Testing and Temptation in Second Temple Jewish and Early Christian Texts (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 2.reihe) 9783161559525, 9783161559532, 3161559525

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament ∙ 2. Reihe Herausgeber/Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich) Mitherausgeber/Associate Editors Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) ∙ James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala) Tobias Nicklas (Regensburg) ∙ Janet Spittler (Charlottesville, VA) J. Ross Wagner (Durham, NC)

519

Testing and Temptation in Second Temple Jewish and Early Christian Texts Edited by

Daniel L. Smith and Loren T. Stuckenbruck

Mohr Siebeck

Daniel L. Smith, born 1982; BA Gordon College; MA and PhD University of Notre Dame; since 2012 Associate Professor of New Testament at Saint Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri, U.S.A. orcid.org/0000-0002-2268-5800 Loren T. Stuckenbruck, born 1960; BA Milligan College; MDiv and PhD Princeton Theological Seminar; since 2012 Chair of New Testament Studies (with Emphasis on Ancient Judaism) at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Germany.

ISBN 978-3-16-155952-5 / eISBN 978-3-16-155953-2 DOI 10.1628/978-3-16-155953-2 ISSN 0340-9570 / eISSN 2568-7484 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2020 Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, Germany. www.mohrsiebeck.com This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was typeset by epline in Böblingen using Minion typeface, printed on non-aging paper by Laupp & Göbel in Gomaringen, and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

Table of Contents Abbreviations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � VII Daniel L. Smith and Loren T. Stuckenbruck Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �   1 Michael Francis Philo of Alexandria on Testing and Temptation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �   7 Madison N. Pierce Testing and Being Tested in the Epistle to the Hebrews  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �  25 Loren T. Stuckenbruck Eschatological Temptation the Enochic Way: A Note on 1 Enoch 94:5  . . . . �  39 Todd R. Hanneken Ten-Times-Tested Abraham in the Book of Jubilees  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �  45 Susanne Luther Preparing for Temptation in a Culture of Mutual Ethical Responsibility  . . . �  63 Tzvi Novick Life as Test: Reflections on m. ’Abot 2:4 and Related Texts  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �  81 Andrew Bowden “And the Mixed among Them Desired a Desire”: The Reception of Desire in Numbers 11 LXX in Greek Texts, Ending with the Apostle Paul  . . �  93 Jan Willem van Henten The Triangle of Testing in the Wilderness  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � 117 Daniel L. Smith Testing the Child of God at the Beginning and until the End: ΠΕΙΡΑΣΜΟΣ and Theological Anthropology in Ancient Jewish and Christian Texts  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � 141

VI

Table of Contents

Susan R. Garrett (Not) Knowing Where I’m Going: Ignorance and Agony for Jesus and Job  � 157 Benjamin G. Wright III Unbridled Libido: Ben Sira and the Billy Graham Rule  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � 171 List of Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � 187 Index of Ancient Sources  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � 189 Index of Modern Authors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � 207 Index of Subjects  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � 211

Abbreviations Abbreviations of primary and secondary sources follow The SBL Handbook of Style: For Biblical Studies and Related Disciplines, ed. Billie Jean Collins et al., 2nd ed. (Atlanta: SBL, 2014).

Introduction Many Second Temple Jewish and early Christian writings show testing and temptation to be influencing human experience, from Eden to the eschaton. Though God is often presented as one who tests, testing is carried out by a wide range of figures, including Satan, Mastema, the people of God, and individual human beings. Sometimes, groups of people or individuals are tested; sometimes, God is described as being put to the test. The essays in the present volume represent the fruit of a three-day conference on Testing and Temptation in Second Temple Jewish and Early Christian Texts, held at the Studienzentrum Josefstal in Schliersee, Germany, 20–22 May 2017. We asked participants to reflect on the following questions: How did ancient interpreters react to texts that depict the God of Israel as testing, tested, or intervening on behalf of those undergoing a test? What assumptions do authors have about the role of testing in human experience? What roles do expressions such as ‫ מסה‬and πειρασμός play in Second Temple Jewish and early Christian texts? How does the identity of the tester or the tested relate to the nature of the test? How are we to understand “testing” vs. “temptation”? These essays constitute an opening foray into addressing these questions, and we hope that this volume will be catalytic for further research exploring additional dimensions of testing, overlooked motifs in the relevant literature, and other traditions featuring a process of testing with or without the more common vocabulary (‫מסה‬/‫נסה‬/πειράζω/ πειρασμός/δοκιμάζω). The volume leads off with three essays that adopt a largely synchronic approach, investigating the use of testing and temptation language in a single author. First, Michael Francis offers a study of “Philo of Alexandria on Testing and Temptation.” He focuses on Philo’s reading of scripture in the register of interpretation that most interests the allegorical exegete, namely, the responses of the individual soul to the multiplicity of phenomena and experiences that inevitably come its way within the earthly, embodied realm. Francis considers the different kinds of response to such temptations that Philo discerns in the various characters of the Pentateuch. For Philo, the soul’s embodied existence ineluctably yields a life of testing, which only the noble soul can overcome. Madison N. Pierce then takes up the Epistle to the Hebrews, working through the four testing passages (2:14–18; 3:7–4:11; 4:14–16; 11:17–19) in her essay, entitled “Testing and Being Tested in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” She notes a number of tensions. Testing can be positive (2:18) or negative (3:8–9), and can be experienced by God (3:8–9) or by human (11:17). Pierce explores the relation-

2

Introduction

ship between these elements of testing, situating the theme within the flow of the larger argument of Hebrews. Like Francis, Pierce addresses the testing of Abraham (Heb 11:17; Philo, Somn. 1.195), the testing of the Israelite wilderness generation (Heb 3:7–4:11; Philo, Leg. 3.162–168; Congr. 163–165), and the differing roles related to testing. Each of these topics will find further treatment in several other essays in the volume. Despite surveying the entire early collection of Enochic literature, Loren T. Stuckenbruck finds only one mention of testing (1 En. 94:5), which he treats in his essay, “Eschatological Temptation the Enochic Way: A Note on 1 Enoch 94:5.” After illuminating the Ge’ez vocabulary of testing and temptation, Stuckenbruck explores the different interpretive possibilities for this short text found in an early portion of the Epistle of Enoch. He then moves beyond exegesis to explore the world of the text, concluding that the writer of the epistle uses the socio-religious categories of “righteous” and “wicked” to consolidate and confirm the identity of the target audience. Todd R. Hanneken retains a synchronic emphasis in his study of “Ten-TimesTested Abraham in the Book of Jubilees,” yet he does incorporate more diachronic features in his work. He notes that Jubilees and later rabbinic literature assert that Abraham was tested ten times. The identity of the ten tests is not clear from Jubilees, which lists only seven, and varies in the rabbinic formulations. The question of the counting of tests of Abraham leads into examination of how Jubilees used its sources to arrive at the number ten, as well as the process of Jubilees’ composition as evidenced by seams and contradictions. Ultimately, Hanneken concludes that “ten-times tested” served as a rhetorical convention in the Second Temple period, meaning “thoroughly tested,” and he notes the use of the same motif in rabbinic literature. Like Hanneken, Susanne Luther focuses on one text in her study of the Letter of James, entitled “Preparing for Temptation in a Culture of Mutual Ethical Responsibility,” and she, too, sets the text within a larger diachronic context. Luther reads the Letter of James as presenting models of ethical conduct, thus preparing the reader to resist the power of temptations and at the same time stressing each person’s responsibility for the correct ethical conduct of others in the face of the impending eschatological judgement. Within this framework of James’s ethical instruction, the omnipresence of temptations becomes the keystone for an ethics of responsibility, motivated by the narrative Christ figure, the eschatological judge, as well as by allusion to stories of probation in the Jewish scriptures. Luther proposes that testing and temptation may be considered the gateway to James’s teaching on Christology and soteriology. Tzvi Novick’s essay on “Life as Test: Reflections on m. ’Abot 2:4 and Related Texts” takes as its starting point a terse mishnaic maxim about trust in oneself. After elucidating the literary context, Novick draws on the important work of Jacob Licht to help outline a conceptual link between trustworthiness,

Introduction

3

friendship, and testing. He then turns to relevant material on temptation in Ben Sira – a text also consulted by Hanneken and Luther in their essays. These texts especially highlight the allure of dishonest gain. Novick then turns to Tannaitic literature, where he notes a continuity between the test of endurance and the temptation to sin. Finally, his consideration of the Palestinian Talmud leads him to a concluding discussion of “second-order temptation,” whereby one is tempted to “trust in oneself ” by believing oneself to possess an immunity to testing and temptation. The next three essays dwell at length on the Israelite experience of temptation in the wilderness; despite their different emphases, each one adopts a diachronic approach. Andrew Bowden undertakes a reception-historical study of Num 11:4 LXX in his essay, “‘And the Mixed among Them Desired a Desire’: The Reception of Desire in Numbers 11 LXX in Greek Texts, Ending with the Apostle Paul.” Though Num 11:4 LXX does not employ any testing vocabulary, Bowden shows how its language of desire is picked up in a number of other Greek texts. Intriguingly, Ps 77:18 LXX introduces the language of testing (ἐκπειράζω) into its retelling of the incident described in Num 11, as does Ps 105:14 LXX. Bowden also treats Wis 15–16, relevant material in Philo, and 1 Cor 10. While he continues to trace the language of desire specifically, his essay helpfully brings into view the many connections between desire and testing. Jan Willem van Henten focuses on the roles of those testing and tested in his essay, entitled “The Triangle of Testing in the Wilderness.” Noting that treatments of the testing motif often focus on either God testing humans or humans testing God, van Henten draws attention to a third member in the “triangle of testing,” namely, the leader of the people. He begins with the prototypical episode of testing at Massah and Meribah (Exod 17:1–7; see also Num 20), which focuses upon the people of Israel’s quarrelling with Moses and God’s testing of Moses as faithful leader of the people. The two key motifs are reflected in the meanings of the geographical names: Massah (“Test”) and Meribah (“Quarrel”). Re-interpretations of the episode show that the testing motif is elaborated in several ways. The question therefore arises: Who tests whom? The Israelites can put God to the test, but God can test the people or its leader. Even the people can put its leader to the test. In exploring the triangle of testing, van Henten surveys re-interpretations of the Massah and Meribah episode in the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint, and Judith. Daniel L. Smith offers further reflection on the testing of Israel in the wilderness in “Testing the Child of God at the Beginning and until the End: ΠΕΙΡΑΣΜΟΣ and Theological Anthropology in Ancient Jewish and Christian Texts.” Smith begins where Bowden ends, by looking at Paul’s comments on testing in 1 Cor 10. Paul describes the Corinthian πειρασμός as ἀνθρώπινος, and Smith uses this pairing as a starting point for his discussion of the role of testing in Second Temple Jewish understandings of the human person – under-

4

Introduction

standings that would include the human-divine relationship in their purview. He then traces the testing motif throughout a series of texts that connect testing with a “child of God” figure, from Israel in Deut 8:2–5 and Wis 11:10, to Jesus in Mark 1:12–13 and various passages in Matthew (4:1–11; 6:9–13; 26:26–42). Smith notes that this wide array of texts regularly foregrounds an understanding of πειρασμός as a test of loyalty or faithfulness. The final two essays bring to the study of ancient texts a more pronounced concern for present-day contexts. Susan R. Garrett examines four ancient texts (Job, the Testament of Job, Mark, and John) in her contribution, which is entitled “(Not) Knowing Where I’m Going: Ignorance and Agony for Jesus and for Job.” Garrett analyzes testing in these texts in terms of discernment (with regard to the nature of a test) and prescience (with regard to the outcome of the test). She first treats canonical Job, who undergoes a crisis of discernment, since he does not understand why he is suffering. The Testament of Job, however, features a protagonist with perfect discernment and prescience. Garrett then turns to portraits of Jesus in Gospels of Mark and John. Mark’s Jesus has discernment and prescience, yet his incomplete knowledge leaves him vulnerable and suffering, like the canonical Job. John eliminates many of the tests found in the Synoptic Gospels, leaving an omniscient and certain Jesus who more closely resembles the Job of the Testament. Garrett argues that these different epistemologies are not only of historical interest but also important for contemporary theology and proclamation. Lastly, Benjamin G. Wright III explores past and present understandings of temptation and sexuality in his essay, “Unbridled Libido: Ben Sira and the Billy Graham Rule.” In Spring 2017, U. S. Vice President Mike Pence made headlines for his refusal to be alone with a woman (except for his wife), a measure that has come to be known as the “Billy Graham Rule.” Wright argues that this position both over-sexualizes the relationship between men and women and, more importantly, creates a picture of masculinity in which men cannot – or cannot be expected to – contain their libido. This lack of male control is blamed on women, who are considered responsible for the temptation. Wright explores similar dynamics in Ben Sira, which tends to reserve the language of testing for non-sexual contexts. Ben Sira presents women as more of a danger than a mere temptation. In the end, Wright challenges readers not to leave hegemonic constructions of masculinity implicit or unexamined, but rather to work to dismantle the apparatus of male domination and other unjust systems. It is our pleasure to bring this introduction to a close by acknowledging the many debts that we have incurred along the way. First, we would like to thank the contributors to this volume for their cheerful participation in the conference and their timely responses to editorial input. Second, we would like to express our gratitude to the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and to the Evangelische Fakultät of Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München for the funding

Introduction

5

that made the conference, and thus this volume, possible. We also would like to thank Anna Kellerer of LMU and Anja Summers of the Studienzentrum for their hard work in helping us with the logistics and organization of the conference. We are grateful to Joseph Grone, who read several of the essays and offered useful feedback, as well as Mirjam Seidler and Clayton Killion, who compiled the indices. And finally, we would like to express our appreciation to Professor Jörg Frey, chief editor of the WUNT series, as well as Dr. Henning Ziebritzki and Dr. Katharina Gutekunst of Mohr Siebeck, for their enthusiastic support in bringing this volume to publication. 27 August 2019

Daniel L. Smith Loren T. Stuckenbruck

Philo of Alexandria on Testing and Temptation Michael Francis

How does Philo of Alexandria understand the significance of the idea – or ideas – of testing and temptation?1 This essay will offer a summary assessment based on a selection of texts drawn from the large Philonic corpus, proceeding in three stages. First, the primary Philonic data are surveyed, with particular attention to Philo’s understanding of the value of testing/temptation as tool of pedagogy and ethical appraisal, and the role of testing/temptation in the narrative construct that dominates Philo’s allegorical reading of scripture, the progress of the individual soul. Second, the essay considers Philo’s perspective on personal agents of testing/temptation, namely, malevolent angels or demons, and God himself. Third, and building on the preceding discussion, the essay reflects on the place of testing/temptation within Philonic thought, especially in relation to Philo’s assessment of the condition and responsibilities of created humanity.2

1.  Testing and Temptation in Philo’s Interpretation of Scripture Is the idea of testing or temptation important to Philo of Alexandria? We might respond readily in the affirmative and offer support in several ways. Most obviously, we observe Philo’s concern with the idea in his treatment of what might be called, for the purposes of this study, certain headline biblical passages. If Philo is above all else an interpreter of scripture, his attention to and handling of 1  The formulations employed in the introductory paragraph reflect recognition of both the variety of particular concepts or nuances that might be considered a form of testing or temptation, and the hazard of imposing unwarranted categorical distinctions on specific lexical items, Greek or English (most obviously “test” and “temptation” themselves, on which see the discussion at the start of Daniel L. Smith’s essay in the present volume). 2  My essay is necessarily selective in scope; a comprehensive study of all relevant Philonic material would be welcome. I consider the essay to be complementary with the discussion provided by Nicholas Ellis in chapter 6 (on Philo) of his fine study, The Hermeneutics of Divine Testing: Cosmic Trials and Biblical Interpretation in the Epistle of James and Other Jewish Literature, WUNT 2/396 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), and with whom it was a pleasure to interact during the Josefstal conference. I express my thanks to Loren Stuckenbruck and Daniel Smith for the invitation to participate in the conference and most generous hospitality. I have preserved the style and organization of the paper as originally given. Block quotations employ the translations provided in the Loeb Classical Library.

8

Michael Francis

particular texts is instructive.3 Philo’s interest in the opening chapters of Genesis is well known, and he attends at length in several passages to the story of the tempting serpent and its fateful influence on the first human pair.4 Abraham is a figure of extraordinary importance across the Philonic corpus as the primary biblical exemplar of wisdom, one who, over the course of life, progresses towards true virtue and knowledge of God. Philo interprets several aspects of Abraham’s life as trials or tests, most famously, of course, the patriarch’s ordeal in Genesis 22 in the near death of his son, an event in which Philo is unashamed to recognize explicitly, at least on occasion, that God tested (ἐπείραζε) Abraham (Somn. 1.195, citing Gen 22:1).5 Elsewhere, Philo addresses a selection of pentateuchal texts dealing with the divine testing of Israel in the wilderness (Exod 15:25; 16:4; Deut 8:2, 16). These texts afford Philo the opportunity to reflect on both the role of testing for the human soul and the nature of God’s involvement in testing his people (Leg. 3.162–168; Congr. 163–179).6 Central to Philo’s exegesis across multiple passages is the idea of testing as a useful pedagogical device, or as a mechanism of discrimination in regard to ethics or piety. Correspondingly, testedness is a mark of genuineness; it is proof of an agent’s true character. Philo explains or justifies details of the law of Moses several times in the Exposition of the Law by way of appeal to the idea of a test.7 Why, according to the divine instructions (Deut 12), is worship to be centralized, with each household prohibited from engaging in merely local rites? As a nec3  Recognition of Philo as first and foremost an exegete of scripture has shaped the trajectory of Philonic studies in recent decades, influenced decisively by the major works of Valentin ­Nikiprowetzky and Peder Borgen in particular. See Nikiprowetzky, Le commentaire de l’Écriture chez Philon d’Alexandrie, ALGHJ 11 (Leiden: Brill, 1977); Borgen, Philo of Alexandria: An Exegete for His Time, NovTSup 86 (Leiden: Brill, 1997). 4  The primary passages are QG 1.31–41, Leg. 2.71–108, Opif. 157–166, and the closely related discussion in Agr. 94–101. Regrettably, Philo’s treatment of Gen 3:1b–7 in Legum allegoriae has been lost; the primary focus of Leg. 2.71–108 is Gen 3:1a. 5  Philo considers various details of Gen 22 in a range of passages (e. g., Post. 20–23 on Abraham’s seeing the place of sacrifice from afar; Leg. 3.203–210 on God’s oath); the primary treatments addressing the character of Abraham’s experiences as trial or test are Somn. 1.194–195 and Abr. 167–207. On other episodes in the patriarch’s life as tests, see the discussion below on QG 3.56; 4.73; and Abr. 256–257. It is widely recognized that the persona of “Abraham the tested” is a prominent interpretive trope among early readers of Genesis. For a survey of texts and related ideas, see J. L. Kugel, Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as it Was at the Start of the Common Era (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998), 297–99, 308. 6  These texts are quoted at length below. Note also the related discussion in Post. 153–157 and Fug. 137–139. 7  The Exposition of the Law and the Allegorical Commentary are Philo’s most significant commentary series, each with its own distinctive approach to the interpretation of scripture. Allegorical readings predominate in the Allegorical Commentary; literal readings have a more prominent place in the Exposition. I refer to these series from time to time in the present essay as a way of organizing the consideration of testing and temptation in Philonic thought, that is, across both literal and allegorical readings of scripture.



Philo of Alexandria on Testing and Temptation

9

essary test (βάσανος) of the worshipers’ dispositions.8 Only the genuinely pious would make the necessary trip and so endure the discomfort of separation from family and friends (Spec. 1.67–68). In another passage, Philo expounds the significance of Moses’s charge to the Israelites caught in the act of idolatry on his descent from Sinai – ”Who is with the Lord? Let him come to me!” (Exod 32:26 NETS) – in a related way. Moses’s words serve as a test (βάσανος) of the mind or disposition (διάνοια) of each party, that is, to distinguish (διαγνῶναι) those vexed by or repentant of idolatry from the incurable sinners among the people (Mos. 2.167–168).9 Elsewhere, Philo reflects on the instructions concerning the feast of tabernacles, and in particular the call for the people to dwell in tents during the time of the feast (Spec. 2.206, on Lev 23:42–43). Philo explains that by subjecting the people to a taste of their forebears’ experience living in tents as they journeyed in the desert, the feast encourages gratitude among the people along with due supplications that they may not be tested with evils again (ὑπὲρ τοῦ μηκέτι πειραθῆναι κακῶν).10 On a larger scale, Philo sets up the whole treatise De praemiis et poenis, in which he focuses on the blessings and curses promised in the law of Moses, by framing Israel’s response to the divinely given word as a kind of test. Having received instructions, exhortations, threats, and warnings, the Israelites’ sincerity in obedience will be tested in practice, with the true athletes of virtue proving themselves and so receiving their reward (Praem. 4–6). Turning to Philo’s allegorical exegesis, we find that Philo’s primary and dominant interpretive concern as reader of scripture almost inevitably entails some measure of focus on the concept of testing. Philo reads the Pentateuch primarily as an allegory of the human soul. That is to say, he finds in the scriptural narrative (the narrative of Genesis in particular) an account of the pathway of progress in virtue open to the human subject by way of struggle with the body and the passions, with experience of the divine as the ultimate goal. Across the Allegorical Commentary, then, Philo finds in the various biblical characters and episodes particular dispositions and experiences of the human soul. Within this interpretive scheme, the general idea of being tempted or tested is a common component of human experience. Philo’s primary interpretation of the serpent of Genesis 3 is as a figure for pleasure, ἡδονή (or, derivatively, the lover of pleasure) – that is, for Philo, the arch-enemy of the proper pursuit of virtue and, ul8  Philo commonly employs πειράζειν (and cognates) when the terminology is present in the biblical passage under consideration (e. g., Gen 22:1; Exod 15:25; 16:4), sometimes in tandem with δοκιμα-terminology (which is pentateuchal language in Gen 23:16 only, however). Elsewhere, Philo most commonly employs βασανίζειν/βάσανος as his preferred terminology. See the helpful summary provided by Ellis in Hermeneutics of Divine Testing, 97–98. 9  For the purposes of this summary, I group the two-volume De vita Mosis with the Exposition of the Law, following the influential arguments of E. R. Goodenough that the work serves an introductory function to the Exposition; see his “Philo’s Exposition of the Law and His De Vita Mosis,” HTR 26 (1933): 109–25. 10  Spec. 2.207–209.

10

Michael Francis

timately, the divine, no less than the starting point for wrongdoings and transgressions (Opif. 152),11 and to whose voice we are by constitution, it would seem, easy prey on account of its appeal to our material bodies. It consorts with our senses first, and through them proceeds to deceive the mind as well (Opif. 165). Accordingly, the threat posed by this anguine voice is a staple of human affairs, a threat to be taken with the utmost seriousness by anyone seeking the virtuous life. Pleasure is Potiphar’s wife, seeking to compromise the character of the soul possessed of self-control. Joseph succeeds in rejecting her advances by recalling the divine predilection for virtue (Leg. 3.237). What should the human soul do when facing such temptation? Learn the lesson of Joseph’s quick getaway, or, similarly, Jacob’s flight from Laban: turn the mind away from sensory pleasures and focus, rather, on the genuine beauty of virtue (Gig. 43–44, Leg. 3.17). We should also observe that it is not only on the negative side of the ledger that the idea of testing is important in Philo’s allegory of the human soul. If Potiphar’s wife, on several occasions, serves Philo as a cipher for pleasure, we find in another female character of the patriarchal narratives one who both tests and is tested, albeit, and rather counter-intuitively, in a much more wholesome way. In the figure of Tamar, who disguises her true identity from those who encounter her casually, Philo finds knowledge testing the sincerity of those who claim to pursue her. But sometimes she makes trial (ἀποπειρωμένη) of her scholars, to test their zeal and earnestness; and then she does not meet them, but veils her face and sits like Tamar at the cross-roads, presenting the appearance of a harlot to the passers-by (Gen 38:14–15). Her wish is that inquiring minds may unveil and reveal her and gaze upon the glorious beauty, inviolate, undefiled and truly virginal, of her modesty and chastity. (Congr. 124 ­[Colson, LCL])

In a related and highly complex extended treatment of the story in the treatise De fuga et inventione, Philo finds in Tamar’s pursuer Judah the soul resolute and patient in pursuit of virtue, while Tamar’s refusal to exchange for material gain the three pledges received from Judah, which Philo takes to be particular virtues, proves both her genuineness and the appropriateness of Judah’s pursuit (Fug. 149–151). True virtue is tested, and tests those who aspire to know her.12 In sum, the characteristic emphases and coordinates of the story of the soul that is central to Philo’s allegorical reading of scripture trace a narrative shaped quite consequentially by the idea of testing and temptation. 11  Opif. 152. Although the opening treatise of the Exposition of the Law rather than the Allegorical Commentary, De opificio mundi features the kind of allegorical exegesis characteristic of the latter in the treatment of Genesis 3 in Opif. 157–166. On Philo’s methods of exegesis in the treatise, see D. T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria: On the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses, PACS 1 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 17–19. 12  In contrast with this verdict on Judah, Philo offers in Abr. 103–105 an assessment of the pleasure-loving soul whose profession of admiration for virtue is no more than a sham, and whose testing (βάσανος) with the various parts of virtue is thus truly a form of torture.



Philo of Alexandria on Testing and Temptation

11

2.  Agents of Testing and Temptation What, then, about particular agents of testing and temptation? Beyond personified vices or compromised dispositions of the soul, what role does Philo afford named entities as those personally responsible for the experience of testing and temptation? On the side of malevolence, Philo grants personal, individually identifiable agents of human temptation no obvious place as fomenters of human sin. Now, with regard to terminology, Philo accepts the existence of demons. However, in his clearest statements on the subject, he simply identifies them as the philosopher’s way of referring to what scripture calls angels, that is, incorporeal souls (QG 4.188; Gig. 6, 16; Somn. 1.141). As such, Philo situates demons or angels higher up in the chain of being than humankind, inhabitants of the air rather than the earth (Opif. 84).13 Such characters are anything but likely candidates as malignant tempters of humankind. To the contrary, they are precisely the kind of inhabitants of the cosmos whose good citizenry humankind in its original created excellence might have been expected to emulate (Opif. 144). Nonetheless, is it possible that Philo acknowledges the existence of a particular class or subgroup of compromised angels or demons, and, if so, connects them in any way with the idea of tempting and testing? The question is complex and requires certain qualifications by way of response. The central passage is found early on in Philo’s treatment of Genesis 6:1–4 in the allegorical treatise De gigantibus. First, it is necessary to distinguish fallen or genuinely evil demons from demons that God uses for particular purposes as intermediaries between heaven and earth, that is, as subordinate agents along with the divine powers. In the latter case, Philo might readily grant angelic agents a role in human testing if indeed this is something God seeks to accomplish in the experience of humankind. Indeed, Philo does discuss certain ministers who act as agents of God’s punitive power (Fug. 66).14 None of this should be taken as Philonic endorsement of the idea of fallen angels or evil demons per se. Second, it is certainly possible that Philo is familiar with readings of Genesis 6 informed by some form of the so-called Watchers tradition.15 Correspond13  Philo frequently reflects on the genera of living beings. The central passages include Gig. 6–11; Plant. 12–14; Conf. 174–177; Somn. 1.134–141; and Opif. 62–68. For analysis, see D. T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato (Leiden: Brill, 1986), 227–31. Note also the recent extended treatment of Somn. 1.137–139 offered by S. Yli-Karjanmaa in Reincarnation in Philo of Alexandria, SPhiloM 7 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2015), 129–50. 14  On God’s punitive power, see, e. g., Conf. 172, 180. The present paragraph follows the discussion in D. Winston and J. Dillon in Two Treatises of Philo of Alexandria: A Commentary on De ­Gigantibus and Quod Deus Sit Immutabilis, BJS 25 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983), 203. 15  See A. T. Wright, “Some Observations of Philo’s De Gigantibus and Evil Spirits in Second Temple Judaism,” JSJ 36 (2005): 471–88, and L. T. Stuckenbruck, “To What Extent Did Philo’s Treatment of Enoch and the Giants Presuppose a Knowledge of the Enochic and Other Sources Preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls?” SPhiloA 19 (2007): 131–42. Among possible lines of connection between Philo and other sources in relation to Gen 6:1–4, note especially (1) a focus on the

12

Michael Francis

ingly, some interpreters have concluded that Philo, influenced by this tradition, acknowledges the existence of a class of the angelic or demonic that is thoroughly evil.16 Such an assessment is rightly unpopular today, however. One of Philo’s stated concerns in De gigantibus is to dissociate Gen 6:1–4 from the poets’ myths concerning the giants (Gig. 7, 58, 60); Philo treats the biblical passage and its characters only allegorically, and insists that the malevolent angels are simply evil souls, that is, souls that have taken on embodied existence and been thoroughly overwhelmed by the bodily passions.17 These are people who do not strive for virtue! Philo labels them earth-born souls, exemplified in the figure of Nimrod, whose name signifies desertion of the good (Gig. 65–67).18 Such souls contrast with the heaven-born, who are lovers of learning, cultivating the mind in appropriate ways, and, best of all, the God-born, whose entire focus transcends the sensory and is fixed on the divine. And so we remain with the allegory of the soul, most certainly involving the idea of testing or temptation by way of the passions and pleasures of the flesh. What we do not find easily is recognition of a role for truly malignant angels or demons in the process. At this juncture, we might usefully reflect further on Philo’s reading of Genesis 3. As already observed, Philo reads Genesis 3:1–8 allegorically as an account of the grave temptation to human wellbeing posed by pleasure, and he stresses that the details of the depiction of the snake in this passage indicate that the text should be read in a symbolic way (Opif. 157).19 Insofar as Philo recognizes an exmixing of distinct and properly separate realms in relation to the giants’ union with women, and (2) a shared understanding of the biblical narrative that assumes the giants survive the deluge (Stuckenbruck, “Philo’s Treatment of Enoch and the Giants,” 137–39). 16  Most notably H. Wolfson, Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, 2 vols. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1948), 1:383–85. Central to Wolfson’s case is Philo’s use of Ps 77:49 (describing affliction δι᾿ ἀγγέλων πονηρῶν) in Gig. 17. 17  See especially V. Nikiprowetzky, “Sur une lecture démonologique de Philon d’Alexandrie, De gigantibus 6–18,” in Hommage à G. Vadja: études d’histoire et de pensée juives, ed. G. Nahon and C. Touati (Louvain: Peeters, 1980), 43–71, and, among many in subsequent agreement, Winston and Dillon, Two Treatises, 203–5, and Stuckenbruck, “Philo’s Treatment of Enoch and the Giants,” 132–33. 18  Note that in Philo’s Greek Bible Nimrod himself is identified as a giant in Gen 10:8 (cf. ‫גבר‬, “mighty,” in the Hebrew text). 19 In QG 1.32 Philo accepts a literal reading of the talking snake, and appears to do the same in Opif. 156. In Agr. 96 the apparent fantasy of the details of the narrative is a cue that the text needs to be read allegorically, and a similar sense seems implicit in Opif. 157. The tension is indicative of the challenge confronting Philo as he reads scripture symbolically. To a text he can insist is quite different from invented myth (e. g., Opif. 1–2; Praem. 1–2), Philo applies an allegorical method that derives warrant from the implausibility of the results of reading literally. On this tension in Philo’s reading of the creation account, see Runia, On the Creation of the Cosmos, 376, and, especially, T. H. Tobin, The Creation of Man: Philo and the History of Interpretation, CBQMS 14 (Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1983), 154–61. See also the comments below on Philo’s reading of Deut 8:2 in Congr. 172, on God afflicting (κακοῦν) his people.



Philo of Alexandria on Testing and Temptation

13

ternal, personal agent of temptation in the Genesis narrative, it is not Satan or some demonic figure symbolized by the serpent, but rather, and rather notoriously for Philo, the woman created to live with the man. In Philo’s literal reading of the passage in De opificio mundi, it is with the creation of woman that the man’s fortunes start to head south, a quite significant reworking of the Genesis account such that the women becomes for the man the origin of a blameworthy life (ἀρχὴ δὲ τῆς ὑπαιτίου ζωῆς).20 Nevertheless, even in this case, the weight of Philo’s concern rests with the identification of the woman with sense-perception (αἴσθησις), in contrast with the man as the intellect (νοῦς) – that is, the woman as the irrational faculties, juxtaposed with the man as rational mind.21 In other words, even the woman’s significance for Philo as perpetrator of temptation is, ultimately, as a facet of the soul’s internal struggle rather than as an external agent. What, then, about God’s hand in temptation or testing? As we have already noted, Philo recognizes the connection between God and testing he finds on the surface of the biblical text from time to time. Philo neglects to mention the actual language of πειράζειν, following Genesis 22:1, in his extended treatment of the Akedah in the treatise De Abrahamo.22 Philo does quote this language without embarrassment in Somn. 1.195, however, where he makes the point that God’s personal and twofold address of Abraham by name in this incident testifies to Abraham’s standing as belonging to the company of God’s friends. As also observed previously, Philo finds noteworthy several related texts addressing God’s testing of Israel in the course of the people’s travels from Egypt to Canaan. That the food of the soul is not earthly but heavenly, we shall find abundant evidence in the Sacred Word. “Behold I rain upon you bread out of heaven, and the people shall go out and they shall gather the day’s portion for a day, that I may prove (πειράσω) them whether they will walk by my law or not” (Exod 16:4). You see that the soul is fed not with things of earth that decay, but with such words as God shall have poured like rain out of that lofty and pure region of life to which the prophet has given the title of “heaven” … Both in the case of manna then, and in the case of every boon which God confers upon our race, it is good to take what is fixed by strict measure and reckoning and not that which is above and beyond us; for to do this is to be over-reaching. Let the soul, then, gather the day’s portion for a day (16:4), that it may declare not itself but the bountiful God guardian of the good things … But the man of worthy aims sets himself to acquire day for the sake of day, light for the sake of light, the beautiful for the sake of the beautiful alone, not for the sake of something else. And this is why he goes on with the words: “that I may prove them whether they will walk in my law or no” (16:4); for this is the divine law, to value excellence

20  Opif. 151. 21 These assignations are foundational to Philo’s allegorical reading of Gen 2–3 (e. g.,

Opif. 165, and, especially, throughout Legum allegoriae). 22  Samuel Sandmel implies such neglect may be intentional, on account of the repugnance of the idea (of God testing Abraham) to Philo; Sandmel does not address Somn. 1.195 in his Philo’s Place in Judaism: A Study of Conceptions of Abraham in Jewish Literature, rev. ed. (New York: Ktav, 1971), 125. On Philo’s concern on occasion to qualify the nature of God’s involvement in testing, see the discussion below.

14

Michael Francis

for its own sake. The right principle, therefore, tests (δοκιμάζει) all aspirants as one does a coin, to see whether they have been debased in that they refer the soul’s good to something external, or whether, as tried and approved men, they distinguish and guard this treasure as belonging to thought and mind alone. Such men have the privilege of being fed not with earthly things but with the heavenly forms of knowledge. (Leg. 3.162–168 [Whitaker, LCL]) For this cause I believe the lesson of the statutes of the law was given in a place whose name is bitterness, for injustice is pleasant and just-dealing is troublesome, and this is the most infallible of laws. For when they had gone out of the passions of Egypt, says the text, “they came to Marah, and they could not drink water from Marah, for it was bitter. Therefore the name of that place was called bitterness, and the people murmured against Moses, saying what shall we drink? And Moses called aloud to the Lord, and the Lord shewed him a tree; and he threw it into the water, and the water was sweetened. There he laid down for him ordinances and judgements” (Exod 15:23–25). “And there he tried (ἐπείραζεν) him,” the text continues. Yes, for the trial (ἀπόπειρα) and proving (δοκιμασία) of the soul, with all its uncertainty, lies in toil and bitterness of heart, and it is uncertain because it is hard to discern which way the balance will incline. Some faint ere the struggle has begun, and lose heart altogether, counting toil a too formidable antagonist, and like weary athletes they drop their hands in weakness and determine to speed back to Egypt to enjoy passion. But there are others who, facing the terrors and dangers of the wilderness with all patience and stoutness of heart, carry through to its finish the contest of life, keeping it safe from failure and defeat, and take a strong stand against the constraining forces of nature, so that hunger and thirst, cold and heat, and all that usually enslave the rest, are made their subjects by their preponderating fund of strength. (Congr. 163–165 [Colson, LCL])

The provision of manna in the Wilderness of Sin, with strict instructions for collection and consumption, is an exercise in testing where the soul’s values and loyalties lie, whether with external goods and appetites, or with the knowledge of God for which the rational soul should strive. Similarly, in God’s testing of the people at Marah recounted in the previous chapter of Exodus, Philo finds the bitter challenge each human soul faces (and in which many souls fail) on the long journey away from Egypt, the land of the body. The idea of the wilderness as appropriate proving ground for those who seek to know God also features in Philo’s treatment of the law of Moses on a larger scale. As he begins the treatise De decalogo, Philo ponders why the law was given to Israel at Sinai, that is, in the desert. Among several reasons Philo considers is that it was to teach the people that the legislation was not the invention of humankind, but quite evidently the oracles of God. A people lacking the necessities of life, and even expecting to perish for want of food and drink, is primed to understand God’s miraculous provision for his people, the manna, quails, and sweet water, as a symbol of the divine origins of the law of Moses itself (Decal. 15–17). Shorn of the wilderness context, God’s voice is harder to discern. The preceding discussion serves to highlight the particular framework within which Philo grants and reflects on the idea that God tests his people. God only tests with the best of motives, for the benefit of those concerned. Inasmuch as



Philo of Alexandria on Testing and Temptation

15

God stands behind the experiences of those who face difficulties in the desert, it is all for their greater good. Divine testing is training in virtue. It is a suitable pedagogical tool. Moreover, in his most lengthy interpretation of Israel’s testing at Marah as recorded in Exodus 15, Philo presses further and makes the case that it is precisely God’s testing of his people that establishes their kinship with him: Therefore, I  think, did one of Moses’ disciples, who is named a man of peace, which is in our ancestral tongue Solomon, say as follows: “My son, despise not the discipline (παιδείας) of God, nor faint when thou art rebuked (ἐλεγχόμενος) by him, for whom the Lord loveth he rebukes (ἐλέγχει) and scourges (μαστιγοῖ) every son whom he receiveth (Prov 3:11–12). So we see that reproaching and admonition (ἐπίπληξις καὶ νουθεσία) are counted so excellent a thing, that they turn our acknowledgment of God into kinship with him, for what relation can be closer than that of a father to a son, or a son to a father? (Congr. 177 [Colson, LCL])

Calling on Solomon to illuminate Moses, Philo explains that discipline and reproof serve as membership requirements for God’s family. They mark our closeness to God, and demonstrate we are his children.23 In the next section, Philo follows up with a set-piece argument concerning the biblical text’s attestation to the existence of two different forms of what might otherwise (and superficially) be construed as both the same thing, based on the apparent redundancy in the Greek rendering of the Hebrew finite plus infinite verbal forms. Here Philo addresses Exodus 22:22 and the proscription of afflicting (κακοῦν) a widow or orphan.24 To be reproved by virtue and disciplined by wisdom (ὑπὸ ἀρετῆς ἐλεγχόμενον καὶ ὑπὸ φρονήσεως παιδευόμενον)  – to be afflicted by God, in other words – is itself a work of virtue. It is another kind of affliction entirely from that which comes about on account of folly and genuine vice (Congr. 178– 179).25 Based on the passages we have considered, we might conclude Philo is genuinely untroubled by the notion that God tests human souls. Indeed, based on 23 The same section of Proverbs is cited and employed in a generally similar way in Heb 12:5–6. Whereas the Greek text of Prov 3:11–12 cited in Hebrews is almost identical with the edition of Rahlfs, Philo’s text features several differences, fronting παιδείας θεοῦ (not κυρίου) in the first line, continuing with καὶ μή rather than μηδέ, and, in the next verse, reading ἐλέγχει (not παιδεύει) for the Lord’s activity towards one whom he loves. For a summary comparison of the use of Prov 3:11–12 in Congr. 177 and Heb 12:5–6, see R. Williamson, Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews, ALGHJ 4 (Leiden: Brill, 1970), 573–75. Recognition of the importance of parental discipline for the sake of a child’s flourishing is common in contemporaneous Greek and Roman moral discourse (e. g., Seneca, Ira 2.21.1–6). For discussion in relation to Hebrews, see P. Gray, Godly Fear: The Epistle to the Hebrews and Greco-Roman Critiques of Superstition, AcBib 16 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 177–85. 24  In Philo’s Greek text, ἐὰν δὲ κακίᾳ κακώσητε αὐτούς. 25  The primary biblical lemma from which Philo proceeds in the latter portion of the treatise to consider different kinds of affliction is Gen 16:6, quoted in Congr. 158, describing Sarah’s affliction of Hagar (ἐκάκωσεν αὐτήν); in his allegorical reading of scripture, Philo regularly associates Hagar with παιδεία. Note also the related treatment in QG 3.25.

16

Michael Francis

a principle that is conspicuous across a large number of Philonic passages, we might insist that Philo really ought not to be bothered by the idea of the testing God. Repeating a characteristically Stoic emphasis, Philo maintains time and again that actions are to be judged on the basis of the agent’s intention or motivation rather than some superficial and premature assessment of the outward form of the deed. Physicians may chop and deceive, but that makes them neither butchers nor liars. Similarly, a ship’s captain may jettison cargo, but that may be all for the passengers’ good.26 Should not the divine agent of testing be exonerated similarly? Sometimes Philo appears content to leave things this way, with the pedagogic function of divine testing serving as its due warrant, explicitly or implicitly. In his most extensive discussion of the matter, however, Philo insists further qualification is necessary. In an important section we have so far skipped over in the long passage on testing in De congressu eruditionis gratia, Philo insistently directs the reader away from what he suggests would be a serious misunderstanding of the biblical text. Is it not, then, with legitimate pride that the prophet-word called Moses says, as we shall find, “Thou shalt remember all the way which the Lord thy God led thee in the wilderness, that he might afflict thee and prove thee and the thoughts in thy heart might be tested (ὅπως ἂν κακώσῃ σε καὶ ἐκπειράσῃ σε καὶ διαγνωσθῇ τὰ ἐν καρδίᾳ σου), whether thou wilt keep his commandments or not, and he afflicted (ἐκάκωσε) thee and made thee weak by famine and fed thee with manna which thy fathers knew not, that he might proclaim to thee that not alone on bread shall man live, but on every word that goeth forth through the mouth of God” (Deut 8:2). Who then is so impious as to suppose that God is an afflictor (κακωτήν), and that he sends famine, death in its most miserable form, on those who cannot live without food? For God is good and the cause of what is good, the benefactor, the saviour, the nourisher, the enricher, the bountiful giver … Let us not, then, be misled by the actual words, but look at the allegorical meaning that lies beneath them, and say that “afflicted” (ἐκάκωσε) is equivalent to “disciplined and admonished and chastened” (ἐπαίδευσε καὶ ἐνουθέτησε καὶ ἐσωφρόνισε) and that “subjected to famine” does not mean that he brought about a dearth of food and drink, but a dearth of pleasures and desires and fears and grief and wrongdoings, and in general all the works of the vices or the passions. And this is confirmed by the words that follow, “He fed thee with the manna.” (Congr. 170–173 [Colson, LCL])

Could anyone really suppose that it is God who afflicts, who sends hunger and death? God is first and foremost essentially good. Elsewhere, following Plato, Philo identifies God’s inexhaustible goodness as the reason for the creation of the cosmos (Opif. 21–22). God, as the cause of good, is not the purveyor of suffering. He is the agent who feeds, who makes bitter water potable. God is the author of famine only in the sense that he is leading his people away from the cuisine of the flesh, an insight readily appreciated with the right reading strategy.27 26  See, e. g., QG 4.204; Cher. 14–17; Praem. 31–35. 27  That is, we should not be misled by the language itself (μὴ παραγώμεθα οὖν ταῖς φωναῖς),



Philo of Alexandria on Testing and Temptation

17

Philo’s protestations in this passage reflect a set of commitments that emerge regularly in his writings. First of all, God cannot be considered the cause of that which is evil.28 Derivatively, it is also important for Philo, it would seem, that God disassociate himself, at least in terms of direct involvement, from actions that appear to be bad, or may be connected with evil in some sense. Most commonly, this is for Philo the sensitivity responsible for the ascription of the creation of humanity (alone) to a plurality of agents in Genesis 1:26.29 God cannot be considered responsible even for the sin that the first human has the potential to commit. The same sensitivity also emerges when Philo considers the consequences of sin. God leaves the punishment of sin to his subordinate powers. Direct involvement in the punishment of evil is not fitting for one whose essential nature it is to bring about that which is good.30 Accordingly, Philo denies in Congr. 170–173 that God himself is the cause of the actual phenomena and difficulties by way of which the people’s experience of testing emerges. As Philo puts it in De providentia, “quakes, pestilences, thunderbolts, and similar phenomena are said to be divine visitations, though in reality they are nothing of the kind.”31 Indeed, it is noticeable how Philo’s convictions concerning the primacy of God’s goodness emerge as he addresses Israel’s proving in the desert in some of the passages already considered. On the testing in Exodus 16, Philo emphasizes the divine benevolence in providing manna; it is truly a godsend (Leg. 3.162–166).32 Correspondingly on Exodus 15, Philo recognizes the divinely wrought sweetening that recasts the nature of human labor (Congr. 166–167).33 Even when Philo does not seem embarrassed by the idea of divine testing itself, he still stresses that in times of testing God yet seeks to alleviate our toil.

3.  Testing and Temptation in Philonic Thought So much, then, for the major contours of Philo’s perspective. The idea of testing and temptation is significant for Philo, playing an important role in his thought but attend to the allegorical meaning (Congr. 172). The explanation of one term with another using ἴσον (here, “afflicted” as equivalent to “disciplined and admonished and chastened”) is a very common feature of Philo’s exegesis. 28  On theodicy in Philonic thought, see D. Winston, “Theodicy and the Creation of Man in Philo of Alexandria,” in Hellenica et Judaica: hommage à Valentin Nikiprowetzky, ed. A. Caquot, M. Hadas-Lebel, and J. Riaud (Leuven: Peeters, 1986), 105–11, and D. T. Runia, “Theodicy in Philo of Alexandria,” in Theodicy in the World of the Bible, ed. A. Laato and J. C. de Moor (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 576–604. 29  Conf. 168–180; Fug. 68–72; Mut. 30–32; Opif. 72–75; note also QG 1.54 on Gen 3:22. 30  E. g., Conf. 181–182; Fug. 65–66; Abr. 142–146. 31  Prov. 2.102; the translation is taken from David Winston’s collection, Philo of Alexandria: The Contemplative Life, The Giants, and Selections, CWS (New York: Paulist Press, 1981), 181. 32  Among other passages addressing Exod 16:4, note Fug. 137 in which God as the giver of manna is identified as (first) cause (αἴτιος). 33  Note also the related discussion in Post. 156–157.

18

Michael Francis

and reading of scripture. Above all else, it is a notable dynamic of human experience in Philo’s allegory of the soul. I would venture, nevertheless, that there is something slightly underwhelming about the yield of this survey. While Philo attends to them often enough, the headline biblical texts on tempting and testing are not among his favorite passages, statistically speaking. Philo’s seemingly wholesale rejection of demonology as explanation for human actions, and evil more generally, is understood without difficulty within the larger context of Philonic thought, but it also shuts down various avenues of interest in regard to the phenomenon of temptation. The paternal and pedagogical function of divine testing is familiar from sapiential texts. Philo’s determination to separate God from genuine evil and its causes is resolute, and in substance predictably Platonic; naturally, this does not render his supporting arguments thoroughly persuasive, not least in relation to the notion of God as agent of human testing.34 Perhaps the summary we might offer most easily of all is that Philo internalizes the idea of temptation and testing, and of tempting and testing agents. But of course he does! We might offer a similar assessment of Philo’s perspective on a range of topics or issues. He interprets scripture through the lens of philosophy, very often by way of an allegorical reading concerned with the spiritual progress of the individual soul, and that with a characteristically Hellenistic concern with questions pertaining to matters of agency and action. He is fixated on the interior of the human subject. I suggest that Philo’s perspective on testing and temptation is illuminated by further consideration of this interiorizing focus in relation to his wider anthropology. First, Philo’s perspective is related to an important ambiguity or tension in his thought concerning the nature of created humanity. Are we naturally and fully good, at least as originally created? Or is there something inevitably wrong with us, something intrinsically unstable about the way we are made? If the latter, it is not adequate simply to say that Philo internalizes the problem of evil or the key drivers for human temptation. He sets his sights on the interior of the human subject just because that is where the problem or instability of created humanity lies. The tension is evident in Philo’s handling of the creation accounts.35 Why exactly does sin enter the world? Does it come as a jolt to the good created order, and so trigger an unfortunate step change in the experience and, even, constitution of humankind? Certainly, Philo can describe the first human being consisting of body and soul in exalted or immaculate terms.36 Or is human failure less 34  On the tensions in Philo’s position, see Runia, “Theodicy in Philo of Alexandria,” 583– 88, 594. 35  The discussion of the relevant Philonic passages provided by Runia in his Philo and the Timaeus of Plato and On the Creation of the Cosmos has been especially helpful in framing the argument of the present paragraph. 36  Most notably in Opif. 136–147, on which see Runia, On the Creation of the Cosmos, 330–



Philo of Alexandria on Testing and Temptation

19

of a surprise, a perhaps predictable aspect of human existence? Sin was always going to occur. Certainly, Philo can suggest as much.37 We might say that Philo tries to have it both ways, and, we should note, he has good biblical and philosophical reasons for trying to do so. On the one hand, humanity is created in God’s image, and enlivened with the very breath of God; on the other, we are creatures of the realm of “becoming,” that is, sense-perceptible reality, and, as such, subject to inevitable instability and change. Accordingly, in the relevant section of De opificio mundi, Philo presents an exceedingly positive portrait of the original excellence of humankind, including a series of reflections on the high distinction of the human body (Opif. 136–138). Yet, on proceeding with the Genesis narrative, Philo’s exposition appears to be shaped primarily by another assessment. As he puts it in addressing the creation of the woman, “since no created thing is constant, and things mortal are necessarily liable to changes and reverses, it could not but be that the first man too should experience some ill fortune” (Opif. 151 [Whitaker, LCL]). Indeed, lauding the man’s previous solitude, Philo goes so far as to suggest that the man’s life was better before the woman came on the scene. In Philo’s allegory of the soul, the woman as sense perception is the structural problem that renders humanity unstable and by constitution fair game for the enticement of pleasure. In making the appearance of woman the hinge of humanity’s fate in the creation account, Philo recognizes the primary impetus for sin – and, thus, the primary agency in temptation – as internal rather than external to humankind. The greater our natural instability, the lesser our need for another to tempt us. Taking the relevant texts as a whole, we might conclude Philo does not resolve the tension concerning the status of humanity as originally created. At the very least we might say that his Platonic commitments press towards an understanding of the human condition that makes testing and temptation seemingly inevitable on account of our bodily and material existence. Second, if our bodies remain our biggest problem, what exactly is the locus of primary concern for Philo as he considers the question of how we ought to behave?38 That would be the rational soul with which God has graced humanity. 34. Here Philo reflects on the nature of the human being formed from the earth (Gen 2:7). Note that the excellence of the human described in Gen 1:27 – in the language of the Allegorical Commentary, the heavenly kind (Leg. 1.31) – is not at all in doubt. On the complex issue of Philo’s handling of the two creation accounts (and that in different ways in different commentary series), see the survey provided by Runia, On the Creation of the Cosmos, 321–24. 37 So Opif. 151–152, 155; on the inherent instability of the human condition, see, e. g., Leg. 2.83; Gig. 28–29. 38  For the purposes of the present discussion I group together the body and various nonrational parts of the soul, a simplification justified on account of the binary contrast between rational and non-rational elements that dominates Philo’s anthropology. This is not to deny the marked variety of ways in which Philo can conceive of the structure of the human soul, nor that Philo distinguishes between the body and the sensory faculties. For an excellent recent summary of the major issues, see J. Dillon, “Philo of Alexandria and Platonist Psychology,” Études

20

Michael Francis

This is the gift that separates humankind from the rest of the earthly creation, and accounts for the extraordinary relation established in Genesis 1 between God and humanity (Opif. 69). Of the earthly creation, only humankind stands in God’s image, because only humans possess a mind.39 What is it about the human intellect that accounts for its resemblance to God? The mind, in the image of God, is privileged with a possession otherwise peculiar to God, freedom from necessity. That is, we have been given free will, or the voluntary faculty (Deus 45–47). Now, to be granted this gift is also to be charged with the responsibility for exercising freedom in an appropriate way. This, we might say, is humanity’s fundamental and perpetual test. The peril inherent in the human condition is just this possession of reason twinned with the freedom to incline towards either good or evil. Returning to the biblical creation account, we observe Philo addressing this test before either the woman or the serpent appears on the scene: So Moses says that God brought all the animals to Adam, wishing to see what appellations he would assign to them severally. Not that he was in any doubt – for to God nothing is unknown – but because he knew that he had formed in mortal man the natural ability to reason of his own motion, that so he himself might have no share in faulty action. No, he was putting man to the test (ἀπεπειρᾶτο), as a teacher does a pupil, kindling his innate capacity, and calling on him to put forth some faculty of his own, that by his own ability man might confer titles in no wise incongruous or unsuitable, but bringing out clearly the traits of the creatures who bore them. (Opif. 149 [Whitaker, LCL])

Why would God lead the animals to the man to see what he would call them? For Philo, it cannot be that God did not already know what the man would choose, as such doubt is alien to God. Rather, the scriptural contingency captures the divine concern that the man should use his mind in a suitable way.40 This is, indeed, a test: God tests the man as a teacher tests a student. Once again, the pedagogical purpose of divine testing for Philo is clear, notably, even while the rational nature is pristine and before the enfeebling effects of the non-rational have truly kicked in. We find a similar horizon of concern as we dig further into Philo’s reflections on the testing of Abraham. What is it about Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son that makes his actions truly remarkable? What is the root of success Platoniciennes VII, Philon d’Alexandrie (2010): 163–69. On the larger question of volition and human culpability in Philo, including a more substantial treatment of many of the texts and issues addressed briefly in the following paragraphs, see my “Borderline Bad: Philo of Alexandria on the Distinction Between Voluntary and Involuntary Sin” (PhD diss., The University of Notre Dame, 2015). 39  Animals (unlike plants) possess a soul, but are excluded from intellect and reason (so, e. g., Opif. 73). 40  Note the parallel treatment in QG 1.21, in which Philo presents the task of naming as a working out of the human calling concerning that which is voluntary and up to us (τὸ ἑκούσιον καὶ ἐφ’ ἡμῖν).



Philo of Alexandria on Testing and Temptation

21

as the patriarch passes this divine test? In the treatise De Abrahamo, Philo responds to the alleged criticism of some to the effect that Abraham’s actions are morally compromised, and in any case not especially notable or worthy of praise (Abr. 178).41 Among other peoples, numerous examples are known of those who have sacrificed children for some greater good. In response, Philo focuses on the motivation for Abraham’s actions in comparison with those involved in these supposedly parallel cases. Some have sacrificed kith and kin on account of local custom. Others have, in effect, been compelled to do so by attachment to personal reputation and glory or, in other cases, by some overwhelming fear (Abr. 184– 187). Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac is of a different order of magnitude because he undertakes it apart from custom, love of honor, or anxiety. Where the gift is made through fear no praise is due, for praise is recorded for voluntary good deeds, while for those which are involuntary other things are responsible, favourable occasions, chances or force brought to bear by men. (Abr. 186 [Colson, LCL])

Abraham passes this test by undertaking a genuinely voluntary deed, an exercise of his rational faculties so as to demonstrate thoroughgoing love for and devotion to God. Elsewhere, as Philo considers the various ways scripture presents the patriarch as wise over the course of his earthly experience, Abraham proves himself so by the appropriate exercise of reason over the irrational, the latter from both without and within. Why is he said to have laughed and muttered inaudibly at the prospect of the birth of a son to a couple aged nearly two hundred years combined? Why is he [Abraham] incredulous, as it were, in his confession, for says (Scripture), “He said in his mind, shall a son be born to a centenarian, and shall Sarah bear at ninety years?” (Gen 17:17) Not ineptly or casually are added the words, “He said in his mind.” For unworthy words spoken by tongue and mouth fall under transgressions and punishment. But those which are in the mind are not at all guilty. For involuntarily does the mind show arrogance when various desires come upon it from various directions, and there are times when it resists these and disputes with them resentfully, and seeks to avoid their appearances. (QG 3.56 [Marcus, LCL])

The formerly believing Abraham is not stricken with doubt. His response is a passing phenomenon, experienced fleetingly by the mind but actively repelled. It reflects a temptation that besets even those who are steadfast in their love of God and pursuit of virtue. Such temptations come inevitably in the earthly realm. The question facing the human soul is whether they will be resisted. In a similar vein, Philo addresses Abraham’s sorrowful response to the death of Sarah, as recounted in Genesis 23:2. Should the man of virtue really show grief on the death of his wife? Philo offers somewhat different responses in different places. In the Quae41  On the origins of such criticisms, see M. R. Niehoff, Philo on Jewish Identity and Culture, TSAJ 86 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 173.

22

Michael Francis

stiones et solutiones in Genesin, Abraham does not actually grieve at all. He is tempted to do so – he comes close! – but his mind pushes back against the forces that afflict it (QG 4.73). Alternatively, in the treatment of the same text in the Exposition of the Law, Philo cedes to the patriarch the emotion of grief, but only, and quite literally, within reason. Abraham moderates his grief appropriately by attention to the voice of the mind (Abr. 256–257).42 In conclusion, let us refine our preliminary assessment. Following biblical leads, Philo addresses the idea of testing and temptation as an important component of human experience (sometimes, prompted by particular texts and with due qualifications, dealing with the nature and significance of divine involvement in the same). Very often the locus of Philo’s interest and the agencies concerned are internal to the human subject. We should not attribute this merely to Philo’s philosophical orientation as reader of scripture or the particular register of Philo’s allegorical interpretation, however. It is, in addition, an entailment of Philo’s understanding of the human condition. To be human – soul and body, rational and non-rational together – is, in effect, to be tested and tempted. Success or failure turns on the performance of our noblest part in managing the struggle within.

Bibliography Borgen, P. Philo of Alexandria: An Exegete for His Time. NovTSup 86. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Dillon, J. “Philo of Alexandria and Platonist Psychology.” Études Platoniciennes VII, Philon d’Alexandrie (2010): 163–69. Ellis, N. The Hermeneutics of Divine Testing: Cosmic Trials and Biblical Interpretation in the Epistle of James and Other Jewish Literature. WUNT 2/396. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Francis, M. “Borderline Bad: Philo of Alexandria on the Distinction Between Voluntary and Involuntary Sin.” PhD diss., The University of Notre Dame, 2015. Goodenough, E. R. “Philo’s Exposition of the Law and His De Vita Mosis.” HTR 26 (1933): 109–25. Gray, P. Godly Fear: The Epistle to the Hebrews and Greco-Roman Critiques of Superstition. AcBib 16. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003. Kugel, J. L. Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as It Was at the Start of the Common Era. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998. Niehoff, M. R. Philo on Jewish Identity and Culture. TSAJ 86. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Nikiprowetzky, V. Le commentaire de l’Écriture chez Philon d’Alexandrie. ALGHJ 11. Leiden: Brill, 1977. –. “Sur une lecture démonologique de Philon d’Alexandrie, De gigantibus 6–18.” Pages 43– 71 in Hommage à G. Vadja: études d’histoire et de pensée juives. Edited by G. Nahon and C. Touati. Louvain: Peeters, 1980.

42  In this passage Philo identifies the goal of Abraham’s wrestling with grief as μετριοπαθεῖν. On this passage, as part of a larger argument identifying Philo’s theory of the emotions as Middle Platonist rather than Stoic, see H. Svebakken, Philo of Alexandria’s Exposition of the Tenth Commandment, SPhiloM 6 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012), 101–2.



Philo of Alexandria on Testing and Temptation

23

Pietersma, A., and B. G. Wright, eds. A New English Translation of the Septuagint. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Runia, D. T. Philo of Alexandria: On the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses. PACS 1. Leiden: Brill, 2001. –. Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato. Leiden: Brill, 1986. –. “Theodicy in Philo of Alexandria.” Pages 576–604 in Theodicy in the World of the Bible. Edited by A. Laato and J. C. de Moor. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Sandmel, S. Philo’s Place in Judaism: A Study of Conceptions of Abraham in Jewish Literature. New York: Ktav, 1971. Stuckenbruck, L. T. “To What Extent Did Philo’s Treatment of Enoch and the Giants Presuppose a Knowledge of the Enochic and Other Sources Preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls?” SPhiloA 19 (2007): 131–42. Svebakken, H. Philo of Alexandria’s Exposition of the Tenth Commandment. SPhiloM 6. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012. Tobin, T. H. The Creation of Man: Philo and the History of Interpretation. CBQMS 14. Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1983. Williamson, R. Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews. ALGHJ 4. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Winston, D. Philo of Alexandria: The Contemplative Life, The Giants, and Selections. New York: Paulist Press, 1981. –. “Theodicy and the Creation of Man in Philo of Alexandria.” Pages 105–11 in Hellenica et Judaica: hommage à Valentin Nikiprowetzky. Edited by A. Caquot, M. Hadas-Lebel and J. Riaud. Leuven: Peeters, 1986. –, and J. Dillon. Two Treatises of Philo of Alexandria: A Commentary on De Gigantibus and Quod Deus Sit Immutabilis. BJS 25. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983. Wolfson, H. Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. 2 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1948. Wright, A. T. “Some Observations of Philo’s De Gigantibus and Evil Spirits in Second Temple Judaism.” JSJ 36 (2005): 471–88. Yli-Karjanmaa, S. Reincarnation in Philo of Alexandria. SPhiloM 7. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2015.

Testing and Being Tested in the Epistle to the Hebrews Madison N. Pierce

Were we to associate testing with one space in Scripture, that space would almost certainly be the wilderness. In the Pentateuch, the circumstances of the desert test the people as they wander for decades, and it is there that the people test God, questioning whether he will continue to provide. In the New Testament, Jesus is led into the wilderness to be tested by the devil. This association between the desert and testing is also found in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The author situates his readers back in the desert, in solidarity with their ancestors, and on that journey, they are tested. However, this test is not just for them; their leader (ἀρχηγός) Jesus and their ancestors’ leader Moses were tested, too. This essay will survey testing in the Epistle to the Hebrews, with a particular focus on the human beings who are “testing” and “being tested” throughout the author’s argument. Hebrews utilizes the verb πειράζω five times and the related noun πειρασμός once, yet a number of tensions appear surrounding these occurrences. “Testing” can be positive (e. g., 2:18) or negative (3:8–9), divine (3:8–9) or human (11:17) – perhaps even both (2:18; 4:15). This essay will proceed through a brief summary of the relevant passages, address a few questions that arise from that initial summary, and then offer a brief theology of testing in Hebrews.

1.  Summary of Testing Passages in Hebrews Hebrews contains four passages with testing language.1 Three discuss Jesus and/ or human beings being tested, and one discusses God being tested by human beings. I will begin with the latter since it is exceptional but will otherwise proceed through the texts chronologically. As I proceed, I will offer a reading and then highlight some questions raised by the passage, though often the answers will be delayed, sometimes forever.

1  This count assumes that the textual variant in Heb 11:37, which reads ἐπειράσθησαν for ἐπρίσθησαν, is not the best reading; however, if it were, this would simply extend the theme of testing, and perhaps bolster the case for a connection between testing and discipline made below in the section on “Testing and Training,” given the proximity of this verse to Heb 12.

26

Madison N. Pierce

Hebrews 3:7–4:11 The one passage in Hebrews where God is explicitly tested is Heb 3:7–4:11, though the explicit use of πειράζω is limited to the quotation of Greek Ps 94:7– 11 in Heb 3:7–11. The author introduces this Psalm as speech by the Holy Spirit, saying: Therefore, just as the Holy Spirit says,   “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion,   on the day of testing in the wilderness, where your ancestors tested me with scrutiny   and saw my works for forty years. For this reason, I became angry with this generation   and said, ‘They always go astray in their hearts, and they do not know my ways.’   As I swore in my wrath, they shall never enter my rest.”

Hebrews 3:8 refers to the “day of testing” (ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ πειρασμοῦ), and 3:9 claims that the ancestors “tested” (ἐπείρασαν) the speaker.2 The “day of testing” specifically refers to the episode in Exod 17 where the people quarreled with Moses over a lack of water.3 Here, God is the only one who is said to be tested. The episode first portrays the “test” in terms of the people’s quarreling with Moses; however, at the conclusion, the narrator’s summary reveals a further dimension. In the Greek tradition, [Moses] named that place Πειρασμός and Λοιδόρησις because of the reviling speech of the children of Israel and because they tested the Lord saying, “Is the Lord among us or not?” (Exod 17:7)

Returning to Psalm 94, we see this dimension of the test highlighted in the author of Hebrews’ emendation or selection of his text-form. The LXX reads, “For forty years I was angry with that generation,” but the text found in Hebrews inserts the conjunction δίο so that the forty-year timeframe refers instead to the works of God. Hebrews 3:9 thus reads, “They saw my works for forty years. For this reason, I was angry ….” With this reading, the author highlights the foolishness of their inability to trust in God’s provision. They were, after all, those who left Egypt with Moses (3:16), seeing both the plagues and the Red Sea. 2  As I argue elsewhere, it is likely that the Holy Spirit is the primary divine agent in view throughout this section. See M. N. Pierce, “Hebrews 3:7–4:11 and the Spirit’s Speech to the Community,” in Muted Voices of the New Testament: Readings in the Catholic Epistles and Hebrews, ed. K. M. Hockey, M. N. Pierce, and F. Watson, LNTS 565 (London: T&T Clark, 2017), 173–84; M. N. Pierce, Divine Discourse in the Epistle to the Hebrews: The Recontextualization of Spoken Quotations of Scripture. SNTSMS 178. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020. 3  The author of Hebrews also draws upon Num 20 in his construal of the account (see, e. g., 3:17–19).



Testing and Being Tested in the Epistle to the Hebrews

27

With the place names “Massah” and “Meribah” somewhat obscured in the Greek tradition, the use of Psalm 94 in Hebrews offers the possibility for any of the ancestors’ misdeeds to be in view. Greek Psalm 77 lists several of their offenses: they demanded food (77:18); they forgot God’s deliverance from Egypt and the signs and wonders he did there (77:42–50); they crafted idols and generally did not keep to his commands (77:56). Rather than a direct reference to Massah and Meribah, a more general reading of testing better coheres with the author’s reading strategy. As his discussion of Psalm 94 progresses, he makes explicit his conceptualization of his readers within the wilderness also. Beginning in Heb 3:19, he writes: We see that they were not able to enter because of unbelief. Therefore, since [that] promise to enter his rest still remains, let us be fearful that any among you might appear to have fallen short. (3:19–4:1)

With this exhortation and the exposition that follows, the author shows how the readers are progressing toward rest. He presents their journey in terms of the ancestors’ physical trek through the desert, reimagining the audience as those still en route. This feature of the author’s argument is often referred to in Ernst Käsemann’s language of the “wandering of people of God.”4 But the ancestors are not necessarily “wandering.” They are journeying but remain in the liminal wilderness space. If the ancestors had reached their goal, then the promised rest would not have been spoken about in the Psalm (Heb 4:7–8); therefore, according to the author’s logic, the Psalm illustrates that the journey never reached its end. This is a key distinction, as the contemporary readers are not a “new” group in the wilderness. “Today” they are in the same position as the original audience that has not yet reached the promised land.5 This connection between the Psalm 4  E. Käsemann, Das wandernde Gottesvolk: Eine Untersuchung zum Hebräerbrief, FRLANT 55 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1939). C. K. Barrett prefers the language of “pilgrimage.” See C. K. Barrett, “The Eschatology of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in The Background of the New Testament and Its Eschatology, ed. W. D. Davies and D. Daube (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1956), 363–93. Barrett seems to think of his proposal following Käsemann, despite the vast difference in terminology. He writes: “The people are God are well described in the title of Dr E. Käsemann’s penetrating study of Hebrews: they are ‘das wandernde Gottesvolk,’ a pilgrim people, like Israel in the wilderness” (376). For an evaluation of the term “pilgrimage,” as well as further discussion of the history of this interpretation, see W. G. Johnsson, “The Pilgrimage Motif in the Book of Hebrews,” JBL 97 (1978): 239–51. 5  M. Thiessen, “Hebrews and the End of the Exodus,” NovT 49 (2007): 353–69. I agree with Thiessen that the author envisions the contemporary audience on the same journey as their ancestors; however, my reading differs from Thiessen at two points: (1) the motif of “journeying” does not begin with the Exodus, but with Abraham (see 11:9–10, 13–15; cf. 11:22, 38); (2) Hebrews does not necessarily argue that the Israelites never took possession of the land. What seems more likely is that the author redefines the goal of the Exodus, intentionally eliminating any discussion of the intermediate milestone that occurred at their entrance into Canaan. In Joshua, which is where Thiessen bases much of his argument about the land, “rest” is typically from their enemies (e. g., Josh 10:20; 11:23; 23). Joshua 21:44, which Thiessen cites as a key

28

Madison N. Pierce

text and its description of testing also brings in the readers because the Psalm is directly addressed to them: “Do not harden your hearts as you did in the rebellion during the time of testing …” Each reader is in danger of testing God again. But how does that relate to one’s own testing? The wilderness is a space where God is tested and where God tests the Israelites.6 In Exod 20:20, for example, Moses tells the people that the terrifying thunder and lightning are a part of God’s test. In Exod 16:4, God tests them through his strict instructions regarding the daily provision of manna. Twice more, using the prefixed form ἐκπειράζω, Deut 8 refers to God testing the people in the wilderness. Deuteronomy 8:2 reads, “God led you into the wilderness in order that he might distress you and test you and discern the things in your hearts.” Perhaps testing is the primary purpose for their journey through the wilderness. Hebrews 2:14–18 Elsewhere in Hebrews, human beings are the objects of testing, as for example in Heb 2:14–18: Therefore, since the children share blood and flesh, he also partakes of those things in like manner in order that through [his] death he might destroy the one who holds power over death – namely, the Devil – and release those who by fear of death throughout their lives were subject to slavery. For surely he does not help the angels, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. So he had to be made like his siblings in every way so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God so that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. Since he himself suffered when he was tested, he is able to help those who are being tested.

