The Attitude of Early-Christians toward Unbelievers and Semi-Believers [1 ed.] 1527560864, 9781527560864

Citation preview

The Attitude of Early-Christians toward Unbelievers and Semi-Believers

The Attitude of Early-Christians toward Unbelievers and Semi-Believers By

Harm W. Hollander

The Attitude of Early-Christians toward Unbelievers and Semi-Believers By Harm W. Hollander This book first published 2021 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2021 by Harm W. Hollander All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-5275-6086-4 ISBN (13): 978-1-5275-6086-4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface .................................................................................... vi Introduction .......................................................................... viii List of Abbreviations ......................................................... xviii Chapter One .............................................................................1 Misunderstandings about “Freedom” in John 8:31-36 Chapter Two ...........................................................................18 Israel and God’s Eschatological Agent in The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs Chapter Three .........................................................................38 “Sons of Men” and “Sons of God” in The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs Chapter Four ..........................................................................66 The Attitude towards Christians who are Doubting: Jude 22-3 and the Text of Zechariah 3 Bibliography...........................................................................89 Index of Ancient Sources .....................................................102

PREFACE

This volume brings together four previously published essays that deal with the attitude of some early-Christian writers and communities towards (Jewish) unbelievers and (Christian) semi-believers. The essays were written by the author himself, and published between 1995 and 2018. They have been slightly revised for inclusion in this volume; additions (in the footnotes) are denoted by square brackets. The essays collected in this volume were originally written for the following publications: - Chapter One: The Expository Times 129/8 (2018): 347-55 - Chapter Two: Aspects of Religious Contact and Conflict in the Ancient World, edited by P. W. van der Horst, 91-104. Utrecht: Faculteit der Godgeleerdheid, Universiteit Utrecht, 1995 - Chapter Three: Unpublished in its original English form, but translated into Spanish and published as “ ‘Hijos de los hombres’ e ‘Hijos de Dios’ en los Testamentos de los Doce Patriarcas.” In Filiación. Cultura pagana, religión de Israel, orígines del cristianismo, edited by J. J. Ayán Calvo, P. de Navascués Benlloch y M. Aroztegui Esnaola, vol. 2, 125-43. Madrid: Editorial Trotta, S.A., 2007 - Chapter Four: The Book of Zechariah and its Influence, edited by Chr. Tuckett, 123-34. Aldershot, Hampshire: Ashgate, 2003 For permission to reprint these essays, I would like to thank SAGE Publishing (Ch. 1), the Faculty of Humanities of the

The Attitude of Early-Christians toward Unbelievers and Semi-Believers

vii

University of Utrecht, The Netherlands (Ch. 2), Editorial Trotta, S.A., Madrid, Spain and Facultad de Literatura Cristiana y Clásica San Justino, Madrid (Ch. 3), and Ashgate/Routledge/ Taylor & Francis Group (Ch. 4). I am also grateful to the editors and staff at Cambridge Scholars Publishing for their willingness to publish this volume and for their invaluable help in the preparation of the manuscript. —The Author

INTRODUCTION

Around the year 30 of the first century C.E., some of the Jews in Galilee, and later also in Judea, came under the influence of a certain Jesus of Nazareth. They believed that this “son of a carpenter” was the promised Messiah; the one who would deliver the Jews from the power of the Romans, who occupied the land of Israel at that time. He proclaimed that the end of times was near and that God would soon establish his kingdom on earth and would reign forever. Moreover, he called for repentance and for leading a life according to the will of God. His followers formed a small community in Jerusalem and did not give up, but continued to believe in his message even when he had been crucified as a troublemaker by the Romans. They believed that he was a martyr who had died “for our sins” in order to restore mankind’s relationship with God, that he had been raised up by God and lifted up to heaven, and that he would shortly come back down to earth, at which point all mankind would be judged and God’s kingdom would be established. This differed from other messianic movements of the time, which died out after the Romans had killed or taken captive their leaders and some of their followers; in contrast, the “Jesus movement” did not cease to exist, but grew instead. However, the followers of Jesus Christ had to face much opposition from their fellow-Jews, who did not believe in Jesus but considered him to be a religious maniac and a charlatan. The Jewish political and religious leaders, in particular, were afraid of the reactions of the Romans, who did not tolerate any kind of rebellion. The Jewish opposition was so severe that some of the

The Attitude of Early-Christians toward Unbelievers and Semi-Believers

ix

first Christians had to flee to cities in Syria, such as Antioch and Damascus, and to a number of other places across the Roman Empire. One of the fiercest opponents of the “Jesus movement” was without any doubt a certain Saul (or Paul), a Jew from the city of Tarsus, who, in his own words, “was violently persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it” (Gal 1:13; NRSV). But “Jesus Christ appeared to him” one day as he was on his way to Damascus, and he was called by God to become his “apostle,” that is, to proclaim Jesus Christ and his message all over the world. And while some Christians in Jerusalem tried to convince fellow-Jews of the Gospel, Paul’s task turned out to be to proclaim Jesus Christ among the Gentiles, the nonJews (1 Cor 15:8, Gal 1:16). Thanks to the missionary activities of Paul and his co-workers in many places across the Roman Empire, particularly in Asia, Macedonia and Greece, there arose a number of small Christian communities, and although there were certainly also Jews who became followers of Jesus Christ, the great majority of those who converted to Christianity were non-Jews. In his letter to the Romans, Paul explicitly expresses his feelings of sadness about the fact that only a limited number of Jews were willing to listen to the message about Jesus Christ: “I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my own people” (Rom 9:2-3; NRSV). As the “Jesus movement” grew and the number of Christian communities in many regions of the Roman Empire increased, Christians had to face opposition not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles–the non-Jews–and the Greco-Roman authorities. They found themselves “a new way,” different from Judaism as well as from “paganism.” They felt the need to find a new identity for themselves, and the authentic letters

x

Introduction

of the apostle Paul (Rom, 1-2 Cor, Gal, Phil, 1 Thess, Phlm) in particular show this search for their identity. In the search for their Christian identity, all first and second century Christians were critical of both Judaism and paganism, but there were differences in their approaches. Of course, they all rejected any form of paganism, with its worship of “idols” or Greco-Roman gods, and with its veneration of the Roman emperors; a rejection which they shared with the Jews. However, their stand towards the Jewish religion was somewhat more complicated, above all since Christianity had found its very origin in Judaism. Jesus’ disciple Peter, for instance, “used to eat with the Gentiles” in the “mixed” Jewish and non-Jewish Christian community in Antioch, but after “certain people came from James,” one of the leaders of the Jewish-Christian community in Jerusalem, “he drew back and kept himself separate” (Gal 2:12; NRSV). That is: in the end, the apostle Peter attempted to remain an adherent of Judaism and to observe the Jewish law (including the dietary rules about food) and to be a follower of Jesus Christ at the same time. The apostle Paul, on the other hand, was much more radical. In his view, Christians were the “new Israel,” the only true continuation of Judaism, whereas Judaism itself had failed to accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah and the Son of God. He also rejected the Jewish law (including typical Jewish identity markers such as all kinds of dietary rules, circumcision and observance of the Sabbath) as an authority in his life and in the lives of his fellowChristians, regardless of whether they had once been Jews or non-Jews. Nevertheless, convinced that God would keep his promise to Abraham and the people of Israel, he was sure that one day: “all Israel will be saved” (Rom 11:26; NRSV). Somewhat later, towards the end of the first century C.E., the (unknown) author of the Letter to the Hebrews warns his readers not to seek affiliation with the Jewish communities or

The Attitude of Early-Christians toward Unbelievers and Semi-Believers

xi

to fall back into Judaism, but to stick to Jesus Christ, the great High priest and “pioneer and perfecter of our faith” (Heb 12:2; NRSV). According to the author, the Jewish religion is completely outdated in the light of Jesus Christ’s sacrificial death (and resurrection), which made him “the mediator of a second, a better covenant” (cf. Heb 8:6-7). At the end of the first or the beginning of the second century, the (unknown) author of the Epistle of Barnabas warns his Christian readers against a Judaistic conception of the OT. He does so very seriously, telling his readers that they themselves are the heirs of the covenant of the Lord, not the Jewish people. In this context, he rejects any Jewish interpretation of the OT texts. Finally, in Justin Martyr’s Dialogus cum Tryphone (written around 160 C.E.), we find an intellectual conversation between the Christian Justin and Trypho, a Jew, in which Justin tries to convince Trypho of the Christian truth in a rather careful and diligent manner. He too refers to a number of OT passages in order to demonstrate that he, rather than the Jew Trypho, is right. The authors of these three writings (Heb, Barn, and Justin’s Dial.), share the view that the Jews are unbelievers, people who are not willing to accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah and Saviour of the world. They all criticise the Jewish religion, but each of them does so in his own specific way. This volume brings together four essays dealing with three other early-Christian writings, i.e. the Gospel of John (Ch. 1), The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Chs. 2 and 3), and the Letter of Jude (Ch. 4). In all three writings, we find the authors’ search for a Christian identity, as well as their attitude toward Jewish unbelievers on the one hand, and toward semi-

xii

Introduction

believers–fellow-Christians who, according to them, did not adhere to the pure and true faith in Jesus Christ–on the other. The first chapter deals with the Gospel of John, a Gospel most probably composed around 100 C.E. It is, either rightly or wrongly, often considered the most anti-Jewish NT writing. The passage investigated in detail in this chapter, that is, John 8:31-36, clearly shows the evangelist’s attitude toward unbelievers or semi-believers, which is found throughout the Gospel. It is (almost) generally accepted that the author of the Gospel himself belonged to a particular group of Christians, the so-called “Johannine community,” who believed in a realised eschatology and who projected the role of Jesus Christ as the eschatological Saviour back to the earthly Jesus. Throughout the Gospel of John, we find a number of theological disputes between Jesus and the Jews in which Jesus claims again and again to be “the Son of God.” The Jews, however, do not believe him and consider his claim to be a form of blasphemy. It is not likely that the author of the Gospel intended to give a historical account of particular events from the time of Jesus; these encounters between the earthly Jesus and the Jews as narrated in the Gospel of John seem rather to be a reflection of the polemics of the Johannine Christians with other Christians, people who did not belong to the Johannine community, projected back to the time of Jesus. Perhaps these non-Johannine Christians were Jewish-Christians, who believed in Jesus in one way or another but who refused to relinquish their Jewish heritage, and who could not bring themselves to accept Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God the Father. According to the evangelist, these non-Johannine Christians were no better than the Jews at the time of the earthly Jesus. Therefore, the evangelist found it quite appropriate to describe his Christian opponents as Jews, to project the disputes between the members of the Johannine community

The Attitude of Early-Christians toward Unbelievers and Semi-Believers

xiii

and the other Christians back to the time of the earthly Jesus, and to present them as disputes between the earthly Jesus and the Jews. By labelling his opponents as “Jews,” that is, people who once refused to accept Jesus as the Son of God, he repudiates them as semi-believers or false Christians. In the passage John 8:31-36, the evangelist argues that these “Jews”–Jewish-Christians of inadequate faith and the semibelievers of his own time–are not the true descendants of Abraham, the forefather of the people of Israel; only the members of the Johannine community are the legitimate continuation of Israel and the true people of God. Chapters Two and Three focus on The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (= Testaments XII Patriarchs), a document usually classified among the so-called “Old Testament Pseudepigrapha.” Although they were well-known among early-Christian church fathers like Origen and Jerome, they are hardly known to Christians of our time, and are an object for serious research only among a limited number of scholars in the fields of earlyJudaism and early-Christian literature. Since both chapters deal with the same early-Christian document, it has not been possible to avoid some overlap in the two essays; however, this overlap in no way prevents each of the essays being read independently of the other. The text of Testaments XII Patriarchs consists of twelve parts or “testaments,” also referred to as “farewell discourses,” each of which contains the last words of one of the twelve sons of Jacob as addressed to their sons (and sometimes also to their grandsons and other relatives) at the end of their lives. They were composed by an unknown writer (or redactor) at some time during the second half of the second century C.E. Many scholars argue that Testaments XII Patriarchs derive from a document that was originally Jewish, but which was thoroughly

xiv

Introduction

Christianised in later stages of redaction. By distinguishing different stages in the making of Testaments XII Patriarchs, they have eagerly looked for the oldest (Jewish) layer of the text. On the whole, however, these scholars have reached completely different conclusions, which, in my opinion, demonstrates the impossibility of applying our modern Literarkritische criteria to an ancient document. I find it much more plausible that Testaments XII Patriarchs are an originally Christian document into which a number of Jewish (written) sources and (oral) traditions have been incorporated by the Christian author (or redactor). It therefore seems wise to interpret the text of Testaments XII Patriarchs as it stands before us, that is, as a document composed by a Christian for the benefit of certain Christian communities. Testaments XII Patriarchs are a fine example of the genre of “last words” or “farewell discourses” which was rather popular at the time. In all instances of these farewell discourses, the emphasis undeniably lies upon the parenesis, and Testaments XII Patriarchs are no exception to this rule. Next to the many parenetic passages there are a number of sections in which the patriarchs refer to their own lives in the past and to the future of the twelve tribes of Israel. On their deathbeds, they make a final call on their sons, their grandsons and other people present, to be obedient to God and to live according to his commandments. The Christian author of Testaments XII Patriarchs wants his (Christian) readers to realise that Jesus’ message about loving God and loving one’s neighbour (as we find it in the writings of the NT) is wholly in accordance with the moral teaching of the patriarchs. Both Jesus and the twelve famous sons of Jacob taught the same essentials of the universal and eternal (moral) law of God. However, if we look at the history of Israel, it becomes clear that most of the descendants of the patriarchs were disobedient to these moral teachings and transgressed against the law of God. In this context, the

The Attitude of Early-Christians toward Unbelievers and Semi-Believers

xv

Christian author has the patriarchs predict again and again the future misdeeds of their descendants, and above all, the moral misbehaviour of the descendants of Levi, whom both the patriarch Levi and the author of Testaments XII Patriarchs held to be responsible for the death of Jesus Christ. Apparently, the author wanted his readers to realise that the patriarchs foretold Israel’s misbehaviour and refusal to believe in Jesus Christ. Their rejection of the Saviour of the world is sharply criticised, not in order to persuade the Jews to repent or to convince them of the truth of the Christian message– Testaments XII Patriarchs are certainly not a missionary text– but to give Christian readers an illustrative example of disbelief and objectionable moral behaviour. With his use of written and oral Jewish and Christian sources and traditions, the author of Testaments XII Patriarchs makes no attempt to write a coherent and consistent story. Nevertheless, his message is clear: he wants to repudiate the Israelites or Jews for their moral misbehaviour and their refusal to believe in Jesus Christ, to show his fellow-Christians the right way of living and to make them aware that the twelve patriarchs foretold the coming of Jesus Christ and the future salvation of all the righteous. The author of Testaments XII Patriarchs does not exactly give us a clear picture with regard to the final destiny of the people of Israel at the moment when God will judge the whole of mankind. On the one hand, we find a prediction of a bleak future for the people of Israel; on the other hand, however, God’s eschatological agent Jesus Christ will be “the Saviour of the world,” which also includes the Jewish people. Over and over again, the author of Testaments XII Patriarchs points to the disbelief and moral misbehaviour of the Israelites (the Jews) as a warning to his Christian readers, but, like the

xvi

Introduction

apostle Paul before him, he seems to be sure that one day the people of Israel will believe in Christ and will be saved at the end of time. The final chapter, Chapter Four, deals with the Letter of Jude, a pseudepigraphic NT letter most probably written by an unknown author at the beginning of the second century C.E. The main reason for writing the letter appears to have been the danger that the Christian communities would be split up as a consequence of the activities of false teachers. So far, no consensus about the identity of these false teachers has been reached; we do not even know whether they were Jewish-Christians or non-Jewish-Christians. According to the author of the Letter of Jude, they “pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ” and “defile the flesh, reject authority, and slander the glorious ones” (vv. 4 and 8). In his view, they are semibelievers, or worse: “heretics” or even unbelievers. One of the most characteristic features of the Letter of Jude is the author’s familiarity with OT and Jewish sources. Although he almost never quotes a passage explicitly, echoes of and allusions to OT and Jewish texts and motifs are numerous. The author uses this source material to apply lessons from the past to the present situation, and thereby to convince his readers to stick to the true doctrine and to be wary of false teachers who try to deceive members of the Christian communities. For the author of the letter, there are three groups of people: (a) people who believe, such as the readers of the letter; (b) unbelievers, semi-believers or heretics, such as the false teachers; and (c) Christians who doubt. The first group must try to prevent the third from joining the second. That means that the addressees of the letter should stick to the true Christian doctrine, and that they should have sympathy with, have mercy

The Attitude of Early-Christians toward Unbelievers and Semi-Believers

xvii

on, and help those fellow-Christians who “are doubting,” who are inclined to believe the words of the false preachers. Lastly, they should hate the adversaries, the false teachers with their unorthodox doctrines and actions, who do their best to mislead Christians and split the Christian Church.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ALD

Aramaic Levi Document

LCL

Loeb Classical Library. London: Heinemann

LXX

Septuagint

NRSV

New Revised Standard Version

NT

New Testament

OT

Old Testament

OTP

Charlesworth, J. H. (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1983-1985

REB

Revised English Bible

CHAPTER ONE MISUNDERSTANDINGS ABOUT “FREEDOM” IN JOHN 8:31-36

Whereas the concept of freedom plays a secondary role in the letters of the apostle Paul, and an even smaller part in the other NT writings, it is almost completely absent from the four Gospels. The only exception is the pericope John 8:31-36. 1 In Hellenistic literature, both “freedom” (ਥȜİȣșİȡȓĮ, and cognates) and its opposite, “slavery” (įȠȣȜİȓĮ, and cognates), are used in both a literal and in a figurative sense; that is, in a politicalsocial sense and in a theological-philosophical-ethical sense (some sort of “mental” freedom or slavery). The same is true in the NT writings. In particular, the apostle Paul uses “freedom” and “slavery” in just such a figurative sense when he states that Christians are people who have been “liberated” by Jesus Christ and who, as a consequence, have become “free.” 2 According to him, Christians have become people who are no longer slaves to human laws, including the Jewish law; they are free persons, having the power to live as they want; the only 1

This essay has been written in grateful memory of Prof. Dr. Marinus de Jonge (Leiden), who died on December 26, 2016. It is a completely new and fully elaborated version of an earlier paper of mine, entitled “ ‘Vrijheid’ en ‘slavernij’ in Johannes 8:31-36.” I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Martin C. de Boer (Amsterdam) for many helpful suggestions and corrections. 2 See esp. Jones, “Freiheit”; Vollenweider, Freiheit; and cf. Coppins, Freedom.

2

Chapter One

law that they have to observe is the–unwritten–law of God, or “the Law of Christ.” 3 One might–rightly–conclude from the fact that there is only one passage in which the term “freedom” occurs in the Fourth Gospel, that the idea of freedom did not play an important role in the author’s mind, nor in the so-called “Johannine community” as a whole. 4 But if this is true, the question of course arises of why the author of the Gospel introduces the term “freedom” in this particular part of his story about Jesus. In the following pages, I hope to demonstrate that the author has introduced the term “freedom” along with its opposite, “slavery,” in this passage not for its own sake; instead, he uses them only as a literary means to make another, more important statement, namely, to present once again his message that Jesus Christ should be accepted unconditionally as the “Son of God” by his Jewish interlocutors. According to the author of the Gospel, their claim to be the descendants of Abraham appears to be an obstacle to such acceptance. In order to reject the Jews’ claim of being the descendants of Abraham, Jesus (as the author of the Gospel portrays him) first introduces the Hellenistic topos of freedom and the lack of connection between being free and one’s birth or the social status of one’s ancestors. In this context, he makes use of the 3

See esp. Rom 6:18-22, 7:1-6, 8:2, 21, 1 Cor 6:12, 8:9, 9:1, 4-6, 12, 18-19, 10:23, 29, Gal 2:4, 4:22-31, 5:1, 13, and 6:2. Cf. Hollander, “Meaning” [= Hollander (ed.), Tradition, 117-43]. 4 Pace, e.g., Schnackenburg, who refers to “die Freiheitsbotschaft Jesu,” which should be accepted by “the Jews” (Johannesevangelium, vol. 2, 263). Dealing with John 8:32, De la Potterie devotes dozens of pages to the concept of freedom in the Gospel according to John (Vérité, vol. 2, 789-866). Also Lona is fully convinced of the importance of the concept of freedom in the Gospel according to John (Abraham).

Misunderstandings about “Freedom” in John 8:31-36

3

ambiguity of the terms “freedom” and “slavery.” Jesus’ objectors understand both freedom and slavery in their literal, politicalsocial sense, claiming to be free men as the descendants of Abraham, whereas Jesus uses the terms in a religious-ethical sense, telling them that they are slaves in spite of their “noble” birth. Other Hellenistic writers present a somewhat similar argument; like the author of the Fourth Gospel, they introduce the contrast between freedom and slavery in order to demonstrate that there is no connection between people’s birth and their status as either free people or slaves, and as such, they are helpful in shedding light on the dialogue in John 8:31-36. However, in his dialogue with the Jews, Jesus gives a unique twist to this Hellenistic topos; he goes one step further, for he rejects not only the Jews’ claim to be free persons, but also their claim of being true descendants of their ancestor Abraham. Structure and function of John 8:31-34, 36 The passages John 8:31-36 and 8:37-41a form a unit within the section John 8:31-59, which in turn is part of the story about the discussions between Jesus and the Jews at the Feast of Tabernacles in Jerusalem (7:1-10:21). The issue central to the discussions in 8:31-59 is the question of Jesus’ real nature, or identity, and the refusal of the Jews to accept him as the Son of the Father–the Son of God. The discussions end with an implicit charge of blasphemy against Jesus and an unsuccessful attempt to stone him to death (v. 59; cf. 10:31-39). In verses 31-41a, the claim of Jesus’ interlocutors that they are Abraham’s descendants appears to be a major topic; 5 in this passage, they explicitly state no less than twice that they are descendants of Abraham (v. 33) and that Abraham is their father (v. 39). It is not clear from this passage exactly who 5

See Brown, John, vol. 1, 361-63.

4

Chapter One

Jesus’ opponents are. In verse 30, which immediately precedes verses 31-41a, we read that “many put their faith in him,” after which, in verse 31, Jesus addresses his remarks to “the Jews who had believed him.” 6 However, in the verses which follow, it looks as though Jesus’ interlocutors are the Jews in general. In any case, they seem to be portrayed by the evangelist as Jewish-Christians, who believed in Jesus in one way or another but who refused to relinquish their Jewish heritage, and who could not bring themselves to accept Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God the Father. According to the author of the Fourth Gospel, they were “(Jewish-) Christians of inadequate faith” or semi-believers. It is very likely that they represent a group of Christians of the author’s own time and that the polemics of the earthly Jesus with “the Jews” as narrated in the Fourth Gospel are a reflection of the polemics of the author and the members of the so-called “Johannine community” with other Christians, projected back to the time of Jesus. 7 Whoever they are, Jesus tells “the Jews” that if they stand by his teaching they will be his disciples and they will know the truth (vv. 31-32a); that is, they should not only have faith in Jesus but they should also fully accept his message, namely, his claim to be the Son of 6

Bible quotations are taken from the Revised English Bible (REB). Cf. esp. De Ruyter, Gemeente, with an English summary (“The Community of the Fourth Evangelist. Its Polemics and Its History”), 198-203. For similar and other suggestions concerning the identity of Jesus’ opponents (called “the Jews” by the author of the Fourth Gospel) that have been made in the course of time, see the commentaries, ad loc.; for some more recent comments on this item, see, e.g., Dozeman, “Sperma Abraham”; Motyer, Your Father the Devil?; several articles written by H. J. de Jonge, M. C. de Boer, R. F. Collins, P. J. Tomson, and A. Reinhartz in Part II (pp. 121-230) of Bieringer, Pollefeyt and Vandecasteele-Vanneuville (eds.), AntiJudaism; Hunn, “John 8:33”; Hakola, Identity Matters; Sheridan, “Issues”; and Von Wahlde, “Narrative Criticism.”

7

Misunderstandings about “Freedom” in John 8:31-36

5

God. A dialogue between Jesus and his Jewish interlocutors about becoming “free” as a consequence of being a disciple of Jesus, and about knowing “the truth” follows in subsequent verses: (32b) and the truth will set you free (ਥȜİȣșİȡȫıİȚ ਫ਼ȝ઼Ȣ). (33) “We are Abraham’s descendants,” they replied; “we have never been in slavery to anyone (Ƞ੝įİȞ੿ įİįȠȣȜİȪțĮȝİȞ ʌȫʌȠIJİ). What do you mean by saying, ‘You will become free (ਥȜİȪșİȡȠȚ ȖİȞȒıİıșİ)’?” (34) “In very truth I tell you,” said Jesus, “that everyone who commits sin is a slave (įȠ૨ȜȩȢ ਥıIJȚȞ IJોȢ ਖȝĮȡIJȓĮȢ, lit. ‘a slave to sin’). (35) The slave has no permanent standing in the household, but the son belongs to it forever. (36) If the Son sets you free (ਫ਼ȝ઼Ȣ ਥȜİȣșİȡȫıૉ), you will indeed be free (੕ȞIJȦȢ ਥȜİȪșİȡȠȚ ਩ıİıșİ).”

When Jesus tells the Jews that the truth will set them free (v. 32b), they become angry and indignant. They fail to grasp what Jesus means by “freedom”; they clearly misunderstand Jesus’ words, since they reply by saying that they are descendants of Abraham and have never been enslaved by anyone (v. 33). This is undoubtedly one of the many well-known instances of misunderstandings that can be found throughout the Gospel according to John. They are a literary device used by the author of the Gospel to explain his ideas about Jesus Christ and his message to his readers: a statement is made by Jesus, this is then misunderstood by his hearers, after which it is restated and explained by Jesus. 8 Here, Jesus starts telling the Jews that the 8

The best-known instances of misunderstandings in the Gospel according to John are found in ch. 3 (Nicodemus) and ch. 4 (a Samaritan woman). On the misunderstandings in the Fourth Gospel, cf. in particular Culpepper, Anatomy, esp. 152-65; Grayston, “Johannine Misunderstandings”; and Reynolds, “Misunderstanding,” who–rightly–states that “Chapter 8 … is one long, unbroken series of misunderstandings” (154). On the conflict between Jesus and his

6

Chapter One

truth will set them free (v. 32b); next, the reaction of the Jews makes clear their misunderstanding about the term “freedom” (ਥȜİȣșİȡȠ૨Ȟ) as used by Jesus (v. 33); finally, Jesus repeats and explains his statement by saying that they are sinners, and therefore slaves who are definitely in need of being set free, namely by “the Son” (vv. 34 and 36). As to the reaction of the Jews in verse 33, the author of the Fourth Gospel introduces a well-known Jewish tradition, according to which their famous ancestors–Abraham and Joseph in particular, as well as the other sons of Jacob–were regarded as “noble” persons. And since “nobility” and “freedom” (İ੝ȖȑȞİȚĮ–ਥȜİȣșİȡȓĮ or nobilitas–libertas) were thought to be closely connected, these famous ancestors were not only regarded as “noble,” but also as “free” people in every respect. 9 Thus, in verse 33, the Jews first state that they are the descendants of their free and noble ancestor Abraham, which they feel implies that they themselves are also free men, meaning that there is no need for them to be set free, as Jesus has suggested. Being proud to be descendants of Abraham and therefore to be free, Jesus’ interlocutors continue by explicitly stating that they have never been slaves of anyone (v. 33). Many scholars think that the Jews mean by this last phrase that they have never been Jewish interlocutors in John 8, see finally also Myers, “Prosopopoetics.” 9 See, e.g., Philo, Agr. 59, Ebr. 58, Migr. 67, Abr. 38, 251, Ios. 106, Prob. 119, 123, 149, Legat. 332; and see esp. Philo, Sobr. 56-57, ZKHUHLWLVVDLGWKDW$EUDKDPZDV³QREOH´İ੝ȖİȞȒȢ E\ELUWKWKDWKH was the son of God, as it were, that he was a king, whose power extended over the entire world, and that he was the only one who was really “freH´ਥȜİȪșİȡȠȢ &IDOso T. Naph. 1:10, Dio Chrysostom, Orat. 15.31-32, and Berger, “Abraham,” 377. [On this theme, see esp. Byron, “Noble Lineage,” 50-56.]

