Non-Retaliation in Early Jewish and New Testament Texts: Ethical Themes in Social Contexts 9781474266253, 9781474223805, 9781474230353

Citation preview

This book began as a dissertation at Princeton Theological Seminary. The investigation was originally focused, under the direction of Professor Paul W. Meyer, on problems in the interpretation of the theme of non-retaliation in Paul's letters. In particular, I was seeking to challenge the common tendency to interpret Paul's exhortation solely in the light of (or as an expression of) the teachings of Jesus and in opposition to contemporaneous Jewish ethical wisdom. The investigation quickly broadened in scope to encompass non-retaliatory ethics in both early Judaism and the New Testament, and following the retirement of Professor Meyer, my research was directed by Professor James H. Charlesworth. To preclude the making of an excessively lengthy study, while maintaining a thorough treatment of the sources, I was forced to leave out discussions of non-retaliatory themes in the Hebrew Bible, in Graeco-Roman popular philosophy and in the rabbinic tradition. My particular contribution lies in the attention given to contextual factors-literary and social-in the interpretation and comparison of the theme of non-retaliation in the documents of early Judaism and the New Testament. I am especially grateful to Professor Charlesworth for his critical insights, helpful suggestions and encouragement to prepare this monograph for publication. I am also indebted to Professors Martinus de Boer and Joel Marcus for their incisive comments on earlier drafts. Most significant among those who have encouraged me in the course of my research are my good friends Dan and Mary Classen Born and my wife Wendy Kroeker. My hope, ultimately, is that the wisdom found in these ancient writings can provide inspiration to us as we reflect on the questions of responding to hostility, abuse or oppression. While the call to nonretaliation might imply the perpetuation of current structures of power imbalances, the pragmatic virtue of necessity for the under-

10

Non-Retaliation in Early Jewish and New Testament Texts

dogs, or the pattern of masochism, might it not also be, in the appropriate context, and as it was for some ancient sages, a protest intended to set things right?

INTRODUCTION

What constitutes the proper response to injury that one or one's community has suffered? Are there alternatives besides that of retaliationof responding in kind? What are the proper means of pursuing vindication or reconciliation? These are among the questions in which sages and teachers within the early Jewish and nascent Christian traditions were engaged. In both traditions we find numerous and various calls, both explicit and implicit, to desist from retaliation. The purpose of this study is to investigate the varieties of these prohibitions against retaliation in texts which emerged between the years c. 200 BCE and 100 CE. What sorts of responses are proscribed or eiijoined? On what basis are they exhorted? For what sort of injury? In what contexts? And to what end? That is, what is the 'ethic of non-retaliation' expressed by a given author, document or community? For the purpose of this study, 'ethic of non-retaliation' denotes the coherence fundamental to non-retaliatory exhortations and themes, particularly as regards their various explications, ideological framework, warrants, motivations/goals and social applications. Numerous issues in the scholarly study of the ethics of non-retaliation in early Judaism and earliest Christianity remain the subject of debate, providing the particular occasion for the present investigation. Issues Raised in Recent Research

A review of the current debate regarding the character of non-retaliation in early Judaism and in the New Testament can begin with K. Stendahl's provocative article of 1962, in which he compares the non-retaliatory ethics of the Qumran community, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and Paul.' Stendahl's thesis is that Paul's ethic is best understood in the light of an apocalyptic perspective on non1. K. Stendahl, 'Hate, Non-retaliation, and Love: 1QS x,17-20 and Rom. 12:19-21', HTR 55 (1962), pp. 337-55.

16

Non-Retaliation in Early Jewish and New Testament Texts

retaliation and love such as is evident at Qumran, in contrast to a Wisdom approach as represented by the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. At Qumran non-retaliation and kind deeds to opponents are not a type of love, but are 'grounded in the eschatological intensity of the "eternal hatred toward the men of perdition" (1QS ix, 21f.)' (p. 343). Hatred for enemies or the impious is based on the hatred which God has for them, who are storing up God's wrath against themselves (Deut. 32). Non-retaliation is based on the sovereignty of God and the community's eschatological intensity: The day of vengeance is close at hand. In such a situation one can afford to practice non-retaliation toward the enemies.. . With the Day of Vengeance at hand the proper and reasonable attitude is to forgo one's own vengeance and to leave vengeance to God. Why walk around with a little shotgun when the atomic blast is imminent? (pp. 344-45).

Good deeds do not have reconciliation as their goal, but are to promote the appearance of being obedient, subdued and peaceful. Moreover, good deeds toward opponents both express a concealed hatred and contribute to the enemies' culpability in the coming day of wrath. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (esp. T. Benj. 4-5; T . Gad. 6-7), on the other hand, has 'generalized the pattern of brotherly ethics'. Its perspective is grounded in a principle of love, recognizes the positive and reconciling effects of kind deeds and love to opponents, commends 'prayer for the one who seeks to harm [the righteous]' (T. Jos. 18.2), and encourages leaving 'ultimate recourse.. .to the vengeance of God' in a spirit of forgiveness, not of eternal hatred (T. Gad. 6.7; p. 350). Here, however, the injunctions are 'primarily and immediately applied to life in the community', and reflect 'the sound, relaxed and sensitive climate of Wisdom' in which no sharp distinction is drawn between the elect and the sons of perdition (p. 351). Stendahl then goes on to argue that Rom. 12.17-20 is best understood in the light of the apocalyptic perspective on non-retaliation and love evident at Qumran. Trying 'to refute some of the support for having Paul say what appears more in accordance with what we would hail as Christian ethics', he asserts that Paul's exhortation is similar to that at Qumran in two respects. First, non-retaliation in both is motivated by deference to God's impending judgment and is not deduced

Introduction

17

from a principle of love. Neither the Qumran writings nor Paul speak of love for the enemy, which must be clearly distinguished from the notion of 'non-retaliation toward God's enemies'. The issue is conduct when conflict with unrighteous opponents is unavoidable.' Secondly, doing good does not have the goal of positively influencing the persecutor toward reconciliation or change. Rather, the purpose is to add to the measure of the opponents' sins ('heap coals of fire'), which are stored against them for the day of vengeance (Deut. 32). Stendahl suggests further, although without extensive elaboration, that certain texts from the Gospels as well (Mt. 5.25, 39, 44-48; 7.1) should be interpreted in terms of the apocalyptic perspective of defemng justice to God (p. 355). With regard to the ethics of non-retaliation in early Judaism, Stendahl's article raises the following questions. Is there a distinction in early Judaism between apocalyptic and Wisdom outlooks in respect to non-retaliation? Can the distinction be drawn as sharply as in Stendahl's interpretation? Is his characterization of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs as expressing the 'relaxed' climate of Wisdom adequate? To what extent is the ethic of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs apocalyptically conditioned or motivated? Does Stendahl take enough account of his own admission that in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs non-retaliation and love are 'primarily and immediately applied to life in the community' (p. 350). whereas in 1QS 10.17-20 non-retaliation is applied to relationships with impious outsiders? Other studies have also contributed to an understanding of the theme of responding to enemies in early Judaism. In the study of , ~ non-retaliatory ethics in early Judaism are primarily the J. P i ~ e r the foil against which he places the trajectory of a distinctively Christian ethic of loving enemies. Piper finds that the specific exhortation to non-retaliation (pfi dnFo6t66pa1 K ~ K &~ VVZ ~~aicoii)was a 'common proverb' in Judaism within and outside of Palestine. Early Jewish 2. According to Stendahl ('Non-retaliation', p. 351), the sharp line between the elect and the impious, and the critical eschatological situation make the 'margin of repentance' (as in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs) a 'luxury' no longer affordable. 3. J. Piper, 'Love Your Enemies': Jesus' Love Command in the Synoptic Gospels and in the Early Christian Paraenesis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979).

