2001, termed 4QapocrJer C (DJD 30, 159–66) and the book of Baruch.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

49

What is a Letter?

enforcing a rigid moral code in the face of societal opposition.”58 A common theme of this letter type, according to Whitters, is that they address an audience that is distant and calls them to religious solidarity in the face of a hostile environment. He further suggests at least three purposes for the composition of a festal letter : they consolidate or unify public opinion, they inaugurate or standardize public feasts, and they sound a call for appropriate festal preparation and repentance.59 Whitters’ arguments will be considered when we discuss a festal letter at Elephantine, in Gr. Esther, and 2 Maccabees in order to determine how this type of letter may have developed and to suggest a model that may have been in view when author(s) of these texts considered this method of communication. An issue we have skirted around but have not addressed directly is defining what can be classified a letter. In order to address this topic, we need to consider what strategies have been employed to understand epistolary form and see how these methods have been applied to MMT.

2.2

What is a Letter?

In delineating what counts as a letter,60 some scholars have produced a list of necessary conditions that need to be satisfied in order for a text to be classified as a letter.61 It is a truism to say that the purpose of the list is to explain why we consider some documents as letters and exclude others. Trapp acknowledges that the boundary between what is a letter and what is not quite a letter has not been well maintained.62 Derrida’s position collapses all literature into a kind of letter when he maintains that “mixture is the letter, the epistle, which is not a genre but all genres, literature itself.”63 Considering various attempts at defining 58 Whitters, Second Baruch, 68. This statement is qualified by Doering, Ancient Jewish Letters, 164, where he states “[i]f the emphasis is on ‘exact,’ this statement can be accepted.” Then Doering gives examples of Greek cities that sent invitations to festivals and games and as requests for the recognition of their sanctuaries. However, Doering states that, in contrast to Greek invitations, “Jewish festival letters, issued by the authorities in Jerusalem and translated into Greek, have become part of Jewish literature” (p. 164). 59 These purposes are given in Whitters, Second Baruch, 68. 60 The heading “What is a Letter?” is from Gibson and Morrison, “Introduction: What is a Letter?” 14–15. 61 Trapp, Greek and Latin Letters, 1. 62 Trapp explains on p. 1 n. 3 that “the question where the boundary is to be set between ‘letters’ and other pieces of writing that are in various ways comparable without qualifying as members of the family is not a trivial one, but lies beyond the scope of this introduction. Much depends on one’s keenness to press issues of genre and definition.” 63 Jacques Derrida, The Post Card: From Socrates to Freud and Beyond, trans. Alan Bass (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), 48.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

50

Going behind the Scenes: History of Scholarship

what constitutes a letter, it is a fair assumption that the activity of examining letters will be more like an exploration than an analysis. The consideration of the form of a letter may “have a wide variety of effects on the reader, from drawing attention to the imitation of or play with the letter-form, to directing the reader in the direction of a particular (epistolary) intertext.”64 One of the earliest self-conscious definitions of a letter comes from pseudoDemetrius, who treats the issue of epistolary definition by stating that “Artemon, the editor of Aristotle’s Letters, says that the letter ought to be written in the same manner as a dialogue, a letter being regarded by him as one of two sides of a dialogue.”65 What becomes immediately apparent is that pseudo-Demetrius does not appear to be concerned with the form of a letter, but rather its function. Modern epistolary definitions frequently include the formal structure, such as the requirement of stating the sender(s) and recipient(s), and the use of a limited set of conventional formulae of salutation, which specify both parties to the transaction.66 Either pseudo-Demetrius assumed those aspects of letter writing convention, or he found them unimportant.67 If formal aspects are not necessary to the definition, then we should broaden our view to consider any document which suggests that we are reading a letter. According to pseudo-Demetrius, a letter was merely a surrogate for face-to-face communication, which may imply that letters foster a conversational style that facilitates communication between writer and addressee. His view does not incorporate the nuances that occur when a person corresponds in writing when verbal intercourse may have been available; however, pseudo-Demetrius does suggest that the designation “letter” can include a wide range of written correspondences, including epistolary treatises.68 Another early definition of letters is given by the Roman philosopher and orator Cicero, writing to C. Scribonius in 53 BCE, describes this essential function of letters: That there are many kinds of letters you are well aware; there is one kind, however, about which there can be no mistake—for indeed, letter writing was invented just in order that we might inform those at a distance if there were anything which was important for them or for ourselves that they should know (Letters to His Friends 2:4:1).

64 65 66 67

Gibson and Morrison, “Introduction,” 14–15. Demetrius, On Style (Roberts; LCL). Trapp, Greek and Latin Letters, 1. Although Demetrius does not state that a letter must have formal aspects, he cautions that a letter should not simply be a treatise with a greeting tacked on at the beginning and a farewell at the end, which may imply that he viewed these aspects as idiomatic. 68 See Morello and Morrison’s introduction to Ancient Letters, where in their reflection of pseudo-Demetrius’ Eloc. they suggest that “epistolary treatises tended to be viewed (by others) as a type of letter as well” (p.v).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

51

What is a Letter?

Although this definition is more comprehensive, Cicero only speaks of the one aspect of the function of letters, namely, the communication of information, and does not seem to consider the fact that there exist many other functions that letters perform. This “oversight” may tell us more about ourselves—many of whom insist on a comprehensive, air-tight definition that applies to all situations—than the ancients, who may not have had this insatiable appetite for exactitude. This point is made clearer when we consider that guidelines suggested by the ancient theorists, such as Cicero and pseudo-Demetrius, concerning the material, linguistic register, or length appropriate to the epistolary form are notoriously broken by many ancient authors of letters.69 This observation seems to imply that the early epistolary theorists were more descriptive than prescriptive when defining “letters.” An ancient example of a letter that gives both information and cultivates friendship is Plato’s Epistle VI.70 According to Loeb Classical Library, “[t]he purpose of this letter is to urge Hermeias, the tyrant of Atarneus, to cultivate friendly relations with Erastus and Coriscus, who lived in the neighbouring town.”71 Significant for our later discussion on the performance of letters is the advice that all three of the recipients of this “personal” letter “must read this letter, all together if possible, or if not by twos; and as often as you possibly can read it in common.”72 While these ancient definitions are insightful, they may be of limited use for our understanding of Jewish letters, written in the Second Temple period. One major difficulty is that letters in the Hebrew Bible and in the books of Maccabees are all embedded in narrative passages and may not fit the ancient descriptions of free-standing letters. Nonetheless, there are some parallels between early definitions. For example, a letter is assumed to be written and sent to corresponding parties because they are separated emotionally or physically. From pseudo-Demetrius we learn that a letter is a written means of keeping oral conversation in motion, such as Plato’s letters, which have a written as well as an oral component. Cicero adds that the essential purposes served by letter writing are the maintenance of contact between relatives and friends. According to John White, the function of ancient letters can have a more specific reason, namely, desiring to disclose or seek information or to request something of the recipi-

69 Morello and Morrison, Ancient Letters, 1. It appears that the epistolary guides, such as On Style by pseudo-Demetrius, were not very influential. 70 The authenticity of this letter is in dispute. In tone and style it has many points of resemblance to Epistle II and Plato’s letter VI is in conflict with the account of Hermeias given by Strabo (Plato [Bury, LCL], 454). 71 Plato, Epistle VI, 454. 72 Plato, Epistle VI, 459–60.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

52

Going behind the Scenes: History of Scholarship

ent.73 Pardee classifies the ancient letter with regard to its function as “a written document effecting communication between two or more persons who cannot communicate orally.”74 However, because of the multi-functionality of ancient letters, I find useful Doering’s approach in which he does not view “letters” as a “genre” but rather suggests we call them letter types and “such letter types can be most conveniently grouped into classes of letter types.75 According to Doering, his perspective avoids the approach of many epistolary scholars who, by classifying a letter as a genre, place the epistolarity of the text above the classification of individual text types.76 It appears that determining how a letter functioned as a means of communication in a community is a criterion for classifying a text.77 As part of our discussion on what constitutes a letter, we need to also consider what makes a letter Jewish? The types of letters under review are personal, festal, literary, and official, and the contents include oracles, prayers, personal matters, 73 John L. White, “The Greek Documentary Letter Tradition Third Century B.C.E. to Third Century C.E.,” in Studies in Ancient Letter Writing, ed. John L. White, Semeia 22 (Atlanta: SBL, 1981): 91. 74 Pardee, Handbook, 2. 75 Doering, Ancient Jewish Letters, 19; emphasis original. 76 Doering, Ancient Jewish Letters, 18–19. The advantage of Doering’s position is that this taxonomically higher level allows for a variety of texts to be classified as “letters.” 77 A definition that emphasizes the letter’s function is offered by Schwiderski, Handbuch, 17: “So soll. . .nicht erst dann von einem Brief die Rede sein, wenn ein Mindestmaß an formalen Kriterien erfüllt ist, sondern bereits under der Voraussetzung, daß der betreffende Text eine bestimmte Funktion übernimmt. Diese Funktion besteht darin, eine aus räumlichen order sonstigen Gründen verhinderte order nicht gewollte mündliche Kommunikation zwischen zwei Personen oder Gruppen durch einen schriftlich verfaßten Text zu ersetzen” (italics original). See also linguist K. Ermert, Briefsorten: Untersuchungen zu Theorie und Empirie der Textklassification, Reihe Germanistische Linguistik 20 (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1979), who also views the text’s function as the main criterion for classifying text types. More recently K. Brinker holds the same view, Linguistische Textanalyse: Eine Einführung in Grundbegriffe und Methoden, 6th ed., Grundlagen der Germanistik 29 (Berlin: Erich Schmidt, 2005), 138–56. Both Ermert and Brinker regard the letter as a more encompassing entity, which can be labeled a “form of communication.” However, G. Diewald, Deixis und Textorten im Deutschen, Reihe Germanistische Linguistik 118 (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1991), 278–81, maintains that the situation of communication “is a better criterion to use as a basis to classify text types.” According to his view the “situation of communication for the letter is dialogical, not face-to-face and not oral” (Doering, Ancient Jewish Letters, 19). For the usefulness of using a Wittgensteinian concept of “family resemblance” in which different texts can share characteristics with other texts and thus can be classified under the same category, see Gibson and Morrison, “Introduction: What is a Letter?” 14–15. These authors suggest that the idea of family resemblances can usefully be applied “between” genres as a means of thinking about the boundaries between different types of text. As an example for their position they state that “[w]e can see that in many ways texts as diverse as Pyth. 3, Idyll 11, and the De Officiis do share several characteristics with letters, even if ultimately we don’t find these sufficient to place them squarely with the category of the letter” (p. 14). For other epistolography scholars who use Wittgenstein’s approach, see also, Doering, Ancient Jewish Letters, 22, 25.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

History of Scholarship of MMT

53

requests, and instructions. All these aspects of letters can be found in other traditions, albeit in slightly different forms. Jewish letters most often open with the formula (to) sender ; (from) recipient, with some elements possibly being excluded. In 2 Macc 1 the author(s) used an uncommon opening that includes a mixture of Greek and Hebrew elements, but this can hardly be evidence for a particularly Jewish letter form. It appears that the Jews used letters to communicate at a distance and employed a wide variety of styles and topics to convey their messages. In this study I have chosen letters that were written to and/or by Jewish person(s). The one exception is the Hermopolis letter, which is a letter written between Arameans, but can usefully be applied to our study of letters as a clear starting point for establishing idiomatic letter form. From this example, we can better appreciate how letters were adapted to suit different audiences and purposes. In summary, it may be more helpful to define ancient Jewish letters in terms of actions that people performed by means of them.78 But what is still missing in these definitions is the context in which letters were performed, for all three levels of analysis—form, function, and context—are necessary for a proper understanding of texts, particularly for those documents that do not fit easily into one category, but can be considered boundary texts, such as MMT.

2.3

History of Scholarship of MMT

An example of the difficulty of defining the genre of a text is MMT. MMT (originally designated 4QMishn) is a document found in Cave 4 at Qumran on six fragmented manuscripts.79 Similar to other ancient documents, MMT is a text whose classification has been much debated.80 Qumran academics have referred to it as Halakhic letter, a personal or private letter, a literary epistle, a treatise, or a combination of several categories. Classification becomes more difficult, because the reconstructed text consists of three distinct sections: a calendrical document (A), a polemical collection of purity laws (B), and an exhortation (C). Space does not permit a full rehearsal of the exceedingly complex discussion 78 Stowers, Letter Writing, 15. 79 The fragments are designated 4Q394, 4Q395, 4Q396, 4Q397, 4Q398, and 4Q399. 80 Other documents from the Dead Sea are also difficult to classify. New designations have been employed to describe the Damascus Document (CD) and the Rule of the Community (1QS), which were otherwise difficult to classify. Jubilees, is a hybrid work, according to John J. Collins, “The Genre of the Book of Jubilees,” in ATeacher for all Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. VanderKam, ed. E.F. Mason et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 737–55. For the designation “rule texts” in the Dead Sea Scrolls, see Philip S. Alexander, “Rules,” EDSS 2: 803. Other genres significant to scrolls research are: parabiblical texts, calendars, poetry and liturgical texts, and sectarian-sapiential materials.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

54

Going behind the Scenes: History of Scholarship

of the genre of MMT, but a brief survey may be helpful. The first description of MMT, as suggested by the official editors, Elisha Qimron and John Strugnell, is “halakhic letter.” They initially understood the text to be a personal letter written by a Qumran community leader—probably the Teacher of Righteousness, to his opponents—possibly Jonathan or Simon, High Priests in Jerusalem.81 When considering the form and content of the document, the editors have noted that “MMT has few of the formal characteristics of the personal letter, and we should probably expect parallels rather in the epistle or in the treatise, though formal descriptions of these genres are hard to make.”82 The letter-theory has also been questioned by Lester Grabbe who reminds us that in the end we do not even know whether the “letter was sent from Qumran or to Qumran” and that “we do not know who wrote MMT or to whom it was addressed.”83 To Grabbe’s comments can be added the question of whether Qumran was involved at all at the time of composition. It should be noted that the document is fragmentary— particularly important for our purposes is the loss of the opening section. The text also employs no known ancient Jewish or Aramaic epistolary conventions, except possibly a conciliatory tone; therefore, to label this text a personal letter can be done only with great difficulty. An approach to MMT that regards the text as an epistle has created a number of possibilities for scholars, such as Hanan Eshel.84 In his view, MMT is not a “real” letter, but merely a text attributed to the Teacher of Righteousness by its

˘

81 Strugnell, “An Unpublished Halakhic Letter from Qumran,” in Biblical Archaeology Today : Proceedings of the International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, April, 1984 (Jerusalem: IES, 1985), 400. This definition of the document’s meaning has been supported by Robert Eisenman and Michael O. Wise, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered: The First Complete Translation and Interpretation of 50 Key Documents Withheld for over 35 Years (Shaftesbury : Element, 1992), 182–200, who have divided the document into two letters: The first letter on Works Reckoned as Righteousness (4Q394–398) and the second letter on Works Reckoned as Righteousness (4Q397–399). Hartmut Stegemann, Die Essener, Qumran, Johannes der Täufer und Jesus (Freiburg: Herder, 1994), 148–151, refers several times to the document as a letter (Brief). Yaakov Sussmann, “The History of the Halakha and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Preliminary Talmudic Observations on Miqsat Ma as´e Ha-Torah; Appendix 1,” in ˙ states that “the work is written as a Qumran Cave 4. V: Miqsat Ma as´e Ha-Torah (DJD X), 185 ˙ personal epistle—apparently from one of the leaders of the sect to a leader of the opposing group—and is couched in relatively mild language” (emphasis mine). 82 DJD X, 113. Strugnell has abandoned the classification of MMT both as a letter and as a treatise in “MMT: Second Thoughts,” 57–73. A similar caution is expressed by John Kampen and Moshe J. Bernstein, eds., Reading 4QMMT: New Perspectives on Qumran Law and History, SBLSymS 2 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), 5. 83 Grabbe, “4QMMTand Second Temple Jewish Society,” in Legal Texts and Legal Issues, 90, see especially n. 5. 84 Hanan Eshel, “4QMMTand the History of the Hasmonean Period,” in Reading 4QMMT: New Perspectives on Qumran Law and History, ed. John Kampen and Moshe J. Bernstein (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996)

˘

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

History of Scholarship of MMT

55

readers, but most likely written by someone else.85 This view is also held by Annette Steudel, who regards MMT as a literary epistle, suggesting that the text exhibits literary features of a letter.86 Von Weissenberg reminds us that there are difficulties in trying to analyse a specifically Jewish corpus of literary epistles because “examples of Jewish literary epistles are not preserved as manuscripts, instead, they are all attached into other compositions.”87 Another possibility worth considering is that MMT is a treatise. A treatise does not need to have a specific author (it could be anonymous), but would be written with an audience in mind. The purpose of a treatise is to state or clarify beliefs and practices and is didactic or hortatory in style.88 George Brooke, in support of this option, suggests that MMTcould be classified as a “treatise with a didactic element.”89 The advantage with this proposal is that, unlike an epistle, which requires a specific author, recipient, and historical moment, a treatise bypasses these concerns and could be a compilation of several issues that led the group to form.90 Steven Fraade cogently defends the view that there is nothing in MMT that prevents a reading of the text as a document with an intra-communal focus.91 Such a text could have been used to train neophytes or new members to the community, or as a study-text designed to teach later generations about the origins of the group, or as a record of the central issues and dogmas of the cult. A caution when resolving the issue of genre is that the category of treatise, too, suffers from a lack of suitable or satisfactory parallel texts, which could act as a control.92 It is easier to reject or polemicize genre categories than to suggest viable alternatives. Lindenberger has stated that MMT is “generically mixed;”93 Brooke has pointed out that the number of preserved copies suggest that it “was always intended as an open circular, designed to be heard by a wide audience

˘

85 Eshel, “4QMMT,” 55, 64, finds support for his position by arguing that MMT is the “Law and Torah” mentioned in 4QpPsa. 86 Annette Steudel, “4Q448—The Beginning of MMT?” in From 4QMMT to Resurrection: M¦langes qumraniens en hommage — Êmile Puech, ed. F. Garc†a Mart†nez, A. Steudel and E.J.C. Tigchelaar, STDJ 61 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 247–63. 87 Hanne von Weissenberg, 4QMMT: Reevaluation the Text, the Function, and the Meaning of the Epilogue (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 150. 88 Maxine L. Grossman, “Reading 4QMMT: Genre and History,” RevQ 20/77 (2001): 7, 11. 89 George Brooke, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament: Essays in Mutual Illumination (London: SPCK, 2005), 167. Gershon Brin, “Review on DJD X: Qumran Cave 4 V: Miqsat ˙ Ma as´e Ha-Torah by E. Qimron and J. Strugnell,” JSS 40 (1995): 334–42, advocates that MMT may have changed its purpose to accommodate a different social setting, from being a letter sent outside the community to become a basic treatise aimed at teaching its members. 90 Grossman, “Reading 4QMMT,” 12. 91 Steven D. Fraade, “To Whom It May Concern: 4QMMT and Its Addresse(s),” RevQ 19/76 (2000): 507–26. 92 Philo of Alexandria (20 BCE – 50 CE) in his works Good Person, Rewards, and Abraham may be the best Jewish representative of this genre category. 93 Lindenberger, “Letters,” EDSS 1: 481–82.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

56

Going behind the Scenes: History of Scholarship

who might identify themselves with the ‘you’ of the addressee.”94 It seems fair to say that the various classifications and their juxtapositions so far discussed— letter vs. epistle, epistle vs. treatise—have some areas of overlap. Doering argues that due to the fragmentary state of the documents MMT is difficult to classify in terms of genre, but has clear links with, what he calls, “epistolary ‘basic text types.’”95 What has not received adequate consideration when determining the genre of MMT is whether there are any oral/aural indicators in the text, which may signal how the document was performed.

2.4

Observations

In the twentieth century, much has been learned concerning the definition of ancient letters and its implication for understanding other texts. Although definitions of what constitutes a letter are paramount to our investigation, there are issues that have been exposed from our historical investigation. First, we must be careful about making distinctions between literary and nonliterary, real and non-real, genuine and imaginary/fictive letters and consequently miss what people actually did with letters in antiquity in a communal setting. Second, questions about the form and function of letters, initially addressed by Deissmann, Exler, Sykutris and followed by others, will resurface throughout this work. To be sure, important advances in epistolary literature have been made. For instance, it appears to be significant to understand how literary form and social context inform each other. Where these treatments fall short is that they do not give enough attention to the oral context of a letter, but merely emphasize its social/historical context. And as we shall see, one is not the same as the other. Finally, the oral communication of ancient letters, as illustrated by Plato, requires us to pay attention to the social context in which the letter was read and to understand better its oral and textual transmission. We have looked behind the scenery and stage area, which is generally out of public view and now are ready to set the stage for the performance. In order to prepare for the performance of ancient Jewish letters, we need to clarify and define the methods that will used to understand the form, function, and oral context of the texts.

94 Brooke, “Luke-Acts and the Qumran Scrolls: A Case of 4QMMT,” in Luke’s Literary Achievement: Collected Essays, ed. Christopher M. Tuckett, JSNTSup 116 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995), 81. 95 Doering, Ancient Jewish Letters, 197.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Chapter 3 Setting the Stage: Methods

The purpose of this chapter is to set the stage for understanding performance. To set the stage a person prepares something for some activity. Being clear on a method, prepares the reader for a certain point of view that performance criticism takes. Here we consider the critical methods scholars have used to analyse ancient texts, in particular letters, in order to suggest some preferences among those methods and to suggest other approaches that will be followed in our own study of Second Temple period Jewish letters. The intention of a method is to legitimize the questions that are asked of a text and to serve as a way of answering those questions. The two historical-critical methods scholars have used most frequently when describing the text of a letter are form criticism and redaction criticism. Form criticism focuses on questions relating to the identification of typical patterns of language that give shape to the structure and function of a letter and redaction criticism emphasizes the final form of a text by considering how an editor(s) may have shaped the letter to express his or her literary goals. Recent insights into textuality consist of semiotics, which presupposes the centrality of the text, whereby meaning is created by understanding the elements of texts, their combinations, relations, and codifications. Semiotics is a method that is particularly suited to a better understanding of letters because letters frequently introduce the audience to a set of characters and their explicit and encoded status in relationship to each another. In analyzing the process of communication, which consists of the interplay of author/editor, text, performer, and audience, some scholars have focused on the possible stages in the evolution from orality to writtenness and possibly back to orality, and investigated the possible interaction of writtenness and orality in ancient cultures. Semiotics, orality, and performance theory will draw attention to the actualization of a text by considering the oral texture of a letter and the community context in which a letter may have been read. It appears that a plurality of methods will need to be used to probe a text in order to gain a more complete

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

58

Setting the Stage: Methods

perspective on the variety of Second Temple period letters and to consider how these methods may apply to MMT.

3.1

Contributions of Historical Critical Methods

Past research on Second Temple period letters has employed several methods. For our study consideration is given to focusing the discussion through historical critical methods used predominantly in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.1

3.1.1 Form Criticism The early stages of the modern method of biblical studies referred to as form criticism2 (Formgeschichte3 or Gattungsgeschichte) can be attributed to the works of Hermann Gunkel (1862–1932), who focused on the analysis of short, self-contained literary units. His emphasis was on culturally determined patterns of the text (Gattung) rather than on highlighting an individual, particular text. Form-critical methods made popular by Gunkel assumed that the biblical text was dependent on an oral tradition that could be detected beneath the written text as an oral “substratum.”4 It is largely due to Gunkel that scholarship 1 The historical critical approach is not limited to one method, but employs many ways of analyzing the text. It seeks to explore answers to issues of authorship, audience, providence, purpose, date, form, style, etc. The often complex answers to these questions require an overlap of methods, such as source criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism, etc. For a succinct overview of the historical-critical method, see Edgar Krentz, The Historical-Critical Method (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975). 2 For overviews on the development of form-critical method, see Marvin A. Sweeney and Ehud Ben Zvi, eds., The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-First Century (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003); Martin J. Buss, Biblical Form Criticism in its Context, JSOTSup 274 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999); Klaus Koch, The Growth of the Biblical Tradition: The Form Critical Method, trans. S.M. Cupitt (New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1969); John H. Hayes, ed. Old Testament Form Criticism, TUMSR 2 (San Antonio, TX: Trinity University Press, 1974); Gene M. Tucker, Form Criticism of the Old Testament, GBS (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971). 3 The German word Formgeschichte appears as a technical term for the first time in Martin Dibelius, Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1971). According to Koch, Growth of the Biblical Tradition, 3 n. 1, the German Formgeschichte (lit. form history) implies two things: the history of linguistic forms, as well as the historical examination of this history. The meaning of the English form criticism is more limited, for it is concerned only with the second of these. 4 For a review of the history of the form-critical movement, see Douglas A. Knight, Rediscovering the Traditions of Israel, rev. ed., SBLDS 9 (Missoula: SBL, distributed by Scholars Press, 1975).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Contributions of Historical Critical Methods

59

was introduced to looking at the social location of a genre,5 which he called Sitz im Leben.6 The contribution of form criticism reflects the view that each text, whether long or short, must be treated as a whole, and therefore the meaning emerges from the complete document not from fragments that can be extrapolated from the text. Methodologically, our study of letters includes asking questions concerning the historical intended meaning of the text for which we may depend on “genre investigation” in Gunkel’s sense. Form criticism has provided the reader with a set of expectations to look for in a standard frame and to observe how those expectations may be confirmed or subverted. For instance, when a text begins with “to the governor, from the king” the listening audience and the reader would mostly likely have been familiar with this standard letter form, and therefore would have had a specific outlook on the oral/aural presentation of the text. One of Gunkel’s New Testament students, Martin Dibelius (1883–1947), was concerned with overcoming “the arbitrariness into which previous phase of critical exegesis—so called liberal theology—had fallen in its judgments about what was ‘historical’ and what was not.”7 For this reason Dibelius sought the “pure form” of a document and endeavoured to uncover the process leading from the oral tradition to the texts. Although he worked predominantly with New Testament texts, Dibelius’ focus on “reconstructing the origin and history of the individual piece in order to illuminate the history of the preliterary tradition”8 may offer a useful method of determining a typology of various letters. In addition to understanding the oral history of a text, we will be concerned with the letter’s performance. Performance analysis inevitably causes us to examine the form of the written remains, but from a different perspective—looking for author(s) who happened to write. By analyzing Dibelius’ work, it becomes evident that the form critical method consists of more than describing and classifying texts, including letters, according to predetermined characteristics—it considers its historical function with the intent of discovering how a culture developed. 5 Gunkel’s Myth-and-Ritual History-of-Religions school endeavoured to reunite history and philosophy. 6 Buss, Biblical Form Criticism, 234, offers this clarification of the term Sitz im Leben: “The term Sitz im Leben, as employed by Gunkel, refers to the home—origin or normal location—of a genre, not to the context of a particular text.” Bob Becking, “Nehemiah 9 and the Problematic Concept of Context (Sitz im Leben),” in The Changing Face of Form Criticism, 263, offers a caution concerning what we assume we can know about the societal settings behind the texts. He states that “a context, or Sitz im Leben, should be seen as a hypothesis on the past.” 7 This is the view of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, “Biblical Interpretation in Conflict: On the Foundations and the Itinerary of Exegesis Today,” in Opening up the Scriptures: Joseph Ratzinger and the Foundations of Biblical Interpretation, ed. Jos¦ Granados, Carlos Granados, and Luis S‚nchez-Navarro (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 10. Ratzinger includes R. Bultmann in this concern. 8 Blum, “Formgeschichte—A Misleading Category?” in Changing Face of Form Criticism, 36.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

60

Setting the Stage: Methods

In our investigation of letters, such as the text in Jer 29 that consists of prophetic oracles in epistolary form, we will consider genre distinctions by reflecting on methods that include oral traditions. Unlike form-critical analysis that frequently made assumptions about human evolution and rote repetition, using the performance approach incorporates authorial creativity that potentially (re) generates a tradition.9 The advantage of using a form critical approach in conjunction with the performative method is that it may allow us to understand a “letter” more comprehensively if we consider its form and function in addition to the effects the text may have had on a performer and audience.

3.1.2 Redaction Criticism Whereas form criticism tended to look at isolated units of texts, redaction criticism dealt with the shape of the text in its final form. A possible strength of redaction criticism for our study of letters is that this method emphasizes the creative role of an editor(s) and indicates to us the environment in the communities to which the letters were written. Redaction criticism adds to the study of texts by “pursu[ing] the question of the theological and historical relations between the various textual layers of a book or between different books and asks whether different expansions of the text can be credited to the same redactional group or school.”10 Therefore, there may be evidence in a letter that it had been edited or (re)performed to reinforce some issues of the community to which it was written. For instance, some letters are extant in multiple copies consisting of possible editorial changes, and others have been translated and may indicate that a different ideological agenda is being presented. What redaction criticism cannot adequately explain is how an oral tradition continues to change and develop long after a text has been written, a process which may lead to multiple versions of the same text. It appears that orality continues to be reflected in textual form long after a text was written.11 It is conceivable that a reference to an older text in the midst of a performance suggests an alleged author(s) is out-

9 Dan Ben-Amos and Kenneth S. Goldstein, eds. Folklore in Context: Essays (New Delhi: South Asian, 1982); Bauman, Verbal Art, 3–58; Foley, The Singer of Tales in Performance (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1995). 10 Manfred Oeming, Contemporary Biblical Hermeneutics: An Introduction, trans. by Joachim Vette (Burlington, VT: Ashgate), 2006. The term Redaktionsgeschichte (redaction history) was first used by Willi Marxsen, Mark the Evangelist (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Reprecht, 1959; published in German in 1956). 11 Jeff Opland, Xhosa Oral Poetry : Aspects of a South African Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Contributions of Recent Insights into Texuality

61

lining an oral or written tradition with the possible intent of having it fleshed out in a performance. An important recent work conducted by a team of scholars from Manchester and Durham universities created a schematic literary profile of all complete anonymous or pseudepigraphic Jewish texts from 200 BCE to 700 CE.12 Although this approach is not a method whose purpose is to assist in understanding a text better, it does privilege the final written form of a text, similar to redaction criticism. The value of this work is that it identifies the structurally important features through using a text-linguistic approach to literary profiling that defines texts as a particular type. This inventory will be helpful in our study of ancient letters in that it groups texts according to their text-linguistic type. The outcome of this project is an electronic database, which offers new text-linguistic descriptions of every text. Texts do not always yield up their sense easily ; therefore, issues of the letters’ literary components, shape, structure, form, and style will be the first part of the methodological matrix employed to understand more comprehensively the meanings of the texts.

3.2

Contributions of Recent Insights into Texuality

In addition to form and redaction criticism there are two other types of criticisms that need to be considered: semiotics and orality. One of the weaknesses of historical critical methods is that they project onto the text categories and properties that may not have been present in the mind of the original author or editor. To be sure, letters are one of the few categories that draw attention to themselves by frequently naming the text a letter, but the emergent influence of reception-history has drawn attention to how texts, including letters, are read and reread. Literary studies have refocused their analysis from the historical critical methods—the emphasis of which was on the text and its authors—to the readers who construct the text in the act of reading it. The stress on how a text is experienced by readers, real or ideal, is the paradigm followed by semiotic, oral, and performance criticisms.

3.2.1 Semiotics There arose first in France, then in the United States, Britain, and Germany, a movement in philosophy and literary criticism that tested its structural ap12 Alex Samely et al., eds., “Database for the Analysis of Anonymous and Pseudepigraphic Jewish Texts of Antiquity,” http://literarydatatbase.humanities.manchester.ac.uk.html.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

62

Setting the Stage: Methods

proach to the study of biblical texts. This application of the text arose out of a sense of disappointment and disillusionment with the historical-critical methods’ apparent lack of concern for the final form of the text. Semiotics, the science of signs and communication, reached biblical studies through the scholarship of linguistics and through the structural analysis of narrative material with which the names of Vladimir Propp, Algirdas Greimas, Roland Barthes, and others are associated.13 In this section I only wish to add some specific comments on the possible uses that a semiotic approach could offer to understand better ancient Jewish letters; in particular, when we consider letters in the context of a public performance event for an audience.14 Semiotics emphasizes the production and process of generating meaning through the use of performance codes. A workable definition of performance code suggested by de Marinis is “the convention in performance which permits the association of particular contents with particular elements in one or more systems of expression.”15 This description requires further explanation. First, we must distinguish between meanings of codes that 13 Vladimir Propp, a Russian structuralist, wrote Morphology of the Folktale, 2nd ed. (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1968), in which he applied his method to a corpus of about 100 Russian folktales. He claimed that it is possible to reduce all characters in Russian folktales to a certain number of types or roles, each defined by its relation to the other. His approach is also called “syntagmatic analysis” because it relies on the sequence of episodes, or the syntax of the plot. Algirdas Julien Greimas, Structural Semantics: An Attempt at a Method, introduction by D. McDowell, trans. R. Schleifer and D. McDowell (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1983). An excellent introduction to the semiotic method can be found in J. Calloud, “A Few Comments on Structural Semiotics: A Brief Review of a Method and Some Explanation of Procedures,” trans. J.C. Kirby, Semeia 15 (1979): 51–83; and Bernard S. Jackson, Semiotics and the Bible (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000). For a fuller treatment of semiotic analysis applied to Genesis, see Ellen van Wolde, A Semiotic Analysis of Genesis 2–3: A Semiotic Theory and Method of Analysis Applied to the Story of the Garden of Eden, Studia Semitica Neerlandica (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1989). Roland Barthes, “The Struggle with the Angel: Textual Analysis of Genesis 32:22–32, in Image Music Text, trans. by Stephen Heath (New York: Hill & Wang, 1977). In addition, see Claude L¦vi-Strauss, “The Structural Study of Myth,” in Myth: A Symposium, ed. T.A. Sebeok (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1972): 81–106; J.P. Fokkelman, “Genesis 37 and 38 at the Interface of Structural Analysis and Hermeneutics,” in Literary Structure and Rhetorical Strategies in the Hebrew Bible, ed. L. de Regt, J. de Waard and J.P. Fokkelman (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1996): 152–87; Diane M. Stone, Patterns of Destiny : Narrative Structures of Foundation and Doom in the Hebrew Bible (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002). 14 For various approaches to performance, see Erika Fisher-Lichte, The Semiotics of Theatre, trans. Jeremy Gaines and Doris L. Jones (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1983), which follows structuralist insights; Marco de Marinis, The Semiotics of Performance, trans. Ýine O’Healy (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1993), which explains the performance from a pragmatic point of view and Eli Rozik’s Generating Theatre Meaning: A Theory and Methodology of Performance Analysis (Brighton: Sussex Academic, 2008), which focuses on the theatre first and foremost as a nonverbal medium. 15 De Marinis, Semiotics of Performance, 98.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Contributions of Recent Insights into Texuality

63

the alleged original author(s) and those producing the texts may have wished to convey and codes that the oral performer may have interpreted for the audience by means of analyzing the characters presented in the text. These two codes may differ because the competence and intention of the original author(s) may not necessarily be the same as the analysis of the oral performer and his or her interpretation of the text. In other words, there are two kinds of semiotics at play : “there is a semiotics of production and the semiotics of reception.16 Second, the performance text requires that the listening audience interpret the text, an activity that goes beyond mere knowledge of the codes. Against this background, I would like to consider the semiotics of reception and discuss three iconic codes17 that if understood by the audience would necessarily create certain expectations. The first code to be interpreted is the iconic recognition of the performer of the text. A person most likely would have given an oral presentation of most types of letters in a community, followed by many other performances by other performers to a variety of audiences over time. During the reading of letters, a performer presents images from a performance-text, which aims at identifying other characters in a complex interaction—a plot. Not only does the performer convey the text to the audience, but the reader is the one who connects iconic signs by interpreting a letter according to cultural codes, which operate in the real world. But the influence of the performers cannot easily be determined, for it depends on their relation to the audience, reading skill, perceived importance of the text, and many other factors, which makes it difficult to determine what features combine in order for the performers to operate as a sign. During an oral performance a world is described by the reader. One way this world can be understood is through the reading of a letter, whether or not an original is present. The medium of a letter is a second code that must be interpreted by the audience. This is where the complexity of semiotics of performance increases, because performers participate in theatrical semiosis “both as signs and as producers of signs.”18 They function as a sign by presenting an image of a world, and they share in the production of signs by referring to a letter and characters within the text and by releasing the symbolic meaning of these signs. These semiotic codes are culturally informed over long periods of time 16 De Marinis, Semiotics of Performance, 99 (emphasis original). 17 In the context of modern theory of signification, the term “icon” was first used by Charles Pierce, Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Pierce, ed. Ch. Hartshorne and Paul Weiss (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1956), 2.247, who defines this term as “…anything whatever, be it quality, existent individual, or law, is an Icon of anything, in so far as it is like that thing and used as a sign of it.” 18 Jean Alter, A Sociosemiotic Theory of Theatre (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1990), 262 (emphasis original).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

64

Setting the Stage: Methods

and have been absorbed into a community to such an extent that they frequently appear to be “natural,” not learned. At this point it is enough to note that performers “not only produce themselves as signs but also, as actor/signs, produce or modify other signs around them.”19 A text-oriented performance can easily accommodate many presentations and variations, and therefore no text can be declared to be firmly closed. The element of the oral presenter producing signs as one aspect of creating meaning is absent from most treatments of ancient letters. The third code that is present in letters to a greater or lesser degree is epistolary conventions and self-designations. Letters generally begin by stating who supposedly wrote the text, or in the terms of Derrida, the signifier, whose importance depends on its unambiguous relations to its signified (the identity of the sender). Similarly, the receiver is identified before the body of the letter commences. In theatrical terms the opening sets the stage—either through a narrative or through the text of a letter. It is not beyond reason to suggest that the alleged ancient Jewish letters guide the selection of interpretive frames by having suggested that a letter is being read. This self-presentation and exposition is of primary importance for the comprehension of the performance-text. Letters also have symbolic structures, unrelated to the sequence of events. These structures pertain to location (rural vs. urban, domestic vs. foreign), theological position (faithful vs. unfaithful, Jew vs. non-Jew), and political situation (king vs. subject, parent vs. child). In my view, there is a relationship between particular conventions or symbolic structures and comprehension. For instance, when a narrative states “now these are the words of a letter” and a letter-text is then read, the audience’s degree of awareness of this convention or iconic code conditions their level of understanding and expectation. In the same way, if a letter is addressed from a foreign king to his subjects, the audience must contextualize the importance of each individual mentioned in the letter. Mario Lavagetto speaks about the structure of anticipation of an audience by suggesting that expectation is organized on the basis of a series of data culturally held by the addressee, genre, and text.20 For instance, when a text metonymically signals a tradition by using terms, formulae, and symbols it evokes in the audience meanings that are significant and the use of structural analysis will assist in understanding better the impact that this encoded tradition may have had on an audience. 19 Alter, Sociosemiotic Theory, 263. Although Alter does not refer to ancient oral presentations of letters, her main thesis of actors as signs and producers of signs can be reasonably applied to our study. 20 Mario Lavagetto, Quei Pi¾ Modesti Romanzi: Il libretto nel melodramma di Verdi : tecniche costruttive, funzioni, poetica di ungenere letterario minore. (Milan: Garzanti, 1979), 176–78. Quoted in De Marinis, Semiotics of Performance, 113.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Contributions of Recent Insights into Texuality

65

Ancient texts have a history, even as the text reaches its final form; it still becomes read and reread by various subsequent eras. Semiotics (re)awakens the view of making and interpreting ancient letters, not only as a final text, but as a process. With at least six extant copies of MMT, structural analysis may help explain the changes that occurred as the text was read and copied for later generations.

3.2.2 Oral Processes In approaching the issue of oral and written traditions, our first step is to make a brief comment on the terms “oral” and “written,” and then to examine various models that have been employed by linguistic researchers. When discussing the basic question of what “oral” means, Egbert states that “a more precise term might be simply ‘spoken,’ as a name for one possible medium for our discourse.”21 Although speaking and writing applies to two different ways in which language is used, the situation becomes more complex when we speak of “oral” as a concept that underlies a discourse. Oesterreicher distinguishes between orality and writtenness by suggesting that a discourse may be oral as to its conception, but written as to its medium.22 He also suggests a continuum to illustrate the ways in which human interaction may occur: Face-to-face interaction of partners versus distance in space and time Private versus public setting of the communicative act Familiarity versus unfamiliarity in the partners Context embeddedness versus contextual dissociation of a discourse Dialogue versus monologue Maximum versus minimum cooperation of partners Spontaneity versus detachment Free topic versus fixed topic In the past the concept of oral tradition was placed over against the written text. Hermann Gunkel conceived of an Israelite oral culture in which participants enjoyed family-centred folk tales. He offers this portrait of Hebrew oral transmission: 21 Egbert J. Bakker, “How Oral is Oral Composition?” in Signs of Orality: The Oral Tradition and its Influence in the Greek and Roman World, ed. E. Anne MacKay (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 29 (emphasis original). 22 Wulf Oesterreicher, “Types of Orality in Text,” in Written Voices, Spoken Signs: Performance, Tradition, and the Epic Text, ed. E.J. Bakker and A. Kahane (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 190–214.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

66

Setting the Stage: Methods

In the leisure of a winter evening the family sits about the hearth; the grown people, but more especially the children, listen intently to the beautiful old stories of the dawn of the world which they have heard so often yet never tire of hearing repeated.23

This romantic view of the early oral tradition presented by Gunkel, who was influenced by Brothers Grimm version of German folk tales, suggests that these oral works were simple stories predating the literary text. According to Gunkel, these oral compositions were reworked and later transformed into a section of the written text of Scripture. It appears that Gunkel considered oral texts as a period of time, which was crude or primitive, different from a later written period. There is an inherent weakness when we understand the words “oral” and “written” as two mutually exclusive and opposed processes, which consist in the danger of bestowing these concepts with cultural value. In other words, our understanding of oral traditions cannot be reduced to merely a primitive state of communication that is superseded by a better, more sophisticated, written medium. Moreover, the Gunkel model of sages, who could be traced to others before them and eventually to ancient authors in an uninterrupted string of tradition, cannot hold. Biblical writers who emphasize oral traditions and folklore studies have frequently drawn on the research of Milman Parry and his student Albert Lord.24 Parry applied his fieldwork research on modern South Slavic oral tradition to Homeric Greek epic poetry and suggested that Homer was a traditional oral poet. Testing the same hypothesis, Lord conducted ethnographic research on Serbo-Croatian oral epic poets of Herzegovina and concluded (with Parry) that the Iliad and Odyssey have signs of an oral heritage. A key conclusion of Parry and Lord’s research is that the oral bards were illiterate and composed their “texts” in performance.25 23 Hermann Gunkel, The Legends of Genesis (New York: Schocken Books, 1966; German original, 1901), 41. 24 The tradition of scholarship that they established has been called the “Parry-Lord” school of thought or the “Oral Formulaic Theory.” The seminal work of Lord is The Singer of Tales, Harvard Studies in Comparative Literature 24 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960). The issues explored by Parry and Lord had already been under discussion by the Prague Linguistic Circle, which was founded in 1926. In the 1940s Peter Bogatyrev was developing folklore studies as a special field of inquiry, which later was published under the title “Folklore as a Special Form of Creativity,” in The Prague School: Selected Writings, 1929–1946, ed. Peter Steiner, University of Texas Press Slavic Series 6 (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1982). 25 Lord, Singer of Tales, 100. Very few oral scholars today would identify themselves with the Oral Formulaic position, especially the hard Parryist view. See Mark C. Amodio, “Contemporary Critical Approaches and Studies in Oral Tradition,” in Teaching Oral Traditions, ed. John Miles Foley (Modern Language Association Options for Teaching; New York: Modern Language Association, 1998), 96. The Perry-Lord model has been rejected by Carr, Writing on the Tablet, 6–7 and van der Toorn, Scribal Culture, 228.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Contributions of Recent Insights into Texuality

67

A different approach to the theory of oral-written transmission is presented by the Jesuit priest and professor Walter Ong.26 His primary interest in working on orality and writtenness concerns the differences that arise when the media of communication change, such as rural African people (oral) with “Westernized” people (electronic).27 According to Ong’s typology, social advantage in an oral culture is awarded to those who can speak the best and to those who are assigned to preserve the memory of the tribe.28 Ong contends that post-oral societies tend to develop abstract notions of history and nature and encourage individual reflection, which leads to competition, capitalism, and democracy. In those societies, religious belief appears to be based on a sacred text. Ong’s sharp distinction between orality and writtenness and his view that oral societies were structurally different from literate cultures has come under scrutiny. The oralliterate dichotomy is also held by Jack Goody who argues that repetition, rhyming, and the use of formulae are “more characteristic of oral performance in literate cultures.”29 What Goody suggests, along with Ong, is that “there is both a qualitative difference between oral and written language, and a particular oral mindset.”30 However, Loubser cautions that “it would be a serious methodological mistake to use [Ong’s] description to identify a set of ‘oral features’ in a written document and then to assume that the documents are indicative of the conventions of a primary oral society.”31 Ong and Goody’s diachronic approach to oral and written texts has also been challenged by Ruth Finnegan, who has confronted the perception that once reading and writing are available the oral culture is subsumed in the written “higher” culture.32 Finnegan states that there is a “striking overlap between oral and written culture.”33 She supports the view that there is interplay of oral and 26 Jack Goody, The Interface between the Written and the Oral, Studies in Literacy, Family, Culture, and the State (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987). 27 This conclusion of Ong’s study is suggested by J.A. Loubser, “Moving Beyond Colonialists Discourse: Understanding Oral Theory and Cultural Difference in the Context of Media Analysis,” in Orality, Literacy, and Colonialism in Antiquity, ed. Jonathan A. Draper (Atlanta: SBL, 2004), 71. 28 Walter J. Ong, Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word (London: Methuen, 1982). 29 Jack Goody, “Canonization in Oral and Literate Traditions,” in The Power of the Written Tradition (Washington: Smithsonian Institute Press, 2000), 27 30 Robert D. Miller II, SFO, Oral Tradition in Ancient Israel, Biblical Performance Criticism Series (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2011), 7. The position of Ong and Goody has become known as the “Literacy Hypothesis.” I prefer to use the term “performance sensitive” rather than “oral mindset” because it emphasizes the performer in the exchange and not necessarily “oral” features in a text. 31 Loubser, “Moving Beyond,” 72. 32 Ruth H. Finnegan, Literacy and Orality: Studies in the Technology of Communication (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988). 33 Finnegan, Literacy and Orality, 111 (emphasis original).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

68

Setting the Stage: Methods

written literature by contending that a piece may be composed in writing, but then transmitted and performed orally, or it may be composed and performed orally but writing may be used in its transmission.34 Applying Finnegan’s line of argument, we will pay attention to possible oral processes in our study of letters, but will not be seeking a pre-written sub-stratum in the texts. The two-stage model of oral to written proposed by Gunkel, which Finnegan has called the “Great Divide,”35 is based on the premise of evolutionary shifts, as if orality and written documents are separable layers of human history. In order to avoid some of the shortcomings of the Parry-Lord-Goody-Ong school,36 Susan Niditch advanced an oral-written continuum in which she traces the process of some texts that may have taken shape through recitation and recording.37 Niditch advances the discussion of orality and writtenness by including archaeological evidence in her scholarly review.38 First, she distinguishes texts that represent oral performances recorded as dictation or later from notes.39 Second, Niditch delineates repeated oral performances resulting in the formalization and publication of the text.40 These two models might have taken shape in live performances, with the response of the audience helping establish the contours of the performance and text. Third, her position concerns literature produced in writing with recognizable oral forms.41 Her model allows for and accommodates variants in texts as performances change over time and thus may alter a text. The position proposed by Niditch of considering oral and written texts supports our method of focusing on the nature of orality in terms of the text and its transmission, which may be applied to understanding better the variants in the six copies of MMT. The value of Niditch’s method lies in attempting to overcome the oral-written polarity as she raises the question of where to draw the line between oral and written literature. Her work suggests that features of orality such as repetition, formulae, epithets, longer formulae, quotations of a specific text or traditional 34 Finnegan, Literacy and Orality, 111. 35 Ruth H. Finnegan, Oral Poetry : Its Nature, Significance and Social Context (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977); eadem, “Literacy versus Non-literacy : The Great Divide? Some Comments on the Significance of Literature in Non-Literate Cultures,” in Modes of Thought: Essays on Thinking in Western and Non-Western Societies, ed. Robin Horton and Ruth Finnegan (London: Faber & Faber, 1973). 36 This term is used by Miller, Oral Tradition, 20. 37 Susan Niditch, “Oral Tradition and Biblical Scholarship,” Oral Tradition 18 (2003): 43–44; here 43. 38 For a similar methodology using Greek archeological evidence, see Rosalind Thomas, Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). 39 Susan Niditch, Oral World and Written Word: Ancient Israelite Literature (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 117–20 40 Niditch, Oral World, 120–25. 41 Niditch, Oral World, 125–27.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Contributions of Recent Insights into Texuality

69

referentiality, and patterns of content can be observed in a written text,42 but seems to make the particularity of the material suit her model, additionally her continuum is still defined by polar opposites of oral and written texts.43 The basic question of what distinguishes “oral” from “written” literature is still far from certain. Ruth Finnegan refines the methods for studying oral culture by contending that anyone who goes on “to take the occurrence, or a specific proportion, or repetition as a touchstone for differentiating between ‘oral’ and ‘written’ styles is…bound to be disappointed.”44 As better and newer methods evolved for the study of orality, these early paradigms have been revised or, in some cases, rejected. The criticisms that Finnegan and Thomas leveled against those who hold to a simplistic oral/written dichotomy position have been recognized by Foley, who prefers to call a written text an “oral-derived” text.45 He too dismisses the use of verbal formulae, popularized by Perry and Lord, as a reliable means of determining oral provenance.46 One of the features of oral societies is that in an oral culture “everything that one learns and passes on is done in the context of conversation in a situation.”47 In ancient Jewish communities there appears to have been a strong relationship between a written text and an oral presentation of that text in which writing often supports an oral tradition and vice versa.48 In modern literate cultures what we read and write are not generally spoken; however, in the ancient Mediterranean

42 Niditch, Oral World, 13–21. 43 For a critique of Niditch’s position, see Joachim Schaper, “Exilic and Post-Exilic Prophecy and the Orality/Literacy Problem,” VT 55 (2005): 337. For a history of the oral-written distinction, see Michael H. Floyd, ‘“Write the revelation!’ (Hab 2:2): Re-imaging the Cultural History of Prophecy,” in Writings and Speech in Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy, ed. Ehud Ben Zvi and Michael H. Floyd, SBLSymS 10 (Atlanta: SBL, 2000), 106–25. 44 Finnegan, Oral Poetry, 130. 45 Foley, Immanent Art: From Structure to Meaning in Traditional Oral Epic (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991), 15. 46 Foley, Traditional Oral Epic: The Odyssey, Beowulf, and the Serbo-Croatian Return Song (Berkley : University of California Press, 1990), 4. Scholars became increasingly skeptical of finding formulae as an infallible guide to determining an oral origin. See Kevin O’Nolan, “Formula in Oral Tradition,” in Approaches to Oral Tradition, ed. Robin Thelwall, Occasional Papers in Linguistics and Language Learning 4 (Belfast: New University of Ulster, 1978), 25; Albert B. Friedman, “The Oral-Formulaic Theory of Balladry—A Re-rebuttal,” in The Ballad Image: Essays Presented to Bertrand Harris Bronson, ed. James Porter (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1983), 229. 47 David Rhoads, “Performance Criticism: An Emerging Methodology in Second Testament Studies—Part I,” BTB 36 (2009), 4; Bernt Ø. Thorvaldsen, “The Eddic Form and Its Contexts: An Oral Art Form Performed in Writing,” in Oral Art Forms and Their Passage into Writing, ed. Else Mundal and Jonas Wellendorf (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2008), 160. 48 See Niditch, Oral World.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

70

Setting the Stage: Methods

world, writing was understood as representing oral speech.49 Communication in oral cultures frequently focuses on group identity and individual values are generally embedded in shared beliefs and remembered and passed on by a community through social interaction.50 It is therefore likely that letters would have been composed in or for oral events and experienced in the person of a performer, who may have also been the messenger.51 David Rhoads insightfully states that “the composition-as-performance is not a written text, but an oral presentation. It is a living word, with a life of its own as distinct from writing. The story is not on the page. It is in the mind and body of the performer.”52 The model that seems most applicable to our study of letters and thus will be followed in our inquiry is an application of the position of Anthony Campbell, who states that the biblical narrative is “neither the record of the oral telling of a story nor the skilled fashioning of a story as a work of literary art,”53 but as “written outlines for oral elaboration (or for omission in performance).”54 The method I will use to structure the letters revolves around the principle that letters were most often performed before an audience. In order to feature particular patterns of the text, I will employ Hymes’ “measured” verse model55 and demark the text according to lines, verses, stanzas, and scenes, hierarchically organized from smaller to larger units.56 The intent of this approach is to foreground two aspects of speaking that cannot be separated: what speakers say and the communal context in which it is said. A line is basically an idea unit or 49 In some instances, such as inventory and tax lists, writing was not connected with speech, but for the most part, writing was largely understood as a representation of an oral conversation. For the preference for oral delivery in the ancient world, see Whitney Shiner, Proclaiming the Gospel: First-Century Performance of Mark (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2003), 14–16. 50 For an article devoted to social memory, see Werner Kelber, “The Generative Force of Memory : Early Christian Traditions as Processes of Memory,” BTB 36 (2006): 15–22. 51 Recent studies have shown that in antiquity silent reading of letters did occur. See for example, Frank D. Gillard, “More Silent Reading in Antiquity : Non omne verbum sonat,” JBL 112 (1993): 689–73; A.K. Gavrilov, “Techniques of Reading in Classical Antiquity,” Classical Quarterly 47 (1997): 56–73; M.F. Burnyeat, “Postscript on Silent Reading,” CQ 47 (1997): 74–76. However, it was much more common for literary texts to be read aloud. For a discussion on reading ancient texts, see Shiner, Proclaiming the Gospel, 14–16. 52 Rhoads, “Performance Criticism,” 10. 53 Antony F. Campbell, “The Reported Story” Semeia 46 (Atlanta: SBL, 1989): 77–85, here 77. 54 Miller, Oral Tradition, 55. Original quotation is from Anthony F. Campbell and Mark A. O’Brien, Unfolding the Deuteronomistic History : Origins, Upgrades, Present Text (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000), 6–7; idem, Rethinking the Pentateuch: Prolegomena to the Theology of Ancient Israel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005), xiii-xiv, 6–7, 15–19. 55 Hymes, Foundations in Sociolinguistics. This model has been adapted to many First Nations’ texts. See idem, “In Vain”, for a full description of this model. 56 For an application and explanation of this “measured” verse model to a Japanese context, see Kuniyoshi Kataoka, “A Multi-Model Ethnopoetic Analysis (Part 1): Text, Gesture, and Environment in Japanese Spatial Narrative,” Language and Communication 29 (2009): 289–90.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

71

Observations

intonation unit. Connectives “(and) now,” “so,” “then,” and “but” tend to occur at line-initial positions. The line is the smallest idea unit, and can consist of a word, phrase, or action. A “verse” may involve more than one line and is usually marked off by a preceding period or vocal cadence. Other indicators of a new verse are shifts in time or space and a change in the person being addressed. A series of verbs in the same tense, a chunk of repetitions, or material covering the same topic indicate a stanza. Drastic changes in spatial and temporal relations and participants mark a change of scenes (i. e., Jer 29 and MMT). Applying an ethnographic point of view to this structure, I will situate the text in a social context. The point of view that I hold is that language is context and therefore appears in actions performed by people in a social environment.57 Oestreich provides the fundamentals of analyzing a letter by viewing the text as a whole and by considering how a performance may be embedded in a text.58 Additionally, he states that an analysis of a letter offers clues to the physical aspects of the performance, such as orality, aids for memory, embodiment, and performance arena, as well as the roll the audience may have played in giving meaning to the text. The emphasis of performance criticism is to consider the dynamic between the performer and audience. In consideration of this perspective, Oestreich dismisses the simple communication model that holds that Paul wrote a letter to a uniform audience.59 He makes a convincing case that we need to consider that Paul’s letters consisted of different aspects, such as arguments, exhortation, quotations, requests, etc., because Paul had different (competing) groups in mind. During the performance, individuals and/or groups were addressed accompanied with a concern or statement of praise. Upon hearing the report, the audience would have reacted in support of or distain toward those referred to in the letter, with the performer guiding or influencing the discussion. According to this model, Paul’s letters were written to a diverse group who would be hearing the letter in each other’s presence. The emphasis on considering text and context, language and cultural setting is the fundamental source of analysis of ancient letters adopted here.

3.3

Observations

The previous discussion shows the way in which theorists have studied how orality and writtenness have shaped societies and their texts and how scholars 57 Jan Blommaert, “Ethnography and Democracy : Hymes’s Political Theory of Language,” Text & Talk 29 (2009): 261–63. 58 Oestreich’s approach to NT letters is given in Performanzkritik, 60–86. Aspects of his approach will be applied to this study. 59 Oestreich, Performanzkritik, 89–99.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

72

Setting the Stage: Methods

have conceptualized both written and oral transmission in terms of their specific function. In sum, on the issue of oral and written transmission, there are no simple answers or even clear-cut definitions; therefore, research into this area of epistolary literature is bound to continue. Those studies that employ a simple model of the relation between orality and writtenness, which views them as opposing technologies, are confronted by empirical evidence challenging their assumptions. A key contribution of this study is to show that letters were used to communicate across distances and to propose that written texts circulated in spoken form, which produced other oral and written forms. One of the implications of this section is the need to understand the particular cultural contexts and systems that control them. Crucial questions concerning the letters’ distribution, usage, and the culturally generated value that was placed on their reception and distribution will need to be considered.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Chapter 4 Preparing for the Performances

When discussing performances of ancient letters, it may be instructive to consider how difficult it is to imagine what performances may have looked like in ancient Jewish societies. It is commonly held that the ancient world had gatherings, festivals, and religious events that frequently included performances of oral and written texts. Most of the letters under review do not appear to have been performed before large audiences, which seems to be the case for many Greek plays, assemblies, and speeches. Our picture of reading letters must continually be scrutinized and adjusted as new evidence becomes available. However, an obvious point needs making that performances of letters were frequently held for audiences and were supported by the collective memory of the group. If most of the ancient Jews experienced their literature as something performed, then it is important to attempt to envision what these performances might have been like. These gatherings of community members are an element of the formation of their social views and religious perspectives and therefore deserve considerably more attention than what has been suggested merely by textual treatments. The best we can do is to construct a plausible performance context that lies alongside the remaining written records. I want to suggest in what follows that we divide the interface of text-performer-audience into three parts. It is best to begin by emphasizing the relationship between the text and performer, followed next by considering how the performer reacts with the audience and vice versa. Finally, I will give some preliminary thoughts concerning performance in Second Temple Judaism. Much of what we can say about these features will take into account the insights drawn from both classical Greek and other ancient Near Eastern sources.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

74

4.1

Preparing for the Performances

From Text to Performance

There remains no opportunity to hear ancient letters firsthand or even secondhand. The obvious fact is that what we know about letters is only preserved in a textual format, and we can never be a part of the ancient performers’ audience. We are restricted to reading and hearing remains of performances in carefully crafted texts from real-life situations. Letters generally begin with contextualized information, such as who the recipient(s) and sender(s) are, where the texts may have originated from, what events precipitated the performance, and so forth. Foley offers this caution concerning oral performances: “but let’s be absolutely clear—our treasured editions, piled high with versions, notes, and context, are not themselves Oral Performances. Why not? Simply because another medium has intervened.”1 The intervention of another medium requires careful examination. Field studies that describe what actually happens in oral situations can attempt to fill the gap in time and geography by finding societies with social, political, and cultural features closely similar to the biblical period.2 Additionally, studies of other ancient literature, like classical Greek and ancient Near Eastern texts are important, but must be used in conjunction with field studies. There is, in fact, little explicit evidence for the performance of ancient Jewish letters. This situation is complicated further by the fact that there are countless scribes, editors, and performances that have taken place between the last oral performances and the documents we now have. How is it possible to construct a plausible performance from the textual residue of a formerly performed work of verbal art? To begin to address this question, we need to challenge our common notions of reading and our modern relationship to words and books and consider the contrast there may be between our post-Gutenberg experience as “print persons” and those of the ancient Near East. One of the most vivid examples of the conceptual gap can be seen in the way in which we in the twentieth and twentyfirst centuries frequently read texts as a silent activity and as a mode of com-

1 Foley, How to Read, 41. Foley suggests four points on the oral-written spectrum: oral performance, voiced texts, voices from the past, and written oral poems. 2 See Wilson’s concerns about guidelines with regard to drawing on the results of descriptions of other disciplines in Robert C. Culley, “Oral Tradition and Biblical Studies,” Oral Tradition 1 (1986): 30–65, esp. 22. Wilson suggests four guidelines: 1) comparative material must be systematically collected by trained observers, 2) the anthropological material must be seen in its own context, 3) a wide range of societies must be considered to avoid the pitfall of atypical material, 4) one should concentrate on the data and seek to avoid the interpretive schema placed on the data. See Robert R. Wilson, “The Old Testament Genealogies in Recent Research,” JBL 94 (1975):169–89; idem, Genealogy and History in the Biblical World, Yale Near Eastern Researches 7 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

From Text to Performance

75

munication through the eye alone.3 In the ancient world reading was predominantly a social activity and writing was inseparable from speaking. If speaking and writing are closely aligned, then there may be ways in which a text can be structured to express its oral character, even when we no longer have access to the original performance. Foley has referred to a group of texts that we only have in textual form as “voices from the past.”4 These voices in the texts may point to an oral tradition through their use of special codes or formulae, which may serve as prompts to a performer and/or audience as to how the text should be understood. By gleaning linguistic clues, we can also attempt to understand socially defined signals. In other words, the essential elements to constructing a plausible performance that will be considered here consist of two interrelated aspects: understanding how reading and writing may have been done with a performance in mind and who may have read the letter. The primary way in which this task will be completed is by suggesting features that provided the performer with instructions and social signals on how to present the message.

4.1.1 How to Read a Letter It is important to try and envision what the oral environment of performances of antiquity might have been like. Although seemingly straightforward, the important practices in Jewish society of “reading” and listening calls for attention in any discussion of literacy, orality, and performance. “Reading” Foley reminds us is not simple or monolithic and is not a “one size fits all” term.5 Lucretia Yaghjian holds a similar position and helpfully presents the complexity of reading and writing in antiquity as being more involved than the binary terms “literate-oral” suggest.6 She understands the situation of communication along a continuum: auraliterate, oraliterate, oculiterate, scribaliterate, illiterate, and literate. She explains the expressions in this way : Auraliterate reading is the practice of hearing something read…[while] oraliterate reading is oral recitation or recall of a memorized text….Oculiterate reading is linguistic decoding (by eye) from a written text, performed by readers who can decode

3 William A. Graham, Beyond the Written Word: Oral Aspects of Scripture in the History of Religion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 31–33. 4 Foley, How to Read, 45–50. 5 Foley, How to Read, 65. 6 Lucretia B. Yaghjian, “Ancient Reading,” in The Social Sciences and the New Testament Interpretation, ed. Richard L. Rohrbaugh (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996). Although her research mainly consists of the first century, her presentation of the complexity of writing and reading can reasonably be applied to the Jewish communities before the turn of the era.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

76

Preparing for the Performances

written letters…[while] scribaliterate reading is reading for technical, professional or religious purposes on behalf of a particular interpretive community.7

“Illiterate” most frequently refers to the lack of ability to decode written communication. Significantly, Yaghjian’s perspective broadens the view of literacy by suggesting that a performance can include aural or oral literacy as an aspect of literacy. However we understand literacy, any approach to the matter of reading must recognize that reading “is a socially contingent activity…and which is strongly influenced by the social mindscape of the reading group.”8 In order to stress the social mindscape of a Jewish community that read texts, or at least their literati, we can consider the invaluable work by poet and linguist Henri Meschonni. His emphasis is on translating texts, and he theorizes about the biblical term mikra; the word translated most frequently with the English word “reading.”9 Meschonni’s main point is that reading means something entirely different in biblical Hebrew because the written text is always read orally : Mikra…signifies reading—not reading as we speak of reading by contrast to writing. Mikra assumes the gathering during which one reads or has read the text in question, and since this reading is done out loud, the notion conjoins, indissolubly to my understanding, orality and collectively in reading.10

In order to collaborate with Mischonni’s findings, biblical prose texts that describe scenes of reading need to be considered and analyzed. Daniel Boyarin focuses attention on key biblical passages using the term qr’, a root that encompasses a wide range of terms, including “call,” “proclaim,” “summon/invite,” and “read.” Here is a partial list of the use of the term qr’ found in biblical texts.11 7 Yaghjian, “Ancient Reading,” 208–209. This perspective is quoted from Maxey, From Orality to Orality, 112–113. Although Maxey is generally in favour of Yaghjian’s view of literacy, he cautions that Yaghjian’s continuum is “biased to literacy by its very use of ‘literate’ in its nomenclature” (p. 113). 8 Ehud Ben Zvi, “Reading and Constructing Utopias: Utopias and/in the Collection of Authoritative Texts/Textual Readings of Late Persian Period Yehud,” SR 42 (2013): 463–76, here 465. 9 For a discussion on what Greek authors from various periods said about reading and writing, see Mathilde Cambron-Goulet, “The Criticism—and the Practice—of Literacy in the Ancient Philosophical Tradition,” in Orality, Literacy and Performance in the Ancient World, ed. Elizabeth Minchin, OLAW 9 (Leiden: Brill, 2012). 10 Henri Mischonni, “Poetics and Politics: A Round Table,” with Alex Derczansky, Olivier Mongin, and Paul Thibaud, New Literary History 19 (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1988), 454. Cited in Daniel Boyarin, “Placing Reading: Ancient Israel and Medieval England,” in The Ethnography of Reading, ed. by Jonathan Boyarin (Berkeley : University of California Press, 1993), 11. See also Carr, Writing on the Tablet, 116–22. 11 Boyarin, “Placing Reading,” 12–13. He also includes Deut 31:11 and Jer 36:3 in his examples.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

From Text to Performance

77

1. “But the LORD God called to (qr’) the man ‘Where are you?’” (Gn 3:9).12 2. “But the angel of the LORD called out (qr’) to him from heaven, ‘Abraham! Abraham!’” (Gn 22:11). 3. “Now announce to (qr’) the army ‘Anyone who trembles with fear may turn back and leave Mount Gilead’’’ (Judg 7:3). 4. “Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it (qr’) to the people. They responded, ‘We will do everything the Lord has said; we will obey”’ (Ex 24:7).

The conclusions made by Boyarin are significant. He suggests that in every example the usage of qr’ indicates “an oral act, an act of the speaking of language” and that “the usage of qr’ when there is a text present is virtually identical to that when there is not a written text present.”13 Even in example 4 above, it is reasonable to suggest that the Book of the Covenant could be understood as being “called out” to the people, which implies that the text was performed before an audience. There appears to be no unequivocal use of qr’ referring to private reading, there are only public, oral presentations in the Hebrew Bible.14 Hossfeld and Lamberty-Zielinski support the position that most instances of the use of qr’ involve reading aloud or public recitation, additionally they suggest that “qa¯ra¯ in the sense of ‘read’ is first attested in the exilic period (esp. in Dtr texts).”15 Thus, it is reasonably safe to assume that reading was primarily verbal rather than silent and closely associated with oratory. If that view is sustainable, then the performer would act as an intermediary between a text and an audience and between the written and spoken word.16 Let’s revisit the term qr’ and consider other aspects of the term. Jer 36 is a valuable chapter that informs us to the way in which Jeremiah’s prophecies

12 These quotations are from the NIV. 13 Boyarin, “Placing Reading,” 13. 14 2 Ki 22:8: “Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the secretary, ‘I have found the Book of the Law in the temple of the Lord.’ He gave it to Shaphan who read it.” This reference to Shaphan reading a text refers to the fact that Shaphan had to be prepared and familiar with the text in order to read it before the king (v. 10). There are other biblical examples of letters being read, but it is unclear whether the letter was read silently or aloud (2 Kgs 5:7; 19: 14; Jer 51:63). See also Carr, Writing on the Tablet, 119, where he offers this caution: “Though these texts present pictures that authors and audiences found plausible, many narratives are almost certainly not historically reliable.” 15 Hossfeld and Lamberty-Zielinski, “4LK,” TDOT 13:109–35, here 123. See also, C.J. Labuschagne, “4LK,” TLOT 3:1158–62, who states that the “meaning ‘to read’ developed from the connotation ‘to proclaim, announce,’ apparently because ‘reading’ was originally ‘reading aloud’ in public, e. g., in the case of official decrees” (p. 1162). Also, Michael A. Grisant “4LK,” NIDOTTE, 971–74, esp. 973. 4LK according to BDB means “call, proclaim, read” (p. 894). 16 Although writing was not connected with speech in some administrative functions, such as making inventories and collecting taxes, in most other areas it was. That is not to say that silent reading did not occur, but was not as common as public reading (for treatments on silent reading, see p. 70 n. 51).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

78

Preparing for the Performances

transitioned from oral to written form.17 Early in the reign of Jehoiakim, Jeremiah was ordered by God to write out his oracles. The scroll was then read repeatedly, but later destroyed by the angry king (v. 27). Jeremiah was instructed to compile a new record of his oracles and to include additions (v. 32). Baruch, Jeremiah’s secretary, explains the process of writing out the oracles, “He [Jeremiah] ‘called out’ (qr’) all the words and I wrote them in ink on this scroll” (Jer 36:18). What Baruch recited/proclaimed can be translated “dictate,”18 and implies that Jeremiah was “calling out” the message from memory by what may be called a “process of oral performative recomposition as well as an act of proclaiming unrelated to any written text.”19 This example shows the weakness of the position of those scholars who have tried to drive a strong wedge between written and oral texts. If the two-part method cannot be maintained, how does a text interact with a performer and audience? A partial answer is found in v. 32, which describes Jeremiah’s re-dictation of the scroll after the king had burned it: “So Jeremiah took another scroll and gave it to the scribe…and as Jeremiah dictated Baruch wrote on it all the words of the scroll that Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire. And many similar words were added to them.”20 Here Jeremiah recites or dictates from memory a previously known oral (and written) text, adds more material that is then applied to writing. After the destruction of the original scroll by the king, Jeremiah most likely updated or added material reflecting on the fate awaiting an evil monarch. Performances of some texts include reciting orally from memory and as written technology enters the picture the texts are voiced in new iterations. In this example, it can be said that the “reading” of texts was carried out orally, but the creation of texts was closely related to their performance and thereby imposed a determinate discourse on it.21 Philip Davies suggests that the general function of texts in an oral

17 In Jer 36, qr’ occurs 12 times, twice in the sense of “dictate” (vv. 4, 8) and 10 times in the sense of “read (aloud).” 18 There are a variety of ways scholars have translated this word. NIV and NASB use the term “dictated,” KJV uses “pronounced,” and NJPS uses “recited.” In a German translation, Heilige Schrift uses “las” (read). John Bright, Jeremiah, AB 21 (New York; Doubleday, 1965); as well as J.A. Thompson, Book of Jeremiah, NICOT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980), prefer “dictated.” 19 Richard Horsley, Oral Performance, Popular Tradition, and Hidden Transcript in Q, ed. Richard Horsley, Semeia Series 60 (Atlanta: SBL, 2006), 17. 20 To be clear the word qr’ is not found in this verse. A literal translation could be “…and he wrote on [the scroll] from the mouth of Jeremiah.” 21 According to William Scott Green, “Writing with Scripture: The Rabbinic Uses of the Hebrew Bible,” in Writing with Scripture: The Authority and Uses of the Hebrew Bible in the Torah of Formative Judaism, ed. Jacob Neusner (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 14–15, in rabbinic circles “reading the sefer Torah was less a matter of deciphering an inscription than of reciting a previously known discourse and applying it to the writing.” The rabbinic tradition

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

From Text to Performance

79

culture serves as a reliable mechanism between two moments of orality and that “the words can be trusted because they are written, and the written words can be trusted because they were spoken directly.”22 The idea that “authors” in oral societies understood themselves as performers of a long-standing tradition has been emphasized by Parry, who wrote concerning Greek epic legends that they “were not themselves the original fictions of certain authors, but creations of a whole people, passed through one generation to another and gladly given to anyone who wished to tell them.”23 To illustrate reading and rereading a letter from a Greek source, Plato writes in his sixth letter : “Let this letter be read, if possible, by all three of you gathered together, otherwise by twos, and as often as you can in common.”24 This text suggests that the letter should be read frequently and in community ; other Greek texts suggest that reading in a group permits the learning to occur because it allows for a valuable examination of both the text and the reader.25 Students of Greek cultural history point to the fact that Greek tradition has multiple works associated with authors and that “authors themselves issued multiple editions of their works, while the manuscript traditions of some texts show evidence of interpolations by actors and others.”26 This position suggests that for some texts that were performed variation can be expected.27 The foregoing reflections show that overall written and oral copies of some Greek and Hebrew texts were frequently recited and that “reading” a text was the activity of proclaiming it before an audience in a social performance approaching the gravity of ceremonial ritual.28 Although the above observations

22 23 24

25

26 27 28

of qere’ (“what is read”) was different from ketiv (“what is written;” b. Ber. 62a; Meg. 32a) (Horsley, Oral Tradition, 17). Philip R. Davies, “The Dissemination of Written Texts,” in Writing the Bible: Scribes, Scribalism and Script, ed. Philip R. Davies and Thomas RPmer (Durham: Acumen, 2013), 38. Milman Parry, “A Comparative Study of Diction as One of the Elements of Style in Early Greek Epic Poetry,” in The Making of Homeric Verse: The Collected Papers of Milman Parry, ed. A. Parry (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971), 421. Plato Complete Works, edited with Introduction and Notes by John M. Cooper (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 1997). It is not clear whether this, or any, letter attributed to Plato is genuine. We have no record of any letter allegedly written by Plato before the end of the third century BCE, 150 years or more after the supposed date of composition. However, the reference to reading and re-reading a letter is still ancient and supports the view of oral reading. For instance in Plato’s Parm, 127c-d, he states that “they were eager to hear Zeno read his book…Zeno was reading to them in person.” In Homer’s Iliad Phoenix taught Achilles to be a “speaker of words and doer of deeds,” and Achilles is praised as ready and cunning of speech (Il. 9.442; 22.281). See also, Xenophon, Mem. I, 6, 14; Pseudo-Plato, Letter XII; Arrian, Epict. diss. I, 25, 6. For the practice of Greek literacy, see Mathilde Cambron-Goulet, “Criticism,” 211–18. For education in ancient Greece, see Carr, Writing on the Tablet, 91–109, here 107. According to Thomas, Literacy and Orality, “in pubic oratory, Greek orators fostered the appearance of improvisation and spontaneity, even if they had a text” (p. 124). Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth, 17.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

80

Preparing for the Performances

considered the relationship between narrative texts and their performance, one cannot gloss over the fact that letters were conceived as written texts that were meant to be read. Consideration needs to be made of Hans-Josef Klauck’s caution regarding applying ancient rhetorical theory to letters. He concludes that “the analysis of epistolary theory with the help of rhetoric must not fall subconsciously into the error of valuing speaking higher than writing” and that the writtenness of a letter “is part of the essence of the letter and deserves to be respected, not dissolved.”29 Pseudo-Demetrius, who was strongly influenced by Aristotle, can be used to support Klauck’s position concerning the attention that needs to be given to the writtenness of letters for pseudo-Demetrius suggests that since letters are written they require a degree of more formal style (On Style 224). Pseudo-Demetrius also compares written dialogue with the letter by stating that both are strong in ethos (227), but dialogue imitates spontaneous oral speech and includes asyndeton.30 The written/performed relationship is well illustrated in Aristotle, who assumes that good written style facilitates good oral performance by stating that “what is written should in general be easy to read and easy to speak, which is the same thing” (1407b11–12). Demosthenes writes in his defense of Lycurgus’ sons that a letter is a substitute for an oral presentation: “If I were present, I would explain these things to you with my own voice, but since I am in a position in which I wish anyone who slandered me to the point of ruin might find himself, I have written what I want to say in a letter….”31 The position of these Greek texts seem to overlap Jer 36 in that they indicate that the distinction between a written text and oral speech is blurred.32 29 Klauck, Ancient Letters, 209. Klauck is not opposed to applying rhetoric to letters, he merely cautions that the field is broad and needs careful definition of the term “rhetoric” and attention to what area within rhetoric one refers (see esp. 210–211). See also, Carl Joachim Classen, “St. Paul’s Epistles and Ancient Greek and Roman Rhetoric,” in Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht, JSNTSup 90 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993), 268, who states that “when one turns to the categories of rhetoric as tools for a more adequate and thorough appreciation of texts, their general structure and their details, one should not hesitate to use the most developed and sophisticated form, as it will offer more help than any other…For rhetoric provides a system for the interpretation of all texts (as well as of oral utterances and even of other forms of communication), irrespective of time and circumstances…” For another perspective on the use of ancient rhetoric for understanding New Testament letters, see Oestreich, Performanzkritik, 15–28. 30 For a distinction between speech and writing in Greek texts, see Doreen C. Innes, “Aristotle: The Written and the Performative Styles,” in Influences on Peripatetic Rhetoric: Essays in Honor of William W. Fortenbaugh, ed. David C. Mirhady, Philosophia Antiqua: A Series of Studies on Ancient Philosophy 105 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 163. 31 Demosthenes, Letter 3: 35; translation by Ian Worthington. 32 The interplay between writing and speaking is emphasized by Davies, “Dissemination of Written Texts.” He states that “the sequence of speaking—writing—speaking seems to be well embedded within the theory of scriptural authority” (p. 38).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

From Text to Performance

81

Although Klauck’s attention to the writtenness of letters should be considered; however, what needs to be acknowledged is that there is a link between writing and performance and that the written character of a letter includes copying, with the intent of being recited to an audience. This process of writing a text with the intent of orally performing it can be observed in many Hebrew letters, as will be argued later. What has been alluded to but not discussed explicitly is how reading a letter is contingent on its social context and cannot be understood as a freestanding item. For instance, consider the possible difference in the audience, tone of speech, gestures, and occasion between a personal letter read to family members and friends from Hermopolis compared to an official letter written to a group in exile in Jer 29. Ancient audiences knew the context of the letters, the traditions from which they derived, and the living situations in which they were composed. Different types of letters imply different approaches to reading a text that include the audience and performer as part of the understanding of the letter’s meaning.