Having been established as God’s Son in Heb 1, Jesus then is said to call those being made holy his “brothers and sisters.” To save these children who are “blood and flesh” (2:14), Jesus also is necessarily human. If, on the contrary, Jesus intended to help the angels, for example, then he would not take on corporeality; he would instead be a “spirit” (1:14; cf. 1:7). Moreover, the author of Hebrews does not limit Jesus’s solidarity with humanity to his human physicality. He also fully shared in the human experience, being “made like his siblings in every way” (κατὰ πάντα, 2:17); however, one way is especially pertinent: “he himself suffered when he was tested” (2:18), which enables him as “merciful and faithful high priest … to help those who are being tested” (2:17–18). The author of Hebrews specifically names “testing” as a universal human experience, one text in his favor, is no exception: “Then the Lord our God rested [κατέπαυσεν] them from all around in the manner that he swore to their ancestors. No one was raised up against them from among any of their enemies. The Lord delivered all their enemies into their hands.” 6  For a more thorough discussion of “testing” in the Pentateuch, see J. W. van Henten’s essay in this volume.



Testing and Being Tested in the Epistle to the Hebrews

29

so important that Jesus must (ὤφειλεν) experience it in order to serve on their behalf. A question arises regarding how Jesus was tested. Is the author referring primarily to Jesus’s trial and death? Or does he have his whole human experience in view? While in Heb 2:9 the author explicitly refers to the “suffering of death” (τὸ πάθημα τοῦ θανάτου), he then goes on to say in 2:10 that the “forerunner of salvation” is “made perfect through sufferings” (διὰ παθημάτων τελειῶσαι). Within two verses, he refers to Jesus’s suffering in the singular and the plural. While the plural could be a stylistic variation,7 it seems more likely that the author first refers to the “suffering of death” in reference to the end of Jesus’s life and then moves to a discussion of the plural sufferings throughout his life that culminated in his perfection. In 2:9, the author heralds Jesus as a visual model – one for them to “look to” – but in 2:10, he leads them in procession. Thus, in Heb 2:10 the author shifts from a focus on the Son as one who is distinct (even in his role as ideal human representative in the Psalm 8 quotation) to one who leads his brothers and sisters to glory (2:10), who walks among  – though certainly in front of  – them. This suggests that all of the suffering that Jesus experienced as a human being may well be in view in Heb 2:18.8 After all, it seems safe to assume that those to whom the author is speaking have not been tested unto death, in which case he would not have been tested as they are. The idea of suffering presented in this verse raises a few questions: Who and/or what tests humanity and its high priest? Is this “help” retroactive? In other words, is Jesus able to assist those who were tested before he “entered the world”? This latter question is relevant for the other individual who is tested in the Epistle, to whom we will return later. Hebrews 4:14–16 Another text that serves alongside Heb 2:18 to offer the author’s understanding of human “testing” is Heb 4:15. In one of two major transitions in Hebrews between sections, the author exhorts his readers, beginning in 4:14: Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast to our confession. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tested in every way, like we are, [yet is] without sin. Therefore, let us approach the throne of grace with confidence so that we might receive mercy and find grace as well-timed help.

7  So P. Ellingworth: “The plural is probably a stylistic variant for the singular [in verse 9].” The Epistle to the Hebrews, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 161. Lane and Koester translate this as “suffering” with no comment; see W. L. Lane, Hebrews 1–8, WBC 47a (Dallas, TX: Word, 1991), 57–58; C. R. Koester, Hebrews, AB 36 (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 236. 8  G. L. Cockerill, The Epistle to the Hebrews, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 138, n. 64; D. Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection: An Examination of the Concept of Perfection in the Epistle to the Hebrews, SNTSMS 47 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 68–69.

30

Madison N. Pierce

In Heb 2, Jesus becoming fully human and taking part in human experience has a logical purpose: this qualifies him for ministry on behalf of humanity. Having established the necessity, the author then goes a step further; it is not just logical, but practical. As a human who has been tested in every way that we are, Jesus can be gracious; he can empathize. This is why priests are taken from humanity – they are able to deal gently because they too are subject to weakness (5:2).9 But Jesus remains qualified to offer himself, a point crucial to the latter half of Hebrews, because his weakness, or more explicitly his testing, never results in sin (4:15). The connection between sin and testing is introduced here in Hebrews, and it is paired with another category: weakness. Weakness, and thus perhaps testing, is a necessary part of humanity, but sin is not.10 This is not to say that Jesus’s brothers and sisters might escape sin in their testing, but instead to say that Jesus’s humanity demonstrates that sin is not necessary to human experience. This passage also raises questions for the author’s understanding of testing: again, who or what tests humanity and its high priest? Does the author primarily conceive of testing as it correlates to sin? What about physical trials?11 When does Jesus help humanity, and how? Hebrews 11:17–19 The testing of only one other individual is mentioned in Hebrews: Abraham. In Heb 11:17–19, the author recalls Gen 22 and appropriates language for “testing” (πειράζω) that is parallel to the Akedah in Greek traditions. The author of Hebrews writes as follows: By faith, when he was tested, Abraham offered Isaac; namely, the one who received the promise, the one to whom it was said, “through Isaac your offspring will be chosen,” [he] was offering his only son, reckoning that God was able even to raise [someone] out of death, so as an example he received him back.

9  As Ellingworth contends, Jesus is not contrasted with the Levitical priests until later in the argument (7:11–28). At this point, the author is established Jesus as a legitimate priest; see Epistle to the Hebrews, 268. Contra Cockerill, who writes, “Christ sympathizes with ‘our weaknesses,’ but he was not determined by ‘weakness’ as was the Aaronic high priest” (Epistle to the Hebrews, 225 n. 18). 10  On weakness, see Lane, Hebrews 1–8, 115. Harold Attridge argues that the Son’s “sinlessness” is essential to the argument of Hebrews in Hebrews, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989), 140–41; cf. Cockerill, Epistle to the Hebrews, 226–27. Contra Ronald Williamson, who writes, “How could Jesus in any sense save sinners if he had not fully shared himself in the human condition, as the author of Hebrews insists he did, including actual participation in the experience of sinning?” (“Hebrews 4:15 and the Sinlessness of Jesus,” ExpTim 86 [1974]: 4–8, here 7). 11  Koester asserts that “physical weakness,” “social weakness,” and “vulnerability to sin” are all included in the author’s understanding of weakness (Hebrews, 283; cf. Attridge, Epistle to the Hebrews, 140); however, Ellingworth limits this to “intellectual and moral weaknesses which leads to failure to do God’s will” (Epistle to the Hebrews, 268).



Testing and Being Tested in the Epistle to the Hebrews

31

Like Jesus, Abraham passes his test. He was willing to offer Isaac without knowing in what way God would fulfill his promise of descendants through Isaac. This passage, as David Moffitt has argued, parallels another in Heb 5:7–10, where Jesus offered “prayers and petitions to the one able to save him out of death” (5:7).12 The author may be presenting a parallel between the two figures. Of course, Jesus’s test is being killed; Abraham’s test is killing.13 A distinct aspect of Abraham’s test is that it is not universal. The only potential parallel in Hebrews is that of Jesus’s death; however, Hebrews presents Jesus assenting to that test when he enters into the world (Heb 10:5–7). Thus, Hebrews does not present Abraham’s test with representative, or perhaps even paradigmatic, force. The series of examples in Heb 11 serves to corroborate the fact that God previewed what was to come. One common thread for each of these socalled heroes is their ability to discern God’s future plan in some way, and when the author writes, the plan has fully been revealed. In addition to their role as the object of testing in Hebrews, the author might conceptually connect Abraham and Jesus in another way. One of the questions raised by Heb 2:18 is the extent of Jesus’s “help” on behalf of the brothers and sisters. If Jesus helps all those in human history with their “tests,” does he also help Abraham? We might conjecture that Jesus reveals God’s power to raise the dead to Abraham because he himself is certain of it, though the help may surely be more general. While this verse raises many questions about the author’s reading of the Akedah, since this verse refers to Abraham’s testing only in passing, no further questions are relevant for our inquiry.

2.  A Theology of Testing in Hebrews A comprehensive theological overview of testing appears beyond the scope of Hebrews; however, the four passages discussed reflect on the fundamental role of testing in the human experience. When he enters the world, Jesus is qualified to help his brothers and sisters in their testing because he too suffered when he was tested (2:18). His suffering is extensive – he is tested in every way – and thus, he can understand the weakness of human beings (4:15). Two individual tests are also highlighted by the author. God is tested by the wilderness generation (3:8– 9), and Abraham is tested by God (11:17).

12  D. M. Moffitt, Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection in the Epistle to the Hebrews, NovTSup 141 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 193–94. 13  Jon D. Levenson warns against classifying this action as something other than “sacrifice,” though he is particularly worried about the label “murder;” see “Abusing Abraham: Traditions, Religious Histories, & Modern Misinterpretations,” Judaism 47 (1998): 259–77.

32

Madison N. Pierce

The Testing of Abraham in Hebrews Abraham is offered in Hebrews as an example of a specific test for a specific individual. Though the lesson learned from the test offers an illustration or example for the future generations, the test itself does not. Some later retellings of the Akedah distance the test somewhat from God, but in Gen 22, God is clearly the agent of testing: “And it came about after [Abraham’s oath] that God tested Abraham and said to him … ‘Take your son whom you love …’” (22:1–2). God calls to Abraham precisely with this test in mind, and later when Abraham “passes” the test, God responds to him with praise regarding his willingness to sacrifice Isaac, specifically noting Abraham’s fear and obedience (Gen 22:12, 16). In Hebrews, the focus is on Abraham knowing that God could resolve the dire situation brought about by killing the child associated with the promise: “Abraham reasoned that God was able to raise him out of death  …” (11:19). Here, God’s agency in the test remains implicit, which offers a degree of consistency across the passages where humans are tested in Hebrews. Particularly in the passages where Jesus is tested alongside or on behalf of humanity, no mention of the one who tests is made. Abraham’s test may also influence the argument of Heb 2.14 As others have noted, in addition to the language of testing, there is a reference to the “offspring of Abraham” in 2:16. The significance of this reference is confounding, given the usual assumption that the Psalm 8 quotation in the context (Heb 2:5–7) evokes the figure of Adam and that the further allusions to Psalm 110 (esp. Heb 2:10) evoke the figure of David; however, Psalm 8 is not only linked with Adam. In fact, in Jewish literature, this passage is understood to be spoken precisely at the Akedah. In these later biblical traditions, God’s relationship with Abraham provokes jealousy among the angels.15 They come to God after the birth of Isaac and say, “What is man that you are mindful of him?” The nature of God’s response varies from tradition to tradition, but the result is the same: God tests Abraham. This may also explain the return to the author’s discussion of angels in Heb 2. Despite the angels’ desire to the contrary, Heb 2:16 notes, “Surely, God does not help the angels, but he helps the offspring of Abraham.” These factors together suggest that the author is indeed alluding to the Akedah in Heb 2, but in this passage in Hebrews, Jesus, not Abraham, is tested. 14  James Swetnam develops the most comprehensive case, though he offers some of the evidence as unlikely, in Jesus and Isaac: A Study of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Light of the Aqe­ dah, AnBib 94 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981). 15  On this development, see S. Spiegel, The Last Trial: On the Legends and Lore of the Command to Abraham to Offer Isaac as a Sacrifice: The Akedah (New York: Behrman House, 1979), 167–68, n. 148; M. Bernstein, “Angels at the Aqedah: A Study in the Development of a Midrashic Motif,” DSD 7 (2000): 263–91. Bernstein also highlights a development where angels sing at the Akedah. Curiously, one of the few places in Scripture where Jesus sings also appears in Heb 2:12.



Testing and Being Tested in the Epistle to the Hebrews

33

The author highlights in both Heb 2:14–18 and Heb 4:14–16 how Jesus’s solidarity applies “in every way,” but what this means for the testing is unclear. Is Jesus tested on behalf of every individual in every way that they are ever tested, or is he tested in every representative way? The author’s presentation of Jesus’s testing and the emphasis on its ubiquity (κατὰ πάντα) seems to prefer the prior, though the text is by no means clear. Further, what kind of tests does the author have in mind? Would it be appropriate to conceive of Jesus’s help in terms of “substitutionary testing”? Is there an aim or end goal for the testing? We will return to many of these questions in the discussion that follows. Help and the Wilderness Perhaps the greatest ambiguity in these texts is how Jesus “helps.” Though Eve is the first human to offer “help” in the Jewish scriptures (Gen 2:18, 20), God soon becomes the primary one described as “helper” or depicted as extending “help.” In fact, a study by Eberhard Bons surveys the Greek lexical form βοηθός and finds no other specific individuals (besides Eve) are referred to in this way.16 “Helper” (‫ )עזר‬language is frequently used in the Hebrew Bible to refer to God; however, turning to the corresponding Greek traditions, this language is even more prevalent because translators opt for βοήθος not only when translating the root ‫ עזר‬but also when translating ‫“( צור‬rock”) and ‫“( עז‬refuge”) among other roots.17 YHWH is primarily depicted offering military help to the people in the present (Josh 10:6; 1 Sam 7:12; 1 Chr 5:20; Pss 46:5; 79:9) or future (Isa 41:40, 13, 14; 44:2; 49:8; 59:7, 9; 63:5), but in the Psalter, individuals also cry out for help during their oppression. Two psalms of note for our inquiry are Greek Psalms 21 and 39 since selections from both texts are spoken by Jesus within Hebrews. First, in Heb 2:12, 16  E. Bons, “The Noun Βοηθός as a Divine Title,” in The Reception of Septuagint Words in Jewish-Hellenistic and Christian Literature, ed. E. Bons, R. Brucker, and J. Joosten, WUNT II 367 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 53–66, esp. 61–62. Bons’s aim is to examine why this language is not more prevalent in the NT, and while he does not make a strong claim, this study hopes to show that Hebrews does draw upon this concept more frequently than previously acknowledged. Among the 61 instances of βοηθός found in the LXX, the following categories of use appear: 44 refer to YHWH; 8 refer to an absent or sought-after helper (2  Kgdms  22:42; Jdt 7:25; Ps 21:12; 71:12; 106:12; Job 29:12; Isa 63:5; Lam 1:7); 5 refer to Eve or another wife (Gen 2:18, 20; Tob 8:6 [x2]; Sir 36:24); and 3 refer to human helpers, though in the plural (1 Chr 12:19; Ezek 12:14; Nah 3:9). In the latter two occurrences, the prophetic context of the word may be in service of the recipient’s indictment (i. e., “You have humans as helpers, rather than God”). A final occurrence is likely to be interpreted as an attributive genitive (Prov 13:12): “Better is the one who begins with a helping heart than the one who promises and leads toward hope” (κρείσσων ἐναρχόμενος βοηθῶν καρδίᾳ τοῦ ἐπαγγελλομένου καὶ εἰς ἐλπίδα ἄγοντος). 17  R. C. Gleason, “Angels and the Eschatology of Heb 1–2,” NTS 49 (2003): 90–107, see esp. 104–5. For more on the translation of divine epithets and actions in the LXX, see S. Olofsson, God Is My Rock: A Study of Translation Technique and Theological Exegesis in the Septuagint, ConBOT 31 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1990).

34

Madison N. Pierce

which appears in the immediate context of one of the “testing” passages mentioned above, Jesus speaks Ps 21:23, claiming solidarity with his human siblings. “Help” language appears twice in this psalm. First, in 21:12, in the half where the speaker recalls his despair, he says: Do not be far from me for trouble is near   because there is no one who helps!

Later, as the speaker turns to praise to God if he is rescued, he returns to similar language in 21:20: But you, Lord, do not delay my help;   give heed to my defense.

These verses are similar to the two in Psalm 39 where “help” language appears. Psalm 39:7–9 is spoken by Jesus in Heb 10:5–7 when “he comes into the world.” This text offers his assent to the Father’s will in the “body [God] prepared for [him].” Later in the Psalm, the speaker recalls a time when he was in distress. He cries out in 39:14, Be well-pleased to save me, Lord;   give heed to my help.

Then in 39:18, I am needy and poor;   the Lord cares for me. You are my help and my protector;   O my God, do not delay.

Help here, as most other places in Scripture, comes in the form of physical rescue. A group or individual is in distress, and God rescues, or is called upon to rescue, the one(s) in need. But how well does this scenario cohere with Heb 2 and 4? There Jesus is helper, but in Hebrews’ quotations of these psalms, he is the one who is helped. Further, in those passages, the nature of the test remains unclear. At various points in the argument, the author of Hebrews reveals that the original audience is facing physical trials (10:32–36; cf. 12:4–11; 13:3, 13), but more frequently, he appeals to their internal struggle of faith – the danger that they might fall away. If this is the primary concern of the author, is it not more likely that he envisions divine assistance in this realm? This is especially so if the author envisions the tests endured by Jesus and other human beings in broader terms as well. For a test that goes beyond physical pain and struggle, one needs help of the same kind. Further evidence that the author might be extending YHWH’s help beyond the physical realm may come in the author’s use of the journeying motif throughout his argument. As previously noted, this theme becomes explicit in Heb 3–4, but glimpses appear well before its primary explication also. For example, a faint nod to the



Testing and Being Tested in the Epistle to the Hebrews

35

wilderness tradition may appear in the exhortation in Heb 2:1–4. In addition to the mention of God’s first message being spoken by angels, presumably at Sinai (cf. Deut 33:2), now salvation is attested by “signs and wonders and various miracles and distributions of the Holy Spirit” (2:4). The first two testimonies to salvation, “signs and wonders” or τὰ σημεῖα καὶ τὰ τέρατα, appear together almost twenty times in reference to God’s works in the desert. NT authors often use this phrase (e. g., Matt 24:24 // Mark 13:22; John 4:48; Acts 2:43; 4:30; 5:12; 6:8; 14:3; 15:12; Rom 15:19), which suggests it might have gained traction as an idiom for God’s work continued among them. In addition to this connection to Exodus traditions, in Heb 2:14–18, as David Moffitt has argued, several links to Passover traditions appear.18 Most notably, Jesus “releases those who by fear of death throughout their lives were subject to slavery” (2:15). Slavery at the hand of Pharaoh and death at the hand of the Destroyer (11:28: ὁ ὀλεθρεύων) are connected fears for God’s people in Exod 12–13. The author of Hebrews moves beyond a discussion of their physical bondage to their spiritual bondage – their slavery to the Devil, who holds the power of death. But the death of God’s firstborn redeems, releasing them from their fear and bondage. These connections to the wilderness tradition in Heb 2 are somewhat tenuous on their own, but with the journeying motif in view, which at least spans from Heb 3–4 up until Heb 12, it seems likely that the author’s reliance on these Pentateuchal traditions extends beyond those boundaries. Thus, in the course of Heb 2–4, the author takes (at least) two significant events from the lives of the readers’ ancestors and allegorizes or spiritualizes the impact of that event for the present audience. They are faced with the plague of death, which passes over them due to the death of their high priest, yet they are still journeying in the wilderness, awaiting their arrival at the goal. The author of Hebrews is not explicit regarding the nature of Jesus’s help, and yet the author weaves in a number of metaphors that define Jesus’s role more clearly. For example, he is their leader (ἀρχηγός).19 The ἀρχηγός is the forerunner, the physical leader of the group as they travel, and a judge in their disputes. Jesus also is the audience’s high priest, the one who makes atonement on their behalf. In Heb 2 and 4, this is explicitly linked to Jesus’s “help,” and also in Hebrews 2 is linked to the release of the people from the fear of death. Eventually, he is identified as their offering, and once even more specifically as their “redemp18  D. M. Moffitt, “Wilderness Identity and Pentateuchal Narrative: Distinguishing between Jesus’ Inauguration and Maintenance of the New Covenant in Hebrews,” in Muted Voices, 153– 71. 19  This is a role occupied by Moses and other leaders in the Pentateuch. Significantly, in Num 14, just before the prohibition to enter the promised rest, the people say to Moses, “Let us appoint a leader and turn back to Egypt” (14:4). In saying this to their current leader, they of course make clear their dissatisfaction. Additionally, this role has a dual purpose for the people at this time.

36

Madison N. Pierce

tion” or “ransom” (ἀπολύτρωσις; 9:15). It is in this last way that Jesus’s help goes beyond the portrayal of God as helper in the Psalter. There God acts on behalf of humanity by intervening or interrupting; he waives punishment or ceases persecution. Jesus here not only enters human form but also enters into the test that humanity endures. He stands alongside his brothers and sisters as they endure it and ultimately bears the eschatological consequences. Testing and Training Thus far the missing piece in the author’s presentation of testing is how it impacts the individual while the test is happening. It seems that the one being tested can certainly take solace in Jesus enduring the same test, though the test itself could have no obvious positive impact. But if testing and discipline are implicitly connected for the author, as they are in some wisdom literature of this era, specifically Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach, then this is not the case – the test is for training.20 The author of Hebrews may not know these texts, but he certainly makes similar connections. Let us examine a few relevant passages before returning to a discussion of Heb 12. Sirach combines testing and discipline only once: Because, at first, [Wisdom] will travel with him, though he twists and turns; fear and dread she will bring upon him, and she will torment him with training until she has faith in his soul, and she will test him with her statutes. (4:17)

Wisdom’s tests are not described as “tenfold,” but they do seem rather thorough here. Elsewhere in Sirach, “testing” language varies quite a bit, but let me raise three of its claims that intersect with Hebrews’ presentation of testing: (1) testing is a universal part of the human experience, since “When you come to serve the Lord, you must prepare your heart for testing” (2:1); (2) one must not test the Lord (18:23); and (3) being tested is ultimately positive. The last of these points is found in the saying of Sir 34:10: “Whoever has not been tested knows little, but the one who has wandered multiplies wisdom.” These glimpses into Sirach reveal a relatively loose connection between discipline and testing, despite the prevalence of the former in particular. On the contrary, in Wisdom of Solomon, the language of testing rarely appears without the language of discipline within the same section of discourse, but in two instances, they are directly correlated. First, in Wis 3:5: Then having been disciplined a little, they will receive great good because God tested them and found them worthy of himself.

20  Matthew Thiessen develops connections between Heb 12:5–13 and the wilderness motif, which inadvertently leads to some discussion of testing. See Thiessen, “Hebrews 12.5–13, the Wilderness Period, and Israel’s Discipline,” NTS 55 (2009): 366–79.



Testing and Being Tested in the Epistle to the Hebrews

37

Then, in Wis 11:9–10: For when they were tested, though they were being disciplined with mercy, they learned how the ungodly were tested by being judged with wrath. For these people, you were examining [ἐδοκίμασας] them by warning as a Father, but for those people, you were examining them by condemning as a relentless king.

Here the testing, again of the ancestors in the desert, is linked to paternal behavior: God tests his own people in contrast to his condemnation of the others. Further, in both passages the testing is equated or correlated with discipline. The author of Wisdom’s presentation of discipline as a measure of fatherly love is similar to Prov 3:11–12, which reads: The discipline of the Lord you shall not reject,   nor shall you be weary in his correction. For the Lord corrects the one whom he loves,   and as a father, he delights in his child.

This proverb reflects the same principle as Wis 11:9–10: a parent disciplines a child because the child is loved. In Heb 12:5–6, the author quotes Prov 3 as a “word of exhortation,” to the present readers. Discipline legitimizes their position as children of God. Further, it ultimately “yields a peaceful harvest for all those who are trained through its righteousness” (Heb 12:11). Testing language does not appear here in Heb 12; however, the connection between testing and training in Wisdom of Solomon suggests the pairing may be at work implicitly. Further, the author does refer to physical as well as emotional or mental difficulty – their “struggle against sin” as well as their potential to “shed blood” (12:4). Since the author presents hardship in terms of testing elsewhere, it is possible that he uses this quotation to develop the theme through the introduction of synonymous terminology. By introducing the language of discipline or training, the author points toward the goal of the test, rather than the Son’s participation in it.

3. Conclusion By means of its exploratory readings of Hebrews’ testing passages, this essay suggests that, although the author of Hebrews leaves many questions unanswered, his presentation of testing is cohesive, albeit dynamic and multifaceted. In Heb 3:7–11, the Holy Spirit recalls how God was tested by the ancestors in the wilderness. Envisioning his readers in the desert, the author draws upon a vast range of texts, moving among traditions to fill in his portrayal of the contemporary audience. These people are led by Jesus, whose testing is primary in Hebrews as a whole. He is tested in every way. He is fully made like them in their humanity, granting him the ability to “help.” Likely drawing upon the portrayal of YHWH as helper throughout Scripture, Jesus is the one who is helped by the Father and also extends help to his brothers and sisters in their hour of need.

38

Madison N. Pierce

Bibliography Attridge, H. Hebrews. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989. Barrett, C. K. “The Eschatology of the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Pages 363–93 in The Background of the New Testament and Its Eschatology. Edited by W. D. Davies and D. Daube. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1956. Bernstein, M. “Angels at the Aqedah: A Study in the Development of a Midrashic Motif.” DSD 7 (2000): 263–91. Bons, E. “The Noun Βοηθός as a Divine Title.” Pages 53–66 in The Reception of Septuagint Words in Jewish-Hellenistic and Christian Literature. Edited by E. Bons, R. Brucker and J. Joosten. WUNT 2/367. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Cockerill, G. L. The Epistle to the Hebrews. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Ellingworth, P. The Epistle to the Hebrews. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. Gleason, R. C. “Angels and the Eschatology of Heb 1–2.” NTS 49 (2003): 90–107. Johnsson, W. G. “The Pilgrimage Motif in the Book of Hebrews.” JBL 97 (1978): 239–51. Käsemann, E. Das wandernde Gottesvolk: Eine Untersuchung zum Hebräerbrief. FRLANT 55. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1939. Koester, C. R. Hebrews. AB 36. New York: Doubleday, 2001. Lane, W. L. Hebrews 1–8. WBC 47a. Dallas, TX: Word, 1991. Levenson, J. D. “Abusing Abraham: Traditions, Religious Histories, & Modern Misinterpretations.” Judaism 47 (1998): 259–77. Moffitt, D. M. Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection in the Epistle to the Hebrews. NovTSup 141. Leiden: Brill, 2011. –. “Wilderness Identity and Pentateuchal Narrative: Distinguishing between Jesus’ Inauguration and Maintenance of the New Covenant in Hebrews.” Pages 153–71 in Muted Voices of the New Testament: Readings in the Catholic Epistles and Hebrews. Edited by K. M. Hockey, M. N. Pierce and F. Watson. LNTS 565. London: T&T Clark, 2017. Olofsson, S. God Is My Rock: A Study of Translation Technique and Theological Exegesis in the Septuagint. ConBOT 31. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1990. Peterson, D. Hebrews and Perfection: An Examination of the Concept of Perfection in the Epistle to the Hebrews. SNTSMS 47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Pierce, M. N. Divine Discourse in the Epistle to the Hebrews: The Recontextualization of Spoken Quotations of Scripture. SNTSMS 178. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020. –. “Hebrews 3:7–4:11 and the Spirit’s Speech to the Community.” Pages 173–84 in Muted Voices of the New Testament: Readings in the Catholic Epistles and Hebrews. Edited by K. M. Hockey, M. N. Pierce and F. Watson. LNTS 565. London: T&T Clark, 2017. Spiegel, S. The Last Trial: On the Legends and Lore of the Command to Abraham to Offer Isaac as a Sacrifice: The Akedah. New York: Behrman House, 1979. Swetnam, J. Jesus and Isaac: A Study of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Light of the Aqedah. AnBib 94. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981. Thiessen, M. “Hebrews 12.5–13, the Wilderness Period, and Israel’s Discipline.” NTS 55 (2009): 366–79. –. “Hebrews and the End of the Exodus.” NovT 49 (2007): 353–69. Williamson, R. “Hebrews 4:15 and the Sinlessness of Jesus.” ExpTim 86 (1974): 4–8.

Eschatological Temptation the Enochic Way A Note on 1 Enoch 94:5 Loren T. Stuckenbruck

The early part of the Epistle of Enoch (1 En. 92:1–5; 93:11–105:2)1 offers the only mention of temptation within the entire early Enochic collection (1 En. 1–108). Much neglected in commentaries and secondary literature,2 the passage occurs near the end of the Epistle’s opening frame at 1 Enoch 94:5. The text, which is only preserved in Ge‛ez, reads as follows, according to most of the earlier manuscripts and the later standardized recension:3 And take hold of the thoughts of your heart and do not let my words be lost from your heart. For I  understand that sinners will tempt (yemākkerewomu) humans in order to make what is wicked out of wisdom, so that no place will be found for it, and no (kind of ) temptation (wa-kwellu makrā) will vanish.

In what follows I would like to address both the semantics and ambiguities that riddle this text and, in this way, attempt to locate its meaning against the backdrop of the larger Enochic corpus, in terms of both possible influences and how it may have been received.

1.  Vocabulary and Semantics First, in order to make sense of the text, it is necessary to consider the Ge‛ez root behind the verb “tempt” (makkara) and noun “temptation” (makrā). As 1  Concerning this work’s literary character, its socio-religious setting, and its tradition-historical context, see L. T. Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91–108, CEJL (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007), 185– 216. 2  E. g., there is no comment on the motif in 1 En. 94:5 in R. H. Charles, The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1912), 234–35; G. W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch Chapters 1–36; 81–108, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 458–59; D. Olson, Enoch: A New Translation (North Richland Hills, TX: BIBAL Press, 2004), notes on 226 and 228; and Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91–108, 255–56. 3  The frequent distinction between an “earlier” (Eth. I) and “later” (Eth. II) recension is misleading. Despite being less well attested, the former is, in fact, far more varied and much less uniform than the latter, with the corollary that contrasts between the two are not based on parity among details. For a discussion of the manuscripts referred to what follows, see T. M. Erho and L. T. Stuckenbruck, “A Manuscript History of Ethiopic Enoch,” JSP 23 (2013): 87–133.

40

Loren T. Stuckenbruck

the word can mean either “testing,” “trial,” or “temptation,”4 a precise interpretation depends in part on the English translation one chooses. Why, one might ask, might the latter of these options be preferable, and what is at stake? Initially, it is important to observe that the subject of the verb is “sinners,” with the object being other humans. With this in mind, the possibility of the text denoting “testing” seems less likely; to examine or test someone to prove his or her faithfulness can involve the agency not only of a malevolent being (e. g., the devil or “S/satan”) or another human, but also of God. Indeed, there is an abundance of examples among the Dead Sea Scrolls in which God acts as one who tests (Heb. ‫ בחן‬and ‫)נסה‬.5 This is, of course, nothing new, as it reflects language already applied in the Hebrew Bible.6 As is well known, among the latter text traditions, the prose narrative leading to Abraham’s attempted sacrifice of Isaac in Genesis 22 depicts God as the one who “tests” Abraham (Gen 22:1 – ‫נסה‬, Grk. ἐπείρασεν). In addition, although Jubilees famously assigns a significant place in the story to Mastema, the chief of all malevolent beings, (Jub. 17:15–18:19), he does not test or try Abraham directly; rather, he does so only through God’s permission, similar to what happens when God allows Satan to “touch” Job (Job 1–2; here, 1:11).7 On the other hand, when we address instances in which the divine will is not involved but in which wicked humans or malevolent beings are at work, it becomes easier to speak of “tempting” in the sense of leading astray by means of luring through activity or objects that, at first blush, appear attractive (cf., e. g., “the lure of wealth [ἡ ἀπάτη τοῦ πλούτου]” in Mark 4:19 par. Mt 13:22; and Jesus’ encounter with the devil in Mt 4:1–16 par. Luke 4:1–13). Some texts have trouble with any implication of God as a cause for wrongdoing and thus distance the divine from any such immediate role (see Jas 1:12–15, in which human desires are held to account).8 Correspondingly, the text of 1 Enoch 94:5 is unambiguous in making “sinners” as culpable for any abandonment from wisdom. The writer has the ancient Enoch predict this state of affairs, which at the same time he regards as a prelude to the eschaton.

4  See W. Leslau, A Comparative Dictionary of Ge‛ez (Classical Ethiopic) (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1991), 340–41 (under the root mkr II). 5  Cf. 1QM XVI, 11; 1QHa X, 15; XXIII, 28; 4Q176 15 1–5 (drawing on Zech 13:9); 4Q177 10–11 10; 4Q443 2 4 (though as a negative). On the language of testing, see Tzvi Novick’s essay in this volume. 6  This motif is dealt with by other contributions in this volume; here, I have in mind esp. Gen 22:1; Ps 17:3; 26:2 (both Heb. terms are in synonymous parallelism); and Jer 11:20. 7  On testing in Jubilees, see Todd Hanneken’s essay in this volume. 8  On testing in James, see Susanne Luther’s essay in this volume.



Eschatological Temptation the Enochic Way

41

2.  1 Enoch 94:5 and Interpretive Possibilities With the question of ancient and contemporary terminology in mind, we are in a position to take a closer look at the Enochic text. Though the above translation has opted for “tempt(ation)” largely based on the subject “sinners,” it is worth noting two other translations, by François Martin (1906)9 and Siegbert Uhlig (1984)10 respectively, which render the verb and noun differently. On the one hand, Martin’s French translation takes the verb in the sense of “tempt,” though the noun is rendered with “test” (“éprouvé”): that is, “sinners will tempt,” and “no sort of testing will disappear.” Uhlig likewise renders the same Ge‛ez root with two expressions: “die Wünder werden die Menschen verführen (‘lead astray’) … keine Versuchung (‘temptation’) wird nachlassen.” Both these translations reflect some of the difficultly of coming up with an appropriate translation; while Uhlig opts for a dynamic equivalent to “temptation” in having sinners “lead astray,” Martin translates the noun more neutrally: in the author’s own time, the temptations humans will be subjected to will amount to a testing in every way, to demonstrate their faithfulness or unfaithfulness to God. Taking Martin’s translation as a point of departure, I think an argument, based on contextual considerations, can be put forth in support of “testing” as the more appropriate connotation behind the terminology used. In the Epistle of Enoch, several terms function to describe those against whom the text repeatedly complains, with “sinners,”11 “rich (ones),”12 and “wicked (ones)”13 being the most common. In the world of the text, there are two characteristics attributed to those who go by these designations. First, they are regarded as socially privileged. They have the means to enjoy life’s luxuries in a way that the writer believed comes at the expense of a less socio-economically privileged and “righteous” group of Jews with a corresponding ideology. The text, whether in the frame (92:1–5; 93:11–94:5; 104:10–105:2) or in the main body (95:1–104:9),14 ascribes to the sinners a way of understanding sacred tradition that equates socio-economic well-being with one’s status as being “blessed” for faithfulness to the covenant (as in Deut chapters 28–30). The text goes on in 1 Enoch 103:9–15 to allude numerous times to Deuteronomy 28 in an ironic way: the dead righteous ones are made to admit that they are experiencing what 9  Le Livre d’Hénoch, Documents pour l’ Étude de la Bible (Paris: Le touzey et Ané, 1906), 248–49. 10  Das äthiopische Henochbuch, JSHRZ V/6 (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1984), 717. 11 Designated ḥāṭe’ān (Ge‛ez) and ἁμαρτωλοί (Grk.), they are denounced in the 2nd pers. in 1 En. 95:2, 7; 96:4; 97:3, 7; 98:4, 6, 10; 99:6; 100:7, 9; 101:7; 102:3, 5, 9; 103:5; and 104:7; and they are also referred to in the 3rd pers. in 94:11; 95:3; 96:1, 2; 97:1; 99:3; 100:3, 4; 101:9; 102:5, 6; 103:5, 11; and 104:5, 6. 12  See 1 En. 94:8; cf. 96:4–8 and 97:7–10. 13  1 En. 94:11 (rāsi‛ān); 96:2; 98:15; 99:3 (ἄδικοι); 99:8, 9, 10; 103:11. 14  On this source-critical distinction, see Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91–108, 211–15.

42

Loren T. Stuckenbruck

the Deuteronomic tradition states should happen to unfaithful, who instead are enjoying the blessings that the tradition promises to the righteous. The Epistle thus strains to qualify Deuteronomy: fulfillment of the promised blessings and curses is postponed until the post-mortem time of final judgment. Second, and following from this, the “sinners” are presented as understanding themselves as righteous, and the writer attributes to them a theology that subverts the truth (cf. esp. 1 En. 98:9–99:2). These sinners undermine “wisdom” and render their own (Deuteronomic) form of it as valid. The writer vehemently opposes such people and claims that they subvert Enoch tradition (as emphasized in 104:10– 12) and have simply received Torah tradition in the wrong way (104:1–7 in response to the lament of 103:9–15). Now, in 94:5 these sinners are accused of making out of (true) wisdom something that is wicked, so that “no place will be found for it” (i. e. for wisdom). This is certainly one way of construing the text; indeed, Nickelsburg therefore compares it to the later Book of Parables at 1 Enoch 42:1–3: similarly, wisdom could not find a place to dwell on earth and so returns to heaven from whence it came.15 However, at least two manuscripts (EMML 8292 = Tana 9 and EMML 6281) from the early Ge‛ez textual tradition transmit the text of 94:5 differently. Instead of no place being found for (true) wisdom, the text states: “sinners will tempt humans so as to carry out ‘a wisdom of evil’ (i. e. an evil sort of wisdom),” with the result that “a place will be found for it (i. e. for this perverted kind of wisdom), and no kind of temptation will vanish.” Here, the emphasis does not lie on the rejection of true wisdom that sinners have turned into evil in order to lead others astray, but rather on sinners parading a kind of wisdom that is inherently evil. In this case, the language is highly polemical. It may be that the “sinners” fall heir to the same sacred tradition as that received by the “righteous.” However, the gulf that separates these “sinners” from the “righteous” is so irreparably wide that the author cannot contemplate that the former have ever really espoused true wisdom to begin with. Wisdom, if “evil,” must be such from the outset.16 Thus, the idealized offspring of Enoch are presented with a clear choice between one kind of evil wisdom and another that is not. According to the minority reading of EMML 8292 and EMML 6281, there should be no potential for confusion in the faithful community. The objectionable things the sinners do should be clear enough. Whereas the majority reading exhorts not to yield to temptations by sinners, Enoch’s words in the minority reading intimate that faithfulness to God requires a recognition of the sinners’ 15 Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 458–59, contrasting the Enoch tradition with Sir 24 and 1 Bar 3–4, in which wisdom actually takes up her dwelling in Israel. 16  In this vein, in several passages later in the Epistle, the writer goes against earlier Enochic tradition (e. g., 1 En. 6–16) in emphasizing that “sinners” (i. e. not angels or any power from outside) are responsible for having invented “sin” on the earth (98:4–5); cf. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 476–77 and Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91–108, 336–48.



Eschatological Temptation the Enochic Way

43

wisdom for the falsehood that it is. To know this is a matter of discernment, aided by the long series of calumniations levelled against the sinners in the Epistle.17 In this sense, one could speak of “temptation” insofar as what those called “sinners” are attempting to do is concerned. For the ideal, righteous community, however, these activities function as a “test”; they are enjoined to engage in a certain watchfulness that detects wrong and stays away from it.

3. Conclusion The text conveyed through EMML 8292 and EMML 6281, whether or not the more original wording, is nevertheless much in line with the tenor of the rest of the Epistle. Temptation by sinners, then, is not the sort that presents a real danger to the existence of the righteous community. In the world of the text, the boundaries between the righteous and the wicked are hard and inflexible. There is no language about repentance or the possibility of changing one’s religious standing before God. The community of faith consists of those who are deemed, at least ideally, to be essentially different. Any sense of blurred boundaries or ambiguity between the righteous and the wicked is left unsaid and, at best, is a matter of inference. Temptation by sinners is, as far as the righteous are to be concerned, not alluring at all, but rather a testing that should do nothing else than reinforce their status as those faithful to the covenant. The writer of the text draws on polarizing socio-religious categories to consolidate the identity of the community on whose behalf it is written.

Bibliography Charles, R. H. The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1912. Erho, T. M., and L. T. Stuckenbruck. “A Manuscript History of Ethiopic Enoch.” JSP 23 (2013): 87–133. Leslau, W. A Comparative Dictionary of Ge‛ez (Classical Ethiopic). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1991. Martin, F. Le Livre d’Hénoch, Documents pour l’Étude de la Bible. Paris: Le touzey et Ané, 1906. Nickelsburg, G. W. E. 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch Chapters 1–36; 81–108. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. Olson, D. Enoch: A New Translation. North Richland Hills, TX: BIBAL Press, 2004. Stuckenbruck, L. T. 1 Enoch 91–108. CEJL. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007. Uhlig, S. Das äthiopische Henochbuch. JSHRZ V/6. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1984.

17  The Epistle contains no less than eight woe oracles directed against the sinners (94:6– 95:2; 95:4–7; 96:4–8; 97:7–10; 98:9–99:2; 99:11–16; 100:7–9; and 103:5–8) and, among them, forty-five pronouncements on how they will meet with divine retribution.

Ten-Times-Tested Abraham in the Book of Jubilees Todd R. Hanneken

Jubilees is the earliest source to claim that Abraham was tested not just once, with respect to the command to sacrifice Isaac, but ten times. The idea that God proves and improves the righteous through suffering is already described in Ben Sira. It was a short step to claim that Abraham was persistently and thoroughly tested by God, and that all the hardships in his life were tests of his obedience and patience. The number ten has confounded modern scholars who have attempted to enumerate the ten tests. The difficulty can be reconciled with effort or treated as a contradiction which can be used as evidence for some model of redaction, interpolation, or scribal error. This paper considers those possibilities and also examines literary evidence of testing or some similar discernment process iterating ten times, both in sources received as scripture in Jubilees and in other contemporary sources. The evidence suggests that “ten-times tested” was a rhetorical convention that meant “thoroughly tested” and could be used without expecting the speaker or audience to enumerate a list of ten but not nine or eleven. Prior to the book of Jubilees, readers of Genesis 22, such as Ben Sira, gathered that God’s test of Abraham in Gen 22:1 was a test of faithfulness. “When tested he was found faithful (πιστός)” (Sir 44:20 NRSV, cf. “loyal” in NAB).1 Ben Sira may have been reading Gen 22:1 in light of Gen 15:6 to conclude that the test was one of faithfulness rather than obedience. In Gen 22, obedience (22:18, ‫שמעת‬ ‫ )בקלי‬indicates the virtue of fear of God (22:12, ‫)ירא אלהים‬. In Gen 15:6, belief or putting faith in God (‫האמן‬, ἐπίστευσεν) indicates the virtue of righteousness (‫)צדקה‬.2 Jubilees adopts and expands the emphasis on faithfulness as the virtue being tested. Genesis never uses “faithful” as an adjective for Abraham, but Jubilees uses it nine times.3 Jubilees further expands the notion of the testing of Abra1  See also 1 Macc 2:52, Αβρααμ οὐχὶ ἐν πειρασμῷ εὑρέθη πιστὸς καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην, “Was not Abraham found faithful in trial, and it was credited to him as righteousness?” Unless otherwise noted translations of canonical literature are taken from NABRE, and translations of Jubilees from J. C. VanderKam, Jubilees: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2018). The only significant difference from his 1989 translation is noted below (“voices” vs. “words” in Jub. 17:15); see idem, The Book of Jubilees, CSCO 511/Scriptores Aethiopici 88 (Louvain: Peeters, 1989). 2  See also Neh 9:8 and Jub. 14:6 for the context based on Genesis 15. 3  J. L. Kugel, A Walk through Jubilees: Studies in the Book of Jubilees and the World of Its Creation (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 109–10; idem, “Jubilees,” in Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writ-

46

Todd R. Hanneken

ham in other ways. First, in addition to faithfulness, we also see another virtue emphasized in Jubilees’ expansion of the tests of Abraham: patience, or the lack of impatience, appears five times in the passage as what it means to pass a test. Second, Jubilees is the first ancient source to attest the expansion of the motif of Abraham the tested beyond the one explicit use of the term in Gen 22. According to Jubilees, Abraham’s life was full of tests, and he passed all of them. In Gen 22, at least as interpreted by Ben Sira and others, the test is a moment of decision in which one chooses either obedience or other fundamental virtues and basic needs. In Jubilees, all suffering and hardship is a test, at least in the case of Abraham. The expansion in Jubilees carries with it a particular understanding of what it means to be tested and what it takes to pass.

1.  Abraham Read in Light of a Theodicy of Testing The notion that God causes the righteous to suffer as a test of patience or faithfulness is a profound theodicy that appears in other circles in the second century BCE.4 Most notably, Ben Sira instructs his students, “My child, when you come to serve the Lord, prepare yourself for trials” (Sir 2:1). The virtue on trial is patience, even passivity: “Accept whatever happens to you; in periods of humiliation be patient” (Sir 2:4). This is the passage that continues with the disturbing rhetorical questions, “Consider the generations long past and see: Has anyone trusted in the Lord and been disappointed? Has anyone persevered in his fear and been forsaken? Has anyone called upon him and been ignored?” (Sir 2:10). We cannot say if the author of Jubilees would have gone quite so far, but there is a fundamental compatibility in theodicy when Jubilees maintains that “there is no injustice” (Jub. 5:13), at least in the sense that sin is always punished and the righteous are always vindicated within their lifetimes.5 Contemporary sources such as Daniel certainly thought otherwise.6 Jubilees expands the motif of Abraings Related to Scripture, ed. L. H. Feldman, J. L. Kugel, and L. H. Schiffman (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2013), 357; idem, Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible As It Was at the Start of the Common Era (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998), 297–98, 308–9. 4  One could identify traces of such a theodicy in earlier writings, such as Psalm 17:3 and 66:10, but overall it would be difficult to call this theodicy common in the widely received scriptures of second-century BCE Judea. Even the virtue of patience (‫ ארך־רוח‬,‫ )ארך אפים‬is far from a common concern. 5  For more on the theodicy of Jub. 5:13 and the claim that no sin goes unpunished, according to Jubilees, see T. R. Hanneken, The Subversion of the Apocalypses in the Book of Jubilees, SBLEJL 34 (Atlanta: SBL, 2012), 31–38; and idem, “The Watchers in Rewritten Scripture: The Use of the Book of the Watchers in Jubilees,” in The Fallen Angels Traditions: Second Temple ­Developments and Reception History, ed. A. Harkins, K. Coblentz Bautch, and J. Endres, CBQMS 53 (Washington, DC: CBA of America, 2014), 25–68. The theological compatibility of Ben Sira and Jubilees on this point would have to be weighed with some substantial differences before drawing conclusions about similarity in social location and context. 6  See, for example, Dan 11:33–35; 12:1–3.



Ten-Times-Tested Abraham in the Book of Jubilees

47

ham the tested from a single test of obedience to a series of tests of patience, following one of the controversial theodicies of the day. One striking difference between Ben Sira and Jubilees is the use of scriptural sources. Ben Sira makes a relatively simple reading of Gen 22:1, that God tested the faithfulness of Abraham, and makes negligible claims to establish theodicy in the interpretation of texts. Jubilees, though not explicitly, seems to base the claim – that Abraham was tested many times even before the word is first used in Gen 22:1 – in a subtle detail in the verse, “After these things (‫)אחר הדברים האלה‬, God tested Abraham.” That is, after these other tests, God (again) tested Abraham.7 If this is the case, it is striking that Jubilees doubly interprets the phrase. Jubilees also, and more clearly, understands “things” as “words,” and presents those words as a heavenly conversation on the extent of Abraham’s faithfulness. There were words8 in heaven regarding Abraham, that he was faithful in everything that he had told him, (that) the Lord loved him, and (that) in every difficulty he was faithful. Then Prince Mastema came and said before God: “Abraham does indeed love his son Isaac and finds him more pleasing than anyone else. Tell him to offer him as a sacrifice on an altar. Then you will see whether he performs this order and will know whether he is faithful in everything through which you test him.” (Jub. 17:15–16)

Most scholars understand this passage to interpret the opening “after these words” of Gen 22:1 as meaning something like “after conversations similar to those described in the book of Job.”9 Thus, “after these words” is doubly interpreted as “after these other tests” and “after these heavenly conversations.” It will be important to remember that Jubilees has a high threshold for redundancy, over-interpreting, giving multiple solutions or justifications for one problem, and general over-kill of any given point. To some modern interpreters this fai7 Kugel, Traditions, 297; A Walk through Jubilees, 109; “Jubilees,” 356–57. 8  VanderKam’s translation of qālāt in Jub. 17:15 changes from “voices” in the 1989 trans-

lation to “words” in the 2018 Hermeneia translation, in light of the arguments in M. Kister, “Observations on Aspects of Exegesis, Tradition, and Theology in Midrash, Pseudepigrapha, and Other Jewish Writings,” in Tracing the Threads: Studies in the Vitality of Jewish Pseudepigrapha, ed. J. Reeves, SBLEJL 6 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1994), 7–11. 9  J. T. A. G. M. van Ruiten argues otherwise in “Abraham, Job, and the Book of Jubilees: The Intertextual Relationship of Genesis 22:1–19, Job 1:1–2:13 and Jubilees 17:15–18:19,” in The Sacrifice of Isaac: The Aqedah (Genesis 22) and Its Interpretations, ed. E. Noort and E. Tigchelaar, TBN 4 (Leiden: Brill, 2002) 58–85. VanderKam reviews the parallels between the prologue in Job and the sacrifice of Isaac in Jubilees (Jubilees: A  Commentary, 563–64, in comments on Jub. 17:16). VanderKam also refers to scholars who have seen the influence of Job, starting with Beer’s 1856 monograph, and answers the objections by van Ruiten. See B. Beer, Das Buch der Jubiläen und sein Verhältniss zu den Midraschim (Leipzig: Wolfgang Gerhard, 1856); D. Dimant, “The Biblical Basis of Non-Biblical Additions: The Binding of Isaac in Jubilees in Light of the Story of Job,” in Connected Vessels: The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Literature of the Second Temple (Jerusalem: Bialik, 2010), 348–68; J. T. A. G. M. van Ruiten, Abraham in the Book of Jubilees: The Rewriting of Genesis 11:26–25:10 in the Book of Jubilees 11:14–23:8, JSJSup 161 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 212–14.

48

Todd R. Hanneken

lure to uphold modern standards of logical consistency is evidence of multiple authorship. We will return to the question of contradictions in Jubilees.

2.  The Number and the List The most striking innovation in Jubilees with regard to the testing of Abraham is the concern with numbers. Not only does Jubilees amplify the theme of Abraham the tested, Jubilees assigns the number ten to the tests of Abraham, counting the burial of Sarah as the final test: “This was the tenth test by which Abraham was tried, and he was found to be faithful and patient in spirit” (Jub. 19:8). Where did the number ten come from? Perhaps one’s first thought is that it could be derived simply from counting the moments in Abraham’s life that required patience or faithfulness in a moment of decision or tribulation. Upon examination, however, I find that the least likely. Not only does Genesis not lend itself to such an easy enumeration, Jubilees does not either. Scholars who have tried to reconstruct the list of ten tests of Abraham in Jubilees have faced certain frustration. The frustration begins with Jub. 17:17, which seems like it should be part of a list: Now the Lord was aware that Abraham was faithful in every difficulty which he had told him. For he had tested him through his land and the famine; he had tested him through the wealth of kings; he had tested him again through his wife when she was taken forcibly, and through circumcision; and he had tested him through Ishmael and his servant girl Hagar when he sent them away. (Jub. 17:17)

Even though the tests are not enumerated, it should be a simple matter to count them up, add the command to sacrifice Isaac and the burial of Sarah, and it should be ten. Alas, it is not so simple. Scholars have responded to this frustration in a variety of ways. One approach is to reconcile the number and the list by any means necessary. It is indeed possible, but not particularly explicit or elegant. Another approach is to question the text. Perhaps Jub. 19:3 originally read, “This was the seventh test by which Abraham was tried.” That would fit the list more easily, as well as the attraction to the number seven elsewhere in Jubilees. Another approach is to question the author. Perhaps there was a seven-times-tested Abraham author and another author, editor, or interpolator who came along later and added the claim of ten-times-tested Abraham without reconciling the narrative of the previous author. Yet another approach is to focus attention on the sources used by Jubilees and how they were used. Although Genesis does not enumerate a list of ten tests, what other sources might explain what appears to be pure invention in Jubilees? Finally, one would want to look to later sources that also attest the tentimes-tested Abraham motif. Might their explicit lists and enumerations have been implicit in the older source? By considering each of these approaches to the



Ten-Times-Tested Abraham in the Book of Jubilees

49

book of Jubilees, I believe we can gain insight into the rhetoric and composition of Jubilees in its cultural context. I think we can also gain a broader understanding of the rhetoric of ten-times-tested in Judea of twenty-two centuries ago, beyond the Abraham story. It is possible, though not trivial, to reconstruct a list of ten trials of Abraham. The numbers added to the following passages illustrate the suggestion of James C. VanderKam in 2001:10 For he had tested him through his land [1] and the famine [2]; he had tested him through the wealth of kings [3]; he had tested him again through his wife when she was taken forcibly [4], and through circumcision [5]; and he had tested him through Ishmael [6] and his servant girl Hagar [7] when he sent them away. (Jub. 17:17) Tell him to offer him as a sacrifice on an altar. Then you will see whether he performs this order and will know whether he is faithful in everything through which you test him [8]. (Jub. 17:16) When Abraham went to mourn for her and to bury her [9], we were testing whether he himself was patient and not annoyed in the words that he spoke [10]. But in this respect, too, he was found to be patient and not disturbed … (Jub. 19:3) This was the tenth test by which Abraham was tried, and he was found to be faithful and patient in spirit. (Jub. 19:8)

In his commentary on Jubilees for the Hermeneia series, VanderKam counts Ishmael and Hagar as one test (noting the phrase “when he sent them away,” which treats it as a single event).11 In this case the Akedah is the seventh, and it is more difficult to count an eighth and a ninth before the burial of Sarah, which is explicitly the tenth. He suggests that the preparations to sacrifice Isaac and the willingness to sacrifice Isaac could be enumerated seventh and eighth. Then the death of Sarah and negotiations with the Hittites would have been the ninth and tenth tests, respectively.12 R. H. Charles took Jub. 17:7 as seven trials, the Akedah as the eighth, and looked elsewhere in the story of Abraham for the ninth.13 He resorts to the barrenness of Sarah as the ninth trial and cites Jub. 14:21, although the context is distant and the language of testing is absent. All of the above acknowledge the difficulty of reconstructing an enumeration, but assume an enumeration must have existed. There are some small problems with any of these enumerations and one fundamental issue that leaves them less than satisfying. Six of the tests are com10  J. C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees, Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001), 54. 11 VanderKam, Jubilees: A Commentary, 564 n. 65. 12 VanderKam, Jubilees: A Commentary, 589. 13  R. H. Charles, The Book of Jubilees or the Little Genesis (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1902), 121. See also K. Berger, Das Buch der Jubiläen, JSHRZ 2.3 (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1981), n. b to v. 17.

50

Todd R. Hanneken

pound and might read more easily as three. All of the enumerations read land and famine as different tests, which is possible if one reads the command to travel to Canaan or the separation from Lot apart from the famine that caused Abram to travel to Egypt. VanderKam’s earlier 2001 work and Charles both read sending away Ishmael and Hagar as two tests, one for each person, although VanderKam’s newer 2018 Hermeneia commentary notes that “when he sent them away” sounds like one test. Both enumerations from VanderKam read the death and burial of Sarah as two tests, one for the death itself and one for the acquisition of the cave. Charles places the barrenness of Sarah – the first detail to appear in the Genesis Abraham cycle – near the end of the list. A reader could not have been reasonably expected to provide a detail so far out of sequence, although the chronology was problematic anyway. If one insists on the narrative sequence of Genesis then “the wealth of kings” must refer to Pharaoh, as suggested by VanderKam, though Chedorlaomer would otherwise be the easier identification.14 None of these speculations are explicit in the text. It may be worthwhile to think of the text in a paratextual context, such as a school setting in which students received instruction beyond the base text and were expected to expand “secret” explanations. Scholars are left doing a lot of work to explain a number based on a sometimes forced series of possibilities. Before spending too much time reconstructing the possible, we should ask why an ancient author would go to such lengths to turn one test into ten. We may be tempted to think of ten as a nice round number, but we must also remember that round numbers are culturally relative. For users of the metric system a multiple of ten may be intuitive and elegant, but the author of Jubilees did not use the metric system. In Pythagorean philosophy ten was a perfect number, but the author of Jubilees was by no means a Pythagorean. In the transmission of Jubilees some scribes seemed to think a jubilee period should be a nice round fifty years (5 × 5 × 2) rather than forty-nine (7²), but the author clearly thought otherwise. Elsewhere in Jubilees ten never appears as a significant number. There is no concept of ten commandments. The ten punishments of the Egyptians are not described as tests. The important question is not whether it is possible to count ten, but why would the author of Jubilees even try to count ten. Why not seven?

3.  The Text of Jubilees One possibility is that the original text of Jub. 19:8 did read “seventh” rather than “tenth.” The whole question comes down to one word, and the scribal transmission of Jubilees is complex enough that we should be reluctant to indulge in elaborate reconstructions to satisfy a contradiction of a few letters. There are indeed two arguments, already alluded to, that would support a reconstruction. First, 14 Kugel, A Walk through Jubilees, 109; “Jubilees,” 357.



Ten-Times-Tested Abraham in the Book of Jubilees

51

the list of tests more easily adds up to seven than to ten. If famine and land are a single test, Ishmael and Hagar are a single test, and the death and burial of Sarah are a single test, then the list comes to seven. Second, we have other evidence of scribes transmitting the base-seven bias of Jubilees with a base-ten bias, namely in counting a jubilee period as fifty years rather than forty-nine years.15 Furthermore, it is not hard to imagine a scribe correcting a text that might seem to underestimate the great hero Abraham. As early as Pirqe ’Abot we have evidence of a ten-times-tested Abraham motif. A scribe who believes that Abraham was tested ten times might have deliberately or subconsciously corrected a text that seemed to sell him short as only seven-times tested. There is no manuscript support for any such scenario. There is no Hebrew evidence for this verse. Ceriani’s 1861 reading of “decima” (tenth) in the only Latin manuscript was confirmed in 2017 with advanced spectral imaging by the Jubilees Palimpsest Project.16 None of the Ethiopic manuscripts collated by VanderKam read “seventh.”17 The only relevant variation is that Ethiopic manuscript 12 omits “tenth.” This is a very minor piece of evidence in light of the total number of Ethiopic manuscripts and the agreement between the relatively independent Ethiopic and Latin families of textual evidence. However, the lack of manuscript support does not rule out the possibility that a scribal adjustment could have occurred in the first few centuries of transmission. Even without manuscript support, the case for reconstructing an original text of “seventh test” rather than “tenth test” is fairly strong for the field of text criticism. I  must admit it as a possibility, even though I  do not find it necessary, 15  Ethiopic Jubilees 19:7 (just one verse before “tenth test”) assumes a jubilee period of 49 years, “All the time of Sarah’s life was 127 – that is, two jubilees, four weeks, and one year” (127 = 2 × 49 + 4 × 7 + 1). Latin Jubilees 19:7 assumes a jubilee period of 50 years, “All the time of Sarah’s life was 127 years – that is, two jubilees, four weeks less one year (duos iubeleos septimanas quattuor minus unum annum)” (127 = 2 × 50 + 4 × 7 – 1). The only copy of Latin Jubilees was copied in the same codex by the same scribe as the Testament of Moses. The first legible words of the Testament of Moses date the death of Moses to the year 2500 (50 × 50) of the creation of the world, while Ethiopic Jubilees sets it at 2450 (49 × 50) (Jub. 24:10; 50:4). 16  The fifth-century Latin manuscript is roughly a millennium older than the earliest Ethiopic copies, and represents an independent textual family. However, the manuscript was erased and rewritten (palimpsested) in the eighth century, and treated in the nineteenth century with chemical reagent intended to improve legibility. Until recently, our knowledge of Latin Jubilees depended on the edition by Ceriani published in 1861, before the reagent damaged the manuscript beyond legibility (A. M. Ceriani, Monumenta Sacra et Profana, vol. 1 [Milan: Bibliotheca Ambrosiana, 1861]). Editors of the time often failed to distinguish letters actually visible from their own expectations (Ceriani was using Dillmann’s translation from the Ethiopic). Spectral imaging performed in 2017 sometimes corrects Ceriani’s assertions, but in this case confirms the reading “decima.” The images are freely available online from the Jubilees Palimpsest Project at http://jubilees.stmarytx.edu. The word “decima,” especially the distinctive “D” is visible in this enhanced image: http://jubilees.stmarytx.edu/iiif/Ambrosiana_C73inf_059_ KTK01_00.jp2/804,2033,2275,585/full/0/default.jpg. 17  J. C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees: A Critical Text, CSCO 510/Scriptores Aethiopici 87 (Louvain: Peeters, 1989), 107; idem, Jubilees: A Commentary, 584 n. 8a.

52

Todd R. Hanneken

as I argue below. The question remains unanswered, why ten? Whether it was the original author of Jubilees or a scribal innovation sometime thereafter, why would someone claim that Abraham passed ten tests? How or why did the motif of ten-times-tested Abraham develop, whether in the second century BCE or shortly thereafter? I believe there is a better explanation than ten seeming like a rounder number than seven, or a simple reading of the Abraham stories, or a hagiographic instinct inflating Abraham’s seven accomplishments to ten.

4.  The Author(s) of Jubilees The same perception of contradiction also leads to source-critical arguments that the book of Jubilees cannot be the work of a single author. These arguments are of two kinds. The first kind, most recently exemplified by Michael Segal, attempts to reconstruct a process of redaction from multiple coherent sources.18 Segal does not use the example of seven or ten tests of Abraham among his list of contradictions, and it does not particularly fit his distinction between narrative sources and legal-chronological redaction. Still, his basic model could apply in this case. We could explain the contradiction as the result of a redactor making use of a seven-times-tested Abraham source and a ten-times-tested Abraham source. The compiler did not bother to count or correct the list from the seventimes-tested source when adding the assertion from the ten-times-tested source, leaving us with a contradiction. Or alternatively, the compiler made a minimal attempt to add conjunctions such that the enumeration described above would be possible, if not elegant. Although I am not persuaded by the bolder formulation of Segal’s thesis, he has certainly done a great service in emphasizing ways in which the author of Jubilees uses many sources, far beyond Genesis and Exodus. What Segal calls contradictions I prefer to call seams in the compositional process, and what he calls redaction I would call authorship, or perhaps synthetic authorship but noting that authorship in antiquity generally is synthetic.19 As for the case at hand, it is certainly possible to imagine a compositional seam between different interpretive traditions explaining the tension between a list that presumes a seven-times-tested Abraham and the claim of a ten-times-tested Abraham. Such a scenario is not implausible. The perceived contradiction, combined with the cumulative weight of similar instances, can be taken as evidence of a somewhat sloppy process of combining sources. The problem in this case is that, apart from what seems like a natural counting of tests in Jubilees, there is no evidence of a seven-times-tested tradition. Further consideration below indi18  M. Segal, The Book of Jubilees: Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology and Theology, JSJSup 117 (Leiden: Brill, 2007). 19 For more discussion of conceptions of authorship in antiquity see Hanneken, “The Watchers in Rewritten Scripture.”



Ten-Times-Tested Abraham in the Book of Jubilees

53

cates there never was one. Rather, the many-times-tested tradition started with ten from the very beginning. The second category of source-critical argument recently applied to Jubilees is exemplified by Kugel’s reconstruction of an author-interpolator model for the formation of the book of Jubilees as we have it. Kugel does use the example of the number of tests of Abraham in his list of contradictions and suggests that the interpolator added the ten-times-tested Abraham assertion to a base narrative that did not know or logically support the claim.20 Jubilees 19:8 does not fit the general characterization of the interpolator as a radical predestinarian who is obsessed with a distinctive vocabulary pertaining to heavenly tablets.21 If one accepts the focus on “patience” as distinctive, then Jub. 19:8 is tied to the surrounding narrative, although Kugel concedes that in most matters of theology and vocabulary the interpolator was a devout follower of the original author. Kugel claims that his reconstructed original book of Jubilees reads smoothly, and indeed more smoothly, if the work of the interpolator is excised.22 Kugel does not specify how much should be excised in this case. If we excise the entire claim that Abraham continued to be tested after the command to sacrifice Isaac then we are left with a much shorter story that does not deal with the death of Sarah, the purchase of the burial cave, and furthermore does not round out the theme of many tests of Abraham. If we excise only the detail of the number ten, then there is no resolution to the many-times-tested theme. If the interpolator did not add but merely replaced “seventh” with “tenth,” we are back to the possibility described above that a scribe adjusted a base-seven bias with a base-ten bias, or an understated hagiography with an inflated hagiography. In both approaches, the approach of Segal and the approach of Kugel, we can appreciate that many complex situations are plausible in the life of a text, but it is another matter to reconstruct the details with any confidence. Segal is certainly correct to observe that Jubilees draws from many sources, but I do not think he has recovered the precise mechanism of composition. Kugel is almost certainly correct that the scribal transmission of Jubilees includes some accretion, but I do not think he has successfully recovered the personality and theology of the so-called Interpolator. The contradiction perceived here can be explained with many possible models but does not prove any of them. I do not argue that Jubilees has no logical leaps or mismatches, or that Jubilees bears no marks of the tension of drawing from many sources within and beyond the Masoretic canon, or that any of the manuscripts reflect the pristine written word of one original author. I do maintain that the motif of ten-timestested Abraham in the book of Jubilees, and the difficulty of enumerating the ten, 20  J. L. Kugel, “On the Interpolations in the Book of Jubilees,” RevQ 94 (2009): 215–72, here 263–64. 21  Kugel, “On the Interpolations,” 267. 22  Kugel, “On the Interpolations,” 266.

54

Todd R. Hanneken

do not prove or require any elaborate model of composition. Furthermore, none of the models of composition explain the ten-times-tested Abraham motif. I am less concerned with when the motif of ten-times-tested Abraham originated and more concerned with how. Whether one wants to think of the motif as an oral or written tradition from which the author drew, the author’s own innovation, or an innovation in scribal transmission, the book of Jubilees is the oldest text to reflect the motif. Why would anyone think that Abraham was tested ten times?

5.  The Sources and Cultural Context from Which Jubilees Draws Any thorough attempt to explain a motif or problem in the book of Jubilees needs to consider the sources likely available in some form at the time.23 I will conclude that Jubilees does not interpret any one source to arrive at the motif of ten-times-tested Abraham. Rather, I argue that many sources point to a tentimes-tested rhetorical formula. The formula existed in the cultural context of the composition of Jubilees. Jubilees applied the formula to Abraham based on the claim in Gen 22:1 that God tested Abraham. Furthermore, there is no evidence that a seven-times-tested rhetorical formula ever existed. There never was a seven-times-tested Abraham source, either before the composition of Jubilees or at any stage in its scribal transmission. The only contradiction is between a rhetorical formula that was not meant to be precisely analyzed, and the modern scholarly obsession with logical consistency. The attempt to enumerate the ten does predate modern logic, but not by as much as one might think. As explored in the final section, the earliest rabbinic sources continue the rhetorical formula without enumeration, or with a list that does not add up to ten. Before proceeding with the evidence, the term “rhetorical formula” requires some explanation. I am open to alternative vocabulary, but I do reject “symbolic number” as a good description of what I am claiming. There is no symbol to decode or a larger reality being suggested. I have also considered and rejected “number aesthetics” as too much implying an elaborate system behind the phrase. It is also more than just a matter of a round number. Ten is not in fact a round number across the board, other than the plagues in Egypt. Even the Decalogue, I would suggest, is best understood with the help of the concept of a rhetorical formula. A precise enumeration of ten commandments is not so 23  This easily includes most or all of the Masoretic canon and additional sources known to us from the Dead Sea Scrolls and Cairo Geniza, as well as ancient Jewish literature preserved by Christians (mainly Philo, Josephus, and the so-called Pseudepigrapha). The rabbinic sources, starting with Pirqe ’Abot, I classify as later sources and discuss below, although I will not rule out the possibility that they attest previously undocumented motifs and cultural presuppositions. VanderKam discusses the sources reflected in Jubilees (Jubilees: A Commentary, 84–98). See also his “Jubilees as Prophetic History,” in The Prophetic Voice at Qumran: The Leonardo Museum Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls, 11–12 April 2014, ed. D. W. Parry, S. D. Ricks, and A. C. Skinner, STDJ 120 (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 167–88.