Misunderstandings about “Freedom” in John 8:31-36

7

mentally enslaved by others, and that, in the eyes of the author of the Gospel, mental or internal freedom–spiritual independence– means little compared to the kind of freedom of which Jesus is speaking. 10 But this interpretation seems to me to be rather forced and far-fetched. The reason why these scholars resort to such an interpretation is that they realize that the Israelites endured real slavery in Egypt and later in Babylon, which, according to them, makes it unlikely that the Jews might have understood Jesus’ words about freedom in a literal, politicalsocial sense. 11 But most importantly, these scholars do not seem to sufficiently realize that it is the author of the Gospel who has put these words into the mouth of Jesus’ interlocutors; and it also seems to me much more plausible that the Jews (as portrayed by the author of the Gospel) do indeed understand Jesus’ words about freedom in a literal, political-social sense, and that they are really convinced that they have never been enslaved by any other nation. 12 Of course, the historical facts

10

So, e.g., Schnackenburg, Johannesevangelium, vol. 2, 262-63; Wikenhauser, Johannes, 178; Schneider, Johannes, 180; cf. also De la Potterie, Vérité, 789-866. Lona (Abraham, 318-19) defines the Jewish concept of freedom in this context as “eine innere Haltung, die besonders durch die Einhaltung der Tora garantiert war,” and argues that the author of the Gospel wants to explain “die wahre Tragweite der Befreiung nach joh. Auffassung.” Keener mentions several ways of interpreting the reaction of the Jews in v. 33, but it is not clear to me which one he prefers (John, vol. 1, 748-52). 11 Cf. Keener, who states that “a claim that the Israelites had never been subjugated politically … would be absurd” (John, vol. 1, 749). Barrett uses the same term (“absurd”) to characterize such a claim, although he refers to, and even quotes, Josephus, B.J. 7.323-24 (see below); instead, he interprets the words of the Jewish objectors in the sense “that they have never lost their inward freedom of soul” (John, 285-86). 12 Cf. Brown, John, vol. 1, 355, 362-63.

8

Chapter One

refute their sentiments, 13 but the author of the Gospel has them simply forget the less glorious pages in their history and allows them to boast of their freedom. A similar argument is found in Josephus, Bellum judaicum 7.323-24, where during the war against the Romans, Eleazar is said to have pointed out to his fellow-fighters that they and their ancestors have never submitted as slaves to a foreign nation: Long since, my brave men, we determined neither to serve (įȠȣȜİȪİȚȞ) the Romans nor any other save God … we who in the past refused to submit even to a slavery involving no peril (ʌȡȩIJİȡȠȞ ȝȘį੻ įȠȣȜİȓĮȞ ਕțȓȞįȣȞȠȞ ਫ਼ʌȠȝİȓȞĮȞIJİȢ), let us not now, along with slavery (ȝİIJ੹ įȠȣȜİȓĮȢ), deliberately accept the irreparable penalties awaiting us if we are to fall alive into Roman hands. 14

In a similar way, Jesus’ interlocutors state that they have never been subjugated by anyone. As Abraham’s descendants, they have been free from time immemorial. By this reaction, they show that they have completely misunderstood Jesus. For he is not speaking of freedom in a literal, political-social sense, but in a religious-ethical sense. In verses 34 and 36, Jesus explains his words of verse 32b by saying that they are definitely slaves; they are slaves to sin, because they are sinners. It is only the Son–that is, Jesus himself–who can set them free (again, in a religious-ethical sense). Although Jesus knows that it is indisputable that the Jews are the descendants of Abraham in the physical sense (see v. 37), their origin has nothing to do with their present status; on the contrary, whereas Abraham was a free man, Jesus’ Jewish objectors are slaves. Strikingly, other passages in Hellenistic literature show a more or less similar argument about the connection, or rather the lack 13 14

Cf. Culpepper, Anatomy, 157. Thackeray, LCL.

Misunderstandings about “Freedom” in John 8:31-36

9

of one, between freedom (or slavery) and people’s origins. The first text that I want to mention is found in Epictetus, Dissertationes 4.1.7-10. 15 In this passage, we find an imaginary dialogue with a Roman senator who has even formerly been a consul. When he is told that he is a slave, he becomes angry and reacts indignantly: he is of noble birth, all his ancestors were free people. This demonstrates that he understands the terms freedom and slavery in their literal, political-social sense. However, his interlocutor refutes his reaction by saying that only one who is not dominated by bad desires and passions, who is not compelled by anyone else, but who always does what is morally right, is really free; all others are slaves. It is not the status or the behaviour of one’s ancestors that matters, it is one’s own character and behaviour that counts, and it is these which make somebody either a free person or a slave (in the religious-ethical sense of the word). The text in question runs as follows: Yet if you tell him (= the senator) the truth, to wit: “In point of being a slave (įȠ૨ȜȠȢ) you are not a whit better than those who have been thrice sold,” what else can you expect but a flogging? “Why, how am I a slave?” says he (ʌ૵Ȣ ȖȐȡ … ਥȖઅ įȠ૨ȜȩȢ İੁȝȚ). “My father was free (ਥȜİȪșİȡȠȢ), my mother free (ਥȜİȣșȑȡĮ) … and I own many slaves.” 15

Of course, this passage has not gone unnoticed in the history of the interpretation of the New Testament. A reference to it is already to be found in Wettstein’s well-known Novum Testamentum Graecum. However, nobody seems to have elaborated on it, not even Bonhöffer in his book Epiktet und das Neue Testament, who in the context of Gal 3.28 and John 8.35-36, refers to Epictetus, Diss. 2.1.22 and following with the simple addition of the words “Vgl. die Ausführungen in IV 1” (306). Also Keener mentions the passage in a note but without any further comment (John, vol. 1, 748 n. 423).

10

Chapter One

Now in the first place, most worthy senator, it is very likely that your father was the same kind of slave that you are (IJ੽Ȟ Į੝IJ੽Ȟ įȠȣȜİȓĮȞ įȠ૨ȜȠȢ ਷Ȟ), and your mother, and your grandfather, and all your ancestors from first to last. But even if they were free (ਥȜİȪșİȡȠȚ) to the limit, what does that prove in your case? Why, what does it prove if they were noble, and you are mean-spirited? If they were brave, and you a coward? If they were self-controlled, and you unrestrained? 16

The author later refers to the Cynic Diogenes as a fine example of somebody who, although not born of free parents, was nevertheless a free man–“free,” that is, in the ethical sense of the word: Diogenes was free (ਥȜİȪșİȡȠȢ). How did that come? It was not because he was born of free parents (ਥȟ ਥȜİȣșȑȡȦȞ), for he was not, but because he himself was free, because he had cast off all the handles of slavery (įȠȣȜİȓĮȢ). “I do not regard my paltry body as my own … I need nothing … the law, and nothing else, is everything to me.” This it was which allowed him to be a free man (ਥȜİȪșİȡȠȞ). 17

Another Hellenistic text which speaks of freedom versus slavery demonstrates a similar argument: it is found in Dio Chrysostom, Orationes 15. The oration starts with a dialogue between two men about freedom and slavery in a literal, political-social sense; one of them is called a slave by the other, who refers to his own noble birth and assures the first that he himself is a free man: I know at any rate that I myself am free (ਥȜİȪșİȡȠȞ) … but that you have no lot or share in freedom … Because … I know

16 17

Oldfather, LCL. Epictetus, Diss. 4.1.152-58 (Oldfather, LCL).

Misunderstandings about “Freedom” in John 8:31-36

11

that my father is an Athenian … while yours is the slave of soand-so. 18

At the end of this oration, Dio Chrysostom tries to demonstrate that the terms “free” and “slave,” as used to characterize someone, have nothing to do with their birth: the term “slave” was originally applied to the man who lacked a free man’s spirit and was of a servile nature (ਕȞİȜİȪșİȡȠȢ țĮ੿ įȠȣȜȠʌȡİʌȒȢ). For of those who are called slaves we will, I presume, admit that many have the spirit of free men, and that among free men there are many who are altogether servile. The case is the same with those known as “noble” and “wellborn” (IJȠઃȢ ȖİȞȞĮȓȠȣȢ țĮ੿ IJȠઃȢ İ੝ȖİȞİ૙Ȣ). For those who originally applied these names applied them to persons who were well-born in respect to virtue or excellence, not bothering to inquire who their parents were ... And so when a man is well-born in respect to virtue, it is right to call him “noble,” even if no one knows his parents or his ancestors either. 19

In Seneca’s Epistulae morales ad Lucilium, we also find the idea that it is only behaviour that makes someone either a “free man” or a “slave”: They (= Socrates and Plato) are all your ancestors, if you conduct yourself in a manner worthy of them (si te illis geris dignum) … Then who is well-born? He who is by nature well fitted for virtue … Suppose, then, that you were not a Roman knight, but a freedman, you might nevertheless by your own efforts come to be the only free man (liber) amid a throng of gentlemen. “How?” you ask. Simply by distinguishing between good and bad things. 20

18

Dio Chrysostom, Orat. 15.2-3 (Cohoon, LCL). Dio Chrysostom, Orat. 15.29-31 (Cohoon, LCL). 20 Seneca, Ep. 44.3-6 (Gummere, LCL). 19

12

Chapter One

Finally, Philo also emphasizes that it is not kinship but proper conduct that characterizes somebody as a “free” and “noble” person: We must give the name of noble (İ੝ȖİȞİ૙Ȣ) only to the temperate and just, even though their parents were slaves … In the court where truth presides, kinship is not measured only by blood, but by similarity of conduct (ʌȡȐȟİȦȞ ੒ȝȠȚȩIJȘIJȚ) and pursuit of the same objects. 21

In conclusion, in John 8:31-34, 36, Jesus (as the author of the Gospel portrays him) rejects the claim of the Jews that they are a free people. Instead, he calls them sinners and slaves. The only way to become free is to accept the message of Jesus as the truth and to believe in Jesus as the Son of God. In the dialogue between Jesus and the Jews, the author of the Gospel introduces a motif that has turned out to be a topos in Hellenistic writings, used to demonstrate that being “free” or being “a slave”–free or a slave, that is, in the moral sense of the terms–has nothing to do with one’s birth or the status of one’s ancestors. Even if someone’s ancestors were free in the sense of being politically or socially free, it is only proper conduct which makes him truly free. 22 In the case of the Jews as portrayed in John 8, there is no similarity of conduct between Abraham and the interlocutors of Jesus, since Abraham’s descendants refuse to accept Jesus’ message and are even 21

Philo, Virt. 189 and 195 (Colson, LCL). This topos is, of course, a further elaboration of the popular Hellenistic, particularly Stoic-Cynic, idea that being truly free or being truly a slave have nothing to do with one’s social status, but only with one’s mental powers, one’s character and one’s behaviour; in this way, slaves can be considered free persons, whereas free men can be characterized as slaves. All this makes it rather unlikely that in John 8:31-36, we are dealing with “Oriental” influences or ancient Buddhist ideas (cf. Derrett, “Oriental sources”). 22

Misunderstandings about “Freedom” in John 8:31-36

13

planning to kill the Son of God; instead, they are slaves–slaves to sin (see also John 8:37-41a). A new interpretation of John 8:35 So far, I have not spoken about John 8:35, “The slave has no permanent standing in the household, but the son belongs to it forever.” At first sight, this verse seems to interrupt the story and to break the flow of Jesus’ speech in verses 34-36. 23 The verse is commonly interpreted as if Jesus (as the author of the Gospel portrays him) means that the Jews must be set free (in the religious-ethical sense of the word) before they will have the right to become “sons,” that is, “sons of God,” and to live in “the household,” that is, in “the household of God” forever. As “the Son of God” (v. 36), it is Jesus himself who lives, or will live, in “the household of God,” and who will prepare a place for the believers. 24 However, I do not think that this interpretation is correct. It seems to have been suggested by an incorrect interpretation of the entire passage (see above) and, in particular, by some Pauline texts, namely Galatians 4:7 and Romans 8:14-17. In these texts, the apostle Paul introduces the contrast between slave and son in an attempt to make clear that Christians are no longer slaves–that is, slaves to idols and pagan gods–but rather sons–that is, sons of God and therefore “heirs of God and fellow-heirs with Christ” (Rom 8:17). But I 23

Cf., e.g., Barrett, who notices that “the connection of this verse with its context is not immediately apparent” (John, 286). Dodd calls this verse a short parable (Tradition, 380), and Dozeman states that this verse disrupts the original logion vv. 34, 36 (“Sperma Abraham,” 355). 24 Cf., e.g., Macgregor, John, 218; Bernard, John, vol. 2, 307-8; Barrett, John, 286; Wikenhauser, Johannes, 178-79; Schneider, Johannes, 180; Lindars, “Slave and Son,” vol. 1, 271-86; Keener, John, vol. 1, 752.

14

Chapter One

wonder whether it is justifiable to use these typically Pauline notions to interpret a Johannine passage. Moreover, far from being a verse that disrupts the story in John 8:32-36, John 8:35 appears to be an indispensable element in the dialogue between Jesus and his Jewish interlocutors. The basic meaning of John 8:35 seems to me to be clear. Elsewhere in the Gospel according to John, we find the contrasts slave/master (įȠ૨ȜȠȢ–țȪȡȚȠȢ) and slave/friend (įȠ૨ȜȠȢ–ijȓȜȠȢ). 25 Here, however, it is the contrast between slave and son (įȠ૨ȜȠȢ–ȣੂȩȢ) which occurs, undoubtedly because it is a position in the household that is at stake. 26 Slaves do not always stay with the same master in the same household; they can be sent away, they can be sold, and they do not generally have any share in the family’s heritage. 27 But in contrast to slaves, sons will remain within the family and will ultimately receive their share of the heritage. 28 The term “household” (ȠੁțȓĮ) used in this verse is also the common word for “family,” domus, which included all people living in the same house; not only members of the family but also the slaves were considered to be part of the household. Finally, the expression ȝȑȞİȚȞ İੁȢ IJઁȞ Įੁ૵ȞĮ (here translated as “has ... permanent standing in” and as “belongs to … forever”) means to stay forever, to stay for as long as one lives. It is OT/LXX idiom and is found a few times in the Johannine writings.29 25

See John 13:16,   )RU WKH FRQWUDVW įȠ૨ȜȠȢ–ijȓȜȠȢ VHH further, e.g., Philo, Migr. 45, Sobr. 55, Plutarch, Sull. 22.4 (Vit. par. 466), Epictetus, Diss. 2.4.5. 26 Cf. Gos. Phil. ,Q-RKQWKHGHILQLWHDUWLFOHVEHIRUHįȠ૨ȜȠȢ Ƞੁțȓ઺DQGȣੂȩȢDUHXVHGLQDgeneric sense: “a slave,” “a household” and “a son” in general. 27 See, e.g., Gen 21:10, Matt 18:25, 24:50-51, 25:30. 28 See, e.g., Sir 44:11 and Luke 15:31. 29 See, e.g., Ps 9:7 (9:8), 33:11 (32:11), 89:36 (88:37), Prov 19:21, Isa 14:20, 40:8, Sir 42:23, 1 Esd 4:38, Tob 6:8 S, John 12:34, 1 John

Misunderstandings about “Freedom” in John 8:31-36

15

Thus, the terminology used in John 8:35 makes it clear that Jesus is presenting a contrast between a slave and a son in the sense that the first cannot claim to be a permanent part of someone’s household, whereas the son will be a member of the family for as long as he lives. The question of course remains of what Jesus (as portrayed by the author) intends by presenting this contrast between a slave and a son? In other words, who does Jesus have in mind when he speaks of “slave” and “son,” and what “household” is he referring to? To start with the last question, it is not very plausible that ȠੁțȓĮ, “household,” refers to the household or the family of God. Nowhere in the Gospel according to John do we find a reference to God’s household, 30 and in the direct context of the passage John 8:31-36 there is nothing that might support such an interpretation. The only household or family that is mentioned in this passage is the family of Abraham (see v. 33 and also vv. 37-40). It is therefore more likely that ȠੁțȓĮ in verse 35 refers to the household of Abraham, the “father” of the Jews. This is the only interpretation which seems to make sense in the dialogue between Jesus and the Jews in verses 34-36. Responding to the objection of the Jews that they are the descendants of Abraham and, as such, free people, Jesus makes DQGFI-RKQ$OWKRXJKWKHYHUEȝȑȞİȚȞPD\VRPHWLPHVKDYH a rather pregnant meaning in the Gospel according to John (see 5:38 and 8:31), it is usually understood as “to stay” or “to remain” without any speciILFFRQQRWDWLRQ7KHVDPHLVWUXHRIWKHH[SUHVVLRQਥȚȢIJઁȞ Įੁ૵ȞĮ ZKLFK PHDQV QRWKLQJ RWKHU WKDQ ³SHUPDQHQWO\´ &I DOVR Dodd, Tradition, 381. 30 John 14:2 (“There are many dwelling-places in my Father’s house” >ਥȞIJૌȠੁțȓ઺ IJȠ૨ʌĮIJȡȩȢȝȠȣ@ PLJKWEHDQH[Feption, but it is more OLNHO\WKDWKHUHȠੁțȓĮUHIHUVWRDSODFHDNLQGRI³EXLOGLQJ´QDPHO\ the heavenly “house” where the believers will eventually dwell IRUHYHU,Q-RKQWKHIRUPXODWLRQ੒ȠੇțȠȢIJȠ૨ʌĮIJȡȩȢȝȠȣRFFXrs, referring to the temple in Jerusalem.

16

Chapter One

it clear that they are nevertheless slaves; namely, slaves to sin, and still need to be set free. Instead of being free like their father Abraham they have become slaves (vv. 34 and 36). In verse 35, we find the final and dramatic consequence of being slaves: the Jews no longer belong to the household of Abraham, since only sons have a permanent standing in someone’s household. In other words, their claim that they are the descendants of Abraham or that Abraham is their father has also proved to be false. Conclusion In John 8:31-41a, the claim by “the Jews” or by the (Jewish-) Christians of inadequate faith, the semi-believers of the evangelist’s own time, that they are the descendants of Abraham, is a central issue. The evangelist disqualifies the opponents of the “Johannine community” as false Christians, as semi-believers, who, like the Jews of Jesus’ time, refuse to accept Jesus as the unique Son of God. In John 8:31-36, when Jesus (as the author of the Gospel portrays him) invites his Jewish interlocutors to become his disciples and to adhere to the truth of his message in order to be set free, they react indignantly: they have never been slaves to anyone, which means that they are free persons, because they are the descendants of Abraham, who himself was a free man. Hereafter, the author of the Gospel has Jesus introduce a topos popular in Hellenistic times, namely the connection, or rather the lack of any connection, between freedom (or slavery) and people’s origin or birth. Since “freedom” and “slavery” both have a double meaning–namely political-social freedom or slavery and philosophical-theological-ethical freedom or slavery–this motif is used more than once in dialogues and orations to reject people’s claims that as descendants of (politically-socially) free persons they themselves are also free

Misunderstandings about “Freedom” in John 8:31-36

17

men. Such claims are rejected by emphasizing that it is not one’s birth that matters, but only a similarity of conduct between the ancestors and their descendants; only those who are free in a religious or moral sense are truly free. In John 8:31-36, Jesus uses this topos in a similar manner. He rejects the claim of his Jewish interlocutors by saying that they are not free people; they are not free in a moral and theological sense, but are slaves, namely, slaves to sin. There is no similarity of conduct whatsoever between Abraham and Jesus’ Jewish interlocutors (see also vv. 37-40). But at this point in the dialogue Jesus comes to a conclusion that goes much further than just saying that they are no longer free people, but slaves: since they are slaves, they no longer belong to the household of Abraham (v. 35). In other words, they can no longer consider themselves true descendants of their ancestor or “father” Abraham. 31 This means that, when he said at the beginning of the dialogue that his interlocutors needed to be set free, Jesus was right (v. 32). In order to become free people they should adhere to the truth of his message and acknowledge him as the unique Son of God.

31

With this polemic (whether people are Abraham’s descendants or not) the author of the Gospel according to John joins early-Christian tradition (see Rom 4, 9:7, Gal 3:7, and Matt 3:9/Luke 3:8). The writer of the Fourth Gospel, however, introduces the theme in a unique way and gives it an unexpected twist.

CHAPTER TWO ISRAEL AND GOD’S ESCHATOLOGICAL AGENT IN THE TESTAMENTS OF THE TWELVE PATRIARCHS

When the apostle Paul wrote his letter to the Romans in the year 56, he found it necessary to deal rather extensively with the role of the people of Israel in God’s plan of salvation. Actually, the entire letter is not only an introduction of the apostle to the Christian community of Rome, but it reflects at the same time Paul’s care for Israel and the Jews. He had experienced their refusal to accept his message of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Only a few Jews had become Christians; the majority of the members of the Christian communities in the diaspora were of heathen origin. In chapters 9-11 in particular Paul discusses God’s election of Israel, their negative attitude to the Gospel, the salvation of the Gentiles, and Israel’s final restoration. He expresses the certainty that, although the people of Israel as a whole have rejected Jesus Christ, they will nonetheless be restored at the end of times. For history has shown over and again that after a period of sinfulness, lawlessness, and disobedience on the side of Israel, it was always God who showed mercy towards his chosen people. And the apostle is convinced that history will repeat itself: “a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved ʌ઼Ȣ ૃǿıȡĮ੽Ȝ ıȦșȒıİIJĮȚ ´ (11:25-26). He does not go into the manner or the condition of Israel’s final restoration. So it remains unclear whether or not he thinks of a

Israel and God’s Eschatological Agent in The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

19

future repentance and acceptance of and belief in Jesus Christ as the Saviour of the world as an essential condition for their final salvation. 1 Confronted with Israel’s actual refusal to accept the Gospel, the apostle simply expresses his conviction that God will not break his promises to his chosen people and that he will have mercy upon them and save them at the end. Israel’s role in God’s plan for the salvation of mankind and their rejection of Jesus Christ remained a favourite issue in Christian reflection in the first and second centuries. Some hundred years after Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, the apologist Justin Martyr composed his Dialogus cum Tryphone. This treatise describes a meeting of (the Christian) Justin and (the Jew) Trypho, who discuss the Christian message of Jesus as the promised Messiah. Justin makes a plea for the reliability of the Gospel and refutes all Trypho’s arguments against Christianity. Their common point of departure is the Scriptures (the OT writings), but their interpretations of a number of passages differ considerably. The same can be said of their differing concepts of the Mosaic Law, the Torah. For the Christian Justin, the Law can be divided into three parts: 1. the ethical part of the law, involving eternal and universal principles, 2. the predictive aspect of the law, foretelling the coming of Jesus Christ, and 3. those commandments ordained by God as a kind of historical dispensation for the Jews because of their stubbornness and hardness of heart.2 Justin emphasizes in his discussions with Trypho that, since the coming of Jesus Christ, the third part of the Mosaic Law, consisting of the ritual ordinances like circumcision, fasting, sacrifice, and Sabbath observance, is no longer valid. In fact, it did not belong to the eternal, natural law of God before (Abraham and) Moses either. 1

On these verses, see further Sanders, Paul, 192-98. On this tripartite division of the Law, see esp. Stylianopoulos, Justin Martyr, 51-76. 2

20

Chapter Two

The new law of Jesus Christ is none other than the eternal law that was also valid in pre-Mosaic times. Interpreting the Scriptures Justin argues that the time of the Mosaic Law is passed and that the coming of Jesus Christ, the Messiah, is foretold in a number of passages in the Jews’ own Holy Book. This central theme in the Dialogus cum Tryphone has made many scholars assume that, although primarily written for Christian readers, this book was also intended for a Jewish audience. And indeed, much can be said in favour of such an assumption. 3 If this is true, the Dialogus cum Tryphone can be regarded as one of the second century Christian efforts to present Jesus Christ and the Gospel to the Jews with the aim of convincing them of the Christian truth. 4 A similar conclusion is also claimed for another second century writing, namely, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (= Testaments XII Patriarchs), or at least for the obviously Christian passages in them. 5 With regard to the history of the research of this writing, many students of Testaments XII Patriarchs have analysed the text with the help of the method of literary criticism in an attempt to reconstruct the history of 3

Stylianopoulos, Justin Martyr, 33-44, 169-95. Cf. also Stanton, Gospel, esp. ch. 10, “Aspects of Early Christian– Jewish Polemic and Apologetic” (232-55). 5 See Jervell, “Interpolator,” who is of the opinion that the parenesis in T. 12 Patr. is to be interpreted as a “Bußwort an Israel” and that the Christian passages are meant as an attempt “das Judentum zu überzeugen” (51-54, 61); and, though more prudently, De Jonge, “Pre-Mosaic Servants,” 169 (= 275), “They (= T. 12 Patr.) were not necessarily written as a missionary tractate addressed to the Jews, but they are certainly concerned with the fate of the Jews and want to convince them (and the Christians, who read this book and handed it down) that they are called to serve God, also after the coming of Jesus Christ”; cf. De Jonge, “Future of Israel,” 211 (= 179). 4

Israel and God’s Eschatological Agent in The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

21

the writing. By distinguishing different stages in the making of Testaments XII Patriarchs, they are eagerly looking for the oldest layer or Grundschrift, an assumedly Jewish document, most probably written in Hebrew or Aramaic in the second century B.C.E. 6 On the whole, however, these scholars have suggested completely different conclusions as to the history of Testaments XII Patriarchs, which shows, in my opinion, the impossibility to apply our modern expectation of consistency to an ancient writing which fulfilled different criteria of consistency than our modern criteria. It cannot be questioned that the author, composer, or redactor of Testaments XII Patriarchs, used all kinds of written and oral materials. But to trace the development of traditions before and during the genesis of the writing seems impossible. 7 Therefore I prefer not to try to remove all so-called Christian “interpolations” and “alterations” as well as Jewish-Hellenistic “additions” in order to find the “original” text of Testaments XII Patriarchs. Rather, I prefer a more direct approach: namely, to analyse the text of Testaments XII Patriarchs, as it stands before us and to investigate the meaning it had both for the Christian author, composer, or redactor, as well as for the receptors living in a second century C.E. Hellenistic environment. 8 It is in the obviously Christian passages, which have been investigated with relatively little vigour since they are usually regarded as interpolations which do not deserve to be analysed at all, that we find phrases about Israel’s attitude towards God’s 6

The most recent literary critical attempt to analyse T. 12 Patr. this way is found in Ulrichsen, Grundschrift. 7 See also De Jonge, “Main Issues,” and De Jonge, “Christian and Jewish.” 8 See further Hollander and De Jonge, Commentary, esp. Introduction (1-85).