4.1.2 Letter Carriers and Readers One general concern of ancient letter writers is the need for a trustworthy letter carrier, who could transport the letter and any other items that may accompany it. Sometimes a letter writer would comment on the search for a dependable courier, for instance a Hermopolis family letter expresses this concern: “And now, if I find a trustworthy man, I shall bring something to you” (Hermopolis 4). Herodotus does not seem to be aware that locating faithful letter carriers is a problem for he writes about the Persian messenger system with great pride: Now there is nothing mortal that accomplishes a course more swiftly than do these messengers, by the Persians’ skillful contrivance. It is said that as many days as there are in the whole journey, so many are the men and horses that stand along the road, each horse and each man at the interval of a day’s journey.33

Xenophon states that the Persian messenger system is “the fastest overland travelling on earth,”34 and the book of Esther mentions that the Persian courier system was used to order the destruction of the Jews across their vast domain (Est 3:12–13; see also 8:10). What these references make clear is that in the Persian era there was a well-organized system for carrying messages, which was available to Persian government officials and the elite. According to Klauck,

33 Herodotus, Hist. 8.98:1(Godley, LCL 4). 34 Cyr. 8.6.18.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

82

Preparing for the Performances

Alexander the Great became acquainted with the Persian courier system and he and his successors developed a comparable system.35 The type of message also determined the selection of the messenger. The conscription of individuals to serve the king’s need for messengers was common (see for instance, 2 Sam 18:27; 1 Kgs 1:42). Sometimes a family connection was a quality that was helpful to get a commission as messenger. In Jer 29:3, Elasah and Gemariah are listed as the sons of a royal scribe and of the high priest respectively and are chosen as the king’s messengers to deliver a letter to the Jews in exile. In the private sector, a person may choose someone going in the right direction, or a travelling friend or relative to deliver a message.36 It seems most probable that the bearer of the letter was also the reader. However, Oppenheim and others have suggested that when a scribe was present at the destination, he was the one responsible for reading since his voice and native diction would be more familiar to the recipient.37 That is not to say that the addressee never read the letter. Letter recipients who could read most likely read their own letters, as this letter found at Lachish makes clear : And now, please explain to your servant the meaning of the letter which you sent to your servant yesterday evening. For your servant has been sick at heart ever since you sent (that letter) to your servant. In it my lord said: “Don’t you know how to read a letter?” As Yahweh lives, no one has ever tried to read me a letter! Moreover, whenever any letter comes to me and I have read it, I can repeat it down to the smallest detail.38

Clearly, Hoshayahu, the military officer who claimed to be literate, regarded it as an insult that he would have someone else read this official letter to him.39 35 Klauck, Ancient Letters, 60–65, here 62. 36 As an Akkadian writer notes: “You send a suha¯ru, your son, and I offered five minas wool to ˙ ˘23.5–10). him—he didn’t take it from me!” (AbB VII 37 A.L. Oppenheim, “A Note on the Scribes of Mesopotamia,” in Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on the Occasion of His Seventy-fifth Birthday, AS 16 (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1965), 253–56; Samuel A. Meier, The Messenger in the Ancient Semitic World, HSM 45 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 194–97; Hoffner, Letters from the Hittite Kingdom, 50–52. For letter-carriers in the Oxyrhyncus papyri, see Head, “Named Letter-Carriers,” 279–99. He writes: “We did not find any evidence that any particular letter-carrier was also expected to read the letter aloud to the recipient…” (p. 297). However, Head does not consider different kinds of letters and letter carriers. The fact that women wrote letters is made clear by Klauck, Ancient Letters, 105–108, what is less clear is whether they served as carriers and performers. 38 This translation is from Dennis Pardee, “Hebrew Letters,” in Archival Documents from the Biblical World, vol. 3 of Context of Scriptures, ed. W.W. Hallo and K.L. Younger, Jr. (Leiden, Brill, 2002). See also Lindenberger, Ancient Aramaic, Letter 62. 39 Edward J. Bridge, “Polite Language in the Lachish Letters, VT 60 (2010): 518–534, writes about the emotional level of Hoshayahu’s insult. He states that “the only thing that mitigates his criticism of Ya’os is that he keeps it entirely in the first person. That is, his criticism of Ya’os is indirect, which shows respect for him” (p. 531). See also William Schniedewind,

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Performances and Audiences

83

What then can be said about who read the incoming letters? In many cases the recipients did indeed have letters read to them by either the messenger or a scribe (Jer 29 seems to indicate that the carrier was a scribe and most likely the reader). Non-literary letters, which include official, business and private letters, include a wide range of readers. Some would have been read by the recipient, others by a scribe (Jer 29) and others possibly by a messenger.40 In the case of a royal or imperial letter receiving diplomatic correspondence, it appears that a scribe may have read the letter ; however, a messenger may have served to supplement what was written (i. e., Passover letter). The broad category called literary letters, which include doctrinal treatises, letters embedded in narratives, seems to have been read and supplemented by the (religious) elite. In short, messengers transported letters and there were several performers that could have been chosen by the recipient, depending on the audience, occasion, and purpose for the correspondence.41

4.2

Performances and Audiences

Bauman contends that performance “consists in the assumption of responsibility to an audience for a display of communicative competence.”42 The point that is being emphasized here is that there is interplay between text, performer, and audience and that the performer is accountable to an audience for the presentation of the text. There are several important aspects that relate to how a performer carries out communication. First, I will argue for the interplay between performer and audience by discussing how the performer may embody events, ideas, and characters. Concerning this aspect the words of Robert Kellogg are helpful in providing the backdrop to the discussion. He says that oral literature does not emphasize the author of the text since it “exists only as it is embodied in performance,” and “is created anew each time it is heard.”43 The next two topics consider the relationship between the performer and audience by highlighting how a performer may interact with the audience and may exhibit authority because of the presence of a text. The emphasis here is to determine

40 41 42 43

“Sociolinguistic Reflections on the Letter of a ‘Literate’ Soldier (Lachish 3),” ZAH (2000): 157–67. For letter categories see, Doering, Ancient Jewish Letters, 23–25; Klauck, Ancient Letters, 67–70. They distinguish three groups of letters: 1) non-literary or documentary ; 2) diplomatic or royal/imperial; and 3) literary letters. Thomas, Literacy and Orality, 117–19, states that Greek literature would have been performed in a wide variety of modes, from recitation, to rhetorical performances of orators who gave the impression of improvisation. Bauman, Verbal Art, 11. Robert Kellogg, “Oral Literature,” New Literary History 5 (1973): 57–58.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

84

Preparing for the Performances

how performers can become the characters they are portraying and how an audience can become a participant. One final element that enhances the discussion on how an audience may respond to a performance is social memory. Recently, there has been invaluable work done on memory in oral traditions and how performers use images, locations, and references to traditions to influence an audience. These four aspects consider the interplay between performer and audience and concern how these features interact with each other and assist in making the text meaningful.

4.2.1 Embodiment of a Text for an Audience The ability to translate into a written text verbal gaps that the body fills in or unspoken gestures that meanings depend upon is just as difficult for ancient authors as it is for writers today. Although ancient Jewish letters do not indicate tone or gesture, expressions such as “Look!” “hissing,” and “strike them down” (Jer 29: 18) most likely were embodied by hand gestures, facial expressions, voice inflections, and emotions that would indicate an emphasis or a special way in which this text is to be understood, thus making performance events verbal, sensory, emotional, and embodied. Prepositions and untranslatable particles in Greek and Semitic languages that confound translation into English and many other modern western languages is a sign that scholars embedded in print culture are limited by their conventions, and therefore their assumptions must be supplemented (or challenged in some cases) by experts that have an “oral cultural orientation.”44 The performance of written and oral texts include hands, eyes, facial expressions, clothing, a particular walk, culturally informed innuendos, pauses, variations in vocal expression, and emotions all of which require the audience to fill in the gaps with their own traditions, practices, and values.45 According to Spencer-Miller, gaps that need to be filled-in by culturally informed performers and audiences are found in written texts as “untranslatable particles, odd prepositions, incomplete sentences, run-on sentences, wildly unwieldy sentences, and missing conjunctions.”46 It can be said that the em44 This expression is used by Spencer-Miller, “Rethinking Orality,” 57, to describe her Caribbean oral orientation. For issues surrounding biblical translation into official languages of former Christian empires, see pp. 56–60. 45 Although reader-response criticism is a natural partner of performance criticism, performance criticism pays greater attention to how an audience responds to a performance in a communal setting. For an explanation of reader-response criticism, see Wolfgang Iser, The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1978); and Robert Fowler, Let the Reader Understand: Reader-Response Criticism and the Gospel of Mark (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991). 46 Spencer-Miller, “Rethinking Orality,” 57.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Performances and Audiences

85

bodiment of a written or oral text provides an interpretation of the text that must be decoded and experienced by the audience. In other words, the text that is presented for an audience is perceived and the perception is closely tied to the performer’s presentation. The performer’s physicality in terms of crying, laughing, shaking, or twitching affects the audiences’ understanding of the text as the reader becomes the mouthpiece of the author. Through these embodied gestures new meanings become possible.47 Texts that employ the first person singular or plural can draw the performer emotionally into the text and allow for the synchronization of the reader’s emotions or actions with those described in the text. According to the method of performative reading proposed here, a performer may not be reporting the “words” of a historical individual mentioned in the text, but rather constructing a script that the ancient readers were inviting the audience to participate in emotionally. The principle of fusing the reader with the role can be demonstrated best with the use of a psalm. Ps 9 uses a well-known melody or musical structure to more easily involve the performer and audience as they reflect on the traditions of the past. After the superscription, “For the director of music. To the tune of ‘The death of the Son’” the Psalms begins: I will praise you, LORD, with all my heart; I will tell of all your wonderful deeds. I will be glad and rejoice in you; I will sing the praises of your name, O Most High (Ps 9:1–2)

It appears that this psalm reaches far beyond the personal circumstances of the worshipper uttering a personal song of exaltation and is here incorporated into the larger context of the situation that is woven into a range of ideas about creation and community. From the point of view of performance theory, I propose that the first-person voice in this psalm can be understood as an affective script for a performer to reenact and functions rhetorically to draw the reader and audience together through embodying emotions. When the emotions are aroused in performance and embodied by the performer, phrases like, “I will praise you,” “I will tell,” “I will be glad and rejoice,” and “I will sing,” can guide the reader to participate in the experiences expressed in the text. An example from a letter can serve to illustrate this point. In the blessing given in the opening of the Hermopolis letter, “I bless you by Ptah,” the ancient performer would most ˙ probably place himself in the role of “I” and embody the text by pronouncing a blessing on the audience in the form of a speech-act. The first person voice of the 47 Oestreich, Performanzkritik, 46–51. He summarizes the physical experience of the performance by stating “Dadurch werden durch vielfältige Assoziationen und Vernetzungen neue Deutungsmöglichkeiten eröffnet” (pp. 50–51). “Through which are opened new possibilities for meaning through a variety of associations and interconnections” (author’s translation).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

86

Preparing for the Performances

text and the vivid language of blessing offer a compelling emotional script for actualization. NoÚl Carroll is right to assert that “reading is primarily an emotional experience. Emotions render texts intelligible. Texts elicit emotion that both attract and guide a reader through the narrative, enabling the reader to make sense of the presented plot.”48 I would add to her comments that emotions need to be embodied in a convincing way, which can be congruent, or possibly discordant, with the audience’s view of the written text. What has been made clear is that the audience is not a passive participant of the text, as frequently is the case with silent, individual readers, but as one who actively participates in community in the complex process of making meaning. In a world that puts great emphasis on the author as the product of literature, the importance of the interaction of the performer with the audience can hardly be exaggerated. It appears that the engagement of the audience was the goal of the performers.

4.2.2 Interaction with the Audience A performance is experienced by an audience, who influences the performer through verbal and non-verbal means—on some occasions even joining in the role of the performer. In the hopes of conceptualizing a model that fits the ancient context of performance, I wish to draw attention to Willmar Sauter’s important work on understanding the significance of presenting a text to an audience. Sauter’s model of theatrical performances focuses on the communicative encounter between the performer(s) and audience(s) in which he divides the event into three levels or aspects: sensory, artistic and symbolic.49 Sensory communication involves a personal relationship in which the audience perceives the physical and mental presence of the performer. According to this level, the performer uses his or her body to present the text to the audience through “exhibitory actions” to which the audience reacts more or less spontaneously. 48 NoÚl Carroll, “Art, Narrative and Emotion,” in Emotion and the Arts, ed. Mette Hjort and Sue Laver (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 92. See also Jenefer Robinson, Deeper Than Reason: Emotions and its Role in Literature, Music, and Art (Oxford: Clarendon, 2005), who writes that “the emotions are a way of focusing attention on those things that are important” (p. 126, italics original). Shiner, Proclaiming the Gospel, stresses the importance of emotion in first century performances: “The success of verbal art was often judged by the way it affected the emotions of the listeners” (p. 57). 49 Willmar Sauter, The Theatrical Event: Dynamics of Performance and Perception, Studies in Theatre History and Culture (Iowa City : University of Iowa Press, 2000), 6–9; 53–61. Oestreich (Performanzkritik, 48–49) references Sauter to support Oestreich’s view that the audience and performer influence each other. See also Fischer-Lichte, Ästhetik, 129–60, for her perspective on embodiment (Verkörperung).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Performances and Audiences

87

Sauter emphasizes that “without the interest in the person, one wants to communicate with, there will not be enough attention to make the other levels of communication work sufficiently.”50 The artistic level makes the theatrical event different from everyday life. This level is characterized by the performer using “encoded actions” in which the presentation has some kind of artistic merits which can be appreciated by the audience or not. The third level, according to Sauter, is the symbolic level in which the presentation is “embodied” and meaning can be attributed to artistic actions. He states that “nothing is symbolic in itself unless it is perceived as such by the observer.”51 Sauter’s work highlights the important relationship that exists between performer and audience in actualizing and giving meaning to a text. It can be said that a performance is adjudicated by the audience, which acts as both observer and critic and can become occasions for unscripted engagements as the audience is drawn into becoming a participant. Returning to Sauter, he states that “it is important to keep in mind that in the theatre the ‘message’ is not something which is neatly packed and distributed to an anonymous consumer ; instead, the meaning of a performance is created by the performers and spectators together, in a joint act of understanding.”52 To explain the relationship between exhibited, encoded, and embodied actions in a more concrete fashion, we can consider a Greek letter. There are six letters that are attributed to Demosthenes that come to us in Byzantine manuscripts of which five concern public matters (1–4 and 6) and are addressed to the council and assembly of Athens where such letters were read.53 The opening of the first letter is distinctive in that it is in the form of a prayer (or at least refers to prayer), and the customary greeting to the council and assembly does not come at the opening of the letter, but rather at the beginning of the second section. Demosthenes begins his letter of an appeal to political harmony in this way : In beginning any weighty undertaking, whether in word or in deed, one should, I believe, first take his beginning from the gods. Therefore, I pray to all the gods and goddesses that whatever is best, both now and for the future, for the Athenian People…Having offered this prayer, and with the hope of good inspiration from the gods, I send the following letter.54 50 51 52 53

Sauter, Theatrical Event, 8. Sauter, Theatrical Event, 7. Sauter, Theatrical Event, 2. See also Oestreich, Performanzkritik, 52–54. Notwithstanding that the authorship of Demosthenes’ letters is controversial. Plutarch (Dem. 26.2), Quintilian (10.1.1–7), and Cicero (Brut. 31.121, De Or. 4.15) state that Demosthenes wrote letters. For a historical analysis of the letters and the problem of authenticity, see Jonathan A. Goldstein, The Letters of Demosthenes (New York: Columbia University Press, 1968), 64–94; and Ian Worthington, Demosthenes, Speeches 60 and 61, Prologues, Letters, The Oratory of Classical Greece 10 (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2006), 101–105. 54 Translation by Goldstein, Letters of Demosthenes, 204.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

88

Preparing for the Performances

Although it cannot be proven that Demosthenes actually spoke these words before an audience, the letter is attributed to him. The “author” of the letter suggests to the reader that Demosthenes is speaking to and connecting with an audience concerning a matter of utmost importance, namely, a call for political harmony in order to end the partisan and contentious quarrelling in Athens. The level of personal relationship between performer and audience is referred to by Sauter as the sensory level. Sensory communication occurs when the audience acknowledges the performer and gives him or her a platform to speak. On the other hand, if the audience loses interest in the performer, the performer may notice the lack of responsiveness and work hard to recapture the attention by intensifying exhibitory actions.55 The artistic aspect of communication is built on “encoded” actions, which may include hand gestures, voice inflection and skill of speaking, and bodily movements. The exhibitory and encoded actions are normally performed to signify something, but do not automatically convey such a symbolic level.56 If the performer intends an action to produce a symbolic meaning, that action becomes an “embodied” action. For instance, Demosthenes’ opening refers to a prayer and a letter, which are symbolic actions that must be interpreted by the audience. From the exhibitory, encoded, and embodied ingredients, the audience accumulates material concerning a possible role for the performer, who would have attempted to set a serious tone for the letter in order to add authority to the message of the text. If the point of the encoded action is to encourage an audience to evaluate their behaviour, then the symbolic meaning must be understood by both performer and audience. What needs to be emphasized when considering the role of the audience is that many ancient communities had an oral mentality as a background to communication. Spencer-Miller is correct to highlight that “orality is so much more than speech. The reading and performance of texts is oral first, because reception is an oral mentality, and only secondarily, because it is spoken.”57 According to her perspective, a performance is received by a community in a cultural setting and the meaning of the text extends beyond the moment of reception and continues when the performance re-enters the community through the audience. Thus, the restoration of the meaning of a text must include an understanding of the context, community, and culture. There are many examples of an audience’s involvement in ancient Greek performances,58 with some performances “marked by a considerable degree of 55 56 57 58

Sauter, Theatrical Event, 32. Sauter, Theatrical Event, 55–56. Spencer-Miller, “Rethinking Orality,” 40. For a discussion on the relationship between audience and speech in Aristotle, see Innes, “Aristotle,” 152–68. Craig Cooper, “Demosthenes Actor on the Political and Forensic Stage,” in Oral Performance and Its Context, ed. C.J. Mackie, Orality and Literacy in Ancient Greece 5

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Performances and Audiences

89

competition and combativeness,”59 even when no specific competition existed.60 Rosalind Thomas gives examples of shouting, laughing, interrupting, and other instances of audience participation in the fourth-century assembly or jurycourt. For instance, Dikaiopolis says in the Acharnians, “I have come [to the Assembly] absolutely prepared to shout, interrupt, abuse the speakers if anyone speaks about anything but peace” (Ach. 37–38).61 Collins builds a case for some fourth century philosophical texts that make special demands on readers and audiences by setting “themselves up primarily as prompts for participation and supplemental departures.”62 By focusing on readers and audiences of texts, he finds processes of interruption, substitution, and supplementation. He concludes that “audiences could, like Echekrates, be present at the dialogue, even more present than the interlocutors, for they have the opportunity not only to feel what was felt, but to interrupt in order to cultivate those feelings and others while also reflecting on their own past and present beliefs and generating better emotions and ideas.”63 According to Giles and Doan, in a Jewish community a performance of a “biblical” text is a place in which characters and their actions are presented where actor and spectator meet, the imaginative space where they share beliefs, values, and feelings of belonging. In the twice-used songs, this imaginative space is a very important “location.” It allows David to become a member of a postexilic audience (2 Sam 22), allows Yahweh to sing with a community celebrating release from Egypt (Deut 32), and makes applicable the security of the past to an uncertain and unsettled future (Num

59 60 61

62

63

(Leiden: Brill, 2004), suggests that there is a relationship between the audience who attended the tragic and comic performances and those who sat as jurors or attended the assembly. Ian Worthington, “Oral Performance in the Athenian Assembly and the Demosthenic Prooemia,” in Oral Performance and Its Context, makes a convincing case that audiences interrupted and heckled speakers in the Assembly and that this behaviour was linked to the speaker’s performance as opposed to what they were saying. See also, Ren¦ Nünlist, The Ancient Critic at Work: Terms and Concepts of Literary Criticism in Greek Scholia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), esp. 135–56. Shiner, Proclaiming the Gospel, 19. For example, On the Sublime, attributed to Longinus, describes Plato’s use of Homeric imagery in agonistic terms (Longinus, [Subl.] 13.4 LCL), as quoted in Shiner, Proclaiming the Gospel, 21. Rosalind Thomas, “‘And You, and Demos, Made an Uproar’: Performance, Mass Audiences and Text in the Athenian Democracy,” in Sacred Words: Orality, Literacy and Religion, ed. A.P.M.H. Lardinois, J.H. Blok and M.G.M. van der Poel, OLAW 8 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 175–80. James Henderson Collins II, “Prompts for Participation in Early Philosophical Texts,” in Orality, Literacy and Performance in the Ancient World, ed. Elizabeth Minchin, OLAW 9 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 155. Collins’ study demonstrates how Platonic dialogues (Phaedo, Euthydemus) and Isocratean discourse (Panathenaicus) privilege community involvement that modifies and supplements texts over time. Collins, “Prompts for Participation,” 179.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

90

Preparing for the Performances

21). This imagined space is where a cultural memory is celebrated and where a group identity is formed.64

The unification of the performer’s actions and the audience’s reaction and participation in the performance can be characterized by reflections of prior experiences, emotional reactions, cognitive reactions, and value judgments.65 Different contexts, such as a Greek assembly or philosophical discourse, or Jewish reciting/singing about past events exhibit different encoded and embodied actions and therefore can expect to receive different responses from audiences. To this position can be added Oestreich’s study, that a circular letter can be written and performed to a diverse group with the intent of getting various responses from the audience in order to encourage interaction.66 Or to put it in slightly different terms, the text, performer, and audience members’ response may each provide directions for emotional and cognitive responses. In this regard, the genre of a composition-in-performance will also influence the demands made on the performer and audience. Letters performed as speeches of rhetoric will be very different from performing epics or long narratives.67 The text-performer-audience interplay in ancient contexts is considerably more nuanced and complex than a series of quotations can indicate; however, the examples emphasize the need to engage the sociocultural framework in which texts were performed. Performance criticism enables one to be especially aware of the significance of audience and context. Here, sociolinguistics can make a valuable contribution, as subsequent chapters will attempt to demonstrate.

4.2.3 Authority of the Performer The previous section constitutes the premise to this section, which considers the authority a performer may possess. As mentioned above, Sauter divided theatrical communication into three levels, which are characterized by the connection between the performer’s actions and the audience’s reactions. The 64 Giles and Doan, Twice Used Songs, 22. According to Giles and Doan, ‘“Twice Used Songs’ are songs, scattered through the Hebrew Bible, that have become inserted into the midst of prose narratives” (p. 1). 65 These four responses from audiences are characteristic responses, according to the reception studies of Willmar Sauter, “Who is Who and What is What? Introductory Notes,” in Advances in Reception and Audience Research, ed. Willmar Sauter , 2nd vol. (Utrecht: ECRAR, 1988). 66 Oestreich (Performanzkritik, 98) states that a performance critic understands the reading of a letter as an oral and performative action (Handlung), not just as a means of giving information. 67 Rhoads, “Performance Criticism—Part 1,” 10.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Performances and Audiences

91

sensory level describes the interaction between performer and audience that occurs when the audience perceives the physical and mental presence of the performer.68 Within the context of performative reading, the persona of the performer is an important aspect of communication. The significance of the performer’s character as a controlling aspect of rhetoric is emphasized by Aristotle, who states that “we believe fair-minded people to a greater extent and more quickly on all subjects in general and completely so in cases where there is not exact knowledge but room for doubt.” What is important in a speech is for the performer to appear to be fair-minded (Rhet. 1.2.3–4, 1356a). The fourth century BCE text Rhetoric to Alexander69 also explores the connection between character and persuasion in which the author of the text implies that “rhetorical precepts can be used as guides to acquire virtue, which, incidentally, will lead to better persuasion.”70 These two texts emphasize that a speaker’s conduct can contribute to the performance’s powers of persuasion as well as to his or her general reputation (Rhet. Alex. 38, 1445b – 1446a). In addition to conduct, Harry Gamble expresses the need for an ancient performer of written texts to be prepared for a presentation of the passage under consideration. He writes: The initial reading of any text was inevitably experimental because it had to be decided, partly in retrospect, which of the possible construals of scriptio continua best rendered the sense. If public reading were not to be halting, tentative, or misleading, those decoding judgments had to be made in advance through rehearsals of the text.71

What is being suggested here is that the perceived character of the sender and performer of a letter affects the way in which a letter was understood and received by an audience and that a performer must prepare his or her presentation of the text in order to make it understandable. In addition to identifying the sender and recipient of a letter, the proper understanding of a letter can depend on or gain from having a sense of the voice of the author. Letters convey mundane information, spread traditions, give military directives, request favours, deliver political/religious policies, and serve many other functions. This variety of uses suggests that letters make special demands on performers and audiences. How do letters and performers that play these diverse roles turn audiences into participants? If the performer acts as an intermediary between the written text and the spoken word and between the text 68 Sauter, Theatrical Event, 7. 69 Rhetoric to Alexander is a treatise traditionally attributed to Aristotle. It was most likely written by a Pseudo-Aristotle and is now generally believed to be the work of Anaximenes of Lampsacus, according to P. Chiron, “The Rhetoric to Alexander,” in A Companion to Greek Rhetoric, ed. Ian Worthington (Chinchester, West Sussex; Wiley & Sons, 2010), 90. 70 Chiron, “Rhetoric to Alexander,” 97. 71 Harry Y. Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts (London: Yale University Press, 1995), 205.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

92

Preparing for the Performances

and the audience, then the performer can take on the role of the sender and/or characters in the letter. Woodruff discusses the potential for the world of the performer and the world of the audience to be experienced together when he states that “while watching Socrates debating a sophist, you begin to answer the questions yourself, and so you become (even for a short time) a philosopher.”72 This phenomenon may provide a model for the performer’s and audience’s reception of a letter’s text or performance. Thus, ancient audiences may have relived a letter every time a performer read the text.73 According to this perspective, the reader would be responsible to re-present the voice of the sender of the letter to the audience.74 Or in the words of Bal, “the reader is the subject of writing, responsible for its consequences, for the production of reality it designs.”75 An audience’s response to having a letter read may be significantly more pronounced in antiquity because an ancient reader became someone of considerable authority,76 and the presence of a scroll or papyrus could act as a symbol to enhance his or her oral authority.77 Often the performer would assume the role appropriate to the communication, such as a performer speaking on behalf of God while delivering a prophetic message, or of a king or priest while reading a letter sent from political or religious elite.78 Although there is a distinction between everyday letters on the one hand and literary letters on the other, a performer in each case can shift from merely reading a letter to participating in interpreting the themes or from reporting to performing.

72 Austin P. Woodruff, The Necessity of Theater : The Art of Watching and Being Watched (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 177. 73 For examples of virtually every conceivable aspect of delivery, including the speaker’s emotions, attitudes, illocutionary force, tone, etc., see Nünlist, Ancient Critic, 349–51. 74 The symbolic significance of writing has been developed by Najman, “Symbolic Significance,” 139–73. 75 Mieke Bal, “Lots of Writing,” Semeia 54 (Atlanta: SBL, 1992), 94. Pieter J.J. Botha, “Letter Writing and Oral Communication in Antiquity : Suggested Implications for the Interpretation of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians,” Scriptura 42 (1992): 17–34, states that “receiving a letter meant hearing both a message conveyed on behalf of the sender and a written document” (p. 24). 76 Bridget Gilfillan Upton, Hearing Mark’s Endings: Listening to Ancient Popular Texts through Speech Act Theory, BibInt (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 12. 77 Rhoads, “Performance Criticism—Part 1,” 5. 78 Nünlist, Ancient Critic, 349 states that “whereas a modern reader would usually be content with knowing the intonation that is most appropriate to the passage under consideration, an ancient reader was often expected to reproduce it in his delivery.”

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Performances and Audiences

93

4.2.4 Performance and Cultural Memory We have already been made aware of the social impact of a performance as expressed in the text’s texture and oral traditions. Behind such research is the concept of cultural memory.79 A provisional definition of cultural memory suggested by Astrid Erill is “the interplay of present and past in socio-cultural contexts.”80 Such a broad understanding of the term allows for the inclusion and cooperation of many disciplines by using their particular perspectives. Under the umbrella term “cultural memory,” we can subdivide the discipline into “social memory,” a focus of the social sciences and “cognitive memory,” the field of expertise in psychology and neurosciences.81 The performance of letters engages oral traditions that are connected with cultural memory.82 Letters are one of the ways an ancient community could employ to reinforce its identity, while adjusting and responding to their present situation.83 Foley expresses the dynamic aspect of memory by stating that “the goal of memory is not retrieving data but rather re-creating and re-living an experience.”84 Recreating an experience depends on performances that can be keyed with metonymic references that serve to engage an audience to access their tradition by referring back to something available.85 There is much to be said about cultural memory ; however, to my mind the neglected area in the research of ancient Jewish letters is the spatial aspect of social memory. According to Minchin, “spatial memory is the memory system that encodes information about location, orientation, distance, and direction.”86

79 Building on Maurice Halbwachs’ idea that memory is a social phenomenon, Jan Assmann explores the connections between religion, culture, and memory in Jan Assmann, Religion and Cultural Memory, trans. Rodney Livingston (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2006). According to Botha, “Letter Writing,” of Aristotle’s five components of rhetoric (invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery) discussions of memory are often overlooked (p. 26). 80 Astrid Erill, “Cultural Memory Studies: An Introduction,” in A Companion to Cultural Memory Studies, ed. Astrid Erill and Ansgar Nünning (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010), 2. 81 Erill, “Cultural Memory Studies,” 4. 82 Cynthia Edenburg, “Intertextuality, Literary Competence and the Question of Readership: Some Preliminary Observations,” JSOT 35 (2010): 131–148, attempts to distinguish between aurally recognizable intertextual echoes and literary patterning based upon visual recognition. 83 See Maxey’s discussion on social memory, From Orality to Orality, 99–100. 84 Foley, “Memory in Oral Tradition,” 92. 85 See Oestreich, Performanzkritik, 83–86. 86 Elizabeth Minchin, “Spatial Memory and the Composition of the Iliad,” in Orality, Literacy, and Memory in the Ancient Greek and Roman World, ed. E. Anne MacKay, Orality and Literacy in Ancient Greece 7 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 10. Her emphasis is on the function of spatial memory in the composition of Homer’s oral epic songs.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

94

Preparing for the Performances

It is my aim merely to begin the discussion of spatial memory in the composition and performance of letters.87 It appears that spatial location and memory are closely linked and spatial location can cue the recall of associated material.88 Letters supply the audience with memories of events that are associated with locations. This feature frequently occurs in the letter’s address, such as, “To all the exiles whom I have deported from Jerusalem to Babylon” (Jer 29); “To the rulers of the one hundred twenty-seven satrapies from India to Ethiopia and to those who share our interests” (Gr. Esther, Addition E); and “To the brothers from Egypt; to the Jews” (2 Macc 1). Spatial references, like Jerusalem, Babylon, India, Ethiopia, and Egypt, provide a system with which memories can be associated because remembered events are closely aligned with remembered emotions. I propose that the author of a letter, by way of preparation for performance, constructs a setting that may evoke different emotions depending on the context in which the letter was written, read, and re-read. Locations that the author of a text calls up in memory in turn brings with it memories for events that happened at that setting. By way of considering different responses to the same location, MMT refers to the city of Jerusalem: “For Jerusalem is the camp of holiness and is the place which he has chosen” (B58–59). The location “Jerusalem” in Jer 29 may promote home sick feelings and longings to return to a familiar land from a community in exile; whereas, the mention of “Jerusalem” in MMT may be associated with concerns and disappointments of the religious elite that had not lived up to expectations. In each situation the audience would construct a spatial image from the information the performer has given them in order to understand the text. What is being emphasized here is that the close connection of performance with social memory highlights the significance of treating performance as contextualization. Central to performance theory is that this approach is “understood as more than simply an aesthetic correction to the literary-bias view of narrative; it is an epistemological shift as a mode of communication, intricately involved in a community’s identity through its social memory.”89 The results that emerge from the analysis thus far are that the relationship 87 Cognitive psychologist David C. Rubin offers a comprehensive examination of what traditions can tell us about human memory. He focuses in particular on three major forms of organization–theme, imagery, and sound pattern and gives evidence for the power of images as an aid to memory and the value of images for oral traditions. David C. Rubin, Memory in Oral Traditions: The Cognitive Psychology of Epic, Ballads, and Counting-Out Rhymes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995). See also Minchin, “Spatial Memory,” 9–10. 88 For a discussion on how location can be a cue to memory, see E. Winograd and V. Church, “Role of Spatial Memory in Learning Face-Name Associations,” Memory and Cognition 16 (1988): 1–7; also quoted in Minchin, “Spatial Memory,” 10. 89 Maxey, Orality to Orality, 100.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Performance in Second Temple Judaism

95

between the performer and audience begins with a model of what reading in the ancient world consists of. In silent reading the reader becomes a hearer of the writer’s words; however, when reading in community the reader is an instrument for embodying the contents of the letter and serves as the writer’s mouthpiece.90 Thus, performances of ancient letters were not delivered by a disembodied voice, but rather were performed expecting the audience to visualize the message by seeing and hearing the performer’s posture, voice inflection, gestures, and facial expressions. It appears that many public oral performances in the ancient Mediterranean world were marked by a considerable amount of audience participation and that a performer may have taken advantage of spatial indicators in a letter in order that the audiences could more easily recall associated information. A precise fit with the performance of ancient Jewish letters is difficult to determine, so that some of our observations will remain tentative. Nonetheless, what can be said with a degree of certainty is that the performer became the medium for the performance event and the audience participated in that experience. The performer and audience incorporated social memory as a means to construct a present from the memories of the past. At this point the discussion needs to be narrowed to performances of Jewish letters in Second Temple Judaism before the turn of the era. In Schwiderski’s major study on the Hebrew and Aramaic letters of the Old Testament and its environment (9th century BCE to 2nd century CE), he gives a thorough description of the Babylonian-Assyrian, demotic and Greek epistolary forms of the first millennium.91 What his discussion makes clear is that there was a long epistolary Jewish practice that reached back to the ninth century BCE.

4.3

Performance in Second Temple Judaism

In the following section, I wish to foreground some scholarly proposals for ancient Jewish scribal practices that recently have been advanced in the hopes of conceptualizing a model that fits the ancient Jewish context for the performance of a letter. To be clear, not all letters under review would have necessarily been read by scribes or religious elite; however, a significant number were. The strategy used here is to understand scribal culture more comprehensively in the hope of determining if there are any comparisons with and applications to personal letters that would most likely have been performed in homes and small gatherings of friends and relatives. Enriched by an overview of scribal traditions 90 Elspeth Jajdelska, Silent Reading and the Birth of the Narrator (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007), 6. 91 Schwiderski, Handbuch.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

96

Preparing for the Performances

and the performance of ancient Jewish letters, we can then narrow the conversation even further, approach the topic of the scribal situation at Qumran, and determine if there is any evidence to suggest how that community may have performed their texts.

4.3.1 Some Scholarly Proposals for Jewish Scribal Traditions The model developed by Susan Niditch in her seminal Oral World and Written Word suggests that the art of the oral performance of narrator and/or singer indicates that the text of the Hebrew Scripture came into being in a whole range of ways, and she places the variety of texts on a continuum extending from the predominantly oral to the written pole. Her understanding of orality can be helpful for thinking about a model of performance reading in Second Temple Judaism. Although her emphasis is clearly on the composition and transmission of the Hebrew Bible, she contends that literacy in the ancient world must be understood in terms of its intersection with an “oral mentality.”92 Ehud Ben Zvi suggests that authoritative texts reflect “ancient discourses, they are above all the products or traces of groups of literati, of communities of readers and rereaders,”93 in other words, the texts were not performed by memory, but read, and only read within the circles of the elite. David Carr agrees with an aspect of Ben Zvi’s position, namely, in regarding texts as both composed and performed for the most part within scribal groups, but differs from him in considering that ancient texts were composed and transmitted mainly as mimetic aids for oral performance. His conclusions are based predominantly on comparative data from Greece, and he concludes that texts were frequently written in such a way that someone who did not have pre-knowledge of the text could not read it fluently—such as texts that were written without spaces. Carr concludes that “the visual presentation of such texts presupposed that the reader already knew the given text and had probably memorized it to some extent” and that “written copies were a subsidiary part of a much broader literate matrix, where the focus was as much or more on the transmission of texts from mind to mind as on transmission of texts in written form.”94 Karol van der Toorn concentrates on 92 Niditch, Oral World, 88. For a study on the comparative evidence for the relationship of writing in primarily oral societies, see M.C.A. McDonald, “Literacy in an Oral Environment,” in Writing and Ancient Near Eastern Society : Papers in Honor of Alan R. Millard, ed. Piotr Bienkowski, Christopher Mee, and Elizabeth Slater, LHBOTS 426 (London: T& T Clark, 2005). 93 Ehud Ben Zvi, “Reconstructing the Intellectual Discourse of Ancient Yehud,” SR 39 (2010):7–23; here 8. 94 Carr, Writing on the Tablet, 5.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Performance in Second Temple Judaism

97

Mesopotamia and reaches a similar conclusion concerning the composition of texts: “On the whole, scribes were trained to produce stock phrases from memory and to compose their text before they committed it to papyrus. The scroll served as the repository of a completed text. The composition of a text normally preceded its fixation in writing.”95 These models of performance are useful insofar as they emphasize orality as a basis for understanding texts and place the performance of religious texts in scribal circles. At the same time they are problematic because not all Jewish letters are religious and their context vary. Additionally, Carr and van der Toorn’s positions are challenged by Philip Davies, who finds several weaknesses in their proposals.96 First, Davies questions the value of their comparative data because texts like the Torah and prophetical texts, such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel have no counterpart in Mesopotamian literature before the fourth century. Davies argues against Carr, who traces the scribal tradition into the monarchic period, which causes difficulties when comparing Hebrew authors with Greek writers, who allegedly wrote much later. Second, Davies sees a serious problem with the two positions because they do not distinguish sufficiently between the Israel/Samaria and Judah and their different histories and fortunes. The last contention he sees is with their failure to define more precisely the social roles of the religious elite. Davies advances a conflict model and sees the function of writing as a political act and thus he views the texts as being “mechanisms of ideological debate, no doubt alongside oral discussion.”97 He concludes that …[w]e should not discount oral activity as an accompaniment to writing, but nor should we regard literary texts as merely devices for adding the memory of the scribe. Putting pen to paper (or papyrus or skin) is itself a way of objectifying one’s own particular story by means of objectifying. The precise textural format was not crucial, and the constant revisions that seem to have taken place in the literary texts can best be seen as symptoms of the inscription, the literary updating, of an ongoing discussion. The authority of writing was thus embroiled in a creative and argumentative process that was no doubt even more lively in speech than in reading.98

95 Van der Toorn, Scribal Culture, 21–22. 96 Davies’ (“Dissemination”) criticism includes William M. Schniedewind, How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). For another perspective, see also Robert S. Kawashima, Biblical Narrative and the Death of the Rhapsode, Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2004). For a review of Carr, Kawishima and Schneidewind, see Frank H. Polak, “Book, Scribe, and Bard: Oral Discourse and Written Text in Recent Biblical Scholarship,” Prooftexts 31(2011):118–140. Werner Kelber, The Oral and the Written Gospel: The Hermeneutics of Speaking and Writing in the Synoptic Tradition, Mark, Paul, and Q (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 1–43, discusses the development of the concept of oral tradition. 97 Davies, “Dissemination,” 45. 98 Davies, “Dissemination,” 45.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

98

Preparing for the Performances

Building on these and other insights, we must contend with a mixture of the writtenness of letters and their oral characteristics in order to determine how these letters may have become a part of a tradition. Some letters were written with the intent of being performed as a free standing piece. In this case there was most likely very little time between the writing of the letters and their presentation, and therefore they do not seem to have a long interface with an oral tradition that altered their content. This process is significantly different from epic poems, songs, narratives, and other genres that appear to have had a long oral and written tradition occurring simultaneously and therefore impacting each other.99 On the other end of the spectrum, some Jewish letters defy standard categorization because they are embedded in narratives and display few epistolary features (Dan 4; Jer 29). To call attention to another example of the complexity of classifying letter form, we can point to the end of Gr. Esther (10:11), where the text states that the whole previous narrative is a letter and yet the foregoing material exhibits few epistolary features. These examples underline again the adaptability of letter form and emphasize how difficult it is to define the term “letter” by merely describing formulaic letter features. The model that is advanced here is to consider each letter individually to determine if any mnemonic devices can be detected, or to observe “performance sensitivity” that may be present in textual form. The evidence we have for the performance of literary letters, through finding commonalities with other traditions and literary genres, will be used to understand better the complex ways that letters were used and performed.

4.3.2 Performances of Ancient Jewish Letters Although we have very little material evidence for ancient Jewish letters before the turn of the era, the Hermopolis family letter, Passover letter, and MMT are extant and are helpful in indicating how texts were written. The absence of space between words, offset introductions and greetings, and breaks between sections suggests that the performer would have been required to have read the text before performing it before an audience.100 These data suggest that letters served as reference points for an oral message. It should be stressed that, although there is evidence to suggest that some letters were internalized, not all letters were memorized. It is hard to conceive of a short personal letter being memorized; 99 Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 34–36, refers to texts that are transmitted from one generation to another by performance as “longduration literature.” 100 This kind of textual pre-knowledge is presupposed in other traditions, according to Carr, Writing on the Table, 4–8.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Performance in Second Temple Judaism

99

however, the performer most likely had prior familiarity with it. On the other hand, those letters that were deemed to be part of a tradition transmitted from generation to generation by performance would most likely have been memorized, in part or in whole. Since Second Temple Judaism was interested in preserving their traditions, the religious elite used a variety of means to accomplish this goal, including the use of letters, which may have been employed as a memory technique to preserve the integrity of the tradition. This study builds on a stream of scholarship that emphasizes the interface of orality and writtenness and that holds the position that performance does not exclude a focus on writing and textuality.101 According to this position, letters were written texts but intensely oral and conversely oral texts were significantly affected by written culture, both were used as a means to communicate and recall their treasured tradition.102 Therefore, it can be said that the ancient Jewish scribes were literate members of a (predominately) oral culture, which suggests that even their letter writing was composed with a view to be performed. This position holds true whether the letter is a family letter, official correspondence, or literary text. Some letters under review were composed during the classical Hellenistic era; therefore, we need to consider to what extent Greek rhetoric can be applied to understanding those letters better? Here Klauck is helpful. He first cautions against a “mechanical application of the classical four-part speech model to letters” and then suggests “rhetoric can be of great value in illuminating the argumentative structure of letters—for example, by working through enthymemes and examples or by relating the letter elements to the classical means of persuasion by ethos, pathos, and logos.”103 It is clear that there is overlap between the use of rhetoric and the composition of some letters; however, I believe that we cannot press the issue too hard.104 If the function of rhetoric is generally to persuade listeners and the intention of most of the letters under review is also to influence and affect behaviour, then Greek authors may be used as an analytical instrument for understanding those letters better. I cannot 101 Carr, Formation of the Hebrew Bible, 5. 102 Carr, Writing on the Tablet, 7. 103 Klauck, Ancient Letters, 225. Klauck’s criticism refers to the application of Greek rhetoric to New Testament letters; however, his caution can also reasonably be applied to ancient Jewish letters before the Christian era. 104 For cautions surrounding applying Greek rhetoric to New Testament letters, see Klauck, Ancient Letters, 224–27, especially n. 46 in which he quotes P. Bürgel, “Der Privatbrief: Entwurf eines heuristischen Modells,” Deutsche Vierteljahresschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte 50 (1976): 281–97, here 285 n. 18: “The intentionality of both the ‘letter’ and of ‘rhetoric’ meet in the phenomenon of the persuasio. However, this must be thought of as non-reflective, quasi-subconscious rhetoric, not as a kind of rhetoric that arises from consciously following learned rules.”

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

100

Preparing for the Performances

attempt to write a history of scholarly views concerning the extent to which Greek authors influenced Jewish writers, except to say that Jewish polemics against Greek influence seem to indicate that there was a level of influence.105 In keeping with Klauck’s perspective, this study will employ Greek and other ancient Near Eastern literature, in order to compare to and contrast with Jewish letters’ use of tropes, figures of speech, and any communicative devices that key a performance. In anticipation of considering the performance of MMT, the next section will devote attention to the performative reading that may have occurred at Qumran. The group of texts found around the Dead Sea represents a particularly complex problem for anyone trying to reconstruct a performative context because it is difficult to determine which texts reflect the Qumran community and which should be interpreted as the religious practices of the extended area in Second Temple Palestine. With that proviso in mind, I will give a brief review of the Qumran scribal tradition.

4.3.3 Qumran Scribal Tradition The Dead Sea Scrolls have advanced our knowledge of literate Judaism beyond all expectations. If Qumran functioned as an educational institution, as Alexander suggests, then it sets the stage for how performances may have occurred—in formal settings as the leader of the sect taught other members of the community.106 As possible support for this position, Lemaire has contended that although teaching was principally oral in other communities in Palestine at Qumran writing was given “une grande importance.”107 The importance of written texts at Qumran suggests that writing was used mainly as an instrument of power.108 It seems plausible that the scribal practice consisted of learning texts 105 For the influence of Greek culture on the biblical text, see Carr, Formation of the Hebrew Bible, 153–203. 106 Alexander, “Literacy among Jews in Second Temple Palestine: Reflections on the Evidence from Qumran,” in Hamlet on a Hill: Semitic and Greek Studies Presented to Professor T. Muraoka on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. M.F.J. Baasten and W.Th. van Peursen, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 118 (Leuven: Peeters, 2003), 23. Most scholars hold that education and indoctrination was a major function of the Qumran community. 107 A. Lemaire, “Lire, ¦crire, ¦tudier — Qoumr–n et ailleurs,” in Qoumr–n et le Judasme du tournant de votre Àre: Actes de la Table Ronde, CollÀge de France, 16 novembre 2004, ed. A. Lemaire and S.C. Mimouni, CREJ 40 (Paris: Peeters, 2006), 69. Literacy at Qumran appears to have been widespread, according to Alexander, “Literacy among Jews,” 18. 108 Richard Horsley, ‘“It is more Complicated’: Reflections on Some Suggested Essays,” in Postcolonialism and the Hebrew Bible: The Next Step, ed. Roland Boer (Atlanta: SBL, 2013), 256. In Horsley’s view, since reading and writing was limited to the professional scribes, writing was used as an instrument of power by the wealthy and powerful.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Performance in Second Temple Judaism

101

until the message became “written on the tablet of their heart.”109 Horsley compares the performance of texts at Qumran to later rabbis and their students insofar as “they did not so much ‘study’ and ‘interpret’ texts (like modern scholars, as it were) as recite them (‘by heart,’ only not verbatim, as in the print culture).”110 The single most important text that describes gathering the community for the purpose of study comes from the Community Rule:111 And let there not be lacking, in a place where the ten are, a man expounding the Torah day and night, on the proper relations of a man with his fellow. And the Many shall diligently spend a third of all the nights of the year reciting the Book, expounding the Ruling, and offering the benedictions communally (1QS VI, 6–8).

This passage contains two important points. The first is that the text was not read but orally recited, which supports an oral presentation of a text that was memorized. Second, although the text does not mention the status of the expounder, Jaffee makes a case that the person could be a priest; however, the text allows for non-priestly leadership. This position is against Carr, who states that priests played a prominent role in the community, regulated its borders, and supervised its instruction.112 Jaffee supports his view by stating “the point [of 1QS VI, 6–8] is that when there are ten members of the Council gathered, one of them (whether or not he is a priest) must engage the others in Torah study.”113 Brooke suggests that at Qumran the documents as a whole were not necessarily or exclusively a priestly matter.114 He finds evidence for the likelihood of a commentary being used in debates (4Q177) and proposes that at least one document suggests that an audience interacted with a text and thus produced new forms of the document (4Q180). Additionally, he supports the view that a 109 So Carr, Writing on the Tablet.” See also Richard Horsley, Scribes Visionaries, and the Politics of Second Temple Judea (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007). 110 Horsely, ‘“It is more complicated,’” 257. See also Eugene Ulrich, “The Qumran Scrolls and the Biblical Text,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after their Discovery, ed. L. Schiffman et al. (Jerusalem: IES, 2000), 58–59; Susan Niditch, “Hebrew Bible and Oral Literature: Misconceptions and New Directions,” in The Interface of Orality and Writing: Speaking, Seeing, Writing in the Shaping of New Genres, ed. A. Weissenrieder and R. Coote, WUNT 260 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 3–18; L. de Vries, “Local Oral-Written Interfaces and the Nature, Transmission, Performance and Translation of Biblical Texts,” in Translating Scripture for Sound and Performance: New Directions in Biblical Studies, Biblical Performance Criticism 6 (Eugene: Cascade Books, 2012), 71–75. 111 For a close parallel, see also CD 13:2–4. 112 Carr, Writing on the Tablet, 215, 220. 113 Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth, 33–34. 114 George Brooke, “Some Scribal Features on the Thematic Commentaries from Qumran,” in Writing the Bible, ed. Philip R. Davies and Thomas RPmer (Durham: Acumen, 2013), 141. Brooke’s conclusions concerning scribal practices are the result of his analysis of six texts from Qumran.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

102

Preparing for the Performances

text was used as a library copy and “was marked up for improvement after a particular performance in a didactic exegetical forum” (4Q181).115 The developing commentary tradition as presented in Brooke’s study suggests a robust scribal tradition that included the interface between text, performer, and audience. Rollston argues that the scribe was an elite member of the society and that this role reflected a high status.116 Considering poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Shem Miller concludes that “the vast majority of text-bound activities were oral/ aural, the ritual study and recitation of ‘books’ was routinized, and the council of the community vested oral performance with enough authority that legal traditions—written and oral—were generated without any explicit reference to authoritative texts.”117 The picture presented here is that the textual features that suggest a performance setting found in other traditions can also be found in some texts at Qumran. A text would have been embodied, rehearsed, performed, and subsequently enhanced, but not necessarily by the priests. This perspective will be applied to the performance of some types of ancient Jewish letters as well as MMT, insofar as textual clues will be used to determine how the letter may have been performed and altered and produced new iterations as a result of its interaction with an audience.

4.4

Observations

This chapter has concentrated on building a case for an oral-performative tradition in Second Temple Judaism. Despite many unresolved problems, the texts we have considered yield the conclusion that letters were predominately orally delivered in a social performance and that writing a letter was inseparable from performing it. The concept of performative reading in community applies to the 115 Brooke, “Some Scribal Features,” 135. For a summary of the texts’ composition and use, see pages 131, 133 and 135. See idem, “Aspects of the Physical and Scribal Features of Some Cave 4 ‘Continuous’ Pesharim,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Transmission of Traditions and Production of Texts, ed. Sarianna Metso, Hindy Najman, and Eileen Schuller (Leiden: Brill, 2010). Brooke concludes “we should assume that all literature was produced orally, either by dictation or by recitation. All literature would have been used orally, though in many different contexts” (p. 150). 116 Christopher A. Rollston, Writing and Literacy in the World of Ancient Israel: Epigraphic Evidence from the Iron Age (Atlanta: SBL, 2010), 85–90. Alexander holds that the social status of the scribes may not have been high, but rather similar to other craftsman who carried little social prestige (Alexander, “Literacy among Jews,” 16–18). Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth, 23, admits that it is difficult to define the social identity of scribes. 117 Shem Miller, “The Oral-Written Textuality of Stichographic Poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls” (paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the SBL, San Diego, CA, 22 November 2014), 3.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

103

Observations

whole spectrum of a letter’s composition, from creating a new letter, to copying it for other readers, to translating it into other languages. The position supported here is that letters were written with an oral mentality. It goes without saying that we no longer have access to the original performance; however, in order to envision what the oral environment of Jewish letters may have been, we need to capture, the best we can, the nature of the letter. Understanding these characteristics prepare the performer for embodying the letter by adding tone, gestures, and emotions in order to emphasize meaning or to make new meanings possible. Another element in the performance of letters is the audience. In order for communication to occur, there must be an encounter between the performer and audience that creates a joint act of understanding and interpretation. It is not an exaggeration to state that the goal of ancient performers was to engage the audience. The first aspect of a communicative encounter consisted of a performer being physically and mentally present before an audience holding a letter and then proclaiming its message. The physical manuscript adds authority to the spoken word and gives the performer a platform to speak on behalf of the sender or to take the role of a character in the text. One of the methods a performer can employ to interact with an audience is to recall oral traditions, so that he or she can recreate or relive an experience from the past. These memories can be evoked by mentioning places and events that occurred in order that audiences can more easily recall associated material and thereby interact with the performance of the letter. Building on these insights, these concepts were applied to the performance of Second Temple Judaism. Letters are complex and served many purposes ; therefore, finding a model of performance that fits all types of letters is difficult. Thus, the method that seems most reasonable is to consider each letter on its own merits and determine whether there are any commonalities with other traditions, even, with caution, Greek rhetoric. The scribal tradition at Qumran provides us with evidence for Jewish texts that were embodied, rehearsed, and performed and that included audience’s interaction and subsequent revision of the text. The examples from Qumran are significant when considering the performance of ancient Jewish letters in Second Temple Judaism. These observations can now be applied to some letters found in Egypt. Using a performance theory approach may offer new insights into how the letters may have been performed and the plausible contexts in which a performance took place. As has been argued, the community experienced a letter in the person of the performer, and therefore an important aspect of understanding letters is to consider the audience’s perspective. This study will follow the format of describing the text, texture, and context of each letter by employing performance

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

104

Preparing for the Performances

theory in conjunction with a number of other disciplines, which will provide checks and balances to the investigation.118

118 Richard Bauman and Charles L. Briggs, “Poetics and Performance as Critical Perspectives on Language and Social Life,” Annual Review of Anthropology 19 (1990): 59–88, offer contextualization and entextualization as replacements for context and text.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Chapter 5 Performances of two Free Standing Letters from Egypt

In this chapter, I intend to show that attention to performance has the potential to transform our understanding of Second Temple period Jewish letters. The examples that will be used to accomplish this task will begin with non-embedded, freestanding letters from Elephantine. These texts will serve as a standard against which other Jewish letters can be compared because of their straightforward use of idiomatic letter form as discerned by a synchronic comparison with other ancient epistolary texts. The first text is from a group of letters called the Hermopolis papyri, which concern family commercial interests and give us insight into family activities. This letter is a good starting point for our examination of ancient letters because it will provide an important link between the oral performance of a personal letter that may have had only a limited audience and performance context and our investigation of texts that may have had multiple performances in many contexts. The second text, the so-called Passover letter, was discovered in a communal archive in a Jewish colony on the island of Elephantine. Although the word “Passover” is not found in the text, the letter clearly concerns the celebration of Passover and is addressed to a community, rather than an individual. This document is “unquestionably the most important letter…for Jewish religious history,”1 and was most likely a text that was referred to from time to time as the need arose. The purpose for investigating these letters is to suggest how and under what circumstances they may have been performed by using form criticism to propose a structure and semiotic and oral approaches to underscore the texture. The outline features the observations of Dell Hymes,2 who uses a “measured” verse approach to represent a document in a way that points to the manner in which a performer and an audience may have experienced a text.

1 Lindenberger, Ancient Aramaic, 61. 2 Hymes, “In Vain,” esp. Part 2, pp. 79–259.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

106

5.1

Performances Of Two Free Standing Letters From Egypt

Form And Function Of Ancient Letters

Letter conventions vary in type and in the range of topics, from a letter sent from a friend or relative to official letters sent from administrators and governments, and therefore some of the variations in form may reflect the different social relations between sender and recipient. Schwiderski has compiled a comprehensive list of Aramaic letters from the seventh to fourth centuries BCE,3 with the largest number of extant letters from the fifth century written in classical Imperial Aramaic.4 The Hermopolis letter from Elephantine chosen for this analysis is dated to the sixth-fifth century BCE5 and the Passover letter to the end of the fifth century. Form critics have identified and classified the idiomatic conventions of ancient Aramaic letters that would have set up the expectations for a reader and audience to know what details to look for in reading and hearing the text. There seems to have been a variety of options an author could choose to introduce a letter. Schwiderski identifies the introduction or prescript6 as having an internal address that can be subdivided into four types.7 The oldest Aramaic address type is “To (@4) recipient; (from) sender,” which may have been expanded to include a temple greeting or possibly shortened to simply state the recipient, without including the sender.8 The second group is much less common—it uses the preposition @F (to) for @4. The third type employs a combination of an address with a greeting: “Greetings (A@M) to the recipient; from the sender,”9 again the address can be shortened without indicating the sender : “Greetings to the recipient.” The last form of the address is in contrast with the other three in that it mentions the sender before the recipient: “From (CB) sender ; to (@F) recipient.” The importance of noting the difference in structure is that it 3 Schwiderski, Handbuch, 241–67. Idem, “Epistolographische Elemente in den neuverPffenlichten aramäischen Ostrakonbriefen aus Elephantine,” in In the Shadow of Bezalel: Aramaic, Biblical, and Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Bezalel Porten, ed. Alejandro F. Botta (Leiden: Brill, 2013). See also H¦lÀne Lozachmeur, ed. La Collection Clermont-Ganneau. Ostraca,¦pigraphes sur Jarre, ¦tiquettes de bois, vol 1 of Memoire de l’Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 35 (Paris: Diffusion de Boccard, 2006). 4 Schwiderski, Handbuch, 98. Schwiderski lists 88 Aramaic letters from the fifth century. Many of these letters are found in Bezalel Porten and Ada Yardeni, Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999) (hereafter TAD A=1986; TAD B=1989; TAD C=1993). The 28 letters from Elephantine are edited in TAD A3.1–10; 4:1–10; 5.2, 5; 6.1, 2. 5 There are eight Hermopolis letters written on papyrus and one ostracon. 6 The initial address is often referred to by the Latin term praescriptio. A number of Hebrew letters from Lachish lack an initial address. 7 Schwiderski, Handbuch, 102–14, includes another category of address type, namely when the address is missing. 8 This last form is found only in relatively late letters—end of the fifth century BCE. 9 This formula is always in the genitive.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Form And Function Of Ancient Letters

107

could offer a clue into how the letter may have been performed or in what situations the letter was presented. After the address, the author frequently included one or more greetings or well wishes or conversely may have chosen to omit the greeting altogether.10 Here again there was a variety of options to choose from.11 Some letters display two distinct parts to the introduction—an address and a greeting or blessing— however, others combine the address with a greeting or blessing. Typical well wishes cover blessings of welfare, strength, and life, usually in combination.12 Greetings frequently use the name of a god(s) or a reference to the gods, as seen in the Passover letter (“May the gods bless my brothers [always]”).13 According to Porten, “the more important the recipient and/or the more serious the matter at hand, the weightier would be the greetings (cf. TAD A4.3, 7–8; 5.3).”14 What is clear is that there were different forms and combinations that were available to letter writers. The social relationship between the parties may have also contributed to how a letter’s introduction was formulated, such as when a subordinate addressed a superior.15 In a letter of petition for permission to rebuild the temple and reinstitute sacrifices, the religious elite appeal to the governor in this way : To (@4) our lord Bagavahya, governor of Judah from your servants Yedanyah and his colleagues the priests at Fort Elephantine. May the God of Heaven richly bless our lord always, and may he put you in the good graces of King Darius and his household and a thousand times more than now. May he grant you long life, and may you always be happy and strong. Your servant Yedanyah and his colleagues report to you as follows…(TAD 4.7/4.8)

˘

10 Four private letters add a greeting to a local temple before the address, such as “Greetings to the temple of Bethel” (TAD 2.1). The temples include Bethel, the Queen of Heaven, Nabu and Banit at Syene or YHW at Elephantine (TAD A2.1–4; 3.3). Lindenberger, Ancient Aramaic, 9, points out that many Hebrew letters have no greeting formulae. The preferred formula at Lachish uses the verb “hear”: “May YHWH send you [literally, ‘cause you to hear’] good news this day” (See Lindenberger no. 61; also nos. 62–63, 66–67). In no. 64 the verb “see” is used: “May YHWH (898= 4L=) make this time a good one for you.” The letter formulae from Kuntillet 7 Ajrud is: “I bless you by YHWH of Samaria and his asherah” (67a: A and B) followed by a blessing in 67a: B: “May he bless you and keep you, and be with my lord.” 11 Schwiderski, Handbuch, 115–54, suggests four greeting types and four other greetings. He refers to the other greetings as Sonstige Eingangsgrüße, Sekundärgrüße, Tempelgruß, Einzelne Grußfragmente. 12 See for example, the letter “To a son on a journey” that includes the greeting “I send you greetings and wishes for your good health” (TAD A3.3); the translation is from Lindenberger, Ancient Aramaic, 36–37. For similar greetings, see also TAD A2.7; 3.4, 8; 6.3–7. 13 Lindenberger, Ancient Aramaic, 30 (TAD A4.1; AP 21). For other greetings that use the name of a deity, see TAD A3.5–7, 9–11; 4.2–4, 7–8; 6.1. 14 Porten, “Aramaic Papyri,” ABD 2 (1992): 445–55; here 448. 15 See, for example, TAD A2.1–7; 3.1, 4–11; 4.1–4, 7–8; 5.3; 6.1.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

108

Performances Of Two Free Standing Letters From Egypt

This letter employs a Type 1 prescript involving a subordinate petitioning a superior and incorporates four blessings. The reason for the extended greeting may have been that the sender is particularly interested in the recipient or his issues, or more probably, as Schwiderski suggestions Vielmehr hat die Erweiterung der Eingangsgrüße einzig und allein die Funktion, dem Empfänger gegenüber hPfliche Ehrerbietung und dem Rangunterschied angemessene Unterordnung zu signalisieren.16 Rather, the expansion of the introductory greeting has the sole function to signal to the recipient polite respect and social distinction appropriate to the subordinate (my translation).

Some scholars have suggested that when there is an uneven social relationship a letter writer may adapt the text to reflect this distinction. According to this position, if the sender was superior to the receiver, the formula would be: “From sender ; to recipient.”17 As a possible example of this convention, we can consider the address of a member of a royal family, Arshama, to his subordinate: “From (CB) Arshama; to (@F) Wahpremahi” (TAD 6.2). Although there are significant examples of this convention and it appears to hold true in many instances, Schwiderski offers a caution of arriving at a conclusion too quickly by giving examples of two equal status parties also using this formula.18 Until more evidence becomes available concerning non-equal status parties, we can tentatively conclude that conventions were used, but sometimes adapted to accommodate different situations. From a performance perspective, it seems that the introduction served an informative and symbolic purpose by means of the performer introducing the audience to the characters in the letter. If the order of the sender and recipient was a deliberate choice, then the audience would have immediately been made aware of the social relationship between the sender and recipient, even without knowing the parties, and thus may have anticipated a particular tone or emphasis of the presentation. The content of the body of letters is immensely varied. They can be short memoranda, long treatises, informal notes to family and friends, official letters from the crown, cover religious or secular concerns, post-card letters just to say “hello,” and the list goes on. Each type of letter may have required a reader to adapt the performance to suit the context and audience. Finally, some letters conclude with a formula, name of a scribe, the date of writing, and a final 16 Schwiderski, Handbuch, 233. 17 See, for example, TAD 6.2; 6.8–6.13. Other examples of social distinction can be found in 6.14–6.15. 18 Schwiderski, Handbuch, 233–34.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Hermopolis Family Letter

109

address, either on the outside of the letter or at the end of the body of the letter.19 In sum, the principal parts of Aramaic letters are opening, body, closing, and sometimes an external address that could be read from the outside without breaking the seal. Having said that, it needs to be mentioned that when a letter is embedded in a narrative some of these aspects may be missing or enveloped in the surrounding text. These form critical details provide us with a standard frame for defining and understanding Jewish letters.20 The query as we move forward is whether these letters give evidence in the body of the text for an oral tradition and to determine whether there are some ways to get access to the creative performance that may have taken place.

5.2

Hermopolis Family Letter

The family correspondence represented by the “Hermopolis” papyri21 consisting of a packet of seven or eight letters was written during the Persian occupation of Egypt. The Aramean family of Makkibanit wrote these letters at end of the sixth and the beginning of the fifth century BCE from Memphis to Luxor and Syene.22 Although this letter was found at a Jewish colony, it was not related to the Jewish community there. The documents were found in 1945 rolled up, folded in half, tied, and sealed and appear not to have been delivered, but provide valuable information about epistolary practices. Epistolary scholars have made valuable form-critical observations concerning the Hermopolis letter 4 (TAD A2.1), but the text is too short to observe redactional layers. There is scholarly consensus that the fifth century BCE papyrus texts and fragments discovered at or near Elephantine adopt formal aspects of Aramaic letter writing form.

19 For an example of the date on the outer band, see TAD A6.1, 2. For examples of the date at the end of the letter, see TAD A3.3, 8, 9; 4.7, 8; 5.1. 20 Alexander in “Remarks,” 161–70, describes these divisions. See also Fitzmyer, “Notes,” 201–25; Pardee, “An Overview,” 321–46; Lindenberger, Ancient Aramaic, 7–10; Schwiderski, Handbuch, 91–240. 21 TAD A2.1–7 22 Seven letters were written by the same person and meant to be sent to Luxor (TAD A2.5–6) and Syene (TAD A2.1–4). The eighth letter was written by a different scribe and was intended for Luxor (TAD A2.7). For an overview of the Elephantine letters, see Porten, Elephantine Papyrus, 74–80.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

110

Performances Of Two Free Standing Letters From Egypt

5.2.1 Text Bazalel Porten has provided this translation of the letter.23 Salutation I Internal Address Salutation II Greetings I Report

Instructions Concern Promise Greetings II Welfare Greetings III External Address

RECTO 1 Greetings, Temple of Bethel and Temple of the Queen of Heaven. To my sister Nanaihem 2 from your brother Nabusha. ˙ I bless you by Ptah that he may let me behold your face in peace. ˙ 3 Greetings, Bethelnathan. Greetings, Nky and Ashah and Tashai and Anathi and Ati and Re(ia). ˙ 4 And now, there reached me the tunic which you dispatched to me and I found it FRAYED completely 5and my heart was not attached to it. If I saw what you had in abundance, I would give it (in exchange) for 61 vessel for Ati. And now, the garment which you brought for me (to) Syene—it I ˙am wearing. 7 And now, let them bring us castor oil and we shall give it (in exchange) for oil And now, do not 8worry about us, me and Makkibanit; we worry about you. Take care of 9Bethelnatan from Habib. ˙ And now, if I find a trustworthy man, 10I shall bring something to you. Greetings, Shabbethai son of Shug. Greetings, Pasai Verso 11Greetings, Eder son of Pasai. Greetings, Sheil son of Ptahertais and Ashah ‘12son of ˙ ˙ ˙ Petekhnum. Greetings, the whole NEIGHBORHOOD. ˙ 13 12 For your welfare I sent this letter. 13 Greetings (to) my father Psami from your servant Nabusha. Greetings, my mother 14Mama (ERASURE: and). Greetings, my brother Bitia and his household. Greetings, Wahpre. ˙ 15 To (sealing) Nanaih. em from Nabushezib son of Petekhnum. ˙ (To) Syene.

Similar to many Aramaic letters, this letter begins with the word “Greetings” (A@a), which has the meaning of “well-being.”24 Porten finds the rendering of A@a with “greetings” as inadequate, but convenient.25 Of the four letters associated with Makkibanit that were sent to Syene, all open with a salutation to an Aramean temple. This letter refers to the “Temple of Bethel and the Temple of the Queen of Heaven.” According to Dion, 23 Bezalel Porten, Elephantine Papyri in English: Three Millennia of Cross Cultural Continuity and Change (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 89–92. 24 For other examples of using a A@a-type address, see Schwiderski, Handbuch, 107–111; with an address that includes a temple greeting, idem, 146–48. 25 Porten, Elephantine Papyri, 89. Porten states that A@a needs to be translated as “peace” (“let me behold your face in peace”), “welfare” (see TAD A3.3:1), or “greetings” according to the context. Aramaic uses a nominal phrase with A@a ; whereas, the Greek uses the verb (ja¸´) 1c½ aqt¹r rca¸y, “I, myself, am in good health” (Dion, “Aramaic ‘Family Letter,’” 68).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Hermopolis Family Letter

111

…when visiting a famous shrine, Aramaean and Greek travelers alike would take care to make obeisance (pqoswum´y) to the local deities on behalf of their folk, and to “bless” (ýL5) their relative and friends “to” the local god; hence the habit of mentioning this act of devotion among the initial greetings of private letters.26

The significance of the Temple of Bethel is that it was a popular deity in the region of Syene as seen in the theophorous name in this letter, Bethelnathan, and also Bethelshezib in TAD A2.5:6. The salutation also includes the Queen of Heaven, which Porten has identified with Anath.27 The first line of the letter opens with two important cultic references, setting the stage for the rest of the letter. In the internal address, it is difficult to determine whether the addressee is his relative or possibly his wife because familial terms can be used for a wife.28 However the addressee is understood, the important aspect is pronouncing the blessing, which most likely takes the form of a speech-act because “uttering a verb in the perfect may be like performing it or acting it out”29 and may have been a prayer uttered at the Shrine of Ptah.30 The letter abounds in personal ˙ greetings and begins by listing seven persons to be greeted, with a conjunction between each name. This conjunction is left untranslated by Lindenberger, as he points out “to avoid the monotonous and un-English series of ‘ands,’ the ubiquitous conjunction is often omitted in translation.”31 The body of every Hermopolis letter begins with some form of the transitional word “and now” (NF?9), left untranslated in this letter by Lindenberger, but translated by Porten. Of the 15 lines in this letter, there are five instances of this connecting adverb, almost beginning each sentence “in the manner of ‘and then’ in children’s diaries or letters.”32 From a performative perspective, the word is a valuable marker for the performer and functioned as a punctuation marker, introducing the body of the letter as well as new sentences within the body.33 Only one-

26 Dion, “Aramaic ‘Family Letter,’” 67. Another example of a prayer for the wellbeing (A9@a) of a city (Jerusalem) and a temple, see Psalm 122:6–8. 27 Porten, Archives from Elephantine, 164–65. 28 The terms “brother” and “sister” are not always meant to be taken literally and may refer to other family members (see TAD 2.7:1,5, where “sister” refers to a mother ; TAD 3.3:1, where “brother” refers to a father). 29 Muraoka and Porten, Grammar of Egyptian Aramaic, 193. 30 Porten, Elephantine Papyri, 90. Porten also gives examples of another use of this formula in a contemporary letter (P. Berlin 13539.1–2; 492 BCE) and in the Ptolemaic period (P. Berlin 13544.3–4 and 13587.x+1-x+3), “We make the blessing(s) of Pherendates before Khnum” (Elephantine Papyri, 90 n. 6). 31 Lindenberger, Ancient Aramaic, 12. For another example of the coordinating conjunction being frequently repeated, see B2.8:3. 32 Muraoka and Porten, Grammar, 310; see also 335. 33 Yael Maschler, Metalanguage in interaction: Hebrew Discourse Markers, Pragmatics & Beyond New Series (Amsterdam: John Benjamin, 2009), see esp. ch. 5, where she describes how

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

112

Performances Of Two Free Standing Letters From Egypt

third of the letter is devoted to the body. The major topic has to do with reporting on a tunic that was “dispatched”34 and not liked, as well as mentioning that a previous tunic that was delivered was well liked and presently worn. The sending and receiving of tunics seems to be a common topic in Aramaic letters.35 After this report, the letter gives instructions on exchanging one kind of oil for another. Concern over the well-being of others is an interest found in other Hermopolis letters,36 as well as being a common epistolary formula found in Phoenician, Egyptian, and Greek letters.37 The promise “if I find a trustworthy man, [then] I shall bring something to you” according to Muraoka and Porten, signifies that, “should the situation indicated by the [protasis] be or become a reality, that which is indicated by the [apodosis] possibly or most likely would become a reality.”38 The apodosis seems to indicate a promise, pledge, or commitment on the part of the speaker. The concern to find a trustworthy man reflects that there was no reliable delivery service for parcels or letters, and good delivery people were not always available.39 The final chain of greetings forms an inclusio—the letter’s opening begins and concludes with a greeting. The familial greetings follow the pattern: father (Psami) from your servant, mother (Mama) and my brother (Bitia) from his household.40 The external address, unlike the internal address, gives the full name of the recipient. Understanding the text is the first step to establish a structure; however, we cannot stop there, but need to consider how the letter may have been articulated in a performance that would have contributed to bring meaning to the text.

34 35 36 37

38 39 40

tov can be used as a “textual” marker. Likewise,“(and) now” marks a boundary/transition in the text. The verb “dispatch” was used in Egyptian Imperial Aramaic for sending an item, rather than delivering a message or letter (Porten, Elephantine Papyri, 91, n. 11). See TAD 2.2:1; 3.8:8–10, 13. The formula “do not worry about us” is also found in the Hermopolis letters nos. 3, 6, and 8; “we worry about you” is found in Hermopolis letters 3, 4, and 8; “Take care of her” is found in Hermopolis 2.17. For a similar phrase in a Phoenician letter, see KAI 50: “Are you well? I, myself, am well.” A similar concern is expressed in the Egyptian letter BM 10103 from the 28th dynasty (Abd ElMohsen Bakir, Egyptian Epistolography from the Eighteenth to the Twenty-First Dynasty [Cairo: Institut franÅais d’arch¦ologie orientale, 1970]). The formulae “Do not worry about me” and “It is about you I am concerned” appear just as frequently in Greek as in Aramaic (Dion, “Aramaic ‘Family Letter,’” 67). Muraoka and Porten, Grammar, 324. For other examples of this syntagm, see A2.1:5; A4.7:27. Edward Frank Wente, Letters from Ancient Egypt, ed. by Edmund S. Meltzer, WAW (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 8–10. Schwiderski, Handbuch, 165, 214, prefers “and his wife” over “and his household.”