Ten-Times-Tested Abraham in the Book of Jubilees

55

clear in Exodus or Deuteronomy that different religious traditions have not offered different enumerations. And yet the phrase ‫“ עשרת הדברים‬ten words” appears in Exod 34:28 and Deut 4:13 and 10:4. It appears that the idea of a block of ten-ish things existed long before a precise enumeration. Other candidates for phrases that express approximations rather than precise enumerations may include “forty days and forty nights.”24 Such expressions, or rhetorical formulas, were not originally meant to be taken literally or counted out precisely. By calling “ten-times-tested” a rhetorical formula, I mean that people in the context of the composition of Jubilees understood the phrase to mean “thoroughly tested beyond a reasonable doubt.” They would not have expected a precise enumeration, and they would not have altered the formula if the list came to nine or eleven. The evidence that ten-times-tested was a rhetorical formula independent of application to Abraham comes from a variety of sources, both in sources received as scripture by the author of Jubilees, and other more-or-less contemporary sources. Before the Mishnah, Jubilees is the only source to apply the rhetoric to Abraham, but “ten-times-tested” recurs in diverse contexts. No one of the sources is so direct or salient as to imply that Jubilees was interpreting that source. Rather, it seems Jubilees reflects a culture in which “ten-times-tested” means “thoroughly tested.” Numbers 14:22 provides the most direct parallel. There, the Israelites who disobeyed God despite having seen the miracles in Egypt are forbidden from seeing the promised land. Their disobedience is expressed as ‫וינסו אתי זה עשר‬ ‫“ פעמים ולא שמעו בקולי‬they have tested me these ten times and have not obeyed my voice” (Num 14:22 NRSV). No precise list of ten tests is offered in Numbers. We may observe the additional parallel that testing is associated with obedience in the immediate context and perhaps even patience in the general context. If Numbers were the only parallel, we might imagine that Jubilees followed a logic of symmetry, such as ten merits of Abraham for ten sins of Israel, as attested in much later literature. It is the proliferation of less direct parallels discussed next that strengthens the case for a rhetorical formula in cultural context rather than a narrow exegesis. The motif of ten-times-tested may also be reflected in (or fueled by) the assertion in Deuteronomy that the plagues in Egypt were tests (‫המסת‬, Deut 7:19 and 29:2). This is an interesting case in that the word “ten” does not appear in context. The compositional history of the Pentateuch falls outside the scope of this study. For the author of Jubilees, Exodus and Deuteronomy belonged to a coher24  A lively discussion among conference participants offered several additional possible examples of numbers being used according to cultural conventions with little or no attention among authors and transmitters to precise enumeration. The Letter of Aristeas asserts seventytwo translators, but lists seventy-one names (until corrected by Epiphanius). Josephus speaks of seventy translators as six times twelve. Matthew’s genealogy does not add up unless the Babylonian Exile is counted as a generation.

56

Todd R. Hanneken

ent composition. Consequently, if Exodus spoke of ten plagues through which God afflicted the Egyptians and Deuteronomy spoke of great tests through which God afflicted the Egyptians then the ten plagues were ten great tests. The idea of ten-times-tested existed without the phrase. There is no reason that the author of Jubilees would deliberately compare Abraham to Pharaoh. Rather we are seeing an adaptable convention with porous boundaries. In the cultural context of Jubilees, thorough tests were ten-fold. Another instance of the cluster appears in the book of Job without the word “test” exactly. Job protests of God, “ten times you have humiliated me” ‫עשר פעמים‬ ‫( תכלימוני‬Job 19:3). The parallels are intriguing. If one follows the logic of Ben Sira (Sir 2:4–5), humiliation is a test from God. The prologue of Job further implies that Job’s suffering was a test, and the same basic scenario is adopted in Jubilees to explain how God tested Abraham in response to the derisive skepticism of a heavenly accuser.25 Despite evidence that the author of Jubilees was aware of the book of Job, the parallels do not amount to evidence that Jubilees is interpreting or borrowing “ten times” directly from the book of Job. Even if the author of Jubilees understood Job and Abraham as similarly righteous persons passing tests from God initiated by heavenly accusers, the emphasis in Jubilees is on patience, along with faithfulness. The King James translation of Jas 5:11 as “the patience of Job” is famously difficult to reconcile with the book of Job itself, in which Job appears anything but patient.26 However, the description of Job as patient rather than persistent (ὑπομονή) is more a matter of English translation than an ancient interpretation. The parallel of a righteous person tested by God comes from general context. The immediate context is a harsh speech from Job. The author of Jubilees would not attribute such a response to Abraham by association. The parallel derives from a common cultural rhetoric rather than a deliberate interpretive association. Other parallels in received older writings (it is not here claimed that Jubilees considered Nehemiah scripture) have less association with testing in a narrow sense, but reflect a comparable association of “ten times” as critical mass for undeniable certitude. Nehemiah takes action to defend Jerusalem based not on a rumor or a single claim, but on ten reports ‫( ויאמרו לנו עשר פעמים‬Neh 4:6). Jacob uses a similar phrase ‫“ עשרת מנים‬ten times” to accuse Laban of persistent malfeasance with wages (Gen 31:7, 41). The general context might provide some sense of trial or difficulties for Jacob to endure, but the immediate context has more of a legal tone of establishing Laban’s ill intent beyond a reasonable doubt. In both cases, there is no list of ten, nor would the point falter if the number were actually nine or eleven. Ten-times is a degree of certainty and reliability, 25  See Jub. 17:15–16 and footnote 9 above for the arguments, despite van Ruiten’s dissent, that Jubilees borrows from Job. 26  R. E. Murphy, The Tree of Life: An Exploration of Biblical Wisdom Literature, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 33.



Ten-Times-Tested Abraham in the Book of Jubilees

57

not an enumeration. The diversity of ten-times meaning thoroughly established and certain (Israelite disobedience of God, Job’s humiliation, Nehemiah’s risk assessment, Laban’s pattern of exploitation) is matched by its exclusivity. These are the only occasions in the received older writings when the phrase “ten times” ‫ עשר פעמים‬or ‫ עשרת מנים‬appears. Many things happen seven times, especially liturgically in the priestly source, or twice or thrice, but the semantic range does not overlap.27 Seven-times never means established beyond a reasonable doubt, and established beyond a reasonable doubt is not expressed as any other number of times. The distinctive clustering of rhetoric of ten-times around testing or other establishments of certainty extends to other sources which reflect the same cultural context as Jubilees, around the same time or later. The Testament of Joseph asserts that Joseph was tested with ten temptations (2:7). Again, no list is given. A reader of Genesis could be expected to agree that Joseph endured trials and temptations on several occasions, but would not be expected to fill out a precise list. The Hebrew introduction to the Daniel court tales has another ten-fold test, although it is one test for ten days, “Please test your servants for ten days. Let us be given vegetables to eat and water to drink” (Dan 1:12, cf. 1:14).28 In the same chapter, the number ten appears to express the certainty with which a trial of sorts is resolved, “In every matter of wisdom and understanding concerning which the king inquired of them, he found them ten times (‫ )עשר ידות‬better than all the magicians and enchanters in his whole kingdom” (Dan 1:20 NRSV). Another ten-day test may rely on direct interpretation of Daniel rather than cultural context, “Indeed, the devil will throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and you will face an ordeal for ten days” (Rev 2:10). With the exception of the Apocalypse of John depending directly on Daniel, the cumulative evidence suggests that ten-times-tested was a widespread cultural category that was not anchored to interpretation of or allusion to a particular scripture. Ten-times-tested meant thoroughly tested, and thoroughly tested was expressed with the number ten (but not an explicit list). In this convention 27  Psalm 12:6/7 is worth mentioning. There “seven times refined” expresses a degree of purity, “The promises of the LORD are promises that are pure, silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times (‫( ”)מזקק שבעתים‬NRSV). The psalm itself uses the image of smelted metal, pure in the sense of lacking slag and impurities that impair structural integrity, to express reliability. Other sources, such as Ben Sira and the Wisdom of Solomon, adopt the image of the crucible in the context of theodicy, to explain the purpose of human suffering as improving or proving the virtue of the sufferer. See for example Ben Sira 2:5, “For gold is tested in the fire, and those found acceptable, in the furnace of humiliation” (NRSV; see also Wis 3:6). Proverbs 17:3 and 27:21 use the metaphor for human testing in the sense of assessment but not suffering. To the best of my knowledge, no interpreter, Jubilees or otherwise, that applied the metaphor of metal smelting to human testing and suffering also applied the “sevenfold” detail from Psalm 12. 28  I classify the first chapter of Daniel as contemporary to Jubilees rather than received scripture, but the issue does not affect the argument at hand that both received and contemporary traditions treat “ten-times-tested” as a rhetorical formula for certainty.

58

Todd R. Hanneken

“testing” was a broad category that could encompass suffering and assessments. Testing is never expressed with any other number, such as seven-times-tested or nine-times-tested. It seems logical to conclude that there never was a seventimes-tested Abraham source either used by Jubilees or as a stage of composition of Jubilees. Furthermore, with the possible exception of the ten plagues as ten tests implicit in reading Deuteronomy and Exodus together, the idea of ten-foldtested never accompanies a specific list or enumeration. It seems logical to conclude that “ten” in this context meant thoroughly and more than a few, but was not meant to specify a precise number much different from nine or eleven. Jubilees is the first source known to us to apply the ten-times-tested convention to Abraham, but the convention already existed.

6.  Later Sources Which May Reflect the Same Motif The ten-times-tested Abraham motif appears again in rabbinic literature, particularly in Pirqe ’Abot and interpretations thereof. The argument thus far that ten-times-tested was a widespread cultural convention or rhetorical formula also stands to establish that an independent interpreter could have concluded that Abraham was tested ten times. The parallel between Jubilees and the Mishnah in the motif of ten-times-tested Abraham does not indicate direct or indirect dependence. A different question is whether the content of the ten tests shows overlap beyond common interpretation of a form of Genesis. There are negligible commonalities in lists of tests, even within the rabbinic sources. Furthermore, the rabbinic sources confirm that ten-times-tested could be used with no more precision than “tested thoroughly beyond a reasonable doubt.” There was a standard claim of ten-times-tested Abraham, but there was no standard list of ten. Mishnah ’Abot asserts ten with no list whatsoever. ’Abot de Rabbi Nathan B asserts ten and lists nine. ’Abot de Rabbi Nathan A and Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer enumerate ten tests, but do not agree with each other or with Jubilees. The nearest consistency in the rabbinic sources is to count the binding of Isaac as the tenth test, but Jubilees counts the burial of Sarah as the tenth test.29 It is not plausible that Jubilees assumes the same enumeration as any of the rabbinic sources. Mishnah ’Abot 5:3 includes the ten-times-tested Abraham motif in a collection of tens of things, but offers no list or suggestion of what the ten were. ‫ להודיע כמה חבתו של אברהם אבינו עליו השלום‬,‫עשרה נסיונות נתנסה אברהם אבינו עליו השלום ועמד בכלם‬

Ten tests: Abraham our father (peace be upon him) was tested – and he withstood all of them – in order to make known how great is the love of Abraham our father. (m. ’Abot 5:3)

29  In addition to the sources discussed here, Genesis Rabbah 56:11, and Targum Neofiti and the Fragment Targum on Gen 22:1 assert that Gen 22 was the tenth test. See further VanderKam, Jubilees: A Commentary, 564–65 n. 66, and Beer, Jubiläen, 35.



Ten-Times-Tested Abraham in the Book of Jubilees

59

Not only is there no list of tests, there is no allusion to any test other than Gen 22. Even in this brief mention we can find an allusion to the interpretive motif of Gen 22 explaining why God, particularly an omniscient God, would subject Abraham to such a test. It was not so that God would come to know the result, as suggested by the Masoretic text of Gen 22:12, but so that God would make known to others, either angels or subsequent generations.30 Although Jubilees is the first source to witness this interpretation, it is widespread enough that direct influence could not be claimed for Jubilees. The detail that the thing being made known was Abraham’s love may address the epithet of Isaac as the one Abraham loved in Gen 22:2. The implication may be that willingness to kill a loved one for God indicates a high degree of love for God. The composer of the tradition seems to have thought the motif of Abraham the thoroughly tested had more to do with the extremity of the command to sacrifice Isaac than the enumeration of nine others. The expression does not require a precise list. ’Abot de Rabbi Nathan exists in two versions. In the version labeled “B” there is an enumeration but it adds up to only nine. WITH TEN TRIALS WAS ABRAHAM OUR FATHER TRIED AND HE WITHSTOOD THEM ALL – TO MAKE KNOWN THE GREATNESS OF ABRAHAM OUR FATHER. And they are: In Ur of the Chaldees: “Go forth from your country and your kindred … (Gen 11:31 and 12:1);” In leaving Haran (Gen 12:4); “Now there was a famine in the land. … (Gen 12:10);” Two in connection with Sarah: one with Pharaoh and one with Abimelech (Gen. 12:11ff; Gen 20); One in connection with circumcision (Gen 17:9); One in connection with the covenant between the halves (Gen 15); One in connection with Isaac (Gen 22); One in connection with Ishmael (Gen 21:8). (’Abot de Rabbi Nathan B 36, Saldarini)31

Saldarini notes the problem with the enumeration and offers the explanation, “Only nine trials are here. The lists of ten differ in the sources and this one probably got confused.”32 It is certainly true that the lists differ, when they appear at all. Another matter is whether there was a list to be confused. There may not have been a common list, just a vague sense that testing is a theme running through the Abraham stories and climaxing with the willingness to sacrifice Isaac. It is possible to blame the scribes who transmitted the tradition, but it is also possible to count the scribes as evidence that the expression of the theme of ten-timestested Abraham could be understood perfectly well without being analyzed or fixed with a precise, let alone standard, enumeration.

30  See further Kugel, Traditions, 302–3; J. S. Licht, Testing in the Hebrew Scriptures and in Judaism of the Second Temple Period (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1973), 51–53. On the general pattern in Jubilees of maintaining divine omniscience see Segal, Jubilees, 190–91. 31  A. J. Saldarini, The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan (Abot de Rabbi Nathan) Version B: A Translation and Commentary, SJLA 11 (Leiden: Brill, 1975). 32 Saldarini, Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan, note to ’Abot R. Nat. B 36.

60

Todd R. Hanneken

Version A of ’Abot de Rabbi Nathan does list tests that add up to ten. Even when the numbers add up to ten, the diversity among the lists implies that there was no standard list memorized by generations of rabbis. The overlap that does exist is explicable from the common source of Genesis, but note that in Jubilees and here the list of tests does not follow the sequence of Genesis. WITH TEN TRIALS WAS ABRAHAM OUR FATHER TRIED BEFORE THE HOLY ONE, BLESSED BE HE, AND IN ALL OF THEM HE WAS FOUND STEADFAST, to wit: Twice, when ordered to move on; Twice, in connection with his two sons; Twice, in connection with his two wives; Once, on the occasion of his war with the kings; Once, at the (covenant) between the pieces; Once, in Ur [Neusner: the furnace] of the Chaldees; And once, at the covenant of circumcision. (’Abot de Rabbi Nathan A 33, Goldin)33

We can also identify in this list traditions not known to the author of Jubilees, namely the pun on Gen 15:7, “I have brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans,” as “I have brought you out of the fire/furnace of the Chaldeans.”34 Goldin points out the allusion with a footnote, while Neusner simply translates as “the furnace of the Chaldeans.”35 The lengthy discussion in Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer is even more creative and less likely to reflect a standard tradition as old as Jubilees. In particular, Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer claims that the first test was that Abraham was hidden underground the first thirteen years of his life. Even when interpreters chose to elaborate on the theme of ten-times-tested Abraham with mathematical precision, we are witnessing a creative weaving of complex traditions, not witnesses of a list as standard as the overarching claim of ten tests.

7. Conclusion In conclusion, we can summarize the received traditions, innovations, and influence of Jubilees. Prior to the composition of Jubilees we find evidence of a theology of suffering that interprets suffering as a test from God, not only of obedience, but of faithfulness and patience. We also have evidence that passing the test in Gen 22 was understood as Abraham’s crowning achievement. We also have evidence that thorough testing or examination could be expressed as ten-times-testing, and further that the figure of speech was not expected to be enumerated precisely. Given these ingredients taken from the cultural context, it is not particularly surprising that Jubilees would combine them as it did. In this case, I would not claim a particularly clever exegetical innovation, but of course I would not want to generalize that Jubilees does not at other times make clever exegetical innovations. Similarly, the fact that later sources also attest a ten33  J. Goldin, The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1955). 34 Kugel, Traditions, 252–54. 35  J. Neusner, The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan: An Analytical Translation and Explanation, BJS 114 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986).



Ten-Times-Tested Abraham in the Book of Jubilees

61

times-tested Abraham motif does not require a chain of reception and influence of Jubilees, but of course I would not want to generalize that Jubilees does not at other times have an intriguing history of reception and influence. One point that I would like to claim has broader application is that the modern scholarly obsession with contradictions and logical, especially mathematical, consistency distracts us from understanding the rhetoric, theology, and use of sources in Jubilees. I would emphasize that authorship in antiquity valued synthesis more than originality, and that innovation in scribal transmission was more organic than systematic. If we are to use the word “contradictions” for the seams and tensions demonstrable in Jubilees, we should think of them not as failures and corruptions, but as the multi-valence that grows out of weaving something new from diverse received authorities. Jewish and Christian thinkers across the centuries differ with regard to which contradictions in scripture and tradition bother us, which we embrace as mystery, and which we never notice. The seams left by ancient authors for us to study are the seams they cared least to fix. The author of Jubilees was more concerned with the problem that Abraham seems to have been tested only once in Genesis. Significant as that test may have been, Jubilees sought to reconcile the emphasis on Abraham-the-tested with the broader understanding that the righteous face many tests, as well as the conventional rhetoric of ten-times-tested. The motif of ten-times-tested Abraham in Jubilees points not to corruption and contradiction, but to innovation in the theological construction of the righteousness of a founding ancestor.

Bibliography Beer, B. Das Buch der Jubiläen und sein Verhältniss zu den Midraschim. Leipzig: Wolfgang Gerhard, 1856. Berger, K. Das Buch der Jubiläen. JSHRZ 2.3. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1981. Ceriani, A. M. Monumenta Sacra et Profana. Vol. 1. Milan: Bibliotheca Ambrosiana, 1861. Charles, R. H. The Book of Jubilees or the Little Genesis. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1902. Dimant, D. Connected Vessels: The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Literature of the Second Temple. Jerusalem: Bialik, 2010. Goldin, J. The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1955. Hanneken, T. R. “The Jubilees Palimpsest Project.” Online: http://jubilees.stmarytx.edu/. –. The Subversion of the Apocalypses in the Book of Jubilees. SBLEJL 34. Atlanta: SBL, 2012. –. “The Watchers in Rewritten Scripture: The Use of the Book of the Watchers in Jubilees.” Pages 25–68 in The Fallen Angels Traditions: Second Temple Developments and Reception History. Edited by A. Harkins, K. Coblentz Bautch and J. Endres. CBQMS 53. Washington, DC: CBA of America, 2014. Kister, M. “Observations on Aspects of Exegesis, Tradition, and Theology in Midrash, Pseudepigrapha, and Other Jewish Writings.” Pages 7–11 in Tracing the Threads: Studies in the Vitality of Jewish Pseudepigrapha. Edited by J. Reeves. SBLEJL 6. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994. Kugel, J. L. “Jubilees.” Page 357 in Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture. Edited by L. H. Feldman, J. L. Kugel and L. H. Schiffman. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2013.

62

Todd R. Hanneken

–. “On the Interpolations in the Book of Jubilees.” RevQ 94 (2009): 215–72. –. Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible As It Was at the Start of the Common Era. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998. –. A Walk through Jubilees: Studies in the Book of Jubilees and the World of Its Creation. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Licht, J. S. Testing in the Hebrew Scriptures and in Judaism of the Second Temple Period. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1973. Murphy, R. E. The Tree of Life: An Exploration of Biblical Wisdom Literature. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Neusner, J. The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan: An Analytical Translation and Explanation. BJS 114. Atlanta: Scholars, 1986. Saldarini, A. J. The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan (Abot de Rabbi Nathan) Version B: A Translation and Commentary. SJLA 11. Leiden: Brill, 1975. Segal, M. The Book of Jubilees: Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology and Theology. JSJSup 117. Leiden: Brill, 2007. van Ruiten, J. T. A. G. M. “Abraham, Job, and the Book of Jubilees: The Intertextual Relationship of Genesis 22:1–19, Job 1:1–2:13 and Jubilees 17:15–18:19.” Pages 58–85 in The Sacrifice of Isaac: The Aqedah (Genesis 22) and Its Interpretations. Edited by E. Noort and E. Tigchelaar. TBN 4. Leiden: Brill, 2002. –. Abraham in the Book of Jubilees: The Rewriting of Genesis 11:26–25:10 in the Book of Jubilees 11:14–23:8. JSJSup 161. Leiden: Brill, 2012. VanderKam, J. C. The Book of Jubilees. CSCO 511/Scriptores Aethiopici 88. Louvain: Peeters, 1989. –. The Book of Jubilees: A Critical Text. CSCO 510/Scriptores Aethiopici 87. Louvain: Peeters, 1989. –. The Book of Jubilees, Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001. –. Jubilees: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2018. –. “Jubilees as Prophetic History.” Pages 167–88 in The Prophetic Voice at Qumran: The Leonardo Museum Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls, 11–12 April 2014. Edited by D. W. Parry, S. D. Ricks and A. C. Skinner. STDJ 120. Leiden: Brill, 2017.

Preparing for Temptation in a Culture of Mutual Ethical Responsibility Susanne Luther

The Letter of James is primarily an ethical manifesto; therefore, the question of testing or temptation is here addressed with a view to the ethical implications. The last verses of the letter, Jas 5:19–20, are central to the thesis of this essay: “My brothers, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, remember this: ὁ ἐπιστρέψας ἁμαρτωλὸν ἐκ πλάνης ὁδοῦ αὐτοῦ σώσει ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἐκ θανάτου καὶ καλύψει πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν.” The translation usually reads something like the following: “Whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and cover over a multitude of sins.”1 The last three words of Jas 5:20, which may allude to Prov 10:12, leave open who could function as subject to the third-person singular verb καλύψει. Does it refer to the sinner,2 to the one turning him back, or – as in the context of Proverbs – to brotherly love? For the context in the Masoretic Text reads, “Hatred stirs up dissension, but love covers over all wrongs” (Prov 10:12), and in 1 Pet 4:8, where the same passage is referred to, the author writes, “Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins (πρὸ πάντων τὴν εἰς ἑαυτοὺς ἀγάπην ἐκτενῆ ἔχοντες, ὅτι ἀγάπη καλύπτει πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν).”3 The subject is ἀγάπη, (brotherly) love, and Jas 5:20 also seems to identify, or even 1  E. g., “whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins” (RSV); “whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins” (ESV); “whoever brings a sinner back from his wrong path will save his soul from death and cover a multitude of sins” (ISV); or “he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins” (KJV). However, note two significant exceptions: “whoever turns a sinner from the error of their way will save them from death and cover over a multitude of sins” (NIV, emphasis added), or “whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save the sinner’s soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins” (NRSV, emphasis added). 2  See R. Metzner, Der Brief des Jakobus, THKNT 14 (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlags­anstalt, 2017), 314: “Mit ‘Sünder’ (ἁμαρτωλός noch in 4,8) meint Jakobus hier nicht generell alle Christen, die noch sündigen und einander ihre Sünden bekennen (5,16), sondern die zwischen Gott und der Welt Gespaltenen, die sich in der Gesinnung und im Tun als Feinde Gottes erweisen (4,4.8 δίψυχοι = ἁμαρτωλοί).” The sinner is someone who is tempted, is unstable and double-minded, and is led astray by desires (cf. Jas 1:8, 14–15; cf. also Sir 2:12). 3  Cf. 1 Clem 49:5; 2 Clem 16:4. For discussion, see Metzner, Brief des Jakobus, 318.

64

Susanne Luther

personify this brotherly love in the person who calls his neighbor back from sin.4 On the grammatical level, the meaning of the verse is left ambiguous, the most obvious interpretation being that the sinner will be forgiven.5 Nonetheless, ancient Jewish parallels suggest that the one who turns a sinner back to repentance is also deserving of forgiveness.6 Hence it seems permissible to apply the forgiveness to both, to the sinner and to the one who turns the sinner back.7 And whose soul is it that is being saved? The sinner’s soul or the soul of the person who turns the sinner back, or possibly both?8 As the text in these two verses does not specify this clearly, each of these three options is possible – which means that Jas 5:20 may actually be implying that “whoever reprimands a sinner and brings that person back to the right path will not only cover both their own and the sinner’s sins, but also their soul and the sinner’s soul will be saved from eternal death in the final judgment.” Or, to rephrase the verse with a view to the addressees: “It is your task, dear addressees, to turn others back to the right path  – this will save your soul as well as theirs in the impending judgement.” The author has already prepared the stage by presenting a dramatic scenario of the judge standing at the door (Jas 5:9); hence the ethical implication of this verse may read, “You are responsible for saving your own soul as well as those of others.” Already in ancient Jewish sapiential and prophetic tradition, as well as in later Hellenistic texts, the duty of care for the neighbor was a common topos.9 James 5:19–20 can be read to promote the notion that Christians are called to intervene in the lives of others who are erring from the right 4  S. Luther, Sprachethik im Neuen Testament. Analyse des frühchristlichen Diskurses im ­ atthäusevangelium, im Jakobusbrief und im 1Petrusbrief, WUNT 2/394 (Tübingen: Mohr SieM beck, 2015), 400–401; Metzner, Brief des Jakobus, 318. 5  See P. H. Davids, The Epistle of James, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 201; R. P. Martin, James, WBC 48 (Waco, TX: Word, 1988), 220; M. Konradt, Christliche Existenz nach dem Jakobusbrief. Eine Studie zu seiner soteriologischen und ethischen Konzeption, SUNT 22 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998), 57; Metzner, Brief des Jakobus, 319. 6  M. Dibelius, Der Brief des Jakobus, KEK 15, 12th ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), 307–8. See also Ezek 3:18–21; Sir 3:30; Tob 4:10. 7  Cf. F. Mussner, Der Jakobusbrief, HThKNT 13, 5th ed. (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1987), 233; H. Frankemölle, Der Brief des Jakobus, ÖTKNT 17, 2 vols. (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1994), 2:735; A. Schenk-Ziegler, Correctio fraterna im Neuen Testament. Die “Brüderliche Zurechtweisung” in biblischen, frühjüdischen und hellenistischen Schriften, FB 84 (Würzburg: Echter, 1997), 418. 8  The first option finds support in Davids, James, 201; Konradt, Christliche Existenz, 56– 57; W. Popkes, Der Brief des Jakobus, THKNT 14 (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2001), 355–56; C. Burchard, Der Jakobusbrief, HNT 15/1 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 216; C. L. Blomberg and M. J. Kamell, James, ZECNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 249; and others. The second option is preferred by A. Schlatter, Der Brief des Jakobus, 3rd ed. (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1985), 289–90; B. Witherington III, Letters and Homilies for Jewish Christians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Hebrews, James and Jude (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2007), 548– 49; the third option is supported tentatively by, e. g., Dibelius, Brief des Jakobus, 307. 9 Popkes, Brief des Jakobus, 354.



Preparing for Temptation in a Culture of Mutual Ethical Responsibility 

65

path,10 in order that they are not found guilty in the final judgment and in order not to be found guilty of any omission themselves.11 The grammatical openness of Jas 5:19–20 certainly permits this interpretation. This kind of ethics, which can be found in a very similar form in the Gospel of Matthew,12 which I  will call an ‘ethics of responsibility,’13 has weighty implications for understanding the πειρασμός-problem in the Letter of James.14 Nicholas Ellis has summarized the πειρασμός-problem in the Letter of James as follows: Philologically, should one translate the semantic event encoded by πειρασμός/πειράζειν/ ἀπείραστος as a test, a temptation, a tribulation, or a trial? Described metaphorically, does the author imagine here the proving ground of the athletic gymnasium, the crucible of the smelter or the kiln of the potter, the psychological enticement of demonic forces, the religious persecution of the martyr, or a courtroom prosecution? Is the metaphor consistent or does the author shift his conceit mid-discourse?15

Especially the question of the agent, ὁ πειράζων, or agents, proves difficult, since Jas 1:13 states clearly that it is not God who πειράζει. But is it then “a demonic temptress, the satanic prosecutor of the divine court, or an embedded, quasi-demonic entity inherent to the human condition?”16 Ellis suggests solving the semantic problem as well as the question of agency by situating James within the ancient literary context of divine courtroom scenes and probation narratives. My approach is not primarily concerned with the agents or with the semantics of πειρασμός/πειράζειν/ἀπείραστος, but rather with the pragmatics of the topic in the Letter of James. From the perspective of an ethics of responsibility, James describes a situation in which πειρασμοί exist; the focus of the letter is on the ways of dealing with them in the correct way. Joseph A. Fitzmyer helpfully distinguishes between πειρασμοί which come from the outside (“testing”), and πειρασμοί which come from the inside (“temptation”).17 Especially with a view to 10  Cf. Blomberg and Kamell, James, 241. 11  Although this is not very clear from the text in James, it is much clearer in Matthew

(e. g., in Matt 18), and as these two texts are closely connected, it may be assumed here, too. See Luther, Sprachethik, 345–404. 12 See S. Luther, “‘Sie sagen’s zwar, tun’s aber nicht.’ Zum Verständnis der Diskrepanz zwischen Mt 5,21–22 und 23,17,” BZ 58 (2014): 46–70. 13  For the concept of “Verantwortungsethik,” see H. A. Mieg, “Verantwortungsethik,” in Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie, ed. J. Ritter, K. Gründer, and G. Gabriel, vol. 11 (Basel: Schwabe, 2001), 575–76. 14 Frankemölle, Brief des Jakobus, 2:735, speaks of “Praxis des Miteinander” and “Synergismus” in view of fraternal correction and redemption according to James, which is a redactional change in comparison to the Jewish tradition upon which it is based. 15  N. Ellis, The Hermeneutics of Divine Testing: Cosmic Trials and Biblical Interpretation in the Epistle of James and Other Jewish Literature, WUNT 2/396 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 1. 16 Ellis, Hermeneutics, 1. 17  J. A. Fitzmyer, “And Lead Us Not into Temptation,” Bib 84 (2003): 259–73, esp. 260–61.

66

Susanne Luther

the dualistic use of the term πειρασμός in the Letter of James, exegetes have often assumed different semantic values – ‘testing’ in Jas 1:2–4, which comes from the outside providing the opportunity to stand the test and to prove steadfastness in faith, and ‘temptation’ in Jas 1:13–15, which comes from the inside and denotes the negative anthropological preconditions.18 However, such a semantic shift, which creates coherence through semantic linking, within an argument does not seem plausible.19 The Letter of James is concerned not with the πειρασμοί from the outside – as, for example, in the narrative of Jesus being tested in the wilderness or the Lord’s Prayer – but rather with those πειρασμοί which come from the inside. The author expressly highlights that God is not the origin of these πειρασμοί, but that they come from within human beings and stand in opposition to God.20 As Jens Schröter puts it, “The πειρασμοί are […] ethical challenges that lead the addressees astray,” and at the same time they “are presented as ethical challenges for the faith of the addressees and can therefore demonstrate that a believer is matured and possesses ‘wisdom from above’ (3:17).”21 In the following I will focus on how the Letter of James advises the addressees to deal with the πειρασμοί from the perspective of an ethics of responsibility.

1.  Πειρασμός/πειράζειν/ἀπείραστος in the Letter of James In the following I will take the concept of mutual ethical responsibility as a basic framework – or hermeneutical lens – for an investigation into the central passages dealing with πειράζειν/πειρασμός in the Letter of James. 18  E. g., Dibelius, Brief des Jakobus, 121; L. T. Johnson, The Letter of James, AB 37A (New York: Doubleday, 1995), 192; R. W. Wall, Community of the Wise: The Letter of James (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1997), 47–48. 19  Cf. T. Klein, Bewährung in Anfechtung: Der Jakobusbrief und der Erste Petrusbrief als christliche Diaspora-Briefe, NET 18 (Tübingen/​Basel: Francke, 2011), 296–97, who reads the term as “temptation” throughout, but differentiates between the focus on the reason (“Anlass”) and on the cause (“Grund/​Ursache”) of πειρασμός instead; see pp. 299–337 for an analysis of the frame of reference and the semantic content of the term. See also Davids, James, 80– 82; M. Klein, “Ein vollkommenes Werk”: Vollkommenheit, Gesetz und Gericht als theologische Themen des Jakobusbriefes, BWANT 139 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1995), 82–85. 20  For further discussion of this distinction, see Fitzmyer, “And Lead Us Not,” 260–61, 265. Cf. also Blomberg and Kamell: “James asserts that God never tempts his people at any time. James does not claim that God never allows temptation into our lives, nor does he imply that God never tests his people.” James, 71. Hence, testing is from God, but tempting with evil intent is not. Cf. also A. Bowden, “Count What All Joy? The Translation of πειρασμός in James 1.2 and 12,” BT 65 (2014): 113–24, who argues that in the Letter of James πειρασμός is always to be translated as temptation, not (also) as trial; his argumentation is based on the observation that the πειρασμός-motif is taken up repeatedly throughout the entire writing. 21  J. Schröter, “Jesus Tradition in Matthew, James, and the Didache: Searching for Characteristic Emphases,” in Matthew, James, and Didache: Three Related Documents in Their Jewish and Christian Settings, ed. H. van de Sandt and J. K. Zangenberg, SBLSymS 45 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2008), 233–55, here 243.



Preparing for Temptation in a Culture of Mutual Ethical Responsibility 

67

The letter starts in Jas 1:2–15 with a passage that contrasts two ways of dealing with πειράζειν/πειρασμός: a positive way of encountering πειρασμοί with patient endurance (1:2–12), and a negative way of yielding to πειρασμοί that generates sin and death (1:13–15). The argumentation aims to prove that πειράζειν/ πειρασμός does not come from God, but from inside each person.22 James 1:2–4 opens the twofold argumentation, describing the connection between πειρασμοί and faith: “Consider it all joy (πᾶσαν χαρὰν ἡγήσασθε), my brothers, when you face πειρασμοί of many kinds, because you know that the testing (δοκίμιον) of your faith generates patient endurance (ὑπομονήν). Perseverance (ἡ δὲ ὑπομονή) must finish its work so that you may be perfect (τέλειοι) and complete (ὁλόκληροι), lacking in nothing (ἐν μηδενὶ λειπόμενοι).”23 This passage states that πειρασμοί are to be welcomed with joy,24 because encountering them in steadfast faith – not in lack of wisdom (v. 5), not in doubt (vv. 6–8), not in exaltation and riches (vv. 9–11)25 – leads to the development of ὑπομονή, meaning “patient endurance” or “perseverance.”26 This virtue of ὑπομονή allows for a life in the midst of the πειρασμοί that leads successfully towards the final goal of being perfect, complete, and not found lacking in the final judgment. Πειρασμοί have an educational function.27 The description of this positive way culminates in a beatitude (μακάριος ἀνήρ), which praises the person who perseveres, or who endures in patience (ὑπομένει), in πειρασμοί, “because when he has stood the test (ὅτι δόκιμος γενόμενος), he will receive the crown of life that [God] has promised to those who love him” (1:12).28 The πειρασμοί, which are described as a condition of reality, thus have to be endured with patience in order to reach the aspired goal: the wreath or crown of life (τὸν στέφανον τῆς ζωῆς; v. 12). Both 22  See O. Wischmeyer, “Zwischen Gut und Böse: Teufel, Dämonen, das Böse und der Kosmos im Jakobusbrief,” in Das Böse, der Teufel und Dämonen – Evil, the Devil, and Demons, ed. J. Dochhorn, S. Rudnig-Zelt, and B. Wold, WUNT 2/412 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 153– 68, esp. 159. 23  Translations here and in the following are my own. 24  For the motif of joy in the face of temptation and testing in Jewish tradition, see Klein, Bewährung, 284–85. 25  See Frankemölle, Brief des Jakobus, who interprets these passages as temptations/trials: the lack of wisdom (1:211–22), the lack of faith (1:231–40) and lack of correct self-evaluation in poverty and prosperity (1:240–51). Cf. also H. Frankemölle, “Zum Thema des Jakobusbriefes im Kontext der Rezeption von Sir 2,1–18 and 15,11–20,” BN 48 (1989): 21–47, esp. 26. 26  The trials “are a reason for joy because they are to be regarded as a test of faith, which produces endurance,” and the author has confidence “that the addressees are able to endure diverse trials.” Schröter, “Jesus Tradition,” 242. For references to parallels in Jewish wisdom literature (e. g., Sir 2:5; 4:17; Prov 27:21), see Schroter, “Jesus Tradition,” 243. See also Klein, ­Bewährung, 277–87. 27  Cf. W. J. C. Weren, “The Ideal Community according to Matthew, James, and the Didache,” in Matthew, James, and Didache, 177–200: “[P]erfection is presented as the goal of Christian existence. Given this goal, the temptations that every believer is confronted with can be perceived positively. They have an educational value and form a decisive stage on the road to perfection” (191). 28  For the structure of the text, see Frankemölle, “Zum Thema des Jakobusbriefes,” 21–47.

68

Susanne Luther

texts, Jas 1:2–4 as well as 1:12, take the presence of πειρασμοί for granted; they do not mention agents and do not specify the exact meaning or reference of the term. The emphasis is on ethics and pragmatics, on the right way of dealing with πειρασμοί, and on their function with a view to the eschaton: they have to be endured with patience in order to be found perfect in the final judgment. James 1:13–15 depicts the alternative, negative way of dealing with πειρασμοί through denying all responsibility and then yielding to sin.29 According to verse 13a, when πειραζόμενος, no one should say ἀπὸ θεοῦ πειράζομαι, i. e., God is responsible for the πειρασμοί. Verse 13b provides an explanation: “For God ἀπείραστός ἐστιν κακῶν, and because πειράζει δὲ αὐτὸς οὐδένα.” The author thus states explicitly that God cannot be tempted and that God is not the agent of πειράζειν – particularly in the sense that God is not responsible for the πειρασμοί.30 It is rather the case that ἕκαστος δὲ πειράζεται ὑπὸ τῆς ἰδίας ἐπιθυμίας ἐξελκόμενος καὶ δελεαζόμενος (“each person, when πειράζεται, is provoked and lured by his or her own desires”).31 According to Jas 1:14, the origin of the πειρασμοί lies within each person, the struggle is ascribed to forces within each individual.32 God, Satan, or demons do not play a role as active agents in this struggle, πειρασμοί do not come from outside.33 James 1:15 develops the argumentation of the negative way of dealing with πειρασμοί: “Then, after desire (ἐπιθυμία) has conceived, it gives birth to sin (τίκτει ἁμαρτίαν); and sin (ἁμαρτία), when it is perfected (ἀποτελεσθεῖσα), gives birth to death (ἀποκύει θάνατον).” The argument, based on personifications of the evil powers,34 creates a mirror image of Jas 1:2–4, where endurance 29  Weren describes a way “diametrically opposed to the way of life or salvation.” While πειρασμοί stand at the beginning of both ways, the author emphasizes that it is not God who stands at the beginning of the way to sin and death: “[h]e thus throws the imperfect upon their own resources, liberty, and responsibility.” “The Ideal Community,” 191. Frankemölle speaks of climactic and anticlimactic argumentation in Brief des Jakobus, 1:288. 30  See S. Wenger, Der wesenhaft gute Kyrios: Eine exegetische Studie über das Gottesbild im Jakobusbrief, ATANT 100 (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2011), 93–105, esp. 95, who stresses that ἀπείραστος is a hapax legomenon and that the statement that God ἀπείραστός ἐστιν κακῶν is unique in ancient literature. 31  Frankemölle reads the yielding to desires in the context of human free will in Brief des ­Jakobus, 1:286. See also Frankemölle, “Zum Thema des Jakobusbriefes,” 35–36, including his discussion of the parallel in Sir 15:11–20. 32 Klein, Bewährung, 294–95; see also Wischmeyer, who emphasizes, “dass im Jakobusbrief der Kampf zwischen Gut und Böse im Menschen selbst ausgetragen wird. Dämonen, Teufel und Hölle bilden das weltanschauliche Szenario, das rhetorisch instrumentalisiert wird und vor dessen Hintergrund der Verfasser an seine Leserschaft appelliert.” “Zwischen Gut und Böse,” 164. 33 Frankemölle, Brief des Jakobus, 1:280; in ancient Jewish literature the notion of God as tempter is revised in two ways: first, in referring to Satan or Mastema as the tempter, and second, in interpreting temptation as a means by which God educates or chastises. 34  “Sowohl Begierde als auch Sünde werden personifiziert und in eine Kette von Geburtszusammenhängen hineingestellt: Hier begegnet in der Tat so etwas wie eine mythische Genealogie des Bösen, wobei die Frage nach dem logischen Verhältnis – kausal oder einfach biolo-



Preparing for Temptation in a Culture of Mutual Ethical Responsibility 

69

in the face of πειρασμοί led to perfection. Verse 15 shows that yielding to the πειρασμοί produces not the aspired final goal of being perfect and winning life in the final judgement, but rather a perfection of sin and hence being born into death. Read from the perspective of a mutual ethical responsibility and the task to turn sinners – i. e., those who have not endured the πειρασμοί in patience – back from their wrong path in order to save their souls from death (Jas 5:19–20), Jas 1:2–15 argues that it is within the scope of human responsibility to deal with πειρασμοί. This includes the responsibility for one’s own conduct as much as the responsibility for the conduct of others. The Jacobean ethics of responsibility focuses on the mutual responsibility in πειρασμοί and hence on the necessity of assisting others in situations of πειράζειν in any possible way. In Jas 4:1–10 the argumentation returns to the topic of πειρασμός/πειράζειν with a specific focus on God’s role in the process. The cause of the πόλεμοι καὶ […] μάχαι in the addressees’ congregation is traced back to the desires that make war within each person (τῶν ἡδονῶν ὑμῶν τῶν στρατευομένων ἐν τοῖς μέλεσιν ὑμῶν; Jas 4:1). The term ἡδονή refers back to ἐπιθυμία (1:14–15), a semantic connection apparent in the statement that suffering from ἡδονή means that “you desire and have not” (ἐπιθυμεῖτε καὶ οὐκ ἔχετε; 4:2) and is hence located within the discourse concerning πειρασμοί. Πόλεμοι καὶ μάχαι are opposed to the Jacobean ideals of brotherly love and mutual responsibility. The addressees’ conduct in πόλεμοι καὶ μάχαι is characterized as “friendship with the world (κόσμος),” which in turn is associated with enmity with God (4:4; cf. 1:27). The world is not opposed to God or the heavenly sphere, nor is it associated solely with the dominion of Satan or demons; it is rather mentioned as the sphere where humans interact and encounter ἡδοναί. On the ethical level, however, the (demonic or Satanic) ways of the world are opposed to the ways of God; hence, the κόσμος is regarded as a negative sphere.35 Therefore, Satan or the demons are not explicitly mentioned as agents in connection with πειρασμοί, but as adversaries in the context of ethical conduct (Jas 4:7–8).36 In this context the author twice gisch – hier offen bleiben kann. Diese Diktion könnte nun Ausdruck einer Verselbständigung des Bösen sein und zu einem theologischen oder kosmologischen Dualismus führen. Die Metaphorik darf aber nicht überinterpretiert werden. […] Die Begierden sind Teil des Menschen, und der zweifache Geburtsvorgang von Sünde und Tod findet ausschließlich im Menschen selbst statt. Er hat keine kosmische Dimension.” Wischmeyer, “Zwischen Gut und Böse,” 158. 35  Wischmeyer speaks of “Einfluss-Sphären” in her “Zwischen Gut und Böse,” 156; she adds, “Kosmos ist damit nicht etwa neutral, sondern gehört in toto dem negativen Bereich an und steht gegen die positiv konnotierten kultischen Eigenschaften” (161). See also the traditionhistorical background of this motif in Klein, Bewährung, 338–40. 36  “[D]er Teufel ist nicht etwa Gottes Widersacher, sondern der Widersacher (διάβολος) der Menschen.” Wischmeyer, “Zwischen Gut und Böse,” 163. For a different position, see Dorothy J. Weaver, “Resistance and Nonresistance: New Testament Perspectives on Confronting the Powers,” HTS 61 (2005): 619–38, who distinguishes between resistance and nonresistance as two strategies to deal with the powers of evil. James pleads for resistance (4:7), the Gospel

70

Susanne Luther

refers to scripture, though in v. 5 the origin of the reference is uncertain: ἡ γραφὴ λέγει· πρὸς φθόνον ἐπιποθεῖ τὸ πνεῦμα ὃ κατῴκισεν ἐν ἡμῖν (which translates as “with jealousy does he long for the spirit which he has caused to dwell in us.”) If we allow for a connection between 1:12, which states that God is not to be held responsible for πειρασμός/πειράζειν, on the one hand, and this obscure quotation,37 where God is pictured as jealously protecting – e. g., from sin and death – the spirit which he caused to dwell in humanity, on the other hand, the following key statement concerning God’s role in the process of πειρασμός/ πειράζειν emerges: God does not attack through πειράζειν, but rather protects the spirit that lives within against the πειρασμοί that come from within.38 James 4:6 cites Prov 3:34 LXX: ὁ θεὸς ὑπερηφάνοις ἀντιτάσσεται, ταπεινοῖς δὲ δίδωσιν χάριν (“God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble”), which serves as scriptural motivation for the following instruction: “Submit yourselves to God, resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Come close to God and he will come close to you” (vv. 7–8). This passage emphasizes the positive role God plays in the whole process of πειρασμός/πειράζειν. The role of the evil forces, Satan or demons, is not specified with a view to agency of πειράζειν.39 The motif of πειρασμός/πειράζειν is taken up a third time in Jas 5:7–11, in an argument concerning patience. The central statement can be found in v. 8: “Be now patient (μακροθυμήσατε) and strengthen your hearts, for the parousia of the Lord is near.” The author reminds the addressees of the prophets of old, whose patience (μακροθυμία) in the face of suffering can serve as an example for them (v. 10). Despite the semantic variation, the reference to Jas 1:2–4, 12–15 is apparent. James 5:11 clearly alludes to the beginning of the letter in 1:12 (μακάριος ἀνὴρ ὃς ὑπομένει πειρασμόν), as the author states: ἰδοὺ μακαρίζομεν τοὺς ὑπομείναντας (“As you know, we consider blessed those who have perseof Matthew (5:39), however, for nonresistance. Weaver analyzes the contexts and concludes that resistance is aimed at (cosmic) forces of evil, while nonresistance stands in the context of human adversaries. In resisting temptation in James, the Christian identity is a stake, while – as Weaver notes – in the temptations of Jesus his messianic identity is the focus (622). Nonresistance, even to death, as depicted in the passion narrative, is seen as equivalent to conquest and victory over satanic powers (637). 37  See Wenger, Der wesenhaft gute Kyrios, 178–85, esp. 178–79. 38  For a different interpretation, see Klein, Bewährung, 344–45, which is based on a parallel in Wis 2:23–24 that mentions the envy of the διάβολος. James 4:5, which speaks of his [the devil’s?] longing for the Spirit he [God?] has caused to dwell in us, may then be read as a paraphrase of this traditional motif. 39  The notion of evil personified in Satan and demons does exist in the Letter of James, but it does not stand in opposition to God; it is associated with the sphere of the κόσμος: “Der Verfasser rekurriert hier auf ‘das Dämonische’, um die Dimension des Bösen plastisch zu benennen, und stützt sich dabei auf die populäre Vorstellung von Dämonen, bindet diese aber ausdrücklich an den Kosmos, d. h. die Sphäre des Irdischen.” Wischmeyer, “Zwischen Gut und Böse,” 163. Cf., however, also Ellis, Hermeneutics, 162–64, esp. 164: “James’ depiction of the cosmic drama allows for the presence of external supernatural agents active in their work against the human patient.”



Preparing for Temptation in a Culture of Mutual Ethical Responsibility 

71

vered”). This beatitude statement frames the argumentation of the letter: in Jas 1:12 it is presented as the final goal, and in 5:11 it refers to Job as an example of perseverance and patience, and his success, as well as the prospect of God’s reward, is held out to the addressees.40 Again, the author stresses God’s positive part in the πειρασμός/πειράζειν-process. While God’s role as ὁ πειράζων may be implied by referring to prominent stories in the Jewish scriptures, the author of the Letter of James does not focus on this role but rather stresses the positive aspect of God’s agency as helper and protector. From what has been said so far, it may be noted that in the Letter of James πειρασμός seems to be considered an unavoidable and inescapable circumstance while living in the world.41 This omnipresence of πειρασμός, however, may not be traced back to God, who is not ὁ πειράζων and therefore cannot be held responsible. Rather, πειρασμοί come from within each person. The text highlights that giving way to πειρασμός leads to sin, to distance from God, and eventually (in the final judgment) to death. Therefore, the emphasis is on the right way of dealing with πειρασμοί  – through patient endurance in steadfast faith, and in the perspective of mutual responsibility through strengthening and calling back sinners in order to save their souls from being born into death through sin (Jas 1:15; 5:19–20). But how is this conduct to be implemented in a world full of πειρασμοί?

2.  Precondition and Resolve: Models of Ethical Conduct in James The Letter of James provides the reader with a model for ethical conduct, which is the basic precondition for any positive dealing with πειρασμοί in life, a model which describes the attainment of the correct constitution and intention. This model is based on wisdom traditions and an anthropology which assumes that human beings will fail in their endeavor to maintain proper ethical conduct time and again (3:1), and they will repeatedly need correction and admonition (1:21). The passage central to James’s notion of anthropology and his ethical conception is 1:19–27.42 Christian existence begins with the implanting of the λόγος ἀληθείας (1:18), the word of truth, through God. From this point onwards, 40  For the Job motif, see Fitzmyer, “And Lead Us Not,” 262; Ellis, Hermeneutics, 168–78. 41  “As the New Testament writers see it, resisting the temptations of the devil is an ongoing

and active task for the followers of Jesus, a task which engages them in all aspects of their everyday living: finances, charitable giving, marriage relationships, church discipline. But it is at the same time a task which Christians can ultimately carry out only by the power of God. And when they do, as James assures them, they are ‘blessed’ and ‘will receive the crown of life that the Lord has promised to those who love him’ (Ja 1:12).” Weaver, “Resistance and Nonresistance,” 624. Cf. also Frankemölle, Brief des Jakobus, 1:195, who notes that temptations are persistent throughout life, the instruction in James is therefore not to be considered as “Anfängerunterweisung” (lessons for beginners). 42  For this concept see Luther, Sprachethik, 110–32.

72

Susanne Luther

Christian existence is considered an existence as first fruits of a new creation. In this state human beings are capable of correct conduct but are always encountering πειρασμοί and hence often fail. Thus, Christian existence is regarded as moving towards the eschaton, meandering between the two poles of acceptable and unacceptable ethical conduct. James 1:21–27 assumes that correct conduct is possible, if the wickedness of the old self is discarded in meekness (v. 21) – at least as long as one “accepts” the implanted word and belongs to the new creation. In this world, both old and new creation exist alongside each other (1:2– 16; 4:1–4). Therefore, upright conduct is repeatedly challenged, e. g., through πειρασμοί; the text speaks of believers who either (passively) do not do good works (1:22–25), or who (actively) act in the wrong way (1:26). Correct ethical conduct is only possible within the sphere of the new creation, but as human beings live in the world, i. e., in the sphere of the old creation where the πειρασμοί are influential, they fail again and again. In entering the new existence humans do not undergo an ethical transformation but merely enter a sphere where proper conduct is possible and where the continual striving for upright conduct in word and deed continues – but now with the prospect of success.43 James 1:19–27 addresses an exhortation to those who have transgressed too far from the word of truth, the λόγος ἀληθείας, and have reverted to the sphere of the old creation – they are addressed in verse 21 and admonished to discard all wickedness and to accept anew the implanted word, the ἔμφυτος λόγος, in meekness and humility (cf. 4:5–10). Then correct conduct in word and deed according to the law will once again be possible (3:1–18).44 Hence, 1:19–27 drafts the fundamental statement that human beings must align their conduct with the λόγος, in order to live in accordance with the law of God, which is the essential criterion in the last judgment (v. 21). In sum, human beings are first of all responsible for their own proper ethical conduct, which is possible in the sphere of the new creation (Jas 3), and even though James reckons with humans failing again and again, they will always be able to and be admonished to turn back to the right conduct. How this conduct comes about is expounded in 1:19–27 – through the renewed acceptance of the ἔμφυτος λόγος and through a life in accordance with the λόγος ἀληθείας, the “word of truth.”45 The believer is only able to be part of the sphere of the new creation and to live an ethical life according to the “law” while inhabiting a state in which the implanted word is present and applied. However, the author is realistic enough to open his argumentation to empirical observations, for even the “perfect man” (τέλειος ἀνήρ; 3:2) is only attested to be able to bridle the tongue temporarily, not to tame it, i. e., to put it to constantly positive use. The influence 43  See also Konradt, Christliche Existenz, 303–10. 44  For the law, see Luther, Sprachethik, 441–53. 45 Luther, Sprachethik, 123–27 and 441–42; cf. also Popkes, Brief des Jakobus, 127.



Preparing for Temptation in a Culture of Mutual Ethical Responsibility 

73

of the world and its desires is too powerful (1:13–15, 27; 4:1–4).46 Therefore, repeated “conversion,” or return to the word or law, is necessary in order to ascertain the correct ethical conduct. In contrast to the linear conception of learning presented in some ancient Jewish wisdom literature, the Letter of James presents a circular process.47 The point of departure lies in accepting the word of truth, the λόγος ἀληθείας; from then on, ethical conduct according to the new conditions and requirements is possible. Humans are endowed with a power that allows control over their actions; 3:4 explicitly mentions the human will (ὁρμή) as a means of control.48 In this way each and every one has to proceed as a responsible member of the new creation – this is everyone’s own responsibility, and this in turn is the fundamental basis for being responsible for others. In Jas 1:15 this circular process is implied with a view to the πειρασμοί: “when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin, and sin, when it is completed, gives birth to death.” Hence, when desire is given its way, when πειρασμοί are not rejected, sin leads to death. Afterwards, it is necessary to turn back, to start anew in the circular process of accepting the word and acquiring again the possibility to correct ethical conduct. The Letter of James considers πειρασμοί as an unavoidable and inescapable circumstance while living in the world, which may not be traced back to God – he is not ὁ πειράζων, he cannot be held responsible. Πειρασμοί come from within each person, they lead to sin, to a distance from God, and in the final judgement to death. Therefore, the letter emphasizes the right way of dealing with πειρασμοί  – through patient endurance in steadfast faith and in the perspective of mutual responsibility through strengthening and calling back sinners in order to save their souls (5:19–20) from being born into death through sin (1:5).

3.  Reception and Transformation of Tradition in the Letter of James The instructions concerning πειρασμοί in the Letter of James find close parallels in early Jewish wisdom literature, especially in Sir 2:1–18 and 15:11–20.49 Sirach opens the first instruction with the admonition: “Child, when you come to 46 Luther, Sprachethik, 414–15; see also Konradt, Christliche Existenz, 303–10; M. Konradt, “‘Geboren durch das Wort der Wahrheit’ – ‘gerichtet durch das Gesetz der Freiheit’: Das Wort als Zentrum der thologischen Konzeption des Jakobusbriefes,” in Der Jakobusbrief: Beiträge zur Rehabilitierung der “strohernen Epistel”, ed. P. von Gemünden et al., BVB 3 (Münster: Lit, 2003), 1–15. 47 Luther, Sprachethik, 129–30. 48 Luther, Sprachethik, 145–70, esp. 149. 49  See Frankemölle, Brief des Jakobus, 1:190–98, 200–202, who mentions Sir 2:1–18 and 15:11–20 concerning the semantic field, and Jub. 19:8–9; T. Jos. 2:7; 10:1; 17:1; Jdt 8:25–27; 4 Macc 8:26; 16:19, as well as Rom 4:18; 5:3; Mark 13:13, concerning the motif of standing firm in trials.

74

Susanne Luther

serve the Lord, prepare your soul for πειρασμός (Τέκνον εἰ προσέρχῃ δουλεύειν κυρίῳ ἑτοίμασον τὴν ψυχήν σου εἰς πειρασμόν; 2:1).50 Nuria Calduch-Benages identifies this verse as the “Leitmotiv” of the entire passage.51 A comparison between Jas 1 and Sir 2 with a view to πειρασμός reveals distinctive parallels, which can give insight into the specific reception and creative further development of this sapiential tradition in James. Sirach 2 admonishes the reader to stand firm in πειρασμοί: “Do not fall away, so that you may grow until your end” (ἵνα αὐξηθῇς ἐπ’ ἐσχάτων σου; v. 3). It is disputed whether ἐπ’ ἐσχάτων σου refers to eternal life, to the day of death, or to the end of time – Calduch-Benages opts for the interpretation “to the time after a trial, when the tribulation or affliction has been overcome.”52 In my view this clause could also be interpreted as including all the πειρασμοί of life and would then refer to the end of one’s life, in line with the sapiential tradition’s goal to give instruction for a successful life that reaps the final reward. Sirach 2:4 continues, “receive all that is brought upon you and in all humiliation be patient” (δέξαι καὶ ἐν ἀλλάγμασιν ταπεινώσεώς σου μακροθύμησον). Repeatedly throughout, and again at the end of chapter 2, Sirach warns against going astray or walking in two paths at the same time as sinners do (οὐαὶ καρδίαις […] ἁμαρτωλῷ ἐπιβαίνοντι ἐπὶ δύο τρίβους, v. 12); moreover, particular warnings are repeatedly issued against losing one’s patience (οὐαὶ ὑμῖν τοῖς ἀπολωλεκόσιν τὴν ὑπομονήν; v. 14). Obedience (in v. 15) and humility (in v. 17: οἱ φοβούμενοι κύριον […] ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ ταπεινώσουσιν τὰς ψυχὰς αὐτῶν) are called for. Patience and endurance are central to upright conduct in difficult times of πειρασμός. Sirach 1:1–6 describes the reality of the πειρασμοί; however, it is not stated that God brings πειρασμοί upon human beings, not even in connection with the traditional motif of being tried in the furnace (v. 5), which is well-known from prophetic tradition, where God is explicitly mentioned as an agent. Although it is often assumed in the sense that “God tests them with fire […], not to make them suffer but because they are as precious as gold for him, a noble metal of great value,”53 when Sirach employs the image of gold tried in the fire, 50  This motif in Sir 2:1 implies that, although testing is not always – or not always immediately – good for the people, testing may come from God; at the same time, God never forsakes his people, especially not in times of testing. So, being a protector in testing is a motif already known in OT and ancient Jewish literature, which “ascribes to God or his Spirit a causality the effect of which could be to the detriment of the persons concerned. God is thought to be somehow the cause of it, even if the temptation or testing does not come from God himself.” Fitzmyer, “And Lead Us Not,” 263; cf. also 262. 51  N. Calduch-Benages, “Trial Motif in the Book of Ben Sira with Special Reference to Sir 2,1–6,” in The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research: Proceedings of the First International Ben Sira Conference, 28–31 July 1996, Soesterberg, Netherlands, BZAW 255, ed. P. C. Beentjes (Berlin/​New York: de Gruyter, 1997), 135–51 (137). 52  Calduch-Benages, “Trial Motif,” 138 n. 7. 53  Calduch-Benages, “Trial Motif,” 139.



Preparing for Temptation in a Culture of Mutual Ethical Responsibility 

75

purified in the furnace of humiliation, the agent remains anonymous. In all this Sirach, particularly in chapter 2, emphasizes that it is God’s task to support, to come to help (vv. 6, 10–11); the reader is asked to believe and to hope in God (πίστευσον αὐτῷ […] καὶ ἔλπισον ἐπ’ αὐτόν; v. 6), in order to receive this help (vv. 10, 13).54 Sirach 2:11 presents God as forgiving and as a “savior” in difficult times (ἀφίησιν ἁμαρτίας καὶ σῴζει ἐν καιρῷ θλίψεως). However, while the motif of God as ὁ πειράζων is common in the traditions available to Sirach,55 it is striking that the author does not explicitly mention God’s role here.56 Calduch-Benages reinforces her interpretation with a reference to Sir 33:1, which claims that “no evil will come upon him who fears the Lord, and even in πειρασμοί he will deliver him again” (τῷ φοβουμένῳ κύριον οὐκ ἀπαντήσει κακόν ἀλλ’ ἐν πειρασμῷ καὶ πάλιν ἐξελεῖται).57 This verse ascribes the agency of delivering and saving to God, while merely implying his role in πειράζειν. In not explicitly naming God as ὁ πειράζων while explicitly pardoning and presenting him as helper through πειρασμοί, the text displays a close parallel to the Letter of James. Sirach may even be read as a possible pretext to James, which, however, expicitly omits mention of God’s agency in the πειράζειν-process. As motivation, Sirach does not present concrete examples but poses questions that lead the readers to find those examples from former generations for themselves: ἐμβλέψατε εἰς ἀρχαίας γενεὰς καὶ ἴδετε τίς ἐνεπίστευσεν κυρίῳ καὶ κατῃσχύνθη ἢ τίς ἐνέμεινεν τῷ φόβῳ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐγκατελείφθη ἢ τίς ἐπεκαλέσατο αὐτόν καὶ ὑπερεῖδεν αὐτόν (v. 10). In these questions the focus is not on God as ὁ πειράζων, but on the human reaction to being ἐν πειρασμῷ. Sirach 2:15 indicates a close association between πειρασμός and the search for wisdom: “Τhose who fear the Lord will not be disobedient to his words and those who love him will remain in his ways” (οἱ φοβούμενοι κύριον οὐκ ἀπειθήσουσιν ῥημάτων αὐτοῦ καὶ οἱ ἀγαπῶντες αὐτὸν συντηρήσουσιν τὰς ὁδοὺς αὐτοῦ). Wisdom plays an important role, e. g., in Sir 4:11–19, since only through πειρασμός can wisdom 54  Cf. Sir 15:11–12: “Do not say: ‘It was God’s doing that I fell away’; for what he hates he will not do. Do not say: ‘It was he who led me astray’; for he has no need of a wicked man.” See Fitzmyer, “And Lead Us Not,” 272. 55  E. g., Jer 6:18–30; 11:4; Isa 1:22, 25; 48:10; Ezek 22:17–22; Zech 13:9; Mal 3:3; Ps 26(25):2; 17(16):3; 66(65):10; cf. also Prov 3:11–12; Deut 8:5; Wis 3:5; 11:9; see Calduch-Benages, “Trial Motif,” 139. See also N. Calduch-Benages, “Amid Trials: Ben Sira 2:1 and James 1:2,” in Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit: Essays in Honor of Alexander A. Di Lella, O. F. M., ed. J. Corley and V. Skemp, CBQMS 38 (Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2005), 255–63, esp. 262. 56  However, see Calduch-Benages, “Trial Motif,” 140: “In 2,1b, the text does not specify the origin of trial. In fact, the Lord is not the grammatical subject of the verse. The origin of trial is given later in 2,5.9 (and also in vv. 10–11). In spite of this lack of explicit information, the disciple can already infer that both trial and liberation come from the Lord.” 57  See Calduch-Benages, “Amid Trials,” 147.

76

Susanne Luther

be attained.58 Hence, πειράζειν serves as an educational strategy in Sirach.59 Despite the reception of a multitude of motifs from early Jewish wisdom literature – especially from Sirach – in the Letter of James, the latter text manifests a redactional remodeling of the tradition and situates it within a new anthropological and theological context. The argumentation in the Letter of James thus goes beyond early Jewish wisdom literature in creating a new ethical paradigm from traditional motifs.

4.  The Motivational Strategy: The Eschatological Christ Motivation for this dual responsibility – for oneself and the neighbor – in the face of the eschaton comes from two sources. Nicholas Ellis has emphasized the renowned example stories of probation, in particular those of Abraham and Job, which are drawn on especially in the time of πειρασμός.60 The motivation to act in mutual responsibility in view of the impending eschaton in a world full of πειρασμοί is also strongly supported by another agent: the narrative Christ figure, who does not take the role of ὁ πειράζων, but of the future eschatological judge.61 In Jas 5:7–11, the eschatological return of Christ is stressed in what seems to be a small narrative of Christ’s gradual approaching the place where the addressees are situated. Verse 7 introduces the notion of the return of the Lord (ἕως τῆς παρουσίας τοῦ κυρίου). Verse 8 clarifies that the coming of the Lord is drawing near (ἡ παρουσία τοῦ κυρίου ἤγγικεν), and v. 9 heightens the sense of urgency by stating that the judge is already standing at the doors (ἰδοὺ ὁ κριτὴς πρὸ τῶν θυρῶν ἕστηκεν).62 The general notion of the final judgment (2:13; 3:1; 5:12), as well as a future judge (4:12), has already been mentioned several times in the preceding text, yet with no further explanation as to whether the reference is made to God – as εἷς ἐστιν [ὁ] νομοθέτης καὶ κριτὴς might suggest in 58  “The reason that Ben Sira wanted to underline the presence of trial in human life is that he is convinced of the need of trial to attain Wisdom. Trial has the capacity to make a person grow and mature. […] The stages of this road to Wisdom constitute a true learning experience, in which trial serves an educational function.” Calduch-Benages, “Trial Motif,” 150. 59  See Calduch-Benages, “Trial Motif,” 141–43, for testing as an educational strategy in Ben Sira, particularly with a view to Sir 4:11–19. 60 Ellis, Hermeneutics, 185–236. 61  S. Luther, “The Christ of James’ Story,” in Christ of the Sacred Stories, WUNT 2/453, ed. P. Dragutinović et al. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 191–200; cf. also Klein, Bewährung, 394– 95, for the relevance of eschatological motivation in resisting temptation. See also M. Lautenschlager, “Der Gegenstand des Glaubens im Jakobusbrief,” ZTK 87 (1990): 163–84, esp. 169–73, who stresses that this is the primary christological focus in the Letter of James. 62  Cf. Frankemölle, Brief des Jakobus, 2:683: “Demnach zeigt sich hier die redaktionelle Intention des Jakobus, die sonst [im NT, S. L.] apokalyptisch verstandene Ankunft des Herrn […] als eine die Gegenwart der Adressaten bestimmende Wirklichkeit zu interpretieren.”



Preparing for Temptation in a Culture of Mutual Ethical Responsibility 

77

4:12  – or to the figure of Christ.63 The text does not provide any direct reference to the returning κύριος until 5:7–11.64 The narrative continues with the consequences this return of Christ will have; as mentioned in 4:12, this judge is the one ὁ δυνάμενος σῶσαι καὶ ἀπολέσαι – possibly God’s and Christ’s characteristics, authority, and competence coincide in this instance.65 James 5:11 takes up this thread of argumentation in referring to Job’s story and its positive ending (τὸ τέλος κυρίου εἴδετε), aligning the Lord’s characteristics of being compassionate and merciful (πολύσπλαγχνός ἐστιν ὁ κύριος καὶ οἰκτίρμων) with the characteristics of the eschatological judge, the returning Christ. Although all these references to the parousia and the impending judgment are used within the ethical argumentation as a motivation to act and speak correctly, the christological narrative depicting Christ as a future agent also suggests that those who endure πειρασμός will receive the crown of life (ὅτι δόκιμος γενόμενος λήμψεται τὸν στέφανον τῆς ζωῆς; 1:12; cf. 1 Pet 5:4; Rev 2:10). James 5:7–11 is central to the argumentation concerning πειρασμός/πειράζειν in the Letter of James. It seems to communicate the central christological notion of the letter, which is in line with the text’s impetus in conveying ethical admonition, corroborated by the vivid image of the impending judgment and the judge already close by. Read in the context of James’s deep rootedness in Jewish wisdom traditions – as strongly advocated by recent research66 – the eschatological christological narrative stands in close relationship with the Jewish narrative of the anticipated advent of the messiah, the prospect of whose coming as heavenly judge is not only an image of eschatological hope but also a motivation for ethical conduct in the here and now.67 63  See Popkes, Brief des Jakobus, 71, who highlights that James does not differentiate clearly between the reference to God or to Christ when using the term κύριος. Cf. also M. A. JacksonMcCabe, “The Messiah Jesus in the Mythic World of James,” JBL 122 (2003): 701–30, 708. 64  See Popkes, Brief des Jakobus, 23, for an interpretation of κύριος as a reference to the “erhöhten und wiederkehrenden Christus.” See also Frankemölle, Brief des Jakobus, 2:683, who reads this reference to the coming of the Lord as a parallel to the synoptic Jesus tradition concerning the coming of the kingdom of God. 65 C. Burchard, “Zu einigen christologischen Stellen des Jakobusbriefs,” in Anfänge der Christologie: Festschrift für Ferdinand Hahn, ed. C. Breytenbach and H. Paulsen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 353–68: “Er [Gott, S. L.] und Christus sind wesens- und willenseins, ohne daß Jakobus das begrifflich ausgearbeitet hätte” (365). However, James does not stress the identification of the judge with Christ, according to Popkes, Brief des Jakobus, 326. 66  E. g., R. Hoppe, Der theologische Hintergrund des Jakobusbriefes, 2nd ed., FB 28 (Würzburg: Echter, 1985); Frankemölle, Brief des Jakobus, passim; R. Bauckham, James: Wisdom of James, Disciple of Jesus the Sage (London/​New York: Routledge, 1999); Bauckham, “The Wisdom of James and the Wisdom of Jesus,” in The Catholic Epistles and the Tradition, ed. J. Schlosser, BETL 176 (Leuven: Peeters, 2004), 75–92. 67  “The Letter of James evidences a variant early Christian myth that, while different from the death-and-resurrection-centered one that is reflected in much of the extant Christian literature, is consistent in significant respects with other Jewish messianic thinking in the early Roman period.” Jackson-McCabe, “The Messiah Jesus,” 729. Cf. also Wenger, Der wesenhaft

78

Susanne Luther

5.  Πειρασμός κτλ. in a Culture of Mutual Ethical Responsibility To sum up, in the Letter of James πειρασμοί are described as part of the human condition; they exist and need to be dealt with in a way that does not pose the risk of being found unworthy in the final judgment. The precondition for correct conduct in the face of πειρασμοί is the right inner disposition, acquired through the process of accepting the word of truth. While stressing the positive aspect of God’s agency as helper and protector, the text also presents Christ as the judge standing at the door. But James’s admonition concerning πειρασμοί focuses on the pragmatics, the dangers, and the central goal of being found perfect and blameless in the final judgment, which includes being found blameless concerning the responsibility for one’s neighbor. For human responsibility with a view to πειρασμοί extends to the responsibility of saving the soul of one’s neighbor by turning him or her back from the wrong path. The motivation to act in mutual responsibility is enhanced by the narrative of the Christ figure coming as eschatological judge.