22

Chapter Two

eschatological agent 9 and her future destiny at the end of times. An investigation of these more or less polemical passages may help to find an answer to the question whether Testaments XII Patriarchs as a whole are to be regarded as another second century Christian attempt to convince the Jews of the Christian truth. In other words: Were the intended readers of Testaments XII Patriarchs only Christians or were they Jews (and Christians)? In the following paragraphs I hope to make it plausible that Testaments XII Patriarchs may have been written without any missionary purpose at all, but that they have been composed by and for Christians, who were thought to be in need of some moral exhortation in order to practise a truly Christian life. The disobedience and unbelief on the side of Israel is no more than a striking example of ungodly behaviour. Testaments XII Patriarchs as a series of farewell discourses The pseudepigraphon Testaments XII Patriarchs consists of twelve parts or “testaments,” each containing the last words of one of the twelve sons of Jacob addressed to his sons (and other relatives) at the end of his life. The farewell speech itself, preceded by some phrases about the circumstances under which the speech is delivered, and followed by some statements about the patriarch’s death and burial, forms the bulk of each testament. It usually has a tripartite structure: the patriarch tells his sons first about his own life in the past and describes his own moral behaviour; next, he exhorts them not to fall into the same sins or, if he has been a virtuous man, to imitate him; and

9

6WULNLQJO\ WKH WLWOH ³0HVVLDK´ ੒ ȤȡȚıIJȩȢ  IRU WKH HVFKDWRORJLFDO agent of God is lacking in T. 12 Patr.; on T. Reu. 6:8, where we find WKHH[SUHVVLRQ³RIWKHDQRLQWHGKLJKSULHVWਕȡȤȚİȡȑȦȢȤȡȚıIJȠ૨ RI whom the Lord spoke,” see the note in Hollander and De Jonge, Commentary, 107.

Israel and God’s Eschatological Agent in The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

23

finally, he foretells what will happen to his posterity and the people of Israel (and the Gentiles) in the future. In the literary genre of the testament (or better, the genre of the farewell discourse 10), the emphasis lies undeniably upon the parenesis. 11 And Testaments XII Patriarchs are no exception to the rule. 12 Not only the structure but also the content of the parenetic passages in Testaments XII Patriarchs make it clear that the parenesis is the focal point. Neither the biographical section, which is undoubtedly intended to illustrate the exhortations with which the biographical data are connected, nor the phrases about the future seem to play an important role in Testaments XII Patriarchs. The question whether the predictions of the future have been added by the author of Testaments XII Patriarchs only for their own sake, due to the fact that such predictions are an integral element of farewell discourses, or whether they have been added for the benefit of the parenetic purpose of the author, as further illustrations of moral behaviour or misbehaviour, is a very legitimate question. The predictions of the future In the predictions of the future found in Testaments XII Patriarchs we are able to distinguish four types of passages, unevenly distributed over the individual testaments and adapted to the different contexts. The first and most important type is the S(in)-E(xile)-R(eturn) pattern: the patriarch refers to future sins of his posterity, which will be followed by God’s 10

Cf. Cortès, Discursos de Adiós, 70, 170 n. 33. [For a more detailed introduction to genre, structure, and content of T. 12 Patr., as well as to the intentions of the author of T. 12 Patr., see Chapter Three of this volume, pp. 38-48.] 11 See Hollander, Joseph, 1-12 (and the literature mentioned there). 12 See Hollander, Joseph, 6-12, and esp. 100 n. 18; cf. also De Jonge, “Pre-Mosaic Servants,” and De Jonge, “Paränese.”

24

Chapter Two

punishment (viz. exile and captivity among the Gentiles). The exile finally ends in their return from captivity due to God’s mercy and compassion on them. 13 Next, there are the so-called L(evi)-J(udah) passages. In these sections, the sons of the patriarchs are exhorted not to rebel against the posterity of Levi (and Judah), but rather to obey or to love him (them), either because of the special position of Levi (and Judah) among the Israelites or because “the salvation of the Lord” is said to come out of (one of) these tribes. 14 The third type of predictions of the future is found in passages in which the patriarch refers to a future ideal Saviour figure. 15 Finally, there are sections that deal with a future resurrection of the patriarchs as heads of their tribes. 16 These four types of passages form the bulk of the predictions of the future, made by the patriarchs on their death-beds in the company of their sons and other relatives. Though some patterns, in particular the S.E.R. and the L.J. ones, may have their roots in Judaism, 17 the meaning of these passages as they appear in the farewell discourses is Christian. This is evidenced by the obviously Christian elements, which are visible in these predictions of the future. The references to Jesus Christ, though he is not mentioned by name, are numerous and clear, and they are in accordance with various

13

For a detailed analysis of the S.E.R. pattern, see Hollander and De Jonge, Commentary, 39-40 and 53-56. 14 See further Hollander and De Jonge, Commentary, 40-41 and 5661. 15 See Hollander and De Jonge, Commentary, 63-64. 16 See Hollander and De Jonge, Commentary, 61-63. 17 Cf. Korteweg, “Naphtali’s visions,” 282-90.

Israel and God’s Eschatological Agent in The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

25

aspects of second century christology. 18 He is the one who is represented as the future ideal Saviour, to be raised up by God as a high priest from the tribe of Levi, and as a king from the tribe of Judah. 19 He will be “God and man,” 20 and he will save “all the Gentiles and the race of Israel.” 21 The call to obedience to the sons of Levi (and Judah) implies a call to obedience to “the Lamb of God and Saviour of the world.” 22 Thus the genre of the farewell discourse enabled the author, composer, or redactor of Testaments XII Patriarchs to place predictions concerning the coming of God’s agent Jesus Christ into the mouths of the twelve sons of Jacob, the famous forefathers of the Jewish people. The attitude of the Jewish people towards God’s eschatological agent In several instances within the predictions of the future in Testaments XII Patriarchs we find utterances which foresee the future negative attitude of the Jewish people towards God’s agent, Jesus Christ. It is the patriarch Levi in particular who speaks about the crimes of his posterity against “the Saviour of the world.” He mentions the theme more than once in his farewell discourse. In Testament of Levi 4:4, for instance, he 18

See the early-Christian parallels mentioned in Hollander and De Jonge, Commentary, ad loc. 19 See T. Sim. 7:2, T. Levi 2:11, 8:14, 18:1-14, T. Dan 5:10, T. Gad 8:1, T. Jos. 19; cf. further T. Reu. 6:12, T. Jud. 22:3, and 24:1-6. 20 See T. Sim. 7:2; cf. T. Sim. 6:5, 7, T. Jud. 24:1, T. Naph. 4:5, T. Ash. 7:3, and T. Benj. 10:7. 21 See T. Sim. 6:5, 7, 7:1-2, T. Levi 2:11, 10:2, 14:2, T. Jud. 22:2, T. Zeb. 9:8, T. Dan 5:10, 6:7, 9, T. Naph. 8:3, T. Gad 8:1, T. Ash. 7:3, T. Jos. 19:6, T. Benj. 3:8, 9:2, and 10:5. 22 T. Benj. 3:8. On this verse, see esp. De Jonge, “Test. Benjamin 3:8.”

26

Chapter Two

foretells how the sons of his sons “will lay hands upon him (= Jesus) to do away with him.” 23 Somewhat later, Levi declares that he is innocent of their “ungodliness and transgression (ਕıİȕİȓĮȢ … țĮ੿ ʌĮȡĮȕȐıİȦȢ ´ which they “will commit at the consummation of the ages against the Saviour of the world, acting impiously (ਕıİȕȠ૨ȞIJİȢ  leading Israel astray ʌȜĮȞ૵ȞIJİȢ IJઁȞ ૃǿıȡĮȒȜ ´ (T. Levi 10:2). The same theme recurs in Testament of Levi 14, where the patriarch tells his sons, that at the end you will act impiously (ਕıİȕȒıİIJİ against the Lord, laying hands (upon him) in all wickedness … also our father Israel will be pure from the ungodliness of the high priests IJોȢ ਕıİȕİȓĮȢ IJ૵Ȟ ਕȡȤȚİȡȑȦȞ  who will lay their hands upon the Saviour of the world … wishing to kill him, teaching commandments contrary to the ordinances of God (ਥȞĮȞIJȓĮȢ ਥȞIJȠȜ੹Ȣ įȚįȐıțȠȞIJİȢ IJȠ૙Ȣ IJȠ૨ șİȠ૨ įȚțĮȚȫȝĮıȚ . (vv. 1-4)

And finally, in Testament of Levi 16, the patriarch refers to his sons’ future crimes against the priesthood, the sacrifices, the law, the prophets and other righteous and godly men (vv. 1-2), after which he continues as follows, And a man who renews the law (ਙȞįȡĮ ਕȞĮțĮȚȞȠʌȠȚȠ૨ȞIJĮ ȞȩȝȠȞ in the power of the Most High, you will call a deceiver ʌȜȐȞȠȞ  and, at last, you will kill him, as you suppose, not knowing that he would be raised up, taking innocent blood, in wickedness, on your heads. (v. 3)

Thus, on his deathbed, the patriarch Levi foretells the future sins of his posterity. As future priests and high priests, they will 23

For the Greek text of T. 12 Patr., see De Jonge (ed.), Edition. The English translations are usually taken from Hollander and De Jonge, Commentary.

Israel and God’s Eschatological Agent in The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

27

deceive the people of Israel and act against the law of God, and they will kill the Saviour of the world, the one who will renew the law but whom they will call a deceiver. Elsewhere in Testaments XII Patriarchs, we find similar predictions of Israel’s negative attitude towards the coming Saviour. Their behaviour will be characterized by “provocation” (T. Zeb. 9:9) and “lawlessness” (T. Dan 6:6), while the patriarch Asher foretells his sons that they will “surely be disobedient to him (= Jesus) (ਕʌİȚșȠ૨ȞIJİȢ ਕʌİȚșȒıİIJİ ´ and will “act impiously (ਕıİȕȠ૨ȞIJİȢ ਕıİȕȒıİIJİ towards him not giving heed to the law of God, but to commandments of men” (T. Ash. 7:5). Benjamin, while speaking about the future coming of God’s “salvation,” tells his sons that “he (= Jesus) will enter into the first temple, and there the Lord will be outraged (ਫ਼ȕȡȚıșȒıİIJĮȚ and set at nought (ਥȟȠȣșİȞȦșȒıİIJĮȚ and lifted upon a tree (ਥʌ੿ ȟȪȜȠȣ ਫ਼ȥȦșȒıİIJĮȚ ” (T. Benj. 9:3). Finally, Israel’s lawless actions against the coming Saviour will be accompanied and followed by a continuous “ignorance” and “unbelief” in Jesus Christ. This prediction is again attributed to some of their famous forefathers. 24 The consequences of Israel’s future negative attitude towards “the Saviour of the world” are twofold. First, the patriarchs foretell that, on account of this rejection, their posterity will be punished by God severely, a consequence which is in accordance with the first elements of the S.E.R. pattern. 25 The punishment will result this time particularly in the destruction 24

See T. Levi 18:9 and T. Benj. 10:8. On the rather complicated S.E.R. passages in T. 12 Patr. and the repetitions of the S.E.R. pattern in several testaments together with the many evidently Christian elements connected with it, see (once more) Hollander and De Jonge, Commentary, 53-56, and De Jonge, “Future of Israel,” 200-5 (= 168-73); cf. also Stanton, Gospel, 24755. 25

28

Chapter Two

of the temple in Jerusalem and the dispersion of the people of Israel among the Gentile nations: Because of this, the temple which the Lord will choose, will be desolate in uncleanness, and you will be captives throughout all the Gentiles. (T. Levi 15:1) 26

Thus the diaspora of the Jews is regarded as God’s punishment for their crimes against his eschatological agent and their unbelief in “the Saviour of the world.” This interpretation of the diaspora as punishment reflects once again a second century Christian view, which the author of Testaments XII Patriarchs utilizes. 27 However, Israel’s refusal to accept Jesus Christ as God’s Saviour will not only lead to her punishment. It will also have a positive effect; namely, God’s turning to the Gentiles: But in the time of the lawlessness of Israel the Lord will leave them and pass to the Gentiles who do his will. (T. Dan 6:6)

Contrary to the people of Israel who “will be diminished through ignorance,” the Gentiles “will be multiplied in knowledge” (T. Levi 18:9). And Benjamin, at last, foretells his sons that after the Lord’s death,

26

See further T. Levi 10:3-4, 14:1, 16:4-5, 18:9, T. Zeb. 9:9, T. Dan 5:13, and T. Ash. 7:6. 27 See, e.g., Hippolytus, Ben. Is. Jac.14 (161), 26 (276) (in Brière, Mariès, and Mercier, 66-69, and 106-7), and Justin, Dial. 117.5. Cf. also De Jonge, “Hippolytus’ Benedictions,” 250 (= 209).

Israel and God’s Eschatological Agent in The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

29

the veil of the temple will be rent, 28 and the spirit of God will pass on to the Gentiles, as a fire that is poured out. (T. Benj. 9:4) 29

The notion that Israel’s disobedience and unbelief have resulted in the opportunity of the Gentiles to be saved (at the end of times) is another fixed idea in early-Christian literature. We find it already in the writings of the apostle Paul. 30 Of course, in the first and second centuries C.E., it was a daily life experience for Christians to see that the majority of the Jewish people remained unbelieving in Jesus Christ as God’s Messiah, while more and more non-Jews accepted the Christian message wholeheartedly. And the early-Christian authors, the author of Testaments XII Patriarchs included, frequently mention this remarkable fact. With regard to the final destiny of the people of Israel at the moment when God will judge the whole of mankind, the author of Testaments XII Patriarchs does not give us a perfectly clear picture. On the one hand, we find a prediction of a bleak future for the people of Israel, namely in Testament of Benjamin 10, where the patriarch gives a description of the future resurrection and God’s judgment: And the Lord will judge Israel first for the unrighteousness done to him, because they did not believe that God appeared in the flesh as a deliverer … And he will convict Israel through the chosen ones of the Gentiles. (vv. 8, 10)

28

On the motif of the rending of the temple veil, see esp. De Jonge, “Two Interesting Interpretations.” 29 Cf. also T. Benj. 11:2, where we find a clear reference to the missionary activities of the apostle Paul. 30 See Rom 11:11, and cf. Matt 21:43, Acts 13:46, 18:6, Justin, Dial, 26.1, 52.4, and 109.1.

30

Chapter Two

Obviously, the starting-point of the author of Testaments XII Patriarchs is Israel’s disobedience and unbelief, which will lead to their punishment in the present time, and to their condemnation at the end. On the other hand, however, God’s eschatological agent will be “the Saviour of the world,” which includes the people of Israel. 31 The patriarchs themselves are fully convinced that they will be raised up from death in order to rejoice together with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the saints and righteous men and those (of the Gentiles) who believed in the eschatological “Saviour of the world.” 32 They do not find it necessary to fear God’s coming judgment. This motif is also a well-known second century Christian idea. For instance, Justin Martyr writes in his Dialogus cum Tryphone 26.1, While the nations that have believed in Him, and have repented for all the sins they have committed–they shall inherit, with all the patriarchs and the prophets and the righteous men that have been born of Israel. 33

But what about all the other members of the people of Israel? According to the patriarchs, belief in Jesus Christ is an essential condition for being saved, also for the Israelites. But they do not hesitate to add that at the end of time their posterity will be received by the Lord with pity and compassion. The punishment imposed on the Israelites by God for their crime against “the Saviour of the world,” will be temporary: it will only last “until he (= Jesus) will again visit (you) and in pity receive you

31

See esp. T. Sim. 7:2, T. Jud. 22:2, T. Dan 6:7, T. Naph. 8:3, T. Gad 8:1, T. Ash. 7:3, T. Jos. 19:6, and T. Benj. 3:8. 32 See T. Sim. 6:7, T. Levi 18:14, T. Jud. 25, T. Zeb. 10:2, T. Dan 5:12, and T. Benj. 10:6-8. 33 Williams, Justin Martyr.

Israel and God’s Eschatological Agent in The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

31

through faith and water” (T. Levi 16:5). 34 In other words, their punishment will last until Jesus will receive the Israelites as people who believe in Him and have been baptised. In contrast to Justin’s Dialogus cum Tryphone, for instance, where it is hoped that the Jews will come to believe in Jesus Christ, and where it is said that the Christians will pray for them that they “may receive mercy at Christ’s hands,” 35 the author of Testaments XII Patriarchs seems to be sure that one day the people of Israel will believe in Christ and will be received by him at the end of time. He is convinced that “Israel will be gathered together unto the Lord” (T. Benj. 10:11), 36 and that “on the day that Israel will believe, the kingdom of the enemy will be brought to an end” (T. Dan 6:4). Thus, in Testaments XII Patriarchs, references to the future condemnation of Israel are found alongside statements about Israel’s final salvation. Apparently the author of Testaments XII Patriarchs did not aim at one straight answer to the question of the future destiny of the people of Israel. Since in his opinion belief in Jesus Christ was the essential condition for salvation, at least after the coming of “the Saviour of the world,” both options were open: either 1. the Israelites will remain unbelievers and will be condemned by God together with all the Gentiles who do not believe in Jesus Christ, or 2. they will repent and turn to the Lord “in faith and water” (T. Levi 16:5) and will be saved by God and gathered together with all the Gentiles who believe in Jesus Christ around “the last temple of God” in Jerusalem (T. Benj. 9:2). The latter option is for the author of Testaments XII Patriarchs the more plausible. It reminds us of Paul’s words in Romans 34

Cf. T. Dan 5:13, T. Ash. 7:7, and T. Benj. 9:2. Dial. 95.3, 96.3, and 142.2. 36 Cf. T. Dan 5:13 and T. Benj. 9:2. 35

32

Chapter Two

11:26, with the difference that the author of Testaments XII Patriarchs explicitly mentions Israel’s future acceptance of and belief in Jesus Christ. But both authors share the conviction that Israel will be saved, and both seem to deal with Israel’s final salvation as a more or less fixed item in a purely Christian discussion. Neither Paul nor the author of Testaments XII Patriarchs give the impression that they are addressing themselves to any other than Christian readers. As to Testaments XII Patriarchs, this assumption is strengthened by the fact that all explicit (or even implicit) exhortations to believe in “the Saviour of the world,” in particular after his death (and resurrection), are absent. Theological details about Jesus Christ’s saving activities and about the Christians’ right over against Judaism in order to persuade the Jews, are equally absent. There is no trace of a Christian-Jewish discussion at all. What we do find are, at best, more or less general exhortations to “observe the commandments of the Lord and honour Judah and Levi” because of “the salvation” which will come out of (one of) these tribes. 37 And when Israel’s negative attitude towards the coming Saviour is described, which was of course a vaticinium ex eventu at the time Testaments XII Patriarchs were composed, it is not followed by an exhortation to believe in Christ, but it is wholly embedded in a parenetic context in order to give another illustration of disobedience to the law of God. That this is the case can be deduced even from Testament of Levi, a testament in which the biographical passages and the predictions of the future by far exceed the exhortatory parts.38 37

See T. Jos. 19:6 (cf. T. Sim. 7:1-2, T. Naph. 8:2, and T. Gad 8:1). Cf. also T. Ash. 7:4. 38 This may be due to the amount of biographical material which the author, composer, or redactor of T. 12 Patr. had at his disposal (see Hollander and De Jonge, Commentary, 17-25) and to his (Christian)

Israel and God’s Eschatological Agent in The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

33

Even here the setting of the references to Israel’s future negative attitude to “the Saviour of the world” is wholly parenetic. The prophetic utterances about Israel’s impious actions against the Lord ending up in his violent death in chapter 14, for instance, are preceded by a parenetic section on the observance of the law of God in chapter 13. And most illustrative of the importance of the parenesis in Testaments XII Patriarchs is the concluding paragraph of Testament of Levi, where, after having spoken of the coming Saviour and Israel’s reaction (ch. 18), the patriarch Levi asks his sons to “choose … either darkness or light, either the law of the Lord or the works of Beliar” (19:1). A similar picture is found in other testaments: when Israel’s future refusal to accept Jesus Christ is referred to, it is connected with direct exhortations to fear the Lord and to keep his commandments. 39 All this implies that the references to Israel’ s attitude towards Jesus Christ in Testaments XII Patriarchs are simply mentioned as negative examples within a purely parenetic context. They do not serve as an invitation to the Jews to repent and to believe in Jesus Christ as “the Saviour of the world.” This conclusion is all the more plausible when one analyses the phrases on the role and function of God’s eschatological agent in Testaments XII Patriarchs. They do not give us the impression that they are meant to convince the Jews of the Christian truth. Christological statements on the meaning of Jesus Christ’s death (and resurrection), for instance, are absent. Instead, it is said that the future ideal figure will be “a man who renews the law (ਕȞĮțĮȚȞȠʌȠȚȠ૨ȞIJĮ ȞȩȝȠȞ) in the power of the Most High” (T. Levi 16:3), someone who will be “teaching the conception that it was the sons of Levi, the (high) priests, in particular who were responsible for the death of Jesus Christ. 39 See T. Dan 6:6 after 6:1 and before 6:8-10, and T. Benj. 9, esp. v. 3, after chapters 7-8 and before 10:3.

34

Chapter Two

law of God (ਥțįȚįȐıțȦȞ … ȞȩȝȠȞ șİȠ૨) through his works” (T. Dan 6:9). That is, the “Saviour of the world” will renovate the law of God and teach it through his own example. What this means becomes clear from a number of passages in which the behaviour of “the Saviour of the world” is described. Testament of Judah 24:1, for instance, portrays him as one who will be “walking with the sons of men in meekness and righteousness (ਥȞ ʌȡĮȩIJȘIJȚ țĮ੿ įȚțĮȚȠıȪȞૉ),” and in whom “no sin whatever will be found.” He will be “true and longsuffering, meek and lowly (ਕȜȘș੽Ȣ țĮ੿ ȝĮțȡȩșȣȝȠȢ ʌȡ઼ȠȢ țĮ੿ IJĮʌİȚȞȩȢ ´ and he will reign “in humility and poverty (ਥȞ IJĮʌİȚȞȫıİȚ țĮ੿ ਥȞ ʌIJȦȤİȓ઺)” (T. Dan 6:9, 5:13). He will be “a man of humility IJĮʌİȚȞȫıİȦȢ ´ (T. Benj. 10:7), “a man working righteousness and working mercy ʌȠȚ૵Ȟ įȚțĮȚȠıȪȞȘȞ țĮ੿ ʌȠȚ૵Ȟ ਩ȜİȠȢ unto all who are far off and who are near” (T. Naph. 4:5). Jesus Christ’s behaviour, characterized by humility, meekness, mercy, and righteousness, turns out to be in complete accordance with the law of God. For it is an expression of the command to love one’s neighbour. In the author’s opinion, the contents of the law can be summarized in the two great commands to love or fear God and to love one’s neighbour. Both commandments (cf. Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18) form the basis of the parenesis in Testaments XII Patriarchs. 40 In Testaments XII Patriarchs, the law is understood above all as being a collection of ethical commands. Ritual, cultic, or ceremonial commandments do not play a role of any

40

See T. Iss. 5:2, 7:6, T. Dan 5:3; and cf. T. Reu. 6:9, T. Sim. 4:7, T. Levi 13:1, T. Zeb. 8:5, 10:5, T. Dan 6:1, T. Gad 3:2, 4:2, 5:4-5, 6:1, 3, 7:7, T. Jos. 11:1, 17:2, T. Benj. 3:1, and 10:10. Cf. esp. Hollander, Joseph, 7-9, and De Jonge, “Paränese,” 538-44 (= 277-83).

Israel and God’s Eschatological Agent in The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

35

importance. 41 Allusions to the non-ethical contents of the law of Moses or to its function and purpose in the history of the people of Israel are absent, which would be very strange if the intended readers of Testaments XII Patriarchs were not only Christians but also Jews. If Testaments XII Patriarchs were composed to convince the Jews of the Christian truth, indirect references or allusions to the Torah would certainly not have been lacking. Instead, the commandments given by the patriarchs to their sons are the same as those given by Jesus according to the NT writings. Or, in other words, the law that is “renewed” by Jesus and taught by him “through his works” is nothing other than the moral teaching of the patriarchs, according to the author of Testaments XII Patriarchs. The patriarchs, living before Moses, and “the Saviour of the world” teach the same law of God, namely, the essential and universal commands to love or fear God and to love one’s neighbour! 42 All this is in agreement with second century Christian conceptions which are also found in Justin Martyr’s Dialogus cum Tryphone, as we have seen above. The difference is that in Testaments XII Patriarchs it is not worked out, nor put into a theological system, as it is in Justin’s Dialogus cum Tryphone. The author, composer, or redactor of Testaments XII Patriarchs was not a theologian pur sang, but he shared and transmitted common early-Christian thoughts.

41

Against Slingerland, “The Nature of Nomos.” Cf. Kee, “Ethical Dimensions”; De Jonge, “Paränese,” and the note on T. Benj. 3:3 in Hollander and De Jonge, Commentary, 418. 42 Though the combination of these two commandments may go back to Jewish-Hellenism, the formulation, which avoids abstract terms OLNHİ੝ıȑȕİȚĮDQGijȚȜĮȞșȡȦʌȓĮEXWXVHVYHUEDOIRUPVLVZKROO\LQ agreement with what we find in early-Christianity (see, e.g., Mark 12:30-31).

36

Chapter Two

Thus, according to the author of Testaments XII Patriarchs, the patriarchs, living in pre-Mosaic times, taught the eternal and universal commandments which can be summarized in the two great love commands. The Mosaic Law was a law given to the people of Israel and involved not only ethical commands but also many other commandments, including ritual, cultic, and ceremonial commands. In Testaments XII Patriarchs, there is hardly any reference to the Law of Moses, which, since the coming of Jesus Christ, God’s eschatological agent, represents a period of history that is passed. The “renewal” of the law by Jesus consisted in a return to the essentials of the law, viz. the ethical part of the law of God centred on the commands to love God and to love one’s neighbour. The reaction of the Jewish leaders to this “man who renews the law” 43 will be that of rejection: they will call him “a deceiver ʌȜȐȞȠȞ ´ (T. Levi 16:3) 44 and they will kill him. This behaviour is mentioned by the author of Testaments XII Patriarchs in order to point out the lawlessness of the Jews. Their opposition to God’s eschatological agent shows their opposition to the very essentials of the law of God as taught by Israel’s famous forefathers, the patriarchs, as well as later by Jesus Christ. It functions as a warning example in a series of parenetic examples, meant to edify the Christian readers of Testaments XII Patriarchs. Conclusion The text of Testaments XII Patriarchs, as it stands before us, has been composed for a Christian audience. Obviously, the author or redactor of Testaments XII Patriarchs did not 43

Cf. Barn. 2:6, Justin, Dial. 11.2, 4, 12.3, 34.1, and 43.1. See also Matt 27:63, John 7:12, Justin, Dial. 69.7, 108.2, and Acts Thom. 48. Cf. Stanton, Gospel, 237-46. 44

Israel and God’s Eschatological Agent in The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

37

compose the book for Jews, but only for his fellow-Christians. Parenesis is the focus of the writing, and the Christian author, composer, or redactor’s purpose was to edify his Christian readers and to exhort them to practise a truly Christian life. In order to transmit his ethical message as effectively as possible, he adopted the popular literary genre of the farewell discourse. The choice of this genre was based upon the fact that the emphasis of such “testaments” delivered by virtuous men of old, always lies upon parenesis. Furthermore, the twelve sons of Jacob were regarded as pious and respectable men, real “patriarchs,” whereas on the other hand the tensions within the family of Jacob as told in Genesis 37-50 and retold and expanded in Judaism and early-Christianity, gave sufficient material for reflection. Thus, the lives of the patriarchs as described in the biographical sections of Testaments XII Patriarchs could serve very well as illustrations of the parenesis. The predictions of the future seem to play a similar role. In these predictions, the author refers to the eventful history of the people of Israel and uses the Sin-Exile-Return pattern to make it understandable. The Jews’ negative attitude towards “the Saviour of the world” provides yet another example of wrong behaviour and disobedience to God and his law, a law centred on the two commands to love or fear God and to love one’s neighbour. The rejection of Jesus Christ by the Jews is sharply criticized by the author, composer, or redactor of Testaments XII Patriarchs, not in order to persuade the Jews to repent and to convince them of the Christian truth, but to give his Christian readers another example of objectionable moral behaviour.