18

Non-Retaliation in Early Jewish and New Testament Texts

texts, however, only contain the 'negative' prohibition of non-retaliation, whereas early Christian texts always emphasize the accompanying 'positive counterpart'. These counterparts, which come in such varied forms as 'to bless' and 'to do good' (e.g. Rom. 12.14, 17; 1 Thess. 5.15), are elaborations specifically of the love command of Jesus. The questions which Piper's study raises are whether or not early Judaism indeed exhibits only the prohibition against retaliation apart from positive exhortations, and whether or not the distinctiveness of the Christian exhortation can be understood on that basis. The most comprehensive citation of texts relating to non-retaliation in early Judaism appears in A. Nissen's Gott und der Nachste: Untersuchungen zum Doppelgebot der Liebe.4 Nissen uses the ethic of love as his point of departure for comparing Jesus, that is, Christianity, with Judaism. The focal issue identified is the universality and unconditionality versus the limitation of the love ethic. The value of this work is in the comprehensive citation of sources in systematic, topical outline. But herein is also its major weakness. It lines up excerpts without significant attention to historical, social or literary contexts, and tends to minimize the variation in favor of a systematic presentation. The result is a systematic ethics of Judaism which can be compared as a whole to Christianity. Besides Nissen's extensive citation of sources on the topic of behavior among Mitmenschen, two major contributions of this study ~ S for the present investigation can be noted. First, Nissen O ~ S ~ Nthat the commandments of Lev. 19.17-18a, on the one hand, and 19.18b, on the other, are kept distinct throughout the early Jewish sources. In other words, the command to love one's neighbor is treated separately from prohibitions against hate, anger and revenge: v. 18b stands as a new, independent commandment alongside the preceding one and consequently does not appear as the positive alternative of the prohibition pronounced in v. 18a. I am not aware of any counterexample from late Jewish literature (p. 288, n. 862).

Thus Nissen treats the topics of love of neighbors, on the one hand, and of conduct in relation to enemies, on the other, in two separate sections. Secondly, in discussing proper behavior in relation to enemies, 4. A. Nissen, Gott und der Niichste: Untersuchungen zum Doppelgebot der Liebe (WUNT, 15; Tiibingen: Mohr, 1974). esp. pp. 279-329.

Introduction

19

Nissen argues that two fundamentally different ethical attitudes apply, depending on whether the issue is personal enmity or 'religiousethically' motivated enmity. The latter category includes relations with 'sinners' or the enemies of Israel and God (pp. 304-29). Only in the former case does the prohibition against revenge or retaliation occur in early Judaism. Just as the love command is not universal but limited, so also the exhortations to non-retaliation and related exhortations are contingent, limited to relationships with fellow Jews and to certain situations. Such exhortations only apply when the law has not been broken and thus never entail Rechtsverzicht, the renunciation of recourse to legal justice and compensation. Moreover, the exhortations do not apply to situations where there is life-threatening violence. In Nissen's view non-retaliation is never extended to the Gentiles or to the political sphere of relations with foreign enemies. The questions which arise are whether or not Nissen's systematic interpretation takes proper account of the variation in early Judaism and whether or not the two distinctionsjust outlined can be sustained. Finally, W. Klassen's Love of Enemies: The Way to Peace5 also offers a useful discussion of texts related to the theme of non-retaliation. Against Piper and Nissen, Klassen argues for a more positive assessment of early Judaism: Our analysis of the sources makes it clear that the love commandment as Jesus understood it was in fact widely held in Judaism (p. 43). .. In all [pertinent] sources-historical, ethical, and the prophetic-a strong position arises which binds together the themes of love toward the enemy and the pursuit of peace (p. 48). ..The sources recognize the breadth of the love commandment. No limits are imposed on the definition of 'enemy'. The enemy can refer to anyone, even a non-Israelite (p. 49).

While Klassen is to be lauded for attempting to place the ethics of early Judaism in a positive light and for rejecting any hint of Christian superiority, the question arises whether at times he finds more peace, non-violence and love of enemies than the sources warrant. T. Yoder Neufeld in a recent review6 observes, 5.

W. Klassen, Love of Enemies: The Way to Peace (Philadelphia: Fortress

Press, 1984). See also his 'The Novel Element in the Love Command of Jesus', in W. Klassen (ed.), The New Way of Jesus (Newton, KS: Faith & Life Press, 1980). pp. 100-14. 6. T. Yoder Neufeld, review of W. Klassen, Love of Enemies, Conrad Grebel, Review 3 (1985), p. 320.

20

Non-Retaliation in Early Jewish and New Testament Texts 'love your enemies' is given the status of a catch-all slogan, the effect of which is to include under the same rubric nonretaliatory responses emerging from a variety of motivations.. .Apparently not to retaliate in a particular instance becomes in Klassen's view simply an instance of love for enemies.

The ensuing study will therefore critically examine Klassen's more favorable estimate of the early Jewish sources on non-retaliation and related themes. Turning to the Jesus tradition on love of enemies, as represented especially by Mt. 5.38-48 and Lk. 6.27-36, we find that classical treatments have tended to focus on the question of the distinctiveness . ~ present of Jesus' teachings in relation to that of early J ~ d a i s m The study will give primary attention, however, to the following questions raised in recent research. First, what layers of tradition can be identified?' Secondly, what are the various social applications of the exhortation at these different levels of tradition? Most interpreters have concluded that the basic elements of the Gospel texts derive from authentic teachings of Jesus? These scholars do not agree, however, 7. See, e.g., P. Fiebig, 'Jesu Worte iiber die Feindesliebe im Zusammenhang mit den wichtigsten rabbinischen Parallelen erllutert', TSK 91 (1918). pp. 30-64; G. Friedlander, The Jewish Sources of the Sermon on the Mount (New York: Bloch, 1911; repr. edn including a 'Prolegomenon' by S. Zeitlin; New York: Ktav, 1969): Zeitlin (pp. ix-xxxv) observes that the background for Jesus' command is in Judaism, though it goes beyond Jewish sayings; if Jesus' saying is superior, Jewish sayings are more realistic; C.G. Montefiore, Some Elements of the Religious Teachings of Jesus, according to the Synoptic Gospels (London: Macmillan, 1910). pp. 57-58, 112-13: he argues that Jesus' command to love enemies is 'on the lines of a few highest rabbinic utterances, but that it goes beyond them in a sort of intense inwardness, in emotional fewour, and in the eager passion of genius'; idem, Rabbinic Literature and Gospel Teachings (London: Macmillan, 1930), pp. 50-1 11: in its universality, Jesus' command to love enemies is original (p. 59). For a recent discussion of the distinctiveness of Jesus' teaching, see esp. Klassen, 'Novel Element', pp. 100- 14. 8. E.g. were the exhortations on loving enemies (Mt. 5.44-48 and par.) and on non-retaliation(Mt. 5.38-43 and par.) originally unrelated? See, e.g., R.A. Guelich, 'The Antitheses of Matthew V.21-48: Traditional andlor Redactional?', NTS 22 (1975-76). pp. 447-50. 9. E.g. W. Bauer, 'Das Gebot der Feindesliebe und die alten Christen', ZTK 27 (1917), pp. 37-54; R. Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), p. 105; D. Liihrmann, 'Liebet eure Feinde', ZTK 69 (1972). p. 412, but Liihrmann does not think that Mt. 5.45-47 goes back to Jesus;

Introduction

21

with regard to the original social meaning of the exhortations. Some interpret the exhortations in terms of relations within the band of Jesus' follower^;'^ others interpret the exhortations primarily in terms of local socio-economic conflict;" and still others extend the horizon of application to a wider political context, so that the exhortations provide an alternative to the call of the Zealots to hate the Romans and to resist them violently.12 In opposition to all these scholars, however, J. Sauer has recently challenged the view that the Gospel material derives from authentic teachings of Jesus.I3 He argues that the earliest recoverable form of the tradition is secondary to the exhortation of Paul in Rom. 12.1421. The saying of Rom. 12.14 is the point of departure for the Synoptic tradition, which is elaborated further by the same kinds of tradition upon which Paul was dependent: the Old Testament Wisdom tradition, the ethics of Hellenistic Judaism, and themes in popular philosophy. A final question concerning the Jesus tradition is how the exhortations in Mt. 5.38-48 and Lk. 6.27-36 relate to the calls for judgment N. Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (New York: Harper & Row, 1967). pp. 148-49. See also W. Klassen, "'Love Your Enemies': Some Reflections on the Current State of Research', in W. Swartley (ed.), The Love of Enemy and Nonretaliarion in the New Testament (Louisville: WestminsterIJohn Knox Press, 1992). pp. 1-31. 10. E.g. Perrin, Rediscovering. 148-49; cf. G. Lohfink. 'Der ekklesiale Sitz im Leben der Aufforderung Jesu zum Gewaltverzicht (Mt 5,39b-42k.k 6,290'. TQ 162 (1982). pp. 236-53. 11. See esp. R. Horsley, 'Ethics and Exegesis: "Love Your Enemies" and the Doctrine of Non-Violence', JAAR 54 (1986). pp. 3-31; idem, Jesus and rhe Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987). pp. 255-73. 12. E.g. M. Hengel, Was Jesus a Revolutionist? (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971); idem, Victory Over Violence: Jesus and the Revolutionists (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1973); P. Hoffmann, Studien der Theologie der Logienquelle (Miinster: Aschendorff, 1975). p. 76; W. Schrage, The Ethics of rhe New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988). p. 76; Klassen, Love of Enemies, pp. 72-109. See also W. Wink, 'Neither Passivity nor Violence: Jesus' Third Way (Matt. 5.38-42 par.)', and D.J. Weaver, 'Transforming Nonresistance: From Lex Talionis to "Do not Resist the Evil One"', in Swartley (ed.), The Love of Enemy, pp. 32-71, 102-25; both highlight the positive ethical force of the sayings. 13. J. Sauer, 'Traditionsgeschichtliche Envagungen zu den synoptischen und paulinischen Aussagen iiber Feindesliebe und Wiedewergeltungsverzicht', ZNW 76 (1985). pp. 1-28.