Bibliography Bauckham, R. James: Wisdom of James, Disciple of Jesus the Sage. London, New York: Routledge, 1999. –. “The Wisdom of James and the Wisdom of Jesus.” Pages 75–92 in The Catholic Epistles and the Tradition. Edited by J. Schlosser. Leuven: Peeters, 2004. Blomberg, C. L., and M. J. Kamell. James. ZECNT. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008. Bowden, A. “Count What All Joy? The Translation of πειρασμός in James 1.2 and 12.” BT 65 (2014): 113–24. Burchard, C. “Zu einigen christologischen Stellen des Jakobusbriefs.” Pages 353–68 in Anfänge der Christologie: Festschrift für Ferdinand Hahn. Edited by C. Breytenbach and H. Paulsen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991. –. Der Jakobusbrief. HNT 15/1. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Calduch-Benages, N. “Trial Motif in the Book of Ben Sira with Special Reference to Sir 2,1– 6.” Pages 135–51 in The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research: Proceedings of the First International Ben Sira Conference, 28–31 July 1996, Soesterberg, Netherlands. Edited by P. C. Beentjes. BZAW 255. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter, 1997. –. “Amid Trials: Ben Sira 2:1 and James 1:2.” Pages 255–63 in Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit: Essays in Honor of Alexander A. Di Lella, O. F. M. Edited by J. Corley and V. Skemp. CBQMS 38. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2005. Davids, P. H. The Epistle of James. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. Dibelius, M. Der Brief des Jakobus. 12th ed. KEK 15. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984. Ellis, N. The Hermeneutics of Divine Testing: Cosmic Trials and Biblical Interpretation in the Epistle of James and Other Jewish Literature. WUNT 2/396. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Fitzmyer, J. A. “And Lead Us Not into Temptation.” Bib 84 (2003): 259–73. Frankemölle, H. Der Brief des Jakobus. 2 vols. ÖTKNT 17. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1994. gute Kyrios, 225–57, for an analysis of the κύριος as judge in James and the tradition-historical background of this motif.



Preparing for Temptation in a Culture of Mutual Ethical Responsibility 

79

–. “Zum Thema des Jakobusbriefes im Kontext der Rezeption von Sir 2,1–18 and 15,11–20.” BN 48 (1989): 21–47. Hoppe, R. Der theologische Hintergrund des Jakobusbriefes. 2nd ed. FB 28. Würzburg: Echter, 1985. Jackson-McCabe, M. A. “The Messiah Jesus in the Mythic World of James.” JBL 122 (2003): 701–30. Johnson, L. T. The Letter of James. AB 37A. New York: Doubleday, 1995. Klein, M. “Ein vollkommenes Werk”: Vollkommenheit, Gesetz und Gericht als theologische Themen des Jakobusbriefes. BWANT 139. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1995. Klein, T. Bewährung in Anfechtung: Der Jakobusbrief und der Erste Petrusbrief als christliche Diaspora-Briefe. NET 18. Tübingen, Basel: Francke, 2011. Konradt, M. Christliche Existenz nach dem Jakobusbrief: Eine Studie zu seiner soteriologischen und ethischen Konzeption. SUNT 22. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998. –. “‘Geboren durch das Wort der Wahrheit’ – ‘gerichtet durch das Gesetz der Freiheit’: Das Wort als Zentrum der thologischen Konzeption des Jakobusbriefes.” Pages 1–15 in Der Jakobusbrief: Beiträge zur Rehabilitierung der “strohernen Epistel” Edited by P. von Gemünden, M. Konradt and G. Theißen. BVB 3. Münster: Lit, 2003. Lautenschlager, M. “Der Gegenstand des Glaubens im Jakobusbrief.” ZTK 87 (1990): 163–84. Luther, S. “The Christ of James’ Story.” Pages 191–200 in Christ of the Sacred Stories. Edited by P. Dragutinović, T. Nicklas, K. Rodenbiker, and V. Tatalović. WUNT 2/453. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. –. “‘Sie sagen’s zwar, tun’s aber nicht.’ Zum Verständnis der Diskrepanz zwischen Mt 5,21–22 und 23,17.” BZ 58 (2014): 46–70. –. Sprachethik im Neuen Testament: Analyse des frühchristlichen Diskurses im Matthäusevangelium, im Jakobusbrief und im 1Petrusbrief. WUNT 2/394. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Martin, Ralph P. James. WBC 48. Waco, TX: Word, 1988. Metzner, Rainer. Der Brief des Jakobus. THKNT 14. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2017. Mieg, H. A. ““Verantwortungsethik”.” Pages 575–76 in Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie. Edited by J. Ritter, K. Gründer, and G. Gabriel. Basel: Schwabe, 2001. Mussner, F. Der Jakobusbrief. 5th ed. HThKNT 13. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1987. Popkes, W. Der Brief des Jakobus. THKNT 14. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2001. Schenk-Ziegler, A. Correctio fraterna im Neuen Testament: Die “Brüderliche Zurechtweisung” in biblischen, frühjüdischen und hellenistischen Schriften. FB 84. Würzburg: Echter, 1997. Schlatter, A. Der Brief des Jakobus. 3rd ed. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1985. Schröter, J. “Jesus Tradition in Matthew, James, and the Didache: Searching for Characteristic Emphases.” Pages 233–55 in Matthew, James, and Didache: Three Related Documents in Their Jewish and Christian Settings. Edited by H. van de Sandt and J. K. Zangenberg. SBLSymS 45. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2008. Wall, R. W. Community of the Wise: The Letter of James. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1997. Weaver, D. J. “Resistance and Nonresistance: New Testament Perspectives on Confronting the Powers.” HTS 61 (2005): 619–38. Wenger, S. Der wesenhaft gute Kyrios: Eine exegetische Studie über das Gottesbild im Jakobusbrief. ATANT 100. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2011. Weren, W. J. C. “The Ideal Community according to Matthew, James, and the Didache.” Pages 177–200 in Matthew, James, and Didache: Three Related Documents in Their Jewish and Christian Settings. Edited by H. van de Sandt and J. K. Zangenberg. SBLSymS 45. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2008. Wischmeyer, O. “Zwischen Gut und Böse: Teufel, Dämonen, das Böse und der Kosmos im Jakobusbrief.” Pages 153–68 in Das Böse, der Teufel und Dämonen – Evil, the Devil, and De-

80

Susanne Luther

mons. Edited by J. Dochhorn, S. Rudnig-Zelt and B. Wold. WUNT 2/412. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Witherington III, B. Letters and Homilies for Jewish Christians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Hebrews, James and Jude. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2007.

Life as Test Reflections on m. ’Abot 2:4 and Related Texts Tzvi Novick

Mishnah ’Abot features, in close proximity, two teachings that disturb a certain posture of contented self-reflection, a posture signaled in each case by the word “yourself.” In m. ’Abot 2:4, either Hillel, a proto-rabbinic sage who lived near the end of the Second Temple period, or alternatively (in many manuscripts) a considerably later figure, Rabbi Hillel, the grandson of R. Judah the Patriarch, says: ‫“ אל תאמין בעצמך עד יום מותך‬Do not trust in yourself until the day of your death.”1 According to m. ’Abot 2:8, Rabban Yohanan son of Zakkai, who “received from Hillel and Shammai,” would teach: ‫אם עשית תורה הרבה אל תחזיק טובה לעצמך כי לכך‬ ‫“ נוצרת‬If you have done much Torah, do not praise yourself, for it was for this that you were fashioned.”2 The past and the future both qualify the achievements of the sage, in different ways. From the perspective of the past, the sage, in “doing” Torah, has done nothing other than give expression to his natural telos. From the perspective of the future, the sage’s virtue is an unstable thing, still vulnerable to taint; or put differently, it is yet an acquired and not a natural trait. My aim in this essay is to clarify the meaning of the maxim in m. ’Abot 2:4 – which I will speak of without deciding the attribution question as “R. Hillel’s” – in light of its immediate literary context, in light of Second Temple literature on testing and temptation, and in light of the maxim’s reception in later rabbinic 1  Quotations from ’Abot come from S. Sharvit, Tractate Avoth Through the Ages: A Critical Edition, Prolegomena and Appendices (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2004). The identification of the speaker in m. ’Abot 2:4 is complicated by the fact that it (with m. ’Abot 2:5–7) represents a juncture in the insertion of the house of the patriarch into the chain of transmission that structures the first two chapters of the tractate. On this insertion see A. Tropper, Wisdom, Politics, and Historiography: Tractate Avot in the Context of the Graeco-Roman Near East (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 21–24. On the question of Hillel and R. Hillel (ultimately favoring R. Hillel), see S. Sharvit, Language and Style of Tractate Avoth Through the Ages (Jerusalem: Bialik, 2006), 76–77. 2  The idiom ‫ החזיק טובה‬indicates thanking or acknowledging indebtedness in cases when the object is different from the subject. When the object and subject are the same, or in other words, when it is used reflexively, it connotes boasting. Compare 1 Cor 9:16 (NRSV): “If I proclaim the gospel, this gives me no ground for boasting (καύχημα), for an obligation is laid on me, and woe to me if I do not proclaim the gospel!” See also n. 22 below. On ‫“ עשית‬you have done” in m. ’Abot 2:8, and other aspects of the pericope, see A. Schremer, “Avot Reconsidered: Rethinking Rabbinic Judaism,” JQR 105 (2015): 287–311, esp. 289–91.

82

Tzvi Novick

literature. I begin by examining links between the maxim in question and the other maxims in m. ’Abot 2:4. Then I elicit the nuances of the maxim by surfacing the social and theological assumptions in which it is enmeshed, and by examining the earliest interpretation of the maxim, in the Palestinian Talmud.

1.  The Literary Context The maxim from m. ’Abot 2:4 is the second of five negative injunctions that the pericope attributes to R. Hillel.3 ‭‫אל תיפרוש מן הציבור‬ ‫אל תאמין בעצמך עד יום מותך‬ ‫אל תדין את חבירך עד שתגיע למקומו‬ ‫אל תאמר דבר שאפשר לו להישמע שסופו להישמע‬ ‫אל תאמר כשאפנה אשנה שמא לא תיפנה‬

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Do not part from the group. Do not trust in yourself until the day of your death. Do not judge your friend until you arrive at his place. Do not say something that can be heard,4 because in the end it will be heard. Do not say, “When I am unoccupied I will repeat,” lest you not be unoccupied.

In addition to the initial negation that binds all five maxims, maxims 2 and 3 constitute a group in virtue of their inclusion of a qualifier clause headed by “until.” Maxims 4 and 5 represent, from a formal perspective, a second distinct group, defined by the injunction “do not say,” and by a more or less shared narrative logic (i. e., what was not intended may nevertheless come to pass). The maxims appear to be unified by more than their form. The first two maxims may complement each other: The sage should not so esteem himself (maxim 2) that he sets himself apart from the community (maxim 1). One thinks of Philo’s critique of Jewish philosophers who, “as though they were living alone by themselves in the wilderness, … explore reality in its naked absoluteness,” neglecting observance of the literal law without consideration for social convention.5 As maxim 2 warns the sage against judging himself too lightly, so maxim 3 warns against judging one’s friend too harshly. We will return later to the relationship between maxims 2 and 3. The topic of maxim 5, “repeating,” i. e., study of halakhic traditions, is far more specific than the other four, but it may punningly echo the motif of death in maxim 2. The root corresponding to “to be unoccupied,” ‫( פנ”י‬here either in the qal or more likely the niphal), can also indicate “to die,” and another Tan­ 3  On the fivefold structures in m. ’Abot 2:4–5, see Tropper, Wisdom, 32–33. 4  Or: “that cannot be heard,” meaning either: that ought not be heard, or, that one thinks

is inaudible. On the conflation of ‫ אפשר‬and ‫ אי אפשר > איפשר‬in rabbinic manuscripts see Sharvit, Language and Style, 204–5. 5 Philo, Migr. 89–93 (Colson and Whitaker, LCL).



Life as Test

83

naitic text, t. Parah 3:8, features an exchange in which the protagonist puns on the two senses of the verb. It is possible, then, to construe maxim 5 as conveying, at a secondary level, that one should not postpone study of Torah until one is unoccupied, lest one die.6

2.  Trusting in Oneself What does it mean to “trust in oneself ” in m. ’Abot 2:4? The terminology of trust (‫ )אמ״ן‬occurs very often in Second Temple literature, and especially the book of Ben Sira, in connection with friends and enemies.7 A friend is characteristically reliable. Thus Ben Sira can sing the praises of ‫“ אוהב אמונה‬a trustworthy friend” (6:14–16).8 By the same token, an enemy is characteristically not trustworthy, as in Sir 12:10: ‫“ אל תאמין בשונא לעד כי כנחשת רועו יחליא‬Do not trust in an enemy ever, for his evil will as bronze corrode.”9 This latter passage, like m. ’Abot 2:4, punctuates its injunction by invoking a temporal extreme, “ever” (‫)לעד‬. Against the background of Ben Sira, then, m. ’Abot 2:4 appears to cast the self in terms of the friend/enemy dynamic: Not to trust oneself is to suspect that one’s self might be more an enemy to oneself than a friend.10 The fact that the very next maxim in m. ’Abot 2:4 – maxim 3 – also concerns a friend (‫)חביר‬, supports the interpretation of maxim 2 against the background of friendship discourse. 6  This construal must take the word ‫ לא‬to be bound to the preceding ‫שמא‬, so that the two words together indicate “lest.” I have not found evidence of this usage in Tannaitic literature, but it occurs in Amoraic literature; see y. Šeb. 8:6 (38b); ’Abot R. Nat. B 19 (Schechter ed., 21a). Sharvit, Language and Style, 206, adduces t. Parah 3:8 in adjudicating the morphology of ‫ פנ״י‬in m. ’Abot 2:4, but he does not consider the possibility that the pun is present in the latter. If one assumes that m. ’Abot 2:4 attributes the maxim series to Hillel and not R. Hillel, then a point in favor of the pun interpretation is that all four of Hillel’s Aramaic sayings in m. ’Abot 1:13 end with the specter of death or something like it, and at least one of them, but likely more or even all of them, concern Torah study. But see G. Stemberger, “Los Dichos Arameos de Hillel en el Tratado Abot,” MEAH 53 (2004), 387–405, according to whom there is little reason to trust the attribution of the Aramaic sayings to Hillel. In any case, both in its divergence from the preceding four maxims (toward specificity) and in its punning reference to death, maxim 5 represents a suitable conclusion to the collection. 7  On the relationship between Mishnah ’Abot and the biblical and post-biblical wisdom tradition see most recently I. Rosen-Zvi, “The Wisdom Tradition in Rabbinic Literature and Mishnah Avot,” in Tracing Sapiential Traditions in Ancient Judaism (SJSJ 174; ed. H. Najman et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2016), 172–90. 8  The Hebrew is from MS A. For the Hebrew text of Ben Sira I use the images at www.bensira.org; the translations are my own. A link between the friend and trustworthiness may be found already in Prov 27:6 ‫“ נאמנים פצעי אוהב‬trustworthy are the wounds [inflicted by] a friend.” It is not altogether clear to me what the author of Proverbs intended with these words, but Ben Sira would naturally have understood them to mean: A friend, even in or precisely through his critique, shows himself trustworthy. See also n. 13 below. 9  The Hebrew is from MS A. See also Sir 7:26. 10  Is there a contrast to Sir 37:13, which speaks of one’s heart as “more trustworthy” (i. e., a more trustworthy source of counsel than other people)?

84

Tzvi Novick

The trustworthiness of the friend is bound up in Ben Sira with testing or trial. The paean to the “trustworthy friend” comes on the heels of an injunction to test a would-be friend: ‫“ קנית אוהב בניסין קנהו‬If you would acquire a friend, acquire him through testing.”11 The test can be engineered, but more often, adversity furnishes it: The trustworthy friend is the friend who remains steadfast in times of trouble.12 Again, in Sir 4:17–18, Ben Sira imagines Wisdom testing a person before revealing to him her secrets, a characteristic gesture of friendship.13 Jacob Licht, in his penetrating work on tests in biblical and post-biblical literature, notes that works from the Second Temple period speak of Abraham, as a result of his test in Genesis 22, as having been found ‫“ נאמן‬trustworthy.”14 The earliest instance of this characterization comes in the historical review in Neh 9:8 ‫“ ומצאת את לבבו נאמן לפניך וכרות עמו הברית‬and you found his heart trustworthy before you, and formed with him a covenant.” Ben Sira likewise unites covenant and test, albeit in a different way: ‫בבשרו כרת לו חק ובניסוי נמצא‬ ‫“ נאמן‬In his flesh he established a covenant, and in a trial he was found faith11  Sir 6:7 (MS A). See m. ’Abot 1:6 ‫“ קנה לך חבר‬Acquire for yourself a friend.” The maxim in ’Abot makes no reference to testing the friend. More strikingly still, the maxim that immediately follows, in the same triplet – ‫“ הוי דן את כל האדן לכף זכות‬Judge every person toward the scale pan of merit” – seems almost explicitly to disavow such testing. Our passage too, m. ’Abot 2:4, appears to do the same, by juxtaposing mistrust of oneself with an injunction not to judge one’s friend. But perhaps the difference between Ben Sira and Mishnah Avot is only a matter of degree or emphasis. In Greco-Roman literature on friendship, too, a concern about false friends, and counsel about the importance of weeding out false friends from true, sit alongside an insistence that a wise man should “avoid even being suspicious and ever believing that his friend has done something wrong” (Cicero, De Amicitia, 65 [Falconer, LCL]). On friendship in general in these and related texts see D. Konstan, Friendship in the Classical World (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996); C. Hezser, “Rabbis and Other Friends: Friendship in the Talmud Yerushalmi and in Graeco-Roman Literature,” in The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture II, ed. P. Schäfer and C. Hezser, TSAJ 79 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 189–254; J. Corley, Ben Sira’s Teaching on Friendship (Providence: Brown Judaic Studies, 2002); S. M. Olyan, Friendship in the Hebrew Bible (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017), 87–103 (“Friendship in Ben Sira”). We do in any case find a narrowly tailored concern about false friends in Mishnah Avot in the very preceding pericope, m. ’Abot 2:3, in the warning against “approaching” the government (‫)רשות‬, because officers of the government appear like friends (‫ )אהבין‬in fortunate times, but abandon one in times of distress. Cf. Cicero, De amicitia, 64 (LCL): “[T]rue friendships are very hard to find among those whose time is spent in office or in business of a public kind.” The same concern presumably underlies the injunction in m. ’Abot 1:10, ‫“ ואל תתוודע (אל) לרשות‬And do not ‘become as one known’ to the government,” where ‫“ להתוודע‬to become as one known,” should be understood as “to become a friend,” a ‫מיודע‬. For ‫“ מיודע‬friend” see, e. g., 2 Kgs 10:11; Ps 31:12; 55:14; 88:9, 19 (in parallel with ‫ אהב‬and ‫ ;)רע‬Job 19:14; t. Ma‛aś. Š. 5:14; t. B. Mes. 2:17. 12  See also Sir 22:23. 13  On the wise who endure testing before experiencing Wisdom’s secrets, see also 4Q525 5 10–13. On friends as ones who share secrets, see, e. g., Prov 25:8–10; Sir 6:9; 12:11, 14; 22:22. It is notable that Prov 11:13 identifies the one who keeps secrets (‫“ מכסה דבר‬one who conceals a matter”) as ‫“ נאמן רוח‬trustworthy of spirit.” 14  J. Licht, Testing in the Hebrew Scriptures and in Post-Biblical Judaism (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1973), 70.



Life as Test

85

ful.”15 The same summary occurs in 4Q225 7 1 (‫“ נמצא אברהם נאמן‬Abraham was found faithful”) and in 1 Macc 2:52 (Αβρααμ … ἐν πειρασμῷ εὑρέθη πιστός “Abraham in a trial was found faithful”).16 But the characterization ‫ נאמן‬does not, to my knowledge, occur in general in Second Temple literature to describe successful endurance of a divine test; it is associated specifically with Abraham. One wonders whether the prevalence of this characterization depends on the fact that Isa 41:8 (MT) calls (or was understood to call) Abraham God’s “friend” (‫)אהבי‬. This hypothesis gains support from the fact that Jub. 17:18 and 19:9 speak in one breath of Abraham having been “found … faithful” and of him having been “one who loved the Lord” or “the friend of the Lord.”17 It is worth noting, too, that in its substance as well, Abraham’s test in Genesis 22 positions him as something like a friend to God, in that he is willing to provide God something that God claims to want. This element is not present in, for example, the test of Job. Bringing this evidence to bear on m. ’Abot 2:4, we should, then, likely see the injunction not to trust oneself until one’s death as an implicit claim about testing. To the very end, one is presented by life with tests, and past success is no guarantee of future success. The notion that all of life is a test follows naturally from the dramatic increase in the prevalence of testing language in literature from the Second Temple period. This literature regularly conceptualizes, and considers together, suffering as a test of patience, and pleasure as a temptation toward impiety.18 This development is well charted in Licht’s book, and here I will dwell only on two sets of sources that expose some of its subtler aspects. 15  Could the sequential occurrence of (‫ חק )לו‬and ‫ ניסוי‬in Sir 44:20 occur under the influence of Ex 15:25, “There he placed for them a law (‫ )לו חק‬and a statute, and there he tested them (‫?”)נסהו‬ 16  For language of testing and finding (not in the context of Abraham) see also Wis 3:5–6. The consistent use of the niphal (‫ )נמצא‬in post-biblical texts, in contrast with the qal (‫)ומצאת‬ in Neh 9:8, could be understood as a choice designed to avoid the implication that Abraham’s faithfulness was something that God could not have known in advance. On the omniscience problem, see Licht, Testing, 51–53. However, in Mishnaic Hebrew, ‫ מצא‬niphal can be used to indicate a consequential state (the equivalent of English “and he/they/etc. turned out [to be]”), entirely outside the context of divine evaluation. See Sharvit, Language and Style, 126. 17  Translations from Jubilees in this essay come from J. C. VanderKam, trans., The Book of Jubilees, CSCO 511 (Louvain: Imprimiere Orientaliste, 1989). See also Jub. 17:5, where Abraham’s faithfulness is associated with God’s love toward Abraham, which perhaps reflects the Septuagint’s rendering of Isa 41:8, according to which it is God who loves (is a friend of ) Abraham. On Isa 41:8 in Second Temple literature see M. Goshen-Gottstein, “Abraham – Lover or Beloved of God,” in Love and Death in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of Marvin Pope, ed. J. H. Marks and R. M. Good (Guilford, CT: Four Quarters Publishing, 1987), 101–4; M. S. Harmon, She Must and Shall Go Free: Paul’s Isaianic Gospel in Galatians, BZNW 168 (Berlin/​ New York: de Gruyter, 2010), 151–53. For the association of loving God, being tested and found pure (but not “faithful”), and being recorded in a heavenly book, see also 1 En. 108:7–9 (of the righteous in general, not of Abraham specifically). 18  The dichotomy of test and temptation is often blurry in practice; I employ it only heuris-

86

Tzvi Novick

3.  Test and Temptation The first set of sources, which indicate greater attentiveness to the problem of temptation, comes from Ben Sira. Three passages in this book figure wealth and commercial activity as stumbling blocks for the person who would be pious.19 A. Sirach 31(34):5–1120  5. He who loves gold will not be justified, and he who pursues profits will be led astray by them. ‫רודף חרוץ לא ינקה ואוהב מחיר בו ישגה‬

 6. Many were given over to ruin because of gold, and their destruction has happened in front of them.  7. It is a block for stumbling for those who are possessed by it, and every fool will be taken captive by it. ‫כי תקלה הוא לאויל וכל פותה יוקש בו‬

 8. Happy is a rich person who was found blameless and who did not go after gold.  9. Who is he and shall we call him happy? For he did wonders among his people. 10. Who has been tested by it and been made perfect? And it will be a boast for him. Who was able to transgress and did not transgress, and to do evil and did not do so? ‫ בו והיה לו לשלום והיה לו לתפארה‬21)!( ‫מי הוא זה שנדבק‬ [..]‭‫מי יוכל לסור ולא סר ולהרע רע ולא א‬ 11. Therefore his good things will be confirmed, and his acts of charity an assembly will recount. ‫ ותהלתו יס[פר קה]ל‬22‫על כן חזק טובו‬ B.  Sirach 8:223 Do not quarrel with a rich person, lest he counter your weight. For gold has ruined many, and has perverted hearts of kings. tically, and only in the section that follows; “test” earlier in the essay does not indicate a contrast to temptation. 19  On wealth in Ben Sira see B. G. Wright III (with C. V. Camp), “‘Who Has Been Tested by God and Found Perfect?’ Ben Sira’s Discourse of Riches and Poverty,” in idem, Praise Israel for Wisdom and Instruction: Essays on Ben Sira and Wisdom, the Letter of Aristeas and the Septuagint (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 71–96, esp. 75–76. For another instance of wealth as test in Second Temple literature see Jub. 17:17, which speaks of Abraham having been “tested … through the wealth of kings.” 20  The English text in this and the other offset passages below represents the translation of the Greek text of Ben Sira in A. Pietersma and B. G. Wright, A New English Translation of the Septuagint (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007). I furnish relevant parts of the Hebrew as well; in the case of passage A, the Hebrew is from MS B. I omit two variant translations of Sir 31:10 and follow M. H. Segal, Sefer Ben Sira ha-Shalem (Jerusalem: Bialik, 1953), 186, in reconstructing the gap in Sir 31:11. 21  ‫ נדבק‬is evidently an error for ‫נבדק‬, per Segal, Ben Sira, 191. 22  One suspects that the idiom ‫החזיק טובה‬, on which see above, n. 2, is present in this verse. The sense of the first half would thus be something like: “Therefore he will be praised.” 23  The Hebrew from comes MS A. The reconstruction of the gaps, from Segal, Ben Sira, 186, is supported by the version of Sir 8:2 preserved in a recently published additional fragment of MS C; see S. Elizur and M. Rand, “A New Fragment of the Book of Ben Sira,” DSD 18 (2011), 200–205, esp. 203. The only significant difference: MS C has ‫ לבות‬rather than the posited ‫לב‬.



87

Life as Test ‫הון פן ישקל מ[חי]רך ואבדת‬

)!( ‫אל תחרש עם איש לא‬

‫כי רבים הפחיז זהב וה[ון] משגה ל[ב נד]יבים‬

C. Sirach 26:29–27:724 26:29. A merchant will scarcely be delivered from wrongdoing, and a retailer will not be innocent of sin. 27:1. Many have sinned on account of cash, and he who seeks to increase will avert an eye. 27:2. Between joints of stones a peg will be driven, and between selling and buying sin will be wedged.25 27:3. If he does not hold fast in fear of the Lord, quickly, with speed, his house will be overthrown. 27:4. With a shaking of a sieve, refuse remains – so a person’s offal in his accounting. 27:5. A kiln tests a potter’s vessels, and a person’s test is in his deliberation.

‫כלי יוצר לבער כבשן וכמהו איש על חשבונו‬

27:6. Its fruit brings to light a tree’s cultivation – so thought of imagining, a person’s heart. (!) ‫על עבדת עץ יהי פרי כן חשבון על יצר אחד‬ 27:7. Before accounting do not commend a man, for this is the test of people.

Passages A and B clearly link gold or wealth to sin. Passage C also begins (Sir 26:29–27:3) with a reference to commerce, but the continuation (Sir 27:4– 7) is more obscure. It concerns “accounting” or “deliberation” or “thought”; all of these words translate the Greek word λόγος or a derivative thereof. The very proximity to Sir 26:9–27:3 suggests that the topic of Sir 27:4–7 is not intellect or reasoning in general, but accounting associated with commerce. This suggestion is confirmed by the Hebrew ‫חשבון‬, employed elsewhere in Sirach (Sir 42:3) and in 1QS VI, 20 in unambiguously commercial contexts.26 Further confirmation comes from the existence of a feature that links together the conclusions of both passage A and passage C: In both cases, Ben Sira envisions praise of the individual who has proved himself righteous despite his wealth. Passage C is especially evocative of m. ’Abot 2:4 insofar as it explicitly speaks of withholding praise from the individual until he has passed the test. Despite the continuities among the three passages, there is an important difference between them. In passages A and B, wealth figures precisely like wine 24  I have lightly modified the NETS translation in anticipation of the discussion below. The Hebrew comes from MS A, where the copyist introduced Sir 27:5–6 into Sirach 6. 25  P. W. Skehan and A. A. Di Lella (The Wisdom of Ben Sira [AB 39; New York: Doubleday & Company, 1964], 355) suppose that the reference is to a tent peg, stuck between two fitted stones so that it will remain fast. Segal (Ben Sira, 166) speaks of a peg that enters between two stones in a wall, but offers no explanation for the image. I venture that the image anticipates the forecast in the next verse, that the sinning merchant’s “house will be overthrown”: The peg is inserted between the stones of a house wall in order to dismantle it. 26  For Sir 42:3 see MS M, B, and see the discussion in M. Kister, “A Contribution to the Interpretation of Ben Sira,” Tarbiz 59 (1989–90): 303–78, esp. 351–52. The entire sequence of topics Sir 42:2–4 is commercial, and see especially the references to buying, selling, and prices in 42:4.

88

Tzvi Novick

and especially women do elsewhere in Ben Sira, as a temptation to sin that is arguably best avoided, or in any case, that is in principle avoidable. Of note, for example, is the verb ‫ הפחיז‬in passage B. The root ‫ פח”ז‬can convey hubris and especially sexual licentiousness.27 The only other occurrence of the root ‫ פח”ז‬in the hiphil in the surviving Hebrew fragments of Ben Sira – indeed, the only other occurrence of ‫ פח״ז‬hiphil altogether in extant Second Temple sources – occurs in Sir 19:2–3.28 Wine and women will mislead intelligent men … And a reckless soul will be carried off. ‫יין ונשים יפחיזו לב ונפש עזה […] שחית בעליה‬

The C-stem of the cognate root, along with a nominal form of the same cognate root, recurs also in the Syriac to Sir 23:4–6, in a prayer to be spared from temptation of the flesh and of a “shameless soul” (slightly different in the Greek from the “reckless” soul of Sir 19:3, but identical in the Syriac).29 In the medieval Hebrew paraphrase of Ben Sira (New York, JTS, ENA 3053.3 1 15), at Sir 23:4–6, the noun ‫ פחז‬and the verb ‫ )!( יחפיזוני‬occur, and also the phrase ‫נפש עזה‬.30 In passage B, then, wealth takes its place alongside wine and especially women as an incitement to sin.31 In contrast to passages A and B, passage C contains none of the standard terminology associated with corporeal temptation. Sirach does not evoke the seductive pleasures of women or wine but instead puts forward mundane images from the world of work that evoke proving, testing, distinguishing: the miller’s (?) sieve, the potter’s kiln, the farmer’s fruit.32 This difference is no doubt connected with the fact that passage C concerns not the rich man and his gold, but ordinary operatives in the area of commerce. We thus perceive two related but distinct intersections of money and temptation in Sirach. The first one, more continuous with biblical meditations on temptation, involves the rich man, whose gold is as alluring as a woman to him. The second one, more general 27  See J. Greenfield, “The Meaning of ‫פחז‬,” in Studies in Bible and Ancient Near East: Presented to Samuel E. Loewenstamm on his Seventieth Birthday (ed. Y. Avishur and J. Blau; Jerusalem: E. Rubinstein, 1978), 35–40. 28  The Hebrew text is from MS A. 29  For the Syriac I rely on F. Vattioni, ed., Ecclesiastico: Testo ebraico con apparato critico e versioni greca, latina e siriaca (Napoli: Istituto Orientale di Napoli, 1968). 30  I have accessed the paraphrase online via The Academy of the Hebrew Language, “Historical Dictionary of the Hebrew Language,” Ma’agarim, http://maagarim.hebrew-academy.org. il/​Pages/​PMain.aspx. On Sir 23:4–6 in the paraphrase, and on the relationship between Ben Sira’s prayer and contemporaneous apotropaic prayers, see Kister, “Contribution,” 328–30. 31  Another root that binds the description of wealth in passages A and B to accounts of the temptation of women is ‫ ;שג”י‬cf. 4Q184 1 14. 32  Commentators rightly link the image in Sir 27:6 to the parable of the tree and its fruit in Matt 7:15–20; Luke 6:43–45, but an important difference should not be overlooked: For Ben Sira, the fruit is proof of the quality not of the tree but of the cultivation of the tree, i. e., proof of the farmer’s skill. It is important for Ben Sira’s purposes that the tree and fruit belong to the world of work.



Life as Test

89

and more novel, involves the merchant, the man of accounts, whose true character emerges from the way he manages the constant temptation to deal dishonestly.33 A set of exegetical reflexes in Tannaitic literature attests to the interface between endurance as test and allure as temptation. Ishay Rosen-Zvi has observed that the two major exegetical schools among rabbis of the Tannaitic period, that of R. Akiva and that of R. Ishmael, diverge on their rhetoric about the yeṣer, the “will.”34 In the school of R. Akiva, the yeṣer articulates the natural human resistance to the burdens and demands of the law. The yeṣer does not want to sin, but it lacks heroic endurance. In the school of R. Ishmael, by contrast, the yeṣer represents the active desire to violate the law. The difference is exemplified in the following pair of passages, the first from an Akivan source and the second from an Ishmaelian one: ‫רבי [ע]קיבה אומר דיברה התורה כנגד ה[יו]צר שלא יהא אדם אומר הרי ארבע‬

… ‫להוסיף לכם תבואתו‬

‫שנים אני מיצטער בו חינם לכך נאמר להוסיף לכם תבואתו‬

“To increase its produce for you” (Lev 19:25). … Said R. Akiva: The Torah spoke concerning the inclination, that a person should not say: For four years I am troubling myself over it for naught! Therefore it says: “To increase its produce for you.”35 ‫ואשר במים מתחת לארץ … וכל כך רדף אחר יצר הרע שלא ליתן מקום למצא לו מתלת התר‬ “And that which is in the water under the earth” (Ex 20:3). … And so far does it pursue after the evil inclination, so as not to provide an opening for it to find an excuse to permit.36

Each passage supposes that the lemma means to respond to a “psychological” concern about the law in question. According to the Akivan passage, the reason that Lev 19:25 details the abundance that will come from observing the restrictions governing the first four years of a tree’s growth is to counter the farmer’s 33  Ben Sira does not specify precisely what sin the merchant will commit. Segal notes that “avert an eye” in Sir 27:1 is probably ‫יעלים עין‬, a phrase attested in Prov 28:27. That verse speaks of one who averts his eye from a poor person so as not to give him money. One might therefore suppose that Sir 27:1, too, speaks of a merchant who refuses to share his wealth. But nothing else in the context supports this interpretation. Perhaps, alternatively, the sinner in Sir 27:1 should be connected to the obscure figure of the ‫נעלם‬, who appears in Ps 26:4 and at Qumran. Especially notable are the instances in the wisdom literature from Qumran, 4Q299 65 4 and 4Q424 1 4, where the ‫ נעלם‬seems to be linked with matters financial. A third possibility: In Sir 46:19 (MS B), Samuel denies having taken a bribe or ‫נעלם‬. The latter depends on 1 Sam 12:3, where Samuel insists that he never took a bribe so as to avert his eyes (‫ )ואעלים עיני‬from the briber’s injustice. Sirach 27:1 may likewise refer to the payment of bribes. In this case the “eye” would belong not to the merchant but to another. 34  See I. Rosen-Zvi, “Two Rabbinic Inclinations? Rethinking a Scholarly Dogma,” JSJ 39 (2008), 513–39. The two passages quoted below are analyzed in pp. 517–20. 35  Sifra qedošim 4:1 (Weiss ed., 90b). The Hebrew text is from MS Vatican 66, with abbreviations filled out. 36  Mek. R. Ish. ba-ḥodesh 6 (Horovitz-Rabin ed., 225). The Hebrew text is from MS Oxford 151.

90

Tzvi Novick

impatience over those restrictions.37 The second, Ishmaelian passage reflects on the fact that the Decalogue takes pains to specify the various objects in the world whose images cannot be worshipped. The exhaustive list is necessary, according to the exegete, because the evil inclination is cunning, and would, in the absence of such a list, find a loophole to permit some form of idolatry. What is important for our purposes is that, though the differences between the schools reflect disagreements on fundamental facts about anthropology and theodicy, the very debate, and the common terms, are signs of the continuity between impatience with God’s burdens (thus, what we have spoken of as the test) and the attractiveness of sin (thus, temptation). It is a worldview that thinks in terms of such continuity that also yields the gnomic conclusion at the center of this essay.38

4.  Second-Order Temptation The Palestinian Talmud (y. Šabb. 1:3 [3b]) introduces maxim 2 from m. ’Abot 2:4 in its commentary on a passage from the Mishnah (m. Šabb. 1:3) that prohibits reading by candlelight on Sabbath eve. The commentary begins by introducing a Tannaitic source that offers a reason for the prohibition: “lest he forget, and tilt.” The concern is that the reader will forget that it is Sabbath, and tilt the candle either to steady the flame or to angle the light, and so violate the prohibition against kindling on the Sabbath.39 Afterward follows a story about R. Ishmael. ‫אמר ר׳ ישמעאל אני אקרא ולא אטה ושכח והיה קרוב להטות ואמר גדולים הן דברי חכמים שאמרו שמא‬ ‫ישכח ויטה ר׳ נתן אומר היטה אותו ממש וכתב על פינקסו ואמר ישמעאל בן אלישע היטה הנר בשבת‬ ‫לכשיבנה הבית יהיה חייב חטאת‬

Said R. Ishmael: I will read and will not tilt. And he forgot, and almost tilted. And he said: Great are the words of the sages, who said, “lest he forget, and tilt.”40 R. Nathan said: He

37 This exegetical pattern, especially in its application to Lev 19:25, closely parallels Lev 25:20–21: ‫“ וכי תאמרו מה נאכל בשנה השביעת … וצויתי את ברכתי לכם בשנה הששית‬And if you should say, what shall we eat in the seventh year? … I shall assign my blessing for you in the sixth year, etc.” 38  Compare Josephus’s description of the Essenes (J. W. 2.120, 138) as characterized chiefly by self-control (i. e., resistance to temptation) and endurance (i. e., the ability to withstand a test). See also 2 Pet 1:6. It is perhaps worth noting that forms of “lest one say” figure in the rhetoric both of testing and tempting, in similar though not identical ways. In the rhetoric of the test – as in Sifra qedošim 4:1 above – they introduce as the negative consequence to be avoided, while in the rhetoric of temptation – as in m. ‘Ed. 5:6 (to which compare Matt 4:8–10), and in Gen 14:23, which underlies the test of wealth in Jub. 17:17, per n. 19 above – they describe the reason for resisting the temptation. 39  The Mishnah explicitly offers a similar rationale for another prohibition in the same pericope. 40  On this saying see Y. Furstenberg, “Eating in a State of Purity during the Tannaitic Period: Tractate Teharot and its Historical and Cultural Contexts” (PhD diss., Hebrew University, 2010), 290–91.



Life as Test

91

actually tilted it, and he wrote in his pinax and said: Ishmael son of Elisha tilted the candle on the Sabbath; when the temple is rebuilt he will be liable for a sin-offering.41

Immediately afterward, the Yerushalmi cites our maxim, then a story about a pious man who received a different version of the maxim. ‫תמן תנינן אל תאמן בעצמך עד יום מותך מעשה בחסיד אחד שהיה יושב ושונה אל תאמן בעצמך עד יום‬ ‫זקנותך כגון אני אתת חדא רוחא ונסיתיה ושרי תהי ביה אמרה ליה לא תצוק רוח אנא אזיל ואישתוי לחבריך‬

There it was taught: “Do not have faith in yourself until the day of your death.” A story: There was a pious man who would sit and repeat [the tradition thus]: “Do not have faith in yourself until the day of your old age.” Like me! A spirit came and tested him, and he began to be regretful. She said to him: Do not be distressed. I am a spirit. Go and be like your friends.

The pious man, like R. Ishmael, believed himself to be beyond temptation, because he was already old (or, less likely, because he was already an elder, a sage). He soon appreciates his error when a spirit, probably taking the form of a beautiful woman, tempts him. The narrative fades to black, but we are evidently supposed to infer that he succumbs to the temptation. Afterward he is distressed, and the spirit appears to comfort him by admitting that she is but a spirit, not a woman in the flesh. Her final words, “Go and be like your friends,” likely mean: Do not aspire to piety, but instead aim to be no worse than your friends.42 The Yerushalmi’s explication underscores a subtlety in the maxim from m. ’Abot 2:4. The reflexivity of the maxim means that it addresses, most directly, not first-order tests and temptations, like the Sabbath labor prohibitions or the desire for a woman, but the second-order temptation (which it does not, admittedly, characterize as a temptation) to believe that one is beyond test and temptation. It presupposes a framework in which, even as life is conceived of as a battery of trials, it becomes possible to let one’s guard down, and to think of oneself (or, of one’s friend, the self ) as having become immune to them. 41  The text is from MS Leiden, with most abbreviations expanded. The story is paralleled in t. Šabb. 1:13. 42  This interpretation of the final words (espoused by the traditional commentary Qorban ha-‘Edah ad loc.) is supported by the occurrence of the same phrase in a story in y. Demai 2:1 (22c) and parallels. Alternatively, and less likely, she is telling him (as per another traditional commentary, Pene Moshe) to correct his tradition to match that of his friends, and read “the day of your death” rather than “the day of your old age.” In any case, it is unlikely that the alternative version of the maxim has text-critical value, for the phrase ‫“ יום זקנותך‬the day of your old age” seems plainly awkward; one does not become old in a day. The pious man’s text would thus represent, within the story, a sort of wishful emendation. But the discussion of the maxim from m. ’Abot 2:4 in the Babylonian Talmud (b. Ber. 29a) is interesting in this connection. When the Bavli cites the maxim, it includes, evidently as a Tannaitic tradition, the following continuation: ‫“ שהרי יוחנן כהן גדול שימש בכהונה גדולה שמונים שנה ולבסוף נעשה צדוקי‬For Yohanan the high priest served in the high priesthood for eighty years, and in the end became a Sadducee.” Given that eighty years is a conventional marker of old age – the Yerushalmi (y. Bikk. 2:1 [64c]) characterizes death at age eighty as death from old age – it may be that the Bavli’s supplement is related to the Yerushalmi’s story.

92

Tzvi Novick

Bibliography The Academy of the Hebrew Language. “Historical Dictionary of the Hebrew Language.” Online: http://maagarim.hebrew-academy.org.il/​Pages/​PMain.aspx. “The Book of Ben Sira.” Online: https://www.bensira.org/. Corley, J. Ben Sira’s Teaching on Friendship. Providence: Brown Judaic Studies, 2002. Elizur, S., and M. Rand. “A New Fragment of the Book of Ben Sira.” DSD 18 (2011): 200–5. Furstenberg, Y. “Eating in a State of Purity during the Tannaitic Period: Tractate Teharot and its Historical and Cultural Contexts.” PhD diss., Hebrew University, 2010. Goshen-Gottstein, M. “Abraham – Lover or Beloved of God.” Pages 101–4 in Love and Death in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of Marvin Pope. Edited by J. H. Marks and R. M. Good. Guilford, CT: Four Quarters Publishing, 1987. Greenfield, J. “The Meaning of ‫פחז‬.” Pages 35–40 in Studies in Bible and Ancient Near East: Presented to Samuel E. Loewenstamm on his Seventieth Birthday. Edited by Y. Avishur and J. Blau. Jerusalem: E. Rubinstein, 1978. Harmon, M. S. She Must and Shall Go Free: Paul’s Isaianic Gospel in Galatians. BZNW 168. Berlin/​New York: de Gruyter, 2010. Hezser, C. “Rabbis and Other Friends: Friendship in the Talmud Yerushalmi and in GraecoRoman Literature.” Pages 189–254 in The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture II. Edited by P. Schäfer and C. Hezser. TSAJ 79. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Kister, M. “A Contribution to the Interpretation of Ben Sira.” Tarbiz 59 (1989–90): 303–78. Konstan, D. Friendship in the Classical World. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Licht, J. Testing in the Hebrew Scriptures and in Post-Biblical Judaism. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1973. Olyan, S. M. Friendship in the Hebrew Bible. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017. Pietersma, A., and B. G. Wright. A New English Translation of the Septuagint. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Rosen-Zvi, I. “Two Rabbinic Inclinations? Rethinking a Scholarly Dogma.” JSJ 39 (2008): 513– 39. –. “The Wisdom Tradition in Rabbinic Literature and Mishnah Avot.” Pages 172–90 in Tracing Sapiential Traditions in Ancient Judaism. Edited by H. Najman, J.‑S. Rey and E. J. C. Tigchelaar. SJSJ 174. Brill, 2016. Schremer, A. “Avot Reconsidered: Rethinking Rabbinic Judaism.” JQR 105 (2015): 287–311. Segal, M. H. Sefer Ben Sira ha-Shalem. Jerusalem: Bialik, 1953. Sharvit, Shimon. Language and Style of Tractate Avoth Through the Ages. Jerusalem: Bialik, 2006. –. Tractate Avoth Through the Ages: A Critical Edition, Prolegomena and Appendices. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2004. Skehan, P. W., and A. A. Di Lella. The Wisdom of Ben Sira. AB 39. New York: Doubleday, 1964. Stemberger, G. “Los Dichos Arameos de Hillel en el Tratado Abot.” MEAH 53 (2004): 387–405. Tropper, A. Wisdom, Politics, and Historiography: Tractate Avot in the Context of the GraecoRoman Near East. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. VanderKam, J. C., trans. The Book of Jubilees. CSCO 511/Scriptores Aethiopici 88. Louvain: Peeters, 1989. Vattioni, F., ed. Ecclesiastico: Testo ebraico con apparato critico e versioni greca, latina e siriaca. Napoli: Istituto Orientale di Napoli, 1968. Wright III, B. G., with C. V. Camp. “Who Has Been Tested by God and Found Perfect?’ Ben Sira’s Discourse of Riches and Poverty.” Pages 71–96 in Praise Israel for Wisdom and Instruction: Essays on Ben Sira and Wisdom, the Letter of Aristeas and the Septuagint. Edited by B. G. Wright III. Leiden: Brill, 2008.

“And the Mixed among Them Desired a Desire” The Reception of Desire in Numbers 11 LXX in Greek Texts, Ending with the Apostle Paul1 Andrew Bowden

Numbers 11:4 LXX tells a story about the sons of Israel who develop a craving for the meat they had eaten in Egypt. God sends them an abundance of quail, followed by a plague. Various passages in the Septuagint comment on this scene in Numbers.2 However, later Jewish authors who composed in Greek have less to say about this passage.3 This paper will proceed in four steps: (1) I will look at the text in Num 11 LXX – especially the phrase “the mixed among them desired a desire” – to consider how the translator of Numbers portrays what happened; (2) I will consider how the rest of the LXX makes use of this story; (3) I will examine the story in Philo, who makes use of it on two occasions;4 and (4) I will then take up Paul’s use of the story in 1 Cor 10. Lastly, (5) I will draw conclusions. We thus begin with the story in Num 11 LXX.

1.  Numbers 11 In order to gain a better perspective on the LXX version of Numbers 11, let us briefly review the first ten chapters of Numbers.5 Numbers 1–10:10 functions as the conclusion to the giving of the Law at Sinai, 10:11–21:35 describes the Israel1  I want to thank Prof. Dr. Loren Stuckenbruck and Dr. Daniel L. Smith for the invitation to present this paper in Josefstal on 20 May 2017. I also want to thank the participants at this conference for their valuable insights and stimulating questions, which have significantly improved this paper. 2  Num 33:16–17; Deut 9:22; Ps 77:28–29; 105:13–15; Wis 16:2; 19:11. 3  E. g., Philo, Paul, and Josephus. 4  Due to space constraints, I only comment in the footnotes on how Josephus and the Hebrew text of Numbers found among the Dead Sea Scrolls make use of this story. I will not have space to mention how writers after Paul make use of this account in Numbers. 5  Numbers was translated into Greek in Alexandria likely around 200 BCE, according to M. Rösel and C. Schlund, “Arithmoi. Numeri/​Das vierte Buch Mose,” in Septuaginta Deutsch: Erläuterungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten Testament I: Genesis bis Makkabäer, ed. M. Karrer and W. Kraus (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011), 431–522, esp. 436. Because Numbers alludes several times to other texts in the Pentateuch, it was probably translated after Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus; see G. Dorival, La Bible d’Alexandrie: Les nombres,

94

Andrew Bowden

ites’ progress towards Moab, 22–24 recounts the Balaam cycle, and 25–36 provides various instructions to Israel as they prepare to take the promised land. A change is noted in Num 10:29, where Moses invites his brother-in-law, Hobab the Midianite, to live permanently with Israel. Moses emphasizes to Hobab that God is giving the promised land to Israel. Hobab, however, wants to return to his native land and people in Midian. Moses dissuades him from returning home, since Hobab shared in the wilderness experience with Israel.6 Numbers 10 ends with two brief expressions directed to the Lord: 35 And it came to pass when the ark set forward that Moses said,   “Arise, O Lord, and let your enemies be scattered;   let all who hate you flee.” 36 And when it rested he said,   “Turn, O Lord, the thousands into myriads in Israel.”7

The text indicates that Israel will very soon move into the promised land, which was not far away.8 The ark departs on a three-day journey, and Moses is confident that God will soon give Israel the land. Moses therefore likely convinces Hobab to continue to guide Israel on what he assumed would be the last part of the journey.9 traduction du texte grec de la Septante, introduction et notes (Paris: Cerf, 1994), 158. Due to various omissions, misinterpretations, and grammatical uncertainties, Numbers LXX is considered the weakest translation in the Pentateuch, according to J. W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Numbers, ed. B. A. Taylor, SBLSCS 46 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998), ix. P. W. Flint states that Numbers LXX “may be described as quite a literal reproduction of the Hebrew that is often wooden.” “Numbers,” in A New English Translation of the Septuagint: And the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under That Title, ed. A. Pietersma and B. G. Wright (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 107–40, here 107. Z. Fankel first argued that Numbers brought together various translations of Greek into one complete text, which we now read in Numbers LXX, in Ueber den Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese auf die alexandrinische Hermeneutik (Leipzig: Joh. Ambr. Barth, 1851), 168. Recent research leans toward one translator of Numbers, who must not have had a strict translational theory, according to Rösel and Schlund, “Arithmoi,” 434. Flint notes that a comparison of Numbers LXX with the MT reveals several variations in arrangement: “Besides affecting verse numbering, … such differences affect exegesis in the sections they are found.” “Numbers,” 107. 6  Rösel and Schlund comment on the different meaning Num 10:33 has in the LXX and the MT in “Arithmoi,” 461. They note that in the MT text, Hobab “knows where they should camp in the wilderness,” but in the LXX that he “has been with us in the wilderness.” 7  The Greek of Num 10:36 says ἐπίστρεφε κύριε χιλιάδας μυριάδας ἐν τῷ Ἰσραήλ. There is some debate about the meaning of this verse in both the LXX and MT. Wevers favors viewing the verb as an intransitive which results in the following translation: “return, o Lord, to the thousands, even myriads in Israel” (Greek Text of Numbers, 158). In NETS, Flint prefers “turn, O Lord, the thousands, the myriads in Israel” (“Numbers,” 119). The MT text is no easier, as evidenced by the various English translations; cf. e. g., NIV, “Return, LORD, to the countless thousands of Israel”; NRSV, “Return, O Lord of the ten thousand thousands of Israel.” 8  Philo notes in Migr. 154 that the journey into the promised land would have lasted three days. More will be said about Migr. below. 9  This can be deduced from the use of the plural in 10:33 “and they set out from the mountain ….”



“And the Mixed among Them Desired a Desire”

95

The story, however, takes an unexpected turn in Numbers 11. The people begin “grumbling evil things (γογγύζων πονηρά),” to which God reacts in anger by sending fire and devouring part of the camp (11:1). The people’s repentance does not last for long. In v. 4, certain people “desired a desire (ἐπεθύμησαν ἐπιθυμίαν),” demanding meat like they used to eat freely in Egypt. Moses hears the people weeping before their doors and turns to the Lord, who is furious with anger. Moses complains to the Lord about the Israelites (Num 11:11–15), which can be paraphrased as follows: 11a “Why did I not find favor before you?” 11b “I feel the onslaught of your people!” 12 “You are saying to me, ‘Take them into the land that I swore to their fathers’.” 13 “Where can I possibly get meat to feed this people?” 14 “This thing is too difficult for me!” 15 “Kill me!”10

The Lord responds to Moses in 11:16–17. His solution is that Moses should gather elders from among the people, who should assemble in front of the tent of witness, where they will receive a portion of the spirit that is on Moses. The Lord continues in 11:18–20: 18 And to the people you should say, “Purify yourselves for tomorrow, and you shall eat meat; for you wept before the Lord, saying, ‘Who shall give us meat to eat? For it was well with us in Egypt.’” And the Lord will allow you to eat meat, and you shall eat meat. 19 You shall not eat one day, nor two, nor five days, nor ten days, nor twenty days; 20 you shall eat for a full month, until it comes out your nostrils; and it shall make you nauseous, because you disobeyed the Lord, who is among you, and wept before him, saying, “Why did we come out of Egypt?”

God emphasizes twice in these two verses that the people wept before him for the meat they ate in Egypt (vv. 18, 20). God is filled with such wrath by their request that he will give them more quail than they can possibly eat for a whole month, to the point where it comes out of their noses and they become nauseous from it. Moses shows surprise (11:21), yet he complies and selects seventy men of Israel as elders, who receive from the spirit that was on Moses and prophesy. A  gust of wind brings in quail from the sea. So much quail is brought to the people that they spend all day and all night and all the next day gathering it. Because the Lord was angry with his people, he sent a severe plague (πληγὴν μεγάλην σφόδρα) to kill numerous Israelites before they could finish eating the quail.11 According to Num 11:34, “And the name of that place was called ‘Tombs 10  I add emphasis to this paraphrase of Num 11:11–15. 11  According to Wevers, Numbers implies that the people ate the quail “‘before the life had

left it,’ i. e., it was raw flesh that was being eaten” (Greek Text of Numbers, 181). This will prove significant for how Philo interprets this passage in Spec. 4. This text is not commented on in the Greek manuscripts found among the Dead Sea Scrolls; 4Q27, a Hebrew text that may stem from ca. 50 BCE, adds no new information.

96

Andrew Bowden

of Desire’ (Μνήματα τῆς ἐπιθυμίας); for there they buried the people who desired (τὸν ἐπιθυμητήν).”12 Having looked at Numbers 11, we are ready to examine what it says about ἐπιθυμία and ἐπιθυμέω. First, Num 11:4 places ἐπιθυμία in the accusative, which was often the case in the LXX.13 The readers also note the use of the phrase ἐπεθύμησαν ἐπιθυμίαν. Although there are various theories about this translation, the original Hebrew text reads ‫( התאוו תאוה‬i. e., the verb and the noun are both drawn from the root ‫)אוה‬,14 which likely explains the rather literal Greek translation of this phrase. Meat, the implied object of ἐπιθυμία in Num 11:4, and food in general were viewed not only as necessities of life, but also as common objects of desire in Greek texts of the Roman period.15 It seems that those who ἐπεθύμησαν ἐπιθυμίαν were struck with a plague because they were weeping for meat that they used to eat in Egypt, the land where they were slaves. They had thus forgotten that what they ate, they ate as slaves. Rather than being satisfied with manna, they desired the meat they had enjoyed in slavery. This story in Num 11 is the first of several times in this book that Israel weeps to return to Egypt. In Num 14:1, the people respond to the report from the spies about giants in the land by “weeping the whole night.” Numbers 14:2–4 explains: 2 And all the children of Israel grumbled (διεγόγγυζον) against Moses and Aaron; and all the congregation said to them, “If only we had died in the land of Egypt or in this wilderness! 3 And why has the Lord brought us into this land to fall in war? Our wives and our children shall be taken captive. Now then it is better to return to Egypt.” 4 And they said one to another, “Let us make a ruler, and return to Egypt.” (Num 14:2–4, emphasis added)

12  Cf. the comment by Josephus: “As soon as he said this, the whole camp was filled with quails. They stood around them and gather great numbers. Before long, God punished the Hebrews for their audacity and caused many of them to die. And to this day the place is called Kibrothhattaavah, which is, Tombs of Desire (ἐπιθυμίας μνημεῖα)” (Ant. 3.299). 13  In the LXX, see, e. g., 4 Macc 3:2, οἷον ἐπιθυμίαν τις οὐ δύναται ἐκκόψαι ἡμῶν; Ps 9:38, τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν τῶν πενήτων εἰσήκουσεν κύριος; Ps 20:2, τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ ἔδωκας αὐτῷ. 14  Greek Numbers elsewhere employs the same roots for verbs and nouns when the Hebrew does; cf. e. g., Num 11:32 καὶ ἔψυξαν ἑαυτοῖς ψυγμούς (“and they refreshed themselves with refreshings”); Num 16:13 ὅτι κατάρκεις ὑμῶν ἄρχων (because you rule over us as a ruler”). 15  That food constitutes a common object of desire is confirmed by numerous texts. Philo claims that “ἡ ἐπιθυμία … creates mistresses harsher than those just mentioned though bearing the same name, hunger and thirst” (Spec. 4.82). Plutarch says, “You can, of course, observe countless differences in the desires (ἐπιθυμίαις) … To eat and drink is at once natural and essential” (Brut. an. 989B). Plotinus asks, “But what of desire (ἐπιθυμίαν δέ;)? It should never be for the vile; even the food and drink necessary for restoration will lie outside of the Soul’s attention” (Enn. 1.2.5). Fourth Maccabees 1:34 says, “Hence it is, then, that when we desire (ἐπιθυμοῦντες) water-animals and birds and four-footed beasts and all kinds of food that is forbidden us by the law, we withhold ourselves through the mastery of reasoning (ἀπεχόμεθα  διὰτὴν  τοῦ λογισμοῦ ἐπικράτειαν).” Clement of Alexandria adds, “If, then, we are to exercise control over the belly, and what is below the belly, it is clear that we have of old heard from the Lord that we are to check desire (ἐπιθυμία) by the law” (Strom. 2.20.105).



“And the Mixed among Them Desired a Desire”

97

Later in Num 14, the Lord responds by saying that Israel has tempted him this tenth time and forbids all the adults except Caleb and Joshua from entering the promised land (Num 14:20–35).16 Instead, Israel will stay in the wilderness until all the people twenty years and older have died. The Lord then kills the ten spies who doubted him (Num 14:36–38). In Num 20, Israel passes through the wilderness of Sin, where they become thirsty. They revile Moses, saying “And why have you brought us up out of Egypt, that we should come into this evil place, a place where there is no sowing, neither figs, nor vines, nor pomegranates, neither is there water to drink?” (Num 20:4). At the end of the chapter (Num 20:29), Aaron dies and the all of Israel weeps for an entire month. In Num 21:1–3 the Israelites destroy the Canaanites, who came out to fight them and took some of them captive. The Israelites, however, immediately become faint hearted: “And the people spoke against God and against Moses, saying, ‘Why did you bring us out of Egypt to slay us in the wilderness? For there is no bread or water; and our soul despises this light bread (ἐν τῷ ἄρτῳ τῷ διακένῳ)’” (Num 21:5). Once again, the people’s hunger and thirst cause them to question Moses and God, and they ultimately long to return to Egypt. The theme of wishing to return to Egypt is thus prevalent in Numbers. In three out of four instances, the people are longing for food or water (cf. Num 11:4; 20:4; 21:5) like they used to enjoy in Egypt. Three times, they are mentioned weeping (cf. Num 11:4; 14:1; 20:29). The problem with Israel in Num 11:4, therefore, is neither their general ἐπιθυμία, nor that they ἐπεθύμησαν ἐπιθυμίαν, nor their ἐπιθυμία specifically for meat. Rather, the problem is that they immediately allowed their ἐπιθυμία to cause them to weep for the meat they had eaten in Egypt as slaves. They had forgotten how bitter their Egyptian slavery had been; now all they remember is the “fresh meat” (Num 11:4), the “safety” (Num 14:1–4), the “water” (Num 20:4), the “bread and water” (Num 21:5) in Egypt. Summary: We now have a better grasp of Num 11 LXX and its reference to a people who ἐπεθύμησαν ἐπιθυμίαν. Israel’s problem was that they allowed their ἐπιθυμία to cause them to weep for the food they had enjoyed in Egypt as slaves. 16  Commenting on Num 14:22, “and they tested me this tenth time” (καὶ ἐπείρασάν με τοῦτο δέκατον), D. H. Fletcher notes that there is some debate about what “tenth” means here, in his Signs in the Wilderness: Intertextuality and the Testing of Nicodemus (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2014), 88. Fletcher notes that the Babylonian Talmud lists ten particular occasions where Israel tested the Lord: at the Red Sea (Exod 14:11–12), at Marah (i. e., “bitter water,” Exod 15:23), in the Wilderness of Sin, where the Lord first provides manna in the morning and quail in the evening (Exod 16:2, 20, 27), at Rephidim, where Moses strikes the rock to provide water for thirsty Israel (Exod 17:2–7), at Sinai by making a golden calf (Exod 32), at Taberah where the people grumble evil things (Num 11:1), at Hattavah, where they desire the meat they ate in Egypt (Num 11:4), and at the report of the spies, who say there are giants in the promised land (Num 14:22). I am convinced by Todd Hanneken’s essay in this volume on “Ten-Times-Tested Abraham in the Book of Jubilees,” which argues that “ten tests” was used rhetorically in ancient Judaism to imply a thorough testing.

98

Andrew Bowden

We saw a pattern, beginning in Num 11, that the people weep to return to Egypt, the land where they were slaves, because of their hunger and thirst. God often reacts by sending a plague on Israel. We now will look at other places in the Septuagint that make use of the story in Num 11.

2.  The Septuagint’s References to Those Who “Desired a Desire” in Numbers 11 Various passages in the Septuagint comment on the story of Israel desiring meat in Num 11. Deuteronomy 9:22–24 is the first time outside of Num that the account is mentioned. Deuteronomy 9:22 and the Tombs of Desire Deuteronomy 9 mentions several examples of Israel’s rebellion in the wilderness, including at the Tombs of Desire:17 And at The Burning, and at The Temptation, and at the Tombs of Desire (καὶ ἐν τῷ Ἐμπυρισμῷ καὶ ἐν τῷ Πειρασμῷ καὶ ἐν τοῖς Μνήμασιν τῆς ἐπιθυμίας) you provoked the Lord our God. And when the Lord sent you from Kades Barne, saying, “Go up and inherit the land which I give to you,” then you disobeyed the word of the Lord your God and did not believe him and did not listen to his voice. You were disobedient in the things relating to the Lord from the day when he made himself known to you. (9:22–24)

This discourse begins in Deut 9:1, where Moses says, “Hear, Israel! Today you are crossing the Jordan to inherit nations greater and stronger than yourselves, cities great and walled up to heaven.” The time for Israel to move into the promised land is finally here (i. e., “today,” σήμερον, 9:1). Moses says Israel will utterly destroy the nations, not because Israel is a righteous or holy nation, but rather because the nations they are conquering are wicked, and because of the covenant God made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (9:6). God then reminds Israel of their continual rebellion towards him, from the time he brought them out of Egypt until coming to this place (9:7). Even at Horeb, the Mountain where Moses received the Ten Commandments, the people rebelled against God. Moses remembers this in 9:10: “And the Lord gave me the two tablets of stone written with the finger of God, and on them there had been written all the words which the Lord spoke to you in the mountain in the day of the assembly.” When Moses is given the two tablets, the Lord tells him, “Go down quickly from here, because your people, whom you brought out of Egypt, have quickly turned from 17  Deuteronomy forms part of the earliest portion of the Jewish sacred writings translated into Greek. L Perkins notes that as a result, “the translation has received considerable scholarly attention.” “Deuteronomy,” in The T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint, ed. J. Aitken (London: T&T Clark, 2015), 68–85, here 68. The title Δευτερονόμιον – ”second law” – used in the Septuagint arose from the occurrence of the word in Deut 17:18. Philo also refers to this book as Δευτερονόμιον (Leg. 3.174; Deus 50).



“And the Mixed among Them Desired a Desire”

99

the way I commanded them and made have made a molten image” (9:12). By worshipping the calf, the Israelites were breaking the first two commandments of the Lord (i. e., they worshipped “another god,” and they worshipped “an idol”). Moses is so distraught over Israel’s sins that he breaks the tablets, burns the calf, and fasts another forty days, praying for Israel and for Aaron, whom God wants to destroy utterly (9:19–21). Then, in 9:22–24 Moses mentions other examples of their mistrust in the Lord, seen at the Burning (cf. Num 11:1–3), the Temptation (cf. Num 20:9–13), the Tombs of Desire (cf. Num 11:4–35), and at Kades Barne (cf. Num 13–14). Moses returns to his experience on Mt. Horeb, begging God not to destroy Israel, and to overlook Israel’s sins (Deut 9:26–29). Summary: Moses mentions the people’s conduct in Deut 9:22 LXX at the Tombs of Desire as one of several examples to prove Israel’s complete failure in the wilderness. He mentions these examples to illustrate that the Israelites are no better than the people they are conquering. Although they will destroy (ἐξολεθρεύσει, 9:3) the nations, they should remember the numerous times when God wanted to destroy them (ἐξολεθρεῦσαι, 9:19, 25). The nations are wicked (ἀσέβειαν, 9:6), and so is Israel (τὰ ἀσεβήματα, 9:30). Thus, the Tombs of Desire in Deut 9:22 constitutes one of several examples to prove to Israel something they must not forget: “Remember and do not forget how much you provoked the Lord your God in the wilderness; from the day that you came out of Egypt, even until you came into this place, you continued to be disobedient toward the Lord” (Deut 9:7 LXX). Psalms18 Psalm 77 (78):29–30

Psalm 77 LXX emphasizes that Israel, in contrast to their ancestors, should pay attention to the law (Ps 77:1). Verses 2–8 emphasize that Israel has heard the law and knows the law, because their ancestors have told their children the law. Specifically, their forebears told them about the “praises of the Lord, about his dominance, and about the mighty acts he performed for them” (77:4). The psalmist emphasizes that the Lord established his law with Israel and commanded the ancestors to make this law known to their children (77:5). In this way, the future generations will continue to know the law, to set their hope in God, to remember his works, and to seek out his commands (77:6–7). Ironically, those who re18 The LXX Psalter contains 151 psalms, compared to the 150 in the MT, which are numbered differently in Greek. T. F. Williams gathered and analyzed the influence of Psalms on LXX Isaiah, LXX Proverbs, and 1 Maccabees. Based on his study, Williams concluded that Psalms may have been translated into Greek ca. 160 BCE. See T. F. Williams, “Towards a Date for the Old Greek Psalter,” in The Old Greek Psalter: Studies in Honour of Albert Pietersma, ed. R. J. V. Hiebert, C. E. Cox, and P. J. Gentry, JSOTSup 332 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 248–76.

100

Andrew Bowden

ceived the law and told their children about it continually rebelled against the law (77:8). By means of various stories, the theme of past generations’ rejection of the law occupies the remainder of the Psalm (77:9–72). There is thus a great deal of irony in this Psalm. On the one hand, the ancestors are commissioned to tell their children about the wonders of the Lord and his great law. On the other hand, the ancestors continually rebelled against the law, providing their children a negative example by their own failures. Psalm 77 is intent on contrasting God’s benefactions and gracious goodness (cf. 77:11–16) with Israel’s faithful failures (cf. 77:17–22, 32, 36–37). Multiple examples of the ancestors’ mistrust and failures are given, such as their faithless demand for food (77:17–22; cf. Num 11:1–3; 21:5), to which God responds in 77:23–31. Verse 40 notes the people’s frequent rebellion in the wilderness, as they forgot how God freed them by sending plagues on the Egyptians (77:42– 53). Both before and after this passage, the Psalm says that the Israelites “tested God.”19 Psalm 77:52 says that God “removed his people like sheep; he led them like a flock through the wilderness.” Nevertheless, the younger Israelites also turned from God to worship idols. Speaking of Israel in 77:66, this Psalm says that God “drove his enemies backwards” (τοὺς ἐχθροὺς αὐτοῦ). Psalm 77 ends with God choosing David, “from the tribe of Judah” (77:68), who cared for his father’s “sheep” (77:70; cf. v. 52). Perhaps v. 52, where God shepherds his people, prepares us for God choosing David as a “shepherd” (77:71) over his people. Our examination of Psalm 77 LXX has shown, on the one hand, that this Psalm emphasizes the ancestors telling their children about the wonders of God’s law, but on the other hand, that the same ancestors repeatedly failed to keep God’s law. We are now in a position to examine several details in vv. 26–32 relating to the Israelite’s desire for meat: 26 He removed the south wind from heaven;   and sent by his might a southwest wind. 27 And he rained upon them flesh like dust,   and feathered birds like the sand of the seas. 28 And they fell in their camp,   around their tents. 29 So they ate, and were completely filled (ἐνεπλήσθησαν σφόδρα);   and he gave them their desire (ἐπιθυμίαν). 30 They were not deprived of their desire (ἐπιθυμίας).   But while the food was still in their mouth, 31 the wrath of God arose against them,   and killed the fattest among them,   and overthrew the best men of Israel. 32 In all this they continued sinning,   and did not believe his signs.20

19  Cf. Ps 77:41: καὶ ἐπείρασαν τὸν θεόν; 77:56: καὶ ἐπείρασαν καὶ παρεπίκραναν τὸν θεόν. 20  The Greek of Ps 77:26–32 reads as follows: 26 ἀπῆρεν νότον ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, καὶ ἐπήγαγεν



“And the Mixed among Them Desired a Desire”

101

Several details stand out in this description of Numbers 11: 77:27 ὡσεὶ χοῦν σάρκας (“flesh like dust”) Numbers 11:4 LXX says that the people craved “meat” (κρέα), but Psalm 77:27 LXX says “flesh” (σάρκας). This flesh is specified in the second half of v. 27 as “feathered birds” (πετεινὰ πτερωτά), whereas Numbers 11:31 calls them “birds that migrate with the quails” (ὀρτυγομήτραν). The mention in Ps 77:27 of “flesh like dust” indicates the immeasurable quantity of the “feathered birds” God sent to the people. 77:29 ἐνεπλήσθησαν σφόδρα (“they were completely filled”) “They were completely filled” seems to summarize Num 11:32 LXX (i. e., “2,200 liters of quail”). 77:31 ἀπέκτεινεν ἐν τοῖς πίοσιν αὐτῶν, καὶ τοὺς ἐκλεκτοὺς τοῦ Ισραηλ (“it killed the fat ones among them, and the best men of Israel”) Numbers 11 does not specify who died because of the plague. The reader can assume that the “the mixed among them” (ὁ ἐπίμικτος ὁ ἐν αὐτοῖς) desired (Num 11:4) and that they buried the people who desired (ἔθαψαν τὸν λαὸν τὸν ἐπιθυμητήν, Num 11:34). Psalm 77:31 says that “the fat ones among them were buried, all the best men of Israel” (ἀπέκτεινεν ἐν τοῖς πίοσιν αὐτῶν, καὶ τοὺς ἐκλεκτοὺς τοῦ Ισραηλ). Thus, according to Psalm 77 LXX some of Israel’s best men were buried because of their desire for food.