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Hermopolis Family Letter

113

5.2.2 Texture Most of the scholarly work on ancient Jewish letters in general, and the Hermopolis letters in particular, has been with the text. Texture seems to have been left to the interested linguists, such as Muroaka and Porten,41 while performative context has almost completely been ignored. So far, by using a form-critical approach, we have set the groundwork for understanding what is being said (text), so that now we can consider how the text is conveying a message in expressive choices (texture). There must be some indicators in the texture—how the letter is being told—that would indicate that the audience understood what was being said because they most likely would have been familiar with idiomatic letter conventions. The trick is to find evidences of an oral tradition that is comprehensive enough to be usefully applied to a performance and yet allowing for the diversity of human expression. The approach I am following is to read or understand the letter on its own terms and thereby to consider its texture, characterization, movement, and plot as aspects of its structure. In order to fulfil this task, communicative devices, such as special codes, figurative language, special formulae and appeals to tradition, will be used to determine how the letter should be arranged. I begin by dividing the letter into three parts: 1) opening, consisting of Porten’s Salutation I, Internal Address, Salutation II and Greetings I; 2) body, consisting of the Report, Instructions, Concern and Promise; and 3) closing, consisting of the Greetings II, Welfare, Greetings III, and External Address. I have chosen the terms “opening” and “closing” to describe the beginning and ending of the letter because they are more descriptive of a performance. The point of discussing the texture of each part is to suggest how to structure the units in order to restore as best as possible the experience of the performance, recognizing that each performer and audience has the license to frustrate even the best attempts at finding a performative structure. However difficult the task may be, I believe that it is important to attempt to understand letters by rebuilding the performance in order to communicate the impact of the text. Let us begin with discussing the opening and suggest how the performer used various means to communicate the message of the letter to the audience. The performer may have been the author, or the letter may have been sent through a messenger. If we can assume that the performer was not expected to be the author, then the performer was perceived to be the authoritative voice of the author made effective through reading the letter.42 41 For example, Muraoka and Porten, Grammar. 42 R.A. Hudson, Sociolinguistics, 2nd ed., Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 120–31, discusses linguistic items that reflect social

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

114

Performances Of Two Free Standing Letters From Egypt

The performer most likely introduces the fact that a letter will be read, opens the manuscript, and begins with a greeting in the name of two temples. Within the context of a performance the performer reading the letter and the presence of a copy of the text would have combined to create certain expectations of the audience. At this point, the performer would have attempted to make a personal connection with the audience. The performer then reads the letter on behalf of the author and begins by presenting a four-fold opening, elements which recur frequently in other letters, thus suggesting that the audience would have anticipated these components, or some similar variation. The private Hermopolis letters written to Syene all open with temple greetings to Banit,43 Nabu,44 or in this letter to Bethel and the Queen of Heaven,45 and all eight letters in this series bless their recipients by Ptah, the ˙ name of the deity of Memphis. This special formula is followed by the pronouncement of a blessing, which is a significant oral device used in the letter’s opening and was employed with the intention of the speaker expecting to produce an effect on the audience. The evaluation of Porten puts this dedication in perspective: “This blessing was in effect an intercessory prayer that may have been uttered in the shrine of Ptah who held sway in Memphis.”46 The speech act ˙ “I bless you by Ptah that he may behold your face in peace” reflects the common ˙ structure: I, you, performative verb. The purpose of a speech-act was to affect the actual or possible state of affairs by means of the hearers’ recognition of the speaker’s intention to produce that effect.47 Therefore, it appears that the utterance of the blessing is an act of consecration, not merely words spoken, but actions taken.48 The concepts of symbolic codes and speech acts are firmly

43 44 45 46 47 48

characteristics of the speaker, audience, or the relation between them. Power and solidarity are signaled in the use of personal names and pronouns. See also Jan Blommaert, “Ethnopoetics as functional reconstruction: Dell Hymes’ Narrative view of the World,” Functions of Language 13 (2006): 254–75, who contends that voice is an instrument of power and that ethnopoetics can be a program for understanding voice. See also, Jos¦ Antonio Flores Farf‚n and Anna Holzscheiter, “The Power of Discourse and the Discourse of Power,” in The Sage Handbook of Sociolinguistics, ed. Ruth Wodak, Barbara Johnstone, and Paul Kerswill (London: Sage, 2011). TAD A2.2:1 and 2.4:1. TAD A2.3:1. For temple greetings, see Schwiderski, Handbuch, 104, 146–49. Porten, Elephantine Papyri, 90 n. 6. For a summary of how speech act theory can be applied to the textual level, see Rozik, Generating Theatre Meaning, 134–35. Martin Heidegger, “A Dialogue on Language,” in On the Way to Language, trans. Peter D. Hertz (New York: Harper Collins, 1971), traces a particular translation of a sign to its meaning; and Harry Hoijer, Ciricahua and Mescalero Apache Texts (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1938), offers a cultural reading of the text. However, these two approaches do not consider syntax, rhetoric, and poetics as a whole. David W. Samuels, “Ethnopoetics and Ideologies of Poetic Truth,” Journal of Folklore Research 50 (2013): 251–83, refers to Hymes’

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Hermopolis Family Letter

115

connected to a social context, whereby an audience would be required to understand letter conventions as well as the institution of blessing and recognize the one on whose behalf the blessing is spoken. Here we observe the use of special language that can “key” a performance. The opening includes the word “peace/greetings” four times and uses “a coordinating conjunction…repeated ad nauseam”49 to list friends who are being greeted. Nauseous or not, the repeated used of the word “and” would have slowed the pace of a performance, while the performer may have pointed to each person who was singled out for a welcome. Within the performer’s way of speaking, these conjunctions do not constitute a tiresome repetition, but rather a way of including the audience in the performance.50 The point of observing these patterns is to describe the inventory of verbal materials that are at the disposal of an author or performer of a letter. If the Hermopolis letter is structured according to oral patterns, then it may show much more clearly the feature of the presentation during a performance. Here then is how the opening can be structured using a “measured” verse approach, recognizing that the voice must be inflected according to the texture of the letter. Toward that end, I have divided the opening according to the role the performer would have played from being a narrator, to delivering a speech act, to returning as narrator. Opening Narrator Greetings, Temple of Bethel and Temple of the Queen of Heaven. To my sister Nanaihem ˙ from your brother Nabusha. Speech Act I bless you by Ptah ˙ that he may let me behold your face in peace. model that calls “on researchers to account for the speech act as the acoustic and semiotic signature of the whole person in temporal performance, and to present their accounts as such” (p. 253). 49 Muraoka and Porten, Grammar, 320 50 Oestreich, Performanzkritik, 100, states that the performance changes when the lecturer points out audience members. He gives Phil 4:2 as an example of this. In that verse Paul reprimands two women, which may have invited a discussion among other audience members. Likewise, the mentioning of individuals in the Hermopolis letter may have caused other audience members to respond to those listed as the performer makes a connection with them.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

116

Performances Of Two Free Standing Letters From Egypt

Narrator Greetings, Bethelnathan. Greetings, Nky and Ashah and Tashai and Anathi and Ati ˙ and Re(ia).

What is being expressed here is that the text is merely a transcript or libretto of a performance and must be interpreted and voiced in order to give it meaning.51 The letter uses communicative devices to key the performance that include special codes and formulae, and the performer is establishing a relationship with the audience, particularly by using the first person singular in the speech-act “I bless you…” and by listing all the individuals. A measured verse representation emphasizes that the repetition of the term “greetings” is interrupted by the mention of the recipient and a speech act, which includes a blessing. The other term that is repeated is the conjunction, most likely used as a strategy for encouraging the performer to slow the pace of the re-presentation. Body The next step is to consider if there are any performative cues in the body of the letter. In order to avoid merely imposing a scholarly scheme on a text, attention must be given to important markers, such as repeated words and sounds, parallel phrases, and verbal formulae. According to Hymes, “the recurrence and patterning of linguistic features thus is decisive for the organization of the text.”52 The first linguistic feature is the transition from the opening to the body of the letter. Although almost all ancient Hebrew and Aramaic letters begin the body of the letter with the discourse marker53 “and now” (NF?9), it is particularly frequent 51 We should not assume that personal letters would have had only one reading, for as Jonathan Draper points out that “the reading of letters or scrolls over and over again would have made the written text into the living word.” Draper finds a parallel in oral presentations in ancient cultures with the early colonial period in southern Africa in which personal letters were read over and over again. See Draper, “Jesus’ ‘Covenantal Discourse’ on the Plain (Luke 6:12–7:17) as Oral Performance: Pointers to ‘Q’ as Multiple Oral Performance,” in Oral Performance, Popular Tradition, and Hidden Transcript in Q, ed. by Richard Horsley, Semeia Studies 60 (Atlanta: SBL, 2006), 75. 52 Hymes, “In Vain,” 152. 53 I adopt the view of Uta Lenk, “Discourse Markers,” in Handbook of Pragmatics online [http:// www.Benjamins.com/online/hop/], who states that “one of the most prominent functions of

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Hermopolis Family Letter

117

in this letter.54 It appears some thirty times in the Hermopolis letters (sometimes without 9).55 What performative purpose does this expression serve? A modern example of a discourse marker is the English “well.”56 Needless to say, “well” as a discourse marker, which is generally sentence initial and marked by intonation, is totally different from “well” as an adverb, which is neither sentence initial nor marked by intonation (as in “I slept well”). The use of sentence initial discourse markers in English is to indicate a change in the subject, or to add suspense to a topic, or possibly as verbal filler. There are various reasons that have been suggested for the use of the term “and now” in Hebrew and Aramaic letters. According to Wesselius, it is employed as a transition marker “to introduce a new message concerning the same subject in 1.6 and to have its basic meaning ‘now, at this moment in 6.8.’”57 However, in the view of Muraoka and Porten, the adverbial expression (“and now”) in the Hermopolis letter under review can have “no functional significance” and is “probably a popularization of the officialise.”58 From a form-critical perspective an exegete may arrive at a similar conclusion concerning repeated words, but according to performance criticism, particles are essential to shaping the presentation.59 To these explanations must be added the oral/aural affect that initial elements serve to regulate a performance. According to this perspective, it is immediately evident that the initial adverb “and now” in the body of the text plays a central role in shaping the performance. Such a simple, regular pattern may have been employed to give emphasis to the items of concern, which most likely would have been stressed in a performance. Emphasizing connectives provides a different analysis of texts and allows for an interaction between syntax, sound, and sense, a method which stresses the narrative flow of a text, rather than viewing the connectives as optional. Therefore, by paying special attention to the manner in which these initial

54 55

56 57 58 59

discourse markers is to signal the kind of relations a speaker perceives between different parts of the discourse” (p. 1). See also Maschler, Metalanguage, for a discussion of modern Hebrew discourse markers that had their origin in the Bible. See Schwiderski, Handbuch, 161, for the use of this discourse marker. As another example of “and now” being viewed as “out of place,” see Rainer Degen, who is of the opinion that NF?9 in TAD A2.3:3–4 should be deleted as a scribal error, since it is found in the middle of a sentence. Degen, “Die aramäischen Ostraka in der Papyrus-Sammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek,” in Neue Ephemeris für Semitische Epigraphik, vol. 3 (Weisbaden: Harrassowitz, 1978), 37. This example is given in Bonifazi, “Memory and Visualization,” 59. Although her emphasis is on Homeric discourse markers, her remarks can be applied to ancient letters. Jan-Wim Wesselius, “Language Play in the Aramaic Letters from Hermopolis,” AS 4 (2006), 246–47. Muraoka and Porten, Grammar, 310, 335. This is also the position of Schwiderski, Handbuch, 160, who suggests that the internal transition markers emphasize the internal structure of the body of the letters.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

118

Performances Of Two Free Standing Letters From Egypt

elements are used, we can divide the body of the letter into three stanzas. As has been mentioned, the term “measured” verse is descriptive of how the material can be divided, not according to stress and syllable, but according to the relation of units to each other within the whole. The three stanzas are divided by the change in the performer’s focus from first person singular in stanza 1, to plural in stanza 2, and back to the first person singular in stanza 3. Thus, the performer changes the person about whom he is talking from “I,” to “we/us” and returning to “I.” The first two stanzas can be further divided into three verses each by paying attention to the discourse markers. The repetition of stating the need for a tunic is supplied by the use of the first person singular, which allows the performer to play the part of the characters in voice and gesture. The report consists of two negative statements about a tunic that was sent, but disliked by Nabusha, and a positive account about another tunic that he received and enjoyed. The tunic that was liked is marked off from the other garment by the use of a discourse marker, most likely for emphasis. There are two discourse markers in this stanza emphasizing two actions applied to the tunic: “And now, there reached me a tunic” followed by “And now, I am wearing the garment.” The cue that stanza 1 has been concluded is that the topic changes from tunics to castor oil and from a report to a request, signaled by a discourse marker and a change in pronouns (“And now, let them bring us…”).60 The second stanza is built on two loosely related topics, with a change in subject signaled by the expression “and now.” The request for castor oil as a bargaining tool for olive oil is followed by a concern. Including the statement “I worry about you” as part of stanza 2 is justified because it too focuses on his friends. Likewise, the encouragement to “take care of Bethelnatan” has a tone of friendship. Finally, the performer turns from talking about Nabusha and his friends to giving a final personal request, and therefore I have signaled the change by labelling the desire as stanza 3. Further refinements are possible. Each line in stanza 1 is characterized by the change in verb, emphasizing the movement of the action of the verse. In v. 1 the action moves from “there reached me” to “I found it…my heart was not attached to it.” Verse 2 begins with “If I saw…” and concludes with “I would give it….” Verse 3 features the actions “I am wearing…you brought for me.” As has been shown, the organization of a text into stanza, verses, and lines is neither arbitrary nor mechanical, but governed by linguistic and narrative elements. As has been shown, sentences are not the pivotal unit, but rather “lines” and

60 According to Kataoka, “Multi-modal ethnopoetic,” “shifts in temporal and spatial relations may indicate a new verse or stanza” (p. 290).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Hermopolis Family Letter

119

“verses” as described by Hymes.61 Lines are not equivalent to sentences, though they often coincide with a stretch of conversation that can be divided by a sentence structure. Lines are then organized into groupings called verses, based on the principle of measure or features found in ancient traditions such as repetition, patterns, and contrasts.62 Verses are recognized by repetition within a frame; a task made easier in this letter because of the repeated initial elements. Groups of verses form stanzas. In the family letter it is plausible that the performer would have read the letter marking each verse by emphasizing the initial coordinating conjunctions and adverbs. Repeated words or phrases suggest that the oral profile is far from being erased in a written text.63

Stanza 1: Personal comments Verse 1: And now, there reached me the tunic which you sent to me and I found it completely frayed and my heart was not attached to it. Verse 2: If I saw what you had in abundance, I would give it in exchange for 1 vessel for Ati. ˙ Verse 3: And now, I am wearing the garment which you brought for me to Syene. 61 For a full description of verses and lines on which this discussion is based, see Hymes, “In Vain,” 318–20. 62 William Labov, Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black Vernacular (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1972) focusses on the narrative content of a text and proposes a model that divides a text into abstract, orientation, action, complication, evaluation, resolution, and coda. For the impact of Labov’s work, see Kirk Hazen, “Labov : Language and Variation and Change,” in The Sage Handbook of Sociolinguistics, ed. Ruth Wodak, Barbara Johnson, and Paul Kerswill (London: Sage, 2011). For an exploration of ethnopoetic principles that divide a narrative into lines, verses, and stanzas, see James Collins, “The Place of Narrative in Human Affairs: The Implications of Hymes’s Amerindian work for understanding text and talk,” Text and Talk 29 (2009), 329–30. 63 Some minor changes have been made to Porten’s translation of the text by the author.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

120

Performances Of Two Free Standing Letters From Egypt

Stanza 2: Comments to his friends Verse 1: And now, let them bring us castor oil and we shall give it in exchange for oil. Verse 2: And now, do not worry about us, Makkibanit and I worry about you. Verse 3: Take care of Bethelnatan from Habib. ˙

Stanza 3: Personal desire Verse 1: And now, if I find a trustworthy man, I shall bring something to you.

This letter features the use of direct discourse employing the first person singular in which the performer can take on the persona of the author and involve the audience in the presentation. It is within reason to suggest that the performer embodied the letter by using hand gestures, facial expressions, voice inflections, and body movements. Using these means, the reader attempted to get the audience engaged in the message. Closing The final greetings repeat the greeting form from the introduction, which marks an inclusio to this letter.64 In the final greeting the repeated word “greetings” (A@a) occurs five times, matching the five uses of the coordinating conjunction “and” employed to separate the names in the secondary greeting. What is clear is that the oral impact of repeated words is one consideration when an author(s) is composing a text. The last entry is an external address, which restates the sender

64 TAD A2.1–6. See also TAD 3.4. Another way in which a letter closes is: “Greetings to your house and your children until the gods let [me] behold [your face in peace] (TAD A4.4; see also A3.5).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Hermopolis Family Letter

121

and recipient, and may have been placed on the outside of the letter for easy access in an archive. Here is the closing. Narrator : Greetings, Shabbethai son of Shug. Greetings, Pasai. Greetings, Eder son of Pasai. Greetings, Sheil son of Ptahertais ˙ ˙ ˙ and Ashah son of Petekhnum. ˙ Greetings, the whole neighborhood. For your welfare I sent this letter. Greetings, my father Psami from your servant Nabusha. Greetings, my mother Mama. Greetings, my brother Bitia and his household. Greetings, Wahpre. ˙ External Address Nanaihem ˙ from Nabushezib son of Petekhnum. ˙ Syene.

Form criticism has versed us in standard idiomatic epistolary features, and semiotics and orality have allowed us to “listen” sympathetically with the audience, but performance criticism asks how the textual dynamics may aid memory and work as structures for performance. Using an outline based on a performative perspective, I have determined that the body of the letter consists of three stanzas. The frequent occurrence of a transition marker is crucial in shaping the performance of this letter and understanding how texts may have been heard by an oral presentation.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

122

Performances Of Two Free Standing Letters From Egypt

In the secondary greeting, there are six names united by a conjunction, which makes for an awkward or unnecessary repetition according to some modern scholars, but this particle would allow the performer to build up volume, tone, and suspense as each name is recited and each person most likely pointed out. Therefore, the use of the conjunction “and” in the opening and the adverbial phrase “and now” are not merely a tedious trivia of ancient minds that need to be “smoothed out” by linguists and modern readers because of their monotony, but rather they are markers of measure. Once such patterning has been understood and employed, it can suggest how a text can be structured according to the oral/aural effect it may have had on the performer and/or audience. The purpose for understanding better the structure and texture of this letter is to propose when and where this text may have been read and to take the perspective of one who participates in that ancient culture.65

5.2.3 Context The writing of letters is one indicator of literacy in the ancient world. The extent of literacy has been a matter of constant scholarly debate but the optimistic view of widespread literacy by some scholars has been tempered by more recent surveys of the evidence, which suggest that the literacy rate was low.66 However, this is not to suggest that the illiterate majority did not have access to “professional” letter writers. In the humblest surviving letters, “the customer’s wishes are translated into writing, often with much use of clich¦s and conventional formulas.”67 It is difficult to know if the senders of the Hermopolis letters were totally illiterate but what is clear is that they employed a scribe who wrote at least six of the letters. According to Porten, these letters were “probably [written] one after the other on the same papyrus roll, sealed with the same Egyptian seal and addressed to different women all designated as ‘sister’ and to Psami designated by Makkibanit alternately as ‘my lord’ and ‘my father’ (TAD A2.3, 4).”68 65 The point of pursing an ethnographic point of view is “to push beyond received conventions to achieve an ‘emic’ account of verbal resources” (Collins, “Place of Narrative,” 338). 66 W.V. Harris, Ancient Literacy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989), 3–24, has suggested that literacy rates in Attica were probably between 5–10 percent and those in Italy were probably below 15 percent. Rollston, Literacy, 127–35, contends that “trained elites were literate and there is a distinct dearth of evidence suggesting that non-elites could write and read” (p. 134). Joachim Shaper, “Exilic and Post-Exilic Prophecy and the Orality/Literacy Problem,” VT 55 (2005), 336 views literacy to be high among the elite groups and moderate among the non-elite. However, it must be recognized that ancient literacy would have changed over time and space. 67 Muir, Life and Letters, 9. 68 Porten, ABD, 448. According to Erling Hammershaimb, “Some Remarks on the Aramaic

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Hermopolis Family Letter

123

The skill of the letter writer is evident in that the Aramaic appears to be Imperial Aramaic (Reichsaramäisch), which suggests that Imperial Aramaic was “not only used in more official documents, but also in everyday language by some people in Elephantine.”69 It seems highly probable that this letter had never reached its destination, and therefore may never have been performed. It appears that the “bearer of the [Hermopolis] letters may have interrupted his journey in Hermopolis for some reason (illness or death?) and the letters were never carried further.”70 Whether they were ever performed or not, there are several oral features that suggest a performative context. By context I do not mean the social world in which the letter may have been written, or the literary setting of the letter (Sitz im Leben), nor even the cultural setting in which the tradition functions.71 By performative context I refer specifically to a proposed venue in which a letter may have been read; a setting that may have provoked a performance of a letter and shaped its text and texture in some way.72 By probing the text and texture and the interplay between the two, a careful reader can notice linguistic clues that suggest the kinds of performers who read these letters and the audience who heard them, even though a text “may suggest a field of performance contexts.”73 This investigative work is done through the careful observation of the introduction to letters, the use of pronouns, geographical and historical references, synchronic and diachronic comparison of idiomatic features of ancient letters, and other linguistic features. Such indicators can be explicit, such as the reference to the recipient and sender of a letter, or implicit, such as the use of verbal forms. One of Trapp’s contributions to the study of Greek letters has been his discussion on epistolary topics and themes in which he presents three broad areas that stand out as distinctively epistolary.74 His study contributes to my emphasis on context, or the proposed venue where a letter may have been performed. First, he contends that a characteristic of letter form is the recognition that there is a gap emotionally or physically between the two parties in the exchange. Although this gap is not explicitly expressed in this text it does occur in another Hermopolis letter, using a pointed statement with a question: “I understand you

69 70 71 72 73 74

Letters from Hermopolis,” VT 18 (1968), 266, seven of the letters (nos. 1–6 and 8) were written by the same scribe; whereas, letter 7 was written by another. Hammershaimb, “Some Remarks,” 266. Hammershaimb, “Some Remarks,” 267. For an explanation of what is meant by a performative context on which my analysis is based, see Wire, Holy Lives, 16–18. The foundation of Hymes’ work is that language needs to be understood as a system that only exists and operates in conjunction with social rules and relations. Wire, Holy Lives,” 17. The following observations are based on Trapp, Greek and Latin Letters, 38–42.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

124

Performances Of Two Free Standing Letters From Egypt

haven’t written him. Why?”75 According to this letter, the gap is characterized by the lack of response by the recipient. Second, letters are conceived of as fragments of a conversation. The Hermopolis family letter “reads” as if the author or performer is improvising or speaking face-to-face.76 For instance, the sentences are short, without dependent clauses, but connected with a recurring adverb initial marker (“and now”), similar to a casual conversation that may have been given by word of mouth. The body of the letter is written in a conversational style that may point to an oral context in which letter conventions were still not strongly established, or to pseudo-Demetrius’ standard that letters should be written as a person would speak in conversation, or it could suggest a combination of both. Third, letters play a role in creating and sustaining a social relationship between senders and recipients. Evidence of relationships and their maintenance is found in the familial terms, consisting of brother, sister, mother, and father.77 Friendliness is built into the opening formulae, which are comprised of a pleasant temple greeting, internal address, initial blessing, and secondary greeting but the tone immediately changes in the first verse of the body : “And now, there reached me a tunic which you dispatched to me and I found it frayed completely and my heart was not attached to it.” In this connection mention should be made of Trapp, who suggests that …correspondents are compelled by convention to begin by wishing each other joy, courage, or well-being, and to end by wishing each other health and strength. In light of this, a letter with hostile contents risks appearing as an abuse of the medium.78

Following Trapp’s observations, it is evident that this letter begins with the conventional pleasantries and then the text acknowledges the receipt of the tunic that had arrived. Near the end, according to Trapp, an author will typically give some miscellaneous items and instructions, for example “Take care of Bethelnatan; from H. abib.”79 One further feature of the gap between the recipient and the sender concerns the use of verb tenses—what is present at the time the author was writing or dictating the letter is written in the past, not the present, which is frequently called the “epistolary tenses.”80 For instance, the reference in the past tense, “there reached me the tunic…and I found it frayed completely,” is 75 Hermopolis 2. 76 The oral character of this Hermopolis letter resembles in some respects some early Greek letters, which show affinities with oral messages. For examples, see Trapp, Greek and Latin Letters, 50–55. 77 No Hermopolis letter is addressed to a wife, although Makkibanit calls Tashai “my sister,” when it appears that she is his wife (TAD A2.2:1). In another letter addressed to his “sister,” Makkibanit told her to “look after Tashai and her son” (A2.3:11–12). 78 Trapp, Greek and Latin Letters, 40. 79 Trapp, Greek and Latin Letters, 36. 80 Trapp, Greek and Latin Letters, 36.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Hermopolis Family Letter

125

present at the time of writing and could have been written “I find it frayed completely.” To return to the issue of the performative context, we can affirm from the text and texture that this document is a family letter. That seems beyond dispute, since it is addressed “to my sister, from your brother” and contains many idiomatic letter features, such as the opening and closing formulae. According to the texture, the communicative event is not limited to a request, but also includes speech acts, a fulsome greeting, and a typical concern over the recipient. It appears that this letter was written with no self-conscious attempt to write in a manner that would attract attention to its style or learning. Ordinary people in ordinary situations wrote it for ordinary purposes. The performative context appears to be the written response to needs that are created because of being away from home. The Jews and Arameans traveled back and forth between Elephantine, Memphis, and Syene, frequently on military duty. The request in this letter represents an absent brother (or husband), who needs garments and castor oil, but has anxiety over the folks at home worrying about himself and Makkibanit. The persons mentioned in the letter suggest that there was an intermingling of Persian and Egyptian cultures. Many of the males have Aramaic names—Anati, Bethelnatan, Eder, Makkibanit, Nabushezib (Nabusha), Nanaihem, Reia—but ˙ Egyptian names are well represented—Petekhnum, Pasai, Psami, Tashi and ˙ Wahpre. This letter is probably from the late sixth to the early fifth century BCE ˙ and well illustrates the mixture of cultures that may have been involved in the family life in Persian Egypt. A brother, Nabusha son of Petekhnum—whose ˙ name has both Aramaic and Egyptian components—is writing to his sister (or wife), Nanaih. am—an Aramaic name. The combination of cultures is seen in other mixed patronyms—Eder son of Pasai, and Makkibanit son of Psami. There is only one Hebrew name mentioned in the letter, Shabbethai son of Shug, who, according to Porten, was most likely not Jewish.81 The list of Aramaic and Egyptian names supports the view that the letter is not “Jewish” at all, but is merely a bundle of correspondence stopped short at Hermopolis. There is no resentment expressed in the Hermopolis letters against the military control exercised by the Persians, most likely because some of the persons mentioned in the letters were soldiers receiving a government salary.82 The audience most likely included all the people mentioned in the greetings in the letter. Although it is difficult to conceive of a performer memorizing this family letter, the lack of 81 Porten, “The Religion of the Jews of Elephantine in Light of the Hermopolis Papyri,” JNES 28 (1996), 117. For the identity of the correspondents, see Porten, Elephantine Papyri, 75. 82 However, the timeliness of their salaries was a concern, as expressed in Hermopolis Letter 1: “The others have received their salary here, but it can be drawn on at Syene only in their presence.”

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

126

Performances Of Two Free Standing Letters From Egypt

spaces between words and absence of breaks between sections suggests that the performer was expected to become familiar with the letter before reading it. In sum, the performative context consists of a letter sent by a travelling family member, most likely a military person, whose problems need to be solved, and therefore instructions are issued, items are requested, and concerns are expressed for the welfare of those left behind. The “author” of the letter is generous in sending something to the family back home. A community member, who would have performed the letter in the presence of a gathered extended family or community anxious to receive news about their loved one, would most likely have read the letter.83 It is conceivable that the embodied presentation of the performer reflected the personality of the “author” and offered a chance for the audience to hear “one side of a conversation” as the next best thing to the author’s presence.84 I have attempted to demonstrate above that meaning does not merely derive from the form of individual words, but rather that texture and context contribute to the meaning of the text. The fundamental contribution of performance theory is that this model counters the presupposition that separates form from meaning by using an ethnopoetic construction of the text and by considering how the performance is keyed.

5.3

Passover Letter

Six papyrus letters belonging to the archives of a Jewish leader Yedanyah bar Gemaryah have been discovered at Elephantine. They deal with the social and religious life of a community during the last years of the Persian domination of Upper Egypt. The most important letter concerning Jewish religious history is the text commonly known as the Passover papyrus.85 It is addressed to “Jedaniah and his colleagues” from “your brother Hananiah,” a Jew from another com83 To repeat the comments of Head, “Named Letter Carriers,” who states that “we did not find any evidence that any particular letter-carrier was also expected to read the letter aloud to the recipient, and we found some evidence which would tell against such an expectation (that is, among those letters where the written text helped to secure the trustworthiness of the courier) (p. 297). Granted, Head’s remarks refer to the Roman era, but should serve as a caution against too hastily assuming that the letter carrier was also the performer of the letter. 84 Head, “Named Letter Carriers,” states that “on occasion the named letter-carrier did function in some way or another to ‘represent’ the sender, to expand on details within the letter, and even to expound and reinforce the primary message of the letter in oral communication” (p. 297). 85 This title was given by Sachau, Aramäische Papyrus, 36–40, although the word “Passover” does not occur in the text.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

127

Passover Letter

munity, who probably held a senior position in the Persian administration in Egypt.86 The letter is sent to Elephantine, where Jewish soldiers were stationed most likely in the service of the Persian emperor, Darius. The colony at Elephantine was predominantly Jewish (TAD C3.15.1). The community at Syene appears to have been more diverse (TAD C3.14:32) and was referred to as the “Syenian troop.”

5.3.1 Text Few interpreters have bothered to make a form critical comment on this letter. It is clear that it follows idiomatic epistolary form but understanding the structure of this letter is difficult because much of the text is damaged and irretrievably lost and what remains in the internal address and salutation appear to be condensed in order to get to the author’s three-fold instructions. This relatively short letter begins by providing the reader with the names of the sender and receiver,87 giving three brief instructions and including an external address. Here is the translation given by Bazalel Porten.88 RECTO 1 Internal [To my brothers Je]daniah and his colleagues the Jewish T[roop], your Address brother Hanan[i]ah. Salutation The welfare of my brothers may the gods [seek after 2at all times]. Instructions I And now, this year, year 5 of Darius the king, from the king it has been sent to Arsa[mes…]. 3 Instructions […]…Now, you, thus count four[teen 4days of Nisan and on the 14th II at twilight the Passover ob]serve and from day 15 until day 21 of [Nisan the Festival 5of Unleavened Bread observe. Seven days unleavened bread eat.

86 According to Lindenberger, Ancient Aramaic, 61, Hananyah may have been a “minister of state from Jewish affairs.” David J.A. Clines, “Nehemiah,” HarperCollins Study Bible (New York: HarperCollins, 1993), 724, suggests that possibly Hanani, a variant of Hananiah, is Nehemiah’s blood brother (Neh 1:2). The identification of Hanani is still a much-debated topic. There is no scholarly consensus on whether he is to be identified with Hanani, the brother of Nehemiah (Neh. 1:2; 7:2). 87 Of the six letters from the archives of Jedaniah bar Gemariah, the double address at the beginning and the end of the letter, also occurs in AP 38, AP 56 + 34, AP 30/31. The beginning is missing in AP 27, so it cannot be determined what the address was. 88 Porten, Elephantine Papyri, 127–28. The numbers refer to lines as provided by Porten.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

128

Performances Of Two Free Standing Letters From Egypt

(Continued)

Instructions III

External Address

RECTO Now], be pure and take heed. Work [do] n[ot do] 6[on day 15 and on day 21 of Nisan. Any fermented drink] do not drink. And anything of leaven do not [eat VERSO 7and do not let it be seen in your houses from day 14 of Nisan at] sunset until day 21 of Nisa[n at sun 8set. And any leaven which you have in your houses b]ring into your chambers and seal (them) up during [these] days. 9[…]…89 10 [To] (sealing) my brothers Jedaniah and his colleagues the Jewish Troop, your brother Hananiah s[on of PN].

The internal address suggests that the sender, Hananiah, is either an equal, or more probably giving honour to the recipient, Jedaniah, in which case the familial reference “from your brother Jedaniah” does not correspond to the relation of the sender and recipient. The first instruction begins with the transition marker “and now,” which is omitted by Lindenberger, but is clearly in the text. The date when the letter was sent is given at the beginning of the letter, but usually appears near the end in Aramaic correspondence.90 Year five of Darius the king is usually dated at 419 BCE. The second instruction begins with the sentence initial transition marker “now” and gives the directive as an imperative. A feature that is common in Aramaic letters is the use of independent personal pronouns preceding an imperative for emphasis in epistolary instructions and commands, such as “you, thus count.”91 As has been mentioned, the word “Passover” is not supplied by the text, but the celebration of Passover seems to be the emphasis of the letter. The difficulty with understanding the text is that much of this instruction is damaged and not retrievable, and therefore many conclusions on the text must remain tentative. The third set of instructions consist of a string of imperatives and commands: “Be pure. Take heed. Do not do any work. Do not drink any fermented drink.92 Do not eat. Bring into your chambers. Seal them up.” These short sentences are used without elaboration or explanation and would have set the tone and pace for the performance. The external address appeared on the “outside” of the letter and most likely served the purpose of an archival catalogue title. 89 In the original manuscript there is a vacat after the third instruction. 90 For instance, AP 30/31 concludes with: “The twentieth of Marheshwan, seventeenth year of King Darius.” See also AP 26. According to Muraoka and Porten, Grammar, 4: 4NDa “this year,” “may refer to a point in time near to the moment of speaking” (p. 165). 91 See TAD A4.1:3, 4.3:6, 8; 6.3:7; 6.5:3, 6.9:2, 6.10:5. 6.11:5, 6.13:4, 6.14:2, 6.15:3, 6.16:1. It is also part of proverbial language (TAD C1.1:85 [The Words of Ahiquar]) (Porten, Elephantine ˙ Papyri, 121). 92 Cowley, AP 64, suggests the word “beer” for this lacuna.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

129

Passover Letter

A well-established fact is that no text provides the reader with the entire picture; instead, every text contains gaps that the reader is to fill in. Consequently, understanding the texture based on the surrounding information is an important aspect of comprehending the meaning.

5.3.2 Texture Hearing the letter’s texture and the performers in action are difficult. Repetitions, parallelism, transition markers, and negative particles allow for the oral texture to be stressed. By being attentive to linguistic signs and to the culture from which a letter is sent and received, may give clues as to how the letter may have been performed. The body of the letter states that it is “from the king and sent to Arsames,” which suggests that the letter can be categorized as a royal or imperial letter.93 We need to narrow the classification of this letter by observing the language that may offer a comparison with other letters that share the type of situation described in the Passover letter. One way in which meaning is determined in an oral presentation is by considering the register, which is the style of speech “associated with recurrent types of situation.”94 The subject being discussed, the participants and their relation to each other, and the mode of discourse, such as written or oral, determine the dedicated register.95 The subject of the letter appears to be the proper celebration of Passover and Unleavened Bread. There is no introduction explaining the festivals; therefore, the purpose of the letter is not to inaugurate a new celebration, but presupposes that the recipients are familiar with the practices.96 It appears that the purpose of writing this letter is either to standardize the observance of the festivals or to consolidate public opinion. Obscure is where they are to be celebrated, whether in a home, or in a temple, or at some other location. This letter may reflect a “permit from the Persian court to continue celebrating the Passover, possibly in light of local opposition,”97 or it may suggest that there was an internal struggle 93 This letter classification is suggested by Doering, Ancient Jewish Letters, 20–25. See also, Klauck, Ancient Letters, 68–71. 94 Hymes, “Ways of Speaking,” in Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking, ed. Richard Bauman and Joel Sherzer, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 440; emphasis original. See also, Hudson, Sociolinguistics, 45–49. 95 These aspects of a dedicated register are according to Michael A.K. Halliday, Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning (Open University : University Park Press, 1978), 31–35. 96 Grabbe, “Elephantine and the Torah,” in In the Shadow of Bazalel: Aramaic, Biblical, and Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Bezalel Porten, ed. Alejandro F. Botta (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 130. 97 Grabbe, “The ‘Persian Documents’ in the Book of Ezra: Are They Authentic?” in Judah and

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

130

Performances Of Two Free Standing Letters From Egypt

over when the Passover and Unleavened Bread should be held; therefore, this issue is given clarity. In order to understand the dedicated register the exegete must also consider who the participants are in the exchange. In the so-called Passover letter the addressees are a group of Jewish believers, most likely led by Yedanyah, who receives a letter from Hananiah, a Jewish envoy of the Persian King. Anthropologists have suggested that societies may have many registers dedicated to various activities, such as puberty rites, political and religious involvement, and magical or curing activities.98 The oral register of the Passover letter consisting of an appeal for religious solidarity, an attempt at standardizing feasts and festivals, and a call for appropriate festal preparations suggest that the text is a festal letter,99 similar in oral register to the letters written in Gr. Esther and 2 Maccabees.100 In order to understand the performance context, we must be attentive to how the traditions are referenced in a letter.101 The more dedicated the register the more frequent a metonym is referenced, which evokes in the audience a sense of the depth of a tradition.102 The use of symbolic terms is substantial; there are references to “(ritual) purity,” “(abstaining from) work,” and “do not drink” and must be recognized and decoded as signs that are located in a tradition, and not merely as words from a text. It can be said that what a register “means” depends on how it is understood in the context of a performance. This letter appears to have been a tool of instruction in the hands of a spiritual leader performing for a religious community that knows its formative stories and has a background in religious practices and traditions. But this community may not be familiar with a written Torah for a binding legal code seems to have been unknown in a community with a Yahwistic temple.103

98 99 100 101

102 103

the Judeans in the Persian Period, ed. by Oded Lipschits and Manfred Oeming (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 536, suggests that the opposition may have come from the Khnum priest who opposed the sacrifice of lambs. Richard A. Horsley with Jonathan A. Draper, Whoever Hears You Hears Me: Prophets, Performance, and Tradition in Q (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1999), 165. For a description of the three purposes of festal letters, see Mark F. Whitters, “Some New Observations about Jewish Festal Letters,” JSJ 32 (2001), 273. For examples of other festal letters, see King Hezekiah’s Passover letter (2 Chron 30:1–9), Esther’s concern over the celebration of Purim (Esth 9:20–32), and the Hanukkah letters found in 2 Macc 1–2. The position emphasized in this study is consistent with Hymes, “Ways of Speaking.” According to Hymes, what speakers can and do say cannot be separated from the communal context such speech occurs in (p. 444). See also Barbara Johnson and William M. Marcellio, “Dell Hymes and the Ethnography of Communication,” in The Sage Handbook of Sociolinguistics, ed. Ruth Wodak, Barbara Johnstone and Paul Kerswill (London : Sage, 2011), 59. Horsley, Whoever Hears You Hears Me, 165. See Lisbeth S. Fried, “‘You Shall Appoint Judges’: Ezra’s Mission and the Rescript of Art-

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

131

Passover Letter

By considering how this letter may have been performed, I suggest that it can be organized by understanding the opening to consist of the internal address and salutation. It appears that the date is a transition between the opening and the body of the letter. We can divide the body into two verses: v. 1 supplies the performer and audience with instructions on when to observe the Passover and v. 2 consists of several directives on various topics. Finally, the letter closes with an external address. The purpose of the opening is to provide the performer and audience with the main characters in the exchange. The identity of the sender and recipient rules out a local Egyptian overlord or a Persian official and may suggest that Hananiah was a Jew with similar responsibilities in Egypt as Ezra had in Yehud (Ezra 7:25).104 The identity of Hananiah eludes us, but what is known is that he arrived from outside Egypt, and his mission was to curry favour with Arsames, a Persian satrap. The blessing or welfare105 in name of the “gods” (4=8@4) could have been heard as a stereotypical formula,106 a majestic plural, or possibly represents a non-Jewish scribe’s hand in writing. Opening With this background information, we can now consider how this opening can be re-presented to reflect an oral performance. In making an ethnopoetic transcription, I have tried to transfer as many of the oral features of the letter as possible. Thus, I am most concerned with presenting the opening in small bytesized pieces in order to re-present the crucial expressive nature of the text. By organizing the text in this way, it enlists readers to participate in making an oral presentation. There is enough extant text to suggest with reasonable certainty the following structure. Narrator : [To my brothers Je]daniah axerxes,” in Persia and Torah: The Theory of Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch, ed. James W. Watts, SBLSymS 17 (Atlanta: SBL, 2001), 63–89. For an overview of the religious views of the Jews at Elephantine, see Ingo Kottsieper, “Die Religionspolitik der Achämeniden und die Juden von Elephantine,” in Religion und Religionskontakte im Zeitalter der Achämeniden, ed. Reinhard G. Kratz, VerPffentlichunger der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie 22 (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2002). 104 Kottsieper, “Religionspolitik,” 156–57, suggests that Hananyah was a Persian official (Beamter) or representative (Beauftragter), with the consent and support of the Persian administration. 105 Literally “Good health/peace my brothers” (=;4 A@a). 106 For a plural use of the term “gods,” see also TAD A6.1.1:1–2 “The welfare of our lord may the gods [all of them, seek after abundantly at] all times.” Or TAD A4.4:1, 9 “Greetings, your house and your children until the gods let [me] behold [your face in peace].

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

132

Performances Of Two Free Standing Letters From Egypt

and his colleagues the Jewish T[roop], our brother Hanan[i]ah. The welfare of my brothers may the gods [seek after at all times].

Within the letter’s way of speaking, the half lines are used to contribute to the crucial expressive dimension. The above representation shows that the repeated use of the word “brothers” is balanced with “his colleagues” and “the gods” in the following lines. Granted, one use of the term is restored and we cannot be certain whether that is the correct word; however, it is not beyond reason to consider that the original term is “brother.” The designation “brother” emphasizes the peer relationship that Jedaniah, the leader, had with his colleagues, the Jewish community at large. By dividing the opening into lines according to stress, and not sentences, we can better see the emphasis on brothers: “to my brothers” (=;4 @4), “your brother” (A?9;4), and “the welfare of my brothers” (=;4 A@a). The figurative use of the term “brothers” is an encoded standard salutation in Jewish letters and the audience would have interpreted the term in that way. Even within this limited selection, we can appreciate the general oral strategy. Body Moving from the opening to the body, we can observe that what is unusual is that the date is given next when it most often occurs in Aramaic letters in the closing. The oral impact of the transition marker “and now” in conjunction with a demonstrative pronoun,107 would have added emphasis to the date of the letter’s writing or urgency to its message and possibly to its performance. The apparent awkwardness of the transition: “And now, this year, year five of Darius the King” may demonstrate clumsy dictation practices or more plausibly it is an indicator to the performer to emphasize the significance of the date of the letter. Several indicators suggest that this statement serves as a transition from the opening to the body of the letter. First, it is set off from the opening by a transition marker. Second, this missive has features similar to the opening, such as listing a sender, the king, and a receiver, Arsames. Third, the transition includes an instruction that has taken place, thus pointing forward to tone of the body of the letter. Fourth, it gives a date, which generally occurs at the end of an Aramaic letter, which may have been heard as an unusual element to the ears of the original audiences. Fifth, the following statement is marked off from this instruction with 107 For other uses of demonstrative pronouns having a deictic function, see “this letter” (A2.1:12); “this document” (B3.11:7); “this day” (B3.11:8). This pronoun may also refer to the place near the speaker : “here” (i. e. “where I am”) (A6.3:2).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

133

Passover Letter

another transition marker (“now”). These features indicate that what has been labeled as “Instructions 1” by Porten is a Janus transition that has elements common with the opening and the body. The first verse is signaled by the adverb “now” and concerns how to calculate the dates of the celebration of Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread. If we follow Hymes’ organization of a text according to performance patterns and discourse features, v. 1 can be viewed as consisting of a duet. The first line asks the reader and audience to count days in order to practise the celebration of Passover on the correct date. The second line confirms that the feast of Unleavened Bread is to be celebrated for seven days beginning on the fifteenth day and concluding on the twenty-first day. As we have seen in the Hermopolis letter, initial particles play a central role in shaping a performance. But what is evident is that the marker is not used in exactly the same way in each letter. In the Passover letter, the transition marker “and now” serves to demark the body of the letter from the introduction. The use of “now” in v. 1 signals to the audience that the performer shifts roles from a narrator to an instructor. The purpose for sending instructions in letter form, rather than as a treatise, could be that a letter is a friendly form of writing and thus the message may have been received more amicably.108 Following the idiomatic opening and transition statement, the oral/aural impact of the adverb “now” would have prepared the audience for the introduction to the teaching, which in the restored text begins with two statements concerning the dates for Passover and Unleavened Bread celebrations. Unlike the Hermopolis letter, the use of the adverb “now” in the Passover letter does not introduce each verse. Although Porten adds the transition marker, it is difficult to determine whether the original author included it. In the Passover letter, there is an abrupt change from v. 1 to v. 2 signaled by linguistic features. Transition markers are replaced with imperatives and commands, and counting days for proper celebrations are replaced with cultic instructions for purity. If the restored text is correct, then the text of the stipulations in v. 2 is structured around a chiastic form (A-B-C-B1A1), with two imperatives forming the outside chiasm and three apodictic commands in the centre. The appeal to follow cultic regulations, as presented in three negative statements, form an internal chiasm. If we can rely on the reconstruction, the first and third injunctions share the feature of repeating a time frame mentioned in the introduction, but in inverse order, with the middle command consisting of a pithy “Do not drink!” This tightly formed structure suggests performance sensitivity and was most likely employed as a lexical choice, as well as to aid memory. Listening audiences could not be expected to 108 Pseudo-Demetrius makes the point that neglecting to show friendship towards the addressee spoils the letter (On Style, 225, 232).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

134

Performances Of Two Free Standing Letters From Egypt

recognize this chiastic structure. The structure must have been intended for those who became familiar with the text and noticed the patterns while memorizing or reviewing it. The “measured” verse analysis allows the reader to suggest something concerning how the letter may have been performed. While absolute performance conclusions are unwise, it appears that the transition would have been read with an emphasis or pause after the two initial linguistic features introducing each segment, namely “and now,” and “now” respectively. The rationale for this suggestion is in light of researchers who stress that discourse markers are employed, not merely to serve lexical purposes, but rather to involve linguistic, para-linguistic, and extra-linguistic features.109 The most striking difference between the oral texture of vv. 1 and 2 is that v. 2 consists of pithy statements in the form of two imperatives and three commands; whereas, v. 1 is more conciliatory in tone as indicated by its use of modal verbs. The admonitions appear to be intended for instruction to a community rather than to an individual.110 The economy of words suggests that the performer was expected to elaborate on the “headings” provided in the letter—divided for our purposes into verses— and the chiastic structure betrays an oral device for easy delivery. As an example, “be pure and take heed,” can be considered as a directive with a long oral tradition that has been discussed frequently and therefore only needs a short imperative statement to be understood, or more probably, this statement is a memory aid or a “heading” for the performer, who would have elaborated on what cultic purity entails. Returning to Hymes, he states that “the best dictated texts are not in fact wholly without indication of the features [of oral performance],”111 which suggests that a written record may contain evidence of an oral presentation.112 The combination of an oral tradition and a written text is also evident when comparing the allusions to the Torah as a guide for proper observance of these festivals,113 with statements that may have been shaped by local customs and 109 110 111 112 113

Bonifazi and Elmer, “Composing Lines,” 90–93; esp. n. 3. The pronoun “you” (AND4) in the sentence “You shall count as follows” is in the plural. Hymes, “Discovering Oral Performance,” 338. For the varieties of orality, see Oesterreicher, “Types of Orality in Text.” The sacrifice of the Paschal lamb on the 14th of Nisan is mentioned in Exod 12:6. Purity when offering the sacrifice is found in Num 9:1–14; Ezek 6:20; 2 Chr 30:17. Eating unleavened bread is required in Exod 12:15, 18; see also Lev 23:6; Num 28:17. This letter does not establish whether the Passover and Unleavened Bread were celebrated together. Reinhard G. Kratz, “Temple and Torah: Reflections on the Legal Status of the Pentateuch between Elephantine and Qumran,” in The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding its Promulgation and Acceptance, ed. Gary N. Knoppers and Bernard M. Levinson (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 85 states that “One can say this: at Elephantine, Mazzoth was probably celebrated at the temple, and Passover was a specific day of the year.”

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

135

Passover Letter

practices. For instance, the numbers fourteen and twenty-one are found in Exod 12 (see also Lev 23:5) and the feasts of Passover and Unleavened Bread are frequently mentioned in the Torah. As a probable oral custom is the interpretive innovation to “bring into your chambers and seal [them] up during [these] days,” most likely referring to leaven, which is inconsistent with the biblical mandate to remove leaven from the house (Exod 12:19).114 Another injunction not found in the biblical text is to refrain from drinking,115 and the exhortation to “be pure” is found only in Ezra 6:20, which refers to the priests sacrificing the Passover lamb.116 What is evident is that there is an oral and written tradition that plays a role in providing cultic standards, what is difficult to know is which presentation had greater authority. In order to voice the body of this ancient letter, I suggest a structure that will transfer as many of the oral features of ancient letter writing as possible. I understand that this is a risky business because we have no examples of oral performances of Aramaic letters and to add complexity to the task this particular text is significantly damaged. Even so, we cannot ignore the expressive choices used in this letter. To illustrate the sort of ethnopoetic representation that is possible, I will depend on the letter’s context, specialized way of speaking, and verbal signals and rely on specialists in Aramaic texts to guide the translation. The intent here is to offer a different perspective that may open the dialogue between the letter’s writer and the performer. Narrator : Transition to the body of the letter And now, this year, year 5 of Darius the king, from the king it has been sent to Arsa[mes…].

114 Exod 12:19 (“For seven days no leaven is to be found in your houses.”) may be in conflict with Exod 13:7 (“…no leaven shall be seen with you.”). The injunction in this letter may have been a means of resolving the conflict between these verses by storing leaven in a jar and out of sight. The permission to put leaven out of sight, but keeping it in a house, was not allowed according to m. Pesah. 5b, 28b. ˙ 115 This injunction is taken for granted in the Mishnah (m. Pasah. 3:1). ˙ connections kept by the 116 Recently Kratz voiced an intriguing theory that there were close Jews at Elephantine with the ruling people in Jerusalem and that it appears that in Jerusalem “the Torah of Moses did not play an important role yet—at least for major parts of Jewish society in the Persian provinces of Yehud and Samaria” (“Temple and Torah,” 87). Morton Smith, “Jewish Religious Life in the Persian Period,” in Introduction: The Persian Period, ed. W.D. Davies and Louis Finkelstein, vol. 1 of The Cambridge History of Judaism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984) holds a minority view that the letter’s intent was to warn the community at Elephantine that a Jerusalem inspector was coming to visit and the Egyptian Jews should appear to be acting in conformity with the Jerusalem regulations.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

136

Performances Of Two Free Standing Letters From Egypt

Verse 1: Instructions on the when to celebrate the Passover Now, you count four[teen days of Nisan and on the 14th at twilight the Passover ob]serve and from day 15 until day 21 of [Nisan the Festival of Unleavened Bread observe. Seven days unleavened bread eat. Verse 2: Instructions on how to prepare for the Passover A. Now], be pure and take heed. B. Work [do] n[ot do] [on day 15 and on day 21 of Nisan. C. Any fermented drink] do not drink. B1. And do not eat any unleavened bread and do not let it be seen in your houses from day 14 of Nisan at] sunset until day 21 of Nisa[n at sunset. A1. And any leaven which you have in your houses117 B]ring into your chambers and seal (them) up during [these] days.

I have added some segmentation and labels to cue the reader’s performance. The two verses appear to be written in a paratactic style in which the information is presented in small, self-contained bits, which requires the performer to participate in making the letter into an integrated whole. As mentioned above, the way in which the imperatives and commands are presented suggests that the performer may have been expected to elaborate on the byte-sized instructions. Closing The final part of the letter is an external address. The closing is very similar to the opening. Narrator : [To] (sealing) my brothers Jedaniah and his colleagues the Jewish Troop, your brother Hananiah s[on of PN].

The letter’s language is simple and concrete and points in the direction that letter form may have been chosen as a ready means of instruction for material that is written to teach with brevity cultic principles regarded as fundamental.118 It is 117 This sentence is restored and therefore difficult to know where it fits in the structure. 118 D.R. Langslow, “The Epistula in Ancient Scientific and Technical Literature, with Special Reference to Medicine,” in Ancient Letters: Classical and Late Antique Epistolography, ed. Ruth Morello and Andrew D. Morrison (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 228, suggests that a technical writer may choose to present his work in the form of a letter “to teach with brevity and efficiency rules and principles regarded as fundamental.”

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

137

Passover Letter

conceivable that this letter is a condensed account of cultic matters written in letter form that may have been viewed as a more user-friendly medium than a full scroll-sized treatment, with the understanding that the performer would have supplied additional information. It is plausible that Jedaniah read the letter for himself first and then perhaps in front of his colleagues. The opening greeting serves two purposes: it recognizes the gap between the supposed sender and receiver and it creates and sustains the alleged relationship between the two Jewish groups. The oral texture resembles an extract from a dialogue by its use of short sentences, without elaboration or explanation. The symbolic language suggests that traditions have been embedded in the community and that metonyms need merely to be referenced for the performer to comprehend the message in order to fully explain its contents to the audience. A purpose for writing this letter may have been to fix the date for the celebrations.119 What is needed is to collect data provided by the context in order to explain why this letter was written in this setting, for it is not enough to know that in Jewish communities festal letters were read.

5.3.3 Context Once we understand the text and the word choices that make up the texture, we can then determine when, where, and by and for whom the letter is told, that is, the context.120 To explore the context, we need to consider what anthropologies have termed the “great/official” tradition and the “small/popular” tradition, categories that divide the elite who controlled the institutions from the peasant in which life is governed by local customs.121 The traditions of the elite are frequently embodied in written documents, such as the Passover letter. These two worldviews cannot be conceived of as binary opposites, but must be considered as interrelated, but parallel. However, in the Passover letter there is no evidence that the two traditions are opposed to each other, or being adapted to or interactive with the other. The social context would be enhanced if we knew whether Hananiah’s apparent arrival, assuming he was the performer of the letter, was initiated from the authorities in Jerusalem,122 or from the Persian administration,123 or possibly 119 The statement found in the Bodleian Aramaic Inscription 7, most likely written 50 years earlier (“Let me know when you will be celebrating Passover”) adds credibility to this view. 120 Wire, Holy Lives, 11. 121 Helpful in this regard is the comparative study by James C. Scott, “Protest and Profanation: Agrarian Revolt and the Little Tradition,” Theory and Society (1977), 3–32, 159–210. The official tradition is not necessarily unitary (p. 8). 122 This view depends largely on how extensive the cult of centralization (Deut 12) was in the

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

138

Performances Of Two Free Standing Letters From Egypt

from the Jews at Elephantine.124 Porten suggests that if the latter is the case, then “we may imagine that their observance of the dual Festivals of Passover and Unleavened Bread was being obstructed by Egypt, who succeeded in getting the King’s authorization, and on that confirmation gives cultic instructions.”125 The emphasis here is on the correct performance of rituals, which would validate the authority of those conducting the rituals.126 Since the formal aspects of the letter introduce two lower level officials addressed as your “brother,” a designation used between peers, one might suggest that the petitioners themselves allegedly wrote this text. As a support for this position, the discovery of the letters by the archaeologist from the Berlin Museum maintains that “these letters all belong to the individual archive of one man: Yedanyah bar Gemaryah, a leader of the Elephantine community.”127 Therefore, the context for the correspondence most likely was in response to an earlier conversation and request from some of the Jews who wished to have religious customs clarified in a time when cultic laws may not have been standardized. The fact that the king and Arsames are invoked suggests that the letter might be based on an official directive.128 The issues were to be handled by local officials, Arsames (the Egyptian satrap), and Hananiah (the Jewish leader), who acted as mediator between the Persian administration and the Jewish colony on Elephantine. Worthy of note is the comment made by Porten, who states that it is the Jewish garrison and not the priests and religious leaders who are the recipients of the letter.129 With no mention of the temple or priests, the perspective is most likely that of a performer instructing fellow Jews on conducting small rituals in their homes in daily practices and of giving guidance to the temple elite on when to celebrate festivals in communal practices. Generally, in a festal letter an exhortation is given alongside the in-

123 124

125 126 127 128 129

fifth century, which is by no means clear. The injunction in Deut 16:2 centralizing the celebration of Passover in “the place where the Lord your God will choose” may have been applied only to Jews residing in Yehud. Kottsieper, “Die Religionspolitik,” 164–65; 171–72, see n. 78 describes the tensions between Johanan and Bagohi, the governor of Judah. Josephus refers to this conflict in Ant. 11.7.1§297–301. Kratz, “The Second Temple of Jeb and Jerusalem,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period, ed. Oded Lipschits and Manfred Oeming (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 252, states that the “destruction of the Jewish temple of Elephantine and its reconstruction must be seen within the context of the disputes between the leaders and priests of the Jewish colony on the one hand and the priests of the adjacent Chnum Temple on the other.” Porten, Elephantine Papyri, 126. For a discussion on ritual performance, see James W. Watts, Leviticus 1–10, HCOT (Leuven: Peeters, 2013), 28–33. Lindenberger, Ancient Aramaic, 61. This is the position of Grabbe, “Elephantine and the Torah,” 130. Porten, Elephantine Papyri, 133. Jedaniah is the son of Gemariah, a leader of the Jewish community and “possibly a priest” (p. 125).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Summarizing the Performances

139

structions.130 If that principle can be adapted to the Passover letter, one could imagine that the performer would have given an elaboration with the ongoing reading of v. 2, or because of the brevity of the letter, possibly at the end of the text. What is clear is the terseness of the instructions suggests that exhortation and explanation was expected as well as interaction with the audience. Therefore, it appears that the performative context of the Passover letter was directed toward those who had control over how the official traditions were practised and was employed to teach or control those who may not have been clear on these customs. The text gives evidence that the performer was expected to read the document, as well as explain its contents.

5.4

Summarizing the Performances

I have laid the preliminary groundwork for considering ancient letters from a performance perspective. I have covered a broad range of phenomena and at the same time been rather selective in my approach. The argument developed up to this point enables us to assess letters using performance criticism. I have noted that transition markers and repeated coordinating conjunctions have been viewed by some form critical scholars as having no functional significance, and therefore are frequently perceived as being optional. Performance criticism can lead us to a more satisfying conclusion. One purpose for the repeated use of “(and) now” is to signal to the performer and audience that a transition is occurring; another may be to indicate a change in volume, tone and/or suspense by the speaker, similar to the modern use of the adverb initial “well.” Understanding the oral/aural impact of initial particles, words, sounds, and phrases and the interaction between them has allowed us to construct a performative structure of the letters by employing Hymes’ use of “measured” verse. Using his method of ethnopoetics to organize the text, these letters can be divided into stanzas and/or verses. In order to determine the performative context, the reader must understand the oral register. Both texts are coded with epistolary conventions and selfdesignations, which consist of a formulaic opening, body, and conclusion. Further refinements can be made. The first letter uses familial terms and can be classified as a personal family letter and the second is addressed to a community, contains cultic language, and therefore can be considered a festal letter. The 130 For instance, in the festal letter in 2 Macc 1:9 the Jews are exhorted: “And see that you keep the days of the feast of tent pitching…” See also 2 Chron 30:1–9 where an explanation is given for having not celebrated the Passover: “for they could not keep [the Passover] at that time because the priests had not consecrated themselves in sufficient numbers” (v. 3).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

140

Performances Of Two Free Standing Letters From Egypt

situations to which these two letters pertain can be describe as a private letter that captures real life of ordinary citizens in ancient Egypt and a cultic communication intended to teach rules and principles succinctly to another group. Epistolary form appears to have been the medium of choice for both these texts because the “authors” were writing to an individual or community known to themselves; employing a friendly form to sustain a social relationship with the addressee(s). The texture of these letters retains much of their orally derived simple language and repetition and allows the performer to assume the “character” behind the lines, complete with emotions and passions. In performance these transcripts of fragments of conversations would have been interpreted and expanded by the performer, as interaction with the audience required. To be fair, these observations do not vastly alter our understanding of these letters, but may make the reader more sympathetic to the importance of a performative reading. To continue our understanding of the performance principles that have been applied to these letters, we need to broaden our scope to include letters embedded in a narrative. These letters add greater complexity to the texts and have greater implications for our understanding of letters.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Chapter 6 Performances of two Embedded Jewish Letters

The last chapter considered two relatively short, freestanding letters written in Egypt. Performative concepts such as “measured verse,” “oral register” and “texture” were applied in order to understand the placement and function of these letters in their oral context. Methods employed to arrive at our conclusions were form criticism, orality, and performance theory. This chapter considers lengthier letters that are embedded in a narrative, which supply some epistolary features omitted in the body of the letter, and therefore add another level of complexity to the analysis of the text. The first text to be considered is an Aramaic letter embedded in Ezra 5 allegedly written by local officials to the ruling Persian monarch concerning the building of the temple. The letters in Ezra serve as apt transitional texts from non-embedded to embedded Jewish letters because they have significant similarities to the Passover letter found in Egypt. They both are marked by concerns surrounding the temple and cultic activities, and they both appear to be using diplomatic efforts to curry favour with the Persian administration. The centre piece of the negotiations is found in Ezra 5:6–17, where the “elders of the Jews” must justify the progress on the temple’s construction to the Persian authorities. The oral texture and symbolic language in Ezra 5 is the richest of the Ezra letters, and therefore a study of this text will be helpful to advance our understanding of performance theory as applied to epistolary literature. The second letter for consideration is a Hebrew document embedded in Jer 29. Because there is some verbal overlap between this letter and MMT, a performative analysis of the features found in both texts may inform our strategies for understanding better the letter genre and MMT. The aim of this chapter is to expand our use of performative critical methods by more broadly considering the nature of a performance of a letter. In this chapter, there is a particular emphasis on how a change in participants may affect a presentation, how rhythm, sound, and repetition may be used to frame a scene, and how letters may be embedded in a narrative to serve as plot development. Embedded letters seem particularly important as an example of how

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

142

Performances of two embedded Jewish letters

performance theory offers a new alternative to traditional form critical methods because the epistolary conventions are part of the narrative and test the limits of what can be classified as a letter. Understanding how a letter may have been performed opens the way for a different approach to ancient letters. Similar to the last chapter, I will be following the outline consisting of examining the text, texture, and context of each letter. First, we need to get an overview of the series of Aramaic letters in Ezra in order to compare and contrast how Ezra 5 fits with surrounding letters and to consider the group of letters from a performance point of view.

6.1

Aramaic Letters in Ezra: An Overview

The structural analysis of Jewish letters indicates that the typical opening lists the name of the sender, recipient, and provides a greeting.1 The form of the Aramaic letters embedded in Ezra consists of an idiomatic introduction, which employs the formula (to) sender : (to) recipient.2 The introductions to letters fulfill a very important function. As with other Aramaic letters, these texts tell the readers about the genre, provide an introduction, and, above all, they introduce the audience to the sender and receiver of a letter. The introduction to the letter begins with an objective perspective and serves to create a set of expectations and assumptions that may govern the readers’ approach to the

˘

1 The preposition “to” is usually @4, but @F( is sometimes found. For examples of opening formulae, see Cowley, AP, “To my brother Palti, your brother Hosh y(ah)” (40:1); and Lindenberger, Ancient Aramaic and Hebrew Letters,˙ “To my lord Psami, your servant Makkibanit” (Hermopolis 3:1). These are both expanded versions of the parties’ formulae. Expanded forms of the formula “to recipient, from sender” on occasion has terms added to the sender and recipient, for example “To my sister Ra yah, from your brother Makkibanit” (Hermopolis 1:1); “To my lord Yashebyah, your servant Mannuk” (Hibeh 1–2). For a comprehensive treatment of opening formulae, see Schwiderski, Handbook. 2 There are four Aramaic letters embedded in the narrative. Here is a summary of the structural elements found in the introduction to these letters in Ezra: “To sender : recipient” (4:6–16); “To Sender: ‘All peace’” (5:6–17); “Sender: To recipient, ‘Peace(?)’” 7:11–20). In the second instance in which the addressee is introduced in Ezra 5:6, the preposition @ is employed (a9=L7@), which Schwiderski, Handbuch, argues came into use only in the Hellenistic period. Schwiderski’s arguments have been refuted by Jerome A. Lund, “Aramaic Language” in Dictionary of the Old Testament Historical Books, ed. Bill T. Arnold and H.G.M. Williamson (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 2005), 50–60. Lund sights Porten and Yardeni, Textbook, D 7.33 as a fifth-century example of the use of @ to introduce the addressee. For further arguments against Schwiderski, see also Hugh Williamson, “The Aramaic Documents in Ezra Revisited,” JTS 59 (2008), 57–62; R. Steiner, “Bishlam’s Archival Search Report in Nehemiah’s Archive: Multiple Introductions and Reverse Chronological Order as clues to the Origin of the Aramaic Letters in Ezra 4–6,” JBL 125 (2006), 679–83; Andrew Steinmann, “Letters of Kings about Votive Gifts,” JHS 8 (2009), 5.

˘

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Aramaic Letters in Ezra: An Overview

143

material. Helpful in profiling letters according to their type is The Literary Structures of Ancient Jewish Literature.3 The first category in this inventory concerns how the literary features are defined. Unambiguously, these documents take notice of themselves as letters, as verbal entities. For instance, the texts refer to themselves as a “letter” (8L644) (4:8, 11; 5:6), (C9NMD5) (4:7, 18, 23), and (5N?6) (4: 6, 7); an “official correspondence” (A6NH)7 (Ezra 4:17; 5:7, 11; 6:11); a “decree” (AFN)8 (Ezra 4:19); or a record kept in memory of some event or administrative measure (C9?:) (Ezra 4:15; 6:2). By means of an introduction, the author(s) of the canonical book of Ezra introduces the readers and audiences to a set of characters and the circumstances of their actions. Typically, after the name of the sender and recipient is given, a greeting offers a wish for health and prosperity or invokes a blessing on the recipient.9 One embedded Aramaic letter concludes the introduction with a greeting of peace: “all peace” (4B@M 104@? ) (Ezra 5:7). The boundaries of the texts are explicit and follow common patterns that fall into a specific order and yet allow for variety among the texts. The

3 Samely et al., “Inventory,” 1.1.1 profiles this type of document as a text which “refers to itself using a genre term, speech act term, verb or other term implying verbal constitution.” 4 Franz Rosenthal, A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic, 6th ed. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1995), 62, contends that 8L64 is an Akkadian loan word, which has been adopted from the political and financial administration. Dion, “Aramaic Words for ‘Letter,’” Semeia 22 (Atlanta, SBL, 1981), 78–79 contends that 8L64 refers to official and private letters; it is a generic term for all kinds of communication in epistolary style. 8L64 in the emphatic (4NL64) is found in 4QEnGiantsa 8:3, but only the first two letters are preserved [4NL6]=4. The restoration appears to be beyond reasonable doubt. 5 This term can be understood as a “written order.” It may reflect the phraseology of written communication of Persian influence (Rosenthal, Grammar, 62). Dion, “Aramaic Words,” 80–81, observes that the usage of C9NMD refers to an official document, often styled as a letter. He further states that this usage is only found in Ezra, above all in the narrative framework. 6 See BHS, which suggests deleting 5N?. 7 This term may be an Iranian loan-word from pati-ga¯ma meaning “message, word” (Rosenthal, Grammar, 63). For the use of this term, see also 1QGenAp 22:27; 1QpHab I, 2; 11Job IX, 2; XXIX, 4; XXX, 1; XXXIV, 4. 8 In Ezra 5:5, the emphatic 4BFN is best understood as a “matter” (Dion, “Aramaic Words,” 80). 9 See for example, E.G. Kraeling, The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953) (hereafter BMAP) “The welfare of my lord/brother etc., may the gods seek at all times” (13:1). See also AP 39:1; for expanded forms see AP 38:2–3; 30:1–3. Also common in the Arsham letters is the greeting, “Much peace and prosperity I send you” (Arsham 3:1; see also AP 42:1, 3; Arsham 5:1–2; Hermopolis 3:5; 7:1). As has already been shown, common in the Hermopolis letters is the greeting: “I bless you by Ptah, that he may ˙ cause me to see your face (again) in peace” (Hermopolis 3:1–2; 1:2; 2:2; 4:2; 5:1–2; 6:1–2). Common in Greek letters from Ptolemaic Egypt is the formula valetudinis: “If you are well, it would be good; I myself am well.” Several letters begin with a salutation to the temple of a god. 10 The difficulty with the syntax of 4@? has been reasonably settled by Fitzmyer, Wandering Aramean, 205–17, as the emphatic state of @? used as an appositive following a definite noun.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

144

Performances of two embedded Jewish letters

diligent profiling of texts resulting in the Literary Structures inventory was intent to offer text-linguistic descriptions of ancient Jewish texts according to their structurally important literary features. The performance method privileges approaches to oral traditions and draws in text-linguistic work in order to help decide if two texts belong together and to assist in understanding cultural situations by means of its texts. According to the text-linguistic approach, the letters in Ezra belong under the same category as bounded texts by referring to themselves as a verbal entity.11 From a performative perspective, the whole series of letters found in Ezra appears to be a useful means of communication that can effectively compress material from various periods and include a variety of sources and writers. The letters seem to have been tailored by the author(s) along thematic lines rather than chronological12 to allow for a compressed plot, while still maintaining persuasive power.13 Rather than understanding time on a continuum from pastpresent-future as we have been conditioned to do from a historical-critical perspective, we need to consider that from the performers’ point of view every event is present and the audience is called upon to freely move from one period to another. Additionally, the letter in Ezra 5 is part of a series of letters that serve to advance the narrative plot on how the temple construction was sanctioned by the Persian administration. This is accomplished by supplying the audience with a letter of opposition (Ezra 4), construction inspection (Ezra 5), and finally a decree by Darius that sanctions the rebuilding of the temple (Ezra 6). This observation suggests that one of the functions of these embedded letters is to make an important contribution to a story line that the editor(s) of the book of Ezra wishes to develop. Performance theory is particularly suited to observe how an embedded letter works as a fundamental driver of the movement of a nar11 Samely et al., “Inventory,” 1.1, states that these letters fall under the heading “The text refers to itself as a verbal entity ; its boundaries are implied or explicit.” 12 There is much scholarly debate on the reverse chronological order of the letters. Steiner, “Bishlam’s Archival Search Report,” 650–65, notes that it was not uncommon for ancient Near Eastern archival reports to proceed in reverse chronological order. According to Steiner, the archival search began with the most recent documents and moved backwards to the oldest. Grabbe, Ezra-Nehemiah, 134 is more pointed when he states: “The author of the narrative clearly has not the faintest idea of the relationship of the Persian kings to one another, and has placed his documents to produce what in his opinion is the best argument without being aware that it makes nonsense of Persian history.” 13 The letters cover an accusation lodged at the time of Xerxes (486–465 BCE) (4:6) and a letter written to Artaxerxes (465–424 BCE) (4:11–16) with a reply (4:17–22). The next letter refers back to the time of Darius (550–530 BCE), with an order being issued (6:3–14). Geographically, the plot moves from a confrontation and response written from the province of Beyond the River, to an on-site investigative report, then to an archival memorandum found in the capital city of Ecbatana. The resolution comes in the form of a letter by Artaxerxes to Ezra the scribe, who arrived from Babylonia to Jerusalem with the hand delivered letter.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

An Embedded Aramaic Letter: Ezra 5

145

rative, without resorting to “borrowing” or subsequent redactional reworking of later editors to fit the letter into an existing narrative.

6.2

An Embedded Aramaic Letter: Ezra 5

According to the canonical book of Ezra, the central concern of the first six chapters is the reconstruction of the temple in Jerusalem. The narrative introduction supplies the social setting for the letter. Unlike the letters at Elephantine, which involved low level officials, the texts in Ezra are correspondences between Persian monarchs, on the one hand, and provincial governors and high officials, on the other.

6.2.1 Text When considering the letters in Ezra, a key textual element important to our understanding of performance concerns the translation of texts. A comparison of the canonical Hebrew text of Ezra with the Greek text found in the Septuagint (LXX) reinforces the impression that the narratives, including the embedded letters, were not fixed, but subject to redaction.14 A few examples of the differences between the two versions will have to suffice. For example, the Jewish formulation of the letter found in Ezra 5 (“To Darius the king, all peace [v. 7]) is adapted to standard Greek letter form (“To King Darius, greetings!” [1 Esd 6:8]). As an example of material that has been amended, we can consider 1 Esd 4:47–63, which includes the reference to letters written by the Persian King Darius on behalf of all the Jews who are returning to Judea.15 Letters can also be abridged or expanded,16 as seen in the answer to the king’s servants given in 14 It is beyond the scope of this study to discuss the process of translation, revision, and retranslation of the Septuagint. For a comprehensive introduction to the topic, see Karen H. Jobes and Mois¦s Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000). For a summary of the translation of the Septuagint, see Emanuel Tov, “Jewish-Greek Scriptures,” in Early Judaism and Its Modern Interpreters, ed. Robert A. Kraft and George W.E. Nickelsburg (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986) ; and Melvin K.H. Peters, “Septuagint,” ABD 5:1093–1104. 15 The content of the letters is given in summary form, mainly by using the infinitive of indirect speech, for example lµ 1peke¼seshai (v. 49), rp²qneim (vv. 50, 53), doh/mai (v. 51) and doOmai (vv. 55, 56). A ´Rma clause is also used to summarize the content of the letter (vv. 47, 50). 16 This is Artaxerxes’ answer, according to NETS: “Then the king wrote back the following to Raoumos the recorder of events and to Beelteemos and Samsaios the scribe and to the rest associated with them and living in Samaria and Syria and Phoenicia.…” (1 Esd 2:17). Then the Greek departs from the Aramaic, replacing the word “letter” (vv. 18, 23) with voqokºcor, which according to Greek lexica (LEH, LSJ) could mean “The tax-collector whom you sent,”

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

146

Performances of two embedded Jewish letters

letter form in Ezra 4:17–22, but in the Greek version, Artaxerxes’ answer is introduced in summary form rather than in quotation.17 These variations, consisting of changes in formulations, additions, and summaries are surely not simply quaint peculiarities of ancient copying, but partly symptomatic of an oral culture in which texts were adapted as the occasion and audience demanded.18 It is possible that the similarities between the canonical Ezra and Esdras (LXX) rests not only on literary dependence, but on shared traditions, transmitted and redacted through performances in public and private gatherings.19 It is the achievement of form criticism to have focused attention on the oral nature of texts and it reasonably can be concluded, “while an oral text may have gained circulation (or re-circulation) through a written text, once in circulation it could take on a life of its own.”20 The changes in texts may support the view that the tendency of live performances is to contemporize and to interact with the presence of hearers.21 In addition, the translators may have been translating the texts-as-performances as they were making choices about words and phrases, when recreating and redacting a letter in a new context and possibly while making changes to support a particular perspective. If this view is sustainable, then writing, copying, and translating texts would include performance awareness, which suggests that letters were written and revised for ongoing oral/ aural events to be presented through performance. This process presupposes what has been argued earlier that the ancient authors had performance sensitivity, that is, a view that a text would be orally performed and not merely read silently. In order to compare and contrast the formatting that is frequently found in modern English translations with an ethnopoetic method, I will begin with the way the letter is presented according to the New American Standard Bible:

17 18

19 20 21

instead of “The letter which you sent.” The Greek translator may have understood voqokºcor as a “word carrier” and therefore a “letter carrier” (Klauck, Ancient Letters, 236). Klauck, Ancient Letters, 233–38 gives a summary of the differences between the canonical letters found in Ezra and Esdras. Jer 29 is considerably shorter in the LXX than in the Hebrew Bible. The problem with translation and/or interpretation is significant, as expressed by George W.E. Nickelsburg Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 192–93, who states that “the text of the Hebrew and Aramaic Bible was not fixed in the pre-Christian era and in the first century CE.” “Code-switching” is a term used in linguistics that expresses a situation when anyone who speaks more than one language chooses between them according to circumstances (Hudson, Sociolinguistics, 51–53). It is possible that some audiences heard both versions of the letter. Holly E. Hearon, “The Implications of Orality for Studies of the Biblical Text,” in Performing the Gospel: Orality, Memory, and Mark, ed. Richard A. Horsley, Jonathan A. Draper, and John Miles Foley (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), 9. Kelber, Oral and Written Gospel, 108.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

An Embedded Aramaic Letter: Ezra 5

147

6 This is the copy of the letter which Tattenai, the governor of the province beyond the River, and Shethar-bozenai and his colleagues the officials, who were beyond the River, sent to Darius the king. 7 They sent a report22 to him in which it was written thus: “To Darius the king, all peace.23 8 “Let it be known to the king, that we have gone to the province of Judah, to the house of the great God, which is being built with huge stones, and beams are being laid in the walls; and this work is going on with great care24 and is succeeding in their hands.25 9 “Then we asked those elders and said to them thus, ‘Who issued you a decree to rebuild this temple and to finish this structure?’ 10 “We also asked them their names so as to inform you,26 and that we might write down the names of the men who were at their head. 11 “And thus they answered us, saying, ‘We are the servants of the God of heaven and earth and are rebuilding the temple that was build many years ago, which27 a great king of Israel built and finished. 12 ‘But because our father had provoked the God of heaven to wrath, He gave them into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, the Chaldean, who destroyed this temple and deported the people to Babylon. 13 ‘However,28 in the first year of Cyrus king of Babylon, King Cyrus issued a decree to rebuild this house of God. 14 ‘And also the gold and silver utensils of the house of God which Nebuchadnezzar had taken from the temple in 22 According to James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains, electronic ed. (Oak Harbor : Logos Research Systems, 1997), the semantic range of the term “report” can include “an accounting, a report, implying a response to a prior situation.” 23 According to Schwiderski, Handbuch, 354, there is no consistent address formulae in the book of Ezra. For an explanation of this shortened form, see pp. 360, 365–68. 24 The Persian loan word 4DLHE4 (“with diligence”) does not so far appear to be attested in later phases of Aramaic (Grabbe, “The ‘Persian Documents,’” 558). 25 Unlike the previous letter (Ezra 4:6–16), which includes both chronologically earlier and later forms of the pronominal suffix, the letter in Ezra 5 contains only early grammatical forms. Attestations of –km (second person masc. pl.) and –hm (third person masc. pl.) are: A87=5 “in their hands” (5:8); A8@ “to them” (5:9, 10); A?@ “to you” (5:9); A8N8Ba “their names” (5:10); A8=a4L5 “at their heads” (5:10). Examples of earlier forms in Ezra 7 are: A88@4 (7:17), A?8@4 (7:18), A8=@F (7:24). Examples of late forms in the same chapter are: C98N;DB9, C98=?ED9 (7:17), C9?D@4a= (7:21). According to Foley, Singer of Tales, 52–59, 82–92 the use of late and earlier forms is part of the “dedicated register” of an oral performance. See also, Niditch, Oral World, 8–38. Richard Bauman, Verbal Art, 3–58 lists archaic speech or other special codes, figurative language, parallelism or other foregrounded regularity, special formulae at beginnings and ends, unusual pitch, stress, rhythm or pauses, and appeals to or disclaimers to be speaking tradition, as indicators that a speech is underway. Hymes, “In Vain,” 223–51 adds direct discourse and back-channeling (audience participation) to the list of indicators that a performance was underway. 26 Lund has observed that the Aramaic of this letter retains early orthography and morphology and therefore does not appear to reflect significant later updating of the language. For example, the Aramaic of Ezra retains the spelling with s ; whereas, later Aramaic dialects ˙ forms where the primitive h has replace it with s: C4=6b “many [years]” (5:11). Also, he suggests not been elided as in later forms: ýN9F798@ “to make known to you” (5:10) (Lund, “Aramaic Letters,” 54–55). Concerning morphology, Lund observes that the form of the infinitive 4D5@ “to build” (5:13) does not have the mem preformans, and thus may reflect a more primitive form (“Aramaic Letters,” 65). 27 The 9 could be translated with “and,” but it does not make for idiomatic English. 28 This transition marker is missing in Fensham, Ezra and Nehemiah, 81; “but” is used in NJPS.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

148

Performances of two embedded Jewish letters

Jerusalem, and brought them to the temple of Babylon, and they were given to one whose name was Sheshbazzar,29 whom he had appointed governor. 15 ‘And30 he said to him, “Take these utensils, go and deposit them in the temple in Jerusalem, and let the house of God be rebuilt in its place.” 16 ‘Then that Sheshbazzar came and laid the foundations of the house of God in Jerusalem; and from then until now it has been under construction, and it is not yet completed.’ 17 “And now,31 if it pleases the king let a search32 be conducted in the king’s treasure house, which is there in Babylon, if it be that a decree was issued by King Cyrus to rebuild this house of God at Jerusalem;33 and let the king send to us his decision concerning the matter.”