22

Non-Retaliation in Early Jewish and New Testament Texts

against the opponents of the Jesus movement found elsewhere in the Gospels, and particularly at the Q-level of tradition.I4 Do these oracles of judgment indicate that the exhortations of Mt. 5.38-48 and Lk. 6.27-36 are to be understood in an apocalyptic framework of defemng judgment to God? Turning to the ethic of non-retaliation in Paul, we find debate regarding its character and its traditio-historical background. This debate centers on the interpretation of Rom. 12.14-21." The exhortations of Rom. 12.14, 17-21 consist of a series of paired contrasts, comprised of negative prohibitions balanced by positive prescriptions: do not curse/bless (v. 14); do not retaliatenive in peace (vv. 17-18); do not take vengeancelgive food and drink (vv. 19-20); do not be conquered/conquer through good (v. 21). In the wake of Stendahl's article the issue regarding the character of Paul's ethic can be expressed with the following alternatives. Should non-retaliation in Paul be understood in terms of a general love command, and more specifically love of enemies, or in terms of an apocalyptically grounded restraint motivated primarily by deference to God's impending judgment? Are kind deeds to the enemies of the church (vv. 20-21) to be interpreted as contributing to the enemies' repentance and reconciliation, or as the means to appease the church's abusers while contributing to the punishment stored against them in the day of wrath?16 The primary exegetical problem concerns the meaning of the motivational clauses in vv. 19 and 20. Two grounding reasons are offered. The first grounds the prohibition of vengeance (from Lev. 19.18a) and the coordinating call to leave room for wrath with the words of Deut. 32.35: 'for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will myself repay, says the Lord"' (v. 19b). The second grounds the command to display kind deeds (from Prov. 25.21) with the words of Prov. 2 5 . 2 2 ~'for by doing so you will heap coals of fire upon his 14. See, e.g., L. Schottroff, 'Sheep among Wolves: The Wandering Prophets of the Sayings-Source', in L. Schottroff and W. Stegemann, Jesus and the Hope of the Poor (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1986). pp. 50, 58. 15. For other relevant texts on non-retaliation, see 1 Thess. 5.13-15; 1 Cor. 4.12-13; 6.1-8; 13.3-4; 2 Cor. 2.5-10; Phil. 4.5; cf. Col. 3.12-15. 16. For these fundamental options, cf. W. Klassen, 'Vengeance in the Apocalypse of John', CBQ 28 (1966). p. 300, V.P. Furnish, The Love Command in the New Testament (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1972), pp. 107-108.

Introduction

23

head' (v. 20b). The meaning of 'heaping coals of fire' has confronted interpreters from the patristic period until today.17 In modern interpretation the majority view holds that the 'coals of fire' refer to the pangs of shame and guilt which lead to repentance.'' A few interpreters, however, argue for various forms of a 'harsher' interpretation which takes 'coals of fire' as a reference to eschatological ~engeance.'~ Integrally tied to the debate regarding the character and motivation of Paul's ethic of non-retaliation is the question regarding the relationship between Paul's exhortation and similar exhortations in his world. With which antecedent traditions does Paul display affinity or dependence in regard to this ethic? Some scholars suggest that Paul's exhortation to some extent depends on, or displays affinities to, the ethics of Graeco-Roman p h i l o ~ o p h y Attention .~~ has primarily focused, however, on the place 17. For the patristic interpretation, see C.E.B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1979). 11, pp. 648-49. 18. For an overview of various lines of interpretation, see esp. W. Klassen, 'Coals of Fire: Sign of Repentance or Revenge?', NTS 9 (1962163). pp. 339-41; idem, Love of Enemies, pp. 119-21. In his view, 'coals of fire' does not refer to any pain or punishment upon the enemy, whether at the time of the last judgment, or in the form of psychological anguish and guilt leading to repentance; rather heaping coals is a symbol of the desire to bring the feud to a resolution, following S. Morenz, 'Feurige Kohlen auf dem Haupt', TLZ 78 (1953). pp. 187-92. 19. E.g. H. Preisker, Das Ethos des Urchristentums (Giitersloh: Bertelsmann, 1949). p. 184; E. Stauffer, Die Botschaji Jesu: Damals und Heute (Bern: Francke Verlag, 1959), p. 133; Stendahl. 'Non-retaliation', pp. 337-55; C. Spicq, Agape in the New Testament (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1966). 11, pp. 207-208; M. Black, Romans (London: Oliphants, 1973). p. 157; Piper, Love Your Enemies, pp. 115-19. Some scholars find at least a secondary reference to eschatological vengeance; thus, A. Schlatter, Gottes Gerechtigkeit (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1935). p. 349; F. Lang, 'xcp', TDNT, VI, pp. 944-45; E. Synofzig, D i e Gerichts- und Vergeltungsaussagen bei Paulus: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977). pp. 48-49. 0. Merk (Handeln aus Glauben: Die Motivierung der paulinischen Ethik [Marburg: Elwert, 19681, p. 161) sees Prov. 25.21 as a 'wohl ironisch gemeinte Wort'. Patristic interpreters who take this view (e.g. Chrysostom) add that while doing good to enemies will cause their punishment to be greater, one should not do good to the enemy with this intention; see Cranfield, Romans, 11, pp. 648-49. 20. E.g. F.-J. Ortkemper, Leben aus dem Glauben: Christliche Grundhaltungen nach Rom 12-13 (Minster: Aschendorff, 1980), pp. 218-20; Klassen. Love of Enemies, pp. 115-16, 120; Sauer, 'Feindesliebe', pp. 20-28. These scholars imply

24

Non-Retaliation in Early Jewish and New Testament Texts

of Paul's ethic within early Judaism and early Christianity. On the one hand, most scholars see close affinities between Paul's exhortation and the Synoptic Gospels, and sharp differences between Paul and early Jewish ethical traditions. Among those who take this position, some scholars, including C.H. Dodd, hold that Rom. 12.14, 17-21 is the earliest commentary on Jesus' teaching on loving enemies (Mt. 5.38-48; Lk. 6.27-36).21 Other scholars, most recently J. Piper, argue that the teaching of Jesus was mediated to Paul especially through a paraenetic tradition on enemy love (cf. 1 Thess. 5.15; 1 Pet. 3.9).22The distinctiveness of the Christian ethic is usually seen or suggest limited dependence on the Graeco-Roman tradition. Emphasizing considerable dependence is A.J. Malherbe, Paul and the Popular Philosophers (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989). Emphasizing the discontinuities between Paul's exhortation and Graeco-Roman philosophy are J.N. Sevenster, Paul and Seneca (NovTSup, 5; Leiden: Brill, 1961), pp. 183-85; Piper, Love your Enemies, pp. 2027. For a listing or discussion of related Graeco-Roman ethical texts, see also A. Dihle, Die goldene Regel: Eine Einfiihrung in die Geschichte der antiken und friihchristlichen Vulgarethik (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962); L. Schottroff. 'Non-violence and the Love of one's Enemies', in L. Schottroff et al., Essays on the Love Commandment (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978). pp. 15-22. For older works on love of enemies in the Greek tradition, see esp. M. Waldmann, Die Feindesliebe in der antiken Welt und im Christentum (Vienna: Mayer, 1902). pp. 19-41; H. Haas, Idee und Ideal der Feindesliebe in der ausserchristlichen Welt (Leipzig: University of Leipzig, 1927). 21. E.g. in older literature, F. Kattenbusch, ' ~ b e rFeindesliebe im Sinn des Christentums', TSK 89 (1916). pp. 23; A. Juncker, Die Ethik des Apostels Paulus (Halle: M . Niemeyer, 1919). 11, pp. 230-31. Similarly assuming some kind of direct dependence on Jesus' teachings are C.H. Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (London: Fontana, 8th edn, 1959). pp. 200-201; W.D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 4th edn, 1980). p. 138. 22. See esp. Piper, Love your Enemies, pp. 5-18, 63-64, who seeks to demonstrate the hypothesis of L. Goppelt 'that the paraenetic command of enemy love and the command of enemy love in the synoptics both rest on the words of Jesus' (p. 171); H. Schlier, Der Romerbrief (Freiburg: Herder. 1977). p. 379. Others who claim Paul was here dependent on a catechetical tradition which contains clear 'echoes' or 'reminiscences' of the Gospel tradition or dominical logia, without going so far as Dodd and Davies, are C. K. Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans (New York: Harper & Row, 1957), p. 241; 0. Michel, Der Brief an die Romer (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 13th edn, 1966), p. 305; E. Kasemann, Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980). p. 347; Cranfield, Romans, 11, p. 640; Furnish, Love Command, pp. 61-2, 106; F. Neirynck. 'Paul and the Sayings of Jesus', in A. Vanhoye (ed.), L'ApBtre Paul (Louvain: Louvain