Summary: Psalm 77 LXX instructs the people to teach their children the law, who in turn will teach their children the law. In this manner, God’s commandments will always be on the minds of his people. Ironically, the ancestors who are to instruct their children in the law could not keep the law themselves. This is illustrated with various examples, including the desire of the forebears in the wilderness to eat meat (Ps 77:29–30; cf. Num 11:4). Interestingly, Ps 77:18 introduces the vocabulary of “testing” into a re-telling of the incident in Num 11 – language that will re-appear in the next Psalm to be discussed. Psalm 105 (106):13–15 Psalm 105 LXX requests that God deliver Israel from the nations, where they are now scattered (105:46). The psalmist promises that Israel now remembers the Lord, unlike their ancestors, who continually forgot the Lord as he led them through the wilderness. Although the current generation also sins,21 they remain mindful of the Lord and therefore ask him to remember them when he brings salvation to his people (105:4). A list of the ancestors’ sins in the wilderness folἐν τῇ δυναστείᾳ αὐτοῦ λίβα, 27 καὶ ἔβρεξεν ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς ὡσεὶ χοῦν σάρκας, καὶ ὡσεὶ ἄμμον θαλασσῶν πετεινὰ πτερωτά, 28 καὶ ἐπέπεσον εἰς μέσον τῆς παρεμβολῆς αὐτῶν, κύκλῳ τῶν σκηνωμάτων αὐτῶν, 29 καὶ ἐφάγοσαν καὶ ἐνεπλήσθησαν σφόδρα, καὶ τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν αὐτῶν ἤνεγκεν αὐτοῖς, 30 οὐκ ἐστερήθησαν ἀπὸ τῆς ἐπιθυμίας αὐτῶν. ἔτι τῆς βρώσεως αὐτῶν οὔσης ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτῶν 31 καὶ ὀργὴ τοῦ θεοῦ ἀνέβη ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς καὶ ἀπέκτεινεν ἐν τοῖς πίοσιν αὐτῶν καὶ τοὺς ἐκλεκτοὺς τοῦ Ισραηλ συνεπόδισεν. 32 ἐν πᾶσιν τούτοις ἥμαρτον ἔτι καὶ οὐκ ἐπίστευσαν ἐν τοῖς θαυμασίοις αὐτοῦ. 21  Cf. ἡμάρτομεν, ἠνομήσαμεν, ἠδικήσαμεν, Ps 105:6 LXX.

102

Andrew Bowden

lows: they grumble before crossing the Red Sea (105:7–11; cf. Exod 14:11–12). Only after they cross the Red Sea as if it were wilderness and see their enemy drowning do they praise the Lord (Ps 105:12). They quickly forget the Lord and “desired a desire in the wilderness” (ἐπεθύμησαν ἐπιθυμίαν ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ), thereby testing (ἐπείρασαν) God (105:14; cf. Num 11:4). God answers their desire by giving them “fullness.”22 This Psalm does not mention the plague sent by the Lord for their desire. The Psalm then tells of the earth’s swallowing Dathan and Abiron and how their men were consumed by flames (105:16–18; cf. Num 16). Then comes the story of the people’s forgetting the Lord by worshipping a golden calf (105:19–23; cf. Exod 32; Deut 9:10–21), followed by their despising the Lord’s word regarding the promised land (105:24–27; cf. Num 13–14). Next, the Psalm describes the Israelites’ sacrificing to Moab’s gods (105:28–31; cf. Num 25). Because of what Phinehas did, the act of killing was reckoned to him as righteousness (105:30–31; cf. Num 25:1–9). The account of Moses’s being forbidden from entering the promise land is then briefly recounted (105:32–33; cf. Num 20), followed by the people’s continual rebellion in the promised land (105:34–43). Just as the Lord listened to the people’s cries under foreign rulers (105:44–46), so also now is Israel begging to the Lord in a foreign land, promising that if the Lord gathers them, they will acknowledge his holy name and boast in his praise (105:47). Summary: Psalm 105 LXX compares the Israelite ancestors, who continually forgot the Lord in the wilderness, with the current generation, which promises to remember the Lord. One of the many and memorable sins of their forebears was that they “desired a desire in the wilderness” and so tested God. The current Israelites remain mindful of the Lord and therefore ask him to remember them when he brings salvation to his people (105:4). Wisdom 16:1–4 The Wisdom of Solomon also mentions Israel’s desire to eat meat, as described in Num 11 LXX. The purpose of Wisdom is to demonstrate the wisdom of the Jewish religion in comparison with the idol worship of the nations. Beginning in Wis 9, the author specifically thanks God for his merciful dealings from Adam to Moses. Wisdom 11:9–10 then emphasizes, “For when they [the Israelites] were tested, although they were being disciplined in mercy, they learned how the ungodly, being judged in anger, were tormented. These you put to the test like a father giving a warning, but the others [i. e., the Egyptians and Canaanites] you examined like a stern king passing a sentence” (emphasis added).23 This compar22  Cf. Ps 105:15: καὶ ἐξαπέστειλεν πλησμονὴν εἰς τὰς ψυχὰς αὐτῶν. Perhaps by saying that God gave them “fullness,” the Septuagint is saying that God heard their request. 23 ὅτε γὰρ ἐπειράσθησαν, καίπερ ἐν ἐλέει παιδευόμενοι, ἔγνωσαν πῶς μετ᾽ ὀργῆς



“And the Mixed among Them Desired a Desire”

103

ison of Israel being disciplined in mercy versus the nations, who are judged in anger, remains central in this discourse. The author develops this theme by comparing Israel in the wilderness with the idolatrous Egyptians. Various themes related to idolatry are developed in Wis 11–14. Wisdom 15:1–3 then praises God for keeping Israel from sinning – probably in this context, for keeping them from committing idolatry – because Israel knows God.24 Wisdom 15:4–6 states, 4 For neither has the artful inventiveness of human beings led us [Israel] astray, nor the fruitless toil of painters, a form smeared with varied colors, 5 the sight of which arouses longing in a fool, until he yearns for the inanimate form of a dead image. 6 Lovers of evil things (κακῶν ἐρασταί), and worthy of such hopes are they who make them and yearn for them and worship them.

Longing, yearning, and loving idols are mentioned in 15:5–6, as are idol makers, those who yearn for idols, and those who worship idols. Wisdom 15:7–19 then focuses on those who make and worship idols. This brings us to Wis 16:1–4, which says, 1 Therefore they [the Egyptians] were fittingly punished by similar creatures, and were tormented by a swarm of insects. 2 Instead of this punishment, you benefited your people and prepared quails for food, a delicacy to satisfy the desire of longing (ἐπιθυμίαν ὀρέξεως), 3 So that those others, when they desired food (ἐπιθυμοῦντες τροφήν), should lose their longing even for necessities (τὴν ἀναγκαίαν ὄρεξιν ἀποστρέφωνται), since the creatures sent to plague them were so loathsome, but these, having experienced want for a short time partook of delicacies. 4 For it was necessary that upon those who rule as tyrants inescapable want should come (ἀπαραίτητον ἔνδειαν ἐπελθεῖν τυραννοῦσιν); and that to these it should only be shown how their enemies were tormented.

The contrast between the Israelites and the Egyptians is clear. Both have a desire for food. The Israelites, “who suffered want for a short time” (16:3), have their desires satisfied by the Lord, who prepares birds for them (16:2). The Lord refuses to satisfy the desires of the Egyptians, so that they lose their “longing even for necessities” (16:3). Because the Egyptians rule as tyrants, “inescapable want should come” to them (16:4). Here, as in 11:9–10, we see the theme of God’s disκρινόμενοι ἀσεβεῖς ἐβασανίζοντο· τούτους μὲν γὰρ ὡς πατὴρ νουθετῶν ἐδοκίμασας, ἐκείνους δὲ ὡς ἀπότομος βασιλεὺς καταδικάζων ἐξήτασας. 24  Some statements in Wis 11–15 should be read with caution. Countless episodes of Israel in the wilderness recount the people’s idolatry, including Aaron’s construction of the golden calf while Moses was on the mountain receiving the Ten Commandments (cf. Exod 32). Thus, the statement in Wis 15:4 about Israel never worshipping an idol is questionable.

104

Andrew Bowden

ciplining the Israelites with mercy, but of his bringing torment to his enemies (16:4). Unlike Num 11, Wisdom does not mention Moses’s prayer for help, his selection of elders, the plague caused by Israel’s desire, nor the Tombs of Desire. Summary: We can make several conclusions about Wisdom’s view of Israel’s desire for meat in Num 11 LXX. This is the first of several stories in Wisdom that contrasts Israel and Egypt. On the one hand, Wisdom continually minimizes the Israelites’ faults in the wilderness  – whether it be Israel’s desire for meat (Wis 16:1–4), their punishment by biting snakes (Wis 16:5–24), or their doubts and despair prior to the crossing the Red Sea (Wis 19). On the other hand, Wisdom underscores the Egyptian failures because of their idolatry. For example, Egypt is disgusted by the food they desire because it reminds them of the swarms of insects (Wis 16:4; cf. Exod 7:27). This contrast is intentional: God will torment those who worship idols. In Wisdom, Israel claims innocence of idol worship (Wis 15:1–3). Each recounting of the ancestors in the wilderness (Wis 15:4–19) thus reminds Israel “how the ungodly, being judged in anger, were tormented. For these [Israel] you put to the test like a father giving a warning, but the others [Egypt and the nations] you examined like a stern king giving a sentence” (Wis  11:10). Wisdom ends with one last reminder for Israel of their God’s faithfulness: “Because in all things, O Lord, you magnified your people and glorified them, and did not disregard them, standing by them in every time and place” (19:22).

3.  Philo’s Comments on Desire in Numbers 11 Before looking at Philo of Alexandria’s use of desire in Num 11 LXX, it is first important to provide a brief introduction to Philo, a Jewish thinker who lived from ca. 20 BCE to 50 CE. Coming from possibly the leading Jewish family in Alexandria, Greek was probably Philo’s mother tongue. He may have had some civic function in the Jewish community, which could explain why the Alexandrian Jewish community selected him to lead the first Jewish delegation to Rome after the persecution in Alexandria in 38 CE. We will now look at the two texts in Philo in which the story of the Israelites desire for meat in Numbers 11 LXX is received. Philo’s Use of Desire from Numbers 11 in De migratione Abrahami 155 De migratione Abrahami is structured in two sections. The first part (Migr. 1–126) analyzes God’s promises to Abraham in Gen 12:1–3. The second section summarizes Abraham’s response to God’s promises (Migr. 127–225). Abraham went, as God commanded him (Migr. 127–147; cf. Gen 12:4a), and Lot accompanied him (Migr. 148–175; cf. Gen 12:4b). Significantly, in discussing Lot going with



“And the Mixed among Them Desired a Desire”

105

Abraham, Philo mentions the mixed multitude from Num 11:4 (Migr. 151–163). Philo concludes the discourse by interpreting the significance of Abraham leaving Haran (Migr. 176–197), of Abraham being “seventy-five years old” (Migr. 198– 215), and of Abraham’s arrival in Shechem (Migr. 216–225, cf. Gen 12:4–6). Beginning in Migr. 148, Philo discusses the reasons Lot went with Abraham. Philo thinks that Lot accompanied Abraham to create obstacles for Abraham that would pull him in a different direction (Migr. 149), since Lot was “carried off prisoner of war by the enemies of the soul” (Migr. 150). Although Abraham will learn to guard against such attacks, he has not yet achieved this, since he is still a novice (Migr. 150). Speaking more generally of the nature of the soul, Philo then states, “Because it is this enticement and flattery that the soul finds hard to rub off as it clings to the soul and hinders it from sprinting towards virtue” (Migr. 151). As the Israelites were leaving Egypt, they had to unlearn the passions in obedience to the prophecy of Moses (Migr. 151). Philo then quotes Exod 12:38: “And a mixed multitude went up with them (καὶ ἐπίμικτος πολὺς συνανέβη αὐτ οῖς), both sheep and oxen and an exceeding number of herds” (Migr. 152). Philo immediately adds, “and this mixed multitude (ὁ δὲ ἐπίμικτος οὗτος) was, in fact, the herds and unreasoning doctrines of the soul. Fittingly and appropriately does he call the soul of bad men ‘mixed’ (ἐπίμικτον); … for it is one in number, but myriad in its deviousness” (Migr. 152). Philo is thus our first source to reflect at length on the identity of those who “desired a desire.” Philo continues in Migr. 154: “The mind could have made rapid progress and in three days have entered the inheritance of virtue” (cf. Gen 22:3). Instead, Israel wore itself out by wandering in the desert for forty years because of its deviousness (Migr. 154). Philo then narrates the story in Num 11 LXX (Migr. 155): This mixed multitude not only rejoices in one form of desire (ὁ μὴ μόνον ὀλίγοις εἴδεσιν ἐ πιθυμίας χαίρων), but claims to leave nothing out, so that it may follow every kind of desire, including all its forms (ἵνα ὅλον δι’ ὅλων τὸ γένος, ᾧ πᾶν εἶδος ἐμφέρεται, μετέρχηται). For it says, “the mixed people that was among them desired a desire (ὁ ἐπίμικτος ὁ ἐν αὐτοῖς ἐπεθύμησεν ἐπιθυμίαν)” – every kind of desire rather than one specific form (αὐτοῦ τοῦ  γένους, οὐχ ἑνός τινος τῶν εἰδῶν) – “and sat down and wept” (cf. Num 11:4). For the understanding is aware of its powerlessness, and when it cannot obtain what it is longing for, it weeps and groans. But it had reason to rejoice at missing the passions and diseases and to consider the want and absence of them a great success.

Note the intensive reflection on the character of desire, unmatched in any of the other texts under discussion. Philo transitions in Migr. 158 to describe those who seek to be “in touch with both the real and reputed virtues.” Philo illustrates this negative quality by looking at Joseph (159). Joseph’s “object is to be equally in touch with the concerns of the body, which is Egypt, and the concerns of the soul, which are kept in a treasury in his father’s house” (160). Philo then interprets Joseph’s oaths in the following manner: “The oath containing the negative is one that his father’s

106

Andrew Bowden

house would give, being always murderous of passion and wishing it dead. The other oath is one that Egypt might give, for passion’s safety is dear to it” (162; cf. Gen 42:15–16). Because Moses, unlike Abraham, had “perfect vision” and “was a lover of virtue,” he refrains from calling the generation of Joseph a “mixed multitude (ἐπίμικτον ὄχλον)” (Migr. 163). On the other hand, Moses does call the Israelites whom he led through the wilderness a “mixed multitude” (155). For Philo, Egypt thus represents the concerns of the body (160), which is in love with the passions (162). Because Israel was leaving Egypt, they “had to unlearn the passions” and to learn obedience to Moses, their new leader (151). The soul, however, finds itself drawn towards enticements and flattery, which slow down the progress towards virtue (151). Thus, a significant aspect in this discourse is Philo’s comments on the “mixed multitude” (cf. Migr. 152, 155, 163). Rather than consisting of various kinds of cattle or different kinds of people, “this mixed multitude represents the herds and unreasoning doctrines of the soul” (152). Therefore, according to Philo, “what befell the Mind when it escaped from Egypt, the country of the body, was due to this mixed multitude” (154). Although Israel could have reached “the inheritance” in three days if they took the speediest way, they followed the “manifold” way; that is, they listened to the doctrines of their soul, so that it took forty years (154). By “inheritance” Philo employs a dual meaning: on the one hand, he speaks of the promised land, but on the other hand, he thinks of virtue. This is why in Migr. 154 he says, “the inheritance of virtue (τὸν ἀρετῆς κλῆρον).” His point is that Israel would have entered the land in three days, but, more importantly, would have learned virtue in this time as well. Therefore, Philo says that Israel “cannot obtain what it is longing for” (155). Philo thus defines desire as “obtaining what one longs for” (τυχεῖν  ὧν  ὀρέγεται). Philo then says that Israel should rejoice (χαίρειν) in their want (ἔνδεια) of passions.25 Perhaps because of Philo’s mention of joy, he then focuses on the virtue of joy, the best of the good emotions (156–57). Israel obviously did not have this joy in the wilderness. Philo concludes this section by describing Joseph negatively as forming “ties of fellowship” with this motley group (158). According to Philo, Joseph is a compromiser who tried to take hold of two different kinds of virtue (159). God’s people must learn to “be murderous of passion and to wish it dead” (162). Only when they become lovers of virtue (φιλάρετοι) will they abide in the promised land (163). Summary: In Migr. 151–163 Philo describes Israel’s difficulty in learning to put aside their passions to attain virtue. Israel was leaving Egypt, the country of the body and of passion. The passions prove themselves a hindrance to Israel, whose journey to the promised land should have only lasted three days, but took forty 25  Wisdom 16:3–4 also links ἔνδεια with desire.



“And the Mixed among Them Desired a Desire”

107

years. It took Israel this long to learn virtue because they were a “mixed multitude” in the wilderness, that is, because they were learning to defeat passion and to make virtue their priority. Philo mentions the Israelites who “desired a desire” (Migr. 155; cf. Num 11:4 LXX) to specify the content of passions, which God’s people must seek to destroy (Migr. 162). Philo’s Use of Desire from Numbers 11 in De specialibus legibus 4.126–131 In his lengthy discourse De specialibus legibus, Philo discusses each of the Ten Commandments. When he arrives at the Tenth Commandment in Spec. 4.78, Philo first defines desire as having objects that seem good, although they are not truly good (Spec. 4.80). He then identifies common objects of desire (4.82), which include hunger and thirst, money, reputation, authority, and physical beauty (4.82–95). Because Moses focuses on laws related to food and drink, this topic occupies Philo’s attention for the remainder of his discussion on ἐπιθυμία (4.96–132). Beginning in section 126, Philo refers to Israel’s desire for meat in Num 11 LXX: He (Moses) finds fault with some in his own day as gluttons, who suppose that lavishness is the height of happiness. They are not content to limit luxuriousness to cities in which their requirements would be continually supplied and catered to, but even in wild and trackless deserts they expected to have fish and meat and every kind of plenty. Then, when there was a scarcity, they joined together to accuse and denounce and intimidate their ruler with shameless arrogance and did not stop rebelling. And when they received the objects they were longing for (ὠρέγοντο), they also received a plague. It was granted for two reasons: first to show that all things are possible for God, who finds a way out of impossible situations; secondly to punish those who let their belly go uncontrolled and rebelled against holiness. Rising up from the sea in the early dawn there poured forth a cloud of quails, which fell around the camp and its surroundings for a distance that a physically fit man might cover in a day. The height of the birds’ flight was about two cubits [i. e., two elbow lengths] above the ground so they could be easily caught. It might have been expected that, awestruck by the wonder of this mighty work, they would have been satisfied with this sight, and, filled with awe, would have abstained from meat. Instead, they spurred on their desires more than before (μᾶλλον ἢ πρότερον ἐπιθυμίαν ἐγείραντες), hastening to grasp what seemed so great a good. With both hands, they pulled in the creatures and filled their laps with them. Then, having put the birds in their tents, they went out to catch others, for excessive greediness knows no bounds. After dressing them in any way possible, they ate as much as they could, doomed in their senselessness to be destroyed by fullness. Indeed, they shortly perished through discharges of bile, so that the place received its name from the passion that befell them, for it was called “Tombs of Desire” (Μνήματα τῆς ἐπιθυμίας). For regarding the soul no greater evil exists than this desire, as the story shows. And therefore most excellent are these words of Moses in his exhortations, “Each man shall not do what is pleasing in his own sight” (cf. Deut 12:8), which might mean, “let no one give in to his desire.” Let a person be well pleasing to God, to the universe, to nature, to laws, to wise men, and discard self-love, if he will attain true excellence. (4.126–131)

108

Andrew Bowden

This passage offers a miniature synopsis of the broader discussion of ἐπιθυμέω in Spec. 4. In 4.129 Philo says that because of desire, the Israelites “grasped what seemed like great a good.” This harkens to 4.80, where Philo begins his discussion of the Tenth Commandment by defining desire as “not having objects that seem good, although they are not truly good.” “Not having” in 4.80 might be replaced with τυγχάνω (“to receive,” 4.127), ἵημι (“to grasp,” 4.129) χερσὶν ἐφελκόμενοι (“with both hands pulling in,” 4.129), πληρόω (“to fill up,” 4.129), σύλληψις (“taking,” 4.129), and χαρίζω (“to give in to,” 4.131). The objects of desire in 4.126–30 would be “fish and meat and every kind of plenty” (4.126), “quails” (4.128), and “creatures” (4.129). Several related words are used in 4.126–130 for ἐπιθυμέω, including ὀρέγομαι (“to long,” 4.127), πάθος (“passion,” 4.130), and φιλαυτία (“self-love,” 4.131). Thus, desire is defined in two instances very similarly. Nevertheless, 4.126–131 adds more details to the definition provided earlier in Spec. 4.80. Philo uniquely emphasizes Israel’s sin of gluttony. In Spec. 4.126 Moses confronts the “gluttons” (γαστριμάργους), who, “even in wild and trackless deserts, expected to have fish and meat and every kind of plenty.” Israel is punished for “letting their belly go uncontrolled and for rebelling against holiness” (4.127). Gluttony appears several times previously in this discourse. When desire takes hold of the belly, it produces people who “delight in strong drink and gluttony, base slaves to strong drink and fish and dainty cakes” (4.91). In 4.100 Philo explains that “gluttony gives birth to indigestion, which is the source and origin of all sickness and weakness.” In Num 11 LXX, however, the Israelites are not punished because of gluttony, but because of their desire for meat they had eaten in Egypt, the land where they were slaves. Philo also uniquely describes the height of the “birds’ flight” as being “two cubits (i. e., two elbow lengths) above the ground so they could be easily caught.” This differs from Num 11:31, which simply says the birds were cast “all around the camp, two cubits in height from the ground.” Philo adds “flight” (πτήσεως) in 4.128 to specify why they were easy to catch. Furthermore, Philo adds to the narrative in Num LXX by saying that the abundance of birds should have satisfied the people so that they “would have abstained from meat.” This is not hinted at in Num 11. Philo then jumps to Deut 12:8, “Each man shall not do what is pleasing in his sight.” His choice of Deut 12 is unique. Philo reinterprets this verse in Deuteronomy to mean “let no one indulge his own desire” (μηδεὶς τῇ ἐπιθυμίᾳ τῇ αὑτοῦ χαριζέσθω). Philo, perhaps for philosophical reasons, reinterprets Deut 12, which speaks positively of desire four times (cf. 12:8, 15, 20, 22). Deut 12:20 clearly allows the people to eat meat, saying, “If your soul desires to eat meat, in every desire of your soul, you shall eat meat” (ἐὰν ἐπιθυμήσῃ ἡ ψυχή σου ὥστε φαγεῖν κρέα, ἐν πάσῃ ἐπιθυμίᾳ τῆς ψυχῆς σου φάγῃ κρέα). Deuteronomy 12 might even reapply lexemes from the episode in Numbers 11 – especially because the lexemes ἐπιθυμέω, φαγέω, ἡ ψυχή, and κρέα each appear



“And the Mixed among Them Desired a Desire”

109

in Num 11 and in Deut 12. Philo, however, interprets this in Spec. 4.131 by offering an alternate conclusion to Deut 12:8. Philo’s use of the story in Num 11 LXX also differs from the other texts in the Septuagint. Oftentimes, the LXX recounts this desire along with numerous other failures of the Israelites in the wilderness. Here, however, Philo recounts this story alone to illustrate gluttony, which Philo identifies as a form of desire. Summary: In Spec. 4.126–131 Philo recounts the story in Num 11 as part of his explanation of why the Tenth Commandment forbids desire. To him, Moses focuses on laws related to food, and Num 11 illustrates what happens to gluttons who overeat. Unlike the LXX, which often lists Num 11 alongside numerous other failures of Israel in the wilderness, Philo mentions this vice alone. To Philo, it proves what happens to people who let their belly go uncontrolled. In Migr. 151–63 and in Spec. 4, Philo focuses on the dangers of desire, concerned more with his audience’s growth in virtue and avoidance of vice, rather than with the dangers of testing God mentioned in the LXX texts discussed above.

4.  Paul’s Use of Desire from Numbers 11 in 1 Corinthians 10:6 In order to understand Paul’s use of desire from Num 11 in 1 Cor 10:6, we must consider the context of the surrounding chapters in 1 Corinthians. Paul focuses in 1 Cor 8–10 on when and where believers can eat meat that has been sacrificed to idols.26 This theme is introduced in 1 Cor 8:1 by the phrase “Now concerning food sacrificed to idols” (περὶ δὲ τῶν εἰδωλοθύτων).27 Paul addresses the issue because the Corinthian believers may have inquired about this topic.28 He is 26  A study of 1 Cor 8–10 is complicated by theories that claim that 1 Cor originally consisting of numerous letters. For a summary of various theories, see A. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids/​Cambridge: Eerdmans; Carlisle: Paternoster, 2000), 610, 717–18. I share Thiselton’s opinion: Paul says he is fine with believers eating meat in the precincts of a pagan temple (1 Cor 8:1–13) and with them eating whatever is served when they are invited to share a meal in the home of an unbeliever (10:23–11:1). In their own public gatherings, however, believers must only partake of communion (10:1–22). 27 Various theories have been suggested about the meanings of εἰδωλόθυτος  /  τὸ εἰδωλόθυτον and ὁ ἀσθενῶν. G. Fee suggests that εἰδωλόθυτα comes from Hellenistic Judaism. He notes that in 10:28, Paul uses the Greek term ἱερόθυτα, which Fee translates as “sacred food.” Fee says, “What was sacrificed became part of the meal in the pagan temples and shrines: what was left over from the ‘god’s table’ was often sold in the marketplace. Jews were absolutely forbidden to eat such food.” The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 357 n. 1. Paul would thus be allowing the followers of Christ in Corinth to do something that was forbidden to Jews, namely, to eat meat that had been offered to gods. Regarding ὁ ἀσθενῶν, I side with G. Theissen, who argues that weak refers to the socioeconomic poor who seldom have the chance to eat meat except in the context of an invitation to a party, which may have been held in the precincts of a pagan temple. The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth (London: T&T Clark, 1982), 126–27. Theissen translates εἰδωλόθυτος / τὸ εἰδωλόθυτον as meat associated with idols; see Thiselton, Corinthians, 609. 28  According to A. Lindemann, “Das Thema εἰδωλόθυτα war offenbar in dem korinthisch-

110

Andrew Bowden

concerned, on the one hand, about causing fellow-believers to stumble if they see him eating meat that has been sacrificed to idols (cf. 1 Cor 8:13), and, on the other hand, about winning as many people as possible for the gospel.29 In 10:1– 13 he warns believers, based on examples from Israel in the wilderness, that sacraments are no sure protection against disobeying his instructions about eating meat. In 10:1–5, Paul specifically emphasizes what the ancestors in the wilderness ate and drank because of how this contributes to his broader theme of eating food that has been sacrificed to idols.30 Additionally, several allusions relate 1 Cor 10:1– 13 to 1 Cor 8 and 9: Paul’s use of ἀγνοεῖν in 10:1 may be an allusion to 1 Cor 8, which makes use of the γνῶ-root nine times in a matter of thirteen verses to discuss whether or not believers should eat meat sacrificed to idols.31 Additionally, the γάρ in 10:1 has an explanatory function, implying that the Corinthians “are to run as those intent on winning; that is, they must exercise self-control in all things.”32 The mention of Paul’s ἐγκρατεύομαι (“self-control”) in 9:25 prepares for Israel’s need of it in 10:6. In 1 Cor 10:6 and 11  – clearly an inclusio33  – Paul tells the readers why he shares this story. Compare 10:6, “Now these things happened as examples for us (ταῦτα δὲ τύποι ἡμῶν ἐγενήθησαν),” with 10:11, “Now these things happened to them as examples (τυπικῶς), but they were written to warn us (ἐγράφη δὲ πρὸς νουθεσίαν ἡμῶν).”34 About what specifically do these stories warn the readers? 6 Now these things happened as examples for us (τύποι ἡμῶν),  so that we would not be desirous of evil things (ἐπιθυμητὰς κακῶν), which they also desired (καθὼς κἀκεῖνοι ἐπεθύμησαν) [cf. Num 11:4]. 7 Do not be idolaters, like some of them,  as it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink, and stood up to play” [cf. Exod 32:6]. en Brief erwähnt worden (ob die Korinther danach gefragt hatten, läßt sich nicht feststellen; der Text darf jedenfalls nicht von der Voraussetzung her gelesen werden, Paulus antworte auf eine ihm gestellte Frage).” Der erste Korintherbrief, HNT 9/1 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 189. 29  Note the five-fold repetition of the verb κερδαίνω in 9:19–22. 30  W. L. Willis is correct when he says that “Israel’s flirtation with pagan cults and their punishment for doing so have exemplary importance for the Corinthians, because they also are tempted to such involvement with pagan deities (10:6–13).” Idol Meat in Corinth: The Pauline Argument in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10, ed. C. Talbert, SBLDS 68 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981), 271. 31  Cf. 1 Cor 8:1 (2 ×), 2 (3 ×), 3 (1 ×), 7 (1 ×), 10 (1 ×), 11 (1 ×). 32  Cf. Fee, Corinthians, 443. 33  Cf. W. A. Meeks, “‘And Rose up to Play’: Midrash and Paraenesis in 1 Corinthians 10:1– 22,” JSNT 5, no. 16 (1982): 64–78, here 65; G. D. Collier, “‘That We Might Not Crave Evil’: The Structure and Argument of 1 Cor 10:1–13,” JSNT 55 (1994): 55–75, esp. 60. 34  Collier notes that the noun νουθεσία occurs only here in the undisputed letters of Paul, and only once in LXX, at Wis 16:6, in precisely the same form: εἰς νουθεσίαν δὲ πρὸς ὀλίγον ἐταράχθησαν (“they were provoked as a warning for a short time”); see “That We Might Not Crave Evil,” 67. It is no coincidence that the subject of Wis 16:2–14 is also the narrative related in Num 11 LXX.



“And the Mixed among Them Desired a Desire”

111

8 Do not engage in prostitution,  like some of them engaged in prostitution,    and 23,000 fell on one day [cf. Num 25:1–9, which says 24,000 died]. 9 We should not test the anointed one (μηδὲ ἐκπειράζωμεν τὸν Χριστόν),  like some of them tested him (καθώς τινες αὐτῶν ἐπείρασαν)    and were destroyed by snakes [cf. Num 21:4–6]. 10 Do not murmur (μηδὲ γογγύζετε),  like some of them murmured (ἐγόγγυσαν)    and were destroyed by the destroyer [cf. Num 14:2; 16:11].

Not being “desirous of evil things” (ἐπιθυμητὰς κακῶν; 10:6) is specified in this context as “not being idolaters” (μηδὲ εἰδωλολάτραι γίνεσθε; 10:7), “not engaging in prostitution” (μηδὲ πορνεύωμεν; 10:8),35 “not testing the anointed one” (μηδὲ ἐκπειράζωμεν τὸν Χριστόν; 10:9), and “not murmuring” (μηδὲ γογγύζετε; 10:10).36 These stories, except for “not being idolaters,” all come from Num LXX (although Israel certainly engaged in idolatry in Num 25:1–9). After mentioning Israel’s desire in Num 11, Paul does not follow the order of Numbers, since he mentions prostitution (Num 25), testing the anointed (Num 21), and murmuring (Num 11, 14, 16).37 Perhaps Paul refers to the story in Exod 32 because, after mentioning idolatry, he says in 10:7, “The people sat down to eat and drink.”38 As I previously mentioned, Paul instructs the Corinthians in 1 Cor 8–10 about eating food and drinking drinks that have been offered to idols. Other lexical clues indicate the interweaving of themes in this context. The 23,000 who fell (ἔπεσαν) on one day (10:8) prepares for 10:12: “Thus, let the person who seems to stand be sure not to fall (βλεπέτω μὴ πέσῃ).” The testing of the anointed in 10:9 prepares for 10:13: 35  Cf. Num 25:2, where “the people ate the [Moabite] sacrifices and worshipped their idols” (καὶ ἔφαγεν ὁ λαὸς τῶν θυσιῶν αὐτῶν καὶ προσεκύνησαν τοῖς εἰδώλοις αὐτῶν). Fee points out that the text in Num 25:1–9 “specifically joins that particular event of sexual immorality with eating in the presence of Baal of Peor” in Corinthians, 455. On the manner in which Paul’s command against prostitution relates to idol worship in Corinth, see Thiselton, Corinthians, 738–39. 36  In support of this view, see, e. g., Willis, Idol Meat in Corinth, 147. Collier says, “The main theme of our pericope is a denunciation of ἐπιθυμητὰς κακῶν (those who crave evil things), found in the heading statement of v. 6; and … the sins that follow in vv. 7–10 (idolatry, harlotry, testing Christ and grumbling) illustrate the main theme … for each of the underlying OT texts ties Israel’s sin to eating and are interpreted here in light of ἐπιθυμία.” “That We Might Not Crave Evil,” 63. 37  Collier proposes that murmuring in 1 Cor 10:10 is drawn from Num 11, which mentions the people’s murmuring, rather than from Num 14 or 16. “That We Might Not Crave Evil,” 66. I find his proposal persuasive. 38  “[M]erely to list the sins is not helpful since it does not show what relationship exists among them, or between them and Exod. 32.6. For each of the OT texts specifically mentions food and illustrates a matter relating directly to ἐπιθυμητὰς κακῶν, viz., when Israel sat down to eat, they sinned, for they craved the food of their own choosing, rather than what God had provided: (1) in idolatry (v. 7), it was eating and drinking in an idol feast in an attempt to fulfill their own desires (Exod. 32.6).” Collier, “That We Might Not Crave Evil,” 66.

112

Andrew Bowden

You all have not received a test that is unusual for human beings (πειρασμὸς ὑμᾶς οὐκ εἴληφεν εἰ μὴ ἀνθρώπινος). But God is faithful and will not let you be tested beyond your strength (ὃς οὐκ ἐάσει ὑμᾶς πειρασθῆναι ὑπὲρ ὃ δύνασθε). With each test he will also provide a way of escape (ἀλλὰ ποιήσει σὺν τῷ πειρασμῷ καὶ τὴν ἔκβασιν), so that you might find the strength to endure. (emphasis added)

In light of the immediate context, where eating and drinking food that has been offered to idols is discussed, and where believers are told not to “put Christ to the test” (μηδὲ ἐκπειράζωμεν τὸν Χριστόν, 10:9), I am convinced that πειρασμός in 10:13 should be translated as “test” rather than “temptation.”39 Rather than promising believers that God will only let them be tempted if he knows in advance they can bear it, Paul promises the Corinthians believers something much more concrete. God is letting them be tested in the form of eating food sacrificed to idols. According to Paul, the correct response to this test is that Corinthian believers are free in most public settings to eat any food set before them, including meat that has been offered to idols. As long as they are not (1) standing in the presence of idol in a temple40 and (2) are not in a public gathering of believers (1 Cor 10:15–18), they can eat whatever they want. However, for the sake of winning all people (1 Cor 9:22; 10:33), believers often choose not to eat meat that has been sacrificed to idols (1 Cor 10:31–11:1). To win those in the church who may be weak, believers often choose not to eat meat that has been offered to idols (cf. 1 Cor 9:22). This is also the case when believers are invited to share a meal with unbelievers, if the unbelievers first indicate that the meat has been offered in sacrifice (1 Cor 10:28–29).41 Summary: Paul refers to Israel in the wilderness in 1 Cor 10:6 to provide an example for believers. When they are tested by a desire for evil things (cf. 1 Cor 10:6), they should remember the Israelites in the wilderness who desired meat (Num 11:4 LXX). God will provide them a way of escape so they can endure the testing. “Desiring evil things” functions as the broad categorization of 39  Note the same root is used in 10:9 (ἐκπειράζω) and 10:13 (πειρασμός). 40  Paul clarifies the importance of not eating meat in the presence of an idol: for Paul, what

is offered to idols is really offered to demons (cf. 1 Cor 10:20). For this reason, in their public gathering, believers should only partake of the Lord’s Supper and should completely shun food sacrificed to idols (cf. 1 Cor 10:15–18). Similarly, in a pagan temple, Paul says believers may not eat meat that has been offered to an idol, since this meat has really been offered to demons (cf. 1 Cor 10:19–22). Outside of the temple, however – whether in the public market or in a meal hosted by unbelievers – believers may eat meat that has been offered to idols (cf. 1 Cor 10:23– 30). 41  Unfortunately, I will not have space in this paper to comment on the fascinating remarks made by Paul in 1 Cor 10:27–29 on the “conscience” of unbelievers who invite believers to share a meal in their own homes: “If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question because of conscience. But if someone says to you, ‘This has been offered in sacrifice,’ then do not eat it, out of consideration for the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience – I mean the other’s conscience, not your own. For why should my freedom be judged by someone else’s conscience?”



“And the Mixed among Them Desired a Desire”

113

specific things believers in Corinth should resist. Thus, when presented with an opportunity to worship idols (1 Cor 10:7), to engage in prostitution (v. 8), to test the anointed one (v. 9), or to murmur (v. 10), believers should learn from Israel, who experienced the same things (cf. Exod 32:6; Num 25:1–9; Num 21:4–6; Num 14:2; 16:11). God will provide believers in Corinth a way of escape so they can endure the testing. No test, including even the test of idolatry (cf. 1 Cor 10:7– 8), has come only to the Corinthians. Rather, testing is common to all people (cf. 1 Cor 10:13). Will the Corinthian believers react like Paul, who focused on becoming all things to all people, including the weak, so that as many as possible would be saved? When they adopt his instructions related to food they may consume, they will be well on their way towards reaching this goal.

5. Conclusion Deuteronomy 9, Psalms 77 and 105, Wisdom, Philo, and Paul each make use of the story of Israel desiring meat in Num 11:4 LXX, but in different manners. In Numbers 11:4–35 LXX, the Lord punishes Israel because they desired meat they had eaten in Egypt, the land of their slavery. This is the first of several times that Israel weeps to return to Egypt because of a lack of food and water. Deut 9:22 LXX mentions the Tombs of Desire in Num 11:34 LXX as one of several examples to remind the Israelites they are no better than the people they are conquering. Although they will destroy the nations (Deut 9:3), they should remember the numerous times when God wanted to destroy them (cf. Deut 9:19, 25). Psalm 77:28–30 LXX mentions the ancestors’ desire for meat as one of several examples to prove that those who could not keep the law should nevertheless instruct their children in the law, so that they might keep God’s commandments instead of putting God to the test (cf. 77:18). Psalm 105 LXX promises that Israel now remembers the Lord, unlike their ancestors, who continually forgot the Lord as he led them through the wilderness. The mention of the ancestors’ desire for meat, whereby they put God to the test, is one illustration of their forgetfulness (Ps 105:13–15). Although the current generation also sins (105:5), they remember the Lord and therefore ask him to deliver them from the nations where they are now scattered (105:46). Wisdom continually minimizes the Israelites’ faults in the wilderness – including their desire for meat (Wis 16:1–4) – but underscores the Egyptian failures because of their idolatry. The writer seeks to prove that God will torment those who worship idols. Because Israel claims innocence of idol worship (Wis 15:1–3), they are therefore spared from God’s torment of idol worshippers. Philo mentions Israel’s desire for meat on two occasions. In Migr. 151–63 Philo says that the passions prove themselves a hindrance to Israel, whose journey to the promised land should have only lasted three days, but took forty years. It took Israel this long to learn virtue because they were a “mixed multitude” in the wilderness, that is, because they were learning to de-

114

Andrew Bowden

feat desire and passion and to make virtue their priority. In Spec. 4.126–31 Philo recounts the story in Num 11 as part of his explanation of why the Tenth Commandment forbids desire. To him, Moses focuses on laws related to food, and Num 11 illustrates what happens to gluttons who overeat. This story proves to Philo what happens when people do not control their belly. Finally, in 1 Cor 10:6 Paul refers to Israel in the wilderness to provide instruction for believers. No test, including even the test of idolatry, has come only to the Corinthians. When they follow Paul’s instructions about when and where they can eat meat that has been sacrificed to idols, they will follow Paul’s example and pass the test (cf. 10:13). Paul focused on eating meat sacrificed to idols in such a way that as many people as possible, including the weak, could be saved. In light of this analysis, I suggest that the account in Num 11 LXX about the Israelites desiring meat in the wilderness became an important passage for later authors to reflect creatively on Israel’s desire. Some authors referred to Num 11 LXX as one of several examples illustrating Israel’s failure in the wilderness (Deut 9 LXX; Pss 77 and 105 LXX). Others mention Num 11 LXX to prove that Israel was innocent of idol worship (cf. Wis 15:1–4), to comment on the meaning of the “mixed multitude” (Philo, Migr. 155), to explain why the Tenth Commandment focused on laws related to food (Philo, Spec. 4.126–31), or – within a broader context of eating meats that have been offered to idols (Paul in 1 Cor 8–10) – as one of several examples to demonstrate that God will not let his people be tested beyond what they can endure (1 Cor 10:13). It is my hope that this study has clarified the creative interpretations of ἐπιθυμέω, ἐπιθυμία, and ὁ ἐπιθυμητής in Num 11 LXX by translators and authors of the Septuagint, by Philo, and by Paul.

Bibliography Collier, G. D. “‘That We Might Not Crave Evil’: The Structure and Argument of 1 Cor 10:1–13.” JSNT 55 (1994): 55–75. Dorival, G. La Bible d’Alexandrie: Les nombres, traduction du texte grec de la Septante, introduction et notes. Paris: Cerf, 1994. Fankel, Z. Ueber den Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese auf die alexandrinische Hermeneutik. Leipzig: Joh. Ambr. Barth, 1851. Fee, G. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987. Fletcher, D. H. Signs in the Wilderness: Intertextuality and the Testing of Nicodemus. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2014. Flint, P. W. “Numbers.” Pages 107–40 in A New English Translation of the Septuagint: And the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under That Title. Edited by A. Pietersma and B. G. Wright. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Lindemann, A. Der erste Korintherbrief. HNT 9/1. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Meeks, W. A. “‘And Rose up to Play’: Midrash and Paraenesis in 1 Corinthians 10:1–22.” JSNT 5, no. 16 (1982): 64–78. Perkins, L. “Deuteronomy.” Pages 68–85 in The T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint. Edited by J. Aitken. London: T&T Clark, 2015.



“And the Mixed among Them Desired a Desire”

115

Pietersma, A., and B. G. Wright, eds. A New English Translation of the Septuagint. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Rösel, M., and C. Schlund. “Arithmoi. Numeri/​Das vierte Buch Mose.” Pages 431–522 in Septuaginta Deutsch: Erläuterungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten Testament I: Genesis bis Makkabäer. Edited by M. Karrer and W. Kraus. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011. Theissen, G. The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth. London: T&T Clark, 1982. Thiselton, A. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids/​Cambridge: Eerdmans; Carlisle: Paternoster, 2000. Wevers, J. W. Notes on the Greek Text of Numbers. ed. B. A. Taylor. SBLSCS 46. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998. Williams, T. F. “Towards a Date for the Old Greek Psalter.” Pages 248–76 in The Old Greek Psalter: Studies in Honour of Albert Pietersma. Edited by R. J. V. Hiebert, C. E. Cox, and P. J. Gentry. JSOTSup 332. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Willis, W. L. Idol Meat in Corinth: The Pauline Argument in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10. ed. C. Talbert. SBLDS 68. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981.

The Triangle of Testing in the Wilderness Jan Willem van Henten

The testing motif recurs throughout the pentateuchal narratives about Israel’s period in the wilderness before entering the promised land. It occurs in four episodes described in Exod 15–20 (Exod 15:22–26; 16; 17:1–7; 20:18–21) and in the episode about the sighting of Canaan in Num 14. The key words referring to testing in these passages are the verb ‫( נסה‬piel, “put someone to the test”) and related nouns in the Hebrew Bible; in the Septuagint, its equivalent, πειράζω, and related lexemes are used.1 The main meaning of ‫ נסה‬presupposes a personal object, which leads to the question of who is testing whom.2 Scholarly discussions of these lexemes and their meanings usually focus on a dual relationship in this connection: humans put humans to the test,3 humans test God,4 or God tests humans.5 A closer look at the passages about God and the Israelites implies that often there are not two but three parties involved in a situation of testing: God, the Israelites, and also Moses as leader of the people. This contribution will give a survey of the testing motif in the wilderness passages of the Hebrew Bible and their re-interpretations by focusing on the question of “who is testing whom?” 1  The main meaning of ‫( נסה‬36 HB occurrences, including 5 × in Exodus and 8 × in Deuteronomy) is “put someone to the test.” See KBL3 3:663; L. Ruppert, “Das Motiv der Versuchung in vordeuteronomischer Tradition,” VT 22 (1972): 55–63. Note also G. Gerleman, “‫ נסה‬nsh pi. versuchen,” THAT 2:69–71 (70): “prüfen, [jemanden] auf die Probe stellen.” Cf. the related root ‫“( בחן‬test”), parallel with ‫ נסה‬in Ps 26:2; 95:9; 1QHa II, 13–14. The root ‫ נסה‬is connected with the nouns ‫( מסה‬massāh, “test” in Deut 4:34; 7:19; 29:2; “tests” in order to demonstrate the mighty deeds of God, according to Gerleman, “‫נסה‬,” 70) and ‫“( נסוי‬test” in Sir. 36[33]:1; 44:20; 1 QS I, 18; 4QDibHama 1–2 V, 18; VI, 7). ‫( מסה‬Massāh) is also a geographical name with the same meaning in Exod 17:7; Deut 6:16; 9:22; 33:8; Ps 95:8; see S. Lehming, “Massa und Meriba,” ZAW 73 (1961): 71–77; G. Gerleman, “‫נסה‬,” 69; E. B. Oikonomos, Peirasmoi en te Palaia Diatheke: Oroi, Keimena kai morphologike ereuna (Athens: Bibliotheke tes en Athenais Philekpaideutikes Etaireias, 1965); J. Licht, Testing in the Hebrew Scriptures and in Post-Biblical Judaism (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1973 [Hebrew]). 2  Other uses of the verb: “tempt” and “try, attempt,” absolute or with non-personal object or ‫ב‬, according to KBL3 3:663; Gerleman, “‫נסה‬,” 69–70. 3  1 Kgs 10:1 (= 2 Chr 9:1); Dan 1:12, 14. Cf. Sir 37:27. 4  Exod 17:2, 7; Num 14:22; Deut 6:16 (2 ×); Isa 7:12; Ps 78:18, 41, 56; 95:9; 106:14. 5  Gen 22:1; Exod 15:25; 16:4; 20:20; Deut 8:2, 16; 13:4; 33:8; Jdg 2:22; 3:1, 4; Ps 26:2; 2 Chr 32:31. Cf. Gerleman, “‫נסה‬,” 90: “Häufig ist es Gott, der die Menschen prüft, um ihre Gesinnung zu erforschen.” Also M. Greenberg, “‫ נסה‬in Exodus 20:20 and the Purpose of the Sinaitic Theophany,” JBL 79 (1960): 273–76.

118

Jan Willem van Henten

and the articulation of the role of the leader. It will deal with the relevant Hebrew Bible passages as well as their renderings in the Septuagint and a selection of reinterpretations in other Second Temple writings (Judith 7–15 and Assumption of Moses 9–10). The texts as transmitted to us will be the point of departure of my analysis of the testing motif.6

1.  Testing in the Wilderness: Hebrew Bible The main pentateuchal passages describing a test in the wilderness are Exod 15:22–26 (water of Marah), Exod 16 (the gift of manna), Exod 17:1–7 (Massah and Meribah), Exod 20:18–21 (the follow-up of the revelation of the Ten Commandments), and Num 14 (the response to the inspection of Canaan).7 In these passages the Israelites in the wilderness complain to Moses (or to Moses and Aaron) about setbacks they experience, such as the lack of water or food.8 Unfaithfulness to God is a leitmotiv in these passages, although this is not always stated explicitly:9 the Israelites are afraid to die in the wilderness and regret that they have left Egypt; they lack trust in God.10 The motif of testing is used in two ways in these passages. In Exod 15, 16 and 20, God puts Israel to the test in a situation of distress (according to most interpretations), but he also brings help. In Exodus 17 and Numbers 14, we find the reverse: the Israelites put God to the test and God passes this test. Moses acts as an intermediate person, and sometimes the reader gets the impression that Moses is tested as well. According to Exod 15:22–27, the Israelites travel for three days in the wilderness of Shur without water, and when they find water at Marah it turns out to be bitter. This leads to a complaint of the people, to which Moses responds by crying out to the Lord (15:24–25a). Moses makes the water drinkable with the piece of wood pointed out by God. The text then connects this episode with a test and rules for the people: “There [at Marah] he made for them a statute and an ordinance (‫ ;חק ומשפט‬LXX: δικαιώματα καὶ κρίσεις) and there he put him/ 6  For historical-critical discussions, see, e. g., M. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuchs (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1960), 223–27; E. Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch, BZAW 189 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990), 94–97, 144–53; N. Lohfink, Theology of the Pentateuch (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 35–95; C. Houtman, Exodus, 4 vols., HCOT (Kampen: Kok, 1993–2002), 2:322–23, 358–59; G. W. Coats, Exodus 1–18 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 102, 124, 137–38; W. Propp, Exodus 1–18: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York: Doubleday, 1999), 574–76, 588–92, 603–4; Lehming, “Massa.” Most scholars assume that Exod 15–17 combines traditions from P and J and that the testing motif reflects Deuteronomic or Deuteronomistic influence. 7 Houtman, Exodus, 2:299–313. On the water motif, see W. H. Propp, Water in the Wilderness: A Biblical Motif and its Mythological Background (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987). 8  The wilderness is mentioned in Exod 15:22; 16:1, 3, 10, 14, 32; 17:1; Num 14:2, 16, 22, 25. 9 Houtman, Exodus, 2:300, 303. 10  Cf. Exod 14; Num 11 and 20–21; Josh 7.



The Triangle of Testing in the Wilderness

119

them to the test (‫( ”)נסהו‬Exod 15:25b).11 The phrase ‫“( חק ומשפט‬a statute and an ordinance”) may refer to rules based on the written and the oral Torah, or it may be a hendiadys referring to a binding statute or a general commandment of obedience.12 Most translators assume that God is the subject of both verbs in this sentence and the Israelites the object (e. g. NRSV).13 Yet, in theory at least, the subject of the sentence can also be Moses or the people (at least in the second subclause of 25b), and the object of ‫ נסה‬can either be the people (mentioned in verse 24) or Moses, on whom the immediate context focuses. This implies that the last part of verse 25b can be translated in three different ways: (1) “There he [God] put him [Moses] to the test (‫)ושם נסהו‬,”14 (2) “There the [people] put him [God] to the test” (so Calvin),15 or (3) “There he [Moses] put the [people] to the test.”16 The continuation of the passage makes it improbable that the people are the subject of this last subclause in 25b:17 another “he” explains in verse 26 that the implication of the test is that God would not bring any of the diseases upon the people if they would abide by God’s rules. It is most plausible that this “he” is Moses, who speaks on behalf of God. In short, the testing motif in this passage is ambiguous: the question of “who is testing whom?” can be answered in several ways, although the interpretation that God is testing the people may be the most plausible reading in connection with the continuation of the narrative in chapter 16. What the test is about is not stated explicitly, but the context implies it concerns the faithfulness of the people (or Moses or God).18 What is clear, however, is that there are three parties involved in the test: God, the Israelites, and Moses as leader of the people. A second episode of testing is located in the wilderness of Sin (Exod 16), where the entire congregation of Israel complains against Moses and Aaron because it is afraid to die of hunger (16:3; cf. 15:24). God intervenes and explains to Moses that his gift of manna for the Israelites is connected with rules and a test for the people (16:4–5): “Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘I am going to rain bread 11  Translations from the Hebrew Bible and the deuterocanonical books derive from the NRSV. 12  W. G. Plaut, The Torah: A Modern Commentary (New York: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1981), 497; Houtman, Exodus, 2:312–13; Propp, Exodus, 577. 13 Houtman, Exodus, 2:307; Propp, Exodus, 577. 14  This interpretation has recently been argued for by B. T. German, “Moses at Marah,” VT 63 (2013): 47–58. See already E. Auerbach, Moses (Amsterdam: Ruys, 1953), 80–82; D. M. Gurtner, Exodus: A Commentary on the Greek Text of Codex Vaticanus (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 350. 15  B. Hemelsoet, “De verzoeking van Jesus in de woestijn,” ACEBT 9 (1988), 97–116 (115 n. 6); Houtman, Exodus, 311. 16  A. Dillmann, Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1897), 179, and B. Jacob, Das Buch Exodus (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1997), 451–52, who argues that the singular ‫ חק‬must refer to a rule given by a human. 17  With Houtman, Exodus, 2:311–12, who concludes that an alteration of the subject is problematic in v. 25b. 18 Propp, Exodus, 577.

120

Jan Willem van Henten

from heaven for you, and each day the people shall go out and gather enough for that day. In that way, I will test them (literally “him”, ‫)אנסנו‬, whether they will follow my instruction or not (‫( ”’)הילך בתורתי אם־לא‬Exod 16:4; cf. 16:11–12, 15–16, 19, 23, 25–26). Moses and Aaron then inform the Israelites about the divine daily gift of sustenance, which was doubled on the sixth day, and they also explain that the congregation’s complaint was in fact directed at God (16:6–10). The context implies that God’s “instruction” in 16:4 concerns the conditions connected with the gift of manna pointed out in the subsequent explanation of Moses and Aaron. God puts the Israelites to the test here, with Moses and Aaron as intermediaries between God and the people. The special regulations for the sixth day in the second part of God’s oracle are part of the test (16:5); in the continuation of the narrative, they turn out to concern the Sabbath as a day of rest, during which the Israelites had to refrain from gathering manna (16:22–26).19 The narrative twice indicates that some of the Israelites disobeyed God’s instructions by preserving manna until the next morning and trying fruitlessly to gather it on the seventh day (16:20, 27–29), which implies that the Israelites do not pass the test.20 There is no indication of a punishment for their failure. The testing motif occurs a third time in the short story in Exod 17 about the people at Rephidim before a battle against Israel’s arch-enemy Amalek.21 The roles of testing here are different and more complex than in chapters 15–16, and Moses’s role as leader and intermediary between God and the people is more prominent. After the Israelites had travelled from the wilderness of Sin to Rephidim, they are afraid of lacking water once again and quarrel with their leader Moses (17:1–2; cf. 15:24; 16:2–3). Moses responds that the fact that the Israelites criticize him implies that they doubt God’s support of Israel (cf. 16:7): “Why do you quarrel with me (‫ ?)מה־תריבון עמדי‬Why do you test the Lord (‫מה־תנסון‬ ‫( ”?)את־יהוה‬17:2). This response does not help, and the Israelites keep complaining against Moses, pointing out in plain language that their departure from Egypt would lead to their death due to the lack of water (17:3; cf. 16:3). Dramatically, Moses cries out to God, because he is afraid that the Israelites will act as a mob and stone him (17:4).22 By calling upon God, Moses does what the people should have done.23 God brings deliverance once again through a water miracle executed by Moses (17:5–6). The pericope ends in 17:7 with Moses’s explanation of the double name of the place of the miracle: “He called the place Massah and Meribah, because the Israelites quarrelled and tested the Lord (‫על־ריב בני ישראל‬ 19 Propp, Exodus, 593. 20 Houtman, Exodus, 2:318–19. 21  N. MacDonald, “Anticipations of Horeb: Exodus 17 as Inner-Biblical commentary,” in

Studies on the Text and Versions of the Hebrew Bible in Honour of Robert Gordon, ed. G. Khan and D. Lipton (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 7–19. 22  Cf. Num 14:10. Propp, Exodus, 605. 23 Houtman, Exodus, 2:356.

The Triangle of Testing in the Wilderness



121

‫)ועל נסתם את־יהוה‬, saying: ‘Is the Lord among us or not?’”24 The question must be

a flashback, because the outcome of the story is that God is clearly with the Israelites and supports them.25 Thus, in Exod 17 the people put God to the test, in line with one of the possible readings of Exod 15:22–26. The test expresses a lack of faith, which is remarkable in light of God’s deliverance during the exodus and the journey through the wilderness so far. God passes the test graciously by providing water.26 One could argue that in this passage, at least implicitly, Moses is put to the test as well, either by the people that puts him in a threatening situation, or by God, who tests whether he will fulfill his task obediently. Moses cries for help to God but also intercedes on behalf of the people.27 The parallel episode in Num 20 lacks the testing vocabulary, but it explicitly states that Moses and Aaron were not allowed to bring the Israelites into the promised land because they did not trust in God (‫ )לא־האמנתם בי‬to show his holiness in front of the Israelites (Num 20:12). Moses acts prematurely by using Aaron’s rod, making God’s manifestation as saviour superfluous.28 Psalm 106 also criticizes Moses’s role as leader. Psalm 106:32–33 indicates that the Israelites made God angry at Meribah29 and also had a negative impact on Moses, making him say “words that were rash.”30 We will see later on the opposite view of the event: one of the retellings of the Massah and Meribah 24  The name ‫( מסה‬Massah) is connected with the root ‫( נסה‬see note 1 above), and the name

‫מריבה‬

(Meribah) with the root ‫ ;ריב‬both verbs occur in Exod 17:2, 7.

25  Psalm 78 provides a survey of the history of Israel up to the time of King David and al-

ludes to the Massah and Meribah episode (78:15–16, 20), as well as to God’s gift of manna in the wilderness of Sin (78:17–25; cf. Exod 16). Here, the people put God to the test (Ps 78:18–20; cf. 78:40–41), which implies that the motif in Exod 16 is re-interpreted (in Exod 16:4, God tests the people): “They tested God in their heart (‫ )בלבבם וינסו־אל‬by demanding the food they craved. They spoke against God, saying ‘Can God spread a table in the wilderness? Even though he struck the rock so that water gushed out and torrents overflowed, can he also give bread or provide meat for his people?’” (Ps 78:18–20). Psalm 95:8–11 calls upon the audience not to follow the example of the ancestors at Massah and Meribah, who had hardened their hearts and tested God, and, therefore, were not allowed to enter God’s rest, i. e., the promised land: “Do not harden your hearts, as at Meribah, as on the day at Massah in the wilderness, when your ancestors tested me (‫)אשר נסוני אבותיכם‬, and put me to the proof (‫)בחנוני‬, though they had seen my work” (95:8–9). Psalm 81 explicitly refers to the Massah and Meribah episode, reversing the roles between God and the people and again ignoring Moses’s role during this episode. This psalm highlights God’s response and deliverance in the situation of Israel’s distress in the desert and God’s testing of the people at Meribah: “I tested you at the waters of Meribah (‫אבחנך על־מי‬ ‫( ”)מריבה‬81:8). 26 Houtman, Exodus, 2:357, 362–63. 27 Houtman, Exodus, 2:363. 28 Jacob, Exodus, 491. 29  LXX: παρώργισαν αὐτόν; in the Hebrew text, the verb ‫ ויקציפו‬lacks an object. 30  Likewise in Ps 105:32–33 LXX, although the Greek phrase διέστειλεν ἐν τοῖς χείλεσιν is not entirely clear: A. Pietersma translates “he [Moses] parted with his lips” but states in a note “possibly spoke rashly” (NETS). GELS 1:109 gives “pronounce, make an explicit statement” as meanings of the phrase διαστέλλω τοῖς χείλεσιν and points to Lev 5:4 as a parallel.

122

Jan Willem van Henten

episode implies that Moses was tested and that he passed the test by remaining faithful (Deut 33:8–11). The deliverance at Massah and Meribah in Exodus restores, in any case, Moses’s authority as leader of the people.31 Moses’s role as a mediator becomes explicit in a fourth brief passage about testing in Exodus, a passage that connects the disclosure of the Ten Commandments with the revelation of the Book of the Covenant (Exod 20:18–21). After the announcement of the commandments, God manifests himself with awe-inspiring natural phenomena (20:18), and the frightened Israelites ask Moses to speak on their behalf: “You speak to us, and we will listen; but do not let God speak to us, or we will die” (20:20). The context implies that Moses accepts this role, although he says to the people: “Do not be afraid; for God has come only to test you (‫ )לבעבור נסות אתכם‬and to put the fear of him upon you so that you do not sin” (20:20). Once again, it is not stated what exactly is tested, but the continuation of the verse and the context indicate that it concerns the proper attitude towards God: awe and obedience to his rules.32 In Num 14 the Israelites put God to the test after the negative report about the exploration of Canaan (Num 13). They complain against Moses and Aaron (14:2–4) and reject the plea of Joshua and Caleb (14:10). Thanks to Moses’s intercession (14:13–19), they are not struck dead because of their lack of faith and disobedience (14:20–23). Still, the generation that departed from Egypt is not allowed to enter the promised land: “… none of the people who have seen my glory and the signs that I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and yet have tested me these ten times (‫ )וינסו אתי זה אשר פעמים‬and have not obeyed my voice, shall see the land that I swore to give to their ancestors; none of those who despised me shall see it” (Num 14:22–23).33 The Israelites are presented in this oath formula as having tested God, and once again the motivation for the test is not stated explicitly.34 The immediate context implies, however, that God’s repeated acts in Egypt and in the wilderness on behalf of the Israelites are not appreciated by them, and this conclusion by way of flashback presents the Israelites as stubbornly lacking faith and trust in God. This may also be emphasized by the number ten: if we focus on explicit references, there are clearly not ten episodes of the people testing God transmitted in the reports about the people’s stay in Egypt and the wilderness.35 Some scholars who discuss this passage do take the 31 Houtman, Exodus, 2:366. 32  With C. Houtman, Exodus, 3:77. 33  Most scholars assume that Num 14:11–25 was added by a redactor; see, e. g., S. McEve-

nue, The Narrative Style of the Priestly Writer (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1971), 103–44; B. Levine, Numbers 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 4 (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 347–48; H. Seebass, Numeri, BKAT 4, vol. 2, (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1995), 85–88, 93, 101. 34 Levine, Numbers, 367–68, argues that the verb ‫ נסה‬bears the nuance of doubting here. 35 Seebass, Numeri, 120.



The Triangle of Testing in the Wilderness

123

number ten literally and attempt to identify ten episodes of testing.36 However, the number ten makes sense as a round number, for which there are several parallels.37 This reading is supported by references to series of ten tests for humans elsewhere.38 Although the traditions underlying several passages with the testing motif in Deuteronomy may be older than the passages from Exodus and Numbers discussed above, the Deuteronomy passages read like flashbacks to earlier episodes in the wilderness. In Deut 6–8 Moses provides the Israelites with instruction for the period after entering the promised land (6:4–8:20). This section includes the commandment not to test God in the future: “Do not put the Lord your God to the test, as you tested him at Massah (‫”)לא תנסו את־יהוה אלהכם כאשר נסיתם במסה‬ (6:16).39 The opposite motif, God testing the Israelites, is found in Deut 8:2–4, 16. In this passage the entire period of forty years in the wilderness is interpreted by Moses as a period during which God put his people to the test:40 “… in order to humble you, testing you to know what was in your heart, whether or not you would keep his commandments (8:2).”41 Faithfulness to God’s commandments is the salient point here (cf. Exod 16:4 above). The motif is repeated in Deut 8:16, which also explains God’s motive as testing for the benefit of Israel: “… He made water flow for you from flint rock, and fed you in the wilderness with manna that your ancestors did not know, to humble you and test you, and in the end to do you good” (8:15–16).42 In Deut 6:16 and 8:2–4, 16, Moses is just the mouthpiece of God, but a third passage in Deuteronomy, about the blessing of Levi (33:8–11), focuses fully on the test of the leader and makes the triangle of testing explicit.43 The passage 36  E. g., A. Dillmann, Die Bücher Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1888), 77; Plaut, Torah, 1111. Cf. F. J. Helfmeyer, “‫נסה‬,” ThWAT 5:477–87; F. V. Winnett, The Mosaic Tradition (Toronto: University of Toronto, 1949), 121–54. 37  KBL3 3:847; H. A. Brongers, “Die Zehnzahl in der Bibel und ihrer Umwelt,” in Studia Biblica et Semitica Theodoro Christiano Vriezen, ed. W. C. van Unnik and A. S. van der Woude (Wageningen: Veenman, 1966), 30–45; P. J. Budd, Numbers (Dallas, TX, Word Books, 1984), 158; Levine also does not take the number ten literally, and he translates with “repeatedly” in Numbers, 367–68. 38  See T. Jos. 2:7, Jub. 17:1; 19:8; and Pirqe ’Abot 5:3, with references to ten tests for Joseph or Abraham. See also ’Abot de Rabbi Nathan 34 and Pirqe ’Abot 5:4; H. Engel and B. Schmitz, Judit (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2014), 263. For further discussion, see Todd Hanneken’s essay in this volume. 39  M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 5 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991), 346–47. Cf. Ahaz’s implementation of this commandment in Isa 7:12. 40  Cf. Num 14:22 and Ps 78:41. 41  Cf. Deut 13:3; Judg 2:22; 3:1, 4; Ps 95:8–10; Wis 3:5; 11:9–10. 42  There is some ambiguity in the testing motif here: God first creates distress for the Israelites and then brings deliverance, apparently because the Israelites passed the test (Licht, Testing, 43–47). 43  Ruppert, “Motiv,” 56–58.

124

Jan Willem van Henten

implies that God put Levi to the test, but it associates Levi with Moses through a reference to Massah, as the beginning of the blessing indicates.44 Levi is rewarded for his faithfulness; he is characterized as God’s loyal one who should receive God’s Thummim and Urim (33:8). The motivation for this blessing is supplied by references to Massah and Meribah. In light of the wilderness passages in Exodus and Numbers, these flashbacks can only concern Levi’s descendant Moses (Exod 2:1), although this causes some friction with these preceding passages (especially the last part of verse 8): “And of Levi he [Moses] said: Give to Levi your Thummim, and your Urim to your loyal one (‫)לאיש חסידך‬, whom you [God] tested at Massah (‫)אשר נסיתו במסה‬, with whom you contended at the waters of Meribah (‫( ”)מי־על מריבה‬Deut 33:8). Moses formulates this blessing as a request from God, who is the implied subject of “give” (33:8). The gift of the Thummim and Urim, together with the reference to the incense and burnt offerings in verse 10, emphasizes the priestly and cultic connections of the Levites.45 Levi is God’s loyal one, because he was tested at Massah.46 The blessing further implies that the Levites should be blessed because Levi (or Moses in light of the other passages) passed the test at Massah and Meribah (33:8). The end of the blessing indicates that the blessing should make the Levites victorious over their opponents: “Bless, O Lord, his substance, and accept the work of his hands; crush the loins of his adversaries, of those that hate him, so that they do not rise again” (33:11). Deuteronomy 33:8–11 offers a remarkable elaboration of the testing motif by associating Moses with Levi and legitimating Levi’s tribe’s priestly activities on the basis of the outcome of the test at Massah and Meribah. It also implies Levi’s success in dealing with adversaries, which by itself implies a leadership role. We will see later on that other testing passages build on this last part of Levi’s blessing. Our survey of the testing motif in select wilderness passages of the Hebrew Bible yields five main results. First, it is apparent that there are three parties involved in the testing: God, the people of Israel, and the people’s leader and/or God’s representative, Moses (or Moses and Aaron).47 Second, the explicit references to testing mostly imply that God can test the people and the people can test God. A few passages seem to suggest that Moses was tested as well by God 44  Detailed discussion in S. Beyerle, Der Mosesegen in Deuteronomium (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997), 113–36. For Qumran versions of the blessing (esp. 4Q175 14–20), see E. C. Ulrich et al., Qumran Cave 4.IX: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings, DJD 14 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), 61–70; R. Fuller, “The Blessing of Levi in Deut 33, Mal 2 and Qumran,” in Konsequente Traditionsgeschichte: Festschrift für Klaus Baltzer zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. R. Bartelmus, T. Krüger, and H. Utzschneider (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 31–44; J. Duncan, “New Readings for the ‘Blessing of Moses’ from Qumran,” JBL 114 (1995): 273–90 (esp. 273, 280–84, 287–88); S. Beyerle, “Evidence of a Polymorphic Text Towards the Text-History of Deuteronomy 33,” DSD 5 (1998): 215–32. 45 Beyerle, Mosesegen, 120–24. 46 Beyerle, Mosesegen, 125. 47  The testing passages in Psalms (see footnote 25) are exceptional, because they ignore the role of Moses.