The engagement with an audience was clearly the goal of the “author” and performers of this letter. The way this text is formatted in the NASB strips the text of its oral character. Through the understanding of the letter’s texture, some of the performative elements can be restored.

6.2.2 Texture The narrator’s freedom to organize the plot implies that there are countless choices to be made. Among these choices, the letter writer decided to introduce the letter in Ezra 5 to the audience by noting that a “copy of the letter” is being read (5:6), which would consist of a duplicate of a transcript. The mention of a letter being sent and read suggests that there may have been a high level of sophistication in the administration of archival letters in the Achaemenid period. The hearers would have recognized familiar elements of the performed text as they heard the introduction of (new) characters. The natural first step for a narrator is to introduce the characters by means of their names. What follows is an ethnopoetic representation of the overview of the letter, which sets the stage

˘

29 According to E.Y. Kutscher, “New Aramaic Texts,” JAOS 74 (1954): 241, repr., Hebrew and Aramaic Studies (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1977), 45, Sheshbazzar was not known to the reader. Steiner, “Bishlam’s Archival Search Report,” 645, states that this construction is unattested after theAchaemenid period. For an example of this verbal construction, see Israel Eph’al and Joseph Naveh, Aramaic Ostraca of the Fourth Century BC from Idumaea (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1996), 92. Another example can be found in an Aramaic ostracon from the first half of the fifth century BCE. Clines’ position is that this expression was not meant to be complimentary and has observed this expression being used of slaves (AP 28:4, 11; BMAP 5:2; 8:7–8). Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, NCBC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 87–88. 30 Myers, Ezra-Nehemiah, 41 omits the word “and,” as does Fensham, Ezra and Nehemiah, 81, Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah: A Commentary, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988), 119, and NJPS. 31 This transition marker is missing in Fensham, Ezra and Nehemiah, 81. 32 According to Lund, “Aramaic Language,” 54, the pa el infinitive (LK5N=) means “to make an investigation.” 33 Lit. “if there is [it is true] that from Cyrus the king, he has issued forth a decree to build this house of God in Jerusalem.”

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

An Embedded Aramaic Letter: Ezra 5

149

for the text to follow.34 I have divided the narrator’s introduction into three lines, each line expresses step-by-step action: sender, receiver, and introduction to the text, and I have provided the English verse divisions so that the letter can be followed more easily.35 Narrative Introduction Narrator : “A copy of the letter that that was sent by Tattenai, the governor of the province of Beyond the River and Shethar-bozenai and their colleagues the officials of Beyond the River, Sent to King Darius (v. 6) They sent him a report in which it was written as follows…” (5:7a)

What is noteworthy about the narrative introduction is that the central characters, Tattenai, King Darius, and to a lesser degree Shethar-bozenai, have been announced. At the very beginning, the audience is given a list of those who inhabit the narrative universe, which sets the stage for the audience, for not to know the heroes would lead to confusion. The standard features of an Aramaic letters’ opening consist of the name and place of the sender followed by the name of the recipient. The letter was sent by Tattenai, whom some scholars believe is known from cuneiform sources to have been an actual Persian official,36 and sent to King Darius. This structure complies with standard Aramaic letter writing practice. The opening is concluded with the unparalleled greeting “all peace” (4@? 4B@M). When addressing a king, a more elaborate greeting may be expected and a fuller form may have been originally present.37 It is not beyond reason to consider that the author(s) of Ezra has abbreviated the opening when it was incorporated into the narrative.38 34 The position followed here is similar to Oestreich, Performanzkritik, who states that the responsibility of performance criticism is to reconstruct, as much as possible, a performance of the text and to suggest a performance situation (pp. 60–62). 35 This letter is my translation. 36 A Babylonian cuneiform tablet from year 20 of Darius (502 BCE) contains the reference to Tattannu piha¯t Ebir Na¯ri, which is strikingly similar to “Tattenai the governor from Acrossthe-River.” ˘However, Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 120, is cautious about linking the two. 37 For instance, TAD A6.3 has the greeting: “I send you abundant (greetings of) welfare and strength.” 38 Salutations have been abbreviated to a single word (A@a) in composing letters on ostraca. Alexander (“Remarks,” 156) has stressed that “the material on which a message is written is not strictly germane to the question of whether or not it is a letter.” The proposal that an abridged form of the introduction has been employed in Ezra 5 has been suggested by

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

150

Performances of two embedded Jewish letters

Opening Narrator : To Darius the king, All peace

The texture suggests that the letter is presented predominately for its symbolic value.39 For instance, during an enacted event, that is, when a letter is read, the text immediately places the audience on notice by stating who the referents are: “To Darius the king: All peace” (Ezra 5:7).40 If, as Hindy Najman has suggested, that “writtenness became a sign of authority,”41 then the introduction of letters symbolically communicates the authority of writing, making the persona of the most powerful person in the Persian Empire present to the reading or listening audience.42 In terms of semiotic analysis, the reader (re)presents the letter by giving human testimony to authenticate the text, which may have had the effect of giving credibility to the temple’s construction. It seems significant that Ezra does not record an oracle of the Lord mediated through a prophet to initiate the building project,43 but authority for temple construction came supposedly from archival letters stored in a foreign palace. It appears that, at least symbolically, the letters were viewed as having permanence and presented as having survived

39

40

41

42 43

Eduard Myers, Die Entstehung des Judentums: Eine historische Untersuchung (Halle: Niemeyer, 1896), 53. For a similar view, see also Alexander, “Remarks,” 157 and Porten, “The Address Formulae in Aramaic Letters: A New Collation of Cowley 17,” RB 90 (1983), 396. Beckerman, Theatrical Presentation (see esp. ch. 3) refers to the symbolic mode of presentation as iconic, as opposed to dialectic. According to Beckerman, a dialectic mode of presentation is dominated by tension, struggle, change, and risk that frequently occur to the characters and audience. For an example of this method being applied to ancient Hebrew songs, see Giles and Doan, Twice Used Songs, 99–100. Other referents in Ezra are: “To Rehum the commander and Shimshai the scribe and the rest of the associates who live in Samaria and in the rest of the province Beyond the River” (4:17); “Artaxerxes, king of kings, to Ezra the priest” (7:11); and more obliquely, “Cyrus the king issued a decree” (6:3). Hindy Najman, “The Symbolic Significance of Writing in Ancient Judaism,” in The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel, ed. Hindy Najman and Judith H. Newman, JSJSup 83 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 145. For the reception of writing in archaic and classical Greece, see Deborah Tarn Steiner, The Tyrant’s Writ: Myths and Images of Writing in Ancient Greece (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994). In her book she suggests that fifth-century Greek historians and dramatists portrayed writing as an essential tool of tyrants, who not only issue written decrees but also “inscribe” human bodies with brands and cut up land with compasses and rules. Although Najman’s article addresses the development of the symbolic significance of writing, Schaper, “Exilic and Post-exilic Prophecy,” 324–42 emphasizes the relation between orality and literacy in that society. For the relation of literacy with power in the Greek world, see Thomas, Literacy and Orality, 128–32. Although the prophets Haggai and Zechariah are mentioned (Ezra 5:1), they do not have a major role in the process of getting approval for construction or overseeing the gathering of material for the building.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

An Embedded Aramaic Letter: Ezra 5

151

even the absence of the alleged original author(s) and could be consulted at a later time in history, whether or not they were genuine. The ongoing performance of these letters may have functioned as a permanent testimony of the transformational power of letters in which foreign monarchs are said to give written consent to the building of a Jewish temple.44 It could be said that the series of letters in Ezra are an anticipatory realization of what it symbolically signifies—giving power to the event it names—just as the temple is an anticipatory realization of the authority it will hold.45 Stanza 1 In both letters from Egypt we have reviewed, the transition from the opening to the first scene in the body of the letter employs the idiomatic “and now.” But in Ezra 5:8 the scene is introduced with the jussive form of the verb “know” (498@ F=7=), replacing the formulaic “and now” common in Aramaic letters. Hoffner argues convincingly that when the information in a letter is important or urgent, “it may be verbally highlighted through the use of either an imperative or a jussive form of the verb ‘know.’”46 The elimination of the transition marker “and now” and beginning the letter with a jussive may either be another example of abbreviation, particularly since some of the material stated in the letter (5:6, 9–10) had already being mentioned in the narration (5:3–4), or possibly the result of the emphasis the author(s) of Ezra placed on the urgency of the matter.47 Some common Aramaic epistolary elements that are missing in the opening of the letter in Ezra 5 are the date and the customary list of senders followed by the addressee. Following the idiomatic epistolary opening, the body of the letter begins with a report of the work of Tattenai’s commission. Here the performer changes from the perspective of a narrator to that of a reporter. Using the ethnopoetic approach, the body of the letter can be divided into three stanzas by considering the 44 According to Blommaert, “Ethnography and Democracy,” 264, “speech is language-in-society, i. e., an active notion and one that deeply situates language in a web of relations of power” (emphasis original). 45 Najman makes this application concerning Isaiah’s prophecy. She writes: “Isaiah’s prophetic writing is something like an anticipatory realization of what it symbolically signifies, just as the prophetess’s pregnancy is the anticipatory realization of the child that will be born” (emphasis original) (“Symbolic Significance,” 148). 46 Harry A. Hoffner, Jr. Letters from the Hittite Kingdom, ed. Gary M. Beckman, WAW 15 (Atlanta: SBL, 2009), 33. Hoffner states that this use of the jussive is attested from the earliest to the latest period of Mesopotamian letter writing, as well as Mari (“may my lord know”), Neo-Assyrian (“lord, should know”), Ugaritic, and Hittite letters. 47 According to Maschler, Metalanguage, a discourse marker in modern Hebrew can be used to focus the listener’s attention to a surprising element of an utterance (see her discussion in ch. 4). This discourse marker may serve a similar purpose.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

152

Performances of two embedded Jewish letters

transition markers and the change in participant, that is, the change in focus from Tattenai addressing the king, to receiving a reply from the elders, to making a recommendation to the king. Stanza 1 consists of a report that is given in a matter-of-fact way without any opinion expressed or any apparent embellishments recorded, but details the actions and findings of the commission. In the interest of keeping the flow of my argument moving, I will forego making a performative analysis of stanza 2 (5:11–16), because this scene has many of the oral features present in stanza 1 and therefore will not significantly add to my analysis. I will merely make a few comments on some oral features that may support my perspective. Returning to the texture of the report, the background to the letter states that Tattenai and his associates arrived in Jerusalem and they examined what was happening at the building site and how well the building project was progressing. The change in verb or action is separated into lines (“we went,” “being build,” “timber is laid,” “work is being done,” and “making progress”). A change in the person being addressed, from a report to the king to questions to the elders, can be used to divide the text into verses. These verses are signaled by the discourse markers “then” (C=74) and “and also” (G49). The functions of the committee consist of requesting information concerning the legality of the project and endeavouring to get the names of the builders.48 These two questions, asked of the Jewish elders, deal with the legitimacy of carrying out the project and acquiring the names of the persons who were leading the construction (vv. 2 and 3). Verse 1 begins with “Let it be known to the king” and is repeated in v. 3 (“to make know to you”), forming an inclusio. The letter in stanza 1 is presented in two oral layers—the actions of the commission are relayed to the king in v. 1 and the questions posed to the Jewish elders are given in reported speech in vv. 2 and 3. This oral layering is common in Aramaic letters and classical Greek literature and is consistent with a conversational style of writing.49 48 The investigation is defined in stanza 1 by two questions. Question 1: “Then we asked (4D@4a) these elders and we said (4DLB4) to them” (5:9). Question 2: “We asked (4D@4a) their names to inform you” (5:10). According to Joseph Fleishman, “The Investigating Commission of Tattenai: The Purpose of the Investigation and its Results,” HUCA 66 (1995), 90, the root 4D@4a reflects a legal demand; whereas, the root 4DLB4 expresses a neutral question. He finds further support for this view in Darius’ instructions to the investigating commission to “stay away from that place” (6:6), which may mean that they are to leave the Jews alone for they are innocent of all charges. This position requires special pleading in order to give common words special meanings. 49 This layering also occurs in the reply to interview question 1 in stanza 2. For the use of the rhetorical devise “speech within a speech” in Greek literature, see Nünlist, Ancient Critic, 324–25. For another example of rhetorical layering found in the Hebrew Bible, see Gen. 32:4: “…instructing them, ‘Thus, you shall say to my lord Esau: Thus says your servant Jacob, I

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

An Embedded Aramaic Letter: Ezra 5

153

Verse 1: Report to the King “Be it known to the king that we went to the province of Judah to the house of the great God and it is being built with huge stones and timber is being laid in the walls and this work is being done diligently and is making progress under their hand” (5:8). Verse 2: Question to the Elder “Then we asked those elders, this we said to them:” ‘Who issued you a decree to build this house and to finish this structure?’” (5:9) Verse 3: Report to the King “And also we asked them their names to make known to you that we might write down the names of their leaders” (5:10).

Considering a performative perspective, the pace of the first stanza appears to be brisk and pressing, with the first verse beginning with the urgent “be it known to the king” and the next two verses seem to continue that determination to fulfill the commission’s tasks by marking the verses with “then” and “and also.” We can go further and suggest that each line corresponds not only to the discourse markers, but also to a performative act. The first performative act expresses where the commission went to gather its information, what they saw when they arrived at the building site, and how they interviewed individuals to gather their information. In v. 2 the performer must decide by examining the text how he or she should emphasize the device of “speech within a speech,” which occurs at v. 2 as part of the interview questions.50 The narrator’s presence plays a role, not on the level of the story, but on the level of the discourse, that is, the telling of the story. He is “present” through summaries of conversations and the treatment of speeches. Therefore, the discourse markers focus the audience on procedures (“then,” “and also”), meant to move the conversation forward. The performative have sojourned with Laban and stayed until now.’” The authorization of a boat repair found in the Hermopolis letters (A6.2) uses even more rhetorical layers: And now, […] to us, saying, Mithradates the boat holder thus says: Psalmsineit. . . and Carians, thus said: The boat which we hold-in-hereditary-lease—time has come it needs to do. 50 A “speech within a speech” layered by another speech occurs in stanza 2.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

154

Performances of two embedded Jewish letters

features that would have supported a layered presentation include vocal timbre, tempo, and inflections, which complement the force of the words. What is being emphasized here is that this letter would have been embodied through performance to add emphasis and meaning to the text.

Stanza 3 With the report completed (I have not included an ethnopoetic representation of stanza 2), the commission is ready to make recommendations. The request formula is introduced by the idiomatic transition marker “and now” (CF?9), and employs the formula “if it seems good to the king” (v. 1). The commission makes two recommendations: to search the archives and to report their decision. Some scholars maintain that the Jews placed these requests51 and others feel that Tattenai was the author of these requests.52 In any event, it appears that the Jews did not have access to the documents, possibly because the edict had been proclaimed orally, and they were certain that the written decree would be found, and thus King Darius would not stop the building project. Verse 1: Request by the commission “And now, if it seems good to the king, let a search be made in the royal archives in Babylon to see whether a decree was issued by Cyrus the king for the building of this house in Jerusalem.” Verse 2: The commission seeks a reply by the king “And let the king send us his pleasure in this matter” (5:17).

We have been exploring various ways in which the text in Ezra 5 has used elements that mark lines, verses, and stanzas. Unlike other letters we have observed, this letter uses a wide variety of initial particles employed as markers of measure, translated as “and” (9) “then” (C=74), “and also” (G49), and “and now” (CF?9).53 These markers mostly have a procedural meaning. The overall pattern enables one to recognize that the initial elements organize the material according to an oral presentation. The discovery of such a pattern is not arbitrary, but is 51 Loring W. Batten, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, ICC (Edinburgh: T& T Clark, 1913), 133, 138 52 F. Charles Fensham, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 85. 53 Stanza 2 includes the following initial markers: “and this” (4BD?9), “but because” (=7.CB C8@), “however” (AL5), and “if” (C8).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

An Embedded Aramaic Letter: Ezra 5

155

governed by the rhetorical outline that controls the letter. For example, the first scene involves three “verses,” which establishes the letter’s purpose; namely, to report to the king and question the Jewish elders concerning a building project. We have observed in the letters from Egypt that transition markers can signal a change in verse. Understanding the oral/aural effect of a text on an audience, suggests that a change in participants in larger texts can signal a change in stanza.54 For instance, the statement: “Therefore, if it seems good to the king” beginning stanza 3, indicates that the interviews with the Jewish elders are complete, and therefore the change in participant is signaled. The manner in which the action unfolds validates this pattern. One performative option is that the change in stanza would have been emphasized by a change in voice, gesture, or pace. By considering the narrative action, it is clear that stanza 1 initiates and prepares the audience for the unfolding of events. After the scene has been set— or in performance terms, the onset of the action—stanza 2 carries the events forward by the Jewish elders providing answers to the questions. The occurrence of the particle “then” (C=74) in stanzas 1 and 2 contributes to mark off the verses in each stanza, but also adds to its expressive force. In the first stanza “then” is employed to introduce the interview questions (v. 2) and in the next stanza it is employed twice to state the result of the Sheshbazzar’s mission (5:16).55 The outcome of stanzas 1 and 2 is given in the final stanza in the form of a request. A letter, which makes an appeal or demand, can be categorized as a non-literary letter. Unlike letters from Egypt that close in a final greeting, this letter uses a request as a conclusion. The combination of the action can be described as onset, outgoing, and outcome, coinciding with the three stanzas, which is a rhetorical pattern that pervades many oral texts.56 The arrangement of the text would have an aural impact of drawing the audience’s attention from the king (“Be it known to the king”) to the elders (“Then we asked those elders”) in stanza 1, and from the elders (“and this is their reply to us”) back to the king (“However, in the first year of Cyrus king of Babylon”) in stanza 2. Finally, in stanza 3 the commission makes a request to the king, expecting his response. The texture of this letter uses a simple and patterned structure, which would 54 Kenneth Burke, Philosophy of Literary Form (New York: Vintage Books, 1957) refers to the change of scene in either location or lapse of time and the indication of change among participants in the action as the “scene-agent ratio.” Quoted in Hymes, “In Vain”, 319. 55 See the NRSV full text above. 56 Hymes, “In Vain,” 318–20, describes this pattern found among many Chinook First Nations’ texts, as well as in other oral cultures. Another set of terms that are used for literature that has a plot with beginning, middle, and end is situation, complication, and resolution. I have chosen to use Hymes’ terms because they are more descriptive of an action than many other terms and are less likely to have concepts of modern literature applied to an ancient text.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

156

Performances of two embedded Jewish letters

have helped facilitate attention and ease of communication. For instance, the opening is abbreviated and the questions in stanza 1 consist of one direct quotation and one reported speech. The language used in the letter to question by whose authority the building program was initiated and the request for the names of those involved is very similar to the wording of the narrative in 5:3–4. From a text-critical point of view, this repetition may suggest that one text has borrowed from the other,57 but from a performative perspective, this reiteration may have been used to add emphasis as part of a retelling of the events in letter form. From this point of view, one text is not being “borrowed” from another as if to seek an “original” text, but rather we must consider the fluidity between the letter and the narrative and that performance sensitivity is an integral part of its composition.58 The previous chapter introduced the significance of understanding the dedicated register of a letter as a tool for performance criticism. The register concerns the way in which an oral texture highlights the subject, the relation of the participants and the mode of discourse. The importance of this aspect of analysis is that when a performer performs a text in a dedicated register the reader evokes in the audience the depth of a tradition. The tradition that is being expressed in Ezra 5 is beyond dispute for the letter plainly states in the first question “Who gave you a decree to build this house and to finish this structure?” (stanza 1, v. 2) that the central concern is the construction of the temple. The letter’s performer may have stood with those in Ezra, who present the temple as divinely ordained and recounts the breakthrough of reconstruction against internal opposition described in a previous letter (4:7–16). Not only is the letter dedicated to a particular activity, it involves a specific group of people. The text is addressed to King Darius and the addressee, according to the narrative, is Tattenai and his team of inspectors (narrative introduction), with the Jewish elders and Sheshbazzar, the governor, being mentioned in the body of the letter. The primary purpose for the investigation is stated in the commission’s recommendation to search the royal archives for a decree that was issued by King Cyrus (stanza 3, v. 1). The author(s) of this letter couched the text in the oral register of the social elite, which has the oral/aural effect of inviting the listening audience to eavesdrop into conversations between kings, governors, and elders. The lit57 So Grabbe, Ezra-Nehemiah, 22–23. 58 The term “authenticity” is the elephant in the room in the study of sociolinguistic variation. For a discussion on authenticity, see V¦ronique Lacost, Jakob Leimgruber, and Thiemo Breyer eds., Indexing Authenticity, Publications of the School of Language and Literature 39 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014). According to Robert E. Moore, “From Performance to print, and back: Ethnopoetics as social practice in Alice Florendo’s corrections to ‘Raccoon and his Grandmother,’” Text & Talk 29 (2009), “there is no more an ‘Ur-performance’ than there is an ‘Ur-text’” (p. 300). This statement has relevance to our study on ancient letters.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

An Embedded Aramaic Letter: Ezra 5

157

erary purpose that may have been served by having a letter presented as a dialogue between two parties is that it offers the listening audience another (outside) perspective on the history and value of their tradition. It also has the psychological and aural effect of drawing the audience(s) into a conversation, while at the same time creating distance by using epistolary form. In the context of a performance, an audience is invited to embrace the tradition of temple construction as their own and identify with their past heroes in the form of a letter. It can be said that the author(s) of Ezra “conditions how these characters should be perceived by the audience.”59 In sum, the rhetorical aim of presenting material through narrative and letter form may have been to serve performative functions by offering plot development, distance, and proximity—allowing the audience to fill-in-the-blanks between episodes.60 The cumulative effect of mixing oral communication with written archival proof would have been to celebrate the collective support of Jewish elders, interviewing governors, and the Persian king for the building of the temple. Thus, the performer would have given meaning to the letter by taking a particular point of view, presented in the persona of high ranking officials, and by developing a rich oral texture of the characters implied by the text’s rhetorical layering. The goal in presenting the text in a “measured” verse format is to show that a performance is substantially different from merely reporting information, although a speaker may shift between reporting and performing.61

6.2.3 Context What the text and texture indicate is that the letter in Ezra 5 must have been performed to those who viewed the temple as central to their cultic practices. The letter takes place in a world where God and foreign authorities work in tandem. Telling the success of the temple building supports the communities they serve by fostering temple loyalty. Community leaders could have performed this letter—as well as the whole collection of letters in Ezra—as both symbol and presenter of symbols giving human testimony to the permanence and authority 59 Rozik, Generating Theatre Meaning, 113. 60 For a Greek example of putting letters together to prompt the reader to construct a narrative, see Jason KPnig, “Alciphron’s Epistolarity,” 257–82. 61 This position serves as a corrective to the limitations of the structuralist model, “the assumption that stories are surface-level enactments of deeper, ideal models” (Gerald L. Carr and Barbra Meek, “The Poetics of Language Revitalization: Text, Performance, and Change,” Journal of Folklore Research 50 [2013]: 196). See also Bauman, “Verbal Art,” 165–89. Performances are inherently variable and contingent on the creativity of the performer.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

158

Performances of two embedded Jewish letters

of the temple.62 Letters issued by absent authors do not appear to have the authority of the sender diluted, but the presence of a text seems to exert direct power on the recipients. Thus, an authorized official letter combined with an oral presentation would have added potency to the presentation. It is plausible that the purpose of presenting the letter was to promote group identity and that upon hearing this letter the audience would have understood the text to include them, and thus celebrate past achievements and “transform the audience and spectators from a group of individuals into a community—a ‘we’ with a shared identity.”63 Ezra 5 projects a sense of unity in another way. It creates its own space and time, which means that each time a text is read, or multiple copies are produced, they provide distinct moments of performance, which need description and analysis.64 An example of this technique occurs in the statement “they sent him a report,” which is being enacted in real time by a performer concerning a former time and place. Therefore, many years after the original “text” was composed, the letter is given “life in the present,” in Doane’s terms,65 as the audience experiences the performance in the here and now, with each performance having an immediate historical context. The repeated public performances most likely resonated with the audience and created “an atmosphere of confidence and solidarity.”66 In this situation, the audience would have been confident because the oral testimony of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, supported by documents from the king, had been fulfilled.67 The feeling of solidarity may have been the result of completing the building project without the help of others and against opposition (Ezra 4:2–5). It is possible that with each new retelling and rereading of this letter group identity is further enriched by a performance and

62 We see in Ezra a change in context of performance from the Passover letter, where temple and Torah are not combined, to Ezra “skilled in the Law of Moses” (7:6, 12), having the priests and the Levites purify themselves to celebrate the Passover and Unleavened Bread in the temple. 63 Giles and Doan, Twice Used Songs, 21. Although Giles and Doan are applying the principle of iconic presentation to songs, this rule can reasonably be applied to letters. 64 Julia Kristeva views the reading process as involving the projection back of the speaking “author,” so that each new reading involves a new “performance” by new set of voices. See Julia Kristeva, Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art, ed. Leon Roudiez, trans. T. Gora, A. Jardine, and L. Roudiez (New York: Columbia University Press, 1980), p. 75. 65 A. Doane, “The Ethnography of Scribal Writing and Anglo-Saxon Poetry : Scribe as Performer,” Oral Tradition 9 (1994): 420–39. 66 Oesterreicher, “Types of Orality,” 214. 67 One characteristic of oral traditions consists of referring to authority figures, such as the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, who prophesied to the Jews (5:1), which appears to have added credibility to Ezra’s building program.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

An Embedded Aramaic Letter: Ezra 5

159

by “the strategies of highlighting the moment of we-now-here in the performative act.”68 It appears that the letters in Ezra testify to a social context, where authority is vested in those who could read and write or had access to those who could read and write and changes to construction policy appear to happen through written texts.69 The list of social elites, from whom the letters in Ezra are sent and received, is impressive: kings, governors, commanders, scribes, judges, prophets and officials; missing is the mention of women, children, farmers, and other non-elite—common in the Hermopolis private letters. Although a wide range of individuals is introduced, the letters emphasize their roles rather than giving a character study. Cultural anthropology offers many insights into the dynamics of the performance context by drawing attention to the class division in a society between the rulers and those ruled.70 Additionally, performance criticism considers how a performance event may have affected different communal audiences. The text and texture suggests that the audience to whom the letters in Ezra were read was different from the audience at Elephantine. It appears that the performer recognizes that the “elders of the Jews” do not have to resort to intrigue or bribery to get imperial authorization to build their temple—a method used on the island of Elephantine. This technique is the practice of their opponents; whereas, the text claims that the Jews received unsolicited, generous gifts from the Persians (6:8–12). The reconstruction effort received official approval from all the proper channels of negotiations with various political authorities. Part of the process was the inspection of the temple’s progress, which was completed by Tattenai and his colleagues in consultation with the Persian king and apparently received the royal nod. Similar to the Elephantine correspondences, the letters in Ezra appeal to the people’s loyalty to the crown and give evidence for the Persian administration’s former support to build the temple.71 In Ezra 5, the decrees of God and Persian kings are presented on the same level, supported by Jewish elders and prophets. Another consideration that may suggest the context of the letter is stated by Kratz, who contends that “the 68 Oesterreicher,“Types of Orality,” 213; emphasis original. 69 For the importance of documents in Ezra 1:7–6:22, see Tamara Eskenazi, In an Age of Prose: A Literary Approach to Ezra-Nehemiah, SBLMS 36 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), 58–60. 70 The concern over the relation between orality, textuality, and imperialism is developed by Richard A. Horsley, “The Origins of the Hebrew Scriptures in Imperial Relations,” in Orality, Literacy, and Colonialism in Antiquity, ed. Jonathan A. Draper, Semeia Series 47 (Atlanta: SBL, 2004). 71 Ezra 6:14 summarizes the major players in the construction effort: “And the elders of the Jews built and prospered through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. They finished their building by decree of the God of Israel and by decree of Cyrus and Darius and Artaxerxes king of Persia.”

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

160

Performances of two embedded Jewish letters

remark in Ezra 5:16 that the temple has been under construction since Sheshbazzar laid the foundation in the first year of Cyrus is not made to demonstrate obedience to the royal order but primarily to show loyalty to God, whose name ‘dwells’ in the temple.”72 Therefore, the context for reading this letter may begin with the literati and interested hearers who would have known the prophets and their message. It is possible that this letter was performed because the religious elite felt that their words concerning the importance of the temple and the history of its construction were not enough and that the written documents of their ancestors inserted in a narrative provided more certain proof. A performance may have had the effect of preparing the audience to see the significance of foreign acknowledgement and promotion of their temple through instructions that needed to be followed (or are reported to have been followed) and a request for actions that should be taken.73 The letter in Ezra 5 makes the theological assumption that God will intervene through decrees and documents, foreign potentates and local leaders, prophetic words and oral reports in order to have the “temple that is in Jerusalem” (5:15) constructed. The narrated events were re-happening during the performance and must have been an important part of meaning negotiation. The oral texture suggests that the narrative and letter do not constitute a text with commentary or “borrowing,” but a fluid interweaving of verbal echoes, most likely employed for emphasis. Thus, the contributions made from considering a performance perspective consist of offering further information on issues of integrity and it clarifies how the letter relates to the surrounding context.74 The relationship between the narrative introduction and the letter vary from text to text, as well as the function the letter may have served as an embedded text. Jer 29 serves as an example of how a longer letter, with more participants, may have affected how the text was performed and how it may have functioned in the narrative.

6.3

An Embedded Hebrew Letter: Jeremiah 29

Not all ancient Aramaic and Hebrew Jewish texts are well defined by genre designations. Some documents quote letters that include the formal aspects in 72 Kratz, “Second Temple,” 263. 73 See for example Arsham 7, 8, 10. For an example of this pattern in letters of petition, see AP 30, and for letters of recommendation, see AP 38. 74 This conclusion concerning the advantages of oral criticism is made by John D. Harvey, Listening to the Text: Oral Patterning in Paul’s Letters (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), 283–84, regarding Paul’s letters.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

An Embedded Hebrew Letter: Jeremiah 29

161

the narrative; therefore, they do not meet the minimum requirement for a letter, according to Alexander,75 and others include a mixture of genres in their presentation. The aim of this section is to reflect on the Hebrew text76 of Jer 29 and apply our knowledge of performance theory to this text. This document is important because it introduces three new elements to our inquiry, which may have affected their performance: 1) The idiomatic epistolary form is absent but the formal features are included in the narrative; 2) the genre is not clear because there appears to be a mixture of epistolary types; and 3) new methods of adding texture are introduced, which may indicate different contexts for performances. Another aspect that adds complexity to this letter is that it uses five distinct yet related discourses; therefore, we are able to analyze individual speech events and observe patterns that can be applied to other discourses that serve the same purpose. Performance theory is concerned with social interaction between the performer and audience by means of oral and written texts. This letter is a prime example of how messages are constructed for the audience and how the audience tries to make sense of the message by becoming participants of the performance.

6.3.1 Text Seldom are prophets said to write letters. Apart from Elijah, who supposedly wrote a letter to King Jehoram of Judah (2 Chron 21:12–15), Jeremiah is the only other prophet in the Hebrew Bible associated with letter writing.77 The combination of epistolary form and prophetic utterance can be found in the corpora of Mari, Amarna, and in several texts from Assyria and Babylon.78 The tellers and 75 Alexander, “Aramaic Epistolography,” 168, defines the minimum requirement for a letter as consisting of an opening and a body. 76 There is much scholarly debate over the relationship between the Hebrew and Greek texts. Louis Stulman, The Prose Sermons of the Book of Jeremiah, SBLDS 83 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 89–94 states that the LXX is 37 percent shorter than the Hebrew text. 77 A.S. van der Woude, “Book of Nahum: A letter written in Exile,” in Instruction and Interpretation, ed. H.A. Brongers et al. (Leiden: Brill, 1977) has suggested that Nahum may have been originally mediated by letter. His arguments have not been advanced by others. 78 S.B. Parker, “Official Attitudes toward Prophecy at Mari and Israel,” VT 43 (1993): 50–68. J.M. Sasson, “The Posting of Letters with Divine Messages,” in Florilegium marianum Il: Recueil d’¦tudes — la m¦moire de Maurice Birot, ed. D. Charpin and J.-M. Durand, M¦mories de N.A.B.U. 3 (Paris: Soci¦t¦ pour l’¦tude du Proche-Orient ancient, 1994), 299–316. Martti Nissinen, “Spoken, Written, Quoted, and Invented: Orality and Writtenness in Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy,” in Writings and Speech in Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy, ed. Ehud Ben Zvi and Michael H. Floyd, SBLSymS 10 (Atlanta: SBL, 2000), 258–59. S. Parpola, Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal. Part 2. Commentary and Appendices, AOAT 5/2 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1983). Karel van der Toorn, “Old Babylonian Prophecy between the Oral and the Written,” JNSL 24 (1998): 55–70.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

162

Performances of two embedded Jewish letters

hearers of the prophetic text found in Jer 29 most likely identified with the diaspora community to whom the letter was written by considering the message of future deliverance, while reflecting on their present situation. If we are correct in using the arrangement of the chapters as presented in the Hebrew Bible,79 then Jer 29 follows the chapter that is concerned with Hananiah the false prophet and has verbal ties to this issue in the second oracle (“Do not let your prophets and your diviners deceive you” [29:8–10]). In Jer 29 the prophet is said to have written a letter to the exiled Jews in Babylon and it appears that the placement of the letter contributes to the narrative plot by giving a counter argument to Hananiah’s view that the exile will be short (Jer 28). Jeremiah encourages the exilic people to prepare for a long stay in captivity and not to listen to false voices for God will eventually restore their bad fortunes. In Ezra the narrative introduction states that a copy of the letter is to follow and then includes elements characteristic of ancient Jewish letters in the body of the text; however, Jer 29 states that a letter has been written, but does not include common epistolary features. Therefore, according to the text-linguistic inventory, this text may not necessarily be placed in the same category as other letters found in Ezra80 because the genre is far from clear and the self-designation is only found in the narrative.81 Lundbom, who represents those who call the text a “letter,”82 claims that the letter was “written on papyrus, rolled into a scroll, and sealed.”83 According to this view, the genre could be classified as a general letter sent to the Jewish community to both leaders and followers living in Babylon. 79 The arrangement of the chapters of the Greek version (LXX) is different from the Hebrew. Some modern commentaries also rearrange the placement of Jer 29. 80 Samely et al.1.1.1. The Inventory does not concern itself with genre designations as much as describing the literary features of a text. 81 To be clear the word “letter” is not found in the epistolary text, but is transferred into the narrative report. Our first difficulty is defining what is meant by the word LHE (“letter”). Lexicons have variously understood this word to mean missive, document writing, book (BDB); writing; a writing; a letter ; a book (GHCLOT); inscription; writing, document, scroll (HALOT). Some commentaries prefer the generic word “document.” See for example, Gerald L. Keown, Pamela J. Scalise, Thomas G. Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, WBC 27 (Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1995), 60, 64, 69; Robert P. Carroll, Jeremiah: A Commentary, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 552. For instance, Scalise writes “it is better to characterize the documents in chap. 29 as representing a ‘booklet,’ which contains a collection of prophecies” (p. 65). Some scholars use the more specific term “letter.” See for example, Holladay, Jeremiah, 131; Thompson, Jeremiah, 542; John Bright, Jeremiah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 21 (New York: Doubleday, 1965), 204; Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB (New York: Doubleday, 2004), 342. NETS translates the LXX oR k|coi t/r b_bkou as “the words of the letter.” For indicators that confirm that Jeremiah’s writing was perceived as a letter, see Doering, “Jeremiah and the ‘Diaspora Letters,’” 48. 82 The word LHE is a general word for any kind of document; it is used in Jer 3:8 for a “bill (of divorce)” and in 25:3 for a scroll of Jeremiah (Holladay, Jeremiah, 140). 83 Lundbom, Jeremiah, 348.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

An Embedded Hebrew Letter: Jeremiah 29

163

But a close reading of this text shows that Jer 29 does not display the characteristic epistolary formulae found in other letters, for example in the Hermopolis letters and Ezra; therefore, further investigation and other considerations need to take place. A place to begin to determine the genre of Jer 29 is to consider the three epistolary topics and themes that are suggested by Trapp.84 First, the first oracle makes it clear that the recipients of the document are physically distant from the senders, for the text states: “to all the exiles whom I have deported from Jerusalem to Babylon.” Therefore, there is a gap between the sender and receiver, which is characteristic of letters. Second, letters generally use a conversational style, which “read” as if they are fragments of a conversation on which a performer is called upon to improvise, as seen in the so-called Passover letter. However, the texture of Jer 29 is oracular in tone, similar to other prophetic texts, such as Amos. It is difficult to conceive of reading and/or hearing Jer 29 as part of a (casual) conversation. Third, the function of a letter is to create or sustain a relationship. There seems to be a concern over the (mis)perception that the captivity of the exiled Jews would be short and their return to Jerusalem near. Jeremiah corrects this view and a promise and hope for the future is given. Therefore, a case can be made that the text plays a role in maintaining a relationship. By applying these three criteria to Jeremiah, the case for determining that the text has characteristics of a letter is not very strong; therefore, another approach may be more helpful—a method that includes a wider application that embraces both Jer 29 and MMT. Unlike the letters from Egypt, Jer 29 is embedded in a narrative, which states “these are the words of the letter that Jeremiah the prophet sent,” and includes the sender, Jeremiah, and the recipients, the survivors of the exile. Determining a genre is more difficult when a tradition identifies a text, but the text itself lacks the idiomatic formal features characteristic of the genre. From a historical critical perspective, the issue is not solved by stating that the narrative introduction contains epistolary elements, for the text still has few formal epistolary features, such as transition markers, date, greetings, blessings, conclusion, and does not use a conversational style. The only explicit marker that this text uses letter form is in the narrative introduction. However, if the introduction to the letter is authentic, then it is conceivable that Elasah and Gemariah, the two messengers of the letter, would have mentioned to the recipients that the text is a letter from Jeremiah. This statement would have prepared the audience for a particular type of presentation. However, instead of beginning with the sender of the letter, presumably Jeremiah, the opening begins with an

84 Trapp, Greek and Latin Letters, 38–42.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

164

Performances of two embedded Jewish letters

oracular formula “Thus says the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel,” and then states who the recipients are: “to all the exiles.”85 We have argued in the letter in Ezra 5 that using narrative and letter form an author may allow the audience to fill-in-the-blanks between episodes during a performance. The same performative principle can apply to how an audience may respond to an embedded text within a narrative. Hearing the name of the writer and addressee at the beginning of the narrative would have affected the performance by guaranteeing that the text was identified by the audience as a letter, and may have contributed to “hearing” the presence of an epistolary feature, namely the mention of the recipients, in the midst of an oracle of the Lord. Another option is that the letter originally included the sender and recipient, but was dropped from the text as the book of Jeremiah was transmitted. This position would not change the way in which subsequent audiences may have “heard” the text as a letter, but would add credibility to the view that once in circulation a text can take on a life of its own, a point which has been noted when discussing the translation of the Ezra letters. We have mentioned above, that in defining what a letter is, we must not only consider the form of a text, but also how the text may have functioned in a community. This document purportedly offers access to the authentic prophetic voice of Jeremiah. The use of letter form seems to have been practiced to signal to the audience from an objective perspective that a particular type of literature was being read. The symbolic power of a text sent by the messenger of a prophet would have received a proper “hearing” by an audience, and through each subsequent reading, the text would have been applied to a new social setting. It may be best to characterize the form and function of the document contained in chapter 29 as a mixture, possibly as a collection of prophetic oracles presented through an epistolary persona.86 If my analysis is correct, then letter form may have been used as a disguise or costume for the purpose of teaching or admonishing an audience, which would imply that the letter was no longer a two sided conversation, but flowed from the sender to the recipient in the form of instruction. This perspective may be usefully applied to understand the genre of MMT.

85 This oracular formula is repeated in Oracle 2, but does not include the addressee and Oracle 3 is the most abbreviated. Oracle 4 begins a new scene and therefore states who the addressees are (“to the king and to all those who did not go into exile”) along with the oracular formula. The final oracle includes this formula as well as the recipients. 86 Pardee, Handbook, 177 calls Jer 29: 4–23 “a series of prophetic oracles stated. . .to have been sent as a letter.” Doering, Ancient Jewish Letters, states that what makes an ancient text a “letter” is its “claim to be written communication from an addressor to addressee who cannot communicate orally (for example, because of distance)” (p. 107).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

An Embedded Hebrew Letter: Jeremiah 29

165

6.3.2 Texture Now we turn to the analysis of the letter in order to suggest a measured verse presentation. In the letter in Ezra, we have considered that a change in participants is an indicator of a change in stanza. The text in Jer 29 can be divided into two parts—one section is addressed to a group in Babylon and the other to those in Jerusalem. Here we have a drastic change in spatial relations, which I will refer to as scenes. The first scene can be divided further into three oracles or stanzas and the second into two—all introduced by some variation of the messenger formula: “Thus says the Lord.” A comprehensive structural analysis of this letter is complex, but time and space does not allow for a detailed analysis. I will simply highlight the manner in which the text is structured by its use of rhythm, sound, and repetition. The narrative introduction sets the stage for the drama and serves to put the audience in the right frame of mind to receive the message to follow. The opening statement “these are the words of the letter” is not limited to the people mentioned within the textual world, but includes the listening audience. The letter is allegedly written by the prophet Jeremiah who was not exiled and states who the recipients are, namely the exiled religious elite, as well as non-elite. The two lines are separated according to the change in action: Jeremiah sends and Nebuchadnezzar deports. The verses employed in the Hebrew Bible are given in parenthesis to refer the modern reader to a more familiar format of the text.

Narrative Introduction Narrator : These are the words of the letter87 that Jeremiah the prophet sent from Jerusalem to the remainder of the elders of the exiles,88 and to the priests, and to the prophets and to all the people, whom Nebuchadnezzar had deported from Jerusalem to Babylon…saying (29:1–3).89

This letter is remarkably free with its expression of exhortation, encouragement, warning, and condemnation and addresses a wide audience including elders, 87 This is my translation of the letter. Sometimes the English is awkward in order to reflect the Hebrew syntax. 88 The LXX has merely “to the elders,” which is the translation followed by RSV. 89 In view of space, vv. 2 and 3 (as designated by many English translations) have been omitted. Verse 2 appears to be parenthetical and v. 3 lists the messengers, Elasah and Gemariah.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

166

Performances of two embedded Jewish letters

priests, prophets, and common people. The narrative introduction lists groups of individuals that are under the sway of the performer and may have required a variety of vocal inflections to engage the audience, as different groups were pointed out. Scene 1: Oracles Addressed to the Exiles in Babylon To understand the rhythmic pattern of the first oracle, the research of Marcel Jousse can usefully be applied here. He has argued that oral performances feature a careful structuring of “units of sound and sense uttered or chanted in a single breath,”90 a structure that facilitates memorization and performance in oral communities. As an example of rhythmic balancing of small units, we can observe this technique in the imperatives in the first oracle: “Build houses and live in them/ and plant gardens and eat their fruits// Take wives and bear sons and daughters/ And give your daughters to husbands.”91 The pattern of a statement followed by an explanation, a parallel structure common to many Hebrew psalms, continues throughout the first oracle. Unlike the imperatives in the Passover letter, these imperatives do not appear to be headings requiring an explanation by a performer, but rather seem to be pithy, self-explanatory statements encouraging the Jewish residence to plan to stay in a foreign land for the long haul. Another way in which the first oracle gives emphasis is by using repeated sounds that are lost in English translation. Not only is there syntactical dependence of the second half of the line on the first, but the sound patterns with which the line opens is also continued into the second part of the line. More specifically, the “u” sound (as in rule) produced by the use of imperatives92 is a sound that begins each line and is found in both parts of the line, forming an alliteration. The purpose of the last line in the first verse may have been to include an echo of the creation imperative in Gen 1:28 (“God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.’”), in addition to words found in Jer 30:19 (“I will increase [85L] them; they will not decrease [üFB]”). According to Hol-

90 For a model of “rhythmography” that is concerned with how the overall structure of a text can be stressed through the performative balance of small units, see Marcel Jousse, Anthropology of Gest and Rhythm, ed. and trans. by E. Sienaert and J. Conolly (Durban: Centre for Oral Studies, University of Natal, 1997). 91 The combination of verbs “build,” “plant” and “marry” are found in Dt. 20:5–10; 28:30–32; Isa. 65:21–23. 92 Imperatives are found in prophetic speech in 1 Kgs 22:12, 15; 2 Kgs 5:10, 13; Jer 27:12, 17. See also the Passover letter. The following verbs are in the imperative: build, live, plant, eat, take, give, and seek.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

An Embedded Hebrew Letter: Jeremiah 29

167

laday, the expression “increase and do not decrease” are covenantal words,93 which may have augmented the prophetic tone of the verse. Oracle/Stanza 1: Exhortation to take wives and settle in the land Narrator : Thus says the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel To all the exiles whom I94 have deported95 from Jerusalem to Babylon: (29:4) Verse 1: Instructions about living in the land “Build houses and live in them; And plant gardens, and eat their produce. (29:5) Take wives and bear sons and daughters, And give your daughters to husbands, that they may bear sons and daughters; And multiply there and do not decrease. (29:6) Verse 2: Instructions about the city And seek the welfare of the city where I have deported you there, And pray to the Lord on its behalf for in its welfare, there will be for you welfare.”96 (29:7)

The pattern of rhythm, sound, and syntax that is followed throughout the first oracle would have set the pace for the text by using short rhythmic blocks or “idea units,” making for a staccato presentation. In addition, this repeated rhythm would have aided memorization and thus made their retrieval easier.97 93 Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 141. 94 According to Pardee, “An Overview,” 331 n. 47, the change from “Yahweh” to the first person singular attests to a mixture of prophetic and epistolary styles. See Bright, Jeremiah, 208, who states that shifts from third to first person are frequent in prophetic address. 95 BHS suggests emending =N%=@ú6! 8% to the hophal 8N!@!6! 8) “have been exiled” following the Syriac. According to Pardee, “An Overview,” JBL 97 (1978): 321–46, the emendation is not necessary because this expression is a prophetic form and not an opening of a letter. 96 Lit. “in its welfare shall be your welfare.” 97 For a position that suggests that storage or memorization of texts is mimismic, rhythmic, and bilateral, see E. Sienaert and J. Conolly, “Marcel Jousse on ‘Oral-Style,’ ‘Memory,’ and the ‘Counting-Necklace,’” in Orality, Memory, and the Past: Listening to the Voices of Black

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

168

Performances of two embedded Jewish letters

Oracle/Stanza 2: Exhortation to ignore false prophets The positive outlook of Oracle 1 is interrupted by a negative declaration “do not let them deceive you” in Oracle 2. The emphasis in the first oracle concerns how the exilic people were to view their new land and the second concerns what they were to avoid. Most likely, because of the quick change in tone and for thematic reasons, BHS suggests that Oracles 2 and 3 be reversed; however, there are good literary reasons for keeping the present order (see below).98 Narrator : For thus says the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel: Verse 1: Lord speaks about false prophets “Do not let them deceive you, your prophets who are in your midst and your diviners, And you must not listen to their dreams that they dream.99 (29:8) Verse 2: Lord speaks to the audience For it is lie100 that they are prophesying to you in my name I did not send them.” Narrator : Lord’s oracle (29:9).

Insights from performance theory offer an understanding of how a letter may have been embodied during a presentation. Although each performative reading is specific and different from every other presentation because the ancient reader had the freedom to spontaneously insert his or her own memories and experiences into the performance,101 there is good evidence to suggest that the reader

98 99 100 101

Clergy under Colonialism and Apartheid, ed. Phillipe Denis (Pietermartitzburg: Cluster, 2000), 69. Bright, Jeremiah, states that these verses “give needed reinforcement to the preceding verses…and lead into those that follow” (p. 208). This sentence is difficult to translate. Literally it reads: “your dreams which you cause to be dreamed.” The LXX has “your dreams which you dream.” I have opted for the third person pronoun in this verse in order to match v. 9. Lit. “in a lie.” Hymes called the spontaneous breaking away from the words of a text as “breakthrough into performance.” See Hymes, “Breakthrough into Performance,” in Folklore: Performance and Communication, ed. Dan Ben-Amos and Kenneth Goldstein (The Hague: Mouton, 1975).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

An Embedded Hebrew Letter: Jeremiah 29

169

would have attempted to become one with the “I” of the text.102 The performer would have spoken on behalf of the characters in the letter ; in this case the main character is God. By the performer identifying with the characters in the text, the audience is invited to become a participant in the action. The indictment of someone else can feel like self-indictment.103 Therefore, hearing the re-performance of Jeremiah’s letter becomes a personal encounter with Jeremiah and his oracles.

Oracle/Stanza 3: God’s alternative message to the false prophets Now we turn to the third oracle. First, consideration of historical critical views of this oracle must be given attention. According to some scholars, Oracle 3 represents a later redactional development,104 includes interpretive additions,105 inserted in the text where it does not belong,106 or belongs in the context of the document, but has been misplaced.107 The model for understanding this ancient text appears to be based on the literature of European and North American languages.108 Performance criticism can offer a more satisfying position. There is a thematic link between “verse” 1 of Oracle 1 concerning the exhortation to settle in the land and to marry and have children and the assurance that when their time of exile is complete God will bring them back to Jerusalem. There is also a link between the concerns for prayer in the two oracles. In the first instance, the people are called upon to pray for Babylon and in the second they are assured that their prayers will be answered. Furthermore, the oracle formula in the first oracle states that God has deported the people from Jerusalem to Babylon and the last statement in the third oracle concludes with the statement 102 For a discussion on the rhetorical use of the pronoun “I” and the language of embodiment in the Hodayot, see Angela Kim Harkins, Reading with an ‘I’ to the Heavens: Looking at the Qumran Hodayot through the lens of Visionary Traditions, Religious Experience from Antiquity to the Middle Ages 3 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012). 103 For a discussion on how an audience can be turned into a participant in ancient Greek texts, see Collins, “Prompts for Participation,” 151–82, esp. 162. 104 Carroll, Jeremiah, 557. 105 G. Wanke, Untersuchungen zur sogenannten Baruchschrift, BZAW 122 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1971), 50 106 Bright, Jeremiah, 221. 107 Albert Condamin, Le Livre de J¦r¦mie, EBib (Paris: Gabalda, 1936) places vv. 16–20 between vv. 9 and 10; Wilhelm Rudolph, Jeremia, HAT 12 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1968) and Carroll, Jeremiah, 557, who quotes Rudolph, states that vv. 8–9 belong after v. 15; Friedrich Giesebrecht, Das Buch Jeremia, HKAT 3.2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1907), places vv. 16–20 between vv. 14 and 15. This is the arrangement of the Lucian recension of LXX and the position of Holladay. 108 This criticism is leveled against some English reconstructions of First Nations’ texts; see Blommaert, “Ethnopoetics,” 263–66.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

170

Performances of two embedded Jewish letters

“from which I deported you,” thus forming an inclusio. Considering these verbal connections weakens the historical critical view of moving v. 15 after v. 20. There is also a narrative function in the organization of the first three oracles, which form Scene 1. Oracle 1 can be understood as the onset of the action. God is introduced as the one who had deported the people from Jerusalem to Babylon, and he gives the people instructions on how to respond to their new situation. This oracle serves the aural purpose of preparing the audience for the unfolding of events. In Oracle 2 false prophets who may wish to dissuade the landed immigrants from viewing Babylon as their new home complicate the ongoing action of living in the land. The outcome of the action and its continuation is stated in Oracle 3. God’s alternative message to the false prophets is that he will bring the people back to Jerusalem when seventy years are completed; moreover, God will be with them through these troubling times and is available to them throughout the whole exilic period. This pattern allows for mnemonic fluency and provides an internal oral logic to the placement of the oracles. Considering syntactical, thematic, and narratological elements, gives credence to the position that the order of the oracles in Scene 1 as presented in most modern translations should be maintained. Rhythmically there are connections between the first and third oracles. The short two-part rhythm that was established in Oracle 1 is repeated in Oracle 3 in two places: “Plans for wholeness/ and not for evil// to give you a future/ and a hope” and “And you will seek me/ and you will find me// when you seek me with all your energy/ and I will be found by you.” Another rhythmic feature found in the first and third oracle is the use of the first person singular, thus giving the performer the role of speaking for (or as) the Lord God of Hosts by using the emphatic I. The formula consists of the first person pronoun + a verb + the second person pronoun, for instance, “I will visit you,” “the plans I have for you,” “I will hear you,” “I have driven you,” in Oracle 3 and “I have deported you” in Oracle 1. Orally the first oracle features the “u” sound produced by the imperatives and in Oracle 3, there is alliteration produced by the pronominal suffix km/tm (AN/A? ), especially at vv. 12 and 13.109 When we consider a textual (re)presentation for this oracle, several considerations call for our attention. Since this oracle is more complex than the previous two, we need to observe different oral features that are not present in other oracles to guide our approach. As the other oracles in Jer 29, this one begins with the messenger formula “For thus says the Lord.” The transition marker that introduces v. 1 is “when/for” (=? )110 and gives the audience two things that the 109 This sound occurs by reference to the pronoun “you:” “you call me,” “you come,” “you find,” etc. 110 According to B.T. Arnold and J.H. Choi, A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (New York:

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

An Embedded Hebrew Letter: Jeremiah 29

171

Lord will accomplish: he will visit them and he will fulfil his promise to bring them back. Verse 2 gives an emphatic reason why the Lord will be able to bring about what he said he would do, because he has a plan for them. I have segmented the verse to indicate the three conditional clauses, determined by the use of “when” (9).111 Even though the verse is long, the feature that determines my decision is that the Lord speaks throughout the whole verse to the same exilic audience. Statements emphasize the assurance that he will visit them when they “call and pray,” “search and seek,” and the Lord will “hear” and “be found.” This verse concludes with the narrator stating, “Lord’s oracle.” The Lord has also indicated that he will fulfil his promise to bring them back. That part of the promise is expanded in v. 3, where he says that he will turn back their fortunes and will gather them from all the nations to be returned to the land from which they were deported. For the last time in this oracle, the performer states that what has been said is the Lord’s oracle. The final two statements act as a conclusion to this scene by reiterating that the Lord will bring them back and by restating two major themes found in Oracles 1 and 2—“Babylon” and “prophets.” Although it is difficult to determine who the “voice” of the last statement is, it appears that the narrator presents it. This change in “voice” is signaled by the change in pronouns from “I will bring you back” to “because you said the Lord has raised up….” The ambiguity of this statement, suggests that understanding the text depends on the performer, whose inflection determines whether the audience understands the statement as a concluding summary or an introduction to the next section. Generally, discourse markers are sentence initial adverbs or particles that can be used either to alert the reader that the body of the letter is beginning or to emphasize an aspect of the text.112 They can serve a pragmatic function by signaling the relation the performer perceives between different parts of the letter. An example of this use of an adverb is the repetition of the word “when” in v. 2. In this oracle, it appears that the refrain “Lord’s oracle” functions as a discourse marker and helps clarify Jeremiah’s argument.113 By paying special Cambridge University Press, 2003), §4.3.3(f), it can be difficult to decide whether =? is introducing a conditional clause (if) or a temporal clause (when), particularly when future situation is in view. See also, Ronald J. Williams, Williams’ Hebrew Syntax, Revised and expanded by John C. Beckman, 3rd ed. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007), §443–59. 111 It is conceivable that the word could be translated with “and” but this hardly makes sense. I have translated the vav with “when” in order to keep the rhythm, which most likely would have been maintained in an oral presentation. 112 This discourse marker may have been employed to draw the audience’s attention to the information immediately preceding it. According to Maschler, Metalanguage, 152–53, ke’ilu is a modern Hebrew example of using a discourse marker as a focus marker. 113 Apparently, no one has sought to organize the text as a whole on this basis.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

172

Performances of two embedded Jewish letters

attention to this repetitive framing device, we can structure the oracle in a way that emphasizes the duel proposal of the Lord—he will visit the people and fulfil his promise to bring them back to Judah. Narrator : For thus says the Lord: Verse 1: Lord’s Commitment “When114 seventy years are completed115 for Babylon, I will visit you, And I will fulfill my promise to you116 to bring you back to this place (29:10). For I know the plans that I am planning concerning you.” Narrator : Lord’s oracle. Verse 2: Lord’s elaboration on his commitment to visit them “Plans for your welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope117 (29:11). When118 you call on me119 and you come and you pray to me120 and I will hear you (29:12). When you search for me and you will find me. When you seek me with all your energy121 (29:13) and I will be found by you.”122 Narrator : Lord’s oracle.

˘

114 Holladay, Jeremiah, 141 prefers “only when.” So also Bright, Jeremiah; Rudolph, Jeremia; and JB. 115 Lit. “the mouth of being full.” 116 Lit. “I will see to you and I will fulfill to you my good word.” 117 This is a hendiadys for “the hoped-for-future.” 118 NIV and NRSV translate this word with “then,” which makes vv. 10–14 future. NEB and NASB leave this word untranslated. 119 The phrase “when you call me and you come” is not found in the LXX. 120 Jeremiah was commanded not to pray for the welfare of the people in 7:16; 11:14; 14:11. 121 Lit. “heart.” 122 NRSV translates the hip il as “I will let you find me”; NAB “you will find me with you”; LXX reads “I will manifest myself to you.” LXX also omits the rest of the verse.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

An Embedded Hebrew Letter: Jeremiah 29

173

Verse 3: Lord’s elaboration on his promise to bring them back “And I will turn back your fortunes and I will gather you from all the nations and from all the places to which I have driven you.” Narrator : Lord’s oracle. Verse 4: Lord’s reiteration of his promise “And I will bring you back to the place from which I deported you” (29:14). Narrator : Because you say, the Lord has raised up123 prophets for us in Babylon (29:15)

This oracle is marked by oral elements that are to my mind the most significant and underappreciated performative tools employed in this chapter. The lively literary style of this oracle is created by the frequent use of the pronoun I accompanied by the repeated “Lord’s oracle.” The proposal I make is that this embodiment language generates the effect of participatory presence in which the Lord is given voice through the performance and the audience is invited to hear anew the voice of the Lord. It is not accidental that the refrain “Lord’s oracle” is followed by declarations, such as “I did not send them” (Oracle 2), “I am planning concerning you,” “I will be found by you,” and “I have driven you.” The strategy used by the author of this letter seems to be to make a strong declaration and to emphasize its legitimacy by stating that this is the Lord’s oracle. Repetition gives information to the audience about the performer’s attitude toward the text and helps accomplish the social goal of persuasion.124 The audience requires the performer, not only to introduce propositions, but also offer signs and signposts for better comprehension of the text.125 This can be achieved by emphasizing the discourse markers, no matter where they occur in a letter.

˘

123 This hip il with “prophets” as the object is only found here and in Deut 18:15, 18. 124 Deborah Tannen, “Repetition in Conversation: Towards a Poetics of Talk,” Language 63 (1978): 581. 125 For a discussion on the purpose of discourse markers in Homer, see Bonifazi, “Memory and Visualization,” 45–59.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

174

Performances of two embedded Jewish letters

Scene 2: Oracles Addressed to those who live in Jerusalem Scene 1 is addressed to those in exile; whereas, Scene 2 opens in a new setting— Jerusalem. Oracle 4 has two messenger formulae and addresses both the king and all the people who live in Jerusalem. This oracle (29:16–20) is not found in the LXX and is viewed by some scholars as an intrusion from another context.126 However, there is another perspective. It appears that this oracle is closely tied with the themes of the first two oracles. The announcement of judgment in Oracle 4 is in contrast with the exhortation to settle in the land, marry, and have children. In the first oracle the exiled people were called upon to “build houses and live in them” and in Jerusalem the Lord was going to send “sword, famine and plague,” a curse that would affect their quality of life. “I will make them like figs that are rotten” is a parody on “plant gardens and eat their fruit.” Likewise, “I will make them the terror of all nations” is in contrast to “take wives and father sons and daughters” and “seek the welfare of the city.” Considering an oral presentation, it is very clear that Oracle 4 begins with a series of vivid images in contrast with the short, pithy statements in Oracle 1. Oracle 4 concludes with reasons for the judgment, which uses many words found in Oracle 2, such as “they did not listen,” which is similar to “and you must not listen.” Other words that are used in both oracles are “prophets,” “hear,” and “send.” It is clear that Oracles 1 and 2 are written as a contrast to 4. Additionally, the rhythmic pattern and verbal repetition noted in Scene 2 (“I did not send them”) occurs at the beginning of each announcement of judgment: “I am going to send them,” “And I will make them” [twice] and “And I will pursue after them.” The intent of this analysis is to demonstrate that using performance criticism can offer further considerations on issues of integrity of letters.

Oracle/Stanza 4: Coming judgment on the king and all the people127 I have divided this oracle into three verses. Verse 1 states that the Lord is going to send “the sword, famine and plague” and “will pursue after them,” and then gives the result of the Lord’s curse, introduced by “And I will make…” I have separated these aspects in order to emphasize the systematic flow of argument. The performer then changes from the “voice” of the Lord to the “voice” of the narrator and gives the refrain “Lord’s oracle.” In contrast to Oracle 3, where this marker is used after positive statements about the Lord (“I know the plans I have 126 Bright, Jeremiah, 209. 127 Verses 16–20 are not found in the LXX (except for GL which has the order vv. 14, 16–20, 15, 21–23). According to Carroll, Jeremiah, 554, this omission is not due to homoioteleuton because the section is too long. These two “versions” may be the result of two performance contexts.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

175

An Embedded Hebrew Letter: Jeremiah 29

for you,” “I will be found by you,” “I will gather you from all the nations”), Oracle 4 employs the marker after two negative statements (“You did not pay attention” and “You did not listen”). The oral purpose for including the words “the Lord’s oracle” is to mark off the statements that went before. Repetition of this element, which has been used just moments before, is an economical response that signals the urgency for compliance.128 This oracle is concluded with a return to the focus on those who are in exile. Narrator : For thus says the Lord: “To the king the one who sits on the throne of David and to all of the people the ones who live in this city, all the brothers who did not go out with you into exile.” (29:16) Thus says the Lord of hosts: Verse 1: Lord’s Monologue about those in Jerusalem “Look! I am going to send129 on them the sword, the famine and the plague and I will make them like the figs that are rotten that cannot be eaten because of their bad quality (29:17). And I will pursue after them the sword, with the famine and with the plague. And I will make them a terror to all of the kingdoms of the earth as a curse and as a horror and as an object of hissing130 and as a disgrace among all the nations where I have driven them away from there (29:18). Because they did not pay attention to my words.”

˘

128 See also Minchin, “Speech Acts,” 84–86. 129 This form of ;@a is intensive, that is, in the pi el (“let loose”); whereas, in v. 6 the verb is in a simple form (“send”). 130 This is in contrast to the welfare of those in exile.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

176

Performances of two embedded Jewish letters

Narrator : Lord’s oracle Verse 2: Lord’s reason for the coming judgment “When I sent to you my servants the prophets again and again131 and you did not listen.” Narrator : Lord’s oracle (29:19) Verse 3: Lord admonishes the exilic Jews “And hear the word of the Lord all of the exiles whom I sent from Jerusalem to Babylon.” (29:20)

This oracle allows the performer to embody the text and present it in a dramatic way. The performer begins with the interjection “Look!” By employing this element, the audience’s attention is immediately caught. Then the audience is given a vivid “picture” before their minds on how the coming judgment will “look”: “I am going to send sword, famine and plague…I will make them like figs that are rotten…I will make them an object of hissing.” Prophets frequently use figurative language, but instead of viewing visual images as simply part of the backdrop of the oracle, it is important to explore the ways these images may have served to direct the performer as well as how they may have affected the audience.132 The oracle could have communicated the basic facts of the Lord’s judgment; however, there appears to have been a purpose for arousing the emotions of the audience and creating a sense of involvement in the hearers. One motivation to use dramatic language may have been to remind the exilic hearers of the horrors of those in Jerusalem, so that those in Babylon are more likely to be persuaded to build houses, plant gardens, marry, and have children. In this case, the purpose of drawing on dramatic images is to grab the audience’s attention and galvanize them into action. The focus of this oracle is on the plight of the king and the people of Jerusalem, but v. 3 dramatically changes the emphasis back to those in exile, which suggests that the exilic audience may be called on to be witnesses to the announcement of judgment. One performative option is that 131 Lit. “rising early and sending.” 132 A helpful volume that explores how language attemps to make an audience imagine a scene is Ruth Webb, Ekphrasis, Imagination and Persuasion in Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Practice (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2009), esp. 131–65. See also, David Horrell, Bradley Arnold and Travis Williams, “Visuality, Vivid Description, and the Message of 1 Peter : The Significance of the Roaring Lion (1 Peter 5:8),” JBL 132 (2013): 679–716.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

An Embedded Hebrew Letter: Jeremiah 29

177

the element of persuasion is augmented by the performer’s tone, voice inflection, and body gestures, as well as through the appeal to the audience’s imagination. Oracle 5: Announcement of judgment on two prophets The final oracle narrows the judgment from the king and all those who remain in Jerusalem to two false prophets. I have divided the oracle into four verses, according to the change in person, indicated by the pronouns (“I am going,” “And he will strike,” “And because of them,” and then a curse is pronounced). The first verse announces the judgment and the second gives the actions of the king of Babylon. The goal of the warning in Oracle 2 (“For it is a lie that they are prophesying to you in my name, I did not send them”) is similar to the reason stated for the judgment on the two prophets (“And they have spoken words in my name, lies that I did not command them”). The scene is concluded with the Lord’s signature. He knows all that has been spoken in this letter and has underwritten its contents. Narrator : For thus says the Lord of Hosts the God of Israel To Ahab the son of Kolaiah and to Zedekiah the son of Maaseiah, who are prophesying a lie to you in my name Verse 1: Lord speaks about the prophets “Look! I am going to give them into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon Verse 2: Actions of the King of Babylon And he shall strike them before your eyes. (29:21) Verse 3: Response by those in exile And because of them all the exiles from Judah who are in Babylon will use this curse, saying…” Verse 4: Curse in the form of a speech act ‘May the Lord make you like133 Zedekiah and like Ahab whom the king of Babylon roasted in the fire (29:22) because they have done a willful sin in Israel and they have committed adultery 133 This expression in the jussive is also found in Gen 48: 20: “May the Lord make you like Ephraim and Manasseh.”

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

178

Performances of two embedded Jewish letters

with the wives of their neighbours and they have spoken words in my name, lies that I did not command them. Lord’s Signature: And I am he who knows and I am a witness.”134 Narrator : Lord’s oracle (29:23).

The oracle’s importance is emphasized by the opening “Look!” The ancient performer would have embodied the letter through gestures when stating that the false prophets will be stricken down and when pronouncing the curse on the audience. The first person voice that begins this oracle (“I am going to give…”) and the vivid language of the curse in the form of a speech-act offer a compelling script for actualization. Having rejected the running prose presentation of these letters in favour of an ethnopoetic structure, I have attempted to emphasize the letter’s argument and give clues to its focus. Having considered the identification of lines, verses, stanzas, and scenes, the profile of the letter can be drawn by considering the correlations between linguistic form, thematic development, and the general architecture of the letter. These contributions supported by a performance perspective need to be combined with the texture to serve as an additional body of “formal” evidence to support this point of view. We have noted in the analysis of the structure that the addressee changes from the diaspora to the Jerusalemites and that the text consists of five oracles, three addressed to those in Babylon and two to those remaining in Jerusalem. Here I note three language choices, or methods of adding texture that support the conclusions of the previous section and suggest why letter form was selected and with what aims. The first language choice is that Jer 29 is shaped by a formula of prophetic speech “this is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says. . .” and includes the refrain “Lord’s oracle.” The oral/aural impact of these two declarations represents a transformation from Jeremiah the prophet speaking, to Jeremiah speaking on behalf of the Lord, and finally resuming to Jeremiah’s own words. By writing in this way, the prophet makes a connection between the “real” world in which the audience lives and hears the message and the performance world. In performance the reader would assume the role of the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel in a moment of high intensity as he expresses the Lord’s oracle by

˘

134 For an example of a witness to a letter, other than the sender, see Murabba at (papMur 42). For a witness as a deed of sale, see Jer 32:12.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

An Embedded Hebrew Letter: Jeremiah 29

179

using the first person singular (i. e. “I carried into exile…”135). Then would move away from that intensity and take on the role of a narrator, when the statement “Lord’s oracle” is uttered. The performers of the text would have imagined the rising and falling action of each oracle, at least partially, as they increased and decreased narrative tension through variations in voice and gesture, thus alerting the audience to a change in referent. The performer becomes the link between the fictive world presented by the characters in the letter and the “real” world of the audience. The priestly interests are placed in the voice of the Lord sent by a legendary prophet. If this view of the prophetic performance holds, it can be conjectured that in the process of experiencing this text, the intended, as well as future, audiences would have taken over the function of the referent. In other words, the letter can be viewed by the audience as having been written to them by the Lord of Hosts. Spatial references to Jerusalem and Babylon would have conjured up emotions of loss of a lifestyle left behind, on the one hand, and living in a foreign country under a world power, on the other. Locations are used to guide an audience’s understanding and thereby to focus their memory. The memory of God’s actions against Jerusalem is bold; his speech is recalled as assertive. The oracles concerning Jerusalem were set as warnings but Babylon was viewed as the “place to set down roots.” Spatial location is associated with memory and thus the movement from one location to another offer a sub-structure to the oracles and helped cue the performer’s and audience’s memory.136 Second, and closely related to the first language choice, is that the performer is the key actor speaking for (or as) God in the communication. Unlike in Ezra 5 where the building project is mediated through texts, Jer 29 uses oracles to give an aura of divine speech and a rhythmic power that allows the performers to speak in the voice of the Lord Almighty. The first oracle expresses that the people should make the best of their experience in the foreign country, which allows the performer to begin the reading by being a spokesperson for God, who addresses the hearers. This is most dramatically and explicitly stated by the words, “I have deported you there.” In the exhortation against the false prophets, with every new recitation, the performer again warns the community not to listen to fabricated prophecies, but heed only those sent by God. The role of the performer as the speaker for (or as) God is particularly poignant in the oracle that uses performative speech or speech acts. For instance, the performer employs a speech act as a mechanism to renew the covenant each time the words in Jer135 The first person singular referring to God is used some 29 times in these oracles, “me” five times, “my” four. This emphasis confirms who the author of the oracles is said to be. 136 According to Minchin, “in the ancient world…the training of memory and the exploitation of its spatial system would have been of vital importance” (“Spatial Memory,” 13).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

180

Performances of two embedded Jewish letters

emiah are spoken that “[God] will fulfill to you my promise” (29:10) and “[God] will turn back your fortunes” (29:14).137 With every performance of the announcement of judgments against those who remained in Jerusalem and against the two prophets, the performer again enacts a judgment against those who do not hear or listen to God’s words, or who commit willful sins, or are adulterous, or lie against God. The performer symbolically brings to life, or (re)presents the oracles of God, which become present again in performance. Therefore, it can be said that the texture implies that God continues to speak with authority, not merely through human testimony as in Ezra, but through the voice of God expressed through the performers of oracles. The third language choice consists of the way in which the text frames each oracle, not only through employing the formula “thus says the Lord,” but more importantly, through the texture of the body of the oracle. The first oracle uses short, pithy statements and is set apart from the others by its quick action sequence, exemplified by the use of imperatives, with only one subordinate clause. The texture changes significantly in the next oracle by its use of two prohibitions, namely, “Do not let them deceive you,” and “And you must not listen.” A change in texture in the next oracle is signaled by the use of “when” (=? ), which, according to Allen, reflects redactional activity,138 but more probably served the communicative purpose of alerting the performer or audience that a change in subject is about to happen. The positive exhortation in Oracle 1 and the negative exhortation in Oracle 2 culminate in Oracle 3 in the form of an assurance that God has their welfare in mind. The two announcements of judgment in Oracles 4 and 5 are introduced by an oracular formula and then begin with an exclamation “Look!” to alert listeners to what is about to happen. This interjection may have been retained precisely because it unequivocally marks off these oracles. The use of repetition of words serves a number of purposes in Jer 29. 1) Repetition is used as an aural device to emphasize parallel statements, such as the repeated use of word “welfare” in the first oracle.139 2) It provides an inclusio for Scene 1. The word “Babylon” is found in the messenger formula at the beginning of Oracle 1 and at the conclusion of Oracle 3, thus framing this 137 Jer 29:10–14 is closely linked to Deut 4:29–31, where God promises that he will not forget the covenant he made with their fathers. See the speech-acts “I will come to you” (v. 10), “I know the plans I have for you” (v. 11); “I will listen to you” (v. 12). “I will be found by you” (v. 14), “I will gather you” (v. 15), “I will send the sword” (v. 17), etc. 138 Leslie C. Allen, Jeremiah: A Commentary, OTL (Louisville: John Knox Press, 2008), 323. 139 This verse may reflect the prayer for Jerusalem in Ps 122:6–9. Repetition is employed in a single verse, such as in the recurrence of “sons and daughters” in v. 6, or scattered throughout the text, such as “I carried you” (vv. 4, 7, 14); “I have (not) sent” (vv. 9, 19, 20); “I will bring you back” (vv. 10, 14) and “in my name” (vv. 9, 21, 23).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

An Embedded Hebrew Letter: Jeremiah 29

181

scene. 3) The formula “thus says the Lord” is given to introduce each oracle and the apparent voice of God is affirmed by the repeated use of “Lord’s oracle.” 4) Oracles 3 and 4 contain a refrain, such as the promise that “I will bring you back to the place” in Oracle 3, which occurs at the beginning of the exhortation and as a refrain at the end of the oracle. What is clear is that Jer 29 reflects rhythmic and verbal patterns in which parallel units are balanced in terms of sound and word repetition, and reinforced by alliteration, an oral texture that provides an element of internal cohesion.140 If this letter is authentic, that is written or dictated by Jeremiah, the motivation for sending an oracle in letter form may have been necessitated by distance, not by choice, that is, Jeremiah may not have been able to travel to Babylon to deliver his message in person.141 In this scenario, the prophet may have been using a prophetic form that he was familiar with and framed it as a letter being sent through a messenger from Jerusalem to Babylon, thereby entrusting that the power of the word of the Lord will do its work by using letter form, or implying that a letter is being used.142 However, if the text is a later addition to the book of Jeremiah, including an alleged letter may have been a means of expressing a provocative view of limited cooperation with a foreign power by using the authority of a well-known prophet offering a perspective written at arms-length. Whichever view is taken, it is clear that the type of communication presented in the text is a prophetic message and would have been decoded by the audience as a text written or dictated by the prophet using the voice of the Lord and sent as a letter. Similar to Ezra, Jeremiah’s letter is sent as a symbol of authority to promote group identity but uses the dedicated register of an oracle to speak for (or as) God to exhort and warn the people of Israel. A question that remains is in what context would an oracle be performed as a letter that oscillates between the voice of a narrator and the voice of God?