CHAPTER THREE “SONS OF MEN” AND “SONS OF GOD” IN THE TESTAMENTS OF THE TWELVE PATRIARCHS

The pseudepigraphon The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (= Testaments XII Patriarchs) consists of twelve parts or “testaments.” Each testament contains the last words of one of the twelve sons of Jacob addressed to his sons (and sometimes to his grandsons and other relatives) at the end of his life. All twelve testaments begin with a passage giving details about the circumstances under which the speech was delivered and it ends with some statements about the patriarch’s death and burial. In between, we find the “farewell speech” itself, which forms the bulk of each testament. The framework has undoubtedly been grafted upon OT examples, particularly upon Genesis 49, Jacob’s farewell speech to his sons. The farewell speech usually has a tripartite structure. First, the patriarch gives some details about his life in the past and tells his descendants about his own moral behaviour (the biographical part). This part serves as a kind of introduction to the second part, the parenetic or exhortatory section. The patriarch exhorts his sons not to fall into the sins he has committed in his life or, if he has been a virtuous man, to imitate him. Finally, he foretells what will happen to his posterity in the future and he usually adds some words about the future salvation of the people of Israel (and the Gentiles), which will be brought about by God at the end of times (the

“Sons of Men” and “Sons of God” in The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

39

part dealing with the future or the eschatological part). In other words, the patriarchs tell their sons “all that they will do and that will happen to them until the day of judgment” (T. Levi 1:1). 1 Testaments XII Patriarchs do not provide the only examples of farewell discourses. The origin of the genre is found in the OT (see, e.g., Gen 27:1-40, 48:1-22, 49:1-50:14, Deut 33, Josh 23, 1 Sam 12, and 1 Kings 2:1-10). The farewell speech as a genre with its particular features is found in many Jewish and earlyChristian writings (see, e.g., Tob 4, 14, 1 Macc 2:49-70, Jub. 22:1-23:8, 36:1-18, L.A.B. 19, 23-24, 33, L.A.E. 15-30, and Acts 20:17-38). 2 The particular setting of someone speaking his last words to his sons is, of course, meant to attach importance to the message and implies the traditional relationship between fathers and sons at the time. In the case of Testaments XII Patriarchs, the patriarchs make a final and dramatic call on their descendants who are standing around 1

țĮIJ੹ ʌȐȞIJĮ ਘ ʌȠȚȒıȠȣıȚ țĮ੿ ੖ıĮ ıȣȞĮȞIJȒıİȚ Į੝IJȠ૙Ȣ ਪȦȢ ਲȝȑȡĮȢ țȡȚıȑȦȢ. For the Greek text of T. 12 Patr., see De Jonge (ed.), Edition. The English translations are usually taken from Hollander and De Jonge, Commentary. For some other translations, see esp. Becker, “Testamente,” and Kee, “Testaments.” For some brief introductions to T. 12 Patr., see also Hollander, “Testaments,” and esp. Kugler, “Testaments.” [For some recent important studies on T. 12 Patr., see De Bruin, The Great Controversy, and Opferkuch, Der handelnde Mensch.] 2 On the genre of a farewell speech, see esp. Cortès, Discursos; Von Nordheim, Die Lehre der Alten, vol. I; Von Nordheim, Die Lehre der Alten, vol II; Collins, “Testaments”; Winter, Vermächtnis. Since a number of Jewish-Hellenistic and early-Christian writings bear the title “testament” but are entirely different in form and contents, I would prefer to speak of the genre of a “farewell discourse” or “farewell speech” instead of a “testament.” See also De Jonge, “Testamentenliteratur.”

40

Chapter Three

their death-beds, to be obedient to God and to do his commandments. Their last words are a kind of inheritance which they give to their sons “for an everlasting possession.” 3 In all instances of farewell speeches, the emphasis lies undeniably upon the parenesis. Testaments XII Patriarchs are no exception to the rule: not only the structure but also the extent of the exhortatory sections in Testaments XII Patriarchs make it clear that the parenesis is the focal point. 4 In the biographical and the parenetic passages the author of Testaments XII Patriarchs shows his great dependence on the OT (LXX). Most of the biographical data have been borrowed from the book of Genesis and some later Jewish traditions. As for the exhortatory sections, the author has been influenced by the Psalms and the Jewish wisdom literature. The Hellenistic background is obvious, even more than in the wisdom books of the LXX. However, that is not to say that the author of Testaments XII Patriarchs was a Jew writing for a Jewish audience. Not only Jews used the OT and other Jewish (oral or written) traditions, Christians did the same. Moreover, it seems to be impossible to consider the ethics of Testaments XII Patriarchs typically Jewish or typically Christian, since there was a considerable measure of continuity between Hellenistic, Hellenistic-Jewish and early-Christian ethics. 5 As for the sections dealing with the future, the situation is somewhat more complex. First of all, we are able to distinguish four types of passages, unevenly distributed over the individual testaments and adapted to the different contexts. 6 The most 3

T. Benj. 10:4-5. See esp. Hollander, Joseph, 1-12, 100 n. 18; De Jonge, “Pre-Mosaic Servants,” and De Jonge, “Paränese.” 5 See also De Jonge, “The Two Great Commandments,” and De Jonge, “Two Ways,” 180. 6 See esp. Hollander and De Jonge, Commentary, 39-41 and 51-64. 4

“Sons of Men” and “Sons of God” in The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

41

important type is the S(in)-E(xile)-R(eturn) pattern: the patriarch refers to future sins of his posterity and predicts God’s punishment (exile and captivity among the Gentiles); the exile finally ends in their return from captivity as a result of God’s mercy on them. Next, there are the so-called L(evi)-J(udah) sections: here, the patriarch exhorts his sons not to rebel against the descendants of Levi and Judah, but rather to obey or even love them, either because of the special position of Levi and Judah and their offspring among the people of Israel or because “the salvation of the Lord” is expected to come out of these tribes. The third type of predictions of the future is found in sections in which the patriarch mentions the future coming of an ideal Saviour figure. Finally, there are passages that deal with a future resurrection of the patriarchs or a future general resurrection of all mankind. Some of these patterns, in particular the S.E.R. and the L.J. ones, have their roots in the OT and later Jewish tradition. However, the meaning of these passages as they appear in the farewell speeches is undoubtedly Christian. This is evidenced by the many obviously Christian elements, which are visible in these particular passages. The other two patterns, which we find in the sections about the future Saviour and the resurrection at the end of times, are even more obviously Christian. Here, the references to Jesus Christ, though he is not mentioned by name, are numerous and prominent. Moreover, they are in complete accordance with various aspects of second century christology. 7 In the history of research of Testaments XII Patriarchs there have been many attempts to argue for different stages of redaction or for extensive Jewish and Christian interpolations in an originally Jewish document written in Hebrew or

7

See also Hollander, “God’s Eschatological Agent” [see Chapter Two of this volume].

42

Chapter Three

Aramaic. 8 All of them have remained very hypothetical. In my opinion, it seems wiser to regard Testaments XII Patriarchs as a literary product originally written in Greek and as a more or less coherent unity. The (Christian) author or composer used all kinds of oral and written materials, but the text as it lies before us once had a meaning both for the (Christian) author and the (Christian) audience. It was not intended to convince the Jews or other people outside the Church of the Christian truth; it is not polemic nor apologetic nor missionary. 9 The text should be considered an attempt of a second century Christian to entertain his Christian audience, to show them the right way of living according to the will of God, and to make them believe that Israel’s famous forefathers have foretold the coming of Jesus Christ and the future salvation of all the righteous, Jews (Israelites) and Gentiles alike. In the following sections I will first investigate the relationship between fathers and sons, i.e. the patriarchs and their descendants, in the biographical and the parenetic passages in Testaments XII Patriarchs. In these passages, the patriarchs ask for strict obedience and introduce Joseph as the “good man” par excellence to be imitated by their sons at all times. Next, the rebellion and disobedience of the sons of the patriarchs as predicted in the passages dealing with the future will be investigated. Although Judah has been appointed by God to be king of Israel and Levi has been appointed by him to be (high) priest and is to be considered a “son of God,” their descendants 8

See in particular Charles, “Testaments”; Becker, Untersuchungen; Ulrichsen, Grundschrift. 9 Cf. De Jonge, “Future of Israel,” 209-11 (= 177-79); De Jonge, “Christian and Jewish,” 272 (= 240); De Jonge, “Pre-Mosaic Servants,” 168-69 (= 274-75); De Jonge, “Document Transmitted by Christians,” 105-6; Hollander, “God’s Eschatological Agent” [see Chapter Two of this volume].

“Sons of Men” and “Sons of God” in The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

43

will go, or rather have gone astray, together with the other patriarchs’ sons. Finally, I will deal with some passages in Testaments XII Patriarchs in which the patriarchs predict the coming of someone who will save the world, Jews (Israelites) and Gentiles alike, and who is without any doubt to be identified with Jesus Christ. This future Saviour is described as a descendant of Levi and Judah and as the (unique) “son of God.” Joseph as the “good man” par excellence and as an example to be imitated by the sons of the patriarchs As said before, each of the twelve farewell discourses in Testaments XII Patriarchs begins with a passage in which the dying patriarch tells his sons and other relatives about his life in the past and gives them some details about his own moral behaviour. This information serves as a kind of introduction to the exhortatory parts, in which the patriarch makes a call to them to behave properly and to live according to the commandments of God. Each testament centres round a particular theme, usually a virtue or a vice that has played a part in the patriarch’s own life. Jacob’s favourite son Joseph is undoubtedly the representative of the author’s ideal of man. He is the “good man” par excellence, the one who loves God and his neighbour in all circumstances. Joseph is not only mentioned as a positive example to imitate in his own farewell speech in Testament of Joseph, he is introduced as such in some other testaments as well. 10 Testament of Benjamin, the twelfth 10

See T. Reu. 4:8-10, T. Sim. 4:3-7, 5:1, T. Levi 13:9, T. Zeb. 8:4-5, T. Benj. 3:1-6, and 5:5. In T. Benj. 3:8, Joseph is introduced as a type of Jesus Christ (“the Lamb of God”) who “will die for ungodly men ... for the salvation of the Gentiles and Israel”; on this verse, see esp. De Jonge, “Test. Benjamin 3:8.” On the figure of Joseph in T. 12 Patr., see esp. Hollander, Joseph.

44

Chapter Three

and last testament, contains some sort of summary of the author’s ethical ideal of man in a more or less continuous discourse. While making his final speech the patriarch requires strict obedience of his sons. Being “sons” ȣੂȠȓ or “children” (IJȑțȞĮ) they should listen to their father and live according to his instructions. Moreover, they should pass the same instructions to their sons in due time. 11 So, they should flee impurity, 12 and they should not be overcome by passions and vices like jealousy and envy, 13 anger and lying 14 or hatred and slander.15 Instead, they should walk in “uprightness” or “singleness of heart,” 16 show mercy to their neighbours, 17 be “wise in God and prudent,” 18 follow the truth “with a single face,” 19 be patient and pure, 20 and have a “good and pure mind.” 21 A fine résumé of the ethics of Testaments XII Patriarchs is found in Testament of Benjamin 3-6, where the patriarch Benjamin describes to his sons the characteristics of the “good man.” Such a man shows mercy to all men, even though they are sinners, even though they devise to do him harm;

11

See T. Sim. 7:3, T. Levi 4:5, T. Dan 6:9, T. Naph. 8:2, T. Gad 8:1, T. Ash. 7:4, and T. Benj. 10:4. 12 See esp. T. Reu. and T. Jud. 13 See esp. T. Sim. 14 See esp. T. Dan. 15 See esp. T. Gad. 16 See esp. T. Iss. 17 See esp. T. Zeb. 18 See esp. T. Naph. 19 See esp. T. Ash. 20 See esp. T. Jos. 21 See esp. T. Benj.

“Sons of Men” and “Sons of God” in The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

45

by doing good he overcomes the evil, because he is shielded by the good. But he loves the righteous as his own soul. If anyone is glorified, he does not envy (him); if anyone is rich, he is not jealous; if anyone is valiant, he eulogises (him); the virtuous man he trusts and praises; on the poor man he has mercy; with the weak man he feels sympathy; unto God he sings praises. As for him who has the fear of God, he protects him as with a shield; him who loves God he helps; him who rejects the Most High he admonishes and turns back; and him who has the grace of a good spirit he loves as his own soul. 22

The twelve sons of Jacob emphasize over and again that their exhortations are fully in agreement with the “commandments of the Lord” or the “law of God.” 23 Living in pre-Mosaic times, the patriarchs do not refer to any ritual, cultic or ceremonial ordinances. 24 In Testaments XII Patriarchs, the law of God is 22

T. Benj. 4:2-5. See T. Reu. 3:8, “not understanding the law of God nor obeying the admonitions of his fathers,” and T. Zeb. 10:2, “as many as have kept the law of the Lord and the commandments of Zebulun their father”; cf. also T. Levi 13:1-4, 14:4, 14:6-7, 19:1-2, T. Jud. 13:1, 7, 18:3, 6, 23:5, 26:1, T. Iss. 4:6, 5:1, 6:1, T. Zeb. 5:1, T. Dan 5:1, 6:10, 7:3, T. Naph. 2:6, 3:2, 8:7, 10, T. Gad 3:1-2, 4:2, 7, T. Ash. 4:5, 6:1, 3, 7:5, T. Jos. 11:1, 18:1, 19:6, T. Benj. 3:1, and 10:3, 5. 24 There are some references to “the law of priesthood” in T. Levi 9. They are introduced in the context of Levi being instructed by an angel of the Lord, but they do not play a role in the instructions given by Levi to his sons. From some Cairo Genizah fragments, a number of fragments of an Aramaic Levi document found at Qumran, some parts of a Greek text preserved in MS Koutloumous 39 (MS e), and 23

46

Chapter Three

understood primarily as being a collection of ethical commands. As descendants of the famous patriarchs their sons should listen to their fathers without any reservation and should live according to their instructions which are wholly in agreement with the eternal, natural law of God. They should imitate their fathers in so far as they led a life which was in accordance with the moral commandments of God. Otherwise, they should avoid their fathers’ failures and try to lead a better life. For the author of Testaments XII Patriarchs, the contents of the law of God can be summarized in the two great commands, that of loving one’s neighbour and that of loving or fearing God. Both commandments form the basis of the parenesis of Testaments XII Patriarchs. So we read, for instance, in Testament of Issachar 5:1-2, that the sons of Issachar should “keep the law of God” (ijȣȜȐȟĮIJİ … ȞȩȝȠȞ șİȠ૨) and “love the Lord and your neighbour” (ਕȖĮʌ઼IJİ țȪȡȚȠȞ țĮ੿ IJઁȞ ʌȜȘıȓȠȞ), while in Testament of Dan 5:3 the sons of Dan are exhorted to “love the Lord in all your life and each other with a true heart” (ਕȖĮʌ઼IJİ IJઁȞ țȪȡȚȠȞ ਥȞ ʌȐıૉ IJૌ ȗȦૌ țĮ੿ ਕȜȜȒȜȠȣȢ ਥȞ ਕȜȘșȚȞૌ

more or less parallel passages in the book of Jubilees, it is evident that the author of T. 12 Patr. used a written Vorlage, perhaps in Greek, for T. Levi 9 and 11-13 (and other parts of T. Levi). A comparison of T. Levi and the Aramaic and Greek texts makes clear that the author of T. 12 Patr.’s redactional activities were rather drastic: he has dramatically shortened the many and rather detailed instructions about the levitical priesthood, which shows that cultic regulations were not relevant to him (and to his readers). On T. Levi and the Aramaic Levi fragments, see esp. De Jonge, “The Testament of Levi”; De Jonge, “Levi in Aramaic Levi”; De Jonge, “Related Qumran Fragments,” and the literature mentioned in these articles. On the text of the Aramaic Levi Document (ALD), see esp. Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel, The Aramaic Levi Document, and Drawnel, Aramaic Wisdom Text.

“Sons of Men” and “Sons of God” in The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

47

țĮȡįȓ઺). 25 Since the author of Testaments XII Patriarchs was most probably a second century Christian (see above), these phrases should not be understood as evidence for the existence of a pre-Christian, Jewish-Hellenistic traditional summary of the law of Moses, but as an explicit reference to the teaching of Jesus according to the NT writings. 26 The author of Testaments XII Patriarchs wants his readers to realize that Jesus’ message about loving God and loving one’s neighbour is wholly in agreement with the moral teaching of the patriarchs. Both Jesus and the twelve famous sons of Jacob have taught the same essentials of the universal and eternal law of God. Although the patriarchs make a dramatic call to their sons to live according to their commandments and the law of God, they are fully aware of the fact that man is weak and disposed to offend against all kinds of moral principles. In this context, the author of Testaments XII Patriarchs rather frequently introduces the traditional expression “sons of men” (ȣੂȠ੿ IJ૵Ȟ ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ) in plural or “a son of man” (ȣੂઁȢ ਕȞșȡȫʌȠȣ) in singular, which has, of course, its origin in the OT (LXX). In the OT, the expression “sons of men” or “a son of man” rather often has the connotation of being purely human, being weak, vulnerable, and mortal. 27 The author of Testaments XII

25

See also T. Reu. 6:9, T. Sim. 4:7, T. Levi 13:1, T. Zeb. 8:5, 10:5, T. Dan 6:1, T. Gad 3:2, 4:2, 5:4-5, 6:1, 3, 7:7, T. Jos. 11:1, 17:2, T. Benj. 3:1, and 10:10. Cf. Hollander, Joseph, 7-9; De Jonge, “Paränese,” 538-44 (= 277-83). 26 See Matt 22:37, 39, Mark 12:30-31, Luke 10:27, etc. See on this esp. Hollander and De Jonge, Commentary, 418 (at T. Benj. 3:3). 27 So in particular in the Psalms and the Wisdom literature: see Job 25:6, Ps 4:2 (4:3), 8:4 (8:5), 11:4 (10:4), 12:1, 8 (11:2, 9), 14:2 (13:2), Prov 8:4, 31, Eccl 3:10, Wis 9:6, Sir 17:30, etc. Cf. also Mark 3:28, Eph 3:5, 1 Clem. 61:2, etc.

48

Chapter Three

Patriarchs uses the expression in a rather similar way: see, for instance, Testament of Levi 3:10-4:1, But the sons of men Ƞੂ į੻ ȣੂȠ੿ IJ૵Ȟ ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ ... sin and provoke the Most High. Now know, therefore, that the Lord will execute judgment upon the sons of men (IJȠઃȢ ȣੂȠઃȢ IJ૵Ȟ ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ)

or Testament of Joseph 2:5, for not as a man (੪Ȣ ਙȞșȡȦʌȠȢ) God is ashamed, nor as a son of man (੪Ȣ ȣੂઁȢ ਕȞșȡȫʌȠȣ) is he afraid, nor as one who is earth-born (੪Ȣ ȖȘȖİȞȒȢ) is he weak or is he thrust aside. 28

In their farewell speeches, the patriarchs give detailed descriptions of how one should live in accordance with the law of the Lord. In this context, Joseph is frequently introduced as the “good man” par excellence and as a positive example to be imitated by the sons of the patriarchs. Nevertheless, the patriarchs fear that one day their descendants will go astray. For as human beings, they are inclined to forget their fathers’ words and to sin against God. The purpose of the author of Testaments XII Patriarchs was to edify his Christian readers and to exhort them to lead a life in agreement with the will of God. In the history of Israel, it turned out that (most of) the sons of the patriarchs did not listen to their fathers but were disobedient to them and transgressed against their moral principles and, as a consequence, against the law of God. They are an example of objectionable moral behaviour which should not be followed by the readers of Testaments XII Patriarchs. Sons should obey their fathers in everything; the readers of Testaments XII Patriarchs are invited to live in accordance with the orders of the patriarchs, 28

See also T. Reu. 4:7, T. Levi 2:4, T. Zeb. 9:7-8, T. Ash. 1:3, and T. Jos. 5:4.

“Sons of Men” and “Sons of God” in The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

49

whereas the patriarchs’ own descendants–the Israelites or the Jews–neglected their duties. Judah as “king,” Levi as “(high) priest” and as a “son of God,” and the rebellion and disobedience of the descendants of the patriarchs In the so-called S.E.R. passages, 29 the patriarchs mention the future sins of their descendants, the exile and their captivity among the Gentiles as God’s punishment for their sins, and their return to the land of their fathers as a result of God’s mercy. Sometimes, the S.E.R. pattern is repeated in order to describe the history of the patriarchs’ descendants at the time of the coming of God’s “salvation” (IJઁ ıȦIJȒȡȚȠȞ), when they will again sin against God, this time by killing the Saviour of the world (Jesus Christ), and will again be punished and afterwards received by God with pity and compassion. 30 Throughout Testaments XII Patriarchs we find predictions of their future negative attitude towards the coming Saviour. Their behaviour will be characterized by “ungodliness” (ਕıȑȕİȚĮ), “transgression” (ʌĮȡȐȕĮıȚȢ), “provocation” (ʌĮȡȠȡȖȓȗİȚȞ), “lawlessness” (ਕȞȠȝȓĮ), and “disobedience” (ਕʌİȚșİ૙Ȟ). At the end “the Lord will be outraged and set at nought and lifted upon a tree.” 31 Apparently, the author of Testaments XII Patriarchs wants his readers to realize that the famous forefathers of the Israelites themselves have foretold Israel’s “ignorance” and “unbelief” in Jesus Christ; in spite of their urgent requests that 29

See T. Levi, chs. 10, 14-15, and 16, T. Jud. 18:1, and ch. 23, T. Iss., ch. 6, T. Zeb. 9:5-7, 9, T. Dan 5:4-9, T. Naph. 4:1-3, 4-5, T. Gad 8:2, T. Ash. 7:2-3, 5-7, and T. Benj. 9:1-2. See also above. 30 See esp. the S.E.R. passages in T. Levi, T. Zeb., and T. Ash. 31 See T. Levi 4:4, 10:2, 14:1-4, 16:3, T. Zeb. 9:9, T. Dan 6:6, T. Ash. 7:5, and T. Benj. 9:3. Cf. Hollander, “God’s Eschatological Agent,” 96-98 [= Chapter Two of this volume, pp. 25-28].

50

Chapter Three

their descendants should be obedient to God and should live according to his commandments, they foresaw Israel’s disobedience and unbelief. In this context, the sons of Levi in particular are represented as the ones who will be responsible for the death of the future Saviour figure. The descendants of the patriarch Levi will lay hands upon him to do away with him ... will commit ungodliness and transgression against the Saviour of the world at the consummation of the ages ... will act impiously against the Lord, laying hands (upon him) in all wickedness ... will lay their hands upon the Saviour of the world ... wishing to kill him ... and will call a man who renews the law in the power of the Most High a deceiver, and, at last, will kill him ... not knowing that he would be raised up. 32

According to the author of Testaments XII Patriarchs and in accordance with early-Christian tradition, Jesus Christ was killed by the descendants of the patriarchs in general and by the religious leaders of the Jews in particular, i.e., by the (high) priests, the “sons” (ȣੂȠȓ of the first high priest, Levi. Their behaviour is to be considered completely opposite to that of their famous forefather Levi. In his farewell speech in Testaments XII Patriarchs, Levi describes rather extensively how he was appointed to be (high) priest. 33 He was separated by God from unrighteousness in order to become to him “a son and a servant and a minister of

32 33

T. Levi 4:4, 10:2, 14:1-2, 4, and 16:3. See esp. T. Levi 8.

“Sons of Men” and “Sons of God” in The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

51

his presence” (ȣੂઁȞ țĮ੿ șİȡȐʌȠȞIJĮ țĮ੿ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖઁȞ IJȠ૨ ʌȡȠıȫʌȠȣ Į੝IJȠ૨). 34 In the extant Aramaic fragments of a Levi document found at Qumran, Levi is called a “servant” (ʣʡʲ); 35 in the more or less corresponding parts of a Greek text preserved in MS Koutloumous 39 (MS e), the patriarch is called a “servant” (ʌĮ૙Ȣ and įȠ૨ȜȠȢ), and someone who performs religious service to God (ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖİ૙Ȟ). 36 Strikingly, in the text of 34

T. Levi 4:2; cf. T. Levi 2:10, “you will stand near the Lord and will EHKLVPLQLVWHU´ıઃਥȖȖઃȢțȣȡȓȠȣıIJȒıૉțĮ੿ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖઁȢĮ੝IJȠ૨਩ıૉ  35 See ALD 3:16, “the prayer of your servant (ʪʣʡʲ)” (text and translation: Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel, Aramaic Levi Document, 62-63; cf. also Milik, “Testament de Lévi en Araméen,” 400, and Greenfield and Stone, “Aramaic and Greek Fragments,” 460). In the same fragment, also Levi’s father Jacob is called a “servant” of God (ʣʡʲ; see ALD 3:14, 18, and cf. Drawnel, Aramaic Wisdom Text, 220). On these Aramaic fragments, see also above. 36 See the Greek MS e at T. Levi 2:3, ll. 11 and 17 (= ALD 3:10, 16), “And have mercy upon me and bring me forward, to be your servant and to minister well to you ... Hearken also to the voice of your VHUYDQW/HYL´țĮ੿ ਥȜȑȘıȩȞȝİțĮ੿ ʌȡȠıȐȖĮȖȑȝİİੇȞĮȚıȠȣįȠ૨ȜȠȢ țĮ੿ ȜĮIJȡİ૨ıĮȓıȠȚțĮȜ૵ȢİੁıȐțȠȣıȠȞį੻ țĮ੿ IJોȢijȦȞોȢIJȠ૨ ʌĮȚįȩȢ ıȠȣȁİȣȓ WH[W'H-RQJH>HG@Edition, 25; translation: Greenfield and Stone, “Aramaic and Greek Fragments,” 459-60; cf. also Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel, Aramaic Levi Document, 62-63; Drawnel, Aramaic Wisdom Text, 218, 220-21), and MS e at T. Levi 5:2, “the priesthood will be given to you and to your offspring, to serve the Most High ... and to make propitiation for the sins of LJQRUDQFHLQWKLVZRUOG´įȠșȒıİIJĮȚਲ ੂİȡĮIJİȓĮțĮ੿ IJ૶ ıʌȑȡȝĮIJȓıȠȣ IJȠ૨ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖİ૙ȞIJ૶ ਫ਼ȥȓıIJ૳ țĮ੿ ਥȟȚȜȐıțİıșĮȓıİਥʌ੿ IJĮ૙ȢਕȖȞȠȓĮȚȢ IJોȢȖોȢ WH[W'H-RQJH>HG@Edition, 30; translation mine). On the Greek additions to the text of T. 12 Patr. in MS e, see also above. For the use of ʣʡʲ in OT and ʌĮ૙Ȣ and įȠ૨ȜȠȢ in LXX to characterize people who played an important positive role in the history of Israel DV³VHUYDQWV´RI*RGVHHHVS&DUEDMRVD³(OWpUPLQRʌĮ૙Ȣ´

52

Chapter Three

Testaments XII Patriarchs itself, Levi is not only called a “servant” (șİȡȐʌȦȞ), and a “minister” (ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȩȢ), terms that are frequently used to describe the cultic service of priests and levites, 37 but also a “son” (ȣੂȩȢ). According to the author of Testaments XII Patriarchs, Levi was the first (high) priest, somebody to whom God had given “the blessings of the priesthood” (T. Levi 5:2) and also a “son of God,” i.e. a pious, righteous, and faithful man. 38 By using the term ȣੂȩȢ in such a sense the author of Testaments XII Patriarchs once again follows Jewish and early-Christian usage. 39 As Levi was appointed by God to be (high) priest, his brother Judah was appointed to be king. Or, in the words of the patriarch Judah himself, For to me the Lord gave the kingship and to him (= Levi) the priesthood, and he set the kingship beneath the priesthood (ਥȝȠ੿ Ȗ੹ȡ ਩įȦțİ țȪȡȚȠȢ IJ੽Ȟ ȕĮıȚȜİȓĮȞ țਕțİȓȞ૳ IJ੽Ȟ ੂİȡĮIJİȓĮȞ). To me he gave the things upon the earth, to him the things in

37

See, e.g., Exod 28:35, 43, Num 8:22, 16:9, 18:6, Deut 10:8, Isa 61:6, Sir 7:30, Tob 1:7 S, Philo, Det. 62, Spec. 1.242, and Apos. Con. 8.5.4; cf. Hollander and De Jonge, Commentary, 135 (at T. Levi 2:10) and 142 (at T. Levi 4:2). 38 Cf. T. Levi 17:2, where “the first who is anointed to the priesthood” is said to “speak to God as to a father”; it is not clear who is meant in this verse, but most probably Levi is in the picture here. Cf. Hollander and De Jonge, Commentary, 175-76 (at T. Levi 17:2). 39 See, e.g., Wis 2:18, Sir 4:10, Pss. Sol. 13:9, Jos. Asen. 6:2, 6, 13:10, 21:3, and Clement of Alexandria, Protr. 10; cf. also T. Levi 18:8 and T. Jud. 24:3. In Heb 3:5-6, we find a rather sharp distinction between ȣੂȩȢDQGșİȡȐʌȦȞEXWWKHUHWKHDXWKRUZDQWVWRPDNHDFRPSDULVRQ between Moses as a “servant of God” and Jesus Christ as the (unique) “son of God.”