The Triangle of Testing in the Wilderness

125

(Exod 17:1–7; Num 20:8–12), and one ambiguous passage can be interpreted in this way (Exod 15:22–26). Third, one passage focuses explicitly on the testing of Levi, who is associated with Moses through references to Massah and Meribah (Deut 33:8–11). Fourth, the short but complex passage in which the testing motif figures most prominently, Exodus 17:1–7, is open to several interpretations, as alternative versions and allusions to the Massah and Meribah episode show.48 Fifth, the full picture of the testing in the wilderness motif shows that the roles of the actors of the triangle of testing (who tests whom?) are open to re-interpretation. We will see in the next sections that the complexity of the motif deepens: the people can also test its leader, and the role of the leader becomes more complex.

2.  Testing in the Wilderness: Septuagint How does the Septuagint render the testing passages set in the wilderness? In general, the Septuagint versions of the episodes of testing in the wilderness stay close to the Masoretic Text.49 The first testing passage in Exodus is significant, because it offers a new perspective on the roles involved in the testing motif. Some of the details in the Septuagint rendering of the episode at Marah (LXX: Πικρία, “Bitterness”) in Exod 15:22–26 are different from the Hebrew text. Moses is more clearly and consistently the subject of the verbs at the beginning of the passage (15:22). A difficulty of incongruence in the Hebrew at the beginning of verse 24 (‫ וילנו‬with ‫ העם‬as subject) in the reference to the complaint of the people about the bitter water is absent.50 A major difference, however, concerns the personal object in the phrase referring to the testing by God in verse 25: “and there he [God] tested him [Moses]” (καὶ ἐκεῖ ἐπείρασεν αὐτόν; NETS). The context implies that Moses is the object of God’s testing here, since the beginning of the next verse implies Moses as subject. Thus, the Septuagint makes one of the possible readings of the Masoretic Text (see above) explicit: God puts Moses to the test after setting statutes and judgments for him (αὐτῷ, i. e., Moses, v. 25). Here, Moses is clearly the intermediate figure who is responsible for the people keeping God’s statutes, as his statement on behalf of God in verse 26 implies: “And he [Moses] said, ‘If you by paying attention listen to the voice of the Lord, your God, and do before him pleasing things (τὰ ἀρεστά), and give ear to his com48  Cf. Num 20:1–13; Deut 6:16; 33:8; Ps 81:7; 95:8–9. See also the allusions in Ps 78:15–20, 40–41, 56; 106:14, 32–33. 49  For Qumran references, see D. Katzin, “‘The Time of Testing’: The Use of Hebrew Scriptures in 4Q171’s Pesher of Psalm 37,” Hebrew Studies 45 (2004): 121–62; Katzin, “The Use of Scripture in 4Q175,” DSD 20 (2013): 200–236. 50  ‫ וילנו‬is the niphal pl. of ‫ ;לון‬see KBL3 2:498. The LXX reads διεγόγγυζεν (“muttered, muttered against”); see GELS 1:102 s. v. Cf. also the Hebrew ‫“( והישר בעיניו‬what is right in his sight”) with the LXX τὰ ἀρεστά (“pleasing things”) in v. 26.

126

Jan Willem van Henten

mandments (ἐνωτίσῃ ταῖς ἐντολαῖς), and keep all his statutes (τὰ δικαιώματα), every disease which I brought upon the Egyptians, I will not bring upon you. For I am the Lord who heals you’” (NETS). The Septuagint’s rendition of the testing motif connected with manna in Exod 16:4 aligns much more closely with the Masoretic Text. It focuses on God testing the people, referring explicitly to the people with the plural object. Where the MT reads “I will test him” (‫)אנסנו‬, the Septuagint has “I will test them” (πειράσω αὐτούς).51 The content of the test relates to whether they will follow the instructions concerning the daily gathering of manna.52 In the short story set at Rephidim in Exodus 17:1–7, the Septuagint uses the verb λοιδορέω (“scoff at”) for the double reference to the people’s quarrel with Moses because of the lack of water in verse 2.53 The testing motif in verse 2 is articulated in the same way as in MT: “Why are you railing at me (Τί λοιδορεῖσθέ μοι), and why are you testing the Lord (τί πειράζετε κύριον)?” (NETS).54 Similarly to Exod 15:24, the verb γογγύζω (“mutter, mutter against”) translates the root ‫ לון‬that expresses the people’s complaint to Moses in verse 3.55 A few details in verses 4–6 differ from the Masoretic Text: the Septuagint interprets Hebrew ‫את־היאר‬ – which can refer to the Nile or any other stream – as “the river” (τὸν ποταμόν), and the end of the verse indicates that Moses performed his miracle at the rock in front of the Israelites instead of in front of some of the elders, who may represent the people but also support Moses.56 Moses’s statement at the end of the pericope provides Greek names for the symbolic double new name of the place (17:7), but their meanings remain close to the MT version, implying that the focus here too remains on the people of Israel testing the Lord, whether he was among them or not: “And he called the name of that place Testing and Raillery (Πειρασμὸς καὶ Λοιδόρησις) because of the railing of the sons of Israel and because they tested the Lord (διὰ τὸ πειράζειν κύριον), saying, ‘Is the Lord among us or not? (Εἰ ἔστιν κύριος ἐν ἡμῖν ἢ οὔ)?’” (NETS). The Septuagint version of Deut 33:8–11 interprets the motif of testing differently than the Masoretic Text and sets it in a messianic and eschatological framework (cf. 33:11).57 It states explicitly that the Israelites put Levi(-Moses) to the test: 51 Propp, Exodus, 585; Gurtner, Exodus, 350. Hebrew ‫ נסה‬is mostly rendered by Greek πειράζω, ἐκπειράζω, and πειράω (H. Seesemann, “πεῖρα,” TDNT 6:23–36). 52  J. W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 244. 53  GELS 2.284 s. v. λοιδορέω. Also Num 20:3; cf. the noun λοιδορία (“railing, reproach”) in Exod 17:7; Num 20:24. 54  See also Num 20:22 LXX. 55  GELS 1.92 s. v. γογγύζω; A. Le Boulluec and P. Sandevoir, La Bible d’Alexandrie: L’Exode (Paris: Cerf, 1989), 40–41. In Exod 15:24 the compositum διαγογγύζω is used with the same meaning. 56  Exod 17:6 MT: ‫ ;לעיני זקני ישראל‬LXX: ἐναντίον τῶν υἱῶν Ισραηλ. Jacob, Exodus, 494. 57 Beyerle, Mosesegen, 115, 118.



The Triangle of Testing in the Wilderness

127

8 And to Levi he said Give Levi his clear ones (δήλους αὐτοῦ) and his truth (ἀλήθειαν) to the holy man (τῷ ἀνδρὶ τῷ ὁσίῳ) whom they put to the test by testing (ὃν ἐπείρασαν ἐν πείρᾳ). They reviled him (ἐλοιδόρησαν αὐτόν) at the water of dispute (ἐπὶ ὕδατος ἀντιλογίας). … 10 They shall show (δηλώσουσιν) Iakob your statutes (τὰ δικαιώματά σου) and Israel your law (τὸν νόμον σου); they shall place incense (θυμίαμα) on [or: in] your wrath58 continually on your altar. 11 Bless, O Lord, his strength (τὴν ἰσχὺν αὐτοῦ), and accept the works of his hands (τὰ ἔργα τῶν χειρῶν); shatter the loins of his enemies that have   risen up against him, and those that hate him, let them not rise up (NETS, slightly adapted).

I have given the translation of this passage almost in full, because it seems to have been alluded to in some of the re-interpretations discussed below, but I only comment here on details that are directly relevant for the discussion of the testing motif. “His clear ones” and “his truth” are the Septuagint’s rendering of the Thummim and Urim, which, while typically associated with the high priest, are here attributed to Levi.59 The phrase “his clear ones” (δήλους αὐτοῦ) may be echoed by the beginning of v. 10: “They shall show” (δηλώσουσιν), which focuses on God’s statutes. The phrase that characterizes Levi as “holy man” or “holy one” is unique in the Septuagint. It highlights Levi’s exceptional devotion to God.60 The next phrase in v. 8 (ἐπείρασαν ἐν πείρᾳ) lacks the geographical reference to Massah of the Masoretic Text, which may have been misunderstood. The translator may have interpreted the Hebrew phrase ‫ נסיתו במסה‬as a figura etymologica, in which case the repetitive lexeme -πείρ- puts emphasis on the fact that Levi was tested.61 Likewise the Hebrew words ‫ על־מי מריבה‬are rendered literally as “at the water of dispute” (ἐπὶ ὕδατος ἀντιλογίας).62 More significantly, 58  The Septuagint translator seems to have taken the Hebrew ‫“( באפך‬before you”) in the literal sense. 59  GELS 1.100 gives “symbols of revelation, manifestation” as the meaning for the masculine plural substantive form of δῆλος, indicating that this is a rendering of Urim interpreted as deriving from the root “to give light” (cf. 1 Sam 28:6). See also C. Dogniez and M. Harl, La Bible d’Alexandrie: Le Deuteronome (Paris: Cerf, 1992), 346; J. W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Deuteronomy (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 543; Beyerle, Mosesegen, 120–22. 60  Cf. Ps 31(32):6 LXX; GELS 2.340. 61  For the figura etymologica of a finite Hebrew verb followed by a noun from the same stem, see E. Kautzsch, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982), 366–67. 62  Cf. Ps 94(95):8–9 LXX, which does not give the Greek equivalent of the names Massah and Meribah, but describes them as situations of rebellion against God and testing of God: μὴ σκληρύνητε τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν ὡς ἐν τῷ παραπικρασμῷ κατὰ τὴν ἡμέραν τοῦ πειρασμοῦ ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, οὖ ἐπείρασαν οἱ πατέρες ὑμῶν ἐδοκίμασαν καὶ εἴδοσαν τὰ ἔργα μου. See also Ps 80(81):8 LXX.

128

Jan Willem van Henten

the Septuagint has a plural subject putting Levi to the test. The Masoretic Text, which has a singular subject, appears to identify God as the one who tests Levi. In the Septuagint the context implies (cf. the last line of v. 8) that it is the Israelites who put Levi to the test.63 This short survey of the Septuagintal versions of the testing episodes in the wilderness in Exodus and Deuteronomy points to four possible configurations, if we focus on the question of who tests whom: (1) The Israelites put God to the test: Exod 17:2, 7 LXX. See also Num 14:22–23 LXX, where God’s statement begins with a positive phrase, “For all the men who saw my glory and the signs that I performed,” but the testing motif is similar to MT: “and they tested me this tenth time (καὶ ἐπειρασάν με τοῦτο δέκατον) and did not listen to my voice.” Cf. the commandment not to test God in Deut 6:16 LXX: “You shall not test the Lord your God (ἐκπειράσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου), as you tested [him] at Testing (ὃν τρόπον ἐξεπειράσασθε ἐν τῷ Πειρασμῷ),” as well as Ps 77(78):18 LXX (καὶ ἐξεπείρασαν τὸν θεὸν ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις αὐτῶν); Ps 77(78):41 LXX (καὶ ἐπείρασαν τὸν θεόν); Ps 77(78):56 LXX (καὶ ἐπείρασαν καὶ παρεπίκραναν τὸν θεὸν τὸν ὕψιστον); Ps 94(95):8–9 LXX (κατὰ τὴν ἡμέραν τοῦ πειρασμοῦ ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, οὗ ἐπείρασαν οἱ πατέρες ὑμῶν). (2) God testing the Israelites: Exod 16:4 LXX. See also Exod 20:22 LXX; Deut 8:2 LXX (καὶ ἐκπειράσῇ σε); Ps 80(81):8 LXX, “I [God] tested (ἐδοκίμασά) you [Israel] at a water of contention (σε ἐπὶ ὕδατος ἀντιλογίας).” (3) The Israelites testing Levi/​Moses: Deut 33:8 LXX. (4) God testing Moses: Exod 15:25 LXX.

Although the last two possibilities are both represented by one passage only, they clearly show that the third party involved in the triangle of testing, Moses as ­leader of the people, was explicitly tested as well, either by the Israelites or by God.

3.  The Testing Motif in Judith The book of Judith is generally dated to the second half of the second century or the early first century BCE.64 Chapters 7–15 of the book form a coherent section that builds in several ways on Israel’s period in the wilderness described in Exodus and Numbers and also includes the testing motif.65 The timeframe of this section comprises forty days, which alludes to Israel’s period in the wilderness. 63  Dogniez and Harl, Deuteronome, 347. GELS 2.364 gives “temptation” as the first meaning of πεῖρα. 64  Discussion in D. L. Gera, Judith (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014), 26–44, who opts for a date of ca. 100 BCE. 65  J. W. van Henten, “Judith as Alternative Leader: a Reading of Judith 7–13,” in A Feminist Companion to Esther – Judith – Susanna, ed. A. Brenner (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 224–52. See also Gera, Judith, 244; Engel and Schmitz, Judit, 251. Cf. the references to the exodus, the wilderness period, and the capture of Canaan by the Moabite commander Achior in Jdt 5:10–16.



The Triangle of Testing in the Wilderness

129

The connection with that period is strengthened by a crisis analogous to the Marah and Massah and Meribah episodes. The point of departure of the story in Judith 7–15 is a water shortage in Judith’s hometown Bethulia, caused by Holophernes’s soldiers’ capture of its springs (7:6–7, 12, 17, 20–21), following the advice of the generals of the nations that surrounded Israel. The Bethulians complain so much that their leaders decide to surrender to Holophernes in case God does not deliver them in the next five days. This may remind informed readers of the wilderness episodes during which the Israelites put God to the test (e. g. Ex 17:1–7; Num 14:22–23). Judith responds to the lack of faith of the elders and explains that God was testing the people and its leaders through the water shortage (Jdt 8:12, 25–27; cf. Exod 15:22–26; 20:20). Her criticism of the elders is reminiscent of Moses’s exhortation in Deut 6:16: “Do not put the Lord your God to the test, as you tested him at Massah.”66 The chronological framework that starts with Holophernes’s capture of the springs and ends with Judith’s return to Bethulia with the head of Holophernes in her knapsack followed by the victory over the Assyrians (Jdt 13:1–15:7) covers exactly forty days.67 Forty is a symbolic number in various contexts in the Hebrew Bible, but the combination with the water shortage and the testing motif makes the association with the wilderness period of forty years rather obvious (cf. Exod 16:35; Ps 95:8–10).68 Several details further support a close interconnection between Jdt 7–13 and the wilderness period described in the Pentateuch. The suffering Jews of Bethulia lack faith and blame God for their distress, just as the Israelites do in the wil66  Cf. G. W. E. Nickelsburg, “Stories of Biblical and Early Post-Biblical Times,” Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, ed. M. Stone (Assen-Philadelphia: Van Gorcum, 1984), 33–87, who connects the testing motif in Judith with Deut 8:15–17, 25–27 and comments: “The citizens of Bethulia and Judith exemplify respectively those who fail and those who pass the test” (48). 67 Gera, Judith, 235. Cf. Jdt 8:4, which notes that Judith was a widow for three years and four months (= 40 months). 68  E. Zenger, Das Buch Judit, JSHRZ 1.6 (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus/​Gerd Mohn, 1981), 435; van Henten, “Judith,” 227–33; Engel and Schmitz, Judit, 373. The period of forty days starts with a chronological marker in 7:1 with “on the next day,” taken up again in verse 2: “So all their warriors marched off that day.” On the second day, Holophernes inspects the approaches to Bethulia and decides to cut the Jews off from their water supply (7:6–7). After a siege of thirty-four days (7:20), i. e. on day thirty-five, the inhabitants urge the elders to surrender Bethulia, but the elders decide to wait for five more days, to see if God will rescue the people. If not, they will surrender the town (7:30–31). The last five days are described in detail in chapters 8–15: after responding to the decision of the elders (ch. 8), Judith leaves Bethulia after a prayer in the evening (ch. 9), the beginning of the thirty-sixth day. She stays three days in Holophernes’s camp (12:7; days 36 to 38). The drinking-bout takes place on the fourth day in the camp (12:10), and Holophernes dies during the night following that day, during which Judith and her maid return victoriously to Bethulia (13:11–20). The Israelites defeat the Assyrians after Holophernes’s head is hung on the city wall (14:11), and his headless body was discovered (14:18) on day 40 (15:1–7).

130

Jan Willem van Henten

derness: “For now we have no one to help us; God has sold us into their hands; to be strewn before them in thirst and exhaustion” (7:25). A few lines further, they seem to blame their leaders for not surrendering to the Assyrians, which also echoes complaints of Israel in the wilderness, who regretted having left Egypt: “For it would be better for us to be captured by them. We shall indeed become slaves, but our lives will be spared, and we shall not witness our little ones dying before our eyes, and our wives and children drawing their last breath” (7:27).69 This thread of the narrative is resumed in Judith’s speech to the elders in 8:11–34. Judith challenges the response of the people and the elders to the shortage of water and interprets the situation as a test (8:12, 25–26).70 First, she says that the elders were wrong to put God to the test, because humans can neither claim God’s status nor know his decisions.71 She asks, “Who are you to put God to the test (οἳ ἐπειράσατε τὸν θεόν) today, and to set yourselves up in the place of God in human affairs? You are scrutinizing (ἐξετάζετε) the Lord Almighty, but you will never learn anything!” (8:12–13).72 Here, Judith seems to compare the attitude of her fellow-Jews to that of the Israelites at Massah and Meribah, who put God to the test in order to find out whether he would help them or not (Exod 17:1–7, discussed above).73 Further on in her speech to the elders, she returns to the testing motif by reversing the roles. She points to the possibility that, instead of the people testing God, God was testing the people in this situation without water. She supports this reading by pointing to the a­ nalogous situation of their ancestors. These are not the ancestors who fail the test, as Ps 95:9 highlights, but individual ancestors, who are mentioned by name and pass the test with flying colours. The testing motif in the wilderness setting is, therefore, expanded with the testing of individual ancestors: In spite of everything let us give thanks to the Lord our God, who is putting us [i. e., the Bethulians] to the test as he did our ancestors (ὃς πειράζει ἡμᾶς καθὰ τοὺς πατέρας ἡμῶν).74 Remember what he did with Abraham, and how he tested Isaac (ὅσα ἐπείρασεν τὸν Ισαακ), and what happened to Jacob in Syrian Mesopotamia, while he was tending the sheep of Laban, his mother’s brother. (8:25–26; my emphasis)

Judith is grateful for God putting her people to the test, because her familiarity with the history of God’s interactions with Israel gives her confidence about 69  Cf. the verb ὀλιγοψυχέω “be faint-hearted,” referring to the people in Jdt 7:19 and 8:9 (see also Num 21:4 LXX). 70  Cf. Exod 17:5 MT, where Moses performs the water miracle in front of some of the elders of the people. 71 Licht, Testing, 57–58; Gera, Judith, 277–78; Engel and Schmitz, Judit, 251–54. 72 Translation of ἐξετάζετε as “scrutinizing” follows Gera, Judit, 212; 277. Cf. NRSV: “putting to the test.” 73  Engel and Schmitt, Judit, 262, comment that the motif that humans put God to the test is rare in later passages and mostly used as warning or exhortation; they refer in this connection to Wis 1:2; Sir 18:23; As. Mos. 9:4. 74  Cf. As. Mos. 9:4.



The Triangle of Testing in the Wilderness

131

the outcome.75 All three ancestors mentioned were put to the test and remained faithful to God, as the episodes alluded to imply (Gen 22; 29–31). The testing of Abraham is a well-known motif, but the author of Judith explicitly states that Isaac was tested as well.76 Jacob’s stay with Laban while grazing his father-inlaw’s sheep is also interpreted as a period of testing, although there is no explicit reference to a test for Jacob in Gen 29–31 MT or LXX.77 The three ancestors passed the test and could, therefore, rejoice in the support of God. The message of the analogy is obvious: if the Bethulians would remain faithful to God as well and would not sin (Jdt 8:17–18; cf. Exod 20:20), he would certainly bring deliverance in time.78 Judith makes it fully clear that the policy of the leaders is wrong, but, since they are bound by their oath, she decides to go on a mission that will lead to the deliverance of the Bethulians within the five days mentioned by her leaders (7:30–31; 8:30, 33): “within the days after which you have promised to surrender the town to our enemies, the Lord will deliver Israel by my hand” (8:33). This implies that Judith takes responsibility for the fate of Bethulia on her own and participates as an alternative leader in God’s test of the people and its leaders. The implication of Judith’s audacious speech to the elders is indeed that she puts herself in the position of a substitute leader for the test of God, which makes sense in the context of the story: the elders had put God to the test with their lack of faith and were bound to their oath. If this analysis is right, the triangle of testing has become more complex in Judith. In line with the Hebrew Bible and Septuagint passages about testing in the wilderness context, we can observe both (1) God being tested by the people as well as by its leaders, and (2) God testing the people and its leaders. But the role of the leaders is split: the elders have vowed their oath, and Judith has to take over so that the test of the leaders will be successful. Of course, the author of Judith does not state explicitly that Judith was tested, but I would like to argue that the context suggests that she was tested as well. The clearest hints are allusions to Exod 17:7 in Jdt 13:11 and to the blessing of Levi in Deut 33:8–11 in Jdt 9:1, 9; 13:4, 7. The Massah and Meribah episode in Exod 17:1–7 ends with a short flashback, as mentioned above: “He [Moses] called the place Massah and Meribah, because the Israelites quarrelled and tested the Lord, saying: ‘Is the Lord among us or not?’” (17:7). The brief question at the end of verse 7 – ”Is the Lord among us or not?” (MT: ‫ ;היש יהוה בקרבנו אם־אין‬LXX: Εἰ ἔστιν κύριος ἐν ἡμῖν ἢ οὔ;) – can be 75 Gera, Judith, 285, comments that testing, chastisement, and correction are signs of God’s favor, as Deut 8:5; Ps 26:2; 94:12; and Wis 3:1–7 imply. 76  References to Abraham being tested by God include Gen 22:1; Sir 44:20; 1 Macc 2:52. The explicit reference to Isaac being tested seems unparalleled (Engel and Schmitz, Judit, 263– 64). 77  Engel and Schmitz, Judit, 264–65. 78 Gera, Judith, 285–86.

132

Jan Willem van Henten

connected with the situation in Jdt 7–8 and the theme of testing through water shortage. The question is answered in a negative way by the Bethulians in Judith 7:25: “For now we have no one to help us; God has sold us into their hands,” i. e., into the hands of the enemy. Strikingly, Judith herself alludes to this question in a more positive fashion after she has fulfilled her mission and is approaching Bethulia again: “From a distance Judith called to the sentries at the gates, “Open, open the gate! God, our God, is with us (μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν), still showing his power in Israel and his strength against our enemies, as he has done today!” (13:11; cf. 9:4, 14).79 Judith’s references to God’s power (ἰσχύς) and strength (κράτος) against Israel’s enemies in this call echo the pointers to God’s mighty deeds in support of Israel in several of the wilderness passages connected with the testing motif (e. g. Exod 15:26; 17:5–6; Num 14:22–23; Deut 8:15–16).80 Nonetheless, these claims also create a paradox, as Barbara Schmitz has shown: the deliverance is, as a matter of fact, not brought about by God, who remains completely passive in the story, but by Judith herself.81 Judith not only passes the test but also brings deliverance on behalf of God. The reference to God’s power and strength against Israel’s enemies connects with other passages in Judith about Judith’s own strength. Judith connects her mission with the blessing of Levi in Deut 33:8–11 (discussed above), which refers to the testing of Levi-Moses as leader. The beginning of her prayer in chapter 9 connects her mission with two ancestors, Simeon and Levi, and suggests analogies between their deeds and Judith’s plan. Simeon is explicitly mentioned in Jdt 9:2–3 in connection with the revenge of Dinah in Gen 34, which is executed by Simeon and Levi. Levi may be alluded to in the reference to the setting of Judith’s prayer at the time of the evening incense offering in the Jerusalem temple (τὸ θυμίαμα τῆς ἑσπέρας ἐκείνης, 9:1), which is the task of the Levites according to Levi’s blessing in Deut 33 (Deut 33:10 MT: ‫ישימו קטורה‬ ‫ ;באפך‬LXX: ἐπιθήσουσιν θυμίαμα ἐν ὀργῇ σου).82 We need to keep in mind that Judith descends from Levi (through Levi’s third son Merari; Gen 46:11), accord79  The allusion to Exod 17:7 is plausible because of the analogous context, but it should be noted that phrases like “God is with us” also occur elsewhere in the Bible (e. g. Gen 26:3; Exod 3:12; Judg 6:12). The closest parallel to Deut 13:11 is found in 2 Chr 32:8 LXX about the siege of Jerusalem by the Assyrian King Sanherib: μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν δὲ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν τοῦ σῴζειν καὶ τοῦ πολεμεῖν τὸν πόλεμον ἡμῶν. See Engel and Schmitz, Judit, 375. 80  “Strength” only belongs to God, according to Judith (9:8–9, 11, 14; 11:22). 81  B. Schmitz, “Gott als Figur in deuterokanonischer Literatur,” in Gott als Figur: Narratologische Analysen biblischer Texte und ihrer Adaptionen, ed. U. Eisen and I. Müllner (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2016), 217–37. Judith also explains that God has struck Holophernes down by her hand (13:14–15; cf. 8:33; 16:5), but the description of the deed and the proof she shows – Holophernes’s head and his canopy – imply that she did it. The praise of the high priest Joaqim and the elders confirms this: “You have done all this with your own hand; you have done great good to Israel, and God is well pleased with it. May the almighty Lord bless you forever!” (15:10). 82  For the differences between the MT and LXX, see section 2.



The Triangle of Testing in the Wilderness

133

ing to her genealogy in Jdt 8:1.83 Being a descendant of Levi opens the possibility for Judith to participate in the blessing of Levi. Judith alludes to the blessing of Levi when she prays to God in chapter 9 to enable what she is planning to do and to give her strength at the decisive moment. She repeats this prayer at the crucial moment when Holophernes lies dead-drunk on his bed after the drinking-bout (ch. 13). Key phrases in these prayers are “power” (ἰσχύς), “strength” (κράτος), and “works of [my] hands (τὰ ἔργα τῶν χειρῶν μου).84 Afterwards, we read several times that Judith was indeed blessed because of her achievement. In Jdt 9:9 she prays, “Give to me, a widow, the strong hand to do what I  plan” (δὸς ἐν χείρι μου τῆς χήρας ὃ διενοήθην κράτος). Alluding once again to Gen 34, she adds in 9:10, “By the deceit of my lips strike the slave with the prince and the prince with his servant; crush their arrogance by the hand of a woman (ἐν χείρι θηλείας).” She also emphasizes in 9:11 that God’s strength (τὸ κράτος σου) does not depend on numbers, nor his might on the powerful ones (οὐδὲ ἡ δυναστεία σου ἐν ἰσχύουσιν). In chapter 13, when Judith is ready to cut off Holophernes’s head, there is another brief prayer during which Judith prays for strength: “Give me strength (κραταίωσόν με) today, O Lord God of Israel” (13:7). Earlier on, she asks if God would look in this hour favorably on the work of her hands (ἐπίβλεψον ἐν τῇ ὥρᾳ ταύτῃ ἐπὶ τὰ ἔργα τῶν χειρῶν μου), in order to bring glory to Jerusalem (13:4). There is another reference to Judith’s strength in the verse that describes how she chops off the head of Holofernes: “Then she struck his neck twice with all her might (ἐν τῇ ἰσχύι αὐτῆς), and cut off his head” (13:8).85 The passages referred to seem to build on Moses’s blessing of Levi in Deut 33:8–11, which indicates a special position for the Levites within Israel because of the blessing of the Lord and includes several of the key phrases mentioned above. Deuteronomy 33:11 reads as follows: “Bless, O Lord, his substance, and accept the work of his hands (MT: ‫ ;ברך יהוה חילו ופעל ידיו תרצה‬LXX: εὐλόγησον, κύριε, τὴν ἰσχὺν αὐτοῦ/καὶ τὰ ἔργα τῶν χειρῶν αὐτοῦ δέξαι); crush the loins of his adversaries, of those that hate him, so that they do not rise again.” Reading Judith’s prayers to God through the lens of Deut 33:8–11, she calls upon God to be blessed like Levi. The outcome of her master plan implies that she was blessed indeed, since she succeeded in killing the commander of the enemy, which anticipated the victory of the Jews, as chapters 14–15 narrate. In response to Judith’s counsel after her return to Bethulia with Holofernes’s head, Uzziah addresses her as being blessed by God: “Then Uzziah said to her, ‘O daughter, you are blessed 83  Van Henten, “Judith,” 247–50; Gera, Judith, 255–58; H. Efthimiades-Keith, “Genealogy, Retribution and Identity: Re-Interpreting the Cause of Suffering in the Book of Judith,” Old Testament Essays 27 (2014): 860–78 (870–71). 84  Cf. Jdt 5:3, 23 about the (lack of ) power of the Israelites, as well as Judith’s statement about Holophernes’s power (11:7), which is ironic (cf. 9:8). 85  Cf. Moses, who strikes the rock twice with his staff, according to Num 20:11.

134

Jan Willem van Henten

(Εὐλογητὴ σύ) above all other women on earth; and blessed be the Lord God, who created the heavens and the earth, who has guided you to cut off the head of the leader of our enemies’” (13:18).86 The passages connected with the theme of testing in Jdt 8, when viewed within their wider context of the story in chapters 7–15, show that the testing motif has become more complex in this book. They refer to a situation where God is tested by the people but re-interpret that as a test of the people by God. In contrast to several passages in the Pentateuch and Psalms, the implication is that the people passed the test with its leaders, as the analogy with the three individual ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob suggests. Because the Israelites did not sin and remained faithful to God, they deserved to be delivered. The role of the leaders of Bethulia is contrasted with Judith’s performance as alternative leader. The allusions to Exod 17:7 and Deut 33:8–11 imply that she passed the test as leader like Levi- Moses in Deuteronomy and was blessed like Levi as God’s faithful one.

4.  The Testing Motif in Assumption of Moses 9 The testing motif in a wilderness context also occurs in the Assumption of Moses, sometimes called the Testament of Moses. This work is a revelation by Moses about Israel’s history from the moment of the people’s entry into the promised land until the end of days, presented in the framework of a dialogue between Moses and his successor Joshua. The Assumption of Moses interacts with the portion of the book of Deuteronomy describing the last period of Moses’s life (Deut 31–34).87 Many scholars argue that Moses’s revelation concerns mostly vaticinium ex eventu prophecies. The prophecies interpret Israel’s history along the lines of a pattern of sin, punishment, repentance, and salvation. This pattern seems to build on a similar pattern of four subsequent phases of history as indicated by Moses in his song in Deut 32.88 The Latin text of the only extant manuscript is incomplete, but there are serious reasons in support of presuming that the work originally contained a description of Moses’s ascent to heaven after his death.89 The group that produced the Assumption is unknown. A Pales86  See also Jdt 14:7; 15:9–10. 87  See e. g. B. Halpern-Amaru, Rewriting the Bible: Land and Covenant in Post-biblical Jew-

ish Literature (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1994), 55–68; N. J. Hofmann, Die Assumptio Mosis: Studien zur Rezeption massgültiger Überlieferung (Leiden: Brill, 2000). 88  Deuteronomy 32 sketches Israel’s history after its arrival at the promised land in four phases: (1) Israel’s disobedience (32:15–18), (2) its punishment by God (32:19–25), (3) a turning (32:26–34), and (4) the enemy’s retribution as well as God’s mercy for his own people (32:35– 43). Details about the reception of Deut 31–33 in the Assumption of Moses can be found in Hofmann, Assumptio Mosis, 81–189; also K. R. Atkinson, “Taxo’s Martyrdom and the Role of the Nuntius in the Testament of Moses: Implications for Understanding the Role of Other Intermediary Figures,” JBL 125 (2006): 453–76 (468–71). 89  J. Tromp, The Assumption of Moses. A Critical Edition with Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 1993), 115–16; 281–82.



The Triangle of Testing in the Wilderness

135

tinian provenance is probable, because Jerusalem is the only city mentioned in the entire work. Assumption of Moses 6 refers to a petulant king who will rule 34 years and to children who will rule a shorter period (6:6–8). Most scholars assume that this reference concerns Herod the Great and his sons, because Herod ruled from 37 to 4 BCE; they argue that the work was written between 4 BCE and 70 CE.90 The Assumption of Moses points to several phases of persecution of the Jewish people by indigenous as well as foreign rulers (As. Mos. 6:2–7; 6:8–9; 8:1–2, 5), which follow upon Moses’s announcement of times of judgment because of the people’s unfaithfulness to God (As. Mos. 5:1). The times of judgment culminate in a short description of the final days of Taxo and his seven sons, including a brief speech by Taxo (As. Mos. 9).91 The name Taxo is unique and probably symbolic.92 Taxo and his sons seem to represent a faithful remnant of Israel after its final punishment by the king of kings of the earth. They retreat to a cave outside the inhabited world and await their death, because they refuse to transgress God’s commandments (9:4). The words of Taxo refer to a situation of testing and imply that the death of him and his sons has definitive consequences for their own nation and its enemies: 1 Then, on that day [i. e., the period of punishment by the king of kings, as indicated in chapter 8],93 a man from the tribe of Levi, whose name will be Taxo and who will have seven sons, will speak to them and ask: 2 “You must notice, my sons, that another cruel and impure punishment has come upon the people. It is merciless and surpasses the first one. 3 What nation, region, or godless people that has committed evil actions against the Lord has suffered so many terrible things as those that have come over us?” 4 Now then, my sons, listen to me: “For you should see and know that neither our parents nor our ancestors have ever tempted God by transgressing His commandments (numquam temptantes

90  E. g. Tromp, Assumption, 199; E.‑M. Laperrousaz, Le Testament de Moïse (generalement appelé Assomption de Moïse): Traduction avec introduction et notes (Paris: Adrien-Maissonneuve, 1970), 97–98; Hofmann, Assumptio Mosis, 29 n. 114; K. R. Atkinson, “Herod the Great as Antiochus Redivivus: Reading the Testament of Moses as an Anti-Herodian Composition,” in Of Scribes and Sages: Early Jewish Interpretation and Transmission of Scripture, ed. C. A. Evans, 2 vols. (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 1:134–49; B. Mahieu, Between Rome and Jerusalem: Herod the Great and His Sons in Their Struggle for Recognition: A Chronological Investigation of the Period 40 BC–39 AD, with a Time Setting of New Testament Events, OLA 208 (Louvain: Peeters, 2012), 350. See already H. Ewald, “Review of A. M. Ceriani, Monumenta sacra et profana I/I,” Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen 124 (1862), 1–9. Differently: W. Loader, “Herod or Alexander Janneus? A New Approach to the Testament of Moses,” JSJ 46 (2015): 28–43, who argues for an earlier date in the years following Pompey’s invasion in Judea (63 BCE); J. W. van Henten, “Moses about Herod, Herod about Moses? Assumptio Mosis and Josephus’ Antiquities 15.316” (forthcoming). 91  See M. Whitters, “Taxo and his Seven Sons in the Cave (Assumption of Moses 9–10),” CBQ 72 (2010): 718–31. 92  None of the many explanations of this name is satisfactory. Tromp, Assumption, 124–28, gives a survey. See also E. Israeli, “‘Taxo’ and the Origin of the ‘A ssumption of Moses,’” JBL 128 (2009): 735–57. 93  Following Tromp, Assumption, 16. The MS reads “while this one speaks.”

136

Jan Willem van Henten

Deum nec parentes nec proavi eorum). 5 Beware that our strength lies here (quia haec sunt vires nobis). And this is what we shall do. 6 We will fast for three days, and on the fourth day we will enter a cave in the field. And we will die rather than transgress the commandments of the Lord of lords, the God of our ancestors. 7 For, if we will do this and die, our blood will be revenged before the Lord.” (As. Mos. 9:1–7; my translation with added emphasis on relevant phrases)

Taxo addresses his sons by pointing to the cruel punishment of the Jewish people by the king of kings of the earth (9:2). Only his mysterious name and his Levitical descent are mentioned by way of introduction (9:1). Taxo’s Levitical descent must be important, because the continuation of the chapter builds on it when Taxo appeals to God (9:5). Taxo and his seven sons might represent the entire people, as the anonymous mother and her seven sons do in 2 and 4 Maccabees, but the author seems to create a contrast between the people, which had been unfaithful according to the wider context, and Taxo’s group, which had always been faithful to God’s commandments. The punishment is brought upon the people by a gentile king. The gentiles are sinners who deserve to be punished (9:3).94 This is confirmed by the scenario of the end in chapter 10 (10:2, 7, 10). Taxo’s statement that the Jewish people had suffered more than any other nation, in spite of the fact that other nations have committed evil against God (9:3), forms the introduction to his appeal to God.95 He contrasts the Jewish people with other nations and next emphasizes that the parents and ancestors of him and his sons had never tested or tempted God by transgressing the divine commandments (mandata Domini, 9:4). This statement may allude to Israel’s period in the wilderness, which connects testing with faithfulness to God’s instructions or commandments (e. g. Exod 15:25; 16:4; Deut 6:16–17; 8:2). It is striking that Taxo does not specify which parents or ancestors did not put God to the test, contrary to Judith’s specific statement in Jdt 8:25–26. It is plausible, however, that Taxo refers here to all the Levites, since his descent from the tribe of Levi is emphasized in 9:1. This assumption is supported by the continuation of Taxo’s words, which indicates that the fact that their ancestors have not put God to the test forms their “strength” (9:5). As has been noted already several times, the testing and strength motifs together figure prominently in Moses’s blessing of Levi in Deut 33:8–11. This implies that the ancestors referred to by Taxo are, in fact, Levi-Moses, God’s “loyal one,” who was tested at Massah (Deut 33:8), and his descendants. In the light of this testing passage, Taxo’s reasoning becomes obvious. He first observes that his parents and ancestors, i. e., Moses-Levi and the Levites, have not tested God and have faithfully fulfilled God’s commandments (9:4). This is where the strength of him and his sons lies (9:5). This calls for the effectuation of a section 94  Cf. Jub. 23:23; Pss. Sol. 2; 17:5–9. 95  Cf. Ezra’s complaint in 4 Ezra 3:28–36.



The Triangle of Testing in the Wilderness

137

of the blessing of Levi: “Bless, O Lord, his strength,96 and accept the work of his hands,” as Judith seems to do in Jdt 13. Taxo invokes God to act as the blessing of Levi implies and to support him and his sons by crushing their adversaries, as the continuation of the blessing indicates: “crush the loins of his adversaries, of those that hate him, so that they do not rise again” (Deut 33:11). He further creates an analogy between his ancestors and himself and his sons in the setting of the cave in the field, by highlighting that they – in the context of persecution as highlighted in chapter 8 – would rather die than transgress the commandments of God, in line with their ancestors’ behaviour; note the repetition of 9:4 (ut praetereant mandata Domini) and 9:6 (potius quam praetereamus mandata Domini). This call upon God is combined with Taxo’s announcement of a ritual of fasting and retreat, which by implication would end with the death of him and his sons (9:6–7). The fasting for three days is a traditional motif that strengthens Taxo’s call upon God.97 His final statement invokes once again God’s support for his ancestor Levi in Deut 33:11 and also alludes to God’s vindication of his children as indicated in Deut 32:43: “for he [God] will avenge the blood of his children, and take vengeance on his adversaries.”98 The description of the end of time in As. Mos. 10:1–10 implies that the death of Taxo and his sons causes God to intervene and bring about the salvation of Israel and eternal punishment for its enemies.99 The strong coherence of As. Mos. 9:1–7 and 10:1–10 indicates that the retreat of Taxo and his sons leading to their death is effective. God manifests himself (10:1–2) and rises from his residence first to punish the nations and destroy their idols (10:3–7) and subsequently to bring salvation to Israel and exalt it to heaven (10:8–10).

5. Conclusion My survey of the motif of testing in the wilderness passages of the Pentateuch and some of their re-interpretations can be summarized with the help of a triangle that connects three parties at its corners and implies interactions along all sides of the triangle. In the Hebrew Bible passages, there are three parties involved in the testing: God, the people of Israel, and the people’s leader who is also God’s representative, Moses. God can test the people, and the people can 96  NRSV: “his substance.” 97  For other references to a period of fasting of three days, see Esth 4:16; Tob 3:10 (Vulgate);

2 Macc 13:12; T. Jos. 3:5. Cf. Jdt 12:7–9: Judith remains three days in Holophernes’s camp before she kills the commander. 98  This allusion follows the version of the biblical text given by the Septuagint and 4Q45. 2 Kings 9:7; Ps 79:10 and Rev 6:10; 19:2 also refer to the vindication of the blood of God’s servants. Cf. Gen 4:10. 99  Z. I. Farber, “Assumptio Mosis and the Eschatology of Despair,” Relegere: Studies in Religion and Reception 3 (2013): 121–47 (137). Atkinson, “Taxo’s Martyrdom,” 470–72, argues that Taxo as a Levitical priest causes an intervention by a heavenly priestly counterpart.

138

Jan Willem van Henten

test God. The blessing of Levi is exceptional, because it implies that God tested Levi (Deut 33:8–11) or Moses as Levite in light of the other Massah and Meribah passages. The issue that is tested varies and is sometimes implicit, but faithfulness to God and the divine instruction, or trust in God, is a recurring motif. The Septuagint expands the roles of who tests whom: the Israelites can test Moses (Deut 33:8 LXX), and God can also test Moses (Exod 15:25 LXX). The testing motif becomes even more complex in Judith: Judith’s statements in Jdt 8:12, 25– 26 refer to a situation of testing of God by the people, but re-interpret that as a test of the people by God. She also refers to tests for individual ancestors (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) and creates an analogy between these ancestors and the leaders of the people. Allusions to Exod 17:7 and Deut 33:8–11 suggest that Judith was tested as alternative leader and blessed like Levi in Deut 33:8–11, which partly explains the defeat of the Assyrians. The words and deeds of Taxo and his sons in As. Mos. 9–10 also allude to the blessing of Levi, which is invoked by the repeated statement that their ancestors, the Levites (see 9:1), had never tempted God by transgressing his commandments.

Bibliography Atkinson, K. R. “Herod the Great as Antiochus Redivivus: Reading the Testament of Moses as an Anti-Herodian Composition.” Pages 134–49 in Of Scribes and Sages: Early Jewish Interpretation and Transmission of Scripture. Edited by C. A. Evans. 2 vols. London: T&T Clark, 2004. –. “Taxo’s Martyrdom and the Role of the Nuntius in the Testament of Moses: Implications for Understanding the Role of Other Intermediary Figures.” JBL 125 (2006): 453–76. Auerbach, E. Moses. Amsterdam: Ruys, 1953. Beyerle, S. Der Mosesegen in Deuteronomium. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997. –. “Evidence of a Polymorphic Text Towards the Text-History of Deuteronomy 33.” DSD 5 (1998): 215–32. Blum, E. Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch. BZAW 189. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990. Brongers, H. A. “Die Zehnzahl in der Bibel und ihrer Umwelt.” Pages 30–45 in Studia Biblica et Semitica Theodoro Christiano Vriezen. Edited by W. C. van Unnik and A. S. van der Woude. Wageningen: Veenman, 1966. Budd, P. J. Numbers. Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1984. Coats, G. W. Exodus 1–18. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Dillmann, A. Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1897. –. Die Bücher Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1888. Dogniez, C., and M. Harl. La Bible d’Alexandrie: Le Deuteronome. Paris: Cerf, 1992. Duncan, J. “New Readings for the ‘Blessing of Moses’ from Qumran.” JBL 114 (1995): 273–90. Efthimiades-Keith, H. “Genealogy, Retribution and Identity: Re-Interpreting the Cause of Suffering in the Book of Judith.” Old Testament Essays 27 (2014): 860–78. Engel, H., and B. Schmitz. Judit. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2014. Ewald, H. “Review of A. M. Ceriani, Monumenta sacra et profana I/I.” Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen 124 (1862): 1–9. Farber, Z. I. “Assumptio Mosis and the Eschatology of Despair.” Relegere: Studies in Religion and Reception 3 (2013): 121–47.



The Triangle of Testing in the Wilderness

139

Fuller, R. “The Blessing of Levi in Deut 33, Mal 2 and Qumran.” Pages 31–44 in Konsequente Traditionsgeschichte: Festschrift für Klaus Baltzer zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by R. Bartelmus, T. Krüger and H. Utzschneider. Freiburg: Universitätsverslag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993. Gera, D. L. Judith. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014. Gerleman, G. “‫ נסה‬nsh pi. versuchen.” THAT 2:69–71. German, B. T. “Moses at Marah.” VT 63 (2013): 47–58. Greenberg, M. “‫ נסה‬in Exodus 20:20 and the Purpose of the Sinaitic Theophany.” JBL 79 (1960): 273–76. Gurtner, D. M. Exodus: A  Commentary on the Greek Text of Codex Vaticanus. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Halpern-Amaru, B. Rewriting the Bible: Land and Covenant in Post-biblical Jewish Literature. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1994. Helfmeyer, F. J. “‫נסה‬.” ThWAT 5:477–87. Hemelsoet, B. “De verzoeking van Jesus in de woestijn.” ACEBT 9 (1988): 97–116. Hofmann, N. J. Die Assumptio Mosis: Studien zur Rezeption massgültiger Überlieferung. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Houtman, C. Exodus. 4 vols. HCOT. Kampen: Kok, 1993–2002. Israeli, E. “‘Taxo’ and the Origin of the ‘A ssumption of Moses’.” JBL 128 (2009): 735–57. Jacob, B. Das Buch Exodus. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1997. Katzin, D. “‘The Time of Testing’: The Use of Hebrew Scriptures in 4Q171’s Pesher of Psalm 37.” Hebrew Studies 45 (2004): 121–62. –. “The Use of Scripture in 4Q175.” DSD 20 (2013): 200–36. Kautzsch, E. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982. Koehler, L., and W. Baumgartner. Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti libros. 2nd ed. Leiden, 1958. Laperrousaz, E.‑M. Le Testament de Moïse (generalement appelé Assomption de Moïse): Traduction avec introduction et notes. Paris: Adrien-Maissonneuve, 1970. Le Boulluec, A., and P. Sandevoir. La Bible d’Alexandrie: L’Exode. Paris: Cerf, 1989. Lehming, S. “Massa und Meriba.” ZAW 73 (1961): 71–77. Levine, B. Numbers 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 4. New York: Doubleday, 1993. Licht, J. Testing in the Hebrew Scriptures and in Post-Biblical Judaism. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1973 [Hebrew]. Loader, W. “Herod or Alexander Janneus? A New Approach to the Testament of Moses.” JSJ 46 (2015): 28–43. Lohfink, N. Theology of the Pentateuch. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994. MacDonald, N. “Anticipations of Horeb: Exodus 17 as Inner-Biblical commentary.” Pages 7–19 in Studies on the Text and Versions of the Hebrew Bible in Honour of Robert Gordon. Edited by G. Khan and D. Lipton. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Mahieu, B. Between Rome and Jerusalem: Herod the Great and His Sons in Their Struggle for Recognition: A Chronological Investigation of the Period 40 BC–39 AD, with a Time Setting of New Testament Events. OLA 208. Louvain: Peeters, 2012. McEvenue, S. The Narrative Style of the Priestly Writer. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1971. Muraoka, T. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Leuven: Peeters, 2009. Nickelsburg, G. W. E. “Stories of Biblical and Early Post-Biblical Times.” Pages 33–87 in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus. Edited by M. Stone. Assen-Philadelphia: Van Gorcum, 1984. Noth, M. Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuchs. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1960. Oikonomos, E. B. Peirasmoi en te Palaia Diatheke: Oroi, Keimena kai morphologike ereuna. Athens: Bibliotheke tes en Athenais Philekpaideutikes Etaireias, 1965.

140

Jan Willem van Henten

Pietersma, A., and B. G. Wright, eds. A New English Translation of the Septuagint. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Plaut, W. G. The Torah: A Modern Commentary. New York: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1981. Propp, W. Exodus 1–18: A  New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New York: Doubleday, 1999. –. Water in the Wilderness: A Biblical Motif and its Mythological Background. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. Ruppert, L. “Das Motiv der Versuchung in vordeuteronomischer Tradition.” VT 22 (1972): 55– 63. Schmitz, B. “Gott als Figur in deuterokanonischer Literatur.” Pages 217–37 in Gott als Figur: Narratologische Analysen biblischer Texte und ihrer Adaptionen. Edited by U. Eisen and I. Müllner. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2016. Seebass, H. Numeri. 2 vols. BKAT 4. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1995. Seesemann, H. “πεῖρα.” TDNT 6:23–36. Tromp, J. The Assumption of Moses: A Critical Edition with Commentary. Leiden: Brill, 1993. Ulrich, E. C., et al. Qumran Cave 4.IX: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings. DJD 14. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995. van Henten, J. W. “Judith as Alternative Leader: a Reading of Judith 7–13.” Pages 224–52 in A Feminist Companion to Esther – Judith – Susanna. Edited by A. Brenner. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. –. “Moses about Herod, Herod about Moses? Assumptio Mosis and Josephus’ Antiquities 15.316,” forthcoming. Weinfeld, M. Deuteronomy 1–11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 5. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991. Wevers, J. W. Notes on the Greek Text of Deuteronomy. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. –. Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990. Whitters, M. “Taxo and his Seven Sons in the Cave (Assumption of Moses 9–10).” CBQ 72 (2010): 718–31. Winnett, F. V. The Mosaic Tradition. Toronto: University of Toronto, 1949. Zenger, E. Das Buch Judit. JSHRZ 1.6. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus; Gerd Mohn, 1981.

Testing the Child of God at the Beginning and until the End ΠΕΙΡΑΣΜΟΣ and Theological Anthropology in Ancient Jewish and Christian Texts

Daniel L. Smith

Addressing a divided assembly in Corinth, Paul entreats his audience “not to be desirers of evil things” (1 Cor 10:6) and urges them to “flee from idolatry” (10:14).1 In between these and other exhortations, the apostle adds a general note about the Corinthian experience of πειρασμός: No testing (πειρασμός) has come upon you except for a human one (εἰ μὴ ἀνθρώπινος), yet God is faithful. He will not allow you to be tested (πειρασθῆναι) beyond what you are able to bear, but along with the testing (πειρασμός) he will create the way out, so that you are able to endure. (10:13)

According to Paul, the Corinthian πειρασμός is strictly ἀνθρώπινος. This terse statement can be read in several different ways, owing to the multivalence of the former term and the interpretive possibilities associated with the latter. A πειρασμός could be an eschatic “trial” (Rev 3:10), a “temptation” to do evil (e. g., 1 Tim 6:9; cf. Jas 1:12–13), or any “testing” process (e. g., Luke 4:13; 1 Pet 4:12).2 And ἀνθρώπινος, while generally rendered as “human,” can take on a number of different connotations. Thus, David E. Garland understands Paul’s use of ἀνθρώπινος to be emphasizing the “unexceptional” nature of his audience’s “trials” – ”The Corinthians do not face unique, unbearable circumstances.”3 Similarly, Hans Conzelmann interprets ἀνθρώπινος to mean that their “temptation” was “still relatively bearable.”4 On this reading, Paul’s characterization of a “temptation” or set of “trials” as “human” refers to the level of difficulty; a given πειρασμός rates as ἀνθρώπινος if it can be borne by human beings.5 1  All translations are my own, unless otherwise noted. 2  J. A. Fitzmyer, “And Lead Us Not into Temptation,” Bib 84 (2003): 259–73, esp. 260. 3  D. E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 468. 4  H. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, trans. J. W. Leitch, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress,

1975), 169. 5 “Das Attribut ἀνθρώπινος bezeichnet Ausmaß und Intensität der Versuchung, nicht deren Ursprung.” W. Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther: 1Kor 6,12–11,16, vol. 2, EKKNT (Düsseldorf: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1995), 409–10.

142

Daniel L. Smith

Alternately, Anthony C. Thiselton and others take the passage as a reflection on the temptation or testing endemic to the “human” condition; in Thiselton’s words, this “temptation” simply forms “part and parcel of being human.”6 Thus, Paul is speaking not of the level of difficulty of the Corinthian πειρασμός, but of the inescapable role of πειρασμός in human experience. Thiselton’s rendition of 1 Cor 10:13 finds support in the larger literary context, which connects the Corinthians to their “ancestors” (πατέρες) from the Israelite wilderness period (10:1). Like the Corinthians, these ancient forebears were tested, and the shared nature of the testing experienced by God’s people both ancient and contemporary serves to justify Paul’s characterization of πειρασμός as ἀνθρώπινος, or common to human experience. I would like to develop Thiselton’s point further by inquiring into Paul’s understanding of the human experience, an understanding that would have taken shape within the matrix of Second Temple Jewish reflection on testing. I am convinced that Paul views the Corinthian πειρασμός as providing yet one more example of the testing that the people of God experience – not simply as “part and parcel of being human,” but rather more specifically as “part and parcel of being children of God.” Susan Grove Eastman has noted that “Paul’s understanding of persons cannot be separated from his convictions about God, Christ, and the Spirit.”7 In other words, Paul’s understanding of “being human” comprises the human-divine relationship. Accordingly, the characterization of πειρασμός as ἀνθρώπινος transitions immediately into a reminder of the faithfulness of God: πιστὸς δὲ ὁ θεός (1 Cor 10:13). Paul’s juxtaposition of human testing and divine faithfulness connects the specific Corinthian experience of πειρασμός to a broader tradition of early Jewish reflection on testing. In this essay, I place Paul’s views on testing within this larger context, focusing primarily on texts that recollect the Israelite wilderness generation. In the first section, I begin with texts such as Exodus and Deuteronomy that narrate the wilderness testing, before moving on to more general references to testing in the life of the faithful people of God. These texts would have influenced Paul directly; moreover, they certainly shaped the Second Temple Jewish world in which he lived, moved, and breathed. The next two sections take up texts that emerged from that same world, though likely after the time of Paul; here, I treat the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, which also took shape in 6  A. C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A  Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) 747–48; see also P. Perkins, First Corinthians, Paideia (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic: 2012), 125. This reading might also find support in Job 7:1 LXX: πότερον οὐχὶ πειρατήριόν ἐστιν ὁ βίος ἀνθρώπου ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς καὶ ὥσπερ μισθίου αὐθημερινοῦ ἡ ζωὴ αὐτοῦ; Origen cites this text in Or. 29.9, as noted in Fitzmyer, “And Lead Us Not,” 267. 7  S. G. Eastman, Paul and the Person: Reframing Paul’s Anthropology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017), 10.



Testing the Child of God at the Beginning and until the End 

143

the second half of the first century CE. I describe my approach to this tradition of reflection on testing as an attempt to explore the theological anthropology shared by Jews and Christians – fully cognizant that the italicized adjective might sound redundant to a Second Temple Jew like Paul. Reading Paul’s letters and other texts within this tradition diverges from the path taken by much later Christian thought, where πειρασμός often seems understood under the rubric of general human psychology. Christian reflection on πειρασμός tends to deal with “temptation” rather than “testing” or “trials.” The historical development of the English language may be partly to blame for confusion between the various terms; the words “test,” “temptation,” and “trial” once functioned more or less as synonyms.8 Nowadays, “temptation” generally carries the connotation of “temptation to evil.” “Testing” remains more neutral, or at least more versatile, whereas “trial” often takes on a forensic sense. A twenty-first-century English-speaking scholar experiences no surprise or confusion when encountering reference works that offer two separate entries for the “Temptation of Jesus” and the “Trial of Jesus” – with only the former addressing the πειρασμός of Jesus.9 In contemporary North America, “temptation” seems to be considered a psychological phenomenon, often involving predominantly sexual desire. Western artists from Bosch to Dalí render this later understanding of temptation in their depictions of the fabled “temptations” of St. Anthony, where seductive female forms figure prominently in a sort of dreamscape of mental probation.10 As I hope to make clear in the discussion below, numerous early Jewish and Christian texts privilege an understanding of πειρασμός as a test of loyalty or faithfulness. This trial or test may involve enticement to give in to lustful desires, but the primary issue at stake is the tested one’s loyalty to their God.

1.  Testing the Child of God at the Beginning As 1 Cor 10:13 might lead one to expect, testing plays a recurring role in Jewish texts about the relationship between God and the people of God. Ilana Pardes adopts a biological metaphor to describe the development of the people of God, claiming that Israel “was conceived in the days of Abraham; its miraculous birth took place with the Exodus, the parting of the Red Sea; then came a long period of childhood and restless adolescence in the wilderness; and finally adulthood 8  Compare the entries for “temptation, n.” (esp. 1.b.α) and “trial, n. 1” (esp. 2) in the Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989). 9  See, e. g., vol. 5 of The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (Nashville: Abingdon, 2009); Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. J. B. Green, J. K. Brown, and N. Perrin, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013). 10  See Hieronymus Bosch, Triptych of the Temptation of St. Anthony (ca. 1500), and esp. Salvador Dalí, The Temptation of St. Anthony (1946).

144

Daniel L. Smith

was approached with the conquest of Canaan.”11 Her metaphor finds firm footing within the pentateuchal narratives, especially in Deuteronomy. For instance, Deut 8:5 notes that “as a man disciplines his son, so the Lord your God disciplines you,” setting the interactions between God and Israel within the framework of a parent-child relationship.12 Interestingly, this same passage earlier elaborates on the relationship between the people and their God: “Remember all the way that the Lord your God has led you these forty years in the wilderness, to humble you, to test you (‫ )לנסתך‬to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep his commandments or not” (Deut 8:2). Deuteronomy 8 portrays a divine parent guiding, providing for, and testing the nascent people of God, while requiring rigorous compliance with the covenantal requirements, or commandments.13 The Song of Moses later highlights the faithfulness of that divine parent who “created” Israel (Deut 32:4, 6), in contrast to the infidelity of the “perverse and twisted generation” that failed the test and fell in the wilderness (Deut 32:5). Testing functions to gauge Israel’s faithfulness, or allegiance, to God. As Deut 13:3 puts it, “the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you really love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.” According to Deuteronomy, testing functions to reveal the commitment of the tested one. (Given this revelatory function, testing could rightly be considered apocalyptic.14) Thus far, we have seen ample evidence that the ancient Israelite wilderness generation was remembered as a people who were tested by their divine parent. Neither the parent-child language nor the association between Israel in the wilderness and testing is confined to Deuteronomy. Exodus 4:22, for example, identifies Israel as the “firstborn child” of God. In the Wisdom of Solomon, God’s testing of Israel in the wilderness is contrasted with the divine treatment of Israel’s enemies: “For you tested [Israel], warning them as a parent (τούτους μὲν γὰρ ὡς πατὴρ νουθετῶν ἐδοκίμασας), but you held the others up to scrutiny, condemning them as a severe king” (Wis 11:10).15 Like Deuteronomy, this passage refers to the divine testing of Israel in the wilderness, describing the relationship between Israel and their God in terms of a child and parent.16 11  I. Pardes, The Biography of Ancient Israel: National Narratives in the Bible (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000), 2. 12  In the context of commenting on Deut 32:6, J. R. Lundbom notes that “Yahweh as ‘father’ and Israel as ‘son’ are not dominant metaphors in the OT, but they do occur (Exod 4:22; Deut 1:31; 8:5; Hos 11:1–4; Jer 3:4, 19; 31:9; Isa 63:16; 64:7[8]; Mal 2:10).” Deuteronomy: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 875. 13  See also Deut 8:16. 14  On this use of “apocalyptic” in a non-eschatological sense, see the discussion in L. T. Stuckenbruck, “Some Reflections on Apocalyptic Thought and Time in Literature from the Second Temple Period,” in Paul and the Apocalyptic Imagination, ed. B. C. Blackwell, J. K. Goodrich, and J. Maston (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016), 137–55. I would like to contribute to the process of breaking down further the “simple equation of ‘apocalyptic’ with ‘eschatology’” (137). 15  I am grateful to Madison Pierce for drawing the Wisdom reference to my attention. 16  Philo further associates divine discipline with the development of a parent-child rela-



Testing the Child of God at the Beginning and until the End 

145

This testing could be marked off as a temporary phase in the growth of the people of God; Pardes’s metaphor implies that the wilderness testing was something that Israel experienced for a season and then outgrew. However, other evidence suggests that the wilderness testing may have been interpreted as a precedent, indicating that later children of God will also face testing.17 Such a deduction is supported by other Jewish texts that present πειρασμός as an expected part of human experience – again, not simply generic human experience, but the human experience common to the people of God. Like Paul in 1 Cor 10:13, Ben Sira characterizes testing as inevitable for the human being who seeks to express loyalty to God: “My child, if you come to serve the Lord, prepare yourself for testing (εἰς πειρασμόν)” (Sir 2:1). The sage does not here imply that the servants of the Lord will find themselves beset by temptations to do evil or to be seduced by desire. Rather, the passage goes on to frame πειρασμός with a metallurgical metaphor common to many Second Temple texts: “Accept whatever happens to you, and be patient during the vicissitudes of your humiliation, for gold is tested (δοκιμάζεται) by fire, and the acceptable ones (ἄνθρωποι δεκτοί), by the furnace of humiliation” (Sir. 2:4–5). According to Ben Sira, the Lord demonstrates a preference for servants who have been tested.18 Whether the testing aims to reveal pre-existing purity or to purify is not immediately obvious, but the use of the verb δοκιμάζω (“test, approve”) in this context supports the former interpretation.19 Not only did God test Israel in the wilderness, but subsequent generations of the people of God can also expect their loyalty to be put to the proof. Lest I appear to be too quick to identify an exemplary role for Israel in the wilderness, I would note that Deuteronomy clearly works to set Israel in such a paradigmatic position.20 Also, other features of Israel’s wilderness period prove to bear an ongoing significance in the life of God’s people, as narrated in the Jewish scriptures; the reception of Torah at Mt. Sinai would certainly rank among the most significant. Thus, if Deuteronomy presents the Israel as the child of God who undergoes testing, and if Ben Sira and Paul agree that testing constitutes an expected feature of life as a child of God, then we should not be surprised if other Second Temple Jewish authors highlight the role of testing in the life of a child of God, especially in a case where that child of God is being presented as someone of enduring and exemplary significance. tionship in Congr. 177. I am grateful to Michael Francis for this reference; see his essay in this volume for further treatment of Congr. 177–179. 17  For further discussion of testing during Israel’s wilderness period, see Jan Willem van Henten’s essay in this volume. 18  For more thorough discussion of testing in Ben Sira, see the essays by Tzvi Novick and Benjamin G. Wright III in this volume. 19  A passage like Exod 20:20 lends credence to the latter interpretation. 20  For a close reading of Deuteronomy and reference to relevant targumim, see D. L. Smith, “Feet in the Wilderness, Eyes on the Promised Land: The Deuteronomic Posture as Response to a Faithful God,” JTI 12 (2018): 287–306, esp. 288–96.

146

Daniel L. Smith

2.  Testing the Child of God at the Beginning, Again: Mark’s Version Mark’s spare style can give his Gospel something of the character of a Rorschach test.21 One of the evangelist’s most generative inkblots continues to yield wideranging and often contradictory interpretations: “And immediately the spirit drove him out into the wilderness. And he was in the wilderness for forty days, being tested (πειραζόμενος) by Satan, and he was with the wild beasts (μετὰ τῶν θηρίων), and the angels were ministering to him” (Mark 1:12–13). Does Jesus fulfill the role of Davidic Messiah by inaugurating peace with wild animals (cf. Isa 11:1–5), as Richard Bauckham argues?22 Is Jesus here tested by Satan as a new Adam, as Joel Marcus and others propose?23 Or, as the wilderness testing for a period of “forty” suggests, does Mark’s temptation narrative look back primarily to the Israelite experience of testing in the wilderness?24 John Paul Heil has argued for this lattermost option, claiming that Jesus’s “being with wild animals is part of his being tested by Satan and thus being trained in the wilderness as God’s Son, just as Israel as God’s Son was tested and trained in the wilderness during the exodus event.”25 Heil labels Jesus as “the antitypical embodiment of Israel, the Son and Servant of God.”26 Jan Willem van Henten, who also supports a link between Mark 1:12–13 and the Israelite wilderness experience, rightly objects to characterizing the connection as “typological,” on two grounds. First, he fails to detect any further development of a Jesus – Israel typology in the rest of Mark’s Gospel. Second, he sees such an “antitypology” as unlikely, given that Mark “does not elaborate an antithesis between Jesus and the Jewish people in its entirety.”27 Through close examination of various pentateuchal passages describing the Israelite wilderness testing, van Henten posits that this testing involved not two, but three parties: God, the people of God, and the leader of the people. With recourse to Judith 7–13, he 21  For a serious and worthwhile consideration of the Gospel according to Mark as a set of notes (or ὑπομνήματα) rather than a polished book, see M. D. C. Larsen, Gospels before the Book (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018), esp. chs. 5–7. 22  R. Bauckham, “Jesus and the Wild Animals (Mark 1:13): A Christological Image for an Ecological Age,” in Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ: Essays on the Historical Jesus and New Testament Christology, ed. J. B. Green and M. Turner (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 3–21. 23  J. Marcus, Mark 1–8, AB 27 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), 169, claims that “the primary biblical model for our passage’s portrait of Jesus is not Elijah but Adam.” Cf. R. A. Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, WBC 34A (Dallas: Word, 1989), 39. 24  I will refer to Mark 1:12–13 as a “temptation narrative,” pace Bauckham, “Jesus and the Wild Animals,” 7, who warns that this testing “is for Mark only the first of three encounters, all important.” 25  J. P. Heil, “Jesus with the Wild Animals in Mark 1:13,” CBQ 68 (2006): 63–78, here 77. 26  Heil, “Jesus,” 67. 27  J. W. van Henten, “The First Testing of Jesus: A  Rereading of Mark 1.12–13,” NTS 45 (1999): 349–66, here 358.



Testing the Child of God at the Beginning and until the End 

147

goes on to situate the New Testament accounts of Jesus’s testing within a larger tradition of Jewish accounts of the testing of the leader of the people.28 Like van Henten, I refrain from adopting the language of typology or antitypology. And while I agree that the pentateuchal narratives distinguish between occasions when God is tested by Israel, when Moses is tested by the people, and when Israel is tested by God, I do not interpret Mark’s narrative as establishing Jesus as the leader of the people; in fact, the Markan prologue shows Jesus following in the footsteps of the people. In 1:5, for instance, “all” the people go to John and are baptized in the Jordan. Then, in verse 9 Jesus goes to John and is baptized in the Jordan.29 The parallel structure of these two verses invites the reader to consider Jesus and “all the people of Judea and Jerusalem” alongside each other. Instead of deducing that Jesus is leader of the people, I would propose that Jesus is depicted either as a representative of the people, or even as someone who recapitulates the people. (In this way, my reading is closer to Heil than van Henten, though I  reject the less helpful terminology of the former.) After Jesus’s baptism, a voice from heaven addresses Jesus as “my son” (v. 11), in language reminiscent of the label “child of God” that was applied to the people Israel in certain pentateuchal narratives discussed above. In short, the Gospel according to Mark presents Jesus as a “child of God” who, like God’s “firstborn” child Israel, undergoes an initial round of testing in the wilderness. Mark does not comment on the nature of this testing, apart from noting the presence of Satan as the agent of testing – an element absent from the pentateuchal narratives, but hardly foreign to Second Temple Jewish literature.30 However, the declaration of Jesus as the “beloved” son in 1:11, who is tested in the wilderness in v. 13, calls to mind the testing of Israel by God, to discern whether they really loved the Lord their God with all their heart and with all their soul. This testing occurs immediately following the heavenly declaration of Jesus as child of God, at the start of Jesus’s public ministry. Nevertheless, Mark makes clear that the beginning of Jesus’s ministry also constitutes an end. Tested and approved, Jesus’s first public post-baptismal appearance involves the eschatic announcement, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news!” (1:15). Jesus thus starts to proclaim the good news that the kingdom of God has finally come near. 28  Van Henten, “First Testing,” 359–61. 29  On the parallel construction of verses 5 and 9, see E. Lohmeyer, Das Evangelium des

Markus, 14th ed., KEK (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1957), 20; U. Mauser, Christ in the Wilderness: The Wilderness Theme in the Second Gospel and its Basis in the Biblical Tradition, SBT 39 (Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1963), 93. 30  Note, e. g., the role of Mastema in the testing of Abraham in Jub. 17:15–18:13. On this passage, see N. Ellis, The Hermeneutics of Divine Testing: Cosmic Trials and Biblical Interpretation in the Epistle of James and Other Jewish Literature, WUNT 2/396 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 69–71.