6.3.3 Context The text and texture of this early Jewish diaspora letter gives us important clues about who read the document and how it may have been performed. Jer 29 140 Other links consist of each oracle using a form of the verb “send” (vv. 7, 9, 14, 19, 20); similar words are used, such as “bring back” (vv. 10, 14) and “deliver” (v. 21). The first and third oracles share the motif of “welfare” (vv. 7. 11) and “prayer” (vv. 7, 12). 141 Assuming that this letter is a historical record of an actual letter is problematic. It cannot be verified either way, but for our purposes it makes little difference whether it was an actual letter or a literary construct. 142 Jeremiah, we are told, wrote many prophetic messages through Baruch and had links to scribal families (Jer 30:2; 36:2–32; 45:1; 51:60–64).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

182

Performances of two embedded Jewish letters

invites the performer and audience into the very common world of village dwellers building houses, planting gardens, and having children during a long waiting period when life might be difficult and hope may be in short supply. These positive domestic images are contrasted with negative descriptions of destruction, such as “rotten figs,” “(an object) of hissing,” “being struck before your eyes,” and “sword, famine, and plague.” The juxtaposition of contrasting images can offer an opportunity for a reader to consider how prophetic forms were used in Israelite tradition. It appears that speaking against kings and those who did not go into exile would have been significant to ordinary people living out of the popular tradition in exile.143 The stratification by residence expressed in each scene (rural exiles in Scene 1 vs. urban Jerusalemites in Scene 2) and social status (all those in exile in Scene 1 vs. kings in Scene 2) are compounded by the prophetic voice that influenced each group.144 These differences suggest that there was a gap between the practices of the religious elite in Jerusalem and the concerns of the common people in exile. Additionally, each oracle and each scene is structured in a way that exhibits internal cohesion as well as being framed as individual units. These observations can lead to a general historical context in which Jer 29 may have been performed. There is little question that this text was recited or read in a communal setting as an oral/aural event intended for enactment or embodiment. Therefore, the oracles came to have significance only in performance in particular relational contexts—never exclusively individually read, nor as a one-time event. According to Cambron-Goulet, “reading in common also puts the letter in an oral context favourable to questioning and discussion that is not possible when a reader faces a text alone.”145 Jeremiah calls these oracles a “letter,” which may suggest that the written text was perceived to need explanation. The performers for (or as) God would have been cast into the role or persona of a prophet, serving in a prophetic office with each new performance, and used a text that takes on the persona of a letter. Therefore, the letter is given life via a somatic and semiotic ritual of (re)iteration in order to bind a covenant community together in a shared experience that far exceeds the authority of the written text.146 143 In another letter included in ch. 29, Jeremiah states that God sent prophets and the ruling class rejected them (vv. 17–19). 144 The motif of sending and rejecting God’s prophets is a common theme in the Hebrew Bible. See Ezra 9:6–15; Neh 1:5–11; Ps 106:6–46; Deut 4:25–31; 28:45–68; 30:1–10; 1 Kgs 8:46–53. See also Tob 3:1–6 145 Mathilde Cambron-Goulet, “Orality in Philosophical Epistles,” in Between Orality and Literacy : Communication and Adaptation in Antiquity, OLAW 10 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 162. See also Plato, Phaedr. 275d, who criticized literacy for its limits regarding questions. 146 John Miles Foley, “The Riddle of Q: Oral Ancestor, Textual Precedent, or Ideological Creation,” in Oral Performance, Popular Tradition, and Hidden Transcript in Q, ed. Richard Horsley, Semeia Studies (Atlanta: SBL, 2006), 139 uses the terms “somatic” and “semiotic”

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

An Embedded Hebrew Letter: Jeremiah 29

183

The texture of Jer 29 gives us a glimpse into the social history of the exilic people. Both scenes display a different emphasis. There is no cause and effect relation specified in the destruction oracles of Scene 2 according to which the announcement of judgment brings repentance and a change in lifestyle as is found in the assurance that “if you seek me, I will be found by you” in Scene 1. Difficult to grasp is why oracles would be repeated that had been fulfilled because time cancels their predictive power. It appears that the reenactment of Scene 1 would have been performed not in terms of their immediate prediction, but in terms of how it may have kept the audience focused on what is worth hoping for. The repeated mention through performance that God has their welfare in mind suggests the possibility that some of these oracles were being enacted during long periods of domination by foreign systems. The question that may have been considered is whether deliverance from an imperial power is by military revolt, apocalyptic act of God, or repentance of the people. On this score the performance of a text allegedly written by Jeremiah suggests that prophets could be conceived of as a threat to foreign rule for they hold a key to survival and possibly advancement in the midst of imperial might. In contrast, Scene 2 has slated Israel’s own kings, prophets, and those living in Jerusalem for destruction because of their alleged disobedience. The oracles of judgment against Israel’s oppressive and exploitative rulers state that the temple institution and their elite will be destroyed. According to Oracle 4, the sentence of doom had been pronounced ahead of time (“I am going to send on them the sword, the famine, and the plague”), which implies that a decision had already been made in the heavenly court, before it came to pass on earth. The prophetic oracle of judgment over Jerusalem and its leaders would have resonated in the ears of the hearers as the fulfillment of Israel’s yearnings, with the tables finally being turned on the ruling house of Jerusalem.147 Each scene reveals a different social conflict and gives the stance in these struggles. Scene 1 is a conflict reflected in a home and neighbourhood against a foreign world power and takes the position that God offers hope, salvation, and a return of fortunes for those who seek the Lord. This scene emphasizes the renewal of the covenant of Israel over against foreign rulers they viewed as to refer to the prophetic iteration of the Q material. A. Demsky, “On the Extent of Literacy in Ancient Israel,” in Biblical Archaeology Today: Proceedings of the International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, April 1984, ed. Janet Amitai (IES and ASOR: Jerusalem, 1984), views that the “prophetic presentation or act is a striking example of the bridging process between a literate group and a lay audience” (p. 351). 147 Oestreich, Performanzkritik, 52–54, 91–99, 170–71, offers an interesting perspective that in some performances the audience may consist of different groups and that the ones being criticized are in the presence of the other. Although he is referring to NTcongregations, we cannot rule out that possibility in the performance of ancient Jewish letters before the time of the apostle Paul.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

184

Performances of two embedded Jewish letters

oppressive and unjust.148 The second type of conflict found in Scene 2 is internal and includes Israel’s own religious leaders. The stress in the text falls on God’s judgment on the religious elite and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.149 An argument can be made, albeit cautiously given the lack of first-hand evidence, that the second scene may have been performed in some contexts separate from the first. The rationale for this position is that a change in participants, coupled with the change in tone and conflict, may suggest a change in performative context. If that is the case, then the oracles of destruction could be told as a judgment against the ruling religious leaders, but also as a sign of deliverance for those who see themselves as listening to God’s “true” prophets. To have full effect in overcoming despair and offering hope for the future, these two scenes, either individually or collectively, would have been meaningful during times of need and exploitation. Although it is difficult to know when and where this letter was performed, it appears that the age-old longings of a renewed Israel would have been (re)enacted as the community heard the “word of the Lord of Hosts,” and God became present again in their midst through the words of the prophet and by extension their performers. Kings, prophets, and those on the royal payroll may not have been interested in a letter that calls attention to their shortcomings. According to this letter, Jerusalemite families and the royal establishment were riddled with faults, but the letter addresses rural leadership in a conciliatory manner. It seems plausible that the letter may have been read by those who possessed moderate education and cultural fluency and “possessed a regard for the written works as vehicles of power and persuasion…but would not have hesitated to criticize royal offenses or abuses that worked against their interests and values.”150 Thus, the performance sustains the prophetic tradition, which may have provoked new prophetic voices presented for different purposes.151

148 For other texts that deal with the future restoration of Israel, see Isa 42: 5–6; Zech 2:10; 8:7–8; Pss. Sol. 11:2–3; Ps 107:3; Bar 4:4; 5:5; 1 En. 57:1. 149 Oestreich, Performanzkritik, 126–28, refers to this literary technique as “Verfremdungseffekt” (“V-Effekt”), where the audience is not to identify with the person who is being portrayed, but rather to distance themselves from him or her, in this case from the Jerusalem elite. 150 Mark Leuchter, “The Sociolinguistic and Rhetorical Implications of the Source Citations in Kings,” in Soundings in Kings: Perspectives and Methods in Contemporary Scholarship, ed. Mark Leuchter and Klaus-Peter Adam (Augsburg: Fortress, 2010), 125. See also Schaper, “Exilic and Post-Exilic Prophecy,” 334–35. 151 Philip R. Davies, ‘“Pen of iron, point of diamond’ (Jer 17:1): Prophecy as Writing,” in Writings and Speech in Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy, ed. Ehud Ben Zvi and Michael H. Floyd, SBLSymS 10 (Atlanta, SBL, 2000), states that there is a danger of assuming that the process of producing prophetic scrolls is driven by one purpose (p. 78).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Summarizing the Performances

6.4

185

Summarizing the Performances

I have argued that the inclusion of Ezra 5 and Jer 29 in an embedded text adds to the plot development of the narratives in which they are found. However, the relationship between the narrative and the text of the letter varies, and thus may extend how we understand the definition of letter. Ezra 5 contains standard Aramaic letter form, consisting of introduction, transitional words, and conversational style; whereas, none of these features are present in the body of the letter found in Jer 29. If we expand the meaning of the term “letter” to include how a text functions in a community, we can say that the narrative introduction that states that a letter is to follow allows the performer to identify the participants in the text, and places an expectation on the performer and listening community that a particular type of text is being read, and thereby allowing the document to function as a letter. A letter, in this case, serves the purpose of giving instructions that are intended for a wider readership. In our investigation, Jer 29 is the first document that does not follow letter form and yet may have functioned as a letter—that is, a written text for those who cannot communicate faceto-face. This development may force us to re-evaluate how a letter is defined— particularly as it relates to MMT. Another consideration concerning how a text functions is the oral/aural impact of a performance. We have proposed that the “borrowing” of material in Ezra 5 or the “awkwardness” in the order of the oracles in Jer 29 may not be the result of redaction, reworking, or mistakes, but rather may suggest that the text reflects a performative sensitivity. What are the consequences of ignoring the possibility of analyzing the text in terms of an ethnopoetic structure? Most fundamentally it leads to the habit of understanding the text using the sophistication of text critical methods and using the model of the literature of the European languages, without considering or representing the oral aspect. However, by being attentive to the performative elements consisting of a change in participants, and aural cues, such as rhythm, alliteration, and repetition, Jer 29 can be viewed as a cohesive unit, consisting of two scenes, and Ezra 5 can be divided into three stanzas.152 Considering oral patterns offers an additional body of evidence when viewing issues of integrity and unity and can help clarify the relation of an embedded letter to its surrounding narrative, without dismissing an ancient author(s) ways of speaking as illegitimate, irrational, or not-to-the point.153 152 Obviously, this position is plausible only on the assumption that the author, or redactor, understood the text as having unity. 153 Blommaert, “Ethnography and democracy,” 271, emphasizes that certain minority groups—African Americans, college students, North American First Nations’ storytellers,

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

186

Performances of two embedded Jewish letters

In Ezra 5, I have proposed that the change in participants suggests a change in stanza; additionally, that shifts can suggest a change in performance context, such as in Jer 29. This is a significant observation when considering a much longer work, such as MMT, which includes many participants. The purpose for choosing to represent a text as a letter may be its symbolic value, which may have offered the performance a sign of authority, particularly if the performer spoke for (or as) God. One important element that is distinctive to letter form is that a performance immediately brings the persona of the participants in the letter present to the listening audience and thus sets them up for a particular type of presentation. Highlighting the performative elements in a letter, in conjunction with other methods, helps clarify the letter’s argument and may give further evidence of the intended focus. As we continue our observations of letter form, we now turn to Greek letters in order to consider another perspective on the diversity of letters. The observations we have made thus far will form a backdrop for the next two texts.

and others—can appear to be the victim of negative stereotyping and their ways of speaking dismissed. Ethnopoetics is an effort to reconstruct the voice of the original author(s) and allow their texts to be “heard.”

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Chapter 7 Performances of two Greek Letters

We have learned in the previous chapter that an embedded letter may serve the purpose of advancing the storyline of a narrative, but this may not always be the case. The letters in Gr. Esther1 and those in the prologue to 2 Maccabees support the narrative, but are designed to do something quite different from the Hermopolis letters and those in Ezra and Jeremiah. This chapter will suggest different purposes letters may have served in a narrative, which may suggest a different aural effect they may have had on the audience. The inclusion of a letter as part of a narrative account is well attested in the ancient Near East. Our inquiry will survey examples of letters that appear to be a later addition to an existing composition. Two letters in Gr. Esther serve to supplement a tale set in the court of a foreign king, a novella2 that tells the story of a righteous Jewish courtier who experiences an adventure while serving in the king’s court.3 Another addition to an existing text, but serving a different literary purpose are the two letters that provide the preface to an alleged abridged historical account on the work of Jason of Cyrene on Judas Maccabaeus and his brothers (2 Macc 1 The Greek version of Esther includes six additions, which are not found in the Hebrew text. Additions B and E claim to be copies of royal edicts dictated by Haman and Mordecai respectively. Greek Esther has long been noted for its liberal divergence from the Hebrew text. There is another Greek version of the book, traditionally called the Alpha-Text, most likely a secondary revision to the LXX. For a critical edition of the Alpha Text, see Karen H. Jobes, The Alpha-Text of Esther : Its Character and Relationship to the Masoretic Text (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996). Emanuel Tov analyzes the Alpha-Text as an example of “rewritten Bible,” see Emanuel Tov, “The ‘Lucianic’ Text of the Canonical and Apocryphal Sections of Esther: A Rewritten Biblical Book,” Textus 10 (1982): 1–25; For a translation and exposition of the Alpha-text, see Kristin De Troyer, The End of the Alpha Text of Esther : Translation and Narrative Technique in MT 8:1, LXX 8:1–17, and AT 7:14–41, rev. ed., trans. B. Doyle (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2000); eadem, Rewriting the Sacred Text: What the Old Greek Texts Tell Us about the Literary Growth of the Bible (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 62–66. 2 Lawrence M. Wills provides a brief overview of Jewish novellas, Wills, “Jewish Novellas in the Greek and Roman Age: Fiction and Identity,” JSJ 42 (2011): 141–65. 3 Other Jewish texts that share the characteristics of a “court narrative” are Genesis 37–50; Daniel 1–6, Bel and the Dragon, and 1 Esdras 3–4.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

188

Performances of two Greek letters

2:19–23).4 It is worth considering whether letter form may have been used for its capacity to act as a powerful means of bringing the persona of the participants before the audience, while at the same time using an epistolary persona. I have argued that letters are most frequently textualized social performances, using a set of conventions that were recognized by the performer and audience alike. This chapter builds upon the conclusions advanced by performance criticism’s application to the texts already discussed in the previous chapters; additionally, I will provide a platform to investigate more fully the performer/ audience relationship by considering the contribution these letters make to an iconic mode of presentation, which refers to an element in a performance that calls upon the audience to respond.5

7.1

An Embedded Letter in Greek Esther

One purpose for the Hebrew book of Esther is to offer hope to the exilic people, apart from returning to Jerusalem.6 The message of hope is rooted in loyalty of the people to the community and a sense of security the text is meant to foster— concerns which are affirmed through writing and receiving correspondence. Esth 3:12–15 describes the drawing up of an edict, its translation into the language of each province, and dispatching the express couriers to deliver the message of destruction. The inclusion of a “copy” of Artaxerxes’ decree is encompassed in the narrative of Gr. Esther, traditionally called Addition B, and the 4 The fact that the opening letters in 2 Maccabees were not part of the original text, but were later additions is well attested among scholars. See for example Daniel R. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, ed. Loren T. Stuckenbruck et al., CEJL (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008), who concludes that “the same author added (although not necessarily composed) both [letters] and was aware of the book and even edited it in a most central way, namely, by adding in the Hanukkah story (10:1–8)” (p. 529). John R. Bartlett, The First and Second Books of the Maccabees (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 219 suggests that festal letters may have been sent annually, which would imply a separate circulation for these letters in Maccabees. 5 Bernard Beckerman, Theatrical Presentation: Performer, Audience, and Act, ed. Gloria Brim Beckerman and William Coco (New York: Routledge, 1990). 6 For the dating of Hebrew Esther in the Persian period, see Joseph Naveh and Jonas C. Greenfield, “Hebrew and Aramaic in the Persian Period,” in Introduction: The Persian Period, vol 1 of Cambridge History of Judaism, ed. W.D. Davies and L. Finkelstein (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 120–21; Joshua Ezra Burns, “The Special Purim and the Reception of the Book of Esther in the Hellenistic and Early Roman Eras,” JSJ 37 (2006):1–34, traces the “composition of MT Esther to the late Persian period or shortly following the onset of the Hellenistic rule over the Near East (ca. 400–300 BCE)” (p. 5). Adele Berlin, “The Book of Esther and Ancient Storytelling,” JBL (2001): 3–14 prefers to date Esther in the Persian period; however, Lawrence M. Wills, The Jewish Novel in the Ancient World (London: Cornell University Press, 1995), 96, dates Esther in the Hellenistic period and sees it belonging to the novel genre prevalent at that time.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

An Embedded Letter in Greek Esther

189

tensions that result are resolved in another follow-up letter, called Addition E. It appears that these additions deepened for the ancient performer and audience the impression of the narrative’s historicity and authenticity by supplying alleged verbatim copies of those royal edicts composed by Haman and Mordecai respectively.7 These letters, more specifically Addition E, will form the basis of our analysis of the text.

7.1.1 Text There are several literary approaches that seemed to have been used by ancient authors to shape their message. One possible option is that embedded letters serve to authenticate a work rhetorically, irrespective of whether the letter existed. According to this position, letters included in a document are part of a rhetorical strategy to strengthen the credibility of a narrative in which it is mentioned, rather than to serve a predominantly historical function.8 Nickelsburg is one scholar, among many, who contends that the decrees in Esther are included to add a note of authenticity to the narrative.9 Another possibility is that a letter could be designed to authenticate information that the author(s) wishes to develop, that is, the embedded text serves an ideological or theological purpose for a community. In applying this option to Gr. Esther, the significance of the embedded letter may have been to shape the message of the wider text concerning the persecution and rescue of the Jewish people.10 An option that is not given much consideration is that the letter may have been added for its artistic beauty, serving merely as a grandiose flourish incorporated into a narrative. These three views are not exclusive, but when placed in tandem, strengthen the position that a performance of this text demonstrates and celebrates “past and present, the past glory, suffering, and achievements of the people, together with their present unity and idealism. In that sense the [per7 Carey A. Moore, Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah: The Additions A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977), 159. 8 As an example of a narrative that quotes a document in order to bolster the credibility of the story within which it appears, occurs in two works An Ephesian Tale and Apollonius of Tyre. For a discussion on these two documents as authenticating devices, see W. Hansen, “Strategies of Authentication in Ancient Popular Literature,” in The Ancient Novel and Beyond, ed. S. Panayotakis, M. Zimmerman, and W. Keulen (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 309. 9 Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 204; see also Moore, Additions, 153. 10 For examples of alleged “discovered” texts serving an ideological purpose see Pausanias, Descr., Plutarch, Gen. Socr. and Livy, History of Rome. Katherine M. Scott describes these works as texts that support an ideological agenda, see Scott, Why did they write this way? Reflections on References to the Written Documents in the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Literature, LHBOTS 492 (New York: T & T Clark, 2008), 98–103.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

190

Performances of two Greek letters

formance] confirms established values, and it does so by mere demonstration.”11 What is being describing by Beckerman are iconic modes of presentation, which are rituals and performances that involve “the status quo, a moment frozen in time that celebrates identity.”12 In contrast, the narrative in Esther uses dialectic elements that serve to engage the audience into the emotional and psychological world of the conflict experienced in the life of Esther and the rising and falling tension that results—its purpose is to draw the audience into the story. Adding an iconic letter to a dialectic narrative effectively allows each mode of presentation to stand in stark relief. In this taxonomy, the narrative advances the storyline, while the letter reinforces that Purim is to be celebrated “with all good cheer as a holiday among your commemorative feasts.” Iconic texts are used for persuasion or celebration and produce a kind of “showing,” or performative structure.13 Unlike Ezra 5 and Jer 29 where the performative structure was organized by the change in participants, the letters in Gr. Esther have no internal dialogue and only address directly those participants mentioned in the opening, features which may suggest that a performance of this text served a different function and possibly had a different oral/aural impact.14 The narrative introduction to Addition E of Gr. Esther states that a letter (1pistok/r) is to follow, the opening address follows idiomatic Greek letter writing form (sender, to recipient) and the greeting is typical of Greek letters “Greetings” (wa¸qeim).15 These elements indicate that this text clearly presents itself as a letter. However, following the opening, there is no transition marker, an element that occurs in the Ezra and Hermopolis letters. Unlike the letters studied up to this point, which are addressed to a specific person or group, this letter in Gr. Esther is addressed to the widest possible audience, namely, to the governors and to the whole kingdom.16 This would suggest that the purpose of the letter was to serve a wide audience and therefore was broadly circulated.17 The broad 11 12 13 14

Beckerman, Theatrical Presentation, 43. Giles and Doan, Twice Used Songs, 20. Giles and Doan, Twice Used Songs, 81. Beckerman, Theatrical Presentation, 55 suggests three distinguishing features of iconic presentations: 1) a stress of being over becoming, 2) ritual enactment, and 3) illumination over catharsis. 15 Charles Bradford Welles provides examples of idiomatic Greek letter form, Wells, Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period: A Study of Greek Epigraphy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1934). According to the Inventory (Samely et al.), these literary features support the view that this document can be classified in the same category as the Hermopolis and Ezra letters. 16 This is in contrast to Addition B, which is only addressed to the officials. 17 This position is reinforced by the fact that there is another source for the Esther story, namely the Alpha-Text, which was originally written in Greek but includes distinctive material. David Clines provides a discussion on the transmission history of Esther, Clines, The Esther Scroll, JSOTSup30 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

An Embedded Letter in Greek Esther

191

appeal or the “widespread sharing” of this circular letter is supported by the warning given in the conclusion that “every city and country, without exception that does not do according to this shall be consumed with wrath.” Additionally, the redaction of the letter into other forms, such as the Alpha-Text, may be evidence of a dialogue between a redactor and an “authoritative” text,18 or more likely that the versions were competing editions of a popular tale.19 What is clear is that the letter in Gr. Esther had a wide distribution and was subsequently adapted for continued use in new contexts. This letter was not sent to get a written response from the recipient, but rather as a one-way conversation to the satrapies.20 There are several features in this letter that are frequently found in iconic modes of presentation. The first feature, according to Beckerman, is that the performer stresses being over becoming.21 By that he asserts that a written text can be used by a performer to reinforce the ideological values of the audience. One way of achieving this goal is by presenting a problem or dissatisfaction a person or group may be experiencing and then providing a solution. For instance, in the performance of Addition E, the performer would stress the evil intent of Haman by attacking him for his many offences: he betrayed his office, he was disloyal to the king’s friendship, his behaviour was destructive, he was false, and finally the charges he laid against the Jews were false. The second and third scene are clearly marked off by the preposition “for whereas” (¢r c²q) and “well, therefore” (jak_r owm). The division of the scenes are supported by the performative focus moving from making generally comments concerning those who are evil, to identifying the evil person, to finally leading to the request. However, the division of each scene into verses and lines is not nearly as well defined. The length and structure of each accusation varies, with no two scenes or verses organized in the same way. The purpose for an apparent random distribution of the length of scenes in Gr. Esther (Addition E) will need to be considered when we reflect on the various lengths of the scenes in MMT. Returning to elements that suggest an iconic mode of presentation, it appears that the performer would have used the letter to “pause” the narrative in order to heighten the importance of celebrating Purim. The performer’s climactic mo18 This is the position of Michael V. Fox, Character and Ideology in the Book of Esther (Columbia: University of South Carolina, 1991). 19 Wills, Jewish Novel, 130. 20 Ethnopoetics is concerned with what kinds of texts one is dealing with and what kinds of texts their audiences are hearing. The Apache genre, b‚’hadziih, or “speak for others,” deals with addressing a group that consists of those who are culturally different from the speaker. For a brief explanation of M. Eleanor Nevin’s perspective on this topic, see Bauman, “Discovery and Dialogue,” 180–82. From a different point of view, see also Oestreich, Performanzkritik, 91–97, where he discusses a performance to mixed audiences. 21 Beckerman, Theatrical Presentation, 55.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

192

Performances of two Greek letters

ment is emphasized by the connectors “And you therefore” (ja· rle?r owm) and “and now” (ja· mOm) (Scene 3, vv. 1 and 2), which introduce the purpose for the ritual enactment of the celebration, concluding with a warning to those who do not honour this special day. The naming of familiar characters, such as Artaxerxes, Mordecai, Esther, and Haman and the use of common transitional phrases engage the audience, facilitate attention, and create an ease of communication. The letter also generates a “we” feeling of solidarity by encouraging its community celebration and by pronouncing Purim as a day of deliverance. Beckerman notes that the iconic mode of presentation “seeks to concretize itself, to resist change, to make itself into a permanent emblem.”22 In short, his letter suggests an iconic mode of presentation by reinforcing the value of being a part of the Jewish community, by extending participation through creating solidarity with the performer, and by projecting a sense of unity for the future. Through the performance of this letter, the audience is prepared to celebrate the winning of a struggle and to substantiate what the audience already believes about itself.

7.1.2 Texture The analysis of the oral texture of the dramatic story of Esther has opened up significant new ways of approaching the literature commonly referred to as a “court tale.”23 Scholars have focused their attention on the wisdom motif,24 sociological analysis,25 literary carnivalesque,26 parallels with folk literature,27 22 Beckerman, Theatrical Presentation, 46. 23 The genre designation “court tale” was used by Walter Baumgartner, Das Buch Daniel (Giessen: TPpelmann, 1926), 6–10; H. Louis Ginsberg, Studies in Daniel (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1948), 27, but they provided little comparative discussion. 24 Gerhard von Rad, “The Joseph Narrative and Ancient Wisdom,” in The Problem of the Pentateuch and Other Essays (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966); Shemaryahu Talmon, “Wisdom in the Book of Esther, VT 13 (1963):419–55. Talmon compared what he called “historicized wisdom-tale” with parallels in ancient Near Eastern literature. 25 W. Lee Humphreys, “A Life-Style for Diaspora: A Study of the Tales of Esther and Daniel,” JBL 92 (1973): 211–23 introduced the distinction between court “contests” and “conflicts.” This distinction was carried on by John J. Collins, “The Court-Tales in Daniel and the Development of Apocalyptic,” JBL 94 (1975), 218–34. George W.E. Nickelsburg, “Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism, HTS 26 (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1972), 49–57 analyses the theological content of the court conflict stories. 26 Kenneth Craig, Reading Esther : A Case for the Literary Carnivalesque, Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995). See also Eli Rozik, Jewish Drama and Theatre: From Rabbinical Intolerance to Secular Liberalism (Brighton: Sussex Academic, 2013), 122–26, who discusses Esther’s “carnivalesque” nature. 27 Susan Niditch, Underdogs and Tricksters: A Prelude to Biblical Folklore (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

An Embedded Letter in Greek Esther

193

and court novellas.28 What has been missing is probing the oral texture for clues that suggest a performative context. The two letter additions to Esther (Additions B and E) “exhibit a much more developed Greek rhetorical style than do the other additions, or indeed, than any part of any Jewish novella.”29 It is possible that the two additions were written by the same author, but not likely the person who penned the others. One purpose for embedding a letter in a narrative is to position the audience at a distance from the scene.30 Of the texts we have consider, this literary device is greatest in Gr. Esther for it is addressed to the rulers of 127 satrapies and others who share the king’s interests and is allegedly written by a foreign king. The distance between the performer and the audience is accentuated by being composed in highly stylized Greek and by presenting the characters as mere objects to observe, without leading the audience to have a subjective experience of the characters.31 The stage is set in the opening—the great King Artaxerxes speaks to his rulers and leaders. Opening Narrative Introduction (E1): The following is a copy of a letter :32 Narrator : The great King Artaxerxes To the rulers of the one hundred twenty-seven satrapies from India to Ethiopia and to the satraps who share our interests. Greetings.

The characters have been introduced: king, rulers and satraps. The listing of these people suggests that the message to be presented will be serious. The opening, “the great King Artaxerxes,” is not necessarily meant to be historically accurate, but is an idiomatic way of speaking to a king. This noun-epithet formula is a key or switch that would have brought the king to the centre stage

28 Wills, Jew in the Court. 29 Wills, Jew in the Court, 162. 30 One of the ways a narrative can be presented is from an “observer viewpoint,” according to Kataoka, “Muli-modal ethnopoetic analysis,” 190. It could also be told through a “character perspective.” 31 Wills, Jewish Novel, 126–27. 32 This is my translation; however, for those who are familiar with the text I have included verse divisions from the NETS Old Greek text.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

194

Performances of two Greek letters

and has a larger-than-literal meaning—that is, the king is introduced in his mythic presence.33 Body So that the reader can see the point that the hearers hear in the shape of the narrative, I have divided the scene into three stanzas and have segmented the stanzas into verses according to a shift in the activities of the groups being addressed. By dividing the narrative into verses and lines, not according to textual words but stress patterns, allows for the reader to consider the crucial expressive dimension. The first line of the body of the letter sets the tone for the rest of the text by providing a grandiloquent flourish: “Many people (pokko¸) who are frequently being honoured with the greatest generosity.” After the opening display, this stanza gives four characteristics of these evil people, namely, they are presumptuous, they seek to harm others, they endeavor to plot against their benefactors, and they boast of their evil deeds. All these activities are accomplished despite God who sees their deeds and will judge them. The texture of the beginning of the next stanza is similar to stanza 1 (“and often many have been appointed to offices”). The shape of the narrative moves from the direct actions of the evil person to the results of their actions; more specifically, they are guilty of shedding innocent blood and leading others astray. The change in stanza is supported by the repetition of the term “many” and by the initial adverb “and often” (pokk²jir d³ ja¸). These signposts have a purpose. They linguistically guide the audience through the narrative for better comprehension by providing the relationship between different parts of the discourse. The third stanza changes the perspective from describing evil leaders to knowing how one recognizes evil behaviour. This stanza is set off by the admonition “and it is possible” (d³ 5nestim). Identifying wickedness can be accomplished through observing evilness perpetrated by those who hold power unworthily. The last verse changes the person who is being address from the impersonal in stanza 1 and 2, to directly addressing the rulers in stanza 3. Thus, the onset of the action is completed by contrasting the activities of some rulers with the ideal form of leadership desired by the king.

33 Foley, How to Read, 114, applies this concept to Homer.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

An Embedded Letter in Greek Esther

195

Scene 1: Onset of the action Stanza 1: Activities of some rulers (E2–4) Verse 1: Many people, who are frequently being honoured with the greatest generosity of their benefactors are presumptuous. Verse 2: They seek to harm, not only our subjects, and not being able to bear success, they endeavour to plot against their benefactors. Verse 3: They not only abolish gratitude from among the people, but also, those who are strangers to goodness, boast of being carried away by all these things. Verse 4: Despite God who always sees the evil-hating, they still presume they shall escape justice.34

Stanza 2: Results of their actions (E5–6) Verse 1: And often, many who have been appointed to offices entrusted to handle the affairs of friends, have encouraged and are responsible for the shedding of innocent blood. Verse 2: Having made them involved in fatal circumstances by malevolence, lying deception, they have led men astray— those who govern with innocence and goodwill.35

34 The Alpha-Texts reads, “Outwitted by the praise of the foolish, they thought to escape the just judge who hates evil and who holds sway over all” (Moore, Additions, 232). 35 This sentence is awkward to translate into English. NETS suggests this translation: “by the

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

196

Performances of two Greek letters

Stanza 3: Proper way to govern (E7–9) Verse 1: And it is possible to observe this36 not so much from the more ancient accounts, which we have handed down, as it is close at hand. Verse 2: You, when you observe wickedly what has been accomplished through those who rule unworthily, perpetrated by pestilent behaviour. Verse 3: And to make for the future of the kingdom, every effort to be quiet for all people, we shall offer peace, when dealing with the changes and always discerning what comes to our attention with a more considerate response.

According to this structure, stanzas 1 and 2 use an objective point of view, referring to a general group of rulers, using the terms “many people” and “and often many.” This performance perspective is substantiated in the conclusion to the first verse by reporting that “they still presume they shall escape justice.” The performer then changes the perspective by drawing upon the rulers’ observations: “you, when you observe,” which may have been accompanied by a performer’s vocal inflection or hand gesture. And finally, the desired style of leadership is stated: they were to make every effort to be quiet, to offer peace, and be discerning with their response. These statements in stanza 3 are in stark contrast with the evil characteristics enumerated in stanzas 1 and 2.

malicious lie of an evil disposition of the people who misconstrue the sincere goodwill of their sovereign.” 36 It is difficult to know whether the infinitive “to observe this” (sjope?m) fits better with the previous sentence or introduces the following sentence. If, as my structure indicates, it introduces the next sentence the literal translation would be “to observe [this], and it is possible,” which makes for very awkward English.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

An Embedded Letter in Greek Esther

197

Scene 2: Outgoing action The next scene elaborates on the first scene. The opening of the body of the letter states that many people are frequently being honoured and are being appointed to offices entrusted to handle the affairs of friends and yet they are governing in a way that harms their subjects. That evil person in now introduced—Haman the son of Hammedatha, a foreigner. The texture of Scene 1 is similar to Scene 2. Repeated words, such as “benefactors,” “kingdom,” “govern,” and “God,” are used, and the theme that rulers are plotting against the Persian administration is continued in Scene 2 and identified as the activity of Haman. The activities of some evil rulers and the results of their nefarious actions are applied to Haman in stanzas 2 and 3 of this scene. I have divided each stanza into verses according to the change in perspective: from a description of Haman, to a description of his evil deception, and finally to a statement concerning proper governance. These divisions are supported by the sentence initial particles “for whereas,” “but being,” and “but we were.” Thus, the onset of the action in Scene 1 is elaborated in Scene 2 as the outgoing aspect of the narrative is developed. Stanza 1: Haman is introduced (E10–14) Verse 1: For whereas, Haman son of Hammedatha, a Macedonian, who was in truth is not of Persian descent37 and quite devoid of our kindness,38 although he received hospitality39 from us, benevolence which we extend to every nation, to such an extent that he was publicly proclaimed as our Father, and he was worshipped by all as second to the royal throne.

Stanza 2: Haman’s evil intent is revealed (E12–14) Verse 1: But, being unable to restrain his arrogance, he attempted from the beginning to deprive us even of our spirit of both our saviour and perpetual benefactor, Mordecai, 37 Or “a foreigner to the blood of the Persians.” 38 Lit. “and standing apart from our kindness.” 39 Lit. “having been hospitable to us.”

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

198

Performances of two Greek letters

and the blameless partner in our kingdom, Esther together with the whole nation Verse 2: For by these methods he thought that he could catch us defenseless and could transfer the dominion of the Persians to the Macedonians.

Stanza 3: A proper way to govern (E15–16) Verse 1: But, we were betrayed by the thrice-sinful man, to annihilate the Jews, who are not criminals but are being governed by the most righteous laws and are the sons of the most high, the greatest, living God, who guides us both and our forefathers of the kingdom in the most excellent order.

The oral texture is rich with superlatives and exaggerations that suggest a selfmocking style. Even with such administrative finesse, the king accuses Haman of “attempting from the beginning to deprive us of our spirit [or kingdom].”40 It appears that Haman is manipulating events in order to gain or usurp the kingdom. In a performance, the developed Greek and inflated style would have been most likely performed in a manner that supported the ridicule of the pompous Persians. Scene 2 is brought to a conclusion by using the emphatic “but we were betrayed” and then enumerates the positive attributes of the laws and of the greatness of their God. Scene 3: Outcome of the action The main purpose for this letter appears to be to lend support to the celebration of Purim. This view is substantiated by the statement in the next scene: “Therefore, you shall celebrate this holiday with all good cheer.” However, the letter may also have been composed to report a tidbit of gossip that gave the audience access to a particular moment in the past, similar to the letter in Ezra 5 that allowed the audience to eavesdrop into a conversation with high ranking officials. This insider information serves to make explicit the many nefarious 40 The view that Haman is asking for kingship is reflected in Josephus, Ant. 11.6.12.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

An Embedded Letter in Greek Esther

199

ways of Haman. The story telling device consisting of mixing the inauguration of a special festival within the context of a king’s (exaggerated) testimony of the affairs of the kingdom would have made the boundaries between history and literary invention less defined.41 Although an idiomatic transition marker is absent, such as “and now,” the letter uses a wide range of initial particles that serially argue against Haman and his character in order to set up the request formula. The complimentary relation between the background and the request is evident in Scene 3 by using the sentence connector “well, therefore” (owm).42 The circumstances that necessitated the petition are climaxed by the most commonly used request formula: jak_r poi^sete + a participle (pqoswgs²lemoi).43 The petition verb “do not put to use” expresses the action desired by the king; however, there is no request for a reply common among letters of request. Although Jer 29 also represents a onesided letter, whereby the letter flowed from the sender to recipients in the form of instruction, this letter is not meant primarily for instruction, but for a celebration of victory over the evil pursuits of Haman. The three stanzas can be divided according to the referent. In stanza 1 the rulers and leaders are being addressed, stanza 2 changes the focus to the Jews and their celebration of the feast, and finally the emphasis focuses on those who do not follow the king’s directives. The first scene sets the stage for the narrative by presenting the concern with the activities of evil rulers. The issue of improper leadership can be countered by proper governance. Scene 1, or the onset of the action, is carried forward in Scene 2, which in narrative terms can be called the outgoing action. The outcome of these two scenes is given in this scene.

41 The issues concerning the historicity of Esther are well presented by Berlin, “Book of Esther.” She concludes that “Esther typifies storytelling about Persia from the Persian period. It takes some of its motifs from biblical literature, and it partakes of many others from the broader literary world of its time, preserved for us most abundantly in the Greek writings. We should, therefore, use these Greek writings in connection with Esther for literary purposes, not for historical purposes” (p. 14). See also Marc Zvi Brettler, The Creation of History in Ancient Israel (London: Routledge, 1995), who states that “definitions that emphasize the scientific nature of history, its fundamental difference from literature, or the intention of the author, are problematic” (p. 12). He defines history as “a narrative that presents the past.” According to this definition, Esther would be considered history. 42 White, Form and Structure, 15. 43 Kim, Familiar Letter, 65.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

200

Performances of two Greek letters

Stanza 1: Do not act upon the letters (E17–21) Verse 1: Well, therefore, do not put to use the letters sent off by Haman son of Hammedatha, because he who worked out these things at the gates of Susa was crucified with his whole household, since God who rules over all things, has repaid him swiftly with judgment. Verse 2: And post a copy of this letter in every place to permit the Jews to use their own laws. Verse 3: And join in helping them in order that those in a time of oppression, they may defend themselves against those who attack them, on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month Adar, on that same day. Verse 4: For God who rules over all things, in the place of the destruction of his elect race, has made for them a time of merriment.

Stanza 2: Celebrate this special day (E22–23) Verse 1: And you therefore, among your named feasts, a notable day, with all good cheer shall celebrate. Verse 2: And now, and afterward this day of deliverance it may be for us and for those who are favourable to the Persians, but for those who contrived against us, a memorial, of destruction.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

An Embedded Letter in Greek Esther

201

Stanza 3: A curse on those who do not celebrate (E24) Verse 1: And every city and country, without exception that does not act accordingly by spear and fire shall be consumed with wrath, not only shall it be made impassable for people, but also for beasts and birds for all time, it shall be rendered hateful.

Previously we have discussed the importance of understanding the dedicated register of a text. We have determined that the Passover letter is a festal letter that is concerned with standardizing the celebration of a festival and calls for appropriate festal preparations. Addition E emphasizes the commemoration of a festival in response to the overthrow of Haman and his evil pogrom, which would position this letter in the same dedicated register as the Passover letter in that they both are concerned with the proper celebration of a festival. However, there are differences in the oral texture between the two. Whereas, the letter written to and for the Jewish community at Elephantine was created to establish a Jewish festival by distinguishing themselves from Egyptian religious practices, the tension in Esther is to live a life parallel with the Persian hegemony by affirming a religious identity without being erased by the larger community. The way in which the letter achieves this perspective is by presenting the letter from an objective point of view of the foreign king. In this way the audience is positioned to “hear” the king declaring that the Jews are allowed to live according to their own precepts and uphold their religious practices. The oral technique of placing a whole nation’s future on one person allows the audience to focus on the gravity of the situation. The scope of the action is limited and swift and therefore not protracted over a long period of time; the point of the conflict is sharp and the target of the punishment involves one person. Most importantly, the main focus of the letter, and also of the narrative, centres on the results of one pious person who is the salvation of a whole nation—Esther, who is willing to sacrifice her life to save her people.44 The oral texture consists of a strait forward third party 44 According to Mikhail M. Bakhtin, Dialogical Imagination: Four Essays, ed. Michael Holquist, trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist (Texas: University of Texas Press, 1981), 106, the Greek novel is a “test of the hero’s integrity,” specifically in regard to chastity and faithfulness. This also seems to be the case in the book of Esther. Froma Zeitlin, “Religion,” in Cambridge Companion to the Greek and Roman Novel, ed. Tim Witmarsh (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 91–108, contends that Jewish and Christian novelistic texts lack the literary sophistication of the Greek novels and therefore would not be included with Greek novels. According to her they take up “many similar motifs, but the major difference is that all these motifs and conventions are deployed expressly in the service of religious ideology with none of the irony, ambiguity, authorial sleight of hand and opportunism that

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

202

Performances of two Greek letters

report, with little symbolic language or metonymic references that require a community to have special knowledge or long-held traditions. A performance of this letter would have served as a symbolic means of heightening the purpose for celebrating Purim by reinforcing the festival’s value through providing its alleged historical background.45 The celebration was meant to achieve a greater sense of unity among its participants. Considering a performance perspective, in addition to other methods, can give clues to the letter’s focus. Beyond dispute this letter’s main emphasis is on the celebration of Purim. By observing the letters texture, it can be said that proper celebration is embedded in proper governance. The word “govern/rule” is found in every scene and in many verses. The reason Purim is allowed to be celebrated seems to be that proper Persian rule, accompanied by Jewish righteous laws, make for better judgments and edicts to be established.46 It is significant that only one verse is specifically about Purim; the rest of the letter introduces this celebration by using the backdrop of governance, whether by God, or those who govern with innocence and goodwill, or those who rule unworthily, or those who are being governed by righteous laws. This theme could have been emphasized in a performance, which would have changed the meaning and/or purpose of the letter. If we consider the performance of the Hebrew text, in addition to the two Greek readings, then it is best to hear the text at three stages, or better, three performance contexts.47 It appears that new performers with different political and theological interests seem to have retold the narrative. A fresh approach was brought to Gr. Esther by including the text of the counter edict rescinding the may be read in a typical specimen of prose fiction. For Jews, these works (such as Esther, Daniel, Tobit, Susanna) offer affirmations not just of personal identity, but also of communal support and salvation” (p. 107). For a response to Zeitlin, see Wills, “Jewish Novellas,” 154–55. 45 At stanza 2 the performer recedes from the narrative world to the world where the audience is situated. This is achieved by including the audience with the performer by stating “it may be for us…” This switch also occurs at the conclusion to Scene 1 (stanza 3, v. 3) and at the end of Scene 2 (stanza 2, v. 2 and stanza 3, v. 1). See Kataoka, “Multi-modal ethnopoetics,” 290–91. 46 There are many other terms that imply governance, such as “our subjects,” “justice,” kingdom,” “laws,” etc. 47 Understanding the redactional history of the book of Esther has been the topic of much scholarly debate. For example, see Clines, Esther Scroll, who considers the differences among the versions of the story and hypothesizes five stages of the Esther story. Fox, Redaction, is in agreement with Clines’ outline, but focuses on the purpose and goals of those who worked on earlier versions of Esther. Wills, The Jew in the Court of Foreign King: Ancient Jewish Legends (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), uses a source critical approach to isolate the bottom layers of the story. Charles V. Dorothy, “The Books of Esther : Structure, Genre, and Textual Integrity” (PhD dissertation, Claremont Graduate School, 1989) uses conclusions from structural, redactional, and canonical analysis to conclude that the LXX and the Alpha-Text are the work of two different communities.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

An Embedded Letter in Greek Esther

203

judgment of the first. In this retelling Haman is blamed for the destructive policy against the Jews; Mordecai is described as “our saviour and perpetual benefactor”48 and Esther is portrayed as the blameless partner in the kingdom. Haman’s background is said to be Macedonian (that is, Greek) and not Persian; therefore, the text insists that he is a foreigner in a Persian court. As has been shown, textual changes may not necessarily be the result of scribal redaction, but rather give evidence of several oral performances. Applying this principle to Esther, we can conclude that in response to the popularity of the celebration of Purim, different communities structured their festival in different ways, which led to the scripting of Purim for performance in many forms.49 This position allows for a much more fluid movement between oral and written texts and suggests that there may be no Urtext or primary text, from which others are derived. Performance theory advocates that each time the tale was told it was performed from the beginning with the personality of the community being adapted by the performer and changed with each new presentation as each performer brought the tale to life again.50 If indeed a community was reinterpreting Gr. Esther, we must assume that they had reasons for including the letters, and the reasons were not for plot or narrative development. When the performer tells the Esther story and “reads” the letter and the audience hears it, the experience allows the community to investigate the treasured past as a “symbolic realization of a desire.”51 If my contention is correct, that there are several performance contexts, each with its own oral and written text and each serving a different purpose, then Carr’s statement is informative, “Indeed, the past in never ‘past’ in the way we might conceive it but stands in the ancient world as a potential realizable ‘present’ to which each generation seeks to return.”52 Therefore, Addition E has the possibility of supporting the realization of a valued tradition by expressing a perspective of why Purim became an important festival. It is difficult to determine the historicity of the events from the oral remains 48 Saviour and benefactor (soter and euergetes) were common terms for the role of the patron of a city. 49 Here the issue is whether the story can be found around the organization of the text or in the circumstances of telling? Hymes (“In vain,” see esp. chapter 3 “Breakthrough to performance,” 79–141) emphasizes the organization of a text and Moore (“From performance to print”) has a more radical approach and proposes that the “true structure” may not be a text at all, “but the tradition, construed as something that is ‘realized’ in and through performance(s), and therefore separate from them…” (p. 300). 50 Carr and Meek’s position is that storytelling is always a social act and always negotiable and contingent (“Poetics of Language,” 196). 51 Paul Zumther, Oral Poetry : An Introduction, trans. by Kathryn Murphy-Judy (Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 1990), 38. 52 Carr, Writing on the Tablet, 11.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

204

Performances of two Greek letters

that we presently have, partly because the written texts tend to accentuate the wonder of how Purim began; whereas, we wish to downplay it. It appears that the purpose for this letter is to provide continuity of Jewish practices in the face of the crushing dislocation of a diaspora community. As Berlin apply suggests, “a good way to provide this continuity is to link the present with the past, and the new literature of the Diaspora with older, traditional literature.”53

7.1.3 Context The context for telling the Esther story, with the added letters, must have been one where the audience knew the outcome of the tale—that Haman would hang, and that the Jewish people would be saved. This story is most likely a literary response to the rigors of living in the diaspora. It addresses the issue of living parallel lives with an all-powerful empire. One way to resolve this tension is by (re)establishing the boundaries in order to disempower the influential. By using a court tale, the performer presents a situation that needs to be addressed and provides a model for overcoming the difficulty. Zumther suggests that the purpose for using folk tales in a community is that they offer “the community an experimental field when it tries out all possible and imaginable confrontations in the voice of the storyteller. Its function as social stabilizer comes from that experimentation.”54 The experimentation with folk tales as a means of social stabilization can be seen in the commonalities in the language and structure of each of the three major versions of the story of Esther, which suggest that there were performers who wished to keep alive the tradition of Esther and the celebration of Purim.55 The performance involves many people, both within the written text, and those who listened to the tale. In order to get the full impact of the story, it must be heard from beginning to end as an entire performance. It is doubtful that the letter would have been performed separately, that is, out of context from the whole narrative. The text of the addition to Gr. Esther makes clear that the letter is set in foreign places; that is, in the presence of the king and in administrative offices of the 127 satrapies, as well as in the everyday marketplace where edicts and letters are posted and villains are hanged. It involves the contrasting images of salvation and crucifixion, and festival and judgment. The people mentioned in the body of the letter consist of Esther, a former peasant girl, Mordecai, the sensible and 53 Berlin, “Book of Esther,” 7. 54 Zumther, Oral Poetry, 38. 55 For a description on how the celebration of Purim was commemorated through the ages, see Rozik, Jewish Drama, 121–26.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

An Embedded Letter in Greek Esther

205

courageous hero of the story, and Haman, the most developed character. The texture of the letter is concrete without the use of mystical language and is presented in the form of a report from a king giving an objective point of view. The main characterization of Haman is through reports in letters, which has the oral/aural effect of conveying to the audience privileged information. Although the texture of the letter is formal and written from an objective point of view, it includes the perspective of a community, when it states “They still assume they shall escape justice” and by presenting the standpoint that “the Jews are governed by the most righteous laws.” When Haman is hanged with his family, a comment is made that “God who prevails over all things has recompensed him quickly with the deserved judgment.” Thus, Addition E gives both new information and confirms views that would have produced nods of approval from an audience affirming that “God has made this a day of joy.” The information about the people and places in the letter is only suggestive, but we cannot ignore the fact that the letter’s introduction refers to people and places that may have been threatening and unknown to the majority of common folk, such as Artaxerxes and the rulers from India to Ethiopia. This “strangeness” adds potency to the tale as new performers and listeners had to adapt to life in exile, as kingdoms were overthrown and replaced by new overlords. This raises the possibility that the Esther story was initially performed in homes as a response to life in exile. According to Craig, “Purim is the only festival that Judaism has that deals explicitly with exile.”56 Festivals are generally adapted from folk customs and are subsequently shaped by cultural factors. This holiday is a celebration for every city and country, without exception, and had become corporate in nature. As the festival increased in popularity it most likely was adapted and adopted in new settings with new aspects being added. The victory celebration does not merely belong to Esther and Mordecai, but to all the victims of the previous edict. Our investigation of Gr. Esther has shown that the letter uses an iconic mode of presentation and was written with a wide audience in mind. Not only is the broad appeal evident in the opening address, but also in the body in which it is stated that “every city and country, without exception” must follow the directives of the edict. Comparing the texture of Gr. Esther with the so-called Passover letter suggests that they both include a dedicated register that is consistent with festal letters. Unlike any letter that has been analysed so far, Gr. Esther features no internal dialogue and reports the edict predominately from an objective point of view. It is possible that Gr. Esther was included in some presentations of the Esther tale for its entertainment value, which included “historical” data as well as

56 Craig, Reading Esther, 157.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

206

Performances of two Greek letters

literary embellishments. It seems plausible that this letter was adapted from folk customs and eventually was included as a national festival.

7.2

An Introductory Letter to 2 Maccabees

The two letters that provide an introduction to 2 Maccabees (1:1–10a and 1:10b – 2:18) are documents associated with the feast of Booths or Hanukkah.57 They bear witness to political realities of displaced peoples who struggled to maintain the ethnic and religious identity of their homeland. These letters contain religious themes and appear to be addressed to an observant community. They feature an announcement of a coming festival, a call to repentance, and an exhortation to the recipients to follow the commandments (2 Macc 1:2–6; 2:1–3). Since both letters consider the observance of the same feast, the first letter, which is the shorter of the two, will form the bulk of our analysis.

7.2.1 Text The issues that need a fresh observation from a performance perspective are purposes they may have served in a performance of these letters as an introduction to 2 Maccabees. There is strong evidence to suggest that the letters are an attachment to the central narrative and may have been adjusted to fit the main theme of the book for they have only a modest relevance to the main text. The most obvious connection between the second letter and the book of Maccabees is the purification of the temple described in 10:1–8 (cf. 2:19). A rhetorical tie appears to be the exceptional use of the word “become reconciled” (jatakkace_g), which is peculiar to 2 Maccabees in the LXX and is, according to Schwartz, “central to the entire historiographical scheme of our book, for ‘reconciliation’ is one of its central motifs.”58 This position is challenged by Robert Doran, who does not find this linguistic argument to conclusively tie the letter to the narrative.59 The general lack of interconnectedness and the apparent personal 57 Eyal Regev, “Hanukkah and the Temple of the Maccabees: Ritual and Ideology from Judas Maccabeus to Simon,” JSQ 13 (2006): 1–28, contends that “at the time [of the writing of 2 Maccabees] the festival did not yet have its own name, and that apparently Sukkot was the festival mostly closely resembling it” (p. 4). See also VanderKam, “Hanukkah: Its Timing and Significance according to 1 and 2 Maccabees,” JSP 1 (1987): 23–40. 58 Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 138. See also 5:20; 7:33; 8:29 for other forms of the word “reconciliation.” 59 Robert Doran, 2 Maccabees: A Critical Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 1–2.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

An Introductory Letter to 2 Maccabees

207

preface of the book found in 2:1960 have lead scholars to conclude that the two letters found at the beginning of 2 Maccabees have been secondarily added to the main text.61 These insights are made explicit by Harrington who contends that these letters are extraneous to the main story in 2 Maccabees and he argues that Hanukkah was controversial among Diaspora Jews.62 Although the Sitz im Buch is difficult to substantiate, the approach followed here is to examine this letter as a separate text and see what performative insights it provides. There are several famous examples of ancient Greek letters functioning as prefaces to prose, scientific, and technical works that can be found on a wide range of topics.63 These include both books of Archimedes’ (ca. 287–212/11 BCE) On the Sphere and the Cylinder, which were dedicated to Dositheus of Pelusium a Greek mathematician, who was probably Hebrew-born, but active in Alexandria. A further example is the first two books of Apollonius of Perge (ca. 262 – ca. 190 BCE) Conics, which were written to Eudemus of Pergamum.64 Following the death of Eudemus, Apollonius dedicated the fourth book to Attalus. According to Langslow, if we include texts that do not include a formal opening and closing, but may include a dedication, preface, or a vocative(s) in the opening and possibly the closing section(s) “we increase very significantly the size of our corpus, and we considerably stretch the chronology.”65 At this point, it is enough to state that the comparative evidence suggests that letters have been used in Greek texts to introduce a larger work. The letters prefacing 2 Maccabees appear to serve the audience by introducing the performers and audience to the book. The purpose of the introductory letter is different from other letters found in 2 Maccabees. For example, the texture of the letter in 2 Macc 9:19–29 suggests 60 2 Macc 2:19 begins the new section by stating: “In five books Jason of Cyrene has set out the history of Judas Maccabees and his brothers, the purification of the great temple, and the dedication of the altar” (Bartlett’s translation). 61 Victor Parker, “The Letters in II Maccabees: Reflections on the Book’s Composition,” ZAW 119 (2007), 388. Jonathan Goldstein, II Maccabees, A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1976), 25–26, believes that this letter circulated freely before it was incorporated into 2 Maccabees. 62 D.J. Harrington, The Maccabean Revolt: Anatomy of a Biblical Revolution, OTS 1 (Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1988), 38. 63 For further examples of prefactory letters in both Greek and Latin, see Langslow, “Scientific and Technical Epistula,” 218–30. 64 In the preface to the second edition of Conics, Apollonius addressed Eudemus by using epistolary style: “If you are in good health and things are in other respects as you wish, it is well; with me too things are moderately well. During the time I spent with you at Pergamum I observed your eagerness to become acquainted with my work in conics.” 65 Langslow, “Scientific and Technical Epistula,” 216. This principle may also be expanded to include Jewish letters that have an epistolary introduction or dedication, but do not include other evidence of idiomatic letter form.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

208

Performances of two Greek letters

that that embedded letter can be classified as a letter of supplication and follows the conventions of one person petitioning another.66 In chapter 11 the four serial letters (11:16–38) seem to serve a rhetorical purpose that portrays Antiochus IV as an opponent of God.67 The author of 2 Maccabees supports his condensed narrative with four documents. Similar to the letters in Ezra, which has been the subject of intense scholarly debate, these letters do not seem to follow chronologically.68 What can be said is that they purport to be royal letters and they demonstrate “how the Jews are ready to cooperate with authorities if they are allowed to follow their own traditions.”69 However, their authenticity is still a matter of much debate. The distinction between the letters in 2 Macc 9 and 11, Ezra and Jeremiah, and those placed at the beginning of 2 Maccabees is found in that the letters in 2 Mac 9 and 11, Ezra and Jeremiah are part of the narrative plot; whereas, those sited in 2 Macc 1 appear to be an introduction to a larger work. The fact that the letters serve as a preface indicates that they most likely feature an iconic mode of presentation. By that I mean that the letter reinforces the value of being a Jew and aims to extend participation in the festival with the intent of promoting greater unity. The emphasis of the letter is on the nature of the crisis that occurred as a result of the rebellion of Jason and his followers, but regardless of the calamity, the community is called upon to celebrate. An observation that has been made when discussing the letter in Gr. Esther is that an event that showcases celebration and glorification features an iconic mode of presentation. It appears that the emphasis here is on two letters, not so much as a source, but as an authenticating device. When these documents are viewed as a literary mechanism, then the objective is not to seek to understand the letters from a referential perspective; that is, to reconstruct their origin and historical development, but to understand what purpose they served in the narrative, regardless of whether they existed or not in the “external world.”70 From a performance point of view, the treatment of the oral testimony of the patriarchs was used to bolster the authority of the broader text of 2 Maccabees. The movement from letter form in the preface to a supposed extended historical account at 2:19 signals to the audience that there is a shift in mood or “key” from an alleged letter 66 Doran, 2 Maccabees, 189–97; Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 365–66, do not view this letter as authentic. The letter begins with a fulsome greeting: “The King and Commander Antiochus to the well-deserving Jews, the citizens, much greeting, good health and prosperity” (Doran’s translation). See White, Light from Ancient Letters, 194–96; Exler, Form, 42–44; Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 361 for examples of the form of a letter of petition, “To B, greetings A.” 67 This is the position of Doran, 2 Maccabees, 219. 68 For a discussion on the sequence and dating of the letters, see Doran, 2 Maccabees, 227–30. 69 Doran, 2 Maccabees, 219. 70 These insights are made explicit by Stott, Why did they write this way?

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

An Introductory Letter to 2 Maccabees

209

to a personal account.71 This transition is signaled by the frequent use of first person plural (“we”) in the letters to the first person singular (“I”) in the main text.72 An obvious purpose for including a preface in the form of letters is to communicate to their readers the importance of solidarity in observing the Festival of Booths. But more importantly, according to Eyal Regev, the aim of the letter was “to shape the festival as an expression of identification with th[e] Temple ideology, which in turn bore the seeds of messianic hopes for the restoration of the holy fire, an event that would signify the ultimate return of the Divine Presence to the Temple.”73 A performer may wish to emphasize other interests according to the audience’s needs. A view of the letter’s purpose may be expanded to include how the audience should remember God’s covenant with his faithful servants, or that despite their present difficulties there is still value in personal piety, or to express the heinousness of sin and God’s willingness to forgive. If these issues are included in the letter’s call to attention, then the monochrome imperative to observe the festival is expanded to include the readers’ identification with the past, both good and bad, and serves as a lesson to the performers and audience about themselves. The collective memory of the readers and re-readers would be reminded of a covenant made centuries earlier and would have prepared them for the hopeful conclusion to the book, when Judas Maccabaeus wins a victory over Nicanor because “Judas and his men joined battle with invocations and prayers” (2 Macc 15:26). As we have previously indicated, the structure serves to give cues to the performer and audience concerning how the text may be understood. This letter is addressed “to the Jewish brothers,” which is an honorific term, similar to the familial language used in the Hermopolis letters. Unusual is that the sender is listed after the greeting (wa¸qeim) and is followed by a common Hebrew or Aramaic formula “peace and good[ness]” (eQq¶mgm !cah¶m), thus separating the addressees from the addressor. The wording of this uncommon opening has been considered by some scholars to be “strange and clumsy to readers ancient and modern,”74 and thus viewed as a redactional duplication. This explanation 71 This prologue is similar to those found in Ecclesiasticus and Luke’s Gospel. 72 “We” is found in the first letter at 1:7, 8 [3 times]; and in the second letter at 1:11, 18, 2:16 [twice], 18. In the prologue “I” is found seven times. 73 Regev,“Hanukkah,” 18. ˙ II Maccabees, 139. Later Goldstein calls the opening a “monstrosity” (p. 140). He 74 Goldstein, suggests that the “and” which once connected “peace” and “good” now stands, in most witnesses to the text, at the head of the prayer, contrary to Semitic usage (p. 140). Doran, 2 Maccabees, 25, gives several examples of double formulas being used in the greetings of letters, such as Lachish 3 (“May Yahweh hear my lord, may you hear peace and may you hear good”) and Hermopolis 3 (“May Yahweh hear my lord, may you hear peace and good” ). He

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

210

Performances of two Greek letters

depends on a text critical approach; however, as has been previously noted, the awkwardness of a text signals to a careful reader that the unusual wording may indicate a remnant of an oral performance or possibly performance sensitivity. Additionally, this double formula seems to indicate a division of the following prayer into two parts: the first series of four expressions picks up on the term “love/goodness” (!cah¶m) and begins with the optative !cahopoi¶sai and the second picks up on the term “peace” (eQq¶mgm) and begins with eQq¶mgm poi¶sai. This use of texture may have served as a signal to the performer to pause between the series or to emphasize the change in some way. After the opening, the text begins with a prayer of the Judean Jews for their Egyptian brothers. This is the earliest known text of a prayer used in the Jewish liturgy called Qedusˇˇs– desidr–.75 The prayer is composed of general benedictions, all framed in the optative.76 The prayer is also similar to the prayer of Paul in his opening thanksgiving in the letter to the Philippians. The long opening prayer takes up half the document and one is struck by the thirteen uses of the word “and,” nine of which begin a new unit. This repetition is given as evidence of a Semitic Vorlage; however, it also suggests that the translators may have been considering the rhythmic presentation of a list of elements in a text.77 Each wish is short, without a hint of admonition or reproach, and displays a clear oral pattern, which can be represented well by a “measured” verse presentation. The prayer makes explicit reference to an ancient covenant with the three patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.78 There is no explicit mention of a covenant being made with Jacob in the Torah (Gen 28:10–22); therefore, this reference may reflect an oral tradition.79 The call to remember is a frequent motif in prayers (1 Macc 4:10). This formulation echoes prayers attributed to Moses (Deut 9:27; Exod 32:13) and recalls passages where the covenant with the patriarchs introduces the end of an exile (Exod 2:24; Lev 26:42). It also echoes the Priestly Blessing based on Num 6:24, where the Lord commanded Moses to say

75

76 77 78 79

suggests that the “accusative (eQq¶mgm !cah¶m), literally ‘good peace,’ is similar to the wish formula found in the Lachish letters: literally ‘peace and good’” (p. 25). For the use of Qedusˇˇs– desidr– in Jewish liturgy see Ismar Elbogen, Der jüdische Gottesdienst, 3rd ed. (Frankfurt: Kauffmann, 1931), 79. Goldstein (II Maccabees, 142) states that “no single manuscript of the Jewish prayer book has a text identical to the one here, but in the various manuscripts word for word equivalents for each phrase can be found.” Other grammarians call this mood the optative of obtainable wish or the volitive optative, see Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics an Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, 4th ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 42. Although the paratactic Hebrew style may give evidence of a Semitic Vorlage, we have also observed in the Hermopolis letters that the repeated use of the conjunction “and” may have served as indicators of a performance. This expression is found at Qumran (CD I 10; 1QHa VIII, 15, 25). The book of Jubilees (19:16–29; 22:10–30; 23:1–3) emphasized Abraham’s special love for and blessing of his “son” Jacob.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

An Introductory Letter to 2 Maccabees

211

to Aaron and his sons, “The Lord bless you and keep you.”80 This authoritative reference may have been employed to strengthen the influence of the letter on its hearers and to gain support for the author’s request to commemorate the festival of tents or booths.81 To further add weight to the text, the performers and audiences would most likely have been able to recognize the echoes from other authoritative texts.82 Additionally, the covenant reference is presented as a speech-act and functioned to incorporate a blessing in the midst of a prayer. The impact of this speech-act may have been to impress upon the audience that if they do not accept this letter then they would be cursed or excluded from the community. The term “heart” is found three times in the third and fourth wishes; thereby, binding them together. Thus, the heart that worships God is the heart that will do his will83 and is open to his law.84 The second part of the prayer-wish begins with “may he make peace,” which most likely refers to covenant peace referred to in the second wish. According to Porter, the use of the term “reconcile” when referring to god(s) is rare before the time of the Maccabees.85 In this instance, God as a covenant partner is called upon to help his people in distress and to listen to the concerns and cries of those in trouble.86 The prayer concludes with a reference to “an evil time,” which most 80 For an example of an addition to the Aaronic Blessing, see 1QS which adds the words “with all good” and “from all evil” to the blessing, thus it states: “May the Lord bless you with all good and keep you from evil.” Incidentally, this addition uses similar words to the letter in 2 Maccabees. For an exposition of the blessing in 1QS, see Bilhah Nitzan, Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry (Leiden: Brill, 1994). 81 Although George Brooke’s article “Controlling Intertexts in the Thematic Commentaries from Qumran,” in Between Text and Intertext: International Symposium on Intertextuality in Ancient Near Eastern, Ancient Mediterranean, and Early Medieval Literatures, ed. M. Bauks, W. Horowitz, and A. Lange (JAJSup 6; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), contends that Eschatological Commentaries from Qumran concerns the intertexuality of two sectarian Eschatological Commentaries, his concept of controlling intertexts can reasonably be applied to 2 Maccabees. He suggests five hierarchies of intertextuality : 1) authority based text selected by the author ; 2) explicit reference to other authoritative texts; 3) echoes of authoritative traditions; 4) intertexual echoes of other literary traditions; and 5) echoes of possible textual worlds. This section of the letter falls under the second layer of the intertextual hierarchy adapted by Brooke. 82 Brooke’s third layer of the intertextual hierarchy (“Controlling Intertexts”). See note above. 83 See also David’s prayer that entreats God to give Solomon a heart to do God’s commands (1 Chron 29:19; see also 2 Chron 17:6). This expression is found at Qumran (CD 1.10; 1QHa VIII, 15, 25). 84 In 1QH, the psalmist declares that “my heart opens to an everlasting spring” (1QH XVIII, 31; for similar expressions, see also 1QH XIII, 32–33; 1QH 4 XXII, 12; 1QS XI, 15–16). 85 Stanley E. Porter, Jatakk²ssy in Ancient Greek Literature, with Reference to the Pauline Writings, Estudios de filolog†a Neotestamentaria 5 (Cordoba: El Almendro de Cordoba, 1994), quoted in Doran, 2 Maccabees, 27. 86 Other examples of God being asked to respond with mercy to the cries of his peoples are found in Deut 4: 29–31; Judg 10:10–16; 1 Kgs 8:44–52; 2 Chron 15:2.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

212

Performances of two Greek letters

likely has no specific reference, but rather calls attention to the covenant partner’s responsibility.87 The transition marker “and now” (ja· mOm) needs some comment. I have argued that this marker is frequently used to alert the performer or audience that the body of the text is beginning. However, in Ezra 5 the body of the letter begins with “Be it known to the king” and the transition marker “and now” occurs towards the end of the letter, when the commission was offering its recommendations and a decision needed to be made. In this letter in 2 Maccabees it appears that the formula “and now” is used in a similar way to Ezra—not to introduce the body of the letter, but as a conclusion. Understanding the formula as a summary statement is supported by the change in focus from the list of supplications in stanza 1 to a narrative statement in stanza 2. According to this structure, the next stanza introduces an embedded letter : “In the reign of Demetrius, in the year 169, we the Jews, wrote to you…”88 The letter consists of the critical point when Jason and his companions left the holy land and the kingdom and they slaughtered fellow citizens mercilessly (2 Macc 5:6). What is rarely mentioned in other treatments of this letter is that the rhythmic arrangement of the letter that began in the prayer-wish is extended to the next section. The “measured” verse presentation shows much more clearly the feature of balance and parallelism. For instance, “And we burned the gateway [to the temple]/and shed innocent blood” is parallel in structure with the next statement “And we prayed to the lord/and we were heard.” The balance extends not merely between “verses” but also in relation to the stanza. The prayer and the supplication may have had an oral effect of being connected by stating the desire in stanza 1: “And to hear your prayers” and then by presenting the result of prayerful piety in stanza 2 “and we prayed to the lord, and we were heard;” likewise, “and to do his ordinances and peace” (stanza 1) is taken up later by stating that the laws were followed and peace offerings given: “And offered a sacrifice and finest wheat flour” (stanza 2). The point is that not only are there thematic links, but also rhythmic and oral/aural similarities, which the performer may have emphasized through tone and gesture. In terms of repetition of the particle “and” and the use of rhythmic patterns, a “measured” verse presentation shows clearly the way in which parallel units are balanced and reinforced by a performance. The final transition marker “and now” (ja· mOm) signals to the audience that the letter is coming to a close and a decision needs to

87 Doran, 2 Maccabees, 27. 88 This verse can be translated as the epistolary perfect, “we the Jews write to you…” For a discussion on the problems that arise if one takes this reading, see Doran, 2 Maccabees, 28–30.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

An Introductory Letter to 2 Maccabees

213

be made.89 The closing consists of setting the date for the Festival of Booths and supplying the date for the letter.

7.2.2 Texture The language that is chosen and the gestures that are employed to communicate these early Jewish letters are crucial indicators of who performs the text and why. We have already discussed that the manner in which a work is framed has a crucial influence on the way the individual signifiers are understood as well as how the total meaning of the performance is perceived. The significance of preliminary devices is stated by Martin Esslin, who contends that these framing mechanisms “belong to a higher order of signs than any individual signifiers, as they set the initial mood, the level at which all other signs are to be ‘decoded.’”90 It is clear that a semiotic function is produced by the prefaced letters that sets the scene for the rest of the book, and the epilogue completes the frame and serves to affect the audiences’ recollection of the message.91 The following is my translation of the text according to a “measured” verse approach. Opening Narrator : To the Jewish brothers throughout Egypt Greetings From the brothers the Jews in Jerusalem and in the land of the Jews Good peace. (1:1)

89 Other biblical examples of “and now” being used to introduce an imperative are Gen 50:16–17 and 1 Sam 9: 6, 13. 90 Martin Esslin, The Field of Drama: How the Signs of Drama Create Meaning on Stage & Screen (London: Methuen, 1987), 55. Esslin includes programmes, pre-publicity newspaper reports, reports by friends, etc. as preliminary or framing devices (pp. 55–56). 91 The author(s) completes the frame of 2 Maccabees by concluding with these words: “At this point I will bring my work to an end. If it is found well written and aptly composed, that is what I myself hoped for ; if cheap and mediocre, I could only do my best. For, just as it is disagreeable to drink wine alone or water alone, whereas the mixing of the two gives a pleasant and delightful taste, so too variety of style in a literary work charms the ear of the reader. Let this then be my final word” (Bartlett’s translation).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

214

Performances of two Greek letters

The original hearers would have most likely recognized that these texts represent standard letter-writing form. The use of letter form and the choice of vocabulary and content establish that the intention of the work is serious and that the actions should be read in a certain way ; that is, at a high level of significance.92 The opening locates the performer and audience temporarily and spatially in the moment of the performance. Body From the first, the audience is locked into the “here and now” as real time supplications unfold around them in the optative. The use of the archaic optative voice may have been viewed as more “prayerful” or elevated, similar to modern prayers that use Elizabethan English.93 The prayer is framed by a contrastive inclusio consisting of the word “goodness” (!cahopoi¶sai) at the beginning of the first line and concluding with the word “evil” (pomgq`) at the end of the v. 2. Verses 1 and 2 begin with “goodness” and “peace” respectively, reflecting the opening “Good peace.” As we have discussed in the letter in Jer 29, assonance and rhythm are important aspects of a performance and are used frequently to aid memory. An example of this mnemonic device can be observed by the repeated use of the term “heart” in v. 1 and by connecting this word with the verb “to do.” Verse 3 is introduced by “and now” and changes the focus from a prayerwish to a general statement that the Judean Jews will include the Egyptian Jews in their prayers.

92 For instance, the opening of this letter consists of covenantal language (2 Macc 1:2) in the midst of a prayer (1:2–6). The theme is the celebration of the Feast of Booths. The second letter quotes scripture and former events, like the dedications of the temple by Nehemiah and Solomon. The new feast of purification is connected with the fire that burnt the sacrifices on the former temple altar. 93 For a similar use of the optative in the NT see 2 Tim 1:16: d]g 5keor b j}qior t` imgsiv|qou oUj\ (“May the Lord grant mercy on the house of Onesiphorus!”). In the NT there are 1858 subjunctives and less than 70 optatives (Wallace, Greek Grammar, 42).This archaic form was replaced by the more common subjunctive, such as in Jer 32:39 (Gk 39:39); Jer 33:8–9 (Gk 40:8–9); Lev 26:42; Deut 4:29–31; 1 Kgs 8:30, 34, 36, 39, 49–50 and 1 Chron 28:9. The paucity of use of the optative in Koine Greek and its unusual frequency in this text suggests that the structure is either formulaic or the author consciously used an archaic form. The word !jl0 (“point,” “edge,” “culminating point,” “ripe time,” “prime,” “vigor”) may also be archaic (Goldstein, II Maccabees, 148).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

An Introductory Letter to 2 Maccabees

215

Stanza 1: Speech-acts concerning goodness and peace Verse 1: Goodness And may God give you goodness And may he remember his covenant from Abraham and Isaac and Jacob,94 his slave of faith (1:2) And may he allow your heart to worship him And do his will with a great heart and a willing soul and to open your heart to his law. (1:3–4a) Verse 2: Peace And to do his ordinances and peace (1:4b) And to hear your prayers And may you be reconciled And may you not be left behind in an evil time. (1:5) Verse 3: Prayer for the diaspora And now, we are exceedingly praying before all others for you. (1:6)

The prayer-wish projects the wishes as a divinely inspired religious experience. The idea of remembering is not focusing on the results of “remembering” but on the source. It is God who remembers his covenant, and thus results can be expected. The setting of a prayer at the beginning of the letter would have given greater force to the request to celebrate the Festival of Booths. If speech-acts are part of action, not merely language, then these supplications would have been embodied and experienced by both performer and audience. The participants of this letter were communally engaged in worship, seeking benefit through prayers and favour through festivity. Whether or not this letter was read at a specific religious location or occasion, awareness and experience of the divine through performance—embodied through performance—enhanced the communal aspect of the group. If this prayer is viewed by the audience as a re-enactment of a prayer it points the audience to a particular type of performance, a dramatic monologue. The content of this prayer is serious and sets the tone for the rest of the letter by prompting the audience to expect that the performer will now speak “truths” that are in response to the covenant of God.95

94 Or “his covenant in the sight of Abraham,” Doran, 2 Maccabees, 25. 95 For the performance of prayer in Works and Days, see Scodel, “Works and Days,” 118–19.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

216

Performances of two Greek letters

Stanza 2: An Embedded Letter Stanza 2 begins with the narrator introducing an embedded letter. Verse 1 gives the background to Jason and his revolt. Jason and his followers work together to burn the gates and kill the inhabitants of the city. Verse 2 follows a two-part rhythmic pattern “And we prayed to the lord, and we were heard/And offered a sacrifice, and finest wheat flour/And lit lamps and we set out the bread.” This rhythmic pattern is not made explicit by many modern translations, but becomes evident when organizing the letter according to a “measured” verse structure and by considering how this text may have been performed. Narrator : In the reign of Demetrius, in the year 169, we, the Jews, wrote to you: (1:7a) Verse 1: Background to the crisis “In the persecution and in the crisis that came to us in those years since the time when Jason and his followers revolted from the holy land and the kingdom (1:7b) and burned the gateway of the temple and shed innocent blood. Verse 2: Results of the crisis And we prayed to the lord, and we were heard And offered a sacrifice, and finest wheat flour And lit the lamps, and we set out the bread.” (1:8)

The list of rituals seems to refer to the daily and weekly ritual offerings. This list of activities does not mention the drink offering or the consecration of the altar. It appears that the four activities mentioned here encapsulate the ritual activities listed in Leviticus.96 References to the “law” and “ordinances” and cultic practices, suggested by the terms “sacrifice,” “finest wheat flour,” “lighting lamps,” and “setting out bread” metonymically speak to a tradition that would have been familiar both to religious elite and to many non-elite. Stanza 2 is characterized by purity and holiness and provides a setting for the (re)connection with the divine. The performer and audience are encouraged to be involved with ancient traditions, where prayers and offerings are an occasion where God can renew his covenant. 96 Doran, 2 Maccabees, 32–33.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

An Introductory Letter to 2 Maccabees

217

Closing The letter’s closing is introduced with “and now” and returns to the narrator’s voice. Narrator : And now, you are to keep the days of the setting up of the tents in the month of Kislev97 in the year 188.98 (1:9–10a)

With the closing encouraging the recipients to celebrate the Festival of Booths or Tents, many scholars have suggested that this is a festal letter similar to the letter found in Gr. Esther and the so-called Passover letter. Considering the texture of each letter can add clarity to this issue. It is true that all three letters point to the observance of a festival. In the Passover letter, Hananiah sends a letter to the garrison at Elephantine. This letter was sent by King Darius to Arsama, the Persian satrap, to convey the news that the king has commanded the celebration of the Passover. The letter in Gr. Esther is also from a Persian king sent to the provinces encouraging them, or better, giving them authority, to celebrate the festival of Purim. Since this is a new festival, a historical background to the celebration is given in the letter. The context of the letters is the same—a king commands a festival. In contrast to these two letters, Doran suggest that …one should imagine that the bearers of this first letter in 2 Maccabees would have orally communicated and expanded upon its theme to the major Jewish communities in Egypt. They, too, would have stressed the epiphany of Yahweh, and their exposition could have referred to the historians of the events, like Jason of Cyrene.99

The letter in 2 Maccabees is not an invitation to celebrate a new festival for the Festival of Booths was celebrated for over twenty years before this letter was written. It seems reasonable to suggest that messengers were sent to read this letter written from Jerusalem to the Jews in Egypt. Doran supports this position by stating that in “Greek tradition messengers were sent from various cities to represent their city at the celebration in the city of their senders.”100 The fact that the marker “and now” occurs at the end of the letter suggests that the text is a 97 Kislev is the ninth month of the Hebrew calendar. 98 That is 124 BCE according to the Seleucid Babylonian calendar. 99 Doran, 2 Maccabees, 35. He adds support to his position by comparing the letter in 2 Maccabees with a decree from the city of Epidamnos in Illyria. This letter invites numerous Greek cities to participate in the festival for the goddess. 100 Doran, 2 Maccabees, 35.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

218

Performances of two Greek letters

letter of petition.101 If that is the case, then the ones who are being petitioned most likely held a higher status that those who are making the request. What is being considered here is that the texture of the letter suggests that its form lies between a festal letter and a letter of request.102 Just as Jer 29 mixes prophetic oracles with letter form, 2 Maccabees is a mixture of festal letter and letter of petition. Reading the letter in common puts the letter in an oral context and is enhanced by the perceived presence and friendship of the author. A performance narrows the distance between the written text and oral discussion and becomes more than written content, it embodies the voice of the author. The letter symbolically sets the tone for 2 Maccabees and acts as an authenticating voice for the rest of the book. The oral texture consists of rhythmic patterns, mnemonic devices and metonymic references. All these features combine to suggest a performative context.