“Sons of Men” and “Sons of God” in The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

53

the heavens. As heaven is higher than the earth, so is the priesthood of God higher than the kingship on the earth.40

Not only from the extant Aramaic and Greek fragments of a Levi document,41 but also from the blessings of Levi and Judah by their grandfather Isaac in the book of Jubilees42 may one conclude that by introducing Levi and Judah this way the author of Testaments XII Patriarchs incorporated traditional Jewish (and early-Christian) material. For in both Jubilees and Testaments XII Patriarchs, priesthood is connected with Levi and kingship with Judah, while at the same time priesthood is presented as superior to kingship.43 Obviously, the author of Testaments XII Patriarchs honours the positions held by Levi and Judah and their offspring in the history of Israel. As “sons” (ȣੂȠȓ) of Levi and Judah the Israelite (high) priests and kings follow in their fathers’ footsteps and should be treated with respect by the descendants of the other ten patriarchs. Consequently, in some of the so-called L.J. passages,44 the patriarchs exhort their sons expressly not to rebel against the 40

T. Jud. 21:2-4; see also T. Jud. 17:3 and T. Iss. 5:7. See above. 42 See Jub. 31:13-17 (the blessing of Levi) and 31:18-20 (the blessing of Judah). 43 In the case of Jub., this can be concluded from the sequence of the blessings (first the blessing of Levi, then the blessing of Judah) and from the phrase that Isaac “took Levi in his right hand and Judah in his left hand” (Jub. 31:12; Wintermute, OTP). On Jewish traditions about Levi as (high) priest (and Judah as king), which have, of course, their roots in OT, see esp. De Jonge and Tromp, “Jacob’s Son Levi.” 44 See T. Reu. 6:5-7, 8, 10-12, T. Sim. 5:4-6, 7:1-2, T. Jud. 21:1-6, T. Iss. 5:7-8, T. Dan 5:4, (6-7), 10, T. Naph. 8:2, T. Gad 8:1-2, and T. Jos. 19:6. Cf. also the two visions in T. Naph. 5-6, where the unity of Levi and Judah receives much attention; on these visions, see esp. Korteweg, “Naphtali’s visions.” On the L.J. passages, see also above. 41

Chapter Three

54

tribes of Levi and Judah, but rather to obey or even love them. Or they predict their future rebellion against the two tribes, a rebellion which they are sure will not succeed. The following examples may illustrate the attitude that is required towards (the tribes of) Levi and Judah in Testaments XII Patriarchs: And Levi and Judah were glorified among the sons of Jacob, for (to them) the Lord gave an inheritance among them, and to the one he gave the priesthood and to the other the kingdom. Do you, therefore, obey them (Į੝IJȠ૙Ȣ Ƞ੣Ȟ ਫ਼ʌĮțȠȪıĮIJİ).45 For I know that in the last days you will depart from the Lord and be angry with Levi and fight against Judah (ʌȡȠıȠȤșȚİ૙IJİ IJ૶ ȁİȣȓ, țĮ੿ ʌȡઁȢ ૃǿȠȪįĮȞ ਕȞIJȚIJȐȟİıșİ), but you will not prevail against them. For an angel of the Lord guides them both.46

A strong reason why the sons of the patriarchs should not rebel against the sons of Levi and Judah but obey them without any hesitation is the fact that God has placed the tribes of Levi and Judah in charge of the priesthood and the kingship. The author of Testaments XII Patriarchs cannot but have the deepest respect for God’s decisions and have the patriarchs tell their sons to honour the descendants of Levi and Judah as priests and kings. At the same time, however, he has the patriarchs predict the future sins of their offspring, including the descendants of Levi and Judah. The sons of Levi are not only responsible for the killing of the future Saviour of the world,47 they will also profane the priesthood in all respects: you will rob the offerings of the Lord and steal from his portions and before sacrificing to the Lord take the choice things, eating contemptuously with harlots; you will ... pollute 45

T. Iss. 5:7-8. T. Dan 5:4. 47 See above. 46

“Sons of Men” and “Sons of God” in The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

55

married women, defile virgins of Jerusalem, be joined with harlots and adulteresses, take to wives daughters of the Gentiles ... you will be puffed up because of the priesthood, exalting yourselves against men; and not only thus, but puffed up also against the commandments of God you will mock the holy things, jesting contemptuously.48

But the descendants of Judah are no whit better: I have much grief, my children, because of the lewdness and witchcrafts and idolatries that you will practise against the kingdom, following mediums, soothsayers and demons of deceit. You will make your daughters singing girls and harlots and you will mingle in the abominations of the Gentiles.49

Although the positions of Levi and Judah and their tribes are honourable in the history of Israel and the descendants of Levi and Judah as priests and kings are to be obeyed by the other tribes, the patriarchs predict that all of their descendants, the sons of Levi and Judah including, will apostatize and transgress the commandments of God. They also know that because of that Levi’s priesthood and Judah’s kingship will come to an end. Their priestly and kingly activities end at the coming of the salvation of God, i.e., when Jesus Christ’s priesthood and kingship will make a start.50 It should be noted that the author of Testaments XII Patriarchs does not make any attempt to remove or to neutralize possible contradictions between all these statements about the sons of Levi and Judah, their future behaviour, and the attitude of the sons of the other ten patriarchs towards them.51 He juxtaposes 48

T. Levi 14:5-8; cf. also 16:1-2, and T. Dan 5:6-7. T. Jud. 23:1-2; cf. also 17:2-3, 18:1, and T. Dan 5:6-7. 50 See below. 51 A rather extreme example is found in T. Dan 5:7-8, where Dan predicts that his sons will obey the tribe of Levi (and that of Judah) 49

56

Chapter Three

all kinds of phrases and statements that are, or seem to be, in conflict with each other. Part of the explanation may be that he used several written and oral sources, and that he was rather a “redactor” than a writer. Besides, one may wonder, with reason, whether the author of Testaments XII Patriarchs aimed at coherence and consistency; our modern criteria of consistency should not be applied to such a complex writing like Testaments XII Patriarchs. In any case, for the author of Testaments XII Patriarchs the patriarchs themselves should be considered pious and respectable men: Judah was even appointed by God to be king and Levi was appointed by him to be (high) priest and was called a “son of God.” However, their descendants, the Israelites, have gone astray. Apparently, the author wants his readers to realize that the patriarchs have foretold Israel’s unbelief in Jesus Christ. Their rejection of the Saviour of the world is sharply criticized, not in order to persuade the Jews to repent and to convince them of the Christian truth but to give the Christian readers an illustrative example of disbelief and wrong moral behaviour.

in all sorts of ungodliness: “Yes, my sons are drawing near to Levi ਥȖȖȓȗȠȞIJȑȢİੁıȚIJ૶ȁİȣȓ DQGVLQZLWKWKHPLQDOOWKLQJVDQGWKHVRQV of Judah will be covetous plundering other men’s goods like lions. Therefore you will be led away with them in captivity.” In a number of other passages, strict obedience to (the sons of) Levi and Judah is demanded by the patriarchs; see above, and cf. esp. T. Reu. 6:10, where the sons of Reuben are exhorted to “draw near to Levi” as an H[DPSOHRISURSHUFRQGXFW³$QGDSSURDFK/HYLțĮ੿ʌȡઁȢIJઁȞȁİȣ੿ ਥȖȖȓıĮIJİ  LQ KXPEOHQHVV RI heart, that you may receive a blessing from his mouth.”

“Sons of Men” and “Sons of God” in The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

57

The Saviour of the world, Jesus Christ, as the son of Levi and Judah, and as the unique “son of God” In the so-called L.J. passages, the author of Testaments XII Patriarchs gives two reasons why the sons of the patriarchs should not rebel against the descendants of Levi and Judah. Besides the special position and function of the sons of Levi and Judah as the religious and political leaders in Israel, 52 there is a second reason to be obedient to them, namely the fact that the coming salvation (or the future Saviour figure) will come out of these tribes: 53 And now, my children, obey Levi, and through Judah you will be redeemed. And do not exalt yourselves against those two tribes, because from them the salvation of God will arise for you (੖IJȚ ਥȟ Į੝IJ૵Ȟ ਕȞĮIJİȜİ૙ ਫ਼ȝ૙Ȟ IJઁ ıȦIJȒȡȚȠȞ IJȠ૨ șİȠ૨). For the Lord will raise up from Levi someone as a high priest and from Judah someone as a king, God and man (ਕȞĮıIJȒıİȚ Ȗ੹ȡ țȪȡȚȠȢ ਥț IJȠ૨ ȁİȣ੿ ੪Ȣ ਕȡȤȚİȡȑĮ țĮ੿ ਥț IJȠ૨ ૃǿȠȣį੹ ੪Ȣ ȕĮıȚȜȑĮ, șİઁȞ țĮ੿ ਙȞșȡȦʌȠȞ). This one will save all the Gentiles and the race of Israel. 54 And do you also tell these things to your children, that they honour Judah and Levi; for from them the Lord will raise up a saviour to Israel (੖IJȚ ਥȟ Į੝IJ૵Ȟ ਕȞĮIJİȜİ૙ țȪȡȚȠȢ ıȦIJોȡĮ IJ૶ ૃǿıȡĮȒȜ). 55 Do you, therefore, my children, observe the commandments of the Lord and honour Judah and Levi, for from them the lamb

52

See above. On this theme, see also De Jonge, “Two Messiahs,” and De Jonge, “Hippolytus’ Benedictions.” 54 T. Sim. 7:1-2. 55 T. Gad 8:1. 53

58

Chapter Three

of God will arise for you (੖IJȚ ਥȟ Į੝IJ૵Ȟ ਕȞĮIJİȜİ૙ ਫ਼ȝ૙Ȟ ੒ ਕȝȞઁȢ IJȠ૨ șİȠ૨), by grace saving all the Gentiles and Israel. 56

From these and related passages 57 it becomes clear that the patriarchs often refer to the coming of a Saviour figure at the end of times. They are convinced that one day Levi’s priesthood and Judah’s kingship will end 58 and that a descendant of Levi and Judah will come to the fore who will be both (high) priest and king. 59 Moreover, his priesthood and his kingship will be eternal. 60 Without any doubt, the author of Testaments XII Patriarchs has Jesus Christ in mind when he has the patriarchs speak about the coming “salvation of God.” The words chosen by the author of Testaments XII Patriarchs to characterize the future Saviour, to bring up the subject of his origin, and to describe his role in the history of mankind, wholly correspond with what we find in the Christian literature of the first, second and third centuries C.E. to speak about Jesus Christ. For instance, expressions like “the lamb of God” or “a lamb without spot” 61 to refer to Jesus 56

T. Jos. 19:6. See also T. Levi 2:11, 8:14, and T. Dan 5:10. 58 See T. Levi 5:2, “And he (= the Most High) said to me: Levi, I have given to you the blessings of the priesthood, until I come and sojourn in the midst of Israel,” 4:4, 18:1, T. Reu. 6:8, and T. Jud. 22:2, “and among men of other nations my kingship will be brought to an end, until the salvation of Israel comes.” 59 In T. Jud. 24:1, T. Naph. 8:2-3, and T. Jos. 19:3, the Saviour is said to arise from the tribe of Judah; again, the author of T. 12 Patr. does not aim at any coherence or consistency: at some places he points out that the future Saviour will be a descendant of Judah and Levi, at other places he states that salvation will come out of the tribe of Judah. 60 See T. Levi 18:8 and T. Jud. 22:3. 61 See T. Jos. 19:3, 6 and T. Benj. 3:8. 57

“Sons of Men” and “Sons of God” in The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

59

Christ are found in John 1:29, 36, 1 Peter 1:19, Origen, Commentarium in evangelium Matthaei 12.28, Homiliae in Lucam 13, etc. 62 Also the expression “God and man” to describe Jesus 63 is traditional in the early-Christian Church: see, for instance, Apostolic Constitutions 7.26.3, Diognetus 7:4, Justin, Dialogus cum Tryphone 34.2, Clement of Alexandria, Protrepticus 1, Origen, Dialogus cum Heraclide 1.14-15, 2.11. 64 Finally, the concept of Jesus Christ being “(high) priest and king,” but also that of his origin from both Judah and Levi, reflect early-Christian tradition as well. Jesus is frequently called (high) priest in the NT letter to the Hebrews and in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers; in his Dialogus cum Tryphone, Justin calls Jesus “(eternal) priest and king.” 65 That Jesus was a descendant of Judah was common knowledge in the early-Christian Church. 66 But also the connection between Jesus as (high) priest and Levi was not completely unknown. In Irenaeus, Fragment 17, for instance, we read that Jesus Christ “was born of Levi and Judah according to the flesh, as king and priest” (ਥț į੻ IJȠ૨ ȁİȣ੿ țĮ੿ IJȠ૨ ૃǿȠȪįĮ IJઁ țĮIJ੹ ıȐȡțĮ, ੪Ȣ ȕĮıȚȜİઃȢ țĮ੿ ੂİȡİȪȢ ਥȖİȞȞȒșȘ). 67 And in Hippolytus, De benedictionibus Isaaci et Jacobi 12 (122), it is told that Jesus Christ “de Juda est né” and “(issu) de Lévi, se trouve être Prêtre du Père” (IJઁȞ ਥț IJȠ૨ ૃǿȠȪįĮ ȖİȞȩȝİȞȠȞ ... IJઁȞ 62

Cf. Hollander and De Jonge, Commentary, 408 (at T. Jos. 19:3, 6). See T. Sim. 7:2. 64 Cf. Hollander and De Jonge, Commentary, 126 (at T. Sim. 7:2). 65 See, e.g., 1 Clem. 36:1, 61:3, 64:1, Ign. Phld. 9:1, Justin, Dial. 34.2, 36.1, 96.1. Cf. Hollander and De Jonge, Commentary, 77. 66 See Matt 1:2-3, Luke 3:33, Heb 7:14, etc. 67 Harvey, Adversus Haereses, 2.487. This text is identical with Hippolytus, Ben. Mos. 313 (Brière, Mariès, and Mercier, 126, “et de Lévi, et, de Juda, en tant que Roi et Prêtre, selon la chair, il est né” (the text is only preserved in Armenian and Georgian). 63

60

Chapter Three

ਥț IJȠ૨ ȁİȣ੿ ੂİȡȑĮ IJȠ૨ ʌĮIJȡઁȢ İਫ਼ȡȚıțȩȝİȞȠȞ). 68 The author of Testaments XII Patriarchs seems to have been familiar with these early-Christian traditions and ideas about Jesus’ descent. As (high) priest and king Jesus Christ should have been a descendant of both the tribes of Levi and Judah. 69 For the author of Testaments XII Patriarchs, the eternal king and (high) priest, Jesus Christ, is not only a descendant of Judah and Levi, he is also called “the son of God.” For in T. Levi 4:4, the patriarch Levi tells his sons that And a blessing (i.e. the blessing of the priesthood) will be given to you and to all your seed, until the Lord will visit all the nations in the tender mercies of his son forever (ਪȦȢ ਥʌȚıțȑȥȘIJĮȚ țȪȡȚȠȢ ʌȐȞIJĮ IJ੹ ਩șȞȘ ਥȞ ıʌȜȐȖȤȞȠȚȢ ȣੂȠ૨ Į੝IJȠ૨ ਪȦȢ ĮੁȫȞȠȢ).

The last phrase refers, of course, to Jesus Christ. He is “the son” who will save Israel and all the Gentiles out of compassion and mercy. 70 A few verses earlier it was Levi who was called to God “a son and a servant and a minister of his presence.” 71 The 68

Brière, Mariès, and Mercier (see n. 67), 52-53. See also the writing about the priesthood of Jesus Christ published by Vassiliev in his Anecdota Graeco-Byzantina, 58-72, where the author criticizes people who argue that Jesus was a descendant of Judah, not of Levi; according to the author, Jesus came from both Judah and Levi, since in former days in the history of Israel both tribes “merged” with each other (see esp. 58-59 and 66). Cf. also Hippolytus, Comm. Dan. 1.12. For more details, see also Hollander and De Jonge, Commentary, 76-79. 70 Cf. also T. Zeb. 8:2, “Because also in the last days God will send KLVFRPSDVVLRQIJઁıʌȜȐȖȤȞȠȞĮ੝IJȠ૨ RQHDUWK´DQGT. Naph. 4:5, ³XQWLOWKHFRPSDVVLRQRIWKH/RUGIJઁıʌȜȐȖȤȞȠȞțȣȡȓȠȣ FRPHVD man working righteousness and working mercy unto all who are far off and who are near.” 71 See T. Levi 4:2. See on this verse also above. 69

“Sons of Men” and “Sons of God” in The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

61

difference between Levi being “son of God” and Jesus Christ being “son of God” is that the first is called “son” because of his great devotion to God in his capacity as the first (high) priest, while Jesus Christ is the unique “son of God,” an epithet connected with Jesus Christ from the very beginning of Christianity. 72 He is the last and eternal (high) priest and the “only-begotten prophet” (ȝȠȞȠȖİȞ੽Ȣ ʌȡȠijȒIJȘȢ), 73 and the “salvation of God,” the one who will save the whole world at the end of time. There are two passages in Testaments XII Patriarchs where the author gives a rather detailed picture of the ideal Saviour figure, Jesus Christ, namely Testament of Levi 18 and Testament of Judah 24. 74 In both texts, which are closely related, the author 72

See Rom 1:3-4, 9, 5:10, 29, 32, 1 Cor 1:9, 2 Cor 1:19, etc. For Jesus as “son of God” in Rom 1:3-4, see esp. Díaz Rodelas, “Filiación divina.” 73 See T. Benj. 9:2, “until the Most High will send forth his salvation in the visitation of an only-begotten prophet”; cf. T. Levi 8:15. For Jesus Christ as “prophet,” see also, e.g., Matt 21:11, 46, Luke 7:16, John 4:19, and Ps. Clem. Hom.  IRU ȝȠȞȠȖİȞȒȢ DV Hpithet of Jesus Christ, see also, e.g., John 1:14, 18, 3:16, 18, and Justin, Dial. 105.1-2. See also Hollander and De Jonge, Commentary, 154 (at T. Levi 8:15) and 436 (at T. Benj. 9:2). 74 Besides, we find some brief statements about the coming Saviour of the world in T. Zeb. 9:8 and T. Dan 5:10-13. In the first passage, KHLVFDOOHG³WKH/RUGKLPVHOI´Į੝IJઁȢ੒țȪȡȚȠȢ DQG³*RGLQWKHIRUP RI D PDQ´ șİઁȞ ਥȞ ıȤȒȝĮIJȚ ਕȞșȡȫʌȠȣ  ZKR ³ZLOO UHGeem all the captivity of the sons of men from Beliar” and who “will convert all the nations to zeal for him.” In the second passage, it is said that “the salvation of the Lord ... will take the captivity from Beliar, the souls of the saints, ... turn disobedient hearts to the Lord ... and give eternal SHDFHWRWKRVHZKRFDOOXSRQKLP´PRUHRYHUDV³WKH/RUG´țȪȡȚȠȢ  DQGDV³WKH+RO\2QHRI,VUDHO´ਚȖȚȠȢૃǿıȡĮȒȜ KH³ZLOOOLYHWRJHWKHU with men” and “reign over them in humility and poverty.” All the epithets of Jesus Christ found in these passages and the activities and

62

Chapter Three

puts into the patriarchs’ mouth a number of allusions to, or even quotations of, OT passages that the early Church interpreted as references to Jesus Christ. Besides, there are clear references to crucial moments of Jesus’ life and to the theological effects of his coming that once again show the author’s acquaintance with early-Christian tradition. A quotation of some verses of Testament of Levi 18 may offer a fine illustration of the author’s ideas about Jesus Christ as the Saviour of the world: Then the Lord will raise up a new priest (ੂİȡȑĮ țĮȚȞȩȞ), to whom all the words of the Lord will be revealed; and he will execute a judgment of truth upon the earth in course of time. And his star will arise in heaven, as a king (੪Ȣ ȕĮıȚȜİȪȢ), lighting up the light of knowledge as by the sun of the day; and he will be magnified in the world until his assumption (ਪȦȢ ਕȞĮȜȒȥİȦȢ Į੝IJȠ૨). He will shine as the sun on the earth and will remove all darkness from under heaven, and there will be peace on all the earth. The heavens will be opened, and from the temple of the glory there will come on him holiness by a voice of a father (ȝİIJ੹ ijȦȞોȢ ʌĮIJȡȚțોȢ) ... And the glory of the Most High will be uttered over him, and the spirit of understanding and sanctification will rest upon him in the water (ʌȞİ૨ȝĮ ıȣȞȑıİȦȢ țĮ੿ ਖȖȚĮıȝȠ૨ țĮIJĮʌĮȪıİȚ ਥʌૃ Į੝IJઁȞ ਥȞ IJ૶ ੢įĮIJȚ  And he will open the gates of paradise and will stop the threatening sword against Adam. And he will give to the saints to eat from the tree of life and the spirit of holiness will be upon them. 75

characteristics ascribed to him have parallels in other early-Christian writings; for details, see Hollander and De Jonge, Commentary, 273 and 288-90. 75 T. Levi 18:2-4, 6-7, 10-11.

“Sons of Men” and “Sons of God” in The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

63

Again, the coming Saviour, Jesus Christ, is called “priest” 76 and “king.” His coming will have great effects for the believers, the “saints,” his “sons,” or his “children” 77: He will “open the gates of paradise,” “stop the threatening sword against Adam,” and “give to the saints to eat from the tree of life.” 78 Finally, there is a reference to Jesus’ baptism in verses 6-7, 79 where the unique relationship between Jesus and God is expressed in the words ȝİIJ੹ ijȦȞોȢ ʌĮIJȡȚțોȢ, which are clearly reminiscent of God’s statement “This is my Son, the Beloved” (Ƞ੤IJȩȢ ਥıIJȚȞ ੒ ȣੂȩȢ ȝȠȣ ੒ ਕȖĮʌȘIJȩȢ) in the NT stories about Jesus’ baptism. 80 For the Christian author of Testaments XII Patriarchs, Jesus Christ is the (unique) “son of God,” who has come into the world to save his “sons” and who is (high) priest and king forever. He is sure that one day, the believers together with pious men like Enoch, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the twelve patriarchs, will rise and be gathered to the 76

Or rather a “new priest.” Cf. T. Levi 8:14, where Levi speaks about WKH IXWXUH HVWDEOLVKPHQW RI ³D QHZ SULHVWKRRG´ ੂİȡĮIJİȓĮȞ ȞȑĮȞ  D priesthood “after the fashion of the Gentiles,” which undoubtedly refers to Jesus Christ’s priesthood “in the order of Melchizedek” (Heb 5:6, 10, 6:20, and 7:11, 17). See also Hollander and De Jonge, Commentary, 154. 77 See T. Levi  IJȠ૙Ȣ ȣੂȠ૙Ȣ Į੝IJȠ૨ DQG T. Levi 18:12- IJȠ૙Ȣ IJȑțȞȠȚȢĮ੝IJȠ૨ 78 Cf. (Pseudo-)Athanasius, Quaest. Ant. 137.9, “that he will stop the whirling and flashing sword against us and will open for us the way WR SDUDGLVH´ IJ੽Ȟ ijȜȠȖȓȞȘȞ ૧ȠȝijĮȓĮȞ IJ੽Ȟ țĮșૃ ਲȝ૵Ȟ ıIJȡİijȠȝȑȞȘȞ ʌĮȪıૉțĮ੿IJ੽Ȟ੒įઁȞਲȝ૙ȞIJȠ૨ʌĮȡĮįİȓıȠȣਕȞȠȓȟૉ )RUPRUHGHWDLOV see Hollander and De Jonge, Commentary, 181. 79 Cf. T. Jud. 24:2, “And the heavens will be opened to him to pour out the blessing of the spirit of the holy Father.” 80 See Matt 3:17, Mark 1:11, and Luke 3:22. Cf. also Origen, Fr. Matt.  0DWW   țĮ੿ IJȠઃȢ Ƞ੝ȡĮȞȠઃȢ ਕȞİ૳ȖȝȑȞȠȣȢ țĮ੿ IJ੽Ȟ ʌĮIJȡȚț੽ȞijȦȞ੽ȞȜȑȖȠȣıĮȞȠ੤IJȩȢਥıIJȚȞ੒ȣੂȩȢȝȠȣ

64

Chapter Three

Lord. 81 By composing his book on the last words of the twelve patriarchs the author wants his readers to know that the twelve sons of Jacob have predicted all this; some of their predictions have come true, others still wait to be fulfilled one day in the (near) future. Conclusion In the biographical and the parenetic sections of Testaments XII Patriarchs the patriarchs summon their sons ȣੂȠȓ IJȑțȞĮ) and other descendants and relatives to be obedient and do what they are ordered to do. They should listen to their fathers without any reservation and should live according to their instructions which are in agreement with the eternal and natural law of God. They should imitate the patriarch Joseph, the “good man” par excellence, love their neighbours, and love (or fear) the Lord. However, the patriarchs are fully aware of the fact that their descendants are “sons of men” (ȣੂȠ੿ [IJ૵Ȟ] ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ), i.e. human, weak, and mortal, and eager to forget their fathers’ words and to sin against God. In the passages dealing with the future, they mention the future sins of their descendants. In this context, we often find references to their future negative attitude towards the coming Saviour, Jesus Christ. The sons of Levi in particular are represented as the ones who will be responsible for his death. Their behaviour will be completely opposite to that of their forefather Levi, who was once appointed to be the first (high) priest. As such he became to God “a son (ȣੂȩȢ) and a servant and a minister of his presence,” i.e. a pious, righteous, and faithful man, full of devotion to serve God in his capacity as (high) priest. Likewise, the patriarch Judah was appointed to be king. In spite of their future 81

See esp. T. Jud. 25, T. Zeb. 10:2, and T. Benj. 10:6-10. On the socalled resurrection passages, see esp. Hollander and De Jonge, Commentary, 61-63.