148

Daniel L. Smith

3.  Testing the Child of God at the Beginning, One More Time: Matthew’s Version The hypothesis that the Markan prologue aims to cast Jesus as a new child of God undergoing testing in the wilderness finds impressive support from Mark’s earliest interpreter: Matthew.31 Not only does Matthew present Jesus as being tested in the wilderness for a period of forty days, but Matthew’s opening chapters also weave an intricate set of parallels between Jesus and the people of God who departed Egypt for the promised land. Like Israel, Jesus goes down to Egypt (Matt 2:14). Like Israel, Jesus is singled out as God’s son: “Out of Egypt I called my son” (2:15).32 James D. G. Dunn observes that this quotation of Hos 11:1 “can also serve Matthew’s purpose in presenting Jesus as the re-run of Israel’s exodus and wilderness experience (Matt. 4.1–11).”33 Like Israel, Jesus departs out of Egypt and returns to the (promised) land (Matt 2:21). Like Israel, Jesus is tested in the wilderness for a period of forty – days, instead of years. And lastly, erasing any doubt that the Jesus–Israel connection is intentional, Matthew’s Jesus quotes three times from Deut 6 and 8, passages that also detail the testing of the child of God in the wilderness. Mark’s pithy narrative offers scant detail with regard to the nature of Jesus’s testing. Matthew’s account paints a rich triptych. The first test invites a hungry Jesus to turn stones into bread. This challenge can be linked to Israel’s wilderness testing in two very different ways.34 First, we might note that Jesus responds in Matt 4:4 by quoting from Deut 8:3, “Human beings will not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.” This verse refers to the heavenly provision of manna, which was described as a test of Israel by God. In Exod 16:4, God claims that the manna is designed to “test them, whether they will walk according to my law, or not.” If we align Jesus with Israel in the wilderness, then we would assume that Jesus can pass the test by following the divine instruction. If Israel failed the test by saving extra manna for the next day (Exod 16:20), or by seeking manna on the Sabbath (16:27), Jesus 31 Larsen, Gospels, 101, identifies the Gospel according to Matthew and the Gospel according to Mark as “both part of the same fluid textual tradition.” Hence, Larsen would prefer to label Matthew as “user” rather than “interpreter” of Mark (see ch. 6 of Gospels). 32  Hence, I read Matt 2–4 as aligning Jesus with Israel, though I do not rule out the presence of an overlapping “Moses typology” – on which, see D. C. Allison, The New Moses: A Matthean Typology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993). However, pace Allison, neither was Moses called the child of God, nor was he tested by God (for 40 days or 40 years). For fuller argumentation, see J. Kennedy, The Recapitulation of Israel: Use of Israel’s History in Matthew 1:1–4:11, WUNT 2/257 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), esp. chs. 3–4. 33  J. D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, vol. 1 of Christianity in the Making (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 342. Dunn describes Matthew 4 as “almost a midrash on Deuteronomy 6–8” (381 n. 193). 34  I am grateful to Tzvi Novick for his encouragement to reflect on the character of the three tests in Matt 4.



Testing the Child of God at the Beginning and until the End 

149

could apparently fail this test by taking the provision of sustenance into his own hands. Another set of approaches would look not to divine testing of Israel in the wilderness, but rather to the converse phenomenon of Israel testing God. The testing of God by the people of God occurs repeatedly in the pentateuchal narratives. According to Num 14:22, the people “tested” (‫ )וינסו‬God “ten times and did not obey” the voice of God.35 The people’s testing of God defies narrative logic – if God created Israel and called Israel and delivered Israel from the house of bondage in Egypt, how could Israel possibly dare to call God’s loyalty into question? This human attempt to put God to the test often took the form of requesting a particular divine intervention, such as when the people cried out for water at Rephidim (Exod 17:1–2), which was then renamed Massah and Meribah. If we think of testing in this light, then two further possibilities arise. On one hand, this first test might feature the devil assuming the role of Israel as the agent of testing: as Israel tested God, so the devil tests the son of God. On the other hand, this first test might constitute the devil’s attempt to goad Jesus to test God by demanding a sign; thus, by demanding that stones become bread, Jesus would become the agent of testing, resembling Israel at Rephidim.36 Each of these three interpretations has its strengths. The first option, where Jesus is tested as Israel was tested, highlights the character of the test in Exod 16, which describes the manna as a testing of Israel by God. Likewise, the quotation of Deut 8:3 recalls the manna to emphasize that humans must rely on divine provision. This approach highlights the alignment of Jesus with Israel, which corresponds well with the previous narrative in Matt 2–3; as W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Jr., put it, “in his own person, Jesus is recapitulating the experience of Israel.”37 Yet, the second interpretation, according to which Jesus is tested as God is tested, does resonate with other places in Matthew’s Gospel, such as the other occasions when Jesus is asked to produce a sign (12:38; 16:1). The third option, whereby Jesus himself might be seen as the agent of testing, comes to resemble the first interpretation, since Jesus again would be aligned with Israel – though as testing rather than tested. I feel no pressure to choose between three (ostensibly) mutually exclusive options; it seems preferable to appreciate the clear resonances found in each one. Thus, I would conclude that Jesus has followed Israel into the wilderness of testing, facing the same human need for sustenance and the same challenge to rely on God alone for this sustenance, while noting that Matthew has also begun to liken the experience of Jesus to that of Israel’s God, who was often tested in the wilderness. 35  Cf. also Deut 6:16, discussed below. On the significance of tenfold testing, see the essay by Todd Hanneken in this volume. 36  Note also the role played by manna in the rebellion described in Num 11. 37  W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, 3 vols., ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988–1997), 1:363.

150

Daniel L. Smith

The second test supports this inclusive line of inquiry. This time, the devil deploys a citation of Psalm 91 in his challenge to Jesus. Nonplussed, Jesus refuses to jump from the Temple, in what would amount to an immediate demand for angelic aid. The devil is testing Jesus by demanding another sign, as he did in the previous attempt. This time, the devil not only tests Jesus as Israel tested God, but also makes a clear bid to manipulate Jesus into testing God in the process. Jesus’s response effectively counters both challenges with a quotation from Deut 6:16 relating to the Massah incident: “Again, it is written: ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test’” (Matt 4:7). Jesus will not yield to the devil’s requests for signs in the wilderness, nor will Jesus make unsolicited requests to God for miraculous intervention. Whereas Deut 6:16 was once directed at the child of God, Jesus demonstrates his obedience to God by repeating the divine command in the face of the agent of testing, a move that again aligns Jesus both with the child of God and with the testing and tested God. In the final test, according to Matthean order, the devil makes Jesus an offer that, as it turns out, he can refuse. In response to the devil’s proposition to give Jesus “all the kingdoms of the world” in exchange for one act of worship, Jesus quotes Deut 6:13: “For it is written, ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him alone’” (Matt 4:10). This test clearly aims to reveal Jesus’s loyalty. Will Jesus worship God or devil? At the same time, our English notion of “temptation” stands out clearest here: encouraging devil-worship constitutes a rather stark enticement to evil. Upon successful completion of the third trial, Jesus receives the ministrations of angels, a clear sign of divine approval. Of course, this final trial does not mark the end of testing in Matthew’s Gospel. Though the devil abandons his efforts in 4:11, Jesus continues to face testing from human adversaries throughout his ministry (16:1; 19:3; 22:18, 35). And he shows an awareness that his followers will also face testing. We will now examine the two passages where Jesus addresses the testing of his disciples – two passages that appear to be intentionally linked by the evangelist. The first appears as part of Jesus’s first major public address after the threefold testing. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus gives instructions on prayer: Pray, then, like this: “Our Father in heaven, may your name be hallowed; may your kingdom (ἡ βασιλεία σου) come; may your will be done, on earth as in heaven. Give us today our daily bread (τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον), and forgive (ἄφες) us our debts as we also forgive our debtors. And lead us not into testing (μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν), but deliver us from the evil one (ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ).” (Matt 6:9–13)

The historical origins of the Lord’s Prayer have been much discussed, but I am interested in a narrative reading of the Lord’s Prayer within Matthew’s Gospel. Many scholars have noted the several fascinating parallels between this short prayer and the other passage that attends to the disciples’ testing, namely, Matt 26. In Matt 26:26–29, Jesus gives bread (ἄρτος) to his disciples and de-



Testing the Child of God at the Beginning and until the End 

151

scribes his blood as being “poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins (εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν).”38 He also refers to future activity “in my Father’s kingdom” (ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ πατρός μου; 26:29). Then, Matthew narrates how Jesus goes to the Mount of Olives and on to Gethsemane. Although Matthew does not label the Gethsemane scene as a πειρασμός for Jesus, his disciples do appear to be in danger of undergoing testing. Jesus exhorts his disciples: “Watch and pray, so that you might not enter into testing” (γρηγορεῖτε καὶ προσεύχεσθε, ἵνα μὴ εἰσέλθητε εἰς πειρασμόν; 26:41). He then repeatedly prays for his father’s will to be done.39 In the words of Davies and Allison, “The citation of the Lord’s Prayer makes Jesus embody his own imperative.”40 His petition in 26:42, γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου, matches Matt 6:10 verbatim. Strikingly, most of these parallels preexist in the Markan text, but Matthean redaction accounts for the closest parallels to the Lord’s Prayer, as it appears in Matt 6:9–13.41 The evangelist appears to be inviting the reader to reflect on the narrative of Matt 26 in light of the prayer in Matt 6. Building on this insight, I  want to bring the threefold testing of Matt 4 into this conversation. In his comments on Matthew’s temptation narrative, Ulrich Luz connects the testing by the devil to the later instructions on prayer: “One wonders, but cannot be certain, whether Matthew wanted to direct the thoughts of his readers to the Lord’s Prayer – the prayer of the Son to his Father in which Jesus prays for protection in temptation, for daily bread, and for God’s kingdom (cf. v. 8).”42 The catchwords πειρασμός, ἄρτος, and βασιλεία do seem to link the two passages.43 However, Luz overlooks a more detailed connection between Matt 4 and Matt 6 that may prove significant in light of one persistent question about the character of the divine-human relationship, with regard to testing. In Matt 6:13, Jesus encourages his disciples to pray, μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν, “lead us not into testing.” Other writings of Matthew’s time period worked to resist the idea that God might test, or tempt, the people of God. Most famously, Jas 1:13 claims that God “tests no one” 38  Matthew 26:28 addresses Jesus’s role in offering forgiveness of sins; for a reflection on the potential attribution of sins to Jesus, see G. A. Anderson, “Did Jesus Confess His Sins at Baptism? Evidence from the Book of Tobit,” in Method and Meaning: Essays on New Testament Interpretation in Honor of Harold W. Attridge, ed. A. B. McGowan and K. H. Richards, RBS 67 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 457–68. 39  For a sophisticated treatment of prayer, suffering, and the will of God in Mark’s Gospel, see S. E. Dowd, Prayer, Power, and the Problem of Suffering: Mark 11:22–25 in the Context of Markan Theology, SBLDS 105 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988). 40  Davies and Allison, Commentary, 3:500. 41  For the argument that the Lord’s Prayer originated as a “liturgical development of the Gethsemane story,” see S. van Tilborg, “A Form-Criticism of the Lord’s Prayer,” NovT 14 (1972): 94–105, esp. 95. 42  U. Luz, Matthew 1–7: A Commentary, ed. Helmut Koester, trans. J. E. Crouch, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 152. 43  See also Matt 26:26 (ἄρτος), 29 (βασιλεία), 41 (πειρασμός).

152

Daniel L. Smith

(πειράζει δὲ αὐτὸς οὐδένα).44 If God does not actually test anyone, what sense does it make to ask God to “lead us not into testing”? Matthew’s previous narrative answers this question quite clearly: “Then Jesus was led up by the spirit into the wilderness to be tested by the devil” (Τότε ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀνήχθη εἰς τὴν ἔρημον ὑπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος πειρασθῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ διαβόλου; 4:1). Though the verbs differ (ἀνάγω in 4:1 vs. εἰσφέρω in 6:13), the action is fundamentally the same. God’s spirit leads Jesus into the wilderness precisely in order to be tested, but the devil administers the test. Matthew thus fits into a broader Jewish tradition described by Nicholas Ellis, according to which “authors are reticent to name God as ὁ πειράζων where such entails an active prosecutorial role.”45 For Matthew, the διάβολος is the one who tests Jesus in the wilderness and who threatens to try the disciples in Gethsemane. God is the one who will deliver the children of God “from the evil one” (ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ; Matt 6:13).46 Reading Matthew’s narrative as an inter-connected whole affords us fresh insight into his understanding of testing the child of God. Just as the pentateuchal narratives depict God’s “firstborn” Israel undergoing testing, so we find Jesus shown to be undergoing testing as the son of God in Matthew’s Gospel. As discussed above, Matthew connects the testing of Jesus in 4:1–11 with subsequent teaching on prayer in 6:9–13 and the later narrative of Jesus’s final hours with his disciples in ch. 26. In these latter passages, the focus turns from testing Jesus to testing his followers. First, a petition to avoid testing accompanies the request for daily bread, suggesting that those who pray to Jesus’s heavenly father will find both eating and testing to be regular parts of their lives. Second, the gnomic character of Jesus’s words in 26:41 implies that the command to pray so as not to enter into testing does not serve as a one-time warning, but rather a more general exhortation – an exhortation most fitting for those who “stand” in the sort of situation described by Paul in 1 Cor 10:12–13.

4.  Testing the Children of God at the End of Days Israel and Jesus are tested shortly after being declared the child of God; they are tested at the beginning. Ben Sira suggests that testing functions not as an initiation rite, but as a recurring feature in the life of the people of God. Our study of the gospel accounts of Jesus’s testing brings us to close with some reflections on the end. While I have put forth an interpretation of Matt 6:13 that assumes that the πειρασμός there mentioned is as common as daily ἄρτος, Davies and Allison characterize the petition “lead us not into testing” as “a request for God’s aid in the present crisis, a plea for divine support so that one may not succumb to the 44  On testing in James, see the essay by Susanne Luther in this volume. 45 Ellis, Hermeneutics, 239. 46  On “the evil one” as “a favourite expression of Matthew,” see Davies and Allison, Com-

mentary, 1:614.



Testing the Child of God at the Beginning and until the End 

153

apostasy which characterizes the last time of trouble.”47 Of course, these interpretations can converge in a world where the quotidian and the eschatic co-exist. And such a world comes to light in the letters of Paul, where we began. After all, Paul’s reflection on the Corinthians’ links with their ancient “ancestors” includes a temporal notice: “These things happened to them as an example, and they were written to instruct us, upon whom the ends of the ages have come” (1 Cor 10:11). The Corinthians face testing at the end time, and the danger of apostasy looms large.48 I intentionally speak of “testing” instead of “temptation” (to evil). Though 1 Cor 10 lays out the prospect of giving in to evil desires (10:6), the larger context reminds us that the controversy over idol-meat in Corinth does not pivot on issues of gluttony or greed. The clear and present danger is idolatry. The warning about testing in 10:13, accompanied by a reminder of God’s faithfulness, is followed by a further command in v. 14: “Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolworship!” (φεύγετε ἀπὸ τῆς εἰδωλολατρίας). This imperative echoes Paul’s earlier warning to the Corinthians, whose experience resembles that of Israel in the wilderness. Will the Corinthians “become idolaters, just as some of them did” (10:7)? Ultimately, the language of testing addresses a crisis of loyalty: To whom will the Corinthians pledge their allegiance? Their ancestors in the wilderness struggled with the same challenge. When tested, would they remain loyal to the God who delivered them from Egypt, or would they turn and follow other gods?49 Jesus followed the ancestors into the wilderness for testing. When tested, would he remain loyal to his Father, or would he turn to the devil to gain “all the kingdoms of the world and their glory” (Matt 4:8)? Despite the centuries gone by, these questions do not lose their edge. If the recurring testing of the people of God extends from the ancestors in the wilderness, to Jesus in the wilderness, and on to the urban Corinthians, how far might it stretch across time and space?50

47  Davies and Allison, Commentary, 1:614. 48  Paul’s letter to the Corinthians was not the only Second Temple text to envision an au-

dience living at the end of times, nor was it the only text to look back to the Israelite wilderness generation as a model; see D. L. Smith, “On Appeals to an Imperfect Past in a Present Future: Remembering the Israelite Wilderness Generation in the Late Second Temple Period,” JSP 28 (2018): 123–42. 49  See Deut 13:2–3. 50  For potential ramifications in a twenty-first-century North American context, see Smith, “Feet in the Wilderness,” 303–6.

154

Daniel L. Smith

Bibliography Allison, D. C. The New Moses: A Matthean Typology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Anderson, G. A. “Did Jesus Confess His Sins at Baptism? Evidence from the Book of Tobit.” Pages 457–68 in Method and Meaning: Essays on New Testament Interpretation in Honor of Harold W. Attridge. Edited by A. B. McGowan and K. H. Richards. RBS 67. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. Bauckham, R. “Jesus and the Wild Animals (Mark 1:13): A  Christological Image for an Ecological Age.” Pages 3–21 in Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ: Essays on the Historical Jesus and New Testament Christology. Edited by J. B. Green and M. Turner. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. Conzelmann, H. 1 Corinthians. Translated by J. W. Leitch. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975. Davies, W. D., and D. C. Allison, Jr. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew. 3 vols. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988–1997. Dowd, S. E. Prayer, Power, and the Problem of Suffering: Mark 11:22–25 in the Context of Markan Theology. SBLDS 105. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. Dunn, J. D. G. Jesus Remembered. Vol. 1 of Christianity in the Making. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Eastman, S. G. Paul and the Person: Reframing Paul’s Anthropology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017. Ellis, N. The Hermeneutics of Divine Testing: Cosmic Trials and Biblical Interpretation in the Epistle of James and Other Jewish Literature. WUNT 2/396. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Fitzmyer, J. A. “And Lead Us Not into Temptation.” Bib 84 (2003): 259–73. Garland, D. E. 1 Corinthians. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003. Green, J. B., J. K. Brown, and N. Perrin, eds. Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013. Guelich, R. A. Mark 1–8:26. WBC 34A. Dallas: Word, 1989. Heil, J. P. “Jesus with the Wild Animals in Mark 1:13.” CBQ 68 (2006): 63–78. Kennedy, J. The Recapitulation of Israel: Use of Israel’s History in Matthew 1:1–4:11. WUNT 2/257. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Larsen, M. D. C. Gospels before the Book. New York: Oxford University Press, 2018. Lohmeyer, E. Das Evangelium des Markus. 14th ed. KEK. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1957. Lundbom, J. R. Deuteronomy: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013. Luz, U. Matthew 1–7: A  Commentary. Edited by H. Koester. Translated by J. E. Crouch. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Marcus, J. Mark 1–8. AB 27. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. Mauser, U. Christ in the Wilderness: The Wilderness Theme in the Second Gospel and its Basis in the Biblical Tradition. SBL 39. Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1963. Pardes, I. The Biography of Ancient Israel: National Narratives in the Bible. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000. Perkins, P. First Corinthians. Paideia. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012. Sakenfeld, K. D., ed. The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. 5 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 2009. Schrage, W. Der erste Brief an die Korinther: 1Kor 6,12–11,16. 2 vols. EKKNT. Düsseldorf: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1995. Simpson, J. A., and E. Weiner, eds. The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989. Smith, D. L. “Feet in the Wilderness, Eyes on the Promised Land: The Deuteronomic Posture as Response to a Faithful God.” JTI 12 (2018): 287–306.



Testing the Child of God at the Beginning and until the End 

155

–. “On Appeals to an Imperfect Past in a Present Future: Remembering the Israelite Wilderness Generation in the Late Second Temple Period.” JSP 28 (2018): 123–42. Stuckenbruck, L. T. “Some Reflections on Apocalyptic Thought and Time in Literature from the Second Temple Period.” Pages 137–55 in Paul and the Apocalyptic Imagination. Edited by B. C. Blackwell, J. K. Goodrich and J. Maston. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016. Thiselton, A. C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. van Henten, J. W. “The First Testing of Jesus: A  Rereading of Mark 1.12–13.” NTS 45 (1999): 349–66. van Tilborg, S. “A Form-Criticism of the Lord’s Prayer.” NovT 14 (1972): 94–105.

(Not) Knowing Where I’m Going Ignorance and Agony for Jesus and for Job Susan R. Garrett

1.  The Paradox of Jesus as Tested It was taken for granted in early Judaism that righteous people are tested, as Sir 2:1 illustrates so well (“My child, when you come to serve the Lord, prepare yourself for testing”).1 So, if righteous people are tested, then it should not surprise us that the Synoptic evangelists and the author of Hebrews depict Jesus as tested: after all, from their perspective, who was more righteous than he? Moreover, there were other motives for early Christian writers to portray Jesus facing trials. For example, they could use the story of his endurance of specific tests to make christological points: the rejection of the temptation to turn stones to bread shows him refusing to use his power for personal benefit; the rejection of authority over the kingdoms of this world demonstrates that his sovereignty is of a different nature and not to be gained except through suffering, and so forth. Another purpose for depicting Jesus as persevering through trials was to offer an example that Christians could emulate in their own tests and temptations. The author of Hebrews lays it out in black and white: we should hold fast to our confession because Jesus was not a high priest unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but “one who in every respected has been tested as we are, yet without sin” (Heb 4:15). He “offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to the one who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission” (5:7). The imperative to be derived from the indicative here is that Christians should likewise submit reverently when they face trials of faith.2 From a Christian theological perspective, however, these two motives for telling of Jesus’s trials – the christological motive and the hortatory motive – can be seen as standing in tension with each other. For, to say that Jesus was “tested as we are” suggests that he shared in that most acutely agonizing aspect of tests and temptations: the unknowing. Existentially, we recognize that it is the open1  All translations of biblical texts are from the NRSV. 2  On testing in Hebrews, see Madison Pierce’s essay in this volume.

158

Susan R. Garrett

endedness of our trials that gives them their edge and makes them so hard to bear. It is the more painful for us to endure because we do not know whether the cancer treatment will work, whether the baby will survive, whether the missing person will return, whether the rain will come, whether the sacrifices we make will truly benefit those on whose behalf we make them. Dietrich Bonhoeffer put it this way: to be tempted is to be abandoned, to be “in the wilderness.” It is to be robbed of any special powers and forced to rely solely on God’s word.3 But could early Christian readers have seen Jesus as truly sharing in our unknowing? Would they not have opined that uncertainty on the part of Jesus about the meaning of his trials, or about what was to become of him, contradicted his identity as divine?

2.  Testing and Epistemology This perceived mystery or paradox of Jesus’s having been authentically tested, yet also divine, pushed early Christian thinkers into the realm of epistemology, or theories of knowing. What did Jesus know, and when did he know it? And, how did he know it? There was ample precedent for Christian authors to operate in this realm, because epistemological speculation was already a component of conversations about testing and temptation in ancient Hellenistic culture. There were at least two aspects of such ancient epistemological reflections on trials of faith, which I will label the discernment aspect and the prescience aspect. In my usage of these terms, discernment has to do with knowledge of the nature or origin of the test (its meaning overall), whereas prescience has to do with advance knowledge of the outcome of the trial (how it will turn out). Discernment When reflecting epistemologically on the human capacity for discernment of the nature or origin of trials, ancient authors evaluated persons’ ability (or lack thereof ) to know whether or not a proffered good was really good and to choose accordingly. If something that looked good was really evil, could people know it? If they knew it, could they resist the temptation? To survey some opinions: Ȥ Cicero contended that lust and other vices arise because humans are readily deceived and therefore make incorrect judgments when they find themselves presented with apparent or prospective goods; “by a law of nature all men pursue apparent good and shun its opposite; for which reason, as soon as the semblance of any apparent good presents itself, nature of itself prompts them

3  D. Bonhoeffer, Creation and Fall; Temptation: Two Biblical Studies (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1983), 118.



(Not) Knowing Where I’m Going

159

to secure it” (Cicero, Tusc. 4. 6. 12 [King, LCL]).4 Cicero was influenced by Stoic psychology, according to which passions arise when people make errors in judgment based on mistaken opinions.5 Ȥ Hellenistic Jewish authors shared this assumption (taken for granted not only in Stoicism but in many Hellenistic philosophical schools) that reason was to be master of the passions, including lust or desire. Jewish authors, however, insisted that study of Torah provided the best course for shaping reason in ways necessary to make correct judgments and thus to gain mastery over the emotions’ power and deceptiveness. The author of 4 Maccabees, influenced by middle Stoicism, argues this point with great force.6 So does Philo of Alexandria, who emphasizes the deception inherent in covetousness or lust.7 Ȥ The Apostle Paul argued that neither knowledge of a particular evil nor knowledge of Torah could enable one to resist temptation; only Christ can deliver one from “the law at war with the law of my mind, making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members” (Rom 7:21–25). He also saw Satan as operative in trials, both tests of affliction (1 Thess 3:5) and tests of seduction (1 Cor 7:5).8 Ȥ The author of James contended that the images of desired objects or outcomes presenting themselves to our imaginations stem not from God but from our deceitful lusts (Jas 1:13–15). These and other ancient authors were engaging in sophisticated reflection about the nature and source of the phantasms of pleasure, gratification, or escape from 4  See also Tusc. 4.26.57, 4.28.60, and 4.35.74. 5  Among Stoics there arose disagreement on whether or not the passions are innate in hu-

mans (with the implication that they cannot be eradicated but only mastered); either way, it was believed that the power of reason or rationality was the proper antidote. See S. K. Stowers, “4  Maccabees,” in Harper Bible Commentary, ed. J. L. Mays (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), 922–34, here 927; cf. 924. 6  See Stowers, “4 Maccabees.” 7  For example, see Philo, Spec. 4.80–81. Harry Austryn Wolfson argues that Philo’s remarks about desire parallel Jewish sentiments about the evil yēser. Though Philo usually describes the conflict between good and evil in the human self as a conflict between the rational soul and irrational soul, or between reason and passion, he can also refer to the conflict between the good and evil yēser. Wolfson points to Philo’s explanation of the symbolism of Isaac as the father of twins: “For the soul of every man from the first, as soon as he is born, bears in its womb twins, namely good and evil, having the image (phantasioumene) of both of them” (Praem. 11.63). See Wolfson, Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, 2 vols. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982), 2.288–89; see also 2.230–31. 8  On Paul’s views of testing and temptation, see S. R. Garrett, “The God of This World and the Affliction of Paul: 2 Cor 4:1–12,” in Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe, ed. D. Balch et al. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 99–117; and S. R. Garrett, “Paul’s Thorn and Cultural Models of Affliction,” in The Social World of the First Christians: Essays in Honor of Wayne A. Meeks, ed. L. M. White and O. L. Yarbrough (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 82–99.

160

Susan R. Garrett

suffering that present themselves in our brains, and about our capacity to make difficult but morally correct choices in such moments of trial.9 Prescience When reflecting epistemologically on the human capacity for prescience or foreknowledge, ancient authors considered whether someone could have specific, advance knowledge of the outcome of a test. It does not appear that authors typically thought that such foreknowledge was possible. In Wisdom of Solomon, the suffering righteous one says “he will be protected” (Wis 2:20), but it is not clear that the righteous sufferer is imagined to have knowledge of the precise outcome; rather, the author seems to be referring to the righteous one’s faith, confidence, and single-minded devotion. Paul taught the Thessalonians that they should prepare to be afflicted, but it was his and their very uncertainty about the outcome that made him rejoice when he learned of their perseverance during the tempter’s provocations to apostasy (1 Thess 3:1–5). In Rom 4:16–22, Paul depicts Abraham as confident against all reason that God would be true to God’s promises, but Abraham seems to have had only the promise and not true prescience to rely on. All these texts suggest that authors and readers shared an epistemological framework that could help them with the discernment aspect of testing, furnishing concepts and narrative memes with which they could make sense of their trials and shore up confidence that God was in control. Generally, however, people do not seem to have supposed that the righteous could have precise foreknowledge of the outcome of particular trials. But what if someone had known the outcome ahead of time: would possession of that foreknowledge affect our judgment about their moral worthiness? An old friend of mine was a fanatical fan of the Duke University men’s basketball team. My friend’s emotional investment in the team’s success was so high that he had to have his wife record the televised games for him, so that he could know the outcome before he watched; otherwise, he could not stand the suspense. Was he weak because of his need for foreknowledge of the game’s outcome? Or was he, rather, the more worthy for watching a game till the bitter end, even when he knew it would end in his team’s defeat? Analogously, if Job or Jesus knew the outcome of their trials beforehand, did that diminish their accomplishment in persevering? If Jesus knew precisely what would happen to him, would those who are Christians see him as a less relevant exemplar, given his failure to share in the full extent of human suffering? Or, would it be possible for them to see Jesus as an even more valuable role model, precisely because of his endurance? 9  For nuanced analysis of Stoic and other ancient philosophical theories of the passions, including the role played by φαντασίαι, see B. Inwood, Ethics and Human Action in Early Stoicism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999); also M. C. Nussbaum, The Therapy of Desire: Theory and Practice in Hellenistic Ethics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009).



(Not) Knowing Where I’m Going

161

3.  Job’s Move from Unknowing to Knowing A Crisis of Comprehension: Canonical Job Theologian Kenneth Surin argues that in the canonical book of Job, Job faces an epistemological crisis. Using my suggested terminology, we would call it chiefly a problem of discernment. Job truly does not understand why these terrible things are happening to him, which greatly exacerbates his suffering. Surin suggests that there were two narratives in conflict for Job: his narrative of himself as a righteous person with corresponding expectations for the course of his life, and the external narrative of the disastrous things that happen to him. The catastrophes “cause him to question the schemata which have previously informed all his interpretations of social and religious life, and especially his understanding of his relationship with God.” Previously Job had credited God for his own health, wealth, and happiness, but now Job “finds that his understanding of this relationship is no longer adequate; his spiritual turmoil is so great that he has no real alternative but to seek a new vision of divinity.”10 Passages where we see a focus on epistemology include Job 13:22–24 (when Job beseeches God, “Then call, and I will answer; or let me speak, and you reply to me. … Why do you hide your face, and count me as your enemy?”), and 23:3– 5 (“Oh, that I knew where I might find him, that I might come even to his dwelling! I would lay my case before him, and fill my mouth with arguments. I would learn what he would answer me, and understand what he would say to me”). Surin generalizes from Job’s crisis of unknowing to the situation of humanity at large: tragedies often generate crises “in which agents come to realize that the schemata of interpretation on which they have so far relied have broken down irretrievably.” He suggests that such a breakdown propels the sufferer to construct a new narrative that synthesizes the original account of reality and the counterevidence of tragedy. Before Job’s tragedies occurred, he and his friends had presupposed a direct correlation between an individual’s righteousness and their flourishing; the new, comprehensive narrative reflects a faith that is “beyond all purely personal concerns.”11 Perfect Understanding: Testament of Job Whereas canonical Job knows nothing, in one narrative from late Second Temple times Job has advance detailed knowledge concerning his trials – both discernment of their meaning and prescience about their outcome.12 The pseudepig10  K. Surin, Theology and the Problem of Evil (New York: Basil Blackwell, 1986), 24. 11 Surin, Theology, 27. 12  The Testament of Job was written ca. 100 BCE–100 CE (probably in Greek); it was pre-

served in Coptic, Greek, and Slavic manuscripts from ca. 400–1600 CE. On the work’s prov-

162

Susan R. Garrett

raphic Testament of Job begins with Job recounting to his assembled children how an angel had once appeared to him to predict what would happen if Job destroyed a nearby idol’s temple. That temple, the angel had said, was in actuality a front for the devil. If Job were to destroy the temple, Satan would rise up against him to avenge himself. Satan would not be able to kill Job, but would inflict many misfortunes on him and rob him of all worldly goods. But if Job endured, he would triumph at the end. In the angel’s words of promise: If you endure, I shall make your name renowned in all earthly generations until the consummation of the age. And I shall restore you once again to your possessions and you will receive a double payment, so that you may know that the Lord is impartial, rendering good things to each one who is obedient. And you will be raised up in the resurrection and you will be like an athlete who spars and endures hard labors and wins the crown. (T. Job 4.6–9)13

There is no epistemological crisis for Job in Testament of Job  – nothing hidden or unknown. The book presumes an apocalyptic epistemology, in which the cover is pulled away from deliberate deceptions and from merely apparent realities, as in the following incidents: Ȥ When various figures  – a beggar, a bread seller, the king of the Persians  – come forth to lead Job or his companions astray, each time he alone discerns that it is the devil in disguise (T. Job 6:4–7:13; 17:2; 23:1). Ȥ When Job’s wife Sitidos implores him to speak some word against the Lord and die, Job says to her, “Do you not see the devil standing behind you and troubling your reasoning so that he might deceive even me?” (T. Job 26:7). Ȥ When Sitidos later begs Job’s friends to recover her children’s corpses and bury them, Job prohibits them from doing so because he knows that the children had in actuality been carried up into the heavens by God. Then he exhorts the friends and Sitidos to look with their eyes to the east, and when they do so, “they [see] my children crowned alongside the splendor of the heavenly one” (T. Job 40:5). At the end of the Testament of Job, Job is more than fully restored, just as the angel had promised. To summarize: in the canonical book of Job, Job struggles to endure because he cannot discern the nature or source of his trials and does not know their outcome; only after much existential pain and a climactic self-revelation by God is Job finally able to craft a single, encompassing narrative so as to achieve resoluenance and date, see R. P.  Spittler, “Introduction to Testament of Job,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. J. H. Charlesworth, 2 vols. (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 2003 and 2005), 1:833–34. 13  Translations from Testament of Job are taken from The Testament of Job according to the SV Text, ed. and trans. R. A. Kraft (Missoula, MT: Society of Biblical Literature and Scholars Press, 1974).



(Not) Knowing Where I’m Going

163

tion between his assumptions about the course of own life of righteousness before God and the tragic events that had befallen him. By contrast, in Testament of Job there is no epistemological crisis; the plot has been constructed to prevent any clash of narratives from ever occurring. Job’s physical suffering is still very real,14 but not for an instant does he suppose that God has abandoned him, nor is he ever in doubt about where the story will end. Even at his most physically abject he is triumphant and in control. Although Testament of Job is not notably eschatological in focus, its epistemology is nonetheless apocalyptic: events happening in the mundane world have spiritual or heavenly causes and consequences. An apocalyptic epistemology posits that God permits knowledge of this higher plane to be concealed from many but reveals it to a select few, enabling them to penetrate surface explanations and know events’ true meaning.15 In Testament of Job, for most of the story Job alone is able to penetrate Satan’s ruses: Job disregards other humans’ excessive focus on the mundane and perishing world so that he may comprehend the higher meaning of events.16 Because Job possesses revealed knowledge about what is happening to him and what the eventual outcome will be, his trials lose their sting. He suffers physical pain comparable to that of Job in the canonical story – but without the epistemological crisis, that catastrophe of not comprehending or even of knowing what to count as evidence. Now I turn to two gospel accounts, to trace an analogous contrast in portraits of Jesus facing tests and temptations.

4.  What Did Jesus Know, and When Did He Know It? Knowing, yet Struggling: The Gospel of Mark As Joel Marcus has observed, epistemology in the Gospel of Mark is decidedly apocalyptic. Jesus is the only human with full access to higher knowledge, which includes both the secret of his identity and the nature and source of his trials. The two sorts of information are related: it is precisely because of Jesus’s identity as Son of God that Satan – acting through various human characters – seeks to 14  Indeed, the author of Testament of Job seems to exaggerate the abjectness of Job’s physical condition, making it seem more repulsive than in canonical Job: see, for example, the description of Job’s worm-infestation and bodily discharge in T. Job 20:7–10. 15  S. R. Garrett, The Temptations of Jesus in Mark’s Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 63; see the full discussion on pp. 63–66. I have borrowed the concept of “apocalyptic epistemology” from J. Marcus, “Mark 4:10–12 and Marcan Epistemology,” JBL 103 (1984): 557–74; for further discussion and citations, see Garrett, Temptations of Jesus, 63 n. 28; also S. R. Garrett, “The Patience of Job and the Patience of Jesus,” Int 53 (1999): 254–64. 16  At the end of Testament of Job, Job’s daughters are given heavenly sashes that enable them also to participate in heavenly knowledge and leave mundane things behind; see the discussion in S. R. Garrett, “The Weaker Sex in the Testament of Job,” JBL 112 (1993): 55–70.

164

Susan R. Garrett

lead him astray. In the wilderness Jesus confronts Satan directly (Mark 1:12–13). Later in the story Jesus is tested by adversaries and even by his own disciples, but as his rebuke of Peter at Caesarea Philippi demonstrates, he knows full well that Satan is pulling the strings (see 8:33). In Mark, not only is Jesus discerning about the source and meaning of his tests, but he also is prescient with regard to their outcome. Indeed, he repeatedly foretells what will happen to himself and his followers. Chapter 10 offers the most detailed of Jesus’ three passion predictions: he says to the twelve, “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death; then they will hand him over to the Gentiles; they will mock him, and spit upon him, and flog him, and kill him; and after three days he will rise again” (Mark 10:33–34; see also 8:31; 9:31). Mark’s Jesus also has specific knowledge that the twelve will all become deserters but eventually rejoin him in Galilee (14:27–28), that Peter will deny him three times (14:30), and that in coming days his followers will face hard and diverse trials (13:5–23). The two sorts of knowledge that I have discussed are both reflected in the incident at Caesarea Philippi, where Jesus first predicts the events of his passion (= prescience), and then rebukes Peter for being an agent of Satan and thinking in a human rather than a godly way (= discernment). Jesus alone among all humans in this story has access to the higher, “godly” plane of knowledge.17 Yet, although Mark’s Jesus sees his true adversary and knows what is coming, his knowledge falls short in at least two ways. First, from the outset of Jesus’ ministry he supposes that the disciples will be insiders, sharing in his knowledge of the mystery of the kingdom of God. But despite Jesus’s best efforts, the disciples prove to be as uncomprehending as outsiders (Mark 4:11–12, quoting Isa 6:9). Repeatedly Jesus chides them for their blindness and hardness of heart (4:40; 8:14–21; cf. 6:52). It seems that Satan is able to exploit the disciples’ weakness of flesh and fear of suffering to trap them (at least temporarily) in stubborn incomprehension. As Bonhoeffer said, “Satan knows that the flesh is afraid of suffering.”18 Jesus is mistaken in his expectation that events will unfold differently. Second, Jesus’s knowledge of meanings and outcomes comes to a crashing halt when he is on the cross, where he perceives himself to be abandoned. He cries out, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34). The reader may infer 17  Elsewhere I have argued that in Mark there are two other humans who prepare Jesus’s way by encouraging rather than hindering him on his way to the cross: John the Baptist, who prepares Jesus’s way by making the people ready to receive him (Mark 1:4–8), and the woman who anoints him beforehand for burial at Bethany (14:3–9). It is not clear, however, that Mark supposes that either character fully shares in revealed knowledge of what is to come. See Garrett, Temptations of Jesus, 54, 81–82. 18 Bonhoeffer, Temptation, 119. On the message of Jesus’s and the disciples’ own suffering as roadblock to the latter’s understanding, see Garrett, Temptations, 72–76; also S. R. Garrett, “Disciples on Trial,” ChrCent 115 (1998): 396–99.



(Not) Knowing Where I’m Going

165

that Satan is having his way for a moment and Jesus has been cut off from knowledge of God’s presence. The one who saw everything now sees nothing. At Gethsemane Satan had nearly succeeded in his effort to exploit the weakness of Jesus’s own human flesh so as to thwart him on his way to the cross. Mark tells that in Gethsemane Jesus was “deeply grieved, even to death,” and he threw himself on the ground and prayed for the hour to pass from him. In the hour of trial in Gethsemane, Mark suggests, Jesus grasped that there were two ways open before him, and he desired profoundly to take the path that would avoid suffering: “Abba, Father, for you all things are possible; remove this cup from me” (14:35–36). This is a climactic moment in Mark’s Gospel, when alternate narratives of Jesus’ future clash: the narrative that Jesus desired for himself, and the counter-narrative that God desired for him. How shocking that Mark should have offered such a revealing portrayal of Jesus’s psyche! The evangelist here depicted nothing less than a moment of doublemindedness, when Jesus’s heart was “in need of purification because his motives are mixed; his mind is not wholly turned to God because of his desire for other things.”19 Mark refused to purge his account of indications that Jesus’s perfect knowledge eliminated all struggle, but instead preserved the narrative tension: Jesus knew everything, yet the knowledge did not eradicate his human desire to avoid the cup of suffering. In Jesus’s next words we see the way out of the impasse. In prayer Jesus subordinates his desires to those of God: “Yet, not what I want, but what you want” (14:36). Only through prayer is Jesus able to move forward on God’s path.20 It is prayer that enables Jesus to endure not only during his trial in Gethsemane but also on the cross, for his cry of dereliction is likewise a prayer. God has hidden God’s face from Jesus as from Job and, like Job, Jesus refuses to curse or abandon God. Instead Jesus prays, using a quotation from the psalmist. As Bonhoeffer says of Jesus’s initial stay in the wilderness, so also here at the end: Jesus “is left with nothing but the saving, supporting, enduring Word of God, which holds him firmly and which fights and conquers for him.”21 Testing Precluded: The Gospel of John Most of the incidents we associate with Jesus’ testing are not found in the Gospel of John. The Fourth Gospel has no parallel to the Synoptic accounts of Jesus entering into the wilderness after his baptism to be tempted by Satan. There is no 19  O. J. F. Seitz, “Antecedents and Signification of the Term ΔΙΨΥΧΟΣ,” JBL 66 (1947): 211– 19, here 214 (Seitz is not here talking about Jesus specifically). For fuller argument that Mark portrays Jesus as briefly experiencing doublemindedness, see Garrett, Temptations, 89–135 (esp. 96–98). 20  Compare Heb 5:7–10, where Jesus is “heard because of his reverent submission.” 21 Bonhoeffer, Temptation, 121. On the implication of the cry of dereliction that God’s face has been hidden from Jesus, see Garrett, Temptations, 103–4.

166

Susan R. Garrett

confrontation with Satan acting through Peter at Caesarea Philippi. John has but one story of the scribes and Pharisees putting Jesus to the test, and that is in the textually disputed pericope of the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1–11). John tells of an incident where the people tried to make Jesus king (6:15), which may echo one of the devil’s temptations in Matthew and Luke, but the narrator does not explicitly identify the incident as a test.22 Although John eliminates explicit instances of testing, he does portray Jesus as targeted by Satan acting through Judas. In doing so, John makes it clear that Satan’s actions happen with God’s permission and Jesus’ full knowledge: Ȥ In John 13:2–3 we are told that the devil had already put it into Judas’s heart to betray Jesus, but that Jesus knew God had given all things “into his hands” (εἰδὼς ὅτι πάντα ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁ πατὴρ εἰς τὰς χεῖρας). The Greek phrase εἰς τὰς χεῖρας seems to refer to the hands of Jesus,23 yet the reference to the devil and use of the Greek words δίδωμι and τὰς χεῖρας in such close proximity make this look like an allusion to Job 1:12, where God says to Satan, “All that he [Job] has I give into your hand” (πάντα ὅσα ἔστιν αὐτῷ δίδωμι ἐν τῇ χειρί σου; Job 1:12 LXX; cf. 2:6). John – by emphasizing Jesus’s knowledge and control – precludes any inference that the devil was unsupervised or that Jesus was in the dark. Ȥ A little later in the story, Judas is possessed by Satan (John 13:27; compare Luke 22:3) and goes on to betray Jesus in the garden (John 18:1–11). But as Jesus subsequently explains to Pilate, even the arrest happened with God’s full knowledge and control (see 19:11: “You would have no power [ἐξουσία] over me unless it had been given you from above; therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin”). To summarize this point, on analogy with what happens in the canonical book of Job, so also in John Satan acts to harm the righteous one. The difference is that John’s Jesus, unlike Job, was fully in on the plan.24 As the narrator says at the moment of Jesus’s arrest, Jesus knew “all that was to happen to him” (John 18:4). The remark by the narrator about Jesus’s foreknowledge fittingly concludes John’s portrayal of Jesus in the garden – a portrayal so different from the Synoptic accounts, where Jesus is in agony and prays that God take away the cup of 22  See R. E. Brown, “Incidents That Are Units in the Synoptic Gospels but Dispersed in St. John,” CBQ 23 (1961): 143–60, esp. 153–55, for discussion of this and other places where John may be dispersing temptation material throughout his Gospel; also R. E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave, 2 vols. (New York: Doubleday, 1994), 1:224. On the melding of historical/personal and eschatological horizons in portrayals of testing in the passion narratives (especially the Synoptics), see 1:157–62 and 195–200. 23  Note that very similar expressions about events being “in the hands” occur in 3:35 (with reference to the hands of Jesus) and 10:28–30 (with reference to the hands of Jesus/the Father). 24  See Luke 22:53: “This is your hour, and the power (ἐξουσία) of darkness.” Like Mark, Luke apparently supposed that there was a span of time during the passion when Satan had been permitted to hold the upper hand.



(Not) Knowing Where I’m Going

167

suffering. Of the Synoptic evangelists, Mark had given the starkest picture: Jesus is distressed, agitated, and in grief; he throws himself on the ground; he prays that, if it be possible, “the hour might pass from him” (Mark 14:32–35). Luke had softened Mark’s portrayal, eliminating reference to Jesus’ emotional distress and the account of him throwing himself down. John also tempers the portrayal, but in a different way: in John 12:27, although acknowledging Jesus’ distress, the fourth evangelist portrays Jesus praying not “that the hour might pass from him,” as in Mark, but rather, “And what should I say – ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it is for this reason that I have come to this hour. Father, glorify your name” (John 12:27–28). Jesus’s words in John look like explicit rebuttal of the tradition that lies behind Mark 14:35 and Heb 5:7.25 A similar rebuttal occurs in John 18:11, where Jesus does not ask for God to take away the cup but, on the contrary, asks rhetorically, “Am I not to drink the cup that the Father has given me?”26 Jesus does not seek to avoid the suffering that lies ahead. Throughout John, Jesus is portrayed as omniscient concerning the meaning of the events of his ministry and passion; therefore, this Gospel’s distinctive narration of Jesus’s interlude under Satan’s power should not surprise us. In the Fourth Gospel, Jesus’s discernment regarding the meaning of what is happening to him and his prescience regarding the outcome are always perfect. He knows by what death he is to die, and that in his death he will draw all people to himself (12:32–33; 18:32). He understands that his hour of trial is also his hour of glorification (17:1; cf. 12:27). He knows that, though all will desert him, in that hour he will not be alone, for the Father will be with him (16:32; contrast Mark 15:34). John’s Jesus understands wholly that his “hour” is not an hour of trial at all, but an hour of glorification (John 12:28). Much as we saw in Testament of Job, here likewise we see that the internal narrative of what the tested one wants or expects for the course of his life, and the conflicting external narrative of all his trials and tribulations have been fully resolved into a single, coherent account. If testing necessarily entails uncertainty about outcomes, then in John there is no hint of genuine trial.

25  Raymond E. Brown sees Mark, John, and Hebrews 5 as independent witnesses to a tradition that Jesus had struggled with and prayed to God regarding his coming death (Brown, Death of the Messiah, 1:224–25). In a footnote Brown comments on the differing emotional valences of Mark’s Jesus vs. John’s Jesus: “In the exalted Johannine Christology Jesus refuses to pray to be saved from the hour since it is God’s purpose and his own that he come to this hour. In Mark Jesus leaves the passing of the hour in the Father’s hands” (1:225 n. 16). On parallels between John’s portrayal of Jesus’s willingness to die and traditions about Isaac, see 2:1442; Brown points to John 18:11; 10:17–18, 37; see also Brown, “Incidents,” 145–46. 26  See Brown, “Incidents,” 147.

168

Susan R. Garrett

5. Conclusion I have tried to demonstrate that when we compare the accounts of Job’s trials in canonical Job and Testament of Job, and of Jesus’s trials in Mark and in John, we see analogous epistemological shifts. To focus on Jesus: in Mark, Jesus knows what is coming, but he is surprised by the extent of Satan’s control over the disciples; he desires an alternate way for himself, and at a certain point his access to revealed knowledge comes to an end. In John, by contrast, Jesus and the Father are one both in understanding and in purpose; even while in distress Jesus is never tempted to go a different way, for all happens exactly according to a plan that Jesus knows ahead of time. The shift in John to portrayal of Jesus as in possession of uncompromised discernment and prescience correlates with John’s more robust view of Jesus’s divinity and corresponding omniscience. Perhaps it should not surprise us if some Christian preachers and apologists found it impossible to hand on Mark’s portrayal of Jesus as distressed, griefstricken, and ultimately abandoned. There is a logic to John’s depiction of Jesus as knowing and accepting: if divine, then surely he would have been fully in control! Surely he would have comprehended both the nature and eventual outcome of his trials! My point in sketching the contrast in portraits of Jesus as tested is not to proclaim one as superior to the other, either for historical reconstruction or for purposes of Christian theology or discipleship. The historian will see that both portraits of Jesus (like the two corresponding portraits of Job) have been profoundly shaped by extra-historical factors. And the preferences of theologians and Christian believers today will likewise be influenced by many factors of culture and context. As a Christian, my own theological preference for Mark’s account has been influenced by Jürgen Moltmann, who describes how he experienced despair as a prisoner of war until he discovered Mark’s story of Jesus’s passion, with its account of the cry of dereliction. Moltmann writes that, when he read the death cry, “I began to understand the assailed Christ because I felt that he understood me: this was the divine brother in distress, who takes the prisoners with him on his way to resurrection. I began to summon up the courage to live again, seized by a great hope.”27 I resonate with Moltmann’s appreciation and tend to suppose that if Jesus fully grasped what was happening and already knew the precise outcome, then the crises he endured were not really tests, and we (who exist in perpetual unknowing) have lost the brother who can fully empathize with us in our trial. And yet I realize that for other Christians in other places, the Jesus of John will ring true: this is the Jesus who knows exactly what lies ahead, exactly what he will suffer, yet who nonetheless remains unwavering and steadfast, and none27  The Source of Life: The Holy Spirit and the Theology of Life (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 5.



(Not) Knowing Where I’m Going

169

theless affirms God’s will for him. My colleague Marion Soards, who teaches regularly in Zambia, informs me that the impoverished and hurting people he encounters there “love the Gospel according to John above the other Gospels, and the Jesus they see there and believe in is the one above any other who gives them hope.” The tested Christ in the Gospel of Mark and the stalwart and utterly faithful Christ in John can both model for Christian readers – albeit in different ways – what it means to be a disciple and to find hope in a difficult world.

Bibliography Bonhoeffer, D. Creation and Fall; Temptation: Two Biblical Studies. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1983. Brown, R. E. The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1994. –. “Incidents That Are Units in the Synoptic Gospels but Dispersed in St. John.” CBQ 23 (1961): 143–60. Garrett, S. R. “Disciples on Trial.” ChrCent 115 (1998): 396–99. –. “The God of This World and the Affliction of Paul: 2 Cor 4:1–12.” Pages 99–117 in Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe. Edited by D. Balch et al. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. –. “The Patience of Job and the Patience of Jesus.” Int 53 (1999): 254–64. –. “Paul’s Thorn and Cultural Models of Affliction.” Pages 82–99 in The Social World of the First Christians: Essays in Honor of Wayne A. Meeks. Edited by L. M. White and O. L. Yarbrough. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. –. The Temptations of Jesus in Mark’s Gospel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. –. “The Weaker Sex in the Testament of Job.” JBL 112 (1993): 55–70. Inwood, B. Ethics and Human Action in Early Stoicism. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999. Kraft, R. A. The Testament of Job according to the SV Text. Edited and translated by R. A. Kraft. Missoula, MT: Society of Biblical Literature and Scholars Press, 1974. Marcus, J. “Mark 4:10–12 and Marcan Epistemology.” JBL 103 (1984): 557–74. Moltmann, J. The Source of Life: The Holy Spirit and the Theology of Life. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997. Nussbaum, M. C. The Therapy of Desire: Theory and Practice in Hellenistic Ethics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009. Seitz, O. J. F. “Antecedents and Signification of the Term ΔΙΨΥΧΟΣ.” JBL 66 (1947): 211–19. Spittler, R. P. “Introduction to Testament of Job.” Pages 833–34 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 2003. Stowers, S. K. “4 Maccabees.” Pages 922–34 in Harper Bible Commentary. Edited by J. L. Mays. Harper & Row: San Francisco, 1988. Surin, K. Theology and the Problem of Evil. New York: Basil Blackwell, 1986. Wolfson, H. A. Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. 2 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982.

Unbridled Libido Ben Sira and the Billy Graham Rule Benjamin G. Wright III

In a March 28, 2017 Washington Post article profiling Karen Pence, the wife of US Vice President Mike Pence, Ashley Parker cited a 2002 interview with the Vice President in The Hill in which he said that he will not eat alone with a woman other than his wife and will not attend events in which alcohol is served without her present.1 The Hill quoted Pence as saying, “If there’s alcohol being served and people are being loose, I want to have the best-looking brunette in the room standing next to me.”2 The Washington Post article as well as subsequent articles in other news outlets brought what is known as the “Billy Graham Rule” into the public eye, and it has sparked debate about the effect that this religious attitude – Pence describes himself as an evangelical Catholic – has on women in professional settings. It has also highlighted the difference with his boss in the White House, who infamously boasted that because of his celebrity he could sexually molest women without repercussions.3 According to Grant Wacker, the so-called Billy Graham Rule originated in 1948 in Modesto, California. Graham’s team was meeting in a motel to discuss the downfalls of revivalists of the past. They identified four possible pitfalls: misuse of money; sexual immorality; exaggeration of their revival results; and criticism of other clergy members. Determined to avoid these potential difficulties, they formulated measures intended to head them off, which included obtaining regular financial audits, never dining or traveling alone with a woman other than family, using outside estimates of revival results, and emphasizing areas of agree1  A. Parker, “Karen Pence Is the Vice President’s ‘Prayer Warrior,’ Gut Check and Shield,” Washington Post (March 28, 2017), https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/karen-pence-is-​ the-vice-presidents-prayer-warrior-gut-check-and-shield/2017/03/28/3d7a26ce-0a01-11e7-88​ 84-​96e6a6713f4b_story.html?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.4e31ee546b5f. 2  Cited in E. Green, “How Mike Pence’s Marriage Became Fodder for the Culture Wars,” The Atlantic (March 30, 2017), https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/pence-wi​ fe-​billy-graham-rule/521298. 3  See, e. g., D. A. Fahrenthold, “Trump Recorded Having Extremely Lewd Conversation about Women in 2005,” Washington Post (October 8, 2016), https://www.washingtonpost. com/​politics/trump-recorded-having-extremely-lewd-conversation-about-women-in-2005/​ 2016/10/07/3b9ce776-8cb4-11e6-bf8a-3d26847eeed4_story.html?utm_term=.afadc6542db6.

172

Benjamin G. Wright III

ment with other clergy rather than disagreement. People who knew of this agreement began to refer to it as the Modesto Manifesto, although Graham apparently never used that moniker.4 It is not surprising, though, that the second of these – not dining alone or traveling with a woman other than one’s spouse – became known as the “Billy Graham Rule.”5 Much of the criticism directed at Pence, and other public officials as well who take this approach in the conduct of their professional affairs, has focused on the negative repercussions that it has on women in those professional contexts. So, for example, in a follow-up Washington Post article, Laura Turner noted that the rule “perpetuates an old boys’ club mentality, excluding women from important work and career conversations simply by virtue of their sex.”6 Some women pastors have also weighed in, saying that it would be virtually impossible to do the job of ministry without meeting one-on-one with members of the opposite sex.7 As might be imagined, in many religious quarters the Billy Graham Rule and Pence’s application of it have been praised, with some claiming that it helps to keep families together, prevents false accusations of sexual infidelity (!), or shows respect to a man’s wife.8 Although one fairly consistent element of this debate has been the focus on the practical effects on women’s professional opportunities, I want to highlight the unspoken but clear construction of women as inherently sexually seductive that the Billy Graham Rule assumes. Even Pence’s own comment, about wanting to be with “the best-looking brunette in the room,” tacitly takes for granted an inherently sexualized view of women while objectifying a particular woman as perhaps a prize to be won in a contest with other men. This debate over Pence’s (and other politicians’) behavior lacks any analysis of the construction of masculinity that the Rule reflects. In some of the news articles and opinion pieces, writers point out that the Rule is “an insulting view of men”9 or that it represents 4  G. Wacker, America’s Pastor: Billy Graham and the Shaping of a Nation (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2014), 10–11. 5  I have been unable to determine when the label “Billy Graham Rule” was first applied to this feature of the agreement. 6  L. Turner, “The Religious Reasons Mike Pence Won’t Eat Alone with Women Don’t Add Up,” Washington Post (March 30, 2017), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/ wp/​2017/03/30/the-religious-reasons-mike-pence-wont-eat-alone-with-women-dont-add-up/​ ?utm_term=.fe8d6567416f. 7  B. Allen, “The ‘Billy Graham Rule’ and Women in Ministry,” Baptist News Global (April 6, 2017), https://baptistnews.com/article/pastor-cbf-leader-say-billy-graham-rule-hinders-wo​ men-​in-ministry/#.WPjTaVPyu7p. 8  See the pros and cons noted in T. Funk, “Mike Pence Follows ‘Billy Graham Rule’ – Created to Avoid ‘Naked Lady with a Photographer,’” Charlotte Observer (April 4, 2017), http:// www.charlotteobserver.com/living/religion/article142611599.html. 9 J. Valenti, “Mike Pence Doesn’t Eat Alone with Women. That Speaks Volumes,” The Guardian (Mar 31, 2017), https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/31/mikepen​ce-doesnt-eat-alone-women-speaks-volumes.



Unbridled Libido

173

men as “sexual beings who cannot control their sexual desires.”10 For the most part, however, the focus is on the view of women that the Rule assumes and that is reinforced in its application in the professional world, while the presumptions about masculinity that undergird the Billy Graham Rule remain unexplored. This same circumstance pertains to scholarship on the Wisdom of Ben Sira, whose famous, or infamous, misogyny has been a frequent subject of scholarly examination.11 At stake in Mike Pence’s (and the Billy Graham Rule’s) and Ben Sira’s view of women is an implicit construction of masculinity in which women are represented as sexual tempters whom men by their very nature cannot resist. Women become foils that stand in for an unreflective masculinity, which is represented as normative rather than constructed and thus remains unexamined and challenged. This view serves to place responsibility for temptation and tempting onto the constructed “nature” of women’s sexuality and femininity and to divert it from any critical reflection on the “natural” inability of a man to resist. Changing the focus from notions of femininity to masculinity allows us to change the lenses through which we look at these ideas in Ben Sira as well as other early Jewish and Christian texts.

1.  Ben Sira’s Use of Temptation Vocabulary Although both the Hebrew and Greek texts of Ben Sira employ vocabulary usually translated as “tempt,” these terms do not occur in Ben Sira in connection with sexual allure, which is my concern here. Yet, the idea of sexual tempting and temptation are deeply embedded in his discourse about sex and sexuality. In the Hebrew and Greek texts of Ben Sira, the terms ‫ נסיון‬,‫נסה‬, and ‫נסוי‬, which are translated by πειράζω and πειρασμός, occur with some frequency. They do not connote sexual temptation, however. Usually, the terms are better translated by the English words “test” or “try” in the sense of assessing value or worth. So, for example, in 2:1 (no Hebrew extant): “Child, if you come to be subject to the Lord, prepare your soul for testing” (εἰς πειρασμόν; NETS). In this usage, the person who would follow God or search for Wisdom ought to prepare for testing, since it will inevitably come. Subjection to God depends on the responses to the tests that people encounter. In 44:20, in an allusion to the Akedah, Abraham becomes something of an exemplar for the one who successfully passes the test. Wisdom as 10  Allen, “Billy Graham Rule.” 11  See, for, example, W. C. Trenchard, Ben Sira’s View of Women: A Literary Analysis, BJS 38

(Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982); C. V. Camp, “Understanding a Patriarchy: Women in Second Century Jerusalem Through the Eyes of Ben Sira,” in “Women Like This”: New Perspectives on Jewish Women in the Greco-Roman World, ed. A.‑J. Levine, SBLEJL 1 (Atlanta: SBL, 1991), 1–39; I. Balla, Ben Sira on Family, Gender, and Sexuality, DCLS 8 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011); T. A. Ellis, Gender in the Book of Ben Sira: Divine Wisdom, Erotic Poetry, and the Garden of Eden, BZAW 453 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013).

174

Benjamin G. Wright III

well tries or tests her follower to assess faithfulness: “Because at first she will travel with him, though he twist and turn, fear and dread she will bring upon him, and she will torment him with her training until she has faith in his soul, and she will test (πειράσει) him with her statutes” (4:17).12 Humans can test other people or things in order to prove their worth. So, people can test their own souls (37:27), or they can test friends in order to assure that they are true friends or to find the good and bad in them (6:7; 13:11; 39:4). People should not test God through making a vow frivolously (18:23). Finally, Sir 33:1 might contain something of the connotation of temptation, although it is not explicitly sexual and does not depart greatly from the examples I have just highlighted: “The one who fears the Lord will not encounter evil; for when he is tested/tempted (‫בניסוי‬, MSS B, E, F/ Gk. ἐν πειρασμῷ), he will turn and escape.” As a general rule, however, Ben Sira reserves this vocabulary for non-sexual contexts where allure is not the concern.

2.  Ben Sira, Masculinity, and Sex In light of the attention that Ben Sira receives for the book’s discourse about women, the scholarly gaze rarely has turned to the way that the text constructs masculinity. Claudia Camp has moved in this direction in Ben Sira and the Men Who Handle Books, viewing Ben Sira and the matter of male sexuality through the lens of anthropological scholarship on honor and shame.13 About Ben Sira and sex, she writes, “One of life’s few relational dimensions he can, or should be able to, control is his own sexuality. Regulation of sexual activity within the patriarchal family was always part of the Israelite effort to maintain social cohesion. But rarely if ever in Hebrew scripture does one find such intense concern for men’s personal sexual control.”14 She goes on to argue that Ben Sira’s comments about male sexuality reveal an underlying anxiety about a man’s ability to control any of his “possessions,” including his women, which is the key to accruing and maintaining honor. 12  The translation here is from the Greek. The Hebrew of MS A from the Cairo Genizah is missing at least one and a half lines, due to a likely scribal error. It does have the clause, “She will choose him by her tests (‫)בנסיונות‬.” 13  C. V. Camp, Ben Sira and the Men Who Handle Books: Gender and the Rise of CanonConsciousness, Hebrew Monographs 50 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2013). In her chapter “Ben Sira’s Gendered Ethos II: Honor, Shame, Sex, and the Struggle for Control,” Camp spends a great deal of time on several important passages, including 9:1–9, which I will treat below, although from a bit of a different perspective from Camp’s. For other early Jewish literature, see J. L. Tinklenberg deVega, “‘A Man Who Fears God’: Constructions of Masculinity in Hellenistic Jewish Interpretations of the Story of Joseph” (Ph.D. diss., Florida State University, 2006), especially in her introductory chapter on method and the literature cited there (4–11), as well as her comments on Joseph and Aseneth (69–88). For the study of other ancient texts and their constructions of masculinity, see, for example, L. Foxhall and J. Salmon, eds., When Men Were Men: Masculinity, Power & Identity in Classical Antiquity (London: Routledge, 1998). 14 Camp, Men Who Handle Books, 54.



Unbridled Libido

175

Yet, both the Billy Graham Rule and Ben Sira’s comments about women assume a certain kind of masculinity that frames and inscribes an implicit understanding of the masculine in relation to a more explicit view of the feminine. Indeed, in both masculinity and feminist studies, one primary determinant of masculinity is men’s relationship(s) to women.15 Moreover, cultures construct what it means to be a man, and different subcultures within a larger culture might have different models for masculinity.16 R. W. Connell observes, “At any given time one form of masculinity rather than others is culturally exalted,” which she calls “hegemonic” and defines as “the configuration of gender practice which embodies the currently accepted answer to the problem of the legitimacy of patriarchy which guarantees (or is taken to guarantee) the dominant position of men and the subordination of women.”17 The hegemonic nature of idealized masculinity might also account for the way that it remains publicly implicit in the face of more explicit constructions of and attention to women, as for example, in the recent news coverage of Mike Pence’s application of the Billy Graham Rule. That is, the perceived naturalness of what constitutes masculinity leaves it relatively unexamined in the public sphere, even though the focus on the way that issues such as the Billy Graham Rule affect women ought to prompt analysis of the construction of masculinity on which that view is founded and related. If we look at the current controversy surrounding the Billy Graham Rule, one aspect of masculinity that seems to be at stake is the ability, or lack of ability, of a man to control his libido in the presence of a woman. Although the social realities and the cultural assumptions differ greatly between the second century BCE and the twenty-first century, both the debate about Mike Pence and the Billy Graham Rule and Ben Sira’s comments about women share an unarticulated concern about a man’s libido and his ability to keep it in check. In this, Ben Sira, I would suggest, anticipated Billy Graham by a couple of millennia.

3.  Ben Sira, Male Libido, and Women’s Bodies Several passages in Ben Sira deal with anxiety over women’s sexuality. Camp has dealt with these passages extensively and has revealed in Ben Sira a complex attitude about how a man should treat the various women with whom he might come into contact. In a nutshell Camp argues, “This issue is not simply 15  See D. J. A. Clines, Interested Parties: The Ideology of Writers and Readers of the Hebrew Bible, JSOTSup 205, Gender, Culture, Theory 1 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 213, who is relying on J. A. Doyle, The Male Experience (Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown, 1989). See also R. W. Connell, Masculinities, 2nd ed. (Berkeley/​Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2005), 68, and K. J. Murphy, “Masculinity, Moral Agency, and Memory: The Spirit of the Deity in Judges, Samuel, and Beyond,” JBRec 2 (2015): 175–96, esp. 182–84. 16  Murphy, “Masculinity,” 182. 17 Connell, Masculinities, 77. See also Murphy, “Masculinity,” who uses Connell’s theoretical insights and from which I learned of her work.

176

Benjamin G. Wright III

that women have been reduced to chattel, but rather that money and women are over-determined symbols of male honor, which has to do, in this case at least, with the need for external signs of control: they are sigla of manliness.”18 Thus, two aspects of male honor depend on women. First, a man has to keep control over the women who are part of his possessions, his wife and daughter(s). Second, he must control his own sexuality when he is with women who do not belong to his household. Both of these desiderata create anxiety about honor that revolves around control of others and of oneself. As Camp puts it, “It is as if, in Ben Sira’s drive to master life amid anxiety and arbitrary reversals of fortune, women – especially as sexual beings – epitomize all that is potentially out of his control.”19 Thus, she concludes, “Whether one’s own wife or another’s, a daughter or a prostitute, this sage perceives that women in all their roles threaten a man’s ability to control not only his possessions, but his very self and thus ultimately, the memory of his name before God and eternity.”20 In the face of such anxieties, one could imagine Ben Sira resorting to an ascetic view of sex, but he does not. He grounds marriage and thus male sexuality in two allusions to Genesis. In 36:29 he calls a wife a “pillar of support” (Heb.; Gk. “pillar of rest”) a likely allusion to Gen 2:20, and immediately after, in v. 30, he calls the man without a wife “a fugitive and a wanderer,” referring to Cain after Abel’s murder in Gen 4:14. He also recognizes the male libido, however, and sanctions it within a relationship with a wife. Sirach 40 is a poem that treats several topics including the “sensible wife” (40:23; Heb. MS B ‫ ;אשה משכלת‬Gk. γυνὴ μετὰ ἀνδρός). In vv. 19–20 Ben Sira comments on the male libido, at least indirectly:21 40:19 A son and a city establish one’s name, but better than both is finding wisdom. A calf and a plant make the flesh flourish, but better than both is a wife who is desired (‫)אשה נחשקת‬. 40:20 Wine and strong drink gladden the heart, but better than both is a desire for love-making (‫)אהבת דודים‬.22

18 Camp, Men Who Handle Books, 80. 19 Camp, Men Who Handle Books, 78. 20 Camp, Men Who Handle Books, 81. 21  The translation comes from the Hebrew of the Masada manuscript with the help of MS

B. These two verses differ in the Greek, which has two fewer cola in v. 29 perhaps due to homoioarchton in cola b and d. The Greek reads: “Children and the building of a city firmly fix a name, but above both is a wife considered blameless. Wine and music gladden a heart, but above both is love of wisdom.” 22  For the meaning of ‫ דודים‬as love-making, I am following Camp, Men Who Handle Books, 60 and Ellis, Gender, 183–84, who show that the term here has a sexual connotation, in contrast with P. W. Skehan and A. A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, AB 39 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987), 467, who argue for the meaning of friends.



Unbridled Libido

177

Here Ben Sira explicitly approves of a sexually desirable wife and of her husband’s appetite for sex, but the gist of the text restricts that desire to the marriage relationship. When we look at other contexts where a man encounters women, we see how problematic that male libido can become. In chapter 9, Ben Sira offers a diverse list of women with whom a man must be cautious and controlled, and here his wife is included as well, which suggests some difficulties with the male desire for sex, even within marriage. I give the text here according to MS A from the Cairo Genizah with notes from the Greek. 9:1 Do not be jealous [‫אל תקנא‬/μὴ ζήλου] of the wife of your bosom, lest she learn evil against you. 9:2 Do not be jealous of [Gk. and Syr. “give yourself to”] a woman/wife, lest she trample upon your high places. 9:3 Do not draw near to a strange woman [‫ ;אשה זרה‬Gk. “meet with a female escort”], lest you fall into her traps/snares.23 9:4 With female musicians [Gk. and Syr. singular] do not sleep [Gk. “do not dally”; Syr. “converse”], lest you become caught in her endeavors [= Gk.; Heb. is almost certainly corrupt]. 9:5 About a virgin do not think [Gk. “do not ogle a maiden”], lest you get caught in penalties for her [Gk. “lest you be made to stumble in her rebukes”]. 9:6 Do not give yourself to a prostitute [Gk. plural], lest you lose your inheritance. 9:7 [= Gk.] Do not look around in city alleyways, and in its deserted places do not wander.24 9:8 Conceal your eye from a charming [‫חן‬/εὐμόρφου] woman, and do not look at beauty [‫יפי‬/κάλλος] belonging to another; because of a woman many have been destroyed [Gk. “have gone astray”], and love of her/it [i. e., beauty] blazes up like fire. 9:9 With a married woman do not eat [‫ ;תטעם‬Gk. “sit down at all”], and do not be around her with intoxicants, lest you heart incline to her, and with blood you descend to the pit.