Introduction

25

either in its universal horizon (the Jewish ethic being limited to fellow Jews)23or in the emphasis on kind deeds as opposed to the 'negative' prohibition against retaliation which supposedly occurs in early Judaism without accompanying 'positive' exhortation^.^^ On the other hand, a few scholars dispute Paul's reliance on the Jesus tradition. A. Verhey, for instance, holds that the Pauline exhortation reflects a Christian paraenetic tradition of 'non-retaliation', as opposed to 'enemy love', which is essentially independent of the tradition of Jesus' words.25J. Sauer argues that Rom. 12.14-21 employs various traditions, whose sources include Old Testament Wisdom literature, Hellenistic Judaism and popular philosophy, and that the Synoptic passages represent a development of a tradition secondary to Pa~l.~"ther scholars simply emphasize the affinities with texts in early Judaism in addition to the discontinuities with the Jesus tradition on enemy love. H. Preisker, for instance, writes pejoratively of Paul and J~daisrn:~' Now there is a quite strange and puzzling note, when Paul grounds the commandment to love one's enemy (Rom. 12.20) in Prov. 25.22.. . Here a standpoint often advocated in Judaism encounters the early Christian attitude at its heart. No longer does the boundless, God-given University Press, 1986). pp. 265-321; D. Wenham, 'Paul's Use ot the Jesus Tradition: Three Samples', in D. Wenham (ed.), The Jesus Tradition outside the Gospels (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985). pp. 7-37; U. Wilckens, Der Brief an die Romer (Ziirich: Benzinger Verlag, 1982). 111, pp. 22-23, who doubts whether Paul was aware that he was citing a dominical saying; similarly N. Walter, 'Paulus und die urchristliche Jesustradidon', NTS 31 (1985). p. 501; Schottroff, 'Nonviolence', p. 27. 23. E.g. Nissen, Gott und der Nuchste, pp. 314-16; Schlier, Romerbrief, pp. 374-75. S. Bartsra ('Kolen vuurs hoopen op iemands hoofd', Nieuw Theologisch Tijdrchrift 23 [1934], pp. 61-68) also stresses the radical break with Judaism. 24. E.g. Piper, Love Your Enemies, pp. 17, 63-64; Black, Romans, p. 156. 25. A. Verhey, The Great Reversal: Ethics and the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), p. 66. 26. Sauer, 'Feindesliebe', pp. 1-28. 27. Preisker, Das Ethos des Urchristentums, p. 184, author's translation. He adds that Gal. 6.10 and the 'if in Rom. 12.18 also display a sub-Christian attitude. Cf. the thesis that Paul restricts Jesus' universal love command: C.H. Ratschow, 'Agape, Nachstenliebe und Bruderliebe', ZST 21 (1950). pp. 160-82; H.W. Montefiore, 'Thou Shalt Love the Neighbor as Thyself. NovT 5 (1962), pp. 157-70, esp. 161.

26

Non-Retaliation in Early Jewish and New Testament Texts force of the obligation of I to Thou compel deeds of love; rather a clever mind and a narrow-minded revenge dictate an attitude which is supposed to look like love but is completely other than love. It is fully apparent that a wholly alien spirit has penetrated into Christian love.

E. Stauffer suggests that Rom. 12.14 can be paralleled in early Judaism as well as in New Testament texts and that 12.19 represents a major motif of Jewish martyr theology, having nothing to do with Jesus' command of enemy love. According to Stauffer, the exhortations on non-retaliation and blessing one's persecutors in early Christian teaching derive from reflection on the passion of Jesus, not from Jesus' teaching (cf. 1 Pet 2.23).28 Numerous questions remain, then, in regard to the interpretation of non-retaliatory ethics in early Judaism and in the New Testament. These questions provide the occasion for the present investigation of the sources.

Method and Definitions A major premise of the present study is that the exhortations or themes of non-retaliation must be examined not as isolated, atomistic units of tradition, but in the framework of their literary, social and motivational contexts. This approach must characterize both the interpretation of a given document, author or group, and the assessment of traditio-historical connections. The rationale for this procedure is the fact that the exhortations and motifs of non-retaliation have a variety of explications, motivations and social meanings. L. Schottroff in particular has observed that verbally identical formulations of prohibitions of vengeance-not only the notion of non-retaliation--can range so markedly in social meaning and function as to be hardly ~ o m p a r a b l e Schottroff .~~ illustratively identifies three attitudes or types of renunciation of revenge in the GraecoRoman world. First, there is non-retaliation as the ethic of the underdog, the 'man ) . dependent, especially a slave, must accept without gall' ( & ~ o h o ~The injustice and has no other recourse than to make a virtue of necessity, since it simply does not pay to avenge injustice. Here, prohibitions of retaliation are 'common sense rules for the little man'. In this case, the 28. Stauffer, Die Botschaft Jesu, p. 133. 29. Schottroff, 'Non-violence', pp. 16-22.

Introduction

27

non-retaliatory acceptance of injustice springs from a position of dependence or alienation, even though many such exhortations for the powerless reflect no awareness that it is precisely this powerlessness which plays a determinative role in their ideal behavior.30 Secondly, there is non-retaliation and kind deeds, especially clemency, as the ethic of the powerful, appropriate for superiors, rulers or emperors in relation to their subjects or defeated opponents. This ethic is motivated especially by the interest to preserve harmony in the family, body politic or empire. In contrast to non-retaliation as resignation to one's own powerlessness, here non-retaliation means the exercise of one's own power.31 Thirdly, Schottroff identifies an ethic of non-retaliation as the protest of the powerless. In antiquity one finds this model in the form of the ideal of the abused philosopher who refuses to retaliate. Based on the prototype of Socrates, the pattern as evident especially among Cynics is of an individual philosopher who is beaten or abused by society because of his disturbing teaching. The philospher, however, desists from retaliation, declaring himself to be a victim of injustice, in order to proclaim the rottenness of society.32 G. Mendenhall's study of the meaning of the root n p ~in Israel's history also compells us to be attentive to the various social applications of the notion of ' ~ e n g e a n c e ' .Mendenhall ~~ identifies three uses of D~I, which accord with the uses of the Greek ~ K ~ I K Eand ~ V the Latin vindicatio: (1) to avenge through socially sanctioned executive action by royal power; (2) to avenge or to litigate through judicial action; 30. Schottroff, 'Non-violence', pp. 17-18; see nn. 44-46 for references in Plato, Aristotle and Seneca. Schottroff includes here the Babylonian Counsels of Wisdom, 1 Pet. 2.18-25, and Col. 3.25. Paul disparages the Corinthians for succumbing to this ethic for slaves in following false teachers (2 Cor. 11.19-21). 3 1. Schottroff, 'Non-violence', pp. 18-20; see nn. 49-62 for references, especially to Seneca. In respect to early Judaism, Schottroff places Ep. Aris. 227 and Jos. Asen. 22-29 into this category (n. 63). 32. Schottroff, 'Non-violence', pp. 20-22, nn. 67-76. See, e.g., Epictetus, Discourses, 3.22.54, perhaps the only example of the explicit use of love to an enemy in Graeco-Roman philosophy: 'For this too is a very pleasant strand woven into the Cynic's pattern of life; he must needs be flogged like an ass, and while he is the men who flog him, as though he were the being flogged he must love (cp~h~iv) father or brother of them all' (LCL). 33. G. Mendenhall, The Tenth Generation (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973), ch. 3, 'The "Vengeance" of Yahweh', pp. 69-104.