“Sons of Men” and “Sons of God” in The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

65

sins the sons of Levi and Judah should be treated with respect by the descendants of the other ten patriarchs, since these two tribes have been placed by God in charge of the priesthood and the kingship. Moreover, the future Saviour figure, i.e. Jesus Christ, will come out of these tribes: “from them (= Judah and Levi) the Lord will raise up a saviour to Israel.” He will be the “lamb of God,” “God and man,” “(high) priest and king,” the “only-begotten prophet,” and (the unique) “son (ȣੂȩȢ) of God,” who will save Israel and the Gentiles at the end of time. Then he will “open the gates of paradise” and will “give to the saints (his “sons” [ȣੂȠȓ], or his “children” [IJȑțȞĮ]) to eat from the tree of life.” Using all kinds of written and oral Jewish and Christian traditions the second century Christian author or composer of Testaments XII Patriarchs makes no attempt to write a coherent and consistent story. More than once, he juxtaposes phrases and statements that are, or seem to be, in conflict with each other. Nevertheless, his message is clear: he wants to disqualify the Israelites or the Jews for their moral misbehaviour and their refusal to believe in Jesus Christ; to show his fellow-Christians the right way of living; and to make them believe that the twelve patriarchs have foretold the coming of Jesus Christ, the unique “son of God,” and the future salvation of all the righteous, Jews (Israelites) and Gentiles alike.

CHAPTER FOUR THE ATTITUDE TOWARDS CHRISTIANS WHO ARE DOUBTING: JUDE 22-3 AND THE TEXT OF ZECHARIAH 3

One of the most characteristic features of the letter of Jude is the author’s familiarity with OT and Jewish sources. Although he almost never quotes a passage explicitly, echoes of, and allusions to OT and Jewish texts and motifs are numerous. The author uses this source material to apply lessons from the past to the present situation, and thereby to convince his readers to stick to the true doctrine and to be wary of false teachers who try to deceive the members of the Christian community. 1 Consequently, we find a sharp distinction between “you,” i.e. the true believers, the readers of the letter, and “they,” i.e. the ungodly, the adherents of false beliefs. 2 As a matter of fact, the bulk of the letter consists of a warning to the readers to watch out for those false teachers who are depicted as a grave menace to the Christian community (vv. 3-19). They are “causing divisions” (v. 19), but they will be punished by God at the end of time; for them, “the deepest darkness has been reserved forever” (v. 13). 3 Their sins and final punishment are compared 1

See esp. Charles, “Jude’s Use”; Charles, Literary Strategy; Heiligenthal, Zwischen Henoch und Paulus. 2 6HHਫ਼ȝİ૙Ȣ³\RX´YYDQGFIYY. 2, 3, 5, 12, 18, 24), versus Ƞ੤IJȠȚ³WKH\´³WKHVHSHRSOH´RUIJȚȞİȢਙȞșȡȦʌȠȚ³FHUWDLQLQGLYLGXDOV´ (vv. 4, 8, 10, 12, 16, 19). 3 The OT and NT quotations are usually taken from the NRSV.

The Attitude towards Christians who are Doubting: Jude 22-3 and the Text of Zechariah 3

67

to the sins and the fate of the people of Israel who did not believe, to the “watchers” or the “fallen angels,” and finally to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. In addition, the warning passage is replete with references to other OT and Jewish figures of old, such as Moses, Cain, Balaam, Korah and Enoch; the archangel Michael is also mentioned. 4 From all this it is clear that the author of the letter of Jude was well acquainted with OT and Jewish tradition; he uses this source material without thinking it necessary to quote any passage explicitly.5 The main reason for writing the letter appears to have been the danger that the Christian community would be split up as a consequence of the activities of the false teachers. In the author’s eyes, there was a strong possibility that community members might be impressed by those false teachers and might go astray. Therefore, he admonishes his readers to “contend for the faith,” to “build themselves up on their most holy faith,” to “pray in the Holy Spirit,” and to “keep themselves in the love of God” (vv. 3, 20-21). So far, no consensus about the identity of these false teachers has been reached. 6 According to the author of the letter of Jude, they “pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ,” and “defile the flesh, reject authority, and slander the glorious ones” (vv. 4 and 8). In his view, they are semibelievers, or better: “heretics” or unbelievers, and a serious threat to the Christian communities. After the exhortations in verses 20-21, and before the doxology at the end of the letter (vv. 24-25), there is a final instance of parenesis in verses 22-23. In these verses the readers are invited 4

See esp. Charles, “ ‘Those’ and ‘These’.” The only exception seems to be vv. 14-15, where we find an explicit citation from 1 En. 1:9. On Jude 9, see n. 30. 6 [See the commentaries, ad loc., and esp. Batten, “Jude.”] 5

68

Chapter Four

to “have mercy on” or to “save” some other people. In the history of NT research, this sentence has become a crux interpretum. Its meaning and function are still much discussed: who are the people on whom the readers are supposed to have mercy, or whom they should save? Is the author perhaps referring to two or three groups of people, one or two groups on whom the readers should have mercy, and another whom they should save? Who are the įȚĮțȡȚȞȠȝȑȞȠȣȢ people who “dispute” or people who “doubt”? And last but not least, since there are quite a number of textual variants for this passage, what is the exact wording of verses 22-23? In the following sections, I will first briefly discuss the textual difficulties, expressing my preference for the three-clause reading as found in ʠ (and A) and printed in Nestle–Aland’s Novum Testamentum Graece (27th ed.). Next, I will analyse the passage in detail and show that also in these two verses the author of the letter of Jude has been influenced by OT source material, in particular the book of Zechariah. I hope to demonstrate that: (a) “having mercy on” and “saving” are in this context synonymous and are used to describe the same attitude; (b) by means of three parallel clauses the readers are exhorted to help one and the same group, viz. those doubting Christians, who are about to give in to the false teachers and their ideas; (c) the author adopts two images from Zechariah 3:2-4, viz. the “fire” and the “filthy clothes,” and applies them to a new context to describe metaphorically the false teachers and their ideas, which Christians should avoid and hate. Text of Jude 22-23 The text of Jude 22-23 has a number of variants which may be divided into two main categories, viz. a two-clause and a threeclause structure. The first, found in P72 itt copsa syph, reads:

The Attitude towards Christians who are Doubting: Jude 22-3 and the Text of Zechariah 3

69

Ƞ੠Ȣ ȝ੻Ȟ ਥț ʌȣȡઁȢ ਖȡʌȐıĮIJİ įȚĮțȡȚȞȠȝȑȞȠȣȢ į੻ ਥȜİİ૙IJİ ਥȞ ijȩȕ૳ ȝȚıȠ૨ȞIJİȢ țĮ੿ IJઁȞ ਕʌઁ IJોȢ ıĮȡțઁȢ ਥıʌȚȜȦȝȑȞȠȞ ȤȚIJ૵ȞĮ seize some from the fire, but have mercy on those who dispute/doubt, with fear, hating the tunic defiled by the body.

Another example of the same category is found in C2 syh, and, with many different variants, in many other manuscripts; it reads: țĮ੿ Ƞ੠Ȣ ȝ੻Ȟ ਥȜİ઼IJİ įȚĮțȡȚȞȠȝȑȞȠȣȢ Ƞ੠Ȣ į੻ ı૴ȗİIJİ ਥț ʌȣȡઁȢ ਖȡʌȐȗȠȞIJİȢ ਥȞ ijȩȕ૳ ȝȚıȠ૨ȞIJİȢ țĮ੿ IJઁȞ ਕʌઁ IJોȢ ıĮȡțઁȢ ਥıʌȚȜȦȝȑȞȠȞ ȤȚIJ૵ȞĮ and have mercy on those who dispute/doubt, but save others, seizing them from the fire, with fear, hating the tunic defiled by the body.

The second category, found in ʠ (and A), reads: 7 162F

țĮ੿ Ƞ੠Ȣ ȝ੻Ȟ ਥȜİ઼IJİ (ʠ; A: ਥȜȑȖȤİIJİ įȚĮțȡȚȞȠȝȑȞȠȣȢ Ƞ੠Ȣ į੻ ı૴ȗİIJİ ਥț ʌȣȡઁȢ ਖȡʌȐȗȠȞIJİȢ Ƞ੠Ȣ į੻ ਥȜİ઼IJİ ਥȞ ijȩȕ૳ ȝȚıȠ૨ȞIJİȢ țĮ੿ IJઁȞ ਕʌઁ IJોȢ ıĮȡțઁȢ ਥıʌȚȜȦȝȑȞȠȞ ȤȚIJ૵ȞĮ and have mercy on (ʠ; A: rebuke) those who doubt, save them, seizing them from the fire, have mercy on them, with fear, hating the tunic defiled by the body.

Finally, B reads: țĮ੿ Ƞ੠Ȣ ȝ੻Ȟ ਥȜİ઼IJİ įȚĮțȡȚȞȠȝȑȞȠȣȢ ı૴ȗİIJİ ਥț ʌȣȡઁȢ ਖȡʌȐȗȠȞIJİȢ Ƞ੠Ȣ į੻ ਥȜİ઼IJİ ਥȞ ijȩȕ૳ 7

This translation assumes that the author does not intend to distinguish between three classes of people but refers to one and the same group, viz. those who doubt; see below.

70

Chapter Four

ȝȚıȠ૨ȞIJİȢ țĮ੿ IJઁȞ ਕʌઁ IJોȢ ıĮȡțઁȢ ਥıʌȚȜȦȝȑȞȠȞ ȤȚIJ૵ȞĮ and have mercy on those who dispute/doubt, save them, seizing them from the fire, and/but have mercy on others, with fear, hating the tunic defiled by the body.

The text of B is identical to ʠ except for the fact that the first Ƞ੠Ȣ įȑ is lacking, as a consequence of which B is usually regarded as a representative of the two-clause reading. 8 163F

Although the text of verses 22-23 is highly complicated from a text-critical point of view, the main question is, of course, whether the two-clause reading arose from the three-clause reading or the other way round. It is rather hard to imagine why a scribe changed a two-part structure into a sentence containing three clauses, the third of which is more or less a repetition of the first (ਥȜİ઼IJİ … ਥȜİ઼IJİ  in any case harder to imagine than the reverse operation. The two-clause reading looks like a deliberate attempt to smooth the (three-clause) text in order to introduce two different groups of people towards whom the readers should behave properly, for instance Christians who “are doubting” and are to be helped and false teachers who must be avoided, or people who “dispute” (= the false teachers) and fellow-Christians who need to be helped in one way or another. An additional argument for the three-clause structure is the author’s predilection for constructions with three members, as in verses 4, 5-7, 8, 11, 12b-13, and 19. 9

8

For details and discussions of all the variants, see Metzger, Textual Commentary, 727-29; Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 108-11; Vögtle, Judasbrief, 102-5; Landon, Jude, 131-34; and esp. Kubo, “Jude 223.” 9 So, e.g., Metzger, Textual Commentary, 728, and Kubo, “Jude 223,” 250, though the latter, joining Mayor (Jude, cxc, lvi), rightly

The Attitude towards Christians who are Doubting: Jude 22-3 and the Text of Zechariah 3

71

The main objection to the originality of the three-clause structure is that it is difficult to distinguish between the three groups of persons meant in the three clauses, in particular between the first and the third group of people. 10 The threeclause structure seems to make no sense and may therefore be regarded as the result of some mistake (conflation?). But suppose the three-clause reading is the original, does it really mean that the author of the letter is referring to three different groups of people? At first sight, the introductory words Ƞ੠Ȣ ȝȑȞ … Ƞ੠Ȣ įȑ … Ƞ੠Ȣ įȑ seem to support the argument that the author refers to three different groups. However, J. S. Allen has argued recently that there are numerous cases in which ȝȑȞ … įȑ (… įȑ “indicate clause division rather than differentiation of groups.” 11 From passages in Classical Greek literature (e.g., Thucydides, Hist. 1.85.2, Plato, Leg. 697D, Herodotus, Hist. 1.45.3), the LXX (e.g., 2 Macc 11:18), and the NT (e.g., Rom 8:30-31 and Jude 10), he concludes that ȝȑȞ … įȑ in series can serve to divide a sentence into several clauses without emphasizing a contrast. The same seems to be true for Jude 2223: “only one group is in focus. The descriptive force of the participle įȚĮțȡȚȞȠȝȑȞȠȣȢ is thus carried through the whole sentence so that the three clauses do not indicate distinct groups of persons, but amplification of the same group, i.e. those who doubt.” 12

indicates that the author of Jude also uses constructions with two members. 10 Vögtle (Judasbrief, 104-7) opts for three different groups of Christians who are all influenced by the doctrines of the false teachers, but one more than the other; the text itself, however, does not offer any indication that such a distinction was meant by the author. 11 See Allen, “Jude 22-3,” esp. 137. 12 Allen, “Jude 22-3,” 143.

Chapter Four

72

If Allen’s interpretation is right, and I think it is, the main argument against the three-clause structure appears to be invalid. That means that the three-clause sentence, in particular the one found in ʠ, 13 is to be regarded as the original text vis-àvis the two-clause reading. 14 Thus, throughout the letter the author of Jude warns his readers against people who have “stolen in” among the members of the Christian community (v. 4), who are “flattering people to their own advantage” (v. 16), and who are “causing divisions” (v. 19); the readers should not “fall” (v. 24), that is, give in to these false teachers and their abject ideas. At the end of his letter, in three more or less parallel clauses, he summons his readers to “have mercy on” or to “save” those fellow-Christians who “are doubting,” who are inclined to believe the words of the false preachers he is warning against. According to this interpretation, įȚĮțȡȚȞȠȝȑȞȠȣȢ should be translated as “those who doubt,” rather than “those who dispute.” 15 An invitation to the readers to have mercy on 168F

169F

170F

13

7KHYDULDQWਥȜȑȖȤİIJİLQ$LQVWHDGRIWKH ILUVWਥȜİ઼IJİVHHPVWREHDQ attempt to vary between the verbs in the three clauses and is therefore secundary. Kubo (“Jude 22-3,” 253), too, is in favour of the text of ʠ, but prefers to read ਥȜİİ૙IJİinstead of ਥȜİ઼IJİ 14 Compare, e.g., Windisch, Die katholischen Briefe, 47; Metzger, Textual Commentary, 727-29; Kubo, “Jude 22-3,” 239-53 (but see Kubo, P72 and Codex Vaticanus, 89-92); Vögtle, Judasbrief, 102-5; Paulsen, Judasbrief, 84-86. Pace scholars such as Schelkle, Judasbrief, 170-72; Birdsall, “Jude in P72”; Reicke, Jude, 215-16; Osburn, “Jude 22-23”; Balz and Schrage, Die katholischen Briefe, 230-31; Bauckham, Jude, 108-11; Winter, “Jude 22-3”; and Landon, Jude, 131-34, who support a two-clause text. 15 )RUįȚĮțȡȓȞİıșĮȚLQWKHVHQVHRI³WRGRXEW´VHHDOVRHJ0DUN 11:23, Matt 21:21, Rom 4:20, 14:23, Jas 1:6, Ps. Clem. Hom. 1.20.6, 2.40.3. These passages make clear that this meaning was well known in the early Church.

The Attitude towards Christians who are Doubting: Jude 22-3 and the Text of Zechariah 3

73

or to save 16 the disputers, i.e. the false teachers, does not make much sense here: the author has argued earlier that the false teachers are sinners “for whom the deepest darkness has been reserved forever” (v. 13). As a consequence, he does not ask his readers to help those ungodly people but to help their fellow-Christians, whom the ungodly people are trying to persuade. For the author of the letter, there are three groups of people: (a) people who believe, such as the readers of the letter; (b) unbelievers, heretics or semi-believers, such as the false teachers; and (c) Christians who doubt. The first group should try to keep the third from joining the second. A thorough and detailed analysis of the wording of verses 22-23 and its OT background will show that this interpretation is the correct one, and that, consequently, the three-clause structure not only makes perfect sense, but also has a strong claim to being the original reading. Analysis of Jude 22-23 a. The meaning of ਥȜİ઼Ȟ and ıȫȗİȚȞ That the three clauses in verses 22-23 refer to one and the same class of people is underlined by the use of the verbs ਥȜİ઼Ȟ (in the first and third clauses) and ıȫȗİȚȞ (in the second clause). Starting from the idea that in these verses the author refers to two (or three) different groups of people, scholars usually do their best to make a clear distinction between the two verbs. In that case, the author would have summoned his readers, for instance, “to pity” the įȚĮțȡȚȞȠȝȑȞȠȣȢ (understood as “those 16

Schelkle, Judasbrief, 171, Balz and Schrage, Die katholischen Briefe, 231, and Vögtle, Judasbrief, 106, assume that in v. 23 the YHUEਥȜİ઼ȞRUਥȜİİ૙ȞPHDQV³WRSUD\IRU´WKHIDOVHWHDFKHUVRUVLQQHUV in general); but this interpretation is rather forced and cannot be substantiated.

74

Chapter Four

who dispute,” i.e. the false teachers) and “to save” each other.17 However, an analysis of the use of the two verbs in OT (LXX), Jewish, and early-Christian literature shows that both verbs are to a certain extent synonymous. They both refer to helping people who are in physical or spiritual need. 18 The verbs are often found together without any difference in meaning: see, for instance, Psalm 86:2-3 (85:2-3), “Preserve my life, for I am devoted to you; save (ı૵ıȠȞ) your servant who trusts in you. You are my God; be gracious to (ਥȜȑȘıȠȞ me, O Lord, for to you do I cry all day long,” and 1 Clement 59:4, “We beseech thee, Master, to be our help and succour. Save ı૵ıȠȞ those of us who are in affliction, have mercy on (ਥȜȑȘıȠȞ the lowly, raise the fallen, show thyself to those in need, heal the sick, turn again the wanderers of thy people, feed the hungry, ransom our prisoners, raise up the weak, comfort the faint-hearted.” 19 These and other examples 20 point to the conclusion that ਥȜİİ૙ȞਥȜİ઼Ȟ and ıȫȗİȚȞ are interchangeable, both referring to the act of “helping” people or “saving” people from some kind of danger. 21 This strengthens the argument that in verses 22-23 17

So, e.g., Winter, “Jude 22-3,” 217-18. Most scholars who opt for a two-clause division prefer the text of either P72 or B; likewise, they HLWKHUPDNHDGLVWLQFWLRQEHWZHHQWKHDFWLRQVRI³VHL]LQJਖȡʌȐıĮIJİ  IURP WKH ILUH´ DQG ³KDYLQJ PHUF\ ਥȜİİ૙IJİ ´ LQ WKH case of P72, or EHWZHHQWKHILUVWਥȜİ઼IJİDQGWKHVHFRQGਥȜİ઼IJİLQWKHFDVHRI%%RWK attempts are rather arbitrary and lack any conclusive evidence (see also n. 16). 18 See also Allen, “Jude 22-´³7KHYHUEਥȜİȐȦLQWKH17DQG LXX does not simply mean ‘to extend empathy toward,’ but includes the appropriate response, namely, the response which brings about and ensures salvation, deliverance or healing.” 19 Lake, LCL. 20 See also Ps 6:2-4 (6:3-5), 86:16 (85:16), Isa 59:1-2, Hos 1:6-8, Tob 6:18, 2 Clem. 1:7, and Acts Andr. 1. 21 It is, therefore, not surprising that there are also many passages in which WKH YHUEV ਥȜİİ૙Ȟ DQG ૧ȪİıșĮȚ ³WR VDYH´) occur together

The Attitude towards Christians who are Doubting: Jude 22-3 and the Text of Zechariah 3

75

the author invites his readers to behave properly to one and the same class of people, that is to save their wavering fellowChristians from giving in to the false teachers and their dissenting opinions. b. The image of “seizing people from the fire” (ਥț ʌȣȡઁȢ ਖȡʌȐȗȠȞIJİȢ Whereas in the first clause the author of the letter of Jude indicates the group of people whom his readers should help, viz. those fellow-Christians who are doubting, he continues by mentioning in the second clause the danger from which they should be saved. His readers should “seize” their fellowChristians “from the fire” (ਥț ʌȣȡઁȢ ਖȡʌȐȗȠȞIJİȢ v. 23a). The common opinion is that with this phrase the readers are summoned to save people from the fire of hell, i.e. that they should protect them from being destroyed by the fire of hell at the end of time. The difficulty with this interpretation is that ਖȡʌȐȗİȚȞ ਥț (or ਥȟĮȡʌȐȗİȚȞ does not mean “to save or to protect somebody or something from future danger” but “to seize or to snatch somebody or something from present danger.” 22 It is found rather frequently in the context of rescuing people from dangers or helping them: see, for instance, Athenagoras, Legatio pro Christianis 21.2, “when for all his grief he (= Zeus) cannot rescue him (= Sarpedon) from danger” (ਕįȣȞĮIJૌ į੻ ੑįȣȡȩȝİȞȠȢ IJȠ૨ țȚȞįȪȞȠȣ ਥȟĮȡʌȐıĮȚ  23 and Plutarch, Demetrius 7.3 (Vit. par. 891), “he (= Demetrius) without any difference of meaning: see, e.g., Ps 6:2-4 (6:3-5), Acts John 42, Acts Phil. 112, and Acts Thom. 38. 22 See, e.g., 2 Sam 23:21 (“Benaiah … snatched the spear out of the (J\SWLDQ¶VKDQG´>ਸ਼ȡʌĮıİȞIJઁįȩȡȣਥțIJોȢȤİȚȡઁȢIJȠ૨ǹੁȖȣʌIJȓȠȣ@  Job 29:17, Jos. Asen. 12:8, 10, Philo, Her. 71, John 10:28-29, Acts 23:10, Herm. Vis. 2.1.4, Plutarch, Comp. Ages. Pomp. 1.4 (Vit. par. 662), Cato Min. 23.2 (Vit. par. 770), Crass. 11.4 (Vit. par. 549). 23 Schoedel, Athenagoras.

76

Chapter Four

helped and saved the city” ȕȠȘșȒıĮȢ ਥȟȒȡʌĮıİ IJ੽Ȟ ʌȩȜȚȞ  24 All this makes it plausible that the author of Jude is not referring to the fire of hell at the end of time from which the people who are in doubt must be saved by his readers but to some kind of danger which is threatening the doubters at this very moment. 25 But if ʌ૨ȡ does not refer to the fire of hell, which danger is the author thinking of? In order to answer this question we must first of all realize that in this verse the author is likely to have been influenced by a passage from OT, in this case Zechariah 3:2. In Zechariah 3, the prophet describes a visionary scene in the heavenly courtroom. The principal figure there is Joshua, the son of Jehozadak, who seems to have been the first chief priest after the exile. In Zechariah 3:1 LXX we are told that the prophet saw “the high priest Joshua standing before the angel of the Lord, and the devil standing at his right hand to accuse him.” It seems likely that the accusations brought by the adversary were made against the election of Jerusalem, against the restoration of the priesthood, and against Joshua as the intended new high priest. In verse 2 we read that the Lord rebukes the accuser by defending Jerusalem and comparing Joshua to “a brand plucked from the fire” (LXX, ੪Ȣ įĮȜઁȢ ਥȟİıʌĮıȝȑȞȠȢ ਥț ʌȣȡȩȢ  Most probably, the simile serves to characterize the delicate situation in which the high priest Joshua found himself, namely as somebody who was about to fade away (“a brand”), but who had been rescued (by God) just in time (“plucked from the fire”). The words “plucked from the fire” seem to refer to Joshua’s narrow escape from a critical, dangerous situation: “to pluck” stands for the action of saving, while “the fire” stands

24

See also Plutarch, Comp. Ages. Pomp. 1.4 (Vit. par. 662), ਥȟȒȡʌĮıİ«ȕȠȘș૵Ȟ 25 Cf. also Vögtle, Judasbrief, 105.

The Attitude towards Christians who are Doubting: Jude 22-3 and the Text of Zechariah 3

77

for the peril that threatened Joshua. 26 The peril itself probably refers to God’s wrath and Joshua’s (and Judah’s) experiences in exile. 27 It is likely that the author of Jude took the image of somebody seized from the fire from Zechariah 3:2. That the wording is somewhat different (ਥț ʌȣȡઁȢ ਖȡʌȐȗȠȞIJİȢ instead of ਥȟİıʌĮıȝȑȞȠȢ ਥț ʌȣȡȩȢ is no argument against it. The use of another verb (ਖȡʌȐȗİȚȞ instead of ਥțıʌ઼Ȟ with a similar meaning is most probably due to the fact that the author of Jude quoted from memory. 28 When quoting or copying, people are inclined to replace (less frequent) words by more or less

26

The same imagery is found in Amos 4:11. In this verse, the rescue of some of the Israelites, who were in a situation comparable to the destruction of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, is described in similar terms: “I overthrew some of you, as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, and you were like a brand snatched from the ILUH/;;੪ȢįĮȜઁȢਥȟİıʌĮıȝȑȞȠȢਥțʌȣȡȩȢ \HW\RXGLGQRWUHWXUQ to me, says the Lord.” That is, their destruction was not total, so that a return to God remained a viable possibility. 27 See, e.g., Van der Woude, Zacharia, 64; Reventlow, Sacharja, 53; VanderKam, “Joshua,” 555-56 (= VanderKam, From Revelation to Canon, 159-60); but cf. Rudolph, Sacharja, 95-96; Petersen, Zechariah, 192-93; Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah, 186-87. 28 Pace Bauckham, who is of the opinion that “it was the Hebrew Bible with which Jude was really familiar. When he wished to allude to it he did not stop to find the Septuagint translation, but made his own translation” (Jude, 7). The (few) arguments presented by Bauckham to confirm this statement are far from convincing. The author’s command of the Greek language and of good Greek idiom (so also Bauckham, Jude, 6) makes it much more plausible that he, like (almost) all the other early-Christian writers, knew the OT in its Greek version, the LXX. See also Gerdmar, Rethinking, 158-59.