In a previous study, Suzanne Edwards and I identified this passage as a site of tension between the practical and theoretical ways in which the female body becomes an obstacle to male knowledge.25 In short, in 9:8 Ben Sira admonish23  MS A has a doublet for 3a that reads, “With a prostitute do not spend time, lest you be captured in her snares (?).” See Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 216–17. 24  The Hebrew and Syriac differ widely. The Hebrew of MS A extends v. 6 and reads, “in order to be disgraced through the vision of your eyes and to be desolate from her house.” The Syriac also extends verse 6 and has, “and you are brought low in the market of the city, and you shall be inscribed with adultery among debtors.” 25  B. G. Wright and S. M. Edwards, “‘She Undid Him with the Beauty of Her Face’ (Jdt 16.6): Reading Women’s Bodies in Early Jewish Literature,” in Religion and the Female Body in Ancient Judaism and Its Environments, ed. G. G. Xeravits et al., DCLS 28 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015), 73–108.

178

Benjamin G. Wright III

es his students not even to look at a beautiful woman, because it/she – beauty and the woman essentially are elided into the same entity – has the power to destroy. Gazing at beauty belonging to another curtails the practicality of his advice, however. Since Ben Sira values highly a wife who is beautiful, as we see in his description of the good wife in 26:16–18 (to which I will return) and his statement in 36:27 that “the beauty [‫תואר‬/κάλλος] of a wife brightens one’s face,” the young man presumably would have difficulty looking for a beautiful wife while not looking at a woman’s beauty. At the same time, however, a woman’s physical body, her embodiment, presents the sage with profound problems, and this seems to be true for all sorts of women – wives, virgins, and the socially suspect, that is, singing girls, prostitutes, “strange/foreign” women, and married women other than one’s own wife. A particular danger, it seems, comes in the male response to the women around him. Here Ben Sira seems to feel assailed at every turn, an anxiety that Camp attributes to a more generalized anxiety about the contest to accrue male honor: “The lack of control and potential loss of honor he experiences as the result of necessary relationships in the outside world reproduce themselves in the struggle to control his body. Precisely where no other man has a claim over him, where everything should be in his control, his overwhelming sexual urges threaten betrayal.”26 In this tension between women’s beauty and a man’s libidinous response, we see the close relationship between Ben Sira’s construction of femininity and his unarticulated view of masculinity. Embodied women pose two primary dangers to Ben Sira and his students. First, women’s sexuality, as Ben Sira represents it, is indiscriminate and uncontrolled, and throughout the book, Ben Sira resorts to metaphors to represent the embodied, sexual woman that read as almost pornographic.27 So, for example, speaking of daughters, he says in 26:12, “When a traveler is thirsty, he will open his mouth and drink from any water that is near; she will sit opposite every stake, and she will open her quiver to every arrow.”28 Second, women’s bodies, their beauty apart from their sexual appetites, have the potential to trigger the male libido and lead to awful consequences, and so Ben Sira warns his charges in 25:21, “Do not fall because of a woman’s beauty.” Avoiding situations where male sexual impulses might take over serves as the main point of 9:1–9, even with one’s own wife who will learn an evil lesson. The admonition to avoid women outside the household makes sense in the context, but what evil lesson might be taught to one’s own wife? Since the entire passage is about controlling the male libido, it would be understandable that 9:1–2 concern the same 26 Camp, Men Who Handle Books, 58. 27  In commenting on 36:23, 26, Camp calls women’s sexuality “bestially indiscriminate”

(Men Who Handle Books, 66). 28  This verse is part of a section only extant completely in Greek that treats daughters, although it sits in a larger context that focuses on wives. Some scholars think that wives are the subject here too. For my point, whether it is daughters or wives makes little difference.



Unbridled Libido

179

issue. Camp suggests that the verb ‫ קנא‬should be read as having passion for, and thus, the evil lesson is that the wife might learn sexual passion that cannot be controlled.29 Yet, perhaps these verses also play as well on the issue of both men’s and women’s uncontrolled sexuality. If a man is jealous concerning his wife, that is, he thinks that other men desire her, he worries that she might begin to believe that other men desire her and act on it, given her unbridled sexuality. In such cases, from Ben Sira’s jaundiced point of view, the man has little hope of resisting that temptation. Indeed, Ben Sira perceives this temptation to be so great that he prays in 23:2–6: 23:2 Who will set whips upon my thought and discipline of wisdom upon my heart so that they might not spare my faults of ignorance and he shall not let their sins go? – 23:3 that my acts of ignorance might not be multiplied, and my sins may increase, and I fall before my adversaries, and my enemy will rejoice over me. 23:4 O Lord, Father and God of my life, do not give me a lifting up of eyes, 23:5 and turn desire away from me. 23:6 Let not the belly’s appetite and sexual intercourse seize me, and do not give me over to a shameless soul.30

The prayer, which is not extant in Hebrew, focuses on both inner and external discipline and control. Menahem Kister emphasizes the similarity of Ben Sira’s prayer to apotropaic prayers in which the petitioner requests deliverance from spirits or demonic forces. For Ben Sira, however, desires rather than demonic forces threaten to control him, and he requires God’s help to overcome them. The threat comes from within.31 These internal desires, thoughts, and wishes must be violently disciplined with whips in the manner of an unbridled horse that needs to be broken, and physical appetites, including sex, must be kept from seizing or overtaking the man, as if they are pursuing him relentlessly. The prayer contains a plea that the sage not be given “a lifting up of eyes” or entertain desire or lust, ἐπιθυμία, both of which are transparently sexual. One senses that without the help of God the struggle is a losing one. Thus, the fear and anxiety that seem to plague Ben Sira in actuality turn on his own sense of the uncontrollable force of his own unbridled libido, which apparently becomes helpless in the face of feminine beauty and sexuality. 29  See Camp, Men Who Handle Books, 55–56. 30  The translation here is from the Greek. For a translation based on a Hebrew reconstruc-

tion of these verses, see M. Kister, “‘The Yetzer of the Human Heart’: The Body and Purification from Evil: Prayer-forms and Worldviews in Second Temple Literature and their Connection with Rabbinic Literature and Later Prayers,” Megilloth 8–9 (2010): 243–84 (Hebrew), here 264– 65. I thank Nicholas Ellis for drawing my attention to Kister’s article and for access to an English translation being prepared for publication. 31  Kister, “Yetzer,” 265–66. He notes that Ben Sira’s concept of desire resembles the rabbinic notion of the yetzer.

180

Benjamin G. Wright III

Ben Sira’s worry about the masculine libido and its relation to women is revealed further in his comments about daughters and adultery. We have already seen that Ben Sira considers daughters to be wantonly sexual, but his advice not to have windows in a daughter’s room or not to let her show her “form,” ‫תואר‬, to any man (42:11–12, see Mas and MS B) implicitly suggests that the man on the street who sees her will be unable to resist her beauty and potentially create the circumstances for her father’s shaming. Just seeing the daughter might incite another man’s ardor.32 But the father himself must keep control of his own attraction to his daughter and keep her economically viable as a virgin. Jon Berquist comments: The father’s economic need to make his daughter desirable yet to refrain from his own desire entwines itself with a madonna/whore complex. The more pure the daughter, the more suspect her motives. Thus Sirach assumes that this pure creature, kept within the bonds of fatherly control and confined to the protection of the house, is in actuality a craven sexual animal. This assumption transfers the desire from the father to the daughter, and objectifies her in the process.33

Thus, for Ben Sira, not simply the stranger who passes by, but even the woman’s own father cannot be counted on to control themselves in the face of her uncontrolled sexual nature. In light of the prayer of 23:1–6, Ben Sira’s comments about a man’s adulterous sexuality in 23:16–27 take on added force. For Ben Sira the man who indulges his libido will never stop being promiscuous (v. 16), cannot discriminate in his choice of lovers (v. 17), deceives himself into thinking that God does not see his actions (v. 18–20), and will be punished without warning and in public, bearing the ultimate shame (v. 21). Ben Sira reserves his harshest treatment, however, for a woman “who leaves her husband and presents an heir by another” (v. 22). Not only the woman but her children also will suffer (v. 24–26). He places the blame on the woman as one who has “disobeyed the law of the Most High,” “committed a wrong against her husband,” and “committed adultery by an illicit act” (v. 23). In other passages, he specifically warns men against being with a married woman at all, as we saw above in 9:9, where Ben Sira instructs a man not to eat with a married woman or drink with her as part of his teaching about controlling a man’s libido.34 Elsewhere, in Sir 41:20–22, in a list of things about which a man 32  For an excellent study of Ben Sira’s discourse about daughters, see J. L. Berquist, “Controlling Daughters’ Bodies in Sirach” in Parchment of Gender: Deciphering the Bodies of Antiquity, ed. M. Wyke (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), 95–120. 33  Berquist, “Controlling Daughters’ Bodies,” 102. 34  It seems unlikely that Billy Graham, a Protestant, knew of or relied on this verse for his “rule.” It is not mentioned in accounts of the Billy Graham rule that I have seen. As a Catholic, Mike Pence has Ben Sira in his canon of scripture, and this verse would give “scriptural” warrant for the practice of not being alone with a woman who is not one’s wife. I have not, however, seen anything that suggests that Pence has been influenced by (or even has read) Sir 9:1–9.



Unbridled Libido

181

should feel shame, Ben Sira admonishes his students concerning thoughts about a “strange woman,” about “trifling with a servant girl” and “going up to her bed,” and about “gazing at another man’s wife.” Once more we find Ben Sira worried about a man’s ability to control himself, and again among the dangerous women is another man’s wife. It is tempting at this juncture to speculate that although in the passage on a woman’s adultery blame gets fixed on the woman for sinning, the real blame should fall on men – on the husband who could not keep his wife under appropriate guard, as Ben Sira advises (see 25:25–26; 42:6–7),35 and on the man who could not control his libido around a married woman. In the light of a woman’s very corporeality testing a man’s ability to control his libido, Ben Sira’s comments on the beauty of a good wife take on more significance. Whereas the “bad” women in Ben Sira’s world, which can include wives and daughters, could not be more carnal, the beauty of a good wife is distinguished from these through metaphor, and Ben Sira defines a good wife primarily by what benefit she brings to her husband (see 25:8; 26:1–4).36 In chapter 26, Ben Sira presents the good wife as a contrast to the “evil” wife and the “wanton” daughter. 26:13 A wife’s charm will delight her husband, and her skill will put fat on his bones. 26:14 A gift from the Lord is a silent wife, and there is no exchange for her disciplined soul. 26:15 Charm upon charm is a modest wife, and there is no standard weight good enough for a self-controlled soul. 26:16 When the sun rises in the heights of the Lord – also a good wife’s beauty (κάλλος/‫)יפה‬, an ornament of her home. 26:17 When a lamp shines forth upon a holy lampstand – also beauty (κάλλος/‫ )הוד‬of face upon stable age/height. 26:18 Golden pillars upon a silver base – also beautiful legs upon well-balanced feet.37

This construction of ideal feminine beauty absorbs any notion of a corporeal woman into the metaphors of vv. 16–18. Ben Sira reprises the image of the sun in his description of the High Priest Simon II exiting the temple in 50:7. The holy lampstand and columns with silver bases allude to the temple, and indeed, a woman’s beauty follows from piety and virtue.38 When it comes to beauty, dangerous, “other” women are defined through their bodies, which become sites for provoking a man’s unbridled libido, and thus, they must be avoided. The good wife, however, has no real body for Ben Sira. Thus, in her silence, her 35  These two passages talk about the evil wife, but that wife seems to be one who is embodied, whereas the good wife is not. See my discussion below. 36  See the detailed argument in Wright and Edwards, “She Undid Him,” 101. 37  The translation is of the Greek text. MS C from the Cairo Genizah transmits vv. 15–17, which parallels the thought of the Greek with only minor variation. 38  Wright and Edwards, “She Undid Him,” 101.

182

Benjamin G. Wright III

modesty, and her self-control, she poses no present danger of kindling an unquenchable flame in her husband or any other man with whom she might come into contact.

4.  Ben Sira and the Billy Graham Rule Ben Sira’s understanding of women’s sexuality and its potential threat to men, then, rests on an unarticulated and unexamined view of masculinity, on its hegemonic status. The ideal man struggles, frequently without success, if Ben Sira’s warnings are any indication, to control a libido that he cannot be expected to rein in. This idea appears so natural that it does not have to be explored in any explicit way. As a result, women are expected to bear the primary responsibility for such control through their own bodily disciplines, such as silence and selfcontrol, and by being denied their own corporeality.39 The only good woman is one whose body essentially has disappeared. As Edwards and I concluded about women’s bodies, “The Wisdom of Ben Sira presents the female body in and of itself as a site of multiple meanings, which a young man must interpret,”40 but both the construction of the female body and interpretations of it derive from the implicit understanding of who a man is, someone who is practically ruled by his own sexuality. If we are to understand Ben Sira’s view of the feminine and the possible interpretations of women that depend on it, we also must interrogate how Ben Sira constructs masculinity. I might speculate, then, that given the ways that Ben Sira understands women’s and men’s sexuality, the language of testing or tempting does not quite fit. If women are indeed the craven sexual beings that Ben Sira portrays them as being, and if men cannot control the libidos of their wives and daughters and under most circumstances their own, the deliberate and intentional way that someone tempts someone else does not really apply. We might expect Ben Sira to connect temptation and testing with sexuality, but in the end, in his view, men are intractably drawn towards women’s sexuality, no matter who they are, and women must be held responsible for disciplining themselves to shield men from the inherent allure of their bodies. Thus, we have to circle back to Mike Pence and the Billy Graham Rule, or what I prefer now somewhat in jest to call the Ben Sira Rule. Like Ben Sira, the application of the rule by contemporary men is undergirded by a similar and also unexamined idealized masculinity. These men do not live in a society in which the public accrual of honor and shame is the central value as it was for Ben Sira in the second century BCE, but Billy Graham’s concern for sexual immoral39  See Camp, Men Who Handle Books, 63 for the interpretation of a woman’s “bound up mouth” in 26:15 (MS C) as having a double entendre meaning of silence and euphemistically as referring to her vagina. 40  Wright and Edwards, “She Undid Him,” 101.



Unbridled Libido

183

ity or an anxiety about even the appearance of impropriety seems to me grounded in a comparable dynamic – that women (and for Graham money, pride, and religious conflict as well) pose the primary danger, that a man cannot be expected to control his libido, and that others might seek to subvert that man’s public status and position by exploiting that inability. Moreover, in a contemporary society where men have traditionally held the reins of social, political, and sexual power, the Billy Graham Rule also seems to me to reflect an anxiety that this power and control might be slipping. The application of the Billy Graham Rule both forces women into untenable professional circumstances and reinforces views of women as inherently sexually seductive – whether that seductive nature is read into the relationship by those outside or inside of it.41 Yet in the public discussions of Mike Pence’s application of the Billy Graham rule, the extent to which hegemonic ideals of masculinity have determined the views of women inherent in its use goes largely unexamined. The underlying and central expectation of that construction is that a man cannot be expected to exercise self-control over his libido, but, as in the case of Ben Sira, the primary and largely deleterious effects of that ideal fall on women. “Boys will be boys,” after all.42 To stop at examining and describing the construction of idealized masculinity, either in ancient texts or in modern contexts, runs the risk of reinscribing those idealizations and of becoming “just another way to talk about white men.”43 Björn Krondorfer has argued that only by applying critique to the enterprise can we avoid slipping back “into a long tradition of reiterations of male dominance within the sphere of religion,” and scholars must exercise “critical sensitivity and scholarly discipline in the context of gender unjust systems.”44 When we look at the complex set of intersecting gender constructions in Ben Sira and the Billy Graham Rule, one critical aspect of study that they illustrate is the necessity to bring to the fore and out of the shadows the unexamined and hegemonic construction of masculinity at work in them. Inasmuch as the construction of women in these cases is an outgrowth of an implicitly idealized masculinity, to leave those ideals implicit and unexamined risks missing the possibilities for dismantling the very constructions that perpetuate male power. 41  The literature on gender and power is vast. See, for example, Connell, Masculinities and the classic work of J. Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (New York: Routledge, 1990). 42  In addition to the articles cited above, see J. Tolentino, “Mike Pence’s Marriage and the Beliefs that Keep Women from Power,” New Yorker (March 31 2017), http://www.newyorker. com/​culture/jia-tolentino/mike-pences-marriage-and-the-beliefs-that-keep-women-from-po​ wer. 43  K. Lofton, “The Man Stays in the Picture: Recent Works in Religion and Masculinity,” RelSRev 30 (2004): 23–28, cited in B. Krondorfer, “Introduction,” in Men and Masculinities in Christianity and Judaism: A Critical Reader, ed. B. Krondorfer (London: SCM, 2009), xi–xxi. 44  Krondorfer, “Introduction,” xvii.

184

Benjamin G. Wright III

Bibliography Allen, B. “The ‘Billy Graham Rule’ and Women in Ministry.” Baptist News Global, April 6, 2017. Online: https://baptistnews.com/article/pastor-cbf-leader-say-billy-graham-rule-hinderswomen-in-ministry/#.WPjTaVPyu7p. Balla, I. Ben Sira on Family, Gender, and Sexuality. DCLS 8. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. Berquist, J. L. “Controlling Daughters’ Bodies in Sirach.” Pages 95–120 in Parchment of Gender: Deciphering the Bodies of Antiquity. Edited by M. Wyke. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998. Butler, J. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge, 1990. Camp, C. V. Ben Sira and the Men Who Handle Books: Gender and the Rise of Canon-Consciousness. Hebrew Monographs 50. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2013. –. “Understanding a Patriarchy: Women in Second Century Jerusalem Through the Eyes of Ben Sira.” Pages 1–39 in “Women Like This”: New Perspectives on Jewish Women in the Greco-Roman World. Edited by A.‑J. Levine. SBLEJL 1. Atlanta: SBL, 1991. Clines, D. J. A. Interested Parties: The Ideology of Writers and Readers of the Hebrew Bible. JSOTSup 205; Gender, Culture, Theory 1. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Connell, R. W. Masculinities. 2d ed. Berkeley/​Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2005. Doyle, J. A. The Male Experience. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown, 1989. Ellis, T. A. Gender in the Book of Ben Sira: Divine Wisdom, Erotic Poetry, and the Garden of Eden. BZAW 453. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013. Fahrenthold, D. A. “Trump Recorded Having Extremely Lewd Conversation about Women in 2005.” Washington Post, October 8, 2016. Online: https://www.washingtonpost.com/ politics/trump-recorded-having-extremely-lewd-conversation-about-women-in-​20​0 5/​ 2016/10/07/3b9ce776-8cb4-11e6-bf8a-3d26847eeed4_story.html?utm_term=.af​ad​c6​54​2db6. Foxhall, L., and J. Salmon, eds. When Men Were Men: Masculinity, Power & Identity in Classical Antiquity. London: Routledge, 1998. Funk, T. “Mike Pence Follows ‘Billy Graham Rule’ – Created to Avoid ‘Naked Lady with a Photographer.’” Charlotte Observer, April 4, 2017. Online: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/ living/religion/article142611599.html. Green, E. “How Mike Pence’s Marriage Became Fodder for the Culture Wars.” The Atlantic. Online: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/pence-wife-billy-grahamrule/​52​1298. Kister, M. “‘The Yetzer of the Human Heart’: Prayer-forms and Worldviews in Second Temple Literature and their Connection with Rabbinic Literature and Later Prayers.” Megilloth 8–9 (2010): 243–84 (Hebrew). Krondorfer, B. “Introduction.” Pages xi–xxi in Men and Masculinities in Christianity and Judaism: A Critical Reader. Edited by B. Krondorfer. London: SCM, 2009. Lofton, K. “The Man Stays in the Picture: Recent Works in Religion and Masculinity.” RelSRev 30 (2004): 23–28. Murphy, K. J. “Masculinity, Moral Agency, and Memory: The Spirit of the Deity in Judges, Samuel, and Beyond.” JBRec 2 (2015): 175–96. Parker, A. “Karen Pence Is the Vice President’s ‘Prayer Warrior,’ Gut Check and Shield.” Washington Post, March 28, 2017. Online: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/karen-pen​ ce-is-the-vice-presidents-prayer-warrior-gut-check-and-shield/2017/03/28/3d7a26ce-0a​01-​ 11​e7-8884-96e6a6713f4b_story.html?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.4e31ee546b5f. Skehan, P. W., and A. A. Di Lella. The Wisdom of Ben Sira. AB 39. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987. Tinklenberg deVega, J. L. “‘A Man Who Fears God’: Constructions of Masculinity in Hellenistic Jewish Interpretations of the Story of Joseph.” Ph.D. diss., Florida State University, 2006.



Unbridled Libido

185

Tolentino, J. “Mike Pence’s Marriage and the Beliefs that Keep Women from Power.” New Yorker, March 31, 2017. Online: http://www.newyorker.com/culture/jia-tolentino/mikepences-marriage-and-the-beliefs-that-keep-women-from-power. Trenchard, W. C. Ben Sira’s View of Women: A Literary Analysis. BJS 38. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982. Turner, L. “The Religious Reasons Mike Pence Won’t Eat Alone with Women Don’t Add Up.” Washington Post, March 30, 2017. Online: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-​ faith/wp/2017/03/30/the-religious-reasons-mike-pence-wont-eat-alone-with-women-do​ nt-​add-up/?utm_term=.fe8d6567416f. Valenti, J. “Mike Pence Doesn’t Eat Alone with Women. That Speaks Volumes.” The Guardian, March 31, 2017. Online: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/31/mikepence-doesnt-eat-alone-women-speaks-volumes. Wacker, G. America’s Pastor: Billy Graham and the Shaping of a Nation. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2014. Wright, B. G., and S. M. Edwards. “She Undid Him with the Beauty of Her Face’ (Jdt 16.6): Reading Women’s Bodies in Early Jewish Literature.” Pages 73–108 in Religion and the Female Body in Ancient Judaism and Its Environments. Edited by G. G. Xeravits et al. DCLS 28. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015.

List of Contributors Andrew Bowden, Research Assistant, Evangelisch-Theologische Fakultät, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Germany Michael Francis, Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies, John Brown University, USA Susan R. Garrett, Professor of New Testament, Louisville Seminary, USA Todd R. Hanneken, Associate Professor and Chair of the Theology Department, Saint Mary’s University, USA Jan Willem van Henten, Professor of Religion, Faculty of Humanities, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands, and Extra-Ordinary Professor of Old and New Testament, Stellenbosch University, South Africa Susanne Luther, Assistant Professor of New Testament, Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, University of Groningen, Netherlands Tzvi Novick, Associate Professor and Abrams Chair of Jewish Thought and Culture, Department of Theology, University of Notre Dame, USA Madison N. Pierce, Assistant Professor of New Testament, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, USA Daniel L. Smith, Associate Professor of New Testament, Department of Theological Studies, Saint Louis University, USA Loren T. Stuckenbruck, Professor of New Testament, Evangelisch-Theologische Fakultät, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Germany Benjamin G. Wright III, University Distinguished Professor, Department of Religion Studies, Lehigh University, USA

Index of Ancient Sources 1  Hebrew Bible Genesis 1 1:26 (LXX) 17 1:27 (LXX) 19 2–3 (LXX) 13 2:7 (LXX) 19 2:18 33 2:18 (LXX) 33 2:20 33, 176 2:20 (LXX) 33 2:30 176 3 (LXX) 9 3:1–8 (LXX) 12 3:1a (LXX) 8 3:1b–7 (LXX) 8 3:22 (LXX) 17 4:10 137 4:14 176 6:1–4 (LXX) 11–12 10:8 12 11:31 59 12:1–3 (LXX) 104 12:1 59 12:4–6 (LXX) 105 12:4 59 12:4a (LXX) 104 12:4b (LXX) 104 12:10 59 12:11ff 59 14:23 90 15 45, 59 15:6 45 15:7 60 16:6 (LXX) 15 17:9 59 17:17 (LXX) 21 20 59 21:8 59 22 (LXX) 30, 32

22

40, 45–46, 58–60, 84– 85, 131 22:1–2 (LXX) 32 22:1 (LXX) 8–9, 13 22:1 40, 45, 47, 54, 117, 131 22:2 59 22:3 (LXX) 105 22:12 (LXX) 32 22:12 45, 59 22:16 (LXX) 32 22:18 45 23:2 (LXX) 21 23:16 (LXX) 9 26:3 132 29–31 (LXX) 131 29–31 131 31:7 56 31:41 56 34 132–133 38:14–15 10 42:15–16 (LXX) 106 46:11 132 Exodus 2:1 124 3:12 132 4:22 144 7:27 (LXX) 104 12–13 (LXX) 35 12:38 (LXX) 105 14 118 14:11–12 (LXX) 102 14:11–12 97 15–20 (LXX) 117 15–20 117 15–17 118 15–16 120 15 (LXX) 15 15 118

190

Index of Ancient Sources

15:22–27 118 15:22–26 (LXX) 117, 125 15:22–26 117–118, 121, 125, 129 15:22 (LXX) 125 15:22 118 15:23–25 (LXX) 14 15:23 97 15:24–25a 118 15:24 (LXX) 125–126 15:24 119–120 15:25 (LXX) 8–9, 125, 128, 138 15:25 85, 117, 136 15:25b (LXX) 119 15:25b 119 15:26 (LXX) 125 15:26 119, 125, 132 16 (LXX) 117 16 117–119, 121, 149 16:1 118 16:2–3 120 16:2 97 16:3 118–120 16:4–5 119 16:4 (LXX) 8–9, 13, 17, 28, 126, 128 16:4 117, 120–123, 126, 136, 148 16:5 120 16:6–10 120 16:7 120 16:10 118 16:11–12 120 16:14 118 16:15–16 120 16:19 120 16:20 97, 120, 148 16:22–26 120 16:23 120 16:25–26 120 16:27–29 120 16:27 97, 148 16:32 118 16:35 129 17 (LXX) 26 17 118, 120–121 17:1–7 (LXX) 26, 117, 126, 131 17:1–7 117–118, 125, 129–131 17:1–2 120, 149

17:1 118 17:2–7 97 17:2 (LXX) 126, 128 17:2 117, 120–121 17:3 (LXX) 126 17:3 120 17:4–6 (LXX) 126 17:4 120 17:5–6 120, 132 17:5 130 17:6 126 17:7 (LXX) 126, 128, 131 17:7 117, 120–121, 131– 133, 138 20 118 20:3 89 20:18–21 (LXX) 117 20:18–21 117–118, 122 20:18 122 20:20 (LXX) 28 20:20 117, 122, 129, 131, 145 20:22 (LXX) 15, 128 22:22 15 32 (LXX) 102–103, 111 32 97 32:6 (LXX) 110–111, 113 32:7 (LXX) 111 32:26 (LXX) 9 34:28 55 Leviticus 5:4 (LXX) 121 19:25 89–90 23:42–43 (LXX) 9 25:20–21 90 Numbers 1–10:10 (LXX) 93 10:11–21:35 (LXX) 93 10:29 (LXX) 94 10:33 (LXX) 94 10:33 94 10:35–36 (LXX) 94 10:36 (LXX) 94 10:36 94 11 (LXX) 93, 96–98, 101–102, 104–105, 107–111, 114 11 118, 149



1  Hebrew Bible

11:1–3 (LXX) 99, 100 11:1 (LXX) 95 11:1 97 11:4–35 (LXX) 99, 113 11:4 (LXX) 93, 95–97, 101, 105, 107, 110, 112–113 11:4 96–97, 102 11:11–15 (LXX) 95 11:16–17 (LXX) 95 11:18–20 (LXX) 95 11:18 (LXX) 95 11:20 (LXX) 95 11:21 (LXX) 95 11:31 (LXX) 101, 108 11:32 (LXX) 96, 101 11:34 (LXX) 95, 101, 113 13 122 13–14 (LXX) 99, 102 14 (LXX) 35, 97, 111, 117 14 117–118 14:1–4 (LXX) 97 14:1 (LXX) 96–97 14:2–4 (LXX) 96 14:2–4 122 14:2 (LXX) 111, 113 14:2 118 14:4 (LXX) 35 14:10 120, 122 14:11–25 122 14:13–19 122 14:16 118 14:20–35 (LXX) 97 14:20–23 122 14:22–23 (LXX) 128 14:22–23 122, 129, 132 14:22 (LXX) 97 14:22 55, 97, 117–118, 123, 149 14:25 118 14:36–38 (LXX) 97 16 (LXX) 102, 111 16:11 (LXX) 111, 113 16:13 (LXX) 96 20–21 118 20 (LXX) 26, 97, 102 20:1–13 125 20:3 (LXX) 126 20:4 (LXX) 97

20:8–12 125 20:9–13 (LXX) 99 20:11 133 20:12 121 20:22 (LXX) 126 20:24 (LXX) 126 20:29 (LXX) 97 21 (LXX) 111 21:1–3 (LXX) 97 21:4–6 (LXX) 111, 113 21:4 (LXX) 130 21:5 (LXX) 97, 100 22–24 (LXX) 94 25–36 (LXX) 94 25 (LXX) 102, 111 25:1–9 (LXX) 102, 111, 113 25:2 (LXX) 111 25:1–9 (LXX) 111 33:16–17 (LXX) 93 Deuteronomy 1:31 144 4:13 55 4:34 117 6 148 6–8 123, 148 6:4–8:20 123 6:13 150 6:16–17 136 6:16 (LXX) 128 6:16 117, 123, 125, 129, 149–150 7:19 55, 117 8 137, 148 8:2–4 123 8:2 (LXX) 8, 12, 16, 28, 128 8:2 117, 123, 136, 144 8:3 148–149 8:5 (LXX) 75 8:5 131, 144 8:15–17 129 8:15–16 123, 132 8:16 (LXX) 8 8:16 117, 123, 144 8:25–27 129 9 (LXX) 114 9:1 (LXX) 98 9:3 (LXX) 99, 113

191

192

Index of Ancient Sources

9:4 (Vg.) 137 9:6–7 (Vg.) 137 9:6 (LXX) 98–99 9:6 (Vg.) 137 9:7 (LXX) 98–99 9:10–21 (LXX) 102 9:10 (LXX) 98 9:12 (LXX) 99 9:19–21 (LXX) 99 9:19 (LXX) 99, 113 9:22–24 (LXX) 98–99 9:22 (LXX) 93, 98–99, 113 9:22 117 9:25 (LXX) 99, 113 9:26–29 (LXX) 99 9:30 (LXX) 99 10:4 55 12 (LXX) 8, 108–109 12:8 (LXX) 107–109 12:15 (LXX) 108 12:20 (LXX) 108 12:22 (LXX) 108 13:2–3 153 13:3 123, 144 13:4 117 13:11 132, 137 17:18 (LXX) 98 28–30 41 28 41 29:2 55, 117 31–34 134 31–33 134 32 134 32:4 144 32:5 144 32:6 144 32:15–8 134 32:19–25 134 32:26–34 134 32:35–43 134 32:43 137 33:2 (LXX) 35 33:8–11 (LXX) 126–127 33:8–11 122–125, 131–134, 136, 138 33:8 (LXX) 127–128, 138 33:8 117, 124–125, 136

33:10 (LXX) 127, 132 33:10 132 33:11 (LXX) 126 33:11 124, 133, 137 Joshua 7 118 10:6 33 10:20 27 11:23 27 21:44 27 23 27 Judges 2:22 117, 123 3:1 117, 123 3:4 117, 123 6:12 132 1 Samuel (LXX: 1 Βασ) 7:12 33 12:3 89 28:6 (LXX) 127 1 Kings (LXX: 3 Βασ) 10:1 117 2 Kings (LXX: 4 Βασ) 9:7 137 10:11 84 22:42 (LXX) 33 1 Chronicles 5:20 33 12:19 (LXX) 33 2 Chronicles 9:1 117 32:8 (LXX) 132 32:31 117 Nehemiah 4:6 56 9:8 45, 84–85 Esther 4:16 137



Job 1–2 40 1:11 40 1:12 (LXX) 166 2:6 (LXX) 166 7:1 (LXX) 142 13:22–24 161 19:3 56 19:14 84 23:3–5 161 29:12 (LXX) 33 Psalms 8 (LXX) 29, 32 9:38 (LXX) 96 12 57 12:6 57 12:7 57 16:3 (LXX) 75 17:3 40, 46, 75 20:2 (LXX) 96 21 (LXX) 33 21:12 (LXX) 33–34 21:20 (LXX) 34 21:23 (LXX) 34 25:2 (LXX) 75 26:2 40, 75, 117, 131 26:4 89 31:6 (LXX) 127 31:12 84 32:6 127 39 (LXX) 33–34 39:7–9 (LXX) 34 39:14 (LXX) 34 39:18 (LXX) 34 46:5 33 55:14 84 65:10 (LXX) 75 66:10 75 71:12 (LXX) 33 77 (LXX) 27, 99–101, 114 77:1 (LXX) 99 77:2–8 (LXX) 99 77:4 (LXX) 99 77:5 (LXX) 99 77:6–7 (LXX) 99 77:8 (LXX) 100 77:9–72 (LXX) 100

1  Hebrew Bible

77:11–16 (LXX) 100 77:17–22 (LXX) 100 77:18 (LXX) 27, 101, 113, 128 77:23–31 (LXX) 100 77:26–32 (LXX) 100 77:27 (LXX) 101 77:28–30 (LXX) 113 77:28–29 (LXX) 93 77:29–30 (LXX) 99, 101 77:29 (LXX) 101 77:31 (LXX) 101 77:32 (LXX) 100 77:36–37 (LXX) 100 77:40 (LXX) 100 77:41 (LXX) 100, 128 77:42–53 (LXX) 100 77:42–50 (LXX) 27 77:49 (LXX) 12 77:52 (LXX) 100 77:56 (LXX) 27, 100, 128 77:66 (LXX) 100 77:68 (LXX) 100 77:70 (LXX) 100 77:71 (LXX) 100 78 121 78:15–20 125 78:15–16 121 78:17–25 121 78:18–20 121 78:18 117, 128 78:20 121 78:29–30 99 78:40–41 121, 125 78:41 117, 123, 128 78:56 117, 125, 128 79:9 33 79:10 137 80:8 (LXX) 128 81 121 81:7 125 81:8 121, 128 88:9 84 88:19 84 91 150 94 (LXX) 26–27 94:7–11 (LXX) 26 94:8–9 (LXX) 127–128 94:12 131

193

194

Index of Ancient Sources

95:8–11 121 95:8–10 123, 129 95:8–9 121, 125, 127–128 95:8 117 95:9 117, 130 105 (LXX) 101–102, 113, 114 105:4 (LXX) 101–102 105:5 (LXX) 113 105:6 (LXX) 101 105:7–11 (LXX) 102 105:12 (LXX) 102 105:13–15 (LXX) 93, 101, 113 105:14 (LXX) 102 105:15 (LXX) 102 105:16–18 (LXX) 102 105:19–23 (LXX) 102 105:24–27 (LXX) 102 105:28–31 (LXX) 102 105:30–31 (LXX) 102 105:32–33 (LXX) 102, 121 105:34–43 (LXX) 102 105:44–46 (LXX) 102 105:46 (LXX) 101, 113 105:47 (LXX) 102 106 121 106:12 (LXX) 33 106:13–15 101 106:14 117, 125 106:32–33 121, 125 110 (LXX) 32 Proverbs 3 (LXX) 37 3:11–12 (LXX) 15, 37, 75 3:34 (LXX) 70 10:12 (LXX) 63 11:13 84 13:12 (LXX) 33 17:3 57 25:8–10 84 27:6 83 27:21 57, 67 28:27 89 Isaiah 1:22 (LXX) 75 1:25 (LXX) 75

6:9 164 7:12 117, 123 11:1–5 146 41:8 85 41:13 33 41:14 33 41:40 33 44:2 33 48:10 (LXX) 75 49:8 33 59:7 33 59:9 33 63:5 33 63:5 (LXX) 33 63:16 144 64:7 144 Jeremiah 3:4 144 3:19 144 6:18–30 (LXX) 75 11:4 (LXX) 75 11:20 40 31:9 144 Lamentations 1:7 (LXX) 33 Ezekiel 3:18–21 (LXX) 64 12:14 (LXX) 33 22:17–22 (LXX) 75 Daniel 1:12 57, 117 1:14 57, 117 1:20 57 11:33–35 46 12:1–3 46 Hosea 11:1–4 144 11:1 148 Nahum 3:9 (LXX) 33



Zechariah 13:9 (LXX) 75 13:9 40

2  New Testament

Malachi 2:10 144 3:3 (LXX) 75

2  New Testament Matthew 2–4 148 2–3 149 2:14 148 2:15 148 2:21 148 4 151, 148 4:1–16 40 4:1–11 148, 152 4:1 152 4:4 148 4:7 150 4:8–10 90 4:8 151, 153 4:10 150 4:11 150 5:39 70 6 151 6:9–13 150–152 6:10 151 6:13 152 7:15–20 88 12:38 149 13:22 40 16:1 149–150 18 65 19:3 150 22:18 150 22:35 150 24:24 35 26 150–152 26:26–29 150 26:26 151 26:28 151 26:29 151 26:41 151–152 26:42 151 Mark 1:4–8 164

1:5 147 1:9 147 1:11 147 1:12–13 146, 164 1:13 147 1:15 147 4:11–12 164 4:19 40 6:52 164 8:14–21 164 8:31 164 8:33 164 9:31 164 10 164 10:33–34 164 13:5–23 164 13:13 73 13:22 35 14:3–9 164 14:27–28 164 14:30 164 14:32–35 167 14:35–36 165 14:35 167 14:36 165 15:34 164, 167 Luke 4:1–13 40 4:13 141 6:43–45 88 22:3 166 22:53 166 John 3:35 166 4:48 35 6:15 166 8:1–11 166 10:17–18 167

195

196 10:28–30 166 10:37 167 12:27–28 167 12:27 167 12:28 167 12:32–33 167 13:2–3 166 13:27 166 16:32 167 17:1 167 18:1–11 166 18:11 167 18:4 166 18:32 167 19:11 166 Acts 2:43 35 4:30 35 5:12 35 6:8 35 14:3 35 15:12 35 Romans 4:16–22 159 4:18 73 5:3 73 7:21–25 159 15:19 35 1 Corinthians 7:5 159 8–10 109, 111, 114 8 110 8:1–13 109 8:1 109, 110 8:2 110 8:3 110 8:7 110 8:10 110 8:11 110 8:13 110 9 110 9:16 81 9:19–22 110 9:22 112 9:25 110

Index of Ancient Sources

10 153 10:1–22 109 10:1–13 110 10:1–5 110 10:1 110, 142 10:6–13 110 10:6 109–112, 114, 141, 153 10:7–8 113 10:7 110–111, 113, 153 10:8 111, 113 10:9 111–113 10:10 111, 113 10:11 110, 153 10:12–13 152 10:12 111 10:13 111–114, 141–143, 145, 153 10:14 141, 153 10:15–18 112 10:19–22 112 10:20 112 10:23–11:1 109 10:23–30 112 10:27–29 112 10:28–29 112 10:28 109 10:31–11:1 112 10:33 112 1 Thessalonians 3:1–5 159 3:5 159 1 Timothy 6:9 141 Hebrews 1 28 1:7 28 1:14 28 2–4 35 2 30, 32, 35 2:1–4 35 2:4 35 2:5–7 32 2:9 29 2:10 29, 32 2:12 32, 33



2:14–18 28, 33, 35 2:14 28 2:15 35 2:16 32 2:17–18 28 2:17 28 2:18 25, 28–29, 31 3–4 34, 35 3:7–4:11 26 3:7–11 26, 37 3:8–9 25, 31 3:8 26 3:9 26 3:16 26 3:17–19 26 3:19 27 3:19–4:1 27 4 35 4:7–8 27 4:14–16 29, 33 4:14 29 4:15 25, 29–31, 157 5:2 30 5:7–10 31, 165 5:7 31, 157, 167 7:11–28 30 9:15 36 10:5–7 31, 34 10:32–36 34 11 31 11:9–10 27 11:13–15 27 11:17–19 30 11:17 25, 31 11:19 32 11:22 27 11:28 35 11:37 25 11:38 27 12 25, 35–37 12:4–11 34 12:4 37 12:5–13 36 12:5–6 15, 37 12:11 37 13:3 34 13:13 34

2  New Testament

James 1 74 1:2–15 67, 69 1:2–12 67 1:12–13 141 1:2–4 66–68, 70 1:5 67, 73 1:6–8 67 1:8 63 1:9–11 67 1:2–16 72 1:12–15 40, 70 1:12 67–68, 70–71, 77 1:13–15 66–68, 73, 159 1:13 65, 151 1:13a 68 1:13b 68 1:14–15 63, 69 1:14 68 1:15 68–69, 71, 73 1:18 71 1:19–27 71–72 1:21–27 72 1:21 71–72 1:22–25 72 1:26 72 1:27 69, 73 2:1b 75 2:5 75 2:9 75 2:10–11 75 2:13 76 3 72 3:1–18 72 3:1 71, 76 3:2 72 3:4 73 3:17 66 4:1–10 69 4:1–4 72, 73 4:1 69 4:2 69 4:4 63, 69 4:5–10 72 4:5 70 4:6 70 4:7–8 69–70 4:7 69

197

198

Index of Ancient Sources

4:8 63 4:12 76–77 5:7–11 70, 76–77 5:11 77 5:7 76 5:8 70, 76 5:9 64, 76 5:10 70 5:11 70–71 5:12 76 5:16 63 5:19–20 63–65, 69, 71, 73 5:20 63–64

1 Peter 4:8 63 4:12 141 5:4 77 2 Peter 1:6 90 Revelation 2:10 57, 77 3:10 141 6:10 137 19:2 137

3  Deuterocanonical Works and Septuagint Tobit 3:10 (Vg.) 137 4:10 (LXX) 64 8:6 (LXX) 33 Judith 5:3 (LXX) 133 5:10–16 128 5:23 (LXX) 133 7–15 118, 128–129, 133 7–13 129, 146 7–8 (LXX) 132 7:1 129 7:2 129 7:6–7 129 7:12 129 7:17 129 7:19 (LXX) 130 7:20–21 129 7:20 129 7:25 (LXX) 33, 132 7:25 130 7:27 130 7:30–31 129, 131 8–15 129 8 129, 133 8:1 (LXX) 133 8:4 129 8:6 (LXX) 33 8:9 (LXX) 130

8:11–34 130 8:12–13 130 8:12 129–130, 138 8:17–18 131 8:25–27 (LXX) 73 8:25–27 129 8:25–26 (LXX) 130 8:25–26 130, 136, 138 8:30 131 8:33 131–132 9 129, 132 9:1 (LXX) 132 9:1 131 9:2–3 (LXX) 132 9:4 (LXX) 132 9:8–9 132 9:8 (LXX) 133 9:9 (LXX) 133 9:9 131 9:10 (LXX) 133 9:11 (LXX) 133 9:11 132 9:14 (LXX) 132 9:14 132 11:7 (LXX) 133 11:22 132 12:7–9 137 12:7 129 12:10 129 13 (LXX) 133



3  Deuterocanonical Works and Septuagint

13 137 13:1–15:7 129 13:4 (LXX) 133 13:4 131 13:7 (LXX) 133 13:7 131 13:8 (LXX) 133–134 13:11–20 129 13:11 (LXX) 132 13:11 131 13:14–15 132 14–15 133 14:7 (LXX) 134 14:11 129 14:18 129 15:1–7 129 15:9–10 (LXX) 133 15:10 132 16:5 132 Wisdom of Solomon 1:2 130 2:20 159 2:23–24 (LXX) 70 3:1–7 131 3:5–6 85 3:5 (LXX) 36, 75 3:5 123 3:6 57 9 (LXX) 102 11–15 (LXX) 103 11–14 (LXX) 103 11:9–10 (LXX) 37, 102–103 11:9–10 123 11:9 (LXX) 75 11:10 (LXX) 104, 144 15:1–4 (LXX) 114 15:1–3 (LXX) 103–104, 113 15:4–19 (LXX) 104 15:4–6 (LXX) 103 15:4 (LXX) 103 15:5–6 (LXX) 103 15:7–19 (LXX) 103 16:1–4 (LXX) 102–104, 113 16:2–14 (LXX) 110 16:2 (LXX) 93, 103 16:3–4 (LXX) 106 16:3 (LXX) 103

16:4 (LXX) 103–104 16:5–24 (LXX) 104 16:6 (LXX) 110 19 (LXX) 104 19:11 (LXX) 93 19:22 (LXX) 104 Sirach/Ecclesiasticus 1:1–6 (LXX) 74 1:5 (LXX) 74 2 (LXX) 74–75 2:1–18 (LXX) 73 2:1 (LXX) 36, 74, 145, 173 2:1 46, 157 2:3 (LXX) 74 2:4–5 (LXX) 145 2:4–5 56 2:4 (LXX) 74 2:4 46 2:5 57, 67 2:6 (LXX) 75 2:10–11 (LXX) 75 2:10 (LXX) 75 2:10 46 2:11 (LXX) 75 2:12 (LXX) 63, 74 2:13 (LXX) 75 2:15 (LXX) 74–75 2:17 (LXX) 74 3:30 (LXX) 64 4:11–19 (LXX) 75–76 4:17–18 84 4:17 (LXX) 36, 174 4:17 67 6 87 6:7 84, 174 6:9 84 6:14–16 83 7:26 83 8:2 86 9:1–2 178 9:1–9 (LXX) 177 9:1–9 174, 177–178, 180 9:8 177 9:9 180 12:10 83 12:11 84 12:14 84

199

200 13:11 174 15:11–20 68, 73 15:11–12 (LXX) 75 18:23 (LXX) 36 18:23 130, 174 19:2–3 88 19:3 88 22:22 84 22:23 84 23:1–6 180 23:2–6 179 23:4–6 88 23:16–27 180 23:16 180 23:17 180 23:18–20 180 23:21 180 23:22 180 23:23 180 23:24–26 180 24 42 25:8 181 25:21 178 25:25–26 181 26:1–4 181 26:9–27:3 87 26:12 178 26:13–18 181 26:15–17 181 26:15 182 26:16–18 178, 181 26:29–27:7 87 26:29–27:3 87 27:1 89 27:4–7 87 27:5–6 87 27:6 88 31:5–11 86 31:10 86 31:11 86 33:1 (LXX) 75, 174 33:1 174

Index of Ancient Sources

34:10 (LXX) 36 36:1 117 36:23 178 36:24 (LXX) 33 36:26 178 36:27 (LXX) 178 36:27 178 36:29 (LXX) 176 36:29 176 37:13 83 37:27 117, 174 39:4 174 40 (LXX) 176 40 176 40:19–20 176 40:23 (LXX) 176 40:23 176 41:20–22 180 42:2–4 87 42:3 87 42:4 87 42:6–7 181 42:11–12 180 44:20 (LXX) 45, 173 44:20 85, 117, 131 46:19 89 50:7 181 Baruch 3–4 42 1 Maccabees 2:52

45, 85, 131

2 Maccabees 13:12 137 4 Maccabees 1:34 (LXX) 96 3:2 (LXX) 96 8:26 (LXX) 73 16:19 (LXX) 73

4  Old Testament Pseudepigrapha



4  Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Assumption of Moses 5:1 135 6:2–7 135 6:6–8 135 6:8–9 135 8:1–2 135 8:5 135 9–10 118, 138 9 135 9:1–7 136–137 9:1 136, 138 9:2 136 9:3 136 9:4 130, 135–136 9:5 136 10 136 10:1–10 137 10:1–2 137 10:2 136 10:3–7 137 10:7 136 10:8–10 137 10:10 136 1 Enoch 1–108 39 6–16 42 42:1–3 42 92:1–5 39, 41 93:11–105:2 39 93:11–94:5 41 94:5 39–42 94:6–95:2 43 94:8 41 94:11 41 95:1–104:9 41 95:2 41 95:3 41 95:4–7 43 95:7 41 96:1 41 96:2 41 96:4–8 41, 43 96:4 41 97:1 41 97:3 41

97:7–10 41, 43 97:7 41 98:4–5 42 98:4 41 98:6 41 98:9–99:2 42, 43 98:10 41 98:15 41 99:3 41 99:6 41 99:8 41 99:9 41 99:10 41 99:11–16 43 100:3 41 100:4 41 100:7–9 43 100:7 41 100:9 41 101:7 41 101:9 41 102:3 41 102:5 41 102:6 41 102:9 41 103:5–8 43 103:5 41 103:9–15 41–42 103:11 41 104:1–7 42 104:5 41 104:6 41 104:7 41 104:10–105:2 41 104:10–12 42 108:7–9 85 4 Ezra 3:28–36 136 Jubilees 5:13 46 14:6 45 14:21 49 17:1 123 17:5 85

201

202

Index of Ancient Sources

17:7 49 17:15–18:19 40 17:15–18:13 147 17:15–16 47, 56 17:15 45, 47 17:16 49 17:17 48–49, 86, 90 17:18 85 19:3 48–49 19:7 (Ethiopic) 51 19:8–9 73 19:8 48–50, 53, 123 19:9 85 23:23 136 Psalms of Solomon 2 136

17:5–9 136 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs Testament of Joseph 2:7 57, 123 3:5 137 10:1 73 17:1 73 Testament of Job 4:6–9 162 6:4–7:13 162 17:2 162 20:7–10 163 23:1 162 26:7 162 40:5 162

5  Dead Sea Scrolls 1QHa II, 13–14 117 1QHa X, 15 40 1QHa XXIII, 28 40 1QM XVI, 11 40 1QS I, 18 117 1QS VI, 20 87 4Q27 95 4Q175 14–20 124 4Q176 15 1–5 40 4Q177 10 40 4Q177 11 10 40

4Q184 1 14 88 4Q225 7 1 85 4Q299 65 4 89 4Q424 1 4 89 4Q443 2 4 40 4Q525 5 10–13 84 4QDibHama 1–2 V, 18 117 4QDibHama 1–2 VI, 7 117

6 Philo De Abrahamo 103–105 10 142–146 17 167–207 8 178 21 184–187 21 186 21 256–257 8, 22 De agricultura 94–101 8 96 12

De cherubim 14–17 16 De confusione linguarum 168–180 17 172 11 174–177 11 180 11 181–182 17 De congressu eruditionis gratia 124 10 158 15



163–179 8 163–165 14 166–167 17 170–173 16–17 172 12, 17 177–179 145 177 15, 145 178–179 15 De decalogo 15–17 14 De fuga et inventione 65–66 17 66 11 68–72 17 137–139 8 137 17 149–151 10 De gigantibus 6–11 11 6 11 7 12 16 11 17 12 28–29 19 43–44 10 58 12 60 12 65–67 12 De migratione Abrahami 1–126 104 89–93 82 127–225 104 127–147 104 148–175 104 148 105 149 105 150 105 151–163 105–106, 109, 113 151 105–106 152 105–106 154 94, 105–106 155 104, 105–107, 114 156–157 106 158 105–106

6 Philo

159 105–106 160 105–106 162 106–107 163 106 176–197 105 198–215 105 216–225 105 De mutatione nominum 30–32 17 De opificio mundi 1–2 12 21–22 16 62–68 11 69 20 72–75 17 73 20 84 11 136–147 18 136–138 19 144 11 149 20 151–152 19 151 13, 19 152 10 155 19 156 12 157–166 8, 10 157 12 165 10, 13 De plantatione 12–14 11 De posteritate Caini 20–23 8 153–157 8 156–157 17 De praemiis et poenis 1–2 12 4–6 9 11.63 159 31–35 16 De providentia 2.102 17

203

204

Index of Ancient Sources

De somniis 1.134–141 11 1.137–139 11 1.141 11 1.194–195 8 1.195 8, 13 De specialibus legibus 1.67–68 9 2.206 9 2.207–209 9 4 95, 108–109 4.78 107 4.80–81 159 4.80 107–108 4.82–95 107 4.82 96, 107 4.91 108 4.96–132 107 4.126–131 107–109, 114 4.126–130 108 4.126 108 4.127 108 4.128 108 4.129 108 4.130 108 4.131 108–109

De vita Mosis 2.167–168 9 Legum allegoriae 1.31 19 2.71–108 8 2.83 19 3.17 10 3.162–168 8–9, 14 3.162–166 17 3.174 98 3.203–210 8 3.237 10 Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin 1.21 20 1.31–41 8 1.32 12 1.54 17 3.25 15 3.56 8, 21 4.73 8, 22 4.188 11 4.204 16 Quod Deus sit immutabilis 45–47 20 50 98

7 Josephus Jewish Antiquities 3.299 96

8  Mishnah, Talmud, and related Literature Babylonian Talmud Berakhot 29a 91 Jerusalem Talmud Bikkurim 2:1 [64c] 91 Demai 2:1 (22c) 91 Shabbat 1:3 [3b]

90

Sheviʾit 8:6 (38b)

83

Mishnah ʾAbot 1:6 84 1:10 84 1:13 83 2:3 84 2:4–5 82 2:4 81–85, 87, 90–91

12  Classical and Ancient Christian Writers and Works



2:5–7 81 2:8 81 5:3 58, 123 5:4 123 Eduyyot 5:6 90 Shabbat 1:3 90

Tosefta Bava Metziʾa 2:17 84 Maʾaser Sheni 5:14 84 Parah 3:8 83 Shabbat 1:13 91

9  Targumic Texts Targum Neofiti

58

Fragment Targum 58

10  Other Rabbinic Works Avot of Rabbi Nathan B 19 (21a) 83 34 123

Midrash Rabbah Genesis Rabbah 56:11 58 Sifra qedošim 4:1 89–90

11  Apostolic Fathers 1 Clement 49:5 63

2 Clement 16:4 63

12  Classical and Ancient Christian Writers and Works Cicero De Amicitia 64 84 65 84 Tusculanae disputationes 4.6.12 159 4.26.57 159 4.28.60 159 4.35.74 159 Clement of Alexandria Stromata 2.20.105 96

Seneca De ira 2.21.1-6 15 Origen De oratione 29.9 142 Plotinus Enneades 1.2.5 96 Plutarch Bruta animalia ratione uti 989B 96

205

Index of Modern Authors Allen, B. 173 Allison, D. C. 148–149, 151–153 Anderson, G. A. 151 Atkinson, K. R. 134–135, 137 Attridge, H. 30, 151 Auerbach, E. 119 Balla, I. 173 Barrett, C. K. 27 Bauckham, R. 77, 146 Baumgartner, W. 117, 123, 125 Beer, B. 47, 58 Berger, K. 49 Bernstein, M. 32 Berquist, J. L. 180 Beyerle, S. 124, 126–127 Blomberg, C. L. 64–66 Blum, E. 118 Bonhoeffer, D. 158, 164–165 Bons, E. 33 Borgen, P. 8 Bowden, A. 66 Brongers, H. A. 123 Brown, J. K. 143 Brown, R. E. 166–167 Budd, P. J. 123 Burchard, C. 64, 77 Butler, J. 183 Calduch-Benages, N. 74–76 Camp, C. V. 86, 173–176, 178–179, 182 Ceriani, A. M. 51, 135 Charles, R. H. 39, 49–50 Clines, D. J. A. 175 Coats, G. W. 118 Cockerill, G. L. 29–30 Collier, G. D. 110–111 Connell, R. W. 175, 183 Conzelmann, H. 141 Corley, J. 75, 84 Davids, P. H. 64, 66

Davies, W. D. 27, 149, 151–153 Di Lella, A. A. 75, 87, 176–177 Dibelius, M. 64, 66 Dillmann, A. 51, 119, 123 Dillon, J. 11–12, 19 Dimant, D. 47 Dogniez, C. 127–128 Dorival, G. 93 Dowd, S. E. 151 Doyle, J. A. 175 Duncan, J. 124 Dunn, J. D. G. 148 Eastman, S. G. 142 Edwards, S. M. 177, 181–182 Efthimiades-Keith, H. 133 Elizur, S. 86 Ellingworth, P. 29–30 Ellis, N. 7, 9, 64–65, 70, 76, 147, 152, 179 Ellis, T. A. 173, 176 Engel, H. 123, 129–132 Erho, T. M. 39 Ewald, H. 135 Fahrenthold, D. A. 171 Fankel, Z. 94 Farber, Z. I. 137 Fee, G. 109–111 Fitzmyer, J. A. 65–66, 71, 75, 141–142 Fletcher, D. H. 97 Flint, P. W. 94 Foxhall, L. 174 Francis, M. 20, 145 Frankemölle, H. 65, 67–68, 71, 73, 76–77 Fuller, R. 124 Funk, T. 172 Furstenberg, Y. 90 Garland, D. E. 141 Garrett, S. R. 159, 163–165 Gera, D. L. 128–131, 133 Gerleman, G. 117

208

Index of Modern Authors

German, B. T. 119 Gleason, R C. 33 Goldin, J. 60 Goodenough, E. R. 9 Goshen-Gottstein, M. 85 Gray, P. 15 Green, E. 171 Green, J. B. 143, 146 Greenberg, M. 117 Greenfield, J. 88 Guelich, R. A. 146 Gurtner, D. M. 119, 126 Halpern-Amaru, B. 134 Hanneken, T. R. 40, 46, 52, 97, 123, 149 Harl, M. 127–128 Harmon, M. S. 85 Heil, J. P. 146–147 Helfmeyer, F. J. 123 Hemelsoet, B. 119 van Henten, J. W. 28, 128–129, 133, 135, 145–147 Hezser, C. 84 Hofmann, N. J. 134–135 Hoppe, R. 77 Houtman, C. 118–122 Inwood, B. 160 Israeli, E. 135 Jackson-McCabe, M. A. 77 Jacob, B. 119, 121, 126 Johnson, L. T. 66 Johnsson, W. G. 27 Kamell, M. J. 64–66 Käsemann, E. 27 Katzin, D. 125 Kautzsch, E. 127 Kennedy, J. 148 Kister, M. 47, 87–88, 179 Klein, M. 66 Klein, T. 66–70, 76 Koester, C. R. 29–30 Koehler, L. 117, 123, 125 Konradt, M. 64, 72–73 Konstan, D. 84 Kraft, R. A. 162

Krondorfer, B. 183 Kugel, J. L. 8, 45–47, 50, 53, 59–60 Lane, W. L. 29–30 Laperrousaz, E.‑M. 135 Larsen, M. D. C. 146, 148 Lautenschlager, M. 76 Le Boulluec, A. 126 Lehming, S. 117–118 Leslau, W. 40 Levenson, J. D. 31 Levine, B. 122–123 Licht, J. S. 2, 59, 84–85, 117, 123, 130 Lindemann, A. 109 Loader, W. 135 Lofton, K. 183 Lohfink, N. 118 Lohmeyer, E. 147 Lundbom, J. R. 144 Luther, S. 40, 64–65, 71–73, 76, 152 Luz, U. 151 MacDonald, N. 120 Mahieu, B. 135 Marcus, J. 146, 163 Martin, F. 41 Martin, R. P. 64 Mauser, U. 147 McEvenue, S. 122 Meeks, W. A. 110, 159 Metzner, R. 63–64 Mieg, H. A. 65 Moffitt, D. M. 31, 35 Moltmann, J. 168 Muraoka, T. A. 121, 125–128 Murphy, K. J. 175 Murphy, R. E. 56 Mussner, F. 64 Neusner, J. 60 Nickelsburg, G. W. E. 39, 42, 129 Niehoff, M. R. 21 Nikiprowetzky, V. 22 Noth, M. 118 Nussbaum, M. C. 160 Oikonomos, E. B. 117 Olofsson, S. 33



Index of Modern Authors

Olson, D. 39 Olyan, S. M. 84 Pardes, I. 143–145 Parker, A. 171 Perkins, L. 98 Perkins, P. 142 Perrin, N. 143 Peterson, D. 29 Pierce, M. N. 26, 144, 157 Pietersma, A. 86, 94, 121 Plaut, W. G. 119, 123 Popkes, W. 64, 72, 77 Propp, W. H. 118–120, 126 Rand, M. 86 Rösel, M. 93–94 Rosen-Zvi, I. 83, 89 van Ruiten, J. T. A. G.M. 47, 56 Runia, D. T. 10–12, 17–19 Ruppert, L. 117, 123 Sakenfeld, K. D. 143 Saldarini, A. J. 59 Sandevoir, P. 126 Sandmel, S. 13 Schenk-Ziegler, A. 64 Schlatter, A. 64 Schlund, C. 93, 94 Schmitz, B. 123, 128–132 Schrage, W. 141 Schremer, A. 81 Schröter, J. 66–67 Seebass, H. 122 Seesemann, H. 126 Segal, M. H. 52–53, 59, 86–87, 89 Seitz, O. J. F. 165 Sharvit, S. 81–83, 85 Simpson, J. A. 143 Skehan, P. W. 87, 176–177 Smith, D. L. 7, 93, 145, 153 Spiegel, S. 32 Spittler, R. P. 162 Stemberger, G. 83 Stowers, S. K. 159 Stuckenbruck, L. T. 7, 11–12, 39, 41–42, 93, 144

209

Surin, K. 161 Svebakken, H. 22 Swetnam, J. 32 Theissen, G. 109 Thiessen, M. 27, 36 Thiselton, A. C. 109, 111, 142 van Tilborg, S. 151 Tinklenberg deVega, J. L. 174 Tobin, T. H. 12 Tolentino, J. 183 Trenchard, W. C. 173 Tromp, J. 135 Tropper, A. 81–82 Turner, L. 172 Uhlig, S. 41 Ulrich, E. C. 124 Valenti, J. 172 VanderKam, J. C. 45, 47, 49–51, 54, 58, 85 Vattioni, F. 88 Wacker, G. 171–172 Wall, R. W. 66 Weaver, D. J. 69–71 Weiner, E. 143 Weinfeld, M. 123 Wenger, S. 68, 70, 77 Weren, W. J. C. 67–68 Wevers, J. W. 94–95, 126–127 Whitters, M. 135 Williams, T. F. 99 Williamson, R. 15, 30 Willis, W. L. 110–111 Winnett, F. V. 123 Winston, D. 17 Wischmeyer, O. 67–70 Witherington III, B. 64 Wolfson, H. A. 12, 159 Wright, A. T. 11 Wright, B. G. 86, 94, 177, 181–182 Yli-Karjanmaa, S. 11 Zenger, E. 129

Index of Subjects Aaron 97, 99, 103, 118–122, 124 Abel 176 Abraham 2, 8, 13, 20–22, 27–28, 30–32, 40, 45–56, 58–61, 76, 84–86, 98, 104– 106, 123, 130–131, 134, 143, 147, 160, 173 Adam 20, 32, 102, 146 Akedah 13, 30–32, 49, 173 Akiva, Rabbi 89 Alexandria 93, 104 allegory 9–10, 12, 18–19 angel(s) 7, 11–12, 28, 32, 36, 42, 59, 146, 150, 162 anthropology 19, 71, 90, 143 apocalyptic 144, 162, 163

discernment 4, 43, 45, 158, 160–161, 167– 168 discipline 15–17, 25, 36–37, 71, 102–103, 144, 179, 181–183

Balaam 94 Billy Graham Rule 4, 171–173, 175, 180, 182–183 body 9, 14, 18–19, 22, 34, 41, 105–106, 129, 177–178, 181–182 Bosch, Hieronymus 143

feminine, femininity 173, 175, 178–179, 181–182 friend(s), friendship 3, 9, 13, 69, 82, 83– 85, 91, 160–162, 174, 176

Cain 176 Cairo Genizah 54, 174, 177, 181 Caleb 97, 122 Canaan 13, 27, 50, 117, 122, 129, 144 Christology 2, 167 Cicero 84, 158–159 Corinth 109, 111, 113, 141, 153 Dalí, Salvador 143 Dead Sea Scrolls 40, 54, 93, 95 Decalogue 50, 54, 90, 103, 107, 118, 122 demon(s), demonic 7, 11–13 demonology 18 desert (see wilderness) desire(s) 3, 16, 21, 40, 63, 68–69, 73, 89, 91, 93, 95–115, 141, 143, 145, 153, 159, 165, 168, 173, 176–177, 179–180 devil 25, 28, 35, 40, 57, 70–71, 149–153, 162, 166

Eden 1 Egypt 13–14, 26–27, 35, 50, 54–55, 93, 95–100, 104–106, 108, 113, 118, 120, 122, 130, 148–149, 153 epistemology 158, 161–163 eschaton 1, 40, 68, 72, 76 ethics 2, 8, 65–66, 68–69 Eve 33 evil, problem of (see theodicy) exodus, Israelite 27, 35, 121, 128, 143, 146

Gethsemane 151–152, 165 glutton(s), gluttony 107–109, 114, 153 God passim – as parent 37, 144 – as tested 1, 3, 25–26, 28, 97, 100, 102, 111, 120–124, 126, 128–129, 131, 134, 136, 145, 147, 149–150 – kingdom of 77, 147, 151, 164 – will of 34, 40, 151, 169 golden calf 97, 102–103 Hagar 15, 48–51 hegemonic 4, 175, 184 Herod the Great 135 Hillel, Rabbi 81–83 Hobab 94 Holophernes 129, 132–133, 137 Holy Spirit 26, 35, 37 idolatry 9, 90, 103, 104, 111, 113–114, 141, 153

212

Index of Subjects

image of God 19–20 Isaac 21, 30–32, 40, 45, 47–49, 53, 58–59, 98, 130–131, 134, 138, 159, 167 Ishmael 48–51, 59 Ishmael, Rabbi 89–91 Israel, Israelites 1–4, 8–9, 14–15, 17, 26– 27, 42, 55, 57, 93–114, 117–138, 142– 150, 152–154, 174 Jacob 2, 10, 56, 98, 130–131, 134, 138 Jerusalem 56, 132–133, 135, 147, 164 Jesus passim Job 4, 40, 47, 56, 57, 71, 76, 77, 85, 160– 163, 165–166, 168 Joseph 10, 57, 105–106, 123 Joshua 27, 97, 122, 134 jubilee 50–51 Judith 129–134, 136–138 judge (noun) 2, 35, 64, 76–78 judgment 2, 64, 69, 73 Laban 10, 56–57, 130–131 land, promised (see also Canaan) 27, 55, 94, 97, 102, 106, 113, 117, 121–123, 134, 148 law (see Torah) leader(s) 3, 25, 35, 106, 117–125, 128– 132, 134, 137–138, 146–147 Levi 123–128, 131–135, 137 Levite 138 Levitical 30, 136 libido 4, 176–183 Lord’s Prayer 66, 151–152 Lot 50, 104–105 manna 13–14, 16–17, 28, 96–97, 118–121, 123, 126, 148–149 Marah 14–15, 97, 118, 125, 129 masculinity 4, 173–175, 178, 182–183 Massah 3, 27, 118, 120–125, 127, 129– 131, 136, 138, 149–150 Mastema 1, 40, 47, 68, 147 Meribah 3, 27, 118, 120–122, 124–125, 127, 129–131, 138, 149 misogyny 173 Moses 3, 8–9, 14–16, 20, 25–26, 28, 35, 51, 94–99, 102–109, 114, 117–126, 128– 138, 144, 147–148

Nehemiah 56–57 Nimrod 12 parousia 77 Paul 3, 93, 109–114, 141–143, 145, 152– 153, 159–160 Passover 35 pedagogy 7–8, 15–16, 18 Pence, Karen 171 Pence, Mike 4, 171–173, 175, 180, 182– 183 Pentateuch 1, 9, 25, 28, 35, 55, 93–94, 129, 134, 137 Pharaoh 35, 50, 56, 59 Phinehas 102 pleasure 9–10, 12, 19, 85, 88, 159 Potiphar’s wife 10 prayer (see also Lord’s Prayer) 31, 88, 104, 129, 132–133, 150–152, 157, 165, 179–180 prescience 4, 158, 160–161, 164, 167– 168 Pythagorean 50 quail 14, 93, 95–97, 101, 103, 107–108 Red Sea 26, 97, 102, 104, 143 Rephidim 97, 120, 126, 149 righteous 2, 41–43, 45–46, 56, 61, 85, 87, 98, 157, 160–161, 166 Sabbath 90–91, 120, 148 Sarah 15, 21, 48–51, 53, 58–59 Satan 1, 13, 40, 68–70, 146–147, 159, 162– 168 Septuagint 3, 85, 93, 98, 102, 109, 114, 117–118, 125–128, 137–138 Sermon on the Mount 150 serpent 8–9, 13, 20 sexuality 4, 173–176, 178–180, 182 Sinai 9, 14, 35, 93, 97, 145 Sitidos 162 snake (see serpent) Solomon 15, 36 Son of God 28–37, 146–149, 151–152, 163 Son of Man 164 soteriology 2



Index of Subjects

213

soul(s) 1, 7–15, 18–22, 36, 63–64, 69, 71, 73, 74, 78, 88, 96–97, 105–108, 144, 147, 159, 173–174, 179, 181 source criticism 41, 52–53 Stoic 16, 22, 159–160

Torah 42, 81, 83, 89, 119, 145, 159

Tamar 10 Tannaitic literature 83, 89–91 Taxo 135–138 temptation passim ten 36, 45, 48–61, 97, 123 Ten Commandments (see Decalogue) testing passim – agent(s) of 7–8, 11, 13, 16–18, 26, 32, 65, 68–70, 74–77, 147, 149–151, 164 – roles in 1–3, 7–8, 12, 31, 68–71, 75–76, 118, 125, 131, 134, 138, 147, 149 – vocabulary of 1, 7, 25, 36–37, 57–58, 65, 143, 153 theodicy 18, 46–47, 57, 90 Tombs of Desire 95–96, 98–99, 104, 107, 113

Watchers 11 wicked 2, 39–43, 75, 98–99 wilderness passim – generation 2, 31 – of Sin 14, 119–121 – place 3, 8, 14, 25–28, 82, 97, 99–104, 106–107, 109–110, 112–114, 117–118, 121–123, 125, 128, 130, 134, 136, 143– 150, 152–153, 158, 164–165 wisdom 8, 15, 36, 39–40, 42–43, 57, 66– 67, 75–76, 84, 102, 176, 179

vaticinium ex eventu 134 virtue 8–10, 12, 15, 21, 45–46, 57, 67, 81, 105–107, 109, 113–114, 181

yeṣer, yetzer 89, 179 Zambia 169