7.2.3 Context An oral performance of this letter would require the audience to identify with Jewish prayers, the importance of the patriarchs, Jewish law, and cultic practices. The letter is sent by a collective group of Jews from Jerusalem and the surrounding areas, but lacks any reference to the Hasmonean high priestly families or even a council of Elders.103 This omission is worth stressing because the intended performers and audience are asked to observe the festival made possible by Hasmonean military successes. The request to commemorate this event becomes even more pointed when we realize that the recipients of the letter would have been conscious of the ideological importance of the Jerusalem temple. God had chosen Jerusalem as the only legitimate place in Israel at which to worship and offer sacrifice,104 but later he seems to have rejected it by allowing foreigners to destroy the structure in 586 BCE. The performance context is further complicated by the suggestion that the first letter is most likely translated from a Hebrew or Aramaic original and the second seems to be written in idiomatic Greek.105 The frequent use of the par101 102 103 104

See White, Form and Structure of the Official Petition. Doran, 2 Maccabees, 37. A council of elders is mentioned in 1 Macc 12:6 and 2 Macc 1:10. God’s choice of Jerusalem as the sole legitimate place of sacrifice is expressed in Deut 12:2, 4–18, 26–29. It was sanctioned by acts of God in 2 Chron 7:1–2 and Ezra 6:16–18. 105 Scholars point to the paratactic Hebrew or Aramaic style beneath the Greek as evidence for a Semitic Vorlage in the first letter (Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 132). The original language of the second letter is still strongly debated by scholars. Bickerman maintains a Greek original,

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Summarizing the Performances

219

atactic Semitic style suggests that the translators were working from a Semitic text and used non-idiomatic Greek expressions and form to reflect more closely the original text. The difference between the syntax of the two languages has been noted frequently, but what has not been adequately considered is whether a Greek translated text would have been performed differently from a nontranslated text. Whether the text was translated or not, I have discussed the context of the letter as it has come to us, assuming that a performer would not remove the alleged non-idiomatic Greek aspects for a “smoother” approach. A letter sent from Jerusalem to the Jews in Egypt would have come to the attention of the ruling elite. The letter is addressed to brothers and from brothers, thus attempting to eliminate all indications of status. The extended prayer that includes the mention of the covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob suggests images of the exodus, a story tied to Egypt. The prayer that is performed in the form of a speech act becomes the audience’s prayer and reinforces the sense of community. If, as has been suggested, this is a letter of request, then the religious elite would have been the recipients. Some of these religious leaders were part of the political power structure. The embedded letter accuses Jason of atrocities committed in Jerusalem and appeals to the political elite in Egypt to celebrate the Festival of Booths in Kislev in the year 124 BCE. The performance of this letter would have resonated with the ruling Oniads by promoting a sense of community and common celebrations and by affirming the rejection of Jason. From this perspective, the performer who enacted this letter would have pronounced a blessing in the form of a speech-act, encouraged the audience to open up their hearts to the law, exhorted them to continue to pray, and urged them to keep the days of the setting up of booths. This observation implies that the keeping of the law and ordinances are partly related to the keeping of the festivals, especially the festival of Booths. This letter also provides an interesting window into the possible limits of the power of the religious elite (no mention is made of Jonathan the High Priest or John Hyrcanus) and may have intended to substitute or enhance their authority with texts and ancient heroes of the faith.

7.3

Summarizing the Performances

Even though Gr. Esther and 2 Maccabees concern the celebration of festivals, the narratives and the inclusion of these letters appear to have different purposes. Although they both lend themselves to an iconic mode of presentation, the as does Bartlett (Maccabees, 215); Goldstein (II Maccabees, 164–67) finds evidence for a Semitic Vorlage (1:1, 2, 18, 36). See also Schwartz, who states that “the first epistle is plainly a Semitic document, and to interpret it according to the standards of Greek letters…would seem to be a mistake” (p. 522).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

220

Performances of two Greek letters

function of the performance of Gr. Esther would have been to bind the audience to the social and religious institution of Purim. On the other hand, the Maccabees account connects the readers to a memory of past heroes, a Jewish cultic heritage. The iconic mode of presentation implies that these letters were not sent to get a written reply from the recipient, but rather as a one-way communication intended for a wide audience. The opening to the letter in Gr. Esther includes foreign rulers, an oral texture that would have created a distance between the author(s) and the audience. Thus, letters can serve to create both nearness and distance between the participants. A performance perspective suggests that these letters are textual remains of performances and were adjusted to each new situation and adaptable to many types of literature. In Gr. Esther a tale is told that includes letters and may have been added for its entertainment value; whereas, in 2 Macc 1 an alleged historical account is introduced by employing letters that set a serious tone for an extended work. In our short survey we have considered a wide variety of letters, consisting of family letters, festal letters, and official letters. Some texts push the boundaries of what some scholars consider constitutes letter form, while other letters use an idiomatic epistolary structure. The reason the investigation of the text and the genre of MMT can be most profitably conducted on the basis of our study of performance theory is that we have not restricted our examination merely to the wording of individual texts—as has been perhaps too frequently done in the past—but have endeavoured to determine how a text functioned as a performance in a community. The goal of the investigation is to apply the principles learned thus far concerning performance criticism to MMT. I will continue the examination of performance of texts by using the concepts developed in the previous chapters to help determine how MMT may have functioned in a community in an effort to advance the scholarly debate concerning the function and genre of MMT.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Chapter 8 A Case Study of the Performances of MMT

In accordance with the concepts laid out in the previous chapters concerning text, texture, and context, this chapter will focus on how these three approaches can be applied to MMT, a document that in many ways exists at the boundary or on the edge of categories common today. This text is not embedded in a narrative, such as Gr. Esther (Addition E) and Ezra and does not contain epistolary features found in the free-standing letters from Egypt. Scholars have found it difficult to determine the genre of MMT because it contains few features that are generally recognized as elements of an idiomatic letter form, as described in chapter 5. The situation is further complicated by the fact that this document is damaged, and we have little material evidence that connects the two or three distinct, yet complementary, sections of the text. One reason MMT is difficult to classify concerns the way in which many scholars have construed what ancient letters are and how they functioned and have not given adequate consideration to how letters may have been performed in a community. As part of this chapter, I will take into account how the ambiguity of the form of MMT may suggest that the text did not function in a uniform way, but rather may have operated differently at various times and in various settings. As has been shown in previous chapters, understanding performative context by reviewing oral texture adds an important aspect to our understanding of a letter and its genre. By employing a performance critical method to MMT, we will be able to illuminate the formal devices used in the text in order to discern where and when the document may have been performed. The aim here is to consider how performance criticism may be applied to MMT and how this emerging method may help shape questions that guide our investigation. In order to come to our conclusion about how the designation “letter” may variously apply to MMT, as in previous chapters we will consider the text, texture and context.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

222

8.1

A Case Study of the Performances of MMT

Text

The text of MMT has been reconstructed by Elisha Qimron and John Strugnell from fragments of six manuscripts (4Q394–399) recovered from Qumran Cave 4.1 The title of the document, MMT, is derived from the words “some of the works2 of the Torah” (8L9N8 =bFB NJKB), which are found in line C26 of the composite text in Discoveries in the Judaean Desert X (DJD X). Before continuing with discussing the text, we need to be clear about the outstanding issues with the texts as we now have them. First, it is problematic to consider the composite text, when no such text exists in any manuscript. Qimron and Strugnell have carefully reconstructed a text from fragments and other sources, but we cannot assume that their reconstruction reflects the actual ancient document at any one stage. Second, we are not certain how the calendrical section (Section A) fits with Sections B and C, or if it has anything at all to do with the rest of MMT. We have only one fragment that includes the calendrical section and until further evidence is available, we need to be cautious about the nature of the composition of MMT.3 With those caveats in mind, we can proceed to work with the material that is available to us. The exploration of the written and oral texts of the letters previously discussed has produced a set of criteria against which MMT can be tested. First, we have discussed how a document uses formal features to present itself as a text in respect to its narrative plot, persona, and point of view. Second, we have used a “measured” verse approach to understand how a text expresses itself in rhythm, sounds, and language patterns, which has been used to suggest a performance structure. Third, we have observed how some texts have been adapted to fit new situations. These three areas will be used as a basis for our investigation of the text of MMT. ˘

1 Qimron and Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4, V: Miqsat Ma as´e Ha-Torah (DJD X; Clarendon Press, ˙ Oxford, 1994). For an examination of the problems of the composite text by considering the manuscript evidence, see Hanne von Weissenberg, 4QMMT, 31–104. Êmile Puech engages in the ongoing debate on the nature of the text, Puech, “L’Êpilogue de 4QMMT Revisit¦,” in A Teacher for all Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. Vanderkam, ed. Eric F. Mason et al., 2 vols., JSJSup 153 (Leiden: Brill, 2011). His reconstruction is very different from Qimron and Strugnell (and von Weissenberg for that matter) and would result in a very different performance. 2 The Hebrew word rendered either “precept” or “work” is NJKB. 3 Early on Strugnell raised concerns with the calendar and its relationship with 4QMMT. Strugnell, “MMT: Second Thoughts,” 61–62; idem Appendix 3 in DJD X, 203; See also James C. VanderKam, Calendars in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Measuring Time (London: Routledge, 1998). According to Qimron and Strugnell (DJD X, 109), one or more “sections could theoretically have stood before the first surviving part,” that is, preceding the calendric section. It is significant, when considering the relationship between the calendar and sections B and C, that calendric issues are not mentioned in either section.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

223

Text

8.1.1 Scene 1: Calendrical Section A feature of all the letters that we discussed so far is that they open with an objective point of view by identifying the sender and recipient. In the opening the performer can serve to create a sense of nearness between the sender and audience, as seen in the Hermopolis family letter, or a sense of distance can be created, such as the letter in Gr. Esther, which is addressed to a foreign king and 127 satrapies. A letter can be addressed to a specific person or group (i. e. Passover letter, Ezra 5, 2 Macc 1) or be intended for a wide distribution (Gr. Esther). Recognizing that a letter addressed to a specific person or group can also have a wide distribution. We have observed that a text can have few epistolary features and yet “act” with the persona of a letter, without any expectation that the recipient(s) will respond in writing or orally to the contents (Jer 29, Gr. Esther, 2 Macc 1). This variety of epistolary forms has invited us to re-examine what a letter is by considering how it functions in a community. Some of these formal aspects need to be considered when reflecting on the text of MMT. In our analysis we wish to build on the text critical work of other scholars, who have noted the idiomatic features of letters, but where the text lacks these structures we will look for other features that may suggest how the text was performed. But the first issue concerns where the text, and therefore the performance of MMT, would have begun. It appears that the calendrical section was attached to only one manuscript, and it seems that the calendar was a later addition and did not belong originally to the legal section.4 Putting a calendar before a legal text is a highly unusual structure for there is no example of this arrangement in the Hebrew Bible,5 although the Passover letter begins with a calendric section and includes dates for the proper observance of Passover in the legal section. A possibility worth considering is proposed by Sarianna Metso, who suggests that calendrical documents could be attached to other documents and/or replaced by other textual components.6 If calendrical texts were fluid and thus could potentially be

4 The calendar is found only in one fragment (4Q394) and, according to von Weissenberg, it is clear that at least one of the copies of 4QMMT contained a calendrical section” (4QMMT, 38). For a study on biblical, post-biblical, and Qumran calendars, see VanderKam, Calendars in the Dead Sea Scrolls. 5 During times of reformation, festivals and calendars were adjusted to align with the cultic changes. Deut 16:1–17 may be an example of a programme of cultic centralization, but this short festival calendar is part of a legal section, unlike MMT, which appears to be annexed to a text. For how festivals are transformed as a result of cultic centralization, see Bernard M. Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 53–97. 6 Sarianna Metso, The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule, STDJ 21 (Leiden:

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

224

A Case Study of the Performances of MMT

passed from one document to another, then nothing within the calendar necessitates its application to only MMT. However, worthy of note is the suggestion of von Weissenberg, who proposes that the purpose for attaching a calendar to the beginning of MMT is “because of the importance of the calendar reckonings to the community, and to the covenant theology as reflected by the Book of Jubilees.”7 Although there is little material evidence to suggest that the calendrical section was always (or ever) performed in conjunction with other sections of MMT, there is evidence to indicate that the memorization and performance of lists of people and events were part of the social memory of some oral cultures. As part of the oral tradition of the Mi’Kmaq and Miliseet First Nations people, they “were taught to memorize their genealogy and this data was recited at marriages, funerals, and other feasts and ceremonies.”8 The Hermopolis letter had a list of people to be greeted, and the Passover letter had a list of special days, whether these lists were memorized can be debated.9 If the calendar was performed separately or in conjunction with other texts, it served to frame a set of expectations concerning festivals, that is, a cultural memory of events. Cultural memory, according to Jan Assmann, “comprises that body of re-useable texts, images and rituals specific to each society in each epoch, whose ‘cultivation’ serves to stabilize and convey that society’s self-image.”10 Insofar as we have been trained to read texts, it is frequently hard to imagine how MMTmay have sounded in an oral performance. If the calendar was the first (or the only) text to be heard, then the performance would have begun with a rhythmic repetition of days and months, frequently following the pattern: the date = a Sabbath (i. e. “the twenty third of it is a Sabbath” [col. I]). This metrical form is cadenced at the end of each column by the name of a festival (i. e. “The fifteenth of it is the Festival of Weeks” [col. I]). The goal of rehearsing a calendar is not merely to retrieve data, but more importantly to re-create and re-live an

7

8 9 10

Brill, 1997), 119, 126–29, 142. As an example of a calendrical text which originated from a separate source, Metso suggests 4QSe. Von Weissenberg, 4QMMT, 133. She views the calendar as significant to covenant theology in Jubilees, CD and 1QS (pp. 130–31). Although MMT does not explicitly mention the covenant, according to von Weissenberg, the scriptural source texts and the references to blessings and curses reflect covenantal theology. As a possible example of a text from Qumran that was annexed to a larger work, scholars have suggested that 4QOtot-calendar (4Q319) was attached to 4QSe. Metso also discusses the textural development of the Community Rule containing calendrical references (Textual Development, 126, 128–29, and 142). Canada Heritage. “Genealogy First: Genealogy and the First People of New Brunswick,” http:// www.genealogyfirst.ca/research/geneology-in-general.html. The genealogy in Matt 1 is arranged in three sets of fourteen generations; most likely to aid memory. Jan Assmann, “Collective Memory and Cultural Identity,” in “Cultural History/Cultural Studies special issue,” trans. John Czaplicka New German Critique 65 (1995): 132–33.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

225

Text

experience and reassert an identity. Through an oral performance, the cultural identity is reaffirmed and concretized and the Qumran community “becomes visible to itself and others.”11 From the letter in 2 Macc 1:1–9 and the addition to Gr. Esther, we have considered that a purpose for writing a festal letter is to help form the hope for social unity in the community’s commemorative celebrations, which appears to be a motive behind listing special days and festivals in MMT. If the calendar was performed on some occasions with the legal section, then it may have served the purpose of setting the tone for a larger work, similar to the festal letter in 2 Maccabees. It can be said that the performance of the calendar provides the performer with an opportunity to embody and give voice to establishing dates and times of Sabbaths and festivals, which suggests an iconic mode of presentation. Thus, the performance would have invited the audience to respond to a festival or cultic activity, or possibly affirmed the date or festival they were already celebrating.

8.1.2 Scene 2: Legal Section More probably a performance began with the legal section, which opens with a vague deixis “these are some of our rulings.” According to Literary Structures Inventory, this opening establishes MMT under the same general heading as letters found in the Hebrew Bible.12 The opening “these are the words” is found in both a legal text in Deut 1 and in an editorial introduction to a letter found in Jer 29.13 This initial structural element is not merely a useful way to begin a text, but may evoke the “fecund totality of the entire tradition.”14 In performances in predominantly oral cultures meaning depends much more heavily on traditions expressed frequently through metonym, “a mode of signification wherein the part stands for the whole.”15 Applying this concept to MMT, this incipit would have set a serious tone for the performance of MMT, generated by a reference both to the historical prologue to Deuteronomic law and to an introduction to a 11 Assman,“Collective Memory,” 133. 12 Alexander Samely, “Miqtsat Ma’sah Ha-Torah,” in A. Samely et al., Database for the Analysis of Anonymous and Pseudepigraphic Jewish Texts of Antiquity (http://literarydatabase.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/), profiles this document as a text that “refers to itself using a genre term, speech act term, verb or other term implying verbal constitution.” However Samely also states “that the calendric information (Section A) present in one of the fragments before the ‘B-part’ begins (4Q394, 3–7 1) is not meant to form a textual unity with the remainder of 4QMMT.” 13 Jer 29:1 begins with “These are the words of the letter….” This introduction is comparable to Deut 1:1: “These are the words that Moses spoke to all Israel…” 14 Foley, Imminent Art, 7. 15 Foley, Imminent Art, 7.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

226

A Case Study of the Performances of MMT

prophetic letter.16 However, on the basis of the formal aspects found in the opening of MMT, there is little evidence to determine the genre of MMT. The incipit does not contain a date, formal address, response mechanism, or an indication of the document’s distribution. As with the text found in Jer 29, we will have to consider other factors in order to define how this text was used in a community. In order to aid visualizing a performance, I have attended in the previous chapters to key markers of oral-derived texts by noting language patterns, by that I mean, repeated phrases, changes in pronouns, parallel lines and sets of lines, following Dell Hymes’ model of “measured” verse, which stresses how oral performance can be, to some extent, embodied in a text.17 As the previous chapters have made clear, this method of organizing a text is not primarily concerned with metre, which is exhibited by phonological or grammatical regulation of lines, but rather by recognizing repetition within a segment, and the relation of units to each other within a whole. Adapting this model to MMT, the legal section can be organized by the recurring term “and concerning.” If that expression is understood as a framing device, then it can be said that the favourite pattern for the legal section is a couplet. For instance, the two parts of the duet can be plainly seen in Scene 6: “And concerning liquid streams (part 1): we are of the opinion that they are not pure…” (part 2). This clear pattern reflects an oral mnemonic structure, which would have aided the performance and the aural reception of the material. Verses have been determined most frequently by pronouns, but also by finite verbs, connecting particles, and by their sense. Most of the verses can be combined into larger sections, which I have labeled “stanzas.” The oral features that have been considered in determining stanzas consist of internal thematic

16 There are a total of 33 Deuteronomy scrolls of which 30 were discovered at Qumran. Next to Psalms (39 scrolls), Deuteronomy appears to be the most popular book at Qumran. There are six Jeremiah scrolls found at Qumran. Portions of chs. 25–27 and 30–33 have been found, but no extant copy of ch. 29. It appears that the Qumran community placed importance on Jeremiah, as seen by the fact that the copies cover approximately 200 years and next to Isaiah and Daniel, Jeremiah and Ezekiel seemed to have been copied most frequently among the prophets. Jeremiah is the only canonical prophetic book referenced in MMT (B75–76 [Jer. 2:3]). 17 Hymes, “In Vain”. 318. What Hymes does not consider is that the demarcation of segments are not confined to merely verbal cues, but performers also used voice modulation and bodily gestures to mark off segments. The discourse markers are so pronounced in MMT that they would have been reinforced by a performer. For the difficulties involved in Hymes’ representation of verse, see Anna Bonifazi and David F. Elmer, “Composing Lines, Performing Acts: Clauses, Discourse Acts, and Melodic Units in a South Slavic Epic Song, in Orality, Literacy and Performance in the Ancient World, ed. Elizabeth Minchin (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 90–91.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

227

Text

unity (i. e. Stanza 1), rhythm (i. e. Stanza 2) and repeated phrases found in many of the stanzas. We begin by considering the formula “and concerning” (@F9), which can be found in other legal texts at Qumran, and resembles the “and now” (CF?9) structure in the letters from Egypt and peq· d´ + the genitive in the letters of Paul.18 What needs to be determined is whether the feature “and concerning,” which introduces many of the regulations in MMT, is characteristic of letters or more broadly a heading found in legal texts. Baumgarten has shown that “to” (@F) is used as a heading to introduce groups of laws set forth in the Damascus Document.19 However, von Weissenberg and Hempel do not regard this feature as specific to letters, but as a standard way of compiling strings of regulations or expositions in the late Second Temple period.20 Baumgarten’s position has also been challenged by Doering, who states that MMT uses @F9 as an introduction to single statements, rather than as a rubric and that “MMT introduces new halakhic subjects by connecting them with the preceding discourse.”21 He supports his view by stating that some of the issues are qualified by formulations such as “we think” or “we say,” which he finds parallels with some letters in Paul and other Greek authors. Although a definitive conclusion on whether or not MMT is a letter cannot be reached, Doering’s summary statement on the use of @F9 seems to consider an audiences’ perspective: “While this may not be incontrovertible evidence for the character of MMT as a letter, it is indeed well-established discourse feature of certain letters and, despite some general similarity, is different from other legal texts from Qumran.”22 Another discourse feature is the pattern “concerning X…the evaluation is Y” or “concerning X…we think that Y,” which places the dependent clause before the main clause. This element sets the pace for the text by using short rhythmic blocks or “idea units,” possibly signaling to the performer to pause before the next unit or to stop the reading altogether.23

18 For the use of @F in legal texts in the Qumran corpus, see the Damascus Document (CD and 4QD), 4Q159 (Ordinances), and 4QHalakhah A. For Ezra’s use of NDF?9 , see Ezra 4:10, 11; CF? Ezra 4:13, 14, 21. For Paul’s use of peq¸ d´ in his letters, see 1 Cor 7:1, 25; 8:1. 19 Joseph M. Baumgarten, “The Laws of the Damascus Document—Between Bible and Mishnah,” in The Damascus Document: A Centennial of Discovery, ed. J.M. Baumgarten, E.G. Chazon, and A. Pinnick, STDJ 34 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 24. 20 Von Weissenberg, 4QMMT, 163; Charlotte Hempel, “The Laws of the Damascus Document and 4QMMT,” in The Damascus Document: A Centennial of Discovery, 73. 21 Doering, Ancient Jewish Letters, 203. His position is similar to Qimron and Strugnell, DJD 10, who describe the literary character of MMTas being “classed with corporate or public letters sent from one group to another” (p. 114). 22 Doering, Ancient Jewish Letters, 204. The topic concerning whether MMTcan be considered a letter will be discussed later. 23 This view of rhythmic blocks is supported by W.L. Chafe, Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Consciousness Experience in Speaking and Writing

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

228

A Case Study of the Performances of MMT

A linguistic marker that occurs in many orally-derived texts is the use of quotations, which is indicated at least eleven times in MMT by the citation formula “it is written.”24 The ways in which biblical quotations are used is at least potentially an important structural feature in any text that so clearly deals with biblical material. According to Brooke, “nearly all the phrases which follow 59N? [‘it is written’] can be identified as citations of scripture, even if in somewhat adjusted forms.”25 The “adjusted forms” of scripture suggest that a scriptural quotation is not so much a citation formula as a means of “pointing to an authoritative cultural tradition fixed in writing which was accepted as the basis of God’s covenant with Israel and to which the people of the covenant were accountable.”26 It is likely that sacred texts were characterized by a sense of the holy that appealed to the communities’ understanding of the mysterious, even (or especially) for those who could not read. From a performance perspective, discourse markers are important aspects in reading a text and frame how an audience would understand the message. In order to support the view that the legal section of MMT is not merely a “series of special rules,”27 a structural analysis of text needs to be made. For now, it is the helpful to consider the research of Jousse, who suggests that an oral performance is marked by “units of sound and sense uttered or chanted in a single breath.”28 In Jer 29 and the Passover letter, it has been shown how a rhythmic structure can facilitate memorization and performance in oral communities. The repetition of structural elements and refrains may seem redundant to a silent reader, but has a long history in oral rhetoric and suggests a presentation of each section as oral speeches.29 Additionally, it has been sug-

24

25 26

27 28 29

(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994); J.P. Gee, Social Linguistic and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses, 2nd ed. (London: Taylor & Francis, 1996). Von Weissenberg’s warning should be considered: “It is not unproblematic to use MT as the main source of comparison for scriptural citations found in Qumran texts…it has become increasingly clear that the text form of the Hebrew Bible was not fixed when the texts found at Qumran were authored” (4QMMT, 170). Brooke, “Explicit Presentation of Scripture,” 71. See also Bernstein, “Employment and Interpretation, of Scripture in 4QMMT,” in Reading 4QMMT, 29–51. The Community Rule also gives evidence that the Qumran community drew upon scriptural tradition creatively. Draper, “The Announcement and Testing of the Prophet,” in Whoever Hears You Hears Me, 257. As possible support for the different ways the laws are used in MMT, see von Weissenberg, 4QMMT, 131, who states that “despite the covenantal structure of the law collections adopted and adjusted by the author/redactor, 4QMMT is not, generically speaking, a ‘pure’ collection of laws.” Geza Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (New York: Penguin Books, 1997), 220. Jousse, Anthropology of Gest and Rhythm. According to Jousse, verbal units are rhythmically balanced in terms of bodily movement called “cradling” (rocking side to side) or “lifting” (moving back and forth). James Watts discusses the rhetorical function of repetition and variation throughout the

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

229

Text

gested that a rhythmic pattern can be an indicator of a change in verse and perspective. The emphasis of this chapter is to determine if this position can be applied to MMT by using a “measured” verse approach. A few explanatory notes need to be made concerning how I have formatted the structure.30 Bearing the concerns over a composite text in mind, for argument’s sake I have chosen to use the text from Qimron and Strugnell as the basis for my analysis; therefore, I have included their line divisions, and placed the restored text in italics.31 Recognizing that because of the fragmentary state of the text, the document can only with great difficulty be sufficiently reconstructed to allow for a definitive flow of argument from one unit to another. The purpose for considering the structure according to a “measured” verse approach is to offer another body of evidence that can be used in conjunction with other critical methods to help the reader refine their understanding of the text. We begin with the Legal Section, which I have called Scene 2. This scene opens with a narrative introduction, similar to Jer 29,32 and the rulings begin in Stanza 1, which lists four bans33 and extends the third ban by giving an opinion on the sacrifice of gentiles,34 possibly comparing their sacrifice with whoring women.35 This ban is further segmented according to the verbs that indicate a

30 31 32 33 34

35

Pentateuch. James W. Watts, Reading Law : The Rhetorical Shaping of the Pentateuch, The Biblical Seminar 59 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 68–74. In order to allow for alternative reading strategies, I have noted when scholars have challenged Qimron and Strugnell’s reconstruction. Qimron and Strugnell, DJD X, 46–57. Jer 29 begins with “These are the words of the letter…” which is similar to MMT “These are some of our rulings…” It is difficult to determine the topic of the first ban because of the poor state of the manuscript. Hempel discusses texts that express concern over defilement through contact with Gentiles, see Hempel, “The Laws of the Damascus Document and 4QMMT,” in The Damascus Document: A Centennial of Discovery, STDJ 34 (Leiden: Brill, 2000). Hannah K. Harrington develops the notion that Gentiles are impure and their sins pollute Israel and her sacrifices, see Harrington, “Keeping Outsiders Out: Impurity at Qumran,” in Defining Identities: We, You and the Other in the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Florentino Garc†a Mart†nez and Mladen Popovic (Leiden: Brill, 2008). The pronoun “they” is also used at B35. CD 12:10–11 implies that Jews kept Gentile slaves, “who entered the covenant of Abraham,” and that they participated in communal meetings (CD 14:4–6). This view is contra J.C. Lübbe, “The Exclusion of the Ger from the Future Temple,” in Mogilany 1993: Papers on the Dead Sea Scrolls Offered in Memory of Hans Burgmann, ed. Zdzislaw J. Kapera (Krakow : Enigma, 1996), 181–82. See also Harrington, “Keeping Outsiders Out,” 196, who references CD 11:2; 12:10–11 as part of Qumran’s view of foreigners. Different texts offer different views on the status of Gentiles, for instance Lev 17:15–16 implies that the Gentile is obligated to maintain ritual purity and those rituals are effective in shedding the contagion. Num 15:16 states that purification offerings can atone for the sins of Gentiles. 4QFlor envisions a future when Gentiles will not be admitted into the sanctuary (4Q174 4). According to 11Q XXXIX, 5–7 the Gentiles are barred from entering the centre court of the Temple until the fourth generation. This reading is uncertain. See DJD X 1.2.3.2.1 (p. 9). Eibert Tigchelaar, “4Q397–399,” in The

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

230

A Case Study of the Performances of MMT

change in action. The discourse marker that sets apart each ban “and concerning” is restored, but seems reasonable. Although critics disagree regarding the amount of scriptural citation in MMT, it appears that Lev 6:19–21 is being referred to in v. 2.36 An example of disagreement among scholars occurs in the last ban (v. 4), which Qimron and Strugnell restore by adding “it is written”; however, other scholars find that reconstruction doubtful.37 The change in focus from giving bans to providing a priestly admonition provides a natural cadence to this stanza. In the interest of emphasizing the performative elements, some rulings have been truncated. To understand the text more fully, it is imperative that the reader consult the original text.

Narrative Introduction: These are some of our rulings […] which are [some of the rulings according to] [the] precepts (of the Torah)… (B1–3a)

Stanza 1: Unacceptable Offerings Verse 1: Narrator: [And concerning the sowed gifts of the] new wheat grains (B3b–4a) Ban: “Do not eat it or bring it into the sanctuary.” (B4b–5a) Verse 2: Narrator: [And concerning the sacrifice of the purification-offering] (B5b) Ban: “That they cook in a [copper] vessel and that they […]” (B6–8a) Verse 3: Narrator: And concerning the sacrifice of gentiles (B8b) Priestly opinion: “[we are of the opinion that they] sacrifice to the […] that is like (a woman) who whored with him.” (B8c–9a) Dead Sea Scrolls Electronic Library (Dead Sea Scrolls Electronic Reference Library CD-ROM) ed. by Emanuel Tov, rev. ed. (Brigham Young University ; Leiden: Brill, 2006) translates this term as “perversion (?).” 36 For the central role the Hebrew Bible plays as a source for 4QMMT, see Bernstein, “Employment and Interpretation of Scripture; Brooke, “Explicit Presentation of Scripture.” For another structural analysis see von Weissenberg, 4QMMT, 106–10 37 Qimron and Strugnell suggest that Lev 7:11–18 and Deut 24:14 are being referred to. Bernstein, “Employment and Interpretation of Scripture,” 38–39 finds this reconstruction of the term 59N? by Qimron and Strugnell (as well as at B77) superfluous. Brooke, “Explicit Presentation of Scripture,” 71 is also reluctant to restore 59N? here. But see Kugler, “Rewriting Rubrics,” 110, n. 33.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

231

Text

Verse 4: Narrator: [And concerning the cereal-offering] of the sacrifice of well-being (B9b) which they (the opponents) leave over from one day to the following one. (B10a) Quotation: “But [it is written] that the cereal offer[ing is to be eat]ten…” (B10b–11a) Verse 5: Priestly Exhortation: For the sons of] the priest[s] should take care concerning this practice so as not to cause the people to bear punishment. (B11b–13a)

What this structure makes clear is that the focus of the performer changes frequently. In this stanza and others that follow, the narrator is seen as a “metacharacter” that plays a significant role at the level of discourse, that is, the manner in which the legal material is told. Of course the Legal Section of MMT is a special mode of discourse; it involves rulings. Bans and rulings are a dynamic process in which meaning is negotiated between the performer and audience. The narrator is present through introducing bans, explaining the background to a ban (v. 4), and giving a priestly exhortation (v. 5). Thus, the meaning negotiated between the narrator and the audience is framed by a performer changing roles from a narrator, to giving a priestly appraisal, to quoting Scripture, and finally, to giving an exhortation.38 A change in performative focus from giving an exhortation to returning to a ruling is signaled by a discourse marker “and concerning.” Stanza 2: Unacceptable Sacrifices Similar to Stanza 1, the next stanza is framed by concluding with a priestly exhortation.39 These verses appear to have Lev 9:1–10 and Num 19:2–10 in mind. The links to the Pentateuch expressed in MMT may not have been recognized by the casual readers or hearers, but for expert scribes memorizing the text they probably would have remembered where they had heard these words before. The text seems to have been written with scholars in mind. The priestly ruling has been segmented according to the change in action or verb. Verse 1: Narrator: And concerning the purity-regulations of the cow of the purification-offering (B13b) Priestly Ruling: “He who slaughters it and he who burns it and he who gathers its ashes 38 Watts, Leviticus, 28–33, provides a good discussion on ritual performance. 39 This passage is extremely fragmentary ; therefore, reconstruction is tentative.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

232

A Case Study of the Performances of MMT

and he who sprinkles the [water of] purification (B14–15a) it is at sun[se]t that all these become pure so that the pure man may sprinkle upon the impure one.” (B15b–16a) Verse 2: Priestly Exhortation: For the sons of Aaron should [. . .] (B16b–17)

The significance of this ruling is evident in the amount of actions that are mentioned. The content of the ruling requires various activities to be completed by those who prepared the cow of preparation offering. The step-by-step actions are made clear by a “measured” verse approach. Stanza 3: Priestly Rulings on the remains of sacrifices Little can be said concerning the next four rulings grouped together forming Stanza 3 because they are too fragmentary to make a decision about their content, particularly v. 4.40 Repetition often serves as a framing device. I have anchored this notion to the idea that the priestly exhortation brings the first three stanzas to a conclusion, thus acting as a structural cue. Verse 1: Narrator: [And concerning] the hides of cattle… (B18–19) Priestly Ruling: [bring] them to the sanctuary [… …] (B20) Verse 2: Narrator: [… …]And concerning the hi[des and bones of unclean animals (B21a) Priestly Ban: It is forbidden to make] handles of [vessels from their bones] and hides. (B21b–22) Verse 3: Narrator: [And concerning] the hide of the carcass of a clean [animal] (B22b–23a) Priestly Ruling: “He who carries such a carcass [shall not] have access to the sacred food. . .” (B23b) Verse 4: Narrator: […] And concerning the […] Priestly Ruling: That they [use to] (B 24) Verse 5: Priestly Exhortation: [… for the sons] of the priests should [take care] concerning all 40 Qimron cautions that “the text is so fragmentary that we can do little more than guess what it may have said” (Qimron and Strugnell, DJD X, 154). His reconstruction is largely based on the Temple Scroll (11Q19 LI, 1–6, XLVII, 7–15). Some rulings may have Lev 11: 24–25, 27–28, 31–32; 22:10–16 in mind.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

233

Text

[these] practices, [so as not to] cause the people to bear punishment. (B25–27a)

Stanza 4: Rulings on Sacrifices The next stanza is signaled by either the restored discourse marker (“and concerning”), if it is accurate, or the quotation. The performer and audience may recognize that a shift in perspective has occurred—from a priestly warning to a ruling about sacrifices. These next rulings employ scripture to support a particular position (v. 1) and support a position by giving a priestly appraisal (vv. 2, 3, 4).41 Here again caution must be used when suggesting the nature of these verses, particularly the ruling in v. 3.42 Verse 1: Narrator: [And concerning] that it is written Quotation: “[if a person slaughters inside the camp, or] [slaughters] outside the camp …” (B27b–28) Verse 2: Priestly opinion: And we are of the opinion that the sanctuary [is the ‘tent of meeting’] and that Jerusalem is ‘the camp,’ and that ‘outside the camp’ …For Jerusalem] is the place which [He has chosen] from among the tribes [of Israel… …] (B29–35) […] they do [not] slaughter in the sanctuary.” (B29–35) Verse 3: Narrator: [And concerning pregnant (animals)] (B36a) Priestly opinion: we are of the opin[ion] that the mother and its fetus [may not be sacrificed] on that same day (B36b) Verse 4: Narrator: [… … ….And concerning] eating (a fetus) (B37a) Priestly opinion: we are of the opinion that the fetus… (B37b–38a)

41 Lev 17:3–9; Deut 12:5; see also the Temple Scroll, LII, 13–21 42 It is not easy to determine the exact nature of the ruling in v. 3. Ian Werrett describes the difficulties of reconstructing this text, as well as others in MMT, see Werrett, “The Reconstruction of 4QMMT: A Methodological Critique,” in Northern Lights on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Nordic Qumran Network 2003–2006, ed. Anders Klostergaard Petersen et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2009).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

234

A Case Study of the Performances of MMT

Verse 5: Priestly explanation: [And you know that it is] so, namely that the ruling refers (to) a pregnant animal (B38b)

Verse 5 gives evidence that these rulings can be understood as discourses or speeches that introduce topics but need further explanation. As support for this position, Stanza 4 begins with “it is written” ( 59N? ) and provides three priestly opinions on that biblical reference and then at v. 5 the author “introduces a single word which makes summary reference to the preceding rulings which are based in scriptural passages.”43 This summary reference is “very awkward”44 and it cannot be precisely determined which scriptural text or previous ruling it refers to, but would have been made clear in performance.45 The best explanation for this awkwardness is that the role of the performer was to explain the text and thus some of the rulings may have served as rubrics or headings that invited a discourse between performer and audience. The scriptural quotation at the beginning of the stanza, with three opinions, and the reference “the ruling refers to [something?]” forms a frame that ties the discussion topic together. Stanza 5: Unacceptable unions The next stanza offers another priestly opinion on a ruling and sets a strict standard on unions with foreigners. This position may have been informed by Deut 23:2–4; Gen 2:24; Ezra 9:1–2 and Neh 13: 1, 23. The reason given for holding the priests’ narrow position is to protect the sanctity of the sanctuary. Therefore, the blind and deaf are not fit to enter the sanctuary.46 Verse 1: Narrator: [And concerning the Ammonites] and the Moabite and the mamzer… (B39–41) Priestly opinion: We are of the opinion [one must not coha]bit with them… (B42–46a) And you know that] some of the people [… … …] and become uni[ted] (B46–47)

43 Brooke, “Explicit Presentation of Scripture,” 73. 44 This is Bernstein’s term, “Employment and Interpretation,” 41. 45 Martin Abegg Jr., The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation, ed. Michael O. Wise, Martin G. Abegg, Jr., and Edward M. Cook (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 2005), 458 translates the word 8L?F as a possible heading: “You know that thi]s is correct, for the matter is written: a pregnant animal.” 46 See Lev 21:7–23.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

235

Text

Verse 2: Priestly Exhortation: [For all the sons of Israel should beware] of any forbidden unions and be full of reverence for the sanctuary. (48–49a)

The topic of unacceptable unions is concluded with a priestly exhortation, similar to the conclusion to Stanzas 1, 2, and 3. (Stanza 4 is too fragmented to know the nature of the ruling or its conclusion.) A priestly exhortation serves as a framing device that brings each stanza to a close. Stanza 6: General Purity Rules The next stanza contains general rulings that cover a wide range of topics, such as the blind, deaf, liquids, and dogs. They also include priestly opinions, exhortations, and scriptural support. The list of scriptural echoes and quotations are extensive: Lev 21:7–23 (vv. 1 and 2), Lev 11:34–38 (v. 3), and Deut 12:5 (v. 4). Up to this point I have used the discourse marker “and concerning” as an oral pattern that indicates the division of verses and stanzas. Employing this “measured” verse approach of looking for oral patterns indicates that the next literary unit consists of three rulings and an exhortation. Verse 1: Narrator: [And concerning] the blind who cannot see Priestly Ruling: so as to beware of all mixture and cannot see a mixture that incurs [reparation]-offering (B49b–51) Verse 2: Narrator: And concerning the deaf who have not heard the laws and the judgments… (B52–53a) Priestly Ruling: since he who has not seen or heard does not know how to obey (the law) nevertheless they have access to sacred food. (B53b–54) Verse 3: Narrator: And concerning liquid streams (B55a) Priestly opinion: We are of the opinion that they are not pure. . . (55b – 58a) Verse 4: Ban: And one must not let dogs enter the holy camp… (B58b–59) Priestly Exhortation: For Jerusalem is the camp of holiness and is the place which He has chosen… For Jerusalem is the capital of the camps of Israel. (B60–62a)

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

236

A Case Study of the Performances of MMT

Stanza 7 General Purity Rules The next stanza continues the structure of the previous one. Topics consist of trees, lepers, and sacred food. Scriptures that are echoed in these verses are: Lev 19:23–24; 27:32 (v. 1), Lev 4:13–14, 27–28; 13:46; 14; Num 15:3 (v. 2), and Num 19:16–18 (v. 3). The last verse changes the perspective from giving a priestly opinion and explanation to referring to the audience by using the introductory phrase “and you know.” Verse 1: Narrator: And concerning (the fruits of) the trees Explanation: For food planted in the Land of Israel (B62b–63a) they are to be dealt with like first fruits belonging to the priests And (likewise) the tithe of the herd and the flock should be given to the priests (B63b–64a) Verse 2: Narrator: And concerning (healed) lepers (B64b) Priestly opinion: We are [of the opinion that they may not] enter (any place) containing sacred food… (B65–66a) Quotation: And it is (indeed) written that after he (i. e. the leper) shaves… (B66b–68a) Verse 3 Narrator: And you know [if someone violates a prohibitive commandment unintentionally] (B68b–70a) [And concerning him who purposely transgresses the precepts Quotation: It is writ]ten That he ‘despises and blasphemes.’ (B70b) [Moreover, since they have the] impurity of leprosy, one should not let them (the lepers) eat of the sacred food until sunset of the eighth day” (B71–72a)

Stanza 8: General purity laws The structure of the previous two stanzas is repeated in this stanza, including the refrain found in v. 3 of Stanza 7 “and (but) you know.” Stanza 8 is concerned with dead people and unclean unions and mixtures such as marriages, animals, and clothes. Similar to other rulings, these appeal to scripture for support. A direct quotation is found in v. 2, which states that “Israel is holy,” a reference to Jer 2:3. This scene singles out priests as institutional authorities and places Aaron on the top of Israel’s hierarchy. Thus, the recitation of scripture, Aaronide priests, and the Qumran priests’ interpretation of the texts are mutually reinforcing.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

237

Text

Scriptural echoes most likely occur in v. 1 (Num 19:16–18) and v. 2 (Lev 19:19; Deut 22:9, 11; Lev 21:13–15). Verse 1: Narrator: And concerning [the impurity] of the [dead] person (72b – 73a) Priestly opinion: We are of the opinion that every bone… (B73b – 74) Verse 2: Narrator: And concerning the practice of illegal marriage that exists among the people… (B75) Quotation: As it is written, “Israel is holy.” (B76a) Verse 3: Narrator: And concerning his (i. e. Israel’s) [clean ani]mal (B76b) Quotation: It is written that one must not let it mate with another species (B77a) Verse 4: Narrator: And concerning his clothes (B77b) Quotation: [it is written that they should not] be of mixed stuff (B77c – 78a) And he must not sow his field and vine[yard with mixed specie]s” (78b) Priestly Explanation: Because they (Israel) are holy and the sons of Aaron are [most holy]. (79) Narrator: But you know That some of the priests. . .unite with each other and pollute the [holy] seed…” (B80–82a) Since [the sons of Aaron should…] (82b)

It is difficult to know where this scene ends and the next begins because the text is badly damaged and cannot be retrieved. We have no material evidence for the transition from Scene 2 Scene 3; therefore, we do not know how much text is missing. Stanza 9 Because of the fragmentary state of next stanza, the proposed structure is tentative at best. The rationale for placing this stanza with Scene 2 is that it uses the refrain “and concerning,” which is a frequent marker in that scene, and the next extant line, which I have labeled Scene 3, appears to make a significant change in perspective and tone.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

238

A Case Study of the Performances of MMT

Verse 1: Narrator: And concerning the women [. . .] and the treachery [… ] (C4) Verse 2: Narrator: For in these […because of] malice and fornication [some] places were destroyed (C5–6a) Quotation: [And it is] written [in the book of Moses] that you should [not] bring any abomination [into your home47 since] abomination is a hateful thing (C6b – 7a)

There appears to be a structural connection between the beginning and end of Scene 2 because it opens with violations of social norms and concludes with the strongest indictment against a group. With what remains, we can tentatively say that Scene 2 begins with a comment on Gentile grain, which is brought into the sanctuary, and that their sacrifices are considered to be “like a woman who whored with them,” which is similar in tone to the end of the scene that comments about malice and fornication that caused “some places to be destroyed.” Analysis of Scene 2 There are several insights that a “measured” verse approach can offer concerning the understanding of Scene 2. The performer as narrator of MMT is a “metacharacter” who plays the role on the level of discourse. The performer is “present” through giving exhortations, introductions, suggesting actions, and offering narrative continuity by using repeated words and phrases. The “measured” verse structure emphasizes that the instructions can be divided not so much as individual rules, but rather as short speeches or rubrics on various legal or halakhic topics that may have been collected for or during performative events.48 This conclusion is further supported by the comments of Jonathan Draper, who states that “important acts of oral re-membering, where content is espe47 This quotation is not in quotation marks in Qimron and Strugnell, but, see Brooke, “Explicit Presentation of Scripture,” 76, who points out that this is a direct quotation from Deut 7:26. Although in Deut 7:26 the term “house” refers to one’s home “in light of the halakhic section discussing the purity of the Temple cult, it could be understood as referring to the Temple” (von Weissenberg, 4QMMT, 196–97). 48 Robert A. Kugler, “Rewritting Rubrics: Sacrifice and the Religion of Qumran,” in Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. John J. Collins and Robert A. Kugler (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) refers to the laws in MMTas rubrics for cultic administration. Isokrates may serve as a model for the long process of collaborative composition, performance, and revision that he details in the Panath. For a description of this model, see Collins, “Prompts for Participation,” 173–80.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

239

Text

cially significant, will be ritualized.”49 According to this position, the emphasis on ritual offerings and sacrifices would have been embodied in a ritualistic performance. The re-membering or re-enacting of the rulings seem to have necessitated greater emphasis on one ban over another, thus requiring varying lengths of rulings, which reflect a need for more explanation as the rules were implemented, tested, and discussed. In this regard, Stanza 5 v. 4 (“namely that the ruling refers (to) a pregnant animal”), which seems to be a heading, needs some explanation. The apparent awkwardness of this statement in the midst of a ruling indicates that the performer was required to improvise or explain the ruling. In other letters “awkwardness” has taken various forms, such as “unnecessary particles (Hermopolis), “clumsy” diction (Passover letter), repetition or borrowing from the narrative (Ezra 5), “displaced” texts (Jer 29), lack of transition markers (Gr. Esther) and unidiomatic forms and expressions (2 Maccabees). Our investigation has shown that the frequency of “clumsiness” of ancient authors should alert the careful reader to the possibility that an ancient written text was composed with performance sensitivity and thus the text may have been expected to be explained by the performer and interacted with by an audience.50 This position supports the view that reading in common puts a text in an oral context favourable to questions and discussions. The structure of each ruling without a connecting narrative is similar to some letters found in the New Testament,51 or debates found later in the Mishnah,52 or collections of sayings presented in other types of literature.53 Form criticism was on the right track to look for life situations of particular types of texts, but looked too narrowly at the Sitz im Leben without considering the impact the audience may have had on the text during a performance. Here Oestreich’s study on the NT letters is helpful.54 The application of his work on MMT concerns his emphasis on mixed audiences’ response to a performer. According to him, the stress during a performance is not merely on what is being presented, but rather what is happening in the event. It appears that the audience at Qumran consisted of a variety of religious elite, including priests, 49 Draper, “Jesus’ ‘Covenantal Discourse,”’ 80. 50 Not all ancient oral works exhibit such “clumsy” features, such as the polished works of Homer ; however, awkwardness is a feature that some scholars have noted in the letters under review. 51 Other texts that catalogue directives without a substantial narrative are Gospel of Thomas and the epistles of James and 1 John in the NT. 52 This is the position of Charlotte Hempel, “4QMMT and Comfortable Theories,” in Dead Sea Scroll: Text and Context, ed. Charlotte Hempel (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 291, who views the bulk of MMTas “written in the ‘register’ of legal debate that later found its way into the Mishnah.” 53 For example, Gospel of Thomas, hypothetical sayings of Q, and the Didache. 54 See Oestreich’s summary of his position, Performanzkritik, 253–56.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

240

A Case Study of the Performances of MMT

and those who tended to the sacrifices (lay people cannot be ruled out). If we consider that the audience was not homogeneous, then new perspectives are possible. The reprimand that “the priests should take care so as not to cause the people to stumble” can be understood as an exhortation against a priestly group outside the community ; however, the reading is directed to the all those who are present at the performance. In this scenario, interaction occurred between a mixed audience with both priests and non-priests in attendance and would have promoted conversation and reflection and thus had an affect beyond the performance. When considering Gr. Esther, I introduced a genre type called “speak for others,” which deals with addressing a group that consists of those who are culturally different from the speaker. The phrase “we are of the opinion” suggests that an interlocutor is being addressed. Additionally, the discussion included outsiders, such as Gentiles, Moabites, and the mamzer. These examples support the view that the author(s) of MMT created the text based on diversity, heterogeneity, and difference, having in view priests and non-priests, insiders and outsiders. Understanding oral patterns offers additional evidence concerning the extent of certain passages. If we consider oral patterns, stanza 9 fits better in Scene 2, with the narrator’s focus shifting and signalling a change in point of view at the beginning of Scene 3.55 The reason for this decision is partially related to the change in oral texture. The use of the pronoun “we” in Scene 2 only occurs as an appraisal of a ruling in the form “we are of the opinion.” This statement was most likely a device used to add credibility to a ruling, similar to the impact of a scriptural quotation. The use of the first person plural has changed in Scene 3 and is accompanied by action: “we have separated ourselves,” “we have written to you,” “we know,” “we have sent,” and “we have seen.” The change in perspective is significant—from a collection of religious cultic speeches addressed to an audience concerning disputed legal issues, to addressing and encouraging them to side with the religious elite in the disputed matters given in Scene 2. Also, there appears to be a link between the inadequate response in Scene 2 by the priests concerning eating cereal offerings for they are admonished to “take care so as not to cause the people to bear punishment” (Stanza 1, v. 5) and Scene 3, which claims that a group, most likely the religious elite, has separated themselves from the multitude and “you know that no treachery or deceit can be

55 This is obviously assuming that Qimron and Strugnell’s composite text is workable. For a different view, see Puech, “L’¦pilogue,” 309–39. Whatever view is held, the principles of ethnopoetics can be applied to the text and performance theory offers another body of evidence that should be considered when making textual decisions.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

241

Text

found in us” (Stanza 1, v. 1). These insights will be applied to the next scene, where the performer plays different roles.

8.1.3 Scene 3: Exhortation Section The difficulties with the poor quality of the text are not eliminated in Scene 3. The amount of text missing between the previous scene and this one is uncertain, and therefore where the next scene begins is still a matter of scholarly debate and cannot be determined with certainly.56 Von Weissenburg contends that there are serious difficulties in the composite text provided by Qimron and Strugnell in v. 2 (lines C 10–12). She suggests that one should present both manuscripts in parallel columns, rather than combining 4Q397 and 4Q398 and thus creating a reading that is not materially possible.57 This position is severely challenged by Puech, who contends that the manuscript overlaps in the epilogue are more important than what von Weissenburg suggests and the variations less significant.58 He proposes that a composite text for the epilogue can be reasonable suggested, and if the composite text has been redacted, it should be limited to two authors. To my mind, what these textual differences suggest is that different texts reflect different performances or contexts.

Stanza 1 With the texts available and using the composite text suggested by Qimron and Strugnell, we can divide the first stanza into two verses, according to the use of a “we/you” perspective. Beyond that, difficulties concerning the text are too great to overcome to suggest a more detailed structure. Verse 1: Priestly perspective: [And you know that] we have separated ourselves from the multitude of the people 56 The placement of 4Q397 (d) 14–21 and 4Q398 (e) 11–13 is still being scrutinized. Von Weissenberg, 4QMMT, 88–89, places the “separation passage” in the body of the epilogue not at the beginning. According to Bernstein, “Employment and Interpretation,” 46–47, the “separation statement” is the transition between the laws and the epilogue.” This is also the position of Vermes, Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, 227. Fern‚ndez, “4QMMT: Redactional Study,” RQ 18 (1997): 196–97 understands the separation passage and the following two lines as part of the legal section. Puech, “L’¦pilogue,” 331–32, rearranges the fragments and places 4Q397 II, 1–16 after 4Q398 11–13. For a discussion on these issues, see Hempel, “Context of 4QMMT,” 281–83. 57 Von Weissenberg, “4QMMT—Some New Readings,” in Northern Lights, 220. 58 Puech, “L’¦pilogue,” 331–33, combines 4Q397 14–23 with 4Q398 11–17 and 4Q399 1.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

242

A Case Study of the Performances of MMT

[and from all their impurity]…(C7b – 8a) And you [know that no] treachery or deceit can be found in our hand. . .” (C8b – 9) Verse 2: Priestly Exhortation: And we have [written] to you59 so that you may study (carefully) the book of Moses and the book of the Prophets and (the writings of) David [and the] events of ages past.” (10–11a)

With a change in pronoun, comes a change in the point of view. No longer is the emphasis on what the religious elite have written, but now the concern is on how the biblical text can support their view. The book of Moses as well as a more general “it is written” are employed to supply an authoritative voice to the text.60 It is plausible that the author(s) of MMT viewed their own interests as identical with those of the Moses, the Prophets, and the writings of David. The repeated use of the reference to written texts gives focus to this stanza.

Stanza 2 This stanza is framed by references to what has been written. Verse 1: Quotation: And in the book of (Moses) it is written [. . .] not […] and former days […] (C11b – 12a) Verse 2: Quotation: And it is written “that [you will stray] from the path… and calamity will meet [you]” (C12b) Verse 3: Quotation: And it is written “and it shall come to pass, when all these things [be]fall you at the end of days… and you will return unto Him with all your heart…” (C12c – 16) 59 Fraade, “To whom it may concern,” 513–514 restores this line as “we have written them down.” Puech, “L’¦pilogue,” 322, dismisses this proposal, as does Doering, Ancient Jewish Letters, 204; von Weissenberg, 4QMMT, 97; see also, DJD X, 85. The context requires a verb of communication. “The reference is not to either halakhah or letter but to the halakhah in the medium of a piece of writing that MMT constitutes” (Doering, Ancient Jewish Letters, 205; emphasis original). 60 The scriptural passages referred to in v. 2 are most likely Deut 4:29–30; 30:1–2; 31:29.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

243

Text

Verse 4: Quotation: [It is written in the book] of Moses… “that there will come […]” (C17–18a) [the blessings have (already) befallen in…] in the days of Solomon son of David. And the curses [that] have (already) befallen from the days of Jeroboam…” (C18b – 20a)

Stanza 3 The narrative is coming to a close. All the characters have now been introduced and a final conclusion is waiting. Verse 1: Biblical reference: And we know that some of the blessings and curses have (already) been fulfilled as it is written in the bo[ok of Mo]ses. (C20b – 21a) Verse 2: Summary statement: And this is the end of days when they will return to Isra[el] [forever…] and not be cancelled, but the wicked will act wickedly, and […] and […]” (21b – 22) Verse 3: Priestly exhortation: Think of the kings of Israel and contemplate their deeds… and these were the seekers of the Torah whose transgressions were [for]given. (C23–25a)

In Scene 3 the performer is saying something that conflicts with the alleged reality of the events as experienced by the audience. The performer says in advance what is going to happen (“And this is the end of days when they will return to Isra[el] [forever…]”). This proclamation requires the audience to fill in the gaps. The audience needs to understand what is meant by the end of days and what events have brought about this designation. Other strategies that highlight the knowledge expectation of the audience are statements like : “And we have [written] to you,” “and it shall come to pass, when all these things [be]fall you at the end of days,” “Think of the kings of Israel,” and others. By using this literary device, the audience is expected to have knowledge of events and fill in the gaps, when a full narration is not present. The importance of understanding this strategy is that it gives further evi-

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

244

A Case Study of the Performances of MMT

dence that meaning must be negotiated between the performer and audience.61 Closing: Epilogue Closings are an integral aspect of an audience’s expectation and generally unite all aspects of a text.62 When a text is coming to a close, the performer holds together the text, on the one hand, and the performance on the other. One purpose of an epilogue is to state what becomes of the actors: Are they transformed? Do they have a future? Do they acquire certain traits? Many Qumran scholars consider the whole of Section C an epilogue;63 however, at the beginning of Scene 3, there are still new characters being introduced (i. e., David, Moses, prophets). Therefore, it seems best to mark off the epilogue after the audience has been exposed to all participants. Once all the characters have been brought to the stage, a function of an epilogue is to provide the audience with a view to the future, in this case the future is expressed is this way : “that you may rejoice at the end of time,” which is similar to the closing of the letter in 2 Macc 2:17–18.64 Not only does the epilogue provide the readers the results of the characters already mentioned, it describes the lesson or point of a narrative. In MMT, the audience is called upon to pause (“consider these things”) and ask Him to give them strength. The structure presented here, consisting of a request preceded by thoughtful consideration, is similar to the letter of request in Ezra 5, which states “Therefore, if it seems good to the king, let a search be made.” Stanza 1 The general statement at the end of the previous stanza that calls on the audience to think of the kings is narrowed to a specific person, King David. The previous verse and the first verse of the epilogue contain a parallel structure: Think of the 61 These observations are adapted from Bonifazi, “Memory and Visualization,” 38–41, whose focus is on Homeric discourse. 62 Hymes, “In Vain,” 322–37, suggests three ways in which narratives can conclude: 1) summary statement, 2) epilogue, or 3) finis formula. An epilogue “has to do with the outcome of the story for the world—the nature and ways of its features and inhabitants” and can include “a speech of remonstrance, a statement of staying, or a statement of parting” (p. 324). 63 Including von Weissenberg, 4QMMT. 64 Doering, Ancient Jewish Letters, 206, makes this point (see also his chapter 8, section 3.3). He makes a strong case that there are three features in the epilogue in MMT that are consistent with epistolary epilogues (p. 207). For a comparison of the epilogue in MMT with other epistolary epilogues, see also Klauck, Ancient Letters, 250–51. Reinhard Kratz, “Mose und die Propheten: Zur Interpretation von 4QMMT in From 4QMMT to Resurrection: M¦langes qumraniens en homage — Êmile Puech, ed. F. Garcia et al., STDJ 61 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), has recently shown how the epilogue draws the entire discourse together.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

245

Text

kings of Israel/Think of David//contemplate their deeds/[David] was a man of righteous deeds//whose transgressions were forgiven/[David] was forgiven. This structure appears to have been an oral strategy used by the author(s) as an aid for memorization and to help comprehension by the audience. The mention of the Torah serves to emphasize the authority of these instructions and the religious elites’ interpretation of them. The decision to send some of the precepts of the Torah, and not others, suggests that the selection process and the comprehension of the precepts require supplementation and interpretation by professionals—that is, the priests. Verse 1: Priestly exhortation: Think of David who was a man of righteous deeds who was (therefore) delivered from many troubles and was forgiven. (C25b – 26a) Verse 2: Priestly decision: We have (indeed) sent you some of the precepts of the Torah according to our decision. Verse 3: Exhortation: For your welfare and the welfare of your people. (C26b – 27a) For we have seen (that) you have wisdom and knowledge of the Torah. (C27b – 28a)

Stanza 2 If Scenes 2 and 3 were performed as one unit then the ending “consider all these things” (v. 1) would have been a fitting conclusion to “these are some of our rulings” (Scene 2, stanza 1, v. 1), but if the exhortation section was a solo piece the ending could have been viewed as tying together the performance of Scene 3. It appears that the closing serves a double duty of concluding an entire text or merely a portion of it. Verse 1: Exhortation: Consider all these things and ask Him that He strengthen your will and remove from you the plans of evil and the device of Belial. (C28b – 29) Verse 2: Eschatological exhoration: So that you may rejoice at the end of time finding that some of our practices are correct. (C30)

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

246

A Case Study of the Performances of MMT

Verse 3: Narrator: And this will be counted as a virtuous deed of yours… Speech-Act: For your own welfare and for the welfare of Israel. (C31–32)

One purpose for oral performance is to encourage the audience to change, which appears to be the goal of the ending of this text. The final scene concludes abruptly with a speech-act (“For your welfare and the welfare of Israel”) as the reading of the text comes to a conclusion.65

8.1.4 Evaluation of the evidence gathered from the text As a test case, conclusions must be made based on the evidence given by the analysis of the text. The criteria that have been used to determine whether a text is a letter consist of: idiomatic opening (“to recipient; from sender”), surrounding narrative states that the text is a letter, idiomatic transition markers, and objective point of view given in the body of the text. Criteria that can be measured are a good place to start our analysis. The following chart captures the assessment of the letters we have discussed. Texts’ Use of Idiomatic Letter Form Text

Idiomatic Narrative states the text is Opening a letter Hermopolis ç Passover ç Ezra 5 ç ç Jer 29 ç Gr. Esther ç ç 2 Macc 1 ç MMT

Transition Marker “(and) now” ç ç ç

ç

Subjective View ç ç ç ç ç ç ç

Using a “measured” verse approach to MMT provides another piece of evidence to consider in order to understand its genre. It appears that the story line is constructed stanza by stanza and scene by scene as a series of photographs taken from different angles. It is difficult to determine how each stanza relates to the other. There are indications in the text that suggest an oral origin. It appears that 65 The letters of James and 1 John in the NT also end abruptly. Doering, Ancient Jewish Letters, 207, considers the abrupt closing of MMT as an allusion to a bipartite epistolary salutation similar to the one found in the Bar Kokhba letter Mur 42:7 and in Gal 6:16.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

247

Texture

MMT consists of speeches or discourses arising out of common concerns and that the texts were publically performed on a regular basis and not merely individual texts read by or to individuals.66 The implications of this part of the study is that if MMT is composed of smaller or larger complexes of speeches or discourses, then the function of these clusters may be crucial to understanding MMT as a whole and may suggest a way forward to understand its genre.

8.2

Texture

Having considered the structure of MMT, we are now able to consider how the form of the text may give us clues to its function through observing the oral texture. Since we no longer have access to a performance of MMT, we need to reflect on the expressive choices available to us through the text by analyzing the way in which characters are described and by considering verbal signals, such as symbols, formulae, and forms of speech. Text performances constitute for the outside observer “the most concrete observable units of the cultural structure”67 and appear to provide access and observation into their tradition. We will work from analogies from other letters and test the insights that have been gained by using performance criticism. These performative aspects will be considered by reflecting on the text’s oral register and by understanding how the message may have resonated out of a cultural tradition in which the performer and audience were situated. The method of analysis of the texture of MMT will focus on a few oral features found in Scenes 2 and 3.

8.2.1 Oral Register As we have observed in previous letters, the oral register consists of the subject matter being discussed, who is participating in the communication, and the mode of communication.68 We have noted that letters are “dedicated” to a certain communication setting by using language, tone, and gestures that set up certain expectations in an audience. How a dedicated register affects an audience’s “hearing” of a text has been demonstrated by the letter’s use of idiomatic letter form, by understanding the oral texture of friendship (Hermopolis letter) and festal letters (Passover, Gr. Esther, and 2 Macc 1), and by the use of oracles (Jer 66 These two observations have been adapted from Horsley, Whoever Hears You Hears Me, 7–8. 67 Milton Singer, Traditional India: Structure and Change (Philadelphia: American Folklore Society, 1959), xiii. 68 Horsley, Oral Performance, 47.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

248

A Case Study of the Performances of MMT

29). In order for the performer to engender group identity the text must be read in the right context, using the right register, in a repeated performance. Using these concepts, we will see what insights they may bring to MMT. To begin to understand the oral register we need to consider the subject matter. It is clear that MMTconsists of ritual practices and opinions known from the priests’ and scribes’ own world. It represents a community’s effort to correct some of the practices that occurred in another group, most likely from the Jerusalem Temple, so that when God judges the people at the “end of days,” his temple will be purified and not defiled and the people will rejoice rather than suffer because of wickedness. It appears that the purpose for giving these rulings is for the revision of character. The audience is called upon to use the injunctions in three ways: 1) study (“And we have [written] to you so that you may study (carefully) the book of Moses…”), 2) reflection (“Consider all these things…”), and 3) imitation (“Think of David…”). Determining the dedicated register by observing who the audience is, is more difficult than understanding the subject matter of MMT. We have observed that letters create an immediate relationship with the audience through listing the sender and receiver, frequently including their position. Kings, rulers, and governors may have served to generate a symbolic distance; whereas, mentioning sisters, brothers, and mothers would have produced a sense of nearness. The oral texture of the first extant line of the legal section (“these are some of our rulings”) is ambiguous as to whether it was meant to create nearness or distance. If the opening line does not give us clues to whom is being addressed, we will need to consider other indicators. For instance, the phrase “we are of the opinion” may be considered a community dialogue whereby “we,” the voice of the community, seeks to include “you,” the addressees, instead of polemicizing against them.69 We have discovered in our analysis of Ezra and Jeremiah that a shift in content or scene is not necessarily in relation to time or place, but in relation between participants.70 In MMT in Scene 2 what has been labeled as stanzas 1, 2, and 4 coincide with a change in relationship: stanza 1 and 2 refers to a group as “they” and “he,” pronouns that express characters farthest from the speaker and stanza 4 speaks predominately of “we” and “you,” pronouns that may include the performer and audience.71 The statement “we are of the opin-

69 This is the view of Fraade, “To Whom it May Concern,” 511. See also von Weissenberg, 4QMMT, 135. Joseph M. Barmgarten, “The Pharisaic-Sadducean Controversies about Purity and the Qumran Texts,” JSS 31 (1980):163–64 has taken these phrases as polemical. 70 Hymes, “In Vain,” 171; emphasis original. 71 To be sure there is a reference to “they” in Scene 2: “[… ..] they do [not] slaughter in the sanctuary” (B35), but this reference is too fragmentary to confirm the topic being discussed. As has been shown in the letter in Jer 29, a change in relationship in a document can be

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

249

Texture

ion” is a clear example of the fluidity of oral and written texts, especially when the opinion is based on a written text.72 The formula “we say” (A=LB94 9D;D4) or “we are of the opinion”73 (A=5a9; 9D;D4) is equivalent to Deut 1:1–3 “where ‘we’ refers to both Moses and to the people referred to as ‘you’ in the plural. . .in other words, the ‘we’-group referred to by the first person plural includes the ‘you’-group, the people addressed in the second person plural and singular.”74 Scene 3 is the place to trace various “actors.” The actors called “the Gentiles,” also called “they,” disappear between Scenes 2 and 3. However, the group called “we” is developed from a static position of merely giving an opinion in Scene 2 to separating themselves from the multitude. The second person plural “you” appears in both sections, but only in the particular phrase “and you (pl.) know,”75 but a new actor “you” singular is introduced to the reading and listening audience.76 It is to this group represented by the second person singular that the text states that “we have [written] to you so that you may study (carefully) the book of Moses.” According to this statement, it is the vision of the reading community that members “study,” particularly the book of Moses and the Torah,77 which are referred to several times. In addition, Scene 3, stanza 2 stresses the authority of other texts, such as the book of the Prophets, the writings of David78 and makes references to the book of Deuteronomy by using the phrase “it is written.”79 Thus, the oral texture reveals a dialogue on two levels:

72 73

74 75 76 77 78

79

accompanied by changes in tone, such as from encouragement to condemnation. The change in person as a literary tool is also significant in the letter in Dan 4. This is subject to the accuracy of Qimron and Sturgnell’s reconstruction: “[And concerning] that it is written…And we are of the opinion that the sanctuary. . .” Models of this argumentative style have been advanced citing the similarities with the historical prologue in Deuteronomy, the use of the first person plural in Neh 9–10, the expression “you have heard. . .but I say” from the Sermon on the Mount, and Mishnaic use of the phrase “we cry out against you Pharisees. . .” However, no view is definitive. Von Weissenberg, 4QMMT, 134–35. This phrase is used at B68–70, B75–80 and C15–16. In addition it is reconstructed by Qimron twice in section B and once in section C. The reference to “you” in Section C has contributed to some scholars attempting to identify MMT as a personal letter or as an appeal to an individual leader, ruler, or royal figure. The word 8L9N is not found in the legal section, where the terms 8L8ü, K9;, üHaB are used. This line is a composite of three documents; therefore, caution must be exercised when making decisions about this text. There is enough text to conclude that works of David, the prophets, and Moses are mentioned in the Exhortation section and must have had an influence on the community. Much has been written on the possibility that this line reflects three divisions of the Hebrew canon. For a discussion on this topic, see Eugene Ulrich, “The Non-attestation of a Tripartite Canon in 4QMMT,” CBQ 65 (2003): 202–214; Brooke, “Explicit Presentation of Scripture,” 85–87; von Weissenberg, 4QMMT, 67, 92–93. In the third scene the formula “it is written” occurs 5 times; 3 times quoting Deuteronomy, once in a badly damaged text, and once to refer to the “blessings and curses” that have occurred “as it was written in the book of Moses.”

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

250

A Case Study of the Performances of MMT

between the performer and audience (“you”) and between the performer and texts. It appears that this text is an imitation of an oral exercise. Sometimes a speaker does not have the time for a full performance or cannot take responsibility for the outcome of a discourse; therefore, a reference to a previous performance or document can be given. “We have (indeed) sent you some of the precepts of the Torah according to our decision” may be an example of a shortened performance, referencing most likely the legal section, but not necessarily reading the whole section in all performances. This statement allows for the view that a curtailed performance that merely references a longer section may have been one reading option, along with reading the full text. It is plausible that, since at least six copies of this document were written, multiple performances were recorded and multiple images of a shared and construed past were created. Therefore, the function of MMT could have been a “lens for interpreting the present and as a mental refuge for literate elite that searches for an alternative world.”80 However, as we have discussed in our treatment of other letters, particularly Gr. Esther, many texts that were performed were adapted and changed with each new presentation as a textualized social performance. In other words, the fact that there are at least six copies of MMT suggests that each performance included different features and that the performers may have assumed a different function. To bring these concepts together, the oral texture consists of temple and cultic matters, presented by priests or religious elite. The clues to the register and the context in which this document may have been performed are indicated in the way the text references its cultural traditions, which are frequently evoked through metonyms.

8.2.2 Cultural Traditions Ancient oral performers depended on strategies familiar to their audience by using conventional structures and verbal associations that evoke an inherent meaning. An example of a conventional connotation is demonstrated by von Weissenberg, who suggests that “the structure of 4QMMT is an adjustment of the covenantal pattern (Bundesformular) known from the legal and treaty texts of the Hebrew Bible and ancient Near East.”81 In order to establish her argument, she points to the blessings and curses in Scene 3 as a guarantee for the covenantal obligation as well as the development of covenantal theology coming from the 80 K”re Berge, “Literacy, Utopia and Memory : Is there a teaching in Deuteronomy?” JHS 12 (2012), 15. Berge is referring to Deuteronomy. 81 Von Weissenberg, 4QMMT, 181

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

251

Texture

quoted scriptural passages.82 Høgenhaven finds parallels between the covenantal language found in 2 Macc 1:1–5 and MMT. According to him, the letter in Maccabees includes an extended wish for peace, a promise of a God-fearing heart and obedience to his law, and a commitment that God will preserve the addressees in the time of evil. He concludes by stating that …[t]his brief parenetic discourse, cast in the form of a wish for the addressees, with its explicit reference to biblical history with its Deuteronomic language and its emphasis on the themes of obedience to the law in the Deuteronomic sense, of God’s faithfulness and mercy in the past and hope for his help in the future (or present) affliction, echo rather closely the language of the parenetic C section of 4QMMT.83

Baltzer has noted that the covenant structure of the Qumran documents commonly called the Community Rule and the Damascus Document gives evidence for the use of a covenantal pattern to govern a whole text.84 What this brief survey makes clear is that covenant form has been adapted to fit various genres and provides an appropriate tradition from which the language of MMT would have been recognized by a listening audience. Additionally, the discourse of the third scene of MMT develops the covenantal structure in three stanzas and an epilogue. The performer first declares that “we have separated themselves,” thus providing a historical introduction of what the religious elite have done to ensure that they are free from treachery and deceit. This opening may have served as a “historical prologue” in the covenantal structure. The next stanza betrays a deuteronomistic relationship by repeating covenantal terms like “return,” “blessings and curses,” and “end of days,” and by referencing the book of Deuteronomy by stating “the book of Moses” and “it is written.” Some of the conditions to fulfilling the covenant consist of studying the Book of Moses, returning to Him with all your heart and soul, and fearing the Law. Stanza 3 is paraentic in tone and concerns how kings were forgiven by fearing the Torah and how David was forgiven through righteous deeds. In Moses’ speech in Deut 29–30, he emphasizes that the people must remember

˘

82 Von Weissenberg, 4QMMT, 180–181. 83 Høgenhaven, “Rhetorical Devises in 4QMMT,” 200. 84 Klaus Baltzer, Das Bundesformula, WMAT 4 (Neukirchen: Neukircher Verlag, 1964). He states that in the Community Rule, the section 1QS III, 15-IV, 26 includes components of a historical prologue, stipulations, and blessings and curses (pp. 99–107). The Damascus Document I: 1–7, 10 contains a lengthy prologue, a brief section of stipulations, and a declaration of long life and God’s salvation for those who keep the covenant and retribution for those who fail to keep the covenant (pp. 112–17). Fraade discusses how blessings and curses are used in the Temple Scrolls, Community Rule and War Scroll, see Fraade, “Rhetoric and Hermeneutics in Miqsat Ma as´e ha-Torah (4QMMT): The Case of the Blessings and ˙ Curses,” DSD 10 (2003): 150–61. The language of blessings and curses is also found in later Christian texts such as the Epistle of Barnabas 21:1 and Didache 6:2, as well as in the Sermon on the Mount, Sermon on the Plain, and in the book of Galatians.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

252

A Case Study of the Performances of MMT

God’s deliverance, which is parallel to the epilogue of MMT, where the audience is called upon to “consider all these things.” Thus Scene 3 is structured around three key covenantal components consisting of prologue, stipulations, and blessings and curses. The texture of the section supports the view that the author(s) of Scene 3 had a covenantal pattern in mind. This compositional devise may not have been recognized by a casual reader or upon its first hearing; however, these connections would have been recognized by a person reading the text repeatedly or memorizing it. In other words, the text was composed for memorization, study, and public recital. Communication from a tradition also depends on references to symbols, phrases, and formulae, which signal a tradition shared by performers and audiences. One example of figurative language used in orally derived texts is metonym. In MMT place names such as “temple” and “Jerusalem” and terms like “camp” and “tribe” provide clues for how this text should be understood. One of the symbols used to set boundaries for the community in MMT was to speak of its members living in “camps,” with concentric circles of division.85 A structural model is given in answer to the question concerning where the ashes from the altar should be taken.86 The document gives three areas that appear to be different levels of holiness: “And we are of the opinion that the sanctuary [is the ‘tent of meeting’] and that Jerusalem is the ‘camp,’ and that ‘outside the camp’ [is outside of Jerusalem], that is, the encampment of their settlements” (Scene 2, stanza 4, v. 2). Not only were Jerusalem and its temple the cultural and religious centre for Judaism in the Second Temple period, but Jerusalem was the paradigmatic place associated with the reign of King David. Next to the holiest place was the city of Jerusalem.87 MMT several times selects this place for special mention, such as “the camp of holiness,”88 the “place which He has chosen from among all the tribes of Israel,” and as the “capital of the camps of Israel.” The 85 Camps are mentioned in the Damascus Document (CD-A 7:6; 15:13–14; 9:11; 12:22b – 13:21; 14:3–12; 17; CD-B 19:2; 20:26; 4QDa 11 17) as well as in the War Scroll (1QM 3:4–5, 14; 7:1, 3; 4QMa 1–3 9, 19). 86 Kratz, “The Place which he has chosen:” The Identification of the Cult Place of Deut. 12 and Lev. 17 in 4QMMT” in Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls V–VI: A Festschrift for Devorah Dimant, ed. M. Bar-Asher and E. Tov (Jerusalem: Haifa University Press, 2007), 61–62 views the author(s) of MMT as equating the reference to “camp” in Lev 17:3 with the “place he has chosen” of Deut 12. The author(s) of MMT takes a remarkably strict position and commands that all slaughtering, both sacral and profane, should be concentrated at the temple, a position which finds a parallel in the Holiness Code (Lev 17:3–7). 87 MMTapplies to all of Jerusalem the greatest degree of holiness, which the Rabbis applied only to the temple courts. See Eyal Regev, “Reconstructing Qumranic and Rabbinic Worldviews: Dynamic Holiness vs. Static Holiness,” in Rabbinic Perspectives: Rabbinic Literature and the Dead Sea Scrolls, STDJ 62 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 94. 88 2 Macc 2:12 calls Jerusalem the “holy city.” Jer 29:16 refers to Jerusalem as the “throne of David.”