28

Non-Retaliation in Early Jewish and New Testament Texts

and (3) to take revenge through self-help, that is, extra-legal selfredress.34 All of these are distinguished from defensive vindication, which takes place at the moment of the offending action. The former three actions are subsequent in time to the offense. In the light of Mendenhall's analysis, what is critical for our purposes is an analysis ~ V related terms3' particularly in of the meanings of Dpl, ~ K ~ I K Eand the context of prohibitions. In this connection, it is necessary now to explain further the use of the phrase 'ethic of non-retaliation' in this study. The term 'nonretaliation' has been chosen because, on the one hand, it implies a minimal common denominator of possible responses to injury, injustice or persecution, namely not responding in kind when someone is harmed by another, and, on the other hand, because it is open to further explication in terms of the various types of non-retaliatory responses which might be found. In other words, non-retaliation might also be explicated in terms of forgiveness, pursuing peace, loving enemies or other ethical themes, but it is not necessarily so explicated. Non-retaliation neither necessarily includes nor excludes such related ethical notions. These other notions do, however, imply some sort of non-retaliati~n.~~ The term 'ethic' is used in this study to denote the coherence of the non-retaliatory exhortations or themes which might be evident in a 34. Mendenhall's main argument is that the usage of clp> in Israel derives, not from the practice of the blood feud, but from the common practice in organized societies of executive vengeance by royal power, a role performed especially by Yahweh. Mendenhall is struck especially by the cross-cultural similarities in the usage of the terminology of 'vengeance' (The Tenth Generation, p. 77, n. 27). 35. The notions of executive or judicial vengeance are also expressed in Greek by a ~ term . drp6vmeal covers both terms denoting 'punishment', e.g. ~ l p h ~ a eThe defensive and punitive action. Other terms for vengeance are expressed through the notion of 'retaliation' or 'repayment' (cf. Lat. retributio, retaliare): e.g. m31,a%, kl,(drv~)arro6r66va~. In Plato, Crito 49D, one finds, drvra6lxeiv. dtp6veaeat drv~l6pGv~a rarGq. 36. In the secondary literature one finds the following themes or descriptive terms in reference to responding to injury or to enemies: (a) non-retaliation (Wiedervergeltungsverzicht), (b) 'forgiving' an adversary, (c) love of enemies (Feindesliebe), (d) non-violence (Gewalrverzicht), (e) non-resistance, (f) passive or nonviolent resistance, (g) pacifism. (h) the rejection of legal justice and compensation/retribution (Rechtsverzicht). For a distinction and delineation among (a). (c), (d) and (e), see Horsley, 'Ethics and Exegesis', pp. 3-31.

Introduction

29

given document, author or group. This coherence includes the various explications, motivations and social applications of the exhortations or themes related to the notion of non-retaliation. In Paul, for instance, one finds the following exhortations related explictly or implicitly to the prohibition of non-retaliation (Rorn. 12.17~1,19a; 1 Thess. 5.15a): bless (1 Cor. 4.12; Rom. 12.14), pursue what is honorable in the sight of all (Rorn. 12.17b), do good (1 Thess. 5.15b; cf. Rom. 12.2021), pursue peace with all (Rorn. 12.18; cf. 1 Thess. 5.13; Col. 3.15), desist from litigation (1 Cor. 6.1-8), conciliate (1 Cor. 4.13; 2 Cor. 2.7), be forbearing (Phil. 4.5; 1 Thess. 5.14; cf. Col. 3.13), forgive (1 Cor. 13.4-5; cf. 2 Cor. 2.7; Col. 3.13) and possibly love (1 Cor. 13.3-4; Rom. 12.9; cf. 2 Cor 2.8; Col 3.14). In order to understand Paul's 'ethic', it will be necessary to investigate the coherence and possible distinctions among these exhortations in the light of the motivational structure of the exhortations, and in the light of the social application of the exhortations-that is, whether they are applied to external persecutors or internal opponents. The study of the non-retaliatory ethics in early Judaism and in the New Testament will thus be guided by the following questions. (1) What sorts of terms are used to express the theme of non-retaliation? What sorts of exhortations constitute the field of non-retaliatory themes in a given document, author or group? (2) What scriptural texts, themes or precedents are employed or have inspired the exhortations? (3) What motivations or warrants characterize or ground the exhortations? (4) What social applications do the exhortations have? In what general contexts or specific situations do the exhortations apply? Who are the hostile others in relation to whom the exhortations are applicable: neighbors, friends and members of the local, religious or ethnic community; or persecutors of the religious or political community? If the exhortations apply only to local neighborly relations, does the situation imply socially equal or socially unequal statuses? Do the exhortations apply to personal relationships only or also to situations in which there is life-threatening violence or in which the law has been broken? That is, is the offense litigious or non-litigious? (5) How are the abusers viewed: as friends, as personal adversaries or as sinners and the enemies of God? What hopes are expressed as to the eventual fate of the opponents: their reconciliation with the injured party or their punishment and demise? If the latter, how is the agency of divine vengeance anticipated? Or is there ambivalence on this point?

30

Non-Retaliation in Early Jewish and New Testament Texts Scope and Outline

The limitations of space will not permit the inclusion of separate in investigations of non-retaliatory ethics in the Hebrew script~res,~' Graeco-Roman philosophy3' and in rabbinic l i t e r a t ~ r e .These ~~ sources will be discussed only when they impinge on the interpretation of a specific document or author. The primary criterion used here to select documents for investigation is the presence of the themes of refusing to retaliate or to take vengeance, or of responding to opponents with kind deeds. These themes might appear as explicit exhortations or as general ethical ideals. 37. Non-retaliatory themes appear in a variety of genres. (1) In legal codes, see Lev. 19.17-18, 33-34; Deut. 10.18-19. Here non-retaliation is associated esp. with proper court procedure and not taking the law into one's own hands; see Lev. 19.15-16; Exod. 23.1-3, 6-8; cf. the lex talionis esp. as a rejection of vengeance through self-help, Exod. 21.22-24; Lev. 24.18-20; Deut. 19.4, 11-13, 21. The exhortation to help an enemy (Exod. 23.4-5) also occurs in the context of proper judicial procedure. (2) For the wisdom tradition. see Chapter 1. (3) In narrative traditions, see, e.g., 1 Sam. 24-25 (David); Gen. 50 (Joseph). On clemency toward defeated enemies in 2 Kgs 6.8-13, see Chapter 1, n. 18. (4) In the prophetic tradition, the pattern of non-retaliation and passive submission to suffering appears esp. in the servant songs of Isa. 50.4-1 1; 53.7, and is grounded in the defening of vindication and punishment (50.1 1) to Yahweh (cf. 49.1-6). Cf. also the theme of 'waiting' and the passive acceptance of suffering in Lam. 3.25-33, also based on trust in Yahweh's deliverance. (5) The Psalms also express non-retaliatory themes. Protestations of innocence include non-retaliatory and noble conduct in relation to abusers (7.3; 35.12; 109.4-5 cf. Job 31.29-30). The prayers for disaster upon one's enemies (e.g. 17.14; 35.8-10.22-28; 69.19) may be an expression of the notion of deferring vengeance to God and may be the flip side of a refusal to take vengeance personally. Note also the stance of 'waiting' and 'trust' instead of wrath (37.7-9, 34; cf. 69.3) as the appropriate response to abuse. Cf. the call to 'be still' (46.10) and not to trust in weapons on the basis of Yahweh's 'exclusive prerogative' for deliverance and vengeance; see B.C. Ollenburger, Zion, the City of the Great King (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987). 38. See Introduction, n. 13. 39. For non-retaliatory thcmes in rabbinic literature, see Fiebig, 'Jesu Worte', pp. 30-64; Str-B, I, pp. 337-86; 111, pp. 297-303; Friedlander, The Jewish Sources; Montefiore, Rabbinic Judaism; D. Philipson, 'Enemy. Treatment of an', JewEnc V, pp. 159-60; G.F. Moore, Judaism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927), 11, pp. 195-97; Nissen, Gott und der Nachste, pp. 279329; for further references to older German treatments, see Klassen, Love of Enemies, p. 67 n. 2.