78

Chapter Four

synonymous (and more common) terms. 29 Moreover, there is another theme in Zechariah’s vision of the high priest Joshua that seems to have been adopted by the author of Jude, namely Joshua’s filthy clothes; he uses this item to introduce a second image, that of the defiled tunic, mentioned at the end of verse 23. The occurrence of two similar images in Zechariah 3:2-4 and Jude 23 can hardly be accidental and has to be explained by assuming that the author of the letter of Jude was influenced by the passage in Zechariah. 30 The author of Jude uses the image of the narrow escape from the fire to describe his readers’ attitude towards fellowChristians who are doubting. They should “seize them from the fire,” that is, rescue them from grave danger. But, again, what kind of danger is the author thinking of? The danger, which the author considered a serious threat to the readers at the time, must have to do with the situation in which the doubters found themselves. Since they were people who were about to give in to the false teachers and their wicked ideas, the danger the author is mentioning here must refer to these false teachers themselves, and to their attempts to mislead Christians about the true faith. 31 The doubters were about to fall into sin and “to 29

:HILQGDVLPLODUVXEVWLWXWLRQRIWKHYHUEਥțıʌ઼ȞE\ਥȟĮȡʌȐȗİȚȞLQ WKH PDQXVFULSW WUDGLWLRQ LQ -RE  /;; ਥȟȑıʌĮıĮ YHUVXV ਥȟȒȡʌĮıĮ  30 So also Bauckham, Jude, 114-15. A third argument may be found in Jude 9. The words “May the Lord rebuke you,” together with the story about the discussion between Michael and the devil concerning the body of Moses, are most likely adopted from As. Mos. (see esp. Tromp, Assumption of Moses, 271-81). Nevertheless, there is a good possibility that the words spoken by the archangel Michael to the devil in As. Mos. reminded the author of Jude of the identical words spoken by the Lord to the adversary in Zech 3:2. 31 Compare Vögtle, Judasbrief, 105, who argues that the fire refers to “die Verführung durch die häretische Lehre und Lebenspraxis,”

The Attitude towards Christians who are Doubting: Jude 22-3 and the Text of Zechariah 3

79

be burnt by the fire” of the false teachers, but the readers should help them and rescue them before it is too late. In the author’s view, the false teachers are “the fire” from which the doubters should be seized by the faithful Christian readers. The author’s identification of the false teachers with a “fire” has its roots in Jewish and early-Christian tradition, according to which the good and pious man’s adversaries are described as a burning flame or a fire. See, for instance, Sirach 8:10, “Do not kindle the coals of sinners, or you may be burned in their flaming fire” (ਥȞ ʌȣȡ੿ ijȜȠȖȩȢ  51:3-4, “and [you] delivered me … from the hand of those seeking my life, from the many troubles I endured, from choking fire on every side, and from the midst of fire” (ਕʌઁ ʌȞȚȖȝȠ૨ ʌȣȡ઼Ȣ țȣțȜȩșİȞ țĮ੿ ਥț ȝȑıȠȣ ʌȣȡȩȢ  Testament of Joseph 2:2, “And I struggled against a shameless woman, urging me to transgress with her; but the God of Israel my father guarded me from the burning flame” (ਥijȪȜĮȟȑ ȝİ ਕʌઁ ijȜȠȖઁȢ țĮȚȠȝȑȞȘȢ  32 An interesting parallel is found in Justin Martyr’s Dialogus cum Tryphone 115-16, where the author quotes Zechariah 2:14-3:2, followed by a kind of typological interpretation of the passage. He compares the Christians to the high priest Joshua: like Joshua, “we,” that is the Christians, “have been plucked out as from fire, when we were purged from our former sins, and also from the affliction and the burning, wherewith both the devil and all his servants burn us” (116.2). 33 In this passage, “fire” refers to the sin and

although he thinks that “der Gedanke an das Höllenfeuer mitschwingen mag.” 32 Hollander and De Jonge, Commentary. See further Sir 8:3, 28:2223, 4 Macc 18:14-15; and cf. Hollander, “Testing,” 99-102 [= Hollander (ed.), Tradition, 16-20]. 33 Williams, Justin Martyr.

80

Chapter Four

affliction into which people have been plunged 34 and to those who are responsible, viz. the devil and his collaborators. All this demonstrates that the author of Jude considers the false teachers to be the Christians’ adversaries who try to make the believers go astray. His readers should arm themselves against them and rescue those who are about to be misled from their hands as from a fire. c. The meaning of ਥȞ ijȩȕ૳ In the first clause of Jude 22-23 the author mentioned the group of people strongly in need of help. The second clause deals with the danger from which those wavering souls should be saved, i.e. the false teachers and their wicked opinions. In the third clause, the author goes on to give some characteristics of the right attitude towards doubting fellow-Christians, and he ends with a second metaphor taken from Zechariah 3 to describe the peril that threatens the Christians who are in doubt. First the author summons his readers to have mercy on the doubters ਥȞ ijȩȕ૳, “with fear.” The question is, of course, what exactly does the author mean by the phrase “with fear”? It may be interpreted as a reference to some feeling of fear or caution; but fear of what? Some scholars connect the phrase with the last words of the verse, and assume that the author wants to warn his readers to take care to avoid their own defilement. That means, the readers should avoid contact with the “defiled tunic,” that is with people having wicked religious ideas, in order not to be polluted by them. 35 A valid argument against

34

Cf. also Job 31:12, Isa 9:17-19, Sir 23:16, 40:30, Philo, Somn. 2.181, Decal. 49, 173, Jas 3:6, Ign. Trall. 2:3, and Rom. 7:2. 35 Cf., e.g., Schelkle, Judasbrief, 171; Reicke, Jude, 216; Balz and Schrage, Die katholischen Briefe, 231; Kubo, “Jude 22-3,” 252;

The Attitude towards Christians who are Doubting: Jude 22-3 and the Text of Zechariah 3

81

this interpretation is that there is not a single indication that the spots on the tunic are to be understood as contagious or dangerous for those who touch them. It is, therefore, more likely that the phrase “with fear” serves to express something different, namely the attitude of good and pious men who act in a spirit of fear, that is fear of God, not in the sense of “fear of God’s judgment on sin,” 36 but in the sense of respect or reverence for God. Both the term ijȩȕȠȢ and the phrase ਥȞ ijȩȕ૳, used absolutely, i.e. not followed by an objective genitive such as IJȠ૨ țȣȡȓȠȣ or șİȠ૨, occur quite frequently in other early-Christian writings to describe the disposition of people who are living in accordance with the will of God. Christians should act with fear and reverence for their Lord: see, for instance, 1 Peter 3:2, “when they (= the husbands) see the purity and reverence of your (= their wives’) lives” IJ੽Ȟ ਥȞ ijȩȕ૳ ਖȖȞ੽Ȟ ਕȞĮıIJȡȠij੽Ȟ ਫ਼ȝ૵Ȟ  and 1 Clement 51:2, “For those who live in fear and love ȝİIJ੹ ijȩȕȠȣ țĮ੿ ਕȖȐʌȘȢ are willing to suffer torture themselves rather than their neighbours.” 37 Likewise, the readers of the letter of Jude are exhorted to help their fellow-Christians who are doubting, in a spirit of “fear,” that is, as people who have a strong faith and show a deep reverence for God. d. The image of the “tunic defiled by the body” IJઁȞ ਕʌઁ IJોȢ ıĮȡțઁȢ ਥıʌȚȜȦȝȑȞȠȞ ȤȚIJ૵ȞĮ At the end of verses 22-23 the author gives another feature of the right Christian behaviour towards doubting Christians. The Heiligenthal, Zwischen Henoch und Paulus, 93, 164; Paulsen, Judasbrief, 85. 36 So Bauckham, Jude, 116; cf. Vögtle, Judasbrief, 106. 37 Lake, LCL. See further 1 Pet 1:17, 1 Clem. 19:1, 64:1, Barn. 2:2, 11:11, Herm. Mand. 6.1.1, 7.1-5; and cf. Ps 2:11 (and Pol. Phil. 2:1 and 6:3), Let. Aris. 95, and Phil 2:12.

82

Chapter Four

readers should help these waverers, should “have mercy on them,” not only “with fear” but at the same time in a spirit of “hatred” ȝȚıȠ૨ȞIJİȢ for “the tunic defiled by the body.” 38 This “tunic” must represent something bad, for traditionally the pious man’s hatred is directed towards people or things that are wicked and evil and are to be avoided. Pious men hate, for instance, “the company of evildoers,” “iniquity,” “injustice,” “arrogance,” “evil desire,” “hypocrisy,” “telling lies,” in short anything evil in the eyes of God. 39 But what does the author mean by “the tunic defiled by the body”? To what does it refer? Like the image of the “fire” from which the doubters should be seized, the author of Jude has taken the metaphor of the dirty tunic from the prophet Zechariah’s vision of the high priest Joshua in the heavenly courtroom as told in Zechariah 3. 40 Not only is Joshua compared to “a brand plucked from the fire,” but he is also depicted as somebody who “was dressed with filthy clothes (LXX, ਷Ȟ ਥȞįİįȣȝȑȞȠȢ ੂȝȐIJȚĮ ૧ȣʌĮȡȐ as he stood before the angel” (v. 3). We read how the angel ordered that “the filthy 38

*UDPPDWLFDOO\ țĮȓ DIWHU ȝȚıȠ૨ȞIJİȢ LV VRPHZKDW SOHRQDVWLF LWV IXQFWLRQKHUHLVWRFRQQHFWWKHWZRIHHOLQJVRIIHDUਥȞijȩȕ૳ DQG KDWUHGȝȚıȠ૨ȞIJİȢ ZLWKHDFKRWKHU)RUVLPLODUFDVHVRIDSOHRQDVWLF țĮȓ DIWHU D SUHSRVLWLRQ D UHODWLYH SURQRXQ D FRPSDUDtive FRQMXQFWLRQVXFKDVțĮșȫȢRUDSDUWLFLSOH VHHHJ5RP 1 Cor 1:8, 2:13, 10:6, 1 Thess 4:5, 8, 13, and Phil 4:3. 39 See, e.g., Exod 18:21, Ps 26:5 (25:5), 36:2 (35:3), 45:7 (44:8), 97:10 (96:10), 101:3 (100:3), 119:104, 113, 128, 163 (118:104, 113, 128, 163), Prov 8:13, 13:5, 28:16, Amos 5:15, Heb 1:9, Did. 4:12, Barn. 4:1, 10, 19:2, 11, Herm. Mand. 12.1.1, T. Dan 5:1. 40 As a consequence, the image of the dirty tunic should not be interpreted against the background of the Jewish and early-Christian motif of “the garments of glory” worn by the righteous and the ones who are elected by God (pace Heiligenthal, Zwischen Henoch und Paulus, 74-75).

The Attitude towards Christians who are Doubting: Jude 22-3 and the Text of Zechariah 3

83

clothes” IJ੹ ੂȝȐIJȚĮ IJ੹ ૧ȣʌĮȡȐ should be taken off and how one put a clean turban on his head and clothed him with new clothes. This ceremony is accompanied with the words, “See, I have taken your guilt away from you, and I will clothe you with festal apparel” (vv. 4-5). This statement makes clear that Joshua’s dirty clothes, which are to be removed, symbolize his guilt. The state of iniquity in which Joshua finds himself is most probably not the result of his own actions; it is rather the consequence of his having lived in exile, and includes the contamination he has suffered in Babylon as an unclean country. 41 Since the exile was God’s punishment for the Judahites’ apostasy, Joshua as one of them, or rather as one of their representatives, should be “cleansed” in order to be fit to become the first high priest after the exile.42 The author of Jude took the motif of the filthy clothes from Zechariah 3, just as he did with the image of the fire. The wording is different: he replaced the words IJ੹) ੂȝȐIJȚĮ IJ੹) ૧ȣʌĮȡȐ by the words IJȩȞ … ਥıʌȚȜȦȝȑȞȠȞ ȤȚIJ૵ȞĮ which is another example of the replacement of words with a more or less similar meaning. 43 Moreover, the cause of the tunic’s defilement is mentioned explicitly: the tunic is defiled “by the

41

For a similar imagery, see the Hymn of the Pearl 29 and 62-63 (Acts Thom. 109 and 111), “I clothed myself in garments like theirs (= the Egyptians), so that I would not be seen as a stranger … And I took RIIWKHGLUW\FORWKLQJਕʌȠįȣıȐȝİȞȠȢIJઁ૧ȣʌĮȡઁȞ਩ȞįȣȝĮ DQGOHIWLW behind in their land. And directed my way forthwith to the light of our Eastern home” (Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament). 42 See, e.g., Van der Woude, Zacharia, 65-66; Petersen, Zechariah, 193-96; Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah, 187-89; cf. Reventlow, Sacharja, 53-54; VanderKam, “Joshua,” 555-58 (= VanderKam, From Revelation to Canon, 159-62). 43 &I  6DP  /;; ZKHUH $ UHDGV IJ੹ ੂȝȐIJȚĮ LQVWHDG RI IJઁȞ ȤȚIJ૵ȞĮ

84

Chapter Four

body” (ਕʌઁ IJોȢ ıĮȡțȩȢ  All this supports the assumption that the author quoted the OT (LXX) from memory. 44 Whereas in Zechariah’s vision Joshua’s dirty clothes are symbolic of the high priest’s uncleanness or guilt, the author of Jude uses the image as a metaphor to describe something his readers should find insufferable. It seems, however, methodologically correct first to look for the literal sense of the phrase, before interpreting the meaning of the metaphor in the context of the letter of Jude. That means that, on the nonmetaphorical level, one should presume that both ȤȚIJȫȞ and ıȐȡȟ are to be understood literally. As a consequence, ıȐȡȟ does not refer to, for instance, “the sinful worldly environment,” the evil desires of the false teachers, or the perverseness of people in general. 45 Nor should one interpret the word ıȐȡȟ on the basis of its (metaphorical) meaning in the letters of Paul. The word usually refers to the human body, 46 and there is nothing against assuming that in Jude 23, too, it refers to the human body. 47 This means that, literally, “the tunic defiled by the body” refers to a garment stained by its contact with the

44

See above. The very fact that the source of the defilement is mentioned makes it rather improbable that the author used the Hebrew Bible and made his own translation (pace Bauckham; see n. 28). 45 So, e.g., Reicke, Jude, 216; Schelkle, Judasbrief, 171-72; Balz and Schrage, Die katholischen Briefe, 231; Paulsen, Judasbrief, 85; Vögtle, Judasbrief, 106-7. 46 Cf. Liddell, Scott, and Jones, LexiconVYıȐȡȟ%DXHU$ODQGDQG Aland, WörterbuchVYıȐȡȟVXE&IDOVR-XGHDQG 47 Cf. Sent. Sextus 449: “Keep spotless your body, the garment of the soul given by God, just as you keep spotless your coat, the garment RIWKHIOHVK੪ȢțĮ੿IJઁȞȤȚIJ૵ȞȐıȠȣIJȘȡİ૙ȢਕıʌȓȜȦIJȠȞ਩ȞįȣȝĮ੕ȞIJĮ IJોȢıĮȡțȩȢ ´(GZDUGVDQG:LOGThe Sentences of Sextus).

The Attitude towards Christians who are Doubting: Jude 22-3 and the Text of Zechariah 3

85

body. 48 Since the ȤȚIJȫȞ was the article of clothing which was worn next to the skin, it could easily become dirty and stained by blood, sweat, and other bodily fluids. 49 All this leads to the conclusion that the author of Jude took the motif of Joshua’s dirty clothes from Zechariah 3:3-4 and paraphrased it, in order to explain and to stress the filthiness of the garment (“defiled by the body”). The author of Jude uses the motif of a “defiled tunic” as a metaphor 50 to describe the “filthiness” of the things or persons his readers should hate. But what things or persons is he thinking of? In early-Christian literature, “stains” are used metaphorically to refer to sins or sinners. See, for instance, Ephesians 5:27, “so as to present the church to himself in splendour, without a spot or wrinkle ȝ੽ ਩ȤȠȣıĮȞ ıʌȓȜȠȞ ਲ਼ ૧ȣIJȓįĮ or anything of the kind–yes, so that she may be holy and without blemish,” and 2 Peter 2:13, “They (= false teachers) count it a pleasure to revel in the daytime. They are blots and blemishes ıʌȓȜȠȚ țĮ੿ ȝ૵ȝȠȚ  revelling in their 48

It seems obYLRXVWKDWਕʌȩKHUHPHDQV³E\´LQDFDXVDOVHQVHVHH Blass, Debrunner, and Rehkopf, Grammatik, § 210, 2), and not “of” or “from” in the sense of the material from which something is made (pace Winter, “Jude 22-3,” 219). 49 Cf. Bauckham, Jude, 116. Bauckham thinks that the author of Jude interprets the “filthy clothes” in Zech 3:3-4 in this way because of the connotations of the Hebrew word for “filthy” (ʭʩʠʥʶ) and its cognates, words which are often used in the OT to refer to human excrement; this argument, however, is not valid since it is more likely that the author of Jude used the LXX and quoted it from memory. In order to understand the author’s interpretation of the OT/LXX text together with his rewording of the phrase, it is not necessary to assume that he used the Hebrew Bible (see also above and n. 28). 50 Cf. Philo who uses Joseph’s tunic (“a coat of many colours”; cf. Gen 37:3 LXX) as a metaphor to describe the life of the politician (Somn. 1.220-25 and Ios. 32).

86

Chapter Four

dissipation while they feast with you.” 51 This metaphorical use of words for “stains” or “filthiness” in early-Christian literature makes it likely that the author of Jude, too, uses the metaphor of the “tunic defiled by the body” to describe a specific class of sins or sinners. This conclusion is substantiated by the similar metaphorical interpretation of the “filthy clothes” in Zechariah 3:3-4 that is found in Justin Martyr’s Dialogus cum Tryphone 115-16. 52 There, we are told that “we (= the Christians) who formerly lived in fornication, and, in fact, every kind of filthy action, have … put off all the filthy garments IJ੹ ૧ȣʌĮȡ੹ ʌȐȞIJĮ wherewith we were clothed … we stripped off our filthy garments IJ੹ ૧ȣʌĮȡ੹ ੂȝȐIJȚĮ  that is to say, our sins” (116.13). 53 Since the author of Jude used the first image, that of the “fire,” to refer metaphorically to the false teachers and their wicked ideas, the same must be assumed for the second image. The “defiled tunic,” which the readers of the letter must hate when they help their fellow-Christians who doubt, represents the false teachers and their attempts to mislead innocent Christians. The author does not call upon his readers to fear, i.e. to try and avoid people with wicked ideas in order not to be polluted by them; 54 he rather exhorts them to hate these adversaries, the false teachers with their unorthodox doctrines and actions who try to mislead Christians and to split the Christian Church. 55 51

Cf. also Jas 1:27, 2 Pet 3:14, Herm. Vis. 4.3.5, Sim. 9.6.4, 9.8.7, 9.26.2, Justin, Dial. 110.6, Apoc. Pet. 30, and T. Asher 2:7. 52 On this passage see also above. 53 Williams, Justin Martyr. 54 A rather common interpretation; see above. 55 A final argument in favour of this interpretation may be the use of WKHWHUPıʌȚȜȐȢLQY,QWKLVYHUVHWKHDXWKRUJLYHVDGHVFULSWLRQ of the false teachers who are threatening the Christian community: ³7KHVHDUHEOHPLVKHVıʌȚȜȐįİȢ RQ\RXUORYH-feasts, while they feast

The Attitude towards Christians who are Doubting: Jude 22-3 and the Text of Zechariah 3

87

Conclusion From the analysis of the terms and images found in Jude 22-23, it has become clear that the three-clause reading as found in ʠ (and A) and printed in Nestle–Aland’s Novum Testamentum Graece (27th ed.) makes perfect sense. After some harsh words about people who try to divide the Christian community with their wicked ideas, and some exhortations to his readers to stick to the real Christian faith, the author urges the addressees to “help” (ਥȜİ઼IJİ … ı૴ȗİIJİ … ਥȜİ઼IJİ their fellow-Christians who are doubting įȚĮțȡȚȞȠȝȑȞȠȣȢ  In the second and third clauses of verses 22-23 he uses two metaphors to describe the danger from which the doubters are to be saved. Both originate from images and phrases in Zechariah’s vision of Joshua the high priest standing in the heavenly courtroom, as told in Zechariah 3 LXX. The author of Jude does not repeat them verbatim but quotes them from memory, replacing some words by more or less synonymous terms. Thus he uses the image of Joshua being like “a brand plucked from the fire” to compare the false teachers to a “fire” from which the doubters should be saved (ਥț ʌȣȡઁȢ ਖȡʌȐȗȠȞIJİȢ  Next, he takes the theme of the “filthy garment” in which Joshua was clothed, in order to introduce a second image to describe once more the danger of the adversaries of the Christian community, whom the readers of this letter should hate ȝȚıȠ૨ȞIJİȢ țĮ੿ IJઁȞ ਕʌઁ IJોȢ ıĮȡțઁȢ ਥıʌȚȜȦȝȑȞȠȞ ȤȚIJ૵ȞĮ  helping fellow-Christians who are in

with you without fear, feeding themselves.” Although the word ıʌȚȜȐȢXVXDOO\PHDQV³UHHI´³URFN´ RU³VWRUP´DQRWKHUPHDQLQJ seems to be “stain” (cf. Bauer, Aland and Aland, Wörterbuch, s.v. ıʌȚȜȐȢ DQG /LGGHOO 6FRWW DQG -RQHV Lexicon VY ıʌȚȜȐȢ  ,W LV interesting that the author of 2 Pet calls the false teachers who threaten the unity of the communities to which he writes, “blots and EOHPLVKHV´ıʌȓȜȠȚțĮ੿ȝ૵ȝȠȚ VHHDOVRDERYH 

88

Chapter Four

danger of losing their faith implies hating those who are responsible for bringing ruin on them. This way of using OT phrases shows us how early-Christian writers could use the OT/LXX: they were so well acquainted with the OT that they could echo OT phrases or quote them from memory, whether literally or not, and adapt them to new needs. They felt free to use them in any way they wanted, and even did not always find it necessary to mention their sources explicitly.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, J. S., “A New Possibility for the Three-Clause Format of Jude 22-3.” New Testament Studies 44 (1998): 133-43 Balz, H., and W. Schrage, Die katholischen Briefe. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973 Barrett, C. K., The Gospel according to St John. London: SPCK, 1955 Batten, A. J., “The letter of Jude and Graeco-Roman Invective.” HTS Theological Studies 70/1 (2014): 1-7 Bauckham, R. J., Jude, 2 Peter. Waco: Word, 1983 Bauer, W., and K. and B. Aland, Griechisch–deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur. 6. Aufl. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1988 Becker, J., Untersuchungen zur Entstehungsgeschichte Testamente der Zwölf Patriarchen. Leiden: Brill, 1970

der

Becker, J., “Die Testamente der zwölf Patriarchen.” In Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit III.1, edited by H. Lichtenberger and others. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1974 Berger, K., “Abraham im Frühjudentum und Neuen Testament.” Theologische Realenzyklopädie (TRE): 1.372-82 Bernard, J. H., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1928 Bieringer, R., D. Pollefeyt, and F. Vandecasteele-Vanneuville (eds.), Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel. Louisville/London/Leiden: Westminster John Knox, 2001

90

Bibliography

Birdsall, J. N., “The Text of Jude in P72.” Journal of Theological Studies 14 (1963): 394-99 Blass, F., A. Debrunner, and F. Rehkopf, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch. 17. Aufl. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990 Bonhöffer, A., Epiktet und das Neue Testament. Gießen: Töpelmann, 1911 Brière, M., L. Mariès, and B.-Ch. Mercier, “Hippolyte de Rome sur les Bénédictions d’Isaac, de Jacob et de Moïse.” Patrologia Orientalis 27.1-2. Paris: Firmin-Didot et Cie, 1954 Brown, R. E., The Gospel according to John. 2 vols. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966-1970 Byron, J., “Noble Lineage as a Response to Enslavement in the Testament of Naphtali 1.9-12.” Journal of Jewish Studies 55/1 (2004): 45-57 Carbajosa, I., “El término ʌĮ૙Ȣ en los LXX.” In Filiación. Cultura pagana, religión de Israel, orígenes del cristianismo, edited by J. J. Ayán Calvo, P. de Navascués Benlloch, and M. Aroztegui Esnaola, vol. 1, 111-30. Madrid: Editorial Trotta, 2005 Charles, J. D., “ ‘Those’ and ‘These’: The Use of the Old Testament in the Epistle of Jude.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 38 (1990): 109-24 Charles, J. D., “Jude’s Use of Pseudepigraphical Source-Material as Part of a Literary Strategy.” New Testament Studies 37 (1991): 13045 Charles, J. D., Literary Strategy in the Epistle of Jude. Scranton: University of Scranton Press; London/Toronto: Associated University Presses, 1993

The Attitude of Early-Christians toward Unbelievers and Semi-Believers

91

Charles, R. H. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, translated from the editor’s Greek text and edited, with introduction, notes, and indices. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1908 Charlesworth, J. H. (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1983-1985 [= OTP] Collins, J. J., “Testaments.” In Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, edited by M. E. Stone, 325-55. Assen: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984 Coppins, W., The Interpretation of Freedom in the Letters of Paul: With Special Reference to the ‘German’ Tradition. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009 Cortès, E., Los Discursos de Adiós de Gn 49 a Jn 13-17. Pistas para la historia de un género literario en la antigua literatura judía. Barcelona: Herder, 1976 Culpepper, R. A., Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel. A Study in Literary Design. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983 De Bruin, T., The Great Controversy. The Individual’s Struggle Between Good and Evil in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and in their Jewish and Christian Contexts. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015 De Jonge, H. J. (ed.), Jewish Eschatology, Early Christian Christology and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Collected Essays of Marinus de Jonge. Leiden/New York/København/Köln: Brill, 1991 De Jonge, M. (ed.), in cooperation with H. W. Hollander, H. J. de Jonge, and Th. Korteweg, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Leiden: Brill, 1978 De Jonge, M. “The Main Issues in the Study of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.” New Testament Studies 26 (1980): 508-24 (= De Jonge [ed.], Jewish Eschatology, 147-63)

92

Bibliography

De Jonge, M., “Hippolytus’ ‘Benedictions of Isaac, Jacob and Moses’ and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.” Bijdragen 46 (1985): 245-60 (= De Jonge [ed.], Jewish Eschatology, 204-19) De Jonge, M., “Two Interesting Interpretations of the Rending of the Temple-Veil in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.” Bijdragen 46 (1985): 350-62 (= De Jonge [ed.], Jewish Eschatology, 220-31) De Jonge, M., “The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Christian and Jewish. A Hundred Years after Friedrich Schnapp.” Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift 39 (1985): 265-75 (= De Jonge [ed.], Jewish Eschatology, 233-43) De Jonge, M., “The Pre-Mosaic Servants of God in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and in the Writings of Justin and Irenaeus.” Vigiliae Christianae 39 (1985): 157-70 (= De Jonge [ed.], Jewish Eschatology, 263-76) De Jonge, M., “The Future of Israel in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 17 (1986): 196-211 (= De Jonge [ed.], Jewish Eschatology, 164-79) De Jonge, M., “Two Messiahs in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs?” In Tradition and Re-Interpretation in Jewish and Early Christian Literature: Essays in Honour of J. C. H. Lebram, edited by J. W. van Henten, H. J. de Jonge, P. T. van Rooden, and J. W. Wesselius, 150-62. Leiden: Brill, 1986 (= De Jonge [ed.], Jewish Eschatology, 191-203) De Jonge, M., “The Testament of Levi and ‘Aramaic Levi’.” Revue de Qumran 49-52, 13 (1988): 367-85 (= De Jonge [ed.], Jewish Eschatology, 244-62) De Jonge, M., “Die Paränese in den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und in den Testamenten der Zwölf Patriarchen.” In Neues Testament und Ethik. FS R. Schnackenburg, edited by H. Merklein, 538-50. Freiburg/Basel/Wien: Herder, 1989 (= De Jonge [ed.], Jewish Eschatology, 277-89)