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

253

Texture

purpose for having a spatial distribution of holiness, extending out from the sanctuary to Jerusalem and concluding with the encampments of their settlements, most likely, was to ensure that the right person with a reverential state of mind was prepared to enter certain parts. One performative function may have been to encourage (or coerce) the audience to acquire the right state of mind in order to fulfill the various temple functions. It appears that this three-camp pattern reflects the gradations of holiness in the wilderness—a view which symbolically sets the sanctuary as a counterpart to the tabernacle in the desert period.89 Depending on the performative context, a reader could express a yearning for the desert years, or give a sense of how the idealized past can become present in Jerusalem, the “camp,” in order to give the audience hope for the present. In connection with metonymic referencing, mention should be made of the position put forward by Horsley that “when the audience hears the message in the register appropriate to the communication context, they then resonate to the message out of the cultural tradition in which they and the performer are grounded.”90 The density of symbolic language supported by (priestly) opinions that are more stringent in their views of holiness than the Torah suggests that this is not a picture of the way in which the illiterate majority lived, but rather that the message of purity would have resonated with a hoped-for programme presented by the priestly and scribal circles. By analyzing the oral texture, we can suggest how the interaction between performer and audience may have occurred. When readers performed the oral and written texts, they displayed to the audience a (symbolic) authority by speaking in the “voice” of Moses. This perspective is confirmed by the frequent use of indirect quotations of Moses, the use of covenantal form in Scene 3, and by the employment of metonyms that reference cultic traditions. The author(s) of MMT did not leave the interpretation of the instructions to every reader or hearer, but awarded the final authority to the religious elite from Qumran. The instructions and their interpretation are presented in human voices, rather than divine (cf. Jer 29). The text as a compilation is most likely the result of various performances summarized for easy access and may have been performed on some occasions as a whole unit or as a shortened performance at other times. It is performance criticism that encourages and even enables us to consider different performance contexts, such as when the text was first performed at the end of the second century, which would have been a different performance than a century 89 According to Schiffman, Qumran and Jerusalem: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the History of Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 131, this pattern differs in some respects to the Temple Scroll. 90 Horsley, Oral Performance, 48, emphasis original.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

254

A Case Study of the Performances of MMT

later represented by the first extant texts, and different again from a performance that reflects on an earlier tradition. I turn now to an application of the text and texture to suggest a performative context, which will further illuminate our understanding of the genre of MMT.

8.3

Context

In the letters we have reviewed, the texts belonged to (or are said to belong to) a recognizable genre—a letter—which would have guided the audience for a particular type of performance. MMT, however, is a distinctive composition in that the text does not offer many idiomatic features that would set up the early audiences for a particular kind of literature. We have shown that its form and contents demonstrate some similarities with other biblical texts, but nothing resembles MMT as a whole. So we cannot answer the question of what kind of performance MMT may have been by invoking its self-declared genre. What we are in a position to do is to propose how the text and texture combine to indicate under what conditions a performance may have been presented. Consideration of the context of MMT is more difficult than many other forms of literature because the discourses of MMT did not follow one standardized performance over many generations. We have shown that the performer assumes a certain role that is appropriate to the performance context. For instance, in a letter in Gr. Esther (Addition E) the performer may have added a pompous tone to accentuate how the Persian administration is portrayed as self-important, or in Ezra various voices may have been used to emphasize the change in characters within one letter and between letters. Likewise, we shall use cues indicated by the manner in which traditions are referenced and shared by the performer and audience through quoted texts and metonyms in order to suggest how MMTmay have been performed. In order to accomplish this task, we shall divide the topic into three categories, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive. These time frames have been chosen merely to guide our conversation concerning possible performance contexts. First, I shall consider the document as it may have been performed at the end of the second century BCE, possibly when a group decided to separate from the Jerusalem establishment. Second, I shall reflect on the time of the texts themselves, that is, at the end of the first century, and third, I shall consider how MMT may have been performed by later generations as they reflected on its earlier uses.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

255

Context

8.3.1 Late Second Century BCE Performances The argument developed up to this point enables us to suggest a possible setting in which the rulings may have been performed, namely, in teaching situations, where “the teacher often read from a text and interspersed the reading of the text with exposition of its meaning.”91 This position is advanced by Steven Fraade, who contends that MMT was composed for “members or potential members of its own community, most likely neophytes or candidates for membership,”92 but what he has not considered is the possibility of the performance context that may have changed over time. Although Fraade’s insight is very welcome, my contribution attempts to advance his emphasis on the community’s use of MMT by suggesting how a performance of the text may have reinforced a ritual experience, regardless of whether the document is an intramural study or extramural polemic, or how it may have been (re)textualized to accommodate new social performances.93 The clear aim of MMT was to persuade its audience to follow a particular interpretation of the instructions and to undertake a course of action. In the context of the original hearers, the performance of MMT would have been perceived as “real” speech, which means that the illocutionary acts of warning or blessing were exactly what they claimed to be. At early states of the development of MMT, when the priests were warned that their actions could lead some community members to bare punishment, or when a blessing was pronounced, there was barely a gap between the performance-act and the speechact. The performer could perform and warn at the same time, since the audience of the text-as-performance and the addressees of the messages overlap.94 Likewise, the cultic regulations and the purity laws would have referred to a shared context concerning both the performer and the audience. In the here-and-now performative context the religious elite, speaking with the “voice” of Moses, may have found it necessary to use polemical language to establish group identity. The performance text has recognizable markers that suggest an original setting. The internal unity of the scenes and of the whole in relation to each other consists of priestly concerns over matters of purity and the temple cult. The context for a performance of a series of discourses, or the complete text of MMT, appears to be periodic community meetings, possibly elite movement assemblies of priests and scribes as they work through their views on various matters 91 Shiner, Proclaiming the Gospel, 48. Although Shiner is referring to the Gospel of Thomas and the hypothetical sayings of Q, his principles can reasonably be applied to MMT. 92 Fraade, “To Whom It May Concern,” 525. 93 4QMMT may reflect a liturgical setting similar to 1QS 1 and 2. 94 The modes of performance have been adapted from Ruth Scodel, “Works and Days as Performance,” in Orality, Literacy and Performance in the Ancient World, ed. Elizabeth Minchin, OLAW 9 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), see esp. 114–15.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

256

A Case Study of the Performances of MMT

and present them to the congregation.95 The oral texture, consisting of the use of pronouns and the term “Gentiles,” suggests that a special circumstance to discuss purity may have been occasioned when the perceived threat of Gentiles became more acute—either through intermarriage or through outside oppression. Gentiles represented foreign rule and oppression and so symbolized a possible physical or emotional threat. The performance of this text would have been one method of reinforcing that “insiders are connected with the God of holiness and life while outsiders are hopelessly trapped in the realm of death.”96 In performance the pronoun “they,” referring to Gentiles, could have been used to signal a distinction from “we,” which could further be emphasized by an embodiment of the text through gesture or voice inflection. It would be a feature of a performer to accentuate the change in pronouns according to the audience and performance context. As a possible textual support for the view that different contexts resulted in different performances, it appears that only one text overlaps slightly with the calendar, and therefore it is not beyond reason to suggest that the calendar may have been included in one reading context, but may not have been read in others. It appears that in the calendrical section, as well as in Scene 2, stanza 1, the priests are controlling the agenda concerning when festivals and special days can be celebrated and stipulate who can be admitted in the community (cf. stanza 5). The rhythm and the change of focus in stanza 2 set it apart from the previous stanza. The topic in stanza 2 emphasizes the purity of a person after preparing a sin offering and the issue in stanza 3 concerns the products of sacrifices and therefore may have been addressed to artisans who pick up the residue of sacrifices. Concerning the question of “who is speaking to whom,” it appears that the community members are addressed in different performative contexts and challenged about questions of festivals, sacrifices, and their remains and provided with opinions by the religious elite. This approach is very different from that of Miguel P¦rez Fern‚ndez, who concludes that “given the differences in style, lexicon and content, it does not seem likely that the halakhic and exhortative parts are the work of the same person,”97 which implies that MMT was from the start composed for circulation as a written text. Using a performative investigation of MMT, not only between Scenes 2 and 3 but also between stanzas, requires that the exegete includes broader and more complex ways in which the 95 This practice could be similar to the Jewish tradition of reading one of the Megillot (Ruth, Esth, Eccl, Song, Lam) at each of the five annual festivals. 96 Harrington, “Keeping Outsiders Out,” 201. 97 Fern‚ndez, “4QMMT: Redactional Study,” 191–206, esp. 199, 202–203. Fern‚ndez also finds in the epilogue two redactional stages. To my mind, an analysis based on the assumption that the clue to understanding the text lies in reconstructing a prior source or stage will distort the interpretation.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

257

Context

written and oral text may have been performed and understood by the audience.98 This perspective includes the possibility that “notes” were discussed by the religious elite, which later became a written text. A function of the exhortation section in a performance most likely was to encourage the community to observe the laws that had been presented in the legal section and follow the covenantal stipulations. The exhortations (stanzas 2 and 3) are not framed in the oral register of laws, but fall under the rubric of covenantal teaching, similar to Deut 15:1–11. The context in which a covenantal instruction seems most likely to occur is during regular meetings or during times when the covenant is in danger of being breached. What is required when a person has broken the covenant is to confess wrongdoing and plea for forgiveness as the kings of Israel and King David had done. The re-enactment of the covenant, albeit altered from the deuteronomic form,99 and the confession of sin is not complete until the closing encouragement to “consider all these things…so that you may rejoice at the end of time…and this will be counted as a virtuous deed of yours.” The purpose of bringing together a performer and an audience in the context of a re-enactment of the covenant was most likely to invoke the collective memory of former kings, especially King David. The strategy of re-establishing the covenant would have created identification between those priests, who were separating from the Jerusalem establishment, and their interpretation of the law. The performance of the speech-act “for your welfare and the welfare of Israel” (Epilogue) would have been relevant to a concrete life-situation assuring the audience of God’s action in addressing their concerns and protecting them from “the plans of evil and the device of Belial.” In this context, as well as others, the discussions between the performer and audience consist of their words (9D=L57), rulings (A=aFB), and judgments (üHaB), and various texts, such as, book of Moses (8a9B LHE), books of the Prophets (LHE =4=5D8), (writings of) David (7=975), and the Torah (8L9N), in addition to purity traditions. The instructions could have been discussed or lectured from time-totime as the need arose and/or in regular intervals. The digest of seemingly unrelated rulings in Stanza 6 could have also been performed in response to immediate issues or questions. As an example of the specificity of a performance 98 The illustration suggested by Horsley of how the hypothetical Q sayings became fixed in oral tradition in the early church is a valuable paradigm for what MMT represents (Whoever Hears You Hears Me, 61–93). Horsley suggests that Q is similar to the Homeric epics on how it became fixed in oral tradition (p. 168). It is evident that other texts in the Qumran communities cultivated similar discourses on similar issues to MMT. CD XII, 6b – 11 gives a list of restrictions in dealing with Gentiles; 4QDa 5 II, 5–6 seems to refer to the impurity of priests taken captive by Gentiles; 4QDd 8 II, 1–3 refers to the dangers of defilement through Gentile sacrifices (Hempel, “Laws of the Damascus Document”). 99 In Deut 27–28, Lev 6:3–46, and MMT the blessings and curses follow the collection of laws, thus reinforcing the sanction of these laws. See Fraade, “Rhetoric and Hermeneutics,” 152.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

258

A Case Study of the Performances of MMT

context, we have considered Gr. Esther and the celebration of Purim being performed during special festivals and during times of foreign occupation when hope may have been in short supply, which has a very different tone and context from the family Hermopolis letters, which concern domestic issues such as oil and garments and may have had only one performance. In sum MMT may have been composed initially as a response to topics that were discussed or that needed further explanation. If that is the case, the order and length of the rulings may reflect performance contexts, as texts were written and rules were added as the need arose, similar to the additions to the book of Esther.100 In this scenario, MMT may have been a text, similar to a memorandum that was used for an exterior audience encouraging them to accept the views of the religious elite from inside the community against the practices of the Jerusalem priests. These texts were a means of communication through time and space and were written down “as a way to save time for new knowledge construction.”101 As the knowledge accumulated and became standardized, MMT would have been (re)performed outside the original context.

8.3.2 Late First Century BCE. Performance Although we do not know for certain that MMT was first composed at the end of the second century and reflects the separation from the Jerusalem elite, we are fairly certain that the text was available to a community at the end of the first century BCE. The fact that we have at least six copies of MMT suggests that this document was important to the community, since significant texts are frequently brought back and given life again in a new context. As has been shown, the text and texture suggest different performance contexts for some of the rulings. Performances that are (re)performed outside the initial context are in some way imitating the “original” performance. Even so, each performance is distinctive and later performances in no sense became a previous performance. Later audiences may have been made aware that when the words “and this is our opinion” were spoken that the views represent those of a previous generation. It appears 100 Von Weissenberg, 4QMMT, 65, states “there seems to be passages in the manuscripts that contain so much variance that one could legitimately question whether the composite text actually corresponds to the evidence provided by the individual manuscripts.” However, Puech, “L’¦pilogue,” 309–39, contends that von Weissenberg, makes too much of the differences. Whatever view is taken, it is clear that there are variations and these differences may be the result of different performance contexts. 101 Patrizia Marzillo, “Performing an Academic Talk: Proclus on Hesoid’s Works and Days,” in Orality, Literacy and Performance in the Ancient World, ed. Elizabeth Minchin, OLAW 9 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 221.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

259

Context

that the text would have been a part of a didactic programme of the priestly elite for ongoing teaching and for promoting their positions. The decisiveness and self-confidence expressed contributes to the performer conducting himself as the instructor with great knowledge and deep insight. The text implies that there was tension within the priesthood, which necessitated that some priests separated themselves from the mainstream Jerusalem elite and that priests were in danger of causing people to bear punishment,102 which may indicate that there existed an alleged abuse of priestly powers. This historical context could refer to the first century BCE, but more probably to the end of the second century and thus these concerns would have been reapplied to a new situation. Performance criticism extends static categories of rhetorical situations into a more dynamic world of social and historical discourse.103 The didactic use of MMT is suggested by the two interwoven styles of speech—that of the narrator and interpreter. The narrator performs the bulk of the material, but the interpreter’s voice gives priestly warnings, opinions, biblical quotations, blessings and curses, and exhortations. The change in the style of speech would have been emphasized by the performer to intensify the priestly warnings, or biblical quotations, or some other feature in order to provoke the audience to identify with the performance. The perspective presented here allows for authorial creativity in organizing the text and performative resourcefulness in its reading, which broadens the scholarly debate beyond whether the community was inclusive or exclusive,104 and permits each reading to have a different performative context, which changed over time. The didactic use of a text is employed to encourage group solidarity as the community was reassured that they will realize that “some of our practices are correct.” What has been stressed is that the six different texts of MMTrepresent different performances of an oral text, which vary in wording and content according to the audience and performer, similar to the different “versions” of the Esther tale. Understanding the text of MMTconsists of more than rhetorical analysis, but must include the shifting social relations among religious groups of Second Temple Judaism. For example, when the words, “And this is the end of days when they will return to Isra[el]” were performed, they would have been more than an 102 Lines B25–27 in the composite text reads: “[… … for the sons] of the priests should [take care] concerning all [these] practices, [so as not to] cause the people to bear punishment. [And concerning] that it is written…” These lines all occur on 4Q394 8 II, 13–18 with 4Q397 3, which adds credibility to the view that the warning directly precedes the quotation. For a different view, see Fern‚ndez, “4QMMT: Redactional Study,” who regards this formula as secondary. He states that these formulae are “editorial comments directed at the priests” (p. 202). 103 McComisky, “MMT and Rhetoric,” explores the rhetorical situation of MMT as well as the rhetorical ecology surrounding the text. 104 Gudrun Holtz, “Inclusivism at Qumran,” DSD 16 (Leiden: Brill, 2009): 22–43.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

260

A Case Study of the Performances of MMT

effective way of adding urgency to an argument concerning works of the law, but rather possibly would have been “the product of shifting power structures in Jerusalem Temple and anxieties about ritual impurity and priestly corruption.”105 The social structure in the first century before the turn of the era consists of a combination of Roman occupation of Israel, imposition of Herodian rulers on the people, and obligations required by the temple elite, which most likely created a social and/or theological crisis. The oral texture suggests that the temple elite and possibly much of Jerusalem was viewed as being in danger of breaking the covenant—an underlying current that runs through Scene 3.106 Understanding the text as situational and communal, affects our perspective on an encouragement like “you will return to Him.” This statement would have been fraught with associates from Jeremiah, and other prophets, who encouraged God’s people that “[God] will bring you back to the place from which I sent you into exile” (29:14). In performance this statement could have served as a didactic opportunity to encourage the audience to renew their commitments to the community and to appropriate the covenant. This position is supported by the fact that calamity was predicted and the text states that curses had already come to pass. MMT provides an insight into how the curses and blessings may have been (re)enacted in the Qumran community. These statements are in the oral register of a prophetic condemnation, similar in tone to the criticism of the king and the inhabitants of Jerusalem expressed in Jer 29. Direct discourse in its voice and gesture allows the performer to play the role of Moses as a medium for divinity that speaks in sharp or subtle ways and provides a context for an audience to hear instruction or a warning enacted in the midst of an exhortation of ultimate hope. The audience would have most likely participated in the renewal of the covenant, similar to the way in which the audience verbally responded to the voice of Moses in Deut 29. The interest in teaching about re-enacting the covenant may have been “as a substitute for the actual participation in the Temple cult.”107

8.3.3 A Performance Reflecting on an Earlier Tradition The difference between the previous two performances separated by about a century is not so much in content, but in the kind of relationship between the 105 McComiskey, “MMT and Rhetoric,” 235. 106 A possible break of the covenant may be associated with the greed of the ruling class, which is criticized in the Psalms of Solomon and the pesherim from Qumran. 107 Von Weissenberg, 4QMMT, 235.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

261

Context

performer and audience. In the here-and-now of the first century BCE, the performers may have indicated that the text concerns rulings from other times and therefore made an appeal to the text’s own authoritative “voice” of tradition. In Gr. Esther the audience would have known the Esther tradition and the outcome of the tale, likewise in the re-enactment of MMT the audience would have known that they were among the blessed and would anticipate their blessed status with nods of agreement. From the performance perspective of later generations looking back at previous times, the audience is “transported” to a former time and is called upon to understand a text from former decades, which may have been perceived as an ancient text having great authority. Both the performer and the audience can re-experience all the events in the past. The statement concerning “our rulings” is in later generations a representation of a ruling and not the ruling of the here-and-now performer. The (dis)advantage that the later groups of performers had over the performers is that the written laws could now be consulted by any literate person, “which promises to put an end to inconsistent application of the rules, given that all parties are able to verify them.”108 In the previous two performance scenarios, I have considered generally two kinds of relationship between the performer and the audience. In the second century there was barely a gap between the original performance and the message that was being performed since the performance and message overlapped. In subsequent generations when the opening frame was spoken (“these are some or our rulings”), the audience would have understood the performer as a narrator, who was speaking about other times and places. But in this third type, the performer speaks or reflects on how the text was used as a polemic against a group or as a didactic text. I have suggested that the re-performance of Gr. Esther allows the community to examine the past as a symbolic realization of its desire. An occasion when this may occur in MMT is when the community is (re)establishing their cultural traditions. In this speaking situation the performer is engaging, not so much in a performance or even a didactic discussion, as recreating an event whereby the audience is an active participant in reflecting on how the text may have been applied by previous generations. As part of the reflection of the past, the community is called upon to “think of the kings of Israel and contemplate their deeds…and think of David who was a man of righteousness…and was delivered from many troubles and was forgiven.” It is possible to consider that former generations in the community were 108 Mathilde Cambron-Goulet, “The Criticism—and the Practice—of Literacy in the Ancient Philosophical Tradition,” in Orality, Literacy and Performance in the Ancient World, ed. Elizabeth Minchin, OLAW 9 (Leiden: Brill, 2012) , 215. See also Aristotle, Athenian Constitution, XI, 1.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

262

A Case Study of the Performances of MMT

viewed as not giving due consideration to how the actions of the kings of Israel were evaluated. The here-and-now priestly audience would have known that the blessings in the days of Solomon and the curses that had befallen the people from the days of Jeroboam were viewed as God’s just actions as a result of covenantal adherence or disobedience. However, the unification of the priestly administration with a central temple inaugurated by Solomon was beginning to break down in the late Second Temple period.109 The phrase “and this is the end of days when they will return to Israel” suggests that some of the priests may have reflected on former generation’s suffering as being the result of their disobedience and therefore a warning not to act wickedly was provided. It is not beyond reason to propose that some of the religious elite, who seemed to have continued to cultivate obedience to the Mosaic covenant, served their interests in promoting a particular view of cultic observance and supported their assessment of the temple. We have determined that the oral texture, consisting of covenant language and the way in which metonyms is used suggests the “voice” of the text is that of Moses. The blessings and curses found in Deuteronomy “were also used in interpretation of the people’s subjection to foreign rulers and other suffering as well as their own rulers’ disobedience of the covenantal requirements.”110 It seems conceivable that a performer would have encouraged the audience to recall and reflect on what they already knew, and add precision to what was remembered by using the authority of the text from an earlier generation. In considering the ways in which the audience may have resonated with this speech, there is evidence to suggest that the here-and-now audience would have perceived that at least some of the people had failed to keep the covenant or possibly heed the warnings presented in MMT. If MMT represents a sub-group within a wider movement, it is conceivable that the community was sustained by a regular performance of MMT (or a portion thereof), as well as other texts. It may have been used as a polemic against the “outsiders” and those priests who were in danger of leading others astray. I placed this use at the beginning of the life of the community, when it began to separate from the temple establishment. As time passed I suggest that a reading from one or more texts was performed from time-to-time when the need arose and was used for didactic purposes. During this stage of the community’s life, the blessings and curses may have served as sanctions assuring loyalty to the covenant, but more importantly were a means of encouraging community unity, by re-enacting the covenant and reaffirming their blessed status and by employing an iconic mode of presentation. As a reflective text, MMTmay have been 109 McComisky, “MMT and Rhetoric,” 227. 110 Horsely, Whoever Hears You Hears Me, 218.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Bringing the Performances Together

263

engaged to consider how previous generations used the text as a symbolic realization of their desires. This study has attempted to show that MMT was performed and heard as discourses devoted to various topics of concern of the Qumran community and that MMT represents a more complex picture of the religious-social conflict in Judea in the last half of the first century BCE to the first five decades of the new era. Rather than considering MMT as a monolithic text that polemicizes against an outside group or as an internecine priestly argument,111 a more precise picture is one that regards this document as a discourse conducted over time about who should be a part of the community, what cultic standards should be maintained, what priestly principles should be implemented, and how a covenant community should live.

8.4

Bringing the Performances Together

It has been shown that performance theory offers a closer scrutiny of the text beyond grasping the meaning of words, but attempts to appreciate who in the performative event was affected and how the performer, through the use of his voice, gesture, and tone may have interpreted the text for the audience. The intent of this inquiry is to help explain why a particular text is used in various situations. It was suggested that some texts may have been read during festivals, others from time-to-time as the need arose, and others to ensure unity, and by reading these texts again and again over time it creates multiple images of a shared past.112 These are obviously overlapping motives and should not be considered as mutually exclusive. It is time to draw up the balances with regard to the genre of MMT. Høgenhaven associates MMT’s use of “we” and “you” with a “conscious use of rhetorical features associated with the letter genre.”113 Others regard MMT as a 111 Grabbe’s conclusion that “we do not know who wrote MMTand to whom it was addressed” is well stated (“4QMMT,” 90). For an evaluation of MMTand the “Sadducean” teaching, see idem, esp. 98–104. 112 Ehud Ben Zvi, “The Memory of Abraham in the Late Persian/Early Hellenistic Yehud/ Judah,” in The Reception and Remembrance of Abraham, ed. Pernille Carstens and NielsPeter Lemche, Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures and Its Context 13 (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2011), 13–60 deals with the topic of cultural and social memory in relation to Abraham. 113 Høgenhaven, “Rhetorical Devices,” 203. He states that “viewing the letter form employed in 4QMMT as a central part of the rhetorical strategy of the text allows for an interpretation that takes into account both the epistolary situation of sender and addressee which the letter establishes, and the equally important function of the document within the historical community which eventually received and preserved it” (p. 204).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

264

A Case Study of the Performances of MMT

treatise and suggest that the text may be using the first- and second-person as a literary device to provide “a record of the community’s founding moments,”114 which include a listing of “the legal concerns that have caused the membership to separate from the mainstream.”115 It is far from certain that MMT displays formal features of the treatise or letter genre, but appears to list a selection of legal topics and exhortations that are being discussed with religious ideas and practices of another Jewish group in mind.116 However, it has been proposed in the analysis of the Passover letter that letter form is a ready means of instruction for cultic material written at a “low level of technicality.”117 Some types of letters were related to oral lectures and sometimes were viewed as replacing them.118 By using a “measured verse” approach, the performative character is emphasized and the possibility that MMTwas used as part of oral lectures becomes clearer. If we postulate that the author typically wants to be understood, then letters are favourable to questioning and discussion, which seems to be the tone and function of MMT. As has been shown, letters perform a wide range of functions. Letters can be used for public or private correspondence, they can promote a habit of behaviour, request a favour, tell a tale, give advice, report events, cause a group to have renewed hope, and serve many other functions.119 The diversity of the functions of letters is “too great to yield a tidy set of categories, and further problems are created by the stubborn refusal of actual letters to confine themselves neatly to just one communicative function apiece.”120 If we move beyond the idiomatic structure of letter form for our definition of what constitutes a letter and consider more broadly how the text affects the performer and audience, then we would have an unlimited series of gradations.121 We have determined that some advantages to using letter form is to express a thought that one could not or would not say in person (i. e. Jer 29; 2 Maccabees), to persuade the addressee of something (i. e. Hermopolis letters; Ezra; 2 Maccabees), or to convey crucial or 114 Grossman, “Reading 4QMMT,” 12; emphasis original. Strugnell, “MMT: Second Thoughts,” 63 has abandoned the designation of MMT as treatise, since “the treatise is, at least in the Hellenistic literature, a very ill-defined genre.” 115 Grossman, “Reading 4QMMT,” 12. 116 Von Weissenberg, 4QMMT, 161. 117 This term is used by Langslow, “Scientific and Technical Epistula,” 228 to replace the term “scientific communication.” The term “low level of technicality” refers to “teaching with brevity and efficiency rules and principles regarded as fundamental.” 118 In Epicurus’ Letter to Herodotus, he views a letter as a compendium of a longer work and uses letters to clarify his doctrines for his friends and students (see Cambron-Goulet, “Orality in Philosophical Epistles,” 156–58). 119 For other examples for the use of letters, see Stowers, Letter Writing, 15–16. 120 Trapp, “What is a Letter?” 5. 121 This is the position taken by G.O. Hutchinson, “Down among the Documents: Criticism and Papyrus Letters,” in Ancient Letters, 35.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Bringing the Performances Together

265

secret information (i. e. 2 Maccabees; Gr. Esther), or to communicate from a distance (most letters).122 It appears that MMT is exploiting many of the functions of letter form in order to act as a powerful vehicle to express the author(s) views and add authority to their priestly programme. Letters frequently use an oral texture consisting of the interchange of the first- and second person and the use of conversational particles.123 The effect of creating a dialogue in MMT is generated by the frequent use of “now concerning” and by the imagined suggestions using the first person pronoun, as in the expressions “we are of the opinion” and “we say.” Arguably, this creates, if not a dialogue, at least a sympathetic engagement of the audience.124 It appears that the oral impact of hearing the refrain “we are of the opinion” may have been perceived by the audience as speaking on behalf of, and in concert with, an authority—similar to the aural impact of a performance of a letter. The author(s) of MMT may have been influenced by recognizable features of letters (Jeremiah, 2 Maccabees)125 in combination with other genres as models,126 just as a “real” letter can include proverbs, meditations, treatises, prophetic pronouncements, and tales. The approach to understanding the genre of MMT that seems most appropriate is to consider it as a collection, or digest of lectures written using letter form in order to facilitate the acquisition of knowledge. The presence of direct speech (“that you may study”) and words imitating an oral context (“we are of the opinion”) distinguishes a letter from a treatise. To summarize by quoting Cambron-Goulet: 122 These advantages of using letter form are given by Hodkinson, “Better than Speech: Some Advantages of the Letter in the Second Sophistic,” in Ancient Letters, 288–95. 123 Langslow, “Scientific and Technical Epistula” 231, gives Latin epistolary examples of the use of enim. 124 According to Cambron-Goulet, “Criticism,” reading in ancient Greece is a social activity : “In Plato, group reading turns out to be a pretext for a philosophical exchange, as we can see in the Parmenides, with Zeno’s lectures instigating a whole dialogue [127c-d]. The same thing happens in the Phaedrus with the reading of Lysias’ discourse, and in the Theaetetus where Eucleides asks a slave to read aloud, for him and his friend Terpsion, a dialogue that he had taken note of” (p. 212). 125 The textual overlap between Jer 29 and MMTconsists of: “these are the words of the letter” (29:1)/ “these are some of our rulings (words)” (B1); “and bring you back to this place” (29:10)/ “when they will return to Israel” (C21); “seek the welfare of the city” (29:7)/ “for your welfare and the welfare of Israel” (C31–32; cf. C27); “committed adultery with their neighbours’ wives (29:23)/ “malice and fornication” (C4–5; cf. B42–47); “plans for wholeness and not for evil” (29:11)/ “plans of evil and the device of Belial” (C29); “seek me with all your heart” (29:13)/ “return to me with all your heart and soul” (C16). For a comparison of the covenantal language in 2 Maccabees and MMT, see Høgenhaven, “Rhetorical Devices in MMT,” 200–201. 126 Jens Schröter, Erinnerung an Jesu Worte: Studien zur Rezeption der Logienüberlieferung in Markus, Q und Thomas, WMANT 76 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1997), 461 states “Eine derartige Partizipation an zwei Gattungen ist durchaus nichts Ungewöhnliches.”

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

266

A Case Study of the Performances of MMT

The fact that the epistle is destined to a specific addressee also lends writers to pick moral subjects in preference to theoretical subjects, as particular moral questions can be discussed bearing in mind a direct concern of the correspondents. When the addressee is directly involved in the discussed topic, the phatic expressions and second person addresses appear naturally, so that the epistolary style reflects the author’s friendly intentions.127

This text is complex and refuses to fit neatly into one genre. The fact that we have six copies suggests that MMT was the result of a text being used in different contexts. If that is the case, it may have been adapted to fit the different performer-audience relationships that occurred over time, and presented as an open letter. The purpose for using certain characteristics of letter form seems to be because letters are a kind of literature in which the author(s) can experiment with miniature correspondences and discussions, thematic relations, and intertextual and intratextual allusions.128

127 Cambron-Goulet, “Orality in Philosophical Epistles,” 160. 128 Hodkinson, “Better than Speech,” 287 suggests that epistolary collections are a kind of literature in which the author can experiment. Although Hodkinson’s reference is dealing with collections of fictional letters, I have applied his concept to a collection of discourses in MMT that may allow for the same experimentation.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Chapter 9 Conclusions

Despite new advances made by scholars towards a genuine understanding of the use and function of ancient Jewish letters, based on textual evidence, a new approach was considered. The perspective that this study has taken is that the new emerging discipline, referred to as performance criticism, is a method of inquiry in conjunction with other methods that can provide a useful means for understanding ancient Jewish letters. More recent research on ancient performances has brought about a deeper awareness of the variety of factors that come into play when a text is presented before an audience. Previous treatments of ancient letters have not given enough attention to their oral contexts; however, the foundation for my argument has been that a performance provides an embodied enactment of a text and is therefore a part of its meaning. I have attempted to show that in order to analyse a letter from a performance point of view oral features need to be discerned, along with the implied aural impact. If the printed form of the text can be considered by the author(s) merely as a transcript or libretto for a performance, then the text does not remain on the page, but is given life through performance. Performance criticism has prompted us to give attention to important markers that has allowed us to “listen” sympathetically with the audience. Additionally, we have considered how the textual dynamics may aid the memorization of the text and work as structures for performance. In this study, each letter was given a turn to be performed with its own voice. By using this approach, we have overheard conversations between individuals and groups and have been able to suggest performative contexts. In this chapter, we step back from evaluating the letters in order to provide a summary of the discoveries we have made in the study of each letter. The point of this chapter is to see clearly and evaluate the significance of using performance theory to understand better ancient Jewish letters. This study attempted to answer two difficult questions. What is a letter? In what ways does a performance perspective add new insights into our understanding of letters? The challenge of the first question is that the letter’s function

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

268

Conclusions

needs to be incorporated into its definition. If that aspect is included, then the definition can become very broad and difficult to demark from other texts. This issue resurfaced in every chapter as we attempted to discover new ways letter form was adapted to fit different situations. The next demand placed on this study was to determine whether a performance approach offers more insight into letters than a strictly literary study. Here the evidence is mixed. For some letters, performance criticism offers further information and for others the method has a limited contribution. The combination of these two questions culminated in the contribution this study makes toward an understanding of the function and genre of MMT. This research centres on the variety of techniques that empower the performer to bring meaning to a text. These points of articulation in a performance can be either linguistic or performative, in other words, they can concern either the words of the text or the way in which they are performed.1 The contribution that this approach brings to understanding letters is to emphasize the importance of how a performer works within a cultural context and thus connects with an audience through a set of traditions. These cultural references must be understood for meaning to be created between a performer and audience. Just how the performers and editor(s) exerted influence on their audiences is beyond our ability to determine with certainty, and therefore we must allow for a variety of individual circumstances. By allowing for uncertainties and recognizing that blind spots prevail, we can focus on what really matters—ancient letters spring from a predominantly oral culture and must be understood from that perspective. Form critical methods have been helpful to isolate key features that set letters apart from other types of literature. A strong characteristic of a letter is the opening: “to recipient, from sender” or some variety of that introduction. Both texts from Egypt use this formula and are therefore beyond dispute considered letters. The opening does not exhaust the inventory of expressive choices that an author(s) could use to indicate that a letter is being read. To help uncover other linguistic features, I have enlisted the help of Hymes’ “measured” verse approach. This method helps to describe how the material can be divided, not according to stress and syllable, but according to the relation of units to each other. Hymes suggests that the shortfall in our understanding of texts is chiefly structural and proposes rules of division of units into lines, verses, stanzas, and scenes defined by rules we are unaccustomed to. Lines are determined by the change in action expressed frequently by the change in verbs. A verse comes to a close when the performer changes his or her focus from one person(s) or topic to another. I have suggested that the end of a verse may be signaled by a vocal 1 Bonifazi and Elmer, “Composing Lines,” 93.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

269

Conclusions

cadence or gesture. Several verses make up a stanza and a change in scene is signaled by a change in location or topic. What emerges is that we open up the possibility of reading a letter the way oral performances actually work. As an experiment to illustrate what Hymes is suggesting by using a “measured” verse approach, I included two versions of the texts from Egypt—one version by Porten and one using an ethnopoetic representation. That is not to say that my representation of the letters is definitive, for there are many performances and many ways to represent them. Following Hymes’ model, we have been able to observe how initial particles and conjunctions can be perceived as markers for performance, rather than understanding them as awkward and monotonous repetition. Duplication may seem redundant to a silent reader, but this devise may help cue the performance or help the audience anticipate the next structural element. Repetition is one way a written text signals a background in performance sensitivity. According to this structural arrangement, the Hermopolis family letter and the Passover letter were viewed as consisting of an opening, body, and a closing. In the Hermopolis letter the opening and closing are played by a narrator and the three stanzas are marked by the change in characters, each stanza is set off by a discourse marker. The Passover letter can be divided by a transition followed by two verses; the transition is played by the narrator moving to the main body and then two verses consist of when and how to celebrate the Passover. This approach is crucial, not merely to divide a text into its components, but more importantly to understand the shape that the performance may have taken and the manner in which it may have been heard in an oral presentation. By approaching the letters from Egypt in this way, it does not radically change the meaning of the text, but challenges a staid, uniform arrangement on the page that strips it of its performative force. It has been argued that a performance perspective demands that we allow for improvisation and elaboration of the fixed text—a re-composition during performance. Under these conditions, the instructions on how to prepare the Passover are not viewed as exhaustive, but require discussion and explanation as part of the performance. We also allowed for the author(s), courier, and performer to be different people. The purpose for understanding the structure and oral texture of these letters is to propose how the letters functioned and were received in a community. Here the spectrum of possibilities broadens. The evidence gathered using performance criticism by understanding the oral register supports other critical methods. Thus, it seems best to understand the situations to which these two letters pertain as a private letter that captures real life of ordinary citizens in ancient Egypt and a festal letter used to teach succinctly rules and principles to another group of religious leaders or community members. My second investigation included embedded letters in canonical Ezra and

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

270

Conclusions

Jeremiah. Here we pressed our definition of what constitutes a letter by considering a text that does not follow what is frequently considered as idiomatic letter form, and thus we had to consider other aspects to determine the texts’ genre. If we understand a letter as a written form of communication from one person(s) to another who cannot communicate because of distance, then the letters in Ezra 5 and Jer 29 fall into this definition. They both communicate to an audience separated by distance and their purpose appears to be to promote community solidarity. It is possible that with each performative retelling of the completion of the building project or of the endurance of life in exile, group identity would have been further enriched. Strategies of highlighting insider information of a building programme from a foreign perspective would have given credibility to the temple’s construction and deepened an audience’s solidarity to the community. Letters in a series embedded in a narrative offer plot development and thus can be arranged according to a thematic structure that may not necessarily fit in chronological order. According to this position, point of view, plot development, and other oral strategies need to be considered when analyzing the text. Another reason for presenting these messages in letter form is their symbolic value. Receiving a letter from a king supporting a building project and hearing a letter from a (well-known) prophet adds an authoritative voice to an oral message. This view is significant because the performer is then perceived, no longer merely as a reader, but as playing the role of (or as) a prophet or leader. Therefore, when the first-person singular pronoun is read in a pronouncement of judgment, or blessing, or speech-act, the “voice” of the prophet or king is realized by the performer. In this case, the letters functioned, not as a note of friendship between family members, but as an authoritative text with the performer embodying and authenticating the letter. The commitment to represent letters as performances has led to new insights. By introducing new rules for reading by means of ethnopoetics, I have been able to demonstrate that the narrative introduction to the letter in Ezra 5 may not be the result of “borrowing” from one text to another, but may be a reiteration of some material for the sake of emphasis in an oral presentation. In the same manner, I have been able to reveal that Jer 29 shows signs of a narrative plot consisting of onset, outgoing, and outcome. By reading the text in this way, the characters and the basic plot of the oracles come into clearer focus and thus dissolve some of the contested textual issues. This radical experimentation into new reading strategies offers further information on issues of integrity and it clarifies the relation of focus in regard to the surrounding context.2 Using a performance perspective tests the limits of a strictly literary investigation. 2 Maxey, From Orality to Orality, 123.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

271

Conclusions

I have indicated in the previous chapter that a change in scene is signaled by initial particles; however, in chapter 6 I have also considered the oral/aural effect of a text on an audience and have suggested that a change in participant can also signal a change in scene. This implies that in the letter in Ezra 5 each scene is marked off by a change from the reference to the king to the interviewees and in Jer 29 from those addressed in exile to those addressed in Jerusalem. This observation opens a way for the possibility that Jer 29 may have been performed as two scenes with each performed at different times to different audiences. Whether the complete letter or merely parts of it were read can be debated, what is clear is that each time a text is read it provides distinct moments of performance, which need description and analysis. By attending to performative aspects of these letters, we can begin to decode a performance and to consider a reader’s more faithful re-performance. Considering the next set of letters, there is no dispute that Addition E to the book of Esther and the introduction to 2 Maccabees are letters. They both follow what is traditionally called letter form, that is, they include the sender and receiver. By rebuilding a performance, the opening “Good peace,” in 2 Macc 1 was understood as a marker for the first two verses, rather than as a clumsy and strange way to begin a letter. The profit that is gained by considering the audiences’ response to a text is that is gives clues to the intended focus and purpose of an embedded or introductory letter. These two letters serve an iconic function in respect to the surrounding literary context. Both Gr. Esther (Addition E) and 2 Macc 1 are additions to a text, which suggests that they may have had an independent circulation or that they were written with the larger composition in mind. Either way, the performative function of the letters as part of a larger work would have been to “pause” or “hold off” the narrative in order to heighten the importance of celebrating a special day. Since Esther is extant in at least three significant “versions,” it allows for the view that different communities celebrated their festivals in different ways, which led to the different scripts of Esther. The significance of our investigation of Addition E is that we have been able to examine a text that had a wide distribution and was used to position the audience at a distance from the scene; whereas, many other letters endeavoured to bring the author(s) and audience closer together through performance. The position presented here allows for a more fluid movement between written and oral texts and suggests that communities adapted and adopted performances with each new presentation as a social event. In this scenario, these Greek letters function as an expression of a treasured past as a symbolic realization of a desire, which was expressed in a community. The decision to use an iconic mode of presentation in the form of a letter is not for plot development, but to give the audience something to respond to. These letters help round out the perspective that I have been developing—especially in the area of the

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

272

Conclusions

function of letters in a community. Letter form is flexible enough to serve many functions, in this case, as part of a tale and as a festal reminder document. Finally, I have been able to bring the perspectives of earlier chapters into fruitful conversations with a range of other disciplines or modes of enquiry to provide the analysis of MMT as a test case. I have applied Hymes’ method of arranging a text according to the “measured” verse approach and have concluded that the rulings can be viewed, not so much as individual rules, but rather as short speeches or a digest of lectures on various legal topics that had been collected for or during performative events. Evidence for this position was gathered from some of the rulings that require explanation and appear to be rubrics or headings that encourage a conversation between performer and audience. The performer-as-narrator plays many roles in MMT, such as giving exhortations, introductions, quoting Scripture, and suggesting actions, which adds support to the position that the text was changed and adapted as new performances were held. Thus, MMT was meant to be read aloud to an audience with the aim to persuade them that these rulings are normative. One advantage to using a “measured” verse approach is that it offers an additional body of evidence to delimit the extent of certain passages.3 If we consider a communication setting for MMTand we apply the principles we have learned in the previous letters, we can suggest that a change in scene begins at “[And you know that] we have separated ourselves…” Because of the fragmentary state of the text at this point, this position needs to be held cautiously. However, with the text we have, I have proposed that the change in perspective and participants suggests a change in scene. Using the same approach, the epilogue begins when all characters have been introduced and brought to the stage. Once the audience has been exposed to all participants, they are provided with an exhortation and a glimpse into the future: “Consider all these things…so that you may rejoice at the end of times.” Our treatment of Gr. Esther has emphasized how each time a text is performed it was adapted and changed with each new presentation as a textualized social performance and has stimulated us to reflect on the social role of the performer. The impact of a text on an audience is determined by who is speaking and who is listening. In MMT the typical answer is that priests or religious leaders are speaking to other priests or to adherents to the community. Here we find religious elite instructing others to conform to their idea of purity and compliance with rulings, with little reference to the purpose of the rituals the audience is asked to follow. One reading option is that the performer was cast into the role of a prophet, similar to Moses. This role would add potency to the performance and authority to the text. 3 Maxey, From Orality to Orality, 123.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

273

Conclusions

In addition, it is performance criticism that encourages and even enables us to consider different performance contexts. There are differences between some of the extant copies of MMT, which adds credibility to the position that different texts reflect different performances or contexts. I have suggested several performance categories, such as were realized in the late second and late first centuries and as a reflection on an earlier text. As I have determined by studying other letters, the difference in context suggests a difference in function. For instance, when the text was first composed it may have been used as a response to topics that were discussed or needed further explanation from the religious elite. In this scenario the community was sustained by regular performance of MMT (or a portion thereof) as a means of unifying them as they began separating from the temple establishment. The clear aim was to persuade the audience to follow prescribed rulings. MMT used various literary conventions to shape the text, such as exhortations, quotations, and rulings. As time passed the function may have been to read portions of the text as a recontextualization of a former time. In this performance scenario MMT could have been used for didactic purposes. This position is suggested by the different styles of speech; consisting of a narrator and an interpreter (“we are of the opinion…”). MMT appears to have been used to emphasize the authority of the religious elite and their particular view of the rulings with discourses devoted to various topics of concern of the Qumran community as a text for those “inside” the community. As a text for reflection, the performer would have encouraged the audience to recall what they already knew and add precision to what was remembered. Unlike oral performances that can be embodied, “old texts appear to speak from the past with an authority independent of those who present and read them aloud.”4 This multi-scenario position helps explain why MMT has gathered these particular rulings in the order and with the emphasis in which they are now extant. Obviously, these are overlapping uses of the text and should not be viewed as mutually exclusive. This study has taken us beyond merely considering the structure of letter forms for our definition of what constitutes a letter to considering more broadly how the text affects the performer and audience. The author(s) of MMT has referred to various authoritative traditions, some of which were in letter form, in order to authorize its priestly programme. I have concluded that the use of MMT cannot be restricted to either an internal or external audience, but may have been employed in many ways and performed to various audiences depending on the social context. Similar to other texts, such as Jeremiah which uses a mixture of forms, MMT can be considered as a combination of genres. It appears to be a 4 Watts, Leviticus 1–10, 94.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

274

Conclusions

collection of discourses written with characteristics of an open letter and therefore had the flexibility to serve different purposes in different performative contexts. Letters are a ready means of communication that lends itself to creating a “shared virtual space,” which is the function that MMT variously serves. This consideration of letters under the headings of text, texture, and context has allowed us to take a fresh approach to letters and to clarify in a comprehensive way how MMTshould be best understood. The purpose of this study was to offer another way of approaching some letters by understanding the text as a direct transcription of an oral performance, or at least, of writing and copying with a performance perspective. This position is a corrective to those who view letters as being copied and edited over generations removed from performance or oral processes. The aim here was to continue the conversation begun by others concerning the performances of letters and other texts with the hope that other experts will supplement this study. Performance criticism is an underutilized method of analyzing texts, but offers a rich contribution to literary studies by considering the interplay of the written and oral worlds.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Bibliography

Reference Works and Primary Sources Abegg, Martin, Jr., The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation. Edited by Michael O. Wise, Martin G. Abegg, Jr., and Edward M. Cook. San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 2005. Ackroyd, Peter R. 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah. TBC. London: SCM, 1973. Arnold, B.T. and J.H. Choi. A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Bartlett, John R. The First and Second Books of the Maccabees. CBC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973. Batten, Loring W. The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary. ICC. Edinburgh: T& T Clark, 1913. Bell¦li, L. An Examination of the Assuan and Elephantine Aramaic Papyri. London: Luzac, 1909. Die Bibel oder die ganze Heilige Schrift des Alten und Neuen Testaments nach der deutschen ˝ bersetzung. D. Martin Luthers. Stuttgart: Privileg Württembergische Bibelanstalt, U 1955. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Ezra-Nehemiah: A Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988. Botterweck, G. Johannes, Heinz-Josef Fabry, and Helmer Ringgren, ed. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Translated by John T. Willis. 10 vols. Grand Rapids. MI: Eerdmans, 1975. Bresciani E. and M. Kamil. Le letter aramaiche di Hermopoli. Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 1966. Brown, F., S. Driver, and C. Briggs. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. 1906. Repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. 1997. Bright, John. Jeremiah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 21. New York: Doubleday, 1965. Carroll, Robert P. Jeremiah: A Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986. Clines, David, J.A. Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1984. _____. “Nehemiah.” HarperCollins Study Bible. New York: HarperCollins, 1993. Collins, John J. Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Hermeneia Commentary Series. Fortress, 1993. Condamin, Albert. Le Livre de J¦r¦mie. EBib. Paris: Gabalda, 1936.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

276

Bibliography

Cowley, A. Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. Oxford: Clarendon, 1923. Degen, Rainer, Walter W. Mueller, and Wolfgang Roelling. Neue Ephemeris für Semitische Epigraphik. 3 vols. Weisbaden: Harrassowitz, 1978. De Troyer, Kristin. The End of the Alpha Text of Esther : Translation and Narrative Technique in MT 8:1, LXX 8:1–17, and AT 7:14–41. Rev. ed. Translated by B. Doyle. Atlanta: SBL, 2000. Demetrius: On Style. Edited and translated by W. Rhys Roberts. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1932. Doran, Robert. 2 Maccabees: A Critical Commentary. Hermeneia Commentary Series. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012. Driver, Godfrey R. Aramaic Documents of the Fifth Century B.C. Oxford: Clarendon, 1957. Early Jewish Writings. “Philo of Alexandria.” http://jewishwritings.com/philo.html. Eisenman, Robert and Michael O. Wise. The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered: The First Complete Translation and Interpretation of 50 Key Documents Withheld for over 35 Years. Shaftesbury : Element, 1992. Ellinger, K., and W. Rudolph. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1966–77. Eph’al, Israel and Joseph Naveh. Aramaic Ostraca of the Fourth Century BC from Idumaea. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1996. Exler, Francis Xavier J. The Form of the Ancient Greek Letter of the Epistolary Papyri (3rd Century B.C.–3rd Century A.D.): A Study in Greek Epistolography. Washington: Catholic University of America, 1923. Repr., A Study in Greek Epistolography. Chicago: Ares, 1976. Fensham, F. Charles. The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. A Manual of Palestinian Aramaic Tests (Second Century B.C.-Second Century A.D.). Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978. Folmer, M.L. The Aramaic Language in the Achaemenid Period: A Study in Linguistic Variations. OLA 68. Leuven: Peeters, 1995. Gesenius, F.H. Wilhelm. Gesenius’s Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures. Repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950. Giesebrecht, Friedrich. Das Buch Jeremia. HKAT 3.2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1907. Ginsberg, H. Louis. Studies in Daniel. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1948. Goldingay, John E. Daniel. WBC. Dallas, TX: Word, 1987. Goldstein, Jonathan A. II Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1976. _____. The Letters of Demosthenes. New York: Columbia University Press, 1968. Grabbe, Lester. Ezra-Nehemiah. OTR. London: Routledge, 1998. Herodotus. Translated by A.D. Goodley. 8 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1925. Holladay, William L. Jeremiah 2: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Hermeneia Commentary Series. Augsburg: Fortress, 1989. Hoffner, Harry A., Jr. Letters from the Hittite Kingdom. WAW 15. Atlanta: SBL, 2009. Holy Bible Containing the Old and New Testaments. Authorized (King James) Version. Philadelphia: Holman, 1942.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

277

Bibliography

Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2005. Holy Bible: New International Version. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989. Hornblower, Simon and Antony Spawforth, eds. The Oxford Classical Dictionary. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. Jenni, Ernst, Claus Westermann, and Mark E. Biddle, ed. Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated by Mark E. Biddle. 3 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997. Jerusalem Bible. Garden City, NY. Doubleday, 1966. Jobes, Karen H. The Alpha-Text of Esther : Its Character and Relationship to the Masoretic Text. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. Josephus. Translated by H.St.J. Thackeray in Nine Volumes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967. Kaptan, Denis. The Daskyleion Bullae: Seal Images from the Western Achaemenid Empire. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 2002. Keown, Gerald L., Pamela J. Scalise, Thomas G. Smothers. Jeremiah 26–52. WBC 27. Dallas, TX: Word, 1995. Koehler, Ludwig, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann J Stamm. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited under the supervision of Mervyn E.J. Richardson. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994–1999. Kraeling, Emil G. The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri: New Documents of the Fifth Century B.C. from the Jewish Colony at Elephantine. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1953. Kutscher, E.Y. ed. Hebrew and Aramaic Studies. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1977. Liddell, Henry George, Robert Scott, Henry Stuart Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. with revised supplement. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Lindenberger, James M. Ancient Aramaic and Hebrew Letters. WAW4. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994. Lozachmeur, H¦lÀne ed. La Collection Clermont-Ganneau. Ostraca,¦pigraphes sur Jarre, ¦tiquettes de bois. Vol. 1 of Memoire de l’Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 35. Paris: Diffusion de Boccard, 2006. Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah 21–36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB. New York: Doubleday, 2004. Lust, Johan, Erik Eynikel, and Katrin Hauspie, eds. Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Rev. ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2003. Montgomery, James A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel. ICC. Edinburgh: Clark, 1929. Moore, Carey A. Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah: The Additions: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977. Muraoka, Takamitsu and Bezalel Porten. Grammar of Egyptian Aramaic. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill, 2003. New American Standard Bible. New York: Holman, 1977. New English Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970. Plato. Translated by R.G. Bury. 12 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975. Plato Complete Works. Edited with Introduction and Notes by John M. Cooper. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 1997.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

278

Bibliography

˘

Porten, Bezalel. The Elephantine Papyri in English: Three Millennia of Cross-Cultural Continuity and Change. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Porten, Bazalel and Adele Yardeni. Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt. 4 vols. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1988–89. Porter, Stanley E. Jatakk²ssy in Ancient Greek Literature, with Reference to the Pauline Writings. Estudios de filolog†a Neotestamentaria 5. Cordoba: El Almendro de Cordoba, 1994. Qimron, Elisha and John Strugnell in consultation with Yaakov Sussmann and with contributions by Y. Sussmann and A. Yardeni. Qumran Cave 4, V: Miqsat Ma as´e Ha˙ Torah. DJD X. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Renz, J. and W. RPllig. Handbuch der Althebräischen Epigraphik. 3 vols. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1995–2003. Rosenthal, Franz. A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic. 6th ed. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1995. Rudolph, Wilhelm. Jeremia. HAT 12. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1968. Sachau, Eduard. Aramäische Papyrus und Ostraka aus einer jüdischen Militär-kolonie zu Elephantine. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1911. _____. Drei aramäische Papyrus-urkunden aus Elephantine. Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1907. Samely, Alexander. “Miqtsat Ma’aseh H-Torah,” in A. Samely, P. Alexander, R. Bernasconi, R. Hayward, eds. Database for the Analysis of Anonymous and Pseudepigraphic Jewish Texts of Antiquity. http://literarydatatbase.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/html. Sayce, Archibald Henry, ed. Aramaic Papyri Discovered at Assuan. London: Moring, 1906. Schwartz, Daniel R. 2 Maccabees. CEJL. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008. Sussmann, Yaakov. “The History of the Halakha and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Preliminary Talmudic Observations on Miqsat Ma’ase Ha-Torah. Appendix 1 in Qumran Cave 4. V: Miqsat Ma’ase Ha-Torah. DJD X. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Swanson, James. Dictionary of the Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Aramaic Old Testament. Electronic Edition. Oak Harbor. Logos Research Systems, Inc. 1997. Tanakh: A New Translation of the Holy Scriptures According to the Traditional Hebrew Text. Jerusalem: Jewish Publication Society, 1985. Thompson, J.A. The Book of Jeremiah. NICOT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980. Tigchelaar, Eibert. “4Q397–399.” In The Dead Sea Scrolls Electronic Library (Dead Sea Scrolls Electronic Reference Library CD-ROM. Revised edition. Edited by Emanuel Tov. Brigham Young University. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Torrey, Charles C. Ezra Studies. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1910. Trapp, Michael B. ed. Greek and Latin Letters: An Anthology with Translation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Ungnad, Arthur. Aramäische Papyrus aus Elephantine: Kleine Ausgabe under zudrundelegung von Eduard Sachau’s Erstausgabe. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1911. VanGemeren, Willem A. ed. Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. 5 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. Watts, James W. Leviticus 1–10. HCOT. Leuven: Peeters, 2013. Wente, Edward Frank. Letters from Ancient Egypt. Society of Biblical Literature Writings from the Ancient World Series. Edited by Edmund S. Meltzer. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

279

Bibliography

Whitters, Mark F. The Epistle of Second Baruch. JPSSup 42. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2003. Williams, Ronald J. Williams’ Hebrew Syntax. Revised and expanded by John C. Beckman. 3rd ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007. Williamson, Hugh G.M. Ezra, Nehemiah. WBC. Waco, TX: Word, 1985. Worthington, Ian. Demosthenes, Speeches 60 and 61, Prologues, Letters. The Oratory of Classical Greece 10. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2006. Vermes, Geza. The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. New York: Penguin Books, 1997. Yadin, Y., J. Greenfield, A. Yardeni, and B. Levine, eds. The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters [Vol. 2]: Hebrew, Aramaic and Nabatean-Aramaic Papyril. JDS 3. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, Hebrew University & Israel Museum, 2002.

Secondary Sources Abercrombie, N., S. Hill, and B.S. Turner. The Dominant Ideology Thesis. London: Allen & Unwin, 1980. Alexander, Philip S. “Epistolary Literature.” Pages 579–96 in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus. Edited by Michael E. Stone. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. _____. “Literacy among Jews in Second Temple Palestine: Reflections on the Evidence from Qumran.” Pages 3–24 in Hamlet on a Hill: Semitic and Greek Studies Presented to Professor T. Muraoka on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Edited by M.F.J. Baasten and W.Th. van Peursen. OLA 118. Leuven: Peeters, 2003. _____. “Remarks on Aramaic Epistolography in the Persian Period.” JSS 23 (1978): 155–70. _____. “Rules.” In vol. 2 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Alter, Jean. A Sociosemiotic Theory of Theatre. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1990. Amodio, Mark C. “Contemporary Critical Approaches and Studies in Oral Tradition.” Pages 95–105 in Teaching Oral Traditions. Edited by John Miles Foley. Modern Language Association Options for Teaching. New York: Modern Language Association, 1998. Arnold, Bill T. “The Use of Aramaic in the Hebrew Bible: Another Look at the Bilingualism in Ezra and Nehemiah.” JNSL 2 (1996): 1–16. Arnold, Russell C.D. The Social Role of Liturgy in the Religion of the Qumran Community. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Assmann, Jan. “Collective Memory and Cultural Identity.” Pages 125–33 in Cultural History/Cultural Studies: Special Issue. Translated by John Czaplicka. New German Critique 65, 1995. _____. Religion and Cultural Memory. Translated by Rodney Livingston. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2006. Austin, John. How to do Things with Words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975. Bakhtin, Mikhail M. Dialogical Imagination: Four Essays. Edited by Michael Holquist.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

280

Bibliography

Translated by Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Texas: University of Texas Press, 1981. _____. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Translated by Vern W. McGee. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1986. Bal, Mieke. “Lots of Writing.” Semeia 54 (1992): 77–102. Baltzer, Klaus. Das Bundesformula. WMAT 4. Neukirchen: Neukirchen Verlag, 1964. Bakker, Egbert J. “How Oral is Oral Composition?” Pages 29–47 in Signs of Orality : The Oral Tradition and its Influence in the Greek and Roman World. Edited by E. Anne MacKay. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Barkay, Gabriel. “The Iron Age II–III.” Pages 302–73 in The Archaeology of Ancient Israel. Edited by Amnon Ben-Tor. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press for the Open University of Israel, 1992. Barmgarten, Joseph M. “The Pharisaic-Sadducean Controversies about Purity and the Qumran Texts.” JSS 31 (1980): 98–110. Barrera, J. Trebolle. “The Authoritative Functions of Scriptural Works at Qumran.” Pages 95–110 in The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Seas Scrolls. Edited by Eugene C. Ulrich and James C. VanderKam. CJAS 10. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994. Berrin, Shari L. “Pesharim.” Pages 644–47 in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Barthes, Roland. “The Struggle with the Angel: Textual Analysis of Genesis 32:22–32. Pages 125–41 in Image Music Text. Essays selected and translated by Stephen Heath. New York: Hill & Wang, 1977. Barton, John. Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study. Rev. ed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999. Bauman, Richard. “Discovery and Dialogue in Ethnopoetics.” Journal of Folklore Research 50 (2013): 175–90. _____. “Folklore.” Pages 29–40 in Folklore, Cultural Performances, and Popular Entertainments: A Communications-centered Handbook. Edited by Richard Bauman. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. _____. “Performance.” In International Encyclopedia of Communications. Edited by Erik Barnouw. Oxford University Press, 1989. _____. Verbal Art as Performance. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1977. Bauman, Richard and Charles L. Briggs. “Poetics and Performance as Critical Perspectives on Language and Social Life.” Annual Review of Anthropology 19 (1990): 59–88. Baumgarten, Albert. The Flourishing of Jewish Sects in the Maccabean Era: An Interpretation. JSJSup 55. Edited by J.J. Collins and F. Garc†a Mart†nez. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Baumgarten, Joseph M. “The Laws of the Damascus Document—Between Bible and Mishnah.” Pages 17–25 in The Damascus Document: A Centennial of Discovery : Proceedings of the Third International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 4–8 February, 1998. Edited by Joseph M. Baumgarten, Esther G. Chazon, and Avital Pinnick. STDJ 34. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Becking, Bob. “Nehemiah 9 and the Problematic Concept of Context (Sitz im Leben).” Pages 253–68 in The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty First Century. Edited by Marvin A. Sweeney and Ehud Ben Zvi. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

281

Bibliography

Beckerman, Bernard. Theatrical Presentation: Performer, Audience, and Act. Edited by Gloria Brim Beckerman and William Coco. New York: Routledge, 1990. Beer, G. “Zür israelitisch-jüdischen Briefliteratur.” In Alttestamenliche Studien Rudolf Kittel zum 60. Geburtstag. Edited by A. Alt et al. BWAT 13. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1913. Ben-Amos, Dan. “Toward a Definition of Folklore in Context.” Pages 2–19 in Folklore in Context: Essays. Edited by Dan Ben-Amos and Kenneth S. Goldstein. New Delhi: South Asian Publishers, 1982. Ben Zvi, Ehud. “The Memory of Abraham in the Late Persian/Early Hellenistic Yehud/ Judah.” Pages 13–60 in The Reception and Remembrance of Abraham. Edited by P. Carstens and Niels Peter Lemche. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2011. _____. “Reading and Constructing Utopias: Utopias and/in the Collection of Authoritative Texts/Textual Readings of Late Persian Period Yehud.” SR 42 (2013): 463–76. _____. “Reconstructing the Intellectual Discourse of Ancient Yehud.” SR 39 (2010): 7–23. Berge, K”re. “Literacy, Utopia and Memory : Is there a public teaching in Deuteronomy?” JHS 12 (2012): 1–20. Berlin, Adele. “The Book of Esther and Ancient Storytelling.” JBL (2001): 3–14. _____. “Literary Approaches to Biblical Literature: General Observations and a Case Study of Genesis 34.” Pages 45–75 in The Hebrew Bible: New Insights and Scholarship. Edited by Frederick E. Greenspahn. New York: New York University Press, 2008. Berman, Joshua. “The Narratorial Voice of the Scribes of Samaria: Ezra iv 8- vi 18 Reconsidered.” VT 56 (2006): 313–26. Bernstein, Moshe. “The Employment and Interpretation of Scripture in 4QMMT: Preliminary Observations.” Pages 29–51 in Reading 4QMMT: New Perspectives on Qumran Law and History. SBLSymS 2. Edited by John Kampen and Moshe Bernstein. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. Blommaert, Jan. “Ethnography and Democracy : Hymes’s Political Theory of Language. Text & Talk 29 (2009): 257–76. Blum, Erhard. “Formgeschichte—A Misleading Category? Pages 32–45 in The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty First Century. Edited by Marvin A. Sweeney and Ehud Ben Zvi. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003. Bogatyrev, Peter. “Folklore as a Special Form of Creativity.” Pages 32–46 in The Prague School: Selected Writings, 1929–1946. Edited by Peter Steiner. University of Texas Press Slavic Series 6. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1982. Bonifazi, Anna. “Memory and Visualization in Homeric Discourse Markers.” Pages 35–64 in Orality, Literacy, Memory in the Ancient Greek and Roman World. Edited by E. Anne MacKay. Orality and Literacy in Ancient Greece 7. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Bonifazi, Anna and David F. Elmer. “Composing Lines, Performing Acts: Clauses, Discourse Acts, and Melodic Units in a South Slavic Epic Song.” Pages 89–109 in Orality, Literacy and Performance in the Ancient World. Edited by Elizabeth Minchin. OLAW 9. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Boomershine, Tom. “Biblical Storytelling and Biblical Scholarship.” Paper presented at NOBS Scholars Conference. August 2–7, 2009. Bourdieu, Pierre. The Logic of Practice. Translated by R. Nice. Cambridge: Polity, 1990. Botha, J.E. “The Potential for Speech Act Theory for New Testament Exegesis: Some Basic Concepts.” Hervormide Teologiese Studies 47 (1991): 294–303. Botha, Pieter J.J. “Letter Writing and Oral Communication in Antiquity : Suggested Im-

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

282

Bibliography

plications for the Interpretation of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians.” Scriptura 42 (1992): 17–34. Boyarin, Daniel. “Placing Reading: Ancient Israel and Medieval England.” Pages 10–37 in The Ethnography of Reading. Edited by Jonathan Boyarin. Berkeley : University of California Press, 1993. Brett, M.G. “Literacy and Domination: G.A. Herion’s Sociology of History Writing.” JSOT 37 (1987): 15–40. Brettler, Marc Zvi. The Creation of History in Ancient Israel. London: Routledge, 1995. Bridge, Edward J. “Polite Language in the Lachish Letters. VT 60 (2010): 518–534. Briggs, R. “The Use of Speech Act Theory in Biblical Interpretation.” CTBS 9 (2001): 229–76. _____. Words in Action: Speech Act Theory and Biblical Interpretation: Toward a Hermeneutic of Self-Involvement. Edinburgh: T& T Clark, 2001. Brin, Gershon.“Review on DJD X: Qumran Cave 4 V: Miqsat Ma’aseh Ha-Torah by E. Qimron and J. Strugnell.” JSS 40 (1995): 334–42. Brinker K. Linguistische Textanalyse: Eine Einführung in Grundbegriffe und Methoden. 6th ed. Grundlagen der Germanistik 29. Berlin: Erich Schmidt, 2005. Brooke, George J. “Aspects of the Physical and Scribal Features of Some Cave 4 ‘Continuous’ Pesharim.” Pages 132–50 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Transmission of Traditions and Production of Texts. Edited by Sarianna Metso, Hindy Najman, and Eileen Schuller. Leiden: Brill, 2010. _____.“Controlling Intertexts and Hierarchies of Echo in Two Thematic Eschatological Commentaries from Qumran.” In Between Text and Intertext: International Symposium on Intertextuality in Ancient Near Eastern, Ancient Mediterranean and Early Medieval Literatures. Edited by Michaela Bauks, Wayne Horowitz, and Armin Lange. JAJSup 6. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013. _____.“Explicit Presentation of Scripture in 4QMMT.” Pages 67–88 in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies. Cambridge 1995. Edited by Moshe J. Bernstein, Florentino Garc†a Mart†nez and John Kampen. Leiden: Brill, 1997. _____. “Luke-Acts and the Qumran Scrolls: A Case of 4QMMT.” Pages 72–90 in Luke’s Literary Achievement: Collected Essays. Edited by Christopher M. Tuckett. JSNTSup 116. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995. _____. “Pesher and Midrash in Qumran Literature: Issues for Lexicography.” RevQ 94 (2009): 82. _____. “Some Scribal Features on the Thematic Commentaries from Qumran.” Pages 124–43 in Writing the Bible: Scribes, Scribalism and Script. Edited by Philip R. Davies and Thomas RPmer. Durham: Acumen, 2013. _____. “The Ten Temples in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 417–34 in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel. Edited by John Day. LHBOTS 422. London: T& T Clark, 2005. Bürgel, P. “Der Privatbrief: Entwurf eines heuristischen Modells.” Deutsche Vierteljahresschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte 50 (1976): 281–97. Burke, Kenneth. Philosophy of Literary Form. New York: Vintage Books, 1957. Burkill, T. Alec. The Evolution of Christian Thought. London: Cornell University Press, 1971.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

283

Bibliography

Burns, Joshua Ezra. “The Special Purim and the Reception of the Book of Esther in the Hellenistic and Early Roman Eras.” JSJ 37 (2006): 1–34. Burnyeat, M.F. “Postscript on Silent Reading.” CQ 47 (1997): 74–76. Buss, Martin J. Biblical Form Criticism in its Context. JSOTSup 274. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Calloud, J. “A Few Comments on Structural Semiotics: A Brief Review of a Method and Some Explanation of Procedures.” Translated by J.C. Kirby. Pages 51–83 in Semeia Series 15. Atlanta: SBL, 1979. Cambron-Goulet, Mathilde. “The Criticism—and the Practice—of Literacy in the Ancient Philosophical Tradition.” Pages 201–26 in Orality, Literacy and Performance in the Ancient World. Edited by Elizabeth Minchin. OLAW 9. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Campbell, Anthony F. “The Reported Story.” Pages 77–85 in Semeia Series 46. Atlanta: SBL, 1989. Campbell, Anthony F. and Mark A. O’Brien. Rethinking the Pentateuch: Prolegomena to the Theology of Ancient Israel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005. _____. Unfolding the Deuteronomistic History : Origins, Upgrades, Present Text. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000. Canadian Heritage. “Genealogy First: Genealogy and the First People of New Brunswick.” http://www.genealogyfirst.ca/research/geneology-in-general.html. Carlson, Marvin. Performance: A Critical Introduction. New York: Routledge, 2003. Carr, David. The Formation of the Hebrew Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. _____. Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Carr, Gerald L. and Barbra Meek. “The Poetics of Language Revitalization: Text, Performance, and Change.” Journal of Folklore Research 50 (2013): 191–216. Carroll, NoÚl. “Art, Narrative and Emotion.” Pages 190–211 in Emotion and the Arts. Edited by Mette Hjort and Sue Laver. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Chafe, W.L. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Consciousness Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994. Charpin, Dominique. “The Writing, Sending and Reading of Letters in the Amorite World.” Pages 400–17 in The Babylonian World. Edited by G. Leick. New York: Routledge, 2007. Chazon, Esther G. “Prayers from Qumran and their Historical Implications.” DSD 1 (1994): 265–84. Chiron, P. “The Rhetoric to Alexander.” Pages 90–106 in A Companion to Greek Rhetoric. Edited by Ian Worthington. Chichester : Wiley & Sons, 2010. Chomsky, Noam. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1965. Classen, Carl Joachim. “St. Paul’s Epistles and Ancient Greek and Roman Rhetoric.” Pages 265–91 in Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht. JSNTSup 90. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993. Clines, David J.A. The Esther Scroll. JSOTSup30. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984. Collins, James Henderson II. “Prompts for Participation in Early Philosophical Texts.” Pages 151–82 in Orality, Literacy and Performance in the Ancient World. Edited by Elizabeth Minchin. OLAW 9. Leiden: Brill, 2012.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

284

Bibliography

Collins, John J. “The Court-Tales in Daniel and the Development of Apocalyptic.” JBL 94 (1975): 218–34. _____. “The Genre of the Book of Jubilees.” Pages 735–55 in A Teacher for all Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. VanderKam. Edited by Eric F. Mason, Kelly Coblentz Bautch, Angela Kim Harkins, and Daniel A. Machiela. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Cooper, Craig. “Demosthenes Actor on the Political and Forensic Stage.” Pages 145–61 in Oral Performance and Its Context. Edited by C.J. Mackie. Orality and Literacy in Ancient Greece 5. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Corrington, Gail Paterson. “Redaction Criticism.” Pages 87–99 in To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and their Application. Edited by Steven L. McKenzie and Stephen R. Haynes. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993. Craig, Kenneth. Reading Esther : A Case for the Literary Carnivalesque. Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995. Crane, Mary Thomas. “What Was Performance.” Criticism 43 (2002): 167–87. Culley, Robert C. “Oral Tradition and Biblical Studies.” Oral Tradition 1 (1986): 30–65. Davies, Philip R. “The Dissemination of Written Texts.” Pages 35–46 in Writing the Bible: Scribes, Scribalism and Script. Edited by Philip R. Davies and Thomas RPmer. Durham: Acumen, 2013. _____. ‘“Pen of iron, point of diamond’ (Jer 17:1): Prophecy as Writing.” Pages 65–81 in Writings and Speech in Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy. Edited by Ehud Ben Zvi and Michael H. Floyd. SBLSymS 10. Atlanta, SBL, 2000. Deissmann, Gustav Adolf. Licht vom Osten: Das Neue Testament und die neuentdeckten Texte der hellenistisch-römischen Welt. Translated by Lionel R.M. Strachan, 1927 as Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated from Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman Period. Repr. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995. De Marinis, Marco. The Semiotics of Performance. Translated by Ýine O’Healy. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993. Demsky, A. “On the Extent of Literacy in Ancient Israel.” Pages 349–53 in Biblical Archaeology Today: Proceedings of the International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, April 1984. Edited by Janet Amitai. IES and ASOR: Jerusalem, 1984. De Troyer, Kristin. Rewriting the Sacred Text: What the Old Greek Texts Tell Us about the Literary Growth of the Bible. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Derrida, Jacques. The Post Card: From Socrates to Freud and Beyond. Translated by Alan Bass. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987. De Vaux, Ronald. The Bible and Ancient Near East. Translated by Damian McHugh. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971. De Vries, L. “Local Oral-Written Interfaces and the Nature, Transmission, Performance and Translation of Biblical Texts.” Pages 71–75 in Translating Scripture for Sound and Performance: New Directions in Biblical Studies. Biblical Performance Criticism 6. Eugene: Cascade, 2012. Dibelius, Martin. Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums. Photomechanischer Nachdruck der dritten Auflage mit einem erweiterten Nachtrag von Gerhard Iber. Herausgegeben von Günter Bornkamm. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1919. Diewald, G. Deixis und Textorten im Deutschen. Reihe Germanistische Linguistik 118. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1991. Dion, Paul E. “The Aramaic ‘Family Letter’ and Other Related Epistolary Forms in Other

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

285

Bibliography

Oriental Languages and in Hellenistic Greek.” Pages 58–76 in Studies in Ancient Letter Writing. Edited by J.L. White. Chico: California: Scholars Press, 1982. _____. “Aramaic Words for ‘Letter.’” Pages 77–88 in Semeia Series 22. Atlanta: SBL, 1981. Doan, William and Terry Giles. Prophets, Performance, and Power: Performance Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. New York: T& T Clark, 2005. Doane, A. “The Ethnography of Scribal Writing and Anglo-Saxon Poetry : Scribe as Performer.” Oral Tradition 9 (1994): 420–39. Doering, Lutz. Ancient Jewish Letters and the Beginnings of Christian Epistolography. WUNT I, 298. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. _____. “Jeremiah and the ‘Diaspora Letters’ in Ancient Judaism.” Pages 43–72 in Reading the Present in the Qumran Library : The Perception of the Contemporary by Means of the Scriptural Interpretations. Edited by Kristin De Troyer and Armin Lange. SBLSymS 30. Atlanta: SBL, 2005. Dorothy, Charles V. “The Books of Esther : Structure, Genre, and Textual Integrity.” PhD Dissertation. Claremont Graduate School, 1989. Dorson, Richard M., ed. Folklore and Folklife: An Introduction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972. Doty, William G. “The Classification of Epistolary Literature.” CBQ 31 (1969): 183–99. Draper, Jonathan A. “Jesus’ ‘Covenantal Discourse’ on the Plain (Luke 6:12–7:17) as Oral Performance: Pointers to ‘Q’ as Multiple Oral Performances.” Pages 71–98 in Oral Performance, Popular Tradition, and Hidden Transcript in Q. Edited by Richard Horsley. Semeia Series 60. Atlanta: SBL, 2006. _____. “The Announcement and Testing of the Prophet.” Pages 250–59 in Whoever Hears You Hears Me: Prophets, Performance, and Tradition in Q. Richard Horsley with Jonathan Draper. Harrisburg: Trinity, 1999. Dundes, Alan. Holy Writ as Oral Lit. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999. _____. “Text, Texture and Context.” Southern Folklore Quarterly 20 (1965): 251–61. Reprinted in Interpreting Folklore. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1980. Durkheim, Êmile. The Elementary Forms of Religious Lift. Edited by M.S. Cladis. Translated by C. Cosman 1912. Repr. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Eco, Umberto.“Semiotics of Theatrical Performance.” The Drama Review 21 (1977): 107–17. Edenburg, Cynthia. “Intertextuality, Literary Competence and the Question of Readership: Some Preliminary Observations.” JSOT 35 (2010): 131–148. Elbogen, Ismar. Der jüdische Gottesdienst. 3rd ed. Frankfurt: Kauffmann, 1931. Eliade, Mircea. Patterns in Comparative Religion. London: Sheed and Ward, 1958. Erill, Astrid. “Cultural Memory Studies: An Introduction.” Pages 1–18 in A Companion to Cultural Memory Studies. Edited by Astrid Erill and Ansgar Nünning. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010. Ermert, Karl. Briefsorten: Untersuchungen zu Theorie und Empirie der Textklassification. Reihe Germanistische Linguistik 20. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1979. Eshel, Hanan. “4QMMT and the History of the Hasmonean Period.” Pages 53–65 in Reading 4QMMT: New Perspectives on Qumran Law and History. Edited by John Kampen and Moshe J. Bernstein. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. Eskenazi, Tamara Cohn. In the Age of Prose: A Literary Approach to Ezra-Nehemiah. SBLMS 36. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

286

Bibliography

˘

Esslin, Martin. The Field of Drama: How the Signs of Drama Create Meaning on Stage & Screen. London: Methuen, 1987. Fine, Elizabeth C. The Folklore Text: From Performance to Print. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1984. Finnegan, Ruth H. Literacy and Orality : Studies in the Technology of Communication. Oxford: Blackwell, 1988. _____. “Literacy versus Non-literacy : The Great Divide? Some Comments on the Significance of Literature in Non-Literate Cultures.” Pages 112–44 in Modes of Thought: Essays on Thinking in Western and Non-Western Societies. Edited by Robin Horton and Ruth Finnegan. London: Faber & Faber, 1973. _____. Oral Poetry : Its Nature, Significance and Social Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. Fish, Stanley. Is there a Text in this Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980. Fischer-Lichte, Erika. Ästhetik des Performativen. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 2004. _____. The Semiotics of Theatre. Translated by Jeremy Gaines and Doris L. Jones. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1983. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “Some Notes on Aramaic Epistolography.” JBL (1974): 201–24. _____. The Wandering Aramean. SBL 25. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979. Floyd, Michael H. ‘“Write the revelation!” (Hab 2:2): Re-imagining the Cultural History of Prophecy.” Pages 103–43 in Writings and Speech in Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy. Edited by Ehud Ben Zvi and Michael H. Floyd. SBLSymS 10. Atlanta: SBL, 2000. Foley, John Miles. How to Read an Oral Poem. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2002. _____. Imminent Art: From Structure to Meaning in Traditional Oral Epic. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991. _____. “The Riddle of Q: Oral Ancestor, Textual Precedent, or Ideological Creation.” Pages 123–40 in Oral Performance, Popular Tradition, and Hidden Transcript in Q. Edited by Richard Horsley. Semeia Series 60. Atlanta: SBL, 2006. _____. The Singer of Tales in Performance. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 1995. _____. Traditional Oral Epic: The Odyssey, Beowulf, and the Serbo-Croatian Return Song. Berkley : University of California Press, 1990. Fox, Michael V. Character and Ideology in the Book of Esther. Columbia: University of South Carolina, 1991. Fraade, Steven D. “Rhetoric and Hermeneutics in Miqsat Ma as´e ha-Torah (4QMMT): The ˙ Case of the Blessings and Curses.” DSD 10 (2003): 150–61. _____. “To Whom It May Concern: 4QMMT and Its Addresse(s).” RevQ 19/76 (2000): 507–26. Fried, Lisbeth S. “‘You Shall Appoint Judges’: Ezra’s Mission and the Rescript of Artaxerxes.” Pages 63–89 in Persia and Torah: The Theory of Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch. Edited by James W. Watts. SBLSymS 17. Atlanta: SBL, 2001. Friedman, Albert B. “The Oral-Formulaic Theory of Balladry—A Re-rebuttal.” Pages 215–40 in The Ballad Image: Essays Presented to Bertrand Harris Bronson. Edited by James Porter. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1983. Fowler, Robert. Let the Reader Understand: Reader-Response Criticism and the Gospel of Mark. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

287

Bibliography

Gamble, Harry Y. Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts. London: Yale University Press, 1995. Gavrilov, A.K. “Techniques of Reading in Classical Antiquity.” Classical Quarterly 47 (1997): 56–73. Gee, J.P. Social Linguistic and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses. 2nd edition. London: Taylor & Francis, 1996. Geertz, Clifford. “Blurred Genres: The Refiguration of Social Thought.” Reprinted in Local Knowledge. New York: Basic Books, 1983. _____. Negara: The Theatre State in Nineteenth Century Bali. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980. Georgakopoulou, Alexandra. “Narrative Analysis.” Pages 296–41 in The Sage Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Edited by Ruth Wodak, Barbara Johnstone and Paul Kerswill. London: Sage, 2011. Gibson, Roy K. and Andrew D. Morrison. “Introduction: What is a Letter?” Pages 1–16 in Ancient Letters: Classical and Late Epistolography. Edited by Ruth Morello and Andrew D. Morrison. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Giles, Terry and William J. Doan. Twice Used Songs: Performance Criticism of the Songs of Ancient Israel. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009. Gillard, Frank, D. “More Silent Reading in Antiquity : Non omne verbum sonat.” JBL 112 (1993): 689–73. Goffman, Erving. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper Colophon, 1974. _____. Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1959. Goody, Jack. “Canonization in Oral and Literate Traditions.” Pages 119–31 in The Power of the Written Tradition. Washington: Smithsonian Institute Press, 2000. _____.The Interface between the Written and the Oral. Studies in Literacy, Family, Culture, and the State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. _____. The Power of the Written Tradition. Washington: Smithsonian Institute Press, 2000. Gordin, Michael D., Helen Tilley, Gyan Prakish, eds. Utopia/Dystopia: Conditions of Historical Possibility. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010. Gottwald, Norman K. “Response: Twenty-Five Years and Counting.” Pages 255–65 in Semeia Series 87. Atlanta: SBL, 1999. Grabbe, Lester. “Elephantine and the Torah.” Pages 125–35 in In the Shadow of Bazalel: Aramaic, Biblical, and Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Bezalel Porten. Edited by Alejandro F. Botta. Leiden: Brill, 2013. _____. “4QMMT and Second Temple Jewish Society.” Pages 89–108 in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies. Cambridge 1995. Edited by Moshe J. Bernstein, Florentino Garc†a Mart†nez and John Kampen. Leiden: Brill, 1997. _____. “The ‘Persian Documents’ in the Book of Ezra: Are They Authentic?” Pages 531–70 in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian. Edited by Oded Lipschits and Manfred Oeming. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006. Graham, William A. Beyond the Written Word: Oral Aspects of Scripture in the History of Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Green, William Scott. “Writing with Scripture: The Rabbinic Uses of the Hebrew Bible.”