Introduction

31

The constraints of space will not permit an investigation of other documents that might express an implicit non-retaliatory ethic, either by focusing on the direct intervention by God against one's adversaries, by promoting the deferment of judgment to God, or by counselling the stance of passivity or endurance in relation to abusers. Thus the present study will not include an examination of the examples of 'nonviolent resistance' in J o s e p h ~ snor ~ ~an assessment of the interpretation that certain apocalyptic writings express the ideal of 'passive resistance' or 'pacifism' in relation to political oppressor^.^' Likewise, certain New Testament writings which might imply a non-retaliatory ethic in exhortations to 'endurance' will also not be treated here.42 40. See Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence, esp. Part 11: 'Popular Jewish Nonviolent Resistance', pp. 59-145. 4 1. See my article, '"Pacifism" and "Passive Resistance" in Apocalyptic Writing', in J.H. Charlesworth and C. Evans (eds.), The Pseudepigrapha and Biblical Interpretation (SSEJC, 2; JSPSup; Sheffield: JSOT Press, forthcoming). The pacifist interpretation has been argued for Daniel, Testament of Moses, 2 Baruch and Revelation. See esp. J.J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Vision of the Book of Daniel (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977). pp. 191-222; A. Yarbro Collins, 'The Political Perspective of the Revelation to John', JBL 96 (1977), pp. 241-56; F.J. Murphy, '2 Baruch and the Romans', JBL 104 (1985). pp. 663-69. The best argument can be made in the case of T.Mos. 9-10, where martydom seems to be chosen deliberately as the proper stance toward oppressors and the very means by which vengeance against persecutors might he effected, since martyrdom arouses God's wrath (Deut. 32.34-43). See J. Licht, 'Taxo, or the Apocalyptic Doctrine of Vengeance', JJS 12 (1961). pp. 95-103; D.M. Rhoads, 'The Assumption of Moses and Jewish History: 4 BC-AD 48', in G. Nickelsburg (ed.), Studies on the Testament of Moses (Cambridge, MA: Scholars Press, 1973). pp. 56-57. The evidence for Daniel, however, is rather equivocal; see Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence. p. 64. And while Murphy's claim that '2 Baruch deliberately urged pacifism' seems to go beyond the evidence, it is apparent that the author emphasized 'that punishment was entirely the business of God' (2 Bar. 19.3-4; 52.6-7; 83.4-8). The emphasis on the direct intervention by God or his messiah against oppressors, including rhetoric against weapons of war, is also evidcnt in Pss. Sol. 17; 4 Ezra 11-13; Sib. Or. 3.669-701, 727-31, 781, 798; 4.135-36, 159-61, 171-78. 42. The explicit connection between non-retaliaton and 'endurance' in some texts (e.g. Prov. 20.22 [20.9c LXX], 2 En. 50.2-4; 1 Thess. 5.14- 15; Rom. 12.12, 1421; 1 Cor. 4.12-13; 13.4-7; Col. 3.12-15; 1 Pet. 2.18-23) suggests that the pattern of 'endurance' in persecution elsewhere may also have a non-retaliatory meaning. See, e.g., Mk 13.13IMt. 10.22; 24.13; Heb. 10.32-36; 12.1-7, 14; 13.13; Jas 1.34, 12; 5.7-11; Rev. 1.9; 2.2, 3, 19; 3.10; 13.10; 14.12. Cf. also Jesus' strictures against the use of the sword: Mt. 26.52-54; Jn 18.1 1, 36.

32

Nun-Retaliation in Early Jewish and New Testament Texts

Part I of this study will investigate texts and traditions in early Judaism. Chapter 1 will treat documents in the Wisdom tradition: the Wisdom of Ben Sirach and proverbial traditions of the later versions of Ahiqar which were probably extant in the first century. Chapter 2 will analyze texts from the Egyptian diaspora: the Letter of Aristeas, Philo, Pseudo-Phocylides, Joseph and Aseneth, 3 Maccabees and the Wisdom of Solomon. Chapter 3 will investigate Qurnranic texts within the context of the wider movement of the Essenes. Chapter 4 will examine the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. An excursus willdiscuss the contribution of 2 (Slavonic) Enoch. The Conclusion to Part I will summarize the results of forgoing analyses in terms of the various types or patterns of non-retaliatory ethics in their social settings and will assess current interpretations of non-retaliatory ethics in early Judaism. Part I1 will investigate the non-retalitory ethics in the New Testament. Three chapters will be devoted to writings which contain explicit exhortations to non-retaliation. Chapter 5 will examine the Gospel traditions, particularly Mt. 5.38-48 and Lk. 6.27-36. Chapter 6 will investigate the letters of Paul. Chapter 7 will treat the nonretaliatory ethic of 1 Peter. The Conclusion to this study will assess the extent to which the non-retaliatory ethics of writings which were later collected as the New Testament stand solidly within, or are distinct from, the traditions of non-retaliation ethics in early Judaism.

Chapter I THE WISDOM TRADITION

Advice on responding to local adversaries or specific acts of abuse was a regular topic in ancient Near Eastern Wisdom instruction. To illustrate the antiquity of this topic, this chapter will begin with a review of such advice in the Babylonian Counsels of Wisdom and the Hebrew book of Proverbs. We will then consider non-retaliatory themes in the Wisdom of Ben Sirach (Sirach) and in the proverbial traditions attributed to Ahiqar. Two documents which might also be associated with the Wisdom tradition, which itself is not a precisely identifiable tradition, will be examined in subsequent chapters. The Wisdom of Solomon will be treated with writings of the Egyptian diaspora (Chapter 2) and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs will be examined in a separate chapter (Chapter 4). The Counsels of Wisdom

The Counsels of Wisdom is an Akkadian collection of varied moral exhortations written around or before 700 BCE.' Lines 41-45, according to R.H. Pfeiffer's translation, read,' 1. W.G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdoin Literature (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960). p. 97; R.H. PCeiffer, 'Counsels of Wisdom', in ANET, p. 426. 2. Pfeiffer, 'Counsels of Wisdom', p. 426; cf. Lambert, Babylonian Wisclom, p. 101. Do not return evil to thc man who disputes wiih you; Requite wiih kindncss your cvililoer, Maintain justice to your cncmy, Smile on your adversary. If your ill-wishcr is [. . . ] nurturc him.

My thanks to Professor Leong Seow for supplying me with the following Akkadian notes on this text. 'Opponent' (bE1 salti) in 1.41 has a judicial connotation as one's adversary in a law suit. Lambcrt's 'return evil' (1.41) is somewhat too

1 . The Wisdom Tradition Unto your opponcnt do no evil; Your evildoer recompense with good; Unto your enemy let justice [be done]; Unto your oppressor.. . Let him rejoice over you.. .return to him.

The following observations can be made. First, the exhortation addresses the problem of local conflict among those of equal social s t a t u ~ The . ~ adversary is especially one with whom one might be engaged in legal d i ~ p u t e Secondly, .~ the exhortation promotes the response of both non-retaliation (1. 41) and good deeds (11. 42-43). Thirdly, the motivation, as can be inferred from the immediate context, seems to be pragmatic. The immediately preceding exhortations (11. 31-40) call for the avoidance of legal disputes lest one unwittingly become the loser and in order to 'extinguish the flame' (1. 37).' Similarly, it would seem that non-retaliation and good deeds are exhorted as the best way to pacify one's a d ~ e r s a r yNevertheless, .~ a theological motive is also evident. The subsequent exhortations present the notion that the god Shamash is the guarantor of rewards and punishments: insults of the downtrodden will be 'repaid with evil', and acts of mercy will be 'repaid with favor' (11. 60, 64).

The Book of Proverbs The response of non-retaliation and kind deeds toward one's adversary is taken up also in Proverbs. Three kinds of passages are worthy of observation. First, some passages promote the value interpretive, where the Akkadian literally reads 'treat badly'. damiqta (1.42) is better translated as 'good(ness)' than as 'kindness.' The reconstruction of 11.44-45 is very uncertain; it is not possible to determine the precise meaning of the lines. 3. Contra Schottroff, 'Non-violence', p. 17, who sees the addressees as members of a lower or underprivileged class. There is no specific indication of a focus on the lower class and the subsequent exhortations assume a middle or upper class readership. What follows is a general exhortation to avoid evil conduct, including insulting thc downtrodden (11.46-60). an exhortation to charitable deeds (11. 61-65) and a warning against keeping a slave girl in one's home (11.66-71). 4. See above, n. 2. The preceding exhortations (11. 31-40) also indicate the situation of litigation. 5. Cf. the prudential wisdom in Mt. 5.25-26, on which see esp. Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence, pp. 273-75. 6. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom, p. 97. Also W.G. Lambert, 'Morals in Ancient Mesopotamia', JEOL 5 (1955-58). p. 188.