The Attitude of Early-Christians toward Unbelievers and Semi-Believers

93

De Jonge, M., “Test. Benjamin 3:8 and the Picture of Joseph as ‘a Good and Holy Man’.” In Die Entstehung der jüdischen Martyrologie, edited by J. W. van Henten, 204-14. Leiden: Brill, 1989 (= De Jonge [ed.], Jewish Eschatology, 290-300) De Jonge, M., “Levi in Aramaic Levi and in the Testament of Levi.” In Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, edited by E. G. Chazon and M. Stone, with the collaboration of A. Pinnick, 71-89. Leiden/Boston/ Köln: Brill, 1999 (in an updated version published in De Jonge [ed.], Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, 124-40) De Jonge, M., “The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and Related Qumran Fragments.” In For a Later Generation. The Transformation of Tradition in Israel, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity, edited by R. A. Argall, B. A. Bow, and R. A. Werline, 63-77. Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press, 2000 (in an updated version published in De Jonge [ed.], Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, 107-23) De Jonge, M., “Testamentenliteratur.” Theologische Realenzyklopädie (TRE): 33.110-13 De Jonge, M., “The Two Great Commandments in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.” Novum Testamentum 44 (2002): 371-92 (in an abbreviated version published in De Jonge [ed.], Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, 141-59) De Jonge, M., “The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs as a Document Transmitted by Christians.” In De Jonge (ed.), Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, 84-106 (going back to “The Transmission of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs by Christians.” Vigiliae Christianae 47 [1993]: 1-28) De Jonge, M. (ed.), Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament as Part of Christian Literature. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2003 De Jonge, M., “The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and the ‘Two Ways’.” In Biblical Traditions in Transmission. FS M. A. Knibb, edited by Ch. Hempel and J. M. Lieu, 179-94. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2006

94

Bibliography

De Jonge, M., and J. Tromp, “Jacob’s Son Levi in the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and Related Literature.” In Biblical Figures Outside the Bible, edited by M. E. Stone and Th. A. Bergren, 203-36. Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press, 1998 De la Potterie, I., La Vérité dans Saint Jean. Tome II, Le croyant et la vérité. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1977 Derrett, J. D. M., “Oriental sources for John 8:32-36?” Bibbia e Oriente 43 (2001): 29-32 De Ruyter, B. W. J., De gemeente van de evangelist Johannes: haar polemiek en haar geschiedenis. Diss. Universiteit Leiden. Delft: Eburon, 1998 Díaz Rodelas, J. M., “La filiación divina en la epistola a los Romanos 1, 3-4.” In Filiación. Cultura pagana, religión de Israel, orígenes del cristianismo, edited by J. J. Ayán Calvo, P. de Navascués Benlloch, and M. Aroztegui Esnaola, vol. 1, 237-53. Madrid: Editorial Trotta, 2005 Dodd, C. H., Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: University Press, 1963 Dozeman, Th. B., “Sperma Abraham in John 8 and Related Literature, Cosmology and Judgment.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 42 (1980): 342-58 Drawnel, H., An Aramaic Wisdom Text from Qumran. A New Interpretation of the Levi Document. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2004 Edwards, R. A., and R. A. Wild, The Sentences of Sextus. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1981 Elliott, J. K., The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993

The Attitude of Early-Christians toward Unbelievers and Semi-Believers

95

Gerdmar, A., Rethinking the Judaism–Hellenism Dichotomy. A historiographical case study of Second Peter and Jude. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 2001 Grayston, K., “Who Misunderstands the Johannine understandings?” Scripture Bulletin 20 (1989): 9-15

Mis-

Greenfield, J. C., and M. E. Stone, “The Aramaic and Greek Fragments of a Levi Document.” In Hollander and De Jonge, Commentary, 457-69 Greenfield, J. C., M. E. Stone, and E. Eshel, The Aramaic Levi Document. Edition, Translation, Commentary. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2004 Hakola, R., Identity Matters. John, the Jews and Jewishness. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2005 Harvey, W. W., Sancti Irenaei libros quinque adversus Haereses. 2 vols. Cambridge: University Press, 1857 Heiligenthal, R., Zwischen Henoch und Paulus. Studien zum theologiegeschichtlichen Ort des Judasbriefes. Tübingen: Francke Verlag, 1992 Hollander, H. W., Joseph as an ethical model in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Leiden: Brill, 1981 Hollander, H. W., “The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.” In Outside the Old Testament, edited by M. de Jonge, 71-91. Cambridge: University Press, 1985 Hollander, H. W., “ ‘Vrijheid’ en ‘slavernij’ in Johannes 8:31-36.” Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift 48 (1994): 265-74 Hollander, H. W. “The Testing by Fire of the Builders’ Works: 1 Corinthians 3.10-15.” New Testament Studies 40 (1994): 89-104 (= Hollander [ed.], Tradition, 1-22) Hollander, H. W., “Israel and God’s Eschatological Agent in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.” In Aspects of Religious

96

Bibliography

Contact and Conflict in the Ancient World, edited by P. W. van der Horst, 91-104. Utrecht: Faculteit der Godgeleerdheid, Universiteit Utrecht, 1995 Hollander, H. W., “The Meaning of the Term ‘Law’ (ȃȅȂȅȈ) in 1 Corinthians.” Novum Testamentum 40 (1998): 117-35 (= Hollander [ed.], Tradition, 117-43) Hollander, H. W., “The Attitude towards Christians who are Doubting: Jude 22-3 and the Text of Zechariah 3.” In The Book of Zechariah and its Influence, edited by Chr. Tuckett, 123-34. Aldershot, Hampshire: Ashgate, 2003 Hollander, H. W., “ ‘Hijos de los hombres’ e ‘Hijos de Dios’ en los Testamentos de los Doce Patriarcas.” In Filiación. Cultura pagana, religión de Israel, orígines del cristianismo, edited by J. J. Ayán Calvo, P. de Navascués Benlloch, and M. Aroztegui Esnaola, vol. 2, 125-43. Madrid: Editorial Trotta, 2007 Hollander, H. W., “Misunderstandings about ‘Freedom’ in John 8:31-36.” The Expository Times 129/8 (2018): 347-55 Hollander, H. W. (ed.), Tradition and Rhetoric in Paul’s Correspondence with the Corinthians. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2020 Hollander, H. W., and M. de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. A Commentary. Leiden: Brill, 1985 Hunn, D., “Who Are ‘They’ in John 8:33?” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 66 (2004): 387-99 Jervell, J., “Ein Interpolator interpretiert. Zu der christlichen Bearbeitung der Testamente der Zwölf Patriarchen.” In Studien zu den Testamenten der zwölf Patriarchen, edited by C. Burchard, J. Jervell, and Joh. Thomas, 30-61. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1969 Jones, F. S., “Freiheit” in den Briefen des Apostels Paulus. Eine historische, exegetische und religionsgeschichtliche Studie. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987

The Attitude of Early-Christians toward Unbelievers and Semi-Believers

97

Kee, H. C., “The Ethical Dimensions in the Testaments of the XII as a Clue to Provenance.” New Testament Studies 24 (1978): 259-70 Kee, H. C., “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.” OTP: 1.775-828 Keener, C. S., The Gospel of John. 2 vols. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2012 Korteweg, Th., “The meaning of Naphtali’s visions.” In Studies on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Text and Interpretation, edited by M. de Jonge, 260-90. Leiden: Brill, 1975 Kubo, S., P72 and Codex Vaticanus. Salt Lake City: University of Utah, 1965 Kubo, S., “Jude 22-3: Two-divison form or three?” In New Testament Textual Criticism. Its Significance for Exegesis, edited by E. J. Epp and G. D. Fee, 239-53. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981 Kugler, R. A., The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Sheffield: Academic Press, 2001 Lake, K., The Apostolic Fathers. 2 vols. London: Heinemann, 19121913 Landon, C., A Text-Critical Study of the Epistle of Jude. Sheffield: Academic Press, 1996 Liddell, H. G., R. Scott, and H. S. Jones, A Greek–English Lexicon. 9th ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968 [1940] Lindars, B., “Slave and Son in John 8:31-36.” In The New Testament Age. Essays in Honor of Bo Reicke, edited by W. C. Weinrich. 2 vols. Macon: Mercer University, 1984 Lona, H. E., Abraham in Johannes 8. Ein Beitrag zur Methodenfrage. Bern/Frankfurt am Main: Herbert Lang & Peter Lang, 1976

98

Bibliography

Macgregor, G. H. C., The Gospel of John. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1928 Mayor, J. B., The Epistle of St. Jude and the Second Epistle of St. Peter. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1965 [1907] Metzger, B. M., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. London/New York: United Bible Societies, 1971 Meyers, C. L., and E. M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1-8. New York: Doubleday, 1987 Milik, J. T., “Le Testament de Lévi en Araméen.” Revue Biblique 62 (1955): 398-406 Motyer, S., Your Father the Devil? A New Approach to John and “The Jews.” Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997 Myers, A. D., “Prosopopoetics and Conflict: Speech and Expectations in John 8.” Biblica 92 (2011): 580-96 Opferkuch, S., Der handelnde Mensch. Untersuchungen zum Verhältnis von Ethik und Anthropologie in den Testamenten der Zwölf Patriarchen. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter, 2018 Osburn, C. D., “The Text of Jude 22-23.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 63 (1972): 139-44 Paulsen, H., Der zweite Petrusbrief und der Judasbrief. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992 Petersen, D. L., Haggai & Zechariah 1-8. London: SCM, 1985 Reicke, B., The Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude. New York: Doubleday, 1964 Reventlow, H. Graf, Die propheten Haggai, Sacharja und Maleachi. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993

The Attitude of Early-Christians toward Unbelievers and Semi-Believers

99

Reynolds, E. E., “The Role of Misunderstanding in the Fourth Gospel.” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 9/1-2 (1998): 150-59 Rudolph, W., Haggai–Sacharja–Maleachi. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1976 Sanders, E. P., Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1983 Schelkle, K. H., Die Petrusbriefe/Der Judasbrief. Freiburg/Basel/ Wien: Herder, 1961 Schnackenburg, R., Das Johannesevangelium. 4 vols. Freiburg/Basel/Wien: Herder, 1965-1984 Schneider, J., Das Evangelium nach Johannes. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1976 Schoedel, W. R., Athenagoras, Legatio and De Resurrectione. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972 Sheridan, R., “Issues in the Translation of Ƞੂ ૃǿȠȣįĮ૙ȠȚ in the Fourth Gospel.” Journal of Biblical Literature 132 (2013): 671-95 Slingerland, H. D., “The Nature of Nomos (Law) within the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.” Journal of Biblical Literature 105 (1986): 39-48 Stanton, G. N., A Gospel for a New People. Studies in Matthew. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1992 Stylianopoulos, Th. G., Justin Martyr and the Mosaic Law. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975 Tromp, J., The Assumption of Moses. A Critical Edition with Commentary. Leiden/New York/Köln: Brill, 1993 Ulrichsen, J. L., Die Grundschrift der Testamente der zwölf Patriarchen. Eine Untersuchung zu Umfang, Inhalt und Eigenart der ursprünglichen Schrift. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1991

100

Bibliography

VanderKam, J. C., “Joshua The High Priest and the Interpretation of Zechariah 3.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 53 (1991): 553-70 (= J. C. VanderKam, From Revelation to Canon. Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature, 157-76. Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill, 2000) Van der Woude, A. S., Zacharia. Nijkerk: Callenbach, 1984 Vassiliev, A., Anecdota Graeco-Byzantina. I. Mosquae: Samptibus et typis Universitatis Caesareae, 1893 Vögtle, A., Der Judasbrief/Der 2. Petrusbrief. Solothurn/Düsseldorf: Benziger Verlag; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1994 Vollenweider, S., Freiheit als neue Schöpfung. Eine Untersuchung zur Eleutheria bei Paulus und in seiner Umwelt. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989 Von Nordheim, E., Die Lehre der Alten. I. Das Testament als Literaturgattung im Judentum der Hellenistisch-Römischen Zeit. Leiden: Brill, 1980 Von Nordheim, E., Die Lehre der Alten. II. Das Testament als Literaturgattung im Alten Testament und im Alten Vorderen Orient. Leiden: Brill, 1985 Von Wahlde, U. C., “Narrative Criticism of the Religious Authorities as a Group Character in the Gospel of John: Some Problems.” New Testament Studies 63 (2017): 222-45 Wettstein, J. J., Novum Testamentum Graecum. Amsterdam: Ex Officina Dommeriana, 1751 Wikenhauser, A., Das Evangelium nach Johannes. Regensburg: Pustet, 1957 Williams, A. L., Justin Martyr: The Dialogue with Trypho. Translation, Introduction, and Notes. London: SPCK; New York/Toronto: Macmillan, 1930

The Attitude of Early-Christians toward Unbelievers and Semi-Believers

101

Windisch, H., Die katholischen Briefe. 2. Aufl. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1930 Winter, M., Das Vermächtnis Jesu und die Abschiedsworte der Väter. Gattungsgeschichtliche Untersuchung der Vermächtnisrede im Blick auf Joh. 13-17. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994 Winter, S. C., “Jude 22-3: A Note on the Text and Translation.” Harvard Theological Review 87 (1994): 215-22

INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES

Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Genesis 21:10 27:1-40 37-50 37:3 48:1-22 49 49:1-50:14

14 39 37 85 39 38 39

Exodus 18:21 28:35 28:43

82 52 52

Leviticus 19:18

34

Numbers 8:22 16:9 18:6

52 52 52

Deuteronomy 6:5 10:8 33

34 52 39

Joshua 23

39

1 Samuel 12

39

2 Samuel 15:32 23:21

83 75

1 Kings 2:1-10

39

Job 25:6 29:17 31:12

47 75, 78 80

Psalms 2:11 81 4:2 (4:3) 47 6:2-4 (6:3-5) 74-75 8:4 (8:5) 47 9:7 (9:8) 14 11:4 (10:4) 47 12:1 (11:2) 47 12:8 (11:9) 47 14:2 (13:2) 47 26:5 (25:5) 82 33:11 (32:11) 14 36:2 (35:3) 82 45:7 (44:8) 82 86:2-3 (85:2-3) 74 86:16 (85:16) 74 89:36 (88:37) 14 97:10 (96:10) 82 101:3 (100:3) 82 119:104 (118:104) 82 119:113 (118:113) 82

The Attitude of Early-Christians toward Unbelievers and Semi-Believers 119:128 (118:128) 82 119:163 (118:163) 82 Proverbs 8:4 8:13 8:31 13:5 19:21 28:16 Ecclesiastes 3:10 Isaiah 9:17-19 14:20 40:8 59:1-2

47 82 47 82 14 82

61:6

52

Hosea 1:6-8

74

Amos 4:11 5:15

77 82

Zechariah 2:14-3:2 3

47 80 14 14 74

3:1 3:2 3:2-4 3:3 3:3-4 3:4-5

79 76, 80, 82-83, 87 76 76-78 68, 78 82 85-86 83

New Testament Matthew 1:2-3 3:9 3:17 18:25 21:11 21:21 21:43 21:46 22:37 22:39 24:50-51 25:30 27:63

59 17 63 14 61 72 29 61 47 47 14 14 36

Mark 1:11 3:28

63 47

103

11:23 12:30-31

72 35, 47

Luke 3:8 3:22 3:33 7:16 10:27 15:31

17 63 59 61 47 14

John 1:14 1:18 1:29 1:36 2:16 3

xi-xii, 1-17 61 61 59 59 15 5

Index of Ancient Sources

104 3:16 3:18 4 4:19 5:38 7:1-10:21 7:12 8 8:30 8:31 8:31-32a 8:31-34 8:31-36 8:31-41a 8:31-59 8:32 8:32-36 8:32b 8:32b-36 8:33 8:34 8:34-36 8:35 8:35-36 8:36 8:37 8:37-40 8:37-41a 8:39 8:59 10:28-29 10:31-39 12:34 13:16 14:2 15:15 15:20

61 61 5 61 15 3 36 5-6 4 4, 15 4 3-13 xii-xiii, 1-17 3-4, 16 3 2, 17 14 5-6, 8 5 3, 5-7, 15 6, 8, 13, 16 13, 15 13-17 9 3-13, 16 8 15, 17 3, 13 3 3 75 3 14 14 15 14 14

Acts 13:46 18:6

29 29

20:17-38 23:10

39 75

Romans 1:3-4 1:9 1:13 4 4:20 5:10 5:29 5:32 6:18-22 7:1-6 8:2 8:14-17 8:17 8:21 8:30-31 9:2-3 9-11 9:7 11:11 11:25-26 11:26 14:23 15:7

x 61 61 82 17 72 61 61 61 2 2 2 13 13 2 71 ix 18-19 17 29 18 x, 31-32 72 82

1 Corinthians 1:8 1:9 2:13 6:12 8:9 9:1 9:4-6 9:12 9:18-19 10:6 10:23 10:29

x 82 61 82 2 2 2 2 2 2 82 2 2

The Attitude of Early-Christians toward Unbelievers and Semi-Believers 15:8

ix

2 Corinthians 1:19

x 61

Galatians 1:13 1:16 2:4 2:12 3:7 3:28 4:7 4:22-31 5:1 5:13 6:2

x ix ix 2 x 17 9 13 2 2 2 2

Ephesians 3:5 5:27

47 85

Philippians 2:12 4:3

x 81 82

1 Thessalonians 4:5 4:8 4:13

x 82 82 82

2 3 3-19 4

Philemon

x

Hebrews 1:9 3:5-6 5:6 5:10 6:20 7:11 7:14

xi 82 52 63 63 63 63 59

5 5-7 7 8

7:17 8:6-7 12:2

63 xi xi

James 1:6 1:27 3:6

72 86 80

1 Peter 1:17 1:19 3:2

81 59 81

2 Peter 2:13 3:14

85, 87 86

1 John 2:17

14-15

2 John 2

15

Jude

9 10 11 12 12b-13

105

xi, xvi-xvii, 6688 66 66-67 66 xvi, 66-67, 70, 72 66 70 84 xvi, 66-67, 70, 84 67, 78 66-67, 71 70 66, 86 70

Index of Ancient Sources

106 13 14-15 16 17 18 19 20

66, 73 67 66, 72 66 66 66, 70, 72 66

20-21 22-23 23 23a 24 24-25

67 66-88 73, 78, 84 75 66, 72 67

Apocrypha and Septuagint 1 Esdras (3 Ezra) 4:38 14 Tobit 1:7 S 4 6:8 S 6:18 14

52 39 14 74 39

1 Maccabees 2:49-70

39

2 Maccabees 11:18

71

Wisdom of Solomon 2:18 52 9:6 47 Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) 4:10 52 7:30 52 8:3 79 8:10 79 17:30 47 23:16 80 28:22-23 79 40:30 80 42:23 14 44:11 14 51:3-4 79

Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Assumption of Moses 78 1 Enoch 1:9

67

Joseph and Aseneth 6:2 52 6:6 52 12:8 75 12:10 75

13:10 21:3

52 52

Jubilees 22:1-23:8 31:12 31:13-17 31:18-20 36:1-18

46, 53 39 53 53 53 39

The Attitude of Early-Christians toward Unbelievers and Semi-Believers Liber antiquitatum biblicarum (Pseudo-Philo) 19 39 23-24 39 33 39 Life of Adam and Eve 15-30 39 Letter of Aristeas 95 81 4 Maccabees 18:14-15

79

Psalms of Solomon 13:9 52 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs xi, xiii-xvi, 1837, 38-65 Testament of Asher 44, 49 1:3 48 2:7 86 4:5 45 6:1 45 6:3 45 7:2-3 49 7:3 25, 30 7:4 32, 44 7:5 27, 45, 49 7:5-7 49 7:6 28 7:7 31 Testament of Benjamin 43-44 3-6 44-45 3:1 34, 45, 47 3:1-6 43 3:3 35, 47 3:8 25, 30, 43, 58 4:2-5 45

107

5:5 43 7-8 33 9 33 9:1-2 49 9:2 25, 31, 61 9:3 27, 33, 49 9:4 29 10 29 10:3 33, 45 10:4 44 10:4-5 40 10:5 25, 45 10:6-8 30 10:6-10 64 10:7 25, 34 10:8 27, 29 10:10 29, 34, 47 10:11 31 11:2 29 Testament of Dan 44 5:1 45, 82 5:3 34, 46-47 5:4 53-54 5:4-9 49 5:6-7 53, 55 5:7-8 55-56 5:10 25, 53, 58 5:10-13 61 5:12 30 5:13 28, 31, 34 6:1 33-34, 47 6:4 31 6:6 27-28, 33, 49 6:7 25, 30 6:8-10 33 6:9 25, 33-34, 44 6:10 45 7:3 45 Testament of Gad 44 3:1-2 45 3:2 34, 47

108 4:2 4:7 5:4-5 6:1 6:3 7:7 8:1

Index of Ancient Sources

34, 45, 47 45 34, 47 34, 47 34, 47 34, 47 25, 30, 32, 44, 57 8:1-2 53 8:2 49 Testament of Issachar 44 4:6 45 5:1 45 5:1-2 46 5:2 34 5:7 53 5:7-8 53-54 6 49 6:1 45 7:6 34 Testament of Joseph 43-44 2:2 79 2:5 48 5:4 48 11:1 34, 45, 47 17:2 34, 47 18:1 ` 45 19 25 19:3 58-59 19:6 25, 30, 32, 45, 53, 58-59 Testament of Judah 44 13:1 45 13:7 45 17:2-3 55 17:3 53 18:1 49, 55 18:3 45 18:6 45 21:1-6 53 21:2-4 53

22:2 22:3 23 23:1-2 23:5 24 24:1 24:1-6 24:2 24:3 25 26:1 Testament of Levi

25, 30, 58 25, 58 49 55 45 61-62 25, 34, 58 25 63 52 30, 64 45 xv, 32-33, 4546, 49 1:1 39 2:3 add. MS e, l. 11 51 2:3 add. MS e, l. 17 51 2:4 48 2:10 51-52 2:11 25, 58 3:10-4:1 48 4:2 51-52, 60 4:4 25-26, 49-50, 58, 60 4:5 44 5:2 52, 58 5:2 add. MS e 51 8 50 8:14 25, 58, 63 8:15 61 9 45-46 10 49 10:2 25-26, 49-50 10:3-4 28 11-13 46 13 33 13:1 34, 47 13:1-4 45 13:9 43 14 26, 33 14-15 49

The Attitude of Early-Christians toward Unbelievers and Semi-Believers 14:1 14:1-2 14:1-4 14:2 14:4 14:5-8 14:6-7 15:1 16 16:1-2 16:3

28 50 26, 49 25 45, 50 55 45 28 26, 49 26, 55 26, 33, 36, 4950 16:4-5 28 16:5 30-31 17:2 52 18 33, 61-63 18:1 58 18:1-14 25 18:2-4 62 18:6-7 62-63 18:8 52, 58, 63 18:9 27-28 18:10-11 62 18:12-13 63 18:14 30 19:1 33 19:1-2 45 Testament of Naphtali 44 1:10 6 2:6 45 3:2 45 4:1-3 49 4:4-5 49 4:5 25, 34, 60 5-6 53 8:2 32, 44, 53

109

8:2-3 58 8:3 25, 30 8:7 45 8:10 45 Testament of Reuben 44 3:8 45 4:7 48 4:8-10 43 6:5-7 53 6:8 22, 53, 58 6:9 34, 47 6:10 56 6:10-12 53 6:12 25 Testament of Simeon 44 4:3-7 43 4:7 34, 47 5:1 43 5:4-6 53 6:5 25 6:7 25, 30 7:1-2 25, 32, 53, 57 7:2 25, 30, 59 7:3 44 Testament of Zebulun 44, 49 5:1 45 8:2 60 8:4-5 43 8:5 34, 47 9:5-7 49 9:7-8 48 9:8 25, 61 9:9 27-28, 49 10:2 30, 45, 64 10:5 34, 47

Index of Ancient Sources

110

Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Texts Aramaic Levi Document 3:10 51 3:14 51 3:16 51 3:18 51

45-46

Philo De Abrahamo 38 251

6 6

De somniis 1.220-25 2.181

De agricultura 59

6

De specialibus legibus 1.242 52

De decalogo 49 173

80 80

De virtutibus 189 195

De ebrietate 58

6

Legatio ad Gaium 332 6

De Iosepho 32 106

85 6

De migratione Abrahami 45 14 67 6 De sobrietate 55 56-57

14 6

85 80

12 12

Quis rerum divinarum heres sit 71 75 Quod deterius potiori insidari soleat 62 52 Quod omnis probus liber sit 119 6 123 6 149 6

The Attitude of Early-Christians toward Unbelievers and Semi-Believers

Josephus Bellum judaicum 7.323-24 7-8

Apostolic Fathers Barnabas 2:2 2:6 4:1 4:10 11:11 19:2 19:11

xi 81 36 82 82 81 82 82

1 Clement 19:1 36:1 51:2 59:4 61:2 61:3 64:1

81 59 81 74 47 59 59, 81

2 Clement 1:7

74

Didache 4:12

82

Diognetus 7:4

59

Ignatius To the Philadelphians 9:1 59 To the Romans 7:2 80 To the Trallians 2:3 80 Polycarp To the Philippians 2:1 81 6:3 81 Shepherd of Hermas Mandates 6.1.1 81 7.1-5 81 12.1.1 82 Similitudes 9.6.4 86 9.8.7 86 9.26.2 86 Visions 2.1.4 75 4.3.5 86

Nag Hammadi Codices Gospel of Philip 2 14

111

Index of Ancient Sources

112

New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Acts of Andrew 1 74

Apocalypse of Peter 30 86

Acts of John 42

75

Apostolic Constitutions 7.26.3 59 8.5.4 52

Acts of Philip 112

75

Acts of Thomas 38 48 109 111

75 36 83 83

Hymn of the Pearl 29 83 62-63 83 Pseudo-Clementine Homilies 1.19 61 1.20.6 72 2.40.3 72

Classical and Ancient Christian Writings Anecdota Graeco-Byzantina (ed. Vassiliev) 58-59 60 58-72 60 66 60 Athanasius (PseudoAthanasius) Quaestiones ad Antiochum 137.9 63 Athenagoras Legatio pro Christianis 21.2 75 Clement of Alexandria Protrepticus 1 59 10 52

Dio Chrysostom Orationes 15 10 15:2-3 10-11 15:29-31 11 15:31-32 6 Epictetus Dissertationes 2.1.22 2.4.5 4:1 4.1.7-10 4.1.152-58

9 14 9 9-10 10

Herodotus Historiae 1.45.3

71

The Attitude of Early-Christians toward Unbelievers and Semi-Believers Hippolytus Commentarium in Danielem 1.12 60 De benedictione Mosis 313 59 De benedictionibus Isaaci et Jacobi 12 (122) 59-60 14 (161) 28 26 (276) 28 Irenaeus Adversus haereses, fragment 17 59 Justin Dialogus cum Tryphone 19-20, 31, 35 11.2 36 11.4 36 12.3 36 26.1 29-30 34.1 36 34.2 59 36.1 59 43.1 36 52.4 29 69.7 36 95.3 31 96.1 59 96.3 31 105.1-2 61 108.2 36 109.1 29 110.6 86 115-16 79, 86 116.1-3 86 116.2 79-80 117.5 28 142.2 31

113

Origen Commentarium in evangelium Matthaei 12.28 59 Dialogus cum Heraclide 1.14-15 59 2.11 59 Fragmenta ex commentariis in evangelium Matthaei 342 (Matt 16:1) 63 Homiliae in Lucam 13 59 Plato Leges 697D

71

xi, Plutarch Cato Minor 23.2 (Vit. par. 770) 75 Comparatio Agesilai et Pompeii 1.4 (Vit. par. 662) 75-76 Crassus 11.4 (Vit. par. 549) 75 Demetrius 7.3 (Vit. par. 891) 75-76 Sulla 22.4 (Vit. par. 466) 14 Seneca Epistulae morales ad Lucilium 44.3-6 11 Sentences of Sextus 449

84

Thucydides Historiae 1.85.2

71