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

288

Bibliography

Pages 7–23 in Writing with Scripture: The Authority and Uses of the Hebrew Bible in the Torah of Formative Judaism. Edited by Jacob Neusner. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989. Greimas, Algirdas Julien. Structural Semantics: An Attempt at a Method. Introduction by D. McDowell. Translated by R. Schleifer and D. McDowell. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1983. Grossman, Maxine L. “Cultivating Identity : Textual Virtuosity in ‘Insider’ Status.” Pages 1–12 in Defining Identities: We, You, and the Other in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Fifth Meeting of the IOQS in Groningen. Edited by Florentio Garc†a Mart†nez and Mladen Popovic´. Leiden: Brill, 2008. _____. “Reading 4QMMT: Genre and History.” RevQ 20/77 (2001): 3–22. Gruenwald, Ithamar. Rituals and Ritual Theory in Ancient Israel. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Gunkel, Hermann. The Legends of Genesis. New York: Schocken Books, 1966. Hammershaimb, Erling. “Some Remarks on the Aramaic Letters from Hermopolis.” VT 18 (1968): 265–267. Halliday, Michael A.K. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. Open University : University Park Press, 1978. Hansen, W. “Strategies of Authentication in Ancient Popular Literature.” Pages 301–14 in The Ancient Novel and Beyond. Edited by S. Panayotakis, M. Zimmerman, and W. Keulen. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Harrington, D.J. The Maccabean Revolt: Anatomy of a Biblical Revolution. OTS 1. Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1988. Harrington, Hannah K. “The Halakah and Religion of Qumran. Pages 74–89 in The Religion of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by John J. Collins and R.A. Kugler. SDSSRL. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. _____. “Holiness in the Laws of 4QMMT.” Pages 109–30 in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization of Qumran Studies, Cambridge 1995. Edited by Moshe Bernstein, Forentino Garc†a Mart†nez and John Kampen. STDJ 23. Leiden: Brill, 1997. _____.“Keeping Outsiders Out: Impurity at Qumran.” Pages 187–203 in Defining Identities: We, You, and the Other in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Fifth Meeting of the IOQS in Groningen. Edited by Florentio Garc†a Mart†nez and Mladen Popovic´. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Harris, William V. Ancient Literacy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989. Harvey, John D. Listening to the Text: Oral Patterning in Paul’s Letters. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998. Harkins, Angela Kim. Reading with and ‘I’ to the Heavens: Looking at the Qumran Hodayot through the Lens of Visionary Traditions. Religious Experience from Antiquity to the Middle Ages 3. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012. Hayes, John H. ed. Old Testament Form Criticism. TUMSR 2. San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1974. Hazen, Kirk. “Lobov : Language and Variation and Change.” Pages 24–39 in The Sage Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Edited by Ruth Wodak, Barbara Johnson, and Paul Kerswill. London: Sage, 2011. Head, P.M. “Letter Carriers in the Ancient Jewish Epistolary Material.” Pages 203–19 in Jewish and Christian Scripture as Artifact and Canon. Edited by C.A. Evans and H.D. Zacharias. LSTS 70. London: T& T Clark, 2009.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

289

Bibliography

Hearon, Holly E. “The Implications of Orality for Studies of the Biblical Text.” Pages 3–20 in Performing the Gospel: Orality, Memory, and Mark. Edited by Richard A. Horsley, Jonathan A. Draper, and John Miles Foley. Philadelphia: Fortress, 2006. Hempel, Charlotte. “The Contexts of 4QMMTand Comfortable Theories.” Pages 275–92 in The Dead Sea Scroll: Text and Context. Edited by Charlotte Hempel. Leiden: Brill, 2010. _____. “The Laws of the Damascus Document and 4QMMT.” Pages 69–84 in Damascus Document: A Centennial of Discovery. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 4–8 February 1998. Edited by Joseph M. Baumgarten, Esther G. Chazon and Avital Pinnick. STDJ 34. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Hodkinson, Owen. “Better than Speech: Some Advantages of the Letter in the Second Sophistic.” Pages 283–300 in Ancient Letters: Classical and Late Epistolography. Edited by Ruth Morello and Andrew D. Morrison. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Høgenhaven, Jesper. “Rhetorical Devises in 4QMMT.” Pages 187–204 in DSD 10. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Holtz, Gudrun. “Inclusivism at Qumran.” Pages 22–43 in DSD 16. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Horsley, Richard. ‘“It is more Complicated’: Reflections on Some Suggested Essays.” Pages 241–60 in Postcolonialism and the Hebrew Bible: The Next Step. Edited by Roland Boer. Atlanta: SBL, 2013. _____.Oral Performance, Popular Tradition, and Hidden Transcript in Q. Edited by Richard Horsley. Semeia Series 60. Atlanta: SBL, 2006. _____.“The Origins of the Hebrew Scriptures in Imperial Relations.” Pages 107–34 in Orality, Literacy, and Colonialism in Antiquity. Edited by Jonathan A. Draper. Semeia Series 47. Atlanta: SBL, 2004. _____. Scribes, Visionaries and the Politics of Second Temple Judea. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007. Horsley, Richard A. with Jonathan A. Draper. Whoever Hears You Hears Me: Prophets, Performance, and Tradition in Q. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1999. Humphreys, W. Lee. “A Life-Style for Diaspora: A Study of the Tales of Esther and Daniel.” JBL 92 (1973): 211–23. Hutchinson, G.O. “Down among the Documents: Criticism and Papyrus Letters.” Pages 17–36 in Ancient Letters: Classical and Late Epistolography. Edited by Ruth Morello and Andrew D. Morrison. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Hymes, Dell. “Breakthrough into Performance.” Pages 13–74 in Folklore: Performance and Communication. Edited by Dan Ben-Amos and Kenneth Goldstein. The Hague: Mouton, 1975. _____. “The Contribution of Folklore to Sociolinguistic Research.” Pages 42–50 in Toward New Perspectives in Folklore. Edited by Karl Kroeber. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1981. _____. Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. University of Pennsylvania Publications in Conduct and Communication. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1981. _____. “In Vain I tried to tell you”: Essays in Native American Ethnopoetics. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1981. _____. “Introduction into the Ethnographies of Communication.” American Anthropologist 66 (1964): 1–34.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

290

Bibliography

_____. “The Ethnography of Speaking.” Pages 13–53 in Anthropology and Human Behaviour. Edited by T. Gladwin and W.C. Sturtevant. Washington: Anthropological Society of Washington, 1962. _____. Now I Know Only So Far: Essays in Ethnopoetics. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2003. _____. “Ways of Speaking.” Pages 433–52 in Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking. Edited by Richard Bauman and Joel Sherzer. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Innes, Doreen C. “Aristotle: The Written and the Performative Styles.” Pages 151–68 in Influences on Peripatetic Rhetoric: Essays in Honor of William W. Fortenbaugh. Edited by David C. Mirhady. Philosophia Antiqua: A Series of Studies on Ancient Philosophy 105. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Iser, Wolfgang. The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1978. _____. Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in Prose Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974. Jackson, Bernard S. Semiotics and the Bible. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Jackson, Shannon. Professing Performance: Theatre in the Academy from Philology to Performativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Jaffee, Martin S. Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism, 200 BCE – 400 CE. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Jajdelska, Elspeth. Silent Reading and the Birth of the Narrator. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007. Jansen, William H. “Classifying Performance in the Study of Verbal Folklore.” Pages 110–18 in Studies in Folklore in Honor of Distinguished Service Professor Stith Thompson. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1957. Jobes, Karen H. and Mois¦s Silva. Invitation to the Septuagint. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000. Johnson, Barbara and William M. Marcellio. “Dell Hymes and the Ethnography of Communication.” Pages 57–66 in The Sage Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Edited by Ruth Wodak, Barbara Johnstone and Paul Kerswill. London: Sage, 2011. Jokiranta, Jutta. “Social Identity Approach: Identity-Construction Elements in the Psalms Pesher.” Pages 85–109 in Defining Identities: We, You, and the Other in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Fifth Meeting of the IOQS in Groningen. Edited by Florentio Garc†a Mart†nez and Mladen Popovic´. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Jousse, Marcel. Anthropology of Gest and Rhythm: Studies in the Anthropological Laws of Human Expression and Their Application in the Galilean Oral Style Tradition. Edited and translated by E. Sienaert and J. Conolly. Durban: Centre for Oral Studies, University of Natal, 1997. Kampen, John and Moshe J. Bernstein, eds. Reading 4QMMT: New Perspectives on Qumran Law and History. SBLSymS 2. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. Kataoka, Kuniyoshi. “A Multi-Model Ethnopoetic Analysis (Part 1): Text, Gesture, and Environment in Japanese Spatial Narrative. Language and Communication 29 (2009): 287–311. Kawashima, Robert S. Biblical Narrative and the Death of the Rhapsode. Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2004.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

291

Bibliography

Kelber, Werner. “The Generative Force of Memory : Early Christian Traditions as Processes of Memory.” BTB 36 (2006): 15–22. _____. The Oral and the Written Gospel: The Hermeneutics of Speaking and Writing in the Synoptic Tradition, Mark, Paul, and Q. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. Kellogg, Robert.“Oral Literature.” New Literary History 5 (1973): 57–58. Kennedy, George. New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984. Kim, Chan-Hie. Form and Structure of the Familiar Letter of Recommendation. SBLDS 4. Missoula, MT: Society of Biblical Literature for the Seminar on Paul, 1972. Kim, Hyun Chul Paul. “Form Criticism in Dialogue with Other Criticisms: Building the Multidimensional Structures of Texts and Concepts.” Pages 85–106 in The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-First Century. Edited by Marvin A. Sweeney and Ehud Ben Zvi. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003. Klauck, Hans-Josef. Ancient Letters and the New Testament: A Guide to Context and Exegesis. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2006. Knight, Douglas A. Rediscovering the Traditions of Israel. Rev. ed. SBLDS 9. Missoula, MT: SBL. Distributed by Scholars Press, 1975. Kobler, F. Letters of Jews through the Ages: From Biblical Times to the Middle of the Eighteenth Century : Edited with Introduction, Biographical Notes and Historical Comments. 2 vols. London: Ararat, 1952. Koch, Klaus. The Growth of the Biblical Tradition: The Form Critical Method. Translated by S.M. Cupitt. New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1969. KPnig, Jason. “Alciphron’s Epistolarity.” Pages 257–82 in Ancient Letters: Classical and Late Epistolography. Edited by Ruth Morello and Andrew D. Morrison. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Koskenniemi, Heikki. Studien zur Idee und Phraseologie des griechischen Briefes bis 400 n. Chr. Helsinki: Suomalaien Tiedeakatemia, 1956. Kottsieper, Ingo. “Die Religionspolitik der Achämeniden und die Juden von Elephantine.” Pages 150–78 in Religion und Religionskontakte im Zeitalter der Achämeniden. Edited by R.G. Kratz. Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie 22. Gütersloh: Gütersloher, 2002. Kratz, Reinhard. “Mose und die Propheten: Zur Interpretation von 4QMMT. Pages 151–76 in From 4QMMT to Resurrection: M¦langes qumraniens en homage — Êmile Puech Edited by Florentino Garc†a Mart†nez, Annette Steudel, and Eibert Tigchelaar. STDJ 61. Leiden: Brill, 2006. _____. “The Place which he has Chosen: The Identification of the Cult Place of Deut. 12 and Lev. 17 in 4QMMT.” In Megillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls V–VI: A Festschrift for Devorah Dimant. Edited by Moshe Bar-Asher and Emanuel Tov. Jerusalem: Haifa University Press, 2007. _____.“The Second Temple of Jeb and Jerusalem.” Pages 247–64 in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period. Edited by Oded Lipschits and Manfred Oeming. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006. _____. “Temple and Torah: Reflections on the Legal Status of the Pentateuch between Elephantine and Qumran.” Pages 77–103 in The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding its Promulgation and Acceptance. Edited by Gary N. Knoppers and Bernard M. Levinson. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

292

Bibliography

Kraus, Fritz R. Briefe aus dem British Museum. Vol 7 of Altbabylonische Briefe im Umschrift ˝ bersetzung. Leiden: Brill, 1977. und U Krentz, Edgar. The Historical-Critical Method. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1975. Kristeva, Julia. Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art. Edited by Leon Roudiez. Translated by T. Gora, A. Jardine, and L. Roudiez. New York: Columbia University Press, 1980. Kugler, Robert A. “Rewriting Rubrics: Sacrifice and the Religion of Qumran.” Pages 90–112 in Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by John J. Collins and Robert A. Kugler. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Langslow, D.R. “The Epistula in Ancient Scientific and Technical Literature, with Special Reference to Medicine.” Pages 221–34 in Ancient Letters: Classical and Late Antique Epistolography. Edited by Ruth Morello and Andrew D. Morrison. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Lavagetto, Mario. Quei Pi¾ Modesti Romanzi: Il libretto nel melodramma di Verdi: tecniche costruttive, funzioni, poetica di ungenere letterario minore. Milan: Garzanti, 1979. Lemaire, Andr¦.“Lire, ¦crire, ¦tudier — Qoumr–n et ailleurs.” Pages 63–79 in Qoumr–n et le Judasme du tournant de votre Àre: Actes de la Table Ronde, CollÀge de France, 16 novembre 2004. Edited by A. Lemaire and S.C. Mimouni. Paris: Peeters, 2006. Lemche, John Niels Peter. The Israelites in History and Tradition. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998. Lenk, Uta “Discourse Markers.” in Handbook of Pragmatics Online. Edited by Jef Verschueren, Jan-Ola Östman, Jan Blommaert, and Chris Bulcaen. http://www. benjamins.com/online/hop/1998. doi:10.1075/hop.3.dis3. Leuchter, Mark. “The Sociolinguistic and Rhetorical Implications of the Source Citations in Kings.” Pages 119–34 in Soundings in Kings: Perspectives and Methods in Contemporary Scholarship. Edited by Mark Leuchter and Klaus-Peter Adam. Augsburg: Fortress, 2010. Levinson, Bernard M. Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. L¦vi-Strauss, Claude. “The Structural Study of Myth.” Pages 81–106 in Myth: A Symposium. Edited by T.A. Sebeok. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1972. Lindenberger, James M. “Letters.” Pages 481–82 in The Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence Schiffman and James VanderKam. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Lord, Albert Bates. The Singer of Tales. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960. Loubser, J.A. “Moving Beyond Colonialists Discourse: Understanding Oral Theory and Cultural Difference in the Context of Media Analysis.” Pages 65–82 in Orality, Literacy, and Colonialism in Antiquity. Edited by Jonathan A. Draper. Atlanta: SBL, 2004. Lübbe, J.C. “The Exclusion of the Ger from the Future Temple.” Pages 175–82 in Mogilany 1993: Papers on the Dead Sea Scroll Offered in Memory of Hans Burgmann. Edited by Zdzislaw J. Kapera. Krakow : Enigma, 1996. Lund, Jerome A. “Aramaic Language.” Pages 50–60 in Dictionary of the Old Testament Historical Books. Edited by Bill T. Arnold and Hugh G.M. Williamson. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 2005. MacAloon, John J. ed. Rite, Drama, Festival, Spectacle: Rehearsals Toward a Theory of Cultural Performance. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues, 1984.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

293

Bibliography

Mallau, Hans H. “The Redaction of Ezra 4–6: A Plea for a Theology of Scribes.” PRSt 15 (1988): 67–80. Marty, J. “Contribution — l’¦tude de fragments ¦pistolaires antiques conserv¦s principalement dans la Bible h¦braque: Les formules de salutation,” in M¦langes syriens offerts — Monsieur Ren¦ Dussand. BibliothÀque Arch¦ologique et Historique 30. Paris: Geuthner, 1939. Marxsen, Willi. Mark the Evangelist. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Reprecht, 1959. Marzillo, Patrizia. “Performing an Academic Talk: Proclus on Hesoid’s Works and Days.” Orality, Literacy and Performance in the Ancient World. Edited by Elizabeth Minchin. OLAW 9. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Matzal, Stephan. “The Structure of Ezra IV–VI.” VT 50 (2000): 566–69. Maxey, James A. From Orality to Orality : A New Paradigm for Contextual Translation of the Bible. Biblical Performance Criticism Series 2. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2009. McComiskey, Bruce. “MMT and Rhetoric.” Rhetoric Review 29 (2010): 221–38. McDonald, M.C.A.“Literacy in an Oral Environment.” Pages 49–118 in Writing and Ancient Near Eastern Society : Papers in Honor of Alan R. Millard. Edited by Piotr Bienkowski, Christopher Mee, and Elizabeth Slater. LHBOTS 426. London: T& T Clark, 2005. McLuhan, Marshall. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. 2nd ed. Toronto: McGraw Hill, 1964; New York: Penguin Books, 1990. McNutt, Paula M. Reconstructing the Society of Ancient Israel. LAI. Louisville: Westminster, 1999. Meier, Samuel A. The Messenger in the Ancient Semitic World. HSM 45. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. Mendels, Doron. The Land of Israel as a Political Concept in Hasmonean Literature. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987. Metso, Sarianna. “Constitutional Rules at Qumran.” Pages 186–210 in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment. Edited by Peter Flint and James VanderKam. Boston: Brill, 1998. _____. The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule. STDJ 21. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Millard, Alan R. “An Assessment of the Evidence for Writing in Ancient Israel.” Pages 301–12 in Biblical Archaeology Today: Proceedings of the International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, April 1984. Jerusalem: IES, 1985. _____. “The Question of Israelite Literacy.” BRev 3 (1987): 22–31. Miller, Robert D. II, Oral Tradition in Ancient Israel. Biblical Performance Criticism Series. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2011. Miller, Shem. “The Oral-Written Textuality of Stichographic Poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the SBL. San Diego, CA, 22 November 2014. Mills, Lawrence M. The Jewish Novel in the Ancient World. London: Cornell University Press, 1995. Minchin, Elizabeth. “Spatial Memory and the Composition of the Iliad.” Pages 9–34 in Orality, Literacy, and Memory in the Ancient Greek and Roman World. Edited by E. Anne MacKay. Orality and Literacy in Ancient Greece 7. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Mischonni, Henri.“Poetics and Politics: A Round Table.” With Alex Derczansky, Olivier

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

294

Bibliography

Mongin, and Paul Thibaud. New Literary History 19. Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1988. Moore, Robert E. “From Performance to print, and back: Ethnopoetics as social practice in Alice Florendo’s corrections to ‘Raccoon and his Grandmother.’” Text & Talk 29 (2009): 295–324. Moore, S.F. and B.G. Myerhoff, ed. Secular Ritual. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1977. Morello, Ruth and Andrew D. Morrison, eds. Ancient Letters: Classical and Late Antique Epistolography. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Morgan, J.R. “Make-Believe and Make Believe.” Pages 175–229 in Lies and Fiction in the Ancient World. Edited by C. Gill and T.P. Wiseman. Exeter : University of Exeter Press, 1993. Muir, John. Life and Letters in the Ancient Greek World. London: Routledge, 2009. Myer, Eduard. Enstehung des Judentums: Eine historische Untersuchung. Halle: Niemeyer, 1896. Myers, Carol. Discovering Eve: Ancient Israelite Woman in Context. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. Najman, Hindy. “The Symbolic Significance of Writing in Ancient Judaism.” Pages 139–73 in The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel. Edited by Hindy Najman and Judith H. Newman. JSJSup 83. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Naveh, Joseph and Jonas C. Greenfield. “Hebrew and Aramaic in the Persian Period.” Pages 115–29 in The Cambridge History of Judaism. Vol. 1: Introduction: The Persian Period. Edited by W.D. Davies and L. Finkelstein. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Nickelsburg, George W.E. Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah. 2nd ed. Minneapolis, Fortress, 2005. _____. Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism. HTS 26. Cambridge: Harvard University, 1972. Niditch, Susan. “Hebrew Bible and Oral Literature: Misconceptions and New Directions.” Pages 3–18 in The Interface of Orality and Writing: Speaking, Seeing, Writing in the Shaping of New Genres. WUNT 260. Edited by A. Weissenrieder and R. Coote. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. _____. Oral Tradition and Biblical Scholarship.” Oral Tradition 18 (2003): 43–44. _____. Oral World and Written Word: Ancient Israelite Literature. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996. _____. Underdogs and Tricksters: A Prelude to Biblical Folklore. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987. Niebuhr, K.-W. “Der Jakobusbrief im Licht frühjüdischer Diasporabriefe.” NTS 44 (1998): 420–43. Nissinen, Martti. “Spoken, Written, Quoted, and Invented: Orality and Writtenness in Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy.” Pages 235–71 in Writings and Speech in Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy. SBLSymS 10. Edited by Ehud Ben Zvi and Michael H. Floyd. Atlanta: SBL, 2000. Nitzan, Bilhah. Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry. Translated by Jonathan Chipman. STDJ 12. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Nöldeke, Th. Zeitschrift für Assyriology und Vordeasiatische Archäologie 20 (1906).

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

295

Bibliography

Nünlist, Ren¦. The Ancient Critic at Work: Terms and Concepts of Literary Criticism in Greek Scholia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Oden, A.Jr., The Bible Without Theology. New Voices in Biblical Studies 4. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987. Oeming, Manfred. Contemporary Biblical Hermeneutics: An Introduction. Translated by Joachim Vette. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2006. Oestreich, Bernard, Performanzkritik der Paulusbriefe. WUNT I 296. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Oesterreicher, Wulf. “Types of Orality in Text.” Pages 190–214 in Written Voices, Spoken Signs: Performance, Tradition, and the Epic Text. Edited by Egbert J. Bakker and Ahuvia Kahane. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Ong, Walter J. Orality and Literacy : The Technologizing of the Word. London: Methuen, 1982. O’Nolan, Kevin. “Formula in Oral Tradition.” Pages 24–35 in Approaches to Oral Tradition. Edited by Robin Thelwall. Occasional Papers in Linguistics and Language Learning 4. Belfast: New University of Ulster, 1978. Opland, Jeff. Xhosa Oral Poetry : Aspects of a South African Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Oppenheim, A.L. “A Note on the Scribes of Mesopotamia.” Pages 253–56 in Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on the Occasion of His Seventy-fifth Birthday. AS 16. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1965. Pardee, Dennis. “An Overview of Ancient Hebrew Epistolography.” JBL 97 (1978): 321–46. _____. Handbook of Ancient Hebrew Letters: A Study Edition. SBLSBS 15. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982. _____. “Hebrew Letters.” Pages 77–87 in Archival Documents from the Biblical World. Volume 3 of Context of Scriptures. Edited by W.W. Hallo and K.L. Younger, Jr. Leiden, Brill, 2002. _____. “Letters” in ABD 4:282–85. Pardee, Dennis and J.D. Whitehead. “La letter aram¦enne passe-partout et ses sous-espÀces.” RB 89 (1982): 528–75. Parry, Milman.“A Comparative Study of Diction as One of the Elements of Style in Early Greek Epic Poetry.” Pages 421–36 in The Making of Homeric Verse: The Collected Papers of Milman Parry. Edited by A. Parry. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971. Parker, S.B. “Official Attitudes toward Prophecy at Mari and Israel.” VT 43 (1993): 50–68. Parker, Victor. “The Letters in II Maccabees: Reflections on the Book’s Composition.” ZAW 119 (2007): 386–402. Parpola, S. Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal. Part 2. Commentary and Appendices. AOAT 5/2. Kevelaer : Butzon & Bercker. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1983. Parry, Milman. The Making of Homeric Verse: The Collected Papers of Milman Parry. Edited by Adam Parry. Oxford: Clarendon, 1971. Patte, Daniel and A. Patte. Structural Exegesis: From Theory to Practice. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978. Peters, Melvin K.H. “Septuagint.” ABD 5:1093–1104. Peters¦n, Olof. Archives and Libraries in the Ancient Near East 1500–300 B.C. Bethesda, MD: CLD Press, 1998.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

296

Bibliography

Phelan, Peggy. Unmarked: The Politics of Performance. London: Routledge, 1993. Pierce, Charles. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Pierce. Edited by Ch. Hartshorne and Paul Weiss. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1956. Polak, Frank H. “Book, Scribe, and Bard: Oral Discourse and Written Text in Recent Biblical Scholarship.” Prooftexts 31 (2011): 118–140. Porten, Bezalel. “The Address Formulae in Aramaic Letters: A New Collation of Cowley 17.” RB 90 (1983): 396–415. _____. “Elephantine and the Bible.” Pages 51–84 in Semitic Papyrology in Context: A Climate of Creativity. Papers from a New York Conference Marking the Retirement of Baruch A. Levine. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman. Leiden: Brill, 2003. _____. “The Religion of the Jews of Elephantine in Light of the Hermopolis Papyri.”JNES 28 (1996): 116–21. Poythress, V.S. “Structuralism and Biblical Studies.” JETS (1978): 221–37. Propp, Vladimir. Morphology of the Folktale. 2nd ed. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1968. Puech, Êmile. “L’Êpilogue de 4QMMT Revisit¦.” Pages 309–39 in A Teacher for all Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. VanderKam. Edited by Eric F. Mason, Samuel I. Thomas, Alison Schofield, and Eugene Ulrich. JSJSup 153. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Ratzinger, Joseph. “Biblical Interpretation in Conflict: On the Foundations and the Itinerary of Exegesis Today.” Pages 1–29 in Opening Up the Scriptures: Joseph Ratzinger and the Foundations of Biblical Interpretation. Edited by Jos¦ Granados, Carlos Granados, and Luis S‚nchez-Navarro. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003. Regev, Eyal. “Hanukkah and the Temple of the Maccabees: Ritual and Ideology from Judas Maccabeus to Simon.” JSQ 13 (2006): 1–28. _____. “Reconstructing Qumranic and Rabbinic Worldviews: Dynamic Holiness vs. Static Holiness.” Pages 87–112 in Rabbinic Perspectives: Rabbinic Literature and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 7–9 January, 2003. STDJ 62. Leiden: Brill, 2006. _____. Sectarianism in Qumran: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007. Rhoads, David. “Performance Criticism: An Emerging Methodology in Second Testament Studies—Part I and Part II.” BTB 36 (2009): 1–16, 164–84. Robbins, Vernon. Exploring the Texture of Texts: A Guide to Socio-rhetorical Interpretation. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996. Robinson, Jenefer. Deeper Than Reason: Emotions and its Role in Literature, Music, and Art. Oxford: Clarendon, 2005. Rollston, Christopher A. Literacy and Literacy in the World of Ancient Israel: Epigraphic Evidence from the Iron Age. ABS 11. Atlanta: SBL, 2010. Rosenmeyer, Patricia A. Ancient Epistolary Fictions: The Letter in Greek Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Rozik, Eli. Generating Theatre Meaning: A Theory and Methodology of Performance Analysis. Brighton: Sussex Academic Press, 2008. _____. Jewish Drama and Theatre: From Rabbinical Intolerance to Secular Liberalism. Brighton: Sussex Academic, 2013. Rubin, David C. Memory in Oral Traditions: The Cognitive Psychology of Epic, Ballads, and Counting-Out Rhymes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

297

Bibliography

Sasson, J.M. “Models for Recreating Israelite History.” JSOT 21(1981): 3–24. _____. “The Posting of Letters with Divine Messages.” In Florilegium marianum Il: Recueil d’¦tudes — la m¦moire de Maurice Birot. Edited by D. Charpin and J.-M. Durand. M¦mories de N.A.B.U. 3. Paris: Soci¦t¦ pour l’¦tude du Proche-Orient ancient, 1994. Sauter, Willmar. The Theatrical Event: Dynamics of Performance and Perception. Studies in Theatre History and Culture. Iowa City : University of Iowa Press, 2000. _____. “Who is Who and What is What? Introductory Notes.” Pages 5–16 in Advances in Reception and Audience Research. Vol. 2. Edited by Willmar Sauter. Utrecht, ECRAR, 1988. Schaper, Joachim.“Exilic and Post-Exilic Prophecy and the Orality/Literacy Problem.” VT 55 (2005): 324–42. Schechner, Richard. Between Theatre and Anthropology. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press, 1985. _____. “Drama, Script, Theatre and Performance.” Drama Review 17 (1973), 5–36. _____. Performance Theory. Rev. ed. New York: Routledge, 1988. Schiffman, Lawrence. “The New Halakhic Letter (4QMMT) and the Origins of the Dead Sea Sect.” BA 55 (1990): 64–73. _____. “The Place of MMT in the Corpus of Qumran Manuscripts.” Pages 81–98 in Reading 4QMMT: New Perspectives on Qumran Law and History. Edited by John Kampen and Moshe J. Bernstein. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. _____. Qumran and Jerusalem: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the History of Judaism. Grand Rapids, MI: Eisenbrauns, 2010. _____. Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls. Jerusalem: Jewish Publication Society, 1994. Schniedewind, William. How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. _____. “Review of Holy Writ as Oral Lit, Alan Dundes; and Underdogs and Tricksters: A Prelude to Biblical Folklore by Susan Niditch.” Western Folklore 59 (2000): 334–432. _____. “Sociolinguistic Reflections on the Letter of a ‘Literate’ Soldier (Lachish 3).” ZAH (2000): 157–67. Schnider, F. and W. Stenger. Studium zum neutestamentlichen Briefformular. NTTS 1. Leiden: Brill, 1987. Schofield, Alison. From Qumran to the Yahad: A New Paradigm of Textual Development for The Community Rule. Leiden: Brill, 2009. _____. “MMT, Josephus and the Pharisees.” Pages 67–80 in Reading 4QMMT: New Perspectives on Qumran Law and History. Edited by John Kampen and Moshe J. Bernstein. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. Schröter, Jens. Erinnerung an Jesu Worte: Studien zur Rezeption der Logienüberlieferung in Markus, Q und Thomas. WMANT 76. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1997. Schwiderski, Dirk. “Epistolographische Elemente in den neuverPffenlichten aramäischen Ostrakonbriefen aus Elephantine.” Pages 169–82 in In the Shadow of Bezalel: Aramaic, Biblical, and Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Bezalel Porten. Edited by Alejandro F. Botta. Leiden: Brill, 2013. _____. Handbuch des norwestsemitischen Briefformulars: Ein Beitrag zur Echtheitsfrage der aramäischen Briefe des Esrabuches. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000. Scodel, Ruth. “Works and Days as Performance.” Pages 111–26 in Orality, Literacy and

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

298

Bibliography

Performance in the Ancient World. Edited by Elizabeth Minchin. OLAW 9. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Scott, James C. Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990. _____.“Protest and Profanation: Agrarian Revolt and the Little Tradition.” Theory and Society (1977): 3–32, 159–210. _____. Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985. Scott, Katherine M. Why did they write this way? Reflections on References to the Written Documents in the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Literature. LHBOTS 492. New York: T& T Clark, 2008. Searle, John R. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969. Shavit, Yaakov. “The ‘Qumran Library’ in the Light of the Attitude Towards Books and Libraries in the Second Temple Period.” Pages 299–317 in Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site: Present Realities and Future Prospects. Edited by M.O. Wise, N. Golb, J.J. Collins, and D.G. Pardee. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 722. New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1994. Shiner, Whitney. Proclaiming the Gospel: First-Century Performance of Mark. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2003. Sienaert E. and J. Conolly. “Marcel Jousse on ‘Oral-Style,’ ‘Memory,’ and the ‘CountingNecklace.’” Pages 65–84 in Orality, Memory, and the Past: Listening to the Voices of Black Clergy under Colonialism and Apartheid. Edited by Phillipe Denis. Pietermartitzburg: Cluster, 2000. Singer, Milton, ed. Traditional India: Structure and Change. Philadelphia: American Folklore Society, 1959. Smith, Daniel L. The Religion of the Landless: The Social Context of the Babylonian Exile. Bloomington, IL: Meyer Stone, 1989. Smith, Jonathan Z. To Take Place. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987. Smith, Morton. “Jewish Religious Life in the Persian Period.” Pages 219–78 in Introduction: The Persian Period. Edited by W.D. Davies and Louis Finkelstein. Vol. 1. The Cambridge History of Judaism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. States, Bert O. Great Reckonings in Little Rooms: On the Phenomenology of Theatre. Berkley : University of California Press, 1985. _____. “Performance as Metaphor.” Theatre Journal 48 (1996): 2–26. doi: 10.1353/ tj.1996.0021. Stegemann, Hartmut. Die Essener, Qumran, Johannes der Täufer und Jesus. Freiburg: Herder, 1994. Steiner, Deborah Tam. The Tyrant’s Writ: Myths and Images of Writing in Ancient Greece. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994. Steiner, Richard. “Bishlam’s Archival Search Report in Nehemiah’s Archive: Multiple Introductions and Reverse Chronological Order as Clues to the Origin of the Aramaic Letters in Ezra 4–6.” JBL 125 (2006): 641–85. _____. “The mbr at Qumran, the episkopos in Athenian Empire, and the meaning of lbqr’ in Ezra 7:14: On the Relation of Ezra’s Mission to the Persian Legal Project.” JBL 120 (2001): 623–46.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

299

Bibliography

Steinmann, Andrew E. “Letters of Kings about Votive Offerings, the God of Israel and the Aramaic Document in Ezra 4:8–6:18.” JHS 8 (2009): 1–14. Steudel, Annette. “4Q448—The Beginning of MMT?” Pages 247–63 in From 4QMMT to Resurrection: M¦langes qumraniens en hommage — Êmile Puech. Edited by Florintino Garc†a Mart†nez, Annette Steudel and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar. STDJ 61. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Stirewalt, Luther. Studies in Ancient Greek Epistolography. SBLSup 27. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993. Stone, Diane M. Patterns of Destiny: Narrative Structures of Foundation and Doom in the Hebrew Bible. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002. Stone, Lawson G. “Redaction Criticism: Whence, Whither, and Why? Or, Going Beyond Source and Form Criticism without leaving them behind.” Pages 77–90 in A Biblical Itinerary : In Search of Method, Form and Content: Essays in Honor of George W. Coats. Edited by Eugene E. Carpenter. JSOTSup 240. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. _____. “Some Results of a Structural Semiotic Analysis of the Story of Judah and Tamar.” JSOT 29 (2005): 289–318. Stowers, Stanley K. Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986. Strugnell, John. “An Unpublished Halakhic Letter from Qumran.” Pages 400–407 in Biblical Archaeology Today: Proceedings of the International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, April, 1984. Jerusalem: IES, 1985. _____. “MMT: Second Thoughts.” Pages 57–73 in Community of the Renewed Covenant: the Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Eugene Ulrich and James VanderKam. Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity 10. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994. Stulman, Louis. The Prose Sermons of the Book of Jeremiah: A Redescription of the Correspondences with Deuteronomistic Literature in the Light of Recent Text-Critical Research. SBLDS 83. Atlanta, Scholars Press, 1986. Sweeney, Marvin A. and Ehud Ben Zvi, eds. The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-First Century. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003. Sykutris, Ioannis. “Epistolographie.” Pages 185–220 in Pauly’s Real Encyclopädie der classische Altertumswissenschaft. Supplement 5. Stuttgart: Metzlersche, 1924. Taatz, Irene. Frühjüdische Briefe: Die paulinischen Briefe im Rahmen der offiziellen religiösen Briefe des Frühjudentums. NTOA 16. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “Wisdom in the Book of Esther.” VT 13 (1963): 419–55. Tannen, Deborah. “Repetition in Conversation: Towards a Poetics of Talk.” Language 63 (1987): 574–605. Tedlock, Dennis. Finding the Center : The Art of the Zuni Storyteller. 2nd ed. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1999. _____. The Spoken Word and the Work of Interpretation. University of Pennsylvania Publications in Conduct and Communication. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983. Thiselton, Anthony C. “The Supposed Power of Words in Biblical Writings.” JTS 25 (1974): 283–99. Thomas, Rosalind. “‘And You, and Demos, Made an Uproar’: Performance, Mass Audi-

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

300

Bibliography

ences and Text in the Athenian Democracy.” Pages 161–87 in Sacred Words: Orality, Literacy and Religion. Edited by A.P.M.H. Lardinois, J.H. Blok and M.G.M. van der Poel. OLAW 8. Leiden: Brill, 2011. _____. Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Thorvaldsen, Bernt Ø. “The Eddic Form and Its Contexts: An Oral Art Form Performed in Writing.” Pages 151–62 in Oral Art Forms and Their Passage into Writing. Edited by Else Mundal and Jonas Wellendorf. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 2008. Thraede, K. Grundzüge griechisch-rPmischer Brieftopik. Zetemata 48. München: Beck, 1970. Torrey, Charles C. “The Aramaic Portions of Ezra.” AJSL 24 (1907/08): 209–81. Tov, Emanuel. “Jewish-Greek Scriptures.” Pages 223–37 in Early Judaism and Its Modern Interpreters. Edited by Robert A. Kraft and George W.E. Nickelsburg. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. _____. “The ‘Lucianic’ Text of the Canonical and Apocryphal Sections of Esther : A Rewritten Biblical Book.” Textus 10 (1982): 1–25. _____. “Scribal Practices Reflected in Texts from the Judean Desert.” Pages 405–29 in The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment. Edited by Peter Flint and J. VanderKam vol. 1. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Troeltsch, Ernst. The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches. Originally published in 1912. Translated by O. Wyon. New York: Harper, 1960. Tsuji, M. Glaube zwischen Vollkommenheit und Verweltlichung: Eine Untersuchung zur literarischen Gestalt und zur inhaltlichen Kohärenz des Jakobusbriefes. WUNT 2/93. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. Tuan, Yi-Fu. Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1977. Tucker, Gene M. Form Criticism of the Old Testament. GBS. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971. Turner, Victor. Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1974. _____. Schism and Continuity in an African Society : A Study of Ndembu Village Life. Manchester University Press, 1957. Repr., New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996. Ulrich, Eugene. “The Non-attestation of a Tripartite Canon in 4QMMT.” CBQ 65 (2003): 202–214. _____. “The Qumran Scrolls and the Biblical Text.” Pages 58–59 in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after their Discovery. Edited by Lawrence Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, James C. VanderKam. Jerusalem: IES, 2000. Upton, Bridget Gilfillan. Hearing Mark’s Endings: Listening to Ancient Popular Texts through Speech Act Theory. BibInt. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Uspenskii, Boris Andreevich. A Poetic of Composition: The Structure of the Artistic Text and Typology of a Compositional Form. Translated by V. Aravin and S. Wittig. Berkley : University of California Press, 1973. VanderKam, James C. Calendars in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Measuring Time. London: Routledge, 1998. _____. “Hanukkah: Its Timing and Significance According to 1 and 2 Maccabees.” JSP 1 (1987): 23–40. Van der Toorn, Karel. “Old Babylonian Prophecy between the Oral and the Written.” JNSL 24 (1998): 55–70.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

301

Bibliography

Van der Woude, A.S. “Book of Nahum: a letter written in exile.” Pages 108–26 in Instruction and Interpretation: Studies in Hebrew Language, Palestinian Archaeology and Biblical Exegesis. Edited by H.A. Brongers. Leiden: Brill, 1977. Van Gennep, Arnold. The Rites of Passage. Translated by M.B. Vizedon and G.L. Caffee. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1960. Van Wolde, Ellen. A Semiotic Analysis of Genesis 2–3: A Semiotic Theory and Method of Analysis Applied to the Story of the Garden of Eden. Studia Semitica Neerlandica. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1989. Vermes, Geza. Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies. 2nd ed. StPB 4. Leiden: Brill, 1973. Von Rad, Gerhard. “The Joseph Narrative and Ancient Wisdom.” Pages 292–300 in The Problem of the Pentateuch and Other Essays. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966. Von Ranke, Leopold. Geschichte der romanischen and germanishen VPlker von 1494 bis 1535. 3rd ed. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1885. Von Weissenberg, Hanne. 4QMMT: Reevaluation of the Text, the Function, and the Meaning of the Epilogue. Leiden: Brill, 2009. _____. “4QMMT—Some New Readings.” Pages 217–21 in Northern Lights on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Nordic Qumran Network 2003–2006. Edited by Anders Klostergaard Petersen, Torleif Elgvin, Cecilia Wassen, Hanne von Weissenberg, Mikael Winninge, and Martin Ehrensvärd. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Wacholder, Ben Zion. “Calendar Wars between the 364 and 365-Day Year.” RQ 20 (2001): 207–10. Wanke, G. Untersuchungen zur sogenannten Baruchschrift. BZAW 122. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1971. Watts, James W. Reading Law : The Rhetorical Shaping of the Pentateuch. Biblical Seminar 59. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Webb, Ruth. Ekphrasis, Imagination and Persuasion in Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Practice. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2009. Welles, Charles Bradford. Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period: A Study of Greek Epigraphy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1934. Werrett, Ian. “The Reconstruction of 4QMMT: A Methodological Critique.” Pages 205–16 in Northern Lights on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Nordic Qumran Network 2003–2006. Edited by Anders Klostergaard Petersen, Torleif Elgvin, Cecilia Wassen, Hanne von Weissenberg, Mikael Winninge, and Martin Ehrensvärd. Leiden: Brill, 2009. White, John Lee. The Form and Structure of the Official Petition: A Study in Greek Epistolography. SBLDS 5. Nashville: Society of Biblical Studies, 1972. _____. “The Greek Documentary Letter Tradition Third Century B.C.E. to Third Century C.E.” In Studies in Ancient Letter Writing. Edited by John L. White. Semeia Series 22. 1981. Whitelam, Keith. “The Search for Early Israel.” Beer-Sheva 12 (1998): 41–64. Whitters, Mark F. “Some New Observations about Jewish Festal Letters.” JSJ 32 (2001): 272–88. Williamson, Hugh G.M. “The Aramaic Documents in Ezra Revisited.” JTS 59 (2008): 41–62. Wills, Lawrence M. “Jewish Novellas in the Greek and Roman Age: Fiction and Identity.” JSJ 42 (2011): 141–65.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

302

Bibliography

Wilson, Robert R. Genealogy and History in the Biblical World. Yale Near Eastern Researches 7. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977. _____. “The Old Testament Genealogies in Recent Research.” JBL 94 (1975): 169–89. Winograd, E. and V. Church. “Role of Spatial Memory in Learning Face-Name Associations.” Memory and Cognition 16 (1988): 1–7. Wire, Antoinette Clark. Holy Lives, Holy Deaths: A Close Hearing of Early Jewish Storytellers. Studies in Biblical Literature 1. Atlanta: SBL, 2002. Woodruff, Austin P. The Necessity of Theater: The Art of Watching and Being Watched. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Worthington, Ian. “Oral Performance in the Athenian Assembly and the Demosthenic Prooemia.” Pages 129–43 in Oral Performance and Its Context. Edited by C.J. Mackie. Orality and Literacy in Ancient Greece 5. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Wright, Jacob L. “Seeking, Finding and Writing in Ezra-Nehemiah.” Pages 277–304 in Unity and Disunity in Ezra-Nehemiah: Redaction, Rhetoric, and Reader. Edited by Mark J. Boda and Paul L. Reddit. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2008. Wynn, Mark R. Faith and Place: An Essay in Embodied Religious Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Yaghjian, Lucretia B. “Ancient Reading.” Pages 206–30 in The Social Sciences and the New Testament Interpretation. Edited by Richard L. Rohrbaugh. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996. Zahn, Molly M. Rethinking Rewritten Scripture: Composition and Exegesis in the 4QReworked Pentateuch Manuscripts. STDJ 95. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Zeitlin, Froma. “Religion.” Pages 91–108 in Cambridge Companion to the Greek and Roman Novel. Edited by Tim Whitmarsh. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zumther, Paul. Oral Poetry : An Introduction. Translated by Kathryn Murphy-Judy. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 1990.

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Ancient Literature

Hebrew Bible Genesis 1:28 2:24 3:9 22:10–22 22:11 32:4 37–50 48:20 50:16–17 Exodus 2:24 12 12:15 12: 18 12:19 13:7 24:7 32:13 Leviticus 4:13–14 4:27–28 6:19–21 9:1–10 11:24–25 11:27–28 11:31–32 13:46 17:3–9 17:11–18 19:19

166 234 77 210 77 152 187 177 213 210 135 134 134 134, 135 134 77 210 236 236 230 231 232 232 232 236 233 230 237

19:23–24 21: 7–23 21:1–5 22:10–16 23:5 23:6 26:42 27:32 Numbers 6:24 9:1–14 15:3 19:2–10 19:16–18 28: 17 Deuteronomy 1:1–3 1:1 4:29–31 4:25–31 4:29–30 7:26 9:27 12 12:2 12:4–18 16:1–17 18:15 18:18 20:5–10 22:9 22:11 23: 2–4

236 234 237 232 135 134 210, 214 236 210 134 236 231 236 134 249 225 180, 211, 214 182 242 238 210 137 218 218 223 173 173 166 237 237 234

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

304

Ancient Literature

27–28 257 28: 30–32 166 28:45–68 182 29–30 251 29 260 30:1–10 182 30:1–2 242 31:29 Judges 7:3 77 9:6 213 9:13 213 10:1–16 211 2 Samuel 18:27 82 1 Kings 1:42 82 8:46–53 182 8:44–52 211 22: 12 166 22:15 166 2 Kings 5:7 77 5:10 166 5:13 166 8:30 214 8:34 214 8:36 214 8:39 219 8:40–50 219 19:14 77 22: 8 77 1 Chronicles 28:9 214 29:19 211 2 Chronicles 7:1–2 215 17:5 211 21:12–15 161, 166 30:1–9 139 30:17 134 Ezra 1:7–6:22 159 4–6 142 4 144 4:2–5 158

4:6–16 4:6 4:7 4:8 4:10–11 4:11 4:13 4:14 4:15 4:17 4:18 4:21 4:23 4:19 5

5:1 5:2–3 5:2 5:3 5:3–4 5:5 5:6–17 5:11–16 5:6 5:7 5:8 5:9–10 5:9 5:10 5:11 5:13 5:15 5:16 5:17 6 6:3 6:6 6:11 6:14 6:20 7 7:6–12 7:17 7:18

142, 147 143 143 143 227 143 227 227 143 143, 150 143 227 143 143 36, 43, 47, 141, 142, 144, 145–60, 164, 190, 212, 222, 239, 270 150, 154 152 153 152 151 143 141, 142 152 142, 143, 148, 149, 151 143,145,149,150 147,151,153 147, 151 147, 152, 153 147, 152, 153 143, 147 147 160 160 160 144 150 152 143 159 134, 135 147 158, 159 147 147

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

305

Ancient Literature

7:21 7:24 7:11–20 7:11 7:25 9:1–2 9:6–15 Nehemiah 1:5–11 1:2 7:2 9–10 13:1 13:23 Esther 3:12–15 Psalms 9:1–2 106:6–46 107:3 122:6–9 122:6–8 Isaiah 42:5–6 65:21–23 Jeremiah 2:3 3:8 7:16 11:14 14:11 25:3 27:12–17 28 29

29:1–3 29:1 29:2–3 29:3 29:4–23 29:4–7 29:7 29:8–10

147 147 142 150 131 234 182 182 127 127 249 234 234 188 85 182 184 180 111 184 166 236 162 172 172 172 162 166 162 36, 48, 60, 71, 81, 83, 94, 98, 141, 160–185, 190, 214, 223, 225, 226, 228, 229, 239, 260, 264, 270, 271 165 265 65 82 164, 166 167 265 162

29:8–9 29:10 29:10–14 29:14 29:12–13 29:10–13 29:13 29:14–15 29:14 29:17–19 29:16–20 29:16 29:18 29:21–23 29:23 30:2 30:19 32:12 32:39 33:8–9 36 36:2–32 45:1 51:60–64 51:63 Daniel 1–6 4 Zechariah 2:10 8:7–8

168 180, 265 180 260 170 172 265 173 180 182 175–76 252 84 177–78 265 181 166 178 214 214 77–78, 80 181 181 181 77 43 187 98, 249 184 184

Deuterocanonical Books 1 Esdras 2:17 3–4 4:47–63 6:8 Esther Addition B Addition E E1 E2–4 E5–6

145 187 145 145 36, 130, 188–206 188, 190 189, 190, 191, 221, 271 193 195 195

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

306 E7–9 E10–11 E12–14 E15–16 E17–21 E22–23 E24 10:11 Tobit 3:1–6 1Maccabees 12:6 2 Maccabees 1 1:1–10a 1:1–9 1:1–5 1:1 1:2 1:2–6 1:7–8 1:9 1:9–10a 1:10 1:10b–2:18 1:11 1:18 2:1–3 2:12 2:16 2: 17–18 2:18 2:19 4:10 5:6 5:20 7:33 8:29 9 9:19–29 10:1–8 11 11:16–38 15:26 Baruch 4:4

Ancient Literature

196 197 197–98 198 200 200 201 98 182 218 130, 239 47, 94, 208, 223 206 225 251 213 214 206, 214 209, 216 139 217 218 206 209 209 206 252 209 244 209 206, 207, 208 210 212 206 206 206 208 207 206 208 208 209 184

5:5 184 Psalms of Solomon 11:2–3 184 Bel and the Dragon 187 Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 1 Enoch 57:1 Jubilees 19:16–29 22:10–30 23:1–3

184 224 210 210 210

Dead Sea Scrolls 1QGen ap 1QH 1QpHab 1QS 4QApocJerC 4QEnGiants 4QFlor 4QMMT

143 210, 211 143 53, 100, 211, 224, 251 48 143 229 34, 35, 36, 37, 41, 53, 71, 94, 98, 100, 102,163, 221–66 4Q394–399 222 4Q394 53, 223, 225, 259 4Q395 53 4Q396 53 4Q397 53, 241, 259 4Q398 53, 241 4Q399 53, 241 4QS 224, 255 4Q159 227 4Q177 101 4Q180 101 4Q181 102 4Q319 224 4QD 227, 257, 252 4QM 252 11QJob 143 11Q19 (Temple Scroll) 232, 233 CD 53, 210, 211, 224, 227, 251, 257, 252 papMur 246

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

307

Ancient Literature

Ancient Jewish Writers Josephus Ant.

138, 198

Other Ancient Documents TAD A2.1 A2.1–4 A2.1–7 A2.1–6 A2.1–4 A2.2 A2.3 A2.4 A2.5–6 A2.5:6 A2.7 A3.1–10 A3.1 A3.4–11 A3.3 A3.4 A3.5–7 A3.5 A3.8–9 A3.8 A3.9–11 A4.1 A4.1–10 A4.1–4 A4.3 A4.4 A4.7–8 A4.7 A5.1 A5.2 A5.3 A5.5 A6.1 A6.2 A6.3–7 A6.3 A6.5

107, 112, 132 107 107, 109 120 109 112, 114, 124 114, 117, 124 114 109 111 109, 111 106 107 107 107, 109, 110,111 107, 120 107 120 109, 112 107, 112 107 107, 128, 130 106 107 107, 128 120, 131 107, 109 112 109 106 107 106, 107 109, 130 106, 108, 109 107 128, 132 128

A6.8–13 A6.9 A6.10 A6.11 A6.12 A6.13 A6.14–15 A6.14 A6.15 B2.8 B3.11 C1.1

108 128 128 128 128 128 108 128 128 111 132 128

New Testament 1Corinthians 7:1 7:25 8:1 Galatians 6:16 Philippians 4:2 2Timothy 1:16 1 Peter 5:8

227 227 227 246 115 214 176

Rabbinic Works Ber. Meg. Pesah ˙

79 79 134

Greco-Roman Literature Apollonius Conics 207 Archimedes On the Sphere 207 Arrian Epict. diss. 79 Cicero Brut. 87 De or. 87

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

308

Ancient Literature

De officiis 52 Letters 50 Demosthenes Letter 3:35 80, 87 Epicurus Letter to Herodotus 264 Herodotus Hist. 83 Homer Il. 79 Longinus [Subl.] 89

Plato Epistle VI 51, 79 Parm. 79 Pseudo-Demetrius Eloc. 50 On Style 51 Theocritus Idyll 52 Xenophon Cyr. 83 Mem. 79

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Modern Authors

Abegg, Jr., Martin G., 234 Alexander, Philip S., 18, 42, 43, 45, 46, 53, 100, 102, 109, 149, 150, 161 Allen, Leslie C., 180 Alter, Jean, 63, 64 Arnold, B.T., 170, 176 Assmann, Jan, 93, 224, 225 Austin, John, 23 Bakhtin, Mikhail, 23, 201 Bakir, Abd El-Mohsen, 112 Bakker, Egbert J., 65 Bal, Mieke, 92 Baltzer, Klaus, 251 Barthes, Roland, 62 Bartlett, John R., 188, 213, 219 Batten, Loring W., 154 Bauman, Richard, 26, 28, 32, 33, 83, 104, 147, 157 Baumgarten, Joseph M., 227, 248 Baumgartner, Walter, 192 Beckerman, Bernard, 150, 188, 190, 191, 192 Becking, Bob, 59 Beer, G., 41 Bell¦li, L., 41 Ben-Amos, Dan, 31, 60 Ben Zvi, Ehud, 58, 76, 96, 263 Berge, K”re, 250 Berlin, Adele, 43, 188, 199, 204 Bernstein, Moshe J., 54, 230, 234, 241 Blenkinsopp, Joseph, 148, 149 Blommaert, Jan, 71, 114, 151, 169, 185

Blum, Erhard, 59 Bogatyrev, Peter, 66 Boomershine, Tom, 19 Bonifazi, Anna, 31, 117, 134, 226, 244, 268 Botha, J. E., 23 Botha, Pieter J.J., 92, 93 Boyarin, Daniel, 76, 77 Bresciani, E., 42 Brettler, Marc Zvi, 199 Breyer, Thiemo, 156 Bridge, Edward J., 82 Briggs, Charles L., 104 Briggs, R., 23, Bright, John, 78, 162, 167, 168, 169, 174 Brin, Gershon, 55 Brinker, K., 52 Brooke, George, 55, 56, 101, 102, 211, 228, 230, 234, 238, 249 Burke, Kenneth, 155 Burkill, T. Alec 38 Burns, Joshua Ezra, 188 Burnyeat, M.F., 70 Buss, Martin J., 58, 59 Calloud, J., 62 Cambron-Goulet, Mathilde, 76, 79, 182, 261, 264, 265, 266 Campbell, Antony F., 70 Carlson, Marvin, 21, 22,23, 26, 27 Carr, David, 66, 77, 79, 96, 98, 99, 100, 101 Carr, Gerald L., 157, 203 Carroll, NoÚl, 86 Carroll, Robert P., 162, 169, 174

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

310

Modern Authors

Chafe, W.L., 227 Chiron, P. 91 Choi, J.H., 170 Chomsky, Noam, 23 Church, V., 94 Classen, Carl Joachim, 80 Clines, David J.A., 127, 148, 190, 202 Collins II, James Henderson, 89, 119, 122, 169, 238 Collins, John J., 53, 192 Condamin, Albert, 169 Cooper, Craig, 88 Cooper, John M., 79 Conolly, J., 167 Cowley, A., 41, 128, 142 Craig, Kenneth, 192, 205 Crane, Mary Thomas, 26, 27 Culley, Robert C., 74 Davies, Philip R., 79, 80, 97, 184 Degen, Rainer, 117 Deissmann, Gustav A., 18, 38, 39 De Marinis, Marco, 62, 63 De Troyer, Kristin, 187 De Vries, L. 101 Derrida, Jacques, 49 Dibelius, Martin, 58 Diewald, J., 52 Dimant, Devorah, 48 Dion, Paul E., 18, 44, 110, 111, 112, 143 Doan, William J., 25, 27, 90, 150, 158, 189 Doane, A., 158 Doering, Lutz, 40, 41, 47, 48, 49, 52, 56, 83, 129, 162, 164, 227, 242, 244, 246 Doran, Robert, 206, 208, 209, 211, 212, 215, 216, 217, 218 Dorothy, Charles V., 202 Dorson, Richard M., 30 Doty, William G. 39 Draper, Jonathan, 116, 130, 228, 239 Driver, Godfrey R., 41 Dundes, Alan, 31, Eco, Umberto, 21 Edenburg, Cynthia, 93

Elbogen, Ismar, 210 Elmer, David F.,134, 226, 268 Eph’al, Israel, 148 Eshel, Hanan, 54, 55 Eisenman, Robert, 54 Erill, Astrid, 93 Ermert, K., 52 Eskenazi, Tamara, 159 Esslin, Martin, 213 Exler, Francis, X. J., 18, 39, 40 Farf‚n, Jos¦ Antonio Flores, 114 Fensham, F. Charles, 147, 148, 154 Fern‚ndez, Miguel P¦rez, 241, 256 Fine, Elizabeth C., 30 Finnegan, Ruth H., 67, 68, 69 Fischer-Lichte, Erika, 33, 62, 86 Fitzmyer, Joseph, 18, 42, 45, 109, 143 Fleishman, Joseph, 152 Floyd, Michael H., 69 Fokkelman, J.P., 62 Foley, John Miles, 28, 32, 69, 74, 75, 93, 146,147, 182, 194, 225 Fox, Michael V., 191 Fraade, Steven D., 55, 242, 248, 251, 255, 257 Fried, Lisbeth S., 131 Friedman, Albert B., 69 Gamble, Harry Y., 91 Gavrilov, A,K., 70 Geertz. Clifford, 20 Gibson, Roy, 43, 49, 50, 52 Giles, Terry, 25, 27, 90, 150, 158, 189 Gillard, Frank D., 70 Ginsberg, H. Louis, 192 Goffman, Erving, 22, 32 Goldstein, Jonathan A., 87, 207, 209, 210, 214, 219 Goldstein, Kenneth S., 60 Goody, Jack, 67 Grabbe, Lester, 54, 129, 138, 147, 156, 263 Graham, William A., 75 Green, William Scott, 78 Greenfield, Jonas C., 188

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

311

Modern Authors

Greimas, Algirdas Julien, 62 Grossman, Maxine L., 55, 264 Gunkel, Hermann, 38, 59, 66 Halliday, Michael A.K., 129, Hammershaimb, Erling, 123 Hansen, W., 189 Harkins, Angela Kim, 169 Harrington, D.J., 207 Harrington, Hannah K., 229, 256 Harris, W.V., 122 Harvey, John D., 160 Hayes, John H. 58 Hazen, Kirk, 119 Head, P.M., 46, 82, 126 Hearon, Holly E., 146 Heidegger, Martin, 114 Hempel, Charlotte, 227, 229, 239, 241, 257 Hodkinson, Owen, 265, 266 Hoffner, Jr., Harry A., 82, 151 Høgenhaven, Jesper, 251, 263, 265 Holladay, William L., 162, 167, 172 Holtz, Gudrun, 259 Holzscheiter, Anna, 114 Hornblower, Simon, 41 Horrell, David, 176 Horsley, Richard A., 78, 100, 101, 130, 159, 247, 253, 257, 262 Hossfeld, 77 Hudson, R.A., 113, 129, 146 Humphreys, W. Lee, 192 Hutchinson, G.O., 264 Hymes, Dell, 28, 29, 30, 31, 70, 105, 116, 119, 129, 130, 134, 147, 155, 168, 203, 226, 244, 248 Innes, Doreen C., 80, 88 Iser, Wolfgang, 84 Jackson, Bernard S., 62 Jackson, Shannon, 20, 25 Jaffee, Martin, 23, 79, 101, 102 Jajdelska, Elspeth, 95 Jansen, William H., 30 Jobes, Karen H., 145, 187

Johnson, Barbara, 130 Jousse, Marcel, 166, 228 Kamil, M., 42 Kampen, John, 54 Kataoka, Kuniyoshi, 70, 118, 193, 202 Kawashima, Robert S., 97 Kelber, Werner, 70, 97, 146 Kellogg, Robert, 83 Kennedy, George, 33 Keown, Gerald L., 162 Klauck, Hans-Josef, 40, 47, 80, 82, 83, 99, 129, 146, 244 Kim, Chan-Hie, 40, 199 Knight, Douglas A., 58 Kobler, F., 41 Koch, Klaus, 58 König, Jason, 157 Koskenniemi, Hikki, 40 Kottsieper, Ingo, 131, 138 Kraeling, E.G., 143 Kratz, Reinhard G., 134, 135, 138, 160, 244, 252 Krentz, Edgar, 58 Kristeva, Julia, 23, 158 Kugler, Robert A., 230, 238 Kutscher, E.Y., 148 Labov, William, 119 Lacost, V¦ronique, 156 Langslow, D.R., 136, 207, 264, 265 Lavagetto, Mario, 63 Leimgruber, Jakob, 156 Lenk, Uta, 31 Lemaire, A., 100 Lemche, John N.P., 38 Lenk, Uta, 116 L¦vi-Strauss, Claude, 62 Levinson, Bernard M., 223 Leuchter, Mark, 184 Lindenberger, James M., 46, 55, 105, 107, 109, 111, 127, 138, 142 Lord, Albert, 66 Loubser, J.A., 67 Lozachmeur, H¦lÀne, 47, 106

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

312

Modern Authors

Lübbe, J.C., 229 Lund, Jerome A., 47, 142, 147, 148 Lundbom, Jack R., 162 MacAloon, John, J., 33 Marcellio, William M., 130 Marzillo, Patrizia, 258 Maschler, Yael, 112, 117, 151, 171 Maxey, James A., 28, 29, 76, 93, 94, 270, 272 McComisky, Bruce, 259, 260, 262 McDonald, M.C.A., 96 McLuhan, Marshall, 19 Meek, Barbra, 157, 203 Meier, Samuel A., 82 Metso, Sarianna, 223 Miller, Robert D., 67, 68, 70 Miller, Shem, 102 Minchin, Elizabeth, 93, 175, 179, 226 Mischonni, Henri, 76 Moore, Carey A., 189, 195 Moore, Robert E., 156, 203 Morello, Ruth, 40, 43, 50, 51 Morris, Charles, 21 Morrison, Andrew D., 40, 43, 49, 50, 51, 52 Muraoka, Takamitsu, 111, 112, 113, 115, 117 Muir, John, 40, 122 Myers, Eduard, 148, 150 Najman, Hindy, 92 , 150, 151 Naveh, Joseph, 148, 188 Nevin, M. Eleanor, 191 Nickelsburg, George W.E., 146, 189, 192 Niditch, Susan, 31, 68, 69, 96, 101, 147, 192 Niebuhr, K.-W., 47, 48 Nissinen, Martti, 161 Nitzan, Bilhah, 211 Nöldeke, Th., 41 Nünlist, Ren¦, 89, 92 O’Brien, Mark A., 70 Oden, Jr., A. 38 Oeming, Manfred, 60 Oestreich, Bernard, 26, 33, 47, 71, 80, 85, 86, 87, 90, 93, 115, 149, 183, 184, 239

Oesterreicher, Wulf, 65, 134, 158, 159 Ong, Walter J., 67 O’Nolan, Kevin, 69 Opland, Jeff, 60 Oppenheim, A.L., 82 Pardee, Dennis, 18, 44, 45, 52, 82, 164, 167 Parker, S.B., 161 Parker, Victor, 207 Parry, Milman, 66, 79 Peuch, Êmile, 222, 240, 241, 242 Phelan, Peggy, 22 Pierce, Charles, 63 Polak, Frank H., 97 Porten, B., 44, 106, 107, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 117, 119, 122, 125, 127, 128, 138, 142 Porter, Stanley E., 211 Propp, Vladimir, 62 Qimron, Elisha, 35, 222, 227, 229, 230, 232, 238, 240, 249 Ratzinger, Joseph Cardinal, 59 Regev, Eyal, 206, 209, 252 Renz, J., 45 Rhoads, David, 19, 25, 34, 69, 70, 90, 92 Robinson, Jenefer, 86 Röllig, W., 45 Rollston, Christopher A. 102, 122 Rosenmeyer, Patricia A., 40 Rosenthal, Franz, 143 Rozik, Eli, 24, 62, 157, 192, 204 Rubin, David C., 94 Rudolph, Wilhelm, 169 Sachau, Eduard, 41, 126 Samely, Alex, 61, 143, 144, 162, 225 Sasson, J. 38 Sauter, Willmar, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91 Sayce, Archibald H., 41 Scalise, Pamela J., 162 Schaper, Joachim, 69, 122, 150 Schechner, Richard, 20, 22, 25 Schiffman, Lawrence, 253

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

313

Modern Authors

Schnider, Franz, 47 Schniedewind, William M., 31, 82–83 Schröter, Jens, 265 Schwartz, Daniel R. 188, 206, 218, 219 Schwartz, Regina M., 38 Schwiderski, Dirk, 18, 42, 47, 52, 95, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 112, 114, 117, 142, 147 Scodel, Ruth, 215, 255 Scott, James C., 44, 137 Scott, Katherine M., 189 Searle, John R., 22 Shiner, Whitney, 70, 86, 89, 255 Sienaert, E., 167 Silva, Mois¦s, 145 Singer, Milton, 21, 247 Smith, Morton, 135 Smothers, Thomas G., 162 Spawforth, Antony, 41 Spencer-Miller, Althea, 84, 88 States, Bert O., 22 Stegemann, Hartmut, 54 Steiner, Deborah Tarn, 150 Steiner, Richard 47, 142, 144, 148 Steinmann, Andrew E. 47, 142 Stenger, Werner, 47 Stott, Katherine M., 208 Stulman, Louis, 161 Swanson, James, 147 Sweeney, Marvin A., 58 Steudel, Annette, 55 Stirewalt, Luther, 40 Stowers, Stanley 39, 53, 264 Strugnell, John, 35, 54, 222, 227, 229, 230, 232, 238, 240, 249 Sussmann, Jaakov, 54 Sykutris, Ioannis, 18, 40 Taatz, Irene, 47, 48 Talmon, Shemaryahu, 192 Tannen, Deborah, 173 Tedlock, Dennis, 28 Thiselton, Anthony C., 23 Thorvaldsen, Bernt Ø., 69 Thomas, Rosalind, 68, 79, 83, 89, 150 Thompson, J.A., 78, 162

Thraede, K. 40 Tigchelaar, Eibert, 229 Tov, Emanuel, 23, 145, 187 Trapp, Michael, 40, 49, 50, 123, 124, 163, 264 Tsuji, M. 47 Turner, Victor, 21 Ulrich, Eugene, 101, 249 Upton, Bridget Gilfillan, 92 Van Gennep, Arnold, 21 VanderKam, James C., 206, 222, 223 Van der Toorn, Karel, 66, 97 Van der Woude, A.S., 161 Van Wolde, Ellen, 62 Vermes, Geza, 228, 241 Von Rad, Gerhard, 192 Von Weissenberg, Hanne, 55, 222, 223, 224, 227, 228, 230, 238, 241, 242, 244, 248, 249, 250, 251, 258, 260, 264 Wallace, Daniel B., 210, 214 Wanke, G., 169 Watts, James W., 138, 228, 231, 273 Webb, Ruth, 176 Welles, Charles Bradford, 190 Wente, Edward Frank, 112 Werrett, Ian, 233 Wesselius, Jan-Wim, 117 White, John Lee, 40, 52, 199, 208, 218 Whitehead, J.D., 44 Whitelam, Keith 38 Whitters, Mark F., 18, 48, 49, 130 Williams, Ronald J., 171 Williams, Travis, 176 Williamson, Hugh G.M., 47, 142 Wills, Lawrence M., 187, 188, 191, 193, 202 Wilson, Robert R., 74 Winograd, E., 94 Wire, Antoinette Clark, 29, 31, 123, 137 Wise, Michael O., 54 Woodruff, Austin P., 92 Worthington, Ian, 87, 89

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

314

Modern Authors

Yadin, Y., 44 Yaghjian, Lucretia B., 75, 76 Yardeni, A., 44, 106, 142

Zeitlin, Froma, 201 Zumther, Paul, 203, 204

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

Subject

Aristotle, 50, 80, 88, 91, 93 Artaxerxes, 41, 132, 146, 159, 192, 193, 205

form criticism, 29, 34, 38, 45, 57, 58–60, 105, 106, 109, 113, 117, 121, 127, 141, 142, 168, 239

Baruch, 78 Cicero, 40, 50–51, 87 Cyrus, 147, 148, 159 cultural studies, 20–21 Darius, 41, 107, 127, 128, 144, 145, 147, 149, 150, 159, 165, 217 Demosthenes, 80, 87, 88 diaspora, 47, 48, 204 dictation, 78 discourse marker, 31–32, 111, 116, 117, 118, 134, 171, 173, 230, 233, 235, 237 Elephantine, 35, 41, 44, 46, 48, 49, 105, 106, 107, 125, 126, 127, 135, 138, 145, 159, 201 embodiment, 26, 27, 29, 31, 71, 83, 84–86, 87, 90, 95, 102, 103, 120, 137, 168, 176, 182, 215, 218 Epicurus, 37 ethnopoetics, 27–29, 114, 119, 122, 126, 131,135, 139, 151, 154, 178, 185, 270 festal letter, 18, 48–49, 52, 130, 137, 138, 139, 201, 205, 216, 217, 220, 225, 247, 249 First Nations, 28, 29, 70, 185, 224 folklore, 29–34, 66 folk tales, 65, 66, 192

Hermopolis, 42, 44, 53, 81, 85, 98, 106, 109–26, 133, 159, 190, 209, 224, 247, 258, 264, 269 Herodotus, 81, 83 Homer, 66, 79 iconic codes, 63, 64 iconic mode 190, 192, 262, 271 Jehoiakim, 78 Jerusalem, 47, 54, 94, 137, 169, 176, 178, 179, 184, 188, 260 letter Aramaic, 18, 37, 41–44, 46, 109, 106–09, 112, 116, 117, 128, 132, 135, 142–45, 145–60, 185 Bar-Kokhba, 18, 42, 44, 46, 48 definition, 43, 46, 49–53, 98, 162, 164, 264, 273 embedded, 17, 36, 46, 48, 51, 65, 71, 83, 109, 141 genre, 20, 34, 35, 36, 38, 41, 48, 53–56, 59, 90, 98, 141, 143, 254, 263, 264 Greek, 18, 27, 37, 38–40, 46, 87, 112, 123, 145,186, 188–206 Hebrew, 18, 37, 45–49, 116, 117, 160–84 Lachish, 46, 82, 83, 106, 107, 209 literacy, 75–76, 100, 122

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

316

Subject

measured verse, 29, 70–71, 105, 115, 116, 118, 134, 139, 141, 212, 216, 222, 226, 229, 232, 235, 238, 246, 264, 268, 272 memory, 70, 78, 84, 90, 93–95, 96, 99, 135, 179, 224 metonym, 32, 64, 93, 130, 137, 202, 216, 225, 253, 254, 262

Pseudo-Aristotle, 91 Pseudo-Demetrius, 50–51, 80, 124, 133 Pseudo-Plato, 79

oral poetry, 28 oral register, see register orality, 24, 28, 34, 35, 38, 57, 60, 65–71, 75, 76, 79, 88, 96, 97, 99, 103, 121, 131, 141, 146 Oxyrhyncus papyri, 82

reading, 19, 22, 26, 27, 31, 33, 36, 44, 50, 61, 63, 64, 67, 70, 74, 75–81, 85, 88, 90, 91, 95, 96, 102, 106, 108, 113, 114, 126, 137, 168 redaction criticism, 34, 57, 60–61, 109, 145, 180, 191, 209 register, 32, 51, 129, 130, 141, 156, 139, 201, 205, 247–250 rhythm, 141, 166, 171, 210, 212, 216, 222, 228, 229

performance anthropology, 20–21, 24, 25–30, 74, 130, 159 approaches to, 19–24 audience, 17, 22, 33, 35, 36, 47, 48, 57, 59, 60, 62, 63, 73, 74, 83–90, 92, 94, 102, 103, 105, 113, 121, 131, 144, 214, 215 cognitive approach, 26–27, 84 context, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 71, 88, 108, 103, 105, 108, 122–26, 137–39; 157–60, 181–84, 204–06, 218–19, 254–63, 274 definition, 17, 25–27 “keys” to, 32, 100, 115, 116 linguistics, 23–24 sensitive, 31, 98 sociology, 20–21, 24, 26 text, 17–18, 19–21, 24, 26–27, 29–33, 34–36, 43, 53–54, 57–71, 73, 110–112, 113, 127–29, 145–48, 155, 161–64, 181–82, 189–92, 206–13, 222–47, 274 texture, 31–33, 34, 57, 93, 103, 113–22, 125, 129–37, 140, 141, 148–57, 165–81, 181–82, 192–204, 213–18, 247–54, 274 performance criticism, 18, 19–27, 34–36, 44, 57, 71, 85, 90, 94, 103, 117, 126, 139, 141, 169, 263, 271, 221, 267, 273, 274 Plato, 51, 56, 79, 89 Pliny, 37 Plutarch, 87, 89

Quintilian, 89 Qumran, 23, 24, 35, 37, 48, 53–56, 96, 100–102, 103, 210, 225, 239, 260, 281

Second Temple, 24, 34, 37, 51, 57, 58, 73, 95–102, 103, 105 semiotics, 20, 21, 27, 34, 35, 57, 59, 61–65, 105, 115, 121, 213 sensory communication, 86–87, 88, 91 Septuagint, 145, 146, 168, 172, 174, 187, 189, 206 Sitz im Leben (social context), 19, 26, 30, 38, 59, 71, 81, 115, 123 social drama, 20–21 sociologists, 17, 90 sociolinguistics, 23, 28, 29, 30 Socrates, 92 speech act, 23, 32, 85, 111, 114, 115, 116, 125, 180, 211, 215, 219, 246, 255, 270 Teacher of Righteousness, 54 Temple, Bethel, 110, 111, 114, 115 Jerusalem, 111, 141, 144, 145, 151,158, 252, 253 Queen of Heaven, 110, 111, 114, 115 text linguistic approach, 61, 143, 144 162, 225 theatre studies, 17, 25

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930

317

Subject

transition marker, 121, 128, 129, 132, 133, 134, 139, 148, 154, 228, 217, 212 treatise, 50, 53, 54, 55, 83, 108, 133

Xenophon, 79, 81 Xerxes, 41

© 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550939 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550930