Chapter 2 THE EGYPTIAN DIASPORA

In this chapter the investigation of non-retaliation will focus on writings which probably derive from the Egyptian diaspora: the Letter of Aristeas, Philo, Pseudo-Phocylides, Joseph and Aseneth, 3 Maccabees and the Wisdom of Solomon. Two issues pertinent to the present investigation appear in these writings. First, non-retaliation is exhorted in response to injustice, injury or conflict in local situations. Secondly, some documents contain exhortations to non-retaliation in response to Gentile persecutors or enemies of the Jewish community. In the latter cases the exhortations to non-retaliation pose a contrast to those documents or groups which not only display open hostility toward the Gentiles, but also promote the policy of armed rebellion through an ideology of synergistic participation in God's warfare against the impious.' Such a perspective finds support in the book of Esther, the Greek version of which heightens the anti-Gentile sentiment and probably enjoyed wide circulation in Egypt.'

1. E.g. the armed insurrectionists during the crisis of 38-41 CE; see below. For the synergistic ideology, see, e.g., 1 Macc. 2.67-68. 2. See C.A. Moore, Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah: The Additions (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977), pp. 14, 197-99. In the expanded Greek edition, which dates to either 114 or 77 BCE (see Moore, Daniel, pp. 13, 250, who favors the earlier date) the anti-Gentile character is heightened so that it expresses a dark hostility between Jews and Gentiles and reflects an enhanced Gentile anti-Judaism and a corresponding Jewish polemic against the Gentiles. See E.W. Saunders, 'Esther (Apocrypha)', IDB, 11, pp. 151-52; Moore, Daniel, pp. 158, 248; Est. [AV] 11.511 (l.ld-lk Rahlfs); 10.10 (10.3f-3i); 13.4-7 (3.13d-13g); 16.10, 14 (8.12k. 120); 14.15 (4.17~);16.4-18 (8.12d-12r); 14.7-13 (4.17n-17s). For vengeance against the Gentiles in the original, see 8.1 1; 9.1-17.

50

Non-Retaliation in Early Jewish and New Testament Texts The Letter of Aristeas

We begin our investigation of non-retaliation in the Egyptian diaspora with the Letter of Aristeas, which was most likely composed in Alexandria sometime during the second century B C E . ~In particular, we must evaluate the claim that the Letter of Aristeas illustrates a 'model of loving one's enemy' that is comparable to that of J e ~ u sIt. ~ will be seen that, while the Letter of Aristeas does promote the virtues of graciousness in relation to opponents and of clemency in relation to law-breakers, the scope of this instruction is rather limited. The Letter of Aristeas represents the perspective of goodwill and clemency as the ethic of the powerful and privileged. While the outer framework of the Letter of Aristeas is that of a narrative (6tqfioy, v. 1) about the translation of the Jewish Law into Greek, the document 'is in fact a panegyric on Jewish Law, Jewish wisdom, and the Jewish name in general, [ostensibly] from the mouth of a gentile'.' At the same time, the narrative attempts to show the fundamental compatibility of the Law with the finest in Gentile ethics and wisdom. The seventy-two translators, the heroes of the story, are presented as masters of Jewish literature and as serious Greek scholars (v. 121). In short, the Letter of Aristeas seems to favor rapprochement with Hellenism and Hellenistic culture without complete assimilation or ~apitulation.~ Of special relevance to the present study is the account of the symposium (vv. 172-300), a seven-day banquet during which the king

3. A.-M. Denis, Introduction aux pseudipigraphes grecs d'Ancien Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1970). pp. 109-10; Charlesworth, The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research, pp. 78-80; G. Nickelsburg, 'Stories of Biblical and Early Post-Biblical Times', in M. Stone (ed.), Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984). pp. 77-78; M. Goodman, 'Jewish Literature Composed in Greek', in (the new Schiirer) G. Vermes, F. Millar and M. Goodman (eds.), The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, rev. edn, 1986). 111.1, pp. 679-84; N. Meisner, 'Aristeasbrief', JSHRZ, IYl, pp. 42-43; R. Shutt, 'Letter of Aristeas', in OTP, 11, pp. 8-9. 4. Klassen, 'Novel Element', p. 107. 5. M. Goodman, 'Jewish Literature', p. 677. See also Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, p. 168. 6 . See esp. V.A. Tcherikover, 'The Ideology of the Letter of Aristeas', HTR 51 (1958). pp. 59-85.

Chapter 3

A consideration of the Essene movement, of which the Qumran community was a part,' occupies an important role in this study of nonretaliatory ethics in early Judaism. As we shall see, various witnesses, including Josephus, Hippolytus, the Damascus Covenant and the Rule of the Community, indicate that a basic non-retaliatory principle was widespread, central and persistent in Essene behavioral regulations. The present chapter will focus on the following problems. First, what were the various ways in which Essenes explicated and applied the notion of non-retaliation? Secondly, did non-retaliation among some Essenes include the call to pray for persecutors and the refusal to hate enemies, as Hippolytus claims?' Thirdly, how does the Qumran community's vow of non-retaliation toward all, including oppressors (IQS 10.17-20), relate to its militant eschatological ideology and its call to hate the 'sons of darkness'? Finally, did Essenes become increasingly militaristic in the first century CE, as some scholars hold,3 and how might this increasing militarism relate to their ethic of non-retaliation? The Essenes probably emerged as a distinct religious movement in Palestine by the middle of the second century B C E . ~They were characterized by an especially strict legal and behavioral rigor and 1. For the main arguments in favor of this consensus, see G . Vermes and L. Olds, 'The Essenes', in (the new Schiirer) G . Vermes et a/. (eds.), The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, rev. edn, 1979), 11, pp. 583-85. 2. Hippolytus, Elenchos 9.23; see below. 3. E.g. J.T. Milik, Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judea (Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1959). p. 94. 4. Josephus's first reference to the Essenes is from this period (Ant. 13.5.9 [13.171]), and the Qumran community was established by this time; see also below, n. 14.

Chapter 4 THE TESTAMENTS OF THE TWELVE PATRIARCHS

The theme of non-retaliation appears prominently in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Although it is devoid of the specific language of 'not repaying evil for evil', the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs presents a non-retaliatory ethic with various semantic equivalents as a particular aspect of familial love, mercy and compassion. Drawing especially on the example of Joseph, five testaments emphasize the virtue of forgiving one's abusers. The question as to the scope of this ethic, however, is debated and so will be addressed specifically in this chapter. Does the exhortation apply to local relations among fellow Jews, to the local Jewish community primarily, with some extension to Gentile neighbors and travellers, or universally to all people and relations, including oppressors of the Jewish community? The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs is the result of a complicated developmental history, incorporating diverse sources and traditions.' No consensus has emerged on some critical questions 1. For history of research and bibliography, see J. Becker, Untersuchungen zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Testamente der Zwolf Patriarchen (AGJU, 8; Leiden: Brill, 1970). pp. 129-57; H.D. Slingerland, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical History of Research (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977); M. de Jonge, 'The Interpretation of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs in recent years', in M. de Jonge (ed.), Studies on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (SVTP, 3; Leiden: Brill, 1975); idem, 'The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Central Problems and Essential Viewpoints', in ANRW 11.20.1, pp. 370-84; Charlesworth, The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research, pp. 21 1-20, 305-307; H.M. Hollander and M. de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary (SVTP, 8; Leiden: Brill, 1985), pp. 1-10; G. Vermes and M. Goodman, 'The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs', in Vermes, et al. (eds.), The History of the Jewish People, 111.2, pp. 767-81. I will be using the critical edition of M. de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical

4. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

137

regarding its literary character and provenance. The present study will proceed on the assumption that the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs ( 1 ) is probably a Jewish work with Christian redactions and interpolation^,^ (2) is based on Semitic antecedents which reach back to c. 200-175 B C E ~and (3) emerged in a form generally similar to

Edition of the Greek Text (PVTG, 1; Leiden: Brill, 1978). De Jonge's text basically follows family I, which is represented by witnesses b and k. Becker (Untersuchungen, pp. 17-21) and A. HultgHrd (L'Eschatologie des Testaments des Douze Patriarches. I. Interpretation des textes. 11. Composition de l'ouvrage, textes et traductions [Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1977, 19811, 11, pp. 11-52) prefer an eclectic method and avoid selecting the best MS witnesses. 2. Scholars agree that the present form of the text is distinctively Christian and that textual studies cannot assist in the question of its literary history. Specifically Christian features, however, appear to be secondary. They are limited in quantity, appear only in predictions, grouped when they extend beyond single clauses or sentences, and usually break into the flow of the narrative. See T.Sim 6.5.7; 7.2; T. Levi 4.4; 10.2; 14.2; 18.7; T. Zeb. 9.8; T. Naph. 8.3; T. Dan 6.8 (?); T. Ash. 7.3; T. Jos. 19.8, 11; T. Benj. 3.8; 9.3-5; 10.7, 8, 9; 11.1. See J.H. Charlesworth, 'Christian and Jewish Self-Definition in the Light of the Christian Additions to the Apocryphal Writings', in E.P. Sanders (ed.), Jewish and Christian Self-Definition (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981). 11, pp. 35-41; Vermes and Goodman, 'Testaments', pp. 770-7 1. Once the few distinctively Christian features are excised, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs seems to reflect a Jewish provenance. Some Jewish features point to Judaism as the origin, not simply to Jewish Christianity (contra, e.g., Milik, Ten Years, pp. 34-35), since they are less readily attributed to any form of Christianity than to Judaism. See esp. the emphasis on the dual leadership of Levi and Judah, the need to remain attached to these tribes (e.g. T. Jud. 1.6; 24.1-6; T. Dan 5.10; T. Gad 8.1). and the notion that the Law energizes the spirit of love (T. Gad 4.7). See further, below, n. 10. Among those who favor the theory of a Jewish origin the question of secondary Jewish redactions is still disputed. Some scholars see them as minimal; e.g. H.C. Kee, 'Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs', O T P , I, pp. 775-80: T. Reub. 6.7 and T. Levi 18.9 added around the turn of the eras. others find extensive and varied Jewish redactions to an abbreviated Grundschrift; see, e.g., Beker, Untersuchungen, pp. 172-82; 373-77, 401-406: he places the Jewish redactions in the first century CE. We will consider this problem for each of the passages under analysis. 3. Cognate materials from Qumran include fragments of an Aramaic Testament of Levi, which belong to an early layer of Qumran paleography, a Hebrew Testament of Naphtali, and possibly Aramaic and Hebrew Testamentsof Judah, and an Aramaic Testament of Joseph. For editions and references, see Vermes and Goodman, 'Testaments', pp. 775-76.

Excursus

2 (SLAVONIC) ENOCH This analysis of 2 Enoch has been placed in an excursus because of the major uncertainties that exist in regard to the text,' date and provenance of 2 (Slavonic) ~ n o c h . ?A majority of scholars still cautiously favor the view that 2 Enoch was composed in Greek by a Jew during the first century C E . ~While some of these scholars hold that the work probably derived from the Egyptian diaspom4 others are less certain. F. Andersen, for instance, observes,' 2 Enoch could derive from any region in which Jewish, Greek. Egyptian, and other Near Eastern ideas mingled. . . Egypl or Syria-Palestine,or Asia Minor could have beenmeseedbed.

Andersen also concludes that if 2 Enoch was indeed originally Jewish, it did not emerge in the mainstream of Judaism, but 'must have belonged to a fringe sect'.6 The first section of 2 Enoch recounts Enoch's journey through the seven heavens (chs. 1-38); the second major section (chs. 39-66) consists of Enoch's final testamentary exhortation. Ethical instruction also appears in the heavenly joumey in the form of comments by angels on the reason why the occupants of heaven or hell are where they are (e.g. chs. 9-10).' According to J.J. ~ollins,8 The message of 2 Enoch is most clearly formulated in the frequent exhonatioos. The

apocalyptic heavenly journey provides a supporting framework.

1. For recent advances in manuscript studies, see F. Andersen, '2 (Slavonic Apocalypse 00 Enoch', in OTP, 1, pp. 92-94. 2. For a discussion of problems and methodology, see. J.H. Charlesworth, The Old Tesramenr Pseudepigrapha and rhe New Tesramenr (SNTSMS, 54; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1985), pp. 31-36, 102-106. 3. For references and for alternative proposals,see. Andersen, OTP, I, pp. 94-97. 4. E.g. Charles, APOT, 11, pp. 425-30; Fischer, Eschatologie, p. 40; Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, p. 188; Collins, Berween Arhens and Jerusalem, p. 229. Suggesting Palestine is N. Schmidt, 'The Two Recensions of Slavonic Enoch', JAOS 41 (1921), pp. 307-12. 5. Andersen, OTP, I, p. %. 6 . Andersen, OTP, I, p. %. 7. The t b i maja section (chs. 69-73) deals with the life of Enoch's successorr Methuselah and Nu. and ends with the story of the b i d and ascension of M e l c h i i just before the flood. For exbortatioo, see also the testament of Enoch before he leaves on this journey (ch. 2). 8. Collins, Between Arhens and Jerusalem, p. 230.

CONCLUSION TO PART I Part I of this study has examined non-retaliatory ethics in the writings

of Early Judaism. The results of this investigation can now be summarized. Non-retaliatory themes come to expression in various ways. Disregarding for the moment literary and social contexts, three categories of non-retaliatory responses to either (a) general enmity or (b) specific situations of injury or oppression can be identified. The three categories represent a continuum from 'passive' to 'active' responses. In the first category, that of 'passive' responses, one can place expressions of non-retaliation in the strict sense: a. 'not repaying, returning or rewarding evil for evil';' b. 'not taking ~engeance';~ c. 'not imitating evil';3 d. 'not re~iling'.~ One can also include in this category e. prohibitions against the passions of hate,5 anger,6 malice, envy or jealousy;' and 1. Using >W, (drvr)axo6t66vat. reivea0at: Prov. 20.22 (LXX 20.9~); 24.28-29; Jos. Asen. 23.9; 28.5, 10, 14; 29.3; cf. 24.9; 1QS 10.17-18; 11.2; 2 En. 50.2-4. For the scriptural texts: Prov. 24.29; 20.22; cf. 1 Sam. 24, in Joseph and Aseneth; Gen. 50, in Philo, Jos. 237-64; Jos. Asen. 24.8-9; T. Sim. 4.4-7; T. Zeb. 8.4-6. 2. Lev. 19.18a, O p l ; Sir. 27.30-28.7; Jos. Asen. 28.4, 14, ~ K ~ I K E ~ V ; Ps.-Phoc. 78, 6puva; T. Gad 6.7, k ~ 6 i q a y CD ; 7.2-3; 8.5-6; 9.2-5; 1QS 7.8-9; Philo, Spec. Leg. 4.7-10; Quaest. in Exod. 2.1 1; cf. 'not to save [mete out justice] with one's own hand' from 1 Sam. 25.26, 31, 33 in CD 9.8-10; 1QS 6.25-27; cf. Philo, Spec. Leg. 4.7-10, rtpwpeiaeat .. .a t r o ~ e t p i qJos. ; 249, rtpmpeiaeat. 3. Ps.-Phoc. 77-78. p+ ptpeiaeat. 4. pfi 6vet6iCetv; T. Sim. 4.6; T. Jos. 17.4. 5. T. Gad 6.3. 6 . Based on the connection of vengeance and anger in Lev. 19.18a. Spec. Leg. 4.10; Virt. 116; Quaest. in Exod. 2.11; Sir. 27.30-28.7; Jos. Asen. 23. 28. 7 . T. Sim. 4.5-6.

166 Non-Retaliation in Early Jewish and New Testament Texts f.

the stance of endurance and forbearance in persecution or ~uffering.~

While the response of non-retaliation is sometimes related to curtailing the use of the sword (Pseudo-Phocylides; Joseph and Aseneth), there is no indication of an explicit ethic of non-violence or pacifism in the sources studied. The second category of responses stands between 'passive' and 'active' responses: a. b. c. d. e. f.

'granting p a r d ~ n ' ; ~ 'not recalling evil';I0 'not reckoning evil';" 'forgiving';12 'having mercy';13 praying for the offender.14

The third category consists of 'active' deeds or words of kindness to an adversary or abuser:

a. b. c.

speaking with kindness, peace;" 'doing good';16 coming to the aid of an adversary;17

8. Wis. 2.19, k x l e i r ~ l a , dtveetraria; 2 En. 50.2-4; T. Jos. 10.1; 17.1; 18.3; cf. maintaining silence, T. Benj. 5.4; T. Jos. 10.6-17.1; taking the posture of prayer, T. Jos. 3-10; 18.2; T. Benj. 5.5; Jos. Asen. 27.7-9; 3 Macc. 1.2223; 2.1-10; 6.1-5; responding with humility, 1QS 11.2; T.Jos. 10.5; 17.8; 18.3. 9. Jos. Asen. 28.14, ouyyvhpq; Philo, Jos. 239, 262, drpvqo~ia;cf. 263, ~ a p i < e l vr j v drxahhayilv rfiq roh&oewq; cf. Ep. Arist.: k x ~ e i r e ~for a lawbreakers. 10. drpvqa~raaia,p i p v q a ~ ~ a ~ efrom i v , Gen. 50 Lxx, Philo, Jos. 246, 261; T. Sim. 4.4-7; T. Zeb. 8.4-6. 11. p j hoyi